Environmental Risk Assessment - Derby · 2020-02-11 · Application Form for Part A(2) Installations. 1.1.2. A number of assessments have been considered to determine the environmental

Site Reference Client Name

Environmental Risk Assessment

Derby Plant for:

Envirofusion Ltd

CRM 092 001

Envirofusion Ltd CRM 092 001 PE R 003 A

Contact Details:

Enzygo Ltd. The Byre Woodend Lane Cromhall Gloucestershire GL12 8AA

tel: 01454 269237 fax: 01454 269760

email: [email protected] www: enzygo.com

Environmental Risk Assessment - CRM 092 001 PE R 003 A

Project:

Derby Plant

For:

Envirofusion Ltd

Status:

Final

Date:

September 2016

Author:

Lucinda Hall, Principal Consultant

Reviewer: Peter Cumberlidge, Director

Disclaimer:

This report has been produced by Enzygo Limited within the terms of the contract with the client and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client.

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above.

This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk.

Enzygo Limited Registered in England No. 6525159 Registered Office Stag House Chipping Wotton-Under-Edge Gloucestershire GL12 7AD


Page ii Environmental Risk Assessment

September 2016

Contents

Contents ....................................................................................................................... ii

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Scope of Assessment ........................................................................................ 1

1.2. Site Location and Environmental Setting .......................................................... 1

1.3. Emissions and Associated Hazards .................................................................. 2

1.4. Nearby Sensitive Receptors .............................................................................. 3

1.5. Emissions from the Site ..................................................................................... 4

2.0 Environmental Risk Assessments ......................................................................... 6

2.1. Scope of Assessments Completed ................................................................... 6

2.2. Point Source Emissions to Air ........................................................................... 6

2.3. Odours ............................................................................................................... 7

2.4. Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................... 8

2.5. Fugitive Emissions to Air ................................................................................... 8

2.6. Fugitive Emissions to Water and Land .............................................................. 9

2.7. Waste Generated and Waste Management ...................................................... 9

2.8. Pests, Vermin and Insects ............................................................................... 10

2.9. Mud and Litter ................................................................................................. 11

2.10. Accidents ......................................................................................................... 11

3.0 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 12

3.1. Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 12

Appendices ................................................................................................................. 13

Appendix A – Risk Assessments .................................................................................. 14

Appendix B - Weather Station Data ............................................................................ 27


Page iii Environmental Risk Assessment

September 2016

Appendix C - Noise Impact Assessment ...................................................................... 28

Appendix D – Air Quality Assessment ......................................................................... 29

Tables & Figures

Table 1.4.6: Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................................................. 3

Table 1.5.2: Point Source Emissions to Air ............................................................................................................. 4

Table 1.5.6: Point Source Emissions to Surface Waters and Sewer ....................................................................... 5

Table 1.5.8: Wastes Generated from Process ........................................................................................................ 5

Table 2.7.7: Wastes Generated and Removed from Site ..................................................................................... 10


Page 1 of 30 Environmental Risk Assessment

September 2016

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Scope of Assessment

1.1.1. This Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) has been completed to support the Environmental Permit application, for a Small Waste Incineration Plant (SWIP) to be located approximately 2.6km north of the city of Derby in Derbyshire, by Envirofusion Ltd (hereby referred to as “the Operator”). This report has been prepared in response to Question C11 of Derby City Council’s Application Form for Part A(2) Installations.

1.1.2. A number of assessments have been considered to determine the environmental risks posed by the proposed SWIP and to identify whether the level of risk is considered acceptable, in accordance with National, European and International legislation, statutory and non-statutory guidance documents including, Environment Agency Sector Guidance Notes EPR 5.01: ‘The incineration of Waste, Environment Agency’, March 2009 and guidance as described within the Environment Agency’s newly published risk assessments for specified activities: environmental permits, and the H1: Horizontal Guidance Series Documents which are still current (H3; NIA; H4; and H5).

1.1.3. The proposed development consists of six distinct processes:

Waste Acceptance and Reception;

Fuel Preparation and Feeding;

Pyrothermic Convertor Processing;

Vitrified Ash Residue Quenching & Storage;

Flue Gas Cooling;

Flue Gas Treatment.

1.1.4. The objectives of the assessment process are as follows:

Identify potential risks that the activity may present to the environment;

Screen out those that are insignificant and don’t require detailed assessment;

Where appropriate identify potentially significant risks and undertake detailed assessment;

Where appropriate choose the right control measures; and

Report the findings of the assessment.

1.1.5. This report contains justification for all risk assessments completed or screened out from requiring further consideration, and provides an overall assessment of the impact of the proposed Plant.

1.2. Site Location and Environmental Setting

1.2.1. The proposed plant will be located at:

Unit 7, Northedge Business Park,

Alfreton Road, Derby,

DE21 4BN



September 2016

1.2.2. The National Grid Reference for the site is: SK 35805 38721. The site covers an area of approximately 0.79 hectares and is located within an existing industrial estate.

1.2.3. The site currently comprises an existing industrial building on impermeable hardstanding, as well as an open yard (formerly a Hanson Concrete Works). The Facility is to occupy Unit 7 on the north-western boundary of an Industrial Estate. The site has warehouse buildings situated to the east and south-east of Unit 7, the access road (Alfreton Road) to the east, a strip of vegetation and beyond this the River Derwent to the west and playing fields to the south-west.

1.2.4. The proposed operational hours will be as follows:

Waste Deliveries

Monday – Thursday: 08:00 – 17:00

Operating Hours

The plant will operate continuously Monday 08:00 – Friday 12:00

Maintenance works

To be undertaken within existing planning consented hours

1.2.5. The site rests over a ‘Secondary A Aquifer’ and is located within a Source Protection Zone III Total Catchment Area.

1.2.6. The nearest surface water feature is a drainage ditch which runs along the western perimeter boundary of the site. Beyond that is the River Derwent which is approximately 120m west of the proposed site.

1.2.7. A review of the Environment Agency’s flood maps indicate that the application site is within a designated flood zone 2 area.

1.2.8. There are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or SACs within 2km of the site. There are three Local Nature Reserves within 2km, the closest being 148m to the north west known as Darley and Nutwood Reserve. There is also one area of ancient woodland within 2km, which is located 1995m east of the site.

1.2.9. The nearest human sensitive receptors to the proposed plant are the other industrial units located within the Northedge Business Park and the retail park situated across from the main access road to the East.

1.2.10. The nearest residential properties are terraced housing approximately 200m south-east of the site along Alfreton Road, and properties 290m south-west along Haslam’s Lane. The site is adjacent to a number of commercial receptors adjacent to the industrial estate. Other sensitive receptors in close proximity to the plant include the Midlands Rowing Club 170m to the West, and Derby Rugby Football Club 290m to the South West.

1.3. Emissions and Associated Hazards

1.3.1. The Operator is applying for a Part A(2) Permit to operate a SWIP using a high temperature ash melting thermal process. The Facility will be operated by Envirofusion Ltd for up to 12 months as a demonstration facility. Full details of the proposed operations are provided in the ‘Operational Techniques and Monitoring Plan’ referenced CRM 092 001 R 004 A.

1.3.2. This report identifies the following potential risks to the environment which must be considered and included in the assessment, if they are likely to be present:



September 2016

Controlled point source preleases to Air;

Controlled point source discharges to Surface Waters;

Controlled point source discharges to ground or groundwater;

Odour Impacts;

Noise and Vibration Impacts;

Impacts from Accidents;

Fugitive Emissions to Air, Land, Surface Waters and to Ground; and

Disposal or Recovery of Wastes produced on Site.

1.4. Nearby Sensitive Receptors

1.4.1. Nearby receptors within 500m of the application site have been identified. Key receptors that have the potential to be impacted by emissions from the site are summarised in Table 1.4.6 below.

1.4.2. The prevailing winds at the proposed site is from the South West (based on daily observations data sourced from Derby Racecourse weather stations, located approximately 2.4km east of the application site (www.windfinder.com)), see Appendix B for details.

1.4.3. There is a Local Nature Reserve within close proximity to the site which is known as the Darley and Nutwood Reserve. Extending to approximately 10 ha, this Derby City Council owned site comprises several small areas of varied habitat around a main area of rough grassland with developing scrub; this larger area marks the location of the former historical refuse site, Darley Tip.

1.4.4. The site was identified back in 1987 as having both wildlife and grassland importance and was formally declared as a Local Nature Reserve (LNR) in January 2008. The site falls within the boundary of one of the City’s “green wedges”; which are designated areas of open land within the City of Derby Local Plan linking the countryside with urban areas. Nut Wood is also covered by a Tree Preservation Order.

1.4.5. In consideration of the close proximity to the site, and the designations for both wildlife and grasslands, this site has also been included as a sensitive receptor.

1.4.6. There are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); Special Areas of Conservation (SAC); Special Protection Areas (SPA); National Nature Reserves (NNR); or Ramsar sites within 2km of the site.

1.4.7. In addition, the drainage ditch which runs along the western perimeter boundary of the site and the River Derwent have also been included as sensitive receptors due to their proximity to the site and potential to be impacted by any surface water discharges from the site and fugitive emissions.

Table 1.4.6: Sensitive Receptors

Receptor Type Distance

(m) Direction

Other units on Industrial Estate Commercial 0 E & SE

Drainage Ditch Ecological 0 W

River Derwent Ecological 110 W



September 2016

Receptor Type Distance

(m) Direction

Darley & Nutwood Local Nature Reserve Ecological 148 NW

Midlands Rowing Club Recreational 170 W

Terrace Housing along Alfreton Rd Residential 200 SE

Housing along Haslam’s Lane Residential 290 SW

Derby Rugby & Football Club Recreational 290 SW

Supermarket & Retail Park Retail 320 E

1.5. Emissions from the Site

1.5.1. There will be two main point source emissions to air from the proposed plant during normal operations which arise from the main combustion process exhaust and exhausts from a small generator used to power the air blast cooler. In addition, there are two further release points identified under abnormal / emergency operations.

1.5.2. Details of all emission points are listed in Table 1.5.2 below and are also marked on the Site Layout Plan Referenced CRM 092 001 PL D 003.

Table 1.5.2: Point Source Emissions to Air

Air Emission Point Reference

Source of Emission Basis for release

Emissions

A1 Exhaust from Main

Process Flue Normal operation

NOx, SOx, HCl, HF, CO,

VOC, Metals, Dioxins &

Furans

A2

Exhaust from

Emergency

Generator

Abnormal

operation

NOx, particulates, CO,

VOCs

A3

Exhaust from Air

Blast Cooler

Generator

Normal operation NOx, particulates, CO,

VOCs

A4

Exhaust from APC

Emergency

Generator

Abnormal

operation

NOx, particulates, CO,

VOCs

1.5.3. The emergency generators (A2 and A4) will only be used in the event of a power outage.

1.5.4. Any maintenance works required will be undertaken in accordance with site procedures to control any potential releases to atmosphere.

1.5.5. There will be no point source emissions to surface waters, ground or groundwater’s from the thermal process. There will be clean surface water run-off from the roof of the existing main building and the impermeable hardstanding yard areas. Uncontaminated rainwater run-off will discharge into combined sewer drains which currently service the existing industrial estate.

1.5.6. The thermal process itself will not have any liquid effluent releases. There will be intermittent excess mains cooling water which will be discharged to sewer at times when the plant is in



September 2016

cold state. The temporary 12-month demonstration period is not anticipated to be a large consumer of mains water.

Table 1.5.6: Point Source Emissions to Surface Waters and Sewer

Description of Emission

Source Basis for release Emissions

Surface Water Drains

Surface water run-off

from impermeable

areas & clean roof

run-off -

Uncontaminated site

drainage

Normal Operation H2O; sediment

Sewer Air Blast Coolers Abnormal

Operation H2O – mains water

1.5.7. There will be no point source emissions to land.

1.5.8. The Derby Plant will give rise to three by-product waste streams generated at various stages of the thermal process. The thermal treatment process will completely oxidise the RDF feedstock, which will produce a molten ash material that is free from any organic components; is entirely leachate resistant; inert; dense and strong.

1.5.9. Boiler ash will be produced intermittently during cleaning of the boiler and residues from the Air Pollution Control treatment of the flue gases anticipated to be up to 3% of the total RDF tonnage processed.

Table 1.5.8: Wastes Generated from Process


Source Basis for Release Emissions

Vitrified Ash

Pyrothermic Convertor Process

- Combustion Process

Normal Operation Non-hazardous inert

waste

Boiler Ash

Pyrothermic Convertor Process

- Combustion Process

Normal Operation Non-hazardous waste

(subject to testing)

Residues

Flue Gas Treatment -

Air Pollution Control Process

Normal Operation Hazardous waste



September 2016

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENTS

2.1. Scope of Assessments Completed

2.1.1. A number of assessments have been considered to determine the environmental risks posed by the temporary plant and to identify whether the level of risk is considered acceptable.

2.1.2. As there will be point source emissions to atmosphere, a quantitative Air Quality Assessment has been undertaken to support this risk assessment. In addition to the quantitative modelling undertaken, a further qualitative risk assessment has been completed to consider potential fugitive emissions to atmosphere.

2.1.3. There will be no emissions to surface water or groundwater other than clean rain-water run-off, therefore the need for detailed quantitative assessment has been screened out of this assessment. Thus a qualitative rather than quantitative risk assessment has been undertaken to address these aspects.

2.1.4. Following completion of all risk assessments, the potential impact of risks identified to nearby sensitive receptors have been determined to be either insignificant, or insignificant following the application of appropriate mitigation and control measures.

2.1.5. Each assessment completed is summarised below with a qualitative assessment of the risks from the proposed plant provided in Appendix A. Full details of control measures compared with techniques described in the sector guidance is presented in the Operational Techniques and Monitoring Plan (OTMP).

2.2. Point Source Emissions to Air

2.2.1. A qualitative air quality screening assessment has been carried out to determine the risk posted by release of gaseous emissions from the proposed plant.

2.2.2. Point source emissions to atmosphere are listed in Table 1.5.2 above and are illustrated on the Site Layout Plan referenced CRM 092 001 PL D 003. The screening process is described in the sections below against each point source:

Release point A1 - Exhaust from Main Process Flue

2.2.3. Emissions released via A1 comprise exhausts from a single modular process flue, emitted from the Pyrothermic convertor technology, which utilises a high temperature ash melting thermal process. The composition of the exhaust gases from this emission point will be in compliance with the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) (Directive 2010/75/EU) of which emission parameters includes NOx, SOx, PM10, CO, HCI, HF, VOCs, dioxins and furans; and trace metals.

2.2.4. The flue will emit to atmosphere continuously whilst the process is operational. Given the composition of the exhaust gases and that the process will operate for 100 hours per week a further quantitative assessment has been undertaken to fully assess the potential impacts from this emission point. A copy of the air quality assessment and modelling is provided in Appendix D to this report.

2.2.5. The quantitative assessment has modelled for a number of receptors, representing existing properties where impacts are expected to be greatest, as well as at a grid of receptors covering the whole area.

2.2.6. The assessment considered the potential for emissions of all of the pollutants covered in the Industrial Emissions Directive, and used detailed dispersion modelling to predict ground-level



September 2016

pollutant concentrations. It has covered the potential for effects in relation to long-term and short-term assessment levels set by Defra, the Environment Agency, and various other bodies.

2.2.7. The assessment has compared the predicted changes in concentrations with screening criteria provided by the Environment Agency, and where necessary determined total concentrations taking baseline levels into account. It has shown that there will be no likely significant effects.

2.2.8. In summary, it is concluded that the proposed plant will have no likely significant effects in relation to air quality.

Release point A2 & A4 - Exhausts from Emergency Generators

2.2.9. Emissions released via A2 and A4 comprise exhausts from two emergency generators to be located on site. These generators will only be used when there is a power outage and loss of power from the national grid. As these generators will only operate under emergency / abnormal conditions, no further assessment has been carried out.

Release point A3 - Exhaust from Air Blast Cooler Generator

2.2.10. Emissions released via A3 comprise exhausts from a small 200kVA generator used more frequently to power the air blast coolers. Emissions from this small diesel unit will consist of CO, HC, NOx and PM10 and PM2.5. The emissions are independent from the main thermal process exhausts and represent no additional risks to that of any other standard generator used on the industrial estate, and thus no further assessment has been carried out.

2.3. Odours

2.3.1. There is potential for exposure to odour to anyone living or working close to the site. Key potential impacts identified are odour from RDF delivery vehicles and odours from the storage and processing of the feedstock material.

2.3.2. The primary sensitive receptors for exposure to odours identified are considered to be other users of the industrial estate.

2.3.3. The operator proposes that the RDF material will arrive on site pre-treated (including a degree of drying), and delivered within an agreed specification (further details are provided within the OTMP). The RDF that is proposed to be processed through the plant is by its very nature, stable and non-reactive and does not represent a significant potential for odour generation if appropriately managed.

2.3.4. The RDF will arrive in either sealed 1 tonne bales or within sealed RoRo Skips and will be stored within a secured area outside the main building on impermeable surfacing. Both the bales and skips will remain completely sealed until they are moved from their temporary storage locations to inside the building.

2.3.5. Storage of RDF outside will be restricted to 150 tonnes, which is enough to supply the process for just under 3 days. Bales will be stockpiled no higher than 2 bales in height and will be processed on a ‘first in’, ‘first out’ basis, thus further reducing the residency time materials will be stored on site.

2.3.6. The thermal treatment process will take place within the fully enclosed industrial building. Wrapped bales of RDF will be delivered by mobile plant into the main building and will only be opened (using a bale breaker) once the roller shutter access doors have been closed, and prior to the point of feeding into the hopper.

