Project: Genesis Project

Project: Genesis Project

49 Veitch Road, Osborne Air Quality Assessment

Reference: 235132

Prepared for: Terminals Pty Ltd

Revision: V3

26 February 2014

Project 235132 File 235132 - AQ Report Genesis Project 26022014 REVISED FINAL .docx 26 February 2014Revision V3

Document Control Record

Document prepared by:

Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd

ABN 54 005 139 873 54 005 139 873

55 Grenfell Street

Adelaide SA 5000 Australia T F E W

+61 8 8237 9777 +61 8 8237 9778 [email protected] aurecongroup.com

A person using Aurecon documents or data accepts the risk of:

a) Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original hard copy version.

b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by Aurecon.

Document control

Report Title 49 Veitch Road, Osborne Air Quality Assessment

Document ID 235132 - AQ Report Genesis Project 26022014 REVISED FINAL .docx

Project Number 235132

File Path

\\aurecon.info\shares\AUADL\Admin\Data\General Staff\Disciplines\Noise and Vibration\Projects\Terminals Noise AQ\Bitumen Storage\AQ\Report\26022014 REVISED FINAL Report and Contours\235132 - AQ Report Genesis Project 26022014 REVISED FINAL .docx

Client Terminals Pty Ltd Client Contact Geoff Millard

Rev Date Revision Details/Status Prepared by Author Verifier Approver

V1 4 July 2013 Draft for Client Review M Naidu M Naidu N Mackenzie N Mackenzie

V2 10 July 2013 Final M Naidu M Naidu N Mackenzie N Mackenzie

V3 26 February 2014 Revised Final J Gaekwad J Gaekwad N Mackenzie N Mackenzie

Current Revision V3

Approval

Author Signature Approver Signature

Name Jason Gaekwad Name Neil Mackenzie

Title Building Sciences Engineer

TitleTechnical Director, Buildings


Contents 1. Introduction 5

2. Site and sensitive receptors 6

3. Regulatory overview 8

3.1 Air Quality 8

3.2 Odour 8

4. Plant Operating Scenarios and Specifications 10

4.1 Plant Operation Vapour Streams 10

4.2 Pollutant Emission Sources 10

5. Emission Estimates 13

5.1 Combustor 13

5.2 Hot Oil Heater Emissions 16

6. Background Air Quality 17

7. AUSPLUME Modelling 18

7.1 Terrain Profile and Receptor Grid 18

7.2 Building Wake Effects 18

7.3 Meteorology 18

7.4 Discharge Characteristics 19

8. Impact Assessment 20

9. Conclusion 21

10. Bibliography 22


Appendices Appendix A

Meteorological Data

Appendix B

Sampling Data

Appendix C

Charts of Ground Level Concentration Isopleths – Scenario 3

Appendix D

Vapour Stream Control Diagrams

Appendix E

Process Flow Diagram of Emissions and Calculation Sheet

Index of Figures

Figure 2.1 Site and nearest sensitive receptors 7 Figure 4.1 Emission Sources 11

Index of Tables

6 8 9

11 13 14 15 15 16 17 19

Table 2-1 Sensitive Receptors Table 3-1 Pollutant Criteria Table 3-2 Odour criteria Table 4-1 Combustor operating parameters and efficiencies Table 5-1 Combustor Calculation Methodology Table 5-2 Combustor Emission Rates Table 5-3 Impact Factors Table 5-4 Odour Emissions Table 5-5 Hot oil heater emission rates Table 6-1 Background pollutant concentrations Table 7-1 Source Discharge Characteristics Table 8-1 Predicted Ground Level Concentrations at Sensitive receptors for Scenario 3 20


1. Introduction Aurecon was commissioned by Terminals Pty Ltd to carry out an air quality and odour assessment in support of the proposed development of new bitumen storage tanks, a new Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB) manufacturing facility, a new product supply pipeline and associated works at 49 Veitch Road, Osborne.

The project involved the development of the following:

4 x New Bitumen Storage Tanks – 2 x 6,500kL and 2 x 500kL 2 x New 55kL C1 Combustible Tanks 10 x New 55kL C2 Combustible Tanks New Bitumen Loading Bay & Gantry New Manufacturing Building (approx. 350m2) New Hot Oil Plant Building (approx. 50 m2) New MCC/Control Room (approx. 32m2) New 1.5m high bund wall around new bitumen storage tanks Associated on-site works/infrastructure Modified fire access roadway New Bitumen Product Supply Pipeline (approx. 650m in length) New product transfer equipment and works on Osborne Berth 1.

The air quality and odour assessment from the proposed facility includes the following:

An overview of the size and nature of the proposed plant, and the nearest sensitive receivers; Identification of the most significant sources of odour and air pollutant emissions from the

proposed plant operation; Derivation of an air emissions inventory consisting of the emission rate and emission conditions of

each identified source AUSPLUME dispersion modelling Air quality and odour impact assessment of modelling results against stipulated criteria


2. Site and sensitive receptors The subject land is located within a long established marine related industrial precinct in the Osborne area. Immediately to the north of the subject land is the Australia Submarine Corporation (ASC) facility, to the west is Raytheon Australia’s office complex, to the south is vacant land and to the east is the Port River. An access road to the ASC site lies between the subject land and the Port River.

The closest residential development to the subject land is approximately 680 metres to the west within the suburb of North Haven. These locations in the context of the subject land and the proposed development have been highlighted on Figure 2.1.

Three sensitive receptors have also been selected as assessment locations and they are detailed in Table 2-1 and are shown in Figure 2.1.

Table 2-1 Sensitive Receptors

Receptor Description Distance from Site Boundary

R1 Residential Area, Victoria Road, North Haven 710

R2 Residential Area, Estella Street, Osborne 500

R3 Residential Area, Mersey Road North, Osborne 760


Figure 2.1 Site and nearest sensitive receptors

R1

R2

R3


3. Regulatory overview

3.1 Air Quality The SA EPA outlines air quality limits (EPA South Australia, 2006) in SA EPA Guideline 386/06 (2006) Air quality impact assessment using Design Ground Level Concentrations (DGLCs) that must be met at all locations at all times. In order to demonstrate that no adverse effects will occur at ground level due to emissions from a proposed or existing facility, computerised pollutant dispersion modelling must be undertaken to predict the maximum ground level pollutant concentrations which will result from the proposed development.

These DGLCs are stipulated by the EPA to protect public health and amenity and to provide protection for sensitive members of the community, such as children and the elderly.

Table 3-1 Pollutant Criteria

Pollutant Reason for classification Averaging timeDesign Criteria, mg/m3

Odour Toxicity

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Toxicity 1-hour - 0.45

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Toxicity 1-hour - 0.158

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Toxicity 1-hour - 29

Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) Odour 3-minute 0.00014 0.47

Acetone Toxicity 3-minute 40

Ethyl acetate Odour 3-minute 22.1 23.6

Ethanol Odour 3-minute 3.8 62.7

Propanol Odour 3-minute 0.075 16.4

Pentane Toxicity 3-minute - 60

Hexane Toxicity 3-minute - 5.9

Benzene IARC Group 1 carcinogen 3-minute - 0.053

Toluene Odour 3-minute 0.65 12.3

Methyl chloride Toxicity 3-minute - 3.4

Ethyl chloride Toxicity 3-minute - 86.6

Acetaldehyde Odour 3-minute 0.076 5.9

3.2 Odour The principal legislation dealing with odour in South Australia is the Environment Protection Act 1993. In particular, Section 25 imposes the general environmental duty on all persons undertaking an activity that may emit odour to take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise any


resulting environmental harm. In addition, causing an odour may constitute environmental nuisance which is an offence under Section 82 of the Act

SA EPA document 373/07 Odour assessment using odour source modelling (EPA South Australia, 2007) provides the criteria applicable to the nearest sensitive receptors. Odour criteria are population dependent—as the population density increases, the increased possibility of sensitive individuals raises the potential for odour complaints. The predicted odour levels (three-minute average) must not exceed the following odour levels 99.9% of the time at sensitive receptors.

Table 3-2 Odour criteria

Number of people Odour units (3-minute average, 99.9%)

2000 or more 2

350 or more 4

60 or more 6

12 or more 8

Single residence (less than 12) 10

Based on Figure 2.1, each residence surrounding the site will be subjected to the odour criterion of 2 OU (Odour Units) as the number of people in the area is expected to be higher than 2000.

Odour criteria in South Australia are based in principle on compliance with the general environmental duty to avoid environmental nuisance using the ‘best available technology economically achievable’ (BATEA). Regardless of the criteria being achieved, BATEA should be implemented.


4. Plant Operating Scenarios and Specifications

4.1 Plant Operation Vapour Streams The proposed plant is to be used for two primary purposes:

bitumen import producing Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB)

There are three scenarios by which the plant may operate:

Scenario 1: Normal bitumen plant operation including bitumen storage, bitumen transfers, truck filling, PMB plant operation without ship imports.

Scenario 2: Normal bitumen plant operation including bitumen storage, bitumen transfers, truck filling, bitumen import from ships and NO PMB plant operation.

Scenario 3: PMB Plant operating while importing. This scenario rarely occurs, however it has been used to conservatively assess emissions.

All vapour discharges from the tanks, loading gantry, and PMB production process are vented to the vapour collection system for ultimate destruction at the combustor (as shown on the process flow diagram 235132-PI-19/1 in Appendix D). With an operating vapour collection system, there will be no tank/gantry or process venting to the atmosphere. The PMB production process also includes a scrubber to remove H2S through an absorption/oxidation process (conservatively a removal efficiency of 90% has been used). The combustor is the only emission source in the proposed plant with a destruction efficiency of 99.9% based on measurements at Terminal’s Pt Botany plant.

Before entering the combustor the vapour is diluted with air to a concentration below 25% of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL), reducing the risk of explosion prior to transfer to the combustor (with the explosive limit monitoring panel shown on process flow diagram 235132-PI-19/2, and notional dilution inlet points and vapour streams shown on process flow diagram 235132-PI-19/1 in Appendix D). The dilution ratio assumed herein for vapours from:

the PMB plant and gantry is 1 part tank/process vapour to 8.5 parts air. importing is 1 part vapour to 5.3 parts air.

Note that if the vapour collection system is not operating, no transfers from any tanks will be possible. This is consistent with the Terminals site at Port Botany also has similar procedures to ensure that no imports are initiated unless the vapour collection system is operating.

4.2 Pollutant Emission Sources Two main pollutant and odour sources have been identified as the chief contributors to total site emissions from the proposed plant:

1 X 9MW Combustor 1 X 1.5MW Hot Oil Heater

The sources are located at the north of the site and are identified in Figure 4.1.

The hot oil heater is used to produce hot oil, which is used to regulate the temperature of the bitumen tanks. The emissions from this heater are a direct result of natural gas combustion, but minimal relative to emissions from the combustor.


Figure 4.1 Emission Sources

The combustor will be designed to achieve a destruction efficiency of 99.9% (combustor temperature of 825°C with a residence time of 1 second). The combustor can therefore handle a wide range of H2S concentrations while still achieving the specified destruction efficiency. These operating parameters are derived from post-commissioning test results at the Port Botany combustor, with testing carried out by ABM Combustion. Table 4-1 presents destruction efficiencies estimated from the aforementioned testing (correspondence from Phil Dane of ABM Combustion).

Table 4-1 Combustor operating parameters and efficiencies

Temp. (oC) Residence Time (sec) DRE

1 760 0.5 98%

2 825 1 99.9%

3 880 1 99.99%

4 980 1 99.999%

5 980 2 99.9999%

The scrubber is included with the PMB Plant, with a caustic bleach scrubbing process used to absorb pollutants and oxidise to stable soluble salts. These standard type of scrubbers have a removal efficiency of 90%, which can be increased to greater than 99% by catalysing the scrubbing liquid.

The SA EPA document entitled ‘Submission to the Select Committee on Land Uses on Le Fevre Peninsula dated February 2012 discusses fuel and bitumen storage with respect to odour (EPA South Australia, 2012) as follows:

Shell Bitumen and fuel storage facilities (e.g. Mobil Oil) located on the Le Fevre Peninsula north of Adelaide Brighton Cement are identified as potential odour sources on the Le Fevre Peninsula and each of the facilities has developed an Environment Improvement Plan (EIP) to improve odour management from their site. The facilities are required to implement their EIPs as part of their EPA

20 m Combustor

Stack

10 m Hot Oil Heater

Stack


licence conditions. The EPA expects that odour on the Le Fevre Peninsula will be considerably reduced following finalisation of the work detailed in the fuel and bitumen facility EIPs.

Improvements made as a result of having the EPA licence and EIPs include:

Installation of floating roof tanks on all potentially odorous fuel storage tanks at all fuel storage facilities with work due to be finalised June 2012. Floating roof tanks greatly reduces the evaporative loss of the stored liquid, including odorous Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Installation of vapour recovery units (VRU’s) at all fuel storage facilities. VRU’s target those vapours displaced when trucks or tankers are filled.

Installation of a thermal oxidiser at Shell Bitumen to manage VOCs generated during filling the main storage tanks.

As a result of these measures, the background ground level odour and pollutant concentrations associated with VOCs such as benzene at the nearest sensitive receptors are expected to be negligible.

Hence, it is considered sufficient to assess the emissions solely from the combustor and the hot oil heater to assess total site emissions.


5. Emission Estimates

5.1 Combustor Emissions entering the combustor are a combination of tank, PMB plant and gantry vapour emissions. Emissions from both these streams were measured independently at representative sites (Port Botany for the tank vapours and Mt Maunganui for the PMB process emissions). The measurement results were then modified to account for dilution of emissions to below 20% LEL.

Emissions Testing Consultants Pty Ltd conducted gas testing and analysis of the headspaces of bitumen tanks at Gepps Cross and Salisbury Quarry, South Australia, on 12 January 2006. The tanks tested are considered similar to the proposed tanks at Veitch Rd. The test results are provided in Appendix B.

CRL Energy Pty Ltd was commissioned by Aurecon to perform gas emission testing and analysis on the air emitted from the exhaust vent of a bitumen mixing plant at the Downers Road Science polymer bitumen plant manufacturing site based in Mount Maunganui, New Zealand on 22 May 2013. The plant is considered similar to the subject plant. The test results are provided in Appendix B.

A summary of the methodology for deriving the concentrations is provided in Table 5-1. These process conditions and calculations are shown in Appendix E.

Table 5-1 Combustor Calculation Methodology

Combustor Pollutant Contributor

Calculation Methodology

Tank Vapours

Typical sampled species concentrations for tank vapours, as sampled for the Port Botany project (GHD Pty Ltd, 2011) were used for tank emissions calculations. The ratio of these species was applied to the reported Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) readings from the Port Botany site at different plant areas, to give approximate compositions for various process streams with a range of LELs.

The combined tank vapour stream was then diluted with air at ratios as required (i.e. from 0.8 up to 5.3 air: 1 vapours (v/v)) to achieve the design feed to the combustor of vapour at 20% of LEL.

PMB Plant Emissions

Sampling from a PMB plant at Mt Maunganui (CRL Energy Ltd, 2013) was used to obtain information on the PMB plant vapour species concentrations while producing worst case PMB products, i.e. high sulphur content PMB. The vapour composition was sampled from a tank vent during production.

This stream was then diluted with air at a ratio of approximately 9 air: 1 vapours (v/v) to achieve the design feed to the combustor of vapour at 20% of LEL.

Note: PMB – Polymer Modified Bitumen and LEL – Lower Explosive Limit


5.1.1 Pollutants

The emission rates of the various pollutants after passing through the combustor are as shown in Table 5-2 for scenario 3.

Table 5-2 Combustor Emission Rates

Pollutant Emission rate, g/s

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)2,4 4.3

Nitrogen Dioxide3,4(NO2) 0.13

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.077

Hydrogen Sulphide1,4 (H2S) 0.0022

Acetone 0.0015

Ethyl acetate 0.00049

Ethanol 0.00082

Propanol 0.00061

Pentane 0.00033

Hexane 0.00025

Benzene 0.00057

Toluene 0.00019

Methyl chloride 0.0017

Ethyl chloride 0.00066

Acetaldehyde 0.00080

Notes:

1. A destruction efficiency of 99.9% has been applied to combustible pollutants. A removal efficiency of 90% has been applied to the PMB Plan vapour stream.

2. SO2 is a product of the combustion of H2S. Hence SO2 emissions increase through the combustor (SO2 emissions from tanks and PMB process + SO2 produced from H2S combustion).

3. It has been assumed herein that 20% of NOx is converted to NO2. 4. CO, SO2 and NO2 are computed from the maximum measured concentrations (provided in Appendix B).


Table 5-3 examines selected VOC pollutants from Table 5-2 in greater detail to streamline the assessment and to identify the pollutant which has the highest potential to generate an air quality impact. The impact factor is computed by dividing the maximum emission rate from Table 5-2 with the relevant criterion for each pollutant.

Table 5-3 Impact Factors

Pollutant Emission rate, g/s Criteria, mg/m3, 3

minute average 99.9 percentile

Impact factor, (g/s)/( mg/m3)

Acetone 0.0015 40 0.000039

Ethyl acetate 0.00049 22.1 0.000022

Ethanol 0.00082 3.8 0.000216

Propanol 0.00061 0.075 0.008121

Pentane 0.00033 60 0.000006

Hexane 0.00025 5.9 0.000043

Benzene 0.00057 0.053 0.010741

Toluene 0.00019 0.65 0.000299

Methyl chloride 0.0017 3.4 0.000500

Ethyl chloride 0.00066 86.6 0.000008

Acetaldehyde 0.00080 0.076 0.010462

Table 5-3 shows that Benzene is the pollutant with the highest potential impact. Compliance with the criterion for Benzene will enable the criteria for the other pollutants in Table 5-3 to be met. Therefore the only VOC pollutant considered in this assessment from this point onwards is Benzene.

5.1.2 Odour

A relationship between Hydrogen Sulphide and odour was determined from a paper released by the Japan Environmental Sanitation Centre (Nagata), outlining odour thresholds for various odorous substances. Nagata specifies an odour threshold (1 OU) of 0.00041 ppm, or 0.00058 mg/m3 for Hydrogen Sulphide. Based on this data, a conservative odour threshold of 0.0005 mg/m3 has been used herein. Odour emission rate are shown below in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4 Odour Emissions

Vapour Flow Case

Total Vapour Flow from combustor including dil. Air

(Sm3/h)

Emission rate of H2S from the combustor

with 99.9% destruction efficiency

Discharge conditions 17.5 Height

0.6m Diameter 825ºC

Scenario 3

5,796 2.23 mg/s

4,500 OU/s

21.7 m/s


5.2 Hot Oil Heater Emissions The proposed plant has one 1.5 MW hot oil heater, with allowance for a future additional 1.5MW hot oil heater. The hot oil heater is expected to be similar to the 3MW hot oil heater used in the Terminals Bitumen Import and Dispatch Facility, Port Botany (GHD Pty Ltd, 2011). However, its emissions are expected to be halved due to its capacity which is reduced by a factor of 2.

The emission rates of the various pollutants for the hot oil heater are provided in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5 Hot oil heater emission rates

Pollutant Emission Rate, g/s

Carbon Monoxide 0.077

Nitrogen Dioxide 0.0505

Sulphur Dioxide 0.001


6. Background Air Quality Background pollutant concentrations contribute to total pollutant concentrations at the receiver. Table 6-1 presents the background pollutant concentrations used in this assessment. These pollutant concentrations were sourced from the South Australian Environment Protection Authority Air Quality Reports and Summaries (monthly summaries August to December 2013). Values presented are maxima over the given monitoring periods.

As discussed in Section 4, the background ground level odour and pollutant concentrations associated with VOCs such as benzene at the nearest sensitive receptors are expected to be negligible.

Table 6-1 Background pollutant concentrations

Pollutant Averaging period Background pollutant concentration (mg/m3)

Monitoring Station/Region

Carbon Monoxide 1 hour1 0.522 Northern Adelaide

Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 0.000753 Le Fevre 2

Sulphur Dioxide 1 hour 0.0786 Le Fevre 2

Notes:

1. Monitoring data for a 1 hour averaging period was not available. A power law relationship has been used to convert between the 8 hour averaging period provided in the monitoring reports and the 1 hour averaging period required for this assessment. A power law exponent of 0.2 was used.


7. AUSPLUME Modelling AUSPLUME is a standard Gaussian-plume based air quality dispersion model. It was developed by the Victorian EPA and is widely accepted and used for regulatory purposes within Australia. Its input requirements are hourly wind speed, wind direction, temperature, mixing height, and stability class data. Version 6 of AUSPLUME was used for this assessment. Its use has been endorsed by EPA South Australia.

7.1 Terrain Profile and Receptor Grid Due to the relatively flat topography around the proposed site, terrain influences have not been accounted for. A roughness factor of 0.4 m has been used within AUSPLUME, which is indicative of residential terrain. This roughness factor is considered appropriate for the land conditions between the proposed site and the residential properties surrounding it.

The receptor grid has been based on a Cartesian grid with 20 m grid spacing. This provides a suitably high resolution for the isopleth plots.

7.2 Building Wake Effects A building generates assessable downwind wake effects up to 5 times the lesser of the building height or projected building width and if there are stacks less than 2 1/2 times the building height within this zone. There are 20m and 15m tanks in proximity to the combustor stack and the hot oil boiler stack. Hence, it is crucial in this assessment to include building wake effects in the assessment.

The US Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) was used to estimate the projected building heights and widths required to calculate the effects of building downwash. BPIP also estimates additional parameters required by the PRIME building downwash algorithms. The dimensions of the nearby tanks were input into this program to account for plumes trapped in building wakes. These plumes can be recirculated in the wake region immediately downwind of nearby buildings. They can also be subjected to plume downwash and enhanced horizontal or vertical spreading due to the turbulent zone that exists further downwind. Hence, the potential for increased odour concentrations in proximity to the stacks is considered.

7.3 Meteorology Meteorology is fundamental to the dispersion of pollutants. It is therefore important to carefully consider the development of predicted meteorological data (particularly wind and atmospheric stability conditions) when assessing pollutant dispersion.

The dispersion of emissions is primary influenced by the following meteorological factors:

wind speed, wind direction vertical wind and turbulence intensity profile (which are affected by terrain); temperature gradient which is determined from atmospheric stability (which in itself is determined

from wind speed, cloud cover and solar radiation) and mixing height, which is the depth of the atmospheric boundary layer.

Meteorological data was obtained from SA EPA which has prepared data for Edinburgh Airfield in a format that is suitable for input into the AUSPLUME model (EPA South Australia, 2004). The data collected there is deemed to be representative of site conditions for dispersion modelling purposes. The SA EPA meteorological data used for this assessment is provided in Appendix A.


7.4 Discharge Characteristics The discharge characteristics of the combustor stack and the hot oil heater stack are provided in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1 Source Discharge Characteristics

Parameter Combustor Stack Hot Oil Heater Stack

Stack height, m 17.5 10

Stack Diameter, m 0.6 0.7

Exit Temperature, °C 825 200

Exit Velocity, m/s 21.7 15

The discharge characteristics of the combustor stack are based on the process design of the proposed site. The discharge characteristics for the hot oil heater stack are based on similar plant at the Terminals Port Botany plant (GHD Pty Ltd, 2011).


8. Impact AssessmentThe Design Ground Level Concentrations (DGLCs) at the nearest receptors are provided in Table 8-1 for scenario 3.

No criteria exceedances are observed for all the pollutants at all the identified sensitive receptors. Sulphur Dioxide and Odour have the highest concentrations with regard to their propensity to approach the criteria.

Concentration isopleths charts for Odour, Benzene and Sulphur Dioxide are provided in Appendix C for scenario 3, to graphically display their dispersion to the area surrounding the site. It can be observed that the criteria for Odour, Benzene and Sulphur Dioxide are complied with at the nearest sensitive receptor in these figures.

Table 8-1 Predicted Ground Level Concentrations at Sensitive receptors for Scenario 3

Receptor1 Description CO,

mg/m3 NO2,

mg/m3 SO2,

mg/m3 H2S,

mg/m3 Benzene,

mg/m3 Odour,

OU

R1

Residential Area, Victoria Road, North

Haven

0.524 0.00298 0.145 0.0000336 0.0000086 0.0673

R2

Residential Area, Estella

Street, Osborne

0.524 0.00272 0.137 0.0000354 0.000009 0.0708

R3

Residential Area, Mersey Road North,

Osborne

0.524 0.00232 0.126 0.0000302 0.0000077 0.0604

Criteria1 29 0.158 0.45 0.47 0.053 2

Notes:

1. The receptors have been identified in Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1.2. The more stringent of the odour and toxicity criteria given in Table 3.1 for each pollutant has been

selected.


