draft for public - charnwood · draft for public . this is a draft decision document, which...

Newhurst ERF of 150 EPR/TP3036KP

Draft For LE12 9BU

Public Consultation This is a draft decision document, which accompanies a draft permit.

Determination of an Application for an Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2010

Consultation on our decision document recording our

decision-making process The Permit Number is: EPR/TP3036KB The Applicant / Operator is: Biffa Waste Services Limited The Installation is located at: Newhurst Quarry Shepshed Leicestershire

Consultation commences on: 2 March 2011 Consultation ends on: 31 March 2011 What this document is about

It explains how we have considered the Applicant’s Application, and why we have included the specific conditions in the draft permit we are proposing to issue to the Applicant. It is our record of our decision-making process, to show how we have taken into account all relevant factors in reaching our position. Unless the document explains otherwise, we have accepted the Applicant’s proposals. The document is in draft at this stage, because we have yet to make a final decision. Before we make this decision we want to explain our thinking to the public and other interested parties, to give them a chance to understand that thinking and, if they wish, to make relevant representations to us. We will make our final decision only after carefully taking into account any relevant matter raised in the responses we receive. Our mind remains open at this stage: although we believe we have covered all the relevant issues and reached a reasonable conclusion, our ultimate decision could yet be affected by any information that is relevant to the issues we have to consider. However, unless we receive information that leads us to alter the conditions in the draft Permit, or to reject the Application altogether, we will issue the Permit in its current form. In this document we frequently say “we have decided”. That gives the impression that our mind is already made up; but as we have explained above, we have not yet done so. The language we use enables this


Draft For The number we propose to give to the permit is EPR/TP3036KP. We refer to the proposed permit as “the Permit” in this document.

Public Consultation

The Applicant is Biffa Waste Services Limited. We refer to Biffa Waste Services Limited as “the Applicant” in this document. Where we are talking about what would happen after the Permit is granted (if that is our final decision), we call Biffa Waste Services Limited “the Operator”.

document to become the final decision document in due course with no more re-drafting than is absolutely necessary. We try to explain our decision as accurately, comprehensively and plainly as possible. Achieving all three objectives is not always easy, and we would welcome any feedback as to how we might improve our decision documents in future. A lot of technical terms and acronyms are inevitable in a document of this nature: we provide a glossary of acronyms near the front of the document, for ease of reference. Preliminary information and use of terms We gave the Application the reference number EA/EPR/TP3036KP/A001. We refer to the Application as “the Application” in this document in order to be consistent.

The Application was duly made on 19/2/10.

Biffa Waste Services Limited’s proposed facility is located at Newhurst Quarry. We refer to this as “the Installation” in this document. How this document is structured • Executive summary of our proposed decision • How we took our decision • The legal framework • Description of the Installation and general issues • Environmental issues: emissions and their control • Other relevant issues • Before and after operation commences, and after it finally ceases • Other relevant legal issues • Annexes


DraHuman Rights Act 1998 ft For blic

on

PuLandfill Directive (1999/31/EC)

ConsultatiNational Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit

Glossary of acronyms used in this document (Please note that this glossary is standard for our decision documents and therefore not all these acronyms are necessarily used in this document.) BAT

Best Available Technique(s)

BAT-AEL

BAT Associated Emission Level

BREF

BAT Reference Note

DAA

Directly associated activity

DD Decision document

EIAD

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC)

ELV

Emission limit value

EPR Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010 No. 675) EQS

Environmental quality standard

FSA Food Standards Agency HRA IPPCD Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (2008/1/EC)

LCPD

Large Combustion Plant Directive (2001/80/EC)

LfD

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MWI

Municipal waste incinerator

NAQMAU

PC Process Contribution

PEC Predicted Environmental Concentration (i.e. PC plus background)

PPS

Public participation statement

PR

Public register

RGS

Regulatory Guidance Series

SAC

Special Area of Conservation

SED

Solvent Emissions Directive (1999/13/EC)

SCR

Selective catalytic reduction

SGN

Sector guidance note

SHPI(s) Site(s) of High Public Interest

SNCR

Selective non-catalytic reduction

SPA Special Protection Area

SSSI

Site of Special Scientific Interest

SWMA

Specified waste management activity

WFD

Waste Framework Directive (2008/98EC)

WID Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC)


Draft For Public

The draft Permit contains many conditions taken from our standard Environmental Permit template including the relevant Annexes. We developed these conditions in consultation with industry, having regard to the legal requirements of the Environmental Permitting Regulations and other relevant legislation. This document does not therefore include an explanation for these standard conditions. Where they are included in the permit, we have considered the Application and accepted the details are sufficient and satisfactory to make the standard condition appropriate. This document does, however, provide an explanation of our use of “tailor-made” or installation-specific conditions, or where our Permit template provides two or more options. Consultation

1 Our proposed decision This Application is to operate an installation subject to the Waste Incineration Directive. We are minded to grant the Permit to the Applicant. This will allow it to operate the Installation, subject to the conditions in the Permit. We consider that, in reaching that decision, we have taken into account all relevant considerations and legal requirements and that the permit will ensure that a high level of protection is provided for the environment and human health.

2 How we reached our decision The Application was duly made on 19/2/10. This means we considered it was in the correct form and contained sufficient information for us to begin our determination but not that it necessarily contained all the information we would need to complete that determination: see below. The Applicant made no claim for commercial confidentiality. We have not received any information in relation to the Application that appears to be confidential in relation to any party. We carried out consultation on the Application in accordance with the EPR, our statutory PPS and our own RGS Note 6 for Determinations involving Sites of High Public Interest. We consider that this process satisfies, and frequently goes beyond the requirements of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, which are directly incorporated into the IPPCD, which applies to the Installation and the Application. We have also taken into account our obligations under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (particularly Section 23). This requires us, where we consider it appropriate, to take such steps as we consider appropriate to secure the involvement of representatives of interested persons in the


Draft For We sent copies of the Application to the following bodies, including those with whom we have “Working Together Agreements”:

Public • Leicestershire County and Rutland Primary Care Trust

Con• Severn Trent Water sultation These are bodies whose expertise, democratic accountability and/or local knowledge make it appropriate for us to seek their views directly.

exercise of our functions, by providing them with information, consulting them or involving them in any other way. In this case, our consultation already satisfies the Act’s requirements. We advertised the Application by a notice placed on our website, which contained all the information required by the IPPCD, including telling people where and when they could see a copy of the Application. We also placed an advertisement in the Loughborough Echo on 26 March 2010. We placed a paper copy of the Application and all other documents relevant to our determination (see below) on our Public Register at our Trentside Offices, Scarrington Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 5FA and also sent a copy to Charnwood Borough Council for its own Public Register. Anyone wishing to see these documents could do so and arrange for copies to be made. The Applicant also placed a copy of the Application at Shepshed Town Council Offices.

• Charnwood Borough Council

• Food Standards Agency • Health and Safety Executive

In addition to our advertising the Application, we undertook a programme of extended public consultation. We attended a public meeting held by the Leicestershire County Council Planning Department on 8 March 2010, and met with Shepshed Town Council on 2 June 2010. We also sent letters to the following stakeholders:

• Parish Councils • Charnwood Borough councilors • Local Leicestershire county councilors • North West Leicestershire Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties • Local MP • Local Libraries • Local Colleges and Loughborough University • Loughborough Hospital • Local Leisure Centers

Written comments were also accepted by the Environment Agency well beyond our standard 20 working day consultation period. Further details along with a summary of consultation comments and our response to the representations we received can be found in Annex 4. We have taken all relevant representations into consideration in reaching our draft


Draft For Public

Consultation

Having carefully considered the Application and all other relevant information, we are now putting our draft decision before the public and other interested parties in the form of a draft Permit, together with this explanatory document. As a result of this stage in the process, the public has been provided with all the information that is relevant to our determination, including the original Application and additional information obtained subsequently, and we have given the public two separate opportunities (including this one) to comment on the Application and its determination. Once again, we will consider all relevant representations we receive in response to this final consultation and will amend this explanatory document as appropriate to explain how we have done this, when we publish our final decision.

determination. Although we were able to consider the Application duly made, we did in fact need more information in order to determine it, and issued information notices on 19 October 2010, 12 November 2010, and 1 December 2010. A copy of each information notice was placed on our public register and sent to Charnwood Borough Council for inclusion on its register, as were the responses when received. In addition to our information notices, we received additional information during the determination from the Applicant. This was a copy of their CADNA noise model files to enable us to audit their noise modelling, which was emailed to us on 23/8/10. The Operator also emailed us on 22/9/10 regarding the provision of noise data. We also required a Post Conviction Plan to be produced for offences at Elvaston Landfill on 21/4/07, this was provided on 15/12/10. We made copies of this extra information available to the public in the same way as the responses to our information notices.


DraWe address some of the major legal requirements directly where relevant in the body of this document. Other requirements are covered in a section towards the end of this document. ft For

Consultation

Public We consider that, if we grant the Permit, it will ensure that the operation of the Installation complies with all relevant legal requirements and that a high level of protection will be delivered for the environment and human health.

3 The legal framework The Permit will be granted, if appropriate, under regulation 13 of the EPR. The Environmental Permitting regime is a legal vehicle which delivers most of the relevant legal requirements for activities falling within its scope. In particular, the Installation is: • an installation for the purposes of the IPPCD; • a waste incineration installation under the WID; • an operation covered by the WFD, because it processes waste; and • subject to aspects of other relevant legislation which also have to be

addressed.

We explain how we have addressed specific statutory requirements more fully in the rest of this document.

4 The Installation 4.1 Description of the installation and related issues 4.1.1 The permitted activities The Installation is subject to the EPR because it carries out an activity listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the EPR:

• Section 5.1 Part A(1)(c) – incineration of non-hazardous waste in an incineration plant with a capacity of 1 tonne or more per hour.

The definition of a WID “incineration plant” includes:

Draft For Public

“the site and the entire incineration plant including all incineration lines, waste reception, storage, on-site pre-treatment facilities, waste-fuel and air-supply systems, boiler, facilities for the treatment of exhaust gases, on-site facilities for treatment or storage of residues and waste water, stack, devices and systems for controlling incineration operations, recording and monitoring incineration conditions.”

Consultation

Many activities which would normally be categorised as “directly associated activities” for EPR purposes (see below), such as air pollution control plant, and the ash storage bunker, are therefore included in the listed activity description. An installation also comprises any unlisted “directly associated activities”, which at this Installation includes the generation of electricity using a steam turbine. This is one installation, because the incineration plant and the steam turbine are successive steps in an integrated activity. Together, these listed and unlisted activities define the legal boundary of the Installation. 4.1.2 The Site Newhurst Quarry is located in Shepshed, Leicestershire, and forms part of the Charnwood Quarry Complex which is located on the northern edge of Charnwood Forest adjacent to the M1 motorway immediately south of Junction 23. The Charnwood Quarry Complex consists of two linked quarries, both of which are currently inactive:

• Newhurst Quarry, located on the west side of the M1 Motorway; and • Longcliffe Quarry, on the eastern side of the Motorway (which is

accessed through Newhurst Quarry and under the motorway). The installation is located at National Grid Reference (NGR) SK 489 181, approximately five kilometres west of the centre of Loughborough. Site access



Draft For Public

Consultation

is from the A512 Ashby Road East located approximately 66m north of the site, some 300 metres west of Junction 23 on the M1. There is one SSSI within 2km of the installation, and that is the quarry itself which has a citation for its geology. There are also ancient woodlands, local wildlife sites and local nature reserves within 2km of the installation. There are no SACs or SPAs or Ramsar sites within 10 km of the installation. The Applicant submitted a plan which we consider is satisfactory, showing the site of the Installation and its extent. A plan is included in Schedule 7 to the Permit, and the Operator is required to carry on the permitted activities within the site boundary. Further information on the site is addressed below at 4.2.


Draft For Public

Consultation

4.1.3 What the Installation does This is an installation for the incineration of waste. The Applicant has described the facility as an Energy Recovery Facility. However our view is that for the purposes of WID and EPR, the installation is an incinerator because it has no output other than the generation of electricity from the burning of waste that has not undergone significant pre-treatment to enhance its performance as a fuel. The proposed plant will be totally enclosed within a new building. The main building will be in the region of 47m in height (maximum) and the footprint of the site will be ovoid in shape and orientated along a north-south axis. The plant will be designed to comply with the requirements of the WID and the management system will be accredited to ISO14001. The plant is anticipated to generate approximately 29.3MW electrical power when fully operational. Approximately 12% of the total generated electricity would be used within the facility itself (“parasitic load”). The remainder will be exported to the National Grid. The Operator has contacted and entered into discussions with a number of potential local users of the heat as discussed in section 4.3.7. A simplified flow diagram depicting the ERF process is shown below:


Draft For • weighbridges and gatehouse, that allows adequate queuing length off the public highway. These facilities would be staffed when necessary;

Public Consultation

The proposed facility will be totally enclosed within the purpose-built new building. The northern part of the building will contain the bottom ash pre-treatment plant (as described in the “residue handling” section below). From this area, the treated ash will be conveyed to a maturation area; an area bounded by concrete push walls to the north of the building. To the south of the ash pre-treatment area will be the tipping hall and associated bunker (where all of the imported waste will be unloaded), beyond which will be the incinerator grate, boiler, flue gas treatment plant and air cooled condensers. The associated flue stacks, which will be located on the western side of the building, will be approximately 96.5m high.

The operation of the plant consists of the following key elements:

• Waste reception; • Combustion; • Energy Recovery; • Flue Gas Treatment; • Emissions Monitoring; • Residue Handling

This process will be contained within two production lines that will operate side-by-side.

• Outside of the main building, the following features would be provided: • site access roads with drainage, lighting, footpaths and vehicle

manoeuvring areas;

• electrical equipment to enable connection to the national grid; • storage for the collection, recycling and rainwater runoff attenuation

measures; • landscape and security fencing; and • additional ecological habitats.

Waste Reception The source segregated waste (i.e. residual) will be delivered via the site entrance off Ashby Road to a dedicated handling area using bulk transfer vehicles (from transfer stations) and refuse collection vehicles (RCV’s). Vehicles using the site will be covered / enclosed to ensure that waste and odour are not released into the environment. All vehicles delivering waste will be weighed when entering the site and proceed to a vehicle delivery and tipping hall via a one way internal road system, where they will back up and discharge the waste into an underground bunker or storage hopper. From here waste will be transferred to the two parallel process lines and to each combustion chamber via dedicated feed chute and airlock section using grab cranes. The cranes would also be used to mix and break-up the incoming materials to ensure homogeneity of feed to the combustion chambers following inspection.


Draft For The burnt waste from primary combustion on the moving grate will be removed as an ash (Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA)).

Public The heat from combustion will be recovered within a waste heat boiler to form high pressure steam, which is used to drive turbines to generate electricity. A proportion of this site generated energy will be used within the facility itself, but the majority will be exported to the National Grid. Consultation The design of the heat recovery boiler is particularly suited to waste combustion and incorporates facilities to minimise dust carry-over and for online cleaning through rapping systems and soot blowers to minimise maintenance impacts. Dust collected from the boilers will be discharged as fly ash and collected with the flue gas treatment residues.

A shredder will be provided to process any bulky household waste received and to reduce material to an appropriate size before returning shredded materials for processing. Air will be extracted from the waste reception hall and used as waste combustion air which helps control odours arising in this area. This reception area will be enclosed with rapid access doors and air louvers to manage traffic and air movements. Combustion Combustion will take place in two stages, with primary combustion undertaken on a moving mechanical grate to promote the mixing of burning/unburnt wastes. The combustion gas from the primary stage will be heated further in the first pass of the boiler to reach the specified minimum temperature of 850oc for a minimum of two seconds, as required by the WID.

Energy Recovery

The power generation and auxiliary equipment provided include turbine/generator sets, air condensers and a facility with the potential to extract further value from the partially cooled steam or hot water after it has been through the turbines. This has the potential to provide Combined Heat and Power (CHP) for homes and businesses within a reasonable proximity to the site. If the surplus heat is exploited in this way the overall efficiency of the facility can be increased. The generation of CHP therefore represents a considerable environmental benefit and is further discussed in section 4.3.7. Flue Gas Treatment An air pollution control system will be in place to treat all flue gases prior to emission from the stack. Limits have been set for these emissions in line with the WID. The flue gas treatment will be a dry process, managed through a combination of processes:

• emission of oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) will be treated by ammonia injection to convert the NOx to nitrogen and water;


Draft For On line cleaning of the boiler results in boiler ash, and this ash is transferred from the bottom of the boiler passes to the APC / fly ash silo. Boiler ash is generally considered to be the ash which drops out of the boiler in this fashion, whereas “fly ash” as its name suggests carries through the boiler and onto the bag filters. In summary, the fly-ash, most of the boiler ash, and APC residues will be collected together and taken either to a hazardous landfill or to an appropriately permitted waste treatment facility, as all three can contain heavy metals. Public

Consultation The IBA facility will allow pre-treatment storage, treatment, long-term storage and loading into lorries, of the IBA produced by the plant. IBA will be processed on a “campaign” basis, using mobile plant as stock accumulates, to produce a secondary aggregate for the construction industry. Processing involves mechanical treatment and maturation to produce stabilised aggregate of several different product grades.

• acid gases will be neutralised by the injection of sodium bicarbonate; • activated carbon injection will be used absorb dioxin emissons; • and filters will be used for dust removal.

Air Pollution Control (APC), residues removed by the flue gas treatment process will be collected in hoppers prior to being exported from the site for further treatment/disposal. Residue Handling Ash produced during the incineration process will comprise incinerator bottom ash (IBA), boiler ash, fly ash, and air pollution control residues (APC residues) from the flue gas treatment.

Incinerator Bottom Ash and a small proportion of the boiler ash are collected and combined within the ERF building and conveyed to the IBA facility.

Mechanical treatment will be carried out under cover using mobile plant. Magnetic over-belt and eddy current separators will remove ferrous and non-ferrous metals respectively for recycling. Ash will be sorted into several different size fractions by mechanical screens. A small proportion of ash will be oversize and this will either be crushed on a campaign basis or will be removed from site for disposal to appropriately licensed landfill. Remaining fractions will be transferred to the external stockpile area for maturation. The key feature of the installation can be summarised in the table below:


Dic

n ltati

raft For Pu lb

Co su on

Waste throughput, Tonnes/line

150,000 /annum 18.7 /hour

Waste processed Mixed residual MSW, and commercial and industrial wastes

Number of lines 2 Furnace technology Air cooled moving grate furnace Acid gas abatement Dry Sodium bicarbonate

(though final selection to be made at final design stage)

NOx abatement SNCR Ammonia Ammonia soln(25%w/w) 800 te/annum

Sodium Bicarbonate 5000 te/annum

Reagent consumption

Activated carbon 91 te/annum

Flue gas recirculation Yes Dioxin abatement Activated carbon Stack Height, 96.5 m Diameter, 1.5 m Flue gas 28.97, Nm3/s 23.22, m/s Steam production 120 tonnes/hour Steam conditions Temperature, 422 °C Pressure, 62 barg Electricity generated 29.3MWe 228,500 MWh Electricity exported 25.8MWe 201,000 MWh Waste heat use The heat plan in Application identifies a number of

businesses, which the Applicant proposes to discuss heat usage with. In particular GLW Feeds Limited have shown an interest in being supplied with steam and electricity from the EfW facility

4.1.4 Key Issues in the Determination The key issues arising during this determination were:

• Air quality in the local area • Local health concerns • BAT assessment

and we therefore describe how we determined these issues in most detail in this document.

4.2 The site and its protection 4.2.1 Site setting, layout and history A Site Condition Report detailing the environmental setting of the site (including geology, hydrogeology and hydrology), pollution history and historical land use of the proposed site has been compiled by the Applicant. Newhurst Quarry is located in Shepshed, Leicestershire, and forms part of the Charnwood Quarry Complex which is located on the northern edge of Charnwood Forest adjacent to the M1 motorway immediately south of Junction 23.

Draft For The Charnwood Quarry Complex consists of two linked quarries, both of which are currently inactive:

• Newhurst Quarry, located on the west side of the M1 Motorway; and

Public Consultation

• Longcliffe Quarry, on the eastern side of the Motorway (which is accessed through Newhurst Quarry and under the motorway).

The published geological map (sheet 141, Loughborough) indicates that the Application site is located upon Middle Triassic sedimentary bedrock predominantly of the Mercia Mudstone Group. The mapping indicates that the majority of the Application site (the central, western and southern parts) is underlain by bedrock comprising the Shepshed Sandstone Member, described as buff or red massive sandstone with subangular Precambrian clasts, and is up to 30m thick The site is not located within a Source Protection Zone. There are three surface watercourses in the vicinity of the Application site; the Black Brook and Wood Brook (being tributaries of the River Soar) located approximately 5km north-east of the Application site, and the Shortcliff Brook, immediately south of the Application site boundary. Additionally, the Blackbrook Reservoir is located approximately 2km to the west of the Application site. Planning permission to quarry at Newhurst was granted in 1947 and subsequent permissions were granted throughout the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's to extend the quarry complex to the east of the M1 motorway. A number of permissions have also been granted for the disposal of overburden and ancillary plant, buildings and other similar development associated with the quarrying. Historical maps of the site show plant to have been located within the proposed site boundary, including conveyors and buildings. Section 3.3.1 of the site condition report outlines baseline groundwater quality, from previous groundwater sampling undertaken by RPS in July 2006. The Environment Agency note from the groundwater monitoring results that there are a number of elevated inorganic compounds including barium, magnesium, zinc, potassium, sodium and chloride which is attributed to



Draft For Fuel oil is listed one of the principal raw materials on the installation. The Operator’s risk assessment for loss of containment or spillage of fuel oil, identifies that there is the possibility of the contamination of land and proposes that all fuel storage tanks will be bunded, spill kits will be kept on site, and concludes that the residual risk will not be significant. Public

Consultation

natural mineralisation within the bedrock. Section 3.3.1 also states that there are no elevated levels of organic compounds within the groundwater samples. It is also apparent from section 3.3.2 of the site condition report that baseline surface water quality from the five locations sampled in January 2006 is compliant with the appropriate Environmental Quality Standards. No intrusive site investigations have been conducted as part of the environmental permit submission, RPS planning Application 2007 (for the Newhurst Integrated Waste Management Facility) or for the SLR 2009 planning Application for the Energy Recovery Facility. Consequently, baseline reference data for soils and land quality is not available, although there are a number of potential sources of contamination from historical land uses. These potential sources include leaks and spillages of fuels, lubricants and oils.

4.2.2 Proposed site design: potentially polluting substances and prevention

measures Substances which will be used and/or produced at the proposed ERF facility include raw materials, fuels, intermediates, products and wastes. Some of these substances have the potential to pollute the soil or groundwater if there were an accident or if measures to protect the land were to fail. However all operational areas of the site will be covered in concrete and rendered impervious to any materials stored. Tanks will be bunded in accordance with industry guidance and maintained to prevent failures. It is proposed that the ERF building will incorporate a sealed drainage system, and surface water draining from roads and hard standings will be passed through oil interceptors and into a surface water attenuation lagoon, mitigating against hydrocarbon contamination and suspended solids. Wheel wash down water will also be passed through an oil interceptor. Based on the information in the Application, the Environment Agency is satisfied that the risk of pollution to ground and ground water will be minimised and very low. 4.2.3 Closure and decommissioning Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be in place for the closure and decommissioning of the Installation, as referred to in section 5.1 of the Best Available Techniques and Operating Techniques (BATOT) section of the


Draft For Public

ltation Consu

Application. The Operator states that a site closure plan will be drafted upon completion of the detailed design and finalised and agreed with the Environment Agency prior to commencement of operations, however they give details of the key aspects of the plan which we considered appropriate. Pre-operational condition PO1 requires the Operator to have an Environmental Management System in place before the Installation is operational, which would include a site closure plan. The Operator has to satisfy us, if it wants to surrender the Permit, that the necessary measures have been taken, both to avoid any pollution risk resulting from the operation of the Installation, and to return the site to a satisfactory state, having regard to the state of the site before the Installation was put into operation. To do this, the Operator has to apply to us for surrender, which we will not grant unless and until we are satisfied that these requirements have been complied with. 4.3 Operation of the Installation – general issues 4.3.1 Administrative issues The Applicant is the sole Operator of the Installation. We are satisfied that the Applicant is the person who will have control over the operation of the Installation after the granting of the Permit; and that the Applicant will be able to operate the Installation so as to comply with the conditions included in the Permit. The incineration of waste is not a specified waste management activity. The Environment Agency has considered whether any of the other activities taking place at the Installation are SWMAs and is satisfied that none are taking place We are satisfied that the Applicant’s submitted OPRA profile is accurate. The OPRA score will be used as the basis for subsistence and other charging, in accordance with our OPRA Scheme. OPRA is the Environment Agency’s method of ensuring Application and subsistence fees are appropriate and proportionate for the level of regulation required. 4.3.2 Management The Applicant has stated in the Application that they will implement an Environmental Management Systems that will be certified under ISO14001 They have also confirmed, in question 6e of Application form A, that their management system will meet the conditions set out in our guidance. A pre-operational condition (PO1) is included requiring the Operator to provide a summary of the EMS prior to commissioning of the plant and to make available for inspection all EMS documentation. The Environment Agency recognises that certification of the EMS cannot take place until the installation is operational. An improvement condition (IC1) is included requiring the Operator to report progress gaining accreditation of its EMS.


Draft For Public

Consultation

Our National Enforcement Database has been checked to ensure that all relevant convictions have been declared. The Operator does have relevant, un-spent convictions. Post conviction plans had been submitted, by the Operator, for all convictions, which have been assessed as satisfactory by the Environment Agency. We consider that the Operator satisfies the criteria in our Regulatory Guidance Series, No. RGN 5, on Operator Competence. Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that appropriate management systems and management structures will be in place for this Installation, and that sufficient financial, technical and personnel resources are available to the Operator to ensure compliance with all the Permit conditions. 4.3.3 Site security Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that appropriate infrastructure and procedures will be in place to ensure that the site remains secure. 4.3.4 Accident management The Applicant submitted an Accident Management Plan with the Application, and a revised plan in response to a Schedule 5 request for further information. Having considered the Plan and other information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to ensure that accidents that may cause pollution are prevented but that, if they should occur, their consequences are minimised. The Applicant also confirmed that the plant design will be subject to a Hazard and Operability, (HAZOP), study to ensure that all possible modes of failure have been considered and addressed. 4.3.5 Off-site conditions We do not consider that any off-site conditions are necessary. 4.3.6 Operating techniques We have specified that the Applicant must operate the Installation in accordance with the following descriptions contained in the Application: Description Parts Included Justification The Application

Operating Techniques detailed in part B of Application form, “Best Available Techniques and Operating

The details given in the Application provide techniques for operation that are BAT.


Draft For

onsultationPublic

C

Techniques (BATOT) statement” , and Residue Management Plan

Response to Schedule 5 Notice dated 19/10/10

Answers to questions 1 to 6, 8, 12 & 13 and Appendix 1 “proposed list of wastes for acceptance”

The questions relate to operating and management techniques

Response to Schedule 5 Notice dated 12/11/10

Answers to questions 1 to 11


Response to emails request for further information dated 19/1/11 and 21/1/11

Answers to all 3 questions


The details set out above describe the techniques that will be used for the operation of the installation that have been assessed by the Environment Agency as BAT; they form part of the Permit through Permit condition 2.3.1 and Table S1.2 in the Permit Schedules. We have also specified the following limits and controls on the use of raw materials and fuels: Raw Material or Fuel Specifications Justification Gas Oil < 0.1% sulphur content Maximum sulphur

content of gas oil used will be < 0.1% w/w in accordance with the Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels Regulations.

Article 4(4) of the WID requires that the Permit must list explicitly the categories of waste which may be treated. The Application contains a list of those wastes in appendix BATOT6, coded by the European Waste Catalogue (EWC) number, which the Applicant believes may appear in the waste streams entering the plant and which the plant is capable of burning in an environmentally acceptable way. This was amended in the Applicant’s response to a Schedule 5 request for further information dated 19 October 2010. We have specified the permitted waste types, descriptions and where appropriate quantities which can be accepted at the installation in Table S2.2. The responses to the schedule 5 questions have been incorporated into the permit via condition 2.3.1 and table S1.2. We are satisfied that the Applicant can accept the wastes contained in Table S3.2 of the Permit because: -

(i) Some of these wastes are categorised as municipal waste in the European Waste Catalogue or are non-hazardous wastes similar in character to municipal waste;

(ii) the wastes are all categorised as non-hazardous in the European Waste Catalogue and are capable of being safely burnt at the installation.

(iii) these wastes are unlikely to contain harmful components that cannot be safely processed at the installation.

Draft For

The Installation will take residual waste i.e. that which is not separately collected or otherwise recovered, recycled or composted. Waste codes for separately collected fractions of waste are included in the list of permitted wastes. The response to the 19/10/10 Schedule 5 notice, confirms that this is to cover recyclable materials that are contaminated which cannot be practically recycled. Likewise separately collected organic materials will only be incinerated where anaerobic digestion or composting or similar treatment is not a practical option. Permit condition 2.3.3(c) requires that “waste shall only be accepted if, having been separately collected for recycling, it is contaminated and otherwise destined for landfill”

Public We have limited the capacity of the Installation to 300,000 tonnes per annum. This is based on the installation operating 8000 hours per year at a nominal capacity of 37.4 tonnes per hour.