2.3.7. The thermal process itself is fully contained and has no potential for significant odours as the combustion chamber effectively destroys any odorous compounds during treatment.



September 2016

2.3.8. The vitrified molten ash will discharge into a skip, which will be relocated to outside the building to allow to cool, prior to removal off site. The ash is stable, inert, non-hazardous; entirely leachate resistant; and strong. Thus it is not anticipated to be a source of odour.

2.3.9. A review of the odour control measures has been provided in Appendix A. Based on the output of this risk assessment, it has been concluded that the potential risk from odour can be considered low.

2.4. Noise and Vibration

2.4.1. The key sensitive receptors at risk of exposure to noise are residential properties approximately 200m south-east of the site along Alfreton Road, and properties 290m south-west along Haslam’s Lane (beyond the River Derwent).

2.4.2. The main sources of noise will be lorry movements on site associated with the delivery and feedstock and removal of by-product waste streams. The main process itself will take place inside the existing building envelope.

2.4.3. In addition to the qualitative assessment provided in Appendix A, and in consideration that there will be noise generating sources on-site, a quantitative assessment has been completed to assess the potential impact from noise on sensitive receptors. A copy of the noise assessment is provided in Appendix C to this report.

2.4.4. The assessment has been carried out in accordance with guidance contained within British Standard 4142:2014 ‘Method for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound’; and British Standard 8233:2014 ‘Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings and the World Health Organisation guidance documents Guidelines for Community Noise and Night Noise Guidelines for Europe’.

2.4.5. The BS 4142:2014 assessment has shown that there would be a low likelihood of adverse impact due to the operation of the plant when considering the context of the area surrounding each receptor assessed.

2.4.6. An assessment of predicted internal noise levels has been made against the guideline values for internal ambient noise levels in dwellings outlined in BS8 233:2014, specifically those relating to sleeping in bedrooms. The assessment has shown that, when considering a 15dB reduction for a partially open window, predicted internal noise levels would remain below the 30dB LAeq,8hr noise level recommended.

2.4.7. An assessment of night-time noise has also been made in accordance with World Health Organisation guidelines which shows that predicted noise levels remain with the guideline values at all times.

2.4.8. The assessment concludes that the potential impact of noise and vibration from the proposed Derby Plant would not adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors, and that there would be no need for additional mitigation measures.

2.5. Fugitive Emissions to Air

2.5.1. The key sensitive receptors at risk of exposure to potential fugitive emissions from the plant have been identified as other users of the industrial estate and local human population.

2.5.2. Environmental Sensitive receptors considered include the LNR known as Darley and Nutwood Reserve, which is designated for both its wildlife and grassland habitats; the drainage ditch running along the western edge of the industrial estate; and the River Derwent.



September 2016

2.5.3. Fugitive emissions considered include the potential generation of dust, release of uncontrolled particulate matter and release of odours which is covered in section 2.4 above.

2.5.4. The primary sources of potential fugitive emissions will be dust and odours which may escape from the building when the roller shutter doors are opened. Dust may also be generated from vehicle movements across the outside yard area.

2.5.5. All processing of RDF material will be restricted to inside the building. Baled RDF and skips will remain sealed until located inside the building before they are opened in order to minimise the generation of dust and odours.

2.5.6. The assessment in Appendix A concludes that the potential hazard from dust is considered to be low based on the control measures to be put in place.

2.6. Fugitive Emissions to Water and Land

2.6.1. Receptors identified are the ground and groundwater beneath the site, the surface water drainage ditch which runs along the western perimeter of the site, and the River Derwent located approximately 110m to the west of the site.

2.6.2. The potential risk to the environment from fugitive emissions to water and land is considered to be low. The entire pyrothermic convertor technology has been designed to ensure that there are no fugitive releases of process emissions from the plant itself.

2.6.3. The primary potential fugitive pollutants will be from run-off under emergency or abnormal conditions such as spillages/leaks from on-site fuel tanks or spillages of fuel or oil associated with plant and machinery or leaks from any RDF baled material stored outside the building.

2.6.4. RDF / feedstock material will be accepted onto site under strict waste acceptance procedures as described within the OTMP. These procedures will ensure that only suitable waste feedstocks are to be accepted onto site.

2.6.5. Residue materials which arise from the process itself will be temporarily stored inside the building prior to removal off site, thus minimising potential for loss of containment or fugitive emissions.

2.6.6. The assessment in Appendix A concludes that the potential hazard to water and land from operations on the site is considered to be low based on the control measures in place.

2.6.7. Full details of control measures to minimise fugitive emissions to water and land compared with requirements detailed in the relevant technical guidance notes is described in the OTMP.

2.7. Waste Generated and Waste Management

2.7.1. The Pyrothermic convertor process will not inherently produce significant quantities of wastes. The by-products from the operations of the plant are as follows:

a molten ash (19 01 12);

boiler ash (19 01 13*); and

Air pollution control (APC) residues (19 01 07*).

2.7.2. The main waste stream comprises the solid vitrified ash from the Pyrothermic convertor process which equates to approximately 15% of RDF throughput. It is Envirofusion Ltd’s intention to apply for ‘End of Waste’ status, and for the ash to be classified as a product and no longer a waste stream.



September 2016

2.7.3. APC residues are classified as hazardous wastes, whilst the vitrified molten ash is classified as non-hazardous waste and the boiler ash is a mirror entry and is anticipated to be non-hazardous waste (subject to testing). All wastes generated will be sent off site for disposal or recovery as appropriate.

2.7.4. There may also be small quantities of rejected RDF which will require removal from site, however this will be minimised through agreed RDF specifications with suppliers and pre-acceptance checks.

2.7.5. All process wastes will be stored inside the existing building in appropriate containers / vessels prior to removal off site. Containers will be clearly labelled, sealed and stored in a secure location.

2.7.6. For any wastes generated on site, the waste hierarchy as defined within the Waste Framework Directive will be applied, with the option of disposal only considered once all other options have been screened out as not being feasible.

2.7.7. Full details of control measures to minimise the generation of waste compared with requirements detailed in the relevant technical guidance notes is described in the Operations Techniques and Monitoring Plan.

Table 2.7.7: Wastes Generated and Removed from Site


Source Approx.

Mass (tpa)

Final Treatment

or Disposal

Emissions

Vitrified Ash Pyrothermic

Convertor Process 2,300

Landfill (D5)

Stable non-hazardous inert

waste

Boiler Ash Pyrothermic

Convertor Process 26

Landfill (D5)

Non-hazardous waste (subject to

testing)

Residues Flue Gas Treatment 533 Landfill

(D5) Hazardous waste

2.8. Pests, Vermin and Insects

2.8.1. The key sensitive receptors identified for pests include the local human population and users of the site itself. Potential hazards include vermin and flies attracted to RDF delivered to and stored on site. The RDF processing building, and particularly the outside storage area has the potential to attract pests, insects or vermin.

2.8.2. The facility will however be operated in such a way that the attraction of animals, vermin and flies is reduced to a minimum. RDF arriving at the site will be in compressed bales and wrapped or in sealed RoRo Skips having already gone through treatment including drying. There will be a limit on the duration and amount of RDF to be stored at the facility at any one time (a maximum of 150 tonnes for a period of 3 days). The wrapped RDF bales will not be opened until they are ready to be fed into the process, once inside the building thus further reducing the likelihood of pests. RDF arriving at the site will be managed using the ‘first-in’, ‘first-out’ waste handling practice, reducing as far as possible the storage time of untreated materials at the facility.



September 2016

2.8.3. Temporary outside storage of the vitrified molten ash will take place in order to allow the ash to cool prior to removal off site. The ash is hard and inert and not anticipated to attract pests or vermin.

2.8.4. The site will be carefully managed including good housekeeping procedures and regular checks will be made within and around the site for litter and spillages. In addition, the site access and adjacent hardstanding of the neighbouring business units and public highway will be regularly inspected to ensure the access routes in and out of the facility are kept clean.

2.8.5. Pest control inspections will be carried out by staff and should evidence of vermin be found, a specialist contractor will be brought onto site to provide an appropriate pest control programme.

2.8.6. Based on the output of the risk assessment in Appendix A, the potential risk from pests is low.

2.9. Mud and Litter

2.9.1. Generation of mud is highly unlikely as the site comprises of impermeable hardstanding

throughout. Mud has therefore been discounted as a potential hazard. The generation of litter

is also highly unlikely given the type of feedstock (RDF).

2.9.2. Based on the output of the risk assessment in Appendix A, the potential risk from litter is low.

2.10. Accidents

2.10.1. The key sensitive receptors identified in close proximity to the site are residential properties 250m to the north, 300m to the south west (beyond the River Derwent), and 420m to the East beyond the Retail Park and railway line. Other sensitive receptors in close proximity to the plant include the Midlands Rowing Club 160m to the West, and Derby Rugby Football Club 160m to the South. Environmental Sensitive receptors include the LNR known as Darley and Nutwood Reserve, which is designated for both its wildlife and grassland habitats.

2.10.2. Based on the output of the risk assessment in Appendix A, the potential risk from accidents is considered to be low. Proposed management and mitigation controls will ensure that all activities will be managed and operated in accordance with the site’s Environmental Management System which will include site security measures to prevent unauthorised access, and fire and spillage procedures.

2.10.3. Full details of control measures to minimise the impact from accidents compared with requirements detailed in the relevant technical guidance notes is described in the OTMP.



September 2016

3.0 Conclusions

3.1. Conclusions

3.1.1 A number of environmental risk assessments have been carried out to determine whether the proposed Facility can be operated without causing pollution to the environment. All risk assessments have been undertaken in accordance with relevant Guidance and best practice.

3.1.2 The assessments undertaken consider the possible impacts on sensitive receptors from a range of potential emissions from the proposed temporary plant. The risk assessments have considered both the intended design and operational practices at the site and conclude that:

A quantitative air quality assessment has modelled for a number of receptors, representing existing properties where impacts are expected to be greatest, as well as at a grid of receptors covering the whole area. Modelling has concluded that the proposed plant will have no likely significant effects in relation to air quality. All other point source emissions to air were screened out as not requiring further assessment.

An Air Quality Assessment has also been completed for odour, and has concluded that the potential risk from odour can be considered not significant or likely to adversely impact on local receptors.

The calculated noise rating levels from activities carried out at the site are not likely to adversely affect or impact local receptors as determined by the Noise Assessment document appended to this report;

Following implementation of management measures and controls, fugitive emissions to air and water are considered as not being significant:

The overall risks from vermin, pests and litter are considered as not being significant due to the nature of the RDF material delivered;

The overall risk to receptors from accidents is considered low due to the low-risk nature of activities on the site.

3.1.3 As presented in this report, the plant will contain appropriate control measures and management systems to ensure that the operations do not have any significant impacts or represent an unacceptable risk to the local environment.



September 2016

APPENDICES



September 2016

Appendix A – Risk Assessments



September 2016

Table 1: Odour

Hazard Source Pathway Receptor

Pro

bab

ility

of

Exp

osu

re

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Mag

nit

ud

e o

f

risk

Risk Management Residual risk

Odour from RDF deliveries

to the Plant RDF

Air

Prevailing Wind

Local residents,

workforce at industrial

estate & local businesses,

users of amenity sites

Low Low Low

RDF is delivered pre wrapped in bales or in sealed containers. Wrapping / containment will minimise the potential for odour release.

All RDF deliveries will be inspected upon arrival to ensure compliance and it does not have any malodorous properties.

Low

Odour from waste storage

and processing

building

Waste materials

Air

Prevailing Wind

Local residents,




Low Medium Medium

Waste arrives as pre-treated and delivered in either baled RDF or within sealed containers.

No more than 3 days’ inventory will be stored awaiting processing through the plant.

Bales will only be opened once inside the building and just prior to being fed into the process.

The RDF storage area will be located outside the main building within an area sealed off with security fencing around the industrial estate to restrict access.

The access doors to the waste reception building will be via fast acting roller shutter doors.

Any rejected waste will be held within the building until it can be removed from site.

Vitrified molten ash will be temporarily stored outside in skips to allow cooling prior to removal off site. Storage will be for no more than 48hours and by

Low



September 2016


Pro

bab

ility

of

Exp

osu

re

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Mag

nit

ud

e o

f

risk


the very nature of the material is not anticipated to be a source of odour.

Regular and good housekeeping practices will be employed to ensure the waste storage area is cleared and cleaned regularly.

Odour from failure of plant or equipment

Waste materials

Air

Prevailing Wind

Local residents,




Low Medium Medium

If any breakdown is likely to occur for more than 3 days, then no RDF will be accepted until the breakdown can be repaired. If breakdown is greater than 14 days then any non-baled RDF will be removed from site

All wastes produced from the process will be stored in suitably secured and sealed containers located inside the building.

Low

Table 2: Noise and Vibration


Pro

bab

ility

of

Exp

osu

re

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Mag

nit

ud

e o

f

risk


Noise from vehicle

movements

On site operations

Noise through the air and vibration

Local residents,

workforce at

Low Medium Low

Existing light industrial premises

Vehicle movements into and out of the site will take place as follows:

Low



September 2016


Pro

bab

ility

of

Exp

osu

re

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Mag

nit

ud

e o

f

risk


through the ground

industrial estate & local

businesses, users of

amenity sites

Monday – Thursday: 08:00 – 17:00

Vehicles (such as the front end shovel loader) will primarily be located within the building and will be subject to regular maintenance and service schedules.

All roadways and car park surfaces will be existing roadways and impermeable hardstanding which are fully maintained with no significant undulations and speed limits will be in place.

Noise and vibrations associated with the

operation of the plant

On site operations

Noise through the air and vibration

through the ground

Local residents,




Medium Medium Medium

All waste processing activities will take place within the building.

The process will operate continuously Monday 08:00 through to Friday 12:00, however RDF raw materials acceptance and removal of materials will all be restricted to waste delivery hours.

Relevant plant and equipment will be fitted with appropriate sound attenuation and acoustic isolation, and will be subject to regular inspection and maintenance schedules to maintain operational performance.

Any plant vibration issues will be resolved during the plant commissioning period.

Low



September 2016

Table 3: Fugitive Emissions to Air


Pro

bab

ility

of

Exp

osu

re

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Mag

nit

ud

e o

f

risk


Releases of dusts or

particulate matter from

incoming /outgoing vehicles

Vehicle movements

Air transport and inhalation

Local residents,

workforce at industrial estate &

local businesses,

users of amenity

sites

Low Medium Low

RDF is delivered in wrapped bales or within sealed containers. All vehicles removing waste residues from the site will be covered.

In the unlikely event of dust generation caused by vehicle movements, roadways will be swept and/or dampened down as appropriate to prevent the mobilisation of dust during dry and windy weather.

Low

Releases of dust or

particulate matter from

the waste reception and

processing building.

On-site operations

Air transport and inhalation

Local residents,

workforce at industrial estate &

local businesses,

users of amenity

sites

Low Medium Low

RDF is delivered in wrapped bales or in sealed containers. All vehicles removing wastes from the site will be covered.

With the exception of the temporary storage of RDF, all other activities will be undertaken within the confines of a main building thus minimising any potential for dust release.

The process itself has been designed to minimise any release of particulate matter from the main emissions stack through appropriate flue gas treatment including a bag filter. Emissions from this outlet will be monitored continuously to ensure that ELVs are not breached.

Low



September 2016

Table 4: Fugitive Emissions to Water


Pro

bab

ility

of

Exp

osu

re

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Mag

nit

ud

e o

f

risk


Contaminated run-

off/rainwater from site surfaces

Contamination from

materials stored on

site

Percolation through soils, direct run-off

from site across the

ground and entering

surface water drains or natural

channels / ditches

Nearby natural

habitats.

Pollution of nearby surface water

Low Medium Medium

The site is located at an existing industrial unit which is serviced with impermeable surfaces and site drainage.

The outside storage area and processing building has an impermeable surface.

Due to the dry nature of the RDF material to be processed, it is not expected this material will have any leaching potential, or there will be any contaminated run-off from either the RDF storage area or within the main building itself.

All wastes produced from the process will be stored in suitably secured and sealed containers located inside the building.

All surfaces will be inspected regularly for signs of deterioration or run-off.

External activities will be located on impermeable hardstanding and all potentially polluting substances will be contained in tanks provided with dedicated secondary containment with a capacity of 110% of the volume of the tank.

Operational procedures will ensure the drainage system and condition of the hard standing areas are inspected regularly by the Site Manager and shift supervisors and any damage is repaired and recorded.

Low



September 2016


Pro

bab

ility

of

Exp

osu

re

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Mag

nit

ud

e o

f

risk


Clean up procedures will be implemented to deal with fuel or other spillages or leaks of potentially polluting liquids. All staff will be trained in the procedures and correct use of equipment and sufficient spill kits will be maintained on site. These procedures will include the use of booms or drain mats to seal all drains during the spill event.

Staff trained appropriately to minimise emissions to water and records maintained.

Chemicals and oils stored on

site

Loss of containment

on site

Percolation through soils, direct run-off

from site across the

ground and entering

surface water or

groundwater

Nearby natural habitats

Low Medium Medium

Chemicals and oils are stored within secure units and provided with secondary containment.

Regular inspections of containment will identify leaks.

A spill clean-up procedure is in place to minimise the impact from spills and leaks.

Low



September 2016

Table 5: Litter


Pro

bab

ility

of

Exp

osu

re

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Mag

nit

ud

e o

f

risk


Litter Litter from

RDF

Transportation through the air and over land

Site employees

Members of the public and local

residents & users of the

industrial estate and nearby retail park

.

Low Low Low

All RDF is delivered to and stored on the site in wrapped bales or within sealed containers.

Bales are only opened once transferred into the building, just prior to placement into the shredder and to the process.

