Key PPC issues for Organic Sector in 2006

PPC Workshop, 25/08/2004

Janet Murfin

TT Environmental

Key issues:

• Understanding how PPC works

• EA key issues – BAT requirements for organic sector

• Other key issues:– avoiding liability for historic contamination

under PPC regulations– preventing future land & water contamination – need for thorough desktop study

How PPC system works

• It’s a bit like self-assessment for tax• PPC depends on you to tell the regulator

what you know• They can ask you for information, but it’s

based on what you’ve supplied and their own inspection visits

• There can be room for negotiation, but you must make a case for your site thoroughly

• Watch out for changes in guidance

EA key issues – BAT for speciality organic sector

• Optimisation of the reaction stage• Point-source emissions of organics to water• Waste minimisation• Point-source emissions to air• Fugitive VOCs to air• Odour• Energy efficiency• Chemical analysis and monitoring of emissions• Accident prevention and control

Some BAT requirements may be easier to meet than others

• Energy efficiency is less strict if you are in the CCL agreement

• Odour will affect some sites (external complaints), but not others

• Accident prevention plans will be easier if you are a COMAH site, as you have a base to work from with MAPP (although non-COMAH accidents must be included)

• Chemical analysis and monitoring usually done off-site – ensure labs used are MCERTS

BAT – Optimising reaction stage

• Should not be a problem because it’s a diverse sector - many choices for BAT eg type of plant, methods of heating and cooling etc

• Stirred tank reactors (STRs) are BAT unless using dedicated vessels, when you have to consider alternatives eg – benchtop reactors (like LVOC sector)

• Many organic reactions are not to completion (eg esterification to an acid value): you may need to justify this

BAT - Point source emissions to air, and fugitive VOCs

• Modelling of air dispersion required for stacks, scrubbers etc – specialist report may be needed

• Already clamping down under IPC on fugitive VOCs– Solids - dust covers on skips & vessels,

housekeeping, enclosed silos plus filters– Liquids - use of subsurface filling, suitable

vent systems with catchpots, storing volatiles at low temperature etc

BAT – point source emissions to surface water, sewer, groundwater

• Water use should be minimised

• Water should be recycled (eg cooling water) where possible

• Have to consider filtration/osmosis techniques for water re-use on site, unless pollutants readily biodegradable

• Don’t discharge to groundwater (won’t apply to most sites)

BAT – fugitive emissions to surface water, sewer, groundwater

• List of requirements for infrastructure to be BAT (no fugitive emissions to land/ water)– Subsurface structures– Land surface – yards, roadways – Above ground tanks– Storage areas for IBCs, drums, bags, etc

• This will mean investment on most sites to upgrade infrastructure so no leaks

BAT – waste minimisationraw material use

• Many sites are “total use” system – if it goes in reactor, it gets sold (particularly formulations)

• Look at using less hazardous chemicals – replacement and minimisation (chlorinated solvents, nonyl and octyl phenol ethoxylates, “red list” chemicals – now lists 1 & 2 – nb two lists 1 & 2)

• Not straightforward to replace chemicals

BAT – waste minimisationsurface & waste water handling

• Rain water from roofs can go to surface sewer - keep clean water separate by sealing downpipes into ground

• Rain water from yards, bunds and other chemical handling areas should go to ETP

• May increase volume of effluent – your consents with Y Water may need to be altered

BAT – waste minimisationchemical storage areas

• You have to HAZOP your storage areas

• are your engineers environmentally aware? And are your environmental people HAZOP trained?

• Likely to involve infrastructure improvements – marking drainage systems clearly, bunding, provision for fire water, sealing drainage covers, etc

Summary – BAT issues

• Likely to be a lot of work, management time – not just environmental people

• You know your site best – justify why you operate as you do

• Prioritise improvements – do you need to make some before permit? What can wait until under PPC?

• Don’t put anything unnecessary in your improvement plan

Other key issues - avoiding PPC liability for historic contamination

• Important for organic sector because most sites likely to be contaminated– Historic use of chemicals– Previous practices allowed chemicals to land

(not illegal at the time)

• Most sites not responsible for historic contamination: takeovers, MBOs etc

• Typical historic risks – drum storage on open ground, waste disposal to land

Basic problem with original site reports

• Originally, intrusive investigations at start and end of permit – difference is due to PPC operations

• Nearly impossible to get a clear, accurate “baseline” on most chemical factory sites : – Can’t dig where contamination likely to be– Poor phase 1s – chemicals not tested for– Non-disclosure by site personnel– Analysis difficulties

• Historic contamination is likely not to be recorded, putting liability onto current occupier

