asphalt€suppliers€pty€ltd · ulverstone€asphalt€plant 1 air€quality€assessment...

Asphalt Suppliers Pty Ltd

Report on Ulverstone Asphalt PlantAir Quality Assessment

July 2008

iUlverstone Asphalt PlantAir Quality Assessment

31/22745/148264

Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Site for Asphalt plant 1

2. Model selection 2

2.1 Dispersion Model 2

2.2 Site terrain and Roughness 2

3. Modelling Domain Extent 4

4. Meteorological Data 6

5. Emitted Pollutants (process emissions) 11

5.1 Process Overview 11

5.2 Hotmix asphalt production 12

5.3 Truck loading 12

5.4 SiteSpecific Emissions 13

5.5 Control and Mitigation Measures 14

6. Design Criteria and Standards 16

7. Source Characterisation 20

7.1 Significant Sources of Emissions to Atmosphere 20

7.2 Discharge Characteristics of the Main Exhaust Stack 20

7.3 Emission Rates from Main Exhaust Stack 21

7.4 Fugitive Odour Emissions During Loadout 23

8. Model Configuration 24

9. Model results 26

9.1 Compliance with Instack Concentration (Schedule 1) 26

9.2 Compliance with Design Criteria (Schedule 2) 27

9.3 Compliance with Odour Criterion (Schedule 3) 29

10. Conclusion 33

11. Recommendations 34

12. Limitations Disclaimer 35

ii31/22745/148264 Ulverstone Asphalt Plant

Air Quality Assessment

Table IndexTable 61 Relevant EPP (Air Quality) 2004 Compliance Criteria – In

stack Limits 17Table 62 Relevant EPP (Air Quality) 2004 Compliance Criteria –

Ambient Design 18Table 63 Relevant EPP (Air Quality) 2004 Compliance Criteria – odour

19Table 71: Discharge characteristics of dryer exhaust stack for the

existing and proposed asphalt plants 20Table 72 Estimated fabric filter exhaust stack emission rates for the

existing and proposed plants 22Table 73 Odour emission rates – asphalt loading process(1) 23Table 91 Mass emission rates – instack concentrations compared to

policy limits 26Table 92 Predicted ground level concentration (glc) compared to policy

design criteria 27Table 93 predicted offsite odour levels 29

Figure IndexFigure 1: Plant site and Layout with Ulverstone Aerial Image and Contour

Lines 5Figure 2 Mean rainfall Ulverstone area (Forthside Research Station)

compared to Devonport Airport, both with a contemporary 40yearold record. 6

Figure 3 Mean maximum temperatures at Forthside Research Stationcompared to Devonport Airport. 7

Figure 4 Mean minimum temperatures at Forthside Research Stationcompared to Devonport Airport. 7

Figure 5 Annual wind rose (a) for Devonport Airport and its associatedstability (b). 9

Figure 6 Daytime wind rose (a) for Devonport Airport and itsassociated stability (b). 10

Figure 7 Contour Plot of AUSPLUME Model Run – All Sources 31Figure 8 Frequency Plot with Adjustment for NonContinuous

Emissions 32

AppendicesA Example AUSPLUME Configuration fileB AUSPLUME Model Extent

1Ulverstone Asphalt PlantAir Quality Assessment

31/22745/148264

1. Introduction

1.1 Site for Asphalt plantAsphalt Suppliers Pty Ltd propose to construct and develop an Asphalt Plant at 34 IndustrialDrive, Ulverstone and have lodged a Notice of Intent (GHD 32/13771/13399, 25 October 2007).The Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment (DTAE) had responded (December 2007)with Project Specific Guidelines as part of a Development Proposal and EnvironmentalManagement Plan (DPEMP). A key issue (page 1) identified in the DPEMP is “Potential impactson air quality through dust and emissions”. It is assumed that odour be included in the emissionscategory.

The proposed Asphalt Plant is to have a maximum hourly capacity of 80tph with estimated annualproduction of 20,000 tonnes. Hours of operation are intended to be restricted to 6:00am to6:00pm on weekdays and, as demand requires, 6:00am to 4:00pm on Saturdays; so the plant willoperate on average at only 4% of all possible hours to achieve the annual production rate1. Keyactivities on site will be:

» truck delivery of bitumen and aggregate;

» internal transport of materials from raw material storage to the plant; and

» transfer of material from the plant to vehicles for offsite use.

The subject site is on the northern side of Industrial Drive, Ulverstone that is immediately north ofthe Bass Highway. Surrounding land use is Industrial with the site itself being zoned ‘lightindustrial’ (Central Coast S.26 planning Scheme No.1 1993). Asphalt Suppliers will be thesupplier of asphalt to Hardings Hotmix Pty Ltd, which operates from the site immediately to thewest.

This report is concerned with the assessment of Air Emissions as detailed in the DPEMP (section4.1). The project specific requirements concerning air emissions are:

» Emission details;

» Results of air dispersion modelling;

» Baghouse exhaust emission rates; and

» Confirmation that conveyors will be enclosed or screened from the ambient wind.

1 Monday to Friday (12 hours per day) plus Saturday (10 hours per day) at 52 weeks per year and 80 tonnes per hourresults in an upper bound in production of 291,200 tonnes. Therefore 20,000 tonnes is 4% of maximum possiblethroughput. The plant only needs to operate for 4% of all possible operating hours to produce 20,000 tonnes per year.

231/22745/148264 Ulverstone Asphalt Plant


2. Model selection

2.1 Dispersion ModelThe Director of Environmental Management has approved AUSPLUME (V6.0 or later), TAPM(V3.0.7 or later), CALMET/CALPUFF (V5.8 or later) or a hybrid of TAPM and CALMET/CALPUFFfor use in air quality assessments in Tasmania.

EPA Victoria developed AUSPLUME (V6.0 used by GHD) for predicting the effects of industrialemissions on air quality. The model is:

» A steadystate Gaussian plume model;

» With the ability to model a variety of sources including point, area, line and volume sources;

» Able to account for building downwash;

» Includes plume rise as a function of downwind distance; and

» Some capability to adjust for terrain.

A steadystate Gaussian model is suitable to use in this modelling exercise providing thatrepresentative meteorological data is available. The airport at Devonport is east along the coastbut the climatic influences found there will be similar to that found at Ulverstone.

Sources of emissions will include stack emissions and various fugitive emissions, most notablyfrom material transfer (asphalt loading into trucks). Point and area sources can be used torepresent these sources in the model.

2.2 Site terrain and RoughnessThe site itself is relatively flat, being on the coastal fringe north of the Bass Highway, althoughelevated ground is to the south of the Bass Highway. A stand of trees, at up to 9m in height, is onthe northern boundary of the site and scattered industrial buildings around the site are up to 45min height (including some storage silos). The site buildings will have a significantly higherinfluence on stack and fugitive dispersion than the trees or offsite buildings. The influence of thetrees is likely to be to decrease, by absorption, ground level concentrations so the modelling hasassumed no trees. In any event, the trees are planned to be removed.

The stack height (14.3m used in the modelling) is of the same order as the supporting plantinfrastructure. Plume rise will be a factor to consider due to the stack temperature and exitvelocity (140°C and 15 m/s, respectively). Dispersion of pollutants is expected to occur within themixed surface layer. Maximum GLCs are expected to occur within a few hundred metres of theplant. Lowdensity residential zoning to the southwest is beyond the range of this peak impact(odour, in particular, needs to meet the assessment criteria at and beyond the site boundary).The isolated rural properties on raised ground to the south are also beyond the range ofmaximum impact but the terrain adjustment of AUSPLUME is required to account for the effectsof this raised ground.


