Dandenong South waste to energy emission modelling and ... · Malu Haribabu BTech MPhil(Eng) PhD...

Dandenong South waste to energy air emission modelling and impact assessment

prepared for

SMEC

11 May 2020

SMEC

17067 Waste to Energy dispersion modelling F03.docx

Dandenong South waste to energy emission modelling and impact assessment

for

SMEC

Copyright © 2020 Synergetics Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. This document was prepared for SMEC 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 Prepared by Reviewed by

Comments

F01 12 September 2019

JB, MH, NG DC

F02 26 February 2020

JB, MH, NG DC Expanded text to address feedback from EPA, added yearly tables and additional emission components to analysis

F03 11 May 2020 JB, MH, NG DC Added time varying background concentrations, startup GLC table, and measurement values in g/s as required by EPA.

Prepared by:

James Brett BE(Hons) BSc MEngSc PhD Principal Modelling Engineer

Malu Haribabu BTech MPhil(Eng) PhD Modelling Engineer

Nitheesh George BEng MS PhD Candidate Modelling Engineer

Reviewed by:

Dave Collins BE(Hons) MBA PhD FIEAust FAIE CIH MAIOH CPEng RBP Principal Engineer

SMEC


Table of Contents

Executive summary ........................................................................................................................1

1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................2

2 Site description ......................................................................................................................3

2.1 Site layout ..................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Process description ....................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Emissions ....................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Other nearby facilities ................................................................................................. 13

3 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Assessment criteria and emissions ............................................................................. 14

3.2 Dispersion modelling ................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Background concentrations ........................................................................................ 17

4 Meteorological data ............................................................................................................ 19

5 Results for “maximum measured” scenario ....................................................................... 20

5.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 20

5.2 NO2 .............................................................................................................................. 21

5.3 PM ............................................................................................................................... 22

5.4 HF ................................................................................................................................ 23

6 Results for “EU limit” scenario ............................................................................................ 24

6.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 24

6.2 NO2 .............................................................................................................................. 26

6.3 Cadmium ..................................................................................................................... 26

6.4 HF ................................................................................................................................ 27

7 Results for “start-up” scenario ............................................................................................ 28

7.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 28

7.2 PM ............................................................................................................................... 29

7.3 NO2 .............................................................................................................................. 30

SMEC


7.4 Other compounds ....................................................................................................... 30

8 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 31

9 References ........................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix A. Wind roses........................................................................................................... 34

Appendix B. Emission rate data provided by Energos ............................................................. 35

Appendix C. Discrete numbered receptor GLC for “EU limit” scenario .................................. 37

Appendix D. Maximum gridded receptor GLC for “maximum measured” scenario each year38

Appendix E. Maximum sensitive receptor GLC for “maximum measured” scenario each year 39

Appendix F. Maximum gridded receptor GLC for “EU limit” scenario each year ................... 40

Appendix G. Maximum sensitive receptor GLC for “EU limit” scenario each year.................. 41

List of Tables

Table 1 - Sensitive receptors. ........................................................................................................ 4

Table 2 - Emission data provided by Energos. ............................................................................ 10

Table 3 - Emission concentration during start-up conditions, as provided by Energos. ............ 11

Table 4 -Emission data measured at standard operating conditions, as provided by Energos .. 12

Table 5 - Modelled emission rates and relevant assessment criterion. All assessment criteria are 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, which are 100th percentile, as per (EPA Vic, 2001). .......................................................................................................................................... 15

Table 6 - Modelled maximum GLC, for gridded receptors. Presented values are the 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, for which the 100th percentile is listed. Values for each modelled year are included in Appendix D. ....................................................................... 20

Table 7 - Modelled maximum GLC, for sensitive receptors. Presented values are the 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, for which the 100th percentile is listed. Values for each modelled year are included in Appendix E. ........................................................................ 21

Table 8 - Modelled maximum GLC for the EU limit emissions case, for gridded receptors. Presented values are the 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, for which the 100th percentile is listed. Values for each modelled year are included in Appendix F. ...................... 24

Table 9 - Modelled maximum GLC for the EU limit emissions case, for sensitive receptors. Presented values are the 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, for which the 100th percentile is listed. Values for each modelled year are included in Appendix G. ...................... 25

SMEC


Table 10 - Modelled maximum GLC, for the start-up scenario, for gridded receptors. Presented values are the 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, for which the 100th percentile is listed. ....................................................................................................................................... 28

Table 11 - Modelled maximum GLC, for the start-up scenario, for sensitive receptors. Presented values are the 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, for which the 100th percentile is listed. ....................................................................................................................................... 29

List of Figures

Figure 1 - The subject site and the surrounding land use. The subject site and nearby receptors are labelled. Image sourced from (RPC Architects, 2019). North is to the top of the image. ...... 3

Figure 2 - Site plan (RPC Architects, 2019). North is to the top of the image. .............................. 5

Figure 3 - Side view, from the south (RPC Architects, 2019). ....................................................... 5

Figure 4 – WtE process flow chart (Energos, 2017a). ................................................................... 7

Figure 5 – WtE thermal output vs fuel input (Energos, 2018). ..................................................... 8

Figure 6 - Contours of 99.9% highest NO2 GLC, including background, in mg/m3, for the maximum measured scenario. The star marks the stack location, and the red dots mark the assessed sensitive receptors, which are numbered as per Table 1. The top contour level (red = 0.19 mg/m3) on the scale corresponds to the relevant criterion. ...................................................... 22

Figure 7 - Contours of 99.9% highest NO2 GLC, including background, in mg/m3, for the “EU limit” scenario. The star marks the stack location, and the red dots mark the assessed sensitive receptors, which are numbered as per Table 1. The top contour level (red = 0.19 mg/m3) on the scale corresponds to the criteria. ............................................................................................... 26

Figure 8 - Contours of 99.9% highest cadmium GLC, excluding background, in mg/m3, for the “EU limit” scenario. The star marks the stack location, and the red dots mark the assessed sensitive receptors, which are numbered as per Table 1. The top contour level (red = 3.3x10-5 mg/m3) on the scale corresponds to the criteria, and given the low GLCs, contours throughout the domain are coloured blue. ....................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 9 - 9am (left) and 3pm wind roses for the Moorabbin airport meteorological station ... 34

SMEC

17067 Waste to Energy dispersion modelling F03.docx Page 1

Executive summary

Great Southern Waste Technologies (GSWT) propose to construct a Waste to Energy (WtE) facility at 70 Ordish Road, Dandenong South. This facility consists of two gasification lines which will convert mixed waste into combustible gas, which is then combusted to generate electricity in a 12 MWe generator. The exhaust gas emissions are discharged to atmosphere via two abutting 55 m high stacks.

Synergetics Consulting Engineers (Synergetics) were engaged by SMEC to undertake dispersion modelling, in accordance with (EPA Vic, 2013a) for the proposed WtE facility, to assess the ground level concentration (GLC) impacts of the exhaust gas emissions on surrounding land.

This version (F03) of the report includes time varying background concentrations as requested by EPA Victoria. Emission rates were modelled for three scenarios:

Maximum measured - emissions at the maximum rates during normal operation reported for similar facilities in Europe;

EU Limit - emissions at the reported EU emission limits; and

Start-up conditions – one stack‘s emissions were modelled at the maximum start-up rate reported for at similar facilities in Europe, with the stack modelled at the maximum measured emission rate for normal operating conditions as per the “maximum measured” scenario above.

The modelled GLCs indicate no significant increase above the existing background concentrations for PM2.5 and PM10. In addition there were no additional exceedances due to the proposed facility.

The modelled GLCs for other substances1 were all found to be well below the relevant assessment criterion for all three scenarios.

1 i.e., Hg, Cd, CO, HF, HF, HF, HCl, NH3, Dioxins & Furans, PAH, Cr (VI), all assuming zero backgrounds,

and NO2 with background taken from Dandenong, and SO2 with background taken from Altona North

SMEC


1 Introduction

Great Southern Waste Technologies (GSWT) propose to construct an Energos2 Waste-to-Energy (WtE) facility at 70 Ordish Road, Dandenong South. This facility will convert mixed waste into gas, then combust the gas to power a 12 MWe3 generator.

Synergetics Consulting Engineers were engaged by SMEC to undertake dispersion modelling for the proposed facility and assess the likely ground level concentrations (GLCs) of exhaust emissions on surrounding land in accordance with (EPA Vic, 2013a).

This version (F03) of the report includes time varying background concentrations as requested by EPA Victoria.

2 http://www.energos.com/ 3 The term MWe denotes megawatts, with the subscript “e” referring to electrical power output by the generator.

SMEC


2 Site description

2.1 Site layout

The proposed WtE facility will be located at 70 Ordish Road, Dandenong South, as marked in Figure 1. Land use within a 5 km radius is largely zoned industrial and consists of a mixture of industrial, agricultural and residential uses, with the closest residential land use approximately 700 m away in Keysborough. Several sensitive receptors are labelled in Figure 1, these include residential properties, a school and several religious worship centres. Distances to nearby sensitive receptors are listed in Table 1.

Figure 1 - The subject site and the surrounding land use. The subject site and nearby receptors are labelled. Image sourced from (RPC Architects, 2019). North is to the top of the image.

