OFFICE OF LICENSING & GUIDANCE

Transcription

1 OFFICE OF LICENSING & GUIDANCE TO: REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON OBJECTIONS TO LICENCE CONDITIONS Directors FROM: Technical Committee - LICENSING UNIT DATE: 11/07/06 RE: Objection to Proposed Determination for Hegarty Metals Processors Limited trading as Shannonside Galvanising, IPPC Reg: 745 Application Details Class(s) of activity: The processing of non-ferrous metals by thermal and chemical means in installations with a batch capacity exceeding 0.5 tonnes. Location of activity: Section 87(1)(b) information received: 01/06/05 PD issued: 12/04/06 First party objection received: 09/05/06 Article 32 issued 20/06/06 Article 32 response 06/07/06 Company Drombanna, Co. Limerick This review application relates to a galvanising installation. On foot of enforcement actions, the company applied for a licence review to continue the operation of a wastewater treatment plant and an emission to a drainage ditch. This plant was installed to address elevated levels of iron and zinc (200mg/l Fe and 122mg/l Zn) and ph results between 4 and 5 ph units in storm water monitoring. The plant proposed to treat surface water runoff, rinse water used to cool the steel following the galvanising process and bund water containing drippage from steel transfer between tanks during galvanising. During the review process it became apparent that sufficient flow and assimilating capacity was not available in the surface water in the off-site drainage ditch and the company reassessed its proposal. There will be no process emissions to water from the installation. Process waters will be reused on site or sent off site for disposal/recovery. Page 1 of 5

2 Consideration of the Objection The Technical Committee (TC), comprising of Ann Marie Donlon (Chair) and Maeve McHugh, has considered all of the issues raised in the Objections and this report details the Committee s comments and recommendations following the examination of the objections together with discussions with the inspector, Niamh O Donoghue, who also provided comments on the points raised. This report considers the first party objection. A request for an Oral Hearing was considered by the Board and denied. The Technical Committee requested further information from the first party (Article 32 notice) with respect to one point of objection. First Party Objection The licensee makes five points of objection. Objections have been paraphrased. Throughout the objection the licensee refers to the Shannonside Galvanizing. The PD is issued to Hegarty Metals Processors Limited trading as Shannonside Galvanising. The discrepancy was noted and the licensing inspector confirmed both entities are connected to the installation. No objection was made in relation to this matter, it is not considered further. A.1. Introduction The licensee objects to the normal operating hours and the plants throughput capacity as described in the licence introduction, stating that these are errors and need to be corrected. The normal operating hours are 8.00 to hrs Monday to Friday and 8.00 to Saturday. The throughput is approximately 140 tonnes of steel per week. These errors would undermine the company s ability to operate effectively and competitively. The licensee clarified in their response to Article 32 notice that the throughput is up to 100 tonnes of steel per week, not 140 tonnes/week. The licensee further clarified that steel input to the galvanising plant is less than 2 tonnes/hour and Annex I of the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC) does not apply. The Technical committee draws attention to the first line of the Introduction : This introduction is not part of the licence and does not purport to be a legal interpretation of the licence. However, for the purposes of clarity the introduction shall be reworded to reflect the operating hours as stated in the objection. The throughput of steel at 100 tonnes per week (55 hours working hours) indicates the steel input to the galvanising tank is approximately 1.8t/hr. The licensee has stated in further information that the activity is not within the scope of Annex I of the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC)/ (Class 3.2.1c of the EPA Acts, 1992 and 2003). Again for the purposes of clarity the introduction shall be reworded to reflect the capacity of the site. Given that the proposed operating capacities are close to the threshold of another class of activity i.e. Class 3.2.1c, the TC considers that the scope of the licence should made it clear to the operator that capacity is limited to steel input of 2 tonnes/hour. Page 2 of 5

