8.0 LAND, SOILS, GEOLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY 8.1 INTRODUCTION … · 8.0 LAND, SOILS, GEOLOGY &...

Chapter 8 – Land, Soils, Geology & Hydrogeology AWN Consulting Ltd _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brexit Infrastructure at Dublin Port EIAR Chapter 8,

8.0 LAND, SOILS, GEOLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY 8.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter assesses and evaluates the potential impacts of the Proposed Development described in Chapter 2 (Description of the Proposed Development) on the land, soils, geological and hydrogeological environment.

8.2 METHODOLOGY 8.2.1 Guidelines

This assessment has been carried out generally in accordance with the following guidelines: EPA Draft EIA Report Guidelines 2017 Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects - Guidance on the preparation of

the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, European Union 2017; Institute of Geologists of Ireland (IGI) ‘Guidelines for the preparation of Soils

Geology and Hydrogeology Chapters of Environmental Impact Statements’ (2013); and

National Roads Authority (NRA) ‘Guidelines on Procedures for the Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes’ (2009).

The principal attributes (and impacts) to be assessed include the following: Geological heritage sites in the vicinity of the perimeter of the subject site; Landfills, industrial sites in the vicinity of the site and the potential risk of

encountering contaminated ground; The quality, drainage characteristics and range of agricultural uses of soil around

the site; Quarries or mines in the vicinity, the potential implications (if any) for existing

activities and extractable reserves; The extent of topsoil and subsoil cover and the potential use of this material on

site as well as requirement to remove it off-site as waste for recovery or disposal; High-yielding water supply springs/wells in the vicinity of the site to within a 2 km

radius and the potential for increased risk presented by the Proposed Development;

Classification (regionally important, locally important etc.) and extent of aquifers underlying the site perimeter area and increased risks presented to them by the Proposed Development associated with aspects such as for example removal of subsoil cover, removal of aquifer (in whole or part), drawdown in water levels, alteration in established flow regimes, change in groundwater quality;

Natural hydrogeological/ karst features in the area and potential for increased risk presented by the activities at the site;

Groundwater-fed ecosystems and the increased risk presented by operations both spatially and temporally; and Vulnerability of the Proposed Development to major disasters from a geological and hydrogeological standpoint such as landslides and seismic activity.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


8.2.2 Sources of Information

Desk-based geological and hydrogeological information on the substrata underlying the extent of the site and surrounding areas was obtained through accessing databases and other archives where available. Data was sourced from the following:

Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) (www.gsi.ie) - online mapping, Geo-hazard Database, Geological Heritage Sites & Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Bedrock Memoirs and 1:100,000 mapping;

Teagasc soil and subsoil database; Ordnance Survey Ireland - aerial photographs and historical mapping; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – website mapping and database

information; National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS) – Protected Site Register; Research papers referred to in this chapter. Site specific data was derived from the following sources:

Office of Public Works (OPW, 2019) Brexit Infrastructure at Dublin Port Engineering Report, and;

Geotechnical Investigation Report (Priority Geotechnical Ireland, 2019). 8.3 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

The receiving environment is discussed in terms of; geology, soils, hydrogeology and site history including potential for contamination. The subject sites are 5.4 hectares in extent and are located in Dublin Port, Dublin 3 (refer to Chapter 1 Figure 1.1).

8.3.1 Topography & Setting

The topography of the proposed development is mostly flat but varies slightly in its height above ordinance datum due to its nature (reclaimed man-made docks area) between 3.0 mAOD and 7.0 mAOD.

8.3.2 Areas of Geological Interest & Historic Land-Use

The GSI (2020) on-line mapping was reviewed to identify sites of geological heritage for the site and surrounding area. There are no recorded sites on/ at the development site, or which could be considered suitable for protection under this programme or recorded in the Dublin City Development Plan 2016 – 2022. The nearest geological heritage site is the Oscar Wilde Statue, which is in Merrion Square, approximately 2.6 km to the southwest of the proposed development site.

Details of the site history and previous land use are included in Chapter 12 Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage. The assessment of site history confirms that the proposed development site was formerly part of the Liffey Estuary and was so until at least 1913, before being reclaimed for port use. The proposed development site has, according to the Dublin Port Authority, been in port use since at least the early-to-mid-1900s.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


According to the EPA (2020) there are a number of licensed IPPC facilities within 1 km of the proposed development site. Details of these are supplied in Table 8.1 below.

Table 8.1 IPPC licenced facilities within 1 km of the proposed development site

Licence No. Name Address Distance to Site

P1022-02 Dublin Port Company Port Centre, Alexandra Road, Dublin. c. 465m

P0579-03 Electricity Supply Board North Wall Generating Station,

Alexandra Road, Dublin 1, Dublin.

c. 450m

P0086-01 Irish Tar & Bitumen Suppliers

Alexandra Road, Dublin 1, Dublin. c. 690m

P0298-01 Cahill Printers Limited East Wall Road, Dublin 3, Dublin. c. 850m

Also, according to the EPA, there are a number of licensed waste facilities within 1 km of the proposed development site. Details of these are supplied in Table 6.2 below. There are no known Section 22 illegal landfills or other historic landfills within 1 km of the site. Table 8.2 Licenced waste facilities within 1 km of the proposed development site

Licence No. Name Address Distance to Site

W0097 Swalcliffe Limited 116 Sheriff Street Upper, Dublin 1, Dublin c. 890m

W0042 Dean Waste Company Ltd (Upper Sheriff Street)

Upper Sheriff Street, Dublin 1, Dublin c. 960m

8.3.3 Regional Soils

Soils in the surrounding Dublin Port area are categorised as Made - Made ground. Figure 8.1 shows the regional soil coverage in the area of the Proposed Development site. The Quaternary geological period extends from about 1.5 million years ago to the present day and can be sub-divided into the Pleistocene Epoch, which covers the Ice Age period and which extended up to 10,000 years ago, and the Holocene Epoch, which extends from that time to the present day.

The GSI/Teagasc subsoil mapping database of the quaternary sediments in the area of the subject site currently shows (Figure 8.2) the principal soil type in the surrounding Dublin Port area are defined as made ground. There is no available data on the site-specific ground conditions at the site with regard to superficial geology.

The exact depth to bedrock at the site is not known however based on a geotechnical investigation undertaken at the site in 2020 by Priority Geotechnical Ireland (refer to Appendix 8.2) bedrock depth in the study area has been shown to be circa 16.7 metres below ground level (mbgl) to 17.6 mbgl. Although there is no site-specific data available through the GSI, subsoil permeability in the surrounding port area is categorized as “Low” by the GSI. Due to the nature of the underlying strata at the site (made ground) permeability would increase in this section of Dublin Port. However, the prevalence of hard standing in area would provide additional protection to the underlying material.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


8.3.3.1 Soil Quality

The soil results were compared to the Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) concentrations. There are no legislated threshold values for soils in Ireland. As such soil samples were compared to a Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) derived to be protective of human health, water bodies (including groundwater) and also ecology for a resident and commercial/industrial end use. Generic Assessment Criteria in the UK has been derived using the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) model to be protective of human health for a number of different land uses. LQM (Land Quality Management) and the CIEH (Chartered Institute of Environmental Health) developed a document in July 2009 detailing their own research and derivation of their own ‘LQM GACs’. A total of 82 substances including many organic substances had LQM GACs derived, for the standard land uses of residential, commercial/industrial and allotments. This was updated in 2015 following further research and the derived results are now called LQM/CIEH Suitable 4 Use Level (S4UL). The LQM/CIEH S4ULs are intended for use in assessing the potential risks posed to human health by contaminants in soil and as transparently derived and cautious “trigger values” above which further assessment of the risks or remedial action may be needed. For each contaminant S4ULs have been derived for six land use scenarios based on assessing exposure pathways in each planning scenario. In this instance the commercial scenario has been considered. Soil type and soil organic matter (SOM) has an influence on the behaviour of contaminants. S4ULs have been derived for three SOM contents (1%, 2.5% and 6%) to cover the likely range in soils. A prudent approach has been taken by considering the lower 1% SOM content.

The UK values do not have any legal standing within the Republic of Ireland and no statutory guidance for assessing the significance of soil contamination currently exists. However, the values do provide a means of placing the data within context when considering magnitude of risk and have been used in that capacity for this assessment.

The 19 no. soil samples were analysed by Chemtest in Newmarket, UK for the following parameters:

o Metals (As, BR, Cd, Cr, Pb, Se, Cu, Ni, and Zn), o Total Phenols o Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and. o Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) for inert waste landfills in accordance with

the 2002 European Landfill Directive (2002/33/EC). This suite of parameters includes the following (carried out on 19 samples).

- Mineral oil, - Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls - Total Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), - Total BTEX compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes) - Total organic carbon (TOC), - Leachable component of a range of organic and inorganic parameters.

The full analytical laboratory report (EEL- 19-38616) is presented in Appendix 8.2. The soil results were compared to the Generic Assessment Criteria (GAC) concentrations. GACs are soil concentrations that have been derived for a defined set of generic assumptions and are used as trigger values in determining whether further risk management action is required in cases where detailed quantitative risk assessment is not being undertaken. There are no published Generic Assessment


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Criteria for soils in the Republic of Ireland. Instead reliance is often placed on criteria from the UK and the Netherlands.

Solid soil sample analysis comparison tables are present in Appendix 8.3. These tables exhibit the soil quality across the site from the 19 representative samples taken across the subject site.

Metals

All metal parameter concentrations recorded values below the threshold value for the LQM/CIEH for HHRA (Human Health Risk Assessment) Commercial Threshold at 1% SOM. The majority were also below the most conservative Residential Thresholds values. There were some minor elevations of Arsenic for location TP10 at 0.5 mbgl (45 mg/l with a threshold of 40 mg/l) and Mercury at TP10 at depths of 0.5 mbgl and 2.0 mbgl (1.6 mg/l & 1.3 mg/l with a threshold of 1.2 mg/l) and TP1A with a value of 1.3 mg/ l.

PCBs All parameters recorded below the laboratory’s LOD for all samples collected across the subject site. Therefore, there are no exceedances recorded when these concentrations were compared to the most conservative threshold i.e. LQM/CIEH for HHRA Residential Threshold at 1% SOM. PAHs The majority parameters tested recorded values below threshold i.e. LQM/CIEH for HHRA Residential Threshold at 1% SOM. All but two samples analysed had levels were below the Commercial Thresholds as described above. Dibenzo(ah)anthracene at locations TP11 (0.5 mbgl) and TP1B were above the Commercial Threshold level of 3.5 mg/ at 18 mg/kg and 3.5 mg/kg respectively.

8.3.3.2 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) Analysis Nineteen samples were analysed and compared against Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) set out by the adopted EU Council Decision 2003/33/EC which established criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 and Annex II of Directive 1999/31/EC (2002). The WAC analysis identifies that 13 pf the 19 samples tested are classified as Category C1 – Stable Non-Reactive mostly relating to elevated levels of sulphate and total dissolved solids (TDS). Five samples TP04 (shallow), TP05 (shallow), TP07 (shallow & deep) and TP9A can be categorised as Inert. The deep sample from TP1A had a total organic carbon (TOC) value of 7.9 % which was the only parameter which would categorise it as Category D – Hazardous. Further analysis of more samples once excavated is recommended to confirm WAC criteria for disposal. Based on the laboratory results and parametric concentrations obtained from the site investigation, material from the sample locations would be acceptable non-hazardous or hazardous waste facility (Category C or D). It should be noted that waste facilities develop facility specific criteria also and this should be considered should any soil/ material to be removed from site in the future. It is anticipated there will be no largescale excavations as part of the proposed development. If excavated material requires removal from site, it should be classified by an experienced and qualified environmental professional to ensure that the waste soil is correctly classified for transportation and recovery/disposal offsite at an appropriately licenced facility.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Asbestos There were no asbestos fibres identified in any of the trial pit samples taken.

Figure 8.1 Soils map for the Proposed Development site (boundary indicated in red) (GSI, 2020)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 8.2 Subsoils map for the Proposed Development site (boundary indicated in red) (GSI, 2020) 8.3.4 Regional Geology

Inspection of the available GSI mapping (GSI, 2020) shows bedrock in the greater Dublin region consists of Dinantian Upper Impure Limestone which is part of the Lucan Formation (see Figure 8.3). The limestone is colloquially known as Calp and is estimated to be up to 800 m thick. The homogeneous sequence consists of dark grey massive limestones, shaley limestones and massive mudstones. The Calp is almost completely obscured across central Dublin under the Dublin Boulder Clay. There are no faults mapped in the vicinity of the site. The depth to bedrock is mapped as 15-25 m on the GSI GeoUrban viewer and confirmed by onsite investigations (Priority, 2019). No bedrock outcrop was identified on the site. In terms of the structural relationship of the area, the GSI database (refer also to Figure 8.3) does not show any faults on the site or within the immediate vicinity of the site.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 8.3 Bedrock geology map (boundary indicated in red) (GSI, 2020) 8.3.5 Regional Hydrogeology 8.3.5.1 Description of the Groundwater Body

The GSI has devised a system for classifying the bedrock aquifers in Ireland. The aquifer classification for bedrock depends on a number of parameters including, the area extent of the aquifer (km2), well yield (m3/d), specific capacity (m3/d/m) and groundwater throughput (mm3/d). There are three main classifications: regionally important, locally important, and poor aquifers. Where an aquifer has been classified as regionally important, it is further subdivided according to the main groundwater flow regime within it. This sub-division includes regionally important fissured aquifers (Rf) and regionally important karstified aquifers (Rk). Locally important aquifers are sub-divided into those that are generally moderately productive (Lm) and those that are generally moderately productive only in local zones (Ll). Similarly, poor aquifers are classed as either generally unproductive except for local zones (Pl) or generally unproductive (Pu).

The bedrock aquifers underlying the proposed development site are not defined according to the GSI National Draft Bedrock Aquifer Map based on the manmade nature of this section of Dublin Port. However, bedrock aquifer in the surrounding area have been defined as a LI – locally important bedrock aquifer, described as bedrock which is moderately productive only in local zones. LI aquifers are those in which fissure permeability is generally low due to a poorly connected network of fractures, fissures and joints. Generally, the lack of connection between the limited fissures results relatively poor aquifer storage and flow paths that may only extend a few hundred metres. Figure 8.4 presents the current bedrock aquifer map for the Proposed Development area.

Aquifer vulnerability is a term used to represent the intrinsic geological and hydrogeological characteristics that determine the ease with which groundwater may


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


be contaminated generally by human activities. Due to the nature of the flow of groundwater through bedrock in Ireland, which is almost completely through fissures/ fractures, the main feature that protects groundwater from contamination, and therefore the most important feature in the protection of groundwater, is the subsoil (which can consist solely of or of mixtures of peat, sand, gravel, glacial till, clays or silts). The GSI does not have data regarding aquifer vulnerability at the proposed development site due to this section of the port being reclaimed from the Liffey Estuary. However, aquifer vulnerability in the neighboring area of Dublin Port is classified as ‘Low’ (L) which indicates an overburden depth of >10 m (refer to Figure 8.5). Based on onsite investigations (Appendix 8.2) overburden depth to bedrock has been shown to be > 16 mbgl which would confirm the GSI site categorization of “Low”.

Figure 8.4 Aquifer Classification map (Source: www.gsi.ie)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 8.5 Aquifer Vulnerability map (Source: www.gsi.ie) 8.3.5.2 Groundwater Wells and Flow Direction

The GSI Well Card Index is a record of wells drilled in Ireland, water supply and site investigation boreholes. It is noted that this record is not comprehensive as licensing of wells is not currently a requirement in the Republic of Ireland. This current index, however, shows a number of groundwater monitoring and abstraction wells within a 2 km radius of the site; the abstraction wells generally supply a mix of use ranging from domestic to public to industrial use. Figure 8.6 below presents the GSI well search for the area surrounding the site (Note this source does not include all wells) and Table 8.2 below summarises the details of some of the wells present within this search area.

The uses of wells in the area close to the Proposed Development site have not been defined in GSI records. There exists no yield data for any of the wells recorded in the area close to the site. Due to the urban /industrial nature of the area it is believed the water supply primarily through mains and groundwater abstraction for potable water use would be minimal.

Table 8.2 GSI Well Search (GSI, 2020) GSI Well Name Drill Date Well Type Depth (meters) Use

2923SEW036 December 16, 1995 Borehole 6.2 Unknown 2923SEW030 February 25, 1998 Borehole 7.8 Other 2923SEW029 February 25, 1998 Borehole 6.5 Other 2923SEW046 December 29, 1899 Spring N/A N/A

Perched water flow direction in the overburden generally follows no fixed pattern or trend. Flows of this nature are typical of low permeability clay strata with intermittent fill areas, where often the water level measures represent pore water seepages into the


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


overburden monitoring well (opposed to bedrock wells) or perched groundwater conditions (not bedrock aquifer water). From onsite investigation (Priority, 2019) there was no perched groundwater observed in any of the trial pits excavated. Water seepage was noted in borehole RC02 and RC03 at 4.50 mbgl in both the stratum description stating the underlying strata consisted of clay fill material which is reducing the permeability at this depth. Higher volumes of water were noted at the interface of the overburden and bedrock (circa 17 mbgl) which was most likely saline water from the Liffey Estuary. Groundwater flow in the area is most likely radial flowing towards the Estuary. There will be no impact on local or regional groundwater resources (abstraction) as part of the Proposed Development.

Figure 8.6 GSI Well Search (GSI, 2020)

8.3.5.3 Groundwater Quality The European Communities Directive 2000/60/EC established a framework for community action in the field of water policy (commonly known as the Water Framework Directive [WFD]). The WFD required ‘Good Water Status’ for all European water by 2015, to be achieved through a system of river basin management planning and extensive monitoring. ‘Good status’ means both ‘Good Ecological Status’ and ‘Good Chemical Status’.

The Groundwater Body (GWB) underlying the site is the Dublin GWB (EU Groundwater Body Code: IE_EA_G_008). Currently, the EPA (2018) classifies the Dublin GWB as having ‘Good Status’, with a Ground Waterbody Risk score of ‘not at risk’. Figures 8.7 and 8.8 below present the most recent data from the EPA website.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 8.7 GWB Risk Score “Good” (EPA, 2020) (proposed development site outlined in red)

Figure 8.8 GWB WFD Status (period 2013-2018) (EPA, 2020) (proposed development site outlined in red)

8.3.5.4 Hydrogeological Features According to the GSI Karst database there is no evidence of karstification (bedrock prone to dissolution leading to underground drainage systems such as caves and large crevices) in this area.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


8.3.5.5 Areas of Conservation The nearest European sites are South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (Site Code 004024), which is located along the coast approximately 300 m to the north of the proposed Project, and North Bull Island SPA (Site Code 004006), which is located approximately 1.28 km north east of the proposed Project. Also, within relatively close proximity to the proposed site are North Dublin Bay SAC (Site Code 000206) and South Dublin Bay SAC (Site Code 000210). The Royal Canal and Grand Canal proposed Natural Heritage Areas (pNHA) are 1.8 km and 2.15 km to the south west of the proposed site. There is no direct hydrological link with these receptors. Refer to Chapter 6 Hydrology and Chapter 7 Biodiversity for further details.

8.3.5.6 Cross Sections Figure 8.9 present the location of representative cross sections through the site to show the local and regional hydrogeology conceptual site model (CSM) which is as follows:

The site is mostly between 4.0 and 7.0 mAOD and is located within the curtilage of Dublin Port.

The profile on site comprises thin hardstand overlying > 4.5 m of MADE GROUND comprising mostly of sandy silty Gravels with fragments of redbrick concrete and other fill material. Beneath this to circa 12.5 m to 10 m older fill material most likely from the reclaiming of this part of Dublin Port from the Liffey Estuary in the early 1900’s consisting mostly of sandy silty GRAVELS with clays and sandy, silty, gravelly CLAYS.

Onsite investigations proved bedrock to 17.60 mbgl in one location (RC01A) and 16.70 mbgl at RC02.

Based on GSI mapping there is no underlying aquifer classification as this section of Dublin Port was filled and reclaimed in the early 1900’s. The surrounding aquifer is catagorised as LI – Locally Important.

There is no proposal to abstract groundwater or discharge to ground as part of the Proposed Development. There is no source protection areas or public water schemes in the study area.

A shallow perched water table may be present within the made ground. Localised seepage was encountered within the overburden in the two boreholes installed at the site at 4.5 mbgl. Shallow groundwater was also recorded at 9 mbgl in RC01A and 11.0 mbgl at RC02. Substantial water strikes were recorded at the interface of bedrock and overburden. This is most probably water from the Liffey Estuary and saline in nature.

Regional groundwater flows are in an easterly direction towards Dublin Bay localised flows are most probably redial to the north and east into the Estuary

Analysis of chemicals of concern, confirmed contamination in the fill/ shallow overburden underlying the site and has been shown to be contaminated to varying degrees. Comparison with LQMS/CIEH S4ULs showed two of the nineteen samples analysed exceeded levels for commercial land use. WAC analysis confirmed that soil (at locations where the inert WAC criteria is exceeded) can be disposed of a non-hazardous land fill apart from one location which exceeded hazardous limits for TOC only.

Chapter 8 – Land, Soils, Geology & Hydrogeology AWN Consulting Ltd ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Brexit Infrastructure at Dublin Port EIAR Chapter 8,

8.0 8.0

7.0 7.0

6.0 6.0

5.0 5.0

4.0 4.0

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0

-1.0 -1.0

-2.0 -2.0

-3.0 -3.0

-4.0 -4.0

-5.0 -5.0

-6.0 -6.0

-7.0 -7.0

-8.0 -8.0

-9.0 -9.0

-10.0 -10.0

Silty Sand and Sandy Gravel

Cohesive Glacial Till Deposits

Perched groundwater table

LEGEND

Made Ground Firm to stiff sandy Clay

Dense Sand and Gravel

Note: Drawing is for illustrative purposes only; Do not scale

The Tecpro Building, Clonshaugh Business and Technology Park, Dublin 17

T: +353 1 847 4220 F: +353 1 847 4257

Ele

va

tio

n (

mA

OD

) G

rou

nd

Le

ve

l

Project:

Environmental Impact Assessment for Dublin Port (OPW)

Drawing:Geological Cross Sections - Local Setting

Reference:PC/19/11148

ANorth West

A'South East

Ground surface

Tolka Estuary

Approx. 470m

Site Boundary

Approx. 230m Approx. 1.3Km

River Liffey

Note: For the purpose of the regional section, elevation has been taken from Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 Discovery. Superficial deposits are generalised for presentation -bedrock inferred from Geological Survey of Ireland Vulnerability Mapping, and is

indicative only.

?

A

A'

RC

01A

RC

02

Figure 8.9 Schematic cross section


________________________________________________________________________________________________ Brexit Infrastructure at Dublin Port EIAR Chapter 8,

8.3.5.7 Rating of site importance of the geological and hydrogeological features

Based on the NRA methodology (refer Appendix 8.1), the criteria for rating site importance of hydrogeological features, the importance of the hydrogeological features at this site is rated as low importance. This is based on the assessment that the attribute has no high-quality significance or value on a local scale. The is based on the classification of the aquifer underlying the proposed site.

8.3.6 Economic Geology

The EPA Extractive Industry Register and the GSI mineral database were consulted in April 2020 to determine whether there were/ are any mineral sites close to the subject site. There are no active quarries located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development site. The nearest notable quarry is the Huntstown Quarry, which located approximately 8.8 km to the northwest of the proposed development site. The Huntstown Quarry is operated by Roadstone Ltd. There will be no impact to mineral resources in the area as a result of the Proposed Development

8.3.7 Radon

According to the EPA (now incorporating the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland) the proposed development site is located in a Very Low Radon Area where is it estimated that between 1% - 5% of dwellings will exceed the Reference Level of 200 Bq/m3. This is the second lowest of the five radon categories which are assessed by the EPA.

8.3.8 Geohazards

Much of the Earth’s surface is covered by unconsolidated sediments which can be especially prone to instability. Water often plays a key role in lubricating slope failure. Instability is often significantly increased by man’s activities in building houses, roads, drainage and agricultural changes. Landslides, mud flows, bog bursts (in Ireland) and debris flows are a result. In general, Ireland suffers few landslides. Landslides are more common in unconsolidated material than in bedrock, and where the sea constantly erodes the material at the base of a cliff and leads to recession of the cliffs. Landslides have also occurred in Ireland in recent years in upland peat areas due to disturbance of peat associated with construction activities. There have been no recorded landslide events at the site. The GSI landslide database was consulted and the nearest recorded landslide occurred c. 9.5 km to the south of the proposed development site, at the on ramp at Ballinteer Interchange on the M50 motorway (GSI Event ID: GSI_LS03-0053). While the exact date of this landslide event was not recorded, it is recorded as being caused by an artificial slope at edge of carriageway on ramp, which …became unstable during heavy precipitation after a prolonged dry spell. This event resulted in one lane of the carriageway being closed. There have been no recorded landslide events at the proposed development site. Due to the local topography and the underlying strata there is a negligible risk of a landslide event occurring at the site. In Ireland, seismic activity is recorded by the Irish National Seismic Network operated by the Geophysics Section of the School of Cosmic Physics at the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (DIAS) which has been recording seismic events in Ireland since 1978. The station configuration has varied over the years. However, currently there are five permanent broadband seismic recording stations in Ireland operated by DIAS. The seismic data from the stations comes into DIAS in real-time and is studied for local and regional events. Records since 1980 show that the



nearest seismic activity to the proposed location was in the Irish Sea (1.0 – 2.0 Ml magnitude) and ~80 km to the south in the Wicklow Mountains. There is a very low risk of seismic activity on the Proposed Development site. Therefore, there are no potential effects from geohazards. There are no active volcanoes in Ireland so there is no risk from volcanic activity.

8.3.9 Land Take The proposed development site is currently in use for port-related activities. The site is also zoned as lands currently used for Non-Core Activity for Future Redevelopment and Multi-Purpose Transit Storage. The proposed development will not result in land take (i.e. the removal of productive land from potential agricultural or other beneficial uses).

8.3.10 Summary & Type of Geological/Hydrogeological Environment

Based on the regional and site-specific information available the type of Geological/ Hydrogeological Environment as per the IGI Guidelines is: Type A – Passive geological / hydrogeological environments A summary of the site geology and hydrogeology is outlined thus: The Proposed Development site overlies an area of no aquifer classification

(GSI, 2020) The proposes site and the area surrounding it was reclaimed from the

Estuary in the early 1900s so is manmade. 8.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

A detailed description of the Proposed Development is provided in Chapter 2 of this EIA Report. The activities associated with the Proposed Development which are relevant to the land, soils, geology and hydrogeological environment are detailed in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3 Site Activities Summary

Phase Activity Description

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Earthworks: Excavation of Superficial Deposits

Minimal cut and fill will be required to facilitate construction of the proposed development. Some construction works will be required for office space etc. Excavation depths will be minimal. There will be no excavation of bedrock required as part of the Proposed Development Subsoil stripping and localised stockpiling of soil will be required during construction. It is estimated that approximately 32,208 m3 of soils will be excavated to facilitate construction of the development. It is currently envisaged that majority of the excavated material will require removal offsite.

Storage of hazardous Material

Bunded fuel storage and wet concrete during construction phase.



