Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 2 of 64
REVIEW FREQUENCY
Next Revision Date Revision Cycle
DD/MM/YYYY N/A
DISTRIBUTION
Electronic Copies
Name Position Company
Mike Dworkin Vice‐President Development & Operations
MEPAU
Steve McCracken Project Director ‐ Waitsia MEPAU
Kevin Davey Operations Manager – Perth Basin
MEPAU
Kevin Rollo Project Controls Manager ‐ Waitsia
MEPAU
Martin Heller Senior Advisor – HSE and Project Approvals, Corporate
MEPAU
Alex Mata Operations Project Manager MEPAU
Colin Knox Technical Safety Engineer MEPAU
Simon Elliott Engineering Manager ‐ Waitsia MEPAU
Hannah Fletcher HSE Approvals and Compliance Coordinator ‐ Waitsia
MEPAU
Lara Centa Senior Advisor –Environment MEPAU
Disclaimer:
This document is protected by copyright, no part of this document may be reproduced or adapted without the consent of the originator/company owner, all rights are reserved. This document is “uncontrolled when printed”, refer to electronic copy for up to date version.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 3 of 64
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 6
1.1 Existing Approved Premises .............................................................................................. 6
1.2 Proposed Works Approval and Licence Amendment ....................................................... 6
1.3 Modification to Prescribed Premises Boundary ................................................................ 8
3.0 PREMISES DETAILS AND ACTIVITIES OVERVIEW ................................................................. 14
3.1 Premises Maps ................................................................................................................ 14
3.2 Premises Legal Description .............................................................................................. 14
3.3 Project Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 17
4.0 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND LAND USES ............................................................................. 19
4.2 Ground Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 22
4.3 EP Act Part IV Screening Assessment .............................................................................. 22
5.0 DETAILS OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES .................................................................................... 26
5.1 Overview of Gas Processing Operations ......................................................................... 26
5.2 Construction Works and Schedule .................................................................................. 27
5.3 Commissioning ................................................................................................................ 33
6.0 EMISSIONS, DISCHARGES AND WASTE ............................................................................... 35
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 4 of 64
6.2 Waste Storage and Disposal ............................................................................................ 42
6.3 General Waste Management .......................................................................................... 42
6.4 Emissions and Discharges Applicant Controls Summary ................................................. 44
7.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND APPLICANT CONTROLS ................................................................. 47
8.0 OTHER APPROVALS AND CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION ............................................ 54
9.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED .......................................................................... 56
10.0 WORKS APPROVAL FEES .................................................................................................... 62
11.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 64
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1‐1: Regional Location of the Prescribed Activity ..................................................................... 9
Figure 2‐1: Status of L1 Production Licence ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 5‐1: XPF Facility Layout (Pre‐Upgrade) .................................................................................... 29
Figure 5‐2: Layout of Proposed XPF Facility Equipment Upgrades .................................................... 30
Figure 5‐3: Evaporation Pond Civil Detail at Waitsia‐02 Wellsite ...................................................... 32
Figure 6‐1: Noise Contour Plot based on measured noise levels and inclusion of the new compressor
with silencer on exhaust..................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 7‐1 Risk Management Process ISO 31000:2009 ...................................................................... 47
Figure 7‐2: MEPAU’s Risk Matrix ........................................................................................................ 48
Figure 10‐1: Licence Fee Calculation .................................................................................................. 62
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4‐1: Environmental Values and Proximity to Prescribed Premises Boundary ......................... 19
Table 2: Definitions of Commissioning Terms .................................................................................... 33
Table 3: Emissions Sources used in the Air Assessment .................................................................... 36
Table 6‐1: MEPAU Environmental Approvals/Monitoring associated with the WS1E Project .......... 44
Table 7‐1: Construction Phase ERA .................................................................................................... 49
Table 7‐2: Commissioning Phase ERA ................................................................................................ 50
Table 7‐3: Operations ERA.................................................................................................................. 51
Table 8‐1: Stakeholder Consultation Undertaken .............................................................................. 55
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 5 of 64
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1A ‐ Proof of Occupier Status
Attachment 1B ‐ ASIC Company Extract
Attachment 2A ‐ Prescribed Premises Boundary
Attachment 2B ‐ Landowners Adjacent to the Prescribed Premises Boundary
Attachment 3A ‐ Layout of Key Project Infrastructure
Attachment 6A – Emission and Discharge Points ‐ XPF
Attachment 6B – Emission and Discharge Points – Waitsia‐02 wellsite evaporation pond
Attachment 6C – Emission and Discharge Points – HPF evaporation ponds
Attachment 7A – Sensitive Receptors and Land Uses
Attachment 7B – Regional Location and Environmental Values
Attachment 7C – Native Vegetation Clearing Permit Areas
Attachment 8A – Environmental Commissioning Management Plan
Attachment 8B – Air Dispersion Modelling Report (Ramboll, 2019)
Attachment 8C – Acoustic Assessment Report (Herring Storer, 2019)
Attachment 8D – Process Flow Diagrams and Site Layout at XPF and Waitsia‐02 Wellhead
Attachment 8E – Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
Attachment 9 – Capital Cost of Proposed Works (ex GST)
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 6 of 64
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1 Existing Approved Premises
This Works Approval Application has been prepared for the Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion (WS1E) Project.
An existing Licence (L7847/2003/7) exists for Category 10 activities (oil or gas production from wells) at the Xyris Gas Production Facility (XPF) and the Hovea Oil and Gas Production Facility (HPF). This Licence was amended most recently on 6 March 2014 (issued until 29 March 2022), over a prescribed premises boundary encompassing a large portion of Lots 3 and 4, on Plan 13178.
The Licence approved a premises production/design capacity of no more than 500,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of gas and oil production from wells.
1.2 Proposed Works Approval and Licence Amendment
Location and Summary of WS1E Project
AWE operates facilities that produce hydrocarbons from the Waitsia gas field, located within the onshore North Perth Basin (the Shire of Irwin).
The WS1E Project is located approximately 20 km southeast of Dongara and Port Denison and 350 km north of Perth. The Project is located within the coastal highlands of the Mid West region of Western Australia (WA) within the Lesueur Sandplain subregion of the Geraldton Sandplains Bioregion (Figure 1‐1). The facilities and pipeline route are situated within predominantly cleared agricultural land.
The existing XPF is located on Pye Road, east of the Brand Highway, and the existing Waitsia‐02 (W‐02) wellsite is located approximately 500m north of the XPF. The HPF is located 5 km southwest of the XPF.
Activities associated with the WS1E Project that relate to this Works Approval Application include:
Plant equipment/infrastructure upgrades within the XPF
Installation of a waterline from the XPF Water Storage Tank to the Waitsia‐02 wellsite and construction of an evaporation pond at the Waitsia‐02 wellsite for storage of produced formation water; and
Continued PFW storage at the HPF evaporation ponds.
The equipment and infrastructure upgrades at the XPF, will increase the production capacity of the XPF plant from 10 Tera joules per day (TJ/d) of gas up to 30 TJ/d.
The waterline, once installed, will run from the XPF to the W‐02 wellsite for transport of PFW with a low hydrocarbon content, for storage within an evaporation pond at the W‐02 wellsite. The water‐line will be comprised of HDPE where installed below ground and galvanised carbon steel where installed above ground.
The increased production capacity of the XPF will enable continued production from the two existing wells, Senecio‐03 and Waitsia‐01, and allows the Waitsia‐02 well to produce into the XPF plant. As the wells are depleted, additional wells may be tie‐in to the Waitsia Gas Flowline to produce into the XPF. It is noted that 30 TJ/day is calculated to be the equivalent to 224,769 tonnes of gas per year.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 7 of 64
There are currently no plans to undertake any new works within the HPF, which is located on Pye Road a few kilometres southwest of the XPF. The HPF is in a care and maintenance phase following cessation of operations in 2010, and PFW is currently trucked from the XPF for storage within the HPF evaporation ponds. The evaporation ponds may also receive water recovered from well intervention activities from time to time as per current practice.
The activities at HPF are managed under the Waitsia Gas Project Commissioning and Operations Environment Plan (MEPAU, 2019). No changes to any infrastructure at HFP is proposed, and PFW storage within the HPF evaporation ponds will continue with the upgrade at the XPF.
Commissioning works at the XPF will be undertaken prior to first gas from late Q2 2020.
Supporting Information (this document)
This Supporting Information Document has been prepared as supplementary to the Works Approval Application for the WS1E Project (further describes the activities in Section 1.2.1).
The Works Approval Application is for changes to the nature and location of the emissions and discharges under Category 10 of the existing Licence, but no new Works Approval Category is being applied for.
A Licence Amendment application will be made for the WS1E Project following completion of commissioning activities.
WS1E Project – Out of Scope
The WS1E Project also comprises construction of a new 3.7km gas export pipeline from the XPF (Waitsia Gas Export Pipeline) to allow gas production from the XPF to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBNGP). The pipeline route and associated fenced tie‐in compound adjacent to the DBNGP (Waitsia Gas Export Compound) are out of scope, but shown in Figure 1‐1 for reference.
Environment Plans for assessment by the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) are being submitted under the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources Act 1967 and Petroleum Pipelines Act 1969, and cover the following activities:
Construction of the underground gas pipeline and tie‐in works at the XPF and WaitsiaGas Export Compound;
Piping to connect the Waitsia‐02 well to the existing Waitsia Gas Flowline; and
Construction of the Waitsia Gas Export Compound.
The below ground pipeline is also subject to a Pipeline Licence application to be assessed by DMIRS (see Table 6‐1). A temporary contained ablutions block will be hired for the construction phase to accommodate the increased site personnel.
The Perth Basin Facilities Environment Plan [MEPAU, 2019] covers the existing gas gathering system, which includes the Senecio‐03 and Waitsia‐01 wellsites (the current producing wells for the XPF), and their connecting flowlines from the Northern Hub (refer Figure 1‐1).
Construction Schedule
The construction and installation works for the WS1E Project will commence at the start of 2020, with new equipment and infrastructure at the XPF scheduled to be installed once the XPF is shut down from 1 January 2020.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 8 of 64
Related facility and piping works (including construction of the evaporation pond at the Waitsia‐02 wellsite) will also be undertaken from January 2020.
Construction is on the critical path, as commencement of operations (first gas) will occur from July 2020, following a short period of commissioning to achieving steady state operations.
1.3 Modification to Prescribed Premises Boundary
The current prescribed premises boundary, as approved in L7847/2003/7, encompasses a large portion of Lots 3 and 4, on Plan 13178. The boundary has been reduced to more clearly denote where the WS1E Project applicable under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 will be undertaken, as well as continuing to incorporate the HPF.
Attachment 2A below shows the reduced prescribed premises boundary, which encompasses the XPF, W‐02 wellsite, and the HFP. These features are connected by the existing XAGGS line between the XPF and HPF, however this is an isolated retired/redundant line (the HPF operations are in Care and Maintenance).
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 9 of 64
Figure 1‐1: Regional Location of the Prescribed Activity
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 14 of 64
3.0 PREMISES DETAILS AND ACTIVITIES OVERVIEW
3.1 Premises Maps
As described in Section 1.3, the current prescribed premises boundary is reduced to only cover the locations and activities relevant to this Works Approval Application (and future Licence Amendment) for the WS1E Project.
The location of the ‘Prescribed Premises Boundary’ is in relation to the XPF, W‐02 wellsite and the HPF, as shown in Attachment 2A.
3.2 Premises Legal Description
The XPF is located on Lot 4, and the boundary of Lot 3, on Plan 13178. Lot 4 is held by Whitmarsh (Revive Nominees Pty Ltd) and Lot 3 is held by S.Micke (Wongulla Park Pty Ltd). The Waitsia‐02 wellsite is located on Lot M357, which is the Irwin Park Farm owned by AWE.
Irwin Park Farm is freehold owned by AWE (WA) Investment Company Pty Ltd, which is a related body corporate of AWE Perth Pty Ltd.
Landowner access agreements are in place for the WS1E Project, with ground disturbance activities to occur across predominantly cleared agricultural farmland (freehold land),
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 15 of 64
Attachment 2A ‐ Prescribed Premises Boundary
XYRISPRODUCTION
FACILITY
HOVEAPRODUCTION
FACILITY
2
1. CO-ORDINATES TO GDA94 / MGA50.
LEGEND
3
6
7
8911
31
10
32
36
37
38
3029
28
2726
252322 24
2021
1716
15 14
13
12
1
33
435
345
WAITSIA-02WELLSITE
PYE ROAD
NOTES
PREMISE BOUNDARY
ROAD BOUNDARY
COMMON ROAD/LOT BOUNDARY
LOT BOUNDARY
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
18
19
LOT 4 ONP013178
LOT 3 ONP013178
LOT M357 ONP002993
LOT M357 ONP002993
LOT 3 ONP013178
LOT 4 ONP013178
LOT 4 ONP013178
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 16 of 64
Attachment 2B ‐ Landowners Adjacent to the Prescribed Premises Boundary
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 17 of 64
3.3 Project Infrastructure
The key infrastructure and equipment that are part of this Works Approval Application is summarised below.
This Works Approval Application is for emissions and discharges associated with:
Plant equipment/infrastructure upgrades within the XPF
Installation of a waterline from the XPF Water Storage Tank to the Waitsia‐02 wellsiteand construction of an evaporation pond at the Waitsia‐02 wellsite for storage ofproduced formation water; and
Continued PFW storage at the HPF evaporation ponds.
The location of key infrastructure associated with this Works Approval Application is depicted in Attachment 3A ‘Layout of Key Project Infrastructure’.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 18 of 64
Attachment 3A – Layout of Key Project Infrastructure
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 19 of 64
4.0 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND LAND USES
The location of sensitive values within the Regional area surrounding the prescribed premises are shown in Figure 1‐1. The topography is relatively flat land.
Residential Properties and Local Industries
The nearest residential cluster is the Irwin townsite located approximately 9 km north of the XPF. The Dongara and Port Denison townsites are located approximately 20 km southeast of the XPF.
Local industries within close proximity includes the Mondarra Gas Storage Facility, located approximately 3 km east of the XPF, and the Patience Sand Quarry located approximately 1 km south of the XPF.
Residential properties are located within a few kilometres of the XPF, and have been identified as the nearest sensitive land uses/receptors2:
House R2*/ Residence A#: located approximately 3.5km south west of XPF;
House R1* / Residence B#: located approximately 3.8km north east of XPF; and
House R4*: located approximately 4.5km north west of XPF.
These properties were included within the Air Dispersion Modelling Assessment Report *(Ramboll, 2019) and the Acoustic Assessment # (Herring Storer, 2019) (see Attachment 8A and Attachment 8B).
The location of these residential properties and local industry are shown on Attachment 7A ‘Sensitive Receptors and Land Uses’.
Conservation Significant Areas
The prescribed premises boundary is not located within any conservation significant areas. The proximity of the prescribed premises boundary to environmental values is shown in Table 4‐1.
Table 4-1: Environmental Values and Proximity to Prescribed Premises Boundary
Environmental Sensitivity and Distance from the Prescribed Premises Boundary3
Description of the Environmental Value
Conservation Areas / Biological Features
Ejarno Spring (riparian vegetation)
~ 440 m southeast
The Spring is located on freehold land and is comprised of a relatively large area of intact native vegetation (surrounding riparian vegetation).
No impacts to this value are expected to occur associated with activities within the prescribed premises boundary.
Nature Reserves (DBCA) ~ 3.5 km south
~ 12 km west
~ 24km northeast
Yardanogo Nature Reserve
Beekeepers Nature Reserve
Dongara Nature Reserve
2 Distance to the nearest sensitive land uses (that is, a residence or other land use which may be affected by an emission
or discharge associated with the proposed activities) – DWER Application Form 3 Measured from the XPF
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 20 of 64
Environmental Sensitivity and Distance from the Prescribed Premises Boundary3
Description of the Environmental Value
Conservation Areas / Biological Features
Environmentally Sensitive Area
~ 3 km southeast Unspecified
Soil and Landform Within/adjacent to premises boundary
Premises boundary is within previously disturbed agricultural land (cropping, sheep and cattle farming.)
Surrounding native vegetation (excluding Ejarno Spring) has been degraded by grazing and introduced mammals are known to occur within the region.
Geotechnical and soil assessment conducted within proximity of the premises boundary verified that the soils area comprised almost entirely of quartz sand (Blacktop, 2017).
Geology Within/adjacent to premises boundary
The premises boundary is located within the Perth Basin which is described as a large, onshore and offshore immature to frontier petroleum basin on the southwest Australian passive margin, containing about 15km of predominantly siliciclastic marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks. The premises boundary is located within the Yarragadee Bedrock geology unit which is described as fine‐ to coarse‐grained sandstone with thin shale interbeds.
Groundwater Within/adjacent to premises boundary
The groundwater aquifer consists mainly of quartz sands, calcareous sands and limestone in the Tamala Limestone. The groundwater level is close to the surface in the south and in the centre but may be as much as 60 m below the surface, below the crests of the Tamala Limestone dunes along the coast.
Areas of the Waitsia field with depths to groundwater of less than 20 m include areas west of the Gingin Scarp and in the northeast corner. The Waitsia‐02 monitoring bore indicates that standing water levels are approximately 8.425 m (MEPAU, 2018).
The standing water level at the Hovea water supply bore is known to be 48.9 m (MEPAU, 2018).
MEPAU maintains water quality results from its regular monitoring program which includes monitoring bores within the premises boundary. This program has not identified any instances of groundwater contamination that can be attributed to MEPAU’s activities.
Specified Ecosystems
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE)
~ 440 m southeast
The closest expression of surface water is associated with Ejarno Spring, which is also a GDE (shallow expression of groundwater).
The Ejarno Spring area is mapped as being underlain by the Guildford Formation; this suggests that the
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 21 of 64
Environmental Sensitivity and Distance from the Prescribed Premises Boundary3
Description of the Environmental Value
Conservation Areas / Biological Features
spring discharges into a system that may be perched, like those described west of Eneabba (Kern, 1997). Such a perched system would not be significantly impacted by small changes in groundwater levels in the Yarragadee Aquifer.
No impacts to this value are expected to occur associated from activities within the prescribed premises boundary.
Waterbodies ~4 km north The next closest water body is the Irwin River some distance north of the premises boundary. The Irwin River is adjacent to the Allanooka Groundwater Protection Area which extends further to the north of the region.
Other Relevant Environment Features
Cultural Heritage Within/adjacent to premises boundary
No known Aboriginal heritage sites occur within the premises boundary.
AWE has commissioned a number of Archaeological and Anthropological surveys and assessments on the potential Aboriginal heritage significance of the areas with the Perth Basin Region (JCHMC, 2015; REO, 2015; TRC 2017).
The Aboriginal Heritage Survey (REO, 2015) involving the Amangu and Widi Mob groups identified that Ejarno Spring is a place of importance and significance (although not listed).
A heritage survey was undertaken on 2 October 2019 for the WS1E Project with Traditional Owners, an archaeologist and an anthropologist (report pending).
European Heritage ~3 km The closest heritage site is the Munderra Farmhouse, and is listed as Category 3 on the Municipal Heritage List.
Economic Adjacent land The land adjacent to the premises boundary is agriculturally dominated, with extensive oil and gas development (see 4.1.1). The surrounding region is sparsely populated with limited settlement, transport and communications infrastructure.
Other economic activities in the greater Dongara region include primary industries such as agriculture and fisheries, and broad hectare cropping and grazing activities. Beekeeping, tourism and wildflower picking are other activities undertaken in the adjacent area.
The location of these sensitive land uses/receptors in relation to the prescribed premises boundary is shown on Attachment 7B ‘Regional Location and Environmental Values’.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 22 of 64
4.2 Ground Disturbance
Ground disturbance work will be carried out within the XPF plant to install foundations for the new gas compressor (10m x 10m x 1m deep) and, install a bund for a methanol storage tank (10m x 7m x 1m deep).
Ground disturbance work at the Waitsia‐02 wellsite includes construction of the evaporation pond for storage of produced formation water. Other ground disturbance work adjacent to the Waitsia‐02 wellsite is related to pipeline construction works, and is captured within the DMIRS Environment Plans.
The majority of proposed ground disturbance activities are located in existing hardstand areas or located with agricultural land that is currently used for farming. These disturbance activities will require a small area of native vegetation to be cleared associated with the Waitsia Gas Flowline and the Waitsia Gas Export Pipeline route. These activities are covered under two exiting native vegetation clearing permits (NVCP CPS 6875/1 and CPS 6938/1) – shown in Attachment 7C ‘Native Vegetation Clearing Permit Areas’.
4.3 EP Act Part IV Screening Assessment
The WS1E Project activities covered under this Work Approval application will result in limited ground disturbance, the majority of which are limited to existing hardstands and agricultural properties. There will no vegetation clearing required outside of areas where Clearing Permits do not already exist. MEPAU has determined that this activity can be managed without the requirement for additional approval under the EP Act part IV as it is not within:
500 m of Environmentally Sensitive Area (including World Heritage Properties, BushForever sites, Threatened Ecological Communities, defined wetlands, areas containingrare flora, areas covered by an Environmental Protection Policy);
500 m of a declared/proposed State Conservation Estate, including National Park,Nature Reserve, Conservation Park, or State Forest and Timber Reserves;
A Public Drinking Water Source Area.; or
2 km of a declared occupied town site.
In addition to this, the activity is:
Not a hydraulic fracturing exploration and development activity;
Not within the Strategic Assessment for the Perth Peel Region and potentially in conflictwith the outcomes of the Strategic Assessment; or
Not previously or currently subject to formal assessment by the EnvironmentalProtection Authority.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 23 of 64
Attachment 7A ‐ Sensitive Receptors and Land Uses
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 24 of 64
Attachment 7B – Regional Location and Environmental Values
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 25 of 64
Attachment 7C – Native Vegetation Clearing Permit Areas
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 26 of 64
5.0 DETAILS OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
This Works Approval Application is associated with the construction and commissioning of the WS1E Project. A Licence Amendment application will be made for the WS1E Project following completion of commissioning activities, and after compliance with all conditions of the granted Works Approval.
The WS1E Project includes activities within the prescribed premises boundary, with the prescribed activities comprising:
Plant equipment/infrastructure upgrades within the XPF;
Installation of a waterline from the XPF Water Storage Tank to the Waitsia‐02 wellsite and construction of an evaporation pond at the Waitsia‐02 wellsite for storage of produced formation water; and
Continued produced formation water (PFW) storage at the HPF evaporation ponds (6.3.2).