SMEC


Table 1 - Sensitive receptors.4

Receptor Distance from site Direction from site

1. Dandenong Creek 160 m W

2. Residential Properties (Keysborough)

600 m W

3. Buddhist temple 1400 m NW

4. Mt. Hira College 1400 m NW

5. Sikh temple 1500 m NW

6. Residential Properties (Somerfield)

1500 m NW

7. Freemasons Victoria 1900 m NW

The proposed site layout is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The proposed layout features 22m high WtE building and two abutting stacks, one for each gasification line, each with a height of 55 m and a diameter of 1 m.

4 Sensitive receptors as per (RPC Architects, 2019).

SMEC


Figure 2 - Site plan (RPC Architects, 2019). North is to the top of the image.

Figure 3 - Side view, from the south (RPC Architects, 2019).

55 m high stack structure containing two abutting 1 m diameter stacks

SMEC


2.2 Process description

As described in (Energos, 2017a), the WtE facility consists of the following main systems, shown in Figure 4:

Waste receipt and fuel preparation system.

Fuel bunker and transport system.

Thermal Conversion of Gasification Chamber.

High Temperature Oxidation Chamber.

Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG).

Steam turbine and air-cooled condenser.

Flue-gas cleaning system.

Flue gas fan and flue gas stacks.

Control and monitoring system.

The facility can accept a wide range of solid domestic, commercial and industrial waste as fuel. It is expected that the waste will be 80-85% municipal solid waste, and 15-20% commercial and industrial waste. It is a double gasification line facility with a nominal fuel processing capacity of 12.8 t/h (2 x 6.4 t/h) and an aggregate nominal boiler capacity of 36 MWt5 (2 x 18 MWt) based on calorific value 12 MJ/kg. The boilers feed steam into a turbine which drives a 12MWe

electrical generator. The operation range in terms of net calorific value (MJ/kg) of the fuel and the fuel consumption (t/h) is depicted in Figure 5.

5 The term MWt denotes megawatts, with the subscript “t” referring to thermal power output by the boiler.

SMEC


Figure 4 – WtE process flow chart (Energos, 2017a).

SMEC


Figure 5 – WtE thermal output vs fuel input (Energos, 2018).

In summary, the proposed facility is characterised by:

Flexibility regarding composition of waste.

Control of the thermal conversion process.

Standardised module based design.

Limited space requirements.

2.3 Emissions

Each of the two gasification lines has the following exhaust properties (Julian Howard p. c., 2018):

Exhaust temperatures - 150˚C.

Exhaust oxygen concentration – 5.8%.

Flow rate - 35,615 Nm3/s.

Stack diameter – 1.0 m.

SMEC


Stack velocity – 19.5 m/s.

There are no representative facilities operating in Australia. In the absence of Australian data, Energos6 provided emissions data from facilities running the same equipment and comparable waste streams (Julian Howard, 2019) in Europe. These include sampling campaigns covering a wide of emissions over four days, and 20 months of daily averages, for another facility with a similar waste feed profile. Endorsed reports by NATA accredited laboratories are not available, but two reports, (TUV NORD Umweltschutz, 2017b) and (TUV NORD Umweltschutz, 2017a), state that sampling was conducted in accordance with DIN EN ISO/IEC 170725:2005-08, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, which is the same Standard applied by NATA to laboratories here in Australia.

This emission data are listed in Table 2. EU emission limits reported for the above representative facilities are also provided. 24 hour average emission limits are based on the conditions applied to Energos facilities in Europe (Energos, 2018a), while 30 minute average emission limits are also listed based on the waste incineration limits published by the EU (EU, 2010).

Additional reports provided by Energos (TUV NORD Umweltschutz, 2017a), (TUV NORD Umweltschutz, 2017b), (TUV NORD Umweltschutz, 2017c), (TUV NORD Umweltschutz, 2017d) including a more detailed breakdown of components was assessed for Chromium and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). This data is included in Table 4.

6 Data provided by SMEC as referenced in footnotes to Table 2 and Table 3.

SMEC


Table 2 - Emission data provided by Energos7. Emission component

Units EU limit (24h)

EU Limit (0.5h)8

Energos FORUS 19-21/03/2017

Energos FORUS 10/11/2017

Energos SAE-1 average 26-28/11/2016

Energos Hafslund Varme / SAE-2 average 22-24/11/2016

Energos Hafslund Varme / SAE-2 highest daily average 2013

Energos Hafslund Varme / SAE-2 highest daily ave Jan- Aug 2014

Maximum Energos value

max9 average max9 average max9 average max9 average

Dust10 mg/Nm3 10 30 <1 <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2.111 1.5 2.1

Hg mg/Nm3 0.03 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Cd+Tl mg/Nm3 0.05 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Metals12 mg/Nm3 0.5 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

CO mg/Nm3 50 100 3 2 61 27 3 2 3 2 3 9.8 61

HF mg/Nm3 1 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

HCl mg/Nm3 10 60 4 3 2 1 11 8 9 6 9.8 11.6 11.6

TOC mg/Nm3 10 20 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 2.4 2.3 2.4

NOx mg/Nm3 200 400 191 86 45 33 74 55 85 61 86.5 109.1 191

NH3 mg/Nm3 10 3 2 24 17 1 1 1 1 24

SO2 mg/Nm3 50 200 22 18 24 24 14 9 10 8 63.9 43.8 63.9

Dioxins & Furans (TEQ)13

ng/Nm3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

7 Table data drawn from five Energos documents, (Energos, 2014a), (Energos, 2014b) (Energos, 2016), (Energos, 2017), (Energos, 2018a), and the EU (EU, 2010). These documents were provided to SMEC by Energos. All values are reported to be at 11% O2. Where available, measured emissions in units of g/s for the same samples are included in Appendix B.

8 Extracted from (EU, 2010) for waste incineration plants. Values presented are for the 100% adherence criteria. For the Hg, Cd+Ti, and metals they are based on sampling periods of between 30 minutes and 8 hours. 9 Averaging periods are 0.5 hours for CO, TOC, NOx, 6 hours for Dioxins and Furans, and 1.5 hours for all other components. 10 A particle size distribution for dust emissions was not specified in the available emission data. It was conservatively assumed that all the dust emissions are PM2.5. This assumption is considered highly conservative. (NEPC, 2016) also contains a PM2.5 criteria for an annual averaging period. This is discussed in the results section. At request of EPA, the PM10 criteria has also been considered due to concerns of potential background concentrations of PM10. 11 A peak value of 21.6 mg/Nm3 was recorded, however Energos (Howard, 2019) advised that this was a result of an “instrument error”, and that instead the highest value should be 2.1 mg/Nm3. 12 Metals is as defined by (EU, 2010). 13 toxic equivalent quotient (TEQ) which is equal to the sum of the concentration of individual (i) congeners times their potencies (TEFi) relative to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD, TEF = 1.0).

SMEC


Significant variability in the start-up emissions was observed. Two start-up emission profiles were provided by Energos for another facility in Norway. Temperature data during start-up was not available, however notation on the charts provided indicates lengthy warmup cycles prior to the combustion of gas from the waste gasification lines.

Emissions for the facilities are reported every 30 minutes (30 min). For one of the start-ups, emission values increased during the 2nd 30 minute period, while in the other it decreased, as shown in Table 3. Values marked as N/A were not provided.

Table 3 - Emission concentration during start-up conditions, as provided by Energos14. Substance Units EU Limit

(0.5h)15 19/10/2014 18/04/2015 Maximum value

1st 30 min 2nd 30 min 1st 30 min 2nd 30 min mg/Nm3 % EU limit

Dust mg/Nm3 30 0.2 0.1 1.1 7.3 7.3 24%

Hg mg/Nm3 0.05 N/A N/A N/A N/A - -

Cd+Tl mg/Nm3 0.05 N/A N/A N/A N/A - -

Metals mg/Nm3 0.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A - -

CO mg/Nm3 100 7.4 0.9 3.5 41.4 41.4 41%

HF mg/Nm3 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A -

HCl mg/Nm3 60 9.7 9.4 15.5 22.5 22.5 45%

TOC mg/Nm3 20 3.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 -

NOx mg/Nm3 400 207.9 183.3 140.9 163.0 207.9 52%

NH3 mg/Nm3 - N/A N/A N/A N/A - -

SO2 mg/Nm3 200 10.1 2.1 153.4 297.9 297.9 149%

Dioxins & Furans16

ng/Nm3 - N/A N/A N/A N/A - -

For emissions modelling purposes it was assumed that one of the two gasification lines is operating at the highest concentration listed in Table 3, with the other gasification line running under steady operation, at the maximum value listed in Table 2.

