ATTACHMENT 1 - Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland · Gas turbine operation at steady ... each parameter. • Yes. ... A3-A (Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator Stack)

6th September 2013 Ann Marie Donlon, Office of Climate, Licensing and Resource Use, Environmental Protection Agency, PO Box 3000, Johnstown Castle Estate Co. Wexford Re: P0035-06 – Additional Information Request 14th August 2013 _________________________________________________________________________ Dear Ann Marie, Please find detailed below and attached our responses to your request for additional information dated 14th August 2013: • Calciner NOx emissions whilst operating on HFO are characterised in Tables E.1(ii) and

E.1(iii) Attachment 1. • CHP CO emissions whilst operating on both natural gas and distillate oil are

characterised in Tables E.1(ii) and E.1(iii) Attachment 1. We can confirm that CHP CO (and NOx) emissions will comply with the ELV requirements set out in Article 30 and Annex V of the Industrial Emissions Directive. - CO control will be achieved by ensuring that the distillate injection jets are well

maintained so as to minimise fuel droplet size. Gas turbine operation at steady sustained high (base) load will further tend to minimise CO formation.

- NOx control will be achieved by automatic injection of water into the Gas Turbine to lower the combustion temperature and thereby minimise thermal NOx formation.

• An air dispersion modelling assessment for the most likely worst case scenario has been completed by AWN Consulting and is provided as Attachment 2. We consider the inclusion of CHP operating continuously on distillate oil as part of a worst case scenario for modelling purposes to be unrealistic. We have modified the scenario to a more realistic scenario comprising boilers and calciners operating continuously on HFO and CHP operating on natural gas except for weekly test runs on distillate oil. The assessment demonstrates compliance with the relevant ambient air quality standards for each parameter.

• Yes. The installation notice board has been installed as required by Condition 3.2 of our current IPPC Licence Reg. No. P0035-05.

• Yes. AAL has installed and maintains silt traps and oil separators as required by Condition 3.8 of our current IPPC Licence. We have recently made submissions to our inspector, Mr. Caoimhin Nolan, Office of Environmental Enforcement via the ALDER

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Aughinish Island, Askeaton, Co Limerick – Ireland – Tel. +353 (0)61 604000 – Fax +353(0)61 604242 – www.rusal.com DIRECTORS: D A Clancy, D Goldberg, A Rakita, V Shaga, A Shmalenko, K Strunnikov Reg. in Ireland No.59982. Reg. Office: Aughinish Alumina Limited, Aughinish Island, Askeaton, Co Limerick, Ireland

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

http://www.rusal.com/

reporting system detailing our existing infrastructure and seeking Agency approval regarding same. These submissions were dated 22nd April 2013 (silt traps) and 22nd May 2013 (oil separators).

• Yes. In 2004, Aughinish Alumina implemented an Energy Management System based on the Danish Standard DS 2403. We were the first company in Ireland and the first alumina plant in the world to implement such a system. Follow-up audits through to 2008 confirmed that we met the standard’s requirements. In 2009, we ceased all external audits as part of a cost cutting program to ensure the plant’s survival. However, we retained the structures of DS 2403 in terms of monitoring energy performance and planning improvements. Also in 2009, the European Standard EN 16001 replaced DS 2403, which became obsolete. In 2011, ISO 50001 replaced EN 16001, which in turn became obsolete. Given the changes which were occurring at the time, we decided to await the formal release of ISO 50001 before resuming external auditing. In December 2012, a Stage 1 audit (gap analysis) was undertaken by Certification Europe and, in 2013, we plan to complete a Stage 2 audit and have our system certified as compliant with the ISO 50001 standard. Updates on energy performance and energy efficiency improvements are included each year in the Annual Environmental Reports submitted to the Agency.

• Yes. The AAL Closure Restoration and Aftercare Plan (CRAMP), which contains both the Closure and Aftercare Plans for the facility, was updated in 2010 and submitted to the Agency. The Plan is currently under review by the Waste and Land Thematic Unit of the Agency and consultants AMEC Earth and Environmental. (Ref. Pól Ó Seasnáin, Agency Inspector). Any revisions or updates to the Plan, requested as a result of the review, will be forwarded to the Agency for agreement in accordance with Condition 10 of our current IPPC Licence.

