Final report: Air quality impact assessment of the ... Appendices... · the proposed waste gasification power station ... MRF Materials Recovery Facility ... is an extension of the

Final report: Air quality impact assessment of the proposed waste gasification power station in East Rockingham, Western Australia

for

New Energy Corporation

21 October 2013

Synergetics Pty Ltd ABN 37 091 235 022 Melbourne: 490 Spencer Street Melbourne VIC 3003 Australia Tel: +61 3 9328 4800 Fax: +61 3 9328 4822

www.synergetics.net.au

Final report: Air quality impact assessment of the proposed waste gasification power station in East Rockingham, Western Australia

for


Copyright © 2013 Synergetics Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. This document has been prepared for New Energy Corporation on the basis of instructions and information provided and therefore may be subject to qualifications, which are not expressed. No other person may use or rely on this document without confirmation, in writing, from Synergetics Pty Ltd. Synergetics Pty Ltd has no liability to any other person who acts or relies upon any information contained in this document without confirmation. This document is uncontrolled unless it is an original, signed copy.

Report version Date Authored by Checked by

1 3 September 2012 KL DC

2 10 December 2012 KL Jason Pugh (NEC)

3 3 September 2013 KL,CR DC

4 21 October 2013 KL,CR DC

Prepared by

Keith Liow

BE (Hons), PhD (Monash), MIE Aust Senior Modelling Engineer

and

Cameron Roach

BSc (Applied Mathematics & Physics) Hons (Melb), PGDip Modelling Engineer

Reviewed by

Dave Collins BE (Hons), PhD (Melb), FIE Aust, FAIE, CIH, MAIOH

Principal Environmental Engineer


Final report 12029 Air impact assessment of gasification facility at East Rockingham V4.docx Page 1

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... 1

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 1

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 2

List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5

1 Assessment criteria ................................................................................................................ 6

1.1 Air quality regulation in Western Australia .................................................................... 6

1.2 Ambient Air Quality NEPM ............................................................................................. 6

1.3 Air Toxics NEPM ............................................................................................................. 8

1.4 World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Air Quality ....................................... 8

1.5 Regulations from other jurisdictions and/or regulatory bodies ..................................10

1.6 List of assessment criteria employed ...........................................................................10

2 Site description ....................................................................................................................12

2.1 Surrounding environment ............................................................................................12

2.2 Background pollutant concentrations..........................................................................12

2.3 Nearby sensitive receptors ..........................................................................................16

2.4 Process description ......................................................................................................17

2.5 Emission stacks .............................................................................................................17

2.6 Infrastructure in close proximity to the stacks ............................................................18

3 Meteorology .........................................................................................................................19

3.1 Meteorological data .....................................................................................................19

3.1 Meteorological characteristics .....................................................................................20

4 Modelling methodology .......................................................................................................22

4.1 Modelling software ......................................................................................................22

4.2 Modelling inputs and outputs ......................................................................................22

4.3 Emission source characterisation.................................................................................23

5 Results ..................................................................................................................................26

5.1 Interpretation of results ...............................................................................................26

5.2 Calculated ground level concentrations ......................................................................26

6 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................35

7 References ............................................................................................................................36

List of Tables

Table 1 - Standards and goals for the key ambient air pollutants (excluding PM2.5) as specified in NEPC (1998). .............................................................................................................................. 7



Table 2 - Standards and goal for PM2.5 as specified in the variation to the original NEPM (NEPC 2003). ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Table 3 - Monitoring investigation levels for air toxics (NEPC 2004). ........................................... 8

Table 4 - Guideline values for individual substances (WHO 2000). .............................................. 9

Table 5 – Updated air quality guidelines as provided by WHO (2005). ...................................... 10

Table 6 – List of assessment criteria employed and their sources (μg/m3). ............................... 11

Table 7 - Air parameters measured at DEC monitoring stations (DEC 2010). A tick represents stations where each pollutant is currently monitored, while a cross indicated sites where historical data is available but measurements are no longer taken. .......................................... 13

Table 8 - Background pollutant concentrations (all concentrations are given in μg/m3 unless otherwise stated) (DEC 2010). Green cells highlight first and second preferences. .................. 14

Table 9 - Location of nearest air quality monitoring stations and NPI-reporting emission sources (www.npi.gov.au). Total pollutant emissions from nearby emission sources are also reported and labelled as significant (red). .................................................................................. 15

Table 10 – Stack parameters of the main and emergency shutdown stacks. ............................ 17

Table 11- Percentile frequency distribution of wind speed by wind direction. .......................... 21

Table 12- Stability class statistics as a function of observational and tabulated meteorological parameters. ................................................................................................................................. 21

Table 13 – Emission rates of the pollutants for the operational and emergency shutdown conditions. ................................................................................................................................... 23

Table 14 – GLC results for the worst-case off-site gridded receptor for the main/operational condition. .................................................................................................................................... 27

Table 15 – GLC results for the worst-case off-site gridded receptor for the emergency shutdown condition. ................................................................................................................... 28

Table 16 – GLC results for the Kwinana beach discrete receptor for the main/operational condition. .................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 17 – GLC results for the Kwinana beach discrete receptor for the emergency shutdown condition. .................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 18 – GLC results for the Leda Primary School discrete receptor for the main/operational condition. .................................................................................................................................... 31

Table 19 – GLC results for the Leda Primary School discrete receptor for the emergency shutdown condition. ................................................................................................................... 32

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Aerial photograph of the areas surrounding the East Rockingham site. ................... 12

Figure 2 - Aerial photograph of the two discrete receptors (Kwinana Beach and Leda Primary School) with respect to the proposed East Rockingham site. ..................................................... 16

Figure 3 - Site plan highlighting the adjacent infrastructure of the main (operational) and emergency shutdown stacks. Shown here are the plant room (red), EUHX/Steam boiler



(orange), AQCS Dry Reactor (beige), AQCS Baghouse Filter (green), AC condenser (blue), and main & emergency shutdown emissions stack (circles). ............................................................ 18

Figure 4 – Aerial photograph to highlight the location of the KIC Alcoa ‘A’ Lake station relative to the site. ................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 5 - Annual wind rose for the KIC Alcoa ‘A’ Lake station for 2008. ................................... 20

Figure 6 – Speciation of heavy metals in the emission rates by Entech (2012). ......................... 24

Figure 7 – Size distribution of particulate matter emissions from the Kuznica gasification plant (CUT 2004)................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 8 – Contour plots of the 1-hour calculated NOx concentrations (μ/m3) in the modelling domain. The GLCs correspond to the operational/main condition. The main stack is highlighted as a red circle, and the discrete receptors are marked as blue circles. The legends are labelled as direct impacts from the stack alone (left) and cumulative impact, inclusive of background pollutant concentrations (right). ................................................................................................. 33

Figure 9 – Contour plots of the 24-hour calculated PM10 concentrations (μg/m3) in the modelling domain. The GLCs correspond to the operational/main condition. The main stack is highlighted as a red circle, and the discrete receptors are marked as blue circles. The legends are labelled as direct impacts from the stack alone (left) and cumulative impact, inclusive of background pollutant concentrations (right). ............................................................................. 34



List of Abbreviations

As Arsenic AC Air condenser AQCS Air Quality Control System AQMS Air Quality Monitoring Station b/g Background Cd Cadmium CF Compliance factor CO Carbon monoxide Co Cobalt Cr Chromium Cr (VI) Chromium VI Cr (III) Chromium III Cu Copper DEC Department of Environment and Conservation DoH Department of Health EUHX Heat exchanger GLC Ground level concentration HCl Hydrochloric acid HF Hydrofluoric acid Hg Mercury Mn Manganese MRF Materials Recovery Facility NEC New Energy Corporation Ni Nickel NO Nitrogen monoxide NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NOx Oxides of Nitrogen NPI National Pollutant Inventory O3 Ozone Pb Lead PM10 Particulate matter smaller than 10 μm PM2.5 Particulate matter smaller than 2.5 μm Sb Antimony SO2 Sulfur dioxide Tl Thallium TSP Total suspended particulate matter TOC Total organic compounds VOC Total volatile organic compounds TVOC Total volatile organic compounds V Vanadium WA Western Australia



Introduction

New Energy Corporation (NEC) has engaged Synergetics Environmental Engineering (Synergetics) to conduct an assessment of ground level air quality impacts in the region surrounding the proposed Entech 72 MW (thermal) gasification facility, with approximately 13.5 MW electrical outputs, at East Rockingham, Western Australia.

This assessment is an extension of the previous air quality impact assessment study by Synergetics (2011) at the same site. This study expands on the previous assessment by incorporating updated information in response to the draft Environmental Scoping Document (ESD) described in EPA WA (2012).

This document provides details of the modelling methodology and the results from the assessment.



1 Assessment criteria

1.1 Air quality regulation in Western Australia

In Western Australia, air quality is governed by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), with advice from the Department of Health (DoE). State-specific air quality assessment criteria are gradually being developed, however in this case we have adopted an interim approach as described in WA DoE (2004). The air quality assessment criteria are defined as the concentration of a pollutant not to be exceeded to protect human health, amenity and environment. Compliance with guidelines may or may not be required under legislation, depending on site-specific circumstances.

As part of the interim approach to the selection of air quality guidelines for the assessment of air quality impacts, WA DoE (2004) recommends the use of a hierarchical selection process as follows.

1. National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) standards will be employed as guidelines;

2. World Health Organisation guidelines for air quality will be assessed for their applicability in the absence of a NEPM standards; and

3. Criteria from other jurisdictions and regulatory bodies will be adopted for all other pollutants once assessed and deemed to be applicable to the WA context.

