The Petitions Committee
Completion Report
Summary of the Committee’s consideration of
P-03-093: Aberthaw Power Station
July 2008
Presented
9 December 2007
Ruled Admissible
8 January 2008
Initial Consideration
31 January 2008
The committee considered the petition, and agreed that:
The Assembly Parliamentary Service legal team would provide a briefing note on the legislation surrounding the licensing process.
The Chair would ask the Members’ Research Service to provide a briefing note on the technical elements and processes of the petition.
The Chair would write to the Environment Agency seeking its views on the petitioners’ aims.
(See Annex 1 for the relevant extract from the transcript of the meeting on 31 January, and Annex 2 for the letter sent to the Environment Agency)
Further Consideration
10 April 2008
The Committee considered the briefing provided by Members’ Research services, and a response from the Environment Agency. It agreed to invite the petitioners to give evidence to the Committee.
(See Annex 1 for the relevant extract from the transcript of the meeting on 10 April 2008 and Annex 4 for the briefing from Members’ Research Services.)
24 April 2008
The Committee considered the petitioners’ request to invite the Countryside Council for Wales to present evidence alongside it at Committee.
Following this, the Committee agreed not to invite the Countryside Council for Wales to give evidence unless this was appropriate following consideration of evidence from Friends of the Earth.
(See Annex 1 for the relevant extract from the transcript of the meeting on 24 April 2008)
8 May 2008
The Committee took evidence from the petitioners, Dr Max Wallis of Friends of the Earth Barry and the Vale of Glamorgan and Ron Lloyd of the East Aberthaw Residents Committee, and agreed to:
Write to the Environment Agency to ask why they have decided, in this instance not to require more stringent Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) abatement as part of the licence, and what the Environment Agency’s view was of the air quality standard on the residents of the area.
Write to the Environment Agency to ask for their policy on the monitoring of ash.
(See Annex 1 for the relevant extracts from the transcript of the meeting on 8 May 2008, and Annex 3 for copies of papers provided by the petitioners)
22 May 2008
The majority of the information requested by the Committee on 8 May had already been provided by the Environment Agency, other than one point.
The Committee therefore agreed to write to the Environment Agency to see if they could have applied tighter controls over nitrogen oxide emissions.
(See Annex 1 for the relevant extract from the transcript of the meeting on 22 May 2008, and Annex 2 for Environment Agency correspondence)
9 July 2008
The Committee considered a response from the Environment Agency explaining its position on the nitrogen oxide controls applied and agreed to close the petition as it could not be progressed any further.
(See Annex 1 for the relevant extract from the transcript of the meeting on 9 July 2008, and Annex 2 for Environment Agency correspondence)
Petitions Clerk
July 2008
Annex 1
31 January 2008
Val Lloyd: We now move to the third of our new petitions, P-03-076, on tighter controls on the emissions of Aberthaw power station. I do not know about other Members, but I had some difficulty in understanding the scientific rationale for this. I believe that we should get much more information before we move on this. We should get a briefing note from the Assembly Parliamentary Service legal team, if that would be satisfactory, Joanest.
Ms Jackson: Yes, we can do that.
Val Lloyd: Thank you. We should also get a briefing note from the Members’ research service to clarify any technical aspects, and we could perhaps involve the Environment Agency as well, asking for its view on the petitioners’ aims. Are you happy with that?
Andrew R.T. Davies: I would concur with that. This issue is very sensitive locally. I live in the Vale of Glamorgan, some six to eight miles away from the power station, and having seen, growing up, what goes on there, I believe that we require detailed information on this subject as a committee, so that we can offer a fair input, and hopefully address the petitioners’ concerns. I would recommend that course of action.
Val Lloyd: Do you agree, Bethan?
Bethan Jenkins: Yes.
Val Lloyd: Right. Therefore, to reiterate, the Assembly Parliamentary Service legal team has agreed to do a legal briefing, we will ask for a briefing note from the Members’ research service, and information from the Environment Agency.
10 April 2008
Val Lloyd: We turn to Aberthaw; this was interesting, was it not?
2.20 p.m.
Michael German: It was a very clear legal document. Perhaps the clerk could explain it to us.
Bethan Jenkins: In detail, please.
Val Lloyd: This is from Friends of the Earth regarding Aberthaw power station. It asks us to address weaknesses in the new licence for Aberthaw. However, it is not a draft licence; it is now a full licence, because the consultation period has passed. We could invite the petitioners to give evidence. I am not against their coming in; it might be a good idea. However, Friends of the Earth is not a statutory consultee; the Countryside Council for Wales is the relevant body, and it has raised some objections, to which the petitioners refer. Would you like to get the petitioners in?
Andrew R.T. Davies: It would offer them a platform. As you said, they are not statutory consultees, and it would offer them a platform to bring an opinion to the table, which is what this system is about.
Bethan Jenkins: The response of the Environment Agency is comprehensive, but it does not agree with that. So, clarity for us in that respect is needed.
Val Lloyd: This is an ideal place for them to present their case. We will invite them at a suitable time.
24 April 2008
Val Lloyd: We have five updates for consideration today, but I deferred an issue regarding Aberthaw at the beginning, which was meant to be a new petition. What happened at the last meeting, if you remember, was that the committee decided to ask the petitioners, Friends of the Earth, to present evidence and we suggested that it should do so today. Friends of the Earth has been pressing us for some time to come to give evidence and, having read the introductory papers, that is what the committee decided to do. Friends of the Earth proceeded to invite somebody else to come to give evidence with it, the Countryside Council for Wales. I am of the opinion that the committee’s invitation was to Friends of the Earth and it was not really for Friends of the Earth to invite another organisation. It should have been a committee decision to say 'yes’ or 'no’, if we found when Friends of the Earth presented its information that we thought that it would aid our investigation if we then invited the Countryside Council for Wales. I would be interested to hear what Members think about that.
Andrew R.T. Davies: I would concur, to a point, with what you have said. However, we have had other organisations in. I am thinking of the Sustrans petition, in particular, when it had Post Office Ltd and the British Medical Association as witnesses, although the invitation was extended to Sustrans. We did suddenly find that the other organisations were promoting their own policies and ideas, rather than those in the initial petition, which is what we are charged with understanding and discussing. As the precedent has been set for other organisations to come in as guests, as long as they form part of the party of three, I would be guided by the advice of the clerk as to whether we could stop someone extending that invitation to someone else to be part of the official party that comes in to give the evidence.
Val Lloyd: You make a very reasonable point, as you usually do, Andrew. However, I have found with this committee that, as it is a new committee, we are learning all the time. That is why we have informal meetings, to try to learn from things that have happened before. Perhaps we have learnt from what happened before; I do not know, perhaps you are right. I would be glad to hear from clerk.
Mr Sanchez: It is something that the committee should decide, based on experience. As Val said, this is a learning experience, so if the committee wants to take a decision on that in a private meeting, we can then implement it as a policy in future meetings.
Bethan Jenkins: With the Sustrans case, had the other two organisations not signed the petition? Is it true that the Countryside Council for Wales signed this particular petition? If it did, there would be an argument for it to be invited. With the Sustrans petition, it was quite clear that they were involved.
Mr Sanchez: I do not think that it officially signed the petition.
