Application form for EPA works approval

Transcription

How do I complete and submit this application form?
Contacting EPA
Please contact EPA:
 if you have any questions regarding the works approval process
 before preparing your application to confirm you require a works approval.
About this application form
This application form works in parallel with the new works approval guidance, which describes the
level of information required to fill out the form appropriately. The sections of this form correspond
directly to the sections of the guidance.
If, while preparing your application you require advice on:
 the level of information needed
 further consultation with other agencies and neighbouring communities
please schedule a meeting with EPA. This is usually best done once you have completed sections 1 to
8.
The form allows you to add text directly to the form and save it. The completed form can then be
printed and sent to EPA. The full application will usually be 10-20 pages, plus any required
attachments (i.e. certificate of registration, site map, technical data etc.). If any of the information you
are providing is `commercial in confidence' it should be marked as such, and attached separately.
EPA welcomes feedback on the application form.
How do I submit the application form?
Once you have completed your works approval application, the following should be forwarded to
Environment Protection Authority (GPO Box 4395, Melbourne 3001):
 completed application (sections 1 to 8 and the relevant A to I sections)
 application fee
 relevant supplementary information.
Note: Please supply both a hard and electronic copy (cd is preferable).
Once EPA confirms that your application is complete, the formal environmental assessment of your
project begins.
1
1.
APPLICANT
1.1
Company details
Company name
Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd
ACN
000 032 128
Registered address
Level 24, 2 Market Street, Sydney NSW 2000 (GPO Box 3916, Sydney NSW 2001)
1.2
Contact details
Name
Position
Caltex - Steve Camenzuli
Vic/Tas Regional Operations Manager
Aurecon (design consultants) – Sarah McMaster Environment & Advisory Services
Phone
9287 9679
9975 3306
1.3
Email
[email protected]
[email protected]
Premises details
Premises address
411 Douglas Parade, Newport VIC
2.
Municipality
Hobsons Bay Council
PROPOSAL
Please refer to accompanying Works Approval report for fuller details of the project and
environmental considerations.
2.1
Project description
Provide a simple, one-line explanation of the project. Attach a site and location plan.
Caltex propose to install an additional eight (8) fuel storage tanks at their Newport Terminal and an
addition dock-line connect to Holden Dock in order to improve supply efficiency. The new tanks will
cater for an additional 179.1 ML of fuel storage, including automotive diesel oil, unleaded petrol,
premium unleaded petrol, super premium unleaded petrol and jet fuel. Construction is planned to
occur in 3 stages the timing of each stage will be driven by demand and any changes to the current
internal and external operating environment.
2.2
Cost of works and application fee
Cost of works
2.3
Application fee
Proposed dates
Start construction: Month, Year
Within 2 years of EPA and planning approval.
3.
APPROVALS
3.1
Need for works approval
Start operation: Month, Year
Concurrent with existing operations.
Schedule type
Act section that applies
2
G04 – Bulk Storage
19A (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c)
List any exemptions that apply: section of the Regulations
3.2
Planning and other approvals
Planning Zone
Type of approval required
Industrial 1 Zone
Planning approval and building approval
Approving authority
Approval received or pending
City of Hobsons Bay
3.3
Pending (application made concurrently)
Existing EPA approvals (if any)
List any EPA documents held
EPA Victoria - Environmental Licence: EM37140
4.
ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY
4.1
Track record
Summarise the company’s recent environmental performance
The company’s environmental track record to date has been good. A Clean Up Notice was jointly
issued to Caltex and Australasian Lubricants Manufacturing Company (ALMC) by the EPA on 27
July 2010 (NO8541) in relation to the presence of phase separated and dissolved phase
hydrocarbon contamination in groundwater on and from the premises. This Clean Up Notice was a
revised notice which was issued as a replacement for notices NO7497, NO3109, 2638 and the unnumbered CUN dated 7 November 2007. A Clean Up Plan (CUP) was prepared by Parsons
Brinckerhoff and submitted to the EPA in November 2010. The most recent assessment of CUP
milestones indicates compliance with all applicable components of the site CUP.
Report any relevant offences; e.g. indictable and summary offences
Newport Terminal pleaded guilty to pollution of waters in 2008, in relation to a spill in 2006, which
entered the Yarra river.
List any enforcement actions related to this site
Clean Up Notice 8541
4.2
Key environmental considerations
List the main environmental aspects of your proposal
No further emissions to air; managing discharges to surface water and/or sewer; no groundwater
impacts; no additional impacts on traffic or noise.