The non-technical summary included in the original application is unchanged by the provision of the information above and attached. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely, ______________________ Liam Fleming Environment Co-ordinator

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Aughinish Island, Askeaton, Co Limerick – Ireland – Tel. +353 (0)61 604000 – Fax +353(0)61 604242 – www.rusal.com DIRECTORS: D A Clancy, D Goldberg, A Rakita, V Shaga, A Shmalenko, K Strunnikov Reg. in Ireland No.59982. Reg. Office: Aughinish Alumina Limited, Aughinish Island, Askeaton, Co Limerick, Ireland

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

http://www.rusal.com/

ATTACHMENT 1

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

TABLE E.1(ii) MAIN EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE (1 Page for each emission point) Emission Point: A2 Calciner Stack (HFO Combustion) Emission Point Ref. No:

A2 (Calciner Stack)

Source of Emission:

3 calciner (alumina drying) units operating on HFO with 3 separate flues entering a common stack

Location:

Area 10 Calcination, Aughinish Island

Grid Ref. (12 digit, 6E,6N):

128 445, 153 860

Vent Details Diameter:

Height above Ground(m):

1.48m each flue 68.6

Date of commencement:

Sept 1983

Characteristics of Emission:

(i) Volume to be emitted: Average/day 18.8 x 10^6

Nm3/d Maximum/day 21.4 X10^6 Nm3/d

Maximum rate/hour 894,000 Nm3/h Min efflux velocity 47 m.sec-1

(ii) Other factors Temperature 190oC (max) 150 oC (min) 160oC (avg)

For Combustion Sources: Volume terms expressed as : X wet. ____11____%O2

(iii) Period or periods during which emissions are made, or are to be made, including daily or seasonal variations (start-up /shutdown

to be included): Periods of Emission (avg)

60 min/hr 24 hr/day 320 day/yr

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

TABLE E.1(ii) MAIN EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE (1 Page for each emission point) Emission Point: A3-A Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator Stack (Natural Gas Combustion) Emission Point Ref. No:

A3-A (Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator Stack)

Source of Emission:

Area 15 Combined Heat & Power Plant Stack

Location:

Area 15 Combined Heat & Power Plant, Aughinish Island, Co. Limerick


128 325, 153 960



3.5m 40


Jan 2006


(i) Volume to be emitted: Average/day 16 x 10^6

Nm3/d Maximum/day 17.3 x 10^6 Nm3/d

Maximum rate/hour 720,000 Nm3/h Min efflux velocity 27.4 m.sec-1

(ii) Other factors Temperature 200 oC(max) 160 oC(min) 170 oC(avg)

For Combustion Sources: Volume terms expressed as : wet. x dry. ___15____%O2




For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

TABLE E.1(ii) MAIN EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE (1 Page for each emission point) Emission Point: A3-B Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator Stack (Natural Gas Combustion) Emission Point Ref. No:

A3-B (Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator Stack)

Source of Emission:


Location:



128 330, 153 935



3.5m 40


Jan 2006


(i) Volume to be emitted: Average/day 16 x 10^6








For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

TABLE E.1(ii) MAIN EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE (1 Page for each emission point) Emission Point: A3-A Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator Stack (Distillate Oil Combustion) Emission Point Ref. No:

A3-A (Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator Stack)

Source of Emission:


Location:



128 325, 153 960



3.5m 40


Jan 2006










For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

TABLE E.1(ii) MAIN EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE (1 Page for each emission point) Emission Point: A3-B Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator Stack (Distillate Oil Combustion) Emission Point Ref. No:

A3-B (Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator Stack)

Source of Emission:


Location:



128 330, 153 935



3.5m 40


Jan 2006










For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

TABLE E.1(iii): MAIN EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE - Chemical characteristics of the emission (1 table per emission point) Emission Point Reference Number: A2 Calciner stack (HFO)

Parameter Prior to treatment(1) Brief As discharged(1)

mg/Nm3 kg/h description mg/Nm3 kg/h. kg/year

Avg Max Avg Max of treatment Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max

NOx 150 200 118 178 1.03 x 10^6

1.56 x 10^6

1. Concentrations should be based on Normal conditions of temperature and pressure, (i.e. 0oC,101.3kPa). Wet/dry should be the same as given in Table E.1(ii) unless clearly stated otherwise.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

TABLE E.1(iii): MAIN EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE - Chemical characteristics of the emission (1 table per emission point) Emission Point Reference Number: A3-A (Natural Gas)




NOx 25 50 18 36 145,830 315,360

CO 10 100 7.2 72 55,482 630,720


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

TABLE E.1(iii): MAIN EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE - Chemical characteristics of the emission (1 table per emission point) Emission Point Reference Number: A3-B (Natural Gas)




NOx 25 50 18 36 145,830 315,360

CO 10 100 7.2 72 55,482 630,720


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

TABLE E.1(iii): MAIN EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE - Chemical characteristics of the emission (1 table per emission point)

Emission Point Reference Number: A3-A (Distillate Oil)




NOx 50 90 36 66 296,000 575,530

SOx 90 120 66 88 532,780 767,376

CO 10 100 7.3 73 540,180 778,034


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

TABLE E.1(iii): MAIN EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE - Chemical characteristics of the emission (1 table per emission point) Emission Point Reference Number: A3-B (Distillate Oil)




