RUTHERFORD ODOUR INVESTIGATION PROJECT€¦ · Odours from the Rutherford Industrial Estate have been a long standing concern for some members ... on 7 September 2011. A key role

Todoroski Air Sciences Pty Ltd Suite 2B, 14 Glen Street Eastwood, NSW 2122 Phone: (02) 9874 2123 Fax: (02) 9874 2125 Email: [email protected]

Prepared by

RUTHERFORD ODOUR INVESTIGATION PROJECT

Prepared for: Rutherford Air Quality Liaison Committee

7 December 2012

Job Number 12040091

DISCLAIMER This report was prepared by Todoroski Air Sciences Pty Ltd in good faith exercising all due care and attention, but no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the relevance, accuracy, completeness or fitness for purpose of this document in respect of any particular user’s circumstances. Users of this document should satisfy themselves concerning its application to, and where necessary seek expert advice in respect of, their situation. The views expressed within are not necessarily the views of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and may not represent EPA policy.

© Copyright State of NSW and the Environment Protection Authority

Author(s): Aleks Todoroski Philip Henschke

Position: Director Atmospheric Physicist

Signature:

Date: 07/12/2012 07/12/2012

DOCUMENT CONTROL Report Version Date Prepared by Reviewed by

Working Draft 001 25 June 2012 A Todoroski/ F Rahaman/ P Henschke A Todoroski

Draft 002 28 August 2012 A Todoroski S Korch

Draft 003 31 August 2012 A Todoroski A Todoroski

Final ‐ 001 29 November 2012 A Todoroski/P Henschke

Final ‐ 002 7 December 2012 A Todoroski/P Henschke A Todoroski/S Korch

This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of works between Todoroski Air Sciences Pty Ltd (TAS) and the client. TAS relies on and presumes accurate the information (or lack thereof) made available to it to conduct the work. If this is not the case, the findings of the report may change. TAS has applied the usual care and diligence of the profession prevailing at the time of preparing this report and commensurate with the information available. No other warranty or guarantee is implied in regard to the content and findings of the report. The report has been prepared exclusively for the use of the client, for the stated purpose and must be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for the use of the report or part thereof in any other context or by any third party.

Rutherford Odour Investigation Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Odours from the Rutherford Industrial Estate have been a long standing concern for some members of the Rutherford and Aberglasslyn communities.

The NSW Government made an election commitment to establish a Rutherford Air Quality Liaison Committee with community and local business representation, alongside scientific experts.

The Hon Robyn Parker MP, Minister for the Environment, announced the establishment of the Rutherford Air Quality Liaison Committee (RAQLC) on 7 September 2011.

A key role of the Committee is to provide advice on the development of an odour source sampling and analysis campaign, designed to identify the most prominent sources of odour in the Rutherford Industrial Estate.

This report outlines the findings of a study into the available monitoring data for industries operating in the Rutherford Industrial Estate, and an evaluation of the complaints data and ambient monitoring studies that have been completed.

The study found that the complaints are well justified, however that the situation at Rutherford is complicated in regard to identifying the potential source of odour. This arises, most likely due to the complex meteorological conditions in the area, but notably the frequent occurrence of stable temperature inversion conditions when odour from low lying and elevated sources may be separated and may variously impact receptors on the flanking hills around the industrial area both spatially and temporally.

The investigation into potential marker chemicals and the available monitoring methods to identify the potential source of odour, along with all key information in this report was presented to the RAQLC at a meeting held on 8 June 2012. The ensuing discussion narrowed down the preferred approach to identifying the likely sources of the problematic odour.

The favoured approach was implementation of an air dispersion model incorporating all key odour generating industries in the Rutherford Industrial Estate and an accompanying campaign of source monitoring in order to provide the data required to operate the model.

This option was chosen as the one most likely to identify the potential key source(s) causing problematic odours in the wider area, in a timely and cost effective manner.

The option has some limitations and careful consideration as to how it is implemented, by whom, and of the jurisdictional differences between state and local government regulations is needed. The key issues are described in this report for RAQLC consideration in progressing its charge. It is understood that this report is the preliminary stage investigation for the first of three stages of work related to odour issues at Rutherford, and that the RAQLC would advise the NSW EPA on the development of the two further stages.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................3 2 PROJECT LOCALITY.....................................................................................................................3

2.1 Local Climatic Conditions........................................................................................................3 2.2 Local Wind Patterns ................................................................................................................3

3 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................3 3.1 Outline of the Project...............................................................................................................3 3.2 The Project Scope...................................................................................................................3 3.3 The Project Methodology ........................................................................................................3

4 REVIEW OF INDUSTRIES IN THE RUTHERFORD INDUSTRIAL AREA.....................................3 4.1 Emissions Data .......................................................................................................................3

4.1.1 Industrial Activities at RIE ...............................................................................................3 4.1.2 Source Emissions Data...................................................................................................3 4.1.3 Ambient Data...................................................................................................................3

4.2 Potential Marker Chemicals ....................................................................................................3 4.3 Marker Chemical Information Gaps and Discussion...............................................................3

5 ODOUR MONITORING METHODS ...............................................................................................3 5.1 Source Odour Monitoring Methods .........................................................................................3

5.1.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................3 5.2 Ambient Odour Monitoring and Analysis Methods..................................................................3

5.2.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................3 5.2.2 General Ambient Air Monitoring Techniques ..................................................................3 5.2.3 Ambient Odour and Chemical Monitoring Instrument Techniques .................................3 5.2.4 Physical Odour and Chemical Sampling.........................................................................3 5.2.5 Field Olfactometry ...........................................................................................................3 5.2.6 Air Dispersion Modelling Analysis ...................................................................................3

5.3 Summary of Pros and Cons for Monitoring and Analysis Methods ........................................3 6 MONITORING LOCATIONS...........................................................................................................3

6.1 Source Sampling.....................................................................................................................3 6.2 Ambient Monitoring .................................................................................................................3

7 MONITORING CAMPAIGN OPTIONS ...........................................................................................3 8 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION OF RISKS OF CAMPAIGN OPTIONS....................................3 9 FEEDBACK FROM RAQLC............................................................................................................3

9.1 Option 2...................................................................................................................................3 9.1.1 Option 2 - Outline of modelling........................................................................................3 9.1.2 Source sampling campaign.............................................................................................3 9.1.3 Source sampling considerations .....................................................................................3

10 CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................................3 11 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................3

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - Additional Windroses for Rutherford APPENDIX B - Odorous and Toxic Pollutants List APPENDIX C - Response to Comments

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Monthly Climate statistics summary - Paterson (TOCAL AWS)............................................3 Table 2-2: Stability class distribution (TAPM - 2010)..............................................................................3 Table 4-1: Licensed Industries................................................................................................................3 Table 4-2: Non-licensed Industries .........................................................................................................3 Table 4-3: Potential odorous compounds ...............................................................................................3 Table 4-4: Summary of odour survey: Rutherford 2008 .........................................................................3 Table 4-5: Ranking of odour complaints by individuals ..........................................................................3 Table 4-6: Ranking of odour complaints by suburbs ..............................................................................3 Table 4-7: Ranking of odour complaints by type of odour ......................................................................3 Table 4-8: Summary of ambient monitoring data (ppbV)........................................................................3 Table 4-9: Marker chemicals for different activities ................................................................................3 Table 4-10: Marker chemicals for different activities ..............................................................................3 Table 5-1: Core components that may form part of a complete monitoring, sampling and source identification plan ....................................................................................................................................3 Table 5-2: Ambient Monitoring................................................................................................................3 Table 5-3: General Ambient Monitoring ..................................................................................................3 Table 5-4: Field Monitoring .....................................................................................................................3 Table 5-5: Dispersion Modelling .............................................................................................................3 Table 7-1: Monitoring, sampling and analysis for source identification plan options - combination of components.............................................................................................................................................3 Table 7-2: Pros and Cons of potential combinations of sampling, monitoring and analysis approaches................................................................................................................................................................3 Table 9-1: Licensed Industries................................................................................................................3 Table 9-2: Non-licensed Industries .........................................................................................................3

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Rutherford Industrial Estate..................................................................................................3 Figure 2-2: Representative three dimensional terrain view ....................................................................3 Figure 2-3: Monthly climate statistics summary - Paterson (TOCAL AWS) ...........................................3 Figure 2-4: Annual and seasonal windroses - TAPM generated (2010).................................................3 Figure 4-1: Location of Industries ...........................................................................................................3 Figure 4-2: Ranking of odour complaints by individuals .........................................................................3 Figure 4-3: Ranking of odour complaints by suburbs .............................................................................3 Figure 4-4: Ranking of odour complaints by type of odour .....................................................................3

ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Meaning

AERMOD Air dispersion model used by US EPA

AP42 US EPA compilation of Air Pollution Emissions

AS Australian Standard

AUSPLUME Air dispersion model developed by EPA Victoria

CALMET Meteorological model adopted by US EPA, originally developed for the California Air Resources

Board

CALPUFF Air dispersion model adopted by US EPA, originally developed for the California Air Resources

Board

ECD Electron capture detector

EPA NSW Environment Protection Authority

FID Flame ionization detector

GCMS Gas chromatograph mass spectrometry

ISC Industrial Source Complex, air dispersion model used by US EPA

MS Mass spectrometry

NPI National Pollutant Inventory

NSW New South Wales

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage

PAH Polyaromatic hydrocarbons

PID Photo ionization detector

ppm Parts per million

ppmV Parts per million by volume

PRP Pollution Reduction Program

RAQLC Rutherford Air Quality Liaison Committee

RIE Rutherford Industrial Estate

ST Source testing

TAPM The Air Pollution Model, developed by CSIRO

TCD Thermal conductivity detector

VDI The Association of German Engineers

VOCs Volatile organic compounds

μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic metre

1

TAS Rutherford Odour Project - FINAL -7 Feb 2013 - EPA disclaimer

1 INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared by Todoroski Air Sciences (TAS) for the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA), in consultation with the Rutherford Air Quality Liaison Committee (RAQLC). This report outlines an odour monitoring and sampling plan for the Rutherford Industrial Estate (RIE) and surrounding area. It focuses on the identification of sources of odour, the identification of characteristic marker chemicals emitted from potential odour sources and a proposed methodology for a comprehensive monitoring, sampling and analysis campaign for substances identified.

This report incorporates the following aspects:

Description of the locality of the RIE and background information;

Review of activities undertaken in the RIE by scheduled (EPA-licensed) and non-scheduled (non-licensed) industries;

Analysis of the OEH emission inventory information;

Review of existing source emission data;

Review of existing odour monitoring and ambient air quality data;

Review of ambient odour monitoring methods;

Review of relevant techniques for identifying offensive odour sources;

Identification of appropriate monitoring and sampling methods;

Identification of appropriate monitoring locations for both source and ambient monitoring;

Evaluation and quantification of the potential risk that the proposed monitoring, sampling and analysis campaign may not be able to identify the sources of odour in the RIE;

Recommendation of a monitoring and sampling campaign; and

Recommendations on how the monitoring results will be analysed and reported.

2 PROJECT LOCALITY

The RIE is located approximately 35km northwest of Newcastle in the Lower Hunter Valley in NSW. It is bounded by the New England Highway to the north and the Main Northern Railway to the south. The residential areas of Rutherford and Aberglasslyn are located directly to the east and rural areas to the west. Figure 2-1 presents an aerial image of the RIE.

2


Figure 2‐1: Rutherford Industrial Estate

The topographical features of the local area are characterised by the low flood plain area in which RIE is situated. Surrounding the RIE the terrain is slightly elevated noticeably to the east, south and west where the residential area of Rutherford is situated. Figure 2-2 presents a representative three dimensional view of the area.

Figure 2‐2: Representative three dimensional terrain view

The RIE is essentially flat and is ringed by a "horseshoe" of ridges where there are residential areas. The RIE "horseshoe" is open towards the Hunter River and would effectively catch cool night time air drainage flows that come down the valley floor. This would trap and hold cool air low to ground level

3


in the RIE resulting in prolonged temperature inversions in the locality. It is estimated that such E and F class weather conditions may occur for 30% of the time annual in the area, see below.

Such conditions would limit mixing of the air in the evening, night and early morning allowing odours to build up in the air trapped under the inversion. Industrial stacks may at times have sufficient heat and velocity to penetrate the inversion, and when this occurs these emissions are unlikely to come back to ground level. Fugitive emissions from roller doors or roof vents are likely to remain trapped under the inversions that would occur in this area.

2.1 Local Climatic Conditions

Long-term climatic data from the Bureau of Meteorology weather station at Paterson (TOCAL AWS) (Site No. 061250) have been used to characterise the local climate in the proximity of the RIE. The Paterson (TOCAL AWS) station is located approximately 12km northeast of the RIE.

Table 2-1 and Figure 2-3 present a summary of data from Paterson (TOCAL AWS) collected over a 34-year period. The data indicate that January is the hottest month with a mean maximum temperature of 29.7ºC and July as the coldest month with a mean minimum temperature of 6.2ºC.

Humidity levels exhibit variability and seasonal flux across the year. Mean 9am humidity levels range from 64% in September and October to 80% in March and May. Mean 3pm humidity levels range from 46% in August and September to 59% in June.

Rainfall peaks in the first half of the year during the summer and autumn months and declines during the winter months. The data indicates that February is the wettest month with an average rainfall of 120.6mm over 8.8 days and August is the driest month with an average rainfall of 36.9mm over 5.1 days.

Wind speeds during the warmer months have a greater spread between the 9am and 3pm conditions compared to the colder months. Mean 9am wind speeds range from 5.5km/h in February to 13.3km/h in August. Mean 3pm wind speeds range from 11.3km/h in April to 17.9km/h in August.

4


Table 2‐1: Monthly Climate statistics summary ‐ Paterson (TOCAL AWS)

Parameter Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Temperature

Mean max. temperature (ºC) 29.7 28.8 26.9 24.2 20.7 17.7 17.3 19.3 22.3 24.9 26.7 29.0

Mean min. temperature (ºC) 17.6 17.6 15.6 12.5 9.6 7.5 6.2 6.5 8.9 11.5 14.0 16.2

Rainfall

Rainfall (mm) 103.3 120.6 115.3 80.2 74.1 77.7 41.2 36.9 49.3 66.4 82.0 79.5

Mean No. of rain days (≥1mm) 8.6 8.8 9.2 7.5 7.4 7.6 6.1 5.1 5.7 7.5 9.0 7.6

9am conditions

Mean temperature (ºC) 22.7 22.0 20.6 18.0 14.6 11.9 11.0 12.6 16.2 19.1 20.1 22.2

Mean relative humidity (%) 74 79 80 77 80 78 76 69 64 64 69 69

Mean wind speed (km/h) 7.0 5.5 5.8 7.0 8.4 11.0 11.5 13.3 13.1 11.1 9.5 8.5

3pm conditions

Mean temperature (ºC) 28.3 27.4 25.7 23.0 19.7 16.8 16.4 18.3 20.9 23.3 25.1 27.5

Mean relative humidity (%) 52 56 58 56 58 59 55 46 46 48 49 49

Mean wind speed (km/h) 14.6 12.3 11.6 11.3 11.4 13.8 15.0 17.9 17.8 16.5 16.5 16.1

Source: BoM, 2012

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonth

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Tem

per

atu

re (

oC

)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

Rai

nfa

ll (m

m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Mea

n n

um

ber

of

rain

day

s


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Re

lati

ve h

um

idit

y (%

)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Win

dsp

eed

(km

/hr)

Mean maximum temperatureMean minimum temperatureMean 9am temperatureMean 3pm temperature

Mean 9am relative humidityMean 3pm relative humidity

Mean 9am windspeedMean 3pm windspeed

Average rainfallMean no. of rain days

Figure 2‐3: Monthly climate statistics summary ‐ Paterson (TOCAL AWS)

5


2.2 Local Wind Patterns

Figure 2-4 presents annual and seasonal windroses generated using The Air Pollution Model (TAPM) (Hurley, 2008) for the 2010 calendar year. On an annual basis, winds from the west-northwest are most frequent. During summer, winds from the east and southeast quadrants dominate with a lesser portion of wind from the west-northwest. Autumn is dominated by winds from the west-northwest and west, with a lesser portion of winds from the west-southwest ranging to the southeast. During spring there is a similar wind distribution to the annual wind patterns, with winds predominately occurring from the west-northwest. In winter, west-northwest winds dominate the wind distribution.

The annual wind distribution pattern represents the typical wind pattern experienced in the Hunter Valley as recorded at numerous automatic weather stations as far as Muswellbrook. However it is observed that the frequency of east-southeast and southeast winds is generally low in comparison with other areas of the Hunter Valley. This may be caused by local topographic features located to the east.

