Pyewipe Waste Water Treatment Works

SCRUTINY COMMISSION 2 DATE REPORT OF 28th January 2003 Director of Law and Democratic Services Pyewipe Waste Treatment Works Open Martin Baldwin, Scrutiny Officer. Tel: 324156 None None direct at this stage Primarily affects the Freshney and Marsh wards. Water SUBJECT - STATUS CONTACT OFFICER - BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS WARD IMPLICATIONS - SUMMARY To receive further information on Forward Plan item ENV 01/03/2 - odour problems from the Pyewipe Waste Water Treatment Works. RECOMMENDATION That the Commission receives this report and determines whether it wishes to make any representations to Cabinet. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND During an examination of the Forward Plan on 26th November 2002, the Commission requested further information on progress in dealing with odour problems from the Pyewipe Waste Water Treatment Works. An explanatory report for the Cabinet meeting to be held on 7 th February is appended. Peter Freeman, Divisional Manager, Environmental Control will also be available to answer Members' questions. M J Walters Director of Law and Democratic Services 1.2 APPENDIX CABINET DATE REPORT OF 7th February 2003 Environmental Portfolio Holder Services SUBJECT - Pyewipe Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) ENV 01/03/2 FORWARD PLAN REF. NO. STATUS CONTACT OFFICER - Open A.J. Emerson, Environmental Protection Manager. Tel (32)4740 Anglian Water Services Pyewipe WWTW Odour Managment Plan. None Primarily affects the Freshney and Marsh wards. BACKGROUND DOCUMENT - FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS WARD IMPLICATIONS COMMENTS OF: MONITORING OFFICER DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES SUMMARY The report details the action taken to date to deal with odours from the Works and the current legal position. It further details the contents of a Government consultation paper on sewage odours. 1. That the contents of the report be noted. 2. That the Director of RECOMMENDATION(S) Environmental services respond to the Government consultation document by supporting the inclusion of waste water treatment works in the Local Authority Air Pollution Control regime. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Anglian Water Services commissioned the Pyewipe Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) in April 1999. It provides full treatment for waste water from houses and businesses in Grimsby, resulting in improved water quality in the Humber Estuary. The final effluent must comply within European/UK standards. Anglian Water‟s original site at Pyewipe has been used for treatment of waste for many years. The existing pumping station was built in 1982, as part of an important project to modernise Grimsby‟s sewage system. Many criteria have to be considered when choosing treatment processes for a new plant e.g. area of land available, flexibility to cope with seasonal variations, and the type of waste water to be treated, often depending on businesses in the area. Grimsby is considered to be the “Food capital of Europe”. Traditionally a large fishing port, it has more recently attracted a whole range of food processing companies. Many of these are connected with the fishing industry but they also include vegetable processing and production of prepared meals. Flows to the works can therefore vary in both strength and quantity throughout the year, depending on crop harvests and seasonal produce e.g. pea season during July/August. It is this complex situation which makes the waste water arriving at the Pyewipe site for treatment unique. The site at Pyewipe treats approximately 1000 litres of water per second, 24 hours a day 7 days a week. This equates to over 80000 tonnes of waste water treated per day. There is a potential for odour to be released from the waste water as it passes throughout the various processes of treatment at the works. The potential for complaints is high also as both commercial properties and residential properties are located in relatively close proximity to the works. 2.0 ACTION TAKEN FOLLOWING COMPLAINTS OF ODOUR NUISANCE The Environmental Control Service began receiving odour complaints about the works shortly after commissioning in April 1999. Complaints began in the early summer months and continued through the autumn into the winter. As a result the situation was kept under constant review and regular meetings were held with the Management at the Works. During these meetings Environmental Health Officers placed increased pressure on the Management of Anglian Water to examine aspects of their site operations at Pyewipe in a critical manner in order to achieve a satisfactory solution to the odour problem. Some of the particular difficulties relating to controlling odours from sewage works had to be recognised from the outset . In particular, it was accepted that it is not possible to stop the plant from operating either temporarily or permanently. Not only would such an action result in a serious threat to public health, it would also result in the odour problem being exacerbated. Another complicating factor was the proximity of the plant to other sometimes malodorous processes leading to confusion over the source of odours. In addition there is a “best practicable means” defence for the Company. This defence (which is only available to commercial undertakings) takes into consideration the cost/ practicality of abating a nuisance and allows a commercial operator to claim they have done all that is reasonably practicable to abate the nuisance. In response to the pressure placed upon the Company, they began to address the problem in August 1999 and agreed an action plan with the Council‟s Environmental Control section. A continuing investment programme was initiated with the installation of a new larger odour control plant. This was completed by the end of December 1999 with the objective of minimising odours from the operations on site. The study and design criteria originally carried out for the site did not recognise the unusual nature of the effluent, particularly during the vegetable season. The total number of complaints received for 1999 was 74. This was the worst year for complaints, which have since declined significantly. (A table is the Appended illustrating the complaint trend). During 2000 complaints continued to be received, varying from three in January to seven in June. However, during the late summer months there was a significant rise in the number of complaints received and this was attributed to seasonal variation in the effluent. The measures taken by Anglian Water had clearly not proved sufficient to overcome odours emanating from the site and causing a nuisance to residents and people at work in businesses nearby. In response to this unsatisfactory situation and in an endeavour to determine if a statutory nuisance existed the Council‟s Environmental Control section instituted a daily monitoring