Consultation

The installation will be designed, constructed and operated using BAT for the Installation for the incineration of the permitted wastes. We are satisfied that the operating and abatement techniques are BAT for incinerating these types of waste. Our assessment of BAT is set out in the rest of this document.

4.3.7 Energy efficiency (i) Consideration of energy efficiency We have considered the issue of energy efficiency in the following ways:

1. The use of energy within, and generated by the Installation, which is a normal aspect of all EPR permit determinations. This issue is dealt with in this section.

2. The extent to which the Installation meets the requirements of Article

6(6) of the WID, which requires that heat “shall be recovered as far as practicable”. This issue is covered in this section.

3. The combustion efficiency and energy utilisation of different design

options for the Installation are relevant considerations in the determination of BAT for the Installation, including the Global Warming Potential of the different options. This aspect is covered in the BAT assessment which we explain in section 6.3 of this Decision Document.


(ii) Use of energy within, and generated by the Installation Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to ensure that energy is used efficiently within the Installation. The Application details a number of measures that will be implemented at the Installation in order to increase its energy efficiency:

• the potential exists for waste heat to be used in Community Heating schemes for local housing or business. The Operator is currently considering the opportunities. The steam turbogenerators will be designed to allow the CHP option to be developed in accordance with demand;

Draft For • space heating requirements in the facility will be provided by waste

heat produced by power generation equipment;

Public • furnace sections and all pipework handling process steam and air

heaters will be insulated as necessary in order that the external temperature of the surface does not exceed a temperature safe for personnel and ensure that heat losses are minimised;

Consultation

• all combustion and air handing equipment include seals to ensure controlled ingress of air or to prevent escape of combustion gases etc. A routine maintenance programme will ensure effectiveness of door/hatch seals etc.

• Pre-preparation of waste feed by mixing and removing contraries, will ensure smooth furnace operation, reducing downtime due to poor fuel characteristics and concomitant combustion problems;

• auxiliary burners provided to maintain constant temperature, along with tight controls on combustion conditions;

• at the detailed design stage where possible layout of the facility will take advantage of gravity to minimise need to pump/transfer materials around the site

The Sankey diagram, given in section 3.9 of the BATOT section of the Application, estimates that the power requirement of the process is 3500kW for the 300,000 tpa process. It is stated that the plant will run 8000 hours per year. Based on these figures, the specific energy consumption, a measure of total energy consumed per unit of waste processed, will be 93 kWh/tonne. This is in line with data from the BREF for Municipal Waste Incinerators burning waste with a Net CV of 9.2 MJ/kg which shows that the range of specific energy consumptions is as in the table below.

MSWI plant size range (t/yr)

Process energy demand (kWh/t waste input)

Up to 150,000 300 – 700 150,000 – 250,000 150 – 500 More than 250,000 60 – 200



Draft For

Public Consultation

(iii) Compliance with Article 6(6) of the WID The previous section describes our assessment of energy utilisation. Article 6(6) of the WID requires that heat “shall be recovered as far as practicable”. The Government’s guidance on the WID (WID EPR Guidance, October 2009) lists the following hierarchy of heat recovery options, with (e) as the least preferred option and the optimum being a combination of the other four options:

a) use of waste heat from boiler water cooling system b) use of a boiler for steam generation or electricity generation c) use of exhaust steam for process heating or CHP schemes d) internal heat exchange for primary air heating and/or flue gas

reheating e) no heat recovery.

Energy recovery from the hot waste combustion gases will be achieved via the five stage boiler that includes a series of heat exchangers, super-heaters and economiser. Recovered heat from the combustion gases will be used to produce 120tph superheated steam at 4220C and 62barg. Steam will be supplied to a steam turbine turbo-generator set that generates 25.8MW net electrical energy for supply to the national electrical grid. By means of pressure-controlled steam extraction, low-pressure steam at 5barg will be taken for internal uses within the plant. After passing through the turbine the expanded steam is condensed in an air-cooled turbine condenser, with the condensate will be returned to the feed water tank. The current proposal is that the Installation will generate electricity only and has been specified to maximise electrical output with little or not use of waste heat. The Environment Agency’s relevant technical guidance note, SGN EPR 5.01, states that using indicative BAT for municipal waste incineration, where electricity only is generated, will mean that 5-9 MW of electricity should be recoverable per 100,000 tonnes of waste burned. The Sankey diagram in section 3.9 of the Application shows 29.3MW of electricity produced for an annual burn of 300,000 tonnes, which represents 9.8 MW per 100,000 tonnes of waste burned. The Installation is therefore above the indicative BAT range. The SGN and the WID both require that, as well as maximising the primary use of heat to generate electricity, waste heat should be recovered as far as practicable, i.e. by identifying and utilising opportunities for Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and district heating. The location of the Installation largely determines whether waste heat can be utilised, and this is a matter for the planning authority. The Applicant carried out a feasibility study (Heat Plan), which showed there was potential to


Draft For We consider that, within the constraints of the location of the Installation explained above, the Installation will recover heat as far as practicable, and therefore that the requirements of Article 6(6) are met, insofar as the Agency’s remit under the EPR is concerned.

Public (iv)

Consultation

provide district heating to local businesses; and opportunities are being explored, in particular GLW Feeds Limited have shown an interest in being supplied with 4,500,000 kwh per annum of steam and 8,500,000 kwh per annum of electricity from the EfW facility. There is provision within the design of the steam turbine to extract low-grade steam for a district heating scheme. Establishing a district heating network to supply local users would involve significant technical, financial and planning challenges. The WID guidance also states that opportunities to maximise the potential for heat recovery should be considered at the early planning stage, when sites are being identified for incineration facilities. In our role as a statutory consultee on the planning Application, we ensured that the issue of energy utilisation was brought to the planning authority’s attention. We have made comments about this to Leicestershire County Council (the planning authority) in our role as a statutory consultee for the planning Application.

Permit conditions concerning energy efficiency

Pre-operational condition PO2 requires the Operator to carry out a comprehensive review of the available heat recovery options prior to commissioning, in order to ensure that waste heat from the plant is recovered as far as possible. Conditions 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 have also been included in the Permit, which require the Operator to review the options available for heat recovery on an ongoing basis, and to provide and maintain the proposed steam/hot water pass-outs. The Operator is required to report energy usage and energy generated under condition 4.2 and Schedule 4. The following parameters are required to be reported: total electrical energy generated; electrical energy exported; total energy usage and energy exported as heat (if any). Together with the total MSW burned per year, this will enable the Environment Agency to monitor energy efficiency at the Installation and take action if at any stage the energy efficiency is not considered acceptable. There are no site-specific considerations that require the imposition of standards beyond indicative BAT, and so the Environment Agency accepts that the Applicant’s proposals represent BAT for this Installation. 4.3.8 Efficient use of raw materials (including water) Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be in place to ensure the efficient use of raw materials and water.


Draft For

The Operator states that the use of the alkaline reagent (Sodium Bicarbonate) to neutralise the acid gases, will be optimised to help prevent the production of waste reagent. They will use milled sodium bicarbonate which has an enlarged activated surface area and as a result a high efficiency with reference to the chemical reaction. The Operator states that the abatement system will use a fluidized bed reactor that ensures intensive contact between pollutants and sorbent, providing optimal conditions for neutralisation. Recirculation of bicarbonate increases residence time and leads to improved utilisation of the reagent and lower stoichiometric values compared with the “no recycle” process. Public

Consultation

The Operator has applied to use sodium bicarbonate but states that lime is an alternative which they may consider at the final design stage. Pre-operating condition, PO8, has been set for the Operator to send a report to the Environment Agency confirming which reagent they will be using, and, if it turns out to be Lime, to review the impact and BAT assessment to demonstrate that the use of Lime will not have a detrimental effect on the environment and will be considered BAT.

The Operator is required to report with respect to raw material usage under condition 4.2. and Schedule 4, including consumption of sodium bicarbonate, activated carbon and ammonia used per tonne of waste burned. This will enable the Environment Agency to assess whether there have been any changes in the efficiency of the air pollution control plant, and the operation of the to abate NOx. These are the most significant raw materials that will be used at the Installation, other than the waste feed itself (addressed elsewhere). The efficiency of the use of auxiliary fuel will be tracked separately as part of the energy reporting requirement under condition 4.2.1.

25% aqueous ammonia will be used to reduce the oxides of nitrogen emissions. The ammonia will be will be injected at several injection levels and elevations. Regardless of the operating status of the plant, injection will take place at the level in which optimum reaction temperatures prevail. The automated control system will select the appropriate injection location. The Application states that optimising the flue gas flow in the first pass of the boiler will achieve high removal efficiency for NOx and a low excess of ammonia. This will help to minimise the consumption of ammonia and water. The facility will also use flue gas recirculation which will provide an effective means of NOx reduction by replacing 10 to 20% of secondary air with re-circulated flue gases that is injected at the secondary air injection level. The use of FGR has the additional benefit of reducing the consumption of reagents used for secondary NOx control. Powdered activated carbon will be injected to precipitate heavy metals, dioxins and furans by adsorption on its surface. This will be injected separately to the acid gas dosing system, which is considered to be BAT. Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) the boiler will be designed to reduce rapidly the temperature of the flue gases through the critical


Draft For SGN EPR 5.01 states that “Incinerators are not generally considered to be major users of water. Water use is not therefore a primary environmental concern although it is important to recognise that wet scrubbing and some cooling systems can consume more water. The minimisation of water consumption will however make a contribution to improving environmental performance of the installation, but should be considered on a case by case basis. “ Public

Consultation • gas scrubbing, particularly wet scrubbing – However, the Operator has

applied to use dry scrubbing

temperature range, to minimise risk of dioxin reformation, which will minimise required usage of activate carbon. The Application states that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that raw materials are used efficiently. Auxiliary low sulphur gas oil burners are fitted for start-up and to maintain temperatures within the secondary combustion zone above 850OC for two seconds. An alternative fuel would be natural gas but the Application states that there is no mains natural gas available. The auxiliary burner is designed specifically for use in waste incinerators. The control system will ensure the burner system operates as specified and provides the correct fuel/air ratio. The Application states that appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that raw materials are used efficiently. Water,

Major water uses in incineration plants are:

• ash discharge quench baths - The Operator intends to use process water for quenching bottom ash and to harvest rainwater to top up the ash quench water

• evaporation from wet cooling towers - The Operator intends to use air cooled condensers

Other uses include boiler water make up and wash down operations. Process water will be used efficiently in the facility, by in particular using the following techniques:

• Quantity of water usage to be monitored; • Preferential use of dry scrubbing systems; • Recirculation of water where possible, e.g. process water will be used

for quenching bottom ash • Use of trigger controls on all hoses and washing equipment; • Direct measurement of fresh water consumption; • Separate contaminated and non-contaminated streams of water; and • Use of uncontaminated site drainage and run-off water in the process.


Draft For Public

Consultation

4.3.9 Avoidance, recovery or disposal with minimal environmental impact of wastes produced by the activities

This IPPCD requirement addresses wastes produced at the Installation and does not apply to the waste being treated there. The principal waste streams the Installation will produce are bottom ash, air pollution control residues and recovered ferrous metals and non ferrous metals. The first objective is to avoid producing waste at all. Waste production will be avoided by achieving a high degree of burnout of the ash in the furnace, which results in a material that is both reduced in volume and in chemical reactivity. Condition 3.1.2 and associated Table S3.4 specify limits for loss on ignition, LOI, in bottom ash of 5%. Compliance with this limit will demonstrate that good combustion control and waste burnout is being achieved in the furnaces and waste generation is being avoided where practicable. Most incinerator bottom ash (IBA) is likely to be classified as non-hazardous waste. However, IBA is classified on the European List of Wastes as a “mirror entry”, which means IBA is a hazardous waste if it possesses a hazardous property. Air pollution control (APC) residues from flue gas treatment are hazardous waste and therefore must be sent for disposal to a landfill site permitted to accept hazardous waste, or to an appropriately permitted facility for treatment. In order to ensure that the IBA and APC residues are adequately characterised and sent to appropriate disposal or recovery facilities, pre-operational condition PO3 requires the Operator to provide a written plan for approval detailing the ash sampling protocols. Table S3.4 requires the Operator to carry out an ongoing programme of monitoring. The Application states that magnetic over-belt and eddy current separators will remove ferrous and non-ferrous metals from the IBA respectively. These metals will be sent for recycling. The Application also proposes that ash will be sorted into several different size fractions by mechanical screens. A small proportion of ash will be oversize and will be removed from site for disposal to a non-hazardous landfill. Remaining fractions will be transferred to the external stockpile area for maturation. Maturation will involve exposure to air and water, achieved by stockpiling the material under cover. Carbon dioxide in air will reduce both ash pH through carbonation reactions and metal solubility. Water will be used to remove soluble metal salts, chlorides, and sulphates. The maturation process will last for several weeks and will take place in the external walled storage area. Maturation will be required to stabilise ash to ensure leaching properties are acceptable for use as an aggregate. Run off from the ash piles will be contained within the walled storage area and directed to a drainage system. This water will drain into a wash water storage tank that provides settlement/storage, before re-use on the ash piles. The


Draft For Public

Consultation

water will be sprayed onto the ash to maintain correct conditions for maturation and prevent fugitive dust emission. Once processed, aggregate will be stockpiled in covered maturation areas awaiting sale. The Applicant’s stated aim is to recycle the IBA as aggregate. The Applicant is currently in discussions with Bottom Ash recyclers and construction companies. Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that waste production will be avoided as far as possible, and where waste is produced it will be recovered unless technically and economically impossible. We are satisfied that waste from the Installation that cannot be recovered will be disposed of using a method that avoids or reduces any impact on the environment. Standard condition 1.4.1 will ensure that this position is maintained.

5. Minimising the Installation’s environmental impact

This section of the document explains how we have approached the critical issue of assessing the likely impact of the Installation on human health and the environment, and what measures we are requiring to ensure a high level of protection. For an installation of this kind, the principal emissions are those to air, although we also consider those to land and water. 5.1 Assessment Methodology

Draft For Public

Consultation

We have reviewed the Applicant’s assessment of the likely environmental impact of emissions from the Installation. This is an important step in determining what conditions are appropriate for the Permit, and in particular the basis for setting emission limit values (ELVs). The impact assessment has adopted the criteria set out in the Agency’s Horizontal Guidance Note H1. The H1 methodology uses a concept of “process contribution (PC)”, which is the estimated concentration of emitted substances after dispersion into the receiving environmental media at the point where the magnitude of the concentration is greatest. The guidance provides a simple method of calculating PC primarily for screening purposes and for estimating process contributions where environmental consequences are relatively low. It is based on using dispersion factors. These factors assume worst case dispersion conditions with no allowance made for thermal or momentum plume rise and so the process contributions calculated are likely to be an overestimate of the actual maximum concentrations. More accurate calculation of process contributions can be achieved by mathematical dispersion models, which take into account relevant parameters of the release and surrounding conditions, including local meteorology – these techniques are expensive but normally lead to a lower prediction of PC. The Applicant has the choice to use either method. The first step in this process is to screen out those emissions which are environmentally insignificant. H1 sets the following criteria: • the contribution to long-term ground level concentrations is less than 1%

of the relevant air quality standard; and • the contribution to short-term ground level concentrations is less than

10% of the relevant air quality standard. The long term 1% process contribution insignificance threshold is based on the judgements that:

• It is unlikely that an emission at this level will make a significant contribution to air quality;

• The 1% threshold is one hundredth of the standard and provides a substantial safety margin to protect health and the environment.



Draft For blic Pu

It is important to understand that an exceedence of these H1 thresholds does not mean an emission will have a significant impact, but only that it cannot be screened out as insignificant.

Consultation

Where an emission cannot be screened out at this stage, a more detailed assessment should be carried out to determine the actual environmental impact, for example, by taking into account existing background (ambient) concentrations of the emission in question and using dispersion modelling. The Applicant has in this case provided a detailed air dispersion model.

The short term 10% process contribution insignificance threshold is based on the judgements that:

• spatial and temporal conditions mean that short term process contributions are transient and limited in comparison with long term process contributions;

• the proposed 10% threshold is one tenth of the of the standard and provides a substantial safety margin to protect health and the environment.

The H1 methodology is based on the conservative approach, which adopts a “worst-case scenario” approach, as explained below. If, on this conservative basis, the emission’s impact is assessed as “insignificant”, then the Environment Agency considers that the proposed technique for minimising pollution is BAT, as it would not be reasonable or proportionate to require an Operator to take further or additional steps, or incur additional expenditure, where no material environmental benefit results.

This more detailed assessment could result in some of the further emissions being screened out as insignificant against the above criteria. Where an emission is not screened out as insignificant, the Applicant is required to consider all the potentially available techniques for minimising the emission, and to explain why its specific proposal is in fact BAT for the Installation. We will not necessarily agree, and we may at the very least require further information before we are prepared to accept the Applicant’s justification: the consultation on the Application may also yield information that shapes our determination in this respect. For those pollutants where the PEClong term exceeds 70% of an EQS or the PCshort term exceeds 20% of the headroom between an EQS and the background concentration, we determine whether exceedences of EQS are likely. This is done through detailed audit and review of the Applicant’s impact assessment taking headroom and modelling uncertainties into account. Where exceedences are identified, we may require the Applicant to go beyond what would normally be considered BAT for the Installation in order to reduce releases from the Installation to ensure that there is no significant pollution or risk to human health. Whether or not exceedences are considered likely, the Application is subject to the requirement to operate in accordance with BAT.


Draft For Public

Consultation

Once the BAT for the Installation are established, we set ELVs based on use of those BAT. However, that is not the end of the exercise, because we also take into account local factors (for example, particularly sensitive receptors nearby such as a SSSI) and relevant Environmental Quality Standards (see further below). Again, even if we agree with the Applicant as to what is BAT, these additional factors may lead us to include more stringent conditions than those proposed by the Applicant. If we consider that emissions would cause significant pollution, we would refuse the Application. WID on the other hand is based on setting mandatory emission limit values. Although the WID limits are designed to be stringent, and to provide a high level of environmental protection, they do not necessarily reflect what can be achieved by new plant. As the WID itself states, its limits are “a necessary but not sufficient condition” for compliance with the requirements of the IPPCD, which also applies to this Installation. The IPPCD requires that emissions should be prevented or minimised, so it may be possible and desirable to achieve emissions below WID limits. Even if the WID limits are appropriate, operational controls complement the emission limits and should generally result in emissions below the maximum allowed; whilst the limits themselves provide headroom to allow for unavoidable process fluctuations. Actual emissions are therefore almost certain to be below emission limits in practice, because any Operator who sought to operate its installation continually at the maximum permitted level would almost inevitably breach those limits regularly, simply by virtue of normal fluctuations in plant performance, resulting in enforcement action (including potentially prosecution) being taken. The assessment is therefore a “worst-case” scenario. Should the Installation, once in operation, emit at rates significantly below the limits included in the Permit, we will consider tightening ELVs appropriately. We are, however, satisfied that emissions at the permitted limits would ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment in any event. 5.2 Air Quality Assessment The Applicant assessed the Installation’s potential emissions to air against the relevant air quality standards, and potential impact upon local habitat sites and human health. These assessments predicted the potential effects on local air quality from the Installation’s stack emissions using the BREEZE AERMOD dispersion model, which is accepted as one of the best practice computer models. The model used 5 years of meteorological data, between 2004 and 2008, collected from East Midlands Airport. The impact of the terrain surrounding the site upon plume dispersion was considered in the dispersion modelling using terrain data, which was applied to the entire modelling area. The concentrations reported in the assessments were the maximum ground level concentrations predicted by the dispersion modelling package, using the average of the 5 year meteorological data set.

The air impact assessments, and the dispersion modelling upon which they were based, employ assumptions. • First, they assumed that the ELVs in the Permit would be those in the

WID. • Second, and conservatively, they assumed that the Installation operates

continuously at the daily average WID emission limit values or the WID spot sample emission limits to predict the long term air impacts of the installation.

Draft For Public

The Operator has divided the WID emission limit for Group 1 metals by 2, and the Group 3 metals WID emission limit by 9 to calculate the predicted metals emissions from the 2 stacks. This still uses emissions which are higher than actually experienced in currently operating incinerators. However, a more conservative assessment would be to assume that each individual metal is emitted at the total WID limit. We have considered this absolute worst in our own check modelling of the emissions.

However, the Operator also used daily average WID emission limit values for the short term air impacts of the installation. A more conservative model would be to use the half hourly average WID emission limits for those pollutants monitored continuously. We have assessed this scenario ourselves using our own check modelling (a copy of our internal report, C594a, from our Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit has been placed on the public registers).

Consultation We have carried out our own modelling to check the applicant’s predictions. We used meteorological data observed at Watnall (Nottingham) weather centre between 2003 and 2007 and our own terrain data. We also used our own corrected emission rates based on WID limits.

The way in which the Applicant used dispersion models, its selection of input data, and the assumptions it made have been reviewed by the Environment Agency, so that we have satisfied ourselves that the modelling presents a reasonably reliable picture. We agree with the Applicant’s conclusion, that the predicted concentrations of all pollutants considered are well within the relevant air quality objectives and environmental assessment levels. We also audited the air quality and human health impact assessment and agree that the conclusions drawn in the report are acceptable. The results of the Applicant’s model are summarised in the tables below:



Draft oP b

C n i n

F r u lic

o sultat o

5.2.1 Long-term impact of emissions to air The Operator’s predicted long term impact of emission to air is as follows: Pollutant EQS /

EAL Back-ground Conc

Maximum Process Contribution(PC)

PC as % of EQS / EAL

Maximum Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC)

PEC as % EQS / EAL

PM10 40 24.08 0.03 0.08 24.11 60.3 PM2.5 25 14.1 0.03 0.12 14.13 56.5 NO2 40 30.6 0.44 1.10 31.03 77.6 SO2 50 8.97 0.16 0.31 9.13 18.3 HCl 20 3.92 0.03 0.16 3.95 19.8 TOC 16.25 3.6 0.03 0.19 3.63 22.3 Cadmium 0.005 1.4E-042 7.60E-05 1.52 1.02E-02 4.32 Thallium 1 - 7.60E-05 0.01 7.60E-053 0.01 Mercury 0.25 3.6E-04 1.54E-04 0.06 2.34E-02 0.78 Antimony 5 - 1.70E-04 <0.01 1.70E-043 <0.01Arsenic 0.003 6.2E-042 1.70E-04 5.67 2.33E-02 26.33Chromium(III) 5 9.42E-

03 1.53E-04 <0.01 2.92E-02 0.10

Chromium(VI) 0.0002 - 1.70E-05 8.5 1.70E-05 8.50 Cobalt 0.2 - 1.70E-04 0.09 1.70E-043 0.09 Copper 2 3.44E-

02 1.70E-04 0.01 5.64E-02 0.87

Lead 0.5 1.85E-02

1.70E-04 0.03 4.04E-02 1.08

Manganese 1 2.04E-03

1.70E-04 0.02 2.41E-02 0.94

Nickel 0.02 3.16E-03

1.70E-04 0.85 2.52E-02 5.95

Vanadium 5 2.8E-04 1.70E-04 <0.01 1.02E-02 0.04 Ammonia 180 2.0 0.03 0.02 2.03 1.13

Note 1 All the above concentration figures are in µg/m3

Note 2 Applicant had quoted double background figure so this has been corrected in table above Note 3 Applicant provided no background data, but gave different PEC figure. This has been corrected

in table above. As all, but Cr(VI), PC results are insignificant the background data was not required to assess these impacts. Cr(VI) will be discussed in section 5.2.4.

As discussed earlier, the Operator has divided the WID emission limit for both Group 1 metals by 2, and the 9 Group 3 metals WID emission limit by 9 to calculate the predicted metals emissions from the 2 stacks. This still gives emission concentrations that are higher than typical emissions from waste incinerators. A more conservative assessment would be to assume that each individual metal is emitted at the total WID limit. We checked this as part of our modelling of the emissions and concluded that, even at 100% of the WID limit, no Group 1 or Group 3 metal, other than Chromium (VI), will exceed their respective EALs. Chromium (VI) will be discussed in section 5.2.4.


Dr ft orb

n ult tio

a F Pu lic

Co s a n

5.2.2 Short-term impact of emissions to air The Operator’s predicted short term impact of emission to air is as follows: Pollutant EQS /

EAL Back-ground Conc

Process Contribution(PC)


Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC)

PEC as % EQS / EAL

PM10 (24hour) 50 48.1 0.11 0.22 48.21 96.4 NO2 200 61.2 12.63 6.31 73.83 36.9 CO 10000 1880 4.95 0.05 1884.95 18.8 SO2 (24hour) 125 17.94 1.85 1.48 19.79 15.84 SO2 (1-hour) 267 17.94 7.35 2.75 25.29 9.47 SO2 (15-min) 266 17.94 9.85 3.7 27.79 10.47 HCl 800 7.84 3.96 0.53 11.8 1.57 HF 250 - 0.4 0.25 0.40 0.25 TOC 208 7.20 3.96 1.91 11.16 5.37 Cadmium 1.5 2.8E-04 9.91E-03 0.66 0.01 0.68 Thallium 30 - 9.91E-03 0.03 0.01 0.03 Mercury 7.5 3.6-E03 0.0198 0.26 0.02 0.31 Antimony 150 - 0.022 0.01 0.02 0.01 Arsenic 15 1.24E-03 0.022 0.15 0.02 0.16 Chromium(III) 150 9.42E-03 0.0198 0.01 0.03 0.02 Chromium(VI) 3 - 0.002 0.07 0.002 0.07 Cobalt 6 - 0.022 0.37 0.02 0.37 Copper 60 3.44E-02 0.022 0.04 0.06 0.09 Manganese 1500 1.85E-02 0.022 1.5E-03 0.04 2.7E-03Nickel 30 2.04E-03 0.022 0.07 0.02 0.08 Vanadium 1 3.16E-03 0.022 2.2 0.025 2.5 Ammonia 2500 4.00 15.69 0.63 19.69 0.79

Note 1 All the above concentration figures are in µg/m3 Note 2 For the assessment of short term impacts the PEC is determined by adding twice the

long term background concentration to the short tem process contribution. However, the Operator also used daily average WID emission limit values for the short term air impacts of the installation. A more conservative model would be to use the half hourly average WID emission limits for those pollutants monitored continuously (except for the daily SO2 EQS). This was done by the Environment Agency as part of our check modelling, and we found that even using the higher short term WID emission limits there would be no exceedences of any EAL or EQS. As discussed earlier, the Operator has also divided the WID emission limit for both Group 1 metals by 2, and the 9 Group 3 metals WID emission limit by 9 to calculate the predicted metals emissions from the 2 stacks.


Draft For Public

Consultation Therefore we consider the Applicant’s proposals for preventing and minimising the emissions of these substances to be BAT for the Installation.

A more conservative assessment would be to assume that each individual metal is emitted at the relevant WID limit. We checked this as part of our check modelling of the emissions and concluded that, even at 100% of the WID limit, no Group 1 or Group 3 metal will exceed their respective EALs From the tables above, and our own check modelling, the following emissions can be screened out as insignificant in that the process contribution is < 1% of the long term EQS/EAL and <10% of the short term EAQ/EAL:

• PM10 • PM2.5 • CO • HCl • HF • TOC • Thallium • Mercury • Antimony • Chromium(III) • Cobalt • Copper • Lead • Manganese • Vanadium • Ammonia

From the tables above, the long term emissions of Cadmium and Arsenic are not screened out as insignificant. From our check modelling, assuming each metal is emitted at 100% of the relevant WID limit, the long term emissions of Nickel is also not screened out as insignificant. Also, from our check modelling of short term emissions, using the half hourly WID emission limits for those pollutants monitored continuously, and assuming each metal is emitted at 100% of the relevant WID limit, NO2, SO2 and Vanadium maximum concentrations are predicted to exceed 10% of the relevant EQS. However these emissions can not be considered to have the potential to give rise to significant pollution in that the predicted environmental concentrations are less than 70% of the short term and long term EQS/EALs (apart from NO2 discussed below). For these emissions, we have carefully scrutinised the Applicant’s proposals to ensure that they are applying the Best Available Techniques to prevent and minimise emissions of these substances. This is reported in section 6 of this document. Also from the tables above the long term emissions of NO2 are considered to have the potential to give rise to significant pollution in that the predicted environmental concentration exceeds 70% of the long term EQS/EAL.


