Post on 01-Jan-2022
transcript
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM
Appendix 7-1 – Air Quality
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 1-1
Appendix 7-1: Air Quality
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy (WtE) Facility Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
October 2019
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 1-2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 4
Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 4
2. Scope ...................................................................................................... 4
3. Assessment Criteria ................................................................................ 7
Environmental Standards ........................................................................................................................ 7
4. Methodology .......................................................................................... 10
Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Construction Phase – Construction Dust Assessment ......................................................................... 10
Assessment of Demolition and Construction Dust ................................................................................ 14
Modelling of Combustion Emissions from the WtE Stack ..................................................................... 17
Modelled Domain – Discrete Receptors ............................................................................................... 21
Modelling of Emissions from Road Traffic ............................................................................................. 28
5. Baseline Air Quality ............................................................................... 32
Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 32
Local Authority Ambient Monitoring Data .............................................................................................. 32
Summary of Background Air Quality ..................................................................................................... 35
Predicted Baseline Pollutant Concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 at Discrete Receptors
Close to Roads ...................................................................................................................................... 37
Dispersion Modelling Results ................................................................................................................ 37
Modelling Results for NO2 ..................................................................................................................... 39
Modelling Results: Plume Visibility........................................................................................................ 56
6. Assessment of Limitations and Assumptions ........................................ 56
7. Conclusions ........................................................................................... 57
References ...................................................................................................... 58
Figures
Figure 4-1: Wind roses for Middle Wallop Airbase, 2014 to 2018 ......................................................... 25 Figure 4-2: Proposed Development Building Layout Modelled by ADMS ............................................ 27 Figure 5-1: Predicted Process Contribution to Annual Mean Ground Level Pollutant Concentrations at
Stack Release Heights between 50 m and 120m ................................................................................. 38
Tables
Table 3-1: Environmental Standards for Air (for the Protection of Human Health) ................................. 7 Table 3-2: Critical Level (CLe) Environmental Assessment Levels for Air (for the Protection of
Designated Habitat Sites) ....................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4-1: Example definition of magnitude of demolition and construction activities .......................... 11 Table 4-2: Receptor sensitivity to demolition and construction dust effects ......................................... 11 Table 4-3: Sensitivity of the area to dust soiling effects on people and property .................................. 12 Table 4-4: Sensitivity of the area to human health impacts .................................................................. 12 Table 4-5: Sensitivity of the area to ecological impacts ........................................................................ 13 Table 4-6: Classification of risk of unmitigated impacts ........................................................................ 13 Table 4-7: Identification of receptors for construction dust assessment ............................................... 14 Table 4-8: Area sensitivity for receptors of construction dust ................................................................ 16 Table 4-9: Risk of impacts from unmitigated activities .......................................................................... 16 Table 4-10: General ADMS 5 Model Conditions ................................................................................... 17
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 1-3
Table 4-11: Physical Properties, WtE Facility Stack .............................................................................. 18 Table 4-12: Air Emission Limit Values (ELVs) as Specified in the Industrial Emission Directive (IED,
2010/75/EU) and the BAT-AEELS......................................................................................................... 19 Table 7-4-13: Pollutant Emission Rates, WtE Process Stack (per stack) ............................................. 20 Table 4-14: Modelled Domain, Selected Discrete Human Receptor Locations .................................... 21 Table 4-15: Modelled Domain – Ecological Receptor Locations, Critical Levels and Baseline
Concentrations ...................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 7-4-16: Modelled Domain, Receptor Grid.................................................................................... 24 Table 4-17: Buildings incorporated into the modelling assessment ...................................................... 26 Table 4-18: Conversion Factors – Calculation of Nutrient Nitrogen Deposition .................................... 28 Table 4-19: Conversion Factors – Calculation of Acid Deposition ........................................................ 28 Table 4-20: General ADMS Roads Model Conditions ........................................................................... 29 Table 5-1: Summary of Monitored Annual Mean Concentrations of NO2 within Test Valley Borough
Council .................................................................................................................................................. 33 Table 5-2: Defra Background Concentrations ....................................................................................... 33 Table 5-3: Summary of Project Specific NO2 Diffusion Tube Monitoring in 2019 ................................. 34 Table 5-4: Project Specific SO2 and NH3 Diffusion Tube Monitoring .................................................... 34 Table 5-5: Background Concentrations Selected for use in the Assessment ...................................... 36 Table 5-6: Maximum Modelled Impact on Ground Level Concentrations, 1 g/s Emission Rate ........... 38 Table 5-7: Predicted Change in Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations at Discrete Receptors (µg/m3) due
to Emissions from the WtE and operational road traffic emissions, with Comparison against
Environmental Standard Criteria ........................................................................................................... 40 Table 5-8: Predicted Change in Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations at Discrete Receptors (µg/m3) due
to Emissions from the WtE and road traffic emissions, with Comparison against Environmental
Standard ................................................................................................................................................ 42 Table 5-9: Predicted Change in Annual Mean PM2.5 Concentrations at Discrete Receptors (µg/m3) due
to Emissions from the WtE and road traffic emissions, with Comparison against Environmental
Standard ................................................................................................................................................ 42 Table 5-10: 70m Stack, Maximum WtE Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental
Concentration, all Modelled Pollutants, for the Worst Case Meteorological Data Year ........................ 43 Table 5-11: 100m Stack, Predicted Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental Concentration,
for Cr (VI) and B[a]P, for the Worst Case Meteorological Data Year, using measured Emissions Data
from a comparable facility ..................................................................................................................... 45 Table 5-12: 70m Stack, Maximum WtE Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental
Concentration, all Modelled Pollutants, for the Worst Case Meteorological Data Year with Emissions at
Half Hour IED Emission Limits .............................................................................................................. 46 Table 5-13: Dispersion Modelling Results for Ecological Receptors using APIS background
concentrations - NOX ............................................................................................................................. 48 Table 5-14: Dispersion Modelling Results for Ecological Receptors – SO2 .......................................... 49 Table 5-15: Dispersion Modelling Results for Ecological Receptors – NH3 .......................................... 50 Table 5-16: Dispersion Modelling Results for Ecological Receptors – HF ............................................ 51 Table 5-17: Dispersion Modelling Results for Ecological Receptors – Nutrient Nitrogen Deposition
(kg/ha/yr) ............................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 5-18: Dispersion Modelling Results for Ecological Receptors – Total Acid Deposition N + S
(keq/ha/yr) ............................................................................................................................................. 53 Table 5-19: Impact on Ecological Receptors – Summary ..................................................................... 55
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 4
1. Introduction
Overview This report provides a technical appendix to Chapter 7: Air Quality of the Preliminary
Environmental Information Report (PEIR).
AECOM has been instructed by WTI EfW holdings Ltd to assess the likely significant effects on
air quality as a result of Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility (hereafter referred to as the
‘Proposed Development’). For more details about the Proposed Development, refer to Chapter
4: The Proposed Development of this PEIR.
Emissions to air from the facility have the potential to adversely affect human health and
sensitive ecosystems. This report identifies and proposes measures to address the potential
impacts and effects of the Proposed Development on air quality during enabling works,
construction, and commissioning, operation, and decommissioning. Emissions associated with
combustion plant have the potential to affect human health and sensitive ecosystems and
construction could give rise to potential localised air quality effects from traffic and dust
generation if not appropriately managed.
The magnitude of air quality impacts at sensitive human receptors has been quantified for
pollutants emitted from the main stacks of the facility. The impact of emissions on sensitive
ecological receptors will be considered in the context of relevant critical loads or critical levels
for designated nature sites.
In addition to the topics listed above, the dispersion modelling exercise will provide inputs to the
Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) that quantifies the potential long-term impacts of
emissions from the operation of the process on human health. The HHRA does not form part of
this PEIR but will be prepared and submitted as part of the Environmental Statement along with
the Development Consent Order application.
The assessment has considered emissions from the proposed facility during normal operational
conditions. Non routine emissions, such as those which may occur during the commissioning
process or other short-term events typically only occur on an infrequent basis, are detected by
the process control system and rectified within a short time period and are tightly regulated by
the Environment Agency. For this reason, no detailed consideration of impacts associated with
non-routine or emergency events will be included within this assessment.
2. Scope
Combustion Plant Emissions
The assessment has considered the impact of process emissions on local air quality, under
normal operating conditions, from the main stack serving the combustion process. The
assessment considers impacts in the year in which the Proposed Development is due to
commence operation, 2025.
The dispersion of emissions has been predicted using the latest version of the dispersion
model ADMS (currently version 5.2). The results are presented in both tabular format and as
contours of predicted ground level process contributions overlaid on mapping of the
surrounding area.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 5
Emissions to air from Energy from Waste facilities are currently governed by Directive
2010/75/EU and the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), which was transposed into UK law in
February 2013 (The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations
2013). This Directive amends, consolidates and replaces seven Directives on pollution from
industrial installations, including those relating to Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
(0) and the Waste Incineration Directive (WID).
The IED contains measures relating to the control of emissions, including emissions to air, for
example by specifying minimum standards for gas temperature and the residence time of
combustion gases within the combustion chamber. The Directive sets limits on emissions of a
wide range of air pollutants and requires operators to monitor and report emissions to air as
well as to other environmental media. The emissions limits to air for waste treatment facilities
set out within the IED have been carried over from the Waste Incineration Directive.
The Proposed Development would be regulated under the IED and in accordance with the
waste incineration Best Available Technique Reference document (BRef). The current BRef is
under review, and the final draft of the updated waste incineration BRef was published in
December 2018. The BAT conclusions within the draft BRef are only draft at this stage; it is
however envisaged that these conclusions will largely apply in the final version of the adopted
BRef. At this point, the recommendations of the BRef will become enforceable through
Environmental Permits and the Environment Agency would set specific limits on the
Environmental Permit based on the BAT-associated emission levels (BAT-AELs).
The design of the flue gas treatment system needs to be fully compliant with current legislation,
meeting the requirements of BAT as well as the Environment Agency guidance on risk
assessment for environmental permits and the IED. In accordance with Article 15, paragraph 2,
of the IED, the emission limits that the plant will be designed to meet are based on BAT. BAT-
AELs are included in the BAT Reference document on Waste Incineration currently under
review and these have been applied in the air impact assessment accordingly.
The pollutants that are considered within this assessment from the main stack are:
• Oxides of nitrogen (NOx), as nitrogen dioxide (NO2);
• Particulate matter (as PM10 and PM2.5 size fractions);
• Carbon monoxide (CO);
• Sulphur dioxide (SO2);
• Hydrogen chloride (HCl);
• Hydrogen fluoride (HF);
• Twelve metals (cadmium (Cd), thallium (Tl), mercury (Hg), antimony (Sb), arsenic (As),
lead (Pb), chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni) and
vanadium (V));
• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), as benzo[a]pyrene.
• Polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzo furans and dioxin-like
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (referred to as dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs); and
• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as benzene.
Emissions of ammonia (NH3) from the facility are included in the assessment, due to potential
effects on sensitive ecosystems, directly through increased atmospheric concentrations, and
indirectly as a component of acid and nutrient nitrogen deposition.
A comparison has been made between predicted model output concentrations, and short-term
and long-term Environmental Standards (Env Std), set out within Environmental Agency
Environmental Permit Guidance.
The assessment also will include a consideration of visible plume generation.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 6
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts from existing sources of pollution in the area are accounted for in the
adoption of site-specific background pollutant concentrations from archive sources and a
programme of project-specific baseline air quality monitoring in close proximity to the facility
site. It is recognised, however, that there is a potential impact on local air quality from emission
sources which were not present at the time of the survey.
The full list of cumulative schemes considered with the PEIR are set out in Chapter 2:
Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria. Out of these schemes, there are two that
are within the study area of the Proposed Development: Rebuilding of Existing Overhead Line
within River Test Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (17/00632/OELN) and SiBOR Ltd
change of use from warehousing to Energy Recovery Centre (16/0058/CMAN). The scheme to
rebuild the overhead line has not been included as there are no emissions from the
development. The scheme for SiBOR Ltd is for the installation of a 10 MW biomass facility in a
warehouse development in Andover approximately 7 km to the north west from the Proposed
Development. The scheme was approved by Hampshire County Council in June 2016, and a
review of the air quality assessment that was undertaken indicates that potential impacts would
be limited to the area around the industrial estate the scheme was to be located in. At the time
of writing, a review of aerial photography of the site and news articles the development was
never built and the site sold to another party. This scheme has not been included within the
assessment of cumulative impacts, as the scale of the scheme is unlikely to lead to cumulative
impacts with the Proposed Development, and the scheme is considered unlikely to be built.
The traffic data to be used in this assessment will include predicted traffic growth on modelled
roads between the current baseline and the future year baselines. The methodology to
determine the growth in traffic on the local road network is described in Chapter 6: Traffic and
Transport of this PEIR. The predicted growth included in the traffic data ensures that the air
quality assessment of road traffic emissions is inherently cumulative.
There is therefore no assessment of cumulative impacts as part of this PEIR.
Sources of Information
The information that has been used within this assessment includes:
• data on emissions to atmosphere from the process, taken from IED limits, BAT-AEL values
and data provided by WTI;
• details on the site layout provided by WTI;
• Ordnance Survey mapping;
• Ordnance Survey terrain data;
• baseline air quality data from project specific monitoring, published sources and Local
Authorities; and
• meteorological data supplied by ADM Ltd
Assessment Structure
The remainder of this report is set out as follows:
• Section 3: Assessment Criteria.
• Section 4: Methodology.
• Section 0:
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 7
• Baseline Air Quality.
• Section 0: Dispersion Modelling Results.
• Section 6: Assessment of Limitations and Assumptions
• Section 7: Conclusions
3. Assessment Criteria
Environmental Standards
Environmental Standards for the Protection of Human Health
The Environmental Standards criteria for the protection of human health, against which impacts
from the proposed facility and road traffic are evaluated, are set out within Table 3-1. The
criteria are taken from the Environmental Benchmarks contained within Environment Agency’s
air emissions risk assessment guidance.
The Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) programme revisited the management of Air Quality within the
EU and replaced the EU Framework Directive 96/62/EC, its associated Daughter Directives
1999/30/EC, 2000/69/EC, 2002/3/EC, and the Council Decision 97/101/EC with a single legal
act, the Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe Directive 2008/50/EC (0).
The Air Quality Directive is currently transcribed into UK legislation by the Air Quality Standards
Regulations 2010 SI No. 1001, which came into force on 11 June 2010. Subsequent
amendments include the Air Quality Standards (Amendment) Regulations 2016. The Limit
Values are binding on the UK and have been set with the aim of avoiding, preventing or
reducing harmful effects on human health and on the environment as a whole. The Directive
also lists a number of Target Values.
