This Issue follows on from the review of waste incineration in Issue 2, providing a thorough and detailed review of other waste management options. Waste generation affects everyone, and its treatment and disposal are matters of increasing complexity and urgency. This book examines the environmental impact of sewage and industrial effluent treatment on inland and coastal waters, in the atmosphere and on land. It also looks into current practice in the design, engineering, operation and control of landfill sites, and the effect of changes in regulatory policy. A wide range of waste management practices result in atmospheric discharges and this book reviews the localized impacts and mitigation of the discharge and the regulatory framework within which waste management has to operate. The book also covers the general and technical issues facing the materials recycling industry; looks into the factors affecting deep underground storage of radioactive fuel waste produced by nuclear reactors; and provides data from a number of case studies in cost-benefit analysis, demonstrating the utility of a consistent economic theory of waste management.

Ron Hester is an emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of York. In addition to his research work on a wide range of applications of vibrational spectroscopy, he has been actively involved in environmental chemistry and was a founder member of the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Environment Group. His current activities are mainly as an editor and as an external examiner and assessor on courses, individual promotions, and departmental/subject area evaluations both in the UK and abroad.

Roy Harrison OBE is Queen Elizabeth II Birmingham Centenary Professor of Environmental Health at the University of Birmingham. In 2004 he was appointed OBE for services to environmental science. Professor Harrison’s research interests lie in the field of environment and human health. His main specialism is in air pollution, from emissions through atmospheric chemical and physical transformations to exposure and effects on human health. Much of this work is designed to inform the development of policy.

Waste Treatment and Disposal

By R.E. Hester, R. M. Harrison

The Royal Society of Chemistry

Copyright © 1995 The Royal Society of Chemistry
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-85404-210-4

Contents

Integrated Pollution Control and Waste Minimization D. Slater, 1,
Sewage and Industrial Effluents P.M. Try and G.J. Price, 17,
Landfill K. Westlake, 43,
Emissions to the Atmosphere G.H. Eduljee, 69,
Recycling Waste Materials — Opportunities and Barriers J.L. Gascoigne and S.M. Ogilvie, 91,
Disposal of Nuclear Fuel Waste K.W. Dormuth, P.A. Gillespie, and S.H. Whitaker, 115,
The Economics of Waste Management D. W. Pearce and I. Brisson, 131,
Subject Index, 153,

CHAPTER 1

Integrated Pollution Control and Waste Minimization

D. SLATER

1 An Introduction to Integrated Pollution Control

The introduction of the system of Integrated Pollution Control (IPC), proposed by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) in their Fifth Report and embodied in the Environmental Protection Act (EPA 90) 1990, marked an important milestone in the development of the legislative philosophy and framework in the UK. The Act is of major importance since it largely established Britain’s strategy for pollution control and waste management for the foreseeable future. The Act itself is divided into nine main parts. However, only Part I is relevant to the theme of this article.

Before the introduction of IPC under the Act in April 1991, emissions from major polluters to the three environmental media of air, water, and land were subject to individual and distinct control regimes. IPC provides a mechanism and a legal basis for looking at the impact which a process as a whole has on the environment as a whole. IPC takes a holistic approach, ensuring that substances which are unavoidably released to the environment are released to the medium to which they will cause the least damage. It embodies the precautionary principle: prevention is better than cure. As the saying goes: prevent, minimize, and render harmless. Also, the regulatory process, from application, through authorization, to regular returns of monitoring releases to the environment, and, where appropriate, to the enforcement action by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP), is open to public scrutiny and comment.

Since the Act was first enacted in 1990, twelve Regulations have been made to specify and, at times, to vary the original requirements which it established in Part I. Typical, and perhaps the most important of these Regulations, are the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991 (Statutory Instrument SI/1991/472), and it is useful to examine these as an example of the purpose of the Regulations. As described above, Part I of the Act makes provision for integrated pollution control (IPC). It also makes provision for the control of air pollution by local authorities.

Regulations SI/1991/472 also provide a framework for the implementation of a substantial number of EC Directives relating to air pollution from industrial plants. It should be noted that since SI/1991/472 came into force in April 1991 in England and Wales, and in 1992 in Scotland, it has been modified six times. These amended Regulations, in general, extend (or at least redefine) the prescribed processes covered by the original Regulations and the dates for their authorization.

IPC applies to all processes in England, Wales, and Scotland falling within any descriptions of processes prescribed for the purpose by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Act provides that no prescribed process may be operated without an authorization from HMIP after the date specified in the regulations for that description of process.

In setting the conditions within an authorization for a prescribed process, Section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 places HMIP under a duty to ensure that certain objectives are met. The conditions should ensure:

(i) that the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) are used to prevent or, if that is not practicable, to minimize the release of prescribed substances into the medium for which they are prescribed, and to render harmless both any prescribed substances which are released and any other substances which might cause harm if released into any environmental medium;

(ii) that releases do not cause or contribute to the breach of any direction given by the Secretary of State to implement European Community or international obligations relating to environmental protection, or any statutory environmental quality standards or objectives, or other statutory limits or requirements; and

(iii) that when a process is likely to involve releases into more than one medium (which will probably be the case in many processes prescribed for IPC), the best practicable environmental option (BPEO) is achieved (i.e. the releases from the process are controlled through the use of BATNEEC so as to have the least effect on the environment as a whole).

