Biffa Waste Services Limited Proposed Small Scale Energy ......centred at approximate National Grid Reference (NGR) SS 68170 98056. ... 1.3.4 The facility will have four main waste

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Biffa Waste Services Limited

Proposed Small Scale Energy Recovery Facility

On Land at Swansea Depot, Clarion Close,

Morriston, Swansea

Air Quality Assessment including Health Impact

Assessment

August 2018

Executive Park, Avalon Way, Anstey, Leicester, LE7 7GR

Tel: +44 (0)116 234 8000

Email: [email protected]

http://www.wyg.com/

mailto:[email protected]


Document Control

Project: Proposed Small Scale Energy Recovery Facility

Client: Biffa Waste Services Limited

Job Number: A103857

File Origin: O:\Acoustics Air Quality and Noise\Active Projects

Document Checking:

Prepared by: Zhiyuan Yang Principal Environmental Consultant

Initialled: ZY

Contributor: Rebecca Jeffs

Enviromental Consultant Initialled: RJ

Checked by: Nigel Mann Director

Initialled: NM

Verified by: Nigel Mann

Director Initialled: NM

Issue Date Status

1 21 June 2018 First Issue

2 25 July 2018 Second Issue – inclusive Health Impact Assessment

3 2nd August 2018 Third Issue – Minor Admentments

http://www.wyg.com/


Contents Page

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Site Location ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Process Description ............................................................................................................. 1 1.4 Scope of the Air Quality Assessment ..................................................................................... 2 2. Policy, Legislation and Relevant Guidance ..................................................................................... 4 2.1 Documents Consulted .......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Air Quality Legislation .......................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Planning Context ................................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Natural Resources Wales Regulation and Guidance ............................................................. 12 2.5 Assessment of Air Quality Effects ....................................................................................... 13 3. Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Air Quality Review and Assessment .................................................................................... 15 3.3 Air Quality Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 15 3.4 Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................................................... 20 4. Modelling Methodology ............................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 24 4.2 Model Inputs .................................................................................................................... 24 4.3 NOx to NO2 Conversion ...................................................................................................... 27 4.4 Modelling Scenarios ........................................................................................................... 27 4.5 Modelling Parameter and Averaging Period ......................................................................... 28 4.6 Modelling Uncertainty ........................................................................................................ 29 5. Assessment of Traffic Air Impacts to Determine Background Concentrations .................................. 31 5.2 Existing Traffic Flows ......................................................................................................... 31 5.3 Model Verification ............................................................................................................. 32 5.4 Summary of Model Inputs .................................................................................................. 33 5.5 Existing Baseline from Traffic Air Quality Assessment .......................................................... 33 6. Stack Height Analysis ................................................................................................................. 35 7. Modelling Results ....................................................................................................................... 36 7.2 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) ...................................................................................................... 36 7.3 Particulate Matter (PM10) ................................................................................................... 40 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) ......................................................................................................................... 42 7.4 Carbon Monoxide (CO) ...................................................................................................... 43 7.5 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)........................................................................................................ 45 7.6 Volatile Organic Compounds .............................................................................................. 46 7.7 Hydrogen Chloride ............................................................................................................ 48 7.8 Hydrogen Fluoride ............................................................................................................. 49 7.9 Dioxins and Furans ............................................................................................................ 50 7.10 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ....................................................................................... 51 7.11 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) ............................................................................. 53 7.12 Heavy Metals .................................................................................................................... 54 7.13 Sensitivity Analysis – Inter-Annual Variability ...................................................................... 76 7.14 Emergency Scenario Emission ............................................................................................ 76 7.15 Habitat Assessment ........................................................................................................... 81 7.16 Plume Visibility .................................................................................................................. 82 7.17 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................... 84 8. Vehicle Emissions ....................................................................................................................... 86 9. Odour Control ............................................................................................................................ 88 9.1 Potential Sources of Odour ................................................................................................ 88 9.2 Major Odour Control and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 88 10. Health Impact Assessment .......................................................................................................... 89

http://www.wyg.com/


10.1 Introduction of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) ................................................................ 89 10.2 Extant Policy, Legislation and Relevant Agencies for HIA ..................................................... 89 10.3 Health Impact Assessment (HIA) ....................................................................................... 92 10.4 Environmental Benefit for the Proposed Facility ................................................................... 99 11. Summary and Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 101

Figures

Figure 1 Site Locations and Receptor Positions

Figure 2 Modelled building and source positions

Figures 3-5 Mumbles Meteorological Station Wind Rose 2010 to 2012

Appendixes

Appendix A – Air Quality Assessment Criteria

Appendix B – Emission Calculations

Appendix C – Detailed Dispersion Modelling Contour Plot Figures

http://www.wyg.com/


Air Quality Assessment for Planning Application

Land at Swansea Depot, Clarion Close, Morriston Swansea 1 A103857

Biffa Waste Services Limited August 2018

1. Introduction

1.1.1 WYG Environment Planning Transport (WYG) has been commissioned by Biffa Waste Services

Limited (Biffa) to prepare an Air Quality Assessment to support a planning application in respect of

a proposed small-scale energy recovery facility on land at Swansea Depot, Clarion Close, Morriston,

Swansea.

1.1.2 This report presents the approach and findings of an Air Quality Assessment, completed in support

of the planning application for a facility capable of treating up to 21,000 tonnes per annum of

commercial and trade waste currently collected by Biffa.

1.1.3 The objective of the air quality assessment is to determine whether the impacts from facility

emissions meets the required air quality standards (AQSs) or air quality Environmental Assessment

Limits (EALs) for the protection of human health.

1.1.4 The report presents the methodology followed, and provides a review of baseline air quality at the

proposed site and surrounding area. The results of the assessment of the impact of the proposed

development on the baseline conditions are presented, in order to determine the magnitude and

significance of the anticipated impact. A detailed atmospheric dispersion modelling of stack

emissions has been undertaken to ascertain the exact stack height requirement.

1.1.5 The cumulative impacts that result from both (1) the proposed facility and (2) the nearby proposed

development of a short-term operating reserve (STOR) peaking power plant at the site in Unit 13 &

14 Ashmount Business Park, Upper Fforest Way(reference: 2016/1286), Swansea Enterprise Park;

have been assessed.

1.2 Site Location

1.2.1 Biffa currently occupy a site located within the Swansea Enterprise Park in Llansamlet which is

centred at approximate National Grid Reference (NGR) SS 68170 98056.

1.2.2 Access to the site is achieved from Clarion Close which is located to the south of the site. The

immediate surroundings of the site largely comprise an industrial setting with the nearest

residential dwelling located approximately 230m east of the site on Pant-Y-Blawd Road. A stream

(Nant-y-Fendrod) is located approximately 130m east of the site and runs in a north to south

direction.

1.3 Process Description

1.3.1 The proposed development comprises the operation of a small scale thermal treatment plant. The





site will bring in up to 21,000 tonnes of waste a year which undergo a variety of treatment

processes i.e. removal of metals, shredding and drying to reduce the moisture content. After drying

has taken place, the resultant material will undergo thermal treatment via the small-scale energy

recovery facility.

1.3.2 The small-scale energy recovery facility will have a maximum throughput of 1.84 tonnes per hour

dry weight (approximately 14,720 tonnes per annum) and will operate for up to 8,000 hours per

year. The plant would serve to thermally treat waste from a number of sources, including municipal

healthcare wastes. It is envisioned that the majority of waste would come from the surrounding

area that Biffa currently contract waste services for. By diverting this material to the Swansea site

for thermal treatment and electricity generation, approximately 21,000 tonnes of waste a year will

be diverted from Landfill which is the current disposal route.

1.3.3 The operation of the plant will allow the generation of heat and electricity, the electricity will be

exported to the grid while the heat will be utilised in the drying activities that will be undertaken on

site.

1.3.4 The facility will have four main waste streams as the primary fuel source, which will consist of

municipal wastes, healthcare wastes, combustible wastes and ‘other wastes’ which will consist of

wood, plastic etc.

1.3.5 In addition, the following Directly Associated Activities will be undertaken:-

• Receipt and storage of non-hazardous waste prior to treatment;

• Treatment of waste in shredders;

• Removal of metals;

• Odour control via the scrubber;

• Treatment in dryers; and

• Storage of ash prior to removal from site.

1.4 Scope of the Air Quality Assessment

1.4.1 A stack height analysis has been undertaken to determine the required stack/flue height in order to

meet the air quality standards. The impacts of the long-term emissions of NO2 at the residential

receptors and other relevant EA guidance have been used for determining the stack height.





1.4.2 The Air Quality Assessment has considered the potential impacts associated with the main 25 m

plant exhaust stack emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10), sulphur dioxide

(SO2), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in the form of Benzene (C6H6), hydrogen chloride (HCl),

hydrogen fluoride (HF), cadmium (Cd), Dioxins and furans, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and all Group 3 metals.

1.4.3 A plume visibility assessment has considered whether the plume will be visible at each downwind

distance from the stack by using the ADMS Plume Visibility Module in ADMS 5.





2. Policy, Legislation and Relevant Guidance

2.1 Documents Consulted

2.1.1 The following documents were consulted during the undertaking of this assessment:

Legislation and Best Practice Guidance

• The Air Quality Standards Regulations, 2016;

• The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Volume 1), 2007;

• The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Volume 2), 2011;

• The Environment Act, 1995;

• Draft Planning Practice Guidance, March 2018;

• Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM.TG16, DEFRA, February 2018;

• Guidance on Air Emissions Risk Assessment for your Environmental Permit, DEFRA and

Environment Agency, 2 August 2016.

• The Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) 2018

• How to comply with your environmental permit, Additional Guidance for The Incineration of

Waste (EPR5.01), Environment Agency, March 2009;

• Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, HA 207/07 - Air Quality,

Highways Agency, 2007;

• Development Control: Planning for Air Quality, National Society for Clean Air and Environmental

Protection, 2010;

• The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition – Best Practice Guide,

Greater London Authority and London Councils, 2006;

• Guidance on the Assessment of the Impacts of Construction on Air Quality and the

Determination of their Significance (Institute of Air Quality Management, January 2012); and

• Defra Local Air Quality Management Note on Projecting NO2 concentrations (April 2012).

Websites Consulted

• Google maps (maps.google.co.uk);

• Defra Background Mapping Data for Local Authorities 2011 – Maps and future predictions

(http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/laqm-background-maps?year=2011);

http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/laqm-background-maps?year=2011





• Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (www.magic.gov.uk);

• Environment Agency (www.environment-agency.gov.uk);

• Air Pollution Information System (www.apis.ac.uk);

• MAGIC (http://magic.defra.gov.uk/); and

• Swansea Council website (https://www.swansea.gov.uk).

Site Specific Reference Documents

• Swansea Local Development Plan 2010-2025: Deposit Plan, Adopted July 2016; and

• Swansea Council 2017 Air Quality Progress Report, November 2017.

2.2 Air Quality Legislation

European Legislation

2.2.1 European air quality legislation is consolidated under Directive 2008/50/EC, which came into force

on 11th June 2008. This Directive consolidates previous legislation which was designed to deal with

specific pollutants in a consistent manner and provides new air quality objectives for fine

particulates. The consolidated Directives include:

• Directive 99/30/EC – the First Air Quality "Daughter" Directive – sets ambient air limit values

for nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, lead and particulate matter;

• Directive 2000/69/EC – the Second Air Quality "Daughter" Directive – sets ambient air limit

values for benzene and carbon monoxide; and,

• Directive 2002/3/EC – the Third Air Quality "Daughter" Directive – seeks to establish long-

term objectives, target values, an alert threshold and an information threshold for

concentrations of ozone in ambient air.

The fourth Daughter Directive was not included within the consolidation and is described as:

• Directive 2004/107/EC – sets health-based limits on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,

cadmium, arsenic, nickel and mercury, for which there is a requirement to reduce exposure to

as low as reasonably achievable.

UK Legislation

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/

http://www.apis.ac.uk/

http://magic.defra.gov.uk/





2.2.2 The Air Quality Standards (Wales) Regulations (2010) seek to simplify air quality regulation and

provide a new transposition of the Air Quality Framework Directive, First, Second and Third

Daughter Directives and transpose the Fourth Daughter Directive within the UK. The Air Quality

Limit Values are transposed into the updated Regulations as Air Quality Standards for Wales, with

attainment dates in line with the European Directives and, under Section 85(5) of the Environment

Act (1995), for the Secretary of State to give directions to Local Authorities (LAs) for the

implementation of these Directives.

2.2.3 The UK Air Quality Strategy is the method for implementation of the air quality limit values in

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and provides a framework for improving air quality

and protecting human health from the effects of pollution.

2.2.4 For each nominated pollutant, the Air Quality Strategy sets clear, measurable, outdoor air quality

standards and target dates by which these must be achieved; the combined standard and target

date is referred to as the Air Quality Objective (AQO) for that pollutant. Adopted national standards

are based on the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS) and have

been translated into a set of Statutory Objectives within the Air Quality (Wales) Regulations (2010),

and subsequent amendments.

2.2.5 The AQOs for pollutants included within the Air Quality Strategy and assessed as part of the scope

of this report are presented in Table 2.1 along with European Commission (EC) Directive Limits and

World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines.

Environmental Assessment Levels

2.2.6 For many substances which are released to air, AQOs have not been defined. Where the necessary

criteria are absent then the Regulators have adopted interim values known as Environmental

Assessment Levels (EALs). An EAL is defined by the EA and presented as:

“the concentration of a substance which in a particular environmental medium the

Regulators regard as a comparator value to enable a comparison to be made between the

environmental effects of different substances in that medium and between environmental

effects in different media and to enable the summation of those effects.”

2.2.7 Ideally EALs to fulfil this objective would be defined for each pollutant:

• Based on the sensitivity of particular habitats or receptors (in particular three main

types of receptor should be considered, protection of human health, protection of

natural ecosystems and protection of specific sensitive receptors, e.g. materials,

commercial activities requiring a particular environmental quality;





• Be produced according to a standardised protocol to ensure that they are consistent,

reproducible and readily understood;

• Provide similar measure of protection for different receptors both within and between

media; and,

• Take account of habitat specific environmental factors such as pH, nutrient status,

bioaccumulation, transfer and transformation processes where necessary.

2.2.8 EALs are as prescribed in Guidance of “air emissions risk assessment for your environmental

permit” (Defra and Environment Agency, 2 August 2016).

Local Air Quality Management

2.2.9 Under Section 82 of the Environment Act (1995) (Part IV), LAs are required to periodically review

and assess air quality within their area of jurisdiction under the system of LAQM. This review and

assessment of air quality involves assessing present and likely future ambient pollutant

concentrations against AQOs. If it is predicted that levels at the façade of buildings where members

of the public are regularly present (normally residential properties) are likely to be exceeded, the

LA is required to declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). For each AQMA, the LA is

required to produce an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP), the objective of which is to reduce

pollutants levels in pursuit of the relevant AQOs.

Industrial Pollution Regulation

2.2.10 Atmospheric emissions from industrial processes are controlled in the UK through the

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (2010). The proposed new plant will be

classified as a Part B process under the regulations, and as such will be required to operate in

accordance with the conditions of an Environmental Permit. The Permit will include stated emission

limits for various pollutants produced by the process, as well as best practice guidelines for fugitive

dust and odour control. Compliance with these conditions must be demonstrated through

continuous and periodic monitoring requirements in order to limit potential air quality impacts in

the surrounding area to acceptable levels.

2.2.11 The proposed process is also covered by the Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and

of the Council 24 November 2010 on industrial emission.

2.3 Planning Context





National Policy

2.3.1 Planning Policy Wales (PPW) outlines the policies and guidance for development within Wales. In

the PPW, Chapter 13 sets out the development management and ways of improving air quality in

Wales, stating that:

‘Development plans are important vehicles for the promotion of environmental protection

and should enable consideration of the effects which proposed developments, and

transport demand associated with them, may have on air or water quality and the effects

which air or water quality may have on proposed developments. Local planning authorities

should take account of such quality objectives when preparing development plans and

should work closely with pollution control authorities in the preparation of these plans and

when determining planning applications.

Development plans should include strategic policies on the location of potentially

polluting developments and should set out criteria by which applications for such

developments will be determined, but they should not exclude provision for such

projects or prohibit all applications to set them up. Plans may set out policies and

proposals to ensure that incompatible uses of land are separated, in order to avoid

potential conflict between different types of development. They should make realistic

provision for the types of industry or facility that may be detrimental to amenity or

conservation interests, or a potential source of pollution, ensuring resilience to

climate change.

The potential for pollution affecting the use of land will be a material consideration

in deciding whether to grant planning permission. Material considerations in

determining applications for potentially polluting development are likely to include:

• location, taking into account such considerations as the reasons for selecting

the chosen site itself;

• impact on health and amenity;

• the risk and impact of potential pollution from the development, insofar as

this might have an effect on the use of other land and the surrounding

environment (the environmental regulatory regime may well have an

interest in these issues, particularly if the development would impact on an

Air Quality Management Area or a SAC);

• prevention of nuisance;

• impact on the road and other transport networks, and in particular on traffic

generation; and





• the need, where relevant, and feasibility of restoring the land (and water

resources) to standards sufficient for an appropriate after use. (Powers

under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 require an operator to

return a site to a satisfactory state on surrender of an Integrated Pollution

Prevention and Control Permit).’

Local Policy

2.3.2 Swansea Council adopted the Swansea Local Development Plan 2010-2025: Deposit Plan in July

2016. The plan aims to outline the City and County of Swansea’s strategic planning context through

strategic planning objectives and policies. The document has been reviewed and the following

policies have been identified as being relevant to the potential air quality impacts of the proposed

development:

“SI 1: Health and Well-being

Health inequalities will be reduced and healthy lifestyles encouraged by ensuring that

development proposals:

i. Reflect the spatial distribution of need for primary and secondary healthcare

provision, ensuring such proposals are accessible by non-car modes and have the

potential to be shared by different service providers;

ii. Create sustainable places that accord with the principles of Placemaking;

iii. Are supported by appropriate social infrastructure and community facilities, with

good interconnectivity between places and land uses;

iv. Maintain and/or enhance the extent, quality and connectivity of the Active Travel

and green infrastructure networks; and

v. Do not result in significant risk to life, human health or well-being, particularly in

respect of air, noise, light, water or land pollution.”

“Rp 1: Safeguarding Public Health and Natural Resources

Development that would result in significant risk to: life; human health and well-being;

property; controlled waters; or the natural and historic environment, will not be permitted,

particularly in respect of:

i. Air, noise or light pollution;

ii. Flood risk;

iii. The quality or quantity of water resources;

iv. Land contamination;





v. Land instability or subsidence;

vi. Sustainable development of mineral resources; and

vii. Sustainable waste management.

Development judged to have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of any European

Designated Sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, will not be

permitted.”

“RP 2: Air, Noise or Light Pollution

Where development could lead to exposure to a source of air, noise or light pollution it

must be demonstrated that appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented, and

incorporated into the design of the development to minimise the effects on future

occupants.

Noise sensitive developments will not be permitted where exposure to existing noise

generating uses could occur. Development which would cause or result in a significant

increase in levels of environmental noise in an identified Quiet Area, or would have

unacceptable impacts on the characteristics of tranquillity that led to the designation of a

Quiet Area, will not be permitted.”

“RP 7: Sustainable Waste Management

“In order to manage waste within the County in a sustainable manner, the development of

in-building sustainable waste management facilities involving the transfer, treatment, re-

use, recycling, in-vessel composting or energy recovery from waste, will be permitted

within Preferred Areas or areas having the benefit of lawful B2 use, provided that there are

no significant adverse effects in relation to:

i. Adjoining land uses;

ii. Amenity of neighbouring land uses or individual properties, including the effects of

traffic movement and the generation of noise, dust, fumes, vibration and odour;

iii. The highway network;

iv. Visual impact;

v. Natural heritage, cultural and historic environment;

vi. The type, quality and source of waste;

vii. Controlled waters, including water quantity and quality;

viii. Air Quality; and

ix. Public health and well-being.





Development of sustainable waste management facilities in appropriate rural locations,

including composting and anaerobic digestion, will be supported subject to the above

criteria.

Proposals should conform to the principles of the waste hierarchy and have regard to the

nearest appropriate installation concept and self-sufficiency principles where necessary.

Preferred areas for the development of in-building waste management facilities are

identified on the Proposals Map. The co-location of waste management facilities to enable

the development of heat networks will be supported, subject to the above criteria.

Proposals must be supported by an appropriate Waste Management Assessment.”

“RP 11: Sustainable Development of Mineral Resources

The efficient and appropriate use of minerals within the County will be encouraged,

including the re-use and recycling of suitable minerals as an alternative to primary won

aggregates. The extraction of mineral resources will be permitted where they satisfy the

following criteria:

i. It can be demonstrated that there is a requirement for the mineral to meet the

need of society either nationally, regionally or locally, and the need cannot be met

from secondary or recycled materials or existing reserves;

ii. ii. The proposed end use of the mineral resource is appropriate and represents an

efficient use of the resource;

iii. iii. The development would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of local

communities, in particular with regard to access, traffic generation, noise,

vibration, dust, air quality and odour;

iv. iv. The proposal would not result in any significant adverse impacts on public

health and well-being;

v. v. There would be no significant adverse impact, including visual impact, on the

landscape, natural heritage, cultural and historic environments;

vi. vi. There would be no significant adverse impact on the quality and quantity of

controlled waters;

vii. vii. It can be demonstrated that no significant danger, damage or disruption would

arise from subsidence or ground instability;

viii. viii. The minerals will be transported by rail or waterways wherever feasible; and,

ix. ix. Appropriate and progressive restoration and aftercare measures have been

submitted, including post closure management of the site and the provision of





other appropriate compensatory enhancements.

Within the Gower AONB mineral development will not be permitted. The Council will not

support the development of land based unconventional oil or gas operations, including the

exploration, appraisal and extraction of oil and gas by unconventional methods (including

the making of exploratory boreholes).

Wharves in Swansea Docks used for the unloading of marine dredged sand and gravel will

be safeguarded.”

2.4 Natural Resources Wales Regulation and Guidance

2.4.1 The operation of the proposed facility will be regulated by Natural Resources Wales under the

Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) and their corresponding Regulatory Guidance Notes.

2.4.2 Relevant guidance on the assessment of air quality impact from sites regulated under EPR is

provided by the EU Directive 2010. The guidance produced by EPUK and IAQM in January 2017 is

provided on the use benchmark levels in assessing of the significance of industrial emissions.

2.4.3 Guidance of “air emissions risk assessment for your environmental permit states that emissions

known as process contributions (PC) can be considered insignificant where:

• a Long-term PC ≤ 1% of the long-term environmental standard

• Short-term PC ≤ 10% of the short-term environmental standard

2.4.4 The guidance also states the following with regard to:

“EU Limit Values: further control measures should be considered if the limit is already exceeded or may be

exceeded by the additional contribution from your proposed activity. For IPPC activities, this should take into

account the practicality and reasonableness of going beyond indicative BAT, based on the contribution that

the installation makes toward the problem and the likelihood of remedial action elsewhere. In some cases, it

may be appropriate for you to use control measures that are stricter than suggested in guidance (or

considered to be Best Available Techniques under IPPC) to protect the environment. Where a new installation

would only make a minor contribution to a breach, it will normally be more desirable for Regulators (and Local

Authorities where relevant) to consider controls on other major sources of pollution rather than imposing

excessive costs or refusing a permit.

EU Target Values, National Air Quality Objectives and EALs: there is no explicit requirement to impose

stricter conditions than indicative BAT to comply with these national or non-statutory objectives. However,

they are a benchmark for harm and further controls should be considered, taking account of their costs and

benefits, where the releases constitute a major proportion to one of these standards or objectives. Any

significant contribution to a breach is likely to be unacceptable but will be assessed on a case by case basis





taking account of the costs and benefits of the situation.”

2.5 Assessment of Air Quality Effects

2.5.1 The potential environmental effects from the operation of the proposed facility will be assessed

according to the latest guidance produced by EPUK and IAQM in January 2017.

Determining Significance of the Air Quality Effects

2.5.2 The significance of the effects during the plant operations is based on the latest guidance produced

by EPUK and IAQM in January 2017. The guidance provides a basis for a consistent approach that

could be used by all parties associated with the planning process to professionally judge the overall

significance of the air quality effects based on severity of air quality impacts.

2.5.3 The following rationale is used in determining the severity of the air quality effects at individual

receptors:

1. The change in concentration of air pollutants, air quality effects, are quantified and evaluated

in the context of air quality objectives. The effects are provided as percentage of the Air

Quality Assessment Level (AQAL), which may be an air quality objective, EU limit or target

value, or an Environment Agency ‘Environmental Assessment Level (EAL)’;

2. The absolute concentrations are also considered in terms of the AQAL and are divided into

categories for long term concentrations. The categories are based on the sensitivity of the

individual receptor in terms of harm potential. The degree of potential to change increases as

absolute concentrations are close to or above the AQAL;

3. Severity of the effect is described as qualitative descriptors; negligible, slight, moderate or

substantial, by taking into account in combination the harm potential and air quality effect.

This means that a small increase at a receptor which is already close to or above the AQAL will

have higher severity compared to a relatively large change at a receptor which is significantly

below the AQAL, >75% AQAL.

4. The effects can be adverse when air quality concentration increase or beneficial when

concentration decrease as a result of development; and

5. The judgement of overall significance of the effects is then based on severity of effects on all

the individual receptors considered.

2.5.4 The impact descriptors for individual receptors are presented in Table 2.1





Table 2.1 Impact Descriptors for Individual Receptors

Long term average

concentration at

receptor

in assessment year

% Change in concentration relative to Air Quality Assessment Level (AQAL)

1 2-5 6-10 >10

≤75% of AQAL Negligible Negligible Slight Moderate

76-94% of AQAL Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate

95-102% of AQAL Slight Moderate Moderate Substantial

103-109 of AQAL Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial

≥110 of AQAL Moderate Substantial Substantial Substantial

2.5.5 Note: In accordance with explanation note 2 of Table 6.3 of the EPUK & IAQM guidance. The Table

is intended to be used by rounding the change in percentage pollutant concentration to whole

numbers, which then makes it clearer which cell the impact falls within. The user is encouraged to

treat the numbers with recognition of their likely accuracy and not assume a false level of

precision. Changes of 0%, i.e. less than 0.5%, will be described as ‘Negligible’.





3. Baseline Conditions

3.1.1 This section provides a review of the existing air quality in the vicinity of the development site in

order to provide a benchmark against which to assess potential air quality impacts of the proposed

facility.

3.2 Air Quality Review and Assessment

3.2.1 As required under section 82 of the Environment Act 1995, Swansea Council (SC), has conducted

an ongoing exercise to review and assess air quality within its area of jurisdiction.

3.2.2 The assessments have indicated a risk of the Annual Mean and 1-Hour Mean Air Quality Objectives

for NO2, as well as the 24-hour mean for PM10 being exceeded at a number of locations within the

Council’s administrative area. As such, SC have declared the following AQMA within the borough:

• Swansea AQMA - An area mainly on the west bank of the Tawe river covering the Hafod

district, plus Sketty and Fforestfach. The AQMA is locatd approximately 3 km southwest of the

site.

