Calpuff Odour Impact Assessment: Proposed FOGO System · 2020-04-24 · Project Number: TE18098 ....

Calpuff Odour Impact Assessment: Proposed FOGO System Red Hill Waste Management Facility Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council

TE18098-RedHillFOGO_Calpuff_OIA_1c March 2019 |

Assets | Engineering | Environment | Air Quality | Noise | GIS & Spatial | Waste

Calpuff Odour Impact Assessment: Proposed FOGO System

Red Hill Waste Management Facility

Prepared for Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council

March 2019

Project Number: TE18098


TE18098-RedHillFOGO_Calpuff_OIA_1c March 2020 | Page i

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version Description Date Author Reviewer

0a Internal Review 01/01/2019 JH JH

1a Released to Client for Review 03/01/2019 JH

1b GLC Table 6-1 included 15/01/2019 JH

1c Final Report 29/03/2019 JH

Approval for Release

Name Position File Reference

John Hurley Senior Environmental Consultant TE18098-RedHillFOGO_Calpuff_OIA_1c

Signature

Copyright of this document or any part of this document remains with Talis Consultants Pty Ltd and cannot be used,

transferred or reproduced in any manner or form without prior written consent from Talis Consultants Pty Ltd.


TE18098-RedHillFOGO_Calpuff_OIA_1c March 2020 | Page ii

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

1.1 Odour Impact Assessment Objective .................................................................................................... 2

2 Red Hill Waste Management Facility Odour Source ................................................................................. 3

3 Proposed FOGO Design ........................................................................................................................... 6

4 Adopted FOGO Odour Emission Rates ..................................................................................................... 8

5 CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling Method ................................................................................................ 10

5.1 Geophysical and Meteorological Configuration .................................................................................. 10

5.1.1 Terrain Configuration ........................................................................................................... 11

5.1.2 Land Use Configuration ........................................................................................................ 11

5.1.3 Geophysical Configuration ................................................................................................... 11

5.1.4 Meteorlogical Configuration ................................................................................................ 11

5.2 CALPUFF Dispersion Model Configuration .......................................................................................... 20

5.2.1 Computational Domain ........................................................................................................ 20

5.2.2 Receptor Configuration ........................................................................................................ 20

5.2.3 Building Profile Input Program ............................................................................................. 20

5.2.4 Source Configuration and Odour Emission Rates ................................................................ 20

5.2.5 Odour Dispersion Modelling Scenarios and Assumptions ................................................... 21

6 Odour Dispersion Modelling Results ..................................................................................................... 22


TE18098-RedHillFOGO_Calpuff_OIA_1c March 2020 | Page iii

Tables

Table 3-1: FOGO MAF System Design and Duration ............................................................................................... 6

Table 4-1: Adopted FOGO Emission Rates for Initial FOGO Process at the Site ..................................................... 8

Table 5-1: CALMET Key Variables (Grid Configuration WGS-84 UTM Zone 50S) .................................................. 14

Table 5-2: Odour Emissions and Modelled Parameters ....................................................................................... 20

Table 6-1: Projected Ground Level Odour Concentrations................................................................................... 28

Figures

Figure 2-1: EMRC Red Hill Waste Management Facility Locality Map and Member Councils ............................... 4

Figure 2-2: Greenwaste, MGB greenwaste and proposed FOGO process area ..................................................... 5

Figure 5-1: Terrain Map of Modelling Domain depicting EMRC’s Red Hill Waste Management Site .................. 13

Figure 5-2: Annual and Seasonal Windroses for Hybrid derived CALMET 2011 EMRC Red Hill, Western Australia

(modelled) ............................................................................................................................................................ 16

Figure 5-3: Time of Day Windroses for EMRC Red Hill, Western Australia (modelled) ........................................ 17

Figure 5-4: Annual X-Y scatter plot diurnal temperatures for 2011 (modelled) ................................................... 18

Figure 5-5: Average Monthly temperatures for 2011 (modelled) ........................................................................ 18

Figure 5-6: Annual X-Y scatter plot diurnal mixing height for Red Hill 2011 (modelled) ...................................... 19

Figure 5-7: Annual stability class frequency for Red Hill 2011 (modelled) ........................................................... 19

Figure 6-1: CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling ground level Projected Odour Impact Contours (FOGO Discrete

Sources) ................................................................................................................................................................ 23

Figure 6-2: CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling ground level Projected Odour Impact Contours by SLR in 2012

(Baseline Existing Landfill Odour Impacts – Red Contour) ................................................................................... 24

Figure 6-3: CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling ground level Projected Odour Impact Contours by Talis (Replicate of

SLR Baseline Existing Landfill Odour Impacts) ...................................................................................................... 25

Figure 6-4: CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling ground level Projected Cumulative Odour Impact Contours (SLR

Baseline + FOGO Bayswater MGB) ....................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 6-5: CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling ground level Projected Cumulative Odour Impact Contours (SLR

Baseline + Future FOGO Stages 1 and 2) .............................................................................................................. 27


TE18098-RedHillFOGO_Calpuff_OIA_1c March 2020 | Page 1

1 Introduction

Talis Consultants Pty Ltd (Talis) was commissioned by the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council (EMRC) to

undertake a desktop modelling Odour Impact Assessment (OIA) of the Red Hill Waste Management Facility

(the Site), specifically the proposed Food Organics Garden Organics (FOGO) process that will divert organic

wastes from landfill to a reusable organic compost product.

