Notice
CD1 - K (11) TAF Questions and EA Answers - Industry Discussions
Updated 7 March 2025
Download CSV 71.3 KB
| Date raised | Section | Query | Proposed Solution? | EA initial response | Status | WASCs comments from TAF 231018 | Clive Additional 231108 | TAF Updates 231123 | Clive responses for 231208 mtg | TAF updates 170124 | Clives response 200224 | TAF updates 210224 | TAF Updates 240424 | TAF Updates 150524 - references are made to the finalised notes from a separate meeting held with Georgina Collins/Clive on 030524 | TAF Updates 190624 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Cake Pad | What evidence is the EA looking for to demonstrate that the cake pads do not need to be covered? Is the onus on the industry to prove that we don’t need covers or that we do? | Proposed a combination of residual biogas potential on the cake on the pad, bioaerosol monitoring and odour assessment (Lindvall hood) be used to demonstrate there is no risk. | We are currently issuing permits without a requirement to cover cake pads. However we recognise this may not be BAT so need WaSCs to monitor and report on the level of emissions so that a benchmark can be established. I'm not aware of there being an established methodology but understand that some research has been undertaken with WaSCs so suggested that this avenue is explored. | C | No established methodology in place yet so struggling to close this out, WASCs to produce data/proposed methodology for EA approval. IED costings already gone to OfWat - ensure they are aware that future risk to cake pad improvements not yet allocated - WASCs to use uncertainty mechanisms. | We have advised Ofwat that so far there is no evidence that there will be any need to abate emissions from cake, and if in future some sites were shown to be producing cake which created emissions we would look first to process improvements rather than covering of cake (prevention rather than control of emissions). | Data on RBP testing from sites is on it's way, plus Marches Biogas are carrying out tests. If proof of emissions then process efficiencies first for outliers in RBG only. Any difference with AAD will be of interest. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Open Tanks | Companies are entering into a programme of monitoring on residual biogas potential (RBP 110). This follows the conversation on the expected method of covering tanks (i.e. covering and connecting to biogas if RBP testing fails/covering and connecting to OCU if RBP test passes). Is RBP testing still an acceptable way to demonstrate this? If not, then what alternative method/limit can be used? With regard to Secondary tanks, is the aim to mitigate 100% of the Methane emission or can we work to approved standards e.g. PAS110 whilst the material is a liquid – at the very least we need a target to aim for. | Water companies suggest that in the absence of any other method and limit, the RBP testing remains with the limit that is featured in the standard being the test limit. | Based on the results of numerous studies the assumption must be that all open tanks containing pre and post-digestion sludges will produce emissions. Therefore all tanks will require some form of cover, and the question is whether the emissions are channelled to the gas collection system or to a biofilter or other means of mitigation to minimise emissions. The use of RBP has previously been considered but is not relevant to all emissions so cannot be used as an alternative to emissions monitoring. PAS110 limits are not relevant and will not be used as the threshold for action. Supplementary: The RBP methodology can be used to gain an understanding of potential biogas emissions but is not there to meet a defined threshold. RBP in combination with understanding if an effective digestion process has taken place in the main AD tanks can give operators an indication of the likelihood of emissions. Regardless of the outcomes, tanks must be enclosed. Tanks producing biogas must channel gases to CHP engines, upgrading plant or storage. Tanks which store stable digested materials are less likely to produce biogas and should be covered with emissions directed to an abatement system. If detailed plans for alternative approaches are not included within a permit application then these standard BAT techniques must be used. NOTE - THE EVIDENCE BURDEN FOR ALTERNATIVE MEASURES CAN BE EXTENSIVE AND MUST CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT TECHNIQUE PROVIDES AN EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF PROTECTION. | O | Clive stated emissions from post digestion tanks in particular need connected to biogas system. The properties on Pre digestion tanks will differ depending on whether they are raw sludge or THP type technology, so may require gas utilisation or just abatement. RBP only deals with methane, not ammonia emissions, and is only an indication of potential emissions - built for a different industry. EA are open to alternatives to covers if data shows no emissions (e.g. slurries subject to acidification may not then produce emissions), but current established methods are covers on tanks. Is there anything we can learn from Landfill gas capture feasibility levels/methodologies? Is there an LOD stated in PAS110/BAT that would help identify a minimum? Is there anything that can be dosed to reduce emissions? | Not set | UKWIR reports state there are emissions from open top tanks. Bays to publish more reports soon. No need for expensive RBP testing on open tanks, simple optical gas gun will show emissions, therefore cover required - unless evidence to prove otherwise. EA may start using optical monitors at site visits to back up claims. Low limit emissions to go through abatement if not feasible to put through biogas system. EA looking to operators to determine what is feasible, will not be issuing a de minimus level. The lower explosive limit for methane is 4.4% therefore no use for combustion. | Not set | Raised again 17/01/24. Local Area officers have been asking sites for proof of PAS110 compliance. Permit refers to use of PAS110, but WASCs since been told by EA it no longer applies. Clive: the PAS110 methodology is an applicable method to prove stability (BAT38), but the limit is not applicable for WASCs (for RBP). Clive to confirm EA officers are aware of this? | Officers have been advised that PAS110 limits are not applicable. I am involving biowaste industry experts on how best to determine stability and thus biogas production potential. However WaSCs should continue to generate data in accordance with the PAS110 methodology. | WASCs to continue collating data PAS110/RBG in order to inform and validate any benchmarking/industry standard. Clive in discussions with Steve Bungay. Timescales will depend on how long it takes to get enough data for a sufficient degree of confidence (statistical analysis). Correlation needed between the efficacy of the treatment process and the resultant gas emissions. Collect data for open tanks and for cake pads as emphasis is more likely to be on making the treatment process better than on cake pad management. The Improvement Condition regarding digestate in tanks is required in order to prove stability for BATc38. | Action on WASCs to collect stability data and issue to Clive - Clive does not require data interpretation at this stage. Action on Clive to speak with Steve Bungay how to ensure consistency across the data collection by WASCs as methodology referenced does not go into detail required. Also written response to WASCs on the technical need for this data and what it is to be used for (verbal explanation given in meeting that it is required in order to derive an industry benchmark). The IC worded "submit a written report, with supporting evidence, on the stability of digestate..." requires "the report shall assess..." - WASCs cannot assess the results if there is no current benchmark to assess against. Action on Clive to confirm in writing what the intension of this IC is, its linkage to a 'benchmark' and how that then links to the two follow-up ICs (b & c). Also mindful that some IC deadlines are approaching. WASCs raised general concern to Clive that there is an availability/capacity issue in contractors able to carried out these assessments, so collection of data may take longer than expected. | WASC action remains open (1) -WASCs to collect stability data and issue to Clive . Clives action remains open (2): Steve Bungay recently moved companies so Clive will discuss with him once settled in role. Clives action on intention of IC remains open (3): WASC's asked that feedback was linked to wording of the IC. This was discussed in the 030524 meeting but Clive to confirm in writing what the intention of this IC is, its linkage to a 'benchmark' - which Clive stated was not discussed on 3/5- and how that then links to the two follow-up ICs (b & c). Clive said RBP is a proxy for sludge stability is to cut down the need for covering cake pads to contain methane emissions there. WASCs asked if other process improvements could negate the need for covering tanks (efficency of digestion/advanced digestion, temperature control etc.), but Clive