Draft For Public

Consultation

The PC for NO2 for long term emissions is predicted to be 1.1% which is only just over the 1% threshold of insignificance, and is actually just 1.4% of the current background levels of NO2 in the area. There is also considerable headroom between the PEC and the EQS. It is important to remember that this prediction is based on a worst case scenario of the plant emitting at the NO2 WID limit continuously all the year round. This would not happen in reality. Consequently we consider that emissions of NO2 will not pose a risk of significant pollution. For the NO2 emissions we have carefully scrutinised the Applicant’s proposals to ensure that they are applying the Best Available Techniques to prevent and minimise emissions of these substances. This is reported in section 6 of this document The Operator did not provide background data for Chromium(VI) and this will be discussed in section 5.2.4. 5.2.3 Assessment of emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 The impact on air quality from particulate emissions has been assessed against EQS for PM10 (particles of 10 microns and smaller) and PM2.5 (particles of 2.5 microns and smaller). For PM10, the EU EQS are a long term annual average of 40 μg/m3 and a short term daily average of 50 μg/m3 . For PM2.5 the EU EQS of 25 μg/m3 as a long-term annual average is to be achieved by 2010 (as a Target Value and by 2015 as a Limit Value). The impact of the installation against these standards and guidelines is shown in the table below – all concentrations are shown as μg/m3. The assessment assumes that all particulate emissions are PM10 or PM2.5 and that both PM10 and PM2.5 will be emitted at the WID emission limit values Pollutant EQS

/ EAL Back-ground Conc

Process Contribution(PC)



PEC as % EQS / EAL

PM10 40 24.1 0.03 0.08 24.11 60.3 50 48.1 0.11 0.22 48.21 96.4 PM2.5 25 14.1 0.03 0.12 14.13 56.5

The above assessment is considered to represent a worst case assessment in that: -

• It assumes that the plant emits particulates continuously at the WID limit. Whereas actual emissions from similar plant are normally in the range 1 to 5 mg/m3.

• It assumes all particulates emitted are below either 10 microns (PM10) or 2.5 microns (PM2.5), when some are expected to be larger.


Draft For

There is currently no measurement standard specifically for fine particulate matter in the PM2.5 fraction. Whilst the Environment Agency is confident that current monitoring techniques will capture the fine particle fraction (PM2.5) for inclusion in a measurement of total particulate matter, a permit condition has been included that will require a full analysis of particle size distribution in the flue gas, and hence determine the ratio of fine to coarse particles. In the light of current knowledge and available data however the Environment Agency is satisfied that the health of the public would not be put at risk by such emissions. Improvement condition IC2 has been imposed requiring the Operator to carry out tests to determine the particle size distribution in the exhaust gas emissions. Public

Consultation

The above assessment shows that the predicted process contribution for emissions of PM10 is below 1% of the long term air quality standard and below 10% of the short term air quality standard and so can be considered insignificant. The above assessment shows that the predicted process contribution for emissions of PM2.5 is also below 1% of the long-term annual average air quality objective. Therefore the Environment Agency concludes that particulate emissions from the installation will not give rise to significant pollution.

5.2.4 Arsenic, Nickel and Chromium (VI) The 2009 report of the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS) – “Guidelines for Metal and Metalloids in Ambient Air for the Protection of Human Health”, proposes new ambient air quality guidelines for Arsenic, Nickel and Chromium (VI). These guidelines have been incorporated as EALs in the revised H1 Guidance issued by the Agency in 2010.

Arsenic, Nickel and Chromium are three of the nine Group 3 metals whose emissions are subject to a mandatory minimum emission limit by the WID. WID sets an aggregate limit of 0.5 mg/m3 for all nine Group 3 metals.

The EPAQS guidelines refer only to that portion of the metal emissions contained within PM10 in ambient air. The new guidelines are 3 ng/m3 for Arsenic, 20 ng/m3 for Nickel and 0.2 ng/m3 for Chromium (VI). These are significantly lower than previous EALs.

The Applicant used these revised EALs for their prediction of impacts for long term air emissions. They predicted that the EALs for Arsenic and Nickel would not be exceeded, and our own modelling has confirmed this. They predicted that the process contribution of Chromium (VI) would not be insignificant, but did not provide any background data to enable a PEC to be predicted. Thus the Applicant’s assessment does not fully predict whether the revised EAL for Chromium (VI) will be exceeded.

The WID limit for Group 3 metals of 0.5 mg/m3 covers gaseous and vapour forms of the metals and their compounds as well as that present in particulate matter. WID has a separate emission limit values for emissions to air of total


Draft 3. The mean Cr(VI) emission concentration (based on the bag dust ratio) is 2.1 * 10-5 mg/m3 (max 1.0 * 10-4). For

Public Based on these data, we consider it remains a conservative assumption to consider that the maximum Cr(VI) emission concentration will be 1.3E-04mg/m3. We have used this data to model the predicted Cr(VI) impact.

Consultation

The EPAQS 2009 report sets out information on background levels of chromium. This installation is located in a semi rural area located next to the M1 motorway. As the main emitters of Chromium are power stations, smelters and the Chromium industry rather than traffic, the location will be considered rural. The background levels, for rural locations, proposed in the EPAQS report are as follows: -

particulate material. The EPAQS guideline also refers to Chromium (VI) only whereas the Group 3 WID limit includes all Chromium.

Measurement of Chromium (VI) at the levels anticipated at the stack emission points is expected to be difficult, with the likely levels being below the level of detection by the most advanced methods. We have considered the concentration of total chromium and chromium (VI) in the APC residues collected upstream of the emission point for existing Municipal Waste incinerators and have assumed these to be similar to the particulate matter released from the emission point. This data shows:

1. The mean proportion of Cr(VI) to total Cr is less than 1%. There are two outliers at 2%.

2. The mean total Cr emission from these plants is 0.006 mg/m3 (max 0.03 mg/m3).

This data is remarkably self-consistent.

Chromium (VI) 0.04 to 0.14 ng/m3 (20% of Chromium level) Using the highest background figure, 0.14ng/m3, the PEC for Chromium (VI) ,using the Applicant’s data, can be calculated and is shown in the table below: Pollutant EQS /

EAL ng/m3

Back-ground Conc. ng/m3

Process Contribution(PC) ng/m3


Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) ng/m3

PEC as % EQS / EAL

Chromium(VI) 0.2 0.14 0.017 8.5 0.157 78.5


Draft For

ConsultationPublic

The table below shows our assessment using the data referred to above. Pollutant EQS /

EAL ng/m3

Back-ground Conc. ng/m3

Process Contribution(PC) ng/m3


Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) ng/m3

PEC as % EQS / EAL

Chromium(VI) 0.2 0.14 3.6E-04 0.18 0.14 70.2%

This assessment shows that a breach of the air quality guidelines for Chromium (VI) is unlikely. Whilst the PEC as a percentage of the EQS is just over 70%, the PC is considerably less than 1% of the EQS. Given the size of the PC and the available headroom emissions of Chromium (VI) can be considered insignificant. The installation has been assessed as meeting BAT for control of emissions to air. See section 5.6 of this document. Therefore taking all these factors into account, it is considered appropriate to set an improvement condition requiring confirmation of the assessment made above based on actual measurements of emissions. This is included as IC3. A period of one year’s data has been specified to take account of any natural variation in the waste composition. The Improvement Condition seeks to verify whether the actual releases are as expected within these limits, in which case no further action is required. In the event that the assessment were to indicate a risk of the air quality guidelines being exceeded, the Environment Agency could specify a specific emission limit value for Chromium as appropriate or seek beyond BAT improvements to the abatement technology employed. Thus, further assessment of actual Chromium emissions from the installation is expected to demonstrate that the proposed EPAQS air quality guidelines can be achieved for Chromium (VI).


Draft For Public nsultation Co

5.3 Human health risk assessment

In carrying out air dispersion modelling and comparing the predicted environmental concentrations with air quality standards and environmental action levels; the Applicant has effectively made a health risk assessment for many pollutants. Air quality standards and environmental actions levels have been developed primarily in order to protect human health; and for many pollutants exposure by inhalation is the principal exposure route. The Applicant’s and our check monitoring assessment of the impact from

• PM10 • PM2.5 • CO • HCl • HF • TOC • Thallium • Mercury • Antimony • Chromium(III) • Cobalt • Copper • Lead • Manganese • Ammonia

have all indicated that the installation emissions are insignificant; where the impact of emissions of:

• Cadmium • Arsenic • Vanadium • NO2 • SO2 • Chromium(VI)

have not been found to be insignificant, the assessment still shows that the predicted environmental concentrations are within air quality standards or environmental action levels. However for dioxins, furans and some metals, the principal exposure route is through ingestion, usually through the food chain, and the risk to health is through accumulation in the body over a period of time. A different form of risk assessment is therefore required for these materials. 5.3.1 Assessment of Health Effects from Dioxins, Furans and Metals Two models are available to predict the dioxin intake for comparison with the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) recommended by the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, known as


Draft For Public

tion ConsultaThe Applicant has assessed the potential health impacts of the predicted emissions of metals from the proposed facility, along with emissions of dioxins and furans. This was undertaken in two parts:

COT. These are the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) and the HMIP model. HHRAP has been developed by the US EPA to calculate the human body uptake of a range of carcinogenic pollutants and to determine the mathematic quantitative risk in probabilistic terms. In the UK, in common with other European Countries, we consider a threshold dose below which the likelihood of an adverse effect is regarded as being very low or effectively zero. The HMIP model uses a similar approach to the HHRAP model, but does not attempt to predict probabilistic risk. Either model can however be used to make comparisons with the TDI. The TDI is the amount of a substance that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk. It is expressed in relation to bodyweight in order to allow for different body size, such as for children of different ages. In the UK, the COT has set a TDI for dioxins and furans of 2 picograms I-TEQ/Kg-body weight/day (N.B. a picogram is a million millionths (10-12) of a gram). In addition to an assessment of risk from dioxins and furans, the HHRAP model enables a risk assessment from human intake of a range of heavy metals.

(i) a methodology based on contaminated land exposure analysis (CLEA) for metal deposition to land (ii) the HMIP detailed quantitative risk assessment for dioxin and furan cumulative exposure.

Ground level concentrations of the assessed substances were calculated using air dispersion models. This is set out in table 5-2 of Appendix BATOT13 “Human Health Risk Assessment” for dioxins, and table 6-4 of Appendix BATOT7 “Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling” of the Application. The CLEA model, for metal deposition, does not include all exposure pathways relevant for a human health risk assessment such as ingestion of surface water and secondary uptake through ingestion (consumption of locally-grown produce, locally-raised animal tissue, local milk products, locally-caught fish and maternal breast milk by local babies) and usually results in a prediction which is a small fraction of the total exposure. Hence the cumulative metal exposure estimates derived by the Applicant are considered to be incorrect. The HMIP procedure for estimating dioxin and furan exposure does take account of all significant uptake routes and is considered to be appropriate.

We carried out check modelling which included all pathways and metals as well as dioxins and furans, to assess the impact of dioxins and furans and metals on human health using the HMIP methodology and HHRAP. We agree with the Applicant’s conclusions that it is unlikely that dioxins intake will exceed the Tolerable Daily Intake. The predicted daily intake of metals is likely to be low compared with the USEPA reference doses. Overall, taking into account the conservative nature of the impact assessment models used by the Applicant and ourselves (i.e. that it is based upon an individual exposed for a life-time to the effects of the highest predicted airborne concentrations and consuming mostly locally grown food), it was concluded that the operation of the proposed facility will not pose a significant carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk to human health.

Draft For Public

Consultation

5.3.2 Prediction of Tolerable Daily Intake for dioxins and furans As part of the health risk assessment the daily intake of dioxins and furans by local receptors resulting from the operation of the proposed facility was assessed against the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) values for dioxins and furans established by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the UK Committee on Toxicity (COT). The TDI is the amount of a substance that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk. It is expressed in relation to bodyweight in order allow for different body size, such as for children of different ages. In the UK, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (known as the COT) has set a TDI of 2 picograms I-TEQ (equivalent to the most toxic dioxin) per kg bodyweight per day. The World Health Organisation has set a range for its TDI of 1-4 pg I-TEQ/kg bw/day (a picogram is a million millionth (10-12) of a gram). The results of the assessment of dioxin intake, resulting from emissions from the proposed facility, are detailed in the table below. (worst –case results for each category are shown). The results showed that the predicted daily intake of dioxins at all receptors, resulting from emissions from the proposed facility, were significantly below the recommended TDI levels.

Receptor Max predicted intake COT TDI Infant 0.131 2 Child 0.01 2 Adult 0.005 2

Farmer 0.015 2 Farm Child 0.028 2

Calculated maximum daily intake of dioxins by local receptors resulting from the operation of the proposed facility (pg TEQ/ kg-BW/day) The FSA has reported that recent dietary studies have shown that estimated total dietary intakes of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs by all age groups fell by around 50% between 1997 and 2001, and are expected to continue to fall. In 2001 the average daily intake by adults in the UK from diet was 0.9 pg WHO-



Draft For Public

Consultation

TEQ/kg bodyweight. The TDI predicted by the modelling is substantially below this figure. We carried out check modelling to assess the impact of dioxins and furans on human health using the HMIP methodology and the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP). We agree with the Applicant’s conclusions that it is unlikely that dioxins intake will exceed the Tolerable Daily Intake 5.3.3 Environment Agency Review of Health Risk Assessment The Environment Agency has reviewed the methodology employed by the Applicant to carry out the health impact assessment from persistent substances. We have concluded that the impact from proposed emissions is unlikely to exceed air quality or human health assessment criteria. The Health Protection Agency and Leicestershire County and Rutland Primary Care Trust were consulted with the EP Application submitted for the proposed facility and concluded that they had no significant concerns regarding the risk to the health of the local population from the installation. Concerns about the prevalence of Asthma and respiratory diseases were raised by a local GP surgery and members of the public, and we did ask the HPA to comment on this. They did not hold data on health statistics for the area but stated that in their view the site should not lead to a significant worsening of air quality. They further re-iterated that while it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from modern, well regulated municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potential damage to the health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable. The Food Standards Agency were also consulted during the permit determination process and they concluded that it is unlikely that there will be any unacceptable effects on the human food chain as a result of the operations at the installation. Details of the responses provided by the PCT, HPA and FSA to the consultation on this Application can be found in Annex 2. 5.3.4 Other Health Considerations In September 2009 the HPA produced a position statement entitled “The Impact on Health of Emissions to Air from Municipal Waste Incinerators”. This was then reproduced in February 2010 as an advisory document RPE-13. Their comments can be summarised as follows: “The Health Protection Agency has reviewed research undertaken to examine the suggested links between emissions from municipal waste incinerators and effects on health. While it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from modern, well regulated municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potential damage to the health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable. This view is based on detailed assessments of the effects of air pollutants on health and on the


Draft For Public

Consultation

fact that modern and well managed municipal waste incinerators make only a very small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants. The Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has reviewed recent data and has concluded that there is no need to change its previous advice, namely that any potential risk of cancer due to residency near to municipal waste incinerators is exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the most modern techniques. Since any possible health effects are likely to be very small, if detectable, studies of public health around modern, well managed municipal waste incinerators are not recommended.” This statement concurs with our previous comments that our assessment of emissions for the proposed plant will not result in a significant risk to human health. 5.3.5 Particulates smaller than 2.5 microns The Operator will be required to monitor particulate emissions using the method set out in EN 13284-1. This method requires that the filter efficiency must be at least 99.5 % on a test aerosol with a mean particle diameter of 0.3 μm, at the maximum flow rate anticipated. This means that particulate monitoring data effectively captures everything above 0.3 microns and much of what is smaller. It is not expected that even smaller particles will contribute significantly to the mass release rate / concentration of particulates because of their very small mass, even if present. This means that emissions monitoring data can be relied upon to measure the true mass emission rate of particulates. Nano-particles are considered to refer to those particulates less than 0.1 μm in diameter (PM0.1). Questions are often raised about the effect of nano-particles on human health and in particular on children’s health because of their high surface to volume ratio, making them more reactive and their very small size and the potential to penetrate cell walls of living organisms. The small size also means there will be a larger number of small particles for a given mass concentration. However the HPA statement (referenced below) says that due to the small effects of incinerators on local concentration of particles, it is highly unlikely that there will be detectable effects of any particular incinerator on local infant mortality The Health Protection Agency (HPA) address the issue of the health effects of particulates in their September 2009 statement ‘The Impact on Health of Emissions to Air from Municipal Incinerators’. It refers to the coefficients linking PM10 and PM2.5 with effects on health derived by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) and goes on to say that if these coefficients are applied to small increases in concentrations produced, locally, by incinerators, the estimated effects on health are likely to be small. The HPA notes that the coefficients that allow the use of number concentrations in impact calculations have not yet been defined because the national experts have not judged that the evidence is sufficient to do so. This is an area being kept under review by COMEAP.


Draft For Public

Consultation

The HPA also point out that in 2007 incinerators contributed 0.02% to ambient ground level PM10 levels compared with 18% for road traffic and 22% for industry in general. The HPA note that in a sample collected in a day at a typical urban area the proportion of PM0.1 is around 5-10% of PM10. It goes on to say that PM10 includes and exceeds PM2.5 which in turn includes and exceed PM0.1. This is borne out by the assessment of this Application which show emissions of PM10 to be insignificant


Draft For Public

Consultation

5.4 Impact on Habitats sites, SSSIs, non-statutory conservation sites etc. 5.4.1 Assessment of Likely Significant Effect on European Designated Habitat

Sites and Ramsar Sites There are no European Sites or Ramsars within 10km (our screening distance criteria) of the proposed installation and consequently we do not consider the installation will have any effect on European Sites or Ramsars 5.4.2 Assessment of the impact upon Sites of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI’s) The Applicant assessed SSSI’s up to a distance of 10km from the Installation, however our screening distance criteria is 2km. Beyond 2km we do not consider that emissions from this type of process are likely to damage a SSSI, and we have not carried out any further assessment of the impacts on the sites beyond 2km. There is only one SSSI within 2km of the installation, and that is Newhurst Quarry (designation reference 1003050). The reasons for its notification are: “Newhurst Quarry is the only British site where pre-existing hypogene mineralisation, originating from ascending mineral-rich fluids in pre - Triassic times, has been notified by weathering and resedimentation during Triassic times, some 225 million years ago. No other locality in Britain shows such effects, and Newhurst Quarry is the only British occurrence of the minerals Coulsonite (a vanadium-rich variety of magnetite) and Vesignieite (a complex hydrated copper-barium-vanadium mineral)” This is purely a geological site and, from the citation, the features would not be eroded by acid deposition and so will not be impacted by emissions from the installation. The installation boundary is outside of the SSSI boundary, and so will not directly impact on the geological features either. 5.4.3 Impact upon Non-statutory Conservation Sites We have a duty under the Environment Act 1995, to ensure that there will be no significant impact on non-statutory sites. The Environment Agency considers that the emission of a pollutant will not be significant if the process contribution (PC), predicted by atmospheric dispersion modelling, is less than 100% of the relevant critical level or load. The Application includes an assessment of the impact of emissions from the proposed installation, using the BREEZE AERMOD dispersion model, upon local non statutory conservation sites in terms of atmospheric concentrations of NOx, SO2, Ammonia, acid deposition and nitrogen deposition.


Draft For As all predicted contributions and deposition rates are all well below 100% of the relevant critical levels we conclude that the emissions from the installation will not cause significant of a pollution at these local non statutory conservation sites. Public

Consultation

The Applicant predicted the process contributions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ammonia (NH3) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) concentrations at the sites and compared them with their respective critical levels. The Applicant predictions are all less than 1% of the critical levels with the exception of Holywell Wood which is just over 1%. The Applicant used a critical level of 3µg/m3 for ammonia for some of these sites, a more precautionary figure to use would be 1µg/m3. Even using this figure for all sites the highest ammonia level will be at Holywell Wood and would be just 1.6% of the critical level. The Applicant has calculated the nutrient nitrogen and acid deposition and compared the results to site relevant critical loads. The applicant predicts that the process contribution will be less than 1% of the critical loads with the exception of both Holywell Wood sites and Charnwell Lodge (nutrient nitrogen deposition) and both Holywell Wood sites, Grace Dieu/ High Sharpley, Charnwell Lodge, Bardon Hill, Benscliffe Wood and Beacon Hill (acid deposition).

We have reviewed our own map data and have identified a further four Local Wildlife sites within 2km of the installation: Site Name Grid ref. Designation Longcliffe Golf Course, Penunculate Oak B

SK 491 176 Local wildlife site, Lowland Heathland

Iveshead SK 480 170 Local wildlife site Morely Lane field SK 478 180 Local wildlife site, Hermitage Estate SK 493 197 Local Wildlife estate, Semi-Natural

Broad-Leaved Wood Below is our assessment of the impacts on these four sites: Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Dioxide, Ammonia and Hydrogen Fluoride impacts assessment, The predicted impacts at any of the non-statutory sites using the maximum predicted ground level concentrations, Maximum PC, from the installation against the relevant environmental quality standard, EQS, or critical level, CL, are as follows: Maximum Predicted Ground Level concentrations vs EQS’s or CL’s Pollutant EQS or CL

µg/m3 Max PC2

µg/m3 PC as %

EQS or CL <100% of the EQS or CL

Nitrogen oxides (as NO2)

30 0.44 1.5 Y

Sulphur dioxide 20 0.16 0.8 Y Sulphur dioxide1 10 0.16 1.6 Y


Draft For Public

Consultation

Ammonia1 1 0.03 3 Y Hydrogen fluoride2 5 (daily

critical level)

0.4 8 Y

Hydrogen fluoride2 0.5 (weekly critical level)

0.4 80 Y

Note 1 – for the protection of sites with lichen/bryophytes Note 2 – Maximum PC predicted for HF this is the short term predicted emission figure, and the EQS quoted is the daily and weekly mean critical levels for HF The above data shows that, even using the maximum PC predicted anywhere, no emission will be over 100% of the relevant EQS or critical load for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Dioxide, Ammonia and Hydrogen Fluoride. Nitrogen deposition and Acid deposition: We modelled the Nitrogen deposition and Acid deposition at these sites and compared the results to the critical loads for the sites taken from the UK Air Pollution Information System website (www.apis.ac.uk). We found that the deposition rates were well below the 100% threshold of the relevant critical load at any of the 4 sites Conclusion: As all the predicted process contributions and the deposition rates discussed above, are below 100% of the relevant Environmental Quality Standards, or critical levels/loads; we conclude that the emissions from the installation will not cause significant pollution at all non-statutory wildlife sites near to the installation.

http://www.apis.ac.uk/


Draft For Public

Consultation

5.5 Impact of abnormal operations WID abnormal operations are defined as any technically unavoidable stoppages, disturbances, or failures of the abatement plant or the measurement devices, other than continuous emission monitors for releases to air of particulates, TOC and CO, during which the concentrations in the discharges into air may exceed the normal emission limit values. WID abnormal operations are limited by the WID to no more 4 hours of continuous operation and no more than 60 hours in total in any calendar year. Abnormal operations could result in increased levels of emissions for short periods of time. These raised levels of emissions will not have a significant long-term impact on the environment as the period of abnormal operation is relatively short when compared with around 8,000 hours per year of total operating hours (i.e. <1%). WID abnormal operations have the potential to have a greater short-term impact on the environment. The Applicant has considered that during periods of abnormal operation, emissions of pollutants would increase as follows: 1/2 hour average

or periodic WID limit

Abnormal Emission

% increase in emission

NOX 400 550 37.5

PM10 30 37.5 25

SO2 200 280 40 CO 100 400 300 HCl 60 120 100 HF 4 8 100 TOC 20 40 100 Group 1 Metal 0.025 0.031 25 Group 2 Metal 0.05 0.063 25 Group 3 Metal 0.056 0.069 25 The result on the short-term environmental impact is summarised in the table below. 5.5.1 Short-term impact of emissions to air (WID abnormal operation) Pollutant EQS

/ EAL Back-ground Conc

Abnormal PC



PEC as % EQS / EAL

NO2 200 61.2 34.7 17.4% 78.57 39.3%


Draft For Public

Consultation

PM10 50 48.1 0.41 0.83% 48.24 96.5%

CO 10000 1880 40.0 0.4% 1899.80 19.0%

SO2 (24hour) 125 17.94 41.2 33.0% 20.53 16.4%

SO2

(1-hour) 267 17.94 41.2 15.4% 28.23 10.6%

SO2

(15-min) 266 17.94 41.2 15.5% 31.73 11.9%

HCl 800 7.84 47.6 6.34% 15.76 2.0% HF 250 - 3.2 2.0% 0.80 0.3% TOC 208 7.2 15.9 7.6% 15.12 7.3% Group 1 Metal note 3

1.5 2.8E-04 0.01 0.83% 0.01 0.84%

Group 2 Metal 7.5 3.6E-

03 0.02 0.33% 0.02 0.33%

Group 3 Metal note 4

6 - 0.03 0.46% - - Note 1 All the above concentration figures are in µg/m3 Note 2 For the assessment of short term impacts the PEC is determined by adding twice the

long term background concentration to the short tem process contribution. Note 3 Group 1 Metal impact assessed against EAL for Cadmium (lowest EAL) Note 4 Group 3 Metal impact assessed against EAL for Cobalt (lowest EAL)

From the table above the emissions of the following substances can still be considered insignificant, in that the PC is still <10% of the short-term EQS/EAL:

• PM10 • CO • HCl • HF • Group 1 Metals • Group 2 Metals • Group 3 Metals

Also from the table above none of the emissions not screened out as insignificant can be considered to have the potential to give rise to significant pollution in that the predicted environmental concentration is less than 100% of the short term EQS/EAL. For these emissions, we have carefully scrutinised the Applicant’s proposals to ensure that they are applying the Best Available Techniques to prevent and minimise emissions of these substances. This is reported in section 6 of this document.


Draft For Public

ltation Consu

5.5.2 Impact of dioxin abnormal conditions In making an assessment of abnormal operations the following worst case scenario for Dioxin emissions of 10 ng/m3 (100 x normal) has been assumed. If dioxin emissions were at 10 ng/m3 for the maximum period of abnormal operation, this would result in a 70% increase in the TDI reported in section 5.3.2. In these circumstances the TDI figures would be:

Receptor Max predicted intake, assuming abnormal operation

COT TDI

Infant 0.22 2 Child 0.02 2 Adult 0.009 2

Farmer 0.026 2 Farm Child 0.05 2

Calculated maximum daily intake of dioxins by local receptors resulting from the operation of the proposed facility (pg TEQ/ kg-BW/day) In these circumstances the TDI figures would be would still not pose a risk to human health. 5.6 Other Emissions 5.6.1 Discharge to Groundwater There will be no discharge to groundwater 5.6.2 Emissions to Surface Water Clean surface water (rainwater) from roofs will be captured and stored in tanks within the building for use in the process. Water from roadways will be passed via silt and oil interceptors to a surface water attenuation pond, prior to discharge from the installation into Shortcliff Brook at emission point SW1 (as marked on the site plan in Schedule 7 of the Permit). As this will be clean surface water, no emission limits have been set in the Permit for this discharge. Consequently this discharge is covered by conditions 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. 5.6.3 Discharge to Sewer There will be a foul water connection to the sewer servicing welfare facilities, this discharge is not regulated by this Permit. The Permit does not allow process water to be discharged to sewer. The Applicant does indicate that in the future they may want to discharge to sewer. However, as:

• the exact nature of the discharge will be determined following commissioning,


Draft For Public

Consultation

• as they have not assessed the impact of a discharge to sewer, and • as they have not got a trade effluent agreement in place with the

sewage undertaker, we have not permitted the discharge of process water to sewer. Instead the Applicant will have to apply for a variation to the Permit when they want to discharge process water to sewer. Until then any process water for discharge will be removed from the site via tanker to a suitably licensed facility There will be no routine process water discharge from the installation under normal operating conditions. The plant is a net user of water and only when the plant is shutdown for annual maintenance will there be a need to discharge effluent or tanker it away.


Draft For

ConsultationPublic

6. Application of Best Available Techniques 6.1 Scope of Consideration In this section, we explain how we have determined whether the Applicant’s proposals are the Best Available Techniques for this Installation. • The first issue we address is the fundamental choice of incineration

technology. There are a number of alternatives, and the Applicant has explained why it has chosen one particular kind for this Installation.

• We then consider control measures for the emissions which were not

screened out as insignificant above. They are: - Oxides of Nitrogen - Sulphur Dioxide - Cadmium - Arsenic - Vanadium - Chromium(VI)

• We also have to consider the combustion efficiency and energy utilisation

of different design options for the Installation, which are relevant considerations in the determination of BAT for the Installation, including the Global Warming Potential of the different options.

• Finally, the prevention and minimisation of Persistent Organic Pollutants

(POPs) must be considered, as we explain below. 6.1.1 Consideration of Furnace Type The Applicant has carried out a review of the following candidate furnace types:

• Moving Grate Furnace • Fixed Hearth • Pulsed Hearth • Rotary Kiln • Fluidised Bed • Pyrolysis / Gasification

The Operator carried out a qualitative assessment of the above technologies based on our Sector Guidance Note “The Incineration of Waste (EPR 5.01)” and the European BAT reference note. Their assessment was as follows:

• Moving Grate Furnaces: are designed to handle large volumes of waste.

• Fixed Hearth: not considered suitable for large volumes of waste. They are best suited to low volumes of consistent waste.

• Pulsed Hearth: has been used for municipal waste in the past, as well as other solid wastes. However, there have been difficulties in

achieving reliable and effective burnout of waste and it is considered that the burnout criteria required by WID would be difficult to achieve.

Draft For Public

Consultation

• Pyrolysis/Gasification: various suppliers are developing pyrolysis and gasification systems for the disposal of municipal waste. However, it is not considered that any of these technologies can be considered to be proven. Pyrolysis and gasification systems which generate a syngas can theoretically take advantage of gas engines or gas turbines, which are more efficient that a standard steam turbine cycle. However, losses associated with making syngas and the additional electricity consumption of the site due to the waste pre-treatment requirements means that the overall efficiency is no higher than for combustion plant and is generally lower. This means that a combustion plant will generally have a more beneficial effect on climate change. Plasma gasification can theoretically produce a much more useful syngas than thermal gasification, but has a much higher electrical parasitic load and is in the early stages of commercial development for municipal waste treatment. Therefore, pyrolysis and gasification are not considered to be suitable alternatives to the current facility design.

