Appendix 10.1 Air Quality Impact Assessment (Ricardo-AEA)

Transcription

[Keywords]
Barr Killoch Energy Recovery Park
Air quality, dust, odour and human health impact assessment
___________________________________________________
Report for Wardell Armstrong
ED 60039_AQIA | Issue Number 2 | Date 11/05/2015
Ricardo-AEA in Confidence
Barr Killoch Energy Recovery Park | i
RICARDO-AEA
Customer:
Contact:
Wardell Armstrong LLP
Thomas Buckland
Ricardo-AEA Ltd
Gemini Building, Harwell, Didcot, OX11 0QR, United
Kingdom
t: +44 (0) 1235 75 3019
e: [email protected]
Ricardo-AEA is certificated to ISO9001 and
ISO14001
Customer reference:
Wardell Armstrong LLP
Confidentiality, copyright & reproduction:
This report is the Copyright of Ricardo-AEA
Ltd and has been prepared by Ricardo-AEA
Ltd under contract to Wardell Armstrong
dated 12/01/2015. The contents of this
report may not be reproduced in whole or in
part, nor passed to any organisation or
person without the specific prior written
permission of Commercial Manager,
Ricardo-AEA Ltd. Ricardo-AEA Ltd accepts
no liability whatsoever to any third party for
any loss or damage arising from any
interpretation or use of the information
contained in this report, or reliance on any
views expressed therein.
Author:
Thomas Buckland
Approved By:
Dr Mark Broomfield
Date:
11 May 2015
Ricardo-AEA reference:
Ref: ED60039_AQIA Issue Number 2
Ref: Ricardo-AEA/ED60039_AQIA/Issue Number 2
Barr Killoch Energy Recovery Park | 1
RICARDO-AEA
Executive summary
The proposed Barr Killoch Energy Recovery Park will process up to 120,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of
residual waste through a materials recovery facility (MRF) of which 85,000 tpa will be treated by
gasification, generating both heat and electricity. The air quality impact assessment for the proposed
facility was carried out as follows:
(a) Outline review of the policy context for air quality.
(b) Assessment of baseline air quality.
(c) Identification of potentially sensitive locations.
(d) Dispersion modelling study of emissions to forecast air concentrations and deposition rates at
potentially sensitive locations.
(e) Evaluation of forecast levels of released substances against relevant standards, guidelines,
critical levels and critical loads.
(f) Assessment of plume visibility.
(g) Assessment of road traffic emissions on air quality.
(h) Assessment of abnormal operating conditions/accidental releases.
(i) Mitigation measures.
(j) Conclusions.
The main focus of the air quality assessment was the evaluation of modelled levels against relevant
standards and guidelines. Levels of relevant substances were forecast at sensitive receptors to enable
an assessment of the effects on air quality with regard to human health risks to be evaluated. Levels
of relevant released substances were also forecast at designated habitat sites in the local area to enable
an assessment of the potential effects on habitat sites due to emissions to air from the proposed facility
to be carried out.
The study used a wide range of information on baseline air quality to characterise baseline conditions
in the vicinity of the proposed facility. A state-of-the-art computer model was used to forecast the levels
of substances emitted from the proposed facility that would result in the local area. The forecast levels
of released substances combined with baseline levels were assessed against relevant air quality
standards and guidelines.
In all cases, modelled levels of released substances when combined with background levels were
forecast to comply with standards and guidelines for air quality at all locations in the vicinity of the
proposed facility.
The proposed development is forecast to have no significant effects on air quality due to road traffic
emissions, and no significant cumulative effects are forecast to occur. No amenity issues such as
odours or dusts would be expected to arise outside the site boundary, and emissions to air from the
proposed facility are forecast to have no significant effects at designated habitat sites.
The study was carried out using a highly conservative approach to ensure that any air quality effects
are more likely to be over-estimated than under-estimated. For example, emissions from a comparable
facility in Norway are at much lower levels than the limits which were assumed for the purposes of this
study.
Using a set of independent criteria, the impact of the proposed facility can be described as “negligible”.
On the basis of this assessment, it was concluded that the proposed facility will have no significant
adverse effects on air quality. Consequently, it was concluded that no further mitigation is necessary,
other than the extensive mitigation and control measures already built into the proposed facility.
Emissions monitoring will be specified under the terms of the Pollution Prevention and Control permit
for the proposed facility. If considered useful, an ambient air quality monitoring programme could also
be specified under the remit of the PPC Permit.
RICARDO-AEA
Table of contents
1
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3
2
Planning policy context ............................................................................................. 4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
National Planning Policy Framework for Scotland ............................................................ 4
PAN 63 Waste Management Planning .............................................................................. 4
Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan ............................................................................................. 5
East Ayrshire Local Plan ................................................................................................... 5
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 5
3
Baseline air quality .................................................................................................... 6
4
Methodology .............................................................................................................. 9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
5
Results...................................................................................................................... 26
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
6
Construction phase ........................................................................................................... 9
Air quality modelling study ................................................................................................. 9
Substances assessed ....................................................................................................... 9
Deposition........................................................................................................................ 10
Process design and emissions ........................................................................................ 11
Receiving environment .................................................................................................... 13
Standards and guidelines ................................................................................................ 18
Assessment of metals ..................................................................................................... 20
Assessment of deposition ............................................................................................... 21
Critical levels and loads at designated habitat sites........................................................ 21
Plume visibility ................................................................................................................. 22
Emissions from road traffic .............................................................................................. 22
Cumulative impacts ......................................................................................................... 22
Abnormal operating scenarios......................................................................................... 23
Other air quality issues .................................................................................................... 23
Results interpretation ...................................................................................................... 23
Conservative approach ................................................................................................... 24
Construction phase impacts ............................................................................................ 26
Identification of appropriate stack height ......................................................................... 29
Air quality model results .................................................................................................. 30
Model results summary ................................................................................................... 33
Assessment of metals ..................................................................................................... 33
Deposition........................................................................................................................ 37
Ultrafine particulate matter .............................................................................................. 37
Designated habitat sites .................................................................................................. 38
Plume visibility ................................................................................................................. 38
Sensitivity tests ................................................................................................................ 39
Cumulative impacts ......................................................................................................... 40
Other air quality issues .................................................................................................... 41
Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 43
6.1
6.2
6.3
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 43
EPUK Criteria .................................................................................................................. 43
Mitigation and monitoring ................................................................................................ 43
Appendices
Appendix 1: Modelled airborne concentrations at designated habitat sites
Appendix 2: Assessment of modelled process contributions at designated habitat sites against critical
levels
Appendix 3: Assessment of modelled deposition rates at designated habitat sites
Appendix 4: Critical levels for designated sites in the vicinity of the proposed facility
Appendix 5: Assessment of modelled process contributions to acid and nitrogen deposition at
designated habitat sites against critical loads
Appendix 6: Modelled process contributions at individual sensitive receptor sites
Appendix 7: Process contribution dispersion images of key substances
RICARDO-AEA
1 Introduction
The assessment and control of emissions to air from the proposed Barr Killoch Energy Recovery Park
is a key aspect of the planning application and Environmental Statement for the development. The
proposed facility will provide capacity to process up to 120,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of residual
waste through a materials recovery facility (MRF) of which 85,000 tpa will be treated by gasification,
generating both heat and electricity.
As well as being an important issue in its own right, this air quality assessment also informed the
assessments of ecological and health issues. The air quality impact assessment for the proposed
facility was carried out as follows:
(a) Outline review of the policy context for air quality.
(b) Assessment of baseline air quality.
(c) Identification of potentially sensitive locations.
(d) Dispersion modelling study of emissions to forecast air concentrations and deposition rates at
potentially sensitive locations.
(e) Evaluation of forecast levels of released substances against relevant standards, guidelines,
critical levels and critical loads.
(f) Assessment of plume visibility.
(g) Assessment of road traffic emissions on air quality.
(h) Assessment of abnormal operating conditions/accidental releases.
(i) Mitigation measures.
(j) Conclusions.
The main focus of the air quality assessment was the evaluation of modelled levels against relevant
Levels of relevant substances were forecast at sensitive receptors to enable an assessment of the
effects on air quality with regard to human health risks to be evaluated.
Levels of relevant released substances were forecast at designated habitat sites in the local area. This
information was used to carry out a screening assessment in relation to the potential effects on habitat
sites due to emissions to air from the proposed facility, with more detailed assessment in any situations
where this is warranted. Information on designated habitat sites was obtained from Scottish Natural
Heritage’s Sitelink resource.
RICARDO-AEA
2 Planning policy context
A range of national and local planning policy documents are relevant to this assessment.
2.1 National Planning Policy Framework for Scotland
Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework (2014) Main Issues Report para 1.3 confirms the
importance of the challenge of “ensuring that new development leads to a healthier environment”.1 The
Framework highlights that the Spatial Strategy should promote “the creation of high quality, distinctive,
sustainable and healthy places.” (Section 1.14) It goes on to emphasise the role of planning in
environmental protection (Section 4.33). The Third National Planning Framework also makes reference
to the importance of reducing the impacts of environmental pollution on habitats and species.
The rural setting of the proposed Energy Recovery Park was taken into account in the design of the
proposed facility, to ensure a minimal effect on airborne levels of the relevant substances. The facility
was designed to ensure no significant impacts on designated habitats and species.
2.2 PAN 63 Waste Management Planning
Further guidance is provided in Planning Advice Note PAN 63, “Waste Management Planning.” This
highlights SEPA’s role in the planning system, with the objective of ensuring that waste is disposed of
or treated without endangering human health or causing harm to the environment. With regard to air
pollution, PAN63 states:
“Airborne Pollution
63. In deciding whether to license a proposed development, SEPA will consider whether, for
example, emissions comply with industry standards. However, the planning authority, in
considering a planning application, may need to apply additional land-use considerations in
relation to compatibility with neighbouring land use. Further information is available in Planning
Advice Note 51: Planning and Environmental Protection.
64. Waste management facilities potentially produce unpleasant odours and other airborne
pollution. Good practice requirements are normally included in the terms of waste licences. Air
quality can be a material planning consideration as well as a pollution control issue. The nature
of any emission, including particulates and gases, will depend on the type of waste
management facility and can be minimised through the use of appropriate, well-maintained and
managed premises, equipment and vehicles.
65. Dust emissions can be controlled, for instance, by damping down exposed areas,
adequately covering deposited waste in landfill sites and by fitting suitable suppression
equipment on the air outflows from buildings or incinerators. Control of these detailed
operational matters is more appropriate to the site license. However, it may be appropriate to
impose a planning condition, requiring waste operators to prepare a scheme, or to indicate what
measures will be undertaken, to suppress dust on a site. Care must be taken, however, that
any planning condition does not duplicate a condition appropriate to a waste licence.
Consideration of proposals for waste management facilities should take account of whether:

Adequate means of controlling dust, litter, odours and other emissions are incorporated
into the planning application;

Appropriate planning conditions are used to minimise potential litter problems, where they
are not already dealt with by waste licensing.
66. Applicants should demonstrate that:

The development includes construction practices to minimise the use of raw materials and
maximise the use of secondary aggregates and recycled or renewable materials;
Scottish Government, “Ambition, Opportunity, Place, Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework,” Main Issues Report and Draft Framework,
2014
1
RICARDO-AEA

Waste material generated by the proposal is reduced and re-used or recycled where
appropriate on site (for example in landscaping without excessive earth moulding and
mounding).”
This air quality assessment provides the information required to enable SEPA and East Ayrshire Council
to fulfil their responsibilities in respect of air pollution. In view of the nature of the proposed facility,
odour and dust are not likely to present significant issues; nevertheless, dust and odour control is
addressed as part of this study.
2.3 Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan
The Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan2 (Approved in 2007) establishes a framework to provide a strategic
land-use context to the year 2025 for East, North and South Ayrshire and states the following:
“Schedule 1: Guiding principles for sustainable development: … Development proposals should not
have an adverse effect on land, air and water quality or nuisance by way of smell, noise or light.”
“ENV11 Air, Noise and Light Pollution: The three Ayrshire councils shall not be supportive of new
development that would expose large numbers of people to unacceptable levels of air, noise and light.”
This air quality assessment demonstrates that the proposed Energy Recovery Park will comply with the
principles of sustainable development, and the requirements to avoid adverse odour impacts, and to
avoid unacceptable levels of air quality, which are set out in this Plan.
2.4 East Ayrshire Local Plan
Policy ENV25 of the East Ayrshire Local Plan 20103 states:
“The Council will require all developers to ensure that their proposals have minimal adverse impact on
air quality and will require air quality assessments to be undertaken in respect of any proposed
developments which it considers may significantly impact on air quality, as considered appropriate. The
Council will also ensure that any new development will have minimum adverse effects on the physical
environment and the amenity of an area as a result of light and noise pollution. Appropriate conditions
and Section 75 Agreements will be attached to individual planning consents to ensure that
environmental impacts caused by air, light and noise pollution are minimised wherever possible.”
This air quality assessment fulfils the requirements set out in Policy ENV25, and demonstrates that the
proposal will have minimal adverse impact on air quality.
2.5 Summary
Provided unacceptable impacts on air quality are avoided, and criteria relating to other aspects of
proposed developments are met, local and national policy is supportive of the development of residual
waste treatment facilities.
2
3
Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan via http://www.ayrshire-jsu.gov.uk/
East Ayrshire Local Plan 2010 via http://www.east-ayrshire.gov.uk/
RICARDO-AEA
3 Baseline air quality
A wide range of information sources have been considered to enable baseline air quality in the local
area to be characterised.
Reports produced by East Ayrshire Council and South Ayrshire Council for the purposes of local air
quality management were reviewed to identify any information on baseline air quality which was relevant
to the assessment of the proposed facility, including:

