MottMcDonald Odour Report

Appendix 58
Odour Report
Mott
MacDonald
ODOUR
monitoring
IRELAND
ODOUR & Environmental Engineering Consultants
Unit 32 De Granville Court, Dublin Rd, Trim, Co. Meath
Tel: +353469437922
Mobile: +353 86 8550401
E-mail: info@odourireland.com
www.odourireland.com
ODOUR IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED CORK HARBOUR MAIN DRAINAGE

SCHEME, CORK CITY AND ENVIRONS.
PERFORMED BY ODOUR MONITORING IRELAND ON BEHALF OF MOTT MACDONNELL PETTIT CONSULTING ENGINEERS
PREPARED BY: Dr. Brian Sheridan

th
DATE: 15 Jan 2008
REPORT NUMBER: 2007. A394 (5)
DOCUMENT VERSION: Document Ver. 005
REVIEWERS: Ms. Orla Freyne & Mr. Paul Kelly
Document No. 2006A394(5) Mott MacDonnell Pettit Consulting Engineers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary iv
2. Introduction 1
3. Materials and Methods 2
3.1. Site 2
3.2. Odour emission rate calculation 3
3.3. Dispersion modelling overview 3
3.3.1. Atmospheric dispersion modelling of odours: What is dispersion modelling? 3
3.3.2. AERMOD Prime 3
3.3.3. Establishment of odour impact criterion for WWTP and pumping station odours 4
3.3.4. Commonly used odour annoyance criteria utilised in dispersion models 6
3.4. Meteorological data 10
3.5. Terrain data 10
4. Results 10
4.1. Odour emission data 10
4.2. Odour emission rates from Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme specimen design
WWTP and Pumping stations operations for atmospheric dispersion modelling Scenario 1 and
2 10
4.3. Results of odour dispersion modelling for the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage
Scheme WWTP and Pumping stations operation and design 16
5. Discussion of results 18
5.1. Odour plume dispersal for proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP
specimen design with the incorporation of odour mitigation protocols 18
5.2. Odour plume dispersal for five Pumping stations with the incorporation of good design
and odour management systems 19
6. Conclusions 20
7. Recommendations 22
8. Appendix I-Odour dispersion modelling contour results for Cork
Harbour Main Drainage Scheme 23
9. Appendix 11 - Background Information on odours pertaining to Cork
Harbour Drainage scheme odour impact assessment. 32
9.1. Legislation pertaining to odours in Ireland 32
9.2. Characterisation of odour 33
9.3. Odour qualities , 34
9.4. Perception of emitted odours 34
9.5. Characteristics of Waste water odours 35
9.6. Odourous compound formation in wastewater treatment plants/pumping stations 36
9.7. Odour emissions formation at Wastewater treatment plants 37
9.8. Odour management plan - Standard Practice 37
9.8.1. General rules for reduction of odour emissions for wastewater treatment plants
operation by design - Standard Practice 38
9.8.2. Odour abatement management system/procedures - Standard Practice 39
9.9. Olfactometry 45
9.10. What is an odour unit? 46
9.11. General overview of proposed drainage scheme design 46
9.12. Containment and ventilation/extraction of odours - Standard Practice 46
9.12.1. Covers 46
9.12.2. Ventilation 47
9.13. Odour Scrubbing Systems 48
9.14. General rules for reduction of odour emissions for wastewater treatment works
operation by design 48
9.15. Precise odour abatement strategies reduces complaints and cost... 48
10. References 49
www.odourireland.com ii
Document No. 2006A394(5) Moll MacDonnell Pettit Consulting Engineers
Document Amendment Record
Client: Mott MacDonnell Pettit Consulting Engineers
Title: Odour impact assessment of proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme Cork Harbour
Main Drainage Scheme, Cork City and Environs.
Document Reference: Odour impact

assessment of proposed Cork Harbour Main
Project Number: 2006.A394(5) Drainage Scheme Cork Harbour Main
DrainaQe Scheme, Cork City and Environs.
2006A394( 1) Document for review BAS. JWC BAS 13/11/2007
2006A394(2) Minor edits OF BAS BAS 20/12/2007
2006A394(3) Minor edits OF& PK BAS BAS 07/01/2008
2006A394(4) Minor edits OF& PK BAS BAS 09/01/2008
2006A394(5) Minor edits OF BAS BAS 15/01/2008
Revision PurposelDescription Originated Checked Authorised Dat.e
OD U R
mnn. 10f I n II
0111/"'0
www.odourireland.com iii
1. Executive Summary
Odour Monitoring Ireland was commissioned by Mott MacDonnel1 Pettit Consulting Engineers to
carry out an odour impact assessment of the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme
Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) specimen design and five major Pumping stations (4
proposed and 1 existing) to be located in Cork City and environs. The purpose of this assessment
was to determine the potential for the generation of odour impact on the surrounding population
from the proposed wastewater treatment plant and five pumping stations specimen design. The
WWTP will have a Population Equivalent (PE) of 80,000 PE.
Potential odour sources were identified and were used to construct the basis of the modelling
assessment. Odour emission rates/fluxes were calculated from library olfactometry data. Odour
dispersion modelling was used to perform an impact assessment of the proposed WWTP
specimen design and five major pumping stations to be located in Raffeen, West Beach,
Monkstown, Church Road (existing) and Carrigaloe. Minor pumping stations were not assessed
as it was anticipated that impacts predicted for the major pumping stations would be greater than
that for minor pumping stations.
Following measurement and development of odour emission rates/fluxes, two data sets for odour
emission rates were calculated to determine the potential odour impact of the Cork Harbour Main
Drainage Scheme WWTP specimen design and five pumping stations during their proposed
operation.
These included:
Ref Scenario 1: Predicted overall odour emission rate from proposed Cork Harbour Main
Drainage Scheme WWTP specimen design with the incorporation of
odour mitigation protocols (see Table 4.1).
Ref Scenario 2: Predicted overall odour emission rate from proposed five pumping
stations with the incorporation of odour management systems (e.g. good
design in terms of odour minimisation, tight fitting covers, etc.) (see
Table 4.2).
Aermod Prime was used to determine the overall odour impact of the proposed Cork Harbour
Main Drainage Scheme WWTP and five pumping stations operation located in Cork Harbour
Main Drainage Scheme as set out in odour impact criteria presented in Table 2.1 and 2.2. The
output data was analysed to calculate:
Ref Scenario 1:
• Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage
Scheme WWTP operation to surrounding population (see Table 4.1), to odour plume
th
dispersal at the 98 percentile for an odour concentration of less than or equal to 1.50
OUE m'3 (see Figure 8.1).
Scheme WWTP operation to surrounding population (see Table 4.1), to odour plume
th
dispersal at the 99.5 percentile for an odour concentration of less than or equal to 3.0
OUE m'3 (see Figure 8.2).
• Predicted odour emissions contribution of individual grouped Odour control units 1 to 5 to
th
surrounding population (see Table 4.1), to odour plume dispersal at the 98 percentile for
an odour concentration of less than or equal to 0.30 OUE/m (see Figure 8.3).
• Predicted odour emissions contribution of individual grouped Aeration, Secondary
settlement and Storm water tanka~e sources to surrounding population (see Table 4.1),
to odour plume dispersal at the 98 percentile for an odour concentration of less than or
3
equal to 1.50 OUE/m (see Figure 8.4).
www.odourireland.com iv
These odour impact criterions were chosen for the existing WlNrP in order to ascertain the level
of proposed impact to the surrounding residential and industrial population in the vicinity of the
proposed WlNrP.
Ref Scenario 2:
• Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed Raffeen Pumping Station
operation to surrounding population (see Table 4.2), to odour plume dispersal at the 98th
3
percentile for an odour concentration of less than or equal to 1.50 QUE m- (see Figure
8.5).
• Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed West Beach Pumping Station
th
operation to surrounding population (see Table 4.2), to odour plume dispersal at the 98
3
8.6).
• Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed Monkstown Pumping Station
th
3
8.7).
• Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed Church Road Pumping Station
(existing) operation to surrounding population (see Table 4.2), to odour plume dispersal
at the 98 percentile for an odour concentration of less than or equal to 1.50 QUE m- 3 (see
th
Figure 8.8).
• Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed Carrigaloe Pumping Station
th
3
8.9).
Since the predicted odour emission rate from the pumping stations is low following the
implementation of odour management systems (e.g. tight fitting covers, etc.), odour isopleths
suitable for reporting clarity were chosen (i.e. those isopleths presented were lower than the 1.50
3
QUE/m isopleths since the overall odour emission rate from the pumping stations were low due to
the nature of the odour source and hence, the subsequent odour impact was low). All odour
impact criterions chosen were in accordance with the guideline value presented in Section 3.3.4..
These computations give the odour concentration at each Cartesian grid receptor location that is
predicted to be exceeded for 0.5% (44 hours) and 2% (175 hours) of five years of meteorological
data. Additionally, individual sensitive receptors and 20 five metre spaced boundary receptors
were established within the modelling assessment.
It was concluded that:
Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP

• In accordance with odour impact criterion in Table 2.2, and in keeping with current
recommended odour impact criterion in this country, no odour impact will be perceived by
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme
WWTP following the installation of proposed odour management, minimisation and
mitigation protocols assuming specimen design. As can be observed, the overall odour
emission rate from the new proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WlNrP will
be no greater than 6,611 QUE/S based on the specimen design.
• All residents/industrial neighbours in the vicinity of the proposed Cork Harbour Main
Drainage Scheme WlNrP will perceive an odour concentration at or less than 1.50 QUE
th 3 th
m'3 for the 98 percentile and less than 3.0 QUE/m for the 99.5 percentile for five years
of meteorological data (see Figures 8.1 and 8.2). Those odour sources considered most
offensive (inlet works, primary treatment and holding tanks, centrate, filtrate, sludge,
RAS/WAS pump sumps, flow splitting chambers and all sludge handling processes
including tankage will be effectively contained and ventilated to an odour control system
www.odourireland.com v
and therefore the overall risk of any residenUindustrial neighbours detecting odour will be
negligible since the major odour sources contributing to the remaining odour plume are
considered low risk in term of odour. These sources include the aeration tankage,
secondary settlement tankage and storm water tankage (see Figures 8.3 and 8.4).
• Those management and mitigation strategies discussed through this document should be
considered and implemented in the design of the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage
Scheme WNTP. Any deviations from the proposed mitigation strategies will require
reassessment in order to ensure no odour impact in the vicinity of the proposed facility.
Pumping Stations
• In accordance with odour impact criterion in Section 3.3.4, and in keeping with current
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the major Pumping stations Raffeen, West Beach,
Monkstown, Church Road and Carrigaloe following the implementation of good design in
terms of odour management (e.g. tight fitting covers, etc.).
• All residents/industrial neighbours in the vicinity of the proposed pumping stations will
perceive an odour concentration at or less than 1.50 OUE m- 3 for the 98 th percentile for
five years of meteorological data (see Figures 8.5 to 8.9). All pumping station (both minor
and major) will incorporate the use of an odour management system (e.g. good design in
terms of odour, tight fitting covers etc.) to ensure no fugitive release of odours from each
pumping station. In addition, each pumping station will be regularly visited so as to
ensure efficient operation of the odour management system.
• It is acknowledged that many of the pumping stations are located in populous areas. For
this reason the design of the collection system will include best practice and adequate
odour management systems to prevent odour complaint and impact.
• The pumping stations will be covered/sealed to allow for containment of odours. The
implementation of odour management systems within each pumping station (both minor
and major) will minimise the uncontrolled release of fugitive odour emissions.
• Pumping stations will be subject to Part 8 Planning (Planning and Development
Regulations 2001) at detailed design. It will be the responsibility of the designer and
contractor to review the PS location and the odour management systems proposed to
prevent odour complaints and impact.
The following recommendations were developed during the study:

1. Odour management, minimisation and mitigation procedures as discussed within this
document in general will be implemented at the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage
Scheme wastewater treatment plant and each Pumping Station in order to prevent any
odour impact in the surrounding vicinity.
2. The maximum allowable odour emission rate from the overall proposed WNTP should
not be greater than 6,6110UE S·1 (see Table 4.1) inclusive of the odour emission
contribution from the abatement systems installed on the primary treatment, pumping and
sludge handling processes. The maximum overall odour emission rate from the odour
control units shall be no greater than 2,314 OUE S·1 and an exhaust stack concentration of
3 3
less than 300 OUE/m for OCU 1, 2, 4 and 5 and less than 500 OUE/m for OCU 3,
respectively. The specimen design suggests the use of three OCU's. As long as the total
odour emission rate for the WNTP (i.e. 6,6110UE S·1) is achieved along with the total
minimum odour treatment volume (i.e. 6.20 m3/s~ and a total odour emission rate from
the OCU's of less than or equal to 2,314 OUE s' is similar, then the number of OCU's
utilised onsite is not important. The hedonic tone of this odour should not be considered
unpleasant (Scale greater than -2) as assessed in accordance with VDI 3882: 1997, part
2; ('Determination of Hedonic) for all emission points.
3. The odour management systems to be installed upon Raffeen, Carrigaloe, West Beach,
Monkstown and Church road should be sufficient to prevent any uncontrolled fugitive
odours escaping from the system. In addition any odour management system
www.odourireland.com vi
incorporated into the design and upgrade of the pumping station should be caf)able of
3 th
achieving less than 1.5 OUE/m at the 98 percentile and less than 3.0 OUE/m 3 at the
th
99.S percentile of hourly averages.
4. Maintain good housekeeping practices (Le. keep yard area clean, etc.), closed-door
management strategy (Le. to eliminate puff odour emissions from sludge dewatering
building), maintain sludge storage within sealed airtight containers and to implement an
odour management plan for the operators of the WWTP and all Pumping station. All
odourous processes such as inlet works, primary treatment, and thickening will be carried
out indoors/enclosed tankage.
5. Avoid accumulation of floating debris and persistent sediments in channels and holding
tanks by design (Le. flow splitters and secondary sedimentation tanks, etc.). Techniques
to eliminate such circumstances shall be employed.
6. Enclose and seal all primary treatment, wet wells and sludge handling processes.
7. Operate the proposed WWTP within specifications to eliminate overloading and under
loading, which may increase septic conditions within the processes.
8. Odour scrubbing technologies employing will be implemented within the proposed Cork
Harbour Main Drainage Scheme VVWTP. An odour management system (e.g. tight fitting
covers, etc.) will be implemented upon each pumping station (both minor and major). All
other odour management, minimisation and mitigation strategies contained within this
document where necessary will be implemented within the overall design.
9. When operational, it is recommended that the contractor should provide evidence
through the use of dispersion modelling (Aermod Prime) and olfactometry measurement
(in accordance with EN1372S:2003), that the as built VVWTP and Pumping stations are
achieving the overall mass emission rate of odour and emission limit values for the
installed odour management systems.
www.odourireland.com vii
Document No. 2006A394(5) Mott MacDonnell Petlit Consulting Engineers
2. Introduction
Qdour Monitoring Ireland was commissioned by Mott MacDonald Consulting Engineers to
perform a desktop odour impact assessment of the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage
Scheme Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) and five major Pumping stations (4 proposed
and one existing) utilising dispersion modelling software Aermod Prime. Like the majority of
industries, the operation of the proposed WWTP and pumping stations in Cork Harbour Main
Drainage Scheme is faced with the issue of preventing odours causing impact to the public at
large.
In order to obtain odour emission data for the site, library based odour data collected in
accordance with EN13725:2003 European Standard on olfactometry was used to construct
the basis of the dispersion modelling scenarios. Utilising the indicative design and site library
odour emission data; dispersion-modelling techniques were used to establish maximum
allowable odour emission rates from the proposed sites in order to limit any odour impact on
the surrounding population.
Two odour emission scenarios were developed to take account of the specimen design of the
Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP and pumping station operations with the
implementation of odour mitigation strategies. These odour emission rates and specified
source characteristics were input into Aermod Prime in order to determine any overall odour
impact from the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP and five pumping
stations.
It was concluded from the study, it is predicted all residential/commercial neighbours in the
vicinity of the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP will perceive an odour
3 th
concentration less than or equal to 1.50 QUE m- at the 98 percentile and less than or equal
3 1h
to 3.0 QUE m- at the 99.5 percentile, respectively for five years of meteorological data (see
Figures 8.1 and 8.2). The overall remaining odour plume spread from the proposed WWTP
will be predominately made up from odours from the aeration tankage, secondary settlement
tankage and storm water tankage. Emissions from such processes are generally not offensive
and based on experience do not cause odour impact if operated correctly (see Figures 8.3
and 8.4). The overall odour emission rate from the proposed specimen design Cork Harbour
Main Drainage Scheme WWTP will be approximately 6,611 QUE/S following the
implementation of odour mitigation strategies. The ability of process upset to cause odour
impact is greatly reduced as those sources generally responsible for such process upset will
be enclosed and negatively extracted to an odour control unit. Two stages of odour treatment
(only if biological is first stage) have been recommended to provide confidence in the
treatment options for the WWTP and to achieve the strict odour concentration levels from the
odour control unit stacks 1 to 5. Three odour control units were included in the specimen
design. Five odour control units were assessed in the impact assessment. In terms of the
number of odour treatment units, the contractor will be required to ensure that odour emission
rates does not exceed 2,314 QUE S-1 whether 3, 4 or 5 QCU's are utilised within the design
(i.e. must achieve the total odour emission from the WWTP (Le. 6,611 QUE/S) and also at
minimum the total treatment volume 6.20 m3/s and a total odour emission rate of less than or
equal to 2,314 QUE S-1 from the odour control units.
In terms of odour impact from the five major pumping stations to be located at Raffeen, West
beach, Monkstown, Church Road (existing) and Carrigaloe, the predicted odour impact will be
less than or equal to 1.50 QUE/m 3 at the 98 th percentile odour impact criterion (see Figures 8.5
to 8.9). An odour management system (e.g. tight fitting covers, etc.) will be provided on both
minor and major pumping stations to ensure there is no uncontrolled escape of fugitive odour
emissions.
This assessment was performed in accordance with currently recommended international

guidance for the assessment of odour impact criterion to limit odour complaint.
Document No. 2006A394(5) Moll MacDonnell Peltit Consulting Engineers
3. Materials and Methods

This section will describe the materials and methods used throughout the study period.
3.1. Site
Figure 3.1. Aerial diagram of proposed location of Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme
WWfP, boundary ( - ) and sensitive receptor locations ( - ) .
The different distances and directions that the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage
Scheme WWfP is located from the neighbouring sensitive receptors are presented in Figure
3.1. As can be observed, a number or commercial and residential receptors are in close
proximity to the proposed WWfP. This includes a proposed new development to be located
approximately 134 metres from the eastern boundary of the WWfP. Existing sensitive
receptors include the ESB substation located approximately 200 metres to the west, a sports
www.odourireland.com 2
field located approximately 100 metres to the northeast and a number of residential properties
located from a minimum distance of 250 metres from the boundary.
3.2. Odour emission rate calculation.
The measurement of the strength of a sample of odourous air is, however, only part of the
problem of quantifying odour. Just as pollution from a stack is best quantified by a mass
emission rate, the rate of production of an odour is best quantified by the odour emission rate.
For a chimney or ventilation stack, this is equal to the odour threshold concentration (OUE m·3)
of the discharge air mUltiplied by its flow-rate (m 3 S'1). It is equal to the volume of air
contaminated every second to the threshold odour limit (OUE S'1). The odour emission rate
can be used in conjunction with dispersion modelling in order to estimate the approximate
radius of impact or complaint (Hobson et ai, 1995).
Area source mass emission rates/flux were calculated as either OUE m·2 S·1 or OUE S·1
depending if they are being represented as discrete point sources or area sources in the
atmospheric dispersion model.
3.3. Dispersion modelling overview
3.3.1. Atmospheric dispersion modelling of odours: What is dispersion modelling?
Any material discharged into the atmosphere is carried along by the wind and diluted by wind
turbulence, which is always present in the atmosphere. This process has the effect of
producing a plume of air that is roughly cone shaped with the apex towards the source and
can be mathematically described by the Gaussian equation. Atmospheric dispersion
modelling has been applied to the assessment and control of odours for many years,
originally using Gaussian form ISCST 3 and more recently utilising advanced boundary-layer
physics models such as ADMS and AERMOD (Keddie et al. 1992). Once the odour emission
rate from the source is known, (OUE S'1), the impact on the vicinity can be estimated. These
models can effectively be used in three different ways: firstly, to assess the dispersion of
odours and to correlate with complaints; secondly, in a "reverse" mode, to estimate the
maximum odour emissions which can be permitted from a site in order to prevent odour
complaints occurring; and thirdly, to determine which process is contributing greatest to the
odour impact and estimate the amount of required abatement to reduce this impact within
acceptable levels (Mclntyre et al. 2000). In this latter mode, models have been employed for
imposing emission limits on industrial processes, odour control systems and intensive
agricultural processes (Sheridan et aI., 2002).
3.3.2. AERMOD Prime
The AERMOD model was developed through a formal collaboration between the American
Meteorological Society (AMS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
AERMOD is a Gaussian plume model and replaced the ISC3 model in demonstrating
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Porter et aI., 2003) AERMIC
(USEPA and AMS working group) is emphasizing development of a platform that includes air
turbulence structure, scaling, and concepts; treatment of both surface and elevated sources;
and simple and complex terrain. The modelling platform system has three main components:
AERMOD, which is the air dispersion model; AERMET, a meteorological data pre-processor;
and AERMAP, a terrain data pre-processor (Cora and Hung, 2003).
AERMOD is a Gaussian steady-state model which was developed with the main intention of
superseding ISCST3 (NZME, 2002). The AERMOD modeling system is a significant
departure from ISCST3 in that it is based on a theoretical understanding of the atmosphere
rather than depend on empirical derived values. The dispersion environment is characterized
by turbulence theory that defines convective (daytime) and stable (nocturnal) boundary layers
instead of the stability categories in ISCST3. Dispersion coefficients derived from turbulence
theories are not based on sampling data or a specific averaging period. AERMOD was
especially designed to support the U.S. EPA's regulatory modeling programs (Porter at aI.,
2003)
Special features of AERMOD include its ability to treat the vertical in-homogeneity of the
planetary boundary layer, special treatment of surface releases, irregularly-shaped area
sources, a three plume model for the convective boundary layer, limitation of vertical mixing in
the stable boundary layer, and fixing the reflecting surface at the stack base (Curran et aI.,
2006). A treatment of dispersion in the presence of intermediate and complex terrain is used
that improves on that currently in use in ISCST3 and other models, yet without the complexity
of the Complex Terrain Dispersion Model-Plus (CTDIVIPLUS) (Diosey et aI., 2002).
3.3.3. Establishment of odour impact criterion for WWTP and pumping station odours
Odours from WWTP's / Pumping station operations arise mainly from the volatilisation of
odourous gases from:
• The surfaces of non-quiescence processes including overflow weirs, returned
pumped centrate/liquor above the working height of the tank/channel, etc,
• Positive displacement of odours from tankage as a result of inlet waste water flow
and pressure effects induced by wind flows,
• Anaerobic decay of floating organic debris upon quiescence surfaces including
organic matter attached to grit and rags, organic matter carryover to secondary tanks,
etc,
• Sludge handling operations including dewatering, thickening, digestion, drying,
storage and transport of raw/processed sludge's offsite,
• Anaerobic digestion processes and emissions of sour gas,
• Turbulent processes within the inlet works and storage of screens (Le. grit and rags
removal),
• Inefficient odour control/abatement equipment operation and design including loose
fitting covers, inefficient extraction and odour control unit failure.
Some of the compounds emitted are characterised by their high odour intensity and low odour
detection threshold (see Section 9.5). A sample of a report carried out in the Netherlands,
United Kingdom and USA ranking generic and environmental odours according to the like or
dislike by a group of people professionally involved in odour management is illustrated in
Tab/e 2.1 (EPA, 2001, Environment Agency, 2002). Although not scientifically based, it is
interesting to observe the results of such studies.
~ ~
- - --- - --- -- ---- - - -- - - - - -- -- - -- - .. - - -- -
Generic Hedonic score 2 2 2 2 2 2