31/22745/148264

The heritage listed property ‘Westella’, which operates as a Bed & Breakfast, is located at 68Westella Drive, on the other side of the Bass Highway, approximately 150 metres to the southeast of the Site. The residence was constructed on a slight rise with views over, originally, BassStrait and, now, the industrial zone of Ulverstone.

AUSPLUME is a suitable model to assess the near field maximum impacts from this lowelevation, smallscale asphalt batching plant.



3. Modelling Domain Extent

Figure 1 shows an aerial image of the Ulverstone area with the industrial estate centralised. Theproposed plant layout on the site is indicated, with the adjoining bakery and Asphalt Supplierssites. Terrain contour levels are indicated and show the extent of the hill to the south of the site.

For the AUSPLUME modelling, see Section 8, a 2,000m square Cartesian receptor grid with aresolution of 25 metres was used. The grid was centred somewhat to the south of the subjectsite, so as to allow adequate representation of terrain features. See Appendix B for the modelextent (2km x 2km) and the area planning scheme. Industrial areas (purple shading) surroundthe site and residential areas (brown and pink) are indicated. Westella is in an area zoned asGeneral Rural. Terrain elevations were used in the model.

*Asphalt Suppliers Pty LtdUlverstone Asphalt Plant

Site Layout & Modelling Domain ExtentFigure 1

LEGEND

G:\31\22745\CADD\GIS\Projects\site_layout.wor2007. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA CUSTODIAN(S), make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.GHD and DATA CUSTODIAN cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as aresult of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: Google Earth Pro, GHD, Asphalt Suppliers Pty Ltd. Created by: G White

8/180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia 61 3 8687 8000 61 3 8687 8111 www.ghd.com.auT F W

Map Projection: Universal Transverse MercatorHorizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994

Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55

[email protected]

Job NumberRevision

Date

31/22745A24 July 2008

Metres (at A4)

70m

80m

40m

30m

50m

60m

10m

20m

Sensitive ReceptorsPoint SourcesElevation Contours

Titrees

Tit

ree

s

Inv.RL.8.20

bou ndary

2

power pole

water meter

gate

fenc

e

on

boun

dary

gravel pad

'Supreme Cakes'

(brick)

bric

k

sto

rage

u

nit s

acce

ss

boun

dary

boun dary

bou ndary

boun

dary

fenc

e

stn

stn 1

E1000.000

N1000.000

GL.RL.8.91

Roof RL.11.76

GL.RL.9.53

Roof RL.12.15

sw.mh.

surf.RL.8.98

Asphalt Plant

Asphalt Suppliers Pty Ltd, Owners

Hardings Hotmix Pty Ltd, Owners

Rig

ht O

f Way

9.0

9.0

10 .0

10 .0

9.0

Hardings Hotmix Pty Ltd

Open Garage

Office and Shed

Proposed Site Layout

0 200 400

Westella

Southern Residential Area

Northern Residential Area

East UlverstonePrimary School

Sacred Heart School

http://www.ghd.com.au

mailto:[email protected]



4. Meteorological Data

The nearest known reliable source of suitable (hourly or better, wind and temperature)meteorological data is the Devonport Airport Automatic Weather Station (AWS) operated by theBureau of Meteorology (BoM). A climatic recording station is at Forthside Research Stationbetween Ulverstone and Devonport but it is further inland and has no useful wind information.The AWS site is about 19km east of the proposed Asphalt Plant site. Both Devonport Airport andUlverstone are on the coastal fringe of the north coast of Tasmania, and similarly exposed to onshore winds from Bass Strait and offshore winds from the interior of the island State. The areasto the east of the airport become wetter (Figure 2), although the comparison site at ForthsideResearch Station is at 120m elevation compared to the airport at 9m asl, and the mean maximum(Figure 3) and minimum temperatures (Figure 4) are similar, after allowing for colder overnightminimum temperatures further away from the coast at Forthside.

Figure 2 Mean rainfall Ulverstone area (Forthside Research Station) compared toDevonport Airport, both with a contemporary 40yearold record.


31/22745/148264

Figure 3 Mean maximum temperatures at Forthside Research Station compared toDevonport Airport.

Figure 4 Mean minimum temperatures at Forthside Research Station compared toDevonport Airport.



Data from the Devonport Airport AWS has been processed into AUSPLUME meteorological fileformat with hourly values of temperature, wind and stability classification. Mechanical mixingheights were derived using the methodology found in the NSW Approved Methods for theModelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales.

Figure 5 shows the annual wind rose (a) and stability rose (b) for Devonport. The most frequent,and also strongest winds (>10m/s), show a tendency to come from the west with some south ofwest and north of west tendency. These winds are consistent with synoptic meteorologicalinfluences (‘the roaring forties’). Southsoutheast winds are also frequent, consistent with coolcold katabatic (down slope) drainage flows. This influence is confirmed by the stability rose ofFigure 5b that shows stability E and F (Pasquill stability criteria of stable and moderately stable)mostly from a southerly component (the direction of the higher ground).

Daytime winds, from 6:00am to 6:00pm – consistent with plant operating times, are graphicallyrepresented in Figure 6a (wind rose) and Figure 6b (stability rose). Wind conditions during thesetimes are dominated by neutral stability conditions associated with strong winds. The averagewind speed is 10% higher than the annual conditions. Stable conditions are rare, but still possibleduring early morning or late afternoon during the months closest to the winter solstice. Theonshore winds are most likely to be neutral stability (category D) due to stronger winds driven bysynoptic influences (rather than the drainage flow of the slower katabatic winds).

WRPLOT View Lakes Environmental Software

WIND ROSE PLOT:

Figure 4a Devonport Airport AWSData from Bureau of Meteorology

COMMENTS:

Calm winds less than or equalto 0.5m/s

COMPANY NAME:

GHD

MODELER:

B. Cook

DATE:

10/04/2008

PROJECT NO.:

31/21897/05

NORTH

SOUTH

WEST EAST

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

WIND SPEED(m/s)

>= 10.0

6.0 10.0

4.0 6.0

2.0 4.0

1.0 2.0

0.5 1.0

Calms: 0.31%

TOTAL COUNT:

8760 hrs.

DATA PERIOD:

2002Jan 1 Dec 3100:00 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED:

5.64 m/s

DISPLAY:

Wind SpeedDirection (blowing from)


WIND ROSE PLOT:

Figure 4b Devonport Airport AWSAnnual Stability

COMMENTS:


COMPANY NAME:

GHD

MODELER:

B. Cook

DATE:

10/04/2008

PROJECT NO.:

31/21897/05

NORTH

SOUTH

WEST EAST

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

STABILITY CLASS

F

E

D

C

B

A

Calms: 0.31%

TOTAL COUNT:

8760 hrs.

DATA PERIOD:

2002Jan 1 Dec 3100:00 23:00

AVG. WIND SPEED:

5.64 m/s

DISPLAY:

Stability Class


WIND ROSE PLOT:

Figure 5a Devonport Airport AWSDaytime winds 6am to 6pm

COMMENTS:


COMPANY NAME:

GHD

MODELER:

B. Cook

DATE:

10/04/2008

PROJECT NO.:

31/21897/05

NORTH

SOUTH

WEST EAST

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

WIND SPEED(m/s)

>= 10.0

6.0 10.0

4.0 6.0

2.0 4.0

1.0 2.0

0.5 1.0

Calms: 0.25%

TOTAL COUNT:

4380 hrs.