NOx 50 90 36 66 296,000 575,530

SOx 90 120 66 88 532,780 767,376

CO 10 100 7.3 73 540,180 778,034


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

ATTACHMENT 2

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

Liam, Please find enclosed a summary of the following air dispersion modelling assessment undertaken for the Worst-Case Scenario. The worst-case scenario is based on the use of HFO for the 2 Boilers, HFO for the 3 Calciners and using distillate / gas oil for the 2 CHP emission points. The modelling was undertaken to assess the worst case operation of the facility to ensure compliance with the ambient air quality standards. Scenario – Impact on Ambient Air Quality Modelling was carried out to assess the impact of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5) on ambient air quality for the following scenario: Worst-Case Scenario • 2 Existing Boilers running 365 days per year (A1-1 & A1-2) (In reality these boilers

operate at <50% of rated capacity as this supplies the full top-up steam requirement); • 3 Calciner Stacks running 365 days per year (A2-1, A2-2 and A2-3) (in reality all three

calciners will be in operation for no more than 317 days per annum); • 2 CHP Stack running 1 hour per week on distillate and the rest of the year on natural gas

(A3-A and A3-B) (in reality the 2 CHP units will be operated on gas oil for only 1 hour per month. Furthermore the CHP on-line time is less than 96% i.e. for 8% of the time there will be only 1 CHP unit operating.)

• The worst-case scenario is based on the use of HFO for the 2 Boilers, HFO for the 3 Calciners and using distillate / gas oil for the 2 CHP emission units for 1 hour per week and the rest of the year on natural gas.

____________________________________

TECHNICAL NOTE ____________________________________

Project Aughinish Alumina IPPC Modelling

Subject Air Impact on Ambient Environment – Worst-Case Scenario

Author Edward Porter

Date 06/09/13

Ref. 12_5928AT06_5

____________________________________

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19

EP/12/5928AT06_5 AWN Consulting Ltd ____________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

Page 2 of 19

Conclusion The NO2 air dispersion modelling results have been compared with the ambient air quality standards for NO2 for the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario will lead to ambient NO2 concentrations (including background) which reach at most 32% of the 1-hour limit value (measured as a 99.8th%ile) and 31% of the annual limit value at the worst-case off-site ambient receptor. In relation to the annual mean for the protection of vegetation, ambient levels (including background concentrations) peak at 66% of the ambient air quality standard. The SO2 air dispersion modelling results have been compared with the ambient air quality standards for SO2 for the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario leads to ambient SO2 concentrations (including background) which reach at most 91% of the 1-hour (measured as a 99.7th%ile) and 24-limit value (measured as a 99.2th%ile) at the worst-case off-site ambient receptor. In relation to the annual mean for the protection of vegetation, the ambient level (including background concentration) is 85% of the ambient air quality standard. The PM10 air dispersion modelling results have been compared with the ambient air quality standards for PM10 for the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario leads to ambient PM10 concentrations (including background) which reach at most 49% of the 24-hour (measured as a 90th%ile) and annual mean value at the worst-case off-site ambient receptor. Ambient concentrations will be 36% of the annual mean PM2.5 limit value (including background), which comes into force in 2015. CO levels are extremely low for the worst-case scenario.

Kind regards

Dr. Edward Porter

AWN Consulting

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:19


___________________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 19

1.0 INTRODUCTION Modelling was carried out to assess the impact of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5) on ambient air quality for the following scenario: Worst-Case Scenario • 2 Existing Boilers running 365 days per year (A1-1 & A1-2) (In reality these boilers

operate at <50% of rated capacity as this supplies the full top-up steam requirement);

• 3 Calciner Stacks running 365 days per year (A2-1, A2-2 and A2-3) (in reality all three calciners will be in operation for no more than 317 days per annum);

• 2 CHP Stack running 1 hour per week on distillate and the rest of the year on natural gas (A3-A and A3-B) (in reality the 2 CHP units will be operated on gas oil for only 1 hour per month. Furthermore the CHP on-line time is less than 96% i.e. for 8% of the time there will be only 1 CHP unit operating.)


2.0 MODELLING METHODOLOGY

Dispersion modelling has been carried out to predict the concentrations in the ambient environment of NO2, SO2, CO and PM10 / PM2.5 emitted from Aughinish Alumina facility for the scenario described above. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) developed AERMOD dispersion model was used. Meteorological data collected over five years (2000 – 2002, 2004 and 2005) from Shannon Airport has been incorporated into the modelling. Concentrations have been predicted for every hour of each of the five years. The concentrations in the ambient environment were modelled at a receptor height of 1.8m to assess the impact at breathing height. The air dispersion modelling input data consisted of information on the physical environment (including building dimensions and terrain features), design details from all emission points on-site and five full years of appropriate meteorological data. Using this input data the model predicted concentrations in the ambient environment for each hour of the modelled meteorological year. The model post-processed the data to identify the location and maximum of the worst-case concentration in the applicable format for comparison with the relevant limit values. This worst-case concentration was then added to the background concentration to give the worst-case predicted ambient concentration. The worst-case predicted ambient concentration was then compared with the relevant ambient air quality standard or occupational exposure limit to assess the significance of the releases. See the original AERMOD Modelling Report (Ref: 12_5928AR02_2) for full details of air dispersion modelling methodology.

