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

Decision document recording our decision-making process

The Permit Number is: EPR/SP3234HY The Applicant / Operator is: Peel Energy Limited The Installation is located at: Boulevard

What this document is about

This is a decision document, which accompanies a permit.

It explains how we have considered the Applicant’s Application, and why we have included the specific conditions in the permit we are issuing to the Applicant. It is our record of our decision-making process, to show how we have taken into account all relevant factors in reaching our position. Unless the document explains otherwise, we have accepted the Applicant’s proposals.

We try to explain our decision as accurately, comprehensively and plainly as possible. Achieving all three objectives is not always easy, and we would welcome any feedback as to how we might improve our decision documents in future. A lot of technical terms and acronyms are inevitable in a document of this nature: we provide a glossary of acronyms near the front of the document, for ease of reference.

Preliminary information and use of terms

We gave the application the reference number EPR/SP3234HY/A001. We refer to the application as “the Application” in this document in order to be consistent.

The number we have given to the permit is EPR/SP3234HY. We refer to the permit as “the Permit” in this document.

The Application was duly made on 14 January 2011.

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

Peel Energy Limited’s proposed facility is located on land adjacent to the and the M60 motorway, Trafford Boulevard, Manchester. We refer to this as “the Installation” in this document.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 1 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

How this document is structured

• Glossary of acronyms • Our proposed decision • How we reached our decision • The legal framework • The Installation o Description of the Installation and general issues o The site and its protection o Operation of the Installation – general issues • Minimising the installation’s environmental impact o Assessment Methodology o Air Quality Assessment o Human health risk assessment o Impact on Habitats sites, SSSIs, non-statutory conservation sites etc. o Impact of abnormal operations o Other Considerations • Application of Best Available Techniques o Scope of Consideration o BAT and emissions control o BAT and global warming potential o BAT and POPs o Other Emissions to the Environment o Setting ELVs and other Permit conditions o Monitoring o Reporting • Other legal requirements o The EPR 2010 and related Directives o National primary legislation o National secondary legislation o Other relevant legal requirements • Annexes o Application of the Waste Incineration Directive o Pre-Operational Conditions o Improvement Conditions o Consultation Reponses

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 2 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Glossary of acronyms used in this document

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

APC Air Pollution Control

BAT Best Available Technique(s)

BAT-AEL BAT Associated Emission Level

BREF BAT Reference Note

CEM Continuous emissions monitor

CHP Combined heat and power

COMEAP Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution

CROW Countryside and rights of way Act 2000

CV Calorific value

DAA Directly associated activity – Additional activities necessary to be carried out to allow the principal activity to be carried out

DD Decision document

EAL Environmental assessment level

EIAD Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC)

ELV Emission limit value

EMAS EU Eco Management and Audit Scheme

EMS Environmental Management System

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

EQS Environmental quality standard

EU-EQS European Union Environmental Quality Standard

EWC European waste catalogue

FSA Food Standards Agency

GWP Global Warming Potential Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 3 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

HHRAP Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol

HMIP Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution

HPA Health Protection Agency

HRA Human Rights Act 1998

HW Hazardous waste

HWI Hazardous waste incinerator

IBA Incinerator Bottom Ash

IPPCD Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (2008/1/EC)

I-TEF Toxic Equivalent Factors set out in Annex I of WID

I-TEQ Toxic Equivalent Quotient calculated using I-TEF

LCPD Large Combustion Plant Directive (2001/80/EC)

LCV Lower calorific value – also termed net calorific value

LfD Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC)

LHB Local Health Board

LOI Loss on Ignition

MBT Mechanical biological treatment

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MWI Municipal waste incinerator

NOx Oxides of nitrogen (NO plus NO2 expressed as NO2)

Opra Operator Performance Risk Appraisal

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PC Process Contribution

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls

PCT Primary Care Trust

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 4 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

PEC Predicted Environmental Concentration

POP(s) Persistent organic pollutant(s)

PPS Public participation statement

PR Public register

PXDD Poly-halogenated di-benzo-p-dioxins

PXB Poly-halogenated byphenyls

PXDF Poly-halogenated di-benzo furans

RDF Refuse derived fuel

RGS Regulatory Guidance Series

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SED Solvent Emissions Directive (1999/13/EC)

SCR Selective catalytic reduction

SGN Sector guidance note

SNCR Selective non-catalytic reduction

SPA(s) Special Protection Area(s)

SS Sewage sludge

SSSI(s) Site(s) of Special Scientific Interest

SWMA Specified waste management activity

TDI Tolerable daily intake

TEF Toxic Equivalent Factors

TGN Technical guidance note

TOC Total Organic Carbon

UHV Upper heating value –also termed gross calorific value

UN_ECE United Nations Environmental Commission for Europe

US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 5 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

WFD Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)

WHO World Health Organisation

WID Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC)

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 6 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

1 Our proposed decision

We have decided to grant the Permit to the Applicant. This will allow it to operate the Installation, subject to the conditions in the Permit.

We consider that, in reaching that decision, we have taken into account all relevant considerations and legal requirements and that the permit will ensure that a high level of protection is provided for the environment and human health.

This Application is to operate an Installation which is subject principally to the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPCD) and the Waste Incineration Directive (WID).

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

2 How we reached our decision

The Applicant held pre-application discussions with the Environment Agency, the Environment Agency’s notes from these meetings have been placed on the public register and where relevant been used in assessing the Application.

The Application was duly made on 14 January 2011. This means we considered it was in the correct form and contained sufficient information for us to begin our determination but not that it necessarily contained all the information we would need to complete that determination: see below.

The Applicant made no claim for commercial confidentiality. We have not received any information in relation to the Application that appears to be confidential in relation to any party.

We carried out consultation on the Application in accordance with the EPR, our statutory PPS and our own RGS Note 6 for Determinations involving Sites of High Public Interest. We consider that this process satisfies, and frequently goes beyond the requirements of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, which are directly incorporated into the IPPCD, which applies to the Installation and the Application. We have also taken into account our obligations under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (particularly Section 23). This requires us, where Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 7 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

we consider it appropriate, to take such steps as we consider appropriate to secure the involvement of representatives of interested persons in the exercise of our functions, by providing them with information, consulting them or involving them in any other way. In this case, our consultation already satisfies the Act’s requirements.

We advertised the Application by a notice placed on our website, which contained all the information required by the IPPCD, including telling people where and when they could see a copy of the Application. We also placed an advertisement in the Stretford and Urmston Messenger and the Salford Advertiser on 27 January 2011.

We placed a paper copy of the Application and all other documents relevant to our determination (see below) on our Public Register and also sent a copy to Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, Pollution and Licensing, Talbot Road, Stretford, Manchester, M32 0TH, for its own Public Register. Anyone wishing to see these documents could do so and arrange for copies to be made. Electronic copies of the Application documents could also be viewed during this initial consultation at:

• Library, Hayeswater Road, Davyhulme, M41 7BL • Access Trafford Contact Centre, Sale Waterside, Sale, M33 7ZF • Eccles Gateway, 28 Barton Lane, Eccles M30 0TU • Stretford Library, Kingsway, Stretford, M32 8AP • Urmston Library, Golden Way, Urmston, M41 0NA

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

• (Environmental Health/Planning Department) • Salford Council (Environmental Health/Planning Department) • Food Standards Agency (FSA) • Salford Primary Care Trust (PCT) • Trafford Primary Care Trust (PCT) • Health & Safety Executive (HSE) • National Grid • United Utilities • Barton Aerodrome

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

In addition to our advertising the Application, we undertook a programme of extended public consultation. We attended a Public surgery which was held by the Applicant 9 and 10 December 2010 at the JJB Soccer Drome in Trafford and we published a press release 27 January 2011. Written comments were also accepted by the Environment Agency well beyond the formal consultation period. Further details along with a summary of consultation comments and our response to the representations we received

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 8 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

can be found in Annex 4. We have taken all relevant representations into consideration in reaching our draft determination.

Although we were able to consider the Application duly made, we did in fact need more information in order to determine it, and issued information notices as follows:

Notice Dated Response received 8 February 2011 18 March 2011 16 December 2011 27 January 2012

A copy of each information notice was placed on our public register and sent to Trafford Council for inclusion on its register, as was the response when received.

In addition to our information notices, we received additional information during the determination.

The Applicant sent us some additional information in response to the AQMAU reports as follows:

Additional Information sent In response to 11 May 2011 AQMAU report (Ref: C704, dated (Ref: S1100-0011-0021AMW) 21/03/11) 18 January 2012 AQMAU report (Ref:AQMAU- (Ref: S1100-0420-0051RSS) C748/776-RP02), dated 23/08/11) 2 March 2012 To clarify abnormal emissions Email from Fichtner

A copy of this information was also placed on our public register and sent to Trafford Council for inclusion on its register.

Having carefully considered the Application and all other relevant information, our draft decision was put before the public and other interested parties in the form of a draft Permit, together with the draft explanatory decision document. The consultation ran from 30 May 2012 to 15 August 2012. As a result of this stage in the process, the public were provided with all the information that was relevant to our determination, including the original Application and additional information obtained subsequently, and the public have had two separate opportunities to comment on the Application and its determination. Once again, we have considered all relevant representations we received in response to this final consultation and have amended this explanatory document as appropriate to explain how we have done this, in publishing our final decision.

More specifically, we have updated some of the information presented in Section 5 of this document to incorporate our review of background air monitoring data used in our assessment of air quality. This was undertaken as part of our consultation on the draft decision due to concerns that were raised at our public drop-in event on 12 June 2012. We re-evaluated the use of this Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 9 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 background data and published an additional Annex 5 on 23 July 2012 as part of our consultation on our draft decision. In doing this we extended the consultation deadline from 11 July 2012 to 15 August 2012. For this final decision document, we have for clarity, incorporated Annex 5 into Section 5 of this decision document.

A summary of the consultation responses and how we have taken into account all relevant representations is shown in Annex 4B.

3 The legal framework

The Permit will be granted under Regulation 13 of the EPR. The Environmental Permitting regime is a legal vehicle which delivers most of the relevant legal requirements for activities falling within its scope. In particular, the Installation is:

• an installation for the purposes of the IPPCD; • a waste co-incineration plant as described by the WID; • an operation covered by the WFD, because it processes waste; and • subject to aspects of other relevant legislation which also have to be addressed.

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

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

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

4 The Installation

4.1 Description of the Installation and related issues

4.1.1 The permitted activities

The Installation is subject to the EPR because it carries out an activity listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the EPR. Following current Agency guidance (guidance on when a plant is a co-incineration plant and the Interim guidance on most apt Schedule 1 description for Incineration and Co-incineration plant – both dated March 2011) the combustion activity is classified as a co- incineration plant with the most apt description being:

• Section 1.1 A(1)(a) – burning any fuel manufactured from, or comprising, any other waste, in an appliance with a rated thermal input of 50 or more megawatts.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 10 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Because the combustion activity is classified as a co-incineration plant this means that the WID definition ”co-incineration plant” is relevant and includes:

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

Many activities which would normally be categorised as “directly associated activities” for EPR purposes (see below), such as air pollution control plant, and the ash storage bunker, are therefore included in the listed activity description.

An installation also comprises a “directly associated activity”, which at this Installation includes the generation of electricity using a steam turbine. This is one installation, because the co-incineration plant and the steam turbine are successive steps in an integrated activity.

Together, these listed and directly associated activities comprise the Installation.

4.1.2 The Site

This permit is to authorise energy recovery from waste, which comprises predominantly waste wood. It will be located on land adjacent to the M60 motorway and the Manchester Ship Canal at National Grid Reference E375319, N396751. It lies 1km to the west of the Trafford centre and 2km to the west of Trafford. Urmston lies 1.5km to the south east and the nearest dwellings lie around 0.5km away to the south west on the other side of the existing sewage works.

Emissions to atmosphere will be released via a 44.23 metre high stack and in order to protect the adjacent air quality management area (AQMA), emissions of oxides of nitrogen will be controlled to well below the WID limits.

Manchester Mosses and Rixton Clay pits are Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) located within 10km of the Installation. Foxhill Glen, Davyhulme Millenium Nature Reserve (adjacent to Davyhulme Sewage Works) and the Bridgewater Canal are local wildlife sites located within 2km of the Installation.

There will be no releases of process effluents to water from the Installation. Uncontaminated surface water run off from the site will be collected in a sustainable surface water drainage system and discharged via an interceptor to the Manchester Ship Canal.

The Applicant submitted a plan which we consider is satisfactory, showing the site of the Installation and its extent. A plan is included in Schedule 7 to the

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 11 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Permit, and the Operator is required to carry on the permitted activities within the site boundary.

Further information on the site is addressed below at Section 4.3.

4.1.3 What the Installation does

The Applicant has described the facility as ‘renewable’ energy from waste. However our view is that for the purposes of WID and EPR, the Installation is a co-incinerator because the level of energy recovery from the waste is more than 0.8MWhr/tonne (refer to Section 4.1.1 above).

Waste Delivery and Storage Biomass fuel will be delivered to the plant in covered road vehicles, which are first weighed before proceeding to the fuel reception and loading hall. The development will also allow for delivery via ship from the Manchester Ship Canal at the northern site boundary, with a barge mooring point to be constructed. The plant will also be capable of receiving a small amount of Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF), delivered in covered road vehicles and tipped into a dedicated area of the fuel reception hall.

Checks will be made on the paperwork accompanying each delivery to ensure that only waste wood and SRF for which the plant has been designed will be accepted. The SRF and waste wood will be observed by the reception hall operator as it is tipped into dedicated storage areas to ensure the SRF and waste wood are acceptable. Any unacceptable waste will be rejected and stored in a designated area in the tipping hall. The Environmental Management System (EMS) will include procedures to control the inspection, storage and onward disposal of unacceptable waste. Certain wastes will require specific action for safe storage and handling.

The fuel reception hall will be a fully enclosed building, storing some fuel and feeding the enclosed conveyer which transfers fuel to the fuel store. Small amounts of SRF can be blended with wood fuel in the reception hall before the blended fuel is transferred to the fuel store.

Waste Charging The fuel store will hold seven days of fuel with the plant operating at 100% of its capacity. Fuel is then transferred from the fuel store to the combustion plant feed system via a completely enclosed external conveyer. The fuel is then transported via conveyors to a buffer silo from where it is discharged via a screw feed and further conveyors to the boiler feed dosing unit.

The waste charging and feeding systems will be interlocked to prevent waste charging when the furnace temperature is below 850°C, both during start up and if the temperature falls below 850°C during operation. It will also be interlocked to prevent waste charging if the emissions to atmosphere are in excess of an emission limit value due to disturbance or failures of the abatement equipment.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 12 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Combustion Process The hearth, a mechanical moving grate design, ensures continuous mixing of the fuel and hence promotes good combustion. The fuel is moved mechanically by means of reciprocating or rotating grate elements from the feed end, through a drying zone, a main combustion zone and, finally, a burn out zone.

Auxiliary low NOx burners operating on low sulphur gas oil will be fitted for start-up sequencing and to maintain temperatures above 850°C for two seconds. The oxygen concentration and temperature are carefully controlled to ensure complete combustion and minimise dioxin emissions.

The plant will employ a dry bottom ash system which consists of sliding grates installed below the boiler furnace. The sliding grates will open to allow ash to fall into an enclosed area. On a regular basis the ash will be dug-out and transferred into an enclosed container for transfer off-site as waste (see ash handling paragraph below).

Energy Recovery Hot gases from the combustion process will pass through a series of heat exchangers and superheaters to recover heat and finally through an economiser. The steam generated in the boilers will be fed to a steam turbine which will generate electricity.

Gas Cleaning Nitrogen oxides (NOx) abatement will be achieved by the use of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR). This will be based on the injection of ammonia into the furnace chambers before the boilers.

Flue gases pass from the boiler to the gas cleaning equipment. The gas will enter a reaction duct where dry hydrated lime reacts with and neutralises the acid gases. Activated carbon will be injected into the duct preceding the bag filter to adsorb (primarily) dioxins, other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mercury and other trace metals.

Bag filters will be used to remove the fine ash plus excess and spent lime and carbon as the gases pass through the bag filter fabric. These Air Pollution Control (APC) Residues will fall into a collection hopper and are then conveyed to a storage silo.

The cleaned gas will then discharge to atmosphere via a 44.23 metre high stack.

Ash Handling The bottom ash and boiler ash will be collected and combined within the building. Bottom ash is the material which falls off the end of the grate, whereas boiler ash is the fine ash which drops out of the flue gas stream in the boiler before entering the flue gas treatment system. These ash streams will be combined and transferred off-site as waste.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 13 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

The Applicant is investigating options for the recovery of the bottom ash at any facilities in the local area.

The key features of the Installation can be summarised in the table below. Waste throughput, 200,000 tonnes/annum 22.5 tonnes/hour Tonnes/line Waste processed Waste wood and virgin wood (95%) SRF (5%) Number of lines 1 Furnace technology Grate Auxiliary Fuel Fuel Oil Acid gas abatement Dry hydrated lime NOx abatement SNCR Ammonia Reagent consumption Auxiliary Fuel: 180 tonnes/annum Ammonia: 1,300 tonnes/annum Lime: 875 tonnes/annum Activated carbon: 140 tonnes/annum Process water: 60,000 tonnes/annum Flue gas recirculation No Dioxin abatement Activated carbon Stack Height, 44.23 m Diameter, 1.85 m Flue gas Flow, 41.6 Nm3/s Velocity, 18 m/s Electricity generated 22.5 MWe 180,000MWh Electricity exported 20 MWe 160,000 MWh

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 14 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

4.1.4 Key Issues in the Determination

The key issues arising during this determination were as follows:

• NO2 emissions; there are already elevated levels of NO2 and an adjacent AQMA. • Justification for achieving the unusually low NO2 concentration using SNCR. • The use of the chemistry module in the air dispersion modelling.

We describe how we determined these issues in the relevant sections of this document.

4.2 The site and its protection

4.2.1 Site setting, layout and history

The proposed installation will be located on land adjacent to the M60 motorway and the Manchester Ship Canal (National Grid Reference E375319, N396751). It lies 1km to the west of the Trafford centre and 2km to the west of Trafford. Urmston lies 1.5km to the south east and the nearest dwellings lie around 0.5km away to the south west on the other side of the existing sewage works.

There have been a number of potentially contaminative activities in the immediate vicinity of the site which have included a sewage works comprising storm water filter beds, bacteria beds and grit drying beds. It is regarded that areas of the site may have been subject to the tipping of waste products or residues from the adjacent sewage works. In addition, a variety of processes have operated on the sewage works site which are likely to have involved excavation, burial of past processes and deposition of surplus materials.

A previous ground investigation undertaken to the south of the site by United Utilities indicated that there were elevated levels of lead, total cyanide, benzene, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) compounds in the made ground.

The desktop study provided with the Application recommended the following:

It is possible that contamination is present on the site due to adjacent activities (sewerage works) and the presence of made ground on the site. A ground investigation has therefore been recommended for the site, with sampling and contamination testing followed by risk assessment as required.

In our capacity as a statutory consultee for the Planning Application we recommended the inclusion of the following condition in any planning approval (Our Reference: SO/2010/108351/01-L01, dated 31 December 2010):

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 15 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Condition

Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: • all previous uses • potential contaminants associated with those uses • a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors • potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason

To ensure the protection of controlled waters form potential land contamination.

We don’t generally repeat planning controls in permits; however in this instance we have set a condition for the Operator to provide, amongst other things, baseline ground condition data prior to operation.

4.2.2 Proposed site design: potentially polluting substances and prevention measures

A ‘Fugitive Emissions Risk Assessment and Management Plan’ was provided in Annex 4 (Environmental Risk Assessment) of the Application. This assessment addressed the hazards associated with site activities with the potential to cause harm and how the risk will be managed. The Applicant concluded that the overall risk was insignificant after the implementation of the necessary control measures. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 16 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

An ‘Accidents Risk Assessment and Management Plan’ was also provided in Annex 4 (Environmental Risk Assessment) of the Application. This assessment addressed the hazards associated with site activities with the potential to cause harm and how the risk will be managed. The Applicant concluded that the overall risk was not significant after the implementation of the necessary control measures.

The Applicant confirmed in their response to a further information notice (notice dated 8 February 2011, response dated 23 March 2011) that all of the storage facilities would be designed in accordance with the latest Environment Agency guidelines, with particular regard to pollution prevention guidelines (PPG) PPG1 (General guide to prevention of pollution), PPG 2 (Above ground storage tanks) and PPG26 (Storage and handling of drums and intermediate bulk containers).

The Applicant also identified within section 1.3.6 of the SCR that ‘it is possible that contamination is present on site due to adjacent activities and the presence of made ground on site’ and concluded that a ground investigation has been recommended for the site and associated risk assessment’. Section 1.6 of the site condition report states this work will be undertaken prior to permit issue. We have set a pre-operational condition to ensure that the scope of the investigation is agreed before commissioning of the Installation commences.

The use of infiltration sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) devices has been suggested throughout the environmental statement. Whilst in general the use of these devices are encouraged they should not be used on contaminated land where they could cause the mobilisation of existing pollutants to groundwater. For this reason further details of the surface water drainage scheme should be provided once intrusive site investigations have been completed.

We agree with the Applicants assessment and have set a pre-operational condition to ensure the protection of controlled waters and land.

4.2.3 Closure and decommissioning

Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be in place for the closure and decommissioning of the Installation, as referred to in section 2.10 of the Application. A pre-operational condition requires the Operator to have an Environmental Management System in place before the Installation is operational, which would include a site closure plan.

The Operator has to satisfy us, if it wants to surrender the Permit, that the necessary measures have been taken, both to avoid any pollution risk resulting from the operation of the Installation, and to return the site to a satisfactory state, having regard to the state of the site before the Installation was put into operation. To do this, the Operator has to apply to us for Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 17 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

surrender, which we will not grant unless and until we are satisfied that these requirements have been complied with.

4.3 Operation of the Installation – general issues

4.3.1 Administrative issues

The Applicant is the sole operator of the Installation.

We are satisfied that the Applicant is the person who will have control over the operation of the Installation after the granting of the Permit; and that the Applicant will be able to operate the Installation so as to comply with the conditions included in the Permit.

The incineration of waste is not a specified waste management activity (SWMA). The Environment Agency has considered whether any of the other activities taking place at the Installation are SWMAs and is satisfied that none are taking place.

We are satisfied that the Applicant’s submitted Opra profile is accurate. The Opra score associated with this profile was 112.

The Opra score will be used as the basis for subsistence and other charging, in accordance with our Opra Scheme. Opra is the Environment Agency’s method of ensuring application and subsistence fees are appropriate and proportionate for the level of regulation required.

4.3.2 Management

The Applicant has stated in the Application that they will implement an Environmental Management System (EMS) that they expect to be certified under ISO14001 and that it will be in place before the start of normal operations. We require the EMS to be in place prior to the commencement of commissioning (before the start of normal operation). A pre-operational condition is included requiring the Operator to provide a summary of the EMS prior to commissioning of the plant and to make available for inspection all EMS documentation. The Environment Agency recognises that certification of the EMS cannot take place until the Installation is operational. An improvement condition is included requiring the Operator to report progress gaining accreditation of its EMS.

We are satisfied that appropriate management systems and management structures will be in place for this Installation, and that sufficient resources are available to the Operator to ensure compliance with all the Permit conditions.

4.3.3 Site security

Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that appropriate infrastructure and procedures will be in place to ensure that the site remains secure. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 18 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

4.3.4 Accident management

The Applicant has not submitted an Accident Management Plan. However, having considered the other information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to ensure that accidents that may cause pollution are prevented but that, if they should occur, their consequences are minimised. An Accident Management Plan will form part of the EMS and must be in place prior to commissioning as required by a pre- operational condition.

4.3.5 Off-site conditions

We do not consider that any off-site conditions are necessary.

4.3.6 Operating techniques

We have specified that the Applicant must operate the Installation in accordance with the following documents contained in the Application:

Description Parts Included Justification The Application EP Application To ensure that the Supporting Information following items are (issue number 3 dated described or identified: 11/01/11): Sections 1 (Overview); ƒ the incineration 2.3 (Monitoring capacity Methods); ƒ the waste feed 2.6 (WID requirements); cessation system 2.7 (Energy Efficiency). ƒ start-up and shut- Annex 4 – down Environmental Risk ƒ temperature Assessment monitoring in the combustion chamber ƒ energy recovery from the installation ƒ temperature, oxygen, water vapour and pressure at Air Release sampling points ƒ alternative arrangements for CO, TOC and dust monitoring to make use of the relevant WID abnormal operation condition during CEM failure

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 19 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Response to our Response to section 3.3 To ensure that the bag Schedule 5 Notice (08 (bag filters for filters are BAT. February 2011) dated particulate control) 18 March 2011

Response to our Response to section 2 To ensure that the lower Schedule 5 Notice (16 (System design to meet NOx limit is met without December 2011) dated NOx and NH3 emission NH3 unacceptable slip. 27 January 2012 limits)

The details set out above describe the outline techniques that will be used for the operation of the Installation that have been assessed by the Environment Agency as BAT; they form part of the Permit through Permit condition 2.3.1 and Table S1.2 in the Permit Schedules.

We have also specified the following limits and controls on the use of fuels:

Fuel Specification Justification Fuel Oil < 0.1% sulphur content As required by the Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels Regulations.

Article 4(4) of the WID requires that the Permit must list explicitly the categories of waste which may be treated. The Application contains a list of those wastes coded by the European Waste Catalogue (EWC) number, which the Applicant will accept in the waste streams entering the plant and which the plant is capable of burning in an environmentally acceptable way. We have specified the permitted waste types, descriptions and where appropriate quantities which can be accepted at the Installation in Table S2.2.

The design fuel mix for the wood reported in the Application is a minimum of 95% of the total fuel combusted. SRF will be no more than 5% of the total fuel mix. This equates to 10,000 tonnes of SRF (waste codes 19 02 10 and 19 12 10). We have specified this quantity in Table S2.2.

We are satisfied that the Applicant can accept the wastes contained in Table S2.2 of the Permit because:

(i) the wastes are all categorised as non-hazardous in the European Waste Catalogue and are capable of being safely burnt at the Installation. (i) these wastes are likely to be in the design calorific value (CV) range for the plant; (ii) these wastes are unlikely to contain harmful components that cannot be safely processed at the Installation.

We have limited the capacity of the Installation to 200,000 tonnes per year, although the actual throughput is expected to be 180,000 tonnes per year. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 20 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

180,000 tonnes per year is based on the Installation operating 8,000 hours per year at a nominal capacity of 22.5 tonnes per hour. We have further restricted the operation of the plant by limiting the throughput of SRF to 10,000 tonnes per year as outlined above. The SRF would be limited in any event as the Application is for a wood fired biomass power station.

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

4.3.7 Energy efficiency

(i) Consideration of energy efficiency

We have considered the issue of energy efficiency in the following ways:

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

2. The extent to which the Installation meets the requirements of Article 6(6) of the WID, which requires that heat “shall be recovered as far as practicable”. This issue is covered in this section.

3. The combustion efficiency and energy utilisation of different design options for the Installation are relevant considerations in the determination of BAT for the Installation, including the Global Warming Potential of the different options. This aspect is covered in the BAT assessment which we explain in section 6 of this Decision Document.

(ii) Use of energy within, and generated by the Installation

Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to ensure that energy is used efficiently within the Installation.

The Application details a number of measures that will be implemented at the Installation in order to increase its energy efficiency. These include the following:

Good maintenance and housekeeping regimes across the whole plant;

Plant condition monitoring will be carried out on a regular basis. This will ensure, amongst other things, that motors are operating efficiently, insulation and cladding are not damaged and that there are no significant leaks;

Operators will be trained in energy awareness and will be encouraged to identify opportunities for energy efficiency improvements;

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 21 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

An energy efficiency plan will be built into the operation and maintenance procedures of the plant ensuring maximum, practical, sustainable, safe and controllable electricity generation;

During normal operation, procedures will be reviewed and amended, where necessary, to include improvements in efficiency as and when proven new equipment and operating techniques become available.

The response to Item 2.2 (of the information notice date 8 February 2011) states that the specific energy consumption, a measure of total energy consumed per unit of waste processed, will be 111 kWh/tonne. The Installation capacity is 200,000 tonnes/annum.

Data from the BRef for Municipal Waste Incinerators shows that the range of specific energy consumptions is as in the table below.

MSWI plant size range Process energy (t/yr) demand (kWh/t waste input) Up to 150,000 300 – 700 150,000 – 250,000 150 – 500 More than 250,000 60 – 200

The BREF says that it is BAT to reduce average installation electrical demand to generally below 150 kWh/tonne waste with a net CV of 10.4 MJ/kg. The Net CV in this case is expected to be 11.41 MJ/kg. Taking account of the difference in net CV, the specific energy consumption is in line with that set out above.

(iii) Generation of energy within the Installation - Compliance with Article 6(6) of the WID

Article 6(6) of the WID requires that heat “shall be recovered as far as practicable”. The Government’s guidance on the WID (WID EPR Guidance, March 2010) lists the following hierarchy of heat recovery options, with (e) as the least preferred option and the optimum being a combination of the other four options: a) use of waste heat from boiler water cooling system b) use of a boiler for steam generation or electricity generation c) use of exhaust steam for process heating or CHP schemes d) internal heat exchange for primary air heating and/or flue gas reheating e) no heat recovery.

The Installation will generate electricity only and has been specified to maximise electrical output with little or no use of waste heat. The Environment Agency’s relevant technical guidance note, SGN EPR S5.01, states that using indicative BAT for municipal waste incineration, where electricity only is generated, will mean that 5-9 MW of electricity should be Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 22 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

recoverable per 100,000 tonnes per annum of waste burning capacity. The Sankey diagram in section 2.7 of the Application supporting information shows 22.5 MW of electricity produced for an annual burn of 200,000 tonnes, which represents 11.25 MW per 100,000 tonnes per annum of waste burned. The Installation is therefore above the indicative BAT range, which we would expect given the higher CV of the wood waste.

The SGN and the WID both require that, as well as maximising the primary use of heat to generate electricity; waste heat should be recovered as far as practicable, i.e. by identifying and utilising opportunities for Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and district heating. Additional information was requested on this matter at the duly making stage during which time the Applicant confirmed at this stage no contact had been made. This information was requested again in our further information notice dated 8 February 2011. In their response the Applicant confirmed that a study had been commissioned with a number of potential commercial and industrial receptors being identified. The use of waste heat appears to be practical and the Applicant intends to develop its use.

The location of the Installation largely determines the extent to which waste heat can be utilised, and this is a matter for the planning authority. The Applicant has identified opportunities, although there are no firm commitments at this stage. There is provision within the design of the steam turbine to extract low-grade steam for a district heating scheme. Establishing a district heating network to supply local users would involve significant technical, financial and planning challenges. The Applicant has suggested that without planning permission, it is not practical to enter into such commitments, but will keep the situation under review.

We consider that the additional permit conditions will ensure that the Installation will recover heat as far as practicable, and therefore that the requirements of Article 6(6) are met, insofar as the Environment Agency’s remit under the EPR is concerned.

(iv) Permit conditions concerning energy efficiency

A Pre-operational condition requires the Operator to carry out a comprehensive review of the available heat recovery options prior to commissioning, in order to ensure that waste heat from the plant is recovered as far as possible.

Conditions 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 have also been included in the Permit, which require the Operator to review the options available for heat recovery on an ongoing basis, and to provide and maintain the proposed steam/hot water pass-outs.

The Operator is required to report energy usage and energy generated under condition 4.2 and Schedule 4. The following parameters are required to be reported:

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 23 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

- total electrical energy generated; - electrical energy exported; - electrical energy imported; - total energy usage.

These parameters, together with the total fuel burned per year, will enable the Environment Agency to monitor energy efficiency at the Installation and take action if at any stage the energy efficiency is not considered acceptable.

There are no site-specific considerations that require the imposition of standards beyond indicative BAT, and so the Environment Agency accepts that the Applicant’s proposals represent BAT for this Installation.

4.3.8 Efficient use of raw materials

Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be in place to ensure the efficient use of raw materials and water.

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

It is proposed that water for the Installation will be supplied by a combination of towns water and water abstracted from the Manchester Ship Canal. This will be addressed by a separate water abstraction Licence Application to be submitted to the Environment Agency. By using water from the Manchester Ship Canal, the Installation will minimise potable water consumption. Water usage will also be minimised by the use of trigger controls on all wash hoses.

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

This requirement addresses wastes produced at the Installation and does not apply to the waste being treated there. The principal waste streams the Installation will produce are bottom ash and air pollution control (APC) residues.

The first objective is to avoid producing waste at all. Waste production will be avoided by achieving a high degree of burnout of the ash in the furnace, which results in a material that is both reduced in volume and in chemical Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 24 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

reactivity. Condition 3.1.4 and associated Table S3.5 specify limits for total organic carbon (TOC) of <3% in bottom ash. Compliance with this limit will demonstrate that good combustion control and waste burnout is being achieved in the furnaces and waste generation is being avoided where practicable.

Most bottom ash is likely to be classified as non-hazardous waste. However, the ash is classified on the European List of Wastes as a “mirror entry”, which means it is a hazardous waste if it possesses a hazardous property. Monitoring of incinerator ash will be carried out to ensure it is appropriately classified and its subsequent use or disposal controlled.

APC residues from flue gas treatment are hazardous waste and therefore must be sent for disposal to a landfill site permitted to accept hazardous waste, or to an appropriately permitted facility for treatment.

In order to ensure that the bottom ash and APC residues are adequately characterised and sent to appropriate disposal or recovery facilities, a pre- operational condition requires the Operator to provide a written plan for approval detailing the ash sampling protocols. Table S3.5 requires the Operator to carry out an ongoing programme of monitoring.

The Application proposes that, where possible, bottom ash will be transported to a suitable recycling facility, from where it could be re-used. The Applicant is currently investigating options for the use of bottom ash.

Having considered the information submitted in the Application, we are satisfied that the waste hierarchy referred to in Article 4 of the WFD will be applied to the generation of waste and that any waste generated will be treated in accordance with this Article.

We are satisfied that waste from the Installation that cannot be recovered will be disposed of using a method that minimises any impact on the environment. Standard condition 1.4.1 will ensure that this position is maintained.

5. Minimising the Installation’s environmental impact

Regulated activities can present different types of risk to the environment, including: odour, noise and vibration, accidents, fugitive emissions to air and water, releases to air, discharges to ground or groundwater, global warming potential and generation of waste. Consideration may also have to be given to Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) and the effect of emissions being deposited onto land (where there are ecological receptors). All these factors are discussed in this and other sections of this document.

For an installation of this kind, the principal emissions are those to air, although we also consider those to land and water.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 25 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

This section of the document explains how we have approached the critical issue of assessing the likely impact of the emissions to air from the Installation on human health and the environment and what measures we are requiring to ensure a high level of protection.

5.1 Assessment Methodology

5.1.1 Application of Environment Agency H1 Guidance

A methodology for risk assessment of point source emissions to air, which we use to assess the risk of applications we receive for permits, is set out in our Horizontal Guidance Note H1 and has the following steps: • Describe emissions and receptors • Calculate process contributions • Screen out insignificant emissions that do not warrant further investigation • Decide if you need detailed air modelling • Assess emissions against relevant standards • Summarise the effects of your emissions

The H1 methodology uses a concept of “process contribution (PC)”, which is the estimated concentration of emitted substances after dispersion into the receiving environmental media at the point where the magnitude of the concentration is greatest. The guidance provides a simple method of calculating PC primarily for screening purposes and for estimating process contributions where environmental consequences are relatively low. It is based on using dispersion factors. These factors assume worst case dispersion conditions with no allowance made for thermal or momentum plume rise and so the process contributions calculated are likely to be an overestimate of the actual maximum concentrations. More accurate calculation of process contributions can be achieved by mathematical dispersion models, which take into account relevant parameters of the release and surrounding conditions, including local meteorology – these techniques are expensive but normally lead to a lower prediction of PC. The Applicant has the choice to use either method.

Screen Out Insignificant Emissions

Once short-term and long-term PCs have been calculated (either by dispersion factors or modelling), they are compared with Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) referred to as “benchmarks” in the H1 Guidance.

Where an EU EQS exists, the relevant standard is the EU EQS. Where an EU EQS does not exist, Environment Agency policy sets out a National Air Quality Objectives - AQO) (also referred to as Environmental Assessment Level - EAL) which has been derived to provide a similar level of protection to Human Health and the Environment as the EU EQS levels.

