m26 proof of evidence: air quality - home - devon · pdf fileproof of evidence: air quality...

M26

PROOF OF EVIDENCE:

AIR QUALITY

MVV Environment (Devonport) Limited

(the Appellant)

Whitecleave Quarry, Buckfastleigh

Proposed Materials Recycling Facility for Construction and

Demolition Waste; IBA Reprocessing Facility and Working of

Dolerite Outcrop

LPA REF: DCC/3242/2011

PINS Ref: APP/J1155/A/12/2185633

May 2013

Garry Gray PhD. MIAQM C.Chem MRSC

URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Ltd

Whitecleave Quarry Proof of Evidence for the Appellant: Air Quality

2

1 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1.1 My name is Garry Gray. I lead the specialist air quality impact

assessment team, within URS, that were responsible for the air

quality chapter of the Environmental Statement for the proposed

Whitecleave Quarry redevelopment.

1.2 I have engaged in research, training or consultancy work in the field

of air pollution continuously since 1990. I was awarded a PhD for

research on urban air quality. I am a Member of the Institute of Air

Quality Management, a Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry

and I am a Chartered Chemist.

1.3 I have provided air quality advice to MVV since URS (then URS

Scott Wilson) were appointed to the Scheme. I lead a team of air

quality specialists that have assisted me in evaluating the effects of

the Scheme on air quality. In addition, I was a panel member for

the Health Impact Assessment for the Whitecleave Quarry

redevelopment chaired by NHS Devon. I am currently providing

technical support on air quality related issues to MVV for the

environmental permit application for the proposed waste

management activities.

1.4 I have previously fulfilled the role of air quality expert on other

schemes including: the planning application and the environmental

permit application for MVV’s EfW CHP facility at Devonport

Dockyard; the environmental permit application for an EfW at Sinfin

Lane, Derby; and the provision of technical review services to Kings

Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council for the proposed Willows

EfW and IBA facility in Kings Lynn.

1.5 I have fulfilled the role of air quality expert for Highways Agency

sponsored schemes and have assisted the Highways Agency with

the current programme of revisions to the air quality assessment

advice in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, during 2013.


3

2 SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF THE EVIDENCE

2.1 In my evidence I consider the risk from air pollution in the form of

particulate matter upon property and the associated potential for

these impacts to cause annoyance. I also consider the risk of air

quality objective values, set for the protection of human health, not

being achieved as a consequence of the proposed development.

2.2 I set out the relevant policy and technical guidance in Section 3, as

well as a description of relevant aspects of the Environmental

Permitting Regime. Section 4 details the assessment methods used

and areas of common ground discussed with DCC. The baseline

conditions within the study area are summarised in Section 5.

2.3 In Section 6, I provide a concise description of the composition of

IBA and outline the method of confirming if IBA from a specific

energy from waste facility would be classified as a non-hazardous

waste material.

2.4 My evidence considers the air quality related effects of the proposed

development on the amenity of the local community associated

with:

a) the emissions of air pollutants from the likely additional heavy

goods vehicle (HGV) movements to and from the Whitecleave

Quarry site in Section 7; and

b) the likely emissions of particulate matter (including dust)

generated within the Whitecleave Quarry site or on the local road

network during the construction and operational phases, in Section

8.

2.5 These topics are discussed in the context of policy, baseline

conditions, the potential for effects, consultation responses and

regulatory procedure.


4

2.6 The Health Impact Assessment undertaken for the proposed

development and its conclusions are considered, with respect to

potential emissions to air, in Section 9.

2.7 I then conclude the Proof of Evidence with a summary of my

findings in Section 10.

2.8 Issues relating to road traffic, other than emissions of air pollutants

from road traffic, are the subject of the Transport Proof of Evidence

prepared by Mr Rugg.

2.9 This proof is supported by six appendices bound as a separate

volume.

• Appendix 1 contains abbreviations and a glossary of technical

terms

• Appendix 2 contains a Figure AQ-1 illustrating locations

referred to in the text that are within Buckfastleigh and

Figure AQ-2 illustrating locations of note within the wider

study area.

• Appendix 3 contains a draft statement of common ground

drafted by myself and Dr Hill, the air quality and meteorology

expert from Jacobs who was acting on behalf of DCC.

• Appendix 4 contains extracts from technical guidance

documents.

• Appendix 5 contains a screenshot of an air quality calculation

showing the change in nitrogen dioxide concentration

between two locations.

• Appendix 6 contains a table of data on the composition of

samples of IBA

2.10 My Proof of Evidence draws particular reference from the following

core documents:


5

• CD A4: Environmental Statement Volume 1: Main Text, Chapter 12 Air

Quality.

• CD A6: Environmental Statement Volume 3: Appendices, Appendix

12.1 Environmental Risk Assessment: Potential Effects of Dust on

Sensitive Receptor Locations.

• CD C2: NHS Devon, NHS Plymouth and Torbay Care Trust; A Rapid

Prospective ‘Desk-Top’ Health Impact Assessment.

• CD E4: Devon County Council Development Management Committee

Report, 25/4/12. Appendix III proposed conditions 6, 21 and 22.

• CD Q1: Environment Agency; Horizontal Guidance Note H1 – Annex A

• CD R3: Submission of Management Schemes/Approval of Planning

Conditions Document

• CD R4: Approved Review of the Approved Schemes

Erratum

2.11 In the Environmental Statement information cited for threshold

windspeeds for the initiation of windblow, is attributed to DETR,

2006 [CD A4 para 12.4.16]. This information should have been

referenced to Arup Environmental/Ove Arup & Partners 1995, The

Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Minerals Workings –

Volume 2. This is a study undertaken by Arup Ove for the

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR).

3 DEVELOPMENT POLICY

The National Planning Policy Framework

3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (CD K1 Paragraph

109), states that:

“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural

and local environment by:


6

preventing both new and existing development from contributing to

or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected

by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land

instability…”

3.2 Annex 2 of the NPPF [CD K1] defines ‘Pollution’ as “Anything that

affects the quality of land, air, water or soils, which might lead to

an adverse impact on human health, the natural environment or

general amenity. Pollution can arise from a range of emissions,

including smoke, fumes, gases, dust, steam, odour, noise and

light”.

3.3 There are both national and local policies for the control of air

pollution and local action plans for the management of local air

quality within the administrative areas for Teignbridge District

Council and Devon County Council. The effect of the proposed

development on the achievement of such policies and plans are

matters that may be a material consideration by planning

authorities, when making decisions for individual planning

applications. Paragraph 124 of the NPPF [CD K1] states that:

“Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute

towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking

into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the

cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local

areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development

in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air

quality action plan”.

3.4 The different roles of a planning authority and a pollution control

authority are addressed by the NPPF in paragraph 122:

“... local planning authorities should focus on whether the

development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact

of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions

themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution


7

control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that

these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning

decision has been made on a particular development, the planning

issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes

operated by pollution control authorities”.

3.5 The NPPF is accompanied by Technical Guidance to the National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF-TG) [CD K2]. The NPPF-TG does

not include any specific guidance for the assessment of air quality

impacts from waste management facilities, but does provide some

guidance on assessments of dust impacts from mineral extraction

sites [CD K2 paragraphs 20 to 27].

3.6 The NPPF-TG [CD K2 page 14] defines ‘dust’ as being “the generic

term which BS6069 (Part 2) Characterization of air quality Glossary

(1987) uses to describe particulate matter in the size range 1 -75

µm (micrometers) in diameter”. It also notes that “Particles that are

less than or equal to (≤) 10 µm in diameter are commonly referred

to as PM10”, although the correct terminology is PM10.

3.7 The NPPF-TG sets out the key stages to a dust assessment study

for minerals workings in paragraphs 23 to 25 and in Table 6 of that

document [CD K2]. The key stages being: establishing baseline

conditions; identifying potential sources of dust emissions;

identifying the potential impact at receptors; and specifying

necessary mitigation measures.

3.8 NPPF-TG makes specific reference to the potential sensitivity of

different land uses to dust and gives broad categories of receptor

sensitivity to nuisance dust in Table 7 [CD K2 page 16]. For

example, schools, residential areas and food retailers are listed as

being of medium sensitivity, whilst hospitals and clinics are

categorised as being of high sensitivity.

3.9 In addition NPPF-TG [CD K2 para 27] considers research

undertaken for government departments and notes that:


8

“additional measures to control PM10 might be necessary if, within

a site, the actual source of emission (e.g. the haul roads, crushers,

stockpiles etc.) is within 1,000m of any residential property or other

sensitive use. Operators should follow the assessment framework in

Figure 1.1 below for considering the impacts”.

Figure 1.1 reproduced from CD K2 page 17


9

Local Development Policies

Devon County Waste Local Plan

3.10 Policy WPC2 [CD H1 page 112] sets out a number of

considerations for waste development including some that relate to

air quality. Section 1 includes the considerations:

“Any adverse impact arising from the proposal on:

(f) the health and amenity of nearby residents;

(g) the likely generation of … odour, fumes, dust, …”.

3.11 Policy WPC2 also notes that information about the proposed

working programmes and the type and location of any plant will be

required where relevant.