HMIP is also charged with delivering the National Plan for reduction of SO2 and NOx emissions by means of the authorizations which it grants under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This translates a blanket concept, which takes no account of the pollution potential of an individual plant, into a site-specific allocation, the use of which can be accounted for by the operator, audited by HMIP, and enforced against if necessary.

The processes covered by the National Plan can broadly be grouped under three headings: first, the electricity supply industry ; second, the petrochemical industry, comprising the refineries; and third, other industry, which picks up the power-generating combustion processes of 50 MW input or more.

There is often confusion about whether the National Plan takes precedence over BATNEEC and BPEO, or vice versa? The answer is simple. All objectives have to be achieved, so effectively it is the most stringent which will prevail. If BATNEEC standards are the tighter, then BATNEEC is pre-eminent. If BATNEEC would allow greater releases than the National Plan allocation, then National Plan prevails.

2 Process Regulation

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires an ‘Authorization’ to be issued by the ‘Enforcing Authority’ which, in the case of IPC, is Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution. ‘Authorization’ means an authorization for a process (whether on premises or by means of mobile plant) granted under Section 6 of EPA 90.

The main goal, therefore, of an authorization is to specify the limits and conditions which are important to achieving the objectives of IPC in a particular circumstance. These are in the main likely to comprise limits and conditions on feed materials, operating parameters, and release levels. In turn, the detail of these, particularly of the latter, such as the period over which they apply, will need to take into account what constitutes BATNEEC, environmental impact, e.g. concentration or load-dependent process characteristics, e.g. cyclic variations, fluctuations, and practical considerations.

The operator must provide a strong, detailed justification of his process. Particularly where it is new or modifications are proposed, then all the options must be explored and justified. He must list the substances which might cause harm, that are used in or result from the process. He must identify the techniques used to prevent, minimize, or render harmless such substances. He must assess the environmental consequences of any proposed releases. He must detail the proposed monitoring of the releases. This comprehensive environmental assessment then becomes the corner stone of the assessment of the application by HMIP and available to all on the public register. HMIP can also be judged, by the public, on the way it responds. The public should then have confidence in the system.

The authorization document follows a standardized format, produced within HMIP. The conditions in the authorization have been set to ensure a consistency from one authorization to another. The standard authorization format is set out with standard assumptions. These are that the Applicant should be an expert in his own process, and that the Inspector is the expert on the requirements of the regulations and on assessment. The Applicant will have a much better understanding of his operations, requirements, process control, and variations in conditions than will the Inspector. It is for the Applicant to detail, where relevant to his process, the practicable conditions and assess the environmental implications. It is for the Inspector to assess the validity and acceptability of the proposals in respect of statutory environmental requirements. The application itself forms part of the authorization.

Releases to the various media are dealt with in a consistent manner in separate parts of the authorization. A plan should be included in the application which identifies the position of the various release points. The Inspector must consult with the National Rivers Authority (NRA) with respect to discharges to ‘Controlled Waters’ from the process, and include as a minimum requirement any conditions which the NRA insist shall be included. HMIP may impose conditions which are more onerous than those required by the NRA (e.g. continuous monitoring instead of spot sampling). Inspectors must check that the criteria used by NRA are appropriate. Section 28(3)b of the EPA requires that the inclusion of NRA’s requirements are conditions of the authorization.

The Waste Regulatory Authority will be responsible for final disposal of waste to land (including on-site final disposal) in accordance with their licensing system. HMIP is responsible for control of any releases to land not subject to control by the Waste Regulatory Authority.

An authorization includes an Improvement Programme. For a new process the improvement programme may contain requirements for additional equipment/controls, etc. The Applicant must demonstrate that BATNEEC applies during the interim period (e.g. cost of lost production versus environmental effects if there is a delay or an extended period in delivering equipment). The regulation of releases will be enforced by regular site inspections, checking against authorization conditions. The operator will be required to provide information to HMIP as specified by the authorization conditions. Whenever breaches of authorization conditions are identified, due consideration will be given to enforcement actions that could lead to prosecution in the Courts.

3 Monitoring

Unfortunately, the word ‘monitoring’ is open to wide interpretation. In its general sense it includes all HMIP’s regulatory functions, including physical inspection of processes and plants, the environment around the sites, and the paperwork, e.g. operators’ returns, etc. However, in the context of authorizations we are referring to ‘compliance monitoring’ involving the measurement and recording of those aspects of a process which are subject to limitation or condition and ‘environmental monitoring’ when this is required as a condition. Although narrower than the general interpretation, ‘compliance monitoring’ can still encompass a wide variety of measurements.

When determining compliance monitoring requirements under IPC, Inspectors consider the following points.