4.3
Community engagement
Summarize any public consultation that has been undertaken or planned
Caltex has an active community engagement program in place. Caltex has a positive history of
strong community engagement with the local Newport community. This involves the hosting of
approximately three community meetings in the local area per year. Caltex held a special
community meeting on 15 August 2012, attended by EPA, Aurecon and Caltex personnel including
Environmental Manager, Site Manager, OHS Manager and National Risk Manager in order to
3
discuss the Newport Horizons project. Public advertisements and invitations to a variety of
organisations, including Community Liaison Group, to inform the community of Caltex’s intention to
expand operations at the Caltex Newport facility and answer any questions of concern. Despite
wide and timely advertising, meeting attendees comprised two members of the CLG. Minutes of
the special meeting are provided in the accompanying Works Approval application report.
Indicate any issues that have been raised
Issues raised by CLG members at the special meeting of 15 August 2012 and responses to
concerns are summarized in the table below. Generally the concerns were addressed and the CLG
members expressed thanks to Caltex for the opportunity to attend and the attendance of
authorities and Caltex representatives.
Community issue
Response
Who by
Concern over increased number of tanks
Risks associated with loads put into UPS
Visually intrusive nature of tanks
Records of CLG meetings not being
provided
Further information for residents
Caltex response re Container Fumigation
Services facility as indication of general
community support
Security of Caltex facility; breaches of
fence
Changes over refinery closures from previous plans of 2005
were noted and that Victorian supply was important.
Determined via risk assessment rom the Safety Case for the
MHF
Painted white to maximize heat reflection as operational
requirement
Copies of Minutes of previous meetings to be distributed to
CLG with meeting invitations
Works Approval process for receiving community input will
consider comments with respect to best practice aspects of
the development.
Assurance to residents that concerns of Caltex had been
formally submitted
Caltex
Security measures include CCT in strategic locations;
corporate security advisor; threats and vulnerability
assessment; management plan for security continuous
improvement – 93% of actions completed for 3yr review; no
breaches of security fence
Caltex
5.
PROCESS AND BEST PRACTICE
5.1
Process and technology
Key process steps
Key inputs
Key outputs
Caltex
Caltex
Caltex
EPA
Caltex
Key Controls
Product Receipt
Liquid fuel from ship or
refinery (pipeline)
Potential spillage and
emissions to air
Y-cage
Storage
Liquid fuel from ship
Emissions of
petroleum
hydrocarbons to air
Product Dispensing
Liquid fuel from tanks
into road tanker
Emissions of
petroleum
hydrocarbons to air
Tank overfill protection
systems (best practice)
Tell tale pipes designed
and built into the tank
foundations
Hydrocarbon sensors in
selected compound
sumps and low points
Bunding of reinforced
concrete
External floating roofs
for all ULP, PULP and
SPULP tanks
Vapour Recovery Unit
4
5.2
Environmental best practice
Indicate steps taken to determine industry best practice
Product Receipt
Product receipt occurs from ships through the Y-Cage distribution centre which is operated
jointly by Shell, Mobil and Caltex.
Storage
Tank overfill protection system
To be in line with current Caltex design standards and follow the recommendations of the
API RP 2350 “Overfill Protection for Storage Tanks in Petroleum Facilities”.
It is current industry practice to store flammable and combustible products with high flash
points and low vapour pressures (i.e. Diesel and Jet) in fixed roof tanks with free vents.
Internal Floating Roofs (IRF’s) are not typical in these tanks due to low emissions rates.
They can also add unnecessary complications when using floating suction tank outlets for
product quality, as is the case with Jet Fuel. Fixed roof tanks have therefore been
selected for Diesel and Jet Fuel storage.
For tanks which store products with low flash points and high vapour pressures (i.e.
motorspirit) a floating roof structure is commonly used to minimise vapour losses. In the
installation at Caltex Horizons, Internal Floating Roofs have been selected for Unleaded,
Super Premium Unleaded and Premium Unleaded fuels as they will provide the required
reduction in vapour emissions and require less maintenance during their life when
compared to an external floating roof design.
Product Dispensing
Spill Containment
To AS 1940 requirements with no drainage of product between bays.
Vapour Recovery Line
To include an overfill protection, by including a system using a float to detect liquid.
