peer review of aecom air quality impact assessment report
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
AGL and APA Gas Import and Pipeline Project
Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact
Assessment Report
Expert Witness Statement – Dr Graeme Ross
Inquiry and Advisory Committee
(IAC)
Consulting Air pollution Modelling and Meteorology
October 2020
![Page 2: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Presentation Overview
• Peer review of EES Technical Report G - Air
Impact Assessment:
– Process
– Opinions - Review Outcomes
• Construction Impact Assessment
• Operational Impact Assessment
• Additional Opinions: – TRG Comments Register
– Public Submissions
– EPA Submission
– Technical Advice #2 – Colin McIntosh
• Conclusions
![Page 3: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Peer Review
![Page 4: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Peer Review - Process
Current Peer Review based on:
o Air quality impact assessment – EES Technical Report G
o Suite of AERMOD input files used to produce the results in the Technical
Report - Gas-fuelled FSRU modelling
Iterative Approach based on previous report versions with updates re:
o Sensitivity test re influence of the LNG carrier
o Inclusion of a ‘Normal’ operating scenario
o Addition of a preliminary HHRA - Formaldehyde
![Page 5: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Construction Impact Assessment
![Page 6: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Construction Impact Assessment
Pipeline Works – Dust Impact Assessment
I consider that:
• The adoption of the IAQM methodology + industry standard
practice is appropriate
• The methodology has been applied in accordance with the
guideline document
![Page 7: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Conclusions – Construction Impact Assessment
Dust emissions
I confirm the following key conclusions and outcomes:
Mitigation
• Residual risk – low or very low
• I recommend that MM-AQ07 be extended to include
monitoring of fine particulates
![Page 8: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Operational Impact Assessment
![Page 9: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Operational Impact Assessment
OVERVIEW
I consider that:
• The operational impact assessment has been
conducted in accordance with SEPP (AQM)
• The modelling assessment follows the requirement of
Schedule C – SEPP (AQM)
• The following 10 slides provide details of the modelling
approach
![Page 10: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Modelling Concept
Inputs
Emissions data
Meteorology
Geophysical
conditions
Concentration
of
pollutant
in
space and time
Air Quality
Objective
Atmospheric
Dispersion
Model
Mathematical Model Outputs
![Page 11: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Modelling Concept cont’d
![Page 12: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Impact Assessment Criteria
• Design criterion
– State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality
Management) – SEPP(AQM)
![Page 13: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Model Choice & Configuration
• Choice of Model
I consider AERMOD appropriate: • Current regulatory model
• Local scale impacts
• Consistent with best available meteorology
• Model configuration
I consider:
• General configuration/options - ‘accepted industry practice’
• LOW_WIND option - appropriate
• NOX to NO2 conversion – appropriate & conservative
![Page 14: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Modelling Domain and Sensitive Receptors
Inner Grid – 4 km x 4 km @ 100 m resolution
38 Sensitive/Discrete receptors
![Page 15: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Model Inputs – Meteorology & ‘Building/Structure Influences
Meteorology:
– Source & creation of meteorological files for 2014 - 2018:
• Based on best available data & representative of local conditions
• Created in accordance with EPAV guidance document
• See also further comments later re EPA Submission
Building/Structure Influences - FSRU:
Treatment of FSRU wake effects on emission plumes:
• I consider that BPIP/PRIME approach and key input dimensions
– appropriate & represent ‘accepted industry practice’
• I have conducted an independent check of the approach & outcomes
![Page 16: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Model Inputs – Sources & Emissions
• I have reviewed the suite of modelling input files covering Scenario’s 1, 2 & 3 & consider:
– Representation of sources and emission characteristics
in input files are consistent with Report for all three scenarios.
• A full review of the following were beyond my brief
– The selection of emission scenarios
– The emissions inventories and their basis
– Scenario 4 – Liquid fuelled
![Page 17: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Model Inputs – Background Concentrations
• I consider:
– Adopted background concentrations to be ‘ultra-
conservative’ due to:
• Choice of 70th percentile
• Correction methodology from 24-hour values to 1-hour values –
e.g.
– adopted NO2 background of 54.7 ug/m3
– cf.
– preferred background of approx. 27 ug/m3
![Page 18: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Assessment Results - Operational Impacts
18
![Page 19: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Assessment Results - Maximum GLC - sensitive
receptor predictions – Scenarios 2 &3
Compliance – all pollutants
19
![Page 20: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Independent verification
• Conducted independent check/verification of
modelling result for:
– NO2 & Formaldehyde emissions
– Scenario’s 1, 2 & 3 – Gas-fuelled FSRU
– Year 2014 meteorology
• Results checked/verified for:
– Predictions at sensitive receptor with highest
impact (Receptor #33)
– Predicted contour plots
20
![Page 21: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Independent Model Predictions
Next 2 slides illustrate the following examples:
NO2
Scenario 3 - Contour plots
Formaldehyde
Scenario 3 - Contour plots
![Page 22: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Scenario 3 – NO2
(Sensitive Receptor #33 -75.4 ug/m3, 39.7% design criterion)
![Page 23: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Scenario 3 – Formaldehyde
(Sensitive Receptor #33 – 20.4 ug/m3, 51% design criterion)
![Page 24: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Sensitive Receptor #33 – Frequency Plot
![Page 25: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
CONCLUSIONS
![Page 26: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Conclusions – Operational Impact Assessment
• Emission to air from FSRU – Scenario’s 1 – 3 – Comply with SEPP (AQM) design criteria – Sensitive Receptors
– Produce exceedances within approximately:
• 50 metres of FSRU – NO2 (all scenarios)
• 200 metres of FSRU, over-water areas to the south & east, and small
areas of the Crib Point foreshore – Formaldehyde (gas-fuelled scenarios)
• Exceedances require a ‘risk assessment’
– NO2 exceedances – low risk, based on:
• Implementation of an exclusion zone – safety
• ‘Ultra-conservative’ predictions
– Formaldehyde exceedances
• See evidence of Dr Drew
![Page 27: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Additional Opinions & Response to Submissions
![Page 28: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Additional Opinions & Response to Submissions
TRG Comments Register:
Choice of Model – Coastal Influences
Comment ID No’s #19,25 & 35 raise the issue of using AERMOD for an assessment in a
coastal location.
Response:
I consider the adoption of AERMOD to be appropriate and able to represent and
incorporate the key drivers of the impacts for this case.
Background Concentrations:
Comment ID No’s #9 & 15 raise issues re the background concentrations adopted.
Response:
Refer to previous comments.
![Page 29: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Additional Opinions & Response to Submissions
EPA Submission:
Response:
o TAPM is a complete package, continues to be supported, and the approach adopted
has been accepted by EPA for numerous assessments.
o TAPM has a published base of verification studies & additional information
requested from AECOM provides further checking in regard to the important role of
solar radiation in determining the current meteorology.
Response:
o No relevant hourly data are available and 70th percentile is acceptable.
o Values adopted by AECOM are ultra-conservative.
![Page 30: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Additional Opinions & Response to Submissions
EPA Submission:
Response:
o EPA recommendation is an appropriate mitigation measure subject to the outcomes
of the recommended testing of emission rates.
Response:
o AECOM already provides the results of the recommended assessment in Appendix D
of the Technical Report.
o The role of SEPP (AAQ) in assessing the impact of a specific source(s) requires
clarification.
![Page 31: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Additional Opinions & Response to Submissions
General Submissions:
General & specific concerns re dust, fine particulates, hydrocarbon & odour
Response:
o Refer to recommended extension to mitigation measure MM-AQ07 – re dust.
o Refer to recommended extension to mitigation measure MM-AQ11 re formaldehyde.
o Refer to evidence of Dr Drew re HHRA.
o Refer to conclusions re compliance with SEPP(AQM).
![Page 32: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Additional Opinions & Response to Submissions
Review of Mitigation Measures:
o MM-AQ01-06 are appropriate for construction activities
o MM-AQ07 should be extended to include monitoring of fine particulates
o MM-AQ09 are appropriate for operational activities
o MM-AQ11 should be extended to specifically include formaldehyde
testing to confirm emission rates
Confirmed in “Day1 EPRs”
![Page 33: Peer Review of AECOM Air Quality Impact Assessment Report](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022012514/618d4468c5109a1a5d4fac3f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Additional Opinions & Response to Submissions
Technical Advice #2 – Colin McIntosh:
Issue #1 – Appropriate “worst case” modelling of emissions
• I agree with the “Reason” provided
• However:
– The modelled ‘worst case’ has already triggered a risk assessment, testing of the
emission rates and possibly monitoring
– Compliance at all sensitive receptors still results for a 20% increase in emissions
Issue #2 – Adequacy of risk assessment
• Consideration of mitigation measures needs to be in keeping with the significance of
the risk
• The screening assessment and Dr Drew’s assessment suggest a low risk.