This document summarizes a panel discussion on secondary containment regulations for the anaerobic digestion industry. The panel includes representatives from CQA International, the Environment Agency, Future Biogas, and CAPITA Projen. They discuss the purpose of secondary containment, how the industry has worked to develop guidance through a risk assessment tool, and what constitutes appropriate secondary containment. The Environment Agency representative emphasizes the need for early discussions with regulators and following good practice guides like CIRIA C736. The group discusses factors to consider in containment design and the ADBA containment tool, which provides a way to assess hazards, risks, and suitable containment classifications.

1. UK AD & BIOGAS
TRADESHOW
6-7 JULY 2016
NEC BIRMINGHAM

2. SMALL SCALE AD
DEVELOPMENT
CHAIR: ANGELA BYWATER, NETWORK MANAGER, ADNET
JAMES MURCOTT, DIRECTOR, METHANOGEN UK
CLARE LUKEHURST OBE, TEAM LEADER, IEA BIOENERGY TASK 37
DAVID KANER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ADVANCED ANAEROBICS
ALICE BAYFIELD, PROJECT COORDINATOR, QUBE RENEWABLES
ANDY BULL, ASSOCIATE PROJECT MANAGER, SEVERN WYE ENERGY AGENCY

3. Commercialising Small Scale
AD Technology
Alice Bayfield

4. Introduction
• QUBE Renewables Ltd designs and builds small scale
local embedded biogas energy generating systems.
• Our vision is to provide Energy with out barriers -
Sustainable energy from Sanitation and Wastes

5. What is the Market?
Global - 4 main cross-cutting sectors
– Landowners – farms wanting to utilise wastes and provide
own heat, power and fuels, cut utility costs
– Waste Producers – processors or collectors want to cut
disposal costs and generate energy from wastes
– Military/Infrastructure – resilience building during
deployments in overseas operations, e.g. fuel in
Afghanistan was $20/ litre
– Humanitarian – response to natural disasters, or for
planned development and relief programmes

6. Our Fleet
Modular anaerobic digestion technology
providing compact biogas system
packaged in multiples of standard 20ft
or 40ft shipping containers
The rapidly deployed version of bioQUBE
designed to sanitise waste and create
biogas for energy recovery
Flexible, modular covers for lagoons or
open top tanks to collect gas and
intercept rainwater. Systems available in
Passive or Active modes
Generate electricity and hot water from
on site biogas production

7. Thank You
Alice Bayfield
alice@quberenewables.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 1984 624989
www.quberenewables.co.uk
QUBE Renewables Limited, Higher Ford, Wiveliscombe,
Somerset, TA4 2RL England

8. SMALL FARM AD
UK AD & Biogas 2016

10. www.methanogen.co.uk
info@methanogen.co.uk

11. www.methanogen.co.uk
info@methanogen.co.uk

12. Photo: Courtesy of Bourne Valley Associates
Larger modern 80kWe digester: slurry from 120 cows, chicken manure
from free range broilers & some added maize. Auto de-gritting.

13. Methanogen (UK) Ltd
info@methanogen.co.uk
www.methanogen.co.uk
M: 07753 571371
Twitter: BiogasUK

14. ADVANCED ANAEROBICS LIMITED
Powering the Future of Farming
Dr. David A. Kaner MBA (CEO)

15. SlurryGen-50
300 cows = 24 tonnes/day
50kW electricity + 85kW heat
Farmer’s IRR 13-20%

16. Woodhead Project

17. Woodhead Project

18. NEWSFLASH
POLICY SWITCH TO NEW NUCLEAR

19. Woodhead Project

20. NEWSFLASH
PRELIMINARY ACCREDITATION
WITHDRAWN

21. Woodhead Project

22. NEWSFLASH
QUARTERLY CAPS CREATE FiT QUEUE

23. Woodhead Project

24. NEWSFLASH
NO EXPORT CONNECTIONS UNTIL 2022

25. Woodhead Project

26. NEWSFLASH
DAIRY INDUSTRY IN CRISIS

27. Woodhead Project

28. NEWSFLASH
ACCELERATED FiT DEGRESSION

29. Woodhead Project

30. NEWSFLASH
ELECTRICITY PRICES UP 60% BY 2025
(DECC)

31. Woodhead Project

32. NEWSFLASH
ACCELERATED RHI DEGRESSION

33. SlurryGen-30
200 cows = 15 tonnes/day
30kW electricity + 50kW heat
Farmer’s IRR 13-20%

34. NEWSFLASH
UK VOTES TO LEAVE THE EU

35. ADVANCED ANAEROBICS LIMITED
Powering the Future of Farming?
Dr. David A. Kaner MBA (CEO)

36. Trans-national project involving European Biogas Association and partners from
countries that vary massively in terms of the deployment of AD technology

37. • AD plant suppliers
• Welsh Government, Economic Development, Energy, Animal Health, Agriculture
• Academics (Wales AD Centre of Excellence)
• Farming Unions and CLA
• Natural Resources Wales
• SWEA

39. Main Conclusions
• AD has a lot to offer the dairy farmer in
particular – but most of the advantages are
not based upon energy generation
• AD on livestock farms has a lot to offer to GHG
emission reduction ambitions
• There are very many dairy farms in Wales with
herds of between 120 and 150 cows
• The current FiT and RHI incentives are pushing
projects in the “wrong” direction.