Explain why waste generation and resource use cannot be avoided or minimised
There will be minimal waste generated as a result of the proposed increase of bulk storage
at the site. The primary source of waste within the facility will be sump material/slops.
Slops is essentially off-specification fuel product which is stored separately at the Newport
Terminal (tanks T6 and T7 are designated for slops storage) prior to being returned to the
refinery for re-processing. See accompanying report for details of slops management
arrangements for the upgrade works.
Explain options considered and why this process is considered best practice
A number of options were considered with respect to storage vessel and the vapour
recovery unit. Advantages and disadvantages are presented in the accompanying report.
5.3
Integrated environmental assessment
Indicate any areas where there are competing environmental demands
There are not expected to be any competing demands with respect to the environment.
Where there may be a consideration of the respective water volumes discharged to sewer
vs. stormwater, Caltex notes the EPA’s preference for discharges to stormwater and
associated reduction in pollutants to the environment. As noted above, Caltex has sought
to optimise discharge arrangements, maintaining manual control over stormwater and
trade waste discharges.
Indicate how you will determine net environmental benefit in these areas
5
Discharges to stormwater of appropriate water quality standards will be maximized.
5.4
Choice of process and technology
Process or technology
Internal Floating Roof tanks
(for ULP, PULP and
SPULP)
Fixed Roof tanks (cone
roofs) (for ADO and Jet)
staged upgrades
5.5
Advantages
 Current world best
practice for storing
volatiles is in floating
roof / blanket tanks
 Decreased vapour
space above the liquid
level, resulting in
reduced air emissions
for products with low
flash points and high
vapour pressures (i.e.
motorspirits).

Insulated to prevent the
clogging of materials
Best practice storage for
flammable and combustible
products with high flash
points and low vapour
pressures (i.e. Diesel and
Jet fuel).
Cost effective
Can add unnecessary
complications when using
floating suction tank outlets
for product quality, as is the
case with Jet Fuel.
Increases space for vapour
Interim measures would not
meet final capacity
Choice of location and layout
Location or layout
West and R&T yards
6.
RESOURCES
6.1
Carbon
Advantages
Space for expansion within
existing Terminal
Disadvantages
N/A
Amount in GJ/yr or tCO2e
Estimated following upgrade:
13456 GJ/yr
Type of energy use or greenhouse gas emission
Electricity consumption
6.2
Usable amount of fuel is
reduced as IFR nears tank
floor.
Water use
The water usage: ML per year
Under normal operations, water consumption is minimal, predominantly attributed to kitchen and
washroom usage. Quantities of water required for hydrotesting are estimated at around 30kL per
ten year period. Use of alternative water has been investigated and sequential hydrotesting allows
for water re-use.
6
6.3
Solid waste
Type of solid waste
Minimal quantities;
segregation of paper,
cardboard and scrap metal
for recycling.
6.4
7.
EMISSIONS
7.1
Air emissions
Type of air emissions

7.2
Destination
Recycling and/or landfill as
appropriate.
Prescribed industrial waste
Type of prescribed waste
Minimal quantities of
prescribed industrial wastes
during normal operations.






Amount t/yr
Recycled paper amounts to
approximately 234m3 per
annum or 140 tonnes.
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Cumene
Cyclohexane
Hexane
Ethyl Benzene
Amount t/yr
Approximately 4,044 kL of
trade waste per annum
Rate or scale of emissions
All air emissions from current
operations are compliant with
licence requirements and air
quality modelling for the
proposed upgrade
demonstrates compliance with
SEPP criteria. See Air Quality
Impact Assessment report,
accompanying WA report.
Destination
Approved and licensed waste
contractors to collect, transport
and dispose of prescribed
industrial waste.
List any class 3 indicators
Benzene
Discharge to surface water
Provide reasons for any discharge to water (rather than to sewer or to land)
All discharges of stormwater from the terminal off-site are manually initiated. Stormwater valves
are closed during normal operating periods, preventing uncontrolled discharges of material to the
stormwater system. By adopting this protocol, Caltex ensures that all discharges to the stormwater
system are controlled and supervised and that the potential for dry weather discharges to the
stormwater system is avoided.
Rate of discharge to water; litres per day
1.64 kL per day
7.3
Indicate water quality or treatment level
Compliant with SEPP
Discharge to land
Rate of discharge or deposit to land,
litres/or tonnes per day
N/A
Types of waste and level of treatment
e.g. secondary or tertiary
For reuse, demonstrate that the proposal will meet EPA guidelines
N/A
Provide the reasons for any discharge to groundwater and indicate segment
7
There will be no discharges to groundwater.