14 Data drawn from tabulated Energos monitoring data for the Hafslund Varme Line 1 (Energos, 2015a) (Energos, 2015b).

15 Extracted from (EU, 2010) for waste incineration plants. Values presented are for the 100% adherence criteria. For the Hg, Cd+Ti, and metals they are based on sampling periods of between 30 minutes and 8 hours. 16 Calculated as TEQ

SMEC


Table 4 -Emission data measured at standard operating conditions, as provided by Energos17 Substance

Emission concentration Line 2 (mg/Nm3) Emission concentration Line 1(mg/Nm3) Max value (mg/Nm3) 22/11/2016 23/11/2016 24/11/2016 26/11/2016 27/11/2016 28/11/2016 19/3/2017 20/3/2017 21/3/2017 10/11/2017

PAH <1.1x 10-4

<1.1x 10-4

<1x10-4 <1x10-4 <1.1x10-4 <1.0x10-4 <9x10-5 <1x10-4 <1x10-4 N/A <1.1X10-4

Cr18 N/A N/A <1x10-3

<1x10-3

<1x10-3 N/A N/A

<1x10-3

<1x10-3

<1x10-3 N/A

<1x10-3

<1x10-3

<1x10-3 N/A

1x10-3

1x10-3

1x10-3 1.0x10-3

17 Data taken from emissions measurement report (TUV NORD Umweltschutz, 2017a), (TUV NORD Umweltschutz, 2017b), (TUV NORD Umweltschutz, 2017c), (TUV NORD Umweltschutz, 2017d). Measured emissions in units of g/s for the same samples are included in Appendix B. 18 Multiple values denote the measurements taken at different time intervals on the same day.

SMEC


2.4 Other nearby facilities

From an examination of aerial photos, the industries located within surrounding industrial estate of the subject site include:

waste and recycling management services;

concrete product suppliers;

steel, aluminium and glass fabrication;

rubber product fabrication;

chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers; and

light industrial workshops, hardware suppliers etc.

Many of these industries are likely to also release emissions to the atmosphere.

There are twenty EPA licensed premises in Dandenong South19, nine of which have a condition relating to emissions to air. The two facilities with significant emissions are:

Ace Waste - a prescribed industrial waste management facility located approximately 100m from the subject site. This facility has an approximately 20 m tall stack to vent emissions from the combustion of medical and chemical waste. Whilst not explicitly modelled, the shorter stack height is likely to result in peak concentrations at significantly different locations than the subject site for any given set of meteorological conditions.

Renex - a prescribed industrial waste management facility, with an approximately 35 m tall stack located approximately 750 m to the south east of the proposed stack. The shorter stack height and 750m separation distance means that it is likely to result in peak concentrations occurring at significantly different locations than the subject site for any given set of meteorological conditions.

19 According to EPA Victoria website, Interactive Portal, license search, on 23 August 2019.

SMEC


3 Methodology

3.1 Assessment criteria and emissions Emission rates were modelled for three scenarios:

1. Maximum measured - emissions at the maximum rates reported for similar facilities in Europe taken from Table 5 in the column marked “Maximum of the provided data”;

2. EU Limit - emissions at the reported EU emission limits taken as the EU emission limit shown in Table 5, with the 24 hour EU limit applied for criteria with a 24 hour averaging period, and the 30 minute criteria applied for shorter averaging periods; and

3. Start-up conditions – measured emissions from one stack the maximum start-up rate reported for similar facilities in Europe, with the second stack at the maximum measured rate from scenario 1 above. The combined emission profile is shown in Table 5.

Assessment criteria, expressed as GLCs, are also listed in Table 5, with several criterion

requiring further explanation:

Metals - As relevant Australian criteria were not available for the generic “metals” emissions category reported in the table, the EPA Victoria cadmium criterion was used as a surrogate as it is expected to be the greatest percentage of the respective criteria, and hence will be conservative.

PAH - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) do not have an EU emission limit, and hence was only assessed for the Maximum measured scenario.

Chromium – This substance does not have an individual emission limit, and is instead included in a larger group emission limit. Therefore, Chromium was assessed by comparing the GLC, calculated when using the maximum measured emissions scenario only. It was assessed against the EPA Victoria Cr(VI) criterion to provide a conservative estimate.

SMEC


Table 5 - Modelled emission rates and relevant assessment criterion. All assessment criteria are 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, which are 100th percentile, as per (EPA Vic, 2001).

Substance Emission rate (mg/Nm3) @ 11% O2 Assessment criteria Emissions (g/s)

Measured (table 2)

Modelled “maximum measured” scenario

Modelled EU limit scenario

Modelled start-up scenario

Averaging period

GLC (mg/m3)

Source Expressed as




Dust20

2.1 2.1 30 4.7 1 h 0.050 (EPA Vic, 2001) PM2.5 0.063 0.905 0.141

10 4.7 24 h 0.025 (NEPC, 2016) PM2.5 0.302 0.141

30 4.7 1 h 0.080 (EPA Vic, 2001) PM10 0.905 0.141

Hg <0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 3 min 3.3x10-4 (EPA Vic, 2001) Organic

fraction21 0.000302 0.00151 0.000302

Cd+Tl <0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 3 min 3.3x10-5 (EPA Vic, 2001) Cadmium22 0.000302 0.00151 0.000302

Metals <0.1 Not assessed No criteria No

criteria - - - - -

CO 61 61 100 51.2 1 h 29 (EPA Vic, 2001) - 1.84 3.02 1.55

HF

<1 1 1 1 24 h 0.0029 (EPA Vic, 2001) Fluoride ion F-

0.0302 0.0302 0.0302

7 day 0.0017 (EPA Vic, 2001)

90 day 0.0005 (EPA Vic, 2001)

HCl 11.6 11.6 60 17.1 3 min 0.25 (EPA Vic, 2001) - 0.350 1.81 0.515

TOC <2 Not assessed No criteria No

criteria - - - - -

NOx 191 191 400 200 1 h 0.19 (EPA Vic, 2001) NO2 5.76 12.1 6.02

NH3 24 24 10 24 3 min 0.6 (EPA Vic, 2001) - 0.724 0.302 0.724

SO2 63.9 63.9 200 181 1 h 0.45 (EPA Vic, 2001) - 1.93 6.04 5.46

20 A particle size distribution for dust emissions was not specified in the available emission data. It was conservatively assumed that all the dust emissions are PM2.5. This assumption is considered highly conservative. (NEPC, 2016) also contains a PM2.5 criteria for an annual averaging period. This is discussed in the results section. At request of EPA, the PM10 criteria has also been considered due to concerns of potential background concentrations of PM10. 21 As the organic mercury criteria is lower than the inorganic mercury criteria, is was conservatively assumed that all the mercury emissions are organic. 22 A criteria is not specified for thallium, so it was conservatively assumed that the cadmium and thallium emissions are instead all cadmium. It is expected that the thallium content in the waste will be lower than cadmium, based on Energos’ waste specifications.

SMEC


Substance Emission rate (mg/Nm3) @ 11% O2 Assessment criteria Emissions (g/s)

Measured (table 2)




Averaging period

GLC (mg/m3)

Source Expressed as




Dioxins <1.0x 10-7 1.0x 10-7 1.0x 10-7 1.0x 10-7 3 min 3.7x10-9 (EPA Vic, 2001) - 3.02x10-9 3.02x10-9 3.02x10-9

PAH <1.1x10-4 1.1x10-4 Not

assessed 1.1x10-4 3 min 7.3x10-4 (EPA Vic, 2001) B(a)P 3.32x10-6 - 3.32x10-6

Cr 1.0x10-3 1x10-3 Not

assessed 1x10-3 3 min 1.7x10-4 (EPA Vic, 2001) Cr (VI) 3.02 x10-5 - 3.02 x10-5

SMEC


3.2 Dispersion modelling

Emission dispersion was modelled using AERMOD23. GLCs were assessed over a 10 x 10 km domain, with a 50 m grid spacing, as specified by (EPA Vic, 2013a), as well as at the seven discrete receptors listed in Table 1 The stack was modelled as a point source, and GLCs were calculated for both hourly and 24 h averaging times. Three minute averaging period GLCs were calculated from hourly GLCs using the methodology specified in (EPA Vic, 2013a).

AERMOD is not capable of calculating 7 day or 90 day averaging periods. Using the adjustment methology, for three minute averages, in (EPA Vic, 2013a), to calculate longer averaging period results is expected to produce unreliable results. Instead the 24 hour averaging period was used exclusively, with added discussion in the results section demonstrating why this is sufficient.

AERMOD files in electronic format were supplied with this report.

3.3 Background concentrations

Time varying background concentrations have been included in the results for all relevant and available substances. Representative station were selected based on discussions with EPA Victoria. The considered back ground sources are:

PM2.5 – There is no background PM2.5 data available for the EPA Victoria monitoring site at Dandenong. The closest EPA Victoria monitoring site with PM2.5 measurements is at Alphington. Alphington is also within the Melbourne air-shed, approximately 30km north-northwest of the proposed facility and is likely to experience similar levels of regional air quality. The Footscray monitoring site is a slightly more distant option, at approximately 35 km northwest of the proposed facility. For this assessment PM2.5 data from both of these sources was considered separately.

PM10 – The EPA Victoria monitoring site in Dandenong was used for background PM10 concentrations for this modelling.

NO2 – The EPA Victoria monitoring site in Dandenong was used for background NO2 concentrations for this modelling.

SO2 - There is no background SO2 data available for the EPA Victoria monitoring site at Dandenong. The most appropriate data available is for the EPA Victoria monitoring site in Altona North, which like in an industrial zone approximately 40 km North West of Dandenong. Altona North is likely to be an over-prediction of background SO2 concentrations for Dandenong due to the presence of local sources of SO2 in Altona North (EPA Vic, 2018).

Background data was not available other substances, listed in Table 5,, but their absence is not likely to be significant for several reasons:

These substances are not expected to be a regional pollutant across the airshed.

Furthermore, for any given weather conditions the location of peak concentrations for the 55 m stack of this facility is unlikely to coincide will the location of peak concentrations from any low level, releases from the nearby industrial estate.

