Frequently asked questions
Soil/land and groundwater remediation – mobile plant permits and
deployment forms - January 2012
Frequently Asked Questions for Soil/land and groundwater
remediation – mobile plant permits and deployment forms
What do the Environmental Permitting Regulations say about mobile
plant?
Definition of mobile plant –
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 apply to 3 types of mobile plant:
•
Part A mobile plant;1
•
Part B mobile plant;2 and
•
Waste mobile plant.3
We regulate Part A(1) mobile plant and waste mobile plant .
Waste mobile plant is defined in Regulation 2 as plant that is:
•
designed to move or be moved whether on roads or other land;
•
used to carry on a waste operation; and
•
not an installation, Part A mobile plant or Part B mobile plant
Q2: What do we permit as mobile plant?
The general scope and examples of activities that can be permitted as mobile plant are covered
elsewhere in our Regulatory Guidance Note – RGN2. In most cases, plant is regarded as either
1 Defined in Part 1 Schedule 1 EPR 2010
2 Defined in Part 1 Schedule 1 EPR 2010
3 Defined in Regulation 2 EPR 2010
stationary or mobile and permitted accordingly. The key differences between the permitting of
stationary and mobile plant are:
•
there is no requirement to consult public consultees in relation to an application for a mobile
plant permit or a mobile plant deployment;4
•
there is no requirement to make an application and demonstrate that necessary measures
have been taken5 in order to surrender an environmental permit for mobile plant ( a mobile
plant permit); it is sufficient for the operator simply to notify us;
•
stationary plant can only operate at the site specified in the related environmental permit
whereas mobile plant can operate at any site at which a deployment has been agreed;
•
although an operator holds a mobile plant permit he cannot commence operations until he
has obtained our agreement to each deployment;
•
plant regulated under a mobile plant permit is subject to less compliance activity and
generally gives rise to lower charges.
The Core Guidance clearly states that an installation i.e. a stationary technical unit and its directly
associated activities, cannot be mobile plant, though it may include plant and equipment that is mobile.
In order to determine what may be regarded as mobile plant we have therefore considered the
definition of installation and, in particular, the meaning of “stationary”. The Core Guidance refers to
guidance prepared by the Commission on the meaning of “stationary” in the context of a stationary
technical unit.6 The Commission sets out a number of factors that can be used to decide whether plant
should be regarded as stationary, bearing in mind the importance of not undermining the objectives of
the IPPC Directive, namely:
•
the length of time the plant is expected to or does in fact operate at a particular location;
•
the nature of the activities;
•
the environmental impact of the activities;
•
the degree of physical installation involved in moving and establishing the plant.
In the light of this guidance we have identified the following three key factors that we shall take into
account at the permitting stage when determining whether it is appropriate to regulate plant under a
mobile plant permit. We shall also refer to these factors when deciding whether it is appropriate to
agree to a deployment of mobile plant.
1.
Environmental impact
4 See Paragraph 5 of Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Regulations
5 See Regulation 25 and Paragraph 14 of Part 1, Schedule 5 of the Regulations
6 Guidance on Interpretation of “Installation” and “Operator” for the Purposes of the IPPC Directive
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/ippc/pdf/installation_guidance.pdf
2.
Mobile nature of the plant
3.
Intention of the Operator (permanent vs. temporary)
Decisions will be made on a case by case basis taking into account all relevant circumstances and the
factors listed above.
Q3: Is treatment for disposal allowed under the mobile plant permit?
The general intention of the mobile plant permit for remediation is to encourage a recovery operation
whereby the treated materials are used to replace other [non waste] materials which would have had to
be used for that purpose. Where the primary intention of the operator is to dispose all or greater
proportion of the treated material, it is very unlikely that such an activity will be allowed using either the
standard or bespoke mobile plant permits. Decisions on this will be made on a case by case basis.
Q4: How does the mobile plant permitting process work in principle?
Holders of mobile plant permits (MPP) are required to complete and submit a deployment form to the
Environment Agency before it can be allowed to be deployed at a site. Only once the Environment
Agency has given its agreement in writing to this deployment form can the operations start at the site.
Operators are allowed to deploy to as many site as as they wish under one MPP. A deployment form is
however required for each site. The deployment form is a site specific application that requires specific
information and control measures to be provided and agreed prior to the use of any mobile plant at a
site. The agreed deployment form is therefore a ‘twin’ part of the MPP and operating in breach of the
agreed form or any condition of the MPP could lead to the Environment Agency taking enforcement
action against the permit holder.
Q5: I am treating less than 1000m3 of contaminated soil, do I need to
complete a deployment form?
Except where unacceptable risks are identified by our Area, a deployment form is generally not
required for small scale remediation schemes. Applying our commitment to proportionate regulation we
will not enforce the requirement of a permit for use in small scale remediation schemes or site specific
pilot trials of existing techniques provided that the total quantity of contaminated materials being
treated doesn’t exceed 1000 cubic metres.