No more than 3 days’ inventory will be stored awaiting processing through the plant.

The RDF storage area situated outside of the main building will be fully fenced off with lockable gates, which will be checked regularly to ensure they are in good working order.

The industrial estate is also serviced within palisade fencing to restrict unauthorised access.

The site will be carefully managed including good housekeeping procedures and regular checks will be made within and around the site for any litter/debris. In addition, the site access and highway outside will be regularly inspected and any litter/debris found will be picked up by staff. Any issues identified will be recorded, investigated and appropriate remedial action will be taken as soon as practicable.

Low



September 2016

Table 6: Pests


Pro

bab

ility

of

Exp

osu

re

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Mag

nit

ud

e o

f

risk


Pests (flies, vermin, birds) attracted to the waste materials

Pests Transportation through the air and over land

Site employees


residents & users of the

industrial estate and nearby retail park

.

Low Low Low

RDF is delivered and stored on the site either in wrapped bales or sealed containers.

Both the sealed containers and the baling will prevent access by any pests or vermin.

The RDF will be partially dried before delivery to site and will have low levels of putrescible waste

Plastic wrapped bales have a shelf life of approximately 6 months before they start to degrade. The bales delivered to site will generally be stored for no longer than 7 days. Normal use will be within one day.

The external plastic wrapping will be visually inspected upon delivery to inspect its integrity. Any bales that are damaged will either be rejected, repaired with appropriate plastic wrapping or will be stored inside the building temporarily ready for priority feeding into the process.

Shredding and opening up of the bales will be carried out within the main building.

RDF arriving at the site will be processed in a timely fashion using the ‘first in’ – ‘first – out’ principle.

As stated above, the outside storage area is designed to hold 3 days’ feedstock so RDF will not be stored for extended periods.

Low



September 2016


Pro

bab

ility

of

Exp

osu

re

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Mag

nit

ud

e o

f

risk


Routine inspection includes visual monitoring for pests with records maintained. If there is evidence that vermin / pests are being attracted by the stored material a contract will be set up with a pest control specialist.

Records will be kept to monitor the effectiveness of control measures put in place.

Table 7: Accidents


Pro

bab

ility

of

Exp

osu

re

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Mag

nit

ud

e o

f

risk


Impact by Vehicle

All on-site machinery

and vehicles

Direct physical contact

Drivers, on-site staff

Local human population after

gaining unauthorised access to the

waste operation users of

industrial estate

Low Medium Medium

Activities will be managed and operated in accordance with a management system (which will include site security measures to prevent unauthorised access).

An Accident Management Plan will be compiled to manage foreseeable risks from the installation.

Site security measures to prevent unauthorised access will include security locks on the main building and fencing of the outside storage area.

Low



September 2016

The industrial unit itself also has palisade fencing around the perimeter of the estate and security gates at the main entrance which will be kept locked and secured when site is unmanned.

General traffic movements on site will be in accordance with Site rules.

Appropriate signage for vehicles will be provided

Drivers/visitors to the site will be given health and safety inductions and instructions on safe routing

Overfilling of tanks and

spillages of chemicals

Tanks and containment

Direct contact, air, surface water

runoff

On-site staff, users and

employees of the industrial estate, local

residents. Nearby Natural

Habitats

Low Medium Medium

All external areas drain discharge to the existing drainage system servicing the industrial estate.

All tanks and liquid/chemical storage areas will have suitable secondary containment. Bunds (of which there will be one) will be designed to contain 110% of the volume of the largest tank or 25% of the total volume (whichever is the greatest).

Impermeable surfaces will underlay all areas used to store oils or chemicals to prevent fugitive emissions to land and groundwater should spills/leaks occur.

Procedures will be in place for dealing with any spills and clean up procedures and staff training will be provided.

Spill kits will be provided and staff will be trained in their use.

Low

Arson and / or vandalism and

or theft causing the release of polluting

materials to air (smoke or

Unauthorised access

Transportation through the air of

smoke then inhalation.

Spillages and contaminated firewater by direct run off

from site

Site employees

Users of local amenity areas

Users of industrial estate


residents.

Medium High High

Activities shall be managed and operated in accordance with a management system (which shall include fire and spillage procedures).

An Accident Management Plan will be compiled to manage foreseeable risks from the installation.

The site shall have a monitored fire detection and alarm system as well as site security visits by a specialist security company during non-operating hours.

Low



September 2016

fumes), water or land.

Nearby natural habitats.

Unauthorised users of site equipment

Site security measures to prevent unauthorised access includes a perimeter security fence and security gates around the industrial estate.

Security gates will be kept locked and secured outside normal working hours.

Accidental fire/explosion

causing the release of polluting

materials to air (smoke or fumes), water

or land.

On-site machinery

Transportation through the air of

smoke then inhalation.

Spillages and contaminated firewater by direct run off

from site.

Site employees

Users of local amenity areas

Users of industrial estate

Members of the public and local residents. A full list of receptors is provided in Section 1.4 of

this document.

Nearby natural habitats.

Unauthorised users of site equipment.

Low High High

Activities will be managed and operated in accordance with a management system (which shall include site security measures to prevent unauthorised access).

All plant and equipment and electrical installations will be kept maintained and in good working condition and subject to routine inspection and maintenance.

An Accident Management Plan will be implemented as part of the site’s EMS to manage foreseeable risks from the installation.

Site security measures to prevent unauthorised access will include lock-up of the building, fencing of the outside storage area site, and security gates and fencing servicing the industrial unit.

The industrial estate security gates will be kept locked and secured outside normal working hours.

The site Management System will include procedures and actions required in the event of fire or spillage to control and minimise their spread.

Firefighting equipment will be maintained on site in accordance with fire regulations.

The site will have a dedicated smoking area situated outside of the building away from any storage areas.

Good housekeeping measures will be employed across the site.

Low



September 2016

Any fire on site will be treated as an emergency and will be extinguished at the earliest opportunity utilising local Fire & Rescue Services if required.

All Site staff will be fully trained in the fire procedure and the use of firefighting equipment. Any incidents of fire will be reported to the Local Authority and records kept.

The process is controlled electronically via the SCADA system which can be accessed remotely. Any abnormal conditions will trigger automatic shut-down procedures and appropriate controls to prevent the build-up of an explosive atmosphere.



September 2016

Appendix B - Weather Station Data



September 2016

Appendix C - Noise Impact Assessment

Site Reference Client Name

CRM.092.001.NO.R.001 October 2016

Noise Impact Assessment for the proposed Pyrothermic Convertor October 2016

Envirofusion Limited – Derby Plant for:

Envirofusion Ltd

CRM.092.001.NO.R.001

Envirofusion Limited – Derby Plant Pyrothermic Convertor – Noise Assessment

Contact Details:

Enzygo Ltd. Samuel House, 5 Fox Valley Way Stocksbridge Sheffield S36 2AA

tel: 0114 321 5151

email: [email protected] www: enzygo.com

Noise Impact Assessment for the Proposed Pyrothermic Convertor

Project: Pyrothermic Convertor, Alfreton Road, Derby

For: Envirofusion Limited

Status: Final

Date: September 2016

Author: Darren Lafon-Anthony MSc MIOA FIQ

Reviewer: Angela Hornby MIOA

Disclaimer:

This report has been produced by Enzygo Limited within the terms of the contract with the client and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client.

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above.

This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk.

Enzygo Limited Registered in England No. 6525159 Registered Office Stag House Chipping Wotton-Under-Edge Gloucestershire GL12 7AD


CRM.092.001.NO.R.001 Page i October 2016

Contents

Non-technical Summary ................................................................................................ iii

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

2 Standards and Guidance ............................................................................................ 4

3 Baseline Noise Monitoring Survey ............................................................................. 7

4 Noise Assessment ..................................................................................................... 10

5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 16


CRM.092.001.NO.R.001 Page ii October 2016

Tables & Figures

Figure 1.1: Site Location ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2-1: BS 4142:2014 Subjective Method Rating Corrections ........................................................................... 5

Table 3-1: Noise Monitoring Locations ................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3-1: Noise Monitoring Location Plan ........................................................................................................... 7

Table 3-2: Noise Monitoring Equipment ................................................................................................................ 8

Table 3-3: Field Calibration Record ......................................................................................................................... 8

Table 3-4: Summary of Daytime Baseline Survey Results, dB ................................................................................ 9

Table 4-1: Associated Plant & Equipment ............................................................................................................ 10

Figure 4-1: Noise Propagation Contours............................................................................................................... 12

Table 4-2: Predicted Specific Sound Levels at the Assessment Locations ............................................................ 13

Table 4-3: Sound Rating Levels ............................................................................................................................. 14

Table 4-4: BS 4142:2014 Assessment ................................................................................................................... 14

Table 4-5: BS 8233:2014 Assessment ................................................................................................................... 15

Table A-1: Location M01, No.5 Alfreton Road, Daytime Noise Data ...................................................................... 2

Table A-2: Location M01, No.5 Alfreton Road, Evening Noise Data ....................................................................... 2

Table A-3: Location M01, No.5 Alfreton Road, Night-time Noise Data .................................................................. 3

Table A-4: Location M02, No.7 Haslam’s Lane, Daytime Noise Data ..................................................................... 3

Table A-5: Location M02, No.7 Haslam’s Lane, Evening Noise Data ...................................................................... 4

Table A-6: Location M02, No.7 Haslam’s Lane, Night-time Noise Data .................................................................. 4


CRM.092.001.NO.R.001 Page iii October 2016

Non-technical Summary

Enzygo Limited has been commissioned by Envirofusion Ltd to undertake a noise impact assessment for their proposed Pyrothermic Convertor installation located within Northedge Business Park, Alfreton Road, Derby. The main operational processes associated with the Pyrothermic Convertor take place within a part brick, part corrugated sheet steel building. Some plant, such as air blast chillers, etc., are located externally within an acoustic fenced compound. To inform the noise assessment, baseline monitoring has been undertaken at the nearest noise-sensitive residential properties to the proposed Pyrothermic Convertor site during the daytime, evening and night. Operational noise predictions have been made and the results assessed in accordance with the relevant guidance agreed with Derby City Council. The assessment has shown that operational noise levels would not lead to significant noise impacts at nearby residential properties. It is considered, as demonstrated within this assessment, that noise levels generated by the proposed Pyrothermic Convertor would not lead to significant impacts and should not pose a material constraint for the proposals.


CRM.092.001.NO.R.001 Page 1 October 2016

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Introduction

1.1.1 Enzygo Limited (Enzygo) has been commissioned by Envirofusion Ltd to undertake a noise impact assessment for their proposed Pyrothermic Convertor within Northedge Business Park, Alfreton Road, Derby.

1.1.2 The assessment has been made in accordance with the guidance contained within British Standard 4142:2014 Method for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound, British Standard 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings and the World Health Organisation guidance documents Guidelines for Community Noise and Night Noise Guidelines for Europe.

1.1.3 The assessment is based on the results of a series of noise predictions undertaken in accordance with the calculation methodology contained in ISO 9613 Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation and the results of baseline noise surveys undertaken at locations representative of the nearest residential receptors close to the site.

1.1.4 Details of the assessment methodology employed, together with the results of the baseline survey, assessment and conclusions are presented within this report.

1.2 Site Description

1.2.1 The proposed development site lies within Northedge Business Park, Alfreton Road, Derby and is centred at grid reference SK 35805 38721 approximately.

1.2.2 The development site is bordered to the north by open grassland as far as the A38. To the west there is open grassland, the River Derwent and The West Mill which is a mix of residential and office uses. To the southwest are the Derby Rugby Club pitches, clubhouse and car parking areas with residential development on Haslam’s Road adjacent and beyond. To the east is other industrial development on either side of Alfreton Road, a mainline railway line and Meteor Retail Park. To south there is further industrial development.

1.2.3 The main operational activities would take place within the existing building envelope which would be refurbished and modified as necessary. External operations would be limited to traffic movements, movement of containers and some external plant which would be located within a 3m high acoustic fenced compound. Access would be from Alfreton Road along the existing site access road.

1.2.4 The proposed facility location is shown on the aerial imagery in Figure 1.1 below.



Figure 1.1: Site Location

(Imagery source: 2016 Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky – GoogleEarth)

1.3 Proposed Hours of Operation

1.3.1 The Pyrothermic Convertor will process a limited amount of post recyclate municipal waste for a period of up to 12-months. At the end of this period the internal and external plant would be dismantled and removed from site.

1.3.2 The hours of operation of the plant will be from 08:00 hours on Mondays through to 12:00 hours on Fridays with the plant closed from 18:00 hours on Fridays. Planned maintenance will occur on Fridays between 12:00 and 18:00 hours. Other maintenance will occur at other times which will principally be during office hours once the plant is shut down and cooled.

1.3.3 Deliveries would be received between 08:00 and 20:00 hours on operational days, i.e. Monday through to Thursday. No deliveries will occur over the weekend. It is expected that there would be four deliveries (eight movements) on four days per week.

1.4 Consultation

1.4.1 Enzygo has consulted with Derby City Council (DCC) as the relevant local planning authority. DCC agreed the monitoring locations and assessment methodology.

1.4.2 DCC agreed that night-time baseline noise monitoring could be undertaken on any night of the week and suggested that, due to the 24-hour operational element of the plant, daytime monitoring should be undertaken on a Sunday. However, as the 24-hour operation element of the plant does not include weekend working, the monitoring has been done on a normal working week day.

1.4.3 Baseline noise monitoring has been undertaken at locations representative of the nearest noise-sensitive residential receptors to the development site.

Proposed Pyrothermic Convertor

Residential Properties

Residential Properties



1.5 Noise Assessment Methodology

1.5.1 An assessment of the likely impacts due to noise levels generated during the proposed Pyrothermic Convertor has been made in accordance with the guidance contained in British Standard 4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound (BS 4142:2014).

1.5.2 Reference has been made to the guidance levels for internal resting and sleeping conditions for residential properties outlined in British Standard 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings has also been made.

1.5.3 Noise levels generated by operations associated with the proposed Pyrothermic Convertor have been predicted to the nearest sensitive residential receptors using the calculation methodology outlined in ISO 9613:1996 Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation using the proprietary noise modelling software SoundPLAN.

1.5.4 The assessment is based upon the results of a baseline noise survey undertaken at the nearby residential receptors over a representative period during a normal midweek working day.

1.5.5 Where considered necessary and appropriate, outline mitigation measures have been suggested to ensure that noise levels generated by the proposed Pyrothermic Convertor have a minimum impact upon the amenity of the nearby residential receptors.



2 Standards and Guidance

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 This section of the report outlines the relevant Standards and guidance referenced within the assessment.

2.2 British Standard 4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and

commercial sound

2.2.1 BS 4142:2014 provides a methodology for the rating and assessing of sound associated with both industrial and commercial premises. The purpose of the Standard is clearly outlined in the opening section where it states that the method is appropriate for the consideration of:

Sound from industrial and manufacturing processes;

Sound from fixed installations which comprise mechanical and electrical plant and equipment;

Sound from the loading and unloading of goods and materials at industrial and/or commercial premises; and,

Sound from mobile plant and vehicles that is an intrinsic part of the overall sound emanating from premises or processes, such as that from forklift trucks, or that from train or ship movements on or around an industrial and/or commercial site.

2.2.2 The Standard is based around the premise that the significance of the noise impact of an industrial/commercial facility can be derived from the numerical subtraction of the background noise level (not necessarily the lowest background level measured, but the typical background of the receptor) from the measured/calculated rating level of the specific sound under consideration. This comparison will enable the impact of the specific sound to be concluded based upon the premise that typically “the greater this difference, the greater the magnitude of the impact”. This difference is then considered as follows:

A difference of around +10dB or more is likely to be an indication of a significant adverse impact, depending on the context;

A difference of around +5dB is likely to be an indication of an adverse impact, depending upon context; and,

The lower the rating level is relative to the measured background sound level, the less likely it is that the specific sound source will have an adverse impact or a significant adverse impact.

2.2.3 BS 4142:2014 further states that “where the rating level does not exceed the background sound level, this is an indication of the specific sound source having a low impact” again depending upon the specific context of the site. The Standard further qualifies the assessment protocol by outlining conditions to the comparative assessment and stating that “not all adverse impacts will lead to complaints and not every complaint is proof of an adverse impact”, thus implying that all sites should be assessed on their own merits and specifics.

2.2.4 The Standard quantifies the typical reference periods to be used in the assessment of noise, namely:



Typical Daytime 07:00 – 23:00 1-hr assessment period

Typical Night-time 23:00 – 07:00 15-min assessment period

2.2.5 The Standard outlines a number of methods for defining appropriate “character corrections” within the rating levels to account for tonal qualities, impulsive qualities, other sound characteristics and/or intermittency. These are a) the Subjective Method, b) the Objective Methods for tonality, and c) the Reference Method. It is noted by the Standard that where multiple features are present the corrections should be added in a linear fashion to the specific level.

2.2.6 The Subjective Method is based on the following corrections:

Table 2-1: BS 4142:2014 Subjective Method Rating Corrections

Level of Perceptibility

Tonal Correction

Impulsivity Correction

Correction for “Other sound

characteristics”

Intermittency Correction

No Perceptibility +0 dB +0 dB Where neither tonal nor

Impulsive but clearly

identifiable +3 dB

If intermittency is readily identifiable

+3 dB

Just Perceptible +2 dB +3 dB

Clearly Perceptible +4 dB +6 dB

Highly Perceptible +6 dB +9 dB

2.3 British Standard 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction

for buildings

2.3.1 BS 8233:2014 provides guidance and recommendations for the control of noise from outside sources to maintain an internal acoustic environment appropriate for the intended use. The Standard suggests appropriate criteria and limits for differing situations which are, primarily, intended to guide the design of new or refurbished buildings undergoing a change of use rather than to assess the effect of changes to the external noise climate. However, it is considered that the guidance provides suitable criteria for the assessment of internal noise levels in this instance.