The aim of the OIA was to determine the extent of offsite odour impacts from the Site assessing the FOGO

process as a discrete odour source, as well as the overall Site cumulative impacts to include the FOGO and

baseline odour impacts.

Baseline odour impacts have been previously assessed by SLR Consulting (SLR) in 2012[1]

and those impacts

have been re-modelled herein, based on the SLR input files, to provide the baseline projections that will be

assessed with the proposed FOGO process.

Additionally, an air quality assessment was also undertaken by Synergetics in 2011-2012[2]

with a

meteorological dataset being developed for the Site. This meteorological file was used by SLR in their odour

assessment. EMRC attempted to obtain this meteorological file from Synergetics for use in this assessment;

however, the dataset was not forthcoming and subsequently Talis developed a new dataset for the same

assessment year used by SLR using reference to input configuration files for the meteorological dataset

provided by SLR and Synergetics.

The scope of works for the desktop dispersion modelling OIA was as follows:

Develop and run a site-representative odour dispersion model for the Site projecting ground level

odour impacts from the proposed FOGO process at two (2) Site locations;

Utilise the existing SLR and Synergetics input configurations to derive the Calmet and Calpuff

modelling setups to replicate as close as possible the 2011 meteorological dataset and the odour

impact modelling setup;

Follow the requirements set by Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER)

(formerly Department of Environment Regulation - DER) for odour impact assessments[3]

as

summarised below:

o Identify and quantify all emissions to atmosphere (odour) with a potential to have a non-

trivial impact on the environment. Emissions of potential concern include (among others)

odorous gases to be considered explicitly, unless the proponent can demonstrate that the

emission rates of these are insignificant;

o For all those odour sources that cannot be dismissed as being of no significance, the

proponent must provide model predictions of the impact of emissions in the form of

concentrations and/or rates of deposition over the range of averaging periods normally

associated with relevant standards for each pollutant, and assess the magnitude of this

impact against the relevant standards;

o Modelling results to be presented in the form of:

[1] SLR: Red Hill Waste Management Facility Resource Recovery Facility, Odour Impact Assessment for Lot 8 (Site E)

Toodyay Road. Report Number 675.10051-R2, 27 September 2012 [2]

Synergetics Environmental Engineering: Air Quality Modelling of Resource Recovery Facility Scenarios at the Red Hill

Waste Management Facility for Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council. 10108 Draft – Red Hill RRF modelling 26 Oct 2011 [3]

Department of Environment: Air Quality Modelling Guidance Notes, March 2006


TE18098-RedHillFOGO_Calpuff_OIA_1c March 2020| Page 2

a. contour plots covering the region of interest (including population centres or

isolated residences), with a grid density adequate to avoid significant loss of

resolution, and

b. numerical values of concentrations at the point(s) of maximum impact (explain

where this occurs) and other locations (receptors) of interest (e.g. places of human

residence).

o When cumulative concentrations are modelled, in order for the contribution to be properly

assessed, the modelling results are presented for:

a. the existing emissions plus background concentration (pre-proposal),

b. the proposed development in isolation (excluding existing emissions), and

c. the combined (existing plus proposed plus background) emissions.

o Any estimates of emissions employed in modelling assessments are realistic and that

uncertainty is balanced by conservatism;

o The modelling must properly assess both emissions which are continuous in nature and

emissions which are intermittent. Intermittent emissions which are insignificant in

magnitude and/or very improbable in the lifetime of the plant may be screened out and the

remaining emissions modelled together on a probabilistic basis to estimate the total plant

impact;

o The models and/or worst case calculation procedures and data employed in the assessment

must be demonstrably capable of simulating, or accounting for, all of the features which are

important in the context of determining the air quality impact of the project. The proponent

is responsible for identifying and properly accommodating these;

o If using a conventional model, the proponent will need to obtain at least one (preferably two

or more) year's data on the meteorology of the area, with high data recovery and verifiable

data accuracy. In the simplest situations, the data may be limited to that necessary to

provide reliable hourly average estimates, at a representative site, of:

a. wind speed,

b. wind direction,

c. air temperature,

d. mixing height, estimated or measured via methods acceptable to the DWER, and

e. atmospheric stability, estimated by a method acceptable to the DWER.

The proponent’s report should include a description of the meteorological data used or alternatively a

reference to a publicly available report which contains this information.