3.3 Air Quality Monitoring

Continuous Monitoring of Nitrogen Dioxide and Particulate Matter

3.3.1 The UK Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN) is a country-wide network of air quality

monitoring stations operated on behalf of DEFRA, with monitoring results available from the UK

National Air Quality Archive1. LAs, including SC, also undertake ambient pollutant monitoring as

part of their commitment to LAQM.

3.3.2 The closest automatic monitoring location to the proposed installation is ‘Morriston Groundhog’,

approximately 1km west-southwest of the site. Morriston Groundhog has been operational since

September 2000 and is locate adjacent to the southbound slip road to the busy A4067 dual

carriageway at Morriston Underpass. The latest monitoring data are presented in Table 3.1

1 www.airquality.co.uk.





Table 3.1 Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations Measured at Morriston Groundhog

Site ID and Name

X Y Site Type

Distance to Kerb of Nearest

Road (m)

2014 Annual Mean

Concentration (μg/m3)

2015 Mean Concentration

(μg/m3)

2016 Mean Concentration

(μg/m3)

CM2 - Morriston

Groundhog 267210 97674 Roadside 4 21.1 20.5 22.3

Nitrogen Dioxide Diffusion Tube Monitoring

3.3.3 SC operated a network of non-automatic air quality monitoring in 2016. The closest diffusion tube

(50) was located approximately 400m from the site. The surrounding diffusion tubes are presented

in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Concentrations of NO2 at Diffusion Tubes

Diffusion Tube No.

X Y Site Type Distance to Kerb of Nearest Road (m)

2016 Annual Mean Concentration

(μg/m3)

43 267093 198063 Roadside 2 34.75

50 268530 197419 Roadside 6 38.03

54 268693 197416 Roadside 9 31.26

56 269306 198661 Roadside 2 20.07

55 268789 197420 Roadside 4 31.21

104 268538 197389 Roadside 8 26.76

111 267705 199426 Roadside 17 (M4) 30.61

147 267165 198580 Roadside 2 26.26

151 267192 198518 Roadside 3 26.74

324 269815 197657 Roadside 10 29.24

3.3.4 As the results in Table 3.2 illustrate, there were no monitored exceedances of the relevant AQOs

for NO2 at nearby diffusion tubes in 2016.

Benzene Monitoring

3.3.5 Benzene is measured at two roadside sites in Swansea with Opsis DOAS instruments. Swansea

Council’s 2017 Air Quality Progress Report provides data for 2014 – 2016. The results are

illustrated in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Benzene Monitoring Results in Swansea

Site ID Location Within AQMA

Data Capture % Annual Mean Concentrations

(μg/m3)

2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016

5 Hafod DOAS Y 70 73 63 2.01 2.33 2.63

6 St. Thomas DOAS N 74 70 93 2.56 2.20 2.75





Sulphur Dioxide Monitoring

3.3.6 SO2 was historically monitored at 1 location in Swansea, the St. Thomas DOAS in close proximity of

the Swansea docks, approximately 5km south-south-east of the proposed development site. The

SO2 monitoring results recorded in 2016 at this location are included in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 SO2 Monitoring Results in Swansea in 2016

Location Within AQMA? Data Capture for

Monitoring Period (%)

Number of Exceedances in 2016

15-minute objective

1-hour Objective 24-hour objective

St. Thomas DOAS (CM5)

N 91.29 0 0 0

Heavy Metals

3.3.7 Monitoring of heavy metals is carried out by DEFRA at 24 urban and industrial sites throughout the

UK. The closest monitoring location to the proposed development is ‘Swansea Morriston

Information’, located approximately 1.1km from the application site. The monitoring data from this

site for 2016 is included in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Monitored Background Data for Metals at Swansea Morriston Station, 2016

Results Monitored Concentration (µg/m3)

As Cd Cr Co Cu Fe Hg*

Average 0.00074 0.00032 0.0028 0.00030 0.027 0.58 0.0035

Minimum 0.000074 0.000040 0.00060 0.000059 0.0072 0.28 0.001

Maximum 0.0028 0.0017 0.011 0.0013 0.10 2.3 0.007

Results Monitored Concentration (µg/m3)

Pb Mn Ni Se V Zn -

Average 0.011 0.0073 0.0059 0.0014 0.00094 0.020 -

Minimum 0.0014 0.0030 0.00074 0.00099 0.00032 0.0060 -

Maximum 0.055 0.034 0.022 0.0023 0.0028 0.10 -

*Monitoring is not undertaken at Swansea Morriston Station for Mercury (Hg). Therefore, the monitoring data from Cwmystwyth between 23/01/2013 and 02/01/2014 has been used. A total of 12 measurements were utilised.

3.3.8 Monitoring is not undertaken at the Swansea Morriston Station for antimony (Sb), therefore, the

monitoring data from Penallt site in 2014 have been used. Antimony and its compounds (Sb) was

15 µg/m3.

Acid Gases

3.3.9 Concentrations of HCl are measured throughout the UK as part of the Nitric Acid Monitoring

Network. The closest site to the development is Narberth, which is located approximately 56km

west-north-west of the proposed site. Although there is significant distance between the two





locations, this source of data has been reviewed in lieu of closer monitoring sites. Monitoring

results for 2015, the most recent year with data available, is detailed within Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Monitored Background Data for Hydrogen Chloride (HCl), 2015

Location Average Value

(µg/m3) Minimum Value

(µg/m3) Maximum Value

(µg/m3) Remarks

Narberth 0.212 0.070 0.370 A total of 12 measurements

available in 2015

3.3.10 HF is not routinely monitored within the UK. However, based on ambient measurements taken in

the vicinity of industrial sites, the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS) suggests that

background levels have been in the range 0.034 µg/m3 to 2.35 µg/m3 [2].

Dioxins and Furans Monitoring

3.3.11 Dioxins and Furans are a family of toxic substances with similar structures, the primary sources of

which include herbicide production, coal combustion, steel production and the pulp and paper

industry. Polychlorinated Dibenzo-Dioxins (PCDDs) and Polychlorinated Dibenzo Furans (PCDFs)

are considered to be toxic, with one dioxin, 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD identified as a definite carcinogen.

3.3.12 Monitoring of PCDD/Fs is undertaken at monitoring stations in the UK as part of the Toxic Organic

Micropollutants (TOMPS) network. The most recent available monitoring results across the network

recorded throughout is from 2010, are displayed in Table below.

3.3.13 The maximum measured concentration has been used in this assessment to produce the worst

case assessment.

Table 3.7 Monitored Dioxins and Furans

Location 2010 Annual Mean Concentration (fg/m3 I-TEQ)

Manchester 48.70

Hazelrigg 8.00

London 38.60

High Muffles 2.76

Auchencorth 5.01

Weymouth 2.49

3.3.14 It should be noted that raw monitoring results for each PCDD/F congener has been multiplied by

the associated WHO toxic equivalence factor to give a total PCDD/F concentration in compliance

2 EPAQS. Guidelines for Halogens and Hydrocarbon Halides in Ambient Air for Protecting Human Health against Acute Irritancy Effects





with the I-TEQ reporting convention. This allows a comparison between the modelled concentration

and the monitored concentration to be made.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Monitoring

3.3.15 Monitoring of PCBs is undertaken at monitoring stations in the UK as part of the Toxic Organic

Micropollutants (TOMPS) network. The most recent available quarterly monitoring results across

the network recorded throughout is from 2010, are displayed in below. Those data are the sum of

all monitored congeners for worst case assessment. Furthermore the maximum concentration

among the 6 stations has been used in this assessment to produce the worst case assessment.

Table 3.8 PCBs Monitoring Data 2010

Location 2009 Annual Mean Concentration of PCBs (pg/m3)

Manchester 209.36

Hazelrigg 138.2

London 270.6

High Muffles 187.7

Auchencorth 50.7

Weymouth 23.9

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) monitoring

3.3.16 Monitoring of PAH (benzo[a]pyrene) has been carried out by DEFRA at a number of monitoring

sites. The closest monitoring location to the site is Swansea Cwm Level Park monitoring site, which

is located approximately 3.3km south-east of the site. The relevant monitoring data from 2016 was

statistically analysed and are presented in Table 3.9. The maximum measured concentration has

been used in this assessment to produce the worst case assessment.

Table 3.9 Monitored Background Data for PAH, 2016

Location Average Value

(ng/m3) Minimum Value

(ng/m3) Maximum Value

(ng/m3) Remarks

Swansea Cwm Level Park

0.40 0.12 0.85 Monthly data in 2016

Background Pollutant Mapping

3.3.17 Background pollutant concentration data on a 1km x 1km spatial resolution are provided by the UK

National Air Quality Archive and are routinely used to support LAQM and Air Quality Assessments

where local pollutant monitoring has not been undertaken.

3.3.18 The background mapping data have been obtained from the UK National Air Quality Information

Archive database based on the National Grid Co-ordinates of 1 x 1 km grid squares nearest to the





development site. In November 2017, DEFRA issued revised the 2015 based background maps for

NOX, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 which incorporate updates to the input data used for modelling. The

updated background mapping data/concentrations relevant to the site and nearest receptors for

2016, are summarised in Table 3.10 below. Predicted SO2 and C6H6 concentrations are based on

2001 emissions data.

Table 3.10 Background Mapping Data - Annual Mean Background Concentrations (µg/m3)

National Grid Reference NO2 NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO C6H6

Easting Northing

266500 199500 13.49 18.23 13.14 8.68 4.18 110 0.43

267500 199500 15.03 20.53 13.96 9.21 3.12 113 0.44

268500 199500 13.73 18.64 12.86 8.39 2.69 113 0.44

269500 199500 9.38 12.37 11.32 7.44 2.49 109 0.43

266500 198500 10.59 14.08 13.05 8.90 3.06 114 0.46

267500 198500 13.54 18.44 12.83 8.60 3.54 116 0.46

268500 198500 11.41 15.29 12.12 8.02 2.83 114 0.45

269500 198500 14.14 19.22 13.12 8.47 2.63 110 0.43

266500 197500 11.39 15.25 13.64 9.38 3.00 117 0.48

267500 197500 13.14 17.83 12.80 8.53 4.72 118 0.47

268500 197500 12.85 17.46 12.18 8.03 4.32 114 0.45

269500 197500 13.29 18.10 12.36 8.12 3.44 109 0.42

266500 196500 14.58 20.09 13.97 9.58 2.84 112 0.46

267500 196500 13.86 19.08 12.33 8.17 3.73 112 0.45

268500 196500 12.10 16.36 12.32 8.20 3.55 108 0.42

269500 196500 9.73 12.89 11.74 7.82 3.18 105 0.51

Mean 12.64 17.12 12.73 8.47 3.33 112 0.45

Min 9.38 12.37 11.32 7.44 2.49 105 0.42

Max 15.03 20.53 13.97 9.58 4.72 118 0.51

3.3.19 Table 3.10 indicates that background levels are significantly below the relevant AQOs within the

vicinity of the proposed facility during 2016.

3.3.20 However, a detailed traffic air quality assessment has been undertaken to determine the NO2

concentrations at the identified receptor locations. The traffic assessment determined NO2

concentrations have been used as background concentrations, which represents the actual

backgrounds after taking into account of the road traffic contributions.

3.4 Sensitive Receptors

3.4.1 Receptors that are considered as part of the air quality assessment are primarily the nearest

existing receptors that may be susceptible to exposure to emissions from the proposed facility.





3.4.2 The discrete sensitive receptors identified for the purposes of this assessment are contained in

Table 3.11.

Table 3.11 Modelled Sensitive Receptors

Discrete Sensitive Receptor Receptor Type UK NGR (m)

X Y

D1 Fairfield Court Residential 268533.9 197534

D2 35 Church Road Residential 268595.8 197557.8

D3 59 Plough & Harrow, Church Road Residential 268582.8 197693.5

D4 2 Church Road Residential 268580.6 197859.6

D5 14 Clos y Fendrod Residential 268454.3 197890.9

D6 25 Panlyblawd Road Residential 268490.9 197950

D7 Panlyblawd Road Residential 268464.5 197979.9

D8 30 Nant y Creyr Residential 268622.7 197948.8

D9 79 Walters Road Residential 268695.1 197924.2



D12 4 Cwrt y Fedwen Residential 268664.9 198245.5

D13 11 Cwrt y Fedwen Residential 268617.8 198268

D14 5 Cwrt y Fedwen Residential 268593.9 198284.2

D15 Riverside Holiday Park Residential 268051.8 198994.6

D16 12 Axis Court Residential 267925.2 198415.3

D17 1 Glyn Himant Residential 267485.1 199048.4

D18 161 Clydach Road Residential 267363.7 198730.9

D19 4 Cwm Arian Residential 267445.2 198587.1

D20 28 Cwrt Cllmeri Residential 267434 198475.2

D21 45 Cwrt Llwyn Fedwen Residential 267422 198402.5

D22 57 Cwrt Llwyn Fedwen Residential 267406.1 198344.9

D23 31 Bush Road Residential 267342.9 198135.5

D24 80 Clase Road Residential 267175.9 197990.5

D25 Morriston Primary School School 267187 197747.8

D26 14 Tawe Street Residential 267316.7 197613.8

D27 45 Wychtree Street Residential 267156.4 197473.7

D28 Coronet Way Residential 267311.7 197065.2

D29 Mowbray House Residential 267886.2 196742.5

D30 420 Jersey Road Residential 268242.8 196607

D31 Unit 3 Chamwood Court Residential 268524 196935.8

D32 8 Midland Road Residential 268623.3 197412.3

D33 88 Samlet Road Residential 268350.1 197526.4

D34 Samlet Road Residential 268230.7 197567.8

D35 Six Pit, Swansea Vale and White Rock,

SSSI SSSI 268198 196897

D36 Crymlyn Bog - Ramsar/SAC/SSSI Ramsar/SAC/SSSI 269498 195520

D37 Heol Y Celyn Receptors for Cumulative Impact Assessment only (from (1) the proposed facility and

(2) the proposed development of a short-term operating

reserve (STOR) peaking power

268589 198279

D38 Maes Y Deri 268746 198399

D39 10 Cwrt Llwyn Fwdwen 267334 198475

D40 51 Cwrt Llwyn Fwdwen 267427 198403





Discrete Sensitive Receptor Receptor Type UK NGR (m)

X Y

D41 41 Bush Road plan) 267351 198188

D42 Travellers 267668 198245

3.4.3 Reference should be made to Figure 1 for a graphical representation of the identified receptor

locations.

Cartesian Receptor

3.4.4 A Cartesian receptor grid was used in the model in order to produce the concentration contour

lines. The Cartesian receptor grid consists of receptors indentified by their x (East-west) and y

(north-south) coordinates. The grid was constructed with grid spacing (x, y) of 50m x 50m over an

area covering 3500m by 3500m with south-west corner UK NGR (m) of 266400,196200.

Ecological Receptors

3.4.5 Air quality impacts associated with the proposed development have the potential to impact on

receptors of ecological sensitivity within the vicinity of the site. The Conservation of Habitats and

Species Regulations (2017) require competent authorities to review planning applications and

consents that have the potential to impact on European designated sites (e.g. Special Protection

Areas).

3.4.6 The ecological receptors (the conservation sites) need to be considered where they fall within set

distances of the site as below:

• Special Protection Area (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Ramsar site within 10

km of the installation;

• Sites of special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National Nature Reserves (NNRs), Local Nature

Reserves (LNRs), local wildlife sites and ancient woodland within 2 km of the location of the

installation;

• SINC – Swansea Vale / Fenrod NR (adjacent -eastern boundary) designated for its habitat

interest; and

• SINC – Fendrod Lake and Nant y Fendrod (5m south of the site) designated for its habitat

interest.

3.4.7 A study was undertaken to identify any statutory designated sites of ecological or nature

conservation importance within the extents of the dispersion modelling assessment. This was





completed using the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) web-based

interactive mapping service.

3.4.8 There are one SSSI of ‘Six Pit, Swansea Vale and White Rock’ located approximately 1 km south of

the installation and one Ramsar/SAC/SSSI of Crymlyn Bog located approximately 2.5 km southeast

of the installation. Those identified ecological sites have been assessed as discrete receptors within

the assessment.





4. Modelling Methodology

4.1 Methodology

4.1.1 The following sections outline the methodology and inputs used for the dispersion modelling

assessment. Dispersion modelling was undertaken using the Breeze version of AERMOD, the

approved model as used by the USEPA. The model is well validated and is accepted by the

Environment Agency and DEFRA as a tool for the visualisation of plume dispersion and the

assessment of impact.

4.1.2 The model utilises hourly meteorological data to define conditions for plume rise, transport and

diffusion. It estimates the concentration for each source and receptor combination for each hour of

input meteorology, and calculates user-selected long-term and short-term averages.

4.1.3 Emissions associated with the thermal treatment processes on site have the potential to impact on

air quality in the vicinity of the site. Pollutant concentrations have been predicted. Full colour

isopleth plots of predicted ground level concentrations are presented in Appendix C. The predicted

concentrations have been compared to the relevant AQO. A summary of the modelling inputs and

results is contained in the following sections.

4.2 Model Inputs

Source and Emissions Data

4.2.1 Inputs utilised for each scenario run by the dispersion modelling are presented in Table 4.1 below

and the detailed emission calculations are presented in Appendix B. The stack has been modelled

as a single point source and its location is illustrated by Figure 2.

4.2.2 It should be noted that the short-term (15-minute, hourly, 8-hourly, and 24-hourly) impacts

assessment have been based on the 30-minute emission limit values (ELVs) detailed in Part 3 of

Annex VI of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). This approach is to produce the worst case

short-term assessment.





Table 4.1 Operational Source and Emissions Data

Parameter Unit Value per Stack

Stack Height m 25

Stack Diameter(b) m 0.85

Stack Location UK NGR (m) 268263, 197914

Flue Gas Exit Velocity(b) m/s 16.07

Stack Volumetric Flow Rate(b) m3/s 9.12

Exhaust Gas Temperature oC 190

Flue gas Oxygen Content %v/v (dry) 6.40

Flue gas Moisture Content %v/v 11.80

Pollutant Emission Limit Values(ELVs) and Daily Average Values (mg/m3)(a)

Emission Rate per Stack (g/s) For Long-Term Impact Assessment

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) 200 1.387

Particulate Matter (PM10) 10 0.069

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 10 0.069

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 50 0.347

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 50 0.347

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 10 0.069

Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 1 0.00693

VOCs 10 0.069

Cadmium and its compounds (Cd) 0.05 0.00035

Mercury and its compounds (Hg) 0.05 0.00035

Antimony and its compounds (Sb)

Total 0.5

Total 0.00347

Arsenic and its compounds (As)

Lead and its compounds (Pb)

Chromium and its compounds (Cr)

Cobalt and its compounds (Co)

Copper and its compounds (Cu)

Manganese and its compounds (Mn)

Nickel and its compounds (Ni)

Vanadium and its compounds (V)

Dioxins and furans 1 x 10-7 6.933 x 10-10

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 8.74 x 10-5 1.195 x 10-7

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)(b) 9.20 x 10-9 6.379 x 10-11

Pollutant Emission Limit Value and Half-

Hourly average Values (mg/m3) Emission Rate per Stack (g/s)

For Short-Term Impact Assessment

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) 400 1.387 (Daily ELVs) x 2 = 2.773

Particulate Matter (PM10) 30 0.069 (Daily ELVs) x 3 = 0.208

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 30 0.069 (Daily ELVs) x 3 = 0.208

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 200 0.347 (Daily ELVs) x 4 = 1.387

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 0.069 (Daily ELVs) x 2 = 0.693

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 60 0.069 (Daily ELVs) x 6 = 0.416

Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 4 0.007 (Daily ELVs) x 4 = 0.028

VOCs 20 0.069 (Daily ELVs) x 2 = 0.139

Note:

(a) All concentrations are expressed at reference conditions taken from IED (dry gas, 11% oxygen, 273oK, 101.3kPa), all emission rates corrected in air dispersion modelling to actual flue gas conditions; and

(b) Client provided data.





Meteorological Data

4.2.3 Meteorological data used in this assessment was taken from the Mumbles Head meteorological

station, which is considered to be representative of conditions within the vicinity of the application

site. Reference should be made to Figures 3 - 5 for wind roses for this site. Three years’

meteorological data from the Mumbles meteorological station have now been used in the air quality

assessment, from 2010 to 2012 inclusive, to assess the inter-annual variances.

Building Downwash

4.2.4 The integrated Building Profile Input Programme (BPIP) module within AERMOD was used to

assess the potential impact of building downwash upon predicted dispersion characteristics.

Building downwash occurs when turbulence, induced by nearby structures, causes pollutants

emitted from an elevated source to be displaced and dispersed rapidly towards the ground,

resulting in elevated ground level concentrations.

4.2.5 Modelling that includes data inputs for building downwash provides a more accurate representation

of pollutant dispersion than modelling that omits this consideration. Tests have indicated that when

building downwash is not accounted for, erroneous predicted concentrations may be produced.

Building downwash should always be considered for buildings that have a maximum height

equivalent to at least 40% of the emission height, and which within a distance defined as five times

the lesser of the height or maximum projected width of the building.

4.2.6 All on-site structures were inputted into the BPIP Building Downwash pre-processor, with building

dimensions based on floor plans and elevations of the proposed facility.

Modelled Domain and Grid Spacing for Gridded Receptors.

4.2.7 The modelled domain, centred on the site, extends more than 10km east-west and north–south.

Two grids have been set up within the modelled domain at increasing node spacing as the distance

from the site becomes greater. In the area directly surrounding the site, the grid has a spacing of

50m. This increases to 100m with increasing distance from the site.

Treatment of Terrain

4.2.8 The presence of steep terrain can influence the dispersion of emissions and the resulting pollutant

concentrations. Digital terrain data as NTF format for the site have been converted into AERMOD

readable DEM terrain files for the modelling.





4.3 NOx to NO2 Conversion

4.3.1 Emissions of NOx from combustion processes, such as incinerators, are predominantly in the form

of NO. Excess oxygen in the combustion gases and further atmospheric reactions cause the

oxidation of NO to NO2. Given the short travel time to the areas of maximum concentration and the

rate of reaction to convert NO to NO2, it is unlikely that more than 30% of the NOx is present at

ground level as NO2. This conversion factor is based on comparison of ambient NO and NO2

continuous measurements evaluated over recent years.

4.3.2 Ground level NOx concentrations have been predicted through dispersion modelling. NO2

concentrations reported in the results section assume 70% conversion from NOx to NO2 for annual

means and a 35% conversion for short-term (hourly) concentrations, based upon the EA

recommended methodology.

4.4 Modelling Scenarios

4.4.1 The scenarios considered within the Dispersion Modelling Assessment are detailed as below.

Normal Operation Scenario

4.4.2 Scenario 1: Normal operation with the emission rates presented in Section 4.2. The long-term

emission assessment is based on daily average emission limit values and the short-term emission

assessment is based on half-hourly average emission limit values.

Emergency/Abnormal Scenario

4.4.3 Scenario 2 - Emergency/abnormal scenarios: the facility has a number of proposed abatement

systems should one or more abatement fail. During a system failure, the proposed facility would

have higher than the permitted pollutant emission levels. Industrial Emission directive (IED) sets

out the requirement during those abnormal operation situations. This IED’s requirements include

(1) the energy recovery plant shall under no circumstances continue to incinerate waste for period

of more than 4 hours uninterrupted where emission limit values are exceeded; and (2) the

cumulative duration of operation in such conditions over 1 year shall not exceed 60 hours. Only

short-term impacts from the abnormal operations have been assessed.

Emergency/abnormal scenarios consider the situation when any of the following abatement

systems fails:

• The ceramic filters with the CEMS system failure;;

• Sodium bicarbonate powder, system failure; and

• Activated Carbon system failure.





4.4.4 The details of abnormal scenarios and the associated pollutant emission rates are presented in

Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Emergency/Abnormal Scenarios

Scenario Pollutant Assessed

Emission Limit Value and Half-Hourly average

Values (mg/m3) with

Abatement System Working

Reduction Efficiency of the

Abatement System

(%)

Abnormal Emission Limit Value and

Half-Hourly average Values (mg/m3) when

System Fails

Abnormal Emission Rate per Stack

(g/s)

The ceramic filters with the CEMS system failure

PM10 30 80% to 90% 30 (1 + 90%) = 57 0.208 x (1 + 90%) =

0.187

Sodium bicarbonate powder system Failure

SO2 200 50% to 70% 200 (1 + 70%) = 340 1.387 (1 + 70%) =

2.357

Activated Carbon Failure

Dioxins and furans

1 x 10-7 57% to 84% 1 x 10-7 (1 + 84%) =

1.84 x 10-7 6.38 x 10-11 (1 +

84%) = 1.17 x 10-10

It is assumed that the half-hourly (30-minute) average emission limit values for pollutants, e.g.,

SO2, will be achieved during the normal operation when proposed abatement system works

properly. Each abatement system has a range of reduction efficiency, e.g., 50 % to 70% for a

sodium bicarbonate powder system. Under the abnormal condition, however, it is assumed that the

system reduction efficiency will become zero, resulting in an increased emission rates for those

abnormal scenarios, e.g., 50 % to 70% above of 200 mg/m3 of the half-hourly SO2 emission limit

values for the sodium bicarbonate powder failure.

4.5 Modelling Parameter and Averaging Period

4.5.1 The dispersion modelling has assessed the cumulative impact of emissions from the neighbouring

facility taking into consideration of the operation of the proposed installation.

4.5.2 The same averaging period has been used for comparison of emissions against environmental

standards. For example, most long-term standards are expressed as an annual mean and many

short-term standards as an hourly mean. Note that there are certain exceptions to this which are

important when considering compliance with statutory EQS. The averaging period associated with

the relevant pollutant modelled are detailed in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Modelling Parameter and Averaging Period

Parameter Measured as

Short-Term Long-Term

NO2 99.79th %ile 1-hour mean Annual mean

NOX - Annual mean(1)

PM as PM10 90.41th %ile 24-hour Mean Annual mean





Parameter Measured as

Short-Term Long-Term

PM as PM2.5 - Annual mean

SO2 99.18th %ile 24-hour 99.73rd %ile 1-hour

15min (99.90%ile 1-hour) -

CO Maximum 8-hour rolling mean

1-hour Mean -

VOC (as C6H6) - Annual mean

Heavy metals 1-hour Mean

(Hg, Sb, Cr, Cu, Mn, and V) Annual mean

(Cd, Hg, Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, and V)

PAH - Annual mean

Dioxins & Furans - Annual mean

4.6 Modelling Uncertainty

4.6.1 Uncertainty in dispersion modelling predictions can be associated with a variety of factors,

including:

• Model uncertainty - due to model limitations;

• Data uncertainty - due to errors in input data, including emission estimates, operational

procedures, land use characteristics and meteorology; and,

• Variability - randomness of measurements used.