DATA PERIOD:

2002Jan 1 Dec 3106:00 17:00

AVG. WIND SPEED:

6.16 m/s

DISPLAY:

Wind SpeedDirection (blowing from)


WIND ROSE PLOT:

Figure 5b Devonport Airport AWSDaytime stability 6am to 6pm

COMMENTS:


COMPANY NAME:

GHD

MODELER:

B. Cook

DATE:

10/04/2008

PROJECT NO.:

31/21897/05

NORTH

SOUTH

WEST EAST

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

STABILITY CLASS

F

E

D

C

B

A

Calms: 0.25%

TOTAL COUNT:

4380 hrs.

DATA PERIOD:

2002Jan 1 Dec 3106:00 17:00

AVG. WIND SPEED:

6.16 m/s

DISPLAY:

Stability Class


31/22745/148264

5. Emitted Pollutants (process emissions)

5.1 Process OverviewThe asphalt plant proposed at the site is a SPECO brand, batchmix processing plant (modelTSAP1000FFW). It is proposed to make hotmix asphalt only at the site (no cold mix) with plantcapacity of up to 80 tonne of asphalt per hour. It is expected to produce up to 20,000 tonne ofasphalt per annum. The plant will typically be required to operate for some of the period between6:00am and 6:00pm, five days per week, with possible Saturday operation depending ondemand.

The plant will be a typical batchmix plant consisting of the following major units:

» Cold bin & belt feed;

» Belt conveyors for transfer of aggregates;

» Dryer;

» Hot elevator;

» Main tower comprising a vibrating screen, hot bin, scale, and mixer;

» Cyclone;

» Baghouse filter;

» Stack;

» Filler elevator and silo;

» Dust elevator and silo;

» Two 30,000 litre asphalt tanks and hotoil heater; and

» Control cabin housing operating and process controls.

A site layout plan showing the location of major plant equipment and the discharge points to air isshown as part of Figure 1.

Materials to be used in the process and generally stored onsite include:

» Sand and aggregate;

» Industrial raw materials include bitumen and dust fillers;

» Small quantities of general laboratory and workshop materials or chemicals;

» Biodegradable release agents;

» Butane or natural gas, the main fuel source; and

» Small volumes of diesel oil.

All materials, including crushed stone, sand and dust, industrial raw materials and bitumen aredelivered to the plant via road transport.

A description of the proposed hotmix production process and truck loading practices are givenbelow.



5.2 Hotmix asphalt productionHotmix asphalt is a defined mixture of graded aggregate bound together with liquid bitumen.Sand, fillers and recycled asphalt may also be included in the mix. The relative amounts andtypes of aggregate, sand, filler, recycled asphalt and bitumen all have a bearing on the propertiesof the hotmix asphalt. Hotmix asphalt is to be contrasted with coldmix asphalt, which is slowersetting asphalt that can be obtained by using bitumen that has been blended with petroleumdistillates or emulsifiers.

The production process begins with the transportation of the aggregate and sand from thestorage piles to specific hoppers (the cold bins). From these hoppers the amounts of each type ofaggregate and sand required for the batch of asphalt are metered onto a conveyor belt, whichtransports them into a gasfired dryer. The aggregate and sand leaving the dryer drop into abucket elevator, which transfers them to the screens, where they are separated and directed todifferent hot bins. The operator blends together the desired quantities of the dried materialsstored in the different hot bins, along with any recycled asphalt and fillers to be included.Meanwhile, the desired quantity of liquid bitumen is pumped from the heated storage tanks(kettles) to a bitumen bucket. The blend of solid materials is mixed with the bitumen in the pugmill, and the resulting hotmix asphalt is discharged directly into a delivery truck parkedunderneath the tower.

5.3 Truck loadingThe loading process involves the discharge of asphalt from the mixing tower into a delivery truckparked underneath. Before any asphalt is discharged into a delivery truck, the truck tray issprayed with a slip agent to prevent asphalt adhesion to the tray.

A typically sized 1215 tonne capacity truck takes several dumps of hotmix asphalt to be filled.The process is manually supervised to ensure correct and even filling. The filling takesapproximately 5 to 10 minutes to complete if being charged directly from the pug mill.

Once the filling process is complete the freshly charged truck is driven out and then parked on anadjacent parking area, so that the driver can cover the hot asphalt with a tarpaulin prior todeparting from the site.

Hereafter, the process of filling the delivery trucks with asphalt mix will be referred to as ‘dumping’and the process of covering the freshly loaded truck will be referred to as ‘tarping’. Collectively,these process steps will be referred to as the ‘loading process’.

Asphalt loading only occurs when the plant is operating.


31/22745/148264

5.4 SiteSpecific EmissionsPotential pollutants to air that are emitted from the asphalt production process include:

» Odour;

» Dust;

» Total suspended particulates (TSP);

» Particulate matter less than 10 µm (PM10);

» Volatile organic compounds (VOCs);

» Asphalt fume (Total Organic Carbon);

» Blue smoke;

» Oxides of nitrogen (NOx);

» Sulphur dioxide;

» Carbon dioxide;

» Carbon monoxide; and

» Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

The most significant point source of particulate matter and gaseous emissions is the main stack.Emissions from bagfilters on the filler and dust silos, and from the bitumen storage tanks’ ventsare acknowledged, but are minor by comparison with those discharged from the main stack.

Fugitive particulate matter (dust) and VOC emission sources are primarily associated withgeneral materials handling activities such as the loading/unloading of aggregate from the storagebays and the loading of hot mix asphalt product into transport vehicles. Other fugitive emissionsources can include wind erosion from aggregate storage bays and truck movements onsite.The majority of these fugitive emissions are minor in nature. However, the process of loading hotmix asphalt onto transport trucks, which occurs only periodically, has the potential to result in atransient, but noticeable odour emission, as is also the case when asphalt is applied to roadsurfaces.

Measures proposed for the mitigation of pollution from all sources are set out in the next section.



5.5 Control and Mitigation MeasuresThis section describes the various control and mitigation measures for process and storage tankemissions.

5.5.1 Process Emissions

Dust emissions from the dryer and the main tower will be captured and directed firstly to acyclone to remove coarser particulates and then to a fabric filter (baghouse) to remove fineparticulates. The fabric filter needs to be equipped with an online dust monitor to alert operationspersonnel in the event of bag leakage or failure. The filtered air will discharged to atmosphere viaa 14.3 m high stack.

The key benefits associated with the use of a primary cyclone and secondary fabric filter systemto control process emissions include:

» Use of air pollution control technology that is considered to be inline with industry bestpractice for the removal of particulates from process emissions;

» Total particulate collection efficiency of the order of 99.9% (cyclone and fabric filter); and

» The captured particulates (dust) can be returned to the production process as filler material.

Additional measures recommended, or optional, to control process emissions include:

» The drum dryer needs to operate under slight vacuum to minimise the potential for escape ofdust through seals;

» The dryer burner needs to be routinely maintained and tuned to improve combustion efficiencyand reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and organic compounds associated withincomplete combustion;

» All process controls need to be regularly inspected and maintained in accordance with aninspection and maintenance schedule for the plant;

» The elevator and mixing tower need to have a slightly negative pressure so as to capture alldust, blue smoke and odour emissions from all parts of the elevator and tower, and theseemissions should be directed to an appropriate dust collection system before discharge to thestack; and

» The mixing tower needs to have a slightly negative pressure so as to minimise the amount ofblue smoke and odour emissions released from the tower as the asphalt is loaded into trucks.An optional extraction system could also be installed, not usual for this sized plant, on the loadout from the mixing tower, so as to increase the capture of emissions associated with loading.Whether the captured air should be sent directly to the dustcollection system for treatmentbefore discharge to the stack, or sent back to the burner require further investigation.


