appendix h odour assessment - amazon s3 · 2020. 1. 24. · the odour unit pty ltd l&g meats pty...

Works Approval Application

Client Confidential Ref: 30637_L&G Meats_WAA_Final_4Dec19 Issue Number 1

Ricardo Energy Environment & Planning

Appendix H Odour Assessment

PLC RDTText Box

L & G MEATS PTY LTD

Proposed Protein Recovery FacilityComplex –

Odour Impact Assessment Study

Parwan, Victoria

Final ReportVersion 2

December 2019

THE ODOUR UNIT PTY LTD

L &G MEATS PTY LTDPROPOSED PROTEIN RECOVERY FACILITY COMPLEX - ODOUR IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDYFINAL REPORT: DECEMBER 2019

PAGE | II


ABN 53 091 165 061ACN 091 165 061

Level 3 Suite 12 56 Church Avenue

MASCOT, NSW 2020

P: +61 2 9209 4420F: + 61 2 9209 4421

E: [email protected]: www.odourunit.com.au

This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. This document should not be used or copied without written authorisation from L & G MEATS PTY LTD and THE ODOUR UNIT PTY LTD.

Project Number: N2256R.01

Report Revision

Report Version Date Description

Draft report v0 31.11.2019 Additions, updates and internal review

Final report v1 07.11.2019 Issued to client

Final report v2 02.12.2019 Inclusion of wastewater treatment plant

Report Preparation

Report Prepared By:T. Schulz, M. Assal & S. Hayes

Approved By:M. Assal

Report Title: L & G Meats Pty Ltd – Proposed Protein Recovery Facility Complex -Odour Impact Assessment Study – Final Report: December 2019

http://www.odourunit.com.au/mailto:[email protected]



PAGE | III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In March 2019, The Odour Unit Pty Ltd was engaged by L & G Meats Pty Ltd (L & G Meats) to develop a concept design for an odour control system (OCS) and prepare an odour impact assessment study (OIAS) for the proposed protein recovery facility complex at the Moorabool Agribusiness Industrial Park, Parwan, Victoria (the Proposed Facility).

It is planned that the Proposed Facility will ultimately consist of a total of three (3) self-contained protein recovery plants, each treating a specific feedstock (red meat, white meat and fish), configured as five (5) discrete facilities, housed in three (3) separate buildings as shown in Figure 1.2. The configuration for the overall Proposed Facility will be as follows:

1. Phase 1:

a. Building 1A – Bovine Processing;

b. Building 1B – Ovine Processing;

2. Phase 2:

a. Building 3 – Fish Processing;

b. Building 2A – Poultry Processing; and

c. Building 2B – Poultry Feather Processing.

The focus of this OIAS is Phase 1, consisting of Building 1A and Building 1B. It is planned to treat effluent from the Proposed Facility with an on-site wastewater treatment system (WTS) prior to discharge off-site.

OCS Concept Design, Control and Management

The following is a summary and commentary surrounding the OCS for the Proposed Facility, which will be based on a hybrid of the ‘full capture’ and ‘split-system’ odour control design:

▪ The full capture system consists of air intakes within the building to capture all internal air and maintain a negative pressure environment inside the building. This type of system is proposed for the raw materials receival room in each of the proposed plants. Under a full capture system, there will be no direct or fugitive discharge of untreated air to the atmosphere from this area. For the Proposed Facility, the raw materials receival room will incorporate a full capture system design that will be ventilated at a rate of four (4) air changes per hour and treated by a biofilter system;



PAGE | IV

▪ The split system design, developed by TOU, represents best practice in the protein recovery industry and is used widely in Australia. This system design features more than 90% odour capture at individual process odour sources and treats the captured odour in a biofilter system. The building will also be fitted with roof-mounted exhaust fans that enhances vertical dispersion of building ventilation airflow. A split system odour control system is proposed for the remaining operational rooms within each plant, including the main processing rooms and the meal processing and storage rooms. The main process rooms and the meal processing and storage rooms will be ventilated at a rate of at least fifteen (15) air changes per hour;

▪ Both of the above OCS design configurations represent best-practice for protein recovery/rendering plant operations in Australia; and

▪ All captured raw materials receival room air and point source capture from the main processing room will pass through a biofilter system, which has been designed to ensure all foul odour character from the airstreams is removed prior to atmospheric discharge

The OIAS is based on the discussed OCS concept design for the Proposed Facility.

Odour Dispersion Modelling Approach

The odour dispersion modelling component of the OIAS was conducted in accordance with the following Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA VIC) guideline documents:

▪ Victoria Government Gazette, State Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality Management), 2001;

▪ EPA VIC Publication number 1518 – Recommended separation distances for industrial residual air emissions;

▪ EPA VIC Publication 1551 – Revision 6 February 2015 – Guidance notes for using the regulatory air pollution model AERMOD in Victoria; and

▪ EPA VIC Publication 1550 Revision 3 September 2014 – Guideline –Construction of input meteorological data files for EPA Victoria’s regulatory air pollution model AERMOD.

Moreover, an Odour Environment Risk Assessment (Odour ERA) has been carried out with regards to proximity of nearby sensitive land uses and with use of the risk assessment matrix provided in the Discussion Paper Broiler Farm Odour Environmental Risk Assessment, EPA VIC, 2012 (Broiler Farm Odour ERA).

Odour Dispersion Modelling Findings

The odour dispersion modelling for Phase 1 of the Proposed Facility under the discussed odour control system design in the OIAS indicates the following:



PAGE | V

▪ The dispersion modelling conducted in the OIAS has found that the design odour criterion of 1 ou, 3-minute average, 99.9th percentile ground level concentration at the Proposed Facility plant boundary has been exceeded for all modelled years. As such, an Odour ERA has been undertaken as part of the OIAS for the Proposed Facility. Note: all modelled emissions have been assumed as continuous (i.e. 24 hours, 7 days);

▪ The odour impact predictions are largely contained within the proposed Parwan Industrial Precinct, including from the biofilter system and roof ventilation fans servicing the main processing and the meal processing and storage rooms;

▪ At the three receptors to the northwest along Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road, the odour impact predictions are favourable and indicate the adverse odour impact risk is low;

▪ An Odour ERA has been carried out with regards to proximity of nearby sensitive land uses and with use of the risk assessment matrix (Table 5.1) provided in theBroiler Farm Odour ERA;

▪ The Odour ERA for the process emissions indicated that the most affected sensitive receptor was predicted to be Receptor #1 based upon 2017 meteorology. It was found, for a five-year average, that 1 ou would be exceeded six times per annum, which is considered low risk;

▪ The Odour ERA for the treated emissions indicated that the most affected sensitive receptor was predicted to be Receptor #2 based upon 2014 meteorology. It was found, for a five-year average, that 1 ou would be exceeded twice every five years, which is considered low risk;

▪ It is found that the surrounding land use is mostly farming, with an adjacent comprehensive development and public use – service & utility. As such, the landuse is suitable for the activities by the Proposed Facility; and

▪ The Proposed Facility location meets the recommended separation distance of 1,000 m for “rendering” operations.

Process Upset Conditions

The OIAS has also considered potential process upset conditions that could affect off-Site odour impacts from the Proposed Facility. The potential upset conditions will be examined, and remedial actions developed. The resultant remedial actions plan (provided in Section 6 the OIAS) provides a highly effective means of ensuring sustainable performance from the OCS. The details of the remedial actions will be covered by a site-specific OMP and the OCS Operating Manual for the Proposed Facility.



PAGE | VI

Concluding Remark Regarding Phase 1

The OIAS indicates that the Proposed Facility will be compatible and beneficial land use for the area. The OCS design for the Proposed Facility is industry best practice for the management of odour emissions from protein recovery operations in Australia. The OIAS suggests that the odour impact risk from the Proposed Facility is low and the requirements of the relevant EPA VIC guidelines will be satisfied.

Concluding Remark Regarding Phase 2

Phase 2 of the Proposed Facility will be identical in concept for the management and control of odour emissions and have similar design objectives to Phase 1.