For substances not specified in the regulations, Environmental Standards (Env Std) criteria are
taken from Environment Agency’s air emissions risk assessment guidance.
Table 3-1: Environmental Standards for Air (for the Protection of Human Health)
Pollutant Source Concentration (µg/m3) Measured as
NO2 EU Air Quality Limit Values
40 Annual Mean
200 1-hour mean, not to be exceeded more than 18 times per year
PM10 EU Air Quality Limit Values
40 Annual Mean
50 24-hour mean, not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year
PM2.5 EU Air Quality Limit Values
25 Annual Mean
SO2
WHO Guideline 50 Annual Mean
UK Air Quality Strategy Objective
266 15-min mean, not be exceeded more than 35 times a year
EU Air Quality Limit Values
350 1-hour mean, not to be exceeded more than 24-times a year
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 8
Pollutant Source Concentration (µg/m3) Measured as
EU Air Quality Limit Values
125 24-hour mean, not to be exceeded more than 3 times a year
Benzene
UK Air Quality Strategy Objectives
16.25 Running annual mean
EU Air Quality Limit Values
5 Annual Mean
CO
EU Air Quality Limit Values
10,000 Maximum daily running 8-hour mean
Environment Agency Environmental Standards
30,000 1-hour maximum
HCl Environment Agency Environmental Standards
750 1-hour maximum
HF Environment Agency Environmental Standards
16 Monthly mean
160 1-hour maximum
PAH, as BaP
EU Air Quality Target Value
0.001 Annual mean
UK Air Quality Strategy Objectives
0.00025 Annual mean
Pb
EU Air Quality Limit Values
0.5 Annual mean
UK Air Quality Strategy Objectives
0.25 Annual mean
Hg Environment Agency Environmental Standards
0.25 Annual mean
7.5 1-hour maximum
Sb Environment Agency Environmental Standards
5 Annual mean
150 1-hour maximum
As
EU Air Quality Target Values
0.006 Annual mean
Environment Agency Environmental Standards
0.003 Annual mean
Cd EU Air Quality Limit Values
0.005 Annual mean
Cr, as Cr (II) compounds and Cr (III) compounds
Environment Agency Environmental Standards
5 Annual mean
150 1-hour maximum
Cr (VI), oxidation state in PM10 fraction
Environment Agency Environmental Standards
0.0002 Annual mean
Mn Environment Agency Environmental Standards
0.15 Annual mean
1,500 1-hour maximum
Ni Environment Agency Environmental Standards
0.02 Annual mean
V Environment Agency Environmental Standards
5 Annual mean
1 1-hour maximum
NH3 Environment Agency Environmental Standards
180 Annual mean
2,500 1-hour maximum
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 9
Pollutant Source Concentration (µg/m3) Measured as
PCBs Environment Agency Environmental Standards
0.2 Annual mean
6 1-hour maximum
Assessment Criteria for Sensitive Ecological Receptors
The UK is bound by the terms of the European Birds and Habitats Directives and the Ramsar
Convention. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 provides for the
protection of European sites created under these polices, i.e. Special Areas of Conservation
(SACs) designated pursuant to the Habitats Directive, Special Protection Areas (SPAs)
classified under the Birds Directive, and Ramsar Sites designated as wetlands of international
importance. The 2010 Regulations apply specific provisions of the European Directives to
SACs, SPAs, candidate SACs (cSACs) and proposed SPAs (pSPAs), which require them to be
given special consideration and further assessment by any development which is likely to lead
to a significant effect upon them.
The legislation concerning the protection and management of designated sites and protected
species within England is set out within the provisions of the 2010 Regulations, the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as
amended).
The impact of emissions from the facility on sensitive ecological receptors has been quantified
within this assessment in two ways:
• as direct impacts arising due to increases in atmospheric pollutant concentrations; and
• indirect impacts arising through deposition of acids and nutrient nitrogen to the ground
surface.
The critical levels for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems are set out in Table 3-2 and
apply regardless of habitat type. In the case of NH3 and SO2, the greater sensitivity of lichens
and bryophytes to these pollutants is reflected in the application of stricter Environmental
Standards at locations where such species are present. These values will be adopted as the
assessment criteria for the impact of the process on designated nature sites.
Table 3-2: Critical Level (CLe) Environmental Assessment Levels for Air (for the Protection of
Designated Habitat Sites)
Pollutant Source Concentration (µg/m3)
Measured as Notes
NH3
Environmental Agency Environmental Permit Guidance
1 Annual mean
For sensitive lichen communities & bryophytes and ecosystems where lichens and bryophytes are an important part of the ecosystem’s integrity
3 Annual mean For all higher plants (all other ecosystems)
SO2
Environmental Agency Environmental Permit Guidance
10 Annual mean
For sensitive lichen communities & bryophytes and ecosystems where lichens and bryophytes are an important part of the ecosystem’s integrity
20 Annual mean For all higher plants (all other ecosystems)
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 10
Pollutant Source Concentration (µg/m3)
Measured as Notes
NOx (as NO2)
Environmental Agency Environmental Permit Guidance
30 Annual mean -
75 Daily mean -
HF
Environmental Agency Environmental Permit Guidance
<5 Daily mean -
<0.5 Weekly mean -
Critical load criteria for the deposition of acids and nutrient nitrogen are dependent on the
habitat type and species present and are specific to the sensitive receptors considered within
the assessment. The critical loads are set out on the Air Pollution Information System website
(Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), 2018).
The critical load criteria adopted for the sensitive ecological receptors considered by the
assessment are presented in Table 7-17.
4. Methodology
Overview This section describes the approach that has been taken to the assessment of emissions
associated with the operation of the facility. This is broken down into the following sub-sections.
• Qualitative assessment of construction dust;
• Modelling of construction phase road traffic emissions on local roads;
• Modelling of combustion emissions from the proposed stacks; and
• Modelling of operational phase road traffic emissions on local roads.
The outputs from the modelling of combustion emissions from the proposed stacks and road
traffic will be used to determine the combined change in concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5
at a number of receptors located in close proximity to local roads. The approach taken to the
prediction of impacts has been determined later within this Appendix.
Construction Phase – Construction Dust Assessment
The following four potential activities has been screened as potentially significant, based on the
nature of construction activities proposed:
• Enabling demolition works;
• Earthworks (soil stripping, spoil movement and stockpiling;
• Construction (including on-site concrete batching); and
• Trackout (HGV movements on unpaved roads and offsite mud on the highway).
Magnitude Definitions
The potential magnitude of dust emissions is categorised as detailed in Table 4-1 below.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 11
Table 4-1: Example definition of magnitude of demolition and construction activities
Magnitude Demolition Earthworks Construction Trackout
Large
Total building volume
>50,000m3, potentially dust
construction material (e.g.
concrete), on-site crushing
and screening, demolition
activities >20m above
ground level
Site area >1ha
potentially dusty soil
type (e.g. clay). >10
heavy earth moving
vehicles at once,
bunds >8m high, total
material moved
>100,000 tonnes
Total building
volume >100,000
m3, on-site
concrete
batching,
sandblasting
>50 HDV (>3.5 tonne)
peak outward
movements per day,
potentially dusty
surface material (e.g.
high clay content),
unpaved road length
>100m
Medium
Total building volume 20,000
– 50,000 m3, potentially
dusty construction material,
demolition activities 10 to 20
metres above ground level
Site area 0.25 – 1 ha,
moderately dusty soil
type (e.g. silt), 5 – 10
heavy earth moving
vehicles at once,
bunds 4-8 metres
high, total material
moved 20,000 –
100,000 tonnes
Total building
volume 25,000 –
100,000m3,
potentially dusty
materials e.g.
concrete, on-site
concrete batching
10 – 50 HDV (>3.5
tonne) peak outward
movements per day,
moderately dusty
surface material (e.g.
high clay content),
unpaved road length 50
– 100 metres
Small
Total building volume
<20,000m3, construction
material with low potential
for dust release (e.g. metal
cladding or timber),
demolition activities <10
metres above ground level,
demolition during wetter
months
Site area <0.25 ha,
large grain soil type
(e.g. sand), <5 heavy
earth moving
vehicles at once,
bunds <4 metre high,
total material moved
<20,000 tonnes
Total building
volume
<25,000m3, low
dust potential
construction
materials .e.g.
metal/timber
<10 HDV (>3.5 tonnes)
peak outward
movements per day,
surface material low
dust potential, unpaved
road length <50 metres
Receptor Sensitivity Definitions
The assessment of construction dust has been made with respect to the receptor and area
sensitivity definitions as outlined in Table 4-2 to Table 4-5 below. Sensitivity definitions have
been made with reference to the IAQM guidance; receptors beyond 100 m are defined as low
sensitivity; ecological receptors (including statutory designations, and non-statutory ecological
receptors of location importance such as county wildlife sites, national and local nature
reserves) have been included as there are a number of ecological sites within this 500 m
screening distance.
Table 4-2: Receptor sensitivity to demolition and construction dust effects
Potential dust effect Human perception of dust soiling effects
Pm10 health effects Ecological effects
High sensitivity Enjoy a high level of
amenity; appearance/
aesthetics/ value of
property would be
diminished by soiling;
receptor expected to be
present continuously/
Public present for 8 hours
per day or more, e.g.
residential, schools, car
homes
Locations with an
international or national
designation and the
designated features
may be affected by dust
soiling.
Moderate sensitivity Enjoy a reasonable level of
amenity; appearance/
aesthetics/ value of
property could be
diminished by soiling;
Only workforce present
(no residential or high
sensitivity receptors) 8-
hours per day or more
Locations where there is
a particularly important
plant species, where
dust sensitivity is
uncertain or unknown or
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 12
Potential dust effect Human perception of dust soiling effects
Pm10 health effects Ecological effects
receptor not expected to be
present continuously/
locations with a national
designation where the
features may be
affected by dust
deposition
Low sensitivity Enjoyment of amenity not
reasonably expected;
appearance/ aesthetics/
value of property not
diminished by soiling;
receptors are transient /
present for limited period of
time; e.g. playing fields,
farmland, footpaths, short
term car parks*
Transient human
exposure, e.g. footpaths,
playing fields, parks
Locations with a local
designation which may
be affected by dust
deposition.
Distance measured from source to receptor in bands of less than 20 m, less than 50 m, less
than 100 m and less than 350 m for earthworks and construction. For trackout the receptor
distance measured from receptor to trackout route (up to 50 m) and up to 500 m from the site
exit. These distances bands have been applied in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4. For sensitivity of an
area ecological impacts the distance bands are for less than 20 m and less than 50 m.
Table 4-3: Sensitivity of the area to dust soiling effects on people and property
Receptor sensitivity Number of receptors
Distance from the source (m)
<20 <50 <100 <350
High
>100 High High Medium Low
10-100 High Medium Low Low
1-10 Medium Low Low Low
Moderate >1 Medium Low Low Low
Low >1 Low Low Low Low
Table 4-4: Sensitivity of the area to human health impacts
Receptor sensitivity
Number of receptors
Distance from the source (m)
<20 <50 <100 <350
High (annual
mean PM10
concentration
<24µg/m3
>100 Medium Low Low Low
10-100 Low Low Low Low
1-10 Low Low Low Low
Medium (annual
mean PM10
concentration
(<24µg/m3)
>10 Low Low Low Low
1-10 Low Low Low Low
Low ≥1 Low Low Low Low
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 13
Table 4-5: Sensitivity of the area to ecological impacts
Receptor sensitivity
Distance from source (metres)
<20 <50
High High Medium
Medium Medium Low
Low Low Low
Risk Definitions
The potential risks from emissions from unmitigated demolition and construction activities have
been defined with reference to the magnitude of the potential emission and the sensitivity of the
highest receptor(s) within the effect area, as summarised in Table 4-6 below.
Table 4-6: Classification of risk of unmitigated impacts
Area of sensitivity to activity
Magnitude
Large Medium Small
Demolition
High High risk Medium risk Medium risk
Medium High risk Medium risk Low risk
Low Medium risk Low risk Negligible
Earthworks
High High risk Medium risk Low risk
Medium Medium risk Medium risk Low risk
Low Low risk Low risk Negligible
Construction
High High risk Medium risk Low risk
Medium Medium risk Medium risk Low risk
Low Low risk Low risk Negligible
Trackout
High High risk Medium risk Low risk
Medium Medium risk Low risk Negligible
Low Low risk Low risk Negligible
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 14
Assessment of Demolition and Construction Dust
Magnitude Assessment
For the purpose of this assessment, the Proposed Development site is considered to be a large
emissions source for fugitive dust emissions from construction related activities.
Receptor Identification
Human health and ecological receptors have been identified within the study area and are
shown in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7: Identification of receptors for construction dust assessment
Id Receptor name
Receptor type
Approx. Distance (m) from site boundary or exit
Approx. Distance to construction route (m)
Within screening distance?
Receptor sensitivity to dust and particulate matter
R1 Drayton Park Residential 280 65 Yes High
R2 Difford Lodge Residential 720 325 No High
R3 Dever House Residential 765 460 No High
R4 Roverts Road Residential 1,005 560 No High
R5
Wheat
Cottage,
Barton Stacey
Residential 1,425 1,030 No High
R6 Stable Cottage Residential 1,790 1,500 No High
R7 Tidbury
Cottages Residential 1,745 1,540 No High
R8 Little Bullington Residential 1,630 1,450 No High
R9 Firgo Farm Residential 2,395 2,780 No High
R10 River Barn,
The Street Residential 615 1,110 No High
R11 Vale Farm Residential 1,160 1,570 No High
R12 Owls Lodge Residential 605 1,090 No High
R13 District Villas Residential 1,575 1,965 No High
R14 Mill House,
East Aston Residential 1,580 2,020 No High
R15 Tudor Cottage,
Longparish Residential 1,275 1,765 No High
R16 B3048,
Middleton Residential 1,215 1,675 No High
R17 Buckclose
House, Forton Residential 1,495 1,830 No High
R18 Forton House Residential 1,820 2,135 No High
R19 Carpenter's
Cottage Residential 1,915 2,090 No High
R20 The Cottage
Cottage Residential 1,335 1,335 No High
R21 Bransbury Mill Residential 1,540 1,395 No High
Raymond
Brown Waste
Services
Commercial 0 250 Yes Moderate
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 15
Id Receptor name
Receptor type
Approx. Distance (m) from site boundary or exit
Approx. Distance to construction route (m)
Within screening distance?