1.2 Ambient Air Quality NEPM

The Ambient Air Quality National Environment Protection Measure (AAQ NEPM) was originally promulgated in 1998 and provided a list of standards and goals for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulphur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb) and particulate matter less than 10µm diameter (PM10) - summarised in Table 1. The AAQ NEPM was subsequently amended in 2003 to add advisory reporting standards for PM2.5 (Table 2). In the AAQ NEPM, the terms Standards, Advisory Reporting Standards and Goals are defined as follows:

Standard - quantifiable characteristics of the air against which ambient air quality can be assessed.

Advisory Reporting Standard - a health-based standard to assess the results of monitoring for particulate matter as PM2.5. These standards do not have a timeframe for compliance associated with them.

Goal - a goal (a) that relates to desired environmental outcomes, and (b) that guides the formulation of strategies for the management of human activities that may affect the environment.



Table 1 - Standards and goals for the key ambient air pollutants (excluding PM2.5) as specified in NEPC (1998).

Substance Averaging

period

Standard

(μg/m3)

Goal within 10 years (maximum allowable exceedances).

Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 11,247 1-day a year

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 1-hour 246 1-day a year

1-year 61.6 none

Photochemical oxidants as ozone (O3)

1-hour 214 1-day a year


Sulphur dioxide (SO2)


1-day 228 1-day a year

1-year 57.2 None

Lead (Pb) 1-year 0.50 None

Particulate matter as PM10

1-day 50 5 days a year

Table 2 - Standards and goal for PM2.5 as specified in the variation to the original NEPM (NEPC 2003).

Substance Averaging

period

Standard

(μg/m3) Goal

Particulate matter as PM2.5

1-day 25 Goal is to gather sufficient data nationally to facilitate a review of the standard as part of the review of this NEPM scheduled to commence in 2005

1-year 8

A recent discussion paper (NEPC 2010), suggest a number of modification of air quality regulation in Australia in the next few years, as summarised below.

It is very likely that allowable exceedances will be gradually phased out - The literature consistently demonstrates that PM10 and PM2.5 in particular, but also NO2, CO and SO2, exert consistent, measureable adverse health effects on humans even below the current limits. Basically this means that any concentration, small as it may be, has some sort of health impact. The NEPM discussion paper (NEPC 2010), states that for these pollutants “the standards have been adopted with the acknowledgement that there is a level of residual risk associated with those standards”. Given that there appears to be a linear relationship between exposure to NEPM pollutants and adverse health effects, any increase in air pollution levels (even within the standards) will lead to an increase in risk to the health of the population.



Benzene and PAHs are likely to be incorporated into the AAQ NEPM - Benzene and PAHs are currently covered in Australia by the Air Toxics NEPM.

1.3 Air Toxics NEPM

The Air Toxics NEPM (AT NEPM) was created largely with the aim of coordinating the nation-wide collection of data for five toxic pollutants to feed into the eventual development of a national standard (NEPC 2004). Monitoring investigation levels are included in the AT NEPM but are not intended to be used as regulatory limits - see Table 3. If these investigation levels are exceeded at a monitoring station, then further investigation is warranted by the relevant environmental jurisdiction. In the case of regular exceedances, the jurisdiction may implement management actions.

Table 3 - Monitoring investigation levels for air toxics (NEPC 2004).

Substance Averaging

period

Monitoring investigation level

(μg/m3)

Goal

Benzene 1-year 10.5

8-year goal is to gather sufficient data nationally to facilitate development of a standard.

Benzo(a)pyrene 1-year 0.0003

Formaldehyde 24-hour 53.6

Toluene 24-hour 4111

1-year 411

Xylenes (o-, m- and p- isomers)

24-hour 1184

1-year 947

1.4 World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Air Quality

The WHO has released two documents that provide air quality guidelines:

Air Quality Guidelines for Europe (2nd ed) (WHO 2000); and

WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, O3, NO2 and SO2 – Global Update 2005 (WHO 2005).

The first of these two documents, WHO (2000), provides a detailed review of the human health and ecological impacts associated with a broad range of pollutants including ‘classical pollutants’ (NO2, O3, particulate matter and SO2), inorganic pollutants, organic pollutants and indoor pollutants. When a compelling scientific basis for recommending a guideline was present, a guideline was recommended as listed in Table 4. This list includes both pollutants that are and are not relevant to the present assessment. For a number of key pollutants: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10); O3; SO2; and NO2, WHO carried out a global update of the published guidelines based on new published findings in the scientific literature and released them in 2005 (WHO 2005). These are reported in Table 5.



Table 4 - Guideline values for individual substances (WHO 2000).

Substance Time-weighted

average (μg/m3) Averaging

time

Cadmium (Cd) 0.005 1-year

Carbon disulfide (CS2) 100 24-hour

Carbon monoxide (CO)

100000 15-min

60000 30-min

30000 1-hour

10000 8-hour

1,2-Dichloroethane 700 24-hour

Dichloromethane 3000 24-hour

450 1-week

Formaldehyde 100 30-min

Hydrogen sulfide 150 24-hour

Lead (Pb) 0.5 1-year

Manganese (Mn) 0.15 1-year

Mercury (Hg) 1 1-year

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 200 1-hour

40 1-year

Ozone (O3) 120 8-hour

Styrene 260 1-week

Sulphur dioxide (SO2)

500 10-min

125 24-hour

50 1-year

Tetrachloroethylene 250 1-year

Toluene 260 1-week

Vanadium (V) 1 24-hour



Table 5 – Updated air quality guidelines as provided by WHO (2005).

Substance Time-weighted

average (μg/m3) Averaging

time

PM10 50 24-hour

PM10 20 1-year

PM2.5 25 24-hour

PM2.5 10 1-year

O3 100 8-hour

NO2 200 1-hour

NO2 40 1-year

SO2 500 10-min

SO2 20 24-hour

1.5 Regulations from other jurisdictions and/or regulatory bodies

A number of assessment criteria in the present assessment were adopted from other jurisdictions or regulatory bodies. Assessment criteria for a number of toxic substances and several heavy metals, were sourced from the Toxicos (2010) which were developed specifically for the Western Australian DEC. Assessment criteria for the acid gases hydrogen fluoride (HF) and hydrogen chloride (HCl) were derived from a DoH internal document on the management of acid gases (WA DoH 2007). The 1-year criterion for nickel was based on the limit set by DoH for the Port of Esperance.

A number of other assessment criteria were adopted from New South Wales regulations (DEC NSW 2005) and deemed to be broadly acceptable in an Australian context. Finally criteria for cobalt and thallium were sourced respectively from Ontario (Canada) and Texas (U.S) regulatory bodies due to the lack of availability of any more directly applicable standards.

1.6 List of assessment criteria employed

The air quality assessment criteria were chosen following discussions with the WA Department of Health (WA DoH 2012) and are summarised in Table 6. For the pollutants and averaging times with more than one assessment criteria, the criterion used are shaded in gray.



Table 6 – List of assessment criteria employed and their sources (μg/m3).

Pollutant Averaging

time Criteria

NEPC 1998/2003

WHO Other jurisdictions

2000 2005 Guideline Jurisdiction

CO 15-min 100000 - 100000 - - -

CO 30-min 60000 - 60000 - - -

CO 1-hour 30000 - 30000 - - -

CO 8-hour 11249 11249 10000 - - -

NO2 1-hour 246.4 246.4 200 - - -

NO2 1-year 61.6 61.6 40 - - -

TSP1 24-hour 90 - - - 90 WA EPA (1999)

PM10 24-hour 50 50 - 50 - -

PM2.5 24-hour 25 25 - 25 - -

PM2.5 1-year 8 8 - 10 - -

SO2 10-min 500 - 500 500 - -

SO2 1-hour 571.8 571.8 - - - -

SO2 24 hour 228.7 228.7 125 20 - -

SO2 1-year 57.2 57.2 50 - - -

HCl 1-hour 100 - - - 0.1 WA DoH (2007)

HF 1-hour 100 - 600 - 0.1 WA DoH (2007)

TOC (as benzene)2 1-hour 29 - - - 0.029 DEC NSW (2005)

Dioxins and furans3 Acute

4 2 x 10

-6 - - - 2 x 10

-6 DEC NSW (2005)

Dioxins and furans3 Chronic

5 1 x 10

-6 - - - 1 x 10

-6 Toxikos (2010)

As 1-hour 0.09 - - - 0.00009 DEC NSW (2005)

As 1-year 3 x 10-3

- - - 3 x 10-6

Toxikos (2010)

Cd 1-hour 0.018 - - - 0.000018 DEC NSW (2005)

Cd 1-year 0.005 - 0.005 - - -

Co 24-hour 0.1 - - - 0.0001 Ont MOE(2008)

Cr (VI) 1-year 2 x 10-4

- - - 2 x 10-7

Toxikos (2010)

Cr (III) 1-hour 10 - - - 0.01 Toxikos (2010)

Cu 1-hour 1 - - - 0.001 Toxikos (2010)

Hg6

1-hour 1.8 - - - 0.0018 DEC NSW (2005)

Hg 1-year 1 - 1 - - -

Mn 1-hour 18 - - - 0.018 DEC NSW (2005)

Mn 1-year 0.15 - 0.15 - - -

Ni 1-hour 0.18 - - - 0.00018 DEC NSW (2005)

Ni 1-year 3 x 10-3

- - - 3 x 10-6

DoH Esper(WA)

Pb 1-year 0.5 0.5 0.5 - - -

Sb 1-hour 9 - - - 0.009 DEC NSW (2005)

Tl 1-hour 1 - - - 0.001 TCEQ (2011)

Tl 1-year 0.1 - - - 0.0001 TCEQ (2011)

V 24-hour 1 - 1 - - -

1 Total suspended particulate limit for Area C of the Kwinana area.

2 All total organic compounds were conservatively assumed to be benzene on the basis of its

high toxicity. 3 Calculated by determination of the individual dioxin and furan congener concentrations

multiplied by the respective WHO toxic equivalency factors and summed to provide the TEQ. 4 Calculated as 1-hour averaging time.