3 Recommendation: For the purposes of clarity the introduction should be amended to read as follows: 2nd paragraph, 2nd line Approximately 30 people are employed at the site and operating hours are 0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays. 2nd paragraph, last line Typical batch sizes are tonnes and the site has a throughput up to 100 tonnes of steel per week. Amend Schedule A Limitations as follows: Delete the following line: There are no limitations on the installation specified in the Schedule. Replace with the following: The steel input capacity of the installation shall not exceed 2 tonnes per hour. A.2. Condition The applicant objects to the trigger levels for zinc and iron on the following grounds: - the proposed levels were not covered in the previous licence, - significant investment ( 590,000) was directed at achieving water quality of 5mg/lZn and 2mg/lFe, - competitive market, - trigger levels not applied to other industries in the sector, - have achieved water quality specified in 75/440/EEC, and - achievement of the proposed trigger levels would require further investment and phase introduction. Storm water is normally uncontaminated. However in this case, the TC considers there is a significant risk of storm water contamination due to on-site processes. This risk is site specific. Trigger levels alert the licensee to abnormal operating conditions. The PD prohibits an unspecified emission of environmental significance. Contaminated storm water is considered to be water in excess of the quality standard specified in the Water Quality (Dangerous Substances) Regulations, 2001 (S.I. No. 12 of 2001) for zinc ( mg/lZn depending on hardness). The trigger level for zinc specified in the PD is above the legal quality standard. The EPA Environmental Quality Objectives and Environmental Quality Standards, the Aquatic Environment, a discussion document, 1997 proposes a quality standard of 1mg/lFe. The Council Directive 75/440/EEC concerns the quality of surface water intended for abstraction for drinking water and is not applicable to these circumstances. Storm Page 3 of 5

4 water emissions at a Zinc level of 5mg/l would be regarded as a process emission requiring treatment. The TC considers a reduction in the trigger level for zinc is required to prevent unspecified emissions of environmental significance. Rainwater has very low levels of hardness so the zinc standard selected is for water with hardness less than or equal to 10mg/l CaCO 3. Recommendation: Replace Condition with the following condition: The trigger levels for storm water discharges from the facility measured at the monitoring point SW1 are: - a) Zinc 0.008mg/l b) Iron 1.0mg/l c) Other parameters as required by the Agency. A.3. Condition 5.1 & Schedule B1 Emissions to Air The applicant objects to specified flow rates as they are they are too low for safe operation. The existing licence (Reg No. 650) specifies higher rates (three orders of magnitude) and is supported by recent monitoring data; flow rate measured on the 29/03/06 was 15522m 3 /hr. Two out of four other galvanisers have flow rates specified in their licences. Therefore restrictions on flow rates will pose a competitive disadvantage. The existing licence specifies a flow rate of 32,540m 3 /hr. This flow rate was considered very high and unrealistic at RD stage and the flow rate was amended to more accurately reflect routine operations (data provided by licensee verbally). Recent monitoring indicates that the flow rate is around 15,500m 3 /hr. Flow rates relating to three other galvanisers are similar. The TC specifies a change in flow rate to 15,600m 3 /hr. Recommendation: Amend Volume to be emitted on Schedule B1 Emissions to Air as follows: Maximum in any one day: 156,000 m 3 Maximum rate per hour: 15,600 m 3 A.4. Condition 6.1 & Schedule C.2.3 The applicant objects to the storm water monitoring frequency as it is unwarranted and excessive given, the success in complying with the surface water (75/440/EEC) parameters as required by the EPA. The current licence (Reg No. 650) specifies monthly monitoring for iron and zinc. The monitoring frequency specified in other licences for galvanisers is quarterly. Consequently allowing a competitive advantage. The TC considers that there is a site-specific risk of storm water contamination from processes. The TC notes that the PD prohibits an unspecified emission of Page 4 of 5

5 environmental significance. Given these circumstances and the changes arising from A2 above, the TC considers that at least weekly monitoring for metals is required. The licensee can seek to reduce frequency under Condition 6.7 with the agreement of the OEE where monitoring indicates significant improvement. Recommendation: No change A.5. Condition The applicant objects to the financial contribution as it is 136% increase on the fee specified in the existing licence (Reg No. 650). The company has in excess of 30 employees and operating in a very competitive market. Increases in fees places a severe competitive disadvantage. The fee is significantly excessive when compared with other galvanisers, which allows a serious competitive disadvantage. The following was reported to the Board at RD stage: Charges for 2005 were set at 6, Enforcement Inspector recommended charge for 2006 is 10, due to increased EPA monitoring visits proposed. The RD recommends a charge of 12, The increase is due to the requirement to assess proposals from the company regarding storm water and groundwater protection/remediation. The company was invoiced for 6, for Having regard to invoiced fee for 2006, and the additional assessment requirements the TC considers that the fee can be reduced in respect of a planned audit only. The resulting fee is 8,875. Recommendation: Amend annual contribution in Condition to: 8,875 Overall Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of the Agency grant a licence to the applicant (i) (ii) (iii) and for the reasons outlined in the proposed determination and subject to the conditions and reasons for same in the Proposed Determination, subject to the amendments proposed in this report. Signed Ann Marie Donlon for and on behalf of the Technical Committee Page 5 of 5