2010 Air Quality Progress Report for East Ayrshire Council

2014 Air Quality Progress Report for South Ayrshire Council
This information was also evaluated to identify any concerns expressed by the local authority in respect
of air quality at or in the vicinity of the proposed development. The reports confirmed that no air quality
management areas (AQMA) have been declared in either East or South Ayrshire4,5.
The reports provide details of the automatic monitoring stations located in East and South Ayrshire
providing continuous data on concentrations of a nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter <10
micrometres (PM10) (see Table 1).
Table 1: Details of automatic monitoring sites in East and South Ayrshire
Site type
OS Grid Ref
Pollutants
Approx. distance from
stack
New Cumnock (closed)
Urban
background
x.261812 y.613503
NO2, PM10
15 km
Kilmarnock St Marnock
Street
Roadside
x.242742 y.637705
NO2, PM10
18 km
Kilmarnock John Finnie
Street
Roadside
x.242691 y.638095
NO2, PM10
19 km
High Street Ayr
Roadside
x.233701 y.622114
NO2, PM10
15 km
Taylor Street Ayr
Roadside
x.233608 y.622750
NO2, PM10
15 km
Site name
East Ayrshire
South Ayrshire
The reports also provide details of non-automatic monitoring sites (diffusion tubes) in East and South
Ayrshire. The reports indicate that one NO2 diffusion tube is situated within 3 km of the proposed site,
the details for which are provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Details of diffusion tube monitoring within 3 km of the proposed development
Site name
Site type
OS Grid Ref
Pollutants
Approx. distance from
stack
Junction at Main Street &
A70 Ochiltree
Roadside
x.250712 y.621166
NO2
3 km
Relevant measurements and data available from national resources were also considered. These
resources included the Scottish Air Quality website, 6 the UK national air quality archive, 7 and the
4
2010 Air Quality Progress Report for East Ayrshire Council via http://www.east-ayrshire.gov.uk/
2014 Air Quality Progress Report for South Ayrshire Council via http://www.south-ayrshire.gov.uk/
Scottish air quality website, http://www.scottishairquality.co.uk, accessed November/December 2014
7
UK air quality archive http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/, accessed November/December 2014
5
6
RICARDO-AEA
www.apis.ac.uk resource operated by the nature conservation agencies. The information used included
data from the following databases:

Toxic Organic Micropollutants (TOMPs) network

Trace elements monitoring networks

Ammonia and acid gases monitoring network

National background air quality maps, produced by Defra

Estimated background nitrogen and acid deposition values at European sites from
www.apis.ac.uk.
Although the information was not all local to the proposed development, it provided a useful dataset to
enable a complete picture of baseline air quality to be gained. Having reviewed the available
information, a representative baseline air quality level was identified for each substance under
consideration. This was designed to provide a realistic worst-case estimate of baseline air quality levels
in the study area, based on the best quality and most representative available data. A detailed
evaluation of baseline air quality data was carried out, and representative baseline air quality levels for
each substance of potential concern were summarised, as set out in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Baseline air quality in the study area
Substance
Particulate matter (PM10)
Long-term
baseline level
(µg/m3)
16 µg/m3
Basis
Highest level measured at any automatic monitoring
station in South and East Ayrshire in 2010, 2011 and
2012.
This level is higher than the interpolated map values
within the vicinity of the site.
(90.4th percentile of 24 hour
mean concentrations)
32 µg/m3
Calculated as 2x the annual mean (Ref. 10 page 26)
(98.08th percentile of 24 hour
mean concentrations)
32 µg/m3
Calculated as 2x the annual mean (Ref. 10 page 26)
Particulate matter (PM2.5)
7 µg/m3
Highest interpolated map value in the vicinity of the site
(x. 245500 - 251500, y. 617500 - 623500).
Benzene
0.8 µg/m3
Highest level measured at Auchencorth Moss monitoring
station between 2012 and 2014.
Hydrogen chloride
0.41 µg/m3
Highest level measured at the four nearest rural sites
(Eskdalemuir, Carradale, Auchencorth Moss and Bush
Estate) during 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Hydrogen fluoride
2.46 µg/m3
Short-term peak level suggested by EPAQS8
There are no automatic monitoring stations for CO in
East or South Ayrshire.
Carbon monoxide
1400 µg/m3
This value is the highest level measured at either of the
two automatic monitoring stations in Glasgow during
2013 (Glasgow Byres Road).
The use of data from Glasgow is likely to be highly
conservative for the vicinity of the proposed facility.
Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards, “Guidelines for Halogens and Hydrogen Halides in Ambient Air for Protecting Human Health against
Acute Irritancy Effects,” 2006
8
RICARDO-AEA
Substance
Long-term
baseline level
(µg/m3)
Basis
There are no automatic monitoring stations for SO2 in
East or South Ayrshire.
Sulphur dioxide
3 µg/m3
Recorded at the Glasgow Anderston monitoring station in
2013.
The use of data from Glasgow Centre is likely to be
conservative for the vicinity of the proposed facility.
Nitrogen dioxide
26 µg/m3
Highest concentration recorded by diffusion tube at the
Junction at Main Street & A70 Ochiltree between 2007
and 2009.
This level is higher than the interpolated map values
within the vicinity of the site and higher than the values
recorded by automatic monitoring stations in East and
South Ayrshire between 2009 and 2012.
Oxides of nitrogen
Various
Interpolated map data was used to evaluate baseline
levels of oxides of nitrogen at designated habitat sites.
Ammonia
0.93 µg/m3
Highest annual mean recorded at the Auchencorth Moss
monitoring station between 2011 and 2013. National
Ammonia Monitoring Network (NAMN).
Dioxins and furans ITEQ
49 fgTEQ/m3
0.000055
PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene)
Highest level measured at urban and rural locations in the
UK in 2010 (level recorded at Manchester).
This is likely to be highly conservative for the area of the
proposed facility.
Highest annual mean level recorded at Auchencorth Moss
monitoring station between 2011 and 2013 (PAH Digitel
(solid phase).
Metals
Cadmium
0.032 ng/m3
Mercury
1.97 ng/m3
Arsenic
0.2 ng/m3
Lead
1.6 ng/m3
Chromium
0.79 ng/m3
Copper
0.99 ng/m3
Manganese
1.05 ng/m3
Nickel
0.38 ng/m3
Vanadium
0.42 ng/m3
Chromium VI
0.16 ng/m3
Cobalt
0.04 ng/m3
Antimony
No national measurement. Baseline measurements used in relation to other
developments confirms that baseline levels are not significant in relation to the
air quality standards and guidelines.
Thallium
Rural Heavy Metals Network: Highest value recorded at
the Auchencorth Moss automatic monitoring site between
2011 and 2013.
RICARDO-AEA
4 Methodology
4.1 Construction phase
The control of construction-phase impacts on air quality was considered in outline, highlighting the
control measures available to the contractor. The assessment of construction phase impacts drew on
guidance published by the Institute of Air Quality Management. 9 The study sets out the most
appropriate means for assessing and controlling construction-phase air quality impacts, and
recommends a range of measures to mitigate these.
4.2 Air quality modelling study
The air quality study was carried out in accordance with SEPA and Environment Agency guidance on
air quality modelling studies,10,11 and established good practice for air quality modelling and
assessment. The study considered emissions from the stack of substances controlled under the
Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU), together with ammonia which may potentially also be
significant.
Five years’ meteorological data were obtained from a nearby, representative meteorological station.
The closest weather station to the proposed facility is at Prestwick Airport, approximately 12 km northwest of the proposed facility. Measurements at this station are representative of the weather conditions
likely to be experienced at the proposed development site. The meteorological data covered the years
2010 to 2014 inclusive. Meteorological data from this station provides a minimum wind speed recording
of 1 m/s. To address the issue of low wind speed (<1 m/s) the dispersion model was run using the calm
conditions module in ADMS5, which will substitute values recorded as 0 m/s with 0.5 m/s. Additionally,
in order to represent meteorological conditions at an inland elevated site, a sensitivity test was carried
out using five years’ meteorological data from Drumalbin located approximately 46 km north-east of the
site. The model results using Drumalbin meteorological data were found to be lower than those
obtained using data from Prestwick Airport, and consequently Prestwick Airport data was used as a
conservative approach.
The proposed development site is located in a rural area close to the western boundary of East Ayrshire.
There are no pronounced gradients in the vicinity of the site, and the effects of terrain on dispersion are
not expected to be significant. However, for the avoidance of doubt in this area, the effects of terrain
on dispersion of emissions from the proposed facility were considered in the assessment. Local terrain
data was incorporated into the modelling study at the highest appropriate resolution.
Local land use patterns can affect the structure of the atmosphere. For example, the presence of highrise buildings in an industrial or city centre area can result in increased turbulence in the atmosphere.
Conversely, areas with low vegetation or open water may have less influence on the atmosphere, and
tend to result in a more stable atmosphere. This is represented in the dispersion model using a
parameter known as the “surface roughness length”. The surface roughness length used in this study
was 0.3 metres, representative of the maximum surface roughness for agricultural areas.
The ADMS 5 and AERMOD version 14134 dispersion models were used to evaluate the levels of
released substances in the vicinity of the proposed Energy Recovery Park. Levels of released
substances were evaluated at the identified sensitive locations, and the highest forecast levels at any
point in the vicinity of the site was identified. The models were also used to provide contour plots of the
levels of key substances emitted from the proposed facility.
4.3 Substances assessed
The substances assessed in this study were derived from the Industrial Emissions Directive Annex VI,
as follows:
9
Guidance on the Assessment of the Impacts of Construction on Air Quality and the Determination of their Significance via
http://www.iaqm.co.uk/text/guidance/construction_guidance_2011.pdf
10
SEPA, Environment Agency and NI Environment and Heritage Service, “Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC): Environmental
Assessment and Appraisal of BAT,” Version 6 2003
11
Environment Agency, “Frequently asked questions and further guidance on air quality modelling and assessment,” available via
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/regulation/38791.aspx (accessed July 2011)
RICARDO-AEA

Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)

Volatile organic compounds

Hydrogen chloride

Hydrogen fluoride

Carbon monoxide

Sulphur dioxide

Oxides of nitrogen

Metals group 1: Cadmium and Thallium

Metals group 2: Mercury

Metals group 3: Antimony, Arsenic, Lead, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Manganese, Nickel,
Vanadium

Dioxins and furans

Ammonia
The Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) allows for Member States to set emission limit values
for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), although this provision was not brought forward into the
Industrial Emissions Directive, and no such limit values have been set in the UK. Emissions of PAHs
from the proposed facility are expected to be minimal, but an assessment was nevertheless carried out
on the assumption that emissions of PAHs could be at the level identified in a recent planning and
permit application for a similar facility in England. 12
4.4 Deposition
The air quality model was used to model deposition to land of the substances identified in relevant
SEPA guidance.10 The substances of potential concern are listed in Table D7 of this guidance, and
comprise:

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Mercury

Nickel
Deposition of these substances was modelled following the screening approach set out in SEPA
guidance. This procedure assumes a dry deposition velocity of 0.01 m/s, which is multiplied by 3 in
order to account for both wet deposition and dry deposition processes. The highest modelled deposition
rates at any location in the study area were assessed against the benchmarks set out by SEPA.
Additionally, deposition of nitrogen and acids at designated habitat sites was also investigated to ensure
that the proposed development would have no significant effects at these protected sites. This focused
on designated sites within 15 km of the proposed development site, following SEPA guidance.10 There
are a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and two European sites within this range:

Airds Moss (Special Area of Conservation – SAC)

Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands (Special Protection Area - SPA)
Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) Limited, “Sinfin Waste Treatment Facility Environmental Permit Application
(EA/EPR/WP3133KP/A001), Impact Assessment Report,” Produced by Scott Wilson, June 2009; United Utilities, “Human Health Risk
Assessment: Energy from Waste Facility,” Final Report produced by RPS Ltd, Version 1, March 2009
12
RICARDO-AEA
The proposed Energy Recovery Park is also situated within the ‘transition area’ of UNESCO
designated ‘biosphere reserve’ in Galloway and Southern Ayrshire, however this does not present
additional assessment requirements for the air quality study.
The assessment of deposition at habitat sites was carried out in accordance with recently published
Environment Agency guidance.13 In accordance with this guidance, the deposition velocities
assumed for the study are provided in Table 4.
Table 4: Deposition velocities
Deposition velocities (m/s)
Substance
Grassland
Woodland
Ammonia
0.02
0.03
Nitric oxide
0
0
Nitrogen dioxide
0.0015
0.003
Sulphur dioxide
0.012
0.024
Critical load information for the SSSIs under consideration was taken from the APIS website
(www.apis.ac.uk). Modelled deposition rates were assessed against the relevant critical loads identified
for each designated habitat site.
4.5 Process design and emissions
Data on the process design and emissions was obtained from the project team, including:
(a) Emissions concentration and/or release rate data.
(b) Emission temperature and volumetric flow/velocity data.
(c) Emission oxygen and moisture content for combustion sources.
(d) Location, height and diameter of the release point.
Emissions from the single stack were assumed to be at the limits set in the Industrial Emissions Directive
(2010/75/EU). Emissions of ammonia were assumed to be at the limit proposed in the BREF note for
waste-to-energy facilities (Ref. 14 Table 4.56) and reflects the potential for loss of ammonia in the event
of incomplete reaction between NOx and urea, referred to as ‘ammonia slip’.
Source and emissions data used in the study are set out in Table 5 and Table 6.
Environment Agency, “Habitats Directive – Environment Agency policy,” Appendix 7 “Stage 1 and 2 Assessment of new PIR permissions under
the Habitats Regulations,” issued 30 January 2009. Environment Agency, “Habitats Directive: taking a new permission, plan or project through
the regulations,” issued 10 August 2010
14
European Commission, “Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste
Incineration,” August 2006
13
RICARDO-AEA
Table 5: Source information
Parameter
Units
Stack location:
Metres (m)
Value