Windroses from other sources reviewed during this study are presented in Appendix A. These include windroses generated from meteorological data collected by Transpacific Industries during 2011 and National Ceramics during March 2011 and April 2012. These data show reasonable comparisons of the wind distribution pattern generated by TAPM. The variation can be attributed to the usual discrepancy between modelled results and measured results that are influenced by local features such as trees and buildings or the precision of the instruments.

Table 2-2 presents a summary of the atmospheric stability class distribution from the TAPM generated data. The term atmospheric stability refers to the dispersive capacity of the atmosphere. In this study a classification scheme referred to as the Pasquill-Gifford scheme has been used. The Pasquill-Gifford scheme classifies the atmosphere into six (sometimes seven) classes A to F (or G in the extended scheme):

Class A occurs in the day with light winds and strong solar radiation with strong convection, dispersion is rapid.

Class D, also known as "neutral conditions" occurs with moderate to strong winds and/or overcast skies, again dispersion is rapid.

Class F (and G) occurs under light winds with clear skies at night. These conditions are conducive to the formation of ground-based inversions and as such, dispersion is slow.

Classes B and C are intermediate between A and D, and E is intermediate between D and F.

Table 2‐2: Stability class distribution (TAPM ‐ 2010)

Stability Class Frequency of Stability Class Occurrence (%)

A 0.7

B 4.6

C 15.2

D 48.3

E 14.9

F 16.3

6


Overall, stability Class D is predicted to occur for the greatest proportion of time in the surrounding area. The high frequency of combined Class E and F conditions (31.2%) suggests that emissions will disperse slowly for a significant portion of time over the year.

7


NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

4% 8% 12% 16% 20%

NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

10% 20% 30%

NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

4% 8% 12% 16%

NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

4% 8% 12% 16%

NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

4% 8% 12% 16% 20%Wind speed (m/s)

>0 - 1.5

>1.5 - 3

>3 - 4.5

>4.5 - 6

>6 - 7.5

>7.5

Annual and seasonal windroses forRutherford (TAPM, 2010)

SpringWinter

AutumnSummer

Annual

Figure 2‐4: Annual and seasonal windroses ‐ TAPM generated (2010)

8


3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Outline of the Project

The aim of this Project is to develop a plan to identify the pollutants that cause the problematic intermittent odour in Rutherford, and to identify techniques for identifying potential odour sources in the RIE.

The Project is co-ordinated by the NSW EPA, in consultation with the RAQLC, and with RAQLC input on all key aspects.

So that a useful plan can be developed, it is important to understand where this Project fits within the broader objective of ameliorating the problem. To tackle environmental odour or pollution as occurs in Rutherford, the following steps are needed:

1. Identify and understand the issue (this Project is a part of this step);

2. Identify the cause or causes;

3. Identify the mitigation actions;

4. Implement the mitigation actions; and

5. Verify that the issue has been ameliorated.

The issue is that there is odour in Rutherford. This is clear from the volume and number of complainants. It is understood that the odour often occurs during poor dispersion conditions, generally when it is cool during the evening, night and early morning.

Monitoring to date has not clearly identified the cause of the odour, and indicates that the odour is attributable to one or a combination of the following sources: industrial emissions from the RIE, domestic solid fuel heating, other anthropogenic or natural sources of odour.

It is however most likely that the problematic odour arises from industrial sources in the RIE.

This project is about developing a plan for monitoring so that the substances causing the odour can be identified, and so that the information obtained by doing this monitoring can be used to identify the cause of the odour.

Part of the Project is to identify appropriate techniques for identifying odour sources in the RIE.

The available monitoring approaches and techniques for identifying odour sources will need to be considered for application. Due to the range of options available, and as no single technique alone would be likely to suffice, two or more of the options may need to be applied together. This means there would be a range of combinations of options that may be suitable for consideration.

The final part of the project is to identify the possible risk that the available options cannot identify the source of the odour in the RIE.

To move forward and define its preferred plan for progress, the RAQLC will need to evaluate the findings of this Project in consideration of its understanding of the issue and the steps that would need to follow (implement the preferred plan, identify the cause of odour, identify the mitigation actions, implement the mitigation actions and verify that odour has been ameliorated). Of course, the RAQLC would also need to consider the budget, technology and human resources available to tackle the overall objective of ameliorating the potential problematic odour. This overall evaluation is not part of

9


the Project; however the Project findings would play a key part in the EPA’s and RAQLC's deliberations.

3.2 The Project Scope

The specified scope of work that is outlined in the EPA’s brief for the Project is as follows:

A. Undertake a desktop study to identify potential sources of offensive odour in the Rutherford Industrial Estate

i. Review activities undertaken in the Rutherford Industrial Estate by scheduled (EPA-licensed)

and non-scheduled (non-licensed) industries. Summarise potentially odorous activities, including process descriptions, identify marker chemicals for each industry and evaluate the potential for industrial activities emitting offensive odours. NSW EPA will provide licence information.

ii. Analyse emission inventory information.

The analysis will determine if there are any pollutants of particular concern or unique to the Rutherford and Aberglasslyn area. NSW EPA will provide OEH air emissions inventory information.

iii. Review existing source emission data, including odour emission data.

NSW EPA will provide available data.

iv. Review existing odour monitoring and ambient air quality data.

NSW EPA will provide available data.

B. Design a comprehensive monitoring, sampling and analysis campaign, focused on

air emissions and potential sources of odour in the Rutherford Industrial Estate, based on the findings of the desktop study above (A).

i. Review available ambient emissions and odour monitoring methods, relevant to industrial

activity in the Rutherford Industrial Estate.

ii. Review all relevant techniques for identifying offensive odour sources in the Rutherford Industrial Estate.

iii. Identify appropriate monitoring and sampling methods and identify appropriate pollutants to

be monitored.

iv. Identify appropriate monitoring locations within the Rutherford Industrial Estate and residential areas, for both source and ambient monitoring, based on findings of desktop investigations.

v. Evaluate and quantify if possible the risk of the proposed monitoring, sampling and analysis

campaign being unable to identify the sources of odour in the Rutherford Industrial Estate.

C. Prepare draft report

10


i. The contractor is required to present the findings of the draft report to the Environment

Protection Authority. D. Conduct a one hour workshop with the Rutherford Air Quality Liaison Committee

to report on the findings Draft Report i. Facilitate discussion on the proposed design of the monitoring, sampling and analysis

campaign. Include a method to analyse, interpret and report results.

E. Prepare final report

Following the presentation to the Rutherford Air Quality Liaison Committee and after receiving any additional and relevant information, the contractor will submit to the Environment Protection Authority a Final Report, incorporating consideration of stakeholder feedback.

3.3 The Project Methodology

Part A: Desktop Study to identify potential sources of offensive odour in the RIE

A desktop study will be undertaken to identify potential sources of offensive odour in the RIE. The desktop study would include:

A review of activities at NSW EPA licensed and non-licensed industries to summarise potential odour generating activities. For the activities with potential to generate significant off-site odour, a description of the activity and list of potential marker chemicals would be provided (where it is reasonably possible to do so);

The OEH air emission inventory would also be examined to see whether there are any pollutants for particular attention or unique chemical substances in the local air shed. This is anticipated to cover an area wider than only the RIE. The aim is to identify potential interference from other sources in the area, and to quantify and prioritise (rank) the total air shed emissions load from activities included in the OEH Inventory;

Review emission and odour data for existing sources. The aim is twofold:

Identify the potentially odorous activities, and where possible to rank, prioritise and classify the odours.

Identify potential pollutants of concern and potential marker chemicals. Whilst it is normal and expected that the results will show the typical combustion and other substances released by industry to be present, specific focus would be given to substances with elevated potential for odour that may serve as a potential marker chemical.

The available odour monitoring and ambient air quality data would be reviewed to identify the data that is available, and to identify potential gaps in the information needed to characterise local air quality.

The findings of Part A will influence the design of any monitoring network, sampling program and recommendations.

Part B: Design a comprehensive monitoring, sampling and analysis campaign focused on air emissions and potential sources of odour in the RIE, based on the findings of Part A.

11


This part of the study is based on a review of the range of available techniques, a site-specific evaluation, and risk assessment of the recommended approach. The following would be considered when designing the campaign:

Review relevant, available ambient emissions and odour monitoring methods;

The techniques relevant to monitoring the potential pollutants of concern from the RIE would be presented;

The relevant techniques for reliable ambient odour monitoring are relatively limited, and will be detailed. These include physical sampling and field olfactometry, aided and unaided. The sampling methods are generally constrained to identifying specific chemicals, and are not suited to characterising complex mixtures of odours. The sampling methods may not always achieve sufficiently low detection limits due to the need for a small sample time and small sample volume which is necessary to detect the rapidly time varying nature of environmental odour impacts;

Field olfactometry can be aided with devices such as the nasal ranger, and for valid results generally requires a "calibrated nose". German VDI1 standards for field olfactometry, and modified versions (e.g. Sydney Water) and various statistical variants to the technique also require screening of field assessors, and many field assessors. These methods are generally only viable with a large budget or when affordable labour (such a University project/ assignment team) can be sourced;

Review all relevant techniques for identifying offensive odour sources in the RIE. There are a number of effective strategies available, ranging from simple to complex field work studies, modelling approaches and statistical methods;

Identify the appropriate pollutants, and the appropriate monitoring and sampling methods to identify them;

Identify the appropriate monitoring locations within the RIE and residential areas for source and ambient monitoring, based on desktop investigations;

Identifying appropriate locations for source sampling would be straightforward for most stack sources, (the Australian standard should be followed), but is generally more complicated for fugitive source sampling, depending on the source type, emissions and accessibility. More flexible approaches may be necessary in this regard; and

Evaluate and quantify, if possible, the risk of the proposed monitoring, sampling and analysis campaign being unable to identify the sources of odour in the RIE. As detailed above, the specified scope of work carries a high risk of producing invalid results from the ambient monitoring campaign. This risk can be reduced with further detailed work as suggested.

Part C: Draft Report

Prepare a draft report for public release to a standard commensurate with standards of the profession, and in accordance with the scope. The report would contain a summary written in plain English. Aspects that are important for community understanding of the issues would be explained in non-expert terms as far as possible. Details of calculations and data would be provided in the appendices.

1 VDI is an abbreviation for Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, an association of German engineers that develops technical regulations and standards.

12


Part D: Workshop Presentation

Prepare for and conduct a one hour workshop with the RAQLC to report on the findings of the draft report;

Facilitate discussion on the proposed design of the monitoring, sampling and analysis campaign; and,

Include a method to analyse, interpret and report results.

Part E: Prepare Final Report

Prepare and submit a final report to the NSW EPA Project Manager that is suitable for public release, incorporating consideration of stakeholder feedback from the workshop. The report would include a CD containing the data used.

13


4 REVIEW OF INDUSTRIES IN THE RUTHERFORD INDUSTRIAL AREA

There are various commercial and industrial facilities located within the RIE. Based on information obtained during this study the following businesses were identified with potential to emit air pollutants. These industries have been separated into licensed and non-licensed industries. The location of each of these industries is shown in Figure 4-1. The licensed industries have a black label.

Licensed industries are those which have existing environment protection licences with the NSW EPA and are summarised in Table 4-1. Non-licensed industries are regulated by Maitland City Council. The non-licensed industries which may have potential to emit odours based on their activities have been identified through a desktop study; these are summarised in Table 4-2.

It should be noted that further investigation is required regarding the non-licensed industries to confirm whether they have any significant actual air pollution emissions from the activity.

Table 4‐1: Licensed Industries Name Address EPL No. Description

Maitland Saleyards 52 Kyle Street 2463 Wholesale Livestock Dealers

Truegain 62 Kyle Street 7638 Refining of waste oil

Jurox 85 Gardiner Road 12846 Chemical production

National Ceramics 175 Racecourse Road 11956 Manufacture ceramic tiles

Transpacific Refiners 11 Kyle Street 12555 Refining of waste oil

Renewable Oil Services 38 Bradmill Ave 13092 Waste processing (non‐thermal treatment)

Maitland Biodiesel 62 Racecourse Road 12627 Biofuel production

Wastechem 26 Hinkler Avenue 20065 Waste storage

Atlantic Pacific Foods Lot 9 and 10 Gardiner Street 3426 General agricultural processing

Transpacific Industries 99 Kyle Street 11383 Waste storage

AUSGRID 35 Green Street 12092 Waste storage

Hunter Water Corporation ‐ ‐ Sewerage system

Table 4‐2: Non‐licensed Industries Name Address Description

Maitland Ready Mixed Concrete Lot 91 New England Hwy Concrete works

Wax Converters Textiles 77 Racecourse Road Manufacture of canvas, industrial and outdoor fabrics

Hymix Australia 15 Kyle Street Concrete works

Advantage (CHS) Group 4 Hinkler Avenue Hygiene Services, Document Destruction, Medical Waste

Landmark 152 Racecourse Road Farm Equipment & Supplies

Maitland Smash Repairs 19/1 Racecourse Road Smash Repairs and spray painting

Terex Mining Aust 139 Racecourse Road Crane manufacturer

Emeco International Pty Ltd 149 Racecourse Road Excavating and Earth moving equipment

Hunter Powder and Paint 7 Burlington Place Spray painting and powder coating

Industrial Maintenance & Fabrications

73 Gardiner Street Steel fabrication

Treloar 25‐33 Gardiner Street Fabrication and foundry

Ultrafloor 74 Kyle Street Precast concrete flooring

National Poly Industries 21 Kyle Street Manufacture of polyethylene water tanks

Just like fish Swim School 31 Hinkler Ave Heated indoor pool

Bliss Coffee Roasters 1/37 Shipley Dr Coffee Roaster

RSPCA 6‐10 Burlington Place Veterinary Hospital and shelter complex

Boral Resources (Country) 71 Aberglasslyn Road Concrete works

Fulton Hogan 40 Gardiners Street Bitumen Products

Inbye Mining Services 64 Gardiner Street Underground mining products and services

14


Maitland Saleyards

Truegain

Jurox

National Ceramics

Transpacific RefinersRenewable Oil Services

Maitland Biodiesel

Wastechem

Atlantic Pacific Foods

Transpacific IndustriesAdvantage (CHS) Group

Landmark

Maitland Smash Repairs

Terex Mining Aust

Emeco International Pty Ltd

Hunter Powder and Paint

Industrial Maintenace & Fabrications

Treloar

Ultrafloor

National Poly Industries

Just like fish Swim School

Bliss Coffee Roasters

RSPCA

Pioneer Road Services

Inbye Mining Services

Hymix Australia

Maitland Ready Mixed Concrete

Wax Converters Textiles

358000 358200 358400 358600 358800 359000 359200 359400 359600 359800 360000 360200 360400 360600 360800 361000 361200 361400 361600 361800

MGA Coordinates Zone 56 (m)

6378400

6378600

6378800

6379000

6379200

6379400

6379600

6379800

6380000

6380200

6380400

Figure 4‐1: Location of Industries

15


4.1 Emissions Data

4.1.1 Industrial Activities at RIE

A desktop survey was conducted to identify the industrial facilities that have potential to contribute to odour from the RIE. The survey identified the following type of industrial activities at the RIE.

Petroleum and fuel production;

Chemical production;

Bitumen pre-mix or hot mix production;

Live animal sale yards;

Agricultural processing;

Resource recovery;

Waste storage and activities;

Concrete works; and,

Manufacture of industrial textiles.

4.1.2 Source Emissions Data

Potentially odorous pollutants were identified based on the literature review and are presented in Table 4-3. Review of the available information provided by NSW EPA and those obtained from the desktop survey found that very limited data on the potential emissions from each facility are available, to quantify the emission rates for each site, with the exception of the oil processing facilities, where some good data is available. Therefore, focus was given to identifying the potentially odorous compounds that are known to be associated with for each facility as presented in Table 4-3.

The various compounds in the table are ranked according to their odour detection threshold concentration level. This is the lowest concentration in air at which the substance can be detected by a typical human nose. Compounds that are detectable at low concentrations are more odorous than compounds that are detectable only at high concentrations.