2.3.2 The Standard suggests suitable guidance values for residential dwellings shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2: BS 8233:2014 Indoor Ambient Noise Levels for Dwellings

Activity Location 07:00 to 23:00

Hours 23:00 to 07:00

Hours

Resting Living room 35dB LAeq,16hr -

Dining Dining room/area 40dB LAeq,16hr -

Sleeping (daytime resting) Bedroom 35dB LAeq,16hr 30dB LAeq,8hr

2.3.3 Whilst it is considered desirable to achieve these internal noise levels with the windows open, it is not stipulated with the Standard which states:



“If relying on closes windows to meet the guide values, there needs to be appropriate alternative ventilation that does not compromise the façade insulation or the resulting noise level.”

2.3.4 The Standard suggests that the level of noise reduction provided by a partially open window would be approximately 15dB.

2.4 World Health Organisation – Guidelines for Community Noise

2.4.1 The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise document, with respect to external noise, states:

“4.2.7 Annoyance responses

During the daytime, few people are seriously annoyed by activities with LAeq levels below 55dB; or moderately annoyed with LAeq levels below 50dB. Sound pressure levels during the evening and night should be 5-10dB lower than during the day…”

2.4.2 For night-time noise sources the WHO guidelines recommend a night-time (23:00 – 07:00 hours) 8-hour noise level of 30dB LAeq inside bedrooms (for reasonably steady noise sources) to avoid sleep disturbance. However, this has been superseded by the more recent Night Noise Guidelines for Europe (2009).

2.4.3 The WHO guidelines also recommend a night-time (23:00 -07:00 hours) maximum noise level of 45dB LAeq,8hr or 60dB LAFmax outside bedrooms to avoid sleep disturbance.

2.5 World Health Organisation – Night Noise Guidelines for Europe (2009)

2.5.1 The Night Noise Guidelines for Europe were published by the WHO in 2009 and supplements the guidance contained in the Guidelines for Community Noise.

2.5.2 The guidelines state that:

“Considering the scientific evidence on the thresholds of night noise exposure indicated by Lnight,outside as defined in the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC), an Lnight,outside of 40dB should be the target of the night noise guidelines (NNG) to protect the public, including the most vulnerable groups such as children, the chronically ill and the elderly.”

2.6 ISO 9613 Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part

2: General method of calculation

2.6.1 The noise levels generated by the operation of the proposed MRF have been predicted using the calculation methodology set out in ISO 9613-2. The methodology considers the distance between the sources and the receptors and applies the amount of attenuation due to atmospheric absorption and other site specific characteristics.

2.6.2 The methodology assumes downwind propagation, i.e. a wind direction that assists the propagation of noise from the source to all receptors.



3 Baseline Noise Monitoring Survey

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Baseline noise measurements were undertaken on Tuesday 6th and Wednesday 7th September 2016 to determine the background and ambient noise levels at locations representative of the nearest noise-sensitive residential receptors to the application site.

3.2 Survey Details

3.2.1 The baseline noise survey was carried out in accordance with the requirements of BS 7445:1996 Description and measurement of environmental noise, by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant, in accordance with the requirements of BS4142: 2014.

3.2.2 Measurements were taken over 15-minute sample periods for at least 1-hour during the daytime and evening periods and for at least 30-minutes during the night. The monitoring locations are shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 below.

Table 3-1: Noise Monitoring Locations

Location Reference Grid Ref (NGR) Description

M01 – No.5 Alfreton Road SK 36008 38613 Terraced house

M02 – No.7 Haslam’s Lane SK 35562 38488 Semi-detached house

Figure 3-1: Noise Monitoring Location Plan

(Image Source: Imagery ©2016 Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky Map data ©2016 Google)

3.2.3 The noise monitoring equipment used during the surveys is shown in Table 3-2 and was set to record the LAeq,T, LA90, LA10 and LAmax parameters.

Proposed Pyrothermic Convertor

M02

M01



Table 3-2: Noise Monitoring Equipment

Location Equipment Description Serial

Number Calibration

Date

All Svantek Svan971 Type 1 sound level meter 55331 20/05/16

Svantek SV33 Acoustic calibrator 57563 06/06/16

3.2.4 The following set-up parameters were used on the sound level meter during all of the noise measurements undertaken:

Time Weighting: Fast

Frequency Weighting: “A”

3.2.5 The sound level meter was field calibrated, using an electronic calibrator, prior to commencement and upon completion of the overall survey, no drift in calibration was observed. Details of the field calibration check are shown in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3: Field Calibration Record

Location Sound Level Meter Overall Survey (dB)

Start End

M01 – No.5 Alfreton Road Svantek Svan971

113.76 113.79

M02 – No.7 Haslam’s Lane 113.87 113.77

3.2.6 The external calibration documentation for the equipment used is available upon request.

3.3 Weather

3.3.1 Weather conditions during all survey periods were suitable for environmental noise monitoring.

3.3.2 During the daytime monitoring at Alfreton Road it was warm and dry with approximately 10% cloud cover. The temperature was approximately 24°C with a gentle southerly breeze with an average speed measured at 0.5ms-1. During the evening and into the night-time measurement period temperature decreased to 19°C and wind speeds were below measurable levels. Cloud cover increase to 100%.

3.3.3 Weather conditions at Haslam’s Lane were generally similar to those at Alfreton Road as would be expected, temperatures were measured at approximately 27°C falling to approximately 20°C at night and wind speeds measured at 1.1ms-1 during the day and were negligible during the night.

3.4 Survey Results

3.4.1 The results of the baseline surveys are summarised in Table 3-4 and can be found in full in Appendix A. LA90 measurements reflect the quietest 15-minute period and have been rounded to the nearest whole number.



Table 3-4: Summary of Daytime Baseline Survey Results, dB

Location Period LAeq,T LAmax LA90 LA10

M01 – No.5 Alfreton Road

Day 71.5 93.6 53.7 75.6

Evening 54.2 81.0 38.6 59.8

Night 47.8 71.4 33.3 42.5

M02 – No.7 Haslam’s Lane

Day 57.9 82.1 45.4 59.3

Evening 52.4 74.6 41.0 52.5

Night 40.8 69.6 37.1 40.3

3.5 Subjective Field Monitoring Notes

M01 – No.5 Alfreton Road

3.5.1 The daytime noise climate at Alfreton Road comprised road and rail traffic (including horns sounding) and industrial sources including reversing alarms, impact noise and general mobile sources such as forklift trucks and lorries. During the evening the noise climate comprised intermittent local and distant road and occasional rail traffic. At night the noise climate comprised occasional local and distant road traffic

M02 – No.7 Haslam’s Lane

3.5.2 The daytime noise climate at Haslam’s Lane comprised occasional road traffic and some distant industrial noise sources. Rail traffic including horns sound were occasionally audible. Local activities were also audible at times as were natural sounds such as dogs barking and birdsong. During the evening the noise climate comprised very infrequent road traffic, distant rail and air traffic and distant plant noise from the industrial estate. At night, the noise climate comprised distant road and air traffic and some very quiet industrial activities. The River Derwent was audible at all times as it passed over the nearby weir.



4 Noise Assessment

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This section of the report outlines the prediction and assessment of noise generated by the proposed Pyrothermic Convertor at the nearby residential properties.

4.1.2 Noise levels generated by the Pyrothermic Convertor have been predicted using the calculation methodology outlined in ISO 9613-2 and the assessment of potential noise impacts has been undertaken in accordance with BS 4142:2014 and BS 8233:2014. Reference has also been made to the guidance noise levels outlined in the WHO guidance documents Guidelines for Community Noise and Night Noise Guidance for Europe.

4.2 Pyrothermic Convertor Noise Emissions

4.2.1 The operational noise effects associated with the proposed Pyrothermic Convertor are anticipated to include internal and external fixed plant and heavy goods vehicle movements.

4.2.2 Details of the plant associated with the Pyrothermic Convertor have been supplied by the client. The plant, along with the derived sound power levels are shown in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Associated Plant & Equipment

Plant Operating Period

(Monday to Thursday)

Derived Sound Power Level,

LWA, dB

Bobcat A770 All-wheel Steer Loader 1000 pa 102

Shredder 24 hrs 92

Feed Conveyor x2 24 hrs 93

Vitrified Slag Discharge 24 hrs 109*

Air Blast Cooler (External in Compound) 24 hrs 91

Cooling Water Pumps – return and pumps x7 24 hrs 93

Cooling Water Pumps – boiler x2 24 hrs 93

Bag Filter Back Pulse 24 hrs 90

ID Fan & Stack 24 hrs 81

Air Compressor 24 hrs 62

PTC Cooling Fan x2 24 hrs 103

PTC Primary Air Fan x2 24 hrs 98

PTC Burner & Fan Start-up & Shut Down 97

Emergency Generator x2 Emergency Only 98

Rotary Valve 24 hrs 80

Air Blast Cooler Generator 24 hrs 98

Heavy Goods Vehicles – drive by - 108

* based on the WRAP report Noise exposure in glass collections for recycling, August 2012,



4.2.3 The sound power levels have been derived from information provided by the client, equipment supplier, the tables contained in British Standard 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites and/or measurements made at similar sites.

4.2.4 Although the Vitrified Slag Discharge noise source is based on that of glass recycling, it is understood that the sound generated by such discharge is more of a dull impact in nature. However, due to lack of more representative noise source data, the source level has been used to show a worst possible case.

4.2.5 The hours of operation of the plant will be from 08:00 hours on Mondays through to 12:00 hours on Fridays with the plant closed from 18:00 hours on Fridays. Planned maintenance will occur on Fridays between 12:00 and 18:00 hours. Any additional maintenance will occur at other times which will principally be during office hours once the plant is shut down and cooled.

4.2.6 It is expected that there would be four heavy goods vehicle deliveries per day (eight movements) which could occur at any time between 08:00 and 20:00 hours on Mondays to Thursdays. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that there would be a single delivery, i.e. two HGV movements, in a single 1-hour period either during the day or evening.

4.3 Noise Modelling Protocols

4.3.1 The noise model was constructed using the proprietary noise modelling software package SoundPLAN. The potential noise impacts at the nearby residential properties have been predicted using the calculation methodology outlined in ISO 9613 Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors: Part 2: General method of calculation.

4.3.2 The noise model was constructed utilising the following information:

Google Earth Pro geo-referenced 1:1 scaled aerial photography;

The noise source data derived from information supplied by the client, the equipment manufacturers, web-based research or BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014; and

The noise reduction provided by the building envelope (1.0mm plastic-coated sheet steel; RW = 25dB) and acoustic barriers/fences proposed within the design of the proposed development.

4.3.3 Modelled noise levels form the basis of the specific sound level and are shown at each property in Table 4-2. Noise emissions across the site have also been plotted graphically and are shown below.



Figure 4-1: Noise Propagation Contours



4.4 Predicted Sound Levels

4.4.1 The potential noise levels generated by Pyrothermic Convertor operations have been predicted to the site facing façade of the nearest residential properties. Prediction are made to 1.5m and 4m high to represent a downstairs and upstairs window respectively.

4.4.2 Table 4-2 details the predicted specific sound level at the site facing façade of the nearest residential properties identified.

Table 4-2: Predicted Specific Sound Levels at the Assessment Locations

Location Period Specific Sound Level LAeq,1hr dB

NSR1 – No.5 Alfreton Road Daytime/Evening 38.2

Night-time 38.4

NSR2 – No.7 Haslam’s Lane Daytime/Evening 34.3

Night-time 34.4

4.5 Sound Rating Level

4.5.1 In accordance with the guidance contained in BS 4142:2014 the specific sound level has been corrected for tonal, impulsive, intermittent or other acoustic characteristics which may be present at the receptor to give a sound rating level.

4.5.2 The nearest residential properties on Alfreton Road are located adjacent to small business units, offices and further industrial development nearby. The front façade of the property faces Alfreton Road with hardstanding for parking between the property façade and the road. The rear gardens back onto the railway line with Meteor Retail Park beyond. The properties are already subject to some tonal, impulsive and intermittent sound sources from existing development in the area including frequent train horns, it is therefore considered that any acoustic features from the proposed development would not be discernible from those already experienced at the property.

4.5.3 The nearest residential properties on Haslam’s Lane are located close to the junction with Folly Road which provides some vehicular access to The West Mill area. The properties are also subject to intermittent noise from sporting activities at the rugby club. It is considered that, due to the separation distance from the development site, tonal and intermittent sound could be just perceptible therefore a correction of +2dB for tonality and +3dB for intermittency has been applied to the predicted noise levels. It is considered that there would be no impulsivity or other characteristics associated with the proposed development.

4.5.4 It is noted that BS 4142:2014 assessments are undertaken on the basis of whole dB values with 0.5dB being rounded up. Table 4-3 details the derived sound rating levels.



Table 4-3: Sound Rating Levels

Location Period Specific

Sound Level LAeq,T dB

Penalties Applied, dB

Sound Rating Level

LAr,T dB

NSR1 – No.5 Alfreton Road Daytime 38 0 38

Night-time 39 0 39

NSR2 – No.7 Haslam’s Lane Daytime 34 +5 39

Night-time 34 +5 39

4.6 BS 4142:2014 Impact Assessment

4.6.1 A comparative assessment has been undertaken to determine the potential impact of the predicted sound rating levels at the nearby residential properties upon the prevailing background noise levels. Noise levels presented in Table 4-4 have been rounded up to the nearest whole number and details the assessment made.

Table 4-4: BS 4142:2014 Assessment

Location Period

Background Sound

Level LA90 dB

Sound Rating Level

LArT dB

Level Exceeding

Background dB

Impact Scenario

NSR1 – No.5 Alfreton Road

Day 54 38 -16 Indication that the sound source has a

low impact

Evening 39 38 -1 Indication that the sound source has a

low impact

Night 33 39 +6

Indication of an adverse impact

depending on the context

NSR2 – No.7 Haslam’s Lane

Day 45 39 -6 Indication that the sound source has a

low impact

Evening 41 39 -2 Indication that the sound source has a

low impact

Night 37 39 +2 Indication that the sound source has a

low impact

4.6.2 Table 4-4 shows that predicted sound rating levels would give an indication that the sound source as a low impact at both receptors assessed at all times with the exception of the night-time period at No.5 Alfreton Road. However, as the property is located in a predominantly industrial area it is considered that, within the context of the existing environment, the impact would be low.



4.7 BS 8233:2014 Indoor Noise Level Assessment

4.7.1 A comparative assessment of the predicted internal noise levels generated by night-time operations against the guideline values for internal ambient noise levels in bedrooms for sleeping has been made. Table 4-5 details the results of the assessment when considering a 15dB reduction for a partially open window.

Table 4-5: BS 8233:2014 Assessment

Location Predicted

Internal Noise Level LAeq dB

Guideline Value for Night-time

Sleeping Difference

NSR1 – No.5 Alfreton Road 24 30 -6

NSR2 – No.7 Haslam’s Lane 24 30 -6

4.7.2 Table 4-5 shows that predicted internal noise levels at the nearby receptor locations would remain well below the internal ambient guideline value for night-time sleeping condition in bedrooms.

4.8 WHO Guidance Assessment

4.8.1 The guidance contained in the WHO document Guidelines for Community Noise reflects the guidance outlined in BS 8233, or vice versa, with respect to internal noise levels at night and it has already been shown that the predicted internal noise levels from the proposed development will meet the BS 8233 guidance levels.

4.8.2 As shown in Table 4-2, the predicted maximum noise levels outside bedroom windows are well below the 60dB LAFmax guideline level suggested by the WHO.

4.8.3 The WHO Night Noise Guidelines for Europe suggest a target level of 40dB Lnight,outside to protect the public. The assessment has shown that the predicted noise levels from the proposed development, outside the nearest noise-sensitive properties, would be below this level.



5 Conclusion

5.1 Background

5.1.1 Enzygo Limited (Enzygo) has been commissioned by Envirofusion Ltd to undertake a noise impact assessment for their proposed Pyrothermic Convertor within Northedge Business Park, Alfreton Road, Derby.

5.1.2 The assessment has been made in accordance with the guidance contained within British Standard 4142:2014 Method for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound, British Standard 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings and the World Health Organisation guidance documents Guidelines for Community Noise and Night Noise Guidelines for Europe.

5.1.3 The assessment considers the potential impact of noise generated by the Pyrothermic Converter on the nearest residential properties to the development site.

5.2 Noise Assessment

5.2.1 Sound levels generated by the proposed Pyrothermic Convertor have been predicted using SoundPLAN v7.4 and an assessment made in line with BS4 142:2014 and BS 8233:2014. A site visit has been made to establish background noise levels at a location representative of the nearby properties.

5.2.2 The BS 4142:2014 assessment has shown that there would be a low likelihood of adverse impact due to the operation of the plant when considering the context of the area surrounding each receptor assessed.

5.2.3 An assessment of predicted internal noise levels has been made against the guideline values for internal ambient noise levels in dwellings outlined in BS8 233:2014, specifically those relating to sleeping in bedrooms. The assessment has shown that, when considering a 15dB reduction for a partially open window, predicted internal noise levels would remain below the 30dB LAeq,8hr noise level recommended.

5.2.4 An assessment of night-time noise has also been made in accordance with World Health Organisation guidelines which shows that predicted noise levels remain with the guideline values at all times.

5.3 General Conclusion

5.3.1 It is considered that operations at the proposed Pyrothermic Convertor would be able to be undertaken without adversely affecting the nearby residential receptors without the need for mitigation measures.