PAGE | VII

CONTENTS1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 11.1 Locality .............................................................................................................. 11.2 Description of Site Location ............................................................................... 11.3 Protein Recovery Facility ................................................................................... 11.3.1 Overview of Process Operations ....................................................................... 21.4 HTR Processing................................................................................................. 22 ODOUR CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN OPTIONS......................................................... 62.1 Preface .............................................................................................................. 62.2 Selection of Odour Control Technology ............................................................. 62.3 Odour Control System Concept Options............................................................ 62.3.1 Split System....................................................................................................... 72.3.2 Full Capture System .......................................................................................... 72.3.3 Hybrid Split System/Full Capture System .......................................................... 82.4 OCS Concept at the Proposed Facility .............................................................. 82.4.1 WTS................................................................................................................... 92.4.2 OCS Concept Design Details ............................................................................ 92.5 Existing Split System Plants ............................................................................ 102.5.1 Overview.......................................................................................................... 102.5.2 Examples of Existing Split System Plants........................................................ 112.6 Technical Design Details ................................................................................. 112.6.1 Design Options and Airflows............................................................................ 112.6.2 Biofilter Fan(s) ................................................................................................. 122.6.3 Ducting ............................................................................................................ 122.6.4 The Biofilter ..................................................................................................... 122.6.5 Foul Air Humidification and Bed Moisture Control ........................................... 172.6.6 Roof Fan Ventilation System ........................................................................... 172.6.7 Receival Room Extraction System................................................................... 182.6.8 OCS Process Control and Monitoring.............................................................. 182.6.9 Expected Odour Mitigation Performance ......................................................... 183 ODOUR DISPERSION MODELLING METHOD........................................................... 203.1 Victorian General Odour Design Criterion ....................................................... 203.2 Recommended Separation Distances ............................................................. 203.3.1 Selection of Alternative Rural Odour Assessment Criteria............................... 223.4.1 Land Use Configuration ................................................................................... 233.4.2 Meteorological Configuration ........................................................................... 233.5 Dispersion Model Configuration....................................................................... 343.5.1 Background Concentrations ............................................................................ 343.5.2 Odour Source Emissions Estimation and Assumptions ................................... 343.5.3 Odour Source and Emission Rate Input .......................................................... 343.5.4 Volume source approximation of area sources................................................ 343.5.5 Gridded and Discrete Receptors...................................................................... 383.5.6 Building Wake Effects, Terrain and Other Parameters .................................... 384 ODOUR DISPERSION MODELLING RESULTS.......................................................... 404.1 Process Emissions Modelling Results ............................................................. 404.2 Treated Emissions Modelling Results.............................................................. 404.3 Modelling Plot Predictions ............................................................................... 404.3.1 AERMOD Rank File Tables ............................................................................. 41



PAGE | VIII

5 ODOUR MODELLING FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS...................................................... 435.1 Modelling Findings........................................................................................... 435.2 Odour Environmental Risk Assessment .......................................................... 435.2.1 Risk Assessment – Process Emissions ........................................................... 435.2.2 Risk Assessment – Treated Emissions............................................................ 435.3 Land Use Analysis ........................................................................................... 436 OCS MANAGEMENT UNDER UPSET CONDITIONS.................................................. 477 OIAS FINDINGS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS ...................................................... 497.1 OCS Concept Design, Control and Management Findings.............................. 497.2 Odour Dispersion Modelling Findings .............................................................. 497.3 Process Upset Conditions ............................................................................... 507.4 Concluding Remark Regarding Phase 1.......................................................... 507.5 Concluding Remark regarding Phase 2 ........................................................... 50REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 51REPORT SIGNATURE PAGE............................................................................................ 52

FIGURES, PHOTOS AND TABLES

FIGURES

Figure 1.1 – A master plan of the Parwan Industrial Precinct....................................... 3Figure 1.2 – Master plan of the Proposed Facility ........................................................ 4Figure 1.3 – WTS master plan for the Proposed Facility .............................................. 5Figure 2.1 - Nominal location of the ventilation roof fans (in green) for Building 1A and 1B at the Proposed Facility......................................................................................... 15Figure 2.2 – Nominal location and configuration of the biofilter system (in red) for Building 1A and 1B at the Proposed Facility............................................................... 16Figure 3.1 – EPA VIC default minimum separation distance for rendering and casings works .......................................................................................................................... 21Figure 3.2 – Refined land use tile for AERSURFACE ................................................ 23Figure 3.3 – Wind rose and frequency distribution 2014 ............................................ 26Figure 3.4 – Wind rose and frequency distribution 2015 ............................................ 27Figure 3.5 – Wind rose and frequency distribution 2016 ............................................ 28Figure 3.6 – Wind rose and frequency distribution 2017 ............................................ 29Figure 3.7 – Wind rose and frequency distribution 2018 ............................................ 30Figure 3.8 – Monthly temperature range and diurnal daytime mixing height range for 2014 and 2015 ........................................................................................................... 31Figure 3.9 – Monthly temperature range and diurnal daytime mixing height range for 2016 and 2017 ........................................................................................................... 32Figure 3.10 – Monthly temperature range and diurnal daytime mixing height range for 2018 ........................................................................................................................... 33Figure 3.11 – Point source, volume source and building arrangement of the Proposed Facility ........................................................................................................................ 37Figure 3.12 – Modelling domain terrain contour map ................................................. 39Figure 4.1 – Ground level odour concentration plot from the Proposed Facility ......... 42Figure 5.1 – Land use map for the Proposed Facility ................................................. 46



PAGE | IX

PHOTOS

Photo 2.1 - Rendering Plant Biofilter and Humidifier .................................................. 13

TABLES

Table 2.1 – Performance data of existing and similar Keith Engineering HTR plants. 10Table 3.1 – Odour source emissions estimation and assumptions............................. 35Table 3.2 – Point source and emission rate input....................................................... 36Table 3.3 – Volume source and emission rate input................................................... 36Table 3.4 – Discrete receptor locations and elevations .............................................. 38Table 4.1 – Process emissions 9th ranked concentration at discrete receptors .......... 40Table 4.2 – Treated emissions 9th ranked concentration at discrete receptors........... 40Table 5.1 - Risk assessment matrix (Source: EPA Victoria, 2012)............................. 44Table 5.2 - Risk assessment result for the process emissions impact at most affected Receptor #1................................................................................................................ 45Table 5.3 - Risk assessment result for the treated emissions impact at most affected Receptor #2................................................................................................................ 45Table 6.1 - OCS upset condition management plan for the Proposed Facility ........... 48



PAGE | X

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & DEFINITIONS

BPIP Building Profile Input Program

Broiler Farm Odour ERA Discussion Paper ‘Broiler Farm Odour Environmental Risk Assessment’, EPA VIC, 2012

DEM digital elevation model

EBRT empty bed residence time

EPA VIC Environment Protection Authority Victoria

HTR High-Temperature Rendering

IRAEs industrial residual air emissions

km kilometres

kPa kilopascals

L & G Meats L & G Meats Pty Ltd

m metres

m/s metres per second

m3/h cubic metres per hour

m3/s cubic metres per second

NCG non-condensable gases

OCS odour control system

Odour ERA Odour Environmental Risk Assessment

OER odour emission rate (or odorant flow rate)

OIAS Odour Impact Assessment Study

OMP Odour Management Plan

OT Plant Odour Treatment Plant

ou odour units

ou.m3/s odour units per cubic metre per second

Pa pascals



PAGE | XI

Publication 1518 EPA VIC, 2018, Recommended separation distances for industrial residual air emissions, Publication 1518

Publication 1550 EPA VIC, 2014 – Guideline – Construction of input meteorological data files for EPA Victoria’s regulatory air pollution model AERMOD, Revision 3, Publication 1550

Publication 1551EPA VIC, 2015, Guidance notes for using the regulatory air pollution model AERMOD in Victoria, Revision 6, Publication 1551

RHrelative humidity

SCADAsupervisory control and data acquisition

SEPP (AQM) State Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality Management)