The available background data was processed to match the period of the meteorological data. Where data gaps were present they were filled with representative data as follows:

23 Version 18081 using the methodology specified in (EPA Vic, 2013a).

SMEC


For periods of one to three consecutive hours of missing data the period was filled the average concentration either size of the missing data.

For more than three consecutive hours background data was taken from the previous day.

For periods of several days, the background data was replicated from previous interval of the same length, unless this data was not available in which case the following interval of the same length was used.

SMEC


4 Meteorological data AERMOD compatible meteorological data for the site was generated from historical data recorded by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), with surface observations from the BoM Station at Moorabbin Airport. This station is located approximately 10 km from the modelled emission location, in similar topography and similar distance from the coast. Half hourly interval samples were used for all variables except wind speed and direction, for which ten minute interval data was used24. Upper atmosphere data is needed to calculate mixing heights, but is not recorded at Moorabbin Airport, and was instead sourced from the BoM Station at Melbourne Airport. Five calendar years of data was processed, in accordance with (EPA Vic, 2013b), covering the five year period from 2014 to 2018 inclusive.25. Hourly average wind speeds are plotted in the wind rose in Appendix A. Site wind conditions are summarised as follows:

northerly winds are most common;

north easterly winds are the least common;

hourly average wind speeds below 6 m/s account for 92% of all conditions; and

hourly average wind speeds 12 m/s and above account for approximately 0.01% (four hours) of the assessed period.

24 Details on the Moorabbin Airport station can be found at http://www.bom.gov.au/clim_data/cdio/metadata/pdf/siteinfo/IDCJMD0040.086077.SiteInfo.pdf . 25 Where critical data was missing from the Bureau of Meteorology records, the day was removed from the sampling period, and an additional day’s data from the following year was added to the meteorological files. No discernible seasonal bias was observed in the missing data.

http://www.bom.gov.au/clim_data/cdio/metadata/pdf/siteinfo/IDCJMD0040.086077.SiteInfo.pdf

SMEC


5 Results for “maximum measured” scenario

5.1 Summary

The modelled GLC, for the gridded receptors26, based on the maximum measured emissions profile, are listed in Table 6 for each assessed substance. The modelled GLC at the sensitive receptors is included in Table 7. The modelled GLCs indicate no significant increase above the existing background concentrations for PM2.5 and PM10. In addition there were no additional exceedances due to the proposed facility. All modelled GLCs for other substances are below the relevant assessment criterion.

Table 6 - Modelled maximum GLC, for gridded receptors. Presented values are the 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, for which the 100th percentile is listed. Values for each modelled year are included in Appendix D.

Substance (background measurement location)

Av. period

Assess. criterion (mg/m3)

Facility Background Combined

Modelled value (mg/m3)

% of criterion


% of criterion


% of criterion

PM2.5 (Alphington) 24 h 0.025 0.00012 0.51% 0.059 240% 0.059 240%

PM2.5 (Alphington) 1 h 0.050 0.00029 0.60% 0.066 130% 0.066 130%

PM2.5 (Footscray) 24 h 0.025 0.00012 0.51% 0.034 140% 0.034 140%

PM2.5 (Footscray) 1 h 0.050 0.00029 0.60% 0.042 84% 0.042 84%

PM10 (Dandenong) 1 hr 0.080 0.00029 0.36% 0.13 160% 0.13 160%

Hg 3 min 0.00033 0.0000026 0.78% - - - -

Cd 3 min 0.000033 0.0000026 7.8% - - - -

CO 1 h 29 0.0087 0.03% - - - -

HF 24 h 0.0029 0.000060 2.1% - - - -

HF 7 days 0.0017 <0.000060 <3.5% - - - -

HF 90 days 0.0005 <<0.000060 <<12.0% - - - -

HCl 3 min 0.25 0.0030 1.2% - - - -

NO2 (Dandenong) 1 h 0.19 0.027 14% 0.071 37% 0.079 42%

NH3 3 min 0.6 0.062 1.0% - - - -

SO2 (Altona North) 1 h 0.45 0.0091 2.0% 0.086 19% 0.088 20%

Dioxins & Furans 3 min 3.7x10-9 0.026x10-9 0.70% - - - -

PAH 3 min 7.3 x10-4 0.00028x10-4 <0.01% - - - -

Cr (VI) 3 min 1.7x10-4 2.6x10-7 0.15% - - - -

26 The gridded receptors cover the entire 10 km by 10 km domain, with the highest exposure location listed in the table.

SMEC


Table 7 - Modelled maximum GLC, for sensitive receptors. Presented values are the 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, for which the 100th percentile is listed. Values for each modelled year are included in Appendix E.


Av. period Assess. criterion (mg/m3)



% of criterion


% of criterion


% of criterion

PM2.5 (Alphington) 24 h 0.025 0.000041 0.16% 0.059 240% 0.059 240%

PM2.5 (Alphington) 1 h 0.050 0.00017 0.34% 0.066 130% 0.066 130%

PM2.5 (Footscray) 24 h 0.025 0.000041 0.16% 0.034 140% 0.034 140%

PM2.5 (Footscray) 1 h 0.050 0.00017 0.34% 0.042 84% 0.042 84%

PM10 (Dandenong) 1 hr 0.080 0.00017 0.21% 0.13 160% 0.13 160%

Hg 3 min 0.00033 0.0000015 0.45% - - - -

Cd 3 min 0.000033 0.0000015 4.5% - - - -

CO 1 h 29 0.0049 0.02% - - - -

HF 24 h 0.0029 0.000019 0.67% - - - -

HF 7 days 0.0017 <0.000019 <1.1% - - - -

HF 90 days 0.0005 <<0.000019 <<3.8% - - - -

HCl 3 min 0.25 0.0017 0.69% - - - -

NO2 (Dandenong) 1 h 0.19 0.016 8% 0.071 37% 0.071 37%

NH3 3 min 0.6 0.0036 0.59% - - - -

SO2 (Altona North) 1 h 0.45 0.0052 1.2% 0.086 19% 0.087 19%


PAH 3 min 7.3 x10-4 0.00016x10-4 <0.01% - - - -

Cr (VI) 3 min 1.7x10-4 1.5x10-7 0.09% - - - -

5.2 NO2

The modelled NO2 GLC, is the second highest increase as a percentage of the relevant criterion, at 42%, up from a background concentration of 37%. Contours of NO2 GLC are shown in Figure 6.

SMEC


Figure 6 - Contours of 99.9% highest NO2 GLC, including background, in mg/m3, for the maximum measured scenario. The star marks the stack location, and the red dots mark the assessed sensitive receptors, which are numbered as per Table 1. The top contour level (red = 0.19 mg/m3) on the scale corresponds to the relevant criterion.

5.3 PM

Significant PM concentrations are reported in the modelling, exceeding the relevant criterion in four of the results, however these are due to high background concentrations27. For the five assessed cases:

PM2.5 with Alphington background 1 h averaging time - The relevant assessment criterion GLC is exceeded for 155 hours due to high background levels. Adding the modelled emissions to these concentrations results in zero additional exceedances.

PM2.5 with Alphington background 24 h averaging time - The relevant assessment criterion GLC is exceeded for 31 days due to high background levels. Adding the modelled emissions to these concentrations results in zero additional exceedances.

PM2.5 with Footscray background 1 h averaging time - Criteria is complied with.

PM2.5 with Footscray background 24 h averaging time - The relevant assessment criterion GLC is exceeded for 12 days due to high background levels. Adding the modelled emissions to these concentrations results in zero additional exceedances.

27 High background concentrations may be due to fires, dust storms, large scale earthworks or other industrial activities

1 2

3 4

5

6 7

SMEC


PM10 with Dandenong background 1 h averaging time - The relevant assessment criterion GLC is exceeded for 167 hours due to high background levels. Adding the modelled emissions to these concentrations results in zero additional exceedances.

This modelling is based on the conservative assumption that all emitted dust is in the form of PM2.5. Considering the low 24 h GLC due to the facility, the annual GLC will also comply with the (NEPC, 2016) criteria, and were not modelled.

Considering the low concentrations emitted from proposed facility it is not expected that the surrounding GLC will be significantly increased by the proposed facility.

5.4 HF

The modelled 24 hour HF GLC is 2.1% of the background. As discussed in section 3.2, AERMOD cannot calculate 7 day or 90 day averaging period GLCs. Longer averaging periods will result in lower peak GLCs due to variations in wind and weather conditions28. Therefore the 7 day and 90 day averaging period GLC are less than the 24 hour GLC, and are also compliant with the criteria.

28 For a 7 day (or 90 day) average GLC to be equivalent to the 24 hour average GLC, the same, worst case weather conditions of the five years of meteorological data would need to occur for 7 (or 90) consecutive days. This event is incredibly unlikely, and did not occur for the same meteorological period used in the modelling.

SMEC


6 Results for “EU limit” scenario

6.1 Summary The modelled GLC, for the gridded receptors, based on the eu limit emissions profile, are listed in Table 8 for each assessed substance. The modelled GLC at the sensitive receptors is included in Table 9. The modelled GLCs indicate no significant increase above the existing background concentrations for PM2.5 and PM10. In addition there were

no additional exceedances due to the proposed facility. All modelled GLCs for other substances are below the relevant assessment criterion. Modelled GLCs at each sensitive receptor from Table 1 are listed in Appendix B. Table 8 - Modelled maximum GLC for the EU limit emissions case, for gridded receptors. Presented values are the 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, for which the 100th percentile is listed. Values for each modelled year are included in Appendix F.