3.12 Policy WPP22 [CD H1 Page 143] states that:

“Proposals for waste development which would have an

unacceptable adverse effect on health or air quality will not be

permitted”.

3.13 DCC notes [CD H1 para. 7.4.11.4] that when considering planning

applications for waste management facilities, ” the WPA will seek to

ensure that emissions of odour, dust, fumes and gases, including

those from traffic associated with the facility, are kept to an

acceptable level as perceived by the Environment Agency and the

District Council Environmental Health Officers. Such control will be

enforced in close liaison with the appropriate agencies above, and

will avoid the duplication of responsibilities between pollution

control and planning control”.

3.14 POLICY WPP32 makes specific reference to the need to mitigate

potential adverse effects of dust, air pollution and smell at sensitive

locations as a result of the recycling of inert construction wastes at

existing minerals sites.


10

Teignbridge Local Plan

3.15 Policy ENV9 [CD H3 page 11] specifically advises that proposals

for new development shall take account of the potential

environmental pollution which they may cause by “making provision

for land within the site capable of accommodating pollution control

measures required by other legislation”.

3.16 The policy states that development will not be permitted where it

would result in:

“demonstrable harm being caused to it or the amenity of nearby

developments existing or proposed), land uses, landscape or nature

conservation interests by virtue of the release of noise, vibration,

smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust, grit, heat or other pollutants

to any medium (land, air or water)”.

3.17 Air quality is also addressed in the emerging Teignbridge District

Plan. Policy S1 [CD J4 page 12] defines criteria that proposals will

judged against, taking account of the factors including the

magnitude of any impact and associated mitigation. Air quality

issues are captured by criteria d):

“d) health, safety and environmental effects of noise, smell, dust,

light, vibration, fumes or other forms of pollution or nuisance

arising from the proposed development, including from associated

traffic”.

3.18 Policy S11 [CD J4 page 25] sets out how pollution, including air

pollution, will be reduced in areas of concern such as air quality

management areas and the approach to be taken to avoid

development creating new areas that fail legal standards.

3.19 Policy EN6 [CD J4 page 62] relates specifically to development and

air quality management areas and focuses on areas that are outside

of Buckfastleigh and the A38 Corridor.


11

Environmental Permitting

3.20 The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations

2007 established a common permitting programme for Waste and

PPC regimes, that has been extended to additional regimes by the

2010 Regulations. Whilst there are potential benefits to progressing

planning and pollution control applications in parallel, the option of

progressing the applications sequentially remains open to the

applicant.

3.21 When the Environment Agency or a local authority issues someone

a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations, the

permit gives clear instructions on how the environment must be

protected from the permitted activity and includes consideration of

emissions to air. The application process takes into account the

nature of the hazard, the cost and the risks to the environment and

human health.

3.22 There are two types of permit available; standard and bespoke. A

standard permit is a simple permit that requires the permit-holder

to abide by a set of rules. If the activity does not fit into the

standard rules due to the nature of the environmental risk or the

nature of the activity, a bespoke permit is required. A bespoke

permit has conditions that are specific to the activity that the

permit-holder is performing and the location of the activity is

undertaken at. A bespoke permit is proposed for the activities at

the Whitecleave quarry site.

3.23 The Environment Agency publish a broad range of guidance

documents that relate to the regulation of processes that require a

permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR).

Process Guidance Notes provide guidance to regulatory officers, site

operators and members of the public on what constitutes Best

Available Techniques (BAT) for pollution control for that process.


12

3.24 For example, the Process Guidance Note 3/08(12) Statutory

Guidance for Quarry Processes, September 20121 states at para

1.8, that the guidance is also for “members of the public who may

be interested to know what the Government considers, in

accordance with legislation, amounts to appropriate conditions for

controlling air emissions for the generality of installations in this

sector”.

3.25 Sector Guidance Note IPPC S5.062 provides current guidance on

Best Available Techniques (BAT) for the recovery and disposal of

Hazardous and Non Hazardous Waste. Further information on

appropriate methods for monitoring of particulate matter in ambient

air around waste facilities is provided to Environment Agency

Officers in Technical Guidance Document M173.

3.26 A key element of the Environmental Permit application process is

the consideration of risk associated with the proposed operations of

an installation. The H1 Environmental Risk Assessment Framework

provides the Environment Agency with the means of collating the

information they require to decide what is BAT for an individual

installation. The module H1 Annex A [CD Q1] specifically considers

the risk to amenity from installations and waste activities.

3.27 When an application is made to the Environment Agency for a

bespoke Environmental Permitting Regulations permit for the

proposed operations at Whitecleave Quarry, an updated H1 Annex

1 Defra, 2012, Process Guidance Note 3/08(12), Statutory guidance for quarry processes,

September 2012.

2 Environment Agency, 2004, Guidance for the Recovery and Disposal of Hazardous and Non

Hazardous Waste, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, December 2004.

3 Environment Agency, 2004, Monitoring of Particulate matter in ambient air around waste

facilities, Technical Guidance Document (Monitoring) M17, March 2004.


13

A risk assessment will need to be prepared as part of the wider H1

risk assessment submission. This will be used by the Environment

Agency to enable them to consider what further dust mitigation

measures, if any, are necessary beyond the measures included in

the existing dust management scheme or measures that are

inherent in the design of the facility.

3.28 My understanding is that the permit application would be made for

an installation with a boundary extending around the whole of the

Whitecleave Quarry site and that the boundary would include the

private access road to the junction with the public highway . The

proposed permitting boundary is illustrated in Appendix 2, Figure

AQ-1). The control of all potential sources of emissions of air

pollutants, within this boundary would be considered as part of the

EPR permit application process.

Technical Guidance

3.29 The Highways Agency Advice Note HA207/074 sets out methods

that may be used to quantify the impact of changes in emissions

from road traffic at air quality sensitive receptor locations. The

note also includes empirically derived criteria [Appendix 4, Extract

1, para 3.12] that may be used to identify the size of the change in

the number of vehicles below which effects are unlikely to be

significant.

3.30 The Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) is a professional

body for scientists and engineers specialising in the assessment and

management of air quality. In 2009 the IAQM set out what its

membership collectively considered to represent good practice for

4 Highways Agency, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 Air

Quality, Advice Note HA207/07.


14

the assessment of the significance of air quality effects [Appendix

4, Extract 2] and this approach has been widely adopted in the UK.

3.31 Environmental Protection UK (formerly the National Society for

Clean Air and Environmental Protection (NSCA)) is an interest

group that draws the majority of its membership from local

authority pollution control officers and environmental consultancies.

In 2010 EPUK published guidelines on planning for air quality in

development control that adopt the IAQM approach, but include

criteria [Appendix 4, Extract 3, Tables 16 and 18] for describing the

magnitude and significance of impacts on 24 hour mean

concentrations of PM10 that are not directly defined in the IAQM

guidance.

3.32 The IAQM published further guidance5 relating to the monitoring of

dust generated by demolition and construction activities. This

guidance is not intended to be applied to the assessment of mineral

or waste management developments, but includes advice that is

consistent with the Environment Agency Technical Guidance

Document M175.

5 IAQM, 2012, Guidance on the Assessment of the Impacts of Construction on Air Quality and

the Determination of their Significance, December 2011.


15

4. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND COMMON GROUND

Assessment Methodology for HGV emissions

4.1 I consider the significance of emissions of the air pollutants

nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5 from additional road vehicle

movements, using methods to quantify the magnitude of the

change in pollutant concentrations that are drawn from the

Highways Agency Advice Note 207/07 and local air quality

management technical guidance6 issued by Defra.

4.2 In considering the significance of likely effects of changes in

concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5 at air quality

sensitive receptors I apply the assessment criteria proposed by the

IAQM and EPUK, as set out in Appendix 4 of this proof.

Assessment Methodology for Dust Effects

4.3 The assessment of dust effects presented in the ES [CDA4 Chapter

12] was based on the risk assessment approach described in H1

Annex 1 (a)7. Since the publication of the ES the guidance note was

updated in December 2011[CDQ5], but the method used to assess

the risk of amenity effects from installations and waste activities

has not changed between H1 Annex 1 (a) and the current version

H1 Annex A. The risk assessment approach is referred to as the

‘Annex A’ risk assessment method in this document.

4.4 In March 2012 the NPPF-TG introduced guidance that described an

approach to the assessment of dust from mineral extraction

operations. The key steps of the NPPF-TG approach are comparable

6 Defra, 2009, Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM-TG (09).

7 Environment Agency, 2010, Horizontal Guidance Note H1 – Annex 1 (a), April 2010.


16

to the approach described in the ES [CD A4 para. 12.3.10] and can

also be informed by the conclusions of the H1 Annex A risk

assessment method reported in the ES [CD A9 Appendix 12.1].

4.5 In this proof I consider the likely significant dust effects of the

proposed development using the 4 key assessment stages identified

by the NPPF-TG, which I describe as:

• Establish baseline conditions;

• Identify site activities that could lead to dust emission

without mitigation;

• Identify site parameters which may increase potential

impacts from dust; and

• Assess effectiveness of dust control measures.