4.6.2 Potential uncertainties in model results have been minimised as far as practicable and worst-case

inputs used in order to provide a robust assessment. This included the following:

• Choice of model - AERMOD is a commonly used atmospheric dispersion model and results

have been verified through a number of studies to ensure predictions are as accurate as

possible;

• Meteorological data - Modelling was previously undertaken using three years of

meteorological data from the closest observation site to the facility and the worst case year

selected for the assessment;

• Plant operating conditions - Operational parameters were supplied by the process engineer

for a similar facility, based on the anticipated fuel and plant size. The permitted limit values

for both daily ELVs and 30-minute ELVs have been used for the emissions from the site and

therefore the figures are considered to be a worst case representation of likely operating

conditions;

• Background concentrations and existing baseline conditions - Obtained from the DEFRA

mapping study and national monitoring networks. The maximum available background





concentrations have been used in this assessment to produce the worst case assessment;

• Variability - All model inputs are as accurate as possible and worst-case conditions have

been considered where necessary in order to ensure a robust assessment of potential

pollutant concentrations.





5. Assessment of Traffic Air Impacts to Determine Background

Concentrations

5.1.1 ADMS Roads has been used to undertake verified baseline modelling to determine baseline

pollutant levels (background concentrations) at roadside receptor locations to take into account

emissions from traffic.

5.1.2 The existing traffic phase assessment therefore consists of the quantified predictions of the change

in NO2 and PM10 for the existing traffic movement. Predictions of air quality at the site have been

undertaken using ADMS Roads.

5.1.3 The traffic data are sourced from the Department for Transport (DfT) website for the year of 2012

(existing and baseline conditions).

5.2 Existing Traffic Flows

5.2.1 Baseline 2012 data was downloaded from the Department for Transport (DfT) website in the form

of Annual Average Daily Traffic figures (AADT).

5.2.2 Emission factors for the 2012 baseline have been calculated using the Emission Factor Toolkit.

5.2.3 For the purposes of the air quality assessment, only roads predicted to experience significant

changes in flows have been included in the air quality model. These represent the primary access

routes to the proposed development site. Where unavailable, traffic speeds have been estimated

based on site observations and national speed limits.

5.2.4 A 50m 20km/hr slow down phase is included on each link at every junction and roundabout within

the assessment. All the roads within the dispersion model are illustrated in Table 5.1. Detailed

traffic figures are provided in the Table 5.1.





Table 5.1 Traffic Data

Link Speed (km/h)

2012

AADT HGV %

A48 (West) 48 8951 1.7

A48 (Central) 48 10563 3.6

A48 (East) 48 20577 2.5

M4 (East) 112 61567 6.6

M4 (West) 112 63911 6.2

A4217 48 20802 1.3

A4067 80 39468 2.7

B4809 (Sway Road) 48 9291 0.7

5.3 Model Verification

5.3.1 Model verification involves the comparison of modelled data to monitored data in order to gain the

best possible representation of current pollutant concentrations for the assessment years. The

verification process is in general accordance with that contained in Section 7 of the TG16 guidance

note and uses the most recently available diffusion tube monitoring data to best represent this.

5.3.2 The verification process consists of using the monitoring data and the published background air

quality data in the UK National Air Quality Information Archive to calculate the road traffic

contribution of NOx at the monitoring locations. Outputs from the ADMS Roads model are provided

as predicted road traffic contribution NOX emissions. These are converted into predicted roadside

contribution NO2 exposure at the relevant receptor locations based on the updated approach to

deriving NO2 from NOx for road traffic sources published in Local Air Quality Management TG16.

The calculation was derived using the NOx to NO2 worksheet in the online LAQM tools website

hosted by Defra. Table 5.2 summarises the final model/monitored data correlation following the

application of the model correction factor.

Table 5.2 Comparison of Roadside Modelling & Monitoring Results for NO2

Tube location NO2 µg/m3

Monitored NO2 Modelled NO2 Difference (%)

43 38.01 36.78 -3.24

50 33.84 31.31 -7.47

54 34.66 32.49 -6.26

55 33.36 32.07 -3.87

56 22.30 22.70 1.81

104 28.24 29.22 3.47

111 30.38 33.34 9.74

147 28.97 30.16 4.09

151 27.14 29.53 8.80





5.3.3 The final model produced data at the monitoring locations to within 10% of the monitoring results,

as the requirement by TG16 guidance.

5.3.4 The final verification model correlation coefficient (representing the model uncertainty) is 1.003.

This figure demonstrates that the model predictions were in line with the road traffic emissions at

the monitoring locations.

5.3.5 The ‘ideal value’ correlation coefficient recommended in Box 7.17 of TG16 is 1.00. The model is

therefore considered to be verified and suitably representative of local emissions and exposures.

5.4 Summary of Model Inputs

Table 5.3 Summary of ADMS Roads Model Inputs

Parameter Description Input Value

Chemistry A facility within ADMS-Roads to calculate the chemical reactions in the atmosphere between Nitric Oxide (NO), NO2, Ozone (O3) and Volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

No atmospheric chemistry parameters included

Meteorology Representative meteorological data from a local source Robin Hood Station, hourly sequential data

Surface Roughness

A setting to define the surface roughness of the model area based upon its location.

1m representing a typical surface roughness for Cities.

Latitude Allows the location of the model area to be set United Kingdom = 51.66

Monin-Obukhov Length

This allows a measure of the stability of the atmosphere within the model area to be specified depending upon its character.

Cities and Large Towns = 30m.

Elevation of Road

Allows the height of the road link above ground level to be specified.

All road links were set at ground level = 0m.

Road Width Allows the width of the road link to be specified. Road width used depended on data obtained from OS map data for the specific road link

Topography This enables complex terrain data to be included within the model in order to account for turbulence and plume spread effects of topography

No topographical information used

Time Varied Emissions

This enables daily, weekly or monthly variations in emissions to be applied to road sources

No time varied emissions used

Road Type Allows the effect of different types of roads to be assessed. Urban (Not London) settings were used for the relevant links

Road Speeds Enables individual road speeds to be added for each road link Based on national speed limits

Canyon Height Allows the model to take account turbulent flow patterns occurring inside a street with relatively tall buildings on both sides, known as a “street canyon”.

No canyons used within the model

Road Source Emissions

Road source emission rates are calculated from traffic flow data using the in-built EfT database of traffic emission factors.

The EFT Version 6.0.2 (November 2014) dataset was used.

Year Predicted EfT emissions rates depend on the year of emission.

2012 data for verification and baseline operational phase assessment

5.5 Existing Baseline from Traffic Air Quality Assessment

Table 5.4 presents a summary of the baseline 2012 NO2 and PM10 concentrations at relevant receptor

locations from traffic air quality assessment.

3 This was achieved by applying a model correction factor of 3.52 to roadside predicted NOX concentrations before converting to NO2





Table 5.4 Modelled Sensitive Receptors

Receptor NO2 (µg/m3) PM10 (µg/m3)

Baseline 2012

D1 Fairfield Court 21.80 14.16

D2 35 Church Road 20.64 13.95

D3 59 Plough & Harrow, Church Road 19.46 13.76

D4 2 Church Road 19.16 13.71

D5 14 Clos y Fendrod 19.17 13.71

D6 25 Panlyblawd Road 19.12 13.70

D7 Panlyblawd Road 19.11 13.70

D8 30 Nant y Creyr 19.10 13.70

D9 79 Walters Road 19.11 13.70

D10 91 Walters Road 19.12 13.70

D11 158 Walters Road 18.27 13.75

D12 4 Cwrt y Fedwen 18.25 13.75

D13 11 Cwrt y Fedwen 18.25 13.75

D14 5 Cwrt y Fedwen 18.25 13.75

D15 Riverside Holiday Park 20.19 14.04

D16 12 Axis Court 20.18 14.06

D17 1 Glyn Himant 24.65 15.54

D18 161 Clydach Road 23.25 14.66

D19 4 Cwm Arian 25.19 15.06

D20 28 Cwrt Cllmeri 24.42 14.90

D21 45 Cwrt Llwyn Fedwen 24.27 14.87

D22 57 Cwrt Llwyn Fedwen 23.94 14.81

D23 31 Bush Road 24.78 14.97

D24 80 Clase Road 25.27 15.09

D25 Morriston Primary School 21.05 14.32

D26 14 Tawe Street 20.73 14.26

D27 45 Wychtree Street 20.37 14.21

D28 Coronet Way 20.17 14.18

D29 Mowbray House 21.30 13.92

D30 420 Jersey Road 20.80 13.77

D31 Unit 3 Chamwood Court 21.17 13.82

D32 8 Midland Road 26.04 14.74

D33 88 Samlet Road 26.54 15.04

D34 Samlet Road 25.49 14.84

D35 Six Pit, Swansea Vale and White Rock,

SSSI 21.00 13.80

D36 Crymlyn Bog - Ramsar/SAC/SSSI 12.62 12.25

D37 Fairfield Court 18.25 13.75

D38 35 Church Road 18.47 13.78

D39 59 Plough & Harrow, Church Road 21.19 14.27

D40 2 Church Road 24.85 14.99

D41 14 Clos y Fendrod 23.45 14.70

D42 25 Panlyblawd Road 20.75 14.18





6. Stack Height Analysis

6.1.1 A stack height analysis has been undertaken to determine the required stack/flue height in order to

meet the air quality standards. The impacts of the long-term emissions of NO2 at the residential

receptors and other relevant Natural Resources Wales guidance have been used for determining

the stack height.

6.1.2 The stack height assessment has considered a number of potential stack heights of 17m, 20m,

25m, 30m, and 35m. The long-term emissions of NO2 from the stack have been assessed using 3

years of meteorological data. The worst impact meteorological year with a stack height of 25 m has

been identified as 2012.

6.1.3 The maximum PCs and PECs and their significance of changes associated with the operations of the

facility operations with respect to annual mean NO2 exposure have been assessed with reference to

the criteria in Section 3. The maximum PC location for the existing receptors has been identified at

the residential receptor D7 (Panlyblawd Road). The outcomes of the assessment are summarised in

Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 The Long-Term (Annual Mean) Concentrations of NO2 and Significance of Effects at

Panlyblawd Road Residential Receptor at Different Stack Heights

Stack

Height

(m)

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m3) – 2012 Met Data, and NO2 Significance Impacts at Receptors

Process Contrib’tn (PC)

PC as %age of AQO

PEC(a) (PC +Background)

PEC as %age of AQO

PEC as %age of AQO

Significance

17 5.79 14.47 24.90 62.25 <75% of AQAL Moderate

20 4.74 11.85 23.85 59.63 <75% of AQAL Moderate

25 3.01 7.52 22.12 55.30 <75% of AQAL Slight

30 1.75 4.37 20.86 52.15 <75% of AQAL Negligible

35 1.06 2.65 20.17 50.43 <75% of AQAL Negligible

AQOs 40

Note:

(a) Inclusive of modelled verified road traffic concentration of 19.11µg/m3.

6.1.4 From Tables 6.1 the percentage changes in process concentrations relative to the AQAL as a result

of the facility operations at the maximum residential receptor location, with respect to NO2

exposure, are determined to be 2.65% to 14.47% at different stack heights. The significance of the

impacts are determined to be (1) ‘Moderate’ for stack heights of 17 m and 20m; (2) ‘slight’ for a

stack height of 25m; and (3) ‘negligible’ for stack height of 30m or higher.

6.1.5 Therefore, the stack height analysis concludes that the required stack height will be 25 m above

the ground level.





7. Modelling Results

7.1.1 The detailed modelling assessment of process emissions was undertaken using the input

parameters detailed in Section 4.

7.1.2 All predicted concentrations using the stack height of 25 m have been compared to the relevant

environmental assessment criteria, as detailed in Section 2.

7.2 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Long-Tem Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

7.2.1 Predicted ground level of NO2 concentrations for both Process Contribution (PC) and Predicted

Environmental concentration (PEC) were assessed against the relevant AQOs. The results of the

model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of background, using 2010 to 2012 met data

are summarised in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Summary of Predicted Long-Term NO2 Concentrations

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean (µg/m3)

2010 Met Data 2011 Met Data 2012 Met Data

Process Contrib’tn

(PC)

PC as %age

of AQO

PEC(a) (PC

+Background)

Process Contrib’t

n (PC)

PC as %age of

AQO

PEC(a) (PC

+Backgroun

d

Process Contrib’t

n (PC)

PC as %age of

AQO

PEC(a) (PC

+Background

D1 1.82 4.56 22.43 0.35 0.88 22.15 0.50 1.24 22.30

D2 1.02 2.55 21.19 0.35 0.87 20.99 0.48 1.19 21.12

D3 0.77 1.93 20.11 0.51 1.27 19.97 0.62 1.56 20.08

D4 0.73 1.83 19.95 1.01 2.53 20.17 1.10 2.75 20.26

D5 0.49 1.23 20.27 1.53 3.83 20.70 1.62 4.05 20.79

D6 0.51 1.28 20.66 2.38 5.95 21.50 2.54 6.36 21.66

D7 0.50 1.25 20.93 2.85 7.14 21.96 3.01 7.52 22.12

D8 0.48 1.21 20.12 1.48 3.69 20.58 1.59 3.97 20.69

D9 0.08 0.20 19.88 1.08 2.70 20.19 1.17 2.92 20.28

D10 0.20 0.51 19.85 1.03 2.58 20.15 1.11 2.77 20.23

D11 0.05 0.11 18.76 0.68 1.70 18.95 0.73 1.82 19.00

D12 0.06 0.14 18.76 0.70 1.74 18.95 0.63 1.57 18.88

D13 0.07 0.19 18.75 0.68 1.69 18.93 0.59 1.47 18.84

D14 0.09 0.22 18.73 0.65 1.62 18.90 0.55 1.38 18.80

D15 0.09 0.23 20.27 0.08 0.19 20.27 0.07 0.17 20.26

D16 0.10 0.25 20.38 0.20 0.51 20.38 0.16 0.41 20.34

D17 0.11 0.28 24.70 0.05 0.11 24.70 0.04 0.09 24.69

D18 0.10 0.26 23.31 0.06 0.15 23.31 0.05 0.12 23.30

D19 0.13 0.32 25.26 0.08 0.20 25.27 0.06 0.16 25.25

D20 0.15 0.37 24.51 0.09 0.23 24.51 0.08 0.19 24.50

D21 0.11 0.27 24.36 0.10 0.25 24.37 0.09 0.21 24.36

D22 0.14 0.34 24.04 0.11 0.27 24.05 0.09 0.23 24.03





Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean (µg/m3)



(PC)

PC as %age

of AQO

PEC(a) (PC

+Background)

Process Contrib’t

n (PC)

PC as %age of

AQO

PEC(a) (PC

+Backgroun

d

Process Contrib’t

n (PC)

PC as %age of

AQO

PEC(a) (PC

+Background

D23 0.18 0.44 24.89 0.12 0.31 24.90 0.12 0.31 24.90

D24 0.13 0.32 25.37 0.12 0.29 25.39 0.12 0.31 25.39

D25 0.19 0.47 21.18 0.14 0.35 21.19 0.15 0.37 21.20

D26 0.40 1.00 20.88 0.14 0.36 20.87 0.16 0.39 20.89

D27 0.77 1.92 20.48 0.09 0.23 20.46 0.11 0.27 20.48

D28 0.79 1.97 20.31 0.08 0.21 20.25 0.12 0.31 20.29

D29 0.19 0.47 21.48 0.11 0.27 21.41 0.08 0.20 21.38

D30 0.05 0.11 20.93 0.07 0.19 20.87 0.07 0.18 20.87

D31 1.82 4.56 21.36 0.09 0.23 21.26 0.11 0.28 21.28

D32 1.02 2.55 26.44 0.22 0.56 26.26 0.32 0.80 26.36

D33 0.77 1.93 27.31 0.37 0.93 26.91 0.46 1.14 27.00

D34 0.73 1.83 26.28 0.40 1.00 25.89 0.37 0.94 25.86

D35 0.49 1.23 21.19 0.11 0.27 21.11 0.09 0.23 21.09

D36 0.51 1.28 12.67 0.02 0.06 12.64 0.03 0.08 12.65

AQOs = 40 µg/m3

Note:

(a) Inclusive of traffic assessment determined Background concentration.

7.2.2 As indicated in Table 7.1, the predicted process contributions (PC) at receptors ranges from 0.05 to

1.82 µg/m3 when using 2010 met data. Predicted process contributions (PC) at receptors ranges

from 0.02 to 2.85 µg/m3 when using 2011 met data and predicted process contributions (PC) at

receptors ranges from 0.03 to 3.01 µg/m3 when using 2012 met data.

7.2.3 The maximum PEC of long-term NO2 emissions for 3 years of meteorological data assessed (2010 –

2012 inclusive) is 27.00µg/m3, which does not exceed the relevant long-term AQS of 40 µg/m3.

Therefore, the long-term PECs of NO2 at all discrete receptors are below the relevant long-term

AQS for the protection of human health, using all three year met data.

7.2.4 From the meteorological dataset the year resulting in maximum long-term NO2 PC concentration

was identified as 2012 met data. Consequently, meteorological data for this year was used to

assess all other long-term pollutant concentrations.

7.2.5 The significance of changes associated with the operations of the facility with respect to annual

mean NO2 exposure using 2012 met data has been assessed with reference to the assessment

criteria. The outcomes of the assessment are summarised in Table 7.2.





Table 7.2 The Long-Term (Annual Mean) Concentrations of NO2 and Significance of Effects at

Receptors

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m3) – 2012 Met Data, and NO2 Significance Impacts at Receptors


(PC)

PC as %age of

AQO Background


PEC as %age of AQO

PEC as %age of AQO

Significance

D1 0.50 1.24 21.80 22.30 55.74 <75% of AQAL Negligible





D6 2.54 6.36 19.12 21.66 54.16 <75% of AQAL Slight

D7 3.01 7.52 19.11 22.12 55.30 <75% of AQAL Sight






























AQOs 40

7.2.6 The percentage change in process concentrations relative to the AQAL as a result of the facility

operations at all receptor locations, with respect to NO2 exposure, are determined to be 7.52% or

less for the existing receptors. The significance is determined to be ‘negligible’ to ‘slight’ for all

receptors.





7.2.7 The predicted long-term NO2 process contributions (PC) at Swansea AQMA is 0.04 µg/m3, which is

0.1 % of AQAL (which is much less than 1% of the AQAL). Therefore, the impact on the AQMA is

negligible.

Short-Term Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

7.2.8 Predicted ground level short-term NO2 concentrations were assessed against the relevant AQOs.

The results of the model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of background, using 2010

to 2012 met data are summarised in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3 Summary of Predicted Short-Term NO2 Concentrations

Receptor

Predicted 1-hour Mean (99.79th Percentile) Concentration (µg/m3)


Process

Contrib’tn (PC)

PC as

%age of AQO

PEC(a) (PC

+Background)

Process c

Contrib’tn (PC)

PC as

%age of AQO

PEC(a) (PC

+Background

Process

Contrib’tn (PC)

PC as

%age of AQO

PEC(a) (PC

+Background

D1 6.08 3.04 44.13 5.55 2.78 49.15 6.17 3.09 49.77

D2 5.95 2.97 45.88 5.67 2.83 46.95 5.85 2.92 47.13

D3 6.23 3.11 45.93 5.87 2.93 44.79 6.12 3.06 45.04

D4 5.81 2.90 46.17 5.74 2.87 44.06 5.75 2.88 44.07

D5 7.54 3.77 43.98 7.70 3.85 46.04 7.88 3.94 46.22

D6 7.69 3.84 43.20 7.78 3.89 46.02 7.72 3.86 45.96

D7 7.95 3.98 42.79 8.10 4.05 46.32 8.10 4.05 46.32

D8 5.78 2.89 40.09 5.81 2.91 44.01 5.88 2.94 44.08

D9 4.98 2.49 39.60 5.05 2.53 43.27 5.02 2.51 43.24

D10 4.55 2.28 39.85 4.50 2.25 42.74 4.49 2.24 42.73

D11 3.55 1.78 39.76 3.53 1.77 40.07 3.47 1.74 40.01

D12 3.10 1.55 41.68 3.70 1.85 40.20 3.32 1.66 39.82

D13 3.35 1.68 43.08 3.57 1.79 40.07 2.99 1.50 39.49

D14 3.26 1.63 50.10 3.57 1.78 40.07 2.87 1.44 39.37

D15 1.30 0.65 47.47 1.15 0.58 41.53 1.02 0.51 41.40

D16 2.72 1.36 51.60 2.96 1.48 43.32 2.54 1.27 42.90

D17 0.80 0.40 50.24 0.96 0.48 50.26 0.73 0.37 50.03

D18 0.97 0.49 50.03 1.01 0.51 47.51 0.83 0.42 47.33

D19 1.22 0.61 49.45 1.20 0.60 51.58 1.05 0.52 51.43

D20 1.40 0.70 51.26 1.32 0.66 50.16 1.24 0.62 50.08

D21 1.49 0.75 52.12 1.36 0.68 49.90 1.31 0.65 49.85

D22 1.57 0.78 44.23 1.30 0.65 49.18 1.27 0.63 49.15

D23 1.70 0.85 43.69 1.34 0.67 50.90 1.31 0.66 50.87

D24 1.58 0.79 42.63 1.49 0.74 52.03 1.47 0.74 52.01

D25 2.13 1.07 42.21 2.10 1.05 44.20 2.00 1.00 44.10

D26 2.23 1.11 44.59 2.09 1.05 43.55 2.08 1.04 43.54

D27 1.89 0.94 43.55 1.70 0.85 42.44 1.69 0.85 42.43

D28 1.87 0.94 44.44 1.77 0.88 42.11 1.84 0.92 42.18

D29 1.99 1.00 56.31 2.01 1.01 44.61 1.90 0.95 44.50

D30 1.95 0.98 58.89 1.92 0.96 43.52 1.89 0.94 43.49

D31 2.10 1.05 57.80 2.08 1.04 44.42 2.02 1.01 44.36

D32 4.23 2.12 44.35 3.89 1.95 55.97 4.29 2.14 56.37





Receptor



Process

Contrib’tn (PC)

PC as

%age of AQO

PEC(a) (PC

+Background)

Process c

Contrib’tn (PC)

PC as

%age of AQO

PEC(a) (PC

+Background

Process

Contrib’tn (PC)

PC as

%age of AQO

PEC(a) (PC

+Background

D33 5.81 2.91 26.08 5.69 2.85 58.77 5.63 2.82 58.71

D34 6.82 3.41 44.13 6.07 3.03 57.05 6.33 3.17 57.31

D35 2.35 1.18 45.88 2.27 1.13 44.27 2.09 1.05 44.09

D36 0.84 0.42 45.93 0.66 0.33 25.90 0.77 0.38 26.01

AQOs = 200 µg/m3

Note:

(a) Inclusive of Traffic Assessment determined Background concentrations.

7.2.9 As indicated in Table 7.3, the predicted short-term NO2 process contributions (PC) at receptors

ranges from 0.80 to 7.95 µg/m3 when using 2010 met data. Predicted process contributions (PC)

at receptors ranges from 0.66 to 8.09µg/m3 when using 2011 met data and the predicted process

contributions (PC) at receptors ranges from 0.73 to 8.10 µg/m3 when using 2012 met data.

7.2.10 The maximum PEC of short-term NO2 emissions for 2012 meteorological data assessed is

58.71 µg/m3, which does not exceed the relevant short-term AQS of 200 µg/m3. Therefore, the

short-term PECs of NO2 at all discrete receptors are below the relevant short-term AQS for the

protection of human health, using all three year met data.

7.2.11 From the meteorological dataset the year resulting in maximum short-term NO2 PC concentration

was identified as 2012 met data. Consequently, meteorological data for this year was used to

assess all other short-term pollutant concentrations.

7.2.12 The contour plots of the predicted long-term and short-term ground level PCs of NO2 for all

receptors, including discrete and grid receptors are presented in Appendix C. The contour plots

show that the predicted maximum concentrations occur adjacent to the emission source, with a

predicted decrease in concentration with the increased distance from the stack.

7.3 Particulate Matter (PM10)

7.3.1 Predicted ground level long-term and short-term PM10 concentrations were assessed against the

relevant AQOs using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum long-term PC concentration).

The results of the model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of background, are

summarised in Table 7.4.

Table 7.4 Summary of Predicted PM10 Concentrations

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m3) Predicted 24-hour Mean (90.41th Percentile)

Concentration (µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO



PC as %age of AQO






Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m3) Predicted 24-hour Mean (90.41th Percentile)

Concentration (µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO



PC as %age of AQO


D1 0.035 0.09 14.20 0.38 0.76 25.57

D2 0.034 0.08 13.98 0.37 0.74 25.56

D3 0.044 0.11 13.80 0.40 0.80 25.59

D4 0.078 0.20 13.79 0.67 1.34 25.86

D5 0.115 0.29 13.83 0.91 1.83 26.11

D6 0.181 0.45 13.88 1.46 2.91 26.65

D7 0.214 0.53 13.91 1.65 3.29 26.84

D8 0.113 0.28 13.81 0.95 1.90 26.14

D9 0.083 0.21 13.78 0.69 1.39 25.89

D10 0.079 0.20 13.78 0.65 1.29 25.84

D11 0.052 0.13 13.80 0.41 0.82 25.60

D12 0.045 0.11 13.79 0.32 0.63 25.51

D13 0.042 0.10 13.79 0.32 0.63 25.51

D14 0.039 0.10 13.79 0.30 0.60 25.49

D15 0.005 0.01 14.04 0.04 0.08 25.23

D16 0.012 0.03 14.07 0.10 0.20 25.29

D17 0.003 0.01 15.54 0.02 0.05 25.22

D18 0.003 0.01 14.66 0.03 0.06 25.22

D19 0.005 0.01 15.06 0.04 0.08 25.24

D20 0.005 0.01 14.91 0.05 0.10 25.24

D21 0.006 0.02 14.88 0.06 0.11 25.25

D22 0.007 0.02 14.82 0.07 0.13 25.26

D23 0.009 0.02 14.98 0.09 0.19 25.29

D24 0.009 0.02 15.10 0.10 0.19 25.29

D25 0.011 0.03 14.33 0.11 0.22 25.30

D26 0.011 0.03 14.27 0.11 0.21 25.30

D27 0.008 0.02 14.22 0.08 0.15 25.27

D28 0.009 0.02 14.19 0.09 0.19 25.29

D29 0.006 0.01 13.93 0.05 0.11 25.25

D30 0.005 0.01 13.78 0.05 0.10 25.24

D31 0.008 0.02 13.83 0.09 0.18 25.28

D32 0.023 0.06 14.76 0.24 0.49 25.44

D33 0.032 0.08 15.07 0.33 0.67 25.53

D34 0.027 0.07 14.87 0.25 0.50 25.44

D35 0.007 0.02 13.81 0.08 0.15 25.27

AQOs 40 50

Note:

(a) Inclusive of Traffic Assessment determined Background concentration .

7.3.2 As indicated in Table 7.4, the maximum predicted long-term PM10 process contributions (PC) at

receptors is 0.21 µg/m3 when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum long-term PC

concentration). The predicted annual mean PM10 PCs at the modelled discrete receptors are well

below 0.53% of the long-term AQO, which are considered insignificant.





7.3.3 The maximum PEC of long-term PM10 emissions is 15.54 µg/m3, which does not exceed the

relevant long-term AQS of 40 µg/m3. Therefore, the long-term PECs of NO2 at all receptors are

below the relevant long-term AQS of 40 µg/m3 for the protection of human health.

7.3.4 The maximum predicted 24 hour mean (the 90.41th percentile) PM10 process contributions (PC) at

receptors is 1.65 µg/m3 when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum short-term PC

concentration). The predicted short-mean PM10 PCs at the modelled discrete receptors are well

below 10% of the short-term AQO, which are considered insignificant.