Av. period




% of criterion


% of criterion


% of criterion

PM2.5 (Alphington) 24 h 0.025 0.00060 2.4% 0.059 240% 0.059 240%

PM2.5 (Alphington) 1 h 0.050 0.0043 8.5% 0.066 130% 0.066 130%

PM2.5 (Footscray) 24 h 0.025 0.00060 2.4% 0.034 140% 0.034 140%

PM2.5 (Footscray) 1 h 0.050 0.0043 8.5% 0.042 84% 0.042 84%

PM10

(Dandenong) 1 hr 0.080 0.0043 5.3% 0.13 160% 0.13 160%

Hg 3 min 0.00033 0.00013 3.9% - - - -

Cd 3 min 0.000033 0.000013 39% - - - -

CO 1 h 29 0.014 0.05% - - - -

HF 24 h 0.0029 0.00006 2.1% - - - -

HF 7 days 0.0017 <0.00006 <3.5% - - - -

HF 90 days 0.0005 <<0.00006 <<12.0% - - - -

HCl 3 min 0.25 0.016 6.2% - - - -

NO2 (Dandenong) 1 h 0.19 0.057 30% 0.071 37% 0.093 48%

NH3 3 min 0.6 0.0026 0.43% - - - -

SO2 (Altona North)

1 h 0.45 0.028 6.3% 0.086 19% 0.088 20%


SMEC


Table 9 - Modelled maximum GLC for the EU limit emissions case, for sensitive receptors. Presented values are the 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, for which the 100th percentile is listed. Values for each modelled year are included in Appendix G.


Av. period




% of criterion


% of criterion


% of criterion

PM2.5 (Alphington) 24 h 0.025 0.00019 0.77% 0.059 240% 0.059 240%

PM2.5 (Alphington) 1 h 0.050 0.0024 4.9% 0.066 130% 0.066 130%

PM2.5 (Footscray) 24 h 0.025 0.00019 0.77% 0.034 140% 0.034 140%

PM2.5 (Footscray) 1 h 0.050 0.0024 4.9% 0.042 84% 0.042 84%

PM10 1 hr 0.080 0.0024 3.1% 0.13 160% 0.13 160%

Hg 3 min 0.00033 0.000074 2.2% - - - -

Cd 3 min 0.000033 0.000074 22% - - - -

CO 1 h 29 0.0081 0.03% - - - -

HF 24 h 0.0029 0.000019 0.67% - - - -

HF 7 days 0.0017 <0.000019 <1.1% - - - -

HF 90 days 0.0005 <<0.00001

9 <<3.8% - - - -

HCl 3 min 0.25 0.0088 3.6% - - - -

NO2 (Dandenong) 1 h 0.19 0.033 17% 0.071 37% 0.073 38%

NH3 3 min 0.6 0.0015 0.25% - - - -

SO2 (Altona North) 1 h 0.45 0.016 3.6% 0.086 19% 0.088 20%


PM2.5 and PM10 GLCs exceed the criteria in four of the five cases, however in all four cases these exceedances are entirely due to elevated background concentrations29. For the five assessed cases:







SMEC


6.2 NO2

The NO2 GLC is the second highest percentage of the criteria at 48% including background. Background alone corresponds to 37% of the criteria. Contours of NO2 GLC are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 - Contours of 99.9% highest NO2 GLC, including background, in mg/m3, for the “EU limit” scenario. The star marks the stack location, and the red dots mark the assessed sensitive receptors, which are numbered as per Table 1. The top contour level (red = 0.19 mg/m3) on the scale corresponds to the criteria.

6.3 Cadmium

The modelled Cadmium GLC as a percentage of the criteria is 39%. Background GLCs for cadmium are not available for cadmium, and were assumed to be zero. The distribution can be seen in the contour plot shown in Figure 8. Some cadmium may be released from the nearby facilities, however considering large difference in stack height and the short averaging period of three minutes, a significant interaction between the plume from the proposed facility and the other nearby facilities is unlikely. Furthermore, for any given weather conditions the location of peak concentrations for the taller stack is unlikely to coincide will the location of peak concentrations from the nearby, low level, releases.

1 2

3 4

5

6 7

SMEC


Figure 8 - Contours of 99.9% highest cadmium GLC, excluding background, in mg/m3, for the “EU limit” scenario. The star marks the stack location, and the red dots mark the assessed sensitive receptors, which are numbered as per Table 1. The top contour level (red = 3.3x10-5 mg/m3) on the scale corresponds to the criteria, and given the low GLCs, contours throughout the domain are coloured blue.

6.4 HF

The modelled 24 hour HF GLC is 2.1% of the criteria. As discussed in section 0, AERMOD cannot calculate 7 day or 90 day averaging period GLCs. Longer averaging periods will result in lower peak GLCs due to variations in wind and weather conditions30. Therefore the 7 day and 90 day averaging period GLC are less than the 24 hour GLC, and are also compliant with the criteria.

30 For a 7 day (or 90 day) average GLC to be equivalent to the 24 hour average GLC, the same, worst case weather conditions of the five years of meteorological data would need to occur for 7 (or 90) consecutive days. This event is incredibly unlikely, and did not occur for the same meteorological period used in the modelling.

5

1 2

3 4 6

7

SMEC


7 Results for “start-up” scenario

7.1 Summary The modelled GLC, for the gridded receptors31, based on the start-up emissions profile, are listed in Table 10 for each assessed substance. The modelled GLC at the sensitive receptors is included in Table 11. The modelled GLCs indicate no significant increase above the existing background concentrations for PM2.5 and PM10. In addition, there were

no additional exceedances due to the proposed facility. All modelled GLCs for other substances are below the relevant assessment criterion.

Table 10 - Modelled maximum GLC, for the start-up scenario, for gridded receptors. Presented values are the 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, for which the 100th percentile is listed.


Av. period




% of criterion Modelled value (mg/m3)

% of criterion


% of criterion

PM2.5 (Alphington) 24 h 0.025 0.00025 1.0% 0.059 240% 0.059 240%

PM2.5 (Alphington) 1 h 0.050 0.00059 1.2% 0.066 130% 0.066 130%

PM2.5 (Footscray) 24 h 0.025 0.00025 1.0% 0.034 140% 0.034 140%

PM2.5 (Footscray) 1 h 0.050 0.00059 1.2% 0.042 84% 0.042 84%

PM10 (Dandenong) 1 hr 0.080 0.00059 0.74% 0.13 160% 0.13 160%

Hg 3 min 0.00033 0.0000026 0.78% - - - -

Cd 3 min 0.000033 0.00000266 7.8% - - - -

CO 1 h 29 0.0073 0.03% - - - -

HF 24 h 0.0029 0.000060 2.1% - - - -

HF 7 days 0.0017 <0.000060 <3.5% - - - -

HF 90 days 0.0005 <<0.000060 <<12.0% - - - -

HCl 3 min 0.25 0.0030 1.2% - - - -

NO2 (Dandenong) 1 h 0.19 0.028 15% 0.071 37% 0.079 42%

NH3 3 min 0.6 0.6 0.062 - - - -

SO2 (Altona North) 1 h 0.45 0.026 5.7% 0.086 19% 0.091 20%


PAH 3 min 7.3 x10-4 0.00028x10-4 <0.01% - - - -

Cr (VI) 3 min 1.7x10-4 2.6x10-7 0.15% - - - -

31 The gridded receptors cover the entire 10 km by 10 km domain, with the highest exposure location listed in the table.

SMEC


Table 11 - Modelled maximum GLC, for the start-up scenario, for sensitive receptors. Presented values are the 99.9th percentile, except for PM2.5 (24 h) and HF, for which the 100th percentile is listed.

Substance (background measurement location )

Av. period Assess. criterion (mg/m3)



% of criterion


% of criterion


% of criterion

PM2.5 (Alphington) 24 h 0.025 0.000080 0.32% 0.059 240% 0.059 240%

PM2.5 (Alphington) 1 h 0.050 0.00034 0.67% 0.066 130% 0.066 130%

PM2.5 (Footscray) 24 h 0.025 0.000080 0.32% 0.034 140% 0.034 140%

PM2.5 (Footscray) 1 h 0.050 0.00034 0.67% 0.042 84% 0.042 84%

PM10 (Dandenong) 1 hr 0.080 0.00034 0.42% 0.13 160% 0.13 160%

Hg 3 min 0.00033 0.0000015 0.45% - - - -

Cd 3 min 0.000033 0.0000015 4.5% - - - -

CO 1 h 29 0.0042 0.01% - - - -

HF 24 h 0.0029 0.000019 0.67% - - - -

HF 7 days 0.0017 <0.000019 <1.1% - - - -

HF 90 days 0.0005 <<0.000019 <<3.8% - - - -

HCl 3 min 0.25 0.0017 0.69% - - - -

NO2 (Dandenong) 1 h 0.19 0.016 8.5% 0.071 37% 0.071 38%

NH3 3 min 0.6 0.0036 0.59% - - - -

SO2 (Altona North) 1 h 0.45 0.015 3.3% 0.086 19% 0.088 20%


PAH 3 min 7.3 x10-4 0.00016x10-4 <0.01% - - - -

Cr (VI) 3 min 1.7x10-4 1.5x10-7 0.09% - - - -

7.2 PM

PM2.5 and PM10 GLCs exceed the criteria in four of the five cases, however in all four cases these exceedances are entirely due to elevated background concentrations32. For the five assessed cases:







SMEC


7.3 NO2

Nitrogen dioxide modelled GLCs for the start-up scenario are 7.9x10-2 mg/m3, which is 42% of the relevant assessment criterion, i.e., comparable to the modelled “EU emission limit” scenario.