16


Table 4‐3: Potentially odorous compounds and sources of available emissions data

Th

resh

old

µ

g/m

³)

Mai

tlan

d R

ead

yM

ix C

on

cret

e B

ora

l R

eso

urc

es

(Co

un

try)

Fu

lto

n H

og

an

Atl

anti

c P

acif

ic

Fo

od

s

Hym

ix

Au

stra

lia

Tru

egai

n

Wax

C

on

vert

ers

T

exti

les

Nat

ion

al

Cer

amic

s

AU

SG

RID

Tra

nsp

acif

ic

Ref

iner

s (c

om

bin

ed)

Bio

die

sel

Ind

ust

ries

Juro

x

Ren

ewab

le

Oil

Ser

vic

es

Was

tech

em

Mai

tlan

d

Sal

eya

rds

Mai

tlan

d

Sm

ash

Rep

airs

Inb

ye

Min

ing

Ser

vic

es

Ethyl acrylate 0.40

Methyl mercaptan 0.46

Hydrogen sulfide 1.38 OEH

Ethylbenzene 2 OEH OEH OEH OEH

N‐hexane 2 AP42 OEH OEH OEH

Nitrobenzene 2.6

Methylamine 2.7

Phosphine 3.1

Napthalene 4.4 OEH

Butyl mercaptan 7

Pyridine 7

Xylene 8 NPI NPI NPI NPI, OEH

ST, OEH NPI, OEH

ST, OEH NPI NPI OEH OEH

Dimethylamine 9

Methyl ethyl ketone 11 ST ST OEH OEH OEH

Phenol 20 NPI NPI NPI NPI NPI NPI

Benzene 21 OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH

Cumene (isopropyl benzene) 21 ST ST

Toluene 22 NPI NPI NPI OEH OEH,NPI OEH, ST OEH OEH, NPI

OEH, ST OEH,NPI NPI OEH OEH

Ammonia (total) 26.6 OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH

1,2,3‐trimethylbenzene 29.5 OEH OEH OEH OEH

1,2,4‐trimethylbenzene 29.5 OEH OEH OEH OEH

Diethylamine 30

Formaldehyde 33.2 OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH

N‐propanol 41

Acetaldehyde 42 NPI NPI NPI

N‐propylbenzene 48.2 OEH OEH OEH

Carbon disulfide 70

Diphenyl ether 80

Butyl acrylate 100

Chlorobenzene 100 ST ST

17


Th

resh

old

µ

g/m

³)

Mai

tlan

d R

ead

yM

ix C

on

cret

e B

ora

l R

eso

urc

es

(Co

un

try)

Fu

lto

n H

og

an

Atl

anti

c P

acif

ic

Fo

od

s

Hym

ix

Au

stra

lia

Tru

egai

n

Wax

C

on

vert

ers

T

exti

les

Nat

ion

al

Cer

amic

s

AU

SG

RID

Tra

nsp

acif

ic

Ref

iner

s (c

om

bin

ed)

Bio

die

sel

Ind

ust

ries

Juro

x

Ren

ewab

le

Oil

Ser

vic

es

Was

tech

em

Mai

tlan

d

Sal

eya

rds

Mai

tlan

d

Sm

ash

Rep

airs

Inb

ye

Min

ing

Ser

vic

es

Nitrogen dioxide 109 OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH

Methyl methacrylate 120

P‐dichlorobenzene 120 OEH OEH OEH

Styrene (monomer) 120 NPI NPI NPI ST NPI ST

Methyl styrene 140

Chloroform (trichloromethane) 170 OEH OEH OEH

1,3,5‐trimethylbenzene 182 OEH OEH OEH OEH

Trimethylbenzenes 182 OEH OEH OEH

Triethylamine 200

Methyl isobutyl ketone 230 ST ST OEH OEH

Cyclohexanone 260 ST

Acetic acid 270

N‐butanol 500

N‐octane 509 OEH

Diacetone alcohol 700

Sulfur dioxide 865 OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH

N‐butyl acetate 1020 OEH OEH

Ethanol 2100

Methanol 3000 NPI NPI NPI

Dichloromethane 3450 OEH OEH OEH

Perchlorethylene 3500

N‐nonane 5250 OEH OEH

Acetone 8550 OEH OEH OEH

1,1,1‐trichloroethane 8730 OEH OEH OEH OEH

Ethyl acetate 12100 OEH OEH

N‐heptane 164000

OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH

Bromodichloromethane 1680000

Methylcyclohexane 2000000

OEH

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ‐ OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH

Total VOCs ‐ OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH OEH

18


NPI - National Pollutant Inventory OEH - OEH Air Emissions Inventory AP42 - US EPA compilation of Air Pollution Emissions ST - Source Testing VOCs - Volatile organic compounds

19


4.1.3 Ambient Data

Ambient monitoring data collected at the surrounding suburbs of the RIE were analysed with the aim of determining whether they would provide a better focus for the study in developing a monitoring plan. The analysis presented in this section examines the following data:

Odour complaints;

Odour survey; and

Speciated Volatile Organic Compounds data.

4.1.3.1 Odour survey The NSW EPA conducted several odour surveys in the Rutherford area in 2008. Findings of the odour surveys are presented in the following Table 4-4. The surveys identified the existence of odours including:

wood smoke;

sewage;

crushed grain; dog food;

burnt rubber/oil;

manure;

vaseline;

hydrocarbon, solvent;

peppermint;

detergent; and,

take away food.

Analysis of the survey results (presented in Table 4-4) showed that the odours experienced during the surveys were generally not at levels considered to be offensive.

It is important to note that offensive odour is defined in NSW Protection of the Environment Operations Act (1997) to mean an odour that by reason of its strength, nature, duration, character or quality, or the time at which it is emitted, or any other circumstances: is harmful to (or is likely to be harmful to) a person who is outside the premises from which it is emitted, or interferes unreasonably with (or is likely to interfere unreasonably with) the comfort and repose of a person outside of the premises from which it is emitted.

The survey found only two occasions when the odour levels were moderately high and could be considered as offensive. These odours were encountered within the Rutherford Industrial Estate. On both occasions, the surveyor experienced a gassy / Vaseline odour that they associated with the Truegain Waste oil refinery.

Table 4‐4: Summary of odour survey: Rutherford 2008

Date Time Location Strength of odour (1‐10)

Is the odour

offensive Y/N

Description of Odour Comments

28/05/2008 21:20 19 Ryan St 0 ‐ Extremely faint ‐ Almost non‐detectable

20



Is the odour

offensive Y/N


intermittent burnt rubber

28/05/2008 21:25 Nth end of Wollombi Rd

1 N Wood smoke Intermittent

28/05/2008 21:30 Maitland Rd 1 N Sewage

28/05/2008 21:35 Cnr Garwod & Brigantine

0 ‐ No odour

28/05/2008 21:45 Cnr Alvira &Regiment

0 ‐ No odour

28/05/2008 21:55

Burlington Pl / RSPCA

0 ‐ No odour

Very faint diesel smell from road, appears to have been a very small spill

28/05/2008 22:00 Cnr Kyle & Gardiner

1 ‐ 2 N Crushed grain/popcorn, dried dog food

Persistent

28/05/2008 22:10 Kyle St adjacent to Ultrafloor

1 N Manure and burnt rubber

28/05/2008 22:17 Cnr Kyle St & NE Hwy

0 ‐1 N Manure

28/05/2008 22:20 Racecourse Rd

1 N Crushed grain/ dried dog food

28/05/2008 23:00 Cnr Garwod & Brigantine

1 N Crushed corn

29/05/2008 09:30 South St near Cnr Blight St 1 N

Faint, gassy, hydrocarbon exhaust fume/ vaseline ‐ typical of Truegain

Almost at limit of recognition ‐ very faint

29/05/2008 09:37 Telarah St

1 N Very faint wood smoke Almost at limit of recognition ‐ very faint

29/05/2008 09:42 Wollombi Rd

1 ‐ 2 N Faint to moderate sewage/sweet/gassy ‐ close to PS well

Odour detected close to ground level (near well)

29/05/2008 09:50 Wollombi Rd 0 ‐ No odour

29/05/2008 10:00 Belair St 0 ‐ No odour

29/05/2008 10:15 Regiment Rd

2 N Wood smoke Domestic source from wood heater or other backyard burning

29/05/2008 10:29

Kyle St, Ultrafloor

4 ‐ 6 Y Gassy/Vaseline/exhaust burnt hydrocarbon ‐ cloying/sweet odour

Odour strong immediately downwind of Trugain. Towards front (Kyle St) odour has a sweeter component.

29/05/2008 10:42 Rutherford Rd, RSPCA

1 N Faint Truegain ‐ gassy/Vaseline

Small diesel spill on road also detected

29/05/2008 10:45 NE Hwy 0 ‐ No odour

29/05/2008 10:55 Avery St 0 ‐ No odour

30/05/2008 2:10 North Mall 0 ‐ No odour

30/05/2008 2:15 Maitland 0 ‐ No odour

30/05/2008 2:20 Cnr Garwood & Brigantine

1 ‐ Wood smoke

30/05/2008 2:25 Cnr Regiment & Alvia

0 ‐ No odour

30/05/2008 2:30 RSPCA 0 ‐ No odour

30/05/2008 2:40 Stormwater drain adj. APF 0 ‐ 1 N Detergent

Very small steam plume from drain entrance

21



Is the odour

offensive Y/N


30/05/2008 2:45 Cnr Kyle & Gardiner

0 ‐ 1 N Burn rubber Very faint ‐ intermittent

30/05/2008 2:50 Cnr Kyle & NE Hwy

0 ‐ No odour

30/05/2008 3:00 Belair Cl 0 ‐ 1 N Peppermint (chocolate)

12/06/2008 12:22 Capper St near Gillies St

0 ‐ No odour Light rain, Heavy + low cloud cover

12/06/2008 12:24 Capper St near Young St

0 ‐ No odour

12/06/2008 12:28 Wollembi Rd 0 ‐ No odour Rain stopped

12/06/2008 12:31 Ryan St 0 ‐ No odour

12/06/2008 12:37

Belair Cl

0 ‐ No odour

Extremely faint + intermittent damp earth/sewagy smell ‐ almost non‐detectable

12/06/2008 12:40 Regiment Rd

0 ‐ 1 N Faint solvent odour Very faint ‐ almost non‐detectable

12/06/2008 12:45 Racecourse Rd

1 N Solvent odour Traced to Maitland Smash Repairs‐Racecourse Road

12/06/2008 12:51 Gardiner Rd opp. APF

1 ‐ 2 Y Truegain ‐ gassy Vaseline odour

12/06/2008 12:56 Kyle St opp. Saleyards

0 ‐ No odour TPI windsock due west

12/06/2008 13:03 Nth Mall near Aldi

0 ‐ No odour

12/06/2008 13:08 Nth Mall opp. Woolworths

1 ‐ 2 N Cooking food/takeaway odour

12/06/2008 12:53 Gardiner Rd 0 ‐ No odour

13/06/2008 11:30 Nth Mall 0 ‐ No odour

13/06/2008 11:45 Cnr Brigatine & Garwood

0 ‐ No odour

13/06/2008 11:50 Cnr Garwood & Belair

0 ‐ 1 N Extremely faint solvent odour

Intermittent, barely detectable

13/06/2008 11:55 Belair Cl



13/06/2008 12:05 Cnr Alvia & Regiment

0 ‐ No odour

13/06/2008 12:20 Racecourse Rd opp. M. Smash Repair



13/06/2008 12:25 Racecourse Rd opp. Biodiesel

1 N Waste cooking oil

13/06/2008 12:30 RSPCA 0 ‐ No odour

13/06/2008 12:35 Gardiner St, Ultrafloor

1 N Very faint burnt rubber odour

Intermittent

13/06/2008 12:40 Gardiner St, Pioneer RS

0 ‐ No odour

13/06/2008 12:45 Cnr NE Hwy & Kyle

0 ‐ No odour

18/06/2008 15:15 MacDonald 0 N No odour

18/06/2008 15:25 Ryan 0 N No odour

18/06/2008 15:40 Cnr Brigatine & Garwood

0 N No odour

22



Is the odour

offensive Y/N


18/06/2008 15:45 Cnr Garwood & Belair

1 N Solvent/Smokey odour Faint, intermittent

18/06/2008 15:50 Buffier Cl 0 N No odour

18/06/2008 15:55 NE Hwy 0 ‐ 1 N Solvent Extremely faint

18/06/2008 16:00 Belair 0 N No odour

18/06/2008 16:05 Racecourse Rd opp. Biodiesel

0 N No odour

18/06/2008 16:15 Burlington 0 N No odour

18/06/2008 16:20 Gardiner opp. APF

1 N Burnt rubber/oil

18/06/2008 17:10 Kyle St opp. Ultrafloor

2 N Burnt rubber/oil

18/06/2008 17:15 Cnr NE Hwy & Kyle

0 N No odour

4.1.3.2 History of Odour Complaints This section summarises the recorded odour complaints from the neighbouring suburbs of the RIE. Focus was given to analysing the complaint data recorded since January 2008 to present.

A total of 658 complaints from 153 individuals in the neighbouring suburbs were recorded. The individuals reported a range of odours in this period that include petroleum oil, burnt oil, solvent, chemical, wax, rubber burning, rotten food, decomposing animal, paint, sewage, gassy and grain odours.

The frequency of an individual's odour complaints varied from 1 to 95. The odour complaints are summarised in the analyses outlined in Table 4-5, Table 4-6 and Table 4-7 and presented graphically in Figure 4-2, Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4.

Note that where a range of receptor ID's is presented this means that each receptor in that range made the same number of complaints, for example, Receptor ID's 23-30 each made five complaints, which means there were eight receptors that each made five complaints, a total of 40 complaints for receptor ID's 23-30. The total number of receptors and the total number of complaints is shown in brackets.

23


Table 4‐5: Ranking of odour complaints by individuals

Receptor ID

(Number of receptors with the same number of

complaints)

Number of complaints

(total number of complaints)

1 95

2 48

3 36

4 33

5 26

6 25

7 21

8 20

9‐10 (2) 13 (26)

11 12

12 11

13 10

14‐15 (2) 9 (18)

16‐17 (2) 8 (16)

18‐20 (3) 7(21)

21‐22 (2) 6(12)

23‐30 (8) 5(40)

31‐38 (8) 4(32)

39‐47 (9) 3(27)

48‐70 (23) 2(46)

71‐153 (83) 1(83)

Total 658

Figure 4‐2: Ranking of odour complaints by individuals

24


Table 4‐6: Ranking of odour complaints by suburbs

Suburb Percentage

Rutherford 80.4%

Aberglasslyn 9.1%

Telarah 3.8%

Maitland 3.2%

Windella 1.8%

Farley 1.2%

Anambah 0.5%

Melville 0.0%

Bishops Bridge 0.0%

Figure 4‐3: Ranking of odour complaints by suburbs

Table 4‐7: Ranking of odour complaints by type of odour

Type of odour Percentage of complain

Petroleum / Oil / Burnt oil 42.5%

Unknown odour 19.4%

Solvent / Chemical / wax 12.9%

Rubber/ Rubber burning 10.2%

Rotten food / Animal decomposition 4.3%

Paint 3.9%

Sewage 3.9%

Gas / Gassy 1.7%

Grain 1.3%

25


Figure 4‐4: Ranking of odour complaints by type of odour

Based on the analysis presented in Table 4-5, Table 4-6 and Table 4-7, it can be concluded that frequent complaints were made by residents of Rutherford and most complaints are related to petroleum, oil or burnt oil (42%), unidentified odour (19%), solvent/ chemical odour (13%) and rubber (10%).

However based on this analysis, and considering that 19% of the odour complaints do not identify the nature of the odour, and because more than one activity at RIE as well as some local sources (such as domestic solid fuel or oil heaters) may contribute to the identified odours, it would not be reasonable to draw conclusions in regard to the exact cause of these complaints.

Therefore the EPA’s and RAQLC’s view that there exists problematic odour that requires further investigation is clearly justified.

4.1.3.3 Ambient monitoring data As part of further investigations into the causes of odours in the area, NSW EPA collected ambient monitoring data in the Rutherford area. Table 4-8 presents the monitoring data collected by the EPA. It can be observed from Table 4-8 that the results were not conclusive. On most occasions, the collected samples did not record significantly high concentrations of odorous compounds or compounds with low odour threshold (for example, hydrogen sulphide) or compounds that would not be commonly found in residential areas. It should be noted that a limitation of the sampling is that such canisters cannot be analysed for sulphur compounds

26


Table 4‐8: Summary of NSW EPA ambient monitoring data (ppbV)

Pollutant S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14

Date 10/10/07 07/05/08 05/06/08 05/06/08 12/06/08 14/08/08 28/07/08 21/08/08 22/11/08 19/05/09 04/06/09 26/07/09 21/10/09 13/12/09

1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 0.2 2.4 4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2

1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane

1,1,2 Trichloroethane

1,1 Dichloroethane

1,1 Dichloroethylene 0.2 0.2

1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene 0.8 1

1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene 38 0.4 340 600 1.5 1.8 1.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1

1,2 Dibromoethane 0.7 1

1,2 Dichlorobenzene 17 0.7 2.3 0.4 0.2 0.3

1,2 Dichloroethane

1,2 Dichloropropane

1,3,5 Trimethylbenzene 16 110 190 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2

1,3 Butadiene 1.9 2.5

1,3 Dichlorobenzene 2.1 0.3 0.4

1,4 Dichlorobenzene

3 Chloropropene

4 Ethyl toluene 8.8 4.6 22 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.3

Benzene 27 0.1 710 1300 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.2

Bromomethane

c 1,2 Dichloroethylene 0.5

c 1,3 Dichloroethylene

Carbon tetrachloride 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4

Chlorobenzene 1.6 8.3 13 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

Chloroethane

Chloroform 65 0.1 3.4 3.8 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2

Chloromethane 0.3 0.2 0.4

Dichloromethane 17 200 440 0.7 0.5 1 2.4

Ethyl benzene 20 0.2 330 560 0.9 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Freon 11 1.6 2.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.1

Freon 113 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1

Freon 114 0.1

Freon 12 0.3 0.1 1.7 1.8 1.1 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.3 0.3

Hexachloro 1,3 butadiene 0.4 0.8 0.4

O‐Xylene 50 0.1 590 970 1.5 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2

p+m Xylene 110 0.4 680 1100 1.7 1.1 0.5 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5

27


Pollutant S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14

Styrene 3.8 5.8 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2

t 1,3, Dichloropropene

Tetrachloroethylene 4.5 16 28 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2

Toluene 190 0.8 4400 7000 5.4 1.9 0.4 2.6 0.4 1.3 0.2

Trichloroethylene 6.1 8.5 15 0.1

Vinyl chloride

ppbV= parts per billion of pollutant, by volume in air

S1 ‐ location not available S2 ‐ Camilla Close, Windella S3 ‐ location not available S4 ‐ location not available S5 ‐ Gardiners Road, Rutherford S6 ‐ Belair Close, Rutherford S7 ‐ Marlborough Street, Rutherford S8 ‐ Kyle Street, Rutherford S9 ‐ location not available S10 ‐ Weblands Street, Rutherford S11 ‐ location not available S12‐ Adam Avenue, Rutherford S13 ‐ location not available S14 ‐ location not available

28


4.2 Potential Marker Chemicals

A literature review to identify potential marker chemicals for activities associated with the industrial facilities at RIE and local activities at residential areas was conducted. Potential marker chemicals for a range of activities have been identified from the studies of marker and trace chemicals for various industries, as presented Table 4-9.