7.3.5 The maximum PEC of 24 hour mean (the 90.41th percentile) PM10 emissions is 26.84 µg/m3, which

does not exceed the relevant short-term AQS of 50 µg/m3. Therefore, the short-term PECs of PM10

at all receptors are below the relevant short-term AQS of 50 µg/m3 for the protection of human

health.

Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

7.3.6 Predicted ground level long-term PM2.5 concentrations were assessed against the relevant AQO.

The results of the model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of background, are

summarised in Table 7.5

Table 7.5 Summary of Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m3)

Process Contrib’tn (PC) Process Contribution as %age of

AQO PEC(a)

(PC +Background)

D1 0.035 0.14 9.615

D2 0.034 0.14 9.614

D3 0.044 0.18 9.624

D4 0.078 0.31 9.658

D5 0.115 0.46 9.695

D6 0.181 0.72 9.761

D7 0.214 0.86 9.794

D8 0.113 0.45 9.693

D9 0.083 0.33 9.663

D10 0.079 0.31 9.659

D11 0.052 0.21 9.632

D12 0.045 0.18 9.625

D13 0.042 0.17 9.622

D14 0.039 0.16 9.619

D15 0.005 0.02 9.585

D16 0.012 0.05 9.592

D17 0.003 0.01 9.583

D18 0.003 0.01 9.583

D19 0.005 0.02 9.585

D20 0.005 0.02 9.585

D21 0.006 0.02 9.586





Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m3)

Process Contrib’tn (PC) Process Contribution as %age of

AQO PEC(a)

(PC +Background)

D22 0.007 0.03 9.587

D23 0.009 0.03 9.589

D24 0.009 0.04 9.589

D25 0.011 0.04 9.591

D26 0.011 0.04 9.591

D27 0.008 0.03 9.588

D28 0.009 0.03 9.589

D29 0.006 0.02 9.586

D30 0.005 0.02 9.585

D31 0.008 0.03 9.588

D32 0.023 0.09 9.603

D33 0.032 0.13 9.612

D34 0.027 0.11 9.607

D35 0.007 0.03 9.587

AQO 25

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 13.63µg/m3

7.3.7 As indicated in Table 7.5, there were no predicted long-term PEC exceedances of the relevant

AQOs for PM2.5 at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in

maximum long-term PC concentration).

7.3.8 The predicted long-mean PM2.5 PCs at the modelled discrete receptors are well below 0.855% of

the long-term AQO when using 2012 met data, which are considered insignificant.

7.4 Carbon Monoxide (CO)

7.4.1 Predicted ground level short-term (8-hour running mean and 1-hour mean) CO concentrations were

assessed against the relevant AQO using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum short-term

PC concentration). The results of the model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of

background, are summarised in Table 7.6.

Table 7.6 Summary of Predicted CO Concentrations

Receptor

Predicted Maximum 8-hour Running Mean Concentration (µg/m3)

Predicted 1-hour Mean Concentration (µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO



PC as %age of AQO

PEC(b) (PC +Background)

D1 4.51 0.05 169.55 19.92 0.20 255.69

D2 4.56 0.05 169.59 13.89 0.14 249.66

D3 5.56 0.06 170.59 10.97 0.11 246.74

D4 6.56 0.07 171.60 9.39 0.09 245.16

D5 8.14 0.08 173.17 11.73 0.12 247.50

D6 9.89 0.10 174.93 11.24 0.11 247.01

D7 10.35 0.10 175.39 11.80 0.12 247.57

D8 7.25 0.07 172.29 11.10 0.11 246.87





Receptor

Predicted Maximum 8-hour Running Mean Concentration (µg/m3)



PC as %age of AQO



PC as %age of AQO


D9 6.22 0.06 171.26 7.44 0.07 243.21

D10 5.35 0.05 170.39 7.04 0.07 242.81

D11 3.53 0.04 168.57 5.62 0.06 241.39

D12 3.44 0.03 168.48 6.21 0.06 241.98

D13 3.31 0.03 168.35 6.21 0.06 241.98

D14 3.08 0.03 168.12 5.99 0.06 241.76

D15 1.04 0.01 166.08 2.96 0.03 238.73

D16 1.83 0.02 166.87 6.26 0.06 242.03

D17 0.66 0.01 165.70 2.44 0.02 238.21

D18 0.78 0.01 165.82 2.78 0.03 238.55

D19 0.95 0.01 165.99 3.18 0.03 238.95

D20 0.98 0.01 166.02 3.27 0.03 239.04

D21 0.95 0.01 165.99 3.51 0.04 239.28

D22 0.99 0.01 166.03 3.54 0.04 239.31

D23 1.01 0.01 166.05 3.16 0.03 238.93

D24 1.31 0.01 166.35 2.69 0.03 238.46

D25 1.79 0.02 166.83 3.30 0.03 239.07

D26 1.82 0.02 166.86 4.12 0.04 239.89

D27 1.52 0.02 166.56 3.11 0.03 238.88

D28 2.00 0.02 167.03 2.94 0.03 238.71

D29 2.01 0.02 167.05 2.96 0.03 238.73

D30 1.60 0.02 166.64 7.24 0.07 243.01

D31 1.97 0.02 167.01 3.31 0.03 239.08

D32 3.16 0.03 168.20 14.09 0.14 249.86

D33 5.82 0.06 170.85 16.21 0.16 251.98

D34 4.81 0.05 169.85 18.35 0.18 254.12

D35 1.25 0.01 166.29 6.23 0.06 242.00

D36 0.70 0.01 165.73 1.88 0.02 237.65

D37 4.51 0.05 169.55 19.92 0.20 255.69

AQOs 10000 30000

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 165µg/m3 (b) Inclusive of Background concentration of 236µg/m3

7.4.2 As indicated in Table 7.6, the maximum predicted 8-hour running mean CO process contributions

(PC) at receptors is 10.35 µg/m3 when using 2012 met data. The predicted 8-hour running mean

PCs of CO at the modelled discrete receptors are well below 0.10% of the short-term AQO, which

are considered insignificant.

7.4.3 The maximum PEC of 8-hour running mean CO emissions is 175.39/m3, which does not exceed the

relevant short-term AQS of 10000 µg/m3. Therefore, the short-term PECs of CO at all receptors are

below the relevant short-term AQS of 10000 µg/m3 for the protection of human health.

7.4.4 The maximum predicted 1-hour mean CO process contributions (PC) at receptors is 19.92 µg/m3





when using 2012 met data. The predicted 1-hour mean PCs of CO at the modelled discrete

receptors are well below 0.20% of the short-term AQO, which are considered insignificant.

7.4.5 The maximum PEC of 1-hour mean CO emissions is 255.69 µg/m3, which does not exceed the

relevant short-term AQS of 30000µg/m3. Therefore, the short-term (1-hour) PECs of CO at all

receptors are below the relevant short-term AQS of 30,000 µg/m3 for the protection of human

health.

7.5 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

7.5.1 Predicted ground level short-term SO2 concentrations were assessed against the relevant AQOs

using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum short-term PC concentration). The results of

the model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of background, are summarised

Table 7.7.

Table 7.7 Summary of Predicted SO2 Concentrations

Receptor

Predicted SO2 Concentration (µg/m3)

24-hour Mean (99.18th Percentile) (a)

1-hour Mean (99.73rd Percentile) (b)

15-minute Mean (99.9th Percentile) (c)


(PC)

PEC (PC +Background)


(PC)



(PC)


D1 4.80 10.37 17.53 26.97 25.76 38.41

D2 4.18 9.75 16.43 25.87 24.13 36.78

D3 6.53 12.10 17.15 26.59 25.50 38.15

D4 8.95 14.52 16.38 25.82 22.31 34.96

D5 11.25 16.81 22.13 31.57 30.67 43.31

D6 13.54 19.11 22.05 31.49 29.74 42.39

D7 15.91 21.48 23.05 32.49 31.25 43.90

D8 8.99 14.56 16.61 26.05 22.78 35.43

D9 7.16 12.73 14.26 23.70 19.57 32.22

D10 6.47 12.03 12.73 22.17 17.68 30.33

D11 4.48 10.05 9.71 19.15 13.69 26.34

D12 3.18 8.75 8.63 18.07 14.56 27.21

D13 3.20 8.77 8.32 17.76 13.43 26.08

D14 3.24 8.81 8.12 17.56 13.10 25.75

D15 0.62 6.19 2.54 11.98 5.63 18.28

D16 1.66 7.23 6.71 16.15 11.30 23.95

D17 0.38 5.95 1.88 11.32 3.50 16.15

D18 0.55 6.12 2.07 11.51 4.96 17.61

D19 0.67 6.24 2.67 12.11 6.49 19.14

D20 0.79 6.36 2.90 12.34 6.62 19.27

D21 0.80 6.37 2.89 12.33 6.35 19.00

D22 0.84 6.41 3.10 12.54 6.86 19.51

D23 1.22 6.79 3.53 12.97 6.40 19.05

D24 1.32 6.89 4.06 13.50 6.18 18.83

D25 1.75 7.32 5.34 14.78 8.20 20.85

D26 1.82 7.39 5.60 15.04 8.63 21.28

D27 1.43 7.00 4.50 13.94 7.30 19.95





Receptor






(PC)



(PC)



(PC)


D28 1.60 7.17 5.14 14.58 7.29 19.94

D29 1.06 6.63 5.28 14.72 7.61 20.26

D30 0.88 6.45 5.11 14.55 7.78 20.43

D31 1.29 6.86 5.53 14.97 8.21 20.86

D32 3.09 8.66 11.93 21.37 17.92 30.57

D33 5.12 10.69 15.78 25.22 23.37 36.02

D34 3.96 9.53 16.48 25.92 26.51 39.16

D35 1.02 6.59 5.73 15.17 8.95 21.60

D36 0.43 5.99 1.97 11.41 3.74 16.39

AQOs and Limit Values

125 350 266

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 5.57µg/m3 (b) Inclusive of Background concentration of 9.44µg/m3 (c) Inclusive of Background concentration of 12.65µg/m3

7.5.2 The maximum PEC of 24-hour mean SO2 emissions is 21.48µg/m3 when using 2012 met data,

which does not exceed the relevant short-term AQS of 125 µg/m3. Therefore, the short-term (24-

hour) PECs of SO2 at all receptors are below the relevant short-term AQS of 125 µg/m3 for the

protection of human health.

7.5.3 The maximum PEC of 1-hour mean SO2 emissions is 32.49µg/m3 when using 2012 met data, which

does not exceed the relevant short-term AQS of 350 µg/m3. Therefore, the short-term (1-hour)

PECs of SO2 at all receptors are below the relevant short-term AQS of 350 µg/m3 for the protection

of human health.

7.5.4 The maximum PEC of 15-minute mean SO2 emissions is 43.90 µg/m3 when using 2012 met data,

which does not exceed the relevant short-term AQS of 266 µg/m3. Therefore, the short-term (15-

minute) PECs of SO2 at all receptors are below the relevant short-term AQS of 266 µg/m3 for the

protection of human health.

7.6 Volatile Organic Compounds

7.6.1 VOC emissions from the proposed development are likely to consist of a variety of species, with the

relevant emission limit value (ELV) being set for Total Organic Carbon (TOC). For the purposes of

this assessment it has been assumed that the entire TOC emission consists of only C6H6 in order to

allow comparison with the AQO. This is considered a worst-case scenario as TOC emissions are

unlikely to consist of only one species.

7.6.2 The results of the model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of background, using 2012

met data (the year resulting in maximum long-term PC concentration) are summarised in

Table 7.8.





Table 7.8 Summary of Predicted Long-Term VOC Concentrations

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration VOC (µg/m3)

Process Contrib’tn (PC) PC as %age of AQO PEC(a)

(PC +Background)

D1 0.035 0.70 0.547

D2 0.034 0.68 0.546

D3 0.044 0.89 0.556

D4 0.078 1.56 0.590

D5 0.115 2.30 0.627

D6 0.181 3.62 0.693

D7 0.214 4.28 0.726

D8 0.113 2.26 0.625

D9 0.083 1.66 0.595

D10 0.079 1.57 0.591

D11 0.052 1.03 0.564

D12 0.045 0.89 0.557

D13 0.042 0.83 0.554

D14 0.039 0.78 0.551

D15 0.005 0.10 0.517

D16 0.012 0.23 0.524

D17 0.003 0.05 0.515

D18 0.003 0.07 0.515

D19 0.005 0.09 0.517

D20 0.005 0.11 0.517

D21 0.006 0.12 0.518

D22 0.007 0.13 0.519

D23 0.009 0.17 0.521

D24 0.009 0.18 0.521

D25 0.011 0.21 0.523

D26 0.011 0.22 0.523

D27 0.008 0.15 0.520

D28 0.009 0.17 0.521

D29 0.006 0.12 0.518

D30 0.005 0.10 0.517

D31 0.008 0.16 0.520

D32 0.023 0.46 0.535

D33 0.032 0.65 0.544

D34 0.027 0.53 0.539

D35 0.007 0.13 0.519

D36 0.002 0.05 0.514

AQO 5 (Expressed as Benzene, C6H6)

Note:

(a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 0.51µg/m3

7.6.3 As indicated in Table 7.8, the maximum annul mean PEC of VOC emissions is 0.0.726µg/m3 when

using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum long-term PC concentration), which is well

below the relevant long-term AQS of 5 µg/m3. Therefore, the long-term PECs of VOC at all

receptors are below the relevant long-term AQS of 5 µg/m3 for the protection of human health

after adopting a precautionary approach and assuming that the VOC composition is 100% benzene.





7.7 Hydrogen Chloride

7.7.1 Predicted ground level 1-hour mean HCl concentrations using 2012 met data (the year resulting in

maximum short-term PC concentration) were assessed against the relevant EAL. The results of the

model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of background, are summarised in Table 7.9.

Table 7.9 Summary of Predicted HCl Concentrations

Receptor

Predicted 1-hour Mean Concentration HCI(µg/m3)


(PC +Background)

D1 1.98 0.26 2.35

D2 1.38 0.18 1.75

D3 1.09 0.15 1.46

D4 0.93 0.12 1.30

D5 1.17 0.16 1.54

D6 1.12 0.15 1.49

D7 1.17 0.16 1.54

D8 1.10 0.15 1.47

D9 0.74 0.10 1.11

D10 0.70 0.09 1.07

D11 0.56 0.07 0.93

D12 0.62 0.08 0.99

D13 0.62 0.08 0.99

D14 0.60 0.08 0.97

D15 0.29 0.04 0.66

D16 0.62 0.08 0.99

D17 0.24 0.03 0.61

D18 0.28 0.04 0.65

D19 0.32 0.04 0.69

D20 0.33 0.04 0.70

D21 0.35 0.05 0.72

D22 0.35 0.05 0.72

D23 0.31 0.04 0.68

D24 0.27 0.04 0.64

D25 0.33 0.04 0.70

D26 0.41 0.05 0.78

D27 0.31 0.04 0.68

D28 0.29 0.04 0.66

D29 0.29 0.04 0.66

D30 0.72 0.10 1.09

D31 0.33 0.04 0.70

D32 1.40 0.19 1.77

D33 1.61 0.21 1.98

D34 1.82 0.24 2.19

D35 0.62 0.08 0.99

D36 0.19 0.02 0.56

AQO 750

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 0.37 µg/m3





7.7.2 As indicated in Table 7.9, there were no predicted exceedances of the relevant criteria for HCl at

any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum short-

term PC concentration).

7.8 Hydrogen Fluoride

7.8.1 Predicted ground level long-term and short-term HF concentrations were assessed against the

relevant EALs using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum long-term PC concentration)

and 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum short-term PC concentration) respectively. The

results of the model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of background, are summarised

in Table 7.10.

Table 7.10 Summary of Predicted HF Concentrations

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m3) Predicted Max 1-hour Mean Concentration

(µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO



PC as %age of AQO


D1 0.0035 0.0221 2.354 0.20 0.12 4.899

D2 0.0034 0.0212 2.353 0.14 0.09 4.839

D3 0.0045 0.0279 2.354 0.11 0.07 4.810

D4 0.0078 0.0490 2.358 0.09 0.06 4.794

D5 0.0116 0.0722 2.362 0.12 0.07 4.817

D6 0.0182 0.1135 2.368 0.11 0.07 4.812

D7 0.0215 0.1343 2.371 0.12 0.07 4.818

D8 0.0113 0.0708 2.361 0.11 0.07 4.811

D9 0.0083 0.0521 2.358 0.07 0.05 4.774

D10 0.0079 0.0494 2.358 0.07 0.04 4.770

D11 0.0052 0.0324 2.355 0.06 0.04 4.756

D12 0.0045 0.0280 2.354 0.06 0.04 4.762

D13 0.0042 0.0262 2.354 0.06 0.04 4.762

D14 0.0039 0.0246 2.354 0.06 0.04 4.760

D15 0.0005 0.0030 2.350 0.03 0.02 4.730

D16 0.0012 0.0073 2.351 0.06 0.04 4.762

D17 0.0003 0.0017 2.350 0.02 0.02 4.724

D18 0.0003 0.0021 2.350 0.03 0.02 4.728

D19 0.0005 0.0029 2.350 0.03 0.02 4.732

D20 0.0005 0.0034 2.351 0.03 0.02 4.733

D21 0.0006 0.0038 2.351 0.04 0.02 4.735

D22 0.0007 0.0041 2.351 0.04 0.02 4.735

D23 0.0009 0.0055 2.351 0.03 0.02 4.732

D24 0.0009 0.0056 2.351 0.03 0.02 4.727

D25 0.0011 0.0067 2.351 0.03 0.02 4.733

D26 0.0011 0.0070 2.351 0.04 0.03 4.741

D27 0.0008 0.0048 2.351 0.03 0.02 4.731

D28 0.0009 0.0055 2.351 0.03 0.02 4.729





Receptor


(µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO



PC as %age of AQO


D29 0.0006 0.0036 2.351 0.03 0.02 4.730

D30 0.0005 0.0032 2.351 0.07 0.05 4.772

D31 0.0008 0.0050 2.351 0.03 0.02 4.733

D32 0.0023 0.0144 2.352 0.14 0.09 4.841

D33 0.0033 0.0204 2.353 0.16 0.10 4.862

D34 0.0027 0.0167 2.353 0.18 0.11 4.883

D35 0.0007 0.0042 2.351 0.06 0.04 4.762

D36 0.0002 0.0015 2.350 0.02 0.01 4.719

AQOs 16 160

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 2.35 µg/m3 (b) Inclusive of Background concentration of 4.70µg/m3

7.8.2 As indicated in Table 7.10, there were no predicted exceedances of the relevant criteria for both

long-term and short-term HF at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data.

7.8.3 The predicted long-term HF PCs at the modelled discrete receptors are well below 0.0215% of the

relevant AQO when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum long-term PC

concentration), which are considered insignificant.

7.8.4 The predicted short-mean HF PCs at the modelled discrete receptors are well below 0.034 % of the

relevant short-term AQO when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum short-term PC


7.9 Dioxins and Furans

7.9.1 There are no air quality standards for dioxins and furans and as such it is not possible to determine

the magnitude and subsequently, significance of the predicted increase in Dioxins and furans

exposure as a result of emissions associated with the proposed development. As such, the process

contribution of the facility using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum long-term PC

concentration) is presented as a percentage of existing background levels in Table 7.11.

Table 7.11 Predicted Dioxins and Furans Concentrations (fg/m3 I-TEQ)

Receptor PC


Background Total PCDD/F(a) PC as % age of

Background

D1 0.35 48.700 49.05 0.73

D2 0.34 48.700 49.04 0.70

D3 0.45 48.700 49.15 0.92

D4 0.78 48.700 49.48 1.61

D5 1.16 48.700 49.86 2.37

D6 1.82 48.700 50.52 3.73





Receptor PC



Background

D7 2.15 48.700 50.85 4.41

D8 1.13 48.700 49.83 2.33

D9 0.83 48.700 49.53 1.71

D10 0.79 48.700 49.49 1.62

D11 0.52 48.700 49.22 1.07

D12 0.45 48.700 49.15 0.92

D13 0.42 48.700 49.12 0.86

D14 0.39 48.700 49.09 0.81

D15 0.05 48.700 48.75 0.10

D16 0.12 48.700 48.82 0.24

D17 0.03 48.700 48.73 0.05

D18 0.03 48.700 48.73 0.07

D19 0.05 48.700 48.75 0.09

D20 0.05 48.700 48.75 0.11

D21 0.06 48.700 48.76 0.13

D22 0.07 48.700 48.77 0.14

D23 0.09 48.700 48.79 0.18

D24 0.09 48.700 48.79 0.18

D25 0.11 48.700 48.81 0.22

D26 0.11 48.700 48.81 0.23

D27 0.08 48.700 48.78 0.16

D28 0.09 48.700 48.79 0.18

D29 0.06 48.700 48.76 0.12

D30 0.05 48.700 48.75 0.10

D31 0.08 48.700 48.78 0.17

D32 0.23 48.700 48.93 0.47

D33 0.33 48.700 49.03 0.67

D34 0.27 48.700 48.97 0.55

D35 0.07 48.700 48.77 0.14

D36 0.02 48.700 48.72 0.05

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 48.7 fg/m3

7.9.2 As illustrated in Table 7.11, the additional contribution to total background Dioxins and furans

concentrations is expected to be small, less than 4.41% of the estimated existing concentrations.

7.10 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

7.10.1 Predicted ground level long-term and short-term PCBs concentrations were assessed against the

relevant AQO EALs using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum long-term and short-term

PC concentration). The results of the model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of






Table 7.12 Summary of Predicted PCBs Concentrations

Receptor


(µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO



PC as %age of AQO


D1 7.21E-11

(=7.21 x 10-11) 3.61E-08 2.706E-04 1.83E-09 3.05E-08 5.412E-04

D2 1.06E-10 5.32E-08 2.706E-04 1.28E-09 2.13E-08 5.412E-04

D3 1.67E-10 8.36E-08 2.706E-04 1.01E-09 1.68E-08 5.412E-04

D4 1.98E-10 9.89E-08 2.706E-04 8.63E-10 1.44E-08 5.412E-04

D5 1.04E-10 5.21E-08 2.706E-04 1.08E-09 1.80E-08 5.412E-04

D6 7.68E-11 3.84E-08 2.706E-04 1.03E-09 1.72E-08 5.412E-04

D7 7.27E-11 3.64E-08 2.706E-04 1.08E-09 1.81E-08 5.412E-04

D8 4.78E-11 2.39E-08 2.706E-04 1.02E-09 1.70E-08 5.412E-04

D9 4.12E-11 2.06E-08 2.706E-04 6.84E-10 1.14E-08 5.412E-04

D10 3.85E-11 1.93E-08 2.706E-04 6.47E-10 1.08E-08 5.412E-04

D11 3.63E-11 1.81E-08 2.706E-04 5.17E-10 8.61E-09 5.412E-04

D12 4.42E-12 2.21E-09 2.706E-04 5.71E-10 9.51E-09 5.412E-04

D13 1.07E-11 5.35E-09 2.706E-04 5.71E-10 9.51E-09 5.412E-04

D14 2.43E-12 1.22E-09 2.706E-04 5.50E-10 9.17E-09 5.412E-04

D15 3.12E-12 1.56E-09 2.706E-04 2.72E-10 4.54E-09 5.412E-04

D16 4.24E-12 2.12E-09 2.706E-04 5.75E-10 9.59E-09 5.412E-04

D17 5.06E-12 2.53E-09 2.706E-04 2.25E-10 3.74E-09 5.412E-04

D18 5.65E-12 2.83E-09 2.706E-04 2.56E-10 4.26E-09 5.412E-04

D19 6.11E-12 3.06E-09 2.706E-04 2.92E-10 4.87E-09 5.412E-04

D20 8.05E-12 4.02E-09 2.706E-04 3.01E-10 5.01E-09 5.412E-04

D21 8.21E-12 4.11E-09 2.706E-04 3.22E-10 5.37E-09 5.412E-04

D22 9.81E-12 4.91E-09 2.706E-04 3.25E-10 5.42E-09 5.412E-04

D23 1.03E-11 5.14E-09 2.706E-04 2.91E-10 4.84E-09 5.412E-04

D24 7.03E-12 3.52E-09 2.706E-04 2.47E-10 4.12E-09 5.412E-04

D25 8.06E-12 4.03E-09 2.706E-04 3.03E-10 5.05E-09 5.412E-04

D26 5.35E-12 2.68E-09 2.706E-04 3.78E-10 6.31E-09 5.412E-04

D27 4.68E-12 2.34E-09 2.706E-04 2.86E-10 4.77E-09 5.412E-04

D28 7.43E-12 3.72E-09 2.706E-04 2.71E-10 4.51E-09 5.412E-04

D29 2.11E-11 1.06E-08 2.706E-04 2.72E-10 4.53E-09 5.412E-04

D30 3.00E-11 1.50E-08 2.706E-04 6.66E-10 1.11E-08 5.412E-04

D31 2.46E-11 1.23E-08 2.706E-04 3.05E-10 5.08E-09 5.412E-04

D32 6.14E-12 3.07E-09 2.706E-04 1.30E-09 2.16E-08 5.412E-04

D33 2.20E-12 1.10E-09 2.706E-04 1.49E-09 2.48E-08 5.412E-04

D34 1.06E-10 5.32E-08 2.706E-04 1.69E-09 2.81E-08 5.412E-04

D35 1.67E-10 8.36E-08 2.706E-04 5.72E-10 9.54E-09 5.412E-04

D36 1.98E-10 9.89E-08 2.706E-04 1.73E-10 2.88E-09 5.412E-04

AQOs 0.2 6

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 0.0002706µg/m3 (b) Inclusive of Background concentration of 0.0005412µg/m3

7.10.2 As indicated in Table 7.12, there were no predicted exceedances of the relevant criteria for both

long-term and short-term PCBs at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data.

7.10.3 The predicted long-term PCBs PCs at the modelled discrete receptors are well below 9.89E-8% of





the relevant AQO when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum long-term PC


7.10.4 The predicted short-mean PCBs PCs at the modelled discrete receptors are well below 3.05E-9% of

the relevant short-term AQO when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum short-term

PC concentration), which are considered insignificant.

7.11 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

7.11.1 Predicted ground level annual mean PAH concentrations using 2012 met data (the year resulting in

maximum long-term PC concentration) were assessed against the relevant EAL. The results of the

model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of background, are summarised in

Table 7.13.