7.4 Other compounds

Additional discussion is given below for those substances which were assumed to be the same as the maximum measured scenario as background measurements were not available:

Ammonia data during start-up conditions was not available. However, considering the very low levels modelled for both the “EU emission limit” and “maximum measured” scenarios it is not expected to be significant.

Mercury and cadmium emissions data during start-up conditions was not available. As mercury and cadmium are neither created nor destroyed in the facility, the emission rates will depend entirely on the gasification line feed composition and the performance of the flue gas cleaning system. Therefore, start-up emissions are expected to be comparable to standard operations.

The hydrogen fluoride criteria applies over an averaging period of 24 hours or longer, which is significantly longer than the large variability in emissions that occurs during start-up. No hydrogen fluoride emissions monitoring data is available, however it is not expected that start-up GLC conditions will be significantly different to those under typical operations due to the lengthy averaging window and the same dependence on the fluoride concentration in the feed material.

Dioxins emissions data during start-up conditions was not available. However, considering the very low GLCs modelled for both the “EU emission limit” and “maximum measured” scenarios, and the likelihood of low chlorine content in the feed material, it is not expected to be significant.

PAHs emissions data during start-up conditions was not available. However, considering the lengthy warm up cycles, significant GLCs are not expected.

Chromium emissions data during start-up conditions was not available. As the Cr exhaust concentrations will primarily depend on the Cr content of the feedstock and the performance of the flue gas treatment systems, no significant variation in the modelled GLCs is expected during start-up.

SMEC


8 Conclusions Emission rates were modelled for three scenarios:

Maximum measured - emissions at the maximum rates during normal operation reported for similar facilities in Europe;

EU Limit - emissions at the reported EU emission limits; and

Start-up conditions – one stack‘s emissions were modelled at the maximum start-up rate reported for at similar facilities in Europe, with the stack modelled at the maximum measured emission rate for normal operating conditions as per the “maximum measured” scenario above.

The modelled GLCs indicate no significant increase above the existing background concentrations for PM2.5 and PM10. In addition there were no additional exceedances due to the proposed facility.

The modelled GLCs for other substances33 were all found to be well below the relevant assessment criterion for all three scenarios.

33 i.e., Hg, Cd, CO, HF, HF, HF, HCl, NH3, Dioxins & Furans, PAH, Cr (VI), all assuming zero backgrounds,

and NO2 with background taken from Dandenong, and SO2 with background taken from Altona North

SMEC


9 References

Energos. (2014a). Export from Energos Reporting tool, Hafslund Varme Both Lines, Daily average 2013, Dated 8 September.

Energos. (2014b). Export from Energos Reporting tool, Hafslund Varme Both Lines, Daily average 2014, Dated 8 September.

Energos. (2015a). Export from Energos Reporting tool, Hafslund Varme Line 1, 19-10-2014, Dated 19 October.

Energos. (2015b). Export from Energos Reporting tool, Hafslund Varme Line 1, 19-04-2015, Dated 19 October.

Energos. (2016). Exerpt from emissions presentation, detailing measurements taken in Nov 2016.

Energos. (2017). Standard Specification, Appendix D, Fuel Specification.

Energos. (2017a). Description of an Energos gasification plant type 52-6-41 to produce energy from waste, 13 November 2017. Energos.

Energos. (2018). Firing Diagram - Dandenong South WTE, 11 June.

Energos. (2018a). Emissions: EU limits and TUV reports from ENERGOS plants in operation.

EPA Vic. (2001). State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management).

EPA Vic. (2013a). Guidance notes for using the regulatory air pollution model AERMOD in Victoria. EPA Victoria.

EPA Vic. (2013b). Construction of input meteorological data files for EPA Victoria’s regulatory air pollution model (AERMOD). EPA Victoria.

EPA Vic. (2018). Air Pollution in Victoria - A summary of the state of knowledge.

EPA Vic. (2019, March). Air monitoring results around victoria. Retrieved from EPA Victoria: https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/monitoring-the-environment/monitoring-victorias-air/monitoring-results

EU. (2010). Directive 2010/75/EU of the European parliament and of the council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control_ (Recast). 17 December.

Howard, ,. J. (2019). pers comms, email to Synergetics, RE: Firing Diagram, 13 May.

Julian Howard. (2019). pers comms. Email to Synergetics titled "RE: Firing Diagram" 19 March.

Julian Howard, p. c. (2018). Email to Synergetics titled "RE: GSWT emission modelling", dated 14 June.

NEPC. (2016). National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure.

RPC Architects. (2019). Drawing number: 1952 TP-09, 7 May.

SMEC


RPC Architects. (2019). Locality Plan. Drawing number: 1952 WA-01, June.

RPC Architects. (2019). Site Plan. Drawing number: 1952 WA-02, June.

TUV NORD Umweltschutz. (2017a). Report about emissions measurement Line 1. Norway: TUV NORD.

TUV NORD Umweltschutz. (2017b). Report about emissions measurement Line 2. Norway: TUV NORD.

TUV NORD Umweltschutz. (2017c). Report about Emissions measurements Line 1. Norway: TUV NORD.

TUV NORD Umweltschutz. (2017d). Repost about emissions measurement. Norway: TUV NORD.

SMEC


Appendix A. Wind roses

Figure 9 - 9am (left) and 3pm wind roses for the Moorabbin airport meteorological station

SMEC


Appendix B. Emission rate data provided by Energos

Emission rates in grams per second for the measured data, shown in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, are included below. These rates are expressed per gasification line, therefore the proposed two line system would have double these emissions for the same operating conditions. Values marked N/A indicate that no measurements were reported. Values marked by a star indicate that the available data was a continuous concentration measurement and the stack flow rate at that time was not available to calculate the mass emissions. In these cases the mass emission rate has been estimated based on the modelled exhaust flow rate and oxygen concentration of one of the two lines of the proposed facility.

Emission component

Units Energos FORUS 19-21/03/17

Energos FORUS 10/11/17 Energos SAE-1 average 26-28/11/16

Energos Hafslund Varme / SAE-2 average 22-24/11/16, g/s

Energos Hafslund Varme / SAE-2 highest daily average 2013

Energos Hafslund Varme / SAE-2 highest daily average Jan- Aug 2014

Maximum Energos value (g/s) max average max10 average max10 average max10 average

Dust g/s 1.7E-03 1.1E-03 1.6E-02 1.3E-02 2.8E-04 2.8E-04 8.3E-04 2.8E-04 3.2E-02* 2.3E-02* 3.2E-02*

Hg g/s <2.2E-6 <1.4E-06 <2.8E-08 <2.8E-08 3.4E-05 2.8E-05 4.2E-05 3.1E-05 N/A N/A 4.2E-05

Cd+Tl g/s 2.8E-06 8.8E-07 6.9E-07 5.6E-07 4.2E-07 3.7E-07 1.7E-07 1.4E-07 N/A N/A 2.8E-06

Metals g/s 2.4E-05 7.3E-05 2.5E-04 1.6E-04 4.4E-05 3.5E-05 1.4E-05 1.2E-05 N/A N/A 2.5E-04

CO g/s 2.8E-02 1.8E-02 6.2E-01 2.7E-01 2.4E-02 2.1E-02 3.0E-02 2.2E-02 4.5E-02* 1.5E-01* 6.2E-01

HF g/s <8.3E-04 <8.3E-04 <1.7E-03 <1.7E-03 <1.1E-03 <0.00083 <0.0011 <0.0011 N/A N/A <0.0017

HCl g/s 3.1E-02 2.6E-02 1.7E-02 1.3E-02 9.6E-02 7.3E-02 8.5E-02 5.4E-03 1.5E-01* 1.8E-01* 1.8E-01*

TOC g/s 8.3E-04 5.6E-04 1.1E-03 8.3E-04 <0.017 <0.017 <0.02 <0.02 3.6E-02* 3.5E-02* 3.6E-02*

NOx g/s 1.6E+00 7.3E-01 4.4E-01 3.3E-01 6.0E-01 4.9E-01 8.2E-01 5.8E-01 1.3E+00* 1.6E+00* 1.6E+00

NH3 g/s 2.7E-02 1.9E-02 2.4E-01 1.8E-01 6.9E-03 4.7E-03 7.5E-03 4.7E-03 N/A N/A 2.4E-01

SO2 g/s 2.0E-01 1.6E-01 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 1.2E-01 7.8E-02 9.1E-02 7.4E-02 9.6E-01* 6.6E-01* 9.6E-01*

Dioxins & Furans g/s 9.2E-12 <3.33E-12 <5.6E-13 <5.6E-13 2.4E-11 1.4E-11 1.2E-11 1.1E-11 N/A N/A 2.4E-11