5 Calculated as 1-year averaging time.

6 Assumed all mercury to be in its inorganic form.



2 Site description

2.1 Surrounding environment

The East Rockingham site is located about 2 km from the coast within the Kwinana Industrial Area about 35 km south of Perth (refer to Figure 1). It is in an urban industrial setting and the topography is flat. Given its location close to the coast, coastal meteorological effects may be significant.

Figure 1 – Aerial photograph of the areas surrounding the East Rockingham site.

2.2 Background pollutant concentrations

Background pollutant concentrations are required to be included into the concentration estimates for the pollutants CO, NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5. The Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation collects air quality data from a number of monitoring stations throughout the Perth, Kwinana, Southwest, Kalgoorlie and Midwest regions of the state (DEC 2010). Each monitoring station only monitors a small number of pollutants at each site as summarized in Table 7, so that collating background pollutant information necessarily requires the use of data from various sites.



A hierarchical approach was used to quantify the background concentration of the pollutant.

Preference was given to site-specific data from a nearby Air Quality Monitoring site (AQMS) deemed to be directly applicable to the site.

Second preference was given to site-representative data, sourced from AQMS that are not exclusively nearby but remains relevant to the site in terms of geography, topography, land use, etc.

Both first and second preferences are marked as green cells in Table 8.

Table 7 - Air parameters measured at DEC monitoring stations (DEC 2010). A tick represents stations where each pollutant is currently monitored, while a cross indicated sites where historical data is available but measurements are no longer taken.

Monitoring site CO O3 NO2 SO2 Pb PM10 PM2.5

Albany

Bunbury

Busselton

Caversham

Collie

Duncraig

Geraldton

Quinns Rock

Rockingham

Rolling Green

South Lake

Swanbourne

Wattleup



Table 8 - Background pollutant concentrations (all concentrations are given in μg/m3 unless otherwise stated) (DEC 2010). Green cells highlight first and second preferences.

Background pollutant concentration (DEC 2010) (µg/m

3 unless otherwise stated)

AQ sites Albany Bunbury Busselton Collie Caversham Duncraig Geraldton Quinns Rocks

Wattleup Rockingham Rolling Green

South Lake

Swanbourne

Distance from subject site (km)

370 120 160 130 46 48 402 66 11 5 85 19 32

Pollutant

CO (15-min)

942 1649

1649

CO (30-min)

820 1435

1435

CO (1-hour)

714 1249

1249

CO (8-hour)

500 875

875

CO (8 hour) ppm

0.40 0.70

0.70

NO2 (1-hour) ppm

0.026 0.027

0.024

0.024 0.015 0.029 0.029

NO2 (1-hour)

53 55

49

49 31 60 60

NO2 (1-year)

4 4

4

4 2 5 5

SO2 (10-min)

90 29

61

SO2 (1-hour) ppm

0.022 0.007

0.015

SO2 (1-hour)

63 20

43

SO2 (24-hour) ppm

0.0030 0.0010

0.0020

SO2 (24-hour)

9 3

6

SO2 (1-year)

2 1

1

PM10 (24-hour) 23 25

31 26 23 40

28

PM10 (1-year) 5 5

6 5 5 8

6

PM2.5 (24-hour)

13 14

11 12

11

12

PM2.5 (1-year)

2.5 2.8

2.2 2.3

2.3

2.3

O3 (1-hour) ppm

0.05

0.045

0.041 0.052 0.039 0.044

O3 (1-hour)

107

96

88 111 84 94

O3 (24-hour)

43

39

35 45 33 38

O3 (1-year)

9

8

7 9 7 8

Notes: - Scaling from 1-hour averages to less than 1-hour averages was done applying the relationship C1 = C0[t0/t1]

0.2 (EPA Vic, 2000).

- Scaling from 1-hour averages to 24-hour averages was done using a multiplier of 0.4, from 1-hour to 1-year using 0.08 and from 24-hour to 1-year using 0.2 (OEHHA 2003). - Blue values are 90th percentile value as taken from DEC WA (2010) report for 2009 data. - Orange values are scaled from 1-hour to 24-hour using 0.4 multiplier. - Green values are converted from ppm to mg/m

3 at 0° C and 1 standard atmosphere (atm).



Table 9 - Location of nearest air quality monitoring stations and NPI-reporting emission sources (www.npi.gov.au). Total pollutant emissions from nearby emission sources are also reported and labelled as significant (red).

Parameter Value

Location relative to AQ station

Nearest AQMS station: Rockingham Distance: 5km

Data collected: O3, NO2, SO2

Nearby emission sources

Some of the NPI listed facilities are;

BP Cogen and Mason Road Station;

BP Refinery (Kwinana) Pty Ltd;

Chemical Australia Kwinana;

CSBP Kwinana Operations;

Kleenheat Gas;

Kwinana Chlor-Alkali Plant;

Kwinana Depot;

Kwinana Nicket Refinery;

Mintech Chemical Industries;

Nalco Australia Pty Ltd; and

Kwinana Pigment Plant.

Emissions

CO: 1,412 tonnes p.a.

SO2: 3 tonnes p.a.

NO2: 430 tonnes p.a.

PM2.5: 28 tonnes p.a.

Other pollutants include volatile organic carbons (VOCs) and ammonia (NH3).

Emission sources

Chemical manufacturing and bulk storage

Import, handling, maintenance and distribution of LPG

Manufacture of water treatment chemicals

Meter stations

Metal processing (Nickel)

Polymer manufacturing

Railway yard operations



The site-specific Rockingham AQMS was used to quantify the background concentration of the key emitters, which have been determined through the NPI database for the immediate areas surrounding the proposed site. As the Rockingham AQMS does not monitor PM2.5 and PM10, data was sourced from the similar site of Bunbury. Bunbury was deemed to be representative of the proposed site due to various similarities including the fact that both sites are coastal and both are sites with significant industrial activity.

2.3 Nearby sensitive receptors

For the East Rockingham site, two sensitive, discrete receptors were identified and included in the modelling (see Figure 2). The first receptor is Kwinana Beach, which is located about 1.6 km west of the site. The second receptor is the Leda Primary School, which is located about 2.9 km south easterly of the site. Both discrete receptors reside within the modelling domain.

Figure 2 - Aerial photograph of the two discrete receptors (Kwinana Beach and Leda Primary School) with respect to the proposed East Rockingham site.



2.4 Process description

During normal operation the gasification facility will convert waste into a synthetic combustion gas (syn-gas) by heating under pyrolysis conditions, with the syn-gas then used as a fuel in a boiler to raise steam and generate electricity. Waste combustion gases will be treated to remove acid gases, particulates and other pollutants before being discharged to the atmosphere via the operational exhaust stack except during abnormal operating conditions, such as emergency shutdown, when untreated discharges will occur via the emergency discharge stack.

Emergency discharges are expected to last less than an hour, and are predicted to occur once in every 10 years (NEC 2012) and under no circumstances are the main/operational and emergency shutdown stacks intended to be run concurrently

Both operational and emergency shutdown conditions are considered in this assessment as required by the ESD (EPA WA 2012), with operational conditions representative of ‘typical’ emissions, and emergency shutdown representative of ‘worst case’ emissions.

2.5 Emission stacks

The physical locations of the stack are shown schematically in Figure 3, based on the advice received from NEC (2012) and Entech (2012). The stack parameters for the main and emergency shutdown stacks are reported in Table 10. The emission properties of the emergency shutdown stack were tabulated as the average of the off-gas conditions occurring over the entire 1-hour emergency shutdown cycle (in the 0 to 15-min, 15 to 30-min, 30 to 45-min and 45 to 60-min intervals). For the purposes of Ausplume modelling The Ausplume configuration file uses a value of 2.54 m as the stack internal diameter. This presents a conservative modeling situation as the increased diameter will result in a lower plume rise and higher GLC.

Table 10 – Stack parameters of the main and emergency shutdown stacks.

Parameter

Stack configuration

Units Main (operational)

Emergency shutdown

Stack design Circular,

single flue Circular,

single flue -

Stack internal diameter 2.5 1.8 m

Stack height 30 25 m

Stack exit velocity 19.7 29.7 m/s

Stack exit temperature 165 850 °C

Stack exit flow rate 96.7 75.5 Am3/s

Stack exit moisture content

11 12 % v/v



2.6 Infrastructure in close proximity to the stacks

A close-up view of the site plan by focusing on the infrastructure lying in proximity to the two stacks (main and emergency shutdown) is shown in Figure 3. The most significant buildings are required to be included in the modelling to allow for building downwash effects to be taken into account. The main criteria for including the buildings are their physical dimensions and proximity relative to the stacks. For this study, the buildings that have been included are as follows:

The plant room housing the pyrolytic gasification facility;

The EUHX/Steam Boiler;

The AQCS Dry Reactor;

The AQCS Baghouse Filter; and

The AC condenser package.

Figure 3 - Site plan highlighting the adjacent infrastructure of the main (operational) and emergency shutdown stacks. Shown here are the plant room (red), EUHX/Steam boiler (orange), AQCS Dry Reactor (beige), AQCS Baghouse Filter (green), AC condenser (blue), and main & emergency shutdown emissions stack (circles).



