Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue: Air quality impact assessment

Transcription

1 Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue: Air quality impact assessment Prepared for Tegel Foods Ltd Date October 2017 Job Number

2 Document Control Title: Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue Date Version Description Prepared by: Reviewed by: Authorised by: 4/9/ Draft for client review Jason Pene Jenny Simpson Jenny Simpson 29/9/ Updated draft Jason Pene Jenny Simpson Jenny Simpson 11/10/ Final draft Jason Pene Jenny Simpson Jenny Simpson Distribution: Tegel Foods Ltd Northland Regional Council Kaipara District Council Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 copy 1 copy 1 copy 1 copy

3 Table of contents 1 Introduction Background Statutory context of assessment Overview Discharges from intensive farming Discharges from combustion activities Discharges from construction activities Purpose and scope 2 2 Site description 3 3 Proposed activities Overview Poultry farm operation Energy Centre operation 6 4 Nature and scale of the discharges Discharges from poultry housing Quantification of odour emissions Introduction Ceiling vent emissions Side wall pop hole emissions Quantification of mitigation of odour emissions Quantification of Energy Centre emissions 12 5 Environmental setting Locality and adjacent activities Topography Meteorological conditions 16 6 Assessment methodology Introduction Poultry farm odour assessment method Poultry farm dust assessment Energy centre combustion emission assessment method 19 7 Assessment of effects of odour emissions Management of odour and mitigation of nuisance effects Odour dispersion modelling details Summary of dispersion model selection and configuration Odour assessment criteria Odour risk assessment matrix Dispersion modelling predictions Consideration of FIDOL factors and summary of odour nuisance effects 28 8 Assessment of potential health effects of combustion emissions Combustion emissions dispersion modelling details Health assessment criteria Combustion emissions dispersion modelling predictions 30 9 Conclusions Applicability 34 Appendix A : Odour dispersion contour plots Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

4 Appendix B : Appendix C : Appendix D : Model configuration summaries Meteorological comparison Odour type hedonic score summary Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

5 i Executive summary Tegel Foods Limited proposes to develop a free-range broiler poultry farm at Arapohue housing up to million broiler chickens. The development is likely to result in the discharge of a number of contaminants including odour, dust and combustion contaminants to air. This document summarises an assessment of these discharges on local air quality. The chickens are to be housed in 32 free range poultry sheds arranged in four operational farm units of eight sheds each. Litter from the sheds is to be utilised to provide heat (and potentially electricity) through combustion in two litter burner units in an Energy Centre to be located centrally within the farm site. A number of design and operational measures are proposed that will reduce odour emissions from the manure (by minimising anaerobic degradation) and help to disperse odour generated within the sheds on discharge, including: Use of European designed, climate controlled sheds to maintain internal climate conditions that retard anaerobic degradation. Increased use of heat provided from the Energy Centre (and ventilation) to reduce litter moisture content within the sheds, further inhibiting anaerobic degradation. Use of ceiling fans to improve dispersion when poultry sheds are enclosed. The discharges of contaminants (primarily odour and dust) to air from the operation of the farm are classified as a permitted activity under the RAQPN but, out of caution in light of the scale of the proposed operation, resource consent is sought for these discharges. Resource consent is explicitly required for the discharges from combustion of used litter and LPG to provide heat for the operation. The potential impacts of both sets of discharges on air quality are considered in this document. The temporary discharges of dust from construction activities associated with the development, including earthworks and operation of the on-site quarry, are considered to be a permitted activity under the RAQPN and the effects of these discharges are not included in the assessment. The local area is primarily rural in nature and comprised mainly of pasture and cropland. These areas are of relatively low sensitivity to the discharged contaminants. However, sensitivity will be elevated at rural dwellings interspersed throughout the area and at the local marae and school. Sensitivity to the contaminants will be highest in the Te Kopuru urban area, across the Wairoa River, due to the increased intensity of residential activity. Discharges of dust from the operation of the farm will be minimal and are considered unlikely to cause any discernible adverse effects with this largely rural receiving environment. Combustion emissions from the site Energy Centre are expected to be well managed through the containment and control measures proposed and the Energy Centre location is well separated from the site boundary. As a result impacts on off-site air pollutant levels are predicted to be minimal and no discernible adverse effects on human health or amenity are anticipated. Discharges of odour from the operation have the potential to adversely affect amenity in the receiving environment, however: The principal source of odour from intensive poultry farming is anaerobic degradation of manure/litter. Inhibition of this microbial process through manipulation of internal shed environmental and litter conditions minimises potential odour emissions. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

6 ii A high standard of odour mitigation is proposed and the poultry sheds are likely to produce substantially less intense emissions than has historically resulted from broiler chicken sheds typically installed in New Zealand and Australia. Odour emissions from the sheds over the batch cycle have been estimated using an Australian method that accounts for the scale of the operation and the growth of birds over the cycle. The estimation method has been based on odour measurements at older Australian operations featuring less advanced odour mitigation methods. Modified estimates of odour emissions, based on measured reductions in anaerobic by-products achieved in manufacturer testing at American installations, have therefore also been used to provide a more realistic estimate of emissions from the proposed operation. Atmospheric dispersion modelling has been used to predict the potential impacts of the estimated odour emissions on odour levels in the local area. Odour modelling predictions indicate that the risk of odour impacts at most locations in the receiving environment is low but has been identified as high at three dwellings at 5590 SH12 adjacent to the site to the south and moderate at the dwelling further south at 5562 SH12. This highlights a potential for offensive or objectionable poultry farm odour at these sensitive locations and particular care and attention will need to be paid to managing odour emissions from the operation to avoid this type of effect. Overall the assessment indicates that a high standard of management of emissions to air is proposed and that at most locations the potential for adverse air quality effects as a result of the proposed poultry farm (and ancillary activities) is low. However, the assessment also indicates that there is an elevated risk of odour effects at four dwellings located to the south of the site. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

7 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Tegel Foods Ltd (Tegel) has entered into a sale and purchase agreement for a site at 5763 State Highway 12 (SH12), Arapohue, Dargaville ( the site ). Tegel is proposing to develop a free range broiler chicken farm on the site. A number of resource consents are required for the development including resource consent from the Northland Regional Council (NRC) for the associated discharges of contaminants to air. To inform the application for this consent, Tonkin + Taylor Ltd has been commissioned to prepare this assessment of air quality impacts of the proposed poultry farm development. This report should be read in conjunction with the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) for the applications for resource consent for the overall operation. 1.2 Statutory context of assessment Overview The scope of this assessment is limited to discharges to air that require consent under Section 15 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and rules of the relevant operative and proposed regional plans. In this case the Regional Air Quality Plan for Northland (RAQPN) was made operative on 31 March The Proposed Regional Plan for Northland (PRPN) is due to be notified and the rules of both plans have been considered in this case. Discharges to air from the proposed development to be considered under regional plan rules are: 1 Discharges to air from intensive poultry farming; 2 Discharges from combustion activities; and 3 Discharges from construction activities. As described in the following subsections, resource consent is considered to be required for the discharges to air from intensive poultry farming and combustion activities but is not required for the corresponding discharges from construction. The latter discharge is therefore not considered further in this assessment of air quality impacts Discharges from intensive farming Rule 10.1 (7) of the RAQPN provides for factory farming of poultry as a permitted activity provided that the following condition is met: a The discharge shall not result in any offensive or objectionable odour or dust, beyond the boundary of the subject property. Under the PRPN, discharges to air from intensive poultry farming are not specifically regulated and as the discharge is not from an industrial or trade premises (being located on production land) is to be considered under the permitted activity catch-all Rule C.7.2.6, subject to a similar to condition a above. Although offensive or objectionable odour or dust beyond the site boundary should be able to be avoided, out of caution in light of the scale of the proposed operation, the discharge is considered to default to Rule of the RAQPN and Rule C of the PRPN as a discretionary activity. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd

8 Discharges from combustion activities Rules 9.1 (1) to 9.1 (3) of the RAQPN provide for discharges to air from combustion activities from industrial or trade premises (the energy centre has been assumed to be located on land that would no longer be considered production land). Similarly Rules C to C of the PRPN govern discharges to air from combustion. Discharges from the combustion of litter to generate heat and/or electricity are not specifically provided for under these rules and therefore default to Rule of the RAQPN and Rule C of the PRPN as a discretionary activity. Discharges to air from the combustion of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to pre-heat the litter burners is provided for under Rule 9.1 (1) of the RAQPN and Rule C of the PRPN as a permitted activity subject to conditions. It is unclear whether the stack height will meet the minimum requirements for stack height specified in the conditions of each rule and to avoid any doubt the discharges from LPG combustion have been considered with the discharges from litter combustion as requiring resource consent Discharges from construction activities Construction of the development is likely to result in the discharge of dust from quarrying and earthworks. Under the RAQPN, this discharge is a permitted activity under Rule 9.1 (4) provided that: a The discharge shall not result in any offensive or objectionable dust deposition, or any noxious or dangerous levels of airborne particulate matter, beyond the boundary of the subject property. Under the PRPN, this discharge is not specifically regulated and as the discharge is not from an industrial or trade premise is to be considered under the permitted activity catch-all Rule C.7.2.6, subject to a similar to condition a above. Given the rural nature of the surrounding area, the distances separating construction earthworks and quarrying activities from local sensitive activities (beyond distances that may result in substantial dust deposition) and the temporary nature of the activities, it is considered the conditions of Rule 9.1 (4) of the RAQPN and Rule C of the PRPN. As such the discharges to air from construction activities, including earthworks and quarrying, are considered to be permitted and resource consent is not required. 1.3 Purpose and scope The purpose of this report is to detail the methods, results and findings of the assessment of potential effects of discharges to air from the proposed poultry operation to inform the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) for the consent application. In particular this report includes: A summary of the proposed activities as they relate to discharges of contaminants to air; A summary of the statutory context of the assessment and the requirements for resource consent for discharges to air from activities at the site; A description of the nature of the discharges to air; A description of the receiving environment in terms of sensitivity to odour and potential influences on emissions to air from site; An assessment of the actual and potential effects of the proposed discharges to air on local air quality; and A summary of conclusions and findings of the investigation. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

9 3 2 Site description Figure 2-1: Site boundary Source: Northland Regional Council Local Maps, 2017 The site is located at 5763 SH12, Arapohue, approximately 12 km south of the Dargaville urban area. The site is currently operated as a dairy farm. The existing farm buildings on site include a 50 bale rotary milking shed, calf rearing sheds, an implement shed and five dwellings. The existing farm buildings will be retained onsite. The topography at the site can be divided into the flat area to the west, and the hilly area to the east. The western area of the site comprises an alluvial flat flood plain, which ranges in elevation from 1.5 m RL to 2.0 m RL. The eastern portion of the site is hilly and the highest elevation is approximately 70 m RL at the eastern boundary of the site. A limestone quarry is located in the north-eastern corner of the site and is proposed to be utilised to provide aggregate material for the development. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd

10 4 3 Proposed activities 3.1 Overview The development of the proposed poultry farm will include the construction of 32 free range poultry sheds that will be arranged in four operational farm units of eight sheds each and house up to million chickens at a time. Each shed s dimensions will be approximately 138 m long x 20 m wide x 4.5 m in height. The sheds are proposed to be located on the flat, western portion of the site. Development of the proposed farm will require earthworks, the construction of the foundations and sheds, installation of infrastructure, including an Energy Centre building powered by litter combustion, stormwater management devices, wastewater treatment and disposal, rainwater storage tanks, installation of groundwater bores, water reticulation and a water treatment plant. In addition, the proposed poultry farm development will require construction of associated facilities, such as workers accommodation, utility sheds and vehicle tracks around the sheds connecting to a new access off SH12. Planted bunds are proposed to be constructed around the farm units to mitigate against flooding and provide screening. 3.2 Poultry farm operation The proposed poultry farm and its operation are described in the AEE. The aspects of the poultry farm design and operation relevant to discharges to air are summarised as follows: The sheds will be of a Danish SKOV design each with a floor area of 2760 m 2 (138 m long x 20 m wide); Pop-holes are located at the base of each of the side walls of each shed to allow the housed birds to range within the semi enclosed veranda area and open ranging area (21 m wide) on each side of the shed. These access points are operated automatically based on external conditions and time of day. When the pop-holes are open, the sheds are naturally/passively ventilated; When the pop-holes are closed, active ventilation will maintain negative pressure conditions within the shed. In this ventilation mode, active ventilation is to be provided by twelve SKOV DA 600 roof exhaust fans, distributed along the roof ridge to achieve uniform temperature distribution. Intake of air will be via inlet vents along both side walls; Hot water is to be reticulated to each shed from the site Energy Centre. Hot water will be circulated through each shed via hot water piping with sidewall radiators providing indirect space heating of the sheds; The combustion of litter (refer Section 0) provides more heat than is required to maintain shed conditions at optimum temperatures required for bird growth. The excess of heat is supplied to the sheds to enhance the drying of litter; If required during hot ambient conditions, high pressure water sprays mounted along each side wall can be used to provide evaporative cooling. The high pressure sprays deliver a fine water aerosol that is evaporated in air (and subsequently extracted via ventilation) allowing cooling of the internal shed climate while causing no appreciable change in litter moisture content; Dry pellet feed will be conveyed from enclosed storage silos to feed pans within the sheds. Hydration of birds will be via nipple drinkers fitted with drip trays to reduce water spillage (which would add moisture to litter and promote anaerobic degradation); and Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