4.6 In considering the significance of likely dust effects I apply the

assessment criteria proposed by the IAQM and EPUK for PM10 and

PM2.5, as set out in Appendix 4 of this proof.

Clarification of Technical Points Relating to Air Quality

4.7 Appendix 3 contains a document relating to air quality that I have

authored with Dr Richard Hill of Jacobs, the air quality and

meteorology expert engaged by DCC. The note considers 6 items of

technical detail relevant to Reason for Refusal number one. This

document remains a final draft document as completed on the 17th

May 2013, as it had not been formally signed off by DCC at the

time of drafting this proof. However, as DCC withdrew Reason for

Refusal number one after the completion of the draft Statement of

Common Ground – Air Quality it may reasonably be presumed that

DCC do not have any significant objections relating to its content.

4.8 Item 1 confirms relevant sources of technical guidance relating to

the assessment of significance of air quality effects or the methods

available to the pollution control authority to control emissions to

air.


17

4.9 Item 2 revisits the conclusion in the ES [CD A4 para 12.1.8] that

the scale of additional road traffic movements associated with the

scheme was small enough to not require assessing as it was

unlikely to cause a significant effect on local air quality. A worked

example calculation, undertaken jointly by Dr Hill and myself,

confirms that emissions from heavy goods vehicle movements on

Plymouth Road, at a rate of 200 2-way movements per day, would

have a negligible to slight adverse effect at the façade of residential

properties on Plymouth Road, depending on baseline pollutant

concentrations.

4.10 Item 3 describes the role of the pollution control authorities in

ensuring that effective dust controls are implemented for the

permitted processes. It is also agreed by both parties that the

Environment Agency and Pollution Control Officers from Teignbridge

District Council were aware of the proposed development and

engaged fully in the planning application process, including the

Health Impact Assessment [CD C2].

4.11 Item 4 summaries both parties’ understanding of the dust

management plan history for the site and the findings of site

inspections undertaken by DCC.

4.12 Item 5 represents the meteorological data, gathered in

Buckfastleigh by an Osiris particulate matter monitoring unit, in an

alternative format to that used in the ES, as described in the

Environmental Statement Further Information [CDA12, Chapter 12

]. It is agreed by Dr Hill and myself that the frequency of winds

blowing from the East (from the Quarry towards Plymouth Road) is

broadly similar for the Buckfastleigh and Mountbatten datasets

reported in the ES [CD A4] and that the meteorological data from

Mountbatten is representative of conditions in Buckfastleigh.

4.13 The draft text prepared under Item 5 notes that measurements of

PM10 and PM2.5 reported by a light scattering device such as an


18

Osiris monitor, could be termed as indicative measurements, as the

technology does not meet the requirements of an EU reference

method equivalence criteria. It is agreed by both authors that the

reported baseline particulate matter measurements indicate that

baseline annual mean concentrations of PM10 and 24 hour mean

concentrations of PM10 are significantly lower than the air quality

objective values .

4.14 Item 6 summarises the air quality related complaints received by

the site operator and DCC. Based on records held by the site

operator, DCC and Teignbridge District Council. It is the common

understanding of Dr Hill and myself, that there have been no

substantiated complaints relating to a failure of the approved dust

management scheme used by the site operator at Whitecleave

Quarry in the period January 2010 to May 2013.


19

5. BASELINE CONDITIONS

Sensitive Receptors

5.1 Referring to Figure AQ-1 (Appendix 2 of this proof) it can be seen

that there are residential properties and other potentially sensitive

receptors located within 1 km of the access point to Whitecleave

Quarry on Plymouth Road. As there are receptors within the criteria

distance of 100 m (for mitigated sources) [CD A4 para. 12.3.13]

the Environmental Statement included an assessment of the

potential effect at these properties. The presence of the same

receptors within the criteria distance of 1000 m (for unmitigated

sources) adopted in NPPF-TG [CD K2 para. 27] would also trigger

the need to assess potential effects.

5.2 The approach taken in the ES used the closest properties to the site

boundary as representative receptors, as any emissions from the

quarry would have become more diluted by the time it had been

blown to more distant receptor locations. The site boundary was

also used in the ES as a key receptor location, as it is common

practice for the pollution control authority to set monitoring based

conditions that use a monitoring location at the site boundary.

5.3 With respect to potential impacts from emissions from heavy goods

vehicle (HGV) associated with proposed operations, the

representative receptors selected are numbers 85, 87 and 73

Plymouth Road Appendix 3, Item 2]. These receptors represent

locations closest to the site access and nearer to traffic travelling

along the B3380 Plymouth Road/Strode Road, than other relevant

receptors.

Baseline Air Quality

5.4 Teignbridge District Council have reviewed the standard of local air

quality in Buckfastleigh since 1999.


20

5.5 Teignbridge District Council have published an air quality action

plan that relates to the air quality management areas that it has

declared. The air quality management areas are in Newton Abbot,

Kingsteignton, Kingskerswell, Dawlish and Teignmouth.

5.6 No air quality management areas have been declared in

Buckfastleigh.

5.7 South Hams District Council have published an air quality action

plan that relates to a number of air quality management areas,

including one for a single property at Dean Prior, 3 m from the

eastern (southbound) verge of the A38. The location is illustrated in

Figure AQ-2 in Appendix 2.

5.8 Teignmouth District Council have produced regular reports8 on local

air quality within the district and have not reported any evidence

that indicates that the concentration of any of the air pollutants

listed in the national air quality strategy [CD Q2], are at risk of

being exceeded in Buckfastleigh. In the period 2006 to 2008 the

annual mean concentration of nitrogen dioxide sampled at asite on

Chapel Street, Buckfastleigh range between 15 µg/m3 to 17 µg/m3,

compared to the national air quality strategy objective value of 40

µg/m3 [CDA4 Table 12.4].

5.9 The measureable concentration of an air pollutant includes the total

mass of the substance contributed by many separate sources of

emissions. The measured concentration of particulate matter

(expressed as PM10) would include a contribution from ‘background’

sources such as sea salts, soil, mineral particles, and combustion

derived particles that have dispersed from sources outside the town

or county. Added to this is a local contribution from sources

8 Teignbridge District Council, 2013, Air Quality Website,

URL: http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=15048


21

including local road traffic using strategic routes and minor roads,

heating appliances, bonfires, and local industry.

5.10 The resources available to local authority air quality officers

undertaking review and assessments of local air quality, include

maps of projected concentrations for PM2.5, PM10, oxides of nitrogen

(NOx) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The data from these maps can

be downloaded as a file reporting values at the centre point of each

1km x1 km cell. The reporting location of data for the cell centred

at National grid reference 273500, 65500 is on the B3380

Plymouth Road, Buckfastleigh approximately 290 metres south west

of the Whitecleave Quarry access [Appendix 2, Figure AQ-1].

5.11 Defra’s projection for the year 2013, at 273500, 65500 is a total

annual mean NOx concentration9 of 11.2 µg/m3 of which 8.6 µg/m3

is in the form of nitrogen dioxide10. The two main contributions

coming from background sources (5.0 µg/m3) and Trunk Roads (the

A38) located within the 1km cell (3.5 µg/m3 ). Total annual mean

concentrations for the same period are 13.2 µg/m3 for PM1011 of

which 8.2 µg/m3 is also considered to be PM2.512. The contribution of

secondary particulate formation, sea salt and other non-local

sources accounted for more than 50% of the PM10 and more than

80% of the baseline PM2.5 concentration value.

9 275_nox_2013.csv, Downloaded from url: http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-

assessment/tools/backgroundmaps.html, Date downloaded 30/04/2013.

10 275_no2_2013.csv, Downloaded from url: http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-


11 275_pm10_2013.csv, Downloaded from url: http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-


12 275_pm25_2013.csv, Downloaded from url: http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-



22

5.12 There is no measurement data available within the study area for

oxides of nitrogen or for nitrogen dioxide since 2008. This is not an

unusual situation as the need for local authorities to measure air

pollutant concentrations is largely determined by the risk of an air

quality limit value not being achieved. Consequently measurement

data for locations with low concentrations of air pollutants are rare.

5.13 There is measurement data available for several locations at Dean

Prior [CD A12 Page 131] where South Hams District Council

measure long term trends in nitrogen dioxide concentrations using

passive diffusion tubes. At this location the A38 climbs steeply on

the southbound carriageway and emissions, especially from HGVs,

will be increased relative to a level section of the A38. The

Northbound carriageway descends steeply at this location and

emissions are likely to be low as the load on vehicle engines is

reduced compared to a level section of the A38. Close (within 10

metres) to the A38 annual mean concentrations in the period 2007

to 2011, have ranged between 37 µg/m3 to 43 µg/m3 at site DP4,

located 5 metres to the east of the road and between 25 µg/m3 and

30 µg/m3 at sampling location DP1 located 3 metres to the west of

the road [Appendix 3 Table 2.3].