9. Conclusion Aurecon has completed an air quality assessment of the proposed Terminals Bitumen importing and manufacturing site at 49 Veitch Rd, Osborne, South Australia.

Appropriate criteria were derived from South Australian air quality and odour guidelines.

The combustor stack and the hot oil heater were identified as the chief contributors of odour and pollutants. Emissions for the combustor were established based on pollutant sampling at the headspace of a representative bitumen tank and a representative Polymer Modified Bitumen manufacturing process vent. Emissions for the hot oil stack were based on existing data for a representative natural gas fuelled hot oil heater. The complete emissions inventory incorporated both of these sources.

Emission rates were calculated based on the design discharge characteristics of the sources. Pollutant dispersion modelling was undertaken using the AUSPLUME Gaussian dispersion model. Ground level concentrations for selected pollutants and odour were assessed at the nearest receptors against established criteria.

No criteria exceedances were observed and the proposed plant is not considered likely to generate an air quality or odour impact to its nearest sensitive receptors.


10. Bibliography AWN Pty Ltd. (2006). Proposed Bitumen Storage Facility.

CRL Energy Ltd. (2013). Bitumen Mixing Plant Gas Analytes Report.

CRL Energy Ltd. (2013). Bitumen Mixing Process Testo Gas Emissions Report.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW). (2005). Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales.

Department of Environmental Protection Western Australia. (2002). Odour Methodology Guideline.

EPA South Australia. (2004). Meteorological Data Files for the AUSPLUME Air Dispersion Model.

EPA South Australia. (2006). EPA Guidelines Air Quality Assessment Using Design Ground Level Pollutant Concentrations (DGLCs).

EPA South Australia. (2007). Odour Assessment Using Odour Source Modelling.

EPA South Australia. (2012). Submission to the Select Comitee on Land Uses on Le Fevre Peninsula.

GHD Pty Ltd. (2011). Report for Bitumen Import and Dispatch Facility, Port Botany Air Quality Assessment.

Nagata, Y. (n.d.). Measurement of Odor Threshold by Triangle Odor Bad Method. Japan Environmental Sanitation Centre.

Appendix A Meteorological Data

Edinburgh Airfield 2000

Environment Protection Authority of SA

Meteorological Data Files for the Ausplume Air Dispersion Model

MetDataReportMay2004.doc Revision: B Date: 31/05/04 Page: 10

5. Edinburgh Airfield 2000

Station Name: Edinburgh RAAF

BoM Station Number: 023083

Location: 34.7042ºS, 138.6194ºE

Elevation: 16.5 mAHD

Surface Data Source: Edinburgh RAAF AWS

Upper Air Data Source: Adelaide Airport Radiosonde data

Remarks: No sigmatheta

No of Data Points: 8328

No of Data Days: 347 (95% complete)

Data Period: Jan 2000 to Dec 2000

Table 5.1 Distribution of Meteorological Parameters with Stability for


Stability No. ofHours

Percent

%

Wind Spdm/s

TempDeg C

Mix Hgtm

A 6 0.07 1.5 28.0 783

B 511 6.1 2.2 20.9 774

C 1346 16.2 4.4 19.7 759

D 3548 42.6 6.7 17.2 519

E 1700 20.4 3.1 14.5 201

F 1217 14.6 1.8 14.7 147





Table 5.2 Wind Speed (m/s) versus Wind Direction for Edinburgh Airfield 2000

Edinburgh DirnWnd Spd 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 Grand Total %

0 3 16 13 18 14 9 11 7 11 19 13 6 11 6 15 15 12 12 7 13 2 233 2.80.5 2 4 5 2 10 6 7 11 3 1 2 4 6 4 4 4 3 1 4 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 4 4 3 3 1 3 7 120 1.4

1 4 5 5 3 6 5 8 4 7 5 5 4 1 3 3 7 5 1 2 2 2 3 4 2 3 2 1 3 5 1 4 1 2 5 7 130 1.61.5 20 15 13 23 18 18 20 12 13 8 9 11 11 9 14 12 13 11 12 21 11 7 9 5 7 6 6 8 7 5 7 5 12 10 12 8 408 4.92.1 26 27 39 58 43 51 29 22 14 6 19 10 13 19 28 24 28 27 24 12 10 14 14 9 12 10 13 7 7 7 11 7 4 12 9 26 691 8.32.6 17 17 48 67 91 59 50 21 19 15 18 17 16 14 15 15 23 31 16 25 18 8 19 6 8 13 7 7 5 9 3 4 7 9 13 20 750 9.03.1 15 28 35 89 81 66 35 16 9 14 11 14 27 11 30 27 27 24 26 16 25 25 14 14 10 12 9 10 8 7 10 7 6 5 13 14 790 9.53.6 20 19 27 52 72 34 21 14 14 8 21 19 24 15 22 21 22 13 11 17 18 34 16 25 18 21 11 6 11 14 7 5 7 13 12 24 708 8.54.1 13 24 34 25 39 30 22 12 8 14 20 26 18 22 15 15 14 11 15 18 13 19 22 12 19 15 19 7 2 6 7 4 7 16 8 15 586 7.04.6 7 12 20 48 39 33 17 12 3 14 15 18 30 25 21 13 19 5 8 19 19 19 23 16 14 10 9 7 8 6 4 1 9 7 5 13 548 6.65.1 6 12 17 25 39 21 13 14 7 8 18 20 27 12 15 12 7 8 18 21 21 25 37 29 24 15 11 7 4 4 7 5 10 11 9 11 550 6.65.7 5 4 19 44 28 15 10 8 6 11 18 18 12 10 13 13 12 11 12 11 19 28 22 31 15 22 11 8 8 7 10 5 5 14 4 11 500 6.06.2 5 5 17 43 32 15 16 3 6 8 12 9 8 9 10 6 9 6 8 12 20 26 37 28 23 16 10 10 9 7 6 11 9 9 4 13 477 5.76.7 7 4 15 31 29 9 8 2 3 4 9 11 6 2 3 6 7 5 7 13 14 27 25 24 19 8 7 8 7 4 8 5 5 10 7 4 363 4.47.2 3 8 22 18 3 4 2 2 1 5 1 1 6 4 8 7 8 22 24 28 17 22 16 9 10 8 1 9 3 4 8 8 3 295 3.57.7 6 2 4 6 15 10 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 2 5 8 31 21 19 14 20 16 6 3 4 8 3 4 6 9 3 240 2.98.2 3 4 9 12 4 3 1 2 2 2 1 5 8 6 23 22 15 12 20 11 6 8 4 1 5 5 13 5 9 221 2.78.7 1 2 2 8 10 10 1 2 1 3 11 10 24 10 8 8 15 6 4 5 1 4 4 5 7 5 167 2.09.3 1 4 6 4 1 1 5 2 5 13 16 12 9 11 8 7 4 6 3 3 5 4 9 1 140 1.79.8 1 1 1 3 9 1 1 3 6 8 16 12 6 6 10 1 1 3 3 3 4 6 1 106 1.3

10.3 3 5 3 1 1 2 3 11 8 5 7 6 4 3 3 1 2 5 1 3 7 3 87 1.010.8 2 2 3 1 2 3 12 9 4 7 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 62 0.7411.3 2 3 2 7 6 4 4 4 3 4 2 1 2 3 2 2 51 0.6111.8 1 1 2 3 5 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 1 36 0.4312.3 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 16 0.1912.9 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 17 0.2013.4 2 1 4 3 10 0.1213.9 1 1 3 1 1 1 8 0.1014.4 2 1 1 4 0.0514.9 1 1 1 3 0.0415.4 1 1 1 3 0.0415.9 1 1 2 0.0216.5 1 1 2 0.02

17 1 1 1 3 0.0418 1 1 0.01

Grand Total 3 177 197 334 586 616 407 272 165 134 135 195 196 205 170 209 194 207 175 198 226 263 387 405 308 268 252 200 140 129 112 114 93 112 173 166 205 8328 100.0% 0.04 2.1 2.4 4.0 7.0 7.4 4.9 3.3 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.2 4.6 4.9 3.7 3.2 3.0 2.4 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.3 2.1 2.0 2.5 100.0





Figure 5.1 Wind Rose for Edinburgh Airfield 2000

4.8 %

CALM

No. of Records :- 2082

0:01 - 6:00

2.0 %

CALM


6:01 - 12:00

0.6 %

CALM


12:01 - 18:00

3.7 %

CALM


18:01 - 24:00

2.8 %

CALM

No. of Records :- 8328ALL HOURS

.1

to

2

2.1

to

4

4.1

to

6

6.1

to

8

8.1

to

10

>10

WIND SPEED m/s

0 10 20 30 40

% FREQUENCY

N

WIND ROSES

Edinburgh Airfield

EdinAfld2000.met

Period: 1/ 0 to 12/ 0

EPA SA

347 days (95% complete)

01/2000 - 12/20000

Appendix B Sampling Data

This report must be quoted in full except with the permission of CRL Energy

CRL Energy Limited Report No 13-31261 Page 1 of 6

Author(s): Maurice Arnott

CRL Ref: 13-31261

Title: Bitumen Mixing Plant Gas Analytes Report

Client Name: Philip Harwood

Aurecon Client Address: P.O.Box 1591, Wellington 6140

.

Distribution: None

(Other than client)

Date of Issue: 18th June 2013

Reviewed by: ____________________________________

Name & Designation: Maurice Arnott – Environmental Officer

Approved by: ____________________________________

Name & Designation: William Paddock (BSc, PGDipSci)– Environmental Officer



Contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................. 3

2 Methodology ................................................................................. 4

3 Analysis Results ........................................................................... 5

3.1 Onsite Testing Results ........................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Laboratory Analysis Result ................................................................................................... 5



1 Introduction CRL Energy Ltd was commissioned by Aurecon to undertake gas sampling and testing at the Downers

Road Science polymer bitumen plant manufacturing site based in Mount Maunganui.

The testing was required to quantify what elements of NMOC, methane, and hydrogen sulphide would

be released during the mixing process.

Sample collection and on site analysis was completed on the 22nd May 2013 by Maurice Arnott, and

Steven Gale –Technical Environmental Officer’s. The collected samples were sent to a third party

laboratory for detailed analysis.



2 Methodology

Samples were collected from the tank vent discharge that exits via a blue polyethylene drum sited at the

Downers polymer bitumen manufacturing plant based in Mount Maunganui:

1) Three Foil gas bag samples were drawn from this location via a water trap and analysed for

NMOC, methane, and hydrogen sulphide.

2) One field sample was also analysed with a landfill gas analyser; a Data Gas GEM 5000 gas

analyser using an infra red and electrochemical sensors.



3 Analysis Results

3.1 Onsite Testing Results

The onsite testing and sampling of the bitumen vapours from mixing PMB at Downers Road Science

polymer bitumen plant was undertaken on the 22nd May by Steven Gale and Maurice Arnott from

CRL’s Hamilton office.

The results from the onsite testing are shown in Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1 Onsite Testing Results Summary for Field sampling

Parameters Units Field Test 1

Water Vapour % 12.4

Methane % 7.1

Carbon Dioxide % 0.5

Oxygen % 15

Hydrogen sulphide % Exceeded Threshold

Temperature °C 40

Carbon monoxide % 0.036

Balance % 78.2

3.2 Laboratory Analysis Result

The results from the laboratory analysis are present in Tables 3-2 below. The results are in % v/v; the

(LOQ) limit of quantitation is 0.1 % v/v (1000ppm).

Table 3-2 Laboratory Analysis Results Summary

Parameters Unit Gas Sample 2 Gas Sample 1 Gas Sample 3

Hydrogen % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Methane % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Ethane % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Ethylene % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Acetylene % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Propane % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Propadiene % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Propylene % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

iso-Butane % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

n-Butane % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

1,3-Butadiene % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Butene-1 % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

c-Butene-2 % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1



Table 3-3 Laboratory Analysis Results Summary

Parameters Unit Gas Sample 1 Gas Sample 2 Gas Sample 3

t-Butene-2 % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

iso-Butylene % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

iso-Pentane % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

n-Pentane % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Hexane+ % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Carbon Monoxide % v/v <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Carbon Dioxide % v/v 0.47 0.37 0.38

Hydrogen sulphide % v/v 6.66 7.65 9.10

Oxygen + Argon % v/v 14.93 14.68 14.15

Nitrogen % v/v 77.67 77.09 76.13

LOQ for Gases by GC is 0.1 % v/v (1000ppm)

Author(s): M. Arnott

CRL Ref: 13-31344

Title: Bitumen mixing process

Testo Gas Emissions Report

Client Name: Aurecon

Client Address: P.O. Box 1591

Wellington

6140

Date of Issue: 16th June 2013

Prepared by: …………………………………

Name & Designation Maurice Arnott (NZCE)

Environmental Officer

Approved by: …………………………………

Name & Designation William Paddock (BSc, PGDipSci)

Environmental Officer

Distribution: n/a

(other than client)

Contents:

Introduction 3

Test Method 3

Factors That May Influence The Test 3

Discussion and Conclusion 4

Summary Charts 5-7

Appendix

Gas Emission Raw Data 1

This report must be quoted in full except with permission from CRL Energy

Page 2 of 7

It is recognized that the presence of sulphur dioxide may affect the quality of data associated with

nitrogen oxides when using electrochemical cell technology. Moreover high moisture and the

particle content of gases may absorb some of the active gases if there is a large drop in the

temperature of the flue gas relative to the reading temperature. The errors associated with this are

situated between 3-10% of the real gas concentration values and can be largely mitigated by

utilizing a heated line. In addition exceptionally high amounts of electromagnetic interference can

lead to deviations in reading accuracy.

Calibration - Testo 350 calibration is performed by external supplier or Inhouse utilising current

certified Calibration gases.

Factors That May Influence The Test:

Introduction:

CRL Energy Ltd Hamilton branch was commissioned by Aurecon to perform Gas emission testing

on the exhaust vent of the bitumen mixing plant. The purpose of the monitoring was to understand

the composition of the emissions being produced during this process of manufacturing PMB.

The bitumen mixing plant exhaust free vents into a plastic 44 gallon blue drum then to

atmosphere.

Maurice Arnott and Steven Gale of the CRL Hamilton branch carried out the tests on the 22nd May

2013.

Test Method:

The instrument used for gas emission testing was the Testo 350 gas analyser. This instrument

uses electrochemical sensors to accurately measure flue gas constituents including: Oxygen,

Carbon monoxide (CO), Sulphur dioxide(SO2) and Oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The instrument

provides accuracy of within 5% for SO2, 5% for NO, 5% for NO2 and 5% for CO. The values were

recorded every 30 seconds and trended over the sample period.


Page 3 of 7

SO2 NOx CO

Min mg/m3 at STP 0 deg °C 655 206 436

Max mg/m3 at STP 0 deg °C 1725 4283 506

Avg mg/m3 at STP 0 deg °C 1472 2833 474

Carbon monoxide emissions from the bitumen manufacturing process vent exhaust remained

fairly stable with a slight drop off throughout the test time period (22-May-2013, 11:28 pm - 1:11

pm). The average carbon monoxide concentration emitted from the manufacturing process vent

exhaust stack over the test time period was 474 mg/m3.

Emission RatesEmitted compound

Discussion and Conclusion:

Sulphur dioxide emissions from the bitumen manufacturing process vent exhaust slowly build

then plateau and then gradually descend throughout the test time period (22-May-2013, 11:28 pm -

1:11 pm). The average sulphur dioxide concentration emitted from the manufacturing process vent

exhaust stack over the test time period was 1472 mg/m3.

Total oxides of nitrogen emissions from the bitumen manufacturing process vent exhaust slowly

continue to build throughout the test time period (22-May-2013, 11:28 pm - 1:11 pm). The average

oxides of nitrogen concentration emitted from the manufacturing process vent exhaust stack over

the test time period was 2833 mg/m3.