Phase Activity Description

Import/Export of Materials

It is currently envisaged that majority of the excavated material (c. 32,208m3) will require removal offsite. The removal of waste from the site will be carried out in accordance with Waste Regulations, Regional Waste Plan (Eastern Midland Region) and Waste Hierarchy/Circular Economy Principals. Refer to Chapter 15 Waste Management for further detail.

Op

era

tio

n

Storage of hazardous Material

Fuel oil storage (diesel) will only be required for back up generators c. 180 litres per site stored in fully contained belly tanks.

As outlined in Table 8.3 the activities required for the construction phase of the Proposed Development represents the greatest risk of potential impact on the geological environment. These activities primarily pertain to the site preparation, excavation, levelling and infilling activities required to facilitate construction of Proposed Development and ancillary services.

8.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The potential geological and hydrogeological impacts during the construction and operations are presented below. Remediation and mitigation measures included in the design of this project to address these potential impacts are presented in section 8.6.

8.5.1 Construction Phase

The following potential effects to land soil and groundwater have been considered: Excavated and stripped soil can be disturbed and eroded by site vehicles

during the construction. Rainfall and wind can also impact on non-vegetated/uncovered areas within the excavation or where soil is stockpiled. This can lead to run-off with high suspended solid content which can impact on water bodies. The potential risk from this indirect impact to water bodies and/or habitats from contaminated water would depend on the magnitude and duration of any water quality impact.

As with all construction projects there is potential for water (rainfall and/or groundwater) to become contaminated with pollutants associated with construction activity. Contaminated water which arises from construction sites can pose a significant short-term risk to groundwater quality for the duration of the construction if contaminated water is allowed percolate to the aquifer. The potential main contaminants include: o Suspended solids (muddy water with increase turbidity) – arising from

excavation and ground disturbance; o Cement/concrete (increase turbidity and pH) – arising from construction

materials; o Hydrocarbons (ecotoxic) – accidental spillages from construction plant or

onsite storage; o Wastewater (nutrient and microbial rich) – arising from poor on-site

toilets and washrooms.



These potential impacts are not anticipated to occur following the implementation of mitigation measures outlined in section 8.6.1.

8.5.2 Operational Phase

The following risks have been considered in relation to the operational phase of the development:

During the operational phase there is only a potential for localized leaks and spillages from back up generator belly tanks and spillages from vehicles along access roads, loading bays and in parking areas. Any accidental emissions of oil, petrol or diesel could cause soil/groundwater contamination if the emissions are unmitigated.

Groundwater abstraction or discharge to ground does not form part of the Proposed Development. There will be no impact on local or regional groundwater resources (abstraction) as a result of the Proposed Development. The proposed development will result in removal of contaminated soil and replacement with clean infill. These potential impacts are not anticipated to occur following the implementation of mitigation measures outlined in section 8.6.2.

8.5.3 Do Nothing Scenario

Should the Proposed Development not take place, the land, soils, geological and hydrogeological environment would not be subject to changes with no soil removal. The site would remain in its current use as a site comprising of hard standing for port activities, until such time as a similar or alternative development consistent with the land use zoning is granted permission and constructed.

8.6 REMEDIAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES

This section describes a range of mitigation measures designed to avoid or reduce any potential adverse geological and hydrogeological impacts identified.


In order to reduce impacts on the soils, geology and hydrogeological environment a number of mitigation measures will be adopted as part of the construction works on site. The measures will address the main activities of potential impact which include:

Control of soil excavation and export from site; Sources of fill and aggregates for the Proposed Development; Fuel and chemical handling, transport and storage; and Control of water during construction.

Construction Environment Management Plan In advance of work starting on site the works Contractor will author a Construction Methodology document taking into account their approach and any additional requirements of the Design Team or Planning Regulator. An outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been prepared by AWN Consulting for the Proposed Development and is included with the planning documentation. It is proposed that a detailed CEMP will be prepared and



maintained by the appointed contractors during the construction phase of the proposed project to minimise the impact of all aspects of the construction works on the local environment. The CEMP will include emergency response procedures in the event of a spill, leak, fire or other environmental incident related to construction. Control of Soil Excavation Subsoil will be excavated to facilitate the construction of foundations, site levelling, expansion of drainage connections and other ancillary works. The Proposed Development will incorporate the reduce, reuse and recycle approach in terms of soil excavations on site. The construction will be carefully planned to ensure only material required to be excavated will be with as much material left in situ as possible. Excavation arisings will be reused on site where possible however it is envisioned that c. 32,208 m3 will be exported from site. Soil samples which are tested for waste classification have been assessed with reference to the landfill acceptance criteria specified in Council Decision 2003/33/EC. Full laboratory waste assessment criteria results are presented in Appendix 8.2. This criterion classifies the material into 3 No. waste categories as follows:

Inert. Non-Hazardous and; Hazardous.

Onsite testing has shown the majority underlying subsurface material onsite can be categorized as Stable Non-Reactive as per WAC guidelines. Material Excavation works will be carefully monitored by a suitably qualified person to ensure any potentially contaminated soil is identified and segregated from clean/inert soil. In the unlikely event that any potentially contaminated soils are encountered, they should be tested and classified as hazardous or non-hazardous in accordance with the EPA Waste Classification – List of Waste & Determining if Waste is Hazardous or Non-Hazardous publication, HazWasteOnline tool or similar approved method. The material will then need to be classified as inert, non-hazardous, stable non-reactive hazardous or hazardous in accordance with EC Decision 2003/33/EC. It should then be removed from site by a suitably permitted waste contractor to an authorised waste facility. Stockpiles have the potential to cause negative impacts on air and water quality. The effects of soil stripping and stockpiling will be mitigated against through the implementation of an appropriate earthworks handling protocol during construction. It is anticipated that any stockpiles will be formed within the boundary of the site and there will be no direct link or pathway from this area to any surface water body. Dust suppression measures (e.g. damping down during dry periods), vehicle wheel washes, road sweeping, and general housekeeping will ensure that the surrounding environment are free of nuisance dust and dirt on roads. Export of Material from Site It is envisioned that the majority of excavated material will be removed off-site either as a waste or, where appropriate, as a by-product. Where the material is to be reused on another site as a by-product (and not as a waste), this will be done in accordance with Article 27 of the European Communities (Waste Directive) Regulations 2011. EPA agreement will be obtained before re-using the spoil as a by-product. However, it is not currently anticipated that any excavated material will be removed offsite or imported onto the site for reuse as a by-product. Where material cannot be reused off site it will be sent for recovery or disposal at an appropriately authorised facility. Refer to Chapter 15 Waste Management for further detail.



Waste soils requiring removal from site will be classified by an experienced and qualified environmental professional to ensure that the waste soil is correctly classified for transportation and recovery/disposal offsite. Refer to Chapter 15 Waste Management for further relevant information. Sources of Fill and Aggregates All fill and aggregate for the Proposed Development will be sourced from reputable suppliers. All suppliers will be vetted for:

Aggregate compliance certificates/declarations of conformity for the classes of material specified for the Proposed Development;

Environmental Management status; and Regulatory and Legal Compliance status of the Company.

It is anticipated that approximately engineered fill will be required to facilitate construction. There will be no impact to mineral resources in the area as a result of the Proposed Development

Fuel and Chemical Handling The following mitigation measures will be taken at the construction stage in order to prevent any spillages to ground of fuels and prevent any resulting soil and/or groundwater quality impacts:

Designation of a bunded refuelling areas on the site; Provision of spill kit facilities across the site; Where mobile fuel bowsers are used the following measures will be taken:

o Any flexible pipe, tap or valve will be fitted with a lock and will be secured when not in use;

o The pump or valve will be fitted with a lock and will be secured when not in use;

o All bowsers to carry a spill kit o Operatives must have spill response training; and o Drip trays used on any required mobile fuel units.

In the case of drummed fuel or other potentially polluting substances which may be used during construction the following measures will be adopted:

Secure storage of all containers that contain potential polluting substances in a dedicated internally bunded chemical storage cabinet unit or inside a concrete bunded area;

Clear labelling of containers so that appropriate remedial measures can be taken in the event of a spillage;

All drums to be quality approved and manufactured to a recognised standard; If drums are to be moved around the site, they will be secured and on spill

pallets; and Drums to be loaded and unloaded by competent and trained personnel using

appropriate equipment. The aforementioned list of measures is non-exhaustive and will be included in the CEMP.

Control of Water During Construction Run-off from excavations/earthworks cannot be prevented entirely and is largely a function of prevailing weather conditions. Earthwork operations will be carried out such that surfaces, as they are being raised, shall be designed with adequate drainage, falls and profile to control run-off and prevent ponding and flowing. Correct



management will ensure that there will be minimal inflow of shallow/perched groundwater into any excavation. Due to the very low permeability of the overburden and the relative shallow nature for foundation excavations, infiltration to the underlying aquifer is not anticipated. Care will be taken to ensure that exposed soil surfaces are stable to minimise erosion. All exposed soil surfaces will be within the main excavation site which limits the potential for any offsite impacts. All run-off will be prevented from directly entering into any water courses/ drainage ditches. Should any discharge of construction water be required during the construction phase, discharge will be to sewer under agreement with the regulator requirement permits. Pre-treatment and silt reduction measures on site will include a combination of silt fencing, settlement measures (silt traps, silt sacks and settlement tanks/ponds) and hydrocarbon interceptors. Active treatment systems such as Siltbusters or similar may be required depending on turbidity levels and discharge limits.


During the operational phase of the Proposed Development site there is limited potential for site activities to impact on the geological and hydrogeological environment of the area. There will be no emissions to ground or the underlying aquifer from operational activities. There will be no impact on local or regional groundwater resources (abstraction) as a result of the Proposed Development. Environmental Procedures As detailed in Section 2.4.2 in Chapter 2, the operator implements an Environmental Safety and Health Management System at each of its facilities. Prior to operation of the Proposed Development, a comprehensive set of operational procedures will be established (based on those used at other similar facilities) which will include site-specific mitigation measures and emergency response measures. Fuel Storage The primary potential impact relates to a failure within the belly tank containment structure within the back-up generators. In order to minimise any impact on the underlying subsurface strata from material spillages, the belly tanks are located in hardstand areas and are regularly checked in accordance with manufacturer requirements. Delivery of fuel will be undertaken following a documented procedure which minimises risk of spills and spill containment/clean-up kit shall be readily available on site. It is anticipated that the back-up generators will rarely be used. Increase in hard stand The proposed development site is currently under hardstand. The area of hardstanding on the proposed development site will be slightly increased as a result of the proposed development and will incorporate SuDs requirements. The proposed site drainage will include oil-petrol interceptors on each site which then flows to the Dublin Port separator before entering the Liffey Estuary/ Dublin Bay. Flow levels will be controlled by a hydro break or similar.



8.7 Predicted Impact of the Proposed Development

This section describes the predicted impact of the Proposed Development following the implementation of the remedial and mitigation measures.


The implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Section 8.6.1 will ensure that the predicted impacts on the geological and hydrogeological environment do not occur during the construction phase and that the residual impact will be short-term-imperceptible-neutral. Following the NRA criteria for rating the magnitude and significance of impacts on the geological and hydrogeological related attributes, the magnitude of impact is considered negligible.


The implementation of mitigation measures highlighted in Section 8.6.2 will ensure that the predicted impacts on the geological and hydrogeological environment do not occur during the operational phase and that the residual impact will be long-term-imperceptible-neutral. Following the NRA criteria for rating the magnitude and significance of impacts on the geological and hydrogeological related attributes, the magnitude of impact is considered negligible.

8.8 RESIDUAL IMPACTS

Based on the natural conditions present and with appropriate mitigation measures (see Section 8.6) to reduce the potential for any impact of accidental discharges to ground during this phase, the potential impact on land soils, geology and hydrogeology during construction (following EPA, 2017) are considered to have a short-term, imperceptible significance, with a neutral impact on quality.

There are no likely significant impacts on the land, geological or hydrogeological environment associated with the proposed operational development of the site with mitigation in place. As such the impact is considered to have a long-term, imperceptible significance with a neutral impact on quality i.e. no effects of effects that are imperceptible, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error. Following the NRA criteria for rating the magnitude and significance of impacts on the geological and hydrogeological related attributes, the magnitude of impact is considered negligible for the construction and operational phases.

8.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The cumulative impact of the proposed development with including other Brexit related developments at the nearby sites T7, T9 T10 and Yard 2, the MP2 project, the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, and the Greenway project (described in Chapter 3)) are discussed in Sections 8.9.1 and 8.9.2 below.


The potential for impact on land, soils and groundwater during construction primarily arises from accidental leaks and spills to ground or dewatering. The proposed development does not require dewatering and with standard mitigation in place (as



outlined in Section 7.5) for management of accidental discharges, the effect due to construction in this area is considered to be a neutral on quality and an imperceptible significance. Contractors for the proposed development will be contractually required to operate in compliance with a CEMP which will include the mitigation measures outlined in this EIA report. Other developments will also have to incorporate measures to protect soil and water quality in compliance with legislative standards for receiving water quality. As a result, there will be no cumulative potential for change in soil quality or the natural groundwater regime. The cumulative impact is considered to be neutral and imperceptible.


Overall, there will be no local change in recharge pattern due to these proposed and planned developments. As such, based on the overall size of the underlying aquifer and measures to protect soil and water quality there will be no overall change on the groundwater body status. The operation of the proposed development is concluded to have a long-term, imperceptible significance with a neutral impact on soil and water quality.

The proposed development includes measures to protect against any accidental discharges to ground e.g. adequate containment measures for oil storage, use of hardstand in loading areas and drainage through oil interceptors. As such the impact will be neutral and imperceptible in relation to soil and water. All developments will be required to manage sites in compliance with legislative standards for receiving water quality. Therefore, the cumulative impact is concluded to be neutral and imperceptible in relation to soil and water. Overall, the use of the land will be in line with current activities on the proposed development site, which is in line with the zoning of the area, and therefore the cumulative impact on land is considered to be neutral and imperceptible.

8.10 REFERENCES

CIRIA, (2011). Environmental good practice on site; Construction Industry Research and Information Association publication C692 (3rd Edition - an update of C650 (2005); (I. Audus, P. Charles and S. Evans), 2011 CIRIA, (2012). Environmental good practice on site –pocketbook; Construction Industry Research and Information Association publication C715 (P. Charles, and G. Wadams), 2012. CSEA, (2016). Engineering Planning Report – Drainage & Water. Ref: RPT-16_177_001 issued November 2016. EPA, (2002). EPA Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements; (March 2002); Environmental Protection Agency, Co. Wexford, Ireland EPA, (2013). Environmental Protection Agency; Available on-line EPA, (2015). Waste Classification – List of Waste & Determining if Waste is Hazardous or Non-hazardous (June 2015); Environmental Protection Agency, Co. Wexford, Ireland.



Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI), (2015). Online Mapping Databases; Available on-line at: http://www.gsi.ie/mapping

IGI, (2002). Geology in Environmental Impact Statements, a Guide; (September 2002); Institute of Geologists of Ireland; Geology Department, University College Dublin IGI, (2013). Guidelines for the Preparation of Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology Chapters of Environmental Impact Statements NRA, (2008). Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes; June 2009. National Roads Authority, Dublin

APPENDIX 8.1

NRA CRITERIA FOR RATING THE MAGNITUDE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AT EIA STAGE

NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY (NRA, 2009)

Table 1 Criteria for rating site importance of Geological Features (NRA, 2009)

Magnitude of Impact Criteria Typical Example

Very High Attribute has a high quality, significance or value on a regional or national scale. Degree or extent of soil contamination is significant on a national or regional scale. Volume of peat and/or soft organic soil underlying route is significant on a national or regional scale.

Geological feature rare on a regional or national scale (NHA) Large existing quarry or pit Proven economically extractable mineral resource

High Attribute has a high quality, significance or value on a local scale. Degree or extent of soil contamination is significant on a local scale. Volume of peat and/or soft organic soil underlying route is significant on a local scale.

Contaminated soil on site with previous heavy industrial usage Large recent landfill site for mixed wastes Geological feature of high value on a local scale (County Geological Site) Well drained and/or high fertility soils Moderately sized existing quarry or pit Marginally economic extractable mineral resource

Medium Attribute has a medium quality, significance or value on a local scale Degree or extent of soil contamination is moderate on a local scale Volume of peat and/or soft organic soil underlying route is moderate on a local scale

Contaminated soil on site with previous light industrial usage Small recent landfill site for mixed wastes Moderately drained and/or moderate fertility soils Small existing quarry or pit Sub-economic extractable mineral resource

Low Attribute has a low quality, significance or value on a local scale Degree or extent of soil contamination is minor on a local scale Volume of peat and/or soft organic soil underlying route is small on a local scale

Large historical and/or recent site for construction and demolition wastes. Small historical and/or recent landfill site for construction and demolition wastes. Poorly drained and/or low fertility soils. Uneconomically extractable mineral resource.

Table 2 Criteria for rating impact magnitude at EIS stage – Estimation of magnitude of impact on soil / geology attribute (NRA, 2009)

Magnitude

of Impact Criteria Typical Examples

Large Adverse Results in loss of attribute Loss of high proportion of future quarry or pit reserves

Moderate

Adverse Results in impact on integrity of attribute or loss of part of attribute

Loss of moderate proportion of future quarry or pit reserves

Small Adverse Results in minor impact on integrity of attribute or loss of small part of attribute

Loss of small proportion of future quarry or pit reserves

Negligible Results in an impact on attribute but of insufficient magnitude to affect either use or integrity

No measurable changes in attributes

Minor

Beneficial Results in minor improvement of attribute quality

Minor enhancement of geological heritage feature

Moderate

Beneficial Results in moderate improvement of attribute quality

Moderate enhancement of geological heritage feature

Major

Beneficial Results in major improvement of attribute quality

Major enhancement of geological heritage feature

Table 3 Criteria for rating Site Attributes - Estimation of Importance of Hydrogeology Attributes (NRA, 2009)

Magnitude of Impact Criteria Typical Examples

Extremely High

Attribute has a high quality or value on an international scale

Groundwater supports river, wetland or surface water body ecosystem protected by EU legislation e.g. SAC or SPA status

Very High

Attribute has a high quality or value on a regional or national scale

Regionally Important Aquifer with multiple well fields Groundwater supports river, wetland or surface water body ecosystem protected by national legislation – NHA status Regionally important potable water source supplying >2500 homes Inner source protection area for regionally important water source

High Attribute has a high quality or value on a local scale

Regionally Important Aquifer Groundwater provides large proportion of baseflow to local rivers Locally important potable water source supplying >1000 homes Outer source protection area for regionally important water source Inner source protection area for locally important water source

Medium

Attribute has a medium quality or value on a local scale

Locally Important Aquifer Potable water source supplying >50 homes Outer source protection area for locally important water source

Low

Attribute has a low quality or value on a local scale

Poor Bedrock Aquifer Potable water source supplying <50 homes

Table 4 Criteria for Rating Impact Significance at EIS Stage – Estimation of Magnitude of Impact on Hydrogeology Attribute (NRA, 2009)

Magnitude of Impact

Criteria Typical Examples

Large Adverse Results in loss of attribute and /or quality and integrity of attribute

Removal of large proportion of aquifer. Changes to aquifer or unsaturated zone resulting in extensive change to existing water supply springs and wells, river baseflow or ecosystems. Potential high risk of pollution to groundwater from routine run-off. Calculated risk of serious pollution incident >2% annually.

Moderate Adverse Results in impact on integrity of attribute or loss of part of attribute

Removal of moderate proportion of aquifer. Changes to aquifer or unsaturated zone resulting in moderate change to existing water supply springs and wells, river baseflow or ecosystems. Potential medium risk of

pollution to groundwater from routine run-off. Calculated risk of serious pollution incident >1% annually.

Small Adverse Results in minor impact on integrity of attribute or loss of small part of attribute

Removal of small proportion of aquifer. Changes to aquifer or unsaturated zone resulting in minor change to water supply springs and wells, river baseflow or ecosystems. Potential low risk of pollution to groundwater from routine run-off. Calculated risk of serious pollution incident >0.5% annually.

Negligible Results in an impact on attribute but of insufficient magnitude to affect either use or integrity

Calculated risk of serious pollution incident <0.5% annually.

Table 5: Rating of Significant Environmental Impacts at EIS Stage (NRA, 2009)

Importance of Attribute

Magnitude of Importance

Negligible Small Adverse Moderate Adverse Large Adverse

Extremely High

Imperceptible Significant Profound Profound

Very High Imperceptible Significant/moderate Profound/Significant Profound High Imperceptible Moderate/Slight Significant/moderate Profound/Significant Medium Imperceptible Slight Moderate Significant Low Imperceptible Imperceptible Slight Slight/Moderate

APPENDIX 8.2

SITE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT & LABORATORY RESULTS

Priority Geotechnical Ireland (2019)

P19232_D01 1 of 6

Our Ref: JMS/Rp/P19232 (*.pdf) 09th December, 2019 Messrs. The Office of Public Works

Civil & Structural Engineering Services,

52 St Stephens Green,

Dublin 2. Re: Stage 1 – Geotechnical Investigation at Dublin Port – Factual report.

Introduction In November 2019, Priority Geotechnical were requested by The Office of Public Works

(OPW) to undertake an investigation as part of the Dublin Port – Stage 1 Preliminary

Geotechnical Investigation, Dublin.

Objectives The purpose of this investigation is to provide suitable geotechnical and environmental

data in order to inform the engineering design solutions for potential future development. Scope The scope of the ground investigation, which was specified by the OPW, comprised of

the following:

02Nr. Rotary boreholes;

12Nr. Trial pits;

All associated sampling;

Laboratory testing and

All associated reporting.

P19232_D01 2 of 6

This report presents a summary of the factual records, data obtained with regard to the

geotechnical investigation at Dublin Port. This report should be read in conjunction with

the exploratory logs and laboratory test data accompanying this factual report. Site Works

This investigation was carried out in accordance with the contract specification:

Specification and Related Documents for Ground Investigation in Ireland (Engineers

Ireland, October 2006), Eurocode 7- Geotechnical Design Part 2, ground investigation

and testing (BS EN 1997-2: 2007) and the relevant British Standards (BS 5930 (2015)

Code of Practice for Site Investigation and BS 1377, Method of Tests for Soil for Civil Engineering Purposes, in situ Tests.

The investigation fieldworks were undertaken between the 14th and the 21st November,

2019 under the supervision of PGL, Engineering Geologist(s). Details of the plant and

equipment used are detailed on the relevant exploratory records, accompanying this

factual report. Rotary Boreholes Three (03) rotary boreholes were advanced to depths 2.2m below existing ground level

(bgl) to 21.0m bgl using PGL’s Deltabase 500 7t rotary rig. The exploratory records are

attached, herein.

Location Final Depth (m bgl)

Date Start (dd/mm/yyyy)

RC01 2.2 20/11/2019

RC01A 21.0 20/11/2019 RC02 20.0 21/11/2019

Trial Pits Twelve (12) trial pit excavations were dug to depths 0.5m bgl to 3.0m bgl using a JCB

Back-hoe excavator. The exploratory records are attached, herein.



TP01A 2.6 15/11/2019 TP01B 0.7 15/11/2019

TP02 0.7 14/11/2019 TP03 2.4 14/11/2019

TP04 1.9 14/11/2019

P19232_D01 3 of 6



TP05 3.0 15/11/2019

TP07 2.3 15/11/2019 TP08 0.5 15/11/2019

TP09 0.5 15/11/2019 TP09A 0.5 15/11/2019

TP10 2.3 14/11/2019

TP11 3.0 14/11/2019 Sampling

Nineteen (19) environmental samples (ENV) were taken between 0.5m bgl and 2.0m bgl

at trial pit locations. These were placed immediately in air-tight containers, which were

filled to the top of the sample container. The sample suite consisted of: 2No. small

disturbed samples (D) not less than 1.0kg, 2No. 250g amber glass sample containers

and 2No. 60g amber glass sample containers.

The preparation for and methods of taking environmental samples, together with their

size, preservation and handling was in accordance with British Standard BS 5930: 1981-

Code of Practice for Site investigation, the contract documents and the Association of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists (AGS) guide to environmental

sampling, September 2010. Survey and Drawings The ‘as built’ survey data will be presented at a later date.

Location Easting Northing Ground Level (mOD)

Final Depth (m bgl)


RC01 - - - 2.2 20/11/2019

RC01A - - - 21.0 20/11/2019 RC02 - - - 20.0 21/11/2019

TP01A - - - 2.6 15/11/2019

TP01B - - - 0.7 15/11/2019 TP02 - - - 0.7 14/11/2019

TP03 - - - 2.4 14/11/2019 TP04 - - - 1.9 14/11/2019

TP05 - - - 3.0 15/11/2019 TP07 - - - 2.3 15/11/2019

TP08 - - - 0.5 15/11/2019

TP09 - - - 0.5 15/11/2019

P19232_D01 4 of 6

Location Easting Northing Ground Level (mOD)

Final Depth (m bgl)


TP09A - - - 0.5 15/11/2019 TP10 - - - 2.3 14/11/2019 TP11 - - - 3.0 14/11/2019

Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing was scheduled by the OPW and carried out by Chemtest Ltd. (UK) on

behalf of PGL in accordance with BS1377 (1990), Methods of test for soils for civil

engineering purposes and the ISRM suggested methods for rock characterisation,

testing and monitoring.

Please note that all samples shall be retained for a period no longer than 28 days from the date of

this report. Thereafter all remaining samples shall be appropriately disposed of unless a written

instruction to the contrary is received by PGL prior to the date of this reporting and within the 28

day period outline above. Laboratory testing will result in a reduction of sample quantity and in

some cased the use of the full sample mass. Samples already tested may not be suitable or

available for further testing.

The laboratory data is attached and summarised as follows;

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING

Type Nr. Remarks

Environmental Suite D 19 See attached results

Environmental Suite E 19 See attached results

Environmental Suite H 19 See attached results

Published Geology The geology of the study area (GSI 1:100,000 mapping Sheet 16) is characterised by

the Lucan Formation (LU), described as dark Limestone & Shale Calp.

Teagasc subsoil mapping indicates that the area is underlain by Made Ground deposits.

The national groundwater vulnerability mapping indicated the area is of low vulnerability.

P19232_D01 5 of 6

Ground Conditions The full details of the ground conditions encountered are provided for on the exploratory

records accompanying this report. The records provide descriptions, in accordance with

BS 5930 (2015) and Eurocode 7, Geotechnical Investigation and Testing, Identification

and classification of soils, Part 1, Identification and description (EN ISO 14688-1: 2002)–

Identification and Classification of Soil, Part 2: Classification Principles (EN ISO 14688-

2:2004) and Identification and Classification of Rock, Part 1: Identification & Description (EN ISO 14689-1:2004) of the materials encountered, in situ testing and details of the

samples taken, together with any observations made during the site investigation.

Groundwater conditions Groundwater is recorded when encountered during boring over a period of 20 minutes,

noting any changes that may occur.

Groundwater conditions observed in the excavations are those appertaining to the

period of the investigation. Groundwater levels may be subject to diurnal, seasonal and

climatic variations and can also be affected by drainage conditions or tidal variations etc.

Groundwater was encountered between 4.5m bgl and 16.5m bgl during the period of

works. The groundwater regime should be assessed from monitoring standpipes where

available.

Excavations were backfilled with gravel, bentonite and arisings.