However any such scheme does need to be notified to the local Environment Agency office and is
subject to their overall approval. They will need to be supplied with the following details at least 5
working days before the start of operations:
•
site address and contact details of any landowner, developer or contractor involved in the
remediation project;
•
expected duration of the activity;
•
details of the specific measures to be employed so as to prevent pollution of the
environment, harm to health or serious detriment to amenities of the locality
Schemes can proceed on this basis if we are satisfied that they pose negligible risks to the local
environment.
Q6: When does the deployment time frame start and cease?
The deployment timeframe starts from the moment the mobile plant is deployed at the site, for instance
prior to commencement of the treatment (which may include any set-up/commissioning or pilot period).
Condition 13 mobile treatment licence (MTL) or condition 4.3.5 of mobile plant permit requires the
operator to notify the Environment Agency at least seven days in advance of the start date.
We will specify an agreed time period (usually up to a maximum 12 months) in the deployment form
acceptance letter. For example, the operator may have requested a deployment period of nine
months. This starts from the moment the mobile plant is deployed to the site. Nine months from the
given start date the treatment activities must have ceased and the mobile plant must be removed from
the site.
Q7: Can an operator request an extension to the deployment form period
to exceeding the default 12 month period agreed in the original deployment
form?
Yes. It is often the case that land contamination/remediation projects require more than 12 months to
implement and undertake the remediation of soil/land and or groundwater depending on the in-situ or
ex-situ treatment technology being used. Although the operator will have produced a site-specific risk
assessment and materials plan, it is impossible to predict the exact volume and nature of the material
that requires treatment. External factors such as weather conditions, plant failure / maintenance can
also affect the time required to complete the treatment process.
If an operator predicts that the mobile plant required will be deployed for more than 12 months on the
original deployment application form and this is supported with documentation to demonstrate this,
then in principle we can accept this and a further 12 month extensions can be considered.
If the operator requests an extension, the request must be received before the time period ceases on
the original/agreed deployment form. The operator must provide evidence as to why an extension is
required.
If the extension does not exceed the original 12 months and assuming that the input source material
remains unchanged from the designated site, an extension to the time period as stated on the original
deployment form can be agreed and issued (via a new acceptance letter). Operators in this case are
not required to submit a new deployment and may not be required to pay an extra fee.
If the extension extends the time period beyond 12 months the operator must submit a new
deployment form application and provide evidence as to why the treatment period needs to be
extended together with an appropriate fee7. The deployment can be extended up to a further 12
months (maximum). No further extensions will be issued until the operator has carried out and
discussed/agreed with the Environment Agency, an assessment to establish whether the on-going
treatment operation at the site should be permitted as an installation or a site based waste operation.
Q8: Can I deploy to a particular site more than once?
No. To avoid abuse of the mobile permitting process, we do not expect an operator to deploy more
than once to a particular site especially after the expiration of the initial deployment and/or the second
year extension of an agreed deployment.
Q9: When are remediation objectives agreed?
The remediation objectives should have been identified and set within the legislation that has triggered
the need for remediation. These issues should be considered by the developer or consultant and the
local Environment Agency Area Groundwater and Contaminated Land team (GWCL) and should be set
out in the site remediation strategy. This sets out the remediation options to reduce or control the risks
from pollution linkages associated with the site as a whole.
Where possible the remediation objectives should be agreed in advance of the operator submitting a
deployment form application. We would take decision on the deployment application regardless as to
whether the remediation strategy is agreed or not. However, operators are required to agree the
remediation strategy/objectives with the local GWCL team before the commencement of the
remediation operations.
The issuing of a deployment form in association with a MPP does not imply that the treatment
technology used will be suitable for meeting any remediation objectives. It is the responsibility of the
landowner or applicant to ensure that their contractors meet the required remediation objectives. If this
is not met, further remediation may be required if an unacceptable risk to the environment remains at
the site.
Q10: Lagoons – can they be used as part of the mobile plant treatment?
Natural lagoon/pit
If the lagoon is an existing hole in the ground, for example, a tar pit, and as part of the remediation the
operator wants to incorporate the pit into the remediation by using an in-situ treatment method, for
example lime stabilisation, this would be acceptable in principle. A MPP (and deployment form) would
7 An appropriate fee is the full cost of a deployment form application, charged in line with our current Charging Scheme (see our website for
information on charges)
be required and in addition the operator will need to consider whether a separate groundwater
authorisation and/or surface water discharge consent is needed as part of the overall remedial
requirements. If so the operator must apply for these separately.
Engineered lagoon/pit
If the operator is proposing to construct a temporary engineered lagoon/pit with a suitable lining system
as part of the proposed remediation and is proposing to use an ex-situ treatment method, this is
acceptable in principle and would require a MPP (and deployment form). If groundwater authorisation
and/or discharge consent is needed the operator must apply separately. The lagoon must be removed
after the treatment is completed.