SRTMShuttle Radar Topography Mission

TAPMThe Air Pollution Model

the Proposed Facility The proposed protein recovery facility complex at the Moorabool Agribusiness Industrial Park, Parwan, Victoria

TOU The Odour Unit Pty Ltd

US EPA United States Environment Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological Survey

VSD variable speed drive

WTS wastewater treatment system



PAGE | 1

1 INTRODUCTION

In March 2019, The Odour Unit Pty Ltd was engaged by L & G Meats Pty Ltd (L & G Meats) to develop a concept design for an odour control system (OCS) and prepare an odour impact assessment study (OIAS) for the proposed protein recovery facility complex at the Moorabool Agribusiness Industrial Park, Parwan, Victoria (the Proposed Facility). 1.1 LOCALITYThe Proposed Facility will be located on the land parcel of 3922 Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road, Parwan, which is approximately 7 kilometres (km) to the south of the Bacchus Marsh Railway Station and is bounded by the Geelong-Bacchus Marsh Road (west), Nerowie Road (south) and Parwan South Road (east). The land parcel is being earmarked for rezoning as an industrial and resource recovery precinct. 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF SITE LOCATION

The Proposed Facility is part of an agribusiness industrial precinct that will consist of an abattoir, manufacturing, storage and distribution. The master plan is shown in Figure 1.1. 1.3 PROTEIN RECOVERY FACILITYIt is planned that the Proposed Facility will ultimately consist of a total of three (3) self-contained protein recovery plants, each treating a specific feedstock (red meat, white meat and fish), configured as five (5) discrete facilities, housed in three (3) separate buildings as shown in Figure 1.2. The configuration for the overall Proposed Facility will be as follows:

1. Phase 1:

a. Building 1A – Bovine Processing;

b. Building 1B – Ovine Processing;

2. Phase 2:

a. Building 3 – Fish Processing;

b. Building 2A – Poultry Processing; and

c. Building 2B – Poultry Feather Processing.

The focus of this OIAS is Phase 1, consisting of Building 1A and Building 1B. It is planned to treat effluent from the Proposed Facility with an on-site wastewater treatment system (WTS) prior to discharge off-site. The proposed WTS layout is illustrated in Figure 1.3.



PAGE | 2

1.3.1 Overview of Process OperationsThe protein recovery processing system that will be utilised for Building 1A and Building 1B at the Proposed Development will be high-temperature rendering (HTR), with equipment supplied by Keith Engineering Pty Ltd. TOU is very familiar with this company and its rendering equipment, having designed biofilter-based odour control systems at several new plants and retrofitted systems to existing plants since 2001. The odour emission estimations used in the OIAS are based on actual testing results from very similar plants to that being proposed. The proposed design for the biofilter system has been proven to be effective at these plants, as will be described in the OIAS.

The Phase 1 Ovine and Bovine plants will operate initially as ‘service rendering’ plants, where all raw materials will be sourced externally from abattoirs across Victoria and possibly beyond. This will involve the transport of these raw materials to the Proposed Facility and a subsequent delay in processing, when compared to similar rendering plants receiving raw materials from an integrated abattoir. This transport delay could result in raw materials being more odorous than fresh material, despite the bulk of the material being refrigerated during transport. The design of the odour control system proposed for the plants at the Proposed Facility has taken the condition of the raw materials into account, as will be described in this OIAS (see Section 2.3.3). The proposed future construction of an abattoir as part of the Parwan Industrial Precinct may improve the quality of the raw materials.1.4 HTR PROCESSING

In simple terms, high-temperature rendering involves a series of unit operations that are designed to stabilise proteins and fats in the raw material and separate the protein and fat/tallow products from the water phase by cooking and physical separation. A typical process would involve receival of raw materials, size reduction, continuous cooking at atmospheric pressure, condensation of cooking vapours, separation of solid meat meal from liquid tallow, further size reduction and clarification stages, prior to storage and load-out of meal and tallow products.

The HTR rendering process is particularly suitable for use in a service rendering application because the bulk of the odorous volatile compounds in the raw materials will exit, as steamy emissions, from the cooker and partition to both the condenser condensate and the non-condensable gas (NCG) airstream from the condenser. The NCG stream is captured and treated in the biofilter-based OCS. The condensate is treated in the wastewater system. Any process odour emissions from those protein recovery/rendering processes downstream of the cooker will be comparable in intensity, character and emission rate to that from an equivalent non-service rendering plant.



PAGE | 3

Figure 1.1 – A master plan of the Parwan Industrial Precinct



PAGE | 4

Figure 1.2 – Master plan of the Proposed Facility



PAGE | 5

Figure 1.3 – WTS master plan for the Proposed Facility



PAGE | 6

2 ODOUR CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN OPTIONS

2.1 PREFACE

The application of HTR is known to release large amounts of heat into the rendering building, and generate highly odorous process airstreams that, if not captured and treated, can cause adverse odour impacts several kilometres from the plant. For operator comfort and safety, a minimum ventilation rate through the building is required, typically expressed as ‘air changes per hour’. Without an adequate ventilation rate, plant operators will invariably keep open the large vehicle access doorways, resulting in ground-level, fugitive odour emissions that disperse poorly. Dependent on the local climate, a minimum of fifteen (15) air exchanges per hour is regarded as the minimum rate, 20 exchanges/hr in warm areas, with even higher rates as the target in very hot climates.2.2 SELECTION OF ODOUR CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

In the protein recovery industry, there is a range of odour control technologies that can be adopted. In Australia, a well proven and effective odour control technology is the use of biofiltration, which is industry best practice and best available technology for the rendering/protein recovery industry. Biofiltration involves the biological oxidation of odorous compounds in the foul air stream to non-odorous end products. The process typically occurs in a bed of organic bark and/or compost material, moistened to encourage the growth and sustenance of micro-organisms. A single passage of foul air through an adequately designed biofilter bed is sufficient for effective odour removal. Biofilters typically remove all of the odour character from the untreated air stream, substituting it with a mild odour from the organic medium. This odour is neutral in character (earthy, musty) and is not deemed offensive or typically detectable at a distance from the biofilter system.2.3 ODOUR CONTROL SYSTEM CONCEPT OPTIONS

In the Australian protein recovery/rendering industry, as for many other industries, biofilter-based OCSs are accepted as best-practice, as mentioned in Section 2.2. Such systems capture odorous airstreams that are fully treated in biofilter beds. There are generally two approaches to protein recovery/rendering industry odour control in Australia. These include:

1. The ‘Full Capture’ approach, involving the treatment of all air from inside the main processing buildings/rooms, including process air and ventilation airflows; and

2. The ‘Split System’ approach, where process air is captured and treated from each of the processing units within the rendering plant, and ventilation airflows are force-vented direct to the atmosphere, through roof-mounted exhaust vents.

If required, Full Capture systems can maintain a negative pressure environment inside all processing buildings, at the cost of much larger airflows and a larger biofilter-based



PAGE | 7

odour treatment unit - fugitive odour emissions under this configuration are effectively prevented. There are several such systems in Australian rendering plants.

The Split System approach is becoming more common in Australia. It has been shown to capture and treat more than 90% of all odour generated in the rendering processing units, such that environmental odour criteria can be met, without the need for full odour capture. This system relies upon a well-designed and more extensive odour capture ducting system and sound operation and maintenance of this system.

Both of the above systems represent best-practice in Australia. Their use depends upon the suitability of the site and its proximity to sensitive odour receptors. As will be detailedlater in the OIAS report, a hybrid of the full capture and split system design has been selected for the Proposed Facility.2.3.1 Split System

The Split System OCS design separates the process and ventilation airstreams within the rendering building, fully treating the more odorous process air and discharging the ventilation air direct to atmosphere.

