Anglesea HRA

Air Dispersion Modelling Study
and Screening Human Health Risk Assessment
Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Prepared for:
Alcoa Australia Limited
Prepared by:
ENVIRON Australia Pty Ltd
Date:
July 2013
Project Number:
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Our Ref: AS140151
Nicci Marris
Alcoa of Australia Limited
Anglesea Power Station
Camp Road
Anglesea Victoria 3230
Dear Nicci
Re: Air Emissions Study – Alcoa Screening HHRA, Anglesea Power Station and Coal
Mine, Victoria
We are pleased to present our final report of the Air Dispersion Modelling and Screening
Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Study for the Anglesea Power Station and Coal
Mine. This report provides details of the emission inventory, dispersion modelling and a
screening HHRA based on the approach recommended by the Victorian EPA.
Should you require any additional information, please contact the undersigned directly.
Yours sincerely
ENVIRON Australia Pty Ltd
Brian Bell
Principal, Australia
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Executive Summary
An air dispersion modelling and screening Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) of the
atmospheric emissions from Alcoa’s Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine have been
completed to investigate the potential health risks arising from the atmospheric emissions
from these facilities. The screening HHRA considered the potential health risks associated
with the current power station emissions and coal mine operations.
The Victorian Environment Protection Authority (EPAV) specified that only those compounds
that did not meet the State Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality Management)
(SEPP (AQM)) design criteria be included in the HHRA.
A comprehensive emission inventory identified 39 compounds that are likely to be
associated with the atmospheric emissions from the power station and coal mine. The Air
Pollution Model (TAPM) was used to predict the meteorology and dispersion of the power
station emissions. The CALPUFF air dispersion model was used to model the particulate
emissions from the coal mine operations using TAPM predicted meteorology. The predicted
ground level concentrations of the compounds modelled were compared against the design
ground level concentration (dglc) criteria presented in the Victorian SEPP (AQM).
Three compounds (sulphur dioxide [SO2], particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic
diameter of less than 10 µm [PM10] and particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic
diameter of less than 2.5 µm [PM2.5]) were predicted to exceed the SEPP (AQM) dglc criteria
in the modelled domain and these compounds were therefore included in the screening
HHRA.
The screening HHRA has been confined to the inhalation pathway as this is expected to
represent the most significant exposure route to the atmospheric emissions from Alcoa’s
Anglesea operations. It therefore does not take into account the alternative exposure
pathways (e.g. ingestion, dermal absorption).
The study considered background
concentration data for compounds where this could be determined. The following
quantitative health risk indicators were calculated across the model domain and for key
receptors located in the vicinity of the Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine:
•
Composite (i.e. based on 1-hour SO2, and 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 Hazard Quotients
[HQs]) and 24-hour (i.e. based on 24-hour SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 HQs) acute (i.e. short
term) Hazard Index (HI); and
•
chronic (i.e. long term) HI.
The acute and chronic HQs and HIs were calculated for each model grid point based on the
predicted ground level concentrations and the ambient air quality standards developed by
the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) in the National Environment Protection
Measure (NEPM). Discrete receptor locations were identified to represent populations or
individual residences that could be potentially exposed to atmospheric emissions from the
Power Station and coal mine.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Based upon the results of the screening HHRA it can be concluded that:
•
The emissions from the power station and coal mine when considered in combination
with the background concentrations are predicted to result in a composite acute HI of
greater than one at all but two of the nominated receptor locations.
•
The 24-hour acute HI was less than one at all locations other than Camp Wilkin and
Fraser Avenue.
•
An analysis of the predicted concentrations associated with the maximum composite
HIs indicated that the 99.5th percentile 24-hour PM10 concentrations occurred at
different times to when the 99.9th percentile 1-hour SO2 concentration occurred.
•
For all receptors other than Fraser Avenue, the individual PM10 and SO2 acute HQs
were less than one indicating that the predicted PM10 and SO2 percentile
concentrations considered in the screening HHRA were below the relevant NEPM
ambient standards.
•
For Fraser Avenue the acute HQ was predicted to be in excess of one for PM10. Of
this, Alcoa’s operations were predicted to have contributed approximately 70% of the
24-hour concentration. The NEPM goal for PM10 is to have no more than five days
where the NEPM standard is exceeded. Further analysis of the modelling data
indicates that the sixth highest 24-hour average concentrations predicted at Fraser
Avenue are well below the NEPM standard for each of the five years modelled. While
no exceedances of the NEPM standard have been recorded at the ambient particulate
monitoring sites, the air dispersion modelling indicates the potential for this to occur
albeit infrequently.
•
The acute HIs marginally greater than one are not considered to present cause for
concern in terms of possible health risks due to the inherent conservatism embedded in
the exposure assessment applied to screening health risk assessment.
•
The emissions from the power station and coal mine are predicted to result in a chronic
HI and HQ of less than one at all of the nominated receptor locations.
•
The potential for emissions from the power station and the coal mine to cause chronic
health effects is therefore considered to be low.
The NEPM ambient air quality standards represent the currently accepted standards in
Australia, and have therefore been used in this screening HHRA. Any changes to the NEPM
ambient air quality standards may affect the outcome of the screening HHRA.
As with any risk evaluation, there are areas of uncertainty in this assessment. To ensure that
potential risks are not underestimated, uniformly conservative assumptions have been used
to characterise exposure and toxicity.
Alcoa has implemented an Air Quality Control System to manage the impacts of SO2 on the
Anglesea township which has reduced the occurrence of 1-hour average concentrations of
SO2 that exceed the NEPM 1-hour standard in the community. Only one exceedance of the
NEPM standard has been recorded in the last four years.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Further, Alcoa commenced ambient PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring in July 2012 to assess the
potential impacts associated with fugitive particulate emissions from its operations. The
monitoring results from July to December 2012 indicate that the NEPM standards were
being met at all three monitoring locations during this period.
ENVIRON recommends that management/mitigation measures are regularly reviewed to
ensure control of the acute (short-term exposure) risk posed by SO2 from the power station
and dust emissions from the coal mine.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Contents
Page
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
Project Overview ........................................................................................................................ 1
Coal Mine And Power Station Site Description And Process Summary.................................... 1
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
Air Dispersion Modelling ......................................................................................................... 3
Background ................................................................................................................................ 3
Air Quality Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 3
Power Station Emission Inventory ............................................................................................. 5
Anglesea Power Station - Source Characteristics ..................................................................... 6
Emission Estimates .................................................................................................................... 6
Treatment of Non-Detect Data ................................................................................................... 8
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.3.7
3.3.8
3.4
3.4.1
Coal-Mine Operations ............................................................................................................ 10
Production and Throughput ..................................................................................................... 10
Coal Mining Operations............................................................................................................ 10
Potential Dust Sources............................................................................................................. 10
Coal/Waste Loading of Trucks ................................................................................................. 10
Coal/Waste Material Dumping ................................................................................................. 10
Coal Crushing .......................................................................................................................... 11
Conveyor Transfer ................................................................................................................... 11
Conveyor Belts ......................................................................................................................... 11
Stockyards ............................................................................................................................... 12
Stacking ................................................................................................................................... 12
Vehicles and Wheel Generated Dust ....................................................................................... 12
Coal Mine Operations - Particulate Emission Estimates .........................................................13
Wind Erosion ............................................................................................................................ 16
4
4.1
4.1.1
4.2
4.2.1
Existing Environment ............................................................................................................ 17
Meteorology ............................................................................................................................. 17
Surrounding Land Use ............................................................................................................. 17
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring ................................................................................................ 18
Ambient Dust Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 19
5
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.3
Model Methodology ............................................................................................................... 20
Model Parameterisation ........................................................................................................... 20
TAPM ....................................................................................................................................... 20
CALPUFF ................................................................................................................................. 21
Discrete Receptors ................................................................................................................... 21
Cumulative Impacts.................................................................................................................. 22
Model Validation ....................................................................................................................... 23
Model Validation –Sulphur Dioxide .......................................................................................... 25
Model Validation – Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................. 26
Model Results .......................................................................................................................... 28
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
5.4
Air Dispersion Modelling Key Findings and Conclusions .........................................................30
6
6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
6.1.5
6.2
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.2.4
6.3
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.4
Screening Human Health Risk Assessment ....................................................................... 31
Background .............................................................................................................................. 31
Issue Identification ................................................................................................................... 31
Hazard Identification and Dose Response............................................................................... 32
Exposed Population ................................................................................................................. 35
Exposure Pathways ................................................................................................................. 35
Estimated Concentrations in Air ............................................................................................... 35
Exposure Assessment ............................................................................................................. 36
Quantitative Risk Indicators ..................................................................................................... 36
Acute Effects ............................................................................................................................ 37
Chronic Effects ......................................................................................................................... 41
Irritancy..................................................................................................................................... 42
Uncertainties Associated With Screening HHRA ..................................................................... 42
Predicted Ground Level Concentrations .................................................................................. 42
Ambient Air Quality Guidelines ................................................................................................ 44
Exposure Uncertainty ............................................................................................................... 44
Screening HHRA Conclusions ................................................................................................. 45
7
References .............................................................................................................................. 47
8
Limitations Of Study .............................................................................................................. 50
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
List of Tables
Table 1: SEPP (AQM) Design Criteria for Individual Compounds .................................................. 4
Table 2: Air Quality Criteria - Boron ................................................................................................ 5
Table 3: Stack Discharge Characteristics ....................................................................................... 6
Table 4: Summary of Power Station Emission Rates ..................................................................... 7
Table 5: Summary of Trace Elements present in Coal ................................................................... 8
Table 6: Emission Factors, Control Factors and Average Particulate Emission Rate Estimates . 14
Table 7: Particle Size Distributions ............................................................................................... 15
Table 8: Summary of Meteorological Parameters for 2008-2012 ................................................. 17
3 1
Table 9: 2008-2012 Summary of Ambient SO2 Concentrations (µg/m ) , 1-Hour Average.......... 18
3
Table 10: 23 July 2012- 31 December 2012 - Summary of Ambient Dust Concentrations (µg/m ),
1-Hour and 24-Hour averages ....................................................................................... 19
Table 11: Summary of Discrete Receptors ................................................................................... 22
Table 12: Background Concentrations ......................................................................................... 23
Table 13: Performance Evaluation Summary – Wind Speed (2008-2012) .................................. 24
Table 14: Predicted and Observed Ground Level Concentration SO2 – 2008-2012 .................... 25
Table 15: Predicted and Observed Ground Level Concentration PM10 and PM2.5 – July to
December 2012.............................................................................................................. 27
1
Table 16: Predicted Concentration of Compounds in the Modelled Domain .............................. 29
Table 17: Summary of the NEPM Standards Used ...................................................................... 34
Table 18: Calculated Acute Hazard Indices (SO2 and PM10)........................................................ 39
Table 19: Calculated Acute Hazard Indices (SO2 and PM2.5) ....................................................... 40
Table 20: Summary of Predicted Concentrations at Fraser Avenue ................................................ 41
Table 21: Calculated Chronic Hazard Indices .............................................................................. 41
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
Figure 19:
AS140151
Location Map
Inventory Selection Process
Anglesea Observed Winds – Wind Roses Annual 2008
Anglesea Observed Winds – Wind Roses Annual 2009
Anglesea Observed Winds – Wind Roses Annual 2010
Anglesea Observed Winds – Wind Roses Annual 2011
Anglesea Observed Winds – Wind Roses Annual 2012
Summary of Observed Wind Speed at Anglesea (2008-2012)
Summary of Observed Wind Direction at Anglesea (2008-2012)
Site Topography
Surrounding Land Use
Location of SO2 Monitoring Stations
Location of 3 Dust Monitoring Stations
Pollution Rose Camp Rd PM10
Pollution Rose Camp Rd PM2.5
Pollution Rose Camp Wilkin PM10
Pollution Rose Camp Wilkin PM2.5
Pollution Rose Barwon Water PM10
Pollution Rose Barwon Water PM2.5
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Figure 20:
Figure 21:
Figure 22:
Figure 23:
Figure 24:
Figure 25:
Figure 26:
Figure 27:
Figure 28:
Figure 29:
Figure 30:
Figure 31:
Figure 32:
Figure 33:
Figure 34:
Figure 35:
Figure 36:
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Location of Discrete Receptors
Pdf Plot of Wind Speed – Obs vs Pred (2008-2012)
Pdf Plot of Wind Direction – Obs vs Pred (2008-2012)
SO2 Validation – Year 2008
SO2 Validation – Year 2009
SO2 Validation – Year 2010
SO2 Validation – Year 2011
SO2 Validation – Year 2012
SO2 Validation – Years 2008-2012
PM2.5 Validation – July-December 2012 (1-Hour)
PM10 Validation – July-December 2012 (1-Hour)
PM10 and PM2.5 Validation – July-December 2012 (24-Hour)
Concentration Isopleth: Composite Acute HI (SO2 and PM10)
Concentration Isopleth: 24-Hour Acute HI (SO2 and PM10)
Concentration Isopleth: Composite Acute HI (SO2 and PM2.5)
Concentration Isopleth: 24-Hour Acute HI (SO2 and PM2.5)
Concentration Isopleth: Chronic HI (SO2 and PM2.5)
List of Appendices
Appendix A: EPAV Correspondence
Appendix B: Sampling Methods
Appendix C: TAPM Input File
Appendix D: Haul Road Emission Rates
Appendix E: Concentration Isopleths for Compounds
Appendix F: Analysis of Concentrations Associated with the Peak HQs
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AQCS
AQM
BoM
BPIP
CO
CSIRO
DGLC
EPAV
FB
GASP
GDA
GLC
GM
HHRA
IOA
N
NEPM
NMSE
NOx
NO2
NPI
OLM
PAH
PM2.5
PM10
RHC
RMSE
RMSE_S
RMSE_U
S
SE
SEPP
SD
SO2
STP
Air Quality Control System
Air Quality Management
Bureau of Meteorology
Building Profile Input Program
Carbon monoxide
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Design ground level concentration
Environment Protection Authority (Victorian)
Fractional Bias
Global Analysis and Prediction
Geocentric Datum of Australia
Ground level concentrations
Geometric Mean Bias
Human Health Risk Assessment
Index of Agreement
North
National Environment Protection Measures
Normalised Mean Square Error
Oxides of nitrogen
Nitrogen Dioxide
National Pollution Inventory
USEPA’s Ozone Limiting Method
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 µm
Particulate matter with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 µm
Robust Highest Concentration
Root Mean Square Error
Systematic Root Mean Square Error
Unsystematic Root Mean Square Error
South
Southeast
State Environmental Protection Policy
Standard Deviation
Sulphur Dioxide
TAPM
The Air Pollution Model. A meteorological and dispersion model developed by
CSIRO.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Geometric Variance
Volatile Organic Compounds
World Health Organisation
USEPA
VG
VOC
WHO
AS140151
Standard Temperature and Pressure - is defined by IUPAC (International
Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) as air at 0°C (273.15 K, 32 °F) and
105 Pascals
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
°C
d
kg
K
kPa
km
m
3
m
Mg
MW
ppb
ppm
µg
3
µg/m
t
AS140151
Degree Celsius
Day
Kilogram
Kelvin
Kilo Pascals
Kilometre
Metre
Cubic metre
Milligram
6
Megawatt (or 1 x 10 watts)
Parts per billion
Parts per million
Microgram
Microgram per cubic metre expressed at STP
Tonnes
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
1
Introduction
1.1
Background
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 1
Alcoa of Australia (Alcoa) operates the 160 megawatt (MW) Anglesea Power Station (power
station) and the Anglesea Coal Mine (coal mine) near Anglesea, in Victoria, Australia (Figure
1). The Power Station supplies approximately 40% of the power required by Alcoa’s Point
Henry aluminium smelter.
Alcoa contracted ENVIRON Australia Pty Ltd (ENVIRON) to conduct an air dispersion
modelling study and screening Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) of the potential
health risks arising from atmospheric emissions from the Anglesea Power Station and Coal
Mine. The screening HHRA has considered the potential health risks associated with air
emissions from the existing operations.
This report details the air dispersion modelling study, the screening HHRA approach and
methodology, and the results of potential acute and chronic risks arising from atmospheric
emissions from the power station and the coal mine.
1.2
Project Overview
The study includes the identification of atmospheric emissions that may result from the
power station and coal mine based on National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) reports, stack
monitoring reports, raw materials handling and process conditions. The identified emissions
were included in the air dispersion modelling study to predict ground level concentrations
across the model domain and at discrete receptors.
This HHRA is considered to be a screening-level assessment in that it makes generally
conservative assumptions regarding the potential magnitude of exposure. The Victorian
Environment Protection Authority (EPAV) specified that only those compounds that do not
meet the State Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) (SEPP (AQM))
(EPAV, 2001a) design criteria be included in the HHRA (see Appendix A for EPAV
correspondence). This assessment assumed an additive approach to the calculation of
health risks, which is generally considered to be conservative (i.e. health protective).
Potential antagonistic or synergistic effects were not considered as these cannot readily be
quantified. The results of the screening HHRA are able to be used to identify the individual
sources and compounds exhibiting the highest contribution to potential health risks in order
to help define atmospheric emission management strategies.
1.3
Coal Mine And Power Station Site Description And Process Summary
The Anglesea Coal Mine is an open pit mine located approximately 0.5 km north, northwest
of the town of Anglesea and 1.2 km south, southwest of the Anglesea Power Station (Figure
1). The power station is located approximately 1.5 km north of the town of Anglesea. The
coal mine and the power station are both located within a 7,221 hectare (ha) mining lease
known as the Anglesea Heath.
The coal mine typically operates between 7am and 7pm, seven days per week to produce
1.1 Mtpa of coal for the power station. Alcoa moves overburden to the waste dumps and
extracts the brown coal using excavators (mechanical diggers) and 60 t dump trucks. The
coal is delivered to the primary crusher and from the crusher to the live stockpiles.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 2
Coal is recovered from the live stockpiles and sent to the pulverisers that reduce the coal to
a fine material that is dried and injected into the boiler. The hot combustion gases in the
boiler are used to generate steam to drive a two-cylinder 160 MW condensing turbine
producing electricity.
Electrostatic precipitators collect more than 98% of the fly ash before the gas passes
through induced draft fans to the stack for discharge. The majority of the sulphur that is
present in the brown coal is oxidised in the boiler and is emitted to the atmosphere via the
power station stack in the form of sulphur dioxide (SO2).
In 2009 Alcoa developed and implemented and Air Quality Control System (AQCS) to
manage the emissions of SO2 under conditions were the emissions are being dispersed over
the town of Anglesea. The AQCS has been integrated into the power station operations. It
has resulted in a reduction in the number of exceedances of the National Environment
Protection Measure (NEPM) standard of 200 ppb for SO2 recorded at the ambient monitoring
sites located in the town of Anglesea since its inception. The NEPM goal has been met at all
of the Anglesea monitoring stations since 2009.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 3
2
Air Dispersion Modelling
2.1
Background
Air dispersion modelling of the Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine was undertaken
using The Air Pollution Model (TAPM, V4.05) and CALPUFF (V6.26). TAPM was used to
predict the meteorology and the dispersion of the atmospheric emissions from the Anglesea
Power Station. CALPUFF was used to model the particulate emissions from the Anglesea
Coal Mine using the TAPM predicted meteorology. The air dispersion modelling results were
evaluated against the ambient monitoring data for SO2 and particulates to evaluate the
reliability of the model predictions. The predicted ground level concentrations were
compared to the SEPP (AQM) design ground level concentration criteria to select the
emissions that were considered in the screening HHRA. This section provides details on the
air quality criteria used, emission inventory derivation, model set-up and parameterisation,
model validation and the model results.
2.2
Air Quality Criteria
The predicted ground level concentrations resulting from the coal mine and power station’s
atmospheric emissions have been assessed against the design criteria described in the
SEPP (AQM) as presented in Table 1.
The design ground level concentration criteria are typically employed in the assessment of
new or expanded sources of emissions. The design ground level concentration criteria for air
quality indicators based on toxicity apply everywhere, except inside buildings.
