qgc midstream project - shell australia

QGC Midstream Project Amendment of Environmental Authority: EPPG00711513

ATTACHMENT 1: AMENDMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY APPLICATION FORM

Application form

Environmental authority

Application to amend an environmental authority This approved form is to be used when applying to amend an environmental authority under sections 222 to 227 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) for an environmentally relevant activity (ERA).

An application to amend an environmental authority is not appropriate in all circumstances. If you answer YES to any of the questions in the checklist below, you cannot use this application form. If you answer NO to all of the questions in the checklist, you may continue to use this application form.

It is recommended that you read the information on what to provide with an application, prior to making an amendment application. This information is located on the Queensland Government’s Business and Industry Portal at www.business.qld.gov.au (use the search term “environmental licences”). This website also has a diagnostic tool called a “Forms and fees finder” which will take you through a series of questions and provide a customised result which will identify any forms, fees and supporting information you need to make an application.

You are encouraged to have a pre-lodgement meeting before applying to amend your environmental authority. If you would like to have a pre-lodgement meeting:

• for prescribed ERAs 2, 3 and 4—contact the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries by email at [email protected].

• for any other ERA—please fill out and lodge the form “Application for pre-lodgement services” (ESR/2015/16641), prior to lodging this application form.

Checklist for making an amendment application

You must complete the checklist below and overleaf before you continue with the application form. If your application is for:

a prescribed ERA → you must fill in Section 1 and Section 2 of the checklist below.

a resource activity → you must fill in Section 1 and Section 3 of the checklist below.

both a prescribed ERA and a resource activity → you must fill in sections 1, 2 and 3 of the checklist below.

1 This is the publication number. The publication number can be used as a search term to find the latest version of a publication at www.qld.gov.au.

Page 1 of 24 • ESR/2015/1733 • Version 9.01 • Effective: 06 MAR 2017 ABN 46 640 294 485

http://www.business.qld.gov.au/

Application form Application to amend an environmental authority

If you have answered yes to any of the below questions, you cannot use this application form. If you have answered no to all of the below questions, you may continue to use this application form.

Checklist questions Guidance

Section 1 – all applications

Is the amendment to correct a clerical or formal error?

YES

NO

If yes, you cannot use this form. This request should be made in writing directly to the administering authority (no fees apply).

Is the amendment to amalgamate two or more environmental authorities?

YES

NO

If yes, you cannot use this form. Please use either the form Application to amalgamate two or more environmental authorities into an amalgamated corporate authority (ESR/2015/1734), or Application to amalgamate two or more environmental authorities into an amalgamated project or local government authority (ESR/2015/1735).

Is the amendment to add an ERA to an amalgamated local government authority and there is not an appropriate degree of integration between the proposed activity and the existing activities on the authority?

YES

NO

If yes, you cannot use this form. You will need to apply for a new environmental authority. For a standard application use the form Standard environmental authority application (prescribed activity) (ESR/2015/1793) or Standard environmental authority application (resource activity) (ESR/2015/1755). For a variation application, use the form Variation environmental authority (prescribed activity) (ESR/2015/1796) or Variation environmental authority (resource activity) (ESR/2015/1756). For a site-specific application use the form Site-specific environmental authority application (prescribed ERA) (ESR/2015/1792) or Site -specific environmental authority application (resource activity) (ESR/2015/1757).

Is the amendment to add an ERA to an amalgamated project authority and the proposed activity does not form part of the single integrated operation conducted under the authority?

YES

NO

If yes, you cannot use this form. You will need to apply for a new environmental authority. See form details above.

Is the amendment to amend financial assurance only?

YES

NO

If yes, you cannot use this form. Please use the form Application to amend or discharge financial assurance (ESR/2015/1752).

Is the amendment to remove or amend a condition requiring compliance with the eligibility criteria, and is a result of changes to the activity?

YES

NO

If yes, you cannot use this form. Please make a site-specific application for a new environmental authority using the form Site-specific environmental authority application (prescribed ERA) (ESR/2015/1792) or Site-specific environmental authority application (resource

Page 2 of 24 • ESR/2015/1733 • Version 9.01 • Effective: 06 MAR 2017 Department of Environment and Heritage Protection


activity) (ESR/2015/1757).

Note: If the required amendment to the eligibility criteria condition is a result of factors beyond your control such as residential encroachment, rather than a change to the activity, you can use this form. The amendment will be a major amendment.

Section 2 – prescribed ERAs

Is the amendment for the holder of the environmental authority to transfer all or part of the environmental authority to a person?

YES

NO

If yes, you cannot use this form. Please use the form Request to transfer all or part of an environmental authority for a prescribed environmentally relevant activity (ESR/2015/1718).

Does the proposed amendment involve changes to the relevant activity that require a new development application to be lodged under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) and the application for the amendment has not been lodged.

YES

NO

If yes, the development application must be lodged before an environmental authority amendment application can be made.

Under EP Act, a development application for a material change of use of premises for an environmentally relevant activity is deemed to be also an application for an environmental authority. In this case, an environmental authority amendment application should not be lodged.

Is the proposed amendment solely to add or remove vehicles for ERA 57 (Regulated waste transport) within the approved threshold?

YES

NO

If yes, you do not need to submit this application form. Use the form Details of regulated waste vehicles (ESR/2015/1851).

Is the proposed amendment to add a prescribed ERA, other than an ancillary activity, to an environmental authority for a resource project?

YES

NO

If yes, you cannot use this form to add the prescribed ERA to the environmental authority. You will need to apply for a new environmental authority. Refer Section 1 above for appropriate form.

Section 3 – resource activities (mining, petroleum, geothermal or GHG storage activities)

Is the amendment for a partial surrender of an environmental authority for a mining, geothermal or petroleum resource activity?

YES

NO

If yes, you cannot use this form. Please use the form Application for surrender of an environmental authority (prescribed ERA) (ESR/2015/1719) or Application for surrender or partial surrender of an environmental authority (resource activity) (ESR/2015/1751).

Is the proposed amendment to add a resource activity to an environmental authority for a prescribed ERA project?

YES

NO

If yes, you cannot add the resource activity to the environmental authority. You will need to apply for a new environmental authority. Refer Section 1 above for appropriate form.



Definitions of terms used in this form

Where there is inconsistency between the definition of terms used here and the terms used in the EP Act, the terms in the EP Act apply.

Condition conversion For an environmental authority, means an amendment replacing all the conditions of the authority with the standard conditions for the environmentally relevant activity which the authority relates. The relevant eligibility criteria and standard conditions must be able to be met.

Eligibility criteria For an environmentally relevant activity, means eligibility criteria that are in effect for the activity under –

(a) an ERA standard; or

(b) a code of environmental compliance; or

(c) a regulation in respect of a mining activity.

Environmentally relevant activity (ERA)

A resource activity or a prescribed ERA

ERA project A prescribed ERA project or a resource project.

ERA standard For an environmentally relevant activity, means the eligibility criteria and/ or the standard conditions set by the administering authority.

Major amendment For an environmental authority, means an amendment that is not a minor amendment.

Material change of use of premises for an environmentally relevant activity

A category of assessable development requiring a development permit under SPA. Refer Schedule 3, Table 2, Item 1 of the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009.

Minor amendment For an environmental authority, means an amendment that is— (a) a condition conversion; or

(b) a minor amendment (threshold).

Minor amendment (threshold)

For an environmental authority, means an amendment that the administering authority is satisfied—

(a) is not a change to a condition identified in the authority as a standard condition, other than—

(i) a change that is a condition conversion; or

(ii) a change that is not a condition conversion but that replaces a standard condition of the authority with a standard condition for the environmentally relevant activity to which the authority relates; and

(b) does not significantly increase the level of environmental harm caused by the relevant activity; and

(c) does not change any rehabilitation objectives stated in the authority in a



way likely to result in significantly different impacts on environmental values than the impacts previously permitted under the authority; and

(d) does not significantly increase the scale or intensity of the relevant activity; and

(e) does not relate to a new relevant resource tenure for the authority that is—

(i) a new mining lease; or

(ii) a new petroleum lease; or (iii) a new geothermal lease under the Geothermal Energy Act; or

(iv) a new GHG injection and storage lease under the GHG storage Act; and

(f) involves an addition to the surface area for the relevant activity of no more than 10% of the existing area; and

(g) for an environmental authority for a petroleum activity— (i) if the amendment involves constructing a new pipeline—the new

pipeline does not exceed 150km; and

(ii) if the amendment involves extending an existing pipeline—the extension does not exceed 10% of the existing length of the pipeline; and

(h) if the amendment relates to a new relevant resource tenure for the authority that is an exploration permit or GHG permit—the amendment application under section 224 seeks an amended environmental authority that is subject to the standard conditions for the relevant activity or authority, to the extent it relates to the permit.

Mobile and temporary ERA A prescribed ERA, other than an activity that is dredging material, extracting rock or other material, or the incinerating of waste:

(a) carried out at various locations using transportable plant or equipment, including a vehicle

(b) that does not result in the building of any permanent structures or any physical change of the landform at the locations (other than minor alterations solely necessary for access and setup including, for example, access ways, footings and temporary storage areas)

(c) carried out at any 1 of the locations:

(i) for less than 28 days in a calendar year, or

(ii) for 28 or more days in a calendar year only if the activity is necessarily associated with, and is exclusively used in, the construction or demolition phase of a project.

Prescribed ERA An environmentally relevant activity that is not a resource activity and is prescribed under section 19 of the EP Act.



Prescribed ERA project All prescribed ERAs carried out, or proposed to be carried out, as a single integrated operation.

Registered suitable operator A person who, or a corporation which, under section 318I of the EP Act has been assessed as being suitable to carry out an ERA and has been listed on the suitable operator register.

Resource activity An activity that is any of the following:

(a) a geothermal activity

(b) a greenhouse gas (GHG) storage activity

(c) a mining activity

(d) a petroleum activity.

Resource project Resource activities carried out, or proposed to be carried out, under 1 or more resource tenures, in any combination, as a single integrated operation.

Single integrated operation Occurs when all the below criteria are met:

(a) the activities are carried out under the day-to-day management of a single responsible individual, for example, a site or operations manager

(b) the activities are operationally interrelated

(c) the activities are, or will be, carried out at one or more places

(d) the places where the activities are carried out are separated by distances short enough to make feasible the integrated day-to-day management of the activities.

Underground water rights Means any of the following:

(a) underground water rights within the meaning of the Mineral Resources Act 1989;

(b) underground water rights within the meaning of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004;

(c) underground water rights within the meaning of the Petroleum Act 1923, section 87(3).



The fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory, if they are not completed then your application may be considered not properly made under section 128 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994.

GUIDE If you require assistance in answering any part of this form, or have any questions about your application please contact the relevant department. Contact details are at the end of this form

The environmental authority number and details may be found on the existing environmental authority or quoted in other correspondence received from the administering authority.

If more space is required for any responses, please attach additional information as a separate page.

If there is an agent acting on behalf of the environmental authority holder, provide details in this section. An agent could be a consultant or a contact for the environmental authority holder. As statutory documents need to be sent to all applicants, this section can also be used when there are multiple environmental authority holders to nominate an address for statutory documentation to be sent ‘care of’ to.

Application details

1. Environmental authority number

ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY NUMBER*

EPPG00711513

Agent details / address for service

The address supplied here will also be used as a service address for sending statutory documents. If blank, statutory documents will be sent to the address previously supplied for the holder or principal applicant for the environmental authority.

NAME OF AGENT - INDIVIDUAL OR CONTACT PERSON IF AGENT IS AN ORGANISATION

Tyson Croll

ORGANISATION NAME, INCLUDING TRADING NAME

QCLNG Operating Company Pty Limited

ABN / ACN (IF AN ORGANISATION)

ACN: 138 872 385

POSTAL ADDRESS (WHERE DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE)

GPO Box 3107

BRISBANE QLD 4001

PHONE

(07) 3024 7806

FACSIMILE

(07) 3024 8999

EMAIL

[email protected]

INDICATE IF YOU WANT TO RECEIVE CORRESPONDENCE VIA EMAIL



Criteria for a major or minor amendment and guidance on the difference between the two can be found in the guideline: ‘Major and minor amendments’ ESR/2015/1684 and s. 223 of the EP Act. The guideline can be found on the business and industry website: www.business.qld.gov.au. Use ‘amend an environmental authority’ as a search term. If you have questions regarding whether your amendment will be minor or major you are encouraged to arrange a pre-lodgment meeting with the administering authority. For information about whether your activity is eligible for standard conditions, please refer to the business & industry website: www.business.qld.gov.au Use “activities suitable for standard applications” as a search term. If your activity operates under a code of environmental compliance, this is now considered to be an ERA Standard. You can apply for a condition conversion to obtain the latest standard conditions for that activity. For further information about which activities have codes of environmental compliance, use the search term “meeting environmental authority conditions”.

2. Describe in detail the proposed amendment and the reason the amendment is being sought*

The decision of whether the amendment is major or minor is made by the administering authority. However, less information is required where the application is minor amendment (condition conversion). Please indicate below whether you think the proposed amendment will constitute a major or minor amendment.

Minor amendment – select minor amendment type.

Minor amendment (condition conversion) – you wish to convert all conditions of your EA to the standard conditions for the ERAs to which the EA relates – Go to question 19

By selecting this amendment type you are certifying that you have a complete and thorough understanding of, and can comply with the ERA Standard (eligibility criteria and standard conditions).

Minor amendment (threshold) – Please complete the detailed description below.

Major amendment – please complete the detailed description below.

For a minor amendment (threshold) or major amendment, provide a detailed description of your proposed amendment.

Include a justification of how your proposed amendment meets the criteria for a major or minor amendment and attach any supporting information to this application.

If the amendment is to add or delete a location, tenure or activity, or to change the threshold of an activity, provide details.

Background information

PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO THE PROPOSED

AMENDMENT (IF INSUFFICIENT ROOM, ATTACH A SEPARATE DOCUMENT)*.

Please see attached supporting information





Description of the land where the proposed amended activities will be carried out*

The activity will be carried out within the existing designated areas of the environmental authority.

The activity is mobile and temporary and will be carried out in a new area:

AREA OF OPERATION E.G. PARTICULAR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

An additional site(s) will be added to the environmental authority as follows:

Location(s) (*if applicable)

STREET NUMBER

STREET NAME

SUBURB/TOWN

POSTCODE

LOT/PLAN

SURFACE AREA (M2)

PORT (IF APPLICABLE)

TENURE DETAILS (IF APPLICABLE)

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND E.G. ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES, BIOREGIONS AND REGIONAL ECOSYSTEMS, TERRAIN, SHALLOW GROUND WATER SYSTEMS, FLOODPLAINS, SPRINGS AND SOIL DESCRIPTIONS. A SITE MAP OR SATELLITE IMAGERY SHOWING THESE FEATURES AND THE DESIGNATED AREA FOR THE ACTIVITY SHOULD BE ATTACHED.



If you are adding a new location/s to the EA please provide details of what ERA’s you are planning to undertake on that location/s. If you are amending the EA to request additional ERAs on locations already authorised by the EA please identify the location the activities are being undertaken If the activities were assessed as part of a coordinated project declared under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act), you are only able to amend Coordinator General conditions if the Coordinator General’s evaluation report for the project has lapsed. If you are unsure if the Coordinator General’s evaluation report has lapsed, contact the Department of State Development for more information.

Details of new ERAs or new location(s) (*if applicable)

ERA NUMBER AND THRESHOLD LOCATION

Details of proposed condition amendments (*if applicable)

ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY

CONDITION(S)

PROPOSED CHANGE & JUSTIFICATION



If you cannot comply with the eligibility criteria as a result of the proposed amendment, then an amendment to the relevant eligibility criteria condition will also be required. The department will only approve an amendment to the eligibility criteria condition if it is a result of factors beyond your control such as residential encroachment, rather than a change to the activity.

3. Do you currently operate under an ERA standard?*

No → Go to question 4

Yes In making the proposed amendment, I can comply with the eligibility criteria and do not need to vary any of the standard conditions.

In making the proposed amendment, I can comply with the eligibility criteria but am seeking to vary one or more of the standard conditions. Details of the proposed variation have been included under Question 2.

In making the proposed amendment, I cannot comply with the relevant eligibility criteria for all relevant activities. This is due to factors beyond my control. Further details have been provided below.

DETAILS INCLUDING THE RELEVANT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, ERA NUMBER AND THRESHOLD, AND FACTORS AFFECTING COMPLIANCE.

This question is only relevant to prescribed ERAs as resource activities will not trigger assessable development under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

4. Are there any development permits in effect or have any development applications been made under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 to carry out the proposed amendment?*

No → Go to question 5

Yes → provide a list of applicable development permits or applications below

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT/ APPLICATION NUMBER*

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT/ APPLICATION NAME*

ASSESSMENT MANAGER*

DATE OF APPLICATION OR APPROVAL*

EXPIRY DATE*

Provide a list of all the prescribed ERAs that are to be removed from the environmental authority and identify whether the ERA has commenced.

5. Is this application to remove a prescribed ERA from your environmental authority for prescribed ERAs?*

No → Go to Question 8

Yes → indicate which ERAs are to be removed, then go to question 6



ERA NUMBER AND NAME*

THRESHOLD* HAS THE ERA COMMENCED? (YES/NO)*

LOCATION (INCLUDING ALL LOT ON PLAN/TENURE DETAILS)*

If you have identified above that any of the ERAs have not commenced, please complete the below:

I declare that where identified, the ERAs above have not commenced.

For guidance on what a rehabilitation report should contain you may use the final rehabilitation report template available at www.qld.gov.au using the publication number (ESR/2015/1616) as a search term.

6. Does your environmental authority contain any rehabilitation conditions that are applicable to the ERAs that you are requesting be removed from the environmental authority?*

Yes → please attach a rehabilitation report outlining how you have met the conditions

No

Only a person with appropriate environmental expertise and/or experience in planning and executing site operations should sign this statement. This person may be the environmental authority holder, a full time employee of the environmental authority holder or a consultant to the environmental authority holder.

Methods to verify compliance may include a desktop assessment of documentation, an interview with the landowner/holder or a field operator or a site inspection. Evidence used may include photographs, statements and other documentation (maps, plans, approvals, monitoring results etc.).

7. Compliance with conditions

Please complete a statement addressing compliance with environmental authority conditions by, or on behalf of the environmental authority holder.

Attach a separate document to this application form which states the extent to which:

• the ERAs being removed from the environmental authority have complied with each relevant condition of approval.

• the rehabilitation report is accurate (include the date of the rehabilitation report). Note: The compliance statement only needs to be made for the rehabilitation report if the answer to question 6 is ‘Yes’.

Describe the qualifications and experience of the person signing the statement.*



Provide details of the date, method and evidence used to verify compliance and accuracy.*

Provide the contact number of the person signing the statement*

I .................................................................................................................. ,

(insert name and position of person making the compliance statement)

• make the statement by or for the holder of the environmental authority

• confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, all information provided as part of this statement, including attachments, is true, correct and complete. I am aware that it is an offence under section 480 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994, to give the administering authority information that I know is false, misleading or incomplete

• confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, this statement, including attachments, does not include false, misleading or incomplete information

• confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, I have not knowingly failed to reveal any relevant information or document to the administering authority

• confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, all information provided in this statement, including attachments, address the relevant matters and are factually correct

• confirm that the opinions expressed in this statement, including attachments, are honestly and reasonably held

• I understand that all information supplied as part of this statement, including attachments, can be disclosed publicly in accordance with the Right to Information Act 2009 and the Evidence Act 1977.

SIGNATURE* DATE*



Offset delivery can be staged, however for this to occur, the condition of any approved environmental authority needs to state that both the activity and the offset may be staged. As part of your notice of election for each stage under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014 you are required to provide a detailed assessment of the quantum of impact of that stage and the offset obligation requirement to be delivered for that stage.

8. Environmental offsets An environmental offset may be required for an ERA where despite all reasonable measures to avoid and minimise impacts on certain environmental matters, there is still likely to be a significant residual impact on one or more of those matters.

You must verify the presence, whether temporary or permanent, of those environmental matters. For more information refer to the State Significant Impact Guideline at the Queensland Government website at: www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/management/offsets/index.html

Will the proposed amendment result in a significant residual impact to a matter of State environmental significance (MSES)?*

No Yes, please attach supporting information that: • details the magnitude and duration of the likely significant residual

impact on each prescribed environmental matter (other than matters of local environmental significance) for the entire activity;

• demonstrates that all reasonable measures to avoid and minimise impacts on each of those matters will be undertaken;

• includes a notice of election, if it has not already been submitted; and • if the activity is to be staged, details of how the activity is proposed to

be staged

I have attached the supporting information. If your amendment application also involves resource activities, go to question 9. Otherwise, go to question 14.

A regional interests development approval (RIDA) is required when a resource activity is proposed in an area of regional interest under the Regional Planning Interests Act 2014. Further information, including application forms, can be found on the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (DILGP) website, www.dilgp.qld.gov.au.

9. Is the resource activity located anywhere within an area of regional interest?*

No

Yes → Which area of regional interest, has or will require a regional interests development approval (RIDA)?* ☐ Priority agricultural areas (PAAs) ☐ Priority living areas (PLAs) ☐ Strategic environmental areas (SEAs) ☐ Strategic cropping area (SCA) ☐ No RIDA required, I am an exempt activity.

If you have applied or been approved for a RIDA, provide the application reference below:*


http://www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/management/offsets/index.html

http://www.dlg.qld.gov.au/


An ineligible ERA is an activity that either does not comply with the eligibility criteria or does not have any eligibility criteria in place.

10. Does the application relate to an environmental authority for a coal seam gas activity that is an ineligible ERA?*

No → go to question 11

Yes→ I have determined that the amendment will not change the way that CSG water and brine is managed.

I have determined that the amendment will change the way that CSG water is managed and have provided the mandatory information set out below.

MANDATORY INFORMATION

The quantity of CSG water the applicant reasonably expects will be generated in connection with carrying out each relevant CSG activity.

The flow rate at which the applicant reasonably expects the water will be generated.

The quality of the water, including changes in the water quality the applicant reasonably expects will happen while each relevant CSG activity is carried out.

The proposed management of water including, for example, the use, treatment, storage or disposal of the water.

The measurable criteria (‘management criteria’) against which the applicant will monitor and assess the effectiveness of the management of the water, including, for example, criteria for each of the following:

(i) the quantity and quality of the water used, treated, stored or disposed of

(ii) protection of the environmental values affected by each relevant CSG activity

(iii) the disposal of waste, including, for example, salt, generated for the management of the water.

The action proposed to be taken if any of the management criteria are not complied with, to ensure that the criteria will be able to be complied with in the future.