Page 4 of 7

of 7

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

11:28:28 AM

11:31:28 AM

11:34:28 AM

11:37:28 AM

11:40:34 AM

11:43:52 AM

11:47:10 AM

11:50:28 AM

11:53:46 AM

11:57:04 AM

12:00:22 PM

12:03:40 PM

12:06:58 PM

12:10:16 PM

12:13:34 PM

12:16:52 PM

12:20:10 PM

12:23:28 PM

12:26:46 PM

12:30:04 PM

12:33:22 PM

12:36:40 PM

12:39:58 PM

12:43:16 PM

12:46:34 PM

12:49:52 PM

12:53:10 PM

12:56:28 PM

12:59:46 PM

1:03:04 PM

1:06:22 PM

1:09:40 PM

SO2 Concentration mg/m3

Time

SO2 mg/m

3at STP 0 deg °C

SO2 mg/m3 at STP 0 deg °C

of 7

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

11:28:28 AM

11:31:28 AM

11:34:28 AM

11:37:28 AM

11:40:34 AM

11:43:52 AM

11:47:10 AM

11:50:28 AM

11:53:46 AM

11:57:04 AM

12:00:22 PM

12:03:40 PM

12:06:58 PM

12:10:16 PM

12:13:34 PM

12:16:52 PM

12:20:10 PM

12:23:28 PM

12:26:46 PM

12:30:04 PM

12:33:22 PM

12:36:40 PM

12:39:58 PM

12:43:16 PM

12:46:34 PM

12:49:52 PM

12:53:10 PM

12:56:28 PM

12:59:46 PM

1:03:04 PM

1:06:22 PM

1:09:40 PM

NOx Concentration mg/m3

Time

NOx mg/m3 at STP 0 deg °C

NOx mg/m3 at STP 0 deg °C

of 7

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

11:28:28 AM

11:31:28 AM

11:34:28 AM

11:37:28 AM

11:40:34 AM

11:43:52 AM

11:47:10 AM

11:50:28 AM

11:53:46 AM

11:57:04 AM

12:00:22 PM

12:03:40 PM

12:06:58 PM

12:10:16 PM

12:13:34 PM

12:16:52 PM

12:20:10 PM

12:23:28 PM

12:26:46 PM

12:30:04 PM

12:33:22 PM

12:36:40 PM

12:39:58 PM

12:43:16 PM

12:46:34 PM

12:49:52 PM

12:53:10 PM

12:56:28 PM

12:59:46 PM

1:03:04 PM

1:06:22 PM

1:09:40 PM

CO Concentration mg/m3

Time

CO mg/m

3at STP 0 Deg 0C

CO mg/m3 at STP 0 deg °C

CRL Ref: 13-31344

Date of test: 22/05/2013

BDL = Below Detection Limit

Date Time

Stack

Temperature

°C

ppm CO ppm NO2 ppm NO ppm SO2 % CO2 % O2

NO2

mg/m3 at

STP 0 deg

°C

NO

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

CO

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

NOx

mg/m3 at

STP 0 deg

°C

SO2

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

22/05/13 11:28:28 AM 41.3 393 0.0 154 229 4 16.51 BDL 206 491 206 655

22/05/13 11:28:58 AM 41.6 402 0.0 253 259 4 16.40 BDL 339 503 339 741

22/05/13 11:29:28 AM 42.3 404 0.0 298 270 4 16.35 BDL 399 505 399 772

22/05/13 11:29:58 AM 42.3 405 0.0 345 279 4 16.32 BDL 462 506 462 798

22/05/13 11:30:28 AM 42.1 405 0.0 398 286 4 16.28 BDL 533 506 533 818

22/05/13 11:30:58 AM 41.9 404 0.0 445 292 4 16.26 BDL 596 505 596 835

22/05/13 11:31:28 AM 41.9 404 0.0 486 298 4 16.24 BDL 651 505 651 852

22/05/13 11:31:58 AM 41.0 403 0.0 525 305 4 16.22 BDL 704 504 704 872

22/05/13 11:32:28 AM 40.2 403 0.0 561 310 4 16.19 BDL 752 504 752 887

22/05/13 11:32:58 AM 42.7 403 0.0 602 315 4 16.16 BDL 807 504 807 901

22/05/13 11:33:28 AM 42.2 402 0.0 642 322 4 16.14 BDL 860 503 860 921

22/05/13 11:33:58 AM 42.0 402 0.0 679 330 4 16.10 BDL 910 503 910 944

22/05/13 11:34:28 AM 41.4 402 0.0 702 335 4 16.10 BDL 941 503 941 958

22/05/13 11:34:58 AM 42.0 401 0.0 731 339 4 16.06 BDL 980 501 980 970

22/05/13 11:35:28 AM 41.2 400 0.0 755 341 4 16.05 BDL 1012 500 1012 975

22/05/13 11:35:58 AM 41.2 400 0.0 779 349 4 16.03 BDL 1044 500 1044 998

22/05/13 11:36:28 AM 42.0 400 0.0 801 352 4 16.02 BDL 1073 500 1073 1007

22/05/13 11:36:58 AM 41.5 400 0.0 826 355 4 16.00 BDL 1107 500 1107 1015

22/05/13 11:37:28 AM 41.8 400 0.0 847 361 4 16.00 BDL 1135 500 1135 1032

22/05/13 11:37:58 AM 42.2 400 0.0 873 367 4 15.98 BDL 1170 500 1170 1050

22/05/13 11:38:28 AM 42.6 400 0.0 899 370 4 15.96 BDL 1205 500 1205 1058

22/05/13 11:38:58 AM 43.2 400 0.0 924 376 4 15.94 BDL 1238 500 1238 1075

22/05/13 11:39:28 AM 43.4 400 0.0 943 382 4 15.93 BDL 1264 500 1264 1093

22/05/13 11:40:01 AM 43.4 399 0.0 971 387 4 15.90 BDL 1301 499 1301 1107

22/05/13 11:40:34 AM 42.8 399 0.0 993 392 4 15.89 BDL 1331 499 1331 1121

22/05/13 11:41:07 AM 43.1 399 0.0 1019 397 4 15.88 BDL 1365 499 1365 1135

22/05/13 11:41:40 AM 44.3 399 0.0 1053 406 5 15.85 BDL 1411 499 1411 1161

22/05/13 11:42:13 AM 43.4 398 0.0 1076 410 5 15.83 BDL 1442 498 1442 1173

22/05/13 11:42:46 AM 44.2 398 0.0 1105 417 5 15.82 BDL 1481 498 1481 1193

22/05/13 11:43:19 AM 43.6 397 0.0 1130 423 5 15.79 BDL 1514 496 1514 1210

22/05/13 11:43:52 AM 44.3 398 0.0 1156 429 5 15.74 BDL 1549 498 1549 1227

22/05/13 11:44:25 AM 42.8 395 0.0 1173 431 5 15.77 BDL 1572 494 1572 1233

22/05/13 11:44:58 AM 43.1 397 0.0 1209 440 5 15.74 BDL 1620 496 1620 1258

22/05/13 11:45:31 AM 42.6 396 0.0 1236 447 5 15.71 BDL 1656 495 1656 1278

Gas Emission Raw Data

Environmental

Appendix 1

Date Time

Stack

Temperature

°C


NO2

mg/m3 at

STP 0 deg

°C

NO

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

CO

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

NOx

mg/m3 at

STP 0 deg

°C

SO2

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

22/05/13 11:46:04 AM 43.7 397 0.0 1268 454 5 15.69 BDL 1699 496 1699 1298

22/05/13 11:46:37 AM 43.7 396 0.0 1306 463 5 15.67 BDL 1750 495 1750 1324

22/05/13 11:47:10 AM 43.5 397 0.0 1333 470 5 15.64 BDL 1786 496 1786 1344

22/05/13 11:47:43 AM 44.4 396 0.0 1367 479 5 15.61 BDL 1832 495 1832 1370

22/05/13 11:48:16 AM 43.8 397 0.0 1385 482 5 15.59 BDL 1856 496 1856 1379

22/05/13 11:48:49 AM 44.2 395 0.0 1410 489 5 15.58 BDL 1889 494 1889 1399

22/05/13 11:49:22 AM 44.2 396 0.0 1433 496 5 15.56 BDL 1920 495 1920 1419

22/05/13 11:49:55 AM 46.5 395 0.0 1464 502 5 15.54 BDL 1962 494 1962 1436

22/05/13 11:50:28 AM 47.3 395 0.0 1495 511 5 15.50 BDL 2003 494 2003 1461

22/05/13 11:51:01 AM 48.0 395 0.0 1514 518 5 15.48 BDL 2029 494 2029 1481

22/05/13 11:51:34 AM 48.9 395 0.0 1530 521 5 15.48 BDL 2050 494 2050 1490

22/05/13 11:52:07 AM 49.2 395 0.0 1542 525 5 15.46 BDL 2066 494 2066 1502

22/05/13 11:52:40 AM 49.3 395 0.0 1560 530 5 15.45 BDL 2090 494 2090 1516

22/05/13 11:53:13 AM 49.7 394 0.0 1577 536 5 15.43 BDL 2113 493 2113 1533

22/05/13 11:53:46 AM 48.9 394 0.0 1582 534 5 15.41 BDL 2120 493 2120 1527

22/05/13 11:54:19 AM 49.0 394 0.0 1606 539 5 15.39 BDL 2152 493 2152 1542

22/05/13 11:54:52 AM 46.0 393 0.0 1612 541 5 15.41 BDL 2160 491 2160 1547

22/05/13 11:55:25 AM 44.3 387 0.0 1602 530 5 15.44 BDL 2147 484 2147 1516

22/05/13 11:55:58 AM 44.8 387 0.0 1631 534 5 15.40 BDL 2186 484 2186 1527

22/05/13 11:56:31 AM 44.6 389 0.0 1662 542 5 15.35 BDL 2227 486 2227 1550

22/05/13 11:57:04 AM 44.8 392 0.0 1690 547 5 15.30 BDL 2265 490 2265 1564

22/05/13 11:57:37 AM 44.5 391 0.0 1708 550 5 15.29 BDL 2289 489 2289 1573

22/05/13 11:58:10 AM 44.6 392 0.0 1732 555 5 15.25 BDL 2321 490 2321 1587

22/05/13 11:58:43 AM 44.5 392 0.0 1752 560 5 15.21 BDL 2348 490 2348 1602

22/05/13 11:59:16 AM 45.2 392 0.0 1775 564 5 15.18 BDL 2379 490 2379 1613

22/05/13 11:59:49 AM 45.8 392 0.0 1798 567 5 15.15 BDL 2409 490 2409 1622

22/05/13 12:00:22 PM 47.5 392 0.0 1826 572 5 15.13 BDL 2447 490 2447 1636

22/05/13 12:00:55 PM 48.7 391 0.0 1852 575 5 15.10 BDL 2482 489 2482 1645

22/05/13 12:01:28 PM 48.7 391 0.0 1866 571 5 15.09 BDL 2500 489 2500 1633

22/05/13 12:02:01 PM 49.2 391 0.0 1893 583 5 15.07 BDL 2537 489 2537 1667

22/05/13 12:02:34 PM 49.3 391 0.0 1905 585 5 15.05 BDL 2553 489 2553 1673

22/05/13 12:03:07 PM 48.9 390 0.0 1916 589 5 15.03 BDL 2567 488 2567 1685

22/05/13 12:03:40 PM 48.6 390 0.0 1931 591 5 15.01 BDL 2588 488 2588 1690

22/05/13 12:04:13 PM 48.8 390 0.0 1947 592 5 15.00 BDL 2609 488 2609 1693

22/05/13 12:04:46 PM 47.9 390 0.0 1955 594 5 14.97 BDL 2620 488 2620 1699

22/05/13 12:05:19 PM 47.1 390 0.0 1969 593 5 14.96 BDL 2638 488 2638 1696

22/05/13 12:05:52 PM 47.2 389 0.0 1983 594 5 14.95 BDL 2657 486 2657 1699

22/05/13 12:06:25 PM 47.7 389 0.0 2002 597 5 14.93 BDL 2683 486 2683 1707

22/05/13 12:06:58 PM 47.9 389 0.0 2006 595 5 14.91 BDL 2688 486 2688 1702

22/05/13 12:07:31 PM 47.4 389 0.0 2014 594 5 14.89 BDL 2699 486 2699 1699

22/05/13 12:08:04 PM 47.2 389 0.0 2028 598 5 14.87 BDL 2718 486 2718 1710

Appendix 1

Date Time

Stack

Temperature

°C


NO2

mg/m3 at

STP 0 deg

°C

NO

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

CO

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

NOx

mg/m3 at

STP 0 deg

°C

SO2

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

22/05/13 12:08:37 PM 47.2 388 0.0 2040 596 5 14.86 BDL 2734 485 2734 1705

22/05/13 12:09:10 PM 47.0 387 0.0 2058 599 5 14.83 BDL 2758 484 2758 1713

22/05/13 12:09:43 PM 47.5 388 0.0 2070 599 5 14.81 BDL 2774 485 2774 1713

22/05/13 12:10:16 PM 48.3 388 0.0 2083 600 5 14.79 BDL 2791 485 2791 1716

22/05/13 12:10:49 PM 47.8 388 0.0 2086 598 5 14.78 BDL 2795 485 2795 1710

22/05/13 12:11:22 PM 48.0 387 0.0 2094 599 5 14.76 BDL 2806 484 2806 1713

22/05/13 12:11:55 PM 47.3 387 0.0 2114 603 5 14.74 BDL 2833 484 2833 1725

22/05/13 12:12:28 PM 47.6 386 0.0 2126 600 6 14.72 BDL 2849 483 2849 1716

22/05/13 12:13:01 PM 48.0 386 0.0 2144 602 6 14.67 BDL 2873 483 2873 1722

22/05/13 12:13:34 PM 48.2 386 0.0 2147 599 6 14.67 BDL 2877 483 2877 1713

22/05/13 12:14:07 PM 48.4 386 0.0 2153 599 6 14.66 BDL 2885 483 2885 1713

22/05/13 12:14:40 PM 48.4 385 0.0 2157 598 6 14.63 BDL 2890 481 2890 1710

22/05/13 12:15:13 PM 47.5 385 0.0 2173 597 6 14.61 BDL 2912 481 2912 1707

22/05/13 12:15:46 PM 48.0 385 0.0 2190 599 6 14.59 BDL 2935 481 2935 1713

22/05/13 12:16:19 PM 48.5 384 0.0 2206 600 6 14.57 BDL 2956 480 2956 1716

22/05/13 12:16:52 PM 48.1 384 0.0 2212 600 6 14.55 BDL 2964 480 2964 1716

22/05/13 12:17:25 PM 47.7 384 0.0 2218 597 6 14.53 BDL 2972 480 2972 1707

22/05/13 12:17:58 PM 48.1 384 0.0 2225 595 6 14.50 BDL 2982 480 2982 1702

22/05/13 12:18:31 PM 47.9 383 0.0 2230 593 6 14.49 BDL 2988 479 2988 1696

22/05/13 12:19:04 PM 48.2 383 0.0 2232 589 6 14.47 BDL 2991 479 2991 1685

22/05/13 12:19:37 PM 48.5 383 0.0 2236 585 6 14.45 BDL 2996 479 2996 1673

22/05/13 12:20:10 PM 48.4 382 0.0 2239 583 6 14.46 BDL 3000 478 3000 1667

22/05/13 12:20:43 PM 48.9 382 0.0 2246 579 6 14.43 BDL 3010 478 3010 1656

22/05/13 12:21:16 PM 48.7 381 0.0 2259 581 6 14.40 BDL 3027 476 3027 1662

22/05/13 12:21:49 PM 48.6 382 0.0 2265 578 6 14.39 BDL 3035 478 3035 1653

22/05/13 12:22:22 PM 48.7 381 0.0 2284 579 6 14.37 BDL 3061 476 3061 1656

22/05/13 12:22:55 PM 48.9 381 0.0 2294 577 6 14.35 BDL 3074 476 3074 1650

22/05/13 12:23:28 PM 48.9 381 0.0 2301 575 6 14.33 BDL 3083 476 3083 1645

22/05/13 12:24:01 PM 49.1 381 0.0 2312 574 6 14.32 BDL 3098 476 3098 1642

22/05/13 12:24:34 PM 49.3 380 0.0 2319 572 6 14.29 BDL 3107 475 3107 1636

22/05/13 12:25:07 PM 49.2 379 0.0 2339 573 6 14.27 BDL 3134 474 3134 1639

22/05/13 12:25:40 PM 49.5 379 0.0 2352 572 6 14.25 BDL 3152 474 3152 1636

22/05/13 12:26:13 PM 50.0 379 0.0 2370 573 6 14.22 BDL 3176 474 3176 1639

22/05/13 12:26:46 PM 49.8 378 0.0 2389 573 6 14.21 BDL 3201 473 3201 1639

22/05/13 12:27:19 PM 50.3 377 0.0 2405 572 6 14.18 BDL 3223 471 3223 1636

22/05/13 12:27:52 PM 49.9 377 0.0 2414 571 6 14.17 BDL 3235 471 3235 1633

22/05/13 12:28:25 PM 49.6 376 0.0 2435 572 6 14.15 BDL 3263 470 3263 1636

22/05/13 12:28:58 PM 49.6 377 0.0 2452 571 6 14.12 BDL 3286 471 3286 1633

22/05/13 12:29:31 PM 49.8 376 0.0 2462 570 6 14.09 BDL 3299 470 3299 1630

22/05/13 12:30:04 PM 49.7 375 0.0 2468 568 6 14.08 BDL 3307 469 3307 1624

22/05/13 12:30:37 PM 50.0 374 0.0 2474 565 6 14.07 BDL 3315 468 3315 1616

Appendix 1

Date Time

Stack

Temperature

°C


NO2

mg/m3 at

STP 0 deg

°C

NO

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

CO

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

NOx

mg/m3 at

STP 0 deg

°C

SO2

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

22/05/13 12:31:10 PM 49.9 374 0.0 2481 563 6 14.04 BDL 3325 468 3325 1610

22/05/13 12:31:43 PM 50.3 374 0.0 2491 562 6 14.04 BDL 3338 468 3338 1607

22/05/13 12:32:16 PM 49.8 374 0.0 2499 559 6 14.01 BDL 3349 468 3349 1599

22/05/13 12:32:49 PM 50.1 373 0.0 2517 557 6 13.98 BDL 3373 466 3373 1593

22/05/13 12:33:22 PM 50.6 373 0.0 2543 559 6 13.96 BDL 3408 466 3408 1599

22/05/13 12:33:55 PM 50.8 372 0.0 2569 559 6 13.93 BDL 3442 465 3442 1599

22/05/13 12:34:28 PM 50.6 372 0.0 2571 556 6 13.91 BDL 3445 465 3445 1590

22/05/13 12:35:01 PM 51.5 371 0.0 2574 554 6 13.89 BDL 3449 464 3449 1584

22/05/13 12:35:34 PM 51.3 371 0.0 2600 555 6 13.87 BDL 3484 464 3484 1587

22/05/13 12:36:07 PM 51.5 370 0.0 2619 554 6 13.84 BDL 3509 463 3509 1584

22/05/13 12:36:40 PM 51.6 370 0.0 2629 553 6 13.83 BDL 3523 463 3523 1582

22/05/13 12:37:13 PM 51.4 369 0.0 2641 551 6 13.81 BDL 3539 461 3539 1576

22/05/13 12:37:46 PM 51.8 369 0.0 2650 549 6 13.80 BDL 3551 461 3551 1570

22/05/13 12:38:19 PM 51.6 369 0.0 2651 546 6 13.78 BDL 3552 461 3552 1562

22/05/13 12:38:52 PM 51.6 369 0.0 2660 545 6 13.77 BDL 3564 461 3564 1559

22/05/13 12:39:25 PM 52.2 367 0.0 2667 544 6 13.75 BDL 3574 459 3574 1556

22/05/13 12:39:58 PM 51.7 367 0.0 2682 544 6 13.72 BDL 3594 459 3594 1556

22/05/13 12:40:31 PM 52.0 366 0.0 2684 542 6 13.70 BDL 3597 458 3597 1550

22/05/13 12:41:04 PM 51.6 366 0.0 2693 541 6 13.69 BDL 3609 458 3609 1547

22/05/13 12:41:37 PM 52.0 366 0.0 2715 541 6 13.66 BDL 3638 458 3638 1547

22/05/13 12:42:10 PM 52.3 365 0.0 2733 543 6 13.64 BDL 3662 456 3662 1553

22/05/13 12:42:43 PM 52.2 365 0.0 2743 542 6 13.61 BDL 3676 456 3676 1550

22/05/13 12:43:16 PM 52.0 364 0.0 2743 539 6 13.59 BDL 3676 455 3676 1542

22/05/13 12:43:49 PM 52.1 364 0.0 2770 541 7 13.56 BDL 3712 455 3712 1547

22/05/13 12:44:22 PM 52.0 364 0.0 2773 540 7 13.55 BDL 3716 455 3716 1544

22/05/13 12:44:55 PM 52.5 363 0.0 2783 539 7 13.53 BDL 3729 454 3729 1542

22/05/13 12:45:28 PM 52.4 363 0.0 2792 538 7 13.51 BDL 3741 454 3741 1539

22/05/13 12:46:01 PM 52.5 363 0.0 2792 537 7 13.50 BDL 3741 454 3741 1536

22/05/13 12:46:34 PM 52.7 363 0.0 2794 536 7 13.49 BDL 3744 454 3744 1533

22/05/13 12:47:07 PM 52.7 362 0.0 2810 535 7 13.46 BDL 3765 453 3765 1530

22/05/13 12:47:40 PM 52.8 362 0.0 2834 537 7 13.44 BDL 3798 453 3798 1536

22/05/13 12:48:13 PM 53.0 361 0.0 2841 537 7 13.42 BDL 3807 451 3807 1536

22/05/13 12:48:46 PM 52.7 360 0.0 2848 536 7 13.40 BDL 3816 450 3816 1533

22/05/13 12:49:19 PM 52.6 360 0.0 2869 537 7 13.39 BDL 3844 450 3844 1536

22/05/13 12:49:52 PM 53.1 360 0.0 2890 537 7 13.36 BDL 3873 450 3873 1536

22/05/13 12:50:25 PM 52.9 359 0.0 2883 536 7 13.36 BDL 3863 449 3863 1533

22/05/13 12:50:58 PM 53.0 359 0.0 2891 535 7 13.34 BDL 3874 449 3874 1530

22/05/13 12:51:31 PM 53.2 358 0.0 2919 536 7 13.31 BDL 3911 448 3911 1533

22/05/13 12:52:04 PM 53.0 359 0.0 2928 536 7 13.29 BDL 3924 449 3924 1533

22/05/13 12:52:37 PM 52.9 358 0.0 2934 535 7 13.27 BDL 3932 448 3932 1530

22/05/13 12:53:10 PM 52.9 357 0.0 2932 533 7 13.26 BDL 3929 446 3929 1524

Appendix 1

Date Time

Stack

Temperature

°C


NO2

mg/m3 at

STP 0 deg

°C

NO

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

CO

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

NOx

mg/m3 at

STP 0 deg

°C

SO2

mg/m3 at

STP 0

deg °C

22/05/13 12:53:43 PM 53.0 357 0.0 2927 532 7 13.24 BDL 3922 446 3922 1522

22/05/13 12:54:16 PM 52.7 357 0.0 2936 532 7 13.22 BDL 3934 446 3934 1522

22/05/13 12:54:49 PM 53.5 356 0.0 2960 532 7 13.21 BDL 3966 445 3966 1522

22/05/13 12:55:22 PM 53.5 356 0.0 2974 531 7 13.18 BDL 3985 445 3985 1519

22/05/13 12:55:55 PM 53.9 356 0.0 2977 531 7 13.17 BDL 3989 445 3989 1519

22/05/13 12:56:28 PM 54.2 355 0.0 2995 530 7 13.14 BDL 4013 444 4013 1516

22/05/13 12:57:01 PM 54.1 355 0.0 3029 530 7 13.11 BDL 4059 444 4059 1516

22/05/13 12:57:34 PM 54.4 354 0.0 3047 529 7 13.08 BDL 4083 443 4083 1513

22/05/13 12:58:07 PM 54.3 355 0.0 3035 528 7 13.07 BDL 4067 444 4067 1510

22/05/13 12:58:40 PM 54.2 353 0.0 3031 526 7 13.06 BDL 4062 441 4062 1504

22/05/13 12:59:13 PM 53.7 354 0.0 3044 525 7 13.04 BDL 4079 443 4079 1502

22/05/13 12:59:46 PM 54.0 353 0.0 3059 525 7 13.01 BDL 4099 441 4099 1502

22/05/13 1:00:19 PM 54.7 353 0.0 3054 523 7 12.99 BDL 4092 441 4092 1496

22/05/13 1:00:52 PM 55.5 353 0.0 3058 522 7 12.98 BDL 4098 441 4098 1493

22/05/13 1:01:25 PM 56.7 353 0.0 3069 521 7 12.95 BDL 4112 441 4112 1490

22/05/13 1:01:58 PM 56.6 352 0.0 3060 520 7 12.94 BDL 4100 440 4100 1487

22/05/13 1:02:31 PM 57.4 351 0.0 3070 519 7 12.91 BDL 4114 439 4114 1484

22/05/13 1:03:04 PM 57.1 352 0.0 3077 518 7 12.89 BDL 4123 440 4123 1481

22/05/13 1:03:37 PM 58.1 352 0.0 3086 517 7 12.87 BDL 4135 440 4135 1479

22/05/13 1:04:10 PM 58.2 351 0.0 3099 516 7 12.85 BDL 4153 439 4153 1476

22/05/13 1:04:43 PM 58.5 350 0.0 3118 515 7 12.81 BDL 4178 438 4178 1473

22/05/13 1:05:16 PM 58.3 350 0.0 3132 514 7 12.80 BDL 4197 438 4197 1470

22/05/13 1:05:49 PM 58.6 350 0.0 3141 513 7 12.77 BDL 4209 438 4209 1467

22/05/13 1:06:22 PM 59.2 350 0.0 3157 512 7 12.74 BDL 4230 438 4230 1464

22/05/13 1:06:55 PM 59.5 350 0.0 3165 510 7 12.72 BDL 4241 438 4241 1459

22/05/13 1:07:28 PM 59.7 349 0.0 3173 509 7 12.69 BDL 4252 436 4252 1456

22/05/13 1:08:01 PM 60.0 349 0.0 3181 508 7 12.67 BDL 4263 436 4263 1453

22/05/13 1:08:34 PM 60.1 349 0.0 3189 507 7 12.66 BDL 4273 436 4273 1450

22/05/13 1:09:07 PM 60.2 349 0.0 3193 505 7 12.64 BDL 4279 436 4279 1444

22/05/13 1:09:40 PM 60.3 349 0.0 3196 505 7 12.63 BDL 4283 436 4283 1444

22/05/13 1:10:13 PM 60.2 349 0.0 3191 503 7 12.61 BDL 4276 436 4276 1439

22/05/13 1:10:46 PM 60.1 349 0.0 3184 502 7 12.59 BDL 4267 436 4267 1436

22/05/13 1:11:19 PM 60.3 349 0.0 3181 501 7 12.57 BDL 4263 436 4263 1433

Appendix 1

Appendix C Charts of Ground Level Concentration Isopleths – Scenario 3

Jason.Gaekwad

Image

Jason.Gaekwad

Text Box

Benzene Ground Level Concentration, 3 minute average, 99.9 percentile, mg/m3

Jason.Gaekwad

Text Box

Criterion: 0.053 mg/m3

Jason.Gaekwad

Image

Jason.Gaekwad

Text Box

Odour Ground Level Concentration, 3 minute average, 99.9 percentile, OU

Jason.Gaekwad

Text Box

Criterion: 2 OU

Jason.Gaekwad

Image

Jason.Gaekwad

Text Box

SO2 Ground Level Concentration, 1 hour average, 100 percentile, mg/m3

Jason.Gaekwad

Text Box


Jason.Gaekwad

Text Box

Note: The red isopleth denotes a SO2 Ground level Concentration of 0.45 mg/m3

Appendix D Vapour Stream Control Diagrams

Aurecon New Zealand Limited

Wellington New Zealand

102 Customhouse Quay (PO Box 1591)

Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922

Email: [email protected]

Old Bank Chambers

LEGEND




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

F1922V1901 P1901V1902




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

NOTES

Appendix E Process Flow Diagram of Emissions and Calculation Sheet

99.9% Destruction EfficiencySummary - PMB Production and Import Summary - PMB Production, No Import Summary - Import, No PMB Production

Stream Tanks PMB Gantry Combined Tanks PMB Gantry Combined Tanks PMB Gantry CombinedFlowrate Sm3/h 4187 993 617 5796 189 993 617 1798 4187 520 617 5323CompositionH2S ppm 994 8254 994 2237 994 8254 994 5001 994 8254 994 1703Combined other flammables ppm 3535 254 3535 2973 3535 254 3535 1724 3535 254 3535 3214N2 ppm 777363 779708 777363 777765 777363 779708 777363 778658 777363 779708 777363 777593O2 + other ppm 218108 211784 218108 217025 218108 211784 218108 214617 218108 211784 218108 217490total ppm 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000

H2S approx conc mg/m3 1429 11869 1429 3218 1429 11869 1429 7192 1429 11869 1429 2449mg/m3/Odour Unit 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005

Odour units/s in feed 3324639 6545821 489659 10360118 150108 6545821 489659 7185587 3324639 3428763 489659 7243060OU/s after scrubber (90%dst) 654582 4468879 654582 1294348 342876 4157174

OU/s after combustor (99.9%dst) 4469 1294 4157H2S approx flow mg/s 1662 3273 245 5180 75 3273 245 3593 1662 1714 245 3622

after scrubber (90% removal) H2S mg/s 327 2234 327 647 171 2079after combustor H2S mg/s 2.23 0.65 2.08

Typical Composition of 'other' combustibles in combined stream

acetone ppm 395 229 4272-butanone ppm 85 50 92ethyl acetate ppm 82 48 89ethanol ppm 261 152 283i-propanol ppm 113 65 122propanol ppm 149 86 161propene ppm 80 46 87propane ppm 64 37 69i-butane ppm 20 12 22butane ppm 93 54 100pentane ppm 68 40 743-methylpentane ppm 134 78 145hexane ppm 43 25 46heptane ppm 39 23 42octane ppm 27 16 29nonane ppm 17 10 19decane ppm 11 6 11undecane ppm 7 4 8benzene ppm 107 62 115toluene ppm 31 18 34methylchloride ppm 294 170 317ethylchloride ppm 150 87 162acetaldehyde ppm 265 154 287propenal ppm 65 38 70butanal ppm 92 54 100pentanal ppm 50 29 54hexanal ppm 61 36 66heptanal ppm 60 35 65octanal ppm 21 12 22nonanal ppm 10 6 11decanal ppm 11 7 12Other minor flammable ppm 67 39 73Combined other flammables ppm 2973 as above 1724 as above 3214 as above

Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd

ABN 54 005 139 873

55 Grenfell Street

Adelaide SA 5000 Australia

T +61 8 8237 9777 F +61 8 8237 9778 E [email protected] W aurecongroup.com

Aurecon offices are located in: Angola, Australia, Botswana, China, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam.

Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd ABN 54 005 139 873

55 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000 Australia

T F E W

+61 8 8237 9777+61 8 8237 9778 [email protected] aurecongroup.com

Project 235132 File 14-10-2013 - Response to Request for Further Info (EPA) (FINAL) - 235132.docx 14 October 2013 Revision 0 Page 1

14 October 2013 Mr James Cother Senior Planning Advisor Environment Protection Authority GPO Box 2607 Adelaide SA 5001 Email – [email protected] Dear James DA 040-1857/13 – New bitumen storage tanks, product supply pipeline and associated works at 49 – 57 Veitch Road, Osborne SA 5107 Further to the EPAs request for further information on the aforementioned development application we offer the following comments in response to the questions raised.

1. Provide more information about site operations that are likely to generate odorous emissions and how these emissions would be managed.

As detailed in the Report (Aurecon Report: Genesis Project, 49 Veitch Road, Osborne – Air Quality Assessment dated 10 July 2013), only two main odour sources are expected to be present from proposed operations: 9 MW Combustor – 1 unit and

1.5 MW Hot Oil Heater – 1 unit.

Other potential odour sources such as ship unloading tank vapour, process vapour from the Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB) plant, tank venting vapour and truck venting vapour are channelled to the 9 MW combustor for treatment. Hence, these vapours have been accounted for in the assessment. There are no other odour generating activities likely to be present on-site. 2. Provide more detailed calculations on how the hydrogen sulphide emission rate of 0.5544 g/s in

table 4.2 of the Aurecon ‘Air Quality Assessment’ (dated 10 July 2013) was derived.

We note that Table 4.2 in the report contains erroneous values. A revised Table 4.2 is provided (see Attachment A). We emphasise that the modelling was carried out using the values in the revised table and the modelling results in the report remain the same. The emission rate of H2S is based on the sampling results of bitumen vapours from mixing Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB) at the Downers Road Science PMB plant on 22 May 2013, the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) of H2S emissions from the tanks and the assumed flow rate conditions at the thermal oxidiser stack. A sample calculation of how the emission rate of H2S was derived is provided below the attached revised Table 4.2. 3. Confirm that the reference to odour units are as defined by AS4323.3.2001.

We confirm that the references to ‘odour units’ are as defined by AS4323.3.2001. 4. Provide justification for concluding that hydrogen sulphide would be the only odorous components

of vapours contained in the headspace of the bitumen storage tanks (e.g. are mercaptans or other odorous components likely to be present?)