1.1 Odour Impact Assessment Objective

When undertaking odour dispersion modelling the regulatory criteria for odour is based on the DWER’s

current informal guidance of:

The modeled odour concentrations at the “most exposed existing or likely future off-site sensitive

receptors” should be compared with the following guideline values:

i. 0.5 ou, 1-hour average, 99.5th

percentile for tall stacks;

ii. 2.5 ou, 1-hour average, 99.5th

percentile for ground-level sources and down-washed

plumes from short stacks;

AND iii. For facilities that do not operate continuously, the 99.5

th percentile must be applied

to the actual hours of operation.



The DWER also has a preference for the near-field criteria of:

i. 8.0 ou, 1-hour average, 99.9th

percentile.

The objective of this OIA was to determine the extent of ground level odour impacts from the initial FOGO

process which will be undertaken on the existing greenwaste and Bayswater MBG greenwaste processing area

located relatively central to the overall landfill area. These ground level impacts were assessed in isolation and

then as cumulative impacts by combining these FOGO projections with the SLR baseline odour impact

projections.

Following this, the future location for ongoing FOGO processing was also assessed both as Stage 1 and the final

expanded Stage 2 at the new location located south-west of the existing landfill. Again, these projections were

assessed in isolation and also as a final cumulative impact.

2 Red Hill Waste Management Facility Odour Source

The details of the Site have been presented in detail in both the SLR and Synergetics reports.

The SLR baseline odour impact assessment assessed, in addition to the existing landfill and associated

processes, two alternate waste technologies in Anaerobic Digestion and Gasification of waste streams.

These technologies have not yet been undertaken and subsequently it is the existing baseline landfill

configuration that is the current odour emitting source.

The Site accepts a wide range of waste from the general public, commercial operators, and local, regional,

state and federal government organisations, including:

Household and domestic waste;

Commercial waste;

Contaminated waste;

Asbestos and asbestos cement;

Household hazardous waste; and

Drum muster.

The Site is licensed to accept Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV waste. The WMF also includes a compost

facility which recycles greenwastes collected from Council verge collections, greenwaste bins, transfer stations

and commercial customers.

A waste transfer station is located on site which accepts a range of recyclable waste and general rubbish from

members of the public.

A third-party operated electricity generating plant is located at the Site. Operated by Energy Developments

Limited (EDL) (formerly Landfill Gas & Power), the plant extracts landfill gas from cells 1 to 10 and utilises the

methane to produce up to 3.65 MW of electricity.

The Site locality and supporting Member Councils is presented in Figure 2-1.

A layout of the site detailing locations of the proposed FOGO operations is presented in Figure 2-2.



Figure 2-1: EMRC Red Hill Waste Management Facility Locality Map and Member Councils



Figure 2-2: Greenwaste, MGB greenwaste and proposed FOGO process area



3 Proposed FOGO Design

It is anticipated that EMRC will utilise the existing greenwaste and Bayswater MGB greenwaste processing area

for FOGO processing from July 2019 and relocate to the permanent FOGO location (Future Stages 1 + 2 FOGO)

in late summer 2020 after construction and commissioning and regulatory approvals for that location.

The expected tonnage of FOGO collections from July 2019 is approximately 50tonnes per week (2600 tonnes

per annum). EMRC will utilise a mobile forced aeration system (MAF) with continuous and controlled aeration

to aerobically breakdown the FOGO product.

This MAF system will include one master blower and two parallel slave blowers. Each blower supplies 4

aeration pipes, with a processing capacity of 100 tonnes, or 200 – 230m3 (tonnages based on water weight

where moisture content of windrows typically 40%). Each windrow will be approximately 10m wide, 15m long

and 2.5m high and equals 375m3 holding capacity. Hence each blower with 4 aeration pipes can compost the

FOGO collected and delivered to site for a two-week period (100t – 300m3 plus seasonal allowance). Hence

each fortnight a new blower set will be filled, which allows the initial 2-week batch to compost. With the 2

systems the EMRC will have sufficient capacity to compost 6 batches of 2 weeks’ worth of FOGO. This allows

up to 12 weeks for the FOGO to compost, which is sufficient.

The initial FOGO process is expected to increase following setup whereby another member council will

participate. The increase will add another 148 tonnes/week taking weekly totals to 198 tonnes or 10,000

tonnes per annum. For this expanded scenario the MAF system will require one additional master unit and 2

additional slaves with the windrows increasing to 400 tonnes (1,100m3) and a windrow size of 30m wide, 15m

long and 2.5m high.