31/22745/148264

5.5.2 Storage Tank Emissions

Diesel fuel, for transport use, and heated bitumen contained in storage tanks may be a source ofodour and VOCs emissions. Emissions from these tanks are generally a result of working losses,associated with tank filling and emptying, and tank breathing losses.

The bitumen kettles will be fitted with automatic temperature control devices, to be set at theminimal practicable operational temperatures for normal process requirements of 165°C. It isrecommended that:

» The bitumen kettles are fitted with blue smoke extraction devices; and

» The bitumen kettles are fitted with appropriate fume adsorption devices (e.g. activated carbonfilters, or similar) or with a vapour recovery system to reduce breathing losses and minimiseodorous emissions to air.



6. Design Criteria and Standards

The design criteria and standards discussed here can be considered the regulatory requirementsfor the project concerning air quality. The Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004defines the values of the air environment that are to be protected, sets ambient air qualitystandards consistent with the protection of these environmental values, and establishesregulatory controls for the management of point sources and diffuse sources of air pollution. Thecontaminants might be specific substances, such as SO2, size fractions of heterogenoussubstances, such as PM10, or a mixture of different substances, such as odour.

In the Policy, unless the contrary intention appears, the expression “point sources of pollution”means “a discrete, stationary, industrial location which is a source of pollution by one or morechimneys or other points of emission, but does not include a stationary motor vehicle, train ormarine vessel.” Further, “diffuse sources of pollution“ means “a number of dispersed sourcesfrom which pollution entering the environment has the potential to combine with other suchsources, and includes pollution from domestic solid fuel burning appliances, motor vehicles,backyard burning and planned burning… ”

Clause 11 of the Policy defines the regulation of unavoidable emissions of pollutants toatmosphere from point sources of air pollution. Clause 13 of the Policy establishes a specificodour impact criterion. The requirements of these clauses that are particularly pertinent to theproposed asphalt plant are that:

» Accepted modern technology should be applied to reduce emissions to the greatest extentpracticable;

» Guidelines on instack concentrations that would normally be expected to be achievableusing accepted modern technology are specified in Schedule 1 of the Policy and should beused by regulatory authorities as default values;

» The guidelines are intended to apply to new stationary sources and facility upgrades duringroutine operations of the activity;

» Nevertheless, the concentrations specified in Schedule 1 of the Policy should not be exceededduring commissioning, start up or shutdown unless the Board has specified conditions underwhich excess emissions from such events are permitted, and the emissions occur incompliance with those conditions; and

» When modelled in accordance with the requirements of this Policy, emissions of a pollutantshould not cause design criteria for that pollutant, as specified in Schedules 2 or 3, or agreedto with the Director when there is no criterion specified, to be exceeded at or beyond theboundary of the land on which the industrial activity is located.

The relevant requirements of Schedules 1, 2 and 3 are presented in tables Table 61 and Table62 for instack limit concentrations and ambient design criteria respectively. For pollutants notlisted in those Schedules, the corresponding Victorian SEPPAQM criteria are listed.


31/22745/148264

Table 61 Relevant EPP (Air Quality) 2004 Compliance Criteria – Instack Limits

Pollutant ScheduleAveraging

time Design Criteria

Concentration

(mg/m3 unlessotherwise indicated)

Percentile

Total metals 1 not specified 5 n.a.

Cadmium 1 not specified 1 n.a.

Mercury 1 not specified 1 n.a.

Oxides of nitrogen 1 not specified 2.0 g/m3 (as NO2) n.a.

Particulate matter 1 not specified 100 n.a.

Smoke 1 not specified < Ringelmann 1generally n.a.

Sulphuric acid mist,sulphur trioxide orboth

1 not specified 100 (as SO3equivalent) n.a.



Table 62 Relevant EPP (Air Quality) 2004 Compliance Criteria – Ambient Design



Concentration(mg/m3 unless otherwise

indicated)

Percentile

Nitrogen dioxide 2 1hour 0.16 ppm 99.9th

Sulphur dioxide 2 1hour 0.20 ppm 99.9th

Carbon monoxide 2 8hour 9.0 ppm 100th

PM10 2 24hour 0.150 100th

Lead 2 90day 0.0015 100th

Acetaldehyde 2 3minute 0.076 99.9th

Acetone 2 3minute 48 99.9th

Asphalt fume 2 3minute 0.17 99.9th

Benzene 2 3minute 0.10 99.9th

Beryllium 2 3minute 0.00007 99.9th

Chromium, soluble chromic andchromous salts as Cr

2 3minute 0.017 99.9th

Copper: fume 2 3minute 0.0067 99.9th

Copper: dust and mist 2 3minute 0.033 99.9th

Formaldehyde 2 3minute 0.05 99.9th

Manganese 2* 3minute 0.033* 99.9th

Mercury (organic) 2 3minute 0.0003 99.9th

Mercury (inorganic) 2 3minute 0.017 99.9th

Toluene 2 3minute 0.65 99.9th

Xylene 2 3minute 0.35 99.9th

Zinc (as zinc oxide) 2 3minute 0.17 99.9th

Arsenic 2* 3minute 0.00017* 99.9th

Cadmium 2* 3minute 0.000033* 99.9th

Nickel 2* 3minute 0.0003* 99.9th

PAH (total) 2* 3minute 0.00073* 99.9th

Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) 2 3minute 0.33* 99.9th

* Victorian SEPPAQM


31/22745/148264

Table 63 Relevant EPP (Air Quality) 2004 Compliance Criteria – odour



Concentration Percentile

Odour 3 1hour 2 odour unit (OU) 99.5th



7. Source Characterisation

This section identifies the significant emissions sources in each part of the plant and providesconstituent emission rates for all identified sources.

7.1 Significant Sources of Emissions to AtmosphereAfter a review of the identified emission sources, only two were considered to be of a magnitudelarge enough to significantly impact the air quality in the immediate area, namely:

1. The main stack through which treated dryer exhaust is discharged; and,

2. Fugitive odour emissions during the hotmix loading process.

This assessment was conducted for the proposed plant based on a maximum asphalt productionrate of 80 tonnes per hour during all operating hours. It is noted that the plant will normally beoperating at significantly lower capacity. This is to the extent that mean annual operation is at 4%of the theoretical plant capacity (see footnote 1 on page 1).

7.2 Discharge Characteristics of the Main Exhaust StackThe discharge characteristics of the main exhaust stack were based on the design specificationssupplied by the manufacturer, SPECO. The discharge characteristics used for model input aresummarised in Table 71 below.

Table 71: Discharge characteristics of dryer exhaust stack for the existing and proposedasphalt plants

Description of waste being discharged Treated dryer exhaust

Grid Coordinates (m) 433151, 5443430

Stack Height (m) 14.3

Stack Diameter at discharge point (m) 0.9

Exhaust flowrate at discharge conditions (m3/min) 570

Exhaust Discharge Velocity (m/s) 15

Exhaust Discharge Temperature (ºC) 140

The location of the main exhaust stack is shown on the site layout plan in Section 3.


31/22745/148264

7.3 Emission Rates from Main Exhaust StackRates of pollutant emission from the main exhaust stack were ascertained or estimated by usingthree information sources:

» Stack testing reports for similar plants;

» Asphalt plant design specifications supplied by SPECO; and

» National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Hot MixAsphalt Manufacturing2.