Ranking Ranking Ranking Environmental odours Ranking Ranking Ranking
odours Dravnieks, 1994
UK
Descriptor USA UK median UK mean I NL mean Descriptor NL mean UK mean
Median
Roses 3.08 4 4.4 3.4 Bread Factorv 1.7 2.5 1
Coffee 2.33 3 4.5 4.6 Coffee Roaster 4.6 3.9 2
Cinnamon 2.54 4 4.9 6 Chocolate Factory 5.1 4.6 3
Mowed lawn 2.14 4 4.9 6.4 Beer Brewery 8.1 7.7 6
Orange 2.86 4 5.2 5.8 Fragrance & Flavour Factory 9.8 8.5 8
Hay 1.31 7 6.9 7.5 Charcoal Production 9.4 9.2 8
Soap 0.96 8 7.8 7.3 Green Fraction composting 14 10.3 9
Brandy 9 8.8 7.8 Fish smokinQ 9.8 10.5 9
Raisins 1.56 8 8.8 7.9 Frozen Chips production 9.6 11 10
Beer 0.14 9 9.5 9.3 SUQar Factory 9.8 11.3 11
Cork 0.19 10 10 10.5 Car Paint Shop 9.8 11.7 12
Peanut Butter 1.99 10 10.4 11.1 Livestock odours 12.8 12.6 12
Vineqar -1.26 14 13.3 14.8 Asphalt 11.2 12.7 13
Wet Wool -2.28 14 14 14.1 Livestock Feed FactoI)' 13.2 14.2 15
Paint -0.75 15 14 14.4 Oil Refinery 13.2 14.3 14
Sauerkraut -0.6 15 14.6 12.8 Car Park Bldg 8.3 14.4 15
Cleaning Agent -1.69 15 14.7 12.1' Wastewater Treatment 12.9 16.1 17
Sweat -2.53 18 16.6 17.2 Fat & Grease Processinq 15.7 17.3 18
Sour Milk -2.91 19 18 17.5 Creamery/milk products 17.7 10
Cat's Pee -3.64 19 18.8 19.4 Pet Food Manufacture 17.7 19
Sewer odour -3.68 - - - Brickworks (burninq rubber) 17.8 18
- - - - - Slaughter House 17 18.3 19
- - - - -
Landfill 14.1 18.5 20
Notes: Source: Draft Odour H4-Part 1, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). (2004). Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.
1 The higher the positive "value", the more pleasant the odour descriptor and similarly below, the greater the negative value, the more unpleasant the odour descriptor
2Ranking in order of dislike ability.
As can be observed from Table 2.1, and using the Dutch based ranking system, Wastewater
treatment plants (WWTP) have a mean raking of 12.90 in terms of dislike. Other odours with
similar mean dislike ranking include Oil Refinery, Livestock Feed Factory, Livestock odour (i.e.
intensive pig/poultry production). Generic odours such as Sauerkraut and Cleaning agents have
also similar dislike abilities to WWTP odours. Dravnieks et a/., 1994 performed hedonic tone
ranking of generic odours including Sauerkraut, Cleaning agents and Sewer odour and obtained
a mean hedonic score of -0.60, -1.69 and -3.68, respectively. There is a clear trend in these
studies whereby both mean ranking of dislike ability and hedonic scoring provide subjective
ranking of odours and their respective ability to cause offensive/complaint. It would appear that
when the hedonic tone of the odour reached a specific level, the odour hedonic tone decreases
rapidly to small increases in odour threshold concentration (Le. small increases in odour threshold
concentrations will cause a large change in the perceived odour offensiveness). Such trends
have been observed by Odour Monitoring Ireland in a laboratory-based environment. It has been
suggested that when an odour reached an odour intensity level of 3 (distinct) and a mean hedonic
score of -2 (unpleasant), an odour will become offensive and cause odour complaint. This
scoring level can be assessed through the use of olfactometric techniques in a laboratory based
environment whereby the odour concentration level corresponding to an odour intensity level of 3
and a hedonic tone of -2 can be determined. This methodology of analysis is very important in
spot-checking odour abatement systems. By implementing hedonic tone assessment techniques
on source odour samples, the odour threshold concentration responsible for causing on odour
complaint following dynamic dilution can be determined. VDI Guidelines 3882 Part 2 -
Determination of odour Hedonic tone specifies a methodology for such an assessment.
3.3.4. Commonly used odour annoyance criteria utilised in dispersion models
An odour impact criterion defines the odour threshold concentration limit value above baseline in
ambient air, which will result in an odour stimulus capable of causing an odour complaint. There
are a number of interlinked factor, which causes a nearby receptor (Le. resident) to complain.
These include:
• Odour threshold concentration, odour intensity and hedonic tone-defined measurable
parameters at odour source,
• Frequency of odour-how frequently the odour is present at the receptor location,
• Duration of odour-how long the odour persists at the receptor location,
• Physiological-previous experiences encountered by receptor, etc.
By assessing these combined interlinked factors, the ability for a facility to cause odour complaint
can be determined. As odour is not measurable in ambient air due to issues in sampling
techniques, limit of detections for olfactometers and the inability to monitor continuously, therefore
dispersion models become useful tools in odour impact assessments and odour risk analysis.
Dispersion modelling also allows for the assessment of proposed changes in processes within the
WWTP without actually having to wait for the processes to be changed (Le. predictive analysis).
When utilising dispersion models for impact assessment, specific impact criterion (odour
concentrations) need to be established at receptors. For odour assessment in general terms, this
is called an odour impact criterion, which defines the maximum allowable ground level
concentration (GLC) of odour at a receptor location for a particular exposure period (Le. :s; 1.50
OUE m'3 at the 98 th percentile of hourly averages). Commonly used odour annoyance criteria in
Ireland, UK, Netherlands and other world wide countries are illustrated in Table 2.2. The odour
concentration, % odour exposure at this odour concentration, the dislike ability, the dispersion
model and industry it applies are presented (see Table 2.2).
Table 2.2. Od --- -- --.- _.. _- _..'t, . d f' lod -_._.

Odour cone. Percentile value Average time Dispersion Dislike ability
Country Industry type Type area it applies Application of criterion
limit (Oue m 3 ) (0/0) (minutes) model (see Table 1.2)
th Limit value for existing pig For all pig production units in
Ireland 5:6.0 ' 98 60 Intensive pig production Complex 1 12.80
production units Ireland
th Limit value for existing pig For all pig production units in
Ireland 5:3.0' 98 60 Intensive pig production Complex 1 12.80
production units Ireland
Complex 1/1SC Limit value for new Limit value for new slaughter
5:1.502
1n
Ireland 98 60 Slaughter house 17.0
ST3 slaughter house facilities house facilities
Limit value for existing facility
ISC Prime/lSC Limit value at sensitive
Ireland 5:1.503 981n 60 Balbriggan WNTP 12.90 at sensitive receptor
ST3 receptor locations
locations.
IPPC H4 Guidance Notes
th ADMSI Indicative odour exposure Part 1-Regulation and
UK 5:1.50' 98 60 WNTP 12.90
AERMOD criterion for licensing Permitting, Environment
Agency
Limit value for existing facility
3 th ISC Prime/lSC Limit value at sensitive
Ireland 5:3.0 98 60 Enniscorthy WNTP 12.90 at sensitive receptor
ST3 receptor locations
locations.
Used as a limit value
th WNTP-Newbiggin by Planning application-
UK 5:5.0' 98 60 ADMS prevent odour impact 12.90
the Sea Planning Newbiggin by the Sea
associated with WNTP
UK 5:1.50' 98 60 Livestock feed factory 13.20
AERMOD criterion for licensing Permitting. Environment
Agency
UK 5:1.50' 98 60 Oil refinery 13.20
AERMOD criterion for licensing Permitting, Environment
Aaencv
Odour exposure criterion I
developed through
5 th Longhurst et al 1998 for
UK 5:3.0 98 60 LandfiJI activities Complex 1 laboratory based odour 14.10
LandfiJI planning application
intensity studies and'
complaint correlation
Limit value to prevent Industry sector specific' air
th
NL 5:3.506 98 60 WNTP Complex 1 odour nuisance existing 12.90 quality criterion for odours in
~
plant Netherlands
Industry sector specific air
th Limit value to prevent
Nl 5:1.506 98 60 WNTP Complex 1 12.90 quality criterion for odours in
odour nuisance new plant
Netherlands
Document No. 2006A394(5) Mott MacDonnell Pettil Consulting Engineers
Notes: 1 denotes reference BAT Note development for intensive agriculture sector & EPA, 2001. Odour Impacts and Odour emissions control for Intensive
Agriculture. R&D Report Series no. 14. EPA, Johnston Castle, Wexford.
2 denotes EPA, (2004). BAT Notes for the Slaughterhouse sector, EPA, Johnston Castle, Wexford.
3 denotes Odour limit values used during EIA application for WWTP's.
4 denotes Environment Agency, (2002). Technical Guidance Notes IPPC H4-IPPC, Horizontal Guidance for Odour, Part 1-Regulation and Permitting.
Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.
5 denotes Magette, W., Curran, T., Provolo, G., Dodd, V., Grace, P., and Sheridan, B., (2002). BAT Note for the Pig and Poultry Sector. EPA, Johnston
Castle, Wexford.
6 denotes EPA, 2001. Odour Impacts and Odour emissions control for Intensive Agriculture. R&D Report Series no. 14. EPA, Johnston Castle, Wexford
Document No. 2006A394(5) Mott MacDonnell Peltit Consulting Engineers
Table 2.2. illustrates the range of odour impact criterion used in Ireland, UK, Netherlands, and
other worldwide communities. The impact criterion accepted in Ireland and UK are based on
research performed in Netherlands over the mid 80's and early 90's. In the late 90's the UK
Environment Agency performed some research on validating those standards developed in
Netherlands through studies performed in the UK. The main aims of these studies were for the
developing of guidance notes on odour for licensing procedures under the EPA Act 1992. Over
the last decade, these impact criterions have been providing protection to the community at large
in the vicinity of such facilities. There is a general trend in odour impact criterion and dislike ability
presented in Table 2.1. As can be observed in Table 2.1 and 2.2, the more offensive the odour is
perceived, the lower the acceptable ambient odour concentration above baseline. Odours such
as bakery odours are considered less offensive than pig production facilities and this is observed
through the relative dislike ability and also the odour impact criterion established to limit nuisance.
Wastewater treatment plants have similar dislike ability to intensive pig production facilities and
therefore it would be rational to suggest a similar odour impact criterion to intensive pig
production facilities. Other factors that require consideration include, the location of the WWTP I
pumping station, the surrounding sensitive receptors, and amount of odour mitigation to be
implemented into the overall design. For example in Ireland, pig production facilities are generally
located in rural environments, whereby sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the facility are working
in similar livestock operations and therefore do not consider the perceived odour as offensive as
say a person not familiar with the odour. WWTP's I Pumping stations on the other hand in recent
times are located close to the source of effluent and in the vicinity of sensitive receptors
(population encroachment of residences and industrial estates). In addition, in recent times
WWTP's and pumping stations have installed odour control technologies to limit the risk of odour
complaint (e.g. Sutton Pumping station, Limerick Main Drain Pumping station, Ringsend Pumping
station, etc.). By abating the sources of offensive odours within the WWTP and Pumping station,
the odour limit value becomes less conservative as the odour emitted from the odour abatement
technology is considered less offensive and therefore has a markedly lower potential risk of
causing complaint. Taking into account these factors for the WWTP's and Pumping stations, it is
proposed that:
• All sensitive locations and areas of amenity should be located outside the 1.S0 OUE m- 3 at
th
the 98 percentile of hourly averages over a meteorological year.
• All sensitive locations and areas of amenity should be located outside the 3.0 OUE m- 3 at
th
the 99.S percentile of hourly averages over a meteorological year.
These proposed odour impact criterion is sufficiently conservative to provide protection to the
community at large taking into account latest suggested odour impact criterion by environmental
agencies in Ireland, UK and Netherlands. In the case of the proposed Cork Harbour Main
Drainage Scheme WWTP, all significant odour sources (wastewater handling and sludge
handling operations) capable of generating offensive odours will be enclosed, sealed and
negatively ventilated to an odour control system. Only the Aeration tankage, secondary
settlement tankage and storm water tankage within the proposed WWTP will be open to
atmosphere. All other odour sources will be enclosed, sealed and abated using odour treatment
system (two stages of treatment for biological treatment unit as first stage).
For all pumping stations, an odour management system will be implemented to ensure that no
uncontrolled release of fugitive odours occur.
th
For the WWTP odour impact assessment, the 99.S percentile of hourly averages is used to
th
complement the 98 percentile of hourly averages to take account of predicted downwind odour
concentrations during short time worst-case meteorological conditions thereby providing added
protection to the public at large. This was not performed upon the pumping station odour impact
assessment as the predicted plume spread as assessed using the 98 th percentile assessment
criterion concluded negligible odour impact due to the overall low odour emissions due to odour
source characteristics (i.e. odour emission rate from pumping stations is predicted to be low).
3.4. Meteorological data.
Cork airport meteorological station Year 1993 to 1997 inclusive was used for the operation of
Aermod Prime. This allowed for the determination of the worst-case meteorological year for the
determination of overall odour impact from the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme
WWTP and each of the five Pumping stations on the surrounding population.
3.5. Terrain data.
Topography affects in the vicinity of the WWTP site were accounted for within the dispersion
modelling assessment using a topography file. All significant deviations in terrain are examined in
modelling computations through terrain incorporation using AerMap software.
All building wake effects within the propose WWTP and Pumping stations were accounted for in
the modelling scenarios (Le. building effects on point sources) as this can have a major effect on
the odour plume dispersion at short distances.
4. Results
This section will present the results obtained from the study.
4.1. Odour emission data
Two data sets for odour emission rates were calculated to determine the potential odour impact of
the proposed WWTP operation and design utilising site specific and library individual source
odour emission data gathered onsite. These scenarios included:
Ref Scenario 1: Predicted overall odour emission rate from proposed Cork Harbour Main
Drainage Scheme WWTP specimen design with the incorporation of
odour mitigation protocols (see Table 4.1).
Ref Scenario 2: Predicted overall odour emission rate from major pumping stations with
the incorporation of odour management systems (i.e. tight fitting covers,
etc.) (see Table 4.2).
A worst-case odour-modelling scenario was chosen to estimate worst-case odour impact from the
proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP and five pumping stations following the
incorporation of odour management systems (i.e. five years of met data, predicted odour
emission rate, etc.).
4.2. Odour emission rates from Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme specimen design
WWTP and Pumping stations operations for atmospheric dispersion modelling
Scenario 1 and 2
Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 illustrate the overall odour emission rate from the proposed Cork Harbour
Main Drainage Scheme WWTP and five pumping stations (i.e. with installed odour management
systems implemented).
As can be observed in Table 4.1, the overall odour emission rate from the proposed Cork
Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP specimen design will be at or less than 6,611 QUE/S. This
overall source odour emission rate is based on worst case estimated of maximum emissions that
could occur from the site with odour mitigation strategies implemented.
Table 4.2 illustrates the overall odour emission rate from the five pumping stations to be located
in Raffeen, West Beach, lVIonkstown, Church Road (existing) and Carrigaloe Pumping Stations
following implementation of odour management systems.
Odour emission rates are based on a number of mitigation assumptions that will require to be
implemented into the Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WNTP while odour emissions rates
for the five pumping stations design are based on the implementation of good design and
implementation of standard odour management systems (i.e. tight fitting covers).
Table 4.1. Predicted overall odour emission rate from proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP specimen design with the
incorporation of odour mitigation protocols (ref Scenario 1).
Volumetric
2 Odour emission flux Odour threshold Odour emission rate
Source identity Area (m ) 2 airflow rate 3 % Contribution
(OuE/m /s) conc (OuE/m ) (Ou/s)
(m 3/s)
Inlet works-Primary treatment building 1 0 See OCU emission rate - 0 0
Primary settlement tank 12 0 See OCU emission rate - - 0 0

2
2
3
Storm water tank 1 952.47 0.50 - 476 7.20
3
Storm water tank 2 952.47 0.50 - 476 7.20
4
Aeration tank 1200 1.20 - 1440 21.78
s
Secondary settlement tank 1 952.47 0.50 - 476 7.20
s
Secondary settlement tank 3s 952.47 0.50 - 476 7.20
s
6
OCU 1 - Inlet works building OCU - - 1.0 300 300 4.54
OCU 2 - Prima~ settlement tanks/Flow splitting
chambers OCU
- - 0.93 300 279 4.22
OCU 3 - Sludge holding

tanks/Digesters/Sludge drier OCU
8 - - 2.27 500 1135 17.17
OCU 4 - Primary sludge storage OCU 9 - - 1 300 300 4.54

OCU 5 - Secondary sludge treatment OCU,o - - 1 300 300 4.54
Total odour emission rate 11 ,12.13 - - - - 6,611 100
Notes:
1,6 denotes all inlet works processes (screening and grit removal) will be double contained (to achieve legislative requirements of
odourants in work space environment) and up to 6 to 10 AC/hr applied within enclosed process. All odourous air will be treated in
an odour control unit. The double containment principle will apply here to ensure no emissions of odours escape to the headspace
of the building. At all times the legislative concentrations of odourant will be required to be below their respective occupational
exposure concentration level in all buildings.
2denotes the Primary settlement tanks will be covered with tight fitting covers and negatively ventilated to an odour control
system.
3 denotes the storm water tanks will be fitted with automated washing facilities to ensure each tank is free of organic debris
following emptying. This will minimise any odour emissions associated with such process.
4 denotes the odour emission rate from aeration process is based on library data assuming efficient oxygen transfer through the
wastewater liquor (absence of anaerobicity). Advancements in the oxygen transfer equipment market have facilitated faster
aerobic digestion of wastewater and efficient transfer of oxygen into the wastewater therefore reducing odour emission rates in
comparison to older based techniques (OMI database on WWTP's in Ireland)
5denotes that secondary settlement tanks will be operated in accordance with standard practices and the build-up of scum will be
prevented.
7 denotes all sludge drying operations will be performed indoors. The sludge drying operation will be effectively sealed and
negatively ventilated to prevent odour release to the headspace of the building. All odours generated as a result of drying and
storage of undried/drier sludge cake will be negatively extracted to an odour control unit.
8 denotes all sludge thickening process including Gravity belt thickeners and centrifuges will be double contained within their
respective building and negatively ventilated to an odour control unit. All associated sumps and tankage will be sealed with tight
fitting covers and negatively ventilated to an odour control unit.
9denotes all tankage associated with the handling and processing of primary slUdge will be sealed with tight fitting covers and
negatively ventilated to an odour control unit. All primary sludge treatment processes will be enclosed and negatively ventilated to
an odour control unit.
10denotes all tankage associated with the handling and processing of secondary sludge will be sealed with tight fitting covers and
negatively ventilated to an odour control unit. All secondary sludge treatment processes will be enclosed and negatively ventilated
to an odour control unit.
11 denotes the overall odour emission rate of 6,611 Ou/s is based on the facts of effective containment and extraction of odours
from odour generating processes. The odour emission rate associated with odour treatment is assumed to be residual odour from
the odour treatment process itself and aeration, secondary settlement and storm water tank processes.
12denotes it is anticipated that 5 odour control system will be installed providing an estimated treatment volume of 6.20 m3/s to an
3 3
exhaust odour concentration of less than or equal to 300 Oudm for OCU's 1, 2, 4, 5 and less than of equal to 500 OUE/m for
OCU 3 . This equated to an overall odour emission rate of 2,314 OUE/S from the treatment technologies. This treatment volume
airflow rate should be sufficient to capture and maintain each process under slight negative pressure if effective enclosure, double
containment and sealing of tankage/processes occur. In accordance with good engineering practice, the overall stack height will
be at least 12 metres high. The overall effective efflux velocity will be 15 m/s at stack tip. This will aid in the dispersion of residual
odours. The hedonic tone of this odour exhaust from the odour control units should not be considered unpleasant (Scale greater
than -2) as assessed in accordance with VDI 3882:1997, part 2; ('Determination of Hedonic). The specimen design suggests the
use of three OCU's. The following should be achieved at minimum: total odour emission rate of 6,611 Ou/s is achieved for the
entire WWTP; the total minimum odour treatment volume of 6.20 m3/s is treated within the OCU's, and a total odour emission rate
of less than or equal to 2,314 OUE/S is achieved for the OCU's, then the number of OCU's utilised onsite is not important from an
odour treatment viewpoint.
13 denotes the overall odour treatment extraction rate is assumed and may need revision depending on process layout and final
engineering design. This can only be changed if the DBO contractor can provide evidence that the selected design is sufficient to
contain minimise and prevent fugitive odour emission to atmosphere. The overall containment process will be process proved
independently using traditional smoke generation techniques so as to demonstrate containment of odours.
Table 4.2. Predicted overall odour emission rate from five Pumping stations specimen design with the implementation of good design and odour
management system operation (Le. tight fitting covers, etc.) (ref Scenario 2).
Source identity Odour emission rate (OuE/s)
Raffeen PS OCU 1 90
1
West beach PS OCU 360
Monkstown PS OCU 1 120
Church Rd PS OCU 1 81
Carrigaloe PS OCU 1 51
Notes:
1 denotes the overall odour emission rate will be dependent on the implementation of good design and odour management
systems (e.g. good design in term of odour, tight fitting covers, etc.).
Document No. 2006A394(5) Molt MacDonnell Peltit Consulting Engineers
4.3. Results of odour dispersion modelling for the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage
Scheme WWTP and Pumping stations operation and design
Aermod Prime was used to determine the overall odour impact of the proposed Cork Harbour Main
Drainage Scheme WlNrP and Pumping stations operation at as set out in odour impact criteria Table
2.1 and 2.2. The output data was analysed to calculate:
Ref Scenario 1:
• Predicted odour emiSSion contribution of overall proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage
Scheme WlNrP of eration to surrounding population (see Table 4.1), to odour plume
t
dispersal at the 98 percentile for an odour concentration of less than or equal to 1.50 QUE
m- (see Figure 8.1).
Scheme WlNrP operation to surrounding population (see Table 4.1), to odour plume
th
dispersal at the 99.5 percentile for an odour concentration of less than or equal to 3.0 QUE
3
m- (see Figure 8.2).
• Predicted odour emissions contribution of individual grouped Qdour control units 1 to 5 to
surrounding population (see Table 4.1), to odour plume dispersal at the 98 th percentile for an
odour concentration of less than or equal to 0.30 Qu E/m 3 (see Figure 8.3).
• Predicted odour emissions contribution of individual grouped Aeration, Secondary settlement
and Storm water tankage sources to surrounding population (see Table 4.1), to odour plume
th
dispersal at the 98 percentile for an odour concentration of less than or equal to 1.50
3
QUE/m (see Figure 8.4).
These odour impact criterions were chosen for the WlNrP in order to ascertain the level of proposed
impact to the surrounding residential and industrial population in the vicinity of the proposed W\NTP.
Ref Scenario 2: These contours are selected in order to allow for representation of the results
obtained from the dispersion modelling. The limit value in terms of odour impact criterion is less than
3 3 th
1.50 QUE/m at the 98 th percentile and less than 3.0 QUE/m at the 99.5 percentile of hourly
averages. Since the overall predicted odour emission rate from the five major pumping stations is low
(due to the small nature and characteristics of the odour source), these odour contours were selected
for illustrative purposes only to demonstrate the absence of odour impact and in addition, the
contours for the 99.5 th percentile are not presented.
• Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed Raffeen Pumping Station
th
3
percentile for an odour concentration of less than or equal to 0.10 QUE m- (see Figure 8.5).
• Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed West beach Pumping Station
th
3
• Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed Monkstown Pumping Station
th
3
• Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed Church Road Pumping Station
th
3
• Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed Carrigaloe Pumping Station
th
3
Since the predicted odour emission rate from the pumping stations is low following the
implementation of odour management systems (e.g. good design in terms of odour management,
tight fitting covers, etc.), odour isopleths suitable for reporting clarity were chosen (i.e. actual impact
criterion is less than or equal to 1.50 OUE/m 3 at the 98th percentile of hourly averages over 5 years of
meteorological data). All odour impact criterions chosen were in accordance with best international
practice (see Section 3.3.4). Taking this low impact into account, there is no requirement to perform
1h
risk analysis using the 99.5 percentile assessment criterion, as the predicted odour impact criterion
will always be below this level.
These computations give the odour concentration at each Cartesian grid receptor location that is
predicted to be exceeded for 0.50% (44 hours) and 2% (175 hours) of a standard meteorological
year.
This will allow for the predictive analysis of any potential impact on the neighbouring sensitive
locations while the WWTP and Pumping stations are in operation. It will also allow the operators of
the WWTP and Pumping station site to assess the effectiveness of their suggested odour
abatement/minimisation strategies. The intensity of the odour from two or more sources of the WWTP
operation will depend on the strength of the initial odour threshold concentration from the sources
and the distance downwind at which the prediction and/or measurement is being made. Where the
odour emission plumes from a number of sources combine downwind, then the predicted odour
concentrations may be higher than that resulting from an individual emission source. It is important to
note that various odour sources have different odour characters. This is important when assessing
those odour sources to minimise and/or abate. Although an odour source may have a high odour
emission rate, the corresponding odour intensity (strength) may be low and therefore it is easily
diluted. Those sources that express the same odour character, as an odour impact should be
investigated first for abatement/minimisation before other sources are examined as these sources
are the driving force behind the character of the perceived odour.
5. Discussion of results
This section will discuss the results obtained during the desktop study.
5.1. Odour plume dispersal for proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP
specimen design with the incorporation of odour mitigation protocols
The ~Iotted odour concentrations of ~ 1.50 OUE m- for the 98 percentile and :5 3.0 OUE m-3 for the
3 th
99.5 t percentile for the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WNrP specimen design
operation are illustrated in Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2, respectively. As can be observed for the 98 th
percentile contour, it is predicted that odour plume spread is small with a radial spread of 80 metres
from the boundary of the facility in a northerly direction. In accordance with odour impact criterion in
Section 3.6.4, and in keeping with currently recommended odour impact criterion in this country, no
long-term odour impacts will be generated by receptors in the vicinity of the future proposed WNTP.
1h
In terms of the 99.5 percentile of hourly averages over five years of meteorological data, the overall
odour plume spread is similar with a radial spread of 75 metres in a northerly and easterly direction.
In accordance with odour impact criterion in Section 3.6.4, and in keeping with currently
recommended odour impact criterion in this country, no short-term odour impacts will be generated
by receptors in the vicinity of the future proposed WNrP.
Figures 8.4 and 8.5 illustrates the odour plume spread for individual grouped odour sources to
include odour control units (OCU's) 1 to 5 and tankage odour sources Aeration, Secondary
settlement and Storm water tankage. As can be observed, the main contributor of odour to the actual
plume spread is the aeration, secondary settlement and storm water tankage. All other offensive
odour sources will be covered, sealed and negatively ventilated and odourous air directed to two
stages of odour control if biological treatment is chosen as first stage. The maximum predicted
3
ground level concentration for odour control units 1 to 5 will be less than 0.41 OUE/m at the 98
percentile of hourly averages over 5 years of meteorological data. This is a result of a guaranteed
3
odour threshold concentration of less than 300 OUE/m for OCU's 1, 2, 4, and 5 and less than 500
3
OUE/m for OCU 3. The overall stack heights of each OCU is 12 m high from ground level with an
efflux velocity greater than 15 m/so
5.2. Odour plume dispersal for five Pumping stations with the incorporation of good design
and odour management systems
The plotted odour concentrations of ~ 0.10 OUE m'3 for the 98 th of hourly averages for five years of
meteorological data for the proposed Raffeen Pumping station is illustrated in Figure 8.5. The
maximum ground level concentration of odour in the vicinity of the facility will be 0.19 OUE/m3 for the
98 th percentile following the implementation of standard design elements for odour management (e.g.
tight fitting covers, etc.). In accordance with odour impact criterion presented in Section 3.3.4, no
long-term odour impacts will be perceived in the vicinity of the Pumping station. This is up to 87%
lower than the odour impact criterion presented in Section 3.3.4.
The plotted odour concentrations of ~ 0.30 OUE m'3 for the 98 of hourly averages for five years of
th
meteorological data for the proposed West beach Pumping station is illustrated in Figure 8.6. The
The plotted odour concentrations of ~ 0.20 OUE m'3 for the 98 th of hourly averages for five years of
meteorological data for the proposed Monkstown Pumping station is illustrated in Figure 8.7. The
The plotted odour concentrations of ~ 0.14 OUE m'3 for the 98 of hourly averages for five years of
th
meteorological data for the existing Church Road Pumping station is illustrated in Figure 8.8. The
3
maximum ground level concentration of odour in the vicinity of the facility will be 0.18 OUE/m for the
th
98 percentile following the implementation of standard design elements for odour management (e.g.
3
The plotted odour concentrations of ~ 0.10 OUE m- for the 98 of hourly averages for five years of
th
meteorological data for the proposed Carrigaloe Pumping station is illustrated in Figure 8.9. The
3
maximum ground level concentration of odour in the vicinity of the facility will be 0.15 OUE/m for the
th
98 percentile following the implementation of standard design elements for odour management (e.g.
The implementation of good design and odour management systems (e.g. standard design for odour
minimisation, tight fitting covers, etc.) within each pumping station (both minor and major) will
minimise the uncontrolled release of fugitive odour emissions and prevent complaints from the public
at large.
6. Conclusions
A worst-case odour emission scenario was modelled using the atmospheric dispersion model
Aermod Prime with meteorology data representative of the study area. A worst-case odour emission
data set was used to predict any potential odour impact in the vicinity of the proposed Cork Harbour
Main Drainage Scheme WWTP and five Pumping stations. Odour impact potential was discussed for
proposed operations with the implementation of management and mitigation protocols. It was
concluded that:
Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP

• In accordance with odour impact criterion in Table 2.2, and in keeping with current
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme
WWTP following the installation of proposed odour management, minimisation and mitigation
protocols assuming specimen design. As can be observed, the overall odour emission rate
from the new proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP will be no greater than
6,611 OUE/S based on the specimen design.
• All residents/industrial neighbours in the vicinity of the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage
Scheme WWTP will perceive an odour concentration at or less than 1.50 OUE m-3 for the 98th
3
percentile and less than 3.0 OUE/m for the 99.5 th percentile for five years of meteorological
data (see Figures 8.1 and 8.2). Those odour sources considered most offensive (inlet works,
primary treatment and holding tanks, centrate, filtrate, sludge, RASIWAS pump sumps, flow
splitting chambers and all sludge handling processes including tankage will be effectively
contained and ventilated to an odour control system and therefore the overall risk of any
residenUindustrial neighbours detecting odour will be negligible since the major odour
sources contributing to the remaining odour plume are considered low risk in term of odour.
These sources include the aeration tankage, secondary settlement tankage and storm water
tankage (see Figures 8.3 and 8.4).
• Those management and mitigation strategies discussed through this document should be
considered and implemented in the design of the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage
Scheme WWTP. Any deviations from the proposed mitigation strategies will require
reassessment in order to ensure no odour impact in the vicinity of the proposed facility.
Pumping Stations
• In accordance with odour impact criterion in Section 3.3.4, and in keeping with current
sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the major Pumping stations Raffeen, West Beach,
Monkstown, Church Road and Carrigaloe Pumping Stations following the implementation of
good design in terms of odour management (e.g. tight fitting covers, etc.).
• All residents/industrial neighbours in the vicinity of the proposed pumping stations will
perceive an odour concentration at or less than 1.50 OUE m-3 for the 98 th percentile for five
years of meteorological data (see Figures 8.5 to 8.9). All pumping station (both minor and
major) will incorporate the use of an odour management system (e.g. good design in terms of
odour minimisation, tight fitting covers etc.) to ensure no fugitive release of odours from each
pumping station. In addition, each pumping station will be regularly visited so as to ensure
efficient operation of the odour management system.
• It is acknowledged that many of the pumping stations are located in populous areas. For this
reason the design of the collection system will include best practice and adequate odour
management systems to prevent odour complaint and impact.
• The pumping stations will be covered/sealed to allow for containment of odours. The
implementation of odour management systems within each pumping station (both minor and
major) will minimise the uncontrolled release of fugitive odour emissions.
• Pumping stations will be subject to Part 8 Planning at detailed design. It will be the
responsibility of the designer and contractor to review the PS location and the odour
management systems proposed to prevent odour complaints and impact.
Document No. 2006A394(5) Moll MacDonnell Petlit Consulting Engineers
7. Recommendations
The following recommendations were developed during the study:
1. Odour management, minimisation and mitigation procedures as discussed within this

document in general will be implemented at the proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage
Scheme wastewater treatment plant and each Pumping Station in order to prevent any odour
impact in the surrounding vicinity.
2. The maximum allowable odour emission rate from the overall proposed WWTP should not be
greater than 6,6110UE S·1 (see Table 4.1) inclusive of the odour emission contribution from
the abatement systems installed on the primary treatment, pumping and sludge handling
processes. The maximum overall odour emission rate from the odour control units shall be
no greater than 2,314 OUE S·1 (exhaust stack concentration of less than 300 OUE/m3 for OCU
3
1, 2, 4 and 5 and less than 500 OUE/m for OCU 3, respectively). The hedonic tone of this
odour should not be considered unpleasant (Scale greater than -2) as assessed in
accordance with VDI 3882: 1997, part 2; ('Determination of Hedonic) for all emission points.
The specimen design suggests the use of three OCU's. As long as the total odour emission
rate for the WWTP (i.e. 6,6110UE S·1) is achieved along with the total minimum odour
3
treatment volume (i.e. 6.20 m /s) and a total odour emission rate from the OCU's of less than
or equal to 2,314 OUE S·1 is similar, then the number of OCU's utilised onsite is not important.
3. The odour management systems to be installed upon Raffeen, Carrigaloe, West Beach,
Monkstown and Church road should be sufficient to prevent any uncontrolled fugitive odours
escaping from the system. In addition any odour management system incorporated into the
design and upgrade of the pumping station should be capable of achieving less than 1.50
3 th 3 th
OUE/m at the 98 percentile and less than 3.0 OUE/m at the 99.5 percentile of hourly
averages.
4. Maintain good housekeeping practices (i.e. keep yard area clean, etc.), closed-door
management strategy (Le. to eliminate puff odour emissions from sludge dewatering
building), maintain sludge storage within sealed airtight containers and to implement an
odour management plan for the operators of the WWTP and all Pumping station. All
odourous processes such as inlet works, primary treatment, and thickening will be carried out
indoors/enclosed tankage.
5. Avoid accumulation of floating debris and persistent sediments in channels and holding tanks
by design (i.e. flow splitters and secondary sedimentation tanks, etc.). Techniques to
eliminate such circumstances shall be employed.
6. Enclose and seal all primary treatment, wet wells and sludge handling processes.
7. Operate the proposed WWTP within specifications to eliminate overloading and under
loading, which may increase septic conditions within the processes.
8. Odour scrubbing technologies employing will be implemented within the proposed Cork
Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP. An odour management system will be implemented
upon each pumping station (both minor and major). All other odour management,
minimisation and mitigation strategies contained within this document where necessary will
be implemented within the overall design.
9. When operational, it is recommended that the contractor should provide evidence through
the use of dispersion modelling (Aermod Prime) and olfactometry measurement (in
accordance with EN13725:2003), that the as built WWTP and Pumping stations are
achieving the overall mass emission rate of odour and emission limit values for the installed
odour management systems.
8. Appendix I-Odour dispersion modelling contour results for Cork Harbour

Main Drainage Scheme
8.1 Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed overall Cork Harbour Main
Drainage Scheme WWTP operation with odour abatement protocols implemented (ref
th
Scenario 1) (see Table 4.1), to odour plume dispersal at the 98 percentile for an odour
3
concentration of ~ 1.50 QUE m for five years of meteorological data.
'~~KwU I ' "I;lI
;;
Figure 8.1. Predicted odour emiSSion contribution of proposed overall Cork harbour WWfP
operation with odour abatement protocols implemented to odour plume dispersal for Scenario 1 at
3
the 98th percentile for odour concentrations :s: 1.5 QUE m- ( - ) for five years of meteorological
data.
8.2 Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed overall Cork Harbour Main
Drainage Scheme WWTP operation with odour abatement protocols implemented (ref
Scenario 1) (see Table 4.1), to odour plume dispersal at the 99.S th percentile for an odour
3
concentration of ~ 3.0 QUE m for S years of meteorolo ical data.
RAFF.~.
.. --
. c'
___
~~ ........
, -
.. ---..r.:.~ -~
~-=~
./
Figure 8.2. Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed overall Cork harbour WWTP
operation with odour abatement protocols implemented to odour plume dispersal for Scenario 1 at
th 3
the 99.S percentile for odour concentrations:::; 3.0 QUE m- ( ) for S years of meteorological
data.
8.3 Predicted odour emission contribution of individual grouped odour control unit
sources for proposed overall Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP operation (ref
Scenario 1) (see Table 4.1), to odour plume dispersal at the 98 th percentile for an odour
3
concentration of:<::; 0.30 QUe m for five years of meteorological data.
.... •" ~~ I o'
~.~
) "
• •
,
I I '
_.- &
Figure 8.3. Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed Cork harbour WNrP to odour
plume dispersal for grouped sources Odour control units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for an odour concentration
of less than or equal to 0.30 OUe m-3 ( )at the 98 th percentile of hourly averages for 5 years of
meteorological data.
8.4 Predicted odour emission contribution of individual grouped aeration tankage,

secondary settlement tankage and storm water tankage sources for proposed overall Cork
Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP operation (ref Scenario 1) (see Table 4.1), to odour
th
plume dispersal at the 98 percentile for an odour concentration of ~ 1.50 QUE m 3 for five
years of meteorological data.
. : fr~,,----
~8J:-.ij""'"
;;:;T"':~~
Figure 8.4. Predicted odour emission contribution of overall proposed WWTP to odour plume
dispersal for grouped odour sources aeration tankage, Secondary settlement tankage and Storm
water tankage for an odour concentration of less than or equal to 1.50 QUE m-3 ( - )at the 98 th
percentile of hourly averages for 5 years of meteorological data.
8.5 Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed Raffeen Pumping station

operation with odour abatement protocols implemented (ref Scenario 2) (see Table 4.2), to
th
odour plume dispersal at the 98 percentile for an odour concentration of ::; 0.10 QUE m 3 for
five years of meteorological data.
.........
Om 25m SOm
Figure 8.5. Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed Raffeen Pumping station operation
th
with odour management protocols implemented to odour plume dispersal for Scenario 2 at the 98
3
percentile for odour concentrations::; 0.10 QUE m- ( - ) for five years of meteorological data.
- _ _' U
Scout
Hall
/-j
L
- -
Om 25", 50",
Figure 8.6. Predicted odour emiSSion contribution of proposed West beach Pumping station
operation with odour management protocols implemented to odour plume dispersal for Scenario 2 at
the 98 percentile for odour concentrations ~ 0.30 QUE m-3 ( - ) for five years of meteorological
th
data.
8.7 Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed Monkstown Pumping station

th
odour plume dispersal at the 98 percentile for an odour concentration of :s; 0.20 QUE m3 for
~
• P~fch
Om 25m 50/Tl
~
Figure 8.7. Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed Monkstown Pumping station
th
the 98 percentile for odour concentrations :s; 0.20 QUE m-3 ( - ) for five years of meteorological
data.
8.8 Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed Church Road Pumping station
operation with odour abatement protocols implemented (ref Scenario 2) {see Table 4.21, to
odour plume dispersal at the 98 percentile for an odour concentration of ~ 0.14 QUE m for
th
Carrlgallne Castle
(In ruIns)
25m 50m
~ /
Figure 8.8. Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed Church Road Pumping station
the 98 percentile for odour concentrations ~ 0.14 QUE m- 3 ( - ) for five years of meteorological
th
data.
8.9 Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed Carraigaloe Pumping station

odour plume dispersal at the 98 percentile for an odour concentration of ~ 0.10 QUE m3 for
th
...... ,.,
...... ",
lOKv
o
D CJ
-----
=-
D., 25m .Om
BALL
c (EO CC
a..
_ !l
Figure 8.9. Predicted odour emiSSion contribution of proposed Carraigaloe Pumping station
the 98 percentile for odour concentrations ~ 0.10 QUE m- 3 ( - ) for five years of meteorological
th
data.
9. Appendix 11 • Background Information on odours pertaining to Cork

Harbour Drainage scheme odour impact assessment.
9.1. Legislation pertaining to odours in Ireland
The Public Health Act of 1878 introduced legislation to control nuisance in Ireland, but its execution
only became viable after the implementation of the Planning and Development Act (1963) (Scannell,
1995). Any industry producing a nuisance was controlled under these regulations and subsequent
pressure from environmental lobby groups together with the development of scientific measurement
techniques made it practical to quantify and control the release of gaseous environmental pollutants
from these enterprises.
Odour impact from a WWTP on the surrounding vicinity may be considered a nuisance. Section 107
of the Public Health Act 1878 states that "sanitary authorities are bound to inspect their district for
nuisances. Upon the receipt of any information respecting the existence of a statutory nuisance, the
sanitary authority is obliged, if satisfied of the existence of the nuisance, to seNe an abatement
notice on the person by whose act or default the nuisance arises or continues or, if such a person
cannot be found, on the owner or occupier of the premises on which the nuisance arises" (Scannell,
1995).
In order to control the possible pollution effects of large developments, relevant legislation was
enacted under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Act of 1992. Private and public sector
developers of certain types and sizes of projects are required under section 72(4) of the EPA Act
(1992) to submit a copy of an Environmental Impact Statement. If the project is of a class listed in
Part 11 of the first schedule to the 1989 EIA regulations but does not exceed the threshold or criteria
specified, the planning authority must require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if it considers
the project is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. One of those impacts relates to
odour and is defined as environmental pollution in section 4(2) of the EPA Act (1992), as to cause a
nuisance through noise or odour and/or adversely affect the countryside or place of special interest
(Scannell, 1995).
Waste licensing and Integrated Pollution Control Licensing (IPC) (now IPPC) for specified facility
types was implemented in 1996 by the EPA and the related guidance note was termed BATNEEC
(Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost) (i.e. now BAT which complement the
BATNEEC Notes) (EPA, 1996). It set out specific conditions for these specific industries (i.e.
Intensive Agricultural Production, Landfills, Waste transfer stations, etc) to be implemented in order to
comply with the environmental requirements of the EPA. Minimisation of odour emissions and
complaints is one of the requirements of the BATNEEC Guidance Note for industries likely to cause
odour emissions. For example, a typical IPC license/Waste license condition states "that there shall
be no emission to the atmosphere of environmental significance and that all operations on site shall
be carried out in a manner such that air emissions and/or odours do not result in significant
impairment and/or interference with amenities beyond the site boundary and at odour sensitive
locations in the area" (EPA, 1996).
Local authorities and the EPA have responsibility for ensuring enterprises meet their planning and
environmental requirements. Where these facilities are found to be causing odour nuisance, local
government enforces Section 29 of the 1987 Air Pollution Act and serves the offenders with an
abatement notice. If the facility is licensed as an IPC or Waste enterprise, the EPA can enforce the
conditions of the license and either serves the facility with non-compliances for odour detected
beyond the site boundary or prosecute the facility and seek a high court injunction to close the
facility. Verification for the presence of odour nuisance usually encompasses the licensing officer
visiting the facility and detecting the odour beyond the boundary.
In December 2005, the Department of Environment published Statutory Instrument (SI) 787 for the
regulation of odours and noise from WWTP's. The main conclusions to be drawn from this SI 787 of
2005 include:
'A sanitary authority shall ensure that in formulating and approving plans for a waste water treatment
plant to be provided by the authority or on its behalf the plant is so designed and constructed as to
ensure that it avoids causing nuisance through odours or noise':
'A sanitary authority shall ensure that any waste water treatment plant under the sanitary authority's
control is so operated and maintained as to ensure that it avoids causing nuisance through odours or
noise".
It would also appear that SI 787 provides jurisdiction to the EPA to regulate WWTP for such
nuisances and enforce the EPA Act 1992 "For the purpose of Article 3(b) of these Regulations, the
Agency shall be required to ensure compliance of waste water treatment plants with the requirements
of the said Article 3 (b), and the provisions of section 63 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act
1992 (No. 7 of 1992) shall apply accordingly".
As part of SI 787 of 2005 "the planning authority where granting permission for a development in
accordance with section 34 of the Act of 2000 consisting of the provision of a waste water treatment
plant attach such conditions to the permission as may be, in the opinion of the authority and having
regard to the function of the Agency under Article 4 of these Regulations, necessary to ensure that
the plant is so operated and maintained as to ensure that it avoids causing nuisance through odours
or noise".
Additionally, in considering a appeal to planning, Board Pleanala "shall include such conditions as
may be necessary in its opinion to ensure that the plant is so operated and maintained as to avoid
causing nuisance through odours or noise".
Although it is not unusual for statutory instruments not to include numerical values for the control of
odour nuisance, it is apparent that there should not be odour nuisance from WWTP's in Ireland and
so should be designed and operated to eliminate odour nuisance (Sheridan, 2002). In these times of
regUlation, guidance documents such as those for IPPC and Waste licensed facilities should be
developed for WWTP design engineers and operators in order to allow them to implement Best
Available Techniques (BAT). In the UK, such a guidance document was published to provide
gUidance for existing and new WWTP for odour assessment and control.
9.2. Characterisation of odour.
The sense of smell plays an important role in human comfort. The sensation of smell is individual and
unique to each human and varies with the physical condition of the person, the odour emission
conditions and the individual's odourous education or memory. The smell reaction is the result of a
stimulus created by the olfactory bulb located in the upper nasal passage. When the nasal passage
comes in contact with the odourous molecules, signals are sent via the nerve fibres where the odour
impressions are created and compared with stored memories referring to individual perceptions and
social values. Since the smell is individual some people will be hypersensitive and some will be less
sensitive (ansomia). Therefore, the sense of smell is the most useful detection technique available as
it specialises in synthesising complex gas mixtures rather than analysing the chemical compound
(Sheridan, 2000).
9.3. Odour qualities
An odour sensation and complaint consists of a number of inter-linked factors. These include:
• Odour threshold/concentration,
• Odour intensity,
• Hedonic tone,
• Quality/Characteristics
• Component characteristics
The odour threshold concentration dictates the concentration of the odour in OUE m- 3 . The odour
intensity dictates the strength of the odour. The Hedonic quality allows for the determination of
pleasantness/unpleasantness. Odour quality/characteristics allow for the comparison of the odour to
a known smell (Le. turnip, like dead fish, flowers). Individual chemical component identity determines
the individual chemical components that constitute the odour (i.e. ammonia, hydrogen sulphide,
methyl mercaptan, carbon disulphide, etc.). Once odour qualities are determined, the overall odour
impact can be assessed. This odour impact assessment can then be used to determine if an odour
minimisation strategy is to be implemented and if so, which technology. Additionally, by sUitably
characterising the odour through complaint logs, the most likely source of the odour can be
determined. This allows for the implementation of immediate odour mitigation techniques to prevent
such emission in the future.
9.4. Perception of emitted odours.
Complaints are the primary indicators that odours are a problem in the vicinity of any facility.
Perceptions of odours vary from person to person, with several conditions governing a person's
perception of odour:
• Control: A person is better able to cope with an odour if they feel it can be controlled.
• Understanding: A person can better tolerate an odour impact if they understand its source.
• Context: A person reacts to the context of an odour as they do to the odour itself (i.e. WWTP
odour source due to sewage).
• Exposure: When a person is constantly exposed to an odour:
• They may lose their ability to detect that odour. For example, a plant operator
who works in the facility may grow immune to the odour or
• There tolerance to the odour grows smaller and they complain more frequently.
From these criteria, we can predict that odour complaints are more likely to occur when:
• A new facility locates in areas where people are unfamiliar with facilities;
• When a new process establishes within the facility (Le. anaerobic digestion processes);
• Or when an urban population encroaches on an existing facility.
The ability to characterise odours being emitted from the facility will help to develop a better
understanding of the impact of the odour on the surrounding vicinity. It will also help to implement
and develop better techniques to minimise/abate odours using existing technologies and engineering
design. The correct recording of odour complaints data is very important to resolVing any odour
impact.
WWW.odourireland.com 34
9.5. Characteristics of Waste water odours
Odours from wastewater treatment plants/pumping stations arise mainly from the uncontrolled
anaerobic biodegradation of sewage to produce unstable intermediates. Other odours come directly
from industrial waste water (solvents, volatile organic compounds, petroleum derivatives) or indirectly
from warm, highly degradable sulphurous effluents (Burgess et al. 2001). Typically domestic sewage
sludge contains 3-6 mg (1 organic sulphur, mainly arising from proteinaceous material, approximately
4 mg (1 from sulphonates contained in household detergents and 30-60 mg (1 inorganic sulphur (as
sulphonates) (Burgess et al. 2001). Odours are generated by a number of different waste water
components, the most significant being the sulphur containing compounds (thiols, mercaptans,
hydrogen sUlphide), volatile fatty acids (butyric acid, valeric acid), amines (methylamine,
Dimethylamine), phenols (4-methylphenol), chlorinated hydrocarbons (trichloroethylene,
tetrachloride), etc. (Dawson et al. 1997). Most of these compounds have very low odour threshold
concentrations as illustrated in Table 9.2. Different concentrations and mixtures of these compounds
can intensify or reduce odour threshold concentration, determined as synergism and antagonism
respectively. Hobbs et aI., (2002) performed studies on various odours commonly found in pig odour.
From his study he concluded that 4-methyl phenol had a negative effective on perceived odour
concentration when mixed with other odourant.
Table 91.. Od our detecfIon th res h0 Ids 0 f was ewa er 0 dour precursors.
Chemical Threshold Cone.
(mg m-3) Odour character
component
Ammonia 0.03-37.8 Punqent, sharp, irritatinq
Methylamine 0.0012-6.1 Fishy, Putrid Fishy
Trimethylamine 0.00026-2.1 Fishy, Pungent fishy
Dimethylamine 0.34 ppmv Putrid fishy
Ethylamine 0.27 ppmv Ammonia like
Triethylamine 0.48 ppmv Fishy
Pyridine 0.66 ppmv Sour, putrid fishy
Indole 0.0006-0.0071 Faecal, nauseatinq
Skatole 0.00035-0.00078 Faecal, nauseatinq
Hydrogen Sulphide 0.0005-0.002 Rotten eggs
Methyl mercaptan 0.0000003-0.038 Rotten cabbaqe
Ethyl mercaptan 0.000043-0.00033 Decaying cabbaqe/flesh
Intense rotten vegetables,
Propyl mercaptan 0.0001 ppmv
Unpleasant
Allyl mercaptan 0.0001 ppmv Garlic, coffee
Benzyl mercaptan 0.0003 ppmv Skunk, unpleasant
Thiocresol 0.449 ppmv Skunk
Dimethyl disulphide 0.000026 ppmv Rotten vegetables
Carbon disulphide 0.0077-0.0096 ppmv Rubber, intense sulphide
Acetic acid 0.024 to 0.120 Vineqar
Butyric acid 0.0004-42 Rancid
Valeric acid 0.0008-0.12 Sweaty, rancid
Propionic acid 0.028 ppmv Rancid, pungent
sharp, sour, rancid odour, goat-
Hexanoic acid 0.018 to 0.096
like odour
Formaldehyde 0.05 to 1.0 ppm Pungent, medicinal
Acetone 0.067 ppmv Punqent, fruity, sweet
Butanone 0.128 Sweet, solventy
Sweet pungent odour of orange
Acetophenone 0.05 to 0.10 ppmv
blossom or iasmine
Limonene 0.063 Intense oranqellemons
Alpha Pinene 0.006 ppmv Intense pine, fresh
THN
- Meat
Tetrahydronaphthalene
..
O'Neill & Phllllps et al. (1992) and Suffet at aI., 2004.
Document No. 2006A394(5) Moll MacDonnell Pellit Consulting Engineers
Although only indicators of odour emission from various processes within the WWTP, knowing which
compound precursors that are responsible for odour is useful in designing control techniques for the
minimisation and abatement of these gases. Technologies such as carbon filtration rely on the
binding efficiency of the carbon (Van der Waals forces and molecular sieving) and knowing the gas
constituents will help isolate the best carbon to perform the task. For example, Hydrogen sulphide
because of its molecular size will not bind efficiently to activated carbon. By impregnating the carbon
with potassium/sodium hydroxide chemisorption can be used to efficiently bind and hold on to the
Hydrogen sUlphide. Another reason for knowing Volatile Organic Compounds (VaC's) concentration
present in air stream is to propose the best technology. Chemical scrubbers are good for low vac's
steady stream processes while high vac concentration non-steady stream processes will not be as
affectively treated with chemical scrubbers although many stages of treatment can be provided to
buffer out the cyclic loading (but at greater operating expense).
9.6. Odourous compound formation in wastewater treatment plants/pumping stations
The formation of odourous components at WWTP's is usually limited to inlet works, primary
settlement tanks and to the areas of sludge handling/pumping/processing, particularly during the
handling of primary/anaerobic treated sludge. The formation of odours from pumping stations is
usually limited to the displacement of odours from the inlet flow chamber, wet wells and any primary
treatment that may occur at the pumping station (i.e. grit removal and screenings).
In WWTP's, under anaerobic conditions, the untreated primary sludge will readily decay, producing
odourous components in the process. The possibility for anaerobic conversion of surplUS activated
sludge depends on the sludge-loading rate (k) in the activated sludge works. At a lower sludge-
loading rate, the surplus activated sludge tends to be more stabilised, thus giving less cause for
odour impact. In general the following values may be adhered to:
• k < 0.05; extreme sludge stabilisation, no anaerobic bacterial decay to be expected;