said he could not foresee circumstances where, all post-digestion tanks would not need to be covered - part of the problem is an assumption that RBP testing is there to determine if a tank needs to be covered when the assumption is they need to be. Clive said the decision on whether a tank is then linked to the gas extraction system or to some other process for example a biofilter will be down to the operator - the RBP test will tell you the efficacy of the process. WASC's asked if we are benchmarking against any other commercial AD plants: Waste and Water Industry? Clive does not think this would be appropriate as only sewage sludge ADs feedstock is very different. EA legal team confirmed PAS110 limit is inappropriate to be used in the Water industry as it was set for a different industry so industry specific benchmarking required. Clive also said that PAS110 limits where a compromise and explained that once a benchmark is set, if a WASC falls below that then site process improvements will be required - the benchmark may need to be different for different types of AD . | (1) WASCs feedback that Steve Bungay is drafting a standard approach to RBP testing for the water industry to allow the comparison of future test results. More data will be collated on receipt of that guidance. (2)(3) Clive updated that they are looking to redraft the wording on the IC to make it clear that digestate stability is a separate IC to covering tanks. Clive also advised RBP test applies to 'whole digestate' pre dewatering, not 'cake'. Clive to confirm new wording by 27th June. Clive also producing guidance document for internal staff on the requirements of the ICs - draft to be forwarded to WASCs (4) in order to ensure joint understanding and to inform Steve Bungay work. |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Open Tanks | Risk assessed approach on tank covers: if low odour and low methane can be demonstrated, will there ever be a scenario where no cover and no abatement will be needed? | Conducting residual biogas potential on the open tank to infer methane and conducting odour assessment (individual hood). Management system approach to managing the contents of the tank (i.e. contents within the tank kept to minimum levels and returned as soon as reasonably practicable). | The nature of sludge means that emissions should be assumed. Unless zero emissions can be demonstrated a cover should be fitted. (see also response above) | C | BAT wording "prevent or minimise emissions", whereas the current EA approach is "no emissions". | No the BAT wording is to "prevent or, where that is not practicable, to reduce diffuse emissions to air". Only if it is not practicable to prevent emissions can operators aim only to reduce emissions. Since in most cases it will be practicable to fit a cover we believe that operators should be aiming at prevention and not reduction. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Secondary Containment | The ADBA RA provided a score for CIRIA C736 containment classification. More recently the RA in CIRIA C736 has been referred to. CIRIA C736 references CDIOF Guideline Environmental Risk Tolerability for COMAH Establishments (2013) which differentiates more than CIRIA C736 regarding the type of product stored and the impact on the environment (including time basis). Are we confident that the ADBA RA reflects the risk posed by Sludge and related products? | Not set | What practical difference does this make? BAT is to provide secondary containment and CIRIA C736 provides the best practice guidance for designing and installing bunding and other secondary containment techniques. If a high level proposal is accepted at the permitting stage, an operator will have an improvement condition which requires detailed design work on the proposal to be submitted to the EA. Water companies should be working towards the detailed design work and should not be waiting for individual permits determinations. The ADBA risk assessment tool is relevant for sites which perform anaerobic digestion. | C | The difference is the level of classification given to each area of containment under CIRIA. Clive to take away and discuss with specialists. | Not set | Not set | If the site is a COMAH site the CIRIA approach should be used. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Return Liquors | As part of the return liquors assessment, the EA has pointed water companies in the direction of the surface water pollutants list. This is a list of ~156 parameters. Labs are stating not all of these parameters are possible on a waste sample and not all can be assessed to the accredited method. Is the EA requesting all 156 samples (plus those in BAT) as a minimum requirement or can a risk assessed approach be adopted? Sampling of liquors. We need to clarify the scope. The labs we are using are saying that these are impossible / impractical and our budgets are reaching the £m a year level. Is there any scope for very quickly reducing the list or are there labs that have assured the EA that they can deliver and we can be told to speak to please? | Proposal is that a site specific sample list be determined. The substances to be sampled would be based on those pollutants that are likely to be found in the sludges from trade customers (sewer and tankered). The assessment would be made across all STWs that could send sludge to the STF. | Referred to permitting specialist | O | Clive asked for further detail to the question. Clive agreed to meeting with our lab specialists and his permitting and evidence specialists to discuss what the BAT requirements are and what the current blockers are with UKAS labs. In order to prep for the meeting Clive asked for a 1-pager summary of the issues to date and any evidence already collated. Some earlier issued permits are coming up to their IC deadline on this and it's obvious the discussions are still in early stages so Clive has agreed to raise this with Area Sludge Leads about the practicalities of this and being pragmatic of deadlines. | Not set | Samples have been sent to UKAS labs but dirty samples difficult to test for, samples being sent all over Europe for various tests. Organic compounds generally coming out less than EQS. Clive responded to one lab that approached them, basis of the ask has been sent to them and Clive expecting feedback from them. Clive to share that info with TAF. 1-pager to be sent to Clive and meeting to be set to discuss a practical way forward. | Not yet received 1 pager? (If it's in my inbox I apologise) | WASCs to issue summary to Clive 22nd Jan. Clive to visit ALS labs 23rd Jan. EA only in discussion with ALS, not progressing talks with any other labs at present. To use any non-UKAS labs, WASCs would need to request deviation from Standard. Clive to ask ALS if GCMS screening would be of use to our analysis. Clive to discuss IC deadline extensions with Area Leads at meeting w/c 22nd. Also add to this the head of works imports analysis similar issues (landfill leachates & PTW). Clive stated EA are having similar problems with analysis of landfill leachates (dirty samples, could contain a number of substances). WASCs have been told that Matrix needs to be assigned for these wastes, and that UKAS accreditation for the methods could take up to a year to get, therefore delaying analysis for another year if EA insist on UKAS for the ICs. | Discussions are ongoing and another lab visit is being organised. It would appear that metals should not be problematic as analysis techniques for metals can cope with dirtier samples without significant interference in results. Some organics may be more difficult. WaSCs should ensure that samples are representative and not worst case scenarios which are more difficult to achieve successful results. | EA visit to ALS was informative and a return visit due mid-March. Metal analysis is straight forward but many of the organics need further conversation. Clive to look to respond to queries raised within the WASCs earlier note, which include issues with site sampling techniques. RPS to be issued explaining current expectations. | Clive's visit to ALS (Cheshire) was delayed and is now 1st May. No updates on WASCs submissions expected until after this visit. Overall message is that samples are too dirty to analyse through approved methods. Action on Clive to inform local EA to make accommodations on IC timescales based on this delay in progress - an RPS will be issued to extend this deadline (WASC's understand this include extension to the similar IC requesting analysis of inlet imports - as requirement have similarities). Action: Clive to respond to WASCs concerns raised in earlier "1-pager" submission. EA landfill team having similar issues so Clive to liaise with them. WASCs raised general concern to Clive that there is an availability/capacity issue in labs able to carried out these assessments, so collection of data may take longer than expected. | Clive's 2 actions remain open. (see 24/04/24) Clive and Dan visited ALS 1st May and found it very informative. The problem seems to be high suspended solids and labs have given this issue more consideration - noting there may be a lab capacity issue