Agenda item

Report on Air Quality in Halton 2015

Minutes:

The Board considered a report of the Director of Public Health which presented an overview of air quality in Halton. It also presented a summary of national and local air quality monitoring, progress against National and European Air Quality legislation and provided a response to a petition for Air Monitors received by the Council in March 2015.

It was noted that on the 6^th March 2015, the Council had received a petition entitled “Request for the Council to Monitor the Air Quality for PM2.5 and other toxins” which contained 5,632 signatures. In response to the petition, the report identified the facts around air quality and air quality monitoring in Halton within the national and international frameworks and identified the following recommendations to address the issues raised in the report and ensure that air quality in Halton remained good and ultimately to improve health and wellbeing in Halton:-

i) Undertake a series of public engagement events to build a greater understanding of the concerns local people had regarding air quality in Halton and identify opportunities to build improved transparent relationships to ensure a clear way forward in all concerns;

ii) Develop an active multi-agency Air Quality Forum (including lay representation) to enable issues and concerns could be raised and discussed in an open, engaged forum and facilitate agreement on actions and outcomes.

iii) Investigate further opportunities to limit emissions and reduce NO₂ in areas of potential high traffic activity around built up areas and achieve compliance with NO₂Air Quality Objectives.

iv) Develop a full Air Quality Strategy, based on available local and national data and evidence to ensure that Halton was able to sustain recent improvements in Air Quality across the Borough and proactively seek to remove the declaration of Air Quality Management Areas within the Borough.

In accordance with Standing Order No.34 (9), the following public questions were submitted to the Board by email:

QUESTION 1 - ANNE-MARIE ATHERTON

Halton Borough Council, as quoted in an article in Liverpool Echo,states that the only air quality measure that the Borough fails is the level of Nitrous Oxide/nitrogen dioxide and that this comes from road traffic. I would like to draw your attention to an article produced by the United States Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/asthma/no2.html

This article shows a clear link between severe asthmatic attacks and high levels of Nitrous Oxide/nitrogen dioxide.

I would also like to draw your attention to a published scientific paper which prove nitrous oxide/nitrogen dioxide is produced by waste incinerators of which there is one in Runcorn and one (at least) in Widnes. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5_3_Waste_Incineration.pdf

Therefore I would like to question how does Halton Borough Council air quality investigations distinguish between road traffic nitrogen dioxide and that produced by incinerators?

The medical/treatment cost of the high incidence of asthma and COPD in the borough could be drastically reduced if the air quality was improved - so why does the local council want to do nothing about improving health and quality of life for its inhabitants?

RESPONSE

Part 1

Nitrogen Dioxide is produced and emitted by combustion processes, and therefore incinerators do produce Nitrogen Dioxide. Air monitoring can not distinguish between Nitrogen Dioxide from different sources. The results of monitoring undertaken across the Borough, for Nitrogen Dioxide show that levels, including those in and around Weston Point, are well below the national legal levels in all but the designated Air Quality Management Areas within Widnes. The Air Quality Management Areas in Widnes were declared 3 years prior to the development of the Energy from Waste incinerator. While we can not determine the source of the Nitrogen dioxide using the monitors, we have identified that traffic is the cause of the higher rates in the AQMAs. A series of monitoring has taken place across the Borough, the only areas recording higher levels are the 2 small areas in Widnes which are known to suffer from traffic congestion. Industry within Widnes can not be the cause of the higher levels in these areas as the higher levels would be recorded across Widnes and not concentrated within these 2 small areas.

I draw your attention to the figure on page 25 of the report which shows the independent air quality monitoring carried out in Weston Point, and highlights that Nitrogen Dioxide levels in Weston Point, with the full running of the Energy from Waste plant are below objective levels in all areas except at the kerbside of the express way. This shows that higher Nitrogen Dioxide levels are a result of the emission from vehicles, and not as a result of emissions from the incinerator.

Part 2

It is accepted that high levels of air pollution can and does impact upon health, including an association between high levels of Nitrogen Dioxide and potential increased exacerbations of asthma.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency article referred to in the question, highlights the link between high Nitrogen Dioxide levels and severe asthma attacks. We would like to highlight that the Air Quality Standards adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for Nitrogen Dioxide are a yearly average concentration of 100mg/m³, compared to the UK yearly average of 40mg/m^3.The United States Environmental Protection Agency states that “the existing [US] annual primary standard appears to be both adequate and necessary to protect human health against both long- and short-term NO2 exposures”. In Halton, the highest annual average Nitrogen Dioxide level measured in the Air Quality Management Area is 41.1 mg/m³, which, while it breaches the UK Air Quality Objectives, would not exceed the US standard if this was applied and under this basis would not be considered at levels that are harmful to health as described within this article.