2.1 Background Concentrations

Appropriate background concentrations for NO2, SO2 and CO are discussed in the original AERMOD Modelling Report for the facility (Ref: 12_5928AR02_2). These background concentrations are also used to assess the additional scenarios addressed in this report. In relation to PM10 / PM2.5, long-term PM10 monitoring was carried out at the urban Zone D locations of Castlebar, Claremorris and Shannon Town in 2011(1,2). The average concentrations measured at the three sites were 14, 12 and 11 µg/m3, respectively.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


___________________________________________________________________________________

Page 4 of 19

Long-term PM10 measurements carried out at the rural Zone D location in Kilkitt in 2011 gave an average level of 9 µg/m3(1,2). In addition, annual average PM10 levels at the urban background monitoring location in the Phoenix Park in 2011 were 12 µg/m3, with only three exceedances of the 24-hour limit value of 50 µg/m3(1,2). Based on the above information a conservative estimate of the background PM10 concentration in the current region is 12 µg/m3. The 90.4th of 24-hour mean concentrations for Shannon Town in 2011 was 20.4 µg/m3. This has been used in the calculation of the short-term peak concentration for PM10 as outlined below. The results of PM2.5 monitoring at Claremorris (Zone D) in 2011(1,2) indicated an average PM2.5/PM10 ratio of 0.5. The results of PM2.5 monitoring at Ennis (Zone C) in 2011(1,2) indicated an average PM2.5/PM10 ratio of 0.64. Based on this information, a conservative ratio of 0.65 was used to generate a rural background PM2.5 concentration of 7.8 µg/m3. In relation to the annual averages, the ambient background concentration is added directly to the process concentration. However, in relation to the short-term peak concentration, concentrations due to emissions from elevated sources cannot be combined in the same way. Guidance from the UK DEFRA(3) and the EPA(4) advises that for PM10 and SO2 an estimate of the maximum combined pollutant concentration can be obtained as shown below:

PM10 - The 90.4th%ile of total 24-hour mean PM10 is equal to the maximum of either A or B below:

a) 90.4th%ile of 24-hour mean background PM10 + annual mean process contribution PM10

b) 90.4th%ile 24-hour mean process contribution PM10 + annual mean background PM10

SO2 - The 99.7th%ile of total 1-hour SO2 is equal to the maximum of either A or B below: a) 99.7th%ile hourly background SO2 + (2 x annual mean process contribution SO2) b) 99.7th%ile hourly process contribution SO2 + (2 x annual mean background contribution

SO2)

SO2 - The 99.2nd%ile of total 24-hour SO2 is equal to the maximum of either A or B below: a) 99.2nd%ile of 24-hour mean background SO2 + (2 x annual mean process contribution

SO2) b) 99.2nd%ile 24-hour mean process contribution SO2 + (2 x annual mean background

contribution SO2) In relation to the annual averages, the ambient background concentration is added directed to the predicted annual mean concentration. The Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method (PVMRM) was used to model NO2

concentrations. The PVMRM is currently a non-regulatory option in AERMOD which assumes that the amount of NO converted to NO2 is proportional to the ambient ozone concentration(5,6). The PVMRM uses both plume size and O3 concentration to derive the amount of O3 available for the reaction between NO and O3. NOX moles are determined by emission rate and travel time through the plume segment. The concentration is usually limited by the amount of ambient O3 that is entrained in the plume. Thus, the ratio of the moles of O3 to the moles of NOX gives the ratio of NO2/NOX that is formed after the NOX leaves the stack. In addition, it has been assumed that 10% of the NOX in the stack gas is already in the form of NO2 before the gas leaves the stack (in reality the levels are usually closer to 5%(5,6)). The model has also assumed a final equilibrium ratio for NO2/NOX of 0.90 which again is pessimistic and more likely to be in the range 0.7 – 0.8(5,6). The equation used in the algorithm to derive the ratio of NO2/NOX is:

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


___________________________________________________________________________________

Page 5 of 19

NO2/NOX = (moles O3/ moles NOX) + 0.10

In relation to the selected ozone data, ozone data from Valentia has been used in the assessment. The five year (2007 – 2011) annual mean concentration fo 67 mg/m3 for Valentia, County Kerry has been used in the assessment(1).