Table 7.13 Summary of Predicted PAH Concentrations

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration PAH (ng/m3)


(PC +Background)

D1 1.35E-04 5.41E-02 8.5000014E-01

D2 1.99E-04 7.97E-02 8.5000020E-01

D3 3.13E-04 1.25E-01 8.5000031E-01

D4 3.70E-04 1.48E-01 8.5000037E-01

D5 1.95E-04 7.81E-02 8.5000020E-01

D6 1.44E-04 5.75E-02 8.5000014E-01

D7 1.36E-04 5.45E-02 8.5000014E-01

D8 8.95E-05 3.58E-02 8.5000009E-01

D9 7.72E-05 3.09E-02 8.5000008E-01

D10 7.22E-05 2.89E-02 8.5000007E-01

D11 6.80E-05 2.72E-02 8.5000007E-01

D12 8.28E-06 3.31E-03 8.5000001E-01

D13 2.01E-05 8.02E-03 8.5000002E-01

D14 4.55E-06 1.82E-03 8.5000000E-01

D15 5.84E-06 2.34E-03 8.5000001E-01

D16 7.94E-06 3.18E-03 8.5000001E-01

D17 9.47E-06 3.79E-03 8.5000001E-01

D18 1.06E-05 4.23E-03 8.5000001E-01

D19 1.14E-05 4.58E-03 8.5000001E-01

D20 1.51E-05 6.03E-03 8.5000002E-01

D21 1.54E-05 6.15E-03 8.5000002E-01

D22 1.84E-05 7.35E-03 8.5000002E-01

D23 1.93E-05 7.71E-03 8.5000002E-01

D24 1.32E-05 5.27E-03 8.5000001E-01

D25 1.51E-05 6.04E-03 8.5000002E-01

D26 1.00E-05 4.01E-03 8.5000001E-01

D27 8.76E-06 3.51E-03 8.5000001E-01

D28 1.39E-05 5.57E-03 8.5000001E-01

D29 3.96E-05 1.58E-02 8.5000004E-01





Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration PAH (ng/m3)


(PC +Background)

D30 5.62E-05 2.25E-02 8.5000006E-01

D31 4.61E-05 1.84E-02 8.5000005E-01

D32 1.15E-05 4.60E-03 8.5000001E-01

D33 4.13E-06 1.65E-03 8.5000000E-01

D34 1.35E-04 5.41E-02 8.5000014E-01

D35 1.99E-04 7.97E-02 8.5000020E-01

D36 3.13E-04 1.25E-01 8.5000031E-01

AQO 0.40

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 0.85ng/m3

7.11.2 As indicated in Table 7.13, when using the maximum background concentration of 0.85 ng/m3 the

predicted PECs exceed the relevant AQO for PAH because the background has already exceeded

the AQO. It should be noted that the measured PAH concentrations at Swansea Cwm Level Park

monitoring station range from 0.12 to 0.0.85 ng/m3, with an average value of 0.40 ng/m3.

7.11.3 However, the predicted maximum annual mean PC of PAH at the modelled discrete receptors is

0.00037 ng/m3, which is 0.15% of the long-term AQO. Therefore, the long-term PAH emission

impact can be considered insignificant.

7.12 Heavy Metals

7.12.1 The heavy metals include Cd, Ti, HG, Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, and V. In September 2012, the

Environment Agency published revised Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs) (version 3) for

arsenic, nickel and chromium (VI) . The revised EALs are substantially lower than the former EALs:

• Arsenic – 3 ng/m3;

• Nickel – 20 ng/m3; and

• Chromium (VI) – 0.2 ng/m3.

The EALs refer to that portion of the metal emissions contained only within the PM10 fraction of

particulates in ambient air.

Arsenic, nickel and (total) chromium are three of the nine Group 3 metals whose emissions are

subject to a mandatory minimum emission limit by the EU Directive 2010. The Directive sets an

aggregate limit of 0.5 mg/m3 for nine “Group 3” metals (Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni and V and

their compounds (total)). However, for the purposes of this assessment they were considered

individually to allow comparison with any relevant AQOs.

7.12.2 The assessment of predicted heavy metal concentrations is based on Environment Agency guidance

relating specifically to the assessment of Group 3 metals stack releases. As such the screening





method detailed in the ‘Guidance to Applicants on the Impact Assessment for Group 3 Metals Stack

Releases – V.2 June 2011’ has been applied to the model outputs, based on the relevant Emission

Limit values.

7.12.3 There are no air quality standards for Ti and Co. Therefore they are not included in the

assessment.

7.12.4 The parameters stated in the Step 1 assessment, which also apply to the Step 2 assessment, are

stated below:

• LONG-TERM EALS – Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) <70%

• SHORT-TERM EALS – Process Contribution (PC) <20% of the headroom

Where the headroom is the appropriate standard minus the background concentration.

Cadmium (Cd)

Long-Term Cd

7.12.5 Predicted ground level Cd concentrations using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum

long-term PC concentration) were assessed against the relevant EAL. The results of the model

predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of background, are summarised Table 7.14.

Table 7.14 Summary of Predicted Cd Concentrations

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Cd (µg/m3)


(PC +Background)

D1 1.8E-04 3.57 1.88E-03

D2 1.7E-04 3.43 1.87E-03

D3 2.3E-04 4.50 1.93E-03

D4 4.0E-04 7.92 2.10E-03

D5 5.8E-04 11.67 2.28E-03

D6 9.2E-04 18.35 2.62E-03

D7 1.1E-03 21.70 2.78E-03

D8 5.7E-04 11.44 2.27E-03

D9 4.2E-04 8.43 2.12E-03

D10 4.0E-04 7.98 2.10E-03

D11 2.6E-04 5.24 1.96E-03

D12 2.3E-04 4.52 1.93E-03

D13 2.1E-04 4.23 1.91E-03

D14 2.0E-04 3.98 1.90E-03

D15 2.4E-05 0.49 1.72E-03

D16 5.9E-05 1.18 1.76E-03

D17 1.3E-05 0.27 1.71E-03

D18 1.7E-05 0.34 1.72E-03

D19 2.3E-05 0.47 1.72E-03





Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Cd (µg/m3)


(PC +Background)

D20 2.8E-05 0.55 1.73E-03

D21 3.1E-05 0.62 1.73E-03

D22 3.4E-05 0.67 1.73E-03

D23 4.4E-05 0.88 1.74E-03

D24 4.5E-05 0.90 1.75E-03

D25 5.4E-05 1.08 1.75E-03

D26 5.6E-05 1.13 1.76E-03

D27 3.9E-05 0.77 1.74E-03

D28 4.4E-05 0.88 1.74E-03

D29 2.9E-05 0.59 1.73E-03

D30 2.6E-05 0.51 1.73E-03

D31 4.1E-05 0.82 1.74E-03

D32 1.2E-04 2.32 1.82E-03

D33 1.6E-04 3.29 1.86E-03

D34 1.4E-04 2.70 1.84E-03

D35 3.4E-05 0.67 1.73E-03

D36 1.2E-05 0.24 1.71E-03

AQO 0.005


7.12.6 As indicated in Table 7.14, there were no predicted exceedances of the relevant EAL for Cd at any

discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum long-term PC

concentration).

7.12.7 The predicted long-term Cd PCs at the modelled discrete receptors are well below 21.70% of the

relevant AQO when using 2012 met data.

Arsenic (As)

Long-term Arsenic

7.12.8 Predicted ground level As concentrations using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum

long-term PC concentration) were assessed against the relevant EAL. The results of the model


Table 7.15 Summary of Predicted Long-Term Arsenic Concentrations – Step 1 Screening

Scenario

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Arsenic (µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO PEC(a)

(PC +Background) PEC as %age of AQO

D1 1.8E-03 59.1 2.5E-03 83.7

D2 1.7E-03 56.6 2.4E-03 81.3

D3 2.2E-03 74.4 3.0E-03 99.0

D4 3.9E-03 130.8 4.7E-03 155.5





Receptor





D5 5.8E-03 192.8 6.5E-03 217.5

D6 9.1E-03 303.2 9.8E-03 327.9

D7 1.1E-02 358.5 1.1E-02 383.2

D8 5.7E-03 189.1 6.4E-03 213.7

D9 4.2E-03 139.2 4.9E-03 163.9

D10 4.0E-03 131.9 4.7E-03 156.6

D11 2.6E-03 86.6 3.3E-03 111.3

D12 2.2E-03 74.7 3.0E-03 99.4

D13 2.1E-03 69.9 2.8E-03 94.5

D14 2.0E-03 65.8 2.7E-03 90.4

D15 2.4E-04 8.0 9.8E-04 32.7

D16 5.8E-04 19.4 1.3E-03 44.1

D17 1.3E-04 4.4 8.7E-04 29.1

D18 1.7E-04 5.7 9.1E-04 30.3

D19 2.3E-04 7.7 9.7E-04 32.4

D20 2.8E-04 9.2 1.0E-03 33.8

D21 3.1E-04 10.2 1.0E-03 34.9

D22 3.3E-04 11.1 1.1E-03 35.7

D23 4.4E-04 14.6 1.2E-03 39.3

D24 4.5E-04 14.9 1.2E-03 39.6

D25 5.3E-04 17.8 1.3E-03 42.5

D26 5.6E-04 18.6 1.3E-03 43.3

D27 3.8E-04 12.8 1.1E-03 37.4

D28 4.4E-04 14.6 1.2E-03 39.3

D29 2.9E-04 9.7 1.0E-03 34.4

D30 2.5E-04 8.5 9.9E-04 33.1

D31 4.0E-04 13.5 1.1E-03 38.1

D32 1.1E-03 38.3 1.9E-03 63.0

D33 1.6E-03 54.4 2.4E-03 79.0

D34 1.3E-03 44.6 2.1E-03 69.3

D35 3.3E-04 11.1 1.1E-03 35.8

D36 1.2E-04 4.0 8.6E-04 28.7

AQO 0.003


7.12.9 Given that long term As concentrations do not meet the Step 1 screening criteria, a Step 2

assessment has been undertaken which makes predictions assuming each metal comprises 11% of

the total group (i.e. 0.5mg/m3 apportioned across nine metals) and EA’s emissions monitoring data

indicates that it is reasonable to assume that each Group 3 metal comprises no more than 11% of

the Group ELV.





Table 7.16 Summary of Predicted Long-Term Arsenic Concentrations – Step 2 Assessment

Receptor





D1 4.7E-06 0.16 0.00074 24.82

D2 4.5E-06 0.15 0.00074 24.82

D3 5.9E-06 0.20 0.00075 24.86

D4 1.0E-05 0.35 0.00075 25.01

D5 1.5E-05 0.51 0.00076 25.18

D6 2.4E-05 0.81 0.00076 25.47

D7 2.9E-05 0.95 0.00077 25.62

D8 1.5E-05 0.50 0.00076 25.17

D9 1.1E-05 0.37 0.00075 25.04

D10 1.1E-05 0.35 0.00075 25.02

D11 6.9E-06 0.23 0.00075 24.90

D12 6.0E-06 0.20 0.00075 24.87

D13 5.6E-06 0.19 0.00075 24.85

D14 5.2E-06 0.17 0.00075 24.84

D15 6.4E-07 0.02 0.00074 24.69

D16 1.5E-06 0.05 0.00074 24.72

D17 3.5E-07 0.01 0.00074 24.68

D18 4.5E-07 0.02 0.00074 24.68

D19 6.1E-07 0.02 0.00074 24.69

D20 7.3E-07 0.02 0.00074 24.69

D21 8.2E-07 0.03 0.00074 24.69

D22 8.8E-07 0.03 0.00074 24.70

D23 1.2E-06 0.04 0.00074 24.71

D24 1.2E-06 0.04 0.00074 24.71

D25 1.4E-06 0.05 0.00074 24.71

D26 1.5E-06 0.05 0.00074 24.72

D27 1.0E-06 0.03 0.00074 24.70

D28 1.2E-06 0.04 0.00074 24.71

D29 7.7E-07 0.03 0.00074 24.69

D30 6.8E-07 0.02 0.00074 24.69

D31 1.1E-06 0.04 0.00074 24.70

D32 3.1E-06 0.10 0.00074 24.77

D33 4.3E-06 0.14 0.00074 24.81

D34 3.6E-06 0.12 0.00074 24.79

D35 8.9E-07 0.03 0.00074 24.70

D36 3.2E-07 0.01 0.00074 24.68

AQO 0.003


7.12.10 As indicated in Table 7.16, there were no predicted long-term PEC exceedances of the relevant EAL

for As at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum

long-term PC concentration).





Chromium (Cr)

Long-term Cr

7.12.11 Predicted ground level Cr concentrations using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum long-

term PC concentration) were assessed against the relevant EAL. The results of the model


Table 7.17 Summary of Predicted Long-Term Chromium Concentrations – Step 1 Screening

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Cr (µg/m3)




D1 1.8E-03 3.54E-02 1.3E-02 2.6E-01

D2 1.7E-03 3.40E-02 1.3E-02 2.5E-01

D3 2.2E-03 4.46E-02 1.3E-02 2.6E-01

D4 3.9E-03 7.85E-02 1.5E-02 3.0E-01

D5 5.8E-03 1.16E-01 1.7E-02 3.4E-01

D6 9.1E-03 1.82E-01 2.0E-02 4.0E-01

D7 1.1E-02 2.15E-01 2.2E-02 4.4E-01

D8 5.7E-03 1.13E-01 1.7E-02 3.3E-01

D9 4.2E-03 8.35E-02 1.5E-02 3.0E-01

D10 4.0E-03 7.91E-02 1.5E-02 3.0E-01

D11 2.6E-03 5.20E-02 1.4E-02 2.7E-01

D12 2.2E-03 4.48E-02 1.3E-02 2.6E-01

D13 2.1E-03 4.19E-02 1.3E-02 2.6E-01

D14 2.0E-03 3.95E-02 1.3E-02 2.6E-01

D15 2.4E-04 4.81E-03 1.1E-02 2.2E-01

D16 5.8E-04 1.16E-02 1.2E-02 2.3E-01

D17 1.3E-04 2.64E-03 1.1E-02 2.2E-01

D18 1.7E-04 3.39E-03 1.1E-02 2.2E-01

D19 2.3E-04 4.61E-03 1.1E-02 2.2E-01

D20 2.8E-04 5.50E-03 1.1E-02 2.3E-01

D21 3.1E-04 6.15E-03 1.1E-02 2.3E-01

D22 3.3E-04 6.65E-03 1.1E-02 2.3E-01

D23 4.4E-04 8.75E-03 1.1E-02 2.3E-01

D24 4.5E-04 8.93E-03 1.1E-02 2.3E-01

D25 5.3E-04 1.07E-02 1.2E-02 2.3E-01

D26 5.6E-04 1.12E-02 1.2E-02 2.3E-01

D27 3.8E-04 7.65E-03 1.1E-02 2.3E-01

D28 4.4E-04 8.77E-03 1.1E-02 2.3E-01

D29 2.9E-04 5.82E-03 1.1E-02 2.3E-01

D30 2.5E-04 5.09E-03 1.1E-02 2.3E-01

D31 4.0E-04 8.08E-03 1.1E-02 2.3E-01

D32 1.1E-03 2.30E-02 1.2E-02 2.4E-01

D33 1.6E-03 3.26E-02 1.3E-02 2.5E-01

D34 1.3E-03 2.68E-02 1.2E-02 2.5E-01

D35 3.3E-04 6.68E-03 1.1E-02 2.3E-01

D36 1.2E-04 2.40E-03 1.1E-02 2.2E-01

AQO 5







for Cr at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum


7.12.13 The maximum long-term Cr predicted PEC is 0.435% of AQO and below 70% of the Step 1

screening criteria. Therefore a Step 2 assessment is not required.

Short-term Cr

Table7.18 Summary of Predicted Short-Term Cr Concentrations – Step 1 Screening

Receptor

Predicted short-Term Concentration Cr (µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO


Headroom PC as %age of

Headroom

D1 9.96E-02 6.64E-02 1.216E-01 149.98 0.0664

D2 6.94E-02 4.63E-02 9.143E-02 149.98 0.0463

D3 5.49E-02 3.66E-02 7.686E-02 149.98 0.0366

D4 4.69E-02 3.13E-02 6.894E-02 149.98 0.0313

D5 5.86E-02 3.91E-02 8.063E-02 149.98 0.0391

D6 5.62E-02 3.75E-02 7.818E-02 149.98 0.0375

D7 5.90E-02 3.93E-02 8.098E-02 149.98 0.0393

D8 5.55E-02 3.70E-02 7.749E-02 149.98 0.0370

D9 3.72E-02 2.48E-02 5.921E-02 149.98 0.0248

D10 3.52E-02 2.35E-02 5.720E-02 149.98 0.0235

D11 2.81E-02 1.87E-02 5.011E-02 149.98 0.0187

D12 3.11E-02 2.07E-02 5.305E-02 149.98 0.0207

D13 3.11E-02 2.07E-02 5.305E-02 149.98 0.0207

D14 2.99E-02 2.00E-02 5.194E-02 149.98 0.0200

D15 1.48E-02 9.87E-03 3.680E-02 149.98 0.0099

D16 3.13E-02 2.09E-02 5.329E-02 149.98 0.0209

D17 1.22E-02 8.14E-03 3.421E-02 149.98 0.0081

D18 1.39E-02 9.28E-03 3.592E-02 149.98 0.0093

D19 1.59E-02 1.06E-02 3.790E-02 149.98 0.0106

D20 1.63E-02 1.09E-02 3.835E-02 149.98 0.0109

D21 1.75E-02 1.17E-02 3.954E-02 149.98 0.0117

D22 1.77E-02 1.18E-02 3.969E-02 149.98 0.0118

D23 1.58E-02 1.05E-02 3.781E-02 149.98 0.0105

D24 1.35E-02 8.97E-03 3.546E-02 149.98 0.0090

D25 1.65E-02 1.10E-02 3.848E-02 149.98 0.0110

D26 2.06E-02 1.37E-02 4.258E-02 149.98 0.0137

D27 1.56E-02 1.04E-02 3.757E-02 149.98 0.0104

D28 1.47E-02 9.81E-03 3.671E-02 149.98 0.0098

D29 1.48E-02 9.85E-03 3.678E-02 149.98 0.0099

D30 3.62E-02 2.41E-02 5.821E-02 149.98 0.0241

D31 1.66E-02 1.10E-02 3.857E-02 149.98 0.0110

D32 7.05E-02 4.70E-02 9.247E-02 149.98 0.0470

D33 8.10E-02 5.40E-02 1.030E-01 149.98 0.0540





Receptor

Predicted short-Term Concentration Cr (µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO



Headroom

D34 9.17E-02 6.12E-02 1.137E-01 149.98 0.0612

D35 3.11E-02 2.08E-02 5.313E-02 149.98 0.0208

D36 9.41E-03 6.27E-03 3.141E-02 149.98 0.0063

AQO 150

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 0.022µ/m3

7.12.14 As indicated in Table 7.18, there were no predicted exceedances of the relevant short-term criteria

for Cr at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum

short-term PC concentration).

7.12.15 The predicted maximum short-mean Cr PCs at the modelled discrete receptors is 0.0664% of the

headroom when using 2012 met data, which is less than 20% of the headroom. Therefore it can

be considered insignificant.

Long-Term Hexavalent Chromium Cr(VI)

Table 7.19 Summary of Predicted Long-Term Cr(VI) Concentrations – Step 1 – Screening

Scenario

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Cr(VI) (µg/m3) – Step1 – Screening Scenario



(PC +Background) PEC % of AQO

D1 1.8E-03 886.0 4.0E-03 1986.0

D2 1.7E-03 849.0 3.9E-03 1949.0

D3 2.2E-03 1115.7 4.4E-03 2215.7

D4 3.9E-03 1962.3 6.1E-03 3062.3

D5 5.8E-03 2892.1 8.0E-03 3992.1

D6 9.1E-03 4547.8 1.1E-02 5647.8

D7 1.1E-02 5377.9 1.3E-02 6477.9

D8 5.7E-03 2836.0 7.9E-03 3936.0

D9 4.2E-03 2088.3 6.4E-03 3188.3

D10 4.0E-03 1978.7 6.2E-03 3078.7

D11 2.6E-03 1299.2 4.8E-03 2399.2

D12 2.2E-03 1120.5 4.4E-03 2220.5

D13 2.1E-03 1047.9 4.3E-03 2147.9

D14 2.0E-03 986.7 4.2E-03 2086.7

D15 2.4E-04 120.2 2.4E-03 1220.2

D16 5.8E-04 291.2 2.8E-03 1391.2

D17 1.3E-04 66.1 2.3E-03 1166.1

D18 1.7E-04 84.8 2.4E-03 1184.8

D19 2.3E-04 115.3 2.4E-03 1215.3

D20 2.8E-04 137.5 2.5E-03 1237.5

D21 3.1E-04 153.7 2.5E-03 1253.7

D22 3.3E-04 166.2 2.5E-03 1266.2

D23 4.4E-04 218.8 2.6E-03 1318.8

D24 4.5E-04 223.3 2.6E-03 1323.3





Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Cr(VI) (µg/m3) – Step1 – Screening Scenario




D25 5.3E-04 266.9 2.7E-03 1366.9

D26 5.6E-04 279.7 2.8E-03 1379.7

D27 3.8E-04 191.3 2.6E-03 1291.3

D28 4.4E-04 219.3 2.6E-03 1319.3

D29 2.9E-04 145.6 2.5E-03 1245.6

D30 2.5E-04 127.2 2.5E-03 1227.2

D31 4.0E-04 202.1 2.6E-03 1302.1

D32 1.1E-03 574.8 3.3E-03 1674.8

D33 1.6E-03 815.5 3.8E-03 1915.5

D34 1.3E-03 669.3 3.5E-03 1769.3

D35 3.3E-04 166.9 2.5E-03 1266.9

D36 1.2E-04 59.9 2.3E-03 1159.9

AQO 0.0002

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 11 x 20% ng/m3. For screening only, assume Cr(VI) comprises 20% of the total Background chromium).

7.12.16 Given that long term Cr(VI) concentrations do not meet the Step 1 screening criteria, a Step 2

assessment has been undertaken which makes predictions assuming each metal comprises 11% of

the total group (i.e. 0.5mg/m3 apportioned across nine metals) and EA’s emissions monitoring data

indicates that it is reasonable to assume that each Group 3 metal comprises no more than 11% of

the Group ELV.

Table 7.20 Summary of Predicted Long-Term Cr(VI) Concentrations – Step 2 Assessment

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Cr(VI) (µg/m3) – Step 2 Assessment




D1 1.9E-04 97.5 2.4E-03 1197.5

D2 1.9E-04 93.4 2.4E-03 1193.4

D3 2.5E-04 122.7 2.4E-03 1222.7

D4 4.3E-04 215.9 2.6E-03 1315.9

D5 6.4E-04 318.1 2.8E-03 1418.1

D6 1.0E-03 500.3 3.2E-03 1600.3

D7 1.2E-03 591.6 3.4E-03 1691.6

D8 6.2E-04 312.0 2.8E-03 1412.0

D9 4.6E-04 229.7 2.7E-03 1329.7

D10 4.4E-04 217.7 2.6E-03 1317.7

D11 2.9E-04 142.9 2.5E-03 1242.9

D12 2.5E-04 123.3 2.4E-03 1223.3

D13 2.3E-04 115.3 2.4E-03 1215.3

D14 2.2E-04 108.5 2.4E-03 1208.5

D15 2.6E-05 13.2 2.2E-03 1113.2

D16 6.4E-05 32.0 2.3E-03 1132.0

D17 1.5E-05 7.3 2.2E-03 1107.3

D18 1.9E-05 9.3 2.2E-03 1109.3

D19 2.5E-05 12.7 2.2E-03 1112.7

D20 3.0E-05 15.1 2.2E-03 1115.1





Receptor





D21 3.4E-05 16.9 2.2E-03 1116.9

D22 3.7E-05 18.3 2.2E-03 1118.3

D23 4.8E-05 24.1 2.2E-03 1124.1

D24 4.9E-05 24.6 2.2E-03 1124.6

D25 5.9E-05 29.4 2.3E-03 1129.4

D26 6.2E-05 30.8 2.3E-03 1130.8

D27 4.2E-05 21.0 2.2E-03 1121.0

D28 4.8E-05 24.1 2.2E-03 1124.1

D29 3.2E-05 16.0 2.2E-03 1116.0

D30 2.8E-05 14.0 2.2E-03 1114.0

D31 4.4E-05 22.2 2.2E-03 1122.2

D32 1.3E-04 63.2 2.3E-03 1163.2

D33 1.8E-04 89.7 2.4E-03 1189.7

D34 1.5E-04 73.6 2.3E-03 1173.6

D35 3.7E-05 18.4 2.2E-03 1118.4

D36 1.3E-05 6.6 2.2E-03 1106.6

AQO 0.0002

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 2.2 ng/m3.

7.12.17 As illustrated by Table 7.20, long term Cr(VI) PC concentrations do not meet the Step 2

assessment criteria, a Step 3 – case specific scenario assessment has been undertaken which

makes predictions using the measured effective Cr(VI) concentration from a range of municipal

waste incinerators in England and Wales (EA Guidance to applicants on impact assessment for

group 3 metals stack, September 2012 version 3). The effective Cr(VI) emission concentration are

taken from ten MWI plant in England and Wales and the concentrations range from 2.3 x 10-6 to

1.3 x 10-4 mg/m3, with a mean of 3.5 x 10-5 mg/m3. The mean value has been used for the

predictions and the results of the model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of


Table 7.21 Summary of Predicted Long-Term Cr(VI) Concentrations – Step 3 – Case

Specific Scenario Assessment

Receptor





D1 1.2E-07 0.062 2.20012E-03 1100.06

D2 1.2E-07 0.059 2.20012E-03 1100.06

D3 1.6E-07 0.078 2.20016E-03 1100.08

D4 2.7E-07 0.137 2.20027E-03 1100.14

D5 4.0E-07 0.202 2.20040E-03 1100.20

D6 6.4E-07 0.318 2.20064E-03 1100.32

D7 7.5E-07 0.376 2.20075E-03 1100.38

D8 4.0E-07 0.199 2.20040E-03 1100.20

D9 2.9E-07 0.146 2.20029E-03 1100.15

D10 2.8E-07 0.139 2.20028E-03 1100.14





Receptor





D11 1.8E-07 0.091 2.20018E-03 1100.09

D12 1.6E-07 0.078 2.20016E-03 1100.08

D13 1.5E-07 0.073 2.20015E-03 1100.07

D14 1.4E-07 0.069 2.20014E-03 1100.07

D15 1.7E-08 0.008 2.20002E-03 1100.01

D16 4.1E-08 0.020 2.20004E-03 1100.02

D17 9.3E-09 0.005 2.20001E-03 1100.00

D18 1.2E-08 0.006 2.20001E-03 1100.01

D19 1.6E-08 0.008 2.20002E-03 1100.01

D20 1.9E-08 0.010 2.20002E-03 1100.01

D21 2.2E-08 0.011 2.20002E-03 1100.01

D22 2.3E-08 0.012 2.20002E-03 1100.01

D23 3.1E-08 0.015 2.20003E-03 1100.02

D24 3.1E-08 0.016 2.20003E-03 1100.02

D25 3.7E-08 0.019 2.20004E-03 1100.02

D26 3.9E-08 0.020 2.20004E-03 1100.02

D27 2.7E-08 0.013 2.20003E-03 1100.01

D28 3.1E-08 0.015 2.20003E-03 1100.02

D29 2.0E-08 0.010 2.20002E-03 1100.01

D30 1.8E-08 0.009 2.20002E-03 1100.01

D31 2.8E-08 0.014 2.20003E-03 1100.01

D32 8.0E-08 0.040 2.20008E-03 1100.04

D33 1.1E-07 0.057 2.20011E-03 1100.06

D34 9.4E-08 0.047 2.20009E-03 1100.05

D35 2.3E-08 0.012 2.20002E-03 1100.01

D36 8.4E-09 0.004 2.20001E-03 1100.00

AQO 0.0002

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 2.2 ng/m3.