7.4
Noise emissions
Hours of operation
24/7 tankwagon
loading
Noise sources
Pumps, compressor station,
tankwagon loading
8.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
8.1
Non-routine operations
Are they audible at nearby residences?
The predicted noise levels were found to
comply with the stipulated criteria. See
Noise Impact Assessment report
accompanying WA report.
List process upsets that could impact on the environment
Fire and spills – see accompanying WA report.
8.2
Separation distances
Proposed buffer distances, in metres
Recommended buffer distance, in metres
Worksafe:
 Inner Planning Advisory Area – 185m from
flammable material bunded areas;
 Outer Planning Advisory Area - 300m from
flammable material bunded areas;
Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme, Sch.52.10:
 Fixed roof tanks – 300m;
 Floating roof tanks – 100m;
Tanks T13 and T14 are fixed roof tanks
designated for the storage of diesel fuel. These
tanks are 230m and 260m respectively from the
nearest residentially zoned land.Tank T20 is
approximately 150m from the nearest
residence.
8.3
Management system
Explain the system that will be used to manage environmental risk
See accompanying WA report.
8.4
Construction
Identify any environmental risks that will need to be managed during installation
Identify any existing site contamination issues
Explain how construction will be managed to prevent environmental impacts
8
Application Form for EPA Works Approval
A.
CARBON
A1.
Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions
Note any existing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions
Current electricity consumption is 1868953 kWh and total of 2307.85 tC02e (which includes emissions
related to fuel consumption of 8.85 tC02e)
Process step
Type of energy use or
greenhouse gas
Amount (TJ/year) or
tCO2e/year
Basis for numbers
A2.
Best practice carbon management
Outline the steps taken to identify best practice carbon management
Summarise the options considered to avoid or minimise carbon emissions
Explain why the chosen option is best practice
B.
WATER
B1.
Water use
Note any existing water use
Process step
Type of water use
Basis for numbers
B2.
Best practice water management
Outline the steps taken to identify best practice for saving water
9
Amount (ML/year)
Summarise the options considered to avoid or minimise water usage
C.
SOLID WASTE
C1.
Solid waste generation
Note any existing solid waste generation
Process step
Type of waste generated
Amount (t/year)
Basis for numbers
C2.
Best practice solid waste management
Outline the steps taken to identify best practice for solid waste management
Summarise the options considered to avoid or minimise solid waste
Indicate where these wastes will go
D.
PRESCRIBED INDUSTRIAL WASTE
D1.
Prescribed industrial waste generation
Note any existing prescribed industrial waste generation
Process
Type of waste
Waste category
Basis for numbers
10
Amount (t/year)
D2.
Best practice prescribed waste management
Outline the steps taken to identify best practice for prescribed waste
Summarise the options considered to avoid or minimise prescribed waste
Indicate where these wastes will go
E.
AIR
E1.
Air emissions
Note any existing air emissions
Process step
Type of air emission*
Amount (g/min)
*Identify any class 3 indicator emissions
Basis for numbers
E2.
Best practice air emissions management
Outline the steps taken to identify best practice# for air emissions
Summarise the options considered to avoid or minimise air emissions
Explain why the chosen option is best practice#
#
For class 3 indicator emissions assess against maximum extent achievable
E3.
Impact on air quality
Predicted maximum
concentration (project)
Background concentration
11
Predicted maximum
concentration (total)^
Design criteria (mg/m )
^
Where any predicted concentrations are above the design criteria, provide a risk assessment. Assess
any emissions that could impact on regional air quality.
F.
WATER
F1.
Water discharges
Note any existing water discharges
Process step
Type of water discharge
Flowrate (L/day)
Basis for numbers
F2.
Best practice water management
Outline the steps taken to identify best practice for discharge to water
Summarise the options considered to avoid or minimise water discharges
F3.
Impact on waterway
Indicator
Maximum concentration
Median concentration (mg/L)
Water quality objective^
^
Where any predicted concentrations are above the objectives, provide a mixing zone assessment
G.
LAND AND GROUNDWATER
G1.
Discharge or deposit to land
Note any existing discharge or deposit to land
12
Process step
Type of discharge
Flow rate (L/day)
Or
Type of waste
Amount (t/year)
Basis for numbers
G2.