Halton data shows that prevalence of asthma, and hospital admissions for asthma (which are indicative of the number of severe asthma attacks) do not correlate with areas that exceed Nitrogen Dioxide objectives. It is not possible to say therefore that higher Nitrogen Dioxide levels are the cause of asthma and asthma admissions in Halton.

As identified in the report, the Council is committed to improving air quality and particularly within the Air Quality Management Areas, and has undertaken, and continues to undertake, a series of measures, as highlighted in the report.

QUESTION 2 - COLIN BUTLER

Considering that the DCC committee refused to endorse INEOS’s proposal for a single point monitor, which was positioned up wind of the Incinerator, does this present Committee consider it to be a good use of funds that will available from the fund provided by the incinerator to be used for additional monitoring as proposed by the original Section 106 agreement between HBC and INEOS when planning permission was granted. The reason for this not being implemented is due to the fact that a Public Inquiry (which cost INEOS around £1/2m) decided that INEOS under the strict legal definition had met the particular condition as stated in the permit.

The fact that there were 4 assurances given in the planning application which were:-

No steam will reach ground level

There will be no noise complaints

There will be no complaints regarding odour all being proven as not being met.

With the only one not being able to be proven incorrect is that the emissions will not be at the required limits at ground level because INEOS have refused to implement additional monitoring which the DCC deemed necessary hopefully will further illustrate that this additional monitoring is what the local residents deserve.

RESPONSE

The Section 106 referred to in the question states that the lump sum payments made to the Council as part of the development, are to be used by the Council to fund environmental matters as may be specified from time to time by the Council within the Borough of Halton for the benefit of its residents generally and which may include measures to improve public transport, highway network improvements, travel plan monitoring, waste recycling and wider community improvements such as landscaping and nature conservation measures. The spending of the monies received by the Council as part of the Section 106 agreement is not a matter the Environment and Urban Renewal Policy and Performance Board can decide. The monies from the development must be spent in accordance with the legal agreement which states that the Council will convene a management board, which shall include three elected members, to be charged with the task of identifying environmental matters proposed within the Borough of Halton. The management board will determine how the fund is to be used in accordance with the legal agreement.

The monitors at the Brine Reservoir site are located within the predicted plume direction from the Energy from Waste plant and therefore appropriate for monitoring any emissions from this site. These monitors have not measured above objective levels of pollutants.

Supplementary Question:

The Section 106 agreement for the incinerator planning application has not yet been implemented. Would it be within the remit of this Board to determine how the funds allocated as part of the Section 106 are distributed?

Response:

QUESTION 3 - SAMANTHA BENNION

Considering the number of complaints that have been received about the incinerator along with all of the stress that the plant has caused could the Committee consider that use of the funds the Council receive from the plant are used to provide a monitoring system that is the same as the one in place at Weston Brine and is placed at an appropriate place that will be downwind of the incinerator. This would give the local residents the reassurance that we deserve for having the incinerator dumped on our doorstep whilst at the same time using cash which is not from the general purse and has been earmarked for use of the local community.

RESPONSE

With regards to the Committee determining the spend of the monies received by the Council under a Section 106 agreement, I refer to the response given previously to question 2. The legal agreement for the Section 106 states that a management board will determine the spend based with the terms stated within the agreement and it is not a matter that this committee can agree.

With regards to an additional monitoring site, the prevailing winds in the area are westerly and north westerly and within the direction of a likely plume from the stack, the brine reservoir location was determined to be appropriate on this basis. This location was agreed by an Environment Agency expert and the Planning Inspector subsequently reviewed this location and deemed it appropriate for the discharge of the condition regarding monitoring.

Alternative sites were also considered but were not deemed suitable for a variety of reasons.

Locating a second monitor in the area will not provide additional information above that which we received from the Brine reservoir site in terms of air quality. As identified within the report, the Council has commissioned an independent Air Quality Consultancy to model air quality across Weston, and results show that pollutants are all within objective levels (other than directly on the express way).

QUESTION 4 - SHEENA MADDOCK

Many residents have made complaints concerning emissions from the chimney stack and there are major concerns within the community that the monitoring of the site has been dictated by INEOS and we now have the opportunity to use the cash the Council receive from the company to fund additional monitoring. With this in mind would the Council please consider using this money to fund additional monitoring in line with that hoped for by the Planning Committee at the time of the original application made by INEOS?

RESPONSE

As identified in response to previous questions (question 2). The monies received by the Council form a Section 106 agreement, the terms of which identify how the monies can be spent and the process for this to take place. Considerations will be made based on these terms.

QUESTION 5 - DARRIN WHYTE

The petition was "Air Monitors for Halton",as we know Halton consists of the towns of Runcorn and Widnes and the civil parishes of Hale, Daresbury, Moore, Preston Brook, Halebank and Sandymoor the only AQMA's are in Widnes.