2.2 Process Emissions

The source information for each modelled emission point for the Worst-Case Scenario has been summarised in Table 1.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20

EP/12/5928AT06_5 AWN Consulting Ltd __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 6 of 19

Table 1 Summary Of Source Information for Worst-Case Scenario

Stack Reference

Stack Co-

ordinates

(Irish Grid)(1)

Height Above

Ground Level (m)

Exit Diameter

(m)

Cross-Sectional Area (m2)

Temp (K)

Max Volume

Flow (Nm3/hr)

Exit Velocity (m/sec actual)

NO2 SO2 CO PM10

Conc. (mg/Nm3)

Mass Emission

(g/s)

Conc. (mg/Nm3)

Mass Emission

(g/s)

Conc. (mg/Nm3)

Mass Emission

(g/s)

Conc. (mg/Nm3)

Mass Emission

(g/s)

Boiler A1 (1) (HFO)

E128345 N153860 107 1.77 2.46 407 126,000 23.4 750 26.3 1700 59.5 100 3.5 100 3.5

Boiler A1 (2) (HFO)

E128345 N153860 107 1.77 2.46 407 126,000 23.4 750 26.3 1700 59.5 100 3.5 100 3.5

Calciner A2 (1) (HFO)

E128445 N153860 68.6 1.48 1.72 428 298,000 47.0 200 16.6 400 33.1 100 8.3 50 4.1


E128445 N153860 68.6 1.48 1.72 428 298,000 47.0 200 16.6 400 33.1 100 8.3 50 4.1


E128445 N153860 68.6 1.48 1.72 428 298,000 47.0 200 16.6 400 33.1 100 8.3 50 4.1

CHP A3-A (Gas Oil)

E128320 N153960 40 3.5 9.62 441 730,000 27.8 90 18.3 120 24.3 100 20.3 5 1.0

CHP A3-B (Gas Oil)

E128330 N153935 40 3.5 9.62 441 730,000 27.8 90 18.3 120 24.3 100 20.3 5 1.0

CHP A3-A (Natural Gas)

E128320 N153960 40 3.5 9.62 441 720,000 27.4 50 10.0 0 0 100 20.0 5 1.0

CHP A3-B (Natural Gas)

E128330 N153935 40 3.5 9.62 441 720,000 27.4 50 10.0 0 0 100 20.0 5 1.0

Note 1 Co-ordinates reported to nearest 5m.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


___________________________________________________________________________________

Page 7 of 19

2.3 Assessment Criteria

Ambient Air Quality Standards

In order to reduce the risk to health from poor air quality, national and European statutory bodies have set limit values in ambient air for a range of air pollutants. These limit values or “Air Quality Standards” are health- or environmental-based levels for which additional factors may be considered. The applicable standards in Ireland include the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011, which incorporate EU Council Directive 2008/50/EC (published 11/06/08) (see Table 2). The ambient air quality standards applicable for NO2, SO2, CO and PM10 / PM2.5 are outlined in this Directive. These standards have been used in the current assessment to determine the potential impact of NO2, SO2, CO and PM10 / PM2.5 emissions from the proposed facility on air quality.

Table 2 EU Ambient Air Quality Standards Based on Directive 2008/50/EC (S.I. 180 of 2011)

Pollutant Regulation

Note 1

Limit Type Value

Nitrogen Dioxide

2008/50/EC Hourly limit for protection of human health - not to be exceeded more than 18 times/year

200 µg/m3 NO2

Annual limit for protection of human health 40 µg/m3 NO2

Annual limit for protection of vegetation 30 µg/m3 NO + NO2

Sulphur Dioxide

2008/50/EC Hourly limit for protection of human health - not to be exceeded more than 24 times/year

350 µg/m3

Daily limit for protection of human health - not to be exceeded more than 3 times/year

125 µg/m3

Annual & Winter limit for the protection of ecosystems

20 µg/m3

PM10 EU Directive 2008/50/EC

24-hour limit for protection of human health - not to be exceeded more than 35 times/year

50 µg/m3

Annual limit for protection of human health 40 µg/m3

PM2.5 EU Directive

2008/50/EC Annual limit value for protection of human health

25 µg/m3

Carbon Monoxide

2008/50/EC 8-hour limit (on a rolling basis) for protection of human health

10 mg/m3

(8.6 ppm) Note 1 EU 2008/50/EC – Clean Air For Europe (CAFÉ) Directive replaces the previous Air Framework

Directive (1996/30/EC) and daughter directives 1999/30/EC and 2000/69/EC

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


___________________________________________________________________________________

Page 8 of 19

3.0 RESULTS & DISCUSSION

3.1 Worst-Case Scenario

NO2 Emissions The NO2 modelling results for the Worst-Case Scenario is detailed in Table 3 and Figures 1 - 2. The results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards for NO2. For the worst-case year, emissions from the site lead to an ambient NO2 concentration (including background) which is 32% of the maximum ambient 1-hour limit value (measured as a 99.8th%ile) and 31% of the annual limit value at the worst-case receptor. In relation to the annual mean for the protection of vegetation, ambient levels (including background concentrations) are only 66% of the ambient air quality standard.