• Rotary Kiln: have achieved good results with clinical waste but have not been used in the UK for MSW. The energy conversion efficiency of a rotary kiln is lower than that of a moving grate due to the large areas of refractory lined combustion chamber. An oscillating kiln is used for municipal waste at one site in England and a number of sites in France. The energy conversion efficiency is lower than that of a moving grate for the same reasons as for a rotary kiln. In addition, the capacity per unit is limited to 8tph and for this Application would need up to five number furnaces to achieve the design throughput, which is not economically feasible.

• Fluidised Bed: designed for the combustion of relatively homogeneous waste. For residual MSW, the waste would need to be pre-treated before feeding to the fluidised bed, which would lead to additional energy consumption and a larger building. The pre-treatment can also lead to higher quantities of rejected material. Where MSW is treated at a material recycling facility, the residues from the MRF may already be suitable for feeding to the fluidised bed. This does not apply to residues from kerbside collection schemes, which would need some pre-treatment, including shredding and metals removal as a minimum, before feeding to the fluidised bed. While fluidised bed combustion can lead to slightly lower NOx generation, the injection of ammonia or urea is still required to achieve the emission limits specified in WID. Experience in the UK of fluidised bed combustion of MSW has been limited. Two plants are operational, but both have had significant operational problems. One is operating well below its design capacity while the other is still being commissioned. Biffa do not consider that they can be considered a reliable technology at this stage.

The prime function of the furnace is to achieve maximum combustion of the waste. The WID requires that the plant (furnace in this context) should be designed to deliver its requirements. The main requirements of the WID in



Draft For Public

The BREF also provides a comparison of combustion and thermal treatment technologies and factors affecting their applicability and operational suitability used in EU and for all types of wastes. There is also some information on the comparative costs. The table below has been extracted from the BREF tables. This table is also in line with the Guidance Note “The Incineration of Waste (EPR 5.01)”. However, it should not be taken as an exhaustive list nor that all technologies listed have found equal Application across Europe.

ConsultaComparison of thermal treatment technologies tion

relation to the choice of a furnace are compliance with air emission limits for CO and TOC and achieving a low TOC/LOI level in the bottom ash. The Waste Incineration BREF elaborates the furnace selection criteria as:

• the use of a furnace (including secondary combustion chamber) dimensions that are large enough to provide for an effective combination of gas residence time and temperature such that combustion reactions may approach completion and result in low and stable CO and TOC emissions to air and low TOC in residues.

• use of a combination of furnace design, operation and waste throughput rate that provides sufficient agitation and residence time of the waste in the furnace at sufficiently high temperatures.

• The use of furnace design that, as far as possible, physically retain the waste within the combustion chamber (eg grate bar spacing) to allow its complete combustion.

Technique Key waste

characteristics and suitability

Throughput per line

Advantages Disadvantages / Limitations of use

Bottom Ash Quality

Cost

Moving grate (air-cooled)

Low to medium heat values (LCV 5 – 16.5 GJ/t) Municipal and other heterogeneous solid wastes Can accept a proportion of sewage sludge and/or medical waste with municipal waste Applied at most modern MSW installations

1 to 50 t/h with most projects 5 to 30 t/h. Most industrial Applications not below 2.5 or 3 t/h.

Widely proven at large scales Robust Low maintenance cost Long operational history Can take heterogeneous wastes without special preparation

generally not suited to powders, liquids or materials that melt through the grate

TOC 0.5 % to 3 %

High capacity reduces specific cost per tonne of waste

Moving Same as air- Same as As air- As air-cooled TOC Slightly higher


Draft For

nsu t n

Public Co lta io

grate (liquid Cooled)

cooled grates except: LCV 10 – 20 GJ/t

air-cooled grates

cooled grates but: higher heat value waste treatable better Combustion control possible

grates but: risk of grate damaging leaks and higher complexity

0.5 % to 3 %

capital cost than air-cooled

Technique Key waste


Throughput per line


Bottom Ash Quality

Cost

Rotary Kiln

Can accept liquids and pastes solid feeds more limited than grate (owing to refractory damage) often applied to hazardous Wastes

<10 t/h

Very well proven with broad range of wastes and good burn out even of HW

Throughputs lower than grates

TOC <3 % Higher specific cost due to reduced capacity

Fluid bed - bubbling

Only finely divided consistent wastes. Limited use for raw MSW often applied to sludges

1 to 10 t/h

Good mixing Fly ashes of good leaching quality

Careful operation required to avoid clogging bed. Higher fly ash quantities.

TOC <3 %

FGT cost may be lower. Costs of waste preparation

Fluid bed - circulating

Only finely divided consistent wastes. Limited use for raw MSW, often applied to sludges / RDF

1 to 20 t/h most used above 10 t/h

Greater fuel flexibility than BFB Fly ashes of good leaching quality

Cyclone required to conserve bed material Higher fly ash quantities

TOC <3 %

FGT cost may be lower. Costs of preparation.

Oscillating furnace

MSW / heterogeneous wastes

1 – 10 t/h

Robust Low maintenance Long history Low NOX level Low LOI of bottom ash

-higher thermal loss than with grate furnace - LCV under 15 G/t

TOC 0.5 – 3 %

Similar to other technologies

Pulsed hearth

Only higher CV waste (LCV >20 GJ/t) mainly used for clinical wastes

<7 t/h

can deal with liquids and powders

bed agitation may be lower

Dependent on waste type

Higher specific cost due to reduced capacity

Stepped Only higher No Can deal Bed agitation Dependent Higher specific


Draft For Pubnsu t n

lic Co lta io

and static hearths

CV waste (LCV >20 GJ/t) Mainly used for clinical wastes

information with liquids and powders

may be lower

on waste type

cost due to reduced capacity

Technique Key waste


Throughput per line


Bottom Ash Quality

Cost

Spreader - stoker combustor

- RDF and other particle feeds poultry manure wood wastes

No information

- simple grate construction less sensitive to particle size than FB

only for well defined mono-streams

No information

No information

Gasific-ation - fixed bed

- mixed plastic wastes other similar consistent streams gasification less widely used/proven than incineration

1 to 20 t/h

-low leaching residue good burnout if oxygen blown syngas available -Reduced oxidation of recyclable metals

- limited waste feed - not full combustion - high skill level tar in raw gas - less widely proven

-Low leaching bottom ash good burnout with oxygen

High operation/ maintenance costs

Gasific-ation - entrained flow

- mixed plastic wastes - other similar consistent streams not suited to untreated MSW gasification less widely used/proven than incineration

To 10 t/h - low leaching slag reduced oxidation of recyclable metals

- limited waste feed not full combustion high skill level less widely proven

low leaching slag

High operation/ maintenance costs pretreatment costs high

Gasific-ation - fluid bed

- mixed plastic wastes shredded MSW shredder residues sludges metal rich wastes other similar consistent streams

5 – 20 t/h

-temperatures e.g. for Al recovery separation of non-combustibles -can be combined with ash melting

-limited waste size (<30cm) - tar in raw gas - higher UHV raw gas - less widely proven

If Combined with ash melting chamber ash is vitrified

Lower than other gasifiers


Draf o

Consultation

t F rPublic

less widely used/proven than incineration

- reduced oxidation of recyclable metals

Technique Key waste


Throughput per line


Bottom Ash Quality

Cost

Pyrolysis

pretreated MSW high metal inert streams shredder residues/plastics pyrolysis is less widely used/proven than incineration

~ 5 t/h (short drum) 5 – 10 t/h (medium drum)

no oxidation of metals no combustion energy for metals/inert in reactor acid neutralisation possible syngas available

- limited wastes process control and engineering critical high skill req. not widely proven need market for syngas

- dependent on process temperature residue produced requires further processing sometimes combustion

High pretreatment, operation and capital costs

Overall, any of the furnace technologies listed above would be considered as BAT provided the Applicant has justified it in terms of:

• nature/physical state of the waste and its variability • proposed plant throughput which may affect the number of incineration

lines • preference and experience of chosen technology including plant

availability • nature and quantity/quality of residues produced. • emissions to air – usually NOx as the furnace choice could have an

effect on the amount of unabated NOx produced • energy consumption – whole plant, waste preparation, effect on GWP • Need, if any, for further processing of residues to comply with TOC • Costs

The Applicant has proposed to use a furnace technology using an air cooled moving grate comprising three lanes with five air-cooled zones or grate elements, which is identified in the tables above as being considered BAT in the BREF and TGN for this type of waste feed. We have considered the assessments made by the Applicant and agree that the furnace technology chosen represents BAT. We believe that, based on the information gathered by the BREF process, the chosen technology will achieve the requirements of the WID for the air emission of TOC/CO and the TOC on bottom ash.


Draft For Public

nConsultatio

6.2 BAT and emissions control The prime function of flue gas treatment is to reduce the concentration of pollutants in the exhaust gas to a level at which they will cause no significant environmental harm. The techniques which are described as BAT individually are targeted to remove specific pollutants, but the BREF notes that there is benefit from considering the FGT system as a whole unit. Individual units often interact, providing a primary abatement for some pollutants and an additional effect on others. The BREF lists the general factors requiring consideration when selecting flue-gas treatment (FGT) systems as:

• type of waste, its composition and variation • type of combustion process, and its size • flue-gas flow and temperature • flue-gas content, size and rate of fluctuations in composition • target emission limit values • restrictions on discharge of aqueous effluents • plume visibility requirements • land and space availability • availability and cost of outlets for residues accumulated/recovered • compatibility with any existing process components (existing plants) • availability and cost of water and other reagents • energy supply possibilities (e.g. supply of heat from condensing

scrubbers) • reduction of emissions by primary methods • release of noise.

The Technical Guidance Note points to the following technologies being BAT: 6.2.1 Particulate Matter The Applicant proposes to use fabric filters for the abatement of particulate matter. Fabric filters provide reliable abatement of particulate matter to below 5 mg/m3 and are BAT for most installations. The Applicant proposes to use multiple compartment filters, any failure of bags will be picked up by the CEM on the furnace stack. Emissions of particulate matter have been previously been assessed as insignificant, and so the Environment Agency agrees that the Applicant’s proposed technique is BAT for the installation. 6.2.2 Oxides of Nitrogen The Applicant proposes to implement the following primary measures:

• Low NOx burners – this technique reduces NOx at source and is

defined as BAT where auxiliary burners are required. • Optimise primary and secondary air injection – this technique is BAT

for all plant. • Flue gas recycling – this technique reduces the consumption of

reagents for secondary NOx control and can increase overall energy recovery, although in some Applications there can be corrosion problems – the technique is considered BAT for all plant.

There are two recognised techniques for secondary measures to reduce NOx. These are Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR). For each technique, there is a choice of urea or ammonia reagent.

Draft For Public

Consultation

SCR can reduce NOx levels to below 70 mg/m3 and can be applied to all plant, it is generally more expensive than SNCR and requires reheating of the waste gas stream which reduces energy efficiency, periodic replacement of the catalysts also produces a hazardous waste. SNCR can typically reduce NOx levels to between 150 and 180 mg/m3, it relies on an optimum temperature of around 900 deg C and sufficient retention time for reduction. SNCR is more likely to have higher levels of ammonia slip. The technique can be applied to all plant unless lower NOx releases are required for local environmental protection. Urea or ammonia can be used as the reagent with either technique, urea is somewhat easier to handle than ammonia and has a wider operating temperature window, but tends to result in higher emissions of N2O. Either reagent is BAT.

The Applicant proposes to use SNCR with ammonia as the reagent. Emissions of NOx cannot be screened out as insignificant. Therefore the Applicant has carried out a cost / benefit study of the alternative techniques, in “Appendix BATOT 12 Nitrogen Oxides Abatement Review”. The cost per tonne of NOx abated over the projected life of the plant has been calculated and compared with the environmental impact as shown in the table below. Cost of NOx

removal £/tonne PC (long term) µg/m3

PEC (long term) µg/m3

SNCR 6,610 1.15 31.8 SCR 9,106 0.76 31.4 The Applicant also concludes that:

• Both SCR and SNCR meet the mandatory requirements regarding emission limits.

• SCR provides better NOx reduction but this has little or no significant improvement in the resulting ground-level concentrations.

• Photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) is lower with SCR, as a consequence of POCP being directly proportional to NOx.



Draft For The amount of ammonia used for NOx abatement will need to be optimised to maximise NOx reduction and minimise NH3 slip. Improvement condition IC5 requires the Operator to report to the Environment Agency on optimising the performance of the NOx abatement system. The Operator is also required to monitor and report on NH3 and N2O emissions every 6 months.

Pub6.2.3 Acid Gases, SO lic Consultation

• Global warming potential associated with SNCR is better than for SCR. This is due to the high level of additional heating required by SCR to maintain the catalyst in optimal condition; and

• SCR generates an additional hazardous waste stream in the form of spent catalyst. This cannot be recovered, hence requires disposal in a hazardous waste landfill.

Based on the figures in the table above the Applicant considers that the additional cost of SCR over SNCR is not justified by the reduction in environmental impact. Thus SCR fails the availability test in BAT, and SNCR is BAT for the installation. The Applicant has justified the use of ammonia as the reagent on the basis that urea leads to relatively higher N2O emissions than ammonia. The Environment Agency agrees with this assessment.

x, HCl and HF The Applicant proposes to implement the following primary measures:

• Use of low sulphur fuels for start up and auxiliary burners – low sulphur fuel oil will be used, (i.e. <0.1% sulphur by mass), this will reduce SOx at source.

• Management of problem wastes – this will disperse problem wastes such as PVC by ensuring an heterogeneous waste feed.

The Applicant has not specified the sulphur content of the gas oil, but we have specified this ,in table S2.1 of the Permit, as <0.1%. This will reduce SOx at source There are three recognised techniques for secondary measures to reduce acid gases. These are wet, dry and semi-dry. Wet scrubbing produces an effluent for treatment and disposal in compliance with Article 8 of WID, it will also require reheat of the exhaust to avoid a visible plume. Wet scrubbing is unlikely to be BAT except where there are high acid gas and metal components in the exhaust gas as may be the case for some hazardous waste incinerators. In this case, the Applicant does not propose using wet scrubbing, and the Environment Agency agrees that wet scrubbing is not appropriate in this case. The Applicant has therefore considered dry and semi-dry methods of secondary measures for acid gas abatement. Both dry and semi-dry methods rely on the dosing of powdered materials into the exhaust gas stream. Semi-dry systems (i.e. hydrated reagent) offer


Draft For In this case, the Applicant proposes to use dry sodium bicarbonate, with recycling. As discussed above, reagent recycling in dry systems can offset the reduced material consumption of semi-dry systems, and the dry system will not require plume re-heat. The Environment Agency is satisfied that this is BAT. Public

Consultation

As discussed above, the Applicant has applied to use sodium bicarbonate but states that lime is an alternative which they may consider at the final design stage. Pre-operating condition, PO8, has been set for the Operator to send a report to the Environment Agency confirming which reagent they will be using, and, if it turns out to be Lime, to review the impact and BAT assessment to confirm that the use of Lime will not have a detrimental effect on the environment and will be considered BAT.

reduced material consumption through faster reaction rates, but reagent recycling in dry systems can offset this. Semi-dry systems may require plume reheat, which would reduce energy recovery. In both dry and semi-dry systems, the injected powdered reagent reacts with the acid gases and is removed from the gas stream by the bag filter system. The powdered materials are either lime or sodium bicarbonate. Both are effective at reducing acid gases, and dosing rates can be controlled from continuously monitoring acid gas emissions. The decision on which reagent to use is normally economic. Lime produces a lower leaching solid residue in the APC residues than sodium bicarbonate and the reaction temperature is well suited to back filters, it tends to be lower cost, but it is a corrosive material and can generate a greater volume of solid waste residues than sodium bicarbonate. The choice of reagent is a finely balanced decision and Operator’s often prefer to have the capability to use either.

6.2.4 Carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) The prevention and minimisation of emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds is through the optimisation of combustion controls, where all measures will increase the oxidation of these species. 6.2.5 Dioxins and furans The prevention and minimisation of emissions of dioxins and furans is achieved through:

• optimisation of combustion control including the maintenance of WID combustion conditions on temperature and residence time, which has been considered in 6.1.1 above;

• avoidance of de novo synthesis, which has been covered in the consideration of boiler design;

• the effective removal of particulate matter, which has been considered in 6.2.1 above;

• injection of activated carbon. This can be combined with the acid gas reagent or dosed separately. Where the feed is combined, the combined feed rate will be controlled by the acid gas concentration in


Draft For Public

Consultation

the exhaust. Therefore, separate feed of activated carbon would normally be considered BAT unless the feed was relatively constant. Effective control of acid gas emissions also assists in the control of dioxin releases.

In this case the Applicant proposes separate feed and we are satisfied their proposals are BAT. 6.2.6 Metals The prevention and minimisation of metal emissions is achieved through the effective removal of particulate matter, and this has been considered in 6.2.1 above. Unlike others metal however, mercury if present will be present in vapour phase. BAT for mercury removal is also dosing of activated carbon into the exhaust gas stream. This can be combined with the acid gas reagent or dosed separately. Where the feed is combined, the combined feed rate will be controlled by the acid gas concentration in the exhaust. Therefore, separate feed of activated carbon would normally be considered BAT unless the feed was relatively constant. In this case the Applicant proposes separate feed and we are satisfied their proposals are BAT. 6.2.7 Flue gas treatment plant bypass The Application states that the flue gas treatment plant will be bypassed “as necessary” during start up and shut downs. The justification for this was clarified in the response to a schedule 5 notice dated 12 December 2010. During cold start-up or shut-down, the temperature of the flue gas can temporarily drop below the dew point. The presence of cold, humid conditions may lead to the acid dew-point of the flue gases being reached, conditions that can lead to corrosion of gas ducting and steelwork. For this reason the FGT stage is by-passed at these times. This bypass will occur before any waste is charged at start up, or after all the waste has been burnt on shut down. Further justification was provided by the Applicant who stated that the by-pass will only be open during start up until the boiler flue gas outlet reaches a temperature of 120oc after which it will remain closed. The by-bass will only re-open at shut down when the boiler flue gas outlet temperature reaches 120oc. This has been added as Permit condition 2.3.13. The environmental impact of by-passing the FGT stage is considered to be minimal. Indicative BAT standards in sector guidance note EPR 5.01 states that an abatement bypass may be operated at start up to prevent damage to abatement plant.


Draft For Public

Consultation

6.3 BAT and global warming potential This section summarises the assessment of greenhouse gas impacts which has been made in the determination of this Permit. Emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases differ from those of other pollutants in that, except at gross levels, they have no localised environmental impact. Their impact is at a global level and in terms of climate change. Nonetheless, CO2 is clearly a pollutant for IPPCD purposes. The principal greenhouse gas emitted is CO2, but the plant also emits small amounts of N2O arising from the operation of secondary NOx abatement. N2O has a global warming potential 310 times that of CO2. The Applicant will therefore be required to optimise the performance of the secondary NOx abatement system to ensure its GWP impact is minimised. The major source of greenhouse gas emissions from the installation is however CO2 from the combustion of waste. There will also be CO2 emissions from the burning of support fuels at start up, shut down and should it be necessary to maintain combustion temperatures. BAT for greenhouse gas emissions is to maximise energy recovery and efficiency. The electricity that is generated by the Installation will result in a reduction in emissions of CO2 elsewhere in the UK, as virgin fossil fuels will not be burnt to create the same electricity. GWP calculations therefore need to include a CO2 offset for the net amount of electricity exported from the Installation. The Applicant used the Environment Agency’s H1 tool to calculate the gross GWP from burning waste and gas oil as 195,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum. They also used the WRATE model, but we consider that our H1 tool provided for this purpose is the most appropriate for this purpose. Using conversion factors taken from our H1 horizontal guidance note (annex H, table B1), the CO2 offset by the exporting of 25.8MWe, or 201,000MWh per year, can be calculated by multiplying by an efficiency conversion factor of 2.4 and a tonnes CO2 per MWh factor of 0.166. This gives a GWP of 80,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum. Taking this into account, the net emissions of CO2 from the installation are estimated at around 115,000 tonnes per annum. At this level emissions cannot be characterised as insignificant. The Installation is not subject to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2003; therefore it is a requirement of IPPCD to investigate how emissions of greenhouse gases emitted from the installation might be prevented or minimised. The Applicant has considered GWP as part of their BAT options appraisal. There are a number of areas in which a difference can be made to the GWP of the Installation, e.g. The Applicant’s BAT options appraisal compared SCR and SNCR methods of secondary NOx abatement. In summary: the following factors influence the GWP of the facility:-


Draft For The Applicant’s assessment shows that the GWP of the plant is dominated by the emissions of carbon dioxide that are releases as a result of waste combustion. This is constant for all options considered in the BAT assessment.

Public Taking all these factors into account, the Operator’s assessment shows their preferred option (SNCR) is best in terms of GWP.

ConsThe Environment Agency agrees with this assessment and that the chosen option is BAT for the installation. ultation

On the debit side

• CO2 emissions from the burning of the waste; • CO2 emissions from burning auxiliary or supplementary fuels; • CO2 emissions associated with electrical energy drawn from the public

supply: • CO2 from the de-NOx process. • N2O from the de-NOx process.

On the credit side

• CO2 saved from the export of electricity to the public supply by displacement of burning of virgin fuels;

• CO2 saved from the use of waste heat by displacement of burning of virgin fuels.

6.4 BAT and POPs International action on Persistent Organic pollutants (POPs) is required under the UN’s Stockholm Convention, which entered into force in 2004 and has been signed by 151 nations. The EU implemented the Convention through the POPs Regulation (850/2004), which is directly applicable in UK law. The Agency is required by national POPs Regulations (SI 2007 No 3106) to give effect to Article 6(3) of the EC POPs Regulation when determining Applications for environmental Permits. However, it needs to be borne in mind that this Application is for a particular type of installation, namely a waste incinerator. The Stockholm Convention distinguishes between intentionally- and unintentionally-produced POPs. Intentionally-produced POPs are those used deliberately (mainly in the past) in agriculture (primarily as pesticides) and industry. Those intentionally-produced POPs are not relevant where waste incineration is concerned. This is logical, not least because high-temperature incineration is one of the prescribed methods for destroying POPs. The unintentionally-produced POPs addressed by the Convention are: • dioxins and furans; • HCB; and

• PCBs. • PeCB The UK’s national implementation plan for the Stockholm Convention, published in 2007, makes explicit that the relevant controls for unintentionally-produced POPs, such as might be produced by waste incineration, are delivered through a combination of IPPC and WID requirements. That would, as required by the IPPC Directive, include an examination of BAT, including potential alternative techniques, with a view to preventing or minimising harmful emissions. These have been applied as explained in this document, which explicitly addresses alternative techniques and BAT for the minimisation of emissions of dioxins.

Draft For Public

“Member States shall, when considering proposals to construct new facilities or significantly to modify existing facilities using processes that release chemicals listed in Annex III, without prejudice to Council Directive 1996/61/EC, give priority consideration to alternative processes, techniques or practices that have similar usefulness but which avoid the formation and release of substances listed in Annex III.”

Our legal obligation, under regulation 4(b) of the POPs Regulations, is, when considering an Application for an environmental permit, to comply with article 6(3) of the POPs Regulation:

Consultation

We believe that the Permit ensures that the formation and release of POPs will be prevented or minimised. As we explain above, high-temperature incineration is one of the prescribed methods for destroying POPs. The requirements of the Stockholm Convention in relation to unintentionally-produced POPs are delivered through the IPPCD and the WID, which require the use of BAT to prevent or, where that is not possible, minimise all harmful emissions, including POPs.

The release of dioxins and furans to air is required by the WID to be assessed against the I-TEQ (International Toxic Equivalence) limit of 0.1 ng/m3. Further development of the understanding of the harm caused by dioxins has resulted in the World Health Organisation (WHO) producing updated factors to calculate the WHO-TEQ value. Certain PCBs have structures which make them behave like dioxins (dioxin-like PCBs), and these also have toxic equivalence factors defined by WHO to make them capable of being considered together with dioxins. The UK’s independent health advisory committee, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) has adopted WHO-TEQ values for both dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in their review of Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) criteria. The Government is of the opinion that, in addition to the requirements of the WID, the WHO-TEQ values for both dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs should be specified for monitoring and reporting purposes, to enable evaluation of exposure to dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs to be made using the revised TDI recommended by COT. The release of dioxin-like PCBs and PAHs is expected to be low where measures have been taken to control dioxin releases. The Secretary of State has directed regulators to


require monitoring of a range of PAHs and dioxin-like PCBs in waste incineration Permits at the same frequency as dioxins are monitored. We have included a requirement to monitor and report against these WHO-TEQ values for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs and the range of PAHs identified by Defra in the Environmental Permitting Guidance on the WID. We are confident that the measures taken to control the release of dioxins will also control the releases of dioxin-like PCBs and PAHs. Section 5.3 of this document details the assessment of emissions to air, which includes dioxins and concludes that there will be no adverse effect on human health from either normal or abnormal operation.

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) is addressed by the European Environment Agency (EEA), which advises that:

Draft For Public

"due to comparatively low levels in emissions from most (combustion) processes special measures for HCB control are usually not proposed. HCB emissions can be controlled generally like other chlorinated organic compounds in emissions, for instance dioxins/furans and PCBs: regulation of time of combustion, combustion temperature, temperature in cleaning devices, sorbents Application for waste gases cleaning etc." [reference http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR4/sources_of_HCB.pdf]

Consultation

We have assessed the control techniques proposed for dioxins by the Applicant and have concluded that they are appropriate for dioxin control. We are confident that these controls will also minimise the release of HCB. Pentchlorobenzene (PeCB) has been used as a fungicide or flame retardant, there is no data available however on production, recent or past, outside the UN-ECE region. In the Stockholm Convention Protocols several emission control techniques are given which will also lead to a reduction of PeCB emissions: Annex V (Best Available Techniques to control emissions of persistent organic pollutants from major stationary sources): PeCBs can be emitted from the same sources as described for PCDD/F in Annex V: waste incineration, thermal metallurgic processes and combustion plants providing energy. The approaches described in Annex V to control the emissions of PCDD/F will subsequently also lead to a reduction of the emissions of PeCBs. We have assessed the control techniques proposed for dioxins by the Applicant and have concluded that they are appropriate for dioxin control. We are confident that these controls will also minimise the release of HCB, PCB and PeCB. We are therefore satisfied that the substantive requirements of the Convention and the POPs Regulation have been addressed and complied with.


http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR4/sources_of_HCB.pdf

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR4/sources_of_HCB.pdf


Draft For Public

Consultation

6.5 Other Emissions to the Environment 6.5.1 Emissions to water Clean surface water (rainwater) from roofs will be captured and stored in tanks within the building for use in the process. Water from roadways will be passed via silt and oil interceptors to a surface water attenuation pond, prior to discharge from the installation into Shortcliff Brook. Based upon the information in the Application we are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to prevent and /or minimise emissions to water. 6.5.2 Emissions to sewer There will be a foul water connection to the sewer servicing welfare facilities, this discharge is not regulated by this Permit, and will require a separate Application from the Applicant. The Permit does not allow process water to be discharged to sewer. Any process water for discharge will be removed from the site via tanker to a suitably licensed facility. 6.5.3 Fugitive emissions The WID specifies that plants must be designed in such a way as to prevent the unauthorised and accidental release of polluting substances into soil, surface water and groundwater. In addition storage requirements for contaminated water of Article 8(7) must be arranged. The Operator describes the proposed measures preventing fugitive emissions to soil, surface water and groundwater, in section 4.10 of the Application’s “Best Available Techniques and Operating Techniques (BATOT) statement”. Key aspects of which are described below: Storage of waste will occur only in the waste reception hall on an impermeable surface served by a sealed drainage system. Materials will be stored indoors in designated, bunded areas to minimise environmental risks. These areas will be clearly marked and maximum storage capacities clearly stated. Regular checks and audits will ensure that storage areas are well maintained. Access to storage areas will be designed to minimise risks of collisions and spillages. The site surfacing and drainage system will be designed to minimise potential losses of contaminants to surface and groundwater. Key areas in which hazardous materials will be handled will be provided with extra protection,


Draft For Public

Consultation

such as kerbing and bunding, and all parts of the installation will be subject to regular visual inspection to maintain integrity. Bulk liquid storage tanks, such as those containing fuel oil, will be in dedicated and isolated bunds. All bunds will have a capacity greater than 110 percent of the largest tank or 25 percent of the total tankage, whichever is the larger. Based upon the information in the Application we are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to prevent and/or minimise fugitive emissions. 6.5.4 Odour The proposed facility will be enclosed within a purpose-built building. The waste storage bunker will be located within the waste reception hall which will be enclosed with access doors and air louvers to manage traffic and air movements. Air will be extracted from the waste reception hall for the combustion process thus creating an airflow direction into the building minimising the escape of odour. Bunker management procedures will be in place to ensure that periodic emptying and cleaning takes place to avoid the development of anaerobic conditions developing within the waste. The facility will operate continuously on a 24-hour, seven days per week basis meaning waste is stored for the minimal possible period of time prior to incineration. Two incineration lines are proposed ensuring that when one line is out of action for maintenance the other line will continue to operate, which the Applicant states will ensure waste will not be allowed to build up within the reception hall. Ash produced by the facility is quenched, producing a wet ash by-product. This will have an odour, but the Operator considers this to be insignificant in the context of the site setting and potential sensitive receptors within a reasonable distance that could be affected by the odour (i.e. adjacent to the M1 motorway and distance from residential receptors). Water will be sprayed onto the ash to maintain correct conditions for maturation and prevent fugitive dust emissions, in line with BAT. Based upon the information in the Application we are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be in place to minimise and prevent pollution from odour.

