APPENDIX H AIR DISPERSION MODELLING REPORT BY PROJECT MANAGEMENT LTD. (REF. CHAPTER 11 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATIC FACTORS)

Similar documents
APPENDIX III. Air Quality Modelling of NO X and PM 10 (2007) RFI Report (Dec 2007)

Millipore Thermal Oxidiser Emissions Dispersion Modelling Impact Assessment

Air Dispersion Modelling Report

AIR POLLUTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANCY

Comparison of Two Dispersion Models: A Bulk Petroleum Storage Terminal Case Study

LINN COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Air Quality Modelling & Assessment Unit (AQMAU)

REPORT. Offshore Ironsands Project. Air Dispersion Modelling Study - Gas Turbines

REPORT. Offshore Ironsands Project. Air Dispersion Modelling Study - Reciprocating Engines

Application of the AERMOD modeling system for air pollution dispersion in the South Pars oilfield

EXAMPLE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST a

8 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Modelling Airport Air Quality

Tips to Improve Model Results

Modeling For Managers. aq-ppt5-11

Abstract. Introduction

ATTACHMENT I: EXISTING ENVIRONMENT & IMPACT OF THE ACTIVITY

Appendix VIII: Determination of chimney heights

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING GUIDELINE FOR ONTARIO [GUIDELINE A-11]

Ringaskiddy Resource Recovery Centre Environmental Impact Statement

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING GUIDELINE FOR ONTARIO

Kitimat Airshed Emissions Effects Assessment and CALPUFF Modelling

Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario

Modeling 101: Intro to Dispersion Modeling Programs and Process

Connacht Gold. Reg No : PO th May Dairy Ingredients. 30,205 Nm3/hr Uncorrected for 02/ Wet. Dear Eve.

Critical Review of the Building Downwash Algorithms in AERMOD

Attachment 2. Modeling Protocol for Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Belews Creek Steam Station

Justifying a GEP Stack Height Taller than the EPA Formula Height

Case study on pollution prediction through atmospheric dispersion modelling

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

ISSUES RELATED TO NO2 NAAQS MODELING

TECHNICAL REPORT. For inspection purposes only. FOR. Vitra Tiles (Ireland) Ltd IDA Business Park Ballynattin Arklow

AIR WATER WASTE CONSULTANTS. Audit of TCEQ s Air Dispersion Modeling Prepared in Support of Proposed OGS Permit By Rule and Standard Permit

APPENDIX D MODELING AND DEPOSITION ANALYSIS

GLNG PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

AERMOD Modeling of SO2 Impacts of the Luminant Martin Lake Coal Plant

Air Quality Assessment: Queen Margaret University Biomass Boiler. Report to East Lothian Council

75th Air Base Wing. Comparison of CALPUFF and OBODM for Open Burn/Open Detonation Modeling. 22 May Mark Bennett, Ph.D.

Air pollution modeling of the industrial complexes and cities in the Kurdistan region using AERMOD view

Excerpt of Thermal Power Guidelines for New Plants

RULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENT DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

Molar Ratio Method (PVMRM) and Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) for Predicting Short-term NO 2 Impacts

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT SPARTA HOLDING (PTY) LTD WELKOM OPERATIONS FINAL REPORT AUGUST 2016

Dispersion Modeling of NO x and SO x in Phase 9 and 10 of South Pars Oilfield

Prepared for: Toronto Hydro Energy Services Inc. 14 Carlton Street Toronto, Ontario M5B 1K5. Prepared by:

AIR DISPERSION MODELLING IN COASTAL AREAS WITH ROUGH TERRAIN, USING CALPUFF PRIME

Air Dispersion Model Report. For. Boylan Group Ltd.