The Split System is characterised by an intensive odour capture system, connected to all significant processing sources, with air directed to a biofilter system, together with a roof-fan ventilation system directing larger airflows vertically to atmosphere. The combined airflows typically result in air exchange rates up to 15-30 air changes per hour for the main processing and meal rooms. This system has been shown by TOU testing at several plants similar to that proposed to capture 94-96% of all process odours generated, with the residual odour discharging at roof level through vertical fans. Of equal importance, the air exchange rate is able to achieve and maintain measurable negative pressures inside the rendering building and remove the risk of uncontained and uncontrolled fugitive odour releases.

The Split System design results in two quantifiable odour emissions, namely:

1. The roof ventilation emissions from the main processing room; and

2. The treated emission from the surface of the biofilter. This biofilter emission should contain none of the original offensive rendering odour character and be totally non-problematical.

2.3.2 Full Capture System

This physically larger system collects and treats all air from within the protein recovery/rendering building and treats it in a similar but larger biofilter system. There are no roof vent emissions or any other point source odour emissions.

Because all internal building air is ultimately treated, the process air capture system can be less intensive than for the Split System, to the extent that only the major odour sources need to be connected. However, for operator comfort and heat reasons, the tendency is to reduce internal ambient odours to a minimum by installing full odour capture.



PAGE | 8

The air exchange rate for this type of system is often reduced to less than ten (10) per hour, as a means of reducing the OCS size and cost. As a minimum, the airflow rate to the biofilter will double, when compared to the Split System, with a corresponding increase in the size and cost of the OCS. Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA VIC) Works Approval has recently been granted to a proposed new rendering plant at Warrnambool, based on an exchange rate understood to be less than ten air changes per hour.

With the Full Capture System design, there should notionally be no significant protein recovery/rendering odour emissions from the protein recovery/rendering building or OCS. However, if the design air exchange rate through the protein recovery/rendering building is inadequate for hot weather conditions there will be a risk of operators opening and leaving open major doorways, leading to unmanaged fugitive odour releases from the building.2.3.3 Hybrid Split System/Full Capture System

This approach has been developed for use in Service Rendering applications where raw materials may be more odorous than for integrated abattoir/rendering plants. Itinvolves the use of the Split System within the main processing and meal rooms, complete with roof fans, but includes full capture and treatment of all ventilation air from within the Receivals room. For practical reasons, and acknowledging the large volume of the Receivals room, the air exchange rate rising the captured ventilation airflow in that room is selected based on the lowest exchange rate capable of achieving and sustaining negative pressure conditions. For new installations where the building can be designed to be relatively airtight, exchange rates as low as three (3) per hour have been found to be effective. The use of fast action truck doors is often used as a means of further containing odours inside the room.2.4 OCS CONCEPT AT THE PROPOSED FACILITYEach of the Phase 1 Bovine and Ovine plants will be housed in Building 1 at the Proposed Facility, in identical facilities. Bovine processing will occur in Building 1A, and Ovine processing in Building 1B. In general terms, the Bovine plant will contain identical equipment to that in the Ovine plant, although the Ovine plant will have extra wool processing equipment that will marginally increase the total process airflow. For reasons of simplicity, the design process airflow for each plant has been set at 35,000 m3/hr – this being the design airflow for the Ovine plant. A breakdown of this airflow for each equipment item is commercial-in-confidence information and will be provided separately, on request. It is based on TOU’s experience at several other Keith Engineering HTR plants within and outside Australia where effective odour capture has been achieved. Virtually all significant potential process sources of odour emissions will be connected to the capture system. This airstream will exit the processing room(s) and combine with a larger duct carrying the ventilation air from the larger raw materials receivals room.

The receivals room ventilation airflow will be 87,000 m3/hr, equivalent to four (4) air changes per hour (building volume is approximately 21,700 m3). This will ensure negative pressure in the room(s) and zero fugitive odour emissions. At this stage, it is envisaged that a separate duct will transport this air through the process rooms and



PAGE | 9

combine with the process airflow before entering the humidifier and biofilter. Therefore, the total inlet airflow from each plant to each biofilter system for each plant will be 122,000 m3/hr.

Based on TOU’s experience, the ventilation air from the Receivals room is likely to be up to an order of magnitude less odorous that that captured from the Processing and Meal process unit operations, which can range from 10,000 to 50,000 ou. The effect of adding the Receival airflow to the OCS is expected to result in a three-fold reduction in the odour concentration to the biofilter. This will reduce the odour loading on the biofilter. The combined airflow will, however, be dry and will require humidification prior to biofiltration.2.4.1 WTS

The WTS process emissions of 3,500 m3/hr from covered tanks is proposed to be directed to either a packaged odour control unit or connected to the OCS servicing the protein recovery process operations. The final configuration will be completed as part of the detailed design process of the OCS for the Proposed Facility. For the modelling assessment, TOU has assumed the packaged odour control unit (see Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 for details). Notwithstanding this, if connected to the OCS for the Proposed Facility, the treatment performance outcomes will be comparable. 2.4.2 OCS Concept Design Details

The OCS concept design has the features listed below, and can be efficiently replicated, as required, for the Phase 2 development at the Proposed Facility. Phase 2 will see the addition of. two proposed poultry plants and a single fish processing plant, in Buildings2 and 3, respectively. Figure 1.2 shows how the ultimate three-building development would look at the Proposed Facility, including near-identical biofilter-based OCSs for each plant.

The features of the OCS for Phase 1 are as follows:

▪ Identical biofilter-based OCSs;

▪ A Full Capture system approach for the raw material sorting building area. There will be no direct or fugitive discharge of untreated air to the atmosphere from this area;

▪ A Split System configuration of all rendering operations. This will involve the point-source capture and treatment from each of the processing units within the rendering plant and building ventilation airflows force-vented direct to atmosphere via roof-mounted exhaust vents; and

▪ A hybrid Split system/Full Capture System, where all captured Receivals Room ventilation air and point-source rendering process air will pass through a dedicated biofilter system, which will be designed to remove all rendering odour character from the airstreams prior to atmospheric discharge. The rendering rooms ventilation airflow that will be vented directly to the atmosphere is not



PAGE | 10

expected to be problematical, as will be demonstrated in Section 2.5 of the OIASreport.

Overall, the OCS for the Proposed Facility is expected to meet all relevant odour standards, including that set by EPA VIC, as will be demonstrated later in the OIAS. Further details of the proposed OCS are contained in Section 2.6.2.5 EXISTING SPLIT SYSTEM PLANTS2.5.1 Overview

Because the proposed OCS for each of the Bovine and Ovine plants will be largely a Split System design, to which is added the full capture/zero atmospheric emission Receival room system, only the Split System approach is discussed here.

As previously mentioned, the proposed OCS will consist of a point-source capture system for the most odorous rendering process units, with this process airstream treated in a new biofilter. The airflows for the point-source capture system have been designedby TOU and include all significant odorous processing units, conveyors, bins and tanks. Based on previous TOU HTR rendering plant projects, the collection system will capture the strongest of the odours and then direct them to the biofilter system. As a result, the ambient odour levels inside the two main processing rooms at the Parwan plant will be low, when compared to those HTR plants with a lower degree of process odour capture.

It is TOU’s experience that the capture and treatment of process air, in the manner proposed, will result in only 5-10% of the odour generated in the rendering plant being discharged into the rendering environment, and ultimately ventilated to the atmosphere (i.e. 90-95% odour capture and destruction). While the actual odour testing performance data supporting this position represent TOU’s intellectual property and can be provided on request, as commercial-in-confidence information, three key data sets from similar Keith Engineering HTR plants are summarised in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 – Performance data of existing and similar Keith Engineering HTR plants Plant ID Parameter ValuePlant A (Singleton, NSW) Sept 2003 Ventilation air 140 ou

Biofilter Inlet 11,600 ouPlant B (Tamworth, NSW) March 2009 Roof vent 394 ou

Biofilter Inlet 13,800 ouPlant C (Wagga Wagga, NSW) March 2012/2013 Roof vent 741 ou

Biofilter Inlet 12,600 ou

Plants A and B were built as new plants equipped with the Split System OCS. Plant C was an older plant retrofitted with a Split System OCS.

The success in capturing the vast bulk of the processing odour enables the residual odour to be ventilated directly to the atmosphere in an engineered manner, using multiple axial-flow roof fans. Under this arrangement much higher air exchange rates can be accommodated, compared to older plants where ventilation is either absent orlimited. In contrast to uncontained fugitive emissions, the roof fans residual odour emissions discharge in a highly diluted form and with favourable vertical dispersion. As



PAGE | 11

with the point-source airflows, details of the ventilation system airflows are discussedbelow.

The collected airstream will need to be humidified before biofiltration. Humidification of the air to at least 85% relative humidity (RH) is required to ensure sustainable, strong biofilter performance. Lower RH levels will invariably result in uneven and possibly dry patches in the biofilter medium, and incomplete odour removal. Inadequate humidification is the single largest reason for poor biofilter performance in Australia. The technological options for humidification include an in-duct ultrasonic water spray system or a dedicated scrubber/humidifier vessel between the fan and the biofilter. TOU has used both systems in other rendering plants in Australia and New Zealand. For theOCS at the Proposed Facility, a dedicated scrubber/humidifier vessel will be used.

The biofilter will be a modern, best-practice, open-bed design that has been proven to be effective across a wide range of industries in Australia and overseas. Conceptual design details are contained in Section 2.6.2.5.2 Examples of Existing Split System Plants

The ‘Split System’ OCS has been successfully adopted in part or fully by many rendering plants in Australia, including:

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

2.6 TECHNICAL DESIGN DETAILS2.6.1 Design Options and AirflowsAs mentioned, both Bovine and Ovine plants contain near-identical equipment, although the Ovine plant has extra equipment that slightly increases the total process airflow. For reasons of simplicity, the design process airflow for each plant has been set at 35,000 m3/hr. This airstream will exit the processing room(s) and combine with a larger duct from the larger raw materials Receivals room. At this stage, separate fans are envisaged, for the process and receivals airflows.

The following OCS description outlines the design concept for one plant and its OCS.As previously mentioned, the OCS design will be identical for Building 1A and Building 1B at the Proposed Facility.

Haroon NawazText BoxSingleton, NSW

Haroon NawazText BoxWagga Wagge, NSW;

Haroon NawazText BoxTamworth, NSW;



Haroon NawazText BoxJunee, NSW; and

Haroon NawazText BoxTongala, VIC.



PAGE | 12

The receivals room ventilation airflow will be 87,000 m3/hr, equivalent to four (4) air changes per hour. This will ensure negative pressure in the room(s) and zero fugitive odour emissions. At this stage, a separate duct will transport this air through the process rooms and combine with the process airflow before entering the humidifier and biofilter. Therefore, the total inlet airflow to the biofilter will be 122,000 m3/hr.2.6.2 Biofilter Fan(s)

One or two biofilter fans, located adjacent to the biofilter, will draw air from the two source areas, via stainless steel ducts and direct the combined airstream to the biofilter, through the humidifier. The specifications under a single fan configuration are as follows:

Fan Type: CentrifugalMaterials: All wetted parts in 304 stainless steelCapacity: 122,000 m3/hr (total flow)Speed Control: Variable speed drive (VSD)

The actual initial airflows will be restricted to 121,800 m3/hr at the expected initial low biofilter back-pressure (less than 0.5 kPa) by the use of the VSD.2.6.3 Ducting

The internal odour capture ducting system will be designed by TOU based on other HTR plant projects. Ducting sizes will range from 100 mm (minimum) for storage tanks and non-condensable vapours, up to 1,700 mm for the biofilter end of the main header duct to the fan. The ducting size and layout may need to be refined as part of the detailed design stage by TOU, although the principle of air collection and capture will remain unchanged. All ducting will be in 304 stainless steel.2.6.4 The Biofilter

At this early design stage only the biofilter active bed area and general location havebeen finalised. This information is shown in the Figure 2.1 and informs the odour dispersion modelling component of the OIAS.

While the biofilter design shown in Figure 2.1 consists of a four-cell, two-sided, back-to-back configuration. There are several other possible configurations that will be considered, based on site constraints. This will be refined as part of the detailed design stage of the OCS. Air will be fed into a concrete air distribution chamber at the rear of the cells, from which it flows through openings into the air plenum distribution floor and up through the biofilter beds. The proposed layout will enable the biofilter fan(s) and humidifier to be sited close to the rear of the biofilter, with sufficient space for maintenance.

A ‘hopper-front’ biofilter design is proposed in which the end wall of each conventionalfully enclosed biofilter cell has been replaced by a sloping embankment of biofilter medium. This design has the benefit of allowing easy access for biofilter medium loading and replacement. The design incorporates the key design features of all TOU biofilters, including a full plenum floor air distribution system, a concrete air inlet distribution header duct/chamber, a free-draining robust medium, and pre-



PAGE | 13

humidification of the entire foul air stream. TOU has successfully commissioned many biofilters with this design in the past ten years. Photo 2.1 shows a similar biofilter and humidifier arrangement.

Photo 2.1 - Rendering Plant Biofilter and Humidifier

A total biofilter bed area of 670 m2 is proposed for the biofilter, with a bed depth of 1.8m. While the layout depicted in Figure 2.1 may differ from that selected during the final design, the total bed volume will remain unchanged.

The design airflow and the biofilter area and depth will result in conservative design loadings for rendering plant biofilters. These loadings are:

Surface loading: 182 m3/m2/hr

Volumetric loading: 101 m3/m3/hr

Residence Time: 36 seconds (empty bed residence time, EBRT)



PAGE | 14

These loadings are conservative by TOU standards and meet EPA VIC’s preference for an EBRT of at least 30 seconds.

The biofilter will consist of a minimum of three biofilter cells (four are shown in the drawing), each will be capable of being isolated for maintenance or medium replacement. The actual means of isolating an individual will depend on the final design of the biofilter. With one cell isolated the other cell is capable of fully treating the full airflow without any deterioration in performance, other than a slightly higher operating back-pressure.



PAGE | 15

Figure 2.1 - Nominal location of the ventilation roof fans (in green) for Building 1A and 1B at the Proposed Facility



PAGE | 16

Figure 2.2 – Nominal location and configuration of the biofilter system (in red) for Building 1A and 1B at the Proposed Facility



PAGE | 17

2.6.5 Foul Air Humidification and Bed Moisture Control

A biofilter requires the biofilter medium in the beds to be adequately moistened tomaintain sustainable performance. It is TOU’s experience that inadequate bed moisture control is the single most significant contributor to poor biofilter performance and that the air to a biofilter should be as close to saturation as possible (at least 85%). In the case of this biofilter, a two-stage approach to achieving this objective has been selectedfor the Proposed Facility. Humidification of the inlet airstream to the biofilter will be the primary means of achieving bed moisture control and involve the use of a dedicated scrubber/humidifier vessel. It will be designed to increase the moisture level in the airstream to near-100%, even under summer conditions. Excess water that is carried over from the humidifier will be removed upstream of the biofilter or from the biofilter drains, depending upon the final design selected. This water will be directed to the existing on-site wastewater treatment system.

The detailed design of the humidifier is yet to be finalised but will take the form of a counter-current, packed bed scrubber. Given the relatively high airflow (122,000 m3/hr)and the two separate inflows, it is possible that one humidifier will be provided for each airstream.

The primary inlet air humidification system will be supported by a secondary irrigation system on the surface of the biofilters, using horticultural drip irrigation technology. This system will be activated by a simple timer system or remotely from the control room. TOU has found this approach to be more reliable than control systems based on bed moisture probes. The drip system is expected to operate for 1-3 periods per day, each of 20-30 minutes duration, depending on ambient weather conditions. 2.6.6 Roof Fan Ventilation System

The rendering building will consist of a main processing rooms, containing the bulk of the cooking and separation equipment, and a slightly smaller Meal room, where meal product ids further processed and stored. It is proposed to ventilate the two rooms with roof-mounted axial-flow fans, each of 40,000 m3/hr capacity. Each room will have fourfans. The preliminary location of these fans is shown in Figure 2.1. When combined with the extracted process airflows, which will also result in air exchange, the following exchange rates are envisaged:

Main Processing Room: 15.2 air changes per hour Room volume: 10,500 m3

Meal Room: 16.2 air changes/hour Room volume: 9,900 m3

At these exchange rates the system will be easily able to sustain negative pressure conditions inside the building during normal operation. The inlet louvres will be designed to set the negative pressure in excess of at least -10 Pa. The inlet louvres will be located near ground level to facilitate the movement of cooler air. Operator comfort should be able to be maintained, without the need to open doors.



PAGE | 18

2.6.7 Receival Room Extraction System

Although not part of the Split System, the ventilation system for the Receivals Room will extract air from a header duct mounted laterally across the width of the room above the receival bins and direct this air through a dedicated main duct, running through the process rooms, to the biofilter system. As previously mentioned, an air exchange rate of four (4) per hour has been selected, equivalent to an airflow of 87,000 m3/hr.

The inlet air to the Receivals Room will be via dedicated inlet louvres mounted at the opposite (truck entry) end of the building. This arrangement will promote the longitudinal flow of air towards the header duct and away from the truck doors. The louvres will be designed to achieve a negative pressure inside the building of at least -10 Pa.

The Receivals Room will be fitted with fast-acting doors.2.6.8 OCS Process Control and MonitoringThe supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system will record the operation of the biofilter system, which will be continuously monitored by the logging of the following key performance indicators:

▪ RH;

▪ Temperature; and

▪ Pressure into the biofilter.

The maintenance of these parameters within a normal range will ensure that the biofilter produces a sustainable good performance, at least to the EPA VIC standard of 1,000 ou or below. TOU will carry out three to four OCS condition and performance assessments at the Proposed Facility in the first year of operation, with half-yearly assessments after that. This is normal procedure for TOU biofilter clients. These assessment reports could be made available for EPA VIC to peruse if necessary. There is technology that now exists to enable these parameter instruments to be remotely checked by an external biofilter expert, such as TOU, so that the operational performance can be monitored, and report back as required. In addition, it is noted that the Odour Management Plan (OMP) will, among other things, outline daily, weekly monthly etc measures for staff to monitor olfactory performance of the biofilter. The biofilter is also interlocked with the rendering plant. Therefore, if the biofilter fan does not start up, none of the other systems will operate. If the biofilter faults during operation,the SCADA system will signal the operator to commence shutdown of protein recovery operations and plant equipment.2.6.9 Expected Odour Mitigation Performance

The biofilter will be designed to remove all of the original odour character in the foul air stream. As such the odour level in the treated air will mostly depend on the extent of the ‘earthy/musty’ odour picked up from the composting biofilter medium. With good operation and maintenance of the biofilter system the treated odour level is expected to range from 200 odour units (ou) when new to around 500 ou as the medium fully



PAGE | 19

composts. TOU’s experience is that biofilter odour is never problematical, even at these levels. EPA VIC has verbally advised that a target performance to less than 1,000 oushould be adopted for biofilters in Victoria.

Based on other similar installations (see Section 2.5.1), the residual odour in the ventilation system roof fan emissions is expected to be in the range 200 ou to 400 ou. The odour dispersion modelling study for the OIAS has used the higher of these values.



PAGE | 20

3 ODOUR DISPERSION MODELLING METHOD

3.1 VICTORIAN GENERAL ODOUR DESIGN CRITERION

The Victorian odour performance design criterion for mixed odorants as described by the State Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) - Schedule A which specifies that for ‘Unclassified Indicators – General odour’, a maximum of 1 ou with 3-minute averaging applies at and beyond the boundary. In the SEPP (AQM), the dispersion modelling process is described in Schedule C ‘Modelling Emissions to Air’and in more detail within the ‘Explanatory Notes’. For dispersion modelling based on averaging times of one hour or less, the 99.9th percentile predicted concentration from the dispersion model is defined as the predicted maximum concentration.3.2 RECOMMENDED SEPARATION DISTANCES

EPA VIC’s ‘Publication number 1518 – Recommended separation distances for industrial residual air emissions’ (Publication 1518) contains an index of recommended separation distances in order to mitigate adverse impacts from unintended discharge of odour and dust by industry – industrial residual air emissions (IRAEs) – on sensitive land uses. IRAEs generally occur during upset operational conditions and are intermittent or episodic in nature, as opposed to predicable emissions under normal operational conditions.

Publication 1518 assumes that even state of the art facilities under best practices and pollution control technology are not always guaranteed to prevent accidental release of IRAEs. Potential causes of IRAEs described by Publication 1518 include, among others:

▪ equipment failure;

▪ accidents; and

▪ abnormal weather conditions.

It is designed to consider potential impacts that the proposed development might have on its surroundings, and the potential impacts that the surrounding land uses might have on the proposed development.

The index of recommended separation distances assumes that each type and scale of industry listed are operating in compliance with relevant statutory rules and policies. The index lists the default minimum distances following a technical review of the superseded policy (AQ 2/86) including “consideration of empirical evidence of the performance of the recommended separation distances specified in AQ 2/86.” The revised separation distances are “EPA’s default minimum in the absence of a detailed, site-specific assessment for a proposed industrial or sensitive land use.”

In the case of the “rendering and casings works” category (defined as “abattoirs… involving rendering”), the recommended separation distance is 1,000 m. This does not consider the condition of the protein recovery/rendering plant or the quality of odour



PAGE | 21

management and control technologies in place. This puts protein recovery/rendering plants of modern and best practice design, management and control technology into the same category as older rendering plant designs with obsolete odour controls and management measures. The magnitude and risk of IRAEs would certainly be lower for a modern rendering plant in contrast with an older rendering plant.

The EPA’s default minimum 1,000 m separation distance and nearest known sensitive residences have been plotted as using ‘the rural method’ in Figure 3.1. It is measured from the activity boundary of the land parcel that encompasses the proposed activities. The sensitive residence activity boundaries fall outside of the default minimum separation distance.

Figure 3.1 – EPA VIC default minimum separation distance for rendering and casings works



PAGE | 22

3.3 Alternative Rural Odour Assessment Criteria

There is an alternative set of odour assessment criteria for industry involving intensive animal husbandry. The protein recovery plants at the Proposed Facility do not strictly meet this definition, however, TOU does believe that this integrated set of criteria are appropriate to be expanded to include rural-type industries located within rural areas, and applicable to this proposed development.3.3.1 Selection of Alternative Rural Odour Assessment Criteria

The SEPP (AQM) - Schedule A, Clause 9 states:

“For industries involving intensive animal husbandry, an integrated set of criteria may be applied to ensure beneficial uses are protected.

The set of criteria should include:

▪ Location in an area with a low density of sensitive land uses. That is, premises must be located in a rural zone;

▪ The location is consistent with integrated land use planning considerations such as the long-term future of the surrounding land and the likely use of the intervening land between the proposal and sensitive uses;

▪ Works designed in accordance with a set of industry performance standards approved by the relevant authorities;

▪ Operations conducted in accordance with an environmental management plan (EMP) approved by the relevant authorities; and

▪ Completion of a risk assessment that includes modelling of emissions showing that the predicted maximum odour levels modelled in accordance with Schedule C does not exceed five times (i.e. 5 ou) the odour detection threshold (3-minute averaging time, 99.9 percentile) at and beyond the property boundary.”

The dispersion modelling for this OIAS considers both the 1 ou and the 5 ou design criteria.

3.4 Land Use and Meteorology Configuration

Yearly AERMET meteorological data files for calendar years 2014 to 2018 were constructed with AERMET View™ version 9.8.0 that incorporated five years of prognostic meteorological data sourced from numerical meteorological and observed land use over the domain area. No measured mandatory data was available within 25 km radius of the application site. TOU attempted to contact EPA VIC’s AERMOD team regarding data from the nearby air monitoring station at Melton on 25 September 2019 and was still awaiting advice at the time of writing.



PAGE | 23

3.4.1 Land Use Configuration

Base land use data was sourced from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Global Land Cover Characteristics Data Base for the Australia-Pacific Region. The land use was updated and refined with the use of the AERMET View™ Land Use Creator. The refined land use tile is illustrated in Figure 3.2. The land use tile was on a processed with AERSURFACE over a 10 km by 10 km domain for albedo and bowen ratio, over a 1 km radius with maximum sectors for surface roughness, at a monthly resolution and average site surface moisture.

Figure 3.2 – Refined land use tile for AERSURFACE3.4.2 Meteorological Configuration

Numerical meteorological data was produced by The Air Pollution Model (TAPM) v4.0.5. TAPM was run according to the procedure outlined in Section 1.3 of the EPA VIC



PAGE | 24

Publication 1550 Revision 3 September 2014 – Guideline – Construction of input meteorological data files for EPA Victoria’s regulatory air pollution model AERMOD(Publication 1550). TAPM was set-up to use 41 by 41 grid-point domains nested at 10 km, 3 km, 1 km and 0.3 km resolution and 25 vertical levels. Topography, land use, soil type and vegetation databases were customised with the most relevant, recent and highest resolution spatial data available by independent consultancy – Air Quality Support. The meteorological data was extracted from the closest grid-point to the location of the Proposed Facility.

The parameters extracted from TAPM were:

▪ Wind speed (WSPD),

▪ Wind direction (WDIR),

▪ Temperature (TEMPSCR),

▪ Relative humidity (RHUMSCR),

▪ Total solar radiation (TSR),

▪ Net radiation (NETR), and

▪ Daytime mixing height (ZMIX).

The parameters were processed by AERMET as an onsite file with the read mixing heights from onsite data and the adjust surface friction velocity (ADJ_U*) options enabled to produce the required surface and profile input files to run AERMOD.

3.4.2.1 Yearly Wind Rose Analysis

The yearly wind rose diagrams and wind frequency distribution tables are presented asfollows:

▪ Figure 3.3 – Wind rose and frequency distribution 2014;



▪ Figure 3.6 – Wind rose and frequency distribution 2017; and

▪ Figure 3.7 – Wind rose and frequency distribution 2018.

The yearly box and whisker plots representing the monthly temperature and diurnal

daytime mixing height ranges are presented as follows:

▪ Figure 3.8 – Monthly temperature range and diurnal daytime mixing height range for 2014 and 2015;



PAGE | 25

▪ Figure 3.9 – Monthly temperature range and diurnal daytime mixing height range for 2016 and 2017; and

▪ Figure 3.10 – Monthly temperature range and diurnal daytime mixing height range for 2018.



PAGE | 26

Directions / Wind Classes (m/s)

0.50 -2.00

2.00 -4.00

4.00 -6.00

6.00 -8.00

8.00 -10.00

>= 10.00

Total (%)

N 1.21 2.50 1.19 0.42 0.27 0.19 5.79NNE 0.70 1.52 0.30 0.01 0.03 0.00 2.56NE 0.68 1.16 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.91ENE 0.63 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99E 0.81 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10ESE 1.06 0.65 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.82SE 1.29 1.40 1.06 0.13 0.01 0.00 3.89SSE 1.70 2.95 2.37 0.41 0.03 0.00 7.47S 2.33 3.26 1.59 0.42 0.07 0.00 7.67SSW 3.86 4.34 1.76 0.50 0.02 0.00 10.48SW 3.42 3.77 2.29 0.59 0.08 0.00 10.16WSW 2.60 2.89 2.28 1.54 0.43 0.05 9.79W 3.16 2.24 2.01 1.67 0.79 0.10 9.97WNW 2.91 2.23 1.44 1.19 0.34 0.13 8.23NW 2.56 1.58 1.43 1.34 0.86 0.31 8.06NNW 2.48 2.95 1.61 1.19 0.58 0.17 8.97Sub-Total 31.40 34.04 19.52 9.41 3.53 0.95 98.85Calms 1.2

Figure 3.3 – Wind rose and frequency distribution 2014



PAGE | 27


0.50 -2.00

2.00 -4.00

4.00 -6.00

6.00 -8.00

8.00 -10.00

>= 10.00

Total (%)





PAGE | 28


0.50 -2.00

2.00 -4.00

4.00 -6.00

6.00 -8.00

8.00 -10.00

>= 10.00

Total (%)





PAGE | 29


0.50 -2.00

2.00 -4.00

4.00 -6.00

6.00 -8.00

8.00 -10.00

>= 10.00

Total (%)





PAGE | 30


0.50 -2.00

2.00 -4.00

4.00 -6.00

6.00 -8.00

8.00 -10.00

>= 10.00

Total (%)





PAGE | 31

Figure 3.8 – Monthly temperature range and diurnal daytime mixing height range for 2014 and 2015



PAGE | 32

Figure 3.9 – Monthly temperature range and diurnal daytime mixing height range for 2016 and 2017



PAGE | 33

Figure 3.10 – Monthly temperature range and diurnal daytime mixing height range for 2018



PAGE | 34

3.5 DISPERSION MODEL CONFIGURATION

The odour dispersion modelling was carried out using AERMOD version 19191 gaussian plume air dispersion model. AERMOD View™ version 9.8.0 graphical user interface was used to set up the modelling configuration.

The AERMOD modelling configuration used was based upon the EPA VIC Publication 1551 Revision 6 February 2015 – ‘Guidance notes for using the regulatory air pollution model AERMOD in Victoria’ (Publication 1551). 3.5.1 Background Concentrations

TOU could not identify any nearby, similar, intensive sources of background rendering plant odour. Therefore, it is concluded that background levels of similar odour in the local area are insignificant.3.5.2 Odour Source Emissions Estimation and Assumptions

The odour emissions estimated for each source and corresponding assumptions made are outlined in Table 3.1. For the OIAS, odour sources have been modelled separately as two distinct source groups, which have unique odour characteristics, namely:

▪ Group 1 – Process emissions:

o Ventilation system roof fans, and

o Open WTS tanks and fugitive emissions from tank covers.

▪ Group 2 – Treated emissions:

o Biofilter-based Odour Treatment (OT) Plants, and

o WTS odour control unit.3.5.3 Odour Source and Emission Rate Input

The odour source and emission rate input has been tabulated in Table 3.2. Point source, volume source and building arrangements are illustrated in Figure 3.11. A full description can be made available in the form of AERMOD model log files upon request.3.5.4 Volume source approximation of area sourcesAERMOD concentration predictions for area sources in the current approved version are likely to be overestimated under very light wind conditions. As per Section 6.2 of the AERMOD Implementation Guide (2009) and EPA Victoria’s recommendation in Publication 1551, TOU has adopted the interim US EPA approach for cases when the key receptors are sufficiently distant from the source.



PAGE | 35

Table 3.1 – Odour source emissions estimation and assumptions

Source DescriptionOdour

Concentration(ou)

Flowrate(m3/s)

Specific Odour Emission Rate(ou.m3/m2.s)

Emission Area(m2)

Capture(%)

Odour emission rate

(ou.m3/s)Comments/Assumptions

Source Group 1 – Process Emissions1A Bovine plant

ventilation system roof fans (8)

400 88.9 - - - 35,520 See Sections 2.6.6 & 2.6.9.

1B Ovine plant ventilation system roof

fans (8)400 88.9 - - - 35,520 See Sections 2.6.6 & 2.6.9.

Inlet screen - - 12.7 8 95% 5 SOER derived from measurements of a DAF system at an abattoir and rendering facility located in the Riverina region.

In-ground buffer tank - - 12.7 64 99% 8 SOER derived from measurements of a DAF system at an abattoir and rendering facility located in the Riverina region.

Primary DAF - - 12.7 14 99% 2 SOER derived from measurements of a DAF system at an abattoir and rendering facility located in the Riverina region.

Anaerobic Reactor - - 7.09 200 100% 0SOER derived from measurements of a primary settling tank at an abattoir and rendering facility located in the Murraylands region. Anaerobic reactor is designed to be completely sealed.

SBR feed buffer tank - - 7.09 80 99% 6 SOER derived from measurements of a primary settling tank at an abattoir and rendering facility located in the Murraylands region.

Sequential Batch Reactor - - 0.148 140 0% 21

SOER derived from measurements of an SBR system at an abattoir and rendering facility located in the Riverina region.

Final buffer tank - - 0.141 80 0% 11 SOER derived from measurements of an SBR system at an abattoir and rendering facility located in the Riverina region.

Sludge dewatering - - 11.2 10 95% 6 SOER derived from measurements of dewatered sludge at an abattoir and rendering facility located in the Murraylands region.

Source Group 2 – Treated Emissions1A Bovine OT Plant

Biofilter 500 33.9 - - - 16,917 See Sections 2.6.1 & 2.6.9.

1B Ovine OT PlantBiofilter 500 33.9 - - - 16,917 See Sections 2.6.1 & 2.6.9.

WTS Odour Control Unit 500 0.972 - - - 486

The system is proposed to deliver an odour treatment performance below a discharge concentration level of 200 ou. In TOU’s experience, a typical performance of 500 ou is more appropriate for the OIAS.



PAGE | 36

Table 3.2 – Point source and emission rate input

Source Description Source IDX

Coordinate[m]

Y Coordinate

[m]Elevation

[m]Release Height

[m]

Emission Rate

[ou.m3/s]

Gas Exit Temp.

[K]

Gas Exit Velocity

[m/s]

Stack Inside Diameter

[m]1A Bovine Process Room Roof Fan 1 STCK1 276114.11 5818991.20 148.64 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.9651A Bovine Process Room Roof Fan 2 STCK2 276116.39 5819000.71 148.64 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.9651A Bovine Process Room Roof Fan 3 STCK3 276100.60 5818994.05 148.64 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.9651A Bovine Process Room Roof Fan 4 STCK4 276102.89 5819003.56 148.64 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.965

1A Bovine Meal/Dispatch Room Roof Fan 1 STCK5 276091.66 5818996.14 148.64 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.9651A Bovine Meal/Dispatch Room Roof Fan 2 STCK6 276093.94 5819005.87 148.64 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.9651A Bovine Meal/Dispatch Room Roof Fan 3 STCK7 276078.14 5818999.13 148.64 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.9651A Bovine Meal/Dispatch Room Roof Fan 4 STCK8 276080.48 5819008.75 148.64 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.965

1B Ovine Process Room Roof Fan 1 STCK9 276122.39 5819027.03 148.7 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.9651B Ovine Process Room Roof Fan 2 STCK10 276124.59 5819036.79 148.7 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.9651B Ovine Process Room Roof Fan 3 STCK11 276108.79 5819030.06 148.7 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.9651B Ovine Process Room Roof Fan 4 STCK12 276110.99 5819039.95 148.7 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.965

1B Ovine Meal/Dispatch Room Roof Fan 1 STCK13 276099.85 5819032.26 148.7 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.9651B Ovine Meal/Dispatch Room Roof Fan 2 STCK14 276101.92 5819042.02 148.7 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.9651B Ovine Meal/Dispatch Room Roof Fan 3 STCK15 276086.25 5819035.14 148.7 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.9651B Ovine Meal/Dispatch Room Roof Fan 4 STCK16 276088.45 5819045.04 148.7 13 4,440 303.15 15.18 0.965

1A Bovine OT Plant STCK17 276034.19 5818994.44 148.02 2.4 16,917 308.15 0.0505 29.2071B Ovine OT Plant STCK18 276049.06 5819059.77 147.99 2.4 16,917 308.15 0.0505 29.207

WTS Odour Control System STCK19 276038.95 5819210.13 146.68 15 486 303.15 15.24 0.285

Table 3.3 – Volume source and emission rate input

Source Description Source IDX

Coordinate[m]

Y Coordinate

[m]Elevation

[m]Release Height

[m]

Emission Rate

[ou.m3/s]Sigma Y

[m] Sigma Z

[m]Approximate Surface Area

(m2)Inlet screen VOL1 276051.35 5819212.66 146.68 1 5 0.66 1.00 8

In-ground buffer tank VOL2 276051.05 5819219.23 146.68 0.1 8 1.86 1.00 64Primary DAF VOL3 276053.04 5819225.54 146.88 1.25 2 0.87 1.16 14

Anaerobic Reactor VOL4 276051.35 5819237.97 146.27 3.5 0 3.29 3.26 200SBR feed buffer tank VOL5 276039.90 5819244.66 146.27 2.5 6 2.08 2.33 80

Sequential Batch Reactor VOL6 276037.77 5819231.31 146.68 2.5 21 2.75 2.33 140Final buffer tank VOL7 276039.54 5819219.03 146.68 2.5 11 2.08 2.33 80

Sludge dewatering VOL8 276048.04 5819203.96 146.68 1 6 0.74 1.00 10



PAGE | 37

Figure 3.11 – Point source, volume source and building arrangement of the Proposed Facility



PAGE | 38

3.5.5 Gridded and Discrete Receptors

A domain of 5,000 m easting by 5,000 m northing by 50 m grid interval was selected. Three discrete receptors were placed over nearby sensitive places with coordinates and elevations given in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 – Discrete receptor locations and elevations

# UTM east(m)UTM north

(m)ELEV(m)

1 274681.99 5819966.97 1482 274837.4 5820351.86 1483 274898.24 5820495.37 147.22

3.5.6 Building Wake Effects, Terrain and Other Parameters

Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) was run in the dispersion modelling for site structures within the vicinity of the proposed discharge stack locations. AERMOD View™ automatically uses the PRIME building wake algorithm.

Receptor elevations were imported from 1 Second Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) Derived Smoothed Digital Elevation Model (DEM-S) and processed with AERMAP version 18081. The SRTM data has been treated with several processes including but not limited to removal of stripes, void filling, tree offset removal and adaptive smoothing (Gallant, et al., 2011). The terrain contour map of the modelling domain is shown in Figure 3.12.

The default regulatory control options were selected; no non-default options were used. Rural mode was selected for the source emissions as approved by EPA VIC.

Three-minute averages were derived from one-hour averages by applying a multiplicative factor of 1.82 to the projected concentrations based upon the formula, as follows:

c(t) = c(t0) (t0/t)0.2 Equation 3.1

where: (t) is the averaging time of interest, and

(t0) is the averaging time consistent with the dispersion rates.



PAGE | 39

Figure 3.12 – Modelling domain terrain contour map



PAGE | 40

4 ODOUR DISPERSION MODELLING RESULTS

The results of the odour dispersion modelling for each of the five years modelled are given below in the form of 9th ranked (99.9%, 3-min) odour concentration predictions for all modelled discrete receptors and odour contour plots. 4.1 PROCESS EMISSIONS MODELLING RESULTSTable 4.1 gives the 9th ranked (99.9%, 3-min) odour concentration predictions for each modelled year at the discrete receptors from the process emissions of the roof ventilation fans and WTS. The 1 ou design criterion was marginally exceeded at Receptor #2 for 2014 and 2018, and all receptors for 2017. Receptor #1 was predicted to be the most affected receptor by the roof fan discharge. The 1 ou design criterion was also exceeded at the plant boundary, which triggers an Odour Environmental Risk Assessment (Odour ERA) of the predicted impact from the process emissions (see Section 5.2). Table 4.1 – Process emissions 9th ranked concentration at discrete receptors

# 2014 2015 2016 2017 20181 0.83 0.92 0.45 1.23 0.532 1.21 0.88 0.74 1.17 1.063 0.88 0.89 0.80 1.04 0.97

Site boundary 15.5 14.6 15.9 16.4 15.3

4.2 TREATED EMISSIONS MODELLING RESULTSTable 4.2 gives the 9th ranked (99.9%, 3-min) odour concentration predictions for each modelled year at the discrete receptors from the tre

appendix h odour assessment - amazon s3 · 2020. 1. 24. · the odour unit pty ltd l&g meats pty...

Documents