It should be noted that the NPI emission factors based on a maximum plant production rate of 80tonnes per hour (for a naturalgasfired batchmix asphalt plant) were used to estimate theemission rates of the constituents not covered by either of the other two information sources.

The emission rates used for this assessment are presented in Table 72.

The oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emitted from natural gas combustion mainly comprise nitric oxide(NO), which is oxidized in the atmosphere over time to form nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Owing to theabsence of emission monitoring data to establish the actual NO2 to NOx ratio, as well as the factthat the dispersion model AUSPLUME cannot account for the conversion of NO to NO2 thatoccurs in the atmosphere after discharge from the stack, the conservative approach was taken ofassuming that NOx emissions were solely NO2.

As the plant will be operated during daytime only, and possibly on weekends, emissions from themain exhaust stack were assumed to occur during the period between from 6:00 am EST to6:00 pm EST, seven days per week.

2 NPI – Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Hot Mix Asphalt Manufacturing. Environment Australia, 1999.



Table 72 Estimated fabric filter exhaust stack emission rates for the existing andproposed plants

Constituent Emission Rate Unit

Acetaldehyde 0.43 (b) g/min

Acetone 4.3 (b) g/min

Arsenic 4.4 × 104 (b) g/min

Asphalt Plumes (VOCs) 10 (b, c, e) g/min

Benzene 0.23 (b) g/min

Beryllium 1.5 × 104 (b) g/min

Cadmium 5.6 × 104 (b) g/min

Carbon monoxide 471 (a) (c) g/min

Chromium (total) 6.0 × 104 (b) g/min

Chromium (VI) 6.5 × 106 (b) g/min

Copper 2.4 × 103 (b) g/min

Formaldehyde 0.61 (b) g/min

Lead 4.9 × 104 (b) g/min

Manganese 6.7 × 103 (b) g/min

Mercury 3.1 × 104 (b) g/min

Nickel 2.8 × 103 (b) g/min

Nitrogen dioxide 20 (a) (c) g/min

Odour 1040000 (a) OU m3/min

PAH (total) 0.084 (b) g/min

PM10 13 (b) (c) g/min

Sulphur dioxide 3.3 (b) (c) g/min

Toluene 1.2 (b) g/min

TSP (dust) 19 (d) g/min

Xylenes 2.8(b) g/min

a) Scaled using stack testing measurements made by ETC Testing at Victorian batch plants producing hotmix asphalt.

b) Emission rates derived by applying NPI emission factors to the maximum production rate of 80 tonnes per hour.

c) The higher of the estimates arrived at by using approaches (a) or (b).

d) Derived from the manufacturer’s (SPECO’s) specifications.

e) Asphalt fume is comprised of both volatile and semivolatile components. Therefore, the estimated emission rate oftotal VOCs was used to represent emissions of asphalt fume.


31/22745/148264

7.4 Fugitive Odour Emissions During LoadoutAs stated in section 7.1 the two major sources of potential fugitive odour emissions arise from:

» The loading of hot asphalt mix into awaiting delivery trucks (dumping); and

» The loaded hot mix on trucks prior to being covered with a tarpaulin (tarping).

The rates of odour emanation from these two activities were quantified in June 20053 by GHDpersonnel for the case of a Victorian batch mix asphalt plant. The rates of odour emissionderived in that study have been applied to the proposed asphalt plant at Ulverstone on theassumption that the loading procedures employed at the two plants will be fundamentally thesame. The rates of odour emission (OERs) that have been used in this assessment are detailedin Table 73.

Table 73 Odour emission rates – asphalt loading process(1)

Odour Emission Rate (OU m3/min)

Dumping (2) (3) Tarping(4)

510 000 30 000

(1) Assumes a 15 tonne load onto a 2 x 5m truck tray.

(2) Duration of loadout is 510 minutes

(3) Intermittency of loadout dumping, at maximum production rate of 80tph, ranges from 1:1 (theoretical maximum)

to approximately 1:2.

(4) 3000 OUv/m2/s with an area of 10m2.

An optional blue smoke extraction system fitted to the proposed plant loadout may be able tocapture up to 95 per cent of smoke and odours during loadout. This modelling assessmentassumed no capture.

For the dispersion modelling, the hotmix loading was modelled as a pseudostack source inorder to take into account the effects of the surrounding buildings on the initial dispersion of theodour plume. By modelling the hotmix dumping as a pseudostack source with insignificantplume rise, the PRIME building wake algorithm, within AUSPLUME, was effectively able toprovide a characteristic initial plume spread and then a resultant, conservative, estimate ofdownwind ground level odour concentration.

The tarping areas were modelled as area sources in the “regulatory” mode, with an initial verticalspread set to half the height of the truck. It was assumed that the tray of a typical 1215 tonnedelivery truck tray was approximately 2.3 m wide, 4.8 m long and 1.0 m in depth, and the tray wastherefore modelled as a rectangular area source with plan dimensions of 2 m by 5 m.

Emissions from the hot mix loading and tarping areas were modelled as continuous odoursources between 6:00 am EST and 6:00 pm EST, seven days per week. This is an inherentlyconservative approach given the intermittent and transient nature of emissions emanating fromthe truckloading process.

3 GHD report prepared for Boral Resources “Montrose Asphalt Plant – Air Quality Impact Assessment” (June 2005)



8. Model Configuration

AUSPLUME (Version 6.0) was configured to adapt the model to the hotmix asphalt plant andmake best use of the measured emissions and meteorological data. Key components of themodel configuration are summarised below:

» Ground level concentrations (glcs) were predicted over a 2.0 km square Cartesian receptorgrid with a resolution of 25 metres. The grid was centred somewhat to the south of the subjectsite, so as to allow adequate representation of terrain features;

» Averaging periods of 3 minutes, 1 hour, 8 hours, 24 hours or 90 days were selected, asrequired for the pollutant criterion under consideration;

» Background concentrations were assumed to be zero;

» The Egan halfheight approach was used to account for uplift of the plume;

» Building wake effects on the initial dispersion of the emissions were included in the model,with characteristic building/storage tank dimensions determined by inspection of a generalarrangement drawing of the site. The wake effect of the ensemble of baghouse, both silos, allelevators, cyclone, main tower, burner and dryer was simulated by treating them as one virtualsingletier, 9.5m high structure that enclosed the structures (in plan view). The resultingvirtual structure had an Lshaped plan. All other structures on the site, such as the coldbinand belt feeder, bitumen tanks, hotoil heater, operation room and various conveyors, areconsiderably smaller or narrower than the main structure, and were ignored. The BuildingProfile Input Program (BPIP) module within the AUSPLUME model was used to generate thecharacteristic dimensions for each 10degree winddirectional arc. For wind directions wherethe potential for building wake influences was considered significant by AUSPLUME, thePRIME building wake algorithm was used to provide a conservative estimate of ground levelconcentrations. The sensitivity of glc predictions to the height of the virtual structure has beeninvestigated and found to be slight;

» Irwin’s “Urban” wind profile exponents were used;

» Any temperature gradients specified in the meteorological data file were to be used, butbecause no such gradients were included in the file, default vertical temperature gradientswere effectively assumed;

» Plume rise was computed as a function of distance downwind;

» No partial penetration of plumes into elevated inversions was allowed, which meanspredictions are conservative;

» Horizontal dispersion and vertical dispersion were parameterised according to equations forthe PasquillGifford curves (This remains so even in cases where the sigmatheta option wasthe default setting given, because there were no sigmatheta data in the meteorological datafile, and AUSPLUME is programmed to use PG when sigmatheta data is absent);

» Roughness heights of 0.6 m and 0.4 m were used, respectively, to represent the roughnessaround the site and at the meteorological station. The sensitivity of glc predictions to the


31/22745/148264

values of these roughness heights has been investigated (0.8 m at the site, 0.3 m at themeteorological station) and found to be negligible;

» A single simulation at a unit emission rate of one gram per second at each averaging periodwas used to predict the ground level concentrations for all constituents, except odour. Themaximum predicted concentration for each constituent was then calculated by factoring thepredicted maximum concentration for the unit emission rate simulation by the emission rate ofthat constituent given in Table 72. This approach is valid as the relationship between massemission rate and the predicted GLC is known to be linear if all other discharge parametersremain constant; and

» No ambient background concentration was added to each respective predicted concentrationas these were assumed to be zero or negligible.

