Rochford District Council

Local Air Quality Management – Detailed Assessment Report

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 November 2004

Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

DOCUMENT INFORMATION AND CONTROL SHEET

Client

Rochford District Council Project Manager Mary Rickard Council Offices Martin Howlett South Street Tel: 01702 318045 Rochford Fax: Essex SS4 1BW

Environmental Consultant

Casella Stanger Project Manager Sharon Atkins Great Guildford House Tel: 0207 9026167 30 Great Guildford Street Fax: 0207 9026149 London SE1 0ES

Project Team Sharon Atkins Principal Author Sharon Atkins Yvonne Brown

Document Status and Approval Schedule

IStatus Description Prepared by: Reviewed by: s Sharon Atkins Yvonne Brown s Senior Consultant Principal Consultant u e Signed/Dated Signed/Dated Draft Issued to client by email Report

Final Issued to client by email Report and post

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

CONTENTS Page

Executive summary

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Project Background 1 1.2 Summary of Review and Assessment 1 1.3 The First Round of Review and Assessment 1 1.4 The Second Round of Review and Assessment 1 1.5 Scope and Methodology of the Detailed Assessment 2 2. Local Monitoring Data 4

2.1 PM10 Partisol 2025 Monitoring Data 4 2.2 NO2 Diffusion Tube Monitoring Data 8 3. Conclusions and Recommendations 10

4. Appendix 1 A Summary of PM10 Partisol 2025 Monitoring Data 11

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 i Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 places a statutory duty on local authorities to review and assess the air quality within their area and take account of Government Guidance when undertaking such work. The Detailed Assessment is a requirement of the second round of review and assessment for local authorities that have identified areas for further assessment in their previously submitted Updating and Screening Assessment (USA). The Detailed Assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Technical Guidance LAQM.TG (03). Between 1998 and 2001, Rochford District Council undertook its first round of review and assessment of air quality. The first round assessments concluded that it was not necessary to declare any Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) for any pollutant. The first phase of the second round of review and assessment, the Updating and Screening Assessment (USA), was completed in October 2003 and this provided an update with respect to air quality issues within Rochford District Council. The USA concluded that a detailed assessment was required for particulates (PM10) due to the fugitive emissions from the Rawreth Industrial Estate potentially leading to exceedences of the 24-hour mean objective at nearby residential properties. A three month PM10 monitoring study has been undertaken using a Partisol 2025 gravimetric analyser located at one of the nearest residential properties upwind of the industrial site to assess the number of exceedences of the 24-hour mean objective.

This report also considers the NO2 annual mean objective, through diffusion tube monitoring at three sites (A130 Rawreth, Eastwood Road/High Street/ Rochford Market Square) that were predicted to be marginally below (within 10%) the objective in the USA, to demonstrate compliance with the objective.

The three months of monitored PM10 data was annualised in accordance with LAQM.TG (03). The annualised PM10 results indicate that exceedences of the 24-hour mean Objective may occur. There are predicted to be greater than 35 exceedences of 50μg/m3 over the year, which can be largely attributed to local fugitive emissions sources. The monitoring was undertaken over the summer months when it is considered that fugitive emissions sources are at their worst and therefore there may be a reduction in the equivalent exceedences due to local sources in the winter. It is therefore recommended that PM10 monitoring be continued at the nearest relevant receptors to the Rawreth Industrial Estate to assess compliance with the Objective. It should also be noted that improvements to the T J Cottis site (which has been the main source of reported dust complaints and where monitoring has been focused) are likely to occur in the near future, which will reduce the fugitive emissions from this site. T J Cottis has submitted a planning application to Essex County Council to construct a partial canopy to enclose the main dust generating activities on site and this is likely to gain approval by the end of the year.

A review of monitoring results show that there is a potential exceedence of the annual mean NO2 objective at the Eastwood Road/High Street junction in Rayleigh. It should be noted that the assessment is based on the 5 months available data and no bias correction has been made for 2004. The risk of exceedence at the nearest sensitive receptors to this junction warrant further consideration and it is recommended that a detailed assessment be undertaken at this junction.