Receptor sensitivity to dust and particulate matter
Solar Farm Commercial 0 240 Yes High
E1 River Test
SSSI Ecological 800 380 No High
E2 River Test
SSSI Ecological 1165 710 No High
E3 Bransbury
Common SSSI Ecological 1750 1250 No High
E4 River Test
SSSI Ecological 1640 1245 No High
E5 River Test
SSSI Ecological 755 890 No High
E6 River Test
SSSI Ecological 1160 1250 No High
E7 East Aston
Common SSSI Ecological 1395 1830 No High
E8 Drayton Down
SINC Ecological 190 200 No Low
E9 Tidbury Ring
Wood SINC Ecological 1955 1885 No Low
E10 Longparish
Meadow SINC Ecological 690 1190 No Low
E11 Lower Mills
Meadow SINC Ecological 820 1320 No Low
E12 Lower Farm
Meadow SINC Ecological 1230 1700 No Low
E13 Test Way SINC Ecological 1435 1900 No Low
E14 Middleton
Wood Ecological 1535 1940 No Low
Area Sensitivity Assessment
The receptor sensitivity to the effects of dust soiling and PM10 (human health) impacts has been
determined for all activities, based on the closest distance from the identified receptors to those
activities, as summarised in Table 4-8 below. The overall area sensitivity to dust soiling and
PM10 (human health) is considered to be ‘low’, whilst the area sensitivity to ecological dust
impacts is considered to be ‘medium’.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 16
Table 4-8: Area sensitivity for receptors of construction dust
Activity Potential impact Receptor sensitivity and distance to activity
Area sensitivity
Demolition
Dust soiling High sensitivity (<10 receptor) <20m Medium
Health PM10 Medium Sensitivity (<10 receptors)
<20m Low
Ecology No sensitive receptors within 50m -
Earthworks
Dust soiling High sensitivity (<10 receptor) <20m Medium
Health PM10 Medium Sensitivity (<10 receptors)
<20m Low
Ecology No sensitive receptors within 50m -
Construction
Dust soiling High sensitivity (<10 receptor) <20m Medium
Health PM10 Medium Sensitivity (<10 receptors)
<20m Low
Ecology No sensitive receptors within 50m -
Trackout
Dust soiling High sensitivity (<10 receptor) <350m Low
Health PM10 Medium Sensitivity (<10 receptors)
<350m Low
Ecology No sensitive receptors within 50m -
The risk of impacts from unmitigated activities has been determined through combination of the
potential dust emission magnitude and the sensitivity of the area, for each activity to determine
the level of mitigation that should be applied. The risk of impacts from unmitigated activities are
summarised in Table 4-9 below.
Table 4-9: Risk of impacts from unmitigated activities
Activity Demolition Earthworks Construction Trackout
Dust Emission
Magnitude Small Large Large Medium
Risk of impacts from unmitigated activities
Dust soiling
(medium
sensitivity)
Low Risk Medium Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Health PM10 (low
sensitivity) Negligible Risk Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk
Ecology Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
The risk assessment for construction dust indicates that there would be a low risk of dust
impacts on human health (PM10) and a medium risk of dust impacts on dust soiling from
unmitigated earthworks, construction and track out activities. These risk classifications are
solely used to select the appropriate schedule of mitigation measures from IAQM guidance. For
all but the smallest of sites the use of the high-risk schedule of measures represents good
working practice.
Mitigation measures to be embedded within the scheme will therefore be defined according to
the highest risk category for these activities, as listed in the ‘medium risk’ schedule of measures
listed in section 8.2 of the IAQM guidance. On consideration of the likely effectiveness of these
measures, additional site-specific measures will be identified in CEMP if required.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 17
Modelling of Combustion Emissions from the WtE Stack
Dispersion Model Selection
The assessment of emissions from the Proposed Development has been undertaken using
version of ADMS (V5.2.2), supplied by Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants
Limited (CERC). ADMS is a modern dispersion model that has an extensive published
validation history for use in the UK. This model has been extensively used throughout the UK to
demonstrate regulatory compliance.
The assessment of emissions from road traffic associated with the proposed development will
use the latest version of ADMS-Roads (V4.1.1) to quantify pollution levels at selected
receptors. ADMS-Roads is a modern dispersion model that has a published track record of use
in the UK for the assessment of local air quality impacts, including model validation and
verification studies.
Modelled Scenarios
The dispersion modelling has been undertaken in the assessment of emissions from the main
stack are:
• modelling of maximum ground-level impacts at a range of release heights, between 50
m and 120 m, in order to evaluate the effect of increasing effective release height on
dispersion;
• modelling of impacts on a variable resolution receptor grid and at discrete sensitive
human receptors for all pollutants, at a release height of 70 m; and
• modelling of impacts at selected sensitive ecological receptors, at a release height of
70 m.
Model Inputs
The general model conditions will be used in the assessment are summarised in Table 4-10.
Other more detailed data used to model the dispersion of emissions will be considered below.
Table 4-10: General ADMS 5 Model Conditions
Variable Input
Surface roughness at source 0.5
Surface roughness at meteorological site 0.2
Receptors Selected discrete receptors
Nested receptor grid, variable spacing
Receptor location
X,Y co-ordinates determined by GIS,
z = 1.5 m for residential receptors
z = 0 m for ecological receptors
Source location X,Y co-ordinates determined by GIS
Emissions IED emission limits, BAT-AEL values and data provided by
WTI
Sources 2 x WtE Stacks
Meteorological data 5 years of meteorological data, Middle Wallop Meteorological
Station (2014 - 2018)
Terrain data 120m resolution grid
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 18
Variable Input
Buildings that may cause building downwash
effects
Main Building, Tipping Hall, Transformer/Electric Room,
Turbine Hall, Air Cooled Condensers, Administration block,
Water Tank A & B
Emissions Data
The facility stacks would be the primary source of combustion emissions from the WtE process.
There would be two stacks, one for each combustion line, which have been modelled at a
height of 70 m above finished ground level, with an internal diameter of 2.3 m.
The physical properties of the combustion emission sources, as represented within the model,
is presented in Table 4-11.
The position of the WtE stacks within the site plan are illustrated in Figure 4-2.
Table 4-11: Physical Properties, WtE Facility Stack
Parameter Unit WtE stack 1 WtE stack 2
Stack position (NGR) m 443885, 142814 443889, 142804
Stack release height m 70 70
Effective internal stack
diameter m 2.3 2.3
Flue temperature °C 140 140
Flue H2O mass ratio kg/kg 0.196 0.196
Flue O2 content (dry) % 8.1 8.1
Stack gas exit velocity m/s 17.3 17.3
Stack flow (actual) Am3/s 72 72
Stack flow at reference
conditions (STP, dry) Nm3/s 50.5 50.5
The modelled pollutant emission rates (in g/s) have been determined by the daily average BAT-
AEL values set out within the draft BRef or Emission Limit Values (ELVs) set out within the IED.
The emissions limits assumed to apply to the facility are shown in Table 4-12.
Pollutant mass emission rates from the waste combustion process (in g/s) have been
calculated by multiplying the daily average and half hour average ELVs by the volumetric flow
rate at reference conditions. The pollutant mass emission rates from the main stack, as used
within the dispersion modelling assessment, are presented in Table 7-15.
Emissions of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs, as benzo[a]pyrene), ammonia and
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) from the WtF stacks are not included in the IED.
Conservative emission rates for these pollutants have been assumed for this assessment,
derived from the current and draft BRef documents. Total emissions of all PCB congeners and
PAHs are included within the current version of the BRef but have not been included in the final
draft of the updated BRef. Within the Risk Assessment for Air Emissions, the Environment
Agency have included an Environmental Assessment Level for PCBs and B[a]P that should be
achieved. The BAT-AELs for PCBs and B[a]P set out in the current BRef have therefore been
used in this assessment.
In order to achieve the BAT-AEL for oxides of nitrogen included in the final draft BRef, it is likely
that an abatement system such as Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR) or Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR) will be required. These systems reduce NOx concentrations by
spraying carefully controlled amounts of urea (or other forms of ammonia) into the flue gas.
These systems require carefully controlled dosing, as excess urea can lead to an increase in
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 19
ammonia within the flue gas (called ammonia slip). For this reason, the final draft BRef has
included a BAT-AEL for ammonia. It is likely that some form of SNCR/SCR will be required
within the plant, and emissions of ammonia have been included within this assessment.
This assessment has assumed that the WtE process would operate at continuous design load
(8,760 hours per year). No time-based variation in WtE emissions have therefore been
accounted for within the model. For the assessment of short-term impacts, emissions have
been modelled at the maximum emission rate, reflecting the assumption that it is not possible
to predict when the operational hours may be.
For the purposes of the assessment of emission of particulate matter (as PM10) and fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), the total particulate emissions have been assumed to be present in
both the PM10 and PM2.5 size fractions. This approach will result in the over-estimation of
impacts on local PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.
Emissions of Group 1 metals (Cd and Tl) from the WtE process will individually be taken to be
emitted at the Environmental Standard for the whole group.
The BAT-associated energy efficiency levels (BAT-AELs) included in the current drafting of
waste incineration BREF are included in Table 4-12.
Table 4-12: Air Emission Limit Values (ELVs) as Specified in the Industrial Emission Directive
(IED, 2010/75/EU) and the BAT-AEELS
Pollutant
Emission limit (mg/m3)
Half-hour average (based on IED)
Daily average (based on BAT-AEL)
NOX (as NO2) 400 120
Total dust (assumed as PM10) 30 5
SO2 200 30
TOC 20 10
CO 100 50
HCl 60 6
HF 4 1
NH3 10
Group 1 metals (Cd + Tl, total) 0.02
Group 2 metals (Hg)1 0.02
Group 3 metals (Sb + As + Pb +
Cr + Co + Cu + Mn + Ni + V,
total)
0.3
Dioxins, furans and dioxin-like
PCBs2 0.00000006
PAHs (as Benzo [a] pyrene) 0.01
PCBs 0.005
1 Sample averaging times for metals are 30 minutes to 8 hours 2 Sample averaging times for dioxins are 6 hours to 8 hours, total concentrations of dioxins and furnace calculated as a toxic equivalent
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 20
Table 4-13: Pollutant Emission Rates, WtE Process Stack (per stack)
Pollutant Daily average emission rate (g/s)
Half hour average emission rate (g/s)
NOX (as NO2) 6.053 26.616
Total dust (assumed to be PM10
and PM2.5) 0.252 1.996
SO2 1.513 13.308
TOC 0.504 1.331
CO 2.522 6.654
HCl 0.303 3.992
HF 0.05 0.266
NH33 0.504 -
Group 1 metals4 (Cd, Tl) 0.001 -
Group 2 metals (Hg) 0.001 -
Group 3 metals4 (Sb, As, Pb, Cr
(total), Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, V) 0.015 -
Dioxins, furans and dioxin-like
PCBs 3.03 x 10-09 -
PAH, as benzo[a]pyrene 0.000504 -
PCBs 0.000252 -
Additional Consideration of Group 3 Metal Emissions
In April 2010 the Environment Agency published revised Environmental Standards for arsenic,
nickel and chromium (VI) in its Environment Agency Permit Guidance (see Table 3-1). The new
guidelines are lower than earlier Environmental Standards. In particular, the use of conservative
assumptions for the assessment of Group 3 metal emissions make it possible that the
assessment would identify a theoretical risk that the Environmental Standard value could be
exceeded in the case of arsenic, nickel and chromium (VI). The Environment Agency has
therefore provided guidance on the assessment of Group 3 metal releases from waste
combustion processes.
In the first instance, a worst-case screening step has been carried out, whereby each
substance was modelled as being emitted at the ELV for all nine Group 3 metals, 0.3 mg/m3.
Actual emission rates at comparable facilities are normally well below the BAT-AEL, and as
such the worst-case screening step is very conservative. Where the initial appraisal results in a
modelled result where the Process Contribution (PC) exceeds 1% of the long-term
Environmental Standard or 10% of the short-term Environmental Standard for that substance,
then the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC), which includes the background
concentration, is compared with the Environmental Standard. Where the PEC is greater than
100% of the Environmental Standard, then emissions of those substances have been
considered further in accordance with the second step of the guidance.
The second step requires the predictions to be revised with reference to a range of measured
values recorded from testing on 18 operational municipal waste incinerators and waste wood
incinerators between 2007 and 2015. As in the first step, where the Process Contribution (PC)
exceeds 1% of the long-term Environmental Standard or 10% of the short-term Environmental
Standard for that substance, then the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) is
compared with the Environmental Standard. This can be screened out where the PEC is less
than 100% of the Environmental Standard. Further justification will be required to be made to
3 To include for ammonia slip the value of 10 mg/Nm3 was used, based on the emissions levels associated with the use of SNCR and/or SCR. 4 Emissions of the listed group 1 and 3 metals are taken as 100% the respective limit value for each metal group
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 21
the Environment Agency if data lower than the listed maximum emission concentrations will be
used in the assessment.
Modelled Domain – Discrete Receptors
Sensitive Human Receptors
Ground-level concentrations of the modelled pollutants relevant to human health will be
predicted at discrete air quality sensitive receptors, as listed in Table 4-14. The locations of
these receptors are also shown in Figure 7A.1 of Annex A to this report. The receptors are
selected to be representative of residential dwellings in the area around the proposed facility.
A number of receptors are also in close proximity to traffic routes which would experience
changes to vehicle flows during the operation of the proposed facility. The receptors which are
located in close proximity to traffic routes have the prefix of R before the receptor number. At
these locations, an assessment will be made of the combined effect of emissions from traffic
and the EfW facility stacks on local concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5. These receptors are
also listed in Table 4-14.
The flagpole height of the all receptors listed in Table 4-14 will be set within the model at 1.5 m.
Table 4-14: Modelled Domain, Selected Discrete Human Receptor Locations
Receptor reference
Receptor description
Grid reference
X Y
R1 Drayton Park 443598 142561
R2 Difford Lodge 443737 142011
R3 Dever House 443465 142050
R4 Roverts Road 444199 141756
R5 Wheat Cottage, Barton
Stacey
443567 141324
R6 Stable Cottage 445388 141476
R7 Tidbury Cottages 445761 142116
R8 Little Bullington 445696 142273
R9 Firgo Farm 446017 144471
R10 River Barn, The Street 443381 143775
R11 Vale Farm 444180 144291
R12 Owls Lodge 443739 143843
R13 District Villas 444418 144636
R14 Mill House, East Aston 444095 144766
R15 Tudor Cottage, Longparish 443186 144412
R16 B3048, Middleton 442828 144110
R17 Buckclose House, Forton 442237 143664
R18 Forton House 441897 143658
R19 Carpenter's Cottage 441758 143113
R20 The Cottage Cottage 442537 142393
R21 Bransbury Mill 442382 142202
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 22
Sensitive Ecological Receptors
In accordance with the Environmental Agency’s air emissions risk assessment guidance, the
impacts associated with emissions from the combustion process on statutory sensitive
ecological sites will be quantified. The assessment will consider SSSIs within 2 km and
European designated sites within 10 km of the proposed facility, as recommended by the risk
assessment guidance. The most notable of these locations are the River Test SSSI, Bransbury
Common SSSI and East Aston Common SSSI. The Environment Agency, Hampshire County
Council, TVBC or Longparish Parish Council did not identify any sites in the Scoping Opinion to
be included within this assessment. Eight Sites Important for Nature Conservation (SINCs)
were identified with 2km of the Proposed Development from the Hampshire Biodiversity
Information Centre: Middleton Wood, Test Way, Lower Farm Meadow, Longparish Meadow,
Lower Mills Meadow, Field Margin, Drayton Down and Tidbury Ring Wood. These were
included within the assessment, with the exception of Field Margin as there is no appropriate
critical load for this habitat type.
