appendix gs codrilla air quality & greenhouse gas ......air quality & greenhouse gas...

$: Appendix Gs Codrilla Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas ......Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment - Addendum Re port 5843R02V01_draft2 Valkyrie Page 2 of 51 Document Control W:\5800\5843\Reports$
Appendix Gs

Codrilla Air Quality & Greenhouse

Gas Assessment –

Addendum Report

ASK Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

ABN: 55 622 586 522 - ACN: 128 491 967 PO Box 3901, South Brisbane. QLD. 4101.

P: 07-3255-3355 F: 07-3844-7180 W: www.askconsulting.com.au E: [email protected]

Codrilla Coal Mine Project Valkyrie

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment - Addendum Report 5843R02V01_draft2.docx 05/05/2011

Prepared for

Macathur Coal Limited

Codrilla Coal Mine Project - Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment - Addendum Report 5843R02V01_draft2

Valkyrie Page 2 of 51

Document Control

W:\5800\5843\Reports ASK Advice\R02V01_draft - AQ\5843R02V01_draft2.docx

Revision No Date of Issue Method of Issue Status Prepared by Reviewed by

5843R02V01 05/05/2011 Email Draft Dave Claughton Frits Kamst

This report and the copyright thereof are the property of ASK Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (ABN 55 622 586 522). It must not be copied in whole or in part without the written permission of ASK Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd. This report has been produced specifically for the Client and project nominated herein and must not be used or retained for any other purpose. www.askconsulting.com.au



Table of Contents

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Sensitive Locations ............................................................................................................................................... 8

3 Air Quality Environmental Values ........................................................................................................................ 10

4 Existing Environment .................................................................................................................................................... 11

5 Air Quality Modelling ................................................................................................................................................... 12

5.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 12

5.2 Dust Emission Sources and Controls .................................................................................................... 12

5.3 Impacts at Sensitive Receptors .................................................................................................................. 15

5.3.1 PM2.5 ....................................................................................................................................................... 18

5.3.2 PM10 ........................................................................................................................................................ 18

5.3.3 TSP ............................................................................................................................................................ 18

5.3.4 Dust Deposition ................................................................................................................................ 18

5.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................................. 19

6 Dust Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................................... 20

7 GHG & Energy Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 21

7.1 GHG and Energy Emission Factors ......................................................................................................... 21

7.1.1 Liquid Fuel Emissions ...................................................................................................................... 21

7.1.2 Explosive Emissions ......................................................................................................................... 21

7.1.3 Coal Extraction Emissions ........................................................................................................... 21

7.1.4 Consumption of Electricity ......................................................................................................... 22

7.2 GHG & Energy Summary ............................................................................................................................. 22

8 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................ 24

9 References .......................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix A – Proposed Mining Scenarios ............................................................................................................... 26

Appendix B – Emission Estimates .................................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix C – Predicted Dust Contour Levels ...................................................................................................... 33



1 Introduction

ASK Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (ASK) was commissioned by Macarthur Coal Limited (MCL) to prepare an air quality and greenhouse gas addendum report for the Codrilla Coal Mine Project Environmental Impact Study (EIS).

The proposed operation is to be located approximately 55 km east-southeast of Moranbah and 45km to the south-southwest of Nebo, as shown on Figure 1.1.

This addendum report is to be read in conjunction with the original ASK air quality and greenhouse gas report 5001R02V03 dated 20/08/2010. This report is based on latest mine schedule and equipment information provided to ASK, and addresses the Department of Environmental Resource Management’s (DERM) response to the original ASK report. Due to the extent of the modeling and criteria changes, this report is a substantial re-writing of the majority of the original ASK air quality and greenhouse gas report.

Figure 1.1 Approximate Location of Codrilla Coal Mine Project (Source: Google Maps)



2 Project Description

The project information has changed since the original ASK air quality and greenhouse gas report 5001R02V03. This section presents the latest details.

2.1 Project Description

The proposed bulk sample maximum Run of Mine (ROM) is 5.25 Mt per annum of product coal. The life of the mine is proposed to be mined over 16 years.

Mining and processing plant will operate 7 day a week, 24 hours a day. Mining will be open pit using conventional truck and shovel excavation methodology, with potential for future underground activities. The proposed Project infrastructure and pit layout is shown in Figure A.1 to A.3 in Appendix A.

ROM will be hauled to the processing plant via haul roads from the pits. Waste material will be stacked on out of pit waste dumps adjacent to the pits until sufficient room becomes available in the pit at which stage waste will be placed in mined out pit areas. Excavators will load material from the pits into dump trucks for transport to the stockpile. Front end loaders will load the crushed ROM coal into the haul trucks. Road transport trucks will enter the site to load product coal at the coal handling process plant (CHPP) and travel along a haul road between the CHPP and Moorvale Mine for loading onto trains. Associated pieces of equipment such as drills will also be operating at the face. Service vehicles and water trucks will operate on the haul roads. All these sources are included in the model.

The equipment utilisation is included in Table 2.1 as well as the proposed areas of operation and operation hours per year.

The onsite operation can be described as:

Mining 24 hours a day CHPP 24 hours a day Road Transport 24 hours a day Mining Fleet as per Table 2.1 ROM 5.25 Mt per annum Overburden 55,000,000 bcm per annum

Table 2.1 Equipment Utilisation – Maximum Production Year

Type Equipment

Type Model # Location # of Yearly Operational

Hours per Vehicle

Mobile

Excavator PC8000-6 Scheduled to work from existing surface to approx

60m below surface. 2 6300

Excavator RH340B

Scheduled to extract overburden until the

PC8000's are commissioned. Then

2 6300



Type Equipment


Hours per Vehicle

scheduled to work from 60m below surface down

to the pit floor.

Excavator EX2500 Scheduled to only extract coal and partings in pit. 2 6300

Dump Truck

Komatsu 930E

Assumed to work with the PC8000. Taking weathered

material from surface to 60m below surface, to the OB dump and then upper levels of the in-pit dump.

10 5300

Dump Truck

Komatsu 830E

Assumed to work with the RH340's taking OB from the box cut to the OB

dump, then material from 60m below surface to pit floor, to the in-pit dump.

10 5300

Dump Truck Cat 789C

Working with the EX2500's, taking parting

material to the in-pit dump, coal to the ROM area.

8 5300

Drill Reedrill SKSS16

Assumed that the drills will be working in-pit at various

depths. 3 5000

Track Dozer Cat D11T 2 on the OB dump/in-pit dump. 4 In-pit on bulk push 6 5000

Track Dozer Cat D10T 1 On the ROM area, 2 on general duties. 3 5000

Wheel Dozer Cat 854K 2 clean up around the

excavators in-pit. 2 5000

Grader Cat 24M General haul road

maintenance in and around the pit area.

2 5000

Grader Cat 16M General haul road

maintenance in and around the pit area.

1 5000

Water Cart Cat 777 Dust suppression work in and around the pit area. 2 5000

FEL Cat 993 Working on the ROM area only. 1 5000

Service Truck AH400D Mining Lease 2 3000

Light Vehicles Landcruiser Mining Lease 12 2000



Type Equipment


Hours per Vehicle

Coaster Bus TBA Mining Lease 1 2000 Haulage Trucks Highway type Haul route 5 7000

Fixed

CHPP TBA ROM Area 1 7000 Pump TBA ROM Area 1 7000

Lighting TBA ROM Area 22 3500 Diesel

Generator TBA ROM Area 1 500

MIA/Admin TBA ROM Area 1 8000

The CHPP plant consists of the following items:

Primary and Secondary Crushing Stations Washers Pumps Rejects Bin Products Bin

Blasting would be required and would be carried out 70 times per annum with the following characteristics for each blast:

Blast area of 25,000m2 with 312 holes Blast hole width of 0.229m and depth will be a maximum of 35m Stemming Height of 2.0m Maximum Instantaneous Charge (MIC) 39 kg



2.2 Sensitive Locations

The nearest sensitive locations (see Figure 2.1) are summarised in Table 2.2 including the approximate distances from (i) the nearest Pit; and (ii) the main plant.

Table 2.2 Nearest Sensitive Receivers

ID# Location

Location Coordinates

(MGA Zone 55)

Distance from Project

(km)

East North Nearest Pit Main Plant

1 Devlin Creek 643900 7559160 15.3 16.5

2 Lillianvale 662449 7544080 10.0 13.7

3 Regalo 669225 7557374 4.6 8.4

4 Weamber 669791 7560922 7.0 9.4

5 Codrilla 662295 7561679 4.9 4.0

6 Moorpeth 677130 7561795 13.6 16.7

7 School 663004 7559741 2.9 2.8

8 School House 663013 7559613 2.8 2.7

9 Bundarra 657337 7570998 15.1 13.3

10 Iffley 647459 7540146 19.0 21.7

11 Deveril 642062 7548193 18.2 20.5

12 Valkyrie 663554 7568984 12.2 11.3

Note: The Location ID’s listed as L1 to L12 are shown in Figure 3.1 as locations 1 to 12.



Figure 2.1 Monitoring and Sensitive Receiver Locations



3 Air Quality Environmental Values

The proposed air quality criteria has not changed since the original ASK air quality and greenhouse gas report 5001R02V03. A summary of the relevant air quality indicators for particulate emissions is shown in Table 3.1

Table 3.1 Air Quality Criteria

Air Quality Indicator Units Design Ground Level

Averaging Period Source Allowable

Exceedances

Particulate PM2.5 g/m3 25 24 hours

EPP(Air)

8 1 year

Particulate PM10 g/m3 50 24 hours EPP(Air) 5 days

each year

Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) g/m3 90 1 year EPP(Air)

Particles (deposited) g/m2/month 4 30 days DERM



4 Existing Environment

The original ASK air quality and greenhouse gas report 5001R02V03 based background pollutant levels on a literature review of previous Queensland air quality studies in the Bowen Basin.

The studies reviewed were the air quality section from the EIS’s compiled for the Caval Ridge Project, Daunia Mine Project and Millennium Mine Expansion. All reviewed air quality assessments are located within the Bowen Basin and included background dust monitoring for their impact studies. A summary of the background dust levels from by each of the reviewed projects and the proposed background dust levels from the original ASK air quality and greenhouse gas report 5001R02V03 are shown in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 Summary of Background Dust Levels from similar Projects in the Bowen Basin

Project

TSP Annual Average

Concentration(g/m3)

PM10 Concentrations

(g/m3)

PM2.5 Concentrations

(g/m3) Dust Deposition

(g/m2/month)

24hr Average Annual Average

24hr Average

Caval Mine 26.2 18.8 1.6 2.9 1.5 Daunia Mine 20.0 20.0 N/A N/A 4.4* Millennium Mine Expansion 28.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 0.8 Proposed Codrilla Mine 25.0 20.0 3.0 5.0 2.0

Note: N/A – Not applicable due to no PM2.5 assessment undertaken for Daunia Mine study

* – The background dust deposition measurements in the Daunia Mine study exceed the DERM dust deposition limits. Considering the localised nature of dust deposition the elevated background deposition rates may be considered not representative of regional background dust deposition levels.

Based on a comparison with other similar projects the background pollutant levels proposed in the original ASK air quality and greenhouse gas report 5001R02V03 and reproduced in Table 4.1 are considered to be a reasonable representation of the existing air quality in the Bowen Basin.



5 Air Quality Modelling

The air quality modelling has been substantially revised in accordance with the latest scenario and fleet information from Macarthur Coal Limited.

5.1 Methodology

The dust predictions undertaken for this assessment are based on the following:

Dust emissions estimates were based on accepted methods and data consolidated by the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) and the Environmental Protection Agency of The United States of America (USEPA) Shown in Appendix B;

Prediction of input meteorology using TAPM developed by the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. TAPM has a prognostic 3 dimensional meteorological component which can be used to generate hourly meteorological data for input into Gaussian plume models.

Prediction of dust concentrations and depositions with CALPUFF developed by Earth Tech; and

Predicted levels are compared against criteria presented in Section 3.

The modelling scenarios used to predict emissions from the proposed mine include:

Year 1 – As per Section 2.1 and pit cutting face at the eastern end of the eastern pit as shown in Figure A.1 in Appendix A.

Year 6 – As per Section 2.1 and pit cutting face at the western end of the eastern pit as shown in Figure A.2 in Appendix A.

Year 11 – As per Section 2.1 and pit cutting face at the western end of the western pit as shown in Figure A.3 in Appendix A.

The equipment used in the modelling scenarios is included in Table 2.1, which also includes the modelled location of the equipment and the operation of haul trucks on the haul route.

5.2 Dust Emission Sources and Controls

The project operations have been characterised into the main particulate generating activities. This allows the estimation of dust emissions to be undertaken. A particulate emissions summary of the main dust generating activities used as input into the CALPUFF dispersion model for each modelled year is presented in Tables 5.1 to 5.3. Tables 5.1 to 5.3 do not include the dust emission control factors.

Table 5.4 lists the dust suppression techniques/controls to be utilised to reduce particulate emissions, as well as the estimated reduction in the dust emissions.



Table 5.1 Mining Dust Emissions Year 1 (No Control Technology)

Activity TSP

Emissions (kg/yr)

PM10 Emissions

(kg/yr)

PM2.5 Emissions

(kg/yr)

Loading to trucks with Overburden 40,617 19,211 1,345 Loading to trucks with Coal 49,924 23,613 2,834 Bulldozing Coal 166,129 52,729 6,328 Bulldozers on Overburden 43,173 8,498 4,504 Truck Unloading Overburden 40,617 19,211 8,069 Truck Unloading Coal 1,762 834 42 Drilling 12,886 6,770 406 Blasting 49,354 25,664 1,540 Wheel Dust Generation from Unpaved Roads 2,334,496 639,767 63,977 Use of Grader 16,650 7,446 1,042 Plant Activities 19,612 7,921 1,113 Wind Erosion From Stockpiles 13,940 6,970 348 Total 2,789,160 818,634 91,547


Activity TSP

Emissions (kg/yr)

PM10 Emissions

(kg/yr)

PM2.5 Emissions

(kg/yr)





Activity TSP

Emissions (kg/yr)

PM10 Emissions

(kg/yr)

PM2.5 Emissions

(kg/yr)




Table 5.4 Mining Dust Emission Controls (Environment Australia, 2001)

Emission Source Control(s) Utilised Control

Efficiency Applied

Loading to trucks with Overburden No control Utilised 0%Loading to trucks with Coal No control Utilised 0%

Bulldozing Coal No control Utilised 0% Bulldozers on Overburden No control Utilised 0%

Truck Unloading Overburden No control Utilised 0%Truck Unloading Coal No control Utilised 0%

Drilling No control Utilised 0% Blasting No control Utilised 0%

Wheel Dust Generation from Unpaved Roads Watering roads at >2L/m2/hour 75%

Use of Grader No control Utilised 0%

Plant Activities Partially enclosed and Mist sprays on transfer points 75%

Wind Erosion from Stockpiles Progressive Rehabilitation 99%

Also pit retention factors of 50% for TSP and 5% for PM10 were utilised for activities located within the pit.

5.3 Impacts at Sensitive Receptors

The predicted mining case dust concentrations and depositions at the nearest sensitive receptors to the project are shown in Table 5.1, Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 for production years 1, 6 and 11 respectively. For a cumulative assessment against the project air quality criteria the predicted levels include the assumed background levels for dust concentration (TSP, PM10 and PM2.5) and deposition as outlined in Section 4.

The predicted regional results of the CALPUFF dispersion modelling for the project are presented as dust contour plots in Appendix C. The dust contours show the predicted dust concentrations for years 1, 6 and 11 of the proposed Codrilla Project. The predicted dust contours are to visually show the predicted regional influence of the proposed mining operation and do not include the assumed background levels identified in Section 4.

The annual average concentrations are the average of 8760 one hour concentrations, the monthly average concentrations are the average of 720 one hour concentrations while the 24 hour concentration is the 24-hour midnight to midnight concentration. Maximum 24hr averaged concentrations are generally experienced under adverse meteorological conditions when mixing height is reduced due to a winter inversion.



Table 5.3 Predicted Dust Levels for Year 1 of Operation

ID# Location

TSP Annual Average

Concentration

PM10 24h Average Concentration

(g/m3)

PM2.5

Concentrations (g/m3)

Monthly Dust

Deposition

(g/m3) Maximum 6th Highest

Annual Average

24h Average (g/m2/month)

Criterion 90 50 50 8 25 4

1 Devlin Creek 28 28 25 3 6 2

2 Lillianvale 29 33 31 3 7 2

3 Regalo 29 61 47 3 12 2

4 Weamber 28 62 40 3 12 2

5 Codrilla 35 61 50 4 13 2

6 Moorpeth 26 32 25 3 7 2

7 School 43 93 68 4 18 3

8 School House 43 96 69 4 18 3

9 Bundarra 27 26 25 3 6 2

10 Iffley 26 23 22 3 6 2

11 Deveril 26 25 23 3 6 2

12 Valkyrie 27 37 29 3 8 2


ID# Location

TSP Annual Average

Concentration


(g/m3)

PM2.5


Monthly Dust

Deposition


Annual Average


Criterion 90 50 50 8 25 4

1 Devlin Creek 28 29 25 3 7 2

2 Lillianvale 29 34 30 3 8 2

3 Regalo 28 55 35 3 12 2

4 Weamber 28 45 37 3 9 2

5 Codrilla 35 60 50 4 11 2

6 Moorpeth 26 29 25 3 7 2

7 School 42 85 66 4 15 2



ID# Location

TSP Annual Average

Concentration


(g/m3)

PM2.5


Monthly Dust

Deposition


Annual Average


Criterion 90 50 50 8 25 4

8 School House 42 84 65 4 15 2

9 Bundarra 27 29 25 3 7 2

10 Iffley 26 24 23 3 6 2

11 Deveril 27 25 24 3 6 2

12 Valkyrie 27 35 30 3 8 2


ID# Location

TSP Annual Average

Concentration


(g/m3)

PM2.5


Monthly Dust

Deposition


Annual Average


Criterion 90 50 50 8 25 4

1 Devlin Creek 29 33 26 3 7 2

2 Lillianvale 27 33 28 3 7 2

3 Regalo 26 41 31 3 9 2

4 Weamber 27 35 31 3 8 2

5 Codrilla 32 72 51 3 13 2

6 Moorpeth 25 27 23 3 6 2

7 School 35 129 79 4 21 2

8 School House 35 126 73 4 21 2

9 Bundarra 27 30 26 3 7 2

10 Iffley 26 28 24 3 7 2

11 Deveril 27 26 24 3 6 2

12 Valkyrie 27 34 29 3 8 2



5.3.1 PM2.5

The predicted annual average PM2.5 concentrations are below the EPP(Air) guideline value of 8 g/m3 for all locations during all three modelled years (refer to Table 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3) .

The predicted maximum annual average PM2.5 concentration is 4 g/m3, which occurs at Locations 5, 7 and 8 during years 1 and 6.

The predicted highest PM2.5 24-hour concentrations are below the EPP(Air) guideline value of 25 g/m3 for all locations during all three modelled years (refer to Table 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3)

The highest predicted PM2.5 24-hour concentration is 21 g/m3, which occurs at Locations 7 and 8 during year 11.

5.3.2 PM10

The predicted maximum 24hr average PM10 concentrations are below the EPP(Air) guideline value of 50 g/m3 for all locations during all three modelled years (refer to Table 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3) except at Locations 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 during year 1, Locations 3, 5, 7 and 8 during year 6 and Locations 5, 7 and 8 during year 11.

The predicted maximum 24hr average PM10 concentration is 129 g/m3, which occurs at Locations 7 during year 11 operations.

The predicted 6th highest 24hr average PM10 concentrations are below the EPP(Air) guideline value of 50 g/m3 for all locations during all three modelled years (refer to Table 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3) except at Locations 7 and 8 during years 1 and 6 and Locations 5, 7 and 8 during year 11.

The predicted maximum 6th highest 24hr average PM10 concentration is 79 g/m3, which occurs at Locations 7 during year 11 operations.

5.3.3 TSP

The predicted annual average TSP concentrations are below the EPP(Air) guideline value of 90 g/m3 for all locations during all three modelled years (refer to Table 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3) .

The predicted maximum annual average TSP concentration is 43 g/m3, which occurs at Locations 7 and 8 during year 1.

5.3.4 Dust Deposition

The predicted monthly dust deposition rates are below the EPP(Air) guideline value of 4 g/m2/month for all locations during all three modelled years (refer to Table 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3) .

The predicted maximum monthly dust deposition rate is 3 g/m3, which occurs at Locations 7 and 8 during year 1.



5.4 Discussion

It is noted that the annual concentration and deposition limits are predicted to be generally met at sensitive locations. Therefore the long term impact of the proposed mine may be considered to be acceptable.

Short term (24 hour) PM10 concentrations are predicted to exceed the PM10 criterion. This means that while for most days of the year the impacts are acceptable, from time to time 24 hour concentrations are predicted to be exceeded. These would predominantly be associated with specific weather conditions, such as being downwind of the mine on a winter’s night, when the dispersive capacity of the atmosphere is limited.

To minimise dust impacts at sensitive receivers, the options are as follows:

Apply additional dust mitigation measures to the mining operations. Dust mitigation measures are discussed further in Section 6.

Relocate dwellings at receivers 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 further away from the mine footprint such that the resulting dust levels are compliant.

Once the mine is operational the following steps should be undertaken:

24hr average PM10 dust monitoring is to be undertaken at sensitive receivers 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, unless otherwise relocated, or any other receiver from where a non-vexatious dust complaint is received. Results from this monitoring should be compared against the dust limits in the Environmental Authority. Care should be taken to ensure that measurement levels are representative of dust from the Codrilla mining operations, and are not from regional or localized events (e.g. dust storm, bushfire, non mining vehicles on dirt roads, etc). Measurement results should be reported in conjunction with weather data.

Given the range of potential meteorological conditions and therefore the range in predicted dust levels, it is likely that several monitoring periods would be required to establish compliance or exceedance. This is generally the case with environmental dust, as the dust transportation variations can be significant occurring over long periods of time (e.g. seasonal variations). Thus any dust monitoring to determine compliance or otherwise should be conducted over a minimum 7 day period and may be required to be conducted over several seasons.

Should dust levels indicate exceedances then a mitigation strategy should be developed, using the guidance provided in Section 6.



6 Dust Mitigation Measures

To reduce the likely hood of complaints and the dust impacts on the surrounding environment, the following additional dust mitigation measures could be undertaken in addition to those identified in section .

Enclosure of conveyor transfer points; Misting sprays on conveyor transfer points and crushing stations; Watering of product stockpiles to maintain a relatively high moisture content (>7%) Increase moisture content of active stockpiles with temporary water sprayers; If dust levels are shown to be in exceedance of EPP (Air) air quality objectives at sensitive

receivers then scaling down of mining operations may be required during adverse meteorological conditions.

All engineering dust mitigation measures implemented are required to be maintained and in good working order for the life of the mine.



7 GHG & Energy Summary

The Greenhouse Gas and energy emission calculations have been revised in accordance with the latest scenario and fleet information from Macarthur Coal Limited.

7.1 GHG and Energy Emission Factors

7.1.1 Liquid Fuel Emissions

Diesel fuel will be used by mining equipment during operations. Light vehicles and pumps as well as lighting will also consume diesel.

Estimates of annual diesel use by the plant/equipment have been supplied to ASK and are 47,158 kL for mobile equipment and 17.5 kL for stationary equipment. Emission factors for liquid fuel consumption are shown in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1: Diesel Emission Factors

Fuel Type Energy Content

(GJ/kL)

Scope 1 Emission Factor

(kg CO2-e/GJ)

Diesel (stationary) 38.6 69.2

Diesel (mobile) 38.6 69.2

7.1.2 Explosive Emissions

The combustion of fossil fuels within explosives proposed to be used in the mining process will result in emissions of greenhouse gases. As the explosives are manufacturing onsite emission factors are base on the consumption of material to make Ammonium Nitrate/Fuel Oil (ANFO) and Emulsion blast products. Emission factors are based on the fuel oil content of ANFO and are taken as stationary emissions from Table 7.1. Quantities of fuel oil in the manufacturing process are based on a 5.7% of ratio of fuel oil. The annual consumption of fuel oil to make ANFO would be 57.1 kL.

7.1.3 Coal Extraction Emissions

Open-pit coal extraction releases gaseous emission. In addition energy production is based on the energy potential of the product coal. ASK have been informed that the production black coal would be 4.05 Mt per annum.

Emission factors associated with production of black coal are shown in Table 7.2.



Table 7.2: Coal Extraction Emission Factors

Fuel Type Energy Content

(GJ/t)

Scope 1 Emission Factor

Qld

(t CO2-e/t ROM Coal)

Black Coal 27.0 0.017

7.1.4 Consumption of Electricity

Consumption of purchased electricity is to occur in order to power the processing plant. ASK has been provided information regarding the consumption of purchased electricity being 31,575,000 kWh.

Emission factors associated with consumption of purchased electricity are shown in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3: Consumption of Purchased Electricity Emission Factors

State, Territory or grid description Scope 2

Emission factor

(kg CO2-e/kWh)

Queensland 0.89

7.2 GHG & Energy Summary

The emission factors outlined in Section 7.2 have been used to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions for the life of the bulk sample project. Table 7.4 summarises the emissions expressed as kilo-tonnes of CO2 equivalent and energy expressed as terajoules (TJ).



Table 7.4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary

Year Source Type Quantity

Scope 1 Scope 2

CO2-e kt

Energy Cons.

TJ

Energy Prod.

TJ

CO2-e kt

Energy Cons.

TJ

Prod. Year

Liquid Fuel

Diesel - MobilekL 47,158

195.5 1823.2 109,350 28.1 113.7

Diesel - StationarykL 17.5

ANFO Diesel -Stationary

kL 57.1

Energy Consumption

TJ 1823.2

Purchased Electricity

Qld kWh 31,575,000

Coal

ROM Mt 4.05

Energy ProductionTJ 109,350

Total

CO2-e kt 223.1

Energy Consumption TJ 1936.8

Production TJ 109,350

The Project as shown in Table 7.4 is estimated to consume annual maximum energy of 1936.8 TJ. Through the extraction of coal energy production is estimated to be 109,350 TJ.

Project is expected to generate annual emissions of 223.1 kt CO2-e (see Table 7.4). The annual maximum emissions represent a contribution of less than 0.12% to the reported QLD greenhouse gas emissions in 2007 (DCC, 2009a) and less than 0.04% of Australia’s reported greenhouse emissions in 2008 (DCC, 2009b).



8 Conclusions

ASK Consulting Engineers has undertaken an air quality and greenhouse gas assessment based on the latest proposed operation at the proposed Codrilla Coal Mine, Valkyrie. ASK has also addressed the issues raised by DERM regarding the previous EIS report prepared by ASK for Codrilla Coal mine and has implemented the recommendations from those comments into this addendum report accordingly.

The air pollutant impacts from the project were assessed against typical DERM dust deposition guidelines and Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 goals with the following results:

The predicted PM2.5 concentrations are within acceptable guidelines; The maximum 24hr average PM10 concentrations meet the acceptable guidelines at all

locations except at receivers 3-Regalo, 4-Weamber, 5-Codrilla, 7-School & 8-School House; The 6th Highest 24hr average PM10 concentrations meet the acceptable guidelines at all

locations except at receivers 5-Codrilla, 7-School & 8-School House; The predicted TSP concentrations are within acceptable guidelines; and The predicted dust deposition rates are within acceptable guidelines.

In addition to the above findings, a range of recommendations and mitigation options have been presented within Sections 5 and 6 of the report.

Please contact the undersigned with any queries on 07 3255 3355.

Yours faithfully

ASK Consulting Engineers

Dave Claughton

Project Engineer



9 References

ACARP (1999), Fine Dust and the Implications for the Coal Industry, Report C7009. Department of Climate Change (2007), National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra. Department of Climate Change (2008a), National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Regulations 2008. Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra. Department of Climate Change (2008b), National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Guidelines. Department of Climate Change, Canberra. Department of Climate Change (2008c), National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors November 2008. Department of Climate Change, Canberra. Department of Climate Change (2009a), State and Territory Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2007. Department of Climate Change, Canberra. Department of Climate Change (2009b), National Greenhouse Gas Inventory accounting for the KYOTO target May 2009. Department of Climate Change, Canberra. Department of Climate Change (2010). National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System Measurement Technical Guidelines for the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions by facilities in Australia, June 2010, Department of Climate Change, Canberra EPA (2007), Queensland 2007 air monitoring report. Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. EPA (2008), Environmental Protection Air Policy, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. Environment Australia (1999), National Pollutant Inventory Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Fugitive Emissions. Environment Australia (2001), National Pollutant Inventory Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining Version 2.3. National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC) (2003). National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra. Scire J, Strimaitis D, Yamartino R (2000a), A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5). Earth Tech Inc., Concord. USEPA (1999), Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, EPA AP-42, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, 7th Ed.



Appendix A – Proposed Mining Scenarios

East Pit Mining Progression – Year 1

East Pit Mining Progression – Year 6

West Pit Mining Progression – Year 11



Appendix B – Emission Estimates

Emission rate estimation equations for significant dust generating activities are provided below.

Transfer Points

0.0016 2.2

2

. /

Where: E = Emission factor k = Particle size multiplier (0.74 for TSP and 0.35 for PM10) U = Mean wind speed (m/s) M = Soil moisture content (%)

Coal Loading by Shovel or Front End Loader

0.0596

. /

Where: E = Emission factor k = Particle size multiplier (1.56 for TSP and 0.74 for PM10) M = Soil moisture content (%)

Bulldozing Coal

TSP

35.6 .

. /

PM10

6.33 .

. /

Where: E = Emission factor s = Material silt content (%) M = Soil moisture content (%)



Bulldozing Overburden

TSP

2.6 .

. /

PM10

0.45 .

. /

Where: E = Emission factor s = Material silt content (%) M = Soil moisture content (%)

Drilling

Emission rate factors of 0.59 kg/hole for TSP and 0.31 kg/hole for PM10 as outlined in the NPI emission estimation technique manual.

Blasting

344 .

. . /

Where: E = Emission factor A = Area blasted (m2) M = Soil moisture content (%) D = Depth of the blast holes (m)

Wheel Dust Generation from Unpaved Roads

12 3 /

Where: E = Emission factor k = Constant (4.9 for TSP and 1.5 for PM10) a = Constant (0.7 for TSP and 0.9 for PM10) b = Constant (0.45 for TSP and 0.45 for PM10) s = Material silt content (%) W = mean vehicle weight (tons) Note – lb/VMT was converted to kg/VKT by multiplying lb/VMT by 0.2819



Use of Grader

0.0034 /

Where: E = Emission factor k = Constant (2.5 for TSP and 2.0 for PM10) S = Mean Vehicle Speed (km/hr)

Miscellaneous Transfer and Conveying

0.0016 2.2

.

2

.

/

Where: E = Emission factor k = Constant (0.74 for TSP and 0.35 for PM10) U = Mean wind speed (m/s) M = Material moisture content (%)

Wind Erosion from Active Stockpiles

1.9 1.5

365 365

235

15 / /

Where: E = Emission factor k = Constant (0.74 for TSP and 0.35 for PM10) U = Mean wind speed (m/s) M = Material moisture content (%)



Appendix C – Predicted Dust Contour Levels

Codrilla Coal Mine Project - Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment - Addendum Report 5843R02V01_draft2.docx


appendix gs codrilla air quality & greenhouse gas ......air quality & greenhouse gas...

Documents