Easting

247718

Northing

620258
Stack height
Metres (m)
55
Stack internal diameter
Metres (m)
1.56
Gas flow rate at discharge
conditions
Cubic metres per second (m3/s)
33.04
Gas flow rate at reference
conditions
Normalised cubic metres per
second (Nm3/s)
25.78
Discharge temperature
Degrees Celsius (°c)
150
Discharge oxygen level
Percentage (%)
6.8 %
Discharge moisture level
Percentage (%)
14.9 %
Table 6: Concentrations of released substances
Emission concentration
for averaging periods
Emission concentration
for averaging periods
< 24 hours
>= 24 hours
Not applicable
10 mg/Nm3
Volatile organic compounds
20 mg/Nm3
10 mg/Nm3
Hydrogen chloride
60 mg/Nm3
10 mg/Nm3
Hydrogen fluoride
4 mg/Nm3
1 mg/Nm3
Carbon monoxide
150 mg/Nm3
Not applicable
Sulphur dioxide
200 mg/Nm3
50 mg/Nm3
Oxides of nitrogen
400 mg/Nm3
200 mg/Nm3
Substance
Particulate matter
Metals group 1: Cadmium and Thallium
0.05 mg/Nm3
Metals group 2: Mercury
0.05 mg/Nm3
Metals group 3: Antimony, Arsenic, Lead,
Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Manganese,
Nickel, Vanadium
0.5 mg/Nm3
Dioxins and furans
0.1 ng/Nm3
Ammonia
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
20 mg/Nm3
10 mg/Nm3
0.001 mg/Nm3
The air quality model was run for a range of stack heights. On the basis of the model results, an
appropriate stack height was identified. A limited range of stack height sensitivity test results is
provided. Full model results are presented for the proposed stack height.
In practice, emissions from the proposed Energy Recovery Park will be substantially lower than the
Industrial Emissions Directive limits.
RICARDO-AEA
It was assumed that 70% of oxides of nitrogen are present as nitrogen dioxide for assessing long term
mean concentrations, and 35% present as nitrogen dioxide for assessing short-term mean
concentrations, following Environment Agency guidance.15
The presence of buildings adjacent to the release point can affect the dispersion of emissions. SEPA
guidance indicates that buildings with a height of less than 40% of the stack height do not affect
dispersion from the stack.10 The effect of the proposed process buildings was taken into account in the
present study using the appropriate modules of the ADMS and AERMOD dispersion models. The model
considered the section of the building closest to the stack, which has a maximum height of 30 m, and
is therefore above 40% of the stack height. The parameters of the main process building included in
the modelling assessment are provided in Table 7.
Table 7: Parameters of the main process building at the proposed Barr Killoch Energy Recovery Park
Elevations
Main building
Max. height (m)
30
Central coordinate
x
y
247776
620278
Length (m)
Width (m)
Angle (°)
74
42
72
The building parameters were used to apply the buildings module in the ADMS5 dispersion model. The
model inputs are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Visualisation of ADMS5 buildings input file
4.6 Receiving environment
Potentially sensitive locations in the vicinity of the facility were identified from Ordnance Survey
mapping. A notional radius of 3 km was used for this assessment. Farms or allotments identified within
a 3 km radius of the site were also included in the assessment to enable potential health risks due to
dietary exposure to be assessed at these locations (see Human Health Risk Assessment report).
Sensitive locations included:

Residential areas and properties

Schools
Environment Agency, “Conversion ratios for NOx and NO2,” undated, available from http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/business/regulation/38791.aspx
15
RICARDO-AEA

Care homes

Hospitals

Playing fields

Farms / allotments
Designated habitat sites (European Sites, Ramsar Sites and SSSIs) located within 15 km of the
proposed facility have also been included in the assessment, following SEPA guidance.10 The closest
Local Wildlife Site (LWS) to the proposed facility was also included in the assessment. Distances were
measured from the closest point on the designated habitat site to the centre of the proposed facility.
Where habitats were found to cover a large area receptor points have been selected at several locations
along the closest boundary to the proposed facility.
Although emissions from the proposed facility could potentially affect designated sites further away from
the proposed facility, any impacts would be less significant than those forecast at sites within the 15 km
zone. SSSIs designated on the basis of their geological (including paleontological, stratigraphic and
mineralogical) interest alone were not considered in the assessment.
Additionally levels of released substances were assessed at a grid of points extending 1.5 km in each
direction from the centre of the site. The grid size was 76 × 76 points, resulting in a grid resolution of
40 m. The size of the grid was reviewed to confirm that the points of maximum concentration were
included within the grid area.
The potentially sensitive locations and designated habitat sites identified within the vicinity of the
proposed facility are listed in Table 9 and Table 8. These locations are shown in Figure 3 and Figure
2, with the location of the emission stack represented by a red star.
Table 8: Potentially sensitive locations
Ref.
Name
Type
x
y
Approx. distance
from Energy
Recovery Park
(km)
S1
Pennymore
Farm
248884
621862
1.98
S2
Findlayston
Farm
250156
620463
2.45
S3
Holehouse
Farm
249570
619960
1.88
S4
Bardarroch Farm
Farm
247095
618531
1.84
S5
Hunterston
Farm
246279
621583
1.96
S6
Creoch House
Residential
247623
620969
0.72
S7
Ardmhor
Residential
247622
621096
0.84
S8
The Bungalow
Residential
248878
621553
1.74
S9
Knowe View
Residential
249895
620966
2.29
S10
Gallowlee Avenue
Residential
250241
620991
2.63
S11
Torview
Residential
248903
620814
1.31
S12
Mote Toll
Residential
249057
620619
1.39
S13
Netherton
Residential
250498
620708
2.82
S14
North Palmerston
Residential
250712
620043
3.00
S15
The Bungalow
Residential
250697
619775
3.02
S16
Killoch
Residential
247923
620258
0.21
S17
Hilltop
Residential
249337
619489
1.79
RICARDO-AEA
Ref.
Name
Type
x
y
Approx. distance
from Energy
Recovery Park
(km)
S18
Auchness Cottage
Residential
248554
619646
1.04
S19
Lessnessock Bungalows
Residential
248306
619658
0.84
S20
Provost Mount
Residential
247711
619866
0.39
S21
Clydenoch
Residential
247290
619272
1.07
S22
Oakmount
Residential
246933
618100
2.30
S23
The Cottage
Residential
246426
619844
1.36
S24
Shield
Residential
245279
619923
2.46
S25
Briardene Cottage
Residential
245108
621159
2.76
S26
Alpbach
Residential
245396
621344
2.56
S27
House Fox Hollow
Residential
246050
621589
2.13
S28
Gowanpark House
Residential / farm
247977
622321
2.08
S29
Gargowan
Residential / farm
247489
622329
2.08
S30
Steelpark
Residential / farm
248503
622454
2.33
S31
Corselet
Residential / farm
248450
621650
1.57
S32
Cawhillan
Residential / farm
249237
621552
2.00
S33
Slatehole
Residential / farm
249078
623077
3.13
S34
Barturk
Residential / farm
249516
622088
2.57
S35
Low Carston
Residential / farm
249945
621752
2.68
S36
Hill of Ochiltree
Residential / farm
250016
621331
2.54
S37
High Tarbeg
Residential / farm
248610
620713
1.00
S38
Back o'Hill
Residential / farm
250217
619821
2.54
S39
South Palmerston
Residential / farm
250786
619544
3.15
S40
Glenconner
Residential / farm
249470
619350
1.97
S41
Barquharrie
Residential / farm
250259
619079
2.80
S42
Burnockstone
Residential / farm
250123
618685
2.87
S43
Lessnessock
Residential / farm
248181
619633
0.78
S44
Barlosh Court
Residential / farm
248066
618199
2.09
S45
High Plyde
Residential / farm
248906
617702
2.82
S46
Burnton
Residential / farm
249367
617985
2.81
S47
Bardarroch
Residential / farm
247373
618715
1.58
S48
Killochside
Residential / farm
247386
620184
0.34
S49
Treesmax
Residential / farm
246082
618570
2.35
S50
East Tarelgin
Residential / farm
246665
619857
1.13
RICARDO-AEA
Ref.
Name
Type
x
y
Approx. distance
from Energy
Recovery Park
(km)
S51
Macquittiston
Residential / farm
246068
619250
1.93
S52
Lochmark Farm
Residential / farm
245065
619639
2.72
S53
West Tarelgin
Residential / farm
246137
620014
1.60
S54
Chipperlaigan
Residential / farm
245629
620735
2.14
S55
Hoodston
Residential / farm
245937
620972
1.92
S56
Speirston
Residential / farm
246330
621261
1.71
S57
Braehead
Residential / farm
246828
621708
1.70
S58
Trabbochburn
Residential / farm
246676
621872
1.92
S59
Laigh Tarbeg
Residential / farm /
B&B
248730
620437
1.03
S60
Tarelgin Smokehouse
Residential / retail
246115
619720
1.69
S61
Gemmell's Garden Centre
Retail
245656
621496
2.40
S62
Ochiltree Primary School
School
250523
621047
2.91
S63
Watson
Residential / farm
249647
621013
2.07
Table 9: Designated habitat sites
Ref.
Name
Designation
x
y
Approx.
distance
from Energy
Recovery
Park (km)
H1
Airds Moss (A)
SAC
257461
624709
10.71
H2
Airds Moss (B)
SAC
259302
622825
11.87
H3
Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands (A)
SPA
257418
624779
10.70
H4
Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands (B)
SPA
258148
623668
10.97
H5
Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands (C)
SPA
254645
633055
14.55
H6
Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands (D)
SPA
256052
628981
12.06
H7
Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands (E)
SPA
263344
620377
15.63
H8
Afton Lodge
SSSI
241591
625802
8.26
H9
Stairhill
SSSI
245153
624132
4.65
H10
River Ayr Gorge
SSSI
245808
624721
4.85
H11
Howford Bridge
SSSI
251274
625107
6.01
H12
Greenock Mains
SSSI
263280
627653
17.23
H13
Muirkirk Uplands (A)
SSSI
256110
628851
12.01
H14
Muirkirk Uplands (B)
SSSI
255179
631719
13.68
RICARDO-AEA
H15
Lugar Sill
SSSI
259823
621527
12.17
H16
Nith Bridge
SSSI
259294
614130
13.10
H17
Barlosh Moss (A)
SSSI
248300
618674
1.69
H18
Barlosh Moss (B)
SSSI
249141
618711
2.10
H19
Benbeoch
SSSI
248945
608874
11.45
H20
Dalmellington Moss
SSSI
246342
606588
13.74
H21
Bogton Loch
SSSI
246565
605778
14.53
H22
Dunaskin Glen
SSSI
245597
609165
11.29
H23
Martnaham Loch and Wood
SSSI
240321
617764
7.81
H24
Burnock Water
LWS
249957
620139
2.24
Figure 2: Location of sensitive receptor sites
RICARDO-AEA
Figure 3: Location of designated habitat sites
4.7 Standards and guidelines
Levels of released substances were assessed against the relevant standards and guidelines for air
quality. These standards and guidelines derive from a range of references, including:

European environmental quality standards

Air quality regulations for Scotland

Expert group recommendations

World Health Organisation recommendations

Environmental assessment levels (EALs) derived from occupational exposure standards
The standards and guidelines used in the assessment were specified at a level such that no significant
adverse effects on air quality would be expected to arise provided air quality complies with the relevant
The key reference point for air quality standards and guidelines was the SEPA H1 Document. 10 The
principles, standards and guidelines set out in this document were adopted for this assessment. The
relevant standards and guidelines are set out in Table 10.
RICARDO-AEA
Table 10: Air quality standards and guidelines
Substance
Averaging time
Standard value (µg/m3)
Annual mean
18
98th percentile of 24 hour means
50
Particulate matter (PM2.5) (target)
Annual mean
25
Particulate matter (PM2.5) (limit)
Annual mean
12
Volatile organic compounds (assessed
against standard for benzene)
Annual mean
3.25
1,3-butadiene
Annual mean
2.25
Hydrogen chloride
Maximum hourly mean
750
Hydrogen fluoride
Annual mean
16
Hydrogen fluoride
Maximum hourly mean
160
Hydrogen fluoride (vegetation)
Maximum 24 hour mean
5
Carbon monoxide
Maximum 8 hour mean
10,000
Carbon monoxide
No assessment of annual mean concentrations as the EAL for carbon
monoxide in H1 is specified in error
Sulphur dioxide
99.9th percentile of 15 minute means
266
Sulphur dioxide
99.7th percentile of hourly means
350
Sulphur dioxide
99.2nd percentile of 24 hour means
125
Sulphur dioxide (vegetation)
Annual mean
20
Sulphur dioxide (vegetation)
Winter mean
20
Nitrogen dioxide
Annual mean
40
Nitrogen dioxide
200
Oxides of nitrogen (vegetation)
Annual mean
30
Oxides of nitrogen (vegetation)
75
Ammonia
Annual mean
180
Ammonia
Maximum hourly mean
2,500
Ammonia (vegetation)
Annual mean
1 or 3
Cadmium
Annual mean
0.005
Thallium
Annual mean
No standard
Thallium
Maximum hourly mean
No standard
Mercury
Annual mean
0.25
Mercury
Maximum hourly mean
7.5
Antimony
Annual mean
5
Antimony
Maximum hourly mean
150
Arsenic
Annual mean
0.003
Lead
Annual mean
0.25
RICARDO-AEA
Substance
Averaging time
Standard value (µg/m3)
Chromium
Annual mean
5
Chromium
Maximum hourly mean
150
Chromium VI
Annual mean
0.0002
Cobalt
Annual mean
No standard
Cobalt
Maximum hourly mean
No standard
Copper
Annual mean
10
Copper
Maximum hourly mean
200
Manganese
Annual mean
150
Manganese
Maximum hourly mean
1,500
Nickel
Annual mean
0.02
Vanadium
Annual mean
5
Vanadium
1
Annual mean
No standard (see below)
There are no air quality standards for dioxins and furans, because the majority of exposure takes place
via indirect exposure pathways. Consequently, modelled levels of dioxins and furans were assessed
using an exposure modelling system, as described in the Human Health Risk Assessment report,
submitted as part of this Environmental Statement.
Following advice from SEPA,10 modelled 15 minute mean levels of sulphur dioxide was increased by a
factor of 1.34 to account for the shorter averaging period compared to the one hour averaging period
of the meteorological data.
Emissions of VOCs were assessed against the Scottish air quality standards for benzene and 1,3butadiene, to ensure a conservative approach.
Standards and guidelines specified for the protection of human health should in principle be applied at
locations where people are likely to be present over the relevant averaging period.
In practice, the study was carried out by assessing air quality across the grid of points covering the
vicinity of the proposed facility. The study was carried out to ensure compliance with air quality
standards and guidelines at all locations in the study area for substances released from elevated
locations.
4.8 Assessment of metals
The Environment Agency has published guidance on the assessment of the group of nine metals, 16
which was used for this study. This guidance sets out a staged procedure for the assessment of these
metals:
(a) Carry out the impact assessment assuming each metal contributes 100% of the group
concentration limit. Assume that chromium VI comprises 20% of background chromium.
Screen out any metals which meet the following criteria on this basis:
16

