Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant, Sep ...
Transcript of Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant, Sep ...
Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead
Cement Plant
Prepared for:
Adelaide Brighton Cement
September 2017
FINAL
Prepared by:
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd
ABN 92 097 270 276
Ground Floor, 16 Marie Street | PO Box 2217
Milton, Brisbane, Queensland, 4064, Australia
www.katestone.com.au
Ph +61 7 3369 3699
Fax +61 7 3369 1966
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL: This document records private and confidential information that has commercial value to Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd and its competitors, and its disclosure could reasonably be expected to diminish that commercial value and have an adverse effect on the business and commercial affairs of Adelaide Brighton Cement. In addition, disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information to the EPA.
Disclaimer
http://katestone.com.au/disclaimer/
Copyright
This document, electronic files or software are the copyright property of Katestone Environmental Pty. Ltd. and the information contained therein is solely for the use of the authorised recipient and may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose without the prior written authority of Katestone Environmental Pty. Ltd. Katestone Environmental Pty. Ltd. makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document, electronic files or software or the information contained therein.
Copyright Katestone Environmental Pty. Ltd.
Document Control
Deliverable #: D16076-16
Title: Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant
Version: 1.6 (FINAL)
Client: Adelaide Brighton Cement
Document reference: D16076-16_Birkenhead_AirQuality_Modelling_v1.6.docx
Prepared by: Michael Burchill
Reviewed by: Simon Welchman
Approved by:
Simon Welchman
08/09/2017
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page i
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Legislative framework for air quality .................................................................................................... 2
3. Existing environment ............................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Local terrain and land-use ....................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Existing air quality ....................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.1 Existing sources of emissions .................................................................................................... 5 3.2.2 Existing ambient air quality ...................................................................................................... 7
4. Air quality assessment methodology................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Emission Rates ............................................................................................................................................ 9 4.2 Meteorology ............................................................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Dispersion Modelling ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 10 4.5 NOX to NO2 Conversion .......................................................................................................................... 10
5. Emissions to the atmosphere .............................................................................................................. 11 5.1 Normal operations ................................................................................................................................... 11
5.1.1 Stack sources ........................................................................................................................... 11 5.1.2 Dust collectors ......................................................................................................................... 12 5.1.3 Fugitive sources ....................................................................................................................... 13 5.1.4 Varying emissions sources ...................................................................................................... 14 5.1.5 Controls..................................................................................................................................... 15 5.1.6 Summary................................................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Particulate Emissions due to Process Variations ................................................................................. 16 6. Meteorology .......................................................................................................................................... 18
6.1 Wind speed and wind direction............................................................................................................ 18 6.2 Mixing height ............................................................................................................................................ 20 6.3 Stability Class ............................................................................................................................................ 20
7. Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 22 7.1 Normal operations ................................................................................................................................... 22
7.1.1 Isolation..................................................................................................................................... 22 7.1.2 Cumulative assessment ......................................................................................................... 22 7.1.3 Source contribution analysis ................................................................................................. 22 7.1.4 Detailed stack emissions ........................................................................................................ 28
7.2 Particulate Emissions due to Process Variations ................................................................................. 29 8. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 30 9. References ............................................................................................................................................. 31 Appendix A Ambient Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 42
A1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 42 A2 EPA monitoring ......................................................................................................................................... 43
A2.1 Le Fevre 1 – PM10 and PM2.5 ................................................................................................... 43 A2.2 Le Fevre 2 – NO2 and SO2 ...................................................................................................... 55 A2.3 CBD - CO .................................................................................................................................. 56
A3 ABC Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................ 57 A3.1 Summary................................................................................................................................... 57 A3.2 Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 59
AppendIx B Meteorological and Dispersion Modelling Methodology .................................................. 62 B1 Meteorology ............................................................................................................................................. 62
B1.1 TAPM meteorology ................................................................................................................. 62 B1.2 CALMET meteorological modelling ..................................................................................... 62 B1.3 Comparison of CALMET output with observational data ................................................ 63
B2 CALPUFF dispersion modelling ............................................................................................................... 65 B2.1 CALPUFF Setup ........................................................................................................................ 65 B2.2 Building Inputs .......................................................................................................................... 66
Appendix C Emissions Inventory .................................................................................................................... 67
--
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page ii
C1 Inventory and activity data ................................................................................................................... 67 C2 Vehicle movements ................................................................................................................................ 72 C3 Dust collectors .......................................................................................................................................... 73 C4 Emission Factors for Dust ......................................................................................................................... 75
C4.1 Material transfers ..................................................................................................................... 75 C4.2 Wind erosion of stockpiles ..................................................................................................... 75 C4.3 Wind erosion of exposed areas ............................................................................................ 75 C4.4 Haulage on unpaved roads ................................................................................................. 75 C4.5 Haulage on paved roads ...................................................................................................... 76 C4.6 Vehicle combustion emissions .............................................................................................. 76 C4.7 Dust collectors ......................................................................................................................... 76
Appendix D Modelling and Monitoring Comparison ................................................................................ 77 D1 Model description ................................................................................................................................... 77 D2 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 77
Tables
Table 1 Relevant criteria from the Air EPP Schedule 2 (unless noted otherwise) .............................................. 2 Table 2 Dust deposition objectives ........................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3 Emissions reported to the NPI during the 2015/16 reporting period ...................................................... 5 Table 4 Ambient concentrations at EPA monitoring sites ..................................................................................... 8 Table 5 Ambient background levels used in the assessment (µg/m3) .............................................................. 10 Table 6 Stack characteristics of the modelled stack sources ............................................................................ 11 Table 7 Emission rates of particulate matter from modelled stack sources (g/s)............................................ 11 Table 8 Emission rates from modelled stack sources (g/s) .................................................................................. 12 Table 9 Dust collector vertical release stack characteristics.............................................................................. 13 Table 10 Measured concentrations (mg/Nm³) ....................................................................................................... 13 Table 11 Controls included in the assessment ........................................................................................................ 15 Table 12 Summary of normal operations emissions inventory .............................................................................. 16 Table 13 Stack characteristics and emission rates for process variation scenarios .......................................... 17 Table 14 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 at the
Community Park .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 15 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 at the Le
Fevre 1 monitoring site ................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 16 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 at the
Community Park .......................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 17 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 at the Le
Fevre 1 monitoring site ................................................................................................................................ 26 Table 18 Predicted maximum offsite ground-level concentrations of all pollutants from stacks in isolation 28 Table 19 Predicted maximum offsite ground-level concentrations of all pollutants from stacks including
background.................................................................................................................................................. 29
Figures
Figure 1 Facilities in the region that reported to the NPI in 2015/16 ..................................................................... 7 Figure 2 Schematic of Facility showing locations of stacks, dust collectors and fugitive dust sources ........ 14 Figure 3 Emissions of PM10 by source for normal operations ................................................................................ 16 Figure 4 Annual distribution of winds at the Facility (from CALMET) ................................................................... 18 Figure 5 Seasonal distribution of winds at the Facility (from CALMET) ............................................................... 19 Figure 6 Diurnal distribution of winds at the Facility (from CALMET) ................................................................... 19 Figure 7 Box and whisker plot of mixing height at the Facility location (CALMET) ........................................... 20 Figure 8 Distribution of stability class by hour at the Facility location (CALMET) .............................................. 21 Figure 9 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 at the
Community Park .......................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 10 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 at the Le
Fevre 1 monitoring site ................................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 11 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 at the
Community Park .......................................................................................................................................... 27
--
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page iii
Figure 12 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 at the Le
Fevre 1 monitoring site ................................................................................................................................ 27
Contour Plates
Plate 1 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM10 due to normal operations
of the Facility in isolation ............................................................................................................................. 32 Plate 2 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 due to normal
operations of the Facility in isolation ........................................................................................................ 33 Plate 3 Predicted annual average ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 due to normal operations of the
Facility in isolation ........................................................................................................................................ 34 Plate 4 Predicted annual average dust deposition rate due to normal operations of the Facility in isolation
........................................................................................................................................................................ 35 Plate 5 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM10 due to normal operations
of the Facility including an ambient background of 18 µg/m³............................................................ 36 Plate 6 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 due to normal
operations of the Facility including an ambient background of 7.3 µg/m³ ...................................... 37 Plate 7 Predicted annual average ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 due to normal operations of the
Facility including an ambient background of 7.3 µg/m³ ...................................................................... 38 Plate 8 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM10 due to normal operations
of the Facility and under two process variation scenarios. All scenarios include an ambient
background of 18 µg/m³. ........................................................................................................................... 39 Plate 9 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 due to normal
operations of the Facility and under two process variation scenarios. All scenarios include an
ambient background of 7.3 µg/m³. ......................................................................................................... 40 Plate 10 Predicted maximum monthly average dust deposition rate due under two process variation
scenarios in isolation .................................................................................................................................... 41
--
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page iv
Glossary
Term Definition
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic metre
µm micrometre
°C degrees Celsius
m metre
m/s metres per second
m2 square metres
m3 cubic metres
m3/s cubic metres per second
Nomenclature Definition
CO carbon monoxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
PM10 particulate matter with a diameter less than 10 micrometres
PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometres
SO2 sulfur dioxide
Abbreviations Definition
Air EPP Environment Protection (Air Quality) Policy 2016
EF Emission factor
EPA Environment Protection Authority
EP Act Environment Protection Act 1993
NPI National Pollutant Inventory database
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd (Katestone) was commissioned by Adelaide Brighton Cement (ABC) to
complete an Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant (the Facility).
The Facility’s licence is due for renewal in October 2017. This report fulfils a requirement of the Environment
Protection Authority (EPA) that ABC conducts an air quality assessment of the Facility as part of the licence
renewal process. The air quality assessment has been conducted in accordance with the EPA’s guidance for
air quality assessments.
Modelling of emissions of particulate matter from normal operations was conducted. The results show that:
• 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 are predicted to be more than 50 µg/m³ within a limited area
beyond the site boundary.
• 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 are predicted to be less than 25 µg/m³ beyond the site
boundary.
• Annual average concentrations of PM2.5 are predicted to be more than 8 µg/m³ within a limited area
beyond the site boundary. The background concentration of 7.3 µg/m³ is the major contributor to
concentrations of PM2.5.
• Annual average dust deposition rates are predicted to be less than the NSW Approved Methods
criterion of 66 mg/m²/day at all residential areas.
Modelling of emissions of other air pollutants from the stacks was conducted. The results show:
• All pollutants are less than their respective criteria.
• The maximum offsite 1-hour average concentration of nitrogen dioxide is predicted to be 168 µg/m³,
which is 67% of the criterion of 250 µg/m³.
• All other pollutants are predicted to be less than 14% of their respective criteria.
• All pollutants are less than their respective criteria including background concentrations.
Higher stack particulate emissions were modelled that are representative of short-term process variations. The
results show that these operating conditions do not change significantly the ground-level concentrations in the
residential areas.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd (Katestone) was commissioned by Adelaide Brighton Cement (ABC) to complete
an Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant (the Facility).
The Facility is located in the suburb of Birkenhead in South Australia and is around 13 kilometres from the Adelaide
CBD. Birkenhead is a predominantly residential suburb situated between port facilities occupying the adjacent
banks of the Port River to the east and the suburbs of Exeter and Peterhead to the west. The Facility has operated
since 1913. The Facility manufactures cement that is used in the construction and mining industry.
The Facility’s licence is due for renewal in October 2017. This report fulfils a requirement of the Environment
Protection Authority (EPA) that ABC conducts an air quality assessment of the Facility as part of the licence renewal
process. The air quality assessment has been conducted in accordance with the EPA’s guidance for air quality
assessments, which is contained in the document Ambient air quality assessment (EPA, 2016) (EPA Guidance).
This report addresses the following scope of work:
• Description of the regulatory framework for air quality in South Australia (Section 2)
• Description of the existing environment, including landuse and air quality (Section 3) and meteorology
(Section 6)
• Configuration and description of a suitable dispersion model, CALPUFF, including meteorological
modelling (TAPM/CALMET) (Section 4)
• Estimation of a comprehensive emissions inventory for the site, including emissions from cement kilns
and fugitive dust sources (Section 5)
• Comparison of dispersion modelling results against relevant ambient air quality criteria (Section 7).
--
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 2
2. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR AIR QUALITY
The Environment Protection Act 1993 (EP Act) provides for the management of the air environment in South
Australia. The EP Act describes the general environmental duty of persons to take all reasonable and practicable
measures to prevent or minimise environmental harm when operating an activity that pollutes, or might pollute, the
environment. Part 6 of the EP Act deals with environmental authorisations and development authorisations
including licences and renewals.
The EP Act enables development and implementation of legislative and non-legislative tools to address
environmental issues. These tools include:
• Environment Protection Policies
• Regulations
• Codes of Practice
• National Environment Protection Measures
• Guidelines
• Position statements.
The Environment Protection (Air Quality) Policy 2016 (Air EPP) was developed under the EP Act and came into
effect on 23 July 2016. The Air EPP provides a framework for the regulation of air pollution in South Australia and
includes air quality criteria. Part 6, Section 47 of the EP Act specifies the criteria that must be considered by the
EPA in granting an environmental authorisation. The criteria include any relevant environment protection policy.