5.1 Overview of Gas Processing Operations
The current gas production facility process at Xyris comprises reservoir fluids from the Senecio‐03 and Waitsia‐01 wells (refer Figure 1‐1) treated with chemicals from dedicated chemical injection packages located in the well site compounds. The reservoir fluids are then transported via flowlines to the Northern Hub, and from the Northern Hub, the Waitsia Gas Flowline transports the reservoir fluids to the XPF.
The WS1E Project will tie in an additional well at Waitsia‐02 into the Waitsia Gas Flowline, which will transport reservoir fluids from the well site to the XPF. As per the Senecio‐03 and Waitsia‐01 wells, there will be dedicated chemical injection packages at the wellsite to treat the Waitsia‐02 reservoir fluids.
Once at the XPF, a two‐phase production separator (upgraded as part of the WS1E Project) separates the reservoir fluids into liquid and gas streams. The liquid stream (water and condensate) is stored in the Liquid Stock Tank, where residence time allows for separation of water and hydrocarbon condensate.
Currently, condensate is transported from the XPF to the Dongara Production Facility (DPF) and loaded into the DPF condensate storage tanks via the Condensate Loading System. The condensate is stored at DPF until export arrangements are made (covered under a separate DWER Licence ).
The separated PFW is transferred to a new Water Storage Tank which will provide additional hold‐up/storage. A new Produced Water Disposal Pump will be provided to discharge the PFW to the newly constructed evaporation pond at the Waitsia‐02 wellsite compound via a new buried HDPE line.
The XPF liquids system is also configured for manual load‐out of PFW via road tankers, where excess volumes of PFW can subsequently be discharged into the evaporation pond or turkey’s nest at HPF (Section 3.3). If required, PFW can also be transported to the Water handling System at the DPF.
The gas stream is conditioned on site at XPF and either exported as sales gas or will be used as fuel gas for the gas engine driven electrical generator and new compressor package. The new compressor package is a gas engine driven reciprocating gas compressor package which will be installed to compress the export gas to a suitable pressure for delivery into the DBNGP via
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 27 of 64
a new 14” export pipeline. A new dedicated vent line will be provided to depressurise separate sections of the facility, but is only required for shut down purposes, with no venting required during normal facility operation.
Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) and Site Layout for the WS1E Project are provided in Attachment 8D (XPF and Waitsia‐02).
5.2 Construction Works and Schedule
Construction activities are scheduled to commence in Q1 2020, with commissioning is expected from May 2020. Based upon estimated work schedules, this work is planned to be completed in Q2, with operations reading for first gas from Q3 2020.
Activities will be predominantly undertaken during daylight hours, with limited 24‐hour operations required.
XPF Equipment/Infrastructure Upgrades
Upgrades to existing equipment and installation of new infrastructure is required within the XPF to enable increased production capacity. All activities associated with upgrades to the XPF will be undertaken within the existing fenced area that borders the XPF.
Prior to conducting this activity, existing equipment, piping and process tanks will be emptied and purged with nitrogen to ensure no hydrocarbon inventory is on‐site during these upgrade activities4.
Within the XPF, the types of activities to be undertaken include (but are not limited to), upgrades to the existing:
Inlet slugcatcher vessel;
Mercury Removal Unit (MRU);
Fuel gas system;
Gas conditioning system, including the gas/gas exchanger and low temperature separator;
Export metering system;
Instrument air system; and
Control and communications networks.
In addition to these upgrades, the following new equipment will be installed:
Water storage tank and water transfer pumps, to cater for the increased water production; and
Methanol storage tank, to cater for the increased flow conditions; and
Gas export compressor package.
Additional activities will be undertaken, which are covered under the Facilities Construction Environment Plan submitted to DMIRS:
Replacement of existing equipment (such as pneumatic controls),
Replacement of above‐ground piping;
4 This activity will be undertaken in accordance with the Perth Basin Facilities Environment Plan (DMIRS assessed)
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 28 of 64
Relocation of equipment (such as the moisture analyser sample point and metering); and
All electrical and instrumentation works associated with plant upgrade activities.
Equipment that is redundant or has been decommissioned during the XPF upgrade may be removed offsite and disposed at an appropriately licenced facility. The type of equipment may include:
Liquid collection boot;
Liquid knock‐out pot (part of the previous gas/gas exchanger draining);
Cool Energy research project facility;
Inlet gas compressor package (redundant);
XAGGS pipeline riser which is disconnected and isolated – noting the retired pipeline is filled with inhibited water;
Buried HDPE piping; and
Refrigerated water chiller package.
An overview of key infrastructure and equipment associated with the XPF upgrade activities is included in Figure 5‐1 and Figure 5‐2.
Civil works to be undertaken within the XPF include concrete foundations to be installed for the new methanol tank and export compressor, but other than this work, only minor ground disturbance will be required within the XPF (and already cleared hardstand area).
A temporary diesel tank (in the order of 2 m3 capacity) will be located on‐site to supply fuel to vehicles, equipment and machinery during construction.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 29 of 64
Figure 5‐1: XPF Facility Layout (Pre‐Upgrade)
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 30 of 64
Figure 5‐2: Layout of Proposed XPF Facility Equipment Upgrades
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 31 of 64
Evaporation Pond Construction at Waitsia‐02 Wellsite
A new evaporation pond will be constructed at the Waitsia‐02 wellsite to store and evaporate the additional PFW associated with the increased XPF capacity.
The existing drill sump pond within the Waitsia‐02 wellsite was originally proposed to be utilised as an evaporation pond for PFW volumes produced from the XPF. However the sump pond was not considered large enough and it may not have been possible to modify the existing pond in time to meet the requirements of the first gas date.
The new evaporation pond will be constructed just to the north of the existing pond, extending just outside the boundary of the cleared hardstand area of the Waitsia‐02 wellsite. As described in Section 4.2, the area is previously disturbed by the wellsite hardstand area and surrounding agricultural farming. The chosen area for the evaporation pond is located within agricultural land, this area was used for the flare pit during the well testing program. The flare pit has been removed and the area has been levelled and it has some re‐growth of non‐native vegetation.
The dimensions of the new evaporation pond will be 50m x 50m (maximum width and length), and up to 2m in depth, with a 1.5mm High‐density polyethylene (HDPE) liner (refer Figure 5‐3). This evaporation pond will only be required to operate for a few years until the Waitsia Stage 2 Project is completed (currently under separate Part IV EP Act assessment), when all produced formation water will then be discharged to the Waitsia Stage 2 plant for processing. Construction of this pond will comprise the following works:
Civil earthworks associated with pond wall and base construction, and
Installation of a new pond liner that is suitable for storing and evaporating of PFW.
The engineering design will be in accordance with the Department of Water (DoW) ‘Water Quality Protection Note 26 ‐ Liners for containing pollutants, using synthetic membranes’ (DoW, 2013) in regards to the appropriate liner thickness for low hazard waste/longer‐term containment facilities.
The sub‐grade will be prepared to ensure that all surfaces are be finished smooth and free of all debris which may damage the pond liner. Jointing of liners and testing will be carried out strictly in accordance with the manufacturer's written instructions. The volumes of PFW produced are likely to be greater than the capacity of the new evaporation pond, with excess volumes of PFW to be continued to be trucked from the XPF to the HPF evaporation ponds. It is estimated that approximately 50% of the PFW may be trucked to the HPF (mostly during the winter months), as per current practice.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 32 of 64
Figure 5-3: Evaporation Pond Civil Detail at Waitsia-02 Wellsite
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 33 of 64
Waterline from XPF to Waitsia‐02 Wellsite
The produced water pipe (the waterline) will be installed from the Water Storage Tank (containing PFW) at the XPF to the evaporation pond located at the Waitsia‐02 wellsite. The pipe will be fabricated of HDPE where installed below ground and galvanised carbon steel where installed above ground (i.e. along the Waitsia‐02 above ground piping). The above ground section will also be installed above ground on concrete pipe‐supports.
The pipe integrity will be tested during commissioning and at regular intervals during operations.
5.3 Commissioning
Following completion of construction activities, commissioning activities will commence over a period of six weeks. The following facilities and locations will be subject to commissioning activities (an Environmental Commissioning Management Plan is provided in Attachment 8A):
All new facilities, flowlines and pipelines including:
Waitsia‐02 wellhead facility, above ground flowline and tie‐in compound;
Waitsia Gas Export Pipeline and Pig Receiver Compound;
The modified Xyris Production Facility; and
The new Waitsia‐02 evaporation pond.
As applicable, commissioning activities will include:
Handover from the construction contractors to the commissioning team
Pre‐commissioning of all aspects of the works;
First introduction of gas from the reservoirs through to the isolation valve to the AGIG DBNGP Metering Compound at the battery limit of the Waitsia Export Pipeline; and
Gas commissioning of all aspects of the works including testing and tuning of the system.
Once commissioning activities are complete, the facility will be handed over to operations. The handover will comprise operator training and first start‐up and first commercial gas flows.
The following definitions around commissioning are provided in Table 2 and below.
Table 2: Definitions of Commissioning Terms
Term Definition
Commissioning Unless specified otherwise, the term Commissioning shall generally refer to the entire commissioning works inclusive of Pre‐Commissioning and Gas Commissioning.
Pre‐Commissioning Energisation, pressurisation (non‐hydrocarbon fluids), functional testing and final inspection of equipment, instrumentation and control systems as far as practicable, such that the Facility is ready for the introduction of hydrocarbons.
Gas Commissioning All works required to progress the facility from the end of Pre‐Commissioning to the final handover to the Company’s Operations inclusive of the first introduction of hydrocarbon gas and liquids, first start‐up, commencement of commercial gas deliveries, tuning, and performance testing.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 34 of 64
Pre‐commissioning will include the following activities:
• Functional testing of all manual and actuated valves through full extent of travel, using all functions;
• Testing of actuated valve functions under nitrogen;
• Commissioning of power supplies, battery chargers and batteries;
• Calibration of all instrumentation;
• Earthing compliance checks;
• Hazardous area checks;
• Cathodic Protection checks (temporary may need to be engaged to cover from completion of pipeline installation up until commissioning of permanent Cathodic Protection system);
• Low pressure air leak testing of facility piping, valve seats of critical valves and pressure equipment;
• Cold loop testing of all circuits;
• Energising all circuits;
• Functional testing of equipment;
• Hot loop checks;
• Motor bump checks;
• Functionality checks on all control room equipment and field equipment;
• Dry calibration of all instruments;
• Final blow through of the facility pipework, including the vent system;
• Punch listing;
• Final alignments on the Compressor; and
• All other pre‐commissioning checks required to be carried out on other equipment necessary to enable the introduction of gas and initial pressurisation.
Commissioning activities include but are not limited to:
• Purge of air from all process pipework and the introduction of a nitrogen blanket;
• Initial pressurisation of all process and utility pipework up to full available service pressure, in a progressive manner with repeated leak checks;
• Wet calibration of the fuel gas system and verification of the required fuel gas process conditions;
• Start‐up of the compressor package and commissioning of the compressor in accordance with approved procedures; and
• Tuning of all control loops and modes to ensure stable system operation in all modes.
• Re‐commissioning of all existing equipment (electrical generators, air compressors, loadout pumps and loadout hoses, etc).
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 35 of 64
6.0 EMISSIONS, DISCHARGES AND WASTE
Potential Emissions and Discharges
This section describes the potential sources of emissions and discharges that may result from activities associated with this Works Approval application (and future Licence Amendment).
While there is the potential for minor dust and noise emissions during construction activities and commissioning (such as from operating vehicles and machinery and testing of the newly installed plant equipment), the greatest potential for atmospheric air and noise emissions within the premises boundary will be from operations following the upgrade of equipment and infrastructure at the XPF. No flaring will be undertaken.
Atmospheric emissions (gas and particulate) and noise emissions will occur from various section of the XPF during operations. An Air Dispersion Modelling Assessment Report was undertaken by Ramboll Australia Pty Ltd (Ramboll, July 2019) and an Acoustic Assessment was modelled by Herring Storer Acoustics (Herring Storer, July 2019).
These assessment reports are described in the sections below, with applicant controls and suggested monitoring further described in 7.0.
The emission and discharge point sources relevant to this Works Approval application are shown in Attachment 6A, 6B and 6C ‘Emission and Discharge Points’ depicting the plant and equipment at the XPF, the evaporation pond at the Waitsia‐02 wellsite and the HFP (fugitive air emissions).
Atmospheric Emissions
Dust
Fugitive dust is likely to occur from vehicle and machinery movements, and dust emissions from exposed ground surfaces (particularly during the construction phase).
The Air Dispersion Modelling Assessment Report undertaken by Ramboll (2019) is provided in Attachment 8B. The Report notes that sources of dust are difficult to quantify accurately and therefore model. Given the small scale of the activities to be undertaken with the premises boundary, and over a short construction period of approximately 6 months, incidental dust generation is considered negligible for causing off‐site impacts. Ramboll (2019) advised that dust is best addressed through a monitoring/management program.
Gas/Particulate Emissions
Air emissions will be associated from the increased plant capacity at the XPF. The following activities were identified during the Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) (Section 7.0) as having the potential to result in air emissions:
• Vehicle and machinery use; and
• Equipment and generator use (including commissioning).
The Air Dispersion Modelling Assessment Report undertaken by Ramboll (2019). This Report is provided in Attachment 8B. Ramboll undertook air dispersion modelling to assess the potential air quality impacts of atmospheric emissions from the proposed expansion of the XPF, comparing the ground level concentrations (GLCs) predicted at sensitive receptor locations against the relevant ambient air quality criteria.
As noted in the Ramboll Air Report, other emission sources that are significant in the region include the Mondarra Gas Storage Facility and a nearby sand mining operation (Patience Sand
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 36 of 64
Quarry). The sensitive receptors assessed in the Report are three residential properties, described in Section 4.1.1, located between 4.5km and 3.5km from the XPF (see Attachment 7A).
The sources of atmospheric emissions identified by MEPAU for assessment in the Ramboll (2019) Report comprised the following (see also Table 3):
Gas compressor engine and gas engine alternator;
Liquid storage venting;
Manual plant vents (maintenance only);
Process water ponds at HPF ‐ evaporation and turkeys nest (fugitive emissions5); and
Vehicular combustion sources.
The sources of potential atmospheric emissions, the expected volume and frequency, location of potential receptors and proposed applicant control measures to minimise emissions and environmental impacts, are summarised in the Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) in 7.0.
Table 3: Emissions Sources used in the Air Assessment
Emission Source
Gas Engine Generator (*A)
Export Gas Compressor Engine (*B) (note 4)
Gas Breakout Tank (*C) (note 3)
Liquids Storage Tanks (*D & *E)
(note 2)
Plant Vent (*F) (note 1)
Total Quantity 1 1 1 1 2
Quantity Operating 1 1 1 1 2
Capacity (kw) 100 750 N/A N/A N/A
Stack Height (m) 2 5 8 8 5
Stack Internal Diameter (m) 0.114 0.179 0.29 0.146 0.2*
Exit Velocity (m/s) 9.6 24.5 0.09 0.01 33
Mass Rate (kg/hr) 417 2651 24 0.7 5200
Mass Rate (kg/hr) HP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mass Rate (kg/hr) LP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Temperature (oC) 300‐400 300‐400 23 20‐30 30 to ‐5
Concentrations
NOx
Refer to Air Modelling Report / Engine Technical Datasheet
N/A N/A N/A
CO N/A N/A N/A
PM2.5 N/A N/A N/A
PM10 N/A N/A N/A
SO2 N/A N/A N/A
H2S <2ppm <2ppm <2ppm <2ppm <2ppm
BTEX <0.05% mol <0.05% mol 2.5% mol 2.5% mol 0.05% mol
Hg <1ug/m3 <1ug/m3 <1ug/m3 <1ug/m3 <1ug/m3
Table Notes:
* A, B, C, D, E, F are shown on Attachment 6A ‘Emission and Discharge Points – Xyris Production Facility’. 1. Plant vents are only used during plant maintenance when the plant needs to be depressurised, or during compressor shutdowns. Gas rate is based on 9000 kPag upstream pressure and 12mm orifice. Vent height assumed to be 5m above grade. * Vent diameter has increased to DN200 and vent exit velocity has reduced accordingly (from the assessment undertaken by Ramboll, 2019).
5 The HPF ponds can contain trace amounts of hydrocarbon and were included as fugitive air emissions sources.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 37 of 64
2. Liquid storage tank vent rate is based on liquid discharge rate into the tank (from H&MB stream 180) as it is assumed that entrained gas flashes off in gas breakout tank. There is no additional emissions from the Produced Water Tank as it receives stabilised liquid from the Liquids Storage Tank. 3. Process data obtained from 25 TJ/d H&MB stream 181. Gas density is 1.1 kg/m3 and MW = 27.6 4. Compressor and Gas Engine Alternator (GEA) engine exhaust gas rate is based on stoichiometric combustion of fuel gas, fuel gas use is 33 Sm3/h (23.7 kg/h) for the generator (Cummings CG6L‐8G1) and 210 Sm3/h (150 kg/h) for the compressor (Cat 3512). Calculation assumes 9.5 m3 of air (density = 1.25 kg/m3) for each m3 of gas (density 0.75 kg/m3) for full combustion.
Ramboll (2019) determined that predicted GLCs are well below the corresponding ambient air quality and workplace exposure standard criteria at the receptor locations (background annual average PM2.5 concentrations over‐factored in the model). When considered without potential background concentrations of pollutants, short term impacts from NO2 was identified as the main pollutant of potential concern from the XPF, although predicted concentrations were still well below the nominated guideline (National Environment Protection Measures (NEPM)).
Noise Emissions
Noise levels will increase with the additional plant components at the XPF. The following activities were identified during the ERA (Section 7.0) as having the potential to result in noise emissions:
• Vehicle, machinery use; and
• Equipment and generator use (including commissioning).
The Acoustic Assessment Report undertaken by Herring Storer (2019) is provided in Attachment 8C. The purpose of the acoustic assessment was to quantify the existing operational noise levels from the XPF facility (prior to the upgrade) and use noise modelling to predict cumulative noise levels following the inclusion of the proposed gas export compressor to enable noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive premises to be assessed.
The sensitive receptors assessed in the Report are two residential properties, and are described in Section 4.1.1, located between 3.8km and 3.5km from the XPF (see Attachment 7A).
By measuring the existing operational noise levels at the XPF, Herring Storer developed a plant model from the actual noise levels to predict the future noise levels from introducing the compressor into the facility. Noise levels were modelled the noise levels using SoundPlan, and the results indicate that the highest calculated noise level at the 2 sensitive noise premises is 15 dB LA10.
This is below the maximum allowable noise level of 35 dB LA10, which determines that the proposed upgrades at the XPF comply with the criteria stipulated in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 ‐ for all hours of operations during operations (Figure 6‐1).
The proposed compressor is a CAT G3512B Gas Engine with an Ariel compressor unit fitted. The engine is not enclosed; however the exhaust system has a “Hospital Pack” silencer fitted reducing the noise level to 75 dB(A) at 1 metre. The compressor engineering specifications are provided in the Herring Storer (2019) Noise Report (Appendix C of Attachment 6C).
Subsequent to the noise modelling, mufflers have been installed on the methanol pump air discharge nozzles to reduce noise levels within the XPF and the Joule‐Thompson valve on the Low Temperature Separator will be replaced by a low noise valve as part of the Project. Therefore, the main source of noise will be the new gas compressor.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 38 of 64
The sources of potential noise emissions, the expected volume and frequency, location of potential receptors and proposed applicant control measures to minimise emissions and environmental impacts, are summarised in the ERA in 7.0.
Figure 6-1: Noise Contour Plot based on measured noise levels and inclusion of the new
compressor with silencer on exhaust
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 39 of 64
Attachment 6A ‐ Emission and Discharge Points – Xyris Production Facility
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 40 of 64
Attachment 6B ‐ Emission and Discharge Points – Waitsia‐02 Wellhead Site
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 41 of 64
Attachment 6C ‐ Emission and Discharge Points – Hovea Production Facility
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 42 of 64
6.2 Waste Storage and Disposal
Stormwater Containment
There is the potential for stormwater to come into contact with small spills of hydrocarbons or chemicals with the XPF or Waitsia‐02 wellsite, resulting in contaminated stormwater. There is no change to the current stormwater handling management at the XPF or at the Waitsia‐02 wellsite (and the same process is followed at other MEPAU operating sites).
All process equipment and tanks that may contain hydrocarbon liquids or chemicals are located within concrete bunds. The bunds are designed to contain liquid spills from the equipment to allow them to be cleaned before they can cause overflow and possible contamination of the surrounding hardstand. The bunds are also designed to retain the stormwater that falls on the bunded areas as this water may be contaminated by small volumes of oil or chemicals in the bunds
The existing and new concrete bunds at XPF are shown in Attachment 8D (dwg XYR‐EXP‐DX‐001).
The existing bunds for the Pig Receiver, the Gas Engine Alternator (GEA)/ Engine Alternator (DEA) (generators) and the bunds for the Liquid Storage Tanks and the Tanker Offloading Area all have external sumps that are drained regularly using the vacuum trailer. The two new bunds that will be constructed for the methanol tank and gas compressor will also have sumps (see Attachment 6A).
All the other bunds (i.e. mostly gas systems with small volumes of liquids) have manual valves (normally closed), that allow draining the stormwater to grade once it is confirmed that it is clean water. If the water is contaminated, these bunds will be emptied using the vacuum trailer.
At the Waitsia‐02 wellsite a concrete bund will be provided for the chemical storage tanks and injection pumps. This bund is provided with a sump to collect any spills or stormwater and it will be emptied regularly using the vacuum trailer. This system will have the same design and features as the existing systems at the Waitsia‐01 and Senecio‐03 wellsites. The Waitsia‐01 wellsite layout drawing (dwg WAT‐DX‐002 in Attachment 8D) shows the existing bund and sump at this wellsite, and the Waitsia‐02 wellsite is provided with the same bund and sump system.
Contaminated water that is removed with the vacuum trailer is transported to DPF and discharged into the Water Treatment System where the oil and water are allowed to separate, the clean water is injected into a water disposal well, and the oil is transferred to the DPF condensate tanks.
6.3 General Waste Management
Waste generated during the activities within the premises boundary includes hazardous and non‐hazardous wastes, such as putrescible food waste and process equipment waste.
In accordance with MEPAU’s Health, Safety and Environment Management System, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) (PB‐HSE‐PLN‐001) has been prepared and provides an overview of the strategy, methods and controls implemented by MEPAU to manage waste.
