Question No

Question By

Cabinet Member or Committee Chair

Subject

Q5-12/13

S.C.M O’Hara

Chair of Planning Committee

Energy from Waste Plant

Average (monthly) diffusion tube readings at Camels Head recorded 31.9 µg NO²/m³ close to Weston mill primary school, and only 17.4µg NO²/m³ at MVV’s monitoring station, upwind (500m SW) of the incinerator stack.  Why did regulating authorities accept annual average NO² value from MVV’s station as the local baseline concentration?

Response:

These matters are delegated to Officers following the Planning Committee’s majority decision of 22 December 2011.

The average diffusion tube readings at Camels Head are well within the national air quality standards.

The baseline measurements are meant to represent what the levels of pollution are at the application site in its current form and these were accepted by the local planning authority and the Environment Agency as appropriate. The Council’s Public Protection Service Unit were aware of the applicant’s modelling for that area and carried out their own modelling to assess the likely effects of emissions from the stack and from traffic at relevant receptor locations nearby, including Camels Head. The applicants’ modelling predictions were validated and there was no sound reason on air quality grounds to militate against the grant of planning permission.

Monitoring of NO₂ undertaken within the air quality study area is summarised within Section 4.5 of Appendix 13.1 to the Environmental Statement, and consisted of:

• measurements at a continuous monitoring station within Devonport, which is representative of background conditions in the vicinity of the site; and
• diffusion tube monitoring at a number of further locations around the development site.

As NO₂ is one of the primary pollutants of concern emitted from road traffic, the diffusion tube survey included monitoring at a number of locations close to main roads to evaluate the variation in concentrations in areas close to road traffic sources. The air quality assessment used baseline concentrations from the diffusion tube survey in the consideration of the combined impact from road traffic and chimney emissions on NO₂ concentrations at selected receptors, including those in the vicinity of the Camel’s Head junction.

Question No

Question By

Cabinet Member or Committee Chair

Subject

Q6–12/13

Mr Kilvington

Chair of Planning Committee

Energy from Waste Plant

MVV’s Continuous monitoring station is installed at NGR SX444572, 500 metres SW of the incinerator location.  Prevailing winds are westerly.  Vulnerable local communities lie in an arc from North, through East to Southeast of the incinerator.  Why have PCC planners, and the EA, accepted the upwind site?

Response:

These matters are delegated to Officers following the Planning Committee’s majority decision on 22 December 2011.

The Environment Agency approach is based on monitoring of emissions at source from the stack and computer modelling of their dispersion. Their officers assessed the potential air quality impacts by using the worst case scenario i.e. the plant operating at limits and were satisfied with that assessment. The EA view is that the conditions of the permit are robust and will provide protection of human health and the environment. However PCC are interested in monitoring any increased pollution from stack and traffic emissions to validate the predictions. This involves locating diffusion tube monitoring stations over a wider area---including ‘downwind’.

Details of the baseline monitoring survey are given in Section 4.5 of Appendix 13.1 to the Environmental Statement. The monitoring site was selected to be representative of underlying baseline conditions in the air quality study area, without the facility in operation. The maximum additional impact of stack emissions within the study area was then predicted within Section 5 of the dispersion modelling assessment.

Question No

Question By

Cabinet Member or Committee Chair

Subject

Q7-12/13

Mr P O’Hara

Chair of Planning Committee

Energy from Waste Plant

What were vehicle emissions factors (g/k Wh, g/km or mg/km) tonnage and speed factors used for modelling the projected impact of the additional 264 incinerator-related HGV movements across the Camels head junction; and was this study completed?  Information in the application documents about these factors in unclear?

Response:

1)Yes, the vehicle emission factors used in the road traffic emissions modelling was taken from the Highways Agency emissions factor database, as stated in paragraph 3.5.7 of Appendix 13.1 to the Environmental Statement. The units of the factors used are g/km/s.

2) A modelling exercise was undertaken by the Council’s Public Protection Service Unit to check the soundness of the applicant’s predictions and to understand the likely impacts upon the locality. It was evident that there would only be a minimal increase in NO2 levels at Camels Head Junction.

Question No

Question By

Cabinet Member or Committee Chair

Subject

Q8-12/13

Mrs B.D O’Hara

Chair of Planning Committee

Energy from Waste Plant

Are there plans to install a full spectrum continuous monitoring station close to Weston Mill Primary School, downwind of the incinerator stack, as this would be more relevant to health protection monitoring, particularly for the school children as well as most of the city, than MVVs cynically located upwind station?

Response:

The Section 106 Agreement, agreed by a majority of the Planning Committee makes provision for further air quality monitoring in the operational phase as follows:

·         the installation of a particulate matter (PM­₁₀) monitoring station in the vicinity of the Camel’s Head junction to assess concentrations in the five years following commissioning of the facility ( particularly from HGV traffic) ; and

·         Ten years of nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) diffusion tube monitoring at ten locations in the vicinity of the Camel’s Head junction and throughout St. Budeaux / King’s Tamerton.

I fully understand and accept the argument for monitoring at Weston Mill Primary School, these matters are delegated to Officers and their opinion is that the submitted Environment statement contained adequate data to assess the main air quality impacts on the environment (as required by the Town & Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999). A modelling exercise was undertaken by the Council’s Public Protection Service Unit to check the soundness of the applicant’s predictions and to understand the likely impacts upon the locality. The views of the EA and PPS Unit on the relevant air quality matters were considered prior to the determination of the planning application. Some individuals held a different opinion to theirs and their views were reported and considered prior to determination. It was considered that there would not be a significant effect on air quality for school children or for the rest of the city.