Solution: don’t carry out intrusive investigations, if possible

• Environmental risk assessments – source – pathway – receptor

• Land is now a receptor in its own right• Satisfactory state – no further deterioration• “Most sites will not have to have intrusive

investigations” – new EA policy on land protection, August 2003– As long as you can fulfil certain criteria– Must avoid polluting land during permit

Criteria for no intrusive work

1. preventative measures in place for each part of activity

2. these measures are adequate to prevent pollutant emissions to land

3. either no record of spills/emissions to land, or measures have been taken to prevent these emissions

4. proposals to conduct integrity testing5. adequate, documented management system to

show operator competence for activity

To summarise requirements:

• If you can describe the contaminants which may exist on site, and the ground conditions, via a thorough desktop study

• And show that there is no means by which land could be polluted on your site (ie no pathways to land exist)

• Then you are not required to carry out an intrusive investigation at permit application

• However, you need to keep up to this requirement – maintenance and repair, good management

Other key issues - preventing future contamination to land

• Again, you need to do this to avoid intrusive investigation at permit entry

• Typical future risks:– Spillages or firewater onto open ground– Leaks from drains– Leaks from yard surface or bunds– Spillages onto open ground from storage

areas (eg at edge of drum bund)

Infrastructure improvements

• Map your infrastructure first• Don’t assume anything – lift manhole

covers, test drains with fluoroscein• Get your drains checked, and lined• If possible, get rid of any underground

tanks• Bund tanks, areas where drums stored• Ensure no open land near areas where

chemicals handled

Does this list sound familiar?

• If you follow BAT guidance on preventing fugitive emissions to surface water, sewer or groundwater (covered in BAT section), you should also have prevented emissions to land, as it is all about preventing pathways for pollution movement

• So if you upgrade your infrastructure before PPC permit entry, you have a sound basis to avoid intrusive investigations

• Also need to monitor long-term

SPMP – Site Protection and Monitoring Plan

• Use this to record:– Changes in hazard, substances handled (ie

alteration in sources)– Changes in infrastructure, repairs and

maintenance (ie whether pathways present)– List of polluting incidents (spills etc)

• If pollution to land, must clean up ASAP, prevent re-occurrence and put details into SPMP

SPMP notes

• If you are required to do an intrusive investigation, this forms part of SPMP

• If intrusive investigations are not required, you may be asked to install monitoring boreholes to pick up infrastructure leaks – less practical than eg camera inspections of drains, geology may not be suitable

• Note – start recording changes in your SPMP once Site Report written, as it’s a snapshot of your site, and immediately out of date

Permit surrender

• The SPMP will be used at site closure to show where any pollution under permit has occurred

• If SPMP shows no pollution to land, then land condition has not deteriorated, therefore no need for intrusive investigation at permit surrender

• Unless other factors eg reputation for disclosure, relationship with EA

Summary – preventing future land contamination

• You can avoid future land contamination by upgrading infrastructure before permit entry, so that there are no pathways to land or water, and maintaining it in good condition

• This will enable you to avoid intrusive investigations at permit entry & surrender

• This investment will save money now, and in the long term at permit surrender

Other key issues – a thorough desktop site report

• all known contamination: go through your raw material and finished product lists, now and in the past

• all potential areas contaminated: aerial photos, maps, speak to long-serving staff members

• information is lost over time – you may never get whole story

Full disclosure is vital

• If there is no record of contamination, and tests at closure discover it, it will be assumed to be from PPC permit

• If you have to do intrusive investigations:– good desktop study will help survey design– better chance of finding all your contaminants– finished “baseline” is likely to be more

accurate

What about the Contaminated Land regulations?

• You are only liable to clean up historic contaminated land if it is posing an immediate threat to the environment

• If occupiers didn’t cause the contamination, they usually pay 50% of costs, not 100%

• Many contaminated sites locally are on clay – effectively encapsulating the contamination

Using H7 templates for site report

• These tell you what information you need to include

• There is a lot of information required on infrastructure, compared to old site report

• Fairly easy to use – do as much as you can in-house.

• http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444217/444663/298441/horizontal/534710/?version=1&lang=_e

Using consultants for Site Report

• Consultants are seen to be independent – taken more seriously by regulators

• You may need specialist help with hydrogeology and conceptual model

• However, if you use consultants with big expensive drilling rigs, you may find that– They don’t want to do a full desktop study – The result of their desktop study is “boreholes

required”

Summary – thorough desktop study

• Essential if you want to identify all contaminants on site, and likely locations of pollution– need this information if not carrying out

intrusive investigations, as identifies condition of site at permit entry

– need this information if carrying out intrusive investigations, to ensure samples in right area, and contamination tested for in the right way

Thank you very much

• Any questions?

• Presentation on my website at www.ttenvironmental.co.uk/news

• Contact details: – Janet Murfin– 01274 870306 (direct)– janet@ttenvironmental.co.uk