It is noted that marker chemicals for several industrial activities including wax, rubber, paint, dyeing, processing of rubber or waste oil could not be identified from these studies. A limitation in identifying potential marker chemicals is that in almost every case the studies available in the scientific literature examined single sources in generally clean areas, and not a number of similar sources, as is the case in Rutherford. A further issue arises in that most of the studies are from the northern hemisphere, so one would expect very different marker chemicals in any case. For example, wood smoke from pine wood is different to smoke from Australian hardwoods and coal.

Table 4‐9: Marker chemicals for different activities

Source Marker Compound Class

Wood smoke Galactosan, Massonan, Levoglucosan Cellulose breakdown products

Wood smoke β‐Sitosterol Phytosterol volatization products

Wood smoke Dehydroabiatic acid Resin breakdown products

Wood smoke 2‐Methoxyphenol Lignin breakdown products

Diesel and gasoline exhaust 17α(H),21β(H)‐Hopane Hopanes

Diesel and gasoline exhaust 17α(H)‐diastigmastane Steranes

Diesel and gasoline exhaust Benzo[ghi]fluoranthene PAH

Diesel exhaust C2–C10 oxalic acid, succinic, malonic, maleic, glutaric, adipic, and phthalic acids

Dicarboxylic acids

Diesel exhaust Heneicosane, docosane, tricosane, tetracosane, pentacosane

n‐Alkanes

Meat cooking Cholesterol, lactone

Tyre dust Styrene/butadiene Polymers

Tyre dust Benzothiazole Polycyclic compounds

Coal combustion ‐ uncontrolled Picene PAH

Waste petroleum oil processing NF NF

Waste cooking oil processing NF NF

Wax coating NF NF

Paint application NF NF

Dyeing NF NF

Foodwaste Acetic, propanoic, butyric, valeric and isovaleric acids

Fatty acids

Rubber processing NF NF

Grains or corn NF NF

Asphalt manufacture NF NF

NF- None Found

The study then examined the specific industry emissions and NSW EPA (OEH) inventory for pollutants for the area. The study also examined the US EPA Toxics release inventory for the types of industries located in the RIE. Detailed information is presented in Table B-1 and Table B-2 in Appendix B.

This analysis also did not reveal any unique marker chemicals that could be used with confidence to identify the emissions in ambient air from industrial activities including textile, wood products, petroleum, plastic and rubber, foundry and solvent recovery industries at RIE. For example, Vinyl Chloride can be potentially emitted from Textile, Wood Products and Plastic and Rubber industries,

29


Bromomethane can be emitted from Petroleum and Hazardous waste/ Solvent recovery industries. Detailed information on these groups is presented in Table B-1 and Table B-2 in Appendix B.

Sulfuryl Fluoride is the only chemical that was identified as a potential marker chemical for the food industry. However, it should be noted that the potential release of volatile chemicals from the food industry varies significantly due to a wide variety of foods processed using different methods. Since no detailed information on potential emissions or activities from the food industries located at RIE is available, it is not known whether these activities actually release this substance or not. Therefore care needs to be taken if considering the use of Sulfuryl Chloride as marker chemical for the food industries at RIE.

Table 4‐10: Marker chemicals for different activities

SULFURYL FLUORIDE

VINYL CHLORIDE

BROMO METHANE

CARBONYL SULFIDE

CHLORO METHANE

CHLORO ETHANE

Chemical formula SO2F2 C2H3Cl CH3Br OCS CH3Cl C2H5Cl

Molar mass (g/mol) 102.06 62.498 94.94 60.075 50.49 64.51

Boiling Temp (°C) ‐55.4 ‐13.4 3 ‐50.2 ‐24.2 12.3

Guideline (mg/m³) 0.24 0.07 1.9

Food X

Textiles X

Wood Products X

Petroleum X X X

Plastic & Rubber X X X

Stone/Clay/Glass X

Hazardous waste/solvent recovery

X X

4.3 Marker Chemical Information Gaps and Discussion

The study of potential industrial activities at RIE did not reveal sufficient information for both licensed and non-licensed facilities to identify unique marker chemicals that can be used with confidence to monitor potential emissions in ambient air. The limitations in the study include:

Emissions data are not available for most of the non-licensed premises;

Limited information on potential emission sources is available for licensed premises;

Measured emission data are available for a limited number of stack sources;

Emission data for potential fugitive sources are not available for both licensed and non-licensed premises;

Measured speciated volatile organic compounds for each potential source are not available for most of the emission sources (stack and fugitive); and,

Analysis of available ambient monitoring data does not indicate the existence of any potential marker chemicals that can be used for RIE facilities (however this is not surprising as there is relatively limited data).

It is important to note here that there is no suggestion that the level of data availability in the RIE is actually deficient or arises from some failing of regulation. It is rather quite typical of the level of data generally available in such industrial estates.

The literature review and analysis of the available information for RIE industries found that identifying a unique marker chemical for the variable RIE industries is not a viable option.

30


Therefore, if a unique marker chemical is to be identified, a campaign of source sampling would be required, including speciated volatile organic compounds for all licensed and non-licensed industrial facilities at RIE.

31


5 ODOUR MONITORING METHODS

Source and ambient odour monitoring require deployment of significantly different methods of measurement. The key differences arise from the large difference in the concentration of pollutants at the source and in the ambient air. This difference can be as low as a few hundred fold to perhaps a million fold lower in the ambient air when compared to the levels at the source of the odour.

Further detail is provided below.

5.1 Source Odour Monitoring Methods

5.1.1 Overview

The methods that can be used for source monitoring fall into two categories, methods for sampling odorous substances emitted from stacks, and methods for sampling odour from diffuse sources.

In both cases, methods that are approved for regulatory use are available. These methods are termed reference methods or approved methods for sampling. In some cases site complications mean that only an alternative approach can be used. Such complications are unlikely to arise for stack sources or diffuse odour sources such as a pond or pile of waste, but may occur when attempting to measure odour from some fugitive sources, such as roof vents or open doors.

5.2 Ambient Odour Monitoring and Analysis Methods

5.2.1 Overview

There are many available techniques for monitoring and analysis of ambient air quality in general, however the techniques available for reliable ambient odour monitoring are relatively limited. These techniques include instrument methods, physical sampling and field olfactometry, both aided and unaided.

The physical sampling methods are generally constrained to identifying specific chemicals in the air, and are not suited to characterising complex mixtures of odours within ambient air (at any distance from the source at least). The sampling methods may not always offer sufficiently low levels of detection due to the small sample time/ volume necessary to capture transient odours in the ambient air.

Field olfactometry methods can be used to identify the presence of complex mixtures of odour in the air or to estimate odour intensity. The approach involves persons sniffing odour in the ambient air. The approach can be aided with devices such as the nasal ranger, and for valid results this generally requires some form of training and calibration or screening of field assessors. The methods may also require many field assessors, and are generally only viable with a large budget or when affordable labour (such a University project/ assignment team) can be sourced.

All of the above methods can be supplemented and aided with additional air dispersion modelling analysis. This involves modelling of the dispersion of pollutants from sources according to the weather conditions and is a means of analysing the potential extent of any effect under all likely weather conditions. However, air dispersion modelling may require detailed source and meteorological data to provide accurate information.

5.2.2 General Ambient Air Monitoring Techniques

The ambient measurement of volatile organic compounds (VOCs, that is, chemicals containing carbon and hydrogen, usually odorous) in air is often difficult and challenging due to both the variety and number of VOCs that exist, coupled with the various sampling and analysis techniques available.

32


There are a number of different methods and instruments which are commonly used to identify and quantify VOCs in ambient air. The different methods for VOC sampling include:

Active sampling - drawing a specified volume of the air through an absorbent tube;

Grab sampling - a volume of air is drawn into an evacuated canister or into a bag; and

Passive sampling - exposing adsorbents to capture substances in the air.

In each case, the sample (absorbent in the tube, the air in the canister or bag, or the adsorbent material in the passive sampler) is then taken to a laboratory for analysis. There are various ways to do this analysis, but it is most commonly done with Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry, which is described below in more detail.

VOC measurement instruments are based on a number of advanced analytical techniques subsequent to the sampling and extraction of the sample. These instruments can vary in size from relatively portable instruments to larger laboratory based systems. The principle function of these instruments is to separate the individual VOC constituents of a sample so that it is possible to measure each component substance individually. The most commonly used method of separation is Gas Chromatography (GC), where the individual constituents of the sample interact with the specially treated walls of a long thin tube through which the sample and an inert gas is passed. The interactions cause the sample to separate into its individual compounds based on their various physical properties at different points along the tube. As the separated compounds pass out through the tubing, they can be detected and identified using a number of different detection methods.

Commonly used detection instruments include:

Photo ionization;

Flame ionization;

Thermal conductivity;

Electron capture; and

Mass Spectrometry.

Photo ionization detectors (PID) measure volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by using ultraviolet light to ionize gas molecules. High energy ultraviolet photons cause the gas molecules to release positively charged ions that produce an electric current which is then measured by the detector. PIDs are able to indicate the presence and total concentration of VOCs however unless they are combined with a gas chromatograph, they are not able to identify different types of VOCs. They are primarily used in ambient air monitoring settings and can have lower detectable limits of around 0.05 parts per million (ppm).

Flame ionization detectors (FID) are forms of gas detectors which use flame ionization to measure the concentration of organic compounds in air. Sample gas is drawn into a chamber with a hydrogen/air flame. As the organic compounds are burnt they produce ions which can then be detected using electrodes. The samples measured in a FID are burnt, and therefore they are not reusable and cannot be tested in subsequent detectors. Similar to PIDs, FIDs must be paired with a gas chromatograph if they are to be used to identify and measure different VOC substances.

Thermal conductivity detectors (TCDs) are based on the thermal conductivity of compounds to determine detection. The substance flows over an electrically heated filament in a temperature-controlled cell. The thermal conductivity of the substance causes the filament to heat up and change

33


resistance which is measured against a reference substance to confirm detection. The TCD is a good general purpose detector for initial investigations however is less sensitive than the FID.

Electron capture detectors (ECDs) are used to detect compounds through attachment of electrons via electron capture ionization. This detection technique is more sensitive than FID and significantly more sensitive than TCD, however it is limited by its detection ability which focuses on halogenated compounds.

Mass Spectrometry (MS) measures the mass-to-charge ratio of charged particles and is used for determining masses of particles. This method vaporises the sample which is then ionised to form charged particles. The ions are then separated according to the mass-to-charge ratio in an electromagnetic field (it works a little bit like old TV's which use an electromagnetic field to shoot out and direct electrons onto the inside of the screen to make it light up and show the images).

All these detectors have specific target pollutant groups which they are best suited for, however the most accurate and versatile is the combination of the GC and MS instruments. The GCMS has the advantage to be able to identify the actual presence of a particular substance in a given sample and the ability to identify unknown compounds as well.

However, one needs to provide the system with a "library" of compounds to search for, and appropriate GC tubes may be needed. In other words, one needs to know beforehand the class of substances being sought in order to obtain a sufficiently low level of detection that may be needed to actually measure the substance in ambient air.

5.2.3 Ambient Odour and Chemical Monitoring Instrument Techniques

Portable PIDs and FID's offer a very fast response, high accuracy and good sensitivity for detection of total VOC at a low ppm level. The instruments require frequent cleaning to ensure accuracy of results. They are generally not suited for use in stationary monitors which sample continuously, and are better suited to only periodic readings. A PID or FID is an efficient and inexpensive detector.

Portable GCMS exists in two forms, standard laboratory equipment mounted in a truck (a mobile lab) or a truly portable instrument (20 kg back pack). There are several portable instruments in Australia that belong to the military, customs and hazardous incident response teams. These instruments are very expensive and are not available for hire. A portable laboratory housed in a truck may be available, but given that there appears to be a suitable laboratory in the general area, there seems to be little benefit in having similar laboratory equipment in a truck in order to obtain a few tens of minutes of time advantage.

A Nasal Ranger is a field olfactometer instrument which is used in conjunction with the human nose to characterise and measure odour strength in ambient air. They are a useful tool for determining ambient odour dilution-to-threshold values. 5.2.4 Physical Odour and Chemical Sampling

Standard odour sampling methods involve collection of a sample of air, which is presented to a panel of trained professional sniffers to establish the concentration of odour in the sampled air. The methods may be used very near (e.g. 30 cm) to the source of the odour or within an enclosed building containing high levels of odour. However the methods generally cannot be applied in ambient air. This approach may work in the event that the odour in the ambient air is extremely strong and constant, but if this were the case the source would be obvious, and there would be no need to sample.

For physical sampling, ambient air can be collected and later quantifiably analysed in a laboratory for specific chemicals. This can be done using a Tedlar bag, (which is a little like a wine bladder) or a sumo canister which is a little like a gas bottle.

34


The Tedlar bag is placed inside a rigid, air tight container and a tube from the bag to the ambient environment protrudes from the container. A vacuum pump is used to draw air out of the container, which in turn draws ambient air into the Tedlar bag. This is done to avoid possible contamination of the sample from the pump and vice versa.

A summa canister is a special rigid flask that is prepared in a laboratory. It arrives on site evacuated, and when the valve on the canister is opened, air is drawn inside by the vacuum.

The Tedlar bag or canister is sealed and is sent to a laboratory for analysis. It is noted that for sulphur compounds, which require analysis within 24-hours using this method, the nearest suitable laboratory is located in Melbourne; a significant limitation with using this method at Rutherford.

5.2.5 Field Olfactometry

The Association of German Engineers (VDI) standard VDI 3940, Determination of Odourants in Ambient Air by Field Inspectors is a guideline that can be applied for mapping of odour in an area, and potentially for identifying upwind odour sources. The guideline is also used for other purposes, such as planning for a proposed new housing estate, or a new industry, or for calibration of odour dispersion models.

The method can be used to establish the spatial extent of detected or recognised odour in an area, i.e. odour mapping.

The approach involves a panel of field inspectors that sniff odour at fixed points in a grid.

5.2.6 Air Dispersion Modelling Analysis

There are a range of air dispersion models available to analyse the extent and likely maximum impacts across wide areas for a full range of weather conditions. These models are useful as they complement sampling and monitoring methods that can only deal with the specific conditions at the time of the measurement.

The models are most powerful however in ruling in or out a particular source and in making a relative comparison. Modelling can reasonably establish a priority ranking of sources that impact a location, and can essentially provide a "priority list" for actions ranging from most to least effective; something that cannot be reasonably done by sampling and monitoring alone.

However, to run reasonably, the models require information regarding what is being emitted from the source. In an ideal situation, the model can be validated by comparing its predictions with ambient monitoring data, and in some cases complaints data, but this may not always be possible.

Screening models are used to provide low cost "worst-case" estimates of maximum theoretical impacts. These models do not use local weather data, instead they assume worst case dispersion between the source and receptor. They are a fast and inexpensive way or ruling in or out a potential source of impact (provided the emissions from the source are known).