Air Dispersion Modeling Guidelines for Arizona Air Quality Permits

Comparison of Features and Data Requirements among the CALPUFF, AERMOD, and ADMS Models

Intermodal Logistics Centre at Enfield Environmental Assessment CHAPTER 12 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Influence of building-downwash effect on urban traffic pollution

Appendix 14.2 Air Quality Modelling Study

Clean TeQ Sunrise CCC meeting

AIR POLLUTANT DISPERSION. EXAMPLE APPLICATION TO AN AIRPORT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

Significance of a CALPUFF Near-Field Analysis

MODELING METHODOLOGY

Prepared for: Toronto Hydro Energy Services Inc. 14 Carlton Street Toronto, Ontario M5B 1K5. Prepared by:

1 Introduction What is Dispersion Modelling What can dispersion modelling be used for? What can t dispersion models do?...

Modelling the effects of traffic emissions on the air quality

Assessing the air quality, toxic and health impacts of the Lamu coal-fired power plants

Comparative Use of ISCST3, ISC-PRIME and AERMOD in Air Toxics Risk Assessment

AIR DISPERSION MODELING

Appendix 0 Air Dispersion Modelling Study Black Point Quarry Project Guysborough County, NS SLR Project No.:

SO 2 Air Dispersion Modeling Report for White Bluff Steam Electric Station. ERM Project No The world s leading sustainability consultancy

AIR AND ODOUR EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL SHUTDOWN STACK RELEASE

10.0 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATIC FACTORS

MULTIPLE POINT SOURCE DISPERSION ANALYSIS OF CO, NO 2, PM 10 AND SO 2 FROM PAITON POWER PLANT USING CALPUFF

Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Odour Impact: Practices, Issues & Recommendations

Evaluation of CO and NO x Distributions from Point (Industry) Sources in Körfez District of Kocaeli Province with ISCST3 Model

Detailed Air Quality Modelling and Analysis

Metropolitan Transit. Prepared for. Original Submittal: May 28, Resubmitted: November 10, 2010 January 21, aq5-28

Air Quality Assessment Report Paris Grand Development County of Brant, Ontario

Arab Journal of Nuclear Sciences and Applications

Introduction to Air Quality Models

AERMOD Modeling of PM2.5 Impacts of the Proposed Highwood Generating Station

Carbery Group. Primary Fuel Switch Proposal. Ambient Air Pollution Impact For inspection purposes only.

EMISSION SUMMARY AND DISPERSION MODELLING REPORT

Review of GHD s Modeling Assessment and Analysis of the Coal-fired Power Stations in the Latrobe Valley. Dr. H. Andrew Gray Gray Sky Solutions

Waterview Operational Air Quality Monitoring Report January 2018

Planning or Diagnostic Tool. Air Plume Modeling. Michael Gemelli, Lockheed-Martin/REAC, Edison, NJ. Keith Ocheski, Lockheed-Martin/REAC, Edison, NJ

Modelling of air pollutants released from highway traffic in Hungary

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN NORTH CAROLINA

Atmospheric Air Pollutant

Is AERMOD/PRIME Overpredicting for Short Buildings with a Large Footprint?

Review of the 2009 Gauteng Air Quality Management Plan

Sensitivity of AERMOD to Meteorological Data Sets Based on Varying Surface Roughness. Paper No A-168-AWMA

47.0 GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE STACK HEIGHT

Air Quality Modelling. Table of Contents

Ross Nogami Air Quality Studies Hayashi Court Richmond, B.C. V7E 5W2

Improved Building Dimension Inputs for AERMOD Modeling of the Mirant Potomac River Generating Station

Energy Impact Analysis in Support of Class I Redesignation Requests. Prepared for. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Cloquet, Minnesota

STUDY OF IMPACT OF DISPERSION OF GASES FROM STACK ON ENVIRONMENT THROUGH CFD SIMULATION. By Shashi Shekhar (111CH0405)

Localized Significance Threshold Analysis

AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT RICHARD ATHERTON MANCHESTER ROAD, RAMSBOTTOM, BURY REPORT DATE: 14TH JUNE 2016 REPORT NUMBER: on behalf of.