6.5.5 Noise and vibration Based upon the information in the Application we are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be in place to prevent pollution from noise and vibration. The Application contained a noise impact assessment which identified local noise-sensitive receptors, potential sources of noise at the proposed plant and noise attenuation measures. Measurements were taken of the prevailing ambient noise levels to produce a baseline noise survey and an assessment was carried out in accordance with BS4142 to compare the predicted plant rating noise levels with the established background levels.

Draft For The Applicants assessment concluded that:

Public • predicted daytime and night-time noise rating levels produced by fixed

plant at the proposed development would give a positive indication that complaints are unlikely at all of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors assessed,

Consultation

• the cumulative impact of all operations would have no effect on the existing ambient noise levels at any of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors assessed.

We audited the Applicants model, and found that the modelling was flawed. The Applicant did not have the design details for the room dimensions, what the walls and roofs will be made out of (affects sound absorption) and what the sound power levels and quantity of machinery will be in each room. Without these fundamental parameters it was impossible for us to verify the Applicant’s conclusion. This information was requested from the Applicant, but as the plant is not at the final design stage they could not provide this information. Consequently pre-operating condition PO4 has been set requiring the submission of a revised noise assessment with all the missing information, to enable to us to verify the Applicant’s conclusions before the facility is operated. We are satisfied that, based upon the information in the Application, the appropriate measures will be in place to prevent pollution from noise and vibration and that revised assessment should confirm this. If the revised assessment does not confirm this, then it will enable further measures to be taken to prevent pollution from noise and vibration. Public comments were also received on the existence of nesting Peregrine Falcons, as discussed in Annex 4. The existence of Falcons has not been confirmed. The noise assessment does not assess the quarry face as a location of a sensitive receptor, and so for completeness pre-operating condition PO4 requires the assessment of noise impacts on potential nesting sites within the quarry.



Draft For Public

Consultation

6.6 Setting ELVs and other Permit conditions 6.5.1 Translating BAT into Permit conditions The use of WID limits for air dispersion modelling sets the worst case scenario. If this shows emissions are insignificant then we accept that the Applicant’s proposals are BAT, and that there is no justification to reduce ELVs below WID levels in these circumstances. Below we consider whether, for those emission not screened out as insignificant, different conditions are required as a result of consideration of local or other factors. (i) Local factors We have considered the following information:

• poor air quality • concerns about local health

The impact on air quality and the risks to human health are discussed in detail in section 5.2 and 5.3 of this document respectively. (ii) National and European EQSs In determining this Permit, the Environment Agency has had regard to the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This has been considered by using the relevant Air Quality Objectives as part of the air quality assessment in section 5.2 of this document. We have also taken into account relevant air quality limit and target values set out in the EC Air Quality Framework Directive & Daughter Directives. The Environment Agency considers that it has taken its decision in compliance with the Air Quality Strategy and EU Directives, and that there are no additional conditions that should be included in this Permit. (iii) Global Warming CO2 is an inevitable product of the combustion of waste. The amount of CO2 emitted will be essentially determined by the quantity and characteristics of waste being incinerated, which are already subject to conditions in the Permit. It is therefore inappropriate to set an emission limit value for CO2, which could do more than recognise what is going to be emitted. The gas is not therefore targeted as a key pollutant under the IPPC Directive or under the Waste Incineration Directive, e.g. it is not included in Annex III to the IPPCD, which lists the main polluting substances that are to be considered when setting emission limit values (ELVs) in Permits.


Draft For blic Pu

Consultation

We have therefore considered setting equivalent parameters or technical measures for CO2. However, provided energy is recovered efficiently (see section 4.3.7 above), there are no additional equivalent technical measures (beyond those relating to the quantity and characteristics of the waste) that can be imposed that do not run counter to the primary purpose of the plant, which is the destruction of waste. Controls in the form of restrictions on the volume and type of waste that can be accepted at the Installation and permit conditions relating to energy efficiency effectively apply equivalent technical measures to limit CO2 emissions. (iv) Commissioning As the proposed facility is still at the early design stage the Operator has not given full details of their commissioning plans or how they propose to validate the combustion conditions to demonstrate compliance with the WID. Thus the following commissioning pre-operating and improvement conditions have been set in the permit: Pre-operating condition, PO5, has been set to ensure that the Operator provides the Environment Agency of their plan for the commissioning of the installation, for us to approve. Commissioning will then take place in accordance with the approved plan. Pre-operating condition PO7 has been set to requiring a report that demonstrates that the indicative BAT, for the validation of combustion conditions, for “operational stage”, “qualifying zone” and “test conditions” requirements, given in section 2.5 of the Incineration of Waste Sector Guidance note EPR 5.01, will be applied during commissioning. Improvement condition, IC4, has been set to ensure that the Operator submits a report to the Environment Agency on the commissioning of the installation. The report shall summarise the environmental performance of the plant as installed against the design parameters set out in the Application. The report shall also include a review of the performance of the facility against the conditions of this permit and details of procedures developed during commissioning for achieving and demonstrating compliance with permit conditions. 6.7 Monitoring 6.7.1 Monitoring during normal operations We have decided that monitoring should be carried out for the parameters listed in tables S3.1 to S3.4 in Schedule 3 of the Permit using the methods and to the frequencies specified in those tables. These monitoring requirements have been imposed in order to demonstrate compliance with emission limit values.


Draft For Public

Consultation

For emissions to air, the methods for continuous and periodic monitoring are in accordance with the Agency’s Guidance M2 for monitoring of stack emissions to air. The ammonia monitor will be certified to MCERTS although no emission limit value has been set at this time. Monitoring of N2O and ammonia have been set as a requirement of the permit to demonstrate the optimum environmental performance of the NOx abatement process. Based on the information in the Application and the requirements set in the conditions of the permit we are satisfied that the Operator’s techniques, personnel and equipment will have either MCERTS certification or MCERTS accreditation as appropriate. 6.7.2 Monitoring under abnormal operations arising from the failure of the

installed CEMs The Operator will provide standby CEMS working in parallel to the operating CEMS. These will be switched into full operation immediately in the event that there is any failure in the regular monitoring equipment. The standby CEMS measure the same parameters as the operating CEMS. In the unlikely event that both CEMS fail, condition 2.3.10 of the permit requires that the WID abnormal operating conditions apply. 6.7.3 Other Monitoring Requirements Other monitoring requirements have been set by the Environment Agency in Condition 3.5.1 and Schedule 3 of the permit. These monitoring requirements have been imposed in order to enable correction of measured concentration of substances to the appropriate reference conditions; to gather information about the performance of the SNCR system; to deliver guidance from DEFRA that dioxin-like PCBs and PAHs should be monitored and to deliver the requirements of WID for monitoring of residues and temperature in the combustion chamber. In addition improvement condition IC2 requires an exercise be carried out to determine the size distribution of the particles emitted from the stacks to identify the fractions in the PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0 ranges. This reflects the latest scientific research which indicates that very fine particles have the most potential to adversely affect health. This is a standard improvement condition being imposed on all incinerators in order to gather information on the contribution of waste incineration generally to emissions of very fine particles. 6.7.4 Continuous emissions monitoring for dioxins and mercury The WID specifies manual extractive sampling for mercury and dioxin monitoring. The Environment Agency has reviewed the applicability of these techniques to the installation.


Draft For Public

In the case of dioxins, the equipment is capable of taking a sample for an extended period (several weeks), but the sample must then be analysed in the conventional way. Despite good ability to track the same trends in changing dioxin concentrations, systematic differences are observed between continuous sampling and manual sample train measurements in which continuous sampling records dioxin concentrations higher than manual sample trains. The lack of a primary reference method (e.g. involving a reference gas of know concentration of dioxin) prohibits any one approach being considered more accurate than another. Manual sample trains are more applicable for dioxin monitoring against an emission limit value in accordance with WID requirements where dioxin methods are required to meet EN1948. Cross-stack sampling in accordance wih EN13284-1 (the low dust standard) is a pre-requisite of EN1948, whereas continuous sampling techniques are designed for operation at one or at most two fixed points across the stack. Consultation For either continuous monitoring or sampling to be used for regulatory purposes, an emission limit value would need to be devised which is applicable to continuous monitoring. Such limits for mercury and dioxins have not been set by the European Commission and this makes it difficult for the Agency to act unilaterally in the case of UK incinerators. Use of a manual sample train is the only technique which fulfils the requirements of the WID. At the present time, it is considered that in view of the predicted low levels of mercury and dioxin emission it is not justifiable to require the Operator to install continuous monitoring for these substances.

Until recently there was no CEM which could measure solid phase (particulate) mercury as well as vapour phase mercury. However there are now instruments which claim to measure total mercury such as the MERCEM instrument manufactured by Sick-Maihak, which is CEMS certified. The Committee European de Normalisation (CEN) has recently published a standard for total mercury to be determined by automated measuring systems (EN 14884:2005). However the British Standards Institute has objected to manner in which the standard has been developed and believes it does not entirely fulfil its purpose.

In accordance with it’s legal requirement to do so the Environment Agency is always reviewing the development of new methods and standards and their performance in industrial Applications. In particular the Environment Agency considers continuous sampling systems for dioxins to have promise as a potential means of improving process control and obtaining more accurate mass emission estimates. In any event, we will require continuous measurement of dioxins and mercury should the European Commission introduce this under Article 11(13) of the WID. 6.8 Reporting We have specified the reporting requirements in Schedule 5 of the Permit either to meet the reporting requirements set out in the WID, or to ensure data


Draft For Public

Consultation

is reported to enable timely review by the Environment Agency to ensure compliance with permit conditions and to monitor the efficiency of material use and energy recovery at the installation.


Draft For Public

Consultation

7 Other legal requirements In this section we explain how we have addressed other relevant legal requirements, to the extent that we have not addressed them elsewhere in this document. 7.1 The EPR 2010 and related Directives The EPR delivers the requirements of a number of European and national laws. 7.1.1 Schedules 1 and 7 to the EPR 2010 – IPPC Directive We address the requirements of the IPPCD in the body of this document above. There is one requirement not addressed above, which is that contained in Article 9(2) IPPCD. Article 9(2) of the IPPC Directive requires that “In the case of a new installation or a substantial change where Article 4 of Directive 85/337/EC applies, any relevant information obtained or conclusion arrived at pursuant to articles 5, 6 and 7 of that Directive shall be taken into account for the purposes of granting an environmental permit.

• Article 5 of EIA Directive relates to the obligation on developers to supply the information set out in Annex IV of the Directive when making an Application for development consent.

• Article 6(1) requires Member States to ensure that the authorities likely to be concerned by a development by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities are consulted on the Environmental Statement and the request for development consent.

• Article 6(2)-6(6) makes provision for public consultation on Applications for development consent.

• Article 7 relates to projects with transboundary effects and consequential obligations to consult with affected Member States.

The grant or refusal of development consent is a matter for the relevant local planning authority. The Environment Agency’s obligation is therefore to take into consideration any relevant information obtained or conclusion arrived at by the local planning authorities pursuant to those EIA Directive articles. In determining the Application we have considered the following documents: -

• The Environmental Statement submitted with the planning Application (which also formed part of the Environmental Permit Application).

• The decision of Leicestershire County Council to refuse planning permission on 20 October 2010.

• The Development Control and Regulatory Board 15th October 2010 Report of the Chief Executive report of Leicestershire County Council which recommended refusal of planning permission.


Draft For The Environment Agency has also carried out its own consultation on the Environmental Permitting Application which includes the Environmental Statement submitted to the local planning authority. The results of our consultation are described elsewhere in this decision document.

Public Consultation

• The response of the Environment Agency to the local planning authority in its role as consultee to the planning process.

We have reviewed the reasons given for the refusal of planning permission and specifically whether this conclusion is based on information given in the Environmental Statement. We are satisfied that these matters are entirely matters of planning policy and not relevant to our determination. The Government’s Planning Policy Statements Nos. 10 and 23 make it clear that the pollution control and planning regimes are intended to be complementary and should avoid duplication. From our consideration of all the documents above, the Environment Agency considers that no additional or different conditions are necessary.

7.1.2 Schedule 9 to the EPR 2010 – Waste Framework Directive As the Installation involves the treatment of waste, it is carrying out a waste operation for the purposes of the EPR 2010, and the requirements of Schedule 9 therefore apply. This means that we must exercise our functions so as to ensure implementation of certain articles of the Directive 2006/12/EC, as well as other specified requirements. Directive 2006/12/EC has been repealed and replaced by Directive 2008/98/EC. We anticipate the references in Schedule 9 will have been updated by the time any final decision is made on the Application. However, for completeness at this time we address both Directives. We address 2006/12/EC first as that is the one currently referenced in Schedule 9. We must give effect to Article 4 which requires that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular:

(a) without risk to water, air or soil, or to plants or animals; (b) without causing a nuisance through noise or odours; (c) without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special

interest. We have addressed these objectives elsewhere in this document. The conditions of the Permit protect the environment and ensure that there is no harm to any features identified above. Schedule 9 also requires that records referred to under Article 14 are kept and made available to the Environment Agency on request. Conditions relating to the collection, maintenance, storage and availability of records form part of the Permit.


Draf

Waste planning is primarily the responsibility of the Waste Disposal Authority and the Local Authority. In determining this Application we have had regard to the Government’s Waste Strategy, we have also considered Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10). We have also had regard to the waste policies of the Local Authority as set out in their Local Development Framework. t For

Consultation

Public We note that planning permission has been refused by the council. The decision is based on planning matters rather than waste strategy or pollution control issues. We are satisfied that the Application is in compliance with Article 5. The proposed facility will have no significant adverse impact on the environment or human health and it can make a contribution towards an integrated network of disposal facilities taking account of best available techniques.

We are also required to give effect, where disposal operations are involved, to Article 5, which requires that appropriate measures are taken to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, taking account of the best available technology not involving excessive costs. The network must enable the Community as a whole to become self-sufficient in waste disposal and the Member States to move towards that aim individually, taking into account geographical circumstances or the need for specialised installations for certain types of waste. This network must enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health.

In addition, Schedule 9 requires the Environment Agency, in relation to disposal operations:

(b) to implement, so far as material, any waste management plan; and (c) to ensure that the permit covers:

(i) the types and quantities of waste; (ii) the technical requirements; (iii) the safety precautions to be taken; (iv) the disposal site; (v) the treatment method.

The matters referred to in paragraph (c) above are addressed through Permit conditions. By granting a Permit, the Environment Agency is satisfied that it will support the waste management plan. Turning to Directive 2008/98/EC we anticipate by the time any decision is finalised we will have to consider the obligations which follow in place of those set out above. We should exercise our relevant functions for the purposes of ensuring that the waste hierarchy referred to in Article 4 is applied to the generation of waste and that any waste generated is treated in accordance with Article 4.

The conditions of the Permit ensure that waste generation from the facility is minimised. Where the production of waste cannot be prevented it will be recovered wherever possible or otherwise disposed of in a manner that minimises its impact on the environment. This is in accordance with Article 4. Also that we exercise our relevant functions for the purposes of implementing Article 13; ensuring that the requirements in the second paragraph of Article 23(1) are met; and ensuring compliance with Articles 18(2)(b), 18(2)(c), 23(3), 23(4) and 35(1). Article 13 relates to the protection of human health and the environment. These objectives are addressed elsewhere in this document. Article 23(1) requires the permit to specify:

Draft For (c) the safety and precautionary measures to be taken;

(a) the types and quantities of waste that may be treated; (b) for each type of operation permitted, the technical and any other

requirements relevant to the site concerned;

Public (f) such closure and after-care provisions as may be necessary.

(d) the method to be used for each type of operation; (e) such monitoring and control operations as may be necessary;

Consultation

The Permit does not allow hazardous waste to be accepted, nor does it allow hazardous APC residues to be mixed with non hazardous IBA (as the Application’s operating techniques are incorporated into the Permit via condition 2.3.1 and table S1.2). Consequently Article 18 is not relevant.

These are all covered by permit conditions.

We consider that the intended method of waste treatment is acceptable from the point of view of environmental protection so Article 23(3) does not apply. Energy efficiency is dealt with elsewhere in this document but we consider the conditions of the permit ensure that the recovery of energy take place with a high level of energy efficiency in accordance with Article 23(4). Article 35(1) relates to record keeping and its requirements are delivered through permit conditions. 7.1.3 Schedule 13 to the EPR 2010 – Waste Incineration Directive We address the WID in detail in Annex 1 to this document. 7.1.4 Schedule 22 to the EPR 2010 – Groundwater, Water Framework and

Groundwater Daughter Directives To the extent that it authorises the discharge of pollutants to groundwater (a “groundwater activity” under the EPR 2010), the Permit is subject to the


requirements of Schedule 22, which delivers the requirements of EU Directives relating to pollution of groundwater. The Permit will require the taking of all necessary measures to prevent the input of any hazardous substances to groundwater, and to limit the input of non-hazardous pollutants into groundwater so as to ensure such pollutants do not cause pollution, and satisfies the requirements of Schedule 22. No releases to groundwater from installation are permitted. The Permit also requires material storage areas to be designed and maintained to a high standard to prevent accidental releases. 7.1.5 Directive 2003/35/EC – The Public Participation Directive

Draft For Public

Regulation 59 of the EPR 2007 requires the Agency to prepare and publish a statement of its policies for complying with its public participation duties.

Consultation

The Environment Agency has published such a document and this Application is being consulted upon in line with our public participation statement, as well as with the Agency’s RGS6 on Sites of High Public Interest, which addresses specifically extended consultation arrangements for determinations where public interest is particularly high. This satisfies the requirements of the Public Participation Directive. Our draft decision in this case has been reached following a programme of extended public consultation, both on the original Application and later, separately, on the draft permit and a draft decision document. The way in which this has been done is set out in Section 2. A summary of the responses received to our consultations and our consideration of them is set out in Annex 4. 7.2 National primary legislation 7.2.1 Environment Act 1995 (i) Section 4 (Pursuit of Sustainable Development) We are required to contribute towards achieving sustainable development, as considered appropriate by Ministers and set out in guidance issued to us. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has issued The Environment Agency’s Objectives and Contribution to Sustainable Development: Statutory Guidance (December 2002). This document:

“provides guidance to the Agency on such matters as the formulation of approaches that the Agency should take to its work, decisions about priorities for the Agency and the allocation of resources. It is not directly applicable to individual regulatory decisions of the Agency”.

In respect of regulation of industrial pollution through the EPR, the Guidance refers in particular to the objective of setting permit conditions “in a consistent and proportionate fashion based on Best Available Techniques and taking into account all relevant matters…”. The Environment Agency considers that it



Draft For We have had regard to the National Air Quality Strategy and consider that our decision complies with the Strategy, and that no additional or different conditions are appropriate for this Permit.

Public Consultation

We have considered potential interference with rights addressed by the European Convention on Human Rights in reaching our decision and consider that our decision is compatible with our duties under the Human Rights Act 1998. In particular, we have considered the right to life (Article 2), the right to a fair trial (Article 6), the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) and the right to protection of property (Article 1, First Protocol). We do not believe that Convention rights are engaged in relation to this determination.

has pursued the objectives set out in the Government’s guidance, where relevant, and that there are no additional conditions that should be included in this Permit to take account of the Section 4 duty. (ii) Section 7 (Pursuit of Conservation Objectives) We considered whether we should impose any additional or different requirements in terms of our duty to have regard to the various conservation objectives set out in Section 7, but concluded that we should not. We have considered the impact of the installation on local wildlife sites within 2Km which are not designated as either European Sites or SSSIs. We are satisfied that no additional conditions are required. (iii) Section 81 (National Air Quality Strategy)

7.2.2 Human Rights Act 1998

7.2.3 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW 2000) Section 85 of this Act imposes a duty on Agency to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). There is no AONB which could be affected by the Installation. 7.2.4 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the Agency has a duty to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which a site is of special scientific interest. Under section 28I the Agency has a duty to consult Natural England/Countryside Council for Wales in relation to any permit that is likely to damage SSSIs. We assessed the Application and concluded that the Installation will not damage the special features of any SSSI.


Draft For Public

Consultation

The CROW assessment is summarised in greater detail in section 5.4.2 of this document. 7.2.5 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Section 40 of this Act requires us to have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of our functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. We have done so and consider that no different or additional conditions in the Permit are required. 7.3 National secondary legislation 7.3.1 The Conservation of Natural Habitats and Species Regulations

2010 We have assessed the Application in accordance with guidance agreed jointly with Natural England and concluded that there will be no likely significant effect on any European Site. The habitat assessment is summarised in greater detail in section 5.4.1 of this document. 7.3.2 Water Framework Directive Regulations 2003 Consideration has been given to whether any additional requirements should be imposed in terms of the Agency’s duty under regulation 3 to secure the requirements of the Water Framework Directive through (inter alia) EP permits, but it is felt that existing conditions are sufficient in this regard and no other appropriate requirements have been identified. 7.3.3 The Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulations 2007 We have explained our approach to these Regulations, which give effect to the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the EU’s POPs Regulation, above. 7.5 Other relevant legal requirements 7.5.1 Duty to Involve S23 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 require us where we consider it appropriate to take such steps as we consider appropriate to secure the involvement of interested persons in the exercise of our functions by providing hem with information, consulting them or involving them in any other way. S24 requires us to have regard to any Secretary of State guidance as to how we should do that. The way in which the Agency has consulted with the public and other interested parties is set out in section 2 of this document. The way in which we have taken account of the representations we have received is set out in


Draft For Public

Consultation

Annex 4. Our public consultation duties are also set out in the EP Regulations, and our statutory Public Participation Statement, which implement the requirements of the Public Participation Directive. In addition to meeting our consultation responsibilities, we have also taken account of our guidance in Agency Guidance Note RGS6 and the Agency’s Building Trust with Communities toolkit.


Draft For ic

C oPubl

onsultati n

ANNEX 1 : APPLICATION OF THE WASTE INCINERATION DIRECTIVE WID Article Requirement Delivered by 4(3) measurement techniques for

emissions into the air comply with Annex III

See below on compliance with Article 11

4(4) compliance with any applicable requirement of directives on:Urban Waste Water Treatment, the IPPC, Air Quality Framework, Dangerous Substances, Landfill.

Landfill Directive is not relevant to this installation. Relevant requirements of all other directives are delivered via EPR.

4(4)(a) list explicitly the categories of waste that may be treated; using the European Waste Catalogue (“EWC”) including information on the quantity of waste where appropriate.

Condition 2.3.3 and Table S2.2 in Schedule 2 of the Permit

4(4)(b) Permit shall include the total waste incinerating capacity of the plant

Condition 2.3.3 and Table S2.2 in Schedule

4(4)(c) specify the sampling and measurement procedures used to satisfy the obligations imposed for periodic measurements of each air and water pollutant.

Conditions 3.5.1 and Tables S3.1, S3.1(a), S3.2, S3.3 and S3.4. also compliance with Articles 10 and 11

5(1) Take all necessary precautions concerning delivery and reception of wastes, to prevent or minimise pollution.

- EPR require prevent or minimise pollution. - Best Available Techniques and Operating Techniques (BATOT) Statement of the Application defines how this will be carried out. - conditions 2.3.1, 2.3.3, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4

5(2) determine the mass of each category of wastes, if possible according to the EWC, prior to accepting the waste.

-Best Available Techniques and Operating Techniques (BATOT) Statement of the Application describes procedures for the reception and monitoring of incoming waste


Draft For

C io

Public

onsultat n

WID Article Requirement Delivered by 6(1) (a). Slag and bottom ash to have

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is < 3% or loss on ignition (LOI) is < 5%. (b) flue gas to be raised to a temperature of 850ºC for two seconds, as measured at representative point of the combustion chamber. (c) At least one auxiliary burner which must not be fed with fuels which can cause higher emissions than those resulting from the burning of gas oil liquefied gas or natural gas

(a) Conditions 3.5.1 and Table S3.4 (b) - Pre-operational conditions PO6 & PO7. The Application specifies measurement point will be selected using the results of computerised fluid dynamic modelling in appendix BATOT 10 of Application (c) Condition 2.3.7

6(2) Relates to co-incineration plants Not relevant 6(3) automatic waste feed prevention:

(a) at start up until the specified temperature has been reached or if this temperature is not maintained (b) when the CEMs show that ELVs are exceeded due to disturbances or failure of abatement.

Condition 2.3.6

6(4) Different conditions than those in 6(1) may be authorised

No such conditions Have been allowed

6(5) emissions to air do not give rise to significant ground level pollution, in particular, through exhaust of gases through a stack

Emissions and their ground-level impacts are discussed in the body of this document,

6(6) any heat generated from the process shall be recovered as far as practicable.

(a) The plant will generate electricity (b)Operator to review the available heat recovery options prior to commissioning (Condition PO2) and then every 2 years (Condition 1.2.3)

6(7) Relates to the feeding of infectious clinical waste into the furnace

No infectious clinical waste will be burnt

6(8) management of the Installation to be in the hands of a natural person who is competent to manage it

Conditions 1.1.1 to 1.1.3 and 2.3.1 of the Permit fulfil this requirement

7(1) incineration plants to comply with the ELVs in Annex V.

Conditions 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 and Tables S3.1 and S3.1a


Draft For

C io

Public

onsultat n

WID Article Requirement Delivered by 7(2) Relates to co-incineration Not relevant 7(3) measured ELVs to be standardised

in accordance with Article 11. Schedule 6 details this standardisation requirement

7(4) Relates to co-incineration Not relevant 8(1) – 8(6) All relate to conditions for water

discharges from the cleaning of exhaust gases

There are no such discharges as condition 3.1.1 prohibits this.

8(7) (a) prevention of unauthorised and accidental release of any polluting substances into soil, surface water or groundwater. (b) storage capacity for contaminated rainwater run-off from the site or for contaminated water from spillage or fire-fighting

The Application explains the measures to be in place for achieving the directive requirements

9 (a) residues to be minimised in their amount and harmfulness, and recycled where appropriate (b) prevent dispersal of dry residues and dust during transport and storage (c) test residues for their physical and chemical characteristics and polluting potential including heavy metal content (soluble fraction)

(a)conditions 3.5.1 and 1.4.1 (b) conditions 1.5.1 2.3.1 and 3.2.1 (c) Condition 3.5.1

10(1) and 10(2)

measurement equipment shall be installed and techniques used to monitor the incineration process, and that the measurement requirements shall be laid down in Permits

condition 3.5.1, and tables s3.1 and 3.1(a), emissions to air, and table s3.3, process monitoring requirements

10(3) Installation and functioning of CEMs for emissions to air and water to be subjected to regular control, testing and calibration

condition 3.5.3, and tables s3.1, s3.1(a), and s3.3

10(4) Sampling points to be specified in Permits

tables s3.1 and s3.1(a), and s3.3

10(5) periodic measurements to air and water to comply with Annex III, points 1 and 2

tables s3.1 and s3.1(a), and s3.3 specify the standards to be used.


Draft For Public

Consultation

WID Article Requirement Delivered by 11(2) Continuous measurement of NOx,

CO, total dust, TOC, HCl, and SO2 and periodic measurement of HF, heavy metals, dioxins and furans plus the measurement of combustion chamber temperature and concentration of O2, pressure, temperature and water content of the exhaust gases

condition 3.5.1 and tables s3.1, s3.1(a) and s3.3.

11(3) Verify the residence time and minimum temperature as well as oxygen content of exhaust gases

Pre-operational condition PO6 and PO7 in table s1.4, and Improvement Condition IC4

11(4) Periodic rather than Continuous measurement of HF if HCl is abated and limit values not exceeded

Condition 3.1.2 and table s3.1

11(6) Conditional option of periodic measurement for HCl, HF and SO2 instead of CEMs

Option not applied except for HF as per Article 11(4) above

11(7) reduction in the monitoring frequency for heavy metals, dioxins and furans under certain conditions, provided the criteria in article 17 of WID are available

Not applied as no such criteria available

11(8) sets out reference conditions for standardisation of measurements

Schedule 6 sets the same reference conditions

11(9) recording and reporting requirements

Section 4 and Schedules 4 and 5

11(10) Sets out criteria for compliance with ELVs in Annex V

conditions 3.1.2 and tables s3.1, s3.1(a) and s3.3

11(11) Specifies when ELVs apply, how averages are calculated (including the use of Annex III) and how many values can be discarded

Condition 3.5.5

11(12) Average values for HCl, SO2 and HF to be determined as per Articles 10(2), 10(4) and Annex III

See Articles 10(2), 10(4) and 11(11) above

11(14) to 11(16)

addresses the monitoring of waste water from the cleaning of exhaust gases

There are no such releases from the Installation.

11(17) Competent authorities to be informed if ELVs are exceeded

Condition 4.3.1

12(2) An annual report on plant operation and monitoring for all plants burning more than 2 tonne/hour waste.