Gaussian Plume models, such as AUSPLUME, ISC and AERMOD use local weather data. However they generally assume uniform wind fields across the entire modelling domain, and/ or generally project a plume of pollution from the source to the very edge of the modelling domain each hour. The models are sometimes known as "lighthouse" models as the plume they produce each hour looks like a light beam from a lighthouse. The model is run for each hour of a year. These models predict annual average results quite well, but are generally less than ideal for short term impact situations. The models also cannot deal with calm, still conditions, and instead assume there is a wind present.

More advanced models include the CALMET- CALPUFF system. These models are in two parts. CALMET models the meteorology in three-dimensions, each hour for a full year (sub hourly time

35


steps can be run also). The CALPUFF component then models air dispersion by releasing a regular "puff" of pollutant and tracking the puff in space and time. The modelling approach can deal with stagnant conditions by allowing odorous air to build up around the source before being carried off by wind, and can also deal with inversions and flow around terrain.

Other advanced models are available, but are more suited to either large scale regional modelling, or very intricate localised modelling. These are not relevant in this situation and are not considered further.

Regulators around the world use air dispersion modelling to tackle air pollution problems and to prioritise their policy and actions.

In NSW the EPA uses Pollution Reduction Programs (PRP's) which are a set of steps that a licensed premise must take to either identify or ameliorate an issue. In many cases PRP's for air quality issues will include an air dispersion modelling component. The PRP normally requires identification of the sources of pollution, modelling to prioritise which sources have most impact, and to identify which of the prioritised actions would need to be implemented to resolve the issue. The final step generally involves implementing the required actions.

5.3 Summary of Pros and Cons for Monitoring and Analysis Methods

A summary of the pros and cons for each of the different monitoring and analysis methods reviewed is presented in the tables below.

Table 5‐1: Core components that may form part of a complete monitoring, sampling and source identification plan

Component Pros Cons

Ambient Monitoring by direct measurement of chemicals

Potential to positively identify the odour or a marker chemical

Limited potential to actually capture the odour or marker chemical at a sufficient concentration for positive identification. This is due to the: need to take a short duration sample to actually capture the

substance at a high enough concentration;

requirement that operators be in the right location, at the

right time and be alert and ready to sample (due to the

transient nature of the impact);

need to know what substance to test for in order to use a

low enough detection level; and,

high cost that will preclude extended, frequent sampling

that has more likelihood of capturing the substance.

Source Monitoring

Identifies actual emissions from sources. Able to positively identify what is in the sample. Can include less expensive screening methods that can be part of field monitoring/ field investigation.

Substance in question may not be being emitted at the time of the sample. Relatively expensive, but several less expensive options are available. Potential to require operator to undertake sampling, or pay for sampling. Operator would be aware of the sampling and may modify operation ‐ at least the perception of this being done would exist even if not the case.

Field Monitoring/ Field Investigation

Potential to map extent of impact. Potential to identify the intensity and frequency of the odour. Potential to identify sources of odour. Can aid all other approaches to improve

Mapping and positively verifiable source identification is labour intensive and therefore expensive (probably only viable if competent and cheap labour is available for a significant period ‐ e.g. uni student research team). Reliable results can take months of regular work for a dozen field assessors.

36


results or to focus activity. Ground based, so may not be able to identify tall or hot stack emissions near to source. Will not identify chemical components of odour.

Air Dispersion Modelling

Potential to deal with all spatial and temporal issues, both short term (incident modelling) and longer term impact modelling. Potential to "back‐calculate" source strength, but only if source is positively identified in the field. Can be used to aid all other components to improve results or focus activity = e.g. filter in or out certain sources, or prioritise risk.

Generally requires valid source emissions input data, and this may not be available.

37


Table 5‐2: Ambient Monitoring

Approach Pros Cons Approx cost per

sample

Summa Canister

Able to take grab samples. Retains integrity of sample by preventing degradation by sunlight exposure and permeation.

Requires analysis via analytical methods to determine compounds. Suitable only for VOC's that are stable when stored under sub atmospheric pressure. Restrictions on sample collection as Sulfur samples need to be in Melbourne within 24 hours.

$3,000

Tedlar bag

Relatively inexpensive per analysis Can be used for a wider range of compounds.

Requires analysis via analytical methods to determine compounds. Low detection levels. Susceptible to sample degradation by sunlight exposure and permeation. Restrictions on sample collection as Sulfur samples need to be in Melbourne within 24 hours.

$2,000

Nasal Ranger

Simple and easy operation. Fast response time per analysis. Can be continuous and follow plume (if ground based source).

Requires calibrated nose for use, i.e. 1 day of training/ screening needed. Requires source reference calibration. Cannot indicate individual types of compounds, only odour strength.

$1,500 per day

Table 5‐3: General Ambient Monitoring

Approach Pros Cons

Flame Ionization Detectors

Portable option available for this instrument. Relatively inexpensive per analysis. No false positive reading to water vapour. Sensitive to larger number of VOC's compared to PID.

Cannot indicate individual type of VOC's. Requires gas chromatography for sample separation to detect individual types of VOC's. Can only detect organic‐based compounds. Sampling process destroys the sample. Does not work in high humidity. Flame present, should not be used where there is potential for explosion. Susceptible to interference. Requires a fuel during use.

Photo Ionization Detectors

Portable option available for this instrument. Relatively inexpensive per analysis. Fast response time per analysis. Intrinsically safe.

Cannot indicate individual type of VOC's. Requires gas chromatography for sample separation to detect individual types of VOC's. Not suitable for monitoring for long continuous periods. Lamp requires regular cleaning to ensure accurate results. May give false positive reading for water vapour. Requires frequent recalibration.

38


Approach Pros Cons

Susceptible to interference.

Thermal Conductivity Detectors

Relatively inexpensive per analysis. Detects all molecules.

Cannot indicate individual type of VOC's. Requires gas chromatography for sample separation to detect individual types of VOC's. Low sensitivity (comparatively). Slow response (comparatively). Requires reference gas.

Electron Capture Detectors

Portable option available for this instrument. Higher sensitivity than FID and TCD.

Cannot indicate individual type of VOC's. Requires gas chromatography for sample separation to detect individual types of VOC's. Cannot identify unknown compounds. Radioactive source required to emit electrons.

Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

Portable option available for this instrument. Ability to identify individual specific compounds. Ability to identify unknown compounds. Very high sensitivity.

Susceptible to interference. Relatively expensive instrument.

Table 5‐4: Field Monitoring

Approach Pros Cons

VDI 3940 or similar approaches ‐ at receptors, sources and in between

Potential to map extent of odour impact. Potential to map extent of a known source's odour plume; Potential to identify the intensity and frequency of the odour. Potential to identify sources of odour. Potential to be combined with source sampling and air dispersion modelling so that impacts under all weather conditions, and at all locations can be assessed

Mapping and positively verifiable source identification is labour intensive and therefore expensive (probably only viable if competent and cheap labour is available for a significant period ‐ e.g. uni student research team of 12 or so). Needs at least 6, but more likely 10 in the field at any one time, plus reserves for illness. Formally, the method seeks 26 rounds of field work over one year to produce a reliable result (This could be limited but the reliability will be reduced). Ground based, so may not be able to identify tall or hot stack emissions near to source. Can only be realistically combined with source sampling and air dispersion modelling where a single, known source is monitored in the field ‐ therefore this aspect cannot apply at Rutherford.

Field Investigation ‐ at sources

Potential to identify sources of odour. Can be combined with screening methods for source sampling, such as PID, FID etc in order to focus investigation or to focus source sampling. Can be integrated with, or part of, VDI 3940 or similar approaches

Ground based, so may not be able to identify tall or hot stack emissions near to source. Expensive and labour intensive. Can only detect what is happening at the time

39


Table 5‐5: Dispersion Modelling

Approach Pros Cons

Dispersion Modelling

Can include multiple sources and predict cumulative impacts. Able to predict impacts across wide areas for all likely weather conditions. Suitable for long term averaging impacts. Powerful tool to rank and prioritise actions for a number of sources.

Predictions of specific incidents on short time scales may not be reliable. Results based on time‐averaged impacts. Requires reasonable source emission data input (which is not currently available in Rutherford). Requires site specific meteorological data input.

6 MONITORING LOCATIONS

6.1 Source Sampling

Source sampling occurs in the stack or at the source of fugitive emissions. The following standards set out the correct monitoring locations to use: Selection of sampling positions on stack, NSW EPA TM-1, AS 4323.1 - 1995, or US EPA, 2000, Method 1.

There are limited standards for fugitive emission sampling. In most cases a professional judgement will need to be made. The objective is to characterise both the concentration of the substance and the volumetric flow rate of the air containing the substance, as it is necessary to consider the mass emission rate of the substance (e.g. grams per second) for comparison and analysis with other source emissions.

6.2 Ambient Monitoring

Identifying appropriate locations for ambient monitoring, especially in residential areas, is complicated in this location and poses a significant risk to this study. There are several reasons for this. The RIE is essentially flat and is ringed by a "horseshoe" of ridgelines upon which there is urban settlement. The RIE flatlands "horseshoe" is open towards the Hunter River and would effectively catch katabatic drainage flows (cool night time drainage flows that come down the valley), resulting in prolonged temperature inversions in the locality. Such conditions limit atmospheric mixing of the air during the late evening, night and early morning which means there may be a build up of air emissions in the area. Industrial stacks may at times have sufficient buoyant heat flux and velocity to penetrate the inversion, and when this occurs these emissions are unlikely to come back to ground level. Fugitive emissions from roller doors, roof vents or low temperature, low velocity emission points are likely to remain trapped under the inversions that would occur in this area. Sampling methods for these types of fugitive sources are limited in accuracy and reliability.

There are many stack and fugitive sources in RIE that each have potential for off-site odour. As temperature inversions occur in the area and are a dynamic phenomena that changes by the minute or hour, and as the human response to odour can be measured in seconds, one can see that there will not be any fixed ambient monitoring location that can be consistently relied on as an indicator of the emissions from all sources at the RIE. It may be that an indicative location can be found to measure some sources under some conditions, however there would be a high risk that no valid result would be recorded at such a location during a (necessarily) limited sampling campaign.

Therefore, to meet this objective there are two options:

Systematic, long term field olfactometry that is usually conducted on a regular grid pattern (or the best approximation to each grid point that can be accessed), or,

Further, detailed air dispersion modelling work to reasonably identify the monitoring locations with potential to yield results and the conditions when impacts are most likely occur.

40


In each case, a sustained campaign is likely to be needed to actually capture the odour a sufficient number of times to allow a meaningful analysis to be made.

7 MONITORING CAMPAIGN OPTIONS

It is clear from the above investigation that no one method alone exists to pin point the source of odours in the RIE. However each of the methods has advantages and disadvantages, and it would appear that a combination of methods will be necessary to achieve the required result.

Potential approaches using a combination of methods have been identified. Seven approaches that have prospects for identifying the source of odours in the area have been identified and are described in Table 7-1 below.

To select the right approach, the advantages and disadvantages of various combinations should be considered. These have been identified in Table 7-2.

41


Table 7‐1: Monitoring, sampling and analysis for source identification plan options ‐ combination of components

O

p

t

i

o

n

Approach* Order of

approach

Situation where

this approach

would be suitable

Pros ** Cons**

1

Source sampling and PRP*** including individual premises' models to design or verify mitigation needed

Sample; rank; model to ascertain impacts;

Have good source data or marker chemical for a site, or several distinctly different sources which are believed to be the cause.

Uses site data to rank which sites need to take action, and to model the impact from each site under all weather conditions at all receptor locations. Identifies which emission points on the site require attention, and what reduction is needed.

Does not consider other sites in RIE, therefore if other sources that release the same substance(s) are present, this may not consider cumulative impact. Open to challenge, may be difficult to enforce at some sites. May not be most efficient method. Non‐compatibility between models used by each site. May be more complicated for fugitive odour sources. Open to legal challenge. PRP not applicable to non‐licensed premises.

2 As Opt1, but with all of RIE model

As above

Have good source data for all significant sites in RIE.

Uses site data to model the impact from all significant sites under all weather conditions at all receptor locations. Deals with cumulative impacts. Identifies which sites, and which emission points require attention, and what reduction is needed. Single model allows powerful, like‐for‐like comparisons between sites.

May miss some sites or substances if not picked up in the source sampling.

3 Field VDI 3940 + Opt1.

‐

Able to implement VDI 3940, and it identifies one source, or several distinctly different sources are the cause.

VDI 3940 better quantifies the extent of impact and possible sources prior to implementing Opt1, this makes it more likely that the correct sources for Opt1 are identified.

Cost of VDI 3940 is likely to be prohibitive. Unlikely to work where there are multiple similar sources of odour.

4 Field VDI 3940 + Opt2.

Able to implement VDI 3940, and it identifies several potential sources.

As per Opt3, but only where there are a few contributing sources.

Cost of VDI 3940 is likely to be prohibitive. Likelihood of VDI 3940 identifying which of the multiple sources is the cause is diminished with more contributing sources.

5 Field sample + Opt1.

Able to implement field sampling and it identifies a unique marker chemical for one

If the same marker chemical is found in the field and at the source it is compelling evidence for the cause, but only if it can be shown that the marker is in fact unique to the site and associated with odour.

Cost of Field sampling is high. Unique marker chemicals may not exist. Long lead time e.g. 2 years or

42


O

p

t

i

o

n

Approach* Order of

approach

Situation where

this approach

would be suitable

Pros ** Cons**

or more sites, and there is limited additive impact due to the combined emissions.

Combining with Opt1 (modelling) can verify if impacts would be commensurate with the field sampling, thus adding to the certainty.

more.


As Opt5., but where cumulative additive may be significant.

As above, but some lower certainty if there is a cumulative additive effect of all the substances in the air at once.

Cost of Field sampling is high. Marker chemicals may not exist. Determining any overall of cumulative additive effects is unlikely to be possible.


Where field monitoring identifies odour intensity that is high enough and frequent enough for a simultaneous campaign of field sampling.

This approach has potential to establish a relationship between chemical concentration and odour intensity in the field. If there is one source of odour it is reasonable to expect that it can be identified by back calculation modelling in Option 4.

The cost would probably be prohibitive. There is very low likelihood of success if there is more than one source.

Notes * For approaches with just one component method - please refer to the previous tables of pro's and con's in Section 5.3.

** Pro's and Con's that were previously identified for each component method of the approach also apply but are not shown here.

*** A Pollution Reduction Program (PRP) is normally imposed by NSW EPA on a licensed premises to take specific remedial action to ameliorate emissions or impacts, or to undertake investigations. The PRP concept in this sense uses an air dispersion model to check if there is an impact, and from each key source, and to tell what level of action is needed to ameliorate the impact. The model can also be re-run after the remedial action is completed to verify the impact is resolved.

Opt2 differs from Opt1 as it includes a cumulative model of the whole area. It needs to be determined who would be responsible for setting up such a PRP or for operating such a whole of RIE model.

43


Table 7‐2: Pros and Cons of potential combinations of sampling, monitoring and analysis approaches

O

p

ti

o

n

Approach* Pros ** Cons**

1 Source Sampling + Monitoring

Impact for all met conditions at all locations. Identify which emission points require attention +reduction needed.

If other sources that release the same substance(s) are present, this approach is unlikely to be accepted as cannot be conclusive about actual source

2 Source Sampling + RIE model

Cumulative Impact from all significant sites all met conditions at all locations Identifies which sites, and which emission points require attention +reduction needed.

May miss sites or substances if not picked up in the source sampling ‐ needs good baseline sampling/ data to be collected.

3 VDI +Opt1.

VDI 3940 can quantify the extent of impact and possible sources prior to implementing Opt1, this makes it more likely that the correct sources for Opt1 are identified.

Cost of VDI 3940 is likely to be prohibitive.

4 VDI+ Opt2. As per Opt3, but only where there are a few contributing sources.

Cost of VDI 3940 is likely to be prohibitive. Likelihood of VDI 3940 identifying multiple sources diminished with more contributing sources.

5 Field Sampling + Opt1.

If same marker in field and at source ‐ compelling but not conclusive unless prove marker is unique Adding modelling can verify if impacts would be commensurate with the field sampling, thus adding to the certainty

Cost of Field sampling is high. Marker chemical may not exist


More certainty if regarding potential cumulative effect , allows scope for model validation.

Cost of Field sampling is high. Marker chemicals may not exist.


Potential to relate chemical concentration with odour intensity in the field. If only one source, may expect back calc by modelling to identify the source.

The cost is prohibitive.

8 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION OF RISKS OF CAMPAIGN OPTIONS

The study has not identified, at the desktop level, any unique marker chemical that can be used with confidence to identify the emissions from a specific site or emission point in the ambient environment by direct measurement of the chemical.

This does not mean that no unique marker chemicals exist; it just means that we cannot identify any based on the available monitoring data and the research we conducted. One of the key issues that emerged is that the studies in the literature into marker chemicals often show different chemicals for essentially the same sort of industry. A likely reason is that each plant's process is different and each plant uses different feedstock materials with different properties.

The conclusion that we reach from the review is that to identify a unique marker chemical(s), there needs to be sampling of each activity and emission point.