Predictions of ground-level concentrations of air pollutants have, therefore, been compared to the maximum ground
level concentrations that are specified in the Air EPP.
The Air EPP does not specify a criterion for dust deposition. This is an important metric for the Facility, as it has
been referred to in a number of complaints received by ABC, and therefore has been included in this assessment.
Predictions of dust deposition rates have been compared to the impact assessment criteria in the NSW EPA
publication: Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales (NSW
EPA, 2017) (Approved Methods).
The Air EPP does not specify a criterion for dioxins and furans, therefore the impact assessment criterion from the
Approved Methods has been adopted.
The criteria and averaging periods used to assess predictions of ground-level concentrations and dust deposition
rates in this report are presented in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
Table 1 Relevant criteria from the Air EPP Schedule 2 (unless noted otherwise)
Pollutant Classification Averaging time Maximum
concentration (µg/m³)
Particles as PM10 Toxicity 24 hours 50
Particles as PM2.5 Toxicity
24 hours 25
12 months 8
Nitrogen dioxide Toxicity
1 hour 250
12 months 60
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 3
Pollutant Classification Averaging time Maximum
concentration (µg/m³)
Carbon monoxide Toxicity
1 hour 31,240
8 hour 11,250
Sulfur dioxide Toxicity
1 hour 570
24 hours 230
12 months 60
Hydrogen chloride Toxicity 3 minutes 270
Chlorine Toxicity 3 minutes 110
Fluoride Bioaccumulation
24 hours 3
7 days 2
90 days 1
Benzene Group 1 carcinogen (IARC1) 3 minutes 58
Chromium (III) compounds Toxicity 3 minutes 19
Chromium VI compounds Group 1 carcinogen (IARC) 3 minutes 0.19
Benzo(a)pyrene as a marker for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Group 1 carcinogen (IARC) 3 minutes 0.8
Antimony and compounds Toxicity 3 minutes 19
Arsenic and compounds Group 1 carcinogen (IARC) 3 minutes 0.19
Barium Toxicity 3 minutes 19
Beryllium and beryllium compounds
Group 1 carcinogen (IARC) 3 minutes 0.008
Cadmium and cadmium compounds
Group 1 carcinogen (IARC) 3 minutes 0.036
Copper fume Toxicity 3 minutes 7.3
Iron oxide fume Toxicity 3 minutes 190
Lead Toxicity 12 months 0.5
Magnesium oxide fume Toxicity 3 minutes 360
Manganese and compounds Toxicity 3 minutes 36
Mercury - inorganic Bioaccumulation 3 minutes 4
Mercury - organic Bioaccumulation 3 minutes 0.36
Nickel and nickel compounds Group 1 carcinogen (IARC) 3 minutes 0.36
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 4
Pollutant Classification Averaging time Maximum
concentration (µg/m³)
Zinc oxide fume Toxicity 3 minutes 190
Dioxins and furans2 Group 1 carcinogen (IARC) 1-hour 0.0000037
Table notes: 1 International Agency for Research on Cancer 2 NSW Approved Methods
Table 2 Dust deposition objectives
Pollutant Classification Averaging time Maximum deposition
rate (mg/m²/day)
Deposited dust (incremental) Nuisance Annual 661
Note: 1 Converted from g/m2/month.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 5
3. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Local terrain and land-use
The Facility is located in the suburb of Birkenhead in South Australia and is around 13 kilometres from the Adelaide
CBD. Birkenhead is a predominantly residential suburb situated between port facilities occupying the adjacent
banks of the Port River to the east and the suburbs of Exeter and Peterhead to the west.
Land use surrounding the Facility is predominantly residential to the north, west and south. Existing industries are
located within the port to the east and to the north of the Facility and include the Viva Energy Bitumen Plant, AGL
Torrens Island Power Station, Osborne Cogeneration Plant and EDL Wingfield LFG plant.
The terrain at Birkenhead is relatively flat, with the site of the Facility at an elevation of approximately two metres
above sea level.
3.2 Existing air quality
3.2.1 Existing sources of emissions
The Facility is located south of the Outer Harbour industrial area and west of Port Adelaide. A broad range of
industrial activities is located in the surrounding area. The National Pollutant Inventory database for the 2015/16
reporting year identifies 67 other facilities within 10 km that reported emissions of air pollutants in common with the
Facility (Table 3). These other facilities include electricity generation, metal fabrication, asphalt production,
manufacturing of a broad range of products (including foods, beer and wine, paints, boxes, plastic and metal
products), and storage and distribution of products.
The locations of the nearest facilities are shown in Figure 1.
Table 3 Emissions reported to the NPI during the 2015/16 reporting period
Registered business Facility Emissions reported to the NPI (kg/year)
PM10 PM2.5 NOX SO2 CO
ACI OPERATIONS PTY LTD ACI Glass Packaging 54,285 43,978 363,127 130,500 19,752
ADELAIDE BRIGHTON CEMENT LTD
Birkenhead Plant 121,734 19,999 2,966,640 22,187 611,083
AGL SA GENERATION PTY LIMITED
AGL Torrens Island Power Station
107,941 103,318 3,115,936 297,970 323,921
AGL SOUTH AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
AGL Coopers Cogeneration 1,026 989 51,297 92 12,824
BORAL RESOURCES (SA) LIMITED
Gepps Cross Asphalt Plant 7,917 164 3,945 351 24,456
BPL ADELAIDE PTY LIMITED BPL Adelaide Pty Limited 273 269 4,691 17 20,590
BRADKEN RESOURCES PTY LIMITED
Bradken Adelaide 26,190 331 8,155 91 10,805
CARGILL MALT ASIA PACIFIC PTY LTD
Malt Cavan 1,313 180 2,390 26 2,039
Malt Port Adelaide 6,362 655 4,476 98 7,588
DOWNER EDI WORKS PTY LTD Wingfield 2,209 94 4,212 677 46,225
EDL LFG (SA) PTY LTD Wingfield 1 77 35 36,400 2,140 77,800
Wingfield 2 85 39 11,400 2,690 97,700
INTERCAST & FORGE PTY LIMITED
Intercast & Forge, Wingfield 26,399 123 2,396 505 1,156
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 6
Registered business Facility Emissions reported to the NPI (kg/year)
PM10 PM2.5 NOX SO2 CO
KORVEST LTD Korvest Ltd 2,347 2,108 4,844 17 1,814
MCKECHNIE IRON FOUNDRY PROPRIETARY LIMITED
McKechnie Iron Foundry Pty Ltd
2,674 1,367 - - -
ORIGIN ENERGY POWER LIMITED
Quarantine Power Station 4,778 4,607 73,135 425 11,141
ORORA LIMITED Orora Fibre Packaging 96 96 6,721 14 3,113
OSBORNE COGENERATION PTY LTD
Osborne Cogeneration Plant
412 412 326,473 22,339 13,701
PELICAN POINT POWER LIMITED
Pelican Point Power Station 6,689 6,450 105,122 597 17,061
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WATER CORPORATION
Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant
1,674 1,674 38,501 366 5,440
SOUTH EAST AUSTRALIA GAS PTY LTD
Cavan Meter Stations 97 97 1,315 15 1,108
Pelican Point Meter Station 100 100 1,345 15 1,134
Quarantine Meter Station 17 17 232 3 195
Torrens Island Meter Station
2,118 2,118 28,588 316 24,088
THE SMITH'S SNACKFOOD COMPANY PTY LIMITED
Regency Park 8,757 703 4,946 104 8,440
OTHER Other 6,711 5,024 91,489 1,061 73,360
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 7
Figure 1 Facilities in the region that reported to the NPI in 2015/16
3.2.2 Existing ambient air quality
The EPA conducts ambient air quality monitoring at a number of locations around the state. There are three sites
of relevance to the Facility. The EPA monitors concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 at Le Fevre 1. Concentrations of
NO2 and SO2 are monitored by the EPA at Le Fevre 2 and CO is monitored at Adelaide CBD site. A detailed
analysis of ambient monitoring data is presented in Appendix A.
Le Fevre 1 may potentially be influenced by the Facility when the wind direction is between 20° and 80°. To avoid
double counting and as per Katestone’s discussion with the EPA on 8 March 2017, background concentrations of
PM10 and PM2.5 have been estimated based on the average concentration measured at Le Fevre 1 when winds
are not from the direction of the Facility.
Due to the distance of Le Fevre 2 from the Facility, it is impractical to remove the potential influence of the Facility.
Consequently, the average concentrations of NO2 and SO2 measured at this site has been used as a background.
Concentrations at Le Fevre 2 will potentially include a small contribution from the Facility and will therefore be
conservative. The average concentration of CO from the Adelaide CBD site has been used as a conservative
estimate of the background concentration in the vicinity of the Facility. In reality, levels of CO will be lower than
measurements from the CBD.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 8
Average concentrations are based on all available data. Meteorological data is available for 2015 and 2016 only,
therefore concentrations subset by wind direction are for this period only.
Table 4 Ambient concentrations at EPA monitoring sites
Monitor Pollutant
Average concentration (µg/m³)
All directions from direction of
Facility not from direction of
Facility
Le Fevre 1 PM10 19.9 25.6 18.0
PM2.5 7.5 8.8 7.3
Le Fevre 2 NO2 10.8 NA NA
SO2 0.9 NA NA
CBD CO 245 NA NA
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 9
4. AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
This air quality assessment was conducted in accordance with recognised techniques for dispersion modelling and
emission estimation. The assessment incorporates source characteristics, air pollution emission rates, local
meteorology, terrain and land use.
4.1 Emission Rates
Emissions from the cement kilns, slag dryer and dust collectors have been based on stack tests. Where multiple
samples were taken from the same source, the highest concentration has been used in the dispersion modelling.
Emissions from fugitive sources have been calculated primarily using the NPI Emissions Estimation Technique
(EET) Manual for Cement Manufacturing v2.1. Emissions from vehicle movements have been calculated using NPI
EET Manual for mining and the US EPA AP42 Paved Roads handbook.
4.2 Meteorology
The meteorological data for this study was generated by coupling TAPM (version 4.0.5), a prognostic mesoscale
model, to CALMET (version 6.5.0), a diagnostic meteorological model. The coupled methodology for the
TAPM/CALMET modelling system was developed by Katestone to enable high resolution modelling for regulatory
and environmental assessments. The modelling system can incorporate synoptic, mesoscale and local
atmospheric conditions, detailed topography and land use categorisation schemes to simulate synoptic and
regional scale meteorology for input into pollutant dispersion models, such as CALPUFF.
Following discussions with the EPA, 2009 was selected for the meteorological model simulation as a representative
year. Further details of the model configuration and output are supplied in Appendix B. Data from five monitoring
stations operated by the Bureau of Meteorology was assimilated into the TAPM simulation to improve the
representativeness of the generated dataset.
4.3 Dispersion Modelling
The dispersion modelling of emissions from the Facility has been conducted using the CALPUFF dispersion model.
The CALPUFF model utilises the three-dimensional wind fields from CALMET to simulate the dispersion of air
pollutants to predict ground-level concentrations across a gridded domain. CALPUFF is a non-steady-state
Lagrangian Gaussian puff model containing parameterisations for complex terrain effects, overwater transport,
coastal interaction effects, building downwash, wet and dry removal, and simple chemical transformation.
CALPUFF employs the three dimensional meteorological fields generated from the CALMET model by simulating
the effects of time and space varying meteorological conditions on pollutant transport, transformation and removal.
CALPUFF contains algorithms that can resolve near-source effects such as building downwash, transitional plume
rise, partial plume penetration, sub-grid scale terrain interactions, as well as the long-range effects of removal,
transformation, vertical wind shear, overwater transport and coastal interactions. Emission sources can be
characterised as arbitrarily-varying point, area, volume and lines or any combination of those sources within the
modelling domain.
CALPUFF is a model recognised as suitable for air quality assessments by the EPA, particularly for facilities on
complex terrain or in coastal locations.
Details of the CALPUFF model configuration are provided in Appendix B.
--
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 10
4.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative concentrations of particulates, NOx, SO2 and CO due to the Facility and ambient background levels
have been calculated for comparison against the air quality criteria. Ambient background concentrations of these
pollutants have been determined from monitoring data from the EPA monitoring network and are presented in
Table 5. Predicted ground-level concentrations of all other air pollutants due to the Facility have been assessed
without ambient background concentrations.