PCs are considered Insignificant if:

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 26 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

• the long-term process contribution is less than 1% of the relevant EQS; and • the short-term process contribution is less than 10% of the relevant EQS.

The long-term 1% process contribution insignificance threshold is based on the judgements that: • It is unlikely that an emission at this level will make a significant contribution to air quality; • The 1% threshold is one hundredth of the standard and provides a substantial safety margin to protect health and the environment.

The short-term 10% process contribution insignificance threshold is based on the judgements that: • spatial and temporal conditions mean that short-term process contributions are transient and limited in comparison with long-term process contributions; • the proposed 10% threshold is one tenth of the standard and provides a substantial safety margin to protect health and the environment.

Decide Whether Detailed Modelling is Needed

Where an emission cannot be screened out as insignificant as a PC through applying the H1 Guidance, it does not mean it will necessarily be significant; a detailed modelling of emissions, long-term, short-term or both, should be carried out taking into account the state of the environment before the Installation operates where: • local receptors may be sensitive to emissions; • released substances fall under an Air Quality Management Plan; • the long term Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) which is equal to the sum of the background concentration in the absence of the Installation and the process contribution, exceeds 70% of the appropriate long term standard; • the short-term Process Contribution exceeds 20% of the headroom, which is the appropriate short term standard minus twice the long-term background concentration.

5.1.2 Applying the Guidance to the Application

Where the modelling indicates that the emission is insignificant by the above criteria, and we agree with that assessment, we accept the Applicant’s proposals without further justification, because it follows that any improvement that could be achieved by employing alternate techniques would also be insignificant.

We review the Applicant’s detailed modelling to confirm whether or not we agree with the applicant’s conclusions with respect to H1 screening. For those pollutants where the PEClong term exceeds 70% of an EQS or the PCshort term exceeds 20% of the headroom between an EQS and the background

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 27 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

concentration, we determine whether exceedences of EQS are likely. This is done through detailed audit and review of the Applicant’s impact assessment taking headroom and modelling uncertainties into account. Where exceedences are identified, we may require the Applicant to go beyond what would normally be considered BAT for the Installation in order to reduce releases from the Installation to ensure that there is no significant pollution or risk to human health. Whether or not exceedences are considered likely, the application is subject to the requirement to operate in accordance with BAT.

National AQOs do not have the same legal status as EU EQSs, and there is no explicit requirement to impose stricter conditions than BAT in order to comply with a national EQS. However, national AQOs are a standard for harm and any significant contribution to a breach is likely to be unacceptable.

This is not the end of the risk assessment, because we also take into account local factors (for example, particularly sensitive receptors nearby such as a Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs). These additional factors may also lead us to include more stringent conditions than BAT.

If, as a result of reviewing of the risk assessment, we consider that emissions would cause significant pollution, we would refuse the Application.

5.1.3 Estimating total impact of emissions

In this Application, the Applicant has carried out detailed air dispersion modelling. We have applied the H1 criteria above to the model outputs. We are satisfied that emissions at the permitted limits would ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment in any event. In Section 6 of this document, we explain how we have determined whether the Applicant’s proposals are the Best Available Techniques for this Installation taking into consideration the above assessment.

5.2 Air Quality Assessment

5.2.1 Assessment of Air Dispersion Modelling Outputs

The Applicant assessed the Installation’s potential emissions to air against the relevant air quality standards, and potential impact upon local habitat sites and human health. These assessments predicted the potential effects on local air quality from the Installation’s stack emissions using the ADMS 4 dispersion model, which is one of the commonly used computer models for regulatory dispersion modelling. The model used 5 years of meteorological data collected from Manchester Airport (2000 to 2004, ceased to operate in 2004). The land surrounding the site is flat, so the effects of the local terrain on dispersion have automatically been taken into account.

The concentrations reported in the assessments were the maximum ground level concentrations with the exception of particulate and NO2. For these

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 28 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

parameters the maximum NO2 concentration at a receptor was used for both the long and short-term assessments and the maximum concentration at a receptor for the particulate short-term assessment.

The air impact assessments, and the dispersion modelling upon which they were based, employ the following assumptions:

• First, they assumed that the ELVs in the Permit would be those in the WID 3 (except for the daily average NOx, where a lower limit of 125 mg/m was used instead of the WID limit of 200 mg/m3). • Second, and conservatively, they assumed that the Installation operates continuously at the WID emission limit values i.e. the maximum permitted emissions under the WID, (except for NOx, where it is assumed that the Installation operates continuously at the lower limit of 125 mg/m3, see above).

The way in which the Applicant used the dispersion model, its selection of input data, and the assumptions it made have been reviewed by the Environment Agency’s modelling specialists to establish the robustness of the Applicant’s air impact assessment. We expressed a number of reservations with the way in which the modelling work was done which resulted in us requesting additional information from the Applicant which we received electronically 11 May 2011 (see Recommendations and Conclusions below).

We have also audited the air quality and human health impact assessment and agree that the conclusions drawn in the reports were acceptable.

5.2.2 Our Recommendations/Conclusions (AQMAU reports C704 and C748/776-RP02) and AQMAU Response to Memorandum (S1100- 0420-0051RSS)

Impact from NO2/Chemistry module

The Applicant predicts a maximum long term process contribution at the worst affected residential receptor (in the AQMA) of 1.7% of the AQS and so cannot be screened out as insignificant. This is based on a conservative conversion rate of 70% of NO to NO2.

The Applicant used the chemistry module in the ADMS modelling software with the aim of more accurately estimating the conversion rate to NO2. They claim this results in the process contribution being screened out as insignificant (<1% of the AQS) at the worst affected residential receptor. There was however provision of limited information and justification for its use and further information was provided by the Applicant to explore the applicability of this approach (Refer to AQMAU report C748/776-RP02).

We have not accepted their use of the chemistry module due to limitations in the representativness of the background data presented by the Applicant.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 29 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

The conservative conversion rate of NO to NO2 of 70% remains valid in this instance, with the process contribution being slightly above the screening out threshold for insignificance at 1.7% of the AQS.

Impact from Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP)

The BaP was not screened out as being insignificant based on an emission rate of 10% of the total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The Applicant provided further information on the emission rate used to determine the impact associated with the release of BaP.

The concentration used in the air dispersion modelling was 0.002 mg/m3; however the Applicant subsequently used actual data collected from the Environment Agency’s public register. This was collected for WID facilities and the maximum concentration was 0.00011 mg/m3. This is significantly lower than that used in the model and gives a PC that is 0.99% of the AQS (0.25 ng/m3) at the point of maximum ground level concentration. It is therefore screened out as being insignificant. The Applicant confirmed that the WID data used was from municipal waste plants as there was no data available for wood burning plants; however this concentration was only 5.5% of the emissions level used in the air quality assessment, so the air quality assessment is conservative.

Impact at Habitats

The Manchester Mosses and Rixton Clay Pits (SACs) consist of multiple, widely separated sites; however the Applicant had only considered the impact at one location for each of the SACs. Further assessment was provided to include each part of the SAC, refer to Section 5.4 of this document.

Additional information was provided assessing the critical loads for acid and nitrogen deposition at the SAC and non-statutory sites. The deposition was below 1% and we agreed with this conclusion, refer to Section 5.4 of this document.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 30 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

The Applicant’s modelling predictions are summarised in the tables below (concentrations figures reported in µg/m3):

5.2.2 Long-term impact of emissions to air

Pollutant EQS / Back- Process PC as Predicted PEC [Note 2] EAL ground Contribution % of Environmental as % Conc (PC) EQS / Concentration EQS EAL (PEC) [Note / EAL 6] NO2 40 36.30 0.69 [Note 7] 1.70 37.00 92.50 [Note 9] Particulate 40 - 0.08 0.20 - - matter [Note 7] (PM10) HF 16 - 0.02 [Note 8] 0.12 - - VOCs 2.25 0.18 0.23 [Note 8] 10.22 0.41 18.22 [Note 1] [Note 9] As 0.003 0.00081 0.00125 41.66 0.00206 68.66 [Note 4] [Note 9] [Note 10] Sb 5 [Note - 0.00125 0.025 - - 11] [Note 10] Cd 0.005 0.00017 0.00059 11.80 0.00076 15.2 [Note 9] [Note 10] Cr 5 - 0.00125 0.03 - - [Note 10] Cr (VI) 0.0002 0.000035 0.0000875 43.75 0.0001225 61.25 [Note 13] [Note 10] [Note 12] Co 0.2 - 0.00125 0.63 - - [Note 10] Cu 10 - 0.00125 0.01 - - [Note 10] Pb 0.25 - 0.00125 0.50 - - [Note 10] Mn 150 - 0.00125 0.00083 - - [Note 10] Hg 0.25 - 0.00117 0.47 - - [Note 10] Ni 0.02 0.0015 0.00125 6.25 0.00275 13.75 [Note 3] [Note 9] [Note 10] Tl 1 - 0.00059 0.06 - - [Note 10] V 5 - 0.00125 0.03 - - [Note 10] Note 1 This is assumed to be all 1,3-butadiene. Note 2 For the metals, each of the nine metals in Group 3 have been taken as one-ninth of the combined limit.

Note 3 EC target value (total content in the PM10 fraction)

Note 4 EAL (total content in the PM10 fraction)

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 31 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Note 5 Refer to section 5.2.5 below.

Note 6 PEC is not required for those pollutants where the PC<1% EQS/EAL.

Note 7 Table 4.9 Application Air Quality Assessment report

Note 8 Table 4.7 Application Air Quality Assessment report

Note 9 Table 3.13 Application Air Quality Assessment report

Note 10 Table 4.11 Application Air Quality Assessment Report

Note 11 The Applicant used an EAL of 5,000 µg/m3 in their assessment, we have corrected the assessment using an EAL of 5 µg/m3

Note 12 The Applicant’s calculation of 4.37% was corrected to 43.75%

Note 13 The background for Chromium in Table 3.13, multiplied by 0.7% (page 33 of the report)

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 32 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

5.2.3 Short-term impact of emissions to air

Pollutant EQS / Back- Process PC Predicted PEC [Note 2] EAL ground Contribution as % Environmental as % Conc (PC) of Concentration EQS [Note EQS (PEC) [Note / EAL 1] / EAL 3] NO2 200 - 9.58 [Note 4] 4.79 - - Particulate 50 - 0.31 [Note 4] 0.62 - - matter (PM10) SO2 266 4.3 34.7 [Note 5] 13.05 39.00 14.66 (15- [Note 6] minute mean) SO2 350 - 31.35 8.96 - - (hourly [Note 5] average) SO2 125 4.3 18.16 14.52 22.46 17.97 (daily [Note 6] [Note 5] average) CO (8 10,000 - 30.8 0.31 - - hour [Note 5] running mean) HCl 750 - 7.59 [Note 5] 1.01 - - HF 160 - 0.76 [Note 5] 0.48 - - Sb 150 - 0.042 0.03 - - [Note 7] Cr 150 - 0.042 0.03 - - [Note 7] Co 6 0.042 0.7 - - [Note 7] Cu 200 - 0.042 0.02 - - [Note 7] Mn 1,500 - 0.042 0.00 - - [Note 7] Hg 7.5 - 0.038 0.5 - - [Note 7] Tl 30 - 0.019 0.06 - - [Note 7] V 1 - 0.042 4.20 - - [Note 7]

Note 1 For the assessment of short-term impacts the PEC is determined by adding twice the long term background concentration to the short tem process contribution.

Note 2 For the metals, each of the nine metals in Group 3 have been taken as one-ninth of the combined limit.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 33 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Note 3 PEC is not required for those pollutants where the PC<10% EQS/EAL.

Note 4 Table 4.9 Application Air Quality Assessment report

Note 5 Table 4.7 Application Air Quality Assessment report

Note 6 Table 3.13 Application Air Quality Assessment report

Note 7 Table 4.11 Application Air Quality Assessment Report

From the tables above the following emissions can be screened out as insignificant in that the process contribution is < 1% of the long-term EQS/EAL and <10% of the short-term EQS/EAL.

Long-term <1% AND Short-term <10% Particulate matter (PM10) HF CO HCl Sb, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, Hg, Tl and V

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

Also from the table above none of the emissions (except NO2) not screened out as insignificant can be considered to have the potential to give rise to significant pollution in that the predicted environmental concentration is no more than 70% of the long-term EQS/EAL and the Process Contribution is less than 20% of the short-term EQS/EAL headroom. For these emissions, we have carefully scrutinised the Applicant’s proposals to ensure that they are applying the Best Available Techniques to prevent and minimise emissions of these substances. This is reported in section 6 of this document.

Regarding NO2, we have considered whether the emissions will have the potential to give rise to significant pollution. The concentration from the process is only 1.7% of the EU EQS, so if there were to be a breach of the air quality standard the Installation would not be a significant contributor to this, refer to Sections 5.2.6 and 5.6.1 of this document.

We have carefully scrutinised the Applicant’s proposals to ensure that they are applying the Best Available Techniques to prevent and minimise its release. Additional measures will also be included in the process design to control the emissions to a level significantly below that required by the WID. This is reported in section 6 of this document.

5.2.4 Assessment of emissions of PM10 and PM2.5

The impact on air quality from particulate emissions has been assessed against EQS for PM10 (particles of 10 microns and smaller) and PM2.5 (particles of 2.5 microns and smaller). For PM10, the EU EQS are a long-term

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 34 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

annual average of 40 μg/m3 and a short-term daily average of 50 μg/m3 . For 3 PM2.5 the EU EQS of 25 μg/m as a long-term annual average to be achieved by 2010 as a Target Value and by 2015 as a Limit Value.

The Applicant’s predicted impact of the Installation against these EQS is shown in the table below – all concentrations are shown as μg/m3. The assessment assumes that all particulate emissions are present as PM10 for the PM10 assessment and as PM2.5 for the PM2.5 assessment.

Pollutant EQS / EAL Process PC as % of Contribution EQS / EAL (PC) PM10 40 0.08 0.2 50 0.31 0.62 PM2.5 25 0.08 0.32

The above assessment is considered to represent a worst case assessment in that: - • It assumes that the plant emits particulates continuously at the WID limit of 10 mg/m3 for total dust. Whereas actual emissions from similar plant are normally in the range 1 to 5 mg/m3. • It assumes all particulates emitted are below either 10 microns (PM10) or 2.5 microns (PM2.5), when some are expected to be larger.

We have reviewed the Applicant’s particulate matter impact assessment and are satisfied in the robustness of the Applicant’s conclusions.

The above assessment shows that the predicted process contribution for emissions of PM10 is below 1% of the long-term EQS and below 10% of the short-term EQS and so can be considered insignificant. The above assessment shows that the predicted process contribution for emissions of PM2.5 is also below 1% of the EQS. Therefore the Environment Agency concludes that particulate emissions from the Installation, including emissions of PM10 or PM2.5, will not give rise to significant pollution.

There is currently no emission limit prescribed nor any continuous emissions monitor for particulate matter specifically in the PM1.0 or PM2.5 fraction. Whilst the Environment Agency is confident that current monitoring techniques will capture the fine particle fraction (PM2.5) for inclusion in the measurement of total particulate matter, an improvement condition has been included that will require a full analysis of particle size distribution in the flue gas, and hence determine the ratio of fine to coarse particles. In the light of current knowledge and available data however the Environment Agency is satisfied that the health of the public would not be put at risk by such emissions.

5.2.5 Assessment of Emission of Metals

The Applicant has assessed the impact of metal emissions to air as for other substances by making the conservative assumption that emissions occur

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 35 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

continuously at the WID limits; and then using air dispersion modelling comparing their impact against the relevant EQS / EAL in the H1 guidance.

WID sets three limits for metal emissions: • An emission limit value of 0.05 mg/m3 for mercury and its compounds. • An aggregate emission limit value of 0.05 mg/m3 for cadmium and thallium and their compounds. • An aggregate emission limit of 0.5 mg/m3 for antimony, arsenic, lead, chromium, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel and vanadium and their compounds.

In addition the UK is a Party to the Heavy Metals Protocol within the framework of the UN-ECE Convention on long-range trans-boundary air pollution. Compliance with the WID emission limits for metals along with the Application of BAT also ensures that these requirements are met.

Where WID sets an aggregate limit, the Applicant’s assessment assumes that each metal is emitted as the proportion of metals in its group (e.g. one ninth of the limit for each of the group 3 metals). In practice, this approach should be considered conservative when considering the “actual’’ emissions data from similar plant (see below).

Notwithstanding this, the Applicant’s assessment finds that emissions of Sb, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, Hg, Tl and V would be insignificant. For those metals not insignificant by this test, the PEC of Cd, Cr(VI) and Ni would be below 70% of the EQS / EAL.

The Applicant’s PEC for long-term emissions of As is approaching 70% of the long-term standard at 69%. There is a theoretical risk of the relevant EQS / EAL being exceeded and this is further examined in the table below.

Of the metal emissions assessed, lead is the only metal subject to an EU EQS of 0.5 µg/m3 (assessment was against the UK objective of 0.25 µg/m3) whereas arsenic, cadmium and nickel are subject to EU target values of 0.006 µg/m3, 0.005 µg/m3 and 0.02 µg/m3 by 31 December 2012.

However these metal emissions are very much worst case assumptions and unlikely to be representative of actual emissions.

The Applicant obtained arsenic emissions data from two similar combustion plants in the UK that operate on virgin and waste wood:

• Stevens Croft at Lockerbie – concentrations ranging from between 14.1 µg/Nm3 and 28.6 µg/Nm3. • Wilton 10 - concentrations ranging from between 3.91 µg/Nm3 and 40.47 µg/Nm3.

These concentrations are lower than the modelled arsenic concentration of 55 µg/Nm3.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 36 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

We have considered whether a less conservative approach would be valid. The 2009 report of the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS) – “Guidelines for Metal and Metalloids in Ambient Air for the Protection of Human Health”, sets new ambient air quality guidelines for arsenic. These guidelines have been incorporated as EALs in the revised H1 Guidance issued by the Environment Agency in 2010.

The Applicant’s assessment predicts the impact from arsenic at the point of maximum ground level concentration. The maximum impact at a receptor is likely to be around a third of this. We have also predicted the impact based on the maximum concentration of 40.47 µg/Nm3 from Wilton 10:

Concentration figures reported in µg/m3.

Revised Emissions Data Pollutant EAL PC PC Background PEC PEC as % Conc. as % EAL EAL Arsenic 0.003 0.00125 41.66 0.00081 0.00206 68.66

Arsenic (maximum- 0.003 0.0009 30.30 0.00081 0.00171 57.00 Wilton 10)

This shows that emissions of arsenic (even at the point of maximum ground level concentration) are unlikely to give rise to significant pollution as emissions would need to be 75% higher than modelled before the EAL was reached.

Our additional assessment using the maximum concentration from Wilton 10 reinforces our view on emissions of arsenic.

We also re-evaluate the use of arsenic background monitoring data used in the assessment of air quality.

5.2.5.1 Background Arsenic Concentrations

Runcorn Western Point

• The assessment of the impact from arsenic was based on the background data used by the Applicant. • This was from monitoring undertaken at the Runcorn Weston Point described as an industrial background monitoring site. • The monitoring results for 2007 to 2009 were provided (Refer to Table 3.10 of the Air Quality Assessment Report), which was current at the time of the Application. 3 • The maximum annual mean arsenic concentration of 0.00081 µg/m (0.81 ng/m3) measured in 2007 was used in the impact assessment. • This concentration is well below both the EU AQ target value and the EPAQS EAL (see below).

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 37 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

5.2.5.2 Local Air Quality Report

• A report containing local air quality data was submitted to us during the consultation on the Application (Ref: Monitoring of Ambient Pollutants, Davyhulme, Breathe Clean Air group, R1, January 2011). • The data was from a site in the Davyhulme area collected during October 2010 to January 2011. • In this report the atmospheric particulate arsenic concentration was determined over an 18 hour period between 23 – 24 October. It was found to be 4.9 ng/m3. • We assess against the EU AQ target value of 6 ng/m3 (for the total content within the PM10 fraction) from the Fourth Daughter Directive and the EPAQS long term EAL value of 3 ng/m3. The EAL does not have the same legal status as the EU target value. Both these values are annual averages.

The arsenic result provided in the report is an 18 hour mean taken at one point in time in the year. It is not an annual mean and therefore cannot be directly compared to the EU target value.

5.2.5.3 Monitoring of Arsenic at UK sites

There are a small number of sites nationally monitoring heavy metals, known collectively as the ‘UK Heavy Metals Monitoring Network’. In 2010 it comprised 24 monitoring sites (16 in England, 5 in Wales, 2 in Scotland, and 1 in Northern Ireland).

In order to put the arsenic result of 4.9 ng/m3 into context, the monthly average arsenic concentrations for three of the closest UK sites for 2010 and 2011 are shown below (data taken from DEFRA AQ website, www.airquality.co.uk):

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 38 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

• is the closest site to Davyhulme (~10 km). • Runcorn is further away on the Mersey estuary (~40 km). • Walsall is furthest (~ 90km). • Despite this, the monthly means generally show a strong similarity and behaviour. • This is indicative of the concentrations not being strongly influenced by local sources. • The concentrations are highest in the autumn which is when the aforementioned result was obtained. • The monthly concentrations at all three sites show a high degree of variation. • The fluctuation expected for the much shorter 18 hour periods would be higher and hence the arsenic result provided, at approximately twice the Wythenshawe monthly mean in November, is not necessarily unusually elevated.

From the review work we have concluded that the annual means (ng/m3) for the three sites are given below:

Year Runcorn Walsall (centre) Wythenshawe 2010 0.8 1.3 1.0 2011 0.7 0.9 0.7 This annual mean must be compared with the EU target value and these results are well below the 6 ng/m3. They are also well below the EAL of 3 ng/m3.

The 2010 NPL report stated that arsenic “levels are uniformly low across the network” (i.e. across the whole national monitoring network)1. Also the 2011 NPL report stated that for arsenic ‘’no annual average site concentrations above the Fourth Daughter Directive’s Lower Assessment Threshold were recorded.’’

The Applicant’s prediction of the process contribution, based on a 1/9th WID ELV for arsenic was 1.25 ng/m3 2. Hence an annual background value of greater than 4.75 ng/m3 will be required for an exceedence of the EU target value. The backgrounds at all three sites are all well below this.

The Installation has been assessed as meeting BAT for control of emissions to air, see section 6 of this document. The Environment Agency’s experience of regulating incineration plant is that emissions of individual metals are substantially below the aggregate limits set in WID. The theoretical risk of arsenic exceeding the EU target value is highly unlikely. An Improvement condition requires the Applicant to reassess the impact of emissions to air of

1 Ref: Annual Report for 2010 on the UK Heavy Metals Monitoring Network, NPL Report AS 61, June 2011 2 Ref: Peel Energy Barton Renewable Energy Plant, Air Quality Assessment Report, Fichtner Consulting Engineers, January 2011 Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 39 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

arsenic based on actual monitoring data from the first year of operation to confirm this judgement, in which case no further action is required.

In the event that the assessment were to indicate a risk of the arsenic AQS being exceeded, the Environment Agency would consider the need to specify an emission limit value for arsenic or seek further improvements to the abatement technology employed.

5.2.6 Consideration of the Potentially Significant Impact from NO2

The assessment shown in Section 5.2.2 above is based on a daily average ELV of 125 mg/m3 rather than the WID limit of 200 mg/m3. We have not accepted the use of the chemistry module in this case to assess the conversion rate of NO to NO2, which means that the process contribution is 1.7% of the AQS at the worst affected residential receptor in the AQMA. This is only slightly above the ‘insignificance’ level and so could not reasonably be considered significant taking likely modelling uncertainties into account. Based on a background quoted by the applicant of 36.30 µg/m3, the PEC is 92.5% of the AQS. We have evaluated the use of NO2 background monitoring data that was used in the assessment of air quality.

5.2.6.1 Salford Eccles continuous monitor data

The most affected receptor, in terms of NO2 modelled impact is Tindall Street, which is a residential street in the Salford air quality management area (AQMA). The Applicant’s predicted process contribution from the proposed 3 Installation at this location is 0.69 µg/m , which is 1.7% of the NO2 EU EQS.

In our draft decision document, we focussed on the background data used by the Applicant which was from the Salford Eccles continuous monitor located approximately 2.5 km from Tindall Street. This is because it was generally considered to be representative of urban background in that part of . It is also the nearest official monitor for assessing compliance to the site.

The findings from this monitor are summarised as follows:

• The Salford Eccles continuous monitor was considered by the Applicant to be representative of an urban area close to industrial sites. 3 • At this monitor the annual mean for NO2 of 36.3 µg/m was calculated based on an average of the 2007 to 2009 data (Refer to Table 3.1 of the Air Quality Assessment Report), which was current at the time of the Application. • This level is 90.75% of the EU EQS.

Based on this background, we determined the impact of NO2 to be acceptable because the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) was still less than

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 40 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

the EU EQS limit of 40 µg/m3 at the point of highest impact, i.e. unlikely to result in an exceedance of the EU EQS within the AQMA.

5.2.6.2 Re-evaluation of NO2 background data

We have reviewed the data provided by Salford Council from the three diffusion tubes and three continuous monitors that are located closest to Tindall Street (see the Table below).

Annual mean NO2 (µg m-3) Distance from Tindall Site Monitor type St (km) 2009 2010 2011 SA34 Liverpool Rd diffusion tube 0.31 62.2 63.6 52.1 SA35 Trevor Rd diffusion tube 1.7 41.4 42.8 36.9 Salford Eccles continuous 2.5 39 42 33 Bury Radcliffe continuous 2.7 38 51 42 Salford M60 continuous 3.3 70 60 64

• The Salford Eccles continuous monitor used by the Applicant exceeded the EU EQS limit in 2010, with the annual average NO2 level being 42 µg/m3. This data was not available at the time of the Application but taking it and 2011 into account would result in an annual mean for NO2 of 36.8 µg/m3 based on an average of the 2007 to 2011 data. • The closest monitor to Tindall Street is the SA34 diffusion tube at Liverpool Road with considerable exceedances of the EU EQS limit being measured between 2009 and 2011. This diffusion tube is located on a busy road, close to the junction of the M60 and A57. We would expect levels of NO2 to decrease with distance from the primary road traffic sources. Tindall Street is considerably further away from these sources. Note: The measurements for the SA5 Eccles Treatment Works diffusion tube, located 0.36 km from Tindall Street are not included in the Table because the data is not current. The measurements were made between 1992 and 1998 with the annual mean being in exceedence for each year.

Based on our review of the available background data, we believe it is no longer appropriate for us to base our consideration of NO2 impact on an absolute background level of 36.3 µg/m3. If this figure is corrected to 36.8 µg/m3, using 2010 and 2011 data, then the PC would still not cause this to exceed the EU EQS.

However, given the variability of NO2 levels in different locations and that air and substances in it are dynamic, there is an uncertainty around which monitoring site is most representative of background annual NO2 levels at Tindall Street. We have therefore looked at the wider area and considered the impact of the Applicant’s maximum predicted process contribution of 0.69 µg/m3 making the assumption that as we cannot establish the precise value of background annual NO2, and as the data indicates elevated levels in the

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 41 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

vicinity of Tindall Street, there is the potential for background to already exceed the EU EQS.

In making this assessment we have had regard to the DEFRA Guidance on A(1) installations3, specifically section 4.52 which advises:

If a Community EQS is already being breached in a particular area, then a permit should not be issued to any new installation that would cause anything beyond a negligible increase in the exceedance. Again, however, if it is clear that a combination of controls on the proposed installation and measures to reduce emissions from other sources will achieve compliance with the EQS, then the installation may be permitted.

The key judgement is whether the proposed Installation would have anything beyond a “negligible” impact. In view of:

o the peak process contribution at Tindall Street being 1.7% of the EU EQS; o the uncertainties of modelling and the conservative nature of the assumptions used in the modelling: • modelling predictions are based on a worst case scenario of the plant emitting at the proposed daily average NO2 emission limit of 125 mg/m3 continuously throughout the year. • actual emissions should generally be lower as the emission limit should provide headroom to allow for unavoidable process fluctuations and there will be periodic shut downs for maintenance etc. o an improvement condition requiring a report on how NO2 emissions are minimised through optimisation of the SNCR system.

We can therefore conclude that assuming that the existing background levels already exceed the EU EQS the process contribution is negligible.

The impact will be small and localised. Compliance with the EU EQS is assessed over the Greater Manchester geographic area as a whole and so we do not consider that the Installation will affect whether there is overall compliance or not. The annual mean is only actually known where it is continuously measured and at these points there would be no discernible impact.

It is for Defra to make the assessment of air quality for the purposes of reporting any exceedances under the Air Quality Directive. This is assessed using continuous monitors and modelling. We do not consider the Installation will have any discernible impact on this assessment or cause an exceedance of the EU EQS at any official monitor.

3 Environmental Permitting Guidance – Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive, Part A(1) Installations and Part A(1) Mobile Plant) http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/09/19/pb13634-ep-guidance-ippc/ Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 42 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Nor do we consider that at the point of highest impact, assessed against what we consider to be a reasonable and representative background level, there will be an exceedance of the EU EQS. However, even if there was an existing exceedance at this point any impact on it would be negligible.

We would not consider it practical or reasonable to expect the Applicant to go beyond what is considered BAT for the control of NO2.

Our assessment of BAT is detailed in Section 6 of this document.

5.3 Human health risk assessment

5.3.1 Our role in preventing harm to human health

The Environment Agency has a statutory role to protect the environment and human health from all processes and activities it regulates. We assessed the effects on human health for this application in the following ways:

i) Applying Statutory Controls

The plant will be regulated under EPR. These regulations include the requirements of relevant EU Directives, notably, the waste incineration directive (WID), the waste framework directive (WFD), integrated pollution prevention and control directive (IPPC) and air quality directive (AQD)

The main conditions in an EfW permit are based on the requirements of the IPPCD. Further specific conditions have been introduced to ensure compliance with the requirements of the WID. The aim of WID is to prevent or to limit as far as practicable negative effects on the environment, in particular pollution by emissions into air, soil, surface water and groundwater, and the resulting risks to human health, from the incineration and co-incineration of waste. WID achieves this aim by “setting stringent operational conditions, technical requirements and emission limit values”. The requirements of the IPPCD include the use of BAT, which may in some circumstances dictate tighter emission limits and controls than the WID. The assessment of BAT for this Installation is detailed in section 6 of this document.

ii) Environmental Impact Assessment

Industrial activities can give rise to odour, noise and vibration, accidents, fugitive emissions to air and water, releases to air (including the impact on Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)), discharges to ground or groundwater, global warming potential and generation of waste. For an Installation of this kind, the principal environmental effects are through emissions to air, although we also consider all of the other impacts listed. Section 5.1 and 5.2 above explain how we have approached the critical issue of assessing the likely impact of the emissions to air from the Installation on human health and the environment and any measures we are requiring to ensure a high level of protection.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 43 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

iii) Expert Scientific Opinion

We take account of the views of national and international expert bodies. Following is a summary of some of the publications which we have considered (in no particular order).

An independent review of evidence on the health effects of municipal waste incinerators was published by DEFRA in 2004. It concluded that there was no convincing link between the emissions from MSW incinerators and adverse effects on public health in terms of cancer, respiratory disease or birth defects. On air quality effects, the report concluded “Waste incinerators contribute to local air pollution. This contribution, however, is usually a small proportion of existing background levels which is not detectable through environmental monitoring (for example, by comparing upwind and downwind levels of airborne pollutants or substances deposited to land). In some cases, waste incinerator facilities may make a more detectable contribution to air pollution. Because current MSW incinerators are located predominantly in urban areas, effects on air quality are likely to be so small as to be undetectable in practice.”

A Position Statement issued by the HPA in 2009 states that “The Health Protection Agency has reviewed research undertaken to examine the suggested links between emissions from municipal waste incinerators and effects on health. While it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from modern, well regulated municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potential damage to the health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable”.

Policy Advice from Government also points out that the minimal risk from modern incinerators. Paragraph 22 (Chapter 5) of WS2007 says that “research carried out to date has revealed no credible evidence of adverse health outcomes for those living near incinerators.” It points out that “the relevant health effects, mainly cancers, have long incubation times. But the research that is available shows an absence of symptoms relating to exposures twenty or more years ago when emissions from incinerators were much greater than is now the case.” Paragraph 30 of PPS10 explains that “modern, appropriately located, well run and well regulated waste management facilities should pose little risk to public health.”

The Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (CoC) issued a statement in 2000 which said that “any potential risk of cancer due to residency (for periods in excess of 10 years) near to municipal solid waste incinerators was exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the most modern epidemiological techniques.” In 2009, CoC considered six further relevant epidemiological papers that had been published since the 2000 statement, and concluded that “there is no need to change the advice given in the previous statement in 2000 but that the situation should be kept under review”.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 44 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Republic of Ireland Health Research Board report stated that “It is hard to separate the influences of other sources of pollutants, and other causes of cancer and, as a result, the evidence for a link between cancer and proximity to an incinerator is not conclusive”.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) (2003) investigated possible implications on health associated with food contamination from waste incineration and concluded: “In relation to the possible impact of introduction of waste incineration in Ireland, as part of a national waste management strategy, on this currently largely satisfactory situation, the FSAI considers that such incineration facilities, if properly managed, will not contribute to dioxin levels in the food supply to any significant extent. The risks to health and sustainable development presented by the continued dependency on landfill as a method of waste disposal far outweigh any possible effects on food safety and quality.”

Health Protection Scotland (2009) considered scientific studies on health effects associated with the incineration of waste particularly those published after the Defra review discussed earlier. The main conclusions of this report were: “(a) For waste incineration as a whole topic, the body of evidence for an association with (non-occupational) adverse health effects is both inconsistent and inconclusive. However, more recent work suggests, more strongly, that there may have been an association between emissions (particularly dioxins) in the past from industrial, clinical and municipal waste incinerators and some forms of cancer, before more stringent regulatory requirements were implemented. (b) For individual waste streams, the evidence for an association with (non-occupational) adverse health effects is inconclusive. (c) The magnitude of any past health effects on residential populations living near incinerators that did occur is likely to have been small. (d) Levels of airborne emissions from individual incinerators should be lower now than in the past, due to stricter legislative controls and improved technology. Hence, any risk to the health of a local population living near an incinerator, associated with its emissions, should also now be lower.”

The US National Research Council Committee on Health Effects of Waste Incineration (NRC) (NRC 2000) reviewed evidence as part of a wide ranging report. The Committee view of the published evidence was summarised in a key conclusion: “Few epidemiological studies have attempted to assess whether adverse health effects have actually occurred near individual incinerators, and most of them have been unable to detect any effects. The studies of which the committee is aware that did report finding health effects had shortcomings and failed to provide convincing evidence. That result is not surprising given the small populations typically available for study and the fact that such effects, if any, might occur only infrequently or take many years to appear. Also, factors such as emissions from other pollution sources and variations in human activity patterns often decrease the likelihood of determining a relationship between small contributions of pollutants from incinerators and observed health effects. Lack of evidence of such relationships might mean that adverse health effects did not occur, but it

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 45 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 could mean that such relationships might not be detectable using available methods and sources.”

The British Society for Ecological Medicine (BSEM) published a report in 2005 on the health effects associated with incineration and concluded that “Large studies have shown higher rates of adult and childhood cancer and also birth defects around municipal waste incinerators: the results are consistent with the associations being causal. A number of smaller epidemiological studies support this interpretation and suggest that the range of illnesses produced by incinerators may be much wider. Incinerator emissions are a major source of fine particulates, of toxic metals and of more than 200 organic chemicals, including known carcinogens, mutagens, and hormone disrupters. Emissions also contain other unidentified compounds whose potential for harm is as yet unknown, as was once the case with dioxins. Abatement equipment in modern incinerators merely transfers the toxic load, notably that of dioxins and heavy metals, from airborne emissions to the fly ash. This fly ash is light, readily windborne and mostly of low particle size. It represents a considerable and poorly understood health hazard.”

The BSEM report was reviewed by the HPA and they concluded that “Having considered the BSEM report the HPA maintains its position that contemporary and effectively managed and regulated waste incineration processes contribute little to the concentrations of monitored pollutants in ambient air and that the emissions from such plants have little effect on health.” The BSEM report was also commented on by the consultants who drafted the Defra 2004 report referred to above. They said that “It fails to consider the significance of incineration as a source of the substances of concern. It does not consider the possible significance of the dose of pollutants that could result from incinerators. It does not fairly consider the adverse effects that could be associated with alternatives to incineration. It relies on inaccurate and outdated material. In view of these shortcomings, the report’s conclusions with regard to the health effects of incineration are not reliable.”