If this is done, and if unique marker chemicals are identified, the question then arises; what does this tell us about what may be causing an impact?

The answer is that source sampling information alone tells us very little. We could use the data to identify which sites have the greatest concentration or greatest quantity of emissions, which is a broad indicator of likely contribution to potential impacts, but we cannot, based only on such data,

44


reasonably conclude that the site that measures the most odorous chemical is causing a problem; for example, only a very small quantity of the chemical may be released, the chemical may be very well dispersed, and in some cases the chemical may have a very short life in the ambient environment.

An alternative to sampling at the source is to attempt to identify odours in the field by field olfactometry. The analysis shows there is little prospect of this approach correctly identifying the actual source of odour as there are a number of sources with very similar odour potential and with both ground level fugitive emissions and stack emissions - in other words, whilst a concerted and strategic campaign of field olfactometry over several years could identify the intensity and spatial extent of the odour, it is unlikely to be able to pin-point the cause.

To establish the cause of the problematic odours at residential receptors, and therefore what to do about them, there are two further options that need to be considered.

If a unique marker chemical is found, it is possible to search for it and to attempt to measure it in the field. This type of sampling is expensive and may fail even with a prolonged campaign of regular monitoring simply due to the happenstance of the chemical being in the right location at the right time.

It also needs to be noted that the source sampling only provides a snap shot of the odour at the time of sampling, and that the field measurement is likely to occur at a later time (when one knows what substance to search for). The field work would ideally be conducted at the same time as a second campaign of source monitoring, but the cost would be prohibitive.

Whether or not a unique marker chemical(s) is found, air dispersion modelling can still be used to identify the likely cause of the problematic odour, and what to do about it. The modelling would utilise the measured source data and local weather data to predict the likely impacts from each site, and each emissions source under all likely weather conditions.

The same issue of the source data only indicating emissions at the time of sampling does arise, but this is minimised because the model can still make good relative comparisons between sites. For example, the likely temperature and flow rate from emissions points would not vary greatly, and it is a relatively uncomplicated matter to complete several model runs with varying rates of emissions from each source to test whether or not a source can or cannot cause an impact, should it happen to have greater than measured emissions. This allows the modelling to identify the most likely sources, and is a good basis upon which to make any further decisions, such as the need for a second round of monitoring at the sources identified as the most likely cause of the odour.

Of course the ideal situation is to obtain several rounds of data from the sources, whilst concurrently monitoring the levels in the ambient air for each round. If it is possible to obtain such data, the air model can be validated to provide accurate results of the likely levels at receptors, rather than approximate results of pollutant levels and reliable rankings to prioritise the worst impacting sources. However, this would require teams of source and ambient sampling experts to assemble at the one time and clearly, this would not be possible or affordable.

Nevertheless, some indicative calibration or validation of the modelling could be completed on the basis of the complaints data, especially those data that are very specific about the start and end time of the odorous episode. The model would be run using the weather data at the time of the complaints, to rank which source may have contributed to the complaint

Our research and analysis identifies the following key risks:

Ambient monitoring and field olfactometry alone is very costly and only a limited number of monitoring sessions can reasonably be conducted. Due to this and because there are numerous variable sources, these methods alone are unlikely to pin-point the cause(s) of the problematic odour, and cannot determine what extent of amelioration may be necessary.

45


Source sampling alone, is also unlikely to pin-point the cause(s) of the problematic odour, and cannot determine what extent of amelioration may be necessary, however there is a reasonable prospect of identifying the likely main contributors, or to identify potential unique marker chemicals.

Air modelling (based only on the available data) is also unlikely to reliably identify the cause(s) of the problematic odour as there are gaps in the available data. Only sparse data is available for speciated VOC substances from the industries in the RIE.

A combination of source sampling and modelling, can identify the causes of the odour and can prioritise which sources need to be ameliorated and approximate the level of amelioration required. Of course the reliability of this depends on the quality of the source data and the quality of the modelling work. The risk is that emissions may not be measured or may be higher or lower at other times. The modelling can be run for several scenarios to test the potential variability in future emissions (being higher or lower), but if a substance is not measured, this may be omitted entirely. Generally this is considered to be a relatively low risk, as it is highly unlikely that an operator can wilfully manipulate a process to exclude emissions of any significant substance of interest.

A combination of source sampling, modelling and field monitoring, can identify the causes of the odour and can prioritise which sources need to be ameliorated and determine the reliably to the extent of amelioration required. As above, the reliability of this depends on the quality of the source data, modelling work and the ambient monitoring data. This approach may assist to target any potential ambient monitoring, but there is scope that this may be reasonably completed without such monitoring. An alternative is to conduct an approximate validation based on historical complaints data (instead of ambient monitoring data). However it is noted that the majority of the complaints made are not specific enough to be useful and this validation would be approximate only.

A key risk is working out just how the sampling and modelling can be conducted and by whom. The options that include source sampling would impose a programme of monitoring on each premises, but there may be legal issues with doing this, for example the jurisdiction over non-scheduled premises.

In regard to the modelling, the options that require each site to operate its own model, raises similar issues as for the sampling.

The suggested whole of RIE model option may continue to be used as a tool by both Local and State government when approving projects in the RIE. Again, there would be significant technical issues around ownership and maintenance of such a model. However, as a one-off this is something that could be commissioned by the NSW EPA in consultation with the RAQLC with relatively little complication.

Therefore the key issue that needs consideration is just how source sampling, and access can be structured so that the necessary data can be obtained.

9 FEEDBACK FROM RAQLC

The issues pertaining to odour source identification and sampling were presented and discussed in detail at an RAQLC meeting held on Friday 8 June 2012. Various suggestions and comments provided by RAQLC members at the 8 June meeting have also been incorporated into this report.

At the meeting it was determined that field sampling and field olfactometry would not be likely to provide a workable way forward, and that Option 2 was the most likely to succeed and was the favoured approach. Option 2 is a combination of source sampling and air dispersion modelling. It was requested that the key questions and decisions the RAQLC would need to consider be outlined and that the extent of the likely work for Option 2 be outlined in more detail.

46


Subsequent detailed feedback on the draft report was received from RAQLC members and has been used to update this report. Comments ranged from formatting and presentation of the information, such as suggestions for presenting figures and tabulated data, and clarification of some aspects and abbreviations. Broader comments are listed in Appendix C.

9.1 Option 2

Option 2 was found to be the approach with the greatest likelihood of success and was favoured by the RAQLC. As such further details on this option are provided below.

9.1.1 Option 2 - Outline of modelling

Option 2 entails developing a single air dispersion model for the entire RIE and surrounding residential areas. It is suggested that:

Significant effort be put into developing representative terrain and meteorological data model inputs, as this part of the model would be expected to remain fixed.

To help to overcome some of the ownership issues;

o the model should incorporate a list of all variable inputs (i.e. the source and source emissions data inputs), this would be expected to be in the form of an Excel table and contain all data needed for an air dispersion modeller to adjust, add or delete sources in the model;

o That the model includes at least one run where all emissions sources are set to one unit of emissions and where the modelled results are provided as dilution factors for a selection of representative sensitive receptor locations. For the technically inclined, this means that the model should be simplified down to an excel spreadsheet containing the dilution factors for each representative receptor. Simple equations can be included in the spreadsheet so that upon entry of the actual emission rate data for each source, the impacts at each receptor would be calculated by the spreadsheet (without re-modelling).

In essence this assumes that all parameters remain fixed, apart from the odour emission rate. Overall this is a generally reasonable assumption about most sources. This approach would extend the utility of the model (i.e. non-modellers can produce a result) and allows the source data to be input over time or updated as each source changes. New sources, or sources with greatly altered configurations cannot be added to the spreadsheet without re-running the model, however any source already included can be varied to reflect the latest sampling results or can be removed without re-modelling.

With this in mind, it is suggested that the following steps are taken, in order:

1. The whole of RIE model be developed based on the available data, and using unity emission factors;

2. The initial results are used to refine any sampling needed;

3. The sampling campaign outlined in Section 9.1.2 is conducted with due regard to any refinements from the initial modelling results;

4. The air dispersion model and/or the simplified spreadsheet "model" are adjusted to incorporate the source sampling data;

47


5. The results are analysed to rank the sources with greatest potential impact at the selected representative receptor locations. The analysis should consider the body of complaints data, i.e. attempt to classify impacts according to conditions that generate most complaints, and on this basis identify the most likely sources of the problematic odour.

6. The results analysis should also suggest the reduction in odour emission rate and also the reduction in the dilution factor needed from each of the key sources such that cumulative odour levels would be brought to acceptable levels at receptors.

There would not appear to be any great impediment to one or more of the EPA, Maitland Council and RAQLC engaging an independent person to conduct this work.

Some issues of intellectual property and model ownership may arise. The issue is that many modelling consultants would consider their modelling approaches to be their intellectual property and would not permit the modelling files to be provided to another consultant/ competitor. It would be a significant lost opportunity to invest in the development of a whole of RIE model and to use it only one-time, and to not use it on an ongoing basis for any future development applications in the area. After all, such a model would be the ideal tool to support good approvals and planning processes in the area to minimise cumulative odour. The above suggestions to extend to a simplified spreadsheet model would allow at least some longer period of use.

If it is considered by the NSW EPA and Maitland City Council that the model could be used on an ongoing basis to support better planning in the area to minimise odours, it is suggested that the brief for that work include either a requirement to surrender all intellectual property rights in the model so that it may be used by any consultant, or that the brief negotiates a transparent fee rate to add in and assess proposed new development applications or alterations to existing operations via the model.

The next issue is about reasonable model maintenance and quality control. For example, as each new activity is included, if various consultants of varying capability are used, there is a high likelihood that the model would become compromised with erroneous additions.

Therefore the only workable option in the long term, if the model is to be used for the ongoing management of cumulative odour in the RIE area, appears to be that an experienced consultant or the NSW EPA (OEH) would need to take responsibility for the operation and the quality assurance of this model. Either the NSW EPA or a consultant would need funding for this, however the necessary work would only arise at the time of each new development application and hypothetically a fee could be levied on the applicant. However there would be legal complications/ impediments to doing this, and professional legal advice would appear to be warranted if this is to be considered any further.

9.1.2 Source sampling campaign

Option 2 modelling requires sufficiently reliable odour emissions data from all key sites in order to reasonably identify the most likely source(s) of the problematic odour at Rutherford.

The activities identified in Table 9-1 and Table 9-2 should be tested for speciated VOC, odour concentration and hedonic tone and the source emissions characteristics (i.e. stack parameters should be quantified).

It is important to note that for most sources there would not be any need to conduct sampling, depending on the outcomes of a site odour survey to confirm whether or not there is sufficient odour present.

The sources are prioritised into three classes, ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. ‘A’ class sources should be sampled as a priority and consideration should be given to a second or even third test in some cases, especially where there is little historical data. The need for sampling at the next priority ‘B’ class activities

48


depends on the findings of an initial odour survey of each potential source on each site. If the survey identifies sufficient odour of a type that may cause offense, there would need to be sampling of that source. ‘C’ class activities are unlikely to require any sampling, unless any new information emerges from community complaints.

Nine A class, eight B class and 14 C class activities have been identified in Table 9-1 and Table 9-2 on the basis of the available data about the activity and the available complaints data.

It is strongly recommended that a site inspection of each premises be conducted before finalising the odour sampling requirements identified in Table 9-1 and Table 9-2. This recommendation is made as little detailed information about many of the activities was available for this study.

49


Table 9‐1: Licensed Industries

Name Testing that may potentially be

needed Why Class

Maitland Saleyards

nil

Emissions are quantifiable using published data, and in any case no complaints appear to correlate with the distinct odour likely from this activity.

C

Truegain Yes, all stacks, vents and fugitive sources

Significant emissions potential of substances that would correlate with reported complaints data.

A

Jurox

Yes, all relevant stacks vents and fugitive sources ‐ pending initial odour survey to confirm fugitive sources sampling is warranted.

Appears to be low quantity of emissions, but some substances may correlate with complaints data

B

National Ceramics

Yes, all stacks and fugitive sources

Large emissions volumes, and potentially low odour concentrations may lead to potential impacts

A

Transpacific Refiners

Yes, all stacks and fugitive sources where existing data is not available

Potential that odours may correspond to odours reported in complaints data

A

Renewable Oil Services

Yes, all stacks, vents and fugitive sources


A

Maitland Biodiesel

Yes, all stacks, vents and fugitive sources


A

Wastechem Roof vents, fugitive sources


B


Yes, all stacks vents and fugitive sources


A

Transpacific Industries

Yes, all relevant stacks vents and fugitive sources ‐ pending odour survey to confirm sampling is warranted


B

AUSGRID nil

Unlikely that quantity and type of material on site is cause of complaints

C

Hunter Water Corporation

Yes, all relevant stacks, vents and fugitive sources ‐ pending odour survey to confirm sampling is warranted

Potential that odorous materials from activities in RIE is discharged into the sewer and that such emissions may escape from the sewer should be examined.

B

50


Table 9‐2: Non‐licensed Industries

Name Testing that may potentially be

needed Why Class

Maitland Ready Mixed Concrete

nil Unlikely that quantity and type of material on site is cause of complaints

C

Wax Converters Textiles

Yes, all stacks and fugitive sources Significant emissions potential of substances that would correlate with reported complaints data.

A

Hymix Australia nil Unlikely that quantity and type of material on site is cause of complaints

C

Advantage (CHS) Group


Appears to be low quantity of emissions, but some substances may correlate with complaints data

B

Landmark


Possibility that some supplies might be odorous should be ruled out

B

Maitland Smash Repairs

nil

Emissions are quantifiable using published data, and in any case complaints data to not indicate this type of odour is the likely issue

C

Terex Mining Aust


C

Emeco International Pty Ltd


C

Hunter Powder and Paint

nil

Emissions are quantifiable using published data, and in any case complaints data to not indicate this type of odour is the likely issue

C

Industrial Maintenance & Fabrications


C

Treloar Yes, all stacks and fugitive sources Emissions from foundry casting may potentially correlate with reported complaints data.

A

Ultrafloor nil

Unlikely that quantity and type of material on site is cause of complaints

C

National Poly Industries


Emissions from foundry casting may potentially correlate with reported complaints data.

B

Just like fish Swim School

nil

Chlorine odours may occur, but no complaints appear to correlate with the distinct odour likely from this activity.

C

Bliss Coffee Roasters


Emissions may potentially correlate with reported complaints data (burnt odours)

B

RSPCA nil Odours may occur, but no complaints appear to correlate with the distinct odour likely from this activity.

C

Boral Resources (Country)


C

Fulton Hogan Yes, all stacks and fugitive sources Significant emissions potential of substances that would correlate with reported complaints data.

A

Inbye Mining Services


C

51


9.1.3 Source sampling considerations

The key issue to consider is how the sampling outlined in Table 9-1 and Table 9-2 would be conducted.

As a first step it is strongly recommended that an independent person examines each of the listed premises and conducts a basic odour survey. The reason for this is that little data about some of the activities was available for this study and it is likely that the class determination for some activities may need to change up or down based on the observations made during an inspection. There would not appear to be any insurmountable impediment to the EPA, Maitland Council and RAQLC jointly engaging an independent person and having this work done with assistance of a NSW EPA or council officer to facilitate access to each premises. There are 30 premises that need to be inspected. Some would take only a few minutes of inspection time (saleyards for example) whereas other sites may require several hours. It is estimated that this work would entail a total of 40 hours on site or nominally 5 to 6 days of field work and several days to prepare a basic report.

The second part, of actually conducting the sampling is more complicated. It is important that the sampling be conducted consistently, therefore either a single operator, or several operators working to an exact specification should conduct the work. There are nine premises identified where the sampling should be conducted, and a further eight premises where sampling may be likely. Nominally 12 to 14 premises may need sampling pending the results of the initial independent inspection.

It is not clear who should conduct this work. It is noted that the NSW EPA may have the power to direct licensed premises to conduct such sampling, but it may not be able to compel the site to utilise a specific company for the work. Similarly, it is unclear what mechanism Maitland Council would have available to compel such work. This may be a critical issue that would appear to require expert legal input from the NSW EPA and Maitland City Council to progress.

10 CONCLUSIONS

The study finds that a combination of source sampling and modelling is most likely to identify the likely sources that generate the problematic odours in Rutherford.

Whilst ideally it would be desirable to conduct concurrent ambient monitoring for specific marker chemicals at the time of the source sampling, and to use this data to validate the combination of source measurement and modelling results, at this stage this is not justifiable on the basis of high cost, and the limited ability of field sampling to actually measure the problematic odour.

It is suggested that ambient monitoring only be conducted where source sampling identifies significant emissions of a unique marker chemical that can be reliably measured in the ambient air.

The key issue that has been identified is who should conduct the source sampling, and how access for such sampling can be arranged so that the necessary data can be obtained from both scheduled and non-scheduled premises.