Best practice land and groundwater management
Outline the steps taken to identify best practice in discharge or deposit to land
Summarise the options considered to avoid or minimise discharge to land
For landfills, demonstrate best practice siting and design
G3.
Impact on land and groundwater
Provide a land capability assessment
Groundwater Indicator
Predicted Concentration
Water quality objective^
^
Where any predicted concentrations are above the objectives, provide an attenuation zone
assessment
Assess any impacts on the level of the water table
H.
NOISE EMISSIONS
H1.
Noise emissions
Process step
Source/type of emission
13
Sound power level (dBA)
Basis for numbers
H2.
Best practice noise management
Outline the steps taken to identify best practice for noise emissions
Summarise the options considered to avoid or minimise noise emissions
H3.
Noise impact
Location of
receptor(s)
See accompanying WA
report.
Noise levels
from project^
Total noise level^
Existing noise
levels (site)^
Background
noise level^
Noise limit^
^
dBA for each of day, evening and night where relevant. Where existing site noise is above the limit,
provide a noise reduction plan.
I.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
I1.
Non routine operations
Outline the steps taken to identify potential process upsets or failures
Outline approach to identifying best practice in managing these environmental risks
Type of process upset
Potential environmental
impact
Explain why the buffer distance to residents is acceptable
I2.
Monitoring
14
Measures to reduce
likelihood and impact
Process
Indicator
Measured
Monitoring
type
Monitoring
frequency
Use of
monitoring
APPLICANT STATEMENT
I declare that to the best of my knowledge the information in this application is true and correct, that I
have made all the necessary enquiries and that no matters of significance have been withheld from
EPA.
Signed CEO or delegate
Dan Martin, Associate, Aurecon
13 May 2013
15
`
Project: Caltex Newport ‘Horizons’
Report to accompany
Application for Works Approval
Reference: 225440.010.02
Prepared for: Caltex
Australia
Revision: 1
13 May 2013
Document Control Record
Document prepared by:
Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd
ABN 54 005 139 873
Aurecon Centre
Level 8, 850 Collins Street
Docklands VIC 3008
PO Box 23061
Docklands VIC 8012
Australia
T
F
E
W
+61 3 9975 3000
+61 3 9975 3444
[email protected]
aurecongroup.com
A person using Aurecon documents or data accepts the risk of:
a)
b)
Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original hard
copy version.
Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by Aurecon.
Report Title
Report to accompany
Application for Works Approval
Document ID
225440.010.02
Project Number
File Path
\\aumelpfs01\Projects\PES\Current Projects\Projects 2012\225440 - Caltex Newport\Old
Folders\Environment\Current WA application\Final Works Approval\Revised Issue
Client
Caltex Australia
Client Contact
Rev
Date
Revision Details/Status
Prepared by
0
10 December 2012
Final Draft issued to EPA
JMcLeod
1
13 May 2013
Revised Draft issued to EPA
SMcMaster
Current Revision
1
Paul O’Loughlin
Author
JM/SM
Verifier
Approver
DMartin
PCJones
DMartin
JGriffith
Caltex Newport ‘Horizons’
Date | 13 May 2013
Reference | 225440.010.02
Revision | 1
ABN 54 005 139 873
Aurecon Centre
Level 8, 850 Collins Street
Docklands VIC 3008
PO Box 23061
Docklands VIC 8012
Australia
T +61 3 9975 3000
F +61 3 9975 3444
E [email protected]
Waurecongroup.com
Project 225440.010.02 | File Works Approval Application Report_Rev3_090513.docx | 13 May 2013 | Revision 1
Contents
Executive Summary
3
1
Introduction
1
1.1
Company Details
1
1.2
Contact Details
2
1.3
Premise Details
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
Proposal
7
2.1
Project description
7
2.2
Project infrastructure
7
2.3
Project Stages
10
2.4
Proposed dates
12
Approvals
13
3.1
Need for Works Approval
13
3.2
Planning
13
3.3
Other Approvals
14
3.4
Existing EPA Approvals
14
Environment and Community
15
4.1
Track record
15
4.2
16
4.3
17
Process and Best Practice
20
5.1
20
5.2
22
5.3
25
5.4
25
5.5
26
Resources
28
6.1
Carbon
28
6.2
Water use
28
6.3
Solid waste
28
6.4
28
Emissions
29
7.1
Air emissions
29
7.2
30
8
7.3
Discharge to groundwater
31
7.4
Discharge to land
31
7.5
Noise emissions
31
Environmental Management
32
8.1
32
8.2
34
8.3
Management system
34
8.4
Construction
36
8.5
Environmental Monitoring
38
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
Appendix 8
Site Layout
Concept Design Report
Progress Report for Clean-up
Annual Report 2009
Drainage Layout
Minutes of Special Community Consultation Meeting
Air Quality Impact Assessment