In addition to the pollutants listed above, Boron was included in the assessment as Alcoa
has emissions data. As there are no EPAV SEPP Guideline values for Boron, the Texas
Commission Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Levels were applied as listed in Table 2.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 4
Table 1: SEPP (AQM) Design Criteria for Individual Compounds
Substance
Averaging period
[4]
EPAV (SEPP) design ground
level criteria
3
(μg/m )
Class 1
CO
1-hour
29,000
NO2
1-hour
190
SO2
1-hour
450
1-hour
80
1-hour
3
PM10
[1]
Lead
Class 2
PM2.5
1-hour
50
Chromium (III) and compounds
3-min
17
Copper dusts and mists
3-min
33
Manganese and compounds
3-min
33
Mercury - Organic
Mercury - Inorganic
Fluoride
[2]
3-min
0.33
3.3
24-hour
2.9
7 days
1.7
90 days
0.5
Antimony
3-min
17
Chlorine
3-min
100
Hydrogen Chloride
3-min
250
Class 3
Arsenic and compounds
3-min
0.17
Cadmium and compounds
3-min
0.033
Nickel and compounds
3-min
0.33
3-min
0.0000037
PAH (as BaP)
3-min
0.73
Dioxins and Furans
[3]
Benzene
3-min
53
Beryllium
3-min
0.007
Chromium VI Compounds
3-min
0.17
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Applies to point sources only. For area-based sources and roads, applicable criteria are specified in
the relevant industry Protocol for Environment Management (PEM).
3
Fluoride content is calculated by dry weight and expressed as fluoride (F-) µg/m .
TCDD 1-TEQ means 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachloro-dibenzodioxan as international equivalents.
Gas volumes are expressed at 25°C and at an absolute pressure of one atmosphere (101.325 KPa).
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 5
Table 2: Air Quality Criteria - Boron
Averaging period
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Effects
3
Screening Levels (2009) – Air Quality Objective (μg/m )
1-hour
50
Annual
5
Notes
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality -Effects Screening Levels (ESL) Lists Used in the Review of Air Permitting Data
- http://www.tceq.texas.gov/toxicology/esl/list_main.html#esl_1
2.3
Power Station Emission Inventory
The nature and quantity of atmospheric emissions released from the Power Station and coal
mine have been characterised through the development of an emissions inventory. The
emissions inventory details key compounds and the emission rates from the Power Station
and coal mine. These emissions data have been sourced from emission monitoring
campaigns for the power station, and an understanding of the process, and National
Pollution Inventory (NPI) reporting, and NPI emission estimation methods. The key
compounds in the atmospheric emissions from the power station and coal mine include the
following:
1
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2): SO2 is primarily generated by the oxidation of sulphur in the
coal burnt in the power station.
2
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): During coal combustion, nitrogen present in both the coal and
the combustion air is converted to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and other oxides of nitrogen
(NOx).
3
Particulates particulate are primarily emitted as a result of the mining activities and from
the power station stack in the form of uncaptured coal ash.
4
Metals: metal emissions are primarily contained in the particulates emitted from the coal
mine and power station operations.
5
Carbon Monoxide: Carbon monoxide is formed by the incomplete combustion in the
Power Station.
6
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs originate from the combustion of
coal in the Power Station.
7
Volatile Organic Compounds: VOC's originate either by the volatilisation from, or
combustion of, the coal in the power station.
An overview of the emission inventory process is presented as Figure 2 and includes the
substance selection, source selection and an uncertainty analysis. The following sections
provide information on the development of the power station emissions inventory while
Section 3 presents details on the emissions inventory development for the coal mine.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 6
2.3.1 Anglesea Power Station - Source Characteristics
The characteristics of the power station stack and emissions used in the modelling are
presented in Table 3. The discharge characteristics and stack coordinates were provided by
Alcoa (N. Marris pers. comms. 18 July 2011).
Table 3: Stack Discharge Characteristics
Description
Stack
GDA Coordinates
Stack
Height
X
Y
(m)
253764
5747349
107
Stack Characteristics at Discharge
Average
Average
Diameter
Velocity
Temp
(m)
(m/s)
(K)
3.88
36.8
465.5
2.3.2 Emission Estimates
The compounds considered in this study represent Alcoa’s best available knowledge of the
emissions released to air from the power station stack and coal mine. This knowledge has
been gathered primarily from source emission monitoring campaigns and coal analysis
conducted at the Power Station and coal mine. The key processes undertaken to identify
and prioritise compounds of interest included:
1
Compounds likely to be present in the air emissions based on process knowledge.
2
Priority compounds covered in the Ambient Air NEPM (NEPC, 1998) and the Ambient Air
Toxics NEPM (NEPC, 2004).
3
Compounds known to be present in the coal due to the comprehensive monitoring
program.
4
Compounds known to be emitted by similar facilities, nationally and internationally.
5
Compounds that triggered NPI thresholds.
6
Compounds specified in the environmental license.
A total of 39 individual compounds were identified and included into the emission inventory.
These compounds included NOx, carbon monoxide, SO2, PM10 (particulate matter with an
equivalent aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 µm), PM2.5 (particulate matter with an
equivalent aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 µm), fluorides, metals, PAH’s and dioxins
and furans. The inventory data for the Power Station stack emissions were primarily sourced
from stack testing reports prepared by external NATA accredited consultants. The results of
stack emissions testing reports provided by Alcoa from 2008 to 2012 (N Marris, pers.
comms. 30 January 2013) were used in the development of the emission inventory.
Quarterly trace analysis results for coal samples provided by Alcoa were used in conjunction
with estimated PM10 emission rates to calculate the trace element emissions contained in
particulate emissions from the coal mine.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 7
For this study the emissions profile considered the normal worst case (i.e. maximum)
emissions from the Power Station and coal mine unless there were continuous emissions
data available. For SO2, measured hourly average emission rates were used in the
dispersion model to predict ground level concentrations. The continuous SO2 emissions
monitoring data were used in the assessment as they reflect the actual operating regime of
the power station including the impact of the AQCS.
A summary of the sampling methods used to measure the stack emissions at the Power
Station are summarised in Appendix B. Table 4 presents the power station stack emission
rates used in the air quality assessment. The coal mine emission estimates are presented in
Section 3.
Table 4: Summary of Power Station Emission Rates
Emission Rate
(g/s)
No.
103
21
2, 3, 7, 8 - TCDF
1.47 x 10
1,148
22
2, 3, 7, 8 - TCDD
4.83 x 10
Carbon Monoxide
2.8
23
1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDF
8.50 x 10
4
PM2.5
1.0
24
2,3,4,7,8 - PeCDF
2.17 x 10
5
PM10
4.3
25
1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDD
6.67 x 10
6
Total Fluoride
0.5
26
1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDF
1.65 x 10
7
Chlorides
4.2
27
1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDF
1.52 x 10
8
Mercury
0.0009
28
2,3,4,6,7,8 - HxCDF
2.83 x 10
9
Arsenic
0.002
29
1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDF
8.33 x 10
10
Cadmium
0.0001
30
1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDD
8.33 x 10
11
Chromium (III)
0.0137
31
1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDD
8.33 x 10
12
Copper
0.0022
32
1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDD
8.33 x 10
13
Lead
0.0007
33
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDF
6.33 x 10
14
Manganese
0.0042
34
1,2,3,4,7,8,9 - HpCDF
3.33 x 10
15
Nickel
0.0183
35
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDD
3.33 x 10
16
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.02
36
OCDF
1.67 x 10
17
Beryllium
0.0002
37
OCDD
1.67 x 10
18
Benzene
0.0033
38
Antimony
19
Chlorine
0.0067
39
Boron
20
Chromium (VI)
0.015
No.
Compound
1
Nitrogen Dioxide
2
Sulphur Dioxide
3
[1]
[2]
[4]
[3]
Compound
Emission Rate
(g/s)
-9
-10
-10
-9
-10
-9
-9
-9
-10
-10
-10
-10
-9
-9
-9
-8
-8
0.0002
1.1
Notes:
[1] Oxides of Nitrogen expressed as Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
[2] Variable hourly emission rates of SO2 were provided by Alcoa for the year 2008-2012. These actual values
were used for modelling and validation.
[3] Average of emission rates of SO2 for 2008-2012 based on hourly emission rates provided by Alcoa.
[4] The determination of PAH’s is based on TEQ values that have been calculated using the toxicity
equivalence factors (TEF's) relative to Benzo(a)pyrene, as reported by Larsen and Larsen (1998) in WHO
(2003)
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 8
With the exception of SO2 where hourly emissions rates were used, the emission rates
presented in Table 4 were used in the modelling. Trace element composition data for the
particulate emissions were used to assess the concentrations of metals resulting from the
Coal Mine operations. The maximum trace element concentrations measured during 2010
for the coal operations used in the air quality assessment, are presented as Table 5.
Table 5: Summary of Trace Elements present in Coal
Trace
Element
No.
Maximum
(mg/kg dry coal
basis)
No.
Trace Element
Maximum
(mg/kg dry
coal basis)
1
Beryllium
0.9
6
Mercury
2
Chloride
400
7
Nickel
19
3
Chromium (total)
7
8
Lead
3
4
Copper
80
9
Antimony
5
Fluoride
41
0.19
0.2
Notes:
Trace element analysis conducted quarterly on coal samples in 2010 and the results were provided
by Alcoa (N.Marris pers. comms. 18 July 2011)
2.3.3 Treatment of Non-Detect Data
There are four approaches that are typically used to manage non-detect data in the
formation of an Emission Inventory (USEPA 1991). These include:
Approach 1: The use of detection limit (DL) data for all non-detects. All non-detects
are assigned the value of DL (i.e. the largest concentration of analyte that can be
present but not detected).
Approach 2: The reporting of Non-detects as Zero. In which all non-detect chemicals
are assumed to be absent.
Approach 3: Non-detects reported as half the DL. This assumes that on average all
values between DL and zero could be present, and that the average value of nondetects could be as high as half the detection limit.
Approach 4: Statistical estimate of concentrations below the DL: Use of statistical
methods to estimate concentrations below the DL. This approach is more suited for
datasets that have a high proportion of detects (> 50%). Therefore statistical
predictions of concentrations below the DL are recommended only for compounds
which significantly impact the risk assessment and for which data are adequate.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 9
The choice of the appropriate method depends on a number of factors including the severity
of the data screened, the size of the data set, and what distributional assumptions are
reasonable. ENVIRON’s approach to defining the non-detects within this report are as
follows:
– Approach 2: Non-detects are reported as zero when all analysis returns values
below the minimum detect for the emission source in question.
– Approach 3: Applied if the analyte is known to be present in the raw materials or
generated during the process but not detected in the sampling and analysis
undertaken and/or detected in at least one sample.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 10
3
Coal-Mine Operations
3.1
Production and Throughput
The Anglesea Coal Mine is an open pit mine located near the Anglesea Power Station. The
mine has a crusher with a capacity of 500 tph (dry) and the coal typically has a moisture
content of approximately 44.8%. The coal mine plant typically operates between 7am and
7pm, seven days per week for around 4,380 hours per year to produce 1.1 Mtpa of coal for
the Power Station.
3.2
Coal Mining Operations
Alcoa extracts brown coal and moves overburden within the open cut mine using excavators
(mechanical diggers) and 60t dump trucks. The excavators load the coal onto trucks for
delivery to the primary crusher. Coal is dropped in a 70t hopper at the primary crusher area
and is then fed to the crusher via a vibrating feeder. No screening takes place. From the
crusher the coal is fed to the live stockpiles. Coal is reclaimed from live stockpile by apron
feeder and transferred to the power station via feed conveyor. The operation of the feed
conveyor is automated and the coal feed operates continuously.
3.3
Potential Dust Sources
The main potential sources of dust emissions and the proposed dust control measures that
will be utilised at the coal mine are described in the following sections. The efficiency of the
proposed dust control measures are also described. The control efficiencies are primarily
based on the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI)’s estimated control factors for mining
activities (NPI, 2012). Potential sources of dust include:
•
coal/waste excavation;
•
movement of material in pits (i.e. loading of haul trucks).coal/waste dumping onto
stockpiles;
•
coal crushing;
•
conveyor transfer points;
•
wheel generated dust from truck movements; and
•
wind erosion from ore/waste stockpiles and cleared areas.
3.3.1 Coal/Waste Loading of Trucks
Removal of coal and waste material at the mine has been modelled as the material being
lifted and loaded in haul trucks. The emission factors from the NPI Emission Estimation
Technique Manual (EETM) for Mining v3.1 (NPI, 2012) were used in conjunction with the
total material movements.
3.3.2 Coal/Waste Material Dumping
Coal from the pits is transported to the primary crusher and stockpiled near the primary
crusher while overburden is taken to the waste dumps. Dust suppression is provided by
water truck which is used to wet down near the digging area. Emissions from loading and
unloading of overburden from haul-trucks were calculated by using the emission factor from
the NPI EETM for Mining v3.1 (NPI, 2012) based on the total amount of material moved.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 11
3.3.3 Coal Crushing
Coal from the mine is considered to be high moisture content for emission estimation
purposes (i.e. greater than 4% by weight). The NPI EETM for Mining v3.1 (NPI, 2012)
provides emission factors for crushing based on the moisture content and throughput. For
primary crushing of high moisture content ores, the PM10 default emission factor is given as
0.004 kg/t. Primary crushing occurs for approximately 2,400 hours per year. Wetting sprays
are included at the crusher to minimize dust emissions even though the coal moisture
content is very high.
3.3.4 Conveyor Transfer
Conveyor transfer points are potentially a large source of dust emissions. Emissions from
transfer points can arise following the initial start-up, where material which has dried out on
the conveyor falls off at the belt return, or can occur as material falls off at the belt idlers on
the return belt, or via winnowing.
At the coal mine, coal will be conveyed from the primary crusher to the live stockpiles and
from these stockpiles to the Power Station. Two transfer stations are used.
Alcoa has committed to enclosing the transfer points and the control efficiency adopted for
these sources for modelling purposes is 75%. This is less than the 100% recommended by
the NPI (2012) for a totally enclosed system to allow for dust emissions which may escape
through the conveyor entry and exit openings and to ensure that the emissions estimates
remain conservative.
3.3.5 Conveyor Belts
When exposed to high winds, material on conveyor belts can be lifted off creating nuisance
impacts. This is particularly true if there are high conveyors exposed to strong winds or the
material being conveyed is prone to dusting.
The European Commission has published a series of publications on Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control, including “Reference Document on Best Available Techniques on
Emissions from Storage” (European Commission, 2006). This document addresses the
control of dust from conveying systems and states that “a main source of dust emissions
from belts is when the returning part of the belt comes into contact with the support pulleys.”
The European Commission’s Best Available Techniques (BAT) document defines BAT for
conveyors and transfer chutes as follows:
“For all types of substances, BAT is to design conveyor to conveyor transfer chutes
in such a way that spillage is reduced to a minimum. A modelling process is available
to generate detail designs for new and existing transfer points.
For non or very slightly drift sensitive products (S5) and moderately drift sensitive,
wettable products (S4), BAT is to apply an open belt conveyor and additionally,
depending on the local circumstances, one or a proper combination of the following
techniques:
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 12
– lateral wind protection;
– spraying water and jet spraying at the transfer points; and/or
– belt cleaning.”
The European BAT document defines the dispersiveness of bulk material as follows:
“The following classification, based on the susceptibility of a material to be dispersed
and the possibility of dealing with the problem by wetting, is used for non-reactive
products:
– S1: highly drift sensitive, not wettable;
– S2: highly drift sensitive, wettable;
– S3: moderately drift sensitive, not wettable;
– S4: moderately drift sensitive, wettable; and
– S5: not or very slightly drift sensitive.”
The European BAT document provides information on dispersiveness classes of solid bulk
materials and categorises brown coal within the S4 dispersive class. Therefore, based on
the European Best Available Practice documentation the management of transfer points
(use of sprays or enclosing), return conveyor dust (belt scrapers/washing), and maintaining
moisture in the coal are key to minimising dust from conveyor operations. With these
controls in place, the amount of dust expected to be generated from uncovered conveyors
would be negligible from a modelling perspective.
As such, the current modelling has only considered particulate emissions from the conveyor
transfer points.
3.3.6 Stockyards
The majority of coal from the mine is dumped directly into the crusher. However it is
assumed that up to 2% of the coal will be dumped at a permanent stockpile that is in addition
to the two live product stockpiles that are used to provide coal to the Power Station.
3.3.7 Stacking
The coal from the crusher is conveyed to the live stockpiles by a conveyor and is placed
onto the stockpile from a controlled drop height.
3.3.8 Vehicles and Wheel Generated Dust
Emissions from vehicles travelling along the haul roads have been estimated using the
equation developed by the USEPA and provided in the NPI EETM for Mining v3.1 (NPI
2012).
The total vehicle kilometres travelled (VKTs) for haul trucks was calculated based on the
estimated distance for the round trip between the mine and the primary crusher and the
number of trips per year travelled by the haul trucks.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 13
Alcoa uses a fleet of five haul trucks (60 tonnes each), one dozer and two excavators to
produce 1.1 Mtpa of coal. Alcoa has also indicated that water trucks are used for dust
suppression on unsealed roads. A summary of the emission estimates from the coal mine
and the controls is listed in Section 3.4, Table 6.
3.4
Coal Mine Operations - Particulate Emission Estimates
To enable the prediction of ground level dust concentrations generated from the coal mine
operations, hourly dust emission rates are required to be estimated from all major sources.
Factors which are important for dust generation include:
•
the coal type being handled;
•
moisture content;
•
operational activities;
•
quantity of coal being moved and the number of movements;
•
size of stockpiles and level of activity;
•
level of vehicle traffic, average speed and load;
•
rainfall;
•
evaporation; and
•
wind speed.
The throughput rates, emission factors, control factors and resultant particulate emission
estimates for the 1.1 Mtpa of coal production based on the methodology presented in
Section 3.3 are presented in Table 6. A conservative approach has been adopted in setting
emission estimates for stockpiling and reclaiming activities.
The emission factors are primarily based on the default emission factors recommended by
the NPI (2012) for ‘high’ moisture coal. The control efficiencies adopted for each emission
source are based on the recommended NPI (2012) control factors.
In should be noted that dust emission estimates for fugitive dust sources contain a high
degree of uncertainty due to the complexity of characterising emission rates, the control
efficiencies, and the effectiveness of management measures.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 14
Table 6: Emission Factors, Control Factors and Average Particulate Emission
Rate Estimates
No. of
Operational
Hours
Tonnage
Throughput
(Mtpa)
PM10
Emission
Factor
(kg/h)
PM10
Emission
Factor
(kg/t)
Control
Factor
(%)
PM10
Emission
Estimate
(g/s)
Dozer on Coal
597
-
0.3
-
-
0.1
Dozer on
Overburden
2389
-
0.7
-
-
0.2
Excavator
2986
0.014
75
1.1
Coal Rehandle
Permanent
Stockpile
2986
Coal Loading to
Haul Trucks
2986
Unloading from
Truck to Crusher
2986
Waste Loading to
Haul Trucks
2986
Waste unloading to
waste dump
2986
Primary Crusher
on Coal
2400
Source
3.4
0.02
-
0.0017
50
0.002
1.1
-
0.0144
-
1.4
1.1
-
0.003
-
0.3
2.3
-
0.0003
-
0.06
2.3
-
0.0036
-
0.8
1.1
-
0.002
70
0.06
[1]
5706
-
-
-
75
0.5
Haul Road 2
[1]
6536
-
-
-
75
1.6
Transfer Station 1
8760
0.55
-
0.002
70
0.02
Transfer Station 2
8760
0.55
-
0.002
70
0.02
Stacking
8760
1.1
-
0.0017
0
0.06
Haul Road 1
TOTAL
6.2
Notes
[1] Details calculations for Haul Road emission rates listed in Appendix D.
An annual hourly variable emission file for PM10 was created for this assessment based on
the factors presented in Table 6 and the methodology presented in Section 3.3. The variable
emissions file, particle size distribution data and a particle size density of 1 g/cm3 (on which
the USEPA particle size diameters are based) were used in the modelling to generate the
predicted TSP and PM2.5 emissions and subsequent ground level concentrations.