5.14 At Buckfastleigh the A38 is on a level, raised platform and therefore

emission rates from traffic on the A38 are likely to be in between

the high engine load (uphill) and low engine load (downhill)

conditions at Dean Prior and consequently annual mean

concentrations will also be less than the values reported for

sampling location DP4. In addition concentrations of air pollutants

(NO2, PM10, PM2.5) decrease rapidly with distance within the first 50

metres away from a road and Defra have published a spreadsheet13

13 Defra, 2013, NO2withDistancefromRoadsCalculatorIssue4.xls, available from URL:

laqm.defra.gov.uk/tools-monitoring-data/NO2-falloff.html


23

that allows this decrease to be estimated based on a known

concentration at one distance from the road and the background

pollutant concentration.

5.15 For an annual mean nitrogen dioxide measurement of 43 µg/m3 at

a location 3 metres from the road and a background concentration

of 8.6 µg/m3 [para 5.11], the estimated annual mean NO2

concentration at a location 20 metres from the road would be 26

µg/m3. A screenshot of the spreadsheet for this calculation is

included as Appendix 5 of this proof.

5.16 The nearest residential properties to the A38 are more than 20 m to

the west of the northbound carriageway, with the B3380 also

contributing some emissions of nitrogen dioxide. It is therefore

considered likely that annual mean concentrations of nitrogen

dioxide at residential properties on Plymouth Road/Strode Road

would be approximately 30 µg/m3 and highly likely that they are

less than 36 µg/m3. The baseline annual mean concentration of

nitrogen dioxide are below the objective value of 40 µg/m3.

5.17 The ES and subsequent draft SoCG [Appendix 3, Item 5] report

measurement data collected on the western side of Plymouth Road

near to the quarry site access during 2009 and 2010. These

measurements indicates that long term concentrations are in the

range 14 µg/m3 to 15 µg/m3 and well below the annual mean

objective value for PM10 of 40 [Appendix 3, Table 2.4] and

consistent with the Defra projections [para 5.11]. The indicative 24

hour mean PM10 concentrations of 22 µg/m3 to 24 µg/m3 are well

below the annual mean objective concentration value for PM10 of 50

µg/m3 [Appendix 3, Table 2.4]. The material recorded as PM2.5

forms part of the material recorded as PM10. Therefore, the

indicative annual mean PM10 concentration of 14 µg/m3 to 15

µg/m3, means that even if all the material measured was in the

PM2.5 size fraction, the annual mean objective value of 25 µg/m3 is

also predicted to be achieved by a large margin.


24

5.18 The particulate matter data collected by the site operator, was

collected to monitor the effectiveness of site dust management

scheme by providing real-time measurements of particulate matter

concentrations. The data shows the baseline frequency and duration

of episodes of elevated concentrations of particulate matter.

5.19 It is possible to improve the performance of the factory calibrated

Osiris unit by also undertaking a site-specific calibration, if for

example a condition requires measured absolute concentration

values to be compared against a threshold value at the monitoring

location [Appendix 3, Item 5]. The site-specific calibration is not

necessary to enable the data to be used to record the occurrence of

episodes when particulate matter concentrations are elevated (as a

pronounced spike) above baseline levels. Such a response from the

monitor would indicate that the site operator should check if an on-

site activity is the source of the recorded emissions and take the

necessary action to abate the emissions if necessary.

Meteorological Conditions

5.20 The location of the Osiris unit and wind direction gauge near to a

receptor (see Appendix 2, Figure AQ-1) and the site boundary is

ideal, as it demonstrates the wind direction that the measured

particulate matter was transported from.

5.21 The addendum [CD A12, Chapter 12] presents the same

meteorological information as was reported in the ES but using a

different reference height. The comparison of the windroses for

2005 to 2009 from Mountbaten, near Plymouth and the data from

the Osiris unit on Plymouth Road in 2009 and 2010, are broadly

consistent and are considered to be representative of local

meteorological conditions [Appendix 3, Item 5].

5.22 The meteorological data [CD A4, Figure 12.2] demonstrates that

while the most frequent wind direction is from the south west

quarter, it is not unusual for the wind to blow from the east. Wind


25

blowing from the east would transport any airborne particulate

matter present at Whitecleave Quarry towards the site boundary

along Plymouth Road.

5.23 The data recorded at the Osiris monitoring station includes periods

with wind speeds that are fast enough to generate emissions from

unconsolidated dry material [CD A12 Page 123 para 2]. This

indicates that good practice measures would be required to control

the generation of dust emissions at source. Such measures would

be required irrespective of the precise frequency with which the

wind blows from the east.

Existing Dust Management Controls

5.24 Planning application 98/3304/32/9/DCC [CD R1] was consented

with conditions relating the management and monitoring of dust at

Whitecleave Quarry. A Management Scheme including dust

management and monitoring measures was submitted by the 18th

May 2009 and updated 22nd June 2009 by Sam Gilpin Demolition

Ltd [CD R3]. The management scheme was accepted and planning

conditions 6 and 7 discharged by Devon County Council on the 10th

July 2009.

5.25 On 4th July 2012 Sam Gilpin Demolition Ltd prepared a review [CD

R4] of approved schemes under conditions on planning application

98/3304/32/9DCC.

5.26 David Pressley the Monitoring Officer for Devon County Council has

undertaken two visits during each calendar year since the

submission of the 2009 management schemes. The Monitoring of

Mining and Landfill Sites Reports for inspections on 13th August

2009, 15th March 2010, 16th February 2011, 20th September 2011,

8th May 2012, 31st October 2012 and 19th February 2013 raised no

issues relating to dust management or monitoring [Appendix 3,

Item 4].


26

5.27 The existing dust management controls [CD R3 and CD R4] at the

site include:

a) Site speed limit of 10 mph to control the resuspension of

particulate matter that has deposited onto to surface.

b) Haul roads from the public highway to the quarry office and

turning circle, will be surfaced to reduce the potential for dust

emissions. This work is on going.

c) Access roads into the quarry void are maintained with crushed

material to maintain a graded surface, to minimise emissions of

dust from the passage of plant.

d) Loads of material leaving the site and deliveries to site are

sheeted if the nature of the product requires it.

e) Stockpiling is restricted to the quarry void and the area of hard

standing near the quarry office.

f) Stockpiled materials are kept damp as required.

g) An on site sprinkler system will be used to damp down the haul

road, to minimise the potential for dust generation.

h) Sources of water are available within the quarry void, to be used

by hired in mobile crushing plant mist spray systems.

i) Water bowsers are available and can be sited whereever

required for dust suppression. Mobile fire appliances capable of

providing a fine mist spray are available to control dust

emissions at source or to damp down dry dusty surfaces.

j) Staff are provided with training in site dust management

controls.

k) A wind sock and a weather station, recording rainfall rate data

and wind speed, are located between the quarry void and the

A38. The location is illustrated in Appendix 2, Figure AQ-1.


27

l) The Osiris monitor used previously is available to resume

monitoring particulate matter concentrations at a location near

to the site entrance. The unit reports concentrations of PM10,

PM5, PM2.5, PM1 and total suspended particulate (TSP) with data

and concentration threshold alarm functions accessible from the

quarry office.

m) Visual inspections of the site and Plymouth Road near the site

access, are undertaken by the site manager and other site staff.

n) A record of correspondence relating to environmental impacts is

maintained and records of actions taken are also logged.

o) A Liason Group has been established for the quarry operation

and met for the first time on the 18th December 2012. This could

be replaced by a new group should the proposed development

be consented.

Complaints History

5.28 Appendix 3, Item 6 summaries the complaints relating to a

specified dust or air quality issue since 2010. The dust management

scheme was in operation during the period covered by the

complaints history and the proposals for the redevelopment of

Whitecleave Quarry were submitted to DCC during this period.

5.29 There have been no substantiated complaints relating to a failure of

the dust management system that was accepted by DCC to

discharge the conditions on planning permission number

98/3304/32/9DCC [CDR3, CDR4].

Summary of Baseline Conditions

5.30 The current baseline air quality at properties along Plymouth

Road/Strode Road and more widely within Buckfastleigh is of a

good standard. The baseline concentrations of nitrogen dioxide,

particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) or any other pollutant are not at


28

risk of exceeding the national air quality objective values set for the

protection of human health.

5.31 There is meteorological data available for the study area that is

representative of local conditions. The data demonstrates that

conditions do occur in the study area under which airborne dust

could be generated by the wind, from dry surfaces containing

unconsolidated material. In addition the wind blows from the quarry

towards nearby receptors frequently enough for such conditions to

be considered typical, although it does not represent the

predominant wind direction.

5.32 A scheme of dust management controls were approved by DCC and

have been implemented by the site operator since July 2009. The

existing good practice measures are aimed at minimising or

preventing the generation of emissions of particulate matter at

source. Further management measures include training and

inspection procedures that relate to the control of dust emissions.

5.33 The limited number of complaints received by the site operator or

by DCC [Appendix 3, Item 6] and the monitoring data from the

Osiris unit located near the site boundary [Appendix 3, Table 2.1],

indicate that existing management measures are capable of

controlling emissions of particulate matter sufficiently to prevent

episodes, of significantly elevated levels of airborne particulate

matter or marked increases in local dust deposition rates, from

occurring beyond the site boundary.