Table 5 Ambient background levels used in the assessment (µg/m3)
Pollutant Averaging time Ambient background concentration (µg/m³)
Source
Particles as PM10 24 hours 18.0 Average PM10 concentration at Le Fevre 1 when winds are not from the Facility
Particles as PM2.5 24 hours 7.3 Average PM2.5 concentration at Le Fevre
1 when winds are not from the Facility Annual 7.3
Nitrogen dioxide 1 hour 10.8
Average NO2 concentration at Le Fevre 2 Annual 10.8
Carbon monoxide 1 hour 245
Average CO concentration at CBD 8 hour 245
Sulfur dioxide
1 hour 0.9
Average SO2 concentration at Le Fevre 2 24 hours 0.9
Annual 0.9
4.5 NOX to NO2 Conversion
The prediction of ground-level concentrations of NO2 has been conducted by modelling the total emission rate in
grams per second for NOX from each source, with the results scaled by an empirical nitric oxide/nitrogen dioxide
conversion ratio. Measurements around power stations in Central Queensland show that under worst case
conditions a conversion ratio of 25 - 40% of nitric oxide to nitrogen dioxide occurs within the first ten kilometres of
plume travel. During days with elevated background levels of hydrocarbons (generally originating from bush-fires,
hazard reduction burning or other similar activities), the resulting conversion is usually below 50% in the first thirty
kilometres of plume travel (Bofinger et al., 1986).
For this assessment, conversion from NOX to NO2 has been conducted in the following way:
• 1 hour: A 10% in stack NO2:NOX ratio and a 30% ratio at 10 km downwind. At intervening distances, the
ratio is linearly interpolated between these two points
• Annual: A conservative 30% NO2:NOX ratio has been applied at all distances.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 11
5. EMISSIONS TO THE ATMOSPHERE
5.1 Normal operations
5.1.1 Stack sources
The Facility’s licenced stack emission sources are as follows:
• Dry process kiln main stack (4A)
• Pre-calciner plant stack (4B)
• Slag processing plant (SPP)
The stack characteristics and emission rates for these three stacks were derived from emissions tests conducted
by AirLabs.
Emissions for the stacks 4A and 4B are based on the worst-case emissions from tests conducted in October 2015
(AirLabs, 2016A) and June 2016 (AirLabs, 2016B). Data for the SPP stack is derived from tests conducted in July
2013 (AirLabs, 2013). Stack characteristics and emission rates that have been used in the dispersion modelling
are presented in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively.
Table 6 Stack characteristics of the modelled stack sources
Parameter Units Dry process kiln
stack (4A) Pre-calciner stack (4B)
Slag processing plant
Stack height m 75.5 96 12.3
Stack diameter m 3.23 3.0 1.25
Exhaust gas temperature °C 102 108 60
Exhaust gas velocity m/s 19.3 19.1 19.1
Moisture content % 8.9 23.8 0.8
Exhaust gas flow rate (actual) m³/s 158 135 24
Exhaust gas flow rate (0°C, 1 atm, dry) Nm³/s 107 74 19
Table 7 Emission rates of particulate matter from modelled stack sources (g/s)
Pollutant Dry process kiln
stack (4A) Pre-calciner stack
(4B) Slag processing
plant
TSP 2.50 2.23 0.02
PM10 1.67 1.37 0.02 a
PM2.5 0.52 0.67 0.02 a
Table note: a Particle size distribution not available for the slag processing plant. Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 have been conservatively assumed to be equal to emissions of TSP
Emissions of other pollutants were based on the maximum of normal operations (AirLabs, 2016A and AirLabs,
2016B) and testing conducted during the increased plastics in wood trial, in October 2014 (AirLabs, 2015) to ensure
that the potential worst-case emissions were considered.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 12
Stack characteristics are the same as presented in Table 6. Modelled emission rates are presented in Table 8.
Table 8 Emission rates from modelled stack sources (g/s)
Pollutant Dry process kiln
stack (4A) Pre-calciner stack
(4B) Slag processing
plant
NOX as NO2 66.3 50.8 0.06
Carbon monoxide 17.0 26.5 0.83
Sulfur dioxide 5.33 0.23 0.02
Hydrogen chloride 0.45 0.33 0.004
Chlorine 0.27 0.17 0.005
Fluoride (as HF) 0.01 0.007 0.001
Total VOC 0.08 0.10 0.009
Benzene 0.009 0.02 0.001
Chromium VI 0.0001 1.8E-05 2.5E-06
PAHs 7.5E-07 5.8E-07 2.2E-07
Antimony and compounds 2.0E-05 1.4E-05 3.3E-06
Arsenic and compounds 2.0E-05 1.6E-05 3.3E-06
Barium 0.0004 0.0004 3.3E-05
Beryllium and compounds 1.1E-05 1.5E-05 3.3E-06
Cadmium and compounds 5.5E-05 5.7E-06 1.1E-06
Chromium III and compounds 0.0003 0.0002 5.0E-05
Copper oxide fume (as CuO) 0.004 0.0003 2.3E-05
Iron oxide fume (as Fe2O3) 0.05 0.03 0.002
Lead and compounds 0.0009 0.03 2.2E-05
Magnesium oxide fume (as MgO) 0.22 0.0001 0.002
Manganese and compounds 0.001 0.001 0.0001
Mercury (organic) 0.0002 0.0004 1.0E-06
Mercury (inorganic) 2.5E-05 3.5E-05 6.7E-07
Nickel and compounds 0.0002 0.0001 6.7E-05
Zinc oxide fume (as ZnO) 0.007 0.001 0.0007
Polychlorinated Dioxins and Furans 4.0E-09 2.5E-09 -
5.1.2 Dust collectors
More than 70 dust collectors are installed throughout the facility that remove particulate matter from air before it is
vented to the environment or reintroduced into a building. Dust collectors that vent inside a building are not sources
of emissions to the environment and therefore are not considered further. Of the remaining dust collectors, the
three most important are attached to cement mill sheds. Emissions from these account for approximately half of all
emissions from dust collectors.
The vents from the dust collectors attached to cement mills 6 and 7 are vertical release points and have been
modelled as point sources. All other dust collectors have been modelled as volume sources. The associated
emissions characteristics are presented in Table 9.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 13
Table 9 Dust collector vertical release stack characteristics
Parameter Units CM6 CM7
Stack height m 25.7 22
Stack diameter m 1.06 2.0
Exhaust gas temperature °C 25 25
Exhaust gas velocity m/s 21.6 11.1
Exhaust gas flow rate (actual) m³/s 18.9 34.9
In addition to dust collectors that vent inside a building, dust collectors that operate only periodically or that have
very low flows, and therefore very low emissions, have not been considered as part of this assessment. Thirty-
three dust collectors have been included in the inventory, representing over 95% of dust collector emissions.
Particulate matter concentrations from all modelled dust collectors are based on monitoring conducted in May and
June 2017 (AirLabs, 2017). A summary of the monitoring data is presented in Table 10. A detailed description of
all dust collectors is presented in Appendix C. Emission rates are based on the measured concentrations in Table
10, dust collector flow rates and estimated utilisation throughout the year.
Table 10 Measured concentrations (mg/Nm³)
Dust collector TSP PM10 PM2.5 a
CM1 1.3 0.8 0.7
CM6 7.3 1.9 1.5
CM7 1.2 1.1 0.7
DC23 0.2 0.1 0.1
DC38 0.4 0.2 0.2
DC41 0.3 0.3 0.3
DC 2CR3/CS4 0.9 0.5 0.4
All other dust collectors 7.3 1.9 1.5
Table note: a PM2.5 concentrations are estimates based on microscopy analysis of TSP and PM10 filters (AirLabs, 2017)
5.1.3 Fugitive sources
The following sources of fugitive dust have been accounted for in the model:
• Unloading of limestone from ships
• Onsite transfers of limestone, gypsum, shale, black sand, mill scale, bauxite and slag
• Wind erosion of stockpiles
• Wind erosion of cleared areas
• Vehicle movements on paved and unpaved areas.
• Combustion emissions from vehicles onsite.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 14
A schematic showing the location of fugitive dust sources as well as the stacks and dust collectors is presented in
Figure 2. Full details of the emissions estimation process for each source type is included in Appendix C as well
as a detailed emissions inventory.
Figure 2 Schematic of Facility showing locations of stacks, dust collectors and fugitive dust sources
5.1.4 Varying emissions sources
The Facility operates 24-hours per day and most activities onsite may occur at any time of the day or night.
However, a small number of activities occur at certain times, and some are more likely to occur during the day shift.
This has been accounted for in this assessment.
Limestone is brought to the Facility by the ship Accolade, which arrives each evening. Therefore, all ship unloading
and subsequent transfer of material to the Block 9 stockpile occurs at night. This has been incorporated into the
modelling by ensuring that emissions from these sources only occur between 5pm and 5am.
Limestone is moved from Block 9 to the Shellblock stockpile by truck predominantly during the dayshift. Emissions
have been apportioned in the model according to the assumption that 80% of truck movements and associated
material handling occurs between 5am and 5pm.
Bulk cement is trucked offsite predominantly during the dayshift. Emissions have been apportioned in the model
according to the assumption that 80% of truck movements and associated material handling occurs between 5am
and 5pm.
--
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 15
5.1.5 Controls
Controls that have been incorporated into the assessment are listed in Table 11. Control efficiencies have been
taken from the NPI Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Cement v2.1 (NPI, 2008).
Table 11 Controls included in the assessment
Control Activities Estimated control
efficiency
4-sided enclosure with water sprays Ship unloading 95% a
3-sided hopper Limestone hopper, Slag hopper 90%
Enclosure with dust suppression Transfer of miscellaneous materials (MM) 98% b
3-sided bunkers with wind canopies MM Pit stockpiles 90%
3-sided bunkers with hard stand base Slag stockpile 90%
Chemical suppressant Stockpiles (limestone, slag, bauxite, gypsum), exposed areas
80%
Chemical suppressant Unpaved roads 80%
Water cart Paved roads 75%
Watering Limestone stockpile 50%
Table notes: a 90% control for enclosure, 50% control for water sprays b 90% control for enclosure, 80% control for dust suppression
Not all control measures are able to be quantified. The following controls measures have been put in place by ABC
but have not been accounted for in the model:
• Shade cloth – reduce wind speed and collect dust
• Truck wash
5.1.6 Summary
A summary of the emissions inventory for normal operations is presented in Table 12. Emissions have been
calculated primarily using the NPI Emissions Estimation Technique (EET) Manual for Cement Manufacturing v2.1.
Emissions from vehicle movements have been calculated using NPI EET Manual for mining and the US EPA AP42
Paved Roads handbook. A detailed emissions inventory is provided in Appendix C.
The inventory is dominated by emissions from the cement kiln stacks 4A and 4B, as shown graphically in Figure 3
for PM10.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 16
Table 12 Summary of normal operations emissions inventory
Activity Emission rate (g/s) Emission rate (kg/year)
TSP PM10 PM2.5 TSP PM10 PM2.5
Handling - Transfer points 0.003 0.001 0.000 51 24 4
Handling - Stockpiles 0.012 0.006 0.001 272 128 19
Stockpile wind erosion 0.156 0.078 0.012 4,907 2,454 368
Exposed areas wind erosion 0.293 0.147 0.022 9,248 4,624 694
Dust collectors 0.508 0.170 0.132 16,011 5,363 4,164
Stacks 4.749 3.049 1.199 149,775 96,164 37,822
4A Stack 2.500 1.667 0.517 78,840 52,560 16,294
4B Stack 2.233 1.367 0.667 70,430 43,099 21,024
Slag Stack 0.016 0.016 0.016 505 505 505
Vehicle movements - unpaved 0.077 0.021 0.002 2,415 666 67
Vehicle movements - paved 0.398 0.076 0.018 12,554 2,410 583
Combustion emissions – vehicles/stationary engines
0.039 0.039 0.035 1,233 1,233 1,118
Total 6.2 3.6 1.4 196,466 113,066 44,839
Figure 3 Emissions of PM10 by source for normal operations
5.2 Particulate Emissions due to Process Variations
Two scenarios with higher particulate emission rates from the kiln (stack 4A) and calciner (stack 4B) have been
modelled. These higher emission rates are representative of process variations including: calciner and kiln
combustion trips; calciner and kiln light up and purge events; power failures; and shutdown and start-up of raw
mills. These events are typically of short duration and an allowance is currently made in the licence for these events.
The assessment has conservatively modelled emissions from both stacks at 250 mg/Nm³ and 100 mg/Nm³
continuously for the entire modelling period (1 year).
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 17
The size distribution of the emitted particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5 fractions) have been estimated based on
typical distributions. Stack characteristics are based on typical parameters observed during these events.
Emissions and stack characteristics are presented in Table 13.
Table 13 Stack characteristics and emission rates for process variation scenarios
Parameter Units 4A 4B
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Stack height m 75.5 96.0
Stack diameter m 3.23 3.00
Exhaust gas temperature °C 105 120
Exhaust gas velocity m/s 15.4 4.5
Exhaust gas flow rate (actual) m³/s 126.2 33.9
TSP concentration mg/Nm³ 250 100 250 100
TSP emission rate g/s 20.8 8.3 4.9 1.9
PM10 concentration mg/Nm³ 170 68 155 62
PM10 emission rate g/s 14.2 5.7 3.0 1.2
PM2.5 concentration mg/Nm³ 75 30 50 20
PM2.5 emission rate g/s 6.3 2.5 1.0 0.4
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 18
6. METEOROLOGY
The following sections describe the meteorology of the area around the Facility, focusing on parameters that are
important for dispersion of air pollutants. The meteorological data that was generated by the coupled
TAPM/CALMET approach is compared to observations in Appendix B.