Based on the laboratory analysis results provided in Appendix B where samples were taken from tank vent discharge, Hydrogen Sulphide was the only odorous component identified in the vapour. We note that a range of odorous sulphur compounds including low levels of mercaptans may be present. However, they are expected to be below 10 ppm in the bitumen vapour space and will be undetectable at the nearest sensitive receptors. Based on a literature review of bitumen plant emission inventories from other similar air quality studies and US EPA asphalt (or bitumen) emission inventories, we do not believe mercaptans or any other odorous compounds are pollutants of concern. It should also be noted that the thermal oxidiser is equally effective with destroying mercaptans and other odorous sulphur compounds as it would be with H2S. 5. Demonstrate that the odour measurements made at the Terminals Port Botany site are

representative of the most odorous material that would be received as Lefevre Peninsula.

The bitumen is imported to a customer specification generally from refineries in Korea and Thailand. This has been occurring for different customers at the Terminals storage and handling facilities at both Geelong and Port Botany at significant higher rates and capacities consistently with bitumen products over the past three years. The odours have been dominated by hydrogen sulphide as determined through various laboratory measurements. 6. With reference to the proposed thermal oxidiser, provide clear justification for the assumed 99%

odour destruction efficiency.

The 99% level of destruction efficiency is the minimal requirement for combustion technology companies to design and tender as part of the design and build stage after gaining DA approval. The 99% destruction efficiency will be incorporated into design specification tender packages as part of the normal project process. Nevertheless, thermal oxidiser technology destroys odorous compounds at a significantly higher efficiency rate and the destruction efficiency stated is considered conservative according to suppliers. It should be noted that GHD has also noted that a thermal oxidiser destruction efficiency greater than 99% may be expected in their assessment of the Port Botany Plant. From the air quality assessment, the results in Table 6.1 and the isopleth charts in Appendix C show that the Benzene ground level concentration is below the EPA criterion by a factor of 85 and that the Odour ground level concentration is below the EPA criterion by a factor of 90 at the nearest sensitive receptors. This is a clear indication that utilising a destruction efficiency of 99% more than adequately satisfies the EPA’s requirements. 7. Present pollution dispersion modelling for relevant air emissions in accordance to EPA Guideline

“Presentation for air modelling outputs” (EPA 578/05 issued February 2005).

We note that the co-ordinate system of the benzene and odour isopleth charts follow a local coordinate system in the report. The charts have been amended to incorporate a MGA94 co-ordinate system. The presentation of the isopleth charts is now compliant with EPA Guideline 578/05 and a revised Appendix C is attached (see Attachment B). 8. Provide maximum ground level concentration of pollutants as per EPA Guideline “Air quality impact

assessment using design ground level pollutant concentrations (DCLGs) (EPA 286/06 updated January 2006), and demonstrate the ability of the thermal oxidiser and hot oil heater stacks to provide adequate pollutant dispersion.

We confirm that the Benzene ground level concentrations provided in Appendix C of the Report are maximum or 100th percentile 3 min-averages in accordance with EPA Guideline 386/03. With regard to only presenting Benzene contours and ground level concentrations among the pollutants detailed in Table 4.3, Benzene was identified to be the pollutant with the highest likelihood to cause a criteria exceedance. Benzene was found to be 35 times more likely to cause an exceedance when compared to the next pollutant with was Methyl Chloride. With regard to odour, the odour units are presented in


3 minute average, 99.9 percentile levels in accordance with EPA Guideline 373/07. The ground level concentrations of all the identified pollutants of concern are provided in the report in Table 6.1. Pollutant isopleth charts (in Appendix B) are only presented for Benzene and Odour as they had the highest propensity to approach the stipulated criteria and display the dispersion characteristics of the other pollutants. 9. Aurecon submitted an Environment Noise Assessment”, dated 24 may 2013 which predicted

construction noise levels at the noise-sensitive received of between 60 and 80dBA. Whilst it is understood these predications are based on conservative estimates, the EPA requests greater details on how construction noise would be managed to ensure there is no adverse impact on amenity at these locations.

The following detailed construction noise management methodologies will be implemented to ensure there is no adverse impact on amenity at nearby noise-sensitive receivers during the construction phase of the project:

The proponent will apply all feasible and reasonable work practises to minimise construction noise from the site in accordance with the EPA (SA) Environment Protection (Noise) Policy and the EPA (SA) Information Sheet ‘Construction Noise’ EPA 425/13 Updated September 2013.

Construction activities should not occur on a Sunday or public holiday, and not on any other day except between 7 am and 7 pm (unless an exemption is granted by the EPA, e.g. to avoid unreasonable interruption of vehicle or pedestrian traffic movement)

Notifying neighbours and nearby noise-sensitive receivers well before the construction is due to commence, including notification of the start date, duration, the kind of construction and a contact telephone number for any complaints

A log and assessment of complaints will be established, as well as monitoring of noise levels during construction and where practicable, modify practises to reduce the impact

Radios that can be heard off site should not be used before 7 am, and should be no louder than necessary

Any particularly noise activities should not commence until after 9 am (e.g. masonry saws / jackhammers)

Contractors should take care when dropping materials from a height (e.g. into a truck, or when loading / unloading scaffolding)

Noisy equipment (such as cement mixers and masonry saws) should be located such that their impact on neighbouring premises is minimised (whether by maximising the distance to the neighbouring premises, using structures or elevations to create sound barriers)

Shutting or throttling down equipment (such as backhoes, cranes, bobcats, loaders and generators) whenever they are not in actual use

Ensuring that noise reduction devices such as silencers and mufflers are fitted and operating effectively, especially to excavators and loaders

Adopting off-site or other alternative processes that eliminate or lessen resulting noise

Ensuring that equipment is not operated if maintenance or repairs would eliminate or significantly reduce noise, e.g. minimising rattling of panels


Using a ‘forward working procedure’ minimising reversing trucks, loaders, etc. wherever possible

Consideration of noise emissions from heavy vehicle routes delivering equipment and materials to site, as well as arranging for deliveries and pick-ups to occur during least sensitive times where practical

Erect temporary noise barriers, especially for high noise stationary activities such as power saws or other high noise hand tools

We trust that these responses satisfactorily address the questions raised by the EPA. Should you have any further queries please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on 08 8 237 9987.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Howard

Senior Planner | Environment & Advisory | Aurecon

Attachment A –

Project Project No File Table 4.2.docx Insert Date Revision 0 Page 1

Table 4.1 Combustor Emission Rates

Pollutant Emission rate, g/s

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 0.245

Nitrogen Dioxide2(NO2) 0.121

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.072

Hydrogen Sulphide3 (H2S) 1.386

Acetone 0.199

Ethyl acetate 0.063

Ethanol 0.105

Propanol 0.078

Pentane 0.043

Hexane 0.032

Benzene 0.072

Toluene 0.025

Methyl chloride 0.129

Ethyl chloride 0.084

Acetaldehyde 0.102

Notes:

1. A destruction efficiency of 99% has been applied to all the pollutants. 2. It is assumed that 20% of NOx is converted to NO2. 3. 88% of the H2S stream is from the PMB plant and the concentrations are computed from the ‘Typical

with PMB’ case stated in Section 4.2.1. 4. SO2, NO2 and H2S are computed from the maximum measured concentrations (provided in Appendix B).

All other pollutants are computed from the ‘Typical with no PMB’ case concentrations.

Sample Calculation for the emission rate of H2S:

The emission rate of H2S is based on the sampling results of bitumen vapours from mixing PMB at the Downers Road Science PMB plant on 22 May 2013 (Appendix B), the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) of H2S from the tanks and assumed flow rate conditions at the stack. In Table 3.3 of the report in Appendix B, 3 gas samples were taken and the average H2S concentration was 7.8 %v/v which translates to 78030 ppm. Based on diluting the gas sample with 9 parts of air to 1 part of H2S, a concentration of 7803 ppm was obtained. The contribution of H2S from the tanks was 1254 ppm and was based on the H2S Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) of 4.3 %v/v and an assumption that 20% of the LEL is exceeded. Based on the above and expected flow rate conditions, the total untreated H2S concentration at the thermal oxidiser was determined to be 7018 ppm.

The following calculations were carried out to determine the emission rate at the thermal oxidiser stack:

Project Project No File Table 4.2.docx Insert Date Revision 0 Page 2

Conversion from ppm to mg/m3:

/ / 10 298.15 25° 1 34.08 / 0.08205 . / .

7018 9776 /

Emission rate of H2S 9776 / 138.59 /

Where exhaust velocity, (=20 m/s) and cross-sectional area of stack, /4 and stack diameter, (= 0.95m)

After a destruction efficiency of 99% has been applied, the emission rate of H2S is 1.386 g/s.

Attachment B –

Appendix C Pollutant and Odour Isopleth Charts

271600 271800 272000 272200 272400 272600 272800

6146600

6146800

6147000

6147200

6147400

6147600

6147800

6148000

Hot Oil Heater Stack and Combustor Stack

magaesh.naidu

Text Box


magaesh.naidu

Text Box

Benzene Ground Level Concentration, 3 minute average, mg/m3

271600 271800 272000 272200 272400 272600 272800

6146600

6146800

6147000

6147200

6147400

6147600

6147800

6148000

Hot Oil Heater Stack and Combustor Stack

magaesh.naidu

Text Box

Criterion: 2 OU

magaesh.naidu

Text Box

Odour Ground Level Concentration, maximum 3 minute average, 99.9 percentile, OU



T F E W


Project 235132 File Response to Request for Further Info (EPA) (Req #2 - Final) - 235132.docx 19 November 2013 Revision 0 Page 1

19 November 2013 Mr James Cother Senior Planning Advisor Environment Protection Authority GPO Box 2607 Adelaide SA 5001 Email – [email protected] Dear James DA 040/1857/13 – New bitumen storage tanks, product supply pipeline and associated works at 49 – 57 Veitch Road, Osborne SA 5107 Further to the EPAs request for further information (dated 22 October 2013) on the aforementioned development application we offer the following comments in response to the questions raised.

1. Information provided by Aurecon to date relating to the clarification of the proposed thermal oxidiser requires expansion and further clarification. In particular, clarification of the proposal to dilute the headspace vapour 10:1 needs to be understood.

The emission rate of H2S is based on the sampling results of bitumen vapours from the Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB) at the Downers Road Science PMB plant on 22 May 2013. This plant is not equivalent to the proposed plant in terms of capacity. The dilution was done only to convert the monitored concentrations to that of the proposed plant with regard to flow rates and Lower Explosive Limits. The dilution strategy is for safety reasons and serves to prevent vapour feed stream to the combustor being in the flammable range as this stream is discharged into a flame. The calculations have been independently verified by the process engineers with regard to the safety of the proposed plant. The dilution calculations do not have any bearing on the air quality assessment and were provided as background information on the expected emissions of the plant.

2. Clarification of the air modelling assumptions is needed, as this information has not been provided as per EPA Guideline ‘Presentation of air pollution modelling outputs’ (EPA 578/05 issued February 2005).

AUSPLUME modelling set-up and result files have been provided as per EPA 578/05 requirements. See Attachment A.

3. Provide more information about site operations that are likely to generate odorous emissions and how these emissions would be managed.

As detailed in the Report (Aurecon Report: Genesis Project, 49 Veitch Road, Osborne – Air Quality Assessment dated 10 July 2013), only two main odour sources are expected to be present from proposed operations: 9 MW Combustor – 1 unit and

1.5 MW Hot Oil Heater – 1 unit.

Other potential odour sources such as ship unloading tank vapour, process vapour from the Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB) plant, tank venting vapour and truck venting vapour are channelled to the 9 MW combustor for treatment. Hence, these vapours have been accounted for in the assessment. There are no other odour generating activities likely to be present on-site.


We trust that these responses satisfactorily address the questions raised by the EPA. Should you have any further queries please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on 08 8 237 9987.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Howard


Attachment A – AUSPLUME Modelling Set-up and Result Files



T F E W



19 November 2013 James Cother Senior Planning Advisor Environment Protection Authority GPO Box 2607 Adelaide SA 5001 Email – [email protected] Dear James DA 040/1857/2013 – New bitumen storage tanks, product supply pipeline and associated works at 49 – 57 Veitch Road, Osborne SA 5107 Further to the EPAs request for further information (dated 5th November 2013) on the aforementioned development application we offer the following comments in response to the questions raised.

1. Provide a readable P&ID (piping and instrumentation diagram) of the pipework between the bitumen storage vessel and the oxidiser.

Please find attached with this response (see Attachment A) a set of detailed P&ID plans of the pipework between the bitumen storage vessel and the oxidiser. Please note that these drawings cannot be finalised until the combustor contract is awarded to a suitable vendor. The awarding of this contract has not yet occurred.

2. Clarify the design bitumen storage tank headspace odour concentration (as per AS4323.3.2001-odour units per cubic metre) and provide justification for:

a. use of this figure, and

b. how it can be guaranteed that the Le Fevre Peninsula facility would not receive parcels of bitumen more odorous than is received at Port Botany

Based on the laboratory analysis results provided in Appendix B of the report where samples were taken from tank vent discharge, Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) was the only odorous component identified in the vapour. While we note that Odour Units represent a mixture of odorous compounds, no other odorous compounds were detected in the laboratory analysis. Rather than use a nominal odour emission rate without regard to the specific operating conditions of the plant, we have used accurate monitored H2S data and have converted that to Odour Units using the H2S-Odour Unit relationship determined by GHD at the Port Botany Plant. On top of this, we have added conservativeness to the assessment by assuming 99% destruction efficiency at the thermal oxidiser. The predicted odour concentration is 90 times lower than the EPA odour criterion. Given that the criterion is met by such a large factor, we are confident that by ensuring that the thermal oxidiser supplier meets this level of destruction efficiency, no odour impact will be expected at the nearest sensitive receptors. It should also be noted that the Osborne facility will be handling a ‘pure bitumen’ product and not a ‘cutback’ product. As a result there will be a set specification for the material transferred to the Osborne site for storage. The storage of a ‘specified’ product is the same arrangement that occurs at Botany and Geelong.


3. Provide sufficient detail to allow a clear understanding of any dilution strategy for odorous material being fed to the oxidiser; this should include the design volumetric flow and design odour content in AS4323.3.2001 odour units per cubic metre of undiluted and diluted odorous process streams and the process objective for undertaking any dilution

The emission rate of H2S is based on the sampling results of bitumen vapours from the Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB) at the Downers Road Science PMB plant on 22 May 2013. This plant is not equivalent to the proposed plant in terms of capacity. The dilution was done only to convert the monitored concentrations to that of the proposed plant with regard to flow rates and Lower Explosive Limits. The dilution strategy is for safety reasons and serves to prevent vapour feed stream to the combustor being in the flammable range as this stream is discharged into a flame. The calculations have been independently verified by the process engineers with regard to the safety of the proposed plant. The dilution calculations do not have any bearing on the air quality assessment and were provided as background information on the expected emissions of the plant.

4. Provide independent testing results that justify the stated 99% oxidiser destruction efficiency of odorous emissions from bitumen storage activities

The 99% level of destruction efficiency is the minimal requirement for combustion technology companies to design and tender as part of the design and build stage after gaining development approval. The 99% destruction efficiency will be incorporated into design specification tender packages as part of the normal project process. Nevertheless, thermal oxidiser technology destroys odorous compounds at a significantly higher efficiency rate and the destruction efficiency stated is considered conservative according to suppliers. It should be noted that GHD has also noted that a thermal oxidiser destruction efficiency greater than 99% may be expected in their assessment of the Port Botany Plant. From the air quality assessment, the results in Table 6.1 and the isopleth charts in Appendix C show that the Benzene ground level concentration is below the EPA criterion by a factor of 85 and that the Odour ground level concentration is below the EPA criterion by a factor of 90 at the nearest sensitive receptors. This is a clear indication that utilising a destruction efficiency of 99% more than adequately satisfies the EPA’s requirements.

5. Clarification of the site operations that would be directed to the oxidiser and what operations would not be directed to it

All bitumen vapour streams will be treated by the thermal oxidiser but existing site operations will stay the same.

6. With regard to operations not directed to the oxidiser, clarify how any odorous emissions generated during those operations would be adequately managed

Not relevant as there are no other odorous emissions onsite

7. Present all odour dispersion modelling as per the requirements of EPA Guideline 578/05 'Presentation of air pollution modelling outputs' including the "additional information" listed on page 2.

AUSPLUME modelling set-up and result files have been provided as per EPA 578/05 requirements. – See Attachment B.


We trust that these responses satisfactorily address the questions raised by the EPA. Should you have any further queries please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on (08) 8237 9987.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Howard


Attachment A – P&ID Plans

T27

NOTES




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

T28




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

NOTES

T29 A0511




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

NOTES

T30 A0611




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

NOTES




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

F1922V1901 P1901V1902




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

NOTES


Attachment B – AUSPLUME modelling set-up and result

Genesis both.cfg 6.0 version************************************************************** WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - WARNING - WARNING ** ** This is a generated file. Please do not edit it manually. ** If editing is required, under any circumstances do not ** edit information enclosed in curly braces. Corruption of ** this information or changed order of data blocks enclosed ** in curly braces may render the file unusable. ** **************************************************************

Simulation Title{all}Concentration(1)/Deposition(0), Emission rate units, Concentration/Deposition units,Background Concentration, Variable Background flag,Variable Emission Flag{True grams/second milligrams/m3 0 False False }

Terrain influence tag, 0-ignore, 1 - include{0}Egan coefficients{0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 }Number of source groups{0}Total number of sources (Stack + Area + Volume sources){2}

Source Group informationBPIP Run (1-True, 0-False){-1 }Total number of buildings{5 }Building name, Base elevation, Number of tiers{1 0 1 }Height, Number of sides{5 4 }X coordinates{798 802 800 797 }Y coordinates{904 903 896 897 }Building name, Base elevation, Number of tiers{2 0 1 }Height, Number of sides{20 4 }X coordinates{806 823 819 802 }Y coordinates{901 897 881 885 }Building name, Base elevation, Number of tiers{3 0 1 }Height, Number of sides{20 4 }X coordinates{801 818 814 797 }Y coordinates{880 876 866 864 }Building name, Base elevation, Number of tiers{4 0 1 }Height, Number of sides{15 4 }X coordinates{784 795 792 782 }Y coordinates{884 882 871 873 }Building name, Base elevation, Number of tiers{5 0 1 }Height, Number of sides{15 4 }

Page 1

Genesis both.cfgX coordinates{762 774 772 762 }Y coordinates{888 889 875 878 }

Source Information

Source ID, Source Type (1 - stack, 2 - area, 3- volume) and X, Y, Z coordinates{HotOil 1 789 899 0 }Stack height and diameter{10 0.7 }Stack temperature, Velocity, Cross, Height{473 15 -1 -1 }Emission type (1-constant, 2-monthly, 3-hours of the day, 4-wind and stability, 5-hour and season, 6-temperarture), Number of particle fractions{1 0 }Constant emission rate{1}Building width{33.54059 34.0051 15.16026 16.01669 23.67712 23.82053 23.24011 21.95361 20 38.00073 39.90234 20.89221 22.69104 23.80042 24.18652 23.83777 22.76477 21 33.54053 34.00513 15.16026 16.01668 23.67712 23.82053 23.24011 21.95361 19.9999438.00067 39.90247 20.89221 22.69104 23.80042 24.18652 23.83777 22.76471 21 }Building height{15 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 }Building BPIP parameter1{-27.05365 -28.96814 -31.68652 -33.44214 0.9594727 4.258423 7.427734 10.37146 1313.95612 15.29074 13.72243 21.4055 9.395294 22.4545 3.934937 20.7951 19 12.4528213.92273 16.16016 17.30225 -24.75989 -28.44482 -31.2655 -33.13617 -34 -33.83075 -35.11755 -34.98076 -40.36311 -33.07243 -30.58847 -27.17505 -36.83984 -34.99994 }Building BPIP parameter2{7.909393 4.606918 10.30256 5.604192 -21.23386 -18.67821 -15.55499 -11.95917 -8 -14.07867 -10.2019 4.821838 -10.32367 12.85968 1.521484 19.34662 13.18317 18.5 -7.909424 -4.606903 -10.30254 -5.604182 21.23386 18.67818 15.55499 11.95917 7.999969 14.07877 10.20184 -4.821838 10.32367 -12.85968 -16.35168 -19.34662 -13.1832 -18.50006 }Building BPIP parameter3{14.60089 15.04553 15.52625 16.13989 23.80042 24.18652 23.83777 22.76471 21 19.87463 19.82681 21.25832 18.9576 23.67714 18.62436 23.24011 16.04474 16 14.60083 15.04541 15.52637 16.13989 23.80029 24.18652 23.83777 22.76471 21 19.87457 19.82681 21.25833 18.95761 23.67714 23.82053 23.24011 16.04474 16 }

Source ID, Source Type (1 - stack, 2 - area, 3- volume) and X, Y, Z coordinates{Combus 1 783 903 0 }Stack height and diameter{17.3 0.95 }Stack temperature, Velocity, Cross, Height{1073 20 -1 -1 }Emission type (1-constant, 2-monthly, 3-hours of the day, 4-wind and stability, 5-hour and season, 6-temperarture), Number of particle fractions{1 0 }Constant emission rate{1}Building width{33.54059 34.0051 15.16026 16.01669 16.38644 16.25833 23.24011 21.95361 20 38.00073 39.90234 20.89221 22.69104 23.80042 24.18652 23.83777 22.76477 33 33.54053 34.00513 15.16026 16.01668 16.38646 16.25833 23.24011 21.95361 19.9999438.00067 39.90247 20.89221 22.69104 23.80042 24.18652 23.83777 22.76471 33 }Building height{15 15 15 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 15 }Building BPIP parameter1{-29.95099 -30.6748 -32.15063 -32.64954 -32.15662 -30.68652 11.69788 15.58569 1920.55957 22.29697 20.91858 28.57292 16.31619 28.91858 27.76929 25.77618 14 15.3501 15.62939 16.62427 16.50977 15.89343 14.79419 -35.53564 -38.3504 -40 -40.4342 -42.12378 -42.17691 -47.53053 -39.99333 -37.05255 -45.37122 -41.82092

Page 2

Genesis both.cfg-32 }Building BPIP parameter2{1.306 -2.399307 3.106407 -1.563226 -6.185364 -10.61955 -21.36591 -16.94031 -12 -16.97607 -11.90857 4.357727 -9.531189 14.88483 4.717651 11.73578 18.3974 -4.5 -1.305969 2.399323 -3.106392 1.563233 6.185371 10.61955 21.36591 16.94031 11.99997 16.97604 11.90851 -4.357727 9.531189 -14.88483 -19.54773 -11.7359 -18.39743 4.499939 }Building BPIP parameter3{14.60089 15.04553 15.52625 16.13989 16.26318 15.89233 23.83777 22.76471 21 19.87463 19.82681 21.25832 18.9576 23.67714 18.62436 17.60199 16.04474 18 14.60083 15.04541 15.52637 16.13989 16.26318 15.89233 23.83777 22.76471 21 19.87457 19.82681 21.25833 18.95761 23.67714 23.82053 17.60193 16.04474 18 }

Receptor information

Discrete receptorsReceptor coordinates type (1-Cartesian,0-Polar),Number of Receptors{1 3 }X, Y coordinates and Elevation{38 972 0 }X, Y coordinates and Elevation{245 552 0 }X, Y coordinates and Elevation{319 143 0 }

Gridded receptorsReceptor coordinates type (1-Cartesian, 0-Polar), Number of X and Y coordinates,Receptor height{1 71 81 0 }

X grid coordinates{0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 11601180 1200 1220 1240 1260 1280 1300 1320 1340 1360 1380 1400 }

Y grid coordinates{0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 11601180 1200 1220 1240 1260 1280 1300 1320 1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460 1480 1500 1520 1540 1560 1580 1600 }

Model settings and parametersEmission conversion factor, Averaging Time{1000 3 }

Land use (surface roughness){0.8}

Averaging time flags (1,2,3,4,6,8,12,24 hrs, 7, 90 days, 3 month, All hrs{0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 }

Statistical output options{0 0 }

Output options (All meteodata, Every concentration/deposition, Highest/2nd highest, 100 worst case table, Save all calculations{0 0 0 1 0 0 }Write concentration (1-yes, 0-no), Concentration rank, Write frequency, Frequency Level{1 1 0 -1 }

Disregard exponents (1-yes, 0-no), Exponent Scheme (1-Irvin urban, 2-Irvin rural, 3-ISCST, 4-User Defined{0 1 }Dispersion exponents{0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Page 3

Genesis both.cfg0.2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 }

Building wake effects (1-include,0-not) , Default decay coefficient, Anemometr height, Sigma-theta averaging period, Roughness at vane site, Smooth stability changes, ConvectivePDF){1 0 10 60 0.3 0 0 }

Deposition options, Depletion options{False False False False False False }

Stability class adjustments (0-None, 1-Urban1, 2-Urban2){0}Building wake algorithms (1-Huber-Sneider, 2-Hybrid, 3-Schulman-Scire){4}

Gradual plume rise (1-yes,0-no), Stack tip downwash (1-yes,0-no), Disregard Temperature Gradient (1-yes,0-no), Partial Penetration, Temp Gradient, Adiabatic Entrainment, Stable Entrainment{1 1 0 0 0.004 0.6 0.6 }Temperature Gradients for Wind and Stability categories{0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 }

Dispersion curves (1-Pasquill Gifford, 2- Briggs rural, 3-Sigma theta) horizontal < 100 m, ditto vertical < 100 m, ditto horizontal > 100 m, ditto vertical > 100 m {1 1 2 2 }Adjust PG curves for roughness - Horizontal, Vertical (1-yes,0-no){1 1 }Enhance plume for buyoancy - Horizontal, Vertical (1-yes,0-no){1 1 }Adjust for wind direction shear{0}Shear rates{0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.035 }

Wind Speed categories{1.54 3.09 5.14 8.23 10.8 }

Output file{'C:\Program Files (x86)\Ausplume\AUSPLUME.TXT'}Meteorological file{'C:\AUSPLUME\EdinAfld2000.met'}Concentration file{'C:\AUSPLUME\genesis conc.dat'}

Page 4

comb 1h.TXT1 _______ all _______

Concentration or deposition Concentration Emission rate units grams/second Concentration units milligrams/m3 Units conversion factor 1.00E+03 Constant background concentration 0.00E+00 Terrain effects None Smooth stability class changes? No Other stability class adjustments ("urban modes") None Ignore building wake effects? No Decay coefficient (unless overridden by met. file) 0.000 Anemometer height 10 m Roughness height at the wind vane site 0.300 m Averaging time for sigma-theta values 60 min.