CRM.092.001.NO.R.001 October 2016

APPENDICES


CRM.092.001.NO.R.001 October 2016

Appendix A – Baseline Noise Survey Data

Table A-1: Location M01, No.5 Alfreton Road, Daytime Noise Data

File 200001

Meter Svantek SVAN 971 (44562)

Periods 15-minutes

Start 06/09/2016 10:16

End 06/09/2016 11:11

Weighting A

Data type LAeq

Unit dB

Period start LAeq LAmax LA90 LA10

10:16 71.4 88.5 53.0 75.4

10:31 71.7 88.8 53.5 75.9

10:46 71.4 93.6 53.5 75.4

11:01 71.6 86.2 54.9 75.5

Overall 71.5 93.6 53.7 75.6

Table A-2: Location M01, No.5 Alfreton Road, Evening Noise Data

File 200007


Periods 15-minutes

Start 06/09/2016 21:59

End 06/09/2016 22:59

Weighting A

Data type LAeq

Unit dB


21:59 61.0 81.0 40.6 64.0

22:14 58.2 76.3 37.6 60.2

22:29 57.1 74.6 38.3 59.0

22:44 56.7 77.0 37.7 55.8

Overall 54.2 81.0 38.6 59.8


CRM.092.001.NO.R.001 October 2016

Table A-3: Location M01, No.5 Alfreton Road, Night-time Noise Data

File 200009


Periods 15-minutes

Start 07/09/2016 01:38

End 07/09/2016 02:08

Weighting A

Data type LAeq

Unit dB


01:38 50.7 71.4 34.0 48.3

01:53 35.7 60.5 32.5 36.6

Overall 47.8 71.4 33.3 42.5

Table A-4: Location M02, No.7 Haslam’s Lane, Daytime Noise Data

File 200002


Periods 15-minutes

Start 06/09/2016 11:45

End 06/09/2016 12:45

Weighting A

Data type LAeq

Unit dB


11:45 57.8 81.5 45.0 57.7

12:00 60.2 82.1 46.2 62.0

12:15 56.4 82.1 45.3 58.6

12:30 56.1 75.0 45.1 58.8

Overall 57.9 82.1 45.4 49.3


CRM.092.001.NO.R.001 October 2016

Table A-5: Location M02, No.7 Haslam’s Lane, Evening Noise Data

File 200004


Periods 15-minutes

Start 06/09/2016 20:51

End 06/09/2016 21:51

Weighting A

Data type LAeq

Unit dB


21:51 53.5 74.6 41.4 54.3

22:06 53.0 72.0 41.1 54.3

22:21 50.5 70.2 40.8 50.8

22:36 52.0 73.9 40.5 50.5

Overall 52.4 74.6 41.0 52.5

Table A-6: Location M02, No.7 Haslam’s Lane, Night-time Noise Data

File 200008


Periods 15-minutes

Start 07/09/2016 00:46

End 07/09/2016 01:16

Weighting A

Data type LAeq

Unit dB


00:46 46.0 69.6 36.9 40.7

01:01 39.3 51.4 37.2 39.8

Overall 40.8 69.6 37.1 40.3


CRM.092.001.NO.R.001 October 2016



September 2016

Appendix D – Air Quality Assessment

Air Quality Assessment:

Envirofusion Trial

PyroThermic Convertor,

Derby

September 2016

Envirofusion Trial PyroThermic Convertor, Derby Air Quality Assessment

Air Quality Consultants Ltd 23 Coldharbour Road, Bristol BS6 7JT Tel: 0117 974 1086 12 Airedale Road, London SW12 8SF Tel: 0208 673 4313 [email protected]

Registered Office: 12 St Oswalds Road, Bristol, BS6 7HT Companies House Registration No: 2814570

Document Control

Client Enzygo Principal Contact Kevin Parr

Report Prepared By: Penny Wilson

Document Status and Review Schedule

Report No. Date Status Reviewed by

J2674/1/F1 30 September 2016 Final Chris Whall (Director)

This report has been prepared by Air Quality Consultants Ltd on behalf of the Client, taking into account the agreed scope of works.

Unless otherwise agreed, this document and all other Intellectual Property Rights remain the property of Air Quality Consultants

Ltd.

In preparing this report, Air Quality Consultants Ltd has exercised all reasonable skill and care, taking into account the objectives

and the agreed scope of works. Air Quality Consultants Ltd does not accept any liability in negligence for any matters arising

outside of the agreed scope of works. The Company operates a formal Quality Management System, which is certified to ISO

9001:2008, and a formal Environmental Management System, certified to ISO 14001:2004. QMF 08.

When issued in electronic format, Air Quality Consultants Ltd does not accept any responsibility for any unauthorised changes

made by others.

When printed by Air Quality Consultants Ltd, this report will be on Evolve Office, 100% Recycled paper.

Job Number J2674

mailto:[email protected]


J2674 1 of 49 September 2016

Executive Summary

The air quality and odour impacts associated with the operation of the proposed trial PyroThermic

Converter (PTC), at Envirofusion Alfreton Road have been assessed. The proposed trial plant will

utilise Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), and will be operational for a maximum of 12 months.

Existing conditions within the study area show acceptable air quality, with concentrations of all

pollutants below the relevant air quality objectives in the vicinity of the development site.

The PTC will generate around 16 additional vehicle movements per day. Increases in pollutant

concentrations at sensitive locations resulting from emissions from these additional traffic

movements will have negligible impacts on nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.

The impact of emissions from the proposed PTC plant on local residential properties and the area

surrounding the plant has been considered. The assessment has compared the predicted

changes in concentrations with screening criteria provided by the Environment Agency, and where

necessary determined total concentrations taking baseline levels into account. It has shown that

there will be no likely significant effects.

Consideration has been given to potential odour impacts of the proposed plant. Taking into

account the odour potential of the waste material, control measures to be put in place, prevailing

meteorological conditions and distance between the proposed plant and sensitive receptors, the

odour impacts are expected to be not significant.

Overall, the operational air quality and odour impacts of the proposed PTC are judged to be ‘not

significant’.



Contents

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3

2 Policy Context and Assessment Criteria ............................................................ 5

3 Assessment Approach .................................................................................... 14

4 Site Description and Baseline Conditions ........................................................ 18

5 Impact Assessment ......................................................................................... 24

6 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 31

7 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 32

8 References ...................................................................................................... 33

9 Glossary .......................................................................................................... 35

10 Appendices ..................................................................................................... 37

A1 EPUK & IAQM Planning for Air Quality Guidance ............................................ 38

A2 Professional Experience .................................................................................. 43

A3 Modelling Methodology ................................................................................... 44



1 Introduction

1.1 This report describes the potential air quality and odour impacts associated with the proposed trial

Envirofusion PyroThermic Converter (PTC) in Alfreton Road, Derby. The proposed trial plant will

process up to 2.75 tonnes per hour of Refuse Derive Fuel (RDF). The trial of the PTC technology

at the site will last for a maximum of 12 months.

1.2 This air quality assessment primarily focuses on the potential air quality impacts associated with

emissions from the stack at the proposed development. Consideration is also given to potential

odour impacts arising from the proposed plant.

1.3 The pyrolysis and combustion of RDF can give rise to emissions of a number of pollutants with the

potential to lead to air quality impacts. The pollutants covered in this assessment in terms of

human health impacts, which form the primary focus of the assessment, are primarily those for

which the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) (Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament

and the Council on industrial emissions) specifies a maximum emission rate. These are:

nitrogen dioxide (NO2);

sulphur dioxide (SO2);

total dust, which includes fine airborne particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5);

carbon monoxide (CO);

hydrogen chloride (HCl);

hydrogen fluoride (HF);

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs);

ammonia (NH3);

dioxins and furans; and

the following trace metals:

cadmium (Cd);

thallium (Tl);

mercury (Hg);

antimony (Sb);

arsenic (As);



lead (Pb);

chromium (Cr);

copper (Cu);

manganese (Mn);

nickel (Ni); and

vanadium (V).

1.4 Once operational, the PTC is expected to generate up to sixteen vehicle movements per day,

including HGVs. Guidance published by EPUK and the IAQM (EPUK & IAQM, 2015) explains that,

outside of an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), development can be screened out as not

requiring a detailed assessment of road traffic impacts on the local area where the development

will lead to a change in LDV and HDV flows of less than 500 and 100 AADT, respectively. The

predicted increases in vehicles associated with the proposed facility are below the relevant

screening criteria, and thus have not been considered further.

1.5 Consideration is given to potential odour impacts of the proposed PTC, taking into account the

nature of the RDF and proposed operational practices on the site.

1.6 This report has been prepared taking into account all relevant local and national guidance and

regulations, and follows a methodology agreed with Derby City Council.



2 Policy Context and Assessment Criteria

Air Quality Strategy

2.1 The Air Quality Strategy (Defra, 2007) published by the Department for Environment, Food, and

Rural Affairs (Defra) and Devolved Administrations, provides the policy framework for air quality

management and assessment in the UK. It provides air quality standards and objectives for key

air pollutants, which are designed to protect human health and the environment. It also sets out

how the different sectors: industry, transport and local government, can contribute to achieving the

air quality objectives. Local authorities are seen to play a particularly important role. The strategy

describes the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) regime that has been established, whereby

every authority has to carry out regular reviews and assessments of air quality in its area to identify

whether the objectives have been, or will be, achieved at relevant locations, by the applicable date.

If this is not the case, the authority must declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), and

prepare an action plan which identifies appropriate measures that will be introduced in pursuit of

the objectives.

Planning Policy

National Policies

2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) sets out planning policy for England in

one place. It places a general presumption in favour of sustainable development, stressing the

importance of local development plans, and states that the planning system should perform an

environmental role to minimise pollution. One of the twelve core planning principles notes that

planning should “contribute to…reducing pollution”. To prevent unacceptable risks from air

pollution, planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location.

The NPPF states that the “effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural

environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development

to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account”.

2.3 More specifically the NPPF makes clear that:

“Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or

national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management

Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning

decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent

with the local air quality action plan”.

2.4 The NPPF is now supported by Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (DCLG, 2016), which includes

guiding principles on how planning can take account of the impacts of new development on air



quality. The PPG states that “Defra carries out an annual national assessment of air quality using

modelling and monitoring to determine compliance with EU Limit Values” and “It is important that

the potential impact of new development on air quality is taken into account … where the national

assessment indicates that relevant limits have been exceeded or are near the limit”. The role of

the local authorities is covered by the LAQM regime, with the PPG stating that local authority Air

Quality Action Plans “identify measures that will be introduced in pursuit of the objectives”. In

addition, the PPG makes clear that “Odour and dust can also be a planning concern, for example,

because of the effect on local amenity”.

2.5 The PPG states that:

“Whether or not air quality is relevant to a planning decision will depend on the proposed

development and its location. Concerns could arise if the development is likely to generate air

quality impact in an area where air quality is known to be poor. They could also arise where the

development is likely to adversely impact upon the implementation of air quality strategies and

action plans and/or, in particular, lead to a breach of EU legislation (including that applicable to

wildlife)”.

2.6 The PPG sets out the information that may be required in an air quality assessment, making clear

that “Assessments should be proportional to the nature and scale of development proposed and

the level of concern about air quality”. It also provides guidance on options for mitigating air quality

impacts, as well as examples of the types of measures to be considered. It makes clear that

“Mitigation options where necessary, will depend on the proposed development and should be

proportionate to the likely impact”.

Local Policies

2.7 The City of Derby Local Plan Review (CDLPR) was adopted in January 2006 (Derby City Council,

2006), and policies within this document have been saved whilst a core strategy is being

developed. Policy GD5: Amenity, of the CDLPR stipulates that:

“Planning permission will only be granted for development where it provides a satisfactory level of

amenity within the site or building itself and provided it would not cause unacceptable harm to the

amenity of nearby areas. In considering harm, the Council will consider … Air …pollution;”

2.8 Policy E12: Pollution States:

“Adverse effects of development proposals in terms of air, water, noise, light or other forms of

pollution are an important consideration in determining planning applications.”

“The Council will have regard to its statutory duties under the Environment Act 1995 and will give

full consideration to the effect of proposed developments on the air quality within the designated

AQMA's.”



Air Quality Action Plans

National Air Quality Plans

2.9 Defra has produced Air Quality Plans to reduce nitrogen dioxide concentrations in major cities

throughout the UK (Defra, 2015). Along with a suite of national measures, the Air Quality Plans

identify the need to establish Clean Air Zones within five Zones (Birmingham, Leeds,

Southampton, Nottingham and Derby) where exceedences of the EU limit values for nitrogen

dioxide have been forecast in 2020 and beyond. Within these Zones, lower-emission vehicles will

be encouraged. The precise nature of these Clean Air Zones is still to be decided. In Greater

London, Defra will continue to support and monitor the delivery of the Mayor’s plans for improving

air quality to meet the EU limit value for nitrogen dioxide by 2025. Although the study area is

within an affected Zone, it does not include locations where the EU limit value is expected to be

exceeded beyond 2020.

2.10 There is currently no practical way to take account of the effects of these Air Quality Plans on the

modelling presented in this report, which is for assessment against the air quality objectives rather

than the EU limit values.

Local Air Quality Action Plan

2.11 Derby City Council declared an AQMA for nitrogen dioxide in 2001. This covers areas close to the

inner and outer ring roads and the main roads into the City. In 2006 a further AQMA was declared

for nitrogen dioxide alongside the A52 in Spondon. The Council has since developed an Air

Quality Action Plan (Derby City Council, 2006). This focused on measures delivered mainly

through the air quality strategy other Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2) strategies

Assessment Criteria

Health Criteria

2.12 The Government has established a set of air quality standards and objectives to protect human

health. The ‘standards’ are set as concentrations below which effects are unlikely even in

sensitive population groups, or below which risks to public health would be exceedingly small.

They are based purely upon the scientific and medical evidence of the effects of an individual

pollutant. The ‘objectives’ set out the extent to which the Government expects the standards to be

achieved by a certain date. They take account of economic efficiency, practicability, technical

feasibility and timescale. The objectives for use by local authorities are prescribed within the Air

Quality (England) Regulations, 2000, Statutory Instrument 928 (2000) and the Air Quality

(England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, Statutory Instrument 3043 (2002).

2.13 The objectives for nitrogen dioxide and PM10 were to have been achieved by 2005 and 2004

respectively, and continue to apply in all future years thereafter. The PM2.5 objective is to be



achieved by 2020. Measurements across the UK have shown that the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide

objective is unlikely to be exceeded where the annual mean concentration is below 60 µg/m3

(Defra, 2016a). Measurements have also shown that the 24-hour PM10 objective could be

exceeded where the annual mean concentration is above 32 µg/m3 (Defra, 2016a). The predicted

annual mean PM10 concentrations are thus used as a proxy to determine the likelihood of an

exceedence of the 24-hour mean PM10 objective. Where predicted annual mean concentrations

are below 32 µg/m3 it is unlikely that the 24-hour mean objective will be exceeded.

2.14 The European Union has also set limit values for nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5. The limit

values for nitrogen dioxide are the same numerical concentrations as the UK objectives, but

achievement of these values is a national obligation rather than a local one (Directive 2008/50/EC

of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2008). In the UK, only monitoring and modelling

carried out by UK Central Government meets the specification required to assess compliance with

the limit values. Central Government does not recognise local authority monitoring or local

modelling studies when determining the likelihood of the limit values being exceeded.

2.15 The objectives apply at locations where members of the public are likely to be regularly present

and are exposed over the averaging period of the objective. Where there is no air quality

objective, the Environment Agency’s Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs) have been applied.

Defra explains where the objectives apply in its Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance

(Defra, 2016a). Annual mean objectives and EALs are considered to apply anywhere with

residential exposure. The 24-hour mean objective for PM10 is taken to apply at residential

properties as well as the gardens of residential properties. The 1-hour mean objective for nitrogen

dioxide, and those EALs for shorter time periods than the annual mean, are taken to apply

anywhere where people may spend one hour or more (or fifteen minutes in the case of the 15-

minute sulphur dioxide objective).

2.16 Where there is no EAL quoted in Environment Agency guidance, one has been derived from the

Health and Safety Executive’s workplace exposure limits (HSE, 2005). This applies to the short

term EAL for chromium VI, and the short- and long-term EALs for thallium and cobalt.

2.17 The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) (Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and

the Council on industrial emissions) specifies a maximum emission of Total Organic Carbon

(TOC). In order to assess the potential emissions of TOCs, a worst-case approach has been

taken, assuming that all TOCs are Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); that all VOCs are both

benzene and 1,3 butadiene with respect to annual mean concentrations; and that all VOCs are

dimethyl sulphate with respect to short-term EALs. This situation would not happen in practice and

provides an extremely conservative assessment.

2.18 There are no assessment criteria for dioxins and furans. The World Health Organisation (WHO,

2000) provides an indicator of the air concentrations above which it considers it necessary to

identify and control local emission sources; this value is 0.3 pg/m3 (300 fg/m

3). In the absence of



suitable criteria, the process contributions have been compared against the relevant background

concentration, as well as the WHO indicator concentration for which it is considered necessary to

identify and control emission sources.

2.19 Table 1 shows that 18 exceedences of 200 µg/m3 as a 1-hour mean nitrogen dioxide concentration

are allowed before the objective is exceeded. For a typical year with complete data capture, the

19th highest hour is represented by the 99.79

th percentile of 1-hour mean concentrations. Thus,

comparing the 99.79th percentile of 1-hour mean concentrations with the 200 µg/m

3 standard

shows whether the 1-hour mean nitrogen dioxide objective is exceeded. Similarly, the 90.4th

percentile of 24-hour mean PM10 concentrations represents the 36th highest 24-hour period, the

99.7th percentile of 1-hour mean SO2 concentrations represents the 25

th highest hour, the 99.9

th

percentile of 15-minute SO2 concentrations represents the 36th highest 15-minute period, and the

99.18th percentile of 24-hour mean SO2 concentrations represents the 4

th highest 24-hour period.