A Greenpeace review on incineration and human health concluded that a broad range of health effects have been associated with living near to incinerators as well as with working at these installations. Such effects include cancer (among both children and adults), adverse impacts on the respiratory system, heart disease, immune system effects, increased allergies and congenital abnormalities. Some studies, particularly those on cancer, relate to old rather than modern incinerators. However, modern incinerators operating in the last few years have also been associated with adverse health effects.”

The Health Protection Scotland report referred to above says that “the authors of the Greenpeace review do not explain the basis for their conclusion that there is an association between incineration and adverse effects in terms of criteria used to assess the strength of evidence. The weighting factors used to derive the assessment are not detailed. The objectivity of the conclusion cannot therefore be easily tested.”

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 46 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

From this published body of scientific opinion, we take the view stated by the HPA that “While it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from modern, well regulated municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potential damage to the health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable”. We therefore ensure that permits contain conditions which require the Installation to be well-run and regulate the Installation to ensure compliance with such permit conditions.

iv) Health Risk Models

Comparing the results of air dispersion modelling as part of the H1 Environmental Impact assessment against European and national air quality standards effectively makes a health risk assessment for those pollutants for which a standard has been derived. These air quality standards have been developed primarily in order to protect human health via known uptake mechanisms, such as inhalation and ingestion. Some pollutants, such as dioxins and furans, have human health impacts at lower ingestion levels than lend themselves to setting an air quality standard to control against. For these pollutants, a different human health risk model is required which better reflects the level of dioxin uptake.

Dioxin Intake Models: Two models are available to predict the dioxin intake for comparison with the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) recommended by the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, known as COT. These are HHRAP and the HMIP model.

HHRAP has been developed by the US EPA to calculate the human body uptake of a range of carcinogenic pollutants and to determine the mathematic quantitative risk in probabilistic terms. In the UK, in common with other European Countries, we consider a threshold dose below which the likelihood of an adverse effect is regarded as being very low or effectively zero. The HMIP model uses a similar approach to the HHRAP model, but does not attempt to predict probabilistic risk. Either model can however be used to make comparisons with the TDI.

The TDI is the amount of a substance that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk. It is expressed in relation to bodyweight in order to allow for different body size, such as for children of different ages. In the UK, the COT has set a TDI for dioxins and furans of 2 picograms I-TEQ/Kg-body weight/day (N.B. a picogram is a million millionths (10-12) of a gram).

In addition to an assessment of risk from dioxins and furans, the HHRAP model enables a risk assessment from human intake of a range of heavy metals. The HMIP report does not consider metals. In principle, the respective EQS for these metals are protective of human health. It is not therefore necessary to model the human body uptake.

COMEAP developed a methodology applicable to the results of time series epidemiological studies which allows calculation of the public health impact of Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 47 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

exposure to the classical air pollutants (NO2, SO2 and particulates) in terms of the numbers of “deaths brought forward” and the “number of hospital admissions for respiratory disease brought forward or additional”. COMEAP has issued a statement expressing some reservations about the applicability of applying its methodology to small affected areas. Those concerns generally relate to the fact that the exposure-response coefficients used in the COMEAP report derive from studies of whole urban populations where the air pollution climate may differ from that around a new industrial installation. COMEAP identified a number of factors and assumptions that would contribute to the uncertainty of the estimates. These were summarised in the Defra review as below: • Assumption that the spatial distribution of the air pollutants considered is the same in the area under study as in those areas, usually cities or large towns, in which the studies which generated the coefficients were undertaken. • Assumption that the temporal pattern of pollutant concentrations in the area under study is similar to that in the areas in which the studies which generated the coefficients were undertaken (i.e. urban areas). • It should be recognised that a difference in the pattern of socio- economic conditions between the areas to be studied and the reference areas could lead to inaccuracy in the predicted level of effects. • In the same way, a difference in the pattern of personal exposures between the areas to be studied and the reference areas will affect the accuracy of the predictions of effects.

The use of the COMEAP methodology is not generally recommended for modelling the human health impacts of individual installations. However it may have limited applicability where emissions of NOx, SO2 and particulates cannot be screened out as insignificant in an H1 Environmental Impact assessment, there are high ambient background levels of these pollutants and we are advised that its use was appropriate by our public health consultees.

Our recommended approach is therefore the use of the H1 assessment methodology comparison for most pollutants (including metals) and dioxin intake models using either the HHRA or HMIP models as described above for dioxins and furans. Where an alternative approach is adopted for dioxins, we check the predictions ourselves using the HMIP methodology.

v) Consultations

As part of our normal procedures for the determination of a Permit Application, we would consult the PCT, FSA and in some cases HPA (often the PCT response would incorporate HPA advice). We also consult the local communities who may raise health related issues. All issues raised by these consultations are considered in determining the application as described in Annex 4 of this document.

5.3.2 Assessment of Intake of Dioxins and Furans

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 48 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

For dioxins and furans, the principal exposure route is through ingestion, usually through the food chain, and the main risk to health is through accumulation in the body over a period of time.

The human health risk assessment calculates the dose of dioxins and furans that would be received by local receptors if all their food and water were locally sourced from the locality where the deposition of dioxins and furans is predicted to be the highest. This is then assessed against the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) levels established by the COT of 2 picograms I-TEQ / Kg bodyweight/ day.

The results of the applicant’s assessment of dioxin intake are detailed in the table below. The results showed that the predicted daily intake of dioxins resulting from emissions from the proposed Installation at the point of maximum impact were below the recommended TDI levels. The methodology is based on worst case assumptions, with the plant operating continuously at the maximum emission limits allowed under the WID. In practise, this will not be the case and actual emissions will be less than the limits.

Receptor adult child Maximum impact [Note 1] 0.02% 0.13% [Note 2] [Note 2]

Note 1 Tables 7.7 and 7.8 of the Application Air Quality Assessment Report.

Note 2 % of the TDI limit (Calculated maximum daily intake of dioxins by local receptors resulting from the operation of the proposed facility).

The FSA has reported that recent dietary studies have shown that estimated total dietary intakes of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs from all sources by all age groups fell by around 50% between 1997 and 2001, and are expected to continue to fall. In 2001, the average daily intake by adults in the UK from diet was 0.9pg WHO-TEQ/kg bodyweight. The additional TDI predicted by the modelling as shown in the table above is substantially below this figure.

In 2010, FSA studied the levels of chlorinated, brominated and mixed (chlorinated-brominated) dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in fish, shellfish, meat and eggs consumed in UK. It asked COT to consider the results and to advise on whether the measured levels of these PXDDs, PXDFs and PXBs indicated a health concern (‘X’ means a halogen). COT issued a statement in December 2010 and concluded that “The major contribution to the total dioxin toxic activity in the foods measured came from chlorinated compounds. Brominated compounds made a much smaller contribution, and mixed halogenated compounds contributed even less (1% or less of TDI). Measured levels of PXDDs, PXDFs and dioxin-like PXBs do not indicate a health concern”. COT recognised the lack of quantified TEFs for these compounds but said that “even if the TEFs for PXDDs, PXDFs and dioxin-like PXBs were up to four fold higher than assumed, their contribution to the total TEQ in the diet would still be small. Thus, further research on PXDDs, PXDFs and dioxin- like PXBs is not considered a priority.”

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 49 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

In the light of this statement, we assess the impact of chlorinated compounds as representing the impact of all chlorinated, brominated and mixed dioxins / furans and dioxin like PCBs.

5.3.3 Particulates smaller than 2.5 microns

The Operator will be required to monitor particulate emissions using the method set out in EN 13284-1. This method requires that the filter efficiency must be at least 99.5 % on a test aerosol with a mean particle diameter of 0.3 μm, at the maximum flow rate anticipated. The filter efficiency for larger particles will be at least as high as this. This means that particulate monitoring data effectively captures everything above 0.3 μm and much of what is smaller. It is not expected that particles smaller than 0.3 μm will contribute significantly to the mass release rate / concentration of particulates because of their very small mass, even if present. This means that emissions monitoring data can be relied upon to measure the true mass emission rate of particulates.

Nano-particles are considered to refer to those particulates less than 0.1 μm in diameter (PM0.1). Questions are often raised about the effect of nano- particles on human health, in particular on children’s health, because of their high surface to volume ratio, making them more reactive, and their very small size, giving them the potential to penetrate cell walls of living organisms. The small size also means there will be a larger number of small particles for a given mass concentration. However the HPA statement (referenced below) says that due to the small effects of incinerators on local concentration of particles, it is highly unlikely that there will be detectable effects of any particular incinerator on local infant mortality.

The HPA addresses the issue of the health effects of particulates in their September 2009 statement ‘The Impact on Health of Emissions to Air from Municipal Incinerators’. It refers to the coefficients linking PM10 and PM2.5 with effects on health derived by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) and goes on to say that if these coefficients are applied to small increases in concentrations produced, locally, by incinerators, the estimated effects on health are likely to be small. The HPA notes that the coefficients that allow the use of number concentrations in impact calculations have not yet been defined because the national experts have not judged that the evidence is sufficient to do so. This is an area being kept under review by COMEAP.

In December 2010, COMEAP published a report on The Mortality Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution in the United Kingdom. It says that “a policy which aims to reduce the annual average concentration of 3 PM2.5 by 1 µg/m would result in an increase in life expectancy of 20 days for people born in 2008.” However, “The Committee stresses the need for careful interpretation of these metrics to avoid incorrect inferences being drawn – they are valid representations of population aggregate or average effects, but

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 50 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

they can be misleading when interpreted as reflecting the experience of individuals.”

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

This is consistent with the assessment of this application which shows emissions of PM10 to air to be insignificant.

We take the view, based on the foregoing evidence, that techniques which control the release of particulates to levels which will not cause harm to human health will also control the release of fine particulate matter to a level which will not cause harm to human health.

5.3.4 Assessment of Health Effects from the Installation

We have assessed the health effects from the operation of this Installation in relation to the above (sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.3). We have applied the relevant requirements of the national and European legislation in imposing the permit conditions. We are satisfied that compliance with these conditions will ensure protection of the environment and human health.

Taking into account all of the expert opinion available, we agree with the conclusion reached by the HPA that “While it is not possible to rule out adverse health effects from modern, well regulated municipal waste incinerators with complete certainty, any potential damage to the health of those living close-by is likely to be very small, if detectable.”

In carrying out air dispersion modelling as part of the H1 Environmental Impact assessment and comparing the predicted environmental concentrations with European and national air quality standards, the Applicant has effectively made a health risk assessment for many pollutants. These air quality standards have been developed primarily in order to protect human health.

The Applicant’s assessment of the impact from NO2 (short-term), particulate matter (PM10), hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, Sb, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, Hg, Tl and V have all indicated that the Installation emissions screen out as insignificant; where the impact of emissions of NO2 (long-term), SO2 (short-term), TOC, As, Cd and Ni have not been screened out as insignificant, the assessment still shows that the predicted environmental concentrations are well within air quality standards or environmental action levels, with the exception of NO2 (Refer to Section 5.2.6 of this document).

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 51 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

The Environment Agency has reviewed the methodology employed by the Applicant to carry out the health impact assessment.

We have expressed a number of minor concerns with the way in which the modelling work has been done. We are satisfied, however that dioxin and furan emissions are not likely to contribute significantly to any exceedences of the TDI.

Overall, taking into account the conservative nature of the impact assessment (i.e. that it is based upon an individual exposed for a life-time to the effects of the highest predicted airborne concentrations and consuming mostly locally grown food), it was concluded that the operation of the proposed facility will not pose a significant carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk to human health.

The local Primary Care Trusts (Salford and Trafford PCT) were consulted on the Application and concluded that they had no significant concerns regarding the risk to the health of humans from the Installation. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) was also consulted during the Permit determination process. Details of the responses provided by the PCT and FSA to the consultation on this Application can be found in Annex 4.

The Environment Agency is therefore satisfied that the Applicant’s conclusions presented above are soundly based and we conclude that the potential emissions of pollutants including dioxins, furans and metals from the proposed facility are unlikely to have an impact upon human health.

5.4 Impact on Habitats sites and local wildlife sites

5.4.1 Sites Considered

The following Habitats, classified as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), are located within 10km of the installation:

• Manchester Mosses (5km west of the Installation) – this site contains examples of degraded raised bogs that are still capable of natural regeneration.

• Rixton Clay Pits (9.7km south west of the Installation) – great crested newts are known to occur in at least 20 ponds across the site.

There were no Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) located within 2km of the Installation.

The following non-statutory local wildlife sites were located within 2km of the Installation:

• Foxhill Glen (1.2km west of the Installation) • Davyhulme Millenium Nature Reserve, adjacent to Davyhulme Sewage Works (1km south west of the Installation) • Bridgewater Canal (1.7km east of the Installation) Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 52 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

5.4.2 Habitats Assessment

The Applicant’s Habitats assessment was reviewed by the Environment Agency’s technical specialists for modelling, air quality, conservation and ecology technical services, who agreed with the assessment’s conclusions; however they did identify some data gaps for which we sought further clarification. This included additional assessment at the SAC where more than one location required assessment due to the site consisting of multiple, widely separated sites (consists of Risley Moss SSSI, Holcroft Moss SSSI and Astley and Bedford Mosses SSSI). An assessment of acid and nitrogen deposition was also required.

Concentrations in the Tables below are reported in µg/m3.

Manchester Mosses – Emissions to Air

Pollutant Critical Level Process PC as % of Contribution EQS / EAL (PC) [Note 2] NO2 (annual 30 0.06 0.2 mean) NO2 (daily mean) 75 1.02 1.36 SO2 10 0.03 0.3 (annual mean) [Note 1] SO2 20 0.03 0.15 (annual mean) HF (daily mean) 5 0.01 0.2 HF (weekly mean) 0.5 0.01 2 NH3 1 0.01 1 (annual mean) [Note 1] NH3 3 0.01 0.33 (annual mean)

Note 1 Annual mean where lichens & bryophytes are an important part of the ecosystem’s integrity.

Note 2 Table 4.13 Application Air Quality Assessment report.

The impact at the Manchester Mosses from emissions to air are screened out as being insignificant.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 53 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Manchester Mosses – Nitrogen Deposition

Site Predicted Deposition Critical Percentage Contribution kgN/he/yr Load Max Average kgN/he/yr Max Average Manchester 0.0065 0.0043 5 0.13 0.09 Mosses Risley 0.0023 0.0019 5 0.05 0.04 Moss SSSI Holcroft 0.0034 0.0024 5 0.07 0.05 SSSI Astley & 0.0054 0.0033 5 0.11 0.07 Bedford Mosses SSSI

Note Results from Table 5 in Report S1100-0011-0021AMW (additional information sent 11 May 2011 in response to AQMAU report C704).

The impact at the Manchester Mosses from nitrogen deposition are screened out as being insignificant.

Manchester Mosses – Acid Deposition

Site Worst Year Average Acid N Acid S % Acid N Acid S % keq/he/yr keq/he/yr Critical keq/he/yr keq/he/yr Critical Load Load Function Function Manchester 0.00046 0.00308 1.28 0.00031 0.00202 0.84 Mosses Risley 0.00016 0.00108 0.45 0.00014 0.00091 0.38 Moss SSSI Holcroft 0.00024 0.00163 0.68 0.00017 0.00116 0.48 SSSI Astley & 0.00038 0.00255 1.06 0.00024 0.00158 0.66 Bedford Mosses SSSI

Note Results from Table 6 in Report S1100-0011-0021AMW (additional information sent 11 May 2011 in response to AQMAU report C704).

For the worst case year, the contribution to acid deposition is slightly greater than 1% of the critical load function at the Manchester Mosses SAC and the Astley and Bedford Mosses SSSI; however, for the other four years of weather data, the contribution is well below 1%. This calculation assumes that the Installation will operate at the emission limits and so represents an absolute worst case scenario.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 54 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Rixton Clay Pits – Emissions to Air

Pollutant Critical Level Process PC as % of Contribution EQS / EAL (PC) [Note 2] NO2 (annual 30 0.02 0.07 mean) NO2 (daily mean) 75 0.56 0.75 SO2 10 0.01 0.10 (annual mean) [Note 1] SO2 20 0.01 0.05 (annual mean) HF (daily mean) 5 0.00 0.00 HF (weekly mean) 0.5 0.00 0.00 NH3 1 0.00 0.00 (annual mean) [Note 1] NH3 3 0.00 0.00 (annual mean) Note 1 Annual mean where lichens & bryophytes are an important part of the ecosystem’s integrity.

Note 2 Table 4.13 Application Air Quality Assessment report. The impact at the Rixton Clay Pits from emissions to air are screened out as being insignificant.

The impact from deposition was not undertaken for the newt sites at Rixton Clay Pits as they are not sensitive to deposition.

We sent an Appendix 11 screening assessment to Natural England for consultation and they agreed that the Installation was not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the SACs.

5.4.3 Assessment of Non-Statutory Wildlife Sites

The Applicant’s assessment of the wildlife sites was reviewed by the Environment Agency’s technical specialists for modelling, air quality, conservation and ecology technical services, who agreed with the assessment’s conclusions, that there would be no likely significant effect on the interest feature(s) of the protected site(s).

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 55 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Foxhill Glen

Pollutant Critical Back- Process PC as Predicted PEC Level ground Contribution % of Environmental as % Conc (PC) [Note 3] EQS / Concentration EQS / EAL (PEC) EAL NO2 30 - 0.29 0.97 - - (annual mean) NO2 75 - 4.77 6.36 - - (daily mean) SO2 20 - 0.12 0.6 - - (annual [Note 1] mean) HF (daily 5 - 0.04 0.8 - - mean) HF 0.5 - 0.04 8 - - (weekly mean) NH3 1 1.44 0.02 2 1.46 146 (annual [Note 1] [Note 2] mean) NH3 3 - 0.02 0.66 - - (annual mean)

Note 1 Critical level from Air Pollution Information System (APIS) website.

Note 2 Background concentration from APIS website. Note 3 Table 4.13 Application Air Quality Assessment Report.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 56 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Davyhulme Millenium Nature Reserve (adjacent to Davyhulme Sewage Works)

Pollutant Critical Back- Process PC as Predicted PEC Level ground Contribution % of Environmental as % Conc (PC) [Note 4] EQS / Concentration EQS / EAL (PEC) EAL NO2 30 36.3 0.45 1.5 36.75 122.5 (annual [Note 5] mean) NO2 75 - 7.32 9.76 - - (daily mean) SO2 20 - 0.18 0.9 - - (annual [Note 1] mean) HF (daily 5 - 0.06 1.2 - - mean) HF 0.5 [Note 2] 0.06 12 - - (weekly mean) NH3 1 1.4 0.04 4 1.44 144 (annual [Note 1] [Note 3] mean) NH3 3 1.4 0.04 1.33 1.44 48 (annual [Note 3] mean)

Note 1 Critical level from Air Pollution Information System (APIS) website.

Note 2 Background concentration unknown.

Note 3 Background concentration from APIS website.

Note 4 Table 4.13 Application Air Quality Assessment report.

Note 5 Table 3.13 Application Air Quality Assessment report.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 57 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Bridgewater Canal

Pollutant Critical Level Process PC as % of Contribution EQS / EAL (PC) [Note 2] NO2 (annual 30 0.12 0.4 mean) NO2 (daily mean) 75 2.42 3.23 SO2 10 0.05 0.5 (annual mean) [Note 1] SO2 20 0.05 0.25 (annual mean) HF (daily mean) 5 0.02 0.4 HF (weekly mean) 0.5 0.02 4 NH3 1 0.01 1 (annual mean) [Note 1] NH3 3 0.01 0.33 (annual mean)

Note 1 Critical level from Air Pollution Information System (APIS) website.

Note 2 Table 4.13 Application Air Quality Assessment report.

The impact at Foxhill Glen and Davyhulme Millenium Nature Reserve can be summarised as follows:

Despite the fact that the Critical Load is already exceeded for NH3 (Foxhill Glen) and NO2 and NH3 (Davyhulme Millenium Nature Reserve), the incremental increase attributable to emissions from the proposed Installation is small. Given this small contribution from the Installation and the conservative nature of the assessment, it is likely that the emissions could be considered insignificant.

The Applicant’s Habitats assessment was reviewed by the Environment Agency’s technical specialist for conservation and ecology technical services, who agreed with the assessment’s conclusions, that the impact of the Installation’s emissions upon the SACs and local wildlife sites would be insignificant.

5.5 Impact of abnormal operations

WID (Article 6(3)(c)) requires that waste shall cease to be fed to the Installation whenever any of the continuous emission monitors show that an emission limit value (ELV) is exceeded due to disturbances or failures of the purification devices. Not withstanding this, WID (Article 13(3)) allows for the continued feeding of waste under abnormal operating conditions – this is a recognition that the emissions during transient states (e.g. start-up, shut- down) are higher than during steady-state operation, and the overall environmental impact of continued operation with a limited exceedance of an ELV may be less than that of a partial shut-down and re-start. WID Article 13 Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 58 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 sets criteria for determining what is an abnormal operation and sets some limits regarding duration and extent of the abnormal operation which aim to ensure that the overall environmental impact is so minimised.

Abnormal operations are limited to no more than a period of 4 hours continuous operation and no more than 60 hour aggregated operation in any calendar year (<1% of total operating hours). As such, abnormal operating conditions are not expected to have any significant long term environmental impact unless the background conditions were already close to, or exceeding, an EQS. For the most part therefore consideration of abnormal operations is limited to consideration of its impact on short-term EQSs.

WID abnormal operations are defined as any technically unavoidable stoppages, disturbances, or failures of the abatement plant or the measurement devices, during which the concentrations in the discharges into air may exceed the normal emission limit values.

For incineration plant, WID sets backstop limits for particulates, CO and TOC which must continue to be met. The CO and TOC limits are the same as for normal operation, and are intended to ensure that good combustion conditions are maintained. The backstop limit for particulates is 150 mg/m3 as a half hourly average, which is five times the limit in normal operation. It should be remembered that these backstop limits do not apply to co- incineration plants; however the particulate is unlikely to exceed this limit during abnormal operation.

In making an assessment of abnormal operations a worst case scenario has been assumed with complete failure of the abatement system as follows:

• Dioxin emissions of 10 ng/m3 (100 x limit) • NOx emissions of 600 mg/m3 (1.5 x short-term limit) • Particulate emissions of 150 mg/m3 (5 x short-term limit) 3 • SO2 emissions of 211 mg/m (emission calculated from the concentration in the fuel) • HCl emissions of 108 mg/m3 (emission calculated from the concentration in the fuel) • Metals 2.5 mg/m3 (5 x limit)

For dioxins the WID emission limit has been multiplied by a factor of 100 to assess the effect. This is equivalent to saying that the activated carbon injection is at least 99% efficient in abating emissions of dioxins.

The result on the short-term environmental impact is summarised in the table below.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 59 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Concentration figures reported in mg/m3.

Pollutant Half hourly max Abnormal emission

NO2 400 600 Particulate 30 150 matter (PM10) SO2 200 211 [Note 2] HCl 60 108 [Note 2] Cd and Tl 0.05 0.25 Sb, As, Pb, Cr, 0.5 2.5 Co, Cu, Mn, Ni and V

Note 1 The dioxin assessment wasn’t included; however if we consider worst case scenario with the release at 100 times the limit, this would still be significantly below the TDI, see below.

Note 2 Concentrations from additional information sent 2 March 2012 to clarify abnormal emissions.

This is a worst case scenario in that WID abnormal conditions include a number of different equipment failures not all of which will necessarily result in an adverse impact on the environment (e.g. a failure of a monitoring instrument does not necessarily mean that the incinerator or abatement plant is malfunctioning). This analysis assumes that any failure of any equipment results in all the negative impacts set out above occurring simultaneously.

The result of the short-term environmental impact is summarised in the table below.

Concentration figures reported in µg/m3.

Predicted Impact-WID Predicted Impact-Abnormal limits Operation Pollutant EQS / Process PC PEC Process PC PEC EAL Contribution as % as % Contribution as % as % (PC) of of (PC) of of EQS EQS EQS EQS / EAL / EAL / EAL / EAL

NO2 200 9.58 4.79 - 14.37 7.19 - Particulate 50 0.31 0.62 - 1.55 3.10 - matter (PM10) SO2 266 34.7 13.05 14.66 36.6 13.76 16.99 HCl 750 7.59 1.00 - 13.66 1.82 - Cd and Tl 1.5 0.019 1.27 - 0.095 6.33 - Sb, As, 1 0.042 4.22 - 0.21 21.00 28.6 Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 60 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni and V [Note 2]

Note 1 For the assessment of short-term impacts the PEC is determined by adding twice the long term background concentration to the short tem process contribution.

Note 2 EAL of 1 µg/m3 for vanadium

This is considered to be a highly conservative assessment as it assumes that the abnormal emissions coincide with the worst case meteorological conditions.

Even with these highly conservative factors, there are no predicted exceedances of air quality standards.

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

Short-term <10% NO2 Particulate matter (PM10) HCl Cd and Tl

For SO2 and metal emissions, the PC is less than 20% of the headroom. For this emission we require the Applicant to apply BAT, and this is considered in section 6.

We have not assessed the impact of abnormal operations against long-term EQSs for the reasons set out above. Except that if dioxin emissions were at 10 ng/m3 for the maximum period of abnormal operation, this would result in a 70% increase in the TDI reported in section 5.3.2. In these circumstances the TDI would be 0.034% of the TDI for adults, which will still not pose a risk to human health.

5.6 Other Considerations

5.6.1 Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)

Maximum Impact at a Residential Receptor

The proposed plant is approximately 300 m from the edge of an AQMA which has been declared because of likely exceedences of the annual mean for NO2 of 40 μg/m3. The Applicant has reviewed the monitoring results from the

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 61 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

various continuous and diffusion tube monitoring locations in the area and chosen to use results from the Salford Eccles continuous monitor (2.8 km to the north-east) for the background NO2 level. The annual mean for the three years of data (2007 to 2009) was averaged to give a background value of 36.3 μg/m3 and thus a headroom of 3.7 μg/m3. We have re-evaluated this background data as detailed in Section 5.2.6 above.

Background Back- EQS Process PC Predicted PEC Source ground Contribution as % Environmental as % Salford Conc (PC) of Concentration EQS Eccles EQS (PEC) / EAL / EAL Average 36.3 40 0.69 1.70 37.00 92.50 2007-2009 [Note 1]

Note 1 Table 3.13 of the Application Air Quality Assessment Report.

The NO2 process contribution at the point of maximum impact at a receptor (Tindall Street) was used and is less than 2% of the averaged background concentration at this location.

Our re-evaluation of NO2 background concentrations is set out in Section 5.2.6 above and we still do not think an exceedance is likely, but even assuming that the existing background levels already exceed the EU EQS the process contribution is negligible.

Impact at Stroma Gardens

The Applicant also refers to the results from a diffusion tube that is located much closer to the M60 and thought to be more representative of the air quality in the vicinity of Stroma Gardens in the AQMA. This was noted by the Applicant but not commented on or used (Salford City Council tube no. SA 34 at 673 Liverpool Road, close to the junction of the M60 and A57, and approximately 1 km to the north-east of the proposed plant). The annual means measured here have been over 60 μg/m3 for four of the five years between 2005 to 2009. The diffusion tube is mounted less than 1 m from the façade of a residential property.

Background Back- EQS Process PC as Source ground Contribution % of 637 Liverpool Conc (PC) EQS / Road EAL Average 2005- 62 40 0.36 [Note 2] 0.9 2009 [Note 1]

Note 1 Table 3.7 of the Application Air Quality Assessment Report.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 62 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Note 2 Table 4.9 of the Application Air Quality Assessment Report.

The process contribution at the nearest dwelling in Stroma Gardens was used in this case and is only 0.6% of this background concentration. In any event, at this location, the emissions are actually screened out as being insignificant. The contribution from the process would have a negligible contribution to the exceedance of the EQS.

When considering the impact of the Installation on the AQMA, it needs to be considered in the wider context of the other sources which are also contributing and thus impacting on the air quality. As previously mentioned, at the point of maximum impact (residential receptor) the concentration of NO2 from the Installation is less than 2% of the averaged background concentration at this location. We concluded that given the conservative nature of the modelling even taking account of the higher background figure that the contribution from the process would have a negligible contribution to the exceedance of the EQS at this location. We also need to consider the conservative nature of the tools which lead us to our findings which are more likely to over predict than under predict the impact and that our 1% insignificance test is a tool for screening out impacts and not a tool for testing significance.

We have already set an unusually low limit for NO2 and actual emissions are almost certain to be below this emission limit in practice. Any operator who sought to operate its Installation continually at the maximum permitted level would almost inevitably breach those limits regularly, simply by virtue of normal fluctuations in plant performance. The assessment undertaken is therefore a “worst-case” scenario. Given the small contribution from the Installation we would not consider it practical or reasonable to expect the Applicant to go beyond what is considered BAT for the control of NO2; however we have set an unusually low 3 daily average limit for NO2 of 125 mg/m , refer to Section 6.6 below.

5.6.2 Cumulative Impact

This assessment has focussed on nitrogen dioxide, due to the presence of the AQMAs and because nitrogen dioxide is released by all of the consented developments considered below.

Carrington I and II Power Stations

The impact of the planned gas-fired power stations in Carrington was considered in the planning application for Carrington II. The dispersion modelling carried out for the planning application and reported in the Environmental Statement included both Carrington I and Carrington II.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 63 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

The combined impact of these two power stations in the Trafford AQMA and the Salford AQMA was stated to be 0.13 μg/m3 and 0.14 μg/m3 respectively, when the effect of atmospheric chemistry is taken into account.

EQS Process PC as % of Contribution EQS / EAL (PC) 40 0.27 0.68

These combined concentrations are <1% of the EQS and so would be screened out as being insignificant.

United Utilities

We also audited the air quality modelling which was submitted as part of a separate EP application for new combustion plant at its Davyhulme treatment works. This information can be found on the public register under Application number EPR/HP3931LJ/V005. We concluded that the proposed changes were predicted to result in a rise in annual mean NO2 concentrations of between 1 and 2% of the AQS objective in a residential area within the AQMA.

We carried out an additional assessment to address public concerns about the combined impact of Barton and the new gas engines at Davyhulme. The findings are detailed in our report AQMAU_C943_RP01, which has been placed on the Public Register.

United Utilities will contribute to the existing background NO2 levels. Based on our consideration above and assuming that background levels including United Utilities exceed the EU EQS, the process contribution from the Barton facility is negligible.

Considering short term NO2 from both sources at areas where the public may be exposed we found that there was unlikely to be an exceedence of the 99.79 percentile for hourly averages within a year.

Our assessment was based on a worst case scenario which is unlikely to happen on a frequent basis, so when the combined process contributions are taken into account it does not change our earlier conclusions.

Port Salford and Salford Reds Stadium

The impact of these two developments was considered in the planning application and final Environmental Statement for the Port Salford development. The concern was the impact of additional or rerouted traffic.

Section 6 (3) of the Air Quality Assessment Report concludes that these developments would not lead to any amendments to the existing AQMA. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 64 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

While there would be increases of 12 % at one location, increases of 5-6 % at the affected locations were more common. The highest impacts were predicted to occur along Liverpool Road and it can be seen from Figure 6 in Appendix C of the Air Quality Report, that the impact of the biomass plant on Liverpool Road is less than 0.3 μg/m3. Taking the most affected receptor from the Port Salford AQMA, which is Liverpool Road to the east of the M60, the concentration was predicted to increase from 45.5 μg/m3 to 51.2 μg/m3. The biomass plant is predicted to add less than 0.3 μg/m3 to this concentration, which is 0.6 % of the predicted concentration so it would have a negligible contribution to the exceedance of the EQS.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 65 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

6. Application of Best Available Techniques

6.1 Scope of Consideration

In this section, we explain how we have determined whether the Applicant’s proposals are the Best Available Techniques for this Installation.

• The first issue we address is the fundamental choice of incineration technology. There are a number of alternatives, and the Applicant has explained why it has chosen one particular kind for this Installation.

• We then consider control measures for the emissions which were not screened out as insignificant in the previous section on minimising the Installation’s environmental impact. They are:

NO2 SO2 VOCs As Cd Ni

• We also have to consider the combustion efficiency and energy utilisation of different design options for the Installation, which are relevant considerations in the determination of BAT for the Installation, including the Global Warming Potential of the different options.

• Finally, the prevention and minimisation of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) must be considered, as we explain below.

WID on the other hand is based on setting mandatory emission limit values. Although the WID limits are designed to be stringent, and to provide a high level of environmental protection, they do not necessarily reflect what can be achieved by new plant. As the WID itself states, its limits are “a necessary but not sufficient condition” for compliance with the requirements of the IPPCD, which also applies to this Installation. The IPPCD requires that emissions should be prevented or minimised, so it may be possible and desirable to achieve emissions below WID limits.

Even if the WID limits are appropriate, operational controls complement the emission limits and should generally result in emissions below the maximum allowed; whilst the limits themselves provide headroom to allow for unavoidable process fluctuations. Actual emissions are therefore almost certain to be below emission limits in practice, because any operator who sought to operate its Installation continually at the maximum permitted level would almost inevitably breach those limits regularly, simply by virtue of normal fluctuations in plant performance, resulting in enforcement action (including potentially prosecution) being taken. Assessments based on, say, WID limits is therefore a “worst-case” scenario.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 66 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Should the Installation, once in operation, emit at rates significantly below the limits included in the Permit, we will consider tightening ELVs appropriately. We are, however, satisfied that emissions at the permitted limits would ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment in any event.

6.1.1 Consideration of Furnace Type

The prime function of the furnace is to achieve maximum combustion of the waste. The WID requires that the plant (furnace in this context) should be designed to deliver its requirements. The main requirements of the WID in relation to the choice of a furnace are compliance with air emission limits for CO and TOC and achieving a low TOC/LOI level in the bottom ash.

The Waste Incineration BREF elaborates the furnace selection criteria as:

- the use of a furnace (including secondary combustion chamber) dimensions that are large enough to provide for an effective combination of gas residence time and temperature such that combustion reactions may approach completion and result in low and stable CO and TOC emissions to air and low TOC in residues. - use of a combination of furnace design, operation and waste throughput rate that provides sufficient agitation and residence time of the waste in the furnace at sufficiently high temperatures. - The use of furnace design that, as far as possible, physically retain the waste within the combustion chamber (e.g. grate bar spacing) to allow its complete combustion.