DISPERSION CURVES Horizontal dispersion curves for sources <100m high Sigma-theta Vertical dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Horizontal dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Vertical dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Enhance horizontal plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Enhance vertical plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Adjust horizontal P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Adjust vertical P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Roughness height 0.800m Adjustment for wind directional shear None

PLUME RISE OPTIONS Gradual plume rise? Yes Stack-tip downwash included? Yes Building downwash algorithm: PRIME method. Entrainment coeff. for neutral & stable lapse rates 0.60,0.60 Partial penetration of elevated inversions? No Disregard temp. gradients in the hourly met. file? No

and in the absence of boundary-layer potential temperature gradients given by the hourly met. file, a value from the following table (in K/m) is used:

Wind Speed Stability Class Category A B C D E F ________________________________________________________ 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035 6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035

WIND SPEED CATEGORIES Boundaries between categories (in m/s) are: 1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80

WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS: "Irwin Urban" values (unless overridden by met. file)

AVERAGING TIMES 1 hour

_____________________________________________________________________________

1 __________________________ all

Page 1

comb 1h.TXT SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS __________________________

STACK SOURCE: COMBUS

X(m) Y(m) Ground Elev. Stack Height Diameter Temperature Speed 783 903 0m 17m 0.95m 800C 20.0m/s

______ Effective building dimensions (in metres) ______ Flow direction 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100° 110° 120° Effective building width 34 34 15 16 16 16 23 22 20 38 40 21 Effective building height 15 15 15 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 Along-flow building length 15 15 16 16 16 16 24 23 21 20 20 21 Along-flow distance from stack -30 -31 -32 -33 -32 -31 12 16 19 21 22 21 Across-flow distance from stack 1 -2 3 -2 -6 -11 -21 -17 -12 -17 -12 4

Flow direction 130° 140° 150° 160° 170° 180° 190° 200° 210° 220° 230° 240° Effective building width 23 24 24 24 23 33 34 34 15 16 16 16 Effective building height 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Along-flow building length 19 24 19 18 16 18 15 15 16 16 16 16 Along-flow distance from stack 29 16 29 28 26 14 15 16 17 17 16 15 Across-flow distance from stack -10 15 5 12 18 -5 -1 2 -3 2 6 11

Flow direction 250° 260° 270° 280° 290° 300° 310° 320° 330° 340° 350° 360° Effective building width 23 22 20 38 40 21 23 24 24 24 23 33 Effective building height 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 15 Along-flow building length 24 23 21 20 20 21 19 24 24 18 16 18 Along-flow distance from stack -36 -38 -40 -40 -42 -42 -48 -40 -37 -45 -42 -32 Across-flow distance from stack 21 17 12 17 12 -4 10 -15 -20 -12 -18 4

(Constant) emission rate = 1.00E+00 grams/second No gravitational settling or scavenging.

_____________________________________________________________________________

1 ______________________ all RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ______________________

The Cartesian receptor grid has the following x-values (or eastings): 0.m 20.m 40.m 60.m 80.m 100.m 120.m 140.m 160.m 180.m 200.m 220.m 240.m 260.m 280.m 300.m 320.m 340.m 360.m 380.m 400.m 420.m 440.m 460.m 480.m 500.m 520.m 540.m

Page 2

comb 1h.TXT 560.m 580.m 600.m 620.m 640.m 660.m 680.m 700.m 720.m 740.m 760.m 780.m 800.m 820.m 840.m 860.m 880.m 900.m 920.m 940.m 960.m 980.m 1000.m 1020.m 1040.m 1060.m 1080.m 1100.m 1120.m 1140.m 1160.m 1180.m 1200.m 1220.m 1240.m 1260.m 1280.m 1300.m 1320.m 1340.m 1360.m 1380.m 1400.m

and these y-values (or northings): 0.m 20.m 40.m 60.m 80.m 100.m 120.m 140.m 160.m 180.m 200.m 220.m 240.m 260.m 280.m 300.m 320.m 340.m 360.m 380.m 400.m 420.m 440.m 460.m 480.m 500.m 520.m 540.m 560.m 580.m 600.m 620.m 640.m 660.m 680.m 700.m 720.m 740.m 760.m 780.m 800.m 820.m 840.m 860.m 880.m 900.m 920.m 940.m 960.m 980.m 1000.m 1020.m 1040.m 1060.m 1080.m 1100.m 1120.m 1140.m 1160.m 1180.m 1200.m 1220.m 1240.m 1260.m 1280.m 1300.m 1320.m 1340.m 1360.m 1380.m 1400.m 1420.m 1440.m 1460.m 1480.m 1500.m 1520.m 1540.m 1560.m 1580.m 1600.m

DISCRETE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS (in metres)

No. X Y ELEVN HEIGHT No. X Y ELEVN HEIGHT 1 38 972 0.0 0.0 3 319 143 0.0 0.0 2 245 552 0.0 0.0

_____________________________________________________________________________

METEOROLOGICAL DATA : Location :Edinburgh Airfield :Surface Roughness 0.3m

_____________________________________________________________________________

1 Peak values for the 100 worst cases (in milligrams/m3) Averaging time = 1 hour

Rank Value Time Recorded Coordinates hour,date (* denotes polar)

1 1.11E-01 11,01/02/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 2 1.09E-01 13,02/11/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 3 1.03E-01 04,20/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 4 1.03E-01 22,01/11/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 5 1.02E-01 13,16/02/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 6 1.02E-01 15,09/02/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 7 1.01E-01 15,17/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 8 1.01E-01 24,12/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 9 1.01E-01 19,01/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 10 1.01E-01 24,30/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 11 1.00E-01 15,25/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 12 1.00E-01 17,22/02/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 13 1.00E-01 13,19/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 14 1.00E-01 21,14/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 15 9.98E-02 15,19/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 16 9.98E-02 11,14/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 17 9.97E-02 18,29/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 18 9.95E-02 06,24/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 19 9.95E-02 10,09/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 20 9.91E-02 05,10/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 21 9.91E-02 15,22/06/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 22 9.87E-02 14,16/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 23 9.84E-02 02,21/07/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 24 9.81E-02 03,08/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 25 9.81E-02 03,14/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0)

Page 3

comb 1h.TXT 26 9.80E-02 15,27/11/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 27 9.77E-02 10,17/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 28 9.73E-02 02,13/02/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 29 9.71E-02 04,05/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 30 9.63E-02 23,23/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 31 9.63E-02 24,23/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 32 9.62E-02 09,09/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 33 9.62E-02 16,25/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 34 9.62E-02 16,08/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 35 9.61E-02 15,27/03/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 36 9.59E-02 06,19/07/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 37 9.58E-02 11,20/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 38 9.58E-02 01,02/11/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 39 9.53E-02 10,29/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 40 9.52E-02 12,24/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 41 9.51E-02 04,28/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 42 9.46E-02 03,24/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 43 9.45E-02 15,19/04/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 44 9.45E-02 01,30/04/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 45 9.42E-02 07,14/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 46 9.39E-02 22,14/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 47 9.32E-02 09,26/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 48 9.30E-02 14,13/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 49 9.30E-02 03,18/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 50 9.29E-02 02,12/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 51 9.28E-02 13,31/03/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 52 9.28E-02 04,18/03/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 53 9.27E-02 15,09/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 54 9.23E-02 14,26/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 55 9.23E-02 12,27/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 56 9.21E-02 17,29/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 57 9.21E-02 12,22/06/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 58 9.20E-02 04,24/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 59 9.19E-02 24,27/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 60 9.18E-02 05,28/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 61 9.18E-02 14,08/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 62 9.10E-02 05,24/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 63 9.10E-02 17,30/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 64 9.10E-02 02,15/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 65 9.03E-02 10,16/04/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 66 9.01E-02 15,26/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 67 8.98E-02 14,19/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 68 8.98E-02 12,14/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 69 8.97E-02 08,09/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 70 8.95E-02 13,16/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 71 8.93E-02 05,08/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 72 8.85E-02 16,09/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 73 8.85E-02 06,14/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 74 8.84E-02 01,18/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 75 8.74E-02 14,02/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 76 8.68E-02 12,01/02/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 77 8.68E-02 24,14/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 78 8.68E-02 06,21/07/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 79 8.67E-02 12,14/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 80 8.66E-02 17,16/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 81 8.65E-02 21,29/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 82 8.60E-02 15,13/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 83 8.59E-02 17,24/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 84 8.58E-02 02,28/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 85 8.58E-02 05,21/07/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 86 8.52E-02 12,30/04/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 87 8.52E-02 17,17/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 88 8.52E-02 12,09/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 89 8.52E-02 07,19/07/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 90 8.48E-02 13,08/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 91 8.47E-02 11,17/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 92 8.47E-02 24,01/11/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 93 8.47E-02 06,10/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0)

Page 4

comb 1h.TXT 94 8.37E-02 14,27/11/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 95 8.35E-02 04,15/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 96 8.34E-02 13,03/04/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 97 8.31E-02 10,14/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 98 8.29E-02 05,27/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 99 8.25E-02 01,14/11/00 ( 760, 900, 0.0) 100 8.22E-02 16,30/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0)

Page 5

comb 3min 99.9 odour.TXT1 _______ all _______

Concentration or deposition Concentration Emission rate units grams/second Concentration units milligrams/m3 Units conversion factor 1.00E+03 Constant background concentration 0.00E+00 Terrain effects None Smooth stability class changes? No Other stability class adjustments ("urban modes") None Ignore building wake effects? No Decay coefficient (unless overridden by met. file) 0.000 Anemometer height 10 m Roughness height at the wind vane site 0.300 m

DISPERSION CURVES Horizontal dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Vertical dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Horizontal dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Vertical dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Enhance horizontal plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Enhance vertical plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Adjust horizontal P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Adjust vertical P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Roughness height 0.800m Adjustment for wind directional shear None






AVERAGING TIME: 3 minutes.

_____________________________________________________________________________

1 __________________________ all SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS

Page 1

comb 3min 99.9 odour.TXT __________________________

STACK SOURCE: COMBUS


______ Effective building dimensions (in metres) ______ Flow direction 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100° 110° 120° Effective building width 34 34 15 16 16 16 23 22 20 38 40 21 Effective building height 15 15 15 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 Along-flow building length 15 15 16 16 16 16 24 23 21 20 20 21 Along-flow distance from stack -30 -31 -32 -33 -32 -31 12 16 19 21 22 21 Across-flow distance from stack 1 -2 3 -2 -6 -11 -21 -17 -12 -17 -12 4

Flow direction 130° 140° 150° 160° 170° 180° 190° 200° 210° 220° 230° 240° Effective building width 23 24 24 24 23 33 34 34 15 16 16 16 Effective building height 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Along-flow building length 19 24 19 18 16 18 15 15 16 16 16 16 Along-flow distance from stack 29 16 29 28 26 14 15 16 17 17 16 15 Across-flow distance from stack -10 15 5 12 18 -5 -1 2 -3 2 6 11

Flow direction 250° 260° 270° 280° 290° 300° 310° 320° 330° 340° 350° 360° Effective building width 23 22 20 38 40 21 23 24 24 24 23 33 Effective building height 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 15 Along-flow building length 24 23 21 20 20 21 19 24 24 18 16 18 Along-flow distance from stack -36 -38 -40 -40 -42 -42 -48 -40 -37 -45 -42 -32 Across-flow distance from stack 21 17 12 17 12 -4 10 -15 -20 -12 -18 4


_____________________________________________________________________________


The Cartesian receptor grid has the following x-values (or eastings): 0.m 20.m 40.m 60.m 80.m 100.m 120.m 140.m 160.m 180.m 200.m 220.m 240.m 260.m 280.m 300.m 320.m 340.m 360.m 380.m 400.m 420.m 440.m 460.m 480.m 500.m 520.m 540.m 560.m 580.m 600.m 620.m 640.m 660.m 680.m 700.m 720.m 740.m 760.m 780.m 800.m 820.m

Page 2

comb 3min 99.9 odour.TXT 840.m 860.m 880.m 900.m 920.m 940.m 960.m 980.m 1000.m 1020.m 1040.m 1060.m 1080.m 1100.m 1120.m 1140.m 1160.m 1180.m 1200.m 1220.m 1240.m 1260.m 1280.m 1300.m 1320.m 1340.m 1360.m 1380.m 1400.m




_____________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________

1 Peak values for the 100 worst cases (in milligrams/m3) Averaging time = 3 minutes


1 1.20E-01 11,01/02/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 2 1.19E-01 13,02/11/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 3 1.11E-01 13,16/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 4 1.09E-01 13,16/02/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 5 1.07E-01 14,16/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 6 1.07E-01 11,14/01/00 ( 820, 840, 0.0) 7 1.05E-01 04,20/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 8 1.05E-01 22,01/11/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 9 1.04E-01 15,09/02/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 10 1.03E-01 15,17/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 11 1.03E-01 24,12/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 12 1.03E-01 19,01/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 13 1.03E-01 07,14/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 14 1.03E-01 24,30/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 15 1.03E-01 15,25/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 16 1.03E-01 17,22/02/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 17 1.03E-01 13,19/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 18 1.03E-01 21,14/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 19 1.03E-01 15,19/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 20 1.03E-01 11,14/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 21 1.02E-01 18,29/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 22 1.02E-01 06,24/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 23 1.02E-01 10,09/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 24 1.02E-01 05,10/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 25 1.02E-01 15,22/06/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 26 1.01E-01 12,27/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 27 1.01E-01 03,08/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0)

Page 3

comb 3min 99.9 odour.TXT 28 1.01E-01 03,14/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 29 1.01E-01 02,21/07/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 30 1.01E-01 15,27/11/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 31 1.00E-01 10,17/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 32 9.97E-02 04,05/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 33 9.92E-02 12,18/10/00 ( 820, 840, 0.0) 34 9.92E-02 09,09/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 35 9.89E-02 23,23/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 36 9.89E-02 24,23/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 37 9.89E-02 16,25/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 38 9.89E-02 06,19/07/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 39 9.88E-02 16,08/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 40 9.88E-02 15,27/03/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 41 9.85E-02 11,20/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 42 9.85E-02 01,02/11/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 43 9.81E-02 10,29/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 44 9.80E-02 04,28/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 45 9.78E-02 12,24/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 46 9.73E-02 02,13/02/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 47 9.72E-02 03,24/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 48 9.72E-02 15,19/04/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 49 9.71E-02 01,30/04/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 50 9.65E-02 22,14/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 51 9.65E-02 11,02/02/00 ( 820, 860, 0.0) 52 9.60E-02 09,26/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 53 9.56E-02 14,13/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 54 9.56E-02 03,18/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 55 9.55E-02 02,12/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 56 9.54E-02 13,31/03/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 57 9.54E-02 04,18/03/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 58 9.53E-02 15,09/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 59 9.52E-02 14,26/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 60 9.49E-02 17,29/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 61 9.49E-02 12,22/06/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 62 9.49E-02 14,02/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 63 9.46E-02 05,28/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 64 9.46E-02 14,08/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 65 9.45E-02 04,24/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 66 9.44E-02 24,27/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 67 9.38E-02 13,18/10/00 ( 820, 860, 0.0) 68 9.35E-02 05,24/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 69 9.35E-02 17,30/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 70 9.35E-02 02,15/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 71 9.28E-02 15,26/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 72 9.28E-02 10,16/04/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 73 9.27E-02 12,01/02/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 74 9.26E-02 12,14/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 75 9.23E-02 14,19/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 76 9.23E-02 12,14/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 77 9.22E-02 08,09/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 78 9.21E-02 05,08/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 79 9.14E-02 10,27/11/00 ( 820, 840, 0.0) 80 9.12E-02 13,03/04/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 81 9.10E-02 16,09/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 82 9.10E-02 06,14/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 83 9.03E-02 12,02/02/00 ( 820, 880, 0.0) 84 8.95E-02 01,18/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 85 8.94E-02 14,27/11/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 86 8.92E-02 10,10/02/00 ( 820, 840, 0.0) 87 8.92E-02 24,14/10/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 88 8.91E-02 06,21/07/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 89 8.90E-02 17,16/12/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 90 8.83E-02 15,13/01/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 91 8.82E-02 17,24/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 92 8.82E-02 02,28/05/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 93 8.82E-02 05,21/07/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 94 8.78E-02 07,19/07/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 95 8.76E-02 21,29/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0)

Page 4

comb 3min 99.9 odour.TXT 96 8.76E-02 12,30/04/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 97 8.75E-02 17,17/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 98 8.75E-02 12,09/08/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 99 8.75E-02 13,08/09/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0) 100 8.73E-02 13,09/02/00 ( 840, 900, 0.0)

Page 5

hotoil 1h.TXT1 _______ all _______

Concentration or deposition Concentration Emission rate units grams/second Concentration units milligrams/m3 Units conversion factor 1.00E+03 Constant background concentration 0.00E+00 Terrain effects None Smooth stability class changes? No Other stability class adjustments ("urban modes") None Ignore building wake effects? No Decay coefficient (unless overridden by met. file) 0.000 Anemometer height 10 m Roughness height at the wind vane site 0.300 m

DISPERSION CURVES Horizontal dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Vertical dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford Horizontal dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Vertical dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural Enhance horizontal plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Enhance vertical plume spreads for buoyancy? Yes Adjust horizontal P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Adjust vertical P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes Roughness height 0.800m Adjustment for wind directional shear None






AVERAGING TIMES 1 hour

_____________________________________________________________________________

1 __________________________ all SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS

Page 1

hotoil 1h.TXT __________________________

STACK SOURCE: HOTOIL


______ Effective building dimensions (in metres) ______ Flow direction 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100° 110° 120° Effective building width 34 34 15 16 24 24 23 22 20 38 40 21 Effective building height 15 15 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Along-flow building length 15 15 16 16 24 24 24 23 21 20 20 21 Along-flow distance from stack -27 -29 -32 -33 1 4 7 10 13 14 15 14 Across-flow distance from stack 8 5 10 6 -21 -19 -16 -12 -8 -14 -10 5

Flow direction 130° 140° 150° 160° 170° 180° 190° 200° 210° 220° 230° 240° Effective building width 23 24 24 24 23 21 34 34 15 16 24 24 Effective building height 20 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 15 15 20 20 Along-flow building length 19 24 19 23 16 16 15 15 16 16 24 24 Along-flow distance from stack 21 9 22 4 21 19 12 14 16 17 -25 -28 Across-flow distance from stack -10 13 2 19 13 19 -8 -5 -10 -6 21 19

Flow direction 250° 260° 270° 280° 290° 300° 310° 320° 330° 340° 350° 360° Effective building width 23 22 20 38 40 21 23 24 24 24 23 21 Effective building height 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Along-flow building length 24 23 21 20 20 21 19 24 24 23 16 16 Along-flow distance from stack -31 -33 -34 -34 -35 -35 -40 -33 -31 -27 -37 -35 Across-flow distance from stack 16 12 8 14 10 -5 10 -13 -16 -19 -13 -19


_____________________________________________________________________________


The Cartesian receptor grid has the following x-values (or eastings): 0.m 20.m 40.m 60.m 80.m 100.m 120.m 140.m 160.m 180.m 200.m 220.m 240.m 260.m 280.m 300.m 320.m 340.m 360.m 380.m 400.m 420.m 440.m 460.m 480.m 500.m 520.m 540.m 560.m 580.m 600.m 620.m 640.m 660.m 680.m

Page 2

hotoil 1h.TXT 700.m 720.m 740.m 760.m 780.m 800.m 820.m 840.m 860.m 880.m 900.m 920.m 940.m 960.m 980.m 1000.m 1020.m 1040.m 1060.m 1080.m 1100.m 1120.m 1140.m 1160.m 1180.m 1200.m 1220.m 1240.m 1260.m 1280.m 1300.m 1320.m 1340.m 1360.m 1380.m 1400.m




_____________________________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________________

1 Peak values for the 100 worst cases (in milligrams/m3) Averaging time = 1 hour


1 9.72E-01 12,14/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 2 9.66E-01 12,06/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 3 9.65E-01 13,06/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 4 9.54E-01 14,28/10/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 5 9.51E-01 21,16/01/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 6 9.49E-01 17,28/10/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 7 9.48E-01 22,16/01/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 8 9.46E-01 16,28/10/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 9 9.46E-01 13,21/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 10 9.46E-01 20,30/12/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 11 9.44E-01 15,01/04/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 12 9.42E-01 14,01/04/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 13 9.42E-01 14,23/01/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 14 9.41E-01 01,02/04/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 15 9.40E-01 15,11/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 16 9.40E-01 16,01/04/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 17 9.34E-01 05,10/04/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 18 9.34E-01 10,01/04/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 19 9.33E-01 24,05/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 20 9.31E-01 19,17/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 21 9.29E-01 18,23/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 22 9.26E-01 24,30/12/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 23 9.25E-01 18,17/11/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 24 9.25E-01 21,17/11/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 25 9.24E-01 14,15/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 26 9.24E-01 16,09/03/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0)

Page 3

hotoil 1h.TXT 27 9.23E-01 19,29/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 28 9.23E-01 14,06/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 29 9.23E-01 21,24/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 30 9.21E-01 23,16/01/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 31 9.21E-01 02,15/01/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 32 9.20E-01 18,06/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 33 9.20E-01 21,30/12/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 34 9.20E-01 19,01/04/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 35 9.19E-01 01,06/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 36 9.19E-01 03,29/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 37 9.19E-01 07,07/01/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 38 9.18E-01 22,18/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 39 9.17E-01 08,06/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 40 9.17E-01 24,03/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 41 9.17E-01 24,16/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 42 9.16E-01 19,01/12/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 43 9.16E-01 04,21/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 44 9.16E-01 11,23/04/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 45 9.15E-01 16,12/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 46 9.15E-01 13,20/03/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 47 9.15E-01 04,07/03/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 48 9.15E-01 09,28/10/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 49 9.14E-01 24,10/01/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 50 9.14E-01 08,07/01/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 51 9.14E-01 21,17/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 52 9.14E-01 17,10/04/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 53 9.12E-01 10,13/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 54 9.12E-01 01,17/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 55 9.11E-01 15,22/04/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 56 9.11E-01 22,30/12/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 57 9.11E-01 18,10/04/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 58 9.09E-01 24,23/01/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 59 9.09E-01 19,03/12/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 60 9.08E-01 07,06/03/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 61 9.08E-01 04,29/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 62 9.07E-01 19,24/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 63 9.07E-01 22,25/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 64 9.05E-01 07,21/11/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 65 9.05E-01 21,15/01/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 66 9.04E-01 20,23/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 67 9.03E-01 01,24/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 68 9.03E-01 20,09/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 69 9.02E-01 23,03/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 70 9.02E-01 18,30/12/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 71 9.02E-01 18,28/12/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 72 9.02E-01 03,23/11/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 73 9.00E-01 24,24/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 74 9.00E-01 19,06/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 75 9.00E-01 15,21/11/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 76 8.99E-01 19,13/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 77 8.99E-01 06,12/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 78 8.98E-01 16,05/03/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 79 8.97E-01 13,23/04/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 80 8.97E-01 22,24/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 81 8.96E-01 21,01/12/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 82 8.95E-01 09,23/01/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 83 8.95E-01 20,06/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 84 8.94E-01 08,27/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 85 8.93E-01 03,06/12/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 86 8.93E-01 23,17/11/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 87 8.90E-01 04,14/12/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 88 8.90E-01 16,11/11/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 89 8.89E-01 24,28/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 90 8.89E-01 06,14/12/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 91 8.89E-01 23,29/12/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 92 8.89E-01 21,23/01/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 93 8.85E-01 09,04/03/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 94 8.84E-01 05,18/12/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0)

Page 4

hotoil 1h.TXT 95 8.83E-01 09,25/10/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 96 8.80E-01 03,11/02/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0) 97 8.78E-01 07,06/02/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 98 8.74E-01 20,23/01/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 99 8.74E-01 05,06/02/00 ( 800, 880, 0.0) 100 8.71E-01 24,01/04/00 ( 800, 900, 0.0)

Page 5



T F E W


Project 235132 File Response To Request for Further Info (EPA) (Req #4) -26 Feb 2014.docx 26 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 1

26 February 2014 James Cother Senior Planning Advisor Environment Protection Authority GPO Box 2607 Adelaide SA 5001 Email – [email protected] Dear James Response to Request For Further Information DA 040-1857/13 – New bitumen storage tanks, product supply pipeline and associated works at 49 – 57 Veitch Road, Osborne SA 5107 Further to the EPAs request for further information (dated 9 December 2013) on the aforementioned development application we offer the following comments in response to the questions raised.