6.1 Wind speed and wind direction
Wind speed and wind direction are important meteorological parameters that will influence the dispersion of air
pollutants. Figure 4 illustrates the annual wind speed distribution during 2009 at the Facility, as predicted by
CALMET. The predominant wind directions are northeast and southwest, with the strongest winds sea-breezes
from the west.
The distribution of winds varies considerably throughout the year (Figure 5). During summer, winds are
predominantly light and from the south-southeast to southwest. Through autumn and into winter winds are
increasingly from the west and northeast, with a greater proportion of high wind speeds.
Figure 6 illustrates the diurnal distribution of winds. The most prominent feature is the south-westerly sea-breeze
occurring in the afternoon (12 – 6pm). Winds are strongest during the day with the lightest winds occurring in the
early morning (midnight – 6am).
Figure 4 Annual distribution of winds at the Facility (from CALMET)
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 19
Figure 5 Seasonal distribution of winds at the Facility (from CALMET)
Figure 6 Diurnal distribution of winds at the Facility (from CALMET)
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 20
6.2 Mixing height
The mixing height refers to the height above ground within which particulates or other pollutants released at or near
ground can mix with ambient air. During stable atmospheric conditions, the mixing height is often quite low and
particulate dispersion is limited to within this layer. During the day, solar radiation heats the air at the ground level
and causes the mixing height to rise. The air above the mixing height during the day is generally cooler. The growth
of the mixing height is dependent on how well the air can mix with the cooler upper level air and therefore depends
on meteorological factors such as the intensity of solar radiation and wind speed. During strong wind speed
conditions the air will be well mixed, resulting in a high mixing height.
Mixing height information extracted from CALMET at the Facility is presented in Figure 7. The data shows that
mixing height is low overnight and begins to develop after 6am, as solar heating increases convection. The mixing
height reaches a peak around 1 to 2 pm before dropping to an overnight minimum by approximately 8pm.
Figure 7 Box and whisker plot of mixing height at the Facility location (CALMET)
6.3 Stability Class
Atmospheric stability refers to the vertical movement of the atmosphere and is an important parameter in
determining the dispersion and transport of air pollutants released within the boundary layer. Atmospheric stability
is classified here under the Pasquill-Gifford scheme and ranges from Class A, which represents very unstable
atmospheric conditions that typically occur on a sunny day, to Class F, which represents very stable atmospheric
conditions that typically occur during light wind conditions at night.
Figure 8 presents the distribution of stability classes expected at the site, by hour of the day. Unstable conditions
(Class A-C) are characterised by solar heating of the ground that induces turbulent mixing in the atmosphere close
to the ground, which usually results in material from a plume reaching the ground closer to the source than it does
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 21
for neutral conditions or stable conditions. This turbulent mixing is the main driver of dispersion during unstable
conditions. Dispersion processes for neutral conditions (Class D), which are the most frequent at the site, are
dominated by mechanical turbulence generated as the wind passes over irregularities in the local surface, such as
terrain features and building structures. Overnight, the atmosphere is predicted to be characterised by D, E or F
class stability classes, with cloud cover reducing solar heating and enhancing stability.
Figure 8 Distribution of stability class by hour at the Facility location (CALMET)
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 22
7. RESULTS
This section presents the results of the dispersion modelling assessment of the Facility.
7.1 Normal operations
7.1.1 Isolation
Modelling was conducted of PM emissions from normal operations. Predicted ground-level concentrations of air
pollutants due to the Facility in isolation are presented the following contour plots: PM10 (Plate 1), PM2.5 (Plate 2
and Plate 3) and dust deposition rates (Plate 4).
The results show that:
• 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 due to the Facility in isolation are predicted to be less than the
criterion of 50 µg/m³ at all residential areas.
• 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 due to the Facility in isolation are predicted to be less than the
criterion of 25 µg/m³ across the modelling domain.
• Annual average concentrations of PM2.5 due to the Facility in isolation are predicted to be less than the
criterion of 8 µg/m³ beyond the site boundary.
• Annual average dust deposition rates are predicted to be less than with the NSW Approved Methods
criterion of 66 mg/m²/day at all residential areas.
7.1.2 Cumulative assessment
Predicted cumulative ground-level concentrations of air pollutants due to the Facility and background are presented
in the following contour plots: PM10 (Plate 5) and PM2.5 (Plate 6 and Plate 7).
The results show that:
• 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 are predicted to be more than the criterion of 50 µg/m³ within a
limited area beyond the site boundary.
• 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 are predicted to be less than the criterion of 25 µg/m³ beyond
the site boundary.
• Annual average concentrations of PM2.5 are predicted to be more than the criterion of 8 µg/m³ within a
limited area beyond the site boundary. The background concentration of 7.3 µg/m³ is the major contributor
to concentrations of PM2.5.
7.1.3 Source contribution analysis
The 25 days with the highest predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 at the Community Park and
Le Fevre 1 monitoring station were analysed with respect to the relative contributions of all sources. The
contributions are presented in Table 14 (Community Park) and Table 15 (Le Fevre 1). Contributions are presented
in graphical form in Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively. The results show:
• The major sources are wind erosion of stockpiles and exposed areas, vehicle movements and dust
collectors.
• The cement kiln stacks do not make an important contribution to the highest concentrations
--
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 23
• There is not a large variance in major contributing sources between the different days or across the two
sites.
Table 14 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 at the Community Park
Rank 24-hr avg
conc. (µg/m³)
Contribution
Handling - Transfers
Handling - Stockpiles
Stockpile - Wind
Erosion
Exposed Areas - Wind
Erosion
Dust Collectors
Stacks Vehicles - Paved
Vehicles -
Unpaved Background
1 43.8 0.2% 0.9% 14.3% 29.3% 1.6% 0.0% 11.0% 1.8% 41.0%
2 42.8 0.1% 0.5% 15.4% 28.4% 1.4% 0.1% 11.1% 1.0% 42.1%
3 39.5 0.1% 0.6% 13.6% 28.3% 1.2% 0.0% 9.4% 1.2% 45.6%
4 38.8 0.2% 1.0% 10.2% 25.6% 3.2% 0.6% 9.6% 3.2% 46.4%
5 38.3 0.1% 0.7% 11.0% 26.2% 2.5% 0.7% 9.9% 1.9% 47.0%
6 37.6 0.1% 0.7% 7.6% 20.2% 9.3% 0.0% 10.9% 3.2% 47.9%
7 37.4 0.2% 1.2% 10.3% 23.5% 3.4% 0.1% 11.2% 1.8% 48.2%
8 35.6 0.1% 0.5% 10.9% 23.2% 2.1% 2.4% 8.6% 1.7% 50.6%
9 35.6 0.1% 0.5% 10.4% 20.9% 4.0% 0.6% 9.9% 2.9% 50.6%
10 35.5 0.1% 0.5% 5.5% 19.0% 7.3% 0.0% 12.1% 4.8% 50.7%
11 35.2 0.1% 0.6% 10.1% 19.7% 5.8% 0.4% 10.6% 1.6% 51.2%
12 35.1 0.2% 0.8% 11.9% 23.0% 2.1% 0.0% 9.2% 1.4% 51.3%
13 34.8 0.2% 0.9% 12.1% 24.8% 1.3% 0.0% 7.9% 1.1% 51.8%
14 34.4 0.2% 1.0% 11.3% 24.4% 1.5% 0.0% 7.9% 1.4% 52.3%
15 34.4 0.1% 0.6% 10.6% 26.4% 2.8% 0.0% 6.0% 1.1% 52.4%
16 34.2 0.1% 0.7% 10.9% 23.9% 2.3% 0.0% 8.0% 1.6% 52.6%
17 34.0 0.1% 0.6% 12.2% 21.2% 1.5% 0.0% 10.5% 1.1% 52.9%
18 33.7 0.1% 0.6% 10.4% 21.3% 2.0% 1.1% 8.9% 2.3% 53.4%
19 33.6 0.1% 0.8% 8.4% 18.2% 5.7% 0.2% 10.7% 2.3% 53.5%
20 33.6 0.1% 0.5% 7.1% 18.0% 5.8% 0.1% 10.5% 4.4% 53.6%
21 33.5 0.1% 0.8% 8.7% 21.3% 5.1% 0.0% 8.2% 2.0% 53.7%
22 33.2 0.1% 0.8% 13.0% 19.0% 1.3% 0.0% 10.7% 0.9% 54.3%
23 33.1 0.2% 1.2% 10.6% 21.7% 1.0% 0.7% 8.1% 2.0% 54.3%
24 32.9 0.1% 0.6% 10.1% 19.0% 3.4% 0.2% 10.0% 1.9% 54.8%
25 32.7 0.1% 0.5% 6.8% 19.8% 4.7% 0.1% 9.3% 3.7% 55.0%
Table 15 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 at the Le Fevre 1 monitoring site
Rank 24-hr avg
conc. (µg/m³)
Contribution
Handling - Transfers
Handling - Stockpiles
Stockpile - Wind
Erosion
Exposed Areas - Wind
Erosion
Dust Collectors
Stacks Vehicles - Paved
Vehicles -
Unpaved Background
1 29.5 0.1% 0.6% 7.1% 12.0% 9.3% 0.2% 7.7% 2.0% 61.0%
2 28.3 0.1% 0.4% 8.0% 13.6% 5.7% 0.0% 7.0% 1.5% 63.7%
3 27.9 0.1% 0.4% 8.4% 16.7% 2.2% 0.5% 6.0% 1.3% 64.4%
4 26.8 0.1% 0.4% 5.1% 10.7% 7.6% 0.1% 6.5% 2.4% 67.1%
5 26.8 0.1% 0.5% 8.4% 15.0% 2.6% 0.0% 5.4% 0.8% 67.2%
6 26.8 0.1% 0.5% 7.7% 14.5% 2.4% 0.2% 6.1% 1.2% 67.2%
7 26.7 0.1% 0.5% 6.4% 13.6% 4.8% 0.5% 5.1% 1.8% 67.3%
8 25.9 0.1% 0.5% 7.3% 13.1% 2.7% 0.0% 5.8% 0.9% 69.6%
9 25.5 0.1% 0.3% 4.5% 11.6% 5.8% 1.1% 3.6% 2.4% 70.6%
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 24
Rank 24-hr avg
conc. (µg/m³)
Contribution
Handling - Transfers
Handling - Stockpiles
Stockpile - Wind
Erosion
Exposed Areas - Wind
Erosion
Dust Collectors
Stacks Vehicles - Paved
Vehicles -
Unpaved Background
10 25.4 0.1% 0.4% 4.1% 7.1% 10.1% 0.3% 5.7% 1.5% 71.0%
11 25.1 0.1% 0.4% 7.1% 13.1% 2.1% 0.2% 4.6% 0.7% 71.7%
12 24.9 0.1% 0.4% 5.4% 9.0% 6.5% 0.4% 4.9% 0.9% 72.4%
13 24.9 0.1% 0.4% 7.1% 12.7% 1.9% 0.3% 4.4% 0.6% 72.4%
14 24.8 0.1% 0.4% 6.5% 11.2% 3.2% 0.0% 4.8% 0.9% 72.6%
15 24.3 0.0% 0.3% 5.3% 10.8% 2.5% 0.5% 4.9% 1.7% 74.0%
16 24.3 0.1% 0.4% 4.8% 10.0% 4.1% 0.2% 4.6% 1.8% 74.1%
17 24.3 0.1% 0.4% 4.4% 8.2% 6.6% 0.5% 4.2% 1.3% 74.1%
18 24.3 0.1% 0.3% 4.6% 9.0% 3.7% 1.6% 5.2% 1.3% 74.2%
19 24.2 0.1% 0.3% 3.8% 7.3% 4.5% 3.5% 4.4% 1.6% 74.5%
20 24.1 0.1% 0.3% 4.6% 9.5% 3.8% 0.5% 4.8% 1.8% 74.6%
21 24.1 0.1% 0.4% 4.4% 9.1% 5.4% 0.8% 3.9% 1.3% 74.7%
22 24.0 0.0% 0.2% 4.0% 9.7% 4.5% 0.5% 3.8% 2.3% 74.9%
23 23.9 0.1% 0.4% 5.2% 11.1% 3.0% 0.0% 3.7% 1.2% 75.2%
24 23.8 0.1% 0.4% 4.5% 8.2% 5.2% 0.6% 4.4% 1.0% 75.5%
25 23.8 0.0% 0.2% 6.4% 10.6% 1.8% 0.2% 4.6% 0.6% 75.6%
Figure 9 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 at the Community Park
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 25
Figure 10 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 at the Le Fevre 1 monitoring site
The 25 days with the highest predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 at the Community Park and Le
Fevre 1 monitoring station were analysed with respect to the relative contributions of all sources. The contributions
are presented in Table 16 (Community Park) and Table 17 (Le Fevre 1). Contributions are presented in graphical
form in Figure 11 and Figure 12, respectively. The results show that for PM2.5 relative to PM10:
• Dust collectors are a more important source.