• 0.05 < k < 0.1; moderate sludge stabilisation, some decay possible;
• k > 0.1 partial sludge stabilisation, anaerobic bacterial decay is most likely to occur.
The production of odourous components depends on the reduction-oxidation potential (redox-

potential) and on the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOO) of the wastewater. The redox-potential is the
condition under which decay can take place, while BOO is the parameter most commonly used to
define the pollution strength of a wastewater.
Anaerobic bacterial decay will only take place if the redox-potential of the wastewater is low enough.
Frequently this condition arises in rising mains, where anaerobic conditions occur. In gravitational
sewers a slight draft provides enough oxygen to limit this, as oxygen is highly toxic to anaerobic
bacteria. In certain cases, the dosing of bleach and Ferric will act as an oxidant and electron
donator/acceptor and limit such conditions. It is important to use sophisticated monitoring equipment
to measure dissolved oxygen and pH of the liquor to maintain ideal conditions for aerobic processes
to dominate. The monitoring of sulphite levels in the inlet sewer can be used to estimate hydrogen
sulphide generation levels within the WWTP.
Sludge handling processes can be more complicated depending on dewatering equipment design
and processed sludge storage facilities. For example, it is reported that using high-speed centrifuges
facilitate higher odour and H2S emission than low speed centrifuge due to the shearing of proteins
and carbohydrates within the sludge. This allows for the oxidation and reduction of methanthione and
other proteins which readily breakdown to methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulphide and H2 S (Sheridan,
2004). By dosing Ferric/Ferrous (2: 1 blend) at the head of the plant odours associated with digestor
gas and sludge handling can be reduced. The benefits of such dosing must be analysed since
greater sludge volumes (i.e. especially primary sludge) will be produced.
Document No. 2006A394(5) Molt MacDonnell Pettit Consulting Engineers
9.7. Odour emissions formation at Wastewater treatment plants
The rate of release of odourous compounds into the atmosphere at WWTP's and pumping stations is
influenced by:
• Liquid flow rate into the pumping station and WWTP,
• Trade effluent discharges containing high concentrations of sulphonates,
• Overloading of the WWTP;
• Long residence time of sewage in sewer;
• Temperature of mixed liquor (increased temperature causes increased anaerobic conditions
and volatilisation);
• Positive displacement of odours through covers / from buildings especially in Pumping
stations.
• The concentration of odourous compounds in the liquid phase exposed to air;
• Processes that generate surface turbulence (aeration basin, surface aerators, weirs
overflows, return activate sludge channel feed, pumping of RASIWAS/SAS, sludge
thickening techniques etc.);
• Total air/surface waste water interface area;
• Maintenance of aerobic conditions within WWTP's (i.e. sludge handling, processing and
storage).
Raw wastewater and sludge's have high concentrations of odourous compounds. Processes that
create surface turbulence and high rates of interface renewal, such as open channel flow, weir
overflows, biofilter flow distribution systems, surface aeration systems have much higher rates of
volatilisation of odourous compounds than quiescent processes such as sedimentation as these
processes allow for the change in the partial pressure at the surface interface and the mass transfer
of the odourous compounds to the gaseous phase.
The main sources of odour emissions from W\Nrp's in Ireland are wastewater screening, grit
separators, Grit and rag removal, inleUoutlet flow channels, (i.e. Inlet works), biotower flow
distributions, primary treatment processes, flow splitter chambers (i.e. badly designed weirs that
facilitate high volatilisation) and sludge handling processes (turbulent liquid removal at bottom of
Gravity belt thickeners, high speed centrifuges, pumped streams, etc). With the exception of
aerobically stabilised sludge's, sludge residues are the primary sources of odour emissions and
should be considered high-risk sources. Other high-risk sources include, inlet works, primary
settlement, pumped liquor streams and anaerobic digestion processes.
9.8. Odour management plan - Standard Practice
The Odour Management Plan (OMP) is a core document that is intended to detail operational and
control measures appropriate to management and control of odour at the site. The format of the OMP
should provide sufficient detail to allow operators and maintenance staff to clearly understand the
operational procedures for both normal and abnormal conditions.
An Odour Management Plan (OMP) should be prepared for all processes. The OMP should also
include sufficient feedback data to allow site management (and local authority inspectors) to audit
site operations. An example of some of the issues to be considered is summarised as follows. More
detailed guidance is provided with this document.
• A summary of the site and WWTP, odour sources and the location of receptors,
• Details of the site management responsibilities and procedures for reporting faults,
Identifying maintenance needs, replenishing consumables, complaints procedure,
Document No. 2006A394(5) Moll MacDonnell Pellit Consulting Engineers
• Odour critical plant operation and management procedures (e.g. correct use of plant,
process, materials; checks on plant performance, maintenance and inspection (see Section
9.9 to 9.11),
• Operative training,
• Housekeeping,
• Maintenance and inspection of plant (both routine and emergency response),
• Spillage management procedures,
• Record keeping - format, responsibility for completion and location of records,
• Emergency breakdown and incident response planning including responsibilities and
mechanisms for liaison with the local authority.
• Public relations.
The Odour Management Plan is a living document and should be regularly reviewed and upgraded. It
should form the basis of a document Environmental and Odour Management system for the
operating site. The Odour Management System documentation should define the roles of the Plant
Operator and staff and sets out templates in relation to the operating of the facility and reporting
procedures to be employed. Requirements for the Odour management plan should be implemented
thought out the site with a branched management system implemented in order to share
responsibility around the site. The head manager should ensure all works are performed in
accordance with the OMP. The OMP will be integrated in the overall Environmental Management
System/Performance management system.
The contractor will develop and implement a detailed odour management plan for the actual as built
plant and put into operation before commencement of treatment of waste water at Cork Harbour Main
Drainage Scheme.
9.8.1. General rules for reduction of odour emissions for wastewater treatment plants
operation by design - Standard Practice
The following minimum design features for the control of odours will be achieved throughout the
design. These include:
• Avoid turbulence at the inlet works, weirs and when handling sludge's and return liquors.
• Sewage discharged from a rising main is more likely to be anaerobic (i.e. odourous),
particularly during hot weather. Inlet covering will be performed and chemical dosing may be
necessary.
• Minimise the retention of sewage under anaerobic conditions, especially in anoxic, balancing
and storm tanks to prevent the formation of odourous compounds.
• Avoid accumulation of floating debris and persistent sediments in channels and holding tanks
by design.
• Maintain minimal sludge delay in handling and treatment stages by design. Avoid exposure
of untreated sludge to the atmosphere.
• Enclosed units should be sealed and vented to odour abatement systems. Provide storage
provisions on site for odour prevention medium and chemicals.
• Ensure clear and concise odour management plans are produced for plant operation and
abatement systems (i.e. complaints recording system operation and OCU maintenance
procedures) (Sheridan, 2002).
• Prevent the displacement of highly odorous air through gaps or hatches in the covers over
the sludge thickening and holding tanks and ensure that all air is vented through an odour
abatement system. Badly sealed or broken hatches will act as significant points of odour
emission. Even small openings, such as the openings around cable-duct and piping entry
points, have been observed as significant sources of odour emission from raw-sludge
storage tanks.
• In a covered storage tank, negative ventilation will be applied to all contained and covered
processes.
• A minimum of two stages of treatment (if biological is first stage) will be provided on all odour
control technologies.
9.8.2. Odour abatement management system/procedures - Standard Practice
Odour abatement/minimisation systems are installed with the aim of mitigating odours from the
particular process(s). In some circumstances odour abatement system can become significant
sources of odour especially if sufficient treatment is not being achieved. For example, insufficient
treatment could be associated with system failure, poisoning of media, exhaustion of media,
insufficient gas removal volume, broken covers, open hatches etc. There is a tendency in many
facility environments that when an odour control system is installed it requires very little system
checking especially if SCADA controlled. A simple management system incorporated into site
operations can significantly reduce the risk of odour control plant failure and also provide a valuable
picture for operations and maintenances schedules.
The overall odour control plant management system will vary for various technologies. For the
proposed Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP, the following odour control/minimisation
plant could be installed to control odours emanating from specific processes within the plant. These
include:
• Chemical scrubbers,
• Activated carbon polishing,
• Dry chemical scrubbing (three stage),
• Biofilters
• Thermal oxidisers
• Fixed impermeable covers,
• Extraction ductwork located throughout WWTP,
• Chemical addition/dosing to waste water and sludge processing,
• Dissolved oxygen probes/pH probes located in aeration tanks and flow channels,
For each of the odour control technologies, an operational verification procedure should be
performed from actually visiting each piece of equipment. For sensitive mechanical odour control
plant, such as chemical scrubbers, biotrickling filters and biofilters, a daily check should be
performed. Small changes in operational parameters could lead to significant emission of odours.
For odour control/minimisation plant such as pressure release values, odour control ductwork, fixed
impermeable covers etc., which are less susceptible to breakdown (i.e. since there are little
mechanical moving parts), a weekly check should be performed.
All system checks should be document controlled and available for viewing by odour complaints
verification personnel, chief maintenance personnel and plant manager. Response/Action plans
should be established for system repair where by a repair team trained in the operation and
maintenances (O&M) of this specific plant are available to perform dedicated repair. O&M manuals
should always be available and a spares inventory should be maintained for essential spares.
Any recording of system performance should be compared to design specification and performance
as outlines within a P&ID flow diagrams developed for the built site.
Tab/e 9.3 illustrates a typical odour control plant daily/weekly checking procedure for odour
abatement plants such as chemical scrubber, dry chemical scrubbers and flares. Certain parameters
such as subjective and objective assessment checks (airflow rate, static/differential pressures etc)
should be performed daily while other parameters such as odour threshold concentration should be
performed quarterly which is in keeping with EPA recommendations for similar facilities. Tab/e 9.4
illustrates a typical odour minimisation plant system checking procedure for impermeable covers,
odour control ductwork, pressure release valves etc.
Document No. 2006A394(5) Matt MacDonnell Petlit Consulting Engineers
Table 9.3. Odour control unit (OCU) checking procedure and recording.
Odour Abatement Plant process data sheet
Location (NE
OCU name
coordinate)
OCU P&ID ref. No. Time of check (24 hr)
Date of check: Commissionin!:l date:
QA/QC by: Next service date:
Supplier and contact details:
Emergency contact No.
OCU description
Notes:
Process description
SENSOR CALIBRATION DATES

Chemical/BTFlWet Cyclone Liquid flow sensor
Chem icallBTF/Flare/Cyclone/C HP Differential/static pressure
ChemicaIlBTF/Flare/Cyclone/CHP Temperature
Flare/Cyclone/CHP Particle concentration
ChemicaIlBTF/Flare/CHP H2S sensor
Flare/CHP Oxygen sensor
Flare/CHP CO sensor
Flare/CHP N0 2 sensor
Flare/CHP S02
Notes:
Subjective process verification
Is the fan running and sounding OK (Y/N

comments)?
Is liquid recirculating within the recirculating
line of the scrubber/cyclone (Y/N comments)?
Is dump liquor flowing freely from overflow
sump (Y/N comments)?
Is liquid distributed equally over packing
media (Y/N comments)?
Is recirculating liquor clear or cloudy (Y/N
comments)
Are all liquid distribution nozzles/gate clear
(Y/N comments)
Notes:
Table 9.3 continued. Odour control unit (OCU) checking procedure and recording.
Objective process verification I
Design value as
Parameter Average Min Max Action
per P&ID
Air flow rate (m3/hr)
Temperature (oC)
Inlet ductwork Static pressure
(mmWG)
Differential pressure across

system components (mm WG)
H2S inlet cone. (ppm/v)

Inlet dust load (m~N/m3)
3
Gas consumption rate (m /hr,
m 3/dav)
Odour character: (Descriptor)
Notes:
Design value as
Treated airflow Average Min Max Action
per P&ID
Airflow rate (Nm 3/hr)
Temperature (oC)
Outlet static pressure (mm WG)
Outlet odour cone. (Ou E/m 3 )
H2S outlet cone. (ppm/v)
Outlet odour emission rate (OuE/s)
Outlet odour character: Descriptor
Design value as
Irrigation recirculation Average Min Max Action
per P&ID
Recirculation flow (m 3/hr)
Temperature (oC)
Conductivity (Ils)
PH (0 to 14)
Redox (mv)
Stability on Redox/pH historically
Design value as
Irrigation drainage Average Min Max Action
per P&ID
Dump volume (m3/hr)
Conductivity (Ils)
Batch dumpin~ freauencv (weeks)
Table 9.4 illustrates a typical odour minimisation plant system weekly checking procedure for odour
control ductwork etc I
Location (NE
Equipment name
coordinate)
Equipment P&ID ref. No. Time of check (24 hr)
Date of check: Commissioning date:
QAlQC by: Next service date:
Supplier and contact details:
Equipment description
Notes:
Process description
Item description Parameter Compliant/Actions

Static pressure P&ID location No
1
Static pressure P&ID No location
2
Ductwork
3
4
P&ID No. 1 Damper setting/head
loss
P&ID No. 2 Damper setting/ head
loss
Volume control dampers (VCD)
loss
loss
Are all moisture drip points free flowing
and unblocked?
Notes:
Table 9.5 illustrates a typical odour minimisation plant system weekly checking procedure for
fixed/fl eXI'bl e Impermea
. bl e covers, etc.
Location (NE
Equipment name
coordinate)
Equioment P&ID ref. No. Time of check (24 hr)
Date of check: Commissioning date:
QA/QC by: Next service date:
Supplier and contact
details:
Equipment description
Notes:
Process description
Item descriotion Parameter Comoliant/Actions

Static pressure/volume flows
P&ID location No 1
Static pressure under covers
P&ID location No 2
and volume flow on fresh air
intake vents
P&ID location No 3
P&ID location No 4
P&ID No. 1 Hatch opened/closed
P&ID No. 2 Hatch ooened/closed
Hatches
Are all flexible sealants in
position?
Notes:
The implementation of such quality checking procedures will provide both system confidence and
preventative maintenance thereby reducing any risk associated with odour control/minimisation
equipment.
The frequency and planning of sampling depend on the type of process. When the parameters are
expected to develop gradual trends like dry chemical scrubbers rather than sudden changes like
chemical scrubbers, the frequency of checking can be low (monthly, biweekly). If the system is more
susceptible to cyclic loads, weekly or even daily monitoring may be required, depending on the
history and the consequences that may arise from not realising an issue. More importantly seasonal
changes in odour loads on plant and equipment can affect the overall performance of the system and
combined with the behaviour of people on the receptor side during changing weather conditions (i.e.
warm summer days could result in higher odour loads due to higher metabolic activity of bacteria
coupled with people enjoying outdoor activities, etc.) For some processes, continuous monitoring
may be useful, especially when the consequences of failure are significant. Risk assessment of plant
failure is important to define key operational and maintenance parameters for the odour control unit
(OCU). On the basis of this risk assessment measures can be defined to reduce the probability of
high consequence events or to mitigate their impact.
The public will remember unscheduled emission episodes with great tenacity. It is therefore important
to not fully rely on the environmental performance of odour mitigation under normal operational
conditions but also consider them under unscheduled emission events. It is therefore crucial to
consider and manage risks of odour emissions during:
• Odour Control Unit (OCU) commissioning,

• Start-up and shutdown of odour abatement units with consideration for duty standby on
particularly odour processes (i.e. this has been implemented into the design),
• Management of highly odorous materials
• OCU servicing, and unscheduled shutdown,
In assessing these risks, it must be taken into account that response to odours is almost immediate.
In order to manage these odour detection and complaint risks, a number of actions may be
considered:
• Plan high-risk activities in periods where receptor sensitivity to annoyance is low like during
wet weather when they are indoors, or during colder winter months, or during early
morning/late evenings during periods of low atmospheric turbulence, etc.
• Consider providing standby capacity, etc.
If all else fails, inform potentially affected residents of the probability of temporarily increased odours
and explain potential benefits due to these increases (i.e. maintenance of OCU, etc.)
9.9. Olfactometry
Olfactometry using the human sense of smell is the most valid means of measuring odour (Dravniek
et ai, 1986) and at present is the most commonly used method to measure the concentration of
odour in air (Hobbs et ai, 1996). Olfactometry is carried out using an instrument called an
olfactometer. Three different types of dynamic dilution olfactometers exist:
• Yes/No Olfactometer
• Forced Choice Olfactometer
• Triangular Forced Choice Olfactometer.
In the dynamic dilution olfactometer, the odour is first diluted and is then presented to a panel of
screened panellists of no less than four (CEN, 2003). Panellists are previously screened to ensure
that they have a normal sense of smell (Casey et aI., 2003). According to the CEN standard this
screening must be performed using a certified reference gas n-butanol. This screening is applied to
eliminate anosmia (Iow sensitivity) and super-noses (high sensitivity). The odour analysis has to be
undertaken in a low odour environment such as an air-conditioned odour free laboratory. Analysis
should be performed preferably within 6 to 8 hours of sampling.
9.10. What is an odour unit?
The odour concentration of a gaseous sample of odourant is determined by presenting a panel of

selected screened human panellists with a sample of odourous air and varying the concentration by
diluting with odourless gas, in order to determine the dilution factor at the 50% detection threshold.
The Z50 value (threshold concentration) is expressed in odour units (OUE m-3 ).
SIMPLY, ONE ODOUR UNIT IS THE CONCENTRATION OF AN ODOURANT, WHICH INDUCES AN ODOUR SENSATION
TO 50% OF A SCREEN PANEL
Although odour concentration is a dimensionless number, by analogy, it is expressed as a