1 What is the maximum odour content (in OU/m3) in the headspace of a bitumen tank?

1.1 Bitumen Storage and Day Tanks

The maximum odour concentration in the headspace of bitumen tanks was measured and referenced in Appendix A of the Terminals Port Botany Plant Air Quality Report (GHD 2011) as shown below and in the attached excerpt (see Attachment A) (samples were analysed for odour, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)):

Site Gepps Cross Salisbury

Volume of Bitumen in Kettle (L) 13,000 31,750

Temperature of Bitumen 160 150

Temperature of headspace 143 122

Odour (OU/m3), [average] 69,000-77,000 [73,000] 77,000-82,000 [79,000]

These concentrations were used to determine the emissions from the storage and day tanks at Port Botany in Sydney; however an oxidation plant was also present at Port Botany which generated greater emissions. For this proposal, vapour from the storage and day tanks is diluted by air to reduce the risk of explosion prior to transfer to the combustor. We have based the odour concentration from the tanks on the diluted concentration of Hydrogen Sulphide as noted in the response to question 2. The attached process flow diagram 235132-PI-19/1 (see Attachment B) shows the notional dilution inlet point and vapour streams.

1.2 Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB) Plant and associated PMB Product Storage Tanks

Sampling from the tank vapour space of an operating PMB plant were obtained to estimate the odour for this application. As noted in our Air Quality Report, odour concentration from the PMB Plant was based on the diluted concentration of Hydrogen Sulphide as noted in the response to question 2. The


process flow diagram 235132-PI-19/1, contained in Attachment B, shows the notional dilution inlet point and vapour streams. The explosive limit monitoring panel is shown on process flow diagram 235132-PI-19/2 and provides confirmation that the vapours entering the combustor are less than 25% of the lower explosive limit. It is standard practice to use an odour threshold to estimate odour concentration from the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3). Please refer below in the response to question 3. This approach was also used for the Port Botany Plant for vapour from the oxidation process (as we have done for vapour from the PMB process).

2 What is the maximum odour venting rate (in OU/s) expected on site and when does it occur?

Process vapours from the PMB Plant are passed through a scrubber to remove Sulphur, prior to entry into the combustor. It is intended that ALL vapour discharges from the tanks, gantry and scrubber be vented to the vapour collection system for destruction at the combustor. There will be no tank or process venting to atmosphere if the vapour collection system is operating correctly. If the vapour collection system is not operating, no transfers from any tanks will be possible. Terminals’ Port Botany plant also has procedures to ensure that no imports are initiated unless the vapour collection system is operating. The calculations prepared for the EPA application assume operation of the PMB plant while importing bitumen, with the combustor and scrubber operating. This scenario results in the worst case emissions with emission rates presented below and on the process flow table (Attachment D): Vapour Flow Case

Total Vapour Flow from combustor including dil. Air

(Sm3/h)

Emission rate of H2S from the combustor

with 99.9% destruction efficiency

Discharge conditions 17.5m Height

0.6m Diameter 825ºC

Importing bitumen, PMB plant operating

5,796 2.23 mg/s

4,500 OU/s

21.7 m/s

Please note that the combustor emissions are based on a destruction efficiency of 99.9%, not 99% as detailed in the original Air Quality Assessment (please refer to the response provided to Question 7).

3 How much dilution will occur to maintain the odour vented material below the lower explosive limit?

For the Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB) plant, PMB tanks and Gantry loads, the dilution rates assumed are 1 part tank/process vapour to 8.5 parts air. This ratio is used for the PMB plant operating, no import case. Note that the flow from the PMB Plants and tanks are passed through a scrubber to extract H2S from the flow prior to dilution. When importing without the PMB plant operating, the dilution rate is 1 part vapour to 5.7 parts air, as it is known during ship imports the vapours given off at the tanks can have high VOCs. This flow from the tanks does not pass through the scrubber. The calculation of emission rates given in response to question 2 are after dilution and prior to the vapour stream entering the combustor.


4 What odour feed rate (in OU/s) is the thermal oxidiser designed for?

The combustor is designed for a destruction efficiency based on a residence time at an operating temperature inside the combustion chamber. The unit can therefore handle a wide range of H2S concentration and still achieve the specified destruction efficiency. Of more importance is the vapour flow rate through the unit, as this will affect the residence time in the combustor. The combustor will be designed to treat vapour as summarised in the response to question 2.

5 Justification that the use of hydrogen-sulphide-odour unit ratio is valid for this application?

We have checked the information that we received from CEC PTY. LTD. They state that 1 OU for H2S is 0.0004 ppm, the source of which is a paper by Yoshio Nagata. A value of 0.0004 ppm calculates to 0.00058 mg/m3 so the 0.0005 mg/m3 figure used is conservative. Please refer to the attached reference paper “Measurement of Odour Threshold by Triangular Odour Bag Method” by Yoshio Nagata .(Attachment C).

6 Justification that the use of a 99% oxidiser destruction efficiency is valid for this application.

We understand that the NSW EPA licence for the Port Botany Bitumen Project was issued based on a minimum combustor destruction efficiency of 1 second and 760 ºC (i.e. approximately 99% destruction efficiency). After the Port Botany combustor was commissioned, testing was performed to determine optimal operating parameters with the aim of conserving energy whilst maintaining an acceptable emission concentration. Please refer to the table of estimated destruction efficiency received from Australian Burner Manufacturers as part of correspondence for the Port Botany Project.

Temp. (oC)

Residence Time (sec)

**DRE

1 760 0.5 98%

2 825 1 99.9%

3 880 1 99.99%

4 980 1 99.999%

5 980 2 99.9999%

The same philosophy will be employed during commissioning and testing of the new combustor at Veitch Road; i.e. optimal process parameters for the combustor will be determined whilst maintaining an acceptable emission concentration. Please note that the design destruction efficiency of the combustor will be 99.9% with a design temperature within the combustor of 825 ºC and a design residence time of 1.0 second.

7 Air Quality Assessment - Amendment

Please note that in responding to the EPA request for further information a detailed review of the Air Quality Assessment was carried out. During this review we identified some errors in our calculations; hence we will also be updating the overall air quality assessment report for this development application. The final version of this report will be supplied within the next week. The errors included:

Incorrect calculation of the odour emission rate based on the Hydrogen Sulphide concentration

Invalid assumptions regarding the discharge conditions for the combustor


Invalid assumptions that CO, NOx and SO2 would be destructed as per H2S. SO2 will actually increase given conversion of H2S to SO2 during the combustion process.

We trust that these responses satisfactorily address the questions raised by the EPA in the letter dated December 9 2013. Should you have any further queries please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on (08) 8237 9987.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Howard


CC – Gabrielle, McMahon, Chief Planning Officer, Development Assessment Commission, GPO Box 1815, Adelaide, SA 5001


Attachment A

Excerpt from Terminals Port Botany Plant Air Quality Report (GHD 2011) (as supplied in Appendix A of original development application)


Attachement B

Process Flow Diagram 235132-PI-19/1




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

LEGEND

F1922V1901 P1901V1902




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

NOTES


Attachement C

“Measurement of Odour Threshold by Triangular Odour Bag Method” by Yoshio Nagata

126

Measurement of Odor Threshold by Triangular Odor Bag Method

Yoshio Nagata

Japan Environmental Sanitation Center

Abstract

The detection thresholds of odor substances analyzed in field investigations were measured

by the triangular odor bag method1). The number of substances used for the experiment is 223.

The experiment was carried out from 1976 to 1988.

As the results of the experiments, the odor thresholds were distributed over the

concentration of large range depending on the odor substances. Isoamyl mercaptane exhibited

the lowest threshold (0.77ppt), and propane exhibited the highest threshold (1500 ppm). The

distribution of thresholds expresses the normal distribution. Sulfur compounds with the

exception of sulfur dioxide and carbon disulfide have the comparatively low threshold. It is

showed the tendency that threshold becomes low as the increase of molecular weight in a

certain range of molecular weight.

When the dispersion of odor thresholds for the same substance was shown at the ratio of the

highest to the lowest odor threshold tested, the dispersion of odor thresholds was about 5 at the

maximum. The thresholds of 223 substances measured by our laboratory were considered to

be the average values with small bias comparatively.

1 Introduction

The thresholds were needed also in the evaluation based on instrumental measuring method,

and also in the evaluation based on olfactory measuring method in odor studies. On that

occasion, the data of the threshold by the foreign researcher, for example, Leonardos et al. (53

substances)2) or Hellman et al. (101substances)3), has greatly been made reference in Japan.

But, the thresholds of substances that aren't reported to these literatures are also needed. And,

a threshold may vary considerably in the difference of measuring method to the same

material. Therefore, the need to measure thresholds individually is arising. The detection

thresholds of 223 substances detected in various odor sources were measured in our laboratory

by the triangular odor bag method4).

2 Odorants and experimental method

2.1 Preparation of primary odor sample

The standard gas such as the sulfurous acid gas taken from the standard gas bomb was

injected in polyester bag filled with nitrogen gas using gastightsyringe. In case the reagent was

liquid, the primary odor sample was prepared by vaporizing, after it was injected in polyester

bag filled with nitrogen gas with microsyringe. And in case the reagent was a solid like

Skatole, the sublimation gas was collected in the bag. The odor samples were left for 2 hours

or more in order to stabilize their gas concentration.

2.2 Concentration measurement of primary odor sample

Ammonia was measured by indophenol method, diosmin, skatole, indole were measured by

gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Other odorants were measured by gas

chromatography (FID, FPD, FTD). In case of the standard gas such as sulfur dioxide, the

concentration displayed on the bomb were used.

127

2.3 Measurement of odor concentration , and odor panel

The odor concentration was measured by the triangular odor bag method. In the triangular

odor bag method, the threshold is obtained by

detecting the difference from odor-free

background. Therefore, the odor thresholds

reported are nearly equal to the detection

threshold. The measurement of the threshold was

carried out in 12 years from 1976 to 1988 (Fgure

1). An odor panel consists of 6 panelists. All

panelists have passed the panel screening test by

T&T olfactometer. Their ages are 50-year-old

from 20-year-old. Some panelists changed in

these 12 years. However, four persons (woman)

among 6 panelists are the panelists from the first

time. All panelists are trained.

2.4 Calculation of threshold value

In this examination, the value which

divided the concentration of the primary

odor sample by the odor concentration as a

principle was determined as the detection

threshold (ppm,v/v).

detection threshold (ppm,v/v) =

the concentration of primary odor sample /

odor concentration

As shown in Table 1, about the odorants

such as amines, fatty acids, skatole and

indole, since the dilution error was large

compared with other substances, their

thresholds were corrected by their recovery

rate. About the odorants of which the

thresholds were measured repeatedly, the

geometric mean of each observed value was

taken as the threshold of the odorant.

3 Result of threshold measurement

The thresholds of 223 odorants measured in the experiment are shown in the Table 2. The

thresholds in the wide range of about 2 billion times to 1500ppm (propane) from 0.77ppt

(Isoamyl mercaptane) were observed.

3.1 Comparison with the measurement results of odor intensity by the odorless

chamber method

About 53 offensive odor substances, the relation between odor intensity (6-points scale) and

the concentration of odor substance was observed in our laboratory5). The odorless chamber of

4 m3 was used for the experiment. As for 51 of 53 substances, the threshold of each substance

was determined also by the triangular odor bag method. Then, the threshold determined by the

Substance Primary odor

Hydrogen sulfide Methyl mercaptaneDimethyl sulfide n -Hexane Toluene n-Nonane o,m,p - yleneStyrene Ammonia Trimethylamine

Propionaldehyde lsobutylaldehyde n-Valeraldehyde n-Butyric acid Isobutyric acid Isovaleric acid Indole Skatole

Table Dilution error of the odor bag

The injector made from a plastic was used.

The glass injector was used in the result of others.

128

triangular odor bag method was substituted for the relational expression between the

concentration of odorant and odor intensity, and the threshold was converted into odor

intensity. As the calculated results, the average value of the odor intensity equivalent of each

substance was almost scale 1 of odor intensity. Scale 1 of odor intensity corresponded to the

detection threshold. Both the measuring methods are based on the air dilution method, and the

thresholds observed by both methods agreed in many substances approximately.

3.2 Distribution of thresholds for chemical compounds

The histogram of Figure 2 shows the

distribution of the thresholds of

compounds, such as sulfur compounds

and oxygenated compounds, etc. The

distribution of thresholds expresses the

normal distribution. As shown in this

figure, the thresholds are distributed in

a wide range of concentration

depending on the odor substances and

compounds. The top of the distribution

of the threshold was 10ppt 1ppb as

for the sulfur compounds, 1ppb

10ppb as for the oxygenated

compounds, 10ppb 100ppb as for the

nitrogen compounds, 100ppb 1ppm

as for the hydrocarbon and 1ppm

10ppm as for the chlorine compounds.

Sulfur compounds with the exception

of sulfur dioxide and carbon disulfide have the comparatively low threshold.

3.3 Relation between threshold and Molecular Weight

Although a clear tendency is not recognized on the whole, there is the tendency that the

threshold decreases as the increase of molecular weight in the range to 120-130 as molecular

weight (Figure 3).

Further that tendency becomes clear when it is observed in the homologous series.

In most case of homologous series in the chemical compounds such as alcohol (Figure 4),

aldehyde, mercaptan, ketone and hydrocarbon, it is showed the tendency that threshold

becomes low as the increase of molecular weight in a certain range of molecular weight.

Figure 2 Distribution of thresholds for compounds

Molecular weight

Thre

shold

Figure 3 Relation between threshold and Molecular weight

Figure 4 Thresholds of Aliphatic alcohols(Homologous series)

Th

resh

old

pp

m

Fre

quency

Treshold

129

3.4 Difference of the threshold

between isomers

It is further found that a great

difference in the thresholds between

isomers. When the functional group

is different such as aldehyde and

ketone, fatty acid and ester, it is not

rare that the thresholds are different

about 10000 times between isomers.

Moreover, the thresholds may be

different even between position

isomerism more than 100 times

(Figure 5).

Table 2 Odor thresholds measured by the triangular odor bag method (ppm,v/v) T

hre

sh

old

pp

m

Isopropanol

n-Propanol

tert.Butanol

sec.Butanol

n-Butanol

Isobutanol

n-Pentanoltert. Pentanol

Isopentanol

Isooctanol

n-Octanol

sec.Pentanol

Figure 5 Thresholds of Aliphatic alcohols(Between isomers )

Substance Odor Threshold Substance Odor Threshold

Formaldehyde 0.50 Hydrogen sulfide 0.00041Acetaldehyde 0.0015 Dimethyl sulfide 0.0030Propionaldehyde 0.0010 Methyl allyl sulfide 0.00014

n-Butylaldehyde 0.00067 Diethyl sulfide 0.000033lsobutylaldehyde 0.00035 Allyl sulfide 0.00022

n-Valeraldehyde 0.00041 Carbon disulfide 0.21I sovaleraldehyde 0.00010 Dimethyl disulfide 0.0022

n-Hexylaldehyde 0.00028 Diethyl disulfide 0 0020 n-Heptylaldehyde 0.00018 Diallyl disulfide 0.00022 n-Octylaldehyde 0.000010 Methyl mercaptane 0.000070 n-Nonylaldehyde 0.00034 Ethyl mercaptane 0.0000087 n-Decylaldehyde 0.00040 n-Propyl mercaptane 0.000013

Acrolein 0.0036 Isopropyl mercaptane 0.0000060Methacrolein 0.0085 n-Butyl mercaptane 0.0000028Crotonaldehyde 0.023 Isobutyl mercaptane 0.0000068Methanol 33 sec. Butyl mercaptane 0.000030Ethanol 0.52 tert. Butyl mercaptane 0.000029

n-Propanol 0.094 n-Amyl mercaptane 0.00000078I sopropanol 26 Isoamyl mercaptane 0.00000077

n-Butanol 0.038 n-Hexyl mercaptane 0.000015I sobutanol 0.011 Thiophene 0.00056

sec.Butanol 0.22 Tetrahydrothiophene 0.00062tert.Butanol 4.5 Nitrogen dioxide 0.12

n-Pentanol 0.10 Ammonia 1.5Isopentanol 0.0017 Methylamine 0.035

sec.Pentanol 0.29 Ethylamine 0.046tert. Pentanol 0.088 n-Propylamine 0.061

n-Hexanol 0.0060 Isopropylamine 0.025 n-Heptanol 0.0048 n-Butylamine 0.17 n-Octanol 0.0027 Isobutylamine 0.0015

Isooctanol 0.0093 sec. Butylamine 0.17 n-Nonanol 0.00090 tert. Butylamine 0.17 n-Decanol 0.00077 Dimethylamine 0.033

2-Ethoxyethanol 0.58 Diethylamine 0.0482-n-Buthoxyethanol 0.043 Trimethylamine 0.0000321-Butoxy-2-propanol 0.16 Triethylamine 0.0054Phenol 0.0056 Acetonitrile 13

o-Cresol 0.00028 Acrylonitrile 8.8 m-Cresol 0.00010 Methacrylonitrile 3.0 p-Cresol 0.000054 Pyridine 0.063

Geosmin 0.0000065 Indole 0.00030Acetic acid 0.0060 Skatole 0.0000056Propionic acid 0.0057 Ethyl-o-toluidine 0.026

n-Butyric acid 0.00019 Propane 1500Isobutyric acid 0.0015 n-Butane 1200

n-Valeric acid 0.000037 n-Pentane 1.4Isovaleric acid 0.000078 Isopentane 1.3

n-Hexanoic acid 0.00060 n -Hexane 1.5Isohexanoic acid 0.00040 2-Methylpentane 7.0Sulfur dioxide 0.87 3-Methylpentane 8.9Carbonyl sulfide 0.055 2, 2-Dimethylbutane 20

130


2, 3-Dimethylbutane 0.42 Ethyl acetate 0.87 n-Heptane 0.67 n-Propyl acetate 0.242-Methylhexane 0.42 Isopropyl acetate 0.163-Methylhexane 0.84 n-Butyl acetate 0.0163-Ethylpentane 0.37 Isobutyl acetate 0.00802, 2-Dimethylpentane 38 sec.Butyl acetate 0.00242, 3-Dimethylpentane 4.5 tert.Butyl acetate 0.0712, 4-Dimethylpentane 0.94 n-Hexyl acetate 0.0018

n-Octane 1.7 Methyl propionate 0.0982-Methylheptane 0.11 Ethyl propionate 0.00703-Methylheptane 1.5 n-Propyl propionate 0.0584-Methylheptane 1.7 Isopropyl propionate 0.00412, 2, 4-Trimethylpentane 0.67 n-Butyl propionate 0.036

n-Nonane 2.2 Isobutyl propionate 0.0202, 2, 5-Trimethylhexane 0.90 Methyl n-butyrate 0.0071

n-Undecane 0.87 Methyl isobutyrate 0.0019 n-Decane 0.62 Ethyl n-butyrate 0.000040 n-Dodecane 0.11 Ethyl isobutyrate 0.000022Propylene 13 n-Propy n-butyrate 0.0111-Butene 0.36 Isopropyl n-butyrate 0.0062Isobutene 10 n-propyl isobutyrate 0.00201-Pentene 0.10 Isopropyl isobutyrate 0.0351-Hexene 0.14 n-Butyl n-butyrate 0.00481-Heptene 0.37 Isobutyl n-butyrate 0.00161-Octene 0.0010 n-Butyl isobutyrate 0.0221-Nonene 0.00054 Isobutyl isobutyrate 0.0751,3-Butadiene 0.23 Methyl n-valerate 0.0022Isoprene 0.048 Methyl isovalerate 0.0022Benzene 2.7 Ethyl n-valerate 0.00011Toluene 0.33 Ethyl isovalerate 0.000013Styrene 0.035 n-Propyl n-valerate 0.0033Ethylbenzene 0.17 n-Propyl isovalerate 0.000056

o-Xylene 0.38 n-Butyl isovalerate 0.012 m-Xylene 0.041 Isobutyl isovalerate 0.0052 p-Xylene 0.058 Methyl acryrate 0.0035 n-Propylbenzene 0.0038 Ethyl acryrate 0.00026Isopropylbenzene 0.0084 n-Butyl acryrate 0.000551, 2, 4-Trimethylbenzen 0.12 Isobutyl acryrate 0.000901, 3, 5-Trimethylbenzen 0.17 Methyl methacryrate 0.21o-Ethyltoluene 0.074 2-Ethoxyethyl acetate 0.049m-Ethyltoluene 0.018 Acetone 42p-Ethyltoluene 0.0083 Methyl ethyl ketone 0.44o-Diethylbenzene 0.0094 Methyl n-propyl ketone 0.028m-Diethylbenzene 0.070 Methyl isopropyl ketone 0.50p-Diethylbenzene 0.00039 Methyl n-butyl ketone 0.024n-Butylbenzene 0.0085 Methyl isobutyl ketone 0.171, 2, 3, 4-Tetramethylbenzen 0.011 Methyl sec.butyl ketone 0.0241, 2, 3, 4-Tetrahydronaphthalene 0.0093 Methyl tert.butyl ketone 0.043-Pinene 0.018 Methyl n-amyl ketone 0.0068-Pinene 0.033 Methyl isoamyl ketone 0.0021

Limonene 0.038 Diacetyl 0.000050Methylcyclopentane 1.7 Ozone 0.0032Cyclohexane 2.5 Furane 9.9Methylcyclohexane 0.15 2, 5-Dihydrofurane 0.093Methyl formate 130 Chlorine 0.049Ethyl formate 2.7 Dichloromethane 160n-Propyl formate 0.96 Chloroform 3.8Isopropyl formate 0.29 Trichloroethylene 3.9

n-Butyl formate 0.087 Carbon tetrachloride 4.6Isobutyl formate 0.49 Tetrachloroethylene 0.77Mthyl acetate 1.7

Table 2 Odor thresholds measured by the triangle odor bag method (ppm,v/v) (continued)

131

4 Precision and accuracy of the measurement results of the threshold

4.1 Reproducibility-within-laboratory (The result measured by our laboratory)

It was thought that the odor thresholds would vary because of the difference in the

measuring method and the attribute of odor panel, etc.

The measurement of the threshold of each odor substance was carried out on separate days.

The measuring instruments used on each test were the same. 4 persons in panel member of 6

persons are same during the measurement period. About some substances, the measurements

of the threshold have carried out after ten years or more have passed since the first

measurement. Though the measurements for many of prepared substances were carried out

only once. But the measurements were carried out twice or more per substance about 25

substances of 223 substances.

Figure 6 shows that variation of odor

thresholds for repeated tests on the same

substances. The sensory tests were carried

out on separate days. And, the dispersion

of odor thresholds for the same substance

was shown at the ratio of the highest to

the lowest odor threshold tested, and it

was shown in Table 3. Though the number

of repetitions is different with substance

from 2 times to 9 times, the dispersion of

odor thresholds was about 5 at the

maximum.