If the application includes a CSG evaporation dam, an evaluation of the following must be provided:

(i) best practice environmental management for managing CSG water

(ii) alternative ways for managing CSG water

(iii) whether there is a feasible alternative to a CSG evaporation dam for managing the water. Note if the evaluation shows that there is a feasible alternative option, the CSG evaporation dam cannot form part of the water management for this amendment application.



This question is only required to be completed for amendment applications for resource activities lodged on or after 6 December 2016 when the provisions in the Environmental Protection (Underground Water Management) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2016 commence.

For more information about exercising underground water rights or the associated application requirements please refer to the Guideline: Requirements for site-specific and amendment applications – underground water rights (ESR/2016/3275). This guideline will be available on the Queensland Government website at www.qld.gov.au, using the publication number ‘ESR/2016/3275’ as a search term.

11. Exercising underground water rights Underground water rights provide the tenure holder with a statutory right to take or interfere with underground water in the area of the tenure if the taking or interference with that water is necessarily and unavoidably obtained in the process of extracting the resource.

If the activity/activities are proposed to be undertaken on a mineral development licence (MDL), mining lease (ML) or petroleum lease (PL), does the proposed amendment involve changes to the exercise of underground water rights?*

N/A → The proposed activity/activities are not on a MDL, ML or PL.

No

Yes →

You must attach documentation detailing: • the areas in which underground water rights are proposed to

be exercised; • for each aquifer affected, or likely to be affected, by the

exercise of underground water rights: (i) a description of the aquifer; (ii) an analysis of the movement of underground water

to and from the aquifer, including how the aquifer interacts with other aquifers and surface water; and

(iii) a description of the area of the aquifer where the water level is predicted to decline because of the exercise of underground water rights; and

(iv) the predicted quantities of water to be taken or interfered with because of the exercise of underground water rights during the period in which resource activities are carried out.

• the environmental values that will, or may, be affected by the exercise of underground water rights and the nature and extent of the impacts on the environmental values;

• any impacts on the quality of groundwater that will, or may, happen because of the exercise of underground water rights during or after the period in which resource activities are carried out; and

• strategies for avoiding, mitigating or managing the predicted impacts on the environmental values or the impacts on the quality of groundwater.

I have attached the supporting documentation.

Completion of an EIS process is defined in section 60 of the EP Act.

12. Has an environmental impact statement (EIS) process under Chapter 3 of the EP Act that includes the proposed amendment, been completed?*

No

Yes → I have assessed the environmental risks of the proposed amendment and consider them to be the same as was assessed in the EIS. A copy of the assessment is attached. Go to question 15.


http://www.qld.gov.au/


I have assessed the environmental risks of the proposed amendment and consider them to be different to what was assessed in the EIS. Go to question 13.

The information provided here will assist the administering authority in deciding whether an EIS is required

For further information refer to the guideline: Triggers for Environmental Impact Statements under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 for mining, petroleum and gas activities. This guideline is available at www.qld.gov.au, using the search term ‘triggers for environmental impact statements’.

13. EIS triggers

Where an EIS process under Chapter 3 of the EP Act has not been completed, or if the environmental risk has changed since the EIS was completed, please complete the table below. The information provided here will assist in determining whether an EIS is required. If your response to any question is yes, you must attach details of how the criterion is triggered including details of the impact.

Criteria—EIS triggers Select

Only answer this question if the current ERA project is for an existing mine extracting between 2–10 million tonnes per year of run of mine (ROM) ore or coal.

Is the proposed ERA amendment for an increase in the annual extraction of more than 100% or 5 million tonnes per year (whichever is the lesser)?*

YES

NO

N/A

Only answer this question if the current ERA project is for an existing mine extracting over 10 million tonnes per year of ROM ore or coal.

Is the proposed ERA amendment for an increase in annual extraction of more than 10% or 10 million tonnes per year (whichever is the lesser)?*

YES

NO

N/A

Only answer this question if the current ERA project is for an existing mine extracting over 20 million tonnes per year of ROM ore or coal extraction.

Is the proposed ERA amendment for an increase in annual extraction of greater than 25%?*

YES

NO

N/A

Is the proposed ERA amendment for a mining activity that will extend into a Category A or B environmentally sensitive area, unless previously authorised by the state?*

YES

NO

N/A


http://www.qld.gov.au/


Is the proposed ERA amendment for a mining activity that would involve a substantial change in mining operations?

For example: from underground to open cut, or (for underground mining) a change in operations that currently causes little subsidence but with the proposed ERA amendment, is likely to cause substantial subsidence?*

YES

NO

N/A

Is the proposed ERA amendment for a mining activity and a novel or unproven resource extraction process, technology or activity, is being proposed?*

YES

NO

N/A

Is the proposed ERA amendment for a petroleum and gas activity that is likely to have a total disturbance area of greater than 2000 hectares at any 1 time during the life of the proposed project? This includes areas occupied by well pads (single or multi-directional), access tracks and roads, water storages, and process plants?*

YES

NO

N/A

Is the proposed ERA amendment for a petroleum and gas activity that is likely to involve the construction of a high pressure pipeline over a distance of 300 kilometres or greater?*

YES

NO

N/A

Is the proposed ERA amendment for a petroleum and gas activity that is likely to involve the construction of a liquefied natural gas plant?*

YES

NO

N/A

I have attached details of how the criterion is triggered including details of the impact.

This question is not applicable if an EIS process under either the Chapter 3 of the EP Act has been completed for all the activities that are the subject of this application and the environmental risks of the activities and the way they are proposed to be carried out has not changed since the EIS was completed

14. Assessment of the environmental impact and provision of specific supporting information

You must provide an assessment of the likely impact of the proposed amendment on the environmental values, including the following mandatory information in the table below, unless the not applicable check box is ticked.

You must provide an assessment of the likely impact of the proposed amendment on the environmental values, including the following mandatory information in the table below, unless the not applicable check box is ticked.

Only tick the ‘Not Applicable’ check box if the proposed amendment does not cause a change to the environmental values, aspects and impacts as approved under the current environmental authority.



Where the ‘Not Applicable’ option is selected, sufficient information must be provided to support this determination, as the determination forms part of the required assessment.

MANDATORY INFORMATION

A description of the environmental values likely to be affected by the proposed amendment* Provided

N/A Reason for N/A:

Details of any emissions or releases likely to be generated by the proposed amendment* Provided

N/A Reason for N/A:

A description of the risk and likely magnitude of impacts on the environmental values* Provided

N/A Reason for N/A:

Details of the management practices proposed to be implemented to prevent or minimise adverse impacts* Provided

N/A Reason for N/A:

Details of how the land the subject of the application will be rehabilitated after each relevant activity ceases* Provided

N/A Reason for N/A:

To provide a response to the mandatory information, specific supporting information must be provided to the administering authority, the type and detail of which will depend on your particular ERA project. Supporting material for technical information requirements is located on the business and industry website www.business.qld.gov.au.




You must include a description of the proposed measures for minimising and managing waste generated by the proposed amendments.

For further information on technical information to provide with your application, please refer to the business and industry website www.business.qld.gov.au

:

If you currently have a plan of operations in place and would like to change the amount of financial assurance held, please contact Permit and Licence Management. Details are provided at the end of this form.

15. Provide details of the proposed measures for minimising and managing waste generated by any amendments to the relevant activity*

WASTE MANAGEMENT DETAILS. IF WASTE IS TO BE MANAGED ACCORDING TO AN EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PROVIDE THE RELEVANT PAGE OR SECTION NUMBERS.

Please see the supporting information provided with this amendment application.

16. Do you currently have financial assurance held as part of the approved environmental authority*

No

Yes → I will not need to change the financial assurance in relation to this amendment.

I will be changing the financial assurance and have attached the form Application to amend or discharge financial assurance for an environmental authority (EM875)

I will be changing the financial assurance and will be amending or replacing my Plan of Operations.

17. Is this land currently subject to an environmental protection order or a site management plan?*

No

Yes → I have an environmental protection order in place and the details are provided below.

I have a site management plan in place and the details are provided below.

PROVIDE THE REFERENCE NUMBER AND BRIEF DETAILS




2 For more information on payment options go to the Business Queensland website at www.business.qld.gov.au and search ‘Forms and fees for mining and resources’

18. Is any part of the land currently recorded in, or previously beenrecorded in, the environmental management register?*

No

Yes, complete the below table and provide the additional details

PLEASE TICK RELEVANT

BOXES YES NO

ADDITIONAL DETAILS

Has the land been removed from the environmental management register?

If yes is ticked, you must attach evidence (e.g. a notice) advising that details have been removed from the environmental management register.

Application fee

An application fee is payable at the time the application is made. Information on the fee can be located in the information sheet “Fees for permits for environmentally relevant activities (ERAs)” (ESR/2015/1721).

To pay by credit card you will need to provide contact details so you can be contacted for your credit card payment to be made over the phone.

Assessment fee for major amendment

For further information refer to the information sheet “Changes to the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008”, available at www.qld.gov.au, using ‘ESR/2015/1810’ as a search term.

Supplementary annual fee for certain major amendments

The supplementary annual fee can be calculated using the fee calculator, available at www.qld.gov.au, using ‘ESR/2015/1731’ as a search term.

19. Payment of fees

Application fee*: $ 305.90

You may pay your fee via cheque, money order or credit card.

Select the payment method below:

Payment by cheque or money order made payable to the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (attached).

Payment by cheque or money order made payable to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (attached).

Credit card payments

For credit card payments for applications to the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection please lodge the application using Connect at www.ehp.qld.gov.au/connect

For credit card payments for applications relating to mining activities please lodge the application using MyMinesOnline2.

For credit card payments for applications to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries please contact me (the applicant) for credit card payment:

Phone number: 30247368

Note: Additional fees will be payable for a major amendment.



http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/connect

https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/mining-energy-water/resources/online-services/myminesonline


Assessment fee for all major amendments

Where the proposed amendment is determined by the administering authority to be a major amendment, an assessment fee of 30% of the annual fee for the authority at the time of application, is also payable. The assessment fee is payable once notification of the assessment level decision is issued. The assessment fee must be paid before the assessment of the amendment application can proceed.

Supplementary annual fee for certain major amendments

The supplementary annual fee is payable where the amendment is approved and results in the aggregate environmental score (and hence the annual fee) for the EA increasing. The supplementary annual fee is a pro-rata adjustment to the annual fee for the period from when the amended EA takes effect to the next anniversary day for the EA. This is payable within 20 business days after the approval date.

Where there is more than one holder of the environmental authority, this declaration is to be signed by all holders, unless there is an agreement between all holders that one can sign on behalf of the other.

Note: If only one holder is signing this application form, they are committing all holders to the content of the application and the declaration.

Where the environmental authority holder is a company, this form must be signed by an authorised person for that company.

Privacy statement

The Departments of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) and Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) are collecting the information on this form to process your amendment application for an environmental authority. This collection is authorised under Chapter 5 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Some information may be given to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) for the purposes of processing this application. Your personal information will only be accessed by authorised employees within these departments and will not be

20. Declaration

Note: If you have not told the truth in this application you may be prosecuted.

Where an agreement is in place between all holders of the environmental authority, that 1 holder can sign on behalf of the other joint holders, please tick the below checkbox.

I have the authority to sign this form on behalf of all the joint holders of the environmental authority.

I declare that:

• I am the holder of the environmental authority, or authorised signatory for the holder of the environmental authority.

• If the proposed amendment is made, the relevant activities will continue to comply with the ERA Standard (eligibility criteria and standard conditions) for all eligible ERAs, or where they cannot, I have indicated otherwise in my application and provided the required support information.

• If the proposed amendment is a minor amendment (condition conversion) that I can comply with the ERA Standard (eligibility criteria and standard conditions) for each of the ERAs authorised by the environmental authority.

• The information provided is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that it is an offence under section 480 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to give to the administering authority or an authorised person a document containing information that I know is false, misleading or incomplete in a material particular.

• I understand that I am responsible for managing the environmental impacts of these activities, and that approval of this application is not an endorsement by the administering authority of the effectiveness of management practices proposed or implemented.



Further information The latest version of this publication and other publications referenced in this document can be found at www.qld.gov.au using the relevant publication number (ESR/2015/1733 for this form) or title as a search term.

Please submit your completed application to:

For a mining ERA where the proposed amendment impacts upon the resource tenure: Mining Registrar Department of Natural Resources and Mines DNRM have a list of office locations for mining registrars on their website www.dnrm.qld.gov.au

For ERA 2, ERA 3 or ERA 4 Post: Senior Environmental Scientist Animal Industries Department of Agriculture and Fisheries PO Box 102 TOOWOOMBA QLD 4350

Enquiries: Phone: (07) 4688 1374 Fax: (07) 4688 1192 Email: [email protected]

For all other ERAs Post: Permit and Licence Management Department of Environment and Heritage Protection GPO Box 2454 BRISBANE QLD 4001

Courier or hand delivery: Permit and Licence Management Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Level 3, 400 George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 Business hours: 8:30am–4:30pm

Enquiries: Website: www.business.qld.gov.au Email: [email protected] Phone: 13 QGOV (13 74 68)


mailto:[email protected]



ATTACHMENT 2: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION


SUPLEMENTARY INFORMATION The following information details the amendment being sought by QGC in this application relating to Environmental Authority (EA) EPPG00711513 for the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facility on Curtis Island.

Introduction Flaring at the LNG plant is part of the standard process for safe operations. It allows excess gas to be burnt off in a safe and controlled way and thus prevents a potentially dangerous build-up of gas that could otherwise combust. QGC requests changes to EA conditions that relate to the operation of the flare system at the Curtis Island LNG facility.

LNG plant flaring is predominantly methane, nitrogen and carbon dioxide (>98%) which does not produce visible smoke. Under certain conditions there is a requirement to flare refrigerant (ethylene and propane) which causes visible smoke. Refrigerant flaring is controlled and minimised at all times, however it does occur in some start up and shut down situations, upset conditions, for maintenance and in certain emergency situations.

The EA currently has four (4) conditions that directly relate to emissions from the flares and flaring events as follows: (B11) Visible smoke and particulate emissions must not be emitted for more than five minutes in

any two hour period during normal operating conditions.

(B12) Flaring events, except for those resulting from an emergency, occurring outside of normal operating conditions must not:

(a) produce continuous visible smoke for 30 minutes or more; and (b) occur more than 14 times per annum from 29 January 2016.

(B13) The holder of this authority must monitor and record all flaring events in accordance with Schedule B, Table 3 - Recording during flaring events and Condition (I3).

(B14) Contingency plans and emergency procedures must be developed and implemented for non-

routine situations to deal with foreseeable risks and hazards including corrective responses to prevent and mitigate environmental harm (including a contingency plan when plant shuts down for maintenance or other reasons).

Background There were significant visible smoke events from the LNG facility flare in 2015 during commissioning of LNG Train 1, which resulted in some community complaints to the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP). On 9 April 2015, the DEHP issued QGC a Notice to Conduct or Commission an Environmental Evaluation. The notice alleged environmental harm as a result of emissions of air pollution and light from the wet and dry process flares. In response to the Notice QGC engaged Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd to address the alleged environmental harm due to emissions from the wet and dry process flares.

The assessment report included worst case propane and ethylene depressurisation scenarios that were modelled to estimate the dispersion of emissions for the key pollutants to determine their impact on environmental values and their impact at environmentally sensitive receptors. The assessment used emission factors1 to determine the combustion products and included PM10, the main cause of visible smoke emissions. The assessment study found that the predicted ground level concentrations of the contaminants were well below the relevant air quality objective.

Notwithstanding this, the Department, via a Notice of Proposed Action (NOPA), imposed new, more restrictive, conditions on the environmental authority (EA) in March 2016, to address the perceived

1 US EPA AP42 documents (Chapter 13.5, Industrial Flares) for NO CO and Total Hydrocarbons, McEwen J.D.N and Johnson M.R, 2012 for PM10 and US EPA (1983) (EPA-600/2-83-052) Flare Efficiency Study Report for PAH.

2


visual nuisance issue. At the time, QGC made written representations to the DEHP to amend the conditions imposed under the NOPA and subsequently requested an internal review of the decision to impose the conditions. In the internal review submission QGC proposed a definition of a flaring event that reasonably reflected the need to regulate flaring events and the requirement for practical and safe operation of an LNG plant:

“flaring event means an event where flammable gas is combusted through a flare which produces continuous visible smoke for a period greater than 30 minutes”.

QGC’s position is that visible smoke emissions of up to 30 minutes is unlikely to trigger a nuisance impact therefore should not be regulated under the EA. Furthermore, QGC considers that the risk and impact of nuisance is better dealt with proactively through public consultation, provision of educational information and reporting to minimise community concern and complaints about the flaring events, rather than arbitrary limits on number and length of events. It is both economically and socially beneficial for QGC to do everything possible to minimise and limit flaring of refrigerants. It is incongruous to apportion time limits to visible smoke emissions caused by flaring, due to safety critical activities (e.g. maintenance of the LNG facility), as the emissions need to occur for as long as it takes to purge the refrigerant to undertake the maintenance activity/ or make the facility safe, if the flaring was triggered by a process fault. Other jurisdictions in Australia regulate flaring activities via requirements to notify, report and minimise visible smoke emissions rather than via time and event limits.

LNG industry licence conditions for flaring – comparison of other Australian jurisdictions The Maitland LNG facility in Western Australia environmental licence (L8159/2004/2), July 2012, has two conditions relating to flaring and smoke emissions. The conditions trigger a requirement to undertake reporting and they do not constitute a compliance limit. There are no limitations in the licence to the number of dark smoke events that can occur during any period. The two conditions are broken up using the Ringlemann Number. All dark smoke events with a Ringlemann Number greater than 1 for periods of 30 minutes or more must be reported in their annual environmental report. Dark smoke events with a Ringlemann Number of 3 or greater for a continuous period of 30 minutes or more must be reported directly to the Department within 24 hours of becoming aware of the emission. The Maitland LNG facility environmental licence conditions are as follows: Air Emissions

… Reporting of flaring

4. The licensee shall conduct monitoring to determine the Ringelmann Number of all dark smoke emissions of a shade greater than Ringlemann 1 emitted for a period of 30 minutes or more in any 24 hour period and report results in the Annual Environmental Report required by condition 10 of this licence.

5. The licensee shall provide to the Director, a report of all dark smoke emissions of a shade of

Ringlemann 3 or greater emitted for a continuous period of 30 minutes or more. This report is to be provided to the Director within 24 hours of becoming aware of such an emission.

… The Environmental Assessment Report attached to the licence includes a section on flaring stating that the flare was constructed in accordance with the American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice No. 520 and 521 for the installation of pressure relieving systems and is smokeless in design. The assessment report’s emissions risk analysis noted: The flares operate with a small continuous pilot flame and is mainly used during periods of startup and shutdown. Excess fuel gas is also sent to the flare for safe disposal. The flare is smokeless in design. The Pluto LNG Project Western Australia, environmental licence (L8752/2013/2) dated 16 April 2015 authorises five emission points for flares:

3


Emission point

Emission point and source Emission point height (m)

Source, including any abatement

A10a Warm Wet Flare – First Stage 130 Warm Wet Flare – conventional with air assist

A10b Warm Wet Flare – Second Stage

130 Warm Wet Flare – Sonic flare tip

A11 Cold Dry Flare 130 Cold Dry Flare – One stage flare with sonic flare tip

A12a Spare Flare – First Stage 130 Spare Flare – Conventional with Air assist

A12b Spare Flare – Second Stage 130 Spare Flare – Sonic flare tip The Pluto licence offers a compliance exemption for dark smoke emissions if it can be demonstrated that all reasonable and practical measures to minimise the emissions have been undertaken:

2.2.2 The licensee is exempt from compliance from condition 0 if in case of an event in Table 2.2.3 the corresponding management action is taken.

Table 2.2.3: Management actions Emission point reference

Event/action reference

Event Management action

A1 – A13 EA1 Start up, shut down or upset conditions

The Licensee shall take all reasonably practical measures to minimise emissions

2.2.3 The Licensee shall take the specified management action in the case of an event in Table

2.2.3 The constraining condition of a shade Ringlemann 3 is a target not a compliance limit. There is no limit to the number of dark smoke events that can occur. 2.2.4 The Licensee shall target point source emissions to air at or below the levels specified in

Table 2.2.5.

Table 2.2.5: Point source emission targets to air Emission point reference

Parameter Target Averaging period

A10 – 13 Dark smoke No dark smoke emissions of a shade Ringlemann 3 or greater emitted for a continuous period of 30 minutes or more

Continuous 30 minute period

The Ringlemann Number is used to monitor flaring events and the volume of hydrocarbons flared must be reported. Table 3.2.1: Monitoring of point source emissions to air Emission point reference

Parameter Units Frequency Averaging period

Method

A10 – 13 Dark smoke Ringelmann During flaring events where a shade greater than Ringelmann 1 emitted for a period of 30 minutes or more

Test Specific

Ringelmann Method

Volume of hydrocarbons flared

tonnes During flaring events

Duration of flaring event

National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination 2008.

4


Reporting of the monitoring undertaken for dark smoke emissions is required in the Annual Environmental Report (Table 5.2.1). Quarterly reporting of flaring is required under condition 5.2.4 as shown in Table 5.2.2. Table 5.3.1 requires notification as soon as practicable, but no later than 5 pm on the next usual working day. Table 5.3.1: Notification requirements Condition or table Parameter Notification

requirement Format or form

2.2.5 Start up, shut down or upset conditions of the LNG plant with actual or expected dark smoke emissions in excess of target

As soon as practicable, but no later than 5 pm of the next usual working day

Email notification to regional branch

The APLNG project on Curtis Island has four conditions on flaring that are consistent with QGC’s original conditions. Flare Conditions

(C11) The flare must be equipped with a flare tip design to provide good mixing with air, flame stability and achieve a minimum Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) removal efficiency of 98 percent under varied gas flow rate and meteorological conditions and meet the best practice design standards (e.g. NSW EPA: Protection of the Environmental Operations (Clean Air) Amendment (Industrial and Commercial Activities) Regulation 2005, or the US EPA Code of Federal Regulations: 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11 ).

(C12) The flare must be equipped with a continuously burning pilot or other automatic ignition system that assures gas ignition and provides immediate notification to appropriate personnel when the ignition system ceases to function.

(C13) The flare must be designed to handle large fluctuations in both the volume and the chemical content of gases.

(C14) Visible smoke and particulate emissions must not be permitted for more than five minutes in any two hour period during normal operating conditions, other than during LNG train start-up.

Normal operating conditions are not defined in the EA. There is a note under Schedule C - Table that gives an example of what normal operating conditions are:

Note 1: Minimum exit velocity during normal operating conditions, i.e. at all times except during start-up, shutdown, maintenance or calibration of emission monitoring devices.

The note indicates that operations during start-up, shutdown, maintenance or calibration of emission monitoring devices are not considered to be under normal operating conditions. The GLNG project on Curtis Island has five conditions under the heading of flaring conditions (EA dated 6 November 2015). The first four conditions are consistent with APLNG’s conditions and QGC’s original flaring conditions:

B13 The flare must be equipped with a flare tip design to provide good mixing with air, flame stability and achieve a minimum Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) removal efficiency of 98 per cent under varied gas flow rate and meteorological conditions and meet the best practice design standards (e.g. NSW EPA: Protection of the Environmental Operations (Clean Air) Amendment (Industrial and Commercial Activities) Regulation 2005, or the US EPA Code of Federal Regulations: 40 CFR 60.18 and 40 CFR 63.11).

B14 The flare must be equipped with a continuously burning pilot or other automatic ignition system that

assures gas Ignition and provides immediate notification to appropriate personnel when the ignition system ceases to function.

B15 The flare must be designed to handle large fluctuations in both the volume and the chemical content

of gases.

5


B16 Visible smoke and particulate emissions must not be permitted for more than five minutes in any two hour period during normal operating conditions.

B17 Contingency plans and emergency procedures must be developed and Implemented for non-routine

situations to deal with foreseeable risks and hazards including corrective responses to prevent and mitigate environmental harm (including a contingency plan when plant shuts down for maintenance or other reasons).

Again there are no time or event limits for flaring events in this EA for non-normal operating conditions.

Visible smoke nuisance Public interest and regulatory interest in visible smoke emissions peaked during the commissioning phase of Train 1 of the LNG facility where there were significant and notable visible smoke events. The intense flaring of commissioning is now complete and the number of flaring events has reduced substantially. Indications from complaint data are that the level of nuisance has reduced. QGC is aware of 11 complaints made during commissioning of Train 1 between March and July 2015. A single complaint was made to the DEHP in 2016 and another in 2017. Whilst QGC has a dedicated toll-free complaints line, zero complaints have been received directly about flaring from the LNG facility in Gladstone. QGC takes our responsibility to be a good neighbour seriously. QGC notifies stakeholders in advance each time there is a planned flaring event. Analysis of key stakeholder feedback to QGC has not indicated that flaring at the LNG plant is a broad community concern. Once a flaring event is over there are no persistent impacts, no human health or environment impacts. The visible smoke produced during the flaring events causes no environmental or health concerns, it is a visual nuisance issue. Dispersion modelling studies show that, due to flare gas composition and flare stack height, no health impacts are predicted from flaring at QGC’s LNG facility. EHP monitoring for PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2 and visibility in the Gladstone region shows no health or environment impacts that are related to flaring. QGC modelling of flare emissions is compliant with the Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008. QGC has successfully implemented numerous initiatives to reduce flaring over the past two years. A flaring reduction working group was formed, which has been convening since April 2015 to identify and implement measures to reduce flaring. Lessons learnt from commissioning and start-up of Train 1 were successfully implemented, resulting in a significant reduction in gas flared during commissioning of Train 2 (by 63%). The only way to completely eliminate visible smoke during flaring of refrigerant is to install a new type of flare, which would be a significant capital investment for an infrequent visual nuisance issue. The following table summarises the evaluation of technical options to minimise or eliminate the incidence of visible smoke emissions. This feasibility analysis has been reviewed through internal Assess Stage Value Assurance processes and endorsed through consultation with the following individuals / groups:

• Shell Flaring Technical Experts (located in Rijswijk, Netherlands and Bangalore, India); • QGC local technical safety, process engineering and mechanical engineering technical

authorities; • Multiple flare vendors, in Australian and UK; and • Engineering contractor technical personnel.

6


Option Option Details Technically

Feasible Effective Capital

Cost (Note 1)

Replace Existing Tips: Sonic multi-tip / variable slot design, designed to increase velocity / entrain additional air

• Insufficient flare backpressure available

• Extended duration major shutdown (2-train) required to install and commission

• Insufficient confidence in performance during low-rate events and in ethylene service

No No N/A

Fuel gas injection: Inject fuel gas to flare system to reduce average molecular weight (reduce air requirement) and entrain more air (increased velocity/turbulence)

• Large volume of fuel gas required for increased velocity, with associated significantly increased GHG emissions and combustion emissions and loss of valuable product

• Ineffective due to large tip diameter / inherent low velocity

• Increased light pollution at night with potential impacts on community and fauna (turtles)

Yes No N/A

Steam assist: Inject high pressure steam into the flare stream, creating turbulence and entraining combustion air

• No existing steam generation on site – would require steam generation equipment to be installed in an already constrained footprint

• Additional fuel burn requirement, including associated GHG emissions and combustion emissions

• Major flare modifications required (steam lines), requiring extended duration major shutdown

• Effectiveness likely to be marginal with large quantity of steam required

No No N/A

Low Pressure Air Assist: Inject low pressure are at the flare tip via large ducts and electrically driven low pressure blowers

• Extremely large air duct required (approx. 2m diameter) – technically infeasible to modify existing flare (it would be possible to install this technology on a secondary flare)

• Additional power demand, with associated fuel burn, GHG emissions and combustion emissions

• Major flare modifications required (air riser and blowers), requiring extended duration major shutdown

• Insufficient capacity to achieve sufficient smoke reduction

Yes No

N/A

7


High Pressure Air Assist: Inject high pressure are at the flare tip via multiple sonic nozzles and electrically driven air compressors.

• Provides additional combustion air and turbulence at the flare tip

• Large power demand (approx. 3.2 MW per flare) with associated fuel burn, GHG emissions and combustion emissions

• Major flare modifications required (HP air lines / new tip / compressors), requiring extended duration major shutdown

• Insufficient smokeless capacity to provide material decrease in frequency/duration of smoke emission events

Yes No

N/A

Enclosed flare: Install a new partial capacity enclosed ground flare (EGF)

• Shut-down scope includes tie-ins only

• Design entrains air naturally – no forced air injection required

• Automated flare diversion required (rupture disk safeguard)

• Applied on Shell Pulau Bukom refinery (Singapore)

• Eliminates light emissions in addition to smoke

• Effective for the majority of flaring events

• Emergency (high rate) events will be flared through the existing elevated flares with smoke emissions expected

• Minor increase in GHG emissions (purge / pilot gas)

Yes Partial (90%+

reduction in events)

$200m

Ground flare: Install a new walled multi-point ground flare (MPGF)

• Smokeless performance under virtually all scenarios (including emergency)

• Installation does not require additional shutdown

• Large plot space required • Minor increase in GHG emissions

(purge / pilot gas) • Additional GHG emissions with

operation of flare • Installed on some other Australian

LNG facilities (APLNG, Darwin LNG)

Yes Yes (close to 100%)

$350m

Note 1: Capital costs are at a Type 0 accuracy level (+/- 50%) and are presented in Australian Dollars. This does not include the cost of production loss during shutdown for installation.

Proposed Amendment 1 – condition B12 QGC requests amendments to the flaring conditions imposed under the NOPA in 2016 to better reflect actual safe operating requirements at the LNG facility. Whilst QGC has been in compliance with the new, limiting EA conditions (6 flaring events were recorded in 2016 ranging 5 minutes to 30 minutes and one event recorded in 2017 of 26 minutes), scheduled shutdowns for maintenance activities must be made periodically to comply with the safety case and ensure the integrity of the LNG facility is maintained at the highest level. A scheduled maintenance shutdown is the primary mandatory planned activity that has the potential to generate visible smoke from the flare. Furthermore, unplanned equipment failure or process upsets may also occur which trigger the activation of the safety systems and an LNG facility shutdown, which has the potential to result in

8


visible smoke emissions for durations of greater than thirty (30) minutes and 14 events per annum as stipulated under the current EA condition B12.

B12 Flaring events, except for those resulting from an emergency, occurring outside of normal operating conditions must not: (a) produce continuous visible smoke for 30 minutes or more; and (b) occur more than 14 times per annum from 29 January 2016.

The LNG facility is composed of two LNG trains. A shutdown is when LNG production is stopped for one or two LNG trains to perform either scheduled maintenance or as a result of a plant upset or an emergency event. Shutdowns of the facility are required to perform maintenance, inspections, construction or decommissioning works and they include all of the activities undertaken to complete the required works from the commencement of LNG train shut down to the completion of LNG train start up and the reinstatement of LNG production. QGC uses the ConocoPhillips Optimised Cascade process® that successively cools the CSG to LNG through a three stage hydrocarbon based refrigeration process. Hydrocarbon refrigerants are used for their low global warming potential. The hydrocarbon refrigerants used in the process include propane and ethylene. Both of these refrigerants are flammable substances and may cause visible smoke emissions when released to the flare system and flared for safe disposal. Visible smoke is defined in the EA as:

"visible smoke" means a visible suspension of carbon or other particles in air measured by a Ringelmann number greater than 2.

Scheduled shutdowns or unplanned shutdowns may include intrusive work, which requires breakage of a primary containment system of a refrigeration unit (to undertake internal vessel inspection). To prepare a safe working environment for maintenance personnel, the primary containment system may require the refrigerant inventory to be removed from the system. This minimises the risk to maintenance personnel of exposure to hazardous energy sources to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). During intrusive work the recovery of the hydrocarbon refrigerant is maximised by transferring the refrigerant inventory to storage vessels, or to the alternate operating LNG train. However for ethylene, up to 20 tonnes (approximately 10% of the LNG train ethylene working volume) cannot be recovered (i.e. it is residual vapour within the piping system which is in low concentrations (i.e. impure) which excludes the possibility of re-liquefaction and/or transfer to the refrigerant storage system). Residual hydrocarbons are then removed from the process system by purging with nitrogen gas which dilutes the remaining refrigerant until a safe atmosphere is achieved. Depending on the intrusiveness of the maintenance activities, the system may be purged with nitrogen to achieve 10-50% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) or <10% LEL and depressurised to 0 (barg) so that there is no residual stored energy in the system. The nitrogen purge process diverts the mixture of hydrocarbon refrigerant and nitrogen gas to the flare system for safe disposal. Flaring is the preferred disposal method over venting as it is the lowest risk from both an environmental and health and safety perspective. The duration of a nitrogen purge is dependent on the volume of the refrigerant service and the desired atmosphere for the maintenance work to be safely undertaken. The ethylene system requires three (3) nitrogen piston purges to achieve a 10-50% LEL atmosphere where each nitrogen piston purge results in 50 minute duration of the ethylene and nitrogen mixture being released to the flare system. Five (5) nitrogen piston purges are required to achieve a < 10% LEL atmosphere. Visible smoke emissions will not be continuous for nitrogen piston purges as there will be a period of approximately 30 to 60 minutes between each piston purge. Whilst the shutdown plans will minimise the volume of refrigerant containment that needs to be prepared for the internal work, the safety of personnel working on the affected areas is paramount. The generation of a safe working environment results in visible smoke emissions from the nitrogen purging operation that could exceed the thirty (30) minutes duration that is the current authorisation under Condition (B12). Each nitrogen purge that produces visible smoke emissions may be considered a separate event due to the period in between each purge where there will be no visible smoke emissions. Remaining ethylene in the system after each successive nitrogen purge will be significantly reduced as it is displaced with nitrogen. This may result in a reduction in the intensity of visible smoke emissions during subsequent piston purges.

9


It takes approximately 1 hour 40 minutes to depressurise the propane system to 0 (barg) for a major scheduled shutdown. In addition to the depressurisation it takes three (3) nitrogen piston purges, each resulting in approximately a one (1) hour 10 minute period of flaring to achieve a 10-50% LEL atmosphere and five (5) nitrogen purges, each taking a one (1) hour 10 minute period to achieve an atmosphere of < 10% LEL. Again visible smoke emissions will not be continuous as there is an approximate 30-60 minute period between successive nitrogen piston purges. Additionally, if an isolation method does not provide a sufficient barrier to prevent migration of hydrocarbons, the nitrogen piston purge duration may need to be extended until an appropriate isolation is achieved. It may take several hours of purging to obtain the appropriate isolation. The flare system, driven by the necessity to provide a safe disposal path for all hydrocarbons within the LNG facility, has numerous connections which normally do not have a flow. Refrigerants may migrate into flare laterals which have no normal flow during the purge process due to flare hydraulics. Safe disposal of the refrigerants is affected by the rate of diffusion into the flare system, where refrigerants are displaced out of the laterals and into the flare system through an imposed concentration gradient. This process may result in visible smoke emissions for some time after the nitrogen piston purge process has been completed. Following intrusive work on a system during a shutdown, oxygen is required to be ejected from the system’s internal atmosphere to minimise the combustion potential when refrigerants are re-introduced. This is completed by another nitrogen purge process. Moisture is also required to be removed from the internal pipework prior to re-introduction of refrigerants to prevent the formation of ice from water which may have entered the pipework while the intrusive work was being performed. Subsequently nitrogen is removed and the internal pipework is dried using defrost gas; a dry methane stream. Nitrogen removal using the defrost gas may also result in visible smoke emissions for greater than thirty (30) minutes in duration. The system dry-out process is followed by the re-introduction of refrigerants however as with the nitrogen purge process, the defrost gas is only diluted by the addition of refrigerants. Any residual defrost gas or nitrogen from the dry-out process needs to be purged out of the system to attain the required refrigerant specification. QGC use condenser purge columns to minimise the amount of refrigerant that is flared during this enrichment purge with subsequent emissions of visible smoke (approximately one (1) hour 10 minutes for ethylene and one (1) hour 40 minutes for propane). While QGC makes all efforts to minimise the amount of flaring during shutdowns or process upsets, due to the design and operation of the LNG facility there may be visible smoke emissions during shutdowns and process upsets with durations greater than thirty (30) minutes and in exceedance of 14 events per annum. The safe shutdown of an LNG train will produce up to 13 hours of visible smoke emissions from the flare. The LNG train is generally shut down for a number of days (up to a month) and when it restarts, the removal of the defrost gas from the ethylene and propane circuits will result in visible smoke of up to three (3) hours. Major scheduled maintenance of an LNG train occurs on a three (3) year cycle. In addition, technical maintenance that requires a shutdown may be required to rectify identified faults in critical equipment intermittently, at any time. In other operational situations, such as; during the use of ethylene and propane reclaimers; depressurisation of propane and ethylene compressor casings; and when propane and ethylene valves are passing to the flare header; visible smoke emissions may be produced for short periods of time (40 minutes to two (2) hours) for a cumulative total, not expected to exceed 13 hours per annum. Based on this, the LNG facility, whilst currently operating in compliance with the conditions of the EA, cannot undergo technical shutdowns (safety shut downs) within the current limit on visible smoke flaring of 30 minutes. Operational scenarios that produce visible smoke emissions are detailed in Table 1 below.

10


Table 1: Visible smoke emission scenarios

Operational scenarios Visible smoke emissions

(hours)

Piston purge (hours/purge)

Number of purges Frequency Total time (hours)

Major Shutdown A least once every 3 years per train

Ethylene de-inventory for a train 1.16 1.16

Ethylene de-inventory for a train - purges 0.83 5 4.15

Propane de-inventory for a train 1.67 1.67

Propane de-inventory for a train - purges 1.17 5 5.85

Total 12.83

Major Shutdown – start up A least once every 3 years per train

Removal of inert gas or defrost gas from ethylene circuit to start up

1.16 1.16

Removal of inert gas or defrost gas from the propane circuit

1.67 1.67

Total 2.83

Upset condition scenarios

Extended use of ethylene reclaimer 1.16 May occur once per year

1.16

1


Operational scenarios Visible smoke emissions

(hours)

Piston purge (hours/purge)

Number of purges Frequency Total time (hours)

Ethylene valve passing to flare header 1.83 May occur once per year

1.83

Extended use of propane reclaimer 1.17 May occur once per year

1.17

Depressurisation of ethylene compressor casing

0.67 May occur three times per year

2.01

Propane valve passing to flare header 1.83 May occur once per year

1.83

Depressurisation of propane compressor casing

0.67 May occur three times per year

2.01

Purge of loading hoses after decanting of ethylene and propane ISO’s

0.20 Will occur once a month

2.4

Total 12.41

2


In summary, QGC requests amendment to the flaring conditions in Schedule B (and associated definitions) to remove limitations on visible smoke resulting from flaring during LNG plant shut down, start up and upset conditions. Alternatively, QGC propose that the conditions be adjusted to reflect the actual predicted operating scenarios of the LNG facility described in Table 1, Visible smoke emission scenarios. The removal or adjustment of the current limits about flaring would be consistent with the conditions seen for other LNG facilities in Australia, and would reflect the actual operating conditions involved in the LNG facility when operated safely as per design. To ensure QGC continues to operate transparently and communicate flaring events to the local community, QGC is prepared to commit to additional public notification of flaring events prior to major scheduled maintenance and additional public communication about unplanned flaring events from upset conditions.

Proposed amendment 2 – definition of Continuous Emissions Monitoring System QGC must monitor and record flaring events under condition B13 of the environmental authority in accordance with Schedule B, Table 3. The stated method for monitoring and recording temperature, vent gas flow rate and vent gas composition is a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) as defined in the environmental authority. Generally a CEMS is used to record, analyse and monitor the composition of combustion products, temperature, pressure and the flow rate of exhaust streams from continuous industrial processes (such as emissions from power station boilers and turbines) to measure the amount of pollutants generated and to monitor combustion efficiency. Sensors for a CEMS are usually located within the exhaust stack where they can measure the chemical and physical properties of the exhaust gases prior to their release to the atmosphere. QGC uses an elevated flare system to safely dispose of gases where the combustion process takes place in the unconfined atmosphere above the flare. In this case it is not possible to use a traditional CEMS and instrumentation to measure the combustion products and temperature in the unconfined combustion zone. In elevated flare systems physical and chemical properties of the flare gas can be measured prior to combustion and there are various points where measurements can be taken. In the environmental evaluation, QGC committed to assessing the feasibility of the installation of on-line gas chromatograph analysers on the process flares that would enable identification and quantification of flare gas composition during upset events prior to combustion. QGC found that it is impractical and potentially unsafe to install gas chromatographs in the flare because of the high shear stress during maximum blowdown events. QGC has determined that due to the configuration of the flare systems it is not practicable to install a direct measurement system that would be effective at measuring all parameters over the full range of flaring scenarios. This is due to the large variability in maximum velocities in the Wet, Dry and Marine flare systems and highly variable gas concentrations. The installation of on-line gas chromatographs analysers (GC’s) would provide no environmental benefit as the composition of the flare gas is well understood for most operational scenarios that result in visible smoke emissions (flaring of ethylene or propane). GC’s installed within the flare system would not provide any operational benefit as there are no operational controls or procedures that can increase the combustion efficiency of the flares or other parameters that can be changed that can affect the performance of the flares. A more effective and economically viable method to determine the flare gas composition is to utilise the existing monitoring data available for gas temperature and pressure, and use engineering calculations to determine the flare gas composition. QGC has developed algorithms within the facility supervisory control system based on industry standard ISA-75.01.01.2007 so that QGC can calculate the mass of gas discharged from the flare system during or after a flaring event using data recorded from existing process control instrumentation and engineering calculations. The supervisory control system can determine instantaneous flow rates at a frequency down to one second and the data can be integrated to acquire total mass flow of each component of the flare

1


gas (propane or ethylene) for each flaring event. A direct benefit of using a calculation method to determine the flare gas concentration is that there is no requirement to install any new instrumentation. This would avoid a scheduled shut down that would include flaring to install such instrumentation. Results from the calculation method can be made readily available to the administering authority and the general public after the necessary quality assurance processes have been undertaken, typically this can be done within 48 hours. After a flaring event, QGC is able to reconcile the mass flow rates from the computational method against the installed flow meter on the wet flare (Ultrasonic flow meter) main header and the two flow meters on the dry flare (Ultrasonic and averaging pitot tube) main header. A limitation of the system is that the calculation method does not monitor manual drains to the flare and does not include pressure safety valve (PSV) relief. These limitations are considered minor, as the manual drains are not considered to be a major contributor to visible smoke emissions and hence are not considered to be a major risk. PSVs form part of the critical safety system and their use would be infrequent in the event of an emergency situation. In summary, QGC proposes an amendment to Schedule B - Table 3 (or associated CEMS definition) to clarify the method of CEMS being used to determine the vent gas composition parameter is a virtual CEMS via an engineering calculation method based on ISA-75.01.01.2007. The proposed virtual CEMS will be embedded in the plant production data management system (PDMS), and will calculate and report in real time flow rates from all instrumented relief sources to the flare header. This data can then be interrogated to display total flow rate and composition of all gases present on the facility including methane, ethylene, propane, nitrogen and carbon dioxide. The calculation method uses the following inputs:

• Calculation method as per ISA-75.01.01 (Flow Equations for Sizing Control Valves) • Physical characteristics of relief sources as per as-built design documentation (e.g. flow

coefficient / piping geometry etc.) • Real time process data (including pressures / temperatures from physical instruments)

Furthermore, QGC digitally records all flaring events using closed circuit television (CCTV). The EA, Schedule B - Table 3, currently states that the method of visually recording the process flares is a ‘digital EDO recorder’. QGC understands that this is a clerical error (EDO standing for VIDEO) and requests that the method of recording be rectified in Table 3, either to ‘digital video recorder’ or ‘CCTV’.

2

QCLNG Midstream Project Amendment of Environmental Authority: LNG Facility - EPPG00711513

1 Assessment of Relevant Environmental Values The environmental values relevant to the QCLNG Facility and the impact on these environmental values are outlined in Table 1 Table 1 Assessment of environmental values affected by the proposed amendment to the EA

Environmental aspect Identification of existing environmental values Assessment of potential impacts on existing environmental

values resulting from the proposed amendment

Air

Under the EPP (Air), the following environmental values are to be enhanced or protected: • The qualities of the air environment that are conducive to

protecting the health and biodiversity of ecosystems. • The qualities of the air environment that are conducive to human

health and wellbeing. • The qualities of the air environment that are conducive to

protecting the aesthetics of the environment, including the appearance of buildings, structures and other property.

• The qualities of the air environment that are conducive to protecting agricultural use of the environment.

Gladstone harbour and its surrounds (including the southern end of Curtis Island) is a major industrial centre with a number of major industrial and mineral processing facilities located in the region, which all contribute to the industrial value identified for the area. Existing industrial facilities that contribute to the values include a power station, significant port infrastructure, and multiple materials handling facilities and gas processing plants. The QCLNG Facility is located within Curtis Island Industrial Precinct of the Gladstone State Development Area. The use designation of the industrial precinct includes high impact industry limited to natural gas (liquefaction and storage). Despite the industrial nature of the locality, environmental impact assessments show that, apart from in close proximity to the Gladstone Power Station and during regional scale pollution events

QGC engaged Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd to undertake an air quality assessment 2 to determine any potential impacts on environmental values and air quality objectives as a result of emissions from QCLNG’s wet and dry process flares. Key findings of the air quality assessment showed that the emission from flaring events did not exceed the relevant air quality objectives at the sensitive receptors and therefore did not cause an impact on environmental values. The air quality assessment is included in this application and provides sufficient information for the administering authority to assess this amendment application.

Prescribed environmental values that are likely to be impacted by visible smoke emissions are the qualities of the air environment that are conducive to protection the aesthetics of the environment as described in Part 3 Section 7 of the Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 (EP(Air)P). The air quality indicator for protecting the aesthetic environment are visibility reducing particles as shown in Schedule 1 Air quality objectives of the EP(air)P and the air quality objective is 20km visibility in the air environment over a 1 hour period. Twenty (20) km of visibility is the minimum amount of visibility that should be in the air environment or the area or place despite the presence of the indicator.

The magnitude of impacts from visible smoke emissions caused by flaring are of a short duration and a low frequency. The impact on visibility from the emissions is acute and visibility is only affected by

2 Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd, D14069-3 QGLNG Dry and Wet Gas Flares: Air Quality Assessment 3


such as bushfires and dust storms, the air quality meets the Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 criteria for the protection of human health, wellbeing and the health and biodiversity of ecosystems.

the direct line of sight through the plume. The plume does not affect the visibility of the whole air shed as visibility impact from bush fires or dust storms would. It is also likely that the ambient air quality monitoring system will not show any impact from the emissions as the plume has only minimal impact ground level concentrations.

Land

The Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 requires that activities are conducted in a way that protects the environmental values of land, including soils, subsoils, landforms, and associated flora and fauna.

All activities associated with the development and operation of the LNG Facility will continue to be undertaken in such a way that protects and maintains the existing environmental values of land. All QGC construction and operational activities are conditioned by the EA and associated environmental management plans where they have a potential to impact on environmental values. The proposed amendment seeks changes to the environmental authority relating to air emissions. As such, no potential or actual impacts to any of the existing environmental values relating to land are anticipated.

Noise & Vibration

The LNG Facility is situated within the Curtis Island State Development Area (SDA) Industrial Precinct which is subject to moderate to high levels of background noise from the surrounding LNG and industrial facilities and the harbour. Given the industrial nature of the area and the large separation distance to the nearest receptor (located approximately 4.2km from the site), the key environmental values to be protected, as outlined in the EPP (Noise) are those qualities of the acoustic environment that are conducive to protecting the health and biodiversity of ecosystems. As reflected in the current EA issued by DEHP, noise limits have not been set to specifically protect the health and biodiversity of ecosystems from noise impacts generated by the QCLNG Facility, as it is an industrial use consistent with the intent of the area. Other environment values for noise, pertaining to human health and wellbeing, and protecting the amenity of the community are not directly relevant to the LNG Facility site, as there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity.

All activities associated with the development and operation of the LNG Facility will continue to be undertaken in such a way that protects and maintains the existing environmental values. QGC has implemented a Noise Management Plan across the project to ensure that all construction and operational activities are undertaken within the limits specified in the environmental authority. The proposed amendment seeks changes to the environmental authority relating to air emissions. As such, no potential or actual impacts to any of the existing environmental values relating to noise are anticipated as a result of this amendment application.

Water The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection have All activities associated with the development and operation of the 4


published a document Curtis Island, Calliope River, and Boyne River Basins Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives under the EPP (Water). The environmental values identified in this document for the Curtis Island Basin, and more relevantly, to the QCLNG Facility located within the Curtis Island SDA Industry Precinct are: • Aquatic ecosystems • Industrial use • Cultural and spiritual values

LNG Facility will continue to be undertaken in such a way that protects and maintains the existing environmental values of water. The proposed amendment seeks changes to the environmental authority relating to air emissions. As such, no potential or actual impacts to any of the existing environmental values relating to water are anticipated as a result of this amendment application.

Wetland

The Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 identifies the environmental values of a wetland as qualities that support and maintain: • The health and biodiversity of the wetland’s ecosystems. • The wetland’s natural state and biological integrity. • The presence of distinct or unique features, plants or animals

and their habitats, including threatened wildlife, near threatened wildlife and rare wildlife under the Nature Conservation Act 1992.

• The wetland’s natural hydrological cycle. • The natural interaction of the wetland with other ecosystems,

including other wetlands. Queensland wetlands have been assessed for ecological significance using these values, and subsequently mapped as either having High (HES) or General Ecological significance (GES). No HES or GES is located on the subject site, although some areas within the general locality are identified.

All activities associated with the development and operation of the LNG Facility will continue to be undertaken in such a way that protects and maintains the existing environmental values of wetlands. The LNG Facility is not located in an area containing wetlands of high or general ecological significance. This amendment application seeks changes to the environmental authority relating to air emissions. As such, no potential or actual impacts to any environmental values relating to wetlands are anticipated.

Waste

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection identifies ‘waste’ as anything, other than a resource approved for a beneficial use that is either: • Left over, or an unwanted by-product, from an industrial,

commercial, domestic or other activity. • Surplus to the industrial, commercial, domestic or other activity

generating the waste. The Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 requires that any

All wastes generated, transported or received as part of activities associated with the development and operation of the LNG Facility will continue to be undertaken in such a way that protects and maintains all existing environmental values to the greatest extent possible. All QGC construction and operational environmental management plans have been approved by the Department and ensure that all site activities follow the waste management hierarchy – i.e. avoidance; re-

5


waste generated, transported, or received as part of carrying out an activity is managed in a way that protects all environmental values.

use; recycling; recovery; disposal. The proposed amendment seeks changes to the environmental authority relating to air emissions. As such, no potential or actual impacts to any of the existing environmental values relating to waste are anticipated.

6


2 Legislative Requirements 2.1 Assessment Level Decision

Table 2 Assessment against Section 223 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994

223 Definitions for pt 7 In this part – major amendment, for an environmental authority, means an amendment that is not a minor amendment. minor amendment, for an environmental authority, means an amendment that the administering authority is satisfied – (a) is not a change to a condition identified in the authority as a standard condition; and The EA is not a standard EA and does not include standard conditions.

(b) does not significantly increase the level of environmental harm caused by the relevant activity; and The air quality impact assessment (QCLNG Dry and Wet Gas Flares: Air Quality Assessment, May 2015)

shows that flaring and flaring events will result in an overall impact that is below Queensland Environmental Protection (Air) Policy, 2008 air quality objectives. The air quality impact assessment shows that there is no impact on air quality objectives that would result in an increase in the level of environmental harm caused by the activity.

(c) does not change any rehabilitation objectives stated in the authority in a way likely to result in significantly different impacts on environmental values than the impacts previously permitted under the authority; and

Rehabilitation objectives stated in the EA are not proposed to be amended as part of this application.

(d) does not significantly increase the scale or intensity of the relevant activity; and

The proposed amendment is to increase the duration and frequency of visible smoke emissions currently authorised under existing EA conditions. The scale and intensity of the LNG facility has not changed. Modelling has shown that operation of the flare systems has no significant impact on air quality at the nearest sensitive receptor location and air quality remains well below the trigger levels in the Queensland Environmental Protection (Air) Policy, 2008.

(e) does not relate to a new relevant resource tenure for the authority that is – (i) a new mining lease; or (ii) a new petroleum lease; or (iii) a new geothermal lease under the Geothermal Energy Act; or (iv) a new GHG injection and storage lease under the GHG storage Act; and

This EA amendment application does not relate to a new relevant resource tenure for the authority.

(f) involves an addition to the surface area for the relevant activity of no more than 10% of the existing area; and This amendment application does not seek to increase the existing surface area of the relevant activity by

more than 10%.

(g) for an environmental authority for a petroleum activity— (i) if the amendment involves constructing a new pipeline—the new pipeline does not exceed 150km; and (ii) if the amendment involves extending an existing pipeline—the extension does not exceed 10% of the

existing length of the pipeline; and This amendment application does not relate to the construction of a new pipeline or the extension of an

existing pipeline.

(h) if the amendment relates to a new relevant resource tenure for the authority that is an exploration permit or GHG permit—the amendment application under section 224 seeks an amended environmental authority that is subject to the standard conditions for the relevant activity or authority, to the extent it relates to the permit.

This amendment application does not relate to a new relevant resource tenure that is an exploration permit or GHG permit.

7


2.2 Application Requirements Table 3 below addresses the requirements of Section 226(1) of the EP Act. Table 3: Assessment against section 226(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1994

226 Requirements for amendment applications generally (1) An amendment application must – (a) be made to the administering authority; and This amendment application is made to the DEHP. (b) be made in the approved form; and A completed application form has been provided in support of this EA amendment application to DEHP. (c) be accompanied by the fee prescribed under a regulation; and The prescribed application fee of $305.90 (s226(1)(c)). (d) describe the proposed amendment; and A description of the amendment sought is set out in Section 2 of this Supplementary Information. (e) describe the land that will be affected by the proposed amendment; and A description of the land that will be affected by the proposed amendment is set out in Section 1 of this

Supplementary Information. (f) describe any development permits in effect under the Planning Act for the carrying out of the relevant activity for

the authority; and Material change of use approval DGBN11/389 issued under the State Development and Public Works

Organisation Act 1971 for the Gladstone State Development Area.

(g) state whether each relevant activity will, if the amendment is made, comply with any eligibility criteria for the activity; and

Not applicable. Each relevant activity the subject of the application form part of the LNG Project, which is a coordinated project under the State Development Public Works Organisation Act 1971 and are therefore not ‘eligible ERAs’ as defined in section 112 of the EP Act.

(h) if the application states that each relevant activity will, if the amendment is made, comply with any eligibility criteria for the activity – include a declaration that the statement is correct; and

Not applicable. (i) state whether the application seeks to change a condition identified in the authority as a standard condition; and Not applicable. The EA does not currently contain any standard conditions and this amendment application

does not seek to change a standard condition.

(j) if the application relates to a new relevant resource tenure for the authority that is an exploration permit or GHG permit – state whether the applicant seeks an amended environmental authority that is subject to the standard conditions for the relevant activity or authority, to the extent it relates to the permit; and

Not applicable. This amendment application does not relate to a new relevant resource tenure for the authority.

(k) include an assessment of the likely impact of the proposed amendment on the environmental values, including - i. a description of the environmental values likely to be affected by the proposed amendment; and

Details of the environmental values associated with the proposed amendment are described in Section 4 of this Supplementary Information (above).

ii. details of any emissions or releases likely to be generated by the proposed amendment; and Schedule B of the EA identifies the emissions or releases to air currently authorised while undertaking activities

associated with the construction and operation of the LNG Facility. Details of emissions or releases that are likely to be generated are shown in the Air Quality Impact Assessment included with this amendment application. The amendment does not seek to generate any additional emissions, but seeks to amend conditions that relate to flaring. Amendments sought by this application that propose to change conditions contained within Schedule B and are set out in Section 2 of this Supplementary Information. No other emissions or releases authorised outside of Schedule B are proposed.

8


iii. a description of the risk and likely magnitude of impacts on the environmental values; and Public amenity is an environmental value that is likely to be impacted from visible smoke emissions caused by

flaring. The impact on public amenity from visible smoke emissions is for a short duration, is of an intermittent nature and happens infrequently. Visible smoke emissions from flaring are not likely to cause an unreasonable interference at any nuisance sensitive place but may be considered to be unsightly when viewed from a distance.

Details of the risk and magnitude of impacts on the environmental values associated visible smoke emissions have been described in the Environmental Evaluation and are described in the Air Quality Impact Assessment report included as supporting information for this amendment application.

iv. details of the management practices proposed to be implemented to prevent or minimise adverse impacts; and

The proposed amendment does not seek to amend management practices. All adverse impacts will be prevented and minimised in accordance with the EA and existing management practices implemented across the LNG Facility.

v. details of how the land the subject of the application will be rehabilitated after each relevant activity ceases; and

The proposed amendment does not seek to amend rehabilitation activities. However, all disturbed land will be rehabilitated in accordance with the existing rehabilitation requirements set out in the EA.

(l) includes a description of the proposed measures for minimising and managing waste generated by any amendments

The proposed amendments do not generate any additional waste.

(m) include details of any site management plan or environmental protection order that relates to the land the subject of the application; and

Not applicable. There are no site management plans (approved under Chapter 7, Part 8 Contaminated Land of the EP Act) or environmental protection order (under section 358 of the EP Act) relating to the land the subject to this application.

(n) include any other document relating to the application prescribed under a regulation. Not applicable. There are no other documents that have been prescribed under a regulation.

9


3 Conclusion This EA amendment application relates to the LNG Facility on Curtis Island, Environmental Authority EPPG00711513. QGC requires changes to existing conditions to provide further certainty about necessary flaring events for circumstances which include maintenance shut downs and equipment failures / process upsets. The application has been supported by an air impact assessment undertaken by Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd that demonstrates air quality objectives at sensitive receptor locations have not been impacted. QGC has identified the existing environmental values of the area and the potential impact of emissions on air quality objectives. The assessment shows that there are no likely environmental or health impacts from the activity as a result of changes to the conditions of the Environmental Authority and that the proposed activities will not impact prescribed air quality objectives and the identified environmental values at sensitive receptor locations. QGC’s proposed amendment is necessary and reasonable as it considers the most likely circumstances and the duration of those circumstances that may cause visible smoke emissions, for safety critical activities at the LNG facility. QGC will undertake all reasonable and practical measures to minimise the production of visible smoke in accordance with the General Environmental Duty and conditions of the Environmental Authority. QGC proposes that the DEHP consider the amendment to be necessary and desirable and decides to amend the EA under Chapter 5 Part 7 of the EP Act.

10


ATTACHMENT 3: AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

“A”

QCLNG Dry and Wet Gas Flares: Air

Quality Assessment

Prepared for:

QGC Pty Limited Pty Limited

May 2015

Final

Prepared by:

Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd

ABN 92 097 270 276

Ground Floor, 16 Marie Street | PO Box 2217

Milton, Brisbane, Queensland, 4064, Australia

www.katestone.com.au

[email protected]

Ph +61 7 3369 3699

Fax +61 7 3369 1966

Disclaimer

http://katestone.com.au/disclaimer/

Copyright

This document, electronic files or software are the copyright property of Katestone Environmental Pty. Ltd. and the information contained therein is solely for the use of the authorised recipient and may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose without the prior written authority of Katestone Environmental Pty. Ltd. Katestone Environmental Pty. Ltd. makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document, electronic files or software or the information contained therein.

Copyright Katestone Environmental Pty. Ltd.

Document Control

Deliverable #: D14069-3

Title: QCLNG Dry and Wet Gas Flares: Air Quality Assessment

Version: 0.0 (Final)

Client: QGC Pty Limited

Document reference: D14069-3_AirQualityReport_v0.1.docx

Prepared by: Natalie Shaw, Michael Burchill, Simon Welchman

Reviewed by: Simon Welchman

Approved by: Simon Welchman

22/05/2015

http://katestone.com.au/disclaimer/

Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D14069-3 QGC Pty Limited – QCLNG Dry and Wet Gas Flares: Air Quality Assessment – Final

25 May 2015

Page i

Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Background to Environmental Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 2

3. Dry and Wet Gas flares ....................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Pollutants ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 3.3 Emissions .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.4 Selection of scenarios for dispersion modelling ................................................................................................ 10

4. Legislative context ............................................................................................................................................. 11

5. Assessment methodology ................................................................................................................................ 13

5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 13 5.2 Dispersion Modelling ............................................................................................................................................. 13

5.2.1 Flares ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 5.2.2 Other plant equipment ........................................................................................................................ 15 5.2.3 NOx to NO2 conversion ........................................................................................................................ 15

5.3 Presentation of results ........................................................................................................................................... 16 5.4 Cumulative impacts .............................................................................................................................................. 17

6. Dispersion modelling Results ............................................................................................................................ 18

6.1 Flare in isolation summary .................................................................................................................................... 18 6.2 Flare including background ................................................................................................................................ 24

7. Air Quality Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 26

8. References .......................................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix A Detailed modelling results.................................................................................................................. 32

Tables

Table 1 Requirements of EHP’s Notice to conduct an Environmental Evaluation and where addressed in this

report ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Table 2 Dry and wet flare scenarios ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3 Emission factors and emission rates for the dry and wet gas flare scenarios .................................................... 5 Table 4 Composition of hydrocarbon emissions from the flare based on US EPA AP-42 emission factors.................. 5 Table 5 Emission factors for particulate matter based on Equation 1 - McEwen et al. (2012) ...................................... 6 Table 6 Emission factors for PAHs............................................................................................................................................. 7 Table 7 Emission rates of NOx, CO, particulates and total hydrocarbons (g/s) .............................................................. 8 Table 8 Emission rates of PAHs (g/s) ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Table 9 Ambient air quality objectives (Air EPP) ................................................................................................................. 11 Table 10 Relevant ambient air quality objectives and standards for hydrocarbons ..................................................... 12 Table 11 Source characteristics for modelled flare scenarios ............................................................................................ 14 Table 12 Other plant equipment included in the assessment ............................................................................................ 15 Table 13 Location of sensitive receptors ................................................................................................................................ 16 Table 14 Background concentrations used in modelling assessment .............................................................................. 17 Table 15 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates and hydrocarbons due to Scenario

1 - Relief load (flare in isolation) .............................................................................................................................. 19 Table 16 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates and hydrocarbons due to Scenario

2 – Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation) .................................................................................................... 20 Table 17 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates and hydrocarbons due to Scenario

3 – Ethylene depressurisation (flare in isolation) .................................................................................................... 21 Table 18 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates and hydrocarbons due to Scenario

4 – Feed gas depressurisation (flare in isolation) .................................................................................................. 22 Table 19 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates and hydrocarbons due to Scenario

8 – Ethylene release (flare in isolation) ................................................................................................................... 23 Table 20 Predicted ground-level concentrations of methane due to Scenario 5 – N2 Snuffing (flare in isolation) .. 24


25 May 2015

Page ii

Table 21 Predicted cumulative impacts of NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 .............................................................................. 25

Table A1 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates due to Scenario 1 - Relief load ............. 33 Table A2 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates due to Scenario 2 – Propane

depressurisation ......................................................................................................................................................... 34 Table A3 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene

depressurisation ......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Table A4 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas

depressurisation ......................................................................................................................................................... 36 Table A5 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates due to Scenario 8 - Ethylene

release ......................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Table A6 Predicted ground-level concentrations of PAHs due to Scenario 1 - Relief load ........................................... 38 Table A7 Predicted ground-level concentrations of PAHs due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation ................ 39 Table A8 Predicted ground-level concentrations of PAHs due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation ................ 41 Table A9 Predicted ground-level concentrations of PAHs due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation ............... 42 Table A10 Predicted ground-level concentrations of PAHs due to Scenario 8 – Ethylene release ................................ 44

Figures

Figure 1 QCLNG Facility and sensitive receptors ................................................................................................................. 17

Contour Plates Plate 1 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 2 –

Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation) ......................................................................................................... 28 Plate 2 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 2 –

Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation) ......................................................................................................... 29 Plate 3 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM due to Scenario 2 –

Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation). All PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5. ................................................ 30 Plate 4 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of methane due to Scenario 5 –

N2 Snuffing (flare in isolation) ................................................................................................................................... 31

Plate A1 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 1 – Relief

load (flare in isolation) .............................................................................................................................................. 46 Plate A2 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 1 – Relief

load (flare + QCLNG plant + GAMS background) .............................................................................................. 47 Plate A3 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 1 – Relief

load (flare in isolation) .............................................................................................................................................. 48 Plate A4 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 1 – Relief

load (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)........................................................................................... 49 Plate A5 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM due to Scenario 1 – Relief

load (flare in isolation). All PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5. ..................................................................................... 50 Plate A6 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM10 due to Scenario 1 – Relief

load (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)........................................................................................... 51 Plate A7 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM2.5 due to Scenario 1 – Relief

load (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)........................................................................................... 52 Plate A8 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of fluoranthene due to Scenario 1

– Relief load (flare in isolation) ................................................................................................................................. 53 Plate A9 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of propylene due to Scenario 1 –

Relief load (flare in isolation) .................................................................................................................................... 54 Plate A10 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 2 –

Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation) ......................................................................................................... 55 Plate A11 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 2 –

Propane depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + GAMS background) .......................................................... 56


25 May 2015

Page iii

Plate A12 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 2 –

Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation) ......................................................................................................... 57 Plate A13 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 2 –

Propane depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background) ...................................................... 58 Plate A14 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM due to Scenario 2 –

Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation). All PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5. ................................................ 59 Plate A15 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM10 due to Scenario 2 –

Propane depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background) ...................................................... 60 Plate A16 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM2.5 due to Scenario 2 –

Propane depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background) ...................................................... 61 Plate A17 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of fluoranthene due to Scenario 2

– Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation) ....................................................................................................... 62 Plate A18 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of propylene due to Scenario 2 –

Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation) ......................................................................................................... 63 Plate A19 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 3 –

Ethylene depressurisation (flare in isolation) .......................................................................................................... 64 Plate A20 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 3 –

Ethylene depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + GAMS background) .......................................................... 65 Plate A21 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 3 –

Ethylene depressurisation (flare in isolation) .......................................................................................................... 66 Plate A22 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 3 –

Ethylene depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background) ...................................................... 67 Plate A23 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM due to Scenario 3 –

Ethylene depressurisation (flare in isolation). All PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5. ................................................ 68 Plate A24 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM10 due to Scenario 3 –

Ethylene depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background) ...................................................... 69 Plate A25 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM2.5 due to Scenario 3 –

Ethylene depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background) ...................................................... 70 Plate A26 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of fluoranthene due to Scenario 3

– Ethylene depressurisation (flare in isolation) ....................................................................................................... 71 Plate A27 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of propylene due to Scenario 3 –

Ethylene depressurisation (flare in isolation) .......................................................................................................... 72 Plate A28 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 4 – Feed

gas depressurisation (flare in isolation)................................................................................................................... 73 Plate A29 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 4 – Feed

gas depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + GAMS background) ................................................................... 74 Plate A30 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 4 – Feed

gas depressurisation (flare in isolation)................................................................................................................... 75 Plate A31 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 4 – Feed

gas depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background) ............................................................... 76 Plate A32 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM due to Scenario 4 – Feed

gas depressurisation (flare in isolation). All PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5. ......................................................... 77 Plate A33 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM10 due to Scenario 4 – Feed

gas depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background) ............................................................... 78 Plate A34 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM2.5 due to Scenario 4 – Feed

gas depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background) ............................................................... 79 Plate A35 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of fluoranthene due to Scenario 4

– Feed gas depressurisation (flare in isolation) ..................................................................................................... 80 Plate A36 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of propylene due to Scenario 4 –

Feed gas depressurisation (flare in isolation) ........................................................................................................ 81 Plate A37 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 8 –

Ethylene release (flare in isolation) ......................................................................................................................... 82 Plate A38 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 8 –

Ethylene release (flare + QCLNG plant + GAMS background) ......................................................................... 83


25 May 2015

Page iv

Plate A39 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 8 –

Ethylene release (flare in isolation) ......................................................................................................................... 84 Plate A40 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 8 –

Ethylene release (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background) ..................................................................... 85 Plate A41 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM due to Scenario 8 –

Ethylene release (flare in isolation). All PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5. ................................................................ 86 Plate A42 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM10 due to Scenario 8 –

Ethylene release (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background) ..................................................................... 87 Plate A43 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM2.5 due to Scenario 8 –

Ethylene release (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background) ..................................................................... 88 Plate A44 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of fluoranthene due to Scenario 8

– Ethylene release (flare in isolation) ...................................................................................................................... 89 Plate A45 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of propylene due to Scenario 8 –

Ethylene release (flare in isolation) ......................................................................................................................... 90


25 May 2015

Page v

Glossary

Term Definition

µg/m3 micrograms per cubic metre µm microns °C degrees Celsius km kilometre

km/h kilometre per hour m metre

m/s metres per second m2 square metres m3 cubic metres

m3/s cubic metres per second

Nomenclature CH4 Methane CO carbon monoxide

NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx oxides of nitrogen

PM10 particulate matter with a diameter less than 10 micrometres PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometres

Abbreviations Air EPP Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008

EF Emission factor EHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (Qld)

QCLNG Queensland Curtis LNG QGC QGC Pty Limited


25 May 2015

Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

QGC Pty Limited (QGC) is developing an integrated liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Queensland, known as the Queensland Curtis LNG (QCLNG) Project. The QCLNG Project involves expanding QGC’s existing CSG operations in the Surat Basin of southern Queensland and transporting the gas via an underground pipeline to a gas liquefaction and export facility near Gladstone, where the gas will be converted to LNG for export. The QCLNG Facility on Curtis Island is a two-train LNG facility designed to convert coal seam gas into LNG. The Project is now in its final stages with commissioning and start-up (CSU) of Train 1 and construction of Train 2 nearing completion.

Katestone Environmental understands that QGC was issued with a notice to conduct or commission an environmental evaluation (the Notice) from the Department of Heritage and Protection (EHP) on 9 April 2015. The Notice alleged environmental harm occurred as a result of emissions of air pollutants and light from the wet and dry process flares at the LNG facility and the alleged impact and those emissions on air quality, light sensitive species and ecosystems.

This report addresses the requirements of the Notice in relation to air quality. The aspects relating to light sensitive species and ecosystems have been addressed by others.


25 May 2015

Page 2

2. BACKGROUND TO ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

On 9 April 2015, EHP issued QGC with a Notice to conduct an Environmental Evaluation into emissions from the wet and dry process flares, which commenced operation at the premises on August 2014. The requirements of the Notice to conduct an Environmental Evaluation addressed in this report are provided in Table 1. Also included in the table are the relevant sections in the report that discuss each requirement.

Table 1 Requirements of EHP’s Notice to conduct an Environmental Evaluation and where addressed in this report

# Requirements Section of report

1 Identify all contaminants that:

a. Are potentially released to the atmosphere from the premises through the process flares;

b. Are generated as products of combustion from the process flares; and

c. Result from a range of operating scenarios and plant commissioning, start-up, shutdown and plant upsets and plant emergencies.

Section 3

2 Identify all environmental values for air and relevant air quality objectives present at the premises and beyond the premises that are potentially affected by the contaminants identified in requirement 1.

Section 4

3 Assess the impact of the contaminants and release scenarios identified in requirement 1 on the environmental values and air quality objectives identified in requirement 2, including:

a. The geographical extent of potential impacts of contaminant releases from flaring activities; and

b. The cumulative effect of contaminant releases from flaring activities in combination with releases from other contaminant sources, both existing and under construction, that have the potential to impact environmental values in the same geographical extent.

Section 6


25 May 2015

Page 3

3. DRY AND WET GAS FLARES

The principle function of the wet and dry gas process system flares is to dispose of waste gases through combustion prior to their release to atmosphere, in the event of an area blowdown due to plant maintenance, or due to a plant emergency such as a fire or blocked outlet (e.g. inadvertent closure of a valve). QCLNG estimates that the frequency of emergency shutdowns would be approximately once per year and that facility shutdowns for maintenance will occur as required, or possibly three to four times per year per train. QCLNG estimates that there is a very low probability of an emergency flare release due to a blocked outlet, as the instrumented safety systems would normally prevent the need to flare.

Wet and dry gas process system flares are provided to support the emergency venting requirements of the process facilities. The wet gas flare system is connected to the front end of the LNG train and processes the blowdown of wet, warm hydrocarbon gases, while the dry gas flare system is connected to the rear end of the LNG train and processes the blowdown of dry, cold hydrocarbon gases. A common structure supports the two flare stacks.

Simultaneous ignition of both dry and wet Gas flares is unlikely to occur due to the QCLNG facility design. Consequently the dry gas flare under emergency conditions constitutes the largest energy release and gas flow rate. Gas flaring is staged, and it is predicted that a process blowdown will occur for a duration of 20 minutes, with the flow rate and energy release diminishing with time according to a negative exponential decay function.

3.1 Pollutants

The key pollutants emitted from the dry and wet gas flares at the QCLNG facility are:

Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) Carbon monoxide (CO) Total hydrocarbons

o Methane o Ethane/ethylene o Acetylene o Propane o Propylene

Particulates in the form of PM2.5 and PM10 (flare gases containing propane and ethylene) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) (flare gases containing propane and ethylene)

The fuel gas does not comprise any sulfur compounds and therefore sulfur related compounds are not likely to be emitted from the flares.

The amount of each pollutant emitted from the flare depends on the amount of and composition of the gas being flared. A summary of dry and wet gas flare scenarios considered are summarised in Section 3.2.

3.2 Scenarios

Eight dry and wet gas flare scenarios have been identified. A summary of the scenarios including gas composition, mass flow of fuel (kg/hour) and expected duration of flaring event is provided in Table 2.


25 May 2015

Page 4

Table 2 Dry and wet flare scenarios

Scenario

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Relief Load Propane

Depressurisation Ethylene

Depressurisation Feed Gas

Depressurisation N2 Snuffing Normal Flow NRU cold relief

Ethylene release

Dry Gas flare Dry Gas flare Wet Gas flare Dry Gas flare Dry Gas flare Dry Gas flare Dry Gas flare Wet Gas flare

Methane (%) 97.87 - 5 97.54 27.49 97.87 32.53 5

Ethane (%) 0.01 1.34 - 0.01 - 0.01 - -

Ethylene (%) - - 95 - - - - 95

Propane (%) - 97.91 - - - - - -

i-Butane (%) - 0.75 - - - - - -

Carbon dioxide (%)

0.01 - - - - 0.01 - -

Nitrogen (%) 2.11 - 0 2.1 72.51 2.11 67.47 -

Water (%) - - - 0.34 - - - -

Mass flow of fuel (kg/hr)

748,680 693,000 959,384 884,156 17,683 330 18,847 400

Gross calorific value (MJ/m3) 36.98 95.48 58.98 36.99 10.37 36.98 12.27 58.99

Duration of event

1-hour 1-hour 1-hour 1-hour 1-hour Continuous 1-hour 24-hours

Comments

Unlikely to smoke due to high methane

content

Likely to represent worst-case

smoking flare

Likely to represent worst-case

smoking flare

Unlikely to smoke due to high

methane content Will not ignite

Pilot light plus standard

methane purges

Unlikely to smoke. Low flow

rate and methane content

Emergency release due to

leak in ISO containers


25 May 2015

Page 5

3.3 Emissions

Only limited information is available for flare emissions. Because of their nature, flares cannot be practically measured in the field. Consequently emission factors have been employed to estimate emissions. Flare emissions have been based on US EPA AP42 documents (Chapter 13.5, Industrial Flares), other literature information and information supplied by QCLNG. The USEPA AP-42 emission factors for industrial flares and the emission rates used in the assessment for each of the pollutants: NOX, CO and total hydrocarbons (in methane equivalents) are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Emission factors and emission rates for the dry and wet gas flare scenarios

Parameter Oxides of nitrogen Carbon monoxide Total hydrocarbons1

Emission factor (g/GJ) 29.24 159.07 60.19

Table note: 1 Measured as methane equivalent

The AP-42 emission factors document for industrial flares (chapter 13.5) provides an average distribution by volume for the total hydrocarbon fraction. The distribution of total hydrocarbon as individual species is reproduced here as Table 4.

Table 4 Composition of hydrocarbon emissions from the flare based on US EPA AP-42 emission factors

Composition Volume (%)

Average Range

Methane 55 14 - 83

Ethane/Ethylene 8 1 - 14

Acetylene 5 0.3 - 23

Propane 7 0 - 16

Propylene 25 1- 65

Note: The composition presented is an average of a number of test results obtained under the following sets of test conditions: steam-assisted flare using high-Btu-content feed; steam-assisted using low-Btu-content feed; and air assisted flare using low-Btu-content feed. In all tests, “waste” gas was a synthetic gas consisting of a mixture of propylene and propane.

Whilst the USEPA AP-42 emission factors for industrial flares also consider particulate emissions for a range of flare types, the data cannot be easily related to a mass emission rate. Recent literature (McEwen J.D.N and Johnson M.R, 2012) reviewed available PM emission factors for flares and found them to be questionably accurate “...or based on measurements not directly relevant to open-atmosphere flares”. McEwen et al. (2012) studied black carbon particulate matter emission factors for gas flares. The study established a relationship between emissions of particulate matter (kg PM/103 m3 fuel) and volumetric heating value of the fuel (MJ/m3) (Equation 1).

𝑬𝑭 𝒔𝒐𝒐𝒕 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓𝟕𝟖 (𝑯𝑽) − 𝟐. 𝟎𝟗 Equation 1

Where: EF is the emission factor (kg PM/103 m3 fuel) HV is volumetric heating value (MJ/m3)


25 May 2015

Page 6

The work of McEwen et al. (2012) shows that fuels with low volumetric heating values, such as methane, produce no particulate matter. Whilst, fuels with higher volumetric heating values, such as propane, can produce higher emission rates of particulate matter. Equation 1 has been used to calculate emission factors for particulate matter for each of the flaring scenarios based on the composition of flared gases (Table 5).

Table 5 Emission factors for particulate matter based on Equation 1 - McEwen et al. (2012)

Scenario Volumetric heating value

(MJ/m3) Particulate matter emission factor

(kg PM/103 m3 fuel)

1 Relief load 36.98 0.051

2 Propane Depressurisation 95.48 3.43

3 Ethylene Depressurisation 58.98 1.32

4 Feed Gas Depressurisation 36.99 0.051

5 N2 Snuffing 10.37 -2

6 Normal Flow 36.98 0.051

7 NRU Cold Relief 12.27 0.053

8 Ethylene release 58.98 1.32

Table note: 1 Methane rich fuel gas such as that to be flared in Scenario 1, Scenario 4 and Scenario 6 is unlikely to produce particulate matter; however, an emission factor has been determined to provide a conservative assessment 2 The gas will not ignite in this scenario and therefore there will be no emission of particulate matter 3 The PM emission factor was calculated to be negative and therefore the feed gas depressurisation value of 0.05 kg PM/103 m3 fuel was used.

Emission rates of PAHs have been derived from the data contained within the Flare Efficiency Study Report, prepared for US EPA (1983) (EPA-600/2-83-052).

A range of PAHs were measured for flares that were not smoking, lightly smoking and heavily smoking. For this study, Katestone has taken the maximum measured value across all flare smoking scenarios and used that emission factor for all flare scenarios. The assessment of PAHs will therefore be conservative.

Table 6 presents the emission factors for the individual PAHs that may occur from a flare.


25 May 2015

Page 7

Table 6 Emission factors for PAHs

PAHs Emission factor (µg of pollutant per µg of particulate

matter)

Naphthalene 1.0E-05

Acenaphthylene 3.5E-05

Acenaphthene 1.4E-06

Fluorene 3.4E-06

Phenanthrene 6.2E-05

Anthracene 8.5E-06

Pyrene 9.6E-05

Fluoranthene 1.2E-04

Benzanthracene 2.7E-05

Chrysene 3.2E-05

Benzo(a)pyrene 6.5E-05

1,12 benzoperylene 3.0E-05

The emission rates of NOx, CO, particulates and total hydrocarbons for each flare scenario are presented in Table 7. The emission rates of PAHs for each flare scenario are presented in Table 8.

Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D14069-3-3 QGC Pty Limited – QCLNG Dry and Wet Gas Flares: Air Quality Assessment – Final

25 May 2015

Page 8

Table 7 Emission rates of NOx, CO, particulates and total hydrocarbons (g/s)

Scenario

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Relief Load2 Propane

Depressurisation2 Ethylene

Depressurisation2 Feed Gas

Depressurisation2 N2

Snuffing3 Normal Flow2

NRU cold relief2

Ethylene release2

Dry gas flare

Dry gas flare Wet gas flare Dry gas flare Dry gas

flare Dry gas flare Dry gas flare

Wet gas flare

Carbon monoxide 1682.7 1489.4 2007.0 1987.7 - 0.74 9.50 0.84

Oxides of nitrogen 309.2 273.7 368.9 365.3 - 0.14 1.75 0.15

PM10 13.61 336.2 282.2 16.21 - 0.011 0.23 0.12

PM2.5 13.61 336.2 282.2 16.21 - 0.011 0.23 0.12

Total hydrocarbons (as methane) 636.7 563.6 759.4 752.1 874.5 0.3 3.6 0.3

Methane 350.2 310.0 417.7 413.7 874.5 0.15 1.98 0.17

Ethane/ethylene 95.5 84.5 113.9 112.8 - 0.04 0.54 0.05

Acetylene 51.7 45.8 61.7 61.1 - 0.02 0.29 0.03

Propane 122.8 108.7 146.5 145.1 - 0.05 0.69 0.06

Propylene 417.8 369.8 498.4 493.6 - 0.18 2.36 0.21

Table note: 1 Methane rich fuel gas such as that to be flared in Scenario 1, Scenario 4 and Scenario 6 is unlikely to produce particulate matter; however, a theoretical emission factor based on an extrapolation of McEwen et al. (2012) has been calculated for PM10 and PM2.5 to provide a conservative assessment 2 Emissions are based on assumption that each flare emits continuously for 24-hours 3 No flame/combustion

Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D14069-3-3 QGC Pty Limited – QCLNG Dry and Wet Gas Flares: Air Quality Assessment – Final

25 May 2015

Page 9

Table 8 Emission rates of PAHs (g/s)

Scenario

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Relief Load1,2 Propane

Depressurisation2 Ethylene

Depressurisation2 Feed Gas

Depressurisation1, 2 N2

Snuffing2,3 Normal Flow1,2

NRU cold relief2

Ethylene release2

Dry gas flare Dry gas flare Wet gas flare Dry gas flare Dry gas

flare Dry gas flare

Dry gas flare

Wet gas flare

Naphthalene 1.4E-04 3.4E-03 2.9E-03 1.6E-04 - 6.1E-08 2.4E-06 1.2E-06

Acenaphthylene 4.8E-04 1.2E-02 9.9E-03 5.7E-04 - 2.1E-07 8.2E-06 4.1E-06

Acenaphthene 1.9E-05 4.7E-04 4.0E-04 2.3E-05 - 8.4E-09 3.3E-07 1.7E-07

Fluorene 4.7E-05 1.2E-03 9.7E-04 5.6E-05 - 2.1E-08 8.1E-07 4.1E-07

Phenanthrene 8.4E-04 2.1E-02 1.8E-02 1.0E-03 - 3.7E-07 1.5E-05 7.3E-06

Anthracene 1.2E-04 2.8E-03 2.4E-03 1.4E-04 - 5.1E-08 2.0E-06 1.0E-06

Pyrene 1.3E-03 3.2E-02 2.7E-02 1.6E-03 - 5.7E-07 2.2E-05 1.1E-05

Fluoranthene 1.6E-03 4.0E-02 3.3E-02 1.9E-03 - 7.1E-07 2.8E-05 1.4E-05

Benzanthracene 3.6E-04 8.9E-03 7.5E-03 4.3E-04 - 1.6E-07 6.2E-06 3.1E-06

Chrysene 4.3E-04 1.1E-02 8.9E-03 5.1E-04 - 1.9E-07 7.4E-06 3.7E-06

Benzo(a)pyrene 8.8E-04 2.2E-02 1.8E-02 1.1E-03 - 3.9E-07 1.5E-05 7.7E-06

1,12 benzoperylene 4.1E-04 1.0E-02 8.5E-03 4.9E-04 - 1.8E-07 7.0E-06 3.5E-06

Table note: 1 Methane rich fuel gas such as that to be flared in Scenario 1, Scenario 4 and Scenario 6 is unlikely to produce particulate matter and therefore is unlikely to produce PAHs; however, to provide a conservative assessment, the particle emissions estimated for these scenarios in Table 7 have been speciated for PAHs 2 Emissions are based on assumption that flare emits continuously for 24-hours 3 No flame/combustion


25 May 2015

Page 10

3.4 Selection of scenarios for dispersion modelling

Katestone has identified six key scenarios of the eight defined above to be assessed further through dispersion modelling. They are:

Scenario 1 – Relief load Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation Scenario 5 – N2 Snuffing Scenario 8 – Ethylene depressurisation during ISO container leak (Event on 17 October 2014)

Scenario 1 and 4 were selected as they represent the worst-case methane scenarios. Whilst Scenario 4 has the highest emission rates compared with Scenario 1, Scenario 1 will have poorer dispersion due to the lower flowrate. Therefore the potential impacts of both scenarios have been assessed.

Scenario 2 and 3 were selected as they represent the worst-case smoking flare scenarios. Whilst Scenario 2 has the highest emission rates of PM2.5 compared with Scenario 3, all other pollutants have lower emission rates. Therefore the potential impacts of both scenarios have been assessed.

Scenario 5 represents a relatively significant release of uncombusted methane. The emission rate of methane is larger than Scenarios 1-4. The plume of Scenario 5 will not be buoyant because the scenario assumes that no combustion occurs at the flare tip.

Scenario 8 represents the event that occurred on 17 October 2014. This flaring event occurred over 24 hours. Therefore potential impacts of this scenario have been assessed.

The remaining two scenarios have not been assessed explicitly. Scenario 6 (Normal flow) was modelled in the EIS as part of normal operations and is not a significant source of emissions. The emission rates for Scenario 7 are much lower than Scenarios 1 to 4 and therefore potential impacts will be much lower than other scenarios.


25 May 2015

Page 11

4. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) provides for the management of the air environment in Queensland. The EP Act gives the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) the power to create Environmental Protection Policies that identify, and aim to protect, environmental values of the atmosphere that are conducive to the health and well-being of humans and biological integrity. The Environmental Protection (Air) Policy (Air EPP) was made under the EP Act and gazetted in 1997; the Air EPP was revised and reissued in 2008.

The objective of the Air EPP is:

...to identify the environmental values of the air environment to be enhanced or protected and to achieve the objective of the Environmental Protection Act 1994, i.e. ecologically sustainable development.

The environmental values to be enhanced or protected under the Air EPP are the qualities of the environment that are conducive to:

protecting health and biodiversity of ecosystems

human health and wellbeing

protecting the aesthetics of the environment, including the appearance of building structures and other property

protecting agricultural use of the environment.

The administering authority must consider the requirements of the Air EPP when it decides an application for an environmental authority, amendment of a licence or approval of a draft environmental management plan. Schedule 1 of the Air EPP specifies air quality indicators and objectives for contaminants that may be present in the air environment.

The Air EPP air quality objectives relevant to the key air pollutants that may be generated from the Project are presented in Table 9.

Table 9 Ambient air quality objectives (Air EPP)

Pollutant Environmental value Averaging period Air quality objective (µg/m³)

Number of days of exceedance

allowed per year

NO2 Health and wellbeing

1-hour 250 1

1-year 62 N/A

Health and biodiversity of ecosystems 1-year 33 N/A

CO Health and wellbeing 8-hour 11,000 N/A

PM10 Health and wellbeing 24-hour 50 5

PM2.5 Health and wellbeing 24-hour 25 N/A

1-year 8 N/A

In addition to the air pollutants detailed above, the combustion of methane, propane or ethylene in the flares is also likely to produce small quantities of hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon emissions likely to be emitted from the flares are presented in Table 10 with their respective air quality objective. For air quality assessments, it is


25 May 2015

Page 12

common practice to consider, and where appropriate adopt, an air quality objective for a specific substance from another jurisdiction if information is not available in the Air EPP. As a result, air quality objectives from the following guidelines and standards have been adopted where the Air EPP does not provide any assessment criteria for the hydrocarbons identified in this study:

National Exposure Standards for Atmospheric Contaminants in the Occupational Environment (NOHSC:1003(1995))

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Effects Screening Levels 2008

Table 10 Relevant ambient air quality objectives and standards for hydrocarbons

Indicator Environmental

value Averaging period

Air quality objective or

standard (µg/m³)

Source

Acenaphthylene (as acenaphthene)

Health 1-hour 1 TCEQ

Acetylene Health 1-hour 26,600 TCEQ

Anthracene Health 1-hour 0.5 TCEQ

Benz(a)anthracene Health 1-hour 0.5 TCEQ

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Health 1-hour 0.5 TCEQ

Chrysene Health 1-hour 0.5 TCEQ

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (as acenaphthene)

Health 1-hour 0.5 TCEQ

Ethane Health 1-hour 12,000 TCEQ

Ethylene (Ethene) Health Simple Asphyxiant 13.9% by volume 3

NOHSC:1003 / TECQ

Fluoranthene (Benzo(j,k)fluorene)

Health 1-hour 0.51 TCEQ

Fluorene Health 1-hour 0.52 TCEQ

Methane Health Simple Asphyxiant 13.9% by volume 3

NOHSC:1003 / TECQ

Phenanthrene Health 1-hour 0.5 TCEQ

Propane Health 1-hour 18,000 TCEQ

Propylene Health 1-hour 8,750 TCEQ

Pyrene Health 1-hour 0.5 TCEQ 1 Air quality objective not found: Fluoranthene (or Benzo(j, k)fluorene) is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) and a structural isomer of the alternant PAH pyrene. Consequently, the same 1-hour average air quality objective of 0.5 μg/m3 has been applied for this assessment. 2 Air quality objective not found: Fluorene is a PAH, and consequently, in line with other PAHs referenced by the TCEQ Effects Screening Levels an air quality objective of 0.5 μg/m3 has been applied for this assessment. 3 To maintain oxygen content in air greater than 18% by volume


25 May 2015

Page 13

5. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

5.1 Overview

This assessment was conducted following the methodology developed for the EIS Assessment. This is discussed in detail in Section 6 and Appendix A of the Air Quality Impact Assessment Report for the QCLNG Project (Katestone, 2009).

The EIS Assessment methodology included the following:

A QCLNG Project meteorological model was specifically developed from TAPM and CALMET meteorological models using the Gladstone Airshed Modelling System Version 3 (GAMS v3) template. GAMS v3 is a regional airshed management tool developed for the former Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP) by Katestone. GAMSv3 incorporates both CSIRO’s TAPM (The Air Pollution Model) and Earthtech’s CALMET/CALPUFF dispersion models, along with background emissions from major industry, to predict contributions to air quality levels of NO2.

The QCLNG Project meteorological model was used as input into the CALPUFF dispersion model to predict the dispersion of air pollutants from the QCLNG Facility from a number of operating scenarios

For each operating scenario, ground-level concentrations of air pollutants predicted by the CALPUFF dispersion model at designated locations within the study area (including both sensitive receptors and regularly spaced grid points) were compared to the relevant air quality objectives

Cumulative concentrations of air pollutants were determined through the use of the inventory of existing industries within GAMSv3. QCLNG Facility emissions were added to the emissions of existing sources in Gladstone.

Since the EIS, Katestone has conducted a number of revised assessments (Katestone (2013) and Katestone (2015)). The methodology of these revised assessments included the following:

EIS Assessment dispersion model and meteorological model

Revised locations and emission characteristics of the proposed gas compressor turbine drivers and power generation turbines, as provided by QGC

Predictions of ground-level concentrations of NO2 at sensitive receptors

This assessment has adopted an equivalent methodology to the EIS Assessment and the revised assessments.

5.2 Dispersion Modelling

For each scenario identified for dispersion modelling, the flare was modelled explicitly in the dispersion model CALPUFF. To take into consideration the potential impact from the QCLNG facility during each flare scenario, other plant equipment was also included in the dispersion modelling. The flare characteristics incorporated into the dispersion modelling and details of other plant equipment are discussed in the sections below.

5.2.1 Flares

Due to the large amount of heat and buoyancy generated by the flare, it cannot be simply modelled as a stack source. To model the flare emissions appropriately, the US EPA Screen 3 methodology was used to generate the pseudo stack characteristics (effective height and diameter) for the flare. The source characteristics used in the dispersion modelling are provided in Table 11.


25 May 2015

Page 14

Table 11 Source characteristics for modelled flare scenarios

Scenario

1 2 3 4 5 8

Relief Load Propane

Depressurisation Ethylene

Depressurisation Feed Gas

Depressurisation N2 Snuffing1 Ethylene release

Dry gas flare Dry gas flare Wet gas flare Dry gas flare Dry gas flare Wet gas flare

Parameter units value value value value value value

Peak Energy out GJ hr-1 38,078.3 33,705.1 45,418.0 44,980.8 166.3 18.9

Energy out GJ/s 10.58 9.36 12.62 12.49 0.05 0.01

Flare mass rate kg/s 208.0 192.5 266.5 245.6 4.9 0.1

Gas Density at 0 degrees, 101.3 kPa kg/m3 0.727 1.963 1.246 0.727 1.103 0.727

Nominal stack height m 95.0 95.0 95.0 95.0 95 95

Nominal flare tip diameter m 1.422 1.422 1.168 1.422 1.422 1.168

Nominal flare tip radius m 0.711 0.711 0.584 0.711 0.711 0.584

Exit velocity (modelled) m/s 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 2.95 0.66

Flare release temperature (modelled) K 1,273 1,273 1,273 1,273 288 1,273

Effective flare height (modelled) m 237.4 229.4 249.9 249.2 95.0 95.0

Effective flare diameter (modelled) m 33.33 31.36 36.40 36.23 1.42 1.17

Gross heat released (cal/s) cal/s 2,529,244,327 2,238,770,248 3,016,765,510 2,987,726,752 - 1,258,006

Net heat released (cal/s) cal/s 1,138,159,947 1,007,446,612 1,357,544,479 1,344,477,038 - 566,103

Heat not lost by radiation 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 - 0.45

Table note: 1 No flame/combustion during N2 Snuffing


25 May 2015

Page 15

5.2.2 Other plant equipment

It was assumed for this assessment that two trains are operating during each flaring scenario. A summary of other plant equipment included in the assessment and pollutants emitted from them is summarised in Table 12. The source characteristics and locations and emission rates are based on data supplied by QGC.

Table 12 Other plant equipment included in the assessment

Other plant included in cumulative NOx CO PM10/PM2.5

Train 1

Comp. Turb. Driver 1




Comp. Turb. Driver 5 (with WHR)


Train 2







Power Generation

LM2500+G4 #1(loading)

LM2500+G4#2 (loading)

Train 1 CO2 Vent 1 (Acid Gas Removal Unit)

Nitrogen Vent 1 (Nitrogen Rejection Unit)

Train 2 CO2 Vent 2 (Acid Gas Removal Unit)

Nitrogen Vent 2 (Nitrogen Rejection Unit)

Both Trains Reg. Gas Heater 1

Hot Oil Heater 1

5.2.3 NOx to NO2 conversion

Measurements around power stations in Central Queensland show, under worst possible cases, a conversion of 25-40% of the nitric oxide to nitrogen dioxide occurs within the first ten kilometres of plume travel. During days with elevated background levels of hydrocarbons (generally originating from bush-fires, hazard reduction burning or other similar activities), the resulting conversion is usually below 50% in the first thirty kilometres of plume travel (Bofinger et al 1986).

For this assessment a conservative ratio of 30% conversion of the NOX to NO2 has been assumed.


25 May 2015

Page 16

5.3 Presentation of results

This assessment provides predictions of nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon concentrations at sensitive receptors consistent with those considered in the EIS Assessment and revised assessments. The locations of these receptors are presented in Table 13 and Figure 1.

Table 13 Location of sensitive receptors

Receptor ID Easting (m)a Northing (m)a

Distance (km) and direction from

receptor to facility boundary

Orientation from QCLNG Facility

R1 307206 7371489 8.5 West

R2 307048 7370022 8.7 West

R3 307088 7368713 92 West

R4 307340 7367515 9.4 West

R5 308026 7366635 8.7 Southwest

R6 308162 7365715 9 Southwest

R7 311952 7365281 6 Southwest

R8 309092 7361741 10.7 Southwest

R9 322211 7362744 8.8 South-southeast

R10b 319229 7368746 2.5 Southeast



R13 322795 7367791 6.2 East-southeast

R14 323149 7367160 6.7 East-southeast

R15 325103 7366683 8.9 East-southeast

R16 325438 7365648 9.6 Southeast

R17 325396 7373889 9.4 Northeast

R18 327460 7371898 10.8 East-northeast

R19 327781 7371714 11 East-northeast

R20 328033 7371495 11.5 East-northeast R21 318118 7369109 GLNG accommodation camp R22 316350 7371808 APLNG accommodation camp

Note a Coordinates in GDA94 MGA55

In addition to predicting concentrations at sensitive receptors, ground-level concentrations of air contaminants were also predicted at a network of evenly-spaced points within the modelling domain. The network of points are spaced 300 metres apart in a 22.5 km (east-west) by 19.8 km (north-south) grid centred in on Curtis Island, resulting in a total of 5,092 grid points.

Contour plots of ground-level concentrations of air contaminants have been used to illustrate the spatial distribution of pollutant levels as a result of the QCLNG Facility. Contour plots were created from the CALPUFF model output at each grid point in the modelling domain, for each model scenario, using a standard interpolation technique.


25 May 2015

Page 17

Figure 1 QCLNG Facility and sensitive receptors

5.4 Cumulative impacts

The cumulative impacts for NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 have also been assessed. Table 14 provides a summary of background levels used in the assessment

Table 14 Background concentrations used in modelling assessment

Pollutant Value Source

NO2 GAMS – existing and approved industries in the Gladstone region plus other LNG plants

GAMSv3 (Consistent with EIS (Katestone, 2009))

CO Modelled QCLNG plant plus 312 µg/m3 EHP monitoring data from Beacon Avenue, Boyne Island (Consistent with EIS (Katestone, 2009))

PM10 Modelled QCLNG plant plus 29 µg/m3 EHP monitoring data average 95th percentile 24-hour from Targinie Stupkins Lane, 2001 – 2008 (Consistent with EIS (Katestone, 2009))

PM2.5 Modelled QCLNG plant plus 9.5 µg/m3 EHP monitoring data for South Gladstone, 95th percentile 24-hour average for 2012


25 May 2015

Page 18

6. DISPERSION MODELLING RESULTS

6.1 Flare in isolation summary

The results for all dry gas and wet gas flare scenarios modelled are presented in Table 15 to Table 20. The predicted ground-level concentrations are the maximum predicted and are due to the flare in isolation. The results show:

Predicted ground-level concentrations NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 as well as hydrocarbons are well below the relevant air quality objectives with the maximum:

o 1-hour average ground-level concentrations of NO2 predicted at a receptor less than 2% of the objective

o 8-hour average ground-level concentration of CO predicted at a receptor less than 2% of the objective

o 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM10 predicted at a receptor less than 3% of the objective

o 24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 predicted at a receptor less than 6% of the objective

o 1-hour average ground-level concentrations of hydrocarbons (ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane and propylene) predicted at a receptor less than 0.3% of the relevant objectives

o Predicted methane concentrations across the domain are less than 0.005% by volume, well below the levels for asphyxiation

Scenario 2 – propane depressurisation results in the highest 1-hour average concentrations of NO2, 8-hour average concentrations of CO, 24-hour average concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 and 1-hour average concentrations of hydrocarbons with the exception of methane at a sensitive receptor

Scenario 5 – N2 Snuffing results in the highest ground-level concentrations of methane at a sensitive receptor

Predicted ground-level concentrations of PAHs are well below (less than 0.4% of) the relevant objectives. Predicted ground-level concentrations of individual PAHs at each sensitive receptor are presented in Appendix A.

Scenario 2 – propane depressurisation results in the highest 1-hour average concentrations of PAHs

Plate 1 presents contours of the maximum 1-hour average concentrations of NO2 predicted due to Scenario 2 – propane depressurisation in isolation.

Plate 2 presents contours of the maximum 8-hour average concentrations of CO predicted due to Scenario 2 – propane depressurisation in isolation.

Plate 3 presents contours of the maximum 24-hour average concentrations of particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) predicted due to Scenario 2 – propane depressurisation in isolation.

Plate 4 presents the maximum 1-hour average concentrations of methane (as % volume in air) due to Scenario 5 – N2 Snuffing in isolation.

Contours of predicted concentrations of NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 for all dry and wet gas scenarios in isolation are presented in Appendix A. Contours of fluoranthene (the PAH with the highest predicted concentrations relative to air quality objectives) is also presented for all dry and wet gas scenarios.


25 May 2015

Page 19

Table 15 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates and hydrocarbons due to Scenario 1 - Relief load (flare in isolation)

Receptor 1-hour NO2 8-hour CO 24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour methane

1-hour ethane/ethylene

1-hour acetylene

1-hour propane

1-hour propylene

µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3

R1 2.3 8.4 0.03 0.03 8.5 2.3 1.3 3.0 10.2 R2 0.6 1.9 0.01 0.01 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.8 2.9 R3 3.0 12.7 0.04 0.04 11.5 3.1 1.7 4.0 13.7 R4 1.4 4.4 0.01 0.01 5.2 1.4 0.8 1.8 6.2 R5 0.5 1.7 <0.01 <0.01 2.1 0.6 0.3 0.7 2.5 R6 1.7 5.4 0.01 0.01 6.5 1.8 1.0 2.3 7.7 R7 3.4 9.7 0.03 0.03 12.9 3.5 1.9 4.5 15.4 R8 3.2 8.5 0.02 0.02 12.0 3.3 1.8 4.2 14.3 R9 0.7 2.1 0.01 0.01 2.6 0.7 0.4 0.9 3.1 R10 0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 R11 0.4 0.8 <0.01 <0.01 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.7 R12 0.1 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 R13 0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3 R14 0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3 R15 0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.4 R16 0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 R17 0.6 3.5 0.01 0.01 2.3 0.6 0.3 0.8 2.8 R18 1.6 10.3 0.03 0.03 6.0 1.6 0.9 2.1 7.1 R19 1.5 8.9 0.02 0.02 5.8 1.6 0.9 2.0 6.9 R20 1.4 7.5 0.02 0.02 5.3 1.5 0.8 1.9 6.4 R21 <0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 R22 <0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 Objective 250 11,000 50 25 - 12,000 26,600 18,000 8,750


25 May 2015

Page 20

Table 16 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates and hydrocarbons due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Receptor 1-hour NO2 8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour methane


1-hour acetylene

1-hour propane

1-hour propylene


R1 3.3 12.0 1.0 1.0 12.4 3.4 1.8 4.3 14.7

R2 1.1 3.4 0.2 0.2 4.1 1.1 0.6 1.5 4.9

R3 4.0 16.7 1.3 1.3 15.3 4.2 2.3 5.4 18.2

R4 1.6 4.9 0.4 0.4 6.0 1.6 0.9 2.1 7.2

R5 0.6 1.8 0.1 0.1 2.3 0.6 0.3 0.8 2.7

R6 1.7 5.1 0.4 0.4 6.5 1.8 1.0 2.3 7.7

R7 2.7 6.9 0.5 0.5 10.2 2.8 1.5 3.6 12.1

R8 2.9 7.7 0.6 0.6 11.0 3.0 1.6 3.8 13.1

R9 0.7 2.1 0.2 0.2 2.6 0.7 0.4 0.9 3.1

R10 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R11 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.3

R12 0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6

R13 0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5

R14 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R15 0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4

R16 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4

R17 0.7 3.5 0.3 0.3 2.5 0.7 0.4 0.9 3.0

R18 1.6 10.8 0.8 0.8 6.1 1.7 0.9 2.1 7.2

R19 1.6 9.5 0.7 0.7 5.9 1.6 0.9 2.1 7.1

R20 1.5 8.0 0.6 0.6 5.5 1.5 0.8 1.9 6.5

R21 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R22 0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.4

Objective 250 11,000 50 25 - 12,000 26,600 18,000 8,750


25 May 2015

Page 21

Table 17 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates and hydrocarbons due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation (flare in isolation)


24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour methane


1-hour acetylene

1-hour propane

1-hour propylene


R1 1.8 7.6 0.4 0.4 6.8 1.9 1.0 2.4 8.1

R2 1.4 3.3 0.2 0.2 5.4 1.5 0.8 1.9 6.5

R3 0.8 2.6 0.2 0.2 3.0 0.8 0.4 1.0 3.5

R4 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.1

R5 0.5 1.4 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.5 0.3 0.6 2.1

R6 2.0 6.0 0.3 0.3 7.5 2.1 1.1 2.6 9.0

R7 2.7 7.5 0.4 0.4 10.0 2.7 1.5 3.5 12.0

R8 3.6 9.8 0.5 0.5 13.5 3.7 2.0 4.7 16.1

R9 0.5 1.5 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.3 0.7 2.3

R10 0.2 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.0

R11 0.4 0.8 <0.1 <0.1 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.7

R12 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5

R13 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R14 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R15 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4

R16 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5

R17 0.5 2.9 0.1 0.1 2.0 0.5 0.3 0.7 2.4

R18 1.4 8.6 0.4 0.4 5.3 1.4 0.8 1.8 6.3

R19 1.4 7.4 0.3 0.3 5.2 1.4 0.8 1.8 6.2

R20 1.3 6.2 0.3 0.3 4.8 1.3 0.7 1.7 5.7

R21 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2

R22 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2

Objective 250 11,000 50 25 - 12,000 26,600 18,000 8,750


25 May 2015

Page 22

Table 18 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates and hydrocarbons due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation (flare in isolation)


24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour methane


1-hour acetylene

1-hour propane

1-hour propylene


R1 1.7 7.6 0.03 0.03 6.5 1.8 1.0 2.3 7.8 R2 1.4 3.1 0.01 0.01 5.2 1.4 0.8 1.8 6.2 R3 0.8 2.7 0.01 0.01 3.0 0.8 0.4 1.0 3.6 R4 0.2 1.2 <0.01 <0.01 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.1 R5 0.5 1.5 <0.01 <0.01 1.8 0.5 0.3 0.6 2.1 R6 1.9 5.9 0.02 0.02 7.3 2.0 1.1 2.6 8.8 R7 2.6 7.5 0.02 0.02 10.0 2.7 1.5 3.5 11.9 R8 3.5 9.7 0.03 0.03 13.3 3.6 2.0 4.7 15.9 R9 0.5 1.5 <0.01 <0.01 1.9 0.5 0.3 0.7 2.3 R10 0.2 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.8 R11 0.4 0.9 <0.01 <0.01 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.8 R12 0.1 0.2 <0.01 <0.01 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 R13 0.1 0.2 <0.01 <0.01 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3 R14 0.1 0.2 <0.01 <0.01 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3 R15 0.1 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 R16 0.1 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 R17 0.5 2.9 0.01 0.01 2.0 0.6 0.3 0.7 2.4 R18 1.4 8.7 0.02 0.02 5.2 1.4 0.8 1.8 6.2 R19 1.3 7.6 0.02 0.02 5.1 1.4 0.8 1.8 6.1 R20 1.3 6.2 0.02 0.02 4.7 1.3 0.7 1.7 5.6 R21 <0.1 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 R22 <0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 Objective 250 11,000 50 25 - 12,000 26,600 18,000 8,750


25 May 2015

Page 23

Table 19 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates and hydrocarbons due to Scenario 8 – Ethylene release (flare in isolation)


24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour methane


1-hour acetylene

1-hour propane

1-hour propylene


R1 0.1 0.5 0.03 0.03 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2

R2 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.02 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R3 <0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2

R4 0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R5 0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R6 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.02 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R7 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.02 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R8 <0.1 0.3 0.01 0.01 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1

R9 <0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2

R10 0.2 0.6 0.04 0.04 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.9

R11 0.1 0.5 0.03 0.03 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6

R12 0.1 0.2 0.02 0.02 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R13 0.1 0.3 0.02 0.02 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R14 0.1 0.3 0.02 0.02 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R15 <0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2

R16 <0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2

R17 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.3

R18 <0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2

R19 <0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2

R20 <0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2

R21 0.3 1.0 0.06 0.06 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.4

R22 0.5 1.6 0.09 0.09 1.9 0.5 0.3 0.7 2.3 Objective 250 11,000 50 25 - 12,000 26,600 18,000 8,750


25 May 2015

Page 24

Table 20 Predicted ground-level concentrations of methane due to Scenario 5 – N2 Snuffing (flare in isolation)

Receptor 1-hour methane

µg/m3 % v/v in air

R1 1,234 0.0002%

R2 1,326 0.0002%

R3 1,391 0.0002%

R4 2,066 0.0003%

R5 1,446 0.0002%

R6 1,844 0.0003%

R7 1,427 0.0002%

R8 703 0.0001%

R9 723 0.0001%

R10 3,232 0.0005%

R11 1,597 0.0002%

R12 1,123 0.0002%

R13 1,838 0.0003%

R14 1,286 0.0002%

R15 834 0.0001%

R16 801 0.0001%

R17 1,210 0.0002%

R18 771 0.0001%

R19 825 0.0001%

R20 722 0.0001%

R21 6,107 0.0009%

R22 9,031 0.0014%

Maximum across domain 30,775 0.0046%

6.2 Flare including background

Table 21 summarises the maximum concentrations of NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 for all dry and wet gas flare scenarios modelled due to cumulative impact. Table A1 to Table A5 in Appendix A present the predicted ground-level concentrations for each modelled dry and wet gas flare scenarios as well as a breakdown of predicted concentrations due to flare in isolation, flare with other plant equipment and flare with other plant equipment plus background.

The results show the predicted ground-level concentrations NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 are well below the relevant air quality objectives with the maximum:

1-hour average ground-level concentrations of NO2 predicted at a receptor less than 42% of the objective

8-hour average ground-level concentration of CO predicted at a receptor less than 3% of the objective


25 May 2015

Page 25

24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM10 predicted at a receptor less than 61% of the objective

24-hour average ground-level concentrations of PM2.5 predicted at a receptor less than 44% of the objective

Contours of predicted concentrations of NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 for all dry and wet gas scenarios including other plant equipment and background are presented in Appendix A.

Table 21 Predicted cumulative impacts of NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5

Receptor

1-hour average NO2

8-hour average CO

24-hour average PM10

24-hour average PM2.5

µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3 µg/m3

R1 56 324 30.0 10.5 R2 51 317 29.3 9.8 R3 82 329 30.3 10.8 R4 93 317 29.4 9.9 R5 83 315 29.2 9.7 R6 85 318 29.4 9.9 R7 84 322 29.5 10.0 R8 90 323 29.6 10.1 R9 80 317 29.3 9.8

R10 60 324 29.5 10.0 R11 73 321 29.3 9.8 R12 54 316 29.2 9.7 R13 40 317 29.2 9.7 R14 42 316 29.2 9.7 R15 40 315 29.2 9.7 R16 37 315 29.1 9.6 R17 45 316 29.3 9.8 R18 27 324 29.9 10.4 R19 27 323 29.8 10.3 R20 28 321 29.7 10.2 R21 104 328 29.7 10.2 R22 90 326 29.5 10.0

Objective 250 11,000 50 25


25 May 2015

Page 26

7. AIR QUALITY CONCLUSIONS

On 9 April 2015, EHP issued QGC with a Notice to conduct an Environmental Evaluation into emissions from the wet and dry process flares, which commenced operation at the premises on August 2014. Requirements 1, 2 and 3 of the Notice in relation to air quality were addressed in this report.

The key pollutants emitted from the dry and wet gas flares at the QCLNG facility were found to be:

Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) Carbon monoxide (CO) Total hydrocarbons

o Methane o Ethane/ethylene o Acetylene o Propane o Propylene

Particulates in the form of PM2.5 and PM10 (flare gases containing propane and ethylene) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) (flare gases containing propane and ethylene)

Katestone has identified six key scenarios to be assessed further through dispersion modelling. They were:

Scenario 1 – Relief load Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation Scenario 5 – N2 Snuffing Scenario 8 – Ethylene depressurisation during ISO container leak (Event on 17 October 2014)

Dispersion modelling of these scenarios found that:

Predicted ground-level concentrations NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 as well as hydrocarbons were well below the relevant air quality objectives

Predicted ground-level concentrations of methane are well below the asphyxiation level

Predicted ground-level concentrations of PAHs were well below the relevant air quality objectives


25 May 2015

Page 27

8. REFERENCES

Bofinger ND, Best PR, Cliff DI and Stumer LJ, 1986. “The oxidation of nitric oxide to nitrogen dioxide in power station plumes”, Proceedings of the Seventh World Clean Air Congress, Sydney, 384-392

Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. Environmental Protection (Air) Policy, Subordinate Legislation 2008 No. 441 and amendments, Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, Queensland.

Katestone, 2015, Air quality impact assessment of the QCLNG Facility, report D14048-3 prepared for Queensland Gas Company

Katestone, 2013, Air quality impact assessment of the QCLNG Facility, report D12070-6 prepared for Queensland Gas Company

Katestone Environmental, 2009, “Air Quality Impact Assessment of the QCLNG Project, Gladstone, Queensland”, prepared for Queensland Gas Company

McDaniel M, 1983, Flare Efficiency Study, EPA-600/2-83-052

McEwan J.D.N and Johnson M.R, 2012, Black Carbon Particulate Matter Emission Factors for Buoyancy Driven Associated Flares, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, 1995. Adopted National Exposure Standards for Atmospheric Contaminants in the Occupational Environment (NOHSC:1003(1995))

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2008, Effects Screening Levels, Texas, United States.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991, Industrial Flares, AP-42 Chapter 13.5 USEPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards


25 May 2015

Page 28

Plate 1 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

250 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


25 May 2015

Page 29

Plate 2 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

8-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

11,000 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


25 May 2015

Page 30

Plate 3 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation). All PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5.

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

PM10: 50 µg/m³

PM2.5: 25 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


25 May 2015

Page 31

Plate 4 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of methane due to Scenario 5 – N2 Snuffing (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

% v/v

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

13.9 % v/v

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


25 May 2015

Page 32

APPENDIX A DETAILED MODELLING RESULTS


25 May 2015

Page 33

Table A1 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates due to Scenario 1 - Relief load

Receptor Flare in isolation µg/m3 Flare with plant µg/m3 Flare with plant, plus background µg/m3

1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

R1 2.3 8.4 0.03 0.03 6 9 0.3 0.3 56 321 29.3 9.8 R2 0.6 1.9 0.01 0.01 6 4 0.2 0.2 51 316 29.2 9.7 R3 3.0 12.7 0.04 0.04 4 13 0.1 0.1 82 325 29.1 9.6 R4 1.4 4.4 0.01 0.01 6 4 0.1 0.1 93 316 29.1 9.6 R5 0.5 1.7 <0.01 <0.01 5 2 0.2 0.2 83 314 29.2 9.7 R6 1.7 5.4 0.01 0.01 5 6 0.2 0.2 85 318 29.2 9.7 R7 3.4 9.7 0.03 0.03 6 10 0.2 0.2 84 322 29.2 9.7 R8 3.2 8.5 0.02 0.02 5 9 0.1 0.1 90 321 29.1 9.6 R9 0.7 2.1 0.01 0.01 5 5 0.2 0.2 80 317 29.2 9.7 R10 0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 19 12 0.5 0.5 60 324 29.5 10.0 R11 0.4 0.8 <0.01 <0.01 7 8 0.3 0.3 73 320 29.3 9.8 R12 0.1 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 6 4 0.2 0.2 54 316 29.2 9.7 R13 0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 8 5 0.2 0.2 40 317 29.2 9.7 R14 0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 7 4 0.2 0.2 42 316 29.2 9.7 R15 0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 5 3 0.1 0.1 40 315 29.1 9.6 R16 0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 5 3 0.1 0.1 37 315 29.1 9.6 R17 0.6 3.5 0.01 0.01 5 4 0.1 0.1 45 316 29.1 9.6 R18 1.6 10.3 0.03 0.03 7 12 0.2 0.2 27 324 29.2 9.7 R19 1.5 8.9 0.02 0.02 7 10 0.1 0.1 27 322 29.1 9.6 R20 1.4 7.5 0.02 0.02 6 9 0.1 0.1 28 321 29.1 9.6 R21 <0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 33 16 0.7 0.7 104 328 29.7 10.2 R22 <0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 24 13 0.5 0.5 90 325 29.5 10.0 Objective 250 11,000 50 25 250 11,000 50 25 250 11,000 50 25


25 May 2015

Page 34

Table A2 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation


1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

R1 3.3 12.0 1.0 1.0 6 12 1.0 1.0 56 324 30.0 10.5 R2 1.1 3.4 0.2 0.2 6 5 0.3 0.3 51 317 29.3 9.8 R3 4.0 16.7 1.3 1.3 4 17 1.3 1.3 82 329 30.3 10.8 R4 1.6 4.9 0.4 0.4 6 5 0.4 0.4 93 317 29.4 9.9 R5 0.6 1.8 0.1 0.1 5 2 0.2 0.2 83 314 29.2 9.7 R6 1.7 5.1 0.4 0.4 5 6 0.4 0.4 85 318 29.4 9.9 R7 2.7 6.9 0.5 0.5 6 7 0.5 0.5 84 319 29.5 10.0 R8 2.9 7.7 0.6 0.6 5 9 0.6 0.6 90 321 29.6 10.1 R9 0.7 2.1 0.2 0.2 5 5 0.3 0.3 80 317 29.3 9.8 R10 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 19 12 0.5 0.5 60 324 29.5 10.0 R11 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 7 8 0.3 0.3 73 320 29.3 9.8 R12 0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 6 4 0.2 0.2 54 316 29.2 9.7 R13 0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 8 5 0.2 0.2 40 317 29.2 9.7 R14 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 7 4 0.2 0.2 42 316 29.2 9.7 R15 0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 5 3 0.1 0.1 40 315 29.1 9.6 R16 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 5 3 0.1 0.1 37 315 29.1 9.6 R17 0.7 3.5 0.3 0.3 5 4 0.3 0.3 45 316 29.3 9.8 R18 1.6 10.8 0.8 0.8 7 12 0.9 0.9 27 324 29.9 10.4 R19 1.6 9.5 0.7 0.7 7 11 0.8 0.8 27 323 29.8 10.3 R20 1.5 8.0 0.6 0.6 6 9 0.7 0.7 28 321 29.7 10.2 R21 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 33 15 0.7 0.7 104 327 29.7 10.2 R22 0.1 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 24 13 0.5 0.5 90 325 29.5 10.0 Objective 250 11,000 50 25 250 11,000 50 25 250 11,000 50 25


25 May 2015

Page 35

Table A3 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation


1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

R1 1.8 7.6 0.4 0.4 6 8 0.5 0.5 56 320 29.5 10.0 R2 1.4 3.3 0.2 0.2 6 5 0.2 0.2 51 317 29.2 9.7 R3 0.8 2.6 0.2 0.2 4 3 0.2 0.2 82 315 29.2 9.7 R4 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 6 3 0.1 0.1 93 315 29.1 9.6 R5 0.5 1.4 0.1 0.1 5 2 0.2 0.2 83 314 29.2 9.7 R6 2.0 6.0 0.3 0.3 5 6 0.3 0.3 85 318 29.3 9.8 R7 2.7 7.5 0.4 0.4 6 8 0.4 0.4 84 320 29.4 9.9 R8 3.6 9.8 0.5 0.5 5 11 0.5 0.5 90 323 29.5 10.0 R9 0.5 1.5 0.1 0.1 5 4 0.2 0.2 80 316 29.2 9.7 R10 0.2 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 19 12 0.5 0.5 60 324 29.5 10.0 R11 0.4 0.8 <0.1 <0.1 7 8 0.3 0.3 73 320 29.3 9.8 R12 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 6 4 0.2 0.2 54 316 29.2 9.7 R13 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 8 5 0.2 0.2 40 317 29.2 9.7 R14 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 7 4 0.2 0.2 42 316 29.2 9.7 R15 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 5 3 0.1 0.1 40 315 29.1 9.6 R16 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 5 3 0.1 0.1 37 315 29.1 9.6 R17 0.5 2.9 0.1 0.1 5 4 0.2 0.2 45 316 29.2 9.7 R18 1.4 8.6 0.4 0.4 7 10 0.5 0.5 27 322 29.5 10.0 R19 1.4 7.4 0.3 0.3 7 9 0.5 0.5 27 321 29.5 10.0 R20 1.3 6.2 0.3 0.3 6 7 0.4 0.4 28 319 29.4 9.9 R21 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 33 16 0.7 0.7 104 328 29.7 10.2 R22 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 24 13 0.5 0.5 90 325 29.5 10.0 Objective 250 11,000 50 25 250 11,000 50 25 250 11,000 50 25


25 May 2015

Page 36

Table A4 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation


1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

R1 1.7 7.6 0.03 0.03 6 8 0.3 0.3 56 320 29.3 9.8 R2 1.4 3.1 0.01 0.01 6 5 0.2 0.2 51 317 29.2 9.7 R3 0.8 2.7 0.01 0.01 4 3 0.1 0.1 82 315 29.1 9.6 R4 0.2 1.2 <0.01 <0.01 6 3 0.1 0.1 93 315 29.1 9.6 R5 0.5 1.5 <0.01 <0.01 5 2 0.2 0.2 83 314 29.2 9.7 R6 1.9 5.9 0.02 0.02 5 6 0.2 0.2 85 318 29.2 9.7 R7 2.6 7.5 0.02 0.02 6 8 0.2 0.2 84 320 29.2 9.7 R8 3.5 9.7 0.03 0.03 5 11 0.1 0.1 90 323 29.1 9.6 R9 0.5 1.5 <0.01 <0.01 5 4 0.2 0.2 80 316 29.2 9.7 R10 0.2 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 19 12 0.5 0.5 60 324 29.5 10.0 R11 0.4 0.9 <0.01 <0.01 7 8 0.3 0.3 73 320 29.3 9.8 R12 0.1 0.2 <0.01 <0.01 6 4 0.2 0.2 54 316 29.2 9.7 R13 0.1 0.2 <0.01 <0.01 8 5 0.2 0.2 40 317 29.2 9.7 R14 0.1 0.2 <0.01 <0.01 7 4 0.2 0.2 42 316 29.2 9.7 R15 0.1 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 5 3 0.1 0.1 40 315 29.1 9.6 R16 0.1 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 5 3 0.1 0.1 37 315 29.1 9.6 R17 0.5 2.9 0.01 0.01 5 4 0.1 0.1 45 316 29.1 9.6 R18 1.4 8.7 0.02 0.02 7 10 0.2 0.2 27 322 29.2 9.7 R19 1.3 7.6 0.02 0.02 7 9 0.1 0.1 27 321 29.1 9.6 R20 1.3 6.2 0.02 0.02 6 7 0.1 0.1 28 319 29.1 9.6 R21 <0.1 0.4 <0.01 <0.01 33 16 0.7 0.7 104 328 29.7 10.2 R22 <0.1 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 24 13 0.5 0.5 90 325 29.5 10.0 Objective 250 11,000 50 25 250 11,000 50 25 250 11,000 50 25


25 May 2015

Page 37

Table A5 Predicted ground-level concentrations of NO2, CO, particulates due to Scenario 8 - Ethylene release


1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

1-hour NO2

8-hour CO

24-hour PM10

24-hour PM2.5

R1 0.1 0.5 0.03 0.03 3.7 5.6 0.4 0.4 56 318 29.4 9.9

R2 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.02 3.2 4.6 0.2 0.2 51 317 29.2 9.7

R3 <0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 2.5 2.4 0.1 0.1 82 314 29.1 9.6

R4 0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 2.9 2.6 0.1 0.1 93 315 29.1 9.6

R5 0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 2.7 2.4 0.2 0.2 83 314 29.2 9.7

R6 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.02 3.5 3.9 0.2 0.2 85 316 29.2 9.7

R7 0.1 0.5 0.02 0.02 4.3 4.1 0.2 0.2 84 316 29.2 9.7

R8 <0.1 0.3 0.01 0.01 2.4 2.7 0.1 0.1 90 315 29.1 9.6

R9 <0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 2.8 4.2 0.2 0.2 80 316 29.2 9.7

R10 0.2 0.6 0.04 0.04 8.7 11.9 0.5 0.5 60 324 29.5 10.0

R11 0.1 0.5 0.03 0.03 5.2 8.6 0.3 0.3 73 321 29.3 9.8

R12 0.1 0.2 0.02 0.02 4.1 4.4 0.2 0.2 54 316 29.2 9.7

R13 0.1 0.3 0.02 0.02 3.6 4.9 0.2 0.2 40 317 29.2 9.7

R14 0.1 0.3 0.02 0.02 3.6 4.2 0.2 0.2 42 316 29.2 9.7

R15 <0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 3.0 3.4 0.2 0.2 40 315 29.2 9.7

R16 <0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 2.6 3.4 0.1 0.1 37 315 29.1 9.6

R17 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 2.0 3.4 0.1 0.1 45 315 29.1 9.6

R18 <0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 1.9 2.8 0.1 0.1 27 315 29.1 9.6

R19 <0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 1.6 2.6 0.1 0.1 27 315 29.1 9.6

R20 <0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 1.4 2.3 0.1 0.1 28 314 29.1 9.6

R21 0.3 1.0 0.06 0.06 13.8 15.8 0.7 0.7 104 328 29.7 10.2

R22 0.5 1.6 0.09 0.09 12.7 14.0 0.5 0.5 90 326 29.5 10.0

Objective 250 11,000 50 25 250 11,000 50 25 250 11,000 50 25


25 May 2015

Page 38

Table A6 Predicted ground-level concentrations of PAHs due to Scenario 1 - Relief load

Receptor N

apht

hale

ne

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Ace

naph

then

e

Fluo

rene

Phen

anth

rene

Ant

hrac

ene

Pyre

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Ben

zant

hrac

ene

Chr

ysen

e

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

1,12

be

nzop

eryl

ene

R1 3.4E-06 1.2E-05 4.7E-07 1.1E-06 2.1E-05 2.8E-06 3.2E-05 3.9E-05 8.8E-06 1.0E-05 2.1E-05 9.9E-06 R2 9.4E-07 3.3E-06 1.3E-07 3.2E-07 5.8E-06 7.9E-07 8.9E-06 1.1E-05 2.5E-06 2.9E-06 6.0E-06 2.8E-06 R3 4.5E-06 1.6E-05 6.3E-07 1.5E-06 2.8E-05 3.8E-06 4.3E-05 5.3E-05 1.2E-05 1.4E-05 2.9E-05 1.3E-05 R4 2.1E-06 7.1E-06 2.9E-07 7.0E-07 1.3E-05 1.7E-06 1.9E-05 2.4E-05 5.4E-06 6.4E-06 1.3E-05 6.1E-06 R5 8.1E-07 2.8E-06 1.1E-07 2.7E-07 4.9E-06 6.7E-07 7.6E-06 9.4E-06 2.1E-06 2.5E-06 5.2E-06 2.4E-06 R6 2.6E-06 8.8E-06 3.5E-07 8.6E-07 1.6E-05 2.1E-06 2.4E-05 3.0E-05 6.7E-06 7.9E-06 1.6E-05 7.5E-06 R7 5.1E-06 1.8E-05 7.1E-07 1.7E-06 3.1E-05 4.2E-06 4.8E-05 5.9E-05 1.3E-05 1.6E-05 3.3E-05 1.5E-05 R8 4.7E-06 1.6E-05 6.6E-07 1.6E-06 2.9E-05 3.9E-06 4.5E-05 5.5E-05 1.2E-05 1.5E-05 3.0E-05 1.4E-05 R9 1.0E-06 3.5E-06 1.4E-07 3.5E-07 6.2E-06 8.5E-07 9.7E-06 1.2E-05 2.7E-06 3.2E-06 6.5E-06 3.0E-06 R10 7.8E-08 2.7E-07 1.1E-08 2.6E-08 4.8E-07 6.5E-08 7.4E-07 9.1E-07 2.0E-07 2.4E-07 5.0E-07 2.3E-07 R11 5.5E-07 1.9E-06 7.6E-08 1.9E-07 3.3E-06 4.6E-07 5.2E-06 6.4E-06 1.4E-06 1.7E-06 3.5E-06 1.6E-06 R12 2.0E-07 7.0E-07 2.8E-08 6.9E-08 1.2E-06 1.7E-07 1.9E-06 2.4E-06 5.3E-07 6.3E-07 1.3E-06 6.0E-07 R13 9.9E-08 3.4E-07 1.4E-08 3.4E-08 6.0E-07 8.2E-08 9.3E-07 1.2E-06 2.6E-07 3.1E-07 6.3E-07 2.9E-07 R14 8.9E-08 3.1E-07 1.2E-08 3.0E-08 5.4E-07 7.4E-08 8.4E-07 1.0E-06 2.3E-07 2.8E-07 5.7E-07 2.6E-07 R15 1.2E-07 4.2E-07 1.7E-08 4.1E-08 7.4E-07 1.0E-07 1.1E-06 1.4E-06 3.2E-07 3.8E-07 7.8E-07 3.6E-07 R16 1.4E-07 4.8E-07 1.9E-08 4.7E-08 8.5E-07 1.2E-07 1.3E-06 1.6E-06 3.6E-07 4.3E-07 8.9E-07 4.1E-07 R17 9.1E-07 3.1E-06 1.3E-07 3.1E-07 5.6E-06 7.6E-07 8.6E-06 1.1E-05 2.4E-06 2.8E-06 5.8E-06 2.7E-06 R18 2.4E-06 8.1E-06 3.3E-07 8.0E-07 1.4E-05 2.0E-06 2.2E-05 2.8E-05 6.2E-06 7.3E-06 1.5E-05 7.0E-06 R19 2.3E-06 7.9E-06 3.2E-07 7.7E-07 1.4E-05 1.9E-06 2.2E-05 2.7E-05 6.0E-06 7.1E-06 1.5E-05 6.7E-06 R20 2.1E-06 7.3E-06 2.9E-07 7.1E-07 1.3E-05 1.8E-06 2.0E-05 2.5E-05 5.5E-06 6.6E-06 1.3E-05 6.2E-06


25 May 2015

Page 39

Receptor

Nap

htha

lene

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Ace

naph

then

e

Fluo

rene

Phen

anth

rene

Ant

hrac

ene

Pyre

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Ben

zant

hrac

ene

Chr

ysen

e

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

1,12

be

nzop

eryl

ene

R21 6.9E-08 2.4E-07 9.6E-09 2.3E-08 4.2E-07 5.7E-08 6.5E-07 8.0E-07 1.8E-07 2.1E-07 4.4E-07 2.0E-07 R22 5.8E-08 2.0E-07 8.1E-09 2.0E-08 3.6E-07 4.9E-08 5.5E-07 6.8E-07 1.5E-07 1.8E-07 3.7E-07 1.7E-07 Objective - 1.0 1.0 0.52 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.51 0.5 - 0.5

Table note 1 Air quality objective not found: Fluoranthene (or Benzo(j, k)fluorene) is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) and a structural isomer of the alternant PAH pyrene. Consequently, the same 1-hour average air quality objective of 0.5 μg/m3 has been applied for this assessment. 2 Air quality objective not found: Fluorene is a PAH, and consequently, in line with other PAHs referenced by the TCEQ Effects Screening Levels an air quality objective of 0.5 μg/m3 has been applied for this assessment.

Table A7 Predicted ground-level concentrations of PAHs due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation

Receptor

Nap

htha

lene

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Ace

naph

then

e

Fluo

rene

Phen

anth

rene

Ant

hrac

ene

Pyre

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Ben

zant

hrac

ene

Chr

ysen

e

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

1,12

be

nzop

eryl

ene

R1 1.4E-04 4.7E-04 1.9E-05 4.6E-05 8.3E-04 1.1E-04 1.3E-03 1.6E-03 3.6E-04 4.2E-04 8.7E-04 4.0E-04

R2 4.6E-05 1.6E-04 6.3E-06 1.5E-05 2.8E-04 3.8E-05 4.3E-04 5.3E-04 1.2E-04 1.4E-04 2.9E-04 1.3E-04

R3 1.7E-04 5.8E-04 2.3E-05 5.7E-05 1.0E-03 1.4E-04 1.6E-03 2.0E-03 4.4E-04 5.2E-04 1.1E-03 5.0E-04

R4 6.6E-05 2.3E-04 9.2E-06 2.2E-05 4.0E-04 5.5E-05 6.3E-04 7.7E-04 1.7E-04 2.1E-04 4.2E-04 2.0E-04

R5 2.5E-05 8.8E-05 3.5E-06 8.6E-06 1.6E-04 2.1E-05 2.4E-04 3.0E-04 6.6E-05 7.9E-05 1.6E-04 7.5E-05

R6 7.1E-05 2.5E-04 9.9E-06 2.4E-05 4.4E-04 5.9E-05 6.7E-04 8.3E-04 1.9E-04 2.2E-04 4.6E-04 2.1E-04


25 May 2015

Page 40

Receptor

Nap

htha

lene

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Ace

naph

then

e

Fluo

rene

Phen

anth

rene

Ant

hrac

ene

Pyre

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Ben

zant

hrac

ene

Chr

ysen

e

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

1,12

be

nzop

eryl

ene

R7 1.1E-04 3.9E-04 1.6E-05 3.8E-05 6.9E-04 9.4E-05 1.1E-03 1.3E-03 2.9E-04 3.5E-04 7.2E-04 3.3E-04

R8 1.2E-04 4.2E-04 1.7E-05 4.1E-05 7.4E-04 1.0E-04 1.1E-03 1.4E-03 3.2E-04 3.8E-04 7.7E-04 3.6E-04

R9 2.8E-05 9.8E-05 3.9E-06 9.6E-06 1.7E-04 2.4E-05 2.7E-04 3.3E-04 7.4E-05 8.8E-05 1.8E-04 8.4E-05

R10 2.8E-06 9.5E-06 3.9E-07 9.4E-07 1.7E-05 2.3E-06 2.6E-05 3.2E-05 7.2E-06 8.6E-06 1.8E-05 8.2E-06

R11 1.2E-05 4.2E-05 1.7E-06 4.2E-06 7.5E-05 1.0E-05 1.2E-04 1.4E-04 3.2E-05 3.8E-05 7.9E-05 3.6E-05

R12 5.4E-06 1.8E-05 7.5E-07 1.8E-06 3.3E-05 4.5E-06 5.1E-05 6.3E-05 1.4E-05 1.7E-05 3.4E-05 1.6E-05

R13 4.6E-06 1.6E-05 6.4E-07 1.6E-06 2.8E-05 3.9E-06 4.4E-05 5.4E-05 1.2E-05 1.4E-05 3.0E-05 1.4E-05

R14 2.8E-06 9.6E-06 3.9E-07 9.4E-07 1.7E-05 2.3E-06 2.6E-05 3.2E-05 7.3E-06 8.6E-06 1.8E-05 8.2E-06

R15 4.1E-06 1.4E-05 5.7E-07 1.4E-06 2.5E-05 3.4E-06 3.9E-05 4.8E-05 1.1E-05 1.3E-05 2.6E-05 1.2E-05

R16 3.8E-06 1.3E-05 5.3E-07 1.3E-06 2.3E-05 3.2E-06 3.6E-05 4.4E-05 9.9E-06 1.2E-05 2.4E-05 1.1E-05

R17 2.8E-05 9.6E-05 3.9E-06 9.5E-06 1.7E-04 2.3E-05 2.6E-04 3.3E-04 7.3E-05 8.7E-05 1.8E-04 8.2E-05

R18 6.7E-05 2.3E-04 9.3E-06 2.3E-05 4.1E-04 5.6E-05 6.3E-04 7.8E-04 1.7E-04 2.1E-04 4.3E-04 2.0E-04

R19 6.5E-05 2.2E-04 9.1E-06 2.2E-05 4.0E-04 5.4E-05 6.2E-04 7.6E-04 1.7E-04 2.0E-04 4.2E-04 1.9E-04

R20 6.0E-05 2.1E-04 8.4E-06 2.0E-05 3.7E-04 5.0E-05 5.7E-04 7.1E-04 1.6E-04 1.9E-04 3.9E-04 1.8E-04

R21 3.0E-06 1.0E-05 4.2E-07 1.0E-06 1.9E-05 2.5E-06 2.9E-05 3.5E-05 7.9E-06 9.4E-06 1.9E-05 9.0E-06

R22 3.4E-06 1.2E-05 4.8E-07 1.2E-06 2.1E-05 2.9E-06 3.2E-05 4.0E-05 9.0E-06 1.1E-05 2.2E-05 1.0E-05

Objective - 1.0 1.0 0.52 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.51 0.5 - 0.5



25 May 2015

Page 41

Table A8 Predicted ground-level concentrations of PAHs due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation

Receptor N

apht

hale

ne

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Ace

naph

then

e

Fluo

rene

Phen

anth

rene

Ant

hrac

ene

Pyre

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Ben

zant

hrac

ene

Chr

ysen

e

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

1,12

be

nzop

eryl

ene

R1 4.7E-05 1.6E-04 6.5E-06 1.6E-05 2.9E-04 3.9E-05 4.4E-04 5.4E-04 1.2E-04 1.5E-04 3.0E-04 1.4E-04

R2 3.7E-05 1.3E-04 5.2E-06 1.3E-05 2.3E-04 3.1E-05 3.5E-04 4.4E-04 9.8E-05 1.2E-04 2.4E-04 1.1E-04

R3 2.0E-05 7.0E-05 2.8E-06 6.9E-06 1.2E-04 1.7E-05 1.9E-04 2.4E-04 5.3E-05 6.3E-05 1.3E-04 6.0E-05

R4 6.2E-06 2.1E-05 8.6E-07 2.1E-06 3.8E-05 5.1E-06 5.8E-05 7.2E-05 1.6E-05 1.9E-05 3.9E-05 1.8E-05

R5 1.2E-05 4.2E-05 1.7E-06 4.1E-06 7.4E-05 1.0E-05 1.1E-04 1.4E-04 3.2E-05 3.8E-05 7.7E-05 3.6E-05

R6 5.2E-05 1.8E-04 7.2E-06 1.8E-05 3.2E-04 4.3E-05 4.9E-04 6.0E-04 1.4E-04 1.6E-04 3.3E-04 1.5E-04

R7 6.9E-05 2.4E-04 9.6E-06 2.3E-05 4.2E-04 5.7E-05 6.5E-04 8.0E-04 1.8E-04 2.1E-04 4.4E-04 2.0E-04

R8 9.3E-05 3.2E-04 1.3E-05 3.1E-05 5.7E-04 7.7E-05 8.8E-04 1.1E-03 2.4E-04 2.9E-04 5.9E-04 2.7E-04

R9 1.3E-05 4.5E-05 1.8E-06 4.4E-06 8.0E-05 1.1E-05 1.2E-04 1.5E-04 3.4E-05 4.1E-05 8.4E-05 3.9E-05

R10 5.6E-06 1.9E-05 7.8E-07 1.9E-06 3.4E-05 4.7E-06 5.3E-05 6.6E-05 1.5E-05 1.8E-05 3.6E-05 1.7E-05

R11 1.0E-05 3.5E-05 1.4E-06 3.4E-06 6.1E-05 8.3E-06 9.5E-05 1.2E-04 2.6E-05 3.1E-05 6.4E-05 3.0E-05

R12 2.7E-06 9.4E-06 3.8E-07 9.3E-07 1.7E-05 2.3E-06 2.6E-05 3.2E-05 7.1E-06 8.5E-06 1.7E-05 8.1E-06

R13 1.5E-06 5.2E-06 2.1E-07 5.1E-07 9.2E-06 1.3E-06 1.4E-05 1.8E-05 3.9E-06 4.7E-06 9.6E-06 4.4E-06

R14 1.7E-06 5.8E-06 2.3E-07 5.7E-07 1.0E-05 1.4E-06 1.6E-05 2.0E-05 4.4E-06 5.2E-06 1.1E-05 5.0E-06

R15 2.5E-06 8.6E-06 3.5E-07 8.5E-07 1.5E-05 2.1E-06 2.4E-05 2.9E-05 6.5E-06 7.8E-06 1.6E-05 7.4E-06

R16 2.7E-06 9.3E-06 3.8E-07 9.2E-07 1.7E-05 2.3E-06 2.6E-05 3.2E-05 7.1E-06 8.4E-06 1.7E-05 8.0E-06

R17 1.4E-05 4.7E-05 1.9E-06 4.6E-06 8.3E-05 1.1E-05 1.3E-04 1.6E-04 3.6E-05 4.2E-05 8.7E-05 4.0E-05

R18 3.6E-05 1.2E-04 5.0E-06 1.2E-05 2.2E-04 3.0E-05 3.4E-04 4.2E-04 9.4E-05 1.1E-04 2.3E-04 1.1E-04

R19 3.6E-05 1.2E-04 4.9E-06 1.2E-05 2.2E-04 3.0E-05 3.4E-04 4.1E-04 9.3E-05 1.1E-04 2.3E-04 1.0E-04

R20 3.3E-05 1.1E-04 4.6E-06 1.1E-05 2.0E-04 2.7E-05 3.1E-04 3.8E-04 8.6E-05 1.0E-04 2.1E-04 9.7E-05


25 May 2015

Page 42

Receptor

Nap

htha

lene

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Ace

naph

then

e

Fluo

rene

Phen

anth

rene

Ant

hrac

ene

Pyre

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Ben

zant

hrac

ene

Chr

ysen

e

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

1,12

be

nzop

eryl

ene

R21 1.1E-06 3.8E-06 1.5E-07 3.8E-07 6.8E-06 9.3E-07 1.0E-05 1.3E-05 2.9E-06 3.5E-06 7.1E-06 3.3E-06

R22 1.1E-06 3.8E-06 1.5E-07 3.8E-07 6.8E-06 9.3E-07 1.1E-05 1.3E-05 2.9E-06 3.5E-06 7.1E-06 3.3E-06

Objective - 1.0 1.0 0.52 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.51 0.5 - 0.5


Table A9 Predicted ground-level concentrations of PAHs due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation

Receptor

Nap

htha

lene

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Ace

naph

then

e

Fluo

rene

Phen

anth

rene

Ant

hrac

ene

Pyre

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Ben

zant

hrac

ene

Chr

ysen

e

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

1,12

be

nzop

eryl

ene

R1 2.6E-06 9.0E-06 3.6E-07 8.8E-07 1.6E-05 2.2E-06 2.5E-05 3.0E-05 6.8E-06 8.1E-06 1.7E-05 7.7E-06 R2 2.1E-06 7.1E-06 2.9E-07 7.0E-07 1.3E-05 1.7E-06 1.9E-05 2.4E-05 5.4E-06 6.4E-06 1.3E-05 6.1E-06 R3 1.2E-06 4.1E-06 1.6E-07 4.0E-07 7.3E-06 9.9E-07 1.1E-05 1.4E-05 3.1E-06 3.7E-06 7.6E-06 3.5E-06 R4 3.6E-07 1.2E-06 5.0E-08 1.2E-07 2.2E-06 3.0E-07 3.4E-06 4.2E-06 9.4E-07 1.1E-06 2.3E-06 1.1E-06 R5 7.1E-07 2.4E-06 9.8E-08 2.4E-07 4.3E-06 5.9E-07 6.7E-06 8.3E-06 1.9E-06 2.2E-06 4.5E-06 2.1E-06 R6 2.9E-06 1.0E-05 4.1E-07 9.9E-07 1.8E-05 2.4E-06 2.8E-05 3.4E-05 7.6E-06 9.1E-06 1.9E-05 8.6E-06


25 May 2015

Page 43

Receptor

Nap

htha

lene

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Ace

naph

then

e

Fluo

rene

Phen

anth

rene

Ant

hrac

ene

Pyre

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Ben

zant

hrac

ene

Chr

ysen

e

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

1,12

be

nzop

eryl

ene

R7 4.0E-06 1.4E-05 5.5E-07 1.3E-06 2.4E-05 3.3E-06 3.8E-05 4.6E-05 1.0E-05 1.2E-05 2.5E-05 1.2E-05 R8 5.3E-06 1.8E-05 7.4E-07 1.8E-06 3.3E-05 4.4E-06 5.0E-05 6.2E-05 1.4E-05 1.7E-05 3.4E-05 1.6E-05 R9 7.6E-07 2.6E-06 1.1E-07 2.6E-07 4.7E-06 6.4E-07 7.2E-06 8.9E-06 2.0E-06 2.4E-06 4.9E-06 2.2E-06 R10 2.8E-07 9.8E-07 3.9E-08 9.6E-08 1.7E-06 2.4E-07 2.7E-06 3.3E-06 7.4E-07 8.8E-07 1.8E-06 8.4E-07 R11 5.9E-07 2.0E-06 8.2E-08 2.0E-07 3.6E-06 4.9E-07 5.6E-06 6.9E-06 1.5E-06 1.8E-06 3.8E-06 1.7E-06 R12 1.6E-07 5.6E-07 2.2E-08 5.5E-08 9.9E-07 1.3E-07 1.5E-06 1.9E-06 4.2E-07 5.0E-07 1.0E-06 4.8E-07 R13 9.0E-08 3.1E-07 1.3E-08 3.1E-08 5.5E-07 7.5E-08 8.5E-07 1.1E-06 2.4E-07 2.8E-07 5.8E-07 2.7E-07 R14 8.6E-08 3.0E-07 1.2E-08 2.9E-08 5.3E-07 7.2E-08 8.2E-07 1.0E-06 2.3E-07 2.7E-07 5.5E-07 2.5E-07 R15 1.4E-07 4.8E-07 2.0E-08 4.8E-08 8.6E-07 1.2E-07 1.3E-06 1.6E-06 3.7E-07 4.4E-07 9.0E-07 4.1E-07 R16 1.5E-07 5.0E-07 2.0E-08 4.9E-08 8.9E-07 1.2E-07 1.4E-06 1.7E-06 3.8E-07 4.5E-07 9.3E-07 4.3E-07 R17 8.2E-07 2.8E-06 1.1E-07 2.8E-07 5.0E-06 6.8E-07 7.7E-06 9.5E-06 2.1E-06 2.5E-06 5.2E-06 2.4E-06 R18 2.1E-06 7.1E-06 2.9E-07 7.0E-07 1.3E-05 1.7E-06 2.0E-05 2.4E-05 5.4E-06 6.4E-06 1.3E-05 6.1E-06 R19 2.0E-06 7.0E-06 2.8E-07 6.9E-07 1.2E-05 1.7E-06 1.9E-05 2.4E-05 5.3E-06 6.3E-06 1.3E-05 6.0E-06 R20 1.9E-06 6.5E-06 2.6E-07 6.4E-07 1.2E-05 1.6E-06 1.8E-05 2.2E-05 4.9E-06 5.9E-06 1.2E-05 5.6E-06 R21 6.4E-08 2.2E-07 8.9E-09 2.2E-08 3.9E-07 5.3E-08 6.0E-07 7.5E-07 1.7E-07 2.0E-07 4.1E-07 1.9E-07 R22 6.4E-08 2.2E-07 8.9E-09 2.2E-08 3.9E-07 5.3E-08 6.1E-07 7.5E-07 1.7E-07 2.0E-07 4.1E-07 1.9E-07 Objective - 1.0 1.0 0.52 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.51 0.5 - 0.5



25 May 2015

Page 44

Table A10 Predicted ground-level concentrations of PAHs due to Scenario 8 – Ethylene release R

ecep

tor

Nap

htha

lene

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Ace

naph

then

e

Fluo

rene

Phen

anth

rene

Ant

hrac

ene

Pyre

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Ben

zant

hrac

ene

Chr

ysen

e

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

1,12

be

nzop

eryl

ene

R1 1.4E-06 4.9E-06 2.0E-07 4.8E-07 8.6E-06 1.2E-06 1.3E-05 1.6E-05 3.7E-06 4.4E-06 9.0E-06 4.2E-06 R2 2.0E-06 6.8E-06 2.8E-07 6.7E-07 1.2E-05 1.7E-06 1.9E-05 2.3E-05 5.2E-06 6.2E-06 1.3E-05 5.9E-06 R3 1.3E-06 4.4E-06 1.8E-07 4.3E-07 7.7E-06 1.1E-06 1.2E-05 1.5E-05 3.3E-06 3.9E-06 8.1E-06 3.7E-06 R4 1.5E-06 5.0E-06 2.0E-07 4.9E-07 8.9E-06 1.2E-06 1.4E-05 1.7E-05 3.8E-06 4.5E-06 9.3E-06 4.3E-06 R5 1.8E-06 6.0E-06 2.4E-07 5.9E-07 1.1E-05 1.5E-06 1.7E-05 2.0E-05 4.6E-06 5.4E-06 1.1E-05 5.2E-06 R6 2.0E-06 6.8E-06 2.7E-07 6.7E-07 1.2E-05 1.6E-06 1.9E-05 2.3E-05 5.2E-06 6.1E-06 1.3E-05 5.8E-06 R7 1.7E-06 5.7E-06 2.3E-07 5.6E-07 1.0E-05 1.4E-06 1.6E-05 1.9E-05 4.3E-06 5.1E-06 1.1E-05 4.9E-06 R8 8.3E-07 2.9E-06 1.2E-07 2.8E-07 5.1E-06 6.9E-07 7.9E-06 9.7E-06 2.2E-06 2.6E-06 5.3E-06 2.5E-06 R9 1.1E-06 3.7E-06 1.5E-07 3.6E-07 6.6E-06 9.0E-07 1.0E-05 1.3E-05 2.8E-06 3.3E-06 6.9E-06 3.2E-06 R10 5.3E-06 1.8E-05 7.4E-07 1.8E-06 3.3E-05 4.4E-06 5.0E-05 6.2E-05 1.4E-05 1.7E-05 3.4E-05 1.6E-05 R11 3.3E-06 1.1E-05 4.6E-07 1.1E-06 2.0E-05 2.8E-06 3.1E-05 3.9E-05 8.7E-06 1.0E-05 2.1E-05 9.8E-06 R12 1.5E-06 5.3E-06 2.1E-07 5.2E-07 9.4E-06 1.3E-06 1.5E-05 1.8E-05 4.0E-06 4.8E-06 9.8E-06 4.5E-06 R13 1.6E-06 5.5E-06 2.2E-07 5.4E-07 9.7E-06 1.3E-06 1.5E-05 1.8E-05 4.1E-06 4.9E-06 1.0E-05 4.7E-06 R14 1.6E-06 5.4E-06 2.2E-07 5.4E-07 9.7E-06 1.3E-06 1.5E-05 1.8E-05 4.1E-06 4.9E-06 1.0E-05 4.7E-06 R15 1.1E-06 3.9E-06 1.6E-07 3.9E-07 7.0E-06 9.5E-07 1.1E-05 1.3E-05 3.0E-06 3.5E-06 7.3E-06 3.4E-06 R16 1.0E-06 3.6E-06 1.4E-07 3.5E-07 6.3E-06 8.7E-07 9.8E-06 1.2E-05 2.7E-06 3.2E-06 6.6E-06 3.1E-06 R17 1.6E-06 5.6E-06 2.3E-07 5.6E-07 1.0E-05 1.4E-06 1.5E-05 1.9E-05 4.3E-06 5.1E-06 1.0E-05 4.8E-06 R18 1.1E-06 4.0E-06 1.6E-07 3.9E-07 7.0E-06 9.6E-07 1.1E-05 1.3E-05 3.0E-06 3.6E-06 7.3E-06 3.4E-06 R19 1.2E-06 4.2E-06 1.7E-07 4.1E-07 7.4E-06 1.0E-06 1.1E-05 1.4E-05 3.2E-06 3.8E-06 7.8E-06 3.6E-06 R20 9.3E-07 3.2E-06 1.3E-07 3.1E-07 5.7E-06 7.7E-07 8.8E-06 1.1E-05 2.4E-06 2.9E-06 5.9E-06 2.7E-06


25 May 2015

Page 45

Rec

epto

r

Nap

htha

lene

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Ace

naph

then

e

Fluo

rene

Phen

anth

rene

Ant

hrac

ene

Pyre

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Ben

zant

hrac

ene

Chr

ysen

e

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

1,12

be

nzop

eryl

ene

R21 8.3E-06 2.8E-05 1.1E-06 2.8E-06 5.0E-05 6.9E-06 7.8E-05 9.6E-05 2.2E-05 2.6E-05 5.3E-05 2.4E-05 R22 1.3E-05 4.6E-05 1.8E-06 4.5E-06 8.1E-05 1.1E-05 1.2E-04 1.5E-04 3.5E-05 4.1E-05 8.5E-05 3.9E-05 Objective - 1.0 1.0 0.52 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.51 0.5 - 0.5


Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd D14069-3 QGC Pty Limited – QCLNG Dry and Wet Gas Flares: Air Quality Assessment –

Final

25 May 2015

Page 46

Plate A1 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 1 – Relief load (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

250 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 47

Plate A2 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 1 – Relief load (flare + QCLNG plant + GAMS background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

250 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 48

Plate A3 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 1 – Relief load (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

8-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

11,000 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 49

Plate A4 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 1 – Relief load (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

8-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

11,000 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 50

Plate A5 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM due to Scenario 1 – Relief load (flare in isolation). All PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5.

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

PM10: 50 µg/m³

PM2.5: 25 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 51

Plate A6 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM10 due to Scenario 1 – Relief load (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

50 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 52

Plate A7 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM2.5 due to Scenario 1 – Relief load (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

25 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 53

Plate A8 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of fluoranthene due to Scenario 1 – Relief load (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

0.5 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 54

Plate A9 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of propylene due to Scenario 1 – Relief load (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

8,750 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 55

Plate A10 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

250 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 56

Plate A11 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + GAMS background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

250 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 57

Plate A12 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

8-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

11,000 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 58

Plate A13 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

8-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

11,000 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 59

Plate A14 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation). All PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5.

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

PM10: 50 µg/m³

PM2.5: 25 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 60

Plate A15 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM10 due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

50 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 61

Plate A16 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM2.5 due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

25 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 62

Plate A17 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of fluoranthene due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

0.5 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 63

Plate A18 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of propylene due to Scenario 2 – Propane depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

8,750 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 64

Plate A19 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

250 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 65

Plate A20 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + GAMS background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

250 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 66

Plate A21 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

8-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

11,000 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 67

Plate A22 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

8-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

11,000 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 68

Plate A23 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation (flare in isolation). All PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5.

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

PM10: 50 µg/m³

PM2.5: 25 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 69

Plate A24 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM10 due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

50 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 70

Plate A25 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM2.5 due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

25 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 71

Plate A26 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of fluoranthene due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

0.5 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 72

Plate A27 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of propylene due to Scenario 3 – Ethylene depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

8,750 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 73

Plate A28 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

250 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 74

Plate A29 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + GAMS background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

250 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 75

Plate A30 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

8-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

11,000 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 76

Plate A31 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

8-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

11,000 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 77

Plate A32 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation (flare in isolation). All PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5.

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

PM10: 50 µg/m³

PM2.5: 25 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 78

Plate A33 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM10 due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

50 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 79

Plate A34 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM2.5 due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

25 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 80

Plate A35 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of fluoranthene due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

0.5 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 81

Plate A36 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of propylene due to Scenario 4 – Feed gas depressurisation (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

8,750 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 82

Plate A37 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 8 – Ethylene release (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

250 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 83

Plate A38 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of NO2 due to Scenario 8 – Ethylene release (flare + QCLNG plant + GAMS background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

250 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 84

Plate A39 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 8 – Ethylene release (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

8-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

11,000 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 85

Plate A40 Predicted maximum 8-hour average ground level concentrations of CO due to Scenario 8 – Ethylene release (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

8-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

11,000 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 86

Plate A41 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM due to Scenario 8 – Ethylene release (flare in isolation). All PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5.

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

PM10: 50 µg/m³

PM2.5: 25 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 87

Plate A42 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM10 due to Scenario 8 – Ethylene release (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

50 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 88

Plate A43 Predicted maximum 24-hour average ground level concentrations of PM2.5 due to Scenario 8 – Ethylene release (flare + QCLNG plant + ambient background)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

24-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

25 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 89

Plate A44 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of fluoranthene due to Scenario 8 – Ethylene release (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

0.5 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015


Final

25 May 2015

Page 90

Plate A45 Predicted maximum 1-hour average ground level concentrations of propylene due to Scenario 8 – Ethylene release (flare in isolation)

Location:

Gladstone

Averaging period:

1-hour

Data source:

CALPUFF

Units:

µg/m³

Type:

Maximum contours

Objective:

8,750 µg/m³

Prepared by:

M Burchill

Date:

May 2015

qgc midstream project - shell australia

Documents