• The ambient background has a large contribution.
Table 16 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 at the Community Park
Rank 24-hr avg
conc. (µg/m³)
Contribution
Handling - Transfers
Handling - Stockpiles
Stockpile - Wind
Erosion
Exposed Areas - Wind
Erosion
Dust Collectors
Stacks Vehicles - Paved
Vehicles -
Unpaved Background
1 13.3 0.1% 0.3% 3.8% 10.0% 21.3% 0.1% 8.3% 1.1% 55.0%
2 13.2 0.0% 0.2% 1.2% 2.8% 33.1% 0.0% 6.8% 0.5% 55.3%
3 12.6 0.0% 0.1% 1.9% 5.1% 27.5% 0.3% 6.7% 0.7% 57.8%
4 12.6 0.1% 0.5% 8.6% 17.4% 4.4% 0.0% 10.3% 0.7% 58.0%
5 12.3 0.0% 0.3% 9.2% 16.6% 3.8% 0.1% 10.3% 0.4% 59.2%
6 12.3 0.0% 0.3% 2.8% 9.4% 16.9% 0.1% 9.3% 1.6% 59.6%
7 12.1 0.1% 0.6% 5.8% 14.5% 8.2% 0.8% 8.3% 1.2% 60.5%
8 12.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 2.7% 28.6% 0.4% 6.3% 0.6% 60.8%
9 12.0 0.1% 0.3% 5.4% 10.3% 13.5% 0.5% 8.5% 0.5% 60.9%
10 11.8 0.0% 0.3% 3.9% 9.8% 13.3% 0.1% 9.0% 1.5% 62.1%
11 11.7 0.1% 0.4% 6.1% 14.4% 6.5% 1.0% 8.5% 0.7% 62.3%
12 11.7 0.1% 0.6% 5.4% 12.3% 8.8% 0.4% 9.2% 0.6% 62.4%
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 26
Rank 24-hr avg
conc. (µg/m³)
Contribution
Handling - Transfers
Handling - Stockpiles
Stockpile - Wind
Erosion
Exposed Areas - Wind
Erosion
Dust Collectors
Stacks Vehicles - Paved
Vehicles -
Unpaved Background
13 11.7 0.0% 0.2% 2.5% 6.0% 20.6% 0.5% 6.9% 0.9% 62.4%
14 11.7 0.1% 0.4% 4.4% 9.4% 13.2% 0.4% 8.6% 0.8% 62.6%
15 11.6 0.0% 0.3% 5.7% 11.1% 9.8% 0.8% 8.3% 1.0% 63.0%
16 11.6 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 2.3% 25.9% 0.0% 7.3% 0.6% 63.2%
17 11.5 0.1% 0.3% 4.0% 11.2% 11.3% 0.2% 8.0% 1.4% 63.6%
18 11.5 0.0% 0.4% 7.7% 16.0% 3.3% 0.0% 8.4% 0.5% 63.8%
19 11.4 0.0% 0.3% 3.4% 9.2% 16.5% 0.1% 5.7% 1.1% 63.8%
20 11.4 0.0% 0.3% 6.2% 13.0% 5.2% 3.1% 7.4% 0.6% 64.2%
21 11.3 0.1% 0.5% 4.5% 11.0% 12.1% 0.0% 6.6% 0.7% 64.5%
22 11.2 0.0% 0.2% 3.1% 6.4% 17.7% 0.4% 6.8% 0.5% 65.0%
23 11.1 0.1% 0.5% 6.7% 12.8% 5.3% 0.1% 8.0% 0.6% 66.0%
24 11.1 0.0% 0.3% 5.5% 10.3% 8.3% 0.4% 8.3% 0.7% 66.0%
25 11.0 0.1% 0.3% 4.3% 10.5% 11.6% 0.0% 6.1% 0.5% 66.5%
Table 17 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 at the Le Fevre 1 monitoring site
Rank 24-hr avg
conc. (µg/m³)
Contribution
Handling - Transfers
Handling - Stockpiles
Stockpile - Wind
Erosion
Exposed Areas - Wind
Erosion
Dust Collectors
Stacks Vehicles - Paved
Vehicles -
Unpaved Background
1 11.4 0.1% 0.3% 3.6% 6.0% 19.3% 0.3% 5.9% 0.6% 63.9%
2 10.5 0.0% 0.2% 4.2% 7.2% 12.5% 0.1% 5.6% 0.5% 69.6%
3 10.4 0.0% 0.2% 2.5% 5.2% 15.8% 0.2% 5.0% 0.8% 70.3%
4 10.3 0.0% 0.2% 1.7% 3.0% 19.8% 0.3% 3.8% 0.4% 70.7%
5 9.8 0.0% 0.2% 3.2% 6.6% 10.4% 0.6% 3.9% 0.6% 74.3%
6 9.7 0.0% 0.2% 4.5% 9.0% 5.0% 0.7% 4.9% 0.5% 75.2%
7 9.6 0.0% 0.2% 2.4% 4.0% 13.4% 0.5% 3.4% 0.2% 75.8%
8 9.6 0.0% 0.1% 2.0% 5.2% 12.1% 1.4% 2.6% 0.7% 75.8%
9 9.6 0.1% 0.2% 2.1% 3.9% 13.5% 0.7% 3.1% 0.4% 76.0%
10 9.6 0.0% 0.3% 4.3% 8.0% 5.4% 0.3% 5.1% 0.5% 76.0%
11 9.5 0.0% 0.1% 2.0% 3.8% 9.4% 3.5% 3.4% 0.6% 77.1%
12 9.4 0.1% 0.3% 4.1% 7.2% 5.8% 0.0% 4.9% 0.3% 77.3%
13 9.4 0.0% 0.2% 4.2% 7.4% 6.0% 0.1% 4.2% 0.3% 77.6%
14 9.3 0.0% 0.2% 2.3% 4.2% 10.7% 0.7% 3.4% 0.3% 78.1%
15 9.3 0.0% 0.1% 1.2% 3.0% 12.6% 1.9% 2.4% 0.6% 78.2%
16 9.3 0.0% 0.2% 1.9% 4.0% 11.1% 1.1% 2.7% 0.4% 78.6%
17 9.3 0.0% 0.2% 2.4% 4.6% 7.8% 1.7% 4.1% 0.5% 78.8%
18 9.2 0.1% 0.2% 3.4% 5.9% 7.1% 0.0% 3.9% 0.3% 79.0%
19 9.2 0.0% 0.2% 2.4% 5.1% 8.1% 0.5% 3.9% 0.6% 79.2%
20 9.2 0.0% 0.2% 2.5% 5.1% 8.7% 0.2% 3.6% 0.6% 79.2%
21 9.1 0.0% 0.1% 1.7% 4.4% 9.5% 0.9% 2.6% 0.7% 80.0%
22 9.1 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.7% 14.9% 0.4% 1.6% 0.4% 80.4%
23 9.0 0.0% 0.1% 1.0% 2.1% 13.3% 0.3% 2.0% 0.5% 80.7%
24 9.0 0.0% 0.2% 3.4% 6.3% 4.7% 0.6% 3.5% 0.2% 81.1%
25 9.0 0.0% 0.1% 2.7% 5.4% 5.4% 0.6% 3.8% 0.6% 81.3%
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 27
Figure 11 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 at the Community Park
Figure 12 Source contributions for the top 25 predicted 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 at the Le Fevre 1 monitoring site
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 28
7.1.4 Detailed stack emissions
Ground-level concentrations of all pollutants emitted from the stacks were predicted at all points across the
modelling domain lying outside of the Facility boundary (offsite). The maximum predicted offsite ground-level
concentrations of all pollutants emitted from the stacks are presented in Table 18 for the Facility in isolation. The
results show:
• All pollutants are less than their respective criteria.
• The maximum offsite 1-hour average concentration of nitrogen dioxide is predicted to be 168 µg/m³, which
is 67% of the criterion of 250 µg/m³.
• All other pollutants are predicted to be less than 14% of their respective criteria.
The maximum predicted offsite ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO and SO2 emitted from the stacks are
presented in Table 19 for the Facility including ambient background concentrations. The results show that all
pollutants are less than their respective criteria including background concentrations.
Table 18 Predicted maximum offsite ground-level concentrations of all pollutants from stacks in isolation
Pollutant Averaging
period Criteria (µg/m³)
Maximum offsite (µg/m³)
Proportion of criteria (%)
Nitrogen dioxide 1 hour 250 168 67.3%
12 months 60 1.2 2.0%
Carbon monoxide 1 hour 31,240 556 1.8%
8 hours 11,250 107 0.9%
Sulfur dioxide
1 hour 570 28.6 5.0%
24 hours 230 2.5 1.1%
12 months 60 0.12 0.2%
Hydrogen chloride 3 minutes 270 18 6.7%
Chlorine 3 minutes 110 10 9.3%
Fluoride
24 hours 3 0.07 2.2%
7 days 2 0.01 0.3%
90 days 1 0.003 0.3%
Benzene 3 minutes 58 0.59 1.0%
Chromium (III) compounds 3 minutes 19 0.02 0.1%
Chromium VI compounds 3 minutes 0.19 0.003 1.6%
Benzo(a)pyrene as a marker for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
3 minutes 0.8 0.0001 0.0%
Antimony and compounds 3 minutes 19 0.001 0.0%
Arsenic and compounds 3 minutes 0.19 0.001 0.6%
Barium 3 minutes 19 0.02 0.1%
Beryllium and beryllium compounds 3 minutes 0.008 0.001 13.6%
Cadmium and cadmium compounds 3 minutes 0.036 0.001 4.1%
Copper fume 3 minutes 7.3 0.10 1.3%
Iron oxide fume 3 minutes 190 1.9 1.0%
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 29
Pollutant Averaging
period Criteria (µg/m³)
Maximum offsite (µg/m³)
Proportion of criteria (%)
Lead 12 months 0.5 0.0001 0.0%
Magnesium oxide fume 3 minutes 360 9.7 2.7%
Manganese and compounds 3 minutes 36 0.05 0.1%
Mercury - inorganic 3 minutes 4 0.001 0.0%
Mercury - organic 3 minutes 0.36 0.01 3.6%
Nickel and nickel compounds 3 minutes 0.36 0.02 6.1%
Zinc oxide fume 3 minutes 190 0.22 0.1%
Dioxins and furans 1-hour 0.0000037 8.3E-08 2.2%
Table 19 Predicted maximum offsite ground-level concentrations of all pollutants from stacks including background
Pollutant Averaging
period Criteria (µg/m³)
Maximum offsite (µg/m³)
Proportion of criteria (%)
Nitrogen dioxide 1 hour 250 179 71.6%
12 months 60 12 20.0%
Carbon monoxide 1 hour 31,240 801 2.6%
8 hours 11,250 352 3.1%
Sulfur dioxide
1 hour 570 29 5.2%
24 hours 230 3.4 1.5%
12 months 60 1.0 1.7%
7.2 Particulate Emissions due to Process Variations
Two scenarios with higher particulate emissions from the kiln (stack 4A) and calciner (stack 4B) representative of
process variations have been modelled, over an entire year at 250 mg/Nm³ and 100 mg/Nm³.
A comparison of the two scenarios to the normal operations is presented in Plate 8 and Plate 9, which shows the
predicted ground-level concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5, respectively, due to the Facility including an ambient
background. The results show that the potential emissions related to process variations do not have a significant
impact on the ground-level concentrations in residential areas.
The maximum monthly average dust deposition rates due to the two scenarios are shown in Plate 10. The figure
shows that under the conservative and unrealistic assumption of continuous elevated emissions, the dust
deposition rate is likely to be very low. The highest dust deposition rates are predicted to occur to the north and
east.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 30
8. CONCLUSIONS
Katestone was commissioned by ABC to complete an Air Quality Assessment of the Facility. The Facility’s licence
is due for renewal in October 2017. This report fulfils a requirement of the EPA that ABC conducts an air quality
assessment of the Facility as part of the licence renewal process. The air quality assessment has been conducted
in accordance with the EPA’s guidance for air quality assessments.
Modelling of emissions of particulate matter from normal operations was conducted. The results show that:
• 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 are predicted to be more than 50 µg/m³ within a limited area
beyond the site boundary.
• 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 are predicted to be less than 25 µg/m³ beyond the site boundary.
• Annual average concentrations of PM2.5 are predicted to be more than 8 µg/m³ within a limited area
beyond the site boundary. The background concentration of 7.3 µg/m³ is the major contributor to
concentrations of PM2.5.
• Annual average dust deposition rates are predicted to be less than the NSW Approved Methods criterion
of 66 mg/m²/day at all residential areas.
Modelling of emissions of other air pollutants from the stacks was conducted. The results show:
• All pollutants are less than with their respective criteria.
• The maximum offsite 1-hour average concentration of nitrogen dioxide is predicted to be 168 µg/m³, which
is 67% of the criterion of 250 µg/m³.
• All other pollutants are predicted to be less than 14% of their respective criteria.
• All pollutants are less than their respective criteria including background concentrations.