Condition 4.2.2


Draft ForPublic

Consultation

WID Article Requirement Delivered by 13(1) specify maximum period of

unavoidable stoppages, disturbances or failures of purification or CEMs, during which air or water ELVs may be exceeded

Condition 2.3.10

13(2) cease the feed of waste in the event of a breakdown

conditions 2.3.6 & 2.3.10

13(3) Limits the maximum period under 13(1) above to 4 hours uninterrupted duration in any one instance, and with a maximum cumulative limit of 60 hours per year

condition 2.3.10.

13(4) Limits on dust (150 mg/m3), CO and TOC not to be exceeded

Condition 2.3.6 and Table s3.1(a)


Draft For Public

Consultation

ANNEX 2: Pre-Operational Conditions Based on the information on the Application, we consider that we do need to impose pre-operational conditions. These conditions are set out below and referred to, where applicable, in the text of the decision document. We are using these conditions to require the Operator to confirm that the details and measures proposed in the Application have been adopted or implemented prior to the operation of the Installation. Reference Pre-operational measures PO1

Prior to the commencement of commissioning, the Operator shall send a summary of the site Environment Management System (EMS) to the Environment Agency and make available for inspection all documents and procedures which form part of the EMS. The EMS shall be developed in line with the requirements set out in Section 1 of How to comply with your environmental permit – Getting the basics right. The documents and procedures set out in the EMS shall form the written management system referenced in condition 1.1.1 (a) of the permit.

PO2

Prior to the commencement of commissioning, the Operator shall send a report to the Environment Agency which will contain a comprehensive review of the options available for utilising the heat generated by the waste incineration process in order to ensure that it is recovered as far as practicable. The review shall detail any identified proposals for improving the recovery and utilisation of waste heat and shall provide a timetable for their implementation.

PO3 Prior to the commencement of commissioning, the Operator shall submit to the Environment Agency for approval a protocol for the sampling and testing of incinerator bottom ash and APC residues for the purposes of assessing its hazard status. Sampling and testing shall be carried out in accordance with the protocol as approved.

PO4 On completion of the final design of the Installation the Operator shall, revise the Noise Assessment submitted in BATOT9 section of the Environmental Permit Application, and re-submit the assessment to the Environment Agency. The revised assessment shall include the design details for the room dimensions, what the walls and roofs will be made out of and what the sound power levels and quantity of machinery will be in each room. The assessment shall also include the impact of noise on potential Peregrine Falcon nesting sites within Newhurst Quarry.

PO5 Prior to the commencement of commissioning; the Operator shall provide a written commissioning plan, including timelines for completion, for approval by the Environment Agency. The commissioning plan shall include the expected emissions to the environment during the different stages of commissioning, the expected durations of commissioning activities and the actions to be taken to protect the environment and report to the Environment Agency in the event that actual emissions exceed expected emissions. Commissioning shall be carried out in accordance with the commissioning plan as approved.

PO6 After completion of the detailed furnace design and at least 3 months before furnace operation, the Operator shall submit a written report to the Environment Agency, on the details of the computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modelling used in the design.


Draft For Public

Consultation

The report shall demonstrate whether the indicative BAT design stage requirements, given the Incineration of Waste Sector Guidance note EPR 5.01, have been completed. In particular the report will demonstrate whether the residence time and temperature requirements will be met.

PO7 After completion of the detailed furnace design and at least 3 months before furnace operation, the Operator shall submit a written report to the Environment Agency, on the proposed techniques to validate combustion conditions during the commissioning of the furnace. The report shall specify how the indicative BAT “operational stage”, “qualifying zone” and “test conditions” requirements, given in the Incineration of Waste Sector Guidance note EPR 5.01, will be applied.

PO8 On completion of the final design of the Installation, the Operator shall provide a written report to the Environment Agency for approval. The report shall confirm which acid abatement reagent will be used. If Lime is to be used, the report shall contain a review of the impact to the Environment and a review of the BAT assessment.


Draft ForPublic

Consultation

ANNEX 3: Improvement Conditions Based in the information in the Application we consider that we need to set improvement conditions. These conditions are set out below - justifications for these is provided at the relevant section of the decision document. We are using these conditions to require the Operator to provide the Environment Agency with details that need to be established or confirmed during and/or after commissioning. Reference Improvement measure Completion date IC1

The Operator shall submit a written report to the Environment Agency on the implementation of its Environmental Management System and the progress made in the accreditation of the system by an external body or if appropriate submit a schedule by which the EMS will be subject to accreditation.

Within 12 months of the date on which waste is first burnt.

IC2

The Operator shall submit a written proposal to the Environment Agency to carry out tests to determine the size distribution of the particulate matter in the exhaust gas emissions to air from emission points A1 and A2, identifying the fractions within the PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0 ranges. The proposal shall include a timetable for approval by the Environment Agency to carry out such tests and produce a report on the results. On receipt of written agreement by the Environment Agency to the proposal and the timetable, the Operator shall carry out the tests and submit to the Environment Agency a report on the results.

Within 6 months of the completion of commissioning.

IC3 The Operator shall carry out an assessment of the impact of emissions to air of Chromium (VI) having regard to the 2009 report of the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards – Guidelines for Metal and Metalloids in Ambient Air for the Protection of Human Health. The assessment shall predict the impact of Chromium (VI) against the guidelines through the use of emissions monitoring data during the first year of operation and air dispersion modelling. A report on the assessment shall be made to the Environment Agency.

Within 12 months of completion of commissioning

IC4

The Operator shall submit a written report to the Environment Agency on the commissioning of the installation. The report shall summarise the environmental performance of the plant as installed against the design parameters set out in the Application. The report shall also include a review of the performance of the facility against the conditions of this permit and details of procedures developed during commissioning for achieving and demonstrating compliance with permit conditions.



Draft For Public

Consultation

Reference Improvement measure Completion date IC5

The Operator shall submit a written report to the Environment Agency describing the performance and optimisation of:

- the Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system and combustion settings to minimise oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions within the emission limit values described in this permit with the minimisation of nitrous oxide emissions. The report shall include an assessment of the level of NOx and N2O emissions that can be achieved under optimum operating conditions.

- Details of acid gas and dioxin emission abatement systems including dosing rates


IC6 The Operator shall carry out checks to verify the residence time, minimum temperature and oxygen content of the exhaust gases in the furnace whilst operating under the anticipated most unfavourable operating conditions. The results shall be submitted in writing to the Environment Agency.



Draft For Public

Consultation

ANNEX 4: Consultation Reponses A) Advertising and Consultation on the Application The Application has been advertised and consulted upon in accordance with the Environment Agency’s Public Participation Statement. The way in which this has been carried out along with the results of our consultation and how we have taken consultation responses into account in reaching our draft decision is summarised in this Annex. Copies of all consultation responses have been placed on the Environment Agency and Local Authority public registers. The Application was advertised on the Environment Agency website from 26 March 2010 to 19 May 2010 and in the Loughborough Echo on 26 March 2010. Copies of the Application were placed in the Environment Agency Public Register at our Trentside Offices, Scarrington Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 5FA and in the Charnwood Borough Council Public Register at Southfield Offices, Southfields Road, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 2TX. The Applicant also placed a copy of the Application at Shepshed Town Council Offices. The following statutory and non-statutory bodies were consulted: -

• Charnwood Borough Council • Food Standards Agency • Health and Safety Executive • Severn Trent Water Limited • Leicestershire County and Rutland Primary Care Trust

Leicestershire County and Rutland Primary Care Trust consulted the Health Protection Authority on the Application in making their response. 1) Consultation Responses from Statutory and Non-Statutory Bodies Response Received from Charnwood Borough Council Directorate of Strategic Housing and Health Environmental Protection Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered A number of concerns regarding the potential for noise, odour, pest infestations, impact on local air quality, likely emissions from the facility, stack height, visual impact, traffic increase etc

Noise – see below Odour – Discussed in section 6.5.4 of this document. We are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be in place to prevent pollution from odour. Pests – see below Air Quality – see below Stack Height – Planning Authority Issue Visual Impact - Planning Authority Issue Traffic Increases - Planning Authority Issue

Draft For Publi

Consultac tion

Trust that any operational and managerial controls will be transparent, clearly auditable and robust

Management is discussed in section 4.3.2 of this document. The Applicant intends to implement an Environmental Management Systems (EMS) that will be certified under ISO14001. A pre-operational condition (PO1) is included requiring the Operator to provide a summary of the EMS prior to commissioning of the plant and to make available for inspection all EMS documentation. The EMS will be audited by the Environment Agency as part of on-going compliance inspections of the Installation.

Recommend that specific comments about this site be sought from the HPA and any recommendations implemented as part of any permit conditions.

The local PCT was consulted and they consulted the HPA. Human Health Risk Assessment is detailed in section 5.3 of this document, specific comments from the PCT are given in the tables below.

Recommend that a health impact assessment be undertaken to evaluate the risk to human health from the proposed facility. I believe that a human health risk assessment may have been included under appendix BATOT13 of the Application; however I have not seen sight of this report and therefore cannot make any comments as to the scope or details of the findings.

A human Health risk assessment was carried out by the Applicant and this is discussed in section 5.3 of this document. A copy of the BATOT 13 document was sent, as requested, to the council, however they did not comment further.

Concerned that some properties are currently marginally compliant with the national air quality objectives for NO2. The additional contribution of nitrogen dioxide from the proposed waste facility is likely to be small, but could possibly cause an exceedence. Recommend that conditions should be included which require the company to devise and implement an air quality monitoring regime to track any changes in local nitrogen dioxide levels

Air Quality is discussed in section 5.2 of this document. The PC for NO2 for long term emissions is predicted to be 1.1% which only just over the 1% threshold of insignificance, and is actually just 1.4% of the current background levels of NO2 in the area. It is important to remember that this prediction is based on a worst case scenario of the plant emitting at the NOx WID limit continuously all the year round. This would not happen in reality. Consequently a breach national air quality objectives for NO2, is not considered to be an issue, and so an air quality monitoring regime has not been required by the



Draft For i

ConsultaPubl c

tion

Permit. Monitoring of emissions of NO2 from the stack will be in accordance with permit condition 3.5.1 and table S3.1.

Conclusions relating to noise from the operational phase are based on the fact that the main processes will take place within the building envelope which will be designed to provide sound reduction. A further noise impact assessment will be necessary if any of the operations are at variance from the assumptions/conditions. Concur with the mitigation measures as detailed in the Application, which should be implemented in full to reduce the potential impact on local receptors.

Noise is discussed in section 6.5.5 of this document. Pre-operating condition PO4 has been set to require a revised noise assessment following the final design of the installation. Condition 3.4.1 requires the Operator to use appropriate mitigation measures.

Fly and rodent control on waste facilities is becoming increasingly well understood and appropriate conditions should therefore be imposed as part of the permit conditions to ensure adequate measures are taken to prevent and to respond to any infestation.

The Operator has demonstrated that they will comply with BAT techniques for waste management as specified in technical guidance note EPR5.01. They have also specifically addressed Pest control in their H1 risk assessment. Control measures they have identified are as follows:

• Air will be drawn from the waste reception hall for the combustion process thus creating an airflow direction into the building minimising the escape of odour which could act to attract pests.

• Waste will not be directly deposited onto the floor of the facility, rather into bunkers within the waste reception hall.

• The site and approach road will be cleaned on a regular basis as required.

• Incoming vehicles carrying waste will be sheeted or otherwise enclosed.

Daily visual inspection of the site by site management will identify any problem with pests and should this become a nuisance at the site, a pest control contractor will be brought in as soon as practicable to alleviate the problem.

Artificial lighting may not be directly covered by the permit conditions but inappropriate use or poorly designed lighting may impact on residential properties beyond the site boundary. Artificial lighting should therefore be designed and operated in such a manner as to comply with the Institute of Lighting Engineers “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light”.

Light impacts, are a consideration of the Planning Authority

Draft For Public

tion Consulta

Response Received from Food Standards Agency emails dated 9/11/10 & 20/12/10 Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered Requested further details in order to make full assessment. In particular a comparison with regulatory limits for dioxins in food.

The questions were asked of the Applicant via a schedule 5 notice dated 1/12/10, and the answers were forwarded onto the FSA for comment.

With regard to the predicted impact on levels in food, none of the calculated values should be a cause for concern. Incremental increases for milk and eggs could be considered as significant since, although they only represent 6-7% of the regulatory limits, typical levels are only about one third of the limit, so the incremental increase would be more like 20% of the existing level. As the calculations are based on a worst case scenario, this should not be a problem and I do not consider it necessary to carry out any testing of food.

The assessment of impacts on food included the intake of milk and eggs. The assessment is very much a worst case scenario, and as the FSA state they do not consider the testing of food to be necessary, we also do not consider it necessary to test the impact of emissions directly on food

Response Received from Severn Trent Water Limited Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered The Applicant does not hold a Trade Effluent Consent/Agreement with Severn Trent Water Limited. We anticipate that the site will store and handle significant amounts of chemicals which if spilled could present a risk to the operation of our works or the provision of drinking water. Any permit which is issued should ensure that there is adequate protection in place.

The permit does not allow discharges to sewer. Storage of chemicals is addressed in sections 4.2.2 & 6.5.3 of this document. We are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to prevent and /or minimise fugitive emissions



Draft For Publi

Consultc

ation

Response Received from Leicestershire County and Rutland Primary Care Trust Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered The air impact assessment has considered metal emissions It is unclear why lead has not been included within this assessment as it is included as a Group 3 metal within the WID. The Environment Agency should ensure that all relevant emissions to air have been assessed by the Applicant and that predicted ground level concentrations are compared against relevant AQSs or EALs.

The air impact assessment is discussed in section 5.2 of this document. Lead impacts have been considered for their long term impacts, but not for their short term impacts. There is no short term EQS for lead to compare against. We consider that all relevant emissions to air have been assessed and the Predicted Ground level Concentrations have been compared against the relevant EQS’s.

The Applicant considers that birds, vermin and insects are unlikely to be a significant source of nuisance. The Environment Agency should ensure that the mitigation measures detailed in the Application are sufficient such that the installation does not pose adverse impacts off-site from noise and/or odour nuisance.



• Waste will not be directly deposited onto the floor of the facility, rather into bunkers within the waste reception hall.

• The site and approach road will be cleaned on a regular basis as required.

• Incoming vehicles carrying waste will be sheeted or otherwise enclosed.

Daily visual inspection of the site by site management will identify any problem with pests and should this become a nuisance at the site, a pest control contractor will be brought in as soon as practicable to alleviate the problem.


Draft For Public

aConsult tion

Since the Accident Management Plan is not contained within the Application, the Environment Agency should ensure that the Applicant has a detailed accident management plan prepared in line with that detailed in the Sector Guidance Note EPR 5.01. Any information arising from these recommendations should be sent to the Primary Care Trust for consideration when it becomes available. Such information could affect the comments made in this response.

This is discussed in section 4.3.4 of this document. The Applicant submitted an Accident Management Plan with the Application, and a revised plan in response to a Schedule 5 request for further information. Having considered the Plan and other information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to ensure that accidents that may cause pollution are prevented but that, if they should occur, their consequences are minimised. The revised plan was sent to the Primary Care Trust for consideration.

Email from Health Protection Agency Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered The Health Protection Agency (HPA) does not hold health statistics on respiratory disease or hospital admissions, therefore we cannot comment on rates of disease around the installation or how they compare to other areas of the County or UK. I have shared the letter from the local GP surgery with the Primary Care Trust (PCT) should the PCT wish to address this in their final consultee response. From the information contained within the Application, it is my view that this site should not lead to a significant worsening of air quality. While it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from modern, well regulated municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potential damage to the health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable.

This email was in response to representations from Forest House GP Surgery regarding the prevalence of asthma and respiratory diseases in the area (see GP representation below).


Draft For Public

Consultation

2) Consultation Responses from Members of the Public and

Community Organisations The consultation responses received were wide ranging and a number of the issues raised were outside the Environment Agency’s remit in reaching its permitting decisions. Specifically questions were raised which fall within the jurisdiction of the planning system, both on the development of planning policy and the grant of planning permission. Guidance on the interaction between planning and pollution control is given in PPS23. It says that the planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary. We are only able to take into account those issues, which fall within the scope of the Environmental Permitting Regulations. The way in which we have done that is set out in section 3 below. a) Representations from Local MP, MEP, Councillors and Parish / Town

Councils Representations were received from Emma McClarkin (MEP), who raised the following issues. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered What general guidelines exist and which considerations are taken before giving approval to incinerator plants in the UK. The information would help me understand why this particular site in Leicestershire has been chosen.

We do not decide if, where or how many facilities are built, this is the role of Leicestershire County Council. We will not issue an Environmental Permit if we consider it will not use Best Available Techniques to prevent or minimise pollution. Nor will we issue a Permit if we consider it will cause significant pollution or harm to human health.

Representations were received from Nicky Morgan (MP), who raised the following issues. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered Should they grant Biffa a permit, can the EA ensure that Incoming waste is sorted thoroughly before it is put into the incinerator

The site will accept residual municipal waste (i.e. post sorting by households) and commercial and industrial wastes which will have been sorted before coming to site. Waste acceptance procedures and procedures for dealing with non conforming waste will be in place. Vehicles will tip into a waste storage pit


Draft For

taPubli

Consulc tion

from where a grab crane transfers waste to the combustion plant feed hopper. The grab will also be used to mix wastes and identify and remove unsuitable or non-combustible items. Oversized waste will be shredded before adding to the waste bunker.

Should they grant Biffa a permit, can the EA ensure that Conditions are imposed to prevent the incineration of recyclable materials and biodegradable waste such as food waste (which can be processed using AD).

The Permit (via conditions 2.3.3 and 2.3.1 along with the responses to the schedule 5 notice dated 19/10/10 in table S1.2) does not allow separately collected materials for recycling or separately collected biodegradable wastes to be burnt unless they are contaminated and destined for landfill

Should they grant Biffa a permit, can the EA ensure that the contents of the waste feedstock are controlled to prove that hazardous materials such as metals, batteries and PVC plastics have been removed as these will make the ash residues even more toxic and cause emissions of heavy metals and dioxins.

Condition 2.3.3 and table S2.2 of the Permit does not allow hazardous waste to be burnt, and waste will only be accepted if it conforms to the description in the documentation supplied by the producer. Emissions from the plant will be controlled to ensure they do not breach the emission limits set by table S3.1 the Permit.

Should they grant Biffa a permit, can the EA ensure that there is regular ash analysis, regular pollution testing and accurate records kept of these.

Monitoring is discussed in detail in section 6.7 of this document Condition 3.5.1 and table S3.4 of the Permit require monthly analysis of the bottom ash in first year of operation then quarterly thereafter. Condition 3.5.1 and table S3.1 of the Permit requires monitoring of pollutants.

What powers does the EA have over the materials to be incinerated.

Condition 2.3.3 and table S2.2 of the Permit specifies what waste types can be burnt, and that waste will only be accepted if it conforms to the description in the documentation supplied by the producer.

What is the relationship between the EA and the HPA - is the health advice which the HPA provides to the EA made public?

We consulted Leicestershire County and Rutland PCT, who have taken advice from the HPA, in line with our ‘Working together relationship agreement” which identifies how we will work together effectively. All


Draft Fi

Consulta

or Publ c

tion

PCT/HPA advice is placed on our public register, and a summary of issues raised are in section 5.3 and Annex 4 this document.

Does the EA look at the Applicant’s track record in managing similar facilities nationally/internationally (as appropriate) and any breaches of relevant regulations that might have occurred.

The Operator’s competence to operate the Installation is discussed in detail in section 4.3.2 of this document. The Operator does have previous relevant convictions. Post conviction plans have been submitted by the Operator for these convictions and these have been assessed as satisfactory. We are satisfied that the appropriate management systems are in place along with sufficient financial, technical and personnel resources to ensure compliance with all the permit conditions

Does the EA take into account either at this stage or a later stage in relation to a specific permit any changes which are made to the legislative framework such as the Waste Incineration Directive?.

Yes, there are two main reasons why permits would be reviewed:

• A full review of permit conditions to ensure they are fit for purpose to meet statutory requirements for periodic review. This could be triggered either by a planned sector review programme or for site specific reasons.

• A partial review of specific conditions triggered, for example as a result of compliance problems, results of appeals or standards have changed.

However, changes to legislation may also trigger a permit review

When considering the permit does the EA take into account the proposed site and any relevant considerations specifically related to it eg. topography, prevailing winds, agriculture, meteorology etc.

The dispersion model used by the Applicant, and ourselves for auditing their results, used 5 years of meteorological data. The impact of the terrain surrounding the site upon plume dispersion was considered in the dispersion modelling using terrain data, which was applied to the entire modelling area. Local agriculture is not specifically considered, however the Health impact assessment does assumes worst case scenarios for the ingestion of food and milk


Draft For Publ

Consultaic tion

from the local area, and the FSA have been consulted on the impacts to locally grown/raised food.

Is visual impact considered at all – or is this a matter for the local planning authority?

This is a matter solely for the Planning Authority

Representations were received from County Councillor Max Hunt, who raised the following issues. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered Non-compliance with the County Council’s Waste Development Framework (WDF), and Charnwood’s planning policies which requires:

1. Pre-sorting of waste 2. Energy recovery is maximised 3. Value recovery from IBA maximised 4. In accord with WDF policies

These are matters primarily for the local authority.

1. Pre-sorting of waste will occur at the kerbside for MSW and prior to arrival on site for C&I waste. The Permit (via responses to schedule 5 notice dated 19/10/10 in table S1.2) does not allow separately collected recyclables to be burnt unless they are contaminated .

2. Energy recovery is discussed in section 4.3.7 of this document

3. IBA is discussed in section 4.3.9 of this document

4. We note that planning permission has been refused by the council. The decision is based on planning matters rather than waste strategy or pollution control issues. This is discussed in section 7.1.2 of this document.

Emissions and associated risks to health. A human Health risk assessment was

carried out by the Applicant and this is in detail in section 5.3 of this document. We consider that the installation will not cause significant harm to human health

Planning issues raised: 1. Damage to economic and

educational reputation of Loughborough

2. Landscaping

These are planning issues and are outside the Environment Agency’s remit in reaching its permitting decisions


Draft FPubli

or c

Consultation

3. Visual impacts 4. Traffic problems 5. No Municipal Waste from outside of

Leicestershire

Are adequate measures in place to minimise the risk of pollution from leachates from the plant

Yes, water discharges are discussed in detail in section 5.6 of this document, fugitive emission risks are discussed in section 6.5.3 of this document. There will be no process water discharge from the site, except occasional tankering off of waste water. Surface water discharges will be clean and uncontaminated.

Design of plant is well behind leading industrial standards.

Plant design and Best Available Techniques are discussed in section 6 of this document The plant design is a moving grate incinerator, which is designed to handle large volumes of waste. Its design has been assessed to be BAT.

Not designed to extract the most energy from waste

Energy efficiency is discussed in detail in section 4.3.7 of this document. Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to ensure that energy is used efficiently within the Installation. As well as maximising the primary use of heat to generate electricity, waste heat should be recovered as far as practicable, i.e. by identifying and utilising opportunities for Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and district heating. The location of the Installation largely determines whether waste heat can be utilised, and this is a matter for the planning authority. The Applicant carried out a feasibility study (Heat Plan), which showed there was potential to provide district heating to local businesses; and opportunities are being explored.


Draft FPubli

or c

Consultation

It discourages recycling and re-use. It lies at the lowest end of the waste hierarchy

Incinerator capacity and its effect on waste recovery and recycling activities is discussed in section 3 below

Use of ammonia to combine with emissions is particularly unfortunate.

25% aqueous ammonia is one of the BAT options for reducing the emissions of oxides of nitrogen. The process will be optimised to minimise ammonia “slip”. The impacts of ammonia have been assessed as not being significant in section 5 of this document.

What does the Applicant plan to do with its solid residues

This is discussed in detail in section 4.3.9 of this document. Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that waste production will be avoided as far as possible, and where waste is produced it will be recovered unless technically and economically impossible

Is a stack necessary? Can all emissions be treated on site?

The stack is designed to be high enough to allow for the adequate dispersion of airborne emissions, such that they will not cause significant pollution. Section 6.2 of this document discusses in detail the treatment of emissions. Emissions will be minimised by the Application of BAT, such as:

• fabric filters for particulate emissions,

• carbon injection for dioxin and mercury control

• ammonia injection for NOx control • lime injection for acid gas control

as well a primary measures such as temperature and residence time controls.

Unplanned emissions will be released at some point

Condition 2.3.6 of the Permit requires that the charging of waste will cease with the breach any continuous emission limit value given in table S3.1(a) is exceeded; or any continuous emission limit value in table S3.1 is exceeded, other than under WID abnormal operating conditions.


Draft For Publi

Consulta

c tion

An assessment of the impact of abnormal operations has been made in section 5.5 of this document. No abnormal emissions have been assessed as having the potential for giving rise to significant pollution Potential emissions due to accidents have also been addressed in the Application. We are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to ensure that accidents that may cause pollution are prevented but that, if they should occur, their consequences are minimised.

Several European doctors associations have raised concerns re particle emissions and absence of specific fine and ultra fine particle monitoring or in-depth studies into these emissions

This is discussed in detail in section 5.3.5 of this document. The particulate monitoring required by the Permit, will effectively capture everything above 0.3 microns and much of what is smaller. It is not expected that even smaller particles will contribute significantly to the mass release rate / concentration of particulates because of their very small mass, even if present. PM10 emissions have been assessed to be insignificant from this Installation. PM10 emissions will include and exceed PM2.5 which in turn include and exceed PM0.1 emissions.

Concerns regarding release of dioxins at start up and shut down

Section 6.2.5 discusses the techniques used to prevent and minimise dioxins emissions in detail. Waste will not be charged until the completion of start up – i.e heating the furnace up to the required temperatures using gas oil, and ensuring all flue gas treatment plant is up and running. Waste will cease to be charged at shut down and the temperature on the grate and all the flue gas treatment plant will remain operational until all of the waste on the grate has been incinerated. This will minimise the emissions of dioxins


Draft FPubli

Consulta

or c tion

at start up and shut down The impact assessment assumptions are based on the plant continuously emitting dioxins at the emission limit which is considered a worst case.

Environment Agency to address how fine particles and dioxins can be monitored and the plant must include filters to remove all airborne particulate pollutants.

The particulate monitoring required by the permit, will effectively captures everything above 0.3 microns and much of what is smaller. It is not expected that even smaller particles will contribute significantly to the mass release rate / concentration of particulates because of their very small mass, even if present. Filters will be used to reduce the emissions of Particles. The measures are BAT and WID standards will be met. PM10 emissions have been assessed to be insignificant from this Installation. Dioxins will be monitored in accordance to the frequency and standards given in table S3.1 of the Permit

The exhaust gases must be scrubbed to remove dioxins, NOx, SO2, and other gaseous pollutants.

Section 6.2 of this document discusses the treatment of emissions in detail. Emissions will be minimised by the Application of BAT, such as:

• fabric filters for particulate emissions,

• carbon injection for dioxin and mercury control

• ammonia injection for NOx control • lime injection for acid gas control

as well a primary measures such as temperature and residence time controls.

The data from 24/7 monitoring should be published daily on the internet, together with mitigating and corrective actions applied with financial penalties for breaches of environmental standards

The Operator is required in Permit condition 4.2.3 to report monitoring results at the frequency specified in table 4.1. Any breach of emission limits must be reported by the Operator without delay as required by condition 4.3.1 of the Permit. Schedule 5 gives details of what information must be in the notification and


Draft FPubli

a

or c

Consult tion

this includes corrective actions taken by the Operator. Breaches will be investigated robustly by the Environment Agency. The reporting returns and notification forms will be placed on the public registers for any member of the public to view. As will any details of enforcement action or prosecution taken by the Environment Agency.

Representations were received from Councillor Roy Cambell, who raised the following issues. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered Air quality will be badly affected Air quality is discussed in detail in section

5.2 of this document. We have assessed the impacts of the emissions and concluded that they will not give rise to significant pollution.

NOx and particulate emissions will result in serious health problems

Health impacts are discussed in detail in section 5.3. We consider that the installation will not cause significant harm to human health

Health problems due to increase in traffic to and from the plant.

Traffic movements are a planning issue and is outside the Environment Agency’s remit in reaching its permitting decisions

Representations were received from Normanton on Soar Parish Council, who raised the following issues. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered Concerns about the risk of birth defects and other health problems. It is felt that not even the slightest risk is worth taking

Health impacts are discussed in detail in section 5.3 of this document. We consider that the installation will not cause significant harm to human health. The HPA’s position statement on incinerators states that “While it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from


Draft FPubli

Consultation

or c

modern, well regulated municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potential damage to the health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable. This view is based on detailed assessments of the effects of air pollutants on health and on the fact that modern and well managed municipal waste incinerators make only a very small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants

Representations were received from Woodhouse Parish Council, who raised the following issues. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered Accumulated toxic fallout would affect the parish area

Air quality is discussed in detail in section 5.2 of this document. We have assessed the impacts of the emissions and concluded that they will not give rise to significant pollution.

Topography would capture fallout carried by wind as well as what leaches into water courses. Swithland spring water relies on uncontaminated water. Local farms produce milk.