The MAF system will be operated as follows:

Table 3-1: FOGO MAF System Design and Duration

Composting Stage Description Duration

0 Fresh FOGO stockpiled and wetted

to form a uniform feedstock

2-3 weeks to accumulate enough

tonnes to make Windrow 1

1 Forced Aeration 2 weeks, then turned and arranged

into Stage 2


into Stage 3


into Stage 4

4 Forced Aeration 2 weeks, then screened for

contamination removal and sizing

Screening Trommel(s) Screened and added to Final

Product Stockpile

It is anticipated that in due course, the EMRC will have approximately 60,000 tonnes per annum (150,000m3)

of FOGO waste for processing by 2024/2025 as the EMRC secures additional contracts from member Councils,

other metro councils and potentially private sources. This will be processed in Lots 9 & 10 on suitably designed

impermeable concrete pad with a leachate collection system and is proposed for implementation following the

trial of the MAF system in the existing greenwaste processing area on Lot 12. This facility on Lots 9&10 may

involve a MAF system or an enclosed system such as tunnel composting and is yet to be determined.



The Future Stage 1 will have a capacity of 60,000 tonnes/year and will utilise a multiple up to 12 Aeration

Systems with 3 blowers/system and windrows containing 600 tonnes (1,500m3) or use some other composting

system. Future Stage 2, if required, will double the Stage 1 FOGO processing capacity at Red Hill.



4 Adopted FOGO Odour Emission Rates

Given that FOGO is a relatively new technology there is little to no surrogate sites within the Perth

Metropolitan area to sample for odour emissions. Consequently Talis undertook a literature review of public

domain data and selected a recent OIA by Jacobs (the report) for a proposed FOGO facility in Launceston,

Tasmania[4]

.

Additionally, the odour data reviewed in the report was compared to Talis’ own archive of data for landfill and

organic waste emissions to determine if the emissions data adopted represented typical organic waste

streams.

Odour emissions per square metre (m2) taken from the report and representing the typical steps in EMRC’s

proposed initial FOGO processing, and comparison to Talis’ database for organic waste stream odour emissions

are presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Adopted FOGO Emission Rates for Initial FOGO Process at the Site

FOGO Source

ASurface

Area

(m2)

Jacobs SOER

(ou.m3 m

-2 s

-1)

Total OER

(ou.m3 s

-1)

DTalis SOERs

(ou.m3 m

-2 s

-1)

Talis

Average

SOERs

MODELLED

Emission Rates

(ou.m3 m

-2 s

-1)

Raw Stockpile

(greenwaste + food

organics)

1,050 B0.84 2,100

0.10/0.63/1.07/1.35

1.48/2.60/3.00/3.98 1.78

C2.0

Windrow 1 (0-2 weeks) 405 4 1,620 0.05/0.12/0.15/0.51

3.30/3.35/4.18/5.92 2.20

4

Windrow 2 (3-4 weeks) 405 4 1,620 4

Windrow 3 (5-6 weeks) 405 2 810 0.07/0.26/0.55/0.94

0.12/0.17/0.22 0.33

2

Windrow 4 (7-8 weeks) 405 0.7 283.50 0.7

Final Product Stockpile 1,050 0.2 210 0.07/0.15/0.19 0.41 0.2

Totals 3,720 6,643.50 ASurface Area of Stockpiles/Windrows based on L x W

BSOER based on 10% food waste and 90% greenwaste

CSOER based on 50% food waste and 50% greenwaste

DRange of SOERs measured by Talis

The surface areas for each compost pile are based on the length x width dimensions which would overstate

the emission face for each stockpile given that;

actively composting windrows have been shown to emit toward the centre and top of the pile which represents a much lower surface area than the overall plan view dimensions; and

cross flow of winds stripping odour from stockpiles strips from the face upon which the winds are contacting i.e. dependant on wind direction.

By assuming the total emission face for each stockpile is represented by the plan view dimensions the odour

emissions are conservatively overstated.

[4] Jacobs: Launceston Waste Centre Organics Processing Facility, City of Launceston. Development Proposal Environmental

Management Plan (DPEMP). Rev 3 June 2017



It can be seen from Table 4-1 that the Talis database data shows good agreement of ranges of SOERs

measured from both food organics and greenwaste organics. The final column in Table 4-1 lists the modelled

SOERs used in the modelling OIA.

Odour emission rates for the Future FOGO processing areas’ Stages 1 and 2 adopted the same emission rates

as listed in Table 4-1 and extrapolated for the total OERs based on the overall size of the Raw Materials

receivables, Windrows and Final Product Stockpiles.



5 CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling Method

The odour dispersion modelling assessment was carried out using the CALPUFF System (Version 7). The main

system programs are:

CALPUFF - Version 7.2.1 - Level 150618

CALMET - Version 6.5.0 - Level 150223

CALPOST - Version 7.1.0 - Level 141010

CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species, non-steady-state puff dispersion model that is able to simulate the

effects of time- and space-varying meteorological conditions on pollutant transport [5]

. CALMET is a

meteorological model that produces three dimensional gridded wind and temperature fields to be fed into

CALPUFF [6]

. The primary output from CALPUFF is hourly pollutant concentrations evaluated at gridded and/or

discrete receptor locations. CALPOST processes the hourly pollutant concentration output to produce tables at

each receptor and contour plots across the modelling domain. The result is a summary of pollutant

concentrations at various time averages and percentiles or a tally of hours where a pollutant has exceeded a

pre-determined concentration [2]

. For further technical information about the CALPUFF modelling system refer

to the document CALPUFF Modeling System Version 6 User Instructions [5]

.