5.34 If activities permitted under the existing minerals consent at

Whitecleave Quarry were to continue in the future it is reasonable

to expect air quality to remain of a good standard in Buckfastleigh

and for air quality objectives to continue to be achieved for nitrogen

dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5. So long as the existing management

measures were applied diligently it is also likely that they would

remain effective at controlling the emission of particulate matter


29

(including PM10, PM2.5 and dust) from currently permitted activities

at the site.

6. IBA

Waste Management Terminology

6.1 The regulation of waste in the European Union and within the UK is

very well developed and has a clearly defined terminology, that

may differ from the use of similar terms in conversational English.

When used in the context of waste management, the term ‘inert’

reflects the risk that such materials pose to public health and the

wider environment and is not intended to indicate that the material

is chemically or biologically inactive. Similarly the term ‘Non-

Hazardous’ does not mean that a waste is free from all substances

that are known to be capable of having a toxic, carcinogenic or

irritant effect.

6.2 The form of regulation that applies to the production, storage and

transport of waste is dependent on the hazard status of the waste

material. The Environment Agency guidance document HWR0114

provides an overview of the process by which a waste is identified

as being Hazardous or Non-Hazardous.

6.3 The Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 refer

to the “List of Wastes” that forms part of The List of Wastes

Regulations (England) 2005. This list is also known as the European

Waste Catalogue. Environment Agency guidance document WM215

Hazardous waste: Interpretation of the definition and classification

14 Environment Agency, 2011 , What is hazardous Waste ?, A Guide to the Hazardous Waste

Regulations, HWR01 Version 5.0, April 2011.

15 Environment Agency, 2011, Interpretation of the definition and classification of hazardous

waste, Technical Guidance WM2, version 2.3, April 2011.


30

of hazardous waste provides more detailed guidance on how to

decide on the hazard status of a waste material. These regulations

apply to the determination of the hazard status of IBA and the

construction and demolition (C&D) waste that the proposed facility

at Whitecleave Quarry would process. I consider this in more detail

later in this section.

6.4 The regulatory position is currently based on inherent hazard (i.e.

the total concentrations of a potentially hazarduous compound), not

on risk of exposure of a target to the hazard. This means that the

precautionary approach is adopted within the sampling and testing

of IBA and other wastes, as the maximum total mass of the

constituents are considered and not only the proportion of that

material that is in a form that is chemically available to cause an

effect or in a form that is biologically capable of causing an effect.

6.5 In BCF Comments to Planning Inspector [CD E11] dated 29th April

2013, Mr Smith states that in his personal opinion the whole

Environmental Statement was undertaken “with the perception that

IBA is inert and posed no risk” [Page 3, para. 2]. He goes on to

suggest that what should be borne in mind is that “both DCC &

Statutory Consultees were being deceived into believing that no

effluent was to be discharged into the Dean Burn (other than a 1-

in-100 year flood event) and that IBA was inert and hence posed no

risk” [Page 5 para 1]. These statements are not consistent with the

assessment of air quality and dust related effects within the ES [CD

A4 Chapter 12 and Appendix 12.1] which only applied the word

‘inert’ to construction materials that could be used to infill part of

the void.

6.6 Mr Smith was a member of the steering group for the Rapid Health

Impact Assessment, which was also attended by Prof. Drey from

BCF, myself and the representatives from DCC and statutory

consultees including: The Environment Agency, The Health

Protection Authority, Teignbridge District Council and Devon NHS


31

Trust. The technical discussions held at steering group meetings

about IBA and appropriate controls to prevent significant adverse

effects from occurring, were undertaken on the basis of IBA being a

non-hazardous material and not an inert material. The

understanding of the steering group on this matter is reflected in

the wording of the Rapid HIA report [CD C2].

Composition and Testing of IBA

6.7 The combustion of municipal solid waste (MSW) and similar

commercial wastes (C&I) in a modern EfW plant results in a course

residue that falls through the grate and is removed. This material is

termed Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA).

Table 6.1: Typical Composition of IBA from Combustion of MSW

Material % Material %

glass 10

soil 2

metals (primarily iron and steel) 2

Material unchanged

by combustion 15

organics 1

opaque glass 25

isotropic glass 20

Sclieren 10

Spinel group minerals (Magnetite,

Chromite) 10

Ash particles from

combustion and

melt products

85

Melite group minerals 20


32

Total 100 Total 100

Data from MinRes report WRT 177/WR011516

6.8 Visual analysis using a microscope is an established approach to

establishing the type or origin of the individual particles that a

sample of dust or unconsolidated materials is composed of. The

composition of IBA resulting from the burning of MSW type wastes

is mainly ceramics, slags, glassy materials and metallic materials

(see Table 6.1).

6.9 Contained within the materials listed in Table 6.1 or loosely bound

onto the surface of PM10 sized particles of that material would be

metallic or organic substances, termed as ‘trace contaminants’ in

Environment Agency Guidance. As IBA is a mixture of materials

produced by a prescribed process, the measureable amounts of

these trace contaminants varies in a manner that reflects the

composition of the feedstock used in the combustion process and

the combustion conditions.

6.10 Dioxins present in the combustion exhaust gases that are

generated within EfW facilities, are successfully captured in the air

pollution control (APC) system residues and in the UK these APC

residues have not been mixed with IBA since 2002. Dioxins

concentrations in IBA have been investigated by the Environment

Agency and are reported17 to be similar to dioxin concentrations in

16 Cresswell D. ( 2007), Characterisation of Mineral Wastes, Resources and Processing

technologies – Integrated waste management for the production of construction material,

Case Study: Municipal Waste Incinerator Ash in manufactured Aggregate, MinRes Report

WRT 177/WR0115,

17 Environment Agency (2002), Solid Residues from Municipal Waste Incinerators in England

and Wales, Environment Agency, May 2002.


33

urban soils and commonly used secondary aggregates. Current

environmental assessment guidance from the Environment Agency

is based on analysis of the trace contaminants that are present

within the ash particles and melt products that form IBA. A study19

of 11 EfW of mixed ages in the UK, reported on the concentrations

of each of the following trace contaminants:

• the metals antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,

copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, thallium, tin and

vanadium; and

• the organics content represented as dioxins, carbon and total

organic compounds (TOC).

6.11 Annual comparisons of the results of tests on samples of IBA

material from existing IBA Processing facilities in the UK, have been

undertaken on behalf of the Environement Agency by WRc and the

values reported18 as average concentrations, maximum

concentrations and the 95th percentile of measure values.

6.12 The data from the 2012 IBA database20 are reproduced in Appendix

6 of this proof, confirms that the material is strongly alkaline and

that average and 95th percentile concentration values for the

individual trace contaminants vary within consistent upper bounds.

There are also consistent relationships between the relative

abundance of different trace contaminants, which is to be expected

of materials arising from a similar process. While the composition of

IBA varies at the small (gram) scale, the composition of IBA as a

non-hazardous material is understood sufficiently for the associated

risks to be considered.

18 WR c , 2013, Table 2 Statistics of relevant determinand results for 2012 IBA dataset, WR c Report:

UC9496.0 3 /14 7 2 8 –A April 2013


34

6.13 In respect of the bottom ash composition from a specific EfW, the

Environment Agency will specify sampling and testing requirements

within the Environmental Permit issued for the EFW facility. An

example of the standard wording on such conditions is included in

Appendix 6 of this proof, from a recent EFW Environmental Permit

for a facility processing IBA for reuse.

6.14 The sampling and test requirements for IBA in England at this time

are based on the guidance in A Sampling And Testing Protocol For

The Assessment of Hazard Status of Incinerator Bottom Ash19. This

guidance defines the methods, frequency and form of reporting that

the Environment Agency typically stipulate within an Environmental

Permit. The results of the analysis will confirm the classification of

the bottom ash as non-hazardous or hazardous. The Operator of an

EFW facility is statutorily required to make available the results of

any such analysis with the waste transfer documentation, that

accompanies the IBA from the location generating the material to

the location receiving it.

6.15 This analysis can not be undertaken for the proposed Devonport

EFW CHP facility until it is being commissioned and begins to

generate bottom ash. The Environment Agency have usually

requested that the proposed testing protocol is submitted to them

for their consideration at least 2 months prior to the generation of

any IBA by the EFW. In the event that the analysis undertaken

confirms:

19 Environmental Services Association (ESA) (2010), A Sampling and Testing Protocol For

The Assessment of Hazard Status of Incinerator Bottom Ash, WRc Report Reference UC

8052.9, WRc October 2010.


35

a) that bottom ash produced is non-hazardous, then the IBA could

be accepted by the operator of a suitably licensed non-hazardous

material recycling facility, such as is proposed at Whitecleave

Quarry; or

b) that bottom ash produced is hazardous, then an alternative

disposal route to the Whitecleave Recycling Centre would be

identified (ie a licensed hazardous landfill site) and the bottom ash

transferred to that facility.

6.16 The approach adopted by the Environment Agency means that

there is an inherent risk that some material that would meet the

requirements of the hazardous classification could be sent to a site

that is only permitted to accept non-hazardous material. Should

this be known to occur, then that material would be stored

appropriately until it could be transferred to a site that is permitted

to accept hazardous waste. The physical measures that would be

applied to protect public health, amenity and the wider environment

while the hazardous material was on site should the same as would

be applied to the IBA that was classified as non-hazardous. This is

because the required control measures are determined by

consideration of the likely effects on sensitive receptors, rather than

by a prescriptive tick box exercise based solely on waste

classification.