Welcome to the H1 Software

APPENDIX E SATURN (UNITS 1 & 2) AIR TDR

Technical Guidance Document for Air Quality Modeling

Prepared for: Toronto Hydro Energy Services Inc. 14 Carlton Street Toronto, Ontario M5B 1K5. Prepared by:

DETERMINATION OF ODOUR EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERE FROM THE MATER HOSPITAL, DUBLIN 1

DISPERSION MODEL GUIDELINES FOR OIL BATTERIES IN THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA. Project Number: W Date: February 15, 2002

Transcription:

101050.22.RP.0001 A Environmental Impact Statement 15 th April 2005 APPENDIX H AIR DISPERSION MODELLING REPORT BY PROJECT MANAGEMENT LTD. (REF. CHAPTER 11 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATIC FACTORS) S:\Projects\190900\101050 Centocor\EIS\101050-22-RP-0001 A.doc

CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 2. INTRODUCTION 4 3. AIR DISPERSION METHODOLOGY 5 3.1 Emissions Modelled 5 3.2 Modelling Approach 6 3.3 Meteorological Data 6 3.4 Building Downwash 7 3.5 Terrain 7 3.6 Source Data 7 3.7 Receptors 8 4. EMISSION INVENTORY AND SOURCE DATA 9 4.1 Mass Emission Rates 9 4.2 Source Physical Parameters 9 5. MODELLING RESULTS 10 5.1 Stack Height Determination 10 5.2 Nitrogen Oxides 12 6. DISCUSSION OF MODEL RESULTS 13 6.1 Nitrogen Dioxide 13 7. CONCLUSIONS 14 APPENDIX 1 Isopleth Charts of the Predicted Ground Level Pollutant Concentrations N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 2

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PM carried out modelling analysis of predicted emissions from the proposed Centocor Biologics Ireland plant at Ringaskiddy. An air dispersion model was used to determine the ground level concentrations of nitrogen oxides due to the emissions of the combined heat and power plant and the steam boilers. Predicted ground levels were evaluated against air quality standards. Emissions from the site have been modelled at worst-case emission rates, although in all cases the actual emissions from the plant are likely to be significantly less than these levels. The results of the assessment have shown that the maximum short term (1-hour) ground-level nitrogen oxide concentrations occur to the north east of the facility, while the long term (annual) maximum ground level concentration also occur to the north east of the facility. In summary, it was determined that the minimum appropriate stack height is 30 metres above ground level and it was demonstrated that emissions to atmosphere from the proposed Centocor site will not result in ground level concentrations of pollutants exceeding any applicable air quality standard limit values. N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 3

2. INTRODUCTION PM carried out an air quality modelling analysis of emissions from the proposed Centocor facility at Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork. The main emission points on the site were modelled; namely emissions from the combined heat and power plant (CHP) and the steam boiler. The ground level concentration of these emissions was calculated over a 3 km radius around the site. The site is set in an established industrial area, bordered by a mix of residential and agricultural uses. Emissions of nitrogen oxides were modelled and the predicted ground level concentrations were evaluated against the Air Quality Standard Regulations. A number of scenarios were run to determine the impact of different operational conditions on the maximum ground level concentrations predicted by the model. Emission rates used in the model represent the maximum permitted emission rate, and consequently the worst-case ground level concentrations. All calculations are based on 5-years of meteorological data, which was collected at Cork Airport meteorology station, which is considered to be representative of the meteorological conditions experienced at the site. N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 4

3. AIR DISPERSION METHODOLOGY 3.1 Emissions Modelled The model was used to calculate the ground level concentrations of three groups of Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ). The CHP plant and the steam boiler are powered by mains natural gas. The sulphur content of the gas is negligible and thus the potential for the generation of significant emissions of sulphur dioxide does not arise. 3.1.1 Nitrogen Oxides The major emission points for nitrogen oxides on the site are the CHP plant boilers. The CHP plant consists of a gas turbine coupled to a waste heat recovery boiler with a backup stand-alone steam generation boiler. The operational details of the CHP plant are detailed in Chapter 11 of the main EIS document. Table 1 Emission Scenarios Modelled Scenario Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Description CHP operating in Open Cycle mode, generating electricity only (emission through CHP bypass stack) CHP operating in Closed Cycle mode, generating steam and electricity (emission through CHP main stack) CHP operating in Closed Cycle mode, generating steam and electricity, with supplementary steam generation by backup boiler (emission through CHP bypass stack and boiler stack) The emission rates which are input to the model are in the form of NO X, thus giving predictions of ground level NO X concentrations. The plant emissions are mainly in the form of NO, but the air quality standards apply only to NO 2. NO 2 is formed in the atmosphere through the oxidation of NO. As there is no long-term site specific monitoring data available for the site for the conversion of NO to NO 2 the NO 2 to NO X ratio is assumed to be 0.75, as recommended by the USEPA guideline on air quality models 1. 3.1.2 Emission Rate Assumptions Maximum pollutant concentrations for the CHP and steam boiler emission points were used in the model and the model is therefore conservative as the various emission points will not always discharge at maximum emission concentrations. 1 USEPA, 40 CFR Ch. I (7 1 99 Edition) Appendix W To Part 51 Guideline On Air Quality Models N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 5