concentration in odour units per cubic metre (OUE m- 3 ), a term which simplifies the calculation of
odour emission rate. The European odour unit is that amount of odourant(s) that, when evaporated
into one cubic metre of neutral gas (nitrogen), at standard conditions elicits a physiological response
from a panel (detection threshold) equivalent to that elicited by one European Reference Odour Mass
(EROM) evaporated in one cubic meter of neutral gas at standard conditions. One EROM is that
mass of a substance (n-butanol) that will elicit the Z50 physiological response assessed by an odour
panel in accordance with this standard. n-Butanol is one such reference standard and is equivalent to
123ug of n-butanol evaporated in one cubic meter of neutral gas at standard conditions (CEN, 2003).
1
Typically domestic sewage sludge contains 3-6 mg L- organic sulphur, mainly arising from
proteinaceous material, approximately 4 mg L- 1 from sulphonates contained in household detergents
and 30-60 mg L- 1 inorganic sulphur (as sulphonates) (Burgess et al. 2001).
9.11. General overview of proposed drainage scheme design
A description of the general specimen design of the drainage scheme is contained else where in the
EIS.
9.12. Containment and ventilation/extraction of odours - Standard Practice
The containment and ventilation/extraction of odour from WWTP's should consider the following as a
minimum:
9.12.1.Covers
Covers should consider the following design notes before been installed.
• Covers should be sealed as far as possible. Inspection /access hatches should be sufficiently
durable so that they continue to be effectively sealed for the design life of a piece of plant.
Considerable care and attention to detailed design is required to provide adequate sealing of
covers, particularly if passive ventilation to odour treatment is to be effective
• For tank surfaces the recently developed floating covers can be considered. These are produced
from sections of hard foam material or fitted using soft foam that hardens in situ. Such covers can
accommodate moving equipment, and can be replaced on a regular basis. Such covers do not
require extraction and treatment.
• Overflow and discharge pipes should be designed and constructed to prevent a route for air
under covers being discharged to the atmosphere.
Design should withstand wind loadings, static loads due to snow or ice accumulation
• Equipment should be located in a small area to which suitable platform access is provided.
Facilities to allow access of personnel onto covers should not be provided, and warning notices
posted.
• Materials for covers and supports, and any equipment below the cover should be resistant to
corrosion. Reinforced thermoplastic-based covers should have been considered at a minimum
as very aggressive atmospheres may develop below the covers.
• Where possible, design should be such that equipment needed below covers can be easily and
qUickly removed to minimise time when covers need to be opened.
• To prevent the displacement of highly odorous air through gaps or hatches in the cover and
ensure that all air is vented through odour treatment. Badly sealed or broken hatches will act as
significant points of odour emission. Even small openings, such as the openings around cable-
duct entry points, have been observed as significant sources of odour emission from tanks.
• Air displaced during filling will take the route of least resistance and may not pass through
odour treatment systems, unless ventilated to maintain a negative pressure. Therefore, if any
passive based odour treatment technology is to be used the cover must be 100% effectively
sealed. The application of negative ventilation will also prevent significant odour emissions
during cover opening.
9.12.2. Ventilation
Ventilation should consider the following design notes before been installed.
• All buildings containing sewage or sludge processes will need some form of ventilation. It
should be assumed that this ventilation air will require odour treatment.
• The effective local encapsulation and extraction of process equipment, with the aim to reduce
emissions to the atmosphere of the containment building, improves the indoor air quality. The
odour concentration in the general indoor air can be improved using this approach to the point
where odour treatment of the general air is not required. Treating a more limited flow from the
local extraction system is a favoured and more economical option.
• Odour releasing units (such as screens Grit removal and rags removal) within a building should
be locally enclosed, and a proportion of the required ventilation air drawn from the body of the
bUilding towards the odorous unit to ensure odours do not escape into the body of the building.
• Ventilation of a building should maintain a slight negative pressure. This negative ventilation will
depend on the effectiveness of sealing of processes. Typically 6 to 10 AC/Hr are required with
good sealing around odourous processes. This is required to provide a safe working
environment in accl?rdance with published occupational exposure limits, and to prevent an
odour problem. By enclosing processes the emissions of aerosols and odours area minimised
into the main body of the building where it could affect working conditions
• It may be advantageous to have two streams of ventilation air: one of low-volume and high-
odour, drawn from the odour producing unit which can be pre-treated prior to mixing with the
other stream of remaining ventilation air (high volume and low or no, odour), with possible
provision of 'polishing' to reduce odours to a minimum.
• In buildings, ventilation systems and zoning of areas are designed to avoid development of
potentially hazardous (explosive or tOXic) atmospheres. There are no firm guidelines and rates
vary widely across the Europe. Typical rates are 3 - 6 air changes per hour for a screening
building, 10 air changes per hour for a sludge building.
• Design of the ventilation and odour control system may need to take in to account the handling
of potentially hazardous gases, and the zone requirements of the area in which it is installed.
This will avoid risks associated with hazardous gases and to provide equipment suitable for the
zone requirement.
• In a covered process tank, ventilation is required only to contain and collect odours and should be
kept to a minimum, whilst maintaining a slight negative pressure. Ventilation rates in this case are
typically three to four air changes per hour of the volume of the headspace of the tank, and
should be no less than the maximum filling rate. Smaller pump sumps which are subjected to
turbulent liquid flows and instantaneously pump flows should consider at least 10 to 12 AC/Hr and
should be no less than the maximum filling rate. Do not over-design the air-extraction rate. Odour
removal processes tend to work more effectively at lower flow-rates
• The sitting of emergency vents, and initiation of emergency ventilation should be carefully
considered, particularly if triggered by the presence of excessive concentrations of hydrogen
sulphide. If likely to be a frequent occurrence, upstream treatment of the sewage/sludge or odour
treatment on the emergency vent may be required.
9.13. Odour Scrubbing Systems
The following technologies may be considered as best available techniques not exceeding excessive
cost for odour abatement during any upgrade or amendments to the WWTW design:
• Biotrickling filtration with carbon polishing system;
• Two stage biofiltration system;
• Two stage Chemical scrubbing system.
All the above odour abatement system have been shown to obtain >90% efficiency if proper
engineering design parameters and operational parameters are implemented. It is recommended to
locate the exhaust of any odour abatement systems higher (at least 3 to 5 metres) than the
surrounding buildings in order to enhance dispersion and reduce bUilding wake effects. Engineering
and operational design are outside the scope of this document. Due to site complexity four separate
odour abatement systems should be incorporated to treat odourous air from the negatively ventilated
processes. The volumetric airflow required to be treated from all process will depend on the final
design of the WWTP/Pumping stations and implemented odour abatement strategy. Biological
abatement techniques are most cost effective. Ventilation rates for odour control should consider the
guidance provided within this document and be refined when the final design has been agreed. The
odour impact associated with the final design should be reassessed if overall odour emissions from
the final designed WWTP and Pumping stations are higher that those contained in Section 4.2 of this
document
9.14. General rules for reduction of odour emissions for wastewater treatment works
operation by design.
• Avoid turbulence at the inlet works, weirs and when handling sludge's and return liquors.
• Sewage discharged from a rising main is more likely to be anaerobic (i.e. odourous),
particularly during hot weather. Inlet covering and chemical dosing may be necessary.
• Minimise the retention of sewage under anaerobic conditions, especially in anoxic zones
and balancing tanks to prevent the formation of odourous compounds.
• Avoid accumulation of floating debris and persistent sediments in channels and holding
tanks by design.
• Maintain minimal sludge delay in handling and treatment stages by design. Avoid
exposure of untreated sludge to the atmosphere.
• Enclosed units should be sealed and vented to odour abatement systems. Provide
storage provisions on site for odour prevention medium and chemicals.
• Ensure clear and concise odour management plans are produced for plant operation and
abatement systems (i.e. system operation and maintenance manuals) (Sheridan, 2002).
9.15. Precise odour abatement strategies reduces complaints and cost
Prevent the displacement of highly odorous air through gaps or hatches in the cover and ensure
that all air is vented through the odour abatement system. Badly sealed or broken hatches will act
as significant points of odour emission. Even small openings, such as the openings around cable-
duct and piping entry points, have been observed as significant sources of odour emission from
raw-sludge storage tanks.
In a covered storage tank, ventilation is required only to contain and collect odours and should be
kept to a minimum by maintaining a slight negative pressure. Ventilation rates in this case are
typically half to one air change per hour of the volume of the empty tank, and should be no less than
the maximum filling rate. If the tank is normally operated full, the ventilation rate could be reduced to
1 air change per hour for the air space, or the maximum filling rate. Odour abatement equipment
tends to work more efficiently at lower flow-rates (i.e. biofilters and biotrickling filters).
Design odour abatement systems together, so that an odour abatement system (perhaps providing
two stages of treatm~nt) can treat extracted air from more than one facility. When an odour
abatement system is provided, the outlet stack should be sited away from the boundary and any
potential complainants and at an elevated height in order to reduce building wake effects and
increase dispersion. Optimise the exit velocity of the outlet of the odour abatement system to
increase dispersion effects. (Sheridan, 2002).
10. References
1. Callan, BT, (1993). Noses Knows Best. In malodour measurement and control. Proceedings of
the International Tydnall School, September. 134-145.
2. CEN, (2003). EN 13725-Air-quality-Determination of odour concentration by dynamic
olfactometry. Brussels, Belgium.
3. DOE, (1993). Report by the Inspector on a Public Inquiry into the Appeal by Northumbrian
Water Limited for Additional Sewage treatment facilities on land adjacent to Spitial Burns,
Newbriggin-by-the-Sea, Northumberland in March 1993. DoE ref APP/F2930/A/92/206240.
4. Dravniek, A, (1986). Atlas of odor character profiles. ASTM Committee on sensory evaluation
of materials and products, ASTM data series. Baltimore, MD, USA
5. EPA, (2001). Odour impacts and odour emission control measures for intensive agriculture.
Commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland). OdourNet UK Ltd.
6. Longhurst, P., (1998). Odour impact assessment of an extension to the Brogborough landfill
site. IREC, Cranfield University, England.
7. Mclntyre, A, (2000). Application of dispersion modelling to odour assessment; a practical tool
or a complex trap. Water Science and Technology, 41 (6).81-88.
8. Sheridan, BA (2002). In house odour intensity and hedonic tone profile data of different
odourous sources. Unpublished.
9. Sheridan, BA, (2001). Controlling atmospheric emissions-BAT Note Development, UCD
Environmental Engineering Group, Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, UCD,
Dublin 2.
10. Sheridan, BA, Hayes, E.T., Curran, T.P., Dodd, VA, (2003). A dispersion modelling approach
to determining the odour impact of intensive pig production units in Ireland. Bioresource
Technology. Published.
Appendix SC
Climate Change
Report
Mott
MacDonald
ODOUR
monitoring
IRELAND
ODOUR & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
Unit 32 De Granville Court, Dublin Rd, Trim, Co. Meath
Tel: +353 46 9437922

Mobile: +353868550401
E-mail: info@odourireland.com
POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE DESIGN

OF A WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN CORK LOWER HARBOUR, COUNTY CORK.
PERFORMED BY ODOUR MONITORING IRELAND ON BEHALF OF MOTT McDoNALD PETTIT CONSULTING ENGINEERING, CORK.
REFERENCE NUMBER: 2007.A343 (1)

ATTENTION: Ms. aria Freyne
PREPARED BY: Dr. John Casey
th
DATE: 30 October 2007
DOCUMENT VERSION: Document Ver.001
REVIEWERS:
Document No. 2007A343(1) Molt McDonnell Peltit Consulting Engineers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page number
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
DOCUMENT AMENDMENT RECORD ii
1. Climate in Ireland 1
2. Expected Climate Change in Ireland 2
3. The impact of climate change on hydrology 5
4. The impact of climate change on sea level and storm

surge frequency and severity 6
5. Summary 10
6. References 10
www.odourireland.com info@odourireland.com
Document No. 2007A343(1) Mott McDonnell Pettit Consulting Engineers
Document Amendment Record
Client: Matt McDonald PettH Consulting Engineers Ltd
Project: Possible implications of climate change for consideration in the design of a

wastewater treatment plant in Cork Harbour.
Document Reference: Possible

implications of climate change for
Project Number: 2007.A343(1)
consideration in the design of a wastewater
treatment plant in Cork Harbour.
2007A343(1) Document for review BAS. JMC BAS 30/10/2007
Revision Purpose/Descri ption Originated Checked Authorised Date
00 U R
monito, in 9
J ~ r l.' ~ D
www.odourireland.com ii into@odourireland.com
Document No. 2007 A343(1) Moll McDonnell Pettit Consulting Engineers
1. Climate in Ireland
Climate is constantly changing. The signal that indicates that the changes are occurring can
be evaluated over a range of temporal and spatial scales. We can consider climate to be an
integration of complex weather conditions averaged over a significant area of the earth
(typically in the region of 100 km2 or more), expressed in terms of both the mean of weather
expressed by properties such as temperature, radiation, atmospheric pressure, wind, humidity,
rainfall and cloudiness (amongst others) and the distribution, or range of variation, of these
properties, usually calculated over a period of 30 years. As the frequency and magnitude of
seemingly unremarkable events change, such as rainstorms, the mean and distribution that
charaCterise a particular climate will start to change. Thus climate, as we define it, is
influenced by events occurring over periods of hours, through to global processes taking
centuries.
Over the millennia natural processes have driven changes in climate, and these mechanisms
continue to cause change. "Climate change" as a term in common usage over much of the
world is now taken to mean anthropogenically driven change in climate.
Evidence for an anthropogenic influence on climate change is now stronger than ever before,
with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report
assertion that 'It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of
the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century' (IPCC,
2007a). Global average temperature has increased by 0.74°C over the past 100 years with
the rate of warming almost doubling over the last 50 years. Precipitation patterns have also
changed with an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events being observed globally.
Sweeney et at (2003) summed up the evidence of our changing climate with the following key
points. .
* Global average temperature has increased by 0.6°C ±0.2°C since 1860 with accelerated
warming apparent in the latter decades of the 20th century. A further increase of 1.S-6.0°C
from 1990 to 2100 is projected, depending on how emissions of greenhouse gases increase
over the period.
* The last century was the warmest of the last millennium in the Northern Hemisphere, with
the 1990s being the warmest decade and 1998 being the warmest year. Warming has been
more pronounced at night than during the day.
* Reductions in the extent of snow cover of 10% have occurred in the past 40 years
concurrent with a widespread retreat of mountain glaciers outside the Polar Regions. Sea-ice
thickness in the Arctic has declined by about 40% during late summer/early autumn, though
no comparable reduction has taken place in winter. These trends are considered likely to
continue. In the Antarctic, no similar trends have been observed. One of the most serious
impacts on global sea level could occur from a catastrophic failure of grounded ice in West
Antarctica. This is, however, considered unlikely over the coming century.
* Global sea level has risen by 0.1-0.2m over the past century, an order of magnitude larger
than the average rate over the past three millennia. A rise of approximately O.Sm is
considered likely during the period 1990-2100.
* Precipitation has increased over the landmasses of the temperate regions by 0.5-1.0% per
decade. Frequencies of more intense rainfall events appear to be increasing also in the
Northern Hemisphere. In contrast, decreases in rainfall over the tropics have been observed,
though this trend has weakened in recent years. More frequent warm phase El Nino events
are occurring in the Pacific Basin. Precipitation increases are projected, particularly for winter,
for northern middle and high latitudes and for Antarctica.
* No significailt trends in the tropical cyclone climatology have been detected.

As a mid latitude country, these global trends have implications for the future course of Irish
climate, and for a range of impacts which it is judicious to anticipate (Sweeney et al 2003).
www.odourireland.com info@odourireland.com
Document No. 2007 A343(1) Mott McDonnell Pettit Consulting Engineers
A recent report published by the EPA (McElwain and Sweeney, 2007) summarised the
indicators of climate change in Ireland and summarised the changes in climate over recent
years.
• Ireland's mean annual temperature has increased by o.rc between 1890 and 2004.
• The average rate of increase is 0.06°C per decade. However, as Ireland experiences
considerable climate variability, the trend is not linear. The highest decadal rate of
increase has occurred since 1980, with a warming rate of 0.42°C per decade.
• The warmest year on record was 1945, although 6 of the 10 warmest years have
occurred since 1990.
• An alteration of the temperature distribution has occurred, with a differential warming
rate between maximum and minimum temperatures. Minimum temperatures are
increasing more than maximum temperatures in spring, summer and autumn, while
maximum temperatures are increasing more than minimum temperatures in winter.
• There has been a reduction in the number of frost days and a shortening of the frost
season length.
• The annual precipitation has increased on the north and west coasts, with decreases
or small increases in the south and east.
• The wetter conditions on the west and north coastal regions appear due to increases
in rainfall intensity and persistence.
• There is an increase in precipitation events over 10 mm on the west coast with
decreases on the east coast, there is an increase in the amount of rain per rain day
on the west coast, and a greater increase in number of events greater than the 90th
percentile also on the west coast.
The increases in intensity and frequency of extreme precipitation events provide a cause for
concern as they may have a greater impact upon the environment, society and the economy.
The precipitation series however require further analysis as there is large spatial and temporal
variability associated with extreme precipitation events.
2. Expected Climate Change in Ireland.

Current research on climate change in Ireland and Britain is in broad agreement. The climate
scenarios suggest that, by the middle of the present century, mean winter temperatures will
have increased by approximately 1.5°C (see Figure 2.1), bringing the mild conditions
currently associated with the far south-west coast to almost all parts of the island.
Commensurate changes in secondary parameters such as frost frequency and growing
season can be expected. Summer temperature increases of approximately 2°C are
suggested, with the greatest increases away from south and west coasts. Precipitation
changes (see Figure 2.2) will perhaps have the greatest impact. Studies indicate increases
during the winter months, predominantly in the northwest, of over 10%. Of greater importance,
however, are projected decreases of approximately 25% in amounts of summer receipts.
Geographically, these are most significant in the southeast where decreases of summer
rainfall amounts in excess of 40% are anticipated over the next five decades. Coupled with
increased evaporation amounts, such changes would significantly impact on a number of key
sectors. Blenkinsop and Fowler (2007) predicted an increase in short summer drought
frequency in all areas of the British Isles except Scotland and Northern Ireland suggesting
that in future, engineers may have to plan for more intense short-term droughts, but may
experience fewer long term events. The current trend of increase in frequency of extreme
precipitation events is expected to continue. McGrath et al., (2005) found that the frequency
of very intense cyclones/storms with core pressures less than 950 hPa is set to show a 15%
increase in the future simulations with even stronger increases in winter and spring seasons.
It is expected that the main features of climate change to be experienced in the Cork Harbour
region will be higher mean temperatures, milder winters, lower precipitation in summer, and
an increase in storm frequency.
www.odourireland.com 2 Info@odourireland.com
Mean Temperature
July 1961·1990 July 2041·2070

Cta(J'ee~ C- o ·1.i·8D 11i-11j..o
o 6.1.:'.:; 1S II -16.;
o
.f)
). I 5
o ?;.9D
~.l-10~ _ 13 -H.6
o tL:.'.Hlj
rei ap'; ~rod uco) d b\,' Rowan F ealV o i~O-l"E
cnd •.bhn S\~,)onoy, NU I t.1oinooth
Figure 2.1. Downscaled mean temperature scenarios for the period 2061-2090 at a resolution
of 10 km2. This approximates to the period around 2075. (Sweeney and Fealy, 2003)
www.odourireland.com 3 info@odourireland.com
Precipitation
.
January 1961·1990
July 206'1-20QO
,'\rIlL. (1IIrtl) D 1']']-1;'

o. 25 11, - HO
Cl ;l~·'O
o 60-75 I!; - 2(0
Maps pro:!uc8d by Rowan F83ly

o 70·jl))
md ~IJh n S~(\),",IE')', NU I M 0 ~n,joth
Figure 2.2. Downscaled precipitation scenarios for Ireland for the period 2061-2090 at a
resolution of 10 km2. This approximates to the period around 2075. (Sweeney and Fealy,
2003)
Document No. 2007A343(1) Moll McDonnell Pellit Consulting Engineers
3. The impact of climate change on hydrology.

Future changes in Irish climate are likely to have significant impacts on its hydrology. These
may influence the annual and seasonal availability of water resources, with particular impacts
being felt in terms of water resource management, water quality management and
approaches to coping with flood/drought/storm hazards.
Ireland is relatively well endowed with water resources, however regional shortages can occur
at times, especially in the east and southeast of the country, areas, which also experience the
greatest population density. The rapid expansion associated with recent economic conditions
of cities such as Cork and Dublin, is putting and increasing strain on the water supply
infrastructure. Low flows are becoming more frequent in some areas and it is likely that future
climate change will exacerbate these effects. At the same time, increases in winter
precipitation particularly over the western part of the island are likely to increase the
magnitude and frequency of flood events and increase the duration of seasonal flooding.
Most of Ireland's present water supply comes from surface water, approximately 25% coming
from groundwater. Characteristics such as soil permeability, geology and topography
determine an area's response to precipitation.
Shorthouse and Arnell (1999) found that precipitation is strongly correlated with the North
Atlantic Oscillation index (NAO). Increased rainfall caused by strengthened westerlies
(positive NAO) has been observed for northern and western Europe, while at the same time
southern Europe has experienced drying. An increase in winter storminess has also been
observed by a number of authors for Ireland (Houghton and Cinneide, 1976; Sweeney, 1985;
Sweeney and O'Hare, 1992; Kiely, 1999. Kiely (1999) associated the change that occurred in
the North Atlantic Oscillation around 1975 with an increased westerly air-flow circulation in the
northeast Atlantic which is correlated with wetter climate in Ireland. Future changes in climate
are likely to have major impacts on regional and local runoff patterns. This may influence the
annual and seasonal availability of water resources with significant implications for water
resource use, water quality management and strategies, as well as flood/drought hazard
indices in Ireland. Charlton et at (2006) performed a study assessing the impacts of climate
change on water supply and flood hazard in Ireland. Further catchment-based research
which includes analysis of climate change impacts on the hydrology of the River Blackwater is
due to be published in 2007, however comprehensive data is currently unavailable. Murphy
and Charlton (2006) performed an analysis of climate change impact on catchment hydrology
and water resources for selected catchments, with detailed analyses of the Boyne and Suir
catchments. Each of these two catchments showed a progressively increasing stream flow in
January, February and March by the 2020's, 2050's and 2080s where February stream flow
had increased by 25%. In contrast summer stream flows decreased markedly. The Boyne
catchment showed a 50% decrease in stream flow in August in the 2080s, whereas the Suir
showed the greatest decrease of around 35% in the Month of October by 2080 (l\t1urphy and
Charlton, 2006). Overall it is expected that all areas will see a significant decrease in annual
runoff, which may result on long-term deficits in soil moisture, aquifers, lakes and reservoirs.
Murphy and Charlton, 2006 also analysed the impact of climate change on the magnitude of
flood events. Their work gave a consistent indication that the magnitude of future flood
events particularly those of a high return period (50 years) would increase significantly in the
majority of catchments with little regional variation. This work may be understated as the use
of ensemble GCMs and scenarios, while useful for analysis of day-to-day conditions, are less
useful in capturing meteorological extremes.
These figures can be used as an indication of the potential issues facing Cork Harbour and
surrounding areas in future years from a water supply perspective.
Document No. 2007 A343(1) Mott McDonnell Pettit Consulting Engineers
4. The impact of climate change on sea level and storm surge frequency
and severity.
Global sea level rise is a major threat to the coastal environment and it is expected to
accelerate with global warming (Church et al., 2001). Since 1993, sea level has been rising
rapidly (Cabanes et al 2001) a fact that coincides with the warmest decade recorded (Hulme
et al 2002). The increase in global temperatures is likely to have a huge impact on glaciers
and glacier melts water during the course of the present century resulting in significant
contributions to sea level rise (Fealy and Sweeney, 2005).
Sea Surface Temperature (SST) has also been showing a warming trend: Since the mid-
1980s a warming trend is detectable in all seasons. In most time series this period of warming
is unprecedented; 25 of the 30 time series display temperatures in this period that exceed all
measurements since 1861 when the earliest of these records began. It is estimated that since
1990 there has been around a 50% chance that any given winter or summer has had a
temperature in the warmest 10% of all measurements since at least 1880. In the same period,
the probability of colder temperatures has decreased by around 10%. It is expected that this
will lead to thermal expansion, which will continue long after 2100. Although inundation by
increases in mean sea level over the 21 st century and beyond will be a problem for
unprotected low-lying areas, the most devastating impacts are likely to be associated with
changes in extreme sea levels resulting from the passage of storms. (IPCC, 2007b).
There has been little research performed on sea level rise around the Irish coast. Projections
for sea level changes around the UK have been developed using regional climate change
models. In addition to the regional rise in mean sea level, changes in wind and wave climate
also affect the vulnerability of various coastlines to global change. Storm surges and set-up
associated with waves contribute to the sea level in coastal waters and especially at the coast.
Wave heights in the northeast Atlantic have increased since the 1960s (Bacon & Carter 1993;
Woolf et al. 2002.). It is not clear whether climate change will affect the global distribution of
waves.
The severity of the impact of sea-level rise at any location will depend on whether the land is
locally lifting or subsiding, and on changes in wind and wave factors. The relative importance
of the various forcing mechanisms varies from site to site. In order to assess the impact of
global climate change on a particular coastal environment therefore, it is important to identify
and estimate the contribution of regional climatic changes.
The IPCC estimates a global sea level rise of between 0.1 and 0.9 metres in the period 1990-
2100 from the full range of emissions scenarios (IPCC 2001). Their calculated sea level
change is due mainly to thermal expansion of ocean water, melting of glaciers and ice caps,
with little change in ice sheet volume. The consequences of sea level rise are severe and
long lasting with serious implications for coastal communities, loss of land and coastal erosion
(McElwain and Sweeney, 2006). The century scale rise in average sea level may threaten
some low-lying unprotected coastal areas, yet it is the extremes of sea level - storm surges
and large waves- that will cause most damage. The modelling of future changes in extreme
sea levels is therefore of high importance, although the uncertainties in modelling such
changes remain very large. A surge is generated when meteorological variables, such as
barometric pressure and wind, depart substantially from average conditions. This can
produce negative or positive surge conditions. The effects of a storm surge as it moves
onshore are dependant on a number of factors. These include strength and direction of an
onshore wind, local topographical features, occurrence with a spring or neap tide, and
location of the tidal bulge. The elevation of a storm surge can also be greatly enhanced if it
becomes coupled with wind waves. The duration of the surge event also contributes to its
damage potential. At present, a storm surge of 2.6m has a return period of 100 years, but
Orford (1988) expects this to decrease to a return period of 1-2 years by 2100. Hulme et al
(2002) found that the largest increases in surge heights would occur off the southeast coast of
the UK. They estimated that there would be an increase of 0.3 m in height of storm surges of
a 50-year return period using a medium emissions scenario. The UK CIP project also found
for a high emissions scenario, that by 2100, a storm with a current 50-year return period
would occur more than once a year. It is important to note however, that the uncertainties
associated with modelling storm surges are very large however as these are the most
potentially damaging effects of climate change, these predictions should not be discounted on
account of uncertainty. An increase in the incidence of extreme events has already been
noted and it is expected that this trend will continue.
Fealy (2003) identified harbours that may be susceptible to inundation over the next 100
years, including the Carrigaline region of Cork Harbour. A 5-10% probability of inundation
was identified in some areas of Carrigaline with a sea level rise of 0.48 m (see Figure 4.1).
This increased to a 10-20% probability with a sea level rise of 0.88 m (see Figure 4.2). A 2.6
metre storm surge coupled with a sea level rise of 0.48 m showed all areas of Carrigaline at
risk of inundation (see Figure 4.3).
()ubl~ Sll)'
Shannun f,luary
Cor!< Ham.ur
Figure 4.1. Possibility of inundation with a sea level rise of OABm (Fealy, 2003)
Cublln 8.y
Wedot"d H:'Uoout"
"Ob6bIl1l1l>1' \)"odotl:>') t.86 Gm>