Noise Impact Assessment
Index of Figures
Figure 1 | Locality Plan
Figure 2 | Proposed Site Layout
Figure 3 | Aerial photo showing site area boundaries
Index of Tables
Table 1 - Surrounding Public Locations
Table 2 – Proposed storage tanks and capacities
Table 3 - Environmental improvement recommendations and actions from the Auditor’s Issues
Register
Table 4 - Alternative processes and technology considered
Executive Summary
The future of Refining in Australia is very uncertain with recent announcements by both Shell and
Caltex to close their NSW refineries. The Caltex Newport Terminal is heavily dependent on competitor
supply in Victoria via refinery fed pipelines. Caltex have concerns about the long term future of this
method of supply and are most vulnerable in this respect. These concerns are supported by a recent
announcement from Shell that they are selling their Geelong refinery in the face of increasing
competition from bigger Asian refineries.
Supply by ship for major grades into the Caltex Newport Terminal is currently impractical and
uneconomical and the terminals tank configuration is too small for economic parcel sizes. Current
infrastructure limitations at the terminal (tanks, pipelines, berthing capability) indicate there is no real
alternative to refinery supply in the short term which represents a supply risk to Caltex and its Victorian
Customer base.
In order to address the above concerns Caltex proposes to expand its Newport bulk fuel storage
operation by increasing the current capacity of Terminal facility located at Newport, Melbourne,
Victoria.
This project will enhance the current facility by ensuring a reliable on-going market supply by providing
new infrastructure in order to protect current marketing volumes and meet future growth demands and
changing fuel demands.
The proposed development has had regard to the State Planning Policy Framework, the Hobsons Bay
Industrial Land Management Strategy June 2008, Hobsons Bay Industrial Development Design
Guidelines June 2008 and the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme. A planning permit application has
been prepared for the proposed works and has been lodged with City of Hobsons Bay.
The proposal comprises the construction of eight new fuel tanks at the Newport Terminal and
associated pipework and will include the construction of three new gantry bays onto the existing gantry
building; fire protection, including a new firewater tank and pumps; new dockline from Holden Dock to
the Newport Terminal and pipe bridges across Douglas Parade and Burleigh Street; and an upgrade
to the Vapour Recovery Unit.
The proposed development has been designed and will be implemented in accordance with
environmental best practice which has been demonstrated through 100% completion of actions to be
addressed under the 2008-2011 Environmental Improvement Plan and the Clean-up Notice and
reflected in ongoing programs and operations.
This Works Approval application has been prepared with regard to EPA Works Approval Guidelines
and is supported by a Concept Design Report and the outcomes of specialist studies on the impacts
and mitigation measures for air quality, noise and traffic.
It is anticipated that the development will proceed in three stages:
Stage 1 – R&T Yard, gantry works and associated fire protection
Stage 2 – West Yard, new docklines/manifold works, pipe bridges, berth works and upgrade
completion
Stage 3 – New Compound, new Automotive Diesel Oil (ADO) tank and associated tie-in lines
This Works Approval application seeks approval for the three stages of development.
1
Introduction
1.1
Company Details
This application is being made by Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd on behalf of Caltex Australia Petroleum
Pty Ltd.
Registered Company Name:
Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd
Australian Business Number:
17 000 032 128
Australian Company Number:
000 032 128
Registered Address:
Level 24, 2 Market Street
Sydney NSW 2000
(GPO Box 3916, Sydney NSW 2001)
Place of Business:
411 Douglas Parade
Newport, VIC 3015
Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd (herein referred to as ‘Caltex’) is Australia's leading oil refining and
marketing company and is involved in the refining, distribution and marketing of petroleum fuels and
lubricants in all states and territories.
Caltex has operated in Australia since 1941 with a history dating back to 1900 when R.W. Cameron
Co. began marketing Texaco products. The original joint venture between Socal (Standard Oil
California – now Chevron) and Texaco commenced operations under the name of Caltex in 1941.