Val Lloyd: My memory tells me that Friends of the Earth made reference to the Countryside Council for Wales, but it was not part of the petition. I will be guided on this issue by committee members, as to which way we should proceed. We will then bring it forward for discussion at an informal meeting.
1.30 p.m.
Jenny Randerson: It strikes me that, although there are major issues about organisations inviting other organisations, you are quite right, Chair, that it is this committee’s invitation to an organisation, and it is not up to organisations to invite other people. However, in this particular case, CCW is a major and significant organisation. I wonder whether the committee can develop a process in which one actually invites a supporting organisation at the same time, when appropriate. In other words, petitioners could be asked whether they want someone else to come in to support them and told, if that is the case, to make it clear at the time of accepting their invitation.
Val Lloyd: It is all part of our development, is it not?
Andrew R.T. Davies: Can we discuss the procedural aspect at the informal part of the meeting? It will very much be a procedural issue, will it not? Precedent dictates that, when you have various organisations at the table, they tend to talk at cross purposes. The real issue is that it is the petitioners that we want to hear from, rather than hear a host of opinions.
Val Lloyd: We are not saying in this case that we will not hear the Countryside Council for Wales at any time, but we should perhaps stick to our original invitation, in this case to Friends of the Earth, and if we find a need to hear from the Countryside Council for Wales, we can do so next time. However, we will move to a wider policy that everybody understands.
Andrew R.T. Davies: Without wishing to drag it out any longer, thinking about procedure, on the housing and drainage issue in Ystrad Mynach, the petitioners came in and gave their evidence, and then, at a subsequent meeting, the Environment Agency came to give the statutory view, with the local authority’s view coming subsequent to that. Surely, CCW would fit in to the Environment Agency role in that aspect. Again, I am guided by your advice.
Val Lloyd: I think that you make a good comparison. It backs up the fact that we repeat our invitation to Friends of the Earth. Thank you for taking the time to discuss that matter.
8 May 2008
Val Lloyd: The first petition before us today is on the Aberthaw power station, and we have two witnesses to give us evidence on that. Please introduce yourselves.
Mr Lloyd: Good morning, everyone. My name is Ron Lloyd, and I am the chairman of the East Aberthaw Residents Committee.
Dr Wallis: I am Max Wallis from Friends of the Earth.
Val Lloyd: Thank you, and welcome to our committee. I will just outline the way that we operate. Between you, you will have 15 minutes to make a presentation, and it is entirely up to you how you divide that. We keep to time, however. After that 15 minutes, we will have up to 15 minutes to question you, and then we will ask you to retire—although you can go to the public gallery—and we will discuss how we see the next stage of the proceedings. I hope that that is clear. Please begin.
Dr Wallis: I will pass around these notes, which are a summary of the presentation.
This issue goes back more than two years, when we had Environment Agency consultations. Those were what I would call 'old-style’, with the agency listening, deciding and then announcing its decision. However, just when we came on board, a new style of consultation came out, which was called, in this pamphlet, 'Building Trust with Communities’. This is a guide for staff, which is far more interactive. However, we found—and this came through in the background to it—that the officers did not know about this, and they have certainly been reluctant to implement it.
That is not the main point, but it is part of the background to why we have had so much trouble arguing our case. One issue was whether the dust particles from Aberthaw power station are toxic. As you can see from this paper, we had a problem with the Environment Agency; it kept saying that the dust was non-hazardous, which we discovered was only because it was put on a list for non-hazardous landfills in depositing it. It had not done tests on this, but the particles failed tests that the agency was doing for Aberthaw. There was no eco-toxicity testing; we asked for that under the protocol, and the agency seemed to ignore our request. We never heard what happened about that.
That is one definition of 'hazardous’. Another factor is that, if it is a small size, it is acknowledged to be a greater hazard. We have had no success in getting the Environment Agency to acknowledge that. However, on the third page of this paper, we give you evidence from the chair of the Government advisory committee, from 2003, which specifically says that the very fine particles are far more hazardous—he calls them 'ultrafines’; they are 36 times more hazardous. He refers to various ranges of particle size. If you look at the upper figure, it has 10 microns, and it goes down to 1 micron and 0.1 micron. The figure of 10 microns is what they measure around the Aberthaw area, and he is arguing that particles under 0.1 microns are far more hazardous. Therefore, that is generally accepted in science, but the Environment Agency tells us that it regulates only the 10 microns—the PM10 as it calls them—which includes all the little ones as well, but the little ones are not significant.
Therefore, that is one argument that we had with the Environment Agency; we did not get through to it, and we still have not got through, and it is not in the licence. The Food Standards Agency said that it is important to minimise the risk of the contaminated dust being deposited it on agricultural land, and that it could be a potential health hazard if it came into contact with food. It has put this to the Environment Agency, and the Environment Agency did not take this into account and did not do anything about it.
There is a particular issue with mercury—in the ash and the fumes. There is no company assessment, and the Environment Agency has claimed that it is insignificant. The company is supposed to assess it under the environmental impact regulations, and a European directive states that mercury is a very hazardous substance. Since that came out in 2004, there has been a great deal of pressure to do something about mercury. You all know that crematoria have had to cut mercury emissions; Aberthaw has not had to cut them. Every year, it emits an amount of mercury that is equivalent to 40 million compact fluorescent light bulbs; the Environment Agency has made a fuss about disposing of that type of bulb, but Aberthaw is emitting the equivalent of 40 million of them every year.
There is an environmental statement that is supposed to include all this, under the regulations, but the Environment Agency refuses to assess it for adequacy. That is something that the Welsh Assembly Government has guidance on. There has been a decision in the European Court that this environmental impact assessment legislation applies to final consent decisions, which is what this one was. However, the Environment Agency keeps saying that it is not the competent authority for EIA regulations, so we think that it needs to be told to follow the existing guidance, which is valid in Wales.
9.40 a.m.
The nitrogen oxide abatement was covered—it is a complex story—in the extra note that was sent out, which was to make corrections and additions to the Members’ research service note because it did not cover the full complexity of this. As you therefore already have that information, I will just say that nitrogen oxide abatement is cost-effective in health terms, if you do the calculation. We will come to the numbers, and there is more evidence here. It is necessary for protecting the ecosystems in Wales in the uplands, and the Countryside Council for Wales has been quite strong on that. It is also necessary for meeting our EU obligations on the total emissions of nitrogen oxides from the UK.
The ash processing plant is the next issue. That was added to the licence at a late stage and is energy inefficient. The licensing process is supposed to test it to ensure that it is efficient, but the power station burns gas rather than use the station’s heat for untying the ash. The Environment Agency has just invented an excuse, without any evidence from the company on why it could not do that.
The filter is only a rudimentary one that fails to trap fine dust, and mercury and dioxins are likely to vaporise from the dust. However, these substances have not been assessed, and they are in the plume that comes from a new 25m stack, which is much lower than the ash mound, which is around 50m. The plume, being near the hill in that way, could easily take the mercury and the dioxins towards the dwellings. All the Environment Agency says is that modelling shows that there were no significant impacts. The plant is potentially very dusty, but it does not control the dust by wetting as it does with the other pulverised fuel ash dust. We asked for a tight monitoring control system, but it has just used the same general requirement as on the present plant, which is very unsatisfactory. It keeps saying that it is just nuisance dust, but we point out that the Food Standards Agency states that it is hazardous and so on.