Long-term Process Contribution (PC) <1% of air quality standard or guideline
(AQSG), or Short-term PC <10% AQSG: Screen out. Otherwise:

Long-term or Short-term PEC <100%: Screen out. Otherwise:
Environment Agency, “Guidance to Applicants on Impact Assessment for Group 3 Metals Stack Releases”, Version 3, September 2012
RICARDO-AEA
(b) Carry out the impact assessment for any metals not previously screened out assuming that
each metal contributes one ninth (11%) of the emission concentration limit. Assume that 20%
of chromium is present as chromium VI. Screen out any metals which meet the above criteria
on this basis.
(c) Carry out the impact assessment using the above criteria for any metals not previously
screened out using case-specific assumptions, which must be justified.
4.9 Assessment of deposition
SEPA guidance10 sets benchmarks for maximum deposition rates of a subset of the substances
released from the proposed facility. These are set out in Table 11.
Table 11: Maximum deposition rate benchmarks for released substances
Substance
Maximum deposition rate (mg/m2-day)
Arsenic
0.02
Cadmium
0.009
Chromium
1.5
Copper
0.25
Lead
1.1
Mercury
0.004
Nickel
0.11
4.10 Critical levels and loads at designated habitat sites
Forecast levels of released substances was assessed against the critical levels in Table 10, and against
critical loads specified for the protection of natural ecosystems at designated habitat sites within 15 km
of the proposed facility. Critical load values were taken or derived using professional judgment from
the Air Pollution Information System resource, operated by the conservation agencies. 17
This assessment considered the contribution to nitrogen deposition and acid deposition. The critical
load for nitrogen is expressed as the rate of nitrogen deposition per unit area per year which can be
tolerated by the habitat site.
If specified for a particular site, the acid critical load is made up of a contribution from nitrogen-derived
acid and sulphur-derived acid. The assessment of emissions from the proposed facility with regard to
acid deposition was carried out using the “Critical Load Function Tool” and supporting guidance
provided on the APIS website.18 Specifically, the “detailed explanation” provided for this tool sets out
the basis for calculating process contribution as a percentage of the critical load. The guidance sets
out the calculation to be used if the combined background and process contribution is below the
minimum critical load point referred to as “CLminN”. However, this condition did not apply at any
designated habitat site in the study area.
The guidance goes on to set out the calculation to be used in the majority of cases, where the combined
background and process contribution is above the CLminN value. In this case, the calculation is as
follows:
PC as %CL function = ((PC of S+N deposition)/CLmaxN)*100
A contribution of less than 1% of the relevant long-term critical level/critical load was considered to
represent an insignificant contribution, following the approach broadly set out in SEPA guidance.10 A
contribution of less than 10% of the relevant short-term critical level was considered to represent an
insignificant contribution, again following SEPA guidance.
17
18
SEPA, Scottish Natural Heritage and others, www.apis.ac.uk,
SEPA, Scottish Natural Heritage and others, www.apis.ac.uk/critical-load-function-tool
RICARDO-AEA
If any modelled air concentrations and deposition rates were identified to be above 1% of the relevant
critical level/critical load values at locations where background deposition rates are close to or above
the relevant standards, further evaluation was carried out.
4.11 Plume visibility
The proposed Energy Recovery Park will from time to time give rise to a visible plume of white water
vapour. The likely extent of visible plumes emitted from the site was assessed using the appropriate
module of the ADMS model. Information on the moisture content of the plume is given in Table 5. The
value of 14.9% moisture in the flue gases by volume is equivalent to 9.3% by mass.
The ADMS model was used to forecast the plume length for every hour of meteorological data. The
forecast plume lengths were assessed against the criteria set out in SEPA guidance. 10 This guidance
indicates that a plume can be considered as having an insignificant or low impact if it crosses the site
boundary less than 5% of daylight hours per year. For the purposes of this assessment the distance
between the stack and the closest boundary was estimated to be 45 m.
4.12 Emissions from road traffic
The potential effect of road traffic emissions was assessed using appropriate screening criteria:

Guidance published by Environmental Protection UK 19 indicates that construction-phase
traffic impacts may need to be considered for projects which generate over 200 heavy goods
vehicle movements per day, or which will increase traffic flows by 5-10% or more.

The Highways Agency has provided guidance for assessing the effects on air quality of road
traffic.20 This guidance indicates that an air quality assessment should be carried out for
“affected roads”, defined as follows:
o
Road alignment will change by 5 m or more (this is mainly relevant to new road
schemes); or
o
Daily traffic flows will change by 1,000 AADT or more; or
o
Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV) flows will change by 200 AADT or more; or
o
Daily average speed will change by 10 km/hour or more; or
o
Peak hour speed will change by 20 km/hour or more.
The proposed development is forecast to result in an increase of 43 HDV vehicles accessing the site
per day, which equates to 86 HDV movements (in and out) per day. The proposed facility is also forecast
to result in an increase in staff and visitor vehicles trips (in and out) of 72 per day. This increase in road
traffic does not exceed the guideline values set out above. On this basis, the Barr Killoch Energy
Recovery Park is not forecast to have any significant effect on air quality due to traffic emissions in the
vicinity of the site.
4.13 Cumulative impacts
The potential for cumulative effects arising due to emissions from the existing roadstone coating plant
situated on the development site were considered through a modelling assessment of particulate
emissions from the facility. Emissions data was derived from monitoring data undertaken in
accordance with the facility’s statutory requirements under Process Guidance Note 3/15(12) 21.
Emissions from the facility were modelled using ADMS5, assuming continuous operation between
6am and 6pm, 365 days a year.
The potential for cumulative effects with other existing sources of emissions to air was taken into
account by the use of appropriate background air quality data. Background levels of oxides of
nitrogen and particulate matter due to emissions from the nearby Egger Barony chipboard plant are
Environmental Protection UK, “Development Control: Planning For Air Quality (2010 Update)”
Highways Agency (2007), “Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3: Environmental
Assessment Techniques, Part 1: Air Quality” HA 207/07
21
Statutory guidance for roadstone coating via http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20141106091809/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/industrialemissions/files/06092012-pgn-315.pdf
19
20
RICARDO-AEA
taken into account in the development of baseline air quality maps used in the derivation of
background air quality.
The potential for cumulative effects with proposed sources of emissions to air was evaluated by
considering other relevant proposed developments in the vicinity of the proposed Energy Recovery
Park. Information on new developments was obtained from the East Ayrshire Council’s online
planning resource (http://www.east-ayrshire.gov.uk/PlanningAndTheEnvironment/Planningapplications/Planning-applications.aspx). No developments that pose the potential for cumulative air
quality impacts were identified within the vicinity of the site.
4.14 Abnormal operating scenarios
Articles 46 and 47 of the Industrial Emissions Directive provide operators with some operational
flexibility to resolve plant problems without initiating a complete shutdown of the facility. These scenarios
are termed ‘abnormal operations’ and include incidents such as technically unavoidable stoppages,
disturbances or failures of the pollution control equipment or monitoring equipment. The IED requires
that such abnormal operations must not exceed a maximum of four hours at any one time and the
cumulative duration of these periods must not exceed 60 hours in a year. If the failure cannot be rectified
after four hours, then the facility must shut down.
It is important to ensure that any environmental impacts associated with foreseeable abnormal
operating scenarios are properly considered. This will take place via the PPC permitting process, and
is addressed in outline terms only in this Environmental Statement.
4.15 Other air quality issues
Localised site-specific issues such as the control of odours, dust and bioaerosols during operation were
considered in outline. The controls built into the design of the scheme were highlighted, and any key
issues for design and operation of the proposed facility was identified.
SEPA guidance on odours27 highlights that dispersion modelling is normally not an appropriate
technique for assessment of fugitive odour emissions. The guidance states (page 12): “It must be
emphasised that this is a complex exercise, only applicable to emissions from ducted sources such as
stacks and is not readily applicable without careful consideration to area and fugitive sources, due to
the uncertainties in modelling such releases.” Consequently, in relation to the potential for odour
impacts, the focus is on prevention of odorous releases rather than modelling of fugitive releases.
4.16 Results interpretation
Modelled levels of released substances were assessed against the air quality standards and guidelines
set out above.
There are no air quality standards for dioxins and furans, because the majority of exposure takes place
via indirect exposure pathways. Consequently, modelled levels of dioxins and furans were assessed
using an exposure modelling system, as described in the Human Health Risk Assessment report,
submitted as part of this Environmental Statement.
Modelled acid and nutrient nitrogen deposition rates at designated habitat sites were assessed against
site-specific benchmarks, as described in Section 4.4 above.
Modelled levels of nitrogen dioxide and PM10 in the vicinity of the proposed facility were also evaluated
using the approach developed by Environmental Protection UK.22 This enables the scale of potential
impacts on air quality to be described on a consistent and independent basis (see Table 12 and Table
13).
Table 12: Definition of impact magnitude for changes in nitrogen dioxide and PM 10 concentration
22
Descriptor
Magnitude of change in annual mean concentration relative
to air quality objective
Large Increase/decrease
>10%
Environmental Protection UK, “Development Control: Planning For Air Quality (2010 Update)”
RICARDO-AEA
Medium Increase/decrease
5 - 10%
Small Increase/decrease
1 - 5%
Imperceptible Increase/decrease
<1%
Table 13: Descriptors for changes to annual mean nitrogen dioxide and PM10 concentrations
Change in concentration
Absolute concentration
Small
Medium
Large
Above Objective/Limit Value With Scheme
Slight
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Substantial
adverse
Just Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme
Slight
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme
Negligible
Slight adverse
Slight adverse
Well Below Objective/Limit Value With Scheme
Negligible
Negligible
Slight adverse
Increase with scheme
After completing this comprehensive range of evaluations, conclusions were drawn with regard to the
potential effects on air quality of the proposed facility during the operational phase. Recommendations
were made for any appropriate monitoring or mitigation measures.
4.17 Conservative approach
This study was carried out on a conservative basis, to ensure that modelled concentrations and impacts
are more likely to be over-estimated than under-estimated. The conservative assumptions adopted in
this study are listed below:

It was assumed that the facility will operate continuously, whereas in practice there will be
some process down-time.

It was assumed that emissions from the facility will be at the limits permitted under the
Industrial Emissions Directive. In practice, emissions will be substantially lower than these
limits. Measured emissions from a comparable gasification facility at Sarpsborg, Norway
relative to these limits are shown in Figure 4. The measurements were carried out in 2011.
The measured emission concentrations were between 0.1% and 93% of the relevant limits,
with metals and dioxins/furans all emitted at levels of 5% or less of the applicable limits.
Levels of released substances are typically somewhat higher from the older Sarpsborg 1 line
(commissioned in 2002) than from the newer Sarpsborg 2 line, which was commissioned in
2010. However, in each case, levels comply with the Industrial Emissions Directive limits, and
for most substances by a substantial margin.

It was assumed that all particulate matter emitted from the proposed facility is likely to be in
the PM10 and PM2.5 size fractions. In practice, some emitted particulate matter will be in
larger size fractions, although current information indicates that the majority of particulate
matter will be in the smaller size fraction.

It was assumed that 35% of oxides of nitrogen was present as nitrogen dioxide for the
purposes of modelling short-term mean concentrations, and 70% for long-term mean
concentrations. In practice, the proportion present as nitrogen dioxide will be significantly
lower, particularly in the areas close to the facility at which the highest modelled
concentrations of released substances are forecast to occur.

The highest modelled concentrations for any of the five years of meteorological data was
used in the study.
RICARDO-AEA

Baseline air quality levels were selected on the basis of the highest levels likely to be
applicable to the study area.