(i) What information is required to provide confidence that the process is being operated within authorized limits and conditions? These requirements must be capable of providing data for the period over which the limit is expressed. Thus, if the limit is ‘instantaneous’, then a spot sample (or measurement) will be specified. If the limit is an average concentration expressed over 24 hours, then a 24-hour sample (or measurement ) will be specified. If compliance with a load limit is to be monitored, then not only must the sample be taken over the period of the limit but a measure of flow will also be required.

(ii) How might the information best be obtained? Could more reliable data be obtained by deduction based on a knowledge of impurity levels in feedstocks and their behaviour during processing, e.g. mercury in caustic? Or is measurement the best option? If so, are on-line continuous monitoring systems available — do they constitute BATNEEC for that process? If reliance has to be placed on laboratory analysis of samples, how are they to be taken — by continuous sampling on a flow or time proportional basis, and over what time, or if by periodic sampling at what frequency and duration? Might surrogate measurements be more practicable?

For example, for dioxin emissions from incinerators, continuous monitoring is not available; periodic testing should be called for but is too expensive to employ more than perhaps once per month. Measurements of temperature, flow rates, feed composition, etc., would provide valuable information on whether an incinerator of acceptable design has been complying with dioxin emission limits.

EPA 90, Part 1, places no statutory requirement on either operator or regulator to carry out monitoring beyond providing Inspectors with rights of entry and powers to take away samples, etc. However, monitoring is fundamental to providing information to the Inspectorate and the general public:

(i) on whether operators are within authorized limits and conditions; and

(ii) on the levels of releases actually being made to the environment.

In its purest form an authorization need not refer to monitoring at all. The essential point is to set limits and conditions which, if complied with, constitute BATNEEC and provide for satisfactory environmental protection.

The approach that has been adopted under IPC is to place requirements on operators to monitor their releases, to keep the results of their monitoring for inspection, and to report key results to the Inspectorate for inclusion on publicly accessible registers. Furthermore, operators are required to use the best available techniques for monitoring, which HMIP regards as on-line instrumentation linked to computer data storage systems wherever practical and not entailing excessive cost.

There are arguments for independent measurement of releases but, with the growing complexity and sophistication of monitoring techniques, there are advantages in requiring the operator to carry out specified measurements of releases and to record them with other details. The regulator must make sure that these are done conscientiously and by way of tamper-proof controls and recording systems. This is part of the inspection task. In addition, confirmation and reassurance that this system is working honestly and effectively is provided by HMIP commissioning check-measurements. The purpose of the latter is not to duplicate or augment the information supplied by the operator but rather to provide information, independently generated, against which the operator’s data may be compared.

This approach to monitoring has been portrayed as self-regulation. It is not. Rather, it represents a system which is rigorous, cost-effective for HMIP and operators, requires the operator to take a close interest in the environmental impact of his operation, and will provide increased and better quality data to the public on releases.

4 BATNEEC

The Environmental Protection Act lays a specific duty upon the Chief Inspector

‘to follow developments in technology and techniques for preventing or reducing pollution of the environment due to releases of substances from prescribed processes’.

To discharge this duty, the Department of Environment allocates a sizeable research budget to HMIP, which is used to conduct and commission the research necessary to underpin HMIP’s regulatory role. An important area of this research is to find out about available techniques which are in use in the UK and abroad in the process in question, and to evaluate their relative merits. A former Secretary of State for the Environment saw IPC as a driving force for innovation, creating and satisfying demand for new technologies not only in terms of abatement equipment but in terms of the whole process. What IPC seeks to achieve is the right balance between cost to industry of better processes and abatement equipment, and cost to the environment in terms of the damage caused by releases.

As was described earlier in this Article, all IPC processes under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are subject to control via the philosophy of BA TN EEC, which has been a part of European Community legislation for some time, having been first introduced in 1984 in Directive 84/360/EEC on combating air pollution from industrial plant. This states that

‘… an authorization may be issued only when the competent authority is satisfied (among other things) that all appropriate preventive measures against air pollution have been taken, including the application of best available technology, provided that the application of such measures does not entail excessive costs …’.

For an overall definition of BATNEEC it is helpful to consider the words separately and together. Thus:

• ‘Best’ must be taken to mean most effective preventing, minimizing, or rendering polluting releases harmless. There may be more than one set of techniques that achieves comparable effectiveness — that is, there may be more than one set of ‘best’ techniques. It implies that the technology’s effectiveness has been demonstrated.

• ‘Available’ should be taken to mean ‘procurable by any operator of the class in question’; that is, the technology should be generally accessible (but not necessarily in use) from sources outside as well as within the UK. It does not imply a multiplicity of sources, but if there is a monopoly supplier, the technique will count as being ‘available’ provided that all operators can procure it. Furthermore, it includes a technique which has been developed (or proven) at a scale which allows its implementation in the relevant industrial context and with the necessary business confidence. Industry often believes that for a technology to be recommended as ‘available’, it would need to have been in commercial use for at least six to twelve months.

(Continues…)Excerpted from Waste Treatment and Disposal by R.E. Hester, R. M. Harrison. Copyright © 1995 The Royal Society of Chemistry. Excerpted by permission of The Royal Society of Chemistry.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.