Newsletter Q3 2011
Welcome to our compendium of environmental industrial compliance news items that appeared on our website www.environet.ie over the past quarter. This is a free service, issued every quarter. If you wish to unsubscribe please click the link at the end of this mail.
Gerard Kelly
CONTENTS
Applying the Monte Carlo Method to wastewater emissions to rivers (30/9/2011)
The RMP – What does the EPA want? (14/9/2011)
WTF replaces C1 form (28/9/2011)
How Emission Limit Values (ELVs) are determined (12/9/2011)
F Gases – What are they and how can industry comply? (23/9/2011)
Firewater Retention and Uncontaminated Stormwater Runoff (29/9/2011)
Applying the Monte Carlo Method to wastewater emissions to rivers (30/9/2011)
Currently the EPA is reviewing many IPPC licenses as a result of changes in ambient quality standards associated with SI 272 – European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009.
EPA guidance in relation to the assessment of emissions is to apply a simple mass balance technique, usually involving 95 %ile flows in the river and maximum emissions based on emission limit values as specified in the IPPC licence. This is a very conservative approach but if it shows that the emission is not having a negative impact then all is well.
However in many cases this conservative approach will throw up problems and another method is required to adequately model the emission.
One such method is the Monte Carlo simulation, used by regulators such as SEPA (Scottish EPA). As the environmental quality standards are expressed as %iles then its appropriate to take into account variations in river and effluent flow, and river and effluent concentrations over time. The Monte Carlo simulation models this variation and allows for a more accurate, and less conservative, assessment of impact.
For further information please contact Gerard Kelly at 058-51155.
The RMP – What does the EPA want? (14/9/2011)
The preparation of the Residuals Management Plan, a.k.a. the Closure Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan, is a requirement in the majority of IPPC and Waste Licences issued by the EPA. In summary the RMP should detail the costs associated with the closure of the activity and the returning of the site to an environmentally inert state. The EPA refers to the issues to be addressed as ‘known liabilities’. The following issues need to be planned for and costed;
- removal of waste stored on-site
- removal of raw materials stored on-site
- removal of product stored on-site
- cleaning of vessels and tanks
- removal of asbestos and other hazardous materials
- soil and/or groundwater contamination remediation
It is not necessary to return the site to greenfield status but all scenarios that may have a significant negative impact on the environment need to be dealt with.
For facilities where soil and groundwater contamination has been a know issue for a number of years, the decision to close will often trigger remediation. This is usually the largest single cost associated with a closure. If soil and/or groundwater cleanup is required then the closure is termed ‘non-clean’. Normally the IPPC/Waste licence will remain in force until the contamination is dealt with. In some cases this may take a number of years.
EPA guidance requires that a financial instrument is put in place to cover the costs identified in the RMP. This instrument could be a bond or other mechanism that allows the EPA easy access to the funds required to deal with residuals. However in practice the EPA has accepted parent company guarantees in relation to cleanup costs, especially where those guarantees are provided by large multinationals.
It is usually not possible to take out insurance to cover the costs associated with the RMP as many of the costs relate to day-to-day type activities such as the removal of wastes and the cleaning of equipment. However any soil and groundwater contamination cleanup costs may be covered depending on when the contamination occurred and the nature of the insurance cover in place for the facility.
For further information or to discuss your requirements please contact Gerard Kelly at 058-51155.
WTF replaces C1 form (28/9/2011)
In July 2007 Dublin City Council was designated as the competent authority in relation to implementation of the TFS (Transfrontier Shipment) of Waste Regulations. Dublin City Council established the NTFSO (National Transfrontier Shipment Office) to administer this function.
Now under S.I. No. 324/2011 — European Communities (Shipments of Hazardous Waste exclusively within Ireland) Regulations 2011, Dublin City Council, and therefore the NTFSO, has been designated as the competent authority for control of the movement of hazardous waste within the state. Industry should be aware of the following;
- the C1 form is being replaced by the WTF (Waste Transfer Form)
- the entire system is intended to be electronic. However while the generation of the form is electronic the Waste Producer signature etc. appears to be manual therefore Waste Producers will still need to keep a paper copy, at least until the electronic copy is returned to them.