40. The Vision
• Economies of scale with standard solutions for
very similar slurry based systems
• Separation of “environmental” technology
from “energy generation” in order to allow
FiT/RHI eligibility
• Aggregated Power Purchase Agreement?

41. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR

42. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION – ARE
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT
REGULATIONS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AD
INDUSTRY?
JESS ALLAN, ENVIRONMENT AND REGULATION MANAGER, ADBA
DARREN LEGGE, SENIOR ADVISOR (LANDFILL ENGINEERING),
THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
PETER STEVENS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CQA INTERNATIONAL
DAN PURVIS, HEAD OF OPERATIONS, FUTURE BIOGAS
DAVE AUTY, BIOENERGY ENGINEERING MANAGER, CAPITA PROJEN

43. SECONDARY CONTAINMENT
JESS ALLAN
ENVIRONMENT AND REGULATION MANAGER

44. Overview
• Who’s on the panel?
• What is secondary containment?
• AD industry work on secondary containment
• Over to the panel

45. Who’s on the panel?
Peter Stevens, Managing Director, CQA International
Darren Legge, Senior Advisor, Environment Agency
Dan Purvis, Head of Operations, Future Biogas
Dave Auty, Bioenergy Engineering Manager, CAPITA Projen

46. What is secondary containment?
•Considered the most important means
of preventing major incidents involving
loss of inventory.
•For example, storage tanks, drums,
pipework.
Primary
Containment
•Minimises the consequences of a
failure of the primary storage by
preventing the uncontrolled spread of
the inventory.
•For example, concrete or earth bunds.
Secondary
Containment
•Minimises the consequences of a
failure in the primary and secondary
containment systems by providing an
additional level of protection.
•For example, diversion tanks, lagoons,
containment kerbing to roadways.
Tertiary
Containment

47. DIGESTER
LAGOON
Primary containment
Secondary
containment
Tertiary
containment
BUND
Example

48. Industry work on secondary containment
Training, Safety and Environment Working Group
• Identified the need for specific guidance for the AD industry.
• Wished to ensure that secondary containment arrangements at AD plants are compliant, fit
for purpose and proportionate to the level of risk, and help ensure consistent approach by
regulators.
• Produced a risk assessment tool and accompanying guide based upon the principles in
CIRIA 736.
• Visit ADBA’s website to find out more: http://adbioresources.org/.

49. What is “appropriate” secondary containment?
CQA International Ltd
UK AD & Biogas 2016
6 - 7 July, NEC in Birmingham
Session and timing
Wednesday 6 July, 12.00 - 12.55
Environmental protection - How to ensure appropriate secondary containment
Presentation time: 10 Minutes (followed by Q&A with fellow panellists)

50. The purposeof containment
Primary
Containment
Prevents loss of material
Secondary
containment
For when things go wrong
Purpose Further reduce the risk of
pollution
Objective Avoid penalties, shutdowns
and adverse publicity

51. Secondary containment is an implicit requirement
2012/10 Rules 2012/12 Rules
Feedstock Securely stored
Spills contained
and recovered
Impermeable (10-9m/s) surface
Sealed drainage system
Process Fit for purpose
Spills contained
and recovered
Impermeable surface within a
bunded area
Underground tanks shall have
secondary containment
Digestate Fit for purpose Fit for purpose

52. What isFitfor Purpose?
Concept Well equipped or well suited for its
designated role or purpose
Design “Purpose” defined in advance
Risk-based
Technical and economic aspects
Bespoke solutions for each site
Good
practice
CIRIA C736
LFE guidelines, DOT specifications

53. Achieving compliance in containment
New
projects
Containment strategies can be
included in the design
Existing
sites
May not have secondary containment
Retrofitting can be difficult
Design Combine procedures, natural barriers,
topography and engineering
Validation Independent certification to confirm
compliance

54. Secondary Containment for the
AD Sector – A Regulators
Perspective
Darren Legge
Senior Advisor – Landfill and Waste Recovery Team
July 2016

55.  Once you have been provided with a permit you
need to refer to our guidance
 We are currently reviewing our existing guidance
in line with the DEFRA’s Smarter Environmental
Regulation Review
 Once complete this will be accessed via gov.uk
 This will provide further guidance on secondary
containment and will likely require the same
generic requirements

56.  All above ground tanks containing liquids whose
spillage could be harmful to the environment must
be bunded.
 Impermeable/resistant to stored liquids
 No outlets
 No penetration of contained surfaces
 Have a capacity greater than 110% of the
largest tank or 25% of the total tankage whichever
is the larger
 Regular inspections

57. What about the specifics;
 We are not allowed to include specific design or
construction criteria within the permit
 Needs to be fit for purpose and will be strongly
dependant on the sensitivity of the proposed
location
 We do not insist on CIRIA C736 but as it
reflects current good practice, we would
encourage its use
 ‘Other appropriate measures’

58.  CIRIA C736 ‘Design of containment systems for
the prevention of pollution : secondary, tertiary
and other measures for industrial and commercial
premises’ (2014)
 Is risk based and reflects current good practice for
all liquids stored on a permitted site – including
AD, landfill and oil and gas sectors
 Has driven the need for an AD specific Industry
Code of Practice

59.  CIRIA C736 applies the source-pathway-receptor
principle;
 Leads to a site risk rating which results in a
recommendation for the class of containment
 For both class 2 and 3 containment an
impermeable membrane liner is required in
conjunction with suitable ground conditions
 Refers to current EA guidance LFE5 ‘Using
geomembranes in landfill engineering – which
should be used

60. Things to consider;
 Suitability of location
 Wider impacts of tank failure
 Appropriate design
 Compatibility of liner
 Puncture during and post construction
 Protection – physical and UV
 Gas collection
 Construction Quality Assurance

61. Key Messages;
 Early discussions with the EA recommended to
determine suitability of location and design
 EA will continue to rely on CIRIA C736 until ICOP
is produced
 ICOP relies/refers heavily towards CIRIA

62. Insert slides here Dan Purvis

63. The (DRAFT) ADBAContainmentTool
AD &Biogas
6th July 2016

64. Introductions
Dave Auty
Bioenergy Engineering Manager

65. Whydoes theindustryneed a containmenttool?
• Because it’s complicated
• Clear-cut for waste
• Desirable for organics
• Containment failures have occurred
• Value engineering and poor design
• Operator errors
• AD Industry responsibility is important
• To keep the ear of government
• To attract investment

66. WhatistheADBAContainmentTool?
+Your site information = advice + knowledge
http://www.adbioresources.org/

67. Introductiontothetool –what do you needtodo?
There are 5 steps to follow:
 Identify the hazard posed to the environment
 Calculate the Site Hazard Rating
 Assess the likelihood of a loss of primary containment
 Calculate the Site Risk Rating
 Identify suitable secondary containment designs

68. Introductiontothetool –anotherway of lookingat it

69. Step 1–IdentifytheHazard
Three parts to this bit:
 The source
 The feedstock
 The Process
 Chemicals on site
 Fire fighting
 The Pathway
 Runoff times
 Topography, geology and hydrology
 Local climate
 Local flood risk
 The Receptors
 Watercourses and bodies
 Habitation
 SSSI/SPA/SAC etc
• Look at your site inventory and
assess the risk it poses
• Use your judgement to assign
High, Medium or Low hazard
ratings
• The tool provides guidance and
acts as a reference document
• The tool calculates the hazard
rating for each part
• The Source will almost always
result in a High hazard rating
• The Pathway should be mitigated
to Low hazard by the secondary
containment
• The Receptors will be site specific

70. Step 2–CalculatetheSite Hazard Rating
The tool automatically combines the three hazard ratings to provide the
Site Hazard Rating

71. Step 3–Assess thelikelihoodof a loss of primary containment
There are three steps to follow:
1. Unmitigated likelihood
 The tool provides a list of risks and others can be added from HAZOPs, etc
 Using the guidance provided, the user decides how often the risk will occur
 E.g. a human error leading to a spill is highly likely, a lightning strike is less likely
2. Mitigated likelihood
 Mitigation measures can be applied
 E.g. concrete bollards to prevent a vehicle impact
3. Select the overall likelihood
 Based on the premise that the highest likelihood gives the site’s overall
likelihood

72. Step 4–CalculatetheSite RiskRating
The tool automatically combines the Site Hazard Rating and the Likelihood
to provide the Site Risk Rating
The tool then converts this into the corresponding class of secondary
containment that is required

73. Step 5–IdentifySuitable Secondary ContainmentDesigns
The tool provides relevant diagrams, text and data

74. • There is a need to improve this aspect of the AD industry
• Not doing so could be very expensive
• The ADBA Containment Tool can help by:
• Providing guidance in conjunction with the ADBA Containment Guide
• Improving developer/operator knowledge by assessing hazards and risks
• Defining the class of containment required
• Assisting with regulator approval
• As an industry, we can work together
Summary