11 5 Mortalities will be removed from the sheds on a daily basis and transferred to the Energy Centre for disposal via combustion. The sheds are operated on an eight week cycle involving the following: 41,400 approximately one day-old chickens are introduced to the shed at the beginning of the cycle; The birds are enclosed within the shed for the first 21 days until the birds are able to regulate their own body temperature; From this point the pop holes are opened and the birds are allowed to range during daylight hours, except when inclement weather conditions do not allow; Half of the population (females) are caught and removed at day 31; The remaining male population is subsequently caught at day 42; and The shed is then cleared of litter, which is transported to the on-site Energy Centre, and the shed is cleaned and disinfected. The sheds lie dormant for the remainder of the cycle until they are pre-heated for the next batch. The indicative bird stocking and mass cycle for each shed is illustrated in Figure 3-1. This bird growth cycle has been used to derive odour emission estimates from the shed ceiling vents over the cycle (refer Section 4.2.2). Figure 3-1: Shed bird growth and stocking cycle Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd

12 6 3.3 Energy Centre operation The operation of the Energy Centre is described in the AEE. The aspects of Energy Centre operation for this assessment relevant to air discharges are summarised as follows: Litter cleared from the sheds is transported by truck to the Energy Centre; Trucks are driven into one of three manure bays within the Energy Centre where litter is delivered and stored. Vehicle entrances to the facility are closed automatically to maintain enclosure of the building; Up to six weeks supply of litter (approximately 1,700 tonnes [T]) is to be stored within the Energy Centre with litter transferred to the burner units as required; The storage of litter over this duration may result in further anaerobic degradation and the generation of odour. The Energy Centre is therefore enclosed and maintained under negative pressure conditions to prevent the fugitive escape of internal air (and odour). Inlet air to the combustion appliances is sourced from within the building, providing the draw on the building (to maintain negative pressure conditions within the building). The use of air extracted from the building as inlet air to the burners provides thermal destruction of odour prior to discharge; There will be two burner units, each able to combust 920 kg/h of litter. The two units will provide a total net thermal output of 4 MW as hot water for reticulation around the site. Overall up to 40 tonnes per day of litter is to be combusted; Each burner utilises a fluidised bed combustion system that requires preheating at start-up, prior to introduction of litter fuel. The start-up pre-heating of the units is to be provided by LPG burners; and Exhaust gases from the combustion appliances are to be treated with bag filters and discharged either via two individual stacks. The stacks are proposed to discharge from a height of m above ground level. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

13 7 4 Nature and scale of the discharges 4.1 Discharges from poultry housing Odour from intensive indoor poultry farming operations is primarily generated from anaerobic degradation of manure and excreta from the housed chickens. The anaerobic decomposition process results in the generation of a variety of volatile odorous nitrogen, sulphur and carbon-based compounds, including mercaptans, indoles and volatile fatty acids. Due to the excretion of uric acid from chickens (in a more concentrated form than occurs from larger animals), the products of decomposition include ammonia. Anaerobic decomposition requires a number of environmental factors to occur, including: Availability of an organic matter substrate material (manure and excreta in this instance), which will be influenced by the number and age/size of birds; Availability of anaerobic bacteria (present in the manure); A lack of oxygen aerobic decomposition, which does not produce odorous compounds, will occur preferentially in the presence of oxygen until available oxygen is depleted. Availability of oxygen is likely to be reduced in wet, agglomerated litter compared to dry, friable litter; Availability of water/moisture, which is influenced directly by excretion of moisture from birds and from dripper spillage or leaks and indirectly by shed humidity (which in turn is influenced ambient humidity, shed temperature and ventilation rates and expiration of moisture from birds); Temperature the progress of different stages of anaerobic decomposition can be influenced by moving shed and litter temperature into or out of the optimal range for these microbial processes. Shed temperature will also influence humidity, with relative humidity generally increasing with temperature; and Sufficient time for decomposition to occur in this instance the manure/litter substrate is available for up to six weeks. Manipulation or control of one or more of the factors listed above can reduce odour generation. When the birds have reached sufficient age to regulate their own body temperature (21 days) and the external daytime weather conditions permit, the birds will be allowed to range and ventilation and the discharge of odour will occur passively and diffusely via the pop-holes. In addition to the on-going odour generated from the broiler sheds, the potential for odour discharges will increase temporarily when anaerobic by-products are disturbed as litter is cleaned out and removed from site at the end of each batch. Other potential poultry farm odour sources include: Manure handling and storage in this case manure/litter from the shed is to be transferred to the enclosed Energy Centre building and combusted, thereby minimising the potential for odour emissions from manure storage; Decomposition of mortalities in this case mortalities are to be combusted in the Energy Centre; Storage/treatment/irrigation of wash water the wash water is of relatively low strength and these activities are not anticipated to be a significant source of odour; Feed decomposition; and The birds themselves. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd

14 8 The nature of the odour types, the sources from which they are generated and the character and intensity are summarised in Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Summary of poultry odour sources and types Odour type Sources Character/offensiveness/intensity Manure/excreta/litter Sheds, range areas, litter removal trucks, Energy Centre storage. As noted in Appendix D, manure type odours have a strongly negative hedonic tone and ammonia, which is also generated from excreta also has a reasonably strong negative hedonic tone. These odours will potentially be of a high intensity at source within the sheds, particularly when disturbed during removal. Birds Sheds As noted in Appendix D, animal type odours such as those from the chickens have a moderately negative hedonic tone. This type of odour is likely to be of lower intensity than manure odour emitted from the sheds. Wash water Spoiled feed Wash water sumps, storage tanks and irrigation areas Feed storage silos, feeding areas within sheds Wash water will have a similar hedonic tone to manure but likely to be of a relatively low intensity due to the low strength of the wash water. There is a low potential for occurrence of spoiled feed odour if feed storage is well managed. Dust may be discharged from the operation as the sheds are cleaned out. Small amounts of litter dust may also be discharged via the exhaust fans during the on-going operation of the sheds. In addition to potentially causing soiling of nearby surfaces and property, the dust may be odorous and contain hazardous pathogenic material (manure). Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

15 9 4.2 Quantification of odour emissions Introduction As described in Section 4.1, there are a number of operational and environmental factors that can influence odour emission rates from poultry sheds. As many of these factors vary over time (e.g. on a diurnal, batch or seasonal basis), the resulting odour emissions also tend to vary over time. The methods used to estimate odour emission rates (OERs) from the shed ceiling vents, when sheds are enclosed, and side wall pop holes, when the sheds are opened to allow access to the range areas as they vary over time are described in the following subsections Ceiling vent emissions Guidance developed for the Environmental Protection Agency of Victoria (EPA Victoria) 1 specifies a method of estimating odour emissions over the batch cycle based on the overall mass of chickens. Odour emissions generated by individual birds are expressed in this method by the following equation: OER per bird = M Where M, the average mass of individual birds (kg/bird), has been based on growth curve information provided by Tegel as illustrated in Figure 3-1. Odour emissions from the ceiling vents have been assumed to be nil when the pop holes are open and the sheds are passively ventilated (refer Section 4.2.3) and when the birds have been removed at the end of the cycle until the subsequent cycle is commenced. Odour emissions estimated to occur over a year from Shed 1 of Farm Unit 1 are illustrated in Figure 4-1. Tegel has commissioned testing of broiler shed odour emissions at a poultry farm it operates in Southbridge, Canterbury. 2 The farm is a conventional broiler operation (not free-range), largely features conventional odour management measures and does not utilise the type of heating system proposed in this instance. Odour emissions measured at day 28 in the shed cycle (prior to the initial catch) averaged 2,743 OU/s per vent (of 12 vents per shed), which would equate to 32,916 OU/s for the shed (assuming all vents were discharging at the time). This compares with the estimated shed odour emission rate derived via the above method for conventional sheds at day 28 of 33,304 OU/s. The EPA Victoria emission estimation method is therefore considered to provide a reasonable approximation of odour emissions from poultry shed vents featuring conventional odour management measures (with a moderate overstatement) Side wall pop hole emissions Once the birds are old enough to regulate their own body temperature (from 21 days in this case) they are allowed to access the range areas through pop holes during daylight hours, except in inclement weather conditions. 1 Environmental Resource Management Australia Broiler Farm Odour Environmental Risk Assessment - Background to Technical Guidance. Technical Report for EPA Victoria. 2 Watercare Laboratory Services Odour Emissions Monitoring Report Tegel Foods (Canterbury). Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd

16 10 For the purposes of this investigation it has been assumed that pop holes are open (and vent operation has ceased) when the following conditions are met: The age of birds in the shed has reached 21 days; Daytime conditions (assumed to be from 8 am to 6 pm throughout the year); Hourly average wind speeds are less than 8 m/s; and Temperature is above 5 C. Odour emissions from the pop holes (when in use) have been calculated using a method for estimating natural ventilation rates and odour concentrations measured described in guidance on odour emissions from free range chicken farms published by the Australian Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) 3. The following equation describes the pop hole odour estimation method: Where: OER shed = Concentration V Cosϑ A Concentration is the geometric mean of odour concentrations measured during natural ventilation at a free range farm detailed in the RIRDC guidance document; V is ambient wind speed (in this case predicted at the site in the CALMET meteorological dataset, refer Section 7.2); ϑ is the angle of wind relative to the shed wall; and A is the total area of pop holes on the side of the shed facing the wind. Pop hole odour emissions estimated to occur over a year from Shed 1 of Farm Unit 1 in 2012 are illustrated in Figure Australian RIRDC Free range chickens odour emissions and nutrient management. RIRDC Publication #15/017. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

17 11 Figure 4-1: Example of conventional estimate of shed odour emission rates from vents and pop holes Farm Unit 1 Shed 1, 2012 Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

18 Quantification of mitigation of odour emissions Both of the emission estimation methods described in Sections and have been based on measurements of odour emission from older and less technologically advanced sheds in Australia. These sheds involved one of more of the following design or operational aspects that provide for less effective management of odour emissions than that proposed (refer Section 7.1): Tunnel (or natural) ventilation; Reuse of litter; and Conventional heating and ventilation regimes focussing on minimising energy use. The emission estimates therefore do not accurately reflect the management and mitigation measures proposed to be employed the site and are likely to overstate potential odour emissions from the proposed operation. A shed operation study was conducted by the Energy Centre supplier, BHSL, in early 2017 at a US poultry farm. The study compared shed conditions when conventional heating and ventilation regimes are employed with concurrent conditions in sheds utilising the BHSL heating system proposed to be employed by Tegel. A number of internal shed environment parameters were monitored, including shed ammonia concentrations. As a product of anaerobic degradation, ammonia levels may be used as a broad indicator of anaerobic activity in shed litter. Over the trial period, encompassing one batch cycle, the internal ammonia concentrations were on average 51 % lower in the two sheds utilising the BHSL heating system compared with the two conventional sheds. In order to better reflect the lower odour emissions that are expected to occur at the site as a consequence of the improved odour management measures, the odour emissions derived by the methods outlined in Sections and have been multiplied by 51 %. As the BHSL measurements reflect only one of the measures proposed to be employed by Tegel to improve odour management compared to the operations that formed the basis of the emission estimation methods, it is likely that this modification to odour estimates would still overstate odour emission rates from the site. 4.3 Quantification of Energy Centre emissions Combustion by-products including fine particulate matter, nitrogen dioxides (NO x), sulphur dioxide (SO 2) and carbon monoxide (CO) will be emitted from the combustion of litter and LPG. Mortalities are also proposed to be combusted, however given the relatively small quantity they have been assumed to have negligible impact on emissions. The combustion plant manufacturer, BHSL, has specified maximum emission concentrations within which the plant is designed to operate. They have supplied combustion plant emission test results from a unit located at a farm in England that confirm these emission rates can be met. Peak contaminant emission rates estimated to occur from a single combustion unit (four units are proposed) are detailed in the following table. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

19 13 Table 4.2: Estimated peak litter burner contaminant emission rates Contaminant Specified maximum emission concentration* Particulate 10 mg/nm g/s NO x 200 mg/nm g/s SO 2 50 mg/nm g/s CO 50 mg/nm g/s Hydrogen Chloride 10 mg/nm g/s Odour 1,462 OU/m 3 * 1512 OU/s Estimated peak emission rates individual burner unit *Maximum emission concentrations specified by the manufacturer, BHSL, except for odour concentrations which have been based on odour emission test results Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

20 14 5 Environmental setting 5.1 Locality and adjacent activities As illustrated in Figure 5-1, the site is located in a rural area on the east (true left) bank of the Wairoa River approximately 12 km south-southwest of Dargaville. Te Kopuru township lies on the opposite bank of the Wairoa River, approximately 1.5 km from the site. Figure 5-1: Site and wider area The alluvial river plain to the north and west of the site is occupied by pastoral farming and cropping activities, interspersed with the occasional rural dwelling. Arapohue Primary School and a cluster of dwellings are located along Mititai Road, between 1 and 1.5 km north of the site. Kāpehu Marae lies adjacent to the northeast corner of the site. The hillier areas to the south and east south of the site also feature pastoral farming interspersed with rural dwellings as well as areas of scrub and native bush. Due to both low population density and the background of rural odours that may be expected from the agricultural activities in the area, the surrounding rural area is generally insensitive to odour and other air pollutants emitted from the proposed activities. However, sensitivity to odour will be elevated at the rural dwellings, where consistent human occupation is likely and expectations of amenity will be higher. Expectation of amenity may also be high in garden and yard areas within the immediate curtilage of the dwelling. Written approvals for the consent application have been provided from the owners/occupiers of the four dwellings either within or nearest the site, namely those at: 5793 State Highway 12; 5802 State Highway 12; Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

21 15 65 Whakahara Road; and 89 Whakahara Road. The location of these dwellings in relation to the site is illustrated in Figure 5-2. As the written approval of the owners and occupiers of these properties has been provided, the potential air quality impacts on these properties have not been considered further in this assessment. Sensitivity to odour and air pollutants will be highest at Te Kopuru and the cluster of dwellings along Mititai Road to the north of the site, due to the higher density of residential activity in these areas. Sensitive receptor locations incorporated into the dispersion modelling investigation (refer Section 7.2.1) including the nearest rural dwellings, the nearest dwellings at Te Kopuru, Kāpehu Marae and Arapohue Primary School, are illustrated in Figure 5-2. Figure 5-2: Location of dwellings and other sensitive activities in the area of the site dwellings from which written approval are annotated in yellow 5.2 Topography The topography of the area can influence localised wind and air flow patterns and therefore the dispersion of odour emitted from a site. In this instance local wind flows will be influenced by the orientation of the Wairoa River and the adjacent river plain on which the sheds are proposed to be sited. Local wind flows will also be Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