ARISINGS Backfill

P19232_D01 6 of 6

Should you have any queries in relation to the data presented, please do not hesitate to

contact our office. Yours sincerely, For Priority Geotechnical,

James McSweeney BSc Engineering Geologist

No responsibility can be held by PGL for ground conditions between exploratory locations. The

exploratory logs provide for ground profiles and configuration of strata relevant to the

investigation depths achieved during the fieldworks. Caution shall be taken when extrapolating

between such exploratory locations. No liability is accepted for ground conditions extraneous to

the exploratory locations. Where additional information becomes available any assessment may

be subject to review and change.

This report has been prepared for the employer Ireland and their Representative(s) as outline,

herein. The information should not be used without their prior written permission. PGL accepts no

responsibility or liability for this document being used other than for the purposes for which it was

intended.

KEY TO SYMBOLS ON EXPLORATORY HOLE RECORDS

All linear dimensions are in metres or millimetres

DESCRIPTIONS** Drillers DescriptionFriable Easily crumbled

SAMPLESU( ) Undisturbed 102mm diameter sample, ( ) denotes number of blows to drive samplerU( )F, U( )P F‐ not recovered, P‐partially recoveredU38 Undisturbed 38mm diameter sampleP(F), (P) Piston sample ‐ disturbedB Bulk sample ‐ disturbedD Jar Sample ‐ disturbedW Water SampleCBR California Bearing Ratio mould sampleES Chemical Sample for Contamination AnalysisSPTLS Standard Penetration Test S lump sample from split samplerCORE RECOVERY AND ROCK QUALITYTCR Total Core Recovery (% of Core Run)SCR Solid Core Recovery (length of core having at least one full diameter as % of core run)RQD Rock Quality Designation (length of solid core greater than 100mm as % of core run)Where there is insufficient space for the TCR, SCR and RQD, the results may be found in the remarks columnIf Fracture Spacing in mm (Minimum/Average/Maximum) NI ‐ non intact, NR ‐ no recoveryAZCL Assumed Zone of Core LossNI Non intact

GROUNDWATERGroundwater strike__Groundwater level after standing period__

Date/Water Date of shift (day/month)/Depth to water at end of previous shift shown above the dateand depth to water at beginning of shift given below the date

INSITU TESTINGS Standard Penetration Test ‐ split barrel samplerC Standard Penetration Test ‐ solid 60⁰ coneSW Self Weight PenetrationIvp, HVp (R) In Situ Vane Test, Hand Vane Test (R) demonstrates remoulded strengthK(F), (C), (R), (P) Permeability TestHP Hand Penetrometer Test

MEASURED PROPERTIESN Standard Penetration Test ‐ blows required to drive 300mm after seating drivex/y Denotes x blows for y mm within the Standard Penetration Testx*/y Denotes x blows for y mm within the seating drivecu Undrained Shear Strength (kN/m2)

CBR California Bearing Ratio

ROTARY DRILLING SIZES

NHPS

120146

Key Sheet

92113

7599

Index LetterNominal Diameter (mm)

Borehole Core5476

Well WaterStrike (m)

Depth(m)

Type/Fs (min, max, avg)

Coring (%)TCR SCR RQD

Depth (m) / FI (/m)

1.50

2.20

Level(mOD) Legend Stratum Description

Open hole boring. Driller described: (MADE GROUND) 'Dry' gravelly Clay.

Open hole boring. Driller described: (MADE GROUND) Steel obstruction.

End of Borehole at 2.200m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Priority Geotechnical Ltd.Tel: 021 4631600Fax: 021 4638690

www.prioritygeotechnical.ie

Drilled By:AK

Logged By:

Borehole No.

RC01Sheet 1 of 1

Project Name: Stage 1 - Dublin Port SI Project No.P19232 Co-ords: Hole Type

Rotary cored

Location: Dublin Level: Scale1:50

Client: Office of Public Works (OPW) Dates: 20/11/2019 20/11/2019

Groundwater: Hole Information: Equipment: Deltabase 520

Struck (m bgl) Rose to After (min) Sealed Comment Hole Depth (m bgl)2.20

Hole Dia (mm)131

Casing Dia (mm)131

Method: Compressed air

Remarks:Borehole terminated at 2.20m bgl due to steel obstruction. Borehole relocated to RC01A.

Shift Data:

None encountered.

Groundwater (m bgl) Shift Hole Depth (m bgl) Remarks20/11/2019 08:00 0.00 Start of shift.

Dry 20/11/2019 18:00 2.20 End of borehole.


Depth(m)



Depth (m) / FI (/m)

3.00

4.50

6.00

7.50

9.00


Open hole boring. Driller described: (MADE GROUND) Gravel with cobble content.

Open hole boring. Driller described: (MADE GROUND) Gravel with rubber tyre inclusions.

Open hole boring. Driller described: White, Clay.

Open hole boring. Driller described: 'Wet' gravelly Clay.

Open hole boring. Driller described: Grey, gravelly Clay.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9



Drilled By:AK

Logged By:

Borehole No.

RC01ASheet 1 of 3


Rotary cored





Hole Dia (mm)102

Casing Dia (mm)131


Remarks:Borehole terminated at 21.00m bgl.

Shift Data:

4.509.00

See shift data.


4.5 20/11/2019 18:00 21.00 End of borehole.


Depth(m)



Depth (m) / FI (/m)

10.50

16.50

17.60


Open hole boring. Driller described: Silty Gravel.

Open hole boring. Driller described: Clay.

Open hole boring. Driller described: Gravel/ Weathered Rock.

Down the hole hammer. Driller described: Limestone.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18



Drilled By:AK

Logged By:

Borehole No.

RC01ASheet 2 of 3


Rotary cored





Hole Dia (mm)102

Casing Dia (mm)131



Shift Data:

4.509.00

See shift data.


4.5 20/11/2019 18:00 21.00 End of borehole.


Depth(m)



Depth (m) / FI (/m)

21.00


Down the hole hammer. Driller described: Limestone.


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



Drilled By:AK

Logged By:

Borehole No.

RC01ASheet 3 of 3


Rotary cored





Hole Dia (mm)102

Casing Dia (mm)131



Shift Data:

4.509.00

See shift data.


4.5 20/11/2019 18:00 21.00 End of borehole.


Depth(m)



Depth (m) / FI (/m)

1.50

3.00

4.50

6.00

7.50


Open hole boring. Driller described: (MADE GROUND) Gravel.

Open hole boring. Driller described: (MADE GROUND) Gravely Clay.

Open hole boring. Driller described: (MADE GROUND) Gravely Sand with timber inclusions.

Open hole boring. Driller described: (MADE GROUND) Gravelly Clay with timber inclusions.

Open hole boring. Driller described: (MADE GROUND) Sandy Clay with strong odour.

Open hole boring. Driller described: Sandy clayey Gravel.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9



Drilled By:AK

Logged By:OD

Borehole No.

RC02Sheet 1 of 3


Rotary cored





Hole Dia (mm)76

Casing Dia (mm)131


Remarks:Borehole terminated at 20.00m bgl, required depth.

Shift Data:

4.5011.00

See shift data.


4.5 21/11/2019 18:00 16.70 End of shift.4.0 22/11/2019 08:00 16.70 Start of shift.4.0 22/11/2019 18:00 20.00 End of borehole.


Depth(m)



Depth (m) / FI (/m)

10.50

14.25

15.00

16.70



Open hole boring. Driller described: Silty Gravel.


Open hole boring. Driller described: Sandy Silty Gravel.

Down the hole hammer. Driller described: Bedrock. Assumed Limestone lithology. High volume of water noted.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18



Drilled By:AK

Logged By:OD

Borehole No.

RC02Sheet 2 of 3


Rotary cored





Hole Dia (mm)76

Casing Dia (mm)131



Shift Data:

4.5011.00

See shift data.




Depth(m)



Depth (m) / FI (/m)

20.00


Down the hole hammer. Driller described: Bedrock. Assumed Limestone lithology. High volume of water noted.


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



Drilled By:AK

Logged By:OD

Borehole No.

RC02Sheet 3 of 3


Rotary cored





Hole Dia (mm)76

Casing Dia (mm)131



Shift Data:

4.5011.00

See shift data.



Wat

er

Strik

e &

B

ackf

ill Samples & In Situ Testing

Depth (m) Type ResultsDepth

(m)

0.15

2.60

Level(m OD) Legend Stratum Description

(MADE GROUND) Grey, sandy GRAVEL. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, angular to sub-angular.(MADE GROUND) Brown, very silty sandy GRAVEL with low cobble content and low boulder content. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub-rounded. Cobbles are 63mm to 200mm dia, sub-angular to sub-rounded. Boulders are 200mm to 600mm dia, sub-angular to sub-rounded.

End of Pit at 2.600m

1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ENV

2.00 ENV



Trial Pit No

TP01ASheet 1 of 1

Project Name: Stage 1 - Dublin Port SI

Project No.P19232

Co-ords:Level:

Date15/11/2019

Location:

Client:

Dublin

Office of Public Works (OPW)

Dimensions (m):

Depth:2.60m BGL

0.70

3.10 Scale1:25

LoggedPH

Stability:Plant:Backfill:

PoorJCBArisings.

Groundwater: None encountered.

Remarks: Trial pit terminated at 2.60m bgl due to large boulders.

Photographic Record

Number:

TP01A

Project Project No Client

Dublin Port OPW P19232 OPW

Wat

er

Strik

e &

B

ackf



(m)

0.200.25

0.70


(MADE GROUND) Grey, sandy silty GRAVEL. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, angular to sub-angular.(MADE GROUND) Brown, sandy GRAVEL. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub-rounded.(MADE GROUND) Grey, silty sandy GRAVEL with low cobble content and low boulder content with fill (red brick, concrete, metal sheets, cables). Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub-rounded. Cobbles are 63mm to 200mm dia, sub-angular to sub-rounded. Boulders are 200mm to 500mm dia, sub-angular to sub-rounded.Very hard strata - Concrete.

End of Pit at 0.700m 1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ENV



Trial Pit No

TP01BSheet 1 of 1


Project No.P19232

Co-ords:Level:

Date15/11/2019

Location:

Client:

Dublin


Dimensions (m):

Depth:0.70m BGL

0.70

5.00 Scale1:25

LoggedPH


ModerateJCBArisings.


Remarks: Trial pit terminated at 0.70m bgl, refusal on concrete.

Photographic Record

Number:

TP01B



Wat

er

Strik

e &

B

ackf



(m)

0.10

0.70


(MADE GROUND) Grey, slightly clayey sandy GRAVEL. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub-rounded.(MADE GROUND) Grey brown, sandy very silty GRAVEL with red brick, concrete, plastic inclusions.

Concrete obstruction.End of Pit at 0.700m

1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ENV



Trial Pit No

TP02Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.P19232

Co-ords:Level:

Date14/11/2019

Location:

Client:

Dublin


Dimensions (m):

Depth:0.70m BGL

0.70

3.30 Scale1:25

LoggedPH


Moderate.JCBArisings.


Remarks: Trial pit terminated at 0.70m bgl due to concrete. Pit extended at right angle for 2.00m in attempt to avoid concrete., still present.

Photographic Record

Number:

TP02



Wat

er

Strik

e &

B

ackf



(m)

0.15

0.30

2.40


Bituminous surfacing.

(MADE GROUND) Grey, sandy GRAVEL. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, angular to sub-angular.(MADE GROUND) Brown grey, sandy very silty GRAVEL with low cobble content and red brick, concrete and re-bar inclusions. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub-rounded. Cobbles are 63mm to 200mm dia, sub-angular to sub-rounded.


1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ENV

2.00 ENV



Trial Pit No

TP03Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.P19232

Co-ords:Level:

Date14/11/2019

Location:

Client:

Dublin


Dimensions (m):

Depth:2.40m BGL

0.80

3.20 Scale1:25

LoggedPH




Remarks: Trial pit terminated at 2.40m bgl due to obstruction, possible concrete.

Photographic Record

Number:

TP03



Wat

er

Strik

e &

B

ackf



(m)

0.20

1.90



(MADE GROUND) Brown, sandy very silty GRAVEL with low cobble content and red brick, concrete, re-bar inclusions. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub-rounded. Cobbles are 63mm to 200mm dia, sub-angular to sub-rounded.


1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ENV

1.90 ENV



Trial Pit No

TP04Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.P19232

Co-ords:Level:

Date14/11/2019

Location:

Client:

Dublin


Dimensions (m):

Depth:1.90m BGL

Scale1:25

LoggedPH


JCBArisings.


Remarks: Trial pit terminated at 1.90m bgl due to concrete blocks.

Photographic Record

Number:

TP04



Wat

er

Strik

e &

B

ackf



(m)

0.10

3.00


(MADE GROUND) Grey, clayey GRAVEL. Gravel is fine to coarse.(MADE GROUND) Grey, silty sandy GRAVEL with low cobble content, low boulder content and plastic, red brick inclusions. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub-rounded. Cobbles are 63mm to 200mm dia, sub-angular to sub-rounded. Boulders are 200mm to 500mm dia, sub-angular to sub-rounded.


1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ENV

2.00 ENV



Trial Pit No

TP05Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.P19232

Co-ords:Level:

Date15/11/2019

Location:

Client:

Dublin


Dimensions (m):

Depth:3.00m BGL

0.70

3.30 Scale1:25

LoggedPH




Remarks: Trial pit terminated at 3.00m bgl, required depth.

Photographic Record

Number:

TP05



Wat

er

Strik

e &

B

ackf



(m)

0.20

1.00

2.30


(MADE GROUND) Grey, slightly silty sandy GRAVEL. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, angular to sub-angular.(MADE GROUND) Grey, sandy very silty GRAVEL with plastic, red brick, timber and iron bar inclusions.

0.20m to 1.00m: Engineer noted 'damp' layer.

(MADE GROUND) Brown, sandy very silty GRAVEL with low cobble content, low boulder content and red brick, concrete blocks, steel, cables and plastic. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub-rounded. Cobbles are 63mm to 200mm dia, sub-angular to sub-rounded. Boulders are 200mm to 500mm dia, sub-angular to sub-rounded.


1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ENV

2.00 ENV



Trial Pit No

TP07Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.P19232

Co-ords:Level:

Date15/11/2019

Location:

Client:

Dublin


Dimensions (m):

Depth:2.30m BGL

0.70

3.20 Scale1:25

LoggedPH


Very poorJCBArisings.


Remarks: Trial pit terminated at 2.30m bgl due to obstruction of concrete blocks.

Photographic Record

Number:

TP07



Wat

er

Strik

e &

B

ackf



(m)

0.20

0.50


(MADE GROUND) Grey, sandy GRAVEL. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, angular to sub-angular. (MADE GROUND) Grey brown, sandy very silty GRAVEL with low cobble content and red brick inclusions. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub-rounded.


1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ENV



Trial Pit No

TP08Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.P19232

Co-ords:Level:

Date15/11/2019

Location:

Client:

Dublin


Dimensions (m):

Depth:0.50m BGL

0.30

0.40 Scale1:25

LoggedPH


ModerateHand dugArisings.



Photographic Record

Number:

TP08



Wat

er

Strik

e &

B

ackf



(m)

0.20

0.50


(MADE GROUND) Grey, sandy GRAVEL.

(MADE GROUND) Grey brown, silty sandy GRAVEL with low cobble content and red brick inclusions. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub-rounded. Cobbles are 63mm to 200mm dia, sub-angular to sub-rounded.


1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ENV



Trial Pit No

TP09Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.P19232

Co-ords:Level:

Date15/11/2019

Location:

Client:

Dublin


Dimensions (m):

Depth:0.50m BGL

0.30

0.40 Scale1:25

LoggedPH





Photographic Record

Number:

TP09



Wat

er

Strik

e &

B

ackf



(m)

0.15

0.50


(MADE GROUND) Grey, sandy GRAVEL. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, angular to sub-angular.(MADE GROUND) Grey, sandy GRAVEL with low cobble content and red brick, concrete inclusions. Sand is fine to coarse. gravel is fine to coarse, angular to sub-angular. Cobbles are 63mm to 200mm dia, angular to sub-angular.


1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ENV



Trial Pit No

TP09ASheet 1 of 1


Project No.P19232

Co-ords:Level:

Date15/11/2019

Location:

Client:

Dublin


Dimensions (m):

Depth:0.50m BGL

0.40

0.40 Scale1:25

LoggedPH





Photographic Record

Number:

TP09A



Wat

er

Strik

e &

B

ackf



(m)

0.20

2.30



(MADE GROUND) Brown, slightly sandy gravelly SILT with red brick, glass, timber, concrete and re-bar inclusions. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub-rounded.


1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ENV

2.00 ENV



Trial Pit No

TP10Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.P19232

Co-ords:Level:

Date14/11/2019

Location:

Client:

Dublin


Dimensions (m):

Depth:2.30m BGL

0.70

2.60 Scale1:25

LoggedPH


Very poorJCBArisings.


Remarks: Trial pit terminated at 2.30m bgl due to instability.

Photographic Record

Number:

TP10



Wat

er

Strik

e &

B

ackf



(m)

0.30

0.80

3.00


(MADE GROUND) Grey, slightly silty sandy GRAVEL. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fin to coarse, angular to sub-rounded.

(MADE GROUND) Brown, sandy very silty GRAVEL with low cobble content and red brick. Sand is fine to coarse. Gravel is fine to coarse, angular to sub-rounded. Cobbles are 63mm to 200mm dia, angular to sub-rounded.

(MADE GROUND) Brown, slightly gravelly very clayey SAND with red brick, concrete and re-bar inclusions.


1

2

3

4

5

0.50 ENV

2.00 ENV



Trial Pit No

TP11Sheet 1 of 1


Project No.P19232

Co-ords:Level:

Date14/11/2019

Location:

Client:

Dublin


Dimensions (m):

Depth:3.00m BGL

0.70

3.30 Scale1:25

LoggedPH


PoorJCBArisings.



Photographic Record

Number:

TP11



KEY TO SYMBOLS - LABORATORY TEST RESULT

U Undisturbed SampleP Piston SampleTWS Thin Wall SampleB Bulk Sample - DisturbedD Jar Sample - DisturbedW Water SamplepH Acidity/Alkalinity IndexSO3 % - Total Sulphate Content (acid soluble)SO3 g/ltr - Water Soluble Sulphate (Water or 2:1 Aqueous Soil Extract)+ Calcareous ReactionCl Chloride ContentPl Plasticity Index<425 % of material in sample passing 425 micron sieveLL Liquid LimitPL Plastic LimitMC Water ContentNP Non PlasticYb Bulk DensityYd Dry DensityPs Particle DensityU/D Undrained/Drained TriaxialU/C Unconsolidated/Consolidated TriaxialT/M Single Stage/Multistage Triaxial100/38 Sample Diameter (mm)REM Remoulded Triaxial Test SpecimenTST Triaxial Suction TestV Vane TestDSB Drained Shear BoxRSB Residual Shear BoxRS Ring Shearσ3 Cell Pressureσ1-σ3 Deviator Stressc Cohesionc_ Effective Cohesion Interceptф Angle of Shearing Resistance - Degreesф_ Effective Angle of Shearing Resistanceεf Strain at Failure* Failed under 1st Load** Failed under 2nd Load# Untestable## Excessive Strainp_o Effective Overburden Pressuremv Coefficient of Volume Decreasecv Coefficient of ConsolidationOpt OptimumNat NaturalStd Standard Compaction - 2.5kg Rammer (¶ CBR)Hvy Heavy Compaction - 4.5kg Rammer (§ CBR)Vib Vibratory CompactionCBR California Bearing RatioSat m.c. Saturation Moisture ContentMCV Moisture Condition Value

Key sheet

Chemtest Ltd.

Depot Road

Newmarket

CB8 0AL

Tel: 01638 606070

Email: [email protected]

Report No.: 19-38616-1

Initial Date of Issue: 02-Dec-2019

Client Priority Geotechnical Ltd

Client Address: Unit 12 Owenacurra Business Park Midleton County Cork Ireland

Contact(s): Colette Kelly

Project P19232 Dublin port OPW

Quotation No.: Q17-09116 Date Received: 18-Nov-2019

Order No.: 12334 Date Instructed: 19-Nov-2019

No. of Samples: 19

Turnaround (Wkdays): 7 Results Due: 27-Nov-2019

Date Approved: 02-Dec-2019

Approved By:

Details: Glynn Harvey, Laboratory Manager

Final Report

Page 1 of 29

Results - Soil

Client: Priority Geotechnical Ltd 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616Quotation No.: Q17-09116 927205 927206 927207 927208 927209 927210 927211 927212 927213Order No.: 12334 ENV.1 ENV.1 ENV.2 ENV.1 ENV.2 ENV.1 ENV.2 ENV.1 ENV.2

TP02 TP03 TP03 TP10 TP10 TP11 TP11 TP04 TP04SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 0.50 1.90

14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY IN-TRAN-C COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY

Determinand Accred. SOP Units LOD

ACM Type U 2192 N/A - - - - - - - - -

Asbestos Identification U 2192 % 0.001 No Asbestos Detected

No Asbestos Detected








ACM Detection Stage U 2192 N/A - - - - - - - - -Moisture N 2030 % 0.020 5.7 10 13 15 12 9.4 14 6.1 13pH U 2010 N/A 8.4 11.0 10.7 8.6 9.3 8.8 8.1 9.7 10.2pH (2.5:1) N 2010 N/A 8.5 10.8 10.3 8.6 9.4 8.9 8.2 9.6 10.2Magnesium (Water Soluble) N 2120 g/l 0.010 0.015 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.018 < 0.010 0.013 < 0.010 < 0.010Sulphate (2:1 Water Soluble) as SO4 U 2120 g/l 0.010 0.34 0.72 1.3 0.21 1.1 0.13 0.91 0.63 1.2Total Sulphur U 2175 % 0.010 0.20 0.26 0.52 0.23 0.30 0.13 0.30 0.30 0.40Chloride (Water Soluble) U 2220 g/l 0.010 0.068 0.064 0.015 0.011 0.026 0.020 0.049 0.030 0.043Nitrate (Water Soluble) N 2220 g/l 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Cyanide (Total) U 2300 mg/kg 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 1.3 < 0.50 3.0 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50Sulphate (Acid Soluble) U 2430 % 0.010 0.13 0.54 0.99 0.15 0.48 0.097 0.70 0.32 0.73Arsenic U 2450 mg/kg 1.0 37 27 26 45 29 32 13 27 26Boron N 2450 mg/kg 0.40 4.0 6.7 5.8 8.5 8.0 4.4 3.8 6.9 9.8Cadmium U 2450 mg/kg 0.10 0.72 0.85 1.2 1.9 1.2 1.1 0.30 1.0 1.4Chromium U 2450 mg/kg 1.0 32 20 28 33 23 16 13 18 26Copper U 2450 mg/kg 0.50 53 43 63 160 60 45 13 54 56Mercury U 2450 mg/kg 0.10 0.30 0.82 3.9 1.6 1.3 0.56 0.18 0.47 1.1Nickel U 2450 mg/kg 0.50 37 28 38 43 37 33 17 30 37Lead U 2450 mg/kg 0.50 180 170 1100 660 380 300 38 210 490Zinc U 2450 mg/kg 0.50 160 190 300 600 290 180 43 150 260Organic Matter U 2625 % 0.40 3.8 2.2 4.0 7.6 4.7 2.4 0.84 3.5 5.5Total TPH >C6-C40 U 2670 mg/kg 10 580 170 340 140 160 120 < 10 230 160Naphthalene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 2.4 1.8 0.72 0.33 0.29 < 0.10 0.90 0.17Acenaphthylene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.0 0.60 < 0.10 0.88 0.24Acenaphthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 1.3 0.47 0.64 0.41 0.69 < 0.10 0.21 0.45Fluorene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 4.7 0.52 2.8 2.2 0.16 < 0.10 0.91 0.56Phenanthrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 3.3 0.95 2.6 3.3 0.80 < 0.10 6.6 3.9Anthracene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 0.81 0.12 0.62 0.75 0.21 < 0.10 2.2 0.69Fluoranthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 3.4 1.1 4.1 5.1 1.3 < 0.10 8.4 6.0Pyrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 4.8 2.1 5.7 6.6 2.4 < 0.10 8.1 6.2Benzo[a]anthracene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 1.3 0.41 2.3 2.5 < 0.10 < 0.10 3.7 3.0Chrysene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 2.1 0.97 3.3 3.5 < 0.10 < 0.10 4.6 3.7Benzo[b]fluoranthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 2.6 < 0.10 5.5 4.1 < 0.10 < 0.10 3.9 3.5Benzo[k]fluoranthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 0.60 < 0.10 1.3 1.2 < 0.10 < 0.10 1.4 1.4Benzo[a]pyrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 1.6 < 0.10 2.7 2.5 0.13 < 0.10 3.3 3.1

Project: P19232 Dublin port OPW

Top Depth (m):

Asbestos Lab:

Chemtest Job No.:

Chemtest Sample ID.:

Client Sample Ref.:

Sample Type:

Date Sampled ($):

Sample Location:

Page 2 of 29

Results - Soil

Client: Priority Geotechnical Ltd 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616Quotation No.: Q17-09116 927205 927206 927207 927208 927209 927210 927211 927212 927213Order No.: 12334 ENV.1 ENV.1 ENV.2 ENV.1 ENV.2 ENV.1 ENV.2 ENV.1 ENV.2

TP02 TP03 TP03 TP10 TP10 TP11 TP11 TP04 TP04SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 0.50 1.90

14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019 14-Nov-2019COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY IN-TRAN-C COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY



Top Depth (m):

Asbestos Lab:

Chemtest Job No.:


Client Sample Ref.:

Sample Type:

Date Sampled ($):

Sample Location:

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 0.78 < 0.10 1.9 1.7 < 0.10 < 0.10 2.0 1.9Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 1.7 0.92 18 < 0.10 0.80 0.90Benzo[g,h,i]perylene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 1.7 < 0.10 2.0 1.9 23 < 0.10 2.1 2.1Coronene N 2700 mg/kg 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10Total Of 17 PAH's N 2700 mg/kg 2.0 < 2.0 32 9.6 40 38 48 < 2.0 50 38Total Phenols U 2920 mg/kg 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30

Page 3 of 29

Results - Soil

Client: Priority Geotechnical Ltd

Quotation No.: Q17-09116Order No.: 12334


ACM Type U 2192 N/A

Asbestos Identification U 2192 % 0.001

ACM Detection Stage U 2192 N/AMoisture N 2030 % 0.020pH U 2010 N/ApH (2.5:1) N 2010 N/AMagnesium (Water Soluble) N 2120 g/l 0.010Sulphate (2:1 Water Soluble) as SO4 U 2120 g/l 0.010Total Sulphur U 2175 % 0.010Chloride (Water Soluble) U 2220 g/l 0.010Nitrate (Water Soluble) N 2220 g/l 0.010Cyanide (Total) U 2300 mg/kg 0.50Sulphate (Acid Soluble) U 2430 % 0.010Arsenic U 2450 mg/kg 1.0Boron N 2450 mg/kg 0.40Cadmium U 2450 mg/kg 0.10Chromium U 2450 mg/kg 1.0Copper U 2450 mg/kg 0.50Mercury U 2450 mg/kg 0.10Nickel U 2450 mg/kg 0.50Lead U 2450 mg/kg 0.50Zinc U 2450 mg/kg 0.50Organic Matter U 2625 % 0.40Total TPH >C6-C40 U 2670 mg/kg 10Naphthalene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Acenaphthylene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Acenaphthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Fluorene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Phenanthrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Anthracene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Fluoranthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Pyrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[a]anthracene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Chrysene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[b]fluoranthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[k]fluoranthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[a]pyrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10