The potential significance of alternative study approaches was investigated via sensitivity
testing to ensure that the study findings were robust.
Figure 4: Comparison of measured emissions from Sarpsborg facility with emissions limits
Measured concentration as % of
Waste Incineration Directive limit
100%
90%
80%
70%
93%
60%
50%
72%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
40%
0.70%
0.24%
1.00%
0.20%
0.14%
0.60%
0.92%
0.59%
6.4%
7.2%
17%
32%
6.0%
19%
4.0%
22%
2.0%
2.0%
10%
5.0%
1.0%
RICARDO-AEA
5 Results
5.1 Construction phase impacts
The proposed development will involve significant construction activity. The main potential air quality
issues which need control are:

Control of dust

Emissions from construction vehicles

Exhaust emissions from site plant
As discussed in Section 4.1, emissions from construction phase traffic will have no significant effects
on air quality, and do not require further assessment or specific control.
In 2011 the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) published guidance on the Assessment of the
Impacts of Construction on Air Quality and the Determination of their Significance 9. This provides a 4Step procedure for assessing the potential impact of construction activities on air quality.
Step 1: Screen the Need for a Detailed Assessment
An assessment will normally be required where there are sensitive receptors within 350m of the
boundary of the site and/or within 100m of the route(s) used by construction vehicles on the public
highway, up to 500 m from the site entrances(s).
The Energy Recovery Park cannot be screened out at this stage due to the presence of residential
properties on the Ayr Road within 350 m of the site boundary, and within 500m of the entrance to the
site, which will be the primary access road for construction vehicles.
Step 2: Assess the Risk of Dust Effects Arising
The risk of dust arising in sufficient quantities to cause annoyance and/or health or ecological effects
should be determined using three risk categories: low risk, medium risk and high risk. A site is allocated
to a risk category based on two factors:

The scale and nature of the works, which determines the risk of dust arising (i.e. the magnitude
of potential dust emissions) classed as: small, medium or large;

The proximity of receptors, considered separately for ecological and human receptors (i.e. the
potential for effects).
The IAQM guidance provides the following risk category matrix by which the scale of risk can be
determined:
Table 14: IAQM risk category from construction activities
Distance to nearest receptor (m)
Dust emission class
Dust soiling and
PM10
Large
Medium
Small
<20
High risk site
High risk site
Medium risk site
20 – 50
High risk site
Medium risk site
Low risk site
Ecological
50 – 100
<20
Medium risk site
Medium risk site
Low risk site
100 – 200
20 – 40
Medium risk site
Low risk site
Negligible
200 - 350
40 - 100
Low risk site
Low risk site
Negligible
The guidance provides the following criteria for determining the dust emission class:

Large: Total building volume >100,000m 3

Medium: Total building volume 25,000m 3 - 100,000m3
RICARDO-AEA
 Small: Total building volume <25,000m 3
Once complete the main process building of the proposed facility, which will house the gasification units,
will be >100,000m3, therefore the dust category can be considered Large. Furthermore the closest
sensitive receptor (non-ecological) is approximately 25m from the nearest boundary of the site,
therefore the site should be classified as a “high risk site” with regard to the need for control of dust
during construction.
Step 3: Identify the need for site-specific mitigation
Given the variety of development sites and the individual issues they face, professional judgement
should be used to determine the site-specific mitigation measures to be applied. These will need to be
written into a dust management plan (DMP), which should be approved with the local planning authority
and environmental health department prior to commencement of work on site.
It is recommended that a construction and dust management plan should be developed, which includes
measures such as those set out below:
Site Planning

Erect solid barriers to site boundary

No bonfires

Plan site layout – machinery and dust causing activities should be located away from
sensitive receptors

All site personnel to be fully trained

Trained and responsible manager on site during working times to maintain logbook and carry
out site inspections

Hard surface site haul routes

Consider using alternatives to road transportation to/from site

Put in place real-time dust monitors
Construction traffic

All vehicles to switch off engines – no idling vehicles

Effective vehicle cleaning and specific fixed wheel washing on leaving site and damping down
of haul routes

All loads entering and leaving site to be covered

No site runoff of water or mud

On-road vehicles to comply to set emission standards

All non-road mobile machinery to use ultra-low sulphur diesel where available and be fitted
with appropriate exhaust after-treatment

Minimise movement of construction traffic around site

Hard surfacing and effective cleaning of haul routes and appropriate speed limit around site
Site Activities

Minimise dust generating activities

Use water as dust suppressant where applicable

Cover, seed or fence stockpiles to prevent wind whipping

Re-vegetate earthworks and exposed areas

If applicable, ensure concrete crusher or concrete batcher has permit to operate
RICARDO-AEA
Step 4: Define effects and their significance
The IAQM guidance sets out the following criteria when assessing the sensitivity of the area in which
a development has been proposed:

The specific sensitivities of receptors in the area;

The proximity and number of those receptors;

In the case of PM10, the local background concentration; and

Site specific factors, such as whether there are natural shelters, such as trees, to reduce the
risk of wind-blown dust.
The Guidance goes on to provide the following matrix for determining the level of sensitivity to dust
soiling effects based on the proximity of sensitive and ecological receptors.
Table 15: Sensitivity of the area to dust soiling effects on people and property
Number of
receptors
Distance from the source (m)
<20
<50
<100
<350
>100
High
High
Medium
Low
10 – 100
High
Medium
Low
Low
1 – 10
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Medium
>1
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
>1
Low
Low
Low
Low
Receptor
sensitivity
High
The proposed Energy Recovery Park is located in a rural area, with few surrounding residential
properties and ecological sites. Two residential properties are situated within a distance of 20-100 m
from the nearest boundary of the site. As discussed in Section 0, baseline levels of particulate matter
(including PM10 and PM2.5) around the facility comply with the national air quality objectives.
Furthermore there are currently no designated AQMAs in either East or South Ayrshire. On the basis
of this evidence it is reasonable to categorise the sensitivity of the area surrounding the proposed
Energy Recovery Park as Low.
Table 16 is derived from the IAQM guidance and provides an indication of how the implementation of
mitigating measures affects the significance of impacts on air quality due to construction activities.
Table 16: Significance of effects for construction activities with and without mitigation
Risk of air quality impacts during
construction WITHOUT mitigation
Risk of air quality impacts during
construction WITH mitigation
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
Very high
Substantial
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Slight
adverse
Slight
adverse
Negligible
High
Moderate
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Slight
adverse
Slight
adverse
Negligible
Negligible
Medium
Moderate
adverse
Slight
adverse
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Slight
adverse
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Sensitivity of
surrounding
area
Due to the “Low” sensitivity of the surrounding area and the “High” risk category of the site, the
construction activities could be expected to have a “Slight adverse” effect on local air quality unless
controls are put in place. However through the implementation of the mitigating measures set out
above this risk can be reduced to “Negligible”.
RICARDO-AEA
5.2 Identification of appropriate stack height
In identifying an appropriate stack height, there are two key aspects to consider from the perspective
of control of air quality impacts:
(a) Identifying a point at which increases in stack height no longer provide a significant
benefit in reducing environmental concentrations of released substances; and
(b) Ensuring that the modelled environmental concentrations of released substances for
this stack height are at acceptable levels.
The effect of stack height on modelled concentrations of released substances is shown in Figure 5
below.
Figure 5: Effect of stack height on highest modelled concentration at any location
The results shown in this figure indicate that

Increasing stack height has a significant benefit on modelled annual mean concentrations.
Long-term mean levels of airborne pollutants is normally the most significant issue for
facilities of this nature. Consequently, adopting a stack height with a height of 45 metres or
higher would have a worthwhile effect.

Increasing stack height above 50 metres has an ongoing, although less marked, benefit in
reducing the highest modelled levels of released substances.

A preliminary analysis demonstrated that at a stack height of 45 metres levels of all released
substances would comply with the relevant air quality standards and guidelines. However in
order to achieve further reductions in process contributions a stack height of 55 metres was
found to result in an insignificant contribution to airborne concentrations of all substances.
On this basis, a stack height of 55 metres was adopted for the proposed facility. Model results set out
in the remainder of this document are on the basis of a stack height of 55 metres.
RICARDO-AEA
5.3 Air quality model results
As set out above, the ADMS version 5 model was used to identify the highest levels of released
substances which are forecast to occur in the local area. These model results are set out in Table 17.
Cells highlighted in yellow show those substances where the combined baseline level plus process
contribution (PC) is above the air quality standard or guideline (AQSG).
RICARDO-AEA
Table 17: Maximum modelled air concentrations of released substances
Substance
Averaging time
Annual mean
90.4th percentile of 24 hour
means (UK)
98.08th percentile of 24 hour
means (Scotland)
AQ
Standard /
Guideline
(µg/m3)
Baseline
(µg/m3)
Process
contribution
(µg/m3)
PC/ AQSG
Combined
process +
baseline
(µg/m3)
Combined/
AQSG
18
16
0.14
0.76%
16
90%
50
32
0.41
0.83%
32
65%
50
32
0.76
1.51%
33
66%
Annual mean (Scotland)
12
7
0.14
1.14%
7.33
61%
Annual mean (UK)
25
7
0.14
0.55%
7.33
29%
VOCs (assessed as benzene)
Annual mean
3.25
0.27
0.14
4.20%
0.40
12%
VOCs (assessed as 1,3butadiene)
Annual mean
2.25
0.27
0.14
6.06%
0.40
18%
Hydrogen chloride
Maximum hourly mean
750
0.4
19
2.60%
20
2.65%
Hydrogen fluoride
Annual mean
16
2.5
0.014
0.085%
2.51
16%
Hydrogen fluoride
Maximum hourly mean
160
2.5
1.30
0.81%
3.80
2.37%
Carbon monoxide
Maximum 8 hour mean
10000
1400
2.26
0.023%
1402
14%
266
6
49
18%
55
21%
350
6
31
8.77%
37
10%
125
3
4.58
3.66%
8
6%
Sulphur dioxide
Sulphur dioxide
Sulphur dioxide
99.9th percentile of 15 minute
means
99.7th percentile of hourly
means
99.2nd percentile of 24 hour
means
Nitrogen dioxide
Annual mean
40
26
1.91
4.78%
28
70%
Nitrogen dioxide
99.79th percentile of hourly
means
200
88
22
11%
110
55%
Ammonia
Annual mean
180
0.932
0.14
0.076%
1.07
0.59%
Ammonia
Maximum hourly mean
2500
1.865
6.49
0.26%
8.35
0.33%
Cadmium
Annual mean
0.005
0.00003
0.00068
14%
0.00071
14%
Thallium
Annual mean
No AQSG
No data
0.00068
No AQSG
No data
No AQSG
RICARDO-AEA
Substance
Averaging time
AQ
Standard /
Guideline
(µg/m3)
Thallium
Maximum hourly mean
No AQSG
No data
0.016
No AQSG
No data
No AQSG
Mercury
Annual mean
0.25
0.002
0.00068
0.27%
0.0027
1.06%
Mercury
Maximum hourly mean
7.5
0.004
0.016
0.22%
0.020
0.27%
Antimony
Annual mean
5
No data
0.00076
0.015%
0.0011
0.022%
Antimony
Maximum hourly mean
150
No data
0.018
0.012%
0.019
0.012%
Arsenic
Annual mean
0.003
0.0002
0.00076
25%
0.0010
33%
Lead
Annual mean
0.25
0.002
0.00076
0.30%
0.0024
0.96%
Chromium
Annual mean
5
0.0008
0.00076
0.015%
0.0015
0.031%
Chromium
Maximum hourly mean
150
0.0016
0.018
0.012%
0.020
0.013%
Chromium VI
Annual mean
0.0002
0.000158
0.00000061
0.30%
0.000159
79%
Cobalt
Annual mean
No AQSG
0.00004
0.00076
No AQSG
0.00080
No AQSG
Cobalt
Maximum hourly mean
No AQSG
0.00008
0.018
No AQSG
0.018
No AQSG
Copper
Annual mean
10
0.001
0.00076
0.0076%
0.0017
0.017%
Copper
Maximum hourly mean
200
0.002
0.018
0.0090%
0.020
0.010%
Manganese
Annual mean
150
0.001
0.00076
0.00051%
0.0018
0.0012%
Manganese
Maximum hourly mean
1500
0.002
0.018
0.0012%
0.020
0.0013%
Nickel
Annual mean
0.02
0.0004
0.00076
3.79%
0.0011
5.70%
Vanadium
Annual mean
5
0.0004
0.00076
0.015%
0.0012
0.023%
Vanadium
1
0.0008
0.0064
0.64%
0.0073
0.73%
1.36E-09
No AQSG
5.04E-08
No AQSG
0.000014
5.46%
0.00069
28%
Annual mean
No AQSG
PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene)
Annual mean
0.00025
Note.
PC: Process Contribution
Baseline
(µg/m3)
Process
contribution
(µg/m3)
4.90 ×
10-08
0.000055
AQSG: Air quality standard or guideline
PC/ AQSG
Combined
process +
baseline
(µg/m3)
Combined/
AQSG
RICARDO-AEA
5.4 Model results summary
The results in Table 17 confirm that:

All modelled process contributions due to emissions from the proposed facility comply with the
relevant air quality standards and guidelines.

The substances with the highest process contribution due to emissions from the proposed
facility relative to the air quality standard or guideline (maximum PC/AQSG >=5 %) are:
o Volatile organic compounds (VOCs – assessed against the air quality standard for 1,3butadiene): Annual mean
o Sulphur dioxide: 99.9th percentile of 15 minute means
o Sulphur dioxide: 99.7th percentile of 1 hour means
o Nitrogen dioxide: Annual mean
o Nitrogen dioxide: 99.79th percentile of 1 hour means
o Cadmium: Annual mean
o Arsenic: Annual mean
o PAHs: Annual mean
Modelled levels of these substances are shown in Appendix 7. Other than the screening calculations
for metals discussed further in Section 5.5 below, the highest modelled process contribution is 18 % of
the air quality standard, for 15 minute mean sulphur dioxide levels.

All combined concentrations due to emissions from the proposed facility added to background
levels comply with the relevant air quality standards and guidelines.