In addition to the ecological sites listed above, there are a number of Priority Habitats that
surround the Proposed Development. Many of these areas fall within other designated sites
(SSSIs and SINCs), however there are a number of these areas that do not fall within these
sites. Where an area of Priority Habitat is within another designation included as a receptor
within this assessment, that receptor location is considered to represent the area of Priority
Habitat. For the areas of Priority Habitat outside of any designated site, the point of the receptor
grid with the highest impact within an area of Priority Habitat is taken to represent all Priority
Habitats within 2 km of the Proposed Development.
Ground-level concentrations of the modelled pollutants relevant to sensitive ecological
receptors will be predicted at locations listed in Table 4-15. The locations of these receptors are
also shown in Figure A7.2 of Annex A to this report.
For sensitive ecological receptors, the flagpole height will be set within the model at 0 m.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 23
Table 4-15: Modelled Domain – Ecological Receptor Locations, Critical Levels and Baseline Concentrations
Receptor identification
Ecology site
Grid reference Nox
(µg/m3)
So2
(µg/m3)
Ammonia
(µg/m3)
Hf
(µg/m3)
X Y CLE5 Baseline CLE5 Baseline CLE5 Baseline CLE5 Baseline
E1 River Test SSSI 444325 141979
306
757
18.39 10 0.75 1 1.6
0.5
0.006
E2 River Test SSSI 442758 142266 18.39 10 0.75 1 1.6 0.006
E3 Bransbury Common
SSSI
442130 142301 18.39 20 0.75 3 1.6 0.006
E4 River Test SSSI 442069 142867 18.39 10 0.75 1 1.6 0.006
E5 River Test SSSI 442972 143527 15.1 10 0.77 1 1.6 0.006
E6 River Test SSSI 442639 143761 15.1 10 0.77 1 1.6 0.006
E7 East Aston Common
SSSI
444136 144562 13.96 20 0.69 3 1.6 0.006
E8 Drayton Down SINC 444310 142681 18.67 20 0.75 3 1.6 0.006
E9 Tidbury Ring Wood
SINC
446084 142963 21.56 20 0.7 3 1.82 0.006
E10 Longparish Meadow
SINC
443337 143834 14.69 20 0.75 3 1.6 0.006
E11 Lower Mills Meadow
SINC
443652 144060 14.09 20 0.75 3 1.6 0.006
E12 Lower Farm
Meadow SINC
442819 144118 14.36 20 0.75 3 1.6 0.006
E13 Test Way SINC 442655 144250 14.36 20 0.75 3 1.6 0.006
E14 Middleton Wood
SINC
442383 144066 14.36 20 0.75 3 1.6 0.006
5 Critical Level 6 Annual mean 7 Daily mean: Baseline daily mean concentration is calculated by multiplying the annual mean by 2 to derive the short term mean
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
24 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Modelled Domain – Receptor Grid
Emissions from the stacks will also be modelled on a receptor grid of variable spacing, in order to
determine:
• the location and magnitude of maximum ground level impacts; and
• to enable the generation of pollutant isopleth plots.
The dispersion model output will be reported at specific receptors and as a nested grid of values.
The inner grid extends 300 m at a resolution of 20 m x 20 m. The middle grid extends from 300 m
to 1,000 m at a resolution of 50 m x 50 m. The outer grid extends from 1,000 m to 3,000 m at a
resolution of 100 m x 100 m. Details of the receptor grid are summarised in Table 4-16. All gridded
model outputs are reported at a height above ground level of 1.5 m.
Table 4-16: Modelled Domain, Receptor Grid
Grid spacing (m) Dimensions (km) Number of nodes in each direction
National grid reference of south west corner
25 2 x 2 81 442887, 141809
100 10 x 10 101 438887, 137809
200 20 x 20 101 433887, 132809
Meteorological Data
Actual measured hourly-sequential meteorological data is available for input into dispersion
models, and it is important to select data as representative as possible for the site that will be
modelled. This is usually achieved by selecting a meteorological station as close to the site as
possible, although other stations may be used if the local terrain and conditions vary considerably,
or if the station does not provide sufficient data.
The meteorological site that was selected for the assessment is Middle Wallop Airbase, located
approximately 13 km south west of the Proposed Development Site, at a flat airfield in a principally
agricultural area, and therefore a surface roughness of 0.2 m (representative of an agricultural
area) has been selected for the meteorological site.
The modelling for this assessment has utilised 5 years of meteorological data for the period 2014 –
2018. Wind roses for each of the years within this period are shown in Figure 4-1.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
25 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Figure 4-1: Wind roses for Middle Wallop Airbase, 2014 to 2018
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Middle Wallop 2014
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
Middle Wallop 2015
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
Middle Wallop 2016
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
Middle Wallop 2017
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
N:\AQG\Projects\Barton Stacey EfW\Modelling\Met Data\Middle_Wallop_18.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
C:\ADMS 5 Models\Koala\Humberside_17.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°
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
26 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Building Downwash Effects
The buildings that make up the facility have the potential to affect the dispersion of emissions
from the main stacks. The ADMS buildings effect module therefore will be used to incorporate
building downwash effects as part of the modelling procedure. Buildings greater than one third
of the range of stack heights modelled have been included within the modelling assessment.
Buildings associated with the Proposed Development that have been considered to be of
sufficient height and volume to potentially impact on the dispersion of emissions from the facility
stacks include the main building, tipping hall, control room/Administration block, turbine hall,
Transformer/Electrical Room, Water Tanks A and B and the air cooled condenser. The heights
for these buildings have been calculated from cross sections and a 3-D model produced by
WTI.
From a review of aerial photography from Google images, there were no buildings within 5
times the preferred stack height that are included within the dispersion modelling.
Parameters representing the buildings included in the model are shown in Table 4-17 and a
plan showing the buildings layout used in the ADMS simulation is illustrated in Figure 4-2
below. The dimensions of the buildings have been rounded to the nearest whole number in
Table 4-17. The main building is the highest part of the main structure, and has been modelled
at a height of 4 6m.
Table 4-17: Buildings incorporated into the modelling assessment
Building
Building centre grid reference (x,y)
Height (m) Length (m) Width (m) Angle (o)
Proposed Development Buildings
Main Building 443940,
142832 46 163 69 67
Tipping Hall 444018,
142864 42 41 55 67
Control
Room/Administration
443998,
142798 24 15 52 67
Turbine Hall 443918,
142876 30 40 25 247
Air Cooled
Condenser
443964,
142895 35 60 30 67
Transformer/Electrical
Room
443875,
142858 10 54 29 67
Water Tank A 444043,
142822 15 16 -a -a
Water Tank B 444058,
142832 15 16 -a -a
a – Modelled as a circular structure
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
27 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Figure 4-2: Proposed Development Building Layout Modelled by ADMS
The local area upwind and downwind of the Proposed Development Site is hilly, predominantly
rural with a combination of open fields and woodland surrounding the Site. The Site is within the
River Test Valley. A surface roughness of 0.5 m, corresponding to the minimum value
associated with the terrain type, has therefore been selected to represent the local terrain.
Site-specific terrain data has been used in the model, as there are potentially significant
changes in gradient within the study area.
NOX to NO2 Conversion
Emissions of nitrogen oxides from industrial point sources are typically dominated by nitric
oxide (NO), with emissions from combustion sources typically in the ratio of nitric oxide to
nitrogen dioxide of 9:1. However, it is nitrogen dioxide that has specified environmental
standards due to its potential impact on human health. In the ambient air, nitric oxide is oxidised
to nitrogen dioxide by the ozone present, and the rate of oxidation is dependent on the relative
concentrations of nitric oxide and ozone in the ambient air.
For the purposes of detailed modelling, and in accordance with Environment Agency technical
guidance it is assumed that 70% of nitric oxide emitted from the facility stack is oxidised to
nitrogen dioxide in the long term and 35% of the emitted nitric oxide is oxidised to nitrogen
dioxide in the local vicinity of the site in the short-term.
Calculation of Deposition at Sensitive Ecological Receptors
The deposition of nutrient nitrogen and acid at sensitive ecological receptors will be calculated,
using the modelled process contribution predicted at the receptor points. The deposition rates
will be determined using conversion rates and factors contained within Environment Agency
guidance, which account for variations deposition mechanisms in different types of habitat.
The conversion rates and factors used in the assessment are detailed in Table 4-18 and Table
4-19.
!(
!(
Main BuildingWaterTankB
TippingHall
TransformerElectricR
Turbine
ACC
WaterTankA
Admin
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
28 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Table 4-18: Conversion Factors – Calculation of Nutrient Nitrogen Deposition
Pollutant Deposition velocity
grasslands (m/s) Deposition velocity
forests (m/s)
Conversion factor
(µg/m3/s to kg/ha/yr)
NOX as NO2 0.0015 0.003 96
NH3 0.02 0.03 259.7
Table 4-19: Conversion Factors – Calculation of Acid Deposition
Pollutant Deposition velocity grasslands (m/s)
Deposition velocity forests (m/s)
Conversion factor
(µg/m3/s to kg/ha/yr)
Conversion factor (kg/ha/yr to keq/ha/yr)
SO2 0.012 0.024 157.7 0.0625
NO2 0.0015 0.003 96 0.0714
NH3 0.02 0.03 259.7 0.0714
HCl 0.025 0.06 306.7 0.0282
HF 0.025 0.06 306.7 0.0282
As HCl is readily soluble in water, wet deposition processes can also significantly contribute to
total acid deposition. The conservative assumption has therefore been made in this
assessment that the wet deposition will be equal to dry deposition, in effect doubling the
predicted process contribution from HCl at the sensitive receptor.
Specialised Model Treatments
Emissions will be modelled such that they are not subject to dry and wet deposition or depleted
through chemical reactions. The assumption of continuity of mass is likely to result in an over-
estimation of impacts at receptors.
Modelling of Emissions from Road Traffic
Modelled Scenarios
A quantitative assessment of the impact of exhaust emissions from additional road traffic will be
undertaken, in order to assess the change in air quality statistics at sensitive receptors in close
proximity to the designated access routes to the proposed facility. The latest version of ‘ADMS-
Roads’ (V4.1.1) will be used to model the dispersion of road traffic emissions, allowing the
quantification of pollution levels at selected receptors.
The approach taken to the assessment of road traffic emissions is outlined further within the
remainder of this section.
Model Inputs
The general model conditions will be used in the assessment of road traffic emissions are
summarised in Table 4-20. Other more detailed data used to model the dispersion of emissions
is considered below.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
29 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Table 4-20: General ADMS Roads Model Conditions
Variable Input
Surface Roughness at source 0.2m
Receptors Selected discrete receptors
Receptor location X,Y co-ordinates determined by GIS. The height of residential
receptors will be set at 1.5 metres
Emissions NOX, PM10 and PM2.5
Emission Factors Emission Factor Toolkit version 9.0.1 for 2018 for all scenarios
(0)
Meteorological Data 1 year of hourly sequential data, Middle Wallop (2018)
Emission Profiles None used
Terrain Types Flat terrain
Model Output
Long-term annual mean NOX concentration (µg/m3)
Long-term annual mean PM10 concentration (µg/m3)
Long-term annual mean PM2.5 concentration (µg/m3)
Traffic Data
The traffic data used in this assessment is being prepared by AECOM, and will include the
following scenarios:
• 2018 Baseline Scenario (for model verification process);
• Future Construction Year Base + Committed Development Scenario;
• Future Construction Year Base + Committed + Peak Construction Scenario;
• 2025 Opening Year Base + Committed Development Scenario; and
• 2025 Opening Year Base + Committed + Operation Scenario
The future construction base year will be confirmed once detailed construction phasing has
been agreed/developed. The construction base year is the period where the number of
construction vehicles accessing the Site will peak, and is assumed to be a worst-case to
assess potential effects due to construction traffic.
Emissions Data
The magnitude of road traffic emissions for the baseline and with development scenarios will be
calculated from traffic flow data using the Defra’s current emission factor database tool EFT 9.0
(0). The assessment considers the operational phase impact of road traffic emissions at
receptors adjacent to roads in the vicinity of the proposed development.
Modelled Domain – Discrete Receptors
The receptors for which the impact of road traffic emissions will be predicted are listed in Table
4-14. At these locations, an assessment will also be made of the combined effect of emissions
from the facility stacks.
Meteorological Data
As for the model runs carried out for the proposed facility, hourly sequential data from Middle
Wallop has been used for 2018, consistent with the year chosen to verify the performance of
the model against measured nitrogen dioxide concentrations.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
30 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Consideration of Terrain
Emissions from road traffic make the greatest contribution to pollutant concentrations at
sensitive receptors adjacent to the source (i.e. at the roadside). For this reason, there is not
normally a large variation in height between the emission source and residential properties next
to the roads included in the model. Therefore, terrain will not be included in the road traffic
modelling assessment.
NOX to NO2 Conversion
To accompany the publication of the guidance document LAQM.TG(16), a NOX to NO2
converter was made available as a tool to calculate the road NO2 contribution from modelled
road NOX contributions. The tool comes in the form of an MS Excel spreadsheet and uses
borough specific data to calculate annual mean concentrations of NO2 from dispersion model
output values of annual mean concentrations of NOX. Version 7.1 (April 2019) of this tool will be
used to calculate the total NO2 concentrations at receptors from the modelled road NOX
contribution and associated background concentration. Due to the location of the proposed
development, Test Valley Borough Council has been specified as the local authority and the ‘All
other non-urban UK traffic’ mix selected.
Bias Adjustment of Road Contribution NOX, PM10 and PM2.5
The modelled road NOX contributions from the ADMS-Roads model will be adjusted for bias
following the method described in LAQM.TG(16).
There is insufficient roadside measurement data for the primary pollutants PM10 or PM2.5 within
the study area. The same bias adjustment factor derived for the modelled contributions of the
primary pollutant NOX will be applied to the modelled road PM10 and PM2.5 contributions, as
recommended in LAQM.TG(16).
Calculation of Combined Impacts on Annual Mean NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations (EfW Facility and Road Traffic Emissions)
The combined impact of EfW emissions and road traffic emissions will be determined for a
selection of sensitive receptors in close proximity to local roads affected by the development.
These receptors are listed in Table 4-14.
In the case of NO2, the conversion of NOX to NO2 will be calculated separately for each
emission source, using the methods set out above. The combined change in annual mean NO2
concentrations will be calculated by adding together the respective changes predicted from the
two assessments.
The combined change in annual mean PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations will be calculated by
adding together the changes predicted in the respective process emission and road traffic
emission assessments.
Predicting the Number of Days in which the Particulate Matter 24-hour Mean Objective is Exceeded
The guidance document LAQM.TG(03) sets out the method by which the number of days in
which the particulate matter 24hr objective is exceeded can be obtained based on a
relationship with the predicted particulate matter annual mean concentration. The most recent
guidance LAQM.TG(16) suggests no change to this method. As such, the formula used within
this assessment is:
𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝐸𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 = 0.0014 ∗ 𝐶3 +206
𝐶− 18.5
Where C is the annual mean concentration of PM10.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
31 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Predicting the Number of Days in which the Nitrogen Dioxide Hourly Mean Objective is Exceeded
Research projects completed on behalf of Defra and the Devolved Administrations, have
concluded that the hourly mean nitrogen dioxide objective is unlikely to be exceeded if annual
mean concentrations are predicted to be less the 60 µg/m3.
In 2003, Laxen and Marner concluded:
“…local authorities could reliably base decisions on likely exceedances of the 1-hour
objective for nitrogen dioxide alongside busy streets using an annual mean of 60
µg/m3 and above.”
The findings presented by Laxen and Marner (2003) are further supported by AEAT (2008) who
revisited the investigation to complete an updated analysis including new monitoring results
and additional monitoring sites. The recommendations of this report are:
“Local authorities should continue to use the threshold of 60 µg/m3 NO2 as the trigger
for considering a likely exceedance of the hourly mean nitrogen dioxide objective.”
Therefore, this assessment will evaluate the likelihood of exceeding the hourly mean nitrogen
dioxide objective by comparing predicted annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations at all
receptors to an annual mean equivalent threshold of 60 µg/m3 nitrogen dioxide. Where
predicted concentrations are below this value, it can be concluded that the hourly mean
nitrogen dioxide objective (200 µg/m3 NO2 not to be exceeded more than 18 times per year) will
be achieved.
Specialized Model Treatments
No specialized model treatments will be used in the assessment of road traffic emissions.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
32 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
5. Baseline Air Quality
Overview This section presents the information will be used to evaluate the background and baseline
ambient air quality in the area surrounding the proposed facility. The following steps will be
taken in the determination of background values. Where appropriate, the study focuses on data
gathered in the vicinity of the site:
• Identification of Air Quality Management Areas;
• Review of Test Valley Borough Council ambient monitoring data;
• Review of data from data from Defra’s Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN);
• Review of other monitoring undertaken in the area around the application site; and
• Review of background data and site relevant critical loads from the APIS website.
Air Quality Management Areas
Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) have not declared any AQMAs within their administrative
area, and there are no AQMAs declared by other Local Authorities within the study area.
Local Authority Ambient Monitoring Data
Test Valley Borough Council
TVBC currently undertake monitoring within Andover, Romsey and Chilworth. TVBC report 17
locations for NO2 diffusion tube monitoring. The nearest NO2 diffusion tubes are located in
Andover, approximately 7.3 km to the west of the site.
All monitoring locations within the study area are below the annual mean nitrogen dioxide
objective of 40µg/m3 in 2017.
A summary of the pollutant concentrations obtained from diffusion tube sites near to the Facility
operated by TVBC are presented in Table 5-1.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
33 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Table 5-1: Summary of Monitored Annual Mean Concentrations of NO2 within Test Valley
Borough Council
Defra Background Data
Defra’s 2017-based background maps are available at a 1x1 km resolution for the UK for the
years 2017– 2030. These projections of pollution concentrations across England are available
for NO2, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5.
Background concentrations from the Defra 2017-based background maps are presented for the
year 2017 in Table 5-2 taken for the grid square in which the proposed facility is located for
NOX, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5. Background concentrations for SO2, CO and benzene are not
available for the most recent Defra maps. Therefore 2001-based background concentration for
CO and SO2, 2010-based background concentration for Benzene are presented in Table 5-2.
The NH3 background concentration is from the APIS website, concentrations of which are
presented in Table 4-15.
Table 5-2: Defra Background Concentrations
Pollutant Background concentration (µg/m3)
NOX 18.0
NO2 13.0
PM10 14.1
PM2.5 9.1
SO2 2.21
Benzene 0.138
CO 217
Project Specific Monitoring
Table 5-3 summarises the diffusion tube monitoring carried out near to the site from the 30th
May 2019 to 27th November 2019. At the time of writing, three months of survey data is
available, and is summarised in below. The nitrogen dioxide diffusion tubes have been adjusted
for seasonal bias using Chilbolton Observatory, Southampton Centre, Swindon Walcot and
Charlton Mackrell AURN sites, and the Gradko bias adjustment factor for 20% TEA in water of
0.93 has been applied.
Site name
Site location National grid
reference
Annual mean concentration (µg/m3)
2015 2016 2017
And15 Weyhill Road 435923, 145408 17.0 17.2 16.0
And19 Alexandra Road 435848, 145599 12.8 14.0 12.9
And20 Humberstone Road
(East) 436499, 144935 17.7 18.8 15.7
And22 Humberstone Road
(West) 436362, 144854 12.3 13.4 11.8
And23 Barlows Lane
(North) 435865, 144430 13.4 14.5 12.2
And25 Barlows Lane
(South) 435741, 144232 16.1 14.9 14.0
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
34 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Table 5-3: Summary of Project Specific NO2 Diffusion Tube Monitoring in 2019
Site ID Location Site Type Grid Reference Survey Period Mean Concentration (µg/m3)
2018 Annualised Mean Concentration (µg/m3)
X Y
DT1 A303 Slip road Roadside 444230 142417 17.5 30.3
DT2 Forton Junction on to A303 Roadside 441583 143266 19.3 33.5
DT3 Sugar Lane Roadside 442816 144115 6.9 11.9
DT4 Mill Lane Junction Roadside 443170 144415 7.6 13.2
DT5 Junction of Bullington Lane, and The Street, Barton Stacey
Roadside 443522 141143 8.2 14.3
DT6 Roberts Road Background 444292 141646 6.7 12.3
DT7 The Street, south of Barton Stacey
Roadside 443536 140522 6.6 11.6
E2 River Test SSSI Ecological Background
442703 142197 -a -
E3 Bransbury Common SSSI Ecological Background
442083 142275 -b -
E4 River Test SSSI Ecological Background
442975 143521 6.5 13.0
E5 River Test SSSI Ecological Background
442481 143789 5.0 10.0
a – Monitoring at E2 was deployed on the 28th August 2019, and no results were received by the time of writing
b – No result available
All of the diffusion tubes located in the study area have annualised nitrogen dioxide
concentrations below the Environmental Standard of 40µg/m3.
A diffusion tube survey for SO2 and NH3 was also carried out at several ecological receptors
and roadside locations to provide additional data on concentrations of these pollutants across
the study area. At the time of writing, a single three-week period of monitoring data is available,
and the data is reported in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: Project Specific SO2 and NH3 Diffusion Tube Monitoring
Site ID Location Site Type
Grid Reference SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)
NH3 Concentration (µg/m3)
X Y
DT2 Forton Junction on to A303
Roadside 441583 143266 <1.12a 5.2
DT6 Roberts Road Background 444292 141646 <1.12a 4.8
E2 River Test SSSI Ecological Background
442703 142197 <1.12a
E3 Bransbury Common SSSI
Ecological Background
442083 142275 <1.12a 3.8
E4 River Test SSSI Ecological Background
442975 143521 <1.12a 4.2
E5 River Test SSSI Ecological Background
442481 143789 <1.11a 3.4
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
35 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Background NOX concentrations at the ecology receptors will be reviewed based on NO2
monitoring data from the survey once it is complete. Background NOx and NO2 concentrations
from the Defra background maps will be compared to produce a ratio of NOx to NO2 in grid
squares near to the ecology sites. This ratio will be applied to measured NO2 concentrations to
derive a background NOx value. This value will be compared to the concentrations published
by APIS.
Summary of Background Air Quality The selected background concentrations for each of the pollutants considered within the
assessment are listed in Table 4-15. The background annual mean concentration values for
NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 presented in Table 4-15 do not account for the variation of existing
concentrations made by road traffic across the modelled domain. Baseline concentrations
(background plus road traffic) of these pollutants will be considered further in Chapter 7: Air
Quality in the Environmental Statement once traffic data is available.
In order to represent a conservative approach, it has been assumed that background
concentrations will not decrease in future years. Therefore, the current background
concentrations have been assumed to apply to the projected opening year of 2025.
The background NOX concentrations for ecological receptors were sourced from APIS using the
location specific tool for the relevant ecological receptor.
For human health receptors, the background concentration for nitrogen dioxide, PM10, PM2.5,
SO2, benzene, HCl, PAH (including benzo[a]pyrene), Pb, Cd, As, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, V, NH3, PCBs
and Dioxins and Furans has been taken from Chilbolton Observatory monitoring data for 2018
and CO has been taken from Defra’s 2001-based 1x1 km projected background maps.
The background concentration of Hg has been sourced from Runcorn Weston Point for 2018,
and Sb has been sourced from Yarner Wood for 2013, as the last full year of monitoring
For ecology receptors, the background concentration used for NOx, SO2 and NH3 at the River
Test SSSI (E1, E2 and E4 to E6), Bransbury Common SSSI (E3) and East Aston Common
SSSI(E7) has been obtained from the APIS website as the maximum value on those features.
For other ecological receptors, the background concentrations has been determined based on
the location from the APIS website.
Background concentrations of HF have been taken from the EPAQS report on Halogens and
Hydrogen Halides in Ambient Air, which includes a consideration of background concentrations
of these pollutants in the UK.
The ratio of total Cr to Cr(VI) in ambient air varies, depending on local emission sources. A
review of information by the UK’s Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS) indicates that
Cr(VI) constitutes between 3% and 33% of airborne Chromium , while the US Department of
Health suggests the ratio is between 10% and 20%. For this assessment, it is considered that a
20% Cr (VI) to total Cr ratio is a conservative assumption, given the lack of known local sources
of this substance.
Where no short-term concentrations are available, short-term background concentrations have
been calculated by multiplying the selected annual mean background concentration by a factor
of two LAQM TG(16). For the short-term background concentrations of NO2, NOx, PM10, SO2
and HCl, these have been calculated from the published data from Chilbolton Observatory. For
data obtained from Defra background maps, the values for the grid square in which the stack
lies are presented in Table 5-5, although concentrations applied to receptors in the assessment
vary according to which 1x1 km grid square they lie in.
Background concentrations will be updated as monitoring data is received. Background
concentrations of NO2, NH3 and SO2 will be reviewed and updated once the monitoring surveys
are complete or sufficient data is available.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
36 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Table 5-5: Background Concentrations Selected for use in the Assessment
Pollutant
Background concentration (µg/m3)
Source
Long-term Short-term
NO2 9.5 44.1 Chilbolton Observatory – to be updated with
project specific data once available
NOx
18.39 36.78 E1, E2, E3,E4 from APIS
15.1 30.2 E5,E6 from APIS
13.96 27.92 E7 from APIS
18.67 37.34 E8 from APIS
21.56 43.12 E9 from APIS
14.69 29.38 E10 from APIS
14.09 28.18 E11 from APIS
14.36 28.72 E12, E13, E14 from APIS
PM10 12.3 22.4 Chilbolton Observatory – 2018 monitoring data
PM2.5 8.6 - Chilbolton Observatory – 2018 monitoring data
SO2 0.7
2.1 Chilbolton Observatory – 2018 monitoring data.
99.73th Percentile 1 hour Mean
3.5 99.9th Percentile 15 minute mean
1.4 99.18th Percentile 24 hour mean
Benzene 0.5 - Chilbolton Observatory – 2018 monitoring data
HCl 0.074 1.683 Chilbolton Observatory – 2018 monitoring data
HF 0.003 0.006
Long-term background concentrations from
EPAQS. Short-term concentration is double
long-term concentration.
CO 227 454
Defra background value for 2001. Short-term
concentration is double long-term concentration.
Maximum concentration at all receptor locations
Total PAH 8.32x 10-4 - Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2018
B[a]P 6.1 x 10-5 - Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2018
Pb 3.5 x 10-3 - Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2013
Cd 9.0 x 10-5 - Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2018
Hg 1.5 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-2 Measured concentration from Runcorn Weston
Point for 2018
Sb 3.9 x 10-4 7.8 x 10-4 Measured concentration from Yarner Wood for
2013
As 6.3 x 10-4 - Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2018
Cr, as Cr (II)
compounds and
Cr (III)
compounds
1.1 x 10-3 2.2 x 10-3 Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2018
Cu 2.7 x 10-3 5.4 x 10-3 Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2018
Mn 2.6 x 10-3 5.2 x10-3 Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2018
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
37 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Pollutant
Background concentration (µg/m3)
Source
Long-term Short-term
Ni 4.9 x 10-4 - Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2018
V 7.2 x 10-4 1.44 x 10-3 Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2018
NH3
3.1 6.2
Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2018 for human health
receptors. Short-term concentration is double
long-term concentration
1.6 E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E10, E11, E12.
E13, E14 from APIS
1.82 E9 from APIS
PCBs 3.78 x 10-8 7.56x 10-8 Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2016.
Dioxins and
furans 1.78 x 10-8 -
Measured concentration from Chilbolton
Observatory for 2016.
Predicted Baseline Pollutant Concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 at Discrete Receptors Close to Roads
The direct contribution of baseline road traffic emissions to annual mean background
concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 will be calculated using the ADMS-Roads model, in
order to account for the contribution of traffic emissions to the concentration of these pollutants
at receptors near to the access route to the proposed WtE. The predicted baseline (background
plus road traffic) pollutant concentrations for the scenarios outlined in paragraph 4.59 will be
reported in Chapter 7: Air Quality of the Environmental Statement.
Dispersion Modelling Results
Evaluation of Stack Height
This section reports the results of an evaluation of the release height for the stack serving the
WtE combustion process, using the ADMS 5 dispersion model. The selection of an appropriate
stack release height requires a number of factors to be taken into account, the most important
of which is the need to balance a release height sufficient to achieve adequate dispersion of
pollutants against other constraints such as visual impact.