The human health risk assessment, discussed in detail in section 5.3 of this document, includes an assessment of the ingestion of dioxins, furans and some metals which includes the drinking of local water, and milk. We have concluded that the impact from proposed emissions is unlikely to exceed air quality or human health assessment criteria. Topography is taken into account in the dispersion model used as part of these assessments. Water discharges are discussed in detail in section 5.6 of this document, fugitive emission risks are discussed in section 6.5.3 of this document. There will be no process water discharge from the site, except occasional tankering off of waste water. Surface water discharges will be clean and


Draft For Publ

Ci

onsultac tion

uncontaminated. The FSA was consulted on the Application and they concluded that impacts should not be a cause for concern.

Woodhouse eaves is within National forest area, both villages in Charnwood forest. Settlements surrounded by areas of outstanding natural beauty, attractive country side and SSSI’s

The impacts on Habitat sites, SSSI’s and non statutory conservation sites etc is discussed in section 5.4 of this document. We do not consider that the installation will affect these sites.

Both villages have conservation areas and Area widely promoted to business and tourism. Local plans try to protect future prosperity design statements

The location of the installation is a relevant consideration for Environmental Permitting, but only in so far as its potential to have an adverse environmental impact on communities or sensitive environmental receptors. Visual impacts are a matter for the planning authority.

There have been several escapes of toxic materials from Biffa sites, which fail to inspire confidence in company’s ability to guarantee safety.

We have assessed the Operator’s competence in section 4.3.2 of this document. Including reviewing previous relevant convictions. We are satisfied that appropriate management systems and management structures will be in place for this Installation, and that sufficient financial, technical and personnel resources are available to the Operator to ensure compliance with all the Permit conditions.

Do not accept the health and safety risks The human health risk assessment, is discussed in detail in section 5.3 of this document. We have concluded that the impact from proposed emissions is unlikely to exceed air quality or human health assessment criteria


Draft Fi

Consulta

or Publ c

tion

Representations were received from Shepshed Town Council, who raised the following issues. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered The Application for an incinerator at Newhurst was refused by the Leicester County Council Development Control and Regulatory Board, largely on environmental grounds. What difference will this make to EA procedures.

The grant or refusal of development consent is a matter for the relevant local planning authority. We do take into consideration any relevant information obtained or conclusions arrived at by the local planning authorities. This is discussed in section 7.1.1 of this document. From our consideration of the relevant information, the Environment Agency considers that no additional or different conditions are necessary.

The town council is surprised that visual impact is not grounds for refusal, would you please advise what issues would be considered grounds for refusal.

An Application for an Environmental Permit is determined on the impacts of any pollution emitted from the proposed facility and whether the Applicant has applied the Best Available Techniques in order to prevent or minimise these emissions. Whether this facility is needed in the area or whether the facility is visually acceptable is purely a consideration for the planning authority.

We would refuse an Application if it wasn’t able to demonstrate to us that it utilised BAT or if they where unable to demonstrate that the facility would meet acceptable emissions limits to protect the surrounding environment and human health.


Draft F

Consultation

or c Publi

b) Representations from Community and Other Organisations Representations were received from Forest House GP Surgery, who raised the following issues. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered We represent 12,000 patients in Shepshed. There is a huge problem with air pollution already, causing considerable problems with respiratory diseases in Shepshed. We oppose the siting of the incinerator as feel it will cause further deterioration in air quality, increase our workload and most importantly increase our patients ill health. Table provided showing prevalence of respiratory diseases etc in the local area. There is huge number of nursing and residential homes within Shepshed.

The impact on air quality and the risks to human health are discussed in detail in section 5.2 and 5.3 of this document respectively. We consider that the facility will not have any significant impact on air quality or human health . The Health Protection Agency and Leicestershire County and Rutland Primary Care Trust were consulted with the environmental permit Application submitted for the proposed facility and concluded that they had no significant concerns regarding the risk to the health of the local population from the installation.

Representations were received from the Leicestershire Branch, of The Campaign to Protect Rural England, who raised the following issues. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered Copy of a letter sent to planning authority, many of the issues raised are the responsibility of the planning authority. Those that are relevant to the Environment Agency are summarised below

-

Incineration is not the only alternative to landfill. Other methods such as anaerobic digestion allow organic material to be returned to the soil. Autoclaving compares favourably to incineration

The Use of Alternate Technologies is discussed below in section 3 of this Annex of the decision document. The Permit (via condition 2.3.1 and responses to the schedule 5 notice dated 19/10/10 in table S1.2) does not allow separately collected biodegradable wastes to be burnt unless anaerobic digestion, composting etc is not practicable


Draft Fi

nsulta

or Publ

Coc tion

The term energy recovery facility is used as a euphemism for incineration plants, it must be remembered that a percentage of waste feedstock is made from sources that are not carbon neutral.

The Applicant has described the facility as an Energy Recovery Facility. However our view is that for the purposes of WID and EPR, the installation is an incinerator. Global warming potential is discussed in detail in section 6.3 of this document.

Danger that mass burn incineration will buck the success in the county’s recycling trend, and waste from outside of the authority will be imported.

Only residual or contaminated waste will be burnt. “Incinerator Capacity and its effect on Waste Recovery and Recycling Activities” are discussed below in section 3 of this Annex of the decision document

Fallout of plume will pose a threat to air quality

Air quality is discussed in detail in section 5.2 of this document. We have assessed the impacts of the emissions and concluded that they will not give rise to significant pollution.

The Applicant gives meteorological evidence based on East Midlands Airport in support. More accurate (being closer to the site) data is available form Cambell Scientific of Shepshed.

Cambell scientific supply equipment for monitoring meteorological conditions, but do not sell meteorological data. A 9km separation between a meteorological site and dispersion site is reasonably close for modelling purposes. Thus the Applicant's use of East Midlands airport met site data is appropriate.

Incineration presents an unacceptable risk to health. The health impacts of particulate emissions, and in particular nano-particles were raised. Numerous reports and their findings cited to demonstrate that nano particles will cause harm to human health. Waste incineration presents a very real threat to human health and therefore very likely presents an infringement of Article 2 of the 1998 Human Rights Act and the European Convention

The assessment of PM10 and PM2.5 particulate emissions is discussed in detail in secton 5.2.3 of this document. The health impacts of nano particles are discussed in section 5.3.5. Questions are often raised about the effect of nano-particles on human health and in particular on children’s health because of their high surface to volume ratio, making them more reactive and their very small size and the potential to penetrate cell walls of living organisms. The small size also means there will be a larger number of small particles for a given mass concentration. However the HPA says that due to the small effects of incinerators on local concentration of particles, it is highly unlikely that there will be detectable effects of any particular incinerator on local infant


Draft For c Publi

Consultation

mortality. The impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions have been assessed to be insignificant for this Application. We do not consider that the Human Rights Act is engaged see section 7.2.2

Representations were received from National Farmers Union, who raised the following issues. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has

been covered Apparently there will be no filters added to remove dioxins from being emitted from the chimney. Farmers & food producers in area are concerned about dioxin contamination of crops, grass and produce. This would make produce unmarketable and severely effect livelihoods and businesses

The prevention and minimisation of emissions of dioxins and furans is discussed in detail in section 6.2.5 of this document. As well as primary measures, activated carbon injection will be used to minimise emissions. The Applicant carried out a Human health risk assessment , which takes into account the contamination of locally grown food and milk, and concluded that the effects will not pose a significant carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk to human health. A more detailed discussion on this can be found in section 5.3 of this document. The FSA was consulted on the Application and they concluded that impacts should not be a cause for concern.


Draft For Publi

Consultationc

c) Representations from Individual Members of the Public A total of 544 responses were received from individual members of the public.

Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has been covered

1 Local roads are already congested at peak times and the extra traffic movement to and from the incinerator will significantly worsen the situation and cause pollution. If energy is to be produced from waste, it should not be transported around the country. There has been no consideration of energy consumption per tonnes of waste delivered

Transport is a matter which is outside of the Environment Agency’s remit, and is a matter for the planning authority

2 The visual impact of the building and stack will be detrimental to the area. The plume of smoke will be seen from all our beauty spots

The visual impact of the buildings and stack are outside of the Environment Agency’s remit, and is a matter for the planning authority. The plant will need to meet the tight limits for emissions of dust, CO and TOC and there should be no visible smoke. This is confirmed by experience of similar plants in the country The only visible emissions under some weather conditions will be water vapour, and this is not considered a significant impact.

3 Emissions from the flue stacks would accelerate erosion of the 12 listed buildings on Garendon Park.

The impacts of air emissions are discussed in section 5.3 of this document. Whilst the erosion is not specifically addressed, we have concluded that the emissions will not cause significant pollution. In particular emissions of the following acid gases: SO2, HCl, and HF have been found to be insignificant. The process contribution for NO2 for long term emissions is predicted to be 1.1% which only just over the 1% threshold of insignificance, and is actually just 1.4% of the current background levels of NO2 in the area. Given that the emissions will not cause significant pollution, it is considered that they will not cause any significant increase in erosion of the listed buildings


Draft For c Publi

Consultation

4 If the proposal goes ahead, the opportunity for regeneration of Newhurst Quarry would be lost. This will also have an impact on the regeneration of Shepshed and local area.

Regeneration of an area is a matter which is outside of the Environment Agency’s remit, and is a matter for the planning authority

5 The proposal would result in significant harm to the environment and health as a result of toxic emissions from the plant. Local air quality is already poor and current levels of pollution may already be causing serious effects upon health. The incinerator will be close to the second most densely populated area in Leicestershire. There is a prevalence of asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder, and other respiratory diseases etc in the local area. Incinerator emissions cause hormone imbalances which can provoke respiratory problems and higher probability of cancer.

The impact on air quality and the risks to human health are discussed in detail in section 5.2 and 5.3 of this document respectively. We consider that the facility will not have any significant impact on air quality or human health. The Health Protection Agency and Leicestershire County and Rutland Primary Care Trust were consulted on the environmental permit Application submitted for the proposed facility and concluded that they had no significant concerns regarding the risk to the health of the local population from the installation.

6 It is acknowledged that it is not possible to filter out all the nitrogen oxides, dioxins and particulate matter from the emissions which result in serious health problems. Many of these will not be monitored or measured.

BAT and emissions control are discussed in detail in section 6.2 of this document. We consider that the facility will not have a significant impact on human health. Health impacts are discussed above. Emission monitoring and emission limits are required by conditions 3.5.1 & 3.1.2 and tables S3.1 of the Permit, for nitrogen oxides, dioxins and particulate matter


Draft FPubli

or c

The Health Protection Agency and Leicestershire County and Rutland Primary Care Trust were consulted with the environmental permit Application submitted for the proposed facility and concluded that they had no significant concerns regarding the risk to the health of the local population from the installation.

Consultation

7 Charnwood Borough Council Air Quality Assessments show levels of PM10, SO2 and NO2 exceeding EU limits. Shepshed and Loughborough already have the highest rate of asthma and other respiratory diseases in the county. Incinerator emissions and the associated HGV emissions will compound these levels.

The impact of emissions, from the installation, on air quality and the risks to human health are discussed in detail in section 5.2 and 5.3 of this document respectively. Offsite emissions from road transport is a matter which is outside of the Environment Agency’s remit, and is a matter for the planning authority We consider that the facility will not have any significant impact on air quality or human health, nor will it cause the breach of any EU air quality standards.

8 Since the incinerator will operate for

years, accumulation of dioxins and toxic particulates in the area will be significant

The accumulation of dioxins and toxic particulates is discussed in detail in the Human Health risk assessment section, 5.3, of this document. Based upon an individual exposed for a life-time to the effects of the highest predicted airborne concentrations and consuming mostly locally grown food), it is concluded that the operation of the proposed facility will not pose a significant carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk to human health.


Draft FPubli

ltation

or

Particulate emissions are required to be continuously monitored by the Permit. Particulate monitoring data effectively captures everything above 0.3 microns and much of what is smaller. It is not expected that even smaller particles will contribute significantly to the mass release rate / concentration of particulates because of their very small mass, even if present. This means that emissions monitoring data can be relied upon to measure the true mass emission rate of particulates.

c The impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions have been assessed to be insignificant for this Application.

Consu

9 Smaller particulates which do the most harm are not filtered, monitored or measured. Anything other than the continuous monitoring, and strict control of the size and numbers of fine particulates, would be a failure to protect the environment and health.

The assessment of PM10 and PM2.5 particulate emissions is discussed in detail in section 5.2.3 of this document. The health impacts of nano particles are discussed in section 5.3.5.

10 Emissions from the incinerator will

damage the local forests, wildlife, vegetation, soil and agriculture.

The impact on air quality is discussed in detail in section 5.2 of this document. We consider that the facility will not cause significant pollution. The Applicant carried out a Human health risk assessment, which takes into account the contamination of locally grown food and milk, and concluded that the effects will not pose a significant carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk to human health. A more detailed discussion on this can be found in section 5.3 of this document. The impacts on local Habitats sites are discussed, in detail, in section 5.4 of this document. We consider that the facility will not cause harm to local habitat sites.


Draft For Publi

Consultac tion

11 Incinerators emit more CO2 per megawatt-hour than power stations. Legislation requires that new fossil fuel power stations include carbon capture. Carbon capture is not required by legislation for incinerators, but by declining to incorporate the technology, the incinerator will exacerbate global warming. The LFIA should include potential to retrofit carbon capture technology in the future. ATT is more suitable for carbon capture.

This is a waste incinerator and it is not appropriate to compare it to a dedicated power station Global Warming is discussed in detail in section 6.3. The net carbon emissions from this facility in the national and global context are very small. Carbon capture is not considered BAT for Incinerators.

12 Waste heat must be used as effectively as possible. The Application is vague on this requirement, contains no confirmed off take for the waste heat. It is an expectation of WID that proposals shall include district heating. The Applicant should be required as a condition of the permit to submit firm plans, to consult and to provide commitment to implement district heating.

This is discussed in section 4.3.7 of this document. The location of the Installation largely determines whether waste heat can be utilised, and this is a matter for the planning authority. The Applicant carried out a feasibility study (Heat Plan), which showed there was potential to provide district heating to local businesses; and opportunities are being explored. Pre-operating condition PO2 requires a review of the options available for utilising the waste heat generated.

13 The proposed facility will displace more recent technologies for waste disposal. These will not hamper recycling efforts. E.g. Aerobic and anaerobic digestion Anaerobic Digestion produces energy without generating toxic products and energy produced from biogas is renewable energy.

The Use of Alternate Technologies is discussed below in section 3 of this Annex of the decision document. Anaerobic Digestion is not suitable for all waste types and would still leave residual waste that would need to be dealt with. The Permit (via condition 2.3.1 and responses to the schedule 5 notice dated 19/10/10 in table S1.2) does not allow separately collected biodegradable wastes to be burnt unless anaerobic digestion, composting etc is not practicable.


Draft For Public

Consultation

14 For the size of the building, there will be very few jobs created. Its presence is likely to deter any future developments.

The location of the installation is a relevant consideration for Environmental Permitting, but only in so far as its potential to have an adverse environmental impact on communities or sensitive environmental receptors. The size of the building and the jobs created is not part of the remit of the Environment Agency and is a matter for the planning authority.

15 Millions of pounds of taxpayers money would be spent on this incinerator. Available funds should be spent to reduce packaging used, deal separately with food waste using anaerobic digestion and to in increase recycling facilities.

These decisions are not part of the Environment Agencies remit.

16 There is no need for an incinerator; we do not have enough waste to keep the plant burning. This is confirmed by proposals to bring in waste from other counties.

Waste planning is primarily the responsibility of the Waste Disposal Authority and the Local Authority. In determining this Application we have had regard to the Government’s Waste Strategy, we have also considered Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10). We have also had regard to the waste policies of the Local Authority. We note that the Application has been refused planning permission by the Local Planning Authority. However, the reasons given by the Local Planning Authority relate to visual impact, landscape, character of the area, etc rather than any aspect of waste strategy

17 The incinerator will lower property prices.

The location of the installation is a relevant consideration for Environmental Permitting, but only in so far as its potential to have an adverse environmental impact on communities or sensitive environmental receptors. The effect on property prices is not part of our remit.


Draft FPubl

Consulta

or • Waste will not be directly deposited

onto the floor of the facility, rather into bunkers within the waste reception hall.

ic • The site and approach road will be

cleaned on a regular basis as required.

tion• Incoming vehicles carrying waste

will be sheeted or otherwise enclosed.

18 The site will attract vermin and flies. These will effect the local population who come into contact with the vermin or waste they escape with. The facility could attract scavenging and other bird populations, which will increase noise levels and droppings



• Daily visual inspection of the site by site management will identify any problem with pests and should this become a nuisance at the site, a pest control contractor will be brought in as soon as practicable to alleviate the problem.

19 I support the proposal provided all the appropriate environmental safeguards are not only imposed, but monitored and enforced.

The Permit sets the conditions under which the Installation will have to operate in order to protect the environment. Monitoring is required by the permit and these returns will be assessed by Environment Agency compliance officers. The compliance officers will also carry out site inspections and audits to ensure the Installation is run in accordance with the Permit requirements.

20 Concerns about the location of the Installation

The location of the installation is a relevant consideration for Environmental Permitting, but only in so far as its potential to have an adverse environmental impact on communities or sensitive environmental receptors.


Draft For Public

tion Consulta

21 Impact of dioxin and heavy metal emissions on local organic farms and milk production. Contamination of agricultural land, allotments and water with dioxins and heavy metals. Which could enter the food chain. Concerns regarding impact on breastfeeding mothers

The human health risk assessment, discussed in detail in section 5.3 of this document, includes an assessment of the ingestion of dioxins and metals, which includes the consumption of produce, and milk. The human health risk assessment also considered the impacts on infants. We have concluded that the impact from proposed emissions is unlikely to exceed air quality or human health assessment criteria. The FSA was consulted on the Application and they concluded that impacts should not be a cause for concern

22 A better plan would be focus on alternatives such as reduction, re-use and introduce a recycling plan. The incinerator will hinder increased recycling rates. Any residual waste should be treated by plasma gasification technology, which breaks down plastic the waste into their original starting material and synthesis gas which can be used to produce useful materials.

The effect on waste recovery and recycling activities is discussed in section 3 below. Plasma arc gasification is discussed in section 3 below.

23 No safeguards are ever 100% guaranteed.

Condition 2.3.6 of the Permit requires that the charging of waste will cease with the breach of any continuous emission limit value given in table S3.1(a) is exceeded; or any continuous emission limit value in table S3.1 is exceeded, other than under WID abnormal operating conditions. An assessment of the impact of abnormal operations has been made in section 5.5 of this document. No abnormal emissions have been assessed as having the potential for giving rise to significant pollution. Potential accident scenarios have also been addressed in the Application. We are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to ensure that accidents that may cause pollution are prevented but that, if they should occur, their consequences are minimised.


Draft For

ConsultaPublic

tion

24 Concerns raised regarding consulting local community, including insufficient notices and documents only being technical in nature.

We carried out consultation on the Application in accordance with the EPR, our statutory PPS and our own RGS Note 6 for Determinations involving Sites of High Public Interest. The consultation process is explained in more detail in section 2 of this document The Application does provide a Non Technical Summary.

25 Your Agency is considering recommending a similar site in Nottingham becomes a nature reserve. Consider recommending this site becomes a nature reserve.

The designation of Nature reserves is not with the Environment Agency’s remit. We have received an Application for an Environmental Permit and must determine whether a Permit can be issued.

26 Concerns about the ability and competence of Biffa to comply with an Environmental Permit, as they have had several relevant convictions in the past.

We have assessed the Operator’s competence in section 4.3.2 of this document. Including reviewing previous relevant convictions. We are satisfied that appropriate management systems and management structures will be in place for this Installation, and that sufficient financial, technical and personnel resources are available to the Operator to ensure compliance with all the Permit conditions.

27 During days of high pressure and rain those living near the stack will have dioxins and particulates pouring down on them.

Air quality is discussed in detail in section 5.2 of this document. A range of Meteorological conditions were modelled, including those that give the worst short term impacts. We have assessed the impacts of the emissions and concluded that they will not give rise to significant pollution.


Draft FPubli

Consulta

or c tion

The impacts of noise are discussed in section 6.5.5 of this document. The Applications ecological assessment of noise impacts concludes that “The operation of the ERF at the Application site has been assessed to produce noise levels which are below that of the current level of background noise at the site. Although the ERF would operate for 24 hours a day and therefore produce noise during the hours of darkness, the level of noise created is considered unlikely to impact upon any features of ecological value within and around the site. As such, no impact as a result of the noise created by the ERF is predicted. “

28 Peregrine Falcons nest in quarry face and there is a rookery on site, what will happen to the birds?

The Environment Agency has no records of a rookery at the Newhurst site. There is some evidence that Peregrine Falcons may be nesting in or near to the Quarry and the Application’s ecological assessment states that “These habitats are suitable for, and are likely to support, nesting birds. With specific reference to the quarry void and surrounding woodland, peregrine falcon has been recorded repeatedly in this area and it is considered that this species is nesting in the quarry void ledges or surrounding woodland “ The impact on air quality is discussed in detail in section 5.2 of this document.

We consider that the facility will not have any significant impact on air quality or noise, or on Falcons or Rooks. The noise assessment does not assess the quarry face as a location of a sensitive receptor, and so for completeness pre-operating condition PO4 requires the assessment of noise impacts on potential nesting sites within the quarry.


Draft FPubli

onsultation

or c

The Applicant recognises that the management of waste coming into the site will be essential to provide for efficient operation of the combustion plant. Having assessed the Application, we are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be in place to ensure a well mixed waste of the required CV will be burnt.

C

29 How will the incinerator cope when recycling reduces the amount of combustible materials.

The Operator has specified the waste types and typical Calorific Value, CV that will be burnt at the installation. They have also confirmed that they can operate the plant across a wide CV range of 7.5 to 12.5 MJ/kg Some recyclable material will be of higher CV, however some recyclables such as green or wet wastes will have lower CVs. So the CV of incoming waste is not expected to vary significantly with increasing recycling rates

30 Incineration is a costly way to get rid

of waste, and only has a 25% efficiency

Energy efficiency is discussed in section 4.3.7 of this document. The use of alternate technologies is discussed in section 3 below. We consider that, the Installation will recover heat as far as practicable.

31 Rainbow hospice is nearby to the installation

The human health risk assessment, is discussed in detail in section 5.3 of this document. We have concluded that the impact from proposed emissions is unlikely to exceed air quality or human health assessment criteria.


Draft For Public

Consultation

32 There is uncertainty about the flue gas temperature and reaction time to reduce pollutants to given levels.

Emission limits have been set in the Permit in table S3.1, and the Operator will have to monitor emissions to ensure these limits are not breached. The Operator has confirmed in the Application that the flue gases will be maintained above 850oc for a minimum of 2 seconds in compliance with the WID. Improvement Condition IC4 requires a report which shall summarise the environmental performance of the plant as installed against the design parameters set out in the Application

33 The plant cannot guarantee to maintain the required temperature and time under all circumstances, especially during start up.

Permit condition 3.5.1 and table S3.3, requires the continuous monitoring of the combustion temperature in each furnace. Permit condition 2.3.6 requires that waste shall not be charged, or shall cease to be charged, if the combustion chamber temperature is below, or falls below, 850o.

34 Regular monitoring and routine

maintenance are essential to the correct operation of the installation.

Permit condition 3.5.1 and tables S3.1, S3.1(a), and S3.2 require the monitoring of point source emissions. Process monitoring specified is in table S3.3; and residue quality in table S3.4. The Application states that the Operator will carry out a programme of Planned Preventative Maintenance. This is a permit requirement via conditions 1.1.1 and condition 2.31 and table S1.2


Draft For Publisulta

c The Applicant has applied for no derogations, other than to use the 150mg/m3 WID limit for particulates when the bag filters fail

Con tion

35 The incinerator is an older design, there should be performance data which should be made available to the local population. Data should also be provided on emissions during abnormal operation and commissioning. Data provision is particularly relevant if the Applicant has applied for any derogations

The Application provides details of the proposed emission limits and operating conditions, which is all that is required for determining the Application. We have assessed the impact at these emission limits and concluded that even at these “worst case” levels the installation will not cause significant pollution. Abnormal operations have been addressed by the Operator and are discussed in detail in section 5.5. The emission limits and conditions set in the permit still apply during commissioning and so the impact assessment provided for the facility is valid for the commissioning period.

36 GLW feeds facility nearby has not

been monitored closely. When pollution occurs from the incinerator, no on will be available from the Agency to do anything about it.

GLW feeds is regulated by the Environment Agency, in the past 18 months we have not had a complaint about the site Environment Agency compliance officers will also carry out site inspections and audits to ensure the Installation is run in accordance with the Permit requirements. There is also a 24 hour telephone number, 0800 607080, to report incidents. Compliance officers are on call to deal with incidents and investigate complaints


Draft FPublic

Consulta

or

tion

37 The regulations and enforcement are not stringent enough and the highest penalties are rarely imposed. There are plenty of incidents where a company is fined but the toxins are already in the atmosphere

Enforcement powers available to us include:

• enforcement notices (where contravention can be prevented or needs to be remedied)

• prohibition notices (where there is an imminent risk of serious environmental damage)

• suspension or revocation of environmental permits

• variation of permit conditions, • carrying out remedial works

Where a criminal offence has been committed, in addition to any other enforcement action, we will consider prosecution, administering a caution or issuing a warning. The purpose of prosecution is to punish and deter. It is the courts who determine the level of a fine in the case of a prosecution. Condition 2.3.6 of the Permit requires that the charging of waste will cease with the breach of any continuous emission limit value given in table S3.1(a) is exceeded; or any continuous emission limit value in table S3.1 is exceeded, other than under WID abnormal operating conditions. An assessment of the impact of abnormal operations has been made in section 5.5 of this document. No abnormal emissions have been assessed as having the potential for giving rise to significant pollution


Draft FPubli

Consulta

or c

Vehicles will tip into a waste storage pit from where a grab crane transfers waste to the combustion plant feed hopper. The grab will also be used to mix wastes and identify and remove unsuitable or non-combustible items. This is considered BAT for incinerators.

tion

The proposed operating techniques and abatement are considered the BAT to prevent or minimise emissions.

38 Emissions will cause harm to health and the environment, because the exact nature of the material cannot be known. No equipment is sophisticated enough to detect the contents of thousands of plastic bags.

The site will accept residual municipal waste (i.e. post sorting by households) and commercial and industrial wastes which will have been sorted before coming to site. Although mixed municipal waste is not regarded as hazardous, it is recognised that some minor quantities of hazardous waste may arise within it. In these cases it is accepted that these incidental arisings of hazardous waste will not be sufficient to alter the classification of municipal waste. Emission limits are binding irrespective of the exact composition of each bag

39 Newhurst has a SSSI This is discussed in section 5.4.2 of this document. Newhurst Quarry is a designated SSSI purely as a geological site. From the citation, the features would not be eroded by acid deposition and so will not be impacted by emissions from the installation. The installation boundary is outside of the SSSI boundary, and so will not directly impact on the geological features either.

40 Modern incinerator are larger than old ones so although concentrations may be lower the total mass of pollutants may be higher

Three of the largest incinerators in England are more than 15 years old. The air dispersion modelling carried out by the Applicant and audited by ourselves is based on emissions in grammes per second from the incinerator. Consequently we have taken into account the mass of pollutant emissions and concluded that they will not cause significant pollution. This is discussed in more detail in section 5.2 of this document.


Draft FPubli

Consultation

or c

41 Burning waste is not an answer to a sustainable healthy environment; we should not encourage people to produce waste when they do not see the consequence of disposal.

The Operator has applied for an incinerator and we have to assess the environmental impact of their proposal. The impact on health is discussed in detail in section 5.3 of this document. We consider that the facility will not have any significant impact on human health. Sustainability Appraisal is part of the planning process which is discussed in more detail in section 3 below

42 The company will not fit a scrubber to the exhaust stack, thereby allowing toxic dioxins and particulates to escape to the open air.

Emissions control is discussed in detail in section 6.2 of this document. The Applicant proposes to use fabric filters for the abatement of particulate matter. Fabric filters provide reliable abatement of particulate matter to below 5 mg/m3 and are considered BAT for the installation. As well as primary measures, the plant will minimise dioxin emissions by activated carbon injection.

43 As the plant will run for the next quarter century, fall out from the site will be significant. Adverse weather conditions will draw pollutants earthward and rain will wash them out of the atmosphere. Prevailing winds will cause emissions to drift over us and contaminate the air we breathe.

Air quality is discussed in detail in section 5.2 of this document. The assessment includes using a 5 years worth of meteorological data. We have assessed the impacts of the emissions and concluded that they will not give rise to significant pollution.

44 The WID regulations require that cumulative impacts of a proposed scheme must be addressed.

The permit specifies compliance with all the relevant requirements of the WID. Annex 1 of this document gives details as to how each Article of the WID is delivered. The impacts of the installation are discussed in detail in section 5 of this document. We have concluded that the installation will not cause significant pollution.


Draft For c Publi

Consultation

45 The Applicant is largely dismissive of alternative technologies, and the incinerator must be compared to alternatives such as MBT, composting, Anaerobic Digestion, gasification, pyrolysis and autoclaves (although greenhouse gas emissions appear to be unfavourable). The Applicant ignores the advantages of alternative technology in regard to emissions.

The Applicant has applied for a Permit for an incineration plant. The best available techniques (BAT) for incineration are discussed in detail in section 6.1 of this document. We have considered the assessments made by the Applicant and agree that the furnace technology chosen represents BAT. The Use of Alternate Technologies is discussed below in section 3 of this Annex of the decision document.