Table 3 Worst-Case Scenario Dispersion Model Results – NO2 / NOX

Pollutant /

Stack Height

(m)

Annual Mean

Background

(µµµµg/m3)

Averaging

Period

Process

Contribution

NO2 (µµµµg/m3)

Predicted

Environmental

Concentration

NO2 (µµµµg/Nm3)

Standard

(µµµµg/Nm3)Note 1

NO2 / 2000

20 99.8th%ile of 1-hr means 40.7 60.7 200

10 Annual Mean 2.2 12.2 40

13 Annual Mean

NOX 5.6 18.6 30

NO2 / 2001

20 99.8th%ile of 1-hr means 43.5 63.5 200

10 Annual Mean 1.9 11.9 40

13 Annual Mean

NOX 4.9 17.9 30

NO2 / 2002

20 99.8th%ile of 1-hr means 40.9 60.9 200

10 Annual Mean 2.5 12.5 40

13 Annual Mean

NOX 6.7 19.7 30

NO2 / 2004

20 99.8th%ile of 1-hr means 44.2 64.2 200

10 Annual Mean 2.1 12.1 40

13 Annual Mean

NOX 5.6 18.6 30

NO2 / 2005

20 99.8th%ile of 1-hr means 40.4 60.4 200

10 Annual Mean 2.1 12.1 40

13 Annual Mean

NOX 5.2 18.2 30

Note 1 Air Quality Standards 2011 (from EU Directive 2008/50/EC and S.I. 180 of 2011)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 9 of 19

---

99 .S"'%l I. of 1-10u r M • • n NO, ( onco ntrolio n< l in< lud inr bocliround l

Mox imum Con« nt, . t ;"n - ti4.2 iJVm'

~ 'aWneo nsu Iti ng Tho Toe .... _ . c""'"' ..... "'-~_ . .... To<_ Po". 0 _ " T',m " ,,'''' F."" • .,,",,

0_ .... , 0 " .. .. · ' ... , .... •... ,,, .. 0 ... ·." .. · ."." .... · ." ....

!\o.cqround M opp in,

fromGoo,I. Eorth

"'*'" Aughinish Alumina -Air Dispersion Model

1215928A T06

F;gu ,., \

Worst-Case Ambient Air Qualrty Impact -99.8"'%ileof l -Hour NO, Concentrations (IJgIm') (Year 2004)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 10 of 19

~ 'aWneo nsu Iti ng

---

Annu . 1 M • • n NO , Con« nt, . t ion, lin<lud in, bockJ:roundl M ox imum Con« nt, . t ;"n - 12.S iJVm'

11 .~

11.6

Tho Toe .... _ . c""'"' ..... "'-~_ . .... To<_ Po". 0 _ " T',m " ,, '''' F."" '., ,",,

D __

D · ,"~


fro mGoo,I. Eorth


1215928A T06

F;gu ,., 2

Worst Case Ambient Air Qualrty Impact Annual Mean NO, Concentrations (IJgIm') (Year 20(}2)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


___________________________________________________________________________________

Page 11 of 19

SO2 Emissions

The SO2 modelling results for the Worst-Case Scenario is detailed in Table 4 and Figures 3 - 4. The results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards for SO2. For the worst-case year, emissions from the site lead to an ambient SO2 concentration (including background) which is 91% of the maximum ambient 1-hour limit value (measured as a 99.7th%ile) and 71% of the maximum ambient 24-hour limit value (measured as a 99.2nd%ile). In relation to the annual mean for the protection of vegetation, the ambient level (including background concentration) is 85% of the ambient air quality standard.

Table 4 Worst-Case Scenario Dispersion Model Results – SO2

Pollutant /

Stack Height

(m)

Annual Mean

Background

(µµµµg/m3)

Averaging

Period

Process

Contribution

SO2

(µµµµg/m3)

Predicted

Environmental

Concentration

SO2 (µµµµg/Nm3)

Standard (µµµµg/Nm3)

Note 1

SO2 / 2000

Note 2 99.7th%ile of 1-hr means 247.2 255 350

Note 2 99.2th%ile of 24-hr means

81.3 89.3 125

4 Annual Mean 11.0 15.0 20

SO2 / 2001



64.3 72.3 125

4 Annual Mean 8.5 12.5 20

SO2 / 2002



80.2 88.2 125

4 Annual Mean 13.0 17.0 20

SO2 / 2004

Note 2 99.7th%ile of 1-hr means 226.8 234.8 350


73.4 81.4 125

4 Annual Mean 10.8 14.8 20

SO2 / 2005

Note 2 99.7th%ile of 1-hr means 269.1 277.1 350


75.6 83.6 125

4 Annual Mean 9.6 13.6 20

Note 1 Air Quality Standards 2011 (from EU Directive 2008/50/EC and S.I. 180 of 2011) Note 2 Short-term Environmental Concentrations calculated according to UK DEFRA guidance based on twice the

annual mean background concentration of 4 µg/m3.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 12 of 19