Top Depth (m):

Asbestos Lab:

Chemtest Job No.:


Client Sample Ref.:

Sample Type:

Date Sampled ($):

Sample Location:

19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616927214 927215 927216 927217 927218 927219 927220 927221 927222ENV.1 ENV.2 ENV.1 ENV.1 ENV.2 ENV.1 ENV.1 ENV.2 ENV.1TP05 TP05 TP08 TP07 TP07 TP9A TP1A TP1A TP1BSOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL0.50 2.00 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50

15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY

- - - - - - - - -No Asbestos

DetectedNo Asbestos

DetectedNo Asbestos

DetectedNo Asbestos

DetectedNo Asbestos

DetectedNo Asbestos

DetectedNo Asbestos

DetectedNo Asbestos

DetectedNo Asbestos

Detected- - - - - - - - -

5.7 12 7.9 7.5 11 6.6 14 24 9.18.7 8.1 9.6 9.8 10.4 9.0 8.5 8.1 8.28.8 8.1 9.5 9.8 10.4 9.0 8.6 8.1 8.2

0.010 0.026 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.034 0.0170.39 1.4 0.91 0.30 0.36 0.12 0.10 1.6 1.40.25 1.8 0.40 0.25 0.18 0.17 0.11 0.56 0.52

0.010 0.021 0.019 0.014 0.038 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.059 0.022< 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010< 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 < 0.50 1.5 1.8 < 0.500.13 7.7 0.48 0.19 0.24 0.11 0.091 0.36 0.6039 22 35 32 35 38 69 32 302.8 7.4 6.9 5.9 9.5 2.8 5.6 13 4.80.94 1.0 1.6 0.92 3.2 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.211 19 25 17 29 14 33 52 1128 46 130 62 360 33 110 150 140

0.25 0.87 0.95 0.49 1.3 0.27 0.78 1.3 0.4824 31 47 38 56 24 48 45 18

120 310 450 210 690 150 700 920 270140 220 370 170 990 170 500 650 2902.8 4.1 4.5 3.6 4.5 2.4 5.3 14 3.8140 160 320 420 360 230 290 310 740

< 0.10 0.32 0.44 0.42 0.42 0.31 0.95 3.4 1.1< 0.10 0.34 0.31 0.30 0.27 0.23 1.0 0.60 0.90< 0.10 0.84 0.39 0.42 < 0.10 0.28 0.24 1.2 1.2< 0.10 0.43 0.34 0.27 0.22 0.27 1.4 1.3 1.70.66 1.8 2.4 1.5 2.3 2.5 6.3 4.6 7.30.22 0.45 0.62 0.50 0.65 0.62 1.8 2.4 2.81.6 2.8 5.0 3.4 4.1 3.0 10 8.5 151.7 2.7 4.9 3.9 4.7 2.8 12 8.4 160.62 1.1 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.1 5.9 3.5 7.60.70 1.4 3.0 1.9 2.9 1.5 7.6 4.0 8.01.2 1.4 3.1 2.8 3.1 1.3 8.7 2.7 9.00.47 0.54 1.2 1.1 1.4 0.45 3.1 2.3 3.11.3 1.4 2.9 2.4 3.0 1.3 7.0 5.1 7.9

Page 4 of 29

Results - Soil





Top Depth (m):

Asbestos Lab:

Chemtest Job No.:


Client Sample Ref.:

Sample Type:

Date Sampled ($):

Sample Location:

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[g,h,i]perylene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Coronene N 2700 mg/kg 0.10Total Of 17 PAH's N 2700 mg/kg 2.0Total Phenols U 2920 mg/kg 0.30

19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616 19-38616927214 927215 927216 927217 927218 927219 927220 927221 927222ENV.1 ENV.2 ENV.1 ENV.1 ENV.2 ENV.1 ENV.1 ENV.2 ENV.1TP05 TP05 TP08 TP07 TP07 TP9A TP1A TP1A TP1BSOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL0.50 2.00 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50 0.50 2.00 0.50

15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019 15-Nov-2019COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY COVENTRY

0.76 0.87 1.9 1.8 3.0 1.3 4.7 3.1 4.30.57 0.69 1.1 0.81 2.4 1.4 2.2 2.1 3.50.99 0.94 2.2 1.9 3.3 1.3 5.2 3.9 5.5

< 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.10 < 0.1011 18 32 25 34 20 78 57 95

< 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30 < 0.30

Page 5 of 29

Results - Soil




ACM Type U 2192 N/A

Asbestos Identification U 2192 % 0.001

ACM Detection Stage U 2192 N/AMoisture N 2030 % 0.020pH U 2010 N/ApH (2.5:1) N 2010 N/AMagnesium (Water Soluble) N 2120 g/l 0.010Sulphate (2:1 Water Soluble) as SO4 U 2120 g/l 0.010Total Sulphur U 2175 % 0.010Chloride (Water Soluble) U 2220 g/l 0.010Nitrate (Water Soluble) N 2220 g/l 0.010Cyanide (Total) U 2300 mg/kg 0.50Sulphate (Acid Soluble) U 2430 % 0.010Arsenic U 2450 mg/kg 1.0Boron N 2450 mg/kg 0.40Cadmium U 2450 mg/kg 0.10Chromium U 2450 mg/kg 1.0Copper U 2450 mg/kg 0.50Mercury U 2450 mg/kg 0.10Nickel U 2450 mg/kg 0.50Lead U 2450 mg/kg 0.50Zinc U 2450 mg/kg 0.50Organic Matter U 2625 % 0.40Total TPH >C6-C40 U 2670 mg/kg 10Naphthalene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Acenaphthylene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Acenaphthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Fluorene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Phenanthrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Anthracene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Fluoranthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Pyrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[a]anthracene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Chrysene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[b]fluoranthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[k]fluoranthene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[a]pyrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10


Top Depth (m):

Asbestos Lab:

Chemtest Job No.:


Client Sample Ref.:

Sample Type:

Date Sampled ($):

Sample Location:

19-38616927223ENV.1TP09SOIL0.50

15-Nov-2019COVENTRY

-No Asbestos

Detected-

9.38.58.6

0.0150.810.30

0.052< 0.010< 0.500.39275.01.01552

0.4427

2501902.68300.100.740.19

< 0.101.10.423.03.71.82.62.71.02.8

Page 6 of 29

Results - Soil





Top Depth (m):

Asbestos Lab:

Chemtest Job No.:


Client Sample Ref.:

Sample Type:

Date Sampled ($):

Sample Location:

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Benzo[g,h,i]perylene U 2700 mg/kg 0.10Coronene N 2700 mg/kg 0.10Total Of 17 PAH's N 2700 mg/kg 2.0Total Phenols U 2920 mg/kg 0.30

19-38616927223ENV.1TP09SOIL0.50

15-Nov-2019COVENTRY

1.50.791.8

< 0.1024

< 0.30

Page 7 of 29

Results - Single Stage WAC

Chemtest Job No: Landflll Waste Acceptance Criteria

Chemtest Sample ID: Limits

Sample Ref: Stable, Non-

Sample ID: reactive

Sample Location: hazardous Hazardous

Top Depth(m): Inert Waste waste in non- Waste

Bottom Depth(m): Landfill hazardous Landfill

Sampling Date ($): Landfill

Determinand SOP Accred. Units

Total Organic Carbon 2625 U % 2.2 3 5 6Loss on Ignition -- -- 10Total BTEX 2760 U mg/kg < 0.010 6 -- --Total PCBs (7 Congeners) 2815 U mg/kg < 0.10 1 -- --TPH Total WAC (Mineral Oil) 2670 U mg/kg 580 500 -- --Total (of 17) PAHs 100 -- --pH -- >6 --Acid Neutralisation Capacity -- To evaluate To evaluateEluate Analysis 10:1 Eluate 10:1 Eluate

mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.011 0.11 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.024 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.024 0.24 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0037 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.014 0.14 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.049 0.49 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U 0.0058 0.058 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.012 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 6.0 60 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.32 3.2 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 71 710 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 210 2100 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 9.1 91 500 800 1000

Solid Information

Dry mass of test portion/kg 0.090Moisture (%) 5.7

Waste Acceptance Criteria

0.50

14-Nov-2019

Limit values for compliance leaching test

using BS EN 12457 at L/S 10 l/kg

Landfill WAC analysis (specifically leaching test results) must not be used for hazardous waste classification purposes. This analysis is only applicable

for hazardous waste landfill acceptance and does not give any indication as to whether a waste may be hazardous or non-hazardous.


19-38616927205ENV.1

TP02

Page 8 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg


Solid Information

Dry mass of test portion/kg 0.090Moisture (%) 10


0.50

14-Nov-2019






19-38616927206ENV.1

TP03

Page 9 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0078 0.078 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.045 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U 0.00023 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.024 0.24 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0031 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.013 0.13 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.038 0.38 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U 0.0043 0.043 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U 0.0021 0.021 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.12 1.2 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 2.8 28 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.19 1.9 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 780 7800 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 780 7800 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 4.8 < 50 500 800 1000

Solid Information



2.00

14-Nov-2019






19-38616927207ENV.2

TP03

Page 10 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0078 0.078 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.037 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.027 0.27 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0067 0.067 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.014 0.14 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.025 0.25 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U 0.0030 0.030 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U 0.011 0.11 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U 0.0015 0.015 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.018 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 1.3 13 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 1.4 14 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 74 740 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 190 1900 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 9.4 94 500 800 1000

Solid Information



0.50

14-Nov-2019






19-38616927208ENV.1

TP10

Page 11 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg


Solid Information



2.00

14-Nov-2019






19-38616927209ENV.2

TP10

Page 12 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0062 0.062 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.024 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.022 0.22 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0031 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.013 0.13 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.019 0.19 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U 0.0073 0.073 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U 0.0064 0.064 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U 0.0010 0.010 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.0069 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 27 270 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.73 7.3 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 35 350 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 120 1200 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 11 110 500 800 1000

Solid Information



0.50

14-Nov-2019






19-38616927210ENV.1

TP11

Page 13 of 29





Sample ID: reactive






Total Organic Carbon 2625 U % 0.49 3 5 6Loss on Ignition -- -- 10Total BTEX 2760 U mg/kg < 0.010 6 -- --Total PCBs (7 Congeners) 2815 U mg/kg < 0.10 1 -- --TPH Total WAC (Mineral Oil) 2670 U mg/kg < 10 500 -- --Total (of 17) PAHs 100 -- --pH -- >6 --Acid Neutralisation Capacity -- To evaluate To evaluateEluate Analysis 10:1 Eluate 10:1 Eluate

mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0037 < 0.050 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.021 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.022 0.22 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.0077 0.077 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.019 0.19 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.062 0.62 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 11 110 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.37 3.7 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 560 5600 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 630 6300 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 5.7 57 500 800 1000

Solid Information



2.00

14-Nov-2019






19-38616927211ENV.2

TP11

Page 14 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0081 0.081 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.018 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.025 0.25 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0095 0.095 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.013 0.13 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.018 0.18 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U 0.0018 0.018 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U 0.0044 0.044 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U 0.0029 0.029 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.014 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 4.5 45 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.27 2.7 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 74 740 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 200 2000 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 12 120 500 800 1000

Solid Information



0.50

14-Nov-2019






19-38616927212ENV.1

TP04

Page 15 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0059 0.059 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.013 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.020 0.20 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0028 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.014 0.14 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.015 0.15 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U 0.0023 0.023 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U 0.0011 0.011 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.018 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 4.3 43 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.39 3.9 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 160 1600 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 270 2700 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 12 120 500 800 1000

Solid Information



1.90

14-Nov-2019






19-38616927213ENV.2

TP04

Page 16 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0064 0.064 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.020 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.026 0.26 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0033 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.0063 0.063 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.021 0.21 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U 0.0025 0.025 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.0061 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 4.0 40 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.35 3.5 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 25 250 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 85 850 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 4.7 < 50 500 800 1000

Solid Information



0.50

15-Nov-2019






19-38616927214ENV.1

TP05

Page 17 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0054 0.054 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.040 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U 0.00019 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.029 0.29 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0055 0.055 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.014 0.14 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.020 0.20 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U 0.0030 0.030 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U 0.0012 0.012 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.22 2.2 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 3.5 35 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.17 1.7 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 1700 17000 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 1400 14000 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 8.2 82 500 800 1000

Solid Information



2.00

15-Nov-2019






19-38616927215ENV.2

TP05

Page 18 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0055 0.055 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.027 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U 0.0018 0.018 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.033 0.33 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0053 0.053 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.010 0.10 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.0097 0.097 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U 0.0021 0.021 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U 0.015 0.15 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.060 0.60 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 12 120 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.18 1.8 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 450 4500 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 530 5300 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 14 140 500 800 1000

Solid Information



0.50

15-Nov-2019






19-38616927216ENV.1

TP08

Page 19 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg


Solid Information



0.50

15-Nov-2019






19-38616927217ENV.1

TP07

Page 20 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0045 < 0.050 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.015 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.027 0.27 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0026 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.0051 0.051 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.012 0.12 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U 0.0014 0.014 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U 0.0011 0.011 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.012 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 4.8 48 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.13 1.3 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 44 440 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 120 1200 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 5.6 56 500 800 1000

Solid Information



2.00

15-Nov-2019






19-38616927218ENV.2

TP07

Page 21 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0045 < 0.050 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.0089 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.026 0.26 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0015 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.0037 < 0.050 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.013 0.13 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.0054 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U < 1.0 < 10 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.14 1.4 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 14 140 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 49 490 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 4.3 < 50 500 800 1000

Solid Information



0.50

15-Nov-2019






19-38616927219ENV.1

TP9A

Page 22 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0059 0.059 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.012 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.021 0.21 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0018 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.0045 < 0.050 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.012 0.12 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U 0.0014 0.014 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.0052 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U < 1.0 < 10 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.43 4.3 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 13 130 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 51 510 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 7.1 71 500 800 1000

Solid Information



0.50

15-Nov-2019






19-38616927220ENV.1

TP1A

Page 23 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0035 < 0.050 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.022 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.021 0.21 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0012 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.0085 0.085 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.013 0.13 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U 0.0030 0.030 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.017 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 1.5 15 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 3.2 32 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 110 1100 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 200 1900 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 5.4 54 500 800 1000

Solid Information



2.00

15-Nov-2019






19-38616927221ENV.2

TP1A

Page 24 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0060 0.060 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.019 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.017 0.17 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0023 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.0051 0.051 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.011 0.11 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U 0.0019 0.019 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.012 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U < 1.0 < 10 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.13 1.3 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 89 890 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 160 1600 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 5.6 56 500 800 1000

Solid Information



0.50

15-Nov-2019






19-38616927222ENV.1

TP1B

Page 25 of 29





Sample ID: reactive







mg/l mg/kg

Arsenic 1450 U 0.0047 < 0.050 0.5 2 25Barium 1450 U 0.012 < 0.50 20 100 300Cadmium 1450 U < 0.00010 < 0.010 0.04 1 5Chromium 1450 U 0.019 0.19 0.5 10 70Copper 1450 U 0.0016 < 0.050 2 50 100Mercury 1450 U < 0.00050 < 0.0050 0.01 0.2 2Molybdenum 1450 U 0.0038 < 0.050 0.5 10 30Nickel 1450 U 0.013 0.13 0.4 10 40Lead 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.5 10 50Antimony 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.06 0.7 5Selenium 1450 U < 0.0010 < 0.010 0.1 0.5 7Zinc 1450 U 0.0069 < 0.50 4 50 200Chloride 1220 U 5.7 57 800 15000 25000Fluoride 1220 U 0.11 1.1 10 150 500Sulphate 1220 U 42 420 1000 20000 50000Total Dissolved Solids 1020 N 100 1000 4000 60000 100000Phenol Index 1920 U < 0.030 < 0.30 1 - -Dissolved Organic Carbon 1610 U 6.9 69 500 800 1000

Solid Information



0.50

15-Nov-2019






19-38616927223ENV.1

TP09

Page 26 of 29

Test Methods

SOP Title Parameters included Method summary

1020Electrical Conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in Waters

Electrical Conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in Waters Conductivity Meter

1220 Anions, Alkalinity & Ammonium in Waters

Fluoride; Chloride; Nitrite; Nitrate; Total; Oxidisable Nitrogen (TON); Sulfate; Phosphate; Alkalinity; Ammonium

Automated colorimetric analysis using ‘Aquakem 600’ Discrete Analyser.

1450 Metals in Waters by ICP-MS

Metals, including: Antimony; Arsenic; Barium; Beryllium; Boron; Cadmium; Chromium; Cobalt; Copper; Lead; Manganese; Mercury; Molybdenum; Nickel; Selenium; Tin; Vanadium; Zinc

Filtration of samples followed by direct determination by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS).

1610 Total/Dissolved Organic Carbon in Waters Organic Carbon TOC Analyser using Catalytic Oxidation

1920 Phenols in Waters by HPLCPhenolic compounds including: Phenol, Cresols, Xylenols, Trimethylphenols Note: Chlorophenols are excluded.

Determination by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) using electrochemical detection.

2010 pH Value of Soils pH pH Meter

2030Moisture and Stone Content of Soils(Requirement of MCERTS)

Moisture contentDetermination of moisture content of soil as a percentage of its as received mass obtained at <37°C.

2120 Water Soluble Boron, Sulphate, Magnesium & Chromium Boron; Sulphate; Magnesium; Chromium Aqueous extraction / ICP-OES

2175 Total Sulphur in Soils Total SulphurDetermined by high temperature combustion under oxygen, using an Eltra elemental analyser.

2192 Asbestos Asbestos Polarised light microscopy / Gravimetry

2220 Water soluble Chloride in Soils ChlorideAqueous extraction and measuremernt by ‘Aquakem 600’ Discrete Analyser using ferric nitrate / mercuric thiocyanate.

2300 Cyanides & Thiocyanate in Soils

Free (or easy liberatable) Cyanide; total Cyanide; complex Cyanide; Thiocyanate

Allkaline extraction followed by colorimetric determination using Automated Flow Injection Analyser.

2430 Total Sulphate in soils Total Sulphate Acid digestion followed by determination of sulphate in extract by ICP-OES.

2450 Acid Soluble Metals in Soils

Metals, including: Arsenic; Barium; Beryllium; Cadmium; Chromium; Cobalt; Copper; Lead; Manganese; Mercury; Molybdenum; Nickel; Selenium; Vanadium; Zinc

Acid digestion followed by determination of metals in extract by ICP-MS.

2610 Loss on Ignition loss on ignition (LOI) Determination of the proportion by mass that is lost from a soil by ignition at 550°C.

2625 Total Organic Carbon in Soils Total organic Carbon (TOC)Determined by high temperature combustion under oxygen, using an Eltra elemental analyser.

2670 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) in Soils by GC-FID

TPH (C6–C40); optional carbon banding, e.g. 3-band – GRO, DRO & LRO*TPH C8–C40 Dichloromethane extraction / GC-FID

2700Speciated Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in Soil by GC-FID

Acenaphthene; Acenaphthylene; Anthracene; Benzo[a]Anthracene; Benzo[a]Pyrene; Benzo[b]Fluoranthene; Benzo[ghi]Perylene; Benzo[k]Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Dibenz[ah]Anthracene; Fluoranthene; Fluorene; Indeno[123cd]Pyrene; Naphthalene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene

Dichloromethane extraction / GC-FID (GC-FID detection is non-selective and can be subject to interference from co-eluting compounds)

2760Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Soils by Headspace GC-MS

Volatile organic compounds, including BTEX and halogenated Aliphatic/Aromatics.(cf. USEPA Method 8260)*please refer to UKAS schedule

Automated headspace gas chromatographic (GC) analysis of a soil sample, as received, with mass spectrometric (MS) detection of volatile organic compounds.

2815Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) ICES7Congeners in Soils by GC-MS

ICES7 PCB congeners Acetone/Hexane extraction / GC-MS

Page 27 of 29

Test Methods

SOP Title Parameters included Method summary

2920 Phenols in Soils by HPLC

Phenolic compounds including Resorcinol, Phenol, Methylphenols, Dimethylphenols, 1-Naphthol and TrimethylphenolsNote: chlorophenols are excluded.

60:40 methanol/water mixture extraction, followed by HPLC determination using electrochemical detection.

640 Characterisation of Waste (Leaching C10)

Waste material including soil, sludges and granular waste

ComplianceTest for Leaching of Granular Waste Material and Sludge

Page 28 of 29

Report Information

Key

U UKAS accreditedM MCERTS and UKAS accreditedN UnaccreditedS This analysis has been subcontracted to a UKAS accredited laboratory that is accredited for this analysis

SN This analysis has been subcontracted to a UKAS accredited laboratory that is not accredited for this analysisT This analysis has been subcontracted to an unaccredited laboratory

I/S Insufficient SampleU/S Unsuitable SampleN/E not evaluated

< "less than"> "greater than"$ This information has been supplied by the client and can affect the integrity of test data.

Comments or interpretations are beyond the scope of UKAS accreditationThe results relate only to the items testedUncertainty of measurement for the determinands tested are available upon request None of the results in this report have been recovery correctedAll results are expressed on a dry weight basisThe following tests were analysed on samples as received and the results subsequently corrected to a dry weight basis TPH, BTEX, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, PhenolsFor all other tests the samples were dried at < 37°C prior to analysisAll Asbestos testing is performed at the indicated laboratory Issue numbers are sequential starting with 1 all subsequent reports are incremented by 1

Sample Deviation Codes

A - Date of sampling not suppliedB - Sample age exceeds stability time (sampling to extraction)C - Sample not received in appropriate containersD - Broken ContainerE - Insufficient Sample (Applies to LOI in Trommel Fines Only)

Sample Retention and Disposal

All soil samples will be retained for a period of 45 days from the date of receiptAll water samples will be retained for 14 days from the date of receiptCharges may apply to extended sample storage

If you require extended retention of samples, please email your requirements to: [email protected]

Page 29 of 29

APPENDIX 8.3

LABORATORY RESULTS COMPARISON TABLES

AWN (2020)

Laboratory Test Results: SOIL Metals Suite

Client: OPW

Location: Dublin Port

AWN Ref: Brexit Infrastructure at Dublin Port EIAR

Ref: 19/11148

DepthLaboratory EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EELSample Type Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary PrimarySample DateDepth 0.5 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 1.9 0.5

Parameters Units MDL

LQM/CIEH S4ul for HHRA Residental Threshold at 1%

SOM (mg/kg)

LQM/CIEH S4ul for HHRA Commercial

Threshold at 1% SOM (mg/kg)

Arsenic mg/kg <0.5 40 640 37 27 26 45 29 32 13 27 26 39

Cadmium mg/kg <0.1 85 190 0.72 0.85 1.2 1.9 1.2 1.1 0.3 1 1.4 0.94

Chromium mg/kg <0.5 910 8600 32 20 28 33 23 16 13 18 26 11

Copper mg/kg <1 7100 68000 53 43 63 160 60 45 13 54 56 28

Lead mg/kg <5 nv nv 180 170 1100 660 380 300 38 210 490 120

Mercury mg/kg <0.1 1.2 25.8 0.3 0.82 3.9 1.6 1.3 0.56 0.18 0.47 1.1 0.25

Nickel mg/kg <0.7 180 980 37 28 38 43 37 33 17 30 37 24

Selenium mg/kg <1 430 12000 - - 0.021 0.015 - 0.01 - 0.029 0.011 -

Zinc mg/kg <5 40000 730000 160 190 300 600 290 180 43 150 260 140

Natural Moisture Content

% <0.1 nv nv 5.7 10 13 15 12 9.4 14 6.1 13 5.7

Key

Value exceeds the LQM Residential Threshold Value without homegrown produce

Underlined Value exceeds the LQM Commerical Threshold Value

MDL Method Detection Limit

- Less than the MDL

nv No Value nt Not Tested

TP03 TP03

14/11/2019 - 15/11/2019

Sample ID TP02 TP04 TP04

Details

TP10 TP10 TP11 TP11

Composite Samples

SOIL

TP05

Laboratory Test Results: SOIL Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Client: OPW



Ref: 19/11148

DepthLaboratory EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EELSample Type Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary PrimarySample Date


LQM/CIEH S4ul for HHRA Residental Threshold at 1%

SOM (mg/kg)



Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/kg 0.002 - - - - - - - - -

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether mg/kg 0.002 - - - - - - - - -

Chloromethane mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

Vinyl Chloride mg/kg 0.002 - - - - - - - - -

Bromomethane mg/kg 0.001 - - - - - - - - -

Chloroethane mg/kg 0.002 - - - - - - - - -

Trichlorofluoromethane mg/kg 0.002 - - - - - - - - -

1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1 DCE) mg/kg 0.006 - - - - - - - - -

C (DCM) mg/kg 0.03 - - - - - - - - -

trans-1-2-Dichloroethene mg/kg 0.003 0.0092 0.67 - - - - - - - - -

1,1-Dichloroethane mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

cis-1-2-Dichloroethene mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

2,2-Dichloropropane mg/kg 0.004 - - - - - - - - -

Bromochloromethane mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

Chloroform mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/kg 0.003 9 660 - - - - - - - - -

1,1-Dichloropropene mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

Carbon tetrachloride mg/kg 0.004 - - - - - - - - -

1,2-Dichloroethane mg/kg 0.004 - - - - - - - - -

Benzene mg/kg 0.003 0.38 27 - - - - - - - - -

Trichloroethene (TCE) mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -


Dibromomethane mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

Bromodichloromethane mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

cis-1-3-Dichloropropene mg/kg 0.004 - - - - - - - - -

Toluene mg/kg 0.003 869 869 - - - - - - - - -

trans-1-3-Dichloropropene mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

Tetrachloroethene (PCE) mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -


Dibromochloromethane mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

1,2-Dibromoethane mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

Chlorobenzene mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.003 83 518 - - - - - - - - -

p/m-Xylene mg/kg 0.005 79 576 - - - - - - - - -

o-Xylene mg/kg 0.003 88 478 - - - - - - - - -

Styrene mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

Bromoform mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

Isopropylbenzene mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

Bromobenzene mg/kg 0.002 - - - - - - - - -

1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/kg 0.004 - - - - - - - - -

Propylbenzene mg/kg 0.004 - - - - - - - - -

2-Chlorotoluene mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

4-Chlorotoluene mg/kg 0.003 - - - - - - - - -

tert-Butylbenzene mg/kg 0.005 - - - - - - - - -

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene mg/kg 0.006 - - - - - - - - -

sec-Butylbenzene mg/kg 0.004 - - - - - - - - -

4-Isopropyltoluene mg/kg 0.004 - - - - - - - - -

1,3-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 0.004 0.44 30 - - - - - - - - -

1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 0.004 61 4400 - - - - - - - - -

n-Butylbenzene mg/kg 0.004 nv nv - - - - - - - - -

1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 0.004 24 2000 - - - - - - - - -

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane mg/kg 0.004 nv nv - - - - - - - - -

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg 0.007 2.6 220 - - - - - - - - -