7.12.18 As indicated in Table 7.21, by assuming Cr(VI) comprises 100% of total background chromium the

Cr(VI) background concentration has already exceeded the relevant AQO. However, the predicted

maximum annual mean PC for Cr(VI) at the modelled discrete receptors is 7.53x 10-07 µg/m3, which

is approximately only 0.38% of the long-term AQO (less than 1% of long-term AQO). Therefore,

the long-term Cr(VI) emission impact can be considered insignificant.

Mercury (Hg)

Long-term Hg

Table 7.22 Summary of Predicted Long-Term Hg Concentrations – Step 1 Screening

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Hg (µg/m3)




D1 1.8E-03 7.09E-01 8.8E-03 3.51

D2 1.7E-03 6.79E-01 8.7E-03 3.48

D3 2.2E-03 8.93E-01 9.2E-03 3.69





Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Hg (µg/m3)




D4 3.9E-03 1.57E+00 1.1E-02 4.37

D5 5.8E-03 2.31E+00 1.3E-02 5.11

D6 9.1E-03 3.64E+00 1.6E-02 6.44

D7 1.1E-02 4.30E+00 1.8E-02 7.10

D8 5.7E-03 2.27E+00 1.3E-02 5.07

D9 4.2E-03 1.67E+00 1.1E-02 4.47

D10 4.0E-03 1.58E+00 1.1E-02 4.38

D11 2.6E-03 1.04E+00 9.6E-03 3.84

D12 2.2E-03 8.96E-01 9.2E-03 3.70

D13 2.1E-03 8.38E-01 9.1E-03 3.64

D14 2.0E-03 7.89E-01 9.0E-03 3.59

D15 2.4E-04 9.62E-02 7.2E-03 2.90

D16 5.8E-04 2.33E-01 7.6E-03 3.03

D17 1.3E-04 5.29E-02 7.1E-03 2.85

D18 1.7E-04 6.78E-02 7.2E-03 2.87

D19 2.3E-04 9.22E-02 7.2E-03 2.89

D20 2.8E-04 1.10E-01 7.3E-03 2.91

D21 3.1E-04 1.23E-01 7.3E-03 2.92

D22 3.3E-04 1.33E-01 7.3E-03 2.93

D23 4.4E-04 1.75E-01 7.4E-03 2.98

D24 4.5E-04 1.79E-01 7.4E-03 2.98

D25 5.3E-04 2.14E-01 7.5E-03 3.01

D26 5.6E-04 2.24E-01 7.6E-03 3.02

D27 3.8E-04 1.53E-01 7.4E-03 2.95

D28 4.4E-04 1.75E-01 7.4E-03 2.98

D29 2.9E-04 1.16E-01 7.3E-03 2.92

D30 2.5E-04 1.02E-01 7.3E-03 2.90

D31 4.0E-04 1.62E-01 7.4E-03 2.96

D32 1.1E-03 4.60E-01 8.1E-03 3.26

D33 1.6E-03 6.52E-01 8.6E-03 3.45

D34 1.3E-03 5.35E-01 8.3E-03 3.34

D35 3.3E-04 1.34E-01 7.3E-03 2.93

D36 1.2E-04 4.80E-02 7.1E-03 2.85

AQO 0.25



for Hg at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum


7.12.20 The maximum long-term Hg predicted PEC is 7.10% of AQO and below 70% of the Step 1






Short-term Hg

Table 7.23 Summary of Predicted Short-Term Hg Concentrations – Step 1 Screening

Receptor

Predicted Short-Term Concentration Hg (µg/m3)



(PC +Background) Headroom

PC as %age of Headroom

D1 9.96E-02 1.33E+00 0.11358 7.486 1.330

D2 6.94E-02 9.26E-01 0.08343 7.486 0.927

D3 5.49E-02 7.32E-01 0.06886 7.486 0.733

D4 4.69E-02 6.26E-01 0.06094 7.486 0.627

D5 5.86E-02 7.82E-01 0.07263 7.486 0.783

D6 5.62E-02 7.49E-01 0.07018 7.486 0.750

D7 5.90E-02 7.86E-01 0.07298 7.486 0.788

D8 5.55E-02 7.40E-01 0.06949 7.486 0.741

D9 3.72E-02 4.96E-01 0.05121 7.486 0.497

D10 3.52E-02 4.69E-01 0.04920 7.486 0.470

D11 2.81E-02 3.75E-01 0.04211 7.486 0.375

D12 3.11E-02 4.14E-01 0.04505 7.486 0.415

D13 3.11E-02 4.14E-01 0.04505 7.486 0.415

D14 2.99E-02 3.99E-01 0.04394 7.486 0.400

D15 1.48E-02 1.97E-01 0.02880 7.486 0.198

D16 3.13E-02 4.17E-01 0.04529 7.486 0.418

D17 1.22E-02 1.63E-01 0.02621 7.486 0.163

D18 1.39E-02 1.86E-01 0.02792 7.486 0.186

D19 1.59E-02 2.12E-01 0.02990 7.486 0.212

D20 1.63E-02 2.18E-01 0.03035 7.486 0.218

D21 1.75E-02 2.34E-01 0.03154 7.486 0.234

D22 1.77E-02 2.36E-01 0.03169 7.486 0.236

D23 1.58E-02 2.11E-01 0.02981 7.486 0.211

D24 1.35E-02 1.79E-01 0.02746 7.486 0.180

D25 1.65E-02 2.20E-01 0.03048 7.486 0.220

D26 2.06E-02 2.74E-01 0.03458 7.486 0.275

D27 1.56E-02 2.08E-01 0.02957 7.486 0.208

D28 1.47E-02 1.96E-01 0.02871 7.486 0.197

D29 1.48E-02 1.97E-01 0.02878 7.486 0.197

D30 3.62E-02 4.83E-01 0.05021 7.486 0.484

D31 1.66E-02 2.21E-01 0.03057 7.486 0.221

D32 7.05E-02 9.40E-01 0.08447 7.486 0.941

D33 8.10E-02 1.08E+00 0.09505 7.486 1.083

D34 9.17E-02 1.22E+00 0.10574 7.486 1.225

D35 3.11E-02 4.15E-01 0.04513 7.486 0.416

D36 9.41E-03 1.25E-01 0.02341 7.486 0.126

AQO 7.5

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 14ng/m3


for Hg at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum






7.12.22 The predicted maximum short-mean Hg PCs at the modelled discrete receptors is 1.33% of the



Nickel (Ni)

Long-term Ni

Table 7.24 Summary of Predicted Long-Term Ni Concentrations – Step 1 Screening

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Ni (µg/m3)




D1 1.8E-03 8.86 7.7E-03 38.4

D2 1.7E-03 8.49 7.6E-03 38.0

D3 2.2E-03 11.16 8.1E-03 40.7

D4 3.9E-03 19.62 9.8E-03 49.1

D5 5.8E-03 28.92 1.2E-02 58.4

D6 9.1E-03 45.48 1.5E-02 75.0

D7 1.1E-02 53.78 1.7E-02 83.3

D8 5.7E-03 28.36 1.2E-02 57.9

D9 4.2E-03 20.88 1.0E-02 50.4

D10 4.0E-03 19.79 9.9E-03 49.3

D11 2.6E-03 12.99 8.5E-03 42.5

D12 2.2E-03 11.21 8.1E-03 40.7

D13 2.1E-03 10.48 8.0E-03 40.0

D14 2.0E-03 9.87 7.9E-03 39.4

D15 2.4E-04 1.20 6.1E-03 30.7

D16 5.8E-04 2.91 6.5E-03 32.4

D17 1.3E-04 0.66 6.0E-03 30.2

D18 1.7E-04 0.85 6.1E-03 30.3

D19 2.3E-04 1.15 6.1E-03 30.7

D20 2.8E-04 1.38 6.2E-03 30.9

D21 3.1E-04 1.54 6.2E-03 31.0

D22 3.3E-04 1.66 6.2E-03 31.2

D23 4.4E-04 2.19 6.3E-03 31.7

D24 4.5E-04 2.23 6.3E-03 31.7

D25 5.3E-04 2.67 6.4E-03 32.2

D26 5.6E-04 2.80 6.5E-03 32.3

D27 3.8E-04 1.91 6.3E-03 31.4

D28 4.4E-04 2.19 6.3E-03 31.7

D29 2.9E-04 1.46 6.2E-03 31.0

D30 2.5E-04 1.27 6.2E-03 30.8

D31 4.0E-04 2.02 6.3E-03 31.5

D32 1.1E-03 5.75 7.0E-03 35.2

D33 1.6E-03 8.16 7.5E-03 37.7

D34 1.3E-03 6.69 7.2E-03 36.2

D35 3.3E-04 1.67 6.2E-03 31.2

D36 1.2E-04 0.60 6.0E-03 30.1

AQO 0.02






7.12.23 As indicated in Table 7.24 there were no predicted long-term PEC exceedances of the relevant EAL

for Ni at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum

long-term PC concentration). Therefore a Step 2 assessment is not required.

Lead (Pb)

Long-term Pb

Table 7.25 Summary of Predicted Long-Term Pb Concentrations – Step 1 Screening

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Pb (µg/m3)




D1 1.8E-03 7.09E-01 5.7E-02 22.71

D2 1.7E-03 6.79E-01 5.7E-02 22.68

D3 2.2E-03 8.93E-01 5.7E-02 22.89

D4 3.9E-03 1.57E+00 5.9E-02 23.57

D5 5.8E-03 2.31E+00 6.1E-02 24.31

D6 9.1E-03 3.64E+00 6.4E-02 25.64

D7 1.1E-02 4.30E+00 6.6E-02 26.30

D8 5.7E-03 2.27E+00 6.1E-02 24.27

D9 4.2E-03 1.67E+00 5.9E-02 23.67

D10 4.0E-03 1.58E+00 5.9E-02 23.58

D11 2.6E-03 1.04E+00 5.8E-02 23.04

D12 2.2E-03 8.96E-01 5.7E-02 22.90

D13 2.1E-03 8.38E-01 5.7E-02 22.84

D14 2.0E-03 7.89E-01 5.7E-02 22.79

D15 2.4E-04 9.62E-02 5.5E-02 22.10

D16 5.8E-04 2.33E-01 5.6E-02 22.23

D17 1.3E-04 5.29E-02 5.5E-02 22.05

D18 1.7E-04 6.78E-02 5.5E-02 22.07

D19 2.3E-04 9.22E-02 5.5E-02 22.09

D20 2.8E-04 1.10E-01 5.5E-02 22.11

D21 3.1E-04 1.23E-01 5.5E-02 22.12

D22 3.3E-04 1.33E-01 5.5E-02 22.13

D23 4.4E-04 1.75E-01 5.5E-02 22.18

D24 4.5E-04 1.79E-01 5.5E-02 22.18

D25 5.3E-04 2.14E-01 5.6E-02 22.21

D26 5.6E-04 2.24E-01 5.6E-02 22.22

D27 3.8E-04 1.53E-01 5.5E-02 22.15

D28 4.4E-04 1.75E-01 5.5E-02 22.18

D29 2.9E-04 1.16E-01 5.5E-02 22.12

D30 2.5E-04 1.02E-01 5.5E-02 22.10

D31 4.0E-04 1.62E-01 5.5E-02 22.16

D32 1.1E-03 4.60E-01 5.6E-02 22.46

D33 1.6E-03 6.52E-01 5.7E-02 22.65

D34 1.3E-03 5.35E-01 5.6E-02 22.54

D35 3.3E-04 1.34E-01 5.5E-02 22.13





Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Pb (µg/m3)




D36 1.2E-04 4.80E-02 5.5E-02 22.05

AQO 0.25


7.12.24 As indicated in Table

7.12.25 7.25, there were no predicted long-term PEC exceedances of the relevant EAL for Pb at any

discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum long-term PC

concentration).

7.12.26 The maximum long-term Pb predicted PEC is 26.30% of AQO and below 70% of the Step 1


Copper (Cu)

Long-term Cu

Table 7.26 Summary of Predicted Long-Term Cu Concentrations – Step 1 Screening

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Cu (µg/m3)




D1 1.8E-03 1.77E-02 0.102 1.018

D2 1.7E-03 1.70E-02 0.102 1.017

D3 2.2E-03 2.23E-02 0.102 1.022

D4 3.9E-03 3.92E-02 0.104 1.039

D5 5.8E-03 5.78E-02 0.106 1.058

D6 9.1E-03 9.10E-02 0.109 1.091

D7 1.1E-02 1.08E-01 0.111 1.108

D8 5.7E-03 5.67E-02 0.106 1.057

D9 4.2E-03 4.18E-02 0.104 1.042

D10 4.0E-03 3.96E-02 0.104 1.040

D11 2.6E-03 2.60E-02 0.103 1.026

D12 2.2E-03 2.24E-02 0.102 1.022

D13 2.1E-03 2.10E-02 0.102 1.021

D14 2.0E-03 1.97E-02 0.102 1.020

D15 2.4E-04 2.40E-03 0.100 1.002

D16 5.8E-04 5.82E-03 0.101 1.006

D17 1.3E-04 1.32E-03 0.100 1.001

D18 1.7E-04 1.70E-03 0.100 1.002

D19 2.3E-04 2.31E-03 0.100 1.002

D20 2.8E-04 2.75E-03 0.100 1.003

D21 3.1E-04 3.07E-03 0.100 1.003

D22 3.3E-04 3.32E-03 0.100 1.003

D23 4.4E-04 4.38E-03 0.100 1.004

D24 4.5E-04 4.47E-03 0.100 1.004





Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Cu (µg/m3)




D25 5.3E-04 5.34E-03 0.101 1.005

D26 5.6E-04 5.59E-03 0.101 1.006

D27 3.8E-04 3.83E-03 0.100 1.004

D28 4.4E-04 4.39E-03 0.100 1.004

D29 2.9E-04 2.91E-03 0.100 1.003

D30 2.5E-04 2.54E-03 0.100 1.003

D31 4.0E-04 4.04E-03 0.100 1.004

D32 1.1E-03 1.15E-02 0.101 1.011

D33 1.6E-03 1.63E-02 0.102 1.016

D34 1.3E-03 1.34E-02 0.101 1.013

D35 3.3E-04 3.34E-03 0.100 1.003

D36 1.2E-04 1.20E-03 0.100 1.001

AQO 10



for Cu at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum


7.12.28 The maximum long-term Cu predicted PEC is 1.11% of AQO and below 70% of the Step 1


Short-term Cu

Table 7.27 Summary of Predicted Short-Term Cu Concentrations – Step 1 Screening

Receptor

Predicted Short-Term Concentration Cu (µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO



Headroom

D1 9.96E-02 4.98E-02 0.300 199.800 0.050

D2 6.94E-02 3.47E-02 0.269 199.800 0.035

D3 5.49E-02 2.74E-02 0.255 199.800 0.027

D4 4.69E-02 2.35E-02 0.247 199.800 0.023

D5 5.86E-02 2.93E-02 0.259 199.800 0.029

D6 5.62E-02 2.81E-02 0.256 199.800 0.028

D7 5.90E-02 2.95E-02 0.259 199.800 0.030

D8 5.55E-02 2.77E-02 0.255 199.800 0.028

D9 3.72E-02 1.86E-02 0.237 199.800 0.019

D10 3.52E-02 1.76E-02 0.235 199.800 0.018

D11 2.81E-02 1.41E-02 0.228 199.800 0.014

D12 3.11E-02 1.55E-02 0.231 199.800 0.016

D13 3.11E-02 1.55E-02 0.231 199.800 0.016

D14 2.99E-02 1.50E-02 0.230 199.800 0.015

D15 1.48E-02 7.40E-03 0.215 199.800 0.007

D16 3.13E-02 1.56E-02 0.231 199.800 0.016

D17 1.22E-02 6.11E-03 0.212 199.800 0.006

D18 1.39E-02 6.96E-03 0.214 199.800 0.007





Receptor

Predicted Short-Term Concentration Cu (µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO



Headroom

D19 1.59E-02 7.95E-03 0.216 199.800 0.008

D20 1.63E-02 8.17E-03 0.216 199.800 0.008

D21 1.75E-02 8.77E-03 0.218 199.800 0.009

D22 1.77E-02 8.85E-03 0.218 199.800 0.009

D23 1.58E-02 7.90E-03 0.216 199.800 0.008

D24 1.35E-02 6.73E-03 0.213 199.800 0.007

D25 1.65E-02 8.24E-03 0.216 199.800 0.008

D26 2.06E-02 1.03E-02 0.221 199.800 0.010

D27 1.56E-02 7.78E-03 0.216 199.800 0.008

D28 1.47E-02 7.36E-03 0.215 199.800 0.007

D29 1.48E-02 7.39E-03 0.215 199.800 0.007

D30 3.62E-02 1.81E-02 0.236 199.800 0.018

D31 1.66E-02 8.28E-03 0.217 199.800 0.008

D32 7.05E-02 3.52E-02 0.270 199.800 0.035

D33 8.10E-02 4.05E-02 0.281 199.800 0.041

D34 9.17E-02 4.59E-02 0.292 199.800 0.046

D35 3.11E-02 1.56E-02 0.231 199.800 0.016

D36 9.41E-03 4.71E-03 0.209 199.800 0.005

AQO 200



for Cu at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum


7.12.30 The predicted maximum short-mean Cu PCs at the modelled discrete receptors is 0.0498% of the



Manganese (Mn)

Long-term Mn

Table 7.28 Summary of Predicted Long-Term Mn Concentrations – Step 1 Screening

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Mn (µg/m3)




D1 1.8E-03 1.18E+00 3.6E-02 23.85

D2 1.7E-03 1.13E+00 3.6E-02 23.80

D3 2.2E-03 1.49E+00 3.6E-02 24.15

D4 3.9E-03 2.62E+00 3.8E-02 25.28

D5 5.8E-03 3.86E+00 4.0E-02 26.52

D6 9.1E-03 6.06E+00 4.3E-02 28.73

D7 1.1E-02 7.17E+00 4.5E-02 29.84

D8 5.7E-03 3.78E+00 4.0E-02 26.45





Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration Mn (µg/m3)




D9 4.2E-03 2.78E+00 3.8E-02 25.45

D10 4.0E-03 2.64E+00 3.8E-02 25.30

D11 2.6E-03 1.73E+00 3.7E-02 24.40

D12 2.2E-03 1.49E+00 3.6E-02 24.16

D13 2.1E-03 1.40E+00 3.6E-02 24.06

D14 2.0E-03 1.32E+00 3.6E-02 23.98

D15 2.4E-04 1.60E-01 3.4E-02 22.83

D16 5.8E-04 3.88E-01 3.5E-02 23.05

D17 1.3E-04 8.81E-02 3.4E-02 22.75

D18 1.7E-04 1.13E-01 3.4E-02 22.78

D19 2.3E-04 1.54E-01 3.4E-02 22.82

D20 2.8E-04 1.83E-01 3.4E-02 22.85

D21 3.1E-04 2.05E-01 3.4E-02 22.87

D22 3.3E-04 2.22E-01 3.4E-02 22.89

D23 4.4E-04 2.92E-01 3.4E-02 22.96

D24 4.5E-04 2.98E-01 3.4E-02 22.96

D25 5.3E-04 3.56E-01 3.5E-02 23.02

D26 5.6E-04 3.73E-01 3.5E-02 23.04

D27 3.8E-04 2.55E-01 3.4E-02 22.92

D28 4.4E-04 2.92E-01 3.4E-02 22.96

D29 2.9E-04 1.94E-01 3.4E-02 22.86

D30 2.5E-04 1.70E-01 3.4E-02 22.84

D31 4.0E-04 2.69E-01 3.4E-02 22.94

D32 1.1E-03 7.66E-01 3.5E-02 23.43

D33 1.6E-03 1.09E+00 3.6E-02 23.75

D34 1.3E-03 8.92E-01 3.5E-02 23.56

D35 3.3E-04 2.23E-01 3.4E-02 22.89

D36 1.2E-04 7.99E-02 3.4E-02 22.75

AQO 0.15



for Mn at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum


7.12.32 The maximum long-term Mn predicted PEC is 29.84% of AQO and below 70% of the Step 1


Short-term Mn

Table 7.29 Summary of Predicted Short-Term Mn Concentrations – Step 1 Screening

Receptor

Predicted Short-Term Concentration Mn (µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO



Headroom

D1 9.96E-02 6.64E-03 0.168 1499.932 0.00664

D2 6.94E-02 4.63E-03 0.137 1499.932 0.00463





Receptor

Predicted Short-Term Concentration Mn (µg/m3)


PC as %age of AQO



Headroom

D3 5.49E-02 3.66E-03 0.123 1499.932 0.00366

D4 4.69E-02 3.13E-03 0.115 1499.932 0.00313

D5 5.86E-02 3.91E-03 0.127 1499.932 0.00391

D6 5.62E-02 3.75E-03 0.124 1499.932 0.00375

D7 5.90E-02 3.93E-03 0.127 1499.932 0.00393

D8 5.55E-02 3.70E-03 0.123 1499.932 0.00370

D9 3.72E-02 2.48E-03 0.105 1499.932 0.00248

D10 3.52E-02 2.35E-03 0.103 1499.932 0.00235

D11 2.81E-02 1.87E-03 0.096 1499.932 0.00187

D12 3.11E-02 2.07E-03 0.099 1499.932 0.00207

D13 3.11E-02 2.07E-03 0.099 1499.932 0.00207

D14 2.99E-02 2.00E-03 0.098 1499.932 0.00200

D15 1.48E-02 9.87E-04 0.083 1499.932 0.00099

D16 3.13E-02 2.09E-03 0.099 1499.932 0.00209

D17 1.22E-02 8.14E-04 0.080 1499.932 0.00081

D18 1.39E-02 9.28E-04 0.082 1499.932 0.00093

D19 1.59E-02 1.06E-03 0.084 1499.932 0.00106

D20 1.63E-02 1.09E-03 0.084 1499.932 0.00109

D21 1.75E-02 1.17E-03 0.086 1499.932 0.00117

D22 1.77E-02 1.18E-03 0.086 1499.932 0.00118

D23 1.58E-02 1.05E-03 0.084 1499.932 0.00105

D24 1.35E-02 8.97E-04 0.081 1499.932 0.00090

D25 1.65E-02 1.10E-03 0.084 1499.932 0.00110

D26 2.06E-02 1.37E-03 0.089 1499.932 0.00137

D27 1.56E-02 1.04E-03 0.084 1499.932 0.00104

D28 1.47E-02 9.81E-04 0.083 1499.932 0.00098

D29 1.48E-02 9.85E-04 0.083 1499.932 0.00099

D30 3.62E-02 2.41E-03 0.104 1499.932 0.00241

D31 1.66E-02 1.10E-03 0.085 1499.932 0.00110

D32 7.05E-02 4.70E-03 0.138 1499.932 0.00470

D33 8.10E-02 5.40E-03 0.149 1499.932 0.00540

D34 9.17E-02 6.12E-03 0.160 1499.932 0.00612

D35 3.11E-02 2.08E-03 0.099 1499.932 0.00208

D36 9.41E-03 6.27E-04 0.077 1499.932 0.00063

AQO 1500



for Mn at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum


7.12.34 The predicted maximum short-mean Mn PCs at the modelled discrete receptors is 0.0066% of the







Vanadium (V)

Long-term V

Table 7.30 Summary of Predicted Long-Term V Concentrations – Step 1 Screening

Receptor

Predicted Annual Mean Concentration V (µg/m3)




D1 1.8E-03 3.54E-02 4.6E-03 0.091

D2 1.7E-03 3.40E-02 4.5E-03 0.090

D3 2.2E-03 4.46E-02 5.0E-03 0.101

D4 3.9E-03 7.85E-02 6.7E-03 0.134

D5 5.8E-03 1.16E-01 8.6E-03 0.172

D6 9.1E-03 1.82E-01 1.2E-02 0.238

D7 1.1E-02 2.15E-01 1.4E-02 0.271

D8 5.7E-03 1.13E-01 8.5E-03 0.169

D9 4.2E-03 8.35E-02 7.0E-03 0.140

D10 4.0E-03 7.91E-02 6.8E-03 0.135

D11 2.6E-03 5.20E-02 5.4E-03 0.108

D12 2.2E-03 4.48E-02 5.0E-03 0.101

D13 2.1E-03 4.19E-02 4.9E-03 0.098

D14 2.0E-03 3.95E-02 4.8E-03 0.095

D15 2.4E-04 4.81E-03 3.0E-03 0.061

D16 5.8E-04 1.16E-02 3.4E-03 0.068

D17 1.3E-04 2.64E-03 2.9E-03 0.059

D18 1.7E-04 3.39E-03 3.0E-03 0.059

D19 2.3E-04 4.61E-03 3.0E-03 0.061

D20 2.8E-04 5.50E-03 3.1E-03 0.062

D21 3.1E-04 6.15E-03 3.1E-03 0.062

D22 3.3E-04 6.65E-03 3.1E-03 0.063

D23 4.4E-04 8.75E-03 3.2E-03 0.065

D24 4.5E-04 8.93E-03 3.2E-03 0.065

D25 5.3E-04 1.07E-02 3.3E-03 0.067

D26 5.6E-04 1.12E-02 3.4E-03 0.067

D27 3.8E-04 7.65E-03 3.2E-03 0.064

D28 4.4E-04 8.77E-03 3.2E-03 0.065

D29 2.9E-04 5.82E-03 3.1E-03 0.062

D30 2.5E-04 5.09E-03 3.1E-03 0.061

D31 4.0E-04 8.08E-03 3.2E-03 0.064

D32 1.1E-03 2.30E-02 3.9E-03 0.079

D33 1.6E-03 3.26E-02 4.4E-03 0.089

D34 1.3E-03 2.68E-02 4.1E-03 0.083

D35 3.3E-04 6.68E-03 3.1E-03 0.063

D36 1.2E-04 2.40E-03 2.9E-03 0.058

AQO 5



for V at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data the year resulting in maximum






7.12.36 The maximum long-term V predicted PEC is 0.27% of AQO and below 70% of the Step 1 screening

criteria. Therefore a Step 2 assessment is not required.