It is recommended that NO2 monitoring be continued at the current sites to assess compliance with the annual mean Objective. In addition, monitoring should be undertaken at the nearest sensitive receptor to the Eastwood Road/High Street Junction in Rayleigh. It is recommended that Rochford District Council consider declaring an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) on the basis of the potential exceedences in the assessment area as highlighted in this Detailed Assessment Report where exposure criteria are fulfilled. The proposed improvements at the TJ Cottis site are likely to greatly reduce the emissions of fugitive dust and monitoring of PM10 is recommended in order to further assess compliance with the 24-hour mean Objective.

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Executive Summary Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background Part IV of the Environment Act, 1995, places a statutory duty on local authorities to periodically review and assess the air quality within their area. The Detailed Assessment is a requirement of the Second Round of Review and Assessment for local authorities that have identified areas where there is a risk of exceedence of an air quality objective within their Updating and Screening Assessment. Casella Stanger was commissioned by Rochford District Council to undertake their Detailed Assessment based on the

information received by the local authority through a three-month PM10 monitoring programme.

1.2 Summary of Review and Assessment Guidelines for the ‘Review and Assessment’ of local air quality were published in the 1997 National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) 1 and associated guidance and technical guidance. In 2000, Government reviewed the NAQS and set down a revised Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland2 (AQS). This set down a revised framework for air quality standards and objectives for seven pollutants, which were subsequently set in Regulation in 2000 through the Air Quality Regulations 20003. These were subsequently amended in 20024.

1.3 The First Round of Review and Assessment Rochford District Council undertook their First Round of review and assessment, including Stage 1, 2 and 3 reports, during 1998 – 2001. The First Round predicted that the air quality objectives should be met by their target dates. The main issues with

respect to local air quality were found to be road traffic emissions (NO2 and PM10) emanating from vehicles on the A127 Southend Arterial Road and A130 Chelmsford Road, but it was not necessary to declare any Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) for any pollutant.

1.4 The Second Round of Review and Assessment The Second Round of Review and Assessment commenced in 2003. New Technical Guidance (LAQM.TG (03))5, Policy Guidance (LAQM.PG (03))6 and Progress Report Guidance (LAQM.PRG (03))7 were issued on behalf of Defra in 2003. This guidance sets the framework for the requirements of review and assessment for future years, taking account of experiences from the previous round of review and assessment. The Updating and Screening Assessment (USA) was the first phase of the Second Round of Review and Assessment. Similarly to Stage One of the First Round, there was consideration of the seven pollutants of concern to health and an assessment was made as to whether Air Quality Objectives for these pollutants would be met.

1 DoE (1997) The United Kingdom Nation Air Quality Strategy The Stationery Office 2 DETR (2000) The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – Working together for Clean Air, The Stationery Office 3 DETR (2000) The Air Quality Regulations 2000, The Stationery Office 4 Defra (2002) The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: Addendum, The Stationery Office 5 Defra (2003) Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(03), Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, Local Air Quality Management, The Stationery Office 6 Defra (2003) Policy Guidance LAQM.PG(03), Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, Local Air Quality Management, The Stationery Office 7 Defra (2003) Progress Report Guidance LAQM.PRG(2003), Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, Local Air Quality Management, The Stationary Office

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 1 Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

Rochford District Council completed this in October 2003, with the conclusion that a

Detailed Assessment was required for the PM10 24-hour Objective at residential properties in the vicinity of the Rawreth Industrial Estate where a number of fugitive

PM10 emissions source are located. It was also recommended to undertake NO2 monitoring at the nearest receptors to the A130 in Rawreth, the High Street/Eastwood Road junction in Rayleigh and Rochford Market Square to confirm compliance with

the annual mean NO2 Objective. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has accepted the USA conclusions.

1.5 Scope and Methodology of the Detailed Assessment The approach to the Detailed Assessment is to provide the local authority with an opportunity to supplement the information they have gathered in their earlier review and assessment work and more accurately assess the impact of pollution sources on local receptors at identified hotspots in their Updating and Screening Assessment

(USA). A number of fugitive PM10 emission sources at Rawreth Industrial Estate were identified as a potential source of exceedence of the PM10 24 hour objective at nearby residential properties and requiring detailed assessment. These potential sources are shown in table 1 and Figure 1below. It should be noted that there are other potential

sources of fugitive PM10 emissions in the vicinity, such as adjacent arable farming, which will also contribute to elevated measured PM10 concentrations during the drier summer months. There have been complaints regarding fugitive dust but historically there has been no monitoring data to confirm whether dust is solely nuisance dust or combined impacts of the Rawreth Industrial Estate processes, traffic and background

levels are leading to exceedences of PM10 air quality objectives. In additional to the operational activities at these site which may lead to fugitive emissions, vehicle movements on the main haul road through the industrial site used by all commercial premises have been identified as a source of resuspended dust.