programme to determine whether or not a statutory nuisance existed. This monitoring initially proved inconclusive - occassional odours were detected but not at a frequency or strength that would amount to a Statutory Nuisance. Regular meetings continued to be held with management for the remainder of the year and into 2001. The Council‟s thrust at these meetings was that “best practise” for the industry would indicate the need for an Odour Management Plan(OMP) for the site. This plan would identify the areas likely to give rise to odour, set out the necessary operating and control procedures and dictate the company‟s response to odour emission. Officers continued to inform the company of their emission monitoring results to help formulate the plan. Where an officer considered a potential for odour nuisance existed the Management at the Works were contacted immediately and responsive action was taken by them to alleviate the anticipated problem. The results of the monitoring programme were discussed at these meetings and where a problem was identified the Management were pressed to analyse the situation, provide a satisfactory solution and develop this within the Odour Management Plan. Regrettably, although the company always dealt swiftly with complaints it was clear that they were not addressing the underlying problems effectively. In December 2001 eleven complaints were received and on investigation the fault was found at the Terminal Pumping Station which had not previously caused problems. The filters on site had been taken out of action during maintenance work allowing odours to escape into the atmosphere and affect surrounding residential and commercial property areas. This incident gave rise to particular concern as it became clear that the company had not considered the pumping station when producing the draft OMP. Although considerable effort had been expended in working with the company to produce a voluntary solution to the problem via a comprehensive risk assessment and OMP, it was now clear that operating procedures at the site were still not satisfactory. Accordingly the decision was taken in January 2002 to serve a statutory abatement notice in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This notice sought to prevent further occurrences of controllable odour nuisances by requiring Anglian water Services to ensure that the best practicable means were used to prevent odour emission from the works. The notice required Anglian Water to produce and efficiently implement an effective odour management plan, by revising the then current Odour Management Plan Version 6 for the main site and for the Terminal Pumping Station. In addition, the plan had to (a) incorporate an effective system of olfactory assessment of emissions and (b) incorporate an effective means of investigation and instituting prompt corrective action when any malodorous escape outside the site boundary is detected or when any malfunction or breakdown likely to lead to abnormal emissions is found. Anglian Water had 16 weeks in which to comply with the notice or appeal to the Magistrates. No appeal was made to the notice by Anglian Water. Anglian Water Services submitted their revised OMP to the Council in April 2002. Following an initial appraisal by officers it was determined that there was on overpowering need to ensure that the best possible plan be produced. To facilitate this the Director of Environmental Services engaged a leading figure in the field of sewage odour management as a consultant. The consultant‟s brief was to carry out a thorough review of the document, determine any omissions and make recommendations for improvement. His report was received in June 2002. The Council‟s Environmental Health Officers examined the Consultant‟s report and discussed the findings with AWS. Subsequently, the Odour Management Plan was further developed by Anglian Water‟s in-house specialists. The effect of these measures is to control operations at the plant. At this stage it was believed that If odours were emitted at such a frequency and/or level to amount to a statutory nuisance the company must demonstrate that it has operated in accordance with the notice requirements i.e. the OMP. If there is a breach the Council could then take enforcement action. (This confidence has subsequently been undermined by the events detailed in section three of this report). In early October a further meeting was held with the Work‟s Manager and the revised Odour Management Plan, incorporating the improvements, was discussed. In addition, some further amendments were suggested by Environmental Control Officers to further improve the contents of final Odour Management Plan. This final document satisfies the requirements of the notice and should have formed the basis for any future enforcement action. 3.0 STATUTORY NUISANCE Following service of the notice relating to the Pyewipe Works a number of events occurred elsewhere in the country which gave cause for concern over the validity of the notice. Historically local authorities had assumed that as water companies were now limited companies the were not able to claim exemption from the nuisance legislation as “Statutory Undertakings”. However this assumption had not been tested in the courts. Very few authorities had taken a positive approach to nuisance enforcement against water companies either because the companies improved voluntarily or because they wished to avoid testing the historical exemption. However a number of authorities were now considering or taking such action. In February 2002 Plymouth Council were about to pursue a court case when their legal advice led to them withdrawing an abatement notice served against South West Water to prevent “bad egg” odours. This led to considerable public debate, ultimately resulting in Alan Michael, the rural affairs minister telling the House of Commons that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was not intended by Parliament to apply to public sewers and sewage treatment works. In another landmark case in May of that year United Utilities (another water company), won an appeal against an abatement notice, giving them the well publicised right to „pong‟. The abatement notice had been served by Liverpool MDC, following reports of unpleasant odours around the Wastewater treatment works at Sandon Dock, Liverpool. However, in the Liverpool Magistrates Court, United Utilities, argued successfully that the wastewater treatment works should not be regarded as “premises” under Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act, and the notice was therefore invalid. Costs (£35,000) were awarded against the Council, which decided not to challenge the Court‟s ruling. These cases resulted in a recognition by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) that the question of odours from sewage works need to be addressed. As a result of this recognition DEFRA produced a consultation paper on 23 December 2002 seeking responses