referring to 12 months of sampling then tailing off. Clive said BAT19f requires waste waters to be dealt with as separate streams - if samples are being combined then this needs to stop and separate samples taken and analysed. For the lab, samples should be clearly described as to the process it came from, with consistent labelling, and appropriate matrix chosen - there are 1 or 2 matrices that are candidates but for water companies to decide. WASC's referred to previous feedback from labs including not being able to get results and / or issue with levels of certainty. Clive said Labs advised initial treatment on site may be required in the case of particularly dirty samples, or the solid/liquid fractions can be segregated for separate analysis - separating streams out for analysis as required by BAT19f will give a much better chance of analysis. WASC's asked whether the EA would still be issuing an RPS with list of required determinants. Clive said an RPS would be used to extend timescales for delivery and another mechanism used to set out principles. WASC's asked re the overall purpose and whether it was to assess permit emissions as a whole - given that all streams return to the UWWT process. Clive said in the case where whole site analysis breaches an ELV, separately sampled streams upfront will show the granularity of where the most problematic processes are and therefore mitigation can be easily focused there. However, if the whole site emissions are lower than the required ELVs, then no intervention is required. Clive referred to BAT 19f applicability for existing sites. Where current site design means it is not practical to sample processes separately within the site boundary, a mixed sample will be acceptable - Clive accepts constraints are applicable to existing sites that have combined surface water/process drainage and would not expect a separation of surface water from process waters i.e. rebuild -combined samples will be acceptable. WASCs refer to previous mention of sampling/analysis concerns for tankered imports to inlet IC - this was not discussed further today, but needs to be included in these responses. Action on WASCs (JC) to collate a standardised list of liquor sources from the installations, and state where some are commonly combined - forward to Clive. | (5) Clive has tested RPS idea with EA Modernising Reg Panel did not agree this was to be covered by an RPS so Clive will extend existing deadlines formally by letter to Directors, making internal staff aware of the letters. (6) Response to WASCs submission on Sampling/Analysis issues ("1-pager") - Clive agreed he still needs to respond to this in order that WASCs can progress plans. (7) WASCs to inform EA if they are looking to use another lab other than ALS, so he can inform them of the current IC position. WASCs to pull together list of 'descriptors' (13) (independent to Clives reply to "1-pager"). Clive noted that there were issues that had not been envisaged. |
| Sep-23 | Containment | The ADBA RA and subsequent CIRIA guidelines specify a requirement for under-tank leak detection and a second membrane under the tank. This is not considered feasible for retrofit for the types of tanks we typically have. There are significant technical issues with retrofitting leak detection and under-tank secondary containment, particularly with piled tanks. The cost would be high, efficacy low and installation may introduce further issues that undermine the intent of the solution. The examples provided in CIRIA C736 Appendix A3 are not appropriate for these types of tanks. | Given the prevalence of concrete tanks and concrete-base steel-shelled tanks in the industry, could we establish an agreed basis on which concrete bases (CIRIA C736 lists typically ~10^-12m/s) are considered sufficiently impermeable to meet the CIRIA requirement? | Pretty sure we would not require retrofitting of leak detection and membrane under existing tanks. In these instances it is likely that regular integrity testing would be substituted as the practical alternative. In addition operators should know the levels based on input and outputs from the tank with any SCADA systems. Leaks can be identified if levels don't correspond to inputs and digestates removed. | C | No further comments in meeting. | Not set | But there is value in putting some leak detection in, even to the side/surround of tanks if possible. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Open Tanks | Are alternative covers still an acceptable method for covering open tanks. I.e. Appendix 9 Producing a proposal for covering slurry stores. Note these do not lend themselves to attaching an OCU. | Install appendix 9 covers if the tank lends itself to it. Do not install OCU if the tank is demonstrating low odour emissions and if it passed RBP tests. | Appendix 9? | C | Made Clive aware of this document https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b9953ed915d13110604b6/geho0110brsf-e-e.pdf and that previous Schedule 5s for IED have included wording "examples of proposals we would expect as part of the permit application can be found in appendix 9 of guidance Covering Slurry Lagoons (publishing.service.gov.uk)". Clive to get clarification on the use of these options for covering tanks. | Not set | Not set | Intensive farming is under a different level of BAT to WASCs. Clive to confirm that this guidance was referred to in the permits in error and is not applicable to our industry. Please provide details of the schedule 5s that contained references to this and I'll ensure it's raised as a learning point for our new permitting team members. | All permits issued so far had this referred to. Clive to formal confirm position. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Containment | With reference to impermeable surfacing using a risk-based approach and spill modelling to identify settlement areas, where areas of a site have appropriate geology to meet the required secondary containment classification for that area. Would you agree that no additional measures should be applied? (especially where rapid response and, if necessary, commitment to rapid remediation techniques are proposed.) | Not set | No BAT is to prevent rather than to remediate quickly. The proposal is arguing for causing pollution which we would not be able to permit as it would not provide an equivalent level of environmental protection. | Not set | Referred to WASC/EA meeting held 16.10.23 regarding risk assessed containment. Minutes to be forwarded once finalised. Not discussed further here. | Not set | Not set | Notes are available and will be circulated. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Containment | Do you agree that the most appropriate rating of environmental risk hazard can be applied to the different areas of the site depending on the inventory that may impact that area? WaSCs are likely to adopt a single, site-wide secondary containment boundary due to their WwTWs’ historical development, physical layouts and operational constraints. Application of ADBA and CIRIA approaches gives an overall site design for secondary containment classification based on highest risk, which leads to uneconomic solutions. Do you therefore agree that different areas of the site will have different secondary containment designs based on the risk associated with that area? | WaSCs do not necessarily agree that, in general, all inventory at a WwTW is a high environmental hazard, especially where the receiving environment (e.g. soil) may not present a pollution risk especially where rapid response and, if necessary, commitment to rapid remediation techniques are proposed. Noting that CIRIA c736 (2014) Figure 2.8 Containment system classification flowchart (p30) explicitly recognises this, WwTWs can be separated into differing risk areas where different areas within the containment boundary have different classification based on the risk associated with that area. | With reference to remediation see above. There is no problem with treating each zone within a site independently as long as the low risk areas are adequately protected from adjacent areas. The proposals to date from a number of applicants are based on site wide proposals. This would of course increase costs due to the level of infrastructure. It is the applicant's responsibility to propose secondary containment designs which prevent pollution from spills/tank failure. It is in your gift to determine if site wide or localised secondary containment can be implemented. This is why we will reiterate that you should be seeking specialist advice from qualified structural engineers to inform your proposals. | Not set | Referred to WASC/EA meeting held 16.10.23 regarding risk assessed containment. Minutes to be forwarded once finalised. Not discussed further here. | Not set | Not set | Notes are available and will be circulated. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Odour | We have received feedback from our specialist contractor that the monitoring requested on OCUs may not be feasible as retrofit. Wholesale replacement will be cost-prohibitive. Has there been any discussion with WIMES regarding this as we understand they are looking at it? Would specialist contractor reports by asset be acceptable evidence of what can/can't be implemented? Any future replacements are anticipated to be compliant as 'the OCU industry' must be looking to meet the new requirements. | Not set | We would need specific details and this would be dealt with during the determination process. Note that emissions monitoring from air abatement systems such as carbon filters, scrubbers etc is a channelled emission point and a BAT requirement. In addition, these will have numerical emission limits. The Waste Treatment BREF includes an emission limit for odour or for ammonia. These are statutory limits that you must meet. | C | Specifics to be discussed during determination, but Clive did not see the need for a blanket approach to replacement of current OCUs just because some of the monitoring requirements could not be fulfilled on existing assets - specifics needed though. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Return Liquors | Sample points may have to be installed for the purposes of return liquor sampling. Is the EA looking for a consolidated sample point or a sample point on each return liquor source. In the event of multiple return liquor lines, can a consolidated sample be submitted to the lab (i.e. a combined sample taken from multiple composite samples). | Proposal to reduce the amount of sample points that are needed and have one consolidated return liquor sample point where possible. A consolidated sample will reduce the amount of sampling that is required. | Each discharge leaving the installation boundary must be compliant with BAT AELs. However if the return liquor flows are combined before leaving the installation boundary this would not be an issue as this would produce a consolidated emission. That emission point would then need to meet emission limits. | O | Due to the nature of our installation boundaries being around specific assets (to avoid wastewater assets and to take account of containment areas) and that our site drainage is existing, we have a number of points where the returns leave the installation boundary (but remain within our control), e.g. one WASC stated 5 points on one site. It is not always possible to consolidate these samples prior to the installation boundary but they are consolidated in return to the inlet for treatment. As 24-hour flow proportionate sampling is required in ICs, each of these sample points will require MCerts flow monitors and sampling equipment to be installed - this has operational constraints in some cases and is expensive. But this requirement is only for the first year as on-going sampling can be spot sampling (permit table S3.2). Clive to confirm if there is any scope to allow for spot sampling throughout, and consolidated samples? | Composite machines (flow proportionate) are a large cost for 12 months, plus capital installation. We need confirmation asap as to whether spot samples would be accepted. Add issues to the liquor returns 1-pager. Sites already with permits are being asked by local Area for plans now (in line with IC deadlines). | Not set | Need to see 1-pager | Not set | Not set | Part of Clive's response to return liquor sampling. | As above. | As above. | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Return Liquors | If the return liquor point contains the site drainage returns, results will be variable based on whether it is raining or not. In many ways this is not dissimilar to the dilution factor that can be seen on STWs during heavy rainfall events. It is not economical to re-route drainage to have surface water on a separate return line. | Variability caused by wet weather could impact the site results. Proposal would be to reschedule any return liquor samples if there is a significant amount of rainfall and therefore an increased amount of site run off. | Monitoring discharges to water: guidance on selecting a monitoring approach sets out the requirements for 'Choosing your sampling point'. This makes clear that "You must locate discharge sample points at places where you can take a sample that is truly representative of the discharge." we would not consider a diluted stream as representative. As part of the environmental risk assessment you are required to assess the maximum, minimum and average concentrations of the pollutant in the discharge. See guidance. | C | As above. | Monitoring discharges to water: guidance on selecting a monitoring approach | If it s a combined drainage system then sampling could be rescheduled if there was rain on that date - this is an acceptable reason for reschedule. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Return Liquors | The STF return liquors may also contain other non STF returns (for example STW returns or a third party that leases the land), it is not possible to re-engineer drainage channels to reduce this risk. | Proposal is to continue with the sampling (using the sample point that may have non STF returns) but to also sample the non STF returns as a separate discharge (i.e. to identify issues only if they arise). | This will be a site specific issue dealt with during application determination. You are responsible for all emissions leaving the permitted area/activities. | C | Specific WASC to feedback on what is determined in case it is raised on other sites. Not discussed further here. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Return Liquors | In the event that sample parameters fail the H1 risk assessment (after the 12 mo sampling programme has concluded) there is nervousness about what could reasonably be done to reduce some of the parameters (i.e. it may not be possible to abate through liquor treatment). Would a scenario ever be accepted where we can demonstrate it is abated through the STW. Does the EA have any expectations on what may be done from an improvement perspective if the H1 risk assessment fails on a parameter that can't be treated. | Not set | This is a hypothetical and will be a site specific issue dealt with during improvement condition assessment once the permit is issued. I'll raise the possibility with our area staff. It would be helpful to understand what parameters you believe it would not be possible to treat. It is an operator's responsibility to not cause pollution. If you cause pollution you must take steps to reduce levels of pollutants in the effluent. Dilution in the waste water treatment works is not a treatment. | C | Clive added BAT is "best available" so there would not be an expectation for treatments that aren't developed yet. WASCs raised this would be another uncertainty for OfWat to be aware of. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Secondary Containment | Re. CIRIA C736 Figure 8.4 regarding lined earth bunds (interchangeably called lagoons in CIRIA) and reflecting the narrative therein re. 'agreement with regulator'. Does the EA consider that there is a firm requirement for 1m of 10^-9m/s impermeable soil below a liner or are we permitted to use liner only (subject to competent person sign off) on the basis that spill recovery (clean up) would be significantly simpler (sooner) for sludge than say, hydrocarbons due to lack of fire risk and ease of disposal (WtW)? | Not set | See response to line 9 above. If there are site specific proposals using earth bunds informed by detailed designs in line with CIRIA C736, these will be assessed during the permit determination. | C | Discussed earlier. | Not set | Clive added that one company had proposed straw bales for containment. This is not acceptable as not robust enough. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Return Liquors | For your request for starting BAT 7 analysis; do you mean the standard determinands from BAT 7 for treatment of water-based liquid wastes, all wastes and biological treatment of waste; before they’ve been confirmed as relevant in the BAT 3 inventory assessment? An action from the IED meeting on 14th Sept was to begin sampling the site returns as soon as possible. Having seen the standard wording in the issues Improvement conditions, how would this work? The first part of the IC is to issue a sampling plan and get approval by the local EA officer before the second stage (the sampling). We could not achieve this prior to permit being issued. | Not set | We would normally require this data to be submitted as part of the permit application as the return liquors are indirect discharges to water. Sludge is a water based liquid waste so the parameters should be for this category. The IC is simply our means of managing the situation where the data has not been submitted. You should sample for the parameters in BAT 7 and submit as soon as the data is available. We will manage any determinations made in the interim period by an appropriate IC. The parameters in BAT 7 are BAT AELs which must be monitored for and an operator, as a minimum must comply with the specified limits. Its possible that there are other pollutants that cause pollution in the effluent stream. As an operator it is your responsibility to know the composition of the effluent that you discharge. If there are other relevant pollutants in the effluent you must