3 Meteorology

3.1 Meteorological data

The closest BoM station Garden Island, about 8 to 10 km from the site, was used in the earlier assessment (Synergetics 2011). Subsequent to the earlier Synergetics (2011) assessment, the meteorology data from KIC Alcoa Lake ‘A’ station became available. As the KIC Alcoa ‘A’ Lake station and East Rockingham are similarly located relative to the coast and are only about 5 km apart (Figure 4) and the meteorology is likely to be more similar, it was used for this assessment.

Consistent with the recommendation in the Western Australian Air Quality Modelling Guidance Notes (WA DoE 2006) a data-set covering a calendar year was employed for air quality dispersion modelling purposes. The year 2008 was used.

The data complies with the 90% completion requirement for the 1-hour meteorological record, with the exception of cloud cover and cloud height. Where appropriate, gap filling of the observational data was performed in accordance to NSW DEC (2005). Owing to the sparseness in the cloud data, an alternative source of cloud cover data was used. The prognostic meteorological module of TAPM (The Air Pollution Model) (Hurley 2008) was used to calculate the cloud cover by using global and synoptic scale models.

Figure 4 – Aerial photograph to highlight the location of the KIC Alcoa ‘A’ Lake station relative to the site.



3.1 Meteorological characteristics East Rockingham experiences a Mediterranean climate, characterised by seasonal

extremes in weather, from hot and dry summer days, lasting from December to late

March, while winters are relatively cool and wet. The wind rose (refer to Figure 5) and

wind climatology at East Rockingham (refer to Table 11 and Table 12) are strongly

dominated by the effects of the land-sea interface, where offshore land breezes are

common in the morning and afternoon sea breezes are common in the warmer

months. On most summer afternoons, there is a sea breeze from the south-west

sector, providing relief to the easterly hot winds arriving from the interior of the State.

Winter tends to be the period of most variability in winds due to the latitude and

mobility of the sub-tropical ridge, and a weak land-sea temperature contrast. Winter

also tends to be the season with the lightest winds; however cold fronts can

occasionally bring strong winds and gales to the area.

Figure 5 - Annual wind rose for the KIC Alcoa ‘A’ Lake station for 2008.



Table 11- Percentile frequency distribution of wind speed by wind direction.

Wind speed (m/s)

N NE E SE S SW W NW

0-1 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 1-2 1.0 5.3 5.9 4.5 2.7 1.5 1.7 0.9 2-3 1.2 3.4 5.5 5.0 4.8 2.3 2.4 1.1 3-4 0.9 2.0 3.9 2.8 4.2 3.4 2.2 0.8 4-5 0.5 0.9 3.1 1.3 2.7 3.2 1.3 0.5 5-6 0.2 0.4 2.2 0.8 1.8 2.3 0.5 0.2 >=6 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.8 2.1 0.5 0.1

Table 12- Stability class statistics as a function of observational and tabulated meteorological parameters.

Pasquil Gifford stability class

Frequency (%) Average wind speed (m/s)

Average temperature (˚C)

Average mixing height (m)

A 1.5 1.9 27.8 805

B 14.1 2.7 22.5 940

C 18.7 3.8 21.2 1292

D 16.8 4.9 19.0 1503

E 11.1 4.0 18.1 161

F 37.6 2.0 15.1 54



4 Modelling methodology

4.1 Modelling software

As per the previous air quality impact assessment (Synergetics 2011), Ausplume v6.0 (EPA Vic 2000) was selected as the dispersion model to assess the transport of the pollutants arising from the operational and emergency shutdown stacks of the proposed waste gasification power station facility. Sample Ausplume configuration files for both conditions are provided in Appendices A and B respectively.

Ausplume is a Gaussian-plume dispersion model that is recommended by most regulatory agencies in Australia. Generally, Ausplume is best suited for modelling point source plume dispersion over middle-range scales and in the absence of complex terrain or non-steady-state-type applications. A pre-analysis concluded that the above conditions were met for the site that is being assessed. While Ausplume may not be directly applicable to coastal areas owing to prevalence of the Thermal Internal Boundary Layer (TIBL) effect leading to a process that is known as ‘fumigation’, a conservative approach was adopted to incorporate the TIBL effect in the assessment. This is discussed in Section 4.2.

TAPM v4.0 (Hurley 2008) was used as for the prognostic prediction of the cloud cover and ceiling height, which was required to supplement the rest of the meteorological data.

4.2 Modelling inputs and outputs

The Ausplume input meteorological data file was tabulated from the 1-hour averaged surface observational data sourced from the KIC Alcoa Lake ‘A’ station and the pre-processed secondary parameters of vertical stability class and mixing height. In terms of incorporating the TIBL effect, this was conducted through a determination of the specific TIBL occurrences and consequently, a replacement of the mixing height with the TIBL height in the input meteorological file. For the purpose of this assessment, the TIBL height was calculated based on the formula in Weisman (1976).

Terrain effects and topographical data were included as model inputs. The selected land-use was industrial with a corresponding roughness factor of 0.8 m. For the wind profile exponent, Irwin urban was used.

Building wake effects were included for the administration office, gasification building and MRF at each site as shown in Figure 3. Stack tip downwash and building downwash effects were included. Due to the relatively flat nature of the surrounding land, the wind profile exponent chosen was Irwin urban.

Ground level concentrations (GLCs) were calculated at gridded receptors evenly spaced (100 m apart) throughout the 3,000 x 3,000 m modelling domain. The origin for the Cartesian grid was centred on the main (operational) stack. The two sensitive nearby receptors of Kwinana Beach and Leda Primary School were included as discrete receptors. The worst-case off-site gridded and discrete receptors were tabulated from the post-processing of the respective receptors.

The averaging period varies by pollutant as listed in Table 6. As specified in the various regulations, the 100th percentile (maximum value) was reported for all averaging times



greater than an hour. The 100th percentile was also used for averaging times of 1-hourour or less for CO, NO2, PM10, PM2.5 and SO2. For all other pollutants and averaging times, the maximum concentration was the 99.9th percentile of the modelled values (MFE 2004 and NSW DEC 2005).

4.3 Emission source characterisation

The modelling was carried out for two sets of emissions data corresponding to the respective scenarios operational and emergency shutdown modelling scenarios, provided in Table 13. For each scenario, the emission rates of the pollutants were tabulated by Entech (2012) using a heat and mass balance analysis. The emission rates for the emergency shutdown operation were tabulated on an 1-hour basis by applying appropriate weighting to the four time-intervals in the emergency shutdown cycle: 0 to 15-min; 15 to 30-min; 30 to 45 min; and 45 to 60 min. Emissions from the gasification facility for both operational and emergency shutdown scenarios were modelled by assuming a continuous 24-hour operation for the entire year. This assumption is highly conservative particularly for the emergency shutdown operation given that the occurrence of the shutdown event is been expected to have a duration of less than 1-hour per year.

Table 13 – Emission rates of the pollutants for the operational and emergency shutdown conditions.

Pollutant

Emission rate (g/s)

Comment Main (Operational)

Emergency shutdown

CO 0.77 0.51 -

NOX 3.49 1.30 -

TSP PMtotal PM10 PM2.5

0.11 0.11 0.11

0.048

0.35 0.35 0.35 0.16

- - Assumed as 100% of PM total Assumed as 45% of PM total

SO2 0.23 1.33 -

Chlorine (as HCl) 0.04 0.23 -

Fluorine (as HF) 4.5 x 10-3 0.026 -

TOC 0.048 0.0053 Gaseous and vaporous organics

Dioxins (TEQ) 1.3 x 10-9 1.46 × 10-10 -

Total of all other Heavy Metals

4.4 x 10-3 2.2 x 10-2 Comprising of Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, V.

Hg 1.1 x 10-5 7.6 x 10-5 -

Total of Cd and Tl 1.4 x 10-4 7.7 x 10-4 Cd assumed as 87.5% of total. Tl assumed as 12.5 of total.

No assessment criteria are available for composite pollutant groups such as ‘total heavy metals’ and ‘cadmium and thallium’. For this reason, it was necessary to derive the individual metal emissions based on the known total metal emissions combined with data on the metallic composition of the emissions themselves. To this end, Entech



provided Synergetics with data that allowed for the speciation of various heavy metals. These were used to derive emissions of individual metal from total heavy metal.

The data presented in Figure 5 show that lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu) and antimony (Sb) make up the bulk of the heavy metals in the emissions, with more toxic metals like cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As) and chromium (Cr) being found at proportionally lower concentrations.

For the speciation of total chromium into its two oxidisation states, trivalent Cr (III) and hexavalent Cr(VI), available guidance from Australia was sought from the NPI (NPI 1999) that indicated 10 to 20% of chromium emitted from incineration could be attributed to hexavalent chromium based on a study by the California Air Resources Board on medical waste incineration (Glasser et al. 1991). However, according to the analysis of 20 municipal waste incinerators carried out from 2007 to 2009 by the UK Environment Agency Cr (VI) was a maximum 2% of the Chromium found in the air pollution control residue, the composition of this residue was assumed to be representative of the emitted particulate (UK EA 2011). Therefore it is likely that the actual Cr(VI) GLCs that would result from operation of a waste treatment facility would be significantly over-estimated by the NPI range. Based on these arguments, 10% of the portion of total chromium was conservatively assumed to be Cr(VI) form.

Figure 6 – Speciation of heavy metals in the emission rates by Entech (2012).

Entech (2012) also provided particulate matter (PM) size distribution data. Ratios of 45% of total PM for PM2.5 and 20% of total PM for PM1.0 were reported consistent with the particle size distribution study that was conducted as part of the Kuznica project (CUT 2004) as shown in Figure 7. An assumption was conservatively made that 100% of PM was PM10 and TSP respectively for the purposes of this assessment.