- no timeline to complete the transfer of the waste
- waste oils not exempted under the new Regulations
- €20 fee per WTF generated.
How Emission Limit Values (ELVs) are determined (12/9/2011)
Regardless of whether the emission is to waters, atmosphere or ground the same basic principles are applied by regulatory authorities when setting limits in licenses and permits.
- Is there a statutory limit that must be adhered to?
- What is the BAT guidance limit?
- What is the impact of the emission?
Lets take an emission to atmosphere as an example:
Statutory Limit
For many sectors statutory limits apply. For example under the new Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) large combustion plants will have statutory limits applied. These limits will be seen as the maximum allowable limits and cannot be exceeded.
BAT Guidance Limits
The next test usually applied is, will a specific limit comply with BAT for the sector concerned? In the case of new facilities it is difficult to argue against BAT limits being applied. However, in the case of existing facilities, BAT limits are guidance and should be used as a basis for discussion as opposed to being directly applied. The IED is firming up on the use of BAT conclusion limits in licensing.
Impact of the Emission
Regardless of the above, most regulatory authorities will ask you to assess the impact of your emission on the ambient environment, In the case of our emission to atmosphere this will usually mean carrying out air dispersion modelling and comparing the results against statutory ambient limits and generally accepted guidance such as the ambient limits provided by the WHO. In some cases modelling will show that ELVs lower than both the statutory and BAT limits are required in order to comply with ambient limits.
The determination of ELVs by regulatory authorities will follow the above general path.
F Gases – What are they and how can industry comply? (23/9/2011)
The F-gas Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 aims to reduce the emission of the following greenhouse gases to atmosphere;
- HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons)
- PFCs (perfluorocarbons)
- SF6 (sulphur hexafluoride)
The Regulation has been in force since 2006 but was brought into Irish law in June 2011 by S.I. No. 279/2011 — Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Regulations 2011. The EPA has been designated as the competent authority.
In general the equipment below may contain F-gas;
- refrigeration
- air conditioning
- heat pumps
- fire protection
- high voltage switch gear
The following summarises the main requirements;
- a register must be kept of all equipment charged with more than 3 kg
- an annual leak check must be undertaken of all equipment charged with more than 3 kg (6 kg if hermetically sealed)
- a six monthly leak check must be undertaken of all equipment charged with more then 30 kg
- automatic leak detection must be installed on all equipment charged with more then 300 kg
- personnel installing, maintaining and servicing equipment must be appropriately qualified and certified
Remember it is the responsibility of the facility owner to ensure that the regulations are being complied with, even where the maintenance of the equipment has been subcontracted.
Firewater Retention and Uncontaminated Stormwater Runoff (29/9/2011)
The EPA’s Draft Guidance on firewater Retention Facilities dates back to 1995 and has never been finalised. Many IPPC and Waste licensed facilities have been forced to build excessively large firewater retention facilities, mainly due to the requirement in the guidance to retain vast amounts of stormwater. In many cases 80% of the capacity of firewater retention facilities is required for the retention of stormwater, as the Guidance wants a 24 h 20 year return period storm retained. So before you go building an Olympic-size swimming pool at your facility please take note of the points below;
- where possible separate stormwater runoff from large hard standing areas, such as car parks, from stormwater runoff associated with buildings. In that way you will substantially reduce the amount of stormwater to be retained in the event of a fire in the building.
- for a number of years the EPA has accepted calculations based on stormwater from a 1h, as opposed to a 24h, 20 year return period.
- assuming the facility has an automatic sprinkler system, determine how long it will take to extinguish a fire and use that time period in your calculations.
- where potential fires can be compartmentalised ensure that this is reflected in the firewater calculations.