52


11 REFERENCES

AECOM (2010) “National Ceramic Industries Australia Expansion – Environmental Assessment”, Prepared by AECOM, June 2010.

Baumann K., Jayanty R. and Flanagan J. (2008)

“Fine Particulate Matter Source Apportionment for the Chemical Speciation Trends Network Site at Birmingham, Alabama, Using Positive Matrix Factorization”, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol 58.

Cooper J. and Watson J. (1980)

“Receptor Oriented Methods of Air Particulate Source Apportionment”, of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol 30, No. 10.

Daisey J., Cheney J. and Lioy P. (1986)

“Profiles of Organic Particulate Emissions from Air Pollution Sources: Status Needs for Receptor Source Apportionment Modeling”, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol 36.

DECC NSW and Pacific Air & Environment (2007) “Air Emissions Inventory for the Greater Metropolitan Region in New South Wales”, Prepared by DECC NSW and Pacific Air & Environment, August 2007.

Environment S.A (2012) “HC51M. Hydrocarbon analyzer – http://www.environnement-sa.com/index2.php?goto=produits_air&cat=2&prod=13”, Visited on: 20/06/2012.

Environment S.A (2012) “Gas Chromatograph Volatile Organic Compounds Analyzer (PID or FID) Model VOC71M – http://www.environnement-sa.com/index2.php?goto=produits_air&cat=2&prod=15”, Visited on: 20/06/2012.

European Environmental Agency (2009) “EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook – Agriculture Other” European Environmental Agency (2009) “EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook – Cement Production” European Environmental Agency (2009) “EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook – Chemical Industries” European Environmental Agency (2009) “EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook – Clinical Waste Incineration” European Environmental Agency (2009)

“EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook – General Guidance”

European Environmental Agency (2009) “EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook – Other Waste” European Environmental Agency (2009)

53


“EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook – Solid Waste Disposal on Land” European Environmental Agency (2009) “EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook – Waste Water Handling” Feng Y., Shi G., Wu J., Wang Y., Zhu T., Dai S. and Pei Y. (2007)

“Source Analysis of Particulate-Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in an Urban Atmosphere of a Northern City in China” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol 57.

Hites R. (1997)

“Handbook of Instrumental Techniques for Analytical Chemistry – Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry”, Prentice Hall PTR

Hurley P., (2008)

"TAPM V4. Part 1. Technical Description", CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Paper No. 25, October 2008, CSIRO, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia.

Inficon (2012)

“Hapsite ER Chemical Identification System - http://www.inficonmilitary.com/en/hapsite_er/index.html”, Visited on: 20/06/2012.

Lin L., Lee M. and Eatough D. (2007)

“Gas Chromatographic Analysis of Organic Marker Compounds in Fine Particulate Matter Using Solid-Phase Microextraction”, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol 57.

Lin L., Lee M. and Eatough D. (2010)

“Review of Recent Advances in Detection of Organic Markers in Fine Particulate Matter and Their Use for Source Apportionment”, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol 60.

NPI (1998) “Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Bricks, Ceramics, & Clay Product Manufacturing”, National Pollutant Inventory, June 1998.

54


NPI (1999)

“Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Concrete Batching and Concrete Product Manufacturing”, National Pollutant Inventory, February 1999.

NPI (1999) “Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Hot Mix Asphalt Manufacturing”, National Pollutant Inventory, June 1999.

NPI (1999)

“Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Oil Recycling”, National Pollutant Inventory, December 1999.

NPI (1999)

“Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Textile and Clothing Industry”, National Pollutant Inventory, July 1999.

NPI (2001) "Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining, Version 2.3", National Pollutant Inventory, December 2001. ISBN: 0 642 54700 9

NSW DEC (2005) "Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales", Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), August 2005. OI Analytical (2012)

“Selective GC Detectors – http://www.oico.com/default.aspx?id=product&productid=51”, Visited on: 20/06/2012.

OI Analytical (2012) “Model 4430 PID Photoionizatio Detector – http://www.oico.com/default.aspx?id=product&productID=51”, Visited on: 20/06/2012.

PAEHolmes (2010) “Air Quality Impact Assessment and Mitigation Study – Transpacific Refiners”, Prepared by PAEHolmes, September 2010.

Sheesley R., Schauer J. and Orf M. (2010) “Assessing the Impact of Industrial Emissions on Atmospheric Carbonaceous Aerosol Concentrations Using Routing Monitoring Networks”, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol 60.

Thermo Scientific (2012)

“Thermo Scientific ISQ Single Quadrupole GC-MS - http://www.thermoscientific.com/ecomm/servlet/productsdetail_11152_L11173_80584_12706169_-1”, Visited on: 20/06/2012.

55


US EPA (1985 and updates) "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors", AP-42, Fourth Edition United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. US EPA (1995A) User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models - Volume 1 User’s Instructions, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. US EPA (1995B) User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models - Volume 2 Description of Model Algorithms, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 US EPA (2004) "AERMOD - Description of Model Formulation" EPA-454/R-03-004 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. US EPA (2012)

“Toxic Release Inventory - http://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_release.chemical”, Visited on: 20/06/2012.

VIC EPA (2000) AUSPLUME Gaussian Plume, Dispersion Model: Technical User Manual, Environment Protection Authority of Victoria

Watson J., Chen L., Chow J., Doraiswamy P. and Lowenthal D. (2008)

“Source Apportionment: Findings from the U.S. Supersites Program”, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol 58.

.


Appendix A Additional Windroses for Rutherford

A-1


NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

10% 20% 30% 40%

NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

10% 20% 30% 40%

NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

10% 20% 30%Wind speed (m/s)

>0 - 1.5

>1.5 - 3

>3 - 4.5

>4.5 - 6

>6 - 7.5

>7.5

Annual and seasonal windroses forTranspacific 2011

SpringWinter

AutumnSummer

Annual

Figure A‐1: Annual and seasonal windroses for Transpacific (2011)

A-2


NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

4% 8% 12% 16%

NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

10% 20% 30% 40%

NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

NNNNENNE

NENE

ENEENE

EE

ESEESE

SESE

SSESSESS

SSWSSW

SWSW

WSWWSW

WW

WNWWNW

NWNW

NNWNNW

4% 8% 12% 16% 20%Wind speed (m/s)

>0 - 1.5

>1.5 - 3

>3 - 4.5

>4.5 - 6

>6 - 7.5

>7.5

Annual and seasonal windroses forNational Ceramics (April 2011 - March 2012)

SpringWinter

AutumnSummer

Annual

Figure A‐2: Annual and seasonal windroses for National Ceramics (April 2011 ‐ March 2012)


Appendix B Odorous and Toxic Pollutants List

B-1


Table B‐1: Toxic pollutants listed in the Toxic Release Inventory (USEPA)

ID Chemical Food Textiles Wood Products

Printing and Publishing

Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass

Cement Fabricated Metals

Machinery

Chemical Wholesalers

Hazardous waste/ solvent recovery

Other

1 1,1,1,2‐TETRACHLORO‐2‐FLUOROETHANE

2 1,1,1,2‐TETRACHLOROETHANE

3 1,1,1‐TRICHLOROETHANE X X X X

4 1,1,2,2‐TETRACHLORO‐1‐FLUOROETHANE

5 1,1,2,2‐TETRACHLOROETHANE X X

6 1,1,2‐TRICHLOROETHANE X X X X

7 1,1‐DICHLORO‐1‐FLUOROETHANE

8 1,1‐DIMETHYL HYDRAZINE X

9 1,2,3‐TRICHLOROPROPANE

10 1,2,4‐TRICHLOROBENZENE X X X

11 1,2,4‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE

12 1,2‐BUTYLENE OXIDE X

13 1,2‐DIBROMO‐3‐CHLOROPROPANE X

14 1,2‐DIBROMOETHANE X X X

15 1,2‐DICHLORO‐1,1,2‐TRIFLUOROETHANE

16 1,2‐DICHLORO‐1,1‐DIFLUOROETHANE

17 1,2‐DICHLOROBENZENE

18 1,2‐DICHLOROETHANE X X X X X

19 1,2‐DICHLOROETHYLENE

20 1,2‐DICHLOROPROPANE X X

21 1,2‐DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE X

22 1,2‐PHENYLENEDIAMINE

23 1,3‐BUTADIENE X X X X X

24 1,3‐DICHLORO‐1,1,2,2,3‐PENTAFLUOROPROPANE

25 1,3‐DICHLOROBENZENE

26 1,3‐DICHLOROPROPYLENE X

27 1,3‐PHENYLENEDIAMINE

28 1,4‐DICHLORO‐2‐BUTENE

B-2




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

29 1,4‐DICHLOROBENZENE X X

30 1,4‐DIOXANE X X X X X

31 1‐(3‐CHLOROALLYL)‐3,5,7‐TRIAZA‐1‐AZONIAADAMANTANE CHLORIDE

32 1‐CHLORO‐1,1,2,2‐TETRAFLUOROETHANE

33 1‐CHLORO‐1,1‐DIFLUOROETHANE

34 2,2‐DICHLORO‐1,1,1‐TRIFLUOROETHANE

35 2,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE

36 2,4,5‐TRICHLOROPHENOL X

37 2,4,6‐TRICHLOROPHENOL X

38 2,4‐D X

39 2,4‐D 2‐ETHYLHEXYL ESTER

40 2,4‐D BUTOXYETHYL ESTER

41 2,4‐D ISOPROPYL ESTER

42 2,4‐D SODIUM SALT

43 2,4‐DB

44 2,4‐DIAMINOTOLUENE X

45 2,4‐DICHLOROPHENOL

46 2,4‐DIMETHYLPHENOL

47 2,4‐DINITROPHENOL X X

48 2,4‐DINITROTOLUENE X X X

49 2,6‐DINITROTOLUENE

50 2,6‐XYLIDINE

51 2‐ACETYLAMINOFLUORENE X

52 2‐CHLORO‐1,1,1,2‐TETRAFLUOROETHANE

53 2‐CHLORO‐1,1,1‐TRIFLUOROETHANE

54 2‐ETHOXYETHANOL

55 2‐MERCAPTOBENZOTHIAZOLE

56 2‐METHOXYETHANOL

57 2‐METHYLLACTONITRILE

58 2‐METHYLPYRIDINE

B-3




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

59 2‐NITROPHENOL

60 2‐NITROPROPANE X X

61 2‐PHENYLPHENOL

62 3,3'‐DICHLOROBENZIDINE DIHYDROCHLORIDE

63 3,3'‐DIMETHOXYBENZIDINE X

64 3,3'‐DIMETHOXYBENZIDINE DIHYDROCHLORIDE

65 3,3'‐DIMETHYLBENZIDINE X

66 3,3‐DICHLORO‐1,1,1,2,2‐PENTAFLUOROPROPANE

67 3‐CHLORO‐2‐METHYL‐1‐PROPENE

68 3‐CHLOROPROPIONITRILE

69 3‐IODO‐2‐PROPYNYL BUTYLCARBAMATE

70 4,4'‐DIAMINODIPHENYL ETHER

71 4,4'‐ISOPROPYLIDENEDIPHENOL

72 4,4'‐METHYLENEBIS(2‐CHLOROANILINE)

X X

73 4,4'‐METHYLENEDIANILINE X X X

74 4,6‐DINITRO‐O‐CRESOL X

75 4‐AMINOAZOBENZENE

76 4‐AMINOBIPHENYL

77 4‐DIMETHYLAMINOAZOBENZENE X

78 4‐NITROPHENOL X

79 5‐NITRO‐O‐TOLUIDINE

80 ABAMECTIN

81 ACEPHATE

82 ACETALDEHYDE X X X X X X

83 ACETAMIDE X

84 ACETONITRILE X X X X X X X

85 ACETOPHENONE X X X

86 ACIFLUORFEN, SODIUM SALT

87 ACROLEIN X X

B-4




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

88 ACRYLAMIDE X

89 ACRYLIC ACID X X X X X

90 ACRYLONITRILE X X X

91 ALACHLOR

92 ALDICARB

93 ALDRIN

94 ALLYL ALCOHOL

95 ALLYL CHLORIDE X

96 ALLYLAMINE

97 ALPHA‐NAPHTHYLAMINE

98 ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)