3.2 Modelling Approach Dispersion modelling has been carried out using the AERMOD computer model developed by the US EPA. The model consists of mathematical algorithms which simulate the transport and dispersion of air pollutant emissions downwind of a source. AERMOD is a steady-state plume model which represents the plume as having a normal (Gaussian) distribution in both the horizontal and vertical directions for the stable boundary layer (SBL) and the horizontal direction for the central boundary layer (CBL), but a bi-gaussian probability density function for vertical distribution in the CBL. The model predicts average concentrations over 1-hour, 24-hour and annual periods and percentiles thereof. The model allows for the effects of general plume rise, stack tip downwash and building downwash. The choice was made to use AERMOD model instead of the older ISC model as the ISC model is in the process of being replaced as the preferred model by the USEPA. The short-term version of ISC (ISCST3) has several theoretical deficiencies, including a poor characterisation of building downwash and terrain features. AERMOD was developed by the USEPA in response to these deficiencies and is generally regarded as yielding a more theoretically accurate treatment of atmospheric dispersion. AERMOD is increasingly used in Ireland for the assessment of air quality impact and has previously been accepted by the Irish EPA for such assessments. 3.3 Meteorological Data The meteorological data required by the dispersion model is wind speed, wind direction, Pasquill-Gifford stability category, boundary layer height and ambient temperature. The stability category and boundary layer height are used to characterise the turbulence within, and the height of the lower levels of the atmosphere. Extremely unstable conditions can cause plume looping and elevated concentrations close to the stack. Under stable conditions elevated concentrations can occur due to the emissions being trapped below the boundary layer. Neutral conditions, characterised by cloudy skies and strong winds, are most favourable for dispersion due to the mechanical mixing of the lower atmosphere. The wind direction determines the direction in which the plume is blown, and for a particular stability, higher wind speeds will result in reduced plume rise so causing the plume to reach ground level closer to the stack with elevated emission concentrations. The boundary layer height determines the total vertical distance over which the plume may spread. Five years (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 * ) of meteorological data for Cork Airport was used. This is considered to be representative of meteorological conditions experienced at the proposed site of the Centocor facility. The data obtained consists of hourly values of wind speed, wind direction, air temperature, stability category and mixing height. Wind direction is converted to a flow vector (the * 2003 data was not used, as it was not a complete data set N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 6