46 It is estimated (British Society for Ecological medicine, 2008) that uncontrolled emissions during start up/shut down accounts for 6 months standard emissions.

Emissions will be controlled during start up and shut down. Waste will not be fed into the furnace until it is up to the correct temperature and all the flue gas treatment plant is fully operational. Likewise on shut down the temperature of the furnace will be maintained by the auxiliary burners and the flue gas treatment plant will remain fully operational until all the waste is burnt off the grate. We know that emissions of dioxins are elevated (5-6 times the normal) during this period. However, start up and shut downs are very short periods in comparison to the total operating time of the plant. The emissions during the shutdown and restart are equivalent to less than 1% of the estimated annual emission (if operating normally all year). Our own test work (report entitled “Investigation of Waste Incinerator Dioxins During start-up and shutdown operating phases” available on our website) does not confirm the BSEM claim. Our test work showed that the mass of dioxin emitted during start-up and shutdown for a 4-5 day planned outage was similar to the emissions which would have occurred during normal operation in the same period.


Draft For c Publi

Consultation

47 The Application states that the incinerator will receive municipal and C&I waste. But the council contract has not been agreed. The Applicant assumes that C&I waste will be similar to MSW. In view of the uncertainty over waste to be treated, the design should be assessed to ensure abnormal operation cannot arise.

The loss of the contract and the implications for the facility were addressed in the Applicant’s response to a schedule 5 notice. The facility is designed to accept wastes with a wide range of CVs and is capable of operating within a CV range of 7.5 – 12.5 MJ/kg. In this context there is no reason to consider any modifications to the original Application. We have set controls on what wastes are acceptable within the permit see section 4.3.6.

48 The WID requires that incinerators must demonstrate waste will not have Chloride content over 1% and that the Applicant’s designs must be demonstrated to take into account of the heterogeneity of the waste. The Applicant would appear to be un-able to satisfy these requirements as it does not know what the long term wastes will be received.

The WID does not require that wastes should have a chlorine content of less than 1%. It says that “if hazardous wastes with a content of more than 1% of halogenated organic substances, expressed as chlorine, , are incinerated, the temperature has to be raised to 1100oC for at least two seconds”. As the Applicant has not applied to burn any hazardous waste this requirement does not apply. The Permit requires that waste shall only be accepted if it is of a type and quantity listed in schedule 2 table S2.2. The site will accept residual municipal waste (i.e. post sorting by households) and commercial and industrial wastes which will have been sorted before coming to site. Vehicles will tip into a waste storage pit from where a grab crane transfers waste to the combustion plant feed hopper. The grab will also be used to mix wastes and identify and remove unsuitable or non-combustible items. This is considered BAT for incinerators.


Draft FPubli

Consulta

or The bunker grab will be used to mix wastes and identify and remove unsuitable or non-combustible items. This is considered BAT for incinerators.

c The plant will only accept pre-sorted residual wastes. Likewise the permit does not allow separately collected materials for recycling to be burnt unless they are contaminated and destined for landfill.

tion Compliance with the WID is discussed in detail in Annex 1 of this document.

49 Waste reception procedures appear inadequate, no provision for recovering recyclable materials (including plastics and food) and screening of unacceptable materials. It is therefore doubtful the scheme complies with the WID

The Application states that there will be waste acceptance procedures to minimise the delivery of waste that cannot be processed at the facility. Permit condition 1.1.1 requires that the Operator shall manage and operate the activities in accordance with a written management system that identifies and minimises risks of pollution, including those arising from operations, and the Permit also requires that waste shall only be accepted if it is of a type and quantity listed in schedule 2 table S2.2.


Draft FThe Applicant has ignored gasification, anaerobic digestion, and schemes involving MBT plus ATT (pyrolysis or gasification). or

c The best available techniques (BAT) for incineration are discussed in detail in section 6.1 of this document. We have considered the assessments made by the Applicant and agree that the furnace technology chosen represents BAT. PubliWith regards to the assessment of

ATT (pyrolysis), has the Applicant chosen the correct efficiencies?

Consultation

ATT was primarily rejected by the Applicant on the grounds of it not being proven technology, rather than GWP.

50 The Applicant’s WRATE life cycle impact assessment appears to be seriously flawed. This has been presented as a key fact in the technology selection procedure on the grounds of global warming potential. The Applicant has compared the incinerator with ATT, MBT to produce RDF for an incinerator, MBT with bio-stabilised output to landfill. They conclude that the incinerator has the lowest GWP.

The WRATE model is primarily a tool to be used to enable local authorities to model the potential effects of current and future waste services on the environment. This enables the local authority to consider the whole life benefits of utilising different technologies and supports them in their decision making process. Its use is not essential in applying for an Environmental permit, and the Environment Agency’s H1 model can be used to determine GWP too. The Applicant in this case used both models and this is discussed in detail in section 6.3 of this document.

The Use of Alternate Technologies is discussed below in section 3 of this Annex of the decision document.


Draft For Publi

Consultac tion

52 As there appears to be no provision for recovering recyclable materials or unacceptable materials (particularly plastics), consideration should be given to whether high temperature incineration at 1100oc is more suitable.

The proposal is for the incineration of non-hazardous waste. Permit condition 2.3.3 and table S2.2 of the Permit specifies what waste types can be burnt, and only non-hazardous wastes are permitted. Consequently an incineration temperature of 850oc is considered appropriate. The Permit (via condition 2.3.3) does not allow separately collected recyclable materials to be burnt unless they are contaminated and otherwise destined for landfill.

53 Moving grate furnace is accepted as BAT for municipal waste by DEFRA, but not for mixed wastes. Problems can arise due to problems verifying temperature distribution. The Applicant should justify the choice of furnace

BAT for the furnace selection is discussed in detail in section 6.1.1 of this document. A moving grate furnace is suitable for Municipal and other heterogeneous solid wastes and is widely proven at large scales. We have compared the Application and schedule 5 responses, with the indicative BAT requirements of our guidance note EPR 5.01 for furnace and combustion requirements. We have concluded that the requirements will be met. Thus we consider that the furnace selection is BAT


Draft FPub

Consul

or • Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) will be used to confirm that there are no pockets of stagnant or low velocity gas;

lic • Boiler passes are progressively decreased in volume so that the gas velocity increases through the boiler, and

tation • Boundary layers of slow moving gas

are prevented along the boiler surfaces.

54 The Applicant does not provide details of the economiser and rate of cooling over the de-nova temperature range. The Applicant should provide evidence that the design incorporates best available cooling system. Concern that flue gas temperature over economiser is given as 150oc but stated it can rise to 205oc, which in the range of de-novo dioxin formation, and would pose a significant environmental risk in the case of temporary process upsets.

Dioxin and furans are controls are discussed in detail in section 6.2.5 of this document. The Application did not provide specific details of the economiser and rate of cooling, however the Operator confirmed in a response to schedule 5 notice that they would used the following indicative BAT techniques:

• Ensuring that the steam/metal heat transfer surface temperature is a minimum (around 170°C) where the flue gas is in the de novo synthesis temperature range, subject to acid dew point consideration;

Which we consider appropriate measures for primary dioxin control. The Application states that using CFD the boiler will be designed to reduce rapidly the temperature of the flue gases through the critical temperature range, to minimise risk of dioxin reformation. De Novo temperature range is between 250 to 4000C with peak production at around 300-3500C. Flue gas temperature occasionally rising to 205oC should have negligible effect on de Novo synthesis. As well as primary control measures the Installation will use activated carbon injection to abate dioxin emissions. Consequently we consider that the design of the process applies BAT with regards to dioxin formation and emission control


Draft For c Publi

Consultation

55 The design does not incorporate BAT for treatment of flue gases. BAT would include wet scrubbing for acid gases, catalytic conversion for dioxins and organics and more advanced particle filters such as ceramic filter of electrostatic precipitators. The need for BAT flue gas treatment is important in view of local conditions and variability of waste feedstock and the risk of abnormal conditions.

BAT for flue gas treatment is discussed in detail in section 6.2 of this document.

56 The baseline air quality figures for dispersion modelling do not represent worse case levels reported by the borough council (in terms of peak levels, some receptor locations and roadside levels)

The air quality assessment is discussed in detail in section 5.2 of this document. We have audited the dispersion model and carried out our own modelling. We consider that the Applicant has used appropriate sources of information for the background pollutant levels, which we checked.


Draft FPubli

or Impact of abnormal operations has been assessed in section 5.5. and would only apply for a limited duration

c For the vast majority of time the plant will be operating normally. Thus the use of WID limits is considered a worse case scenario as experience shows that plants operate at lower than these limits.

Consultation

57 Air quality predictions are based on WID limits. True worst case would be based on abnormal emissions during commissioning, start up and shut down.

Commissioning is one-off exercise during the lifetime of the plant. Waste will not be charged until the furnace has reached the required temperatures, and all flue gas treatment plant is up and running. Waste will cease to be charged at shut down and the temperature on the grate will be maintained and all the flue gas treatment plant will remain operational until all of the waste on the grate has been incinerated.

58 The worst–case meteorological

conditions are not clear. The effect of wind speed is an important factor.

We have carried out our own modelling to check the Applicant’s predictions. We used meteorological data observed at Watnall (Nottingham) weather centre between 2003 and 2007 and our own terrain data. Our modelling indicates that none of the UK air quality objectives, EALs and EU target values are likely to be exceeded as a result of the site operation. These conclusions are in agreement with those of the Applicant.


Draft FPubli

Consultation

or c

For PM10 emissions the Applicant did not use 150mg/m3 as the maximum abnormal emission (as allowed by the WID and table S3.1(a) of the permit). The impact of an emission at this level will cause a PC of 1.7µg/m3 which is just 3.3% of the EQS. Adding this to double the average background levels of PM10 in the locality, the PEC becomes 49.8µg/m3 which is 99.6% of the EQS. This is an extreme worst case and is highly unlikely; especially bearing in mind that the maximum allowable period for abnormal operations is 60 hours and this would have to coincide with background levels being double the average.

59 The sensitivity analysis submitted by the Applicant, considers reported annual average figures from incinerators and does not represent the worst case for abnormal operations. It also does not cover the impact of any derogation for abnormal operation.

The impacts of abnormal operations are discussed in detail in section 5.5 of this document. The impacts are based on what are considered to be plausible increases in emissions above the half hourly emission limits.


Draft FPublic

Consulta

or Dioxin impacts are cumulative and build up over the long term. Consequently short to medium term impacts assessments are not necessary, especially as the long term impact assessment is based on the worst case assessment of emissions being constantly at the WID emission limit.

tion

Dioxin emissions are controlled by a combination of primary (e.g furnace temperatures, boiler design) and secondary (activated carbon injection) measures. These remain effective whenever waste is being incinerated. A strict emission limit is included in the permit. Periodic monitoring of Dioxins is required by the permit, to demonstrate compliance with this limit.

60 The Applicants sensitivity analysis shows that for variable calorific value (CV) of the waste the stack gas momentum will decrease as the CV reduces. However, the Applicant assumes that the pollutants emission rates will be proportional to the CV. This may not be the case, as if compostable materials are removed the level of halogenated waste may increase and dioxin emissions may increase too. This effect may go unnoticed by the Environment Agency due to the minimum level of dioxin monitoring required by the WID. Short term impacts of abnormal operations and process variations have not been properly addressed.

The Applicant’s sensitivity analysis found that a 25% change in the air flow will only result in a 0.1% change the impact. Consequently the variation in the waste composition on impacts is very small. The Permit, via condition 2.3.3c, does not allow waste to be accepted unless “having been separately collected for recycling, it is contaminated and otherwise destined for landfill”. Thus compostable materials should not generally be present.

61 A guiding principal of the Stockholm

Convention is that technologies should be implemented that prevent or avoid the formation of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) rather than those which require abatement measures. Incinerators do not comply with this but other technologies can.

This is discussed in detail in section 6.4 of this document.


Draft FPublic

Consulta

or We have specified the permitted waste types, descriptions which can be accepted at the installation in Table S3.2 of the Permit.

tion

In section 6.1 of this document we discuss in detail the techniques proposed to prevent and minimise air emissions. We consider that the Applicants proposals employ BAT to control emissions.

62 Applicant does not define what residues they intend to burn. Please ensure that they make a full statement of what will be handled and how they propose to keep the air clean.

The proposed waste that is to be burnt is discussed in section 4.3.6 of this document. The Applicant provided some details of what the intended to process in sections 3.2 of the BATOT section of the Application and Appendix 6 of the Application listed all proposed waste types with their EWC codes. Following a schedule 5 notice for further information, the Operator submitted further details of the wastes they proposed to handle and a revised list of wastes and their EWC codes.

63 Handling of the ash could pose risks

to local health and the environment The avoidance, recovery or disposal with minimal impact of ash produced is discussed in section 4.3.9 of this document. We are satisfied that waste from the Installation that cannot be recovered will be disposed of using a method that avoids or reduces any impact on the environment. Standard condition 1.4.1 will ensure that this position is maintained.

64 The Application does not provide sufficient information to establish if it matches best practice. The Environment Agency should ask the Applicant to benchmark against the UN standard.

Under the IPPC directive, we have to assess whether the Applicant has use the BAT in their proposals (rather than UN standards) to prevent or minimise emissions. This is discussed in detail in section 6 of this document. We consider that the Applicant has employed the BAT for incineration.


Draft For Public

Consultation

65 The plant is intended to produce

~25MW of electricity. Electrical efficiency will be about 20% so there will be 100MW of “waste” heat that could be used for local heating schemes. The Application lists likely customers but they are not signed up and there can be no evaluation of costs. Looking at the list I doubt there are sufficient customers to take 100MW of heat.

Energy efficiency is discussed in detail in section 4.3.7 of this document. As well as maximising the primary use of heat to generate electricity, waste heat should be recovered as far as practicable, i.e. by identifying and utilising opportunities for Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and district heating. The location of the Installation largely determines whether waste heat can be utilised, and this is a matter for the planning authority. The Applicant carried out a feasibility study (Heat Plan), which showed there was potential to provide district heating to local businesses; and opportunities are being explored.

66 If waste heat cannot be fully utilised then the plant will require cooling towers. These require water and will produce a vapour plume.

The Applicant proposes to use air cooled towers which will not produce a vapour plume

67 If the final residues from the flues are likely to be disposed of on site I would ask that groundwater modelling take place.

There will be no deposits to land on this installation

68 If heat load cannot be found then I would worry that profits would be found from burning “difficult” wastes. I suggest that the Environment Agency asks Biffa for guarantees on the quality of waste that will be burnt.

Following a schedule 5 notice for further information, the Operator submitted further details of the wastes they proposed to handle and a revised list of wastes and their EWC codes. We have specified the permitted waste types, descriptions which can be accepted at the installation in Table S3.2 of the Permit.

69 If controls are to be exercised over the plant I suggest they are based as a minimum on UN best practice.

The Permit contains many conditions taken from our standard Environmental Permit template including the relevant Annexes. We developed these conditions in consultation with industry, having regard to the legal requirements of the Environmental Permitting Regulations and other relevant legislation, such as the WID and IPPCD. Under the IPPCD, we have to ensure that the Applicant uses the BAT in their proposals (rather than UN standards) to prevent or minimise emissions. Other European Directives that have been considered in our determination are discussed in section 7 above.


Draft For Publi

Consultationc

70 The site is too close to Shepshed and Loughborough as well as the M1, in case anything goes wrong. Some recent accidents show there are no fail safe designs.

The Applicant submitted an Accident Management Plan with the Application, and a revised plan in response to a Schedule 5 request for further information. Having considered the Plan and other information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to ensure that accidents that may cause pollution are prevented but that, if they should occur, their consequences are minimised. The Applicant also confirmed that the plant design will be subject to a Hazard and Operability, (HAZOP), study to ensure that all possible modes of failure have been considered and addressed.

71 Waste composition is difficult to predict and may have direct impact on the quality of air and ashes.

The Permit requires that waste shall only be accepted if it is of a type listed in schedule 2 table S2.2. The site will accept residual municipal waste (i.e. post sorting by households) and commercial and industrial wastes which will have been sorted before coming to site. Vehicles will tip into a waste storage pit from where a grab crane transfers waste to the combustion plant feed hopper. The grab will also be used to mix wastes and identify and remove unsuitable or non-combustible items. This is considered BAT for incinerators. The proposed operating techniques and abatement are considered the BAT to prevent or minimise emissions. Monitoring of emissions to air and of the ash produced is also required by the Permit to ensure compliance with permit conditions.

72 There are uncertainties in the behaviour of weather and climate which defines air movements and concentration.

The Applicant used 5 years worth of Meteorological data as part of their modelling. We consider that this is enough to cover the uncertainties and variability of weather.


Draft For Publi

Consultac tion

73 Residents have not been given enough information on reasons for decision making at various stages, for example why the land use has changed from a MRF and a landfill to an incinerator

The Applicant chose to withdraw their original Application for a MRF and landfill and to apply for an incinerator instead. This is the Applicant’s decision, the Environment Agency only assesses the environmental impact of any Application they make. The Applicant did explain their reasons to the local community liaison group in August 2009, stating that the landfill tax made an energy from waste plant a more viable option.

74 Not much information given on waste compositions. If dry separated waste used residents may not recycle. If moist residual waste used then fuel may be needed.

The Operator has specified the waste types and typical Calorific Value, CV that will be burnt at the installation. They have also confirmed that they can operate the plant across a wide CV range of 7.5 to 12.5 MJ/kg. In the response to a Schedule 5 notice, the Operator stated that wastes will only be selected and processed so that when combined will result in a CV which is within the design envelope specified. This has been incorporated into the permit via condition 2.3.1 and table S1.2 The Permit (via condition 2.3.3) does not allow recyclable materials to be burnt unless they are contaminated and otherwise destined for landfill.

75 You say there is no method for measuring air quality, so it will not be measured. This is clearly unsafe and a risk to health

Emission monitoring and emission limits are required by conditions 3.5.1 & 3.1.2 and tables S3.1 of the Permit. It is possible to monitor for pollutants in the atmosphere (and the monitoring of key pollutants is carried out by the local authority where required by the National Air Quality Strategy). However, we have set limits on the emissions from the stacks which will ensure that no significant pollution will occur and therefore we have not required the Operator to monitor pollutants in the atmosphere.


Draft FPubli

Consulta

or Odour is discussed in detail in section 6.5.4 of this document.

c Based upon the information in the Application we are satisfied that the appropriate measures are in place to prevent pollution from odour.

tion

Permit conditions 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 shall be used to ensure odour does not cause pollution.

76 Noise and smell will bring the area to social, economic and environmental degradation. Loud intermittent noise from waste lorries. Municipal waste smells, what assurances are in place that the incinerator will create no odour. What monitoring of odour will be in place, and what regulations will impose penalties should the incinerator create odour

The impacts of noise are discussed in section 6.5.5 of this document. The Applicants assessment concluded that predicted daytime and night-time noise rating levels produced by fixed plant at the proposed development would give a positive indication that complaints are unlikely at all of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors assessed. Also, the cumulative impact of all operations would have no effect on the existing ambient noise levels at any of the nearest noise-sensitive receptors assessed.

Breach of a permit condition is an offence under regulation 38(2) of the EP regulations

77 Stagnant water from filling one void, will be dangerous

The Newhurst quarry area is outside of the installation boundary and so does not form part of the Application nor is it controlled by the Permit.


Draft FPublic

Consulta

or The Permit also requires continuous monitoring of several process variables (e.g. combustion temperature) to ensure that the incinerator is running optimally and minimising emissions. This monitoring acts as a surrogate for the continuous monitoring of some pollutants.

tion

Condition 3.5.1 and table S3.4 of the Permit require monthly analysis of the bottom ash in first year of operation then quarterly thereafter.

78 Statutory requirements for the monitoring of toxins, heavy metals, PAH’s, fine particulates and the handling and transportation of ash are inadequate. Anything short of continuous and representative monitoring and control of these emissions, could cause potentially severe environmental and health risks.

We are satisfied that the monitoring imposed is adequate Monitoring is discussed in detail in section 6.7 of this document. The permit requires continuous monitoring for some pollutants such as particulates and oxides of nitrogen, whilst others are required to be monitored quarterly or bi-annually. These requirements are in line with the WID and we consider these measures to be appropriate..


Draft FPubli

Consultation

or

The Health Protection Agency and Leicestershire County and Rutland Primary Care Trust were consulted on the environmental permit Application submitted for the proposed facility and concluded that they had no significant concerns regarding the risk to the health of the local population from the installation.

c Consequently we consider the sentence relating to “modern well managed incinerators” will apply to the proposed facility and that the HPA statement can be considered to apply to this facility.

79 The HPA statement on the health impacts of “modern well managed incinerators” is grossly misleading.

The adequacy of monitoring requirements is discussed in question 78 above. The risks to human health are discussed in detail in section 5.3 of this document. We consider that the facility will not have any significant impact human health, and consequently no local health studies will be required.

80 Dioxins will be emitted and the

Application argues that the emissions will be extremely low and assumes ideal operation of the incinerator. Incinerators are capabable of less than ideal operating conditions and this could be more profitable for the Operator. Dioxin monitoring is not continuous. Anything less than continuous dioxin monitoring would allow the opportunity less than ideal operating conditions with unrecorded , unlimited uncontrolled, and penalty free dioxin emissions

The control of dioxin emissions will be achieved by more than just monitoring emissions. This is discussed in detail in section 6.2.5 of this document. Key process variables will be monitored continuously. The Permit requires, in condition 2.3.6, that if the combustion temperature fall below 850oc then the burning of waste shall cease. We will audit the operation of the plant and check records to ensure that it is run as described in the Application and as required by the conditions of the Permit. Continuous monitoring of dioxins is discussed in detail in section 6.7.4 of this document.


Draft For c tion

PubliConsulta

81 Anything other than the continuous monitoring of heavy metal emissions, would be a failure to protect the environment and health.

Principally the prevention and minimisation of metal emissions is achieved through the effective removal of particulate matter. Particulate emissions are monitored continuously. Mercury is present in the vapour phase, and BAT for its removal is activated carbon injection. This abatement plant will be operational before any waste is burnt. We will audit the operation of the plant and check records to ensure that it is run as described in the Application and as required by the conditions of the Permit.

82 Anything other than the continuous monitoring of PAHs, would be a failure to protect the environment and health.

The release of dioxin-like PCBs and PAHs is expected to be low where measures have been taken to control dioxin releases. The Secretary of State has directed regulators to require monitoring of a range of PAHs and dioxin-like PCBs in waste incineration Permits at the same frequency as dioxins are monitored. We are confident that the measures taken to control the release of dioxins will also control the releases of dioxin-like PCBs and PAHs. See our response to question 80 above for more details on dioxin control.


Draft FPubli

Consulta

or c tion

83 What controls are there for handling, containment and safe transport of incinerator ash. How is adherence to these controls ensured and what penalties are imposed for violations. Toxic ash is deposited in hazardous landfill sites. What controls are in place to ensure no toxic ashes are distributed or used elsewhere

The avoidance, recovery or disposal with minimal impact of ash produced is discussed in section 4.3.9 of this document.

We are satisfied that waste from the Installation that cannot be recovered will be disposed of using a method that avoids or reduces any impact on the environment. Permit condition 1.4.1 will ensure that this position is maintained.

The Permit does not cover off site activities. The Hazardous waste regulations cover the transport and disposal of hazardous wastes. Whenever hazardous waste is moved or transferred it must be accompanied by a consignment note.

The Environment Agency uses consignment notes to track the movement of hazardous waste and ensure it is managed responsibly from where it is produced until it reaches an authorised recovery or disposal facility. The waste producer must keep copies of consignment notes for three years. Hazardous waste must be stored and transported with the correct packaging and labelling. Where a criminal offence has been committed, in addition to any other enforcement action, we consider prosecution, administering a caution or issuing a warning.

84 What monitoring will be in place to ensure that the transport of waste and ash is at no time creating odours. What regulations are in place to impose financial penalties and corrective activities should odour be created.

Odour is discussed in detail in section 6.5.4 of this document. Incoming waste lorries and departing ash lorries, will be covered to minimise the risk of odours. As the appropriate measures are considered to be in place, no specific odour monitoring has been required. Breach of a permit condition is an offence under regulation 38(2) of the EP regulations. We also have other regulatory tools including enforcement notices, suspension or revocation.


Draft FPubli

or c tionConsulta

85 Adequate waste incineration legislation would still fail to provide an acceptable environment, in view of numerous current and planned environmental pressures in the area:

• Traffic noise, • aircraft noise, • noise and odours generated by

local industrial estate. • Population density and pan for

3500 more homes in area

These local matters are primarily land use planning issues We do take account of local background data for pollutant levels and noise as part of our review of the impacts of the installation, and we consider that our conclusion, to grant a permit for the Installation, will protect the Environment.

86 Dispersion modelling based on meteorological data from East Midlands airport, is not based on data from the site. The data is taken from an area a flat topography. Applying a correction factor for topography is misleading and until local meteorological data is used the modelling results are not representative. Elevated terrain can affect modelling results and this aspect has not been correctly modelled Dispersion will be minimal when wind is from north or north east and will make landfall in less than 1000m. Consequently this is the wrong location due to the terrain to for an EfW installation

A 9km separation between a meteorological site and dispersion site is reasonably close for modelling purposes. Thus the Applicant's use of East Midlands airport met site data is appropriate. The dispersion model used by the Applicant used 5 years of meteorological data. The impact of the topography surrounding the site upon plume dispersion was considered in the dispersion modelling using terrain data, which was applied to the entire modelling area. We also, carried out our own modelling to check the Applicant’s predictions. We used meteorological data observed at Watnall (Nottingham) weather centre between 2003 and 2007 and our own terrain data. Our conclusions agreed with those of the Applicant. The models predicted dispersion and the findings are discussed in detail in section 5.2. We conclude that the emissions from this installation, at this location, will not cause significant pollution.

88 The Application does not fit with the LCC and Charnwood Borough Council waste strategies. There is no need for this facility in Leicestershire.

This is principally a matter for the planning authority. However we do take into consideration any relevant information obtained or conclusion arrived at by the local planning authorities. This is discussed in section 7.1.1 of this document. From our consideration of the relevant information, the Environment Agency considers that no additional or different conditions are necessary.

3) Matters which are outside the Agency’s Permitting Remit Location of the installation: Decisions over land use are matters for the planning system. The location of the installation is a relevant consideration for Environmental Permitting, but only in so far as its potential to have an adverse environmental impact on communities or sensitive environmental receptors. The environmental impact is assessed as part of the determination process and has been reported upon in the main body of this document. The location of the installation can have an impact on the ability to recover waste heat for use in nearby residential, commercial or industrial premises and we comment on this in our consultation response to the local planning authority.

Draft For Public

Vehicle access to the installation and traffic movements: These are relevant considerations for the grant of planning permission, but do not form part of the Environmental Permit decision making process.

Consultation

Flood Risk: The Environment Agency provides advice and guidance to the local planning authority on flood risk in our consultation response to the local planning authority. Our advice on these matters is normally accepted by both Applicant and Planning Authority. When making permitting decisions, flood risk is still a relevant consideration, but only in so far as it is taken into account in the accident management plan and that appropriate measures are in place to prevent pollution in the event of a credible flooding incident. The Use of Alternate Technologies: It is argued that Incineration is not an environmentally sustainable technology and therefore almost by definition cannot be considered to be the Best Available Technique (BAT). The Environment Agency is aware that a number of proposals are coming forward for other ways of dealing with waste streams such as pyrolysis and mechanical / biological treatment. At this time however, mass burn incineration at this scale can still be considered BAT, subject to the appropriate assessments being made. Anaerobic digestion is most suitable for high moisture content biodegradable wastes such as food and agricultural wastes, and can be applied where there is separate collection of these waste streams. Anaerobic digestion is not however appropriate for mixed municipal waste. Some technologies such as plasma arc gasification are currently considered not to meet the definition of ‘availability’ due to their very limited Application worldwide. It is important to draw a distinction between Sustainability Appraisal and Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) and BAT. In Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management) Sustainability Appraisal forms part of the decision making process which should be applied so as to shape planning strategies that support the Government’s planning objectives for waste management. Thus Sustainability Appraisal is an important part of plan formation and planning decisions are made by reference to planning policies. BPEO forms a similar function in Wales. BAT assessment is a technical appraisal that the proposed



Draft ForImport of Waste: It is argued that diminishing supplies of residual waste from the surrounding area over the lifetime of the installation will result in the importation of waste from outside the area or sub-region. This is similar to the point above on the potential impact on local recycling.

Public Consultation

technique is the best available for the protection of the environment as a whole. Incinerator Capacity and its effect on Waste Recovery and Recycling Activities: It is argued that as the quantity of residual waste reduces over the lifetime of the installation, the need to maximise efficiency by maintaining the incinerator at full capacity will suppress waste recovery and recycling initiatives, which are higher up the waste hierarchy. Any material arriving at the facility will be residual waste arisings following upstream waste segregation, recovery and recycling initiatives. The Environment Agency’s role is to ensure that it can be operated without giving rise to significant pollution or harm to human health. In any event Permit conditions will prohibit the burning of any separately collected or recovered waste streams.

draft for public - charnwood · draft for public . this is a draft decision document, which...

Documents