Hexachlorobutadiene mg/kg 0.004 0.32 31 - - - - - - - - -

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.027 - - - - - - - - -

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg 0.007 - - - - - - - - -

Key




- Less than the MDL


nv

nv nv

nv nv

nv nv

nv nv

SOIL

Composite SamplesDetails

Date

nv nv

nv nv

nv

Sample ID TP02 TP04 TP04TP03 TP11TP03 TP10 TP10 TP11

Laboratory Test Results: SOIL Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)

Client: OPW



Ref: 19/11148

Depth

Laboratory EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EEL EELSample Type Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary PrimarySample DateDepth 0.5 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 1.9 0.5


LQM/CIEH S4ul for HHRA Residental




Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 2.3 190 - 2.4 1.8 0.72 0.33 0.29 - 0.9 0.17 -

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 170 83000 - 1 1.2 1.7 1 0.6 - 0.88 0.24 -

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 210 8400 - 1.3 0.47 0.64 0.41 0.69 - 0.21 0.45 -

Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 170 63000 - 4.7 0.52 2.8 2.2 0.16 - 0.91 0.56 -

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 95 22000 - 3.3 0.95 2.6 3.3 0.8 - 6.6 3.9 0.66

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 2400 520000 - 0.81 0.12 0.62 0.75 0.21 - 2.2 0.69 0.22

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 280 23000 - 3.4 1.1 4.1 5.1 1.3 - 8.4 6 1.6

Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 620 54000 - 4.8 2.1 5.7 6.6 2.4 - 8.1 6.2 1.7

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 7.2 170 - 1.3 0.41 2.3 2.5 <0.10 - 3.7 3 0.62

Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 15 350 - 2.1 0.97 3.3 3.5 <0.10 - 4.6 3.7 0.7

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 2.2 35 - 1.6 - 2.7 2.5 0.13 - 3.3 3.1 1.3

Indeno(123cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 nv nv - 0.78 - 1.9 1.7 <0.10 - 2 1.9 0.76

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 0.24 3.5 - <0.10 - 1.7 0.92 18 - 0.8 0.9 0.57

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.1 320 3900 - 1.7 - 2 1.9 23 - 2.1 2.1 0.99

PAH 16 Total mg/kg 0.1 nv nv - 32 9.6 40 38 48 - 50 38 11

Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 2.6 44 - 2.6 - 5.5 4.1 - - 3.9 3.5 1.2

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 77 1200 - 0.6 - 1.3 1.2 - - 1.4 1.4 0.47

Key




- Less than the MDL


TP03 TP03

Details

Composite Samples

14/11/2019 - 15/11/2019

Sample ID TP02 TP04 TP04TP11 TP11TP10 TP10

SOIL

TP05

Collinstown Due Diligence - WAC Analysis

Sample Type SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOILSample ID TP02 TP03 TP03 TP10 TP10 TP11 TP11 TP04 TP04 TP05 TP05 TP08 TP07 TP07 TP9A TP1A TP1AMaterial Description SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOILSample Depth (m) Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite CompositeDate Sampled 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 14/11/2019 15/11/2019 15/11/2019 15/11/2019 15/11/2019 15/11/2019 15/11/2019 15/11/2019 15/11/2019Lab Reference 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616 19/38616

Proposed Disposal Category Category C1 Category C1 Category C1 Category C1 Category C1 Category C1 Category C1 Category A Category C1 Category A Category C1 Category C1 Category A Category A Category A Category C Category D

Parameters Units MDL Inert Waste Criteria Stable Non Reactive Hazardous Criteria

HydrocarbonsMineral Oil (C8 - C40) mg/kg <45 500 nc nc 580 170 340 140 160 120 <10 230 160 140 160 320 420 360 230 290 310

MTBEMTBE ug/kg <5 nc nc nc

TOCTotal Organic Carbon Note 1 % <0.02 3 5 6 2.2 1.3 2.3 4.4 2.7 1.4 0.49 2 3.2 1.6 2.4 2.6 2.1 2.6 1.4 3.1 7.9

Heavy Metal LeachatesAntimony mg/kg <0.02 0.06 0.7 5 0.058 0.031 0.043 0.11 0.093 0.064 <0.010 0.044 0.023 0.025 0.03 0.15 0.016 0.011 <0.010 <0.010 0.03Arsenic mg/kg <0.025 0.5 2 25 0.11 0.08 0.078 0.078 0.059 0.062 <0.050 0.081 0.059 0.064 0.054 0.055 0.084 <0.050 <0.050 0.059 <0.050Barium mg/kg <0.03 20 100 300 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50Cadmium mg/kg <0.005 0.04 1 5 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.018 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010Chromium mg/kg <0.015 0.5 10 70 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.2 0.26 0.29 0.33 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.21 0.21Copper mg/kg <0.07 2 50 100 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.067 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.095 <0.050 <0.050 0.055 0.053 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Mercury mg/kg <0.0001 0.01 0.2 2 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050Molybdenum mg/kg <0.02 0.5 10 30 0.14 0.093 0.13 0.14 0.092 0.13 0.077 0.13 0.14 0.063 0.14 0.1 0.066 0.051 <0.050 <0.050 0.085Nickel mg/kg <0.02 0.4 10 40 0.49 0.43 0.38 0.25 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.21 0.2 0.097 0.092 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.13Lead mg/kg <0.05 0.5 10 50 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.03 <0.010 0.073 <0.010 0.018 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.021 <0.010 0.014 <0.010 0.014 <0.010Selenium mg/kg <0.03 0.1 0.5 7 <0.010 <0.010 0.021 0.015 <0.010 0.01 <0.010 0.029 0.011 <0.010 0.012 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010Zinc mg/kg <0.03 4 50 200 <0.50 <0.50 1.2 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.62 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 2.2 0.6 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50

Other LeachatesChloride mg/kg <3 800 15000 25000 60 13 28 13 28 270 110 45 43 40 35 120 23 48 <10 <10 15Fluoride mg/kg <3 10 150 500 3.2 3.4 1.9 14 4.4 7.3 3.7 2.7 3.9 3.5 1.7 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 4.3 32Sulphate as SO4 mg/kg <0.5 1000 20000 50000 710 1100 7800 740 4000 350 5600 740 1600 250 17000 4500 320 440 140 130 1100Total Dissolved Solids mg/kg <100 4000 60000 100000 2100 2700 7800 1900 4500 1200 6300 2000 2700 850 14000 5300 1600 1200 490 510 1900Phenol mg/kg <0.1 1 - - <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/kg <20 500 800 1000 91 6.2 <50 94 68 110 57 120 120 <50 82 140 65 56 <50 71 54

MDL = Laboratory Method Detection Limitnc = No Criteria - = Not AnalysedTPH CWG = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Criteria Working GroupNAD = No Asbestos Detected

Waste Acceptance Criteria based on EU Council Decision 2003/33/EC

Category A - Inert

Category C1 - Stable Non Reactive

Catgeory C2 - Non-HazardousCatgeory C3 - Non-Hazardous

Category D - Hazardous

EU Council Decision 2003/33/EC Notes:

Note 2: If the waste exceeds the sulphate criterion for inert waste, it may still be considered as complying with the acceptance criteria if the leaching does not exceed either of the following values: 1500 mg/kg as C0 at L/S = 0.1 l/kg and 6000mg/kg at L/S = 10 l/kg. It will be necessary to use a percolation test to determine the limit value at L/S = 0.1 l/kg under initial equilibrium conditions, whereas the value at L/S = 10 l/kg may be determined either by a batch leaching test or by a percolation test under conditions approaching local equilibrium.

Note 3: The values for TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) for inert waste can be used alternatively to the values for Sulphate and Chloride.

Reported concentrations less than inert waste guidelines, which are based on waste acceptance criteria set out by the adopted EU Council Decision 2003/33/EC establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 and Annex II of directive 1999/31/EC (2002). * All results are considered Category A - Inert unless otherwise specified.

Reported concentrations greater than Category A and B but not in exceedance of the non-hazardous waste limit criteria as set out in EU Council Decision 2003/33/EC/ BS EN 12457-2 As in Category C1 but containing <0.001% w/w asbestos fibres

Note 1: If this TOC value for hazardous waste is not achieved, a higher limit value may be admitted by the competent authority, provided that the Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) vlaue of 1,000mg/kg is achieved at L/S = 10 l/kg, either at the material's own pH or at a pH value between 7.5 and 8.0.

As in Category C1 but containing <0.1% w/w asbestos fibres

Reported concentrations greater than Category C3 but not in exceedance of the hazardous waste limit criteria as set out in EU Council Decision 2003/33/EC

Chapter 9 – Air Quality & Climate AWN Consulting Limited _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brexit Infrastructure at Dublin Port EIAR Chapter 9, Page 1

9.0 AIR QUALITY & CLIMATE 9.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter assesses the likely air quality and climate impacts, if any, associated with the proposed development. A full description of the development can be found in Chapter 2.0 of this EIAR. 9.2 METHODOLOGY

9.2.1 Criteria for Rating of Impacts 9.2.1.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards In order to reduce the risk to health from poor air quality, national and European statutory bodies have set limit values in ambient air for a range of air pollutants. These limit values or “Air Quality Standards” are health or environmental-based levels for which additional factors may be considered. For example, natural background levels, environmental conditions and socio-economic factors may all play a part in the limit value which is set (see Table 9.1 and Appendix 9.1). Air quality significance criteria are assessed on the basis of compliance with the appropriate standards or limit values. The applicable standards in Ireland include the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011, which incorporate EU Directive 2008/50/EC, which has set limit values for a number of pollutants. The limit values for NO2, PM10, PM2.5, benzene and CO are relevant to this assessment as these are traffic related pollutants (see Table 9.1). Although the EU Air Quality Limit Values are the basis of legislation, other thresholds outlined by the EU Directives are used which are triggers for particular actions (see Appendix 9.1). Table 9.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Regulation Note 1 Limit Type Value

Nitrogen Dioxide

2008/50/EC

Hourly limit for protection of human health - not to be exceeded more than 18 times/year 200 μg/m3

Annual limit for protection of human health 40 μg/m3

Critical level for protection of vegetation 30 μg/m3 NO + NO2

Particulate Matter

(as PM10)

2008/50/EC

24-hour limit for protection of human health - not to be exceeded more than 35 times/year

50 μg/m3

Annual limit for protection of human health 40 μg/m3

Particulate Matter

(as PM2.5)

2008/50/EC Annual limit for protection of human health 25 μg/m3

Benzene 2008/50/EC Annual limit for protection of human health 5 μg/m3

Carbon Monoxide

2008/50/EC 8-hour limit (on a rolling basis) for protection of human health

10 mg /m3 (8.6 ppm)

Note 1 EU 2008/50/EC – Clean Air For Europe (CAFÉ) Directive replaces the previous Air Framework Directive (1996/30/EC) and daughter directives 1999/30/EC and 2000/69/EC


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


9.2.1.2 Dust Deposition Guidelines The concern from a health perspective is focussed on particles of dust which are less than 10 microns (PM10) and less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and the EU ambient air quality standards outlined in Table 9.1 have set ambient air quality limit values for PM10 and PM2.5. With regards to larger dust particles that can give rise to nuisance dust, there are no statutory guidelines regarding the maximum dust deposition levels that may be generated during the construction phase of a development in Ireland. Furthermore, no specific criteria have been stipulated for nuisance dust in respect of this development. With regard to dust deposition, the German TA-Luft standard for dust deposition (non-hazardous dust) (German VDI, 2002) sets a maximum permissible emission level for dust deposition of 350 mg/(m2*day) averaged over a one year period at any receptors outside the site boundary. Recommendations from the Department of the Environment, Health & Local Government (DOEHLG, 2004) apply the Bergerhoff limit of 350 mg/(m2*day) to the site boundary of quarries. This limit value can also be implemented with regard to dust impacts from construction of the proposed development. 9.2.1.3 Gothenburg Protocol In 1999, Ireland signed the Gothenburg Protocol to the 1979 UN Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. The initial objective of the Protocol was to control and reduce emissions of Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Ammonia (NH3). To achieve the initial targets Ireland was obliged, by 2010, to meet national emission ceilings of 42 kt for SO2 (67% below 2001 levels), 65 kt for NOX (52% reduction), 55 kt for VOCs (37% reduction) and 116 kt for NH3 (6% reduction). In 2012, the Gothenburg Protocol was revised to include national emission reduction commitments for the main air pollutants to be achieved in 2020 and beyond and to include emission reduction commitments for PM2.5. European Commission Directive 2001/81/EC, the National Emissions Ceiling Directive (NECD), prescribes the same emission limits as the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol. A National Programme for the progressive reduction of emissions of these four transboundary pollutants has been in place since April 2005 (DEHLG, 2004; 2007). The data available from the EPA in 2019 (EPA, 2019a) indicated that Ireland complied with the emissions ceilings for SO2 and NH3 but failed to comply with the ceiling for NOX and NMVOCs. Directive (EU) 2016/2284 “On the Reduction of National Emissions of Certain Atmospheric Pollutants and Amending Directive 2003/35/EC and Repealing Directive 2001/81/EC” was published in December 2016. The Directive will apply the 2010 NECD limits until 2020 and establish new national emission reduction commitments which will be applicable from 2020 and 2030 for SO2, NOX, NMVOC, NH3, PM2.5 and CH4. In relation to Ireland, 2020 emission targets are 25 kt for SO2 (65% on 2005 levels), 65 kt for NOX (49% reduction on 2005 levels), 43 kt for VOCs (25% reduction on 2005 levels), 108 kt for NH3 (1% reduction on 2005 levels) and 10 kt for PM2.5 (18% reduction on 2005 levels). In relation to 2030, Ireland’s emission targets are 85% below 2005 levels for SO2, 69% reduction for NOx, 32% reduction for VOCs, 5% reduction for NH3 and 41% reduction for PM2.5. 9.2.1.4 Climate Agreements Ireland ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in April 1994 and the Kyoto Protocol in principle in 1997 and formally in May 2002 (UNFCCC, 1997; UNFCCC, 1999). For the purposes of the EU burden sharing agreement under Article 4 of the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, in December 2012, Ireland agreed to limit the net growth of the six Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) under the Kyoto Protocol to 20% below the 2005 level over the period 2013 to 2020 (UNFCCC, 2012).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


The UNFCCC is continuing detailed negotiations in relation to GHGs reductions and in relation to technical issues such as Emission Trading and burden sharing. The most recent Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP25) took place in Madrid, Spain from the 2nd to the 13th December 2019 and focussed on advancing the implementation of the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement was established at COP21 in Paris in 2015 and is an important milestone in terms of international climate change agreements. The Paris Agreement is currently ratified by 187 nations and has a stated aim of limiting global temperature increases to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels with efforts to limit this rise to 1.5°C. The aim is to limit global GHG emissions to 40 gigatonnes as soon as possible whilst acknowledging that peaking of GHG emissions will take longer for developing countries. Contributions to greenhouse gas emissions will be based on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) which will form the foundation for climate action post 2020. Significant progress was also made on elevating adaption onto the same level as action to cut and curb emissions. The EU, in October 2014, agreed the “2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework”(EU 2014). The European Council endorsed a binding EU target of at least a 40% domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990. The target will be delivered collectively by the EU in the most cost-effective manner possible, with the reductions in the ETS and non-ETS sectors amounting to 43% and 30% by 2030 compared to 2005, respectively. Secondly, it was agreed that all Member States will participate in this effort, balancing considerations of fairness and solidarity. The policy also outlines, under “Renewables and Energy Efficiency”, an EU binding target of at least 27% for the share of renewable energy consumed in the EU in 2030. The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (Government of Ireland, 2015) was developed to provide for the approval of plans by the government in relation to climate change and to enable achievement of the national transition objective of achieving decarbonisation by 2050. Under this Act the National Mitigation Plan (DCCAE, 2017) and the National Adaptation Framework (DCCAE, 2018) were established. The National Mitigation Plan sets out objectives for achieving a reduction in GHG emissions and transitioning the four key sectors (power generation, built environment, transport and agriculture) to decarbonisation, while the National Adaptation Framework aims to reduce the vulnerability of the country to the negative effects of climate change and to avail of positive impacts. With the implementation of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 Ireland has implemented a number of strategies to reduce GHG emissions in future years, with a number of other strategies currently being proposed. 9.2.2 Construction Phase The Institute of Air Quality Management in the UK (IAQM) guidelines (2014) outline an assessment method for predicting the impact of dust emissions from demolition, earthworks, construction and haulage activities based on the scale & nature of the works and the sensitivity of the area to dust impacts. The IAQM methodology has been applied to the construction phase of this development in order to predict the likely magnitude of the dust impacts in the absence of mitigation measures. 9.2.3 Operational Phase 9.2.3.1 Local Air Quality The air quality assessment has been carried out following procedures described in the publications by the EPA (2015; 2017) and using the methodology outlined in the guidance documents published by the UK Highways Agency (2019) and UK Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2016; 2018). Transport Infrastructure Ireland


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


(TII) reference the use of the UK Highways Agency and DEFRA guidance and methodology in their document Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes (2011). This approach is considered best practice in the absence of Irish guidance and can be applied to any development that causes a change in traffic. In 2019 the UK Highways Agency DMRB air quality guidance was revised with LA 105 Air Quality replacing a number of key pieces of guidance (HA 207/07, IAN 170/12, IAN 174/13, IAN 175/13, part of IAN 185/15). This revised document outlines a number of changes for air quality assessments in relation to road schemes, but can be applied to any development that causes a change in traffic. Previously the DMRB air quality spreadsheet was used for the majority of assessments in Ireland with detailed modelling only required if this screening tool indicated compliance issues with the EU air quality standards. Guidance from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII, 2011) recommends the use of the UK Highways Agency DMRB spreadsheet tool for assessing the air quality impacts from road schemes. However, the DMRB spreadsheet tool was last revised in 2007 and accounts for modelled years up to 2025. Vehicle emission standards up to Euro V are included but since 2017, Euro 6d standards are applicable for the new fleet. In addition, the model does not account for electric or hybrid vehicle use. Therefore, this a somewhat outdated assessment tool. The LA 105 guidance document states that the DMRB spreadsheet tool may still be used for simple air quality assessments where there is unlikely to be a breach of the air quality standards. Due to its use of a “dirtier” fleet, vehicle emissions would be considered to be higher than more modern models and therefore any results will be conservative in nature and will provide a worst-case assessment. The 2019 UK Highways Agency DMRB air quality revised guidance LA 105 Air Quality states that modelling should be conducted for NO2 for the base, opening and design years for both the do minimum (do nothing) and do something scenarios. Modelling of PM10 is only required for the base year to demonstrate that the air quality limit values in relation to PM10 are not breached. Where the air quality modelling indicates exceedances of the PM10 air quality limits in the base year then PM10 should be included in the air quality model in the do minimum and do something scenarios. Modelling of PM2.5 is not required as there are currently no issues with compliance with regard to this pollutant. The modelling of PM10 can be used to show that the project does not impact on the PM2.5 limit value as if compliance with the PM10 limit is achieved then compliance with the PM2.5 limit will also be achieved. Historically modelling of carbon monoxide (CO) and benzene (Bz) was required however, this is no longer needed as concentrations of these pollutants have been monitored to be significantly below their air quality limit values in recent years, even in urban centres (EPA, 2019b). The key pollutant reviewed in this assessment is NO2. Concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 have also been modelled to indicate that there are no potential air quality compliance issues associated with the proposed development. Modelling of operational NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations has been conducted for the do nothing and do something scenarios for the opening year (2021) and design year (2036). The TII guidance (2011) states that the assessment must progress to detailed modelling if:

• Concentrations exceed 90% of the air quality limit values when assessed by the screening method; or

• Sensitive receptors exist within 50m of a complex road layout (e.g. grade separated junctions, hills etc).

The UK Highways Agency guidance LA 150 (2019) states the following scoping criteria shall be used to determine whether the air quality impacts of a project can be scoped out or require an assessment based on the changes between the do something traffic (with the project) compared to the do minimum traffic (without the project):


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


• Annual average daily traffic (AADT) changes by 1,000 or more;

• Heavy duty vehicle (HDV) AADT changes by 200 or more;

• A change in speed band;

• A change in carriageway alignment by 5m or greater. The above scoping criteria has been used in the current assessment to determine the road links required for inclusion in the modelling assessment. Sensitive receptors within 200m of impacted road links are included within the modelling assessment. Pollutant concentrations are calculated at these sensitive receptor locations to determine the impact of the proposed scheme in terms of air quality. The guidance states a proportionate number of representative receptors which are located in areas which will experience the highest concentrations or greatest improvements as a result of the proposed development are to be included in the modelling (UK Highways Agency, 2019). The TII guidance (2011) defines sensitive receptor locations as: residential housing, schools, hospitals, places of worship, sports centres and shopping areas, i.e. locations where members of the public are likely to be regularly present. There are minimal receptors within the port area, none of which are considered high sensitivity. A total of four receptors (R1 – R4) were included in the modelling assessment and are detailed in Figure 9.1, these are medium to low sensitivity areas in terms of air quality (offices/shop/warehousing). The following model inputs are required to complete the assessment using the DMRB spreadsheet tool: road layouts, receptor locations, annual average daily traffic movements (AADT), percentage heavy goods vehicles (%HGV), annual average traffic speeds and background concentrations. Using this input data the model predicts the road traffic contribution to ambient ground level concentrations at the worst-case sensitive receptors using generic meteorological data. The DMRB model uses conservative emission factors, the formulae for which are outlined in the DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 1 – HA 207/07 Annexes B3 and B4. These worst-case road contributions are then added to the existing background concentrations to give the worst-case predicted ambient concentrations. The worst-case ambient concentrations are then compared with the relevant ambient air quality standards to assess the compliance of the proposed development with these ambient air quality standards. The TII document Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes (2011) details a methodology for determining air quality impact significance criteria for road schemes which can be applied to any project that causes a change in traffic. The degree of impact is determined based on both the absolute and relative impact of the proposed development. The TII significance criteria have been adopted for the proposed development and are detailed in Appendix 9.2 Table A9.2.1 to Table A9.2.3. The significance criteria are based on NO2 and PM10 as these pollutants are most likely to exceed the annual mean limit values (40 µg/m3). However, the criteria have also been applied to the predicted annual PM2.5 concentrations for the purposes of this assessment. Conversion of NOx to NO2 NOX (NO + NO2) is emitted by vehicles exhausts. The majority of emissions are in the form of NO, however, with greater diesel vehicles and some regenerative particle traps on HGV’s the proportion of NOX emitted as NO2, rather than NO is increasing. With the correct conditions (presence of sunlight and O3) emissions in the form of NO, have the potential to be converted to NO2. Transport Infrastructure Ireland states the recommended method for the conversion of NOx to NO2 in “Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes” (2011). The TII guidelines recommend the use of DEFRAs NOx to NO2 calculator (2019) which was originally published in 2009 and is currently on version


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


7.1. This calculator (which can be downloaded in the form of an excel spreadsheet) accounts for the predicted availability of O3 and proportion of NOx emitted as NO for each local authority across the UK. O3 is a regional pollutant and therefore concentrations do not vary in the same way as concentrations of NO2 or PM10. The calculator includes Local Authorities in Northern Ireland and the TII guidance recommends the use of ‘Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon’ as the choice for local authority when using the calculator. The choice of Craigavon provides the most suitable relationship between NO2 and NOx for Ireland. The “All Other-Urban UK Traffic” traffic mix option was used. Traffic Data Used in Modelling Assessment Traffic flow information was obtained from CST Group for the purposes of this assessment. Data for the Do Nothing and Do Something scenarios for the opening year 2021 and design year 2036 were provided. The proposed development will not change traffic flows entering the port but will redistribute the traffic within the port. Traffic has been modelled at the speed limit of 50kph. The traffic data is detailed in Table 9.2 with the %HGV shown in parenthesis beside the AADT. Only road links that met the DMRB scoping criteria outlined in Section 9.2.3.1 and that were within 200m of receptors were included in the modelling assessment. Background concentrations have been included as per Section 9.3.3 of this chapter based on available EPA background monitoring data (EPA, 2019b). This traffic data has also been used in the operational stage climate impact assessment. Table 9.2 Traffic Data Used in Modelling Assessment

Road Name Speed (kph)

Do Nothing Do Something Do Nothing Do Something

2021 2036 Tolka Quay Rd 50 8,830 (63%) 10,720 (69%) 13,860 (63%) 16,830 (69%)

Bond D. Ext. (S) 50 2,820 (63%) 4,320 (74%) 4,430 (63%) 6,780 (74%) Bond Dr Ext. (N) 50 4,450 (50%) 5,900 (63%) 7,000 (50%) 9,260 (63%) Bond Dr Ext. (E) 50 2,200 (52%) 2,900 (63%) 3,500 (52%) 4,550 (63%) Bond Dr Ext. (W) 50 2,200 (52%) 2,900 (63%) 3,500 (52%) 4,550 (63%)


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 9.1 Approximate Location of Receptors used in Local Air Quality Modelling Assessment 9.2.3.2 Air Quality Impact on Ecological Sites For routes that pass within 2 km of a designated area of conservation (either Irish or European designation) the TII requires consultation with an ecologist (TII, 2011). However, in practice the potential for impact to an ecological site is highest within 200 m of the proposed scheme and when significant changes in AADT (>5%) occur. Only sites that are sensitive to nitrogen deposition should be included in the assessment. Transport Infrastructure Ireland’s Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes (2009) and Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland – Guidance for Planning Authorities (DEHLG, 2010) provide details regarding the legal protection of designated conservation areas. If both of the following assessment criteria are met, an assessment of the potential for impact due to nitrogen deposition should be conducted:

• A designated area of conservation is located within 200 m of the proposed development; and

• A significant change in AADT flows (>5%) will occur. The South Dublin Bay and River Tolka SPA (site code 004024) is directly adjacent to the proposed development. However, this site is designated for the protection of various bird species and as such is not sensitive to nitrogen deposition. In addition the UK Highways Agency (2019) states that a detailed assessment does not need to be conducted for areas that have been designated for geological features or watercourses. Therefore, a detailed NOX assessment has been screened out based on this criteria.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


9.2.3.3 Climate Assessment The UK Highways Agency has published an updated DMRB guidance document in relation to climate impact assessments LA 114 Climate (UK Highways Agency 2019). The following scoping criteria are used to determine whether a detailed climate assessment is required for a proposed project during the operational stage:

• During operation, will roads meet or exceed any of the following criteria? a) a change of more than 10% in AADT; b) a change of more than 10% to the number of heavy duty vehicles; and c) a change in daily average speed of more than 20 km/hr.