direction toward which the emission moves) by adjusting the direction by 180 degrees. The effect of landuse is incorporated into the Meteorological dataset. 3.4 Building Downwash Air streams blowing across buildings can become disrupted, with turbulent eddies occurring downwind in the building wake. If an emission point is sufficiently close to a building, then the plume may become entrained in the turbulent eddies of the building wake. This entrainment can cause plume downwash resulting in elevated emission concentrations close to the emission point. The Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack height is the minimum height required by a stack in order to avoid structural or building wake-effect induced downwash. Downwash brings pollutants closer to ground level at a shorter downwind distance giving the worst-case scenario for a particular site. The GEP heights and relevant building dimensions were evaluated following USEPA guideline procedures for determining, in each of the 36 wind direction sectors (10 o width/sector), if the building has potential to cause downwash of stack emissions. The stack modelled is subject to downwash and, as a result, direction specific building dimensions were calculated. The AERMOD model interprets the influence zone of each building for a given wind direction using the Building Profile Input Program (BPIP). All of the main proposed buildings on the site were included in the modelling analysis, including warehouses, office/labs area, production building, etc. 3.5 Terrain It was necessary to input a terrain height for each of the receptors on the grid. Terrain heights have been digitised from the ordnance survey of Ireland map of the area surrounding the site. The terrain file included terrain data for a 3 km by 3 km grid centred on the site. Survey data was used for the terrain in the immediate vicinity of the site (1 km). 3.6 Source Data Emissions data and discharge parameters have been provided by CHP manufacturers (Cummins). The emissions have been modelled at the maximum anticipated emission levels, although in all cases the actual emissions from the plant are likely to be significantly less than these levels. The stack discharge parameters and emissions data is summarised in Section 3. The output from each emission point was treated as a point source in the model. Details of the locations and characteristics of the source were inputted to the model using the site layout plan as a template and using information obtained from operations personnel. These details include; stack diameter, height of stack, volumetric flow or velocity and temperature of exhaust gases (heat release). The emission rates were modelled at maximum emission limits to establish the worstcase scenario for air quality impact, while the plant operates within the anticipated requirements of the IPPC licence conditions. N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 7

3.7 Receptors The model was set up to examine the impact of emissions on the area surrounding the facility using a series of receptors. A receptor is a location at which the model will calculate maximum ground level concentrations. A polar co-ordinate receptor grid system was established with its centre on the facility. Receptors were placed at 500 m intervals over a 3 km by 3 km grid centred on the site. A detailed rectangular 1km by 1km grid was established around the facility with receptors placed at 100m intervals. This detailed grid allowed greater resolution in determining the maximum ground levels concentrations in the areas immediately adjacent to the facility. N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 8

4. EMISSION INVENTORY AND SOURCE DATA 4.1 Mass Emission Rates The emission values and the corresponding emission rates used in the model are listed below. Table 2 Emission limit values and mass flows Emission Point Emission Concentration Emission Rate* mg/nm 3 g/s Nitrogen Oxides CHP Bypass Stack 75 0.289 CHP Main Stack 100 0.385 Steam Boiler Stack 110 0.550 * The emission rate has been uncorrected from STP to emission conditions. 4.2 Source Physical Parameters The physical parameters of the emission sources are listed below. The model was run at various stack heights as part of the stack height determination exercise. Table 3 Physical Parameters of the Emission Sources Modelled Emission Point Stack Height Diameter Temperature Flow Rate mogl M K Nm 3 /h CHP Bypass Stack CHP Main Stack Steam Boiler Stack 25, 30, 35 1 793 13,850 25, 30, 35 0.85 378 13,850 25, 30, 35 0.85 431 18,000 N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 9

5. MODELLING RESULTS The ground level concentrations across various averaging periods are summarised in the tables below. An isopleth chart of the predicted ground level concentrations are presented for nitrogen oxides in Appendix A. 5.1 Stack Height Determination There are three main stack emission points from the proposed facility from which oxides of nitrogen will be emitted. These main emission flues will be coupled together in one structure. It is assumed for the purposes of this assessment that the emission from the stacks will be continuous. As the plant will be constructed by a turnkey contractor on a design and build basis, the following stack discharge parameters are based on typical parameters supplied by specialised gas turbine suppliers. In all cases the worst case parameters, i.e. those that would lead to the highest ground level concentrations, are used in the analysis. Although other more simple modelling tools (such as Screen3) are available for the purpose of conducting screening analyses, it was decided to use AERMOD for the screening analysis as this model will be used for a detailed analysis. The screening analysis was carried out using a 3 km square grid as it was found in an initial analysis that the maximum concentration occurred within 3 km of the stack for all stack heights and meteorological conditions. The stack height was assessed at 5m intervals from 25 m to 35 m. The maximum hourly average ground level NOx concentrations were calculated for the range of stack heights for operation of the CHP plant in the closed cycle modes, with the backup boiler in operation. To relate the NOx levels calculated to the Air Quality Standards, a 75 % conversion of NOx to NO 2 is assumed. The trend in concentrations gives an indication as to general plume behaviour as the stack height varies. The results are shown in Figure 1 on the following page. The proposed 99.8th percentile (not to be exceeded for more than 18 hours per annum) limit value is also indicated on Figures 1 for reference. As can be seen in Figure 1 the maximum ground level concentration decreases steadily as the stack height increases. Although the concentrations arising from stacks > 35 metres are lower again, the greater visual impact of these stacks, given the elevated nature of the site, may not be justified as the 30m stack is likely to disperse the stack emissions sufficiently to prevent any adverse air quality impact. The detailed assessment will therefore be carried out on the 30m stack. N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 10