determine if these can cause pollution. This is outlined in the surface water risk assessment guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/surface-water-pollution-risk-assessment-for-your-environmental-permit. | O | Clive: BAT7 assumes there is a clear methodology in place but where this is not the case IC is used. Clive to check how other industries were asked to do this (for example when discharging to sewer). | Not set | This is a site specific issue. Under duty of care the operator is responsible for identifying the likely risks and taking measures to address them. You will need to refer this to the labs you are using. You need to explain the likely substances of concern based on your knowledge of inputs and the BAT 7 requirements. If there are analytical limitations you need to record and evidence these and present them in your submissions. | Not set | We are expected to have started BAT3 sampling already, but BAT3 list is also a problem as it requires Hydrocarbon oil index which cannot currently be analysed for (see liquor sampling summary from WASCs). | Not set | Part of Clive's response to return liquor sampling. | As above | As above. | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Permitting | If we can show an asset is BAT compliant and submit the information, can we bring it on line before permit is determined? | Not set | No we cannot deal with parts of the site in isolation to the whole so the permit will need to be in place before that asset can be brought on line. Any new assets which alter the nature of the site, change emissions or increase environmental risk must be subject to a permit variation application. | C | WASCs explained that some applications been on work queue since March 2021 and assets need preventative upgrading or innovation within that time. Clive said to inform NPS officer and see if that application can be brought forward for permitting. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Sludge Storage | Would you class holding sludge on site for less than 7 days as holding rather than storage? | Not set | No any keeping of sludge would be classed as storage unless it is still on a vehicle in which case we are likely to view it as still being in transit | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Secondary Containment | In the Defra presentation to WASCs on the 14th September, there was mention by Tom Boichot (Ofwat) of EA case studies of secondary containment. Could we please have a copy as a matter of priority? | Not set | These were suggested by Ofwat and discussed in general terms but not produced as a document because of the bespoke nature of each secondary containment solution. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Permitting | IED permit applications are based on a snapshot of the site at a certain point in time. Sites variously have works undertaken which may drive a need to change the basis of the application. In some instances the specific detail of the changes is not yet apparent. Once Bespoke Conditions are provided, what will be the mechanism for communication of changes and can you outline the approach the EA will take should our plans need to change? | Not set | Not sure I fully understand the purpose of this question. We permit the site as it currently exists and use improvement conditions to agree any development of the facility required to achieve BAT. Once a high level proposal has been accepted it will be referenced in the permit. We do not expect these plans to change substantially as they are one of the essential elements we require in order to issue the permit. Where only outline proposals have been provided prior to the issue of the permit operators will have an IC requirement to provide detailed plans within a set timescale. These should be consistent with the high level outline proposals referenced in the permit. Any future changes to the facility will need to be addressed by varying the permit with a formal variation application with appropriate risk assessment and fees. Changes to permitted activities cannot be made without variations. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Waste Imports | There are concerns about the operational impact of the testing of imported waste, particularly around the requirement to hold until test results are provided/accepted in relation to testing capacity etc. Could the hold requirement be reviewed, at least for the initial phase of characterising waste streams, on a no worse than existing basis until the programme has been completed, streams have been characterised and solutions have been developed? | Not set | Is this in relation to the installation? Or head of works? Sampling can be performed using the techniques outlined in our guidance on monitoring of discharges https://www.gov.uk/guidance/monitoring-discharges-to-water-guidance-on-selecting-a-monitoring-approach Composite flow proportional sampling can be undertaken. In some cases, you may need to perform bulk composite sampling. | O | https://www.gov.uk/guidance/monitoring-discharges-to-water-guidance-on-selecting-a-monitoring-approach | Not set | TW and JC: Check question and feedback. | Not set | Action for Clive as Tommy too busy. Clive: For industrial wastes (inc PTW): Sample handed in as tanker arrives, undergoes some basic tests then driver given ok to discharge. Sample then held for a period of time as reference (for example for traceability if environmental harm later found). Periodic sampling required based on risk, desktop assessment is not enough for due diligence. No need to "hold" the tanker. Cess/Septic are deemed much lower risk they fall out of waste regs. WASC: Some sites only do visual checks on arrival (PTW). Dan Pursglove has been tasked with producing a Standard Rules permit for imports to head of works. | Closed? | Not set | Not set | Reopened for more clarity on tankering imports - see line 6 | WASCs request that this IC also be extended in line with Return Sampling/Analysis as it has the same issues (see above). Clive agreed to ask Dan Pursglove as he is heading this project (8). |
| Sep-23 | Permitting | Could a summary/diagram be provided to show the proposed route(s) to compliance in line with the latest route outlined, specifically with regards to: revision of applications, bespoke conditions, measurement of progress in meeting the conditions, management of change of conditions (inc. re. outcomes from sample/test/waste characterisation)? | Not set | Needs further discussion to understand what is being sought | C | Not set | Not set | We are way behind on getting applications processed, there is a deadline for 20th Dec for better applications to be issued. After that date applications will be returned if lacking and left to Area for potential enforcement action as site is no longer covered by the position statement. NPS have new staff starting so permit determination will be a lot quicker by April. The requirements to meet BAT is not related to having a new permit so improvements should be progressed now. You wouldn't wait for a permit to build a new plant to BAT, you'd build it to BAT then apply for the permit, this is no different. Area may accept a comprehensive action plan for BAT delivery if there are reasons it cannot be done in time, e.g. if 5 sites cannot be taken offline at once, so have to be taken off sequentially. Reg61 sites are already under legal obligation to meet new BAT standards. The Reg61 is a statement of gap analysis from back when submitted and EA expect by the time they pick up the Reg61s that sites are in advanced stages of compliance as they've known about it for over 4 years. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | General Guidance | Which guidance are we looking to meet? Output from the 14.09.23 meeting references the below list, but a note from our installations Snr. Permit officer says Appropriate Measures supersedes them and more recently guidance has reverted to referring to BAT. Given some of the differences identified between BAT and AM (WaterUK/Atkins report), and particularly as BAT does not reference CIRIA C736, could we have clarity on which takes precedence? How to comply with your environmental permit: Additional guidance for anaerobic digestion. Reference LIT 8737, version 1, November 2013 How to comply with your environmental permit: Additional guidance for composting and aerobic treatment sector. Reference LIT 8705, version 1, November 2013 Framework for assessing suitability of wastes going to anaerobic digestion, composting and biological treatment. Framework guidance note dated July 2013 | The industry is clearly going to have to identify lower cost solutions, accepting that each site is bespoke but it feels like a general guidance document would be of benefit. This would also allow for homogenisation of solutions across WASCs and ensure nationally uniform implementation of IED. | WaSCs must achieve BAT as laid out in the BREF. The appropriate measures consultation document guidance makes clear that it replaces the three guidance documents references, which were themselves non-binding guidance. Appropriate measures guidance is non-binding and for guidance only. It does not as the Atkins Report suggests gold-plate BAT, and it allows alternative measures to be adopted in the same way as BAT allows so flexibility is maintained throughout. The Atkins Report has no standing and is fundamentally flawed both in its assumptions and findings. The biowaste appropriate measures is based on the Waste Treatment BREF and its purpose is to provide more information to operators when implementing BAT requirements. CIRIA C736: we have stated all along that we expect operators to demonstrate compliance with BAT. In our opinion this can be achieved by following CIRIA C736 which is the accepted industry standard for secondary containment. Following CIRIA C736 gives WaSCs a degree of certainty that their containment proposals will be acceptable. However we have also been clear that alternative solutions offering an equivalent standard of protection will be accepted. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Secondary Containment | CIRIA C736 makes various references to 'in consultation with the regulators/ discussed with regulator' and similar phrasing, particularly with respect to the economics of implementing solutions. Given Ofwat feedback on the anticipated IED costs for WASCs, can the EA confirm how economic considerations are to be balanced with technical requirements when determining what solutions are appropriate? The EA has previously fed back that solutions are subject to approval by competent engineer and there has been limited feedback on site specific issues. | Not set | CIRIA standards are being used as a proxy for BAT. When the BREF was produced the economic considerations were taken into account so there is no further consideration of the economics at a site level. Any reference to economics in CIRIA can therefore be disregarded. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Funding | What discussions has the EA and Ofwat had with respect to ensuring solutions provide best value for customers? This is especially pertinent for sites where the operational basis will change within AMP8 and require fewer storage assets. Concern is submission of a plan that reflects the future operational state (essentially on a time-based risk) will be deemed non-compliant by the EA and rejected. | Not set | The regulatory requirements of the IED stand independent of the funding mechanism. BAT obligations are not watered down on the basis of cost. It is for operators to find the best value solution at the facility that achieves BAT. Note that in addition to the requirement to meet BAT Ofwat will expect proposals to deliver vfm so there is an expectation that proposals will not be overengineered. Under the Environmental Permitting Regulations, permit holders must be a 'competent operator'. As part of being a competent operator, you must have the finances to carry out your operations and meet your permit conditions. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legal-operator-and-competence-requirements-environmental-permits The point about the change of operational basis is not understood. Please expand. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Containment | Can the EA confirm firefighting water capacity in the bund is not a requirement for sludge storage as it is not flammable? Any methane would rapidly disperse to below LEL and not cause an explosive atmosphere. | Not set | Yes I believe this to be the case. The primary concern at AD sites is the safety of the gas system. | C | Not set | Not set | Clive to clarify if site containment capacity needs to include additional volume for fire fighting waters. | Confirmed that we are not including fire water in the containment capacity if the containment area serves only the storage of sludge and does not include other process areas. | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Containment | Retrofitting of containment and leak detection to existing partially buried concrete tanks poses a technical challenge. Any excavation around existing tanks may undermine the existing tank integrity. Alternative means of monitoring for leaks will be proposed. Is this in line with the EA general anticipated approach? | Not set | Yes - see line 7 above. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Air dispersion modelling | Would air dispersion modelling using SCAIL Combustion be acceptable? | Would air dispersion modelling using SCAIL Combustion be acceptable? | By reference to our current guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-emissions-risk-assessment-for-your-environmental-permit we would need to understand why you believe this to be suitable | C | Air emissions risk assessment for your environmental permit - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Funding | We have been required to provide IED cost estimates to Ofwat as our regulator. Some elements of IED costs are yet to be fully determined (e.g. subject to testing outcomes, EA call for cake evidence). Ofwat are anticipated to provide funding in line with this estimate to allow WASCs to complete works. Has there been any discussion with Ofwat over how this uncertainty is managed? | Related is the idea that we have an-across industry 'guide' as to what solutions are considered cost effective, suggest this could be agreed between WaterUK, EA and Ofwat. | Yes this has been discussed with Ofwat but funding is a matter for Ofwat not for the EA . As mentioned above cost or affordability is not considered a factor as it has been considered at the BREF drafting stage. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Secondary Containment | Risk based approach. When can we get certainty on how this will operate? If we believe that risk assessment can be used to mitigate the need for full secondary control we will need to understand how we can agree a satisfactory outcome i.e. do we have to wait till a permit is determined? | Not set | If you follow the CIRIA 736 risk assessment process and propose solutions in keeping with CIRIA 736 then that will give you the certainty you want as it's the accepted industry standard. If you follow CIRIA 736 you should consider carrying out the works in advance of getting your permit. Any deviation from CIRIA introduces a degree of uncertainty. If your proposed solution fails to contain the inventory on site you can be certain it will not be approved. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Secondary Containment | Secondary storage. Is there a possibility of using surfaces other than concrete that have a low permeation e.g. clay soils. Linked to option 1 this could be massively helpful. | Not set | This goes back to providing an alternative approach to CIRIA 736. You should seek pre-application engagement as advised. Note that the more alternative approaches or more novel proposals are considered the greater the evidence burden. If an applicant wishes to pursue an earth based impermeable surface to an area of land required to be impermeable, detailed proposals must be submitted with the application. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Open Tanks | Floating roof digesters. We have a plan, but it cannot / will not be quick because of the scale of work required. Can we discuss how Improvement Conditions could be applied? Work will have to be phased. | Not set | If there is an acceptable scheme of works proposed and this represents 'best endeavours' we will consider it. We will expect all planning to be at an advanced stage as WaSCs have already had over 4 years to plan and prepare for these works. Detailed designs are expected in a minimal timeframe from the point when a permit is issued as part of an improvement condition. If we receive high quality proposals and detailed designs for retrofitting AD tank enclosures then this would help us consider that you are taking best endeavours to implement the new tank covers. If detailed designs are not provided in the improvement condition timescales, the EA may need to take enforcement action. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Permitting | Will NPS be open to amendments passed the 20th December deadline to account for management system changes associated with containment options (operational/asset/boundary changes)? There is a method used by discharge permits called “non routine notification” – would this be useful here? How are ongoing changes to IED permits going to be managed taking into account applications have been with the EA for some time and operations/solution developments may have changed? | Not set | Addendum can be made to applications up until they are consulted on. i.e. duly made. We would expect any amendments to be submitted in a timely manner and WaSCs do have NPS contacts that they can keep informed of changes. See section 2.10 of relevant guidance which advises of relevant charges if changes are made to applications during determination which would lead to re-consultation being required | C | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-permitting-charges-guidance/environmental-permitting-charges-guidance | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Permitting | Whilst these current applications are being progressed, sites are under-going other changes to assets and management systems that are not to do with this application and therefore are not being picked up by this dedicated NPS team. This will lead to a number of variation applications following quite quickly after these initial permits are issued. What is NPS’s thoughts on this? Would the current team remain on to cover these, or are they reverting to the wider work queue? Will the Environment Agency be retaining a dedicated Permitting officers at NPS to process any future IED AD permit variations? | Not set | It is our intention that any future variation will be added to the existing work queue. The virtual WaSC IED team have been assembled in order to determine the initial applications. Permitting staff specialise in different types of permit so there will be specialist installations permitting staff to pick up future permit variation applications. If the variations relate to waste operations which form part of a consolidated permit they may be handled by specialist waste permitting staff. (Is this correct?) | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Odour | When setting OCU stack "action levels" requested by the EA for specified compounds (appears to be related to H2S, or odour) what receptor exposure criteria is to be used (averaging period, and concentration) to determine concentration at stack. What constitutes a receptor and are there different classifications of receptors with associated and different exposure criteria? | Not set | This is as set out in the permit H2s - CEN TS 13649 for sampling and NIOSH 6013 for analysis, Odour BS EN 13725. H4 guidance includes receptor sensitivity. | C | Not set | Not set | Clive to clarify further. The permit includes the requirement to set "actions limits" but does not provide details - it is assumed these are numerical values/exposure criteria associated with specified parameters that do not have to specific ELVs attributed to them e.g. H2S and Odour, if that's the case what criteria is to be used to set these limits If H4 is to be used for odour (e.g. 1.5oue/m3 98%ile-1hr ave at receptors) . Can EA confirm BREF guidance range for outlet odour 200-1000oue/m3 at stack is irrelevant? | This last question does not make sense to my colleagues - please clarify the purpose of asking this. | Andrew sent email. With Clive to review. | Clive responded again Friday 16th February | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Odour | OCU TVOC ELV's of 20mg/m3. Does the EA include methane in the classification of Total VOCs? | If it does, could this be revised to non-methane (nmVOCs), as methane is not targeted for removal by OCU and at such low concentrations it is not practicable to direct this to biogas systems. | If methane is being produced air abatement systems like odour control units (carbon filters, scrubbers) would not be BAT. Biogas (containing the methane) must be channelled to the biogas systems for use (CHP/upgrading) or further storage. OCUs/air abatements are only BAT for non methane VOCs and odour. If concentration of methane is considered to be so low that it is not technically possible to utilise the methane this should be evidenced and alternative abatement methods should be proposed. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Odour | Does the need to complete a bio-aerosol assessment associated with biological odour control units only apply to open topped, upward flow unit, organic media units? i.e. Does it apply to fully enclosed bio-scrubber and bio-trickling filters, or those fitted with demisters such as knit mesh or chevron plates? Can EA confirm risk assessment is not required if there is a second stage of treatment e.g. dry scrubbing. | Not set | Bio-aerosol risk assessment is required for open and closed biofilters | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Permitting | Could the process of permitting the Reg 61 sites be defined in terms of timescales for improvements, requirements to review documentation and/or more detailed questioning on BAT compliance? Will this take the form of a letter and/or Improvement Conditions to the existing permit? Is there an expectation that this will be completed by 20th December 2023? | If further requests for information are required a staged approach would be preferable in order to be able to provide the required information in a timely manner. | This work should have been done in advance and form part of the Reg 61 submission. Holders of existing permits are expected to use the 4-year compliance window to ensure they have upgraded their operations to new BAT standards. As an existing installation, the operator should already be BAT compliant. It is the operator’s responsibility to ensure this is done as soon as possible. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Permitting | Temporary plant - water companies may need to bring temporary equipment to be used on site within the permitted area e.g. to cover maintenance / repair of other assets. Please confirm that whether or not the use of such assets needs to be agreed locally with EA e.g. for example under 2.3.1 in permit? | . | Yes local agreement should be sought | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Permitting | Permanent Changes - please confirm whether changes to infrastructure that result from Output from Improvement Condition will require a permit variation? ( or will plans submitted to the Environment Agency be used to document such changes and a variation not be required). | Not set | Generally speaking the plans submitted to and agreed by the EA will form part of the permit documentation so no permit variation is likely to be required. However it is impossible to foresee every scenario, and if the changes are very significant it may prove necessary to vary the permit. Note, in general, changes operators make to permitting activities must have an approved variation. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Odour | BAT 10 refers to periodic monitoring of odour emission where an odour nuisance at sensitive receptors is expected or has been substantiated i.e. site specific? Please advise how has the Environment Agency determines the frequency for sniff testing required? | Not set | Sniff testing frequencies specified in the permit process monitoring is for 'daily olfactory monitoring'. This is based on best practice over a number of years for the commercial biowaste operators. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Odour | How does the Environment Agency determine the frequency for OCU process monitoring parameters, as frequencies are not stipulated in BAT. | Not set | Process monitoring is derived from best practice and an understanding of how operators must monitor abatement techniques to maintain effective abatement efficiency. Many of these monitoring parameters are included in the relevant standard rules and the Biowaste appropriate measures guidance. If there are different/additional parameters or differences to frequencies applicants should be explaining in their applications what these are and why it is appropriate to do so. Otherwise, we will incorporate these typical monitoring requirements across all sites. Note, these are also standard in the commercial AD sector. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | This question was reopened based on the wider table of process monitoring within the recently issued permits. Where are these process monitoring requirements from and how flexible are the requirements dependant on OCU type? Clive stated if the requirement is not applicable to that type of OCU then that should be stated at operator review, or utilise "as agreed with EA officer". | Clive confirmed wording is standard, and that discussions would be required with local EA officers regarding applicability of certain parameters for different OCU types. Area to decide or escalate to Clive for attention of EA odour Team as necessary | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Secondary containment | Has the EA reconciled, at an asset/site level, tank containment objectives with flood protection duties. There is a concern water companies could be committing to solutions which are at later deemed as being unacceptable? Please provide feedback from discussion previously referred to by the EA. | Not set | It is the applicants responsibility to ensure that all relevant authorisations are in place for containment solutions proposed. - Note: we are not assessing final designs and as such would not consult FCRM | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Reporting | What transitional arrangements will be put in place to support regulatory reporting for the first issued permits – e.g. sector specific guidance? Additional time need for certain aspects of end of Jan EPR reporting or the approach to reporting when a permit is issued in late Oct, Nov or Dec?. | Not set | Unclear what the difficulty is here? Please provide further explanation | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Emissions: Return Liquors | Spot sample or flow proportional composite sample' is referenced in Table S3.1 (Monitoring) in issued permits, whereas the wording of Environment Agency Improvement condition only refers to use of 