Further information on the options selected and the model configuration are given within theAUSPLUME output files provided in Appendix A.



9. Model results

9.1 Compliance with Instack Concentration (Schedule 1)Schedule 1 of the EPP (Air Quality) 2004 specifies instack concentrations that would beexpected to be achieved using accepted modern technology. This proposed plant is a newstationary source with an emission from a stack with industry standard ’new’ equipment. The instack concentrations are for routine operations and exclude commissioning, startup andshutdown activities. The fabric filter installation is recognition of the polluting potential of theprocess and is an air pollution control requirement to ensure compliance with the legislated instack concentration allowance.

Compliance with the relevant instack concentration limits specified in Schedule 1 is calculated tobe met, as indicated in Table 91. Particulate matter is calculated to be at 50% of the allowedmass emission rate. All other values are well below allowable limits.

Table 91 Mass emission rates – instack concentrations compared to policy limits

PollutantDesign Criteria Calculated

ValueCalculated

ValueCompliance

status

Concentration

(mg/m3 unlessotherwiseindicated)

Concentration


% ofcorrespondingdesign criterion

Total metals 5 5.6 × 102 1.1 yes

Cadmium 1 1.7 × 102 1.7 yes

Mercury 1 9.0 × 104 0.09 yes

Oxides of nitrogen 2.0 g/m3 (asNO2)

0.058 2.9 yes

Particulate matter 100 50 50 yes

Sulphuric acidmist, sulphurtrioxide or both

100 (as SO3equivalent)

28 28 yes


31/22745/148264

9.2 Compliance with Design Criteria (Schedule 2)Compliance with the relevant atorbeyondtheboundary, ground level concentration limitsspecified in Schedule 2 is predicted, as indicated in Table 92. All known quantifiable emissionconstituents have been assessed against this Schedule of the policy. The plume dispersioncalculation procedure predicted maximum ground level concentrations (glcs) at all grided receptorpoints. This is to be consistent with the Schedule guidance that design glcs are not exceeded “atrelevant receptor locations”. Receptor locations are not otherwise defined in the policy so thisassessment used locations all around the plant – including the adjacent industrial zoned land,public areas and far field residential areas. When stack emissions are involved, the greatestimpacts are often at ranges ten times the stack height. With a 14.3m stack, maximum impactswould be expected within a few hundred metres of the plant.

Table 92 Predicted ground level concentration (glc) compared to policy design criteria

Pollutant Averagingtime Design Criteria Calculated

ValueCalculated

ValueCompliance

status

Concentration


Percentile Concentration


% ofcorrespondingdesign criterion

Nitrogendioxide

1hour 0.16 ppm 99.9th 4.4E02

(0.021 ppm)

13 yes

Sulphurdioxide

1hour 0.20 ppm 99.9th 7.6E03

(0.0027 ppm)

1.4 yes

Carbonmonoxide

8hour 9 ppm 100th 0.79

(0.63 ppm)

7.0 yes

PM10 24hour 0.150 100th 0.0089 5.9 yes

Lead 90day 0.0015 100th 7.7×108 0.005 yes

Acetaldehyde 3minute 0.076 99.9th 9.7×104 1.3 yes

Acetone 3minute 48 99.9th 9.7×103 0.02 yes

Asphalt fume 3minute 0.17 99.9th 2.2×102 13 yes

Benzene 3minute 0.10 99.9th 5.1×104 0.51 yes

Beryllium 3minute 0.00007 99.9th 3.3×107 0.47 yes

Chromium,solublechromic andchromous saltsas Cr

3minute 0.017 99.9th 1.4×106 0.01 yes



Chromic acidand chromatesas CrO3

3minute 0.0017 99.9th 3.0×108 0.002 yes

Copper: fume 3minute 0.0067 99.9th 5.4×106 0.08 yes

Copper: dustand mist

3minute 0.033 99.9th

Formaldehyde 3minute 0.05 99.9th 1.4×103 2.8 yes

Manganese 3minute 0.033* 99.9th 1.5×105 0.05 yes

Mercury(organic)

3minute 0.0003 99.9th 7.0×107 0.23 yes

Mercury(inorganic)

3minute 0.017 99.9th 7.0×107 0.004 yes

Toluene 3minute 0.65 99.9th 2.7×103 0.42 yes

Xylene 3minute 0.35 99.9th 6.3×103 1.8 yes

Zinc (as zincoxide)

3minute 0.17 99.9th 1.2×105 0.01 yes

Arsenic 3minute 0.00017* 99.9th 1.0×106 0.6 yes

Cadmium 3minute 0.000033* 99.9th 1.3×106 3.9 yes

Nickel 3minute 0.0003* 99.9th 6.3×106 2.1 yes

PAH (total) 3minute 0.00073* 99.9th 1.9×104 26 yes

TotalSuspendedParticulates(TSP)

3minute 0.33* 99.9th 4.3×102 13 yes

Copper, mercury and zinc emission rates and glcs based on chemically unspeciated NPIemission factors. For the purpose of assessing compliance with their respective design criteria,the emission rate derived for the element in question has been adopted for each of its species,notwithstanding the fact that the sum of the emission rates for the species of the element cannotexceed the emission rate for the element.


31/22745/148264

9.3 Compliance with Odour Criterion (Schedule 3)The odour criterion specified in Schedule 3 is that the 99.5th percentile 1hour average odourconcentration shall not exceed 2 OU at or beyond the site boundary. It is expected that thiscriterion will not be met at the boundary of the site in all foreseeable operating scenarios. Asensitivity analysis was performed by modelling each individual source as well as the allsourcescenario.

Source Contribution

High quality meteorological and emission data were used in this assessment. The constituentblend comprising the odour emissions, expressed as OUvol/min, is reasonably known for thisplant process but is considered as an ‘Unknown mixture’ due to the complex combination ofvarious odorous constituents.

Table 93 predicted offsite odour levels

ScenarioSources of

simultaneousemission

Averagingtime

Highest offsite99.5th

percentile 1hour averageodour level

DesignCriteria for

99.5th

percentile 1hour averageodour level

Compliancestatus

1 Main stack 1hour 2.2 OU 2 OU Yes(after roundingto whole OU)

2 Loading 1hour 42 OU 2 OU No

3 Tarping 1hour 4.2 OU 2 OU No

4 Allin 1hour 45 OU* 2 OU No

* The value would be 40 OU had the structure height been set to 12.5 m instead of 9.5 m.

A contour plot of the ‘Allin’ scenario is shown in Figure 7. The highest impacts are at theimmediate area of the operations with an expected diluting due to atmospheric process by thetime odours have moved to the site boundary. The 2OU 99.5 percentile is calculated to extendbeyond the site boundary. It extends into the adjacent industrial land, mostly towards the northand east but with less of an extent to the west. The prevailing daytime northwest sector windsproduce an extension across the Bass Highway and impact on the isolated residential receptor‘Westella’. This receptor has a 99.5 percentile of 1.3 OU. The other identified nearest residentialreceptors experience 99.5 percentile values well below the assessment criteria of 2 OU.