~ 'aWneo nsu Iti ng

---

99 .7"'%< 1. of l -Hou r M • • n SO , Con« ntr . t ion<

MllX imum ("n« nt , . t ;"n - 320 f ilm'

Tho Toe .... _ . c""'"' ..... "'-~_ . .... To<_ Po". 0 _ " T',m " ,,'''' F."" • .,,",,

0 __

0 " •• . ,~., .. -. ~'"-. ,~.~ ...


fromGoo,I. Eorth


1215928A T06

F;gure J

Worst-Case Ambient Air Qualrty Impact -99.7th %ile of l -Hour SO, Concentrations (IJgIm') (Year 20Dl )

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 13 of 19

~ ~nconsulting

Shannon AIrport 2000

99.2t "%ile of 24-Hour Mean S02 Concentrations

Maximum Concentration = 89.3 ~m!

60

50

The Tecp<o B . Clonshaugh Business and Technology Park. Du 17 T: +353 1847 4220 F: +353 1 847 4257

o ..... , 0 .1$'''' . ,$4." ..... o )CO · SI''''

0 ... ,,, ... • '".1.''''' .. ,."'"

Background Mapping

from Google Earth

Project

Aughinish Alumina -Air Dispersion Model

Reference

1215928AT06

Figure4

Worst Case Ambient Air Quality Impact-99.2th%ile of 24-Hour S02 Concentrations (1J9/m3 ) (Year 2000)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


___________________________________________________________________________________

Page 14 of 19

CO Emissions

The CO modelling results for the Worst-Case Scenario is detailed in Table 5. The results indicate that the ambient ground level concentration is below the relevant air quality standard for CO. For the worst-case year, emissions from the site lead to an ambient CO concentration (including background) which is 21% of the 8-Hour limit value.

Table 5 Worst-Case Scenario Dispersion Model Results – CO

Pollutant /

Stack Height

(m)

8-Hour Mean

Background

(µµµµg/m3)

Averaging

Period

Process

Contribution

CO

(mg/m3)

Predicted

Environmental

Concentration

CO (mg/m3)

Standard

(µµµµg/Nm3)

CO / 2000 2.0 8-Hour Mean 0.08 2.1 10

CO / 2001 2.0 8-Hour Mean 0.10 2.1 10

CO / 2002 2.0 8-Hour Mean 0.08 2.1 10

CO / 2004 2.0 8-Hour Mean 0.14 2.1 10

CO / 2005 2.0 8-Hour Mean 0.09 2.1 10

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


___________________________________________________________________________________

Page 15 of 19

PM10/PM2.5 Emissions

The PM10 modelling results for the Worst-Case Scenario is detailed in Table 6 and Figures 5 - 6. The results indicate that the ambient ground level concentrations are below the relevant air quality standards for PM10. For the worst-case year, emissions from the site lead to an ambient PM10 concentration (including background) which is 49% of the maximum ambient 24-hour limit value (measured as a 90th%ile) and 33% of the annual mean limit value. In relation to PM2.5, as a worst-case, it is assumed that all dust released from the facility is of a particle size of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). In reality, particles greater than 2.5 microns will also be present and thus the mass of PM2.5 release from the emission points has been overestimated. Ambient concentrations will be 36% of the annual mean PM2.5 limit value (including background), which comes into force in 2015 as outlined in Table 7.

Table 6 Worst-Case Scenario Dispersion Model Results – PM10

Pollutant /

Scenario

Annual Mean

Background

(µµµµg/m3)

Averaging Period

Process

Contribution

(µµµµg/m3)

Predicted

Environmental

Concentration

(µµµµg/Nm3)

Standard


PM10 / 2000

Note 2 90th%ile of 24-hr means 3.4 23.8 50

12 Annual Mean 1.1 13.1 40

PM10 / 2001


12 Annual Mean 0.9 12.9 40

PM10 / 2002


12 Annual Mean 1.3 13.3 40

PM10 / 2004


12 Annual Mean 1.1 13.1 40

PM10 / 2005


12 Annual Mean 1.0 13.0 40

Note 1 Air Quality Standards 2011 (from EU Directive 2008/50/EC and S.I. 180 of 2011) Note 2 Short-term Environmental Concentrations calculated according to UK DEFRA guidance. The 90.4th of 24-

hour mean concentrations for Shannon Town in 2011 was 20.4 µg/m3 which has been used in the calculation of the short-term peak concentration for PM10.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


___________________________________________________________________________________

Page 16 of 19

Table 7 Worst-Case Scenario Dispersion Model Results – PM10

Pollutant /

Scenario

Annual Mean

Background

(µµµµg/m3)

Averaging

Period

Process

Contribution

(µµµµg/m3)

Predicted

Environmental

Concentration

(µµµµg/Nm3)