Table 1: Relevant Air Quality Objectives and Environmental Assessment Levels for the Protection of Human Health

Pollutant Averaging

Period Concentration

(µg/m3)

Number of periods allowed to exceed per year

AQO *

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 40 n/a X

1 hour 200 18 a X

PM10 Annual 40 n/a X

24 hours 50 35 b X

PM2.5 f

Annual 25 n/a X

SO2

24 hours 125 3 c X

1 hour 350 24d X

15 minutes 266 35e X

CO 8 hour rolling

mean 10 (mg/m

3) n/a X

HF Annual 16 n/a

1 hour 160 n/a

HCl Annual mean 20

g n/a

1 hour 750 n/a

Benzene

Running annual mean

16.25 h n/a X

Annual mean 5 h

n/a X

1,3-butadiene Annual Mean 2.25 h n/a X

Dimethyl sulphate

1 hour 15.6 h n/a

Cadmium Annual 0.005 n/a

Thallium Annual 1 g n/a



Pollutant Averaging

Period Concentration

(µg/m3)

Number of periods allowed to exceed per year

AQO *

1hour 30 g n/a

Mercury Annual 0.25 n/a

1hour 7.5 n/a

Antimony Annual 5 n/a

1hour 150 n/a

Arsenic Annual 0.003 n/a

Chromium (III) Annual 5 n/a

1hour 150 n/a

Chromium (VI) Annual 0.0002 n/a

1hour 15 g n/a

Cobalt Annual 1

g n/a

1hour 30 g n/a

Copper Annual 10 n/a

1hour 200 n/a

Lead Annual 0.25 n/a X

Manganese Annual 0.15 n/a

1hour 1,500 n/a

Nickel Annual 0.02 n/a

Vanadium Annual 5 n/a

* Those EALs which have the status of an air quality objective are indicated in this column.

a Equivalent to 99.79th percentile of 1-hour means in a year.

b Equivalent to 90.4th percentile of 24-hour means in a year.

c Equivalent to 99.18th percentile of 24-hour means in a year.

d Equivalent to 99.7th percentile of 1-hour means in a year.

e Equivalent to 99.9th percentile of 15-minute means in a year.

f The PM2.5 objective, which is to be met by 2020, is not in Regulations and there is no requirement for

local authorities to meet it. The EU limit value is the same, but is to be met by 2015.

g Long- and short-term EALs for thallium and cobalt, the long-term EAL for HCl and the short-term

EAL for chromium (VI) has been calculated from the exposure limits in EH4024, and converted to

the respective EAL using guidance in H1 (Environment Agency, 2010).

h TOCs assessed against the EALs for benzene, 1,3-butadiene and dimethyl sulphate, since these are

the most stringent EALs for any VOCs.

Screening Criteria

2.20 The Environment Agency has adopted criteria (Environment Agency, 2016) that allow health-

related process contributions (‘PC’) to be screened out as insignificant regardless of the baseline

environmental conditions. The emissions from a process can be considered to be insignificant if:



• the long-term (annual mean) process contribution is <1% of the long-term environmental

standard; and

• the short-term (24-hour mean or shorter) process contribution is <10% of the short-term

environmental standard.

2.21 The approach developed jointly by Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and the Institute of Air

Quality Management (IAQM)1 (EPUK & IAQM, 2015), as described in Appendix A1, is that any

change in concentration smaller than 0.5% of the long-term environmental standard will be

negligible, regardless of the existing air quality conditions. Any change smaller than 1.5% of the

long-term environmental standard will be negligible so long as the total concentration is less than

94% of the standard and any change smaller than 5.5% of the long-term environmental standard

will be negligible so long as the total concentration is less than 75% of the standard. The guidance

also explains that:

“Where peak short term concentrations (those averaged over periods of an hour or less) from an

elevated source are in the range 10-20% of the relevant Air Quality Assessment Level (AQAL),

then their magnitude can be described as small, those in the range 20-50% medium and those

above 50% as large. These are the maximum concentrations experienced in any year and the

severity of this impact can be described as slight, moderate and substantial respectively, without

the need to reference background or baseline concentrations. In most cases, the assessment of

impact severity for a proposed development will be governed by the long-term exposure

experienced by receptors and it will not be a necessity to define the significance of effects by

reference to short-term impacts. The severity of the impact will be substantial when there is a risk

that the relevant AQAL for short-term concentrations is approached through the presence of the

new source, taking into account the contribution of other local sources”.

2.22 The IAQM/EPUK approach to consideration of impacts on annual mean concentrations is slightly

more stringent and has primarily been developed in relation to the key pollutants considered under

Local Air Quality Management (NO2, PM10 and PM2.5). Therefore, the assessment of the

emissions from the proposed plant has considered the predicted process contributions using the

following criteria:

is the long-term (annual mean) process contribution less than 0.5% (NO2, PM10, PM2.5) or

1% (all other pollutants) of the long-term environmental standard?; and

is the short-term (24-hour mean or shorter) process contribution less than 10% of the

short-term environmental standard?

1 The IAQM is the professional body for air quality practitioners in the UK.



2.23 Where both of these criteria are met, then the impacts are negligible and thus ‘not significant’.

Where these criteria are breached then a more detailed assessment, considering total

concentrations (incorporating local baseline conditions), has been provided.

Odour Guidance and Criteria

2.24 There are currently no statutory standards in the UK covering the release and subsequent impacts

of odours. This is due to complexities involved with measuring and assessing odours against

compliance criteria, and the inherently subjective nature of odours.

2.25 It is recognised that odours have the potential to pose a nuisance for residents living near to an

offensive source of odour. Determination of whether or not an odour constitutes a statutory

nuisance in these cases is usually the responsibility of the local planning authority or the

Environment Agency. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (1990) outlines that a local authority

can require measures to be taken where any:

“dust, steam, smell or other effluvia arising on an industrial, trade and business premises and being

prejudicial to health or a nuisance…” or

“fumes or gases are emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or cause a nuisance”.

2.26 Odour can also be controlled under the Statutory Nuisance provisions of Part III of the

Environmental Protection Act.

2.27 The Environment Agency has produced horizontal guidance on odour assessment and

management (H4). The H4 guidance document is primarily aimed at process operators looking to

control and manage the release of odours, but also contains a series of recommended assessment

methods, some of which have informed the methodology employed in this assessment.

2.28 Defra released Odour Guidance for Local Authorities in March 2010 (Defra, 2010). This is a

reference document aimed at environmental health practitioners and other professionals engaged

in preventing, investigating and managing odours. The purpose of the guide is:

“…to support local authorities in their regulatory roles in preventing, regulating and controlling

odours…”

Descriptors for Air Quality Impacts and Assessment of Significance

Health

2.29 There is no official guidance in the UK in relation to development control on how to describe air

quality impacts, nor how to assess their significance. The approach developed jointly by

Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM)2 (EPUK

2 The IAQM is the professional body for air quality practitioners in the UK.



& IAQM, 2015) has therefore been used. The overall significance of the air quality impacts is

determined using professional judgement. Full details of the EPUK/IAQM approach are provided

in Appendix A1. The approach includes elements of professional judgement, and the experience

of the consultants preparing the report is set out in Appendix A2.

Odour

2.30 There are no formal assessment criteria for quantifying odours. In the absence of formal criteria,

the significance of the impacts has been judged based on professional experience and taking

account of the H4 guidance published by the Environment Agency and Odour Guidance for Local

Authorities published by Defra (2010).



3 Assessment Approach

Consultation

3.1 The assessment follows a methodology agreed with Derby City Council via email correspondence

between Karl Suschitzky (Senior Environmental Health Officer at Derby City Council) and Paul

Outen (Air Quality Consultants) held between 19th and 26

th September 2016.

Existing Conditions

3.2 Existing sources of emissions within the study area have been defined using a number of

approaches. Industrial and waste management sources that may affect the area have been

identified using Defra’s Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (Defra, 2016c) and the

Environment Agency’s website ‘what’s in your backyard’ (Environment Agency, 2016a).

3.3 Information on existing air quality has been obtained by collating the results of monitoring carried

out by the local authority. This covers both the study area and nearby sites, the latter being used

to provide context for the assessment. Background concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, PM10,

PM2.5, sulphur dioxide, benzene and 1,3-butadiene have been defined using the national pollution

maps published by Defra (2016b). These cover the whole country on a 1x1 km grid. Background

metal concentrations have been taken from measurements carried out at the Walsall Bilston

monitoring site in 2014, which is part of the UK Heavy Metals Monitoring Network. This is an

industrial site located near to a number of sources of metals and thus represents a worst-case for

the study area, where actual concentrations are likely to be lower.

3.4 Exceedences of the annual mean EU limit value for nitrogen dioxide in the study area have been

identified using the maps of roadside concentrations published by Defra for 2014 (Defra, 2016e)

and for 2020 (Defra, 2016d), as well as from any nearby AURN monitoring sites (which operate to

EU data quality standards). These are the maps used by the UK Government, together with the

results from national AURN monitoring sites that operate to EU data quality standards, to report

exceedences of the limit value to the EU. The maps are currently available for the past years 2001

to 2014 and the future years 2020, 2025 and 2030. The national maps of roadside PM10 and PM2.5

concentrations, which are available for the years 2009 to 2014, show no exceedences of the limit

values anywhere in the UK in 2014.

Impacts of the Proposed Trial PTC Plant

Sensitive Locations

3.5 In terms of the potential impacts from the proposed PTC plant, concentrations have been modelled

for a gridded area which covers both on-site and off-site receptors. The grid covers a 4 km x 4 km

area, centred on the proposed plant, with grid points at 50 m intervals. A number of specific



receptors have also been identified which represent the closest residential properties, as shown in

Figure 1. All receptors have been modelled at a height of 1.5 m.

Figure 1: Specific Modelled Receptors

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2016. Additional data sourced from

third parties, including public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v1.0.

Ordnance Survey licence number 100046099.

Modelling Methodology

3.6 The impacts of emissions from the proposed PTC plant have been modelled using the ADMS-5

dispersion model. ADMS-5 is a new generation model that incorporates a state-of-the-art

understanding of the dispersion processes within the atmospheric boundary layer. Entrainment of

the plume into the wake of the building has been simulated within the model. The model input

parameters are set out in Appendix A3. The air quality modelling has been carried out based on a

number of necessary assumptions, detailed further in Appendix A3. Where possible a realistic

worst-case approach has been adopted.



Emissions Data

3.7 Data on emissions parameters such as efflux volume, temperature, oxygen and water content of

the flue gas, along with stack dimensions have been provided by Envirofusion. Maximum emission

rates of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides have also been supplied by Envirofusion. The

emission rates of all other pollutants considered in the assessment are derived from IED limits,

which are also set out in Appendix A3 along with the emission rates entered into the dispersion

model. It should be noted that emission rates modelled are maximum rates based on the emission

limits, the actual pollutants emitted will be dependent on the composition of the RDF and will not

be emitted at the maximum rate for the full duration of operation. These rates therefore represent

a worst-case assumption. Further details of the emissions data used in this assessment are

provided in Appendix A3.

Meteorology

3.8 Five years of hourly-sequential meteorological data (2009 to 2012 inclusive) from East Midlands

airport have been used (wind roses provided in Appendix A4). The East Midlands meteorological

station is located approximately 15 km to the southeast of the proposed plant. It is one of the

nearest stations to the proposed plant which measures all of the required parameters. Both the

proposed plant and the East Midlands meteorological station are located within, inland locations in

the East Midlands where they will be influenced by the effects of inland meteorology.

Post-Processing

3.9 ADMS-5 has been run to predict the contribution of the proposed facility to pollutant concentrations

for comparison with the relevant objectives and EALs set out in Table 1.

3.10 The model has been run assuming that all pollutants are emitted at the maximum emission rates

throughout the year. The plant would operate for 100 hours per week (8am on Monday until noon

on Friday). The annual mean model results have been adjusted to account for this, as described

in A3.

Uncertainty

3.11 The point source dispersion model used in the assessment is dependent upon emission rates, flow

rates, exhaust temperatures and other parameters. There are then additional uncertainties, as

models are required to simplify real-world conditions into a series of algorithms. These

uncertainties cannot be easily quantified and it is not possible to verify the point-source model

outputs. Where parameters have been estimated the approach has been to use reasonable worst-

case assumptions.



Odour Impacts

Sensitive Locations

3.12 Locations sensitive to odour emitted during site operations will be places where members of the

public are regularly present. Residential properties are considered to be the most sensitive, with

commercial properties and the public footpaths close to the site being of lower sensitivity.

Assessment Approach

3.13 A desk-based study has been carried out to assess the impacts of existing odour source on the

proposed development. Information on the nature of the RDF handled at the plant and proposed

operating practices have been used, in conjunction with information on local meteorological data

and the location of sensitive receptors, as the basis for the odour assessment.



4 Site Description and Baseline Conditions

4.1 The proposed development site is located on Alfreton Road, approximately 2 km to the north of

Derby city centre. The site is bounded by industrial areas to the east and south and open space to

the north and west. The closest residential properties to the east, south and west are over 300 m

away, whilst the closest properties to the north of the site are over 1 km from the proposed stack.

Industrial sources

4.2 A search of the UK Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (Defra, 2016c) and Environment

Agency’s ‘what’s in your backyard’ (Environment Agency, 2016a) websites has not identified any

significant industrial or waste management sources that are likely to affect the proposed

development, in terms of air quality.

Air Quality Review and Assessment

4.3 Derby City Council has investigated air quality within its area as part of its responsibilities under

the LAQM regime. In 2001 an AQMA was declared along major roads in the city for exceedences

of the nitrogen dioxide objective, as well as a further AQMA to the east of the city on two sections

of the A52 in Spondon. The closest AQMA is located 2 km south of the proposed development

site. The declared AQMAs are shown in Figure 2.

4.4 The Council declared an AQMA in 2001 as a result of exceedences of the 24-hour PM10 objective

in the vicinity of an industrial source in Sinfin. The Council has since concluded that there have

been no recent exceedences of the PM10 objectives (Air Quality News, 2013), and the PM10 AQMA

has been revoked. It is therefore highly unlikely that existing PM10 levels will exceed the objectives

within the study area.



Figure 2: Declared AQMAs




Local Air Quality Monitoring

4.5 Derby City Council has previously operated an automatic monitoring station at the Council House

in the centre of Derby, however, this ceased operating in 2009. The Council also operates a

number of nitrogen dioxide monitoring sites using diffusion tubes prepared and analysed by

Environmental Scientifics Group (using the 50% TEA in acetone method). The closest of which is

at the Fox Street/Mansfield Road junction, 2 km south of the site. Monitoring has also been carried

out at a background site, approximately 2.3 km to the west of the proposed development site.

Data for these sites have been provided by Derby City Council. Results for the years 2009 to 2015

are summarised in Table 2 and the monitoring locations are shown in Figure 3.



Table 2: Summary of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Monitoring (2009-2015) a b

Site No.

Site Type Location 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Automatic Monitor - Annual Mean (µg/m3)

Urban Council House 32.0 - - - - - -

Objective 40

Automatic Monitor - No. of Hours > 200 µg/m3

Urban Council House 0 - - - - - -

Objective 18

Diffusion Tubes - Annual Mean (µg/m3)

75 Roadside Fox Street 30.0 35.7 42.8 27.3 37.8 31.2 30.1

88 Background Hardwicke Avenue 15.7 14.5 13.4 11.5 - - -

Objective 40

a Exceedences of the objectives shown in bold.

a Data supplied by Derby City Council.

4.6 The results indicate that the annual mean nitrogen dioxide objective may have been historically

exceeded at the roadside site. However, concentrations have remained below the objective at this

site since 2012. Background concentrations in the vicinity of the proposed development site are

very low.



Figure 3: Monitoring Locations




4.7 There are no monitors located near to the development site that have measured PM10 in the

previous four years. There are no monitors in Derby which measure PM2.5.

Exceedences of EU Limit Value

4.8 There are no AURN monitoring sites within 1 km of the development site with which to identify

exceedences of the annual mean nitrogen dioxide limit value. The national maps of roadside

annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations (Defra, 2016e), used to report exceedences of the

limit value to the EU, do not identify any exceedences within 1 km of the development site.



Background Concentrations

National Background Pollution Maps

4.9 Estimated background concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5 in the study area have

been determined for 2016 (Table 3) using Defra’s background maps (Defra, 2016b). The

background concentrations are all well below the objectives.

Table 3: Estimated Annual Mean Background Pollutant Concentrations in 2016 (µg/m3)

Year NO2 a PM10

a PM2.5

a Benzene

b 1,3-

butadiene c

2016 21.2 16.7 11.7 0.47 0.23

Objectives 40 40 25 d 5 2.25

a In line with Defra’s forecasts. Maximum concentration at specific modelled receptors.

b Defra estimated concentration in 2010 at the location where the maximum annual mean Process

Contribution predicted.

c Defra estimated concentration in 2003 at the location where the maximum annual mean Process

Contribution predicted.

d The PM2.5 objective, which is to be met by 2020, is not in Regulations and there is no requirement for

local authorities to meet it.

4.10 Estimated background concentrations of benzene and 1,3-butadiene in the study area have been

also determined from Defra’s published maps of background concentrations (Table 3). The data

have been taken for the years 2010 and 2003 respectively since these are the most recent

available years for the most recent set of published maps.

