Tackling PM10 Pollution

Horn Lane, Acton

Chris Lowe

EPR Installations & COMAH Team

Hertfordshire and North London

Other possible sources of PM10

Traffic on Horn Lane & on the A40 – caused by traffic

lights and mini-roundabouts

Buses using the bus stand & bus stop on Horn Lane

Trains on the adjacent railway lines

Crossrail construction works

Horn Lane Metals (Exempt scrap metal merchants)

Regional & Trans-Boundary PM10 Pollution

“Ealing 8” - Local Air Quality Monitoring Station

Installed September 2005

PM10

Annual Mean (ug/m3)

Limit

40ug/m3

2006 Value

60ug/m3

PM10

24hr mean (days)

Limit

50ug/m3 x 35 times

2006 Value

205 times

Where is it coming from?

“Ealing 8” shows the PM10 source on a bearing suggesting Gowing & Pursey, Hanson Concrete, Horn Lane Metals and Yeoman Aggregates are principle sources

“Turnkey” optical system installed on two of the waste sites

Monitoring challenges

Poor data capture

Poor data reporting

Calibration

Maintenance

Heathrow wind data

Operator competence

Location

Way forward

Variation

Monitoring, Reporting, Review & Improve

Ensured appropriate measures

Buildings Damping down

Mist suppression systems Wheel wash

Screening/Sheeting No idling zones

Reduce/Remove the source

Reduced tonnage No treatment processes

Exemptions Max volume on site at any time

End of 2012 ......

PM10

Annual Mean (ug/m3)

Limit

40ug/m3

2006 Value

60ug/m3

2012 Value

34ug/m3

PM10

24hr mean (days)

Limit

50ug/m3 x 35 times

2006 Value

205 times

2012 Value

48 times

Supporting Actions

Emission Management Plans

Quick Guide – Sharing experiences

R & D Project - To enclose or not enclose?

Emission Management Plans

Get a good Emission Management Plan for dust and particulates in place (We have a template that we can share!)

In this they need to list sources List the pathways List the receptors Detail what abatement they intend to use and when And importantly what they will do when all this doesn’t work!

Quick Guide

Information on how to control dust and particulates was very thin on the ground so we created guidance.

We came up with 26 options

and split them into Preventative

and Abatement measures.

R+D Project

How effective are the established abatement technologies?

They often require active management oversight and are regularly forgotten

Are passive options more effective?

Are the costs proportionate?

R+D Project - continued

Project to demonstrate the long term efficacy of enclosures compared to traditional water based spray methods.

Two sites, four monitoring locations (upwind & downwind)

Influence NPS to require full enclosure of waste management sites in AQMAs.

R+D Project - continued

Site 1 – Heathrow

1. Water spray systems,

2. C+D waste,

3. Transfer & treatment,

4. No enclosures,

5. 100,000 tpa.

R+D Project - continued

Site 2 – Willesden

1. Large fully enclosed site

2. C+D waste,

3. Transfer & treatment,

4. Some inert treatment

outside,

5. 900,000 tpa.

R+D Project - continued

Results

1. Significantly lower PM10/PM2.5 emissions at enclosed site

2. Cost benefit analysis still to be carried out to compare initial purchase and running cost of “traditional” water based suppression vs initial construction and running cost of building.

3. Other cost to consider in CBA? Enhanced regulation Health costs Impacts on other services

Engagement Monitoring

R+D Project - continued

Final report is available.

It is being used to influence the next generation of Standard Rule Permits and to develop an enclosure policy for new waste transfer stations located in AQMAs with small entry/exits.