The only difference between using a natural and/or man-made lagoon or pit as part of the remediation
is the extent of the risk assessment undertaken to demonstrate they are not causing and/or
exacerbating the existing pollution.
Q11: Is Excavation a mobile plant activity?
Excavation of contaminated material, substances or products, for the purpose of transportation is not
considered to be a recovery/ disposal activity in its own right; and so does not need an environmental
permit. However, if the overall site remediation scheme/area is permitted under the Environmental
Permitting Regulations 2010 and excavation is an associated activity then it could be included and
controlled under mobile plant permit via deployment form.
Q12: Has the coming into force of EPR2010 led to any changes regarding
groundwater abstraction licences and discharge consents?
No. Although EPR 2010 incorporated some aspects of controlled water management, a separate
permit will be required if the operator is carrying out groundwater abstraction or water discharge activity
as part of the proposed remediation. It is the responsibility of the operator to apply for and to ensure
that such permits are in place together with the mobile plant permit. It is generally not possible to
regulate site based activities under a mobile plant permit.
Q13: What is the Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of
Practice ?
This is a voluntary code of practice (CoP) which applies to England and Wales and was produced by
the Development Industry. The CoP applies to excavated material, both uncontaminated and
contaminated, from man made and natural sources:
•
for re-use on the site from which it has been excavated, either without treatment or after on
site treatment, in the development of that land
•
for re-use in the development of land other than the site from which the material has been
excavated, following treatment at an authorised treatment hub within a defined cluster
agreed with us, and used in the development of land at a site within the cluster.
The Environment Agency supports and encourages its use in land remediation projects. It provides a
framework for determining whether or not excavated material used in a development is waste. The
CoP sets out good practice for the development industry to use when assessing:
•
whether materials should be classified as waste;
•
when treated waste can cease to be waste for a particular use.
For further details see
Position Statement PS006 Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice
Or visit CL:AIRE website at http://www.claire.co.uk/
Q14: Does the Agency need to take account of the CL:AIRE Development
Industry Code of Practice when assessing deployment forms?
No. The CoP introduces the concept of ‘Cluster Projects’ where materials are transported, recovered
and re-used amongst several sites. A cluster project requires a minimum of two sites (usually more).
The project will involve a donor site – where the waste material is produced and/or sourced and a
receiver site – where the treated and recovered material is re-used. If materials are not successfully
recovered they must be consigned for disposal at a suitably authorised site.
In order for a cluster project to exist one of the sites must have an environmental permit for the
treatment of waste (a hub site). The hub site can be situated at either the donor, receiver or at another
site location (depending on the treatment required, size of the site and so on). A guiding principle of a
cluster project is that it is temporary. It is envisaged that the majority of these projects will utilise mobile
plant at the hub site. In order to deploy the mobile plant to the designated hub site the operator must
complete a deployment form application.
We will assess the application in the same way as all other deployment applications. The fact that it
forms part of a cluster project has no impact on our decision. In some circumstances a fixed plant may
be designated as the treatment hub site and if so then no mobile plant will be required.
Q15: What if an operator wants to extend the length of deployment at a site
that is a designated Hub site?
We will treat the request in exactly the same way as any other extension as described in the above
section and we will take consideration of the overall length of deployment in our decision.
Q16: Do we have to consider the implications of storage (for example
stockpile) of a non-waste material on site with regard to the potential to
harm/cause pollution of the environment caused by dust/suspend solids
run off and so on prior to it being used in the recovery activity?
As the material is not a waste this is a matter for the operator to ensure good stockpile management.
However we must be assured that there is a certainty of re-use, otherwise the materials could still be
regarded as waste, and if so the storage would need to be regulated by the permit.
Whenever it is envisaged that the re-use of materials will occur in excess of 12 months from being
stockpiled and/or stored, the developer or contractor will need to agree any time limit with us. We will
make the decision relating to the legitimate length of storage within the context of the extant planning
permission or agreed programme of works.
Q17: Control of stack emissions 8 from mobile plant
General approach:
The treatment of contaminated soil and groundwater via a mobile plant permit can lead to emissions of
VOCs to atmosphere. These will be typically short term and of limited amount from a properly operated
plant. Where measures are put in place to capture or collect such emissions as part of a permitted
activity for example via vacuum extraction, we need to ensure that any subsequent discharges to
atmosphere are controlled to prevent pollution of the environment and harm to human health.