22 16 influenced by the elevations in terrain to the east and south of the plain and by the elevated ridge to the north, which Mititai Road follows. The proximity of the Tasman Sea (approximately 10 km to the east) and the Kaipara Harbour further to the south may influence regional wind patterns. An example of how local terrain can influence wind conditions is provided in Figure 5-3, which illustrates surface wind flow predicted to occurring in the area through meteorological modelling (refer Section 7.2.1) in light southwest wind conditions. Figure 5-3: Surface wind field predicted by CALMET in area of site, hour to 2am 1 January 2015, overlain over terrain 5.3 Meteorological conditions Weather conditions can have a significant influence on the dispersion of odour emissions. The most influential meteorological parameters on the dispersion of odour from diffuse emission sources such as the proposed poultry farm operation are wind speed and direction, and atmospheric stability. The wind rose frequency analysis of wind speed and directions observed at the Dargaville meteorological station, located approximately 12 km to the north-northwest of the site, from 2013 to 2015 is provided in Figure 5-4. Although local variations in terrain and the proximity of the Wairoa River will result in localised differences in wind patterns, wind conditions measured at Dargaville are likely to be broadly representative of regional wind patterns in the area. At Dargaville there is a reasonably strong prevalence of winds from the south-southwest, a moderate secondary prevalence for wind from the northeast and little wind from the southeast quadrant. A low frequency of calm conditions (0.3 %) was recorded at Dargaville over the period 2013 to 2016, possibly as a result of the elevated location of the weather station (66 m RL compared with the elevation at the sheds 1.5 m to 2 m RL). Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

23 17 Figure 5-4: Frequency distribution of wind speeds and direction measurements, Dargaville 2 EWS (wind blowing from directions, 1- hour averages, data sourced from the NIWA CliFlo database) A comparison of measured surface meteorological observations with equivalent predictions derived from the CALMET meteorological model (refer Section 7.2) is set out in Appendix C. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

24 18 6 Assessment methodology 6.1 Introduction The discharges to air from the operation of the poultry farm and Energy Centre include odour, dust and combustion emissions. The methods used to assess the air quality impacts of each type of emission are described in the following subsections. 6.2 Poultry farm odour assessment method The Ministry for the Environment s Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing Odour in New Zealand (MfE, November 2016) (MfE Odour GPG) sets out the various approaches and information that can be used to carry out an odour assessment, depending on the particular circumstances. Table 6.1 considers the relevance of the various odour assessment tools described in the MfE Odour GPG to the particular circumstances of this assessment. Table 6.1: Consideration of MfE Odour GPG odour assessment tools for this assessment Assessment tool Community consultation Experience and knowledge from other sites of a similar nature, scale and location, including consideration of appropriate separation distances Site management and contingency plans, and whether the best practicable option is being applied Process controls and design, including details of emission controls and engineering risk assessment for system failures Analysis of site-specific meteorology and topographical features Dynamic dilution olfactometry (DDO) measurements and odour dispersion modelling Evaluation of relevance to this assessment Tegel has consulted with and obtained the written approval of a number of neighbours. Otherwise, as the operation does not yet exist no community information can be gained on current or historical odour levels. Similar shed design and operational methods have been employed by Tegel at one recently commissioned farm in Canterbury. Sufficient environmental measurements and observational data is not yet available from this operation to be incorporated in this assessment. However, measurements from similar operations overseas have been utilised in determining the extent of odour emissions likely to result from the operation. A site environmental management plan is to be developed for the site. Measures to control and mitigate odour emissions from the site are considered in Section 7.1. Engineering risk assessments are more relevant to industrial point source odour discharges than to this type of operation. A summary of local meteorological conditions and topography is provided in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. Meteorological and topographical conditions have also been incorporated into the dispersion modelling investigation. Given the proposed nature of the operation, site specific measurements are not possible. Odour emissions have therefore been based on estimation methods specified by Australian regulatory agencies and measurements conducted in manufacturer studies. The potential impact of the quantified odour emissions on air quality in the area has then been predicted using atmospheric dispersion modelling. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

25 19 Given the evaluation set out above, the assessment of potential odour nuisance effects described in Section 7 has been based on the following assessment methods: Review of the odour generating activities and the measures proposed to manage odour emissions and mitigate the potential for odour nuisance effects (Section 7.1); Odour dispersion modelling including a risk assessment of odour impacts at peak sensitive receptor locations (Sections 7.2 and 7.3); and Consideration of the FIDOL factors (Section 7.4) to summarise potential odour impacts. 6.3 Poultry farm dust assessment In relation to the assessment of dust emissions from the operation of the farm, the majority of dust particles generated by mechanical activities, such as cleaning out the sheds, would drift to the ground within approximately 100 to 200 m of the source (depending on particle size density and wind speed). As the nearest off-site dwelling (where sensitivity to dust is likely to be high) is at least 300 m from the nearest shed, it is unlikely that operational dust emissions will cause adverse effects beyond the site boundary. The effects of operational dust emissions are not considered further. 6.4 Energy centre combustion emission assessment method A number of contaminants emitted from combustion of litter and LPG in the Energy Centre (including fine particulate, NO x, CO and SO 2) have the potential to cause adverse health effects if human exposure. Although the use of air extracted from the Energy Centre building is likely to destroy odorous contaminants, residual odour may be present in the exhaust from the combustion appliances. The impact of emissions of these products of combustion and odour from the Energy Centre on local air quality have been assessed using atmospheric dispersion modelling. Odour dispersion details and findings are described in Sections 7.2 and 7.3. The assessment of combustion emissions is summarised in Section 8. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

26 20 7 Assessment of effects of odour emissions 7.1 Management of odour and mitigation of nuisance effects The proposed poultry farm will incorporate a number of features that will have direct beneficial effects in reducing odour effects compared to conventional methods used in poultry farms in New Zealand. As discussed in Section 4.1, odour generation from poultry shed is primarily minimised by controlling the temperature and moisture content of litter at levels outside of the optimum range for anaerobic degradation. This is achieved through control of climate within the sheds. Odour mitigation measures proposed to be installed are summarised and compared with alternatives in the following table. Table 7.1: Consideration of proposed mitigation measures and alternatives Proposed odour mitigation measure Stocking density (in terms of number of birds over the internal shed area and bird mass over shed area) dictates manure generation rates and therefore influences odour generation potential. In this instance the stocking rate is based on a free range stocking density of 15 birds/m 2 Computerised climate control utilising continuous monitoring of temperature, humidity and CO 2 levels within the shed. Heat is supplied to the sheds from the Energy Centre by reticulated hot water or steam circuits (with radiators mounted on sidewalls within the sheds) without adding moisture to the sheds. Combustion of litter provides an excess of energy for heating. Additional heating and ventilation of sheds is employed to reduce moisture content. Used litter is removed and replaced at the end of each batch. Water for the birds is supplied by nipple drinkers fitted with drip trays to avoid water spillages to litter. Ventilation (while the sheds are enclosed) is to be via ceiling exhaust fans interspersed along the roof apex of each shed. The exhaust vents are fitted with chimney stacks to improve atmospheric dispersion of emissions. When required, further cooling is to be provided with evaporative water mist sprays. Comparative effectiveness of conventional alternative measures Conventional sheds typically house up to 20 birds/m 2, resulting in a higher odour generation potential. Older sheds do not provide automated control of internal climate conditions, potentially promoting anaerobic degradation Direct firing of sheds using LPG burners introduces moisture as a combustion by-product, increasing shed humidity and litter moisture content and promoting anaerobic degradation. More direct drying of poultry litter could potentially be provided by utilising hot water fed underfloor circuits in addition to or in replacement of the sidewall radiators. To minimise costs, LPG fired heating is usually provided at minimum levels required to provide for bird comfort rather than to dry the litter. Litter may be partially or completely reused between batches, increasing the availability of organic content for anaerobic degradation. Water spillage from bell or cup drinkers can increase moisture content of litter. The alternative of tunnel ventilation would provide for less even control of climate within sheds (potentially promoting anaerobic degradation in places) and less effective horizontal dispersion of odour emissions. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

27 21 Proposed odour mitigation measure Used litter removed from the sheds is to be stored on-site in the Energy Centre, which is enclosed and maintained under negative pressure. Air extracted from the building is combusted in litter burner appliances, providing thermal destruction of odour. Comparative effectiveness of conventional alternative measures Litter removed from site for disposal elsewhere could potentially result in intermittent odour from trucks used for transport. Without extraction and combustion of air within the building the Energy Centre, odour may be diffusely emitted from the building. In summary, a high standard of management of odour is proposed to be employed at the site. Measures such as the drying of litter with excess heat provided by litter combustion should substantially reduce odour emissions from the anaerobic degradation of manure from intensive broiler poultry operations historically developed in New Zealand. 7.2 Odour dispersion modelling details Summary of dispersion model selection and configuration The dispersion model selection and configuration may be summarised as follows: Dispersion modelling of odour was conducted using the CALPUFF suite of modelling software; Two three-dimensional meteorological models of the local area (over a 24 km x 24 km domain with a fine 200 m grid resolution) for the 2012 and 2015 calendar years were developed using CALMET (v6.5) software. The meteorological model incorporated surface meteorological observations from the nearest meteorological station at Dargaville and upper air data predicted using the prognostic meteorological modelling software, The Air Pollution Model (TAPM, v4.0); Odour concentrations resulting from the discharges from the proposed poultry sheds and Energy Centre stacks have been predicted using CALPUFF (v7.2) software; Emissions were modelled for two separate scenarios: Conventional odour management scenario: Odour emission estimates derived using the methodologies described in Sections and for poultry sheds featuring conventional odour management methods. As noted in Section 0 these unmodified estimates are likely to overstate odour emissions from the proposed poultry operation; and Site specific odour management scenario: More likely modified odour emission estimates equating to 51% of the above emission estimates on the basis of ammonia emission testing described in Section Emissions have been modelled as occurring from ceiling vents (as stack point sources) when the sheds are enclosed and as occurring from diffuse volume sources when the sidewall pop holes are open to allow ranging. To reduce model complexity, emissions have been modelled as occurring from four point and four volume sources for each shed (emissions from twelve ceiling vents have been assumed to occur from four enlarged point sources); Poultry shed source discharge parameters are described in Table 7.2; Each scenario assumes that the shed clearing cycle for the site consists of a shed being cleared of litter (at the end of the growing cycle) nine days in every fortnight (i.e. every weekday bar every second Friday); Odour emissions from each shed are likely to briefly increase as litter is removed. However, due to the low duration and frequency of occurrence (likely to occur from each shed for no Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

28 22 more than a few hours every eight weeks) and lack of reliable odour quantification data, shed clean out emissions have not been included in the model; Odour emissions from the Energy Centre combustion appliances have been included as two point sources (refer Section 8.1 for details); The downwash effects of the poultry sheds and Energy Centre on the dispersion of emissions from the modelled point sources has been incorporated using the BPIP-Prime algorithm; and Ground level odour concentrations resulting from the poultry farm emissions have been predicted at the sensitive receptors illustrated in Section 5.1 and over a 5 km 4 km cartesian grid of receptors at 100 m spacing (the domain has been extended to the west to encompass Te Kopuru). An example of the atmospheric dispersion modelling configuration used in this investigation is provided in Appendix B. A comparison of measured surface meteorological observations with equivalent prediction derived from the CALMET meteorological model in Appendix C. Table 7.2: Modelled ceiling vent and pop hole emission rates and discharge parameters (individual stack parameters for the two equivalent modelled stacks) Parameter Shed odour emission rate: active ceiling ventilation Shed odour emission rate: passive pop hole ventilation Total sheds 32 Stack vents per shed 4 Ceiling vent discharge height Collective ceiling vent diameter Value Variable over time: Site specific odour management scenario: 663 OU/s 19,000 OU/s* Conventional odour management scenario: 1,308 OU/s 37,256 OU/s* Variable over time: Site specific odour management scenario: 1 OU/s 26,530 OU/s* Conventional odour management scenario: 2 OU/s 52,020 OU/s* 6.2 m 1.58 m Stack exhaust temperature 20 C Stack exhaust velocity Pop hole volume sources per shed 4 Volume source effective height Volume source σ y Volume source σ z 4.1 m/s 2.25 m 8 m 1.55 m *Nil odour emissions assumed during cleaning and disinfection period Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

29 Odour assessment criteria Odour concentrations predicted in dispersion modelling may be compared with relevant criteria to assess the potential for nuisance effects. The MfE Odour GPG recommends guideline values the assessment of odour modelling concentration predictions as outlined in the following table. Table 7.3: MfE Odour GPG recommended odour-modelling guideline values Sensitivity of the receptor location Concentration Percentiles High (worst-case impacts during unstable to semi-unstable conditions) 1 OU/m % and 0.5 % High (worst-case impacts during neutral to stable conditions) 2 OU/m % and 0.5% Moderate (all conditions) 5 OU/m % and 0.5 % Low (all conditions) 5-10 OU/m % The odour modelling guidelines take account of the frequency, intensity, duration and location of the odours (four of the five FIDOL factors discussed further in Section 7.4). However they do not take account of the character or offensiveness of the odour. In relation to the specific potential odour nuisance of poultry odour, 5 OU/m 3 as a 99.5 th percentile has been accepted as an appropriate assessment criterion for the predicted impact of poultry farm odour emissions at rural dwellings (and associated curtilages) in a recent Environment Court decision (2016 Craddock Farms appeal decision) 4 and has therefore been adopted in this assessment Odour risk assessment matrix The Victorian Code for Broiler Farms 2009 provides a mechanism for further assessment of the risk of adverse odour impacts in the event that odour assessment criteria are predicted to be exceeded at particular locations. In a 2011 hearing decision relating to a proposed expansion of an existing intensive poultry farm, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) specified a matrix for assessing the risk of odour impacts 5. This risk assessment matrix, detailed in the following table, has been subsequently incorporated into Australian RIRDC guidance on dispersion modelling of odour emissions from intensive poultry farming 6. The statutory context in which the VCAT decision was made differs from that in New Zealand. The VCAT approach deems a high risk of odour impacts to be unacceptable and in applying this approach in a New Zealand context this level of risk has been taken to equate to a likelihood of offensive or objectionable odour. 4 [2016] NZEnvC 051 Craddock Farms Limited v Auckland Council 5 Barac v Strathbogie SC [2011] VCAT 1146 (20 June 2011) 6 Australian RIRDC 2014 Odour Dispersion Modelling of Meat Chicken Farms-Comparison of AERMOD, AUSPLUME and CALPUFF models Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