MEPAU will continue to implement its Waste Management Plan which specifically requires:
Waste storage is available to enable hydrocarbon contaminated to be segregated from general waste;
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 43 of 64
Waste with the potential to be wind‐blown will be stored in a manner to avoid faunascavenging and windblown litter;
Controlled waste to be handled and transported from site by a licensed contractor, and
A waste inventory to be maintained.
A review of all incidents at MEPAU facilities over the past three years did not identify incidents associated with the generation and management of waste that caused impacts to protected fauna species.
Produced Formation Water
As described in Section 5.0, a waterline will be installed from the XPF Produced Water Tank to transport PFW for storage within the evaporation pond at the Waitsia‐02 wellsite. The waterline will be comprised of both HDPE and carbon steel (below ground and above ground respectively). Pressure testing will be carried out on the water pipe during commissioning to confirm its integrity.
The new evaporation pond will be constructed with a HDPE liner of a minimum 1.5 mm thickness, as per the DoW Water Quality Protection Note 26 (DoW, 2013) for lined storage compounds for long‐term containment of non‐hazardous materials. The evaporation pond will store the PFW so that evaporation occurs over time, and there is no additional water treatment proposed.
The maximum capacity of the Waitsia‐02 evaporation pond will be 5,000m3, based on a maximum design of 50m x 50m x 2m depth (allowing a maximum water level of 1.5m). As per the existing HPF evaporation ponds, the pond capacity has been designed to maintain a freeboard of at least 0.5m. The evaporation ponds are visually inspected regularly to confirm the integrity of the liner and the water level (depth markers are installed), to ensure the freeboard is maintained at all times as well as noting the presence of any fauna. Fauna egress mats are provided at the existing HPF ponds and will be provided at the Waitsia‐02 pond.
In addition to the visual monitoring of the ponds, an existing water bore located downstream of the Waitsia‐02 wellsite will be utilised as a monitoring bore to confirm that the liner integrity is maintained and no PFW (hydrocarbons) are discharged to the environment though the liner (the existing groundwater monitoring program is undertaken in accordance with the Perth Basin Surveillance Sampling Program [PB‐HSE‐PRO‐119]).
The total volume of PFW to be produced at XPF is expected to be 8000 litres/day. Approximately 50% of this water to be discharged to the Waitsia‐02 evaporation pond and the balance trucked to the HPF ponds as per current practice (one truck every 4 days), which is below the storage capacity of the containment infrastructure. Pond aeration will be provided as part of the pond design to enhance evaporation efficiency and reduce odour produced by bacteria in the water.
Additionally, in the case of a very high rainfall period that results in high levels in the ponds, it is possible to transport PFW from the Waitsia‐02 and the HPF ponds to the DPF Water Treatment System or the Eremia‐4 disposal well which are approved for disposal.
Based on the hydrocarbon characteristics and the residence time provided for evaporation, it is expected that the hydrocarbon will be less than 100ppm volume by the time it is pumped from the Produced Water Tank to the Waitsia‐02 evaporation pond. The HPF evaporation ponds have been operating for approximately three years and have not detected significant layers of hydrocarbons on the surface of the ponds. The Waitsia‐02 monitoring bore (located
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 44 of 64
~90 m south of the Waitsia‐02 exploration wellhead) indicates that standing water levels are approximately 8.425 m (MEPAU, 2018). Ongoing groundwater monitoring has not identified any instances of groundwater contamination that can be attributed to MEPAU’s activities.
Existing HPF Evaporation Ponds
Two water storage ponds are used within the existing HPF, an evaporation pond and a turkeys nest (see Attachment 6C). The liquid stored within the HFP evaporation ponds and turkey’s nest is mostly PFW (with some water from well intervention activities). PFW inputs and evaporation, results in a pond capacity that maintains a freeboard of 0.5m.
These facilities are will continue to store PFW as part of the existing Licence.
6.4 Emissions and Discharges Applicant Controls Summary
An ERA was undertaken by AWE which is detailed in Section 7.0 and which describes the applicant controls for emissions and discharges.
The source of potential emissions and discharges assessed in Section 7.0 includes the following activities:
The operation of vehicles and machinery;
Stormwater design and management within the XPF;
Evaporation pond construction and produced formation water storage;
Commissioning of the upgraded equipment and infrastructure within the XPF;
Separation and processing of gas for export;
Operation of the gas compressor, Gas Engine Alternator (GEA), and vents at the XPF; and
Operation of the generator, methanol injection pump, and separator at the XPF.
MEPAU also has approvals under other legislation to manage and monitor emissions and discharges from the proposed activities within the premises boundary. These approvals and monitoring are described in Table 6‐1 below.
The Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan is provided in Attachment 8E.
Table 6-1: MEPAU Environmental Approvals/Monitoring associated with the WS1E Project
Approval Name Approval Details
DWER Water Licences:
Dongara Production Facility ‐ GWL161951(5)
Woodada Gas Field ‐ GWL155753(7)
Hovea Production Facility ‐ GWL161322(5)
Hovea Production Facility ‐ GWL151360(7)
Waitsia Gas Field ‐ GWL173435(7) – includes Waitsia‐02
Waitsia‐03 ‐ GWL183759(1)
Corybas‐02 ‐ GWL176604(1)
Groundwater abstraction is an approved activity under these existing water licences.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 45 of 64
Approval Name Approval Details
Irwin‐01 ‐ GWL180269(1)
Yardarino‐06 ‐ GWL179574(1)
Eremia‐04 ‐ GWL179075(1) (to be renewed)
Groundwater Monitoring Program
Perth Basin Surveillance Sampling Program [PB‐HSE‐PRO‐119]
This groundwater monitoring program details the frequency of, and the water quality parameters, required to be monitored across MEPAU’s Perth Basin facilities. The Program provides a water quality baseline, as well as a mechanism for identifying where water quality impacts may arise from specified activities to be developed and implemented.
By conducting routine sampling, MEPAU can understand pre‐spill water quality baseline to support response decisions and support response termination. Specifically, MEPAU have a monitoring bore located downstream of the Waitsia‐02 well that is used to monitor groundwater quality.
DMIRS Dangerous Goods Licence (DGL)
DGL DGS016892 ‐ expires 30/12/2021 (DGL Site name is HPF but also encompasses XPF)
A renewal to the existing DGL will be prepared prior to storage of the increased volumes of dangerous goods.
DMIRS Environment Plan
Onshore North Perth Basin Well Intervention Activities Environment Plan (HSE‐E‐075)
This EP:
Plug and abandonment of the Xyris‐01 well
Removal of drill cuttings and fluids from the Waitsia‐02 sump pond and existing liner
DMIRS Environment Plan
Perth Basin Facilities Environment Plan (PB‐HSE‐PLN‐004)
Extraction of water for construction purposes
Depressurisation of the existing Waitsia Gas Flowline
Removal of hydrocarbon inventory from the XPF
Commissioning and operation of the XPF following construction
Note: This updated EP is pending DMIRS acceptance
DMIRS Environment Plan – submitted
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Facilities Construction Environment Plan [P‐WGP1‐018]
XPF upgrade
Piping construction (installation and tie‐in of Waitsia‐02 flowline)
Construction of an evaporation pond at the Waitsia‐02 wellsite
Construction of a fenced compound, and
Supporting activities (construction/permanent offices)
Note: This EP has been submitted to DMIRS and is pending acceptance
DMIRS Environment Plan – in preparation
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Waitsia Gas Export Pipeline Construction Environment Plan [P‐WGP1‐019]
Civil works
Pipeline construction and installation
Hydrotesting, and • Installation of other below‐ground services within the
same pipeline trench (i.e. fibre‐optic cable, instrument
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 46 of 64
Approval Name Approval Details
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan [P‐WGP1‐020] – Attachment 8E
air‐line, and produced water‐line)
Note: This EP and the Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan have not yet been submitted to DMIRS
DMIRS Pipeline Licence Application – in preparation
Waitsia Export Pipeline Licence
Pipeline route ~3.7km from the XPF to the Waitsia Gas Export Compound (adjacent to the DBNGP)
Note: The Application is pending re‐submission to DMIRS
Shire of Irwin – if required
Building Licence under the Building Act 2011
Health Act 1911 approvals
No Shire approvals are currently identified, but will continue to be assessed through the planning stages of the Project.
The Shire of Irwin has advised that no planning approval is required under the Planning and Development Act 1995.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 47 of 64
7.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND APPLICANT CONTROLS
A qualitative Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) has been undertaken to assess the emissions and discharges as described in Section 6.0. MEPAU’s ERA approach aligns with the processes outlined in ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management ‐ Principles and Guidelines (Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand 2009) and Handbook 203:2012 Managing Environment‐related Risk (Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand 2012) (Figure 7‐1).
Figure 7‐1 Risk Management Process ISO 31000:2009
MEPAU conducted an ERA workshop in accordance with MEPAU’s Perth Basin Operations Risk Matrix [HSE‐SC‐306] which has been provided in Figure 7‐2.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 48 of 64
Figure 7‐2: MEPAU’s Risk Matrix
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 49 of 64
Table 7-1: Construction Phase ERA
Source of Potential Emission / Discharge
Potential Emission / Discharge
Potential Receptors Volume / Frequency Proposed Applicant Controls Residual Risk
The operation of vehicle and machinery and clearing/disturbing hardstand areas during the construction phase
Atmospheric Emissions – Dust
No residences or other sensitive receptors in proximity.
Closest residences (dust) are 3.5km south west, 3.8km north east and 4.5km north west.
Closest residences (noise) are 3.5km south west and 3.8km north east.
Incidental dust generation for the duration of construction – estimated duration of ~6 months.
Speed limits for vehicles
Complaints management system:
o MEPAU will record all complaints associated with atmospheric emissions including the details of complaints received, and any action taken in response to the complaint
Low
Noise Emissions Noise levels modelled to be <35 dB at sensitive receptor locations (two residences) for the duration of construction – estimated duration of ~6 months.
Restricted night‐time activities
Complaints management system:
o MEPAU will record all complaints associated with noise emissions including the details of complaints received, and any action taken in – response to the complaint
Low
Stormwater design within the XPF
Uncontained spill event – water contaminated with hydrocarbons (if inadequately designed at construction phase)
Yaragadee aquifer An evaluation of spill scenarios indicate this type of event may result in an incidental release of contaminated stormwater and is likely to be an infrequent event.
Infrastructure with concrete foundations are bunded
Sumps installed to retrieve runoff
Vacuum trailer used when required to drain sumps
Low
Evaporation pond construction
Spill event – water contaminated with hydrocarbons (if inadequately designed at construction phase)
Yaragadee aquifer There is no spill risk from the evaporation pond during construction, however construction controls will manage the risk of a spill during operations.
New evaporation pond design considerations (including WQPN 26):
o Prepared hardstand area free of debris
o Liner thickness 1.5mm
o Freeboard minimum of 0.5m
Low
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 50 of 64
Table 7-2: Commissioning Phase ERA
Source of Potential Emission / Discharge
Potential Emission / Discharge
Potential Receptors
Volume / Frequency Proposed Applicant Controls Residual Risk
The operation of vehicle and machinery during the commissioning phase
Atmospheric Emissions ‐ Dust
No residences or other sensitive receptors in proximity.
Closest residences (dust) are 3.5km south west, 3.8km north east and 4.5km north west Closest residences (noise) are 3.5km south west and 3.8km north east.
Incidental dust generation for the duration of commissioning phase ~2 months as a short term impact only.
Speed limits (<50 km/h)
Complaints management system:
o MEPAU will record all complaints associated with atmospheric emissions including the details of complaints received, and any action taken in response to the complaint
Low
Commissioning of the upgraded equipment and infrastructure within the XPF – hydrocarbon gas
Atmospheric Emissions ‐ gas and particulates
Atmospheric emissions during the commissioning phase are expected to similar to operations, with any variation limited to a short period during commissioning.
Refer to Section 6.1.2. and Table 3.
Planned release to air at height to support increased dispersion (i.e. the plant vent is located 5m above ground)
Environmental Commissioning Management Plan (2019)
Low
Commissioning of the upgraded equipment and infrastructure within the XPF – hydrocarbon gas
Noise Emissions Noise emissions during the commissioning phase are expected to similar to operations, with any variation limited to a short period during commissioning.
Refer to Section 6.1.3.
Restricted night time activities
Complaints management system:
o MEPAU will record all complaints associated with noise emissions including the details of complaints received, and any action taken in response to the complaint
Low
Produced Formation Water transport via waterline)
PFW ‐ unplanned spill event
Yaragadee aquifer Based on the pipe design, it is unlikely that a spill event will occur.
Pressure testing will be carried out on the water pipe during commissioning to confirm its integrity
Low
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 51 of 64
Table 7-3: Operations ERA
Source of Potential Emission / Discharge
Potential Emission / Discharge
Potential Receptors Volume / Frequency Proposed Applicant Controls Residual Risk
Separation and processing of gas ‐ Operation of gas compressor, Gas Engine Alternator (GEA), and vents6 at the XPF
Atmospheric Emissions ‐ gas and particulates
No residences or other sensitive receptors in proximity.
Closest residences are 3.5km south west, 3.8km north east and 4.5km north west.
XPF production capacity of 30 TJ/day of gas.
Emissions and volume sources are described in Section 6.1.2. and Table 3.
Annual point source monitoring of total gas vented at Plant Vent (denoted as F on Attachment 6A)
Low
Maintenance – depressurisation of the plant vent7
Atmospheric Emissions – gas and particulate
No residences or other sensitive receptors in proximity.
Closest residences are 3.5km south west, 3.8km north east and 4.5km north west.
Emissions are only generated from the plant vents during plant maintenance when the plant needs to be depressurised, or during compressor shutdowns during maintenance.
Emissions and volume sources are described in Section 6.1.2. and Table 3.
Annual point source monitoring of total gas vented at Plant Vent (denoted as F on Attachment 6A)
Planned release to air at height to support increased dispersion (i.e. the plant vent is located 5m above ground)
Low
Operation of gas compressor, generator, methanol injection pump, and Low Temperature Separator at the XPF
Noise Emissions No residences or other sensitive receptors in proximity.
Closest residences are 3.5km south west and 3.8km north east.
Noise levels modelled to be <35 dB at sensitive receptor locations (two residences) for the duration of operations.
Compressor exhaust system has a “Hospital Pack” silencer fitted
Mufflers installed on the methanol injection pumps air discharge nozzles
Joule‐Thompson valve on the Low Temperature Separator will be replaced by a low noise valve
Complaints management system:
o MEPAU will record all complaints associated with
Low
6 Includes gas breakout tank vent and liquids storage tank vent 7 Does not operate under normal conditions
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 52 of 64
Source of Potential Emission / Discharge
Potential Emission / Discharge
Potential Receptors Volume / Frequency Proposed Applicant Controls Residual Risk
noise emissions including the details of complaints received, and any action taken in response to the complaint
Produced Formation Water storage (Waitsia‐02 evaporation pond via waterline)
PFW ‐ unplanned spill event
Yaragadee aquifer Based on the pond design and existing controls, it is unlikely that a spill event will occur, and any spill event is expected to be small in volume.
Volume of PFW transferred to the new evaporation pondmonitored via a flow meter
Tanker volumes are recorded for transport of PFW to theHPF as per current practice
Visual monitoring inspection of freeboard (water depthmarker)
Regular visual inspection of waterline (above groundsection) for evidence integrity failure
Perth Basin Surveillance Sampling Program [PB‐HSE‐PRO‐119] ‐ continuation of existing groundwater monitoringprogram (which will detect if any hydrocarbons within boresdownstream of the Waitsia‐02 evaporation pond)
Low
Stormwater management within the XPF
Spill event – water contaminated with hydrocarbons
Yaragadee aquifer An evaluation of spill scenarios indicate this type of event may result in an incidental release of contaminated stormwater and is likely to be an infrequent event.
Concrete foundations bunds are inspected and clean waterdrained to grade. Contaminated water will be vacuumed out.
Sumps are monitored monthly and vacuumed out asrequired
Hydrocarbon contaminated stormwater from cleaned outbunds and sumps is transported offsite and disposed of at anappropriately licenced facility (usually DPF)
Low
Vehicular movements and exposed hardstand areas
Atmospheric Emissions – Dust
No residences or other sensitive receptors in proximity.
Closest residences are 3.5km south west, 3.8km north east and 4.5km north west.
Traffic movements during operations will be limited, and dust generation is expected to be incidental.
Complaints management system:
o MEPAU will record all complaints associated withatmospheric emissions including the details ofcomplaints received, and any action taken inresponse to the complaint
Speed limits (<50 km/h)
Low
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 53 of 64
Source of Potential Emission / Discharge
Potential Emission / Discharge
Potential Receptors Volume / Frequency Proposed Applicant Controls Residual Risk
Operation of the evaporation pond
Odour Emissions No residences or other sensitive receptors in proximity.
Closest residences are 3.5km south west, 3.8km north east and 4.5km north west.
Based on the pond design and historical operations in the area, it is unlikely that odour emissions will impact sensitive receptors beyond the Premises boundary.
Complaints management system:
o MEPAU will record all complaints associated with odour emissions including the details of complaints received, and any action taken in response to the complaint
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 54 of 64
8.0 OTHER APPROVALS AND CONSULTATION DOCUMENTATION
MEPAU are committed to stakeholder engagement and their commitment is documented in their Stakeholder Engagement Plan [CP‐PM‐039] which includes:
Identification and analysis of stakeholder groups,
Adopted method of communication with each stakeholder group,
Determination of the type of information that is required to be communicated and when,
Confirmation of the MEPAU resource that is responsible for implementing the commitments outlined in this EP,
Reporting responsibilities and relationships during communication and consultation processes,
A list of contacts and the contact details for all key stakeholders,
A calendar of activities (including how, when, to and by whom communications and consultations will occur), and
A point of reference for the specific obligations, commitments and requirements relating to those stakeholders, including those defined within resource consents and third‐party agreements.
MEPAU maintains a database of stakeholder communication and are committed to ongoing consultation and open dialogue with key stakeholders for the duration of the project. In addition to direct engagement, MEPAU hosts a Mid‐West website (www.mitsuiepmidwest.com.au) that includes project specific pages, blogs, a feedback form and hyperlinks to other websites. The website provides an additional method for MEPAU to communicate with stakeholders on a continuing basis.
MEPAU (and previous operators AWE) have routinely engaged with the following list of stakeholders regarding projects within the Waitsia gas field:
routinely engaged with the following list of stakeholders:
Landowners, directly and indirectly affected, including:
A. Whitmarsh (Revive Nominees Pty Ltd),
S. Micke (Wongulla Park Pty Ltd),
Irwin Park Farm (AWE), lessee P. Kupsch (Tara Farming); and
C. Forsyth (Avoca Farm).
Neighbouring operators – APA, Patience Bulk Haulage
Government agencies:
Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA),
DWER,
Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES),
DMIRS, and
Mid‐west Development Commission (MWDC)
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 55 of 64
Traditional owners – Southern Yamatji, Widi Mob and Yued
Joint Venture Partner – Beach Energy (Lattice Energy Resources (Perth Basin) Pty Ltd)
Local stakeholders:
Local Business owners and service providers
Dongara and Port Denison residents, and
Mid‐west Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Local government (staff and elected officials):
Shire of Irwin,
City of Greater Geraldton, and
Shire of Carnamah.
During preparation of the DMIRS Construction Environment Plans, MEPAU completed a scoping exercise to determine which authorities, persons and organisations were relevant for the WS1E Project activities covered under the EPs. As the assets are in regional areas and distant from any town sites, the following key stakeholders were identified:
Landowners of the properties where the assets are located, and adjacent to them,
Local government (Shire of Irwin), and
Southern Yamatji people (Traditional Landowners).
A summary of the most recent consultation undertaken specific to activities covered under this Works Approval Application is detailed in Table 8‐1 below.
Table 8-1: Stakeholder Consultation Undertaken
Stakeholder Date Summary of Consultation
DWER ‐ Industry
Regulation
Branch
17 July 2019 – Scoping meeting
Phone call/emails ‐ ongoing
Scoping meeting to present the WS1E Project,
and discuss the Part V submission process and
information requirements
Shire of Irwin Various engagements over
August / September 2019
Notified regarding the Pipeline Licence
Application and advice sought regarding the
pipeline road crossings. No Development
Applications required.
YMAC Various engagements over
August / September 2019
Heritage survey liaison
Southern Yamatji
Working Group
and MEPAU
Meeting (informal) 7 February
2019 ‐ Senior representatives
Activities update including Waitsia Gas Project.
Key area of interest was potential training and
employment opportunities arising from future
projects.
Landowners Ongoing A number of land access agreements are in place
as described in Section 3.1.
Advised of design changes to the WS1E Project
(fencing, pipeline routing etc), notified regarding
the Pipeline Licence Application and heritage
survey.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 56 of 64
9.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 57 of 64
Attachment 8A – Air Dispersion Modelling Report (Ramboll, 2019)
Intended for
Mitsui E&P Australia Group
Document type
Final Report
Date
July 2019
XYRIS PRODUCTION
FACILITY
AIR DISPERSION
MODELLING
Ramboll Australia Pty Ltd.