Ground Level Concentration Concentration (mg/m3) 250 200 150 100 50 0 Air Quality Standard (NO2) 25 30 35 Stack Height (m) Figure 1 Results of Stack Height Determination (ambient levels in blue) Table 4 Summary Results of Stack Height Assessment Stack Height AQS Average Background* Max Ground Level NOx Max Ground Level NO 2 ** m µg/m 3 µg/m 3 µg/m 3 µg/m 3 25 200 38.66 138.4 103.8 30 200 38.66 109.4 82.1 35 200 38.66 84.3 63.3 * Background concentration taken as twice maximum daily ambient concentration measured. ** The assumed conversion of NOx to NO 2 is 75 % N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 11

5.2 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions of nitrogen oxides were modelled at the maximum emission rates. In the assessment of the results it is assumed that 75 % of the NO X is converted to NO 2 in the atmosphere, this is a conservative approach and is used in the absence of longterm monitoring results for the area. The model predicts the short-term (1-hour) maximum concentration will occur to the north-west of the site in the areas of Ballybricken Point. Table 5 Predicted Ground Level Nitrogen Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide Levels Averaging Period Scenario AQS 1 2 3 99.8 percentile of Hourly NOx Concentrations µg/m 3 18.47 38.78 105.14 99.8 percentile of Hourly NO 2 Concentrations Annual Average NOx µg/m 3 200 13.85 29.08 78.86 µg/m 3 0.86 1.59 3.16 Annual Average NO 2 µg/m 3 30-40 0.645 1.1925 2.37 N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 12

6. DISCUSSION OF MODEL RESULTS The modelling results demonstrate that atmospheric emissions from the proposed plant do not result in ground level concentrations (GLCs) of pollutants which exceed applicable air quality standard (AQS) limit values. 6.1 Nitrogen Dioxide The maximum predicted GLCs of NO 2 are well below their respective AQS limit values. Scenario 2 represents the normal operational scenario for the CHP plant and shows that the maximum predicted hourly and annual NO 2 GLCs are less than 20 % and 6 % respectively of the AQS limit values. N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 13

7. CONCLUSIONS A stack height determination resulted in the stack height of 30 meters being selected as the lowest appropriate stack height. Lower levels resulted in poor dispersion and while higher stacks improved dispersion the visual impact is likely to be too high. The stacks at 30 m provide adequate dispersion while minimising visual impacts. All of the emissions were modelled at maximum emission levels. The plant is likely to operate with lower emission rates. The maximum ground level concentrations represent the worst-case of maximum emission rate and meteorological conditions with poor dispersion characteristics. These weather conditions occur less than 10 to 15% of the hours in any one year In summary, the air dispersion model study has demonstrated that emissions to atmosphere from the proposed facility will not result in ground level concentrations of pollutants exceeding any applicable air quality standard (AQS) limit values. The statutory AQS limit values have been designed for the protection of human health and the environment. Therefore atmospheric emissions from the proposed plant are not predicted to have any significant adverse impact on ambient air quality and human health and the environment. N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc 14

EIS Air Dispersion Modelling Report Appendix A 15 th April 2005 APPENDIX A ISOPLETH CHARTS OF THE PREDICTED GROUND LEVEL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc Page 1 of 4

N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc Page 2 of 4

N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc Page 3 of 4

N:\101050\22 ENVIRONMENTAL\310 AIR QUALITY\101050-22-rp-0003\101050-22-RP-0003.doc Page 4 of 4