If the answer to any of the above criteria is ‘yes’ then further assessment is required. There are several road links that will experience an increase of 10% or more in the AADT and a change in HGV of 10% or greater. These road links have been included in the detailed climate assessment (see Table 9.2). The impact of the proposed development at a national / international level has been determined using the procedures given by Transport Infrastructure Ireland (2011) and the methodology provided in Annex D in the UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (UK Highways Agency, 2007). The assessment focused on determining the resulting change in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). The Annex provides a method for the prediction of the regional impact of emissions of these pollutants from road schemes and can be applied to any project that causes a change in traffic. The inputs to the air dispersion model consist of information on road link lengths, AADT movements and annual average traffic speeds (see Table 9.2). 9.3 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

9.3.1 Meteorological Data A key factor in assessing temporal and spatial variations in air quality is the prevailing meteorological conditions. Depending on wind speed and direction, individual receptors may experience very significant variations in pollutant levels under the same source strength (i.e. traffic levels). Wind is of key importance in dispersing air pollutants and for ground level sources, such as traffic emissions, pollutant concentrations are generally inversely related to wind speed. Thus, concentrations of pollutants derived from traffic sources will generally be greatest under very calm conditions and low wind speeds when the movement of air is restricted. In relation to PM10, the situation is more complex due to the range of sources of this pollutant. Smaller particles (less than PM2.5) from traffic sources will be dispersed more rapidly at higher wind speeds. However, fugitive emissions of coarse particles (PM2.5 - PM10) will actually increase at higher wind speeds. Thus, measured levels of PM10 will be a non-linear function of wind speed. The nearest representative weather station collating detailed weather records is Dublin Airport, which is located approximately 8 km north of the site. Dublin Airport met data has been examined to identify the prevailing wind direction and average wind speeds over a five-year period (see Figure 9.1). For data collated during five representative years (2015 – 2019) the predominant wind direction is westerly to south-westerly with a mean wind speed of 5.3 m/s over the period 2005 – 2019 (Met Eireann, 2020).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 9.1 Dublin Airport Windrose 2015 – 2019 9.3.2 Trends in Air Quality Air quality is variable and subject to both significant spatial and temporal variation. In relation to spatial variations in air quality, concentrations generally fall significantly with distance from major road sources (WHO, 2006). Thus, residential exposure is determined by the location of sensitive receptors relative to major roads sources in the area. Temporally, air quality can vary significantly by orders of magnitude due to changes in traffic volumes, meteorological conditions and wind direction. In assessing baseline air quality, two tools are generally used: ambient air monitoring and air dispersion modelling. In order to adequately characterise the current baseline environment through monitoring, comprehensive measurements would be required at a number of key receptors for PM10, NO2 and benzene. In addition, two of the key pollutants identified in the scoping study (PM10 and NO2) have limit values which require assessment over time periods varying from one hour to one year. Thus, continuous monitoring over at least a one-year period at a number of locations would be necessary in order to fully determine compliance for these pollutants. Although this study would provide information on current air quality it would not be able to provide predictive information on baseline conditions (UK DETR, 1998), which are the conditions which prevail just prior to opening in the absence of the development. Hence the impacts of the development were fully assessed by air dispersion modelling (UK DETR, 1998) which is the most practical tool for this purpose. The baseline environment has also been assessed using modelling, since the use of the same predictive technique for both the ‘do-nothing’ and ‘do-something’ scenario will minimise errors and allow an accurate determination of the relative impact of the development.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


9.3.3 Baseline Air Quality Air quality monitoring programs have been undertaken in recent years by the EPA. The most recent annual report on air quality in Ireland is “Air Quality In Ireland 2018” (EPA, 2019b). The EPA website details the range and scope of monitoring undertaken throughout Ireland and provides both monitoring data and the results of previous air quality assessments (EPA, 2019b). As part of the implementation of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 (S.I. No. 271 of 2002), four air quality zones have been defined in Ireland for air quality management and assessment purposes (EPA, 2019b). Dublin is defined as Zone A and Cork as Zone B. Zone C is composed of 23 towns with a population of greater than 15,000. The remainder of the country, which represents rural Ireland but also includes all towns with a population of less than 15,000, is defined as Zone D. In terms of air monitoring and assessment, the proposed development site is within Zone A (EPA, 2019b) . The long-term monitoring data has been used to determine background concentrations for the key pollutants in the region of the proposed development. The background concentration accounts for all non-traffic derived emissions (e.g. natural sources, industry, home heating etc.). Long-term NO2 monitoring was carried out at the Zone A urban background locations of Rathmines, Dún Laoighaire, Swords and Ballyfermot and the urban traffic location of Ringsend for the period 2014 - 2018 (EPA, 2019b). Long term average concentrations are significantly below the annual average limit of 40 µg/m3, average results range from 13 – 20 µg/m3 for the suburban background locations. The NO2 annual average for this five year period suggests an upper average limit of no more than 18 µg/m3 (Table 9.3) for the urban background locations. The station at Ringsend is approximately 1.5 km from the proposed development site and would experience similar background concentrations of NO2 to the proposed development. Based on the above information a conservative estimate of the current background NO2 concentration for the region of the proposed development is 25 µg/m3. Table 9.3 Trends in Zone A Air Quality – Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Station Averaging Period Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Ringsend Annual Mean NO2 (µg/m3) - - - 22 27

99.8th%ile 1-hr NO2 (µg/m3) - - - - 86.7

Rathmines Annual Mean NO2 (µg/m3) 17 18 20 17 20

99.8th%ile 1-hr NO2 (µg/m3) 105 105 88 86 87

Ballyfermot Annual Mean NO2 (µg/m3) 16 16 17 17 17

99.8th%ile 1-hr NO2 (µg/m3) 93 127 90 112 101

Dun Laoghaire Annual Mean NO2 (µg/m3) 15 16 19 17 19

99.8th%ile 1-hr NO2 (µg/m3) 86 91 105 101 91

Swords Annual Mean NO2 (µg/m3) 14 13 16 14 16

99.8th%ile 1-hr NO2 (µg/m3) 137 93 96 79 85

Continuous PM10 monitoring was carried out at five Zone A locations from 2014 - 2018, Winetavern Street, Rathmines, Dún Laoghaire, Tallaght and Phoenix Park. These showed an upper average limit of no more than 15 µg/m3 (Table 9.4). Levels range from 9 - 15 µg/m3 over the five year period with at most 2 exceedances (in Rathmines) of the 24-hour limit value of 50 µg/m3 in 2018 (35 exceedances are permitted per year) (EPA,2019b). Based on


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


the EPA data, a conservative estimate of the current background PM10 concentration in the region of the proposed development is 20 µg/m3. Table 9.4 Trends in Zone A Air Quality – PM10

Station Averaging Period Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Ringsend Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m3) - - - 13 20

90th %ile 24-hr PM10 (µg/m3) - - - - 35

Rathmines Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m3) 14 15 15 13 15

90th %ile 24-hr PM10 (µg/m3) 25 28 28 24 25

Dún Laoghaire Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m3) 14 13 13 12 13

90th %ile 24-hr PM10 (µg/m3) 23 22 22 21 21

Tallaght Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m3) 15 14 14 12 15

90th %ile 24-hr PM10 (µg/m3) 26 26 28 22 24

Phoenix Park Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m3) 12 12 11 9 11

90th %ile 24-hr PM10 (µg/m3) 20 20 20 16 18

Ballyfermot Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m3) 11 12 11 12 16

90th %ile 24-hr PM10 (µg/m3) 20 22 21 21 24

Average PM2.5 levels in Rathmines over the period 2014 - 2018 ranged from 9 - 10 μg/m3, with a PM2.5/PM10 ratio ranging from 0.64 – 0.68 (EPA, 2019b). Based on this information, a conservative ratio of 0.7 was used to generate an existing PM2.5 concentration in the region of the development of 10.5 μg/m3. In terms of benzene, the annual mean concentration in the Zone A monitoring location of Rathmines for 2019 was 0.3 µg/m3. This is well below the limit value of 5 µg/m3. Between 2014 - 2018 annual mean concentrations at the Zone A site ranged from 0.3 – 1.01 µg/m3. Based on this EPA data a conservative estimate of the current background benzene concentration in the region of the proposed development is 1.0 µg/m3. With regard to CO, annual averages at the Zone A, locations of Winetavern Street and Coleraine Street over the 2014 – 2018 period are low, peaking at 0.5 mg/m3 which is well below the limit value of 10 mg/m3 (EPA, 2019b). Based on this EPA data, a conservative estimate of the current background CO concentration in the region of the proposed development is 0.5 mg/m3. Background concentrations for the Opening Year 2021 and Design Year of 2036 have been calculated for the local air quality assessment. These have used current estimated background concentrations and the year on year reduction factors provided by Transport Infrastructure Ireland in the Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes (2011) and the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs LAQM.TG(16) (2018). 9.3.4 Climate Baseline Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases in Ireland included in the EU 2020 strategy are outlined in the most recent review by the EPA which details emissions up to 2017 (EPA, 2019c). Agriculture was the largest contributor in 2017 at 33.3% of the total, with the transport sector accounting for 19.8% of emissions of CO2 (EPA, 2019c). 2017 is the fifth year where compliance with the European Union’s Effort Sharing Decision “EU 2020 Strategy” (Decision 406/2009/EC) was assessed. Ireland had total GHG emissions of 60.74 Mt CO2eq in 2017. This is 2.94 Mt CO2eq higher than Ireland’s annual


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


target for emissions in 2017 (EPA, 2019c). Emissions are predicted to continue to exceed the targets in future years, therefore, reduction measures are required in all sectors. The EPA 2019 GHG Emissions Projections Report for 2018 – 2040 (EPA 2019d) notes that there is a long-term projected decrease in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of inclusion of new climate mitigation policies and measures that formed part of the National Development Plan (NDP) which was published in 2018. Implementation of these are classed as a “With Additional Measures scenario” for future scenarios. A change from generating electricity using coal and peat to wind power and diesel vehicle engines to electric vehicle engines are envisaged under this scenario. While emissions are projected to decrease in these areas, emissions from agriculture are projected to grow steadily due to an increase in animal numbers. However, over the period 2013 – 2020 Ireland is projected to cumulatively exceed its compliance obligations with the EU’s Effort Sharing Decision (Decision No. 406/2009/EC) 2020 targets by approximately 10 Mt CO2eq under the With Existing Measures scenario and 9 Mt CO2eq under the With Additional Measures scenario (EPA, 2019d). The Dublin City Council Climate Change Action Plan published in 2019 (Dublin City Council and Codema, 2019) outlines a number of goals and plans to prepare for and adapt to climate change. There are five key action areas within the plan: energy and buildings, transport, flood resilience, nature-based solutions and resource management. Some of the measures promoted within the Action Plan under the 5 key areas involve building retrofits, energy master-planning, development of segregated cycle routes, the promotion of bike share schemes, development of flood resilient designs, promotion of the use of green infrastructure and water conservation initiatives. The implementation of these measures will enable the Dublin City Council area to adapt to climate change and will assist in bringing Ireland closer to achieving its climate related targets in future years. New developments need to be cognisant of the Action Plan and incorporate climate friendly designs and measures where possible. 9.3.5 Sensitivity of the Receiving Environment In line with the IAQM guidance document (2014) prior to assessing the impact of dust from a proposed development the sensitivity of the area must first be assessed as outlined below. Both receptor sensitivity and proximity to proposed works areas are taken into consideration. For the purposes of this assessment, high sensitivity receptors are regarded as residential properties where people are likely to spend the majority of their time. Commercial properties and places of work are regarded as medium sensitivity while low sensitivity receptors are places where people are present for short periods or do not expect a high level of amenity. In terms of receptor sensitivity to dust soiling, there are no high sensitivity receptors within 50 metres of the proposed works. There are however, less than 10 medium sensitivity receptors within 50m of the proposed works. Based on the IAQM criteria outlined in Table 9.5, the worst case sensitivity of the area to dust soiling is considered to be low.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table 9.5 Sensitivity of the Area to Dust Soiling Effects on People and Property

Receptor Sensitivity

Number Of Receptors

Distance from source (m)

<20 <50 <100 <350

High

>100 High High Medium Low

10-100 High Medium Low Low

1-10 Medium Low Low Low

Medium >1 Medium Low Low Low

Low >1 Low Low Low Low

In addition to sensitivity to dust soiling, the IAQM guidelines also outline the assessment criteria for determining the sensitivity of the area to human health impacts. The criteria take into consideration the current annual mean PM10 concentration, receptor sensitivity based on type and the number of receptors affected within various distance bands from the construction works. A conservative estimate of the current annual mean PM10 concentration in the vicinity of the proposed development is estimated to be 15 µg/m3 and there are no high sensitivity receptors located within 50m of the proposed works. There are less than 10 medium sensitivity receptors located within 50 m of the proposed works. Based on the IAQM criteria outlined in Table 9.6, the worst case sensitivity of the area to human health impacts is considered to low. Table 9.6 Sensitivity of the Area to Human Health Impacts

Receptor Sensitivity

Annual Mean PM10 Concentration

Number Of Receptors

Distance from source (m)

<20 <50 <100 <200

High < 24 µg/m3

>100 Medium Low Low Low

10-100 Low Low Low Low


Medium < 24 µg/m3 >10 Low Low Low Low


Low < 24 µg/m3 >1 Low Low Low Low

The IAQM guidelines also outline the assessment criteria for determining the sensitivity of the area to ecological impacts from dust. The criteria take into consideration whether the receiving environment is classified as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a Special Protected Area (SPA), a Natural Heritage Area (NHA) or a proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA) as dictated by the EU Habitats Directive or whether the site is a local nature reserve or home to a sensitive plant or animal species. As the construction will occur directly adjacent to South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA and North Dublin Bay pNHA, the worst-case sensitivity of the area to ecological impacts is considered to be high. 9.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is described in Chapter 2.0. When considering a development of this nature, the potential air quality and climate impact on the surroundings must be considered for each of two distinct stages:

• Construction phase, and;

• Operational phase.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


9.4.1 Construction Phase The key elements of construction of the proposed development with potential for air quality and climate impacts are:

• Potential fugitive dust emissions from general site preparation and construction activities;

• Potential fugitive dust emissions from trucks associated with construction;

• Engine emissions from construction vehicles and machinery. The construction phase impacts will be short-term in duration. 9.4.2 Operational Phase The key elements of operation of the proposed development with potential for air quality and climate impacts are:

• A change in traffic flows on road links nearby the proposed development. The potential sources of air and climatic emissions during the operational phase of the proposed development are deemed long-term. 9.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

9.5.1 Do Nothing Scenario The Do Nothing scenario includes retention of the current site without the proposed development works. In this scenario, ambient air quality at the site will remain as per the baseline and will change in accordance with trends within the wider area (including influences from potential new developments in the surrounding area, changes in road traffic, etc). The Do Nothing Scenario for the operational stage is assessed within Section 9.5.3.1. 9.5.2 Construction Phase 9.5.2.1 Air Quality The greatest potential impact on air quality during the construction phase of the proposed development is from construction dust emissions and the potential for nuisance dust. While construction dust tends to be deposited within 200 m of a construction site, the majority of the deposition occurs within the first 50 m. The extent of any dust generation depends on the nature of the dust (soils, peat, sands, gravels, silts etc.) and the nature of the construction activity. In addition, the potential for dust dispersion and deposition depends on local meteorological factors such as rainfall, wind speed and wind direction. It is important to note that the potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the proposed development are short-term in nature. When the dust minimisation measures detailed in Appendix 9.3 of this report are implemented, fugitive emissions of dust from the site will not be significant and will pose no nuisance at nearby receptors. In order to determine the level of dust mitigation required during the proposed works, the potential dust emission magnitude for each dust generating activity needs to be taken into account, in conjunction with the previously established sensitivity of the area (see Section 9.3.5). The major dust generating activities are divided into four types within the IAQM guidance to reflect their different potential impacts. These are:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


• Demolition;

• Earthworks;

• Construction; and

• Trackout (on wheels of heavy vehicles). Demolition Demolition will primarily involve the removal of buildings or structures currently on the site in a potentially dusty manner. This may also involve dust generation at heights. Dust emission magnitude from demolition can be classified as small, medium and large and are described below.

• Large: Total building volume >50,000 m3, potentially dusty construction material (e.g. concrete), on-site crushing and screening, demolition activities >20 m above ground level;

• Medium: Total building volume 20,000 m3 – 50,000 m3, potentially dusty construction material, demolition activities 10-20 m above ground level; and

• Small: Total building volume less than 20,000 m3. There are minimal demolition works required for the proposed development. Therefore, the demolition works can be classified as small. As the overall sensitivity of the area to dust soiling and human health impacts is low, there is a negligible risk associated with the proposed demolition activities according to IAQM guidance (2014) (see Table 9.6). As the overall sensitivity of the area to ecological impacts is high, there is an overall medium risk of ecological impacts as a result of the proposed demolition activities (see Table 9.7). Table 9.7 Risk of Dust Impacts - Demolition

Sensitivity of Area Dust Emission Magnitude Large Medium Small

High High Risk Medium Risk Medium Risk Medium High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Low Medium Risk Low Risk Negligible

Earthworks Earthworks typically involve excavating material, loading and unloading of materials, tipping and stockpiling activities. Activities such as levelling the site and landscaping works are also considered under this category. Dust emission magnitude from earthworks can be classified as small, medium and large and are described below.

• Large: Total site area > 10,000 m2, potentially dusty soil type (e.g. clay which will be prone to suspension when dry due to small particle size), >10 heavy earth moving vehicles active at any one time, formation of bunds > 8 m in height, total material moved >100,000 tonnes;

• Medium: Total site area 2,500 m2 – 10,000 m2, moderately dusty soil type (e.g. silt), 5-10 heavy earth moving vehicles active at any one time, formation of bunds 4 – 8 m in height, total material moved 20,000 – 100,000 tonnes; and

• Small: Total site area < 2,500 m2, soil type with large grain size (e.g. sand), < 5 heavy earth moving vehicles active at any one time, formation of bunds < 4 m in height, total material moved < 20,000 tonnes, earthworks during wetter months.

The total site area is approximately 5.4 hectares , therefore, under the IAQM guidance (2014) the proposed earthworks can be classified as medium. This results in an overall low


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


risk of temporary dust soiling and temporary human health impacts as a result of earthworks activities (see Table 9.8). As the overall sensitivity of the area to ecological impacts is high there is an overall medium risk of ecological impacts as a result of the proposed earthworks activities (see Table 9.8). Table 9.8 Risk of Dust Impacts - Earthworks


High High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Medium Medium Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Low Low Risk Low Risk Negligible

Construction Dust emission magnitude from construction can be classified as small, medium or large based on the definitions from the IAQM guidance as transcribed below:

• Large: Total building volume > 100,000 m3, on-site concrete batching, sandblasting;

• Medium: Total building volume 25,000 m3 – 100,000 m3, potentially dusty construction material (e.g. concrete), on-site concrete batching;

• Small: Total building volume < 25,000 m3, construction material with low potential for dust release (e.g. metal cladding or timber).

The dust emission magnitude from construction associated with the proposed development works can be classified as small as a worst-case according to the IAQM guidance (2014) as the total building volume will be less than 25,000 m3. Therefore, there is an overall negligible risk of temporary dust soiling and human health impacts as a result of the proposed construction activities (Table 9.9). As the overall sensitivity of the area to ecological impacts is high there is an overall low risk of ecological impacts as a result of the proposed construction activities (see Table 9.9). Table 9.9 Risk of Dust Impacts – Construction



Trackout Factors which determine the dust emission magnitude associated with trackout are vehicle size, vehicle speed, number of vehicles, road surface material and duration of movement. Dust emission magnitude from trackout can be classified as small, medium or large based on the definitions from the IAQM guidance as transcribed below:

• Large: > 50 HGV (> 3.5 t) outward movements in any one day, potentially dusty surface material (e.g. high clay content), unpaved road length > 100 m;

• Medium: 10 - 50 HGV (> 3.5 t) outward movements in any one day, moderately dusty surface material (e.g. high clay content), unpaved road length 50 - 100 m;

• Small: < 10 HGV (> 3.5 t) outward movements in any one day, surface material with low potential for dust release, unpaved road length < 50 m.

Dust emission magnitude from trackout can be classified as medium under IAQM guidance as there are likely to be less than 50 outward HGV movements per day. This results in an


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


overall low risk of temporary dust soiling impacts and temporary human health impacts as a result of the proposed trackout activities. As the overall sensitivity of the area to ecological impacts is high there is an overall medium risk of ecological impacts as a result of the proposed trackout (see Table 9.10). Table 9.10 Risk of Dust Impacts – Trackout



Summary of Dust Emission Risk The risk of dust impacts as a result of the proposed development are summarised in Table 9.11 for each activity. The magnitude of risk determined is used to prescribe the level of site specific mitigation required for each activity in order to prevent significant impacts occurring. Overall, in order to ensure that no dust nuisance occurs during the demolition, earthworks, construction and trackout activities, a range of dust mitigation measures associated with a medium risk of dust impacts must be implemented. When the dust mitigation measures detailed in Appendix 9.3 are implemented, fugitive emissions of dust from the site will be insignificant and pose no nuisance at nearby receptors. In addition all works will be phased which will further reduce the potential for significant dust emissions and dust related impacts. Table 9.11 Summary of Dust Impact Risk used to Define Site-Specific Mitigation

Potential Impact Dust Emission Magnitude

Demolition Earthworks Construction Trackout

Dust Soiling Negligible Low Risk Negligible Low Risk

Human Health Negligible Low Risk Negligible Low Risk

Ecological Impacts Medium Risk Medium Risk Low Risk Medium Risk

9.5.2.2 Climate There is the potential for a number of greenhouse gas emissions to atmosphere during the construction of the development. Construction vehicles, generators etc., may give rise to CO2 and N2O emissions. However, based on the scale and nature of construction for the proposed development and the short-term nature of the construction phase, the impact on the climate is considered to be short-term, negative and imperceptible. 9.5.2.3 Human Health Best practice mitigation measures associated with a low risk of temporary human health impacts are proposed for the construction phase of the proposed development. These will focus on the pro-active control of dust and other air pollutants to minimise generation of fugitive emissions at source. The mitigation measures that will be put in place during construction of the proposed development will ensure that the impact of the development complies with all EU ambient air quality legislative limit values which are based on the protection of human health. Construction stage traffic is below the criteria requiring a detailed air quality assessment and it can be determined that emissions to air from construction traffic are imperceptible. Therefore, the impact of construction of the proposed development is likely to be short-term, negative and imperceptible with respect to human health.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


9.5.3 Operational Phase 9.5.3.1 Air Quality The impact of the proposed development has been assessed by modelling emissions from the traffic generated as a result of the development. Traffic accessing the port will remain unchanged, the only change is the distribution of traffic within the port itself. Therefore the only impacted road links are the internal port roads. The impact of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 for the opening and design years was predicted at the nearest sensitive receptors to the development. This assessment allows the significance of the development, with respect to both relative and absolute impacts, to be determined. Transport Infrastructure Ireland’s document Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality during the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes (2011) detail a methodology for determining air quality impact significance criteria for road schemes and this can be applied to any development that causes a change in traffic. The degree of impact is determined based on both the absolute and relative impact of the proposed development. Results are compared against the ‘Do-Nothing’ scenario, which assumes that the proposed development is not in place in future years, in order to determine the degree of impact. NO2 The results of the assessment of the impact of the proposed development on NO2 in the opening year 2021 and design year 2036 are shown in Table 9.12. The annual average concentration is in compliance with the limit value at all worst-case receptors in 2021 and 2036. Concentrations of NO2 are at most 81% of the annual limit value in 2021 and at most 89% in 2036. The hourly limit value for NO2 is 200 μg/m3 and is expressed as a 99.8th percentile (i.e. it must not be exceeded more than 18 times per year). The maximum 1-hour NO2 concentration is not predicted to be exceeded in any modelled year (Table 9.13). The impact of the proposed development on annual mean NO2 concentrations can be assessed relative to “Do Nothing (DN)” levels. Relative to baseline levels, there are predicted to be some small to large increases in NO2 concentrations at receptors R1 – R4. Concentrations will increase by at most 11% of the relevant limit value in 2036 at receptor R1. Using the assessment criteria outlined in Appendix 9.2, Table A9.2.1 and Table A9.2.2 the impact of the proposed development in terms of NO2 is considered negligible to slight adverse. Therefore, the overall impact of NO2 concentrations as a result of the proposed scheme is long-term, slight and negative. PM10 The results of the modelled impact of the proposed development for PM10 in the opening year 2021 and design year 2036 are shown in Table 9.14. Predicted annual average concentrations at the worst-case receptor in the region of the development are at most 52% of the limit value in 2021 and 53% in 2036. The 24-hour mean limit value of 50 μg/m3 is expressed as a 90.4th percentile (i.e. it must not be exceeded more than 35 times per year). It is predicted that receptor R1 will experience at most 5 days of exceedance with the proposed development in place. This is an increase of one day when compared with the do nothing scenario. All other receptors will experience at most 4 days of exceedance either with or without the proposed development in place. Relative to do nothing levels, some imperceptible increases in PM10 levels are predicted at receptors R2, R3 and R4. Receptor R1 will experience a small increase in PM10 concentrations. Concentrations will increase by at most 1.3% of the relevant limit value in 2036 at receptor R1. Thus, the magnitude of the changes in air quality are negligible at all receptors based on the criteria outlined in Appendix 9.2 Tables A9.2.1 – A9.2.3. Therefore, the overall impact of PM10 concentrations as a result of the proposed development is long-term, negative and imperceptible.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


PM2.5 The results of the modelled impact of the proposed development for PM2.5 are shown in Table 9.15. Predicted annual average concentrations in the region of the proposed development are at most 58% of the limit value in 2021 and 59% in 2036 at the worst-case receptor. Relative to do nothing levels it is predicted that there will be some imperceptible to small increases in PM2.5 levels at the worst-case receptors assessed. Concentrations will increase by at most 1.4% of the relevant limit value in 2036 at receptor R1. Using the assessment criteria in Appendix 9.2 Table A9.2.1 and Table A9.2.2 the impact of the proposed development in terms of PM2.5 is considered negligible. Therefore, the overall impact of the proposed development on PM2.5 concentrations is predicted to be long-term, negative and imperceptible. Summary of Local Air Quality Modelling Assessment Levels of traffic-derived air pollutants from the proposed development will not exceed the ambient air quality standards either with or without the proposed development in place. Using the assessment criteria outlined in Appendix 9.2 Tables A9.2.1 – A9.2.3, the impact of the development in terms of PM10 and PM2.5 is long-term, localised and imperceptible. The impact in terms of NO2, is considered long-term and slight negative. However, it should be noted that all receptors assessed are of medium to low sensitivity in terms of air quality and there is already a relatively high background level of pollutants within the port area due to its nature. Air quality impacts as a result of the proposed development are not considered significant. A nitrogen deposition assessment for the nearby ecological site South Dublin Bay and River Tolka SPA has been scoped out based on the criteria in Section 9.3.2.2. Therefore the impact can be considered imperceptible. 9.5.3.2 Climate There is the potential for a number of greenhouse gas emissions to atmosphere during the operational phase of the development. The predicted concentrations of CO2 for the future years of 2021 and 2036 are detailed in Table 9.16. These are significantly less than the 2020 and 2030 targets set out under EU legislation. It is predicted that in 2021 the proposed development will increase CO2 emissions by 0.0010% of the EU 2020 target. In 2036 CO2 emissions will increase by 0.0018% of the 2030 target. Therefore, the climate impact of the proposed development is considered negative, long-term and imperceptible. 9.5.3.3 Human Health Traffic related air emissions have the potential to impact air quality which can affect human health. However, air dispersion modelling of traffic emissions has shown that levels of all pollutants are below the ambient air quality standards set for the protection of human health. It can be determined that the impact to human health during the operational stage is long-term, negative and imperceptible.