The CALPUFF system can account for a variety of effects such as non-steady-state meteorological conditions,

complex terrain, varying land uses, plume fumigation and low wind speed dispersion [4]

. CALPUFF is considered

an appropriate dispersion model for impact assessment in one or more of the following applications:

complex terrain, non-steady-state conditions,

buoyant line plumes,

coastal effects such as fumigation,

high frequency of stable calm night-time conditions,

high frequency of calm conditions,

inversion break-up fumigation conditions

long-range transport, and

close-field assessments.

For this study, the air contaminant was odour and ground level concentrations in odour units (ou) were

projected.

CALMET was used to produce a site representative meteorological file within the Hybrid mode. The Hybrid

mode combines surface station observations and upper air data together with predictions of assimilated

meteorological conditions at each domain grid point to derive a 3D meteorological file. The 3D file was then

used for the CALPUFF odour assessment projections.

5.1 Geophysical and Meteorological Configuration

A CALMET Hybrid three-dimensional meteorological data file for the Site locale was produced that

incorporated gridded numerical meteorological data supplemented by surface observation data from the

[5] https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_prefrec.htm

[6] Atmospheric Studies Group, 2011. CALPUFF Modeling System Version 6 User Instructions.. Lowell: TRC

Environmental Corporation.

https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_prefrec.htm



Perth International Airport Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) Automatic Weather Station (AWS), topography and

land use over the domain area.

The CALMET configuration was taken from a combination of inputs from SLR and Synergetics input files.

5.1.1 Terrain Configuration

Terrain elevations were sourced from 1 Second Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) Derived Smoothed

Digital Elevation Model (DEM-S). The SRTM data has been treated with several processes including, but not

limited to removal of stripes, void filling, tree offset removal and adaptive smoothing [7]

. The terrain grid and

resolution followed that of the CALMET inputs by SLR and Synergetics to produce a 26km x 26km grid at

0.25km resolution. Coastline data was sourced from USGS Global Self-consistent Hierarchical High-resolution

Shoreline (GSHHS) Database [8]

.

A map of the terrain is illustrated in Figure 5-1.

5.1.2 Land Use Configuration

Land use, which refers to surface roughness (trees, scrubland, desert, etc.), was sourced from the United

States Geological Survey (USGS) Global Land Cover Characteristics Data Base for the Australia-Pacific Region [9]

.

The data was used as input into CTGPROC processor to produce a 26km x 26km grid at 0.25km resolution.

5.1.3 Geophysical Configuration

The geophysical data file was created using the MAKEGEO processor. Land use data from CTGPROC and

terrain data from TERREL was used as input to produce a to produce a 26km x 26km grid at 0.25km resolution.

5.1.4 Meteorlogical Configuration

5.1.4.1 Surface Observations Input Data

The SLR and Synergetics input files detailed the meteorological (met) setup. The year most recently modelled

was 2011. The previous modelling used a combination of prognostic data for upper air (3D) and surface data

taken from the nearest BoM AWS, Perth Airport. In reviewing the reports it would appear that the 2011 met

setup included hybridisation using met data collected from the Site’s own met station.

This site specific met was not able to be obtained from Synergetics, moreover, the most recent met setup

suggests that site specific met was used previously, but not in the 2011-2012 assessments.

With this in mind, Talis reconstructed the met dataset using the configurations in the input files to produce a

26km x 26km computational grid at 0.25km resolution.

The met data for the 2011 year was taken from the Perth Airport BoM AWS and hybridised into the final

Calmet dataset. The BoM data was firstly prepared into a generic format; gap filled using interpolation for

[7] Gallant, J. C. et al., 2011. 1 second SRTM Derived Digital Elevation Models User Guide, Canberra: Geoscience

Australia. [8]

Wessel, P. & Smith, W. H. F., 2015. Global Self-consistent Hierarchical High-resolution Geography, s.l.:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Centers for Environmental Information. [9]

United States Geological Survey, 1997. Global Land Cover Characteristics Data Base, s.l.: s.n.



small data gaps, and the CSIRO The Air Pollution Model (TAPM) extracted data at the nearest grid point for

large data gaps, and was processed with SMERGE to produce a surface meteorological data file.

5.1.4.2 Upper Air Observations Input Data

A 3D data tile from TAPM was developed for numerical upper air meteorological data and processed with

CALTAPM into a suitable format. TAPM was run using 41 x 41 (nx,ny) grid points, outer grid spacing of 35km,

at least three nested grids and 30 vertical levels. The TAPM innermost nest was 49.2km2 at 1.2 km resolution.