Figure 7 – Size distribution of particulate matter emissions from the Kuznica gasification plant (CUT 2004).

NOx emissions were assumed to be fully oxidised to NO2 in the present assessment. This is considered as the most conservative approach when compared to other NO2 prediction methods such as the Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) for estimating NO2 as specified in DEC NSW (2005).



5 Results

5.1 Interpretation of results

The following sections of this report provide tabulated results for the modelling out pollutant dispersion around the two sites. Results are provided of the worst-case gridded receptor, which effectively describes the single highest concentration recorded outside the boundaries of the site (the exact location and timing of each gridded receptor concentration are provided in Appendix B). Additionally, results are provided for any nearby sensitive discrete receptors which were identified (as described in Section 2.3). A number of abbreviations and conventions are used in the tables of results:

b/g = background pollutant concentrations (see Section 2.2).

GLC+b/g =total calculated ground level concentration including stack emissions and background pollutant concentrations (when background data was used).

CF = Compliance factor reported as the ratio of the guideline value and the predicted GLC.

For CF <1 indicates the predicted GLC is higher than the guideline value whereas CF ≥1 indicates the predicted GLC is equal to or below the guideline value. The compliance factor allows an immediate assessment of the potential for the facility to exceed guideline GLC values. In essence, CF ≥ 1 represent the magnitude of increases in emissions that could be tolerated and still deliver compliance with the assessment criteria. In order to help quickly identify the most significant pollutant at the two sites, any predicted concentrations with a CF <10 have been highlighted in grey. Also, any cases when the Concentration exceeds the relevant assessment criterion have been highlighted with red text.

5.2 Calculated ground level concentrations

The calculated ground level concentrations (GLC) at the worst-case off-site receptor are reported for the operational (Table 14) and emergency shutdown (Table 15) emission scenarios. The calculated GLCs for each of the two emission scenarios, for the two discrete receptors Kwinana beach and Leda Primary School, are reported in Table 16, Table 17, Table 18 and Table 19 respectively.

All the calculated GLCs for the cumulative impact assessment fell within the respective assessment criteria. The most significant pollutants under these conditions were NO2, PM10 and PM2.5, largely related to high background concentrations. Contour plots are provided for visualising the plume dispersion footprints of the 1-hour, 24-hour averaging periods for NO2 and PM10 (Figure 8 and Figure 9).

For the emergency shutdown modelling scenario - which conservatively assumed continuous emissions from the emergency shutdown stack 24/7 - all the calculated GLCs for the cumulative impacts were within the assessment criteria. In addition to the pollutants of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 being significant, the two most significant pollutants are the 1-hour Cd and 1-year Cr (VI). The other heavy metals of potential concern are As, Cu and Ni. However, it has to be emphasised that the calculated GLC values for the emergency shutdown operation are likely to be significant over-estimates of actual concentrations (particularly for longer averaging times) due to the unrealistic assumption of continuous shutdown emissions where they are only expected to occur for less than an hour per year.



Table 14 – GLC results for the worst-case off-site gridded receptor for the main/operational condition.

Pollutant Averaging

time

Assessment criteria (μg/m3)

b/g (μg/m3)

GLC + b/g (μg/m3)

CF

CO 15-min 100000 1650 1655 60

CO 30-min 60000 1435 1441 43

CO 1-hour 30000 1250 1255 24

CO 8-hour 11249 870 877 13

NO2 1-hour 246 49 76 3.3

NO2 1-year 61.6 4.0 4.3 14

TSP 1-year 90 - 1.3 x 10-2 >100

PM10 24-hour 50 25 25 1.9

PM2.5 24-hour 25 13 13 2.0

PM2.5 1-year 8 2.5 2.5 3.2

SO2 10-min 500 29 31 16

SO2 1-hour 572 20 22 26

SO2 24-hour 229 3.0 3.7 62

SO2 1-year 57.2 1.0 1.0 56

HCl 1-hour 100 - 3.1 x 10-1 >100

HF 1-hour 100 - 3.4 x 10-2 >100

TOC (as benzene) 1-hour 29 - 3.6 x 10-1 80

Dioxins and furans 1-hour 2 x 10-6 - 9.4 x 10-9 >100

Dioxins and furans 1-year 1 x 10-6 - 1.5 x 10-10 >100

As 1-hour 0.09 - 3.9 x 10-4 >100

As 1-year 3 x 10-3 - 6.0 x 10-6 >100

Cd 1-hour 1.8 x 10-2 - 9.3 x 10-4 19

Cd 1-year 5 x 10-3 - 1.4 x 10-5 >100

Co 24-hour 0.1 - 9.4 x 10-5 >100

Cr (VI) 1-year 2 x 10-4 - 2.2 x 10-6 92

Cr (III) 1-hour 10 - 5.7 x 10-4 >100

Cu 1-hour 1 - 3.9 x 10-3 >100

Hg 1-hour 1.8 - 8.2 x 10-5 >100

Hg 1-year 1 - 1.3 x 10-6 >100

Mn 1-hour 18 - 3.8 x 10-3 >100

Mn 1-year 0.15 - 5.9 x 10-5 >100

Ni 1-hour 0.18 - 2.6 x 10-4 >100

Ni 1-year 3 x 10-3 - 4.0 x 10-6 >100

Pb 1-year 0.5 - 3.2 x 10-4 >100

Sb 1-hour 9 - 3.2 x 10-3 >100

Tl 1-hour 1 - 1.3 x 10-4 >100

Tl 1-year 0.1 - 2.1 x 10-6 >100

V 24-hour 1 - 2.5 x 10-4 >100



Table 15 – GLC results for the worst-case off-site gridded receptor for the emergency shutdown condition.

Pollutant Averaging

time


b/g (μg/m3)

GLC + b/g (μg/m3)

CF

CO 15-min 100000 1650 1657 60

CO 30-min 60000 1435 1444 42

CO 1-hour 30000 1250 1258 24

CO 8-hour 11249 870 883 13

NO2 1-hour 246 49 71.8 3

NO2 1-year 61.6 4.0 5.5 11

TSP 1-year 90 - 4.24 x 10-2 21

PM10 24-hour 50 25 28.6 2

PM2.5 24-hour 25 13 14.0 2

PM2.5 1-year 8 2.5 2.9 3

SO2 10-min 500 29 33.0 15

SO2 1-hour 572 20 42.9 13

SO2 24-hour 229 3.0 15.0 15

SO2 1-year 57.2 1.0 2.6 22

HCl 1-hour 100 - 4.0 25

HF 1-hour 100 - 4.5 x 10-1 >100

TOC (as benzene) 1-hour 29 - 1.0 x 10-1 >100



As 1-hour 0.09 - 4.3 x 10-3 21

As 1-year 3 x 10-3 - 3.0 x 10-4 10

Cd 1-hour 1.8 x 10-2 - 1.2 x 10-2 2

Cd 1-year 5 x 10-3 - 8.2 x 10-4 6

Co 24-hour 0.1 - 1.1 x 10-3 87

Cr (VI) 1-year 2 x 10-4 - 1.1 x 10-4 2

Cr (III) 1-hour 10 - 6.3 x 10-3 >100

Cu 1-hour 1 - 4.3 x 10-2 23

Hg 1-hour 1.8 - 1.3 x 10-3 >100

Hg 1-year 1 - 9.3 x 10-5 >100

Mn 1-hour 18 - 4.2 x 10-2 >100

Mn 1-year 0.15 - 3.0 x 10-3 50

Ni 1-hour 0.18 - 2.9 x 10-3 63

Ni 1-year 3 x 10-3 - 2.0 x 10-4 15

Pb 1-year 0.5 - 1.6 x 10-2 30

Sb 1-hour 9 - 3.6 x 10-2 >100

Tl 1-hour 1 - 1.7 x 10-3 >100

Tl 1-year 0.1 - 1.2 x 10-4 >100

V 24-hour 1 - 3.1 x 10-3 >100



Table 16 – GLC results for the Kwinana beach discrete receptor for the main/operational condition.

Pollutant Averaging

time


b/g (μg/m3)

GLC + b/g (μg/m3)

CF

CO 15-min 100000 1650 1650 61

CO 30-min 60000 1435 1435 42

CO 1-hour 30000 1250 1250 24

CO 8-hour 11249 870 875 13

NO2 1-hour 246 49 51 4.8

NO2 1-year 61.6 4.0 4.1 15

TSP 1-year 90 - 5.3 x 10-3 >100

PM10 24-hour 50 25 25 2.0

PM2.5 24-hour 25 13 13 2.0

PM2.5 1-year 8 2.5 2.5 3.2

SO2 10-min 500 29 29 17

SO2 1-hour 572 20 20 28

SO2 24-hour 229 2.9 2.9 78

SO2 1-year 57.2 1.0 1.0 57

HCl 1-hour 100 - 2.3 x 10-2 >100

HF 1-hour 100 - 2.5 x 10-3 >100




As 1-hour 0.09 - 2.9 x 10-5 >100

As 1-year 3 x 10-3 - 2.5 x 10-6 >100

Cd 1-hour 1.8 x 10-2 - 6.9 x 10-5 >100

Cd 1-year 5 x 10-3 - 6.1 x 10-6 >100

Co 24-hour 0.1 - 9.0 x 10-6 >100

Cr (VI) 1-year 2 x 10-4 - 9.2 x 10-7 >100

Cr (III) 1-hour 10 - 4.2 x 10-5 >100

Cu 1-hour 1 - 2.9 x 10-4 >100

Hg 1-hour 1.8 - 6.1 x 10-6 >100

Hg 1-year 1 - 5.3 x 10-7 >100

Mn 1-hour 18 - 2.8 x 10-4 >100

Mn 1-year 0.15 - 2.5 x 10-5 >100

Ni 1-hour 0.18 - 1.8 x 10-5 >100

Ni 1-year 3 x 10-3 - 1.7 x 10-6 >100

Pb 1-year 0.5 - 1.4 x 10-4 >100

Sb 1-hour 9 - 2.4 x 10-4 >100

Tl 1-hour 1 - 9.9 x 10-6 >100

Tl 1-year 0.1 - 8.6 x 10-7 >100

V 24-hour 1 - 2.4 x 10-5 >100



Table 17 – GLC results for the Kwinana beach discrete receptor for the emergency shutdown condition.