75. It’s good to talk…
Contact:-
Dave Auty – Bioenergy Engineering Manager
E-Mail: dave.auty@capita.co.uk
Direct Line: 01928 752 596
Mobile: 07961 560 104

76. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR

77. DIGESTATE – DEVELOPMENTS IN END OF
WASTE AND THE BENEFITS OF BIOFERTILISER
FOR AGRICULTURE
CHAIR: NINA SWEET OBE, SPECIAL ADVISOR – ORGANICS, WRAP
THOMAS MINTER, DIRECTOR , MALABY BIOGAS
FIONA DONALDSON, NATIONAL OPERATIONS WASTE UNIT, SEPA
TIM EVANS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, BTS BIOGAS
SIMON BLACK, PRODUCT MANAGER, ANGLIAN WATER

78. Biosolids Recycling in the UK
Simon Black
Head of Recycling & Environmental Services
Anglian Water Services

79. Sewage Sludge Production and Outlets
UK untreated sewage sludge output
53 million tonnes/annum from
8,500 water recycling centres
Increasing amounts are treated and
recycled to agricultural land as biosolids
Considered the Best Practicable
Environmental Option - BPEO

80. Sewage Sludge Treatment
Various treatment technologies used to
produce biosolids
73% treated by AD with advanced AD
treatments gradually replacing lime
treatment and conventional AD
Energy production of c.850 GWh
enough power for 200,000 homes
Potential for much more (> 2,000 GWh)
but may be dependent on incentives

81. Recycling to Agricultural Land
AD biosolids product is mainly cake at
20 – 25% dry solids
It can be safely & securely stored in field
heaps before spreading & incorporation
3.6 million tonnes per annum biosolids (AD,
lime treated and granules) are recycled to
agricultural land
Applied to 146,000 hectares/annum
Equal to 1.3% of agricultural land

82. Recycling to Agricultural Land
Aligns with UK the Government recycling
strategy and the EC Circular Economy
Nutrient value to UK agriculture
£25m/annum - mainly Phosphate (4.5%)
and Nitrogen (4.0%) plus Sulphur, Potash
and Magnesium
Strong demand from farmers – it is worth
£170/hectare in nutrients alone
Anglian Water sell it as for
>£2.5m/annum - reduces customer water bills
Biosolids is a product with considerable value!
Waste prevention
Re-use
Recycle/compost
Energy recovery
Disposal
Recycling
to land
Incineration with
energy recovery
Landfill
Sludge management options
Waste Hierarchy

83. Benefits to Soil and the Environment
Improved soil structure
Increased water retention capability
Increased life in soil (from microbes to
earthworms)
Increased carbon sequestration
Less soil work and energy required
Increased crop yields
Reduced risk of yield loss
Maintain soil structure and nutrient composition
Reduced risk of diffuse pollution
Natural provision of nutrients
Greenhouse gas reduction

84. Biosolids Recycling to Agricultural land
Completes natural
nutrient and
carbon cycles

85. Biosolids Assurance Scheme - BAS
Water Industry initiative to provide reassurance to the food chain and consumers
Brings together regulations and best practice into a single transparent Standard
Sets a minimum Standard – protects the environment & creates a level playing field
in advance of potential sludge market deregulation
Stakeholder input and support are essential to maintain validity and credibility
Third party audit by NSF Certification
Aspiration for UKAS Accreditation

86. Biosolids Assurance Scheme
Objectives and Benefits
Biosolids
Assurance
Scheme
Provides information
and promotes public
acceptance
Provides assurance
to food chain
stakeholders
Achieves operational
consistency and
transparency
Combines legislative
and non-legislative
requirements, and
best practice
Ensures delivery of
nutrient benefits to
agriculture
Protection of the
environment -
sustainability
P

87. Biosolids Recycling is Safe and Sustainable
UK Water Industry Research continuously investigates emerging issues
Risk Assessment on source materials, processes and products underpins the Standard
HACCP principals used to control treatment processes
Routine product testing for microbiological
parameters, elements and nutrients
Testing of soils for elements and nutrients
Safe Sludge Matrix (since 2001) defines
treatment standards and minimum
periods between application and
harvest/grazing

88. BAS Certified Biosolids should be
recognised as a product - not a waste 
Simon Black
Head of Recycling & Environmental Services
Anglian Water Services

89. Fiona Donaldson
National Operations Waste Unit
Proposals to change “end
of waste” in Scotland

90. Food Waste Management
Consultation
 18 May to 29 June 2016
 Available on the SEPA website
 Applies across the whole food waste chain
 Supports the duty to segregate food waste
and compliance with the duty of care
 Proposed reduced limits on amounts of
physical contamination in compost/digestate
output