In May 1995 the petroleum refining and marketing assets of Caltex Australia and Ampol Limited were
merged and subsequently the Caltex Australia shareholders approved the acquisition of the whole of
that joint venture in December 1997.
Caltex is the only petroleum refining and marketing company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.
Fifty per cent of the shares in Caltex Australia Limited are held by Chevron Global Energy Inc. and the
balance by more than 20,000 shareholders. It should be noted that although Chevron is a 50%
shareholder, Caltex is not a subsidiary and all decisions are made by Caltex’s Australian Board and
management.
The company owns and operates two fuel refineries, one at Kurnell in Sydney and the other at Lytton
in Brisbane, with a combined capacity of more than 35 million litres per day. It recently closed a
600,000 litre per day lubricating oil refinery at Kurnell. Caltex has access to 22 terminals around
Australia, it owns and operates twelve of the storage terminals whilst others are in some form of joint
operating agreement with other parties. Caltex also has three joint venture lubricant blending plants
around Australia. Caltex has no oil or gas exploration or production interests, nor any overseas
refining or marketing operations.
The Caltex organisational structure has two major operational business divisions operating under, and
supported by, various corporate business units (BU), all reporting to the chief executive officer. The
two major operational business units are: Refining and Marketing. Newport Terminal belongs to the
p1
Marketing BU. The company structure no longer includes Supply and Distribution (S&D). In May 2012,
the Marketing and S&D units were merged and now all fit under the Marketing BU. The new Marketing
BU incorporates distribution operations (petroleum products) with terminals and distribution activities.
Integrating the supply chain from crude oil to customer has enabled a stronger focus on improving the
processes and infrastructure to better ensure safety, reliability and security of supply.
Caltex Australia has five principal operating subsidiaries - Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd, Caltex
Refineries (NSW) Pty Ltd, Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd, Caltex Lubricating Oil Refinery Pty Ltd and
Caltex Petroleum Distributors Pty Ltd.
1.2
Contact Details
This application is being made by Aurecon on behalf of Caltex Australia. Queries relating to this Works
Approval application should be directed to Sarah McMaster of Aurecon, on the details below.
1.3
Key Contact:
Sarah McMaster
Phone:
03 9975 3306
Email:
[email protected]
Address:
PO Box 23061 Docklands VIC 8012 Premise Details
Caltex Newport Terminal is a petroleum refined product storage and distribution facility with a total
storage capacity of some 670.988 million litres, of which 50.666 million litres1 is designated as storage
under Schedule 9 of the Occupational Health and Safety (Safety Standards) Regulations 1994. The
site is a licensed and registered Major Hazard Facility with WorkSafe Victoria.
The site is used for the receipt, storage and distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons, principally petrol,
diesel, heating oil and jet fuel.
The terminal comprises three main storage holdings, known as the West, North and South yards.
Each yard is equipped with above ground storage tanks, pipe manifolds, pumps, valving, and
instrumentation in order to manage incoming refined products into storage and subsequent dispatch.
The western area of the South Yard (currently largely vacant) is referred to as the ‘R&T Yard’. The
bulk of the works in the South Yard will occur within the R&T Yard. An administration and amenities
building complex and a tanker filling facility are situated in the North Yard.
Approximately 170 trucks per day pass through the facility to load fuel for subsequent distribution.
Contract and third party carriers constitute one hundred per cent of traffic passing through the Tanker
Truck Loading Rack (TTLR) within the Terminal.
The Terminal operates seven days per week year round with occasional planned shut-downs of part
or the whole of the terminal in order to conduct maintenance works.
Based on Maximum Safe Fill levels
1
p2
1.3.1
Subject Site
The Caltex Newport Terminal is located in an industrial area within the City of Hobsons Bay,
approximately 12 kilometres West South-West of the Melbourne city centre (Melways Ref. Map 56
A2/B2).
Figure 1 shows the location of the site on an overview map of the area.
The terminal is generally bounded by Drake Street to the West, Craig Street to the North, Douglas
Parade to the East and Hobson Street to the South. Burleigh Street runs through the Caltex site
dividing the North and West yards from the South Yard. The Terminal does not have direct boundaries
onto Hobson and Craig Streets sharing a block with other industrial facilities as detailed in Section
1.3.2 below. The true site boundaries in these directions are defined by fence lines between Caltex
Newport Terminal and these adjoining sites.