·).HlU~ CJ _
CJ ,~h,( , "'HO( t
Cork H 3rbour
Figure 4.2. Possibility of inundation with a sea level rise of O.BBm (Fealy, 2003)
www.odourireland.com B info@odourireland.com
,.
Dublin 8~~
W~fOfd HarblXlr
j:ll'bJ
C
L
c::
L
o'
·1-;
I!'(
D
0
0
•
u;:,
'I) :: ~
--
Prob.b,lily of Inundlolion ('300 Gm)
:a>,.'iJ,
> ,
Tr~lee Ba~rca'illem>llll" H~"oour
Figure 4.3. Storm surge coupled with a sea level rise of 0.48 m. (Fealy, 2003)
5. Summary
This report has outlined the main factors to be considered in the engineering design of a
WWTP in Cork Harbour. To summarise:
• There will be a significant decrease in summer precipitation, which will lead to

decreases in runoff, river stream flow and water availability. This could possibly lead
to long-term depletions of groundwater storage and deficits in soil moisture, aquifers
and lakes and reservoirs.
• Mean sea level is expected to increase by up to 0.9m, but significantly, storm surges,
which currently have a return period of 50 years, could occur more than once yearly
by 2100 resulting in many areas of Cork Harbour being at risk from inundation.
• The frequency of extreme precipitation events is expected to increase.
The impact of climate change on coastal societies depends both on the physical
characteristics of the coasts and on whether the local economy relies strongly on sectors
vulnerable to sea-level rise and extreme weather/wave conditions. Thus, in addition to
physical processes, socio-economic factors need to be considered in deciding the
management of vulnerable coastal areas. Therefore the following points should be
considered in the planning of any coastal development.
• Coastal erosion
• Susceptibility to storm surges
• Effects of summer water shortages
• Effects of high amounts of precipitation and flood water during cyclonic events.
• Impact of sea level rise on the local population (displacement), tourism and
businesses.
6. References
1. Bacon, S. and Carter, D.J.T. 1993. A connection between mean wave height and
atmospheric pressure gradient in the north Atlantic. International Journal of
Climatology 13, 423-436.
2. Blenkinsop, S. & Fowler, H.J. 2007. Changes in drought frequency, severity
3. and duration for the British Isles projected by the PRUDENCE regional climate
4. models. Journal of Hydrology 342: 50-71.
5. Charlton, R., Fealy, R., Moore, S., Sweeney, J. and Murphy, C. 2006. Assessing the
impact of climate change on water supply and flood hazard in Ireland using statistical
downscaling and hydrological modelling techniques. Climatic Change 74: 475-491
6. Church, JA, Gregory, J.M., Huybrechts, P., Kuhn, M., Lambeck, K., Nhuan, M.T.,
Qin, D. and Woodworth, P.L. 2001. Changes in sea level. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change Third Assessment Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, ch.11, pp 639-694.
7. Cabanes, C., Cazenave, A. and Le Provost, C. 2001. Sea level rise during the past
40 years determined from satellite and in situ observations. Science 294, 840-842.
8. Fealy, R., 2003. The impacts of climate change on sea level and the Irish coast. In:
Sweeney et al. (eds) Climate Change: Scenarios and Impacts for Ireland.
Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford
9. Fealy, R. and Sweeney J. 2005. Detection of a possible change point in atmospheric
variability in the north atlantic and its effect on Scandinavian glacier mass balance.
International Journal of Climatology 25,1819-1833.
10. Houghton, J. and Cinneide, M.O., 1976. Distribution and synoptic origin of selected
heavy precipitation storms over Ireland. Irish Geography 9, 1-8.
11. Hulme, M., Jenkins, G.J., Lu, X., turnpenny, J.R., Mitchell, T.D., Jones, R.G., Lowe, J.,
Murphy, J.IVI., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R. and Hill, S. (2002). Climate
Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: the UKCIP02 Scientific Report, Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University
of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 120pp.
www.odourireland.com 10 info@odourlreland.com
Document No. 2007A343(1) Mott McDonnel1 Pettit Consulting Engineers
12. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001. Climate Change 2001:
The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Third Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y.,
Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. and Johnson, CA
(eds)). Cambridge University Press, UK. 944pp.
13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007a) Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, UK. (In Press).
14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007b) Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, UK. (In Press).
15. Kiely, G., 1999. Climate change in Ireland from precipitation and streamflow
observations. Advances in water resources 23 141-151.
16. Lowe, JA and Gregory, J.M., 2005. The effects of climate change on storm surges
around the United Kingdom. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 363, 1313-1328.
17. Mackenzie, B.R. & Schiedek, D. 2007. Daily ocean monitoring since the
18. 1860s shows record warming of northern European seas. Global Change Biology
13:1335-1347.
19. McGrath, R., Nishimura, E., Nolan, P., Semmler, T., Sweeney, C. and Wang, S.
2005. Climate Change: Regional Climate Model Predictions for Ireland Co Wexford,
Ireland: Environmental Protection Agency, pp 45.
20. McElwain, L., and Sweeney J. 2006. Implications of the EU Climate Protection
Target for Ireland. Co Wexford, Ireland: Environmental Protection Agency, pp 33.
21. Murphy, C. and Charlton R., 2006. Climate change impact on catchment hydrology
and water resources for selected catchments in Ireland. Proceedings of the National
Hydrology Seminar 2006: Water Resources in Ireland and Climate Change Available
online at http://www.ria.ie/committees/pdfs/hydrology/Murphy.pdf (last accessed 23-
08-2007)
22. Orford, J.D., 1988. Alternative interpretation of man-induced shoreline changes in
Rosslare Bay, southeast Ireland. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
1365-78.
23. Shorthouse, C. and Arnell, N., 1999. The effects of climate variability on spatial
characteristics of European river flows. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 24, 7-13.
24. Sweeney, J., 1985. The changing synoptic origins of Irish precipitation. Transactions
of the Institute of British Geographers 10,467-480.
25. Sweeney, J. and O'Hare, G., 1992. Geographical variations on precipitation yields
and circulation types in Britain and Ireland. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers 17, 448-463.
26. Sweeney, J., 2003. Climate change: scenarios and impacts for Ireland. Co Wexford,
Ireland: Environmental Protection Agency, pp 229
27. Tsimplis, M.N., Woolf, D.K., Osborn, T.J., Wakelin, S., Wolf, J., Flather, R., Shaw,
A.G.P., Woodworth, P., Challenor, P., Blackman, D., Pert, F., Van, Z. and Jevrejeva,
S. 2005. Towards a vulnerability assessment of the UK and northern European
coasts: the role of regional climate variability.
28. Woolf, D. K., Challenor, P.G. and Cotton, P.D. 2002. The variability and predictability
of North Atlantic wave climate. Journal of Geophysical Research. 107, 3145.
Appendix 6A
Noise and Vibration

Report
Mott
MacDonald
ANV Technology Report 25369
Cork Lower Harbour Main Drainage Schenle
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
August 2007
ANV Technology Ltd., Ennis 065 6868638 anv@anvtech.com

Cork Lower Harbour Main Drainage Scheme

1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 NOISE SENSJTNE LOCATIONS I
1.2 METHODOLOGy 2
2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 6
2.1 RECENING NOISE ENVIRONMENT 6
2.2 BASELINE NOISE SURVEYS 6
2.2.i Description of measurement locations 6
2.2.2 Weather Conditions: 7
2.2.3 Personnel 7
2.2.4 instrumentation 8
2.3 MEASURED EXISTING NOISE LEVELS 8
2.3.i Existing Noise Environment in Vicinity of WWTP Site 9
2.3.2 Existing Noise Environment at Sites of Proposed Major Pumping Stations iO
2.3.3 Existing Noise Environment at Sites of Minor Pumping Stations iO
2.4 DO-MINIMUM SCENARIO 19
3 NOISE IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT 19
3.1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 19
3.i.i Construction Noise Criteria i9
3.1.2 Operational Phase Noise Impact Criteria 2i
3.1.3 Proposed Boundary Noise Design Criteria 23
3.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACT 25
3.2.i Construction of Waste Water Treatment Plant 25
3.2.2 Construction Works at Pumping Stations 26
3.2.3 Excavation Works for Sewer Lines 27
3.2.4 Vibration 29
3.2.5 Construction Traffic 29
3.3 OPERATlONAL PHASE NOISE IMPACT 30
3.3.i Noise Propagation Model 30
3.3.2 Noise Emissions From WWTP 30
3.3.3 Ground Vibration Due to WWTP 33
3.3.4 Noise and Vibration Emissions From Pumping Stations 33
3.3.5 impact of Operational Phase Traffic 37
4 MITIGATION 38
4.1 NOISE MITIGATION DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE 38
4.2 NOISE MITIGATION FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE 39
5 RESIDUAL NOISE IMPACT 39
6 NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY 40
ANV Technology Ltd., Ennis 065 6868638 anv@anvtech.com

Cork Lower Harbour Main Drainage Scheme

1 INTRODUCTION
The noise and vibration impact of the proposed Cork Lower Harbour Drainage scheme
was assessed. The proposed scheme will include constmction of a new wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) at Shanbally, including access roads, installation of a
network of sewerage lines serving the lower harbour area, with associated pumping
stations.
The proposed WWTP site is located in lands zoned for this purpose in the Shanbally
area, to the northwest of Carrigaline. The current use of these lands is agricultural.
The potential noise impacts during the construction phase, and during the operational
phase were considered.
During the constmction phase there will be noise emissions from activities at the WWTP
site, including earthmoving, excavations, and constmction of facilities, with associated
constmction traffic on routes to the site.
There will also be noise impacts along the routes of the proposed sewer lines, and at the
constmction sites of the proposed pumping stations.
During the operational phase of the WWTP, there will be continuous process noise
emissions during both daytime and nighttime. There are minor potential impacts in
terms of noise from pumping stations, which are also considered in the report.
1.1 NOISE SENSITIVE LOCATIONS
The proposed WWTP site is in a mral area, with few dwellings visible from the site.
The nearest existing noise-sensitive locations to the site are the houses at Upper
Shanbally, approximately 260m to the east of the site boundary. There are also lands
zoned for residential use approximately 130m to the east of the site, which are treated
in this assessment as noise sensitive locations.
The nearest houses to the north are approximately 430m distant. The intervening lands
ANY Technology Ltd. Appendix 6A_Noise.doc

are agricultural. The SPOltS ground located 80m from the nOlth-eastern corner of the
site is moderately noise sensitive, as it is an outdoor recreational area.
The nearest house to the south is at a distance of approximately 570m.
There are no noise sensitive locations immediately to the west of the site. The ESB
compound is located 160m to the west. A Bord Gciis facility is located 65m from the
south-western corner of the site. There are commercial units located on the southern
side of the entrance road to the site from Cogan's Road.
Houses in the vicinity of the proposed major pumping stations at Raffeen. Monkstown,
Carrigaloe and West Beach Cobh, are also treated as noise sensitive locations. For
houses in the vicinity of the minor pumping stations, there is lower potential for noise
impact. However potential impacts at these locations are also considered.
Pipe laying will occur along the routes of the proposed new sewer lines. The
associated construction works will therefore affect many houses in different areas, for
limited periods during the construction phase. All of the houses along the proposed
sewer routes are therefore considered as being noise sensitive locations during the
construction phase.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
The existing noise environment was determined by means of baseline noise surveys at
the site of the proposed WWTP and pumping stations in accordance with ISO 1996
"Description and measurement of environmental noise". The surveys were carried out
in June 2007.
Noise propagation calculations in this report were made according to ISO 9613
"Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors".
Calculation of noise due to construction plant and equipment was in accordance with
BS 5228 "Noise and vibration control on open and construction sites", using
standardised noise emission data for typical construction site equipment likely to be
used for this development, and heavy vehicle noise levels.
Traffic noise was calculated based on the U.K. Calculation of Road Traffic Noise
(CRTN), with results converted to daytime average noise levels (LAeq ).
The WWTP is a Design-Build-Operate (DBO) project. One of the environmental

parameters to be met by a successful bidder will be a maximum noise emission
specification at the boundary of the WWTP site, and at a reference distance from the
pumping stations. In this assessment report, an appropriate boundary noise criterion is
proposed for the WWTP and the pumping stations. This was arrived at by first
determining an appropriate noise assessment criterion at the nearest houses which
would ensure negligible adverse impact. This assessment criterion noise level at the
nearest house was then used to calculate back to the plant boundaries, to establish the
ANY Technology Ltd. Appendix 6A_Noise.doc 2

appropriate design noise criterion at the boundaries. The validity of the noise impact
assessment relies on the proposed design noise criteria being incorporated into the
contracts for the projects, and implemented through appropriate equipment
specifications during the detailed design stage.
The noise assessment criterion at the nearest noise sensitive locations was determined
with reference to the EPA guideline noise limits, and also by considering the change in
noise environment brought about by the development, based on the methodology of
British Standard BS 4142 "Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and
industrial areas", and the potential audibility of the noise.
All noise levels presented in the text of the report represent time-averaged noise levels
over the appropriate reference periods (LAeq ) , unless otherwise indicated. An
explanation of acoustics terminology is provided in Appendix A.
ANV Technology Ltd. Appendix 6A_Noise.doc 3

I ".If ~,:1' \
- I .
, , 'I \
~ ~,
~
~ \,
,
I
-~.
/\'\
\~.~~
'\ ' ./"
•./
\
\ .. /'/
.
I,
\,',/,...,-
\ .
• \.----:---:\ y~
Figure 1. Location of proposed WWTP site, and baseline noise survey locations NI to N8

LECEND: -~.~ ~-- .
PRO?OSED UAKJR PUMP STAWN
P~Op.~SED WICR PU<L' STAnON
fROPOSED PIPES ALONG ROADS
•
•
! . . ,--','
f,. ,.
__ l
.1.- ~-
. \
\
'T'
.,'
,',
l
I ,-
,
PRO"CSED PIPES lHROUCH FElDS
FROrcSED m,ESHORE PIPES
.: ; ~
.:., .~.-........, ..
-:'~_l ......
",,,,
:;{~) .
. , '\,
, ~ \
.
\~.
" ~.
/
.- .~
\'".
~.
""'::;."
r'~
.,;,//.......
-'v-: .
~.'~
':v· ..... ~~
,~~
. _ ....~ ~
"."
/
"'':''
... ..
~.:::...:
-\,"
~
> -\
1'", "
.~ ..... .;
.f'fl~/·\·· \
L\~
!'~
-'}o"
(.~
,7:::~.,-_.
..;.;<;,;.
Figure 2. Layout of Cork Lower Harbour Main Drainage Scheme, showing sewerage network, and major pumping station locations at Raffeen,
Monkstown, Carrigaloe, and West Beach where detailed noise surveys were carried out. Also shown are the minor pumping station
locations 1 to 20, where short-duration noise surveys were carried out

2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
2.1 RECEIVING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The proposed WWTP site is located within a predominantly rural area, with a low
density of housing.
The main contribution to the existing ambient noise level is from the distant traffic noise
on the N28, located 490m to the north of the site. There is a lower component of noise
from distant agricultural machinery, aircraft, and natural noise sources such as wind
noise, birds and animals. Along the entrance road to the site from Cogan's Road, there is
audible electrical hum from the ESB compound, and occasional work activity noise from
the Brown & Gilmer premises at the entrance from Cogan's Road.
The overall noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed WWTP site can be
described as quiet rural.
2.2 BASELINE NOISE SURVEYS
2.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF MEASUREMENT LOCAnONS
Noise surveys over 24-hour periods were carried out at three locations in the vicinity
of the WWTP site, denoted N 1, N2 and N3 in Figure 1.
Surveys of three hours duration during daytime and nighttime were conducted at five
additional representative positions, including nearest noise sensitive locations, in the
Carrigaline East/Shanbally areas, denoted N4 to N8 in Figure 1.
Nl: Western boundary of proposed site, beside electricity pylon

N2: Eastern boundary of proposed site, adjacent gate
N3: 200 m to the north of site, southwest corner of sports ground
N4: Upper Shanbally, at entrance to playing field
N5: 70 m south of proposed site
N6: Nearest house to south of site, at approximately 570m
N7: Entrance to Bord Gais, 20m from roadway
N8: At 12 m from N28 Ringaskiddy Road
Surveys of three hours duration during daytime and nighttime were also conducted at
the proposed sites of the four major pumping stations at Raffeen, Monkstown,
Carrigaloe, and West Beach Cobh, the locations of which are shown in Figure 2.
Short orientation noise measurements were carried out during daytime and nighttime at
the sites of twenty proposed minor pumping stations, as indicated in Figure 2.

2.2.2 WEATHER CONDITIONS:
Description of weather
Date
Measurement Period conditions
Light SW breeze, overcast,

25/0612007 Daytime
showers.
Nighttime Showers, light SW breeze.
Moderate SW breeze,
Daytime
26/0612007 overcast, warm, dry.
Moderate breeze - calm, cool,
Nighttime
clear night.
Light SW Breeze, dry,
27/0612007 Daytime
overcast, warm.
Nighttime Calm, clear, cool.
Heavy showers, moderate
Daytime
28/06/2007 SW with gusts, warm.
Showery, moderate SW
Nighttime
breeze, cool.
29/0612007 Daytime Showers, light SW breeze
Table 1. Summary of weather conditions during noise surveys
2.2.3 PERSONNEL
The baseline surveys were carried out by Kevin Downes B.Sc, and Alan Hanley B.Sc.
of ANV Technology. The assessment was undertaken by Colin Doyle M.Sc. MIOA of
ANV Technology.

2.2.4 INSTRUMENTATION
Manufacturer Instrument Calibrated Calibration Last

Laboratory reference Laboratory
Calibration
Briiel & Kjcer SLM 2260 Pennine 07062-1 20/01/06
(Type 1) serial Instruments
no.1875380
Briiel & Kjcer SLM 2250-L Bruel & Kjaer Certificate of 19/312007
Class 1 serial conformance
no. 2579999 2579999
Svantek SLM 949 Svantek No. 8183 27/09/05
(Type 1)
Brtiel & Kjcer Calibrator AV 0611490 7/11106
4231 Calibration
serial no.
1859044
Castle Calibrator GA Castle Group 40520/ 27/10/05
607 45338
serial no.
040520
Table 2. Noise measurement instrumentation used during the surveys. Calibration

checks were carried out before and after each survey period.
2.3 MEASURED EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
The results of the noise survey for the measurements positions in the vicinity of the
WWTP site are presented in Table 3. At locations NI, N2, N3, the mean measured
noise levels are averaged over continuous 24 hours measurement. At locations N4 to
N8, the mean measured noise levels are derived from noise levels measured during a 3
hour period in daytime and in nighttime.
Time plots of the 24-hour measurements at NI, N2 and N3 are shown in Figure 3. The
measured hourly noise levels for measurement positions N4 to N8 are presented in
Tables 4 and 5 for daytime and nighttime periods respectively.
The results of the noise surveys at the sites of the proposed major pumping stations are
presented in Tables 6 and 7 for daytime and nighttime periods respectively.
The results of the short-term orientation surveys at the sites of the proposed minor
pumping stations are presented in Tables 8 and 9 for daytime and nighttime periods
respectively.

2.3.1 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT IN VICINITY OF WWTP SITE
The noise environment in this area was determined primarily by distant traffic,
agricultural machinery, wind noise, birds/ animals, with a contribution from aircraft
noise during daytime.
Referring to Table 3, at the measurement locations NI and N2 at the proposed WWTP

site boundaries, the average daytime noise level was 44 and 47 dB(A) L Aeq
respectively. This reduced to 36 and 38 dB(A) LAeq respectively at nighttime. At N3,
230m to the north of the proposed site boundary, the mean daytime noise level was 47
dB(A) L Aeq , reducing to 39 dB(A) LAeq at nighttime. The noise measurements at
locations N2 and N3 represent the noise environment in the lands zoned residential to
the east of the proposed site.
The L A90 parameter is the noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period.
This represents the steady component of the underlying background noise. At locations
NI to N3, the mean LA90 value for the day/evening periods ranged from 39 to 41
dB(A). At nighttime this reduced to 30 to 31 dB(A) L A90 .
Measurements location N4 was at the nearest house to the proposed site, at a distance
of 280m from the eastern site boundary. At this position, the average daytime noise
level was 55 dB(A) LAeq due to local traffic, reducing to 50 dB(A) L Aeq at nighttime.
The steady underlying background noise at this location was 48 dB(A) L A90 during
daytime, and 40 dB(A) L A90 at nighttime.
At location N5, lOOm to the south of the site, the average daytime noise level was 45
dB(A) L Aeq , reducing to 43 dB(A) L Aeq at nighttime. The steady underlying background
noise at this location was 41 dB (A) L A 90 during daytime, and 39 dB(A) L A 90 at
nighttime.
Measurement location N6 was at the nearest house to the south of the proposed site,
which is at a distance of approximately 600m. The average daytime noise level was
55dB(A) L Aeq , reducing to 48 dB(A) L Aeq at nighttime. The steady underlying
background noise at this location was 42 dB(A) L A90 during daytime, and 31 dB (A)
L A90 at nighttime.
Measurement location N7 was at Cogan's Road, and measurements from this position
represent the existing noise exposures of houses along this road. The average daytime
noise level was 54dB(A) LAeq , reducing to 46 dB(A) L Aeq at nighttime. The steady
underlying background noise at this location was 46 dB (A) L A 90 during daytime, and
38 dB(A) LA90 at nighttime.
Measurement location N8 was at the N28, and measurements from this pOSItIon
represent the existing noise exposures of houses along this road. The average daytime
noise level was 62dB(A) L Aeq , reducing by 13 dB, to a level of 49 dB(A) L Aeq at
nighttime. The steady underlying background noise at this location was 53 dB(A) L A90
during daytime, and 35 dB(A) L A90 at nighttime.

2.3.2 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT SITES OF PROPOSED MAJOR PuMPING STATIONS
Referring to Tables 6 and 7, at Raffeen, the average daytime noise level was 57 dB(A)
L Aeq , due to local traffic, reducing to 46 dB(A) at nighttime. The steady underlying
background noise at this location was 50 dB(A) L A90 during daytime, and 40 dB(A)
L A90 at nighttime.
At Monkstown, the average daytime noise level was 55 dB(A) L Aeq , due to local traffic
and local activity noise, reducing to 42 dB(A) at nighttime. The steady underlying
background noise at this location was 43 dB(A) L A90 during daytime, and 38 dB(A)
L A 90 at nighttime.
At West Beach Cobh, the average daytime noise level was 58 dB(A) L Aeq , due to local
traffic and local activity noise, and 57 dB(A) at nighttime, due to noise from a docked
boat and local activity noise. The steady underlying background noise at this location
was 50 dB(A) L A90 during daytime, and 47 dB(A) L A90 at nighttime.
At Carrigaloe, the average daytime noise level was 63dB(A) LAeq , due to local road
traffic, ferry traffic, and noise from the ferry, and reduced to 57 dB (A) at nighttime.
The steady underlying background noise at this location was 49 dB(A) L A90 during
daytime, and 39 dB(A) L A 90 at nighttime.
2.3.3 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT SITES OF MINOR PuMPING STATIONS
Referring to Tables 8 and 9, daytime noise levels at the sites of the proposed minor
pumping stations ranged from 44 to 69 dB(A) L Aeq , depending on the local traffic
flows. The underlying background noise levels during daytime ranged from 38 to 53
dB(A) L A90.
Nighttime noise levels ranged from 44 to 64 dB(A) L Aeq , depending on the local
traffic flows. The underlying background noise levels ranged from 27 to 49 dB(A)
L A90 •

Measured Noise Levels d8(A)
Location Comment
(mean of measured values at IS-minute intervals)
LAcQ,I5mins L A90 L A50 LAw
DaylEvening (07.00 -23.00)

NI 44 39 41 45
N2 47 41 44 48
Distant traffic, tractors, aircraft, wind
N3 47 41 45 49
noise
N4 55 48 50 56
N5 45 41 43 47
N6 55 42 50 59 Light traffic, tractors, wind noise
Noise form commercial unit, light
N7 54 46 49 55
traffic
N8 62 53 60 65 Traffic, wind noise
Night (23.00 -07.00)

NI 36 31 34 37
N2 38 30 33 40 Low-level distant traffic, aircraft,
N3 39 30 34 42 animals, wind noise
N4 50 40 44 51
N5 43 39 41 42
N6 48 31 34 44 Aircraft, occasional traffic
Low-level noise from commercial
N7 46 38 39 42
unit, distant traffic
N8 49 35 39 49 Occasional traffic, wind noise
EU I noise descriptors for 24-hr locations N I to N3 (power avera~ ed noise levels)

L day Levening Lnighl Lclen
Location
L Acq, LAeq, L Aeq,
07.00-19.00 19.00-23.00 23.00-07.00
NI 45 46 39 48
N2 50 44 42 50
N3 48 44 48 54
Table 3. Overview of measured noise levels.(see also plots of measured noise levels over 24
hrs at NI, N2 N3 Further details in Figure 3, and measured noise levels at N4 to N8 in Tables
4 and 5)
I The standard EU noise descriptors are L Aeq values over the daytime, evening and nighttime periods. However in
low noise areas such as this, the noise environment is more reliably described by the arithmetic mean of the
measured noise levels at IS-minute intervals. In low noise areas, the EU noise descriptors are biased by short
duration noise events, which may be of no significance (eg. animal/bird sounds near the meter). The description
of noise environment is therefore based on the mean values rather than the EU descriptors.