The USEPA’s particle size distributions for batch drop, wind erosion and vehicle emissions
(USEPA, 2004a and b; USEPA, 2006b) are presented in Table 7. The distribution data for
batch drop and wind erosion are similar, while the particle size distribution for vehicle
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 15
emissions contains a lower percentage of PM2.5. In the absence of particle size distribution
data for the TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 fractions, a composite distribution was derived from the
USEPA’s three emissions categories (Table 7). It is noted that adoption of a composite
distribution represents a simplification as different particulate emission sources will have
different particle size distributions (e.g. wind erosion versus vehicular dust) and there may
also be differences between particle size distributions between the different material types.
Table 7: Particle Size Distributions
Particle
Size Range
(µm)
Percentage of Particulate (%) in Various Size Ranges
Representative
Particle Size (µm)
USEPA
Batch
Drop
USEPA
Wind
Erosion
USEPA
Unpaved
Road
TSP
PM10
PM2.5
<2.5
1.3
11
14.8
3.3
9
30
100
2.5 - 5.0
3.8
9
8
27
-
5.0 - 7.5
6.3
7
23
-
7.5 – 10
8.7
6
20
-
10 – 15
12.5
14
-
-
15 – 23
19
15
-
-
23 – 30
26
15
-
-
30 – 40
35
15
-
-
40 – 50
45
11
-
-
15
22.2
13
7
26
30
26
26
18.7
52
26
This Study
Notes:
1. Particle sizes are equivalent aerodynamic size and not the physical size. The equivalent aerodynamic size
relates to the aerodynamic properties of the particle. For example PM10 samplers measure the dust below 10 µm
equivalent aerodynamic size and not the physical size.
2. Wind erosion and vehicle emission size distributions are given for below 30 µm only, but have been adjusted
here to less than 50 µm based on assuming 74% of the particulate is less than 30 µm as per the batch drop
distribution.
3.The distribution of PM2.5 has been modelled assuming a single representative particle size of1.3µm.
The USEPA particle size diameters are associated with the equivalent aerodynamic particle
diameters which assume a particle density of 1 g/cm3. Brown coal has a density of around
1.05 g/cm3.
Generation of the hourly variable emission file requires specific hours of the day to be
nominated during which emissions from each potential dust source may be released. It was
assumed for modelling purposes that operations will occur at regular intervals across the
operational hours (i.e. 7am to 7pm on a daily basis).
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 16
3.4.1 Wind Erosion
Dust emissions generated by wind erosion are generally negligible below a wind speed
threshold, but increase rapidly when wind speeds exceed the threshold. Dust emissions from
wind erosion are also dependent on the erodibility of the material which in turn is dependent
on the size distribution of the material and whether a crust has developed. In general,
material with a large (>50%) fraction of non-erodible particles (generally particles greater
than 1 mm to 2 mm) will not erode as the erodible fraction is protected by these particles. As
such, lump coal is not erodible by wind erosion although it is often dusty during material
handling where the small fines fraction can be liberated. Fine coal is generally much more
susceptible to wind erosion, particularly if there is a large fraction of particles in the range
from 0.1 mm to 0.25 mm which can be dislodged by wind and then rolled and skipped along
the surface (saltation). These larger particles can then dislodge the smaller (<50 µm) dust
fraction which can remain suspended in the air. The AP42 Industrial Wind Erosion Predictive
Emission Factor was used to calculate wind erosion of open aggregate storage piles and
exposed areas within the facility.
The USEPA (2006a) provides the following formula to estimate wind-generated particulate
emissions in units of grams per square meter (g/m2) per year from mixtures of erodible and
non-erodible surface material subject to disturbance as:
N
Emission factor = k ∑
i=1
Pi
(Equation 1)
Where: k= particle size multiplier
N= number of disturbances per year
Pi= erosion potential corresponding to the observed fastest speed of wind for the
ith period between disturbances, g/m2
The particle size multiplier (k) for Equation 1 varies with aerodynamic particle size and is 0.5
for PM10 and 0.075 for PM2.5.
For the coal stockpile areas, wind erosion was assumed to be negligible based on the high
moisture content present in brown coal (44.8%). . At equilibrium, the coal moisture content
results in an adsorbed multilayer of water which is 3-4 molecules thick (i.e. the micro-pores
are completely water filled). The higher the moisture content of the coal, the greater the
threshold wind velocity required to cause erosion. At 44.8% moisture content, the threshold
friction velocity is higher than the wind gusts typically experienced on site and as such wind
erosion of the coal stockpiles is rare.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
4
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 17
Existing Environment
This section summarises the meteorology of the study area, the surrounding land use,
ambient concentrations and background sources within the study area.
4.1
Meteorology
Anglesea experiences a temperate climate characterised by seasonal temperature changes,
moderate humidity and moderate rainfall. Table 8 presents a summary of the meteorological
conditions recorded at Anglesea during the 2008-2012 period.
Table 8: Summary of Meteorological Parameters for 2008-2012
Wind Speed (m/s)
[1]
Average
Predominant
Wind direction
Annual
3.9
north-west
18.3
Summer
4.5
south-west
22.6
143
Autumn
3.2
north-west
19.0
144
Winter
3.7
north-west
13.8
214
Spring
4.3
north-west
18.5
170
Period
Temperature (°C)
[1]
Rainfall (mm)
[2]
[2]
671
Notes:
[1] Data from the Anglesea Power Station were used to summarise wind speed and wind direction while the
BoM, AWS Aireys Inlet 2008-2012 were used to summarise temperature and rainfall.
[2] Average (2008-2012)
Predominant winds are from the north-west and south-west during the year. In the autumn,
winter and spring months the prevailing winds are from the north-west; whereas the
predominant summer winds are generally from the south-west. The annual average wind
speed for the five year period was 3.9 m/s with the spring and summer months having
stronger average winds.
Annual wind roses derived from Alcoa’s Anglesea meteorological station for 2008-2012 are
presented as Figures 3 to 7. A comparison of the intra-annual variability in wind profiles at
Anglesea for the years 2008 to 2012 is presented in Figures 8 and 9. The comparison
indicates that the winds experienced at the site are fairly consistent between years.
4.1.1 Surrounding Land Use
The Power Station and coal mine sit near a break in the side of a sloping 8,500 ha basin
mostly surrounded by elevated terrain. The area surrounding the Power Station (and in the
modelled domain) contains urban areas to the south-east, and farmland and vegetated
areas ranging from low coastal scrub to forest to the south, west and north of the site.
Topography rises unevenly to 200 m above sea level, with flat to undulating farmland in the
north and the Otway Ranges to the west. Site specific land use and topographical
information used in the dispersion modelling is presented in Figures 10 and 11.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
4.2
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 18
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
A summary of the ambient meteorological and air quality monitoring undertaken by Alcoa at
its six ambient monitoring stations located in Anglesea for 2008-2012 are presented in this
section. Ambient SO2 monitoring is undertaken at the CFA Hut, Camp Wilkin, Community
Centre, Primary School, Camp Rd and Scout Camp. The locations of the monitoring stations
are presented in Figure 12.
A summary of the ambient concentrations of SO2 measured at the six monitoring stations for
2008-2012 are presented as Table 9.
Table 9: 2008-2012 Summary of Ambient SO2 Concentrations (µg/m3)1, 1-Hour
Average
Statistics
Community
Centre Site
Primary
School
Site
Scout
Camp Site
Camp
Wilkin
Site
CFA Hut
Site
Camp Rd
Site
Maximum
511
516
606
547
583
585
th
249
342
386
309
263
348
th
63
134
219
63
50
166
95.0 Percentile
th
9
19
53
8
10
14
Number of
Concentrations
above NEPM
Levels (571
3
µg/m [200ppb])
0
0
1
0
1
1
Data Recovery
Rate (%)
89
76
91
92
93
93
99.9 Percentile
99.0 Percentile
2
Notes
1
Concentrations are expressed at STP: 0oC and 101.325 kilopascals (kPa)
2
Reduced data recovery associated with station shutdown due to change of location – Station offline from 7 April
2011- 20 February 2012
The CFA Hut, Primary School and Scout Camp have each recorded one individual hourly
concentration above the NEPM 1-hour standard (i.e. 571 µg/m3) over the five year period
between 2008 and 2012 inclusive. The NEPM goal (i.e. no more than one day where the
NEPM 1-hour standard was exceeded) was met at all monitoring sites. The data recovery at
the stations over the five years was good, generally being greater than 89% with the
exception of the Primary School site where a lower data recovery rate occurred as a result of
the relocation of the monitoring site.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 19
4.2.1 Ambient Dust Monitoring
Alcoa commenced monitoring ambient PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at three sites located
around the coal mine in July 2012. A summary of the monitoring results for the period 23
July-31 December 2012 are presented as Table 10. The locations of the monitoring stations
are presented in Figure 13.
Table 10: 23 July 2012- 31 December 2012 - Summary of Ambient Dust
Concentrations (µg/m3), 1-Hour and 24-Hour averages
Statistics
Camp Rd
Site
(PM10)
Camp Rd
Site
(PM2.5)
Camp
Wilkin
Site
(PM10)
Camp
Wilkin
Site
(PM2.5)
Barwon
Water
(PM10)
Barwon
Water
(PM2.5)
1-Hour Averages
Maximum
205
31
112
89
137
26
th
85
24
69
39
114
23
th
95.0 Percentile
52
16
59
28
43
19
Hourly Data
Recovery Rate
(%)
97
97
79
1
97
91
87
99.9 Percentile
24-Hour Averages
Maximum
41.8
9.0
40.8
19.5
32.7
13.2
th
40.8
8.8
40.3
18.4
32.6
12.8
th
24.3
6.0
28.8
9.6
23.0
8.4
99.9 Percentile
95.0 Percentile
Notes
1
Reduced data recovery associated with equipment malfunction
Concentrations are expressed at STP: 0°C and 101.325 kPa
Recorded data recovery at the stations over the 6 months was high, with capture rates
generally above 90%. 1-hour average PM10 concentrations of greater than 100 µg/m3 were
observed at all sites and 1-hour average PM2.5 concentrations over 50 µg/m3 were observed
at Camp Wilkin over the monitoring period. Dust pollution roses for all three sites are
presented in Figures 14 to 19.
These pollution roses show that the peak concentrations are associated from wind sectors
that were not associated with Alcoa’s Anglesea operations, with Barwon Water recording
PM10 1-hour average concentrations over 100 µg/m3 when the winds were from the northwest, north-east and south-east. 1-hour average PM10 concentrations less that 50 µg/m3 and
PM2.5 1-hour average concentrations less than 20 µg/m3 are observed from all wind
directions.
The maximum 24-hour average PM10 concentration observed was 41.8 µg/m3 at Camp Rd.
All 24-hour average concentrations recorded over the observed monitoring period were
below the NEPM 24-hour standard of 50 µg/m3 for PM10 and 25 µg/m3 (Advisory Reporting
Standard) for PM2.5.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
5
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 20
Model Methodology
Air dispersion modelling was undertaken using TAPM to predict the meteorology and the
dispersion of the Power Station’s stack emissions. CALPUFF was used to predict the
ambient particulate concentrations resulting from the coal mine operations as it is better
suited to modelling these low level fugitive sources than TAPM. TAPM was chosen to
generate the three dimensional meteorological data as there is a lack of surface and upper
air meteorological data available in the Anglesea area. The complex terrain of the region,
and the impact of this on wind conditions mean that having temporally and spatially varying
three dimensional meteorological conditions is important to the reliable prediction of the
dispersion of the emissions.
Site specific meteorological files for the model domain were generated using TAPM, Version
4.05. TAPM is a prognostic model that predicts local three-dimensional meteorological data
using synoptic, terrain, vegetation, soil type, and sea surface temperature data. The synoptic
meteorological data are provided by the CSIRO and were derived from the GASP (Global
Analysis and Prediction) data set which was generated by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)
as part of its weather forecasting until 15 August 2010. After this date, the US NCEP
(National Centers for Environmental Prediction) reanalysis product is used to provide the
synoptic data due to the discontinuation of the GASP modelling. TAPM predicts a wide
range of meteorological data including wind speed and direction, temperature, pressure,
solar radiation, cloud cover and rain over the modelling domain. The CALTAPM program
was used to extract the meteorological data from TAPM in the form that CALMET (used to
generate the meteorological input file for CALPUFF) could use directly.
A summary of TAPM and CALPUFF parameterisation files is presented in the following
sections with samples of the input files presented in Appendix C.
5.1
Model Parameterisation
5.1.1 TAPM
The meteorological simulations were completed using four nested grids (each 42 x 42 x 25
grid points) with grid spacing of 20, 8, 2 and 0.5 km respectively. The TAPM default setting
was used to define the vertical grid levels. All of the model grids were centred at latitude
38°23.5´ S and longitude 144°10.5´ E, corresponding to 253,877 mE, 5,747,534 mN in
GDA94 coordinates. TAPM supplied soil and terrain height databases were used as input
into TAPM.
A user defined landuse database was incorporated into TAPM for the inner model grid to
better represent the landuse surrounding Alcoa’s Anglesea operations. A high resolution
digital image was used to categorise the landuse in the study area. TAPM was run for the
2008 to 2012 calendar years and was configured to use three spin up days.
The ground level pollutant concentrations resulting from the Power Station’s atmospheric
emissions were predicted over the innermost TAPM model domain (i.e. 21 km by 21 km)
with a grid resolution of 250 m.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 21
5.1.2 CALPUFF
The CALPUFF modelling system was used for the air dispersion modelling of the particulate
emissions from the coal mine and associated coal handling and storage operations.
CALPUFF is a transport and dispersion model that models “puffs” of material emitted from
the sources, simulating dispersion and transformation processes along the transport
pathway. Temporal and spatial variations in the meteorological fields are explicitly
incorporated into the model. The model was configured to predict the particulate
concentrations over the same model domain as used by TAPM (i.e. 21 km by 21 km with a
grid resolution of 250 m). The meteorology predicted by TAPM was converted to a gridded
three dimensional data file suitable for use by CALMET using the CALTAPM tool developed
by TRC. CALMET (Version 6.326) used the CALTAPM output to produce a meteorological
file suitable for use with CALPUFF thereby ensuring that the meteorological data used for
both models was essentially the same.
5.1.3 Discrete Receptors
Fourteen receptor locations were identified for inclusion into the air dispersion modelling
report and the screening HHRA as presented in Table 11. Eleven of the identified receptors
were within the Anglesea town with the remaining three being located to the west (Bald Hills)
and north (Forest Road and Water Basin) of Anglesea. These receptor locations were
selected to represent a range of community facilities, residential areas, and sensitive
receptors (e.g. Primary School). The receptor locations are considered to represent the
range of potential public exposure to atmospheric emissions from the Power Station.
The locations of the receptors in relation to the Alcoa site are presented in Figure 20,
overlain on a map of the local area. For purposes of this assessment all receptors are
assumed to be residents, including potentially sensitive subpopulations such as children and
the elderly.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 22
Table 11: Summary of Discrete Receptors
Distance/Direction from
Alcoa Site
Receptor
GDA Coordinates
East (m)
North (m)
1
Mt Ingoldsby / CFA Hut
3.1 km south
252,313
5,744,535
2
Bald Hills Road
5.7 km south-west
248,373
5,748,356
3
Water Basin
3.7 km north
254,613
5,751,195
4
Forest Road
2.7 km north-east
255,693
5,749,546
5
Scout Camp
2.6 km east
256,643
5,746,326
6
Primary School
1.2 km south-east
254,635
5,746,129
7
Camp Road
1 km south-east
254,862
5,746,465
8
Community Centre
2.2 km south-east
254,266
5,745,210
9
Camp Wilkin
2.5 km south-east
253,548
5,745,288
10
Anglesea Surf Club
3.2 km south-west
254,334
5,744,588
11
Waste Treatment Plant
2.4 km south-east
255,413
5,745,616
12
Anglesea Caravan Park
3 km south-east
255,059
5,745,378
13
Fraser Avenue
1.8 km south-west
253,501
5,745,984
14
Pt Road Knight Carpark
4.2 km south
253,906
5,743,102
[1]
Notes:
[1] In May 2011 the Primary School SO2 monitoring station was moved to Anglesea Bowling Club – GDA94
Coordinates 254,985 mE, 5745,299 mN, 0.9km south of the original location. For the purposes of this
report the old location is used as validation is conducted using 2008-2011 data.
[2] Receptors 1,5,6,7,8 and 9 are the continuous ambient SO2 monitoring sites.
5.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
To provide an indication of the cumulative impact that the Anglesea Power Station and coal
mine emissions have on the regional air shed, the background ambient concentration of
compounds were considered in the assessment. Background concentrations can arise from
anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic activities in the study area.
Background concentrations were calculated based the SEPP (AQM) approach of using the
70th percentile concentrations.
The background concentrations adopted for this assessment have been presented in
Table 12. The 70th percentile of all 1-hour and 24-hour average concentrations recorded at
the monitoring stations has been adopted as the background concentration.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 23
Table 12: Background Concentrations
Air Quality Parameter
Averaging Period
Background Level
3
(µg/m )
SO2
1-hour
2
PM10
1-hour
18
PM2.5
1-hour
5
PM10
24-hour
17
PM2.5
24-hour
Source
th
70 percentile of
observed data
5
o
Note: Background concentrations expressed at STP (0 C and 101.325 kPa)
Background concentrations could not be estimated for NO2, carbon monoxide or other Class
2 and 3 indicators due to the absence of ambient monitoring data.
5.2
Model Validation
In order to obtain a measure of performance of the air dispersion model, the predicted
meteorology and ambient SO2 and particulate concentrations were compared to the ambient
monitoring data collected by Alcoa. Air dispersion modelling has some inherent uncertainties
and the USEPA (2001) indicates that modelling typically has inaccuracies of +10% to +40%.
Ambient monitoring is also associated with a number of inaccuracies, which increase as the
monitored values approach the threshold of detection. Typically measurement uncertainty
ranges between +5% and +10%.
The model evaluation included comparison of wind speed and wind direction probability
density function plots of observed vs. predicted data and a statistical evaluation. The
statistical measures and the performance evaluation criteria were sourced from the following
publications:
1
USEPA-454/R-92-025, Protocol for Determining the Best Performing Model. This
document presents a statistical method for comparing the performance of models using
classical statistical techniques.
2
ASTM D 6589, Standard Guide for Statistical Evaluation of Atmospheric Dispersion
Model Performance. This documents methods and provides a program to evaluate
model performance.
The statistical measures used to evaluate the predicted wind speeds were:
1
Index of Agreement (IOA): IOA reflects how well the predicted data estimates the
observed mean are represented. Hurley (2000) suggests that an IOA of 0.5 or greater
represents a good correlation. An IOA of 1 means a perfect correlation between
predicted and observed.
2
Root mean square error (RMSE): This is an acceptable average measure of the
difference or error between predicted and observed values. Low RMSE values in a
model indicate that the model is explaining most of the variation in the observations.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
3
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 24
Systematic (RMSE_S) and Unsystematic RMSE (RMSE_U): If the model is unbiased
rmse_s should approach 0 and rmse_u should be close to rmse.
In addition, model acceptability criteria summarized by Chang and Hanna (2004) based on
extensive experience concluded that for comparison of predicted and observed values
(unpaired in space) “acceptable” performing models have the following typical performance
measures.
1
Fractional Bias (FB): The fraction of predictions within a factor of two of observations is
about 50% or greater (i.e. FAC2>0.5).
2
Geometric mean bias (GM): The mean bias is within +30% of the mean (i.e.
roughly│FB│<0.3 or 0.7<GM<1.3).
3
Random Scatter as Normalized mean square error (NMSE) and Geometric Variance
(VG): The random scatter is about a factor of two to three of the mean (i.e., roughly
NMSE <1.5 or VG<4).
4
Standard Deviation (Predicted and Observed). A model is predicting with skill if the
standard deviations of the predictions and observations are approximately the same
(Piekle 1984).
A summary of the statistical measures used to assess the performance of TAPM with
respect to wind speed are presented in Table 13 together with the results of the valuation.
Table 13: Performance Evaluation Summary – Wind Speed (2008-2012)
Result
Statistical Method
Performance Evaluation Criteria
RMSE
<2
1.75
IOA
>60%
83%
Fractional Bias
>-0.3 and <0.3
-0.04
NMSE
<1.5
0.19
SD Observed
n/a
2.43
SD Predicted
n/a
1.99
Max Observed
n/a
19.3
Max Predicted
n/a
15.3
Avg Observed
n/a
3.9
Avg Predicted
n/a
4.1
AS140151
Anglesea Meteorological Site
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 25
The model evaluation results indicate that TAPM’s skill level in predicting the wind speed is
acceptable based on the comparison with the Anglesea monitoring data. The performance of
TAPM at Anglesea is comparable to its performance observed at other sites in Australia
based on ENVIRON’s experience.
Plots of predicted and observed wind speed and wind direction are presented in Figures 21
and 22. These figures indicate that the winds are generally well predicted by the model.
TAPM over predicts the frequency of winds between 2 and 4 m/s at the Anglesea
meteorological station and under predicts the lighter winds. Wind direction is generally well
predicted by the model with a marginal under prediction of the southerly component of winds
and an over prediction of the south westerly component.
5.2.1 Model Validation –Sulphur Dioxide
The performance of TAPM was validated against the measured ambient SO2 concentrations.
The predicted SO2 concentrations were compared to the observed SO2 concentrations at the
six ambient monitoring sites (i.e. CFA Hut, Primary School, Camp Rd, Scout Camp, Camp
Wilkin and Community Centre). Figures 23 to 28 and Table 14 present the results of the
evaluation of TAPM’s performance for ambient SO2 concentrations.
Table 14: Predicted and Observed Ground Level Concentration SO2 – 20082012
Comm
Centre
3
(µg/m )
Primary
School
3
(µg/m )
Scout
Camp
3
(µg/m )
Camp
Wilkin
3
(µg/m )
CFA
Hut
3
(µg/m )
Camp Rd
3
(µg/m )
Average Observed
3
5
10
3
3
6
Average Predicted
3
2
5
2
2
2
1-Hour Average Concentrations
Max Observed
511
516
606
547
583
585
Max Predicted
1291
692
538
1303
1036
1375
99.9th Percentile Observed
249
342
386
309
263
348
99.9th Percentile Predicted
255
208
385
294
270
263
99.0th Percentile Observed
63
134
219
63
50
166
99.0th Percentile Predicted
88
47
198
59
36
65
95.0th Percentile Observed
9
19
53
8
10
14
95.0th Percentile Predicted
7
2
14
2
1
3
452
488
495
470
452
472
570
417
497
613
691
580
RHC
[1]
Observed
RHC Predicted
Notes
All statistics based on hourly timeframe
Concentrations are expressed at 0°C and 101.325 kPa
[1] RHC - Robust highest concentration
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 26
The SO2 model validation results indicate that the maximum 1-hour averaged concentration
predicted over the five year period is over-predicted by the model at five of the monitoring
locations with only the predicted concentrations at the Scout Camp being less than those
measured. The 99.9th percentile concentration is well predicted at four of the monitoring sites
and is under-predicted at the Primary School and Camp Road sites. As the compared
percentile concentrations decreases, there is general under prediction of the predicted
concentrations based on the observed data. It is considered that these under-predictions
are likely to be associated with changes in the emission characteristics (i.e. emission
volume, temperature, and emission rate) over the conditions modelled, changes in the wind
direction over the modelled hour and differences between the predicted and observed
meteorological conditions.
An important test for pollution management and regulatory applications is whether the model
can correctly predict the extreme (or high) end of the concentration frequency distribution
constructed using data collected over a year. The robust highest concentration (RHC) (Cox
and Tikvart, 1990) as expressed by Equation 2 can be used for quantitative evaluation.
RHC = C(R) + (C – C(R)) ln(3R-1)
2
Where:
Equation 2
C(R) is the Rth highest concentration; and
C is the mean of the top R − 1 concentrations.
The RHC is based on an exponential fit to the highest R – 1 values of the cumulative
frequency distribution. A value of R = 11 has been used in this analysis so that C is the
average of the top ten concentrations, which is an accepted statistic for evaluation of model
performance (Hanna, 1988). The RHC is preferred to the maximum value because it
mitigates the undesirable influence of unusual (stochastic) events, while still representing the
magnitude of the maximum concentration (unlike percentiles). Based on the results in
Table 14, the RHC is over-predicted at four of the six monitoring sites (i.e. Community
Centre, Camp Wilkin, CFA Hut and Camp Rd) by between 23% and 56%. The RHC is
under-predicted at Primary School by 15% and is well predicted at the Scout Camp.
The comparison between predictions and observed data shows that the model performance
for estimating the SO2 concentrations is satisfactory given assumptions made (i.e. constant
emission volume and temperature) in the modelling.
5.2.2 Model Validation – Fugitive Dust
The performance of CALPUFF was validated against the observed ambient dust
concentrations for the six months of available ambient monitoring data for the three
monitoring sites (i.e. Camp Rd, Camp Wilkin and Barwon Water). Figures 29 to 31 and
Table 15 present the results of the evaluation of CALPUFF’s performance for ambient dust
concentrations.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 27
Table 15: Predicted and Observed Ground Level Concentration PM10 and
PM2.5 – July to December 2012
Statistics
Camp
Rd
Site
(PM10)
3
(µg/m )
Camp
Rd Site
(PM2.5)
3
(µg/m )
Camp
Wilkin
Site
(PM10)
3
(µg/m )
Camp
Wilkin
Site
(PM2.5)
3
(µg/m )
Barwon
Water
Barwon
Water
(PM10)
3
(µg/m )
(PM2.5)
3
(µg/m )
Average Observed
Average Predicted
14
2
17
5
17.9
5.3
18.3
5.5
1-Hour Average Concentrations
13
17.2
5
5.1
Max Observed
Max Predicted
th
99.9 Percentile Observed
th
99.9 Percentile Predicted
th
99.0 Percentile Observed
th
99.0 Percentile Predicted
th
95.0 Percentile Observed
th
95.0 Percentile Predicted
RHC Observed
RHC Predicted
205
31
112
110
54
170
85
24
69
71
27
86
46
14
51
32
10
41
32
9
37
23
7
24
95
23
73
77
30
98
24-Hour Average Concentrations
89
66
39
37
22
14
13
8
47
39
137
80
114
45
38
24
28
18
91
49
26
37
23
18
17
8
11
5
23
19
Max Observed
Max Predicted
th
99.9 Percentile Observed
th
99.9 Percentile Predicted
th
99.0 Percentile Observed
th
99.0 Percentile Predicted
th
95.0 Percentile Observed
th
95.0 Percentile Predicted
RHC Observed
RHC Predicted
41.8
36.2
40.8
34.9
33.2
27.6
24.3
24.8
29
26.7
19.5
13.1
18.4
12.6
11.2
10.2
9.6
7.7
11.1
9.1
32.7
25.3
32.6
24.9
31.9
21.3
23
19.2
26.2
20.5
13.2
8.9
12.8
8.7
10.3
7.0
8.4
5.8
9.5
6.4
9
11.3
8.8
11.1
7.7
9.3
6
7.8
7
8.6
40.8
36.0
40.3
35.7
36.6
32.8
28.8
24.4
31.6
28.4
Notes
Background concentrations as listed in Table 12 are included in the concentrations.
Concentrations are expressed at 0°C and 101.325 kPa
The dust modelling validation results indicate that the maximum and RHC predicted 1-hour
average concentrations of PM10 for the six month period is under predicted by the model at
Camp Rd and Barwon Water sites and over predicted at the Camp Wilkin site. The Barwon
Water site is situated well over 3 km from the coal mine and power station and therefore the
measured ambient particulate concentrations are not expected to be significantly influenced
by Alcoa’s Anglesea operations. The higher measured concentrations at the Barwon Water
are likely to be due to periodic local or regional (e.g. smoke from bushfires) that are not
captured within the background concentrations included in the modelling.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 28
The dust modelling validation results indicate that the maximum and RHC predicted 24-hour
average concentrations of PM10 in the six months are under-predicted by small margins at all
sites. As for the 1-hour concentrations, the predicted concentrations at the Barwon Water
site were under-predicted by the most significant margin which indicates that other local or
regional sources not considered in the modelling are contributing to the measured
concentrations.
The annual average PM10 concentrations at all of the monitoring sites are predicted to be
slightly higher than those recorded. It should be noted that the background concentration
(17 µg/m3) was the major contributing factor to the predicted annual average concentrations
for PM10. Therefore, any change to the background concentration used in the modelling will
impact on the model comparisons.
The comparison between the measured and predicted PM2.5 concentrations shows similar
outcomes to those found for PM10 with over- and under-predictions at the different
monitoring sites.
Overall, the results of the model validation study indicate that the air dispersion modelling is
predicting the ground level concentrations, particularly the 24-hour average concentrations
RHC, at a satisfactory level of accuracy.
5.3
Model Results
The predicted 99.9th 1-hour (i.e. 44th highest) and 99.5th 24-hour (i.e. 9th highest) ground level
concentrations for the modelled years (2008-2012) are presented in Table 16 and compared
against the SEPP (AQM) criteria.
Concentration isopleths for selected compounds and predicted concentrations at discrete
receptors are presented as Appendix E. The predicted concentrations presented in Table 16
represent those predicted for the Anglesea power station and the coal mine emissions
considered in isolation due to the absence of any background concentration data for all
compounds other than SO2 and particulates.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 29
Table 16: Predicted Concentration of Compounds in the Modelled Domain1
[2]
Pollutant
Averaging
Period
Alcoa Only
Concentration in Modelled
Domain outside Plant Boundary
µg/m
3
SEPP (AQM) design ground
level concentration
µg/m
3
SO2
1h
859
450 (170 ppb)
PM2.5
1h
168
50
PM10
1h
475
80
NO2
1h
71
190
CO
1h
1.9
29,000
Total Fluoride
24h
0.1
3
Antimony
3 min
0.003
17
HCl
3 min
5.2
250
Chlorine
3 min
0.008
100
Arsenic
3 min
0.0025
0.17
Cadmium
3 min
0.0002
0.03
Chromium (III)
3 min
0.02
17
Chromium (VI)
3 min
0.02
0.17
Copper
3 min
0.07
6.7
Benzene
3 min
0.004
53
Beryllium
3 min
0.002
0.007
1h
0.02
3
Manganese
3 min
0.005
33
Mercury
3 min
0.001
0.33
Nickel
3 min
0.02
0.33
Benzo[a]pyrene
3 min
0.03
0.73
Dioxins and
3
Furans
3 min
3.8x10
Lead
-9
-6
3.7 x 10
[2]
Alcoa Only
Concentration in Modelled
Domain outside Plant Boundary
3
(µg/m )
Boron
Notes:
Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
Effects Screening Levels
(2009) – Air Quality Objective
3
(μg/m )
1h
0.8
50
Annual
0.02
5
1. 99.9th percentile values were used for compounds with an averaging periods of 1hr or less and 99.5th percentile
concentrations were used for compounds with averaging periods greater than 1hr.
2. Background Concentrations not included.
3. The Toxic Equivalent (TEQ) values have been calculated using the toxicity equivalence factors (TEF) according to the Van
den Berg et al (2006). The toxicity is assessed by multiplying a congener’s concentration with its TEF and summing the
resulting values to derive the TEQ emission. The most toxic congener is 2,3,7,8-Tetracholorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) which has
a factor of one, with all other 2,3,7,and 8 congeners failing between 0.0001 and one.
Concentrations are expressed at 25°C and 101.325 kPa
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 30
The modelling results indicate that PM10, PM2.5 and SO2 are predicted to exceed the SEPP
(AQM) design ground level concentration criteria within the model domain. The contours of
the predicted 1-hour average concentrations of SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are presented as
Figures E1, E6 and E7 respectively in Appendix E.
5.4
Air Dispersion Modelling Key Findings and Conclusions
The key findings of the air dispersion modelling assessment are:
1 The model validation indicated that both the meteorology and dispersion of compounds
from the power station and coal mine are well predicted in the modelled domain.
2 The 99.9th percentile 1-hour average concentrations of SO2 are predicted to exceed the
SEPP (AQM) (450 μg/m3) design criteria to the west and north of the power station.
Therefore SO2 has been included in the screening HHRA.
3 The 99.9th percentile 1-hour average concentrations of PM10 are predicted to exceed the
SEPP (AQM) design criteria (80 μg/m3) in the areas near the coal mine crusher and
permanent stockpile and to the north-west of the power station. Therefore PM10 has
been included in the screening HHRA.
4 The 99.9th percentile 1-hour concentrations of PM2.5 are predicted to exceed the SEPP
(AQM) design criteria (50 μg/m3) in the areas of near the coal mine crusher and
permanent stockpile. Therefore PM2.5 has been included in the screening HHRA.
5 The predicted concentrations for all other compounds considered in this assessment
were below the SEPP (AQM) design criteria guidelines and are therefore were not
included in the screening HHRA.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 31
6
Screening Human Health Risk Assessment
6.1
Background
Risk assessment provides a systematic approach for characterising the nature and
magnitude of the risks associated with environmental health hazards, and is an important
tool for decision-making. enHealth (2012) describe the five stages of a health risk
assessment as being:
1. Issue identification. Defines the reasons for the risk assessment being conducted
including identifying the existing environmental conditions, potential populations that
may be exposed, exposure pathways and exposure mitigation options.
2. Hazard identification. Identifies the guideline values for each chemical considered
within the risk assessment where these are available. Where the risk assessment is
associated with the establishment of such guidelines, the hazard identification will
generally include detailed literature reviews on toxicity and dose-response
relationships.
3. Dose response assessment.
Identifies the quantitative relationship between
exposure and effects of concern including the response from different population subgroups.
4. Exposure assessment. Defines the magnitude, frequency, duration and routes of
exposure to compounds present in the environment. In this assessment, exposure is
estimated as the concentration of a compound that a person may be exposed to over
both short-term (i.e. acute) and long-term (i.e. chronic) exposure periods. The results
of the air dispersion modelling presented in Section 5 have been used to provide the
data used in the exposure assessment.
5. Risk Characterisation. Determines if exposures to the chemicals of potential concern
comply with the health based guideline values. It also identifies potential sources of
uncertainty and the extent to which the outcomes of the risk assessment may be
affected.
6.1.1 Issue Identification
The Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine are located to the north and north-west of the
town of Anglesea. Alcoa commenced ambient SO2 monitoring in Anglesea in 1999 at the
CFA Hut site. In 2009 Alcoa developed and implemented an AQCS with the objective of
ensuring that the power station operations were managed such that the NEPM 1-hour
average ambient standard for SO2 was not exceeded in the town of Anglesea.
In 2012, an ambient PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring program was commenced in the vicinity of
the coal mine and the power station to gather data on ambient particulate concentrations
that occur in the Anglesea area.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 32
The atmospheric emissions from the Anglesea Power Station and coal mine contain a
number of compounds in addition to SO2 and particulates. The air dispersion modelling
study and screening HHRA has been undertaken in order to assess the potential health risks
that may arise from the atmospheric emissions impacting upon the Anglesea community.
As part of the air dispersion modelling study a comprehensive emission inventory was
developed (see Section 2.3 and Section 3.4). This inventory identified 39 individual
compounds or groups of compounds that were included in the air dispersion modelling study
(Section 5). The predicted ground level concentrations were compared to the design criteria
specified in the SEPP (AQM). Of the compounds modelled, only SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 did
not meet the SEPP (AQM) design criteria. The SEPP (AQM) states that where the design
criteria are not met, a health risk assessment may be undertaken and therefore SO2, PM10
and PM2.5 were considered in the screening HHRA.
6.1.2 Hazard Identification and Dose Response
SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 have been considered in the screening HHRA. Information relating to
each of these compounds and the current NEPM air quality standards is presented in the
following sections.
Sulphur Dioxide
SO2 is a colourless, irritating and reactive gas with a strong odour. SO2 is highly soluble and
is quickly absorbed in the moist environment of the upper or lower airways of the respiratory
tract, where it exerts its adverse effect.
Exposure to SO2 can create an acute response including coughing, wheezing, aggravation
of asthma, and irritation eyes.
Many organisations including the World Health Organisation (WHO) (2006), USEPA (2008
and 2009), RAT (2010) and NEPC (2011) have documented the potential health effects
associated with exposure to SO2 based on the available research. In general these studies
have found that asthmatics in particular, and to a lesser extent the young and the elderly, are
more susceptible to short term health impacts arising from exposure to SO2. The studies
have also found that exercising asthmatics are generally more susceptible than resting
asthmatics, but that the response is very variable within this sub-population.
Asthmatics have been shown to respond very quickly (within minutes) and respond to a wide
range of exposure concentrations which means that a threshold concentration cannot be
readily determined. Epidemiological studies have also shown an association between
short-term exposures and increases in daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular
effects (NEPC, 2011).
The WHO (2006) concluded that the minimum concentration that evoked changes in the
lung function in exercising asthmatics was in the order of 0.4 ppm (or 1,144 µg/m3). The
WHO (2006) recommended that its existing 10-minute average guideline of 500 µg/m3 be
retained to provide health protection to exercising asthmatics. The derivation of this
guideline included a safety factor of two over that concentration observed to evoke changes
in lung function in sensitive exercising asthmatics. The health effects arising from short term
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 33
exposure to SO2 are themselves short-term. The WHO (2006) also recommended a 24-hour
average guideline of 20 µg/m3 based on epidemiological studies conducted for cities
including Hong Kong and London. The WHO (2006) indicated that there was considerable
uncertainty as to whether SO2 was the pollutant responsible for the observed effect noting
that SO2 was not considered to be causal to reduced mortality in Germany and the
Netherlands.
The USEPA (2008) concluded that a greater portion of exercising asthmatics would
experience an increase in the respiratory effects with increasing SO2 exposure
concentrations between 0.2 ppm and 1 ppm with exposure times of 5 to 10 minutes.
The findings of the NEPC (2011) review of the SO2 health evidence indicated that health
effects are observed at current levels of SO2 in Australian cities which are well below the
NEPM standard. The effects are greatest in people with asthma.
Particulates
Particulate matter can consist of a single compound but is more often comprised of a mixture
of many different compounds each of which can have different chemical and physical
characteristics. Research findings on exposure and risks are complicated by these variable
characteristics and different particle sizes. Particulate matter is classified as a function of its
aerodynamic diameter as this is important in determining its penetration into the respiratory
tract. The USEPA promulgated standards for PM10 and PM2.5 in 1987 and 1997 respectively
(USEPA, 1987, 1997). PM10 includes those inhalable particles that are sufficiently small to
penetrate to the thoracic region. PM2.5, the fine fraction of PM10, is considered to have a
high probability of deposition in the smaller conducting airways and alveoli (WHO, 2006).
The toxicity of particulate matter may result from one or more factors, including the actions of
the particulate composition, and its presence in the body. The WHO (2006) reported that the
US National Research Council (2004) provided a summary table of particle characteristics
that may be important to health responses, including size mode, mass concentration,
number concentration, acidity, particle surface chemistry, particle core chemistry, metals,
carbon (organic carbon and black or elemental carbon), biogenic origin, secondary inorganic
aerosols, and material associated with the earth’s crust. Other characteristics that have been
recognised as potentially playing a role in toxicity are particle surface area, chemical
reactivity, water solubility of constituent chemicals and the geometric form of the particles.
The NEPC (2011) found that there is substantial evidence that both short-term and long-term
effects for PM10 and PM2.5 exposure are associated with increases in mortality and morbidity.
Particulate exposure can result in cardiovascular and respiratory effects, particularly
respiratory disease, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, while there are
strong associations with ischemic heart disease and congestive heart failure (NEPC, 2011).
Sulphur Dioxide and Particulate Matter
Ambient air quality guidelines are generally associated with single compounds but exposure
to a specific compound in the absence of other compounds is rare. Exposure to mixtures of
chemicals could result in additive, synergistic or antagonistic effects being observed. The
WHO (2006) state the observational studies have not resolved the issue of confounding
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 34
between SO2 and particulate matter or other pollutants, nor have they systematically
examined the synergistic effects. Generally, when multiple pollutants were evaluated,
particulate matter tended to be more strongly associated with mortality or morbidity
outcomes than SO2 (WHO, 2006). In the absence of definitive studies additive, synergistic
or antagonistic effects have not been considered in this screening HHRA.
Ambient Air Quality Guidelines
In 2008 the NEPC made the Ambient Air NEPM that set uniform national ambient air quality
standards. The desired outcome of the NEPM “is ambient air quality that allows for the
adequate protection of human health and well-being.” (Australian Government, 2003). In
2003 the Ambient Air NEPM was revised to include PM2.5.
A review of the NEPM commenced in 2007 with the release of a discussion paper (NEPC,
2007) and in May 2011 the NEPC produced a review report (NEPC, 2011) that makes a
number of recommendations regarding the future of the NEPM including a shift in focus.
One such shift is the acknowledgement that many compounds do not have a recognised
threshold for adverse health impacts and therefore includes a recommendation to
incorporate exposure reduction targets for priority pollutants. The implementation of the
AQCS is an example of a program aimed at reducing population exposure to SO2.
The Victorian State Environment Protection Policy (Ambient Air Quality) (EPAV, 2001b)
(SEPP (AAQ)) specifically adopts the requirements of the Ambient Air NEPM. While they
are currently under review, the NEPM ambient air quality standards represent the currently
accepted standards in Australia and have therefore been used in this screening HHRA.
Table 17 presents a summary of the NEPM standards for SO2, PM10 and PM2.5.
Table 17: Summary of the NEPM Standards Used
Compound
Guideline
Units
Averaging Period
Reference
Acute Health Effects
Sulphur dioxide
524
209
µg/m
3
1h
NEPC
µg/m
3
24 h
NEPC
24 h
NEPC
24 h
NEPC
PM10
46
µg/m
3
PM2.5
23
µg/m
3
[1]
Chronic Health Effects
Sulphur dioxide
PM2.5
52
7
µg/m
3
Annual
NEPC
µg/m
3
Annual
NEPC
Notes:
1.
2.
NEPM Advisory Reporting Standard
Concentrations are expressed at 25°C and 1 atm pressure.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 35
TAPM or CALPUFF do not correct the predicted concentrations for temperature. ENVIRON
has assumed that the predicted concentrations are associated with an ambient temperature
of 25°C.
6.1.3 Exposed Population
As discussed in Section 5.1.3, 14 receptor locations were identified for inclusion into the
screening HHRA. The receptor locations were selected to represent a range of community
facilities, residential areas, and sensitive receptors (e.g. Primary School). The receptor
locations are considered to represent the range of potential public exposure to atmospheric
emissions from the Power Station.
The locations of the receptors are presented as Figure 20, overlain on a map of the area.
For purposes of this screening assessment, all receptor locations are assumed to be
residential in nature, and therefore include potentially sensitive subpopulations such as
children and the elderly. The potential health risks associated with the power station and
coal mine atmospheric emissions for locations other than the 14 discrete receptors identified
above can be estimated from the contours.
6.1.4 Exposure Pathways
Inhalation is expected to represent the most significant exposure pathway for the
atmospheric emission from the power station and coal mine.
Whilst particulates and associated compounds such as metals (e.g. arsenic, cadmium and
nickel) and hydrogen fluoride are likely to contribute to multi-pathway exposures (i.e. indirect
exposure pathways such as soil ingestion, dermal, vegetable ingestion and water ingestion),
these other exposure pathways are expected to be a minor contributor to the cumulative
human health risks from Alcoa’s Anglesea operations as the predicted concentrations at the
nearby discrete receptors are relatively low. Therefore, multi-pathway exposure has not
been assessed in this screening HHRA.
6.1.5 Estimated Concentrations in Air
The ambient concentrations of the nominated contaminants have been derived from the
results of the air dispersion modelling presented in Section 5.
The predicted 99.9th percentile 1-hour average, 99.5th percentile 24-hour average, and
average concentrations predicted over the five years modelled have been used in the
screening HHRA. These percentile concentrations have been used to represent the actual
exposure concentration that is expected to occur across the model domain.
The comparison between the predicted and measured SO2 and particulate concentrations
indicated that this was within reasonable margin of accuracy of actual exposure
concentrations over 5 years. Variable background concentrations and changes in emission
characteristics which are not accounted for in the model may contribute to the difference
between observed and predicted results.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
6.2
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 36
Exposure Assessment
6.2.1 Quantitative Risk Indicators
The Hazard Index (HI) is calculated to evaluate the potential for adverse health effects from
simultaneous exposure to multiple compounds by summing the ratio of the estimated
exposure concentration in air to the health protective guidelines for individual compounds.
The HI is calculated for acute (Equation 3) and chronic (Equation 4) exposures.
HI Acute = ∑
C ≤ 24 h
Gdl Acute
Equation 3
HI Chronic = ∑
C Annual
GdlChronic
Equation 4
i
i
Where:
HI Acute
= acute Hazard Index
C ≤ 24 h
= ground level concentration predicted over an averaging period of typically
≤ 24 hours, matching the averaging time of the health protective guideline
for each compound (µg/m3)
Gdl Acute
= acute health protective guideline for each compound (µg/m3)
HI Chronic
= chronic Hazard Index
C Annual
= long term (annual) average ground level concentration predicted for each
compound (µg/m3)
GdlChronic
= chronic health protective guideline for each compound (µg/m3)
For the screening HHRA the acute HI has been determined from the predicted 99.9th
percentile 1-hour and 99.5th percentile 24-hour average ground level concentrations
predicted by the air dispersion modelling over the 2008 to 2012 period. The chronic HI was
calculated from the predicted average concentrations over the same five year period.
Only the three compounds that did not meet the SEPP (AQM) design criteria (i.e. SO2, PM10
and PM2.5) were included in the screening HHRA. As such, the individual Hazard Quotients
(HQs) for each compound (i.e. the ratio of the predicted compound concentration to the
health protective guideline) have also been calculated and considered in this assessment.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 37
6.2.2 Acute Effects
Tables 18 and 19 present the acute HIs calculated for the predicted ground level
concentrations resulting from the power station and coal mine atmospheric emissions in
combination with the background concentrations. Figures 32 to 35 present contours of the
calculated HIs for the model domain. Separate HIs have been calculated for combining
PM10 and PM2.5 with SO2 to prevent the “double accounting” of PM2.5 that is already included
as part of the PM10 concentrations. The HIs have been calculated as composite acute HI
which is calculated on the basis of the SO2 1-hour and PM10 (or PM2.5) 24-hour HQs and a
24hr acute HI which is based on the HQs for the SO2 and PM10 (or PM2.5) 24-hour
concentrations.
Table 18 and Figure 32 present the calculated acute HIs for SO2 and PM10. The maximum
acute HI for SO2 and PM10 is predicted to occur at the coal mine and is above the threshold
of one. The composite acute HI was predicted to be greater than one at the majority of the
receptors. These composite acute HIs were primarily associated with the emissions of PM10
from the coal mine in combination with the background concentrations for those receptors
closer to the mine site. SO2 was the primary contributor to the composite HI at the Water
Basin receptor while for the other receptors both SO2 and PM10 (including background)
contributed.
An analysis of the predicted concentrations associated with the maximum composite HIs as
can be seen in Table 20 for Fraser Avenue indicated that the 99.5th percentile 24-hour PM10
concentrations occurred at different times to when the 99.9th percentile 1-hour SO2
concentration occurred. The data in Table 20 also indicate that the predicted 1-hour
average SO2 concentrations were zero on the day associated with the predicted 99.5th
percentile 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. Appendix F presents an analysis of the
predicted concentrations or SO2 PM10 and PM2.5 associated with the maximum HQ for each
monitoring site.
For all receptors other than Fraser Avenue, the individual PM10 and SO2 HQs were less than
one indicating that the predicted PM10 and SO2 percentile concentrations considered in the
screening HHRA were below the relevant NEPM ambient standards. For Fraser Avenue the
99.5th percentile 24-hour average PM10 concentration (i.e. Alcoa’s predicted concentration
plus the background concentration) was predicted to be in excess of the relevant NEPM
standard. Of this Alcoa’s operations were predicted to have contributed approximately 70%
of the 24-hour concentration. The NEPM goal for PM10 is to have no more than five days
where the NEPM standard is exceeded. Further analysis of the modelling data indicates that
the sixth highest 24-hour average concentrations predicted at Fraser Avenue are well below
the NEPM standard for each of the five years modelled. The Fraser Avenue receptor is
located between the Camp Wilkin and Camp Road ambient particulate monitoring sites and
these sites have not yet recorded any exceedances of the NEPM standard. While no
exceedances of the NEPM standard have been recorded, the air dispersion modelling
indicates the potential for this to occur albeit infrequently.
The calculated 24Hr acute HIs presented in Table 18 and Figure 33 are generally lower than
the composite HIs as a result of the fact that the HQ for the 24-hour average SO2
concentration is less than that for the 1-hour average SO2 concentration.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 38
Table 19 and Figure 34 presents the calculated acute HIs considering SO2 and PM2.5.
Figure 34 shows that the acute HI was predicted to be greater than one in the vicinity of the
coal mine (due to PM2.5), and also to the north and north-west of the power station (due to
SO2). Table 19 shows that the composite acute HI is predicted to be less than one at all
receptors except the Water Basin, Camp Wilkin, and Fraser Avenue. At the Water Basin,
the composite HI greater than one is primarily attributable with SO2 whereas at Fraser
Avenue it is primarily attributable to PM2.5. At Camp Wilkin, SO2 and PM2.5 contribute a
similar percentage to the composite HI. In all cases the HQs for both SO2 and PM2.5 are less
than one and the 99.5th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations occurred at different times to
when the 99.9th percentile 1-hour SO2 concentration occurred.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 39
Table 18: Calculated Acute Hazard Indices (SO2 and PM10)
3
Concentration (µg/m )
Hazard Quotient
Acute HI
Receptor
No.
Description
SO2
1-Hr
SO2
24-Hr
PM10
24-Hr
SO2
1-Hr
SO2
24-Hr
PM10
24-Hr
Composite
Acute HI
24Hr
Acute HI
1
CFA Hut
248
37.6
33.4
0.47
0.18
0.73
1.20
0.91
2
Bald Hills Road
307
63.7
19.9
0.58
0.30
0.43
1.01
0.73
3
Water Basin
454
114.4
18.8
0.87
0.55
0.41
1.28
0.96
4
Forest Road
284
52.8
18.4
0.54
0.25
0.40
0.94
0.65
5
Scout Camp
354
93.1
20.6
0.68
0.45
0.45
1.13
0.90
6
Primary School
247
42.5
28.9
0.47
0.20
0.63
1.10
0.83
7
Camp Road
235
53.3
25.6
0.45
0.26
0.56
1.01
0.82
8
Community Centre
271
45.7
24.2
0.52
0.22
0.53
1.05
0.75
9
Camp Wilkin
266
47.5
38.2
0.51
0.23
0.83
1.34
1.06
10
Anglesea Surf Club
275
47.0
22.0
0.53
0.22
0.48
1.01
0.70
11
Waste Treatment Plant
322
65.5
23.0
0.61
0.31
0.50
1.11
0.81
12
Anglesea Caravan Park
299
49.4
22.7
0.57
0.24
0.49
1.06
0.73
13
Fraser Avenue
214
32.0
51.7
0.41
0.15
1.12
1.53
1.27
14
Pt Road Knight Carpark
218
41.2
20.6
0.42
0.20
0.45
0.87
0.65
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
Composite Acute HI is based on the Acute HQ of SO2 1-hour and PM10 24-hour.
24hr Acute HI is based on the Acute HQ of SO2 24-hour and PM10 24-hour.
Concentrations expressed at 25°C and 101.325 kPa.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 40
Table 19: Calculated Acute Hazard Indices (SO2 and PM2.5)
3
Concentration (µg/m )
Hazard Quotient
Acute HI
Receptor
No.
Description
SO2
1-Hr
SO2
24-Hr
PM2.5
24-Hr
SO2
1-Hr
SO2
24-Hr
PM2.5
24-Hr
Composite
Acute HI
24hr
Acute HI
1
CFA Hut
248
37.6
10.4
0.47
0.18
0.45
0.92
0.63
2
Bald Hills Road
307
63.7
6.2
0.58
0.30
0.27
0.85
0.57
3
Water Basin
454
114.4
5.8
0.87
0.55
0.25
1.12
0.80
4
Forest Road
284
52.8
5.6
0.54
0.25
0.24
0.78
0.49
5
Scout Camp
354
93.1
6.5
0.68
0.45
0.28
0.96
0.73
6
Primary School
247
42.5
10.3
0.47
0.20
0.45
0.92
0.65
7
Camp Road
235
53.3
9.2
0.45
0.26
0.40
0.85
0.66
8
Community Centre
271
45.7
8
0.52
0.22
0.35
0.87
0.57
9
Camp Wilkin
266
47.5
14.1
0.51
0.23
0.61
1.12
0.84
10
Anglesea Surf Club
275
47.0
7.1
0.53
0.22
0.31
0.84
0.53
11
Waste Treatment Plant
322
65.5
7.4
0.61
0.31
0.32
0.93
0.63
12
Anglesea Caravan Park
299
49.4
7.6
0.57
0.24
0.33
0.90
0.57
13
Fraser Avenue
214
32.0
17.2
0.41
0.15
0.75
1.16
0.90
14
Pt Road Knight Carpark
218
41.2
6.8
0.42
0.20
0.30
0.72
0.50
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
Composite Acute HI is based on the Acute HQ of SO2 1-hour and PM10 24-hour.
24hr Acute HI is based on the Acute HQ of SO2 24-hour and PM10 24-hour.
Concentrations expressed at 25°C and 101.325 kPa.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 41
Table 20: Summary of Predicted Concentrations at Fraser Avenue1
Averaging time
3
Concentration (µg/m )
HQ
99.9th Percentile 1-Hour Sulphur Dioxide Concentration predicted on 5 July 2010
Sulphur dioxide
1-hour
214
0.41
PM10
24-hour
12.5
0.27
PM2.5
24-hour
3.9
0.17
99.5th Percentile 24-Hour Average PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations both predicted on 10 April
2011
Sulphur dioxide
(Maximum on 10 April 2011
1-hour
0
0.00
PM10
24-hour
36.1
0.78
PM2.5
Notes
1 Background concentrations not included
24-hour
12.6
0.55
6.2.3 Chronic Effects
The chronic HIs including the background concentrations are presented in Table 21 and
Figure 36.
Table 21: Calculated Chronic Hazard Indices
No.
Receptor
1
Hazard Quotient
Chronic HI
SO2
PM2.5
CFA Hut
0.07
0.69
0.76
2
Bald Hills Road
0.01
0.71
0.72
3
Water Basin
0.01
0.77
0.78
4
Forest Road
0.01
0.71
0.72
5
Scout Camp
0.01
0.76
0.77
6
Primary School
0.05
0.70
0.75
7
Camp Road
0.04
0.71
0.75
8
Community Centre
0.03
0.70
0.73
9
Camp Wilkin
0.08
0.69
0.77
10
Anglesea Surf Club
0.02
0.69
0.71
11
Waste Treatment Plant
0.02
0.73
0.75
12
Anglesea Caravan Park
0.03
0.71
0.74
13
Fraser Avenue
0.15
0.68
0.83
14
Pt Road Knight Carpark
0.01
0.69
0.70
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 42
Figure 36 indicates that the maximum chronic HIs are predicted to occur in the immediate
vicinity of the coal mine and are associated with the emissions of PM2.5 from the mine. The
chronic HIs are dominated by the contribution of PM2.5 which is primarily associated with the
background concentration assumed in the study. The chronic HIs are less than one
indicating no cause for concern in terms of potential chronic health risk at all of the
nominated receptors.
6.2.4 Irritancy
For the purposes of this screening assessment irritancy refers to a direct physiological
response arising from short-term exposure to a compound that may result in mild, transient
adverse health effects that are reversible upon cessation of exposure. The health reference
values used in the health risk assessment are generally derived from information on the
most sensitive toxicological endpoint and in some cases this end point is irritancy. In cases
where the most sensitive, critical end point is not irritancy, the reference value derived is also
protective of irritancy. However, the NEPC (2011) concluded that many compounds do not
have a recognised threshold concentration below which no adverse health effects will be
observed. Where there is no threshold concentration, adverse impacts, including irritancy,
may occur in a small percentage of the population at concentrations below the ambient air
quality criteria.
The HQ for the individual acute effects of SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are all less than one (with the
exception of PM10 at Fraser Avenue that is marginally over one) and the peak short-term
concentrations for SO2 occur at different times to those for PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore the
risk that the emissions from the power station and coal mine will cause irritation in the wider
population is considered to be low.
6.3
Uncertainties Associated With Screening HHRA
The risk assessment process relies on a set of assumptions and estimates with varying
degrees of uncertainty. The major sources of uncertainty associated with the risk
assessment are associated with:
1. Predicted ground level concentrations which can be affected a number of factors
including:
a. Variability of the atmospheric dispersion conditions.
b. Assumptions in the models used to estimate key inputs (e.g. emission estimates).
c. Background concentrations.
2. Ambient air quality guidelines used within the assessment.
3. Exposure uncertainty.
Each of these aspects is discussed in the following sections.
6.3.1 Predicted Ground Level Concentrations
As is the case with any air dispersion modelling assessment, there is uncertainty associated
with the predicted ground level concentrations. The key areas of uncertainty associated
with the predicted ground level concentrations used for this assessment are outlined in this
section.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 43
TAPM predicted meteorology was used in both the TAPM and CALPUFF air dispersion
models. The predicted wind speed and direction has been compared to the measured
meteorology for the Anglesea Power Station monitoring site and shown to agree well
statistically. However, TAPM was shown to under-predict the frequency of light winds that
could result in an under-prediction of the maximum ground level concentrations of particulate
from the coal mine. The reliability of the predicted meteorological data across the model
domain cannot be verified.
The identification and quantification of atmospheric emissions from the power station include
the following uncertainties:
•
Measurement and analytical uncertainty associated with the stack sampling methods
used at the power station. Alcoa have used NATA accredited testing laboratories to
undertake the stack sampling program at the power station. However, uncertainty
associated with test method interferences, repeatability and reproducibility tests
typically range from ±20% to ±30% (could be higher for some compounds).
•
Uncertainty arising from variability in discharge characteristics (e.g. emission volume
and temperature) and emissions rates (e.g. process variability at time periods shorter
than one hour, and the accuracy of continuous emissions monitoring systems).
•
Uncertainty arising from the sample size (i.e. number of stack samples) and averaging
periods used for compounds not measured on a continuous basis.
The identification and quantification of atmospheric emissions from the coal mine include
the following uncertainties:
•
The emission factors/equations used to estimate the emission rates are based on
research associated with emissions from a range of different operations around the
world. Therefore, emissions associated with a particular mine may be different to those
calculated from the emission estimation techniques.
•
Variability in the actual particulate size distributions compared to those included in the
model.
•
Variability in the operational areas at the coal mine will affect the actual source of the
emissions at any point in time.
•
The effectiveness of the management practices (e.g. use of water carts, maintenance
of infrastructure) can impact upon the magnitude of the emissions at any point in time.
Background concentrations (i.e. not Anglesea power station and coal mine related) were
adopted for the assessment in accordance with the SEPP (AQM) (refer to Section 5). As the
power station represents the primary regional source of SO2 emissions, the background
concentrations of SO2 across the modelling domain are expected to be small and this is
supported by the long term ambient SO2 monitoring database. Limited ambient monitoring
data are currently available to characterise background PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations in the
Anglesea area. There are many sources of particulate emissions that occur in the Anglesea
area including both natural (e.g. wind-blown dust, sea salt during on-shore air flows,
bushfires) and anthropogenic sources (e.g. clearing, fires, vehicles) ), and therefore the
background PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations applied in this assessment are considered to be
a source of uncertainty.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 44
In completing the air dispersion modelling study, conservative assumptions were applied
wherever practical. The available ambient monitoring data indicate that over the five year
period between 2008 and 2012, the ambient SO2 concentrations have marginally exceeded
the NEPM 1-hour standard for one hour at three monitoring sites. However in general, the
ambient SO2 concentrations monitored at these sites were well below the NEPM 1-hour
standard (e.g. the maximum 99.9th percentile concentration at any monitoring site was
386 µg/m3). The available PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring data indicate compliance with the
NEPM standard.
Validation of the model performance showed that the air dispersion models performed well
when statistics of the predicted and measured concentrations were compared.
6.3.2 Ambient Air Quality Guidelines
Section 6.1 presented a brief summary of the potential effects associated with exposure to
SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 in the ambient environment and the NEPM ambient air quality
standards applied in this assessment. The NEPM standards were established in 1998 (with
a review to add PM2.5 in 2003) and were based on the information available at that time. The
setting of ambient air quality standards is also subject to policy judgments (e.g. the absolute
level of protection provided by the standards) of the regulatory organisations and by
legislative influences. The NEPM standards are therefore considered to be appropriate for
use in this screening HHRA as recommended by enHealth (2012) which states that “the
hazard identification component may simply identify the relevant national or international
guideline values for each chemical that may be present”.
The NEPC commenced a review of the Ambient Air NEPM in 2007 and in 2011 reported
(NEPC, 2011) that the SO2 health evidence indicated that health effects are observed at
current levels of SO2 in Australian cities which are well below the NEPM standard. The
effects are greatest in people with asthma. It also recommended that compliance standards
be introduced for PM2.5 and that an annual average standard be introduced for PM10. Any
changes to the NEPM ambient air quality standards may affect the outcome of the screening
HHRA.
The NEPC (2011) found that many compounds do not have a recognised threshold for
adverse health impacts and therefore there is no concentration below which all of the
population will be protected. It therefore includes a recommendation to incorporate
exposure reduction targets for priority pollutants within the NEPM. Alcoa is committed to
reducing population exposure to the emissions from its operations. The AQCS that was
implemented in 2009 has been designed to reduce the magnitude and duration of elevated
SO2 concentrations within the town of Anglesea. Alcoa also has management measures in
place to reduce the emissions of fugitive dust from its coal mining operations.
6.3.3 Exposure Uncertainty
The screening HHRA has only considered exposure via the inhalation pathway. There is
therefore a potential that total exposure to specific compounds, particularly for PM10 and
PM2.5 may be underestimated. Ingestion of particulate matter through mechanism such as
crops (e.g. vegetable gardens) and water (e.g. suspended or dissolved particulates from
rainwater tanks) may result in increased exposure. This is considered to represent a small
risk beyond the immediate vicinity of the coal mine.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 45
The screening HHRA has also assumed that an individual is at the same location for the
exposure times used in the assessment (i.e. 1-hour, 24-hour and annual) which is
considered to be unlikely particularly for times of more than 1-hour.
The calculated HIs have also assumed that the SO2 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
concentrations occur at the same time. An assessment of the predicted percentile
concentrations indicates that this does not occur due to the different source characteristics
(i.e. stack source for SO2 and fugitive low level sources for the majority of the particulate
emissions).
6.4
Screening HHRA Conclusions
ENVIRON has conducted a screening level HHRA of the potential health risks arising from
atmospheric emissions from the Anglesea Power Station and coal mine. The air dispersion
modelling study considered 39 compounds that may be emitted from Alcoa’s operations.
SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 were predicted to result in ground level concentrations that were
greater than the SEPP (AQM) design criteria. Therefore only SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 were
carried through to the screening HHRA as required by the EPAV.
Quantitative health risk indicators were calculated for exposure via the inhalation pathway to
the emissions of SO2, PM10 and PM2.5. The acute and chronic HIs were calculated across
the model domain and for key receptors located in the vicinity of the power station and coal
mine.
Based upon the results of the screening HHRA it can be concluded that:
•
The emissions from the power station and coal mine when considered in combination
with the background concentrations are predicted to result in a composite acute HI of
greater than one at all but two of the nominated receptor locations.
•
The 24-hour acute HI was less than one at all locations other than Camp Wilkin and
Fraser Avenue.
•
An analysis of the predicted concentrations associated with the maximum composite
HIs indicated that the 99.5th percentile 24-hour PM10 concentrations occurred at
different times to when the 99.9th percentile 1-hour SO2 concentration occurred.
•
For all receptors other than Fraser Avenue, the individual PM10 and SO2 acute HQs
were less than one indicating that the predicted PM10 and SO2 percentile
concentrations considered in the screening HHRA were below the relevant NEPM
ambient standards.
•
For Fraser Avenue the acute HQ was predicted to be in excess of one for PM10. Of
this, Alcoa’s operations were predicted to have contributed approximately 70% of the
24-hour concentration. The NEPM goal for PM10 is to have no more than five days
where the NEPM standard is exceeded. Further analysis of the modelling data
indicates that the sixth highest 24-hour average concentrations predicted at Fraser
Avenue are well below the NEPM standard for each of the five years modelled. While
no exceedances of the NEPM standard have been recorded at the ambient particulate
monitoring sites, the air dispersion modelling indicates the potential for this to occur
albeit infrequently.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 46
•
The acute HIs marginally greater than one are not considered to present cause for
concern in terms of possible health risks due to the inherent conservatism embedded in
the exposure assessment applied to screening health risk assessment.
•
The emissions from the power station and coal mine are predicted to result in a chronic
HI and HQ of less than one at all of the nominated receptor locations.
•
The potential for emissions from the power station and the coal mine to cause chronic
health effects is therefore considered to be low.
The NEPM ambient air quality standards represent the currently accepted standards in
Australia, and have therefore been used in this screening HHRA. Any changes to the NEPM
ambient air quality standards may affect the outcome of the screening HHRA.
As with any risk evaluation, there are areas of uncertainty in this assessment. To ensure that
potential risks are not underestimated, uniformly conservative assumptions have been used
to characterise exposure and toxicity.
Alcoa has implemented an AQCS to manage the impacts of SO2 on the Anglesea township
which has reduced the occurrence of 1-hour average concentrations of SO2 that exceed the
NEPM 1-hour standard in the community. Only one exceedance of the NEPM standard has
been recorded in the last four years.
Further, Alcoa commenced ambient PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring in July 2012 to assess the
potential impacts associated with fugitive particulate emissions from its operations. The
monitoring results from July to December 2012 indicate that the NEPM standards were
being met at all three monitoring locations during this period.
ENVIRON recommends that management/mitigation measures are regularly reviewed to
ensure control of the acute (short-term exposure) risk posed by SO2 from the power station
and dust emissions from the coal mine.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
7
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 47
References
ASTM D6589 – 05 (2010) e1 Standard Guide for Statistical Evaluation of Atmospheric
Dispersion Model Performance. DOI: 10.1520/D6589-05R10E01
Australian Government (2003). National Environmental Protection (Ambient Air Quality)
Measure 2003. Gazette No S190, 2 June 2003.
Chang, J.C., Hanna, S.R., (2004). Air quality model performance evaluation. Meteorology
and Atmospheric Physics. 87, 167-196.
Cox, W.M., Tikvart, J.A. (1990). A Statistical Procedure for Determining the Best Performing
Air Quality Simulation Model. Atmospheric Environment 24A(9): 2387-2395
enHealth (2012) Environmental Health Risk Assessment – Guidelines for Assessing Human
Health Risks from Environmental Hazards. Commonwealth of Australia 2012.
EPAV (2001a). State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) (Air Quality Management).
Victorian Environment Protection Authority .
EPAV (2001b). State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) (Ambient Air Quality). Victorian
Environment Protection Authority.
European Commission (2006) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques on
Emissions from Storage. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, July 2006
Hanna, S.R. (1988). Air Quality Model Evaluation and Uncertainty, JAPCA, 38: 406.
Hurley P., (2000). Verification of TAPM meteorological predictions in the Melbourne region
for a winter and summer month, Aust. Met. Mag., Vol 49, Pg 97-107.
Larsen, J.C. & Larsen, P.B. (1998) Chemical carcinogens. In: Hester, R.E. & Harrison, R.M.,
ed. Air pollution and health. Cambridge, Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 35–36.
NEPC (1998) National Environment Protection Measure for Ambient Air Quality. 26 June
1998, National Environment Protection Council Service Corporation, Adelaide, South
Australia.
NEPC (2004) National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) Measure . 3 December 2004,
National Environment Protection Council Service Corporation, Adelaide, South Australia.
NEPC (2007). Review of the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality)
Measure Review. Discussion Paper. Prepared for the National Environment Protection
Council, June 2007.
NEPC (2011). National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure Review.
Review Report. Prepared for the National Environment Protection Council, May 2011.
NPI (2012). National Pollutant Inventory Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining
Version 3.1 January 2012. Commonwealth of Australia 2012.
National Research Council (2004). Research priorities for airborne particulate matter. IV.
Continuing research progress. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2004.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 48
Pielke, R.A. (1984). Mesoscale Meteorological Modeling, 612 pp., Academic Press, New
York.
Risk Assessment Taskforce (2000) Health Effects of Criteria Pollutants. Prepared as part of
the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure Review. Report of
the Risk Assessment Taskforce, October 2000.
Turner D.B. (1994). Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates: An Introduction to
Dispersion Modelling, Second Edition.
USEPA (1985). Guideline for the Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height.
US EPA.
USEPA (1987). Proposed revisions to the nation’s ambient air quality standards for
particulate matter. Federal Register, 1987,49:10408–10435.
USEPA (1990). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Primary Standards. US
EPA.
USEPA (1991). Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. EPA 450/4-91-019.
USEPA (1992). Protocol for determining the best performing model.. USEPA, EPA-454/R92-025, Research Triangle Park, NC.
USEPA (1997). National ambient air quality standards for particulate matter, Part KK.
Federal Register, 1997, 62:138.
USEPA (2001). “Appendix W to Part 51 – Guideline on Air Quality Models.” USEPA 40 CFR
USEPA. (2004a). “Compilation of air Pollutant Emission factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition,
Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Section 13.2.4. Aggregate Handling and
Storage Piles. 1/95”.
USEPA. (2004b). “Compilation of air Pollutant Emission factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition,
Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Section 13.2.5. Industrial Wind Erosion.
1/95”.
USEPA (2006a). AP42 Emission Factors, Section 13.2.5 Industrial Wind Erosion. Final
Section, November 2006.
USEPA (2006b). “Compilation of air Pollutant Emission factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume
1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Section 13.2.2. Unpaved Roads. 11/06”.
USEPA (2008). Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides – Health Criteria. Second
External Review Draft, US EPA, EPA/600/R-08/047, May 2008.
USEPA (2009). Risk and Exposure Assessment to Support the Review of the SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Second Draft, US EPA, EPA-452/P-09-003
March 2009
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 49
Van den Berg, M., L.S. Birnbaum, M. Denison et al. (2006). The 2005 World Health
Organization re-evaluation of human and mammalian toxic equivalency factors for
dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol. Sci. 93(2):223-241.
WHO (2003). Health Risks of Persistent Organic Pollutants from Long-Range
Transboundary Air Pollution. Joint Who/Convention Task Force on the Health Aspects
of Air Pollution. WHO Regional Office for Europe, E78963.
WHO (2006). Air Quality Guidelines Global Update 2005. WHO Regional Office for Europe,
ISBN 92 890 2192 6
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
8
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Page 50
Limitations Of Study
We have prepared this report for the use of Alcoa’s Anglesea operations in accordance with
generally accepted consulting practice. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as
to the professional advice included in this report. This report has not been prepared for the
use by parties other than the client, the owner and their respective consulting advisors. It
may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or for other uses.
AS140151
Power Station
Coal Mine
Figure 1: Location Map
(Source Image : Google Earth)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 10/7/13
Key Issues
Process Knowledge
Compliance Monitoring Data
Substance
Selection
NEPM/NPI Substances
USEPA Hazardous Air
Pollutants
USEPA Toxic Organics
Analytical methods and
visual inspections
Organics
Source
Temporal and
Spatial Resoluti on
Selection
Develop
Prelim
Emission Profile
Major Sources
Other similar facility
emission inventories
Review and Prioritise
Sources
Minor Sources
Additional Testing
Review previous
Inventories
Reality
Check
Assess
Uncertainty
Complete
Inventory
Reality
Check
Review and
update
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Figure 2: Inventory Selection Process
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Alcoa Anglesea Power Station
Annual Wind Rose
Station: Anglesea Met
Alcoa Anglesea Power Station
Annual Wind Rose
Station: Anglesea Met
1/01/2008 to 31/12/2008
0
N
20
338
0
N
22
315
1/01/2009 to 31/12/2009
20
338
45
22
315
45
10
10
292
292
68
68
0
0
270
270
90
90
> 15
> 15
12 to 15
12 to 15
9 to 12
248
112
9 to 12
248
112
7 to 9
7 to 9
5 to 7
5 to 7
3 to 5
3 to 5
225
135
225
135
1 to 3
1 to 3
.4 to 1
202
.4 to 1
158
202
Magnitude(m/s)
Magnitude(m/s)
1.69%calm
93.3%Valid Data present.
1.65%calm
99.8%Valid Data present.
Figure 3: 2008 Annual Wind Rose
Figure 4: 2009 Annual Wind Rose
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
158
180
180
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Alcoa Anglesea Power Station
Annual Wind Rose
Station: Anglesea Met
Alcoa Anglesea Power Station
Annual Wind Rose
Station: Anglesea Met
1/01/2010 to 31/12/2010
0
N
20
338
0
N
22
315
1/01/2011 to 31/12/2011
20
338
22
315
45
45
10
10
292
68
292
68
0
0
270
90
270
90
> 15
> 15
12 to 15
12 to 15
9 to 12
248
112
9 to 12
248
112
7 to 9
7 to 9
5 to 7
5 to 7
3 to 5
225
135
3 to 5
225
135
1 to 3
1 to 3
.4 to 1
202
.4 to 1
158
202
Magnitude(m/s)
Magnitude(m/s)
3.51%calm
97.6%Valid Data present.
4.27%calm
96.7%Valid Data present.
Figure 6: 2011 Annual Wind Rose
Figure 5: 2010 Annual Wind Rose
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
158
180
180
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Alcoa Anglesea Power Station
Annual Wind Rose
Station: Anglesea Met
1/01/2012 to 31/12/2012
0
N
20
338
22
315
45
10
292
68
0
270
90
> 15
12 to 15
9 to 12
248
112
7 to 9
5 to 7
3 to 5
225
135
1 to 3
.4 to 1
202
158
180
Magnitude(m/s)
1.82%calm
99.6%Valid Data present.
Figure 7: 2012 Annual Wind Rose
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 8: Summary of Observed Wind Speed at Anglesea (20082012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Figure 9: Summary of Observed Wind Direction at Anglesea
(2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
-38.34
200
180
-38.36
160
140
120
-38.38
100
80
-38.4
60
40
20
-38.42
Stack
10
1
Coal Mine
-38.44
144.12
Figure 10: Site Topography
144.14
144.16
144.18
144.2
144.22
144.24
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Land-use Legend:
Water
Figure 11: Surrounding Land Use
Forest Sparse
Woodland
Pasture – Mid
Dense
Urban - Low
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 12: Location of SO2 Monitoring Stations
(Source Image : Alcoa)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 13: Location of the Dust Monitoring Stations
(Source Image: Google Earth)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Alcoa Australia
1 Hour Camp Rd PM10
Station: Anglesea Power Station
Alcoa Australia
1 Hour Camp Rd PM2.5
Station: Anglesea Power Station
24/07/2012 to 31/12/2012
Parameter: Camp Rd Particulate PM10
0
N
200µg/m
³
338
Parameter: Camp Rd Particulate PM2.5
0
N
22
150µg/m
³
315
24/07/2012 to 31/12/2012
100µg/m
³
338
45
80µg/m³
315
292
68
40µg/m³
292
50µg/m³
68
20µg/m³
0µg/m³
0µg/m³
270
90
248
90
270
112
225
248
135
112
225
158
135
202
180
158
180
PM10 concentrations for wind speed between .4 and 20 m/s
PM25 concentrations for wind speed between .4 and 20 m/s
21.1%of data Negative (plotted as 0).
97.9%Valid Data present.
97.7%Valid Data present.
Figure 14: Pollution Rose Camp Rd – PM10
Figure 15: Pollution Rose Camp Rd – PM2.5
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
45
60µg/m³
100µg/m
³
202
22
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Alcoa Australia
1 Hour Camp Wilkin PM10
Station: Anglesea Power Station
Alcoa Australia
1 Hour Camp Wilkin PM2.5
Station: Anglesea Power Station
24/07/2012 to 31/12/2012
Parameter: Camp Wilkin Particulate PM10
0
N
200µg/m
³
338
Parameter: Camp Wilkin Particulate PM2.5
0
N
22
150µg/m
³
315
24/07/2012 to 31/12/2012
100µg/m
³
338
45
80µg/m³
315
100µg/m
³
68
40µg/m³
292
50µg/m³
68
20µg/m³
0µg/m³
0µg/m³
90
270
225
90
270
112
248
248
135
112
135
225
158
202
180
158
180
PM10 concentrations for wind speed between .4 and 20 m/s
PM25 concentrations for wind speed between .4 and 20 m/s
79.4%Valid Data present.
97.7%Valid Data present.
Figure 16: Pollution Rose Camp Wilkin – PM10
Figure 17: Pollution Rose Camp Wilkin – PM2.5
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
45
60µg/m³
292
202
22
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Alcoa Australia
1 Hour Barwon Water PM10
Station: Anglesea Power Station
Alcoa Australia
1 Hour Barwon Water PM2.5
Station: Anglesea Power Station
24/07/2012 to 31/12/2012
Parameter: Barwon Water Particulate PM10
0
N
200µg/m
³
338
Parameter: Barwon Water Particulate PM2.5
0
N
22
150µg/m
³
315
24/07/2012 to 31/12/2012
100µg/m
³
338
80µg/m³
315
45
22
45
60µg/m³
100µg/m
³
40µg/m³
292
68
292
50µg/m³
0µg/m³
0µg/m³
270
270
90
248
225
90
248
112
112
225
135
202
135
202
158
158
180
180
PM10 concentrations for wind speed between .4 and 20 m/s
PM25 concentrations for wind speed between .4 and 20 m/s
91.4%Valid Data present.
87.0%Valid Data present.
Figure 18: Pollution Rose – Barwon Water – PM10
Figure 19: Pollution Rose – Barwon Water – PM2.5
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
68
20µg/m³
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 20: Location of Discrete Receptors
(Source Base Map: Google Maps)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 21: Pdf Plots of Wind Speed – Observed vs Predicted
(2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Figure 22: Pdf Plots of Wind Direction – Observed vs Predicted
(2008-2012)
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 23: SO2 Validation - Year 2008 – 1-Hour Maximum, 99.9th
and 99.5th Percentiles
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 24: SO2 Validation - Year 2009 – 1-Hour Maximum, 99.9th
and 99.5th Percentiles
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 25: SO2 Validation - Year 2010 – 1-Hour Maximum, 99.9th
and 99.5th Percentiles
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 26: SO2 Validation - Year 2011 – 1-Hour Maximum, 99.9th
and 99.5th Percentiles
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 27: SO2 Validation - Year 2012 – 1-Hour Maximum, 99.9th
and 99.5th Percentiles
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 28: SO2 Validation – All Years 2008-2012 – 1-Hour Maximum,
99.9th Percentile and RHC
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 29: PM2.5 Validation – July- December 2012 – 1-Hour Maximum,
99.9th and 99.5th Percentiles (Includes Background Concentration)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 30: PM10 Validation – July- December 2012 – 1-Hour Maximum,
99.9th and 99.5th Percentiles (Includes Background Concentration)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Figure 31: Ambient Dust 24 Hour Validation – July- December 2012 – Maximum and RHC
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Predicted Ground Level - Composite Acute HI (SO2 and PM10)
Background
Predicted HI
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations (Alcoa
Only)
Receptor
Max Composite Acute
HI in Modelled
Domain
0.34
38.2
38.5
1
0.34
0.86
1.20
2
0.34
0.68
1.02
3
0.34
0.94
1.28
4
0.34
0.60
0.94
5
0.34
0.79
1.13
6
0.34
0.76
1.10
7
0.34
0.67
1.01
8
0.34
0.71
1.05
9
0.34
1.00
1.34
10
0.34
0.66
1.00
11
0.34
0.77
1.11
12
0.34
0.72
1.06
13
0.34
1.19
1.53
14
0.34
0.53
0.87
Figure 32: Composite Acute HI (SO2 and PM10)
(Source Base Map: Google Maps)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Predicted Ground Level - 24-Hour Acute HI (SO2 and PM10)
Background
Predicted HI
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations (Alcoa
Only)
Receptor
Max Composite Acute
HI in Modelled
Domain
0.34
37.8
38.1
1
0.34
0.57
0.91
2
0.34
0.39
0.73
3
0.34
0.62
0.96
4
0.34
0.31
0.65
5
0.34
0.56
0.90
6
0.34
0.49
0.83
7
0.34
0.48
0.82
8
0.34
0.41
0.75
9
0.34
0.72
1.06
10
0.34
0.36
0.70
11
0.34
0.47
0.81
12
0.34
0.39
0.73
13
0.34
0.93
1.27
14
0.34
0.31
0.65
Figure 33: 24-Hour Acute HI (SO2 and PM10)
(Source Base Map: Google Maps)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Predicted Ground Level - Composite Acute HI (SO2 and PM2.5)
Background
Predicted HI
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
0.20
24.0
24.2
0.20
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.65
0.85
0.20
0.91
1.11
0.20
0.57
0.77
0.20
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.63
0.83
0.20
0.65
0.85
0.20
0.90
1.10
0.20
0.62
0.82
0.20
0.72
0.92
0.20
0.69
0.89
0.20
0.93
1.13
0.20
0.50
0.70
Receptor
Max Composite
Acute HI in Modelled
Domain
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Figure 34: Composite Acute HI (SO2 and PM2.5)
(Source Base Map: Google Maps)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Predicted Ground Level - 24-Hour Acute HI (SO2 and PM2.5)
Background
Predicted HI
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations (Alcoa
Only)
0.20
23.6
23.8
0.20
0.41
0.61
0.20
0.36
0.56
0.20
0.59
0.79
0.20
0.28
0.48
0.20
0.52
0.72
0.20
0.43
0.63
0.20
0.44
0.64
0.20
0.35
0.55
0.20
0.62
0.82
0.20
0.32
0.52
0.20
0.42
0.62
0.20
0.36
0.56
0.20
0.67
0.87
0.20
0.28
0.48
Receptor
Max Composite Acute
HI in Modelled
Domain
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Figure 35: 24 Hour Acute HI (SO2 and PM2.5)
(Source Base Map: Google Maps)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Predicted Ground Level - Chronic HI (SO2 and PM2.5)
Background
Predicted HI
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
0.63
7.8
8.4
0.63
0.13
0.76
0.63
0.09
0.72
0.63
0.15
0.78
0.63
0.09
0.72
0.63
0.14
0.77
0.63
0.12
0.75
0.63
0.12
0.75
0.63
0.10
0.73
0.63
0.14
0.77
0.63
0.08
0.71
0.63
0.12
0.75
0.63
0.11
0.74
0.63
0.20
0.83
0.63
0.07
0.70
Receptor
Max Annual Ave in
modelled domain
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Figure 36: Chronic HI – (SO2 and PM2.5)
(Source Base Map: Google Maps)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Alcoa World Alumina Australia
July 2013
Air Emission Study and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power
DRAF T
Appendix A
EPA Correspondence
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Alcoa World Alumina Australia
July 2013
Air Emission Study and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power
DRAF T
Appendix B
Sampling Methods
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Contractor Company Name: SGS
Sampling
Methodology/ SGS
Method ID
Analytical
Methodology/ SGS
Method ID
Analytical Limit of
Detection
QC Method
(Spiking/Ref. Std etc)
Carbon Monoxide
Online analyser / SGS
Method VAMTR-PEMS
Non-dispersive infrared
CO analyser
SGS (onsite)/ NATA
Acc no: 14601
0.5ppm
On-use calibration with
NATA certified gas
standard
Oxides of Nitrogen
Online analyser / SGS
Method VAMTR-PEMS
Chemiluminescence
NOx analyser/ USEPA
Method 7E
SGS (onsite)/ NATA
Acc no: 14601
0.5ppm
On-use calibration with
NATA certified gas
standard
Sulphur Dioxide
Online analyser / SGS
Method VAMTR-PEMS
Fluorescence SO2
analyser.
SGS (onsite)/ NATA
Acc no: 14601
-
On-use calibration with
NATA certified gas
standard
Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Isokinetic sampling into
a train consisting of a
filter, resin trap and
impinger train/
California Air
Resources Board
Method 429,
Gas chromatography
with mass selective
detection (GCMS)/
CARB 429
SGS Belgium (reported
by SGS Australia)/
NATA Acc no: 2562
Chloride as hydrogen
chloride
Impinger train sampling
USEPA Method No
26A.
USEPA Method No
26A. analysis by ION
chromatography.
SGS Sydney, report
no.51894
-
-
Total Fluorides
Isokinetic sampling
using method MEA-238
Soluble fluoride fraction
analysed using fluoride
specific electrode
SGS Gippsland
(reported by SGS
Australia)
-
Field spike (presampling) and
laboratory(postsampling) spike
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Single-point sampling
onto a activated
charcoal tube/ Vic EPA
Method 4230.
Gas chromatography
with mass selective
detection (GCMS)/ Vic
EPA Method 440.1
SGS Coburg (reported
by SGS Australia)/
NATA Acc no: 2562
Analyte
Analysis Performed
by/NATA
Accreditation
Number:
0.25µg
10µg
Field spike (presampling) and
laboratory(postsampling) spike
Duplicate samples
Analyte
Sampling
Methodology/ SGS
Method ID
Analytical
Methodology/ SGS
Method ID
Analysis Performed
by/NATA
Accreditation
Number:
Analytical Limit of
Detection
0.25 – 130 µg
(depending on
dioxin/furan species)
QC Method
(Spiking/Ref. Std etc)
Dioxins and furans
Isokinetic sampling into
a train consisting of a
filter, resin trap and
impinger train/ USEPA
Method 23
Gas chromatography
with mass selective
detection (GCMS)/
CARB 429
SGS Belgium (reported
by SGS Australia)/
NATA Acc no: 2562
Carbon Dioxide
Online Analyser / SGS
method VAMTR-PEMS
Non-dispersive infrared
CO analyser
SGS (onsite)/ NATA
Acc no: 14601
0.5ppm
Total (Gaseous and
Particulate) Metals and
Metallic compounds
Isokinetic sampling into
a train consisting of a
filter and impingers/
USEPA Method 29
Inductively coupled
plasma (ICP) or atomic
absorption (AA)
spectroscopy/ USEPA
Method 29
SGS Australia/ NATA
Acc no: 2562
0.1 – 10 µg (depending
on metal species)
Particulate Matter
Isokinetic sampling into
an in-line filter holder,
(in-stack)/ AS 4323.2
1995
Gravimetric analysis/
AS 4323.2 1995.
SGS (laboratory)/ NATA
Acc no: 14601
Particulate Matter 10
Sampling using Malvern
Mastersizer M20 laser
particle size analyser
Gravimetric analysis/
USEPA Method 201A
Herman Research
Laboratories
Moisture Content
Gravimetry, MEA-105/
SGS method MEA-107
USEPA method 23,29,
26A
NA
NA
NA
Flow rate and Velocity
MEA-100, using a pitot
tube and differential
manometer.
NA
SGS (onsite)/ NATA
Acc no:
NA
NA
Sampling plane criteria
AS 4323.1 -1995
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5mg
-
Field spike (presampling) and
laboratory (postsampling) spike
On-use calibration with
NATA certified gas
standard
Matrix spike
Duplicate samples
Acetone blank
-
Alcoa World Alumina Australia
July 2013
Air Emission Study and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power
DRAF T
Appendix C
TAPM Input File
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
|‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐| | THE AIR POLLUTION MODEL (TAPM V4.0.4). | | Copyright (C) CSIRO Australia. | | All Rights Reserved. | |‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐| ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ RUN INFORMATION: ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ NUMBER OF GRIDS= 4 GRID CENTRE (longitude,latitude)=( 144.1750 , ‐38.39167 ) GRID CENTRE (cx,cy)=( 253764 , 5747349 ) (m) GRID DIMENSIONS (nx,ny,nz)=( 42 , 42 , 25 ) NUMBER OF VERTICAL LEVELS OUTPUT = 17 DATES (START,END)=( 20091229 , 20101231 ) DATE FROM WHICH OUTPUT BEGINS = 20100101 LOCAL HOUR IS GMT+ 9.600000 TIMESTEP SCALING FACTOR = 1.000000 VARY SYNOPTIC WITH 3‐D SPACE AND TIME V4 LAND SURFACE SCHEME EXCLUDE NON‐HYDROSTATIC EFFECTS INCLUDE PROGNOSTIC RAIN EQUATION EXCLUDE PROGNOSTIC SNOW EQUATION TKE‐EPS TURBULENCE (PROGNOSTIC TKE + EPS, EDMF) POLLUTION : 1 TRACER (TR1) INCLUDE POLLUTANT VARIANCE EQUATION INCLUDE 3‐D POLLUTION OUTPUT (*.C3D) POLLUTANT GRID DIMENSIONS (nxf,nyf)=( 83 , 83 ) TR1 POLLUTANT SPECIES : GENERIC TR1 BACKGROUND = 0.0000000E+00 (ug/m3) TR1 DECAY RATE = 0.0000000E+00 (per second) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ START GRID 1 angle01 GRID SPACING (delx,dely)=( 20000 , 20000 ) (m) POLLUTANT GRID SPACING (delxf,delyf)=( 10000 , 10000 ) (m) NO MET. DATA ASSIMILATION FILE AVAILABLE NO CONCENTRATION BACKGROUND FILE AVAILABLE NO BUILDING FILE AVAILABLE NUMBER OF pse SOURCES= 1 NO lse EMISSION FILE AVAILABLE NO ase EMISSION FILE AVAILABLE NO gse EMISSION FILE AVAILABLE NO bse EMISSION FILE AVAILABLE NO whe EMISSION FILE AVAILABLE NO vpx EMISSION FILE AVAILABLE NO vdx EMISSION FILE AVAILABLE NO vlx EMISSION FILE AVAILABLE NO vpv EMISSION FILE AVAILABLE INITIALISE LARGE TIMESTEP = 300.0000 METEOROLOGICAL ADVECTION TIMESTEP = 150.0000 (s) POLLUTION ADVECTION TIMESTEP = 300.0000 (s) pse KEY : is = Source Number ls = Source Switch (‐1=Off,0=EGM,1=EGM+LPM) xs,ys = Source Position (m) hs = Source Height (m) rs = Source Radius (m) es = Buoyancy Enhancement Factor fs_no = Fraction of NOX Emitted as NO fs_fpm= Fraction of APM Emitted as FPM INIT_pse is, ls, xs, ys, hs, rs, es, fs_no, fs_fpm 1, 1, 253764., 5747349., 107.00, 1.94, 1.00, 1.00, 0.50, LAGRANGIAN (LPM) MODE IS OFF FOR THIS GRID Alcoa World Alumina Australia
July 2013
Air Emission Study and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power
DRAF T
Appendix D
Haul Road Emission Rates
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Haul Road Generated Dust
Average Wind Speed
Moisture Content
4.2 m/s
44.8 %
Total vehicle kilometres travelled (VKTs) for haulpacks were based on each truck driving over a haul road to either a waste dump or the primary crusher
PM10 Wheel Generated Dust from Unpaved Roads
EK=
VKT (vehicle kilometres travelled)
Moisture Content of Coal
S=Silt Content (%)
W= Vehicle Gross mass in tonnes
0.4536/1.6093*1.5*(s/12)^0.9*((
W*1.1023)/3)^0.45
kg/VKT
44.8 %
5%
70 tonnes
Average speed light vehicles
Average speed haul trucks
30 km/h
15 km/h
PM10 ‐ Wheel generated Dust from unpaved roads
0.8 kg/VKT
Total vehicle kilometers travelled over hours
Total no. of trips of 60 ton Haul Truck to Crusher and back (5706 hours)
Total no. of trips of 60 ton Haul Truck to waste dump (6536 hours)
16651 trips
51246 trips
Kilometers travelled from coal pit to crusher
Kilometers travelled from coal pit to waste dump
3.2 km
3.6 km
Emissions from coal pit to crusher (PM10) ‐ Haul Truck (5706 Hours)
Emissions from coal pit to waste dump (PM10) ‐ Haul Truck (6536 Hours)
2.2 g/s
6.5 g/s
(Assuming haul truck leaves full and arrives empty)
(VKT= vehicle kilometres travelled)
45.62 Trips per day * 365 days 140.4 Trips per day * 365 days ‐ by three overburden hau
(Per Year)
Movement on haul road (75% Control) ‐ application of level 2 watering
Emissions from coal pit to crusher (PM10) ‐ Haul Truck
Emissions from coal pit to waste dump (PM10) ‐ Haul Truck
0.54 g/s
1.62 g/s
(75% Dust Control ‐ Level 2 Watering)
(75% Dust Control ‐ Level 2 Watering)
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Alcoa World Alumina Australia
July 2013
Air Emission Study and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power
DRAF T
Appendix E
Concentration Isopleths for Compounds
NB: Background values represent the regional
background levels
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
th
Predicted Ground Level SO2 Concentration – 99.9 1 Hour Average
3
(µg/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E1: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations SO2- 99.9th 1
Hour Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
1.8
859
861
450
1
1.8
248
250
450
2
1.8
307
309
450
3
1.8
454
456
450
4
1.8
284
286
450
5
1.8
354
356
450
6
1.8
247
249
450
7
1.8
235
237
450
8
1.8
271
273
450
9
1.8
266
268
450
10
1.8
275
277
450
11
1.8
322
324
450
12
1.8
299
301
450
13
1.8
214
216
450
14
1.8
218
220
450
Table E1: SO2 – 99.9th 1 Hour Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentrations (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
1hr Ave for
modelled
domain
outside
plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
Predicted Ground Level CO Concentration – 99.9 1 Hour Average
3
(µg/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E2: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations CO- 99.9th 1
Hour Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
1.9
1.9
29000
1
NA
0.6
0.6
29000
2
NA
0.7
0.7
29000
3
NA
1.0
1.0
29000
4
NA
0.7
0.7
29000
5
NA
0.7
0.7
29000
6
NA
0.6
0.6
29000
7
NA
0.6
0.6
29000
8
NA
0.7
0.7
29000
9
NA
0.6
0.6
29000
10
NA
0.7
0.7
29000
11
NA
0.8
0.8
29000
12
NA
0.7
0.7
29000
13
NA
0.5
0.5
29000
14
NA
0.6
0.6
29000
Table E2: CO- 99.9th 1 Hour Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentrations (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
1hr Ave for
modelled
domain
outside
plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
Predicted Ground Level NO2 Concentration – 99.9 1Hour Avg
3
(ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E3: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations NO2 – 99.9th 1
Hour Average (µg/m3) - Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
71
71
190
1
NA
21
21
190
2
NA
25
25
190
3
NA
37
37
190
4
NA
24
24
190
5
NA
24
24
190
6
NA
22
22
190
7
NA
24
24
190
8
NA
26
26
190
9
NA
23
23
190
10
NA
25
25
190
11
NA
29
29
190
12
NA
27
27
190
13
NA
18
18
190
14
NA
22
22
190
Table E3: NO2– 99.9th 1 Hour Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentrations (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9 1hr
Ave for
modelled
domain
outside plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
Predicted Ground Level Lead Concentration – 99.9 1Hour Average
3
(ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E4: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Lead- 99.9th
1Hr Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.022
0.022
3
1
NA
0.0004
0.0004
3
2
NA
0.0003
0.0003
3
3
NA
0.0003
0.0003
3
4
NA
0.0002
0.0002
3
5
NA
0.0003
0.0003
3
6
NA
0.0004
0.0004
3
7
NA
0.0004
0.0004
3
8
NA
0.0003
0.0003
3
9
NA
0.0004
0.0004
3
10
NA
0.0003
0.0003
3
11
NA
0.0003
0.0003
3
12
NA
0.0003
0.0003
3
13
NA
0.0007
0.0007
3
14
NA
0.0002
0.0002
3
Table E4: Lead- 99.9th 1Hr Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentrations – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
1hr Ave for
modelled
domain
outside
plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
3
Predicted Ground Level Fluoride Concentration – 24Hr (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E5: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Fluoride – 24Hr
Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.10
0.10
3
1
NA
0.02
0.02
3
2
NA
0.04
0.04
3
3
NA
0.04
0.04
3
4
NA
0.02
0.02
3
5
NA
0.05
0.05
3
6
NA
0.02
0.02
3
7
NA
0.02
0.02
3
8
NA
0.02
0.02
3
9
NA
0.02
0.02
3
10
NA
0.02
0.02
3
11
NA
0.04
0.04
3
12
NA
0.03
0.03
3
13
NA
0.02
0.02
3
14
NA
0.02
0.02
3
Table E5: Fluoride – 24Hr Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentrations – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
99.5 24hr
Ave for
modelled
domain
outside
plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level PM10 – 99.9 1 Hr Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E6: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations PM10 – 99.9th
1Hr Average (µg/m3) - Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
16.5
475
492
80
1
16.5
79
96
80
2
16.5
22
39
80
3
16.5
16
33
80
4
16.5
18
35
80
5
16.5
23
40
80
6
16.5
87
104
80
7
16.5
71
88
80
8
16.5
45
62
80
9
16.5
84
101
80
10
16.5
33
50
80
11
16.5
38
55
80
12
16.5
40
57
80
13
16.5
175
192
80
14
16.5
26
43
80
Table E6: PM10 – 99.9th 1 Hr Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentrations (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
1hr Ave for
modelled
domain
outside
plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level PM2.5 – 99.9 1 Hr Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E7: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations PM2.5– 99.9th 1
Hour Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
4.6
168
173
50
1
4.6
27
32
50
2
4.6
8.7
14
50
3
4.6
6.1
11
50
4
4.6
6.0
11
50
5
4.6
9.1
14
50
6
4.6
30
35
50
7
4.6
26
31
50
8
4.6
17
22
50
9
4.6
36
41
50
10
4.6
13
18
50
11
4.6
15
20
50
12
4.6
15
20
50
13
4.6
66
71
50
14
4.6
9.3
14
50
Table E7: PM2.5– 99.9th 1 Hour Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentrations (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
1hr Ave for
modelled
domain
outside
plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level PM10 – 99.5 24 Hr Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
NEPC ground
level
concentration
(glc)
th
Figure E8: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations PM10– 99.5th 24
Hour Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
15.6
137
153
50
1
15.6
17.8
33
50
2
15.6
4.3
20
50
3
15.6
3.2
19
50
4
15.6
2.8
18
50
5
15.6
5.0
21
50
6
15.6
13.3
29
50
7
15.6
10.0
26
50
8
15.6
8.6
24
50
9
15.6
22.6
38
50
10
15.6
6.4
22
50
11
15.6
7.4
23
50
12
15.6
7.1
23
50
13
15.6
36.1
52
50
14
15.6
5.0
21
50
Table E8: PM10– 99.5th 24 Hour Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentrations (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.5
24hr Ave
for
modelled
domain
outside
plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level PM2.5 – 99.5 24 Hr Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E9: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations PM2.5–99.5th 24
Hour Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
4.6
46
50.6
25
1
4.6
5.8
10.4
25
2
4.6
1.7
6.3
25
3
4.6
1.2
5.8
25
4
4.6
1.0
5.6
25
5
4.6
1.9
6.5
25
6
4.6
5.7
10.3
25
7
4.6
4.6
9.2
25
8
4.6
3.4
8.0
25
9
4.6
9.5
14.1
25
10
4.6
2.5
7.1
25
11
4.6
2.8
7.4
25
12
4.6
3.0
7.6
25
13
4.6
12.6
17.2
25
14
4.6
2.2
6.8
25
Table E9: PM2.5 –99.5th 24 Hour Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentrations (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
99.5 24 Hr
Ave outside
plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Antimony– 99.9 3min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E10: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Antimony–
99.9th 3-Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.003
0.003
17
1
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
2
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
3
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
4
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
5
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
6
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
7
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
8
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
9
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
10
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
11
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
12
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
13
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
14
NA
0.0001
0.0001
17
Table E10: Antimony– 99.9th 3-Min Average Predicted Ground
Level Concentrations (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain
outside plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level HCl– 99.9 3 Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E11: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations HCl– 99.9th 3
Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
5.2
5.2
250
1
NA
1.6
1.6
250
2
NA
1.8
1.8
250
3
NA
2.7
2.7
250
4
NA
1.7
1.7
250
5
NA
1.7
1.7
250
6
NA
1.6
1.6
250
7
NA
1.7
1.7
250
8
NA
1.9
1.9
250
9
NA
1.7
1.7
250
10
NA
1.8
1.8
250
11
NA
2.2
2.2
250
12
NA
2.0
2.0
250
13
NA
1.3
1.3
250
14
NA
1.6
1.6
250
Table E11: HCl– 99.9th 3 Min Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentrations (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain
outside plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Arsenic – 99.9 3min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E12: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Arsenic– 99.9th
3 Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.0025
0.0025
0.17
1
NA
0.0007
0.0007
0.17
2
NA
0.0009
0.0009
0.17
3
NA
0.0013
0.0013
0.17
4
NA
0.0008
0.0008
0.17
5
NA
0.0008
0.0008
0.17
6
NA
0.0008
0.0008
0.17
7
NA
0.0008
0.0008
0.17
8
NA
0.0009
0.0009
0.17
9
NA
0.0008
0.0008
0.17
10
NA
0.0009
0.0009
0.17
11
NA
0.0010
0.0010
0.17
12
NA
0.0009
0.0009
0.17
13
NA
0.0006
0.0006
0.17
14
NA
0.0008
0.0008
0.17
Table E12: Arsenic– 99.9th 3 Min Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentrations (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave
for modelled
domain
outside
plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Cadmium– 99.9 3Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E13: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Cadmium–
99.9th 3 Min Average (µg/m3)– Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.00017
0.00017
0.03
1
NA
0.00005
0.00005
0.03
2
NA
0.00006
0.00006
0.03
3
NA
0.00009
0.00009
0.03
4
NA
0.00006
0.00006
0.03
5
NA
0.00006
0.00006
0.03
6
NA
0.00005
0.00005
0.03
7
NA
0.00006
0.00006
0.03
8
NA
0.00006
0.00006
0.03
9
NA
0.00005
0.00005
0.03
10
NA
0.00006
0.00006
0.03
11
NA
0.00007
0.00007
0.03
12
NA
0.00006
0.00006
0.03
13
NA
0.00004
0.00004
0.03
14
NA
0.00005
0.00005
0.03
Table E13: Cadmium– 99.9th 3 Min Average Predicted Ground
Level Concentrations (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain outside
plant boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Chromium (III)– 99.9 3Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E14: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Chromium
(III) – 99.9th 3 Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.0171
0.0171
17
1
NA
0.0051
0.0051
17
2
NA
0.0060
0.0060
17
3
NA
0.0090
0.0090
17
4
NA
0.0057
0.0057
17
5
NA
0.0057
0.0057
17
6
NA
0.0053
0.0053
17
7
NA
0.0057
0.0057
17
8
NA
0.0061
0.0061
17
9
NA
0.0055
0.0055
17
10
NA
0.0060
0.0060
17
11
NA
0.0071
0.0071
17
12
NA
0.0064
0.0064
17
13
NA
0.0044
0.0044
17
14
NA
0.0052
0.0052
17
Table E14: Chromium (III) – 99.9th 3 Min Average Predicted
Ground Level Concentrations (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain outside
plant boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Chromium (VI)– 99.9 3Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E15: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Chromium
(VI) – 99.9th 3 Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.0187
0.0187
0.17
1
NA
0.0056
0.0056
0.17
2
NA
0.0066
0.0066
0.17
3
NA
0.0099
0.0099
0.17
4
NA
0.0063
0.0063
0.17
5
NA
0.0063
0.0063
0.17
6
NA
0.0059
0.0059
0.17
7
NA
0.0062
0.0062
0.17
8
NA
0.0067
0.0067
0.17
9
NA
0.0061
0.0061
0.17
10
NA
0.0066
0.0066
0.17
11
NA
0.0078
0.0078
0.17
12
NA
0.0071
0.0071
0.17
13
NA
0.0048
0.0048
0.17
14
NA
0.0057
0.0057
0.17
Table E15: Chromium (VI) – 99.9th 3 Min Average Predicted
Ground Level Concentration (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain
outside
plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Copper– 99.9 3Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E16: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Copper –
99.9th 3 Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.07
0.07
6.7
1
NA
0.0008
0.0008
6.7
2
NA
0.0010
0.0010
6.7
3
NA
0.0014
0.0014
6.7
4
NA
0.0009
0.0009
6.7
5
NA
0.0009
0.0009
6.7
6
NA
0.0008
0.0008
6.7
7
NA
0.0009
0.0009
6.7
8
NA
0.0010
0.0010
6.7
9
NA
0.0009
0.0009
6.7
10
NA
0.0010
0.0010
6.7
11
NA
0.0011
0.0011
6.7
12
NA
0.0010
0.0010
6.7
13
NA
0.0007
0.0007
6.7
14
NA
0.0008
0.0008
6.7
Table E16: Copper – 99.9th 3 Min Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentration (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain
outside plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Benzene– 99.9 3Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
Receptor
th
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain
outside plant
boundary
NA
0.0042
0.0042
53
1
NA
0.0012
0.0012
53
2
NA
0.0015
0.0015
53
3
NA
0.0022
0.0022
53
4
NA
0.0014
0.0014
53
5
NA
0.0014
0.0014
53
6
NA
0.0013
0.0013
53
7
NA
0.0014
0.0014
53
8
NA
0.0015
0.0015
53
9
NA
0.0014
0.0014
53
10
NA
0.0015
0.0015
53
11
NA
0.0017
0.0017
53
12
NA
0.0016
0.0016
53
13
NA
0.0011
0.0011
53
14
NA
0.0013
0.0013
53
Figure E17: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Benzene –
99.9th 3 Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
Table E17: Benzene – 99.9th 3 Min Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentration (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Beryllium– 99.9 3Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
Receptor
th
Figure E18: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Beryllium –
99.9th 3 Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.002
0.002
0.007
1
NA
0.0002
0.0002
0.007
2
NA
0.0001
0.0001
0.007
3
NA
0.0001
0.0001
0.007
4
NA
0.0001
0.0001
0.007
5
NA
0.0001
0.0001
0.007
6
NA
0.0002
0.0002
0.007
7
NA
0.0002
0.0002
0.007
8
NA
0.0001
0.0001
0.007
9
NA
0.0002
0.0002
0.007
10
NA
0.0001
0.0001
0.007
11
NA
0.0001
0.0001
0.007
12
NA
0.0001
0.0001
0.007
13
NA
0.0003
0.0003
0.007
14
NA
0.0001
0.0001
0.007
Table E18: Beryllium – 99.9th 3 Min Average Predicted Ground
Level Concentration (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain
outside plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Manganese ( 99.9 3Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
Receptor
th
Figure E19: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Manganese –
99.9th 3 Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.0052
0.0052
33
1
NA
0.0016
0.0016
33
2
NA
0.0018
0.0018
33
3
NA
0.0027
0.0027
33
4
NA
0.0017
0.0017
33
5
NA
0.0017
0.0017
33
6
NA
0.0016
0.0016
33
7
NA
0.0017
0.0017
33
8
NA
0.0019
0.0019
33
9
NA
0.0017
0.0017
33
10
NA
0.0018
0.0018
33
11
NA
0.0022
0.0022
33
12
NA
0.0020
0.0020
33
13
NA
0.0013
0.0013
33
14
NA
0.0016
0.0016
33
99.9th
Table E19: Manganese –
3 Min Average Predicted Ground
Level Concentration (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain
outside plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Mercury– 99.9 3Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
Receptor
th
Figure E20: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Mercury –
99.9th 3 Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.0011
0.0011
0.33
1
NA
0.0003
0.0003
0.33
2
NA
0.0004
0.0004
0.33
3
NA
0.0006
0.0006
0.33
4
NA
0.0004
0.0004
0.33
5
NA
0.0004
0.0004
0.33
6
NA
0.0003
0.0003
0.33
7
NA
0.0004
0.0004
0.33
8
NA
0.0004
0.0004
0.33
9
NA
0.0003
0.0003
0.33
10
NA
0.0004
0.0004
0.33
11
NA
0.0004
0.0004
0.33
12
NA
0.0004
0.0004
0.33
13
NA
0.0003
0.0003
0.33
14
NA
0.0003
0.0003
0.33
Table E20: Mercury– 99.9th 3 Min Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentration (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain
outside plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Nickel– 99.9 3Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
Receptor
th
Figure E21: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Nickel– 99.9th
3 Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.02
0.02
0.33
1
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
2
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
3
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
4
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
5
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
6
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
7
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
8
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
9
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
10
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
11
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
12
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
13
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
14
NA
0.01
0.01
0.33
Table E21: Nickel – 99.9th 3 Min Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentration (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain
outside plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Benzo[a]pyrene – 99.9 3Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E22: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations
Benzo[a]pyrene – 99.9th 3 Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (20082012)
NA
0.0250
0.0250
0.73
1
NA
0.0075
0.0075
0.73
2
NA
0.0088
0.0088
0.73
3
NA
0.0131
0.0131
0.73
4
NA
0.0084
0.0084
0.73
5
NA
0.0084
0.0084
0.73
6
NA
0.0078
0.0078
0.73
7
NA
0.0083
0.0083
0.73
8
NA
0.0090
0.0090
0.73
9
NA
0.0081
0.0081
0.73
10
NA
0.0088
0.0088
0.73
11
NA
0.0103
0.0103
0.73
12
NA
0.0094
0.0094
0.73
13
NA
0.0064
0.0064
0.73
14
NA
0.0076
0.0076
0.73
99.9th
Table E22: Benzo[a]pyrene –
3 Min Average Predicted
Ground Level Concentration (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain
outside plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Dioxins & Furans– 99.9 3Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Receptor
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
th
Figure E23: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Dioxins &
Furans – 99.9th 3 Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
3.8E-09
3.8E-09
3.7E-06
1
NA
1.1E-09
1.1E-09
3.7E-06
2
NA
1.3E-09
1.3E-09
3.7E-06
3
NA
2.0E-09
2.0E-09
3.7E-06
4
NA
1.3E-09
1.3E-09
3.7E-06
5
NA
1.3E-09
1.3E-09
3.7E-06
6
NA
1.2E-09
1.2E-09
3.7E-06
7
NA
1.3E-09
1.3E-09
3.7E-06
8
NA
1.4E-09
1.4E-09
3.7E-06
9
NA
1.2E-09
1.2E-09
3.7E-06
10
NA
1.3E-09
1.3E-09
3.7E-06
11
NA
1.6E-09
1.6E-09
3.7E-06
12
NA
1.4E-09
1.4E-09
3.7E-06
13
NA
9.8E-10
9.8E-10
3.7E-06
14
NA
1.2E-09
1.2E-09
3.7E-06
Table E23: Dioxins & Furans – 99.9th 3 Min Average Predicted
Ground Level Concentration (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain
outside plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Chlorine– 99.9 3Min Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
EPAV design
ground level
concentration
(dglc)
Receptor
th
Figure E24: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Chlorine–
99.9th 3 Min Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.008
0.008
100
1
NA
0.002
0.002
100
2
NA
0.003
0.003
100
3
NA
0.004
0.004
100
4
NA
0.003
0.003
100
5
NA
0.003
0.003
100
6
NA
0.003
0.003
100
7
NA
0.003
0.003
100
8
NA
0.003
0.003
100
9
NA
0.003
0.003
100
10
NA
0.003
0.003
100
11
NA
0.003
0.003
100
12
NA
0.003
0.003
100
13
NA
0.002
0.002
100
14
NA
0.003
0.003
100
Table E24: Chlorine– 99.9th 3 Min Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentration (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9
3min Ave for
modelled
domain outside
plant boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
th
3
Predicted Ground Level Boron– 99.9 1 Hour Average (ug/m )
Background
Predicted
Concentrations
Background
(Alcoa Only)
+ Predicted
Concentrations
(Alcoa Only)
Texas
Commission on
Environmental
Quality (TCEQ)
(μg/m3)
Receptor
th
Figure E25: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations Boron– 99.9th 1
Hour Average (µg/m3) – Alcoa Only (2008-2012)
NA
0.8
0.8
1
NA
0.2
0.2
50
2
NA
0.4
0.4
50
3
NA
0.4
0.4
50
4
NA
0.3
0.3
50
5
NA
0.3
0.3
50
6
NA
0.2
0.2
50
7
NA
0.3
0.3
50
8
NA
0.3
0.3
50
9
NA
0.2
0.2
50
10
NA
0.3
0.3
50
11
NA
0.3
0.3
50
12
NA
0.3
0.3
50
13
NA
0.2
0.2
50
14
NA
0.2
0.2
50
50
Table E25: Boron – 99.9th 1 Hour Average Predicted Ground Level
Concentration (2008-2012)
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Client: Alcoa Anglesea
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Max 99.9 1
hr Ave for
modelled
domain
outside plant
boundary
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Project: Anglesea HHRA
Drawing Ref: AL
Date: 11/7/13
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Appendix F
Analysis of Concentrations Associated with
the Peak HQs
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
AS140151
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Table F1
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Predicted Concentrations when 99.9th Percentile 1-Hour Average Ground Level Concentrations of Sulphur
Dioxide is Predicted to Occur
Without Background
3
Predicted Concentrations (µg/m )
Hazard Quotient
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
Date
1-hour
24-hour
24-hour
1-hour
24-hour
24-hour
CFA Hut
23/01/2012
248
0.3
0.1
0.47
0.01
0.00
Bald Hills
11/08/2009
307
1.0
0.4
0.58
0.02
0.02
Water Basin
27/01/2011
454
0.5
0.2
0.87
0.01
0.01
Forest Road
8/10/2012
284
0.7
0.2
0.54
0.01
0.01
Scout Camp
23/04/2011
354
0.9
0.3
0.68
0.02
0.01
Primary School
5/01/2008
247
0.1
0.0
0.47
0.00
0.00
Camp Road
13/04/2012
235
0.4
0.1
0.45
0.01
0.01
Community Centre
7/11/2012
271
0.0
0.0
0.52
0.00
0.00
Camp Wilkin
23/03/2008
266
0.0
0.0
0.51
0.00
0.00
Anglesea Surf
7/01/2011
275
0.2
0.1
0.53
0.00
0.00
Waste Treatment
25/09/2012
322
0.7
0.3
0.61
0.02
0.01
Anglesea Caravan
17/05/2011
299
0.7
0.2
0.57
0.02
0.01
Fraser Avenue
5/07/2010
214
12.5
3.9
0.41
0.27
0.17
Pt Road
7/04/2011
218
0.2
0.1
0.42
0.00
0.00
Receptor
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Table F2
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Predicted Concentrations when 99.9th Percentile 1-Hour Average Ground Level Concentrations of Sulphur
Dioxide is Predicted to Occur
With Background
3
Predicted Concentrations (µg/m )
Hazard Quotient
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
Date
1-hour
24-hour
24-hour
1-hour
24-hour
24-hour
CFA Hut
23/01/2012
248
15.9
4.7
0.47
0.35
0.20
Bald Hills
11/08/2009
307
16.6
5.0
0.58
0.36
0.22
Water Basin
27/01/2011
454
16.1
4.8
0.87
0.35
0.21
Forest Road
8/10/2012
284
16.3
4.8
0.54
0.35
0.21
Scout Camp
23/04/2011
354
16.5
4.9
0.68
0.36
0.21
Primary School
5/01/2008
247
15.7
4.6
0.47
0.34
0.20
Camp Road
13/04/2012
235
16.0
4.7
0.45
0.35
0.21
Community Centre
7/11/2012
271
15.6
4.6
0.52
0.34
0.20
Camp Wilkin
23/03/2008
266
15.6
4.6
0.51
0.34
0.20
Anglesea Surf
7/01/2011
275
15.8
4.7
0.53
0.34
0.20
Waste Treatment
25/09/2012
322
16.3
4.9
0.61
0.35
0.21
Anglesea Caravan
17/05/2011
299
16.3
4.8
0.57
0.35
0.21
Fraser Avenue
5/07/2010
214
28.1
8.5
0.41
0.61
0.37
Pt Road
7/04/2011
218
15.8
4.7
0.42
0.34
0.20
Receptor
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Table F3
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Predicted Concentrations when 99.5th Percentile 24-Hour Average Ground Level Concentrations of PM10 is
Predicted to Occur
Without Background
3
Predicted Concentrations (µg/m )
Hazard Quotient
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
Date
1-hour
24-hour
24-hour
1-hour
24-hour
24-hour
CFA Hut
26/10/2008
0
17.8
5.8
0.00
0.39
0.25
Bald Hills
3/03/2010
145
4.3
1.6
0.28
0.09
0.07
Water Basin
10/02/2011
30
3.2
1.2
0.06
0.07
0.05
Forest Road
1/11/2010
183
2.8
1.0
0.35
0.06
0.04
Scout Camp
24/03/2012
0
5.0
1.9
0.00
0.11
0.08
Primary School
5/02/2011
4
13.3
5.7
0.01
0.29
0.25
Camp Road
29/04/2010
0
10.0
4.6
0.00
0.22
0.20
Community Centre
3/03/2009
2
8.6
3.4
0.00
0.19
0.15
Camp Wilkin
30/01/2010
2
22.6
9.5
0.00
0.49
0.41
Anglesea Surf
26/04/2008
0
6.4
2.5
0.00
0.14
0.11
Waste Treatment
1/07/2010
0
7.4
2.8
0.00
0.16
0.12
Anglesea Caravan
9/01/2012
0
7.1
3.0
0.00
0.15
0.13
Fraser Avenue
10/04/2011
0
36.1
12.6
0.00
0.78
0.55
Pt Road
18/06/2009
0
5.0
2.2
0.00
0.11
0.10
Receptor
Note: Sulphur dioxide is the maximum 1-hour concentration predicted on the specific date.
AS140151
Alcoa of Australia
July 2013
Table F4
Air Emission and HHRA Study, Anglesea Power Station and Coal Mine
Predicted Concentrations when 99.5th Percentile 24-Hour Average Ground Level Concentrations of PM10 is
Predicted to Occur
With Background
3
Predicted Concentrations (µg/m )
Hazard Quotient
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
Date
1-hour
24-hour
24-hour
1-hour
24-hour
24-hour
CFA Hut
26/10/2008
0
33.4
10.4
0.00
0.73
0.45
Bald Hills
3/03/2010
145
19.9
6.2
0.28
0.43
0.27
Water Basin
10/02/2011
30
18.8
5.8
0.06
0.41
0.25
Forest Road
1/11/2010
183
18.4
5.6
0.35
0.40
0.24
Scout Camp
24/03/2012
0
20.6
6.5
0.00
0.45
0.28
Primary School
5/02/2011
4
28.9
10.3
0.01
0.63
0.45
Camp Road
29/04/2010
0
25.6
9.2
0.00
0.56
0.40
Community Centre
3/03/2009
2
24.2
8.0
0.00
0.53
0.35
Camp Wilkin
30/01/2010
2
38.2
14.1
0.00
0.83
0.61
Anglesea Surf
26/04/2008
0
22.0
7.1
0.00
0.48
0.31
Waste Treatment
1/07/2010
0
23.0
7.4
0.00
0.50
0.32
Anglesea Caravan
9/01/2012
0
22.7
7.6
0.00
0.49
0.33
Fraser Avenue
10/04/2011
0
51.7
17.2
0.00
1.12
0.75
Pt Road
18/06/2009
0
20.6
6.8
0.00
0.45
0.30
Receptor
Note: Sulphur dioxide is the maximum 1-hour concentration predicted on the specific date.
AS140151
Similar pages