The nested grid resolutions were close to a ratio of three as possible (35km, 11.6km, 3.8km and 1.2km).



Figure 5-1: Terrain Map of Modelling Domain depicting EMRC’s Red Hill Waste Management Site



5.1.4.3 CALMET Meteorological Model Configuration

CALMET was run using the Hybrid option that uses geophysical data, surface station data from Perth Airport

AWS (BoM) and upper air data from the TAPM 3D data tile. The data was used to initialise the diagnostic

functions of the CALMET module to produce a full 3D meteorology data for input into CALPUFF. Table 5-1

shows key variable fields selected.

Table 5-1: CALMET Key Variables (Grid Configuration WGS-84 UTM Zone 50S)

104 NX Cells

104 NY Cells

0.25 Cell Size (km)

400.000 6465.000 SW Corner (km)

10 Vertical Layers

ZFACE (m) 0 20 40 80 160 320 640 1000 1500 2200 3000

LAYER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MID-PT (m) 10 30 60 120 240 480 820 1250 1850 2600

Critical Wind Field Settings

Value Found Typical Values

TERRAD 5 None Terrain scale (km) for terrain effects

IEXTRP 1 4,-4 Similarity extrap. of wind (-4 ignore upper stn sfc)

ICALM 0 0 Do Not extrapolate calm winds

RMAX1 6 None MAX radius of influence over land in layer 1 (km)

RMAX2 0 None MAX radius of influence over land aloft (km)

R1 5 None Distance (km) where OBS wt = IGF wt in layer 1

R2 5 None Distance (km) where OBS wt = IGF wt aloft

Data Choices

Value Found Typical Values

NOOBS 1 0,1,2 0=w/Obs; 1=Partial Obs/No-Obs; 2=No-Obs mode

ITPROG 1 0,1,2 0=Obs.; 1=Obs.Sfc/Prog.Upr; 2=Prog. temperatures

ITWPROG 0 0,1,2 0=Obs.; 1=Obs.T_Diff/Prog.Lapse; 2=Prog. Overwater T



5.1.4.4 Meteorological Data Analysis

Figure 5-2 shows the annual and seasonal met characteristics for the hybrid derived CALMET met file, whilst

Figure 5-3 shows the hourly met characteristics.

Other met trends, including stability class frequency, are illustrated in Figures 5-4 to 5-7 to follow.



2011 Annual Windrose

Summer

Autumn

Winter

Spring

Figure 5-2: Annual and Seasonal Windroses for Hybrid derived CALMET 2011 EMRC Red Hill, Western Australia (modelled)



0100hrs – 0600hrs 0700hrs – 1200hrs

1300hrs – 1800hrs 1900hrs – 0000hrs

Figure 5-3: Time of Day Windroses for EMRC Red Hill, Western Australia (modelled)



Figure 5-4: Annual X-Y scatter plot diurnal temperatures for 2011 (modelled)

Figure 5-5: Average Monthly temperatures for 2011 (modelled)



Figure 5-6: Annual X-Y scatter plot diurnal mixing height for Red Hill 2011 (modelled)

Figure 5-7: Annual stability class frequency for Red Hill 2011 (modelled)



5.2 CALPUFF Dispersion Model Configuration

5.2.1 Computational Domain

The computational domain was set to the same parameters as the meteorological domain.

5.2.2 Receptor Configuration

Gridded receptors were set to the same parameters as the meteorological domain.

i. = 104 x 104 @ 250m; and

ii. = 10,816 receptors.

Discrete receptors were replicated from the SLR and Synergetics reports.

5.2.3 Building Profile Input Program

The Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) was not utilised for the dispersion modelling assessment since

emission characteristics were area sources.

5.2.4 Source Configuration and Odour Emission Rates

The Odour Sources and their individual configurations and emissions data are presented in Table 5-2 below.

The dimensions of the individual sources were taken from NearMap.com aerial imagery of the site.

Table 5-2: Odour Emissions and Modelled Parameters

FOGO Process

Area

SW Corner

(x), (UTM, kms)

SW Corner

(y), (UTM, kms)

Effective Height

(m)

Base Elevation

(m)

Initial Sigma Z

(m)

SOER (ou.m

3m

-2s

-1)

Initial FOGO Undertaking (Bayswater MGB Process Area)

FOGO Wrows (4) 415.885 6477.936 5 299.6 2.5 2.675

(ave. across 4 windrows)