New plant will be used which is a form of control for unavoidable emissions, including odours.The use of an extraction system through the fabric filter and up the stack during loading removessome odour but more importantly elevates the source. This is simply “using dilution as thesolution to pollution” and is known to be used on largerscaled plant. The noncontinuous nature



of the emission (potentially at 4% on an annualised basis) substantially lowers the probability thatthe 99.5 percentile will in fact be exceeded beyond the site boundary (see below).

The best control for the odours during the tarping stage of the process is to limit the time of theemission. This can be achieved by operating procedures that require immediate tarping of loadsas soon as the truck has been filled.

Effect of Intermittency

The modelling has been done with the conservative assumption of continuous truck loadingduring all hours from 6:00am to 6:00pm. If truck filling and turnaround takes 6 minutes, therewould be 10 trucks per hour and 120 trucks per day. Only a maximum of 20 trucks are expectedthrough during a peak demand day. Allowing for a 10minute turnaround still results in an excessof daily requirements (72 compared to 20). The quick filling operation (6minutes) produces a 6fold (120:20 or 6:1) reduction while the lower 10minute turnaround produces a near 3foldreduction (72:20 or 3.6:1). Frequency plots reflecting these values have been plotted in Figure 8.The 44hour contour corresponds to the 99.5 percentile while the 132 and 264 contourscorrespond to 10 and 5 minute filling/turnaround respectively. As expected, the area outside thesite boundary decreases in extent to now only include the industrial zoned land.

Clause 11(f) of the policy allows the regulatory authority to permit emissions once best practiceenvironmental management has been applied and it is satisfied that beyond the boundary thereis:

» No risk to any person’s health;

» No interference to amenity; and

» No serious or material environmental harm.

Clause 13 is concerned with odour and also has discretionary words around the likelihood tocause environmental nuisance or environmental harm.

Odours, at the levels and duration expected, do not cause risk to health or serious and/or materialharm. The nearest receptor that could be considered residential is the Westella Bed & Breakfast.Odour levels here are below the Schedule 3 requirements so would not expect to haveinterference to amenity.

By far the greatest contribution to offsite odour impact is the emission of odour that occurs duringand after loading. GHD are confident that Schedule 3 compliance could be achieved for routineoperations if a very highproportion of the odour emitted during loading and before tarping werecaptured and subsequently dispersed through a tall stack. As a consequence, it may benecessary to increase the stack height or decrease the stack diameter. We suggest, as optionsfor further engineering and environmentalimpact assessment, that the captured emissions mightbe directed to the baghouse directly, or, instead, to the burner. These measures may alsoalleviate some of the risk of causing environmental nuisance or harm during nonroutineoperations.


Contour Plot of AUSPLUME Model Run All SourcesFigure 7

LEGEND

G:\31\xxxxx\CADD\GIS\Projects\2007. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA CUSTODIAN(S), make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.GHD and DATA CUSTODIAN cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as aresult of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. Created by: C Pappin




[email protected]

Job NumberRevision

Date

3122745A6 June 2008

Metres (at A4)

220

5

2

10

45

Sensitive Receptors

Odour Contours

0 100 200




Frequency Plot with Adjustment for NonContinuous EmissionsFigure 8

LEGEND

G:\31\xxxxx\CADD\GIS\Projects\2007. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA CUSTODIAN(S), make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.GHD and DATA CUSTODIAN cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as aresult of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. Created by: C Pappin




[email protected]

Job NumberRevision

Date

3122745A6 June 2008

Metres (at A4)

2

264

132

44

500

15

Sensitive Receptors

Odour Contours

0 100 200




31/22745/148264

10. Conclusion

It is proposed to install a hotmix batch asphalt plant, and to operate it between 6:00am and6:00pm on weekdays, and a limited, but unknown, number of Saturdays. It is understood that themajor emissions will occur from:» The main stack, which serves the baghouse;

» The loading of a truck with asphalt; and

» The remainder of the asphalt loadout, up to the point where the truck’s load is covered with atarpaulin.

Although the plant has a production capacity of 80 tonne per hour, daily production is expected tobe more like 300 tonne per day (20 trucks per day), i.e., about 30% of the plant’s capacity toproduce asphalt (300 tonnes per day is 30% of 80 tonne per hour for 12 hours). Moreover, thiswill not occur every day (see 4% calculation on page 1).

The modelling of the emissions to air from the proposed hotmix batch asphalt plant has beenundertaken on the basis of a several assumptions, including:

» The client will implement the measures necessary to ensure that only the main stack, theloading of a truck, and the uncovered asphalt load on a single truck are the only significantsources of emission at the site at any one time;

» The odour emissions that arise during loading are not captured;

» No coldmix asphalt is produced or held at the plant; and

» The plant is producing and loading asphalt continuously during the proposed operating hoursof 6 am to 6 pm (EST).

The assessment indicates that Schedule 1 EPP (Air Quality) instack emission limits would becomplied with. The modelling indicates that Schedule 2 EPP (Air Quality) limits would becomplied with. Only particulate matter approaches the policy limit (50%).

Compliance to design criteria is emphatic for all but odour. The Schedule 3 requirement, that the99.5th percentile 1houraverage odour concentration at or beyond the site boundary be less than2 OU, would not, however, be complied with without considering intermittency, due to:

» The 2 OU 99.5 percentile is predicted to extend into surrounding sites; and

» The 99.5th percentile 1houraverage odour concentration offsite is predicted to be as muchas 45 OU;

Importantly, the 99.5th percentile odour concentration at the most exposed receptor that could beconsidered residential, the Westella Bed & Breakfast, is predicted to be 1.3 OU, i.e., <2 OU.

GHD expects the actual impacts to be less sever than those predicted above because actualproduction is forecast to be intermittent (4% on an annualised basis). It is the DEPHA applyingdiscretion in deciding whether to apply the Schedule 3 criterion based on environmental nuisanceor harm.



11. Recommendations

We recommend the following:

» The drum dryer be operated under slight negative pressure to minimise the potential forescape of dust through seals;

» The dryer burner be routinely maintained and tuned to improve combustion efficiency andreduce emissions of carbon monoxide and organic compounds associated with incompletecombustion;

» All process controls be regularly inspected and maintained in accordance with an inspectionand maintenance schedule for the plant;

» The elevator and mixing tower be operated under a slight negative pressure so as to captureall dust, blue smoke and odour emissions from all parts of the elevator and tower, and theseemissions be directed to an appropriate dustcollection system before discharge toatmosphere via the stack;

» The mixing tower be operated under a slight negative pressure so as to minimise the amountof blue smoke and odour emissions released from the tower as the asphalt is loaded intotrucks;

» Subject to an assessment of feasibility and assessment by DEPHA, an extraction system isinstalled on the loadout from the mixing tower, so as to capture emissions associated withloading and to direct them either directly or indirectly to an appropriate dustcollection systembefore discharge to atmosphere via the stack;

» The bitumen kettles be fitted with blue smoke extraction devices; and

» The bitumen kettles be fitted with appropriate fume adsorption devices (e.g. activated carbonfilters, or similar) or with a vapour recovery system to reduce breathing losses and minimiseodorous emissions to air.