Pollutant Averaging

time


b/g (μg/m3)

GLC + b/g (μg/m3)

CF

CO 15-min 100000 1650 1650 61

CO 30-min 60000 1435 1437 42

CO 1-hour 30000 1250 1251 24

CO 8-hour 11249 870 875 13

NO2 1-hour 246 49 53 5

NO2 1-year 61.6 4.0 4.1 15

TSP 1-year 90 - 3.5 x 10-2 261

PM10 24-hour 50 25 26 2

PM2.5 24-hour 25 13 13 2

PM2.5 1-year 8 2.5 2.5 3

SO2 10-min 500 29 15 33

SO2 1-hour 572 20 24 24

SO2 24-hour 229 3.0 3.7 61

SO2 1-year 57.2 1.0 1.1 51

HCl 1-hour 100 - 6.8 x 10-1 >100

HF 1-hour 100 - 7.6 x 10-2 >100




As 1-hour 0.09 - 7.4 x 10-4 >100

As 1-year 3 x 10-3 - 2.5 x 10-5 >100

Cd 1-hour 1.8 x 10-2 - 2.0 x 10-3 9

Cd 1-year 5 x 10-3 - 6.7 x 10-5 75

Co 24-hour 0.1 - 8.2 x 10-5 >100

Cr (VI) 1-year 2 x 10-4 - 9.1 x 10-6 22

Cr (III) 1-hour 10 - 1.1 x 10-3 >100

Cu 1-hour 1 - 7.4 x 10-3 >100

Hg 1-hour 1.8 - 2.3 x 10-4 >100

Hg 1-year 1 - 7.6 x 10-6 >100

Mn 1-hour 18 - 7.3 x 10-3 >100

Mn 1-year 0.15 - 2.4 x 10-4 >100

Ni 1-hour 0.18 - 5.0 x 10-4 >100

Ni 1-year 3 x 10-3 - 1.7 x 10-5 >100

Pb 1-year 0.5 - 1.3 x 10-3 >100

Sb 1-hour 9 - 6.2 x 10-3 >100

Tl 1-hour 1 - 2.9 x 10-4 >100

Tl 1-year 0.1 - 9.6 x 10-6 >100

V 24-hour 1 - 2.2 x 10-4 >100



Table 18 – GLC results for the Leda Primary School discrete receptor for the main/operational condition.

Pollutant Averaging

time


b/g (μg/m3)

GLC + b/g (μg/m3)

CF

CO 15-min 100000 1650 1649 61

CO 30-min 60000 1435 1435 42

CO 1-hour 30000 1250 1250 24

CO 8-hour 11249 870 875 13

NO2 1-hour 246 49 51 4.8

NO2 1-year 61.6 4.0 4.0 15

TSP 1-year 90 - 2.5 x 10-3 >100

PM10 24-hour 50 25 25 2.0

PM2.5 24-hour 25 13 13 2.0

PM2.5 1-year 8 2.5 2.5 3.2

SO2 10-min 500 29 29 17

SO2 1-hour 572 20 20 28

SO2 24-hour 229 2.9 2.9 78

SO2 1-year 57.2 1.0 1.0 57

HCl 1-hour 100 - 2.4 x 10-2 >100

HF 1-hour 100 - 2.7 x 10-3 >100




As 1-hour 0.09 - 3.0 x 10-5 >100

As 1-year 3 x 10-3 - 1.2 x 10-6 >100

Cd 1-hour 1.8 x 10-2 - 7.3 x 10-5 >100

Cd 1-year 5 x 10-3 - 2.9 x 10-6 >100

Co 24-hour 0.1 - 6.6 x 10-6 >100

Cr (VI) 1-year 2 x 10-4 - 4.3 x 10-7 >100

Cr (III) 1-hour 10 - 4.4 x 10-5 >100

Cu 1-hour 1 - 3.0 x 10-4 >100

Hg 1-hour 1.8 - 6.4 x 10-6 >100

Hg 1-year 1 - 2.5 x 10-7 >100

Mn 1-hour 18 - 3.0 x 10-4 >100

Mn 1-year 0.15 - 1.2 x 10-5 >100

Ni 1-hour 0.18 - 2.0 x 10-5 >100

Ni 1-year 3 x 10-3 - 7.9 x 10-7 >100

Pb 1-year 0.5 - 6.4 x 10-5 >100

Sb 1-hour 9 - 2.5 x 10-4 >100

Tl 1-hour 1 - 1.0 x 10-5 >100

Tl 1-year 0.1 - 4.1 x 10-7 >100

V 24-hour 1 - 1.8 x 10-5 >100



Table 19 – GLC results for the Leda Primary School discrete receptor for the emergency shutdown condition.

Pollutant Averaging

time


b/g (μg/m3)

GLC + b/g (μg/m3)

CF

CO 15-min

100000 1650 1649 61

CO 30-min 60000 1435 1435 42

CO 1-hour 30000 1250 1250 24

CO 8-hour 11249 870 875 13

NO2 1-hour 246 49 50 5

NO2 1-year 61.6 4.0 4.0 16

TSP 1-year 90 - 5.4 x 10-3 >100

PM10 24-hour 50 25 25 2

PM2.5 24-hour 25 13 13 2

PM2.5 1-year 8 2.5 2.5 3

SO2 10-min 500 29 21 24

SO2 1-hour 572 20 21 28

SO2 24-hour 229 3.0 3.1 73

SO2 1-year 57.2 1.0 1.0 56

HCl 1-hour 100 - 1.4 x 10-1 >100

HF 1-hour 100 - 1.5 x 10-2 >100




As 1-hour 0.09 - 1.5 x 10-4 >100

As 1-year 3 x 10-3 - 3.9 x 10-6 >100

Cd 1-hour 1.8 x 10-2 - 4.0 x 10-4 45

Cd 1-year 5 x 10-3 - 1.0 x 10-5 >100

Co 24-hour 0.1 - 2.4 x 10-5 >100

Cr (VI) 1-year 2 x 10-4 - 1.4 x 10-6 >100

Cr (III) 1-hour 10 - 2.2 x 10-4 >100

Cu 1-hour 1 - 1.5 x 10-3 >100

Hg 1-hour 1.8 - 4.5 x 10-5 >100

Hg 1-year 1 - 1.2 x 10-6 >100

Mn 1-hour 18 - 1.4 x 10-3 >100

Mn 1-year 0.15 - 3.8 x 10-5 >100

Ni 1-hour 0.18 - 9.8 x 10-5 >100

Ni 1-year 3 x 10-3 - 2.6 x 10-6 >100

Pb 1-year 0.5 - 2.1 x 10-4 >100

Sb 1-hour 9 - 1.2 x 10-3 >100

Tl 1-hour 1 - 5.7 x 10-5 >100

Tl 1-year 0.1 - 1.5 x 10-6 >100

V 24-hour 1 - 6.5 x 10-5 >100



Figure 8 – Contour plots of the 1-hour calculated NOx concentrations (μ/m3) in the modelling domain. The GLCs correspond to the operational/main condition. The main stack is highlighted as a red circle, and the discrete receptors are marked as blue circles. The legends are labelled as direct impacts from the stack alone (left) and cumulative impact, inclusive of background pollutant concentrations (right).



Figure 9 – Contour plots of the 24-hour calculated PM10 concentrations (μg/m3) in the modelling domain. The GLCs correspond to the operational/main condition. The main stack is highlighted as a red circle, and the discrete receptors are marked as blue circles. The legends are labelled as direct impacts from the stack alone (left) and cumulative impact, inclusive of background pollutant concentrations (right).



6 Conclusions

In this assessment, Synergetics investigated the ground level air quality impacts associated with the proposed construction of a 72 MWt gasification facility in East Rockingham WA. The assessment was carried out using the Ausplume v6.0 regulatory approved dispersion model. The two emission scenarios of the main (operational) and emergency shutdown conditions were modelled as representative of typical and worst-case conditions respectively.

While the emergency shutdown stack had greater emissions compared to the operational stack, its smaller diameter and higher exhaust temperature and velocity was a key factor in achieving compliance. A conservative approach was adopted in the modelling so that the calculated GLC will be conservative (over) estimates of the pollutant concentrations that will be experienced at the receptors.

The results from this study demonstrate the calculated air quality impacts in the region surrounding the proposed facility will comply comfortably with the various regulatory criteria for both of the two scenarios modelled.



7 References

CUT 2004. Analysis & Measurement of pollution concentration of waste gasification system – Kuznica, Poland. Cracow University of Technology – Laboratory for trace organic analysis. Krakow, Poland.

DEC WA 2010. 2009 Western Australia Air Monitoring Report. Western Australia Department of Conservation, Perth, WA.

EPA Vic 2000. AUSPLUME Gaussian Plume Dispersion Model: Technical User Manual, Environment Protection Authority of Victoria, Melbourne.

EPA WA 2012. Environmental Scoping Document for the proposal of East Rockingham Waste to Energy and Materials Recovery Facility (Assessment No. 1910) at East Rockingham. 23 March 2012. Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, WA.