6.17 As IBA has the potential to generate emissions to air and to water

(ground water and surface waters) then protective measures are

required for a site accepting IBA. Consequently the risk associated

with some deliveries of material meeting the criteria for a

hazardous classification being stored or processed as if non-

hazardous material, is reduced to what the Environment Agency

consider to be an acceptable level.

6.18 In the 2012 IBA Database report20, none of the participating

facilities recorded seven or more exceedances of the threshold


36

criteria, the level which would have triggered a hazardous

classification for the IBA under the testing protocol.

Emissions from IBA

6.19 The IBA material would be delivered to Whitecleave Quarry as a wet

material, containing approximately 10 to 20 % water by weight.

The water would drain from the unprocessed IBA and continue to

drain as the material is processed and while it is stockpiled to

mature. The water and any water soluble trace constituents would

be transported within the water into the drainage management

system. Particles in the PM10 and PM2.5 size fractions behave like silt

particles and may also be washed into the drainage management

system, where they would settle out if the water is not mixed.

There are, in sequence, 1. perimeter drains, 2. the lagoon, 3. the

tanks, all of which will sucessively promote sedimentation.

6.20 Water would be recirculated to the IBA material to prevent the

material drying out and thereby controlling the risk of fugitive

emissions to air.

6.21 The use of the processed IBA to make a construction product

requires the material to be disturbed and this represents the largest

potential risk of generating fugitive emissions to air, but only if the

material has dried out. This risk is therefore controllable by

damping down as much as is required. The method of controlling

exposure of off site receptors to emissions of airborne IBA material

(as dust, PM2.5 or PM10) at existing IBA facilities, is based upon the

physical properties of the material, rather than its chemical

properties or chemical composition.

6.22 For example, the use of the processed IBA to make a construction

product requires the material to be disturbed (moved) and this

represents the largest potential risk of generating fugitive emissions

to air, but only if the material has dried out. This risk is therefore

controllable by damping down as much as is required.


37

6.23 The approach taken at existing IBA processing facilities to the

control of fugitive dust emissions is based on the physical

properties of the material and is concerned with preventing the

generation of emissions at source were ever possible by damping

down the material. The amount of mitigation effort required is to

some extent dependent of site specific considerations.

6.24 The potential emissions for the use of IBA in construction materials

has been the subject of a limited amount of research and this has

focused on the generation of emissions of hydrogen gas to air.

6.25 An incident in which hydrogen was produced from the concrete as it

was setting causing an explosion, prompted an investigation by the

Health and Safety Executive20. HSE has investigated the mechanism

by which hydrogen was generated. The particular concrete mix

included incinerator bottom ash aggregate, which has been shown

to contain a significant proportion of aluminium. (Tests on other

raw materials involved, e.g. crushed concrete and glass frit, showed

insignificant presence of aluminium). Aluminium is known to react

with cement/concrete mixtures to form hydrogen gas.

6.26 The HSE concluded13 that having considered the circumstances of

the specific incident, it has taken no action requiring the omission

of IBAA from foamed or general concrete mixtures for use in civil

engineering works, and has thus not 'banned' IBAA from being

used. The Highways Agency have picked up the issue and has

issued guidance on managing the risk of hydrogen generation when

using IBA in civil engineering works. The guidance is set out in

20 Health And Safety Executive, 2010, Foamed concrete explosion – HSE investigation

update, URL: http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/liveissues/foamedconcrete.htm


38

Interim Advice Note 127/0921 which forms part of the Design

Manual for Roads and Bridges.

6.27 In summary IBA is a material for which the composition and

associated risks are addressed by existing procedures implemented

by the Environment Agency and for which research continues to

inform the approach taken by the Environment Agency to manage

the known risks associated with this material.

TRAFFIC EMISSIONS

7.1 A common theme in the consultation responses from members of

the local community [CD E9] is the view that the existing standard

of air quality along the B3380 (Plymouth Road and Strode Road) is

poor, due to the emissions from the A38. There is also a concern

expressed by local residents that the impact of emissions from the

additional heavy goods vehicles movements on the B3380 must

make the situation a lot worse.

7.2 On a similar theme DCC observe in their Statement of Case [CD G3

para 4.11] that Chapter 12 of the ES did not include an assessment

of the cumulative impact of “PM10 emissions from the HGV

transport, and from the proposed material handling activities”

7.3 The ES does not include a quantitative assessment of the impact of

emissions from the additional heavy goods vehicle movements

associated with the proposed development at all, as the number of

movements is so small that a significant effect on air quality is

unlikely. This conclusion is detailed in the ES and was agreed with

the pollution control officers at Teignbridge District Council [CD A4

para 12.1.8].

21 Highways Agency, 2011, Interim Advice Note 127/09 rev 1 The Use of Foamed Concrete,

March 2011.


39

7.4 While the approach of not quantifying the impact of heavy goods

vehicle emissions on local air quality is justified by technical

guidance [Appendix 3, Item 2], it has meant that local residents

have not been able to easily access detailed information about the

insignificance of this effect prior to the publication of the Addendum

to the ES [CD A12 p129-131].

7.5 An example calculation has been undertaken [Appendix 3, Item 2]

based on a maximum of 100 heavy duty vehicles (>3.5 tonnes)

entering and leaving Whitecleave Quarry per weekday. For the

purposes of the example calculation, vehicles were assumed to

enter the site at the same hourly rate during the proposed hours of

operation on a Saturday. This level of vehicle movements would

increase annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide by 0.47

µg/m3 and annual mean concentrations of both PM10 and PM2.5 by

less than 0.01 µg/m3, at the façade of the closest properties to

Plymouth Road [Appendix 3, Table 2.2].

7.6 The baseline annual mean concentration of nitrogen dioxide is

described in para. 5.11 as being between 30 µg/m3 and 36 µg/m3

and as being likely to be towards the lower end of this range at

properties on the B3380. A small change in annual mean nitrogen

dioxide concentration of 0.47 µg/m3 would have a negligible effect

[Appendix 4] at the receptor location. The imperceptible changes in

annual mean concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 of less than 0.01

µg/m3, would also have a negligible effect at the receptor location.

Overall the effect of a maximum of 100 vehicle movements in and

100 vehicle movements out of the site per day would not be

significant.


40

REASON FOR REFUSAL NUMBER ONE

8.1 In this section of my evidence I address the first reason for refusal

in relation to air quality [CD F1]. DCC withdrew this reason for

refusal when this proof was largely complete. CD F1 states:

“The Proposal would lead to unacceptable adverse impacts on the

amenities of the local community by virtue of increased movement

of HGVs, and an increase in noise and dust generated by the

operations at the site, and is therefore contrary to the provisions of

Policy WPP4 of the adopted Devon County Waste Local Plan, and

contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.”

8.2 The clarification response from the Council dated 7th September

2012 presented the requirement to comply with other policies of

the Devon County Waste Local Plan [CD F2] including:

WPC2 “which states that decisions taken on waste development

proposals will have regard to (among others) adverse impacts

arising from the proposal on: the environment health and amenity

of nearby residents and the likely generation of noise, vibration,

odour, fumes and dust”; and

WPP22 which deals with “matters of air quality which would include

matters related to impacts on amenity from dust”.

8.3 In their Statement of Case the case to be made on behalf of Devon

County Council in connection with the dust aspects for the proposed

Whitecleaves development was given as “that it is too close to the

nearest dwellings for the proposed activities to be an acceptable

planning change” [CDG3 Para 4.1]. I understand this to mean ‘too

close to the nearest dwellings without appropriate mitigation

measures being adopted’, as para 4.5 of the same document states

that “Active management will be required to prevent fugitive

emissions of dust reaching the people living nearby” [CDG3 Para

4.5].


41

8.4 DCC appears to justify the above position with the observation that,

if the site was further away from the nearest residents, “even poor

management and adverse weather conditions would be unlikely to

result in any adverse effects on nearby residents. Any shortcomings

in the active management proposed by the Appellant, (which are

anticipated to become conditions of the Environmental Permit), are

only likely to be rectified in retrospect” [CD G3 Para 4.5].

8.5 Setting aside for a moment the significance of any likely effects on

air quality there are several points that I draw from the paragraphs

above. These are:

a) DCC expect that the Environment Agency will be responsible for

setting conditions to manage potential fugitive emissions of dust

from the MRF and IBA processing facility, if a permit is issued to

the Appellant under the Environmental Permitting Regulations.

b) That while DCC state they will seek to ensure that emissions of

dust “are kept to an acceptable level as perceived by the

Environment Agency” and seek to “avoid duplication of

responsibilities between pollution control and planning control

authorities”, as stated in the Devon Waste Local Plan [CD H1

para. 7.4.11.4], their conclusions appear to prejudge the

outcome of the permit application process.

c) The implication is that a permit requirement to manage dust

emissions is seen by DCC as being an unusual or less desirable

approach, while it is my experience that even standard rules

permits include conditions relating to the implementation of

good practice measures to manage emissions.