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

Overall, any of the furnace technologies listed below would be considered as BAT provided the Applicant has justified it in terms of: - nature/physical state of the waste and its variability - proposed plant throughput which may affect the number of incineration lines - preference and experience of chosen technology including plant availability - nature and quantity/quality of residues produced. - emissions to air – usually NOx as the furnace choice could have an effect on the amount of unabated NOx produced - energy consumption – whole plant, waste preparation, effect on GWP - Need, if any, for further processing of residues to comply with TOC - Costs

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 67 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Comparison of thermal treatment technologies

Technique Key waste Throughput Advantages Disadvantages / Bottom Cost characteristics and per line Limitations of use Ash suitability Quality Moving Low to medium heat 1 to 50 t/h Widely proven at generally not suited TOC High capacity grate (air- values (LCV 5 – 16.5 with most large scales. to powders, liquids or 0.5 % to reduces cooled) GJ/t) projects 5 to materials that melt 3 % specific cost 30 t/h. Robust through the grate per tonne of Municipal and other waste heterogeneous solid Most Low maintenance wastes industrial cost applications Can accept a not below 2.5 Long operational proportion of sewage or 3 t/h. history sludge and/or medical waste with municipal Can take waste heterogeneous wastes without Applied at most special modern preparation MSW installations

Moving Same as air-cooled Same as air- As air-cooled grates As air-cooled grates TOC Slightly higher grate (liquid grates except: cooled grates but: higher heat value but: risk of grate 0.5 % to capital cost Cooled) waste treatable better damaging leaks and 3 % than air-cooled LCV 10 – 20 GJ/t Combustion control higher complexity possible.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 68 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Technique Key waste Throughput Advantages Disadvantages / Bottom Cost characteristics and per line Limitations of use Ash suitability Quality Rotary Kiln Can accept liquids <10 t/h Very well proven with Throughputs lower TOC <3 Higher specific and pastes solid broad range of than grates % cost due to feeds more limited wastes and good reduced than grate (owing to burn out even of HW capacity refractory damage) often applied to hazardous Wastes Fluid bed - Only finely divided 1 to 10 t/h Good mixing Careful operation TOC <3 FGT cost may bubbling consistent wastes. required to avoid % be lower. Fly ashes of good clogging Limited use for raw leaching quality bed. Costs of waste MSW often applied to preparation sludges Higher fly ash quantities. Fluid bed - Only finely divided 1 to 20 t/h Greater fuel Cyclone required to TOC <3 FGT cost may circulating consistent wastes. most used flexibility than BFB conserve bed % be lower. above 10 material Limited use for raw t/h Fly ashes of good Costs of MSW, often applied leaching quality Higher fly ash preparation. to sludges / RDF. quantities

Oscillating MSW / 1 – 10 t/h Robust -higher thermal loss TOC 0.5 Similar to other furnace heterogeneous Low than with grate – 3 % technologies wastes maintenance furnace Long history - LCV under 15 G/t Low NOX level Low LOI of bottom ash

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 69 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Technique Key waste Throughput Advantages Disadvantages / Bottom Cost characteristics and per line Limitations of use Ash suitability Quality Pulsed Only higher CV waste <7 t/h can deal with liquids bed agitation may be Dependent Higher specific Hearth (LCV >20 GJ/t) and powders lower on cost due to mainly used for waste type reduced clinical wastes capacity

Stepped Only higher CV waste No Can deal with liquids Bed agitation may be Dependent Higher specific and static (LCV >20 GJ/t) information and powders lower on waste cost due to hearths type reduced Mainly used for capacity clinical wastes

Spreader - - RDF and other No - simple grate only for well defined No No information stoker particle feeds information construction mono-streams information combustor poultry manure less sensitive to wood wastes particle size than FB

Gasific- - mixed plastic wastes 1 to 20 t/h -low leaching residue - limited waste feed -Low High operation/ ation other similar good burnout if - not full combustion leaching maintenance - fixed bed consistent oxygen blown - high skill level bottom ash costs streams syngas available tar in raw gas good gasification less -Reduced oxidation of - less widely proven burnout widely recyclable metals with used/proven than oxygen incineration

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 70 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Technique Key waste Through- Advantages Disadvantages / Bottom Ash Cost characteristics and put per line Limitations of Quality suitability use Gasification - mixed plastic To 10 t/h - low leaching slag - limited waste low leaching High - entrained wastes reduced oxidation of feed slag operation/ flow - other similar recyclable metals not full maintenance consistent streams combustion costs not suited to high skill level pre-treatment untreated MSW less widely costs gasification less proven high widely used/proven than incineration

Gasification - mixed plastic 5 – 20 t/h -temperatures e.g. -limited waste If Combined with Lower than - fluid bed wastes for Al recovery size (<30cm) ash melting other shredded MSW separation of non- - tar in raw gas chamber ash is gasifiers shredder residues combustibles - higher UHV raw vitrified sludges -can be combined gas metal rich wastes with ash melting - less widely other similar - reduced oxidation proven consistent of recyclable metals streams less widely used/proven than incineration

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 71 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Technique Key waste Through- Advantages Disadvantages / Bottom Ash Cost characteristics and put per line Limitations of Quality suitability use Pyrolysis pre-treated MSW ~ 5 t/h no oxidation of - limited wastes - dependent on High pre- high metal inert (short drum) metals process control process treatment, streams 5 – 10 t/h no combustion and temperature operation and shredder (medium energy for engineering residue produced capital costs residues/plastics drum) metals/inert critical requires further pyrolysis is less in reactor acid high skill req. processing widely neutralisation not widely proven sometimes used/proven than possible need market for combustion incineration syngas available syngas

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 72 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

The Applicant has carried out a review of the following candidate furnace types: • Moving Grate Furnace • Rotary Kiln • Fluidised Bed

The Applicant has proposed to use a furnace technology comprising a mechanical moving grate. The fuel is moved mechanically by means of reciprocating or rotating grate elements from the feed end, through the drying zone, a main combustion zone and, finally a burn out zone, all of which are identified in the tables above as being considered BAT in the BREF or TGN for this type of waste feed.

Consideration of emissions to air, global warming potential, raw material consumption, waste produced and the costs were considered for each option.

The moving grate was considered to be BAT for this Installation. It was considered that fluidised bed technology was not proven for this fuel and that the rotary kiln would have a greater impact on the global warming potential.

We have considered the assessments made by the Applicant and agree that the furnace technology chosen represents BAT. We believe that, based on the information gathered by the BREF process, the chosen technology will achieve the requirements of the WID for the air emission of TOC/CO and the TOC on bottom ash.

Boiler Design

In accordance with our Technical Guidance Note, S5.01, the Applicant has confirmed that the boiler design will include the following features to minimise the potential for reformation of dioxins within the de-novo synthesis range:

ƒ ensuring that the steam/metal heat transfer surface temperature is a minimum where the exhaust gases are within the de-novo synthesis range; ƒ design of the boilers using CFD to ensure no pockets of stagnant or low velocity gas; ƒ boiler passes are progressively decreased in volume so that the gas velocity increases through the boiler; and ƒ Design of boiler surfaces to prevent boundary layers of slow moving gas. We have considered the assessments made by the Applicant and agree that the furnace technology chosen represents BAT. We believe that, based on the information gathered by the BREF process, the chosen technology will achieve the requirements of the WID for the air emission of TOC/CO and the TOC on bottom ash.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 73 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

6.2 BAT and emissions control

The prime function of flue gas treatment is to reduce the concentration of pollutants in the exhaust gas as far as practicable. The techniques which are described as BAT individually are targeted to remove specific pollutants, but the BREF notes that there is benefit from considering the FGT system as a whole unit. Individual units often interact, providing a primary abatement for some pollutants and an additional effect on others.

The BREF lists the general factors requiring consideration when selecting flue-gas treatment (FGT) systems as:

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

The Technical Guidance Note points to a range of technologies being BAT subject to circumstances of the Installation.

6.2.1 Particulate Matter

Particulate matter Technique Advantages Disadvantages Optimisation Defined as BAT in BREF or TGN for: Bag / Fabric Reliable Max temp Multiple Most plants filters (BF) abatement of 250°C compartments particulate matter to below Bag burst 5mg/m3 detectors

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 74 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Wet May reduce Not BAT on its Require Where scrubbing acid gases own. reheat to scrubbing simultaneously. prevent required for Liquid effluent visible plume other produced and dew point pollutants problems.

Ceramic High May “blind” Small plant. filters temperature more than applications fabric filters High temperature Smaller plant. gas cleaning required. Electrostatic Low pressure Not BAT on When used precipitators gradient. Use their own. with other with BF may particulate reduce the abatement energy plant consumption of the induced draft fan.

The Applicant proposes to use fabric filters for the abatement of particulate matter. Fabric filters provide reliable abatement of particulate matter to below 5 mg/m3 and are BAT for most installations. In their response to the notice for further information (notice dated 8 February 2011, response dated 18 March 2011) the Applicant proposed to use multiple compartment filters with burst bag detection to minimise the risk of increased particulate emissions in the event of bag rupture.

Emissions of particulate matter have been previously assessed as insignificant, and so the Environment Agency agrees that the Applicant’s proposed technique is BAT for the Installation.

6.2.2 Oxides of Nitrogen

Oxides of Nitrogen : Primary Measures Technique Advantages Disadvantages Optimisation Defined as BAT in BREF or TGN for: Low NOx Reduces NOx Start-up, Where burners at source supplementary auxiliary firing. burners required. Starved air Reduce CO Pyrolysis, systems simultaneously. Gasification systems. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 75 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Optimise All plant. primary and secondary air injection Flue Gas Reduces the Some All plant Recirculation consumption of applications unless (FGR) reagents used experience impractical in for secondary corrosion design (needs NOx control. problems. to be demonstrated) May increase overall energy recovery

Oxides of Nitrogen : Secondary Measures (BAT is to apply Primary Measures first) Technique Advantages Disadvantages Optimisation Defined as BAT in BREF or TGN for: Selective NOx Expensive. All plant catalytic emissions < reduction 70mg/ m3 Re-heat (SCR) required – Reduces CO, reduces plant VOC, dioxins efficiency Selective NOx Relies on an Port injection All plant unless non- emissions optimum location lower NOx release catalytic typically 150 temperature required for local reduction - 180mg/m3 around 900 °C, environmental (SNCR) and sufficient protection. retention time for reduction

May lead to Ammonia slip Reagent Likely to be More difficult to All plant Type: BAT handle Ammonia Lower nitrous Narrower oxide temperature formation window Reagent Likely to be All plant Type: Urea BAT

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 76 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

The Applicant proposes to implement the following primary measures:

• Low NOx burners – this technique reduces NOx at source and is defined as BAT where auxiliary burners are required. • Optimise primary and secondary air injection – this technique is BAT for all plant.

The Application stated that FGR was not proposed. This method can potentially reduce the consumption of reagents for secondary NOx control and can increase overall energy recovery, although in some applications there can be corrosion problems. Additional information was requested to justify this omission in our further information notice dated 08 February 2011. The Applicant confirmed that many factors are responsible for the design of a combustion system and that it was not appropriate to discard a system just because FGR did not form part of that solution. When the Application was submitted a technology provider had not been chosen; however if the chosen technology supplier has an established track record of using this technique and can demonstrate the benefits, in terms of energy efficiency and environmental performance then FGR will be included.

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

3 SCR can reduce NOx levels to below 70 mg/m and can be applied to all plant, it is generally more expensive than SNCR and requires reheating of the waste gas stream which reduces energy efficiency, periodic replacement of the catalysts also produces a hazardous waste. SNCR can typically reduce 3 NOx levels to between 150 and 180 mg/m ; it relies on an optimum temperature of around 900oC and sufficient retention time for reduction. SNCR is more likely to have higher levels of ammonia slip. The technique can be applied to all plant unless lower NOx releases are required for local environmental protection. Urea or ammonia can be used as the reagent with either technique, urea is somewhat easier to handle than ammonia and has a wider operating temperature window, but tends to result in higher emissions of N2O. Either reagent is BAT, and the use of one over the other is not normally significant in environmental terms.

The Applicant proposes to use SNCR with ammonia dosing for NOx abatement. This system is required to achieve a daily average limit of 125 mg/m3 which is significantly lower than the WID daily limit of 200 mg/m3, and lower than that typically achieved by currently permitted incinerators using the same abatement technique. We required further information to clarify and justify how this lower limit would be achieved with SNCR technology.

Further information was requested in our notice dated 8 February 2011. In their response the Applicant provided monitoring data from other reference plants; however we did not consider that the design and technology was

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 77 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 comparable with the proposed Installation and further information was requested in another Notice dated 16 December 2011.

In their response to this Notice, the Applicant clarified the use of SNCR and that the selected technology provider would be required to guarantee the emission limits. It was confirmed that the lower emissions of oxides of nitrogen would be achieved by the following measures:

• Injection of combustion air in a staged manner, determined by computational fluid dynamics (CFD); • Location of the ammonia nozzles optimised using CFD; • Combustion chamber designed to increase the time that combustion gases spend at the optimum SNCR reaction temperature; • Reduction of thermal NOx by lower levels of oxygen in the combustion chamber.

The Applicant approached a number of boiler suppliers with the aim of providing a sufficient level of confidence that the lower NOx limit was achievable. It was also stated that ‘although boiler suppliers are confident that the emission limits can be achieved, they have not been required to provide combustion plants with guaranteed emission limits at these levels.’

MVV Umwelt A paper was provided by MVV Umwelt which explained how SNCR has a narrow temperature window for an optimum reaction. Optimisation is achieved by multiple ammonia injection points so that the injection rates can be varied based on the local temperature at each nozzle. This means that as the boiler load and the temperature profile varies, the ammonia is still injected under optimum temperature conditions.

Aalborg Energie Technik (AET) AET have a number of reference plants across Europe, which includes the Western Bio-Energy wood fired power station in Wales. They achieve lower NOx emissions by the bespoke design of the secondary combustion air injection systems, supported by ammonia injection and sometimes FGR.

Babcock & Wilcox Volund Babcock & Wilcox Volund explained that NOx generation is highly dependant on the oxygen concentration in the boiler. The consistent nature of the fuel in a waste wood plant means that the facility can be controlled more stably than a MWI even at lower flue gas oxygen concentrations. This stability allows a wood plant to control to lower oxygen concentrations which leads to a reduction in temperature hotspots and reduced NOx generation.

A letter of support was also provided stating that SNCR reduction would be around 60%, with an ammonia slip of 10 mg/Nm3. As such a limit of 125 mg/Nm3 at 11% oxygen should be achievable.

The Applicant also carried out a cost / benefit study of the alternative techniques. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 78 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

In order for a direct comparison to be made, the costs are presented as annualised costs, with the capital investment and financing costs spread over a 30 year lifetime with a rate of return of 9%, using the method recommended in Annex (k) to Technical Guidance Note EPR-H1. This is shown in the tables below.

The Applicant presented the PC at the point of maximum impact (not the maximum impact at a sensitive receptor, which is 0.69 µg/m3) and assumed a 65% reduction for SNCR and an 80% reduction for SCR. The background value of 36.3 µg/m3 was used in the calculation of PEC.

Technology Total PC µg/m3 PC % PEC µg/m3 PEC % Annualised (long term) EQS (long term) EQS Cost [Note 2] [Note 1] [Note 1] [Note 1] [Note 1] SCR £748,121 1.1 2.75 37.4 93.50 SNCR £192,575 1.97 4.9 38.27 95.68

Note 1 Table 3.2 of the BAT Assessment Report Note 2 Table 3.5 of the BAT Assessment Report

In Section 3.4 of the BAT Assessment Report, the Applicant calculated that SCR would abate an additional 66 tonnes of NOx, which gives an effective cost of £8,440 per additional tonne of NOx abated. When taken with the additional contribution to climate change (an additional 1715 tonnes of CO2 per year using SCR), they did not consider that the additional cost was justified by the reduction in environmental impact. Given the conservative nature of the modelling we do not consider the contribution from the Installation would cause an exceedance of the EQS using either technique.

We have also presented the PC at the point of maximum impact in the AQMA using the same assumptions:

Technology Total PC µg/m3 PC % PEC µg/m3 PEC % Annualised (long term) EQS (long term) EQS Cost SCR £748,121 0.38 0.95 36.68 91.7 SNCR £192,575 0.69 1.7 37.00 92.50

We can conclude that the additional reduction in NO2 achieved by using SCR is negligible. Given the conservative nature of the modelling even assuming that the background levels already exceed the EU EQS, the process contribution using either technique is negligible.

They conclude that SCR is not BAT in this case, and SNCR is BAT for the Installation. The Applicant has justified the use of ammonia as the reagent on the basis of the climate change impacts associated with the use of urea due to the higher release of nitrous oxide (N2O).

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 79 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

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

Based on the additional information provided and the figures reported above, we are satisfied that the proposed technology will be capable of achieving the lower NO2 limit and is BAT for the Installation.

6.2.3 Acid Gases, SOx, HCl and HF

Acid gases and halogens : Primary Measures Technique Advantages Disadvantages Optimisation Defined as BAT in BREF or TGN for: Low sulphur Reduces Start-up, Where fuel, SOx at supplementary auxiliary fuel (< 0.1%S) source firing. required. Management Disperses Requires closer All plant with of problem sources of control of waste heterogeneous waste acid gases management waste feed streams (e.g. PVC) through feed.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 80 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Acid gases and halogens : Secondary Measures (BAT is to apply Primary Measures first) Technique Advantages Disadvantages Optimisation Defined as BAT in BREF or TGN for: Wet High reaction Large effluent Plants with rates disposal and high acid water gas and Low solid consumption metal residues if not fully components production treated for re- in exhaust cycle gas - HWIs Reagent delivery may Effluent be optimised treatment plant by required concentration and flow rate May result in wet plume

Energy required for effluent treatment and plume reheat Dry Low water Higher solid All plant use residue production Reagent consumption Reagent may be consumption reduced by controlled only recycling in by input rate plant

Lower energy use

Higher reliability Semi-dry Medium Higher solid reaction rates waste residues

Reagent delivery may be varied by concentration and input rate

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 81 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Reagent Highest Corrosive HWIs Type: removal rates material Sodium Hydroxide Low solid ETP sludge for waste disposal production Reagent Very good Corrosive Wide range MWIs, CWIs Type: Lime removal rates material of uses

Low leaching May give solid residue greater residue volume Temperature if no in-plant of reaction recycle well suited to use with bag filters

Reagent Good Efficient Not proven at CWIs Type: removal rates temperature large Sodium range may plant Bicarbonate Easiest to be at upper end handle for use with bag filters Dry recycle – systems Leachable solid proven residues

Bicarbonate more expensive

The Applicant proposes to implement the following primary measures:

• Use of low sulphur fuels for start up and auxiliary burners – gas should be used if available, where fuel oil is used, this will be low sulphur (i.e. <0.1%), this will reduce SOx at source. • Management of wastes

There are three recognised techniques for secondary measures to reduce acid gases. These are wet, dry and semi-dry. Wet scrubbing produces an effluent for treatment and disposal in compliance with Article 8 of WID, it will also require reheat of the exhaust to avoid a visible plume. Wet scrubbing is unlikely to be BAT except where there are high acid gas and metal components in the exhaust gas as may be the case for some hazardous waste incinerators. In this case, the Applicant does not propose using wet scrubbing, and the Environment Agency agrees that wet scrubbing is not appropriate in this case.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 82 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

The Applicant has therefore considered dry and semi-dry methods of secondary measures for acid gas abatement.

Both dry and semi-dry methods rely on the dosing of powdered materials into the exhaust gas stream. Semi-dry systems (i.e. hydrated reagent) offer reduced material consumption through faster reaction rates, but reagent recycling in dry systems can offset this. Semi-dry systems may require plume reheat, which would reduce energy recovery.

In both dry and semi-dry systems, the injected powdered reagent reacts with the acid gases and is removed from the gas stream by the bag filter system. The powdered materials are either lime or sodium bicarbonate. Both are effective at reducing acid gases, and dosing rates can be controlled from continuously monitoring acid gas emissions. The decision on which reagent to use is normally economic. Lime produces a lower leaching solid residue in the APC residues than sodium bicarbonate and the reaction temperature is well suited to bag filters, it tends to be lower cost, but it is a corrosive material and can generate a greater volume of solid waste residues than sodium bicarbonate. Either reagent is BAT, and the use of one over the other is not normally significant in environmental terms.

In this case, the Applicant proposes to use the dry scrubbing system using lime, which has a reduced impact on climate change and uses less water. The performance of both options are very similar. The Environment Agency is satisfied that this is BAT.

6.2.4 Carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

The prevention and minimisation of emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds is through the optimisation of combustion controls, where all measures will increase the oxidation of these species.

Carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) Technique Advantages Disadvantages Optimisation Defined as BAT in BREF or TGN for: Optimise All measures Covered in All plants combustion will increase section on control oxidation of furnace these selection species.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 83 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

6.2.5 Dioxins and furans

Dioxins and furans Technique Advantages Disadvantages Optimisation Defined as BAT in BREF or TGN for: Optimise All measures Covered in All plants combustion will increase section on control oxidation of furnace these selection species. Avoid de Covered in All plant novo boiler design synthesis Effective Covered in All plant Particulate section on matter particulate removal matter Activated Can be Combined feed All plant. Carbon combined rate usually injection with acid gas controlled by Separate absorber or acid gas feed fed content. normally separately. BAT unless feed is constant and acid gas control also controls dioxin release.

The prevention and minimisation of emissions of dioxins and furans is achieved through:

• optimisation of combustion control including the maintenance of WID combustion conditions on temperature and residence time, which has been considered in 6.1.1 above; • avoidance of de novo synthesis, which has been covered in the consideration of boiler design; • the effective removal of particulate matter, which has been considered in 6.2.1 above; • injection of activated carbon. This can be combined with the acid gas reagent or dosed separately. Where the feed is combined, the combined feed rate will be controlled the acid gas concentration in the exhaust. Therefore, separate feed of activated carbon would normally be considered BAT unless the feed was relatively constant. Effective

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 84 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

control of acid gas emissions also assists in the control of dioxin releases.

In this case the Applicant proposes separate feed and we are satisfied their proposals are BAT.

6.2.6 Metals

Metals Technique Advantages Disadvantages Optimisation Defined as BAT in BREF or TGN for: Effective Covered in All plant Particulate section on matter particulate removal matter Activated Can be Combined feed All plant. Carbon combined rate usually injection for with acid gas controlled by Separate mercury absorber or acid gas feed recovery fed content. normally separately. BAT unless feed is constant and acid gas control also controls dioxin release.

The prevention and minimisation of metal emissions is achieved through the effective removal of particulate matter, and this has been considered in 6.2.1 above.

Unlike other metals, mercury if present will be so in the vapour phase. BAT for mercury removal is also dosing of activated carbon into the exhaust gas stream. This can be combined with the acid gas reagent or dosed separately. Where the feed is combined, the combined feed rate will be controlled the acid gas concentration in the exhaust. Therefore, separate feed of activated carbon would normally be considered BAT unless the feed was relatively constant.

In this case the Applicant proposes separate feed and we are satisfied their proposals are BAT.

6.3 BAT and global warming potential

This section summarises the assessment of greenhouse gas impacts which has been made in the determination of this Permit. Emissions of carbon Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 85 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases differ from those of other pollutants in that, except at gross levels, they have no localised environmental impact. Their impact is at a global level and in terms of climate change. Nonetheless, CO2 is clearly a pollutant for IPPCD purposes.

The principal greenhouse gas emitted is CO2, but the plant also emits small amounts N2O arising from the operation of secondary NOx abatement. N2O has a global warming potential 310 times that of CO2. The Applicant will therefore be required to optimise the performance of the secondary NOx abatement system to ensure its GWP impact is minimised.

The major source of greenhouse gas emissions from the Installation is however CO2 from the combustion of waste; however a significant proportion of the fuel will be derived from biodegradable materials. CO2 released from the combustion of biomass is not considered to contribute as much to global warming, since this carbon has been recently extracted from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. 95% of the waste to be combusted will be of biogenic origin. There will also be CO2 emissions from the burning of support fuels at start up, shut down and should it be necessary to maintain combustion temperatures. BAT for greenhouse gas emissions is to maximise energy recovery and efficiency.

The electricity that is generated by the Installation will result in a reduction in emissions of CO2 elsewhere in the UK, as virgin fossil fuels will not be burnt to create the same electricity. The Applicant has therefore included within their GWP calculations a CO2 offset for the net amount of electricity exported from the Installation (refer to the Greenhouse Gas Assessment Report).

They calculated that (Section 1.3 of the Greenhouse Gas Report):

• A total of 19,270 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent would be released from non-biogenic fuel burned at the Installation.

• 160,000 MWh of power would be exported, displacing a total of 96,640 tonnes of carbon dioxide; and

• Hence, there is a net decrease in carbon dioxide emissions of 77,370 tonnes per annum.

The Installation is not subject to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2003; therefore it is a requirement of IPPCD to investigate how emissions of greenhouse gases emitted from the Installation might be prevented or minimised.

The Applicant has considered GWP as part of their BAT options appraisal. There are a number of areas in which a difference can be made to the GWP of the Installation, e.g. The Applicant’s BAT options appraisal compared SCR and SNCR methods of secondary NOx abatement. In summary: the following factors influence the GWP of the facility:-

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 86 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

On the debit side • CO2 emissions from the burning of the waste; • CO2 emissions from burning auxiliary or supplementary fuels; • CO2 emissions associated with electrical energy drawn from the public supply: • N2O from the de-NOx process. Note: Ammonia has no direct GWP effect

On the credit side • CO2 saved from the export of electricity to the public supply by displacement of burning of virgin fuels; • CO2 saved from the use of waste heat by displacement of burning of virgin fuels.

Note: avoidance of methane which would be formed if the waste was landfilled has not been included in this assessment. If it were included due to its avoidance it would be included on the credit side.

The Applicant’s assessment shows that the GWP of the plant is dominated by the emissions of carbon dioxide that are released as a result of waste combustion of non-biogenic waste. This is constant for all options considered in the BAT assessment and this would also be the case if they had considered the release of carbon dioxide from the waste biomass.

The differences in the GWP of the options in the BAT appraisal arise from small differences in energy recovery and in the amount of N2O emitted.

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

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

6.4 BAT and POPs

International action on Persistent Organic pollutants (POPs) is required under the UN’s Stockholm Convention, which entered into force in 2004 and has been signed by 151 nations. The EU implemented the Convention through the POPs Regulation (850/2004), which is directly applicable in UK law. The Environment Agency is required by national POPs Regulations (SI 2007 No 3106) to give effect to Article 6(3) of the EC POPs Regulation when determining applications for environmental Permits.

However, it needs to be borne in mind that this application is for a particular type of Installation, namely a waste co-incinerator. The Stockholm Convention distinguishes between intentionally-produced and unintentionally- produced POPs. Intentionally-produced POPs are those used deliberately (mainly in the past) in agriculture (primarily as pesticides) and industry. Those intentionally-produced POPs are not relevant where waste incineration is

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 87 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 concerned. This is logical, not least because high-temperature incineration is one of the prescribed methods for destroying POPs.

The unintentionally-produced POPs addressed by the Convention are: • dioxins and furans; • HCB (hexachlorobenzene); • PCBs (polychlorobiphenyls); and • PeCB (pentachlorobenzene).

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

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

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

The 1998 Protocol to the Convention recommended that unintentionally produced POPs should be controlled by imposing emission limits (e.g. 0.1 ng/m3 for MWIs) and using BAT for incineration. UN Economic Commission for Europe (Executive Body for the Convention) (ECE-EB) produced BAT guidance for the parties to the Convention in 2009. This document considers various control techniques and concludes that primary measures involving management of feed material by reducing halogenated substances are not technically effective. This is not surprising because halogenated wastes still need to be disposed of and POPs can be generated from relatively low concentrations of halogens. In summary, the successful control techniques for waste incinerators listed in the ECE-EB BAT are:

- maintaining furnace temperature of 850oC and a combustion gas residence time of at least 2 seconds - rapid cooling of flue gases to avoid the de novo reformation temperature range of 250-450oC - use of bag filters and the injection of activated carbon or coke to adsorb residual POPs components.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 88 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Using the methods listed above, the UN-ECE BAT document concludes that incinerators can achieve an emission concentration of 0.1 ng TEQ/m3.

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

The release of dioxins and furans to air is required by the WID to be assessed against the I-TEQ (International Toxic Equivalence) limit of 0.1 ng/m3. Further development of the understanding of the harm caused by dioxins has resulted in the World Health Organisation (WHO) producing updated factors to calculate the WHO-TEQ value. Certain PCBs have structures which make them behave like dioxins (dioxin-like PCBs), and these also have toxic equivalence factors defined by WHO to make them capable of being considered together with dioxins. The UK’s independent health advisory committee, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) has adopted WHO-TEQ values for both dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in their review of Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) criteria. The Government is of the opinion that, in addition to the requirements of the WID, the WHO-TEQ values for both dioxins and dioxin- like PCBs should be specified for monitoring and reporting purposes, to enable evaluation of exposure to dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs to be made using the revised TDI recommended by COT. The release of dioxin-like PCBs and PAHs is expected to be low where measures have been taken to control dioxin releases. The Secretary of State has directed regulators to require monitoring of a range of PAHs and dioxin-like PCBs in waste incineration Permits at the same frequency as dioxins are monitored. [We have included a requirement to monitor and report against these WHO-TEQ values for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs and the range of PAHs identified by Defra in the Environmental Permitting Guidance on the WID. We are confident that the measures taken to control the release of dioxins will also control the releases of dioxin-like PCBs and PAHs. Section 5 of this document details the assessment of emissions to air, which includes dioxins and concludes that there will be no adverse effect on human health from either normal or abnormal operation.

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

"due to comparatively low levels in emissions from most (combustion) processes special measures for HCB control are usually not proposed. HCB emissions can be controlled generally like other chlorinated organic compounds in emissions, for instance dioxins/furans and PCBs: regulation of time of combustion, combustion temperature, temperature in cleaning devices, sorbents application for waste gases cleaning Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 89 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

etc." [reference http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR4/source s_of_HCB.pdf]

Pentchlorobenzene (PeCB) is another of the POPs list to be considered under incineration. PeCB has been used as a fungicide or flame retardant, there is no data available however on production, recent or past, outside the UN-ECE region. PeCBs can be emitted from the same sources as for PCDD/F: waste incineration, thermal metallurgic processes and combustion plants providing energy. As discussed above, the control techniques described in the UN-ECE BAT guidance and included in the permit, are effective in controlling the emissions of all relevant POPs including PeCB.

We have assessed the control techniques proposed for dioxins by the Applicant and have concluded that they are appropriate for dioxin control. We are confident that these controls will also minimise the release of HCB, PCB and PeCB.

We are therefore satisfied that the substantive requirements of the Convention and the POPs Regulation have been addressed and complied with.

6.5 Other Emissions to the Environment

6.5.1 Emissions to water

There will be no process emissions to water from the Installation. Uncontaminated rainwater from surface water run-off from buildings and areas of hardstanding will be discharged to the Manchester Ship Canal via an interceptor.

Based upon the information in the application we are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to prevent and /or minimise emissions to water.

6.5.2 Emissions to sewer

There will be one process emission to sewer from the Installation. This will be cooling water from the proposed cooling system. Make-up water for the cooling system will be abstracted from the Manchester Ship Canal. Abstraction will be subject to authorisation from the Environment Agency and the Manchester Ship Canal. This water would be treated with chemicals to prevent scaling and algae growth, together with a biocide for legionella prevention and a small amount of acid for pH control.

To maintain the cooling water quality, some of the water from the cooling system will be released to sewer (subject to obtaining a trade effluent consent) under controlled conditions (“blowdown”).

The release of chloride and sulphate to sewer was assessed as being insignificant using the Environment Agency H1 methodology.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 90 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Based upon the information in the application we are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to prevent and /or minimise emissions to sewer.

6.5.3 Fugitive emissions

The WID specifies that plants must be able to demonstrate that the plant is designed in such a way as to prevent the unauthorised and accidental release of polluting substances into soil, surface water and groundwater. In addition storage requirements for contaminated water of Article 8(7) must be arranged.

The facility will be supplied with fuel oil and all chemicals will be stored in an appropriate manner incorporating the use of bunding and other measures (such as acid and alkali resistant coatings) to ensure appropriate containment. The potential for accidents, and associated environmental impacts, is therefore limited.

Tanker off-loading of diesel and ammonia will take place within areas of concrete hardstanding. The storage tanks will be bunded at 110% of the tank capacity and the offloading point will be fully contained with the appropriate capacity to contain any spills during delivery.

All external areas of hardstanding will be provided with curbed containment, to prevent any potential spills from causing pollution of the ground/groundwater.

In the event of a fire, the fire fighting water will be collected in the site drainage system. The drainage system will be fitted with an emergency shut- off valve, which will automatically close shut, in the event of a fire alarm. This will prevent any water discharges from leaving the Installation.

Based upon the information in the application we are satisfied that appropriate measures will be in place to prevent and /or minimise fugitive emissions.

6.5.4 Odour

Odour is not expected to be a problem since there will be minimal amounts of SRF stored on site and it will be relatively dry and non-odorous.

Waste accepted at the Installation will be delivered in covered vehicles or within containers and bulk storage of waste will only occur in the Installation’s enclosed waste reception hall.

Based upon the information in the Application we are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be in place to prevent or where that is not practicable minimise odour and prevent pollution from odour.

6.5.5 Noise and vibration

The application contained a noise impact assessment which identified local noise-sensitive receptors, potential sources of noise at the proposed plant and noise attenuation measures. Measurements were taken of the prevailing Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 91 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 ambient noise levels to produce a baseline noise survey and an assessment was carried out in accordance with BS4142 to compare the predicted plant rating noise levels with the established background levels.

We required additional information to assess this report which we requested in our further information notice dated 8 February 2011.

Based upon the information in the application we are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be in place to prevent or where that is not practicable minimise noise and vibration and prevent pollution from noise and vibration.

6.6 Setting ELVs and other Permit conditions

6.6.1 Translating BAT into Permit conditions

The use of WID limits for air dispersion modelling sets the worst case scenario. If this shows emissions are insignificant then we accept that the Applicant’s proposals are BAT, and that there is no justification to reduce ELVs below WID levels in these circumstances.

Below we consider whether, for those emission not screened out as insignificant, different conditions are required as a result of consideration of local or other factors.

(i) Local factors

We have considered the proximity of the Installation to the AQMA declared for NO2, in Section 5.6 of this document. We have also considered the controls in place to prevent and minimise emissions of NO2 in Section 6.2.2.

Regarding the technology proposed, we have not required the Applicant to go beyond what is BAT for this type of facility; however we have set an unusually 3 3 low daily average limit for NO2 of 125 mg/m (WID daily limit is 200 mg/m ) due to the adjacent AQMA. We accept that this limit will be achievable based on the bespoke design of the air and ammonia injection systems. The consistent nature of the feedstock will also assist with better control of the furnace conditions.

(ii) National AQO and European EQSs

In view of our assessment in section 5.6.2 we have set an unusually low daily 3 average limit for NO2 of 125 mg/m .

(iii) Global Warming

CO2 is an inevitable product of the combustion of waste. The amount of CO2 emitted will be essentially determined by the quantity and characteristics of waste being incinerated, which are already subject to conditions in the Permit. It is therefore inappropriate to set an emission limit value for CO2, which could Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 92 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 do more than recognise what is going to be emitted. The gas is not therefore targeted as a key pollutant under the IPPC Directive or under the Waste Incineration Directive, e.g. it is not included in Annex III to the IPPCD, which lists the main polluting substances that are to be considered when setting emission limit values (ELVs) in Permits.

We have therefore considered setting equivalent parameters or technical measures for CO2. However, provided energy is recovered efficiently (see section 4.3.7 above), there are no additional equivalent technical measures (beyond those relating to the quantity and characteristics of the waste) that can be imposed that do not run counter to the primary purpose of the plant, which is the destruction of waste for energy recovery. Controls in the form of restrictions on the volume and type of waste that can be accepted at the Installation and Permit conditions relating to energy efficiency effectively apply equivalent technical measures to limit CO2 emissions.

(iv) Commissioning

We have set a Pre-Operational condition requiring a commissioning plan that includes, the expected emissions to the environment during the different stages of commissioning, the expected durations of commissioning activities and the actions to be taken to protect the environment and report to the Environment Agency in the event that actual emissions exceed expected emissions. This plan shall be used to determine whether it will be necessary to set any additional ELVs for these phases.

Commissioning cannot commence until approval is received from the Environment Agency.

6.7 Monitoring

6.7.1 Monitoring during normal operations

We have decided that monitoring should be carried out for the parameters listed in tables S3.1 to S3.5 in Schedule 3 using the methods and to the frequencies specified in those tables. These monitoring requirements have been imposed in order to demonstrate compliance with emission limit values and to enable correction of measured concentration of substances to the appropriate reference conditions; to gather information about the performance of the SNCR system; to deliver the EPR requirement that dioxin-like PCBs and PAHs should be monitored and to deliver the requirements of WID for monitoring of residues and temperature in the combustion chamber.

For emissions to air, the methods for continuous and periodic monitoring are in accordance with the Environment Agency’s Guidance M2 for monitoring of stack emissions to air.

Monitoring of N2O and ammonia have been set as a requirement of the permit to demonstrate the optimum environmental performance of the NOx abatement process and to check compliance with the ammonia limit. We did Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 93 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 not consider it necessary to include an additional annual tonnage limit for NOx (modelling was based on 90% plant availability instead of the more conservative 8,760 hours) because this would add no benefit. By imposing the lower NOx limit and limiting the annual throughput of waste, the necessary control measures are already in place.

An improvement condition requires monitoring of NO2 and NO to allow us to determine the primary proportion of NO2 and to monitor the performance of SNCR on the flue gas. This was recommended in our report ref AQMAU- C748/776-RP02 due to the uncertainty over the effect of SNCR on the proportion of NO2 in the exhaust NOx.

In addition an improvement condition requires an exercise be carried out to determine the size distribution of the particles emitted from the stacks to identify the fractions in the PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0 ranges. This reflects the latest scientific research which indicates that very fine particles have the most potential to adversely affect health. This is a standard improvement condition being imposed on all incinerators in order to gather information on the contribution of waste incineration generally to emissions of very fine particles.