You have a copy of what the Environment Agency calls the 'decision document’, in which it responds to our objections, particularly on ultra fine dust particles. We go through them in the document, including what we said and what the agency says, and we set out what is untrue, unclear, on what basis Friends of the Earth have raised this concern and so on. We say that the agency’s arguments are unconvincing and unsound. You can see the arguments there. The results of the toxicity tests undertaken by Cardiff University on this dust have just come out. These methods are just being developed. We have some copies of the results of those toxicity tests and how those are done at Cardiff University—so they can be done. Professor Ayres detailed why these particles are many times worse than PM10, so toxicity should be examined. The Environment Agency in England has also required a full analysis of the particle size distribution in a recent licence, which the agency here has refused to do.
I will finish by saying that there are requirements under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007, for which the Assembly is responsible, to provide public information on pollutants, particularly around point emitters such as this one. To get that information, someone has to sample it, and we say that the polluter must do the sampling. This sampling procedure must be set up and required under the licence. They have not done anything about that; they have just said that it is the Assembly’s responsibility to provide that public information. There are regulations, but they are not being implemented or helped in any way by the Environment Agency’s ignoring them.
The plant is the largest mercury emitter; it has not been assessed properly. As I say, for the largest mercury emitter, it was 163 kg, and it will be 200 kg a year with the increases. There is a European community strategy concerning it. There are methods for abating it and removing it partly. We have asked for it but the Environment Agency has just said that it is insignificant and that there is no benefit in abatement, and it has refused even what is called the best available technique monitoring. The monitoring is supposed be BAT, according to the European guidance but the Environment Agency has refused it.
The Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is a problem, because the then DTI was responsible for the original flue gas desulphurisation license approval but it ignored several things, such as where all the ash was going to go, even though we asked it to address that. There is also the noise of the trains to consider. Things have changed since it granted the license and that should have been a modification that would, in principle, go to DBERR as the planning authority for the ash processing plant.
We have new data on this hazard from dust, which should be covered in the environmental impact assessment. Again, that should have come under DBERR. The last point is that the sea wall is eroding—it is part of the site and comes under planning. DBERR has insisted on keeping responsibility for power stations that are over 50 MW, and it should be playing a part in this one.
I would like Ron Lloyd to come in quickly because he is going to speak from the point of view of the residents.
Mr Lloyd: I would just like to thank you for listening to us. I will speak to you as a resident of East Aberthaw. Our village lies between a power station and the Lafarge Cement UK cement works. We are inundated with dust and there is noise pollution from the trains. We are sick and tired of getting no answers on this. For the last 30 to 40 years, we have asked certain agencies, including the council and the Environment Agency, for help and we get ignored, and it is not right.
We are being covered in dust. There should be a restriction on tipping onto the mound when there is a wind. Tipping ash on top of a mound when the wind speed is 60 mph is ridiculous. There has to be a guideline on that. Local residents have a right to a decent standard of living. Our civil right to have a decent way of life is being encroached upon. I do not believe that the Assembly or the councils have ever taken that into account, and we never ever get a straight answer. If locals ring up and complain to the power station and do not say that it is an official complaint, it is not recorded and monitored.
It is the same with the Environment Agency. If we ring up at the weekend, we are put through to somebody in England. That is ridiculous. The local resident will want an answer. If you ask the Environment Agency to come round to have a look at the village, you are fobbed off. The residents are up in arms about it. They can only take so much. If you go round the village, you will see that every single house is covered in dust. It is not right. Both of these are private companies. They have responsibilities for our environment. We are not saying that they should not be there; we just want them to be decent and responsible neighbours.
The sea wall is 9m away from the base of the mound, right at the side of the saline lagoon. The Countryside Council for Wales is hoping to introduce a walkway right around Wales, so I would have thought that that would be a problem for the Assembly. Perhaps I am right, perhaps I am wrong. I am just talking to you as a local resident. We seem to have been forgotten, and we feel that we have been abandoned by all the major authorities.
9.50 a.m.
You can challenge the agency about the dust. In one of the reports that Dr Wallis has it says that certain dust particles are between 100 and 300 nanometres and that they have come from sources nearby. Now, this is an Environment Agency report. It does not take an Einstein to work out that it is either coming from the cement works or the power station. Why can we not have a true, honest and open answer? Why do people keep fobbing us off? That is what we are asking, but we are not getting any decent response, and we are not being treated with respect. We just want honest answers. Why is a power station monitoring itself? Why is the Environment Agency dependent on the station’s test results? It is not right.
Val Lloyd: Thank you very much. Your time is up now. Mr Lloyd, I do understand your concern as a resident, but we have to address the petition that is before us. That takes nothing away from your evident distress about the issues, but those will have to be considered elsewhere, because we have to address the petition before us. I am sure that you understand what I am saying, but thank you for your comments.
I also thank you, Dr Wallis. I now invite questions. Mike.
Michael German: I am trying to get some facts here, and I would like straight yes-or-no answers if possible to questions relating to some of the evidence that you have provided. The large combustion plants directive states that three main criteria should apply to a power station of this sort. The first is that 'none of the calendar monthly mean values exceeds the emission limit values’. The second is that, in the case of sulphur dioxide and dust, no more than 3 per cent of all the 48-hourly mean values may exceed 110 per cent of the emission limit values. The third is that, in the case of nitrogen oxide, no more than 5 per cent of all the 48-hourly mean values may exceed 110 per cent of the emission limit values. Is it your contention that these criteria are not being met?
Dr Wallis: No.
Michael German: Can you tell me which of those criteria are not being met?
Dr Wallis: I am not contending that any of them are not being met.
Michael German: Oh, sorry; you said 'no’. I asked whether they were being met, and you said 'no’.
Dr Wallis: You asked whether it was my contention that they are not being met. We are not contending that they are not being met.
Michael German: I do not understand—are they being met or are they not?
Dr Wallis: Those criteria are being met.
Michael German: So the directive is being complied with. The law is being complied with in that respect. That is all I was trying to establish.
Dr Wallis: That directive is supposed to take account of the obligations imposed under the other directive, which is the national emissions ceiling directive. The emissions ceiling directive says that the UK as a whole has to meet some standards and, within that, as the large combustion plant directive says, in order to meet that directive, you can have tighter emissions controls. It is our contention that, in order to meet the conditions of that directive, you need tighter emissions controls.
Michael German: Aberthaw did not take the UK national emission reduction plan as part of its work; it took the directive as its route. Is that right?
Dr Wallis: The Environment Agency has failed to enforce the emissions ceiling directive and take that into account. It has done it for sulphur dioxide in the condition that we quote, but it has not done it for nitrogen oxide.
Michael German: You also talked about BAT, best available techniques. The Environment Agency determined three things that it said were the best techniques available at that time. I do not want to repeat them all, but you know what they are—the flue gas desulphurisation, the use of LoNOx, low levels of nitrogen oxides, burners, and electrostatic precipitators. The agency determined that they are the best available techniques. Do you agree that they are the best available techniques?