Emissions from the main stack will be modelled at heights between 50 m and 120 m, at 10 m
increments. Additional heights have been included at 75 m, 85 m and 105 m. A graph, showing
the PC to annual mean and maximum 1-hour pollutant concentrations for a modelled unit
emission rate is presented in Figure 5-1. The purpose of the graph is to evaluate the optimum
release height in terms of the dispersion of pollutants which would occur, against the visual
constraints of further increases in release height.
Analysis of the annual mean curve shows that the benefit of incremental increases in release
height up to 80 m is relatively pronounced. At heights above 85 m, the air quality benefit of
increasing release height further is reduced.
The relative benefit of increasing the release height on maximum 1-hour concentrations follows
a similar pattern to the annual mean curve. A flattening of the curve is seen at heights of greater
than 85 m, above which a reduced improvement in ground level concentrations is predicted
with increasing release height.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
38 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
The design release height of the main stack is 70 m above ground level. The graph illustrates
that the use of a stack releasing emissions at 70 m above ground level or greater would be
capable of mitigating both the short-term and long-term impacts of the modelled emissions of
all pollutants, such that no significant adverse effects would occur at any receptor. The
incremental benefit of further increases in the release height become less effective in reducing
the PC to annual mean ground-level concentrations. It is therefore considered that 70 m
represents a height at which the visual impacts of further increases in stack release height
begin to outweigh the benefits to air quality, in terms of human health.
Figure 5-1: Predicted Process Contribution to Annual Mean Ground Level Pollutant
Concentrations at Stack Release Heights between 50 m and 120m
Sensitivity of Results to Meteorological Data
The dispersion modelling assessment will be undertaken using meteorological data from Middle
Wallop, for the years 2014 to 2018. Table 5-6, below, presents the maximum predicted ground-
level impact, for a number of the averaging periods evaluated throughout the assessment, for
each year of meteorological data within the dataset. The comparison will be based on a unit
emission rate from the main WtE stacks at a release height of 70 m, and the figure highlighted
in bold is the highest value obtained from the five years of meteorological data modelled.
Table 5-6: Maximum Modelled Impact on Ground Level Concentrations, 1 g/s Emission Rate
Met year
Averaging period and statistic
Annual average
1 hr max 1 hr 99.79th %ile
1 hr 99.73rd %ile
24 hr 99.18th %ile
24 hr 90.41st %ile
15 min 99.9th %ile
Max 8 hr running mean
2014 0.44 16.3 8.5 8.2 4.6 1.5 9.2 8.2
2015 0.62 18.8 8.2 8.1 4.8 2.0 9.1 8.1
2016 0.38 20.3 8.5 8.3 4.2 1.5 9.4 8.6
2017 0.42 18.1 8.3 8.2 4.8 1.6 9.1 8.8
2018 0.34 20.3 8.6 8.5 5.6 1.4 9.5 8.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
99.7
9th
%ile
1-h
our
Mean P
C (
µg/m
3)
Annual M
ean P
C (
µg/m
3)
Axis Title
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
39 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
The results presented in Table 4-18 demonstrate that there is a variation in the meteorological
dataset for which the maximum modelled impact is reported for each averaging period. For this
reason, the values reported in the table are the maximum value obtained from modelling each
of the five years meteorological data within the assessment. The reported values can therefore
be considered to represent a worst-case assessment of impacts that would be experienced
during typical meteorological conditions.
Modelling Results for NO2
Emissions from the EfW Stacks
Oxides of nitrogen are emitted in the largest quantity (in terms of mass) from the WtE stacks. In
view of existing baseline pollutant concentrations and the proximity of major traffic routes near
to the site (the main source of NO2 in urban areas), emissions of this pollutant would also
potentially have the greatest impact on local air quality. This section focuses on the change in
local annual mean NOX and NO2 concentrations that would occur as a result of the operation of
the WtE stack and associated road traffic.
A contour plot, showing the modelled PC to annual mean NO2 concentrations due to emissions
from the WtE process stack, is presented in Figure 7A-3 of Annex A to this report for the 2015
meteorological year (maximum modelled concentrations). An isopleth plot (sometimes referred
to as a ‘contour’ plot) showing the PC to 99.79th percentile of 1-hr NO2 concentrations is
presented in Figure 7A-4 of Annex A to this report for the 2014 meteorological year (maximum
modelled concentrations).
The significance of the predicted change in annual mean NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations
in planning terms is discussed in Chapter 7: Air Quality of the PEIR.
Change in Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations at Discrete Receptors during Operational Phase
The predicted change in annual mean NO2 concentrations, that would occur during the
operation of the WtE, at the selected sensitive receptors, is presented in Table 7-29. Any errors
in the addition of PC to the baseline concentrations are due to rounding only.
The maximum predicted annual mean NO2 concentrations at selected receptors is 10.83 µg/m3,
and this would occur in the vicinity of receptors near to Drayton Park. The annual mean NO2
PEC at all receptors would remain below the annual mean NO2 environmental standard,
therefore the NO2 concentrations is not predicted to lead to a risk of the annual mean air quality
standard being exceeded.
Therefore, with the EfW in operation, annual mean concentrations would remain below the
annual mean environmental standard for NO2, and any measured exceedance at this location
would not be directly caused by the operation of the proposed facility.
The discrete receptor most affected by emissions from the EfW stack is receptor R1 located on
Drayton Park, with a PC to annual mean NO2 concentrations of 1.33µg/m3 Based on the results
of the modelling, it is predicted that the operation of the proposed facility would not directly
increase the risk of an exceedance of the annual mean environmental standard for NO2. At
receptors exposed to annual mean concentrations of NO2 of 40 µg/m3 or less, it is also highly
unlikely that the hourly mean limit value would be exceeded at receptors located near to
affected traffic routes.
The significance of the predicted change in annual mean NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations
in planning terms is discussed in Chapter 7: Air Quality of the PEIR.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
40 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Table 5-7: Predicted Change in Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations at Discrete Receptors
(µg/m3) due to Emissions from the WtE and operational road traffic emissions, with
Comparison against Environmental Standard Criteria
Receptor PC
(µg/m3)
PC % Env STD
(µg/m3) PEC PEC % Env STD
R1 1.3 3.3 10.8 27.1
R2 0.6 1.5 10.1 25.3
R3 0.8 1.9 10.3 25.6
R4 0.2 0.6 9.7 24.4
R5 0.3 0.8 9.8 24.5
R6 0.2 0.4 9.7 24.2
R7 0.3 0.8 9.8 24.6
R8 0.4 1.0 9.9 24.8
R9 0.4 0.9 9.9 24.7
R10 0.4 1.0 9.9 24.7
R11 0.4 1.1 9.9 24.8
R12 0.5 1.2 10.0 24.9
R13 0.4 0.9 9.9 24.6
R14 0.3 0.7 9.8 24.5
R15 0.2 0.6 9.7 24.3
R16 0.2 0.5 9.7 24.2
R17 0.1 0.3 9.6 24.1
R18 0.1 0.2 9.6 24.0
R19 0.1 0.3 9.6 24.0
R20 0.3 0.7 9.8 24.5
R21 0.3 0.7 9.8 24.4
Modelling Results for PM10 and PM2.5 for operational phase
The annual mean PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at discrete receptors from the operation of the facility, at the selected sensitive receptors, is presented in Table 5-8
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
41 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Table 5-8 and Table 5-9.
The maximum predicted annual mean PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at the selected receptors
is 12.38 µg/m3 and 8.68 µg/m3 at R1. This annual mean PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations would
not be a perceptible at air quality sensitive receptors, nor would it result in additional days on
which the PM10 24-hour objective is exceeded.
The modelling results show that predicted annual mean concentrations are well below the
respective Environmental Standards for PM10 and PM2.5.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
42 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Table 5-8: Predicted Change in Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations at Discrete Receptors
(µg/m3) due to Emissions from the WtE and road traffic emissions, with Comparison against
Environmental Standard
Receptor PC
(µg/m3)
PC % Env STD
(µg/m3) PEC PEC % Env STD
R1 0.08 0.2 12.4 30.9
R2 0.04 0.1 12.3 30.8
R3 0.04 0.1 12.3 30.9
R4 0.01 0.0 12.3 30.8
R5 0.02 0.0 12.3 30.8
R6 0.01 0.0 12.3 30.8
R7 0.02 0.1 12.3 30.8
R8 0.02 0.1 12.3 30.8
R9 0.02 0.1 12.3 30.8
R10 0.02 0.1 12.3 30.8
R11 0.03 0.1 12.3 30.8
R12 0.03 0.1 12.3 30.8
R13 0.02 0.1 12.3 30.8
R14 0.02 0.0 12.3 30.8
R15 0.01 0.0 12.3 30.8
R16 0.01 0.0 12.3 30.8
R17 0.01 0.0 12.3 30.8
R18 0.01 0.0 12.3 30.8
R19 0.01 0.0 12.3 30.8
R20 0.02 0.0 12.3 30.8
R21 0.02 0.0 12.3 30.8
Table 5-9: Predicted Change in Annual Mean PM2.5 Concentrations at Discrete Receptors
(µg/m3) due to Emissions from the WtE and road traffic emissions, with Comparison against
Environmental Standard
Receptor PC
(µg/m3)
PC % Env STD
(µg/m3) PEC PEC % Env STD
R1 0.08 0.4 8.7 43.4
R2 0.04 0.2 8.6 43.2
R3 0.04 0.2 8.6 43.2
R4 0.01 0.1 8.6 43.1
R5 0.02 0.1 8.6 43.1
R6 0.01 0.0 8.6 43.0
R7 0.02 0.1 8.6 43.1
R8 0.02 0.1 8.6 43.1
R9 0.02 0.1 8.6 43.1
R10 0.02 0.1 8.6 43.1
R11 0.03 0.1 8.6 43.1
R12 0.03 0.1 8.6 43.1
R13 0.02 0.1 8.6 43.1
R14 0.02 0.1 8.6 43.1
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
43 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Receptor PC
(µg/m3)
PC % Env STD
(µg/m3) PEC PEC % Env STD
R15 0.01 0.1 8.6 43.1
R16 0.01 0.1 8.6 43.1
R17 0.01 0.0 8.6 43.0
R18 0.01 0.0 8.6 43.0
R19 0.01 0.0 8.6 43.0
R20 0.02 0.1 8.6 43.1
R21 0.02 0.1 8.6 43.1
Modelling Results for All Pollutants from the WtE Facility Stacks (for the Protection of Human Health)
The maximum Process Contribution (PC) and Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC)
within the modelled domain, for each pollutant and averaging period, are summarised in Table
5-10. The results are based on emissions from the proposed facility as presented in Table 7-15
with 70 m stacks. Predicted concentrations at discrete receptors, not incorporating contributions
from road traffic sources, are detailed in Table 7-29 to Table 5-9, above. In Table 5-10, it is
assumed that Group 3 metals are emitted at the levels published in the Environment agency’s
guidance which is considered to be a realistic scenario.
The PC listed, in respect of each pollutant and averaging period assessed, is the maximum
impact reported from the modelling of five years of meteorological data. The background values
used in the calculation of PEC concentrations are as described in Table 4-15.
The results show that the maximum PC and PEC values for most of the modelled pollutants are
well within their respective Environmental Standard criteria for the protection of human health.
The exceptions to this statement are:
• PAH (as B[a]P); and
• chromium (VI).
The exceedance of chromium VI is due to the background concentration. This assessment has
assumed that the background concentration for Cr(VI) is 20% of the Cr(III) background, which
is approximately 110% of the criteria for Cr(VI). Use has been made of additional information on
emissions of B[a]P from other facilities in the UK in the following sections.
Table 5-10: 70m Stack, Maximum WtE Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental
Concentration, all Modelled Pollutants, for the Worst Case Meteorological Data Year
Pollutant Averaging period Env std (µg/m3)
PC
(µg/m3)
PC % Env std
PEC
(µg/m3) PEC % Env std
NO2
Annual Mean 40 3.74 9.3 13.2 33
99.79th %ile of 1-hour
means 200 52.07 26.0 96.2 48
PM10
Annual Mean 40 0.16 0.4 12.5 31
90.41st %ile of 24-hour
means 50 0.52 1.0 22.9 46
PM2.5 Annual Mean 25 0.16 0.6 8.8 35
SO2
Annual Mean 50 0.93 1.9 1.6 3
99.9th %le of 15-min
means 266 14.40 5.4 15.8 6
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
44 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Pollutant Averaging period Env std (µg/m3)
PC
(µg/m3)
PC % Env std
PEC
(µg/m3) PEC % Env std
99.73rd %ile of 1-hour
means 350 12.83 3.7 14.9 4
99.18th %ile of 24-hour
means 125 8.40 6.7 9.8 8
VOC, as
Benzene Annual Mean 5 0.31 6.2 0.8 16
CO
Max daily 8-hr running
mean 10,000 22.21 0.2 249.2 2
Max 1-hour mean 30,000 51.27 0.2 505.3 2
HCl Max 1-hour mean 750 6.15 0.8 7.8 1.0
HF Monthly mean 16 0.14 0.9 0.1 0.9
Max 1-hour mean 160 1.03 0.6 1.0 0.6
PAH (as
BaP) Annual Mean 0.00025 0.00031 124.6 0.00037 149
Pb Annual Mean 0.25 0.00157 0.6 0.00507 2
Cd Annual Mean 0.005 0.00002 0.5 0.00011 2.3
Hg Annual Mean 0.25 0.00035 0.1 0.02 6.1
Max 1-hr mean 7.5 0.01 0.2 0.04 0.6
Sb
Annual Mean 5 0.0004 0.01 0.0007 0.01
Max 1-hr mean 150 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
As Annual Mean 0.003 0.001 26.0 0.001 47.0
Total Cr Annual Mean 5 0.0029 0.1 0.0040 0.1
Max 1-hour mean 150 0.0943 0.1 0.0965 0.1
Cr (VI)
oxidation
state in
PM10
fraction
Annual Mean 0.0002 0.000004 2.0 0.0002 112
Cu
(dusts
and
mists)
Annual Mean 10 0.0009 0.01 0.004 0.04
Max 1-hr mean 200 0.0297 0.01 0.04 0.02
Mn Annual Mean 0.15 0.0019 1.2 0.004 3
Max 1-hr mean 1500 0.0615 0.004 0.1 0.004
Ni Annual Mean 0.02 0.0069 34.3 0.007 37
V Annual Mean 5 0.0002 0.004 0.0009 0.02
Max 1-hr mean 1 0.006 0.6 0.008 0.8
NH3 Annual Mean 180 0.31 0.2 3.4 2
Max 1-hr mean 2500 10.25 0.4 16.5 0.7
PCBs Annual Mean 0.2 1.56 x 10-4 0.08 1.56 x 10-4 0.08
Max 1-hr mean 6 5.13 x 10-3 0.09 5.13 x 10-3 0.09
Dioxins
and
Furans
Annual Mean n/a 1.87 x 10-9 - 1.97 x 10-8 -
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
45 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Additional Consideration of Benzo[a]Pyrene Emissions
The results presented in Table 5-10 showed that the initial assumption that all emissions of PAH
from the WtE are composed of benzo[a]pyrene, combined with the assumption that the
emission occurs continuously at the ELV, results in a PEC of more than the annual mean
environmental standard, when combined with the measured background concentration.