Higher stack particulate emissions were modelled that are representative of short-term process variations. The
results show that these operating conditions do not change significantly the ground-level concentrations in the
residential areas.
--
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 31
9. REFERENCES
Air EPP, 2016, Environment Protection (Air Quality) Policy, South Australia.
AirLabs, 2013. “Air Emissions Monitoring of the Slag Dryer Stack at Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd in Birkenhead”.
Test report no. JUN13103B.1. 18 October, 2013.
AirLabs, 2015. “Air Emissions Monitoring of Release Points 4A & 4B at Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd in Birkenhead
– Increase Plastics in Wood Trial”. Test report no. OCT14181.3. 30 January, 2015.
AirLabs, 2016A. “Air Emissions Monitoring of Release Points 4A & 4B at Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd in
Birkenhead”. Test report no. OCT15201.1. 12 January, 2016.
AirLabs, 2016B. “Air Emissions Monitoring of Release Points 4A & 4B at Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd in
Birkenhead”. Test report no. Jun16100.2. 7 November, 2016.
AirLabs, 2017. “Air Emissions Monitoring of Cement Mills 1, 6 & 7, and Dust Collectors 23, 38, 41 & 2CR3CS4 at
Brighton Cement Ltd in Birkenhead”. Test Report no. MAY17107.3. 9 June, 2017.
Bofinger N.D, Best P.R, Cliff D.I, & Stumer L.J, 1986, The oxidation of nitric oxide to nitrogen dioxide in power
station plumes, Proceedings of the Seventh World Clean Air Congress, Sydney, 384-392
Environ, 2001. “Enhanced Meteorological Modeling and Performance Evaluation for Two Texas Ozone Episodes”,
prepared for the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, prepared by ENVIRON International
Corporation, Novato, CA.
National Pollutant Inventory, 2008. "Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Cement manufacturing v2.1".
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
National Pollutant Inventory, 2008. "Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Combustion Engines v3.0".
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
National Pollutant Inventory, 2012. "Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining v3.1". Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
SEPP, 2001, State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) Environment Protection Act 1970. Victoria Government Gazette, Special No. S 240 Friday 21 December 2001. Victorian Government Printer.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Paved roads, AP-42 Chapter 13.2.1, USEPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006a. Chapter 13.2.4 “Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles”,
AP-42, USEPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006b. Chapter 13.2.5 “Industrial Wind Erosion”, AP-42, USEPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006c. Unpaved roads, AP-42 Chapter 13.2.2, USEPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 32
Plate 1 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM10 due to normal operations of the Facility in isolation
Location:
Birkenhead, SA
Averaging period:
24-hour
Data source:
CALPUFF
Units:
µg/m³
Type:
Maximum contours
Criterion:
50 µg/m³
Prepared by:
M Burchill
Date:
July 2017
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 33
Plate 2 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 due to normal operations of the Facility in isolation
Location:
Birkenhead, SA
Averaging period:
24-hour
Data source:
CALPUFF
Units:
µg/m³
Type:
Maximum contours
Criterion:
25 µg/m³
Prepared by:
M Burchill
Date:
July 2017
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 34
Plate 3 Predicted annual average ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 due to normal operations of the Facility in isolation
Location:
Birkenhead, SA
Averaging period:
Annual
Data source:
CALPUFF
Units:
µg/m³
Type:
Average contours
Criterion:
8 µg/m³
Prepared by:
M Burchill
Date:
July 2017
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 35
Plate 4 Predicted annual average dust deposition rate due to normal operations of the Facility in isolation
Location:
Birkenhead, SA
Averaging period:
Annual
Data source:
CALPUFF
Units:
mg/m²/day
Type:
Average contours
Objective:
66 µg/m³
Prepared by:
M Burchill
Date:
July 2017
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 36
Plate 5 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM10 due to normal operations of the Facility including an ambient background of 18 µg/m³
Location:
Birkenhead, SA
Averaging period:
24-hour
Data source:
CALPUFF
Units:
µg/m³
Type:
Maximum contours
Criterion:
50 µg/m³
Prepared by:
M Burchill
Date:
July 2017
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 37
Plate 6 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 due to normal operations of the Facility including an ambient background of 7.3 µg/m³
Location:
Birkenhead, SA
Averaging period:
24-hour
Data source:
CALPUFF
Units:
µg/m³
Type:
Maximum contours
Criterion:
25 µg/m³
Prepared by:
M Burchill
Date:
July 2017
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 38
Plate 7 Predicted annual average ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 due to normal operations of the Facility including an ambient background of 7.3 µg/m³
Location:
Birkenhead, SA
Averaging period:
Annual
Data source:
CALPUFF
Units:
µg/m³
Type:
Average contours
Criterion:
8 µg/m³
Prepared by:
M Burchill
Date:
July 2017
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 39
Plate 8 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM10 due to normal operations of the Facility and under two process variation scenarios. All scenarios include an ambient background of 18 µg/m³.
Location:
Birkenhead, SA
Averaging period:
24-hours
Data source:
CALPUFF
Units:
µg/m³
Type:
Maximum contours
Criterion:
50 µg/m³
Prepared by:
M Burchill
Date:
July 2017
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 40
Plate 9 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 due to normal operations of the Facility and under two process variation scenarios. All scenarios include an ambient background of 7.3 µg/m³.
Location:
Birkenhead, SA
Averaging period:
24-hours
Data source:
CALPUFF
Units:
µg/m³
Type:
Maximum contours
Criterion:
25 µg/m³
Prepared by:
M Burchill
Date:
July 2017
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 41
Plate 10 Predicted maximum monthly average dust deposition rate due under two process variation scenarios in isolation
Location:
Birkenhead, SA
Averaging period:
720-hours
Data source:
CALPUFF
Units:
mg/m²/day
Type:
Maximum contours
Objective:
NA
Prepared by:
M Burchill
Date:
July 2017
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 42
APPENDIX A AMBIENT MONITORING
A1 INTRODUCTION
Ambient air quality monitoring onsite and in the surrounding region is conducted by ABC and EPA. The location of
monitors is shown in Figure A1. The purpose of the ABC monitoring network is to monitor air quality and identify
sources of dust and opportunities for improvement. The EPA conducts monitoring to evaluate compliance with air
quality standards. It therefore uses equipment that meets the rigorous requirements of the relevant Australian
Standards. These monitors respond more slowly to short-term changes in dust levels, but provide a reliable
determination of 24-hour and annual averages. The EPA monitoring equipment provides data that are more
representative of typical levels experienced in the community away from the Facility and, therefore, are appropriate
for use in determining a background.
The following sections describe the monitoring data collected within the region.
Figure A1 ABC and EPA monitoring sites
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 43
A2 EPA MONITORING
A2.1 Le Fevre 1 – PM10 and PM2.5
A2.1.1 Summary
Le Fevre 1 is located in the grounds of the Lefevre Peninsula Primary School, 600 m from the southwest corner of
the Facility. Le Fevre 1 is the closest compliance monitor to the Facility. The monitoring station measures the
following:
• PM10 (TEOM until Dec 2015, BAM from Feb 2016)
• PM2.5 (BAM from Feb 2016)
• Meteorological parameters.
Timeseries of 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 measured at Le Fevre 1 from January 2013 to
January 2017 are presented in Figure A2 and Figure A3, respectively. A table of summary statistics of the data is
presented in Table A1.
Table A1 Summary statistics of PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations – Le Fevre 1
Parameter PM10 PM2.5
1-hour 24-hour 1-hour 24-hour
Data capture 93.8% 94.0% 98.7% 98.8%
Minimum -4.3 3.0 -4.0 0.3
10th %ile 7.6 10.4 3.0 4.9
Mean 19.9 19.9 7.5 7.5
Median 16.5 18.3 7.0 7.1
70th %ile 22.0 22.8 9.0 8.4
90th %ile 34.9 30.5 12.0 10.4
95th %ile 45.0 35.6 15.0 11.7
99th %ile 74.5 46.0 23.0 15.4
Maximum 366.7 85.4 167.0 19.4
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 44
Figure A2 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 measured at Le Fevre 1. The 24-hour average criterion of 50 µg/m³ is shown as a dashed line.
Figure A3 24-hour average concentrations of PM2.5 measured at Le Fevre 1. The 24-hour average criterion of 25 µg/m³ is shown as a dashed line.
Le Fevre 1 may potentially be influenced by the Facility when the wind direction is between 20° and 80° (see Figure
A4). To avoid double counting and as per Katestone’s discussion with the EPA on 8 March 2017, background
concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 have been estimated based on the average concentration measured at Le
Fevre 1 when winds are not from the direction of the Facility.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 45
Figure A4 Map of ABC Facility showing Le Fevre 1 monitor and wind directions
Summary statistics showing the difference between concentrations when winds are from the Facility and other
winds are shown in Table A2.
Table A2 Summary statistics of PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations – Le Fevre 1 – winds from ABC
Parameter PM10 – 1 hour PM2.5 – 1 hour
From ABC Other Directions From ABC Other Directions
Minimum -1.1 -3.6 -4.0 -4.0
10th %ile 10.5 7.2 4.0 3.0
Mean 25.6 18.0 8.8 7.3
Median 21.0 15.9 8.0 7.0
70th %ile 29.0 20.8 10.0 8.0
90th %ile 46.0 30.0 15.0 12.0
95th %ile 57.0 37.0 19.0 14.0
99th %ile 85.2 59.1 26.4 22.0
Maximum 176.0 300.0 40.0 45.0
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 46
A2.1.2 Detailed Analysis
A more detailed analysis of concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 measured at the Le Fevre 1 monitor is provided
below.
The distribution of concentrations with wind speed and wind direction is presented in Figure A5, which indicates
that:
• Elevated concentrations from the direction of the Facility occur at all wind speeds with the highest
concentrations occurring with moderate to strong winds.
• Moderate to strong winds from the west to northwest also lead to elevated concentrations.
Figure A5 Pollution rose showing the average PM10 concentration as a function of wind speed (m/s) and wind direction (°)
An analysis of the monitoring data by time of day, day of week and month is shown in Figure A6. The analysis
indicates that:
• There is a strong peak evident during weekdays between 7 am and 9 am that can be attributed to traffic.
• On average, summer months have higher concentrations while the winter months showed the lowest.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 47
Figure A6 Analysis of Le Fevre 1 monitoring data by time period
A2.1.3 Exceedance analysis
Le Fevre 1 monitoring station recorded seven exceedances of the 24-hour average criterion for PM10 of 50µg/m³
between January 2013 and January 2017. Each exceedance day is examined in detail in the following sections.
A2.1.3.1 26 March 2013
The 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 recorded at the EPA sites on 26 March 2013 are presented in Table
A3. A timeseries of 1-hour average concentrations of PM10 at each site for 26 March 2013 is presented in Figure
A7. The data indicates that:
• Le Fevre 1 was the only site with data that recorded elevated levels.
• Monitoring shows peak concentration of PM10 in the morning, consistent with peak hour traffic, a second,
more significant peak occurred in late evening (around 9pm).
Meteorological data from Le Fevre 1 was not available for this period.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 48
Table A3 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 recorded at EPA monitoring sites during 26 March 2013
Site 24-hour average PM10 (µg/m³)
CBD No Data
Elizabeth 23.8
Kensington Gardens 21.9
Le Fevre 1 62.6
Le Fevre 2 No Data
Netley 26.9
Figure A7 1-hour average concentrations of PM10 at EPA monitoring data at Adelaide monitors during March 26 2013
A2.1.3.2 30 September 2013
The 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 recorded at the EPA sites on 30 September 2013 are presented in
Table A4. A timeseries at each site for 30 September 2013 is presented in Figure A8. The data indicates that:
• All sites recorded elevated levels
• Timeseries show similar patterns of early morning high levels.
Meteorological data from Le Fevre 1 was not available for this period.
Table A4 24-hour average PM10 concentrations recorded at EPA monitoring sites during 30 September 2013
Site 24-hour average PM10 (µg/m³)
CBD No Data
Elizabeth 76.2
Kensington Gardens 66.5
Le Fevre 1 69.7
Le Fevre 2 82.3
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 49
Netley 64.5
Figure A8 1-hour average PM10 concentrations at EPA monitoring data at Adelaide monitors during 30 September 2013
A2.1.3.3 30 January 2014
The 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 recorded at EPA sites on 30 January 2014 is presented in Table A5.
A timeseries at each site for 30 January 2014 is presented in Figure A9. The data indicates that:
• Elevated levels were measured at both Le Fevre 1 and Le Fevre 2, although the criterion was exceeded
at Le Fevre 1 only.
• The observed elevated levels at Le Fevre 1 were consistent with morning peak hour traffic.
Meteorological data from Le Fevre 1 was not available for this period.