4.2 Reproducibility-within-laboratory ( the results of the practices in the Environment

training center where these are carried out once a year )

We have held the training session of the sensory test method for inexperienced person once a year since 1983. The thresholds of hydrogen sulfide, m-xylene and ethyl acetate were measured during the practical training. The measurements were carried out in the same place every year. The measuring instruments used on each test were also the same. Operators and panel members are untrained persons and are changed every year. The results are shown in Table 4 and Figure 7.

When the results by the untrained panel were compared with the results by the trained panel,

The number of times of

measurement

The number of substances

Ratio of the highest to the lowest threshold

1

Table 3 Variation of thresholds on thesame substances

Substance Substance

Hydrogen sulfide n-Butyl acetate

Methyl mercaptane Diacetyl

Dimethyl sulfide Acetic acid

Carbon disulfide Ammonia

Nitrogen dioxide

Methyl allyl sulfide Isopentane

Formaldehyde Toluene

I sovaleraldehyde Styrene

n-Hexylaldehyde o- ylene

n-Propanol m- ylene

Isopropanol Ethylbenzene

sec.Butanol Chlorine

Ethyl acetate

Substance No

Th

resh

old

Figure 6 Result of repeated tests on the same substances by trained panel.

(The name of each substance was shown in the right table.)

132

the significant difference was not recognized on mean value and dispersion of the thresholds6).The untrained panel members are considered to have got used to the sensory test through the panel screening test and the preliminary practice of the triangular odor bag method before the measurement of the thresholds.

4.3 Reproducibility by

inter-laboratory test

In 1985, inter-laboratory

comparison test by the triangular

odor bag method was carried out. 5

odor laboratories including our

laboratory participated in the test.

The results are shown in Figure 8

and Table 5. m-Xylene and dimethyl

sulfide were chosen as the reference

materials for sensory test. The

sample no.1,2,3,4 are m-xylene of

which the concentration differs,

and the sample no.5,6,7 are

dimethyl sulfide of which the

concentration differs.

Figure 8 Results of inter-laboratory test by 5 laboratories

Figure 7 Result of odor thresholds on the same substances(Untrained persons carried out the measurements once per year.)

Table 4 Variation of odor thresholds on the same substances ( from Figure 7)

133

The dispersion of the

measurement results was

shown the ratio of highest to

lowest odor threshold measured

by each laboratory. The

dispersion of the thresholds

between 5 laboratories was as

large as 18 in the sample no.1

that was measured first. And,

the dispersion of other 6

samples was less than 8. When

the measurement results of 2

laboratories which have a few

measurement experience are removed, the dispersions are less than 5 every sample.

4.4 Accuracy of the thresholds measured by our laboratory

1) In 2002, the inter-laboratory test was carried out in order to raise the accuracy of the

triangular odor bag method. A total of 137 odor laboratories in Japan participated in the test.

In the test, the threshold of ethyl acetate was measured7). As the result measured by 137

laboratories, the mean value of the threshold of ethyl acetate was 0.89 ppm. The threshold

of ethyl acetate measured by our laboratory 0.87 ppm (the measured value in 1979) is

almost the same as this value.

2) As shown in Figure 8, in the inter-laboratory test by 5 laboratories, the threshold measured

by our laboratory is 0.6 times to 1.3 times of the geometric mean, almost near the average

value.

3) In Europe, the dynamic olfactometry has been standardized as the measuring method of

odor concentration, and it has been reported that the threshold of n-butanol measured by

this method was approximately 40 ppb8). We had reported that the threshold of n-butanol

measured by the triangular odor bag method was 38 ppb (the measured value in 1980).

Although measuring method is different, both of results are almost the same.

From these results, the thresholds of 223 substances measured by our laboratory are

considered to be the average values with small bias comparatively.

5. Conclusion

Although the threshold values shown in this report were reported 15 years ago, but the

remarkable differences from the reported values are not seen in the latest remeasurement

results. So, I was sure of the practicality of the triangular odor bag method anew.

References

1) Iwasaki,Y. and Ishiguro,T. : Measurement of odor by triangular odor bag method (�) Japan Society

Atmospheric Environment ,(1978),13(6),pp.34-39

2) Leonardos,G.,D.,Kendall and N.Barnard Odor threshold determination of 53 odorant chemicals,J.of

APCA.,(1969),19(2),pp.91-95

3) Hellman,T.M.and F.H.Small Characterization of the odor properties of 101 petrochemicals using

sensory method,J.of APCA.,(1974),24(10),pp.979-982

4) Nagata,Y. and Takeuchi,N. : Measurement of odor threshold by triangular odor bag method, Bulletin

of Japan Environmental Sanitation Center,(1990),17,pp.77-89

Table 5 Dispersion of thresholds measured by 5laboratories on the same substances ( from Figure 8)

134

5) Nagata,Y. and Takeuchi,N. : Relationship between concentration of odorants and odor intensity ,

Bulletin of Japan Environmental Sanitation Center,(1980),7,pp.75-86

6) Nagata,Y. and Takeuchi,N. : A report on sensory measurement of odor in exercise at National

Environmental Training Institute , Bulletin of Japan Environmental Sanitation

Center,(1996),23,pp.67-79

7) Fukuyama,Jyoji : Evaluation of a cross-check examination result, Odor Research and Engineering

Association of Japan, (2003), pp.37-49

8) Ishikawa,Y. and Nishida,K. (translation) : A Review of 20 years of standardization of odor

concentration measurement by dynamic olfactometry in europe, Journal of odor research and

engineering, (2000) ,31(3),pp.6-13


Attachement D

Process Flow Calculations

99.9% Destruction EfficiencySummary - PMB Production and Import Summary - PMB Production, No Import Summary - Import, No PMB Production

Stream Tanks PMB Gantry Combined Tanks PMB Gantry Combined Tanks PMB Gantry CombinedFlowrate Sm3/h 4187 993 617 5796 189 993 617 1798 4187 520 617 5323CompositionH2S ppm 994 8254 994 2237 994 8254 994 5001 994 8254 994 1703Combined other flammables ppm 3535 254 3535 2973 3535 254 3535 1724 3535 254 3535 3214N2 ppm 777363 779708 777363 777765 777363 779708 777363 778658 777363 779708 777363 777593O2 + other ppm 218108 211784 218108 217025 218108 211784 218108 214617 218108 211784 218108 217490total ppm 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000

H2S approx conc mg/m3 1429 11869 1429 3218 1429 11869 1429 7192 1429 11869 1429 2449mg/m3/Odour Unit 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005

Odour units/s in feed 3324639 6545821 489659 10360118 150108 6545821 489659 7185587 3324639 3428763 489659 7243060OU/s after scrubber (90%dst) 654582 4468879 654582 1294348 342876 4157174

OU/s after combustor (99.9%dst) 4469 1294 4157H2S approx flow mg/s 1662 3273 245 5180 75 3273 245 3593 1662 1714 245 3622

after scrubber (90% removal) H2S mg/s 327 2234 327 647 171 2079after combustor H2S mg/s 2.23 0.65 2.08

Typical Composition of 'other' combustibles in combined stream

acetone ppm 395 229 4272-butanone ppm 85 50 92ethyl acetate ppm 82 48 89ethanol ppm 261 152 283i-propanol ppm 113 65 122propanol ppm 149 86 161propene ppm 80 46 87propane ppm 64 37 69i-butane ppm 20 12 22butane ppm 93 54 100pentane ppm 68 40 743-methylpentane ppm 134 78 145hexane ppm 43 25 46heptane ppm 39 23 42octane ppm 27 16 29nonane ppm 17 10 19decane ppm 11 6 11undecane ppm 7 4 8benzene ppm 107 62 115toluene ppm 31 18 34methylchloride ppm 294 170 317ethylchloride ppm 150 87 162acetaldehyde ppm 265 154 287propenal ppm 65 38 70butanal ppm 92 54 100pentanal ppm 50 29 54hexanal ppm 61 36 66heptanal ppm 60 35 65octanal ppm 21 12 22nonanal ppm 10 6 11decanal ppm 11 7 12Other minor flammable ppm 67 39 73Combined other flammables ppm 2973 as above 1724 as above 3214 as above



T F E W


Project 235132 File Response To Request for Further Info (EPA) (Req #4) -(FINAL).docx 10 February 2014 Revision 0 Page 1

10 February 2014 James Cother Senior Planning Advisor Environment Protection Authority GPO Box 2607 Adelaide SA 5001 Email – [email protected] Dear James Response to Request For Further Information DA 040-1857/13 – New bitumen storage tanks, product supply pipeline and associated works at 49 – 57 Veitch Road, Osborne SA 5107 Further to the EPAs request for further information (dated 9 December 2013) on the aforementioned development application we offer the following comments in response to the questions raised.

1 What is the maximum odour content (in OU/m3) in the headspace of a bitumen tank?

1.1 Bitumen Storage and Day Tanks

The maximum odour concentration in the headspace of bitumen tanks was measured and referenced in Appendix A of the Terminals Port Botany Plant Air Quality Report (GHD 2011) as shown below and in the attached excerpt (see Attachment A) (samples were analysed for odour, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)):

Site Gepps Cross Salisbury

Volume of Bitumen in Kettle (L) 13,000 31,750

Temperature of Bitumen 160 150

Temperature of headspace 143 122

Odour (OU/m3), [average] 69,000-77,000 [73,000] 77,000-82,000 [79,000]

These concentrations were used to determine the emissions from the storage and day tanks at Port Botany in Sydney; however an oxidation plant was also present at Port Botany which generated greater emissions. For this proposal, vapour from the storage and day tanks is diluted by air to reduce the risk of explosion prior to transfer to the combustor. We have based the odour concentration from the tanks on the diluted concentration of Hydrogen Sulphide as noted in the response to question 2. The attached process flow diagram 235132-PI-19/1 (see Attachment B) shows the notional dilution inlet point and vapour streams.

1.2 Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB) Plant and associated PMB Product Storage Tanks

Sampling from the tank vapour space of an operating PMB plant were obtained to estimate the odour for this application. As noted in our Air Quality Report, odour concentration from the PMB Plant was based on the diluted concentration of Hydrogen Sulphide as noted in the response to question 2. The


process flow diagram 235132-PI-19/1, contained in Attachment B, shows the notional dilution inlet point and vapour streams. The explosive limit monitoring panel is shown on process flow diagram 235132-PI-19/2 and provides confirmation that the vapours entering the combustor are less than 25% of the lower explosive limit. It is standard practice to use an odour threshold to estimate odour concentration from the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/m3). Please refer below in the response to question 3. This approach was also used for the Port Botany Plant for vapour from the oxidation process (as we have done for vapour from the PMB process).

2 What is the maximum odour venting rate (in OU/s) expected on site and when does it occur?

Process vapours are directed to a combustor to control odour emissions and ensure volatile component concentrations are well below explosive limits. It is intended that ALL vapour discharges from the tanks, gantry and PMB processing building be vented to the vapour collection system for destruction at the combustor. There should be no tank or process venting to atmosphere if the vapour collection system is operating correctly. If the vapour collection system is not operating, no transfers from any tanks will be possible. Terminals’ Port Botany plant also has procedures to ensure that no imports are initiated unless the vapour collection system is operating. The calculations prepared for the EPA application assume normal operation of the plant with the combustor operating. The proposed operating philosophy for the plant does not allow the facility to import while the PMB plant is operating and vice versa. The two cases which most accurately represent daily operations are thus:

1. PMB plant operating, no import – this is the normal operating mode 2. Importing, PMB plant not operating – nominally occurs up to 6 times per year for

approximately 20 hours per import These two cases were considered and the results are presented below: Vapour Flow Case

Total Vapour Flow to combustor including dil. Air (Sm3/h)

H2S concentration In Total Vapour Flow to combustor (includes dil. air)

Approx. H2S flow to combustor

Approx. H2S flow from Combustor with 99.9% destruction

PMB plant operating, no import

2,805 6,204 ppm 8,921 mg/m3 17,842,000 OU

6.9 g/s 13,902,341 OU/s

0.0069 g/s 13,902 OU/s

Importing, PMB plant not operating

5,458 1254 ppm 1,803 mg/m3 3,606,000 OU

2.7 g/s 5,466,105 OU/s

0.0027 g/s 5,466 OU/s

Air dispersion modelling has been carried out for the worst case emissions using the scenario with the PMB plant operating and no importing. Please note that the combustor emissions are based on a destruction efficiency of 99.9%, not 99% as detailed in the original Air Quality Assessment (please refer to the response provided to Question 7.


3 How much dilution will occur to maintain the odour vented material below the lower explosive limit?

For the Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB) plant, PMB tanks and Gantry loads, the dilution rates assumed are 1 part tank/process vapour to 9 parts air. This ratio is used for the PMB plant operating, no import case. When importing without the PMB plant operating, the dilution rate is 1 part vapour to 5.3 parts air, as it is known during ship imports the vapours given off at the tanks can have high VOCs. The calculation of emission rates given in response to question 2 are after dilution and prior to the vapour stream entering the combustor.

4 What odour feed rate (in OU/s) is the thermal oxidiser designed for?

The combustor is designed for a destruction efficiency based on a residence time at an operating temperature inside the combustion chamber. The unit can therefore handle a wide range of H2S concentration and still achieve the specified destruction efficiency. Of more importance is the vapour flow rate through the unit, as this will affect the residence time in the combustor. The combustor will be designed to treat vapour as summarised in the response to question 2.

5 Justification that the use of hydrogen-sulphide-odour unit ratio is valid for this application?

We have checked the information that we received from CEC PTY. LTD. They state that 1 OU for H2S is 0.0004 ppm, the source of which is a paper by Yoshio Nagata. A value of 0.0004 ppm calculates to 0.00058 mg/m3 so the 0.0005 mg/m3 figure used is conservative. Please refer to the attached reference paper “Measurement of Odour Threshold by Triangular Odour Bag Method” by Yoshio Nagata .(Attachment C).

6 Justification that the use of a 99% oxidiser destruction efficiency is valid for this application.

We understand that the NSW EPA licence for the Port Botany Bitumen Project was issued based on a minimum combustor destruction efficiency of 1 second and 760 ºC (i.e. approximately 99% destruction efficiency). After the Port Botany combustor was commissioned, testing was performed to determine optimal operating parameters with the aim of conserving energy whilst maintaining an acceptable emission concentration. Please refer to the table of estimated destruction efficiency received from Australian Burner Manufacturers as part of correspondence for the Port Botany Project.

Temp. (oC)

Residence Time (sec)

**DRE

1 760 0.5 98%

2 825 1 99.9%

3 880 1 99.99%

4 980 1 99.999%

5 980 2 99.9999%

The same philosophy will be employed during commissioning and testing of the new combustor at Veitch Road; i.e. optimal process parameters for the combustor will be determined whilst maintaining an acceptable emission concentration. Please note that the design destruction efficiency of the combustor will be 99.9% with a design temperature within the combustor of 825 ºC and a design residence time of 1.0 second.


7 Air Quality Assessment - Amendment

Please note that in responding to the EPA request for further information a detailed review of the Air Quality Assessment was carried out. During this review we identified some errors in our calculations; hence we will also be updating the overall air quality assessment report for this development application. The final version of this report will be supplied within the next week. The errors included:

Incorrect calculation of the odour emission rate based on the Hydrogen Sulphide concentration

Invalid assumptions regarding the discharge conditions for the combustor Invalid assumptions that CO, NOx and SO2 would be destructed as per H2S. SO2 will actually

increase given conversion of H2S to SO2 during the combustion process. We trust that these responses satisfactorily address the questions raised by the EPA in the letter dated December 9 2013. Should you have any further queries please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on (08) 8237 9987.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Howard




Attachment A

Excerpt from Terminals Port Botany Plant Air Quality Report (GHD 2011) (as supplied in Appendix A of original development application)


Attachement B

Process Flow Diagram 235132-PI-19/1




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

LEGEND




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

F1922V1901 P1901V1902




Facsimile:

Telephone: +64 4 472 9589

+64 4 472 9922


Old Bank Chambers

NOTES


Attachement C

“Measurement of Odour Threshold by Triangular Odour Bag Method” by Yoshio Nagata

125

Reference 2


126


Yoshio Nagata

Japan Environmental Sanitation Center

Abstract

The detection thresholds of odor substances analyzed in field investigations were measured

by the triangular odor bag method1). The number of substances used for the experiment is 223.

The experiment was carried out from 1976 to 1988.

As the results of the experiments, the odor thresholds were distributed over the

concentration of large range depending on the odor substances. Isoamyl mercaptane exhibited

the lowest threshold (0.77ppt), and propane exhibited the highest threshold (1500 ppm). The

distribution of thresholds expresses the normal distribution. Sulfur compounds with the

exception of sulfur dioxide and carbon disulfide have the comparatively low threshold. It is

showed the tendency that threshold becomes low as the increase of molecular weight in a

certain range of molecular weight.

When the dispersion of odor thresholds for the same substance was shown at the ratio of the

highest to the lowest odor threshold tested, the dispersion of odor thresholds was about 5 at the

maximum. The thresholds of 223 substances measured by our laboratory were considered to

be the average values with small bias comparatively.

1 Introduction

The thresholds were needed also in the evaluation based on instrumental measuring method,

and also in the evaluation based on olfactory measuring method in odor studies. On that

occasion, the data of the threshold by the foreign researcher, for example, Leonardos et al. (53

substances)2) or Hellman et al. (101substances)3), has greatly been made reference in Japan.

But, the thresholds of substances that aren't reported to these literatures are also needed. And,

a threshold may vary considerably in the difference of measuring method to the same

material. Therefore, the need to measure thresholds individually is arising. The detection

thresholds of 223 substances detected in various odor sources were measured in our laboratory

by the triangular odor bag method4).

2 Odorants and experimental method

2.1 Preparation of primary odor sample

The standard gas such as the sulfurous acid gas taken from the standard gas bomb was

injected in polyester bag filled with nitrogen gas using gastightsyringe. In case the reagent was

liquid, the primary odor sample was prepared by vaporizing, after it was injected in polyester

bag filled with nitrogen gas with microsyringe. And in case the reagent was a solid like

Skatole, the sublimation gas was collected in the bag. The odor samples were left for 2 hours

or more in order to stabilize their gas concentration.

2.2 Concentration measurement of primary odor sample

Ammonia was measured by indophenol method, diosmin, skatole, indole were measured by

gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Other odorants were measured by gas

chromatography (FID, FPD, FTD). In case of the standard gas such as sulfur dioxide, the

concentration displayed on the bomb were used.

127

2.3 Measurement of odor concentration , and odor panel

The odor concentration was measured by the triangular odor bag method. In the triangular

odor bag method, the threshold is obtained by

detecting the difference from odor-free

background. Therefore, the odor thresholds

reported are nearly equal to the detection

threshold. The measurement of the threshold was

carried out in 12 years from 1976 to 1988 (Fgure

1). An odor panel consists of 6 panelists. All

panelists have passed the panel screening test by

T&T olfactometer. Their ages are 50-year-old

from 20-year-old. Some panelists changed in

these 12 years. However, four persons (woman)

among 6 panelists are the panelists from the first

time. All panelists are trained.

2.4 Calculation of threshold value

In this examination, the value which

divided the concentration of the primary

odor sample by the odor concentration as a

principle was determined as the detection

threshold (ppm,v/v).

detection threshold (ppm,v/v) =

the concentration of primary odor sample /

odor concentration

As shown in Table 1, about the odorants

such as amines, fatty acids, skatole and

indole, since the dilution error was large

compared with other substances, their

thresholds were corrected by their recovery

rate. About the odorants of which the

thresholds were measured repeatedly, the

geometric mean of each observed value was

taken as the threshold of the odorant.

3 Result of threshold measurement

The thresholds of 223 odorants measured in the experiment are shown in the Table 2. The

thresholds in the wide range of about 2 billion times to 1500ppm (propane) from 0.77ppt

(Isoamyl mercaptane) were observed.

3.1 Comparison with the measurement results of odor intensity by the odorless

chamber method

About 53 offensive odor substances, the relation between odor intensity (6-points scale) and

the concentration of odor substance was observed in our laboratory5). The odorless chamber of

4 m3 was used for the experiment. As for 51 of 53 substances, the threshold of each substance

was determined also by the triangular odor bag method. Then, the threshold determined by the

Substance Primary odor

Hydrogen sulfide Methyl mercaptaneDimethyl sulfide n -Hexane Toluene n-Nonane o,m,p - yleneStyrene Ammonia Trimethylamine

Propionaldehyde lsobutylaldehyde n-Valeraldehyde n-Butyric acid Isobutyric acid Isovaleric acid Indole Skatole

Table Dilution error of the odor bag

The injector made from a plastic was used.

The glass injector was used in the result of others.

128

triangular odor bag method was substituted for the relational expression between the

concentration of odorant and odor intensity, and the threshold was converted into odor

intensity. As the calculated results, the average value of the odor intensity equivalent of each

substance was almost scale 1 of odor intensity. Scale 1 of odor intensity corresponded to the

detection threshold. Both the measuring methods are based on the air dilution method, and the

thresholds observed by both methods agreed in many substances approximately.

3.2 Distribution of thresholds for chemical compounds

The histogram of Figure 2 shows the

distribution of the thresholds of

compounds, such as sulfur compounds

and oxygenated compounds, etc. The

distribution of thresholds expresses the

normal distribution. As shown in this

figure, the thresholds are distributed in

a wide range of concentration

depending on the odor substances and

compounds. The top of the distribution

of the threshold was 10ppt 1ppb as

for the sulfur compounds, 1ppb

10ppb as for the oxygenated

compounds, 10ppb 100ppb as for the

nitrogen compounds, 100ppb 1ppm

as for the hydrocarbon and 1ppm

10ppm as for the chlorine compounds.

Sulfur compounds with the exception

of sulfur dioxide and carbon disulfide have the comparatively low threshold.

3.3 Relation between threshold and Molecular Weight

Although a clear tendency is not recognized on the whole, there is the tendency that the

threshold decreases as the increase of molecular weight in the range to 120-130 as molecular

weight (Figure 3).

Further that tendency becomes clear when it is observed in the homologous series.

In most case of homologous series in the chemical compounds such as alcohol (Figure 4),

aldehyde, mercaptan, ketone and hydrocarbon, it is showed the tendency that threshold

becomes low as the increase of molecular weight in a certain range of molecular weight.

Figure 2 Distribution of thresholds for compounds

Molecular weight

Thre

shold

Figure 3 Relation between threshold and Molecular weight

Figure 4 Thresholds of Aliphatic alcohols(Homologous series)

Th

resh

old

pp

m

Fre

quency

Treshold

129

3.4 Difference of the threshold

between isomers

It is further found that a great

difference in the thresholds between

isomers. When the functional group

is different such as aldehyde and

ketone, fatty acid and ester, it is not

rare that the thresholds are different

about 10000 times between isomers.

Moreover, the thresholds may be

different even between position

isomerism more than 100 times

(Figure 5).