SMEC


Substance Units 19/10/2014 18/04/2015 Maximum value 1st 30 min 2nd 30 min 1st 30 min 2nd 30 min

Dust g/s 0.0030* 0.0015* 0.016* 0.016* 0.11*

Hg g/s N/A N/A N/A N/A -

Cd+Tl g/s N/A N/A N/A N/A -

Metals g/s N/A N/A N/A N/A -

CO g/s 0.11* 0.013* 0.053* 0.62* 0.62*

HF g/s N/A N/A N/A N/A -

HCl g/s 0.15* 0.14* 0.24* 0.34* 0.34*

TOC g/s 0.047* 0.030* 0.0 0.0 0.047*

NOx g/s 3.1* 2.8* 2.1* 2.5* 3.1*

NH3 g/s N/A N/A N/A N/A -

SO2 g/s 0.15* 0.032* 2.3* 4.5* 4.5*

Dioxins & Furans (TEQ)

g/s N/A N/A N/A N/A -

Substance Emission concentration Line 2 (g/s) Emission concentration Line 1 (g/s) Max value (g/s)

22/11/2016 23/11/2016 24/11/2016 26/11/2016 27/11/2016 28/11/2016 19/03/2017 20/03/2017 21/03/2017 10/11/2017

PAH <2.78E-04 <2.78E-04 <2.78E-04 <2.78E-04 <2.78E-04 <2.78E-04 <2.78E-04 <2.78E-04 <2.78E-04 <2.78E-04 <2.78E-04

Cr

N/A N/A 7.78E-07 5.00E-07 1.08E-06 5.00E-07

N/A N/A 2.06E-06 3.00E-06 1.92E-06 1.64E-06

N/A 1.00E-06 1.22E-06 1.25E-06 9.17E-07

N/A <2.78E-08 <2.78E-08 <2.78E-08

3.00E-06

SMEC


Appendix C. Discrete numbered receptor GLC for “EU limit” scenario34

Subs Averaging

period Assess. criteria (mg/m3)

1. Dandenong creek 2.Keyborough Residential

3. Buddhist Temple 4. Mt. Hira College 5. Sikh Temple 6. Somerfield estate 7.Freemasons Victoria

Modelled value

% of criteria

Modelled value

% of criteria

Modelled value

% of criteria

Modelled value

% of criteria

Modelled value

% of criteria

Modelled value

% of criteria

Modelled value

% of criteria

PM2.5(A)35 24 h 0.025 5.9x10-2 240% 5.9x10-2 240% 5.9x10-2 240% 5.9x10-2 240% 5.9x10-2 240% 5.9x10-2 240% 5.9x10-2 240%

1 h 0.050 6.6x10-2 130% 6.6x10-2 130% 6.6x10-2 130% 6.6x10-2 130% 6.6x10-2 130% 6.6x10-2 130% 6.6x10-2 130%

PM2.5(F)36 24 h 0.025 3.4x10-2 140% 3.4x10-2 140% 3.4x10-2 140% 3.4x10-2 140% 3.4x10-2 140% 3.4x10-2 140% 3.4x10-2 140%

1 h 0.050 4.2x10-2 84% 4.2x10-2 84% 4.2x10-2 84% 4.2x10-2 84% 4.2x10-2 84% 4.2x10-2 84% 4.2x10-2 84%

PM10D)37 1 h 0.080 0.13 160% 0.13 160% 0.13 160% 0.13 160% 0.13 160% 0.13 160% 0.13 160%

Hg 3 min 3.3x10-4 7.4x10-6 2.2% 3.4x10-6 1.0% 2.6x10-6 0.79% 2.4x10-6 0.74% 2.4x10-6 0.72% 2.0x10-6 0.61% 1.8x10-6 0.53%

Cd 3 min 3.3x10-5 7.4x10-6 22% 3.4x10-6 10% 2.6x10-6 7.9% 2.4x10-6 7.4% 2.4x10-6 7.2% 2.0x10-6 6.1% 1.8x10-6 5.3%

CO 1 h 29 8.1x10-3 0.03% 3.7x10-3 0.01% 2.9x10-3 0.01% 2.7x10-3 0.01% 2.6x10-3 0.01% 2.2x10-3 0.01% 1.9x10-3 0.01%

HF 24 h 0.0029 1.9x10-5 0.67% 7.9x10-6 0.27% 1.1x10-5 0.37% 8.2x10-6 0.28% 6.8x10-6 0.23% 8.0x10-6 0.28% 4.6x10-6 0.16%

HCl 3 min 0.25 8.9x10-3 3.55% 4.1x10-3 1.6% 3.1x10-3 1.3% 2.9x10-3 1.2% 2.9x10-3 1.2% 2.4x10-3 0.97% 2.1x10-3 0.85%

NO2 1 h 0.19 7.3x10-2 38% 7.3x10-2 38% 7.3x10-2 38% 7.1x10-2 37% 7.1x10-2 37% 7.1x10-2 37% 7.1x10-2 37%

NH3 3 min 0.6 1.5x10-3 0.26% 6.8x10-4 0.11% 5.2x10-4 0.09% 4.9x10-4 0.08% 4.8x10-4 0.08% 4.0x10-4 0.07% 3.5x10-4 0.06%

SO2 1 h 0.45 8.8 x10-2 3.80% 8.8 x10-2 1.59% 8.7 x10-2 1.77% 8.7 x10-2 1.37% 8.7 x10-2 1.00% 8.6 x10-2 1.34% 8.7 x10-2 0.97%

Dioxins & Furans

3 min 3.7x10-9 1.5x10-11 0.40% 6.8x10-12 0.18% 5.2x10-12 0.14% 4.9x10-12 0.13% 4.8x10-12 0.13% 4.0x10-12 0.11% 3.5x10-12 0.10%

Note: Values in the above table include background contributions where applicable. For details on facility contributions compared to background concentrations see section 6.

34 Presented values are including background where modelled. Modelled coordinates are contained within AERMOD files provided separately. 35 (A) denotes Alphington background data. 36 (F) denotes Footscray background data. 37 (D) denotes Dandenong background data.

SMEC


Appendix D. Maximum gridded receptor GLC for “maximum measured” scenario each year

Substance Averaging

period Assessment criteria (mg/m3)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018


% of criteria


% of criteria Modelled value (mg/m3)



% of criteria

PM2.5 (A) 24 h 0.025 5.9 x10-2 240% 3.3 x10-2 130% 3.2 x10-2 130% 3.5 x10-2 140% 4.2 x10-2 170%

PM2.5(A) 1 h 0.05 7.8 x10-2 160% 6.4 x10-2 130% 5.0 x10-2 100% 6.4 x10-2 130% 5.9 x10-2 120%

PM2.5 (F) 24 h 0.025 3.1 x10-2 120% 2.3 x10-2 92% 2.7 x10-2 110% 3.4 x10-2 140% 3.0 x10-2 120%

PM2.5 (F) 1 h 0.05 4.7 x10-2 94% 4.7 x10-2 94% 3.5 x10-2 70% 4.2 x10-2 84% 4.2 x10-2 84%

PM10 (D) 1 h 0.08 1.3 x10-1 170% 1.1 x10-1 130% 1.1 x10-1 140% 1.1 x10-1 140% 1.8 x10-1 230%

Hg 3 min 3.3x10-4 3.6x10-6 1.1% 3.9x10-6 1.2% 2.3x10-6 0.70% 2.3x10-6 0.72% 2.5x10-6 0.75%

Cd 3 min 3.3x10-5 3.6x10-6 10.8% 3.9x10-6 12.0% 2.3x10-6 7.0% 2.3x10-6 7.2% 2.5x10-6 7.5%

CO 1 h 29 1.1x10-2 0.04% 1.3x10-2 0.05% 7.7x10-3 0.03% 7.9x10-3 0.03% 8.2x10-3 0.03%

HF 24 h 0.0029 6.0x10-5 2.1% 5.5x10-5 1.9% 5.4x10-5 1.9% 5.4x10-5 1.9% 5.2x10-5 1.8%

HCl 3 min 0.25 4.1x10-3 1.7% 4.6x10-3 1.85% 2.7x10-3 1.1% 2.7x10-3 1.1% 2.9x10-3 1.1%

NO2 1 h 0.19 7.7 x10-2 41% 8.2 x10-2 43% 8.0 x10-2 42% 7.9 x10-2 42% 7.7 x10-2 41%

NH3 3 min 0.6 8.6x10-3 1.4% 9.5x10-3 1.6% 5.5x10-3 0.92% 5.7x10-3 0.95% 5.9x10-3 0.98%

SO2 1 h 0.45 8.1x10-2 18% 9.7x10-2 22% 8.5x10-2 19% 8.6x10-2 19% 9.8x10-2 22%

Dioxins & Furans

3 min 3.7x10-9 3.6x10-11 0. 97% 3.9x10-11 1.1% 2.3x10-11 0.62% 2.4x10-11 0.64% 2.5x10-11 0.67%

PAH 3 min 7.3x10-4 3.9x10-8 <0.01% 4.4x10-8 <0.01% 2.5x10-8 <0.01% 2.6x10-8 <0.01% 2.7x10-8 <0.01%

Cr (VI) 3 min 1.7x10-4 3.6x10-7 0.21% 3.9x10-7 0.24% 2.3x10-7 0.14% 2.4x10-7 0.14% 2.5x10-7 0.14%


