Download - Chris lowe
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.