Other than the screening calculations for metals, the substances with the highest combined
concentration due to emissions from the proposed facility added to background levels relative
to the air quality standard or guideline (maximum Combined/AQSG >50 %) are:
o PM10: Annual mean – Combined / AQSG: 90 %
o PM10: 90.4th percentile of 24 hour means (UK) – Combined / AQSG: 65 %
o PM10: 98.08th percentile of 24 hour means (Scotland) – Combined / AQSG: 66 %
o PM2.5: Annual mean (Scotland) – Combined / AQSG: 61 %
o Nitrogen dioxide: Annual mean – Combined / AQSG: 70 %
o Nitrogen dioxide: 99.79th percentile of hour means – Combined / AQSG: 55 %
o Chromium VI: Annual mean – Combined / AQSG: 79 %
These relatively high combined concentrations are due almost completely to the estimated baseline
levels of these substances.
There are no air quality standards or guidelines for dioxins and furans. This is because exposure to
dioxins and furans takes place primarily via indirect pathways such as consumption of meat and dairy
products. The potential exposure of local residents and others to dioxins and furans is evaluated in the
Health Impact Assessment of this Environmental Statement.
Modelled levels of released substances at individual receptor locations are lower than the maximum
values set out in Table 17. Modelled concentrations of key substances at specific receptor locations are
set out in Appendix 6.
5.5 Assessment of metals
The forecast levels of the group of nine metals were assessed in accordance with the staged process
set out in Environment Agency guidance.16
(a) Carry out the impact assessment assuming each metal contributes 100% of the group
concentration limit. Assume that chromium VI comprises 20% of background chromium.
Screen out any metals which meet the following criteria on this basis:
RICARDO-AEA

Long-term Process Contribution (PC) <1% of air quality standard or guideline
(AQSG), or Short-term PC <10% AQSG: Screen out. Otherwise:

Long-term or Short-term PEC <100%: Screen out. Otherwise:
(b) Carry out the impact assessment for any metals not previously screened out assuming that
each metal contributes one ninth (11%) of the emission concentration limit. Assume that 20%
of chromium is present as chromium VI. Screen out any metals which meet the above criteria
on this basis.
(c) Carry out the impact assessment using the above criteria for any metals not previously
screened out using case-specific assumptions, which must be justified.
For Step (c), the assessment of chromium VI was carried out using data appended to the Environment
Agency guidance. This provides a statistical summary of measurements of metal emissions from a
number of UK waste incineration facilities. The proposed Energy Recovery Park uses a gasification
technology to separate out the stages of combustion, so that emissions of metals would be expected if
anything to be lower than those measured at other UK waste incineration facilities. Hence, the data in
the Environment Agency guidance can be used with confidence to screen metal emissions from the
proposed facility.
This assessment is set out in Table 18. The assessment shows that all metals can be screened out
from requiring further assessment.
RICARDO-AEA
Table 18: Screening assessment of metals
Metal
Value
Standard/
guideline
(µg/m3)
Baseline
(µg/m3)
Process
contribution
(µg/m3)
PC/ AQSG
Screen
out?
Combined
process +
baseline
Combined/
AQSG
Screen out?
Step (a): All metals assumed to be at 100% of emission limit
Antimony
Annual mean
5
0.0003
0.0068
0.14 %
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Antimony
Maximum hourly
mean
150
0.0006
0.16
0.11 %
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Arsenic
Annual mean
0.003
0.0002
0.0068
227 %
No
0.0070
235 %
No
Lead
Annual mean
0.25
0.002
0.0068
2.73 %
No
0.0085
3.38 %
Yes
Chromium
Annual mean
5
0.0008
0.0068
0.14 %
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Chromium
Maximum hourly
mean
150
0.0016
0.16
0.11 %
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Chromium
VI
Annual mean
0.0002
0.00016
0.0071
3554 %
No
0.0073
3633 %
No
Cobalt
Annual mean
No AQSG
0.00004
0.0068
n/a
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Cobalt
Maximum hourly
mean
No AQSG
0.00008
0.16
n/a
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Copper
Annual mean
10
0.001
0.0068
0.068 %
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Copper
Maximum hourly
mean
200
0.002
0.16
0.081 %
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Manganese
Annual mean
150
0.001
0.0068
0.0045 %
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Manganese
Maximum hourly
mean
1500
0.002
0.16
0.011 %
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Nickel
Annual mean
0.02
0.0004
0.0068
34 %
No
0.0072
36%
Yes
Vanadium
Annual mean
5
0.0004
0.0068
0.14 %
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Vanadium
Maximum 24 hour
mean
1
0.0008
0.058
5.80 %
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Arsenic
Annual mean
0.0030
0.00022
0.00076
25 %
No
0.0010
33 %
Yes
Chromium
VI
Annual mean
0.00020
0.00016
0.00079
395 %
No
0.00095
474 %
No
Step (b): All metals assumed to be at 11% of emission limit
RICARDO-AEA
Metal
Value
Standard/
guideline
(µg/m3)
Baseline
(µg/m3)
Process
contribution
(µg/m3)
PC/ AQSG
Screen
out?
Combined
process +
baseline
Combined/
AQSG
Screen out?
Yes
n/a
n/a
Already screened
Step (c): Site-specific assumptions
Chromium
VI
Annual mean
0.00020
0.00016
0.00000061
0.30 %
All but two of the assessed metals were screened out under ‘step (a)’ of the screening process. Under ‘step (b)’ long term arsenic concentrations were found
to represent <100% of the AQSG when combined with background levels, whilst under ‘step (c)’ long term process contributions of chromium VI were found to
be <1% of the AQSG. This structured process confirms that emissions to air of metals from the process are forecast to have no significant effects on air quality.
RICARDO-AEA
5.6 Deposition
The maximum modelled deposition rates of released substances were assessed against SEPA
benchmarks.10
Table 19: Deposition model results
Substance
Maximum deposition
rate (mg/m2-day)
Maximum modelled deposition
rate (mg/m2-day)
Maximum modelled rate as
percentage of benchmark
Arsenic
0.02
0.0020
9.8 %
Cadmium
0.009
0.0018
19.6 %
Chromium
1.5
0.0020
0.1 %
Copper
0.25
0.0020
0.79 %
Lead
1.1
0.0020
0.2 %
Mercury
0.004
0.0018
44.2 %
Nickel
0.11
0.0020
1.79 %
The highest modelled deposition rate as a percentage of the benchmark was for mercury. In this case,
the modelled deposition rate was 44.2 % of the applicable benchmark. For all other substances, and
in all other locations away from the point of maximum modelled impact, the contribution was a smaller
proportion of the benchmark.
5.7 Ultrafine particulate matter
Modern energy recovery facilities make only a slight contribution to levels of airborne particles. It may
be the very smallest particles ("ultrafine" or "nano" particles – that is, particles with a diameter of 0.1
microns or less) which are of concern with regard to their effects on health. It is also plausible that the
risks to health associated with particulate matter are more closely linked to the number of particles,
rather than the mass of particles.
As with other sources of emissions to air, there is limited data on emissions of nanoparticles from energy
recovery facilities. Recently published research describes measurements of particulate matter emitted
from a waste to energy incinerator in Piacenza, Italy. 23 The study found that no particles with
aerodynamic diameters greater than 2.5 µm were measured, confirming the effectiveness of the
emissions control technology in removing larger particles. 65% of the measured PM 2.5 mass was from
sub-micrometre particles (PM1) and the contribution of PM0.1 to the mass of particulates was negligible.
Most of the mass was from particles that were between 0.1 and 1 microns in aerodynamic diameter.
The numbers of particles were distributed approximately equally between particles greater than and
less than 0.1 micron. Similar particle mass distributions were recorded at the SELCHP waste
incinerator in south-east London.
A subsequent environmental monitoring survey investigated ultrafine particles in the environment in the
vicinity of the Piacenza facility.24 Levels of particulate matter were found to be low in the Italian context.
An analysis of the elemental composition of particulates indicated that sources other than the energy
23
Buonanno, G., Ficco, G., and Stabile, L. (2009) Size distribution and number concentration of particles at the stack of a municipal waste
incinerator. Waste Management. 29. 749-755.
Buonanno G, Stabile L, Avino P, Belluso E, “Chemical, dimensional and morphological ultrafine particle characterization from a waste-to-energy
plant,” Waste Management 31 (2011) 2253–2262
24
RICARDO-AEA
recovery facility accounted for all the elements present, and the contribution from the energy recovery
facility was not detectable. In a separate study of fine and ultrafine particles on the surface of foodstuffs
in Italy,25 the authors concluded that “little evidence is found for particles whose origin could be
attributed to industrial combustion processes, such as waste incineration”. Similarly, Morishita et al.
found that waste incineration facilities made a minimal contribution to PM 2.5 levels in urban
environments in the United States.26
These findings indicate that energy recovery facilities make a small contribution to levels of ultrafine
particles, analogous to the findings in relation to larger particles. Other sources like road traffic and
cooking are likely to be much more important sources, even in the immediate vicinity of an energy
recovery facility.
5.8 Designated habitat sites
Modelled levels of released substances were assessed at designated habitat sites in the local area. As
described above, a contribution of less than 1% of the relevant long-term critical level/critical load was
considered to represent an insignificant contribution, following the approach set out in Environment
Agency guidance.13
Modelled air concentrations at designated habitat sites are set out in Appendix 1. The highest modelled
long-term mean air concentration at any international or national designated site is 0.60 % of the
relevant critical level. The modelled long-term mean air concentration at the closest locally designated
site is 1.29 % of the relevant critical level for ammonia. There are currently no monitoring stations
measuring ammonia within the vicinity of the Burnock Water LWS. If the modelled ammonia
concentration at Burnock Water is combined with the highest background ammonia level measured at
the Auchencorth Moss monitoring station, representing an elevated rural setting, between 2011 and
2013 (0.93 µg/m3)7, the combined concentration would represent 94% of the long-term critical load. The
highest modelled short-term mean concentration at any international, national or locally designated site
is 3.29 % of the relevant critical level.
Modelled deposition rates at any international, national or locally designated site are set out in Appendix
3. The highest modelled deposition rate at any international, national or locally designated site is 1.02
% of the relevant critical level, for acid deposition at the Barlosh Moss SSSI. This threshold is designed
to apply for screening at European sites, and a forecast process contribution marginally above this level
at a national designated site does not constitute a significant adverse impact. Furthermore this
assessment has been carried out assuming a conversion rate of NOx to NO 2 of 100 %. If a conversion
rate of 70 % is applied, as per Environment Agency guidance 15, the maximum rate of acid deposition
at Barlosh Moss was found to be 0.97 % of the relevant critical load.
It can therefore be concluded that all long-term mean modelled air concentrations and deposition rates
at international and national designated sites are below 1% of the relevant standards and guidelines,
and all short-term mean modelled concentrations are below 10% of the relevant standards and
guidelines. . Furthermore, the contribution of the proposed facility to ammonia levels at the Burnock
Water LWS, the closest locally designated site, is not forecast to result in an exceedance of the longterm critical level. On this basis, it is concluded that the proposed development would have no significant
effects on air quality or deposition at any European site, or any other relevant designated habitat site.
5.9 Plume visibility
The modelled lengths of visible white water vapour plumes are set out in Table 20. For the purposes of
the assessment the distance between the stack and the closest boundary of the site is estimated to be
45m.
Table 20: Results of plume visibility modelling assessment
Parameter
Model results
Giordano C, Bardi U, Garbini D, Suman M, “Analysis of particulate pollution on foodstuff and other items by environmental scanning electron
microscopy,” Microsc Res Tech. 2011 Oct;74(10):931-5.
26
Morishita M, Keeler GJ, Kamal AS, Wagner JG, Harkema JR, Rohr AC , “Identification of ambient PM2.5 sources and analysis of pollution
episodes in Detroit, Michigan using highly time-resolved measurements,” Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 1627-1637
Morishita M, Keeler GJ, Kamal AS, Wagner JG, Harkema JR, Rohr AC , “Source identification of ambient PM2.5 for inhalation exposure studies
in Steubenville, Ohio using highly time-resolved measurements,” Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011b) 7688-7697
25
RICARDO-AEA
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Occurrence of no visible plume
85%
92%
89%
86%
93%
89%
Occurrence of a visible plume of any length
15%
8%
11%
14%
7%
11%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
Occurrence of a visible plume >45m
Average
The results show that in all years the plume visibility will not exceed 45m more than 2% of the time, and
will therefore remain within the boundaries of the site at least 98% of the time. On this basis, the impact
of the proposed Energy Recovery Park in terms of visible plume is described as “low” following Section
3.8.2 of the relevant SEPA guidance.10
5.10 Sensitivity tests
In most cases where there was uncertainty over a model input, a worst-case approach was adopted to
ensure that model outputs would tend to be over-estimated. This is described in more detail in Section
4.17.
5.10.1 Model choice
A sensitivity analysis was completed to determine which of the two atmospheric dispersion models,
ADMS5 and AERMOD, would provide the most conservative results. Both models were run across the
3 km x 3 km gridded area surrounding the stack using 5 years meteorological data from the Prestwick
Airport station. The maximum value recorded by the AERMOD dispersion model for each averaging
period was assessed against the equivalent value provided by ADMS. The results of this assessment
are provided in Table 21.
Table 21: Sensitivity test: model choice
Averaging time
Value obtained using AERMOD as a percentage of value
obtained using ADMS
Annual mean
53 %
Maximum hourly mean
63 %
93 %
83 %
Maximum 8 hour mean
118 %
73 %
98.08th percentile of 24 hour means
56 %
99.9th percentile of 15 minute means
128 %
Note 1: AERMOD does not provide 15 minute mean concentrations. This value was estimated as 1.34
times the 99.9th percentile of 1 hour mean concentrations
The sensitivity analysis found that the ADMS5 model produced higher results for all averaging periods
than the AERMOD model, with the exception of maximum 8 hour means and 99.9th percentile of 15
minute means. The impact assessment is most sensitive to annual mean concentrations, and these
were found to be 53% lower from AERMOD than those obtained using ADMS. The maximum 8 hour
mean averaging period is only applicable to modelled concentrations of carbon monoxide, whilst the
99.9th percentile of 15 minute means is only applicable to concentrations of sulphur dioxide. The higher
modelled concentrations for these averaging periods produced by AERMOD do not affect the
conclusions set out in this study.
On this basis, it is concluded that the study results are robust to the choice of air quality model between
ADMS and AERMOD.
RICARDO-AEA
5.11 Cumulative impacts
Impacts arising due to the cumulative emission of particulates from the adjacent roadstone coating plant
and the proposed Energy Recovery Park were assessed by modelling emissions from the roadstone
coating plant and combining the concentrations with the results of the full modelling assessment. The
input parameters for this assessment are detailed in Table 22. The results of the assessment are
summarised in Table 23. The assessment was carried out under the conservative assumption that the
roadstone coating plant is operational for 12 hours a day, 365 days a year. This was achieved through
the use of a time-varying emission file in ADMS5.
Table 22: Killoch roadstone coating plant dispersion modelling input parameters
Parameter
Input data
Stack coordinates (x, y)
248083, 620531
Stack height (m)
24
Stack diameter (m)
1.2
Stack area (m²)
1.13
Gas velocity (m/s)
2.22
Temperature (°C)
62
Volume flux (m3/s)
2.51
Particulate matter emission rate (g/s)
0.24
Table 23: Summary of cumulative impact assessment
Substance
AQSG
(µg/m3)
Baseline
(µg/m3)
Max
PC
ERP*
(µg/m3)
Max
PC
RCP**
(µg/m3)
Max
Combined
PC
(µg/m3)
Combined
PC /
AQSG (%)
Combined
PEC
(µg/m3)
Combined
PEC /
AQSG (%)
PM10
annual
mean
18
16
0.14
0.73
0.83
4.58 %
17
93 %
PM10
90.4th%ile
of 24hr
means
50
32
0.41
2.54
2.83
5.65 %
35
70 %
PM10
98.08th%ile
of 24hr
means
50
32
0.76
5.23
5.71
11.41 %
38
75 %
PM2.5
annual
mean
(Scotland)
12
7
0.14
0.73
0.83
6.88 %
8.01
67 %
PM2.5
annual
mean (UK)
25
7
0.14
0.73
0.83
3.30 %
8.01
32 %
*Barr Killoch Energy Recovery Park
**Killoch roadstone coating plant
Note: the location of maximum PC values due to the ERP and RCP are different. Consequently, the
maximum combined PC is less than the sum of the individual maximum PC values.
RICARDO-AEA
The results of this assessment show that the maximum combined concentrations of both PM 10 and
PM2.5, under all averaging periods, would not result in an exceedance of the relevant air quality
standard/guideline. Therefore no significant cumulative impacts are forecast to occur.
5.12 Other air quality issues
It will be important for the proposed facility not to give rise to excessive dust, odour or bioaerosols during
operation. Under foreseeable operating conditions, no significant odour, bioaerosols or dust issues
would be expected to arise outside the site boundary. This is principally because all waste handling
operations will take place inside the process buildings.
Effective abatement of odours is provided by the gasification process. Air required for the combustion
process will be drawn into the building through the waste reception and sorting areas before being used
in the gasification process. This will create a positive air flow into the building. Airflows will be
maximised in areas used for the storage of input waste, and other potential sources of odour, with the
design aim that odour will be adequately controlled without the need to extract and treat excessive air
volumes. The air extracted from the building will be used to provide combustion air to the gasifier and
odorous compounds in this combustion air will be destroyed as part of the gasification/oxidation
process.
In the event of unplanned maintenance or downtime, waste materials can be rapidly diverted or
removed to nearby landfill sites operated by Barr Environmental. In the event of major planned
maintenance events requiring shutdown of the process, the waste inputs will be run down such that
there is no remaining potentially odorous material on site during the maintenance/lifecycle replacement
event.
This is a well-established approach for odour control at energy recovery facilities of this nature. As a
form of odour abatement, SEPA identifies thermal oxidation/incineration as a technique capable of
achieving a “>>99%” odour removal efficiency27. This represents a valuable additional form of odour
control which is not available at facilities which do not have a gasification or combustion component.
SEPA’s 2010 Odour Guidance27 provides the following hierarchy of control options for odorous
substances:
1. Avoid using odorous substances altogether.
2. Where odorous substances are present they should be used and stored in contained systems.
3. Where odorous substances cannot be fully contained they should be captured using local
ventilation systems (e.g. fume hoods) and the exhaust gases suitably treated to reduce the
amount of odour substances present.
4. Where odorous substances cannot be contained or collected locally then a building or structure
should be constructed, maintained and operated to offer a high level of room containment such
as having sealed (air locked) working areas, room extraction with at least three room air
changes per hour as a minimum and the exhaust gases suitably treated to reduce the amount
of odorous substance present to a minimum.
5. Any treated gases are discharged to the air via appropriately designed chimneys.
Options 1 and 2 are not fully available to operators of waste facilities, as some residual odour in waste
materials is unavoidable and waste materials cannot be fully contained. Option 3 will be implemented
through design of the process buildings and ventilation, as described above. Options 4 and 5 will be
implemented, by containment within the building, treatment of exhaust gases in the gasification process,
and discharge of treated gases via an appropriately designed chimney.
The following good practice techniques will be followed in order to further minimise the potential for
fugitive dust, odour and bioaerosol emissions:
27