91. Proposed Obligations (1)
 Obligations on
 Food waste producers:
 Present only uncontaminated food
waste
 Primary packaging only by agreement
 Collectors:
 Refuse to uplift contaminated food
waste

92. Proposed Obligations (2)
 Obligations on
 Food waste treatment sites
 Establish pre-acceptance and
acceptance criteria
 Refuse to accept non-confirming waste
 Users of compost/digestate
 Check the quality of material
 Apply using appropriate equipment

93. Revised ‘End of Waste’ Criteria
 Compost standard- PAS100
 Proposed SEPA standard = 50% by 2018
 Digestate standard- PAS110
 Proposed SEPA standard = 8% by 2019
 Launch new guidance October/November
2016?

94. www.malabybiogas.com
ADBA
6TH JULY 2016
DIGESTATE , BIOFERTILISER & LINKS TO
AGRICULTURE:
AN OPERATOR’S PERSPECTIVE
BORE HILL FARM BIODIGESTER

95. www.malabybiogas.com
BORE HILL FARM BIODIGESTER
• 28,000 tpa food waste
• Excellent road connections
• Operational June 2012
• High Profile: Visitor Centre,
Flexible Design, WRAP support, Centre
of Excellence
• PAS110 June 2016
• Innovation: In House Odour Control System, Modular Decontamination System,
Biochemical Enhancement, Gas Mixing, Integrated Development

96. www.malabybiogas.com
LOCATION
Food Waste
26,000 tpa
71,000 ttd
Biofertiliser
25,000 tpa
64,000 ttd
Power
8m kWpa
25m kWtd
2,300 homes

97. www.malabybiogas.com
DIGESTATE QUALITY
PAS110
Physical contaminants
Maceration
2mm Screen
Fully digested
Maceration
Recirculation
Pathogens
Pasteurisation
Weeds & seeds
Fungus

98. www.malabybiogas.com
MAKING THE LINK TO AGRICULTURE
Digestate Supply Agreement
Supply Chain
Transportation (£1.5-£3/t)
Storage (£1-2/t)
Spreading (£2-3/t)
Knowledge & Experience
Reliability
Contingency
Nutrient Planning
Sampling & Analysis
Data Sharing
Farmer/Agronomist
Spreading set up

99. www.malabybiogas.com
PRODUCTIVITY & ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFIT
Demonstrate Benefit
Trials
Promoting Value
Nutrient
Soil Health
Environmental
Financial
Small Field Trial
24 days after
application
Small Field Trial
Full & Half Rate
Application after 1st
cut silage
Large Field Trial
38 days after
application
Large Field Trial
after 1st cut silage
Field Application
after harvest

100. www.malabybiogas.com
4 year operational record
High standards
Visible & accessible site
Innovating for profit
Design for change
CONCLUSION
Control of build quality
Aim to be Best in Class
Collaboration
Linking academia & commercial ops.
A state-of-the-art proving ground

101. www.malabybiogas.com
THANK YOU
Thomas Minter
Thomasminter@malabybiogas.com
www.malabybiogas.com

102. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR

103. DIGESTATE – TURNING AN
OPERATING COST INTO A PROFIT
DR DAVID TOMPKINS, BIORESOURCES DEVELOPMENT MANAGER,
AQUA ENVIRO
GARY JONES, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, LANGAGE FARM

104. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Processing digestate – how can
the industry reduce costs and
increase upgrading?
David Tompkins, Bioresources Development Manager

105. www.aquaenviro.co.uk

106. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Material characteristics (FW)* Digestate Cattle slurry Pig slurry
Dry matter % 3 6 4
Nitrogen (total) kg/m3 4.4 2.6 3.6
Nitrogen (ammoniacal) kg/m3 4.0 1.2 2.5
Phosphate (P2O5) kg/m3 2.9 1.2 1.8
Potash (K2O) kg/m3 2.1 3.2 2.4
Magnesium (MgO) kg/m3 0.2 0.6 0.7
Sulphur (SO3) kg/m3 2.1 0.7 1.0
*Fresh weight basis. Digestate data from FW AD site; Other data from RB209

107. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://www.biocow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/030-1500x430.jpg

108. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/compost-calculator
Value of readily available
nutrients in food-based
digestate (fresh weight)
Nitrogen
(N)
Phosphate
(P2O5)
Potash
(K2O)
Total
Market price of fertilisers (£/kg) 0.74 0.59 0.44
Readily available nutrient content
(kg/tonne digestate)
4.00 0.25 1.60
Financial value of readily available
nutrients (£/tonne digestate)
2.94 0.15 0.71 3.80

109. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/A_survey_of_the_UK_Anaerobic_Digestion_industry_in_2013.pdf
Digestate markets in 2013 (fresh tonnes)

110. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Getting the basics right?

111. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
• Certification fee
£2,000
• Analytical costs
£9,000
• Deployments
£24,000
• Analytical costs
£250
Assume
• 30,000 tonnes digestate per year
• Spread at 30m3 per hectare
• 40ha of each 50ha deployment used

112. www.aquaenviro.co.uk

113. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time
MethaneperkgVSadded

114. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Residual biogas potential (L/g(VS))
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Cow slurry 1
Cow slurry 2
Cow slurry 3
Cow slurry 4
Cow slurry 5
Pig slurry 1
Pig slurry 2
Pig slurry 3
Pig slurry 4

115. www.aquaenviro.co.ukhttp://smallfarms.oregonstate.edu/sfn/f09Herbicide

116. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
One step beyond

117. www.aquaenviro.co.uk

118. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://www.lifemixfertilizer.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/diptico_en.pdf

119. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://www.iwarr2015.org/sites/default/files/262/Menkveld_final.pdf

120. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://ostara.com/nutrients/

121. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Material characteristics (FW)* Digestate Cattle slurry Pig slurry
Dry matter % 3 6 4
Nitrogen (total) kg/m3 4.4 2.6 3.6
Nitrogen (ammoniacal) kg/m3 4.0 1.2 2.5
Phosphate (P2O5) kg/m3 2.9 1.2 1.8
Potash (K2O) kg/m3 2.1 3.2 2.4
Magnesium (MgO) kg/m3 0.2 0.6 0.7
Sulphur (SO3) kg/m3 2.1 0.7 1.0
*Fresh weight basis. Digestate data from FW AD site; Other data from RB209

122. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/01/49/15/1491537_f18c239d.jpg

123. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://wessexwater.co.uk/uploadedFiles/Corporate_
Site/Potential%20developments%20in%20the%20c
ommercialisation%20of%20the%20sludge%20treat
ment%20and%20recycling%20market.pdf

124. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://www.aquaenviro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Assessing-the-Costs-and-Benefits-for-Production-and-
Beneficial-Application-of-Anaerobic-Digestate-to-Agricultural-Land-in-Wales-WRAP-Final-Report-2014.pdf

125. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Eight scenarios (including baseline)
Digestate direct to
land
Digestate
de-watered
(centrifugation)
Residual liquor to
ammonia stripping
and struvite
precipitation
Residual liquor to
biological NH3
oxidation
Digestate fibre to
land
Residual liquor to
sewer
Digestate liquor to
sewer
Digestate liquor to
land
Digestate liquor to
ammonia stripping
and struvite
precipitation

126. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Most cost-effective scenario
• Centrifuge separation
• Fibre to agricultural land
• Liquor to biological ammonia
oxidation and then disposal to
water course
Assumed
• 25ktpa food waste @ 26%TS
• Diluted to 10%TS with water
http://www.zeolite-anammox.com/#!what-is-zeolite-anammox/cst1

127. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
But…
• Different dilution gave entirely different
outcome
• De-watering cost ~£2.50 per tonne of
digestate (OPEX only)
• Polymer represented ~50% of this
• Food-based digestates notoriously
tricky to de-water
• Impacts of return liquors and VFAs?
• Impacts of operating temperature?

128. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Points to ponder

129. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Questions for discussion
• Are digestate costs really make or
break?
• If we can’t get the basics right, what
hope for more advanced options?
• Beyond nutrient recovery, is it worth it?
• None of these points seems to have
changed in the past five years!

130. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
What would you want?
• Safety?
• Quality?
• Predictability?
• Value?
• Do you know who your customer is?
• What about any constraints they
work within?
• Do you know what you’re competing
against?
What does the customer want?

131. www.aquaenviro.co.uk

132. www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Thank you
davidtompkins@aquaenviro.co.uk
07703 331947

133. Langage Biogas
Presentation ADBA, Turning operation costs into profit
Date: 6th July 2016
Presentation by: Gary Jones: Technical Director
Close
the loop

134. • Operation is in Plymouth, Devon
• Land is mostly grass for dairy and beef
• Run a 499kw CHP
• Opened in March 2011 PAS110 same year
• Spreading 10,000M³
• 100% food waste.
A Brief History
Close
the loop

135. Issues
• Milk yields falling - £95k lost revenue
• Poor grass production - £8k increase in
bought feedstock
• Poor soil structure - compaction in the soil
• Grass roots unable to cope with drought.
• Made a move to AD to remedy the problem,
but had too digestate for the land available to
us.
Close
the loop

136. Digestate
How to get your product to market.
• Advertise.
• You only get one shot. Product has to be good.
• Invest in efficient clean up systems
• Know your market, and know your product.
• Be able to adjust your marketing to the market in
front of you.
Close
the loop

137. Fertiliser - what to advertise?
• Ammonium Nitrate - Produced by Haber-Bosch process, uses large
amounts of fuel in its manufacture, so directly linked to oil price.
• Phosphate - A finite mineral resource, currently mined e.g Morocco.
Recycling P is key to food production security.
• Potash – Mined from salt deposits or found in plant embers,
transported globally
• Sulphur - Major nutrient now lacking due to no acid rain. Very
important to arable crops. Was mined now oil based production.
• Magnesium - Crushed Dolomitic limestone or Epsom salts.
Deficiency in grassland cause of staggers in cows.
Close
the loop

138. Trace elements important to plant
growth
• Copper - Livestock health e.g. swayback in lambs
• Manganese – deficiency common in arable crops
• Zinc - Grain ear development, livestock enzyme functions
• Bicarbonate - Alkali, reduces acidification by nitrates so
decreases field liming requirement.
• Sodium - Improves silage palatability and can reduce risk of
grass staggers.
• Boron – Deficiency causes rot in brassicas and root crops
• Cobalt – For livestock Vitamin B12 production
• Molybdenum – key element for rhizobia, the N fixing bacteria in
legumes
Close
the loop

139. Markets driven by nutrient Value £.
• Ammonium Nitrate £220/t at 34.5 % = 64p per kg
• Phosphate (TSP) £300/t at 46%= 65p per kg
• Potash (MoP) £265 at 60% = 44p per kg
• Sulphur = 36p per kg (Kieserite)
• Magnesium = 36p per kg (Kieserite)
• Trace elements ?
• Langage AD digestate is worth £4.92 /t in NPK alone
• Total nutrient £5.29
• Last year £7.20.

140. Markets and market
restrictions.
Agricultural market is the only option open at the moment ?
Domestic market forming pellets and nutrient rich pots, rich in P,K S and
trace elements. Quality guarantee is PAS110 good enough.
Organic market perfectly suited for this material - Provides valuable
nutrient source, increases yields and will reduce market place costs of
organic products
Easiest outlet is to grassland. NVZ and soil indices' give limitations.
Crops such as maize need to spread after germination as N is an
inhibiting factor in plant germination and early development. Better done
for winter crop.
Close
the loop

141. Bottom, line anecdotal
evidence is best
Sometimes all the facts and figures generated aren't enough for farmers
to take on the change. We had a £145k bill the first year of operation,
next year £80k then £35 and 2015 profit £8k 2016 5k to date.
Our farmer outlets are asking for it to a point where demand has
outstripped supply.
We have farms who have been farming with traditional methods and
using prill for years have had to build additional clamps to hold their
increase in yield. So yes it works.
Close
the loop

142. Any
Questions
Close
the loop

143. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR

144. ODOUR MANAGEMENT AND
CONTROL
CHAIR: PAUL KILLOUGHERY, DIRECTOR, BIO COLLECTORS
MARTIN CHRISTMAS, GENERAL MANAGER, SALVTECH
ANDREW LYON, ENVIRONMENT AND BUSINESS ADVISOR,
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

145. Odour Management and Control
Understanding the problem

146. The Odour Mechanism
Basic information you need to understand the problem
• Odour source(s)
• Receptor(s)
• Strength of Smell
• measured in Odour units per cubic metre
• Type of smell
• measured using the Hedonic Tone scale
• Distance
• i.e. how much will the smell disperse
• Sensitivity
• how sensitive is the receptor?
• The normal assumption is “extremely”

147. Extracted
air Abatement
determines odour
reduction rate
Air drawn
into buildings
by extraction
system
Odour concentration in OUE/m3
in building
Odour emission rate determines
OUE/s/m2 into system
Waste surface area = emitting area in m2
Uncontrolled
emission to air
(fugitive
emissions)
Odour
concentration
at stack
Controlled
emission
The Odour Mechanism

148. Model complications
• Strength of Smell changes
• With agitation
• With maturation
• By mixing and treating
• Type of smell changes
• with maturation (compounds
alter e.g. limonene)
• With concentration
(perception of the smell e.g.
strong perfume)
the stages in between the upper and lower hedonic odour tone scale values.
Table 2. Hedonic Scales (VDI3882 and H4)
Score VDI3882 Definition Hedonic Odour Tone DEFRA Definition Perceived Hedonic
Tone
+4 Extremely pleasant Very pleasant
+3 Pleasant
+2 Moderately pleasant
+1 Mildly pleasant
0 Neither pleasant nor unpleasant Neutral odour / no odour
-1 Mildly unpleasant
-2 Moderately unpleasant
-3 Unpleasant
-4 Extremely unpleasant Very unpleasant