Table A5 24-hour average PM10 concentrations recorded at EPA monitoring sites during 30 January 2014
Site 24-hour average PM10 (µg/m³)
CBD No Data
Elizabeth 33.0
Kensington Gardens 27.7
Le Fevre 1 69.1
Le Fevre 2 45.8
Netley 33.6
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 50
Figure A9 1-hour average PM10 concentrations at EPA monitoring data at Adelaide monitors during 30 January 2014
A2.1.3.4 11 February 2014
The 24-hour average concentration of PM10 recorded at EPA sites on 11 February 2014 are presented in Table
A6. A timeseries at each site for 11 February 2014 is presented in Figure A10. The data indicates that:
• Exceedances were observed at Le Fevre 1 and Netley.
• Elevated levels were also observed at Le Fevre 2, but did not exceed the criterion.
Meteorological data from Le Fevre 1 was not available for this period.
Table A6 24-hour average PM10 concentrations recorded at EPA monitoring sites during 11 February 2014
Site 24-hour average PM10 (µg/m³)
CBD No Data
Elizabeth 23.2
Kensington Gardens 25.7
Le Fevre 1 50.4
Le Fevre 2 46.4
Netley 56.9
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 51
Figure A10 1-hour average PM10 concentrations at EPA monitoring data at Adelaide monitors during 11 February 2014
A2.1.3.5 12 February 2014
The 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 recorded at EPA sites on 12 February 2014 are presented in Table
A7. A timeseries at each site for 12 February 2014 is presented in Figure A11. The data indicates that:
• Exceedances were recorded at Le Fevre 1 and Le Fevre 2, and concentrations at Kensington Gardens
and Netley were 2% and 6% below the criterion.
• The diurnal profile of concentrations of PM10 are not consistent at the sites.
Meteorological data from Le Fevre 1 was not available for this period.
Table A7 24-hour average PM10 concentrations recorded at EPA monitoring sites during 12 February 2014
Site 24-hour average PM10 (µg/m³)
CBD No Data
Elizabeth 35.6
Kensington Gardens 49.2
Le Fevre 1 83.2
Le Fevre 2 61.4
Netley 47.1
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 52
Figure A11 1-hour average PM10 concentrations at EPA monitoring data at Adelaide monitors during 12 February 2014
A2.1.3.6 4 May 2015
The 24-hour average concentration of PM10 recorded at EPA sites on 4 May 2015 are presented in Table A8. A
timeseries at each site for 4 May 2015 is presented in Figure A12 and a pollution rose of concentrations at Le Fevre
1 is presented in Figure A13. The data indicates that:
• All sites recorded elevated concentrations, with 5 out of 6 sites recording an exceedance.
• The time series indicate that concentrations were elevated during the afternoon and into the evening at
all sites, indicating a regional influence affecting all monitors.
• The pollution rose shows that winds from the north-northwest carried elevated concentrations to Le Fevre
1.
Table A8 24-hour average PM10 concentrations recorded at EPA monitoring sites during 4 May 2015
Site 24-hour average PM10 (µg/m³)
CBD 68.2
Elizabeth 45.8
Kensington Gardens 61.2
Le Fevre 1 85.4
Le Fevre 2 114.2
Netley 95.7
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 53
Figure A12 1-hour average PM10 concentrations at EPA monitoring data at Adelaide monitors during 4 May 2015
Figure A13 Pollution rose showing percentage contribution to 24-hour average PM10 concentration by wind speed and wind direction
A2.1.3.7 27 April 2016
The 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 recorded at EPA sites on 27 April 2016 are presented in Table A9. A
timeseries at each site for 27 April 2016 is presented in Figure A14 and a pollution rose of concentrations at Le
Fevre 1 is presented in Figure A15. The data indicates that:
• All sites recorded elevated concentrations, with all 5 sites with data recording an exceedance.
• The time series indicate that concentrations were elevated during the afternoon and into the evening at
all sites, indicating a regional influence affecting all monitors.
• The pollution rose shows that winds from the north-northwest and northeast contributed the most to the
24-hour average at Le Fevre 1.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 54
Table A9 24-hour average PM10 concentrations recorded at EPA monitoring sites during 27 April 2016
Site 24-hour average PM10 (µg/m³)
CBD 53.9
Elizabeth 138.3
Kensington Gardens 90.2
Le Fevre 1 58.6
Le Fevre 2 80.6
Netley No Data
Figure A14 1-hour average PM10 concentrations at EPA monitoring data at Adelaide monitors during 27 April 2016
Figure A15 Pollution rose showing percentage contribution to 24-hour average PM10 concentration by wind speed and wind direction
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 55
A2.2 Le Fevre 2 – NO2 and SO2
Le Fevre 2 is located 4 km to the north of the Facility. The monitoring station measures NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5 and
ozone. Timeseries of NO2 and SO2 measured at Le Fevre 2 from January 2013 to January 2017 are presented in
Figure A16 and Figure A17, respectively. A table of summary statistics of the data collected is presented in Table
A10. The data indicates that:
• Concentrations of NO2 and SO2 are well below the relevant criteria throughout the monitoring period.
• The average concentration of NO2 is 10.8 µg/m³, which has been adopted as background for the
assessment.
• The average concentration of SO2 is 0.9 µg/m³, which has been adopted as background for the
assessment.
Table A10 Summary statistics of concentrations of NO2 and SO2 – Le Fevre 2
Parameter NO2 SO2
Minimum 0.0 0.0
10th %ile 1.0 0.0
Mean 10.8 0.9
Median 6.2 0.0
70th %ile 12.7 0.0
90th %ile 26.7 2.9
95th %ile 34.9 4.8
99th %ile 49.2 12.9
Maximum 76.6 97.2
Figure A16 1-hour average concentrations of NO2 measured at Le Fevre 2. The 1-hour average criterion of 250 µg/m³ is shown as a dashed line.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 56
Figure A17 1-hour average concentrations of SO2 measured at Le Fevre 2. The 1-hour average criterion of 570 µg/m³ is shown as a dashed line.
A2.3 CBD - CO
CBD is located 13 km to the southeast of the Facility and is the closest monitor that measures CO. A timeseries of
CO measured at CBD from January 2013 to January 2017 is presented in Figure A18. A table of summary statistics
of the data collected is presented in Table A11. The data indicates that:
• Concentrations of CO are well below the relevant criteria throughout the monitoring period.
• The average concentration of CO is 244.9 µg/m³, which has been adopted as background for this
assessment.
Table A11 Summary statistics of concentrations of CO – CBD
Parameter CO
1-hour
Minimum 0.0
10th %ile 74.9
Mean 244.9
Median 199.8
70th %ile 283.1
90th %ile 472.5
95th %ile 599.5
99th %ile 932.6
Maximum 2,797.8
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 57
Figure A18 1-hour average concentrations of CO measured at CBD. The 1-hour average criterion of 31,240 µg/m³ is shown as a dashed line.
A3 ABC MONITORING
A3.1 Summary
ABC monitors particulate matter at four locations within the grounds of the Facility (onsite monitors: Block 9,
Northern grounds, Eastern grounds and southern grounds) and two locations within the community (offsite
monitors: Community Park and Gunn St). The purpose of the monitoring network is to identify sources of dust and
opportunities for improvement.
A timeseries of 24-hr average PM10 concentrations measured between January 2015 and January 2017 are
presented in Figure A19. Summary statistics are shown in Table A12.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 58
Figure A19 Time series of 24-hour average PM10 concentrations measured by ABC monitoring stations
Table A12 Summary statistics of 24-hour average PM10 concentrations, onsite monitoring
Parameter Block 9 North Grounds East Grounds South Grounds
Data capture 82.8% 83.9% 86.9% 84.5%
Minimum 1.5 2.3 0.2 -1.1
10th %ile 9.6 4.9 4.4 1.7
Mean 21.6 9.8 10.8 8.3
Median 21.5 8.8 9.6 7.6
70th %ile 26.7 11.0 12.4 10.1
90th %ile 32.8 16.2 17.3 14.8
95th %ile 36.0 19.7 21.4 18.1
99th %ile 46.7 26.5 32.9 27.7
Maximum 110.0 45.9 93.0 38.2
Table A13 Summary statistics of 24-hour average PM10 concentrations, offsite monitoring
Parameter Community Park Gunn Street
Data capture 791 791
Minimum 73.8% 66.1%
10th %ile -3.7 -0.5
Mean 3.7 3.5
Median 12.5 8.2
70th %ile 12.1 7.0
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 59
Parameter Community Park Gunn Street
90th %ile 15.5 8.9
95th %ile 22.0 14.2
99th %ile 24.6 17.6
Maximum 30.8 25.9
A3.2 Analysis
Analysis by wind direction is presented in Figure A20. All pollution roses use 10-minute average wind speed and
wind direction from Le Fevre 1. The data indicates:
• Higher concentrations from the direction of the Facility are generally observed.
• Sources in other directions are also evident, most notably to the northwest.
• The Block 9 monitor shows significantly higher concentrations consistent with its location close to
stockpiles and exposed areas. The Block 9 data also indicates sources to the northwest and southeast
where are not related to the Facility.
• Community Park indicates higher concentrations from sources to the east, which include the Facility and
Victoria Road.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 60
Figure A20 Pollution roses showing the distribution of average PM10 concentration by wind speed and wind direction at each of the ABC monitoring sites
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 61
Data analysed according to time of day, day of week and month are presented in Figure A21. The data indicates
the following:
• The morning traffic peak is evident at all sites.
• Block 9 is significantly higher than other monitors, consistent with its location close to stockpiles and
exposed areas.
• Most monitors (Community park, Gunn Street, Northern grounds and Southern grounds) show a minimum
during the afternoon and elevated levels during the late evening.
Figure A21 Analysis of ABC monitoring data by time period
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 62
APPENDIX B METEOROLOGICAL AND DISPERSION MODELLING
METHODOLOGY
B1 METEOROLOGY
B1.1 TAPM meteorology
The prognostic model TAPM (The Air Pollution Model) v4.0.5, developed by CSIRO, was used to generate a three-
dimensional wind field for input into CALMET. TAPM has been validated by CSIRO, Katestone and others for many
locations in Australia, southeast Asia and North America. TAPM is a regulatory model recognised by EPA in its
guidance document Ambient air quality assessment.
TAPM was configured as follows:
• 40 x 40 grid point domain with an outer grid of 30 km and nesting grids of 10 km, 3 km and 1 km
• 365 days modelled (1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009)
• Grid centred approximately 5 km east of the Facility at latitude 34°50’S, longitude 138°34’
• Geoscience Australia 9-second digital elevation model terrain data
• Observations from the following BoM AWS sites were assimilated into the model:
o Adelaide (Kent Town) 023090
o Adelaide Airport 023034
o Edinburgh RAAF 023083
o Mount Lofty 023842
o Parafield Airport 023013
• The landuse of the inner-most (1 km) grid was edited based on aerial imagery.
B1.2 CALMET meteorological modelling
CALMET is an advanced non-steady-state diagnostic 3D meteorological model with micro-meteorological modules
for overwater and overland boundary layers. The model is the meteorological pre-processor for the CALPUFF
modelling system. CALMET can read hourly meteorological data as data assimilation from multiple sites within the
modelling domain; it can also be initialised with the gridded three-dimensional prognostic output from other
meteorological models such as TAPM. This can improve dispersion model output, particularly over complex terrain
as the near surface meteorological conditions are calculated for each grid point.
CALMET (version 6.5.0) was used to simulate meteorological conditions in the region. The CALMET simulation
was initialised with the gridded TAPM 3D wind field data from the 1 km grid. CALMET treats the prognostic model
output as the initial guess field for the CALMET diagnostic model wind fields. The initial guess field is then adjusted
for the kinematic effects of terrain, slope flows, blocking effects and 3D divergence minimisation.
CALMET was set up with twelve vertical levels with cell boundaries at 0, 20, 60, 100, 150, 200, 250, 350, 500, 800,
1600, 2600, 4600 metres at each grid point.
All default options and factors were selected except where noted below.
Key features of CALMET used to generate the wind fields are as follows:
• 120 x 120 grid point domain with a 200 m spacing
--
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 63
• Southwest coordinate of 264,000mE 6,127,600mS (WGS84 Zone 54)
• Terrain data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) 3-second dataset
• 365 days modelled (1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009)
• NOOBS = 2 (No surface, overwater, or upper air observations. Use MM4/MM5/3D for surface, overwater,
and upper air data) - TAPM output used as 3D initial guess field
• Gridded cloud cover from prognostic humidity at all levels
• Step 1 wind field options include Froude number adjustment to critical Froude number of 1 and slope
flows, divergence minimisation
• Terrain radius of influence (TERRAD) set as 4 km.
B1.3 Comparison of CALMET output with observational data
The meteorological data generated by CALMET was compared to data measured at EPA’s Le Fevre 1 site during
2009. Wind speed, wind direction and temperature were included in the analysis. Table B1 presents the key
statistical comparisons of the modelled and observed data and compares to the benchmarks in Environ (2001).
The statistics show that the model meets the targets and does an acceptable job overall.
Table B1 Statistical analysis of CALMET output at the LeFevre 1 EPA monitor
Parameter Statistic Value Target
Wind speed
Root Mean Square Error 1.12 m/s <= 2 m/s
Bias -0.54 m/s <= ± 0.5 m/s
Index of Agreement 0.70 >= 0.6
Wind direction Gross Error 23.4° <= 30°
Bias -0.72° <=±10°
Temperature
Gross Error 1.62°K <=2°K
Bias -0.76°K <=±0.5°K
Index of Agreement 0.83 >=0.8
The modelled and observed distributions of wind speed and wind direction are examined in more detail in Figure
B1 (annual wind roses), Figure B2 (seasonal wind roses) and Figure B3 (diurnal wind roses). The figures
demonstrate that the CALMET model has performed very well and has captured the key features of the wind fields
in the area such as:
• The predominant wind directions are southwest and northeast
• The strongest winds are from the west and southwest
• Winds from the south-southeast to southwest during summer
• Strong winds from the west and lighter north-easterlies during winter
• Strong sea-breezes in the afternoon and lightest winds during the early morning (midnight – 6am).
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 64
Figure B1 Annual wind roses at the Le Fevre 1 monitor (observed and modelled by CALMET)
Figure B2 Seasonal wind roses at the Le Fevre 1 monitor (observed and modelled by CALMET)
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 65
Figure B3 Diurnal wind roses at the Le Fevre 1 monitor (observed and modelled by CALMET)
B2 CALPUFF DISPERSION MODELLING
CALPUFF simulates the dispersion of air pollutants to predict ground-level concentration and deposition rates
across a network of receptors spaced at regular intervals, and at identified discrete locations. CALPUFF is a non-
steady-state Lagrangian Gaussian puff model containing parameterisations for complex terrain effects, overwater
transport, coastal interaction effects, building downwash, wet and dry removal, and simple chemical transformation.
CALPUFF employs the 3D meteorological fields generated from the CALMET model by simulating the effects of
time and space varying meteorological conditions on pollutant transport, transformation and removal. CALPUFF
considers the geophysical features of the study area that affects dispersion of pollutants and ground-level
concentrations of those pollutants in identified regions of interest. CALPUFF contains algorithms that can resolve
near-source effects such as building downwash, transitional plume rise, partial plume penetration, sub-grid scale
terrain interactions, as well as the long-range effects of removal, transformation, vertical wind shear, overwater
transport and coastal interactions. Emission sources can be characterised as arbitrarily-varying point, area, volume
and lines or any combination of those sources within the modelling domain.
B2.1 CALPUFF Setup
Key features of CALPUFF used to simulate dispersion:
• Computational domain of 36 x 45 grid points at 200 m resolution, a subset of the CALMET domain
• Sampling grid of 64 x 82 grid points at 100 m resolution, a subset of the computational domain with a
meshdown factor of 2
• 365 days modelled (1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009)
• Gridded 3D hourly-varying meteorological conditions generated by CALMET
• Partial plume path adjustment for terrain modelled
• Dispersion coefficients calculated internally from sigma v and sigma w using micrometeorological
variables, with the minimum sigma v set to 0.2 over land and water
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 66
• Minimum wind speed for calm conditions set to 0.2 m/s
• Dry depletion turned on for modelling of dust (normal operations) and process variation scenarios. No dry
depletion was used for modelling the full suite of emissions from the stacks.
• Stack tip downwash, transitional plume rise and PDF used for dispersion under convective conditions
• Building wakes included using Prime methodology.
All other options set to default.
B2.2 Building Inputs
Figure B4 presents the locations of the buildings that were included in the dispersion modelling along with their
heights.
Figure B4 Layout of the Facility with the buildings as included in the CALPUFF model
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd
D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant – FINAL 8 September 2017
Page 67
APPENDIX C EMISSIONS INVENTORY
C1 INVENTORY AND ACTIVITY DATA
The annual emission rates of all sources included in the dispersion model of the Facility are presented in Table C1. The emission rates incorporate the controls also listed in the
table.
Table C1 Annual particulate matter emission rates of modelled activities during normal operations
Activity Activity rate Control a Emission rate (kg/year)
Parameter Units Value Description % TSP PM10 PM2.5
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd
D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant – FINAL 8 September 2017
Page 68
Activity Activity rate Control a Emission rate (kg/year)
Parameter Units Value Description % TSP PM10 PM2.5
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd
D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant – FINAL 8 September 2017
Page 69
Activity Activity rate Control a Emission rate (kg/year)
Parameter Units Value Description % TSP PM10 PM2.5
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd
D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant – FINAL 8 September 2017
Page 70
Activity Activity rate Control a Emission rate (kg/year)
Parameter Units Value Description % TSP PM10 PM2.5
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd
D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant – FINAL 8 September 2017
Page 71
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd
D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant – FINAL 8 September 2017
Page 72
C2 VEHICLE MOVEMENTS
A summary of the vehicle movements modelled as part of the assessment of normal operating conditions is presented in Table C2.
Table C2 Vehicle movements
Description Vehicle
Type Material
Destination / Location
Total (t/yr)
Single load size
(t)
Empty veh.
mass (t) Trips/yr
Distance per round trip (km)
Total Distance (VKT/yr)
Paved Unpaved Paved Unpaved
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd
D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant – FINAL 8 September 2017
Page 73
Description Vehicle
Type Material
Destination / Location
Total (t/yr)
Single load size
(t)
Empty veh.
mass (t) Trips/yr
Distance per round trip (km)
Total Distance (VKT/yr)
Paved Unpaved Paved Unpaved
C3 DUST COLLECTORS
A summary of the vehicle movements modelled as part of the assessment of normal operating conditions is presented in Table C3.
Table C3 Dust collectors included in the air quality assessment
Area Dust Collector Volumetric
flowrate (m³/hr) Hour /day Days /week
Weeks /year
Total h/y Emissions kg/yr
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd
D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement Plant – FINAL 8 September 2017
Page 74
Area Dust Collector Volumetric
flowrate (m³/hr) Hour /day Days /week
Weeks /year
Total h/y Emissions kg/yr
TSP PM10 PM2.5
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 75
C4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR DUST
C4.1 Material transfers
Emissions for materials handling are dependent on the amount of materials being transferred. Materials handling
and transfers includes the handling of incoming material, transfers during processing, and transfers to and from
stockpiles. These were calculated using equation 6 from the Emission estimation technique manual for Cement
manufacturing, Version 2.1 (NPI, 2008):
𝐸𝐹𝑃𝑀10= 0.75 × 0.001184 ×
(𝑈
2.2)
1.3
(𝑀2
)1.4 × 𝐸𝑅𝑃𝑀10
where:
EFPM10 emission factor for PM10 (kg/Mg)
k particle size multiplier (dimensionless)
U mean wind speed (m/s)
M material moisture content (%)
ERPM10 emission reduction factor for PM10
The emission factor for TSP was calculated by multiplying the emission factor for PM10 by 2.1, which is the ratio of
the TSP and PM10 emission factors for material transfers presented in the AP42 documents, chapter 13.2.4
(USEPA, 2006a). The emission factor for PM2.5 was calculated in a similar fashion using a multiplier of 0.15.
C4.2 Wind erosion of stockpiles
Emissions of PM10 due to wind erosion from materials storage have been calculated using the default emission
factor from the Emission estimation technique manual for Cement manufacturing, Version 2.1 (NPI, 2008), which
is 0.3 kg/ha/hr.
The emission factor for TSP was calculated by multiplying the emission factor for PM10 by 2, which is the ratio of
the TSP and PM10 emission factors for wind erosion presented in the AP42 documents, chapter 13.2.5 (USEPA,
2006b). The emission factor for PM2.5 was calculated in a similar fashion using a multiplier of 0.15.
C4.3 Wind erosion of exposed areas
Wind erosion from exposed areas has been calculated using the default emission factors from the National
Pollutant Inventory Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining, Version 3.1 (NPI, 2012). These are 0.4
kg/ha/hr for TSP and 0.2 kg/ha/hr for PM10.
The emission factor for PM2.5 has been calculated from the emission factor for PM10, and the ratio of the PM2.5 and
PM10 emission factors for wind erosion in the presented in the AP42 documents, chapter 13.2.5 (USEPA, 2006b),
which is 0.15.
C4.4 Haulage on unpaved roads
The emission factors for TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions due to vehicle movements on unpaved roads were
calculated from the AP42 documents in chapter 13.2.2 titled “unpaved roads” (US EPA, 2006c).
The equation included in the assessment is as follows:
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 76
𝐸 = 281.9 × 𝑘(𝑠12⁄ )
𝑎(𝑊
3⁄ )𝑏
where
E emission factor (g/VKT)
s surface material silt content (%)
W mean vehicle weight (tons).
The multiplier of 281.9 converts the units from lb/VMT to g/VKT.
C4.5 Haulage on paved roads
The emission factors for TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions due to vehicle movements on paved roads were
calculated from the AP42 documents in Chapter 13.2.1 titled “paved roads” dated December 2011.
The equation included in the assessment is as follows:
𝐸 = 𝑘(𝑠𝐿)0.91(𝑊)1.02
where
E emission factor (g/VKT)
k particle size multiplier for particle size range
sL road surface silt loading (g/m2)
W mean vehicle weight (tons).
C4.6 Vehicle combustion emissions
Emissions from combustion engines were calculated in accordance with the NPI EET Manual for Combustion
Engines v3 (2008). Emissions are based on engine size and operating hours according to the following equation:
𝐸 = 𝑃 × 𝑂𝑝𝐻𝑟𝑠 × 𝐿𝐹 × 𝐸𝐹
Where:
E emissions of substance (kg/year)
P engine power (kW)
OpHrs operating hours per year (h)
LF load factor
EF Emission factor
C4.7 Dust collectors
Emissions from dust collectors are based on the flow rates presented in Table C3 and measured concentrations
presented in Table 10. Emissions from dust collectors that were not measured were calculated using the maximum
measured concentration.
--
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 77
APPENDIX D MODELLING AND MONITORING COMPARISON
D1 MODEL DESCRIPTION
The emissions model was based on activities carried out during the 2015/16 NPI reporting period. The
meteorological and dispersion models were rerun using 2015 and 2016 meteorology to provide a comparison to
monitoring data collected during this period.
All model inputs were consistent with those described in Section 4 of the report and Appendix B, except for the
modelling period and associated assimilated data. The meteorological model was compared to the monitoring data
at Le Fevre 1 and the comparison statistics, presented inTable D1, indicate that it performed well for 2015 and
2016.
Table D1 Statistical analysis of CALMET output at the Le Fevre 1 EPA monitor
Parameter Statistic Units 2015 2016 Target
Wind speed
Root Mean Square Error m/s 1.11 1.06 <= 2
Bias m/s -0.46 -0.41 <= ± 0.5
Index of Agreement - 0.69 0.73 >= 0.6
Wind direction Gross Error ° 26.25 24.3 <= 30
Bias ° -0.01 -0.48 <=±10
Temperature
Gross Error °K 1.5 1.4 <=2
Bias °K -0.23 0.04 <=±0.5
Index of Agreement - 0.84 0.83 >=0.8
D2 ANALYSIS
Analysis was performed on PM10, as more monitoring data was available. Predicted 1-hour and 24-hour
concentrations were extracted at the location of Le Fevre 1. An ambient background of 18.0 µg/m³ has been added
to each prediction and the results compared to the monitoring data over the 2015 – 2016 period. Table D2 presents
summary statistics of the monitoring and modelling data. Timeseries of the two datasets are presented inFigure
D1. The data indicates the following:
• The mean and median values of both datasets align.
• The model does not capture the level of variation in the monitoring dataset.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 78
Table D2 Monitoring and modelling data during 2015 and 2016
Parameter Monitoring Modelling (Isolation) Modelling (Including
background)
Minimum 4.2 0.0 18.0
10th %ile 10.3 0.0 18.0
Mean 19.5 1.5 19.5
Median 18.4 0.1 18.1
70th %ile 22.7 1.8 19.8
90th %ile 28.9 4.8 22.8
Maximum 85.4 10.9 28.9
Figure D1 Timeseries of 24-hour average PM10 measured at Le Fevre 1 (blue) and predicted at the same location (red)
The analysis in Appendix A indicates that morning traffic is a major source of PM10 at the Le Fevre 1 monitoring
site. Traffic has not been explicitly included as a source in the model. The analysis also identified that the two
exceedance days in the dataset (4 May 2015 and 27 April 2016) are due to regional influences.
A breakdown of observations and predictions by time of day, day of week and month is shown in Figure D2 (average
concentrations) and Figure D3 (median and 30th to 70th percentile range). The data shows that:
• The model does not capture the morning traffic peak at Le Fevre 1, which is expected since roads have
not been explicitly modelled.
• The model does a good job of capturing the nighttime peaks in concentration, which can be attributed to
the Facility.
• The model does not capture the variation in daytime concentrations; on average, it overestimates these
hours.
Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D16076-16 Adelaide Brighton Cement – Air Quality Assessment of the Birkenhead Cement
Plant – FINAL
8 September 2017
Page 79
Figure D2 Mean and 95% confidence interval of modelled and observed 1-hour average PM10 concentrations at Le Fevre 1
Figure D3 Median and 30th - 70th percentile range of modelled and observed 1-hour average PM10 concentrations at Le Fevre 1