Heavy Metals Monitoring

4.11 Defra undertakes monitoring of trace elements at a number of locations in the UK as part of the UK

Heavy Metals Monitoring Network. To provide an indication of trace metal concentrations in the

study area, measured concentrations of selected heavy metals at the one of the nearest

monitoring sites in 2014 are summarised in Table 4 (values are stated to the same number of

significant figures as published by Defra). These data have been downloaded from the Defra

website (Defra, 2015a). These data are considered very worst-case, as measured concentrations

at Walsall Bilston Lane are generally much higher than other sites in the UK.



Table 4: Trace Metal Background Concentrations in 2014 (ng/m3)

a

Pollutant Walsall Bilston Lane

Arsenic 1.2

Cadmium 2.5

Chromium 3.8

Lead 57

Nickel 2

Manganese 13

a 1,000 ng = 1 µg.



5 Impact Assessment

Process Description

5.1 The proposed trial plant is a pyrothermic convertor (PTC) which utilises a high temperature ash

melting thermal process. The trial plant would consist of a single module running on RDF, at a rate

of 2.75 tonnes per hour. To minimise emission of pollutants, exhaust gas from the process would

be treated with lime and activated carbon, which would subsequently be removed by filtration prior

to emission from a 20 m high stack.

5.2 The process would operate for 100 hours per week, from 8am on Monday through to noon on

Friday. The trial would last for a maximum of 12 months.

Predicted Impacts

5.3 Predicted maximum concentrations as a result of emissions from the PTC (“Process Contribution”

or “PC) are set out in Table 5. Where the relevant screening thresholds are exceeded, the

Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) is also provided, which takes into account baseline

concentrations. For each pollutant and averaging period, the maximum predicted concentrations

across any of the five years of meteorological data are presented for both the whole gridded area

and the specific receptors, are shown in Table 5. Figure 4 illustrates the spatial distribution in

annual mean PCs, using annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations as an example (the relative

spatial pattern in annual mean PCs is the same for all of the pollutants in Table 5).

5.4 The annual mean EALs only apply in the residential areas and not across the industrial estate or

open space to the north and west of the proposed development site. There is thus no requirement

to present the predicted annual mean concentrations in these areas, whether the screening criteria

are exceeded or not.

5.5 The values in Table 5 have been compared with the EPUK/IAQM and Environment Agency

screening criteria summarised in Paragraphs 2.20 to 2.22 and the following conclusions have been

drawn:

for PM10 (annual mean), benzene, CO, HCl, HF, Tl, Hg (maximum hourly), Sb, Cr III, Cr VI

(maximum hourly), Cu, Mn, V, NH3, and dioxins and furans anywhere with the Cartesian

grid:

the maximum PCs would be <1% (or <0.5% for key LAQM pollutants) of the relevant of

long-term or <10% of short-term EALs. There is thus no need to calculate the PECs, and it

can be concluded that there would be no likely significant effects;



for NO2, SO2, 24-hour PM10, PM2.5, 1,3-butadiene, dimethyl sulphate, Cd, As, and Ni

anywhere with the Cartesian grid:

the maximum PCs would be >1% (or >0.5% for key LAQM pollutants) of the relevant EALs

and so the PECs have been calculated. All of the PECs are < the EALs, and there would

thus be no likely significant effects; and

for annual mean Hg, Pb, PM2.5 (annual mean) and Cr VI (annual mean):

the maximum PCs would be >1% of the EALs at some locations within the gridded area,

however, the maximum PCs would be <1% at the specific receptors. The annual mean

EALs only apply at the residential areas (represented by the specific receptors) and thus

there would be no likely significant effects.



Table 5: Modelled Maximum Process Contributions (PC) and Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PEC) a

Pollutant Averaging Period Objective /

EAL

PC (µg/m3) PC (%)

Baseline (Annual Mean) (µg/m

3)

PEC (µg/m3) PEC as % of EAL

Receptor Grid Receptor Grid Receptor Grid Receptor Grid

NO2

Annual Mean 40 1.0 5.7 3% 14% 21.2 22.2 26.9 56% 67%

99.79th percentile of 1-hour means

200 16.6 46.4 8% 23% 21.2 59.1 88.8 30% 44%

SO2


350 23.2 64.8 7% 19% 5.19 33.6 75.2 10% 21%


125 9.8 43.9 8% 35% 5.19 20.2 54.3 16% 43%

99.9th percentile of 15-minute means

266 27.3 71.8 10% 27% 5.19 37.7 82.2 14% 31%

PM10

Annual Mean 40 0.04 0.19 0.1% 0.5% - - - - -


50 0.6 3.6 1% 7% - - - - -

PM2.5 Annual Mean 25 0.04 0.19 0.1% 0.8% b

- - - - -

CO Rolling 8-hour mean 10000 18.3 60.0 0.2% 0.6% - - - - -

HCl Max hourly mean 750 2.1 6.8 0.3% 0.9% - - - - -

HF

Annual mean 16 0.004

0.020

0.02% 0.13% - - - - -

Max hourly mean 160 0.1 0.5 0.1% 0.3% - - - - -

VOCs as benzene Annual Mean

5 0.04 0.20 0.7% 4.0% - - - - -

VOCs as 1,3-

butadiene Annual Mean

2.25 0.04 0.20 2% 9% 0.23 0.27 0.44 12% 19%

VOCs as Dimethyl Max hourly mean 15.6 0.7 2.3 4% 14% 0.0

e 0.7 2.3 4% 14%




EAL

PC (µg/m3) PC (%)


3)



sulphate

Cd Annual Mean 0.005 0.0002 0.0010 4% 20% 0.0027 0.0029 0.0037 58% 75%

Tl

Annual Mean 1 0.0002 0.0010 0.02% 0.10% - - - - -

Max hourly mean 30 0.0017 0.0056 0.01% 0.02% - - - - -

Hg

Annual Mean 0.5 0.0018 0.010 0.4% 2.0% b - - - - -

Max hourly mean 7.5 0.017 0.056 0.2% 0.8% - - - - -

Sb

Annual Mean 5 0.002 0.010 0.04% 0.20% - - - - -

Max hourly mean 150 0.02 0.06 0.01% 0.04% - - - - -

As c Annual Mean 0.003 0.0002 0.0011 7% 37% 0.0012 0.0014 0.0024 48% 78%

Pb Annual Mean 0.25 0.002 0.010 0.7% 4.0% b - - - - -

Cr as Cr II and Cr III

Annual Mean 5 0.002 0.010 0.04% 0.20% - - - - -

Max hourly mean 150 0.017 0.056 0.01% 0.04% - - - - -

Cr as Cr VI

Annual Mean d 0.0002 0.0000005 0.0000026 0.2% 1.3%

b - - - - -

Max hourly mean 15 0.017 0.056 0.1% 0.4% - - - - -

Cu

Annual Mean 10 0.002 0.010 0.02% 0.10% - - - - -

Max hourly mean 200 0.017 0.056 0.01% 0.03% - - - - -

Mn

Annual Mean 150 0.002 0.010 0.001% 0.007% - - - - -

Max hourly mean 1500 0.017 0.056 0.001% 0.004% - - - - -

Ni Annual Mean 0.02 0.002 0.010 9% 51% 0.0023 0.0041 0.012 21% 62%

V

Annual Mean 5 0.002 0.010 0.04% 0.20% - - - - -

Max hourly mean 1 0.017 0.056 0.2% 1.0% - - - - -

NH3

Annual Mean 180 0.036 0.20 0.02% 0.11% - - - - -

Max hourly mean 2500 0.3 1.1 0.01% 0.05% - - - - -




EAL

PC (µg/m3) PC (%)


3)



Dioxins and

Furans Annual Mean 3 x10-7

3.6 x 10-10

2.0 x 10-9

0.1% 0.7% - - - - -

a Exceedeces of screening criteria shown in bold. Screening criteria for long-term objectives (annual mean) <0.5% of the objective level for NO2, PM10 and

PM2.5, and <1% for all other pollutants. Screening criteria for short-term objectives (24-hour and shorter averaging periods) <10% of the objective level.

b No relevant exposure for annual mean objective at point of maximum concentration

c Assuming each metal comprises 11% of the total group emissions (Step 2 of EA Guidance (Environment Agency, 2012a))

d Assuming maximum, typical emissions from energy from waste plant (Step 3 of EA Guidance (Environment Agency, 2012a))

e No information about background levels available, so assumed to be zero.



Figure 4: Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide Process Contribution (based on maximum at each grid point for all 5 meteorological years modelled)




Odour

5.6 The only potential source of odours will be the RDF delivered to and used on site. The emissions

from the process stack will be very low in odour, as most odourous compounds will be destroyed in

the combustion process.

5.7 The plant will only utilise RDF. This is produced by shredding and dehydrating municipal solid

waste. It is therefore has a very low moisture content, relatively clean and will produce fairly

minimal odours. The feedstock is tested to ensure that the moisture content is right for the

process. The RDF will generally be below 15% moisture content. The RDF will be received at the

facility sealed in bales, or in roll-on-roll-off containers, which will be inspected upon delivery. Any

damaged bales will be utilised as a priority to avoid storage of unsealed waste outside. All bales

and containers will only be opened within the development building, and will be used immediately;

there will not usually be waste stored at the site. Any small amounts of waste that are stored on-



site will remain sealed until ready for use. It can therefore be assumed, with reasonable certainty,

that odour emissions from the proposed plant will be minimal.

5.8 The closest residential properties are approximately 300 m to the south east of the proposed plant.

To the north-east, downwind of the prevailing wind, the nearest properties are over 1.2 km from the

plant. The closest receptors are therefore a considerable distance from the plant.

5.9 Taking into account the relatively low potential for odours to escape off-site and the considerable

distance between the source and receptors, odour impacts from the proposed development are

likely to be negligible.

Significance of Operational Air Quality and Odour Impacts

5.10 The operational air quality impacts without mitigation are judged to be ‘not significant’. This is

based on professional judgement.

5.11 More specifically, the judgement that the air quality impacts will be ‘not significant’ takes account of

the assessment that:

process contributions for most pollutants will be below the relevant screening criteria;

where process contributions exceed the screening criteria, concentrations will be below the

air quality objectives/EALs for all relevant receptors; and

odour impacts at sensitive locations are likely to be negligible;

the trial plant will be operational for a maximum of 12 months; and

a number of worst-case assumptions have been made in the assessment of air quality

impacts, including all pollutants emitted continuously at maximum emissions rates and

worst-case background concentrations used.



6 Mitigation

6.1 A number of mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the plant to minimise

air quality and odour impacts. These include:

exhaust gas treatment using lime and activated carbon, followed by filtration;

continuous in-stack monitoring of gaseous pollutants, with periodic testing of other

pollutants to ensure compliance with IED emission limits;

20 m high stack, well above the adjacent buildings;

utilisation of RDF with low moisture content (and thus odour potential), which will be

subject to on-site testing to ensure compliance;

RDF delivered to site either in wrapped bales or containers;

RDF handling inside the building only; and

no RDF routinely stored on-site over the weekend.

6.2 The Impact Assessment has concluded that, with these measures in place, the impacts will be not

significant, and thus no additional mitigation is required.



7 Conclusions

7.1 The operational impacts of the proposed trial PTC, have been assessed. Concentrations have

been modelled for a number of worst-case receptors, representing existing properties where

impacts are expected to be greatest, as well as at a grid of receptors covering the whole area.

7.2 The assessment has considered the potential for emissions of all of the pollutants covered in the

Industrial Emissions Directive, and used detailed dispersion modelling to predict ground-level

pollutant concentrations. It has covered the potential for effects in relation to long-term and short-

term assessment levels set by Defra, the Environment Agency, and various other bodies.

7.3 The assessment has compared the predicted changes in concentrations with screening criteria

provided by the Environment Agency, and where necessary determined total concentrations taking

baseline levels into account. It has shown that there will be no likely significant effects.

7.4 Consideration has been given to potential odour impacts of the proposed plant. Taking into

account the odour potential of the RDF, control measures to be put in place, prevailing

meteorological conditions and distance between the proposed plant and sensitive receptors, the

odour impacts are expected to be not significant.

7.5 In summary, it is concluded that the development will have no likely significant effects in relation to

air quality or odour.



8 References

Air Quality News. (2013). http://www.airqualitynews.com/2013/08/16/derby-revokes-air-quality-

management-area/ .

DCLG. (2016). Planning Practice Guidance. Retrieved from

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/

Defra. (2007). The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Defra.

Defra. (2010). Odour Guidance for Local Authorities.

Defra. (2015). Air quality in the UK: plan to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-quality-in-the-uk-plan-to-reduce-nitrogen-

dioxide-emissions

Defra. (2016a). Review & Assessment: Technical Guidance LAQM.TG16. Defra.

Defra. (2016b). Defra Air Quality Website. Retrieved from http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/

Defra. (2016c). UK Pollutant Release and Transfer Register. Retrieved from prtr.defra.gov.uk

Defra. (2016d). 2015 NO2 projections data (2013 reference year). Retrieved from http://uk-

air.defra.gov.uk/library/no2ten/2015-no2-projections-from-2013-data

Defra. (2016e). UK Ambient Air Quality Interactive Map. Retrieved from http://uk-

air.defra.gov.uk/data/gis-mapping

Defra. (2016f). Defra AURN Archive. Retrieved from aurn.defra.gov.uk

Derby City Council. (2006). Air Quality Action Plan.

Derby City Council. (2006). City of Derby Local Plan Review.

Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2008).

Directive 2015/2193/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2015).

Environment Act. (1995). HMSO.

Environment Agency. (2005). Conversion ratios for NOx and NO2. Retrieved from

http://persona.uk.com/kings_lynn/Core_docs/Q/Q11.pdf

Environment Agency. (2011). AQTAG06 - Technical guidance on detailed modelling approach for

an appropriate assessment for emissions to air.

Environment Agency. (2012a). Guidance to Applicants on Impact Assessment for Group 3 Metals -

v.3 September 2012.

Environment Agency. (2016a). ‘what’s in your backyard’. Retrieved from http://www.environment-

agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx



Environment Agency. (2016b). Air emissions risk assessment for your environmental permit.

Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-emissions-risk-assessment-for-your-

environmental-permit

EPUK & IAQM. (2015, Novemeber). Land-Use Planning & Development Control: Planning For Air

Quality. IAQM.

HMSO. (1990). Environmental Protection Act 1990.

HMSO. (1993a). Clean Air Act 1993.

HSE. (2005). Health and Safety Executive, EH40/2005 Workspace Exposure Limits.

National Planning Policy Framework. (2012). DCLG.

The Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations, 2002, Statutory Instrument 3043. (2002).

HMSO.

The Air Quality (England) Regulations, 2000, Statutory Instrument 928. (2000). HMSO.

WHO. (2000). World Health Organisation, Air quality Guidelines for Europe (Second Edition).



9 Glossary

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ADMS-5 Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System model for point sources

AQC Air Quality Consultants

AQMA Air Quality Management Area

AURN Automatic Urban and Rural Network

DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

EAL Environmental Assessment Level

EPUK Environmental Protection UK

Exceedence A period of time when the concentration of a pollutant is greater than the

appropriate air quality objective. This applies to specified locations with relevant

exposure

HDV Heavy Duty Vehicles (> 3.5 tonnes)

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

HMSO Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

IAQM Institute of Air Quality Management

LAQM Local Air Quality Management

LDV Light Duty Vehicles (<3.5 tonnes)

μg/m3 Microgrammes per cubic metre

NO Nitric oxide

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NOx Nitrogen oxides (taken to be NO2 + NO)

NPF National Planning Framework

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

Objectives A nationally defined set of health-based concentrations for nine pollutants, seven of

which are incorporated in Regulations, setting out the extent to which the

standards should be achieved by a defined date. There are also vegetation-based

objectives for sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides



PC Process Contribution

PEC Predicted Environmental Concentration

PM10 Small airborne particles, more specifically particulate matter less than 10

micrometres in aerodynamic diameter

PM2.5 Small airborne particles less than 2.5 micrometres in aerodynamic diameter

PPG Planning Practice Guidance

PTC PyroThermic Convertor

RDF Refuse Derived Fuel

SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPD Supplementary Planning Document

Standards A nationally defined set of concentrations for nine pollutants below which health

effects do not occur or are minimal

TEA Triethanolamine – used to absorb nitrogen dioxide

TOC Total organic carbon

VOC Volatile organic compounds

WHO World Health Organisation



10 Appendices

A1 EPUK & IAQM Planning for Air Quality Guidance ............................................ 38

A2 Professional Experience .................................................................................. 43

A3 Modelling Methodology ................................................................................... 44



A1 EPUK & IAQM Planning for Air Quality Guidance

A1.1 The guidance issued by EPUK and IAQM (EPUK & IAQM, 2015) is comprehensive in its

explanation of the place of air quality in the planning regime. Key sections of the guidance not

already mentioned above are set out below.

Air Quality as a Material Consideration

“Any air quality issue that relates to land use and its development is capable of being a material

planning consideration. The weight, however, given to air quality in making a planning application

decision, in addition to the policies in the local plan, will depend on such factors as:

the severity of the impacts on air quality;

the air quality in the area surrounding the proposed development;

the likely use of the development, i.e. the length of time people are likely to be exposed at that

location; and

the positive benefits provided through other material considerations”.

Recommended Best Practice

A1.2 The guidance goes into detail on how all development proposals can and should adopt good

design principles that reduce emissions and contribute to better air quality management. It states:

“The basic concept is that good practice to reduce emissions and exposure is incorporated into all

developments at the outset, at a scale commensurate with the emissions”.