Table 1 Potential Fugitive PM10 dust emissions sources at Rawreth Industrial Estate Site Post ID Site type Site Name Operator code X Y Complaints? Yes, complaints from residential Waste transfer site properties 2 and soil screener T J Cottis T J Cottis SS6 9RL 579633 192177 along boundary 3 Waste transfer site Franklyn Jay Franklyn Jay SS6 9RL 579600 192400 No 4 Waste transfer site Carters Yard J T Waste SS6 9RL 579535 192167 No Abbey Abbey 8 Stone masons Memorials Memorials SS6 9RL 579644 192287 No

Although, there was no requirement to undertake a detailed assessment for NO2, it was recommended to undertake monitoring at the nearest receptors to the A130 in Rawreth, the High Street/Eastwood Road junction in Rayleigh and Rochford Market Square to confirm the findings of the USA.

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 2 Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

The approach to the detailed assessment has therefore been to undertake PM10 and NO2 monitoring. PM10 monitoring has been undertaken for a three-month period using a Partisol 2025 gravimetric analyser, with meteorological mast, at one of the nearest sensitive receptors upwind of the Rawreth Industrial Estate to assess compliance with

the PM10 24 hour objective. Nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube monitoring has been carried out at three roadside sites to confirm compliance with the NO2 annual mean Objective. The bias adjustment factor for diffusion tubes has been estimated through a co-location study with the automatic analyser at Lucy Lane South in the Borough of Colchester, as described in later sections of this report. Short term monitoring data has been annualised in accordance with methodology in the Technical Guidance (LAQM. TG (03)). The Detailed Assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the methodologies provided in the Technical Guidance (LAQM. TG (03)).

Figure 1 Rawreth Industrial Estate Potential Fugitive Emissions Sources

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 3 Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

2. LOCAL MONITORING DATA

2.1 PM10 Partisol 2025 Monitoring Data Methodology

A Rupprect & Patashnick Partisol 2025 PM10 gravimetric analyser was located at a site upwind of the Rawreth Industrial Estate in one of the rear gardens of the nearest residential properties to the site boundary. The industrial estate is bordered to the west and south by residential properties with a 3m buffer zone and a 6m high fence lying between the two. Outline planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment of Park School to the northeast of the industrial estate, to include a Primary School, leisure facilities and housing. The site chosen was to the east of the estate in closest proximity to the T J Cottis site, which has been the main source of reported dust complaints. Monitoring was undertaken during May to August 2004 to assess fugitive emissions under worse case conditions during the summer months. The Partisol 2025 is a type-approved gravimetric analyser used widely in the UK air

quality network and allows direct comparison against the current PM10 objectives based on a fixed 24-hour monitoring period. Filters were conditioned and weighed by Casella SEAL, in accordance with EN12341, the reference method for gravimetric determinations. Casella SEAL has UKAS accreditation for this undertaking. In order to aid interpretation of the data, a meteorological station was co-located with the Partisol monitoring wind direction, wind speed and humidity. Results

A summary table of the Partisol 2025 PM10 measured concentrations and monitored parameters are provided in Appendix 1. During the 3 months of monitoring, there were 7 days where the 24-hour mean Objective of 50μg/m3 was exceeded. The range of concentrations measured during the monitoring period was from 11.3 μg/m3 to 57.6 μg/m3, with a period mean of 31.4 μg/m3. The results from the Rochford Partisol and two nearest AURN background sites are displayed graphically in Figure 2 and show the influence of local and regional sources on background levels.

To appropriately assess the results, the period mean was annualised based on the

measured results from the two nearest long-term AURN background sites with PM10 monitoring. The years 2001 to 2003 were considered when annualising the data, to take

account of differences in meteorology and data capture. These sites use TEOM PM10 analysers and therefore the results were factored by 1.3 so as to be gravimetric (Partisol 2025) equivalent. The period mean adjustments are shown in Table 2 below. The annual mean data for 2003 show higher concentrations than in previous years and therefore results in higher adjustment ratios. This is reflected in the higher number of exceedences at these sites in 2003 than in previous years and shows the influence of meteorological factors on background concentrations.

Annualising the Partisol 2025 results using the average ratios for 2001 - 2003 provided in Table 2 gives annual means of 33.6 (using 2001), 34.4 (using 2002) and 38.7 (using 2003).

To derive the number of exceedences expected from these predicted annual means, the equation below provided in the Technical Guidance LAQM.TG (03) has been used.

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 4 Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

Number of exceedences of 50μg/m3 daily mean = 3 -18.5 + 0.00145 x (annual mean PM10) + (206/annual mean PM10)

3 The number of predicted exceedences of the PM10 50μg/m daily mean using this equation is 43 (using 2001), 47 (using 2002) and 71 (using 2003). The predicted number of exceedences over a whole year is therefore greater than the 35 allowable exceedences to meet the 2004 objective for all three years.

Table 2 Period Mean Adjustment Annual Period mean PM 10 % Data Site Year mean PM in μg/m3 Ratio 10 capture in μg/m3 May-Aug 2004 Southend- 2001 19.2 17.9 97 1.07 on-sea Southend- 2002 18.6 17.9 on-sea 96 1.04 Southend- 2003 21.4 17.9 on-sea 83 1.20 Thurrock 2001 25.0 23.46 76 1.06 Thurrock 2002 27.1 23.46 82 1.16 Thurrock 2003 29.8 23.46 98 1.27 Average 2001 - - - 1.07 Average 2002 - - - 1.1 Average 2003 - - - 1.23

To assess the likely contribution of local fugitive sources from the industrial estate to the seven exceedences, consideration has been made of the measured meteorological data and comparisons with monitoring data from the two nearest AURN background sites over the same period. Of the seven measured exceedence days, two days

02/08/04 and 03/08/04 could be attributed to elevated regional PM10 sources, as the same peaks can be seen at the AURN background sites. On these two days, the predominant wind direction was directly from the south and therefore the dominant source was not emissions from the Rawreth Industrial Estate to the west. On days with westerly or north-westerly wind directions, such as 28/06/04 and 30/07/04, the concentrations measured are much more likely to have a greater contribution from the local emissions sources.

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 5 Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

Figure 2 Comparison of Rawreth Partisol 2025 and Southend-on-sea and Thurrock AURN sites

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0 PM10 m3per in micrograms

10.0

Rawreth Partisol 2025 Southend-on-sea Thurrock

0.0

19/05/04 26/05/04 02/06/04 09/06/04 16/06/04 23/06/04 30/06/04 07/07/04 14/07/04 21/07/04 28/07/04 04/08/04 11/08/04

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 6 Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

Table 3 Comparison of Rochford Partisol with AURN Background sites

Date Rochford Partisol PM10 Southend-on-sea AURN PM10 in Thurrock AURN PM10 in in μg/m3 μg/m3 μg/m3 12 June 55.3 13.4 23.2 17 June 54.2 15.0 - 28 June 52.3 18.2 25.7 30 July 53.6 25.6 30.0 2 August 54.9 36.8 41.7 3 August 56.6 33.4 42.4 31 August 57.6 20.5 31.8

During the monitoring period 20/05/04 – 31/08/04, there were two periods where the Partisol 2025 unit ceased monitoring, 29th May – 31st May and 13th August – 24th August, due to mechanical problems with the sequential analyser. In addition to these periods of lost data, data was subject to ratification and quality control and a number of days were removed from the data set e.g. where daily volumes of <75% of total expected volume occurred or filters were returned to the laboratory damaged, as these were outside acceptable parameters. There were 83 valid days data capture, which is 90% of the 3 months (92 days) data required for the detailed assessment (if considering the whole period of monitoring 20/05/04 – 31/08/04, the overall data capture was 79% which is fairly typical for gravimetric analysers due to the mechanical nature of gravimetric sequential analysers).

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 7 Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

2.2 NO2 Diffusion Tube Monitoring Data

Rochford District Council currently operate 3 NO2 diffusion tubes sites within the District, which were started in March 2004, following recommendations in the

Updating and Screening Assessment to confirm compliance with the annual mean NO2 Objective at these sites. Diffusion tubes used by Rochford District Council are supplied and analysed by Essex University Laboratories utilising the 50% Triethanolamine (TEA) in acetone preparation method. Essex University participates in the Workplace Analysis Scheme

for Proficiency (WASP) for NO2 diffusion tube analysis and the Annual Field Inter- Comparison Exercise. These provide strict performance criteria for participating

laboratories to meet, thereby ensuring NO2 concentrations reported are of a high calibre. There are no continuous monitoring sites in the Borough to establish a local bias adjustment factor for diffusion tubes. The University of the West of England (UWE) bias adjustment spreadsheet8 provides alternative national default factors for each laboratory methodology. For Essex University Laboratory analysed tubes there is only one site at present - Colchester Borough Council. Colchester Borough Council has an urban background site in Lucy Lane South (grid reference x=595094, y= 225099). Diffusion tubes have been co-located at these sites since May 2001 at the Lucy Lane South analyser and this site has been used to determine the bias adjustment factor for the diffusion tubes. The short-term new monitoring sites have been annualised using the methodology outlined in the Technical Guidance LAQM.TG (03) and data from the two nearest long-term background AURN continuous monitoring sites, as shown below.

Calculation of Bias and Period Mean Adjustment To take account of the bias in the diffusion tubes supplied and analysed by Essex University an assessment has been made of the data from the continuous air quality monitoring station at Lucy Lane South (grid reference x=595094, y= 225099) in the Borough of Colchester, which has triplicate co-located diffusion tubes. The Essex University diffusion tube results over-read the continuous analyser in 2002 and under- read the continuous analyser in 2003, with bias adjustment factors of 0.89 and 1.25 respectively. The bias adjustment factor for 2004 is not known and therefore it is not clear whether an over-read or under-read will occur. The data has therefore been left uncorrected. The three new diffusion tube sites only have five months’ available data to date, for March 2004 – July 2004. To annualise the data so that comparison with the annual mean objective can be made, the period mean has been factored. The factor applied is the average ratio of the period mean: annual mean at the two nearest AURN long-term background continuous monitoring sites with >90% capture, as shown in Table 4.

8 www.uwe.ac.uk/aqm/review

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 8 Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

Table 4 Period Mean Adjustment Factors Location Annual Mean Period Mean Mar 2004 Ratio – July 2004 Thurrock AURN 38.4 32.7 1.17 Southend-on-Sea AURN 25.4 21.2 1.2 Average 1.19

The corrected NO2 diffusion tube results are shown in table 5, with projections to 2005. The results show that there is a potential exceedence of the annual mean NO2 objective at the Eastwood Rd/High St junction in Rawreth based on the 5 months available data.

Table 5 Diffusion tube monitoring results 2004; with projection to 2005 for roadside sites

Uncorrected Corrected Projected

2004 NO2 2004 NO2 NO2 to Site 3 (µg/m ) (µg/m3) 2005 No. Site Name Site type X Y Rochford Market Roadside 29.9 35.5 34.6 1 Square 587647 190520 Rayleigh (corner Roadside 40.5 48.1 46.9 Eastwood Rd/High 2 St) 580560 190627 Rawreth (Bedloes Roadside 30.3 36.0 35.1 3 Corner) 578424 193307

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 9 Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The annualised Partisol 2025 PM10 results from the three months monitoring at one of the nearest receptors to the Rawreth Industrial Estate has indicated that exceedences of the 24- hour mean Objective may occur. There are predicted to be greater than 35 exceedences of 50μg/m3 over the year, which can be largely attributed to local fugitive emissions sources. The monitoring was undertaken over the summer months when it is considered that fugitive emissions sources are at their worst and therefore there may be a reduction in the equivalent

exceedences due to local sources in the winter. It is therefore recommended that PM10 monitoring be continued at the nearest relevant receptors to the Rawreth Industrial Estate to further assess compliance with the Objective. It should also be noted that improvements to the T J Cottis site (which has been the main source of reported dust complaints and where monitoring has been focused) are likely to occur in the near future, which will reduce the fugitive emissions from this site. T J Cottis has submitted a planning application to Essex County Council to construct a partial canopy to enclose the main dust generating activities on site and this is likely to gain approval by the end of the year.

The results show that there is a potential exceedence of the annual mean NO2 objective at the Eastwood Rd/High St junction in Rayleigh. It should be noted that the assessment is based on the 5 months available data and no bias correction has been made for 2004. The risk of exceedence at the nearest sensitive receptors to this junction warrant further consideration and it is recommended that a detailed assessment be undertaken at this junction.

It is recommended that NO2 monitoring be continued at the current sites to assess compliance with the annual mean Objective. In addition, monitoring should be undertaken at the nearest sensitive receptor to the Eastwood Road/High Street Junction in Rayleigh. It is recommended that Rochford District Council consider declaring an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) on the basis of the potential exceedences in the assessment area as highlighted in this Detailed Assessment Report where exposure criteria are fulfilled. The proposed improvements at the TJ Cottis site are likely to greatly reduce the emissions of

fugitive dust and monitoring of PM10 is recommended in order to further assess compliance with the 24-hour mean Objective. It is likely that the final decision to declare would be based on the outcome of further monitoring.

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 10

Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

4. APPENDIX 1 A SUMMARY OF PM10 PARTISOL 2025 MONITORING DATA

Date PM10 in μg/m3 Date PM10 in Date PM10 in μg/m3 μg/m3 19-May-04 47.2 02-Jul-04 26.1 06-Aug-04 44.9 20-May-04 49.3 03-Jul-04 24.9 07-Aug-04 35.0 21-May-04 15.4 04-Jul-04 18.1 08-Aug-04 35.4 22-May-04 19.4 05-Jul-04 34.7 09-Aug-04 43.5 23-May-04 21.6 06-Jul-04 23.3 10-Aug-04 22.8 24-May-04 37.2 07-Jul-04 34.6 11-Aug-04 24.9 25-May-04 22.4 08-Jul-04 19.6 12-Aug-04 18.9 26-May-04 24.9 09-Jul-04 29.7 25-Aug-04 16.5 27-May-04 14.3 10-Jul-04 16.8 27-Aug-04 12.6 28-May-04 32.2 11-Jul-04 15.6 28-Aug-04 14.8 03-Jun-04 29.5 12-Jul-04 29.8 29-Aug-04 12.8 04-Jun-04 38.1 13-Jul-04 38.1 30-Aug-04 13.9 05-Jun-04 22.8 14-Jul-04 25.0 31-Aug-04 57.6 06-Jun-04 24.4 15-Jul-04 35.2 07-Jun-04 31.6 16-Jul-04 25.5 08-Jun-04 36.7 17-Jul-04 29.1 09-Jun-04 47.1 18-Jul-04 25.1 11-Jun-04 15.9 19-Jul-04 28.5 12-Jun-04 55.3 20-Jul-04 49.1 13-Jun-04 22.1 21-Jul-04 27.0 14-Jun-04 17.0 22-Jul-04 35.8 15-Jun-04 35.9 23-Jul-04 42.5 16-Jun-04 40.1 24-Jul-04 35.9 17-Jun-04 54.2 25-Jul-04 19.2 18-Jun-04 47.9 26-Jul-04 30.7 19-Jun-04 15.8 27-Jul-04 36.4 20-Jun-04 11.3 28-Jul-04 39.0 21-Jun-04 41.5 29-Jul-04 36.9 22-Jun-04 20.2 30-Jul-04 53.6 23-Jun-04 26.1 31-Jul-04 49.9 25-Jun-04 34.6 01-Aug-04 45.9 26-Jun-04 18.6 02-Aug-04 54.9 27-Jun-04 17.1 03-Aug-04 56.6 28-Jun-04 52.3 04-Aug-04 49.2 29-Jun-04 34.2 05-Aug-04 33.6

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 11

Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

APPENDIX 1B MEASURED PARAMETERS Date Volume Ambient Filter Pressure Max Temp Wind Speed Wind Relative Concentratio m3 Temp oC Temp oC Difference oC m/s Direction 0 Humidit n in μg/m3 y 19-May-04 24 17.7 20.1 771 5.8 3.4 345 59.1 47.2 20-May-04 24 14.8 16.5 769 4.7 3.8 175 72.3 49.3 21-May-04 23.9 10.3 12 770 4.4 4.8 165 71.5 15.4 22-May-04 24 9.5 11.4 775 5.2 3.5 112 59.8 19.4 23-May-04 24 11.2 13.4 775 5.2 3.5 106 58.6 21.6 24-May-04 24 13.9 16 773 5 2.9 18 53.7 37.2 25-May-04 24 13.4 15.5 770 5.2 2.8 24 56.2 22.4 26-May-04 23.9 12 13.8 769 4.5 4.9 179 64.8 24.9 27-May-04 24 11.8 14.2 772 6.2 4 179 67.2 14.3 28-May-04 23.9 13 14.8 772 4.6 4.2 188 62.1 32.2 03-Jun-04 23.9 14.4 16.3 774 4.5 4.6 308 67.1 29.5 04-Jun-04 24 17.4 19.2 769 3.5 4.5 349 69.4 38.1 05-Jun-04 24 16.4 18.4 768 4.9 3.8 34 66.2 22.8 06-Jun-04 23.9 18.1 19.8 767 3.5 3.8 282 66.3 24.4 07-Jun-04 23.9 ------31.6 08-Jun-04 23.9 ------36.7 09-Jun-04 23.9 ------47.1 11-Jun-04 23.9 ------15.9 12-Jun-04 23.9 ------55.3 13-Jun-04 24 ------22.1 14-Jun-04 23.9 ------17.0 15-Jun-04 23.9 ------35.9 16-Jun-04 23.9 ------40.1 17-Jun-04 23.9 ------54.2 18-Jun-04 23.9 ------47.9 19-Jun-04 23.9 ------15.8 20-Jun-04 23.9 ------11.3 21-Jun-04 23.9 12.7 14.6 759 4.6 3.3 298 63.9 41.5 22-Jun-04 23.9 14.7 16.8 760 4.6 4 216 66 20.2 23-Jun-04 23.9 14.4 15.5 749 2.3 12.7 281 75.9 26.1 25-Jun-04 24 15.1 17.4 766 5.6 5.8 324 52.6 34.6 26-Jun-04 23.9 15 16.5 766 2.9 4 251 62.8 18.6 27-Jun-04 23.9 17.1 19.1 765 4.5 6.8 300 66.5 17.1 28-Jun-04 23.9 15.4 17.4 772 4.5 5.4 324 56.9 52.3 29-Jun-04 24 17.2 19.2 771 4.3 5.5 301 55.9 34.2 02-Jul-04 23.9 14.5 16.2 759 4.4 7.8 292 68.9 26.1 03-Jul-04 23.9 14.9 16.8 761 5.3 8.7 300 59.1 24.9 04-Jul-04 23.9 14.1 15.9 763 3.3 5.8 278 64.3 18.1 05-Jul-04 23.9 15.3 17.7 767 6 3.4 354 55.6 34.7 06-Jul-04 23.9 16.4 19.7 769 7.7 3.6 182 52.3 23.3 07-Jul-04 23.9 14.6 16.2 762 4.5 9.7 174 72.5 34.6 08-Jul-04 23.9 14.7 16.6 757 4.5 4.3 177 74.4 19.6 09-Jul-04 23.9 13.6 15.9 761 5.4 5.1 35 63.7 29.7 10-Jul-04 23.9 13.8 16.1 763 5.4 4.4 307 61.2 16.8 NB Gaps in the downloaded parameters occurred due to a fault with the communications firmware.

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 12

Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

APPENDIX 1B MEASURED PARAMETERS (CONTINUED)

Date Volume Ambient Filter Pressure Max Temp Wind Speed Wind Relative Concentrat m3 Temp oC Temp oC Difference oC m/s Direction 0 Humidity ion in μg/m3 11-Jul-04 23.9 13.8 15.8 762 3.7 4.1 343 63 15.6 12-Jul-04 23.9 14.2 16.3 764 3.1 3.3 6 64.7 29.8 13-Jul-04 23.9 15.7 18 766 4.5 3.7 332 53.4 38.1 14-Jul-04 23.9 16.7 18.4 765 2.8 6.5 294 67.6 25.0 15-Jul-04 23.9 19.1 21.1 764 3.7 5.8 312 66.5 35.2 16-Jul-04 23.9 18.8 21 763 4.2 6.1 280 68.4 25.5 17-Jul-04 23.9 18.2 20.4 761 5.1 3.5 272 70.9 29.1 18-Jul-04 23.9 17.2 19 763 3.7 3.9 287 68.3 25.1 19-Jul-04 23.9 17.1 19.6 766 5.6 3.7 276 53 28.5 20-Jul-04 23.4 17.7 19.8 763 4.6 3.7 196 65.1 49.1 21-Jul-04 23.3 19 21.2 764 4.4 5.3 272 58.1 27.0 22-Jul-04 23.9 19.5 22.1 766 6 3.6 189 62.3 35.8 23-Jul-04 23.9 19.9 22.9 768 6.4 3.7 11 54.9 42.5 24-Jul-04 23.9 18.5 21 771 4.9 4.6 331 47.4 35.9 25-Jul-04 23.9 16.6 18.6 768 3.8 4.6 330 52.3 19.2 26-Jul-04 23.9 16.8 19.1 766 6.6 3.1 305 64.1 30.7 27-Jul-04 23.9 18.5 20.8 768 4.7 2.2 272 58.1 36.4 28-Jul-04 23.9 20 23 767 7.1 4.7 184 53.3 39.0 29-Jul-04 23.9 21.2 24 765 6.9 3.5 188 53.6 36.9 30-Jul-04 23.9 21.1 23.9 767 6 3.5 307 50.1 53.6 31-Jul-04 23.9 20.7 23.6 768 6.4 3.3 196 51.6 49.9 01-Aug-04 23.9 18.9 22 768 7.4 4.6 180 63.4 45.9 02-Aug-04 23.9 19.6 22.7 765 6.5 5.6 177 62.1 54.9 03-Aug-04 23.9 20.2 22.7 761 6.7 4.2 180 66.6 56.6 04-Aug-04 23.9 20.7 23.6 762 6.4 3 179 62.4 49.2 05-Aug-04 23.9 20.5 23.5 763 6.7 4 181 63.3 33.6 06-Aug-04 23.9 22.1 25.3 763 6.8 3.2 229 57.7 44.9 07-Aug-04 23.9 22.3 25.8 763 8.3 3.9 216 54.4 35.0 08-Aug-04 23.9 23.3 26.4 757 7.2 5.6 180 57.6 35.4 09-Aug-04 23.9 21.8 23.7 758 3 3.8 191 68.2 43.5 10-Aug-04 23.9 ------22.8 11-Aug-04 23.9 ------24.9 12-Aug-04 23.9 ------18.9 25-Aug-04 24 15.4 16.8 748 4.1 5 - - 16.5 27-Aug-04 24 15.7 16.6 750 2.2 5.4 - - 12.6 28-Aug-04 24 15.7 17.5 752 4.3 2.5 - - 14.8 29-Aug-04 24 14.6 15.7 751 2.6 5.9 - - 12.8 30-Aug-04 24 14.5 16.1 752 4.1 6.3 - - 13.9 31-Aug-04 24 14.2 16.1 756 4.4 2.8 - - 57.6 * NB Gaps in the downloaded parameters occurred due to a fault with the communications firmware.

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 13

Rochford District Council Detailed Assessment Report November 2004

Report Statement Casella Stanger completed this report on the basis of a defined programme of works and within the terms and conditions agreed with the Client. This report was compiled with all reasonable skill and care, bearing in mind the project objectives, the agreed scope of works, prevailing site conditions and degree of manpower and resources allocated to the project as agreed. Casella Stanger cannot accept responsibility to any parties whatsoever, following issue of this report, for any matters arising which may be considered outside the agreed scope of works. This report is issued in confidence to the Client and Casella Stanger cannot accept any responsibility to any third party to whom this report may be circulated, in part or in full, and any such parties rely on the contents of the report at their own risk. (Unless specifically assigned or transferred within the terms of the contract, Casella Stanger asserts and retains all copyright, and other Intellectual Property Rights, in and over the report and its contents). Any questions or matters arising from this report may be addressed in the first instance to the Project Manager.

Ref: CS/AQ/AGGX0140/SA/2244 Page 14