Maintaining the integrity of process buildings, through the regular inspection of the building
fabric and ensuring doors and windows remain closed where possible.

The maintenance of fugitive release points, including pumps and valves.

Ensure waste materials are appropriately stored.
SEPA Odour guidance 2010 via http://www.sepa.org.uk/air/odour.aspx
RICARDO-AEA

Provide sufficient training to staff and establish a system of good housekeeping.
A site odour, dust and bioaerosol management plan will be developed in accordance with SEPA’s 2010
Odour Guidance Appendix 4, which will set out the controls to be applied for avoiding adverse impacts
due to any such fugitive emissions. As set out in the SEPA guidance, the management plan will cover
training, procedures, monitoring, supervision, record-keeping, identification and implementation of
corrective actions, and plan review, as well as describing how any complaints will be handled.
RICARDO-AEA
6 Conclusions
6.1 Summary
This study describes an assessment of potential effects on air quality of substances emitted from the
proposed Barr Killoch Energy Recovery Park.
Modelled levels of all released substances when combined with background levels are forecast to
comply with standards and guidelines for air quality.
The proposed development is forecast to have no significant effects on air quality due to road traffic
emissions, and no significant cumulative effects are forecast to occur. No odour, bioaerosols or dust
issues would be expected to arise outside the site boundary, and emissions to air from the proposed
facility are forecast to have no significant effects at designated habitat sites.
The study was carried out using a highly conservative approach to ensure that any air quality effects
are more likely to be over-estimated than under-estimated. For example, the data set out in Figure 4
demonstrates that emissions from a comparable facility are at much lower levels than the Industrial
Emissions Directive limits which were assumed for the purposes of this study.
On the basis of this assessment, it is concluded that the proposed facility will have no significant adverse
effects on air quality.
6.2 EPUK Criteria
The EPUK criteria set out in Section 4.16 provide standard descriptors to be used in describing the
forecast air quality effects of the proposed development. While these are designed primarily for use in
relation to traffic emissions, they can also be applied to describing the impact of emissions to air from
the proposed facility. The assessment for annual mean nitrogen dioxide and PM10 levels is as follows:

Nitrogen dioxide:
o
Maximum forecast change: 1.91 µg/m3 – Small
o
Absolute concentration outside of the AQMA: 27.91 µg/m3 (below objective/limit
value)
Impact descriptor: Negligible