Chapter 9 – Air Quality & Climate AWN Consulting Limited _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Brexit Infrastructure at Dublin Port EIAR Chapter 9, Page 20

Table 9.12 Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations (µg/m3)

Receptor Opening Year 2021 Design Year 2036 DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description DN DS DS-DN Magnitude Description

R1 29.3 32.4 3.16 Medium Slight Adverse Increase 31.3 35.8 4.51 Large Slight Adverse Increase R2 27.9 29.6 1.74 Small Negligible Increase 29.3 31.8 2.52 Medium Slight Adverse Increase R3 26.5 27.3 0.82 Small Negligible Increase 27.2 28.4 1.17 Small Negligible Increase R4 26.6 27.8 1.25 Small Negligible Increase 27.4 29.2 1.80 Small Negligible Increase

Table 9.13 99.8th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour NO2 concentrations (µg/m3)

Receptor Opening Year 2021 Design Year 2036 DN DS DN DS

R1 102.4 113.5 109.4 125.2 R2 97.5 103.6 102.4 111.2 R3 92.7 95.6 95.3 99.4 R4 93.0 96.0 95.7 100.0

Table 9.14 Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations (µg/m3)


R1 20.4 20.8 0.32 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 20.7 21.2 0.51 Small Negligible Increase R2 20.3 20.5 0.17 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 20.5 20.8 0.27 Imperceptible Negligible Increase R3 20.2 20.2 0.08 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 20.3 20.4 0.12 Imperceptible Negligible Increase R4 20.2 20.3 0.08 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 20.3 20.4 0.13 Imperceptible Negligible Increase

Table 9.15 Annual Mean PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/m3)


R1 14.3 14.5 0.22 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 14.5 14.8 0.35 Small Negligible Increase R2 14.2 14.3 0.12 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 14.3 14.5 0.19 Imperceptible Negligible Increase R3 14.1 14.2 0.06 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 14.2 14.3 0.09 Imperceptible Negligible Increase R4 14.1 14.2 0.06 Imperceptible Negligible Increase 14.2 14.3 0.09 Imperceptible Negligible Increase

Chapter 9 – Air Quality & Climate AWN Consulting Limited _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Brexit Infrastructure at Dublin Port EIAR Chapter 9, Page 21

Table 9.16 Climate Impact Assessment

Year Scenario CO2

(tonnes/annum)

2021 Do Nothing 914

Do Something 1,285

2036 Do Nothing 1,444

Do Something 2,025 Increment in 2021 370.5 Tonnes Increment in 2036 581.0 Tonnes

Emission Ceiling (kilo Tonnes) 2020 37,943 Note 1

Emission Ceiling (kilo Tonnes) 2030 32,860 Note 2

Impact in 2021 (%) 0.0010 % Impact in 2036 (%) 0.0018 %

Note 1 Target under European Commission Decision 2017/1471 of 10th August 2017 and amending decision 2013/162/EU to revise Member States’ annual emissions allocations for the period from 2017 to 2020

Note 2 Target under Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________



9.6.1 Construction Phase 9.6.1.1 Air Quality The pro-active control of fugitive dust will ensure the prevention of significant emissions, rather than an inefficient attempt to control them once they have been released. The main contractor will be responsible for the coordination, implementation and ongoing monitoring of the dust management plan. The key aspects of controlling dust are listed below. Full details of the dust management plan can be found in Appendix 9.3, these will be incorporated into the overall Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the site. In summary the measures which will be implemented will include:

• Hard surface roads will be swept to remove mud and aggregate materials from their surface while any un-surfaced roads will be restricted to essential site traffic.

• Any road that has the potential to give rise to fugitive dust must be regularly watered, as appropriate, during dry and/or windy conditions.

• Vehicles exiting the site shall make use of a wheel wash facility where appropriate, prior to entering onto public roads.

• Vehicles using site roads will have their speed restricted, and this speed restriction must be enforced rigidly. On any un-surfaced site road, this will be 20 kph, and on hard surfaced roads as site management dictates.

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

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

• During movement of materials both on and off-site, trucks will be stringently covered with tarpaulin at all times. Before entrance onto public roads, trucks will be adequately inspected to ensure no potential for dust emissions.

At all times, these procedures will be strictly monitored and assessed. In the event of dust nuisance occurring outside the site boundary, movements of materials likely to raise dust would be curtailed and satisfactory procedures implemented to rectify the problem before the resumption of construction operations. 9.6.1.2 Climate Construction traffic and embodied energy of construction materials are expected to be the dominant source of greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the construction phase of the development. Construction vehicles, generators etc., may give rise to some CO2 and N2O emissions. However, due to short-term nature of these works, the impact on climate will be imperceptible. Nevertheless, some site-specific mitigation measures can be implemented during the construction phase of the proposed development to ensure emissions are minimised. In particular the prevention of on-site or delivery vehicles from leaving engines idling, even over short periods. Minimising waste of materials due to poor timing or over ordering on site will aid to minimise the embodied carbon footprint of the site.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Brexit Infrastructure at Dublin Port EIAR Chapter 9, Page 23

9.6.2 Operational Phase Trucks must be prevented from leaving engines idling while on site in order to reduce unnecessary emissions. No additional mitigation measures are required as the operational phase of the proposed development as it is predicted to have an insignificant impact on ambient air quality and climate. 9.7 PREDICTED IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

9.7.1 Construction Phase Once the dust minimisation measures outlined in Section 9.6.1.1 and Appendix 9.3 are implemented, the impact of the proposed development in terms of dust soiling or particulate matter emissions will be short-term and not significant at nearby receptors. Impacts to climate are considered imperceptible during the construction stage of the proposed development. 9.7.2 Operational Phase The results of the air dispersion modelling indicate that the impact of the proposed development on air quality and climate is considered long-term and insignificant. 9.8 RESIDUAL IMPACTS

Impacts to air quality during the construction phase are considered short-term and not significant once the mitigation measures outlined in Appendix 9.3 and Section 9.6.1.1 are implemented. Impacts to climate during the construction phase are considered imperceptible. The results of the air dispersion modelling indicate that the impact of the proposed development on air quality and climate is considered long-term and insignificant. 9.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The cumulative impact of the proposed development with any/all relevant other planned or permitted developments (including other Brexit related developments at nearby sites T7, T9 T10 and Yard 2, the MP2 project, the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, and the Greenway project (described in Chapter 3)) are discussed in Sections 9.9.1 and 9.9.2 below. 9.9.1 Construction Phase During the construction phase there is the potential for cumulative dust impacts with other construction works within 350 m of the development site (IAQM, 2014). The dust mitigation measures outlined in Appendix 9.3 should be applied throughout the construction phase of the proposed development which will avoid the potential for significant cumulative dust impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. With appropriate mitigation measures in place, the predicted cumulative impacts on air quality and climate associated with the construction phase of the proposed development are deemed short-term and not significant.



9.9.2 Operational Phase Cumulative impacts have been incorporated into the traffic data supplied for the operational stage air and climate modelling assessments. The results of the modelling assessment (section 9.5.2) show that there is an insignificant impact to air quality and an imperceptible impact to climate during the operational stage. If additional medium to large scale developments are proposed in the future, in the vicinity of the proposed development, this has the potential to add further additional vehicles to the local road network. Future projects of a large scale would need to conduct an EIAR to ensure that no significant impacts on air quality will occur as a result of those developments. 9.10 REFERENCES

• BRE (2003) Controlling Particles, Vapours & Noise Pollution From Construction Sites

• Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment (DCCAE) (2017) National Mitigation Plan

• Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment (DCCAE) (2018)

National Adaptation Framework

• DEHLG (2004) National Programme for Ireland under Article 6 of Directive 2001/81/EC for the Progressive Reduction of National Emissions of Transboundary Pollutants by 2010

• DEHLG (2004) Quarries and Ancillary Activities, Guidelines for Planning Authorities

• DEHLG (2007) Update and Revision of the National Programme for Ireland under

Article 6 of Directive 2001/81/EC for the Progressive Reduction of National Emissions of Transboundary Pollutants by 2010

• Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2010) Appropriate

Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland – Guidance for Planning Authorities

• Dublin City Council & Codema (2019) Dublin City Council Climate Change Action Plan 2019 -2024

• EEA (2012) NEC Directive Status Reports 2011

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2015) Advice Notes for Preparing

Environmental Impact Statements – Draft

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2017) Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports - Draft

• Environmental Protection Agency (2019a) Ireland’s Transboundary Gas Emissions

1990 –2030

• Environmental Protection Agency (2019b) Air Quality Monitoring Report 2018 (& previous annual reports)



• Environmental Protection Agency (2019c) Ireland’s Final Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990 – 2017

• Environmental Protection Agency (2019d) GHG Emissions Projections Report -

Ireland’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections 2018 - 2040

• Environmental Protection Agency (2020) EPA website Available at: http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/monitoring/air/

• Environmental Resources Management (1998) Limitation and Reduction of CO2 and

Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Ireland

• European Council (2014) Conclusions on 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework, SN 79/14

• German VDI (2002) Technical Guidelines on Air Quality Control – TA Luft

• Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) (2014) Guidance on the Assessment of

Dust from Demolition and Construction Version 1.1

• Met Éireann (2020) Met Eireann website: https://www.met.ie/

• The Scottish Office (1996) Planning Advice Note PAN50 Annex B: Controlling The Environmental Effects Of Surface Mineral Workings Annex B: The Control of Dust at Surface Mineral Workings

• Transport Infrastructure Ireland (2009) Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological

Impacts of National Roads Schemes (Rev. 2, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, 2009)

• Transport Infrastructure Ireland (2011) Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes

• UK DEFRA (2016) Part IV of the Environment Act 1995: Local Air Quality

Management, LAQM. PG(16)

• UK DEFRA (2019) NOx to NO2 Conversion Spreadsheet (Version 7.1)

• UK DEFRA (2018) Part IV of the Environment Act 1995: Local Air Quality Management, LAQM.TG(16)

• UK Department of the Environment, Transport and Roads (1998) Preparation of

Environmental Statements for Planning Projects That Require Environmental Assessment - A Good Practice Guide, Appendix 8 - Air & Climate

• UK Highways Agency (2007) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11,

Section 3, Part 1 - HA207/07 (Document & Calculation Spreadsheet)

• UK Highways Agency (2019) UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Environmental Assessment, Section 3 Environmental Assessment Techniques, Part 1 LA 105 Air quality

• UK Highways Agency (2019) UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)

Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3 Environmental Assessment Techniques, Part 14 LA 114 Climate



• UK Office of Deputy Prime Minister (2002) Controlling the Environmental Effects of Recycled and Secondary Aggregates Production Good Practice Guidance

• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997) Kyoto Protocol To The United

Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change

• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (2012) Doha Amendment To The Kyoto Protocol

• USEPA (1997) Fugitive Dust Technical Information Document for the Best Available

Control Measures

• World Health Organisation (2006) Air Quality Guidelines - Global Update 2005 (and previous Air Quality Guideline Reports 1999 & 2000)



APPENDIX 9.1

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

AWN CONSULTING

National standards for ambient air pollutants in Ireland have generally ensued from Council Directives enacted in the EU (& previously the EC & EEC). The initial interest in ambient air pollution legislation in the EU dates from the early 1980s and was in response to the most serious pollutant problems at that time which was the issue of acid rain. As a result of this sulphur dioxide, and later nitrogen dioxide, were both the focus of EU legislation. Linked to the acid rain problem was urban smog associated with fuel burning for space heating purposes. Also apparent at this time were the problems caused by leaded petrol and EU legislation was introduced to deal with this problem in the early 1980s. In recent years the EU has focused on defining a basis strategy across the EU in relation to ambient air quality. In 1996, a Framework Directive, Council Directive 96/62/EC, on ambient air quality assessment and management was enacted. The aims of the Directive are fourfold. Firstly, the Directive’s aim is to establish objectives for ambient air quality designed to avoid harmful effects to health. Secondly, the Directive aims to assess ambient air quality on the basis of common methods and criteria throughout the EU. Additionally, it is aimed to make information on air quality available to the public via alert thresholds and fourthly, it aims to maintain air quality where it is good and improve it in other cases. As part of these measures to improve air quality, the European Commission has adopted proposals for daughter legislation under Directive 96/62/EC. The first of these directives to be enacted, Council Directive 1999/30/EC, has been passed into Irish Law as S.I. No 271 of 2002 (Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002), and has set limit values which came into operation on 17th June 2002. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 detail margins of tolerance, which are trigger levels for certain types of action in the period leading to the attainment date. The margin of tolerance varies from 60% for lead, to 30% for 24-hour limit value for PM10, 40% for the hourly and annual limit value for NO2 and 26% for hourly SO2 limit values. The margin of tolerance commenced from June 2002, and started to reduce from 1 January 2003 and every 12 months thereafter by equal annual percentages to reach 0% by the attainment date. A second daughter directive, EU Council Directive 2000/69/EC, has published limit values for both carbon monoxide and benzene in ambient air. This has also been passed into Irish Law under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002. The most recent EU Council Directive on ambient air quality was published on the 11/06/08 which has been transposed into Irish Law as S.I. 180 of 2011. Council Directive 2008/50/EC combines the previous Air Quality Framework Directive and its subsequent daughter directives. Provisions were also made for the inclusion of new ambient limit values relating to PM2.5. The margins of tolerance specific to each pollutant were also slightly adjusted from previous directives. In regards to existing ambient air quality standards, it is not proposed to modify the standards but to strengthen existing provisions to ensure that non-compliances are removed. In addition, new ambient standards for PM2.5 are included in Directive 2008/50/EC. The approach for PM2.5 was to establish a target value of 25 µg/m3, as an annual average (to be attained everywhere by 2010) and a limit value of 25 µg/m3, as an annual average (to be attained everywhere by 2015), coupled with a target to reduce human exposure generally to PM2.5 between 2010 and 2020. This exposure reduction target will range from 0% (for PM2.5 concentrations of less than 8.5 µg/m3 to 20% of the average exposure indicator (AEI) for concentrations of between 18 - 22 µg/m3). Where the AEI is currently greater than 22 µg/m3 all appropriate measures should be employed to reduce this level to 18 µg/m3 by 2020. The AEI is based on measurements taken in urban background locations averaged over a three year period from 2008 - 2010 and again from 2018-2020.



Additionally, an exposure concentration obligation of 20 µg/m3 was set to be complied with by 2015 again based on the AEI. Although the EU Air Quality Limit Values are the basis of legislation, other thresholds outlined by the EU Directives are used which are triggers for particular actions. The Alert Threshold is defined in Council Directive 96/62/EC as “a level beyond which there is a risk to human health from brief exposure and at which immediate steps shall be taken as laid down in Directive 96/62/EC”. These steps include undertaking to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to inform the public (e.g. by means of radio, television and the press). The Margin of Tolerance is defined in Council Directive 96/62/EC as a concentration which is higher than the limit value when legislation comes into force. It decreases to meet the limit value by the attainment date. The Upper Assessment Threshold is defined in Council Directive 96/62/EC as a concentration above which high quality measurement is mandatory. Data from measurement may be supplemented by information from other sources, including air quality modelling. An annual average limit for both NOX (NO and NO2) is applicable for the protection of vegetation in highly rural areas away from major sources of NOX such as large conurbations, factories and high road vehicle activity such as a dual carriageway or motorway. Annex VI of EU Directive 1999/30/EC identifies that monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the NOX limit for the protection of vegetation should be carried out distances greater than:

• 5 km from the nearest motorway or dual carriageway • 5 km from the nearest major industrial installation • 20 km from a major urban conurbation

As a guideline, a monitoring station should be indicative of approximately 1000 km2 of surrounding area. Under the terms of EU Framework Directive on Ambient Air Quality (96/62/EC), geographical areas within member states have been classified in terms of zones. The zones have been defined in order to meet the criteria for air quality monitoring, assessment and management as described in the Framework Directive and Daughter Directives. Zone A is defined as Dublin and its environs, Zone B is defined as Cork City, Zone C is defined as 23 urban areas with a population greater than 15,000 and Zone D is defined as the remainder of the country. The Zones were defined based on among other things, population and existing ambient air quality. EU Council Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air quality and assessment has been adopted into Irish Legislation (S.I. No. 33 of 1999). The act has designated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the competent authority responsible for the implementation of the Directive and for assessing ambient air quality in the State. Other commonly referenced ambient air quality standards include the World Health Organisation. The WHO guidelines differ from air quality standards in that they are primarily set to protect public health from the effects of air pollution. Air quality standards, however, are air quality guidelines recommended by governments, for which additional factors, such as socio-economic factors, may be considered.



APPENDIX 9.2

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IRELAND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

AWN CONSULTING

Table A9.2.1 Definition of Impact Magnitude for Changes in Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Magnitude of Change

Annual Mean NO2 / PM10

No. days with PM10 concentration > 50 µg/m3

Annual Mean PM2.5

Large Increase / decrease ≥4 µg/m3

Increase / decrease >4 days Increase / decrease ≥2.5 µg/m3

Medium Increase / decrease 2 - <4 µg/m3

Increase / decrease 3 or 4 days Increase / decrease 1.25 - <2.5 µg/m3

Small Increase / decrease 0.4 - <2 µg/m3

Increase / decrease 1 or 2 days Increase / decrease 0.25 - <1.25 µg/m3

Imperceptible Increase / decrease <0.4 µg/m3

Increase / decrease <1 day Increase / decrease <0.25 µg/m3

Table A9.2.2 Air Quality Impact Significance Criteria For Annual Mean NO2 and PM10 and PM2.5

Concentrations at a Receptor Absolute Concentration in Relation to Objective/Limit Value

Change in Concentration Note 1

Small Medium Large Increase with Scheme Above Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (≥40 µg/m3 of NO2 or PM10) (≥25 µg/m3 of PM2.5)

Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse

Substantial Adverse

Just Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (36 - <40 µg/m3 of NO2 or PM10) (22.5 - <25 µg/m3 of PM2.5)

Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse

Moderate Adverse

Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (30 - <36 µg/m3 of NO2 or PM10) (18.75 - <22.5 µg/m3 of PM2.5)

Negligible Slight Adverse Slight Adverse

Well Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (<30 µg/m3 of NO2 or PM10) (<18.75 µg/m3 of PM2.5)

Negligible Negligible Slight Adverse

Decrease with Scheme Above Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (≥40 µg/m3 of NO2 or PM10) (≥25 µg/m3 of PM2.5)

Slight Beneficial Moderate Beneficial

Substantial Beneficial

Just Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (36 - <40 µg/m3 of NO2 or PM10) (22.5 - <25 µg/m3 of PM2.5)

Slight Beneficial Moderate Beneficial

Moderate Beneficial

Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (30 - <36 µg/m3 of NO2 or PM10) (18.75 - <22.5 µg/m3 of PM2.5)

Negligible Slight Beneficial Slight Beneficial

Well Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (<30 µg/m3 of NO2 or PM10) (<18.75 µg/m3 of PM2.5)

Negligible Negligible Slight Beneficial

Note 1 Well Below Standard = <75% of limit value.



Table A9.2.3 Air Quality Impact Significance Criteria For Changes to Number of Days with PM10 Concentration Greater than 50 µg/m3 at a Receptor

Absolute Concentration in Relation to Objective / Limit Value

Change in Concentration

Small Medium Large

Increase with Scheme Above Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (≥35 days)

Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse Substantial Adverse

Just Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (32 - <35 days)

Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse

Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (26 - <32 days)

Negligible Slight Adverse Slight Adverse

Well Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (<26 days)

Negligible Negligible Slight Adverse

Decrease with Scheme Above Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (≥35 days)

Slight Beneficial Moderate Beneficial Substantial Beneficial

Just Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (32 - <35 days)

Slight Beneficial Moderate Beneficial Moderate Beneficial

Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (26 - <32 days)

Negligible Slight Beneficial Slight Beneficial

Well Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme (<26 days)

Negligible Negligible Slight Beneficial



APPENDIX 9.3

DUST MINIMISATION PLAN

AWN CONSULTING

The objective of dust control at the site is to ensure that no significant nuisance occurs at nearby sensitive receptors. In order to develop a workable and transparent dust control strategy, the following management plan has been formulated by drawing on best practice guidance from Ireland, the UK (IAQM (2014), BRE (2003), The Scottish Office (1996), UK ODPM (2002)) and the USA (USEPA, 1997). Site Management The aim is to ensure good site management by avoiding dust becoming airborne at source. This will be done through good design and effective control strategies. At the construction planning stage, the siting of activities and storage piles will take note of the location of sensitive receptors and prevailing wind directions in order to minimise the potential for significant dust nuisance (see Figure 9.1 for the windrose for Dublin Airport). As the prevailing wind is predominantly south-westerly to south-easterly, locating construction compounds and storage piles downwind of sensitive receptors will minimise the potential for dust nuisance to occur at sensitive receptors. Good site management will include the ability to respond to adverse weather conditions by either restricting operations on-site or quickly implementing effective control measures before the potential for nuisance occurs. When rainfall is greater than 0.2mm/day, dust generation is generally suppressed (IAQM, 2014; UK ODPM, 2002). The potential for significant dust generation is also reliant on threshold wind speeds of greater than 10 m/s (19.4 knots) (at 7m above ground) to release loose material from storage piles and other exposed materials (USEPA, 1986). Particular care should be taken during periods of high winds (gales) as these are periods where the potential for significant dust emissions are highest. The prevailing meteorological conditions in the vicinity of the site are favourable in general for the suppression of dust for a significant period of the year. Nevertheless, there will be infrequent periods were care will be needed to ensure that dust nuisance does not occur. The following measures shall be taken in order to avoid dust nuisance occurring under unfavourable meteorological conditions:

• The Principal Contractor or equivalent must monitor the contractors’ performance to ensure that the proposed mitigation measures are implemented and that dust impacts and nuisance are minimised;

• During working hours, dust control methods will be monitored as appropriate, depending on the prevailing meteorological conditions;

• The name and contact details of a person to contact regarding air quality and dust issues shall be displayed on the site boundary, this notice board should also include head/regional office contact details;

• It is recommended that community engagement be undertaken before works commence on site explaining the nature and duration of the works to local residents and businesses;

• A complaints register will be kept on site detailing all telephone calls and letters of complaint received in connection with dust nuisance or air quality concerns, together with details of any remedial actions carried out;

• It is the responsibility of the contractor at all times to demonstrate full compliance with the dust control conditions herein;

• At all times, the procedures put in place will be strictly monitored and assessed.



The dust minimisation measures shall be reviewed at regular intervals during the works to ensure the effectiveness of the procedures in place and to maintain the goal of minimisation of dust through the use of best practice and procedures. In the event of dust nuisance occurring outside the site boundary, site activities will be reviewed and satisfactory procedures implemented to rectify the problem. Specific dust control measures to be employed are described below. Demolition

• Prior to demolition blocks should be soft striped inside buildings (retaining walls and windows in the rest of the building where possible, to provide a screen against dust).

• During the demolition process, water suppression should be used, preferably with a hand-held spray. Only the use of cutting, grinding or sawing equipment fitted or used in conjunction with a suitable dust suppression technique such as water sprays/local extraction should be used.

• Drop heights from conveyors, loading shovels, hoppers and other loading equipment should be minimised, if necessary fine water sprays should be employed.

Site Roads / Haulage Routes Movement of construction trucks along site roads (particularly unpaved roads) can be a significant source of fugitive dust if control measures are not in place. The most effective means of suppressing dust emissions from unpaved roads is to apply speed restrictions. Studies show that these measures can have a control efficiency ranging from 25 to 80% (UK ODPM, 2002).

• A speed restriction of 20 km/hr will be applied as an effective control measure for dust for on-site vehicles using unpaved site roads;

• Access gates to the site shall be located at least 10m from sensitive receptors where possible;

• Bowsers or suitable watering equipment will be available during periods of dry weather throughout the construction period. Research has found that watering can reduce dust emissions by 50% (USEPA, 1997). Watering shall be conducted during sustained dry periods to ensure that unpaved areas are kept moist. The required application frequency will vary according to soil type, weather conditions and vehicular use;

• Any hard surface roads will be swept to remove mud and aggregate materials from their surface while any unsurfaced roads shall be restricted to essential site traffic only.

Land Clearing / Earth Moving Land clearing / earth-moving works during periods of high winds and dry weather conditions can be a significant source of dust.

• During dry and windy periods, and when there is a likelihood of dust nuisance, watering shall be conducted to ensure moisture content of materials being moved is high enough to increase the stability of the soil and thus suppress dust;

• During periods of very high winds (gales), activities likely to generate significant dust emissions should be postponed until the gale has subsided.

Storage Piles The location and moisture content of storage piles are important factors which determine their potential for dust emissions.

• Overburden material will be protected from exposure to wind by storing the material in sheltered regions of the site. Where possible storage piles should be located downwind of sensitive receptors;



• Regular watering will take place to ensure the moisture content is high enough to increase the stability of the soil and thus suppress dust. The regular watering of stockpiles has been found to have an 80% control efficiency (UK ODPM, 2002).

• Where feasible, hoarding will be erected around site boundaries to reduce visual impact. This will also have an added benefit of preventing larger particles from impacting on nearby sensitive receptors.

Site Traffic on Public Roads Spillage and blow-off of debris, aggregates and fine material onto public roads should be reduced to a minimum by employing the following measures:

• Vehicles delivering or collecting material with potential for dust emissions shall be enclosed or covered with tarpaulin at all times to restrict the escape of dust;

• At the main site traffic exits, a wheel wash facility shall be installed if feasible. All trucks leaving the site must pass through the wheel wash. In addition, public roads outside the site shall be regularly inspected for cleanliness, as a minimum on a daily basis, and cleaned as necessary.

Summary of Dust Mitigation Measures The pro-active control of fugitive dust will ensure that the prevention of significant emissions, rather than an inefficient attempt to control them once they have been released, will contribute towards the satisfactory performance of the contractor. The key features with respect to control of dust will be:

• The specification of a site policy on dust and the identification of the site management responsibilities for dust issues;

• The development of a documented system for managing site practices with regard to dust control;

• The development of a means by which the performance of the dust minimisation plan can be regularly monitored and assessed; and

• The specification of effective measures to deal with any complaints received.

Chapter 10 – Noise and Vibration AWN Consulting _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


10.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION

10.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter of the EIAR assesses the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed development.

The chapter has been prepared in accordance with relevant guidance as outlined in the following Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publications:

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Draft ‘Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports’ (2017);

• European Commission ‘Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects – Guidance on the Preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report’ 2017, and;

• EPA Draft ‘Advice Notes for preparing Environmental Impact Statements’ (2015).

This chapter of the EIAR should be read in conjunction with Chapter 2 – Description of Proposed Development. Appendix 10.1 presents a glossary of the acoustic terminology used in this section.

10.2 METHODOLOGY

This Assessment has been undertaken using the following methodology:

• Review of relevant guidance to identify appropriate noise criteria for the development;

• Review of baseline noise data available in the vicinity of the site, to identify existing levels of noise in the receiving environment.

• Predict noise emissions at the nearest noise sensitive locations for the operational phase. Prediction calculations for building services noise have been conducted generally in accordance with ISO 9613 (1996): Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation.

• Assess the predicted noise levels against the appropriate criteria and existing noise levels and outline mitigation measures, where required.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


10.3 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

The subject sites are c. 5.4 hectares in extent and are located at Dublin Port, Dublin 3 (See Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1 Introduction).

The proposed development sites are located at Bond Drive Extension and Yard 3, Bond Drive Extension and Yard 4, Promenade Road, Dublin Port, Dublin 3 which currently comprises warehouse buildings, existing hardstanding areas, and truck and car parking areas. The site will primarily be built on existing hardstand/gravel surfaces, but some upgrade works will be undertaken for site entrance, roadways etc.