Standard


PM2.5 / 2000 7.8 Annual Mean 1.1 8.9 25

PM2.5 / 2001 7.8 Annual Mean 0.9 8.7 25

PM2.5 / 2002 7.8 Annual Mean 1.3 9.1 25

PM2.5 / 2004 7.8 Annual Mean 1.1 8.9 25

PM2.5 / 2005 7.8 Annual Mean 1.0 8.8 25

Note 1 Air Quality Standards 2011 (from EU Directive 2008/50/EC and S.I. 180 of 2011)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 17 of 19

---

90"'%1 1. of 24 -flou r M • • n PM" Con, . nt, . t ion, 1<" ludinr bocki:roun d) M"" imum ("nco ntrol;"n - 4 .3 f ilm'

~ 'aWneo nsu Iti ng Tho Toe .... _ . C""'"' ..... "'-~_ . .... To<_ Po". 0 _ " T',m " ,, '''' F."" '., ,",,

D __

D · ,"~

!\o.cqroun d M opp in,

fro mGoo, I. Eorth


1215928A T06

Worst Case Air Qualrty Impact - 9()th%ile of 24-Hour PM,o Concentrations (IJgIm') (Year 20(}2)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 18 of 19

~ ~nconsulting

Annua l Mean PM10Concentrations (includ ing background)

Maximum Concentration = 13.3 J.lI:Im3

13.3

13.1

12.9

12.7

12.5

12.3

The Tecpro Buicfo>g. ClonsIIaug Busnessand Technology PatI<. Dubfrl l7 T: +353 1847 4220 F: +353 1847 4257

DJU In_

• • ".tet_..• . '.10 ....

Background Mapping

from Google Earth

Project

Aughinish Alumina -Air Dispersion Model

Reference

1215928AT06

Figure 6

Worst Case Air Quality Impact - Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations (1J9/m3) (Year 2002)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20

EP/12/5928AT06_5 AWN Consulting Ltd _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Page 19 of 19

4.0 CONCLUSION This assessment is based on the following worst-case assumptions:

• 2 Existing Boilers running 365 days per year (A1-1 & A1-2) (In reality these boilers operate at <50% of rated capacity as this supplies the full top-up steam requirement);

• 3 Calciner Stacks running 365 days per year (A2-1, A2-2 and A2-3) (in reality all three calciners will be in operation for no more than 317 days per annum);

• 2 CHP Stack running 1 hour per week on distillate and the rest of the year on natural gas (A3-A and A3-B) (in reality the 2 CHP units will be operated on gas oil for only 1 hour per month. Furthermore the CHP on-line time is less than 96% i.e. for 8% of the time there will be only 1 CHP unit operating.)


The NO2 air dispersion modelling results have been compared with the ambient air quality standards for NO2 for the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario will lead to ambient NO2 concentrations (including background) which reach at most 32% of the 1-hour limit value (measured as a 99.8th%ile) and 31% of the annual limit value at the worst-case off-site ambient receptor. In relation to the annual mean for the protection of vegetation, ambient levels (including background concentrations) peak at 66% of the ambient air quality standard. The SO2 air dispersion modelling results have been compared with the ambient air quality standards for SO2 for the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario leads to ambient SO2 concentrations (including background) which reach at most 91% of the 1-hour (measured as a 99.7th%ile) and 24-limit value (measured as a 99.2th%ile) at the worst-case off-site ambient receptor. In relation to the annual mean for the protection of vegetation, the ambient level (including background concentration) is 85% of the ambient air quality standard. The PM10 air dispersion modelling results have been compared with the ambient air quality standards for PM10 for the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario leads to ambient PM10 concentrations (including background) which reach at most 49% of the 24-hour (measured as a 90th%ile) and annual mean value at the worst-case off-site ambient receptor. Ambient concentrations will be 36% of the annual mean PM2.5 limit value (including background), which comes into force in 2015. CO levels are extremely low for the worst-case scenario.

5.0 REFERENCES

(1) Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Air Quality Monitoring Report 2011 (& previous annual reports 1997-2010

(2) Environmental Protection Agency (2013) www.epa.ie/whatwedo/monitoring/air/data

(3) UK DEFRA (2009) Part IV of the Environment Act 1995: Local Air Quality Management, LAQM. TG(09)

(4) EPA (2010) Air Dispersion Modelling from Industrial Installations Guidance Note (AG4)

(5) Hanrahan, P The Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method for Determining NO2/NOX Ratios in Modeling – Part 1: Methodology J. Air & Waste Management Assoc. 49 1324-1331 (1999).

(6) Hanrahan, P The Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method for Determining NO2/NOX Ratios in Modeling – Part 21: Evaluation Studies J. Air & Waste Management Assoc. 49 1332-1338 (1999).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 09-09-2013:23:37:20

Documents

ATTACHMENT 1 - Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland · Gas turbine operation at steady ... each parameter. • Yes. ... A3-A (Gas Turbine Heat Recovery Steam Generator Stack)