Is it right to rely on diffusion tubes for the basis of a detailed assesment on Air Quality along with using data from pollution stations to forcast future events, which for Runcorn are in Warrington, Speke and Tranmere should we have Air Monitors or diffusion tubes to monitor our polluted air?

RESPONSE

As stated within the report, Halton has a series of air monitors which monitor air quality directly within the Borough. We currently have 22 active monitors:

· 16 diffusion tubes monitoring NO2

o 12 in Widnes

o 4 in Runcorn

· 3 real time analysers undertaking continuous monitoring for NO2

o 1 on Milton Road (part of the national AURN network)

o 1 on Marzhan Way in Widnes

o 1 at the brine reservoir Runcorn

· 2 real time analysers undertaking continuous monitoring for particulates

o 1 on Milton Road which measures PM10

o 1 at the brine reservoir which measures both PM10 and PM2.5.

· 1 Monitor for dioxins at the brine reservoir.

The national Automatic Urban and Rural Network, maintained by DEFRA is a national network of monitoring stations which provides national data, local sites include Widnes, Tranmere, Speke and Warrington. The data is provided hourly to DEFRA and is used to assess ambient air quality, identify rapid changes in air quality and assess long term changes in air quality. This data is not received directly by the Council but this data is additional to the monitoring data undertaken locally.

Monitors can be, and are, relocated regularly to areas where there is a potential to exceed objective levels so that appropriate measures can be taken to prevent elevated levels.

QUESTION 6 - JACKIE FLOREK

Because

1. statistics already show long-term significant health problems,

2. Halton now has a large EfW Incinerator,

3. there are increasing numbers of lorries bringing waste to the

Runcorn EfW Incinerator,

4. the stack was significantly reduced in height from the original design

(because it is in a flight path) which reduces dispersal efficiency,

5. people living next to it are experiencing conditions which we were

assured would not happen,

6. the Brine Reservoir readings 2012-13 showed there were 5

instances of pollution levels being exceeded,

7. the monitoring in Runcorn is mainly by *diffusion tubes,

("Local Authorities are advised not to rely upon *diffusion tube data alone as the basis of a

Detailed Assessment..." and "The accuracy of the tubes should be quantified by means of

a co-location study with a fully calibrated chemiluminescent analyser."

http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/laqm-faqs/faq67.html)

I am asking on behalf of Halton Residents please will the Council either use

the money they receive from the EfW Incinerator or seek external funding (or

a combination of both) to put in place more and better placed and more

appropriate air quality monitoring in Halton which will include monitoring for

PM2.5 and all potentially harmful pollutants?

Please note I am not questioning whether the Council does or or does not comply with their legal obligation.

RESPONSE

As identified in the response to the previous question (Question 5), the Council has additional appropriate monitors over and above the diffusion tube monitors. One of which is placed at the Brine reservoir site which monitors Nitrogen Dioxide, Particulate at PM10 and PM2.5 and dioxides. This location is appropriate to identify emissions from the Energy from Waste plant as it was determined to sit within the direction of the prevailing wind and within the likely predicted path of the plume from the incinerator stack.

In addition, as identified within the response to question 3, the monies received under the Section 106 agreement will be spent in accordance with the conditions within the legal agreement and determined by a management group, as laid out within that agreement. Any considerations will be made by this management group once it is up and running.

All monitoring at the Brine Reservoir sites show that air quality is within permitted levels. The levels have been set by Europe and the UK at levels that will protect health, as the air quality monitored within this area is within these levels, it cannot be identified as a cause of ill health.

QUESTION 7 - MR MARK CAMPBELL

There is much concern that when the incinerator stack was reduced by 10 mts that this would result in the dispersal from the stack not to be as efficient considering that the original height was the recommended height. Could the committee consider recommending additional monitoring is put in a downwind location to provide additional monitoring of the emissions from the site. I believe Weston School was recommended place.

RESPONSE

As mentioned in the response to previous questions, the current monitoring site located at the Brine Reservoir represents an appropriate and recommended location for monitoring potential activity from the site, being located along the predicted plume path. Current monitoring indicated that all measured pollutants are within objective levels. The reduction in the height of the stack does not appear to have resulted in any dispersal issues and additional monitoring would not be beneficial.

Alternative locations were considered but discounted during the planning stages and the Brine Reservoir location was considered appropriate.

Supplementary Question:

How can you be certain monitors are in the right position when the plant has not been open that long?

Response:

As part of the planning process metrological data was collated on all aspects of the plant including an analysis of prevailing winds, the location of the monitors were identified as the most likely were the plant plume path would fall.

<1RESOLVED: That

1. the report be noted; and

2. the recommendations contained within the report be submitted to Executive Board and it be recommended by this Board that those recommendations be supported.

Supporting documents: