cedar grove wastewater treatment plant · 2017. 2. 16. · preliminary treatment area (pta)...

LOGAN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE

Cedar Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant ODOUR IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PUBLIC JANUARY 2017

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff 1 Gardner Close Milton QLD 4064 Tel: +61 7 3368 6600 Fax: +61 7 3368 6699

www.wsp-pb.com

Filename: 2260542A-ODR-REP-001 RevA

This document may contain confidential and legally privileged information, neither of which are intended to be waived, and must be used only for its intended purpose. Any unauthorised copying, dissemination or use in any form or by any means other than by the addressee, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in error or by any means other than as authorised addressee, please notify us immediately and we will arrange for its return to us.

Public

REV DATE DETAILS

A 27/01/2016 Final

AUTHOR, REVIEWER AND APPROVER DETAILS

Prepared by: Alyce Tenna Sala Date: 27/01/2017 Signature:

Reviewed by: Jason Watson Date: 27/01/2017 Signature:

Approved by: Jason Watson Date: 27/01/2017 Signature:

Cedar Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant ODOUR IMPACT ASSESSMENT Logan Water Infrastructure Alliance

i

Cedar Grove Wastewater Treatment Plant Odour Impact Assessment Logan Water Infrastructure Alliance

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 2260542A

Public

TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................... III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. IV

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................. 2 2.1 Project site location ................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Existing wastewater treatment plant..................................................................................... 2 2.3 Proposed wastewater treatment plant .................................................................................. 2 2.4 Concept design ....................................................................................................................... 2

3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT............................................................................ 4 3.1 Local setting ............................................................................................................................ 4 3.2 Sensitive receptors ................................................................................................................. 4 3.3 Topography ............................................................................................................................. 5 3.4 Local meteorology .................................................................................................................. 5

4 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ............................................................................. 9 4.1 Odour units explained ............................................................................................................ 9 4.2 Legislation and policy ............................................................................................................ 9 4.3 Odour impact assessment ..................................................................................................... 9

5 EMISSION ESTIMATION ............................................................................. 10

6 MODELLING METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 12 6.1 Model selection and configuration...................................................................................... 12 6.2 Meteorological modelling ..................................................................................................... 12 6.3 Dispersion modelling ........................................................................................................... 16 6.4 Post processing .................................................................................................................... 17

7 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...................................................... 18 7.1 Odour scenario 1 – Stage 1 .................................................................................................. 18 7.2 Odour scenario 2 – Stage 2 (ultimate) ................................................................................ 19

8 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 20

9 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 21

ii



Public

L I S T O F T A B L E S Table 3.1 Nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed Cedar Grove WWTP ....................................... 4 Table 5.1 Odour emission rates – Stage 1 and 2 ................................................................................. 11 Table 7.1 Scenario 1 – Predicted odour concentrations at predicted receptors .................................. 18 Table 7.2 Scenario 2 – Predicted odour concentrations at predicted receptors .................................. 19

L I S T O F F I G U R E S Figure 3.1 Monthly average minimum and maximum temperatures – Mt Tamborine

AWS (1888–2016) .................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3.2 Monthly average rainfall data – Mt Tamborine AWS (1888–2016) ........................................ 6 Figure 3.3 Monthly average 9:00am and 3:00pm relative humidity data – Mt Tamborine

AWS (1888–2016) .................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3.4 2015 average wind roses for Archerfield Airport, North Maclean and

Beaudesert AWS .................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 6.1 Wind rose comparison .......................................................................................................... 14 Figure 6.2 Project site seasonal CALMET prediction ............................................................................ 15 Figure 6.3 Project site diurnal CALMET prediction................................................................................ 16

L I S T O F A P P E N D I C E S Appendix A Figures

iii



Public

D E F I N I T I O N S A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S 99.5th Percentile The modelled odour concentration at a selected point that is exceeded in a

given hour with a probability less than or equal to (1.0 – 0.995). This statistical definition is often interpreted (for better or for worse) as percentage compliance, namely, the odour concentration that is exceeded for no more than 0.5% of the meteorological conditions in the length of the meteorological input file (rounded to 44 hours for one year of hourly meteorological inputs).

99.9th Percentile The modelled odour concentration at a selected point that is exceeded in a given hour with a probability less than or equal to (1.0 – 0.999). As above, this equates to the odour concentration that is exceeded for no more than 0.1% of the meteorological conditions in the length of the meteorological input file.

AWS Automatic Weather Station

Diffuse source Activities that are generally dominated by fugitive area or volume source emissions of odour, which can be relatively difficult to control, such as wastewater treatment plants.

DEHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

EP Equivalent Persons

ERA Environmental Relevant Activity

LCC Logan City Council

OU Odour unit which indicate the concentration of odorous mixtures.

OU/m3 Odour units per cubic metre

PDA Priority Development Area

Peak to mean ratio A conversion factor that adjusts mean dispersion model predictions to the peak concentrations perceived by the human nose.

SOER Specific odour emission rates

TAPM The Air Pollution Model

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

iv



Public

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff has been commissioned to undertake the Odour Impact Assessment of Stages 1 and 2 of the proposed Cedar Grove WTTP.

The objective of this air quality impact assessment was to assess the impacts of emissions of odour from the proposed WWTP in Cedar Grove against applicable air quality criteria to identify any impact to the surrounding residents.

The scope of work for odour impact assessment included:

Identify the nearest sensitive receivers to the site in each direction. Develop an odour emissions inventory for the site. Review meteorological data to establish prevailing wind speeds and directions. Establish suitable assessment criteria based on Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 or other

suitable guideline. Undertake dispersion modelling to predict the ground level odour concentrations that would occur

at sensitive receptors outside of the site boundary. Assess odour impacts at noise sensitive locations, based on both the Stage 1 (20,000EP) and the

ultimate (125,000EP) plant layout and design.

It is noted that at the time of preparation, the concept design had not yet been completed. Therefore both the Stage 1 (20,000EP) and the ultimate (125,000EP) plant layout and design have been based on a similar plant at Rubyanna, north of Bundaberg in Queensland.

The quantitative assessment of the potential impacts of emissions from WWTP on local air quality involved the estimation of emissions from all related site activities and subsequent dispersion modelling of these emissions. The assessment methodology included meteorological and dispersion modelling using established and recognised modelling techniques. The emission rates and source parameters defined for the modelling scenarios sourced from odour monitoring undertaken based on a WWTP located in Rubyanna, Queensland.

The quantitative assessment addressed the impacts on air quality from the on-site activities from emissions of Odour.

The quantitative assessment indicates that, with conservative assumptions included in the emission estimations, the predicted ground level concentrations Odour assessed for both scenarios were below the guideline concentrations at the nearby sensitive receptors.

1



Public

1 INTRODUCTION The Greater Flagstone and Yarrabilba Priority Development Areas (PDAs), which are part of the Logan South region, are key greenfield development areas in South East Queensland. The population of these areas is forecast to increase from around 2,000 people currently to more than 200,000 people by ultimate development. Significant investment in wastewater infrastructure is required to facilitate this development.

The Logan South Wastewater Servicing Strategy (Cardno 2016) identified that the preferred strategy to service the Greater Flagstone PDA involves the construction of a permanent Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) on the site currently owned by Council at Cedar Grove.

Council will be required to submit an ERA63 (Environmentally Relevant Activity) application to the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) for approval prior to the construction of the treatment plant. To support the application for ERA 63 for Stage 1 of the plant, an odour impact assessment is required.

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff has been commissioned to undertake the Odour Impact Assessment of Stages 1 and 2 of the proposed Cedar Grove WTTP.

The objective of this air quality impact assessment was to assess the impacts of emissions of odour from the proposed WWTP in Cedar Grove against applicable air quality criteria to identify any impact to the surrounding residents.

The scope of work for odour impact assessment included:

Identify the nearest sensitive receivers to the site in each direction. Develop an odour emissions inventory for the site. Review meteorological data to develop meteorological files for modelling and simulate prevailing wind

speeds and directions. Establish suitable assessment criteria based on Environmental Protection (Air) Policy (2008) or other

suitable guideline. Undertake dispersion modelling to predict the ground level odour concentrations that would occur at

sensitive receptors outside of the site boundary. Assess odour impacts at noise sensitive locations, based on both the Stage 1 (20,000EP) and the

ultimate (125,000EP) plant layout and design.

2



Public

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project site location

The Flagstone PDA is a greenfield development front in southeast Queensland, located west of the existing Jimboomba township. The Flagstone PDA is approximately 7,188 hectares (ha) and comprises of a number of development precincts (Figure 1, Appendix A). The current population of the Flagstone PDA is approximately 2,000, but this is estimated to increase from 2,000 to 125,000 – 145, 000 by completion of the ultimate development by 2018 (Cardno, 2015) which the existing wastewater infrastructure cannot support.

2.2 Existing wastewater treatment plant

A small WWTP currently services the existing Flagstone Township. This plant has a nominal treatment capacity of 2,500 equivalent persons (EP), however currently services a population of 1,800 EP (Cardno, 2015). Treated effluent is currently disposed via irrigation to 40 ha of land within the Central Flagstone area. This is distributed evenly between eight sections in the field.

The current strategy planned by the LCC for the Flagstone PDA is to centralise wastewater treatment at the proposed Cedar Grove WWTP.

2.3 Proposed wastewater treatment plant

As part of the LCC’s development plan of Flagstone PDA’s a WWTP is intended to be constructed in Cedar Grove to service the entire Flagstone area. The LCC’s proposed development base strategy seeks to provide sufficient treatment and transfer infrastructure to service the Greater Flagstone FDA at Cedar Grove by 2021. This will be done by constructing a transfer main from Central Flagstone to Cedar Grove. This would be designed to serve up to approximately 125, 000 EP for effluent disposal. The effluent will then be released into the Logan River.

Until completion of Cedar Grove WWTP, three temporary WWTP will be would be used to facilitate effluent treatment. These will be decommissioned in year five once Cedar Grove is completed, with the exception of Greenbank. Four temporary plants will be provided at:

Central Flagstone Flinders Greenbank Riverbend.

2.4 Concept design

It is noted that at the time of preparation, the concept design had not yet been completed. Therefore both the Stage 1 (20,000EP) and the ultimate (125,000EP) plant layout and design have been based on a similar plant at Rubyanna, north of Bundaberg in Queensland. The proposed Cedar Grove WWTP consists of the following process units:

septage receival facility preliminary treatment area (PTA) including band screens and vortex grit removal biological nutrient removal (BNR) bioreactors including anerobic zone, ditch-style bioreactor (diffused

aeration) and secondary anoxic and aerobic zones clarifiers chlorine disinfection tertiary filtration imported sludge reception aerobic sludge digestion biosolids dewatering stabilised biosolids storage area.

3



Public

The plant odour emission sources were provided by the Logan WIA Project Manager. This included the following:

inlet works, flow splitter & G.P.P.S (with an assumed odorous airflow capture rate of 99.5%) odour control discharge bioselector zones anaerobic zones anoxic/aerobic zones aerobic zones membrane tanks recycled water balance aerobic digester dewatering building and spirotainer.

The generalised plant layout, which details odour emission sources is provided in Figure 1, Appendix A.

4



Public

3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Local setting

The proposed Cedar Grove WWTP is located approximately 40 km southwest of Brisbane. There are a few scattered reservoirs and dams located nearby, with the Wyaralong Dam approximately 12 km southwest of the WWTP and Daly’s Lagoon is located 15 km northwest. The Flinders Peak Conservation Park is located 11 km away. Mt Lindesay Hwy lies 5 km east of the proposed WWTP.

The landuse in the vicinity of the proposed WWTP is currently grazing native vegetation, with some horticulture located north of the site, and residential lots east of the WWTP.

3.2 Sensitive receptors

Odour sensitive receptors are places that include residences, schools, hospitals, caravan parks, national parks, shops and business premises, all of which may be affected by odour to cause unreasonable offence. This includes displeasure and are to the human sense disgusting, nauseous or repulsive.

24 sensitive receptors (which is consistent with the receptors assessed within the noise assessment) were identified for this odour impact assessment within a 3 km radius south, east and west of the proposed WWTP. The majority of which are residential places located on the south eastern boundary of the general site area. The nearest identified sensitive receptors are given in Table 3.1 and presented in Figure 3, Appendix A.

Table 3.1 Nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed Cedar Grove WWTP

ID ADDRESS EASTING (M) NORTHING (M)

1 Receptor off Teviot Road 497988 6919814

2 86 Cedar Pocket Road 496028 6918305

3 102 Couldery Court 497763 6919241

4 End of Gittens Road 495386 6920887

5 103 Couldery Court 497815 6919243

6 98 Couldery Court 497788 6919181

7 292 Cedar Grove Road 497292 6918655

8 316 Cedar Grove Road 497166 6918738

9 317 Cedar Grove Road 497338 6918734

10 323 Cedar Grove Road 497323 6918769

11 325-327 Cedar Grove Road 497285 6918796

12 331 Cedar Grove Road 497245 6918821

13 333 Cedar Grove Road 497197 6918874

14 343 Cedar Grove Road 497219 6918862

15 491 Cedar Grove Road 495499 6919245

16 514 Cedar Grove Road 495536 6919162

17 82 Couldery Court 497782 6919123

5



Public

ID ADDRESS EASTING (M) NORTHING (M)

18 74 Couldery Court 497602 6918982

19 20 Fig Court 497407 6918822

20 24 Fig Court 497425 6918869

21 34 Fig Court 497439 6918919

22 35 Fig Court 497446 6918971

23 36 Fig Court 497538 6918993

24 38 Fig Court 497450 6919027

3.3 Topography

The Project site is located on a the top of a hill, surrounded by rural flat, grasslands west and south of the Project. To the north and east of the proposed site is established residential housing. The Project site ranges in elevation between approximately 39 m AHD to 51 m AHD (Figure 2, Appendix A. Note: Image has been vertically exaggerated).

3.4 Local meteorology

The closest long-term Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) station within the project’s locality is Mt Tamborine Fern Street (#040197) Automatic Weather Station (AWS) (herein referred to as Mt Tamborine AWS), located 20 km southeast of the project.

The long-term climate data summary for the area presented in the following sections is based on the historical data from the Mt Tamborine AWS. Although a closer station, Beaudesert Drumley Street was used in the modelling process, long-term data was not available to assess the climate averages for temperature, rainfall and relative humidity. As the site is located 20 km southeast it may not be as representative of the project site, so wind roses were generated from 2015 data.

3.4.1 Temperature

Monthly mean maximum and minimum temperature recorded at Mt Tamborine AWS are presented in Figure 3.1.

The data shows that average maximum summer temperatures in the region are around 30°C.

During the winter month the mean maximum temperature falls to around 22°C.

Average minimum temperatures range from 19°C in summer and approximately 8°C in winter.

6



Public

Figure 3.1 Monthly average minimum and maximum temperatures – Mt Tamborine AWS (1888–2016)

3.4.2 Rainfall

Long-term rainfall statistics for Mt Tamborine AWS are summarised in Figure 3.2.

The number of days when rain falls is highest in March.

The highest monthly rainfall on average falls in January, but the highest daily rainfall falls in April.

Figure 3.2 Monthly average rainfall data – Mt Tamborine AWS (1888–2016)

7



Public

3.4.3 Relative humidity

Monthly average 9:00am and 3:00pm relative humidity data for Mt Tamborine AWS are presented in Figure 3.3.

Humidity levels are higher in the morning compared to the afternoon.

Levels are relatively higher in winter than they are in the summer months.

Figure 3.3 Monthly average 9:00am and 3:00pm relative humidity data – Mt Tamborine AWS (1888–2016)

3.4.4 Wind speed and wind direction

2015’s average wind data for Archerfield Airport, Beaudesert, North Maclean AWS are presented as wind roses in Figure 3.4.

For Archerfield Airport, north of the site, the strongest winds are from the south but there are also influences from all other directions. Average winds are 3.4 m/s and calms occur 7.4 % of the year.

North Maclean, west of the site, predominately has winds from the southwest and some from the northeast. The average wind speed is 1.8 m/s and calms occur 14.8 % of the year.

Beaudesert, south of the project site, has the strongest winds from the southwest and influences from all other directions. The average wind speed is 1.4 m/s and calms occur 29.3 % of the time.

8



Public

Figure 3.4 2015 average wind roses for Archerfield Airport, North Maclean and Beaudesert AWS

9



Public

4 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 4.1 Odour units explained

The detectability of an odour is a sensory property that refers to the theoretical minimum concentration that produces an olfactory response or sensation. This point is called the odour threshold and defines on odour unit (OU). An odour goal of less than 1 OU would theoretically result in no odour impact being experienced.

In practice, the character of a particular odour can only be judged by the receiver’s reaction to it, and preferably only compared to another odour under similar social and regional conditions. The scale of nuisance. The scale of odour which is perceived to be a nuisance ranges from 2 OU to 10 OU, a level of odour which is perceived to be a nuisance.

Based on the literature available, the level at which an odour is perceived to be a nuisance can range from 2 to 10 OU depending on a combination of factors including: source characteristics, odour quality, population sensitivity, background level, public expectations and health effects.

An odour performance goal of 5 OU is likely to represent the level below which “offensive” odour should not occur (DEHP, 2013) to the nearest residence. An assumed general annoyance level, which in this guideline is taken to be 5 odour units at nose, and for conservative default peak to mean ratios 10:1 for wake-free stacks and 2:1 for ground-level sources or wake-affected stacks. A peak to mean conversion factor is a ratio that adjusts mean dispersion model predictions to the peak concentrations perceived by the human nose.

4.2 Legislation and policy

The legislative framework for environmental management in Queensland includes:

The Environmental Protection Act 1994, giving general provisions and recommendations. The Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008, prescribing environmental values, air quality objectives

and air management hierarchy.

The Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protect (DEHP) are responsible for ensuring odours from new or upgraded developments so not cause environmental nuisance impacts at sensitive receivers.

4.3 Odour impact assessment

The potential odour impacts of new and upgraded developments are assessed against the Odour Impact Assessment from Developments Guideline (DEHP, 2013).

It notes that the modelled odour concentrations at the “most exposed existing or likely future off-site receptors” should be compared with the following guideline value:

2.5 OU, 1-hour average, 99.5th percentile for ground-level sources and wake affected stacks.

This guideline was considered to be the most applicable for the Project.

10



Public

5 EMISSION ESTIMATION The odour emission rates (OERs) were based on client information, which were based upon an odour impact assessment study of a WWTP located in Rubyanna, Queensland (SKM, 2013). Rubyanna is located approximately 350 km north of Brisbane and has a similar design to Cedar Grove’s concept design. SKM (2013) based the emission rates on monitoring data sampled Goodna sewerage treatment plant (STP), Bundamba STP, Southern WWTP and Wetalla STP. The emission inventory was based on a scale factor of the proportional operational difference between the Project’s water usage (ML/day) and inlet works (m3/hr).

Odour emissions rates can vary significant depending on the wastewater characteristics and the time of year. The specific odour emission rates (SOER) adopted for each process unit are present in Table 5.1. SOER are measured in odour emission rate per unit of surface area (ou.m3/m3.s).

Two scenarios were modelled based on the two different stages of the project; Stage 1 and Ultimate (Stage 2).

For odour control discharge the OER’s were modelled with a release height of 2 m, a stack diameter of 0.5 m, and area of 0.20 m. The flow rates were modelled at a discharge rate of 0 m/s for Stage 1 and 3 m/s for Stage 2. Stage 1 had an exit velocity of 13 m/s and Stage 2 had an exit velocity of 33 m/s. The Dewatering building and spirotainer was modelled with a release height of 5 m, both stages with a spread of 9 m and an initial vertical spread of 1.2 m.

11



Public

Table 5.1 Odour emission rates – Stage 1 and 2

SOURCER ODOUR CONCENTRATION (OU)

AIR FLOW (M3/HR) AREA SOER (OU/M3/M2.S)

OER (OU/M3/S)

SOURCE TYPE

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 2

Inlet works, flow splitter & G.P.P.S (99.5% capture)

22200 1500 9000 NA NA NA 46 278 Volume

Odour control discharge 500 1500 9000 NA NA NA 208 1250 Point

Bioselector zones NA NA NA 36 218 1.68 60 367

Anaerobic zones NA NA NA 36 218 8.86 319 1933

Anoxic/aerobic zones NA NA NA 90 545 0.47 42 256

Aerobic zones NA NA NA 270 1636 0.18 49 295

Membrane tanks NA NA NA 108 655 0.16 17 105

Recycled water balance NA NA NA 30 182 0 0 0

Aerobic digester NA NA NA 270 1636 0.47 127 769

Area source combined 11.82 615 3724 Volume

Dewatering building and spirotainer

NA NA NA NA NA NA 68 407 Volume

12



Public

6 MODELLING METHODOLOGY 6.1 Model selection and configuration

Emissions from the Project operations have been modelled using the US EPA’s CALPUFF (Version 6.42) modelling system. CALPUFF is a transport and dispersion model that ejects “puffs” of material emitted from modelled sources, simulating dispersion and transformation processes. CALPUFF uses the fields generated by a meteorological pre-processor CALMET. Temporal and spatial variations in the meteorological fields selected are explicitly incorporated in the resulting distribution of puffs throughout a simulation period. The primary output files from CALPUFF contain either hourly concentration or hourly deposition fluxes evaluated at selected receptor locations. The CALPOST post-processor is then used to process these files, producing tabulations that summarise results of the simulation for user-selected averaging periods.

6.2 Meteorological modelling

To adequately characterise the dispersion meteorology of the Project site, information is needed on the prevailing wind regime, ambient temperature, rainfall, relative humidity, mixing depth and atmospheric stability. The meteorology of the study area was characterised based on a 3-dimensional prognostic meteorological dataset for the region surrounding the Project site.

6.2.1 TAPM

No meteorological observation data is available for the site. Therefore, site-specific meteorological data was generated through the use of a prognostic model. The prognostic model used was The Air Pollution Model (TAPM), developed and distributed by the Commonwealth Scientific and industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

TAPM is an incompressible, non-hydrostatic, primitive equations prognostic model with a terrain- following vertical coordinate for three-dimensional simulations. It predicts the flows important to local scale air pollution, such as sea breezes and terrain induced flows, against a background of large scale meteorology provided by synoptic analyses (Hurley, 2008). TAPM benefits from having access to databases of terrain, vegetation and soil type, leaf area index, sea-surface temperature, and synoptic scale meteorological analyses for various regions around the world.

The prognostic modelling domain was centred at -27.8741 degrees latitude and 152.9645 degrees longitude and involved four nesting grids of 30 km, 10 km, 3 km and 1km with 25 x 25 grids in the lateral dimensions and 30 vertical levels.

The TAPM model included assimilation of data collected at the North Maclean, Beaudesert and Archerfield airport AWS during the year 2015.

6.2.2 CALTAPM

CALTAPM was developed to provide users of the TAPM model the ability to create an hourly, 3- dimensional data file of gridded meteorological parameters of the type 3D.DAT for direct use in the CALMET diagnostic meteorological model. When used this way the TAPM data can be used in CALMET to determine the initial guess wind field, prior to the weighting of true observations or even to run CALMET in no-observation mode. The TAPM output file was converted to a 3D.DAT file using CALTAPM for input into CALMET as an initial guess wind field.

6.2.3 CALMET

CALMET is a meteorological model that develops wind and temperature fields on a 3-dimensional gridded modelling domain. Associated two-dimensional fields such as mixing height, surface characteristics, and dispersion properties are also included in the file produced by CALMET. The interpolated wind field is then modified within the model to account for the influences of topography, as well as differential heating and

13



Public

surface roughness associated with different land uses across the modelling domain. These modifications are applied to the winds at each grid point to develop a final wind field. The final wind field thus reflects the influences of local topography and land uses.

CALMET requires several datasets in order to resolve the surface and upper air meteorology occurring for each hour of the year:

surface observations:

wind speed temperature cloud cover amount precipitation amount and type base cloud height

upper air observations:

height of observation wind speed and direction at each height temperature at each height barometric pressure at each height

land use data topographical data.

The observational data in the surrounding area was available from three BoM stations: North Maclean, Beaudesert and Archerfield airport AWS. CALTAPM provided a 3D.DAT file containing surface and upper air observations at every grid point in the model domain.

CALMET was run for model domain of 30 km by 30 km, based on 150 x 150 grid points and grid resolution of 200 m, referenced to a centre coordinate of 481.507 km east and 6904.730 km north.

CALMET was configured using the recommended settings described in TRC (2011).

6.2.3.1 Land uses

CALMET requires land use information in order to estimate surface roughness over the grid. Aerial photography was used to generate site specific land use information using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) land use categories.

6.2.3.2 Topography

Meteorological modelling using CALMET requires topographic information for the model domain. Topographic information was sourced National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM). The dataset contains relief features at 90 m intervals.

14



Public

6.2.4 Predicted meteorological data

6.2.4.1 Wind speed and wind direction

MODELLED VS REGIONAL BOM SITES

A summary of the annual wind behaviour predicted by CALMET at the Project Site and BOM sites at North Maclean and Beaudesert for the year 2015 is presented in Figure 6.1.

North Mclean is approximately 10 km to the north east of the project site. Beaudesert is approximately 16 km to the south. Due to local topographical influences surrounding the Project site, it is not expected that the windroses be the same. However, all sites indicate a prevailing wind direction from the south west quadrant, a high proportion of calms and light winds.

Figure 6.1 Wind rose comparison

In terms of dispersion of pollutants from the Project site, these lower wind speeds will lead to higher ground level concentrations of pollutants at the nearest sensitive receptors and so using this meteorological file will lead to a conservative assessment of impacts.

Based on this comparison, it is considered that the CALMET data has reasonably generated data that is suitable for use within the assessment.

SEASONAL CALMET WINDROSES

The seasonal; CALMET generated windrose is presented in Figure 6.2.

The seasonal windrose indicates the following:

the prevailing wind direction for all seasons is genrally from the south and south south-west high calm conditions in spring, autumn and winter strong winds in spring and summer from the east north-east.

15



Public

Figure 6.2 Project site seasonal CALMET prediction

16



Public

The diurnal CALMET generated windrose is presented in Figure 6.3.

Figure 6.3 Project site diurnal CALMET prediction

The diurnal windrose indicates the following:

during the day, the prevailing wind direction is from the east north-east during the night, the prevailing wind direction is from the south south-east very high calms are experienced (44.2%) during the night.

6.3 Dispersion modelling

CALPUFF (Scire, Strimaitis, & Yamartino, 2000) is a multi-layer, multi-species, non-steady state puff dispersion model that can simulate the effects of time and space varying meteorological conditions on emissions transport, transformation and removal. The model contains algorithms for near-source effects such as building downwash, partial plume penetration, sub-grid scale interactions as well as longer-range effects such as substance removal, chemical transformation, vertical wind shear and coastal interaction effects. The model uses dispersion equations based on a Gaussian distribution of substances across the puff and takes into account the complex arrangement of emissions from point, area, volume, and line sources.

As with any air dispersion model, CALPUFF requires inputs in three major areas:

emission rates and source details meteorology terrain and surface details, as well as specification of specific receptor locations.

CALPUFF was configured using the recommended settings described in TRC (2011).As described in Section 2, the concept design has not been finalised, therefore the precise location of each component of the BNR reactor is not yet known. Therefore, the odour emission rate (OER) from each component was combined and modelled as a single volume source at the proposed location shown in Figure 2.1. This also enabled the modelling to account for the increase in area for each component between the Stage 1 and

17



Public

Stage 2 of the development. With the exception of the Odour Control Stack, all other odour sources (i.e. inlet works, buildings) were configured in the modelling as volume source releases, with the initial horizontal and vertical dimensions configured to match the actual dimension for each stage.

6.4 Post processing

The primary output files from CALPUFF contain hourly concentrations evaluated at selected receptor locations. The CALPOST post-processor is then used to process these files, producing tabulations that summarize results of the simulation for user-selected averaging periods.

18



Public

7 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT The predicted Odour concentrations at the surrounding sensitive receptors and pollutant contour plots are presented and discussed below.

Scenario 1 describes the Stage 1 20,000EP plant Scenario 2 describes the ultimate 125,000EP plant.

7.1 Odour scenario 1 – Stage 1

The predicted 1-hour average 99.5th percentile odour concentration at the sensitive receptors are presented in Table 7.1.

The highest predicted odour concentration was 0.6 OU at Receptor 1, which does not exceed the relevant criterion of 2.5 OU.

The concentration contours of the predicted model results are presented in Appendix A.

Table 7.1 Scenario 1 – Predicted odour concentrations at predicted receptors

ID RECEPTOR NAME ODOUR CONCENTRATION (OU) 99.5TH PERCENTILE 1-HOUR

1 Receptor off Teviot Road 0.06

2 86 Cedar Pocket Road 0.02

3 102 Couldery Court 0.04

4 End of Gittens Road 0.04



7 292 Cedar Grove Road 0.01





12 325-327 Cedar Grove Road 0.02








20 12-16 Fig Court 0.02

21 20 Fig Court 0.02



19



Public





7.2 Odour scenario 2 – Stage 2 (ultimate)

The predicted 1-hour average 99.5th percentile odour concentration for Scenario 2 at the sensitive receptors are presented in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 Scenario 2 – Predicted odour concentrations at predicted receptors


1 Receptor off Teviot Road 0.3

2 86 Cedar Pocket Road 0.1


4 End of Gittens Road 0.3








12 325-327 Cedar Grove Road 0.1








20 12-16 Fig Court 0.1

21 20 Fig Court 0.1

22 24 Fig Court 0.1

23 34 Fig Court 0.2

24 35 Fig Court 0.2

25 36 Fig Court 0.2

The highest predicted odour concentration was 0.5 OU at Receptor 16, which does not exceed the relevant criterion of 2.5 OU.

The concentration contours of the predicted model results are presented in Appendix A.

20



Public

8 CONCLUSION The objective of this air quality impact assessment was to assess the impacts of emissions of odour from the proposed WWTP in Cedar Grove against applicable air quality criteria to identify any impact to the surrounding residents.

The quantitative assessment indicates that, with conservative assumptions included in the emission estimations, the predicted ground level concentrations Odour assessed for both scenarios were below the guideline concentrations at the nearby sensitive receptors.

21



Public

9 REFERENCES Cardno. (2015). Greater Flagstone PDA Wastewater Servicing Strategy.

DEHP. (2013). Guideline: Odour Impact Assessment from Developments.

Hurley. (2008). TAPM V4. Part 1: Technical Description, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Paper.

LCC. (2015). Logan Planning Scheme 2015 (version 2.1 ed., Vols. Part 9 Development codes—9.2.1 Community residence code).

Queensland Government. (2008) Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008. Environmental Protection Act 1994. Revised version 8 July 2016.

SKM. (2013). Rubyanna WWTP Odour Impact Assessment Study. Prepared for Bundaberg Regional Council.

Appendix A

FIGURES

Reserved plant area

Access road

MBR TanksInlet Works

GPPS

Permeate Pumps

Blower/MCC RoomChemical Dosing

Generator

Odor Control

Logan River

Scrubby Creek

Loga

n Rive

r

Logan River

Cedar Grove Road

Roge

rs Ro

ad

Couldery Court

Denn

is Ro

adFig

Cou

rt

Brushwood Crescen

t

OakTre

e Court

Ceda

r Poc

ket R

oad

Ash Place

495000 495500 496000 496500 497000 497500 498000 49850069

1900

0

6919

000

6919

500

6919

500

6920

000

6920

000

6920

500

6920

500

6921

000

6921

000

LegendRoadRailDischarge mainSite boundaryReserved plant areaGeneratorInlet WorksGPPSBlower/MCC RoomChemical DosingMBR TanksOdor ControlAccess road

SITE LOCATION

QLDNT

SA NSW

0 100 200

m

Approved by: JWDate: 27/01/2017

Map: 2260542A_GIS_001_A Author: RP

Cedar Grove WWTP Stage 1 Odour AssessmentFigure 1

Site of proposed Cedar Grove WWTP

1:10,000

Coordinate system: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56

Scale ratio correct when printed at A3

°

\\APBNEFIL03\proj\D\DOWNER_UTILITIES_AUST\2260542A_Logan_Water_Infras_Alliance\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2260542A_GIS_001_A.mxd Logan Water Utilities Alliance

© WSP l Parsons Brinckerhoff - Asia Pacific (WSP l PB) Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded is the property of WSP l PB. This document and the information are solely for the use of the authorisedrecipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that which it was supplied by WSP l PB. WSP l PB makes no representation, undertakes no duty and acceptsno responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information. NCSI Certified Quality System to ISO 9001. © APPROVED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF© WSP l Parsons Brinckerhoff - Asia Pacific.

www.wsp-pb.com

Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Department of Natural Resourcesand Mines

98

7

65

4

3

2

1

252423

2221

2019

18

1716

15

141312 10

11

494500 495000 495500 496000 496500 497000 497500 498000 498500 49900069

1850

0

6918

500

6919

000

6919

000

6919

500

6919

500

6920

000

6920

000

6920

500

6920

500

6921

000

6921

000




Elevation profile



www.wsp-pb.com

Data source: Geoscience Australia 1 sec SRTM used to create 3D Surface

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!( !(!(!(

98

7

65

4

3

2

1

252423

2221

2019

18

1716

15

141312 10

11

Logan River

Days Creek

Scrub by

Cree

k

Teviot Brook

Cedar Grove RoadRo

gers

Road

Couldery Court

Brus

hwoo

d Cres

cent

Denn

is Ro

ad

Ceda

r Poc

ket R

oad

Leopardwood Road

Oak Tre

e Court

Michelle Drive

Sheo

ak Place

Lancebark Road

Irwin

Road

Ash Place

Cathryn

Court

Laurel Place

Birch Place

Leop

ardwo

od R

oad

Michelle Drive

494500 495000 495500 496000 496500 497000 497500 498000 498500 49900069

1850

0

6918

500

6919

000

6919

000

6919

500

6919

500

6920

000

6920

000

6920

500

6920

500

6921

000

6921

000

Legend!( Sensitive receiver

RoadRailDischarge mainCadastreSite boundaryReserved plant areaGeneratorInlet WorksGPPSBlower/MCC RoomChemical DosingMBR TanksOdor ControlAccess road

SITE LOCATION

QLDNT

SA NSW

0 250 500

m




Sensitive receivers near Cedar Grove WWTP

1:12,500



°



www.wsp-pb.com


!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(!(!(!( !(!(!(

0.1

1

0.5

2

1.5

Logan River

Teviot Brook

Days Cr eek

Scrubby Creek

Cedar Grove Road

Undullah Road

Kilmoyl

ar Road

Wyatt Road

Marion Road

Bushm

anDr

ive

Roge

rs Ro

ad

Leopardwood Road

Broo

kland

Roa

d

Teviot Road

Arthy Drive

Ceda

r Poc

ket R

oad

Irwin

Road

Candlebark Road

Brush

wood

Cres

cent

Denn

is Ro

ad

Delto

ro R

oad

Thora Road

Lancebark Road

Erro

l Cou

rt

B lacksmith Court

Dairy ROAD

Fig

Cour

t

Whita

ker R

oad

Henderson Road

Boondarn Court

Whittling Court

Redwood Circle

St Covet Court

Oak Tre

e Court

Tulip

wood

Road

Michelle Drive

Sheo

akPlace

Suga

rwoo

d Roa

d

Glenlogan Court

Ash Place

Undullah Ro ad

Mich

elle Drive

492500 493000 493500 494000 494500 495000 495500 496000 496500 497000 497500 498000 498500 499000 49950069

1750

0

6917

500

6918

000

6918

000

6918

500

6918

500

6919

000

6919

000

6919

500

6919

500

6920

000

6920

000

6920

500

6920

500

6921

000

6921

000

6921

500

6921

500

6922

000

6922

000


RoadRailDischarge mainSite boundaryReserved plant areaGenerator

Inlet WorksGPPSBlower/MCC RoomChemical DosingMBR TanksOdor ControlAccess road

SITE LOCATION

BRISBANE

GOLD COAST

IPSWICH

0 250 500

m




Stage 1 99.5 percentile Odour Concentration Ispoleth

1:20,000



°



www.wsp-pb.com


INSET

1

0.5

21.5

Roge

rs Ro

ad

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

0.1

1

0.523

4

5

6

1.5

7

82.5

9

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5

10

9.5

8.5 11

Logan River

Teviot Brook

Scrubby

Creek

Days C reek

Cedar Grove Road

Teviot Road

Bushman Drive

Glynton Road

Kilmoyl

ar Road

Wyatt Road

Roge

rs Ro

ad

Henderson Road

Leopardwood Road

Cusack Lane

Arthy Drive

Victoria Drive

Candlebark Road

Broo

kland

Road

Brushw

oodC

rescen

t

Ceda

r Poc

ket R

oad

Drove

r Cres

cent

Denn

is Ro

ad

Mount Lindesay Highway

New B

eith R

oad

Marg

aret R

oad

Undullah Road

Dairy ROAD

St Covet Cour t

Redwood CircleJa

ckero

o Cou

rt

Lancebark Road

Blacksmith Court

Irwin

Road

Saint Jude Circuit

Fig

Cour

t

Blackwood Road

Pasto

ralCo

urt

Dunc

an R

oad

Whittling Court

Riverbend Bou

levar

dOa

k Tree C

ourt

Galile

e Court

Shearer Court

Drifter Court

Michelle Drive

Suga

rwoo

d Roa

d

Ringe

r Cou

rt

Glenlogan Court

Overlander Court

Mackenzie Avenue

Ash Place

Manik

ato C

lose

Cattle

Cam

p Cou

rt

Blackwood Road

Mich

elle Drive

492000 492500 493000 493500 494000 494500 495000 495500 496000 496500 497000 497500 498000 498500 499000 499500 500000 500500 50100069

1800

0

6918

000

6918

500

6918

500

6919

000

6919

000

6919

500

6919

500

6920

000

6920

000

6920

500

6920

500

6921

000

6921

000

6921

500

6921

500

6922

000

6922

000

6922

500

6922

500

6923

000

6923

000


RoadRailDischarge mainSite boundaryReserved plant areaGenerator

Inlet WorksGPPSBlower/MCC RoomChemical DosingMBR TanksOdor ControlAccess road

SITE LOCATION

BRISBANE

GOLD COAST

IPSWICH

0 250 500

m




Stage 2 99.5 percentile Odour Concentration Ispoleth

1:23,122



°



www.wsp-pb.com


INSET

Roge

rs Ro

ad

3

2

45

67

8

2.59

3.5

1.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5

10

9.5

8.5

1110.5

11.5

A-1



Public

cedar grove wastewater treatment plant · 2017. 2. 16. · preliminary treatment area (pta)...

Documents