280 likes | 383 Views
WHAT DOES INTEGRATED PERMITTING MEAN? (presentation based on H1 method, UK, Thames Region). Integration of permitting work in Danish counties. Example : Ribe County: 9 employees making permits (approximately 200.000 inhabitants in the county) Each Employee has 3 tasks:
E N D
WHAT DOES INTEGRATED PERMITTING MEAN?(presentation based on H1 method, UK, Thames Region)
Integration of permitting work in Danish counties • Example : Ribe County: • 9 employees making permits (approximately 200.000 inhabitants in the county) • Each Employee has 3 tasks: • Making permits within his/hers specific branch knowledge • Responsible for a specific sector plan or yearly task, including maintenance of the legislation • Maintain technical expertise within 1 specific area • For each permit there is a primary case officer and a secondary case officer. The secondary case officer shall make quality control of the permit using a questionnaire and give day to day sparring to the primary case officer • The case officer can use informal assistance from the relevant technical experts.
Specialist areas: Industrial wastewater Risk Incineration techniques Air pollution Solid waste Landfills External noise IT Tasks (internal): IT support Company database Department homepage Paradigms Integration of permitting work in Danish counties • Tasks (external): • Environmental management • Noise mapping • Green accounts • User payments • Revision of IPPC installations • Inspection report • Physical planning • Industrial network
Integration Air Limit value Odour Noise BAT Raw materials Water Risks Energy Solid waste
Structure of Assessment Scope & options Emissions inventory assess environmental impacts Compare impacts between options assess costs select best option
Scope and Options - 1 • Explain why you are doing the assessment: • either • To conduct a cost/benefit appraisal of options to determine BAT for selected releases from an installation because: • deviating from indicative BAT in BREF • several candidates for BAT • no indicative BAT in BREF • or • To carry out environmental assessment of emissions resulting from the installation as a whole
Methane emissions from a landfill site Sulphur emissions from a coal-fired power station Emissions from a pulp mill Emissions from effluent treatment plant of a chemicals manufacturing facility Scope and Options - 2 • Describe scope of activities to be included
Types of techniques: • Raw materials • Abatement • process control • operating mode • design Scope and Options - 3 • Identify key environmental issues (and eliminate irrelevant ones) and receptors • Identify candidate options for BAT, by considering all relevant techniques to prevent and minimise pollution from all activities
Emissions Inventory - 1 • Including: • Point source emissions to air • Point source emissions to surface water, groundwater and sewer • Waste emissions • Fugitive emissions to all media • Abnormal emissions from emergency relief vents, flares etc • Raw material consumption including energy and water
Emissions Inventory - 2 • Describe: • Substances released • Source, including height, location, efflux velocity and total flow • Predicted normal and maximum emissions expressed on suitable basis Statistical basis • Predicted frequencies (if intermittent) • Plant loads at which data are applicable • Check all options meet any statutory emission limit values as laid down in EU Directives
Quantify the impacts • considerations • releases to air • releases to water • deposition to land • ozone creation • global warming • waste disposal • noise • odour • accidents • visual impact • method depends on type of impact: • local impacts: relate to level in environment - usually a maximum “protective” level • non-local impacts: relate to relative burden - no maximum “protective” level
local impacts - 1 • estimate levels in environment after dispersion :- “Process Contributions” (PC) • compare PC against environmental benchmarks; EQSs • the benchmarks are based generally on a maximum “tolerable” concentration to a receptor in a medium • benchmarks for human and ecological protection are available and will be under constant revision
local Impacts - 2 • Identify whether detailed modelling of emissions is needed , eg • if local receptors present which are sensitive to any of the significant emissions • if there is a risk of breaching an EQS • Add PC to background level to obtain total Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) • Check that PEC does not breach an EQS - these options will usually be unacceptable
local impacts - 4 • normalise against benchmark: EQ = PC/ EQS • Summarise total impact by medium • EQ water • EQ air • EQ land
Non-local • Quantify Non-Local Impacts • Use relative Indices for • Global Warming • Ozone Creation • Waste: • quantify by category • describe disposal route • Summarise as total burden
Compare Options • If PCs from options are low compared to EQSs this has less influence on decision than when they are high • If existing environmental quality is poor then greater importance placed on this consideration in the assessment • Local proximity of sensitive receptors to certain environmental impacts may be important • Long term irreversible effects are less desirable than short term reversible effects • How big the contribution of the impact is in relation to national or EU targets • Bear in mind risk/accidents
Evaluate the Costs • Estimate the costs of implementing each of the options carried forward from the assessment, to allow a balanced judgement of the costs of controlling releases of substances against the environmental benefits • Not necessary if the operator proposes to implement the option which clearly represents the lowest environmental impact
Select BAT • balance environmental benefits against costs • justify priority impacts • show decisions clearly • use expert judgement
Case study: A Power plant • Step 1: Scope and options • “To decide the best technique to reduce sulphur emissions from a power plant”
Step 2: Candidate options and key environmental issues Case study: A Power plant
Step 3: Emissions inventory Case study: A Power plant
Case study: A Power plant • Step 4: Assess local impacts • Impossible to find locations for deposit of up to 30 mio. m3 solid waste (dry method over 30 years) • Gypsum (wet method) deposits has a risk for leaching of heavy metals to ground water, which is not acceptable. • Discharge of wastewater with heavy metals from the wet method is not in accordance with the hazardous substances directive (list I substances which should be eliminated).
Case study: A Power plant • Step 5: Assess regional and global impacts • Acidification: • Low – S Coal > End-of-pipe > N-gas (best option) • Eutrophication: • De-S, wet > low –S coal > De-S, dry > N-gas > SNOX (best option) • (assessed directly from emissions and discharges)
Case study: A Power plant • Step 6: Compare options • Due to unacceptable local impacts from heavy metals a deposit free solution is preferred and from assessment of regional and global impacts the following 2 methods is selected for further cost investigations: • N-gas • SNOX method
Case study: A Power plant • Step 7: Assess the cost • It is assessed that use of N-gas will raise the current power price with approx 7% compared to present price and cost 12 mio. EUR in installation of new burners etc. • The SNOX method is comparable in price to the other end-of-pipe solutions, but the method is not developed to a commercial level yet (only demo installations)
Case study: A Power plant • Step 8: Select BAT • BAT is the SNOX process when it is developed to a commercial level. • Until then N-gas firing is BAT