from local authorities and other interested bodies by 28 March 2003. The consultation document accepts that the Environmental Protection Act does not currently apply to water companies and that local authorities have no other means of control. DEFRA therefore propose four options for the future. Option 1: No legislative change, proposed code of practice for industry This would retain the existing situation with the water companies and other stakeholders being encouraged to agree a voluntary code of practice. This code of practice could help standardise the approach to an odour problem across the industry, and support the process of reaching a voluntary agreement over actions to be taken. DEFRA believe this option would have the benefit of not generally resulting in increased costs for water companies which they might seek to pass on to customers. However from a local authority viewpoint success in controlling odours is entirely dependant upon the local water company being willing to work in accordance with the code. Option 2: Extension of the Statutory Nuisance regime within the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 to include odours and other nuisances from sewage treatment works This would involve amending the existing legislation to bring odours and other nuisances concerning sewage treatment works within the scope of the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA). This might be done by redefining the term „premises‟ or otherwise making it explicit that sewage treatment works are included. There would be a potential increase in companies‟ and local authorities‟ costs in that the new regime would add to the regulatory burden for both. DEFRA believe that additional capital expenditure, which could be significant in individual cases, could arise where the company was not already operating the best practicable means and where remedial works or higher standards of operation needed to be adopted. It would be for the Office of Water services (Ofwat) to consider and determine any cases made by water companies for higher costs to be reflected in water charges. Option 3: Local Air Pollution Prevention and Control (LAPPC) This option would involve the Local Air Pollution Prevention and Control regime being extended to apply to all sewage treatment works, except those which are to be controlled under Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) from 2004. This would require each sewage works to have a permit containing conditions based on the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT) for minimising air emissions (including odour). Local Authorities would be responsible for the issuing and monitoring of permits but this would be carried out with reference to statutory guidance that would be published by the Government. This would appear to be an attractive option that offers a proactive approach to odour control. However, DEFRA is concerned that it would potentially involve additional costs to all treatment works including those that are not generating odour nuisance complaints. The water industry could therefore argue that this is a new „burden‟ and if successful, this could be reflected in higher bills to customers. Option 4: Extension of the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Regime This option would involve „Integrated Pollution Prevention Control‟ (IPPC) being extended to apply to all sewage treatment works. In 2004, some operations at a minority of sewage works will become regulated under the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 which apply to waste disposal activities. For those that are, their permits will have to contain conditions about odour control if odours are considered likely to be significant. Conditions may also be set for water, waste, energy use, noise, vibrations, accidents and so on. Non-compliance with those conditions would lead to enforcement action and possibly to prosecution. However, the majority of sewage treatment works will not be subject to IPPC. Extension of full IPPC to all sewage works would place significant burdens unrelated to odour control on operators and regulators. This could be seen as a disproportionate approach to an odour problem. DEFRA state that it would be possible to draw up regulations modelled only on those parts of IPPC relevant to odour control, but believe this would still represent a significant additional burden on the regulators and the water companies which may be reflected in significantly higher bills to customers. 4.0 CURRENT SITUATION The abatement notice has achieved a satisfactory and industry standard odour management plan from Anglian Water Services who believe they are now complying with the “best practicable means” defence. The company maintains that redeveloping or relocating the plant would not be practicable in cost and other terms. It is likely that if a court ever has to make a judgement on this claim the companies view would prevail. The odour management plan sets out procedures for preventing odours and for dealing with odour problems when they arise. It is the latter which will continue to cause concern to all involved. The peculiar nature of Grimsby‟s effluent (resulting from the local food industry) has a detrimental effect on the operation of the plant, particularly in the summer months. On occasion the existing plant cannot work without causing odour. The management plan seeks to minimise the odour and establish an effective response to particular episodes, unfortunately it cannot always prevent it. The company has assured the Council that it is committed to further improvement wherever possible. To this end a number of further strategies/schemes have been proposed to aid odour control on site, and are due to be completed and trialled by March 2003. 5.0 FUTURE ACTION Despite the uncertainty affecting the abatement notice the Council will continue to ensure that the company complies with the plan to minimise and control the emission of bad odours. To this end a letter was sent to the company, in December 2002, agreeing the odour management plan and stating that this document will now be used to determine compliance with the notice in respect of complaint and general performance. This will be followed up by an unannounced audit of their systems in early 2003. The Government is aware of the difficulties Local Authorities are currently facing and hopefully will be persuaded that legislative changes are necessary. These changes will assist the Council in attempting to minimise the odour from the plant. It is however, unlikely that any legislative change will allow the Council to entirely prevent odour emission. Having considered the DEFRA options paper in some detail the Director of Environmental Services believes that option three ( an extension to LAAPC) would provide the most appropriate level of protection for the people of North East Lincolnshire. RAY OXBY Director of Environmental Services Admin\reports\AnglianWater.ae.cab 13/1/03 17.30