In assessing deployment form submissions the operator must satisfy us that:
•
all potential emissions are adequately characterised -.for instance the content and nature of
any effluent stream must be known. Characterisation of insitu or exsitu soil and/or
groundwater contamination will be required;
•
the operator has made predictions of emissions (type and rate) based upon reasonable
worst case assumptions or via pilot testing of sufficient material to ensure worst case
conditions are included;
•
pollution abatement technology will be employed9 for instance it is not acceptable to rely on
dilution and dispersion as the sole means of pollution control if abatement technology is also
readily available;
•
the pollution abatement technology chosen (for example activated carbon filtration, catalytic
oxidation etc.) has been optimised to prevent potentially harmful emissions where
8 This note deals with control of stack emissions.
9 Transferring pollutants from land/water to air is not considered to be a sustainable remedial solution given that VOCs are considered to be potent
“greenhouse gases”.
practicable, and if not to minimise such releases to air in all cases. NB - Optimisation may be
expressed in terms of % removal/reduction rates.
•
irrespective of the efficiency of the abatement technology, any subsequent releases will not
breach local air quality standards in the form of Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs).
H1 provides guidance for deriving EALs including for human health protection. Such levels are based
upon health and safety occupational exposure standards modified to account for non-workplace
exposure scenarios and durations. In establishing appropriate EALs the operator need to be aware of
the contaminants of concern10, the conceptual exposure scenarios at the site and the proposed
method and duration of any treatment activity.
For Deployments of <12 Months Duration
The operator must identify whether there are any sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the treatment site
that may be affected by air emissions from the process. If the only sensitive receptors are workers at
the site then it is acceptable to limit emissions for respective contaminants to the equivalent
occupational exposure limits.
If there are other sensitive receptors either on or adjacent to the site that could be affected by air
emissions from the plant, then the operator will need to establish a set of specific EAL’s. For human
health this involves the establishment of both short and longer term limits. Initially, for screening
purposes, it is acceptable to adopt the default assumptions and values given in Table B5 of the H1
guidance.
Using the proposed stack height of the equipment as the effective height of the release,use Table 3.1
in H1 to identify the short-term dispersion factor (ug/m3/g/s). Calculate, for each pollutant, the
environmental impact by multiplying the proposed emission rate by the dispersion factor giving a result
expressed as ug/m3. This is the Process Contribution (PC) for that pollutant.
If predicted PC <1% of the long term EAL and <10% of the short term11 EAL then emissions are
considered to be insignificant and we can approve that part of the deployment submission.
For all cases where emissions are predicted to rise above insignificant levels then the operator must
take measures in the first instance to try and modify or restrict the emission rate of the plant and/or
improve the abatement measures accordingly.
For emissions in excess of this initial screening value it is recommended that:
EALs be modified in line with the methodology given in H1 to reflect the actual duration of exposure
likely to be experienced by the sensitive receptor in question. The factor of safety applied to the
occupational exposure limit will increase in line with the duration of continuous exposure.
10 A VOC effluent stream may contain a mixture of substances. For the purposes of control it is sufficient for the operator to establish EALs for all
known “marker” substances within the mixture known to display harmful properties for instance those with established EH40 occupational exposure
standards.
11 Short term EALs have been chosen as an appropriate target for air quality given the short term nature and beneficial intent of remediation
operations. Long term EALs and statutory Air Quality Standards (AQS) are applicable if continuous treatment operations are expected to extend
beyond 12 months.
The presence or absence of any Local Air Quality Management Zones should be established12.
For emissions in excess of the initial screening value, the deployment could be approved providing PC
+ background13 < 100% of both the relevant long term and short term EALs.
If operational controls and abatement cannot achieve a reduction in emissions to below these
screening levels then consideration should be given, by the operator, as to whether site specific
dispersion modelling will be of any use. If undertaken, such modelling should be capable of
demonstrating that air quality at the site boundary or the location of the nearest sensitive receptor will
not breach the EAL’s.
If the pollution abatement technology available is still not capable of achieving these limits then the
deployment can only be approved if we are satisfied that the current measures represent best available
techniques.
For Deployments of >12 Months Duration
For deployments of >12 months duration the operator shall use the full standard approach as set out in
the H1 guidance to ensure that air emissions will not breach both short term and long term EALs14.
Compliance Monitoring:
It should be possible for the operator to demonstrate compliance via continuous monitoring of plant
performance indicators (for example outlet temperature of an adsorption unit) and submission of
relevant records
12 Emissions from mobile plant are of short term/limited duration. Their impact on air quality is expected to be limited, but there may be instances
where existing air quality is already poor and any additional emissions could lead to a disproportionate impact.
13 Background air quality data should be available for substances with established statutory Air Quality Standards (AQS) if the plant is likely to emit
such substances (for example benzene). For anthropogenic substances without established AQS it is reasonable to assume a background
concentration of zero, unless the plant is being operated at a location/installation already emitting such substances where local air quality monitoring
data is known to be available.
14 The Agency will double check that the EALs being used are derived based upon reasonable worst case exposure scenarios and are not overly
conservative, at this point in the process.