Dr Wallis: Well, we think that selective catalytic reduction is the best available technique.
Michael German: Is that a 'yes’ or a 'no’?
Dr Wallis: That is included in the list.
Michael German: Right. So, the list is accurate.
Dr Wallis: Yes.
Michael German: Let us turn to the other matter you raised, which is about ash. In its response on ash, the Environment Agency says that the systems have been designed for full dust containment with filtered purge streams passing to a wet scrubber; that it is readily inferred from the modelling undertaken to assess a large release of concern—that is ammonia—that the particulate matter and trace pollutant releases will be trivial; and that qualitative controls on dust releases from all ash processing systems are set by the pollution prevention and control permit. Are you saying that what the Environment Agency is saying is wrong, or are you saying that it is not monitoring in order to be able to assess whether it is having—
Mr Lloyd: I am saying that it is not monitoring it. If you look at the mound you will see that it is just slightly grassed—there is no topsoil on it whatsoever. Therefore, when it rains, the run-off—and you are talking about such things as cadmium, arsenic and mercury particles—goes straight into the lagoon.
Dr Wallis: The monitoring is for the ash plant. When they say—
Michael German: My question is about ash and whether you agree that the systems are in place, or whether your principal concern is that they are not being monitored.
Dr Wallis: When the Environment Agency says 'qualitative limits’ in this case, all it means is visibility. It says 'it must not be visible’. However, you have minute dust particles coming off this, as well as mercury and so on, which are invisible. Therefore, those qualitative controls are not adequate; it should be required to measure it and set quantitative limits.
Michael German: I take the point that you disagree with the Environment Agency in this regard, and that your position is that it is not being monitored. The other point is whether the controls that the Environment Agency has put in place are sufficient. Therefore, what is it about the qualitative controls that it has assessed that you disagree with?
Dr Wallis: The qualitative control is about only visibility and not the amount of pollutant that is coming through. So, invisible pollutants such as nitrous oxide and mercury—
Michael German: 'Qualitative’ means that it is about the quality, and it is all about visibility. Is that what you are saying?
Dr Wallis: In this case, yes.
Mr Lloyd: The problem that we have is that the Environment Agency still relies on the system undertaken by the power station. It is not doing it independently, and that is one of the main worries that we have.
Michael German: I took the point about monitoring—
Mr Lloyd: It is about the quality control, which is done by the power station.
Michael German: Are you saying that the Environment Agency does not monitor the dust emissions?
Mr Lloyd: It gets its figures from the power station.
Val Lloyd: Are you saying that records are kept by the power station—that they take readings or that instruments produce readings and automatically produce a record that is then studied by the Environment Agency? If so, from what I have understood from other experiences and dealings that I have had with such organisations, that it is considered a standard way forward for monitoring—you have equipment that monitors and the readings are studied by the Environment Agency.
Mr Lloyd: If we complain to the Environment Agency, it should have the means to do an independent test, but at the moment it does not, so the process is fundamentally flawed.
Val Lloyd: So, you are saying that the Environment Agency never does any spot checks?
Mr Lloyd: That is right.
Val Lloyd: We would have to look at the license to see whether that is one of its conditions, but I think that it is fairly standard across industries—and not just the industry at Aberthaw power station—that that is the way that monitoring is done. Bethan, do you want to come in at all?
Bethan Jenkins: I just wanted to clarify what your main concerns are, and whether you have had regular discussions with the Environment Agency to clarify your opinions prior to bringing this to the Petitions Committee?
Dr Wallis: We have regular interaction with the local officers. We tried to correspond with the licensing department, which operated from Nottingham; there was another one in Aust, and that was more difficult, although we had a bit of exchange with them. They do not answer letters; they take the old-style consultation approach and will not answer you until they come up with their decision, and the answer will be in the decision document.
10.00 a.m.
When you come to the local officers, they had a surgery and took our views, but they did not pass our views on. We asked for the report that they wrote, and the points that were raised, and it was disparaging of what we said, and failed to report our key points. It said that residents had feelings, or residents made comments, but there was nothing specific. For example, when we said that ultra fine particles were an issue, and should be addressed properly, there was no response. They know all about the science on ultra fine particles, but they deliberately avoid having a policy. The Environment Agency does not have a policy on it, although action was recommended by the royal society.
Bethan Jenkins: Do you believe that we should send a message to the Environment Agency that it should have a policy in this area with regard to dust particles and monitoring? Are those the two main concerns?
Dr Wallis: It would be useful to send a message that it should have a policy on ultra fine dust particles, which have been identified by the Government’s advisers as a hazard—everyone says that it is a hazard, but it is refusing to have a policy on it. It is even worse than the situation in England—there is even less of a response in Wales. So, that message could certainly be sent across, but it may take more than a message. You issue guidance to the Environment Agency on how it should go about licensing, or at least the Minister does, so that could be put into specific guidance. This is the biggest polluter, and it is important internationally, at the European Union level, so the Minister should issue guidance to the Environment Agency that it must implement this nitrogen oxides abatement. Aberthaw power station is well up the list of priorities—it is the best source that could be tackled for abatement—and it would be useful if you could recommend to the Minister that some specific guidance be given to the Environment Agency, requiring it to implement nitrogen oxides abatement. That is an argument that the Countryside Council for Wales wants to put to you, because it has a different view to the Environment Agency on this technology. It would be useful if you could listen to CCW as well, and use its views as support in sending a strong message to the Minister.
Val Lloyd: What are you saying, Dr Wallis? There are regulations that must be complied with—the international pollution prevention and control regulations. They are very carefully laid down, and the Environment Agency has to work under those regulations in issuing permits. Are you saying that it failed to do so? Or are you saying—because, as I understand it, there are two strands to this—that it did not consult properly, and then you are debating technical and scientific points, and saying that those were not dealt with?
Mr Lloyd: The power station is about 58 or 59 ha in size. There is one man who monitors the work inside, and one man outside. It is a massive area for one man to monitor. He is not there seven days a week; he is not even there two days a week. How can he monitor an area like that? When the locals ring up, they are frustrated and pulling their hair out. We had a meeting of the residents committee with senior staff from the Environment Agency, and we gave our views, but we never get any feedback. You would have thought that, out of courtesy, they would write back to us and say that our concerns have been noted, but we never get a reply. It is just a talking shop—there is no action. Why should a resident keep ringing them up, just to be told 'We have got it in hand’? That is wrong.
Dr Wallis: It is a question about nitrogen oxides, is it not? It is on the first page of the additions to the note from the Members’ research service. Aberthaw has been handled with an exceptionally light touch by the Environment Agency. Its emission limit is not 500mg per 1 cu m, like all other power stations, but 1,200 mg per 1 cu m, so, it is allowed to emit more than twice as much than any other power station. It has escaped by a particular clause in the directive that was inserted through Britain’s lobbying, on the basis that selective catalytic reduction is too expensive, but that is no longer valid. We have shown that, according to the company’s own figures, SCR technology is far cheaper than the guideline standard. It is about 50p per 1 kg, whereas the guideline standard is €5 per 1 kg. So, it has been given a very light regulatory touch. It says in point 3 that 'The license determination was under IPPC, which could require SCR to be fitted’, but the Environment Agency has fiddled it. If you look at figure 3 on page 4—
Val Lloyd: I am sorry, but we have run out of time. Thank you for your presentation. You retire to the public gallery—if you wish to do so—to listen to our further deliberations. Thank you for coming and thank you for your presentation.