149. Making a model
m2
Area
Area A 906
Area B1 453
Area B2 469
Area C1 337
Area C2 531
Area D 829
Area E1 373
Area E2 628

150. Examples of data collection
Stockpile
reference (refer
to Figure 3)
Type Derived
Surface Area
(m2)
Measured
Odour
concentration
ouEm-3
Derived Emission
rate
ouEs-1m-2
Derived Odour
emissions
ouEs-1
ST1 Recovered over size mixed waste 74 861 8.4 626
ST2 Segregated 40 mm fines 72 1880 18.4 1325
ST3 Recovered over size mixed waste 37 861 8.4 314
ST4 Segregated glass 134 1880 18.4 2473
ST5 Segregated 10 mm fines 134 1020 10 1335
ST6 Segregated 10 mm fines 42 1020 10 417
ST7 Segregated 15 mm fines 42 10205 10 417
ST8 Recovered over size mixed waste 42 861 8.4 352
SRF Secondary Recovered Fuel 669 645 6.3 4218
F1 Organic Growth Medium (reject) 92 1330 13 1192
F2 Mixed waste feed stock 158 2900 28.4 4476
Metal Skip Segregated Aluminium 16 861 6.3 104
MS1 Segregated metal 6 645 6.3 38
MS2 Segregated metal 6 6457 6.3 38
MS3 Segregated metal 6 6457 6.3 38

151. Examples of model outputs
 Compare results to H4
guidance using odour
concentration and hedonic
tone at the receptors
 Design odour systems to
reduce impact at the nearest
receptors 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
00:00
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
Simulated typical current day values
(worst case number used)
Air change 1
(door wind
speed 0.8m/s)
- ouE/Nm3
Air change 2
door wind
speed 0.5m/s)
- ouE/Nm3
Air change 3
door wind
speed 0.3 m/s-
ouE/Nm3

152. Thank-You for your attention
Contact:
Martin Christmas
General Manager | Salvtech Ltd | 07789 583602
Salvtech Ltd
Unit 12 - Engineer Park
Babbage Road
Sandycroft
Flintshire
North Wales
CH5 2QD
Tel: 01244 638900

154. Odour management and
control
Name: Andrew Lyon
Job title: Environment & Business Technical Advisor
Date ADBA – 06 July 2016

155. Odour surrounds us, it is part of daily life
Pleasant / unpleasant
Can be offensive, may cause annoyance
Often seen as an indication of something more
dangerous
Many reasons why we perceive odours differently
Personal experience and circumstances
Adaptation
Understanding why odour is subjective is essential
to help you deal with odour issues
Odour causes an emotional response

156. Is odour a problem?
The Agency’s National Incidents Recording
System (NIRS) records all reports received
A primary classification code for amenity issues
was added in October 2013
Data from 31 October 2013 – 31 October 2015:
33,621 reports of odour pollution
10,183 reports of noise pollution
3,504 reports of dust pollution
2,182 reports of flies

157. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Sites
TotalOdourReports
Odour Impact by Sector
31/10/13 – 31/10/15
Total Odour Reports
Sites

158. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Sites
Metres/TotalOdourReports
Odour Impact Distances by Sector
90% of Reports Within (m)
75% of Reports Within (m)
50% of Reports Within (m)
25% of Reports Within (m)
Total Odour Reports
Sites

159. Understanding risks
Always consider the risk of odour pollution:
Site location – proximity to receptors
Waste types received – odour potential of old and/or
putrescible wastes
Odorous materials produced during the process
Is the site using established practices or novel
techniques?
risks
mitigation

160. Main sources of odour emissions
Reception building
Buffer storage
Digestate separation building
Digestate storage (tanks or lagoons)
Biofilters
Digester(s)
Gas storage

161. Systematic approach to odour control
1. Eliminate / reduce at source
2. Containment / housekeeping (good practice)
3. Extraction and abatement (end-of-pipe)

162. Management is key
Understanding feedstocks
Minimising double handling
Minimising quantities
Minimising storage times
Housekeeping – deep cleans
Staff training / competence
Process monitoring
Recording and using this information

163. Containment of odour emissions
Must be appropriately designed
Local extraction; building extraction; building integrity
Volume of odorous emissions – air changes per hour?
Experience shows building containment doesn’t work
Extraction maintained when doors are open?

164. Abatement techniques
There’s no single solution for all scenarios
If it sounds too good to be true it probably is
Must be matched to air stream
How can you treat the air if you don’t know what’s in it?
Does it work under the full range of operating
conditions?
Is it monitored and maintained
i.e. how do you know it’s working?
If the process changes will it still be fit for
purpose?

165. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR