The new Air Quality Directive was due to go to a vote at the Environment Committee on 9 October and then to a plenary vote in the Parliament in December, with the aim of implementation in early 2010.  The latest news from this Committee vote is not good, although not totally bad.  The bad news is that the 5 year extension period for all pollutants was accepted as were exemptions for industry under the IPPC Directive and there are greater loopholes on where the Limit Values apply, in particular in relation to PM.
On the plus side the Committee did vote in favour of a more stringent annual average Limit Value for PM10 of 33 µg m-3 by 2010.  They also backed a recommendation for a binding limit of 20 µg m-3 on PM2.5 to be met by 2015.
Although one of the outcomes of the Directive will be to consolidate the Framework and Daughter Directives there are a number of other aspects to it.  One of these is the incorporation of the Exchange of Information Decision although the detailed significance of this is not completely clear at present.  On the practical side it addresses the issue of siting criteria, both for monitoring and modelling.  In addition to the new Limit Value for PM2.5, tightened from 25 µg m-3, there is a non-mandatory exposure reduction target for PM2.5 of 20% with the reference value being the 3 year average concentration for the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010 to be compared with the average from 2018 to 2020, hence the need to get PM2.5 monitors in place quickly.  On the PM2.5 front there appears to be confusion about the parallel adoption of “Exposure Reduction” and “Limit Value” approaches and about which is the main driver.  Essentially, exposure reduction is meant to be the main approach over large areas but with the Limit Value as a backstop to ensure that hot-spots are not ignored.

Another Directive requirement is a 2:1 ratio of Urban Background to “Traffic” sites for NO2, PM, CO and benzene.  Again this explains parts of the AURN reorganisation.  Where monitoring is carried out for assessment of exposure reduction it has to be in urban background locations in urban areas with a population >100,000.  The Directive also designates the most recent CEN standards as reference methods for monitoring; something that could have implications for anyone considering establishing new monitoring sites.  This has already had an impact on the PAH network where the 4th Daughter Directive (DD) requirements have necessitated the replacement of the samplers at the 24 existing sites and the establishment of 10 additional sites.  This DD has also resulted in the relocation of some of the sites in the Heavy Metals network and the establishment of 11 new sites.

The Automated Urban and Rural network is undergoing a massive reorganisation.  The main driver behind this is European legislation; in part those elements relating to existing monitoring requirements and in part the need to prepare for the introduction of an exposure reduction regime for PM2.5.
The reorganisation means the complete closure of some sites, including some very long running sites, a large reduction in the number of sites monitoring CO and SO2, some reduction in the number sites monitoring PM10, and the installation of 61 PM2.5 monitors at existing sites.  The Rural part of the network is virtually unchanged, the one exception being London Teddington, which loses its SO2 monitor and gains PM10 and PM2.5 samplers.  The reductions in CO and SO2 are far fewer than strictly required; 26 CO and 48 SO2 against requirements of 6 CO (3 in London, 2 in Manchester and 1 in Bristol) and 28 SO2, as reductions below these numbers would render the UK’s modelling programme ineffective.
Of the older sites, Belfast East, Manchester Town Hall, Walsall Alumwell and West London (Earl’s Court), which were in the original Statutory Urban Network (SUN), closed on 30 September and the SO2 analyser from Sunderland, which was also a SUN site seems to be being relocated to the Sunderland Silksworth site.  The only site from the Enhanced Urban Network to be closed in this reorganisation is Wolverhampton Centre although over the years Birmingham East, Bristol Centre, Edinburgh Centre, Hull Centre, Liverpool Centre, and Swansea Centre have all been relocated and redesignated.  An interesting point is that one site was reprieved from the closure programme, London Hillingdon, which, although classified as “Suburban”, is actually quite close to the M4.
There will be a total of 46 sites monitoring PM10 and at least 45 of these (the position at Hillingdon is still a bit unclear) will also monitor PM2.5.  In addition, a further 20 sites will monitor PM2.5 alone.  A number of new sites will also have to be established or affiliated which will add 1 background PM2.5 site in London (possibly Greenwich 12  - Millennium Village) and, across the UK, a total of 17 new NOX monitors, 14 PM10 samplers and 14 PM2.5 samplers at roadside locations.  The assumption is that the latter will be collocated but how many will also be collocated with the NOX monitors is not known.

There are also a few changes to the pumped tube benzene network, essentially to address the requirements of the AQ Directive.  It appears that 12 current sites are to be closed and 11 new sites established presumably by relocation of displaced samplers.  Also on the hydrocarbon side the passive 1,3 butadiene samplers have been discontinued.