Short-term V

Table 7.31 Summary of Predicted Short-Term (24-hour) Vanadium Concentrations

Receptor

Predicted Short-Term (24-hour) Concentration Vanadium (µg/m3)



(PC +Background) Headroom

PC as %age of Headroom

D1 0.008 0.788 0.013 0.994 0.79

D2 0.008 0.766 0.013 0.994 0.77

D3 0.007 0.736 0.013 0.994 0.74

D4 0.009 0.886 0.014 0.994 0.89

D5 0.010 0.999 0.016 0.994 1.00

D6 0.012 1.233 0.018 0.994 1.24

D7 0.012 1.236 0.018 0.994 1.24

D8 0.012 1.187 0.017 0.994 1.19

D9 0.011 1.093 0.017 0.994 1.10

D10 0.012 1.189 0.017 0.994 1.20

D11 0.012 1.224 0.018 0.994 1.23

D12 0.013 1.272 0.018 0.994 1.28

D13 0.013 1.335 0.019 0.994 1.34

D14 0.010 1.044 0.016 0.994 1.05

D15 0.014 1.398 0.020 0.994 1.41

D16 0.009 0.925 0.015 0.994 0.93

D17 0.011 1.057 0.016 0.994 1.06

D18 0.010 1.042 0.016 0.994 1.05

D19 0.009 0.938 0.015 0.994 0.94

D20 0.010 0.973 0.015 0.994 0.98

D21 0.010 1.018 0.016 0.994 1.02

D22 0.010 1.012 0.016 0.994 1.02

D23 0.011 1.101 0.017 0.994 1.11

D24 0.008 0.797 0.014 0.994 0.80

D25 0.007 0.681 0.012 0.994 0.69

D26 0.008 0.849 0.014 0.994 0.85

D27 0.009 0.877 0.014 0.994 0.88

D28 0.009 0.878 0.014 0.994 0.88

D29 0.007 0.732 0.013 0.994 0.74

D30 0.009 0.867 0.014 0.994 0.87

D31 0.013 1.291 0.019 0.994 1.30

D32 0.012 1.177 0.017 0.994 1.18

D33 0.010 0.977 0.015 0.994 0.98

D34 0.009 0.913 0.015 0.994 0.92

D35 0.007 0.651 0.012 0.994 0.65

D36 0.009 0.936 0.015 0.994 0.94

AQO 1






7.12.37 As indicated in Table 7.31 there were no predicted exceedances of the relevant short-term criteria

for Vanadium at any discrete receptor location when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in

maximum short-term PC concentration).

7.12.38 The predicted maximum short-mean Vanadium PCs at the modelled discrete receptors is 1.405% of

the headroom when using 2012 met data, which is less than 20% of the headroom. Therefore it

can be considered insignificant.

7.13 Sensitivity Analysis – Inter-Annual Variability

7.13.1 The short-term and long-term potential air emissions from the modelled stacks have been assessed

for the 3 complete years of meteorological data. The model sensitivity to inter-annual variation of

meteorological conditions was calculated by using the following equation:

% Variation = [(Maximum mean – Minimum mean) 2] x 100

[(Maximum mean + Minimum mean) 2]

7.13.2 In the above equation “mean” refers to the true mean for all of the concentrations calculated by

the model at all discrete receptors. Results are shown for short-term and long-term NO2

predictions in Table 7.32.

Table 7.32 Sensitivity Analysis

Substance 3 Year of Meteorological Date

% Variation 2010 201 2012

NO2 long-term PC (µg/m3) 0.437 0.504 0.533 10.14

NO2 short-term PC (µg/m3) 3.466 3.402 3.359 1.56

7.13.3 The sensitivity analysis indicates that for the emissions of NO2 and all 3 years of meteorological

data the percentage variations were 10.14% and 1.56% for long-term and short-term respectively.

7.14 Emergency Scenario Emission

7.14.1 Ground level short-term pollutant concentrations were assessed under following

Emergency/abnormal scenarios when a proposed abatement system fails:

• Emergency Scenario 1 – The ceramic filters with the CEMS system failure;

• Emergency Scenario 2 - Sodium bicarbonate powder system failure; and

• Emergency Scenario 3 - Activated Carbon system failure.





The predicted short-term pollutant concentrations under those abnormal operation scenarios are

presented as below.

Emergency Scenario 1

7.14.2 Predicted ground level short-term PM10 concentrations under the abnormal scenario 1, The Sodium

bicarbonate powder system failure, were assessed against the relevant AQOs. The results of the

model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of background, using 2012 met data (the

year resulting in maximum short-term PC concentration), are summarised in Table 7.33.

Table 7.33 Summary of Predicted Short-Term PM10 Concentrations under Abnormal

Condition – Scenario 1

Receptor


Process Contrib’tn (PC) PC as %age of AQO Background PEC(a)

(PC +Background)

D1 0.72 1.45 14.16 14.88

D2 0.70 1.40 13.95 14.65

D3 0.76 1.51 13.76 14.52

D4 1.27 2.54 13.71 14.98

D5 1.74 3.47 13.71 15.45

D6 2.77 5.54 13.70 16.47

D7 3.13 6.25 13.70 16.83

D8 1.81 3.61 13.70 15.51

D9 1.32 2.63 13.70 15.02

D10 1.23 2.45 13.70 14.93

D11 0.78 1.57 13.75 14.53

D12 0.60 1.20 13.75 14.35

D13 0.60 1.20 13.75 14.35

D14 0.57 1.14 13.75 14.32

D15 0.08 0.15 14.04 14.12

D16 0.19 0.38 14.06 14.25

D17 0.05 0.09 15.54 15.59

D18 0.06 0.12 14.66 14.72

D19 0.08 0.16 15.06 15.14

D20 0.09 0.19 14.90 14.99

D21 0.10 0.21 14.87 14.97

D22 0.12 0.25 14.81 14.93

D23 0.18 0.35 14.97 15.15

D24 0.18 0.37 15.09 15.27

D25 0.21 0.42 14.32 14.53

D26 0.20 0.40 14.26 14.46

D27 0.15 0.29 14.21 14.36

D28 0.18 0.35 14.18 14.36

D29 0.10 0.21 13.92 14.02

D30 0.09 0.19 13.77 13.86

D31 0.17 0.34 13.82 13.99

D32 0.47 0.93 14.74 15.21





Receptor


Process Contrib’tn (PC) PC as %age of AQO Background PEC(a)

(PC +Background)

D33 0.64 1.27 15.04 15.68

D34 0.48 0.96 14.84 15.32

D35 0.14 0.29 13.80 13.94

D36 0.05 0.09 12.25 12.30

AQOs = 50 µg/m3

7.14.3 The maximum predicted 24 hour mean (the 90.41th percentile) PM10 process contributions (PC) at

receptors is 3.13 µg/m3 when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum short-term PC

concentration). The predicted short-mean PM10 PCs at the modelled discrete receptors are well

below 10% of the short-term AQO, which are considered insignificant.

7.14.4 The maximum PEC of 24 hour mean (the 90.41th percentile) PM10 emissions is 16.83µg/m3, which

does not exceed the relevant short-term AQS of 50 µg/m3. Therefore, the short-term PECs of PM10

at all receptors are below the relevant short-term AQS of 50 µg/m3 for the protection of human

health under the abnormal operation scenario 1 when the bag-house filter system fails.


7.14.5 Predicted ground level short-term SO2 concentrations under the abnormal scenario 2, with Sodium

bicarbonate powder system failure, were assessed against the relevant AQOs. The results of the

model predictions at each discrete receptor, inclusive of background, using 2012 met data (the

year resulting in maximum short-term PC concentration), are summarised in Table 7.34.

Table 7.34 Summary of Predicted SO2 Concentrations under Abnormal Condition –

Scenario 2

Receptor






(PC)



(PC)



(PC)


D1 8.16 13.73 29.80 39.24 43.80 56.45

D2 7.11 12.68 27.93 37.37 41.02 53.67

D3 11.11 16.67 29.15 38.59 43.35 56.00

D4 15.22 20.79 27.84 37.28 37.93 50.58

D5 19.12 24.69 37.62 47.06 52.13 64.78

D6 23.03 28.60 37.48 46.92 50.56 63.21

D7 27.04 32.61 39.19 48.63 53.12 65.77

D8 15.28 20.85 28.23 37.67 38.73 51.38

D9 12.17 17.74 24.25 33.69 33.26 45.91

D10 10.99 16.56 21.64 31.08 30.05 42.70

D11 7.61 13.18 16.51 25.95 23.27 35.92





Receptor






(PC)



(PC)



(PC)


D12 5.40 10.97 14.68 24.12 24.76 37.41

D13 5.44 11.01 14.15 23.59 22.84 35.49

D14 5.51 11.08 13.81 23.25 22.27 34.92

D15 1.05 6.62 4.32 13.76 9.58 22.23

D16 2.82 8.39 11.41 20.85 19.21 31.86

D17 0.65 6.21 3.20 12.64 5.95 18.60

D18 0.94 6.51 3.52 12.96 8.43 21.08

D19 1.13 6.70 4.54 13.98 11.03 23.68

D20 1.34 6.91 4.94 14.38 11.26 23.91

D21 1.35 6.92 4.91 14.35 10.79 23.44

D22 1.43 7.00 5.27 14.71 11.66 24.31

D23 2.07 7.64 6.01 15.45 10.88 23.53

D24 2.25 7.82 6.91 16.35 10.51 23.16

D25 2.97 8.54 9.08 18.52 13.95 26.60

D26 3.09 8.66 9.52 18.96 14.68 27.33

D27 2.43 8.00 7.65 17.09 12.41 25.06

D28 2.73 8.30 8.73 18.17 12.39 25.04

D29 1.79 7.36 8.98 18.42 12.93 25.58

D30 1.49 7.06 8.68 18.12 13.23 25.88

D31 2.19 7.76 9.40 18.84 13.95 26.60

D32 5.25 10.82 20.28 29.72 30.46 43.11

D33 8.71 14.28 26.83 36.27 39.74 52.39

D34 6.73 12.30 28.01 37.45 45.06 57.71

D35 1.74 7.31 9.75 19.19 15.22 27.87

D36 0.72 6.29 3.35 12.79 6.36 19.01

AQOs 125 350 266

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 5.57µg/m3 (b) Inclusive of Background concentration of 9.44µg/m3 (c) Inclusive of Background concentration of 12.65µg/m3

7.14.6 The maximum PEC of 24-hour mean SO2 emissions at all receptors is 27.04 µg/m3 when using

2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum short-term PC concentration), which does not

exceed the relevant short-term AQS of 125 µg/m3. Therefore, the short-term (24-hour) PECs of

SO2 at all receptors are below the relevant short-term AQS of 125 µg/m3 for the protection of

human health under the abnormal operation scenario.

7.14.7 The maximum PEC of 1-hour mean SO2 emissions at all receptors is 39.19 µg /m3 when using 2012

met data, which does not exceed the relevant short-term AQS of 350 µg/m3. Therefore, the short-

term (1-hour) PECs of SO2 at all receptors are below the relevant short-term AQS of 350 µg/m3 for

the protection of human health under the abnormal operation scenario.

7.14.8 The maximum PEC of 15-minute mean SO2 emissions at sensitive residential receptors is

53.12 µg/m3 when using 2012 met data, which does not exceed the relevant short-term AQS of

266 µg/m3. Therefore, the short-term (15-minute) PECs of SO2 at all residential receptors are





below the relevant short-term AQS of 266 µg/m3 for the protection of human health under the

abnormal operation scenario.


7.14.9 Predicted ground level long-term dioxins and furans concentrations under the abnormal scenario 3,

with activated carbon system failure, were assessed. The results of the model predictions at each

discrete receptor, inclusive of background, using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum

short-term PC concentration), are summarised in Table 7.35.

7.14.10 There are no air quality standards for dioxins and furans and as such it is not possible to determine

the magnitude and subsequently, significance of the predicted increase in Dioxins and furans

exposure as a result of emissions associated with the proposed development. As such, the process

contribution of the facility is presented as a percentage of the existing background levels.

Table 7.35 Predicted Dioxins and Furans Concentrations (fg/m3 I-TEQ)

Receptor PC



Background

D1 0.65 48.700 49.35 1.34

D2 0.62 48.700 49.32 1.28

D3 0.82 48.700 49.52 1.68

D4 1.44 48.700 50.14 2.96

D5 2.13 48.700 50.83 4.37

D6 3.34 48.700 52.04 6.87

D7 3.95 48.700 52.65 8.12

D8 2.09 48.700 50.79 4.28

D9 1.54 48.700 50.24 3.15

D10 1.45 48.700 50.15 2.99

D11 0.96 48.700 49.66 1.96

D12 0.82 48.700 49.52 1.69

D13 0.77 48.700 49.47 1.58

D14 0.73 48.700 49.43 1.49

D15 0.09 48.700 48.79 0.18

D16 0.21 48.700 48.91 0.44

D17 0.05 48.700 48.75 0.10

D18 0.06 48.700 48.76 0.13

D19 0.08 48.700 48.78 0.17

D20 0.10 48.700 48.80 0.21

D21 0.11 48.700 48.81 0.23

D22 0.12 48.700 48.82 0.25

D23 0.16 48.700 48.86 0.33

D24 0.16 48.700 48.86 0.34

D25 0.20 48.700 48.90 0.40





Receptor PC



Background

D26 0.21 48.700 48.91 0.42

D27 0.14 48.700 48.84 0.29

D28 0.16 48.700 48.86 0.33

D29 0.11 48.700 48.81 0.22

D30 0.09 48.700 48.79 0.19

D31 0.15 48.700 48.85 0.31

D32 0.42 48.700 49.12 0.87

D33 0.60 48.700 49.30 1.23

D34 0.49 48.700 49.19 1.01

D35 0.12 48.700 48.82 0.25

D36 0.04 48.700 48.74 0.09

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 48.7 fg/m3

7.14.11 As illustrated by Table 7.35, the additional contribution to total background Dioxins and furans

concentrations is expected to be small, less than 8.12% of the estimated existing concentrations

under the abnormal operation scenario 3 when the activated carbon system fails.

7.15 Habitat Assessment

7.15.1 The habitat assessment has been undertaken for the identified nature conservation sites including:

• Six Pit, Swansea Vale and White Rock, SSSI; and

• Crymlyn Bog - Ramsar/SAC/SSSI.

• SINC – Swansea Vale / Fenrod NR (adjacent -eastern boundary) designated for its habitat

interest; and

• SINC – Fendrod Lake and Nant y Fendrod (5m south of the site) designated for its habitat

interest.

7.15.2 The long-term and short-term concentrations among those sites have been calculated for habitat

assessment against relevant critical loads, using 2012 met data (the year resulting in maximum

both long-term and short-term PC concentrations).

Critical Level of Long-Term and Short-Term NOx (as NO2)

Table 7.36 Summary of Predicted NOx Concentrations for Protection of Vegetation and

Ecosystems

Ecological Receptor

Predicted Maximum Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m3)


Process PC as %age PEC(a) Process PC as PEC(b)





Contrib’tn (PC)

of AQO (PC

+Background) Contrib’tn (PC) %age of

AQO

(PC

+Background)

Six Pit, Swansea Vale and White Rock, SSSI

0.09 0.31 22.45(a) 0.60 0.80 27.09

Crymlyn Bog - Ramsar/SAC/SSSI

0.03 0.11 14.34(b) 0.29 0.39 17.21

AQO/Critical Level (CL) 30(c) 75(d)

Note: (a) Inclusive of Background concentration of 22.45µg/m3. The Background concentration was taken from http://www.apis.ac.uk/. (b) The Inclusive of Background concentration of 14.34µg/m3. The Background concentration was taken from http://www.apis.ac.uk/. (c) The AQO of 30 µg/m3 is the annual standard for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems; (d) The AQO of 75 µg/m3 is the daily standard for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems.

7.15.3 The annual mean NOx process contributions at all ecological receptors are bellow the annual mean

critical level of 30 µg/m3 for the protection of vegetation and Ecosystems.

7.15.4 The NOx daily (24 hour) process concentration at all ecological receptors bellow the daily mean

critical levels of 75 µg/m3 for the protection of vegetation and Ecosystems.

7.15.5 The annual and daily (24hr) means NOx process contributions and the associated predicted

environmental concentrations at as number of SINC ecological receptors surrounding the Site are

all below the relevant critical levels for the protection of vegetation and Ecosystems.

7.15.6 Due to the maximum annual mean NOx process contributions being 0.31% of critical loads (well

below 1% of critical loads) at two ecological receptor locations, the impacts of NOx emissions from

facility operations to those sites are negligible. Therefore, the nitrogen deposition calculations for

the two ecological receptor locations have not been undertaken.

7.16 Plume Visibility

7.16.1 Wet plumes from the Facility stacks may become visible when vapour condenses under certain

climatic conditions. To ensure such a plume is not a nuisance to receptors neighbouring the site

(i.e. the footpaths, residential properties) plume visibility modelling was carried out. Where a

visible plume was deemed to be visible outside of the Site boundary it was necessary to determine

whether the plume returned to ground level as such an occurrence could be a potential nuisance.

Detailed plume visibility modelling has been carried out using the ADMS model (version 5)

developed by Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants (CERC). The Plume Visibility module

in ADMS uses the initial water content of the gaseous emission from the stacks and the humidity of

the ambient air to determine whether the plume will be visible at a number of downstream points.

7.16.2 A plume is defined as ‘visible’ if the liquid water content of the plume at the plume centreline

exceeds 15 x10-5 kg/kg, and is defined to have ‘grounded’ if the vertical spread of the plume (z) is

larger than the plume centreline height (zp).





7.16.3 In addition to the input parameters required for the ADMS or AERMOD air dispersion models to

predict ground level pollutant concentrations, ADMS requires the following input parameters to

determine whether a plume will be visible or will return to ground level at a given downwind

distance:

• Surface humidity (relative humidity) as a meteorological variable;

• Surface temperature as a meteorological variable since moisture properties of the atmosphere

depend strongly on temperature; and

• The initial mixing ratio of the plume in kg/kg (i.e. the mass of water vapour per unit mass of

dry release at the source).

Model Input

7.16.4 The mixing ratio of the plume has been derived from client provided data to be 0.0751 kg/kg.

Plume Visibility Impact

7.16.5 The plume visibility impact from main stacks was assessed for all three years of meteorological

data and annual dataset consists of an entire year of hourly sequential readings. The hourly

sequential readings include the relative humidity and temperature.

7.16.6 The year of worst predicted impacts from the meteorological dataset was identified as 2011 by

comparing the number of groundings, presented in Table 7.37. The highest number of groundings

from the main stack is predicted to be 6705 when using 2011 meteorological data.

Table 7.37 Plumes Impacts from the Main Stack

Year Number of Visible

Plumes 2

Number of Invisible

Groundings

Number of visible

groundings

Number of plumes visible at release

2010 0 6051 0 0

2011 1 0 6705 0 0

2012 0 6329 0 0

Note: 1. Year of worst predicted impacts; and 2. Which means the number of plumes that would be visible to the observers if they looked directly upwards from locations

adjacent to the stack.

7.16.7 The results of visible plume impact from main stack using 2011 meteorological data (the year of

worst impact) are presented in Table 7.38 and summarised as below:

(1) There are no visible plumes;

(2) There are 6705 invisible plume groundings per year;

(3) There are no visible plume groundings anywhere inside or outside of the Site; and





(4) There are no plumes visible at release from the stack.

Table 7.38 Plumes Impacts from the Main Stack Using 2014 Met Data

Year Number of Visible

Plumes 2 Number of Invisible

Groundings Number of visible

groundings Number of plumes visible at release

2011 0 6705 0 0

Source Percentage of plumes

visible Percentage of invisible

plume grounding Percentage of plumes visible and grounding

Percentage of plumes visible at release

Main Stack 0 78 0 0

Note: 1. Year of worst predicted impacts; and 2. Which means the number of plumes that would be visible to the observers if they looked directly upwards from locations

adjacent to the stack.

Summary of the Plume Visibility Assessment

7.16.8 The results of the plume visibility assessment indicated that there are no visible plume groundings

anywhere inside or outside of the Site. Therefore, no visible plume would return to ground level to

cause any potential nuisance.

7.17 Cumulative Impacts

7.17.1 The cumulative impacts of nitrogen dioxide emissions that results from both (1) the proposed

facility and (2) the proposed development of a short-term operating reserve (STOR) peaking power

plant at their site in Unit 13 & 14 Ashmount Business Park, Upper Fforest Way(reference:

2016/1286), Swansea Enterprise Park; have been assessed.

7.17.2 An assessment of local air quality impacts associated with the proposed Peaking Power Plant has

been undertaken (as per MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd’s Air Quality Assessment report, document

ref: 773202-REP-ENV-003-AQA, dated on 24 June 2016).

7.17.3 Modelled receptors in MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd’s report are presented in Table below.

Table 7.39 Modelled Receptors in MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd’s report

Reference Description OS GR x OS GR y

R1 Heol Y Celyn 268589 198279

R2 Maes Y Deri 268746 198399

R3 10 Cwrt Llwyn Fwdwen 267334 198475

R4 51 Cwrt Llwyn Fwdwen 267427 198403

R5 41 Bush Road 267351 198188

R6 Travellers 267668 198245

7.17.4 The predicted ground level of NO2 concentrations at the assessed residential receptor locations in

MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd’s report are presented in Table below.





Table 7.40 Maximum Predicted Ground Level Concentrations in MLM Consulting Engineers

Ltd’s report

Receptor Reference Predicted NO2 Annual Mean Process Concentration (µg/m3)

R1 0.05

R2 0.05

R3 0.03

R4 0.03

R5 0.01

R6 0.03

7.17.5 The total (cumulative) predicted concentrations of nitrogen dioxide from (1) the proposed facility

and (2) the proposed peaking power plant are presented in Table below,

Table 7.41 The Total (Cumulative) Predicted Ground Level Concentrations

Receptor

Reference Predicted NO2 Annual Mean Process Concentration (µg/m3)

MLM Receptor

WYG Receptor

By “Peaking”

Power Plant

By proposed small-scale

energy

recovery facility

Cumulative /Total

% of AQO

Background PEC(a)

(PC

+Background)

PEC as %age

of AQO

PEC as %age of AQO

Significance

R1 D37 0.05 0.57 0.62 1.55 18.25 18.87 47.17 <75% of

AQAL Negligible

R2 D38 0.05 0.32 0.37 0.93 18.47 18.84 47.11 <75% of

AQAL Negligible

R3 D39 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.25 21.19 21.29 53.22 <75% of

AQAL Negligible

R4 D40 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.29 24.85 24.97 62.42 <75% of

AQAL Negligible

R5 D41 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.31 23.45 23.57 58.93 <75% of

AQAL Negligible

R6 D42 0.03 0.17 0.20 0.49 20.75 20.95 52.37 <75% of

AQAL Negligible

(a) Inclusive of traffic assessment determined Background concentration.

7.17.6 The percentage change in cumulative process concentrations relative to the AQAL as a result of

both the STOR Peaking Power plant and the proposed facility operations at all receptor locations,

with respect to NO2 exposure, are determined to be 1.55% or less for the assessed receptors. The

significance is determined to be ‘negligible’ for assessed receptors.





8. Vehicle Emissions

8.1.1 During the operational phase of the proposed development additional vehicle trips associated with

the facilities on-site will form a source of road vehicle exhaust emissions, such as NO2 and PM10, on

the local and regional road networks.

8.1.2 The existing depot is Biffa’s ‘hub’ for waste collection services for Swansea and the surrounding

area employing circa 20 driver and 15 staff members of staff and with a fleet of approximately 20

vehicles.

8.1.3 Detailed information on traffic movements associated with members of staff travelling to and from

the development was unavailable for the completion of the Air Quality Assessment. However,

assuming each of staff will be providing a parking space and there will be 15 parking spaces. The

staff will be working on different shifts. It is assumed that there will be approximately 15 arrivals

and 15 departures. It is therefore anticipated that there will not be a significant increase in AADT

flows (≈30) in the vicinity of the development site as a result of these trips.

8.1.4 The DMRB4 assessment methodology was consulted in order to identify if a detailed assessment of

vehicle exhaust emissions was required. The DMRB states the following criteria for a detailed

assessment of road vehicle exhaust emissions:

• Road alignment will change by 5m or more;

• Daily traffic flow will change by 1,000No. AADT or more;

• HDV flows will change by 200No. AADT or more; or,

• Daily average speed will change by 10km.hr-1 or more.

8.1.5 The criteria for detailed assessment were not met because:

• There is not planned to be any change in road alignment as part of the proposed

development;

• Due to the size and nature of the proposals it is reasonable to assume that AADT flows will not

change by 1,000No. vehicle movements or more as result of the development;

• There are no links where HDV flows are predicted to increase by 200No, based on the annual

intake of the installation and typical HGV capacity; and,

4 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3 Part 1 - Air Quality, Highways Agency, 2009.





• Due to the nature of the development it is considered reasonable to assume that daily average

speed on the local highway network will not change by 10km.hr-1 or more as a result of

operational phase activities.

8.1.6 The potential impact of operational phase road vehicle emissions is therefore assessed as being

imperceptible in magnitude to receptors of very high (worst case) sensitivity. The unmitigated

impact significance is considered to be negligible in scale, in accordance with the assessment

methodology.





9. Odour Control

9.1 Potential Sources of Odour

Waste Storage

9.1.1 Following the acceptance procedures detailed above, waste loads that may be accepted at the site

within the terms and conditions of the Environmental Permit will proceed to the tipping area,

located within the building.

9.1.2 The building will be equipped with fast acting, roller shutter doors and will be kept under negative

pressure to ensure that any potential for dust, litter, odour and noise emissions from the building is

minimised during the delivery and processing of wastes. Odorous air from the building will be going

into the combustion process and all of the air from the dryer will be going into a chemical scrubber

which will then clean the air and discharge to atmosphere.

9.1.3 Waste delivery vehicles will enter into the building, via a fast acting, roller shutter door, which will

be activated by a proximity detector. The fast acting door will be closed immediately after vehicle

entry to contain any odours. Following waste deposit, the fast acting door will be opened to allow

the vehicle to exit the building, after which the door will be closed again. Vehicles will proceed to

the weighbridge, where they will be reweighed before exiting the site. All vehicle movements will

be controlled by the supervision of a banksman or an operator.

9.2 Major Odour Control and Mitigation Measures

9.2.1 Potential odour emissions from the small-scale energy recovery facility will be controlled by keeping

the building under negative pressure through a building ventilation system.

9.2.2 Odorous air from the building will be going into the combustion process and all of the air from the

dryer will be going into a chemical scrubber which will then clean the air and discharge to

atmosphere. It is believed that the combusting the extracted air from the building is the best

available technology for the control of odour.

9.2.3 Therefore, the potential odour impacts on the sensitive receptors from the facility operations are

small and the significance of the odour effect on the sensitive receptors is not significant.





10. Health Impact Assessment

10.1 Introduction of Health Impact Assessment (HIA)

10.1.1 A Health Impact Assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the document which sets out

the Methodology to a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of the City and County of Swansea Local

Development Plan (LDP). The document was presented and subsequently endorsed by Planning

Committee on the 10th November, 2011.

10.1.2 Swansea Council’s Local Development Plan (LDP) Health Impact Assessment (HIA) (2012) was

used to ensure that the planning application is consistent with permitting requirement for the

development.

10.1.3 The objectives of the HIA are to identify any potential differential distribution effects of health

impacts among groups within the population by asking ‘who is affected?’ for the impacts identified

and determine the actions / mitigations measures that aim to minimise any potential negative

health impacts and maximise potential positive health impacts.

10.1.4 The main proposed operations considered in the HIA assessment include:

1) Receipt and storage of non-hazardous waste prior to treatment;

2) Treatment of waste in shredders;

3) Removal of metals;

4) Odour control via the scrubber;

5) Treatment in dryers; and

6) Storage of ash prior to removal from site.

10.1.5 In addition, the Wales Health Impact Assessment Support Unit (WHIASU) Health Impact

Assessment: A Practical Guide (adopted 2001) has also been referenced.

10.2 Extant Policy, Legislation and Relevant Agencies for HIA

10.2.1 Documents Consulted are discussed in Chapter 2. In addition, more documents have been

consulted for the HIA.