99 ALUMINUM OXIDE (FIBROUS FORMS)

100 ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE

101 AMETRYN

102 AMITRAZ

103 AMITROLE

104 AMMONIA

105 ANILAZINE

106 ANILINE X X

107 ANTHRACENE

108 ANTIMONY X X X X X X X X X

109 ANTIMONY COMPOUNDS X X X X X X X X

110 ARSENIC X X X X X X

111 ARSENIC COMPOUNDS X X X X

112 ASBESTOS (FRIABLE) X X

113 ATRAZINE X

114 BARIUM

115 BARIUM COMPOUNDS

116 BENDIOCARB

117 BENFLURALIN

118 BENOMYL

119 BENZAL CHLORIDE

B-5




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

120 BENZENE X X X X X X X X X X

121 BENZIDINE X

122 BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE

123 BENZOIC TRICHLORIDE X

124 BENZOYL CHLORIDE

125 BENZOYL PEROXIDE

126 BENZYL CHLORIDE X X

127 BERYLLIUM X X

128 BERYLLIUM COMPOUNDS X X

129 BETA‐NAPHTHYLAMINE

130 BIFENTHRIN

131 BIPHENYL X X X X X

132 BIS(2‐CHLORO‐1‐METHYLETHYL) ETHER

133 BIS(2‐CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE

134 BIS(2‐CHLOROETHYL) ETHER X

135 BIS(CHLOROMETHYL) ETHER

136 BORON TRICHLORIDE

137 BORON TRIFLUORIDE

138 BROMACIL

139 BROMINE

140 BROMOCHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE

141 BROMOFORM

142 BROMOMETHANE X X X

143 BROMOTRIFLUOROMETHANE

144 BROMOXYNIL

145 BROMOXYNIL OCTANOATE

146 BUTYL ACRYLATE

147 BUTYRALDEHYDE

148 C.I. DIRECT BLUE 218

149 C.I. SOLVENT ORANGE 7

150 C.I. SOLVENT YELLOW 3

151 C.I. SOLVENT YELLOW 34

B-6




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

152 CADMIUM X X X X

153 CADMIUM COMPOUNDS X X X X

154 CALCIUM CYANAMIDE

155 CAPTAN X

156 CARBARYL X

157 CARBOFURAN

158 CARBON DISULFIDE X X X X X X

159 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE X X X X X X

160 CARBONYL SULFIDE X X

161 CARBOXIN

162 CATECHOL

163 CERTAIN GLYCOL ETHERS X X X X X X X X X X X X

164 CHLORDANE X X

165 CHLORIMURON ETHYL

166 CHLORINE X X X X X X X X X

167 CHLORINE DIOXIDE

168 CHLOROACETIC ACID X

169 CHLOROBENZENE X X X X

170 CHLOROBENZILATE X

171 CHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE

172 CHLOROETHANE X X

173 CHLOROFORM X X X X X X

174 CHLOROMETHANE X X X

175 CHLOROMETHYL METHYL ETHER

176 CHLOROPHENOLS

177 CHLOROPICRIN

178 CHLOROPRENE X

179 CHLOROTHALONIL

180 CHLOROTRIFLUOROMETHANE

181 CHLORSULFURON

182 CHROMIUM X X X X X X X X X X X X

183 CHROMIUM COMPOUNDS(EXCEPT CHROMITE ORE MINED IN THE TRANSVAAL REGION)

X X X X X X X X X X X

B-7




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

184 COBALT X X X X X X X

185 COBALT COMPOUNDS X X X X X X X X X

186 COPPER

187 COPPER COMPOUNDS

188 CREOSOTE

189 CRESOL (MIXED ISOMERS) X X X X X

190 CROTONALDEHYDE

191 CUMENE X X X X X X X X X

192 CUMENE HYDROPEROXIDE

193 CUPFERRON

194 CYANAZINE

195 CYANIDE COMPOUNDS X X X X

196 CYCLOHEXANE

197 CYCLOHEXANOL

198 CYFLUTHRIN

199 DAZOMET

200 DECABROMODIPHENYL OXIDE

201 DESMEDIPHAM

202 DI(2‐ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE X X X X X X

203 DIALLATE

204 DIAMINOTOLUENE (MIXED ISOMERS)

205 DIAZINON

206 DIBENZOFURAN X X X X

207 DIBROMOTETRAFLUOROETHANE

208 DIBUTYL PHTHALATE X X X X X X

209 DICAMBA

210 DICHLORAN

211 DICHLOROBENZENE (MIXED ISOMERS)

212 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE

213 DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE

214 DICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE

215 DICHLOROMETHANE X X X X X X X X X X

B-8




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

216 DICHLOROPENTAFLUOROPROPANE

217 DICHLOROTETRAFLUOROETHANE (CFC‐114)

218 DICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE

219 DICHLORVOS

220 DICYCLOPENTADIENE

221 DIEPOXYBUTANE

222 DIETHANOLAMINE X X X X X X X

223 DIETHYL SULFATE

224 DIFLUBENZURON

225 DIGLYCIDYL RESORCINOL ETHER

226 DIHYDROSAFROLE

227 DIISOCYANATES

228 DIMETHIPIN

229 DIMETHOATE

230 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE X X X X

231 DIMETHYL SULFATE X X

232 DIMETHYLAMINE

233 DIMETHYLAMINE DICAMBA

234 DIMETHYLCARBAMYL CHLORIDE X

235 DINITROBUTYL PHENOL

236 DINITROTOLUENE (MIXED ISOMERS)

237 DIOXIN AND DIOXIN‐LIKE COMPOUNDS

238 DIPHENYLAMINE

239 DIPOTASSIUM ENDOTHALL

240 DISODIUM CYANODITHIOIMIDOCARBONATE

241 DIURON

242 EPICHLOROHYDRIN X X

243 ETHOPROP X

244 ETHYL ACRYLATE X X X X X

245 ETHYL CHLOROFORMATE

246 ETHYL DIPROPYLTHIOCARBAMATE X

B-9




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

247 ETHYLBENZENE X X X X X X X X X X X

248 ETHYLENE

249 ETHYLENE GLYCOL X X X X X X X X X X X X

250 ETHYLENE OXIDE X X X X

251 ETHYLENE THIOUREA X X

252 ETHYLENEBISDITHIOCARBAMIC ACID, SALTS AND ESTERS

253 ETHYLIDENE DICHLORIDE X X

254 FENARIMOL

255 FENBUTATIN OXIDE

256 FENPROPATHRIN

257 FLUOMETURON

258 FLUORINE

259 FOLPET

260 FOMESAFEN

261 FORMALDEHYDE X X X X X X X X X X

262 FORMIC ACID

263 FREON 113

264 HEPTACHLOR X X

265 HEXACHLORO‐1,3‐BUTADIENE X

266 HEXACHLOROBENZENE X X X X

267 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE X

268 HEXACHLOROETHANE X X X

269 HEXACHLOROPHENE

270 HEXAZINONE

271 HYDRAMETHYLNON

272 HYDRAZINE X

273 HYDRAZINE SULFATE

274 HYDROCHLORIC ACID (1995 AND AFTER ACID AEROSOLS ONLY)


275 HYDROGEN CYANIDE

276 HYDROGEN FLUORIDE X X X X X X X X

277 HYDROQUINONE X X X

278 IRON PENTACARBONYL

B-10




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

279 ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE

280 ISODRIN

281 ISOSAFROLE

282 LACTOFEN

283 LEAD X X X X X X X X X X X X

284 LEAD COMPOUNDS X X X X X X X X X X X X

285 LINDANE

286 LINURON

287 LITHIUM CARBONATE

288 M‐CRESOL X X X X

289 M‐DINITROBENZENE

290 M‐XYLENE X X X X X X

291 MALATHION

292 MALEIC ANHYDRIDE X X X X

293 MALONONITRILE

294 MANGANESE X X X X X X X X X

295 MANGANESE COMPOUNDS X X X X X X X X X

296 MECOPROP

297 MERCURY X X X X X X X X X

298 MERCURY COMPOUNDS X X X X X X X X X

299 MERPHOS

300 METHACRYLONITRILE

301 METHAM SODIUM

302 METHANOL X X X X X X X X X X X X

303 METHIOCARB

304 METHOXONE

305 METHOXONE SODIUM SALT

306 METHOXYCHLOR X X

307 METHYL ACRYLATE

308 METHYL CHLOROCARBONATE

309 METHYL HYDRAZINE X

310 METHYL IODIDE X

311 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE X X X X X X X X X X X X

312 METHYL ISOCYANATE

B-11




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

313 METHYL ISOTHIOCYANATE

314 METHYL METHACRYLATE X X X X X X X X X

315 METHYL PARATHION

316 METHYL TERT‐BUTYL ETHER X X X X X X X

317 METHYLENE BROMIDE

318 METRIBUZIN

319 MIXTURE

320 MOLYBDENUM TRIOXIDE

321 MONOCHLOROPENTAFLUOROETHANE

322 MUSTARD GAS

323 MYCLOBUTANIL

324 N,N‐DIMETHYLANILINE X X

325 N,N‐DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE X X X X X X X X X

326 N‐BUTYL ALCOHOL

327 N‐HEXANE X X X X X X X X X X X

328 N‐METHYL‐2‐PYRROLIDONE

329 N‐METHYLOLACRYLAMIDE

330 N‐NITROSO‐N‐ETHYLUREA

331 N‐NITROSO‐N‐METHYLUREA X

332 N‐NITROSODI‐N‐BUTYLAMINE

333 N‐NITROSODI‐N‐PROPYLAMINE

334 N‐NITROSODIETHYLAMINE

335 N‐NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE

336 N‐NITROSOPIPERIDINE

337 NABAM

338 NALED

339 NAPHTHALENE X X X X X X X X X X X X

340 NICKEL X X X X X X X X X X

341 NICKEL COMPOUNDS X X X X X X X X X

342 NICOTINE AND SALTS X

343 NITRAPYRIN

344 NITRATE COMPOUNDS X

345 NITRIC ACID

B-12




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

346 NITRILOTRIACETIC ACID

347 NITROBENZENE X X

348 NITROGLYCERIN

349 NORFLURAZON

350 O‐ANISIDINE

351 O‐CRESOL X X X

352 O‐DINITROBENZENE

353 O‐TOLUIDINE X X

354 O‐TOLUIDINE HYDROCHLORIDE

355 O‐XYLENE X X X X X X

356 OCTACHLORONAPHTHALENE

357 OCTACHLOROSTYRENE

358 ORYZALIN

359 OXYDEMETON METHYL

360 OXYDIAZON

361 OXYFLUORFEN

362 OZONE X

363 P‐CHLOROANILINE

364 P‐CRESIDINE

365 P‐CRESOL X X X

366 P‐DINITROBENZENE

367 P‐NITROANILINE

368 P‐NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE

369 P‐PHENYLENEDIAMINE X

370 P‐XYLENE X X X X

371 PARALDEHYDE

372 PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE

373 PENDIMETHALIN

374 PENTACHLOROBENZENE

375 PENTACHLOROETHANE

376 PENTACHLOROPHENOL X X X

377 PENTOBARBITAL SODIUM

378 PERACETIC ACID

379 PERMETHRIN

B-13




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

380 PHENANTHRENE

381 PHENOL X X X X X X X X X X X X

382 PHENOTHRIN X

383 PHENYTOIN

384 PHOSGENE

385 PHOSPHINE

386 PHOSPHORUS (YELLOW OR WHITE) X X X X X X X

387 PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE X X X X X

388 PICLORAM

389 PICRIC ACID

390 PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE

391 POLYCHLORINATED ALKANES

392 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS X X X

393 POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC COMPOUNDS


394 POTASSIUM BROMATE X

395 POTASSIUM DIMETHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE

396 POTASSIUM N‐METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE

397 PROFENOFOS

398 PROMETRYN

399 PRONAMIDE

400 PROPACHLOR

401 PROPANE SULTONE X

402 PROPANIL

403 PROPARGITE

404 PROPARGYL ALCOHOL

405 PROPICONAZOLE

406 PROPIONALDEHYDE X

407 PROPOXUR X

408 PROPYLENE

409 PROPYLENE OXIDE X X

410 PROPYLENEIMINE

B-14




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

411 PYRIDINE

412 QUINOLINE X

413 QUINONE X

414 QUINTOZENE X

415 RESMETHRIN

416 S,S,S‐TRIBUTYLTRITHIOPHOSPHATE

417 SACCHARIN (MANUFACTURING, NO SUPPLIER NOTIFICATION)

418 SAFROLE

419 SEC‐BUTYL ALCOHOL

420 SELENIUM X X X X

421 SELENIUM COMPOUNDS X X X X

422 SETHOXYDIM

423 SILVER

424 SILVER COMPOUNDS

425 SIMAZINE

426 SODIUM AZIDE

427 SODIUM DICAMBA

428 SODIUM DIMETHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE

429 SODIUM NITRITE X

430 SODIUM O‐PHENYLPHENOXIDE

431 STRYCHNINE AND SALTS

432 STYRENE X X X X X X X X X X

433 STYRENE OXIDE X

434 SULFURIC ACID (1994 AND AFTER ACID AEROSOLS ONLY)

435 SULFURYL FLUORIDE X

436 TEBUTHIURON

437 TEMEPHOS

438 TERBACIL

439 TERT‐BUTYL ALCOHOL

440 TETRABROMOBISPHENOL A

441 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE X X X X X X X X X X

B-15




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

442 TETRACHLORVINPHOS

443 TETRACYCLINE HYDROCHLORIDE

444 TETRAMETHRIN

445 THALLIUM

446 THALLIUM COMPOUNDS

447 THIABENDAZOLE

448 THIOACETAMIDE

449 THIOBENCARB

450 THIODICARB

451 THIOPHANATE‐METHYL

452 THIOUREA

453 THIRAM

454 THORIUM DIOXIDE

455 TITANIUM TETRACHLORIDE X X X X

456 TOLUENE X X X X X X X X X X X X

457 TOLUENE DIISOCYANATE (MIXED ISOMERS)

458 TOLUENE‐2,4‐DIISOCYANATE X X X X

459 TOLUENE‐2,6‐DIISOCYANATE

460 TOXAPHENE X

461 TRADE SECRET CHEMICAL

462 TRANS‐1,3‐DICHLOROPROPENE

463 TRANS‐1,4‐DICHLORO‐2‐BUTENE

464 TRIADIMEFON

465 TRIALLATE

466 TRIBENURON METHYL

467 TRIBUTYLTIN METHACRYLATE

468 TRICHLORFON

469 TRICHLOROACETYL CHLORIDE

470 TRICHLOROETHYLENE X X X X X X X X X X

471 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE

472 TRICLOPYR TRIETHYLAMMONIUM SALT

473 TRIETHYLAMINE X X X X X X

B-16




Petroleum

Plastic & Rubber

Stone/Clay/ Glass


Machinery



Other

474 TRIFLURALIN X X

475 TRIPHENYLTIN HYDROXIDE

476 TRIS(2,3‐DIBROMOPROPYL) PHOSPHATE

477 TRYPAN BLUE

478 URETHANE X

479 VANADIUM (EXCEPT WHEN CONTAINED IN AN ALLOY)

480 VANADIUM COMPOUNDS

481 VINCLOZOLIN

482 VINYL ACETATE X X X X X X

483 VINYL CHLORIDE X X X X

484 VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE X X

485 WARFARIN AND SALTS

486 XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS) X X X X X X X X X X X X

487 ZINC (FUME OR DUST)

488 ZINC COMPOUNDS

B-17


Table B‐2: Site specific odorous and toxic pollutants listed in the Approved Methods (OEH)

Pollutant Maitland Ready Mixed

Boral Fulton Hogan

Kyle Street Holdings


Hymix Australia

Truegain Wax Converters Textiles

National Ceramic

Ausgrid Transpacific Refiners

Biodiesel Industries

Jurox Renewable Oil Services

Acetone X X X X X

Acrylic acid

Ammonia X X X

Aniline

Antimony and compounds X

Asphalt (petroleum) fumes

Barium (soluble compound)

Biphenyl

Bromochloromethane

Bromoform (tribromomethane)

Bromotrifluoromethane

Carbon black

Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)

Chlorine X

Chlorine dioxide

Chloroform (trichloromethane)

Chloromethane (methyl chloride)

Chromium (III) compounds

Copper fumes

Copper dusts and mists

Cotton dust (raw)

Crotonaldehyde

Cyanide (as CN)

Cyclohexane X X X

Cyclohexanol

o‐dichlorobenzene X

1,2‐dichloroethylene

Dichlorvos

Dinitrobenzene (all isomers)

B-18



Boral Fulton Hogan



Hymix Australia


National Ceramic




Dinitrotoluene

Ethanolamine

Ethylbenzene X X X X X X

Ethyl butyl ketone

Ethyl chloride (chloroethane)

Ethylene glycol (vapour)

n‐hexane X X X

2‐hexanone X

Hydrogen chloride

Iron oxide fumes

Magnesium oxide fumes

Maleic anhydride

Manganese and compounds X X

Mercury organic

Mercury inorganic

Methyl acrylate

Methyl bromide (bromomethane)

Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)

Nitric acid

n‐pentane

2‐pentanone

Phthalic anhydride

Propylene glycol monomethyl ether

Silver metal

Silver, soluble compounds (as Ag)

Sulfuric acid X

1,1,1‐trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)

1,1,2‐trichloroethane X

Trichlorofluoromethane

Trimethylbenzene (mixed X X X

B-19



Boral Fulton Hogan



Hymix Australia


National Ceramic




isomers)

Vinyl toluene

Welding fumes (total particulate)

Wood dust hardwoods

Wood dust softwoods

Zinc chloride fumes

Zinc oxide fumes

SO2 X X X X

NO2 X X X X X

O3

Lead X

PM10 X X X X X

TSO

Dust X

CO X X X X X

Hydrogen Fluoride X X

PAHs X X X

H2S X X

Odour X X

Methane X

Formaldehyde X X X X X X X

Acrolein

Acrylonitrile

Alpha chlorinated toluenes and benzoyl chloride

Arsenic and compounds X X X X X

Asbestos

Benzene X X X X

Beryllium and beryllium compounds

X X X X

1,3‐butadiene

Cadmium and cadmium compounds

X X X X X

Chromium VI compounds X X X X X

B-20



Boral Fulton Hogan



Hymix Australia


National Ceramic




1,2‐dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)

Dioxins and furans

Epichlorohydrin

Ethylene oxide

Formaldehyde X X X X X X

Hydrogen cyanide

MDI (diphenylmethane diisocyanate)

Nickel and nickel compounds X X X X X

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (as

benzo[a]pyrene)

Pentachlorophenol

Phosgene

Propylene oxide

TDI (toluene‐2,4‐diisocyanate; toluene‐2,6‐diisocyanate)

Trichloroethylene X X

Vinyl chloride


Appendix C RAQLC comments not addressed elsewhere

C-1


Comment The TAPM stability results in Table 2.2 are for a year. These would be more useful on shorter time scales, by months at least.

Response This would be useful, so we have categorised the data for each month in the table below. It is noteworthy that July, which might be expected to have the most frequent occurrences of E and F class conditions has less of such conditions than June, per the TAPM data.

Table C‐1: Stability class distribution (TAPM ‐ 2010)

Frequency of Stability Class Occurrence (%) Stability Class

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN

A 5.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7

B 10.9 8.5 1.7 2.2 4.7 0.0 0.0 3.1 7.4 4.6 3.3 9.3 4.6

C 20.6 20.2 12.8 17.9 13.7 10.1 7.4 9.4 15.3 15.1 20.4 20.7 15.2

D 39.1 43.6 56.7 49.9 44.6 41.0 51.7 49.7 42.8 59.9 55.0 44.5 48.3

E 15.4 15.9 12.8 10.7 15.7 22.1 21.1 14.8 10.1 12.4 11.4 16.0 14.9

F 8.5 10.9 16.0 19.3 21.2 26.8 19.8 23.0 23.1 8.1 9.7 9.3 16.3

Comment Using (Paterson) Tocal as a source of climate data, and a table from the Bureau of Meteorology Climate Statistics publication (Table 2.1) ... is (not) a very good indicator of wind at Rutherford.

Response Noted, the BoM weather station at Patterson (Tocal) would not be an ideally suitable indicator for wind at Rutherford as this station is located approximately 12km from the RIE. These data were however included to provide a general indication of the long term climatic features for the area.

Comment There is very little information about inversion strength and elevation in this area, and while modelling may provide some estimates, it would be worth considering the measurement of some wind and temperature profiles.

Response Noted, modelling is approximate and measurement of local site specific wind and temperature profiles, if possible within the budget, would be beneficial to assist in the ongoing investigation.

Comment That combinations of "marker" chemical can potentially be used to identify an odour source per Table 4-10, and "markers' for industry types in Table B-1, and specific industries in Table B-2.

Response Unfortunately, for a mix of chemicals and low concentrations in ambient air, it is unlikely to work like that. There is also the real possibility that several sources, from the RIE, or close to the monitoring point or from a mobile source etc may combine at that time to produce a combination that may appear to be the mix from a single source. The toxic chemicals listed in Table B-1 and B-2 are not generally useful as marker chemicals as they may not be associated with odour from the process, or be released in levels high enough to be detected in the ambient air (at the time of any odour release).

Documents

RUTHERFORD ODOUR INVESTIGATION PROJECT€¦ · Odours from the Rutherford Industrial Estate have been a long standing concern for some members ... on 7 September 2011. A key role