31/22745/148264

12. Limitations Disclaimer

This report presents the results of an investigation and analysis to determine the odour impactfrom an asphalt plant, and was produced specifically for Asphalt Suppliers Pty Ltd for thepurposes of this commission. GHD accepts no responsibility for other use of the data. Nowarranties, expressed or implied, are offered to any third parties and no liability will be acceptedfor use of this report by any third party.

The advice tendered in this report is based on information obtained from the site inspection,sample collection at the site and regulatory dispersion modelling. GHD accepts no responsibilityfor the integrity of the software coding of the EPA approved regulatory dispersion model used.

The work conducted by GHD under this commission has been to the standard that wouldnormally be expected of professional environmental consulting firm practising in this field in theState of Victoria. However, although strenuous effort has been made to identify and assess allsignificant odour issues required by this brief we cannot guarantee that other issues outside ofthe scope of work undertaken by GHD do not remain.

An understanding of the site conditions depends on the integration of many pieces of information,some regional, some site specific, some structurespecific and some experiencedbased. Hencethis report should not be altered, amended or abbreviated, issued in part or issued in any wayincomplete without prior checking and approval by GHD. GHD accepts no responsibility for anycircumstances that arise from the issue of the report that has been modified other than by GHD.



Appendix A

Example AUSPLUME Configuration file

AUSPLUME Configuration File for model run thatproduced Figures 7 & 8

Odourv3.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{Odourv1: odour for the Ulverstone asphalt plant tarping area only}Concentration(1)/Deposition(0), Emission rate units, Concentration/Depositionunits,Background Concentration, Variable Background flag,Variable Emission Flag{True OUV/min Odour_Units 0 False False }

Terrain influence tag, 0ignore, 1 include{2}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){1}

Source Group informationBPIP Run (1True, 0False){1 }Total number of buildings{1 }Building name, Base elevation, Number of tiers{1 0 1 }Height, Number of sides{9.5 6 }X coordinates{433149 433133 433136 433145 433143 433150 }Y coordinates{5443433 5443430 5443416 5443418 5443427 5443428 }

Source Information

Source ID, Source Type (1 stack, 2 area, 3 volume) and X, Y, Z coordinates{TP 2 433154 5443422 9.5 }Source height{0 0 }Source Shape{6 }Side length, Effective Radius{0 0 }Emission type (1constant, 2monthly, 3hours of the day, 4wind and stability,5hour and season, 6temperarture), Position in Array, Number of particlefractions{3 0 }Hourly emission rate{0 0 0 0 0 0 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 0 0 0 00 0 }SigmaZ,XSide,YSide,Angle,Radius,Number of Vertices{1.5 2 5 20 0 20 4 }X vertices coordinates{433154 433154 433156 433156 }Y vertices coordinates{5443422 5443427 5443427 5443422 }

Receptor information

Discrete receptorsReceptor coordinates type (1Cartesian,0Polar),Number of Receptors

Page 1

Odourv3.cfg{1 0 }

Gridded receptorsReceptor coordinates type (1Cartesian, 0Polar), Number of X and Y coordinates,Receptor height{1 80 80 0 }

X grid coordinates{432145 432170 432195 432220 432245 432270 432295 432320 432345 432370 432395432420 432445 432470 432495 432520 432545 432570 432595 432620 432645 432670432695 432720 432745 432770 432795 432820 432845 432870 432895 432920 432945432970 432995 433020 433045 433070 433095 433120 433145 433170 433195 433220433245 433270 433295 433320 433345 433370 433395 433420 433445 433470 433495433520 433545 433570 433595 433620 433645 433670 433695 433720 433745 433770433795 433820 433845 433870 433895 433920 433945 433970 433995 434020 434045434070 434095 434120 }

Y grid coordinates{5442280 5442305 5442330 5442355 5442380 5442405 5442430 5442455 5442480 54425055442530 5442555 5442580 5442605 5442630 5442655 5442680 5442705 5442730 54427555442780 5442805 5442830 5442855 5442880 5442905 5442930 5442955 5442980 54430055443030 5443055 5443080 5443105 5443130 5443155 5443180 5443205 5443230 54432555443280 5443305 5443330 5443355 5443380 5443405 5443430 5443455 5443480 54435055443530 5443555 5443580 5443605 5443630 5443655 5443680 5443705 5443730 54437555443780 5443805 5443830 5443855 5443880 5443905 5443930 5443955 5443980 54440055444030 5444055 5444080 5444105 5444130 5444155 5444180 5444205 5444230 5444255}

Model settings and parametersEmission conversion factor, Averaging Time{0.016666 0 }

Land use (surface roughness){0.6}

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

Statistical output options{0 4 }

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

Disregard exponents (1yes, 0no), Exponent Scheme (1Irvin urban, 2Irvinrural, 3ISCST, 4User 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 0.20.2 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 0.60.6 }

Building wake effects (1include,0not) , Default decay coefficient, Anemometrheight, Sigmatheta averaging period, Roughness at vane site, Smooth stabilitychanges, ConvectivePDF){1 0 10 60 0.4 0 0 }

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

Stability class adjustments (0None, 1Urban1, 2Urban2){0}Building wake algorithms (1HuberSneider, 2Hybrid, 3SchulmanScire){4}

Page 2

Odourv3.cfgGradual plume rise (1yes,0no), Stack tip downwash (1yes,0no), DisregardTemperature Gradient (1yes,0no), 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 0.020.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 }

Dispersion curves (1Pasquill Gifford, 2 Briggs rural, 3Sigma theta)horizontal < 100 m, ditto vertical < 100 m, ditto horizontal > 100 m, dittovertical > 100 m{3 1 2 2 }Adjust PG curves for roughness Horizontal, Vertical (1yes,0no){1 1 }Enhance plume for buyoancy Horizontal, Vertical (1yes,0no){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{'N:\AU\Melbourne\Projects\31\22745\Tech\AUSPLUME\Odourv3.txt'}Meteorological file{'N:\AU\Melbourne\Projects\31\22745\Tech\Met data and windroses\devonport_airport.met'}Receptor file{'N:\AU\Melbourne\Projects\31\22745\CADD\12D\grid.ter'}SaveAll file{'N:\AU\Melbourne\Projects\31\22745\Tech\AUSPLUME\Odourv3.cal'}Statistics output file{'G:\31\22745\Tech\AUSPLUME\Odourv1.sta'}

Page 3

31/22745/148264 Ulverstone Asphalt PlantAir Quality Assessment

Appendix B

AUSPLUME Model Extent


Modelling DomainAppendix B

LEGEND

G:\31\22745\CADD\GIS\Projects\Appendix_B.wor2007. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA CUSTODIAN(S), make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.GHD and DATA CUSTODIAN cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as aresult of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: Google Earth Pro, GHD, Asphalt Suppliers Pty Ltd, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment Tasmania.Created by: G White




[email protected]

Job NumberRevision

Date

31/22745A24 July 2008

Metres (at A4)

Sensitive Receptors (See Figure 1)

Model Domain Extents

0 250 500



31/22745/148264 Ulverstone Asphalt PlantAir Quality Assessment

GHD

180 Lonsdale StreetMelbourne, Victoria 3000T: (03) 8687 8000 F: (03) 8687 8111 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2008

This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purposeof assessing our offer of services and for inclusion in documentation for the engagement of GHD.Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Document Status

Reviewer Approved for IssueRevNo. Author

Name Signature Name Signature Date

0 B. Cook T. Pollock T Pollock 6/6/08

1 B Cook T Pollock T Pollock 24/7/08


asphalt€suppliers€pty€ltd · ulverstone€asphalt€plant 1 air€quality€assessment...

Documents