'flow proportional sample's. Are 'spot samples' acceptable in when collecting each of 12 samples required for characterisation of waste waters? Or are we missing the point of this question? One for pre-app advice? | Not set | Guidance sets out the requirements for monitoring. Your sample must be representative of the discharge. You would need to demonstrate how a spot sample would provide this. Note that sampling and monitoring are different things. Table S3.1 sets out monitoring techniques and frequencies based on the Waste Treatment BREF. If a substance is in your effluent, for example a heavy metal like arsenic, you must monitor to the frequency required by BAT. This is to assess ongoing compliance with emission limits. Sampling in the IC is to determine what is in your effluent. For a typical permit application, applicants should provide this information. The IC is a very pragmatic way to ensure you perform this essential data collection and will inform your environmental risk assessment. | O | https://www.gov.uk/guidance/monitoring-discharges-to-water-guidance-on-selecting-a-monitoring-approach#sampling | Not set | Clive to confirm that the process monitoring dets listed within table S3 of permits is dependant on the outcome of IC related to characterisation of that waste, and would not be expected in full until the IC is complete? Area officers are asking for this data already. | Yes need to characterise the waste. We expected this information to have been provided in advance. Not sure we have a clear understanding of the question. One for pre-app advice? | This also affect head of works importing. | Not set | Yorkshire raised a specific example of where there could be a calculated flow based on level sensors instead of installation of a flow meter which would required a large dig down. Clive to discuss this alternative with them outside the TAF and feedback. | Action with Clive to discuss request with YW local EA officers and feedback. (see also above ref reply on industry one pager'. | No time for update in meeting. | Not set |
| Sep-23 | Secondary Containment | What would the EA's expectations be if/when Ciria C736 or BAT or Appropriate Measures was redrafted / rewritten during the permit application phase or during the design-construct phase of "approved" options. | Not set | If CIRIA 736 is redrafted it unlikely to make any difference as CIRIA is only referred to in the ICs which will already have been completed. If BAT is redrafted or replaced by UK BAT a permit review will be conducted and permits amended if required. If the Appropriate Measures are redrafted there will be a formal consultation process, however since we permit to BAT and not to the Appropriate Measures there should be no practical difference. | C | Not set | Not set | Not set | Unless further questions we consider this closed | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |
| Feb-24 | Secondary Containment Modelling approaches | There seem to be a few different approaches to this modelling by different consultants, all to CIRIA standard. Will the EA accept design solutions based on the required containment (110%/25%) volume plus 250mm additional height on walls to give the necessary containment - “bottom up” method? If not then are you able to provide guidance on an alternative acceptable approach? | Not set | Not set | O | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Clive stated if the process is robust then either method is acceptable, but agreed to discuss further with UU outside of TAF. | Clive confirmed if it meets 110%/25% the EA will be happy. Clive to meet UU 26th April to discuss this. 25% can be modelled in more than one way, and gives very different solutions which is a key decision to containment build. Clive confirmed it is still difficult to model surge and spray effects so they are focusing on spill containment. | No time for update in meeting. | Clive met with UU and was taken through their "dynamic modelling" approach to CIRIA. Clive confirmed that complex modelling was not required. No need to include jetting or surge element unless a sensitive receptor was present. Wessex gave example of Avonmouth being next to an ancient monument so needed a high wall. As that approach is in conflict to what CIRIA requires from the modelling, Clive to confirm (in response to UU's notes from the day) that jetting/surge is no longer required in most cases across the water industry (9) Firefighting/rainfall freeboard - Clive said every site will be different so needs to be calculated - some recognition of added freeboard will be expected. Clive to look again at approach where bund is open to UWWT process (YW). Clive said EA wanted a high std of protection that is broadly in line with CIRIA. |
| Feb-24 | Appropriate Measures Update | Guidance was updated last month to include tighter controls on LDAR gas monitoring. This came as a surprise to WASCs - no consultation or prior knowledge. What is the review process for AM, when should we expect them, and how would we be told? | Not set | Not set | O | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Clive stated the changes were believed to be minor technical changes so no consultation. And as AM applies mainly to waste operations (BAT applies more to installations) he did not see it affecting us. There is no standard review process for AM. It took 10 years to review & revise the current AMs for different sectors. They are updated when there is deemed a need to. | WASCs informed Clive they are being asked by local EA for copies of LDARs, and being checked against AM guidance section 11.9 (which was amended Jan 2024). Clive said EA do sometimes adopt std from elsewhere e.g. US EPA. LDAR IC: Thames have had different IC wording issued in recent permits. Action on Thames to forward wording differences to Clive to raise with permitting team. | Thames forwarded wording to Clive. Believe there are no fundamental differences, but Clive to formally respond. | Clive to respond to Thames earlier email on inconsistent wording across permits (10). Clive to talk to Tim Huntley (EA) to see if any further technical advice is available on compliance with LDAR/methane slip IC (11). |
| Mar-24 | AD rationalisation | EA to confirm the approach to closure of these sites, and of maintenance of these sites in the interim period. | Not set | Not set | O | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Action on Clive to respond to email on this (18/03/24). Verbal response in meeting is that no decision will be made across the board. For those closing after 31st March 2025 a decision will be made by local EA officers as they will have the best view of if any interim works will be required before closure. Permits will continue to be issued as required for regulation, but Clive doubts significant capital investment will be expected unless there is a current need due to ongoing pollution issues. Local EA may expect some mitigation but not to BAT as there would be no public interest in that level of spend. Clive is pleased to hear this assessment/rationalisation is happening within the industry. Dave H will raise this pragmatic approach with NRW as they are very much looking for full BAT compliance even on sites allocated to close. | Clive states the meeting notes of 030524 cover this - WASC attendees to read notes and raise any outstanding issues back to TAF. | Clive agreed to respond to email (12), but confirmed no permit was needed if the site was to cease AD activities prior to March 25. The added requirement to remove wastes from site in a timely manner is to avoid the EA's experience of sites with legacy waste mounds. If the site is closing after that date then permit application and issued permit required, listing all applicable ICs. It will be up to the WASCs to discuss close out (or not) of these IC's with their local officers, based on site risk. |
| Jun-24 | Deadlines | Full compliance by 31/03/25. | Not set | Not set | O | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | WASCs asked if they will likely be an extension of this date due to a couple of IC's requiring extensions which will take us passed this deadline? Clive sees a need for extension on the Liquor Returns sampling. Are the timescales on the IC directors letter applicable for compliance if it arrived first, or is it the issued permit? Clive confirmed the permit timescales are applicable - the letter was sent as a heads up to start becoming compliant as early as possible. Any enforcement decisions will be from March 25. If we have interim IC reports (e.g. secondary containment) prior to permit issued, how can we progress when there is a requirement for EA sign off first? Clive stated any interim reports can be sent to our current Area Officers for sign off. WASCs asked for EA permitting update: Clive stated 95% of permits will be issued by the 31st March 2025 with 5-6 permits being freed up in next few weeks. Clive stated EA have had all resources in place but they have struggled to receive some required data from WASCs on some of the applications. Clive is to present a paper to internal staff next week on how to approach WASCs compliance/enforcement post 31st March 25 date. |