Table 2 Odor thresholds measured by the triangular odor bag method (ppm,v/v) T

hre

sh

old

pp

m

Isopropanol

n-Propanol

tert.Butanol

sec.Butanol

n-Butanol

Isobutanol

n-Pentanoltert. Pentanol

Isopentanol

Isooctanol

n-Octanol

sec.Pentanol

Figure 5 Thresholds of Aliphatic alcohols(Between isomers )


Formaldehyde 0.50 Hydrogen sulfide 0.00041Acetaldehyde 0.0015 Dimethyl sulfide 0.0030Propionaldehyde 0.0010 Methyl allyl sulfide 0.00014

n-Butylaldehyde 0.00067 Diethyl sulfide 0.000033lsobutylaldehyde 0.00035 Allyl sulfide 0.00022

n-Valeraldehyde 0.00041 Carbon disulfide 0.21I sovaleraldehyde 0.00010 Dimethyl disulfide 0.0022

n-Hexylaldehyde 0.00028 Diethyl disulfide 0 0020 n-Heptylaldehyde 0.00018 Diallyl disulfide 0.00022 n-Octylaldehyde 0.000010 Methyl mercaptane 0.000070 n-Nonylaldehyde 0.00034 Ethyl mercaptane 0.0000087 n-Decylaldehyde 0.00040 n-Propyl mercaptane 0.000013

Acrolein 0.0036 Isopropyl mercaptane 0.0000060Methacrolein 0.0085 n-Butyl mercaptane 0.0000028Crotonaldehyde 0.023 Isobutyl mercaptane 0.0000068Methanol 33 sec. Butyl mercaptane 0.000030Ethanol 0.52 tert. Butyl mercaptane 0.000029

n-Propanol 0.094 n-Amyl mercaptane 0.00000078I sopropanol 26 Isoamyl mercaptane 0.00000077

n-Butanol 0.038 n-Hexyl mercaptane 0.000015I sobutanol 0.011 Thiophene 0.00056

sec.Butanol 0.22 Tetrahydrothiophene 0.00062tert.Butanol 4.5 Nitrogen dioxide 0.12

n-Pentanol 0.10 Ammonia 1.5Isopentanol 0.0017 Methylamine 0.035

sec.Pentanol 0.29 Ethylamine 0.046tert. Pentanol 0.088 n-Propylamine 0.061

n-Hexanol 0.0060 Isopropylamine 0.025 n-Heptanol 0.0048 n-Butylamine 0.17 n-Octanol 0.0027 Isobutylamine 0.0015

Isooctanol 0.0093 sec. Butylamine 0.17 n-Nonanol 0.00090 tert. Butylamine 0.17 n-Decanol 0.00077 Dimethylamine 0.033

2-Ethoxyethanol 0.58 Diethylamine 0.0482-n-Buthoxyethanol 0.043 Trimethylamine 0.0000321-Butoxy-2-propanol 0.16 Triethylamine 0.0054Phenol 0.0056 Acetonitrile 13

o-Cresol 0.00028 Acrylonitrile 8.8 m-Cresol 0.00010 Methacrylonitrile 3.0 p-Cresol 0.000054 Pyridine 0.063

Geosmin 0.0000065 Indole 0.00030Acetic acid 0.0060 Skatole 0.0000056Propionic acid 0.0057 Ethyl-o-toluidine 0.026

n-Butyric acid 0.00019 Propane 1500Isobutyric acid 0.0015 n-Butane 1200

n-Valeric acid 0.000037 n-Pentane 1.4Isovaleric acid 0.000078 Isopentane 1.3

n-Hexanoic acid 0.00060 n -Hexane 1.5Isohexanoic acid 0.00040 2-Methylpentane 7.0Sulfur dioxide 0.87 3-Methylpentane 8.9Carbonyl sulfide 0.055 2, 2-Dimethylbutane 20

130


2, 3-Dimethylbutane 0.42 Ethyl acetate 0.87 n-Heptane 0.67 n-Propyl acetate 0.242-Methylhexane 0.42 Isopropyl acetate 0.163-Methylhexane 0.84 n-Butyl acetate 0.0163-Ethylpentane 0.37 Isobutyl acetate 0.00802, 2-Dimethylpentane 38 sec.Butyl acetate 0.00242, 3-Dimethylpentane 4.5 tert.Butyl acetate 0.0712, 4-Dimethylpentane 0.94 n-Hexyl acetate 0.0018

n-Octane 1.7 Methyl propionate 0.0982-Methylheptane 0.11 Ethyl propionate 0.00703-Methylheptane 1.5 n-Propyl propionate 0.0584-Methylheptane 1.7 Isopropyl propionate 0.00412, 2, 4-Trimethylpentane 0.67 n-Butyl propionate 0.036

n-Nonane 2.2 Isobutyl propionate 0.0202, 2, 5-Trimethylhexane 0.90 Methyl n-butyrate 0.0071

n-Undecane 0.87 Methyl isobutyrate 0.0019 n-Decane 0.62 Ethyl n-butyrate 0.000040 n-Dodecane 0.11 Ethyl isobutyrate 0.000022Propylene 13 n-Propy n-butyrate 0.0111-Butene 0.36 Isopropyl n-butyrate 0.0062Isobutene 10 n-propyl isobutyrate 0.00201-Pentene 0.10 Isopropyl isobutyrate 0.0351-Hexene 0.14 n-Butyl n-butyrate 0.00481-Heptene 0.37 Isobutyl n-butyrate 0.00161-Octene 0.0010 n-Butyl isobutyrate 0.0221-Nonene 0.00054 Isobutyl isobutyrate 0.0751,3-Butadiene 0.23 Methyl n-valerate 0.0022Isoprene 0.048 Methyl isovalerate 0.0022Benzene 2.7 Ethyl n-valerate 0.00011Toluene 0.33 Ethyl isovalerate 0.000013Styrene 0.035 n-Propyl n-valerate 0.0033Ethylbenzene 0.17 n-Propyl isovalerate 0.000056

o-Xylene 0.38 n-Butyl isovalerate 0.012 m-Xylene 0.041 Isobutyl isovalerate 0.0052 p-Xylene 0.058 Methyl acryrate 0.0035 n-Propylbenzene 0.0038 Ethyl acryrate 0.00026Isopropylbenzene 0.0084 n-Butyl acryrate 0.000551, 2, 4-Trimethylbenzen 0.12 Isobutyl acryrate 0.000901, 3, 5-Trimethylbenzen 0.17 Methyl methacryrate 0.21o-Ethyltoluene 0.074 2-Ethoxyethyl acetate 0.049m-Ethyltoluene 0.018 Acetone 42p-Ethyltoluene 0.0083 Methyl ethyl ketone 0.44o-Diethylbenzene 0.0094 Methyl n-propyl ketone 0.028m-Diethylbenzene 0.070 Methyl isopropyl ketone 0.50p-Diethylbenzene 0.00039 Methyl n-butyl ketone 0.024n-Butylbenzene 0.0085 Methyl isobutyl ketone 0.171, 2, 3, 4-Tetramethylbenzen 0.011 Methyl sec.butyl ketone 0.0241, 2, 3, 4-Tetrahydronaphthalene 0.0093 Methyl tert.butyl ketone 0.043-Pinene 0.018 Methyl n-amyl ketone 0.0068-Pinene 0.033 Methyl isoamyl ketone 0.0021

Limonene 0.038 Diacetyl 0.000050Methylcyclopentane 1.7 Ozone 0.0032Cyclohexane 2.5 Furane 9.9Methylcyclohexane 0.15 2, 5-Dihydrofurane 0.093Methyl formate 130 Chlorine 0.049Ethyl formate 2.7 Dichloromethane 160n-Propyl formate 0.96 Chloroform 3.8Isopropyl formate 0.29 Trichloroethylene 3.9

n-Butyl formate 0.087 Carbon tetrachloride 4.6Isobutyl formate 0.49 Tetrachloroethylene 0.77Mthyl acetate 1.7

Table 2 Odor thresholds measured by the triangle odor bag method (ppm,v/v) (continued)

131

4 Precision and accuracy of the measurement results of the threshold

4.1 Reproducibility-within-laboratory (The result measured by our laboratory)

It was thought that the odor thresholds would vary because of the difference in the

measuring method and the attribute of odor panel, etc.

The measurement of the threshold of each odor substance was carried out on separate days.

The measuring instruments used on each test were the same. 4 persons in panel member of 6

persons are same during the measurement period. About some substances, the measurements

of the threshold have carried out after ten years or more have passed since the first

measurement. Though the measurements for many of prepared substances were carried out

only once. But the measurements were carried out twice or more per substance about 25

substances of 223 substances.

Figure 6 shows that variation of odor

thresholds for repeated tests on the same

substances. The sensory tests were carried

out on separate days. And, the dispersion

of odor thresholds for the same substance

was shown at the ratio of the highest to

the lowest odor threshold tested, and it

was shown in Table 3. Though the number

of repetitions is different with substance

from 2 times to 9 times, the dispersion of

odor thresholds was about 5 at the

maximum.

4.2 Reproducibility-within-laboratory ( the results of the practices in the Environment

training center where these are carried out once a year )

We have held the training session of the sensory test method for inexperienced person once a year since 1983. The thresholds of hydrogen sulfide, m-xylene and ethyl acetate were measured during the practical training. The measurements were carried out in the same place every year. The measuring instruments used on each test were also the same. Operators and panel members are untrained persons and are changed every year. The results are shown in Table 4 and Figure 7.

When the results by the untrained panel were compared with the results by the trained panel,

The number of times of

measurement

The number of substances

Ratio of the highest to the lowest threshold

1

Table 3 Variation of thresholds on thesame substances

Substance Substance

Hydrogen sulfide n-Butyl acetate

Methyl mercaptane Diacetyl

Dimethyl sulfide Acetic acid

Carbon disulfide Ammonia

Nitrogen dioxide

Methyl allyl sulfide Isopentane

Formaldehyde Toluene

I sovaleraldehyde Styrene

n-Hexylaldehyde o- ylene

n-Propanol m- ylene

Isopropanol Ethylbenzene

sec.Butanol Chlorine

Ethyl acetate

Substance No

Th

resh

old

Figure 6 Result of repeated tests on the same substances by trained panel.

(The name of each substance was shown in the right table.)

132

the significant difference was not recognized on mean value and dispersion of the thresholds6).The untrained panel members are considered to have got used to the sensory test through the panel screening test and the preliminary practice of the triangular odor bag method before the measurement of the thresholds.

4.3 Reproducibility by

inter-laboratory test

In 1985, inter-laboratory

comparison test by the triangular

odor bag method was carried out. 5

odor laboratories including our

laboratory participated in the test.

The results are shown in Figure 8

and Table 5. m-Xylene and dimethyl

sulfide were chosen as the reference

materials for sensory test. The

sample no.1,2,3,4 are m-xylene of

which the concentration differs,

and the sample no.5,6,7 are

dimethyl sulfide of which the

concentration differs.

Figure 8 Results of inter-laboratory test by 5 laboratories

Figure 7 Result of odor thresholds on the same substances(Untrained persons carried out the measurements once per year.)

Table 4 Variation of odor thresholds on the same substances ( from Figure 7)

133

The dispersion of the

measurement results was

shown the ratio of highest to

lowest odor threshold measured

by each laboratory. The

dispersion of the thresholds

between 5 laboratories was as

large as 18 in the sample no.1

that was measured first. And,

the dispersion of other 6

samples was less than 8. When

the measurement results of 2

laboratories which have a few

measurement experience are removed, the dispersions are less than 5 every sample.

4.4 Accuracy of the thresholds measured by our laboratory

1) In 2002, the inter-laboratory test was carried out in order to raise the accuracy of the

triangular odor bag method. A total of 137 odor laboratories in Japan participated in the test.

In the test, the threshold of ethyl acetate was measured7). As the result measured by 137

laboratories, the mean value of the threshold of ethyl acetate was 0.89 ppm. The threshold

of ethyl acetate measured by our laboratory 0.87 ppm (the measured value in 1979) is

almost the same as this value.

2) As shown in Figure 8, in the inter-laboratory test by 5 laboratories, the threshold measured

by our laboratory is 0.6 times to 1.3 times of the geometric mean, almost near the average

value.

3) In Europe, the dynamic olfactometry has been standardized as the measuring method of

odor concentration, and it has been reported that the threshold of n-butanol measured by

this method was approximately 40 ppb8). We had reported that the threshold of n-butanol

measured by the triangular odor bag method was 38 ppb (the measured value in 1980).

Although measuring method is different, both of results are almost the same.

From these results, the thresholds of 223 substances measured by our laboratory are

considered to be the average values with small bias comparatively.

5. Conclusion

Although the threshold values shown in this report were reported 15 years ago, but the

remarkable differences from the reported values are not seen in the latest remeasurement

results. So, I was sure of the practicality of the triangular odor bag method anew.

References

1) Iwasaki,Y. and Ishiguro,T. : Measurement of odor by triangular odor bag method (�) Japan Society

Atmospheric Environment ,(1978),13(6),pp.34-39

2) Leonardos,G.,D.,Kendall and N.Barnard Odor threshold determination of 53 odorant chemicals,J.of

APCA.,(1969),19(2),pp.91-95

3) Hellman,T.M.and F.H.Small Characterization of the odor properties of 101 petrochemicals using

sensory method,J.of APCA.,(1974),24(10),pp.979-982

4) Nagata,Y. and Takeuchi,N. : Measurement of odor threshold by triangular odor bag method, Bulletin

of Japan Environmental Sanitation Center,(1990),17,pp.77-89

Table 5 Dispersion of thresholds measured by 5laboratories on the same substances ( from Figure 8)

134

5) Nagata,Y. and Takeuchi,N. : Relationship between concentration of odorants and odor intensity ,

Bulletin of Japan Environmental Sanitation Center,(1980),7,pp.75-86

6) Nagata,Y. and Takeuchi,N. : A report on sensory measurement of odor in exercise at National

Environmental Training Institute , Bulletin of Japan Environmental Sanitation

Center,(1996),23,pp.67-79

7) Fukuyama,Jyoji : Evaluation of a cross-check examination result, Odor Research and Engineering

Association of Japan, (2003), pp.37-49

8) Ishikawa,Y. and Nishida,K. (translation) : A Review of 20 years of standardization of odor

concentration measurement by dynamic olfactometry in europe, Journal of odor research and

engineering, (2000) ,31(3),pp.6-13



T F E W


Project 235132 File Response To Request for Further Info (EPA) (Req #5) (FINAL).docx 13 March 2014 Revision 0 Page 1

13 March 2014 James Cother Senior Planning Advisor Environment Protection Authority GPO Box 2607 Adelaide SA 5001 Email – [email protected] Dear James Response to Request For Further Information DA 040/1857/13 – New bitumen storage tanks, product supply pipeline and associated works at 49 – 57 Veitch Road, Osborne SA 5107 Further to the EPAs request for further information (dated 7 March 2014) on the aforementioned development application we offer the following comments in response to the questions raised. The EPA requires the following additional information:

1 Details of the proposed scrubber in the PMB vapour line including:

a) The type of scrubber proposed?

The scrubber will be a spray tower. Depending on the final design the scrubber may include a packed section.

b) What scrubber liquor would be used?

The scrubber liquor used will be a caustic solution, nominally 10 – 20% w/w NaOH. The caustic solution will be recirculated; i.e. liquid will collect in a basin at the bottom of the tower and be pumped to the top of the tower and introduced into the tower via a spray nozzle. This will ensure that there is adequate contact of the liquid and vapour phases. As the scrubbing fluid recirculates the NaOH reacts with both SO2 and H2S. As the NaOH in the scrubbing fluid is used, a portion of it is removed and replaced with fresh solution. This can either be on a continuous or batch basis. Again the final design of the scrubber will be determined which process is ultimately used.

c) How the spent scrubber liquor would be disposed of?

It is estimated that the process will generate approximately 1,000 litres per month of effluent which will be collected and disposed of off-site. This waste will be collected by a licenced waste collection contractor who will dispose of the material in accordance with the relevant EPA guidelines.

d) What control systems would be in place to guarantee a 90% removal efficiency?

The final detailed design of the scrubber will determine the scrubbing efficiencies that are achieved. We estimate that scrubbing efficiencies of between 90% and 99% will be achieved. We have assumed a scrubbing efficiency 90%; which we believe is a conservative, but acceptable assumption.


The scrubbing efficiency is primarily controlled be achieving intermit contact between the gas phase and the liquid phase. This efficiency is achieved through the use of the liquid spray and, depending on the final design, the packed section of the tower. The tower will be designed for a certain gas to liquid ratio.

e) Whether or not the odour removal efficiency is impacted by scrubber throughput?

The primary means of control will be in the initial design of the system to ensure that adequate margins are placed on the vapour flow, followed by monitoring instrumentation to ensure that vapour and liquid flow rates remain within the appropriate operating envelope. The exact equipment will be determined as part of detailed design phase of the project. If the gas rate is less than the design value the scrubbing efficiency will not be detrimentally

affected.

If the liquid flow rate is less than design the scrubbing efficiency could be adversely affected.

If the gas rate is higher than the design flow rate the scrubbing efficiency could be adversely affected.

If the liquid flow rate is higher than the design rate the scrubbing efficiency will not necessarily be detrimentally affected but flooding of the tower could occur.

Regular maintenance checks of the scrubber will also ensure that the system is operating as per the design intent, and periodic testing will allow the scrubbing efficiency to be confirmed.

2 Independent evidence that the increased destruction efficacy of the thermal oxidiser odour from 99% to 99.9% can be readily achieved.

Attached with this response (Attachment A) is an email received from Australian Burner Manufacturers which outlines the residence time and operating temperatures to achieve certain destruction efficiencies. Please note that 99.9% is achieved at 825°C and 1 second residence time and that higher efficiencies are possible, if required, for example by increasing the operating temperature to 880°C with a 1 second residence time there is an order of magnitude increase in the destruction efficiency. We trust that these responses satisfactorily address the questions raised by the EPA in the letter dated 7 March 2014. Should you have any further queries please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on (08) 8237 9987.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Howard




Attachment A

Information on residence time and operating temperatures to achieve certain destruction efficiencies provided to Aurecon by Australian Burner Manufacturers.



T F E W


Project 235132 File Response to Request for Further Information - Council (Final).docx 19 November 2013 Revision 0 Page 1

19 November 2013 Gabrielle McMahon Chief Planning Officer Statutory Planning Branch, Planning Division Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure PO Box 1815 Adelaide SA 5000 Dear Gabrielle Response to Request for Further Information from City of Port Adelaide Enfield DA 040/1857/2013 – 49 Veitch Road, Osborne SA 5017 Further to the City of Port Adelaide Enfield’s request for further information and clarifications on the aforementioned development application we offer the following comments in response to the questions raised.

1 Traffic

Council notes that this development has an overlap with the proposal by Air Warfare Destroyers to construct additional parking. This proposal involved 22 x 90 degree car park spaces in area D the area currently used for parking by Terminals SA as 13 angled car park spaces, west of the main entry gate, however there are no disabled car parks (existing or proposed).

Response:

It is our understanding that this additional parking is no longer required. This is why the car parking spaces have been provided here. It is acknowledged that there are no formalised disabled car parks marked on site. Terminals intend to modify the line marking to identify a disabled park at the closest location to the main site operations building.

The planning Statement provided by Aurecon describes 4 heavy vehicle waiting bays on the eastern part of the front of the site, however turn paths then show these bays being used for manoeuvring which for semis and b-doubles actually requires them to loop back onto Veitch Road before entering the site proper.

Response:

The turn paths that show these waiting bays being used for manoeuvring which for semis and b-doubles is on the basis that the trucks are already stationary and waiting in front of the site. Once they have parked and are facing east they would be required to make a right had turn back onto Veitch road then an further right hand turn back into the site.

For other B-Doubles and semis that are travelling east along Veitch Road that do not need to wait in front of site they are able to make a regular left hand turn into the site via the western gate as they currently do.


The Terminals SA development involves an increase in heavy vehicle use from 6 B-Doubles and 18 semis/24 hours to 10BDoubles and 29 semis/ 24 hours.

Response:

It is acknowledged that there will be an increase in the number of vehicle movement associated with the introduction of these additional activities. It is our view and that of the traffic experts that road network surrounding the subject land has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase number of vehicle movements.

The turn path plans also show car parking east of the entry gate. Council advises that this cannot be used for parking as B-Doubles and Semis need this space for manoeuvring.

Response:

Noted. This parking area for cars will no longer occur. All parking of cars will occur at the far western end of the site in the current location. The central area in front of the site is only to be used for the short term parking (or standing) of trucks.

Council generally prefers that heavy and light vehicles accesses be separated. This site has heavy vehicles entering the western gate (via a 21m wide driveway) with light vehicles entering and exiting the eastern one. The light vehicles may conflict with heavy vehicles entering. As such, the applicant may have different hours of operation however this is not clear.

Response:

Noted. All light vehicles will be encouraged to enter the site via the western entrance (as per current arrangements) and to leave via the eastern gate. This should result in minimising any potential conflicts that may arrive. Access to the site of all vehicles including light vehicles is heavily regulated by site personnel and only approved vehicles are allowed to enter the site.

Council also notes that the planning statement argues that there is no need for pedestrian access but makes no mention of bicycle access and provisions. Given the level of bicycle infrastructure in the area, this mode should be considered.

Response:

Noted. We have enclosed with this response an updated site plan which identifies a designated area alongside the main operations building where employees and visitors who travel by bike can safely park and store their bikes.


2 Environment

Council notes that the Hazard assessment has been done for the storage and distribution activities only, but the application includes a ‘new manufacturing buildings’ 3.3.3.1 and 2. Council questions of the hazard assessment should include the emulsion and hot oil combustion processes taking place in those buildings.

Response:

There are no hot oil combustion processes occurring in the manufacturing building it is only a blending facility for making different blends of bitumen. As the vapours generated are treated by the external combustor and the hot oil comes from the external hot oil heater we believe that the existing hazard assessment is adequate to cover the manufacturing building. Also the equipment used in the manufacturing building is standard equipment used in multiple plants around the world, and Terminals are of the opinion that a separate risk assessment is not required.

Council recommends that the DAC should consider the on-going cumulative risk of the continued location of hazardous materials storage, manufacture, and distribution uses on the Peninsula, given the area’s already intense use for storage and manufacturing activities of a hazardous nature.

Response:

Noted. The subject land has a longstanding existing use on the land for the purposes of storing hydrocarbon and associated products. The proposed uses and activities are consistent with the on-going uses on the land. The design and installation of the proposed works will be undertaken in accordance with the highest safety standards and will ensure that the safety of employee on the site and surrounding industries and businesses will not be affected.

Council notes that a separate baseline (ambient) noise assessment has not been done for this site. The applicant has quoted the results from the Terminals development further up the peninsula. The applicant has suggested that the same assessment can be applied to this site, however Council recommends that an assessment should be undertaken to support the specific application. It is also advisable that the assessment should include measures of the current ambient noise levels on Victoria Road (that may have increased since 2010).

Response:

The Council’s comments correctly point out that current ambient noise levels on Victoria Road may be higher than those measured in 2010. Therefore, the 2010 noise measurements presented in the acoustic report would be towards the lower end of existing noise levels (i.e. worst-case).

The environmental noise criterion of 40 dB(A) during the night-time, applicable to the Terminals Genesis Upgrade new noise sources, is based on the Port Adelaide Enfield Council Development Plan and the South Australian Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007, and is not based on the measured noise levels outlined in Section 3 of the report.

Therefore, measurement of current noise levels near Victoria Road will not have an impact on the design criteria or the assessment of new noise sources associated with the Terminals Genesis Upgrade.


However if a noise survey is required (e.g. attended measurements or continuous noise logging), consideration can be made for undertaking one if required.

The potential odour impacts on the office workers at the Raytheon site and Techport should also be considered in this study.

Response:

All vapours and odours generated by the transfer, mixing, and storage of bitumen will be treated in a purpose built state of the art combustor to remove odours and ensure emissions are well below EPA requirements. Terminals met with the EPA prior to the application being lodged with the Development Assessment Commission, and have responded to several clarifications the EPA have made of the project; including odour control and management.

A detailed air quality and odour assessment has been carried out where dispersion modelling was employed to predict the odour concentrations at the nearest sensitive receptors. ‘Best available technology economically achievable’ (BATEA) has been used on-site whereby vapours generated by ship unloading, process vapours, tank venting and truck venting are channelled into a thermal oxidiser for odour destruction. Based on the assessment, the ground level odour concentrations are below 0.1 OU at the boundaries of the Terminals site. The SA EPA criterion is 2 OU and the levels are well below this criterion. An odour concentration of 1 OU represents the Odour Threshold whereby an odour may be perceivable by the human sense of smell. As such, it is very unlikely that odour will be detected at any part of the ASC Engineering Site.

3 Health

Council advises that the South Australian Public Health (Wastewater) Regulations 2013 require all applications to install a new or to alter an existing wastewater system meet the requirements of the SA Department of Health’s On-Site Wastewater Systems Code. The requirements listed in this code include (but are not limited to):

• Full site and soil assessment

• Details of proposed system

• Detailed site plans of complete proposed wastewater system including pipes, treatment unit and disposal/reuse area.

• Setbacks (100m form coast, boundary and building setbacks etc.)

• Hydraulic and BOD loadings for the facilities on site.

• Decommissioning of the old/existing system.

Response:

This proposal is not intending to alter the existing wastewater system currently in operation on the site. The current on-site drainage system only allows clean stormwater to be discharged from the site. All another wastes generated on-site are collected and sent to an approved EPA treatment facility for disposal.


From the proposal observed, the nominated wastewater disposal area nominated does not meet the requirements of the On-Site Wastewater Systems Code. To fully comment on the proposal a report prepared by a wastewater engineer, taking into consideration the sites current, proposed and future plans would have to be submitted for assessment.

Response:

Not new sources of wastewater will be generated from the site. The wastewater that is not treated on site is sent offsite for treatment and disposal.

The feasibility of extending town sewer from Mersey Road North should be considered due to the close availability/closeness of the mains system and the environmental sensitivity of the Port River. This may be a viable option as the laying of pipes to and from the site is already planned for other purposes and the required equipment will already be on site. Connection to town sewer will also remove the potential site use limitations and on-site disposal system would potentially impose.

Response:

Only clean stormwater is discharged from the site to the Port River. All other wastewater is collected, and managed on site and if required the wastewater is collected and sent offsite for treatment and disposal.

We trust that these responses satisfactorily address the questions raised by the City of Port Adelaide Enfield. Should you have any further queries please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on 08 8 237 9987.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Howard


Project: Genesis Project

Documents

Transcript of Project: Genesis Project