L Aeq,
Location Date Time ISm;ns L A90 L ASO LAID Comment
Daytime Survey
16.58 53 49 51 55 Very little Traffic. Wind moderate. Aircraft
17.59 58 46 49 58 Church bells. Moderate breeze
N4 25/0612007 18.58 54 48 51 56 Gentle breeze
mean 55 48 50 56
14.56 44 40 42 47 Airplane. Moderate breeze
17.2 45 42 44 47 Cattle in crush. Gentle breeze
N5 26/0612007 17.36 45 42 43 46 Moderate wind. Traffic.
mean 45 41 43 47
Moderate Breeze. Rustling of hedges and
14.27 51 39 46 55 leaves. Very little traffic on road.
16.25 57 44 53 62 Tractors
N6 26/0612007 17 57 45 52 60 Traffic
mean 55 42 50 59
Work at Brown & Gilmer Ltd. Very traffic
16.13 56 49 52 58 on road.
Door closing at Brown & Gilmer Ltd. Very
17.18 53 45 48 55 little traffic on road.
N7 25/0612007 18.21 51 44 47 53 Dogs barking
mean 54 46 49 55 20m from road edge
16.37 63 56 61 65 Traffic. Light breeze.
17.41 61 51 59 64 Rustling of trees and hedges.
N8 25/06/2007 18.4 61 51 59 65 Little traffic. Light breeze.
mean 62 53 60 65 At 12m road ed~e
Table 4. Expanded details of daytime noise surveys at WWTP survey locations N4 to N8

L Aeq,
Location Date Time ISmi". L A90 L Aso L AlO Comment
Night Time Survey

Moderate breeze. Rustling from
22.51 52 46 50 55 leaves.
23.51 54 38 43 50 Moderate breeze
N4 25/0612007 00.48 44 35 38 47 Light breeze
mean 50 40 44 51
00.09 45 40 41 43 Aircraft, cattle
00.52 43 40 41 43 Distant traffic
N5 26/06/2007 01.32 41 38 39 41 Distant traffic
mean 43 39 41 42
23.49 53 32 37 51 Aircraft
00.32 51 31 34 45 Aircraft
N6 26/06/2007 01.13 41 29 31 37 Very little traffic.
mean 48 31 34 44
Very little traffic. Rustling of
23.30 44 41 43 47 leaves.
Gentle hum coming from Brown
00.30 45 38 39 43 & Gilmer Ltd.
Gentle hum coming from Brown
N7 25/06/2007 01.27 49 35 36 37 & Gilmer Ltd.
mean 46 38 39 42 20m from road edge
23.12 53 42 47 55 Very little traffic
00.11 46 32 35 43 Rustling leaves
N8 25/06/2007 01.09 48 31 36 49 Calm
mean 49 35 39 49 12m road edge
Table 5. Expanded details of nighttime noise surveys at WWTP survey locations N4 to

N8

L Aeq,
Location Date Time 15mins L A90 L Aso LA 10 Comment
Daytime
Local traffic, distant construction noise
from nearby reservoir site, flowing
16:24 56 50 54 59 stream barely audible.
Noise from local traffic, stream barely
audible, distant intermittent
Raffeen 26/0612007 17:10 57 51 55 60 construction works.
mean 57 50 55 60
Noise from children in adjacent
playground, intermittent local and
distant traffic, tree movement in
breeze, stream flowing barely audible
15:46 57 43 48 59 (roadside position)
Local traffic noise, children in
playground, birdsong, distant traffic
16:45 52 41 46 54 noise, tree movement in breeze.
Local traffic noise, children playing,
Monkstown 17:55 55 45 51 58 dogs barking, nearby lawnmower.
26/0612007 mean 55 43 49 57
13.15 57 49 55 60 People walking by. Traffic
People walking by. Jetski's in water.
Church bells ringing. Construction
14.16 60 52 58 63 noise.
West Lots of people walking by. Church
Beach 15.05 58 50 55 60 bells ringing. Construction noise
27/0612007 mean 58 50 56 61
12.32 63 49 55 67 Traffic
13.55 62 49 54 66 Traffic. Ferry crossing. Aircraft
Carrigaloe 14.38 63 49 57 66 Traffic, wind freshening
27/07/2006 mean 63 49 56 67
Table 6. Daytime noise surveys at the sites of the proposed major pumping stations

L Aeq ,
Location Date I Time ISmins L A90 L Aso LA 10 Comment
Nighttime
Trees in breeze, intermittent local
23:24 48 52 39 37 traffic.
Intermittent distant and local
traffic (light), noise from trees in
00:30 47 34 37 47 breeze and nearby stream.
Noise from nearby stream, very
quiet, occasional local car/distant
Raffeen 26/0612007 01: 15 42 34 35 39 car.
mean 46 40 37 41
Noise from water flowing in
nearby stream, distant and
intermittent traffic noise, very
23:45 45 37 39 44 calm, clear.
26/0612007 00:53 40 38 38 40 Steady noise from nearby stream.
Noise from running stream, light
breeze, light tree movement, very
Monkstown 00:00 41 39 39 42 quiet.
mean 42 38 39 42
23.27 56 48 50 58 Boat docked. Voices
West
Beach 0.09 56 48 50 59 Boat docked.
Cobh 27/0712006 0.51 60 47 49 55 Boat Docked. Voices
mean 57 47 50 57
22.3 57 43 49 62 Very Little traffic. Ferry crossing
Ferry Crossing. Little traffic. No
23.48 57 41 49 62 wind
27/0612007
Carrigaloe 0.29 57 32 36 56 Ferry has stopped crossing
mean 57 39 45 60
Table 7. Nighttime noise surveys at the sites of the proposed major pumping stations

N1 26th/27th June 2007 '-LAeq
south-western WWTP site boundary -LA90
-LA50
70
-LA10
60
50
<'
iD
"C
40
30
20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 '? 0 0 0 '? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '? 0 0 0 0
Lii iD e.: id Cri 0
C\J C\j N
C\J
h
C\J
0
0 0 N
0
h
0
~
0
Lii
0
iD
0
e.:
0
id
0 gj 0 :: N h ~ Lii
·-LAeq.
N2 27th/28th June 2007
north-eastern WWTP site boundary .-LA90
-LA50
70
-LA10
60
I
50
~
iD
"C
40
30
20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 '? 0 '? 0 '? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '? 0 0 0 0
Lii iD e.: id Cri 0
C\J C\j "'i
C\J
(')
C\J
g 0 "'i
0
h
0
~
0
Lii
0
iD
0
e.:
0
id
0
Cri
0
0 ~
~
"'i h ~ Lii
N3 28th/29th June 2007 -LAeq

north of WWTP site boundary -LA90
70 -LA50.-
-LA10
60
50
~
iD
"C
40
I~
30
20
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 8 8 0 '? 0 0 0 $ 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0
iD e.: id Cri 0
C\J C\j N
C\J
h
C\J
0
0 0 "'i
0
h
0
~
0
Lii
0
iD
0
e.:
0
O:i
0 gj 0 ~
~
N h ~ Lii iD
Figure 3 Plot of measured noise levels at 24-hour measurements positions at WWTP site

L Aeq ,
Daytime Date Time L A90 L ASO L AIO Comment
ISmins
1 26/06/2007 15.47 58 51 55 60 Significant traffic.

2 26/06/2007 16.05 64 53 60 67 Traffic, voices, horns beeping.
3 26/07/2007 16.42 57 44 52 61 Tractors.
Local and distant traffic noise, distant motor noise

4 26/06/2007 12:44 63 47 57 66 on main road, nearby silage machinery, high %
HGY's on road.
5 26/06/2007 13:43 44 38 42 45 Distant and local traffic noise, golf course mowers.
6 26/06/2007 18:15 61 44 55 65 Heavy local traffic noise, trees in breeze
7 27/06/2007 12: 15 55 45 49 55 Local and distant traffic, tree movement in wind.
Noise from nearby vehicle distribution centre,

8 27/06/2007 11:32 62 47 51 61 intermittent local traffic, distant lIucks audible.
9 27/06/2007 17:33 64 41 53 67 Local traffic noise, trees in breeze.
Noise from local and distant traffic, birds, water

10 27/06/2007 14:58 63 47 53 67 lapping against sea wall.
Heavy local traffic, distant traffic noise, cars in car

1I 27/06/2007 16:55 62 49 55 61 park, children playing in nearby playground.
Heavy 10caJ traffic, roadside position 3-4 meters,
12 27/06/2007 16:25 69 53 65 73 trees moving in breeze.
13 27/06/2007 12.5 69 50 61 72 Traffic
Noise from local traffic, trees in breeze, distant
14 28/06/2007 12:57 55 48 52 58 traffic. - 20m from roadside and water front.
Distant traffic noise, birdsong, light rain,
15 28/06/2007 13:30 49 44 47 51 construction noise from island across the water,
distant boat noise.
16 27/06/2007 13.36 66 46 58 71 Traffic
Wind & water lapping against seashore (20m

17 28/06/2007 13:55 58 50 52 57 below), trees in breeze, distant traffic barely
audible, light rain.
Noise from nearby construction site, trees in

18 28/06/2007 14:24 47 41 44 50 breeze.
Intermittent local traffic, birdsong - stopped due to

19 28/06/2007 14:46 54 40 43 54 rain after J0 minutes.
Local traffic noise, high % HGY's on road, distant

20 26/06/2007 13:15 59 49 55 62 and local traffic.
Table 8. Short-term orientation noise surveys at the sites of the proposed minor pumping
during daytime

L Aeq,
Time L A90 LA so L AlO Comment
Nighttime Date ISmin'
Dry night. Little traffic on road. River running close to

1 26/06/2007 22.5 53 47 48 56 site.
2 26/06/2007 23.12 63 49 52 65 Road works being carried out 7501 away

3 26/07/2007 23.33 47 33 36 45 Aircraft
Intermittent local and distant traffic. low level distant

4 26/06/2007 23:50 57 35 44 62 plant noise audible in lulls. Calm & Clear
Noise from airplanes, water flowing in nearby stream

5 26/06/2007 00:35 45 29 31 38 barely audible, distant low level plant noise barely
audible.
Distant traffic barely audible, intermittent local traffic,

6 26/06/2007 23:00 55 38 42 56 stream flowing nearby barely audible
Low level distant plant noise, and distant traffic, trees in

7 27/06/2007 23:25 44 42 43 46 breeze.
Intermittent traffic and distant traffic noise, low level

8 27/06/2007 23:05 51 37 40 46 rumble, boat?, tree movement in breeze.
Intermittent local and distant traffic, low level plant noise

9 27/06/2007 00:10 54 34 36 52 across water from Pfizer barely audible, hedge
growth/trees in breeze.
10 27/06/2007 00:57 54 27 34 51 Distant traffic barely audible, occasional car pass by.
Intermittent distant and local traffic, low level plant noise

12 27/06/2007 01:38 53 33 35 42 across water audible. Calm, clear, cold night. Stream
barely audible.
13 27/06/2007 22.5 64 38 53 70 Little traffic. Little or no breeze

16 27/06/2007 23.09 64 38 50 66 Traffic
20 28/06/2007 00:10 49 32 41 53 Intermittent local and distant traffic.
Table 9. Short-term orientation noise surveys at the sites of the proposed minor
pumping stations during nighttime

2.4 Do-MINIMUM SCENARIO
In the do-minimum scenario, with no development at the site, it is expected that the
environmental noise sources will remain essentially unchanged in terms of noise
emission. However, the proposed realignment of the N28 will result in a change in
noise environment at the proposed WWTP site.
The realigned road will be lOOm from the northern boundary of the site at its closest
approach. Based on published NRA traffic flow data for this road, it is calculated to
generate a daytime traffic noise level of 52 dB(A) L Aeq at the northern site boundary.
The additional nighttime traffic noise level is expected to be approximately 39 dB(A)
L Aeq (calculated based on a 13 dB difference between daytime and nighttime noise
levels as measured at the N28, measurement position N8). When added to the existing
nighttime noise, of level 36 to 39 dB(A), this will increase the nighttime ambient noise
to approximately 40 to 42 dB(A) L Aeq •
As the steady underlying background noise is determined mainly by the distant traffic
noise component, the realignment of the N28 is not expected to significantly alter the
steady underlying background noise levels (LA90) in the vicinity of the site, and is
consequently not a consideration in setting design noise criteria for the WWTP site.
The noise environment is expected to remain unchanged at the locations of the

proposed pumping stations.
3 NOISE IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT
3.1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
3.1.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE CRITERIA
Criteria for daytime construction noise are generally set at a level higher than for other
permanent intrusive noise sources, because it is recognised that it is a short-term
activity. For prolonged exposures above 70dB(A), the level of noise intrusion into
houses may however prove unacceptable.
A level of 70 dB(A) is the construction noise limit proposed in the National Roads
Authority guidelines for road construction projects, during normal daytime working
hours, as shown in Table 10. (Guidelines for Treatment of Noise and Vibration in
National Roads Schemes, published draft, NRA, 2004).
The National Road Authority guidelines for road construction projects do not include
limits for works between the hours of 22:00 hrs. and 07:00 hrs. However for any

essential nighttime works it would be reasonable to assign a limit of 45 dB (A)
LAeq,lhr, which is the EPA guideline industrial nighttime noise limit.
Days & Times LAell C1hr) dB L Amax dB

Monday to Friday 70 80
07.00 to 19.00
Monday to Friday 60 65
19.00 to 22.00
Saturday 65 75
08.00 to 16.30
Sundays and Bank 60 65
Holidays
08.00 to 16.30
Vibration Limits:
For protection of buildings
8 mm/s (vibration frequency < 10Hz)
12.5mm/s (vibration frequency 10 to 50Hz)
20 mm/s (vibration frequency >50 Hz)
Continuous piling: 2.5mm/s (tolerable level)
LAeq(lhr) is the one hour average noise level.

LAmax is the measured maximum noise level.
TablelO Maximum permissible noise levels at the fa~ade of dwellings during

construction. Source: "Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise & Vibration
in National Road Schemes", NRA, 2004
The NRA construction noise limits represent a reasonable compromise

between the practical limitations of a construction project, and the need to
ensure an acceptable ambient noise level for the residents. The degree of
adverse impact depends on the construction noise level, and the duration of the
construction project. The descriptive scale of adverse construction noise
impacts used in this report is presented in Table 11.

Approximate Construction Noise Level LA eo dB
Duration of
<55 55·60 60-70 70-75 75·80 >80
Exposure
Days Negligible Negligible Negligible Slight Moderate Significant
Weeks Negligible Negligible Slight Moderate Significant Severe
Months Negligible Slight Moderate Significant Severe Severe
Year Negligible moderate Significant Severe Severe Severe
Table 11. Gradation of adverse noise impact as function of construction noise level, and
duration of noise exposure
3.1.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE NOISE IMPACT CRITERIA
As this is a Design-Build-Operate (DBO) project, there are no details at this

planning stage on the exact equipment to be installed in the Waste Water Treatment
Plant.
The project management team has requested that design noise criteria be specified at
the plant boundary, in order to accommodate the contractual requirements of the
DBO project. Since equipment at the plant will operate continuously, equipment
noise emissions would need to be controlled to ensure that acceptable night-time
noise levels are achieved at the nearest noise sensitive locations.
The approach taken in this report is to determine a suitably low assessment noise
criterion at the nearest houses, such that the resulting noise impact of the proposed
development will be negligible, and comfortably within acceptable guideline levels.
This assessment noise criterion is then used to calculate back to the plant
boundaries, to establish the appropriate design criteria at the plant boundaries.
The validity of the noise impact assessment relies on the final design noise criteria
being incorporated into the contracts for the projects, and implemented through
appropriate equipment specifications during the detailed design stage.
3.1.2.1 EPA NOISE LIMITS
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) guidelines, which set a nighttime limit
of 45dB(A), and a daytime noise limit of 55 dB(A), at noise sensitive locations. The
EPA guidelines should however be viewed as maximum tolerable levels rather than
levels of negligible impact. Where existing background noise levels are low, a lower
noise criterion would be required, as described below.

3.1.2.2 CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE IN NOISE ENVIRONMENT
In assessing the scale of an adverse noise impact, consideration is given to the

change in noise environment brought about by a development. There are two aspects
to be considered. The first is the increase in total noise level (L Aeq ) due to the
development, which is termed the "sound emergence". The second is the degree to
which the industrial noise exceeds the pre-existing background noise. In this context
the background noise, which is quantified by the LA90 parameter, is the steady
underlying component of the ambient noise.
BS 4142 provides guidelines on potential noise impacts by consideration of the level

of the industrial noise relative to the background noise. An exceedence of 10 dB
indicates clear audibility, with potential for complaints, and the impact needs to be
carefully assessed. An increase of 5 dB is considered to be a marginal situation.
When the industrial noise is equal to or less than the background noise, it is unlikely
to be noticeable, and there is a low probability of complaint.
The mean daytime background noise level at measurement locations NI to N3 in the

vicinity of the proposed WWTP site were in the range 39 to 41 dB(A) LA90 , due to
distant traffic noise. At the nearest house to the east, at position N4, the daytime
background noise level was 48 dB(A) LA90 .
The mean nighttime background noise level at measurement locations NI to N3 in

the vicinity of the proposed WWTP site was in the range 30 to 31 dB(A) LA90.
During the quietest periods of the night from 02.00 to 05.00, background noise levels
ranged between 24 and 30 dB(A) L A90 . At the nearest house to the east of the site at
N4, the lowest background noise level detected was 35 dB(A) LA90.
Noise Impact Descriptors
Neither EPA guidelines, nor BS 4142 provide criteria for assigning noise impact
descriptors such as "negligible, slight, moderate, significant". However the principles
of BS 4142 can be used in conjunction with the EPA guideline noise limits to arrive at
a set of descriptors.
In the case where noise from a development is 10 dB higher than the eXlstmg
background noise, and if the EPA guideline limit is also approached or exceeded, the
adverse noise impact can be described as "significant".
If the noise from a development exceeds the background noise by 5 dB, the adverse
impact can be described as: "slight" if the noise level is less than the EPA limit;
"moderate" if the noise level is close to the EPA limit; and "significant" if the EPA
limit is exceeded by more than 2 dB.
For "negligible" or "slight" impact, the additional noise from the development should
be less than, or broadly comparable with the existing background noise. In these cases,
if the absolute noise level is close to the EPA limit, , the impact can be described as
"slight". If the absolute noise level is significantly less (l0 dB less) than the EPA

limit, the impact can be described as "negligible". When the noise from the
development is significantly lower than the background noise (for example 10 dB
lower), it is unlikely to be audible, and the noise impact can be described as
negligible.
3.1.2.3 CONSIDERATION OF INDOOR NOISE LEVELS AT NIGHTTIME
It should be noted that BS 4142 was devised for mixed residential and industrial
areas, already subject to a detectable level of industrial noise. It does not specifically
address noise impacts in quiet rural areas where the background noise is less than 30
dB(A), as occurs on occasion in this area at nighttime.
In these cases of very low background noise, any new noise sources will always be in
excess of the background noise level at certain times, especially at nighttime. In
these cases, the level of the new noise source relative to the background noise is not
the determining factor. Rather, the level of noise transmitted inside a house needs to
be considered.
Acceptable indoor noise criteria are specified in British Standard 8233 " Sound
insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of practice" (1999). BS 8233
specifies 30 to 40 dB(A) L Aeq as representing a "good" to "reasonable" indoor noise
environment for living rooms, and 30 to 35 dB(A) L Aeq for bedrooms. In addition,
noise maxima inside bedrooms should not normally exceed 45 dB(A) LAFmax at
nighttime. This is to ensure acceptable resting/sleeping conditions. These guidelines
are also consistent with recommendations of the World Health Organisation.
However from experience measuring indoor noise levels in Irish residences in rural
areas, it is found that indoor noise levels at nighttime are generally below 30 dB(A),
and would more typically be in the range 20 to 25 dB(A).
An external noise source of level 35 dB(A) would be attenuated by approximately 15

dB when transmitted into a house, through a partially opened window, or through an
open ventilation grille. The resulting indoor noise level would therefore be
approximately 20 dB(A). This would be at the lower range of typical indoor
background noise levels, and provided the sound contains no tonal or impulsive
components is unlikely to be noticeable. An indoor noise level of 20 dB(A) would be
very comfortably within BS 8233 and WHO guideline levels. Noise impact at this
level would be negligible.
3.1.3 PROPOSED BOUNDARY NOISE DESIGN CRITERIA
Criterion for Continuous Plant and Process Noise Emissions

Taking account of the EPA guideline limits, and the existing low background noise
levels, and also the requirement that the WWTP noise should not be noticeable
indoors at nighttime, it is considered that a design criterion of 35 dB(A) at nighttime
at the nearest noise sensitive location is appropriate for this development. This

would constitute a "negligible" noise impact, based on the noise impact criteria
discussed in section 3.1.2 above. The nearest noise sensitive location is the land
zoned residential, approximately 130m to the east of the proposed site boundary.
There is currently no development on these lands. The nearest existing house is
approximately 260m to the east.
The noise design criterion is best specified at a reference distance from the proposed
boundary, rather than at the precise WWTP boundary. Specification at a position
beyond the site boundary would take proper account of any noise screening which
may be incorporated at the WWTP plant boundary, which would also have a benefit
at the nearest noise sensitive receptor locations. A reasonable reference position
would be at 20m from the boundary to the north, south, and east. The western
boundary is not especially noise sensitive, due to the proximity of the ESB
compound. It is therefore not necessary to apply a noise design criterion for the
western boundary.
An ISO 9613 noise propagation model was developed for the proposed site. This
was used to calculate the design criterion at the plant boundary, which would ensure
that the resulting noise level at the zoned residential lands 130m to the east was less
than 35 dB(A), which is the criterion for negligible noise impact in this rural area.
The calculated design noise criterion is a noise level of 45 dB(A) at 20m from the
plant boundaries. Based on experience measuring noise levels at existing wastewater
treatment plants, this is considered to be technically achievable using current
equipment technology, and through incorporation of boundary noise screening where
required.
Criterion for Daytime Work Activity Noise Emissions
It should be noted that the above engineering design noise criterion applies to items
of equipment and processes at the WWTP which operate on a 24-hour basis. The
criterion was devised to ensure that there would be negligible noise impact at
nighttime, which is the most sensitive period with respect to noise impact.
During normal operation of the WWTP there will also be daytime work activities,
and movement of vehicles during daytime within the site, which would not be
subject to the same criterion. The existing underlying background noise in the
vicinity of the site was determined to be at least 10 dB higher than at nighttime.
Consequently, a daytime design noise criterion lOdE higher than the nighttime
criterion, i.e. 55 dB(A) at 20 m for the site boundary, would be considered
appropriate to ensure negligible daytime noise impact at the nearest noise sensitive
receptors. For a daytime noise criterion of 55 dB(A) at 20m from the boundary, the
resulting noise level at the nearest noise sensitive location, approximately 130m to
the east is calculated to be 45 dB(A).

3.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACT
3.2.1 CONSTRUCTION OF WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
The assessment in this report is based on general information available at the planning
stage of the project. The analysis presented is considered indicative of the scale of
potential noise impacts during the construction phase, based on noise emission data for
construction equipment from BS 5228, and experience at similar sites. However this
does not constitute a definitive estimate of construction noise levels. The detailed noise
analysis can only be carried out when precise details of works are formulated in terms
of equipment, processes, and exact timings of works. This detailed analysis will be the
responsibility of contacting companies undertaking the work, in accordance with the
applicable standards.
During construction of the treatment plant itself, the highest noise levels will be
generated during the site clearance and excavation phase of the works. During the
actual construction of the plant facilities and equipment installation, noise emissions
will be considerably lower.
For site clearance activities, involving heavy earth moving and excavation equipment,
the calculated construction noise level at the nearest house to the east is 51 dB(A) L Aeq
(based on an assumed sound power emission of 120 dB LWA from plant and equipment
operating on the site). This calculated noise level is very comfortably below the NRA
constnlction noise criterion of 70 dB(A). It would be just noticeable above the existing
ambient noise outdoors, but would not be intrusive. There would be no noticeable noise
impact indoors. The resulting noise impact at the houses is negligible.
The construction noise level in the sports field to the northeast is expected to be in the
range 50 to 55 dB(A), and will have negligible impact on outdoor activities in this area.
A noise map representing construction noise levels during the early construction phase
of the WWTP is shown in Figure 4.

Noise
Level
dB(A)
>.... -45. 0
>45.0-50.0
>50.0-55.0
>55.0-60.0
>60.0-65.0
>65.0-70.0
>70.0- ..••
"
Figure 4. Calculated construction noise levels, during the early site excavation and
preparation phase when noise emissions are expected to be highest. The
calculation are based on a total site sound power emission of 120 dB(A) LWA ,
which is a reasonable allowance for a project of this scale
3.2.2 CONSTRUCTION WORKS AT PUMPING STATIONS
The construction works at the major pumping stations will be of a significantly

reduced scale compared with the construction of the WWTP. The highest noise
emissions will be produced during the site preparation and excavation phase. Based on
a site equipment sound power emissions of 115 dB(A) LWA , the resulting constl1lction
noise levels at the nearest houses are calculated to be approximately 70 dB(A) at the
nearest houses at the Monkstown and West Beach sites, where it is considered that the
standard guideline noise limit of 70 dB(A) can be complied with, subject to
appropriate mitigation. There will be a slight adverse noise impact at these houses. At
the Raffeen and Carrigaloe sites, the calculated noise levels are 58 and 57 dB(A)
respectively, which are comfortably within the standard 70 dB(A) criterion, and noise
impact will be negligible.
Construction noise levels at the minor pumping stations will be of a lower level and
shorter duration than for the major pumping stations, and the adverse noise impact
will be negligible to slight.