Benzo[a]pyrene emissions have been considered using an emission rate derived from
benzo[a]pyrene concentrations measured at a comparable facility operating within the UK. This
provides a more realistic basis for assessment, based on emissions from a comparable
process.
The benzo[a]pyrene emission rate used is derived from a measured concentration from the
Sheffield ERF in 2012, of 9.7 x 10-6 mg/Nm3. This gives a mass emission rate of 4.8 x 10-7 g/s
per stack. This value has been taken from a published assessment undertaken for another
proposed WtE facility by AECOM.
Using this revised emission rate for benzo[a]pyrene gives a maximum predicted PC of 0.1% of
the environmental standard. This can be screened out as insignificant.
Table 5-11: 100m Stack, Predicted Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental
Concentration, for Cr (VI) and B[a]P, for the Worst Case Meteorological Data Year, using
measured Emissions Data from a comparable facility
Pollutant Averaging period
Env std (µg/m3)
PC
(µg/m3)
PC % Env std
PEC
(µg/m3)
PEC % Env std
B[a]P Annual Mean 2.5 x 10-4 3.02 x 10-7 0.10 6.1 x10-5 24.5
Modelling Results: Short Term Emissions
The IED half hour emission rate limit values set out in Table 4-12 are short term standards
permitted over a 30 minute averaging period. Although short term fluctuations in emission rates
can occur, the daily mean emission limit still needs to be achieved so these excursions would
be required to be short-term and infrequent in nature. For this reason, the use of daily emission
rates in the dispersion modelling is considered to be a robust approach to the assessment of
the impact of WtE processes. Additionally, the short-term environmental standards for the
pollutants considered within the assessment are largely expressed as averaging periods of one
hour or more. Overall, higher emissions of less than 30 minutes duration are unlikely to have a
significant impact on short-term air quality.
On a hypothetical basis, however, if the half-hour IED limits are used to evaluate short term
impacts, then the modelling confirms that predicted concentrations would remain well within the
environmental standards with the exception of NO2. The predicted impacts on short-term
pollutant concentrations on the basis of emissions at the half-hour-limit values in Table 7-14 are
presented in Table 5-12 below.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
46 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Table 5-12: 70m Stack, Maximum WtE Process Contribution and Predicted Environmental
Concentration, all Modelled Pollutants, for the Worst Case Meteorological Data Year with
Emissions at Half Hour IED Emission Limits
Pollutant Averaging period
Env STD (µg/m3)
PC
(µg/m3)
PC % Env STD
PEC
(µg/m3)
PEC % Env STD
NO2 99.79th %ile of
1-hour means 200 173.6 86.8 217.7 109
PM10 90.41st %ile of
24-hour means 50 3.1 6.2 25.5 51
SO2
99.9th %le of 15-
min means 266 96.0 36.1 99.5 37
99.73rd %ile of
1-hour means 350 85.5 24.4 87.6 25
99.18th %ile of
24-hour means 125 56.0 44.8 57.4 46
HCl Max 1-hour
mean 750 61.5 8.2 63.2 8
HF Max 1-hour
mean 160 4.1 2.6 4.1 3
Modelling Results: Impact on Designated Nature Sites
The results of the dispersion modelling of predicted impacts on sensitive ecological receptors
are presented in Table 5-13 to Table 7-40. The tables set out the predicted PC to atmospheric
concentrations of NOX, SO2, NH3 and HF, and also acid deposition and nutrient nitrogen
deposition.
Specific significance criteria relating to impacts on sensitive designated ecological receptors
are set out within the Environmental Agency air emissions risk assessment guidance. The
impact of stack emissions can be regarded as insignificant at sites with statutory designations
if:
• The long-term PC is less than 1% of the critical load or critical level, or if greater than 1%
then the PEC is less than 70% of the critical load or critical level.
• The short-term PC is less than 10% of the critical load or critical level.
The impact of stack emissions can be regarded as insignificant at sites of local importance if:
• The long-term PC is less than 100% of the critical load or critical level;
• The short-term PC is less than 100% of the critical load or critical level
The assessment results show that the predicted impacts are above criteria for insignificance at
most of the selected receptors. PCs of more than 1% of the long-term critical load or critical
level and 10% of a short-term critical level have been predicted to occur at the following all
modelled receptors.
At the river Test SSSI (E1), the PC to annual mean NOX is predicted to be up to 2% of the
critical level, and the PEC 63% of the critical level. As most of the reported concentration is due
to the standard APIS background value used in the calculations, further analysis will be
undertaken using background NOX concentrations from an NO2 diffusion tube located at
ecological sites in the study area during the project specific monitoring survey. This further
analysis will be presented in the appendix to Chapter 7: Air quality of the Environmental
Statement.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
AECOM
47 Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
At sites of local importance (SINCs), no predicted long-term PEC is above the NOx criteria. For
the short-term NOx criteria, site E8 (Drayton Down SINC) is predicted to experience a NOx
concentration of 79.8 µg/m3, 106% of the criteria.
The effect of atmospheric NOX concentrations, nitrogen deposition rates and acid deposition
rates on the modelled receptor locations will be considered in detail in the report to inform the
Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) within the Environmental Statement. Please refer to
the Chapter 10: Ecology for discussion about the significance of the WtE emissions on
sensitive ecological receptors.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 48
Table 5-13: Dispersion Modelling Results for Ecological Receptors using APIS background concentrations - NOX
Receptor ID Site name
Annual mean (µg/m3) 24 hour mean (µg/m3)
Background
(µg/m3)
Critical level (CL)
PC
(µg/m3)
PC % of CL
PEC
(µg/m3)
PEC % of CL
Background
(µg/m3)
Critical level (CL)
PC
(µg/m3)
PC % of CL
PEC
(µg/m3)
PEC % of CL
E1 River Test SSSI 18.4 30 0.5 1.5 18.9 63 36.8 75 21.9 29 58.7 78
E2 River Test SSSI 18.4 30 0.5 1.8 18.9 63 36.8 75 16.7 22 53.5 71
E3 Bransbury
Common SSSI 18.4 30 0.3 1.0 18.7 62 36.8 75 18.1 24 54.9 73
E4 River Test SSSI 18.4 30 0.4 1.2 18.8 63 36.8 75 20.8 28 57.6 77
E5 River Test SSSI 15.1 30 0.3 0.8 15.4 51 30.2 75 19.9 27 50.1 67
E6 River Test SSSI 15.1 30 0.5 1.6 15.6 52 30.2 75 22.7 30 52.9 71
E7 East Aston
Common SSSI 14.0 30 0.2 0.7 14.2 47 27.9 75 19.2 26 47.1 63
E8 Drayton Down
SINC 18.7 30 1.8 6.0 20.5 68 37.3 75 42.4 57 79.8 106
E9 Tidbury Ring
Wood SINC 21.6 30 0.6 2.1 22.2 74 43.1 75 17.7 24 60.8 81
E10 Longparish
Meadow SINC 14.7 30 0.5 1.7 15.2 51 29.4 75 22.1 29 51.5 69
E11 Lower Mills
Meadow SINC 14.1 30 0.5 1.7 14.6 49 28.2 75 24.0 32 52.2 70
E12 Lower Farm
Meadow SINC 14.4 30 0.3 0.9 14.6 49 28.7 75 25.5 34 54.3 72
E13 Test Way SINC 14.4 30 0.2 0.8 14.6 49 28.7 75 24.4 33 53.2 71
E14 Middleton Wood
SINC 14.4 30 0.2 0.7 14.6 49 28.7 75 19.4 26 48.1 64
Priority
Habitat 11.1 30 2.5 8.3 13.6 45 22.2 75 16.9 23 39.1 52
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 49
Table 5-14: Dispersion Modelling Results for Ecological Receptors – SO2
Receptor ID Site name
Annual mean (µg/m3)
Background
(µg/m3)
Critical level
(CL) PC PC % of CL
PEC
(µg/m3)
PEC % of CL
E1 River Test SSSI 0.8 20 0.1 1.2 0.9 8.7
E2 River Test SSSI 0.8 20 0.1 1.4 0.9 8.9
E3 Bransbury Common SSSI 0.8 20 0.1 0.4 0.8 4.1
E4 River Test SSSI 0.8 20 0.1 0.9 0.8 8.4
E5 River Test SSSI 0.8 20 0.1 0.6 0.8 8.3
E6 River Test SSSI 0.8 20 0.1 1.2 0.9 8.9
E7 East Aston Common SSSI 0.7 20 0.1 0.3 0.7 3.7
E8 Drayton Down SINC 0.8 20 0.5 2.3 1.2 6.0
E9 Tidbury Ring Wood SINC 0.7 20 0.2 0.8 0.9 4.3
E10 Longparish Meadow SINC 0.8 20 0.1 0.6 0.9 4.4
E11 Lower Mills Meadow SINC 0.8 20 0.1 0.6 0.9 4.4
E12 Lower Farm Meadow SINC 0.8 20 0.1 0.3 0.8 4.1
E13 Test Way SINC 0.8 20 0.1 0.3 0.8 4.0
E14 Middleton Wood SINC 0.8 20 0.1 0.3 0.8 4.0
Priority Habitat 0.7 20 0.6 3.1 1.3 6.6
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 50
Table 5-15: Dispersion Modelling Results for Ecological Receptors – NH3
Receptor ID Site name
Annual mean (µg/m3)
Background
(µg/m3)
Critical level
(CL) PC PC % of CL
PEC
(µg/m3)
PEC % of CL
E1 River Test SSSI 1.6 3 0.04 3.9 1.6 164
E2 River Test SSSI 1.6 3 0.05 4.6 1.6 165
E3 Bransbury Common SSSI 1.6 3 0.02 0.8 1.6 54
E4 River Test SSSI 1.6 3 0.03 3.0 1.6 163
E5 River Test SSSI 1.6 3 0.02 2.1 1.6 162
E6 River Test SSSI 1.6 3 0.04 4.0 1.6 164
E7 East Aston Common SSSI 1.6 3 0.02 0.6 1.6 54
E8 Drayton Down SINC 1.6 3 0.15 5.0 1.8 58
E9 Tidbury Ring Wood SINC 1.8 3 0.05 1.8 1.9 62
E10 Longparish Meadow SINC 1.6 3 0.04 1.4 1.6 55
E11 Lower Mills Meadow SINC 1.6 3 0.04 1.4 1.6 55
E12 Lower Farm Meadow SINC 1.6 3 0.02 0.7 1.6 54
E13 Test Way SINC 1.6 3 0.02 0.6 1.6 54
E14 Middleton Wood SINC 1.6 3 0.02 0.6 1.6 54
Priority Habitat 3.1 3 0.21 6.9 3.3 110
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 51
Table 5-16: Dispersion Modelling Results for Ecological Receptors – HF
Receptor ID
Site name
24 hour mean (µg/m3) 168 hour mean (µg/m3)
Background
(µg/m3)
Critical level
(CL)
PC PC % of
CL
PEC
(µg/m3)
PEC % of CL
Background
(µg/m3)
Critical level
(CL)
PC PC % of
CL
PEC
(µg/m3)
PEC % of CL
E1 River Test SSSI 0.006 5 0.09 2 0.09 2 0.006 0.5 0.03 6 0.04 8
E2 River Test SSSI 0.006 5 0.07 1 0.08 2 0.006 0.5 0.04 8 0.05 9
E3 Bransbury Common
SSSI 0.006 5 0.04 1 0.05 1 0.006 0.5 0.02 3 0.02 5
E4 River Test SSSI 0.006 5 0.06 1 0.07 1 0.006 0.5 0.03 6 0.04 7
E5 River Test SSSI 0.006 5 0.04 1 0.05 1 0.006 0.5 0.02 4 0.03 6
E6 River Test SSSI 0.006 5 0.04 1 0.04 1 0.006 0.5 0.02 3 0.02 5
E7 East Aston Common
SSSI 0.006 5 0.03 1 0.04 1 0.006 0.5 0.01 2 0.02 3
E8 Drayton Down SINC 0.006 5 0.17 3 0.18 4 0.006 0.5 0.08 15 0.08 17
E9 Tidbury Ring Wood
SINC 0.006 5 0.03 1 0.04 1 0.006 0.5 0.02 3 0.02 4
E10 Longparish Meadow
SINC 0.006 5 0.08 2 0.08 2 0.006 0.5 0.02 4 0.03 5
E11 Lower Mills Meadow
SINC 0.006 5 0.06 1 0.06 1 0.006 0.5 0.02 4 0.03 5
E12 Lower Farm Meadow
SINC 0.006 5 0.05 1 0.05 1 0.006 0.5 0.01 2 0.02 4
E13 Test Way SINC 0.006 5 0.04 1 0.05 1 0.006 0.5 0.01 2 0.02 3
E14 Middleton Wood SINC 0.006 5 0.03 1 0.04 1 0.006 0.5 0.02 3 0.02 4
Priority
Habitat 0.006 5 0.24 5 0.25 5 0.006 0.5 0.11 23 0.12 24
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 52
Table 5-17: Dispersion Modelling Results for Ecological Receptors – Nutrient Nitrogen Deposition (kg/ha/yr)
Receptor ID Site name Background nitrogen
deposition (kg N/ha/yr) Critical load
PC
(µg/m3)
PC % critical load
PEC
(µg/m3)
PEC % critical load
E1 River Test SSSI 27.6 10 0.4 4 28.0 280
E2 River Test SSSI 27.6 10 0.5 5 28.1 281
E3 Bransbury Common SSSI 17.3 15 0.2 1 17.5 116
E4 River Test SSSI 27.6 10 0.3 3 27.9 279
E5 River Test SSSI 27.6 10 0.2 2 27.8 278
E6 River Test SSSI 27.6 10 0.4 4 28.0 280
E7 East Aston Common SSSI 17.2 15 0.1 1 17.3 115
E8 Drayton Down SINC 17.2 15 1.0 7 18.3 122
E9 Tidbury Ring Wood SINC 30.2 10 0.6 6 30.8 308
E10 Longparish Meadow SINC 17.2 20 0.3 1 17.5 88
E11 Lower Mills Meadow SINC 17.2 20 0.3 1 17.5 88
E12 Lower Farm Meadow SINC 17.2 20 0.2 1 17.4 87
E13 Test Way SINC 27.6 10 0.2 2 27.8 278
E14 Middleton Wood SINC 27.6 10 0.2 2 27.8 278
Priority Habitat 0.0 10 2.3 23 2.3 23
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 53
Table 5-18: Dispersion Modelling Results for Ecological Receptors – Total Acid Deposition N + S (keq/ha/yr)
Receptor ID
Site name Acid deposition (keq/ha/yr)8 Total acid deposition (keq/ha/yr)9
Critical load10 Baseline Total Total % of Critical Load
PC PC % of Critical Load
PEC PEC% of Critical Load
E1 River Test SSSI Min CL Min N
0.142
Min CL Max N
0.58
Min CL Max S
0.295
N: 2
S: 0.3
2.3 397 0.08 14 2.38 411
E2 River Test SSSI
2.3 397 0.10 17 2.40 413
E3 Bransbury
Common SSSI
Min CL Min N
0.223
Min CL Max N
0.611
Min CL Max S
0.245
N: 1.2
S: 0.2 1.4 229 0.03 4 1.43 234
E4 River Test SSSI Min CL Min N
0.142
Min CL Max N
0.58
Min CL Max S
0.295
N: 2
S: 0.3
2.3 397 0.06 11 2.36 408
E5 River Test SSSI 2.3 397 0.04 8 2.34 404
E6 River Test SSSI 2.3 397 0.09 15 2.39 411
E7 East Aston
Common SSSI
Min CL Min N
0.223
Min CL Max N
0.713
Min CL Max S
0.49
N: 1.2
S: 0.2 1.4 196 0.02 3 1.42 199
E8 Drayton Down
SINC
No Critical
Loads set
N: 1.23
S: 0.23 1.46 30 0.17 3 1.63 34
8 Acid Deposition Critical Loads 9 Process Contribution and Process Environmental Contribution as percentages of the relevant Critical Load have been calculated using the Min CL Max N 10 Critical Load (as obtained from APIS, July 2018)
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 54
Receptor ID
Site name Acid deposition (keq/ha/yr)8 Total acid deposition (keq/ha/yr)9
Critical load10 Baseline Total Total % of Critical Load
PC PC % of Critical Load
PEC PEC% of Critical Load
E9 Tidbury Ring
Wood SINC
N: 2.16
S: 0.27 2.43 22 0.11 1 2.54 23
E10 Longparish
Meadow SINC
N: 1.23
S: 0.23
1.46 30 0.05 1 1.51 31
E11 Lower Mills
Meadow SINC 1.46 30 0.05 1 1.51 31
E12 Lower Farm
Meadow SINC 1.46 30 0.02 1 1.48 31
E13 Test Way SINC N: 1.97
S: 0.27
2.24 20 0.04 <1 2.28 21
E14 Middleton Wood
SINC 2.24 20 0.04 <1 2.28 21
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 55
Table 5-19: Impact on Ecological Receptors – Summary
Receptor ID Site name
Total acid deposition PC
(kg/ha/yr)
Nutrient nitrogen deposition PC
(kg/ha/yr)
NOx annual mean PC