Figures 10.1 and 10.2 present the road traffic noise levels across the site as reported in the Dublin Agglomeration Noise Action Plan 2018 – 2023.

Figure 10.1 Existing Lden Traffic Noise Level (Source: https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps/)

Figure 10.2 Existing Lnight Traffic Noise Level (Source: https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps/)

In addition to the EPA noise maps, reference has also been made to the noise monitoring network operated by Dublin City Council. Figure 10.3 presents the average hourly noise levels measured at the two nearest monitoring stations to the development site over the 2 week period 15th to 29th October 2019. These locations are Bull Island and Ringsend Sports Centre as indicated previously on Figures 10.1 and 10.2.

Ringsend Sports Centre

Bull Island

Development Site

Ringsend Sports Centre

Bull Island

Development Site


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 10.3 Measured Hourly Noise Level (Source: http://dublincitynoise.sonitussystems.com/)

10.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

A detailed description of the development has been outlined in Chapter 2 – Description of Proposed Development. In relation to noise and vibration, the following key characteristics are considered in this assessment.


It is predicted that the construction programme will create typical construction activity related noise on site. During the construction phase of the proposed development, a variety of items of plant will be in use, such as excavators, piling rigs, lifting equipment, dumper trucks, compressors and generators.

The proposed general construction hours are 07:00 to 18:00hrs, Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 14:00 on Saturdays.


The primary sources of noise that are expected in the operational context are discussed below:

• Building services plant; and • HGV and light vehicle activity on site.

These elements are assessed in the following sections.

10.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

When assessing the potential impacts of the development the nearest noise sensitive receptors will be considered. Figure 10.4 identifies the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the development site.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 10.4 Nearest Noise Sensitive Receptors

10.5.1 Significance of Impacts

Relevant Guidance

The significance of noise and vibration impacts has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Draft ‘Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports’ (2017) see Tables 10.1 to 10.3 below. As these guidelines do not quantify the impacts in decibel terms further reference has been made to the draft ‘Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment’ produced by the Institute of Acoustics/Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Working Party.

With regard to the quality of the impact, ratings may have positive, neutral or negative applications where:

Table 10.1 Quality of Potential Effects

Quality of Impact Definition

Negative A change which reduces the quality of the environment (e.g. by causing a nuisance).

Neutral No effects or effects that are imperceptible, within the normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.

Positive A change that improves the quality of the environment (e.g. by removing a nuisance).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


The significance of an impact on the receiving environment are described as follows:

Table 10.2 Significance of Effects

Significance of Impact on the Receiving Environment Description of Potential Impact

Imperceptible An effect capable of measurement but without significant consequences.

Not Significant An effect which causes noticeable changes in the character of the environment but without significant consequences.

Slight An effect which causes noticeable changes in the character of the environment without affecting its sensitivities.

Moderate An effect that alters the character of the environment in a manner that is consistent with existing and emerging baseline trends.

Significant An effect which, by its character, magnitude, duration or intensity alters a sensitive aspect of the environment.

Very Significant An effect which, by its character, magnitude, duration or intensity significantly alters a sensitive aspect of the environment.

The duration of impacts as described in the EPA Guidelines are:

Table 10.3 Duration of Effects

Duration of Impact Definition

Momentary Effects lasting from seconds to minutes

Brief Effects lasting less than a day

Temporary Effects lasting one year or less

Short-term Effects lasting one to seven years

Medium-term Effects lasting seven to fifteen years

Long-term Effects lasting fifteen to sixty years

Permanent Effects lasting over sixty years

Reversible Effects that can be undone, for example through remediation or restoration

Assessment of Significance

The draft ‘Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment’ produced by the Institute of Acoustics/Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Working Party have been referenced in relation to the potential impact of changes in the ambient noise levels during the construction and the operational phases of the proposed development.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


The findings of the Working Party are draft at present although they are of some assistance in this assessment. The draft guidelines state that for any assessment, the noise level threshold and significance should be determined by the assessor, based upon the specific evidence and likely subjective response to noise.

The draft ‘Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment’ impact scale adopted in this assessment is shown in Table 10.4 below. The corresponding significance of impact presented in the Draft ‘Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports’ (2017) is also presented.

Table 10.4 Noise Impact Scale

Noise Level Change dB(A) Subjective Response

Impact

Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment

Significance

(IoA)

Impact

Guidelines on the Information to be contained in EIAR’s (EPA)

0 No change None Imperceptible

0.1 – 2.9 Barely perceptible Minor Not Significant

3.0 – 4.9 Noticeable Moderate Slight, Moderate

5.0 – 9.9 Up to a doubling or halving of loudness Substantial Significant

10.0 or more More than a doubling or halving of loudness Major Profound

The significance table reflect the key benchmarks that relate to human perception of sound. A change of 3dB(A) is generally considered to be the smallest change in environmental noise that is perceptible to the human ear. A 10dB(A) change in noise represents a doubling or halving of the noise level. The difference between the minimum perceptible change and the doubling or halving of the noise level is split to provide greater definition to the assessment of changes in noise level.

It is considered that the ratings specified in the above table provide a good indication as to the likely significance of changes on noise levels in this case and have been used to assess the impact of operational noise.

10.5.2 Relevant Criteria

Construction Phase – Noise Criteria

There is no published statutory Irish guidance relating to the maximum permissible noise level that may be generated during the construction phase of a project. Local authorities normally control construction activities by imposing limits on the hours of operation and consider noise limits at their discretion. However, there are several publications commonly used in Ireland to set appropriate construction noise criteria. Each of these is discussed in the following paragraphs.

TII Guidelines

Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) (formerly National Roads Authority (NRA)) publication Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Schemes contains information on the permissible construction noise levels for various hours of operation. The noise level limits are outlined in Table 10.5.

Table 10.5 Maximum Allowable Construction Noise Levels at Dwellings

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

LAeq(1hr) LAmax

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

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

Saturdays 08:00 to 16:30hrs 65 75

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

Note * Construction activity at these times, other than that required for emergency works, will normally require the explicit permission of the relevant local authority.

BS-5228

Potential noise impacts during the construction phase of a project are often assessed in accordance with British Standard BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Noise.

BS5228-1:2009+A1 gives several examples of acceptable limits for construction or demolition noise, the most simplistic being based upon the exceedance of fixed noise limits. For example, paragraph E.2 states:

“Noise from construction and demolition sites should not exceed the level at which conversation in the nearest building would be difficult with the windows shut.”

Paragraph E.2 goes on to state:

“Noise levels, between say 07.00 and 19.00 hours, outside the nearest window of the occupied room closest to the site boundary should not exceed:

70 decibels (dBA) in rural, suburban areas away from main road traffic and industrial noise;

75 decibels (dBA) in urban areas near main roads in heavy industrial areas”.

For residential properties it is considered appropriate to adopt the 70 dB(A) criterion for construction noise.

Construction Phase – Vibration Criteria

Vibration standards come in two varieties: those dealing with human comfort and those dealing with cosmetic or structural damage to buildings. With respect to this development, the range of relevant criteria used for building protection is expressed in terms of Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) in mm/s.

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


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


• BS 7385 – Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings – Part 2: Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration (1993); and

• BS 5228 – Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 2: Vibration (2009+A1:2014).

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

BS 5228 recommends that, for soundly constructed residential property and similar structures that are generally in good repair, a threshold for minor or cosmetic (i.e. non-structural) damage should be taken as a peak particle velocity of 15 mm/s for transient vibration at frequencies below 15 Hz and 20 mm/s at frequencies above than 15 Hz. Below these vibration magnitudes minor damage is unlikely, although where there is existing damage these limits may be reduced by up to 50%. In addition, where continuous vibration is such that resonances are excited within structures the limits discussed above may need to be reduced by 50%.

The Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) (formerly National Roads Authority (NRA)) document Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes (NRA, 2004) also contains information on the permissible construction vibration levels during the construction phase as shown in Table 10.6.

Table 10.6 Construction Vibration Maximum Allowable Levels

Property Type

Allowable vibration (in terms of peak particle velocity) at the closest part of sensitive building to the source of vibration, at a frequency of

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

Commercial, Industrial or similar 8 mm/s 12.5 mm/s 20 mm/s

Following review of the guidance documents set out above the values in Table 10.6 are considered appropriate for this assessment.

Operational Phase – Noise Criteria

Due consideration will be given to the nature of the primary noise sources when setting criteria. In this instance, there are two primary sources of noise associated with the development, noise from fixed mechanical plant and noise from HGV movements and activity on site.

Criteria for noise from these sources shall be set in terms of the LAeq,T parameter.

Appropriate guidance for acceptable ambient noise levels is contained within BS8233: 2014: Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings. This standard provides indoor ambient noise levels for dwellings as follows:


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table 10.6 Indoor ambient noise levels for dwellings from BS8233: 2014

Activity Location

Day

07:00 to 23:00hrs

dB LAeq,16hour

Night

23:00 to 07:00hrs

dB

Resting Living room 35 –

Dining Dining room/area 40 –

Sleeping (daytime resting) Bedroom 35 30 (LAeq,8hour)

45 (LAmax)*

*Note The document comments that the internal LAFmax, noise level may be exceeded up to 10 times per night without a significant impact occurring.

BS8233 notes the following pertinent information in relation to the guideline values outlined in Table 4 of the Standard (Table 10.6 above):

“…NOTE 2 The levels shown in Table 4 are based on the existing guidelines issued by the WHO and assume normal diurnal fluctuations in external noise. In cases where local conditions do not follow a typical diurnal pattern, for example on a road serving a port with high levels of traffic at certain times of the night, an appropriate alternative period, e.g. 1 hour, may be used, but the level should be selected to ensure consistency with the levels recommended in Table 4…

…NOTE 7 Where development is considered necessary or desirable, despite external noise levels above WHO guidelines, the internal target levels may be relaxed by up to 5 dB and reasonable internal conditions still achieved.”

With respect to noise sources containing distinguishable characteristics Section 7.7.1 of BS8233 states:

“Occupants are usually more tolerant of noise without a specific character than, for example, that from a neighbour which can trigger a complex emotional reaction. For simplicity, only noise without character is considered in Table 4. For dwellings the main considerations are:

a) For bedrooms, the acoustic effect on sleep; and

b) For other rooms, the acoustics effect on resting, listening and communicating.

NOTE Noise has a specific character feature such as distinguishable discrete and continuous tone, is irregular enough to attract attention, or has strong low-frequency content, in which case lower noise limits might be appropriate.”

For the purposes of this study, it is appropriate to derive external limits based on the internal criteria noted in the paragraph above. This is done by factoring in the degree of noise reduction afforded by a partially open window. This is nominally deemed to fall in the range of 15dB.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


In summary, the following operational noise criteria should be adopted at residential properties nearest the development:

• Daytime (07:00 to 23:00 hours) 55dB LAeq,1hour

• Night-time (23:00 to 07:00 hours) 45dB LAeq,15minute There should be no audible tonal or impulsive noises from the development at any Noise Sensitive Location during night time hours (23:00hrs to 07:00hrs).

The design criteria outlined above are considered robust and appropriate for the environment under consideration.

Operational Phase – Vibration Criteria

It is considered that the proposed development will not give rise to any significant or perceptible levels of vibration in the receiving environment. Vibration criteria are therefore not deemed to be necessary for the operational phase of this development.

10.5.3 Construction Phase Noise Impacts

Given that works during the construction phase will be transient in nature and will involve the use of several different plant items at any one time, it is difficult at this stage of the assessment to state accurately what items of plant will be in use and what levels of noise will be experienced during construction works.

The construction works associated with the removal of hardstanding and resurfacing the new carpark will likely involve the use of mobile breaker tracked excavator dumper trucks and HGV’s, other site activities including piling rigs and from smaller lifting equipment, mobile plant, compressors, generators etc. will also be in use.

For the purpose of preparing construction noise calculations relating to the development, an overall sound power level of 115dB LW(A) for this work has been used. This level is equivalent to 5 items of construction plant operating simultaneously with a sound pressure level of 80dB LAeq each at a distance of 10 metres. Given the range of activities during any one phase, this is considered to provide a good approximation of noise from the site.

The closest noise sensitive buildings to the proposed development are more than 400 metres beyond the site boundary.

Indicative worst-case construction noise levels based on the above assumptions are calculated at 55dB LAeq at the closest noise sensitive locations. The calculated noise levels are within the recommended construction noise limits of 70dB LAeq outlined in Section 10.5.2.

The contractor for the works will continue to ensure that all best practice measures relating to the control and minimisation of noise and vibration are employed during all phases of work. Further details are set out in Section 10.6 of this document.

10.5.4 Construction Phase Vibration Impacts

Given the distance to the nearest noise sensitive location and the expected levels of vibration associated with the proposed activities, there are no significant vibration impacts expected during the construction phase of the development. Vibration levels are expected to be below a level that would cause disturbance to building occupants.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


10.5.5 Operational Phase Noise Impacts

The primary sources of noise that are expected in the operational context are discussed below:

• Building services plant; and

• HGV activity on site. Each of these operational scenarios are addressed in the following sections.

Building Services Noise

There are several plant items associated with the operation of the proposed development. Most of this plant can generate noise to some degree. Noisy plant items located externally will potentially have the greatest impact on the receiving environment. At this stage of the development, specific details of the type and number of plant items required for the development are not available. In this instance, it is best practice to set appropriate emission limits relating to plant items which will be used during the detailed design stage.

Making reference to the adopted noise limits as described in Section 10.5.2, the cumulative noise levels associated with building services plant items at the façade of the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the development site will be designed to not exceed the following level:

• Daytime - 55dB LAeq,1hr, and; • Night-time - 45dB LAeq,15 minutes.

These limits have been set in order to preserve the existing noise environment. Section 10.6.2 will outline typical mitigation measures that will be employed to achieve these limits.

Noise from HGV and Light Vehicle Activity

When operational there will be vehicle movements to and from the facility as well as vehicles manoeuvring within the facility itself.

The noise impact of vehicle movements to and from the facility using the local road network is assessed in the context of the increase in traffic noise as a result of these movements. The development will not increase the traffic volumes on the road network surrounding Dublin Port and instead only results in a redistribution of traffic within the port itself, hence noise levels will not increase due to traffic on the local road network outside the port.

With regards to vehicle activity on site the noise emissions here will be as a result of engine noise, reverse beacons and refrigerated units in operation. In this instance the significant distance (>500 metres) between the site and the nearest noise sensitive receptor will ensure that any noise emissions are attenuated by a significant degree before reaching the receptor.

To assess the potential noise impact of vehicle movements on each area of the development the development traffic, as outlined in Chapter 13, has been used for each of the following periods:

• Night-time – based on the AM peak hour of 05:30 to 06:30 which coincides with the arrival of ferry services, and;

• Daytime – based on the PM peak of 16:45 to 17:45.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


The Bond Drive Extension facility is the largest and also the site located closest to the nearest noise sensitive locations along the Clontarf Road approximately 530m to the north. Traffic flows to the Bond Drive Extension facility are,

• Night-time – 120 HGV movements, and; • Daytime – 82 HGV movements.

The assessment methodology adopted was to calculate the resultant noise level at the nearest noise sensitive location based on the number of HGV movements and using a source sound power level of 104 dB(A) Lw for a HGV travelling at speed <20km/h (source reference level European Imagine Project1).

Taking the number of HGV movements, the distance of 530m to Clontarf Rd and an assessment time of 1hr for daytime and 15 minutes for night-time, the resultant noise level is calculated as follows:

• Night-time – 27dB LAeq,15min (note this assumes that 25% of the hourly flow occurs over each 15 minute period), and;

• Daytime – 25dB LAeq,1hr. It is possible that some HGV’s may operate refrigeration units when parked on site. Refrigeration units typically have relatively high noise levels associated with their operation. AWN has a database of noise measurements of refrigeration trailers, the noise emissions used for this assessment is that the refrigeration unit has a sound power level of 94dB(A) Lw.

The numbers of HGV’s that will operate refrigeration units when on site is unknown at this time, however predicted noise levels have been calculated for making a worst-case assumption that the 16 parking bays on the northern boundary of the Bond Drive Extension facility are occupied by refrigerated units operating continuously for the entire assessment period, i.e. 1hr during the day and 15 minutes at night. The resultant noise level is calculated as 44dB LAeq,T. Therefore, the cumulative noise impact of both HGV movements and this assumed quantity of refrigerated units is as follows:

• Night-time – 44dB LAeq,15min, and; • Daytime – 44dB LAeq,1hr.

Finally, most HGV’s will have reversing alarms that will sound on site. Reverse alarms will sound intermittently and will have a negligible contribution the overall operational noise emissions for the development, however, the distinguishable character associated with the alarms may cause an adverse reaction in some instances.

The other facilities at Yards 3 & 4 are located at a greater distance from the noise sensitive locations and have fewer traffic movements associated with them and therefore the cumulative impact of all sites is no greater than that predicted for Bond Drive Extension facility above.

10.5.6 Operational Phase Vibration Impacts

There are no significant sources of vibration expected from the operational phase of the development.

1 IMAGINE – Improved Methods for the Assessment of the Generic Impact of Noise in the Environment European Commission.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________




The assessment of construction phase impacts has found that significant noise and vibration impacts are not expected. Notwithstanding this, best practice noise and vibration control measures will be employed by the contractor during the construction phase in order to avoid significant impacts at the nearest sensitive buildings. The best practice measures set out in BS 5228 (2009 +A1 2014) Parts 1 and 2 will be adopted. This includes guidance on several aspects of construction site mitigation measures, including, but not limited to:

• Selection of quiet plant; • Noise control at source; • Screening, and; • Liaison with the public.


The impact assessment has found that predicted noise levels associated with the day to day operations of the site will be well within the proposed criteria applicable to a site of this nature.

It is acknowledged that the detail design of the facility may result in alterations to the plant selection and the associated sound output from the operational plant items. It is possible therefore for the operational noise criteria to be achieved by alternative means including selection of plant items with alternative noise output or with the inclusion of at source attenuation, plant screening etc.

Any alterations to the noise source data, building and plant layouts associated with operational phase of the development will be designed such that the operational noise criteria outlined in this report are achieved and associated noise impacts are in line with those discussed in Section 10.5.3.

It is critical that personnel on site behave in a manner that which minimises noise potential noise disturbance, the following ‘good practice’ mitigation measures are advised for the site:

• Vehicle engines shall not be left idling once on site. • On-board refrigeration units (if any) shall also be turned off where possible

when on site or connected to main power if possible. • Refrigerated units that must remain running when on site should be directed to

parking bays located away from the northern boundary which is closest to the nearest noise sensitive locations.

• Drivers should minimise impact sounds whilst working about their vehicles. This includes dropping tailgates and moving cages and pallets.

• All radios and amplified sound from the truck cab shall be turned off prior to the doors being opened.

• There should be no unnecessary shouting or communicating in raised voices whilst on site.

• There should be no unnecessary sounding of horns or alarms whilst on site.

Once the site is operational a review of on-site activities should be undertaken to identify practicable noise control measures and develop a specific Noise Control Policy for the site to minimise potential noise impacts.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


10.7 PREDICTED IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT


During the construction phase of the project there is the potential for temporary noise impacts on nearby noise sensitive properties due to noise emissions from site activities. The application of binding noise limits and hours of operation, along with implementation of appropriate noise and vibration control measures, will ensure that noise and vibration impact is kept to a minimum as far as practicable.

The probability of noise effects from the construction phase of the developments are likely and a description of effects are summarised in Table 10.7.

Table 10.7 Significance of Noise Effects – Construction Phase

Quality Significance Duration

Negative Slight to Moderate Short-term

The probability of vibration effects from the construction phase of the development is not likely and a description of effects are summarised in Table 10.8

Table 10.8 Significance of Vibration Effects – Construction Phase


Neutral Negligible Short-term


The impact assessment has found that predicted noise levels associated with the day to day operations of the site will be well with the proposed criteria applicable to a site of this nature.

The probability of effects from the operational phase of the developments are likely and a description of effects are summarised in Table 10.9.

Table 10.9 Significance of Effects – Operational Phase


Neutral Not Significant Long-term

10.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The cumulative impact of the proposed development with any/all relevant other planned or permitted developments including Brexit related developments at the nearby sites T7, T9 T10 and Yard 2, the MP2 project, the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, and the Greenway project (described in Chapter 3)) are discussed in Sections 10.8.1 and 10.8.2 below.


There is the potential for temporary noise impacts on nearby noise sensitive properties due to noise emissions from site activities during construction. In this instance the distance between the development site and nearby sensitive locations is such that once standard mitigation is in place (as outlined in Section 10.6) for management of


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


construction noise, the effect due to construction in this area is considered to be a negative on quality and a slight to moderate in significance. Contractors for the proposed development will be contractually required to operate in compliance with a CEMP which will include the mitigation measures outlined in this EIA report. Other developments will also have to incorporate measures to protect the environment from noise and vibration.

Furthermore, once the distance between the proposed development and other permitted developments is taken into account, there will be no significant cumulative noise and vibration impact. This conclusion has been reached by reviewing the EIAR chapters on Noise & Vibration for the Alexander Basin and MP2 developments. In both instances the predicted noise level during construction are more than 10dB below the predicted noise impacts during construction of this development. No major infrastructural work is required at T7, T9, T10 and Yard 2 and the proposed minor works will not result in significant noise emissions to the environment. As a result there will be no significant cumulative impact and the cumulative impact is therefore also considered to be negative and slight to moderate.


Overall there will be no significant change in the noise environment at the nearest noise sensitive locations due to the proposed and planned developments. The operation of the proposed development is concluded to have a long-term, not significant significance with a neutral impact on noise and vibration.

On review of the noise and vibration assessments carried out for the Alexander Basin and MP2 projects as well as the screening report carried out for the other Brexit developments and Dublin Port Greenway it is confirmed that operational impacts for all of these developments and the other Brexit developments will not generate any significant cumulative noise or vibration impact when considered in combination with the current proposed development. This is due to the relative distances between the various developments and nearby sensitive locations and also in some instances due to the fact that the operation of the proposed developments, e.g. MP2 and Greenway, are not expected to result in any operational noise or vibration impact.

Therefore the cumulative impact of noise and vibration on the surrounding environment is also considered to have a long-term, not significant significance with a neutral impact.

10.9 INTERACTIONS

The potential interaction between Noise and Vibration and other Chapters in the EIAR is primarily limited to Chapter 5 - Population & Human Health.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


10.10 REFERENCES

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Draft ‘Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports’ (2017);

• European Commission ‘Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects – Guidance on the Preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report’ 2017

• EPA Draft ‘Advice Notes for preparing Environmental Impact Statements’ (2015); • Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) issued by the Department of Transport in

1988. • Draft ‘Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment’ produced by the Institute of

Acoustics/Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Working Party. • British Standard BS 7385: 1993: Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings

Part 2: Guide to damage levels from ground borne vibration. • BS 4142:2014: Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound. • British Standard BS 6472 (1992): Guide to Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in

buildings (1Hz to 80Hz). • ISO 9613 (1996): Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part

2: General method of calculation. • Alexandra Basin Redevelopment EIAR, 2014 – Chapter 7 • MP2 Project EIAR, 2019 – Chapter 11 • Dublin Port Road Improvement Project – Environmental Impact Assessment Screening

Report, May 2016


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX 10.1

Acoustic Terminology


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


ambient noise The totally encompassing sound in a given situation at a given time, usually composed of sound from many sources, near and far.

background noise The steady existing noise level present without contribution from

any intermittent sources. The A-weighted sound pressure level of the residual noise at the assessment position that is exceeded for 90 per cent of a given time interval, T (LAF90,T).

broadband Sounds that contain energy distributed across a wide range of

frequencies. dB Decibel - The scale in which sound pressure level is expressed. It

is defined as 20 times the logarithm of the ratio between the RMS pressure of the sound field and the reference pressure of 20 micro-pascals (20 μPa).

dB LpA An ‘A-weighted decibel’ - a measure of the overall noise level of

sound across the audible frequency range (20 Hz – 20 kHz) with A-frequency weighting (i.e. ‘A’–weighting) to compensate for the varying sensitivity of the human ear to sound at different frequencies.

Hertz (Hz) The unit of sound frequency in cycles per second. impulsive noise A noise that is of short duration (typically less than one second),

the sound pressure level of which is significantly higher than the background.

LAeq,T This is the equivalent continuous sound level. It is a type of

average and is used to describe a fluctuating noise in terms of a single noise level over the sample period (T).The closer the LAeq value is to either the LAF10 or LAF90 value indicates the relative impact of the intermittent sources and their contribution. The relative spread between the values determines the impact of intermittent sources such as traffic on the background.

LAFN The A-weighted noise level exceeded for N% of the sampling

interval. Measured using the “Fast” time weighting. LAr,T The Rated Noise Level, equal to the LAeq during a specified time

interval (T), plus specified adjustments for tonal character and impulsiveness of the sound.

LAF90 Refers to those A-weighted noise levels in the lower 90 percentile

of the sampling interval; it is the level which is exceeded for 90% of the measurement period. It will therefore exclude the intermittent features of traffic and is used to estimate a background level. Measured using the “Fast” time weighting.

LAT(DW) equivalent continuous downwind sound pressure level. LfT(DW) equivalent continuous downwind octave-band sound pressure

level.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Lday Lday is the average noise level during the day time period of 07:00hrs to 19:00hrs

Lnight Lnight is the average noise level during the night-time period of

23:00hrs to 07:00hrs. low frequency noise LFN - noise which is dominated by frequency components

towards the lower end of the frequency spectrum. noise Any sound, that has the potential to cause disturbance, discomfort

or psychological stress to a person exposed to it, or any sound that could cause actual physiological harm to a person exposed to it, or physical damage to any structure exposed to it, is known as noise.

noise sensitive location NSL – Any dwelling house, hotel or hostel, health building,

educational establishment, place of worship or entertainment, or any other facility or other area of high amenity which for its proper enjoyment requires the absence of noise at nuisance levels.

octave band A frequency interval, the upper limit of which is twice that of the

lower limit. For example, the 1,000Hz octave band contains acoustical energy between 707Hz and 1,414Hz. The centre frequencies used for the designation of octave bands are defined in ISO and ANSI standards.

rating level See LAr,T. sound power level The logarithmic measure of sound power in comparison to a

referenced sound intensity level of one picowatt (1pW) per m2 where:

0

10P

PLogLw = dB

Where: p is the rms value of sound power in pascals; and

P0 is 1 pW. sound pressure level The sound pressure level at a point is defined as:

0

20P

PLogLp = dB

specific noise level A component of the ambient noise which can be specifically

identified by acoustical means and may be associated with a specific source. In BS 4142, there is a more precise definition as follows: ‘the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level at the assessment position produced by the specific noise source over a given reference time interval (LAeq, T)’.

tonal Sounds which cover a range of only a few Hz which contains a

clearly audible tone i.e. distinguishable, discrete or continuous noise (whine, hiss, screech, or hum etc.) are referred to as being ‘tonal’.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


1/3 octave analysis Frequency analysis of sound such that the frequency spectrum is

subdivided into bands of one–third of an octave each.

8.0 LAND, SOILS, GEOLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY 8.1 INTRODUCTION … · 8.0 LAND, SOILS, GEOLOGY &...

Documents

Transcript of 8.0 LAND, SOILS, GEOLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY 8.1 INTRODUCTION … · 8.0 LAND, SOILS, GEOLOGY &...