PM10:
o
Maximum forecast change: 0.14 µg/m3 – Imperceptible
o
Absolute concentration: 16.14 µg/m3 (above objective/limit value)
Impact descriptor: Negligible
On this basis, the impact in relation to annual mean nitrogen dioxide and PM 10 levels can be described
as “negligible”.
6.3 Mitigation and monitoring
In view of the finding that the proposed Energy Recovery Park will have no significant adverse effects
on air quality, it is concluded that no further mitigation is necessary, other than the extensive mitigation
and control measures already built into the proposed facility.
Emissions from the proposed facility will be measured continuously, and as part of a programme of
period extractive monitoring. This work programme is managed under the terms of the PPC Permit for
the proposed facility. Continuous emissions monitoring data will be made available for inspection by
the regulatory authorities and members of the public via a dedicated website.
In view of the low forecast levels of released substances, and conservative assumptions built in to the
modelling study, it is most unlikely that an environmental monitoring programme would be effective in
identifying a detectable change in air quality which could be linked to emissions from the proposed
facility. However, an ambient air quality monitoring programme could be designed as a cross-check on
the conclusions of the study. Again, this would more readily fall under the remit of the PPC Permit.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Modelled airborne concentrations at designated habitat sites
This appendix sets out modelled levels of released substances at designated habitat sites.
Annual
mean
nitrogen
oxides
Annual
mean
sulphur
dioxide
Annual
mean
ammonia
Maximum
24 hour
mean
nitrogen
oxides
Maximum
24 hour
mean
hydrogen
fluoride
Critical level (µg/m3)
30
20
1
75
5
H1
Airds Moss (A)
0.038
0.010
0.0019
0.37
0.0019
H2
Airds Moss (B)
0.029
0.0073
0.0015
0.32
0.0016
H3
Muirkirk and North Lowther
Uplands (A)
0.039
0.010
0.0019
0.38
0.0019
H4
Uplands (B)
0.033
0.0082
0.0016
0.30
0.0015
H5
Uplands (C)
0.015
0.0036
0.00073
0.23
0.0012
H6
Uplands (D)
0.024
0.0061
0.0012
0.22
0.0011
H7
Uplands (E)
0.019
0.0048
0.0010
0.46
0.0023
H8
Afton Lodge
0.024
0.0060
0.0012
0.59
0.0030
H9
Stairhill
0.042
0.010
0.0021
0.91
0.0045
H10
River Ayr Gorge
0.046
0.012
0.0023
0.50
0.0025
H11
Howford Bridge
0.060
0.015
0.0030
0.53
0.0027
H12
Greenock Mains
0.022
0.0054
0.0011
0.26
0.0013
H13
0.025
0.0063
0.0013
0.23
0.0012
H14
0.016
0.0039
0.00078
0.21
0.0011
H15
Lugar Sill
0.027
0.0068
0.0014
0.42
0.0021
H16
Nith Bridge
0.026
0.0066
0.0013
0.36
0.0018
H17
Barlosh Moss (A)
0.052
0.013
0.0026
1.80
0.0090
H18
Barlosh Moss (B)
0.12
0.030
0.0060
2.47
0.012
H19
Benbeoch
0.016
0.0039
0.00078
1.13
0.0056
H20
Dalmellington Moss
0.011
0.0028
0.00056
0.51
0.0025
H21
Bogton Loch
0.011
0.0027
0.00053
0.56
0.0028
H22
Dunaskin Glen
0.015
0.0037
0.00075
0.52
0.0026
H23
0.043
0.011
0.0022
0.61
0.0030
H24
Burnock Water
0.26
0.064
0.013
2.28
0.011
Ref
Location
Appendix 2: Assessment of modelled process contributions at designated habitat sites against
critical levels
This appendix sets out the modelled concentrations as a percentage of the applicable air quality
standards and guidelines for the protection of vegetation (referred to as “critical levels”).
Ref
Location
Critical level (µg/m3)
Annual
mean
nitrogen
oxides
Annual
mean
sulphur
dioxide
Annual
mean
ammonia
Maximum 24
hour mean
nitrogen
oxides
Maximum 24
hour mean
hydrogen
fluoride
30
20
1
75
5
Modelled concentration as % of air quality standard/guideline
H1
Airds Moss (A)
0.13%
0.048%
0.19%
0.50%
0.037%
H2
Airds Moss (B)
0.10%
0.037%
0.15%
0.43%
0.032%
H3
Muirkirk and North
Lowther Uplands (A)
0.13%
0.048%
0.19%
0.51%
0.038%
Muirkirk and North
Lowther Uplands (B)
0.11%
0.041%
0.16%
0.40%
0.030%
Muirkirk and North
Lowther Uplands (C)
0.049%
0.018%
0.073%
0.31%
0.023%
Muirkirk and North
Lowther Uplands (D)
0.081%
0.031%
0.12%
0.30%
0.022%
Muirkirk and North
Lowther Uplands (E)
0.064%
0.024%
0.10%
0.62%
0.046%
H8
Afton Lodge
0.080%
0.030%
0.12%
0.79%
0.059%
H9
Stairhill
0.14%
0.052%
0.21%
1.21%
0.091%
H10
River Ayr Gorge
0.15%
0.058%
0.23%
0.67%
0.050%
H11
Howford Bridge
0.20%
0.076%
0.30%
0.71%
0.053%
H12
Greenock Mains
0.072%
0.027%
0.11%
0.35%
0.026%
H13
0.083%
0.031%
0.13%
0.31%
0.023%
H14
0.052%
0.020%
0.078%
0.28%
0.021%
H15
Lugar Sill
0.091%
0.034%
0.14%
0.55%
0.042%
H16
Nith Bridge
0.088%
0.033%
0.13%
0.48%
0.036%
H17
Barlosh Moss (A)
0.17%
0.065%
0.26%
2.40%
0.18%
H18
Barlosh Moss (B)
0.40%
0.15%
0.60%
3.29%
0.25%
H19
Benbeoch
0.052%
0.019%
0.078%
1.50%
0.11%
H20
Dalmellington Moss
0.037%
0.014%
0.056%
0.68%
0.051%
H21
Bogton Loch
0.035%
0.013%
0.053%
0.75%
0.056%
H22
Dunaskin Glen
0.050%
0.019%
0.075%
0.69%
0.052%
H23
Martnaham Loch and
Wood
0.14%
0.054%
0.22%
0.81%
0.061%
Burnock Water
0.86%
0.32%
1.29%
3.04%
0.23%
H4
H5
H6
H7
H24
Appendix 3: Assessment of modelled deposition rates at designated habitat sites
This appendix sets out the modelled deposition rates due to emissions from the proposed facility.
Modelled substance
deposition rate
(kg/ha/year)
Ref
Modelled nitrogen/acid deposition rate
Location
NO2
SO2
NH3
Nutrient
nitrogen
(kgN/ha/year)
Nitrogenderived acid
(kEg/ha/year)
Sulphurderived acid
(kEq/ha/year)
H1
Airds Moss (A)
0.018
0.036
0.012
0.015
0.0013
0.0011
H2
Airds Moss (B)
0.014
0.028
0.0092
0.012
0.00096
0.00086
H3
Muirkirk and North
Lowther Uplands
(A)
0.018
0.037
0.012
0.016
0.0013
0.0011
Muirkirk and North
Lowther Uplands
(B)
0.015
0.031
0.010
0.013
0.0011
0.00097
Muirkirk and North
Lowther Uplands
(C)
0.0069
0.014
0.0046
0.0059
0.00048
0.00043
Muirkirk and North
Lowther Uplands
(D)
0.012
0.023
0.0077
0.0099
0.00080
0.00072
Muirkirk and North
Lowther Uplands
(E)
0.0091
0.018
0.0060
0.0077
0.00063
0.00057
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
Afton Lodge
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
H9
Stairhill
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
H10
River Ayr Gorge
0.044
0.088
0.022
0.031
0.0025
0.0027
H11
Howford Bridge
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
H12
Greenock Mains
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
H13
Muirkirk Uplands
(A)
0.012
0.024
0.0079
0.010
0.00082
0.00074
H14
Muirkirk Uplands
(B)
0.0074
0.015
0.0049
0.0063
0.00051
0.00046
H15
Lugar Sill
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
H16
Nith Bridge
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
H17
Barlosh Moss (A)
0.025
0.050
0.017
0.021
0.0017
0.0015
H18
Barlosh Moss (B)
0.057
0.11
0.038
0.048
0.0039
0.0035
H19
Benbeoch
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
H20
Dalmellington Moss
0.0053
0.011
0.0035
0.0045
0.00037
0.00033
H21
Bogton Loch
0.0050
0.010
0.0034
0.0043
0.00035
0.00031
H22
Dunaskin Glen
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
H23
Martnaham Loch
and Wood
0.041
0.081
0.020
0.029
0.0023
0.0025
H24
Burnock Water
0.12
0.24
0.081
0.10
0.0084
0.0076
Appendix 4: Critical levels for designated sites in the vicinity of the proposed facility
This appendix sets out the relevant critical loads, obtained from the APIS website.
Ref
Location
Habitat type
Minimum
critical load
for nitrogen
deposition
(kgN/ha/year)
Minimum ritical
load for acid
deposition
(MinCLMaxN)
(kEqH*/ha/year)
H1
Airds Moss (A)
Blanket bogs
5
0.67
H2
Airds Moss (B)
Blanket bogs
5
0.67
H3
Uplands (A)
5
0.668
Raised and blanket bogs
H4
Uplands (B)
5
0.668
H5
Uplands (C)
5
0.668
H6
Uplands (D)
5
0.668
H7
Uplands (E)
5
0.668
H8
Afton Lodge
Geological
n/a
n/a
H9
Stairhill
Geological
n/a
n/a
H10
River Ayr Gorge
Upland oak woodland
5
1.723
H11
Howford Bridge
Geological
n/a
n/a
H12
Greenock Mains
Geological
n/a
n/a
H13
Blanket bogs
5
0.67
H14
Blanket bogs
5
0.67
H15
Lugar Sill
Geological
n/a
n/a
H16
Nith Bridge
Geological
n/a
n/a
H17
Barlosh Moss (A)
Raised bog
5
0.729
H18
Barlosh Moss (B)
Raised bog
5
0.729
H19
Benbeoch
Geological
n/a
n/a
H20
Dalmellington Moss
Raised bog
5
0.888
H21
Bogton Loch
Open water transition fen
10
2.188
H22
Dunaskin Glen
Geological
n/a
n/a
H23
Upland oak woodland
5
1.832
H24
Burnock Water
Neutral grassland
20
4.72
Appendix 5: Assessment of modelled process contributions to acid and nitrogen deposition at
designated habitat sites against critical loads
This appendix sets out the modelled deposition rates, detailed in Appendix 3, as a percentage of the
critical loads set out in Appendix 4.
Ref
Location
Process contribution to
nitrogen deposition as % of
critical load
Process contribution to
acid deposition as % of
critical load
H1
Airds Moss (A)
0.31%
0.36%
H2
Airds Moss (B)
0.24%
0.27%
H3
Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands (A)
0.31%
0.36%
H4
Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands (B)
0.26%
0.31%
H5
Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands (C)
0.12%
0.14%
H6
Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands (D)
0.20%
0.23%
H7
Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands (E)
0.15%
0.18%
H8
Afton Lodge
n/a
n/a
H9
Stairhill
n/a
n/a
H10
River Ayr Gorge
0.63%
0.31%
H11
Howford Bridge
n/a
n/a
H12
Greenock Mains
n/a
n/a
H13
0.20%
0.23%
H14
0.13%
0.15%
H15
Lugar Sill
n/a
n/a
H16
Nith Bridge
n/a
n/a
H17
Barlosh Moss (A)
0.42%
0.45%
H18
Barlosh Moss (B)
0.97%
1.02%
H19
Benbeoch
n/a
n/a
H20
Dalmellington Moss
0.09%
0.08%
H21
Bogton Loch
0.04%
0.03%
H22
Dunaskin Glen
n/a
n/a
H23
0.58%
0.27%
H24
Burnock Water
0.52%
0.34%
Appendix 6: Modelled process contributions at individual sensitive receptor sites (µg/m3)
Ref
PM10
(annual
mean)
PM10
(98.08th%ile
of 24 hour
means)
PM2.5
(annual
mean)
SO2
(99.9th%ile
of 15
minute
means)
SO2
(99.7th%ile
of hourly
means)
SO2
(99.2nd%ile
of 24 hour
means)
NO2
(annual
mean)
NO2
(99.79th%ile
of hourly
means)
Dioxins
and furans
(annual
mean)
S1
0.014
0.092
0.014
11.9
5.30
0.49
0.20
3.90
1.45 x 10-10
S2
0.012
0.060
0.012
10.6
4.80
0.40
0.16
3.60
1.16 x 10-10
S3
0.013
0.079
0.013
11.0
5.09
0.46
0.19
3.78
1.34 x 10-10
S4
0.0043
0.051
0.0043
8.8
4.23
0.44
0.060
3.19
4.26 x 10-11
S5
0.0066
0.061
0.0066
10.0
4.56
0.39
0.092
3.34
6.55 x 10-11
S6
0.029
0.20
0.029
17.8
11
1.25
0.40
8.11
2.86 x 10-10
S7
0.027
0.19
0.027
16.2
9.90
1.22
0.38
7.14
2.71 x 10-10
S8
0.019
0.096
0.019
12.0
5.84
0.68
0.27
4.22
1.91 x 10-10
S9
0.015
0.065
0.015
11.4
5.07
0.41
0.21
3.78
1.50 x 10-10
S10
0.012
0.058
0.012
10.1
4.49
0.31
0.17
3.20
1.20 x 10-10
S11
0.037
0.17
0.037
16.4
9.07
0.91
0.52
6.44
3.73 x 10-10
S12
0.030
0.14
0.030
14.9
8.16
0.80
0.43
5.76
3.04 x 10-10
S13
0.010
0.053
0.010
8.4
3.99
0.32
0.14
2.84
1.01 x 10-10
S14
0.0069
0.041
0.0069
8.0
2.97
0.25
0.10
2.37
6.88 x 10-11
S15
0.0064
0.041
0.0064
6.8
3.07
0.23
0.089
2.31
6.38 x 10-11
S16
0.029
0.27
0.029
38.0
19
1.82
0.41
15
2.91 x 10-10
S17
0.015
0.098
0.015
10.0
5.34
0.57
0.21
3.85
1.48 x 10-10
S18
0.025
0.19
0.025
14.8
8.77
1.15
0.35
6.34
2.47 x 10-10
S19
0.018
0.17
0.018
16.0
9.94
1.05
0.25
7.11
1.77 x 10-10
S20
0.0078
0.16
0.0078
29.3
16
1.04
0.11
13
7.82 x 10-11
S21
0.010
0.12
0.010
13.8
7.82
0.96
0.14
5.68
9.75 x 10-11
S22
0.0032
0.038
0.0032
8.3
3.44
0.35
0.045
2.92
3.24 x 10-11
S23
0.012
0.10
0.012
15.1
7.94
0.89
0.17
5.74
1.20 x 10-10
S24
0.0081
0.070
0.0081
16.1
5.90
0.54
0.11
4.48
8.06 x 10-11
S25
0.0066
0.057
0.0066
11.3
4.48
0.35
0.093
3.38
6.64 x 10-11
S26
0.0061
0.053
0.0061
11.1
4.49
0.32
0.085
3.49
6.07 x 10-11
S27
0.0060
0.052
0.0060
10.4
4.24
0.38
0.083
3.14
5.96 x 10-11
S28
0.013
0.077
0.013
9.2
4.53
0.44
0.19
3.28
1.33 x 10-10
S29
0.011
0.072
0.011
8.2
4.28
0.43
0.15
3.13
1.10 x 10-10
S30
0.010
0.058
0.010
7.9
3.84
0.40
0.15
2.74
1.05 x 10-10
S31
0.016
0.11
0.016
12.6
6.46
0.71
0.23
4.72
1.61 x 10-10
S32
0.019
0.087
0.019
14.9
5.85
0.56
0.27
4.27
1.90 x 10-10
S33
0.0067
0.043
0.0067
8.0
2.99
0.25
0.093
2.24
6.67 x 10-11
Ref
PM10
(annual
mean)
PM10
(98.08th%ile
of 24 hour
means)
PM2.5
(annual
mean)
SO2
(99.9th%ile
of 15
minute
means)
SO2
(99.7th%ile
of hourly
means)
SO2
(99.2nd%ile
of 24 hour
means)
NO2
(annual
mean)
NO2
(99.79th%ile
of hourly
means)
Dioxins
and furans
(annual
mean)
S34
0.012
0.058
0.012
10.3
4.26
0.39
0.17
3.23
1.19 x 10-10
S35
0.014
0.063
0.014
13.1
5.10
0.41
0.19
3.90
1.37 x 10-10
S36
0.015
0.065
0.015
13.4
5.24
0.43
0.20
4.07
1.45 x 10-10
S37
0.054
0.24
0.054
20.1
12
1.35
0.76
8.40
5.42 x 10-10
S38
0.0084
0.055
0.0084
8.2
3.92
0.31
0.12
2.82
8.41 x 10-11
S39
0.0059
0.036
0.0059
7.3
3.04
0.23
0.083
2.24
5.90 x 10-11
S40
0.013
0.087
0.013
9.9
5.03
0.51
0.18
3.65
1.32 x 10-10
S41
0.0082
0.058
0.0082
8.3
3.63
0.31
0.11
2.61
8.15 x 10-11
S42
0.0079
0.056
0.0079
8.5
3.55
0.36
0.11
2.55
7.94 x 10-11
S43
0.010
0.13
0.010
16.1
9.90
0.74
0.14
7.31
1.00 x 10-10
S44
0.0018
0.035
0.0018
8.3
3.23
0.23
0.025
2.69
1.78 x 10-11
S45
0.0017
0.028
0.0017
7.1
2.69
0.20
0.023
2.31
1.65 x 10-11
S46
0.0028
0.033
0.0028
7.9
3.17
0.25
0.039
2.49
2.76 x 10-11
S47
0.0040
0.070
0.0040
9.6
4.92
0.42
0.056
3.75
4.00 x 10-11
S48
0.038
0.35
0.038
37.8
25
3.45
0.53
18
3.76 x 10-10
S49
0.0083
0.077
0.0083
11.5
5.09
0.49
0.12
3.72
8.27 x 10-11
S50
0.015
0.14
0.015
17.0
9.59
1.16
0.21
7.00
1.48 x 10-10
S51
0.011
0.10
0.011
13.5
5.98
0.72
0.15
4.45
1.06 x 10-10
S52
0.0066
0.058
0.0066
13.7
5.26
0.48
0.093
3.84
6.63 x 10-11
S53
0.012
0.11
0.012
14.8
7.00
0.83
0.16
5.17
1.16 x 10-10
S54
0.0089
0.082
0.0089
12.0
5.34
0.49
0.13
4.00
8.94 x 10-11
S55
0.0082
0.072
0.0082
12.9
5.43
0.44
0.12
4.12
8.22 x 10-11
S56
0.0078
0.068
0.0078
14.2
5.41
0.48
0.11
4.26
7.80 x 10-11
S57
0.0080
0.070
0.0080
15.2
4.98
0.44
0.11
3.70
8.00 x 10-11
S58
0.0067
0.064
0.0067
8.9
4.40
0.41
0.094
3.22
6.72 x 10-11
S59
0.043
0.20
0.043
18.2
11
1.23
0.60
7.56
4.32 x 10-10
S60
0.010
0.10
0.010
13.5
6.64
0.75
0.14
4.82
9.83 x 10-11
S61
0.0058
0.056
0.0058
11.4
4.22
0.36
0.081
3.33
5.76 x 10-11
S62
0.010
0.052
0.010
9.1
3.86
0.27
0.15
2.85
1.04 x 10-10
S63
0.019
0.081
0.019
13.4
5.85
0.53
0.26
4.42
1.85 x 10-10
Appendix 7: Process contribution dispersion images of key substances
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs – assessed against the air quality standard for 1,3butadiene): Annual mean
Sulphur dioxide: 99.9th percentile of 15 minute means
Sulphur dioxide: 99.7th percentile of 1 hour means
Nitrogen dioxide: Annual mean
Nitrogen dioxide: 99.79th percentile of 1 hour means
Cadmium: Annual mean
Arsenic: Annual mean
PAHs: Annual mean

Appendix 10.1 Air Quality Impact Assessment (Ricardo-AEA)

Transcription

Similar documents

Inżynier Utrzymania Ruchu – Elektryk

euro nature V2 | Technical characteristics

Cokin Mineral ND Filters technical sheet.indd

The Winds of Change

ENERGY AND HEAlth - Wisconsin Energy Institute

factsheet-engl-Covoare-Ungheni-Water_Purification

Print - balearhouse

FUENTE RUTA DEL QUIJOTE ENGLISH

STATION ROAD, NORTH WINGFIELD