SMEC


Appendix E. Maximum sensitive receptor GLC for “maximum measured” scenario each year

Substance Averaging period

Assessment criteria

(mg/m3)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2017

Modelled value

(mg/m3) % of criteria

Modelled value


Modelled value


Modelled value


Modelled value


PM2.5 (A) 24 h 0.025 5.9 x10-2 240% 3.3 x10-2 130% 3.2 x10-2 130% 3.5 x10-2 140% 4.2 x10-2 170%

PM2.5(A) 1 h 0.05 7.8 x10-2 160% 6.4 x10-2 130% 5.0 x10-2 100% 6.4 x10-2 130% 5.9 x10-2 120%

PM2.5 (F) 24 h 0.025 3.1 x10-2 120% 2.3 x10-2 92% 2.7 x10-2 110% 3.4 x10-2 140% 3.0 x10-2 120%

PM2.5 (F) 1 h 0.05 4.7 x10-2 94% 4.7 x10-2 94% 3.5 x10-2 70% 4.2 x10-2 84% 4.2 x10-2 84%

PM010 (D) 1 h 0.08 1.3 x10-1 170% 1.1 x10-1 130% 1.1 x10-1 140% 1.1 x10-1 140% 1.8 x10-1 230%

Hg 3 min 3.3x10-4 1.5x10-6 0.47% 1.5x10-6 0.47% 1.5x10-6 0.44% 1.5x10-6 0.45% 1.4x10-6 0.44%

Cd 3 min 3.3x10-5 1.5x10-6 4.7% 1.5x10-6 4.7% 1.5x10-6 4.4% 1.5x10-6 4.5% 1.7x10-6 4.4%

CO 1 h 29 5.1x10-3 0.02% 5.2x10-3 0.02% 4.9x10-3 0.02% 4.9x10-3 0.02% 4.8x10-3 0.02%

HF 24 h 0.0029 1.2x10-5 0.42% 1.2x10-5 0.42% 1.5x10-5 0.53% 1.4x10-5 0.48% 1.4x10-5 0.50%

HCl 3 min 0.25 1.8x10-3 0.71% 1.8x10-3 0.71% 1.7x10-3 0.68% 1.7x10-3 0.68% 1.7x10-3 0.67%

NO2 1 h 0.19 6.5 x10-2 34% 6.9 x10-2 36% 7.5 x10-2 39% 7.5 x10-2 39% 7.3 x10-2 38%

NH3 3 min 0.6 3.7x10-3 0.62% 3.7x10-3 0.62% 3.5x10-3 0.58% 3.5x10-3 0.59% 3.5x10-3 0.58%

SO2 1 h 0.45 7.9x10-2 18% 9.6x10-2 21% 8.3x10-2 18% 8.4x10-2 19% 9.6x10-2 21%

Dioxins & Furans

3 min 3.7x10-9 1.5x10-11 0.42% 1.5x10-11 0.42% 1.5x10-11 0.39% 1.5x10-11 0.40% 1.4x10-11 0.39%

PAH 3 min 7.3x10-4 1.7x10-8 <0.01% 1.7x10-8 <0.01% 1.6x10-8 <0.01% 1.6x10-8 <0.01% 1.6x10-8 <0.01%

Cr (VI) 3 min 1.7x10-4 1.5x10-7 0.09% 1.5x10-7 0.09% 1.5x10-7 0.09% 1.5x10-7 0.09% 1.4x10-7 0.04%


SMEC


Appendix F. Maximum gridded receptor GLC for “EU limit” scenario each year


Assessment criteria

(mg/m3)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Modelled value


Modelled value


Modelled value


Modelled value


Modelled value


PM2.5 (A) 24 h 0.025 6.0 x10-2 240% 3.3 x10-2 130% 3.2 x10-2 130% 3.5 x10-2 140% 4.2 x10-2 170%

PM2.5(A) 1 h 0.05 7.9 x10-2 160% 6.4 x10-2 130% 5.0 x10-2 100% 6.4 x10-2 130% 6.0 x10-2 120%

PM2.5 (F) 24 h 0.025 3.1 x10-2 120% 2.3 x10-2 92% 2.7 x10-2 110% 3.4 x10-2 140% 3.0 x10-2 120%

PM2.5 (F) 1 h 0.05 4.7 x10-2 94% 4.7 x10-2 94% 3.5 x10-2 70% 4.2 x10-2 84% 4.2 x10-2 84%

PM010 (D) 1 h 0.08 1.3 x10-1 170% 1.1 x10-1 130% 1.1 x10-1 140% 1.1 x10-1 140% 1.8 x10-1 230%

Hg 3 min 3.3x10-4 1.8x10-5 5.4% 1.9x10-5 6.0% 1.2x10-5 3.5% 1.2x10-5 3.6% 1.2x10-5 3.7%

Cd 3 min 3.3x10-5 1.8x10-5 54% 1.9x10-5 60% 1.2x10-5 35% 1.2x10-5 36% 1.2x10-5 37%

CO 1 h 29 1.9x10-2 0.07% 2.2x10-2 0.08% 1.3x10-2 0.04% 1.3x10-2 0.04% 1.4x10-2 0.05%

HF 24 h 0.0029 6.0x10-5 2.1% 5.5x10-5 1.9% 5.4x10-5 1.9% 5.4x10-5 1.9% 5.2x10-5 1.8%

HCl 3 min 0.25 2.1x10-2 8.6% 2.4x10-2 9.5% 1.4x10-2 5.5% 1.4x10-2 5.7% 1.5x10-2 5.9%

NO2 1 h 0.19 1.2 x10-1 62% 1.1 x10-1 57% 9.2 x10-1 48% 9.0 x10-1 48% 9.6 x10-1 51%

NH3 3 min 0.6 3.6x10-3 0.6% 3.9x10-3 0.66% 2.3x10-3 0.38% 2.4x10-3 0.39% 2.5x10-3 0.41%

SO2 1 h 0.45 8.3x10-2 18% 1.0x10-1 23% 8.7x10-2 19% 9.0x10-2 20% 1.0x10-1 22%

Dioxins & Furans

3 min 3.7x10-9 3.5x10-11 0.97% 4.0x10-11 1.1% 2.3x10-11 0.6% 2.4x10-11 0.64% 2.5x10-11 0.67%


SMEC


Appendix G. Maximum sensitive receptor GLC for “EU limit” scenario each year


Assessment criteria (mg/m3)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018






% of criteria

PM2.5 (A) 24 h 0.025 5.9 x10-2 240% 3.3 x10-2 130% 3.2 x10-2 130% 3.5 x10-2 140% 4.2 x10-2 170%

PM2.5(A) 1 h 0.05 7.8 x10-2 160% 6.4 x10-2 130% 5.0 x10-2 100% 6.4 x10-2 130% 5.9 x10-2 120%

PM2.5 (F) 24 h 0.025 3.1 x10-2 120% 2.3 x10-2 92% 2.7 x10-2 110% 3.4 x10-2 140% 3.0 x10-2 120%

PM2.5 (F) 1 h 0.05 4.7 x10-2 94% 4.7 x10-2 94% 3.5 x10-2 70% 4.2 x10-2 84% 4.2 x10-2 84%

PM010 (D) 1 h 0.08 1.3 x10-1 170% 1.1 x10-1 130% 1.1 x10-1 140% 1.1 x10-1 140% 1.8 x10-1 230%

Hg 3 min 3.3x10-4 7.7x10-6 2.3% 7.8x10-6 2.4% 7.3x10-6 2.2% 7.3x10-6 2.2% 7.2x10-6 2.2%

Cd 3 min 3.3x10-5 7.7x10-6 23.3% 7.8x10-6 23.5% 7.3x10-6 22% 7.3x10-6 23% 7.2x10-6 22%

CO 1 h 29 8.4x10-3 0.03% 8.5x10-3 0.03% 8.0x10-3 0.03% 8.0x10-3 0.03% 7.9x10-3 0.03%

HF 24 h 0.0029 1.2x10-5 0.42% 1.6x10-5 0.6% 1.5x10-5 0.53% 1.4x10-5 0.48% 1.5x10-5 0.50%

HCl 3 min 0.25 9.2x10-3 3.7% 9.3x10-3 3.7% 8.8x10-3 3.5% 8.8x10-3 3.5% 8.6x10-3 3.5%

NO2 1 h 0.19 6.7 x10-2 35% 6.9 x10-2 36% 7.9 x10-2 42% 7.5 x10-2 39% 7.6 x10-2 40%

NH3 3 min 0.6 1.5x10-3 0.26% 1.6x10-3 0.26% 1.5x10-3 0.24% 1.5x10-3 0.24% 1.4x10-3 0.24%

SO2 1 h 0.45 8.1x10-2 18% 9.6x10-2 21% 8.3x10-2 19% 8.6x10-2 19% 9.6x10-2 21%

Dioxins & Furans

3 min 3.7x10-9 1.5x10-11 0.42% 1.6x10-11 0.43% 1.5x10-11 0.39% 1.5x10-11 0.40% 1.4x10-11 0.39%


Dandenong South waste to energy emission modelling and ... · Malu Haribabu BTech MPhil(Eng) PhD...

Documents

Transcript of Dandenong South waste to energy emission modelling and ... · Malu Haribabu BTech MPhil(Eng) PhD...