ACN 095 437 442
ABN 49 095 437 442
Ramboll
Suite 3, Level 2
200 Adelaide Terrace
East Perth
WA 6004
Australia
T +61 8 9225 5199
F +61 8 9225 5155
https://ramboll.com
XYRIS PRODUCTION FACILITY
AIR DISPERSION MODELLING
Project name Xyris Production Facility – Air Dispersion Modelling
Project no. 318000686
Recipient Mitsui E&P Australia Group
Document type Report
Version Final
Date 5/7/2019
Prepared by Martin Parsons
Checked by Ruth Peiffer
Approved by John Miragliotta
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
1/89
CONTENTS
1. Introduction 3 2. Atmospheric Emissions 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Xyris Production Facility Emissions 5 2.3 Other Regional Emission Sources 5 2.3.1 Mondarra Gas Storage Facility 5 2.3.2 Patience Sand Quarry 6 2.3.3 Hovea Production Facility 6 2.4 Emissions Scenarios 6 2.5 Emissions Rates 6 2.6 Summary 7 3. Impact Assessment Criteria 12 3.1 Ambient Air Quality 12 3.2 Workplace Exposure Standards 14 4. Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling 16 4.1 Important Dispersion Processes to be Modelled 16 4.1.1 Plume Rise above the Stable Boundary Layer 16 4.1.2 Morning Fumigation 16 4.1.3 Plume Downwash due to Nearby Structures 16 4.1.4 Convective Dispersion 16 4.1.5 Terrain Effects on Airflow 16 4.1.6 Inclusion of Other Regional Sources – Cumulative Assessment 16 4.2 Model Selection 16 4.3 Meteorological Processing 16 4.3.1 Model Validation against Meteorology 18 4.4 CALPUFF Model Set Up 19 4.5 Short Term Averaging Periods 20 4.6 Treatment of Oxides of Nitrogen 20 4.7 Ozone 20 4.8 Receptors 21 4.9 Building Downwash 21 4.10 Background Concentrations Used in the Modelling 21 5. Predicted Concentrations 23 6. Conclusions 33 7. References 34
TABLES Table 1: Source Parameters and Emission Rates for XPF 8
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
2/89
Table 2: Source Parameters and Emission Rates for Mondarra Gas
Storage Facility 10 Table 3: Sand Mining Emissions Rates 10 Table 4: Source Parameters and Emission Rates for Hovea Facility 11 Table 5: National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Goals 12 Table 6: National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) Measure Ambient
Air Quality Monitoring Investigation Levels 13 Table 7: Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable to XPF 14 Table 8: Workplace Exposure Standards 15 Table 9: Distribution of Wind Speeds for 2018 (CALMET-Generated Data) 18 Table 10: Receptor Locations (UTM coordinates) 21 Table 11: Nominated Background Concentrations for Pollutants 22 Table 12: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline without
Background at Sensitive Receptor 1 25 Table 13: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline with
Background at Sensitive Receptor 1 26 Table 14: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline without
Background at Sensitive Receptor 2 27 Table 15: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline with
Background at Sensitive Receptor 2 28 Table 16: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline without
Background at Sensitive Receptor 4 29 Table 17: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline with
Background at Sensitive Receptor 4 30 Table 18: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline without
Background at Onsite Receptor 31 Table 19: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline with
Background at Onsite Receptor 32
FIGURES Figure 1. Overview of Project Location 4 Figure 2. CALMET Generated Wind Rose 17 Figure 3. Annual (2018) Wind Rose from BOM measured dataset from
Geraldton Airport 19 Figure 4. Maximum Predicted 1-hour Average GLCs of NO2 for
Cumulative Operations Without Nominated Background Concentrations 24
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
3/89
1. INTRODUCTION
AWE Perth Pty Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of AWE Limited. Mitsui E&P Australia Pty Ltd and
AWE Ltd are wholly owned subsidiaries of Mitsui & Co. Ltd. Combined they form the unified brand
Mitsui E&P Australia Group (MEPAU). MEPAU is an oil and gas exploration and production business
with a head office located in Perth, Western Australia.
MEPAU manages the Waitsia Gas Field located on grazing land in the Shire of Irwin, about 19 km
south-east of Dongara and 367 km north of Perth (see Figure 1). The field sits within the
Geraldton Sandplains bioregion of Western Australia.
The Waitsia Gas Project is the largest conventional onshore Australian discovery in 40 years. It
currently consists of five oil and gas wells on petroleum permits L1 and L2. The field was
discovered in 2014 and has been developed in stages. The field is currently producing from two
wells, Waitsia-01 and Senecio-03 (collectively known as Waitsia Gas Project Stage 1). Wells
Waitsia-02, Waitsia-03 and Waitsia-04 wells are currently suspended.
Stage 1 of the project was commissioned in 2016 and achieved an output of ~10 TJ per day.
Stage 1 flowed gas from Waitsia-1 and Senecio-3 gas wells to the Xyris Production Facility (XPF)
owned by MEPAU and delivered treated gas for domestic use through the Parmelia Gas pipeline
(PGP).
The Xyris Expansion Project involves increasing production from ~10 TJ per day to 30 TJ per day
– and connecting the facility to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBNGP) (it is
currently only connected to the Parmelia Gas Pipeline). With the capacity increase, emissions to
air will increase.
Ramboll Australia Pty Ltd (Ramboll) has been engaged by MEPAU to undertake air dispersion
modelling to assess the potential air quality impacts of atmospheric emissions from the proposed
expansion of the XPF, comparing the GLCs predicted at sensitive receptor locations against the
relevant ambient air quality criteria. This report presents the approach, methodology and results
of air dispersion modelling for the Facility operating under the nominated scenario.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
4/89
Figure 1. Overview of Project Location
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
5/89
2. ATMOSPHERIC EMISSIONS
2.1 Introduction
This section provides details on the atmospheric emissions of concern from the proposed
expansion of the XPF and other sources in the region. Emissions of concern from the XPF are
oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter
including PM2.5 and PM10, VOCs (including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene) (BTEX) and
mercury (Hg).
Besides the XPF sources, other emission sources that are significant in the region include the
Mondarra Gas Storage Facility (MGSF) and nearby sand mining operation.
2.2 Xyris Production Facility Emissions
Emission sources from the proposed expansion of the XPF include the following:
• Compressor gas engine – Compression will be undertaken by a 750kw CAT G3512 LE lean burn
four stroke. Emissions of concern are primarily considered to be NOX;
• Gas Engine Alternator (GEA) – Power will be supplied by a 100kw Cummins CG6L-8G1 lean
burn four stroke model engine. Emissions of concern are primarily considered to be NOX;
• Vents – The vents include a gas breakout tank vent, a liquids storage tank vent and a plant
vent. The plant vents are only used during plant maintenance when the plant needs to be de-
pressured. Emissions of concern include BTEX and Hg.
• Two process water ponds including an evaporation pond and a turkey nest. Both ponds can
contain some trace amounts of hydrocarbon and so have been included as fugitive emissions
sources.
• Vehicular combustion sources – Motor vehicles are considered a negligible source of
atmospheric emissions (during both construction and operation), though they can result in
relatively high ground level concentrations (GLCs) immediately adjacent to highly trafficked
roads under stable, light wind conditions; and
• Fugitive dust from motor vehicle traffic, construction emissions and nearby exposed surfaces.
This source is difficult to quantify accurately and therefore model and is considered best
addressed through a monitoring and management program.
2.3 Other Regional Emission Sources
Other sources considered as part of this assessment include the MGSF, the Patience Sand Quarry
and the Hovea Production Facility.
2.3.1 Mondarra Gas Storage Facility
The MGSF operates approximately 3 km to the east of the XPF as shown in Figure 1. The MGSF is
located between two major pipelines that service Perth: the Parmelia Pipeline and the Dampier to
Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBNGP). The MGSF includes the following sources of emissions to
air:
• Flare – A small quantity of gas will be vented through a permanently lit flare. The gas that
reaches the flare is used to maintain a blanket of gas over the liquids, effectively preventing
ingress of air into the vessels. The flare can operate under either normal conditions, whereby
the facility is in injection mode for 2/3 of the time and in withdrawal mode for 1/3 of the time,
or under blow-out conditions, expected to only occur under extreme circumstances on a less
that one hour per year basis.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
6/89
• A vent is maintained at the site for emergency purposes and for purging gas from equipment
prior to maintenance.
• Power Generation and Compressors – The MGSF has two natural gas powered 3.2 MW
compressor reciprocating engines as well as two 300 kVA natural gas powered GEAs operating.
All emissions information was obtained from a previous modelling assessment as supplied by the
APA Group (Synergetics, 2011).
2.3.2 Patience Sand Quarry
A sand quarry excavating and transporting 3000 tonnes per year of sand operates approximately
1 km to the south of the XPF as shown in Figure 1. The main sources of emissions associated with
the quarry include the excavation and loading of the product, wind erosion of the quarry and the
transport of the product.
2.3.3 Hovea Production Facility
The Hovea Production Facility is located approximately 5 km to the west of the XPF as shown in
Figure 1. It is currently under care and maintenance with no known plans to operate into the
future. The Hovea Production Facility does have an evaporation pond and a sump where stored
water can contain some trace amounts of hydrocarbon. The evaporation ponds have been
included in this assessment as fugitive sources.
2.4 Emissions Scenarios
For the operation of the XPF, there are some variations in the emissions that can occur. For this
modelling assessment, these are simplified into normal operations and maintenance operations.
Normal operations at the XPF includes emissions from the GEA, the compressor, the gas breakout
tank vent and the liquids storage tank vent. The plant vent does not operate under normal
conditions. The plant vents are only used during plant maintenance when the plant needs to be
de-pressured.
Maintenance operations at the XPF includes emissions from the GEA and the plant vent only. The
compressor and other vents are not operated. It is expected that maintenance will only occur for
a small number of hours each year, and as such this assessment has focussed on short term
impacts (i.e. less than 24 hours) for this scenario.
2.5 Emissions Rates
Emission rates for the XPF sources were derived from a number of sources; the GEA and
compressor emission rates were derived from fuel consumption rates and emission factors from
the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) Combustion Sources Emissions Estimations Manual (NPI,
2008). Emissions rates for all other XPF sources were derived from data provided by MEPAU.
Emissions estimates for the sand quarry were derived from handling, wind erosion and haulage
emissions factors outlined in the NPI Mining Emissions Estimations Manual (NPI, 2012).
Emission rates from the ponds were determined using the USEPAs WATER9 program which
consists of analytical expressions for estimating air emissions of individual waste constituents in
wastewater collection, storage, treatment, and disposal facilities.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
7/89
2.6 Summary
A summary of the source parameters and emissions rates for the proposed expansion of the XPF,
as well as the MGSF, Hovea Production Facility and sand mining operations utilised in this
assessment are presented in Table 1 to Table 4.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
8/89
Table 1: Source Parameters and Emission Rates for XPF
Emission Source Gas Engine
Generator
Export Gas
Compressor
Engine4
Gas
Breakout
Tank3
Liquids
Storage
Tank2
Plant Vent1 Sump Turkeys Nest
Zone 50 J 50 J 50 J 50 J 50 J 50 J 50 J
Easting (mE) 314732 314749 314708 314704 314755 314862.4 314863.3
Northing (mN) 6756440 6756482 6756465 6756464 6756478 6757086 6757130
Capacity (kw) 100 750 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Stack Height (m) 2 5 8 8 5 N/A N/A
Stack Internal Diameter (m) 0.114 0.179 0.29 0.146 0.1 N/A N/A
Exit Velocity (m/s) 9.6 24.5 0.09 0.01 245 N/A N/A
Mass Rate (kg/hr) 417 2651 24 0.7 5200 N/A N/A
Mass Rate (kg/hr) HP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mass Rate (kg/hr) LP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Temperature (oC) 300-400 300-400 23 20-30 0 to -5 25 25
Dimensions N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 33mx33mx2.5m 35mx25mx2.5m
Emission Rates
NOx 1.30E-01 8.28E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
CO 8.54E-02 5.44E-01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
PM2.5 1.18E-05 7.53E-05 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
PM10 1.18E-05 7.53E-05 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
SO2 1.19E-04 7.58E-04 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Benzene 2.75E-03 1.73E-02 1.67E-04 4.70E-06 5.40E-02 2.37E-04 3.46E-04
Toluene 2.16E-03 1.36E-02 1.31E-04 3.69E-06 4.24E-02 1.08E-04 1.61E-04
Ethylbenzene 1.83E-04 1.15E-03 1.11E-05 3.12E-07 3.58E-03 3.88E-06 5.76E-06
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
9/89
Emission Source Gas Engine
Generator
Export Gas
Compressor
Engine4
Gas
Breakout
Tank3
Liquids
Storage
Tank2
Plant Vent1 Sump Turkeys Nest
Xylenes 8.46E-04 5.32E-03 5.13E-05 1.44E-06 1.66E-02 8.31E-05 1.25E-04
Hg 4.67E-08 2.94E-07 2.83E-09 7.98E-11 9.17E-07 4.14E-07 4.39E-07
Notes:
1. Plant vents are only used during plant maintenance when the plant needs to be depressured. Gas rate is based on 9000 kPag upstream pressure and 12 mm orifice. Vent height
assumed to be 5 m above grade (supported by compressor roof structure).
2. Liquid storage tank vent rate is based on liquid discharge rate into the tank (from H&MB stream 180) as it is assumed that entrained gas flashes off in gas breakout tank.
3. Process data obtained from 25 TJ/d H&MB stream 181. Gas density is 1.1 kg/m3 and MW = 27.6.
4. Compressor and GEA engine exhaust gas rate is based on stiochiometric combustion of fuel gas, fuel gas use is 33 Sm3/h (23.7 kg/h) for the generator (Cummings CG6L-8G1) and
210 Sm3/h (150 kg/h) for the compressor (Cat 3512). Calculation assumes 9.5 m3 of air (density = 1.25 kg/m3) for each m3 of gas (density 0.75 kg/m3) for full combustion.
5. Emissions factors of criteria pollutants are from Table 54 of Combustion engines EET, assuming load of less than 90%.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
10/89
Table 2: Source Parameters and Emission Rates for Mondarra Gas Storage Facility
Emission Source
Export Gas
Compressor
Engine
Gas Engine
Generator Flare
Total Quantity 2 2 1
Quantity Operating 2 2 1
Stack Height (m) 9 9 12.6
Stack Internal Diameter (m) 0.3 0.2 4.5
Exit Velocity (m/s) 15 21 0.14
Temperature (oC) 460 450 1000
Emission Rates
NOx 3.31E+00 4.14E-01 2.03E-02
CO 2.17E+00 2.72E-01 1.17E-01
PM2.5 2.78E-04 2.78E-05 1.67E-03
PM10 2.78E-04 2.78E-05 1.67E-03
SO2 3.06E-03 2.78E-04 0.00E+00
Benzene 1.67E-03 2.78E-04 5.56E-07
Toluene 1.67E-03 2.78E-04 8.33E-07
Ethylbenzene 2.78E-04 2.78E-05 0.00E+00
Xylenes 8.33E-04 8.33E-05 0.00E+00
Hg 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Locations
Zone 50 J 50 J 50 J
Easting - Unit 1 (mE) 317215 317115 317332
Northing - Unit 1 (mN) 6756189 6756164 6756254
Easting - Unit 2 (mE) 317214 317116
Northing - Unit 2 (mN) 6756211 6756150
.
Table 3: Sand Mining Emissions Rates
Source Unit PM10 PM2.5
Excavation and Loading (8.0 t/day) g/s 0.027 0.0136
Wind Erosion (6.54 Ha) g/s 0.36 0.18
Haulage 300 m x 2 X Trucks/Day1 g/s 0.011 0.0055
Notes:
1. Assumed 82 t total load from 50 t haul truck https://www.cat.com/en_AU/products/new/equipment/off-highway-
trucks/off-highway-trucks/18256246.html
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
11/89
Table 4: Source Parameters and Emission Rates for Hovea Facility
Emission Source Evaporation
Pond Turkeys Nest
Zone 50 J 50 J
Easting (mE) 309752 309735
Northing (mN) 6755033 6755144
Temperature (oC) 25 25
Dimensions 45mx35mx1m 29mx24mx1.5m
Emissions Rates
Benzene 5.47E-04 2.08E-04
Toluene 2.85E-04 1.00E-04
Ethylbenzene 1.03E-05 3.59E-06
Xylenes 2.11E-04 7.66E-05
Hg 2.40E-07 1.59E-07
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
12/89
3. IMPACT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
3.1 Ambient Air Quality
In February 2017, the DWER published the Guidance Statement for Risk Assessments (DER,
2017) which lists Specific Consequence Criteria to be considered in determining public health and
environment impacts. The publications containing air quality criteria relevant to this assessment
include:
• National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (NEPC, 2016);
• National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) Measure (NEPC, 2011); and
• Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales
(NSW EPA, 2016).
The National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure specifies standards and goals
for a range of pollutants relevant to this assessment, including CO, NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5
(Table 5).
Table 5: National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Goals
Pollutant Averaging
period
Maximum concentration
standard1
Maximum allowable
exceedances
Carbon monoxide 8 hours 10,000 µg/m3 1 day a year
Nitrogen dioxide 1 hour
1 year
246 µg/m3
62 µg/m3
1 day a year
None
Sulphur dioxide
1 hour
1 day
1 year
570 µg/m3
228 µg/m3
60 µg/m3
1 day a year
1 day a year
None
Particles as PM10 1 day
1 year
50 µg/m3
25 µg/m3
None
None
Particles as PM2.5 1 day
1 year
25 µg/m3
8 µg/m3
None
None
Notes:
1. Referenced to 0ºC, and 101.3 kPa
The National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) Measure specifies monitoring investigation levels
for several key pollutants relevant to this assessment, including BTEX, established for use in
assessing the significance of monitored levels of air toxics with respect to protection of human
health as outlined in Table 6.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
13/89
Table 6: National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) Measure Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Investigation
Levels
Pollutant Averaging
period
Monitoring
investigation level1 Goal
Benzene Annual average 9.6 µg/m3
8-year goal is to gather sufficient data
nationally to facilitate development of a
standard.
Toluene 24 hours
Annual average
3769 µg/m3
377 µg/m3
8-year goal is to gather sufficient data
nationally to facilitate development of a
standard.
Xylenes (as total of ortho,
meta and para isomers)
24 hours
Annual average
1085 µg/m3
868 µg/m3
8-year goal is to gather sufficient data
nationally to facilitate development of a
standard.
Notes:
1. Referenced to 0ºC, and 101.3 kPa
The NSW EPA (2016) specifies statutory impact assessment criteria for modelling and assessing
emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. Impact assessment criteria have been
established for various individual toxic air pollutants and for individual odorous air pollutants,
including (but not limited to) mercury and BTEX. The NSW EPA (2016) impact assessment criteria
for inorganic mercury, benzene and ethylbenzene are based on toxicity to humans.
For the purposes of assessing potential impacts upon human health, additional ambient air quality
criteria are often adopted from the World Health Organisation (WHO) for mercury. The WHO has
published a Concise International Chemical Assessment Document (CICAD) for Elemental Mercury
and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects (WHO, 2003), which determines a
tolerable concentration of 0.2 µg/m3 for long-term inhalation exposure to elemental mercury
vapour.
DWER recommends that for each pollutant modelled, the assessment must account for existing
concentrations caused by other sources plus (if significant) the background concentration
(whether natural or man-made) to estimate the cumulative concentration.
For the contribution to be properly assessed, DWER requires modelling results (as described in the
foregoing point) to be presented for:
• The existing emissions plus background concentration (pre-proposal);
• The proposed development in isolation (excluding existing emissions); and
• The combined (existing plus proposed plus background) emissions.
A summary of the standards applicable for this assessment are summarised in Table 7 below.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
14/89
Table 7: Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable to XPF
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Ambient Air
Concentration
(µg/m3)1
Type Reference
Carbon monoxide 8 hours 10,000 human health NEPC (2016)
Nitrogen dioxide 1-hour 246 human health NEPC (2016)
Annual 62 human health NEPC (2016)
Sulphur dioxide
1-Hour 570 human health NEPC (2016)
24-Hour 228 human health NEPC (2016)
Annual 60 human health NEPC (2016)
Particles as PM10 24-Hour 50 human health NEPC (2016)
Annual 25 human health NEPC (2016)
Particles as PM2.5 24-Hour 20[2] human health NEPC (2016)
Annual 7[2] human health NEPC (2016)
Mercury inorganic 1-hour 1.8 human health NSW EPA (2016)
Annual 0.2 human health WHO (2003)
Benzene 1-hour 29 human health NSW EPA (2016)
Annual 9.6 human health NEPC (2011)
Ethylbenzene 1-Hour 7,344 human health NSW EPA (2016)
Toluene
1-Hour 330 human health NSW EPA (2016)
24-hour 3,769 human health NEPC (2011)
Annual 377 human health NEPC (2011)
Xylene
1-hour 174 human health NSW EPA (2016)
24-hour 1,085 human health NEPC (2011)
Annual 868 human health NEPC (2011)
Notes:
1. Referenced to 0ºC, and 101.3 kPa
2. PM2.5 concentrations presented are from proposed 2025 changes to National Environment Protection (Ambient Air
Quality) Measure.
3.2 Workplace Exposure Standards
Workplace exposure standards for approximately 700 substances and mixtures have been
established in Australia by Safe Work Australia, an Australian government statutory body. These
are legal concentration limits that must not be exceeded. Workplace exposure standards are
generally less conservative than ambient air quality standards to account for the general health of
the workforce and shorter exposure times. Relevant workplace exposure standards are presented
in Table 8.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
15/89
Table 8: Workplace Exposure Standards
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Criteria
(µg/m3)1 Criteria Reference
NO2 15-Minute 9400 Safe Work Australia (2013)
8-Hour 5,600 Safe Work Australia (2013)
SO2 15-Minute 13,000 Safe Work Australia (2013)
8-Hour 5,200 Safe Work Australia (2013)
CO 8-hour 34,000 Safe Work Australia (2013)
Mercury 8-hour 25 Safe Work Australia (2013)
Benzene 8-hour 3,200 Safe Work Australia (2013)
Toluene
15-Minute 574,000 Safe Work Australia (2013)
8-Hour 191,000 Safe Work Australia (2013)
24-hour 3,769 NEPC (2011)
Ethylbenzene 15-Minute 543,000 Safe Work Australia (2013)
8-Hour 434,000 Safe Work Australia (2013)
Xylene
15-Minute 655,000 Safe Work Australia (2013)
8-Hour 350,000 Safe Work Australia (2013)
24-hour 1,085 NEPC (2011)
Notes:
1. Referenced to 0ºC, and 101.3 kPa
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
16/89
4. ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELLING
4.1 Important Dispersion Processes to be Modelled
The relevant dispersion processes are dependent on the type of source, the topography, land use
variations and general wind patterns. For the sources considered, the following meteorology and
dispersion processes are important:
4.1.1 Plume Rise above the Stable Boundary Layer
Generally the buoyant plumes such as from the generators and compressors will penetrate any
low inversion and remain above the inversion.
4.1.2 Morning Fumigation
This occurs in the morning when the morning mixed layer grows to the plume height and the
plumes can be mixed rapidly to the ground. This phenomenon is generally considered to lead to
the highest concentrations for distances greater than 5 to 10 km from the sources.
4.1.3 Plume Downwash due to Nearby Structures
Downwash of the plume by the turbulent eddies that develop when air flows over and around
buildings. If the plume is emitted into or is caught in such an eddy, it can be brought to ground
much sooner than would otherwise occur, resulting in higher GLCs.
4.1.4 Convective Dispersion
During the day time, the heated earth’s surface will generate convective cells of rising and
descending air which can bring any plume to the ground within several hundred metres of the
source.
4.1.5 Terrain Effects on Airflow
Topography can impact significantly on air flow and therefore the dispersion of pollutants. The site
however is generally flat and undulating and as such is considered to have only a minimal impact
on dispersion.
4.1.6 Inclusion of Other Regional Sources – Cumulative Assessment
For pollutants where there is a significant cumulative impact (i.e. background levels are
significant), the impact assessment needs to include existing regional sources and/or background
concentrations.
4.2 Model Selection
Due to the number of sources in the region located some distance from each other, the air
dispersion modelling has been using the CALPUFF air dispersion model with a meteorological
dataset from 2018.
4.3 Meteorological Processing
The closest meteorological monitoring stations with the applicable data available for this study
were Geraldton (~50km away) and Mullewa (~90km away). Due to the distances and the fact
that Geraldton is located on the coast and Mullewa is located in a semi-arid environment, neither
dataset was considered suitable for use in this assessment.
In the absence of suitable monitored data, the TAPM (The Air Pollution Model) prognostic
meteorological model developed by CSIRO was used to generate a gridded meteorological dataset
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
17/89
for the modelling domain for 2018. The TAPM output was used as inputs into the CALMET
meteorological processor to develop a meteorological data file suitable for use in CALPUFF.
An annual wind rose generated by the CALMET meteorological processor using TAPM generated
data for the XPF site is presented in Figure 2, with the annual frequency of wind speeds presented
in Table 9.
Figure 2. CALMET Generated Wind Rose
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
18/89
Table 9: Distribution of Wind Speeds for 2018 (CALMET-Generated Data)
Wind Speed Calms 0.5–1.5
m/s 1.5-3.0 m/s 3.0-4.5 m/s 4.5-6.0 m/s 6.0-7.5 m/s >7.5m/s
(%) 0.7 11.4 37.1 29.0 16.1 5.1 0.6
4.3.1 Model Validation against Meteorology
TAPM was used to generate the prognostic data for input into CALMET and then CALPUFF. The
ability of TAPM to predict meteorological variables has been verified at numerous sites around the
world (Hurley et al, 2004; Hurley, 2008). To verify the ability of the model to accurately predict
wind direction and speed for this study, the TAPM predictions have been compared against the
data from 3-hourly averaged data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) meteorological
monitoring station in Geraldton [Site name: Geraldton Airport, Site number: 008315,
Latitude: 28.80° S, Longitude: 114.70° E, Elevation: 30 m (BOM 2019)].
Figure 3 presents the BOM meteorological station in Geraldton Airport. Some differences are
expected when compared against the prognostic data as outline in Figure 2 due to the distance
between the two locations and their distances from the coast: ~9 km and ~16 km, respectively.
The main differences observed are:
• BOM dataset from Geraldton Airport shows an overall higher proportion of stronger winds (>8
m/s) blowing mostly from the south, which is likely related to its greater proximity to the
coast;
• The prognostic-generated dataset for XPF presents a higher proportion of winds blowing from
the east and northeast.
For the purposes of this assessment, the TAPM-generated dataset is considered representative of
the region and is deemed appropriate for use in this assessment.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
19/89
Figure 3. Annual (2018) Wind Rose from BOM measured dataset from Geraldton Airport
4.4 CALPUFF Model Set Up
The following model set up options within CALPUFF were used:
• Building downwash was included using the BPIP-Prime algorithms with site layout and
elevation. All buildings assessed to potentially influence sources were included in the
modelling;
• Grid spacings of 250 m over a 19 km x 19 km model domain were applied, centred
approximately on the site;
• No chemical transformation or deposition, except for the prediction of NO2 (as discussed in
Section 4.6);
A summary of the CALPUFF inputs applied in this assessment is provided in Appendix 1.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
20/89
4.5 Short Term Averaging Periods
Some workplace exposure standards are based on short term (15-minute) averages. However, air
dispersion modelling is generally undertaken in 1 hour time steps and in order to compare the
predicted concentrations against the nominated standards, a simple averaging-time scaling factor
was used to estimate short-term peak concentrations. This adjustment primarily addresses the
effect of meandering (fluctuations in the wind about the mean flow for the hour) on the average
lateral distribution of material. The scaling factor used to adjust the lateral dispersion coefficient1
for averaging time is the 1/5th power law:
Cl = Cs (60 / tl) 0.2
where
Cl = Concentration for new averaging period;
Cs = Concentration for the 1 hour average period;
tl = the averaging time (min.) of interest
4.6 Treatment of Oxides of Nitrogen
A key element in assessing the potential environmental impacts from ground level NO2
concentrations is estimating NO2 concentrations from modelled NOx emissions. The final NO2
concentration is a combination of the NO emitted as NO2 from the source stacks and the amount
of NO that is converted to NO2 by oxidation in the plume after release.
Generally, after the NOx is emitted from the stack, additional NO2 is formed as the plume mixes
and reacts with the surrounding air. There are several reactions that both form and destroy NO2,
but the primary reaction is oxidation with ozone according to the following reaction:
NO + O3 NO2 + O2
This reaction is essentially instantaneous as the plume entrains the surrounding air. It is limited
by the amount of ozone available and by how quickly the plume mixes with the surrounding air.
Thus the ratio of NO2 to NOx increases as the plume disperses downwind. After release, the NO is
converted to NO2 by chemical reactions, primarily involving ozone in the presence of sunlight and
to a lesser extent due to other reactive gases.
In order to predict NO2 concentrations, Ramboll has applied the US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Ozone Limiting Method (OLM). This method assumes that ozone is the limiting
reagent (i.e. the ozone concentration is less than the remaining NOx concentration) and requires
an NO2 to NOx in-stack ratio. In the absence of a site-specific in-stack ratio, it has been assumed
that 10% of NOx emissions are NO2 (a common assumption for gas combustion sources). Hourly
average ozone concentrations for application in the OLM were obtained from the Caversham
ambient air quality monitoring station as discussed in Section 4.10.
The OLM approach is considered conservative over short-term averaging periods as it assumes
the reaction between NOx and ozone occurs instantaneously, when in reality this is likely to take
place over a number of hours, during which time the plume is subject to dispersion.
4.7 Ozone
Photochemical smog is an air pollution problem commonly found in large cities. It is characterised
by high ozone concentrations at ground level, and can be generated through the interaction of
NOx and reactive organic compounds (ROC) which includes BTEX in the environment.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
21/89
The proposed XPF expansion is expected to be a relatively small emitter of NOx. Based on the
emission rates provided in Table 1 and assuming continuous release throughout the year, it is
estimated that the proposed XPF will emit approximately 30 tonnes of NOx and 5 tonnes of VOCs
annually.
By comparison, data from the NPI indicates a total of 760,000 tonnes of NOx were emitted to the
Kalgoorlie airshed for the 2018/2019 reporting year, where ozone is not considered a contaminant
of concern.
In considering these figures, and the likelihood that the surrounding region is unlikely have
elevated concentrations of ozone given its rural and remote settings, photochemical modelling of
NOx and VOC emissions from the XPF has not been undertaken as part of this assessment.
4.8 Receptors
Concentrations for all relevant compounds and averaging periods were predicted at three
farmhouses surrounding the facility as show in Figure 1 and at an onsite receptor to assess
occupational exposure impacts at site. Table 10 presents the locations of the dwelling and onsite
locations.
Table 10: Receptor Locations (UTM coordinates)
Receptor mE mN Type
Rec_001 311822 6755012 Dwelling
Rec_002 318515 6757359 Dwelling
Rec_003 314800 6756400 Onsite
Rec_004 310650 6758684 Dwelling
4.9 Building Downwash
According to modelling guidance “rules of thumb”, downwash should be considered when nearby
structures are more than 40% of the stack height. For the XPF sources, dimensions for the
compressor and GEA housings were provided by MEPAU and included as buildings. For the MGSF,
building information was obtained from the previous modelling assessment as supplied by the APA
Group (Synergetics, 2011).
4.10 Background Concentrations Used in the Modelling
The XPF is located in a remote location with no significant local sources of CO, SO2, NO2 or air
toxics (other than those included as sources in this assessment). Particulate matter could arise
from wind-blown dust but is still likely to be significantly lower than in a suburban environment
affected by road transport and other combustion sources. No background monitoring data was
identified in this assessment that was either in the immediate proximity of the study site or
deemed to be representative of this location. Rather, most ambient air quality monitoring sites
are located either in densely populated areas or near large known polluters in industrial zones.
The Western Australian Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER) collects air
quality data from a number of monitoring stations throughout the Perth, Kwinana, Southwest,
Kalgoorlie and Midwest regions of the state. Only two sites monitoring the pollutants of interest
were identified that were not in a densely populated area and were not under the strong direct
influence of a large polluting source: Caversham (NE suburbs of Perth) and Rolling Green (outer
east rural site). Data from Caversham (DWER, 2018) was used as the more conservative estimate
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
22/89
(a semi-rural, outer suburban setting being more likely to have higher concentrations of most
pollutants compared with a rural one).
The Environment Protection Authority Victoria (Vic EPA) State Environment Protection Policy
(Ambient Air Quality) (SEPP (AQM)) (Gov. of Vic., 2001) recommends the 75th percentile
concentration (concentration which is exceeded by 25% of concentrations for that averaging
period) should be adopted as a background level for short term averages. For comparison against
the short term workplace exposure standards, the 1 hour average was utilised. Annual averages
were used for long term averages.
Table 11 presents a summary of the background concentrations obtained from the Caversham
monitoring station (2017) and utilised as part of this assessment. No representative background
data was available for Hg and BTEX, however it is unlikely that there are any significant sources of
these compounds, other than those modelled.
Table 11: Nominated Background Concentrations for Pollutants
Pollutant Averaging Period Representative Background
(µg/m3)
NO2 15-Minute 1-hour, 8-hour 39
Annual 10
SO2
15-Minute 1-hour, 8-hour 31
1-day 9
Annual 9
CO 8-hour 250
PM10 24-hour 20
Annual 16
PM2.5 24-hour 9
Annual 9
It should be noted that the annual average for PM2.5 is already in exceedance of the guideline. It is
unlikely that this is representative of conditions in the region, however in the absence of site
specific data, it has been utilised.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
23/89
5. PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS
The following sections present the predicted concentrations of NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, Hg and
BTEX using the model CALPUFF. GLCs of the modelled compounds have been predicted within the
modelling domain. The predicted GLCs for the proposed expansion of the XPF operating both in
isolation and cumulatively with existing sources and background concentrations at the nominated
receptor locations, are summarised in Table 12 to 19.
Tables 12 to 17 present the predicted concentrations and the percentage of the ambient air
quality values, both with and without background concentrations, at the nominated sensitive
receptor locations. Tables 18 to 19 present the predicted concentrations and the percentage of
the workplace exposure standards, both with and without background concentrations, at the
nominated onsite receptor location.
The results of the air dispersion modelling assessment show that predicted GLCs for most
compounds in isolation and cumulatively are well below the corresponding ambient air quality and
workplace exposure standard criteria at the nominated receptor locations, with the exception of
the scenarios that consider annual average background concentrations of PM2.5. The annual
average background concentrations of PM2.5 were obtained from the Caversham monitoring
station and were already in exceedance of the guideline before consideration of emissions from
other sources. Given the rural nature and lack of industry in the region around the proposed
facility it is highly likely that the actual background concentrations of PM2.5 in the region are
significantly below the monitored concentrations at Caversham. The annual average
concentrations of PM2.5 predicted for the proposed expansion of the XPF and other existing
sources, without consideration of background concentrations, are equal to 4% of the annual
average PM2.5 guideline.
When considered without measured background concentrations, short term impacts from NO2
were predicted to be the main pollutant of concern from the XPF and MGSF, although predicted
concentrations remain well below the nominated guideline. Figure 3 presents a contour plot of
predicted cumulative concentrations of NO2 (under normal operations) in the region excluding
background.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
24/89
Figure 4. Maximum Predicted 1-hour Average GLCs of NO2 for Cumulative Operations Without Nominated
Background Concentrations
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
25/89
Table 12: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline without Background at Sensitive Receptor 1
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Criteria
(µg/m3)
Existing Xyris in Isolation Cumulative - Normal
Operations
Cumulative -
Maintenance
Operations
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
NO2 1-hour Max 246 86 35% 50 20% 86 35% 86 35%
Annual Av 62 0.8 1% 0.3 0.5% 1.1 2% 0.9 1%
SO2
1-hour Max 570 0.09 0.02% 0.05 0.01% 0.09 0.02% 0.09 0.02%
24-hour Max 228 0.009 0.004% 0.01 0.005% 0.01 0.005% 0.01 0.004%
Annual Av 60 0.0007 0.001% 0.0003 0.0005% 0.001 0.002% 0.001 0.001%
CO 8-hour Max 10,000 44 0.4% 21 0.2% 44 0.4% 44 0.4%
PM10 24-hour Max 50 1.1 2% 0.001 0.002% 1.1 2% 1.1 2%
Annual Av 25 0.1 0.4% 0.00003 0.0001% 0.1 0.4% 0.1 0.4%
PM2.5 24-hour Max 25 1.1 4% 0.001 0.005% 1.1 4% 1.1 4%
Annual Av 8 0.1 1% 0.00003 0.0003% 0.1 1% 0.1 1%
Mercury 1-hour Max 2 0.00004 0.002% 0.00005 0.003% 0.00005 0.003% 0.0001 0.01%
Annual Av 0.2 0.0000001 0.0001% 0.0000003 0.0001% 0.0000004 0.0002% 0.000001 0.0005%
Benzene 1-hour Max 29 0.06 0.2% 1.1 4% 1 4% 6 22%
Annual Av 9.6 0.0007 0.007% 0.006 0.07% 0.007 0.07% 0.04 0.37%
Toluene 1-hour Max 330 0.05 0.02% 0.8 0.3% 0.8 0.3% 5 1.5%
Annual Av 377 0.0006 0.0001% 0.005 0.001% 0.006 0.001% 0.03 0.007%
Ethylbenzene 1-hour Max 7,344 0.01 0.0001% 0.07 0.001% 0.07 0.001% 0.4 0.006%
Xylene 1-hour Max 330 0.03 0.01% 0.3 0.10% 0.3 0.1% 1.9 0.6%
Annual Av 868 0.0003 0.00003% 0.002 0.0002% 0.002 0.0003% 0.01 0.001%
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
26/89
Table 13: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline with Background at Sensitive Receptor 1
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Criteria
(µg/m3)
Background Existing Xyris in Isolation Cumulative -
Normal Operations
Cumulative -
Maintenance
Operations
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
NO2 1-hour Max 246 39 16% 125 51% 89 36% 125 51% 125 51%
Annual Av 62 10 16% 11 17% 10 17% 11 18% 11 18%
SO2
1-hour Max 570 31 5% 31 5% 31 5% 31 5% 31 5%
24-hour Max 228 9 4% 9 4% 9 4% 9 4% 9 4%
Annual Av 60 9 15% 9 15% 9 15% 9 15% 9 15%
CO 8-hour Max 10,000 250 3% 294 3% 271 3% 294 3% 294 3%
PM10 24-hour Max 50 20 40% 21 42% 20 40% 21 42% 21 42%
Annual Av 25 16 64% 16 65% 16 64% 16 65% 16 65%
PM2.5 24-hour Max 25 9 37% 10 41% 9 37% 10 41% 10 41%
Annual Av 8 9 113% 9 114% 9 113% 9 114% 9 114%
Notes:
Annual average background concentrations of PM2.5 are above the guideline before the addition of other regional and XPF sources. This data was obtained from the
Caversham monitoring station located in the Perth Metropolitan Area. Given its rural nature, it is likely that background PM2.5 concentrations will be significantly below
the concentrations presented as background in this table, however they have been included in this assessment for completeness.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
27/89
Table 14: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline without Background at Sensitive Receptor 2
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Criteria
(µg/m3)
Existing Xyris in Isolation Cumulative - Normal
Operations
Cumulative -
Maintenance
Operations
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
NO2 1-hour Max 246 117 48% 24 10% 117 48% 117 48%
Annual Av 62 1.8 3% 0.1 0.1% 1.9 3% 1.8 3%
SO2
1-hour Max 570 0.38 0.07% 0.02 0.00% 0.38 0.07% 0.38 0.07%
24-hour Max 228 0.059 0.026% 0.00 0.001% 0.06 0.026% 0.06 0.026%
Annual Av 60 0.0022 0.004% 0.0001 0.0001% 0.002 0.004% 0.002 0.004%
CO 8-hour Max 10,000 180 1.8% 10 0.1% 180 1.8% 180 1.8%
PM10 24-hour Max 50 2.1 4% 0.000 0.001% 2.1 4% 2.1 4%
Annual Av 25 0.05 0.2% 0.00001 0.0000% 0.0 0.2% 0.05 0.2%
PM2.5 24-hour Max 25 2.1 9% 0.000 0.001% 2.1 9% 2.1 9%
Annual Av 8 0.0 1% 0.00001 0.0001% 0.05 1% 0.05 1%
Mercury 1-hour Max 2 0.000004 0.0002% 0.00004 0.002% 0.00004 0.002% 0.0001 0.01%
Annual Av 0.2 0.00000001 0.000005% 0.0000001 0.0001% 0.0000001 0.0001% 0.0000003 0.0001%
Benzene 1-hour Max 29 0.21 0.7% 0.5 2% 0.5 2% 6 22%
Annual Av 9.6 0.0013 0.013% 0.002 0.02% 0.003 0.03% 0.01 0.1%
Toluene 1-hour Max 330 0.21 0.06% 0.4 0.1% 0.4 0.1% 5 1.5%
Annual Av 377 0.0013 0.0003% 0.001 0.000% 0.003 0.001% 0.01 0.003%
Ethylbenzene 1-hour Max 7,344 0.03 0.0005% 0.03 0.000% 0.03 0.0005% 0.4 0.006%
Xylene 1-hour Max 330 0.10 0.03% 0.2 0.05% 0.2 0.05% 2.0 0.6%
Annual Av 868 0.0006 0.00007% 0.001 0.0001% 0.001 0.0001% 0.00 0.0004%
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
28/89
Table 15: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline with Background at Sensitive Receptor 2
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Criteria
(µg/m3)
Background Existing Xyris in Isolation Cumulative -
Normal Operations
Cumulative -
Maintenance
Operations
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
NO2 1-hour Max 246 39 16% 156 64% 63 26% 156 64% 156 64%
Annual Av 62 10 16% 12 19% 10 16% 12 19% 12 19%
SO2
1-hour Max 570 31 5% 31 6% 31 5% 31 6% 31 6%
24-hour Max 228 9 4% 9 4% 9 4% 9 4% 9 4%
Annual Av 60 9 15% 9 15% 9 15% 9 15% 9 15%
CO 8-hour Max 10,000 250 3% 430 4% 260 3% 430 4% 430 4%
PM10 24-hour Max 50 20 40% 22 44% 20 40% 22 44% 22 44%
Annual Av 25 16 64% 16 65% 16 64% 16 65% 16 65%
PM2.5 24-hour Max 25 9 37% 11 46% 9 37% 11 46% 11 46%
Annual Av 8 9 113% 9 113% 9 113% 9 113% 9 113%
Notes:
Annual average background concentrations of PM2.5 are above the guideline before the addition of other regional and XPF sources. This data was obtained from the
Caversham monitoring station located in the Perth Metropolitan Area. Given its rural nature, it is likely that background PM2.5 concentrations will be significantly below
the concentrations presented as background in this table, however they have been included in this assessment for completeness.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
29/89
Table 16: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline without Background at Sensitive Receptor 4
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Criteria
(µg/m3)
Existing Xyris in Isolation Cumulative - Normal
Operations
Cumulative -
Maintenance
Operations
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
NO2 1-hour Max 246 86 35% 16 7% 86 35% 86 35%
Annual Av 62 0.6 1% 0.1 0.2% 0.7 1% 0.6 1%
SO2
1-hour Max 570 0.09 0.02% 0.01 0.003% 0.09 0.02% 0.09 0.02%
24-hour Max 228 0.006 0.002% 0.01 0.003% 0.01 0.003% 0.01 0.003%
Annual Av 60 0.0005 0.001% 0.0001 0.0002% 0.001 0.001% 0.001 0.001%
CO 8-hour Max 10,000 43 0.4% 7 0.1% 44 0.4% 43 0.4%
PM10 24-hour Max 50 0.5 1% 0.001 0.001% 0.5 1% 0.5 1%
Annual Av 25 0.05 0.2% 0.00001 0.0001% 0.05 0.2% 0.05 0.2%
PM2.5 24-hour Max 25 0.5 2% 0.001 0.002% 0.5 2% 0.5 2%
Annual Av 8 0.05 1% 0.00001 0.0002% 0.05 1% 0.05 1%
Mercury 1-hour Max 2 0.000014 0.0008% 0.00002 0.001% 0.00002 0.001% 0.00004 0.002%
Annual Av 0.2 0.00000012 0.000059% 0.0000002 0.0001% 0.0000003 0.0002% 0.0000006 0.0003%
Benzene 1-hour Max 29 0.05 0.2% 0.3 1% 0.4 1% 2 7%
Annual Av 9.6 0.0005 0.005% 0.003 0.03% 0.004 0.04% 0.02 0.2%
Toluene 1-hour Max 330 0.05 0.02% 0.3 0.1% 0.3 0.1% 2 0.5%
Annual Av 377 0.0004 0.0001% 0.002 0.001% 0.003 0.001% 0.01 0.004%
Ethylbenzene 1-hour Max 7,344 0.01 0.0001% 0.02 0.0003% 0.03 0.0004% 0.1 0.002%
Xylene 1-hour Max 330 0.02 0.01% 0.1 0.03% 0.1 0.04% 0.6 0.2%
Annual Av 868 0.0002 0.00003% 0.001 0.0001% 0.001 0.0001% 0.01 0.0006%
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
30/89
Table 17: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline with Background at Sensitive Receptor 4
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Criteria
(µg/m3)
Background Existing Xyris in Isolation Cumulative -
Normal Operations
Cumulative -
Maintenance
Operations
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
NO2 1-hour Max 246 39 16% 125 51% 55 22% 125 51% 125 51%
Annual Av 62 10 16% 11 17% 10 16% 11 17% 11 17%
SO2
1-hour Max 570 31 5% 31 5% 31 5% 31 5% 31 5%
24-hour Max 228 9 4% 9 4% 9 4% 9 4% 9 4%
Annual Av 60 9 15% 9 15% 9 15% 9 15% 9 15%
CO 8-hour Max 10,000 250 3% 293 3% 257 3% 294 3% 293 3%
PM10 24-hour Max 50 20 40% 21 41% 20 40% 21 41% 21 41%
Annual Av 25 16 64% 16 65% 16 64% 16 65% 16 65%
PM2.5 24-hour Max 25 9 37% 10 39% 9 37% 10 39% 10 39%
Annual Av 8 9 113% 9 113% 9 113% 9 113% 9 113%
Notes:
Annual average background concentrations of PM2.5 are above the guideline before the addition of other regional and XPF sources. This data was obtained from the
Caversham monitoring station located in the Perth Metropolitan Area. Given its rural nature, it is likely that background PM2.5 concentrations will be significantly below
the concentrations presented as background in this table, however they have been included in this assessment for completeness.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
31/89
Table 18: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline without Background at Onsite Receptor
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Criteria
(µg/m3)
Existing Xyris in Isolation Cumulative - Normal
Operations
Cumulative -
Maintenance Operations
Conc.
(µg/m3) % of Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
NO2 15-Minute Max 9400 124 1% 156 2% 156 2% 140 1%
8-Hour Max 5,600 62 1% 78 1% 78 1% 70 1%
SO2 15-Minute Max 13,000 0.2 0.002% 0.5 0.004% 0.5 0.004% 0.4 0.003%
8-Hour Max 5,200 0.1 0.002% 0.3 0.005% 0.3 0.005% 0.2 0.004%
CO 8-Hour Max 34,000 78 0.2% 182 0.5% 182 0.5% 130 0.4%
Mercury 8-Hour Max 25 0.00001 0.00003% 0.0004 0.001% 0.0004 0.001% 0.0004 0.001%
Benzene 8-Hour Max 3,200 0.06 0.002% 6 0.2% 6 0.2% 5 0.2%
Toluene
15-Minute Max 574,000 0.1 0.00002% 9 0.002% 9 0.002% 8 0.001%
8-Hour Max 191,000 0.06 0.00003% 5 0.002% 5 0.002% 4 0.002%
24-Hour Max 3,769 0.01 0.0003% 2 0.06% 2 0.06% 2 0.04%
Ethylbenzene 15-Minute Max 543,000 0.02 0.000004% 0.8 0.0001% 0.8 0.0001% 0.7 0.0001%
8-Hour Max 434,000 0.01 0.000002% 0.4 0.00009% 0.4 0.00009% 0.3 0.00008%
Xylene
15-Minute Max 655,000 0.06 0.00001% 4 0.0005% 4 0.0005% 3 0.0005%
8-Hour Max 350,000 0.03 0.00001% 2 0.0005% 2 0.0005% 2 0.0004%
24-Hour Max 1,085 0.005 0.0005% 0.8 0.08% 0.8 0.08% 0.6 0.06%
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
32/89
Table 19: Predicted Concentrations and Percentage of Guideline with Background at Onsite Receptor
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Criteria
(µg/m3)
Background Existing Xyris in Isolation Cumulative -
Normal Operations
Cumulative -
Maintenance
Operations
Conc.
(µg/m3)
Conc.
(µg/m3)
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
Conc.
(µg/m3)
% of
Guide.
NO2 15-Minute Max 9400 39 0.4% 163 2% 195 2% 195 2% 179 2%
8-Hour Max 5,600 39 0.7% 101 2% 117 2% 117 2% 109 2%
SO2 15-Minute Max 13,000 31 0.2% 31 0.2% 32 0.2% 32 0.2% 31 0.2%
8-Hour Max 5,200 31 0.6% 31 0.6% 31 0.6% 31 0.6% 31 0.6%
CO 8-Hour Max 34,000 250 0.7% 328 1% 432 1% 432 1% 380 1%
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
33/89
6. CONCLUSIONS
MEPAU manages the Waitsia Gas Field located on grazing land in the Shire of Irwin, about 19 km
south-east of Dongara and 367 km north of Perth. The Waitsia Gas Project consists of five oil and
gas wells on petroleum permits L1 and L2. The field was discovered in 2014 and has been
developed in stages. The field is currently producing from two wells, Waitsia-01 and Senecio-03.
Wells Waitsia-02, Waitsia-03 and Waitsia-04 wells are currently suspended. Stage 1 of the project
was commissioned in 2016 and achieved an output of ~10 TJ per day. Stage 1 flowed gas from
Waitsia-1 and Senecio-3 gas wells to the XPF owned by MEPAU and delivered treated gas for
domestic use through the PGP.
The Xyris Expansion Project involves increasing production from ~10 TJ per day to 30 TJ per day
– and connecting the facility to the DBNGP (it is currently only connected to the Parmelia Gas
Pipeline). With the capacity increase, emissions to air will increase.
Air dispersion modelling was undertaken to assess the potential air quality impacts of atmospheric
emissions from the proposed expansion of the XPF, comparing the GLCs predicted at sensitive
receptor locations against the relevant ambient air quality criteria.
The modelling indicated that predicted GLCs for most compounds in isolation and cumulatively are
well below the corresponding ambient air quality and workplace exposure standard criteria at the
nominated receptor locations, with the exception of the scenarios that consider annual average
background concentrations of PM2.5.
The annual average background concentrations of PM2.5 were obtained from the Caversham
monitoring station and were already in exceedance of the guideline before consideration of
emissions from other sources. Given the rural nature and lack of industry in the region around the
proposed facility it is highly likely that the actual background concentrations of PM2.5 in the region
are significantly below the monitored concentrations at Caversham. The annual average
concentrations of PM2.5 from XPF and other existing sources predicted without consideration of
background concentrations are only 1% of the guideline.
When considered without potential background concentrations of pollutants, short term impacts
from NO2 were predicted to be the main pollutant of concern from the XPF and MGSF, although
predicted concentrations were still well below the nominated guideline.
The assessment incorporated a number of conservative assumptions, in the absence of more
accurate or representative input data. This means that any uncertainties associated with the
modelling are balanced by the conservativeness of the assessment, and that the outcomes
reported are likely to be over-estimates of the pollutant concentrations that will actually be
experienced at the receptors.
Ramboll - Xyris Production Facility
34/89
7. REFERENCES
Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). 2019. “Climate Data Sites: Site Information”, viewed 28 June 2019,
<http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/cvg/av?p_stn_num=008315&p_prim_element_index=0&p
_display_type=enlarged_map&period_of_avg=&normals_years=&p_comp_element_index=0&redr
aw=null&p_nccObsCode=122>.
Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER). 2018. “2017 Western Australia Air
Monitoring Report Written to comply with the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality)
Measure” July 2018.
Hurley, P. 2008. “TAPM V4. User Manual.” CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Internal Report
No. 5 October 2008.
Hurley, P., Physick, W. and Cope, M. 2004. “Summary of TAPM Verification for the Pilbara Region.”
CSIRO March 2004.
National Environment Protection Council (NEPC). 2011. “National Environmental Protection (Air
Toxics) Measure.” September 2011.
National Environment Protection Council (NEPC). 2015. “National Environmental Protection (Air
Toxics) Measure.” September 2015.
National Environment Protection Council (NEPM). 2013. "National Environmental Protection
(Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013 (No. 1)". April 2013.
New South Wales Environment Protection Authority (NSW EPA). 2017. “Approved Methods for the
Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales.” January 2017.
NPI 2008. Emission estimation technique manual for combustion engines – V. 3.0. Department of
the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT.
NPI 2012. Emission estimation technique manual for mining – V. 3.1. Department of
the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT.
Queensland Environment Protection Authority (QLD EPA). 2017. "Queensland's Environmental
Protection Air Policy" 2008.
Safe Work Australia. 2018. “Workplace Exposure Standards for Airborne Contaminants” 27 April
2018
Synergetics Environmental Engineering. 2011. “APA Mondarra Emissions Modelling” June 2011
Turner, D.B., 1970. “Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. U.S. EPA Office of Air
Programs Publication No. AP-26. Research Triangle Park, NC.”
World Health Organisation (WHO). 2003. “Concise International Chemical Assessment Document
(CICAD) for Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects” 2003
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 58 of 64
Attachment 8B – Acoustic Assessment Report (Herring Storer, 2019)
Rochdale Holdings Pty Ltd A.B.N. 85 009 049 067 trading as:
HERRING STORER ACOUSTICS P.O. Box 219, Como, W.A. 6952 (08) 9367 [email protected]
RAMBOLL
XYRIS EXPANSION PROJECT
ACOUSTIC ASSESSMENT
MAY 2019
OUR REFERENCE: 24399‐2‐19051‐02
Herring Storer Acoustics
DOCUMENT CONTROL PAGE
ACOUSTIC ASSESSMENT XYRIS PROCESSING FACILITY
Job No: 19051‐02
Document Reference: 24399‐2‐19051‐02
FOR
RAMBOLL
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
Author: Paul Daly Checked By: Tim Reynolds
Date of Issue: 31 May 2019
REVISION HISTORY
Revision Description Date Author Checked
1 Updated terminology 17/07/2019 PLD
DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION
Copy No. Version No. Destination Hard Copy Electronic Copy
1 1 Ramboll Attn : Jeff Barham [email protected]
1 2 Ramboll Attn : Jeff Barham [email protected]
Herring Storer Acoustics
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SUMMARY 1
3. CRITERIA 1
4. MEASURED NOISE LEVELS 3
5. NOISE MODELING 5
6. ASSESSMENT 6
7. CONCLUSION 6
APPENDICIES
A Site Layout/ Reference Locations
B Noise Contour Plots
A Compressor Data
Herring Storer Acoustics Our ref: 24399‐2‐19051‐02 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Herring Storer Acoustics was commissioned by Ramboll on behalf of Mitsui E&P to undertake anoise assessment relating to noise emissions from the Xyris Production Facility.
The Waitsia gas field began producing natural gas in August 2016 when the Waitsia Gas ProjectStage 1A was commissioned. Gas is flowed from the Senecio‐03 and Waitsia‐01 wells to the XyrisProduction Facility, which was refurbished in 2016 following a period of care and maintenance, andnow provides an ongoing source of gas to consumers.
To allow for increased capacity, the Xyris production facility is to undergo an expansion. In acousticterms, this expansion relates to the introduction of a gas‐powered compressor into the existingproduction facility.
The purpose of this acoustic assessment is to quantify the existing operational noise levels from thefacility and, via the use of predictive noise modelling, calculate the inclusion of the proposedcompressor and assess noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive premises.
For information, a locality plan and plant layout is shown in Appendix A.
2. SUMMARY
Assessment of the current and future expansion operations for the Xyris Production Facility shows that compliance at is achieved with the criteria stipulated in the Environmental Protection (Noise)Regulations 1997, for all hours.
3. CRITERIA
The allowable noise level at the surrounding locales is prescribed by the Environmental Protection(Noise) Regulations 1997. Regulations 7 & 8 stipulate maximum allowable external noise levelsor assigned noise levels that can be received at a premise from another premise. For residentialpremises, the assigned noise levels are determined by the calculation of an influencing factor,which is then added to the base levels shown below. The influencing factor is calculated for theusage of land within two circles, having radii of 100m and 450m from the premises of concern.For industrial and utility premises, the assigned noise levels are fixed for all hours. The baseassigned noise levels are listed in Table 3.1.
TABLE 3.1 ‐ BASELINE ASSIGNED OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL
Premises Receiving Noise
Time of Day Assigned Level (dB)
LA10 LA1 LAmax
Noise sensitive premises
0700 ‐ 1900 hours Monday to Saturday (Day) 45 + IF 55 + IF 65 + IF
0900 ‐ 1900 hours Sunday and Public Holidays (Sunday / Public Holiday Day Period)
40 + IF 50 + IF 65 + IF
1900 ‐ 2200 hours all days (Evening) 40 + IF 50 + IF 55 + IF
2200 hours on any day to 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 0900 hours Sunday and Public Holidays (Night)
35 + IF 45 + IF 55 + IF
Industrial and Utility Premises
All Hours 65 80 90
Note: LA10 is the noise level exceeded for 10% of the time. LA1 is the noise level exceeded for 1% of the time. LAmax is the maximum noise level. IF is the influencing factor.
Herring Storer Acoustics Our ref: 24399‐2‐19051‐02 2
It is a requirement that received noise be free of annoying characteristics (tonality, modulation and impulsiveness), defined below as per Regulation 9.
“impulsiveness” means a variation in the emission of a noise where the difference between LApeak and LAmax Slow is more than 15 dB when determined for a single representative event;
“modulation” means a variation in the emission of noise that –
(a) is more than 3dB LA Fast or is more than 3 dB LA Fast in any one‐third octave band;
(b) is present for more at least 10% of the representativeassessment period; and
(c) is regular, cyclic and audible;
“tonality” means the presence in the noise emission of tonal characteristics where the difference between –
(a) the A‐weighted sound pressure level in any one‐third octaveband; and
(b) the arithmetic average of the A‐weighted sound pressurelevels in the 2 adjacent one‐third octave bands,
is greater than 3dB when the sound pressure levels are determined as LAeq,T levels where the time period T is greater than 10% of the representative assessment period, or greater than 8 dB at any time when the sound pressure levels are determined as LA Slow levels.
Where the noise emission is not music, if the above characteristics exist and cannot be practicably removed, then any measured level is adjusted according to Table 3.2 below.
TABLE 3.2 ‐ ADJUSTMENTS TO MEASURED LEVELS
Where tonality is present Where modulation is present Where impulsiveness is present
+5 dB(A) +5 dB(A) +10 dB(A)
Note: These adjustments are cumulative to a maximum of 15 dB.
Based on the distance of the nearest noise receivers, there are no areas considered as industrial or commercial land use, nor any major or secondary roads. Therefore, the influencing factor would be 0 dB.
Herring Storer Acoustics Our ref: 24399‐2‐19051‐02 3
FIGURE 1 – NOISE SENSITIVE RECEIVERS
Therefore, the assigned noise levels for the nearest noise sensitive premises are contained in Table 3.3.
TABLE 3.3 ‐ ASSIGNED OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL
Premises Receiving Noise
Time of Day Assigned Level (dB)
LA10 LA1 LAmax
Residences A and B
0700 ‐ 1900 hours Monday to Saturday 45 55 65
0900 ‐ 1900 hours Sunday and Public Holidays 40 50 65
1900 ‐ 2200 hours all days 40 50 55
2200 hours on any day to 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 0900 hours Sunday and Public Holidays
35 45 55
Industrial boundary All times 65 80 90
4. MEASURED NOISE LEVELS
To enable the assessment of noise emissions from the current facility, noise level measurementswere carried out on the 21st May 2019.
Noise level measurements at various locations in and around the facility were carried out duringthe site visit. During the measurements, the plant was operated in a representative manner.
Individual noise sources within the plant were identified and measured at close proximity, i.e. 1 to3m to allow for the calculation of sound power levels. All items within the plant were operating,however only the main contributing noise sources were used, with the other items beingacoustically insignificant.
Xyris Production Facility
Herring Storer Acoustics Our ref: 24399‐2‐19051‐02 4
Overall boundary measurements were also conducted.
The measurements locations are shown below in Figure 2.
V
FIGURE 2 – MONITORING LOCATIONS
Based on the above measurement locations and operating conditions, Table 4.1 contains the measured results.
TABLE 4.1 ‐ MEASURED NOISE LEVELS
Location Description Overall dB(A)
A Boundary South 56
B Boundary South 65
C Boundary South 67
D Boundary East 51
E Boundary North 55
F Boundary North 62
G Boundary West 63
1 Methanol Injection Pumps 93 @ 1m
2 Generator 78 @ 1m
3 Low Temperature Separator 88 @ 1m
ABC
D
E F
G
12
3
N
Herring Storer Acoustics Our ref: 24399‐2‐19051‐02 5
5. NOISE MODELING
Noise immissions1 at the nearest neighbouring residential premises, due to noise associated withthe Xyris Production Facility, were modelled with the computer programme SoundPlan. Soundpower levels used for the calculations are based on measured sound pressure levels conductedon site, and for the proposed compressor, the manufacturer noise levels.
The modelling of noise levels has been based on noise sources and sound power levels shown inTable 5.1.
TABLE 5.1 – SOUND POWER LEVEL ‐ NOISE SOURCES dB(A)
Noise Source Noise Level Level Reference
Low Temperature Separator 97 Lw/unit
Methanol Injection Pumps 101 Lw/unit
Generator 86 Lw/unit
General Pipe Work Noise 75 Lw/m, m²
Proposed Compressor Engine (100% Load) 116 Lw/unit
Proposed Compressor Exhaust (100% Load) 84 Lw/unit
The proposed compressor is a CAT G3512B Gas Engine with an Ariel compressor unit fitted. The engine is not enclosed; however the exhaust system has a “Hospital Pack” silencer fitted reducing the noise level to 75 dB(A) at 1 metre. All noise modelling was based on data for the unit operating at 100% load. Appendix C contains the manufacturer data for the proposed compressor unit.
Based on noise emissions2 from the above equipment, the following operating scenarios were developed:
S1 Existing Production Facility. S2 Existing Production Facility with the new compressor.
The predictive noise model was calibrated to the measurement locations as shown in Figure 2. Allowance was made for the influence of background noise.
The following input data was used in the calculations:
a) Provided site layouts.b) Sound Power Levels listed in Table 5.c) Ground contours and receiver points provided by client.
1 Immissions – noise received at a source 2 Emissions – noise emanating from a source and / or location
Herring Storer Acoustics Our ref: 24399‐2‐19051‐02 6
Weather conditions for modelling were as stipulated in the Environmental Protection Authority’s “Draft Guidance for Assessment of Environmental Factors No. 8 ‐ Environmental Noise” as listed in Table 5.2.
TABLE 5.2 – WEATHER CONDITIONS
Condition Night Day
Temperature 15°C 20°C
Relative humidity 50% 50%
Pasquill Stability Class F E
Wind speed 3 m/s* 4 m/s*
* From sources, towards receivers.
It is noted that ‘worst case’ wind conditions refer to conditions where there is a temperature inversion in conjunction with light winds in the direction from noise source to receiver, resulting in effective sound propagation towards receiver locations.
6. ASSESSMENT
Calculated noise levels associated with the noise emissions from the operating Xyris ProductionFacility for the various scenarios are summarised below in Table 6.1. Appendix B contains thenoise contour plots.
TABLE 6.1 – CALCULATED NOISE LEVEL (LA10)
Receiver Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Existing Xyris Facility Future Expansion Xyris Facility
A <10 14
B <10 15
The above noise levels are considered to not contain tonal characteristics, due to the ambient noise.
Hence, Table 6.2 summarises assessable noise level emissions, for the worst case night‐time scenario considered being all equipment in the production plant operating at the same time.
TABLE 6.2 – ASSESSMENT OF BITUTEK OPERATIONS LA10 NOISE LEVELS
Premises Receiving Noise
Future Expansion Time of Day
Assigned Level (dB) Compliance LA 10
A 14 2200 hours on any day to 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 0900 hours Sunday and Public Holidays (Night)
35 Complies
B 15 Complies
7. CONCLUSION
Assessment of the current and future operations for the Xyris Production Facility shows thatcompliance at the residential locations is achieved with the criteria stipulated in theEnvironmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, for all hours of operations.
APPENDIX A
LOCATION MAP / PLANT LAYOUT
Xyris Production Facility
APPENDIX B
NOISE CONTOUR PLOTS
APPENDIX C
COMPRESSOR DATA
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 59 of 64
Attachment 8C – Environmental Commissioning Management Plan
PERTH 7/50 Oxford Close West Leederville WA 6007 Phone 08 6229 6500
BRISBANE 2/15 Heather Street Wilston QLD 4051 Phone 07 3856 2447
DEVELOPMENT | ENGINEERING | MANAGEMENT | COMPLETIONS
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN
Doc. No: Pending Rev: A
DOCUMENT REVISION HISTORY
Rev Date Issue Orig Chk App Client
A 10/09/2019 Issued for Review GRW CJS CJS
This document has been prepared by Enscope for the exclusive use by AWE Perth. The document must not be distributed to or used by any third party without the express written permission of Enscope and is subject to the provisions of the agreement between Enscope and AWE Perth. Enscope accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this document by any third party.
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 2 of 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 COMMISSIONING ................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Commissioning Scope ................................................................................................................. 4
1.1.1 Construction & Handover ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.1.2 Pre-Commissioning .............................................................................................................................. 4
1.1.3 Gas Commissioning ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1.4 Operations ............................................................................................................................................ 6
1.2 Management & Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 6
1.2.1 Emissions & Discharges ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.2 First Fills and Introduction of Hydrocarbons Management .................................................................. 9
1.3 Enviornmental Targets & Limits ................................................................................................. 17 1.4 Contingencies ............................................................................................................................ 17 1.5 Management of Malfunctions ..................................................................................................... 17 1.6 Reporting ................................................................................................................................... 17 1.7 Commissioning Report .............................................................................................................. 17 1.8 Responsibilities .......................................................................................................................... 18
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 3 of 18
Holds
Number Section Reference Details
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion
Revision: A Page 4 of 18
1 COMMISSIONING
1.1 COMMISSIONING SCOPE
Following completion of construction activities, commissioning activities will commence over a period of six weeks.
The scope of the commissioning works to be completed and managed by the EPCM Contractor includes the following facilities and locations:
All new facilities, flowlines and pipelines including:
o Waitsia-02 wellhead facility, above ground flowline & tie-in compound.
o Waitsia Export Pipeline & pig receiver compound.
The modified Xyris Production Facility.
The modified Waitsia-02 evaporation pond.
At each of the above sites, as applicable, the scope of the commission works to be completed and managed by the EPCM Contractor includes the following activities:
Construction completions and handover from the construction contractors to the commissioning team.
Pre-commissioning of all aspects of the works.
First introduction of gas from the reservoirs through to the isolation valve to the AGIG DBNGP Metering Compound at the battery limit of the Waitsia Export Pipeline.
Gas commissioning of all aspects of the works including testing and tuning of the system.
First start-up and first commercial gas flows.
Operator training.
Handover to operations.
1.1.1 CONSTRUCTION & HANDOVER
All construction activities and management up until the point of handover to commissioning will be in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Construction Management Plan (XYR-EXP-TG-056).
As detailed in the DMIRS approved Construction Safety Case documents, control, authority and responsibility of the facilities has been formally handed over to the EPCM Contractor for completing the construction, construction completions and pre-commissioning activities. Works during construction will be completed under the approved Area Work Clearance Procedure (XYR-EXP-TH-010) and Permit to Work Procedure (XYR-EXP-TH-011) in the greenfields areas noting the presence of specific brownfields areas which are subject to further Company Permit to Work requirements.
1.1.2 PRE-COMMISSIONING
As facilities or parts of facilities are handed over to commissioning, the applicable areas will be demarcated by blue flagging as an area under Commissioning control where only personnel who have completed the commissioning induction are permitted access.
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 5 of 18
All pre-commissioning activities will be completed under the applicable DMIRS approved Construction Safety Case documents and Construction Environmental Plans:
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Safety Case – Pipeline & Facilities (PB-HSE-PLN-006-ADD-004)
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Pipeline Construction Environment Plan (P-WGP1-019)
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Facilities Construction Environment Plan (P-WGP1-018)
Further, all construction completions and pre-commissioning activities will be completed under the following project documents:
Commissioning Management Plan (XYR-EXP-TG-057).
Project Health & Safety Management Plan (XYR-EXP-TG-049).
Project Environmental Management Plan (XYR-EXP-TG-050).
Construction Emergency Response Plan (XYR-EXP-TH-021).
Area Work Clearance Procedure (XYR-EXP-TH-010).
Permit to Work Procedure (XYR-EXP-TH-011).
1.1.3 GAS COMMISSIONING
Upon completion of all pre-commissioning works and receipt of Approval to Operate from the DMIRS, a transfer process will be completed whereby control and authority over the facilities will be handed over to the Company’s operations team. After the handover, all activities will be completed under the applicable DMIRS approved Operation Safety Case documents and the Operations Environmental Management Plans:
Perth Basin Pipeline Operations Safety Case (PB-HSE-PLN-006).
Perth Basin Operations Safety Case Addendum – Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project (ConstructionOperations) (PB-HSE-PLN-006-ADD-004)
Perth Basin Facilities Environment Plan (PB-HSE-PLN-004) (covers operations and maintenanceactivities).
Further, all gas commissioning and site activities will be completed under the following documents:
Commissioning Management Plan (XYR-EXP-TG-057).
Commissioning Health & Safety Management Bridging Plan (XYR-EXP-TH-023).
Perth Basin Facilities Environment Plan (PB-HSE-PLN-004).
Commissioning Emergency Response Bridging Plan (XYR-EXP-TH-024).
Area Work Clearance Procedure (XYR-EXP-TH-010).
Permit to Work Procedure (XYR-EXP-TH-011).
Although control and authority of the sites will be handed over to the Company for Gas Commissioning, management of site will remain the responsibility of the EPCM Contractor.
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 6 of 18
1.1.4 OPERATIONS
Upon completion of all gas commissioning works, a handover process will be completed whereby the Company’s operations team will accept the completed facility and take over management of the facilities in accordance with their approved operating documents.
1.2 MANAGEMENT & MONITORING
Subsequent to the Construction phase of the Project, Completions, Commissioning and Handover will take place, employing a much reduced workforce, plant, vehicle and equipment requirement than the Construction phase, albeit the introduction of first-fills (methanol, oils, lubricants, etc), hydrocarbon and production of water and liquids at plant start-up, all of which pose a threat to the Environment.
A Commissioning and Handover phase Environmental Risk Assessment will be conducted to identify all environmental threats that could be posed by the Commissioning and Handover works to be completed for the Project and include a description of the mitigation measures to be employed to prevent environmental harm during this phase of the Project.
Environmental issues and management directions relevant to all specific Commissioning and Handover related environmental threats will be incorporated into Procedures, SWMS’s, JHA’s and ITP's for the Commissioning and Handover work activities, providing clear direction on the activity to be undertaken. SWMS's / JHA’s are reviewed and signed off by the respective crews. The activity specific ITP is issued to Supervisors and includes any constraints or guidelines to follow in undertaking that activity.
1.2.1 EMISSIONS & DISCHARGES
Daily visual inspections onsite will continue to be undertaken by EPCM Contractor personnel.
Dust will be assessed on a daily basis during commissioning by the Commissioning Manager who will observe dust conditions. If excessive dust generation is observed, the source will be investigated and remedial actions implemented as required.
Dust monitoring will occur as per the existing DWER Licence ((L7847/2003/7). This includes ensuring that all reasonable and practicable measures are used to prevent or minimise dust emissions and that no visible dust generated by activities on the Premises crosses the boundary of the Premises.
Noise Modelling indicates noise limits will be in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. The risk to personnel due to the potential exposure to noise during commissioning will be managed in accordance with the occupational health and safety systems and procedures detailed in the Perth Basin Operations Safety Case [PB-HSE-PLN-006].
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 7 of 18
Table 1.2.1 Emissions & Discharges During Commissioning
Aspect Monitoring Frequency
Monitoring Methodology
Calibration Details Methodology Justification
Quantification
Volume of PFW discharged to the
Waitsia-02 evaporation pond
Weekly Via flow meter Calibration certificate
Provides a manual means
of measurement
of PFW volume
168,000L
Volume of PFW discharged to the
Hovea evaporation pond (only used in the
event the Waitsia-02 pond is unavailable)
On load-out Road Tanker Volume
Visual check against tanker
prior to and post load out
Provides a manual means
of measurement
of PFW volume
0L
PFW Free Hydrocarbon Concentration
Weekly inspections
Automated level control in tank prevents free
hydrocarbon phase in storage tank
from being discharged to pond
Visual observation of PFW discharged
to pond
Level Controls calibration certificate
Provides automatic and manual means
of managing the free
hydrocarbon content in PFW
Less than 100ppm total hydrocarbon
concentration in PFW.
Free hydrocarbon that may collect
on the pond surface are removed by
skimming as part of weekly
inspections.
Hydrocarbon gas vented
Monthly Estimated based on gas production
and individual venting events
Export meter calibrated monthly
and records of manual venting
Provides data required for
NGER Method 1 emissions estimation
11,000kg
Fuel Gas Monthly Via fuel gas flow meter
Power generation and gas
compression check against fuel
consumption
Provides data required for
NGER Method 1 emissions estimation
64,000kg of exhaust gas emissions
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 8 of 18
Diesel for Stationary engines
Monthly Volume of diesel consumed
- Method used for
Commonwealth Diesel Fuel
Rebate Applications
2,000L
Waste disposed At time of disposal
Vendor receipt / waste receptacle
count
- Bins are fixed size enabling
estimation of m3 waste
10m3
GEA stack emissions
Nil Via runtime - - 1,600tons
Compressor package stack
emissions
Nil Via runtime - - 1,470tons
These parameters are also intended to be monitored by the Company during operations.
Management of general environmental issues identified for the Commissioning phase is provided in the following section.
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 9 of 18
1.2.2 FIRST FILLS AND INTRODUCTION OF HYDROCARBONS MANAGEMENT
First Fills and Introduction of Hydrocarbons Management Environmental Impacts
Damage to surrounding land, third party assets and habitats from fire. Contamination to land and water from uncontained chemical, hydrocarbon and / or fuel spills. Contamination of air quality and / or community impacts due to venting of hydrocarbons Community impacts from fire or uncontained chemical, fuel or hydrocarbon spills.
Environmental Performance Objectives and Performance Standards
To have zero fire events resulting from commissioning and handover. To provide that all venting and liquid draining is controlled in accord with approved Project procedures and all relevant protection measures are in place for the same. To protect human health and the environment from exposure to hazardous substances.
Measurement Criteria
Compliance with AS1940 for storage and handling of fuels and chemicals. Compliance with SDS for fuels and chemicals. Compliance with fire, fuel and chemical management measures. Compliance with isolations, controlled venting and controlled purging / draining activities
Management Measures
Action Monitoring / Inspection / Audit Responsibility
Physical Action Responsibility
Fire Management
Fire Precautions
1. Regular contact will be made with DFES for any works required where a total fire ban orany fire restriction is in place.
Commissioning Manager
HSE Advisor
2. Approval for hot works during periods of total fire ban will be in place via the Company.Should works be required on a day of total fire ban or fire restriction, the HSE Advisor shallensure DFES are advised and confirm the suitability for works to continue and satisfy him
Commissioning Manager
HSE Advisor to confirm DFES
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion
Revision: A Page 10 of 18
First Fills and Introduction of Hydrocarbons Management / herself that the requirements of the Company’s permit are in place (at a minimum) at each hot work location intending to perform works on such days.
approve works on such days. Contractors assisting the Commissioning and Handover to ensure they can meet the minimum requirements of the DFES permit.
3. Spark arrestor shields will be used during grinding activities. Appropriate fire-fighting equipment will be carried with the welding crews at all times and personnel trained in its use.
Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
4. Precautions will be taken to prevent the ignition of fire during welding operations, including:
Hot Works Permit in place as Site will be considered brownfields during Commissioning and Handover phase
there will be no combustible material in close proximity to welding or butt fusion activities;
appropriate fire-fighting equipment will be carried with any crews permitted to perform hot works and personnel trained in its use;
No venting / draining of hydrocarbon in the vicinity of hot works
Commissioning Manager
Company PIC to issue Hot Works Permit Contractor Supervisors to ensure conditions are met
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 11 of 18
First Fills and Introduction of Hydrocarbons Management EPCM Commissioning Team (ECT)
5. Fire-fighting equipment will be present wherever flammable chemicals are stored.Incompatible chemicals will not be stored together.
Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT 6. Work areas will be managed to avoid the build-up of vegetation or other flammable
material.Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT 7. No billy fires or similar, or other unapproved open flames, will be lit / used on the Project
area.Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT 8. The construction worksite is a limited smoking workplace. This means that smoking is only
allowed in designated areas. Smoking in areas such as offices, crib rooms, vehicles,workshops and toilets is prohibited. Smoking on site (open air) is restricted to those areaswhere it is safe to do so and where non-smoking personnel will not be affected.
Commissioning Manager HSE Advisor
Contractor Supervisors
ECT
9. Operational restrictions arising from the declaration of Total Fire Ban days will becommunicated via pre-starts and toolbox talks.
Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 12 of 18
Vehicles and Machinery
10. Diesel fuelled vehicles and machinery will be used preferentially for the Commissioningphase. All vehicles used in brownfields works will be fitted with spark arresters.
Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT 11. Machinery will be regularly maintained to minimise the risk of fuel and oil leaks. This will
include cleaning / removal of surplus oils, oil impregnated dust and vegetation matter toreduce fire risks.
Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT 12. Defective equipment / machinery will be shut down, and tagged out, until the defect has
been rectified.Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT 13. All machinery will carry a serviceable fire extinguisher. Commissioning
Manager Contractor Supervisors
ECT Fuel and Chemical Management
General
14. The storage and handling of fuels and chemicals will comply with all relevant legislationand Australian Standards (AS 1940: 2017).
HSE Advisor Contractor Supervisors
ECT 15. All fuels and chemicals on the Project site will be clearly identified. A site manifest including
SDS’s will be maintained at the site office and at any other relevant locations.HSE Advisor Contractor
Supervisors to provide input to
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 13 of 18
master Site SDS Register
HSE Advisor to compile and maintain the Master Site SDS Register
16. Chemical use will be minimised consistent with safe / efficient construction requirements,and the minimum practicable volume will be kept on site.
HSE Advisor Contractor Supervisors
ECT 17. Chemicals which pose lower risk to personnel and the environment will be chosen over
those associated with higher risk, where viable alternatives are available and ofcomparable effectiveness.
HSE Advisor Contractor Supervisors
ECT 18. Workforce training will be conducted in fuel and chemical handling and spill response and
recovery procedures. Training will be targeted at members of the workforce or routinelyhandling chemicals.
HSE Advisor Contractor personnel and EPCM personnel as identified by the Construction Manager
19. A Commissioning Emergency Response Bridging Plan (XYR-EXP-TH-024) will be in placeand personnel inducted in its application.
HSE Advisor All personnel
Fuel and Chemical Storage
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 14 of 18
20. Fuels and chemicals will be stored separated within containment facilities and handled toreduce the risk of spills. Storage tanks must be bunded so that the capacity of the bund issufficient to contain 110% of a single storage tank or 100% of the largest storage tank plus10% of the second largest storage tank.
HSE Advisor
Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT 21. Drum storages (sites less than 500 litres capacity) will be bunded so that the capacity and
construction of the bund is sufficient to contain at least 25% of the maximum design storagevolume within the drum. Bunding will be impervious.
HSE Advisor
Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT 22. Bulk Fuels (3,500 litres or greater) will not be stored on the Project Site. HSE Advisor
Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT 23. The ROW will not be used for the storage of chemicals. Chemicals stored on site (at Facility
Sites only) will be bunded as described above.HSE Advisor
Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT 24. Absorbent and containment material (e.g. absorbent matting) will be available where bulk
fuels and hazardous materials are stored, used and decanted / refuelled – includingrefuelling pumps and larger generators – and personnel trained in correct use.
HSE Advisor
Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT Fuel Management / Refuelling
25. Re-fuelling of plant, vehicles and equipment at Site will aim to reduce the overnight storagequantity in any individual fuel tank so as to mitigate the temptation for theft events or anyspill in the event of targeted vandalism.
HSE Advisor
Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT 26. Spill kits will be kept in the vicinity of all storage tanks and to minimise response time in the
event of any spill.HSE Advisor
Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors
ECT
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion
Revision: A Page 15 of 18
Waste Disposal and Contaminated Land
27. Waste lubricants, contaminated soil and any other oily wastes will be contained, bunded and disposed of at an approved disposal facility. Records of prescribed industrial waste transport and disposal will be maintained in accordance with regulatory requirements.
HSE Advisor Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors ECT
28. Produced water will be stored in the Produced Water Tank and exported to the Waitsia-02 evaporation pond via HDPE piping, or to the Hovea Production Facility via vacuum tanker. Records of produced water and disposal will be maintained in accordance with any regulatory requirements.
HSE Advisor Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors ECT
29. Produced condensate will be stored in the Liquids Stock Tank and exported to the Dongara Production Facility via vacuum tanker for later disposal at an approved disposal facility. Records of prescribed industrial waste transport and disposal will be maintained in accordance with regulatory requirements.
HSE Advisor Commissioning Manager
Contractor Supervisors ECT
Compliance Monitoring
During commissioning, the Project Site shall be formally inspected weekly by the Commissioning Manager. The scope of these inspections will include:
inspection of storage, handling and use of chemicals at site office and along the Construction Right of Way; inspection of suitable use of isolation methods to prevent spills; inspection of any minor fuel storage at Site, including bunding; inspection of refuelling practices; inspection of bunds for drum storages and portable pumps / equipment; inspection of Waitsia-02 evaporation pond levels; inspection of availability and effectiveness of spill kits; and inspection of availability and effectiveness of fire extinguishers.
Non-compliance, hazard and incident reporting will be implemented in accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (XYR-EXP-TG-050). Any landowner complaints will be notified to the Company and appropriate corrective actions implemented including a review of work practices to ensure no repeat occurrences.
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 16 of 18
Audits in accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (XYR-EXP-TG-050) will be undertaken and recommendations and corrective actions shall be implemented.
Records Site Training Matrix (includes Induction record) Completed Environmental Inspection Checklists (weekly) Weed Hygiene Inspection Log Complaints Register (To be developed if complaints arise) Area Works Clearance Form Permit to Work Form Company Permit to Work Site Master SDS Register Plant and equipment maintenance records
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 17 of 18
1.3 ENVIORNMENTAL TARGETS & LIMITS
The EPCM Contractor will target complete containment of all discharges to land within the Site disturbance footprint.
Noise limits will not exceed the requirements of the Company’s Noise Regulations.
The EPCM Contractor will target no visible particulate emissions being observed during commissioning, and if identified (i.e. at the equipment exhausts and vents) commissioning activities will cease until the source is identified and the fault rectified.
1.4 CONTINGENCIES
Should any of the proposed target values be exceeded, commissioning activities will continue as planned whilst a formal investigation is undertaken.
Should any of the limit values be exceeded under normal operating conditions, commissioning activities will immediately cease whilst investigations are being carried out
1.5 MANAGEMENT OF MALFUNCTIONS
During the commissioning phase, malfunction of equipment may occur. If a failure occurs, then the system will be shut down until the fault is rectified.
1.6 REPORTING
All incidents will be recorded and investigated under an internal incident reporting system in place at the Project. Reporting of incidents other than minor incidents shall follow the requirements set out in s72 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.
Should any of the targets (stated above) be exceeded during commissioning with the possibility that the targets may need to be amended, the EPCM Contractor will provide the DWER (via the Company) with the following information:
The non-conforming emission / discharge and extent to which the target value was exceeded.
Management responses to the exceedance and their effect on the emission / discharge.
An explanation as to why the exceedance may have occurred and any corrective actions taken tominimise the risk of a re-occurrence.
1.7 COMMISSIONING REPORT
Upon completion of commissioning activities, a Commissioning Report will be submitted to the DWER as soon as possible after completion of the gas commissioning program.
WAITSIA STAGE 1 EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document No: N/A Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Revision: A Page 18 of 18
1.8 RESPONSIBILITIES
To ensure that the commissioning plan is appropriately implemented the following responsibilities have been assigned in relation to key tasks and commitments.
Table 1.8.1 Environmental Commissioning Management Plan Key Task & Commitment Responsibilities
Task / Commitment Responsible Person
Undertake visual inspections of the facilities Refer section 1.2.2
Undertake the required monitoring Refer section 1.2.2
Implement contingency actions in accordance with Commissioning Management Plan & Emergency Response Plan
Commissioning Manager
Report any emission exceedances to the DWER Commissioning Manager (via the Company Representative)
Undertake reporting commitments in accordance with Commissioning Management Plan
Commissioning Manager
Submit a Commissioning Report to the DWER summarising relevant monitoring data and management upon completion of commissioning (as required by Licence amendment conditions when issued)
Commissioning Manager (via the Company Representative)
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 60 of 64
Attachment 8D – Process Flow Diagrams and Site Layout at XPF and Waitsia‐02 Wellhead
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 61 of 64
Attachment 8E – Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page ii
REVIEW FREQUENCY
Next Revision Date Revision Cycle
16/04/2022 2.5 Years
DISTRIBUTION
All controlled documentation is uploaded and managed in the MEPAU Perth Basin Operations Document Management System (DMS) SharePoint. Reader should access the DMS to ensure latest version is always referenced. DMS Link: https://mepau.sharepoint.com/Operations
Distribution outside of the SharePoint DMS is to the discretion of the document author / owner.
Disclaimer:
This document is protected by copyright, no part of this document may be reproduced or adapted without the consent of the originator/company owner, all rights are reserved. This document is “uncontrolled when printed”, refer to electronic copy for up to date version.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page iii
Contents
1.0 INITIAL RESPONSE ACTIONS ............................................................................................................. 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 SCOPE ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 GEOGRAPHICAL AREA ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................... 4
2.5 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................ 8
2.6 ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 8
2.7 OSCP REVIEW .......................................................................................................................................... 8
3.0 CREDIBLE SPILL SCENARIO’S ............................................................................................................. 9
4.0 OIL SPILL RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS .............................................................................................. 10
4.1 TIERED RESPONSE TO CREDIBLE OIL SPILL SCENARIOS ................................................................................... 10
4.2 TERMINATION OF RESPONSE ..................................................................................................................... 10
4.3 RESPONSE EQUIPMENT / RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 10
4.4 PERSONNEL ........................................................................................................................................... 11
4.5 TESTING ................................................................................................................................................ 11
5.0 STRUCTURE, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................................... 12
5.1 EMT ACTIVATION ................................................................................................................................... 12
5.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................................................................... 12
5.3 TRAINING .............................................................................................................................................. 13
5.4 CONTACT DIRECTORY .............................................................................................................................. 13
6.0 SPILL RECOVERY, WASTE MANAGEMENT AND COST RECOVERY ..................................................... 14
6.1 SPILL RECOVERY METHOD ........................................................................................................................ 14
6.2 MONITORING ......................................................................................................................................... 14
6.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 14
6.4 OILED WILDLIFE RESPONSE ...................................................................................................................... 15
6.5 COST RECOVERY ..................................................................................................................................... 15
6.6 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 15
APPENDIX A MEPAU EMERGENCY CONTACT DIRECTORY ..................................................................... 16
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1‐1: Emergency Management Team Activation and Spill Response Process Flow ................................. 2
Figure 2‐1: Waitsia Gas Project (Production Licence L1) and Operational Area for this EP .............................. 6
Figure 2‐2: Conservation Significant Areas ........................................................................................................ 7
Figure 2‐3: Hierarchy of Systems, Practices and Procedures ............................................................................. 8
Figure 5‐1: EMT / ERT Organisation ................................................................................................................. 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1‐1: Initial Response Actions .................................................................................................................... 3
Table 2‐1: OSCP Associated Documents ............................................................................................................ 8
Table 3‐1: Spill Scenario Information ................................................................................................................. 9
Table 4‐1: Spill Scenario Information ............................................................................................................... 10
Table 4‐2: Response Termination Criteria ....................................................................................................... 10
Table 5‐1: Summary of OSCP Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................. 13
Table 6‐1: List of Recovery Methods ................................................................................................................ 14
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page v
TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
Term or abbreviation Definition
CMT Crisis Management Team
DBCA Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions
DBNGP Dampier Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline
DMIRS Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety
EMT Emergency Management Team
ERP Emergency Response Plan
ERT Emergency Response Team
ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area
GDE Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem
MEPAU Mitsui E&P Australia
OSC On‐Scene Commander
OSCP Oil Spill Contingency Plan
PGER(E)R Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources (Environment) Regulations
PP(E)R Petroleum Pipelines (Environment) Regulations
PGP Parmelia Gas Pipeline
SDS Safety Data Sheet
TJ Terajoule
WA Western Australia
WIA OSCP Well Intervention Activity Oil Spill Contingency Plan
WS1E Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project
XPF Xyris Production Facility
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 1
1.0 INITIAL RESPONSE ACTIONS
In the event of a spill, the identifier or observer of the spill is required to report the event to the Construction Manager. Once notified, and subject to assessment and determination of the Emergency Level of the spill, the Contractor’s Construction Manager becomes the On‐Scene Commander (OSC) in accordance with this Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) and the Emergency Response Plan (ERP). For Level 2 or 3 incidents, the MEPAU Site Representative / Person in Charge (PIC) will take over the OSC position, however the Construction Manager will take the lead role in the initial response to all incidents.
An overview of MEPAU’s Emergency Response Organisational structure is provided in Section 5.0.
The protection priorities in the event of a spill in order of importance are:
PEOPLE ‐ Preserve life and ensure the safety of people;
ENVIRONMENT‐ Minimise impacts on the environment and the community;
ASSETS ‐ Minimise impacts on property or assets;
REPUTATION ‐ Minimise impacts on the business, other organisations and the MEPAU image by:
Protecting continuity of operations;
Minimising commercial interruption, losses and legal liabilities; and
Maintaining and, where possible, enhancing MEPAU’s image and reputation.
The flow chart in Figure 1‐1 summarises the process for:
Activating the Emergency Response Team (ERT) and Emergency Management Team (EMT),
Determining environmental reporting requirements, and
Determining which initial response actions to implement in the event of a spill on‐site.
In the event of a spill event, initial response actions should be implemented in accordance with Table 1‐1.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 2
Figure 1‐1: Emergency Management Team Activation and Spill Response Process Flow
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 3
Table 1‐1: Initial Response Actions
Response Actions Role Done
1 Notify the Contractor’s Construction Manager and MEPAU Site‐representative Initial Observer
2 Assess situation and determine if and what emergency services are required – contact them in accordance with Section 5.4
of this Plan
On‐Scene Commander (OSC)
3 Assess the risk of fire and explosion. If safe, attempt to stop or stem flow of hydrocarbons. OSC
4 If the event is classified as a Loss of Well Control Event – Refer to the Well Intervention Activity Oil Spill Contingency Plan
[HSE‐OP‐030] for further information.
OSC
5 Determine Emergency Level (Section 4.1) OSC
5a If the event is considered to be a Level 1 – Incident notify the Project Manager and call out the ERT (where the
event is significant enough to require it)
OSC
5b If the event is considered to be a Level 2 – Emergency or greater notify the EMT and refer to MEPAU’s Perth Basin
Operations ERP [PB‐HSE‐PLN‐007].
OSC
6 Collect portable spill equipment bins and use them at the spill site to contain spillage where possible /safe to do so. OSC
7 Consider development of earthen bunds to contain spill to hardstand where appropriate OSC
8 Verify if the area hydrocarbon contaminated material is greater than500 L or 100 m2. Where the spill volume is greater than
500 L or the area is greater than 100 m2 notify MEPAU Senior Environmental Advisor
OSC
9 Where the spill volume is greater than 500 L or the area is greater than 100 m2 notify the Department of Mines, Industry
Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) Petroleum Environmental Duty Officer on 0419 960 621 and commence reportable incident
reporting (initial notification required within 2 hours of the spill event). For specific information (including contact details
refer to Table 6‐5 of the EP.
MEPAU Senior Environmental
Advisor
10 Once the site is safe, the situation is no longer deemed an emergency, and in accordance with the relevant SDS, commence
recovery and removal of hydrocarbons and contaminated soil from spill site
MEPAU Site‐representative
11 Commence soil / groundwater sampling where directed by the Environmental Advisor (this is dependent on the type of spill
event)
MEPAU Site‐representative
12 Once site contamination is no longer a concern commence backfill operations. MEPAU Site‐representative
13 Supervise completion of spill site clean‐up, reinstate fencing (if applicable) and repair road damage. MEPAU Site‐representative
14 Notify external resources in Perth and resources on site of termination of the response. MEPAU Site‐representative
15 Commence incident investigation procedures MEPAU Site‐representative
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 4
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
AWE Perth Pty Ltd (AWE) is the project proponent for the Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion (WS1E) Project. AWE and Mitsui E&P Australia Pty Ltd are wholly owned subsidiaries of Mitsui & Co. Ltd., and combined they form the unified brand Mitsui E&P Australia (MEPAU).
MEPAU is the Operator of the Waitsia gas field within the onshore North Perth Basin located within the Shire of Irwin, approx. 20 km southeast of Dongara and approx. 350 km north of Perth. The Waitsia gas field occurs within the Geraldton Sandplains bioregion of Western Australia (WA) in predominantly cleared agricultural land.
The WS1E Project comprises upgrades to existing equipment and installation of new infrastructure including:
Upgrade and install new infrastructure within the XPF to increase production capacity to30 TJ/day,
Connecting a previously drilled well (the Waitsia‐02 appraisal well) to the XPF to commenceextended production testing,
Evaporation pond construction, and
Construction of the Waitsia Gas Export Pipeline which connects the XPF to the Dampier BunburyNatural Gas Pipeline (DBNGP).
These activities are located entirely within Petroleum Title – Production Licence L1.
2.2 Scope
The scope of this OSCP is limited to activities associated with the WS1E Project which are managed under the WS1E Project Construction EP’s that include:
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Facilities Construction Environment Plan (P‐WGP1‐017)
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Waitsia Gas Export Pipeline Construction ‐ Environment Plan(P‐WGP1‐018)
Several spill events are outside the scope of this OSCP. These are:
A loss of well control event which is managed under the WIA OSCP (HSE‐OP‐030),
A loss of containment from the DBGNP is outside the scope of this OSCP as this is managed by theAustralian Gas Infrastructure Group.
2.3 Geographical Area
Activities covered by this OSCP are located entirely within Petroleum Title – Production Licence L1 (Figure 2‐1). The L1 Production Licence is situated in the onshore North Perth Basin, and approx. 350 km from Perth and 20 km southeast of Dongara (Figure 2‐1).
2.4 Description of the Environment
The description of the environment within the Operational Area is contained within Section 3 of the WS1E Project Environment Plans (P‐WGP1‐017 and P‐WGP1‐018).
It is expected that most spill sources would be contained within the Operational Area, however dependent on the spill location and volume, vegetation immediately adjacent to the site has the potential to be exposed. The Operational Area is predominantly surrounded by agricultural land, with an area of intact vegetation present to the southeast of the Operational Area associated with Ejarno Spring. Ejarno Spring is a groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE) and comprises vegetation in good condition. Ejarno Springs is expected to support local fauna and wildlife communities.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 5
As identified in the Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Construction EP’s, there are no known Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA’s) that occur within close proximity of the Operational Area. The nearest ESA is approximately 3 km to the south of the Operational Area whilst the nearest conservation (nature) reserve is located approximately 3.6 km south of the Operational Area (Figure 2‐2).
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 6
Figure 2‐1: Waitsia Gas Project (Production Licence L1) and Operational Area for this EP
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 7
Figure 2‐2: Conservation Significant Areas
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 8
2.5 Description of Activities
This OSCP applies to Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Construction EP’s. Activities that are covered by these Plans are described in Section 2 of the Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Construction EP’s and haven’t been described again.
2.6 Associated Documents
MEPAU documents relevant to this OSCP are listed in Table 2‐1. The overall hierarchy of the key documents associated with this OSCP are displayed in Figure 2‐3.
Table 2‐1: OSCP Associated Documents
Document Title Number
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Facilities Construction Environment Plan P‐WGP1‐017
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Waitsia Gas Export Pipeline Construction ‐ Environment Plan P‐WGP1‐018
Perth Basin Operations Emergency Response Plan PB‐HSE‐PLN‐007
Perth Basin Oil Spill Contingency Plan PB‐HSE‐PLN‐009
Perth Basin Emergency Management Plan HSE‐ER‐031
Crisis Management Plan MEP‐HSE‐MAN‐003
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Emergency Response Plan (bridging document) XYR‐EXP‐TH‐021
Figure 2‐3: Hierarchy of Systems, Practices and Procedures
2.7 OSCP Review
Given the nature of the WS1E Project Construction EP’s, MEPAU are unlikely to require the OSCP to be in place for a period exceeding 2.5 years. However, in accordance with the PGER(E)R, this OSCP will be reviewed when:
The OSCP has been approved for a period of 2.5 years
There is a significant change to the operations to which this OSCP relates
There is a change to the operator of the activity (from MEPAU)
Crisis Management Plan
[MEP‐HSE‐MAN‐003]
Perth Basin Emergency Management Plan
[HSE‐ER‐031]
Perth Basin Emergency Response Plan
[PB‐HSE‐PLN‐007]
Perth Basin Emergency Response Plan
[PB‐HSE‐PLN‐007]
Waitsia Stage 1E Construction Emergency Response Plan*
[XYR‐EXP‐TH‐021]
Waitsia Stage 1E Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
[P‐WGP1‐020]
Perth Basin Oil Spill Contingency Plan
[PB‐HSE‐PLN‐009]
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 9
3.0 CREDIBLE SPILL SCENARIO’S
The Waitsia Stage 1 Project Expansion Construction EP’s evaluated the proposed activities and identified several credible spill scenarios that are associated with construction activities. These scenarios were:
Release of minor volumes of hydrocarbons / chemicals during handling, transfer and storage
Release of hydrocarbons during tie‐in of piping to the Waitsia‐02 flowline
Loss of Well Control event during tie‐in to the Waitsia‐02 well1.
Scenarios associated with this OSCP are detailed in Table 3‐1 which includes the following information:
Scenario name,
Potential sources,
Credible volumes,
Oil type,
Zone of potential impact (ZPI) description.
Table 3‐1: Spill Scenario Information
Scenario Name Potential Source Credible
Volume Hydrocarbon
Type Worst‐case ZPI
Release of minor volumes of hydrocarbons / chemicals during handling, transfer and storage
Refuelling, storage, handling etc.
<2 m3 Diesel Soils within the Operational Area are
comprised almost entirely of quartz sand
(Blacktop 20172). Diesel and condensate
have a high viscosity and based Grimaz et.
al. (no date)3 the pool area (or Zone of
potential impact) is expected to be in the
order of 104 m2 with a penetration depth
of 1.8 m; where intervention is not
conducted.
The Operational Area is comprised of an
area in the order of 242,000 m2. In
comparison the magnitude of the area
potentially affected by a spill is 104 m2
indicating that the Zone of Potential
Impact would be to within the Operational
Area or calculated to cover an area of
approximately 0.04 % within the
Operational Area.
Release of hydrocarbons during tie‐in to the Waitsia‐02 flowline
Tie‐in to the Waitisa‐02 flowline
<2 m3 Condensate
1 A LOWC event is outside the scope of this OSCP. In the event of a LOWC event, the WIA OSCOP [HSE‐OP‐030] is to be
activated. 2 Blacktop. 2017. Geotechnical and soils assessment of the site. (Unpublished report to MEPAU). 3 Grimaz, S, Allen, S, Stewart, JR, and Dolcetti, G. No date. Fast prediction of the evolution of oil penetration into the soil
immediately after an accidental spillage for rapid‐response purpose. Available online from:
http://www.aidic.it/CISAP3/webpapers/21Grimaz.pdf
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 10
4.0 OIL SPILL RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS
4.1 Tiered Response to Credible Oil Spill Scenarios
The OSC is responsible for determining the Emergency Level for each spill event in accordance with MEPAU’s Perth Basin Operations ERP [PB‐HSE‐PLN‐007] which is summarised in Table 4‐1. If the spill severity is unknown, the worst case is assumed to determine the Emergency Level, as it is always possible to scale down.
Table 4‐1: Spill Scenario Information
Emergency Level
Indicative Potential Spill Volume (litres)
Description
Level 1 (Incident)
<500L An incident that can be controlled by the use of resources normally available at the facility or Site concerned, without the need to mobilise the MEPAU EMT or other external assistance
Level 2 (Emergency)
>500L An incident that cannot be controlled by the use of normally available facility or Site resources alone and requires external support and resources to manage the situation.
Level 3
(Crisis)
An incident that has a wide‐ranging impact on MEPAU and may require mobilisation of external state or national resources to bring the situation under control
4.2 Termination of Response
Continual monitoring and assessment of the incident are used to determine when response and recovery measures may be terminated, based on the criteria described in Table 4‐2. Given the nature of the spill scenarios associated with this plan, termination criteria for Tier Level 1 spill events are to be made alone by MEPAU. For larger spill events (Tier Level 2 and 3 events) it is expected that this decision would be made by MEPAU but accepted via written correspondence with the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety.
Table 4‐2: Response Termination Criteria
Emergency Level
Description
Level 1 (Incident)
Area is visually free of hydrocarbon contamination
Level 2 (Emergency)
Soil sampling indicates the area is free of hydrocarbon contamination; and
Groundwater sampling indicates the area is free of hydrocarbon contamination
Level 3
(Crisis)
4.3 Response Equipment / Resources
The following resources are available within the Operational Area (as defined by the Environment Plans) for immediate response including:
Mobile Wheelie bin spill kits: including absorbent pads, shovels and bags;
Light vehicles;
Hydrocarbon disposal containers (Empty 200L drums, 1000L bulki tanks);
Plastic sheeting;
PPE – rubber gloves, goggles, respirator masks;
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 11
Portable air driven diaphragm pumps.
Additional specific external resources that may be used in spill response / remediation activities include:
Bobcats,
Cranes,
Vacuum truck,
Bulk solid waste receptacles / disposal,
Labour, and
Laboratory services for environmental sampling.
These resources are available to MEPAU and can be activated as identified in Section 5.4.
4.4 Personnel
Personnel will be available for the duration of construction activities covered under the WS1E Project EP’s. Key positions include:
Project Manager,
PIC,
MEPAU Site‐representative, and
Contractor’s Construction Manager.
In addition to staff associated with the WS1E Project EP’s, MEPAU have access to local staff that operate MEPAU’s existing facilities based out of the Dongara Production Facility. Personnel from MEPAU’s head office in Perth can also be mobilised to the Operational Area with mobilisation times in the order of 6 hours. In addition to this, MEPAU has access to labour hire companies to enable additional personnel to be contracted to support a spill event if required.
4.5 Testing
The PGER(E)R and PP(E)R require the OSCP to be tested at specified intervals noting that the specified intervals may include:
When introduced,
When significantly amended,
Not later than 12 months after the most recent test,
When a new location for the activity is added, or
When a new facility or structure under the scope of the OSCP becomes operational.
MEPAU plan to test this OSCP via a desktop communications exercise prior to activities commencing.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 12
5.0 STRUCTURE, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
MEPAU’s Perth Basin Operations ERP [PB‐HSE‐PLN‐007] describes the Emergency Response Organisation. In summary, MEPAU’s emergency response organisation consists of a multi‐tiered structure and includes the following:
Site Emergency Response Team (ERT)
Perth Emergency Management Team (EMT)
Perth Crisis Management Team (CMT)
The Perth EMT and CMT is staffed by all head office staff. Depending on the type and severity of the situation, an individual may have more than one role. The general structure of the ERT/EMT/CMT is provided in Figure 5‐1.
Figure 5‐1: EMT / ERT Organisation
5.1 EMT Activation
The EMT activation process is described in Figure 1‐1 with triggers for activation included in the initial Response Actions lists in Table 1‐1 of this Plan. Further information to inform activation of the EMT are included in the emergency definitions in Section 4.1.
5.2 Roles and Responsibilities
Specific responsibilities detailed for the initial response actions (Table 1‐1) are summarised in Table 5‐1.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 13
Table 5‐1: Summary of OSCP Roles and Responsibilities
Role Responsibility
All Notify on‐site management of all spill events
OSC Assess situation and call out required services to respond to the event,
Determine the Emergency Level,
Notify the EMT and call out the ERT,
Mobilise spill equipment to contain spillage where possible /safe to do so,
Classify the spill event (as reportable or recordable) and notify HES advisor.
PIC / Construction Manager
Recover hydrocarbons and contaminated soil from spill site,
Conduct soil / groundwater monitoring / sampling,
Backfill excavated areas with clean fill,
Complete spill site re‐instatement,
Response termination, and
Complete incident investigation
MEPAU Senior Environmental
Advisor
Regulatory reporting in accordance with the relevant EP,
Management of Soil / groundwater monitoring / sampling.
5.3 Training
All MEPAU site personnel are trained in emergency response as per the requirements of the anticipated emergencies as detailed in MEPAU’s Emergency Response Competency Assessment [PB‐OPS‐TRN‐005] process and MEPAU’s Perth Basin Operations ERP [PB‐HSE‐PLN‐007].
Internal training for operational personnel includes the following:
WS1E Project EP HSE inductions and orientation;
Participation in annual exercise / training schedules. These include at least one emergencyresponse exercise;
Use of site specific equipment including emergency / spill response items.
Records of internal and external training, exercises and drills conducted are maintained by MEPAU within the HSE database.
Specialist equipment, such as bobcats, cranes and vacuum trucks that require specific training and competence requirements is to be operated by external contractors that hold the required training and competence certifications.
5.4 Contact Directory
MEPAU maintain an external Emergency Response Contact Directory [HSE‐ER‐035]. This Directory is maintained and kept up‐to date by MEPAU, thus is kept as a stand‐alone document. The most recent version of this document (current at the time of writing this OSCP) is attached as Appendix A.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 14
6.0 SPILL RECOVERY, WASTE MANAGEMENT AND COST RECOVERY
6.1 Spill Recovery Method
Based upon the credible spill events within this OSCP, the recovery methods for hydrocarbons and contaminated soils is summarised in Table 6‐1.
Table 6‐1: List of Recovery Methods
Type of contamination Methods of recovery
Free Product (liquid or
solid)
1. Vacuum up liquid.
2. Transfer it into 200L drums, bags, 1000L bulki tanks or specialist 3rd party Vacuum
truck with storage tank (Toxfree / Solo Resource Recovery)
3. Store in bunded area.
4. Transport to disposal facility.
Surface hydrocarbon on
ground
1. Spread absorbent material or lime on affected ground surface. Remove (excavate)
and replace absorbent product regularly until evidence of hydrocarbon draw
ceases.
2. Lay plastic sheet/tarpaulin in a disposal holding area (to be designated in the event
of a spill).
3. Install bunding in disposal holding area.
4. Remove contaminated product to the disposal holding area.
Contaminated Soils 1. Hydrocarbon contaminated soils are to be removed entirely by either manual or
mechanical methods.
2. Remove contaminated soils to a designated disposal holding area.
3. Sample contaminated soils against solid waste to landfill guidelines to determine
method of disposal.
4. Contaminated soil is to be removed by a licensed carrier to an approved facility.
5. Sample soil underneath and around contaminated site to determine if all
contamination has been removed.
6.2 Monitoring
In the event of an oil spill, appropriate and adequate testing and monitoring would be conducted to ensure that the immediate and adjacent area is not impacted in the long term. These testing and monitoring activities would be reported to DMIRS as required, but not limited to the annual report.
MEPAU would utilise contractors that are currently engaged to conduct environmental sampling at it’s other Perth Basin Facilities, who currently sample and analyse groundwater quality on a quarterly basis.
6.3 Waste Management
Contaminated material resulting from an oil spill requires removal by an accredited contractor and disposed of in an appropriate class landfill facility.
Where a small spill has occurred, local landfill facilities are to be consulted for advice on dilution requirements (i.e. adding of clean soils to dilute contaminant concentration).
For larger spills, where the total quantity of contaminated soil is uncertain, the management of contaminated waste includes:
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project: Construction Oil Spill Contingency Plan
P‐WGP1‐020 Rev 0 Page 15
1. Samples to be taken and waste material tested by NATA accredited laboratory to identify
contaminant concentrations present.
2. Number of samples taken and general methodology to be commensurate with DEC Guidelines for
the Development of Sampling and Analysis Programs (2001).
3. Results from laboratory analysis to be compared with the criteria defined in the DEC Landfill Waste
Classification and Waste Definitions Guideline 1996 (as amended in 2009).
4. Waste material to be removed from site and disposed of at the appropriate class landfill facility (as
directed in the abovementioned DEC Landfill Guidelines) – prior to the completion of site clean‐up.
Note: appropriately qualified consultants or contractors will be engaged for soil testing, analysis and removal and disposal.
6.4 Oiled Wildlife Response
The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) is the lead agency in WA for an oiled wildlife response technique. DBCA has the responsibility and statutory authority to treat, protect and destroy wildlife as outlined in the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. DBCA also has a legislative requirement to ensure the humane treatment, housing and release or euthanising of fauna under the Animal Welfare Act 2002.
In the event of an emergency event where oiled wildlife were encountered the DBCA Wildcare Helpline shall be immediately consulted for advice on the management of affected fauna. This is reflected in the incident reporting table of the EP (Tale 6‐4).
Given the nature of the spill events, and in accordance with the WA Oiled Wildlife response plan, as only single oiled animals are expected to be encountered, they would be treated on direction of DBCA using local resources (veterinaries, wildlife carers or Parks and Wildlife staff). If additional resources were required, MEPAU has access to labour hire companies and external environmental consultants that can help during an escalation of Oiled wildlife response as directed by the EMT.
6.5 Cost Recovery
All expenses associated with response, recovery and remediation and monitoring resulting from an oil spill is to be covered by MEPAU, as operator on behalf of L1 joint venture. MEPAU Insurance certificates include: Property Damage and Public Liability.
6.6 Reporting Requirements
Spill response reporting requirements are detailed in Section 6.2.8 of the WS1E Project EP’s and thus have not been duplicated here.
Waitsia Stage 1 Expansion Project ‐ Works Approval Application Supporting Documentation
P‐WGP1‐023 Rev A Page 64 of 64
11.0 REFERENCES
Department of Water (DoW) (2013). Water Quality Protection Note 26 ‐ Liners for containing pollutants. Department of Water, Western Australia. Available online from: https://www.water.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/4062/84590.pdf
Blacktop (2017). Geotechnical and soils assessment of the site (Unpublished report to MEPAU).
Enscope (2019). Environmental Commissioning Management Plan, September 2019. Unpublished report prepared for MEPAU.
Herring Storer Acoustics (2019). Xyris Processing Facility: Acoustic Assessment, July 2019. Unpublished report prepared for MEPAU.
John Cecchi Heritage Management Consultancy (JCHMC) (2015). Report on an Archaeological Survey of AWE Waitsia Project, March 2015 (Unpublished report to AWE).
Kern A. (1997). Hydrogeology of the Coastal Plain between Cervantes and Leeman, Perth Basin. Report HG 3, Water and Rivers Commission Perth, Western Australia.
MEPAU (2018). Annual Groundwater Report July 2017 to June 2018. Internal MEPAU unpublished report.
MEPAU (2019). Perth Basin Facilities Environment Plan (P‐WGP1‐023). Draft Report under assessment by DMIRS (update of existing EP).
Ramboll Australia Pty Ltd (Ramboll) (2019). Xyris Production Facility: Air Dispersion Modelling Report, July 2019 Unpublished report prepared for MEPAU.
R and E O’Connor Pty Ltd (REO) (2015). Aboriginal Heritage Survey of the Waitsia Project Area, March 2015 Unpublished report to AWE).
Terra Rosa Consulting (TRC) (2017). Report on an archaeological assessment at the Waitsia‐03 project area for AWE Limited, December 2017 (Unpublished report to AWE).