Raw Stock 415.918 6477.897 5 301.8 2.5 2

Final Stock 415.952 6477.965 5 301.6 2.5 0.2

Future FOGO Stages 1 and 2

Stage 1 Raw 414.612 6477.229 5 256.46 2.5 2

Stage 1 Wrows Nth 414.530 6477.242 5 264.03 2.5 2.675

Stage 1 Wrows Sth 414.529 6477.190 5 260.60 2.5 2.675

Final Stage 1 414.452 6477.190 5 259.81 2.5 0.1

Stage 2 Raw 414.320 6477.231 5 265.67 2.5 2

Stage 2 Wrows Nth 414.370 6477.243 5 264.57 2.5 2.675

Stage 2 WRows Sth 414.370 6477.190 5 265.43 2.5 2.675

Final Stage 2 414.452 6477.190 5 259.81 2.5 0.2



The values in Table 5-2 above represent the primary characteristics of each odour source, in this case area

sources, that are required by the modelling software, where:

Effective Height – refers to the height of odour plume release (ground level in this case);

Base Elevation – refers to the topographical elevation of the odour source (when including

terrain); and

Initial Sigma Z – refers to the vertical spread of the odour plume (vertical dispersion coefficient).

5.2.5 Odour Dispersion Modelling Scenarios and Assumptions

One modelled scenario was assessed where odour emissions data in Table 5-2 was modelled constantly.



6 Odour Dispersion Modelling Results

The desktop OIA Calpuff dispersion modelling assessment of the proposed EMRC Red Hill Waste Management

Facility FOGO Process has projected that each FOGO stage has no odour impact on receptors. This outcome is

based on each FOGO stage (Bayswater MGB, Future Stage 1 and 2) modelled as standalone odour sources.

Figure 6-1 depicts the discrete modelling projections for each of the FOGO processes.

To assess the overall cumulative impacts of the existing landfill odour sources and those of the proposed FOGO

processes, the OIA was ran to replicate the SLR baseline odour impacts. The comparison of the SLR modelling

projections and those of Talis’ replicated modelling projections are presented in Figures 6-2 and 6-3. These

modelling projections show excellent agreement suggesting that Talis has successfully replicated the SLR 2012

model.

Figure 6-2 depicts the SLR model projections. The red contour in the Figure represents the 2.5ou @ 99.5th

percentile ground level odour projections. Figure 6-3 depicts the Talis replicated model projections from the

SLR assessment (yellow contour).

When assessing the proposed FOGO process as cumulative impacts by including the SLR projections, the

cumulative modelling projections have shown that the initial FOGO Bayswater MGB Process Area, and the

Future FOGO Stages 1 and 2 cumulative impacts have no projected offsite odour impacts on the nearest

sensitive receptors exceeding those projected in the SLR Baseline impact assessment.

Figure 6-4 shows the projections for the cumulative Baseline + FOGO Bayswater MGB Process Area.

Figure 6-5 shows two ground level projections representing the Stage 1 and Stage 2 odour emissions and

subsequent ground level impacts. At Stage 1 or 2 neither scenario has shown that the cumulative emissions

have impacted the nearest sensitive receptors beyond those projections in the SLR Baseline assessment.

Following the Figures, Table 6-1 lists the projected ground level odour concentrations for the re-modelled SLR

baseline scenario and those of Talis’ modelled scenarios to include the cumulative impacts of the baseline

projections with the proposed FOGO processes. Table 6-1 shows the comparison (green columns) of the

original SLR projections, and those of the re-run SLR (2011-2012) baseline model using Talis’ own site-

representative meteorological file. The orange columns show the ground level odour projections for each of

the FOGO processes as standalone odour sources, and as cumulative impacts with the existing odour sources.

The proposed FOGO processes to be undertaken at the EMRC Red Hill Waste Management Facility, modelled

as cumulative impacts, have shown that the FOGO proposal has not increased ground level odour impacts at

any of the nearest sensitive receptors when compared and cumulatively assessed against the SLR baseline

odour impact assessment.



KEY: Meteorological Data & Assessment Criterion:

Greenwaste and Bassendean/Bayswater MGB FOGO - 2.5ou @ 99.5th

(dark blue contour)

Future FOGO Stage 1 – 2.5ou @ 99.5th

(light blue contour)

Future FOGO Stage 2 – 2.5ou @ 99.5th

(green contour)

Discrete Receptors (green crosses)

Emissions Type: AREA SOURCE Constant SOER’s

File: CALMETT-Hybrid – EMRC Red Hill, CALMET Hybrid 2011

Meteorological Hours: 8,760

Modelling Hours Assessed: 44

Coordinates: UTM

Criterion Averaging Time: 1-hr

Criterion Assessment Percentiles: 99.5th

Figure 6-1: CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling ground level Projected Odour Impact Contours (FOGO Discrete Sources)



Figure 6-2: CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling ground level Projected Odour Impact Contours by SLR in 2012 (Baseline Existing Landfill Odour Impacts – Red Contour)



Figure 6-3: CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling ground level Projected Odour Impact Contours by Talis (Replicate of SLR Baseline Existing Landfill Odour Impacts)




SLR Baseline + FOGO Bassendean/Bayswater MGB – 2.5ou @ 99.5th

(blue contour)