30 24 Table 7.4: VCAT Odour Impact Risk Assessment Matrix Peak odour concentrations (OU/m 3 ) > Mean odour concentration (OU/m 3 ) > Frequency (events/year) Very annoying Annoying Noticeable and identifiable May notice More than once per week (>52 ) High High High Low 1 per week to 1 per fortnight (26-52) High High Medium Low 1 per fortnight to 1 per month (12-26) High High Medium Low 1 per month to 1 per 2 months (6-12) Medium Medium Low Low Every 2 months to every 4 months (4-6) Medium Medium Low Negligible Once to 3 times (1-3) Low Low Low Negligible To further explore the potential for odour effects and offensive and objectionable odour at sensitive receptor locations where the 5 OU/m 3 (99.5 th percentile) criterion described in Section is predicted to be exceeded, a risk assessment has been conducted for sensitive receptor locations in accordance with the VCAT approach. 7.3 Dispersion modelling predictions Peak odour concentrations predicted at neighbouring dwellings (as the most sensitive receptors) are presented in Table 7.5. The odour concentrations are compared with the odour assessment criterion described in Section of 5 OU/m 3 as a 99.5 th percentile. Table 7.5: Summary of predicted 99.5 th percentile odour concentrations at local dwellings Location Peak sensitive receptor 5590 SH12 (Lot 1 DP 47411) 99.5 th percentile 1-hour average odour concentration (OU/m 3 ) Site specific management scenario Conventional management scenario Peak urban receptor Clean St, Te Kopuru Peak dwelling to south 5590 SH12 (Lot 1 DP 47411) Peak dwelling to north 3299 Mititai Road Kāpehu Marae Arapohue School Odour assessment criterion 5 As noted in Section 4.2.2, the emission estimation methodology used in the conventional odour management scenario is likely to overstate odour emissions from the site. For this reason this assessment has focussed on the site-specific emission scenario. The spatial distribution of 99.5 th percentile odour concentrations in this scenario predicted to occur in the area in the 2012 and 2015 model years is illustrated in the following figure. Odour dispersion contour plots for all scenarios are presented in Appendix A. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

31 Figure 7-1: Spatial distribution of predicted 99.5 th percentile 1-hour average odour concentrations site specific management scenario, 2012 and 2015 model years Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

32 26 Under the site-specific manufacturing scenario odour concentrations at most sensitive receptor locations are remain within 5 OU/m 3 assessment criterion as a 99.5 th percentile. However, odour concentrations are predicted to exceed the criterion at dwellings at the following addresses to the south of the site: 5590 SH12 (featuring three dwellings); and 5562 SH12. The location of these receptors is illustrated in Figure 7-3 (characterised via the risk assessment described in below in Table 7.6). The percentile frequency of odour concentrations predicted at each of these receptors over the two years of the dispersion modelling period is illustrated in Figure 7-2. Figure 7-2: Cumulative percentile frequency of odour concentrations predicted at peak sensitive receptors The frequency at which the four dwellings are predicted to be exposed to odour varies. Of the four dwellings, exposure to odour is predicted to be most frequent at the cottage at 5590 SH12 (Lot 1 DP 47411), located closest to the site across Whakahara Road. Conversely the frequency of odour exposure is lowest (of the four dwellings) at 5562 SH12 where over the two years the 99.5 th percentile 1-hour average concentration is not predicted to exceed the 5 OU/m 3 assessment criterion discussed in Section The 99.5 th percentile concentration was 5.2 OU/m 3 at this location in 2012 but a lower concentration of 3.9 OU/m 3 was predicted for The results of the risk assessment of odour nuisance at the four dwellings, in accordance with the VCAT method described in Section 7.2.3, are summarised in Table 7.6. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

33 27 Table 7.6: VCAT odour risk assessment for peak sensitive receptors Address Odour concentration category (OU/m 3 ) 5590 SH12 (Lot 2 DP ) Predicted frequency of occurrence (h/y) SH12 (Lot 1 DP 47411) SH12 (Lot 1 DP ) SH The VCAT risk assessment highlights a high risk of odour nuisance effects at the three dwellings at 5590 SH12 and a medium risk of odour impacts at the dwelling at 5562 SH12 further south. Figure 7-3: Location of identified dwellings at high (yellow) and medium (cyan) risk of odour impacts Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

34 Consideration of FIDOL factors and summary of odour nuisance effects The potential for odour nuisance, and the potential for objectionable or offensive effects in particular may be assessed by considering what are termed the FIDOL factors (frequency, intensity, duration, offensiveness/character and location) of locations where odour may be observed. These factors are considered in relation to the potential for odour nuisance at local dwellings in Table 7.7. Table 7.7: Consideration of FIDOL factors Factor Offensiveness/character Locational sensitivity Frequency/intensity/ duration Consideration As noted in Section 4.1 with reference to Appendix D, chicken manure odour has an unpleasant hedonic tone. Ammonia generated from the manure and bird/feather type odours from the operation also have negative hedonic tone, but to a lesser extent compared to chicken manure odour. In general, the pastoral/cropping areas that form the majority of the receiving environment have a low sensitivity to odour given the infrequent and transient human occupation of these areas and potential for background agricultural type odour. However, sensitivity will be elevated at rural dwellings due to prolonged human occupation and high expectation of amenity. Written approval has been obtained from the owners/occupiers of the nearest dwellings to the site. Sensitivity to odour effects will be greatest within the Te Kopuru urban area due to the density of residential activity and higher associated population density. Overall the sensitivity of the receiving environment is generally low, except at rural residences and at Te Kopuru. The frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to odour within the receiving environment is dependent on the strength of emissions and meteorological conditions. These factors have been assessed by quantifying the odour emissions and using atmospheric dispersion modelling to predict odour concentrations in the receiving environment. This assessment shows that there is little appreciable risk of odour nuisance effects at most locations in the surrounding area. However, it also shows that there is an elevated risk of odour nuisance effects at nearby sensitive locations to the south of the site. In particular, a high risk is identified at the three dwellings on the properties at 5590 SH12 as well as a medium risk at the dwelling at 5562 SH12. While the assessment is intentionally conservative and likely to overstate odour nuisance impacts, it indicates a potential for offensive and objectionable odour at dwellings in close proximity to the site the south. Overall, having assessed the discharges against the FIDOL framework, the potential for odour impacts at most locations in the receiving environment is assessed as being low. However the risk of odour nuisance impacts is assessed as being high at the three dwellings at 5590 SH12 and moderate at the dwelling at 5562 SH12 to the site to the south. The assessment therefore highlights a potential for offensive or objectionable odour at these sensitive locations. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

35 29 8 Assessment of potential health effects of combustion emissions 8.1 Combustion emissions dispersion modelling details The dispersion modelling configuration for the combustion emissions is as described for odour dispersion modelling in Section 7.2.1, with the following modifications: The exhaust discharge from the two Energy Centre burners have been modelled as occurring from a two point stack sources; Emissions have assumed to occur continuously at the peak contaminant emission rates described in Table 4.2 (collectively at four times the individual unit emission rates); In this rural receiving environment, which is likely to have generally good background air quality, background contaminant concentrations and cumulative impacts with the Energy Centre emissions have not been considered; and Predicted NO x concentrations have been assumed to be comprised completely of NO 2. As the majority of NO x (~90 %) is likely to be emitted as NO and converted in atmosphere to NO 2 at a rate and extent determined by oxidant availability, this assumption is likely to substantially overestimate NO 2 concentrations. The modelled discharge parameters for the individual Energy Centre stacks are described in the following table. Table 8.1: Modelled individual Energy Centre stack emission rates and discharge parameters Parameter Number of stacks 2 PM 10 emission rate* NO x emission rate SO 2 emission rate Odour emission rate Stack discharge height Stack diameter Value 0.02 g/s 0.38 g/s 0.1 g/s 5,000 OU/s 16.8 m 0.57 m Stack exhaust temperature 140 C Stack exhaust velocity 10 m/s *All particulate emissions have been assumed to be comprised of PM Health assessment criteria The ambient contaminant concentrations predicted using dispersion modelling have been compared with relevant criteria to assess the potential for adverse health effects. The Ministry for the Environment s Good Practice guidance 7 recommends the following priority order for the selection of air quality criteria: Ambient air quality standards specified in the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004 (NESAQ); New Zealand Ambient Air Quality Guidelines (AAQG) published by the Ministry for the Environment (2002); and 7 Good Practice Guide for Assessing Discharges to Air from Industry. Ministry for the Environment Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

36 30 Regional criteria in this case the Ambient Air Quality Guidelines for Northland specified in the RAQPN are either equivalent to or less stringent than the corresponding NESAQ and MfE AAQG criteria and the latter criteria have been preferred in this assessment. The relevant criteria for the contaminants discharged from the Energy Centre are summarised in the following table. Table 8.2: Air quality assessment criteria Contaminant Concentration (µg/m 3 ) Time average Permissible annual exceedances Source PM hour Annual 1 N/A NESAQ MfE AAQG NO hour 24 hour 9 N/A NESAQ MfE AAQG SO hour 24-hour 9 N/A NESAQ MfE AAQG 8.3 Combustion emissions dispersion modelling predictions The peak contributions of emissions from the Energy Centre to 1-hour average and 24-hour average concentrations of PM 10, NO 2 and SO 2 at sensitive receptor locations are detailed and compared with relevant health based assessment criteria in Table 8.3 and Table 8.4, respectively. Table 8.3: Summary of peak predicted contributions of Energy Centre emissions to 1-hour average contaminant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations Location Peak 1-hour average concentration (µg/m 3 )* NO 2 SO 2 Peak sensitive receptor Kāpehu Marae Peak urban receptor Bickers Road, Te Kopuru Peak dwelling to south 5590 SH12 (Lot 1 DP 47411) Peak dwelling to north 3299 Mititai Road Kāpehu Marae Arapohue School Assessment criteria 200 (NESAQ) 350 (NESAQ) * In accordance with MfE guidance on atmospheric dispersion modelling, the 99.9 th percentile of predictions have been assumed to represent the peak 1-hour average contaminant concentrations Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

37 31 Table 8.4: Summary of peak predicted contributions of Energy Centre emissions to 24-hour average contaminant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations Location Peak 24-hour average concentration (µg/m 3 ) PM 10 NO 2 SO 2 Peak sensitive receptor Kāpehu Marae Peak urban receptor Bickers Road, Te Kopuru Peak dwelling to south 5590 SH12 (Lot 1 DP 47411) Peak dwelling to north 3299 Mititai Road Kāpehu Marae Arapohue School Assessment criteria 50 (NESAQ) 100 (AAQG) 120 (AAQG) The Energy Centre is proposed to be centrally located within the site and, based on the emission specifications provided by the manufacturer, emissions from the combustion appliances will be well controlled. As a result, the potential impacts of combustion emissions on local air pollutant levels are predicted to be low relative to the relevant health-based assessment criteria (less than 11% of criteria levels in each case). As a result emissions to air from the combustion of used litter, chicken mortalities and LPG are not anticipated to cause any discernible adverse effects on human health with the receiving environment. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

38 32 9 Conclusions Tegel s proposed development of a free-range broiler poultry farm at Arapohue housing up to million broiler chickens will result in the discharge of odour, dust and combustion contaminants to air. The following conclusions are drawn from this assessment of the potential impacts of the discharges on air quality: The discharges of contaminants (primarily odour and dust) to air from the operation of the farm are classified as a permitted activity under the RAQPN but, out of caution in light of the scale of the proposed operation, resource consent is sought for these discharges. Resource consent is explicitly required for the discharges from combustion of used litter and LPG to provide heat for the operation. The potential impacts of both sets of discharges on air quality are considered in this document; The temporary discharges of dust from construction activities associated with the development, including earthworks and operation of the on-site quarry, are considered to be a permitted activity under the RAQPN and are not considered further in this document; The local area is primarily rural in nature and comprised mainly of pasture and cropland. These areas are of relatively low sensitivity to the discharged contaminants. However, sensitivity will be elevated at rural dwellings interspersed throughout the area and at the local marae and school. Sensitivity to the contaminants will be highest in the Te Kopuru urban area, across the Wairoa River, due to the increased intensity of residential activity; Discharges of dust from the operation of the farm will be minimal and unlikely to cause any discernible adverse effects with this largely rural receiving environment; Combustion emissions from the site Energy Centre are likely to be well managed through the containment and control measures proposed and the Energy Centre location is well separated from the site boundary. As a result off-site impacts on off-site air pollutant levels is predicted to be minimal and no discernible adverse effects on human health of amenity are anticipated; Discharges of odour from the operation have the potential to adversely affect amenity in the receiving environment, however: The principal source of odour from intensive poultry farming is anaerobic degradation of manure/litter. Inhibition of this microbial process through manipulation of internal shed environmental and litter conditions can reduce potential odour emissions; The proposed poultry farm development incorporates a number of design and operational measures that should reduce odour emissions from the poultry sheds (by minimising anaerobic degradation of manure) and help to disperse odour generated within the sheds on discharge, including: o o o Use of European designed, climate controlled sheds to maintain internal climate conditions that retard anaerobic degradation; Increased use of heat provided by the Energy Centre (and ventilation) to reduce litter moisture content within the sheds, further inhibiting anaerobic degradation; and Use of ceiling fans to improve dispersion when poultry sheds are enclosed. As a result, a high standard of odour mitigation is proposed and the poultry sheds are likely to produce substantially less intense emissions than has historically resulted from broiler chicken sheds typically installed in New Zealand and Australia; Odour emissions from the sheds over the batch cycle have been estimated using an Australian method that accounts for the scale of the operation and the growth of birds Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

39 33 over the cycle. The estimation method has been based on odour measurements at older Australian operations featuring a less advanced odour mitigation methods. Modified estimates of odour emissions, based on measured reductions in anaerobic by-products achieved in manufacturer testing at American installations, have therefore also been used to provide a more realistic estimate of emissions from the proposed operation; and Atmospheric dispersion modelling has been used to predict the potential impacts of the estimated odour emissions on odour levels the local area. Odour modelling predictions indicate that the risk of odour impacts at most locations in the receiving environment is low but is assessed as being high at three dwellings at 5590 SH12 adjacent to the site to the south and moderate at the dwelling further south at 5562 SH12. This highlights a potential for offensive or objectionable poultry farm odour to occur at these sensitive locations and particular care and attention will need to be paid to manging odour emissions from the operation to avoid such effects at these locations. Overall the assessment indicates that a high standard of management of emissions to air is proposed and that at most locations the potential for adverse air quality effects as a result of the proposed poultry farm (and ancillary activities) is low. However, the assessment also indicates that there is an elevated risk of odour nuisance effects at four dwellings located in close proximity to the site to the south. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

40 34 10 Applicability This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client Tegel Foods Ltd, with respect to the particular brief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other purpose, or by any person other than our client, without our prior written agreement. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Report prepared by: Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by: Jason Pene Senior Environmental Engineer Jenny Simpson Project Director JAP \\ttgroup.local\files\aklprojects\ \issueddocuments\final issued to tegel\volume 2\technical report e - air quality impact assessment.docx Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Free Range Broiler Farm, Arapohue - Air quality impact assessment Tegel Foods Ltd October 2017 Job No:

41 Appendix A : Odour dispersion contour plots

42 Figure A1: Spatial distribution of peak contributions of energy centre discharges to local 1-hour average NO 2 concentrations 2012 model year (99.9th percentile 1- hour average concentrations, 10 µg/m 3 contour increments) A1

43 Figure A2: Spatial distribution of peak contributions of energy centre discharges to local 1-hour average NO 2 concentrations 2015 model year (99.9th percentile 1- hour average concentrations, 10 µg/m 3 contour increments) A2

44 Figure A3: Spatial distribution of peak contributions of energy centre discharges to local 24-hour average PM 10 concentrations, 2012 model year (maximum 24-hour average concentrations, 0.5 µg/m 3 contour increments) A3

45 Figure A4: Spatial distribution of peak contributions of energy centre discharges to local 24-hour average PM 10 concentrations, 2015 model year (maximum 24-hour average concentrations, 0.5 µg/m 3 contour increments) A4

46 Figure A5: Spatial distribution of peak odour concentrations resulting from the proposed poultry farm site specific management scenario, 2012 model year (99.5 th percentile 1- hour average odour concentrations, 1 OU/m 3 contour increments) A5

47 Figure A6: Spatial distribution of peak odour concentrations resulting from the proposed poultry farm site specific management scenario, 2015 model year (99.5 th percentile 1- hour average odour concentrations, 1 OU/m 3 contour increments)) A6

48 Figure A7: Spatial distribution of peak odour concentrations resulting from the proposed poultry farm conventional management scenario, 2012 model year (99.5 th percentile 1- hour average odour concentrations, 1 OU/m 3 contour increments) A7

49 Figure A8: Spatial distribution of peak odour concentrations resulting from the proposed poultry farm conventional management scenario, 2015 model year (99.5 th percentile 1- hour average odour concentrations, 1 OU/m 3 contour increments) A8

50 Appendix B : Model configuration summaries

51 CALPUFF Parameters Tegel Arapohue Poultry Farm Odour 2012 CALMET, 5 x 4 km 100m Sample Grid - Farm 4 Sheds Pophole Emissions as 4 Voume Sources Per Shed - Excl Vent Emissions INPUT GROUP: 0 -- Input and Output File Names PUFLST CONDAT DFDAT WFDAT LCFILES NMETDOM NMETDAT NPTDAT NARDAT NVOLDAT NFLDAT NRDDAT NLNDAT METDAT METDAT METDAT METDAT METDAT METDAT METDAT METDAT CALPUFF output list file (CALPUFF.LST) CALPUFF output concentration file (CONC.DAT) CALPUFF output dry deposition flux file (DFLX.DAT) CALPUFF output wet deposition flux file (WFLX.DAT) Lower case file names (T = lower case, F = upper case) CALPUFF.LST CONC.DAT DFLX.DAT WFLX.DAT Number of CALMET.DAT domains 1 Number of CALMET.DAT input files 8 Number of PTEMARB.DAT input files 0 Number of BAEMARB.DAT input files 0 Number of VOLEMARB.DAT input files 1 Number of FLEMARB.DAT input files 0 Number of RDEMARB.DAT input files 0 Number of LNEMARB.DAT input files 0 CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT F CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 1 of 9

52 INPUT GROUP: 0 -- Input and Output File Names VOLDAT Volume source varying emissions file (VOLEMARB.DAT) VOLEMARB-F4iV-32 v-point dat INPUT GROUP: 1 -- General Run Control Parameters METRUN IBYR IBMO IBDY IBHR IBMIN IBSEC IEYR IEMO IEDY IEHR IEMIN IESEC ABTZ NSECDT NSPEC NSE ITEST MRESTART NRESPD METFM MPRFFM AVET PGTIME IOUTU Run all periods in met data file? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Starting year 2012 Starting month 1 Starting day 1 Starting hour 1 Starting minute 0 Starting second 0 Ending year 2012 Ending month 12 Ending day 31 Ending hour 1 Ending minute 0 Ending second 0 Base time zone UTC+1200 Length of modeling time-step (seconds) 3600 Number of chemical species modeled 1 Number of chemical species to be emitted 0 Stop run after SETUP phase (1 = stop, 2 = run) 2 Control option to read and/or write model restart data 0 Number of periods in restart output cycle 0 Meteorological data format (1 = CALMET, 2 = ISC, 3 = AUSPLUME, 4 = CTDM, 5 = AERMET) 1 Meteorological profile data format (1 = CTDM, 2 = AERMET) 1 Averaging time (minutes) 60 PG Averaging time (minutes) 60 Output units for binary output files (1 = mass, 2 = odour, 3 = radiation) 2 INPUT GROUP: 2 -- Technical Options MGAUSS MCTADJ MCTSG MSLUG MTRANS Near field vertical distribution (0 = uniform, 1 = Gaussian) 1 Terrain adjustment method (0 = none, 1 = ISC-type, 2 = CALPUFF-type, 3 = partial plume path) 3 Model subgrid-scale complex terrain? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Near-field puffs modeled as elongated slugs? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Model transitional plume rise? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 2 of 9

53 INPUT GROUP: 2 -- Technical Options MTIP MRISE MTIP_FL MRISE_FL MBDW MSHEAR MSPLIT MCHEM MAQCHEM MLWC MWET MDRY MTILT MDISP MTURBVW MDISP2 MTAULY MTAUADV MCTURB MROUGH Apply stack tip downwash to point sources? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 Plume rise module for point sources (1 = Briggs, 2 = numerical) 1 Apply stack tip downwash to flare sources? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Plume rise module for flare sources (1 = Briggs, 2 = numerical) 2 Building downwash method (1 = ISC, 2 = PRIME) 1 Treat vertical wind shear? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Puff splitting allowed? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Chemical transformation method (0 = not modeled, 1 = MESOPUFF II, 2 = User-specified, 3 = RIVAD/ARM3, 4 = MESOPUFF II for OH, 5 = half-life, 6 0 = RIVAD w/isorropia, 7 = RIVAD w/isorropia CalTech SOA) Model aqueous phase transformation? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Liquid water content flag 1 Model wet removal? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Model dry deposition? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Model gravitational settling (plume tilt)? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Dispersion coefficient calculation method (1= PROFILE.DAT, 2 = Internally, 3 = PG/MP, 4 = MESOPUFF II, 5 = CTDM) 2 Turbulence characterization method (only if MDISP = 1 or 5) 3 Missing dispersion coefficients method (only if MDISP = 1 or 5) 3 Sigma-y Lagrangian timescale method 0 Advective-decay timescale for turbulence (seconds) 1 Turbulence method (1 = CALPUFF, 2 = AERMOD) 1 PG sigma-y and sigma-z surface roughness adjustment? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 MPARTL Model partial plume penetration for point sources? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 Model partial plume penetration for buoyant area sources? (0 = no, 1 = MPARTLBA 0 yes) Strength of temperature inversion provided in PROFILE.DAT? (0 = no - MTINV 0 compute from default gradients, 1 = yes) MPDF PDF used for dispersion under convective conditions? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 MSGTIBL MBCON MSOURCE MFOG MREG Sub-grid TIBL module for shoreline? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Boundary conditions modeled? (0 = no, 1 = use BCON.DAT, 2 = use CONC.DAT) 0 Save individual source contributions? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Enable FOG model output? (0 = no, 1 = yes - PLUME mode, 2 = yes - RECEPTOR mode) 0 Regulatory checks (0 = no checks, 1 = USE PA LRT checks) 0 INPUT GROUP: 3 -- Species List CSPEC Species included in model run ODOR CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 3 of 9

54 INPUT GROUP: 4 -- Map Projection and Grid Control Parameters PMAP FEAST FNORTH IUTMZN UTMHEM RLAT0 RLON0 XLAT1 XLAT2 DATUM NX NY NZ DGRIDKM ZFACE XORIGKM YORIGKM IBCOMP JBCOMP IECOMP JECOMP LSAMP IBSAMP JBSAMP IESAMP JESAMP MESHDN Map projection system False easting at projection origin (km) 0.0 False northing at projection origin (km) 0.0 UTM zone (1 to 60) 59 Hemisphere (N = northern, S = southern) UTM Latitude of projection origin (decimal degrees) 0.00N Longitude of projection origin (decimal degrees) 0.00E 1st standard parallel latitude (decimal degrees) 2nd standard parallel latitude (decimal degrees) Datum-region for the coordinates S 30S 60S WGS-84 Meteorological grid - number of X grid cells 120 Meteorological grid - number of Y grid cells 120 Meteorological grid - number of vertical layers 10 Meteorological grid spacing (km) , 20.0, 40.0, 80.0, 160.0, 320.0, 640.0, Meteorological grid - vertical cell face heights (m) , , , Meteorological grid - X coordinate for SW corner (km) 749 Meteorological grid - Y coordinate for SW corner (km) 6001 Computational grid - X index of lower left corner 65 Computational grid - Y index of lower left corner 26 Computational grid - X index of upper right corner 100 Computational grid - Y index of upper right corner 56 Use sampling grid (gridded receptors) (T = true, F = false) Sampling grid - X index of lower left corner 70 Sampling grid - Y index of lower left corner 31 Sampling grid - X index of upper right corner 95 Sampling grid - Y index of upper right corner 51 Sampling grid - nesting factor 2 T INPUT GROUP: 5 -- Output Options ICON IDRY IWET IT2D IRHO IVIS LCOMPRS Output concentrations to CONC.DAT? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 Output dry deposition fluxes to DFLX.DAT? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Output wet deposition fluxes to WFLX.DAT? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Output 2D temperature data? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Output 2D density data? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Output relative humidity data? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Use data compression in output file (T = true, F = false) T CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 4 of 9

55 INPUT GROUP: 5 -- Output Options IQAPLOT IPFTRAK IMFLX IMBAL INRISE ICPRT IDPRT IWPRT ICFRQ IDFRQ IWFRQ IPRTU IMESG LDEBUG IPFDEB NPFDEB NN1 NN2 Create QA output files suitable for plotting? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 Output puff tracking data? (0 = no, 1 = yes use timestep, 2 = yes use sampling step) 0 Output mass flux across specific boundaries? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Output mass balance for each species? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Output plume rise data? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print concentrations? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print dry deposition fluxes? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print wet deposition fluxes? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Concentration print interval (timesteps) 1 Dry deposition flux print interval (timesteps) 1 Wet deposition flux print interval (timesteps) 1 Units for line printer output (e.g., 3 = ug/m**3 - ug/m**2/s, 5 = odor units) 5 Message tracking run progress on screen (0 = no, 1 and 2 = yes) 2 Enable debug output? (0 = no, 1 = yes) First puff to track in debug output 1 Number of puffs to track in debug output 1000 Starting meteorological period in debug output 1 Ending meteorological period in debug output 10 F INPUT GROUP: 6 -- Subgrid Scale Complex Terrain Inputs NHILL NCTREC MHILL XHILL2M ZHILL2M XCTDMKM YCTDMKM Number of terrain features 0 Number of special complex terrain receptors 0 Terrain and CTSG receptor data format (1= CTDM, 2 = OPTHILL) 2 Horizontal dimension conversion factor to meters 1.0 Vertical dimension conversion factor to meters 1.0 X origin of CTDM system relative to CALPUFF system (km) 0.0 Y origin of CTDM system relative to CALPUFF system (km) 0.0 INPUT GROUP: 9 -- Miscellaneous Dry Deposition Parameters RCUTR RGR REACTR NINT IVEG Reference cuticle resistance (s/cm) 30 Reference ground resistance (s/cm) 10 Reference pollutant reactivity 8 Number of particle size intervals for effective particle deposition velocity 9 Vegetation state in unirrigated areas (1 = active and unstressed, 2 = active and stressed, 3 = inactive) 1 CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 5 of 9

56 INPUT GROUP: Chemistry Parameters MOZ BCKO3 MNH3 MAVGNH3 BCKNH3 RNITE1 RNITE2 RNITE3 MH2O2 BCKH2O2 RH_ISRP SO4_ISRP BCKPMF OFRAC VCNX NDECAY Ozone background input option (0 = monthly, 1 = hourly from OZONE.DAT) , 80.00, 80.00, 80.00, 80.00, 80.00, Monthly ozone concentrations (ppb) 80.00, 80.00, 80.00, 80.00, 80.00, Ammonia background input option (0 = monthly, 1 = from NH3Z.DAT) 0 Ammonia vertical averaging option (0 = no average, 1 = average over 1 vertical extent of puff) 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, Monthly ammonia concentrations (ppb) 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, Nighttime SO2 loss rate (%/hr) 0.2 Nighttime NOx loss rate (%/hr) 2 Nighttime HNO3 loss rate (%/hr) 2 H2O2 background input option (0 = monthly, 1 = hourly from H2O2.DAT) , 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, Monthly H2O2 concentrations (ppb) 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 Minimum relative humidity for ISORROPIA 50.0 Minimum SO4 for ISORROPIA , 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, SOA background fine particulate (ug/m**3) 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, , 0.15, 0.20, 0.20, SOA organic fine particulate fraction 0.20, 0.20, 0.20, 0.20, 0.20, 0.20, 0.20, , 50.00, 50.00, 50.00, 50.00, 50.00, SOA VOC/NOX ratio 50.00, 50.00, 50.00, 50.00, 50.00, Half-life decay blocks 0 INPUT GROUP: Misc. Dispersion and Computational Parameters SYTDEP MHFTSZ JSUP CONK1 CONK2 TBD IURB1 IURB2 Horizontal puff size for time-dependent sigma equations (m) 550 Use Heffter equation for sigma-z? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 PG stability class above mixed layer 5 Vertical dispersion constant - stable conditions 0.01 Vertical dispersion constant - neutral/unstable conditions 0.1 Downwash scheme transition point option (<0 = Huber-Snyder, 1.5 = Schulman-Scire, 0.5 = ISC) 0.5 Beginning land use category for which urban dispersion is assumed 10 Ending land use category for which urban dispersion is assumed 19 CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 6 of 9

57 INPUT GROUP: Misc. Dispersion and Computational Parameters ILANDUIN Z0IN XLAIIN ELEVIN XLATIN XLONIN ANEMHT ISIGMAV IMIXCTDM XMXLEN XSAMLEN MXNEW MXSAM NCOUNT SYMIN SZMIN SZCAP_M SVMIN SWMIN CDIV NLUTIBL WSCALM XMAXZI XMINZI TKCAT PLX0 PTG0 PPC SL2PF FCLIP NSPLIT Land use category for modeling domain 20 Roughness length for modeling domain (m).25 Leaf area index for modeling domain 3.0 Elevation above sea level (m).0 Meteorological station latitude (deg) Meteorological station longitude (deg) Anemometer height (m) 10.0 Lateral turbulence format (0 = read sigma-theta, 1 = read sigma-v) 1 Mixing heights read option (0 = predicted, 1 = observed) 0 Slug length (met grid units) 1 Maximum travel distance of a puff/slug (met grid units) 1 Maximum number of slugs/puffs release from one source during one time step 99 Maximum number of sampling steps for one puff/slug during one time step 99 Number of iterations used when computing the transport wind for a sampling step that includes gradual rise 2 Minimum sigma-y for a new puff/slug (m) 1 Minimum sigma-z for a new puff/slug (m) 1 Maximum sigma-z allowed to avoid numerical problem in calculating virtual time or distance (m) 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Minimum turbulence velocities sigma-v (m/s) 0.5, 0.37, 0.37, 0.37, 0.37, 0.37, , 0.12, 0.08, 0.06, 0.03, 0.016, 0.2, 0.12, Minimum turbulence velocities sigma-w (m/s) 0.08, 0.06, 0.03, Divergence criterion for dw/dz across puff (1/s) 0, 0 TIBL module search radius (met grid cells) 4 Minimum wind speed allowed for non-calm conditions (m/s) 0.5 Maximum mixing height (m) 3000 Minimum mixing height (m) , 270., 275., 280., Emissions scale-factors temperature categories (K) 285., 290., 295., 300., 305., 310., 315. Wind speed profile exponent for stability classes 1 to , 0.07, 0.1, 0.15, 0.35, 0.55 Potential temperature gradient for stable classes E and F (deg K/m) 0.02, Plume path coefficient for stability classes 1 to 6 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.35, 0.35 Slug-to-puff transition criterion factor (sigma-y/slug length) 10 Hard-clipping factor for slugs (0.0 = no extrapolation) 0 Number of puffs created from vertical splitting 3 CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 7 of 9

58 INPUT GROUP: Misc. Dispersion and Computational Parameters IRESPLIT ZISPLIT ROLDMAX NSPLITH SYSPLITH SHSPLITH CNSPLITH EPSSLUG EPSAREA DSRISE HTMINBC RSAMPBC MDEPBC 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 Hour for puff re-split,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0, 0 Minimum mixing height for splitting (m) 100 Mixing height ratio for splitting 0.25 Number of puffs created from horizontal splitting 5 Minimum sigma-y (met grid cells) 1 Minimum puff elongation rate (SYSPLITH/hr) 2 Minimum concentration (g/m**3) 0 Fractional convergence criterion for numerical SLUG sampling integration Fractional convergence criterion for numerical AREA source integration 1E-006 Trajectory step-length for numerical rise integration (m) 1.0 Minimum boundary condition puff height (m) 500 Receptor search radius for boundary condition puffs (km) 10 Near-surface depletion adjustment to concentration (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 INPUT GROUP: Point Source Parameters NPT1 IPTU NSPT1 NPT2 Number of point sources 0 Units used for point source emissions (e.g., 1 = g/s) 1 Number of source-species combinations with variable emission scaling factors 0 Number of point sources in PTEMARB.DAT file(s) 0 INPUT GROUP: Area Source Parameters NAR1 IARU NSAR1 NAR2 Number of polygon area sources 0 Units used for area source emissions (e.g., 1 = g/m**2/s) 1 Number of source-species combinations with variable emission scaling factors 0 Number of buoyant polygon area sources in BAEMARB.DAT file(s) 0 INPUT GROUP: Line Source Parameters NLN2 NLINES ILNU NSLN1 NLRISE XL Number of buoyant line sources in LNEMARB.DAT file 0 Number of buoyant line sources 0 Units used for line source emissions (e.g., 1 = g/s) 1 Number of source-species combinations with variable emission scaling factors 0 Number of distances at which transitional rise is computed 6 Average building length (m) CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 8 of 9

59 INPUT GROUP: Line Source Parameters HBL WBL WML DXL Average building height (m) 3.4 Average building width (m) 24.0 Average line source width (m) 2.0 Average separation between buildings (m) 42.0 INPUT GROUP: Volume Source Parameters NVL1 IVLU NSVL1 NVL2 Number of volume sources 0 Units used for volume source emissions (e.g., 1 = g/s) 5 Number of source-species combinations with variable emission scaling factors 0 Number of volume sources in VOLEMARB.DAT file(s) 32 INPUT GROUP: FLARE Source Control Parameters (variable emissions file) NFL2 Number of flare sources defined in FLEMARB.DAT file(s) 0 INPUT GROUP: Road Emissions Parameters NRD1 NRD2 NSFRDS Number of road-links sources 0 Number of road-links in RDEMARB.DAT file 0 Number of road-links and species combinations with variable emission-rate scale-factors 0 INPUT GROUP: Emission Rate Scale-Factor Tables NSFTAB Number of emission scale-factor tables 0 INPUT GROUP: Non-gridded (Discrete) Receptor Information NREC NRGRP Number of discrete receptors (non-gridded receptors) 40 Number of receptor group names 0 CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 9 of 9

60 CALPUFF Parameters Tegel Arapohue Poultry Farm Odour 2015 CALMET, 5 x 4 km 100m Sample Grid - Farm 4 Sheds 4 Point Sources Per Shed - Variable EPA Vic Emissions - Pophole Exclusion INPUT GROUP: 0 -- Input and Output File Names PUFLST CONDAT DFDAT WFDAT LCFILES NMETDOM NMETDAT NPTDAT NARDAT NVOLDAT NFLDAT NRDDAT NLNDAT METDAT METDAT METDAT METDAT METDAT METDAT METDAT METDAT CALPUFF output list file (CALPUFF.LST) CALPUFF output concentration file (CONC.DAT) CALPUFF output dry deposition flux file (DFLX.DAT) CALPUFF output wet deposition flux file (WFLX.DAT) Lower case file names (T = lower case, F = upper case) CALPUFF.LST CONC.DAT DFLX.DAT WFLX.DAT Number of CALMET.DAT domains 1 Number of CALMET.DAT input files 8 Number of PTEMARB.DAT input files 1 Number of BAEMARB.DAT input files 0 Number of VOLEMARB.DAT input files 0 Number of FLEMARB.DAT input files 0 Number of RDEMARB.DAT input files 0 Number of LNEMARB.DAT input files 0 CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT CALMET_ CALMET gridded meteorological data file (CALMET.DAT) DAT F CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 1 of 9

61 INPUT GROUP: 0 -- Input and Output File Names PTDAT Point source varying emissions file (PTEMARB.DAT) PTEMARB-EPAV-F4 BiP-32v-2015.dat INPUT GROUP: 1 -- General Run Control Parameters METRUN IBYR IBMO IBDY IBHR IBMIN IBSEC IEYR IEMO IEDY IEHR IEMIN IESEC ABTZ NSECDT NSPEC NSE ITEST MRESTART NRESPD METFM MPRFFM AVET PGTIME IOUTU Run all periods in met data file? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Starting year 2015 Starting month 1 Starting day 1 Starting hour 1 Starting minute 0 Starting second 0 Ending year 2015 Ending month 12 Ending day 31 Ending hour 1 Ending minute 0 Ending second 0 Base time zone UTC+1200 Length of modeling time-step (seconds) 3600 Number of chemical species modeled 1 Number of chemical species to be emitted 0 Stop run after SETUP phase (1 = stop, 2 = run) 2 Control option to read and/or write model restart data 0 Number of periods in restart output cycle 0 Meteorological data format (1 = CALMET, 2 = ISC, 3 = AUSPLUME, 4 = CTDM, 5 = AERMET) 1 Meteorological profile data format (1 = CTDM, 2 = AERMET) 1 Averaging time (minutes) 60 PG Averaging time (minutes) 60 Output units for binary output files (1 = mass, 2 = odour, 3 = radiation) 2 INPUT GROUP: 2 -- Technical Options MGAUSS MCTADJ MCTSG MSLUG MTRANS Near field vertical distribution (0 = uniform, 1 = Gaussian) 1 Terrain adjustment method (0 = none, 1 = ISC-type, 2 = CALPUFF-type, 3 = partial plume path) 3 Model subgrid-scale complex terrain? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Near-field puffs modeled as elongated slugs? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Model transitional plume rise? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 2 of 9

62 INPUT GROUP: 2 -- Technical Options MTIP MRISE MTIP_FL MRISE_FL MBDW MSHEAR MSPLIT MCHEM MAQCHEM MLWC MWET MDRY MTILT MDISP MTURBVW MDISP2 MTAULY MTAUADV MCTURB MROUGH Apply stack tip downwash to point sources? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 Plume rise module for point sources (1 = Briggs, 2 = numerical) 1 Apply stack tip downwash to flare sources? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Plume rise module for flare sources (1 = Briggs, 2 = numerical) 2 Building downwash method (1 = ISC, 2 = PRIME) 2 Treat vertical wind shear? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Puff splitting allowed? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Chemical transformation method (0 = not modeled, 1 = MESOPUFF II, 2 = User-specified, 3 = RIVAD/ARM3, 4 = MESOPUFF II for OH, 5 = half-life, 6 0 = RIVAD w/isorropia, 7 = RIVAD w/isorropia CalTech SOA) Model aqueous phase transformation? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Liquid water content flag 1 Model wet removal? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Model dry deposition? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Model gravitational settling (plume tilt)? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Dispersion coefficient calculation method (1= PROFILE.DAT, 2 = Internally, 3 = PG/MP, 4 = MESOPUFF II, 5 = CTDM) 2 Turbulence characterization method (only if MDISP = 1 or 5) 3 Missing dispersion coefficients method (only if MDISP = 1 or 5) 3 Sigma-y Lagrangian timescale method 0 Advective-decay timescale for turbulence (seconds) 1 Turbulence method (1 = CALPUFF, 2 = AERMOD) 1 PG sigma-y and sigma-z surface roughness adjustment? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 MPARTL Model partial plume penetration for point sources? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 Model partial plume penetration for buoyant area sources? (0 = no, 1 = MPARTLBA 0 yes) Strength of temperature inversion provided in PROFILE.DAT? (0 = no - MTINV 0 compute from default gradients, 1 = yes) MPDF PDF used for dispersion under convective conditions? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 MSGTIBL MBCON MSOURCE MFOG MREG Sub-grid TIBL module for shoreline? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Boundary conditions modeled? (0 = no, 1 = use BCON.DAT, 2 = use CONC.DAT) 0 Save individual source contributions? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Enable FOG model output? (0 = no, 1 = yes - PLUME mode, 2 = yes - RECEPTOR mode) 0 Regulatory checks (0 = no checks, 1 = USE PA LRT checks) 0 INPUT GROUP: 3 -- Species List CSPEC Species included in model run ODOR CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 3 of 9

63 INPUT GROUP: 4 -- Map Projection and Grid Control Parameters PMAP FEAST FNORTH IUTMZN UTMHEM RLAT0 RLON0 XLAT1 XLAT2 DATUM NX NY NZ DGRIDKM ZFACE XORIGKM YORIGKM IBCOMP JBCOMP IECOMP JECOMP LSAMP IBSAMP JBSAMP IESAMP JESAMP MESHDN Map projection system False easting at projection origin (km) 0.0 False northing at projection origin (km) 0.0 UTM zone (1 to 60) 59 Hemisphere (N = northern, S = southern) UTM Latitude of projection origin (decimal degrees) 0.00N Longitude of projection origin (decimal degrees) 0.00E 1st standard parallel latitude (decimal degrees) 2nd standard parallel latitude (decimal degrees) Datum-region for the coordinates S 30S 60S WGS-84 Meteorological grid - number of X grid cells 120 Meteorological grid - number of Y grid cells 120 Meteorological grid - number of vertical layers 10 Meteorological grid spacing (km) , 20.0, 40.0, 80.0, 160.0, 320.0, 640.0, Meteorological grid - vertical cell face heights (m) , , , Meteorological grid - X coordinate for SW corner (km) 749 Meteorological grid - Y coordinate for SW corner (km) 6001 Computational grid - X index of lower left corner 65 Computational grid - Y index of lower left corner 26 Computational grid - X index of upper right corner 100 Computational grid - Y index of upper right corner 56 Use sampling grid (gridded receptors) (T = true, F = false) Sampling grid - X index of lower left corner 70 Sampling grid - Y index of lower left corner 31 Sampling grid - X index of upper right corner 95 Sampling grid - Y index of upper right corner 51 Sampling grid - nesting factor 2 T INPUT GROUP: 5 -- Output Options ICON IDRY IWET IT2D IRHO IVIS LCOMPRS Output concentrations to CONC.DAT? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 Output dry deposition fluxes to DFLX.DAT? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Output wet deposition fluxes to WFLX.DAT? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Output 2D temperature data? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Output 2D density data? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Output relative humidity data? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Use data compression in output file (T = true, F = false) T CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 4 of 9

64 INPUT GROUP: 5 -- Output Options IQAPLOT IPFTRAK IMFLX IMBAL INRISE ICPRT IDPRT IWPRT ICFRQ IDFRQ IWFRQ IPRTU IMESG LDEBUG IPFDEB NPFDEB NN1 NN2 Create QA output files suitable for plotting? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 Output puff tracking data? (0 = no, 1 = yes use timestep, 2 = yes use sampling step) 0 Output mass flux across specific boundaries? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Output mass balance for each species? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Output plume rise data? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print concentrations? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print dry deposition fluxes? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print wet deposition fluxes? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Concentration print interval (timesteps) 1 Dry deposition flux print interval (timesteps) 1 Wet deposition flux print interval (timesteps) 1 Units for line printer output (e.g., 3 = ug/m**3 - ug/m**2/s, 5 = odor units) 5 Message tracking run progress on screen (0 = no, 1 and 2 = yes) 2 Enable debug output? (0 = no, 1 = yes) First puff to track in debug output 1 Number of puffs to track in debug output 1000 Starting meteorological period in debug output 1 Ending meteorological period in debug output 10 F INPUT GROUP: 6 -- Subgrid Scale Complex Terrain Inputs NHILL NCTREC MHILL XHILL2M ZHILL2M XCTDMKM YCTDMKM Number of terrain features 0 Number of special complex terrain receptors 0 Terrain and CTSG receptor data format (1= CTDM, 2 = OPTHILL) 2 Horizontal dimension conversion factor to meters 1.0 Vertical dimension conversion factor to meters 1.0 X origin of CTDM system relative to CALPUFF system (km) 0.0 Y origin of CTDM system relative to CALPUFF system (km) 0.0 INPUT GROUP: 9 -- Miscellaneous Dry Deposition Parameters RCUTR RGR REACTR NINT IVEG Reference cuticle resistance (s/cm) 30 Reference ground resistance (s/cm) 10 Reference pollutant reactivity 8 Number of particle size intervals for effective particle deposition velocity 9 Vegetation state in unirrigated areas (1 = active and unstressed, 2 = active and stressed, 3 = inactive) 1 CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 5 of 9

65 INPUT GROUP: Chemistry Parameters MOZ BCKO3 MNH3 MAVGNH3 BCKNH3 RNITE1 RNITE2 RNITE3 MH2O2 BCKH2O2 RH_ISRP SO4_ISRP BCKPMF OFRAC VCNX NDECAY Ozone background input option (0 = monthly, 1 = hourly from OZONE.DAT) , 80.00, 80.00, 80.00, 80.00, 80.00, Monthly ozone concentrations (ppb) 80.00, 80.00, 80.00, 80.00, 80.00, Ammonia background input option (0 = monthly, 1 = from NH3Z.DAT) 0 Ammonia vertical averaging option (0 = no average, 1 = average over 1 vertical extent of puff) 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, Monthly ammonia concentrations (ppb) 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, 10.00, Nighttime SO2 loss rate (%/hr) 0.2 Nighttime NOx loss rate (%/hr) 2 Nighttime HNO3 loss rate (%/hr) 2 H2O2 background input option (0 = monthly, 1 = hourly from H2O2.DAT) , 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, Monthly H2O2 concentrations (ppb) 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 Minimum relative humidity for ISORROPIA 50.0 Minimum SO4 for ISORROPIA , 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, SOA background fine particulate (ug/m**3) 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, , 0.15, 0.20, 0.20, SOA organic fine particulate fraction 0.20, 0.20, 0.20, 0.20, 0.20, 0.20, 0.20, , 50.00, 50.00, 50.00, 50.00, 50.00, SOA VOC/NOX ratio 50.00, 50.00, 50.00, 50.00, 50.00, Half-life decay blocks 0 INPUT GROUP: Misc. Dispersion and Computational Parameters SYTDEP MHFTSZ JSUP CONK1 CONK2 TBD IURB1 IURB2 Horizontal puff size for time-dependent sigma equations (m) 550 Use Heffter equation for sigma-z? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 PG stability class above mixed layer 5 Vertical dispersion constant - stable conditions 0.01 Vertical dispersion constant - neutral/unstable conditions 0.1 Downwash scheme transition point option (<0 = Huber-Snyder, 1.5 = Schulman-Scire, 0.5 = ISC) 0.5 Beginning land use category for which urban dispersion is assumed 10 Ending land use category for which urban dispersion is assumed 19 CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 6 of 9

66 INPUT GROUP: Misc. Dispersion and Computational Parameters ILANDUIN Z0IN XLAIIN ELEVIN XLATIN XLONIN ANEMHT ISIGMAV IMIXCTDM XMXLEN XSAMLEN MXNEW MXSAM NCOUNT SYMIN SZMIN SZCAP_M SVMIN SWMIN CDIV NLUTIBL WSCALM XMAXZI XMINZI TKCAT PLX0 PTG0 PPC SL2PF FCLIP NSPLIT Land use category for modeling domain 20 Roughness length for modeling domain (m).25 Leaf area index for modeling domain 3.0 Elevation above sea level (m).0 Meteorological station latitude (deg) Meteorological station longitude (deg) Anemometer height (m) 10.0 Lateral turbulence format (0 = read sigma-theta, 1 = read sigma-v) 1 Mixing heights read option (0 = predicted, 1 = observed) 0 Slug length (met grid units) 1 Maximum travel distance of a puff/slug (met grid units) 1 Maximum number of slugs/puffs release from one source during one time step 99 Maximum number of sampling steps for one puff/slug during one time step 99 Number of iterations used when computing the transport wind for a sampling step that includes gradual rise 2 Minimum sigma-y for a new puff/slug (m) 1 Minimum sigma-z for a new puff/slug (m) 1 Maximum sigma-z allowed to avoid numerical problem in calculating virtual time or distance (m) 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, Minimum turbulence velocities sigma-v (m/s) 0.5, 0.37, 0.37, 0.37, 0.37, 0.37, , 0.12, 0.08, 0.06, 0.03, 0.016, 0.2, 0.12, Minimum turbulence velocities sigma-w (m/s) 0.08, 0.06, 0.03, Divergence criterion for dw/dz across puff (1/s) 0, 0 TIBL module search radius (met grid cells) 4 Minimum wind speed allowed for non-calm conditions (m/s) 0.5 Maximum mixing height (m) 3000 Minimum mixing height (m) , 270., 275., 280., Emissions scale-factors temperature categories (K) 285., 290., 295., 300., 305., 310., 315. Wind speed profile exponent for stability classes 1 to , 0.07, 0.1, 0.15, 0.35, 0.55 Potential temperature gradient for stable classes E and F (deg K/m) 0.02, Plume path coefficient for stability classes 1 to 6 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.35, 0.35 Slug-to-puff transition criterion factor (sigma-y/slug length) 10 Hard-clipping factor for slugs (0.0 = no extrapolation) 0 Number of puffs created from vertical splitting 3 CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 7 of 9

67 INPUT GROUP: Misc. Dispersion and Computational Parameters IRESPLIT ZISPLIT ROLDMAX NSPLITH SYSPLITH SHSPLITH CNSPLITH EPSSLUG EPSAREA DSRISE HTMINBC RSAMPBC MDEPBC 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 Hour for puff re-split,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0, 0 Minimum mixing height for splitting (m) 100 Mixing height ratio for splitting 0.25 Number of puffs created from horizontal splitting 5 Minimum sigma-y (met grid cells) 1 Minimum puff elongation rate (SYSPLITH/hr) 2 Minimum concentration (g/m**3) 0 Fractional convergence criterion for numerical SLUG sampling integration Fractional convergence criterion for numerical AREA source integration 1E-006 Trajectory step-length for numerical rise integration (m) 1.0 Minimum boundary condition puff height (m) 500 Receptor search radius for boundary condition puffs (km) 10 Near-surface depletion adjustment to concentration (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 INPUT GROUP: Point Source Parameters NPT1 IPTU NSPT1 NPT2 Number of point sources 0 Units used for point source emissions (e.g., 1 = g/s) 1 Number of source-species combinations with variable emission scaling factors 0 Number of point sources in PTEMARB.DAT file(s) 32 INPUT GROUP: Area Source Parameters NAR1 IARU NSAR1 NAR2 Number of polygon area sources 0 Units used for area source emissions (e.g., 1 = g/m**2/s) 1 Number of source-species combinations with variable emission scaling factors 0 Number of buoyant polygon area sources in BAEMARB.DAT file(s) 0 INPUT GROUP: Line Source Parameters NLN2 NLINES ILNU NSLN1 NLRISE XL Number of buoyant line sources in LNEMARB.DAT file 0 Number of buoyant line sources 0 Units used for line source emissions (e.g., 1 = g/s) 1 Number of source-species combinations with variable emission scaling factors 0 Number of distances at which transitional rise is computed 6 Average building length (m) CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 8 of 9

68 INPUT GROUP: Line Source Parameters HBL WBL WML DXL Average building height (m) 3.4 Average building width (m) 24.0 Average line source width (m) 2.0 Average separation between buildings (m) 42.0 INPUT GROUP: Volume Source Parameters NVL1 IVLU NSVL1 NVL2 Number of volume sources 0 Units used for volume source emissions (e.g., 1 = g/s) 5 Number of source-species combinations with variable emission scaling factors 0 Number of volume sources in VOLEMARB.DAT file(s) 0 INPUT GROUP: FLARE Source Control Parameters (variable emissions file) NFL2 Number of flare sources defined in FLEMARB.DAT file(s) 0 INPUT GROUP: Road Emissions Parameters NRD1 NRD2 NSFRDS Number of road-links sources 0 Number of road-links in RDEMARB.DAT file 0 Number of road-links and species combinations with variable emission-rate scale-factors 0 INPUT GROUP: Emission Rate Scale-Factor Tables NSFTAB Number of emission scale-factor tables 0 INPUT GROUP: Non-gridded (Discrete) Receptor Information NREC NRGRP Number of discrete receptors (non-gridded receptors) 40 Number of receptor group names 0 CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 29/09/2017 Page 9 of 9

69 CALMET Parameters Tegel Dargaville CALMET km x 24 km 200m Resolution INPUT GROUP: 0 -- Input and Output File Names GEODAT Input file of geophysical data (GEO.DAT) GEO.DAT SRFDAT Input file of hourly surface meteorological data (SURF.DAT) SURF.DAT METLST Output file name of CALMET list file (CALMET.LST) CALMET.LST METDAT Output file name of generated gridded met files (CALMET.DAT) CALMET.DAT LCFILES Lower case file names (T = lower case, F = upper case) F NUSTA Number of upper air stations 0 NOWSTA Number of overwater stations 0 NM3D Number of prognostic meteorological data files (3D.DAT) 1 NIGF Number of IGF-CALMET.DAT files used as initial guess 0 INPUT GROUP: 1 -- General Run Control Parameters IBYR Starting year 2012 IBMO Starting month 1 IBDY Starting day 1 IBHR Starting hour 0 IBSEC Starting second 0 IEYR Ending year 2013 IEMO Ending month 1 IEDY Ending day 1 IEHR Ending hour 0 IESEC Ending second 0 ABTZ Base time zone UTC+1200 NSECDT Length of modeling time-step (seconds) 3600 IRTYPE Output run type (0 = wind fields only, 1 = CALPUFF/CALGRID) 1 LCALGRD Compute CALGRID data fields (T = true, F = false) T ITEST Flag to stop run after setup phase (1 = stop, 2 = run) 2 MREG Regulatory checks (0 = no checks, 1 = US EPA LRT checks) 0 INPUT GROUP: 2 -- Map Projection and Grid Control Parameters PMAP Map projection system UTM FEAST False easting at projection origin (km) 0.0 CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 12/10/2017 Page 1 of 5

70 INPUT GROUP: 2 -- Map Projection and Grid Control Parameters FNORTH IUTMZN UTMHEM XLAT1 XLAT2 DATUM NX NY DGRIDKM XORIGKM YORIGKM NZ ZFACE False northing at projection origin (km) 0.0 UTM zone (1 to 60) 59 Hemisphere of UTM projection (N = northern, S = southern) 1st standard parallel latitude (decimal degrees) 2nd standard parallel latitude (decimal degrees) Datum-Region for the coordinates S 30S 60S WGS-84 Meteorological grid - number of X grid cells 120 Meteorological grid - number of Y grid cells 120 Meteorological grid spacing (km) 0.2 Meteorological grid - X coordinate for SW corner (km) 749 Meteorological grid - Y coordinate for SW corner (km) 6001 Meteorological grid - number of vertical layers ,20.00,40.00,80.0 0,160.00,320.00,640. Meteorological grid - vertical cell face heights (m) 00, , , , INPUT GROUP: 3 -- Output Options LSAVE IFORMO LPRINT IPRINF STABILITY USTAR MONIN MIXHT WSTAR PRECIP SENSHEAT CONVZI LDB NN1 NN2 LDBCST IOUTD NZPRN2 IPR0 Save met fields in unformatted output file (T = true, F = false) Type of output file (1 = CALPUFF/CALGRID, 2 = MESOPUFF II) 1 Print met fields (F = false, T = true) Print interval for output wind fields (hours) 1 Print gridded PGT stability classes? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print gridded friction velocities? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print gridded Monin-Obukhov lengths? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print gridded mixing heights? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print gridded convective velocity scales? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print gridded hourly precipitation rates? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print gridded sensible heat fluxes? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Print gridded convective mixing heights? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Test/debug option: print input met data and internal variables (F = false, T = true) F Test/debug option: first time step to print 1 Test/debug option: last time step to print 1 Test/debug option: print distance to land internal variables (F = false, T = true) F Test/debug option: print control variables for writing winds? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Test/debug option: number of levels to print starting at the surface 1 Test/debug option: print interpolated winds? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 T F CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 12/10/2017 Page 2 of 5

71 INPUT GROUP: 3 -- Output Options IPR1 IPR2 IPR3 IPR4 IPR5 IPR6 IPR7 IPR8 Test/debug option: print terrain adjusted surface wind? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Test/debug option: print smoothed wind and initial divergence fields? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Test/debug option: print final wind speed and direction? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Test/debug option: print final divergence fields? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Test/debug option: print winds after kinematic effects? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Test/debug option: print winds after Froude number adjustment? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Test/debug option: print winds after slope flow? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Test/debug option: print final winds? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 INPUT GROUP: 4 -- Meteorological Data Options NOOBS NSSTA NPSTA ICLDOUT MCLOUD IFORMS IFORMP IFORMC Observation mode (0 = stations only, 1 = surface/overwater stations with prognostic upper air, 2 = prognostic data only) 1 Number of surface stations 1 Number of precipitation stations -1 Output the CLOUD.DAT file? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Method to compute cloud fields (1 = from surface obs, 2 = from CLOUD.DAT, 3 = from prognostic (Teixera), 4 = from prognostic 4 (MM5toGrads) Surface met data file format (1 = unformatted, 2 = formatted) 2 Precipitation data file format (1 = unformatted, 2 = formatted) 2 Cloud data file format (1 = unformatted, 2 = formatted) 1 INPUT GROUP: 5 -- Wind Field Options and Parameters IWFCOD IFRADJ IKINE IOBR ISLOPE IEXTRP ICALM BIAS RMIN2 Wind field model option (1 = objective analysis, 2 = diagnostic) 1 Adjust winds using Froude number effects? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 Adjust winds using kinematic effects? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Adjust winds using O'Brien velocity procedure? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Compute slope flow effects? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 Extrapolation of surface winds to upper layers method (1 = none, 2 = power law, 3 = user input, 4 = similarity theory, - = same except layer 1 data at -4 upper air stations are ignored) Extrapolate surface winds even if calm? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0-1.0,-0.989,-0.971,-0. Weighting factors for surface and upper air stations (NZ values) 937,-0.868,-0.731, ,-0.089,0.427,1.0 Minimum upper air station radius of influence for surface extrapolation 4 exclusion (km) CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 12/10/2017 Page 3 of 5

72 INPUT GROUP: 5 -- Wind Field Options and Parameters IPROG ISTEPPGS IGFMET LVARY RMAX1 RMAX2 RMAX3 RMIN TERRAD R1 R2 RPROG DIVLIM NITER NSMTH NINTR2 CRITFN ALPHA NBAR KBAR IDIOPT1 ISURFT IDIOPT2 IUPT ZUPT IDIOPT3 IUPWND ZUPWND IDIOPT4 IDIOPT5 LLBREZE NBOX Use prognostic winds as input to diagnostic wind model (0 = no, 13 = use winds from 3D.DAT as Step 1 field, 14 = use winds from 3D.DAT as initial 14 guess field, 15 = use winds from 3D.DAT file as observations) Prognostic data time step (seconds) 3600 Use coarse CALMET fields as initial guess? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0 Use varying radius of influence (F = false, T = true) Maximum radius of influence in the surface layer (km) 60 Maximum radius of influence over land aloft (km) 60 Maximum radius of influence over water (km) 0 Minimum radius of influence used in wind field interpolation (km) 0.1 Radius of influence of terrain features (km) 10 Relative weight at surface of step 1 fields and observations (km) 30 Relative weight aloft of step 1 field and observations (km) 50 Weighting factors of prognostic wind field data (km) 0 Maximum acceptable divergence 5E-006 Maximum number of iterations in the divergence minimization procedure 50 Number of passes in the smoothing procedure (NZ values) 2,9*4 Maximum number of stations used in each layer for interpolation (NZ values) 10*99 Critical Froude number 1 Empirical factor triggering kinematic effects 0.1 Number of barriers to interpolation of the wind fields 0 Barrier - level up to which barriers apply (1 to NZ) 10 Surface temperature (0 = compute from obs/prognostic, 1 = read from DIAG.DAT) 0 Surface station to use for surface temperature (between 1 and NSSTA) -1 Temperature lapse rate used in the computation of terrain-induced circulations (0 = compute from obs/prognostic, 1 = read from DIAG.DAT) 0 Upper air station to use for the domain-scale lapse rate (between 1 and NUSTA) -1 Depth through which the domain-scale lapse rate is computed (m) 200 Initial guess field winds (0 = compute from obs/prognostic, 1 = read from DIAG.DAT) 0 Upper air station to use for domain-scale winds -1 Bottom and top of layer through which the domain-scale winds are computed (m) 1.0, 1.00 Read observed surface wind components (0 = from SURF.DAT, 1 = from DIAG.DAT) 0 Read observed upper wind components (0 = from UPn.DAT, 1 = from DIAG.DAT) 0 Use Lake Breeze module (T = true, F = false) F Lake Breeze - number of regions 0 F CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 12/10/2017 Page 4 of 5

73 INPUT GROUP: 6 -- Mixing Height, Temperature and Precipitation Parameters CONSTB CONSTE CONSTN CONSTW FCORIOL IAVEZI MNMDAV HAFANG ILEVZI IMIXH THRESHL THRESHW ITWPROG ILUOC3D DPTMIN DZZI ZIMIN ZIMAX ZIMINW ZIMAXW ICOARE DSHELF IWARM ICOOL IRHPROG ITPROG IRAD TRADKM NUMTS IAVET TGDEFB TGDEFA JWAT1 JWAT2 NFLAGP SIGMAP CUTP Mixing height constant: neutral, mechanical equation 1.41 Mixing height constant: convective equation 0.15 Mixing height constant: stable equation 2400 Mixing height constant: overwater equation 0.16 Absolute value of Coriolis parameter (1/s) Spatial mixing height averaging? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 Maximum search radius in averaging process (grid cells) 1 Half-angle of upwind looking cone for averaging (degrees) 30 Layer of winds used in upwind averaging (between 1 and NZ) 1 Convective mixing height method (1 = Maul-Carson, 2 = Batchvarova-Gryning, - for land cells only, + for land and water cells) 1 Overland threshold boundary flux (W/m**3) 0 Overwater threshold boundary flux (W/m**3) 0.05 Overwater lapse rate and deltat options (0 = from SEA.DAT, 1 = use prognostic lapse rates and SEA.DAT deltat, 2 = from prognostic) 0 Land use category in 3D.DAT 16 Minimum potential temperature lapse rate (K/m) Depth of computing capping lapse rate (m) 200 Minimum overland mixing height (m) 50 Maximum overland mixing height (m) 3000 Minimum overwater mixing height (m) 50 Maximum overwater mixing height (m) 3000 Overwater surface fluxes method 10 Coastal/shallow water length scale (km) 0 COARE warm layer computation (0 = off, 1 = on) 0 COARE cool skin layer computation (0 = off, 1 = on) 0 Relative humidity read option (0 = from SURF.DAT, 1 = from 3D.DAT) 1 3D temperature read option (0 = stations, 1 = surface from station and upper air from prognostic, 2 = prognostic) 1 Temperature interpolation type (1 = 1/R, 2 = 1/R**2) 1 Temperature interpolation radius of influence (km) 500 Maximum number of stations to include in temperature interpolation 5 Conduct spatial averaging of temperatures? (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1 Default overwater mixed layer lapse rate (K/m) Default overwater capping lapse rate (K/m) Beginning land use category for temperature interpolation over water 999 Ending land use category for temperature interpolation over water 999 Precipitation interpolation method (1 = 1/R, 2 = 1/R**2, 3 = EXP/R**2) 2 Precipitation interpolation radius of influence (km) 100. Minimum precipitation rate cutoff (mm/hr) 0.01 CALPUFF View Version by Lakes Environmental Software 12/10/2017 Page 5 of 5

74 Appendix C : Meteorological comparison

75 Meteorological prediction-observation comparison summary Annual wind patterns and selection of model year Meteorological parameters (wind speed/direction, solar radiation, pressure and rainfall) have been measured at the Dargaville EWS weather station, situated approximately 12 km to the northnorthwest of the site. Although local variations in terrain and the proximity of the Wairoa River will result in localised differences in wind patterns compared to the farm site, wind conditions measured at Dargaville are likely to be broadly representative of regional wind patterns in the area. Wind rose frequency analyses of 1-hour average wind speed and direction observations at the Dargaville weather station for the full calendar years of 2013 to 2015 are illustrated in Figure D1. The availability of wind data, frequency of calm conditions and average wind speeds measured from 2013 to 2015 are summarised in Table D1. Table D1: Summary of wind measurements at Dargaville Year Wind data availability Frequency of calm conditions* Average wind speed % 0.23% 4.14 m/s % 0.69% 3.90 m/s % 0.17% 4.28 m/s % 0.22% 3.84 m/s % 0.14% 4.13 m/s *Wind speeds of less than 0.5 m/s as a 1-hour average Data availability for all years is very good (>99.9%) and all years are available for use in dispersion modelling in terms of surface wind data availability. The frequency of calms is low in all years though highest in 2013 and lowest in 2014 and Average wind speeds were broadly similar in all years. Given there was generally little difference in both wind speed based measures, selection of model years has been based primarily on wind direction and frequency patterns illustrated in Figure D1. Winds in 2015 and 2014 exhibited broadly similar patterns, which differed from the other analysed years. In 2015 there was a relatively strong predominance for winds from the south-southwest and a moderate secondary prevalence for wind from the northeast. Wind in 2014 exhibited a similar prevalence for wind from the south-southwest but included a higher frequency of stronger winds. Of these two years, 2015 was therefore chosen as a model year. Winds in 2012 and 2013 also exhibited broadly similar patterns with a more even distribution of winds. Given the full availability of wind data from 2012, this year was chosen as the second model year. Comparison predicted and modelled wind conditions Wind rose frequency analysis of 1-hour average wind speed and directions predicted at the site and at the approximate Dargaville weather station location in 2012 and 2015 are compared with analyses of equivalent wind observations at Dargaville in Figure D2. As illustrated in Figure D2, wind speed and direction patterns predicted for 2012 at Dargaville reasonably closely approximated wind conditions observed at the Dargaville weather station. C1

76 Conditions predicted at the site were broadly similar to those predicted at Dargaville though with slightly lower wind speeds. Wind direction patterns predicted at Dargaville for 2015 did not incorporate the relatively strong prevalence for south-southwest winds observed at Dargaville in There was also a high frequency of light winds predicted compared to the equivalent observations (which would tend to overstate odour impacts). Overall, the meteorological predictions for 2012 were similar to observed conditions, though there was less similarity between meteorological predictions and observations in However, considered collectively, the meteorological input data used in the dispersion modelling investigation are considered to be broadly representative of wind conditions likely to be encountered in the area. C2

77 Dargaville wind observatios Dargaville wind observatios Figure D1: Annual observed wind speed-direction frequency rose analyses Chertsey weather station, 1-hour average data, C3

78 2015 preditions and observations Approximate farm site predictions Approximate Dargaville EWS predictions Dargaville EWS observations 2012 preditions and observations Approximate farm site predictions Approximate Dargaville EWS predictions Dargaville EWS observations Figure D2: Comparison of predicted and observed wind speed-direction frequency rose analyses predicted at approximate farm site and Dargaville EWS locations and observed at Dargaville EWS, 1-hour average data, 2012 and 2015 C4

79 Appendix D : Odour type hedonic score summary

80 Hedonic tone scores quantifying the offensiveness of a range odour types have been defined in UK Guidance on Odour Management 1. The hedonic tone scores range from -5 to +5. Higher positive scores signify more pleasant odour types whereas lower negative scores identify more unpleasant odour types. In this case faecal (manure like), ammonia and animal are odour descriptors associated with the proposed poultry farm activities Bakery (fresh bread) Floral Coffee Cedarwood Coconut Raisins Anise (liquorice) Dill Mushroom Musky Garlic, onion Camphor Turpentine (pine oil) Animal Sour, vinegar Burn, smoky Wet wool, wet dog Ammonia Faecal (like manure) Cadaverous (dead animal) Environment Agency for England and Wales Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Draft Horizontal Guidance for Odour, Part 1 Regulation and Permitting