The judicial review sought in R. (on the application of Baci Bedfordshire Ltd) v Environment Agency has been dismissed.
Baci Bedfordshire Ltd, an action group of local residents, sought the review against the Environment Agency, who granted Covanta Energy Ltd an Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations SI 2016/1154.
The Permit was for an energy recovery facility and allowed a proposed operation for an emissions management system in relation to fugitive emissions from Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA). Baci Bedfordshire Ltd concluded that there was a risk of unmonitored discharge of toxic, heavy metals via surface water damage into the nearby lake. The lake feeds into the River Ouse system and into public drinking water. This would breach Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions and the Environmental Permitting Regulations SI 2016/1154.
Covanta in their Supporting Information stated that any heavy metals within the IBA will be present as salts, these would be retained in solution when mixed with water and would not be expected to dissolve, which was proven wrong.
Information suggested the interceptors in the surface water drainage system would prevent the discharge of suspended solids. As Covanta believed the heavy metals would not dissolve, they assumed the metals would be included in the suspended solids collected, and therefore would not discharge into the surface water systems. This was proved to be incorrect.
Both the Environment Agency and Covanta accepted the error made by Covanta, but denied that the Environment Agency relied upon the error when granting the Permit. The risk of unmonitored discharge of toxic dissolved heavy metals into the surface water drainage system was also denied.
The Judge concluded she was satisfied the Environment Agency had not made the same mistake as Covanta and that necessary measures were in place to ensure only uncontaminated surface water would enter the attenuation pond and lake.
She added "it is impossible to characterise the Defendant's assessment as irrational, or based on incorrect science". The claim was dismissed.