Coordinates: UTM



Figure 6-4: CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling ground level Projected Cumulative Odour Impact Contours (SLR Baseline + FOGO Bayswater MGB)




SLR Baseline + Future FOGO Stage 1 – 2.5ou @ 99.5th

(light blue contour)

SLR Baseline + Future FOGO Stage 2 – 2.5ou @ 99.5th

(green contour)






Coordinates: UTM



Figure 6-5: CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling ground level Projected Cumulative Odour Impact Contours (SLR Baseline + Future FOGO Stages 1 and 2)



Table 6-1: Projected Ground Level Odour Concentrations

Receptor

SLR (Baseline 2011-2012) Talis' SLR (2018) Talis' MGB

2.5ou @ 99.5th

Talis' Stg1

2.5ou @ 99.5th

Talis' Stg2

2.5ou @ 99.5th

Talis' SLR+MGB

2.5ou @ 99.5th

Talis' SLR+Stg1

2.5ou @ 99.5th

Talis' SLR+Stg2

2.5ou @ 99.5th Maximum 8ou @ 99.9th 2.5ou @ 99.5th Maximum 8ou @ 99.9th 2.5ou @ 99.5th

1 6.1 3.4 2.3 9.08 3.91 2.37 0.50 0.30 0.52 2.48 2.38 2.42

2 5 3.1 1.9 6.05 3.68 2.09 0.33 0.18 0.35 2.19 2.12 2.12

3 3.2 2.2 1.3 3.74 3.04 1.70 0.25 0.17 0.31 1.81 1.72 1.73

4 3.1 1.8 1.1 3.01 2.00 1.18 0.15 0.13 0.24 1.28 1.21 1.23

5 2.6 1.4 0.8 2.72 1.38 0.90 0.12 0.11 0.20 0.97 0.94 0.99

6 2.4 1.4 0.7 2.18 1.68 0.85 0.10 0.09 0.17 0.95 0.95 1.03

7 0.8 1.5 0.8 4.12 2.10 1.09 0.13 0.11 0.22 1.19 1.23 1.33

8 4.4 2.3 1 3.15 2.16 1.24 0.14 0.12 0.22 1.36 1.36 1.45

9 2.9 1.7 1 3.95 2.15 1.27 0.14 0.11 0.22 1.40 1.35 1.42

10 4.7 2.1 1.3 6.94 3.06 1.64 0.17 0.13 0.24 1.80 1.66 1.71

11 5.8 2.7 1.3 5.51 3.25 1.51 0.15 0.12 0.22 1.64 1.52 1.53

12 4.2 3.3 1.4 7.16 3.58 1.33 0.16 0.14 0.26 1.46 1.33 1.37

13 6.7 1.9 0.8 4.45 1.65 0.96 0.12 0.13 0.24 1.07 0.98 1.02

14 2.8 1.8 0.6 3.03 1.74 0.89 0.11 0.12 0.23 1.00 0.91 0.96

15 2.3 1.4 0.6 3.50 1.63 0.79 0.12 0.15 0.26 0.88 0.81 0.85

16 2.5 1.4 0.6 2.83 1.53 0.79 0.13 0.17 0.30 0.90 0.82 0.85

17 3.5 1.6 0.6 3.48 1.44 0.78 0.13 0.18 0.32 0.88 0.83 0.86

18 4.1 1.5 0.7 3.11 1.42 0.80 0.12 0.20 0.35 0.88 0.86 0.91

19 4.6 1.4 0.7 2.32 1.40 0.80 0.12 0.22 0.39 0.88 0.89 0.94

20 3.6 1.5 0.8 2.85 1.53 0.76 0.11 0.24 0.42 0.84 0.88 0.93

21 3.5 1.6 0.8 3.01 1.68 0.72 0.11 0.26 0.45 0.80 0.86 0.91

22 3.4 1.9 0.8 3.52 1.82 0.68 0.11 0.28 0.48 0.76 0.86 0.91

23 3.8 1.6 0.8 4.56 1.65 0.68 0.10 0.30 0.52 0.76 0.88 0.95

24 5.4 2.3 0.8 4.31 1.41 0.69 0.08 0.33 0.56 0.77 0.91 1.01

25 4.1 1.6 0.8 2.64 1.38 0.64 0.09 0.37 0.62 0.71 0.80 0.94

26 3.2 1.2 0.6 3.08 1.37 0.60 0.09 0.40 0.67 0.66 0.72 0.89

27 3.1 1.3 0.6 3.73 1.46 0.61 0.08 0.48 0.72 0.66 0.75 0.94

Calpuff Odour Impact Assessment: Proposed FOGO System · 2020-04-24 · Project Number: TE18098 ....

Documents

Transcript of Calpuff Odour Impact Assessment: Proposed FOGO System · 2020-04-24 · Project Number: TE18098 ....