Based on the information in the Application and the requirements set in the conditions of the permit we are satisfied that the Operator’s techniques, personnel and equipment will have either MCERTS certification or MCERTS accreditation as appropriate.

6.7.2 Monitoring under abnormal operations arising from the failure of the installed CEMs

The Operator will provide back-up CEMS working in parallel to the operating CEMS. These will be switched into full operation immediately in the event that there is any failure in the regular monitoring equipment. The back-up CEMS measure the same parameters as the operating CEMS. In the unlikely event that the back-up CEMS also fail Condition 2.3.10 of the permit requires that the WID abnormal operating conditions apply.

6.7.3 Continuous emissions monitoring for dioxins and mercury

The WID specifies manual extractive sampling for mercury and dioxin monitoring. However, Article 11(13) of the WID requires that “The Commission, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 17, shall decide, as soon as appropriate measurement techniques are available within the Community, the date from which continuous measurements of the air emission limit values for heavy metals, dioxins and furans shall be carried out in accordance with Annex III”. No such decision has yet been made by the Commission.

The Environment Agency has reviewed the applicability of continuous sampling and monitoring techniques to the installation.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 94 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Recent advances in mercury monitoring techniques have allowed standards to be developed for continuous mercury monitoring, including both vapour-phase and particulate mercury. There is a standard which can apply to CEMs which measure mercury (EN 15267-3) and standards to certify CEMs for mercury, which are EN 15267-1 and EN 15267-3. Furthermore, there is an MCERTS- certified CEM which has been used in trials in the UK and which has been verified on-site using many parallel reference tests as specified using the steps outlined in EN 14181.

In the case of dioxins, equipment is available for taking a sample for an extended period (several weeks), but the sample must then be analysed in the conventional way. However, the continuous sampling systems do not meet the requirements of BS EN 1948 which is the standard for dioxin analysis. BS EN 1948 requires traversing the sampler across the duct and collecting parts of the sample at various points across the duct to ensure that all of the gas phase is sampled proportionately, in case there are variations in gas flow rate or composition resulting in a non-homogeneous gas flow. This requirement is particularly important where suspended solids are present in the gas, and dioxins are often associated with suspended solid particles. Continuous samplers are currently designed for operation at one or two fixed sampling points within the duct, and traverses are not carried out automatically. Using such samplers, more information could be obtained about the variation with time of the dioxin measurement, but the measured results could be systematically higher or lower than those obtained by the approved standard method which is the reference technique required to demonstrate compliance with the limit specified in the WID. The lack of a primary reference method (e.g. involving a reference gas of known concentration of dioxin) prohibits any one approach being considered more accurate than another. Because compliance with the WID’s requirements is an essential element of EPR regulation, we have set emission limits for dioxins in the permit based on the use of BS EN 1948 and the manual sampling method remains the only acceptable way to monitor dioxins for the purpose of regulation.

For either continuous monitoring of mercury or continuous sampling of dioxins to be used for regulatory purposes, an emission limit value would need to be devised which is applicable to continuous monitoring. Such limits for mercury and dioxins have not been set by the European Commission. Use of a manual sample train is the only technique which fulfils the requirements of the WID. At the present time, it is considered that in view of the predicted low levels of mercury and dioxin emission it is not justifiable to require the Operator to install additionally continuous monitoring or sampling devices for these substances.

In accordance with its legal requirement to do so, the Environment Agency reviews the development of new methods and standards and their performance in industrial applications. In particular the Environment Agency considers continuous sampling systems for dioxins to have promise as a potential means of improving process control and obtaining more accurate mass emission estimates.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 95 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

6.8 Reporting

We have specified the reporting requirements in Schedule 4 of the Permit either to meet the reporting requirements set out in the WID, or to ensure data is reported to enable timely review by the Environment Agency to ensure compliance with permit conditions and to monitor the efficiency of material use and energy recovery at the Installation.

7 Other legal requirements

In this section we explain how we have addressed other relevant legal requirements, to the extent that we have not addressed them elsewhere in this document.

7.1 The EPR 2010 and related Directives

The EPR delivers the requirements of a number of European and national laws.

7.1.1 Schedules 1 and 7 to the EPR 2010 – IPPC Directive

We address the requirements of the IPPCD in the body of this document above.

There is one requirement not addressed above, which is that contained in Article 9(2) IPPCD. Article 9(2) of the IPPC Directive requires that “In the case of a new installation or a substantial change where Article 4 of Directive 85/337/EC applies, any relevant information obtained or conclusion arrived at pursuant to articles 5, 6 and 7 of that Directive shall be taken into account for the purposes of granting an environmental permit.

• Article 5 of EIA Directive relates to the obligation on developers to supply the information set out in Annex IV of the Directive when making an application for development consent. • Article 6(1) requires Member States to ensure that the authorities likely to be concerned by a development by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities are consulted on the Environmental Statement and the request for development consent. • Article 6(2)-6(6) makes provision for public consultation on applications for development consent. • Article 7 relates to projects with transboundary effects and consequential obligations to consult with affected Member States.

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

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 96 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

In determining the Application we have considered the following documents:

• The Environmental Statement submitted with the planning application (which also formed part of the Environmental Permit Application). • The decision of the Trafford Planning Authority to recommend planning permission in their report dated 10 November 2011. • The reasons for the refusal of planning permission. • The response of the Environment Agency to the local planning authority in its role as consultee to the planning process.

We have reviewed the reasons given for the refusal of planning permission and specifically whether this conclusion is based on information given in the Environmental Statement. The reasons given were as follows:

Reason 1 The proposed development of a facility which involves the incineration of biomass fuels would, by reason of its scale of operation, presence and location, have a detrimental impact upon the vitality and attractiveness of, and the self-confidence of communities within, the nearby established areas of Davyhulme, Flixton and Urmston and would thereby prejudice the continuing regeneration and improvement of these areas which have been identified by the Council as being in need of investment. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy WD5 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

Reason 2 The proposed development raises significant concerns amongst nearby communities that, on the basis of publicly available and respectable scientific evidence about possible adverse impacts of the incineration of biomass waste, it would contribute to a substantial reduction in air quality in an area which is already designated an Air Quality Management Area. As a result there is a widely held objective perception substantiated by independent objective scientific evidence that the development poses an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of those communities. Government guidance as set out in Planning Policy Statement 23 Planning and Pollution Control states that the objective perception of unacceptable risk to the health and safety of the public arising from a proposed development is a material consideration which should be taken into account when determining a planning application. The nature and extent of the perceptions held by people living in nearby communities with regard to the risk to health and safety arising from the proposed development is such that it has considerable weight when considered against the proposal and requires that the proposal should be refused.

We are satisfied that these matters are mainly matters of planning policy and have addressed the impact on air quality and the AQMA in the main body of this document. The Government’s National Planning and Policy Framework make it clear that the pollution control and planning regimes are intended to be complementary and should avoid duplication. Planning considers wider

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 97 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 issues such as visual amenity and perceived impacts from a development where as Environmental Permitting is concerned with a detailed assessment of the effects of any emissions. The guidance mentioned above from PPS 23 was specific to planning.

From our consideration of all the documents above, the Environment Agency considers that no additional or different conditions are necessary.

The Environment Agency has also carried out its own consultation on the Environmental Permitting Application which includes the Environmental Statement submitted to the local planning authority. The results of our consultation are described in Annex 4 of this decision document.

7.1.2 Schedule 9 to the EPR 2010 – Waste Framework Directive

As the Installation involves the treatment of waste, it is carrying out a waste operation for the purposes of the EPR 2010, and the requirements of Schedule 9 therefore apply. This means that we must exercise our functions so as to ensure implementation of certain articles of the WFD.

We must exercise our relevant functions for the purposes of ensuring that the waste hierarchy referred to in Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive is applied to the generation of waste and that any waste generated is treated in accordance with Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive.

The conditions of the permit ensure that waste generation from the facility is minimised. Where the production of waste cannot be prevented it will be recovered wherever possible or otherwise disposed of in a manner that minimises its impact on the environment. This is in accordance with Article 4.

Also that we exercise our relevant functions for the purposes of implementing Article 13 of the Waste Framework Directive; ensuring that the requirements in the second paragraph of Article 23(1) of the Waste Framework Directive are met; and ensuring compliance with Articles 18(2)(b), 18(2)(c), 23(3), 23(4) and 35(1) of the Waste Framework Directive.

Article 13 relates to the protection of human health and the environment. These objectives are addressed elsewhere in this document.

Article 23(1) requires the permit to specify:

(a) the types and quantities of waste that may be treated; (b) for each type of operation permitted, the technical and any other requirements relevant to the site concerned; (c) the safety and precautionary measures to be taken; (d) the method to be used for each type of operation; (e) such monitoring and control operations as may be necessary; (f) such closure and after-care provisions as may be necessary.

These are all covered by Permit conditions. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 98 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

The Permit does not relate to hazardous waste so Article 18 is not relevant.

We consider that the intended method of waste treatment is acceptable from the point of view of environmental protection so Article 23(3) does not apply. Energy efficiency is dealt with elsewhere in this document but we consider the conditions of the Permit ensure that the recovery of energy take place with a high level of energy efficiency in accordance with Article 23(4).

Article 35(1) relates to record keeping and its requirements are delivered through Permit conditions.

7.1.3 Schedule 13 to the EPR 2010 – Waste Incineration Directive

We address the WID in detail in Annex 1 to this document.

7.1.4 Schedule 22 to the EPR 2010 – Groundwater, Water Framework and Groundwater Daughter Directives

To the extent that it authorises the discharge of pollutants to groundwater (a “groundwater activity” under the EPR 2010), the Permit is subject to the requirements of Schedule 22, which delivers the requirements of EU Directives relating to pollution of groundwater. The Permit will require the taking of all necessary measures to prevent the input of any hazardous substances to groundwater, and to limit the input of non-hazardous pollutants into groundwater so as to ensure such pollutants do not cause pollution, and satisfies the requirements of Schedule 22.

No releases to groundwater from Installation are permitted. The Permit also requires material storage areas to be designed and maintained to a high standard to prevent accidental releases.

7.1.5 Directive 2003/35/EC – The Public Participation Directive

Regulation 59 of the EPR 2010 requires the Environment Agency to prepare and publish a statement of its policies for complying with its public participation duties.

The Environment Agency has published such a document and this Application is being consulted upon in line with our public participation statement, as well as with the Environment Agency’s RGS6 on Sites of High Public Interest, which addresses specifically extended consultation arrangements for determinations where public interest is particularly high. This satisfies the requirements of the Public Participation Directive.

Our decision in this case has been reached following a programme of extended public consultation, both on the original Application and later, separately, on the draft permit and a draft decision document. The way in which this has been done is set out in Section 2. A summary of the responses

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 99 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 received to our consultations and our consideration of them is set out in Annex 4.

7.2 National primary legislation

7.2.1 Environment Act 1995

(i) Section 4 (Pursuit of Sustainable Development)

We are required to contribute towards achieving sustainable development, as considered appropriate by Ministers and set out in guidance issued to us. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has issued The Environment Agency’s Objectives and Contribution to Sustainable Development: Statutory Guidance (December 2002). This document: “provides guidance to the Agency on such matters as the formulation of approaches that the Agency should take to its work, decisions about priorities for the Agency and the allocation of resources. It is not directly applicable to individual regulatory decisions of the Agency”. In respect of regulation of industrial pollution through the EPR, the Guidance refers in particular to the objective of setting permit conditions “in a consistent and proportionate fashion based on Best Available Techniques and taking into account all relevant matters…”. The Environment Agency considers that it has pursued the objectives set out in the Government’s guidance, where relevant, and that there are no additional conditions that should be included in this Permit to take account of the Section 4 duty.

(ii) Section 7 (Pursuit of Conservation Objectives)

We considered whether we should impose any additional or different requirements in terms of our duty to have regard to the various conservation objectives set out in Section 7, but concluded that we should not.

We have considered the impact of the Installation on local wildlife sites within 2km which are not designated as either European Sites or SSSIs. We are satisfied that no additional conditions are required.

(iii) Section 81 (National Air Quality Strategy)

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

7.2.2 Human Rights Act 1998

We have considered potential interference with rights addressed by the European Convention on Human Rights in reaching our decision and consider that our decision is compatible with our duties under the Human Rights Act 1998. In particular, we have considered the right to life (Article 2), the right to a fair trial (Article 6), the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 100 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 and the right to protection of property (Article 1, First Protocol). We do not believe that Convention rights are engaged in relation to this determination.

7.2.3 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW 2000)

Section 85 of this Act imposes a duty on Environment Agency to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). There is no AONB which could be affected by the Installation.

7.2.4 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the Environment Agency has a duty to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which a site is of special scientific interest. Under section 28I the Environment Agency has a duty to consult Natural England / Countryside Council for Wales in relation to any permit that is likely to damage SSSIs.

There is no SSSI within 2km which could be affected by the Installation.

7.2.5 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

Section 40 of this Act requires us to have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of our functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. We have done so and consider that no different or additional conditions in the Permit are required.

7.3 National secondary legislation

7.3.1 The Conservation of Natural Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

We have assessed the Application in accordance with guidance agreed jointly with Natural England and concluded that there will be no likely significant effect on any European Site.

We consulted Natural England by means of an Appendix 11 assessment, and they agreed with our conclusion, that the operation of the Installation would not have a likely significant effect on the interest features of protected sites.

The habitat assessment is summarised in greater detail in section 5.4 of this document. A copy of the full Appendix 11 Assessment can be found on the public register.

7.3.2 Water Framework Directive Regulations 2003

Consideration has been given to whether any additional requirements should be imposed in terms of the Environment Agency’s duty under regulation 3 to Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 101 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 secure the requirements of the Water Framework Directive through (inter alia) EP permits, but it is felt that existing conditions are sufficient in this regard and no other appropriate requirements have been identified.

7.3.3 The Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulations 2007

We have explained our approach to these Regulations, which give effect to the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the EU’s POPs Regulation, above.

7.4 Other relevant legal requirements

7.4.1 Duty to Involve

S23 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 require us where we consider it appropriate to take such steps as we consider appropriate to secure the involvement of interested persons in the exercise of our functions by providing them with information, consulting them or involving them in any other way. S24 requires us to have regard to any Secretary of State guidance as to how we should do that.

The way in which the Environment Agency has consulted with the public and other interested parties is set out in section 2 of this document. The way in which we have taken account of the representations we have received is set out in Annex 4. Our public consultation duties are also set out in the EP Regulations, and our statutory Public Participation Statement, which implement the requirements of the Public Participation Directive. In addition to meeting our consultation responsibilities, we have also taken account of our guidance in Environment Agency Guidance Note RGS6 and the Environment Agency’s Building Trust with Communities toolkit.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 102 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

ANNEX 1 : APPLICATION OF THE WASTE INCINERATION DIRECTIVE

WID Article Requirement Delivered by 4(3) Measurement techniques for See below on emissions into the air comply with compliance with Annex III. Article 11. 4(4) Compliance with any applicable Landfill Directive is requirement of directives on: Urban not relevant to this Waste Water Treatment, the IPPC, Installation. Relevant Air Quality Framework, Dangerous requirements of all Substances, Landfill. other directives are delivered via EPR. 4(4)(a) List explicitly the categories of waste Condition 2.3.3 and that may be treated; using the Table S2.2 in European Waste Catalogue (“EWC”) Schedule 2 of the including information on the quantity Permit. of waste where appropriate. 4(4)(b) Permit shall include the total waste Condition 2.3.3 and incinerating capacity of the plant. Table S2.2 in Schedule 2 of the Permit. 4(4)(c) Specify the sampling and Conditions 3.5.1 and measurement procedures used to Tables S3.1, S3.1(a), satisfy the obligations imposed for S3.2, S3.3 and S3.4. periodic measurements of each air also compliance with and water pollutant. Articles 10 and 11. 5(1) Take all necessary precautions - EPR require prevent concerning delivery and reception of or minimise pollution. wastes, to prevent or minimise –The Application pollution. supporting information defines how this will be carried out. - Conditions 2.3.1, 2.3.3, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. 5(2) Determine the mass of each The Application category of wastes, if possible supporting information according to the EWC, prior to describes procedures accepting the waste. for the reception and monitoring of incoming waste.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 103 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

WID Article Requirement Delivered by 6(1) (a) Slag and bottom ash to have (a) Condition 3.5.1 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) is < 3% and Table S3.5. or loss on ignition (LOI) is < 5%. (b) Table S3.4. (b) Flue gas to be raised to a (c) Condition 2.3.7. temperature of 850ºC for two seconds, as measured at representative point of the combustion chamber. (c) At least one auxiliary burner which must not be fed with fuels which can cause higher emissions than those resulting from the burning of gas oil, liquefied gas or natural gas. 6(2) Flue gas to be raised to a Conditions 3.5.1, temperature of 850ºC for two 2.3.7 and Table S3.4. seconds, as measured at The representative point of the Application specifies combustion chamber. measurement point. 6(3) Automatic waste feed prevention: Condition 2.3.6 (a) at start up until the specified temperature has been reached or if this temperature is not maintained; (b) when the CEMs show that ELVs are exceeded due to disturbances or failure of abatement. 6(4) Different conditions than those in No such conditions 6(1) may be authorised. have been allowed. 6(5) Emissions to air do not give rise to Emissions and their significant ground level pollution, in ground-level impacts particular, through exhaust of gases are discussed in the through a stack. body of this document. 6(6) Any heat generated from the (a) The plant will process shall be recovered as far as generate electricity. practicable. (b)Operator to review the available heat recovery options prior to commissioning (Pre-operational condition) and then every 2 years (Condition 1.3. 3). 6(7) Relates to the feeding of infectious No infectious clinical clinical waste into the furnace. waste will be burnt. 6(8) Management of the Installation to be Conditions 1.1.1 to in the hands of a natural person who 1.1.3 and 2.3.1 of the is competent to manage it. Permit fulfil this Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 104 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

requirement. 7(1) Incineration plants to comply with Not relevant. the ELVs in Annex V.

WID Article Requirement Delivered by 7(2) Co-incineration plants to comply Conditions 3.1.1 and with the ELVs determined according 3.1.2 and Table to or set out in Annex II. S3.1

7(3) Measured ELVs to be standardised Schedule 6 details in accordance with Article 11. this standardisation requirement. 7(4) Relates to co-incineration of Not relevant. untreated mixed municipal waste. 8(1) – 8(6) All relate to conditions for water There are no such discharges from the cleaning of discharges as exhaust gases. condition 3.1.1 prohibits this. 8(7) (a) Prevention of unauthorised and The Application accidental release of any polluting explains the substances into soil, surface water measures to be in or groundwater. place for achieving (b) Storage capacity for the directive contaminated rainwater run-off from requirements. the site or for contaminated water from spillage or fire-fighting. 9 (a) Residues to be minimised in their (a)Conditions 1.4.1 amount and harmfulness, and and 3.5.1. recycled where appropriate. (b) Prevent dispersal of dry residues (b) Conditions 1.4.1, and dust during transport and 2.3.1 and 3.2.1 storage. (c) Test residues for their physical (c) Condition 3.5.1 and chemical characteristics and and pre-operational polluting potential including heavy condition metal content (soluble fraction). 10(1) and Measurement equipment shall be condition 3.5.1, and 10(2) installed and techniques used to tables S3.1 and monitor the incineration process, S3.1(a), (emissions to and that the measurement air), and table S3.4, requirements shall be laid down in (process monitoring Permits. requirements). 10(3) Installation and functioning of CEMs Condition 3.5.3, and for emissions to air and water to be tables S3.1, S3.1(a), subjected to regular control, testing and S3.4. and calibration. 10(4) Sampling points to be specified in Tables S3.1, S3.1(a) Permit. and S3.4. 10(5) Periodic measurements to air and Tables S3.1, S3.1(a),

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 105 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

water to comply with Annex III, and S3.4 specify the points 1 and 2. standards to be used.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 106 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

WID Article Requirement Delivered by 11(2) Continuous measurement of NOx, Condition 3.5.1 and CO, total dust, TOC, HCl, and SO2 tables S3.1, S3.1(a) and periodic measurement of HF, and S3.4. heavy metals, dioxins and furans plus the measurement of combustion chamber temperature and concentration of O2, pressure, temperature and water content of the exhaust gases. 11(3) Verify the residence time and Improvement minimum temperature as well as condition in oxygen content of exhaust gases. table S1.3.

11(4) Periodic rather than continuous Condition 3.1.2 and measurement of HF if HCl is abated table S3.1 and limit values not exceeded. 11(6) Conditional option of periodic Option not applied measurement for HCl, HF and SO2 except for HF as per instead of CEMs. Article 11(4) above. 11(7) Reduction in the monitoring Not applied as no frequency for heavy metals, dioxins such criteria available. and furans under certain conditions, provided the criteria in article 17 of WID are available. 11(8) Sets out reference conditions for Schedule 6 sets the standardisation of measurements. same reference conditions. 11(9) Recording and reporting Section 4 and requirements. Schedules 4 and 5. 11(10) Sets out criteria for compliance with Condition 3.1.2 and ELVs in Annex V. tables S3.1, S3.1(a) and S3.4 11(11) Specifies when ELVs apply, how Condition 3.5.5 and averages are calculated (including table S3.1. the use of Annex III) and how many values can be discarded. 11(12) Average values for HCl, SO2 and HF See Articles 10(2), to be determined as per Articles 10(4) and 11(11) 10(2), 10(4) and Annex III. above. 11(14) to Addresses the monitoring of waste There are no such 11(16) water from the cleaning of exhaust releases from the gases. Installation. 11(17) Competent authorities to be Condition 4.3.1 informed if ELVs are exceeded 12(2) An annual report on plant operation Condition 4.2.2 and monitoring for all plants burning more than 2 tonne/hour waste.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 107 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

WID Article Requirement Delivered by 13(1) Specify maximum period of Conditions 2.3.6 to unavoidable stoppages, 2.3.9 disturbances or failures of purification or CEMs, during which air or water ELVs may be exceeded. 13(2) Cease the feed of waste in the Condition 2.3.10. event of a breakdown. 13(3) Limits the maximum period under Condition 2.3.10. 13(1) above to 4 hours uninterrupted duration in any one instance, and with a maximum cumulative limit of 60 hours per year 13(4) Limits on dust (150 mg/m3), CO and Condition 2.3.6 and TOC not to be exceeded. Table S3.1(a).

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 108 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

ANNEX 2: Pre-Operational Conditions

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

Reference Pre-operational measures Prior to the commencement of commissioning, the Operator shall PO1 send a summary of the site Environment Management System (EMS) to the Environment Agency and make available for inspection all documents and procedures which form part of the EMS. The EMS shall be developed in line with the requirements set out in Section 1 of How to comply with your environmental permit – Getting the basics right. The documents and procedures set out in the EMS shall form the written management system referenced in condition 1.1.1 (a) of the permit.

Prior to the commencement of commissioning, the Operator shall PO2 send a report to the Environment Agency which will contain a comprehensive review of the options available for utilising the heat generated by the combustion process in order to ensure that it is recovered as far as practicable. The review shall detail any identified proposals for improving the recovery and utilisation of waste heat and shall provide a timetable for their implementation.

PO3 After completion of furnace design and at least three calendar months before any furnace operation, the operator shall provide a report summarising the results of the computer fluid dynamics (CFD) used to assist with the design characteristics of the combustion chamber. The report shall demonstrate how the system has been designed to achieve the daily average oxides 3 of nitrogen (NOx) air emission limit of 125 mg/m and shall include but not necessarily be limited to:

• Optimisation of the combustion air injection system; • Location and optimisation of the ammonia injection nozzles; • Combustion chamber design to optimise the SNCR reaction temperature.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 109 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Prior to the commencement of commissioning, the Operator shall PO4 submit to the Environment Agency for approval a protocol for the sampling and testing of bottom ash for the purposes of assessing its hazard status. Sampling and testing shall be carried out in accordance with the protocol as approved.

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

PO6 Prior to the commencement of commissioning the Operator shall provide a written plan detailing an intrusive investigation to validate the findings of the desktop study provided with the Application. The plan shall be used to validate the environmental setting, the pollution history and provide baseline ground condition data and shall include but not necessarily be limited to:

• Sampling of the Manchester Ship Canal (upstream and downstream); • Installation of gas and groundwater monitoring wells; • Chemical analysis of soil and groundwater, to include metals and dioxins; • Ongoing gas and groundwater monitoring.

The investigation shall be carried out in accordance with the written plan as approved.

PO7 Prior to the commencement of commissioning the Operator shall provide a site plan clearly showing the drainage and site surfacing at the Installation.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 110 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

ANNEX 3: Improvement Conditions

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

Reference Improvement measure Completion date The Operator shall submit a written Within 12 months of IC1 report to the Environment Agency on the the date on which implementation of its Environmental waste is first burnt. Management System and the progress made in the accreditation of the system by an external body or if appropriate submit a schedule by which the EMS will be subject to accreditation.

The Operator shall submit a written Within 6 months of IC2 proposal to the Environment Agency to the completion of carry out tests to determine the size commissioning. distribution of the particulate matter in the exhaust gas emissions to air from emission point A1, identifying the fractions within the PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0 ranges. The proposal shall include a timetable for approval by the Environment Agency to carry out such tests and produce a report on the results. On receipt of written agreement by the Environment Agency to the proposal and the timetable, the operator shall carry out the tests and submit to the Environment Agency a report on the results.

The Operator shall submit a written Within 4 months of IC3 report to the Environment Agency on the the completion of commissioning of the Installation. The commissioning. report shall summarise the environmental performance of the plant as installed against the design parameters set out in the Application. The report shall also include a review of the performance of the facility against the conditions of this permit and details of procedures developed during commissioning for achieving and demonstrating compliance with permit conditions. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 111 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

The Operator shall carry out checks to Within 4 months of IC4 verify the residence time, minimum the completion of temperature and oxygen content of the commissioning. exhaust gases in the furnace whilst operating under the anticipated most unfavourable operating conditions. The results shall be submitted in writing to the Environment Agency.

The Operator shall submit a written Within 4 months of IC5 report to the Environment Agency the completion of describing the performance and commissioning. optimisation of the Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system and combustion settings to minimise oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions within the emission limit values described in this permit with the minimisation of nitrous oxide (N2O) and ammonia (NH3) emissions. The report shall include an assessment of the level of NOx ,N2O and NH3 emissions that can be achieved under optimum operating conditions.

The report shall also provide details of the optimisation (including dosing rates) for the control of acid gases and dioxins

The Operator shall carry out an 15 months from IC6 assessment of the impact of arsenic commencement of emissions to air. The assessment shall operations predict the impact of arsenic against the relevant EQS through the use of emissions monitoring data during the first year of operation and air dispersion modelling. A report on the assessment shall be made to the Environment Agency.

The operator shall submit a written Initial calibration IC7 summary report to the Agency to confirm report to be submitted to the by the results of calibration and Agency within 3 verification testing that the performance months of of Continuous Emission Monitors for completion of parameters as specified in Table S3.1 commissioning. comply with the requirements of BS EN 14181, specifically the requirements of Full summary QAL1, QAL2 and QAL3. evidence compliance report to be Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 112 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

submitted within 18 months of commissioning. IC8 The Operator shall carry out monitoring 15 months from of NO and NO to determine the primary commencement of 2 operations proportion of NO2 in the emissions to air and to monitor the performance of SNCR on the flue gas. Emissions monitoring data shall be collected over a representative period of operation to be agreed in writing with the Environment Agency.

A written report on the monitoring shall be made to the Environment Agency.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 113 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

ANNEX 4: Consultation Reponses

A) Advertising and Consultation on the Application

The Application has been advertised and consulted upon in accordance with the Environment Agency’s Public Participation Statement. The way in which this has been carried out along with the results of our consultation and how we have taken consultation responses into account in reaching our draft decision is summarised in this Annex. Copies of all consultation responses have been placed on the Environment Agency and Local Authority public registers.

The Application was advertised on the Environment Agency website from 27 January 2011 to 24 February 2011 and in the Salford Advertiser and the Stretford and Urmston Messenger on 27 January 2011. Copies of the Application were placed on the Environment Agency Public Register and the Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council Public Register at Pollution and Licensing, Talbot Road, Stretford, Manchester, M32 0TH.

Additionally, electronic copies of the Application were placed at:

• Davyhulme Library, Hayeswater Road, Davyhulme, M41 7BL • Access Trafford Contact Centre, Sale Waterside, Sale, M33 7ZF • Eccles Gateway, 28 Barton Lane, Eccles M30 0TU • Stretford Library, Kingsway, Stretford, M32 8AP • Urmston Library, Golden Way, Urmston, M41 0NA

The following statutory and non-statutory bodies were consulted: -

• Trafford Council (Environmental Health)/ (Planning Department) • Salford Council (Environmental Health)/Planning Department) • Food Standards Agency (FSA) • Salford Primary Care Trust (PCT) • Trafford Primary Care Trust (PCT) • Health & Safety Executive (HSE) • National Grid • United Utilities • Barton Aerodrome

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 114 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

1) Consultation Responses from Statutory and Non-Statutory Bodies

Response received from Trafford City Council, Public Protection Service, Public Protection Manager, response dated 21 April 2011. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has been covered Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen and Ammonia The air quality assessment relies on achieving an unusually low emission concentration of oxides of nitrogen (due to location) and there is uncertainty over the ammonia emissions from meeting this demanding emission limit.

An emission limit for ammonia should An emission limit of 10 mg/m3 has be specified in any permit. been set in Table S3.1 of the permit.

The demanding emission limit for An emission limit of 125 mg/m3 has oxides of nitrogen should be specified been set in Table S3.1 of the permit. in any permit.

Background levels of Nitrogen Dioxide and Cumulative impacts

The combined contribution of nitrogen Noted, see Section 5 of this dioxide due to emissions from the document for our assessment of the facility and other permitted issue. developments (biogas generators at Davyhulme wastewater treatment works and Nexen coal bed methane plant) would be above 1% of the air quality standard within the AQMA. The majority of the contribution is from the other permitted developments).

Metals including Arsenic

It is reasonable to expect that arsenic Our assessment of arsenic is detailed may account for a higher proportion in Section 5.2.5 of this document. We of metals emissions than that have set an improvement condition to assumed in the air quality study assess the impact based on actual because the proposed facility is likely monitoring data. to burn wood treated with arsenic.

An emission limit for arsenic should be specified in any permit.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 115 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) The Applicant provided further in emissions information which resulted in emissions being screened out as Any permit should specify the values insignificant (refer to Section 5.2.2 of specified in the Environmental this document). On this basis we Statement (0.002mg/m3). have not considered it necessary to set a limit.

Response received from Salford City Council, Regulatory Services, Technical Support Officer, sent electronically 21 January 2011. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has been covered We cannot make any comments No action required. regarding an Environmental Permit on the land adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal/Barton Bridge as this is not covered within the Salford City Council boundary, therefore we do not hold records of any planning applications/enforcements, nor are we aware of any noise related issues.

Response received from Salford City Council, Senior Environmental Health Officer, received electronically 9 February 2011. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has been covered A noise condition in respect to a noise We have not set a condition because limit from the plant at night time to be our assessment (report reference -5dB of the lowest L90 where t= 5 C704B) concludes that we have minutes. The noise report currently conservatively tested sensitivity to the has a – 5 dB on the background noise lowest measured hourly night-time for the night time however the time is LA90 and there is no positive indication over a 1 hour period. that there will be pollution from noise.

The report also comments that if there is characteristic noise tone, hum etc this is to be -10dB of the back ground noise. Again can this be reported against the lowest L90 T = 5minutes not an hourly average.

Response received from Salford City Council, Air Quality comments, received electronically 9 March 2011, dated 11 February 2011. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has been covered The effect of Barton Bridge on the Distant structures such as the Barton plume. Bridge are too remote to affect the impact assessment conclusions.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 116 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Model sensitivity and uncertainty. We are satisfied that these points have been addressed adequately. Stack modelling is reconfirmed. An improvement condition has been set to validate the modelling results. Real time monitoring of nitrogen The WID requires continuous dioxide, nitric oxide and particulate. monitoring of oxides of nitrogen and particulate from the stack (Refer to Section 6.7 of this document). Emissions are reported annually to The permit requires quarterly Salford. reporting. Emissions data from our regulated sites is located at the relevant Public Registers. Health impact assessment to include Refer to Section 5.2.4 of this PM10. document for the PM10 health impact assessment. Risk assessment to be remodelled Refer to Section 5.2.2 of this with the Eccles PAH results. document. Include the emissions from the Noted, see Section 5 of this combustion plant at United Utilities. document for our assessment of the issue.

Response Received from Salford Primary Care Trust, associate Director of Health Protection, letter dated 3 March 2011.

We received the same comments from Trafford Primary Care Trust, Environmental Public Health Scientist, letter dated 25 February 2011. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has been covered We need to be satisfied that Our assessment of dioxins confirmed consumption of eggs from home that there would be no issues from reared chickens at nearby residential this exposure route. gardens is unlikely. If there is a potential for this, then this pathway should additionally be considered in the risk assessment We were advised to check the Refer to Section 5.6.2 of this cumulative impacts from nearby document. facilities, such as Carrington I and II Power Stations and Port Salford. It was recommended that the EMS An improvement condition/pre-op has was in accordance with ISO 14001 been set to address this concern. Recommend that an assessment is An improvement condition has been undertaken using actual emissions set to assess the impact using real once operational as the assessment data. provided was based on predicted emissions.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 117 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Response Received from Natural England, Lead Advisor, Land Use Operations Team, letter dated 14 June 2011. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has been covered They agreed that the Installation was No action required. not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the SACs.

Response Received from Food Standards Agency, Environmental & Process Contaminants Department, email sent 23 February 2012. Brief summary of issues raised: Summary of action taken / how this has been covered The waste wood could contain lead Our assessment of emissions to air (e.g. from paint) and arsenic (historic and the human health risk antifouling agents). assessment is detailed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this document. More specifically, emissions of lead were screened out as being insignificant in Section 5.2. Our detailed assessment of arsenic is in Section 5.2.5 of this document.

Organochlorine based wood Our assessment of dioxins is detailed preservatives could significantly in section 5.3.2 of this document. The increase the amount of dioxin results showed that the predicted formation. daily intake of dioxins resulting from emissions at the point of maximum impact were below the recommended TDI levels.

Questioned whether the abatement Our assessment of the abatement system could deal with these system is detailed in Section 6.2 of substances and what controls there this document. We are satisfied that would be on the waste wood the necessary controls are in place. feedstock. Section 4.3.6 of this document details the controls in place for the waste feedstock.

Recommended that the intrusive This requirement has been secured investigation is carried out and by the inclusion of a pre-operational includes measurement of dioxins in condition. the suite of contaminants.

2) Consultation Responses from Members of the Public and Community Organisations

The consultation responses received were wide ranging and a number of the issues raised were outside the Environment Agency’s remit in reaching its permitting decisions. Specifically questions were raised which fall within the Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 118 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 jurisdiction of the planning system, both on the development of planning policy and the grant of planning permission.

Guidance on the interaction between planning and pollution control is given in PPS23 / Planning Policy Wales 2002. It says that the planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary. We are only able to take into account those issues, which fall within the scope of the Environmental Permitting Regulations. The way in which we have done that is set out in section 3 below. a) Representations from Local MPs and Councillors

Representations were received from the following MPs:

Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston); Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South); Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West). and the following Councillors:

David Acton (Trafford); Mike Cordingley (Gorse Hill); Joanne Harding (Urmston); Dolores O’ Sullivan (Trafford); Kevin Proctor (Urmston); Tom Ross (Stretford).

They raised the following issues:

Brief summary of Summary of action taken / how this has been covered issues raised Contacted by over 500 For our assessment of emissions from the plant refer to Sections residents whose 5.2 and 5.3 of this document. concerns included the emissions from the For monitoring of the process refer to our response below. plant, health problems, monitoring of the Regarding local amenities, refer to Section 3 below (Location of process, height of the the Installation). chimney stack and the effect of the plant on local amenities. Assurances were If a Permit is issued we then start a continued assessment of the required regarding plant operations and its environmental performance in a number monitoring of the facility of ways: and that we regulate in a robust manner. - Operators must monitor emissions at given times and report the results to us. - We regularly inspect Installations (announced and unannounced), review monitoring techniques and assess

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 119 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Brief summary of Summary of action taken / how this has been covered issues raised monitoring results to measure the performance of the plant. - We undertake auditing of operator monitoring. - We undertake auditing to check compliance with permit conditions (e.g. energy efficiency, accident prevention, noise and odour). - Operators must inform us within 24 hours of any breach of the emissions limits, followed by a fuller report of the size of the release, its impact and how they propose to avoid this happening in the future. - Operators monitoring results are placed on the public registers. - We will take appropriate enforcement action and/or prosecute depending on the seriousness of any breach.

Informed by The Applicant will be encouraged to investigate the possibility of representatives of a linking the monitoring from the CEMs to a website. local support group (GREAT) that ‘real time’ emissions data would be available via the internet. A number of residents Our assessment of BAT and particulate matter is detailed in were concerned that the Sections 5.2.4, 5.3.3 and 6 of this document. plant will not use BAT and that the technology would not remove particles which could adversely impact their health. Concerned about noise Our assessment of noise is detailed in Section 6.5.5 of this and also the vibrations document. Traffic movements are not relevant to the permitting from the extra traffic. process, refer to Section 3 below. Concerned about the Permit conditions would control the storage and movement of ash spillage of toxic waste within the Installation. Duty of Care requirements will apply to the from vehicles. transportation of waste to and from the site. Concerned about Our assessment of arsenic and dioxin emissions is detailed in arsenic and dioxin Section 5 of this document. emissions. Concerned about the The abolishment of public health bodies is not a matter for future protection of consideration under the EP Regulations. public health due to the Government’s decision to abolish and reform public health bodies (such as the HPA). Regarding the Health Impact Assessment, refer to Section 5.3.4 Concerned that the of this document. health impact assessment was not

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 120 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

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

b) Representations from Community and Other Organisations

In some cases the issues raised were the same as those in section a) above. Where this is the case we have not repeated in this section.

Representations were received from the Breathe Clean Air Group (BCAG) as follows.

Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered A report was provided which they state was conducted and provided by ‘an individual who has worked in the stack testing industry for over 10 years. He is qualified to MCERTS Level 2, with all four technical endorsements.’

Report - Monitoring of Ambient Pollutants, Davyhulme, January 2011

The group were concerned about We reviewed this report and found many inaccuracies the results of the air quality tests in and discrepancies which brought into question the this report, particularly, 1, 3 conclusions drawn and the validity of the report. butadiene, oxides of nitrogen, PM10 These included the instrument not being fit for and PM2.5, heavy metals and purpose (recommended for stacks and not ambient carbon monoxide, which were monitoring), limited survey period, potential issues reported to be above the local and with the gas plots, incorrect measurement and national limits. There were also reporting of NOx and NO2 and issues with the concerns about the incombination measurement of particulate. effect with the methane plant and gas engines on the adjoining site. We are satisfied that we have fully considered impacts on air quality as we have described in the A second study of local ambient main body of this document. nitrogen dioxide was undertaken with the provision of a report for monitoring during the period 31 July to 30 August 2011. BCAG pointed out the limitations of this report (e.g. comparison with the annual average AQS with survey only conducted over 30 days) but highlighted that it was a good indicator of poor air Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 121 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

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

The author wished to remain anonymous. Several other submissions from BCAG were made as follows:

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 122 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered BCAG submitted a report by the American Lung Association

This report raised general concerns Our assessment of pollution and energy efficiency is about biomass being a significant detailed in Sections 5 and 4.3.7 of this document. source of pollution and not energy efficient.

BCAG response to the Planning Application (76153/FULL/2010)

A lot of the issues raised were relevant to the Planning process and we are only able to take into account those issues, which fall within the scope of the Environmental Permitting Regulations (Refer to section 3 below). Those matters relevant to the Environmental Permitting Regulations were as follows:

Concerned about the impact from Our assessment is detailed in Section 6.3 of this greenhouse gases. document.

Information from Veolia has shown Our assessment is detailed in Section 5.3.3 of this that baghouse filter collection document. efficiency is 95-99% for PM10, 65- 70% for PM2.5 and only 5-30% for particles smaller than 2.5 microns, implying that particles less than PM2.5 would be released in enormous quantities.

Concerned that the facility will lead Refer to Section 5.2.4 of this document. to a breach of the EU target reduction values for PM2.5. The target values are 25ug/m3 by 2010 and 20ug/m3 by 2015.

Incineration is not BAT; plasma Refer to section 3 of this Annex for the Use of gasification is an alternative and Alternative Technologies. produces no harmful emissions.

Concerned about the impact on Our responsibilities relating to habitats is detailed in habitats, specifically the Manchester Sections 5.4.2, 7.2 and 7.3 of this document. Ship Canal (wildlife corridor) and Regarding the nature reserve, we identified

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 123 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered Rixton Claypits and the loss of Davyhulme wildlife site within the screening distance species (e.g. bats, birds, great of 2km and this is included in our habitats crested newts). Reference was also assessment. made to Davyhulme Millenium Nature Reserve.

Concerned that if biomass does Regarding feedstock, any changes would require a become unsustainable as a variation to the Permit which would include an impact feedstock other types of fuel would assessment of the emissions from the facility. be burnt (MSW, increased SRF). Furthermore (although not directly relevant to our consideration under the regulations) the government encourages biomass power stations through the Renewables Obligation. This is dependant upon the bioenergy content of the fuel being at least 90%. SRF is only partly derived from biomass and so has a low bioenergy content, which means that the Installation could only take a small percentage of SRF before becoming ineligible for the renewables benefit.

Concerned that the waste wood Refer to Section 6.2 of this document. would contain VOCs (and if chlorine containing), could produce dioxins and PCBs. In addition, pollution from heavy metals due to nails, staples and old lead paint.

Concerned about the visible impact The visibility is minimal from well managed, modern of the plume. incinerators.

Concerned about the toxicity of Our assessment of bottom ash is detailed in Section incinerator bottom ash. 4.3.9 of this document.

Questioned the calculations used to This is based on the level of energy used by the derive the number of homes that the average residential dwelling per annum; however the electricity could provide for. regulations require energy to be recovered as far as is practicable and our consideration of this is given in Section 4.3.7 of this document.

Wanted more detail about the use Refer to Section 4.3.7 of this document. of waste heat.

Questioned whether the biomass is Refer to section 6.3 of this document. actually carbon neutral.

Concerned about the in combination Refer to Section 5.6.2 of this document. effects from the two gas fired power stations and the paper mill in

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 124 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered Carrington. Also concerned about the additional emissions from five gas generators at the sewage works and a methane plant (by Nexon).

Questioned the oxygen content in Operating at 6% oxygen is the norm for such plants the stack gas being as low as 6% as it provides sufficient excess air for complete and suggested an average of combustion. Operating at 15% oxygen (i.e. adding around 15%. 2.5 times more air than needed) would increase heat losses and decrease plant efficiency. In any case, compliance with permit limits on CO and TOC will ensure that combustion is complete.

If a permit is granted it was Conditions in the Permit ensure that this is carried questioned whether there would be out. Permit condition 4.2.2 requires a review of the a responsibility to monitor results of the monitoring and an assessment to environmental and health impacts include an interpretive review of that data. In addition once operational. If any additional to this, an Improvement Condition requires a report impacts were identified, that on the commissioning of the Installation to include a mitigation measures would be summary of the environmental performance of the required to reduce the impact to an plant as installed against the design parameters set acceptable level. out in the Application. This will include a review of the performance of the facility against the conditions of the permit. Our regulation of the site will be ongoing and dynamic and if issues are found in the future appropriate action will be required.

Questioned the reliability of the This matter should be addressed with them directly. HPA’s position statement on incineration.

BCAG provided a report on the health effects of waste incinerators

(4th Report of the British Society for The HPA reviewed a report made in 2005 (Refer to Ecological Medicine (BSEM) Section 5.3 of this document) and found no need to Second Edition June 2008) change their position statement on the health impacts from well managed modern incinerators.

The matter of this 2008 report should be addressed directly with the HPA.

BCAG provided articles on the health risks associated with biomass plants

These were provided to raise We consulted with Salford and Trafford PCT. Their

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 125 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered awareness about how other NHS comments are detailed in Annex 4 of this document. boards are responding to biomass plant proposals. NHS Tayside raised serious concerns over possible health risks related to the proposed biomass plant planned for Dundee’s docks area.

Concerned that the emission limits With the exception of NO2, the limits for all for releases to air could be parameters are set at the WID limit so no increase increased (Reference to increased can be authorised. NO2 is set below the WID limit and limits at the UK’s largest biomass- whilst any Application would be assessed on its fired power station planned for Port merits, it is unlikely that an increase could be Talbot, Wales). authorised based on the current air quality in the vicinity of the Installation.

BCAG responded to the Fichtner Report (Issued October 2011, BreatheClean AirGroupR2)

This report was provided in The Applicant provided us with further information in response to the Fichtner report their report dated 27 January 2012. There was (Further clarification with respect to sufficient detail in this report to justify the proposed Chapter 12 (Air Quality) of the unusually low NO2 emission limit. submitted Environmental Statement). This report was submitted to Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council to address concerns raised about the environmental impact of the facility.

Concerns were raised about the report lacking credible facts, using examples that are not comparable and questionable letters of support and validation.

BCAG responded to the Fichtner response to the Environment Agency Schedule 5 Notice dated 16 December 2012. Fichtner response dated 27 January 2012.

3 Concerned whether the 125mg/Nm Achieving the low NOx concentration is discussed limit for NO2 can actually be above in Section 6.2.2 of this document. achieved. This is based on unverified claims by private

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 126 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered companies who supply biomass boilers and the LCPD BREF.

Concerned that no monitoring data Boiler suppliers are confident that the NO2 emission has been included for comparable limit can be achieved; however there is a lack of facilities. comparable data because they have not been required to provide plants with this lower limit. The Applicant provided NO2 emissions data from the Western Bioenergy Plant, where NO2 concentrations are being achieved without any secondary abatement measures (see below).

Reference was made to emissions The reported figure, for compliance purposes, is from the Western Bioenergy Plant calculated by subtraction of the measurement exceeding the 200 mg/m3 WID limit. uncertainty (permit condition 3.5.5). The reported The 2009 data was reported to figure would then be 172.8 (216 mg/m3 x 0.8) which is demonstrate that low levels of NOx compliant with the WID limit. Notwithstanding this, this were achievable; however it was NOx concentration is achieved without any secondary stated that the 2010 figures showed abatement measures (SNCR/SCR). 3 NOx levels at 216mg/m and in our report we state that the increase is due to more waste wood being burnt in the plant.

Concerned about the risk of An accident management plan will be required as part accidents particularly through of the site’s EMS. The Applicant will also consult with spontaneous combustion and dust local fire officers (Section 2.1.4.3 of the Application explosion. Reference was made to Supporting information) to ensure that fire fighting a fire at a biomass fuel storage measures are designed with particular attention paid facility at the Port of Tyne (South to the fuel reception and storage building. Shields) where a fire started deep within the stockpile of compressed The use of a grate means that there will be no milling, timber pellets covering an area of therefore thermal stability is unlikely to be an issue. 100,000m3. Reference was also Controls will be in place for bio-stability which include made to some other dust explosions the size of storage piles and the storage duration. at wood pellet facilities, which included Tilbury Power Station.

That according to the Department The Directive requires Member States to for Energy and Climate Change promote the use of renewable energy heating and (DECC), electricity only biomass cooling systems. Plants that generate electricity only power stations are only 25% cannot achieve 70% efficiency. As discussed in efficient. This contradicts the EU section 4.3.7, we have asked the applicant to Renewable Energy Directive under investigate potential for heat use. Permit conditions which biomass conversion of at also make it mandatory for this to be done on a least 70% efficiency should be continued basis.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 127 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered supported (Article 13(6), EU Renewable Energy Directive).

Concerned that the demand for This is primarily a matter for the local authority; waste wood is soon expected to however the Permit will ensure that it can be operated exceed the supply, resulting in the without giving rise to significant pollution or harm to most polluted wood being burned human health. and higher proportions of virgin wood.

BCAG provided a report from a paediatrician on the health effects of burning biomass

This report compared the emissions The issues raised in this report are covered by the from the burning of biomass and explanations given in Section c) below (Emissions coal, more specifically emissions of and monitoring). CO2 and global warming. Concerned about the assumption that the biomass is carbon neutral.

c) Representations from Individual Members of the Public

Approximately 220 responses were received from individual members of the public. These raised many of the same issues as previously addressed. Only those issues additional to those already considered are listed below:

Issues Raised Environment Agency Response Emissions & monitoring

Concerned about achieving the Achieving the low NOx concentration is unusually low NOx concentration of discussed above in Section 6.2.2 of this 125mg/m3, with guarantees based on document. Emission limits are binding and the fuel specification. Concerned that not dependent on fuel specification this specification may change over the 25 year lifetime of the facility and subsequently this limit may not be met.

Concerned that the ambient air We consider background NOx concentrations monitoring data is not representative in Section 5.6.1 of this document. of the local area and suggested that monitoring should be undertaken closer to the facility and the M60 motorway.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 128 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Concerned that metals background There are only a limited number of monitoring data was from a monitoring station stations in the country and the one used was located 11km away from the at a roadside site at junction 4 of the M56. Installation. Our assessment of the data did not identify any issues with respect to the location.

Suggested that we should carry out Our assessment of ambient levels of NO2 are monitoring of the ambient air at detailed in Section 5.6.1 of this document. Davyhulme otherwise we are neglecting our duty to human health Emissions are measured at source – i.e. in and the environment. This should be the chimney stack. There is no provision in carried out before we make our the permit for monitoring of ambient air decision. quality, because the impact is too low to be measured in this way.

By way of illustration – the daily limit for particulates is 10 mg/m3 – the maximum impact of particulates is predicted to be 0.08 µg/m3, which is more than 100,000 times smaller than the emission. It is also less than the natural variation particulate levels in the environment from other sources, e.g. traffic. Therefore any impact that the site might have would therefore be undetectable through ambient air quality monitoring.

Questioned the accuracy of roadside This is the responsibility of the local authority monitoring of NOx using the diffusion so any concerns should be raised with them. tube method.

One response claimed that in 2010 This was based on some information we stated that bag filters allow about supplied in an application. However, actual 90% of PM1.0 and 35% of PM2.5 into performance of bag filters is much better. A the air. European Commission’s science alert report issued on 2 February 2012, reported actual measurement of ultrafine particles on a waste to energy plant where the bag filters were shown to capture more than 99.99% of such particles.

Concerned that Peels Air Quality Our assessment of PM2.5 is detailed in Statement is based on emissions of Section 5.2.4 of this document and assumes PM2.5 being calculated as one third of that all particulate is present as PM2.5. the PM10.

Concerned that filters will not prevent Refer to sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.3 of this particulate matter below PM10 being document. Also note above where we report emitted to atmosphere and that the published information showing >99.99% Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 129 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 emissions from the plant will contain capture efficiency mainly PM1.0 with some PM2.5 which are not monitored in this area.

In breach of EC Air Quality directive Refer to sections 5.2 and 5.2.4 of this 2008 (transposed into UK law June document. The process contribution of the 2010) due to the already massive plant is less than 1% of EU EQS grounding of PM2.5 and PM1.0 in this area.

Questioned whether the monitoring Refer to Section 6.7, which includes system would be fit for purpose and monitoring requirements under abnormal that monitoring would be undertaken conditions. during normal operating conditions, which is not representative of real emissions.

Concerned about any other wastes Section 4.3.6 of this document details the that could be burned which will wastes that the Installation will be permitted increase the hazardous emissions. to accept.

Concerned that the Environment Regarding burning of biomass, a document Agency has already identified burning was provided with this representation (Air biomass produces more particulate Pollution: Action in a Changing Climate, matter than fossil fuel. published by DEFRA). This document confirms that wood fuel tends to emit a lower mass of particles than coal and often less than fuel oil but in comparison with natural gas, PM10 emissions from wood can be 10 - 100 times higher, based on emissions from current low emission boiler plants. Our assessment of particulate emissions is detailed in Section 5 of this document.

Concerned about the in combination For an assessment of in-combination effects, effects with emissions from: refer to Section 5.6.2 of this document. the methane plant; Regarding in combination effects with other five gas engines at Davyhulme; incinerators, our modelling experience Paper mill, power stations and Shell indicates that incinerators greater than 2km at Carrington; apart have insignificant in-combination Another incinerator (proposed at effects on the environment between Trafford Park); them if it is assumed that the emission levels M60 motorway; of both incinerators are at the WID limits. Industry at Trafford Park; This is a worst case situation as the Proposed Salford Free Port incinerators would be expected to be (worldwide container business); operated at levels less than the limit to Red Bull Stadium (soon to be built); ensure consistent adherence to the limit. It is and our conclusion therefore that any in- The Trafford Centre. combination effects between the Barton Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 130 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

incinerator and any other are insignificant.

Concerned about the interaction of Regarding interaction of emissions, our emissions (gases and ultrafine assessment (Sections 5.2 and 5.3) does not particles) with those from other consider interaction and the PCT raised no activities. concerns with respect to this matter.

Reference made to a report by Dr For health impact assessment, please refer Dick Van Steenis concerning the to Section 5.3 of this document. health impact over a seven mile radius.

Concerned that toxic pollution and Our assessment of emissions to air is particulates will be trapped in the detailed in Section 5.2 of this document. Manchester basin.

Concerned about testing of emissions Refer to Section 6.7 of this document. and that point measurements are only Furthermore, control measures (e.g. fabric required twice a year (potential to filters for heavy metals and carbon for miss dioxin peaks). mercury and dioxins) and system design (e.g. boiler design) ensure prevention and/or minimisation.

We should refuse the Application as In regulating industry we aim to ensure that Trafford is an Air Quality no regulated installation contributes Management Area (AQMA). significantly to an exceedance of the air quality standards (limits and targets) that have been set by the EU and UK government. These standards are determined by expert panels on the basis of evidence from medical and scientific reports. We also consult with health experts.

Concerned that we allow particulate Refer to Section 6.6 of this document. As we limits of 10 to 30mg/m3 and not 1 to note in section 5.2.4 above, our experience is 5mg/m3 as stated in the BREF. in line with the figures quoted by BREF.

Concerned that there is a high risk for For a discussion on system failure and system failure resulting in increased increased emissions, refer to Sections 4.3.2 emissions. and 5.5 of this document.

Concerned that CEMS are allowed to Section 5.5 of this document contains an be off line for up to four hours and 60 assessment of such failures. The permit hours a year without having to inform requires the operator to report such events to us. us.

Concerned about the effect of carbon Wood is a renewable energy source whilst dioxide releases on climate change. coal and gas are finite sources. Wood fuel is Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 131 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Stated that wood burning biomass therefore regarded as carbon neutral. Our plants emit 50% more CO2 than assessment of carbon dioxide and climate existing coal plants and 330% more change is detailed in Section 6.3 of this CO2 than a new natural gas plant document. (www.maforests.org).

Concerned about the grounding of We can confirm that the Applicant has pollution during cold weather. assessed the impact of the emissions taking into account the local features using representative weather data and we have verified this assessment in Section 5.2 of this document.

Concerned about inadequate Our requirements for monitoring of particulate monitoring of sub-micron particles are set out in Section 5.3.3 of this document. and recommended electron microscopy.

Concerned about the conclusions Our assessment of the ‘Monitoring of drawn in the Applicant’s Air Quality Ambient Pollutants, Davyhulme’ report is Assessment, given the claims made detailed in Appendix 1 of the AQMAU report in the report entitled ‘Monitoring of (Refer to AQMAU report reference C704 on Ambient Pollutants, Davyhulme’ and the Public Register). This report should also comments provided in report be referred to for the points raised in report reference TB/Q035/2011/R3177, reference TB/Q035/2011/R3177. dated 12 May 2011.

Concerned about the use of the Although the air dispersion modelling report meteorological data in the Applicant’s overtly discusses wind rose patterns, it also Air Quality Assessment, which only implicitly takes account of all relevant covered wind direction with no meteorological data via the modelling files. consideration of the effects of These have hourly data for wind speed, barometric pressure, inversions or direction, cloud cover, precipitation, precipitation. The Ship Canal is also a temperature and relative humidity. natural corridor for strong winds dispersing pollutants to Manchester and Liverpool.

Concerned about the inclusion of Buildings and distant structures such as the buildings in the Applicant’s Air Quality Barton Bridge and the Chill Factor slope are Assessment, which did not take into too remote to affect the impact assessment account the M60 motorway bridge or conclusions (Refer to AQMAU report the Chill factor ski slope. reference C704 on the Public Register)

Concerned about the use of For the use of modelling, refer to Section 5 of modelling and suggested that this document. Conditions in the permit validation monitoring and analysis is require monitoring results to be reviewed and undertaken to prove the impact. assessed.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 132 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Questioned the functionality of the The abatement system, stack location and abatement system given that the our assessment of emissions control is set stack is located furthest from the out in section 6.2 of this document. The AQMA. layout arrangement was chosen by the Applicant based on their assessment of dispersion and the impact at sensitive receptors.

Questioned the height of the stack Regarding the height of the stack, the impact being only at 45 metres (Peel’s Ince assessment is detailed in Section 5.2 of this biomass plant is 85m). document and is based on a stack height of 44.23m.

Concerned that smoke from the stack Based on experience of existing plants could cause road accidents due to its operating to the limits set in this permit and height and close proximity to the M60 given the results of our assessment of the air motorway. dispersion modelling, it is considered highly unlikely that smoke would be an issue.

Concerned about carcinogens in the The dust emissions from Plevins are dust emissions from the Plevin plant associated with fugitive releases from the and that the Environment Agency storage of waste wood. Storage and charging were conducting tests to determine of waste wood will be fully enclosed as the volume of the smaller particles. detailed in Section 4.1.3 of this document. Dust emissions from the combustion process have been screened out as being insignificant.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 133 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Location

Concerned that it is a residential area Our responsibilities are explained in Section (520m from houses) and near to over 3 of this Annex (Location of the Installation). 20 schools, numerous nurseries, a hospital, a farm, children’s play parks, playing fields, golf clubs etc. It is also next to a busy motorway, sewage works, Trafford Centre, ski centre and fitness venues.

500 houses are to be built 500 yards We consulted with the local planning away. authority and they did not raise any concerns.

There is a wildlife park nearby, with Refer to Sections 5.4 and 7 of this document 22 species of butterflies, ducks and for our obligations and assessment of rare birds. The Millenium Nature habitats sites. Reserve is only 300 yards away. There are priority species (great crested newt and water vole) within 2km.

Concerned about the risk of fire at the The operator will be required to have an facility given it’s proximity to a accident management plan in place as methane plant. detailed in Section 4.3.4 of this document.

Government guidelines suggest that Regarding the government guidelines, a large biomass plants should not be document was provided with this built close to urban development and representation [Biomass and Air Quality only in rural locations if there is no Guidance for local Authorities – produced by gas-line. environmental protection UK and the local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS)]. The key messages for local planning policies were as follows:

• To meet the 2020 targets for renewable energy, the UK needs to increase very substantially the amount of renewable heat generated, and biomass heat is one of the key technologies; • The potential conflicts between these goals and air quality can be avoided through the use of high quality, low emission plant. The replacement of old coal and oil fired plant with high quality wood fired plant located off the gas grid and away from densely populated urban areas may actually benefit air quality. In urban areas or where an Air Quality Management Area has been Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 134 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

declared, we would expect biomass heat deployment to be less common and larger (and therefore cleaner) biomass units to be more prevalent. • Encouraging the use of larger plant, for example in conjunction with the development of heat networks, will result in a system where air quality emissions are easier to control than from a larger number of small plant'.

The Applicant’s proposal would fall under the definition of larger plant with lower emissions. Our assessment of emissions is detailed in Section 5 of this document. Furthermore, in order to maximise the Installations sustainability and primary function, its location needs to be within an area of high energy and heat demand. The urban character of the area provides the receptors necessary to receive the energy and heat. Health

Concerned that even a minimal health Our assessment and methodology are risk is too much. detailed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this document.

Want an assurance that the We will only issue a permit if we are sure that Environment Agency protect the the plant will be designed, constructed and people and not the polluter. operated in a way that will not significantly pollute the environment or harm human health.

Reference was also made to a response given on behalf of Charles The Minister's response is consistent with the Hendry (Minister of State) which advice given by the Health Protection quoted ‘it is clearly not possible to Agency, which is set out in Section 5.3 of this rule out adverse health effects document. completely.’

Stated that emissions will kill over We consulted PCT and they have not voiced 3000 people in Manchester per year any such concerns. Also refer to sections 5.2 (75,000 over 25 years). Questioned and 5.3 of this document. whether we want to be prosecuted for issuing a permit to murder/kill/maim people.

Our assessment is detailed in Section 5.2.4 PM and PM will be spread some 2.5 1.0 of this document. 10 miles downwind effecting Eccles,

Manchester centre, Urmston, Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 135 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Cheadle and other suburbs.

PM2.5 are already at 133% in Urmston Particulate releases from the Installation and up to 199% in parts of Salford. have been screened out as being insignificant.

An article was provided on the health We have consulted with Natural England and and environmental effects associated the HPA and they have not raised any with particulate matter. concerns regarding this matter.

Stated that the incineration of waste Our assessment is detailed in Section 5.3 of causes a shortening of lifespan up to this document. 11 years, by increasing a range of diseases (low birth weight, birth defects, mortality, heart attacks, strokes and cancers).

Reference was made to The Our assessment of the health impact from Government’s Current 2007 Air particulate emissions is detailed in Section Quality Strategy and that particulate 5.2 of this document. matter reduces life expectancy by around seven to eight months.

Concerns about heavy metals, PAHs Our assessment is detailed in Sections 5.2 and dioxins causing health and and 5.3 of this document. mental issues, defects and cancers.

Concerned that we allow Our assessment of abnormal emissions is exceedances due to malfunction detailed in Section 5.5 of this document. which will harm human health.

Suggested that incinerator operatives For human health risk assessment, refer to have blood tests for dioxins, furans section 5.3 of this document. An and heavy metals to confirm no environmental permit cannot require blood adverse risks. tests for employees.

Concerned that there have been no For studies on health risks, refer to section long term health studies carried out in 5.3 of this document. the UK by either the Department Of Health or the HPA.

A local doctor has written to his We consulted with Trafford and Salford PCT patients quoting that ‘cardiovascular and they did not raise any of these concerns. disease remains the biggest killer in Their comments are detailed in Annex 4 of Trafford. Early mortality rates for this document. Cardiovascular Disease in Trafford are 8% above the national average. Another article in the Daily Mail (research from Manchester Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 136 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

University) states that cancer is man made through environment and what you eat.

Concerned about the impact of Our assessment is set out in Section 5.3 of dioxins on the local allotments and this document. We also consulted with the pollutants entering the food chain. FSA as detailed in Annex 4 of this document.

Concerned that Trafford Council have Our assessment is detailed in Section 5.3.4 not carried out their own Health of this document. We are not responsible for Impact Assessment. assessments carried out by other bodies.

Reference was made to an article We are aware of the potential study and will which had appeared in the national be providing data on emissions from press regarding a study being municipal waste incinerators should the study considered by the Health Protection proceed. The HPA have advised us that this Agency into the potential effects on study does not alter their current position birth outcomes. statement. Our assessment is set out in section 5.2 of Concerned that mercury is a toxic this document. We also consulted with the chemical known to cause severe birth Trafford and Salford PCT. defects and neurological disorders.

Concerned about the health effects Our assessment is set out in Section 5.2 of associated with emissions of arsenic. this document. Notwithstanding this, Reference was made to our report additional controls are in place to limit titled ‘A review of the toxicity of hazardous substances in the wastes being arsenic in air’ (Science Report – accepted as they are not included in the list SC020104/SR4) of waste codes that the Installation is permitted to accept.

Consideration should be given to a We have considered the impacts from Judicial Review (against the nitrogen dioxide as described in the main government) that has been lodged by body of this document and are satisfied that the environmental group Clientearth. there will be no significant impact on human This is for failing to protect people’s health. health from toxic levels of pollution. Davyhulme already exceeds the nitrogen dioxide legal limit. Our assessment is set out in section 5.2 of Concerned about the health effects this document. We also consulted with the from particulate matter. Articles were Trafford and Salford PCT. provided raising concerns about a number of health effects which included cancers, children’s diseases and alzheimers.

Other submissions were made raising

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 137 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 concerns about health issues which included:

Infant deaths and the Ironbridge power station; We have consulted with Trafford and Salford PCT. Health effects from Coinbrook incinerator; The HPA is the expert body on public health Questioned the validity of the DEFRA and as such it is their responsibility to take 2004 report on Health Effects from the balanced view in respect of the evidence Waste Management and concerned on health. Our role is then to act on their that the HPA 2009 position statement advice. had drawn much of its substance from this report.

Questioned whether the HPA had Any concerns about DEFRA and the HPA checked vital evidence about health should be raised with them directly. effects from incinerators and challenged their statement that ‘Incinerators pose little or negligible risk to health.’ The controls in place for dioxins and Concerned about the formation of particulate are detailed in Sections 6.1.1, dioxins due to low combustion 6.2.1 and 6.2.5 of this document. We also temperatures and the ‘out-of-date’ consulted with the FSA; refer to Section 1) of bag filtration system. A dioxin fact this Annex. sheet was provided and concerns were raised about dioxins entering the food chain. Operation

Concerned about the systems in The permit will specify what wastes can be place to check the wastes accepted. accepted by the Operator. Also refer to Of particular concern were wastes section 4.3.6 of this document. from a local landfill site where wastes are to be removed for a development (near Barton Swing Bridge) and commercial and industrial waste.

To properly incinerate a temperature We have no reason to believe that the quoted of 1,250oC is required. temperature is necessary for the type of waste being permitted. Temperature requirements have been set as specified in the WID.

Questioned describing the plant as a Biomass is the generic term used to describe biomass plant given that the public do any fuel derived from organic matter. not consider waste wood to be true biomass. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 138 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Concerned about the statement in the The context of these statements was in Fichtner report (Further clarification relation to the reduced number of operational with respect to Chapter 12….) about hours when compared to a facility burning waste wood generating more virgin wood. The Installation will have an corrosive flue gases that lead to EMS in place to ensure that the appropriate increased boiler maintenance. Also management systems are in place for concerned about the requirement for maintenance requirements. reactive maintenance, indicating general failures as the plant ages.

Concerned about what solid SRFs are produced from non hazardous recovered fuel (SRF) actually waste. The input waste can be production contains. specific waste, municipal solid waste, industrial waste, commercial waste, construction and demolition waste, sewage sludge etc. A well defined system is in place for its classification and specification, BSEN 15359:2011. It is a tool to enable efficient trading of SRF which should help to promote their acceptability on the fuel market and increasing the public trust.

Concerned about the sustainability Our duties under EPR, WID and WFD are to criteria of the biomass and asked for ensure that energy is recovered as far as provision of this criteria. practicable (WID) with a high level of

efficiency (WFD). We also consider Reference was also made to a Public emissions of CO . These are all set out in Inquiry which is to take place in May 2 Sections 4.3.7, 6.3 and 7.1.2 of this 2012 on the Forth Energy's document. application for a biomass energy plant in Grangemouth. It was stated that Also, the Government are applying this will be the first biomass inquiry in sustainability criteria to biomass combustion the UK to look at sustainability. as part of the system for paying Renewables

Obligation Certificates (ROCs). Payment of

ROCs is regulated by Ofgem, and the

applicant will have to satisfy Ofgem that

these sustainability criteria are being met in

order to receive these payments. Waste

biomass is exempt from these sustainability

criteria.

Concerned about the odour arising Regarding odours from storage, the from the external storage of biomass. operations will be fully enclosed, refer to Reference was made to Peel being Sections 4.1.3 and 6.5.4 of this document. responsible for odours arising from the storage of wood chip in Chatham,

Kent prior to its export to Sweden to be burnt in a similar facility.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 139 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Concerned that there were limited Our assessment is based on whether the details on the design of the equipment proposed is BAT and does not incineration unit. focus in on the detailed design. However, a condition in the permit requires the operator to submit details of the combustion plant before operations start.

Concerned about who would be The permit specifies who will be the operator responsible for the operation of the of the facility. Regarding the operation of the facility. facility, when we assess operator competence for a facility of this nature a key requirement is that they will have an Environmental Management System (EMS) in place. The EMS covers the design and installation of suitable equipment, operation and maintenance, accidents, training of staff and operating instructions. A pre-operational condition is included requiring the Operator to provide a summary of the EMS prior to commissioning of the plant and to make available for inspection all EMS documentation. The Environment Agency recognises that certification of the EMS cannot take place until the Installation is operational. An improvement condition is included requiring the Operator to report progress gaining accreditation of its EMS.

The Agency would also undertaken regular inspections to audit monitoring operation, maintenance, monitoring arrangements etc. Should there be non-compliance, this will be dealt with in accordance with the Environment Agency’s Enforcement and Prosecution Policy.

In breach of November 2008 EC Regarding the EC directive on waste, refer to directive on waste (transposed into section 7 of this document. UK law December 2010).

Concerned that the process of Our assessment against the relevant burning wood cannot comply with the Regulations is set out in the main body of this Regulations. A report was provided document. for the Beaver Wood Energy biomass project in new England.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 140 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Technology

The technology is not BAT for Our assessment is detailed in Section 6 of biomass and moving grate is an old this document. and inefficient technology.

No confirmation on the type of The Application and further information abatement technology that will be received includes details of the proposed used for NOx abatement technology for NOx. Our assessment of this information is detailed in Section 6.2.2 of this document. Consultation

Concerned that we raised no Our response to the Planning Application objection to the planning application confirms that an Environmental Permit would despite the fact that our consultation be needed for the operation of the had not started. Installation. We undertake our detailed assessment of the impact of the Installation on sensitive receptors during our Permit determination process as detailed in this document. Also, refer to Section 3 of this Annex for matters relevant to an Application for Planning Permission.

We were invited by the Applicant to attend Concerned about our attendance at this event and saw this as an opportunity to the Applicant’s consultation evening brief the public on our role in a resourceful in December 2010. This was and financially efficient manner. construed as us backing them from an early stage.

Regarding local decisions, we are required to Regarding our acknowledgement carry out our assessment in accordance with letter (in which we say that a permit the EP Regulations. Our responsibilities are cannot be refused solely on the set out in the main body of this document. grounds of local opposition), the Local decisions are a matter for council government have stated that they decision-makers. want local decisions to be made more by local people.

Regarding our consultation requirements, Questioned whether there would be refer to Section 2 of this document consultation opportunities to discuss the permit Application.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 141 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Noise

Concerned that noise is already Our assessment of noise is detailed in frequently heard at night from the Section 6.5.5 of this document. Also refer to sewage works. the response from Salford City Council in Annex 4 of this document.

Concerned that the noise testing was Noise and Vibration Consultants Limited not independent and that the location (NVC) state the background noise survey of monitoring equipment was not was carried out in accordance with BS 4142 representative. and BS 7445. Any masking from the garden fence would reduce the background noise level resulting in a more conservative assessment. We have tested sensitivity to the lowest measured hourly LA90 in our audit and there is no positive indication that complaints are likely.

That we are required to consider Regarding vibrations from traffic, Under the vibrations from the additional traffic as Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) part of our assessment. it is the applicant’s responsibility to consider the impact from noise and vibration from additional on-site traffic movements (e.g. from deliveries etc). Noise and vibration assessment from additional off-site traffic is considered under EPR only in as much as it might contribute to additional background levels. Other aspects of off-site traffic noise are a consideration in planning control.

B) Advertising and Consultation on the Draft Decision

This section reports on the outcome of the public consultation on our draft decision carried out between 30 May 2012 and 15 August 2012 and the public drop-in event held on 12 June 2012 at the JJB Soccer Drome in Trafford.

During the drop-in event concerns were raised about the background data used in the air quality assessment. These background levels subsequently formed the basis of our findings and conclusions in our draft decision regarding the impact of emissions to air from the facility. To address these concerns we made a decision to re-evaluate the use of the background data and review our findings. This re-evaluation was then consulted on as part of our draft decision as detailed in Section 2 of this document.

We informed the following bodies of this review:

• Breathe Clean Air Group • Kate Green (MP for Stretford and Urmston)

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 142 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

• Trafford & Salford Councils members services team (information to be shared with all ward councillors) • Statutory and non-statutory bodies listed in Section A of this Annex.

We extended the consultation period on the draft decision from 11 July to 15 August to give interested parties additional time to make any relevant representations to us.

In some cases the issues raised in the consultation were the same as those raised previously and already reported in Section A of this Annex. Where this is the case, the Environment Agency response has not been repeated and reference should be made to Section A for an explanation of the particular concerns or issues.

Also some of the consultation responses received were on matters which are outside the scope of the Environment Agency’s powers under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. Our position on these matters is as described previously. a) Consultation Responses from Statutory and Non-Statutory Bodies

Further representations and comments were received from the following bodies:

Response received from NHS Salford, Director of Public Health, response dated 16 July 2012. Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered It was noted that Trafford PCT The paragraph referenced on page commented in their response to the 43 is: Planning Application, that the COMEAP methodology was not The use of the COMEAP intended to be applied to specific methodology is not generally individual sources of pollution. They recommended for modelling the concluded that the calculations human health impacts of individual needed to be interpreted with installations. However it may have considerable caution, but indicated limited applicability where emissions that the potential health impact was of NOx, SO2 and particulates cannot likely to be very small. be screened out as insignificant in an H1 Environmental Impact In view of these comments it was assessment, there are high ambient suggested that we consider rewording background levels of these pollutants the ending of our paragraph on page and we are advised that its use was 43 of the draft decision document. appropriate by our public health The wording should reflect the consultees. uncertainties inherent in applying the COMEAP methodology to smaller We have not reworded this section as populations and the need to exercise we considered that the change was caution in interpreting any numerical very subtle and had the same Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 143 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 estimates generated. meaning.

Reference was made to our The key point here is that the HPA information on infant mortality in have not changed their position Section 5.3.3 of the draft decision statement that well run and regulated document. It was suggested that an modern Municipal Waste Incinerators additional paragraph was added to (MWIs) are not a significant risk to include the details of a research study public health. A new study to further as follows: extend the evidence base and to provide further information to the The HPA’s position statement that public has been approved by the well run and regulated modern HPA. municipal waste incinerators are not a significant risk to public health. This view is based on detailed assessments of the effects of air pollutants on health and on the fact that modern and well managed municipal waste incinerators make only a small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants. However, HPA recognises there are public concerns about these issues and continually seeks to review and extend the evidence base on which it bases its advice. For these reasons, they have agreed to fund research into birth outcomes around municipal waste incinerators currently operating in England and Wales.

Response received from NHS Trafford, Director of Public Health, response dated 15 August 2012. Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered

Three new pieces of information were highlighted for our consideration:

1. The new Trafford Joint Strategic This document provides information Needs Assessment (JSNA) 2012-16. on health and social care needs of local people from pregnancy and birth to old age and end of life.

2. Census for 2011 population Trafford population details. estimates for Trafford.

3. Trafford Health Profile 2012 Health profiles for Trafford. published by the APHO. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 144 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

These documents show the current status of the population and local health. Our air quality assessments confirm that there will be no measurable impact on human health from the biomass incinerator.

Response received from Salford City Council, Environmental Protection, response dated 09 August 2012. Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered Impact on Salford Our guidance recommends that We have reviewed the evidence for annual mean values are corrected by background NO2 levels; our detailed 1.11. This was applied to NO2 at comments are in Section 5.2.6.2 of Tindall Street. The worst case this document. exceedance was 5% of the AQS and 2% at Tindall Street.

Background Concentrations We have not fully considered the We carried out an additional cumulative effect (NO2) of Barton and assessment to address this concern the United Utilities (UU) combustion with the cumulative impact detailed in plant. our report AQMAU_C943_RP01, which has been placed on the Public Register. The findings of this assessment are detailed in Section 5.6.2 of this document.

The draft decision refers to the wrong Noted, we agree that paras 4.50 and paragraph in the 2009 DEFRA additionally 4.51 of the DEFRA 2009 guidance (para 4.54). This refers to guidance are more appropriate in this the contribution from existing plant. instance and have stated para 4.51 in Suggested that para. 4.50 for a new our review of background monitoring installation was more appropriate. data published as Annex 5 and incorporated into this document in Section 5. The DEFRA 2009 guidance has since been updated by the March 2010 guidance. In this version Para 4.51 is now 4.52.

Taking para 4.50 into account; a Our review in Section 5 takes account permit should not be granted unless it of paragraphs 4.51 and 4.52 and we can be proved that the contribution to conclude that the process contribution the EQS from the plant is ‘minor’ and would not cause a breach of the AQS that other emissions sources are but that if there was already a breach controlled through permit conditions then the contribution to it is negligible. to ensure compliance with the EQS. We will work together with other Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 145 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

regulators to control other sources.

The Environment Agency does not We agree we do not control traffic but have any control over the contribution the guidance only says it is desirable made by traffic. to control the other main sources and we would expect other public bodies to meet their responsibilities in this regard. We have explained our position in Section 5 of this document.

Reference made to our Annex 5 Due to the uncertainties of modelling Addendum and para 4.52 of the and the conservative nature of the DEFRA guidance, which does refer to assumptions used in the modelling new plant. Disagreement with our we are of the view that the peak interpretation of ‘negligible’. This process contribution of 1.7% of the ‘small’ contribution is large enough to EU EQS at Tindall Street is negligible interfere with any headway that may even if there is a breach at that be gained by any proposed Low location. See section 5.2.6.2 of this Emission Zone. document for more details. The EC have recently refused the UKs application to extend the NO2 For the sites that we regulate we compliance date. It is more important ensure that BAT is in place to to prevent additional sources prevent/minimise air emissions with increasing background levels and particular emphasis on major delaying compliance. emitters. It is our view that the The installation will : negligible increase in emissions from - prevent fulfilment of Salford’s air this facility will not affect any local quality action plan; authority action plans or have any - contribute to the exceedances of the significant effect on the AQMA. EU air quality limit values for NO2 and delays its attainment; - delay the attainment of the nationally set AQS for NO2; - contribute to the number of hourly exceedances of the NO2 AQO.

United Utilities (UU) That a more rigorous approach is We have undertaken this additional required to assess the impact of the assessment; see Section 5.6.2 of this two plants. document for details.

It will add to the total NO2 concentration. The conservative nature of the modelling is weakened by the proximity of the plants and overlap of the plumes.

The cumulative affect of Barton and UU range from 5% to 7% in the worst case condition and this is not Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 146 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 adequately considered and neither is its effect on background levels included in the PC calculation.

Due to the proximity of the stacks, it cannot be guaranteed that the two plumes, under the right weather conditions will contribute or cause exceedances of the hourly standard.

Meeting European Commission Limit Values That the increased levels of NO2 will It is our view that the negligible cause the size of the AQMA to increase in emissions from this facility increase and also delay compliance will not affect compliance with the with the objective. objective.

The contribution from both plants, We have undertaken this additional Barton at 5% and UU at 1-2% and assessment; see Section 5.6.2 of this therefore may be as high as 7%, and document for details. are a significant source of new emissions.

Complying with European Limit Values DEFRA prepared, as part of the It is our view that the negligible submissions for the EU extension for increase in emissions from this facility NO2 compliance, the improvement to will not affect any national or local air be gained if a Low Emission Zone quality plans. (LEZ) were to be introduced in Greater Manchester and other affected areas across the UK. The contribution from the plant (0.69 µg/m3 and 0.76 µg/m3 if factored by 1.11) will weaken national and local air quality plans.

Health Impacts The costs assessment fails to include We require Applicants to assess the the cost of NO2 emissions to the costs and benefits of process options environment, action plans to reduce using the methodology detailed in our emissions and any fines from the EU. H1 guidance document Environmental Assessment and The annualised cost for abating SCR Appraisal of BAT. The Applicant and SNCR does not consider health carried out a BAT assessment for the costs, environmental damage and proposed facility based on this any fines by not meeting the EU guidance. standard. The additional cost of implementing SCR is not excessive The EU CAFE programme provides compared to a fully costed environmental damage costs that Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 147 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 assessment. have been estimated for a range of pollutants (e.g. NOx) on a national level, based upon the associated health impacts resulting from the formation of ozone and particulates. Similar damage costs have also been proposed by the UK Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits (IGCB), which, for example, have been used to provide economic analysis of the UK Air Quality Strategy. DEFRA’s Damage Cost Guidance identifies damage costs as one way of approximating the impacts of changes in air pollution by measuring the marginal external costs caused by each additional tonne of pollutant. It is recommended that such costs are used in the context of policy analysis as a simple methodology for reviewing air quality changes where full air quality modelling and concentration modelling of air pollutants is not possible, as a way of filtering potential policy options at an early stage of the decision-making process. It is further proposed that the damage costs methodology should be considered as a simpler methodology where the resource and time implications of Air Quality modelling are not warranted. It says that the use of damage costs is not a replacement for detailed modelling and assessment, and recommends limiting the use of damage costs to a filtering mechanism for policy development or to projects where air quality impacts are expected to be ancillary to the primary objective.

In light of the DEFRA guidance and the recommended use of the damage costs methodology (i.e. as a way of assessing and comparing high-level policy options), we do not consider that these costs are relevant to the Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT methodology. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 148 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

It is therefore recommended that if a It is our view that the additional permit is issued that SCR is included reduction in NO2 in the AQMA as the preferred abatement technique achieved using SCR is negligible. as part of the additional measures to achieve BAT and to meet the We are satisfied that the Applicant statement set out in page 35 of the has included an appropriate decision document which states: assessment of the available emission control measures, in line with our ‘Additional measures will also be guidance, and that the chosen option included in the process design to is BAT. control the emissions to a level significantly below that required by the WID.’

Particulate Analysis It is recommended that particulate The Permit requires the operator to analysis is undertaken (PM10, PM2.5, measure total particulate matter PM1.0 and PM0.1) at regular intervals (TPM), which includes all sizes of and when there is a significant particles, including PM2.5, PM1.0 and change in feed stock. PM0.1.

Arsenic Arsenic emissions data reported have For stack emissions monitoring we a wide range of values (3.91 µg/m3 to tend to report results as mg/m3, so 40.47 µg/m3, at Wilton). This the results in this case range from suggests a large uncertainty in the approximately 0.004 to 0.04 mg/m3. results due to the sampling technique The measurement uncertainty for or the impact of different raw metals is about 15% at the ELV. As materials. Further clarification on the the measured values decrease the source of the variance is needed. uncertainty increases, so it is likely that at low concentrations there will be a wide percentage difference in results.

In summary, a variation in low results of 10 times is not a cause for concern.

Scientific Evidence The Audit commission report that The focus of Section 5.3 is the impact over 50,000 people a year may die of incinerators on air quality and prematurely from poor air quality. This health and not poor air quality in should be included in the review of general from all industrial activities. evidence available (Section 5.3, The contribution from an incinerator is pages 39 to 42). a small proportion of the background level such that the effect on air quality is likely to be so small as to be undetectable in practice.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 149 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Port Salford/Salford Reds Stadium For this development an air quality The key judgement is whether the assessment report was provided with proposed Installation would have the Environmental Statement. The air anything beyond a ‘negligible’ impact. quality was modelled for 2010 by Even assuming background levels predicting changes in emissions from are already exceeding the EU EQS a base year of 2005. The factors used for NO2, the process contribution is have now been shown to be over negligible. When looking at the AQMA optimistic and it is widely as a whole there will be no acknowledged that long term trends measurable effect. have not fallen as predicted. The model has therefore overestimated the reductions in emissions.

The statement which concludes that the development would not lead to any amendments to the existing AQMA is therefore misleading.

Previous Comments A number of concerns were raised previously regarding the Application. We have not repeated those which we have already addressed.

- The effect of the Barton Bridge – no Refer to our report supporting evidence was provided to AQMAU_C943_RP01, which has confirm that there is no impact on the been placed on the Public Register. plume trajectory.

Recommendations Permit is not granted and we should See our comments above on give further consideration to DEFRA Background Concentrations. Environmental Permitting Guidance for Part A(1) Installations (2009), in particular para 4.46-4.55.

Para 4.49 promotes co-operation See our comments above on between regulators and the aim of Complying with European Limit improving areas of poor Values. environmental quality.

Para 4.50 refers to new installations Our review in Section 5 takes account and that the new installation should of paragraphs 4.51 and 4.52 and we only be permitted if it makes a minor conclude that the process contribution contribution and that regulators can would not cause a breach but that if work together to control the other there was already a breach then the main sources. contribution to it is negligible. We will work together with other regulators to control other sources. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 150 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

There is disagreement that this We have acknowledged this Installation is a minor contributor and uncertainty in Section 5 of this the fact that the major contributor document but even then the process (motorway network) is out of the contribution is negligible. control of both the Environment Agency and the Local Authority, Para 4.48 states: where the LEZ, if implemented, will have limited effect on vehicle ‘In setting environmental permit emissions from the M60. conditions, the regulator must first consider whether any Community That we give greater weight to the EQS is being or may be breached. If uncertainty in the background so, the regulator will have to set ELVs concentrations of NO2 versus the accordingly, based on how far the actual air quality with no significant installation is responsible for the decline and the consequential health breach and the likelihood of remedial effects. action elsewhere. This may require ELVs which are even tighter than those which the use of BAT can generally meet.’

We have set a daily average NO2 limit of 125 mg/m3 which is significantly below that required by the WID of 200 mg/m3.

IF a Permit is granted, precedence It is our view that the additional should be given to SCR which will reduction in NO2 in the AQMA give the largest reduction in NO2. This achieved using SCR is negligible. is in accordance with para 4.48 of the DEFRA 2009 Guidance.

Provision of mass emissions annually Mass emissions for PM10 and PM2.5 for NO2, PM10 PM2.5 and PM1.0, and will be reported via the pollution periodic particulate monitoring for the inventory which is publicly available. fractions PM10, PM2.5, PM1.0 and We see no need to duplicate these PM0.1 undertaken at regular intervals reporting requirements. We or when there is a change of considered it more appropriate to set feedstock. an improvement condition to address the size distribution of particulate.

b) Representations from Local MPs and Councillors

Representations were received from the following MPs:

Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) Sajjad H.Karim (European Parliament)

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 151 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Representations were received from the following Councillors:

Jane Baugh (Trafford) Linda Blackburn (Davyhulme East, Trafford) Barry Brotherton (Trafford) Matthew Colledge (Trafford) Lisa Cooke (Trafford) Mike Cordingley (Trafford) Michael Cornes (Davyhulme East) Mike Freeman (Sale Moor, Trafford) Joanne Harding (Urmston, Trafford) Kevin Proctor (Trafford) John Reilly and June Reilly (Davyhulme West, Trafford) Tom Ross (Stretford) Andrew Western ( Ward, Trafford) Michael Whetton (Ashton upon Mersey, Trafford) Alex Williams (Trafford)

Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered Emissions to Air and Air Quality

Concerned that we had assessed the Our guidance would screen out Process contribution of NOx as neither insignificant Contributions of less than 1% as insignificant. nor significant at 1.7% of the AQS (Ref The emissions of NO2 do not screen out as Section 5.2.2 of the decision document), insignificant, but given the uncertainties of despite it being almost double the upper modelling and the conservative nature of the reaches of the insignificant banding. This assumptions used in the model, in this was considered to be a significant instance, a predicted Process Contribution of addition to the NOx already present. 1.7% at the most impacted residential receptor is considered to be acceptable. Our detailed assessment is set out in Section 5 of this document.

Questioned whether the UK had been Neither the UK nor any other country has fined for breach of Air Quality (AQ) been fined by the EU (Court of Justice) for Standards and whether this relates to breaching the AQ limit values contained in individual sites. AQ Directives. These would not relate directly to industrial sites but would be judged on exceedences shown by monitors in the UK Automated Urban and Rural network or national modelling provided to the EC by the UK.

Local Authorities are required to declare Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) for areas likely to exceed UK objectives and to draft Air Quality Action Plans.

Reference was made to the Planning Our assessment of arsenic is detailed in Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 152 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Committee Report with particular Section 5.2.5 of this document and uses concerns raised about the levels of arsenic emissions data from similar arsenic. Para. 53 refers to the facility combustion plants operating on virgin and having a higher contribution to ambient waste wood. We also carried out an levels of arsenic than set out in the additional assessment of arsenic background Environmental Statement and the data detailed in this Section. February 2011 addendum. A further addendum was then submitted The impact from arsenic is based on the September 2011 and paras. 60 to 66 maximum ground level concentration and we summarise the findings/conclusions. The predict that the impact at Tindall Street would levels of arsenic were found to comply be around a third of this (0.4 ng/m3). with the relevant air quality standards following the current guidance. The WID does not set limits for individual metals so there is a lack of data from comparable facilities. In view of this we have set an improvement condition to require an assessment of the impact from arsenic using actual monitoring data.

Concerned that the emissions from the Our assessment of chromium, copper and burning of contaminated wood would lead is detailed in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 of contain heavy metals such as arsenic, this document, with the impact being chromium, copper and lead. screened out as insignificant. This assessment has assumed that each of the nine metals is one-ninth of the combined limit. If we assume that each of these metals is 100% of the limit then emissions of chromium and copper are still screened out as insignificant with lead being 4.5% the EQS.

For emissions of arsenic, this is covered by the last point above.

Questioned whether anyone had Air quality monitoring is the responsibility of independently tested the air quality in the local authorities. We have also re- north Trafford. evaluated the background concentrations of NOx and arsenic as detailed in Section 5 of this document.

Concerned that the facility would PPS23 is relevant to the Planning process contribute to a substantial reduction in air and not applicable for consideration in the quality in the AQMA and as such PPS23 Environmental Permitting process. Our (Planning & Pollution Control) must considerations regarding the AQMA are set therefore be held as key to our out in Section 5 of this document. determination.

Concerned about the probabilities The chosen model must be fit for purpose associated with the air quality and based on established scientific assessment. principles. It also needs to have been Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 153 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

validated and independently reviewed. We have carried out a thorough assessment of the air dispersion modelling as detailed in Section 5 of this document. Health

Concerned that our arguments for We have reviewed a number of sources as rejecting emerging evidence on human set out in Section 5.3 of this document, we health effects was flawed. Reference was note in particular the position of the HPA and made to the Greenpeace Review at page their current position is that well run and 42 of the decision document with their regulated modern incinerators are not a findings dismissed based on the authors significant risk to public health. A study is not explaining their conclusions. currently being carried out on the effects of incinerators on human health to extend the evidence base and to provide further information to the public on this subject.

Concerned that the technical nature of the On page 1 of the draft document we state draft decision document does not give that, ‘We try to explain our decision as much scope for concerns to be raised accurately, comprehensively and plainly as about inaccuracies and omissions. possible. Achieving all three objectives in not always easy, and we would welcome any feedback as to how me might improve our decision documents in future.’ We have taken comments on our draft decision document into account, as set out in this Annex.

Questions raised at the drop-in on Our detailed assessments are set out in cumulative health implications were not Section 5 of this document. answered adequately.

Stated that respiratory illness is the third We have consulted with the health experts major cause of disease in Trafford and and they did not raise any concerns of this asked why contribute to it. nature.

Asked what it would do to enhance the Our role is to determine the impact from the health and well being of the residents of facility based on current guidance. The way Trafford. in which we have done this is set out in Section 5 of this document.

There is growing international concern Whilst incinerators contribute to local air over the effects of nano-particles and pollution, this contribution is usually a small DEFRA have confirmed this issue is proportion of existing background levels. The relevant. It would be an act of gross HPA point out that in 2007 incinerators incompetence to issue a permit whilst the contributed 0.02% to ambient ground level effects of nano-particles are still being PM10 and that PM0.1 is around 5-10% of investigated by DEFRA. PM10. The impact from emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 have been screened out as being insignificant as detailed in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.3 of this document. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 154 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Emissions to Water

Concerned about the impact that the Our assessment is detailed in Sections 4.2.2 facility may have on water pollution given and 6.5.1 of this document. its location adjacent to the canal. Energy Generation

The scheme will not make a significant Our duties under EPR and WID are to ensure contribution to the nation’s power needs that energy is recovered as far as (0.025%). practicable. This is detailed in Section 4.3.7 of this document. Operation

Concerned about major accidents at the Regarding accidents, refer to Sections 4.3.2 facility and the worst case impact upon and 4.3.4 of this document. We have also the surrounding area in terms of health assessed a worst case scenario impact and the environment. which assumes a complete failure of the abatement systems. This is detailed in Section 5.5 of this document.

Concerned that SRF containing waste Temperature requirements have been set out plastics will be burnt at a low temperature as specified in the WID. Higher temperatures (850 oC) and is likely to produce dioxins. are required for the burning of hazardous wastes where the content of halogenated organic substances exceeds 1% (as chlorine). SRF is not classified as a hazardous waste. Also, refer to Section 5.3.2 of this document for our assessment of the impact from dioxins. Consultation

Concerned that no notes were taken by The purpose of the drop-in event is for Environment Agency staff at the drop-in interested parties to converse with us about event. our assessment of the Application and the permitting process. We do not take notes because any comments/representations should be submitted to us in writing to ensure no misunderstanding and that all necessary details are considered and the representations are available on the public register. Planning

Concerned that our decision may pre- The planning and permitting regimes are empt the final planning decision and that separate and any decision by the our decision be put on hold pending the Environment Agency would not “pre-empt the outcome of the planning hearing. final planning decision”. We have a duty to determine Applications made to us. In certain cases the Regulations preclude the grant of a permit before a relevant planning Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 155 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

permission is in place. This was not applicable in this case so we could only delay the determination if new information relevant to our decision was submitted. We did not receive any new information requiring us to delay the decision. Site Visits

That unannounced visits offer no Unannounced site visits are generally based reassurance to the public because a on environmental risk. Site visits are Freedom of Information response recorded; however, whether they are revealed that we keep no records of these unannounced or announced is not generally visits or their outcome. noted.

The permit will ensure that the operation of the Installation complies with all relevant legal requirements. This is detailed in the main body of this document. We will in turn ensure that the Permit is complied with.

c) Representations from Community and Other Organisations

Representations were received from the Breathe Clean Air Group (BCAG) as follows:

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 156 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered Emissions to Air and Air Quality

Requested that we carry out our own Regarding the use of monitoring data from independent monitoring of air pollutants Wythenshawe, this is applicable to the heavy (specifically arsenic and NOx) metals background data. We have re- representative of the local area and carry evaluated the use of background data for out an air quality assessment using this arsenic in Section 5 of this document. data. This request was based on the suitability of data used in the Applicant’s Regarding the use of monitoring data from report due to some of it being many years Glazebury, this location was used for old and distant from the site (e.g. background concentration data for ozone, Wythenshawe and Glazebury). nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide for use in the chemistry module. We have not accepted the use of the chemistry module (refer to Section 5.2.2 of this document) so in this instance Glazebury is not relevant.

Our re-evaluation of NO2 and arsenic background data is detailed in Section 5 of this document. It is our view that it is not necessary for us to carry out monitoring for background arsenic based on data already available.

Questioned our response to the report Why the instrument was not fit for purpose: entitled ‘Monitoring of Ambient Pollutants, The instrument used was the Horiba PG250, Davyhulme’, dated January 2011 at pages which was designed, marketed and sold as 117-118 of the decision document. This an instrument intended for use as a stack specifically relates to the choice of testing instrument. The manufacturer never instrument and why it was not fit for intended it to be used as an instrument for purpose given the guarantees from the use in measuring ambient concentration supplier (MD of Quantitech Horiba) and levels. It does not have the capability to an Environment Agency Technical measure down to the concentrations of the Advisor. pollutants expected in an ambient atmosphere. There are instruments (designed by Horiba) to measure the expected concentrations in ambient atmospheres and they should have been used.

That we had admitted that the stack The height of the chimney stack is height was too low. constrained by its proximity to Barton That at the first consultation meeting we Aerodrome and in the absence of that stated that the Environment Agency must constraint would probably be 60m to 100m. determine the stack height. The height of the chimney at Barton (44.23m) is the maximum it can be given these constraints. We are required to assess the environmental impact of emissions from the Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 157 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

stack, in particular on local air quality. We must determine whether the stack height proposed is acceptable. Given the constraints imposed by other statutory regimes we accept the height of the stack is BAT. We then need to assess whether the environmental impacts are acceptable. Our assessment of this is summarised in Section 5 of this document.

Concerned that diesel (a carcinogen) will An auxiliary low NOx burner will be in place to be used to run the incinerator and will maintain furnace conditions and will operate result in increased emissions of 1,3 on low sulphur gas oil. This is required for butadiene. start-up sequencing and to maintain temperatures above 850°C for 2 seconds. Waste cannot be charged when the temperature of the combustion chamber falls below 850°C. The limits set in the permit will include emissions from the auxiliary burner. Our assessment of VOC emissions is detailed in Section 5.2.2 of this document and is based on the strict EQS for 1, 3 butadiene.

A list of schools in Trafford and Salford Some of these receptors were included in the and their distance from the facility was air dispersion modelling (e.g. Holy Cross and provided to demonstrate that the facility is All Saints RC, Godfrey Erman, Beech Street, in a built-up and populated area. Barton Moss) with the impact at these locations being screened out as insignificant. Other receptors are further away and will be less impacted by emissions from the stack.

Concerned that the people living in high It is likely that any impact from this exposure rise dwellings would be more exposed to route would be restricted to the short-term pollutants from open windows. assessment. This assessment is detailed in Section 5.2.3 of this document and assumes maximum ground level impact. All of the pollutants are screened out as being insignificant with the exception of SO2. Further assessment of SO2 confirms that it does not give rise to any significant pollution. Given the distances to the high rise dwellings, it is unlikely that our conclusions would be changed.

The high rain fall will provide the pathway Our methodology for assessing emissions to for dissolved pollutants to impact the air is set out in Section 5 of this document. surrounding area. The principal exposure route for dioxins and furans is through ingestion, usually through the food chain and our assessment of this is Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 158 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

detailed in Section 5.3.2 of this document. Wet deposition of dioxins has been taken into account in the Applicant’s use of USEPA HHRAP. Section 5.4 of this document also details our assessment of acid and nitrogen deposition.

Concerned that emission figures provided The dioxin intake is based on the limit set in with the Application are not accurate. the permit and we would regulate against this Reference was made to the Irvine limit. SEPA confirmed that incorrect mass biomass plant (regulated by SEPA) which emission data for this site was published on started operating May 2009 where dioxin the Scottish Pollutant Release Inventory emissions suddenly increased to 2.27 (SPRI). This data has since been corrected grams per annum. with dioxins/furans being less than the reporting threshold of 0.00001 kg/year for 2009 and 2010.

We were informed that Trafford Council We extended the consultation on the draft had agreed to do some air testing in decision until 15 August to give interested Davyhulme. We were asked not to issue parties additional time to make any relevant any permit until these results had been representations to us. We have also re- gathered and submitted to us so that we evaluated background air monitoring data as could take them into full consideration. detailed in Section 5 of this document. The point of maximum impact in the Trafford AQMA is at Stroma Gardens where the impact is actually screened out as being insignificant with the process contribution being 0.9% of the EQS. We considered we had sufficient information to determine this Application.

The original limits were set well below BAT Concerned that the pollution limits were guidance (this is clean wood so no WID eased at Port Talbot because technology implications) as the Applicant at that time could not meet the levels. indicated that they would be able to meet

these. The ELVs that were increased via a

variation were for HCl and SO . Originally 2 the Applicant planned to source all wood

from North America which had low

chloride/sulphur in the soils hence the

predicted releases of these two pollutants.

As they developed the business model they

realised that they would need to source wood

from a variety of areas with varying

chloride/sulphur in the soils – hence the

requested increase in ELVs. The new ELVs

continue to be at or below BAT guidance

levels. There are no SO AQ issues in the 2 Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 159 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

area.

Cumulative Effect:

Concerned that we didn’t assess the Other plant will contribute to the background cumulative effect of air pollution from with their impacts being localised and unlikely developments that have been approved, to coincide with the highest impact from this are being constructed or have the facility. We make our assessment based on potential to be approved: the best information we have plus considering any new developments we These developments are as follows: consider appropriate.

Davyhulme Methane plant - approved; Davyhulme biomass future plans (Phases 2 and 3) Peel Hotel -approved (Junction 9, M60); New Supermarket - approved (Junction 10, M60); Office block - approved (Junction 10, M60) Conference Centre (EventCity) – operating Paper Mill, Carrington – operating Salford Reds Stadium – opened 850MW gas power station, Carrington – potential Green Lane incinerator, Monton - potential

Reference was made to the following statement:

‘Emissions to atmosphere will be released The modelling was undertaken using the via a 44.23 metre high stack and in order lower NOx limit which would still be worst to protect the adjacent air quality case as operating continuously at this limit management area (AQMA), emissions of would inevitably result in breaches due to oxides of nitrogen will be controlled to well normal fluctuations in the process. Other below the statutory limits.’ worst case assumptions are that the Installation operates continuously at the WID This was with reference to the modelling ELVs for the other pollutants. using a worst case scenario.

Reference was made to the following statement regarding the description of the facility:

‘The Applicant has described the facility The Applicant has still classified the facility as as ‘renewable’ energy from waste. a co-incinerator and our advertisement of the However our view is that for the purposes Application is consistent with this of WID and EPR, the Installation is a co- classification. It is clear from the Application Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 160 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 incinerator because the level of energy and our decision document that the facility recovery from the waste is more than being applied for is a co-incinerator. 0.8MWhr/tonne.’

Concerned that Peels description is deliberately mis-leading the public and that we should highlight this as an error to help improve our reliability. That Peel have used the word ‘renewable’ instead of ‘incinerator’.

Reference was made to the following statement:

‘The development will also allow for This is not within the remit of Environmental delivery via ship from the Manchester Permitting. Permit conditions control the Ship Canal at the northern site boundary, amount and type of waste that can be treated with a barge mooring point to be at the facility. constructed.’

Concerned that the facility should be dealing with local waste and not national or even global waste.

Reference was made to the following statement:

The permit limits the amount of SRF to ‘The plant will also be capable of receiving 10,000 tonnes per annum (5%). It also a small amount of Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF), delivered in covered road vehicles ensures that it is produced to a standard and tipped into a dedicated area of the specification. fuel reception hall.’ Concerned about how small is small and SRFs are produced from non hazardous that in the Application it states 5% but on waste. The input waste can be production the Peel website it states 10%. specific waste, municipal solid waste, Also concerned about what SRF actually industrial waste, commercial waste, contains. construction and demolition waste, sewage sludge etc. A well defined system is in place for its classification and specification, BSEN 15359:2011. It is a tool to enable efficient trading of SRF which should help to promote their acceptability on the fuel market and increase the public trust.

Reference was made to the following statement:

‘Checks will be made on the paperwork The SRF and waste wood will be observed accompanying each delivery to ensure by the reception hall operator as it is tipped that only waste wood and SRF for which into dedicated storage areas to ensure the the plant has been designed will be SRF and waste wood is acceptable. Any Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 161 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 accepted.’ unacceptable waste will be rejected and stored in a designated area in the tipping Questioned what procedures would be in hall. The Environmental Management place to guarantee that the waste System (EMS) will include procedures to delivered/accepted was consistent with control the inspection, storage and onward the associated paper work. disposal of unacceptable waste. Certain wastes will require specific action for safe storage and handling. There is also a responsibility on those producing and carrying waste to ensure it only goes to a suitably permitted facility.

Questioned the following statement:

‘The SRF and waste wood will be We are satisfied that the facility will have the observed by the reception hall operator as controls and systems in place to ensure that it is tipped into dedicated storage areas to waste accepted at the facility is in ensure the SRF and waste wood is accordance with the conditions in the Permit. acceptable.’

The operator will be controlling the tipping from an office using a control panel so he won’t be able to examine exactly what the feedstock contains.

Questioned the following statement:

‘Any unacceptable waste will be rejected The waste will not be consistent with the and stored in a designated area in the paperwork that accompanies it. tipping hall.’ The type of waste burnt at the facility must be - how will the operator know the waste is compliant with the waste codes specified in unacceptable? the Permit. - no incentive to refuse the load.

- what happens to the rejected waste? Waste will be transferred off-site to a suitable

licensed facility in accordance with the Duty

of Care Regulations.

Questioned the following statement:

‘Small amounts of SRF can be blended The system is designed to burn wood and with wood fuel in the reception hall before SRF. SRF is a supplementary fuel and is the blended fuel is transferred to the fuel controlled and limited by conditions in the store.’ Permit.

- there is then the potential for the rejected feedstock to be included also. - why is there a need for SRF and what purpose will it serve.

Reference was made to the following Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 162 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 statement: ‘The oxygen concentration and Our assessment of dioxins is detailed in temperature are carefully controlled to Section 5.3.2 of this document. This ensure complete combustion and represents an absolute worst case scenario minimise dioxin emissions.’ with the point of maximum impact being 0.02% of the recommended tolerable daily Concerned that dioxins are harmful to intake. We consulted with the FSA and the health no matter what the concentration. PCT and they raised no concerns with our The WHO also state: methodology or the Application. ‘Dioxins are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and development problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also cause cancer.’

Reference was made to a statement by WHO as follows:

‘The incineration process requires high o o The temperature of 850 C is WID compliant. temperatures, over 850 C for the Prevention and minimisation of dioxins is destruction of large amounts of achieved through a variety of control and contaminated material, even higher design mechanisms, which include temperatures – 1000oC or more-are temperature, residence time, boiler design, required.’ particulate removal and injection of activated

carbon as detailed in Section 6.2.5 of this Concerned that dioxins wouldn’t be destroyed as they require a higher document. We are satisfied that the controls temperature than 850oC. This will require are BAT for the Installation. more energy which will cost more money.

Reference was made to statements on our website about dioxins as follows:

‘They remain in the environment for a long Our assessment of dioxins is detailed in time and accumulate in all living things.’ Section 5.3.2 of this document (see above). Whilst incinerators contribute to local air ‘There is no safe limit for exposure to pollution, this contribution is a very small dioxins.’ proportion of existing background levels. We obtained dioxins emissions data for 2010 Questioned that why when there is no from the UKs National Atmospheric safe limit that the densely populated Emissions Inventory (NAEI) website. The borough of Trafford should be exposed NAEI is funded by Defra, The Welsh and allowed to increase the concentration. Government, The Scottish Government and We are contradicting our statement. The Department of Environment, Northern Ireland.

The NAEI compiles estimates of emissions to the atmosphere from UK sources such as cars, trucks, power stations and industrial plant. These emissions are estimated to help to find ways of reducing the impact of human Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 163 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

activities on the environment and our health.

The estimated Total dioxin emissions from these sources for 2010 was 187 gram – International Toxic Equivalent (I-TEQ). EfW plants burning municipal solid waste contributed only 1.2 g (0.64%) of this.

Reference was made to the following statements: Both past and current research suggests that ‘Bag filters will be used to remove the fine fabric filters are highly efficient at removing ash plus excess and spent lime and all sizes of particulate matter, including nano- carbon as the gases pass through the bag particles, from the exhaust gases emitted filter fabric.’ from incinerators. Published data from - concerned that not all particles will be research work spanning over 30 years captured due to the diameter of the holes suggests that the collection efficiency for all in the filters. size of particles is not less than 99% and can - questioned the precautionary measures be higher than 99.995%, even for nano- to ensure that they will not rip and allow particles. Notwithstanding this, the impact the escape of pollutants. from PM and PM has actually been - questioned what happens to particles 10 2.5 that get through the holes in the filters. screened out as being insignificant under - that we have stated in the literature on worst case operating conditions. We are therefore satisfied that the health of the our website about PM2.5 that, ‘Because these particles are very small, public will not be put at risk by such they can travel deep into the respiratory emissions. (see Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.3 of tract and reach the lungs.’ this document). questioned can this be safe. - stated some of the health implications The filters will have multiple compartments with bag burst detection to minimise the that are caused from exposure to PM2.5. Short-term: irritation of the eyes, nose, release in the event of a bag rupture and the throat, sneezing and shortness of breath. sites EMS will include the necessary Long-term: bronchitis, reduced lung maintenance requirements. function and cardiovascular problems. Older people, children and those with existing heart and lung disease are particularly sensitive to these particles. - stated that ‘there is no way that this can be seen as insignificant as there is a risk to human health and that the EA have admitted this.’ - our draft decision allows an increase in PM2.5 in very close proximity to residents, contradicting our statement.

Reference was made to the following statement:

‘These ash streams will be combined and The transport of the ash will be controlled by transferred off-site as waste.’ the Duty of Care Regulations. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 164 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Concerned that potentially there could be an accident on the motorway with highly toxic ash being released and toxic substances could be breathed in by those within the vicinity.

A Representation was received from Public Interest Consultants who were instructed by Trafford Council in relation to the public inquiry into the refusal of planning permission.

Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulations

That our draft decision made no reference Our obligations arising from Article 6(3) of the to the obligations arising from Article 6(3) Regulation 850/2004 are set out in Section of the Regulation 850/2004, as amended. 6.4 of this document. Waste Hierarchy

How will we ensure that only wood which Under Schedule 9, paragraph 4 of the EPR, would not otherwise be recycled or used we only apply the waste hierarchy to waste for alternatives higher up the waste generated by a waste operation. Whilst we hierarchy would be burned at the facility. may have wider responsibilities under the Waste (England & Wales) Regulations 2011 to ensure other producers apply the hierarchy to waste they generate that is a separate issue. It is a commercial risk if an Operator builds a plant they cannot then get the fuel to operate.

What conditions, if any, would be placed We are satisfied that the facility can safely on any permit to ensure that the difficult to burn the wastes permitted and that the waste sort residual wood does not introduce acceptance measures will be effective. much higher levels of CCA, creosote, PCP or other timber treatment into the plant. Continuous Sampling for Dioxins

Concerned that copper (effective dioxin The role of copper as a catalyst in the catalyst) and PCP and similar formation of dioxins in the post combustion organohalogens (excellent dioxin pre- area is well recognised; however we are cursors) could significantly increase dioxin satisfied that the technology design and emissions. emission control measures in place to prevent and minimise their release are BAT. These measures are detailed in Section 6.2.5 of this document.

It is understood that a continuous dioxin We would not impose a requirement to Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 165 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 sampler is used on the Isle of Man continuously monitor dioxins and it not a incinerator and that it would help to requirement of the WID. Our review of the reassure the public if this equipment was applicability of continuous monitoring is required at this facility at least for the first detailed in Section 6.7.3 of this document. two years.

Oxides of Nitrogen

Noted that most of the emissions are We have applied the standard conversion assumed to be NO at the closer receptors factor of 70% for the long term NOx to NO2 with a maximum of 70% only being conversion. oxidised in the ‘worst case’ scenarios.

CO levels are shown to be excessively The oxygen concentration during the test was high (70 mg/m3) on the SNCR test graph around 3.1%, with the results being provided as part of the planning presented at the actual oxygen application. concentration. When the emissions are standardised to 11% oxygen the concentrations are significantly reduced.

Concerned that the Applicant initially used Our assessment is based on our H1 our H1 guidance but then went on to use guidance as set out in Section 5.1 of this the criteria of Environmental Protection document. UK whose outputs are claimed to be ‘clear and critical analysis of UK government and European Union policy proposals.’ That it is inappropriate to use this guidance.

According to DEFRA guidance the The H1 is a tool for screening out Application should be refused because insignificant emissions. Just because the impact at Tindall street is >1% and something doesn’t screen out as insignificant therefore not ‘insignificant.’ does not automatically mean that it is then significant. The Defra guidance contains no values.

Asked to confirm how we have taken the Regarding NO2, this is addressed in Section various additional sources, most of which 5.2.6 of this document. In the event that in are not yet operational, into account in our the future other sources lead to a breach assessment of compliance with the then any impact on that breach from this obligations of Council Directive Installation will be a ‘negligible’ impact. Even 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999. This relates assuming background levels are already to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen exceeding the EU EQS for NO2, the process dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate contribution is negligible. Regarding sulphur matter and lead in ambient air. dioxide, particulate matter and lead, our air impact assessment is set out in Section 5.2 of this document. None of these emissions have the potential to give rise to significant pollution and in fact the impact from particulate matter and lead are actually Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 166 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

screened out as being insignificant.

In the event that we consider that the For the sites that we regulate we ensure that Application site is making only a minor BAT is in place to prevent/minimise air contribution to the existing breach (even emissions. It is our view that the negligible though the 1% significance threshold is increase in emissions from this facility will not exceeded) that we advise what affect any local authority plans. consideration we have given to imposing tighter controls on other sources along with evidence with how we have followed the guidance:

‘Where a new installation would only make a minor contribution to a breach, it will normally be more desirable for Regulators (and Local Authorities where relevant) to consider controls on other major sources of pollution rather than imposing excessive costs or refusing a permit.’ ADMS Air Dispersion Modelling

Stated that the value for the Monin- The Applicant used a value of 1m for Obukhov length in ADMS is defined by minimum Monin-Obukhov length; a more the user with the default value being 1m. appropriate value would probably be in the This default would obviously be range of 30m to 100m. However, the annual inappropriate for a large city such as mean predictions are very insensitive to Manchester but the value used has not variations in the Monin-Obukhov length in the been included in the application. range 1m to 100m. Consequently the choice of 1m, although inappropriate, is Asked to confirm what minimum value inconsequential for the overall conclusions. had been used for the Monin-Obukhov length.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 167 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

d) Representations from Individual Members of the Public

Approximately 335 responses were received from individual members of the public. These raised many of the same issues as previously addressed. Only those issues additional to those already considered are listed below:

Brief summary of issues raised Summary of action taken / how this has been covered Emissions to Air and Air Quality

Questioned how the increased pollution The increased pollution from the facility is would affect asthma sufferers. negligible.

That we had said at our drop-in event that Whether the location of the facility is suitable the site was not suitable. in land use terms is a matter for the Planning authority. It is our responsibility to determine the impact of the facility on human health and the environment at the given location.

Concerned that particles < PM2.5 are not Whilst changes to regulation are outside the regulated. scope of this determination process, we do apply a worst case assessment for the impact of pollutants on air quality. Even if all the particulate were to be present as PM2.5 our assessment indicates that the impact is insignificant. This is detailed in Section 5.2.4 of this document.

Concerned that in the future health and Our assessments are detailed in Sections safety assessments would be required for 5.3.2 and 5.3.4 of this document and we home grown vegetables and eggs. have also consulted with the FSA. We have found no evidence to suggest that health and safety assessments are required.

Concerned that the emissions reporting We are satisfied with the competence of the data will be falsified and/or manipulated. Operator and consider they will comply with the Permit. However, we carry out detailed audits of emissions monitoring and reporting. If anything of concern was found we would take appropriate enforcement action and/or prosecute depending on the seriousness.

Questioned who carries out the emissions We do not specify who carries out the testing; testing and whether the results are however the Permit requires that techniques, reliable and truly independent. personnel and equipment are Mcertified (see below).

Questioned what is spot monitored by Spot measurements refers to those reference to our draft permit which states parameters which aren’t monitored that ‘Other pollutants will be monitored by continuously (dioxins, heavy metals, PAHs Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 168 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 spot measurements…’ and the affect of and HF). Section 5 of this document contains these pollutants on the local population. our detailed assessment of the affect of these pollutants.

Concerned that SNCR was a cheaper and Refer to Section 6.2.2 for our detailed more reliant upon optimisation of assessment of SNCR. We have included an parameters (temperature, retention time, improvement condition in the permit to report ammonia) increasing the margin for on the optimisation of the SNCR. errors.

Questioned the use of bag filters and Our BAT assessment is detailed in Section whether they would last 25 years. 6.2.1 of this document. A preventative maintenance system will be required as part of the Installations EMS and this will cover amongst other things, the maintenance and replacement of these filters.

That the word ‘assumption’ is not In most cases this means that the acceptable, which appears numerous assessment has been based on a ‘worst times especially in regard to pollution. case assumption’ with the facility operating continuously at the specified limits, which is something that doesn’t happen in practice.

Background monitoring data was provided Our evaluation of background data includes for NO2 at 673 Liverpool Road which this monitoring location and is detailed in showed considerable exceedances of the Section 5 of this document. EQS.

That the background concentration at We have carried out detailed and thorough Stroma Gardens has been established at assessments of the Applicant’s air dispersion 62 µg/m3 and that the PC at 0.36 µg/m3 modelling as detailed in this document. equates to 0.9% of the EQS. Questioned whether the PC at Stroma Gardens had been verified.

Questioned who is looking after the Local authorities are required to declare holistic situation in terms of excessive AQMA and to draft Air Quality Action Plans. NOx pollution. Regulatory authorities will work together to implement the plans.

Concerns were raised about a graph The graph was supplied by a potential provided in support of NOx control technology provider to demonstrate the effect (Response to Schedule 5 Notice, dated of oxygen on NOx generation. Boiler 27 January 2011). suppliers are confident that the lower NO2 emissions can be achieved; however there is a lack of comparable data because they have not been required to provide plants with this lower limit. This lower limit is specified in the permit and the facility will be required to comply with it. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 169 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

That emissions from Biomass Incineration This assessment is based on the contribution will contribute <0.25 % to the total from this Installation. emissions in the UK as a whole cannot be substantiated.

Concerned that the technical on-site All monitoring must be Mcertified. operatives will not receive training of the MCERTS is our Monitoring Certification highest level required to enable a fully Scheme for instruments, monitoring and comprehensive assessment of emission analytical services. The scheme is built on quality on a day to day basis. proven international standards and provides industry with a framework for choosing monitoring systems and services that meet our performance specifications. MCERTS reflects the growing requirements for regulatory monitoring to meet European and international standards. It brings together relevant standards into a scheme that can be easily accessed by manufacturers, operators, regulators and test houses.

Questioned the COMEAP assessment This information was provided with the methodology for the calculation of death Planning Application. Our assessment rates. methodology with respect to this approach is set out in Section 5.3.1 iv) of this document. NHS Salford have also commented on the COMEAP as detailed In Section B)a) of this Annex pointing out that the methodology was not intended to be applied to specific individual sources of pollution.

Concerned about the comparison of the The WID does not set limits for individual arsenic emissions data from two similar metals. We are satisfied with the data we combustion plants (operating on virgin have used but we have set an improvement wood and waste wood) because we had condition requiring an assessment of the not provided details about the abatement impact from arsenic using actual monitoring techniques, the stack or whether they data. burnt SRF.

Concerned that we accepted The Applicant considered data from two local meteorological data from Manchester stations with the latest data being from 2007. Airport and Woodford which are at least We have checked the Applicant’s 10 miles away and that there is no recent conclusions using our own meteorological data to support the meteorological data from a variety of stations (including assessment. The data from both weather numerical weather prediction data, NWP) and stations is out of date (the latest dates years and are satisfied that these are robust. being 2004 and 2007) Therefore no valid assessment has been made for the site location, especially as weather patterns have been changing since these stations Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 170 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 closed down.

That data should be recorded for serious The PCT haven’t raised concerns about any diseases from the point of start-up to local health issues associated with the determine whether the facility is having a facility. The HPA are carrying out a study to serious impact on the health of the extend the evidence base and to provide community. further information to the public on health. Their current position that well run and regulated modern incinerators are not a significant risk to public health remains valid.

Concerns raised about compliance with Smoke control zones are part of the clean air the smoke control regulations and the act. This act does not apply to this Installation impact of burning contaminated wood. because it is regulated under EPR. In any event the pollution prevention measures will prevent the emission of smoke. We are satisfied that the facility can safely burn the wood types allowed under the Permit.

We were asked to thoroughly investigate We checked this with our ‘Evidence’ function some new evidence on tiny airborne and could find no record of this publication so pollutants due to be published in the our conclusions are unchanged. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA.

Concerned about the combination effects We have ensured that the predicted impact from toxic chemicals and the presence of has been compared to all relevant additional or unidentified chemicals. assessment criteria. These are informed by medical advisors to the government and the EC. We have also consulted the PCT on the applicant’s predictions. They have raised no concerns in this respect.

That at the drop-in event we were We re-evaluated the background levels for unaware that no air quality testing had NO2 and arsenic. Our assessment is detailed been done in the immediate area. in Section 5 of this document.

Concerned that CEMs can be turned off. We carried out a thorough investigation and Evidence was provided of this taking were unable to find any evidence to support place at the Bolton incinerator. the allegations made by a former employee (ENDS report Report 415, August 2009, p 18).

The facility will cause ‘Deaths Brought We are satisfied that the health of the public Forward’ in people who are seriously ill. would not be put at risk by the emissions from the facility. See section 5 of this document.

Reference was made to the The contribution from energy from waste recommendations in the House of plants to the total amount of pollution Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 171 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Commons, Environmental Audit nationally is very small and has been Committee report on Air Quality (Ninth decreasing over the past years due to stricter Report of Session 2010-12. This report controls on emissions through the Waste confirms that the UK is failing to meet Incineration Directive. European targets for safe air pollution limits across many parts of the country, The HPA point out that in 2007 incinerators particularly nitrogen dioxide and contributed 0.02% to ambient ground level particulate matter. PM10 levels compared with 18% for road traffic and 22% for industry in general.

Our pollution inventory data for 2006 shows that all incineration plants contributed around 0.03% of all PM2.5 emitted from industrial plants.

Our assessment of air emissions is set out in Section 5 of this document, with section 5.2.6 containing a detailed assessment of the impact from nitrogen dioxide.

Concerned that we do not monitor nano- We do monitor them, but not as a separate particles fraction. The law requires the operator to measure total particulate matter (TPM), which includes all sizes of particles, including nano-particles.

In simple terms, nano-particles are particles with a diameter of less than 1 micron, although another definition only includes particles which are up to 0.1 microns in size. Nano-particles constitute the smallest fraction of the TPM emitted, and TPM will be monitored continuously. Emission limit values for half hourly and daily averages of TPM are set in the permit and if any of these limits are exceeded this should be reported to the Environment Agency within 24 hours.

The methodology for measuring nano- particles, specifically, is still at the research and development stage. Both past and current research however, suggests that fabric filters are highly efficient at removing all sizes of TPM, including nano-particles, from the exhaust gases emitted from incinerators. Published data from research work spanning over 30 years suggests that the collection efficiency for all size of particles is not less than 99% and can be higher than 99.995%, even for nano-particles. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 172 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

That in our draft decision we had not In our additional Annex, published as part of addressed the concern about the location our draft decision (and now incorporated into of the monitor used for background metals Section 5 of this document), we re-evaluated data. Reference was made to the the arsenic background data. There are only remoteness of the monitoring station. a small number of monitoring sites nationally and these are located based on industrial sources with monitoring sites upwind and down wind. Because of their location they represent worst cases and are likely to overestimate the average concentrations of metals in the area affected by the proposed plant.

Regarding arsenic levels and more The arsenic result provided in the BCAG specifically our re-evaluation of report is an 18 hour mean taken at one point background levels, questioned our basis in time in the year. It is not an annual mean for claiming that fluctuations for a short and therefore cannot be directly compared to period would be higher. This question was the EU target value. The fluctuation expected raised in relation to the BCAG report for the much shorter 18 hour periods would where an arsenic background be higher than for the annual mean where concentration of 4.9 ng/m3 was reported monitoring is undertaken for such extended where monitoring had been undertaken periods of time, thus resulting in more for a duration of 18 hours. representative data.

Also stated that the statistical fluctuation The EU target value for arsenic to which the of a given set of numbers can be both 18 hour arsenic result is being compared is small or large in a short period depending an annual mean. The measurements over an on the chemistry or physics giving rise to 18 hour period only account for 0.2% of the the changes and that we should give year so any direct comparison with an annual substance to our presumption. mean value is very unlikely to be representative.

Questioned why we had not made a ‘like’ The concentrations across ALL three sites for ‘like’ comparison with the arsenic data are at their highest during the months with reference to our statement about the September to December. Our comparison of highest concentrations being in the months does not change the results of our autumn. That if we were going to assessment. undertake a ‘like’ for ‘like’ comparison that we should have compared the We are not surprised that the arsenic Wythenshawe October concentration with concentration would be unusually elevated in the BCAG figure, instead of the higher October. November concentration. The key points here are that:

The 2010 NPL report stated that arsenic “levels are uniformly low across the network” (i.e. across the whole national monitoring network). Also the 2011 NPL report stated that for arsenic ‘’no annual average site Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 173 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

concentrations above the Fourth Daughter Directive’s Lower Assessment Threshold were recorded.’’

We do not see any reason to change our assessment or the conclusions on our re- evaluation of arsenic.

Concerned that we have not defined what Our guidance would screen out Process is ‘negligible’ in Annex 5 of our draft Contributions of less than 1% as insignificant. decision. The PC is 1.7% of the NO2 EU The emissions of NO2 do not screen out as EQS and the DEFRA guidance states that insignificant, but given the uncertainties of where a breach is already made a permit modelling and the conservative nature of the should not be granted if the new assumptions used in the model, in this installation would cause anything more instance, a predicted Process Contribution of than what is ‘beyond a negligible’ increase 1.7% at the most impacted residential in the exceedance. Also questioned who receptor is considered to be acceptable. Our decides what this figure is and suggested detailed assessment is set out in Section 5 of the people who actually live in the area. this document.

Questioned how we confirmed the The concentration is calculated from the effective dilution of the stack model input parameters which include source concentration to get a figure of 0.69 µg/m3 and emissions data, terrain and at a receptor. meteorological data. We have carried out a thorough assessment of these parameters as detailed in this document. Health

Reference was made to a ’26 page We did not see any need to change our Review’ on the safety case for incineration approach to determining applications for (Incineration Of Waste – A Review Of The Permits for waste incinerators but are always Health Issues, dated 10 January 11). This open to suggestions of what can feasibly be was sent to the Minister of State for done. We have a duty to provide a timely Energy and Climate Change. It was decision based on the best available confirmed that the Minister had also evidence. The HPA is aware of the review on shared this review with the Department of concerns about health issues but have not Health, the HPA and DEFRA. changed their consultation response to us.

That we had said in our draft decision It is our duty to consider all consultation (page 132), that a local doctor has written responses but we would not generally to his patients quoting that ‘cardiovascular consider a background health issue to be disease remains the biggest killer in material to our decision because our focus is Trafford. Early mortality rates for the impact of the proposed facility. We are Cardiovascular Disease in Trafford are satisfied there will be no significant risk to 8% above the national average. health from the facility. Concerned that we had failed to investigate this evidence and relied upon our response from the PCT.

Questioned our section on ‘Expert We referenced a variety of reports in addition Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 174 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Scientific Opinion’ in Section 5.3 of the to these. We consult the HPA for up to date draft decision document. Pointed out that advice on the health effects of proposed the DEFRA 2004 report is outdated, that developments. the COC material goes back to 2000 and noted the BSEM/HPA communications. We ran a model to look at the 99.79%ile for Questioned whether we had done a short term NO2 at locations along the Barton Gaussian plume dispersion model to Bridge (i.e. at heights of 36m). The check the pollution concentrations calculations took into account both the (including NO2) for the people sat in their emissions from the Barton facility and those vehicles on the adjacent motorway bridge. resulting from the change in the operations at It was noted that our assessment is based United Utilities. We found that the combined on ground level concentrations whereas impact for NO2 was insignificant at these the bridge is 36m above ground level. locations. Based on this assessment, the impact from other pollutants will also be insignificant at these locations. We also make reference to the DEFRA technical guidance note TG(09) on Local Air Quality Management which states:

Public exposure 1.29 The Regulations make clear that likely exceedences of the objectives should be assessed in relation to “the quality of the air at locations which are situated outside of buildings or other natural or man-made structures, above or below ground, and where members of the public are regularly present”. It is particularly important that Review and Assessments focus on those locations where members of the public are likely to be regularly present and are likely to be exposed for a period of time appropriate to the averaging period of the objective. Authorities should not consider exceedences of the objectives at any location where relevant public exposure would not be realistic.

It is not at all clear that an individual who is stuck in traffic on the bridge will be at that location for an hour and for more occasions than the 35 times a year that equate to the 99.79%ile. We also note that poor air quality in urban areas is predominantly due to traffic - the individual on the bridge will be exposed to Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 175 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

much higher levels of pollutants due to traffic (and will indeed be contributing to these). Residues

It was claimed that we had recently IBA is a mirror entry on EWC and can be admitted that we do not ‘’have 100% either hazardous or non-hazardous confidence… in the classification of IBA depending on its properties (eco-toxicity is as non-hazardous due to its potential eco- one of the tests for hazardous nature). It is toxicity.’’ the responsibility of the producer to characterise the IBA as hazardous or non- hazardous which is controlled by other legislation and not covered by the Permit.

Concerned about the mixing of bottom Ash recovered from the boiler (“boiler ash”) ash with boiler ash, which is usually will, depending on the design, have considered to be hazardous in nature. properties similar to either the bottom ash or Concerned about what the ash contains. fly ash (collected from the bag filter). A judgement (taking into account ash properties and the layout of the installation) is made as to whether the boiler ash should be combined with the bottom ash or fly ash. Mixing with the bottom ash will have the potential benefit of increasing ash recycling opportunities. In any event, monitoring of incinerator ash will be carried out to ensure it is appropriately classified and its subsequent use or disposal controlled, as detailed in Section 4.3.9 of this document. Operation

Suggested that monitoring of the waste The controls in place for minimising the wood is undertaken to determine the releases associated with such presence of creosote and wood treatments/preservatives are detailed in preservatives. Questioned how effective Section 6.2 of this document and we are the stack monitoring would be at detecting satisfied that the proposals are BAT. The such pollutants. monitoring specified is in accordance with the WID and is detailed in Section 6.7 of this document.

Concerned that there would not be Any changes to the waste being burnt would enough waste wood to supply the plant require an Application to vary the Permit. Any and questioned what would be burnt then. Application received would undergo a thorough assessment of the suitability of the waste stream (s) which would include:

- categorisation as non-hazardous; - CV falling within the design range of the plant; and - the ability of the Installation to safely

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 176 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

process it and any effect on emissions

Concerned about mechanical failure and Permit conditions (through the EMS) cover that things can go unnoticed resulting in maintenance and inspections. They also significant impact. cover notifying us of any non-compliance which would include significant impact.

Concerned about design inadequacies The facility will be required to operate in and how actual operation may deviate compliance with conditions and limits set in from the design. the permit. Before the facility can operate we require the design details to confirm how the 3 daily NOx limit of 125 mg/m will be achieved.

Questioned the EMS that would be in We have set Permit conditions to ensure that place and what would happen if we found the appropriate management systems will be it not to be suitable. Also concerned about place as detailed in Section 4.3.2 of this the timescales for certification. document. An improvement condition also requires external accreditation of this system.

Questioned the Improvement Condition The dates for particle size and heavy metals completion dates for particle size and have been set to allow the collection of heavy metals. representative data which will take account of any natural variation in the waste composition.

That we should not grant a permit unless Provided that the Installation meets legal they use the waste heat and thus achieve requirements, which include amongst other 70% energy efficiency. things, energy efficiency and the environmental impacts are acceptable, we cannot refuse to issue a permit. However, we do require operators to investigate the potential for supplying heat as well as electricity, which improves significantly the energy efficiency of the plant. Permit conditions make it mandatory for this to be done on a continuing basis. Suitable heat loads are not always available within a technically or economically practicable distance from the plant so we cannot make heat use a condition of the Permit. See Section 4.3.7 of this document for further details. Accidents/Public Safety

Concerned about short falls in safety with An accident management plan will form part reference to an incident involving a cyclist. of the EMS and must be in place prior to commissioning of the facility. We are satisfied that the necessary measures will be in place to prevent accidents arising from the operation of the facility. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 177 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Odour

Concerned that there would be a smell of The burning of the waste is fully enclosed burning over a wide area. and flue gases are cleaned prior to their release from the stack. Consultation

Challenged how open we are to gaining The location was centrally located to views from the local residents given the residents in areas that expressed an interest choice of location of the drop-in session during the consultation period (e.g. Eccles, and the hours of opening. Salford and Trafford). The event ran into the evening with the aim of accommodating all interested parties.

Concerned that we would not know how The purpose of the event was to give many people attended the drop-in event members of the public the opportunity to because no names were taken by discuss their views/concerns about our Environment Agency staff. decision making process. Local democracy

Given that the local people and Providing the Applicant can prove that the Councillors do not want this plant, it is not Installation meets all the legal requirements, the position of any unelected organisation including environmental, technological and to override local democracy whatever the health requirements, then we are legally environmental case. obliged to issue a Permit, even if people do not approve of the decision. Local Waste Development Plan

Concerned that the location was not This is not a matter for consideration under included for development in the Greater the Environmental Permitting process. Manchester Joint Waste Development Plan. Green Technology/Sustainability

Concerned about the damage that These matters are outside the scope of this growing biomass crop systems can have determination. on soil hydrology.

The impact that the removal of forestry and agricultural residue has on the local biodiversity.

Stated that the facility is not a low carbon source of energy and that it takes more energy to plant, cultivate and harvest crops and trees to fuel the facility than it is worth to get a net energy gain.

No detail provided on the prolonged waste wood sourcing policy. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 178 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

That we should be considering carbon free solutions (water, wind and tidal energy production). Further Clarification With Respect to Chapter 12 (Air Quality) of the Submitted Environmental Statement (16/09/11).

Concerns were raised about this report, which was provided as part of the Planning process.

Concerns were also raised about a graph (Figure 2) in this report. The graph was provided by technology suppliers Babcock and Wilcox Volund to demonstrate the effect of oxygen concentration on NOx generation. a) the curve has been extrapolated to re- a) The primary evidence for showing that a 3 calculate NOx levels. No data has been limit of 125 mg/m can be achieved is set out provided for the points on the graph or the in Figure 1 on page 5. Figure 2 is a graph for extrapolated area so there is no certainty NOx production without abatement. Because that the NOx levels can be achieved. this graph is for a different waste type than that at Barton, the Applicant has sought to give an interpretation of this information for the different conditions that would occur at Barton. We do not rely on Figure 2 alone, but taking all the evidence and data together we are satisfied that a limit of 125 mg/m3 is technically feasible. b) the report alludes to what can be b) Permit conditions must be complied with; achieved rather than what will be hence the permit will require that this achieved. performance is achieved in practice. c) the extrapolation gives rise to a spread c) to f) The spread/scatter of data/points and of figures at the 11% dry oxygen level the plot of the curve is for unabated NOx on a meaning that there is doubt about which is waste feed which is variable in its nature. the correct figure to use. The Barton Installation will have a control system dosing ammonia into the plant at a d) given the amount of scatter there is level needed to stay below the NOx ELV of much uncertainty about any correlation 125 mg/m3. that may exist between oxygen and NOx. e) the curve has been plotted (greater number of dots above than below) in a place which gives bias in favour of a lower NOx figure. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 179 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

f) questioned what evidence there is for a downward curve and that an upward curve could be just as possible. A slightly upward curve would give a 42% increase in NOx, which would almost double the target level of 125 mg/m3. g) there is no evidence that the data g) Reference conditions are for standardising spread/scatter of points on the graph for a for reporting purposes. reference level of 6% oxygen would be the same as for 11%.

Questioned reference to 5% and 6% The 6% is the reference oxygen oxygen in paragraph 3 on page 7. concentration that is used to standardise the NOx concentration, whereas the 5% is the level of oxygen within the boiler itself.

Questioned what was meant by 6% Concentration measurements expressed as oxygen on the y axis when oxygen could mass per unit volume, for example mg/m3, be both constant and variable. are affected by temperature, pressure, moisture and oxygen concentration. Concentration measurements must be reported to a standard set of conditions so that comparisons can be made with:

-emission limit values (ELVs); -emission concentrations measured at different times on the same site; -emission concentrations at different sites.

The applicable reference conditions are specified in the permit. The oxygen level can cause significant changes in measured concentrations. Many permits therefore require the concentration results to be expressed at a standard oxygen reference level that is appropriate for the process based on the typical oxygen level of the process and the fuel type used.

Concerned that the technology providers Permit conditions must be complied with; are not guaranteeing the lower NOx limit hence the Permit will require that this in their letters of support and that there is performance is achieved in practice. These a lack of operational data. The suppliers will form the process guarantees that are only confident that the lower limit can contractors will be required to achieve when be achieved and we have not asked for tendering to build the plant. At this stage in them to prove it scientifically. They should the process we need confidence (which we show that it will be within specification have) that the ELVs can be achieved so that before it is built as opposed to building it when the plant is built they are achieved in Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 180 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001 on some assumption that since it is practice. required to be in specification it is thus a Before the plant can operate it will need to foregone conclusion that it will be. provide us with a report which confirms through system design how the lower NOx limit will be achieved.

Concerned that the technologies quoted Although not a directly comparable system, aren’t comparable (fluidised bed). the section quoted shows that the limits can be achieved.

Concerned about what effect the nitrogen The Permit specifies a NOx limit of 125 3 content of the fuel will have on NOx mg/m which must be complied with and the emissions. facility is only permitted to accept fuel that it is designed to burn.

Questioned the conclusion on page 7 The Permit specifies NOx and ammonia limits about the support from boiler suppliers which must be complied with. removing the uncertainty of achieving the lower NOx and ammonia emissions.

Reference was made to the mention of The worst case scenario is used to describe ‘worst case scenario’ in the introduction assumptions made in the air quality when the graph is the ‘best case modelling. The graph was provided by scenario’. technology suppliers Babcock and Wilcox Volund to demonstrate the effect of oxygen concentration on NOx generation.

Questioned the use of the word ‘likely’ on We are satisfied that a limit of 125 mg/m3 is page 7 in the context of it not being a achievable and we have secured this by scientific term as it didn’t suggest how setting this limit in the Permit. likely (e.g. 51% or 95% chance?).

Questioned the scaling up of arsenic The scaling up was undertaken to account for levels from 6% to 11% on page 14. 100% waste instead of 12% and 13.5%. The concentrations were then corrected to 11% oxygen reference conditions.

Questions raised over the perception of The graph demonstrates the effect of oxygen the graph X axis which extends to 9% concentration on NOx generation, with the X oxygen, despite the data actually finishing axis being the level of oxygen within the at 7.95%. In terms of extending the graph, boiler. 11% would be relevant to the Y axis it isn’t then an extension from 9 to 11, but which is actually corrected to 6% reference 7.95 to 11. The extrapolation of the graph oxygen concentration. An 11% correction to 11% represented a 95.3% increase. would be required in this case (see above).

Questioned why Babcock and Wilcox The 50% is to illustrate the NOx Volund refer to NOx reductions of 50% concentrations associated with a and 70%. conservative reduction. The 70% reduction illustrates what can be achieved and the associated level of ammonia slip. Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 181 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

There is no plant design/specification just Without a detailed plant design we can only a variety of example plants. be satisfied that the standards can be achieved, it is then the Applicant’s risk that these standards will be achieved because these are the standards that we will ultimately enforce against.

Questioned technical competency with We are satisfied with their competency and reference to a ‘technical error’ which that they will be able to comply with the refers to ammonia reaching a partial Permit conditions. pressure of 1 bar at 38 oC instead of MINUS 33.4 oC. Actual emissions are almost certain to be Concerned that the report refers to an below emission limits set in the Permit in absolute NOx emission figure; whereas in practice. Any operator who sought to operate reality it will change due to constant its Installation continually at the maximum variation and process fluctuations. permitted level would almost inevitably Questioned what would happen if the breach those limits regularly, simply by virtue level of nitrogen in the fuel increased, of normal fluctuations in plant performance. filters block, air temperature drops. Notwithstanding this, we set a half hour average and a daily average to account for process fluctuations.

Concerned that we had not identified the Regarding the issues, refer to our comments above issues and questioned that issues above. The issues raised have not affected such as these are ‘slipping through the our conclusions. The fundamental principle is net’. that the Installation must comply with BAT (Best Available Techniques) and meet the emission limits set in the Environmental Permit. How this compliance is achieved is up to the Operator of the Installation and we do not require a particular type or make of boiler to be used. It would not be beneficial for an Operator to purchase a boiler which could not enable the emission limits to be met, after any necessary abatement measures have been deployed. Failure to comply with emission limits will lead to enforcement action being taken which could result in closure of the facility depending upon the seriousness of the breach. Other Who would compensation claims be We do not consider there will be any directed to in the event that there was an discernable impact on local health and so the impact on local health in the future. issue would not arise. In any event, liability is fact specific and cannot be determined for a future theoretical claim.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 182 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

The affected population have not had We received the Application in January 2011 adequate time to fully assess the and have carried out a thorough consultation Application. on the Application as set on in Section 2 of this document. We consider that there has been adequate time to assess the Application.

That we have favoured the Applicant over We have been even handed and transparent the objector by giving advice so that we in any advice given and have not given the could grant a permit. Applicant favourable treatment. We have asked for information that we required to complete our technical assessment and to reach our final decision. We have done this in accordance with the legal framework. We consider all representations made to us as set out in this Annex and extended the public consultation deadline on our draft decision to allow additional time for people to comment.

Questioned the validity of the mathematic The use of mathematical modelling to predict modelling with reference to a section of the dispersion of pollutants from an the safety review (Incineration Of Waste – Installation is a well-established technique. A Review Of The Health Issues, dated 10 The limitations of such techniques are well January 11), which contains a section on known and we make conservative the validity. Particularly concerned about assumptions, which lead to a worst case us stating that it is conservative and that scenario, when evaluating the impact. we are not in a position to make such a claim. Reference was made to page 58 of Our air quality specialists have undertaken a the draft decision document where we thorough audit of the air dispersion concluded that ‘…given the conservative modelling. Their findings are detailed in nature of the modelling….’ in relation to Section 5 of this document and the audit NO2 and the AQMA. reports (Ref C704 and C748/776-RP02) are available on the public register.

Concerned about data suppression As an independent regulator committed to specifically the mathematic model used transparency, we are not aware of any for the air dispersion modelling. information being suppressed but there are limitations on what we can reasonably provide, e.g. air dispersion modelling software.

That the mathematic model input data be The mathematic model input data forms part made publicly available. of the Application which is available on public register. We also provide these files electronically on request.

Questioned why we don’t base our Public exposure to emissions from assessment on ACTUAL public exposure incinerators is very low and other sources are using the data from studies around a generally more significant. In the case of fine number of incinerators. particulates (PM2.5) for instance, incineration Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 183 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

accounts for much less than 1% of the national emissions. It would therefore be very difficult to establish pollutant levels due to the incinerator by ambient air monitoring. Our preferred approach is to assess the impact using dispersion modelling based on worst case emissions from the plant.

Questioned that there can be no We explain the legal framework for our responsibility without accountability. decision making in the main body of this decision document.

Questioned our response in the draft We are satisfied that our approach is legally decision which was ‘it was claimed’ on robust. matters of health instead of legal. This was based on a Judicial Review lodged by Clientearth against the government for failing to protect people’s health from toxic levels of pollution and that Davyhulme already exceeded the nitrogen dioxide limit.

Questioned our response in the draft We referred to Section 7 of this document, decision about being in breach of the Section 7.1.2 refers to Schedule 9 to the November 2008 EC directive on waste Environmental Permitting (England and (transposed into UK law December 2010). Wales) Regulations 2010. This Schedule relates to the Waste Framework Directive.

No consideration has been given to This matter is not a relevant consideration whether the activity is actually needed. under the EPR. The legal framework is set out in the main body of this document.

3) Matters on which the public may comment which may be more relevant to an application for Planning Permission

Location of the Installation: Decisions over land use are matters for the planning system. The location of the Installation is a relevant consideration for Environmental Permitting, but only in so far as its potential to have an adverse environmental impact on communities or sensitive environmental receptors. The environmental impact is assessed as part of the determination process and has been reported upon in the main body of this document.

Vehicle access to the Installation and traffic movements: These are relevant considerations for the grant of planning permission, but do not form part of the Environmental Permit decision making process except where there are established high background concentrations contributing to poor air quality and the increased level of traffic might be significant in these limited circumstances.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 184 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001

Flood Risk: The Environment Agency provides advice and guidance to the local planning authority on flood risk in our consultation response to the local planning authority. Our advice on these matters is normally accepted by both Applicant and Planning Authority. When making permitting decisions, flood risk is still a relevant consideration, but only in so far as it is taken into account in the accident management plan and that appropriate measures are in place to prevent pollution in the event of a credible flooding incident.

The Use of Alternate Technologies: It is argued that incineration is not an environmentally sustainable technology and therefore almost by definition cannot be considered to be the Best Available Technique (BAT). The Environment Agency is aware that a number of proposals are coming forward for other ways of dealing with waste streams such as pyrolysis, plasma gasification and mechanical / biological treatment. At this time however, mass burn incineration at this scale can still be considered BAT, subject to the appropriate assessments being made.

It is important to draw a distinction between Sustainability Appraisal and Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) and BAT. In Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management) Sustainability Appraisal forms part of the decision making process which should be applied so as to shape planning strategies that support the Government’s planning objectives for waste management. Thus Sustainability Appraisal is an important part of plan formation and planning decisions are made by reference to planning policies. BPEO forms a similar function in Wales. BAT assessment is a technical appraisal that the proposed technique is the best available for the protection of the environment as a whole.

Light Pollution: Light pollution is a matter for the planning system.

Peel Energy Limited-Barton Page 185 of 185 Application Number: EPR/SP3234HY/A001