8.6 The committee report [CD E4] Devon County Council Development

Management Committee Report, 25/4/12. Appendix III proposed

condition 6 relating to the control of dust specifically from

construction works and conditions 21 and 22 relating to the

management of emissions from the site in more general terms. As


42

proposed by DCC at that time, condition 6 would have provided

protection to public health and amenity from dust during the

construction works and the environmental permit application

period. Subsequently a dust management scheme consistent with

the conditions of a permit, could have been submitted by the site

operator to discharge conditions 21 and 22. In my professional

opinion the draft conditions 6, 21 and 22 represent an appropriate

and reasonable approach to protecting public health, amenity and

the wider environment from emissions of dust and odour (smell)

from the proposed development if delivered in a manner that was

consistent with the conditions of an Environmental Permit.

Construction Phase Emissions

8.7 With respect to assessing the likely dust effects of the proposed

construction phase activities, I begin by establishing the baseline

conditions. As described in Section 5 of this proof and summarised

in para.s 5.30 to 5.34, the ES [CD A4 Chapter 12] and draft

Statement of Common Ground - Air Quality [Appendix 3] establish

the following:

a) There are potentially sensitive receptors close enough to require

a dust assessment to be undertaken (See Figure AQ1, Appendix

2).

b) Meteorological data is available [Appendix 3, Item 5] that

confirms that the typical variation in wind direction at the site

includes conditions capable of transporting airborne dust from

the site towards off-site receptors. Wind speeds occur at the site

that are fast enough for fugitive emissions to be generated from

dry unconsolidated material.

c) Measurement data is available [CD A4 Chapter 12 and Appendix

3, Item 5] that indicates that the air annual mean and 24 hour

mean objectives values for PM10 are achieved near the boundary


43

of the site, by a large margin. The dominant existing source of

PM10 and PM2.5 is the long range transport of sea salts and

secondary aerosol into the study area.

8.8 There are current and proposed activities at Whitecleave Quarry

that have the potential to be a source of particulate matter

emissions, if not subject to mitigation measures. These potential

sources include:

• Resuspension by vehicle movements over site roads and

within the quarry void;

• Fugitive emissions during earthworks;

• Cement batching;

• Fugitive emissions during material handling operations;

• Windblown dust emissions from stockpiles and exposed

surfaces;

• Uncontrolled emissions from mobile crushing or screening

plant; and

• Emissions caused by blasting.

8.9 The ES [CD A4 para 12.4.2] describes incorporated mitigation

measures for the sources listed above apart from blasting. The

scheme of mitigation measures as approved by DCC in 2009

[CDR3] and 2012 [CDR4] are consistent with the measures

considered in the ES.

8.10 The source, the pathway of exposure, the mitigation measures to

be applied and the risk of off-site impacts occurring during the

construction period are set out on the standard reporting forms for

a H1 Annex A risk assessment in Appendix 12.1 of the ES [CD A6].

Although the description of the proposal has changed between the

assessment reported in the ES [CD A4 Chapter 12] and the

addendum [CD A12 Chapter 12], the nature of the sources and the

associated mitigation measures remain the same [CD R4].


44

8.11 These measures represent established good site practices and do

not require any innovative methods to be developed. In addition

the 24 hour mean measurement data from the Osiris unit near the

site boundary at Plymouth Road [Appendix 3, Item 5 Table 2.4] and

the small size of the complaints histories held by DCC, Teignbridge

District Council and the site operator [Appendix 3 Item 6] are all

supportive of the conclusion that the existing dust management

scheme has been effective in mitigating off-site effects.

8.12 The ES concludes that there is the potential for dust effects to occur

at properties within 100 metres of the site boundary, including

properties on Plymouth Road. The ES has considered the

effectiveness of proposed good practice measures that have been

incorporated into the approved 2009 dust management scheme

[CDR3] and concluded that the potential for dust emissions can be

managed at source, such that the likely effect at all off site

receptors would not be significant.

8.13 It is my considered opinion that the conclusion of the ES that

mitigated dust effects at receptors would not be significant is valid,

and is fully supported by the information provided in the H1 Annex

1(a) assessment sheets that form Appendix 12.1 of the ES and the

text of the main ES Chapter.

Operational Phase Emissions

8.14 The operation of the Whitecleaves Quarry redevelopment would

include similar potential sources of emissions to air as are currently

present at the site and as would be present during the construction

phase. Activities such as the loading and unloading of demolition

and construction derived material, the use of mobile crushing and

screening plant and the stockpiling of material all represent

potential sources of fugitive dust emissions, as does the movement

of heavy goods vehicles over the site haul road and within the

quarry void.


45

8.15 The same scheme of control measures as DCC have previously

approved for quarry activities at the site [para. 5.27] should also be

effective at controlling emissions from the operations of MRF related

activities at source, such that adverse effects on the health or

amenity of nearby residents would not occur.

8.16 The MRF operations have more potential to generate emissions to

air than the IBA related processes have as some material will be

subject to handling and storage in the area near the site office

which is not as distant from residential properties as the quarry

void is. Some MRF materials brought onto site will be dry and

potentially dusty and measures within the management scheme to

damp down such material will be required as one of the methods of

minimising the potential for dust emissions from occurring.

8.17 The IBA material has some potential to generate an odour,

although it is likely to be limited. The source of the odour being

unburnt organic material within the IBA and the risk of odour

emissions can be directly managed by the removal of this material.

The odour related condition within a standard rules environmental

permit requires that there are no odours detectable at the site

boundary and I would expect a similar condition to apply for a

bespoke permit as well.

8.18 The potential for dust and odour impacts to occur is considered in

the Environmental Statement [CD A4 Chapter 12 and CDA6

Appendix 12.1] for the operation of the MRF and the IBA processing

activities. The potential sources of emissions , the baseline

environmental conditions and the location of sensitive receptors

remains unchanged since the since was completed. I therefore

consider that the conclusions reported in the Environmental

Statement and the associated H1 Annex A style risk assessment

remain valid.


46

8.19 I consider that the risk of adverse effects of the proposed

construction phase activities on health, amenity and the wider

environment, including local farmland can be effectively managed

through the use of planning conditions and mitigation measures as

were proposed in DCC’s committee report of the 24th July 2012 [CD

E4 Appendix III].

8.20 While I consider it likely that the proposed mitigation scheme and

site design would meet most, if not all of the Environment Agency’s

requirements with respect to dust and odour control, this would be

established through the formal application procedure for the

environmental permit, for which the statutory consultees include

DCC, Teignbridge District Council, Public Health England and

Natural England.

HEALTH AND PERCEPTION OF HEALTH

9.1 The request for a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) was made by

Buckfastleigh Community Forum and Buckfastleigh Town Council.

The study started in October 2011 and a report was published in

January 2012.

9.2 The assessment was published as A Rapid Prospective ‘Desk-top’

Health Impact Assessment of a proposed incinerator bottom ash

(IBA) and material recycling facility [CD C2] and was written by

NHS Devon and URS Scott Wilson under the guidance of a steering

committee. The steering committee was chaired by NHS Devon and

included representation from Devon County Council, MVV,

Environment Agency, Health Protection Agency (now part of Public

Health England), Teignbridge District Council Environmental Health

Department, and 3 residents of Buckfastleigh. 2 of the resident

representatives were members of Buckfastleigh Community Forum.

I was involved as the URS Scott Wilson Representative.

9.3 The assessment approach was based upon the structure and

content of the NHS Plymouth’s Health Impact Assessment (HIA)


47

Framework. The phrase ‘desk-top’ was included in the title of the

study to indicate that the assessment had not included interviews

with individuals within the study area. Lay perspectives were

collated from letters sent to the planning authority and from the

direct involvement of residents representatives.

9.4 The baseline health profile of Buckfastleigh [CD C2 p.41-44]

indicates that the indices of multiple deprivation in Buckfastleigh

are average in most locations and below average in one location.

Life expectancy is high when compared nationally and to Devon.

Emergency admissions for respiratory conditions in the most

deprived areas of the town are significanctly higher than the Devon

average. The most deprived area is not closest to the site.

9.5 The HIA adapted a checklist used by the Health Urban Development

Unit to make it more applicable to an industrial development and

used it to identify issues of public concern [CD C2 Appendix 1]. The

proposed development as reported in the Environmental Statement,

were considered against a series of potential impacts.

9.6 In reporting the impacts the form of the impact is reported as being

direct or indirect and either positive or negative. The report then

recommends the assurances that the planning authority should

seek with respect to each potential impact. The HIA does not

consider if an impact would be significant, it only considers if an

impact could possibly happen if nothing stopped it from occurring.

9.7 For example, having identified that air quality and neighbourhood

amenity are issues of public concern, the next step was to identify

that the proposal would be a source of additional dust and report

this as a negative impact. The proposal would also be a source of

additional air pollution and so this is also reported as a negative

impact. The report then acknowledges in the Mitigation and

Planning Controls Section, that the proposal has the potential to

impact air quality and neighbourhood amenity and that it is


48

believed that it can be dealt with by mitigation measures. Finally

the report recommends that to address potential impacts from

exposure to risks from IBA details of complaints, monitoring and

evidence in relation to similar plants in the UK should be used to

inform required mitigation.