Location of Proposed Pumping Calculated Construction Phase Noise
Station Level at Nearest House to Pumping Station
dB(A)
Rafeen 58
Monkstown 70
Carrigaloe 57
West Beach Cobh 69
Table 12. Calculated highest construction noise levels, during the early site preparation
and excavation phases for the proposed major pumping stations (BS 5228
calculation based on site sound power emissions of 115 dB(A) LWA , with
allowance for noise screening by standard timber site hoardings).
3.2.3 EXCAVATION WORKS FOR SEWER LINES
The proposed sewer network will involve laying of sewer lines through populated
areas of Cobh, Monkstown, Ringaskiddy, and Carrigaline, and in the vicinity of
houses along rural sections of the network. The noise level at houses along the
proposed sewer routes will vary depending on the proximity of the works, and the set-
back distance of the houses from the line of the sewer. The expected construction
noise levels at the houses along the routes of the sewer pipelines were calculated in
accordance with BS 5228. The calculations are based on typical equipment noise
emissions data (for excavatorlbreaker and truck) and allow for distance attenuation,
and marginal screening at the house boundaries.
The highest expected noise level at any given house along the sewer route will be
generated when excavations are in progress immediately adjacent to the house in
question. The noise level at the house will depend on the distance of the house from
the excavation works. Table 13 shows the calculated noise levels for houses at various
distances from the line of the sewer line excavation works.
For houses set back 10 metres from the sewer line, the noise levels may exceed the 70
dB (A) construction noise criterion for the short period while works are in progress
immediately adjacent to the house.
As works progress along the route, the noise level at any given house will vary
depending on the location of the works along the road. The expected variation in noise
level is shown in Figure 5. This shows that in general noise levels will be less than 65
dB(A). However, noise levels may exceed 70 dB (A) while works are in progress in the
20m stretch immediately in front of the houses. As works progress away from the
house, the noise level falls off rapidly. Beyond 50 metres, the noise level would be
less than 60 dB(A), and beyond 100 metres the noise levels would be less than 54
dB(A).
This construction noise will be audible above the existing ambient noise, but would

not be considered intrusive in the context of the limited duration of the works.
Set-back distance of 10 20 30 40 50
house from line of
sewer excavations,
metres
Noise level dB(A) 73 67 63 61 59
LAea,lhr
Table 13. Calculated noise levels at a house, due to excavation works at roadside
adjacent to the house
(based on data from BS 5228, with an assumed sound power emission of 110 dB(A) from
an excavation works, with average on-time of 50%, and assumed nominal screening
allowance of 6 dB for boundary walls.)
Noise due to road excavation
80
75
<,70
a:r
'tl 65
$
::::l 60
o
:: 55
ca
~ 50
$ 45
'0 40
z . : ..:...
.. _ ....
I I
I I
35 I
I
I
I
I
, ,I
30
000
o co <D
o
'<t
0 oo 0
co
000 o(\J 000
'<t <D co
0
0
~
~ I I
(\J
...., '
(\J
.... .... (\J
distance along road to excavation work~ metres
Figure 5. Variation of noise level at a given house, depending on distance of excavation

works along the road from the house entrance. In the situation depicted, the
house is 10m from the road. The 70dB(A) NRA criterion may be exceeded
while works are in progress on the 20m stretch immediately in front of the
house.
Channel Crossing at Carrigaloe

At this planning stage, final details are not available on the works on the channel crossing at
Carrigaloe. The possible options include open cut and tunnelling. In either case, it can be
assumed that there will be shore-based works, which will generate noise. In the case of the
open cut option there would also be noise emitted from the works on floating platforms in the
channel. An additional consideration is the question of tidal restrictions, which may require
works to be carried out outside the normal daytime construction periods on occasions. Noise
emissions form these works will be subject to the construction noise limits set out in section
3.1.1.
3.2.4 VIBRATION
In carrying out this assessment, it is assumed that there will be no blasting carried out.
Taking account of the nature of the likely excavation works for the sewerage pipes,
such as excavation and rock breaking, it is expected that the resulting vibration levels
at nearby properties will be comfortably within the vibration limits for protection
against cosmetic damage (set out in Table 10), and in terms of nuisance, are likely to
be imperceptible.
3.2.5 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
At this planning stage, precise details are not available on construction traffic
volumes. Additional traffic noise can however be expected on haul routes to the
treatment plant site, and along the sewer pipeline routes.
Based on a nominal assumption of 10 vehicles per hour travelling to/from the work
sites, the additional traffic noise generated at a house at 10m from the road is expected
to be approximately 55 dB(A). This is a relatively low level of traffic noise, and
would have only a slight impact.

3.3 OPERATIONAL PHASE NOISE IMPACT
3.3.1 NOISE PROPAGATION MODEL
A computer noise propagation model was developed for the proposed waste water
treatment plant. The model is based on the calculation procedures of ISO 9613. For
noise modelling purposes the overall continuous plant and process noise emissions
from the new plant are assumed to be limited at source and/or screened, such that the
resulting noise level at a reference distance of 20m from the plant boundary is at the
proposed design noise criterion of 45 dB(A). For additional work activities and vehicles
operating within the site during daytime, the overall noise emissions are assumed to be
limited to the daytime noise criterion of 55 dB(A) at 20m from the boundary.
3.3.2 NOISE EMISSIONS FROM WWTP
The calculated operational noise levels, and noise impact assessment for the daytime
and nighttime periods, are presented in Table 14. The calculated noise levels for the
operational WWTP are illustrated as a noise map in Figures 6 and 7 for nighttime and
daytime operation respectively.
Daytime Noise Impact

For daytime operation of the WWTP, including daytime work activities and vehicle
movements within the site, the projected additional noise levels due to the WWTP are
in the range 34 dB(A) to 45 dB(A) at the noise sensitive locations considered. These
additional noise levels are all comfortably below the EPA daytime noise limit of 55
dB(A).
At the nearest lands zoned residential to the east of the site, the ambient noise level is
calculated to increase by 2 dB. This increase is not likely to be perceptible. The
daytime activity noise and vehicle movement noise within the site is calculated to
exceed the background noise by 4 dB. The noise may therefore be just audible, but is
unlikely to be clearly distinguishable from the existing distant traffic noise. The
component of continuous noise from the plant and processes at the WWTP (excluding
vehicles and daytime works activities) would be in the range 27 to 35dB(A) and
would be inaudible. The noise impact at this location is considered to be negligible.
At the other noise sensitive locations, the additional noise from the WWTP, including
daytime work activities and vehicle movements within the site, would not result in
any change in the existing total ambient noise at the nearest noise sensitive locations,
and would be lower than the existing background noise levels. There would be no
adverse noise impact at these locations.
ANY Technology Ltd. Appendix 6A..-Noise.doc 30

At the existing houses to the east, north, south and west, the calculated additional
WWTP noise will be 8 to 14 dB lower than the existing steady background noise
level, and will be inaudible.
In the sports field to the north east of the site, the daytime noise level is expected to be
in the range 40 to 45 dB(A), and will have no noise impact on the amenity of this area.
Nighttime Noise Impact

For nighttime operations, noise emissions from the WWTP are the same as modelled
for daytime conditions, and the calculated noise levels at the noise sensitive locations
are in the range 24 to 35 dB(A).
These additional noise levels are all 10 comfortable compliance with the EPA
nighttime noise limit of 45 dB(A).
The additional noise at the noise sensitive locations would result in an increase of at
most 1 dB in nighttime noise level at the nearest noise sensitive location, which is the
land zoned residential 140m to the east. At this location, the WWTP noise would
exceed the existing steady background noise by 5 dB, and consequently the noise
would be audible at a low level outdoors. Allowing for an attenuation of
approximately 15 dB through a partially opened window, the resulting indoor noise
level would be 20 dB(A). This is comfortably within the BS 8233 guidelines, and
represents an extremely low noise level which is unlikely to be noticeable indoors.
The adverse noise impact at this location is considered to be negligible.
At the existing houses to the east, north, south and west, the projected WWTP noise is
very low, and in the range 24 to 30 dB(A). The WWTP noise would be between 6 and
11 dB lower than the existing background noise, and would not be audible outdoors or
indoors. There would be no adverse noise impact at these houses.

Projected Comparison
Projected Projected Within EPA
Existing Change, dB with mean
WWTPPlant Total Future Limits Overall Adverse Noise
House Locations Noise (Sound background Likely Audibility
Noise Level Noise (55/45 dB(A) Impact
LAeqdB(A) emergence) noise
L Aeq dB(A) LAeqdB(A) day/night) 1
L A90
Daytime
Daytime activities
Lands to east possibly audible at low
45 47 49 +2 yes +4dB Negligible
(zoned residential) level outdoors,
inaudible indoors
Houses to east 40 55 55 0 yes -8 dB
Houses to north 39 62 62 0 yes -14 dB Inaudible outdoors and
None
Houses to south 34 55 55 0 yes -8 dB indoors
Houses to west 37 54 54 0 yes -9 dB
Ni~httime
Audible at low level
Lands to east
35 38 40 +2 yes +5 dB outdoors, not noticeable Negligible
(zoned residential)
indoors
Houses to east 30 50 50 0 yes -10 dB
Houses to north 29 49 49 0 yes -6 dB Inaudible outdoors and
None
Houses to south 24 48 48 0 yes -7 dB indoors
Houses to west 27 46 46 0 yes -11 dB
Table 14. Predicted noise levels from proposed WWTP, and noise impact assessment
1 difference between projected WWTP noise, and the background noise at the assessment location, as given in Table 3

3.3.3 GROUND VIBRATION DUE TO WWTP
From visits to other waste water treatment plants (including Limerick, Ennis, Kilkenny,
Athy, Greystones), it has been found that there is no perceptible ground vibration
beyond the site boundaries associated with the operating equipment. At the proposed
WWTP site, the nearest sensitive location is 140m to the east. There is unlikely to be
any significant potential for audible ground-borne vibration over this distance.
3.3.4 NOISE AND VIBRATION EMISSIONS FROM PUMPING STATIONS
As the pumps and equipment in the major pumping stations will be enclosed within
buildings, or located below ground level at the minor pumping stations, the noise
sources will be effectively enclosed. In principle any desired degree of sound
attenuation can be achieved.
Nighttime background noise levels at the sites of the proposed pumping stations ranged
from 32 to 47 dB(A) L A90 . A reasonable criterion would be to ensure a noise level of
less than 35 dB(A) at the nearest houses, as was proposed for the noise sensitive
locations near the WWTP site itself. For noise sensitive locations closest to the
pumping stations at Monkstown and West Beach Cobh, this would correspond to a
design noise criterion of 45 dB(A) at 5m from the pumping stations.
Given the proximity of nearby residences to the pumping station at Monkstown and
West Beach Cobh, it is prudent to consider the potential for generation of ground-borne
vibration, in the audio frequency range, which could potentially give rise to a low
pitched audible sound inside the nearby residences.
Such ground-borne hums could be generated by motors, pumps and any other
equipment which is in mechanical contact with the ground near a building. Audible
ground-borne vibration is readily prevented through incorporation of suitable vibration
isolators in the equipment mountings.
Measurements at the existing Church Street pumping station in Carrigaline found that
ground vibration levels at lm from the wall of the pumping station were extremely low,
and there was negligible potential for transmission of audible ground-borne vibration to
nearby residences. The measured vibration level is presented in Figure 8.

Noise
Level
dB(A)
> .... -20.0
>20.0-25.0
>25.0-30.0
>30.0-35.0
>35.0-40.0
>40.0-45.0
>45.0-50.0
~ >50.0- .. ..
Figure 6. Calculated nighttime noise levels due to the operating WWTP. This noise
map was generated using an ISO 9613 noise propagation model, based on a
nighttime design noise criterion of 45 dB(A) at 20m from the WWTP
boundary. This noise map represents the continuous plant and process noise
emissions from the operating WWTP.
ANV Technology Ltd. Appendix. 6A_Noise.doc 34

> .... -20.0
>20.0-25.0
>25.0-30.0
>30.0-35.0
>35.0-40.0
>40.0-45.0
>45.0-50.0 .
>50.0- ....
Figure 7. Calculated noise levels due to operating WWTP, during daytime. This noise
map was generated using an ISO 9613 noise propagation model, based on a
design noise criterion of 55 dB(A) at 20m from the WWTP boundary
during daytime. This noise map represents the continuous plant and process
noise emissions from the operating WWTP, and includes daytime work
activities and traffic on site.

~ 0 '£) '£) 0 0 M 0 0 '£) 0 0 0 '£) 0 0 0 0 ::<: ::<: ::<: ::<: ::<: ::<: ::<:
N N
- "<j- '£) '0 00
~ ~
-
'0 0 '£)
;:;:; 0 0 M 0 N '£) "<j-
'"
'£) '£)
N N "<j- '£) '0 00
M ~ N
M
Frequency Hz
Figure 8. Measured ground vibration level at 1m from eXIstmg Church Street pumping
station in Carrigaline, which demonstrate very low ground vibration levels, with no
potential for transmission of audible sound beyond the immediate vicinity of the
station

3.3.5 IMPACT OF OPERATIONAL PHASE TRAFFIC
Detailed operational traffic forecasts were not available at time of preparation

of this report. However the estimates of likely site traffic are relatively low, at
approximately 10 heavy vehicle movements per day along Cogan's Road to the
site, and light staff traffic, which will have negligible impact.
The calculated traffic noise level due to the heavy vehicle movements is 40
dB(A) L Aeq at a distance of 20m from the road. The existing measured traffic
noise level was 54 dB(A) L Aeq . The additional traffic noise would not add
detectibly to the average traffic noise level.
The noise generated by vehicles moving within the site is calculated to result
in a noise level of less than 50 dB(A) at 20m from the site boundary, and will
be comfortably within the proposed daytime noise criterion of 55 dB(A) at
20m from the site boundary.

4 MITIGATION
4.1 NOISE MITIGATION DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE
During the construction phase of the actual WWTP, the potential noise impact
during daytime is slight, and no special mitigation measures are likely to be
required.
During construction of the pumping stations and during excavation works for
the sewer lines, there is potential for exceedence of the standard construction
noise criterion of 70 dB(A) on occasions. In accordance with best practice, the
noise issues at the sites should be managed in accordance with the
recommendations in BS 5228, which should be incorporated into the
construction environmental management plan.
• General guidelines for limiting the disturbance which may be applicable for
these works are outlined below:
• Limit noisy construction works to 07.00 to 19.00 weekdays with Saturday

working from 08.00 - 13.00 hours (relatively quiet construction activities
could be carried out outside these hours, subject to strict controls).
• Essential nighttime works, should be subject to a noise limit of 45 dB(A), and

carefully assessed and controlled to minimise impact
• Utilise solid timber site hoardings where required to screen sensitive

properties.
• Use modern, silenced and well-maintained equipment conforming to

applicable EU directives.
• Shut down equipment when not in use, where practicable.
• Site semi-static equipment such as generators, mixers, and compressors as far

away as possible from sensitive locations and ensure that the orientation is the
optimum for low noise.
• Ensure that all workers are given training with respect to minimising noise and
disturbance.
• Noise exposure aspects within the worksites will be managed in accordance

with the requirements of Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General
Application) Regulations 2007, SI 299 of 2007.

4.2 NOISE MITIGATION FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE
The assessment of noise impact during the operational phase of the

development was based on a nighttime design noise criterion of 45 dB(A) at
20m from the northern, eastern and southern boundaries of the WWTP, and a
design criterion of 45 dB(A) at 5m from the pumping stations.
In addition, for the WWTP site, a daytime design noise criterion of less than
55 dB(A) at 20m from the boundary is proposed to ensure negligible noise
impact due to daytime work activities and vehicles operating within the site.
These design noise criteria represent the specific noise emissions from
continuous plant and processes, excluding residual noise from other sources
such as traffic.
The achievement of these noise criteria will depend on the appropriate noise
specifications and noise controls being incorporated into the detailed acoustic
design of the plant. The principal mitigation measures required for the
development therefore concern selection of equipment, sound containment,
acoustic attenuators, and noise screening, in order to achieve the required
design noise criteria.
Any mechanical equipment (such as motors) at the pumping stations, which is

considered capable of transmitting significant ground borne vibration in the
audio frequency range, should be adequately vibration isolated to ensure that
they do not give rise to audible sound at the nearest houses.
Achieving the design criteria will be the responsibility of the developer's

design team. The predicted noise levels, as outlined in this report are
considered to be readily technically achievable using standard technology and
noise control methods. The contractor will be required to demonstrate in
advance of construction, using an appropriate methodology, that the design
noise criteria will be achieved.
The design noise criteria referred to above, are for engineering design purposes
only, and should not be confused with any noise conditions which may be set
by the relevant authorities, which would typically be 55 dB (A) during daytime,
and 45 dB(A) during nighttime at noise sensitive locations (as opposed to
boundaries).
5 RESIDUAL NOISE IMPACT
The WWTP development with associated pumping stations is expected to

have a negligible residual noise impact at the nearest houses during daytime
and nighttime operations. Noise will be comfortably within the EPA limits at
all houses.

6 NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY
The environmental noise impact of the proposed Cork Lower Harbour

Drainage Scheme and Waste Water Treatment Plant has been assessed both
during the construction phase, and during the operational phase.
The existing daytime noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed WWTP
site was found to be relatively quiet, with a mean ambient noise level in the
range 44 to 47 dB(A) L Aeq , and with steady underlying background noise levels
of 39 to 41 dB(A) L A90 . The noise environment is determined by distant traffic
noise, agricultural machinery, with a contribution from aircraft noise.
At nighttime the mean ambient noise level was in the range 36 to 43 dB(A)
L Aeq with a steady underlying background noise component of 30 to 39 dB(A)
L A90 .
The future realignment of the N28 will alter the noise environment at the site
of the WWTP. The calculated future ambient noise level at the northern
boundary is 52 dB(A) during daytime, and 39 dB(A) at nighttime. The
realignment of the road is not expected to alter the steady underlying
component of background noise at the WWTP site, as this is due to distant
noise sources.
At the sites of the proposed major pumping stations at Rafeen, Monkstown,

West Beach Cobh, and Carrigaloe, the noise environment was determined
mainly by local traffic.
During the construction phase of the proposed WWTP the resulting noise
levels at the nearest existing houses to the east and north is 51 dB(A). This is a
very low noise level, and is comfortably within the standard construction noise
criterion of 70 dB(A). The noise impact will be negligible.
During construction of the major pumping stations at Rafeen, Monkstown,

West Beach Cobh, and Carrigaloe, the construction noise levels are expected
to range from 57 to 70 dB(A) at the nearest houses. The highest noise levels
will be experienced at the houses closest to the Monkstown and West Beach
sites. Subject to appropriate mitigation, it is expected that the NRA 70 dB(A)
criterion will be achievable at these locations, and that the resulting adverse
impact will be slight.
The proposed scheme will involve extensive excavation works for laying new
sewer lines. When these works are in progress adjacent to houses along the
routes, noise may exceed the 70 dB(A) National Roads Authority construction
noise criterion for short periods. In general however, construction noise levels
at houses along the sewer routes will be typically less than 65 dB(A), with
minimal impact.

When the treatment plant is operational, and provided it is designed to the
specified noise criteria, noise emissions are calculated to result in a nighttime
noise level of 30 dB(A) LAeq , and a daytime noise level of 40 dB(A) L Aeq at
the nearest existing houses to the east, with no adverse noise impact. At the
lands zoned residential, 140m to the east of the site, the expected noise level is
35 dB(A) at nighttime, and 45 dB(A) during daytime. The resulting noise
impact is considered to be negligible.
Airborne noise emission from the pumping stations will be negligible.

However, where a pumping station is located close to a residence, there is a
small risk of structure borne vibration being transmitted into the residence, and
being audible indoors. This can be avoided through incorporation of suitable
vibration isolation as appropriate.
Summary of Main Mitigation Measures for This Project
• The Waste Water Treatment Plant should be designed such that the operational
noise level due to the continuously operating WWTP plant and processes at a
distance of 20m from the plant boundaries is less than 45 dB(A) LAeq .
This criterion excludes daytime work activities and daytime vehicle

movements within the site. The appropriate criterion for these daytime work
activities and vehicle movements is a noise level of less than 55 dB(A) at a
distance of 20m from the boundaries
• The pumping stations should be designed such that the operational noise level
at a distance of 5m from the stations is less than 45 dB(A) LAeq
• Any equipment at the pumping stations capable of transmitting audible ground

borne vibration to nearby houses should be adequately vibration isolated
• A daytime construction noise limit of 70 dB(A) is considered appropriate for

this project. Construction noise aspects should be managed in accordance with
BS 5228 "Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites".

References
ISO 1996 "Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise"
ISO 9613 "Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors"
BS 5228 "Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites".
BS 4142, "Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas".
U.K. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges I Calculation of Road Traffic Noise
BS 8233 "Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - A code of practice".
National Road Authority "Guidelines for Treatment of Noise and Vibration In

National roads Schemes"
World Health Organisation: "Guidelines for Community Noise"

APPENDIX A - TERMINOLOGY
dB(A) a logarithmic noise scale (decibel). The "A" indicates that a frequency weighting has
been applied to take account of the variation in the sensitivity of the human ear as a
function of frequency.
LAeq the average noise level during the measurement period, which includes all noise events.
The LAeq value has been found to correlate well with human tolerance of noise, and is
the value normally used in setting and monitoring industrial noise limits.
L A90 the noise level exceeded for 90% of the time. It is generally taken as being representative
of the steady background noise at a location. It tends to exclude short events such as cars
passing, dogs barking, aircraft flyovers etc.
LASO the noise level exceeded for 50% of the time.
LAlO the noise level exceeded for lO% of the time. It is a measure of the higher noise levels
present in the ambient noise. The L AIO parameter is generally used to describe traffic
nOise.
LWA the total sound power emitted by a source (in dB re 1 picoWatt)
Free-field
Noise measurements made away from reflecting surfaces (apart from the ground) are
termed free-field measurements. Measurements at the fa~ade of a building are
typically 3 dB higher, due to reflection from the fa~ade. All data in this report are free-
field
Total Noise Level

The total noise level due to all noise sources (also called ambient noise).
Specific Noise Level

A component of the ambient noise that can be attributed to a specific source, e.g. industrial
source
Residual Noise Level

The component of the total noise that exists in the absence of the specific noise
Sound Emergence
The increase in the total noise due to the addition of a specific noise source
Background Noise
The steady underlying component of the measured noise (normally measured using the L A90
parameter)

MottMcDonald Odour Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MottMcDonald Odour Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix 58

ODOUR & Environmental Engineering Consultants

Unit 32 De Granville Court, Dublin Rd, Trim, Co. Meath

ODOUR IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED CORK HARBOUR MAIN DRAINAGE

PREPARED BY: Dr. Brian Sheridan

Document Amendment Record

Client: Mott MacDonnell Pettit Consulting Engineers

Document Reference: Odour impact

Revision PurposelDescription Originated Checked Authorised Dat.e

It was concluded that:

Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP

The following recommendations were developed during the study:

This assessment was performed in accordance with currently recommended international

3. Materials and Methods

3.2. Odour emission rate calculation.

3.3. Dispersion modelling overview

3.3.1. Atmospheric dispersion modelling of odours: What is dispersion modelling?

3.3.2. AERMOD Prime

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

Generic Hedonic score 2 2 2 2 2 2

3.3.4. Commonly used odour annoyance criteria utilised in dispersion models

Table 2.2. Od --- -- --.- _.. _- _..'t, . d f' lod -_._.

3.4. Meteorological data.

3.5. Terrain data.

4.1. Odour emission data

Inlet works-Primary treatment building 1 0 See OCU emission rate - 0 0

Primary settlement tank 12 0 See OCU emission rate - - 0 0

OCU 3 - Sludge holding

OCU 4 - Primary sludge storage OCU 9 - - 1 300 300 4.54

Source identity Odour emission rate (OuE/s)

Cork Harbour Main Drainage Scheme WWTP

1. Odour management, minimisation and mitigation procedures as discussed within this

8. Appendix I-Odour dispersion modelling contour results for Cork Harbour

8.4 Predicted odour emission contribution of individual grouped aeration tankage,

8.5 Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed Raffeen Pumping station

8.7 Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed Monkstown Pumping station

five years of meteorological data.

8.9 Predicted odour emission contribution of proposed Carraigaloe Pumping station

five years of meteorological data.

D., 25m .Om

9. Appendix 11 • Background Information on odours pertaining to Cork

9.1. Legislation pertaining to odours in Ireland

9.2. Characterisation of odour.

9.3. Odour qualities

9.4. Perception of emitted odours.

9.5. Characteristics of Waste water odours

9.6. Odourous compound formation in wastewater treatment plants/pumping stations

• k < 0.05; extreme sludge stabilisation, no anaerobic bacterial decay to be expected;

The production of odourous components depends on the reduction-oxidation potential (redox-

9.7. Odour emissions formation at Wastewater treatment plants

9.8. Odour management plan - Standard Practice

9.8.2. Odour abatement management system/procedures - Standard Practice

Supplier and contact details:

Emergency contact No.

SENSOR CALIBRATION DATES

Subjective process verification

Is the fan running and sounding OK (Y/N

Objective process verification I

Differential pressure across

H2S inlet cone. (ppm/v)

Odour Abatement Plant process data sheet

Supplier and contact details:

Emergency contact No.

Item description Parameter Compliant/Actions