(µg/m3)
NOx 24 hr mean PC
(µg/m3)
SO2 annual mean PC
(µg/m3)
NH3 annual mean PC
(µg/m3)
HF 24 hr mean PC
(µg/m3)
HF weekly mean PC
(µg/m3)
E1 River Test SSSI 0.08 0.4 0.5 21.9 0.1 0.04 0.09 0.03
E2 River Test SSSI 0.10 0.5 0.5 16.7 0.1 0.05 0.07 0.04
E3 Bransbury Common SSSI 0.03 0.2 0.3 18.1 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.02
E4 River Test SSSI 0.06 0.3 0.4 20 0.1 0.03 0.06 0.03
E5 River Test SSSI 0.04 0.2 0.3 19.9 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.02
E6 River Test SSSI 0.09 0.4 0.5 22.7 0.1 0.04 0.04 0.02
E7 East Aston Common
SSSI 0.02 0.1 0.2 19. 0.1 0.02 0.03 0.01
E8 Drayton Down SINC 0.17 1.0 1.8 42.4 0.5 0.15 0.17 0.08
E9 Tidbury Ring Wood SINC 0.11 0.6 0.6 17 0.2 0.05 0.03 0.02
E10 Longparish Meadow
SINC 0.05 0.3 0.5 22.1 0.1 0.04 0.08 0.02
E11 Lower Mills Meadow
SINC 0.05 0.3 0.5 24. 0.1 0.04 0.06 0.02
E12 Lower Farm Meadow
SINC 0.02 0.2 0.3 25.5 0.1 0.02 0.05 0.01
E13 Test Way SINC 0.04 0.2 0.2 24.4 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.01
E14 Middleton Wood SINC 0.04 0.2 0.2 19.4 0.1 0.02 0.03 0.02
Priority Habitat 2.3 2.5 16.9 0.6 0.21 0.24 0.11
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 56
Modelling Results: Plume Visibility For the purposes of this assessment a stack plume is described as being ‘visible’ when condensed
water is present in the plume. This definition does not take account of whether or not the plume can
be seen. The visibility of the plume from the stacks of the proposed facility will be predicted using
ADMS 5. Although the latest version of the Environment Agency risk assessment guidance does
not include the requirement to undertake an assessment of plume visibility, an assessment will be
undertaken so that the outputs can be reported in Chapter 14: Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment of the ES. The procedure used in this assessment is based on that outlined in the
2003 version of the H1 horizontal guidance (now superseded). The results of the plume visibility
will be presented in Chapter 7: Air Quality of the Environmental Statement.
6. Assessment of Limitations and Assumptions
This section outlines the potential limitations associated with the dispersion modelling assessment.
Where assumptions have been made, this is also detailed here.
The greatest uncertainty associated with any dispersion modelling assessment arises through the
inherent uncertainty of the dispersion modelling process itself. Despite this, the use of dispersion
modelling is a widely applied and accepted approach for the prediction of impacts from an WtE
such as this one.
In order to minimise the likelihood of under-estimating the PC to ground level concentrations from
the main stack, the following assumptions have been made within the assessment:
• the WtE process has been assumed to operate on a continuous basis i.e. for 8,760 hour per
year, although in practice the plant will require routine maintenance periods;
• the modelling predictions are based on the use of five full years of meteorological data from
Middle Wallop, for the years 2014 to 2018 inclusive. The use of five years data can be
considered to represent the majority of meteorological conditions that would be experienced
during the future operation of the facility; and
• emission concentrations for the process are calculated based on the use of IED limits, BAT-
AEL concentrations, or maximum measured emission rates at comparable facilities.
Modelling of the Proposed Development has been based on the previous Summer 19 design
iteration. The current design iteration has reduced the massing and size of the main building and
the ACC compared to the design used in this assessment. These changes do have the potential to
reduce the effect of the buildings on plume dispersion, in effect aiding dispersion, and lead to a
potential reduction in the predicted impacts reported in this assessment. Due to the relative
differences in height between the tip of the stack (the release height) and the height of the
buildings, these changes are unlikely to have a significant effect on the predicted results, and this
assessment is considered to be conservative.
The following assumptions have been made in the preparation of the assessment:
• a 70% NOx to NO2 conversion rate has been assumed in predicting the long-term PC, and
35% for the short-term PC;
• in the assessment of emissions of PM2.5, the total particulate emissions have been assumed
to be PM2.5;
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 57
• emissions of metals have been considered separately, and have been evaluated using
guidance issued by the EA’s Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit. The maximum
reported measured concentrations for metals at operational facilities in the UK has been used
to calculate the emission rate for the proposed facility;
• Emissions of PAHs, modelled as benzo[a]pyrene, have been considered at emission limits
derived from measured concentrations from a comparable facility.
In particular, the use of IED emission limits for most of the pollutants in the study is likely to result in
an over-prediction of impacts from the WtE process. Emissions tests on other facilities of
comparable design within the UK have shown that actual emissions associated with this facility
actually represent only a fraction of their respective ELVs for most pollutants.
7. Conclusions This report has assessed the impact on local air quality of the operation of the proposed Harewood
Waste-to-Energy Facility. The assessment has used the dispersion models ADMS. An assessment
of the road traffic emissions will be undertaken and included within the ES.
The assessment of emissions from the main stack has focused on the impact on ground-level
concentrations of the pollutants specified in the IED. Particular attention has been given to the
impact on concentrations of NO2 and particulate matter in the vicinity of residential properties in
close proximity to the application site and near to major traffic routes.
An evaluation of release height for the main stacks has shown that a release height of 70 m or
greater is capable of mitigating the short-term and long-term impacts of emissions to an acceptable
level, with regard to existing air quality and ambient air quality standards. The design of the facility
includes stacks with a release height of 70 m above ground level.
Emissions from the main stacks would result in small increases in ground-level concentrations of
the modelled pollutants. Taking into account available information on background concentrations
within the modelled domain, predicted operational concentrations of the modelled pollutants would
be within current environmental standards for the protection of human health.
The results from modelling of emissions from the stack predicted an impact on annual mean NO2
concentrations of 0.4 µg/m3 or more is restricted to an area within a maximum distance of 2 km.
The modelling of impacts at designated ecological sites (SSSIs) has predicted that WtE emissions
would give rise to no impacts with regard to increases in atmospheric concentrations of NOX, SO2,
NH3 and HF, or through deposition of nutrient nitrogen and acid that are considered significant.
The use of emission concentrations at the BAT-AEL emission limit values is likely to have resulted
in an over-prediction of impacts from the WtE. Therefore, the reported impacts are considered to
represent a robust assessment of likely impacts at all sensitive receptor locations.
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 58
References AEAT (2008), Analysis of the relationship between annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations and
exceedances of the 1-hour mean AQS Objective, accessed 2nd August 2016
http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/NO2relationship_report.pdf
AECOM (2016), Rye House Energy Recovery Facility, Appendix 7.1 – Air Quality Dispersion Modelling
Assessment, October 2016.
Air Quality Assessments Ltd (2016), Air Quality Assessment, Walworth Business Park Update, Test Valley,
Document Number: J0068/1/F1, March 2016
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (2018), Air Pollution Information System (APIS), www.apis.ac.uk,
Accessed on 6th June 2018
CERC (2018), ADMS Roads and ADMS 5 Validation Papers, Cambridge Environmental Research
Consultants, from: http://www.cerc.co.uk/environmental-software/model-validation.html accessed on 21st
August 2018
Council of European Communities (1996), Framework Directive on ambient air quality assessment and
management, European Council, 96/62/EC
Council of European Communities (1999), First Daughter Directive on limit values for sulphur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, 1999/30/EC
Council of European Communities (2000), Second Daughter Directive on limit values for benzene and
carbon monoxide in ambient air, 2000/69/EC
Council of European Communities (2002), Third Daughter Directive on ozone in ambient air, 2002/3/EC
Council of European Communities (1997), Council Decision 97/101/EC in exchange of information and
data from as amended by Commission Decision 2001/752/EC
Council of European Communities (2008), Directive 2008/50/EC on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air
for Europe
Defra (2003), Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM TG(03)
Defra (2016), Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance, LAQM TG(16)
Defra (2018a), Emission Factor Toolkit version 8.0.1, accessed via URL https://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-
and-assessment/tools/emissions-factors-toolkit.html accessed on 16th August 2018
Defra (2018b), Defra Background Maps, Available from: https://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-
assessment/tools/background-maps.html, accessed on 16th August 2018
Defra (2018c), UK Air Air Information Resource, Data Selector, Accessed on 16th August 2018
DMRB (2007), Volume 11 Environmental Assessment Section Environmental Assessment Techniques,
Part 1 HA 207/07, Air Quality
Envest (2018), Air Dispersion Modelling and Air Quality Impact Assessment Report for a Proposed
Incineration Plant (IP) Facility at Immingham, North East Lincolnshire, July 2018
Environment Agency (2003), Horizontal Guidance Note H1: IPPC – Environmental Assessment Appraisal
of BAT
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 59
Environment Agency (2011), AQTA AG06 Technical Guidance on detailed modelling approach for an
appropriate assessment for emissions to air
Environment Agency (2016), Releases from Waste Incinerators, Version 4, Guidance on assessing group
3 metal emissions from incinerators
Environment Agency (2018), Air emissions risk assessment for your environmental permit,
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-emissions-risk-assessment-for-your-environmental-permit. Accessed 16th
August 2018
EPAQS (2006), Guidelines for Halogens and Hydrogen Halides in Ambient Air for Protecting Human
Health against Acute Irritancy Effects
EPAQS (2009), Metals and Metalloids
EP SHB Ltd (2018) Email Communication regarding emission data requirement for dispersion modelling
with P. Kelk of EP SHB Ltd and D. Duce of AECOM on the 24th October 2018
European Commission (2018), Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Waste
Incineration, Final Draft, December 2018
European Commission (2010), Directive 2010/75/EU, The Industrial Emissions Directive
European Commission (2006), Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, Reference Document on the
Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration, August 2006
European Commission (2000), Directive 2000/76/EC on the Incineration of Waste
Gair Consulting Ltd (2018), Great Coates REC – Air Quality Assessment, August 2018
Official Journal of the European Union (2017), Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442of 31st
July 2017, establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the
European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants
H.M. Government (2010), The Air Quality Standards Regulations. SI1001, the Stationary Office
H.M. Government (2010), The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. SI490, the
Stationary Office
H.M. Government (2013), The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations
SI 2013/390
H.M. Government (2016), The Air Quality Standards (Amendment) Regulations, SI 1184, the Stationary
Office
H.M. Government (1981), Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
H.M. Government (2000), Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended).
Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) (2016), Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition
and construction, Version 1.1
Laxen and Marner (2003), Analysis of the Relationship between 1-hour and annual mean nitrogen dioxide
at UK Roadside and Kerbside Monitoring Sites
Romsey Advertiser (2016), Residents’ victory as incinerator rejected, July 2016, url:
https://www.romseyadvertiser.co.uk/news/andover/14593724.residents-victory-as-incinerator-rejected/,
date accessed: 10/09/2019
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 60
The Business Magazine (2019), Andover: Evolution 50 warehouse sold in £6m deal, February 2019, url:
https://www.businessmag.co.uk/andover-evolution-50-warehouse-sold-in-6m-deal/, date accessed:
10/09/2019
US Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (2008), Draft Toxicological Profile for Chromium
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility
Prepared for: WTI EfW Holdings Ltd.
AECOM 7-61