A1.3 The guidance sets out a number of good practice principles that should be applied to all

developments that:

include 10 or more dwellings;

where the number of dwellings is not known, residential development is carried out on a

site of more than 0.5 ha;

provide more than 1,000 m2 of commercial floorspace;

are carried out on land of 1 ha or more.

A1.4 The good practice principles are that:

New developments should not contravene the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan, or render

any of the measures unworkable;



Wherever possible, new developments should not create a new “street canyon”, as this

inhibits pollution dispersion;

Delivering sustainable development should be the key theme of any application;

New development should be designed to minimise public exposure to pollution sources,

e.g. by locating habitable rooms away from busy roads;

The provision of at least 1 Electric Vehicle (EV) “rapid charge” point per 10 residential

dwellings and/or 1000 m2 of commercial floorspace. Where on-site parking is provided for

residential dwellings, EV charging points for each parking space should be made available;

Where development generates significant additional traffic, provision of a detailed travel

plan (with provision to measure its implementation and effect) which sets out measures to

encourage sustainable means of transport (public, cycling and walking) via subsidised or

free-ticketing, improved links to bus stops, improved infrastructure and layouts to improve

accessibility and safety;

All gas-fired boilers to meet a minimum standard of <40 mgNOx/kWh;

Where emissions are likely to impact on an AQMA, all gas-fired CHP plant to meet a

minimum emissions standard of:

o Spark ignition engine: 250 mgNOx/Nm3;

o Compression ignition engine: 400 mgNOx/Nm3;

o Gas turbine: 50 mgNOx/Nm3.

A presumption should be to use natural gas-fired installations. Where biomass is proposed

within an urban area it is to meet minimum emissions standards of 275 mgNOx/Nm3 and

25 mgPM/Nm3.

A1.5 The guidance also outlines that offsetting emissions might be used as a mitigation measure for a

proposed development. However, it states that:

“It is important that obligations to include offsetting are proportional to the nature and scale of

development proposed and the level of concern about air quality; such offsetting can be based on

a quantification of the emissions associated with the development. These emissions can be

assigned a value, based on the “damage cost approach” used by Defra, and then applied as an

indicator of the level of offsetting required, or as a financial obligation on the developer. Unless

some form of benchmarking is applied, it is impractical to include building emissions in this

approach, but if the boiler and CHP emissions are consistent with the standards as described

above then this is not essential”.

A1.6 The guidance offers a widely used approach for quantifying costs associated with pollutant

emissions from transport. It also outlines the following typical measures that may be considered to



offset emissions, stating that measures to offset emissions may also be applied as post

assessment mitigation:

Support and promotion of car clubs;

Contributions to low emission vehicle refuelling infrastructure;

Provision of incentives for the uptake of low emission vehicles;

Financial support to low emission public transport options; and

Improvements to cycling and walking infrastructures.

Screening

Impacts of the Local Area on the Development

“There may be a requirement to carry out an air quality assessment for the impacts of the local

area’s emissions on the proposed development itself, to assess the exposure that residents or

users might experience. This will need to be a matter of judgement and should take into account:

the background and future baseline air quality and whether this will be likely to approach or

exceed the values set by air quality objectives;

the presence and location of Air Quality Management Areas as an indicator of local hotspots

where the air quality objectives may be exceeded;

the presence of a heavily trafficked road, with emissions that could give rise to sufficiently high

concentrations of pollutants (in particular nitrogen dioxide), that would cause unacceptably

high exposure for users of the new development; and

the presence of a source of odour and/or dust that may affect amenity for future occupants of

the development”.

Impacts of the Development on the Local Area

A1.7 The guidance sets out two stages of screening criteria that can be used to identify whether a

detailed air quality assessment is required, in terms of the impact of the development on the local

area. The first stage is that you should proceed to the second stage if any of the follow apply:

10 or more residential units or a site area of more than 0.5 ha residential use;

more than 1,000 m2 of floor space for all other uses or a site area greater than 1 ha.

A1.8 Coupled with any of the following:

the development has more than 10 parking spaces;



the development will have a centralised energy facility or other centralised combustion

process.

A1.9 If the above do not apply then the development can be screened out as not requiring a detailed air

quality assessment of the impact of the development on the local area. If they do apply then you

proceed to stage 2, the criteria for which are set out below. The criteria are more stringent where

the traffic impacts may arise on roads where concentrations are close to the objective. The

presence of an AQMA is taken to indicate the possibility of being close to the objective, but where

whole authority AQMAs are present and it is known that the affected roads have concentrations

below 90% of the objective, the less stringent criteria is likely to be more appropriate.

the development will lead to a change in LDV flows of more than 100 AADT within or

adjacent to an AQMA or more than 500 AADT elsewhere;

the development will lead to a change in HDV flows of more than 25 AADT within or

adjacent to an AQMA or more than 100 AADT elsewhere;

the development will lead to a realigning of roads (i.e. changing the proximity of receptors

to traffic lanes) where the change is 5m or more and the road is within an AQMA;

the development will introduce a new junction or remove an existing junction near to

relevant receptors, and the junction will cause traffic to significantly change vehicle

acceleration/deceleration, e.g. traffic lights, or roundabouts;

the development will introduce or change a bus station where bus flows will change by

more than 25 AADT within or adjacent to an AQMA or more than 100 AADT elsewhere;

the development will have an underground car park with more than 100 movements per

day (total in and out) with an extraction system that exhausts within 20 m of a relevant

receptor;

the development will have one or more substantial combustion processes where the

combustion unit is:

o any centralised plant using bio fuel;

o any combustion plant with single or combined thermal input >300 kW; or

o a standby emergency generator associated with a centralised energy centre (if likely to

be tested/used >18 hours a year).

the development will have a combustion unit of any size where emissions are at a height

that may give rise to impacts through insufficient dispersion, e.g. through nearby buildings.

A1.10 Should none of the above apply then the development can be screened out as not requiring a

detailed air quality assessment of the impact of the development on the local area.



A1.11 The guidance also outlines what the content of the air quality assessment should include, and this

has been adhered to in the production of this report.

Assessment of Significance

Assessment of Significance

A1.12 The IAQM guidance (EPUK & IAQM, 2015) is that the assessment of significance should be based

on professional judgement, with the overall air quality impact of the scheme described as either

‘significant’ or ‘not significant’. In drawing this conclusion, the following factors should be taken into

account:

the existing and future air quality in the absence of the development;

the extent of current and future population exposure to the impacts;

the influence and validity of any assumptions adopted when undertaking the prediction of

impacts;

the potential for cumulative impacts and, in such circumstances, several impacts that are

described as ‘slight’ individually could, taken together, be regarded as having a significant

effect for the purposes of air quality management in an area, especially where it is proving

difficult to reduce concentrations of a pollutant. Conversely, a ‘moderate’ or ‘substantial’

impact may not have a significant effect if it is confined to a very small area and where it is

not obviously the cause of harm to human health; and

the judgement on significance relates to the consequences of the impacts; will they have

an effect on human health that could be considered as significant? In the majority of

cases, the impacts from an individual development will be insufficiently large to result in

measurable changes in health outcomes that could be regarded as significant by health

care professionals.

A1.13 The guidance is clear that other factors may be relevant in individual cases. It also states that the

effect on the residents of any new development where the air quality is such that an air quality

objective is not met will be judged as significant. For people working at new developments in this

situation, the same will not be true as occupational exposure standards are different, although any

assessment may wish to draw attention to the undesirability of the exposure.

A1.14 A judgement of the significance should be made by a competent professional who is suitably

qualified. A summary of the professional experience of the staff contributing to this assessment is

provided in Appendix A2.



A2 Professional Experience

Chris Whall, BSc (Hons) MSc CEnv MIEnvSc MIAQM

Mr Whall is a Director of Air Quality Consultants. He has 18 years’ experience in environmental

consulting with multi-sector EIA experience and technical expertise in air quality and emissions

management, emissions quantification, ambient air quality monitoring and impact assessment.

Mr Whall’s work has included the provision of air quality advice and the delivery of impact

assessments for UK and international developments including airports, road, rail, power stations,

energy from waste, mining and other major regeneration schemes. He has contributed to the air

quality components of major Environmental Statements for airports including Heathrow, Gatwick

and Stansted in the UK and has provided strategic air quality advice to the European Investment

Bank in relation to international airport expansion. Mr Whall also provided overall technical

direction to the air quality team delivering the Environmental Statements for the Hinkley Point C

nuclear power station Development Consent Order (DCO), on behalf of EDF Energy. Recently

Mr Whall led the air quality assessment to support the ending of the Cranford Agreement at

Heathrow Airport to introduce full runway alternation during easterly operation; he appeared as an

Expert Witness on behalf of Heathrow Airport Limited at the Public Inquiry in 2015. For several

years Mr Whall has been working with Heathrow Airport Limited in the development of its

masterplan for a third runway and he led Heathrow’s air quality submissions to the Airports

Commission.

Penny Wilson, BSc (Hons) CSci MIEnvSc MIAQM

Ms Wilson is a Principal Consultant with AQC, with more than fifteen years’ relevant experience in

the field of air quality. She has been responsible for air quality assessments of a wide range of

development projects, covering retail, housing, roads, ports, railways and airports. She has also

prepared air quality review and assessment reports and air quality action plans for local authorities

and appraised local authority assessments and air quality grant applications on behalf of the UK

governments. Ms Wilson has arranged air quality and dust monitoring programmes and carried out

dust and odour assessments. She has provided expert witness services for planning appeals and

is Member of the Institute of Air Quality Management and a Chartered Scientist.

Full CVs are available at www.aqconsultants.co.uk.

http://www.aqconsultants.co.uk/



A3 Modelling Methodology

Model Inputs

A3.1 The impacts of emissions from the proposed plant have been predicted using the ADMS-5

dispersion model. ADMS-5 is a new generation model that incorporates a state-of-the art

understanding of the dispersion processes within the atmospheric boundary layer.

A3.2 Entrainment of the plume into the wake of the buildings (the so-called building downwash effect)

has been taken into account in the model. The building dimensions and stack location have been

obtained from drawings provided by Envirofusion. The location of the stack is shown in

Figure A3.1 along with the modelled building. The stack has been modelled at a height of 20 m

and the building included in the model at a height of 14m.

Figure A3.1: Flue Location & Modelled Building






Main Stack Emissions

A3.3 The emissions parameters and model inputs for the proposed facility are set out in Table A5.3.1,

Table A5.3.2 and Table A5.3.3.

Table A5.3.1: Emission Parameters for the Proposed PTC

Stack Parameter Value a

Exit Velocity (m/s) 18.9

Normalised3 Volume Flow Rate (Nm

3/s) 6.09

Actual Volume Flow Rate (m3/s) 9.01

Exhaust Temperature (˚C) 200

Equivalent Stack Internal Diameter (m) 0.78

Stack Height Above Ground-Level (m) 20

Stack Location (O.S. x,y) 435798, 338765

a rounded numbers are presented here but unrounded numbers were input into the model.

Table A5.3.2: Air Emission Limit Values

Pollutant Emissions Averaging Period a Emissions (mg/Nm

3)

Nitrogen oxides ½ hour average 400

daily average 400

PM10 ½ hour average 30

daily average 10

SO2 ½ hour average 200 b

CO ½ hour average 100

daily average 50

TOC ½ hour average 20

daily average 10

HCl ½ hour average 60

daily average 10

HF ½ hour average 4

daily average 1

Cd and TI periodic over minimum ½ hour and maximum 8

hours 0.05

Hg periodic over minimum ½ hour and maximum 8

hours 0.05

Group III metals c periodic over minimum ½ hour and maximum 8 0.5

3 Throughout this report, ‘normal’ (N) is used to refer to conditions recorded in the absence of moisture, at 11%

oxygen, and at 0 degrees Celsius. These are the reference conditions at which the relevant IED emissions limits

are expressed.



Pollutant Emissions Averaging Period a Emissions (mg/Nm

3)

hours

NH3 ½ hour average and daily average 10

Dioxins and furans periodic over minimum 6 hours and maximum

8 hours 0.0000001

a i.e. the averaging period over which emissions will be measured.

b Sb + As + Pb + Cr + Co + Cu + Mn + Ni + V.

Table A5.3.3: Modelled Emission Rates

Pollutant Concentration Averaging Period a Emissions (g/s)

b

Nitrogen oxides 1-hour mean 2.44

annual mean 2.44

PM10 24-hour mean 0.18

annual mean 0.06

SO2 24-hour, 1-hour and 15-minute means 1.22

CO rolling 8-hour mean 0.91

TOC 1-hour mean 0.12

annual mean 0.06

HCl 1-hour mean 0.37

annual mean 0.06

HF 1-hour mean 0.024

annual mean 0.006

Cd and TI annual mean 0.00030

Hg 1-hour mean

0.0030 annual mean

Group III metals 1-hour mean

0.0030 annual mean

NH3 1-hour mean

0.061 annual mean

Dioxins and furans annual mean 0.00000000061

a i.e. the averaging periods set in the air quality objectives and EALs over which concentrations have been

predicted..

b rounded numbers (to two significant figures) are presented here but unrounded numbers were input into

the model.

A3.4 For most of the group III metals shown in Table A5.3.3, when assessing against each of the EALs

for each metal in turn, it has been assumed that the total group III metals emission rate is made up

entirely of that metal. This is a worst-case approach. For some pollutants, in particular arsenic

and chromium VI, it is not possible to screen out the potential for significant impacts using this



method. Therefore the more detailed approach set out by the Environment Agency in its Interim

Guidance Note for Metals (Environment Agency, 2012) has been used. This includes three steps.

The first step is what has initially been assumed in this assessment; that the total group III metals

emission rate is made up entirely of each metal in turn. The second step assumes that each metal

comprises 11% of the total group emissions (as used for arsenic with an emission rate of 0.000335

g/s). Step 3 of the Environment Agency guidance has only been used for chromium VI, for which

the guidance includes some typical emission concentrations for energy from waste plant as set out

below:

mean 0.000035 mg/Nm3;

minimum 0.0000023 mg/Nm3; and

maximum 0.00013 mg/Nm3.

A3.5 It is considered that, given the similarity of the proposed facility and its fuel source to those

included in the Environment Agency guidance, it is appropriate to use the emission concentrations

set out above for chromium VI. The amended mass emission rate for chromium VI from the

proposed facility is:

maximum 0.00000079 g/s

Model Post-processing

Point Source

A3.6 The plant would only operate for 100 hours per week. The predicted annual mean concentrations

from the model, based on continuous operation throughout the year, have therefore been adjusted

by a factor (100/(24*7) = 0.595), to account for this.

A3.7 Predicted concentrations for other averaging periods have been taken directly from the model,

assuming continuous operation throughout the year. This is a worst-case assumption.

A3.8 ADMS-5 has been run to predict the contribution of the proposed PTC emissions to annual mean

concentrations and 99.79th percentiles of 1-hour mean nitrogen oxides. For the initial screening of

the process contributions, the approach recommended by the Environment Agency (Environment

Agency, 2005) has been used to predict annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations and 99.79th

percentiles of 1-hour mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations. This assumes that:

Annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations = annual mean nitrogen oxides x 0.7; and

99.79th percentiles of 1-hour mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations = 99.79

th percentiles of

1-hour mean nitrogen oxides x 0.35.



Total Concentrations

A3.9 Where total concentrations have been calculated, this has been carried out by adding all of the

source contributions together (i.e. measured/mapped background concentration + PTC emissions

contribution). For short-term EALs, the PTC contribution has been added to twice the annual

mean background concentration.



A4 Wind Roses

Figure A4.1: Wind Roses East Midlands Airport 2009 to 2013 (Top right = 2009)

J:\AQC Jobs\Derby, Envirofusion EfW Trial Plant J2674\Modelling\Met data\East_Midlands_09.met

0

0

3

1.5

6

3.1

10

5.1

16

8.2

(knots)

(m/s)

Wind speed

0° 10°20°

30°

40°

50°

60°

70°

80°

90°

100°

110°

120°

130°

140°

150°

160°170°180°190°

200°

210°

220°

230°

240°

250°

260°

270°

280°

290°

300°

310°

320°

330°

340°350°

200

400

600

800


0

0

3

1.5

6

3.1

10

5.1

16

8.2

(knots)

(m/s)

Wind speed

0° 10°20°

30°

40°

50°

60°

70°

80°

90°

100°

110°

120°

130°

140°

150°

160°170°180°190°

200°

210°

220°

230°

240°

250°

260°

270°

280°

290°

300°

310°

320°

330°

340°350°

100

200

300

400

500

600


0

0

3

1.5

6

3.1

10

5.1

16

8.2

(knots)

(m/s)

Wind speed

0° 10°20°

30°

40°

50°

60°

70°

80°

90°

100°

110°

120°

130°

140°

150°

160°170°180°190°

200°

210°

220°

230°

240°

250°

260°

270°

280°

290°

300°

310°

320°

330°

340°350°

200

400

600

800


0

0

3

1.5

6

3.1

10

5.1

16

8.2

(knots)

(m/s)

Wind speed

0° 10°20°

30°

40°

50°

60°

70°

80°

90°

100°

110°

120°

130°

140°

150°

160°170°180°190°

200°

210°

220°

230°

240°

250°

260°

270°

280°

290°

300°

310°

320°

330°

340°350°

200

400

600

800


0

0

3

1.5

6

3.1

10

5.1

16

8.2

(knots)

(m/s)

Wind speed

0° 10°20°

30°

40°

50°

60°

70°

80°

90°

100°

110°

120°

130°

140°

150°

160°170°180°190°

200°

210°

220°

230°

240°

250°

260°

270°

280°

290°

300°

310°

320°

330°

340°350°

200

400

600

800