Mr Lloyd: Thank you for your time.
Michael German: May I ask a procedural question?
Val Lloyd: Should we not wait until the witnesses are upstairs?
Michael German: It is just a procedural point regarding these papers. Are they published on the web at the same time as the committee papers? I just wanted to know.
Mr Sanchez: They were published and we have taken the decision to keep them as private papers for Members now.
Michael German: Thank you.
Val Lloyd: We will now consider the petition that we have just heard on Aberthaw. Are there any comments?
Michael German: To save the need to wade through all of this—although I have waded through some of it—I have written down three issues that seem to be worth probing further, to find out what the Minister requires of the Environment Agency. The first is that we need to understand the policy on ultra-fine dust particles in relation to what is being applied in this case. Secondly, I think that there was an issue about how monitoring was taking place on the ash tip, so we need to ask the Environment Agency its view on how it is monitoring, and whether its methodology is accurate. The third is on the nitrogen oxide abatement—and this is only a matter of my knowledge, rather than anything else. Could the Environment Agency have applied tighter controls, but chose not to, and if so, why?
Val Lloyd: It gave us its determination—the best available techniques at the sector level—which was helpful, because the information that we had was of a technical nature. Although I understood the concerns of residents and had great sympathy with them, I thought that there were two issues, and we were able to address only the one before us. However, I agree that there is a link in the monitoring.
Bethan Jenkins: On those issues, the monitoring was perhaps not part of it, but it is probably worth probing the Environment Agency on that again. On the air quality standard, perhaps we could ask the Minister about its effect on residents in the area.
The other issues that were raised were outside the Assembly’s remit, such as the determination on industries over 50 MW. That is an issue for future developments, but I do not believe that we can probe our Ministers further on that. So, I endorse those actions.
Val Lloyd: Fine, we can take Mike and Bethan’s suggestions forward. So, we will await those responses.
22 May 2008
Val Lloyd: The next petition is on Aberthaw power station. We took evidence on this at the last meeting, and you will remember that the evidence was a little overwhelming; its technicality was hard to take on board. We now have a summary of what we will ask the Minister, and it has been pointed out to us that the information that we requested was already available in the papers, except for one point.
Andrew R.T. Davies: Sadly, Chair, I was unable to be at that meeting a fortnight ago, but I took it upon myself to read all the papers and I went down to the site and had a look around its exterior—I was not on the site. Its sheer scale hit me; it is a massive operation, to say the least. The issues raised here are so scientific and technical that it is a lot to get your head around. I also noticed that the Environment Agency is unable to commit to certain things, because of the appeal structure that is currently in place. Is it on 21 June—
Val Lloyd: Potentially. There is one outstanding question that we could ask the agency, because it has covered all the others, but it would be unable to respond until after 21 July, because it must leave it open until then for appeal.
Mr Sanchez: It is 21 June.
Val Lloyd: I beg your pardon, it is 21 June. Thank you, Stefan. It would not want to prejudice any decision. We can still write to the agency and ask about that point, but it would not be able to reply.
Andrew R.T. Davies: It would be pertinent to do so, because it is such a complex issue. It is quite right that it cannot prejudice anything that might come out of an appeal. Following on from what you said, Chair, about the visit in relation to the previous petition, I found it informative to be able to see what was there. I wonder whether the committee would feel disposed to visit the site to get a better understanding of this. This information is so scientific and complex that being able to see the shape and size of the operation, and the potential impact on the surrounding and wider areas, would be helpful.
Val Lloyd: If that is what the committee wishes, we will do so, but all that I would say, Andrew, is that we are being asked to look at the scientific issues, which you pointed out. How would we be qualified, by looking at the operation, to decide on the policy on ultrafine dust particles? I would not know how to tie that in with what I was seeing with my own eyes.
Andrew R.T. Davies: The petition is so scientific and complex to get into, that I think that there is a benefit to physically seeing what is going on there. It would not give you any technical information and understanding. I have lived in that area all my life, but I did not realise the scale and scope of what is there or understand how it is affecting areas beyond the site. I appreciate that there is a scientific basis and a technical basis to this petition, but I believe that a visit to the site would benefit us, in understanding the whole picture, because it is specific to the Aberthaw area. It is not a Wales-wide issue.
Val Lloyd: That would be just a visit from the committee, not a committee meeting; we would just be going to look at the site.
Andrew R.T. Davies: Yes, we would be going to have a look, to understand what is going on there.
Mr Sanchez: May I just say that there might be issues with access? As committee members, I do not think that you have any right of access to the site. You could obviously pull up to the perimeter fence and have a look in.
Andrew R.T. Davies: I would leave it to the Chair, if she were in agreement, to conduct the visit in the most informative way possible. I do not know whether that would mean approaching Aberthaw power station to see whether it would permit us to go in or just looking from the outside, but I would leave it in the Chair’s capable hands.
Bethan Jenkins: I know that it would be interesting to do that, but what effect do you believe that it would have if we were to do that? When we went to Tafarnaubach, the clerk and the deputy clerk had prepared a very comprehensive study of the options. What do you think that we could get from seeing it through our own eyes?
Andrew R.T. Davies: I hope that we could get a feel for its impact on the immediate area, the size of the operation, how it is spreading out over the area, and what the petition is asking us to address, if you like. What I witnessed and what I appreciated was that it is not just a local issue; it goes into the wider community as well. I understand that there is a scientific aspect to it and I have failed to get my head around all the science, but there is an issue in terms of appreciating the scale of the operation that is going on there, in the context of what is being asked for in the petition.
Bethan Jenkins: I am not sure about this. As you said, we found it quite hard to grasp the science behind it and I wonder whether writing to the Environment Agency about the one element that is outstanding—I think that it is the mono nitrogen oxides that it has not looked into—would be enough for now. If the Environment Agency cannot give us a comprehensive reply on that, perhaps we could then say whether a visit was pertinent. What advice would you give, as clerk?
Mr Sanchez: I am not sure that a visit would add to your knowledge of the site. I can understand what Andrew is saying, that it might give you an appreciation of the scale of what is going on, but it is a very scientific petition and I am not sure that seeing the site would give you a better view on the things that they are asking for, about control levels and the various tests that the Environment Agency applies.
Andrew R.T. Davies: It is in your hands.
Bethan Jenkins: What is your opinion, Jenny?
Jenny Randerson: It is such a complex issue that I do not think that a site meeting is really the solution. You can look at something that looks awful and it can be less polluting than something that looks totally benign—supposing that you had radioactivity or something like that escaping where it should not, we would not see that kind of thing. I think that there is a case for more in-depth information. Was there not a suggestion that the Countryside Council for Wales should come in?
Val Lloyd: We knocked that one on the head at the first meeting, because CCW had commented. On balance, although visits in general are a good thing and move us forward, in this instance I do not think that we would gain anything from such a visit. I will leave it at that. I do not really want to take a vote, but if that is what Members want to do, I will. It seems a little—
Andrew R.T. Davies: I think that I would lose the vote. [Laughter.]