EU 2000. Directive 2000/75/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste. Official Journal of the European Communities, 28.12.2000.

Hurley P 2008. TAPM v4 Part 1: Technical Description. CSIRO Atmospheric Research Technical Paper No. 25. 59 pp.

NEC 2012, Personal communications Jason Pugh, General Manager, New Energy Corporation, Unit 1, 12 Parliament Place, West Perth, WA.

NEPC 1998. National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure. National Environment Protection Council (NEPC). Adelaide, SA.

NEPC 2001. National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure Guideline Paper No. 5, May 2001. National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), Adelaide, SA.

NEPC 2003. National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure Variation. National Environment Protection Council (NEPC). Adelaide, SA.

NEPC 2004. National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) Measure. National Environment Protection Council (NEPC). Adelaide, SA.

NEPC 2010. Review of the National Environment Protection (Air Quality) Measure – Discussion paper, air quality standards. National Environment Protection Council (NEPC). Adelaide, SA.

NSW DEC 2005. Approved Methods for modelling and assessment of air pollutants in New South Wales. New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney, NSW.

OEHHA 2003. Air toxics hot spots program risk assessment guidelines – The air toxics hot spots program guidance manual for preparation of health risk assessments. Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, CA, US.



Ont MOE 2008. Ontario’s ambient air quality criteria. Standards Development Branch – Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario.

Synergetics 2011. Air quality modelling for power stations at East Rockingham and Port Hedland, Western Australia. 6 September 2011.

TCEQ 2011. July 2011 Effects Screening Levels. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Austin, TX.

Toxicos 2010. Air guideline values for selected substances. Toxicos Toxicology Consultants, Caulfield East, VIC.

WA DoE 2004. Ambient Air Quality Guidelines. Western Australia Department of Environment, Perth, WA.

WA DoE 2006. Air quality modelling guidance notes. Western Australia Department of Environment, Perth, WA.

WA DoH 2007 Acid Gases – Internal document. WA Department of Health, Perth, WA.

WA DoH 2012, Personal communications with Mirella Goetzmann, Senior Toxicologist at the WA Department of Health, Environmental Health Directorate, Public Health Division. WA Department of Health, Perth, WA.

WA EPA 1999. Revised Draft Environmental Protection (Kwinana) (Atmospheric Wastes) Policy 1999. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, WA.

Weisman B 1976. On the Criteria for the Occurrence of Fumigation Inland from a Large Lake – A Reply. Atmos. Environ. 12, pp. 172-173.



Appendix A. Sample configuration file for the East Rockingham Ausplume run for the main/operational condition

6.0 version

*************************************************************

* WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - WARNING *

* *

* This is a generated file. Please do not edit it manually. *

* If editing is required, under any circumstances do not *

* edit information enclosed in curly braces. Corruption of *

* this information or changed order of data blocks enclosed *

* in curly braces may render the file unusable. *

* *

*************************************************************

Simulation Title

{NEC 12029 East Rockingham 2008 Main stack}

Concentration(1)/Deposition(0), Emission rate units,

Concentration/Deposition units,Background Concentration, Variable

Background flag,Variable Emission Flag

{True grams/second microgram/m3 0 False False }

Terrain influence tag, 0-ignore, 1 - include

{0}

Egan coefficients

{0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 }

Number of source groups

{1}

Total number of sources (Stack + Area + Volume sources)

{1}

Source Group information

Total Number of Sources in Group 1

{1}

Sources in Source Group 1

{Main }

BPIP Run (1-True, 0-False)

{-1 }

Total number of buildings

{5 }

Building name, Base elevation, Number of tiers

{AQCS2 0 1 }

Height, Number of sides

{21 4 }

X coordinates

{-3 -3 -43 -43 }

Y coordinates

{25 33 33 25 }


{EUHX 0 1 }


{21 4 }

X coordinates

{-1.5 -1.5 -38.5 -38.5 }

Y coordinates

{44 51 51 44 }


{DR 0 1 }




{21 4 }

X coordinates

{-45 -45 -52.5 -52.5 }

Y coordinates

{36 43.5 43.5 36 }


{AC 0 1 }


{10 4 }

X coordinates

{-23 -23 -55 -55 }

Y coordinates

{0 22 22 0 }


{PR 0 1 }


{26 4 }

X coordinates

{-11 -11 -56 -56 }

Y coordinates

{57 128.8 128.8 57 }

Source Information

Source ID, Source Type (1 - stack, 2 - area, 3- volume) and X, Y, Z

coordinates

{Main 1 0 0 0 }

Stack height and diameter

{30 2.5 }

Stack temperature, Velocity, Cross, Height

{438 19.7 -1 -1 }

Emission type (1-constant, 2-monthly, 3-hours of the day, 4-wind and

stability, 5-hour and season, 6-temperarture), Number of particle

fractions

{1 0 }

Constant emission rate

{3.49}

Building width

{37.65342 0 0 0 0 0 0 27.22251 22.00001 27.22252 21.19835 26.92821

83.92744 80.62415 74.87114 66.84319 56.78427 45.00002 37.65342 0 0 0 0

0 0 27.2225 33.00003 41.52838 21.19836 26.92822 83.92744 80.62413

35.54295 37.16277 40.78149 40.00001 }

Building height

{21 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 21 21 26 26 26 26 26 26 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10

10 21 21 26 26 21 21 21 21 }

Building BPIP parameter1

{36.64608 0 0 0 0 0 0 -54.16443 -55 -57.98469 -51.69345 -53.73909 -

125.6896 -134.6626 -139.5441 -140.1855 -136.5675 -128.8 -49.96472 0 0

0 0 0 0 18.83033 3.000012 7.295639 11.36959 15.09808 45.0654 50.73522

38.85513 41.85952 25.14114 24.99997 }


{27.94444 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.60516 10.99999 4.060602 19.38462 13.61473

49.63212 34.05246 17.43813 0.2939301 -16.85918 -33.50003 -27.94446 0 0

0 0 0 0 -17.60514 -16.49999 -11.21352 -19.38461 -13.61472 -49.63212 -

34.05241 -6.429454 2.547932 17.6148 23.00002 }


{13.31864 0 0 0 0 0 0 35.33411 32 35.33411 40.32386 38.64101 80.62416

83.92744 84.68063 82.86082 78.52335 71.80002 13.31865 0 0 0 0 0 0

35.3341 52 50.68905 40.32386 38.64101 80.62416 83.92744 24.56216

19.23257 14.82436 8.000025 }



Receptor information

Discrete receptors

Receptor coordinates type (1-Cartesian,0-Polar),Number of Receptors

{1 2 }

X, Y coordinates and Elevation

{-1850 0 2 }


{2780 820 2 }

Gridded receptors

Receptor coordinates type (1-Cartesian, 0-Polar), Number of X and Y

coordinates, Receptor height

{1 61 61 2 }

X grid coordinates

{-3000 -2900 -2800 -2700 -2600 -2500 -2400 -2300 -2200 -2100 -2000 -

1900 -1800 -1700 -1600 -1500 -1400 -1300 -1200 -1100 -1000 -900 -800 -

700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200

2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 }

Y grid coordinates

{-3000 -2900 -2800 -2700 -2600 -2500 -2400 -2300 -2200 -2100 -2000 -

1900 -1800 -1700 -1600 -1500 -1400 -1300 -1200 -1100 -1000 -900 -800 -

700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200

2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 }

Model settings and parameters

Emission conversion factor, Averaging Time

{1000000 0 }

Land use (surface roughness)

{0.8}

Averaging time flags (1,2,3,4,6,8,12,24 hrs, 7, 90 days, 3 month, All

hrs

{1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 }

Statistical output options

{0 0 }

Output options (All meteodata, Every concentration/deposition,

Highest/2nd highest, 100 worst case table, Save all calculations

{0 0 1 1 0 0 }

Write concentration (1-yes, 0-no), Concentration rank, Write

frequency, Frequency Level

{1 1 0 -1 }

Disregard exponents (1-yes, 0-no), Exponent Scheme (1-Irvin urban, 2-

Irvin rural, 3-ISCST, 4-User Defined

{0 1 }

Dispersion exponents

{0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.2

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 }

Building wake effects (1-include,0-not) , Default decay coefficient,

Anemometr height, Sigma-theta averaging period, Roughness at vane

site, Smooth stability changes, ConvectivePDF)



{1 0 10 60 0.3 0 0 }

Deposition options, Depletion options

{False False False False False False }

Stability class adjustments (0-None, 1-Urban1, 2-Urban2)

{0}

Building wake algorithms (1-Huber-Sneider, 2-Hybrid, 3-Schulman-Scire)

{4}

Gradual plume rise (1-yes,0-no), Stack tip downwash (1-yes,0-no),

Disregard Temperature Gradient (1-yes,0-no), Partial Penetration, Temp

Gradient, Adiabatic Entrainment, Stable Entrainment

{1 1 0 0 0.004 0.6 0.6 }

Temperature Gradients for Wind and Stability categories

{0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

0.02 0.02 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 }

Dispersion curves (1-Pasquill Gifford, 2- Briggs rural, 3-Sigma

theta) horizontal < 100 m, ditto vertical < 100 m, ditto horizontal >

100 m, ditto vertical > 100 m

{1 1 2 2 }

Adjust PG curves for roughness - Horizontal, Vertical (1-yes,0-no)

{1 1 }

Enhance plume for buyoancy - Horizontal, Vertical (1-yes,0-no)

{1 1 }

Adjust for wind direction shear

{0}

Shear rates

{0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.035 }

Wind Speed categories

{1.54 3.09 5.14 8.23 10.8 }

Output file

{'C:\Ausplume\NEC12029\main_stack_with_NOx_1hr.TXT'}

Meteorological file

{'C:\Ausplume\NEC12029\KIC_met_2008.met'}

Concentration file

{'C:\Ausplume\NEC12029\conc.dat'}



Appendix B. Sample configuration file for the East Rockingham Ausplume run for the emergency shutdown condition

6.0 version

*************************************************************

* WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - WARNING *

* *

* This is a generated file. Please do not edit it manually. *

* If editing is required, under any circumstances do not *

* edit information enclosed in curly braces. Corruption of *

* this information or changed order of data blocks enclosed *

* in curly braces may render the file unusable. *

* *

*************************************************************

Simulation Title

{NEC 12029 East Rockingham 2008 Emergency shutdown stack}

Concentration(1)/Deposition(0), Emission rate units,

Concentration/Deposition units,Background Concentration, Variable

Background flag,Variable Emission Flag

{True grams/second microgram/m3 0 False False }

Terrain influence tag, 0-ignore, 1 - include

{0}

Egan coefficients

{0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 }

Number of source groups

{1}

Total number of sources (Stack + Area + Volume sources)

{2}

Source Group information

Total Number of Sources in Group 1

{2}

Sources in Source Group 1

{Main Emerg }

BPIP Run (1-True, 0-False)

{-1 }

Total number of buildings

{5 }


{AQCS2 0 1 }


{21 4 }

X coordinates

{-3 -3 -43 -43 }

Y coordinates

{25 33 33 25 }


{EUHX 0 1 }


{21 4 }

X coordinates

{-1.5 -1.5 -38.5 -38.5 }

Y coordinates

{44 51 51 44 }


{DR 0 1 }




{21 4 }

X coordinates

{-45 -45 -52.5 -52.5 }

Y coordinates

{36 43.5 43.5 36 }


{AC 0 1 }


{10 4 }

X coordinates

{-23 -23 -55 -55 }

Y coordinates

{0 22 22 0 }


{PR 0 1 }


{26 4 }

X coordinates

{-11 -11 -56 -56 }

Y coordinates

{57 128.8 128.8 57 }

Source Information


coordinates

{Main 1 0 0 0 }


{30 2.5 }


{438 19.7 -1 -1 }



fractions

{1 0 }


{0}

Building width

{37.65342 0 0 0 0 0 0 27.22251 22.00001 27.22252 21.19835 26.92821

83.92744 80.62415 74.87114 66.84319 56.78427 45.00002 37.65342 0 0 0 0

0 0 27.2225 33.00003 41.52838 21.19836 26.92822 83.92744 80.62413

35.54295 37.16277 40.78149 40.00001 }

Building height

{21 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 21 21 26 26 26 26 26 26 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10

10 21 21 26 26 21 21 21 21 }


{36.64608 0 0 0 0 0 0 -54.16443 -55 -57.98469 -51.69345 -53.73909 -

125.6896 -134.6626 -139.5441 -140.1855 -136.5675 -128.8 -49.96472 0 0

0 0 0 0 18.83033 3.000012 7.295639 11.36959 15.09808 45.0654 50.73522

38.85513 41.85952 25.14114 24.99997 }


{27.94444 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.60516 10.99999 4.060602 19.38462 13.61473

49.63212 34.05246 17.43813 0.2939301 -16.85918 -33.50003 -27.94446 0 0

0 0 0 0 -17.60514 -16.49999 -11.21352 -19.38461 -13.61472 -49.63212 -

34.05241 -6.429454 2.547932 17.6148 23.00002 }


{13.31864 0 0 0 0 0 0 35.33411 32 35.33411 40.32386 38.64101 80.62416

83.92744 84.68063 82.86082 78.52335 71.80002 13.31865 0 0 0 0 0 0

35.3341 52 50.68905 40.32386 38.64101 80.62416 83.92744 24.56216

19.23257 14.82436 8.000025 }




coordinates

{Emerg 1 -47.5 35 0 }


{25 1.8 }


{1123 29.7 -1 -1 }



fractions

{1 0 }


{1.59}

Building width

{56.78429 66.84322 74.87115 80.62416 83.92743 84.68063 82.86084

31.76951 92.80001 32.81141 21.19835 26.92821 83.92744 80.62415

74.87114 66.84319 56.78427 45.00002 56.78431 66.84323 74.87116

80.62416 83.92744 84.68062 82.86082 31.7695 92.80003 32.81142 21.19836

26.92822 83.92744 80.62413 74.87112 66.84318 56.78425 45.00005 }

Building height

{26 26 26 26 26 26 26 21 21 21 21 21 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

26 26 21 21 21 21 21 26 26 26 26 26 26 }


{20.18976 17.76607 14.80256 11.38928 7.629948 3.638781 -0.4629478 -

4.750389 -8.500019 -6.400051 4.912659 4.897114 -66.80487 -77.31868 -

85.4832 -91.05035 -93.85098 -93.80002 -98.71313 -100.6269 -99.48318 -

95.3167 -88.25407 -78.50989 -66.38023 -48.07952 -45.99999 -45.56043 -

45.23652 -43.53812 -13.81928 -6.608738 0.8025894 8.189533 15.32764

21.99999 }


{-3.733078 6.647274 16.82565 26.49279 35.35495 43.14288 49.61993 -

1.690661 47.40001 7.339043 2.741343 7.053854 53.35299 47.94202

41.07435 32.95864 23.84152 13.99998 3.733065 -6.647285 -16.82567 -

26.49281 -35.35498 -43.14289 -49.61994 1.690649 -47.40001 -7.33905 -

2.741348 -7.053857 -53.35299 -47.942 -41.07433 -32.95863 -23.8415 -

13.99996 }


{78.52337 82.86084 84.68063 83.92744 80.62415 74.87114 66.84321

52.82992 54.50002 51.96048 40.32386 38.64101 80.62416 83.92744

84.68063 82.86082 78.52335 71.80002 78.52338 82.86085 84.68063

83.92743 80.62414 74.87112 66.84319 52.82991 54.50004 51.96048

40.32386 38.64101 80.62416 83.92744 84.68062 82.86082 78.52335

71.80004 }

Receptor information

Discrete receptors

Receptor coordinates type (1-Cartesian,0-Polar),Number of Receptors

{1 2 }


{-1850 0 2 }


{2780 -820 2 }

Gridded receptors

Receptor coordinates type (1-Cartesian, 0-Polar), Number of X and Y

coordinates, Receptor height

{1 61 61 2 }

X grid coordinates



{-3000 -2900 -2800 -2700 -2600 -2500 -2400 -2300 -2200 -2100 -2000 -

1900 -1800 -1700 -1600 -1500 -1400 -1300 -1200 -1100 -1000 -900 -800 -

700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200

2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 }

Y grid coordinates

{-3000 -2900 -2800 -2700 -2600 -2500 -2400 -2300 -2200 -2100 -2000 -

1900 -1800 -1700 -1600 -1500 -1400 -1300 -1200 -1100 -1000 -900 -800 -

700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200

2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 }

Model settings and parameters

Emission conversion factor, Averaging Time

{1000000 0 }

Land use (surface roughness)

{0.8}

Averaging time flags (1,2,3,4,6,8,12,24 hrs, 7, 90 days, 3 month, All

hrs

{1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 }

Statistical output options

{0 0 }

Output options (All meteodata, Every concentration/deposition,

Highest/2nd highest, 100 worst case table, Save all calculations

{0 0 1 1 0 0 }

Write concentration (1-yes, 0-no), Concentration rank, Write

frequency, Frequency Level

{1 1 0 -1 }

Disregard exponents (1-yes, 0-no), Exponent Scheme (1-Irvin urban, 2-

Irvin rural, 3-ISCST, 4-User Defined

{0 1 }

Dispersion exponents

{0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.2

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 }

Building wake effects (1-include,0-not) , Default decay coefficient,

Anemometr height, Sigma-theta averaging period, Roughness at vane

site, Smooth stability changes, ConvectivePDF)

{1 0 10 60 0.3 0 0 }

Deposition options, Depletion options

{False False False False False False }

Stability class adjustments (0-None, 1-Urban1, 2-Urban2)

{0}

Building wake algorithms (1-Huber-Sneider, 2-Hybrid, 3-Schulman-Scire)

{4}

Gradual plume rise (1-yes,0-no), Stack tip downwash (1-yes,0-no),

Disregard Temperature Gradient (1-yes,0-no), Partial Penetration, Temp

Gradient, Adiabatic Entrainment, Stable Entrainment

{1 1 0 0 0.004 0.6 0.6 }

Temperature Gradients for Wind and Stability categories



{0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

0.02 0.02 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 }

Dispersion curves (1-Pasquill Gifford, 2- Briggs rural, 3-Sigma

theta) horizontal < 100 m, ditto vertical < 100 m, ditto horizontal >

100 m, ditto vertical > 100 m

{3 1 2 2 }

Adjust PG curves for roughness - Horizontal, Vertical (1-yes,0-no)

{1 1 }

Enhance plume for buyoancy - Horizontal, Vertical (1-yes,0-no)

{1 1 }

Adjust for wind direction shear

{0}

Shear rates

{0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.035 }

Wind Speed categories

{1.54 3.09 5.14 8.23 10.8 }

Output file

{'P:\MelbourneProjects\13028\Ausplume\emergency_stack_dummy_rt_hrs.txt

'}

Meteorological file

{'P:\MelbourneProjects\13028\Ausplume\KIC_met_2008.met'}

Concentration file

Documents

Final report: Air quality impact assessment of the ... Appendices... · the proposed waste gasification power station ... MRF Materials Recovery Facility ... is an extension of the