10.2.2 Site Specific Reference Documents

• Swansea Local Development Plan: Preferred Strategy July 2014

• Swansea Local Development Plan 2010-2025: Deposit Plan, Adopted July 2016; and





• Swansea Council Profile December 2017

• Swansea Local Development Plan: Health Impact Assessment Draft Vision and Objectives

October 2012.

• Swansea Local Development Plan: Health Impact Assessment Local Profile September 2012

10.2.3 Local Policy is discussed in Chapter 2 and additional document consulted are as below.

10.2.4 EU1: Energy and Utilities Policies

10.2.5 Proposals for renewable or low carbon energy development will be permitted subject to the

following criteria:

10.2.6 All renewable energy or low carbon energy development proposals will be required to demonstrate

that:

• The siting, design, layout, type of installation and materials used do not have a significant

adverse effect on the characteristics and features of the proposed location;

• The development would not result in unacceptable loss of public amenity or public accessibility

to the area;

• The development would not result in significant adverse effects on natural heritage or historic

environment, or visual amenity either individually or cumulatively;

• There would be no significant adverse effect on the Gower AONB;

• There would be no significant adverse impact on water quality and quantity;

• The development would not result in the permanent sterilisation of minerals resources;

• The development would not compromise the transport network;

• The development would not interfere with aircraft operations or telecommunications;

• There would be no loss of carbon sinks, or that on-site loss can be adequately mitigated; and

• The satisfactory removal of infrastructure and remediation and/or restoration of the natural

environment, would be undertaken in accordance with an aftercare scheme to be agreed with

the Council prior to the development being carried out.

10.2.7 Swansea Council’s Waste Policies

Policy 16:

Waste will be managed sustainably within the County by ensuring that all proposals for

waste facilities demonstrate how the management of waste is being driven up the waste

hierarchy and accords with the proximity principle. B2 employment sites will be considered

for ‘in-building’ waste management facilities subject to there being no significant adverse

effect on the environment or the amenity of adjacent users and communities. The





opportunity for co-locating facilities to enable heat networks will be considered. Tir John will

continue to operate as a municipal waste landfill site, until alternative facilities are available.





10.3 Health Impact Assessment (HIA)

Introduction of Health Impact Assessment

10.3.1 Swansea Council sets out the guidance for information in support of applications for the storage,

treatment or disposal of waste.

10.3.2 The City and county of Swansea has a municipal waste management strategy 2016 – 2016

published in February 2012. The strategy updates and reviews the Council’s Waste Strategy to

meet the Welsh Government overall Waste Strategy and to work towards meeting 70% recycling

targets set for 2025.

Definition of Health Impact Assessment

10.3.3 HIA is commonly defined as “a combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy,

program or project may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the

distribution of those effects within the population.” It is a tool to appraise both positive (e.g.

creation of new jobs) and negative (e.g. generation of pollution) impacts on the different affected

subgroups of the population that might result from the development. Public participation is

considered a major component of the process.

10.3.4 The Health Impact Assessment aims to identify all these effects on health in order to enhance the

benefits for health and minimise any risks to health. It includes specifically a consideration of the

differential impacts on different groups in the population, such as those on a low income, people

involved in the criminal justice system, minority ethnic groups, young, disabled (physically and

learning) and elderly people.

10.3.5 Spatial planning and development has the potential to impact on human health and wellbeing. This

is because a wide range of social and environmental factors affect the health of local communities

within Wales. Good health is related to good quality housing and developments, well designed

street scenes, well laid out neighbourhoods, quality and efficiency in transport systems,

opportunities to experience leisure and cultural services activities and green and open space. These

factors are known as the “wider determinants of health” and include:

• Individual lifestyle factors such as smoking habits, diet and physical activity.

• Interactions with friends, relatives and mutual support within a community.

• Wider influences on health including - living and working conditions, unemployment, water and

sanitation, health care service, housing, food supplies, education, and the work environment.

Aims and Objectives of Health Impact Assessment





10.3.6 A Health Impact Assessment should:

• Include individual lifestyle factors such as smoking habits, diet and physical activity. Impacts of

the proposed development on planned new communities and the adjacent existing communities

in the development area;

• Highlight any potential differential distribution effects of health impacts among groups within

the population by asking ‘who is affected?’ for the impacts identified; and

• Suggest actions / mitigations that aim to minimise any potential negative health impacts and

maximise potential positive health impacts, referencing where possible the most affected

vulnerable group(s).

Site Description, Project Description, and Public Health Profile

Description of the Project

10.3.7 The proposed site will comprise of a small-scale energy recovery facility on Land at Swansea

Depot, Clarion Close, Morriston, Swansea.

10.3.8 The main proposed operations include:

1) Receipt and storage of non-hazardous waste prior to treatment;

2) Treatment of waste in shredders;

3) Removal of metals;

4) Odour control via the scrubber;

5) Treatment in dryers; and

6) Storage of ash prior to removal from site.

Public Health Profile





10.3.9 The proposed development is situated in the Morriston Ward to the north east of Swansea. There

has been a steady increase in population levels from the 2006 to 2016 at a rate of 0.6% per year

according to the Swansea Council Profile (December 2017). The population in the Morriston Ward,

where the proposed development is situated, is the second highest ward population in Swansea at

16,500 according to the mid-2016 Office for National Statistics.

10.3.10 The life expectancy for the whole of the Swansea Council for men is lower and women higher than

the average in Wales, with men’s life expectancy being 78.0 years (Wales’ average life expectancy

for men is 78.4 years) and women’s life expectancy being 82.5 years (Wales’ average life

expectancy for women is 82.3 years) in 2007-2009.

10.3.11 There are potential health risks from the proposed activities in which some groups of people may

be more vulnerable than others. Vulnerable groups of people as defined in the Health Impact

Assessment SPD, throughout Huntingdonshire District, are varied throughout the different wards.

One potential vulnerable group identified is the older workforce.

10.3.12 Swansea’s highest proportion of its residents is aged 25-44. In future, its age structure is forecast

to age, with projections suggesting that the number of people of pension age (65 and over) will

increase by 18,400 (+39.8%) to 64,700 over the 2014-2039 period – an average annual increase

of 740 (+1.6%).

10.3.13 The Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) data generates individual Lower Super Output

Areas (LSOA) scores and rankings for each of these eight domains and an overall index of ‘multiple

deprivation’. Levels of deprivation in Swansea are most significant in respect of the Income, Health

and Education domains, with lower than average levels of deprivation in the Access to services,

Housing and Physical environment domains.

10.3.14 Swansea has an above average share of its LSOAs (18 out of 148, or 12%) featuring in the most

deprived 10 per cent in Wales. Eight of Wales’ 22 local authorities have a higher proportion of

deprived LSOAs.

10.3.15 In terms of the overall index, the most deprived LSOAs in Swansea (i.e. those featuring in the most

deprived 10% in Wales) are found in Morriston (3 of 11 LSOAs).

10.3.16 Low income groups may be more vulnerable to the health effects of the proposed development.

This is because low income groups are commonly associated with a higher rate of mortality and

long term health conditions due to a lower standard of living.

10.3.17 It is considered that the local community will benefit from the proposed development because it is

likely more local people will be employed (positive effect of creation of new jobs) because of the





development.

Assessment of the HIA

Description of Health Effects

10.3.18 There are potential health effects from the proposed development due to the nature of the

materials and activities at the site. The sections below identify the potential health effects that

could arise from those activities and discuss the mitigation measures that will minimise any

potential negative health impacts on the public and workforce.

Risk Assessment – Storage of Non-Hazardous Waste

10.3.19 Non-hazardous waste will be delivered to the site and separated into different constituents that are

suitable for different uses and stockpiled separately.

10.3.20 The majority of these processes will be undertaken within a building and therefore risk is minimal,

although there is potential for some waste to be stored outside.

10.3.21 The control of dust emissions from the transportation and movement of the non-hazardous waste

will primarily be by the use of dust suppression. The ‘mist’ spray units will be used for the

movement of waste inside the covered building.

10.3.22 Additionally, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) will be used for workforce to prevent negative

health impacts, and building maintenance conducted to prevent the escape of dust emission and

contain it within the covered building.

10.3.23 The risk of any adverse health effects on the public will be low. With the appropriate use of PPE for

workforce, the risk to workforce from this activity is low.

Risk Assessment – Treatment of Waste in Shredders

10.3.24 Waste delivered to the site will then be moved to a shredding facility, where shredding processes

will be conducted in a covered building.

10.3.25 The shredding processes are to be undertaken in a covered building and therefore the risks are

minimal, however there is the potential for dust to escape outside of the facility.

10.3.26 The control of dust emissions from the shredding of waste will primarily be by the use of dust

suppression. The ‘mist’ spray units will be used for the shredding operations inside covered

building.





10.3.27 Additionally, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) should be used for workforce to prevent negative





Risk Assessment – Removal of Metals

10.3.29 Metals will be removed after the shredding of waste from a conveyor belt. This process will be

conducted in a covered building.

10.3.30 The removal of metals will occur in a covered building and therefore dust emission will be minimal,

however there is the potential for dust to escape outside the facility.

10.3.31 The control of dust emissions from the removal of metals will primarily be by the use of dust

suppression. The ‘mist’ spray units will be used for the removal operations inside covered building.






Risk Assessment – Odour Control via the Scrubber









Risk Assessment – Treatment in Dryers.

10.3.37 Waste will be treated in dryers after odour control. This process will be conducted in a covered

building.





10.3.38 The treatment of waste in dryers will occur in a covered building and therefore dust emission will

be minimal, however there is the potential for dust to escape outside the facility.

10.3.39 The control of dust emissions from the removal of metals will primarily be by the use of dust







Risk Assessment – Storage of Ash

10.3.42 Storage of ash on site is to follow the treatment in dryers. This process will be conducted in a

covered building.

10.3.43 The storage of ash will occur in a covered building and therefore dust emission will be minimal,

however there is the potential for dust to escape outside the facility during the storage and

transportation of ash.

10.3.44 The control of dust emissions from the storage of ash will primarily be by the use of dust







Risk Assessment – HGV Movement

10.3.47 Vehicle movement will take place during the delivery of non-hazardous waste and the removal of

ash from the site. Unpaved haul routes can account for a significant proportion of fugitive dust

emissions, especially in dry or windy conditions.

10.3.48 The mitigation measures for preventing dust emissions from the HGV movements include (1) All

vehicles should switch off engines – no idling; (2) using wheel-wash and vehicle washing facilities;

and (3) ensure vehicles entering and leaving sites are covered to prevent escape of materials





during transport.


workforce, if required, the risk to workforce from this activity is low.

Odour Risk Assessment and Control Measures

10.3.50 The site will be operated under a Part B Environmental Permit issued by Swansea Council”. Under

the Permit, the site will be required to provide and implement an Odour Management Plan (OMP).









10.3.54 Operational measures and techniques that will be implemented as part of the general site

management that will also serve to minimise any fugitive odours arising from the site activities are:

• inspection, and cleaning if necessary, by the driver of vehicles leaving the site before

proceeding onto the public highway;

• sheeting of all incoming and outgoing loads to avoid the release of fugitive emissions during

transport and spillage of materials on the public highway;

• cleaning of the HGV access road to prevent track out of any spilled materials; and

• maintenance of plant in a clean condition and removal of all accumulations of excess materials

and debris.

10.3.55 Staff at all levels will receive the necessary training and instruction in their duties relating to control

of all operations and the potential sources of odour emissions. Training records will be kept and will

be made available for inspection on request. The primary mechanism for odour control on site will

be the strict control of material types.

10.3.56 Any odours detected on site by site personnel shall be reported to the site manager for

investigation. Where a strong odour is detected at the site boundary then suitable corrective action

shall be taken such as the process modification or removal of materials from site.





Monitoring and Recording

10.3.57 Visual dust monitoring and odour sniff testing will be carried out on a daily basis by site personnel.

A log book will be kept of any complaints, together with details of any action taken to deal with the

complaint. It is required that all of the above dust and/or odour control measures will be put in

place to control dust/odour production and movement.

10.4 Environmental Benefit as a result of the Proposed Facility

10.4.1 It is anticipated that there will be an environmental benefit from the proposed small-scale energy

recovery facility by reducing overall emissions from the waste treatment of 21,000 tonnes per

annum of commercial and trade waste currently collected by Biffa.

10.4.2 It is proposed that the energy recovery facility will remove the need for HGVs to transport waste

from the Council’s transfer station in Swansea (SA6 8QN) to Tracatti Landfill Site in Merthyr (CF48

4AB). This is a journey of 31 miles one way and 62 miles round trip.

10.4.3 The proposals will divert 21,000 tonnes per annum from landfill. If assuming an average payload of

20t vehicles this will result in 1050 vehicles per year.

Truck Models used in the emission reduction calculations.

• 20 Tonnes Mercedes-Benz Waste Trucks;

• Diesel Engine size – 210 kW;

• Fuel Consumptions – 23 litter/100km;

• CO2 emissions – 607 g/km;

• NOx emission standards, EURO V, 2g/kWh; and

• Single trip time: 1 to 1.5 hours.

Trip calculations

10.4.4 Tracatti Landfill Site in Merthyr (CF48 4AB) opening hours:

• 07.00 to 17.00 Monday to Friday;

• 08.00 to 13.00 Saturday; and

• No operations other than the delivery of material to the site shall take place on Sundays, Bank





Holidays or Public Holidays.

• Total working days per year: 304 days per year.

• Approximately 4 single trips or 8 trips per day.

Air quality impact reductions on the roadside receptors

10.4.5 A detailed traffic Air Quality Assessment has been undertaken to investigate the air quality impact

reduction from removing the HGVs transport waste from the Council’s transfer station in Swansea

(SA6 8QN) to Tracatti Landfill Site in Merthyr (CF48 4AB).

10.4.6 By removing 8 trucks/HGVs trips travelling on the A48 (Samlet Road), the predicted annual mean

NO2 concentration at receptor location of Samlet Road (approximately 17 metres south of the road

centre) will decrease by 0.01 µg/m3. The predicted annual mean NO2 concentration at receptor

location of 8 Midland Road (approximately 29 metres south of the road centre) will decrease by

0.01 µg/m3 as well.

Emission Reductions

• Diesel fuel saved per year: 24,097 litter/year;

• CO2 emission saved: 63.59 tonnes per year; and,

• NOx emission saved: 895 kg/year to 1342 kg/year.

• PM10 emission saved: 9 kg/year to 13 kg/year.

• HC (Hydrocarbon) emission saved: 206 kg/year to 309 kg/year.

CO2 Emission Reductions

• CO2 emission saved: 63.59 tonnes per year.8.1





11. Summary and Conclusion

11.1.1 Biffa is seeking a planning application to allow the operation of a Small-Scale Energy Recovery

Plant at their existing site on land at Swansea Depot, Clarion Close, Morriston, Swansea.

11.1.2 WYG Environment Planning Transport (WYG) has undertaken an Air Quality Assessment to support

the planning application.

11.1.3 The proposed development is for a facility capable of treating up to 21,000 tonnes per annum of

commercial and trade waste currently collected by Biffa.

11.1.4 The objective of the assessment is to assess the impact of the emissions to air from the Site upon

human health using detailed ADM AERMOD 7 model and ADMS model.

11.1.5 Baseline air quality conditions have been defined and the detailed modelling results have been

presented in this report in terms of the emitted pollutant PC and PEC. Both AERMOD and ADMS

model runs were undertaken for each of the three representative meteorological datasets, from

2010 to 2012 inclusive and the worst-case, highest predicted long-term and short-term PECs for

the 3 years were compared to the appropriate AQOs/ EALs or relevant impact assessment criteria.

11.1.6 Stack height analyses have concluded that the required stack height will be 25 m above the ground

level.

11.1.7 Predicted long-term and short-term maximum ground level concentrations of all modelled

pollutants and heavy metals, including dioxins and furans, Chromium (VI), polychlorinated

biphenyls and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (benzo[a]pyrene), were assessed to be below the

relevant long-term and short-term AQOs/EALs for the protection of human health.

11.1.8 The impact from NO2 emissions on the AQMA is negligible.

11.1.9 Especially for the long-term NO2 emissions, the predicted process contributions at all modelled

receptors range from 0.03 to 3.01 µg/m3, when using 2012 met data (the year resulting in

maximum long-term PC concentrations). The percentage change in process concentrations relative

to the AQAL as a result of the facility operations at all receptor locations, with respect to NO2

exposure, are determined to be 7.52% or less for the existing receptors. The significance is

determined to be ‘negligible’ to ‘slight’ for all receptors.

11.1.10 The analysis of the inter-annual variability of the meteorological conditions indicates that the

percent variations were 10.14% and 1.56% for long-term and short-term respectively.

11.1.11 Three emergency/abnormal scenarios have been assessed when the proposed facility has one of





the abatement systems fails. The predicted short-term PECs of modelled pollutant at all receptors

are below the relevant short-term AQS for the protection of human health under the all three

abnormal operation scenarios.

11.1.12 A habitat assessment has been undertaken for the identified nature conservation sites including

one SSSI of ‘Six Pit, Swansea Vale and White Rock’ and one Ramsar/SAC/SSSI of Crymlyn Bog.

The annual mean NOx process contributions are well below 1% of critical loads at two ecological

receptor locations, the impacts of NOx emissions from facility operations to those sites are

negligible. The annual and daily (24hr) means NOx process contributions and the associated

predicted environmental concentrations at as number of SINC ecological receptors surrounding the

Site are all below the relevant critical levels for the protection of vegetation and Ecosystems.

Cumulative Impact Assessment

11.1.13 The cumulative impacts of nitrogen dioxide emissions that results from both (1) the proposed

facility and (2) the proposed development of a short-term operating reserve (STOR) peaking power

plant at their site in Unit 13 & 14 Ashmount Business Park, Upper Fforest Way(reference:

2016/1286), Swansea Enterprise Park; have been assessed.

11.1.14 The significance of the cumulative impacts is determined to be ‘negligible’ for assessed receptors.

Plume Visibility Assessment

11.1.15 The plume visibility impact from the stack was assessed for all three years of meteorological data

and annual dataset consists of an entire year of hourly sequential readings. Plume visibility

assessment has been undertaken using the ADMS model (version 5).

11.1.16 The results of the plume visibility assessment concluded that there are no visible plume groundings

anywhere inside or outside of the Site. Therefore, no visible plume would return to ground level to

cause any potential nuisance.

Traffic Emissions

11.1.17 The potential impact of operational phase road vehicle emissions is assessed as being imperceptible

in magnitude to receptors of very high (worst case) sensitivity. The unmitigated impact significance

is considered to be negligible.

Odour Control

11.1.18 In normal operation the building is maintained under negative pressure and there will be no

fugitive emissions/odours from the building. The odorous air from the waste bunkers is taken by

the combustion air fans and combusted in the burner chamber.





11.1.19 The odourous air from the dryer in normal operation is routed through a chemical scrubber and

clean air vented out through the scrubber stack. In case the plant is not operational there will be

manual override to close the dampers on the dryer and use the dryer fans to extract air from the

building and route it through the scrubber.



Health Impact Assessment

11.1.21 With the suggested mitigation measures in place and considering most waste processing activities

being taking place inside building, the risk of any adverse health effects on the public will be

insignificant. The risk of adverse health effect to the workforce will be minimized by the application

of the personal protective equipment (PPE). The proposed development is considered to comply

with the national, regional or local planning policies.

Environmental Benefit for the Proposed Facility

11.1.22 It is anticipated that there will be environmental benefit from the proposed small-scale energy

recovery facility by removing the need for HGVs to transport waste from the Council’s transfer

station in Swansea (SA6 8QN) to Tracatti Landfill Site in Merthyr (CF48 4AB). This is a journey of

31 miles one way and 62 miles round trip.

11.1.23 By removing 8 trucks/HGVs trips travelling on the A48 (Samlet Road), the predicted annual mean

NO2 concentrations at some receptor locations on Samlet Road will be decreased.

Emission Reductions

• Diesel fuel saved per year: 24,097 litter/year;

• NOx emission saved: 895 kg/year to 1342 kg/year.

• PM10 emission saved: 9 kg/year to 13 kg/year.

• CO2 emission saved: 63.59 tonnes per year; and,

• HC (Hydrocarbon) emission saved: 206 kg/year to 309 kg/year.

CO2 Emission Reductions

• CO2 emission saved: 63.59 tonnes per year.





Figures





Figure 1 Site Location and Receptor Positions





Figure 2 Modelled Buildings and Source Position





Figure 3 Mumbles Meteorological Station Wind Rose 2010

Mumbles_10.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






Mumbles_11.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






Mumbles_12.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

1000





Appendices





Appendix A – Air Quality Assessment Criteria

Table A1 Air Quality Standards, Objectives, Limit and Target Values

Pollutant Measured As National Air Quality

Standard

National Air Quality Strategy/Air Quality Strategy for

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland EU Daughter Directives WHO Guidelines

2000 Objectives 2001/2003/

2007 Objectives Limit Value Guidelines

NO2

1-hour mean 287µg/m3 200µg/m3

by end of 2005 (max 18 exceedences a year)

200µg/m3 by end of 2005 (max 18

exceedences a year)


exceedences a year)

200µg/m3 105ppb

Annual mean

40µg/m3 by end of 2005


40µg/m3 by end of 2009 40µg/m3

Annual mean for protection of

vegetation and ecosystems

30µg/m3

as NOx by end of 2000 30µg/m3

as NOx by end of 2000 30µg/m3

as NOx 19th July 2001

SO2

10-min mean 500µg/m3

15-min mean 266µg/m3 266µg/m3



exceedences a year)

1-hour mean 350µg/m3



exceedences a year)


exceedences a year)

24-hour mean 125µg/m3


125µg/m3 by end of 2004 (max 3 exceedences a year)

125µg/m3 by end of 2004 (max 3 exceedences a year)

125µg/m3

Annual Mean 50µg/m3

Annual & winter (1 Oct. to 31

March) for protection of vegetation and

ecosystems

20µg/m3

by end of 2000 20µg/m3


by end of 2000

PM10

Running 24-hour mean 50µg/m3

24-hour mean 50µg/m3 by end of 2004 (max 35 exceedences a

year)

50µg/m3 by end of 2004 (max 35 exceedences a

year)

Annual Mean 40µg/m3

by end of 2004






Pollutant Measured As National Air Quality

Standard

National Air Quality Strategy/Air Quality Strategy for

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland EU Daughter Directives WHO Guidelines

2000 Objectives 2001/2003/

2007 Objectives Limit Value Guidelines

PM2.5 Annual Mean 25µg/m3 20µg/m3

by 1st January 2020

C6H6 Running Annual Mean 16.25µg/m3 16.25µg/m3



by 1st January 2010

CO

15-min mean 100mg/m3

30-min mean 60mg/m3

1-hour mean 30mg/m3

8-hour mean Maximum daily 8-

hour mean 10mg/m3 by end of 2004

10mg/m3

Running 8-hour mean 11.6mg/m3 11.6mg/m3

by end of 2003

10mg/m3 maximum daily mean

by end of 2003

Pb Annual Mean 0.25µg/m3

0.5µg/m3 by end of 2004

0.5µg/m3 by end of 2004 0.5µg/m3

by end of 2004 0.5µg/m3



As Annual Mean

6ng/m3 by end of 2012 Total content within PM10

Cd Annual Mean


Ni Annual Mean


Source: The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, DEFRA, 2007.





Table A2 EALs used in Dispersion Modelling Assessment

Pollutant Long-Term EAL (µg/m3) Short-Term EAL (µg/m3)

HCl - 750

HF 16 160

Hg 0.25 7.5

Cd 0.005 -

V 5 1

As 0.003 -

Ni 0.02 -

Cr VI 0.0002 -

Cr 5 150

PCBs 0.2 6

PAH 0.25 (ng/m3) -

Sb 5 150

Cu 10 200

Mn 0.15 1500





Appendix B Emission Calculation









28-Feb-18

Calculations are based on:

1) Client provided info

Source/Remarks

Stack Height TBD m

Stack Dia - for stack volume 0.85 m Client Provided

Stack area - for stack volume 0.567 m2 Calculated

Stack exhaust gas volume (actual) 9.12 m3/s Client Provided

Actual exit velocity 16.0719 m/s Calculated

Reference Conditions

Temperature 273 K

Oxygen 11%

Moisture 0%

Actual Conditions

Temperature 190 Deg.C

Temperature 463 K

Measured Oxygen (dry) 6.4% Calculated

Measured Moisture 11.80% Calculated

Vol flow rate at reference conditions 24960 Nm3/h Calculated

Vol flow rate at reference conditions - Single stack 6.93 Nm3/s Calculated

Vol flow rate at actual conditions (O2 corrected) 6.93 Am3/s WYG Calculated





Vol flow rate at actual condition(H2O corrected) 4.74 Am3/s WYG Calculated

Vol flow rate at actual conditions (Temp corrected) @ 273 K

5.3757 Am3/s WYG Calculated

Biffa

Pollutant

Emission Limit Value (mg/m3)

Emission Rate (g/s)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) - Single stack 200.00 1.387 WYG Calculated

Particulate Matter (PM10) - Single stack 10.00 0.069 WYG Calculated

SO2 50.00 0.347 WYG Calculated

Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 1 0.00693

Cadmium and its compounds (Cd) 0.05 0.00035

Arsenic and its compounds (As) 0.003 0.000021

Nickel and its compounds (Ni) 0.02 0.000139

Chromium (VI) and its compounds (Cr) 0.0002 0.0000014

nine group 3 metals total 0.50 0.00347

Dioxins and furans 1.00E-07 6.933E-10

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 1.724E-05 1.195E-07

Dioxins like PCBs 9.20E-09 6.379E-11

Emission Limit Value and Half-Hourly average Values (mg/m3)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) 400 2.773 1.387 (Daily ELVs) x 2 = 2.773

Particulate Matter (PM10) 30 0.208 0.069 (Daily ELVs) x 3 = 0.208

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 30 0.208 0.069 (Daily ELVs) x 3 = 0.208

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 200 1.387 0.347 (Daily ELVs) x 4 = 1.387

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 0.693 0.069 (Daily ELVs) x 2 = 0.693

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 60 0.416 0.069 (Daily ELVs) x 6 = 0.416





Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) 4 0.028 0.007 (Daily ELVs) x 4 = 0.028

PAH Emission rate

PAH emission rate from MSW combustion 2.39E+02 µg/t EA report P4-052

2.39E-07 kg/ton EA report P4-053

PAH emission rate per hour (34.34 t/h waste combusted) 0.000000430 kg/hr

0.000000120 g/s

1.20E-07 g/s

25000 tonnes per annum waste 25000 tonnes/year

The plant design is assumed for Monday to Saturday from 6 to 17.00 and 52 weeks per annum.

Total operation hours per annum 2808 hours

Waste treated per hour 8.90 tonnes/hour

Waste combusted per hour 1.8 t/hr Client provided on 28Feb18





Appendix C – Detailed Dispersion Modelling Contour-

Plot Figures





Figure C1 Predicted Annual Mean NO2 PC Concentrations (µg/m3) – 2012 Met Data





Figure C2 Predicted Short-Tem NO2 PC Concentrations (µg/m3) – 2012 Met Data

End of Report