9.8 The steering group was guided in its decision as to whether or not a

potential impact could be managed by mitigation measures or

controlled by planning conditions, by the professional members of

the group. The representative from the Environment Agency and

the Pollution Control representative from Teignbridge District

Council advised on the viability of mitigating potential emissions at

source. The health professionals advised on health concerns.

9.9 The HIA analysed 174 letters received by Devon Council in relation

to the application and identified 14 themes that issues could be

grouped under. Figure 3 [CD C2 p.18] illustrates the frequency with

which concerns were raised and the spacial distribution of the

concerned people is illustrated in Appendix 2 [CD C2 p.45-46]. The

top 7 public concerns relating to the Whitecleave Development

were, in descending order:

1) Traffic

2) Dust

3) Ecology

4) Noise

5) Impact on Tourism Business

6) Water

7) Health

9.10 The concluding remarks do not distinguish between actions that are

best delivered through the planning application process or those

that are delivered through the environmental permitting process.

There were no air quality related issues of public concern identified


49

that the steering group did not think could be managed by a

mitigation measure or a planning condition. With respect to air

quality and dust the concluding comments were:

a) “To mitigate against the potential impact from exposure to risks

from IBA details of complaints, monitoring and evidence in

relation to similar plants in the UK should be used to inform

required precautions”;

b) “A cautionary approach should be adopted in air quality when

determining the application and deciding planning controls for

moving, processing and handling and storing IBA”;

c) To mitigate against deterioration in air quality assurance is

required that the air quality and dust suppression measures …

will reduce the negative health impact.

d) The air quality assessment should consider the risk of

contamination to local foodstuffs.

9.11 Points a) to c) above are all points that would be addressed as a

normal part of the Environment Agency’s role as pollution

regulatory authority. Recommendation a) is advising that the

controls on IBA process should be informed by lessons learnt from

other similar sites. The Environment Agency has issued permits to

IBA treatment facilities in other residential areas including Castle

Bromwich and London and are best placed to monitor the

effectiveness of emission management plans at existing IBA

treatment facilities.

9.12 For all practical purposes recommendations b) and c) are advising

the same thing, namely that the regulatory authority should be

confident that the proposed mitigation measures will work before

the conditions are set. As the fraction of the IBA material that is

most likely to generate emissions of particulate matter is physically

similar to other potentially dusty materials, there are established


50

methods available that have a track record of limiting the amount

of material that becomes airborne.

9.13 The HIA included a comment that the air quality assessment should

consider the risk of contamination to local foodstuffs (comment d).

The risk assessment reported in Appendix 12.1 of the ES [CD A6

Appendix 12.1, 3rd Table] explicitly referred to surrounding farmland

as a potential receptor location considered in the assessment of

fugitive dust emissions from the storage and handling of materials

(IBA processing facility). The assessment identifies the potential

pathways (without mitigation) as being wind blown dust from dried

out stockpiles and airborne dust lifted by mechanical processes. The

risk assessment [CD A6, Appendix 12.1] concludes that the

pathway by which dust would be transferred to potential receptors

can be controlled at source to prevent a significant effect from

occurring on areas of food production or at other relevant

receptors.

9.14 The regulatory authority can have a high level of confidence that if

applied diligently, measures are available to prevent significant

effects from occurring at off-site receptors due to activities that

have the potential to generate emissions of particulate matter,

including IBA particles. It is a feature of many passive dust control

measures and active measures, such as damping down, that the

amount of mitigation effort required of the site operator needs to

change in response to emerging environmental conditions.

9.15 In their statement of case DCC make the point that [CD G3, para

4.16] “Due to the proximity of the proposed development to the

nearest dwellings, the associated activities will increase PM10

exposure for the people living in them, with consequent adverse

health effects. In conclusion the location is not suitable for the

proposed development, due to its potential adverse impact on

nearby residents”.


51

9.16 NPPF-TG [CD K2 para 27 and Figure 1.1] provides a framework for

the assessment of health effects of dust which is based on

concentrations of PM10. Following the site assessment flow chart

there are receptors within 1km of the development site, so next we

consider if PM10 is likely to exceed an air quality objective.

9.17 The impact of the additional heavy goods vehicle movements would

increase baseline annual mean PM10 concentrations of 15 µg/m3 by

less than 0.01 µg/m3 [para 7.5] and that 24 hour mean baseline

concentrations of PM10 at the Plymouth Road monitoring site is 24

µg/m3 [Appendix 3 Item 5]. The probability of PM10 concentrations

exceeding either of the health based air quality objectives for PM10

is extremely small. As the conclusion is that as PM10 concentrations

are unlikely to exceed an objective value, the assessment

framework identifies the adoption of good practice measures to

control dust emissions as being appropriate. NPPF-TG does not

indicate that it is appropriate to refuse a planning application

because residential properties will be exposed to an increase in

PM10 concentrations that raises concentrations to a value that is

below the value of the objective value.

CONCLUSIONS

10.1 In their statement of case [CD G3] DCC highlight the following

aspects of the air quality assessment reported in the ES on which

they required clarification and which have been addressed in a draft

Statement of Common Ground [Appendix 3], namely:

• technical details relating to the meteorological data reported

in the ES;

• technical details relating to baseline PM10 and PM2.5 data

reported in the ES;


52

• the robustness of the opinion expressed in the ES that heavy

goods vehicle movements would be so few in number, that

emissions would be unlikely to have a significant effect; and

• details of mitigation measures proposed for the construction

and operational phases of the development.

10.2 In their statement of case [CD G3] DCC highlight concerns over the

proximity of residential receptors to the proposed development, the

need for any mitigation measures to control emissions of dust, and

the fact that dust (PM10) exposure would increase at all as a result

of the proposed development.

10.3 I have shown by reference to NPPF-TG, the information contained in

the ES and the Rapid HIA, that emissions from activities undertaken

at the MRF and IBA processing facility do not present an unusual

risk and that good practice measures are available to control

emissions at source. Thereby minimising the potential for adverse

effects to occur. I have described the central role of the

Environment Agency as the pollution control authority in

determining the necessary form of mitigation measures and any

monitoring required to protect human health, public amenity and

the wider environment.

10.4 DCC maintains no objection to the development on dust or air

quality grounds.

10.5 I have shown, by reference to their engagement in the planning

application process, including the rapid health impact assessment,

that the Environment Agency, Public Health England (then the

Health Protection Agency) and the Pollution Control Officers from

Teignbridge District Council are satisfied at this time that potential

effects of dust on amenity or health could be controlled at source

by good practice measures. None of these organisations have

objections to the development on dust or air quality grounds.


53

10.6 Air quality related concerns are also stated in CDE9, the bundle of

third party representations since the Appeal was launched, that

have been repeated in The Buckfastleigh Community Forum (BCF)

Statement of Case (CDG4). The additional concerns raised by BCF

and members of the public are:

a) The appropriateness of the wind gauge location for assessing

potential or actual impacts of dust emissions generated at the

quarry site;

b) The perceived effect on amenity and health of emissions from

heavy goods vehicles;

c) The potential for emissions of PM10 to disperse to locations 1 km

from the source as stated in the ES, Chapter 12;

d) The presence of toxic substances within IBA; and

e) The effect on amenity, health and well-being of emissions from

the operation of the MRF and IBA facility.

10.7 Though understandable, the concerns relating to meteorological

data (a) and road traffic emissions (b) have no basis in fact. These

issues have been addressed in the document prepared by Dr Hill

and myself [Appendix 3, Items 5 and 2]. Having identified the

potential for an effect to occur without mitigation measures being

applied (c), the ES has addressed this issue through the

identification of appropriate mitigation and has demonstrated that

the likely effect is not significant at any receptor location.

10.8 I have shown, by reference to the performance of the existing

approved management scheme and the environmental permitting

process that would follow a successful appeal, that those concerns

which remain ( d, and e) will be considered by the pollution control

authority and the risks mitigated by management measures

through environmental permitting. This includes the form of any


54

controls or monitoring required beyond those in the current

approved scheme.

10.9 As the construction and operation of the development can be

realised without having a significant effect at any air quality

sensitive receptor, it is my considered opinion that future

concentrations of particulate matter (including PM10, PM2.5) will not

be prevented from continuing to achieve the air quality objectives

by a large margin, at all receptor locations in Buckfastleigh or the

wider community.

10.10 In addition, as the proposed development only has limited potential

to generate odour, from the unburnt organic component of the IBA,

it should possible to manage odour by removal of this material, so

that there is no odour detectable beyond the site boundary [CD A4

para 12.1.9].

10.11 I consider that the approach to the control of emissions as proposed

and the likely effects are consistent with air quality related policies

for the promotion of sustainable development and the protection of

public amenity and public health as set out in the National Planning

Policy Framework, Devon Waste Local Plan (Policy WPC2, WPP4,

WPP22, WPP32), and Teignbridge District Local Plan (Policy ENV9).

m26 proof of evidence: air quality - home - devon · pdf fileproof of evidence: air quality...

Documents