Val Lloyd: I am trying to be reasonable.
Bethan Jenkins: I would like to go, if I thought that the visit would be comprehensive and that I would come back with an answer. If I could be corrected on that, I would go—I am sure that the petitioners would correct me—but, if not, I would just like to go with the action point that we have put forward.
Val Lloyd: Yes, let us leave it at that. We will put the action point forward as regards the one piece of outstanding information.
Mr Sanchez: So, the action point is to write to the EA to see if it could have applied tighter controls over nitrogen oxide emissions.
Val Lloyd: Yes, but I am mindful that we will not get an answer; it cannot reply until after 21 June.
Mr Sanchez: Thank you.
Val Lloyd: I found the extra paper from the clerk very helpful indeed, because of the nature of the evidence.
9 July 2008
Janice Gregory: The next one is the petition on Aberthaw. There is a letter from the Environment Agency Wales to Val, a copy of which you have in your pack. Does anyone have any comments on this? I felt that this, too, is a complicated issue when I was reading the papers. The letter from the Environment Agency Wales is very clear.
Andrew R.T. Davies: The Environment Agency Wales has now sent us the letter that we were waiting for—because of the appeal, it could not respond before 21 June. At a previous meeting, I indicated that I thought that it would be beneficial for the committee to visit the site; sadly, fellow members did not agree, and I respect that decision. In light of what the Environment Agency has told us, I am not sure how much further we can progress this. The only clarification that I would seek—I was not at the evidence-gathering session when the petitioners came in, although I understand that Bethan was—is on the question of the Countryside Council for Wales coming in to speak to us, on which the petitioners seemed very keen. As I missed that segment of our work on this petition, I am unclear on that, so it would be useful to get some guidance as to why we were unable to facilitate CCW offering evidence. If that avenue is not open to us, I do not see how we can take this petition any further, given the detailed information that we have.
Janice Gregory: Having read the papers—I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong, and I will apologise—CCW would have been entitled to comment on any application, as I understand it. It would have been able to feed in its views directly, so I am not sure, as a newcomer to this committee, what benefit would have derived from having CCW representatives in the room. That was clearly the feeling of committee members.
Bethan Jenkins: I do not remember who was in committee at the time, but we had a discussion about bodies that were not directly involved in petitions that could be taken into account, and whether we should take evidence from them, because, at the end of the day, they were not the bodies behind the petition. That was the discussion that we had. We decided that we would not take evidence from them because, if we started to do so, we could be taking evidence from—
Janice Gregory: From every statutory consultee.
Bethan Jenkins: Yes. That was the decision. CCW had also fed into the Environment Agency’s comments. Max Wallis may correct me on this, but I do not think that he emphasised CCW in his presentation—he was not vehement about it. I am not sure if he mentioned in his oral evidence that he wanted CCW to come before us. He mentioned it in his written evidence.
Mr Sanchez: He has since written again, suggesting that we invite CCW.
Janice Gregory: If we were in a situation where CCW had not been able to make any comment at all, that would be a different issue; but it has had an opportunity, and it did comment, as I understand it. Does the committee feel that the question has been answered? Do you wish to close the petition?
Andrew R.T. Davies: I will go on what Bethan and your good self have said, Chair. If CCW has already fed into the consultation process, then we have to accept that the evidence of the Environment Agency is based partly on what the Countryside Council for Wales has said. On that basis, that avenue seems to have been exhausted.
Janice Gregory: It is my understanding—I do not know whether I can get any advice from anywhere—that the opportunity was afforded to CCW, as a statutory consultee. Are you happy with that?
Bethan Jenkins: We could be setting a precedent if we were to ask such a body in to give evidence. Where do we stop if we go down that road?
Janice Gregory: Once you set that kind of precedent, it is difficult. If no opportunity had been afforded to CCW at the time, to comment or not to comment, it might be different. However, as long as it has had the opportunity to comment, I think that it is difficult for this committee to bring in an organisation that has already had an opportunity to give evidence, or make a comment on an application. We all want to raise the profile of this committee, so that people feel able to submit petitions, but you would be swamped if you had statutory consultees in to give evidence on petitions. If you do that once, then on another petition you may find that there are 40 consultees, and they might all want to come in to give evidence. I am just substituting here, but if I was a member of this committee, that would be at the forefront of my mind. I think that the way to go is to give a voice to those who do not have any other way to express their views.
9.30 a.m.
Bethan Jenkins: The Environment Agency has answered on the other issues, so I do not see where else it can go.
Janice Gregory: Are we content to close the petition? I see that we are.
Annex 2
Y Pwyllgor Deisebau Petitions Committee |
||
|---|---|---|
Chris Mills Director of Environment Agency Wales Cambria House 29 Newport Road Cardiff CF24 0TP |
Bae Caerdydd / Cardiff Bay Our ref: PET-03-93 20 March 2008 |
Dear Mr Mills,
Petition seeking tighter pollution controls on Aberthaw Power Station
The Petitions Committee gave initial consideration to this petition on 31st January, and resolved to write to you to obtain your perspective on the license granted to Aberthaw Power Station.
The petition asserts there are weaknesses in the draft licence granted by the Environment Agency in November 2007, and seeks specific changes including improved abatement technology for nitrogen oxides; improved monitoring requirements and controls on dust, nitrogen oxides and mercury emissions. The petition’s full wording and supporting statement is attached for your information.
The petition is being supported by Barry/Vale Friends of the Earth who have provided the Committee with a range of documents they have obtained on this matter, including:
a letter from the EA’s Director, Chris Mills to Matthew Quinn (Director of Department for Environment) at the Welsh Assembly Government, dated 26th October 2007
a note of a meeting between EA/WAG dated 15th April 2005, which appears to have been obtained under freedom of information requirements
a letter from the Countryside Council for Wales’ Director, Roger Thomas to the EA’s Strategy Unit Manager Ceri Davies, dated 4th October 2007
This is undoubtedly a very complex matter, and in its consideration on 31st January, the Committee requested briefing papers from the Members’ Research Service and Assembly Parliamentary Service legal advisors to provide background briefing to inform how it may proceed with the petition. It was also clear that so far, the Committee has only received written evidence from the petitioners, and that it should provide you with the opportunity to consider submitting a written response from your perspective. The Committee will consider any information you provide alongside the legal/MRS briefs in determining how it wishes to progress with this petition.
I should be grateful if you could liaise with the Committee secretariat if you have any queries regarding this matter (they can supply you with the documents referred to above if necessary), and look forward to a speedy response which would allow the Committee to consider this again early in the summer term. The Committee Clerk is Stefan Sanchez (stefan.sanchez@wales.gsi.gov.uk , 02920 898505).
Yours sincerely,
Val Lloyd
Chair, Petitions Committee
Paper to consider the Environment Agency’s ("EA”) position as both the competent and regulatory authority, and the decision-maker in providing authorisation for the granting of a permit; and the role of the Welsh Assembly Government ("WAG”) as the appropriate authority in the determination of an appeal.
1. Compliance with Habitats Directive:-
The EA has a requirement to consult the appropriate nature conservation body and have regard to any representations made by that body and to consult the general public and allow them an opportunity to object. Where a permit may be granted on the basis of Overriding Public Interest then compensatory measures to ensure the overall coherence of Natura 2000 must be secured. The National Assembly Wales ("NAW”) shall secure that any necessary compensatory measures are taken to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.
Where the EA obtain the opinion of the European Commission as to whether reasons are to be considered imperative reasons of overriding public interest, notwithstanding a negative assessment it shall notify the NAW, which itself may seek the opinion of the European Commission.
Note that the EA in its letter to WAG dated 26th October 2007 confirmed that it is not the EA’s intention to refer the decision to Ministers in order to seek a ruling of Overriding Public Interest under regulation 49 of the Habitats Regulations. In any such case the NAW may give directions to the authority prohibiting it from agreeing to the plan or project, either indefinitely or during such period as may be specified in the direction. The EA shall comply with any direction given to it.
In The Environment Agency v. Able UK 2003, (which involved the scrapping of US toxic ships in the UK), Friends of the Earth believed that the EA had acted unlawfully when it agreed to modify Able UK’s Waste Management Licence, and that in particular it had failed to carry out a proper assessment on the potential impacts on the local, internationally-protected wildlife site, as required under EU Habitats law. The EA stated that Able’s licence was invalid, as it did not have planning permission in place, as a full environmental assessment had not been made of the affects of dismantling the ships without a dry dock.
2. Determination of Permit Conditions ("Best Available Technique”)
The EA when determining permit conditions must ensure compliance with the Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCPD), and emission limit values are to be based on the application of Best Available Technique ("BAT”), defined as "the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation”.
3. Judicial Review
The UK as a Member State, and consequently the Welsh Assembly Government ("WAG”) has a responsibility for ensuring that all the Public Consultation and public participation procedures have been complied with in the Directives to ensure against procedural irregularity and a claim for JR. If there is not a remedy the national courts will have to intervene. The standing (locus) test is famously liberal in the environmental field, as illustrated by the case of R. (on the application of Edison First Power Ltd.) v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2003), where there was in the circumstances no standing problem with Edison challenging a rating assessment instrument alleging it to constitute "double taxation” of PowerGen. The fact that standing requirements are very flexible in the environmental field (as evidenced also by Greenpeace case below) would seem to suggest that a JR Application might be entertained.
The standing requirements under the Human Rights Act 1998 ("HRA 1998”), are far more restrictive than the requirement for locus standii in English law as it is only possible to challenge the decision of any "public authority” as long as you are a "victim”, namely that there needs to be a more direct and personal affect, in some way by the matter complained of but not necessarily have suffered detriment. The rights conferred by Articles 6, 8, 14 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR are likely to be of most relevance in planning and environmental law, particularly the rights to a fair hearing, family life, the prohibition of discrimination and the peaceful enjoyment of possessions respectively.
The following link highlights the number and types of JR cases that have been proceeded with against the EA between 1997-2003. No details of years subsequent to 2003.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040707/text/40707w02.htm
For a recent JR case involving the EA, please see Edwards and Anor v. Environment Agency and Ors (2006) NPC 74, (which highlights the importance of consultation and the overriding need of fairness), the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance judge that the EA breached the common law duty of fairness when it was found to have withheld certain internal reports from the consultation process undertaken before granting a conditional permit to Cemex UK for the continued operation of its cement plant. The reports were found to be potentially material to the decision of the EA and to the members of the public attempting to influence it. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance judge to refuse relief, as the Court found that it would be pointless to quash the permit simply to allow the public to be consulted on data that was no longer current.
The Welsh Assembly Government should ensure every stage of the public participation phase is complied with in order to minimise any JR claims:-Article 15a of Directive 2008/1/EC:-Member States shall ensure that members of the public concerned having a sufficient interest are informed of:-(a) the application/ updating of a permit; (b) details of the competent authorities responsible for taking the decision and the nature of decisions; (e) an indication of the times and places where, or by means by which, the relevant information will be made available (f) the results of the monitoring of releases; and (g) the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register. The results of the consultations must be taken into due account in the taking of a decision.
The case of R (Greenpeace Ltd) v. SoS for Trade and Industry 2007), the High Court made it clear that JR could be appropriate for all levels of government decision-making, and that it would not defer to the executive simply because the challenge in question relates to an issue affecting high-level policy. The High Court stated that where a public authority had issued a promise or adopted a practice, which represents how it proposes to act in a given area, the law will require the promise or practice to be honoured unless there is good reason not to do so. As a result of the lack of consultation, the responses could not sufficiently address the concerns by Greenpeace and others on a new build nuclear programme. The Government’s consultation process was procedurally unfair, the government had breached Greenpeace’s legitimate expectation that there would be the "fullest public consultation” before any change was considered in government policy not to support new nuclear build, and that the decision without the full and proper consultation was unlawful.
4. Appeal process
There would appear to be no provision for a third party to appeal under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007, as they (eg. Friends of the Earth) are not the applicant (or appellant) and arguably can only be said to be an interested party. However, the appeal procedure under Schedule 6 EPR 2007, may allow a third party to make representations at a hearing:-"The appointed person may permit other persons to be heard and such permission must not be unreasonably withheld.” However, they may also fall to be considered under (c) (below) as a "person” who has made representations to the regulator in respect of the subject matter of the appeal in which case if there is a hearing they would be entitled to attend.
The Appeal procedure would allow the Operator RWE-n-power (the Applicant) to appeal to the appropriate authority ("Welsh Ministers”), in the event of its application being refused etc.
The Welsh Minister’s have discretion to hold a hearing. The persons entitled to be heard at a hearing are (a) the appellant, (b) the regulator (EA), (c) and a person who has made representations to the regulator in respect of the subject matter of the appeal, and (d) the appointed person may permit other persons to be heard and such permission must not be unreasonably withheld. However, this would not seem to provide a right for the cross-examination of witnesses etc.
5. Section 40 Environment Act 1995 (EA 1995); and the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 ("EPR”):-The Welsh Ministers have a general, and very wide power to issue directions of a general or specific nature to the EA in relation to pollution control, amongst other matters with respect to the carrying out of any of its functions; and regards the implementation of any obligations of the UK under the Community Treaties. Likewise the Welsh Ministers may give directions to the EA with the respect to the carrying out of its functions under the EPR 2007. The Welsh Ministers may also give directions to the EA requiring that a particular application be referred to it for determination.
The EA must comply with a direction given to it under the EPR 2007. The EA has a duty to maintain a public participation statement of its policies for complying with its public participation duties, and in preparing and publishing the statement, the EA must consult such persons as it considers are affected, likely to be affected or have an interest in the statement.
There is also a duty on the EA to maintain a public register which must contain copies of the grant, variation, transfer, and surrender of every environmental permit.
6. Section 80 GOWA 2006 states that a community obligation of the UK is also an obligation of the Welsh Ministers if the obligation could be implemented or complied with by the exercise by the Welsh Ministers of any of their functions. In other words an order could be made to ensure the Welsh Ministers carry out their obligations pursuant to Community Law. There is a duty by the Welsh Ministers to comply properly with the EC obligation, which could be a matter of JR before UK courts if the Welsh Ministers are seen to be acting ultra vires, in other words not in accordance with EC Law.
End
Y Pwyllgor Deisebau Petitions Committee |
||
|---|---|---|
Chris Mills Director of Environment Agency Wales Cambria House 29 Newport Road Cardiff CF24 0TP |
Bae Caerdydd / Cardiff Bay Caerdydd / Cardiff CF99 1NA Our ref: PET-03-093 6 June 2008 |
Dear Mr. Mills.
PETITION - ABERTHAW POWER STATION
You will be aware that the Committee considered this petition again on the 22nd May. When it was discussed at the previous meeting on 8th May, the Committee agreed to ask the EA several questions about its policy on ultra fine dust particles, monitoring of ash from the ash tip and NOx controls. The Committee secretariat team carried out a thorough review of all the information we have been presented regarding Aberthaw, including information previously sent to us by yourself. It was clear that all, apart from one, of our questions could be answered with this evidence, so the Committee resolved to refer back to you with the outstanding question:
Could the EA have applied tighter controls on NOx reduction at Aberthaw, and if so, why were they not applied? In addition, it would be helpful to know the EA's view of the effects of the air quality standard on the residents in the area.
Thank you for informing me in your letter of 24th April about the potential difficulties you would face if you were to provide further comment on the situation before 21st June. I would therefore be most grateful if you could address the above question after this date.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Val Lloyd,
Chair, Petitions Committee
y
Annex 3
Annex 4
MRS Paper
Petitions Committee |
15 February 2008 |
|---|
Outline of the environmental licensing process for power stations
The most relevant environmental regulatory instrument for power stations is Pollution Prevention and Control, soon to be regulated under The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007
, which will come into force on 6 April 2008. Section 12 of the Regulations states that an installation such as Aberthaw power station must only operate under the conditions of a permit, granted by the regulator (the Environment Agency).
When determining the conditions of this permit, the regulator must ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of the Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCPD) (this Directive applies to all combustion plants rated greater than 50MW). However, the LCPD applies without prejudice to the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive, meaning that any IPPC requirements which are additional to those of LCPD take precedence, notably the requirement for emission limit values to be based on the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT).
The Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCPD)
Under the LCPD, Environment Agency Wales should have ensured that by 1 January 2008 at the latest, the licence for the operation of Aberthaw power station contained conditions relating to compliance with the emission limit values established for new plants under the Directive, or was subject to the UK National Emission Reduction Plan (NERP) (Aberthaw did not take the NERP option).
In particular, the following criteria apply:
None of the calendar monthly mean values may exceed the emission limit values
For sulphur dioxide (SO2) and dust, no more than 3 per cent of all the 48 hourly mean values may exceed 110 per cent of the emission limit values
For nitrogen oxides (NOx), no more than 5 per cent of all the 48 hourly mean values may exceed 110 per cent of the emission limit values
The emission limit value for NOx (measured as NO2) is 500mg/Nm3 until 31 December 2015, and 200mg/Nm3 thenceforth (where Nm3 is cubic metres at standard temperature and pressure). The 2016 limit will require new equipment to be installed at Aberthaw.
The emission limit value for SO2 is 400mg/Nm3. The emission limit value for dust is 50mg/Nm3.
The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive
Under the IPPC Directive (transposed by The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000
), installations must use 'best available techniques' - defined as "the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicates the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing in principle the basis for emission limit values…".
Installations should be operated in such a way that:
"All the appropriate preventative measures are taken against pollution, in particular through the application of the best available techniques; and
No significant pollution is caused"
[emphasis added]
A permit to operate may impose limits on the amount or composition of any substance produced or utilised during the installation's operation. In particular, a permit shall include emission limit values for pollutants likely to be emitted in substantial quantities, such as sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and dust, and these values should be based on best available techniques.
The Environment Agency has determined that the sector-level best available techniques are as follows:
From 1 January 2008, flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) or an equivalent technique to reduce emissions of SO2, for combustion plants such as Aberthaw
Use of low NOx burners and Over Fire Air (OFA) (or equivalent measures) to limit NOx emissions, for combustion plants such as Aberthaw
Electrostatic precipitators for the control of particulates (dust), for combustion plants such as Aberthaw
However, the Environment Agency's framework states that:
2.1.5. BAT for NOx control on opted-in LCP at Aberthaw designed to operate on low volatile coal will be determined on the basis of its PPC application. It may comprise some combination of the established technique of Thermal Input Biasing; the dynamic classifier technology currently being trialed; SCR; and/or other techniques. An ELV will be set based on BAT, at least matching the minimum requirements of Annex VIA Note 3.
and:
2.2.4… All LCP except the downfiring boilers at Aberthaw are expected to have OFA (or equivalent) in operation by 1 January 2008, fixing the emissions rate.
and:
2.2.5. From 1 January 2008, transferable Operator NOx B-Limits would be allocated to coal-fired LCP taking the LCPD ELV route (except at Aberthaw) at 12.7 kt/year per GWe. [emphasis as in original]
and:
2.2.6. Applying the same methodology, the down-firing LCP at Aberthaw burning low volatile coals would be allocated a transferable NOx B Limit at 27.9 kt NOx/year per GWe. [emphasis as in original]
Glossary
B-limit - the limit applicable to ensure compliance with the environmental requirements across the sector (the allowances under the limits are transferable across power stations).
BAT - Best Available Techniques. "The most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicates the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing in principle the basis for emission limit values".
ELV - Emission Limit Values. The values that form the basis for limiting emissions of pollutants.
FGD - Flue Gas Desulphurisation. These technologies are widely used to control the emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and sulphur trioxide (SO3) from large stationary sources such as coal- and oil-fired power stations and refineries. Most FGD processes use an alkali sorbent to recover the acidic sulphur compounds from the flue gas.
GWe - GigaWatts electric = 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) Watts of electric capacity.
LCP - Large Combustion Plant. Any combustion plant with a rating greater than 50MW.
NOx - a generic term for mono-nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2). These oxides are produced during combustion, especially at high temperatures. In atmospheric chemistry the term NOx refers to the total concentration of NO plus NO2. NO2 is associated with adverse effects on human health. At high levels, it causes inflammation of the airways; long-term exposure may affect lung function and respiratory symptoms. NO2 also enhances the response to allergens in sensitive individuals.
OFA - Over Fire Air. A system for reducing NOx emissions by diverting secondary air flow above the burner zone in a generating station.
PFA dust particles - Pulverised Fuel/Fly Ash dust particles. PFA is composed of inorganic material with a small proportion of carbon particles resulting from the incomplete combustion of the parent fuel, coal. PFA is not considered to be "especially hazardous", but should be handled "in accordance with good occupational hygiene and safety practices". A paper on the health impacts of fly ash notes the following:
A great deal of research has been conducted into the health implications of working with pulverised fuel ash. Data from cell test systems and animal experiments indicates that normal levels of exposure (ie exposure to levels below the limit for nuisance inhalable substances) are not likely to have any significant health implications. The results of epidemiological research confirm this conclusion.
PPC - Pollution Prevention and Control.
SCR technology - Selective Catalytic Reduction technology. SCR is a means of converting NOx into diatomic nitrogen (N2) and water, by means of a catalyst. Commercial systems have been shown to reduce NOx from 70 to 95 per cent.