Figure 2 shows the site layout on a scaled plan of the Terminal (Drawing E2750). A larger version of
this plan is provided in Appendix 1 – Site layout.
Figure 3 shows an aerial photo with marked boundaries of the site and adjoining facilities.
1.3.2
Locality
The use of land immediately adjacent to the Caltex Newport Terminal is a mixture of commercial and
industrial.
Australasian Lubricants Manufacturing Company (ALMC) Newport is located between the North and
West yards with partial fencing and/or pipelines as separation markers between the two properties.
ALMC Spotswood is located directly to the north of the Caltex facility. These two ALMC locations are
operated as a single facility and are joined via a crossover at the north eastern corner of the ALMC
Newport site. ALMC Newport shares a fire system with Caltex Newport. ALMC Spotswood has an
independent fire system.
Shell Newport bulk storage and distribution terminal (a licensed Major Hazard Facility) is located
immediately to the west of the site beyond Drake Street.
The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Services facility is located to the north of the site beyond a
dividing boundary fence.
Container Fumigation Services (CFS) container storage, transport and proposed fumigation depot has
frontage onto Douglas Parade and is located to the south of the Caltex South Yard, with a fence
forming the dividing boundary.
A BP fuel storage facility is located to the South of the Caltex West Yard beyond Burleigh Street,
however this facility is currently decommissioned.
The Yarra River runs approximately 100 metres from the eastern side of the Caltex site beyond
Douglas Parade. A fuel and lubricant industry pipeline network runs along the western bank of the
river from Geelong and Altona to Holden Dock and other facilities further north of the site. Associated
with this piping network is a shared industry facility referred to as the Y-cage which allows transfer
from the main pipeline network to a variety of Newport facilities including Caltex. The Y-cage is located
to the east of the Caltex site across Douglas Parade (Refer Figure 3).
p3
Table 1 below shows approximate distances and directions of public sites in the vicinity of Caltex
Newport Terminal.
Table 1 - Surrounding Public Locations
Vulnerable site
Location
Distance
(metres)
Direction
from Caltex
Residential Housing
Hobson Street
350
S
Craig Street
200
NW
Spotswood Primary School
Melbourne Road Spotswood
600
NW
Sacred Heart Catholic School
Newcastle Street
800
SW
Shopping Centre
Hall Street, Newport
900
SW
Newport Railway Station
Melbourne Road
900
SW
Science Works Museum
Douglas Parade
250
N
Riverside Park
Douglas Parade
20
E
Digman Reserve Sports Oval
Douglas Parade
400
S
Newport Park Athletics Track
Douglas Parade & North Road
600
SSE
Newport Power Station
Douglas Parade
400
SSE
600
NNE
Westgate Bridge
p4
Figure 1 | Locality Plan
p5
Figure 2 | Proposed Site Layout
Figure 3 | Aerial photo showing site area boundaries
p6
2
Proposal
2.1
Project description
Caltex propose to undertake and stage significant upgrade works at their fuel terminal in Newport in
order to meet the future growth demands and provide infrastructure to support a full or partial import
operation.
The project will provide protection against a potential future closure of a refinery in Victoria, and will
enable a more balanced supply chain with the capability of full imports via Holden Dock. The design
will cater for full MR import cargos and increasing future terminal throughputs.
The project will also allow Caltex to re-evaluate the quantities of fuels stored at the site in Newport,
with a move towards storing greater amounts of higher octane gasoline in order to meet the changing
consumer demands. It will also allow Caltex to meet the predicted growth in demand for Diesel and
Jet fuel. The upgrade works will ensure a reliable supply of all fuel types to the Victorian market.
2.2
Project infrastructure
The terminal upgrade comprises the following main elements:
1. A new DN350 dockline from Holden Dock to the terminal, complete with a new marine loading
arm at the berth to service the existing and new docklines.
2. All docklines and existing refinery lines to be re-routed into the Caltex South Yard and into a
single manifold arrangement for transfer to tanks and cutting of slops.
3. A total of 179.1 million litres of bulk product storage as follows:






Two 30 million litre diesel (ADO) tanks
One 44.1 million litre diesel (ADO) tank
Two 15 million litre unleaded petrol (ULP) tanks
One 15 million litre 95 octane (PULP) tank
One 15 million litre 98 octane (SPULP) tank
One 15 million litre Jet fuel tank
4. An additional three bays to the tankwagon loading gantry.
5. Fire protection, including a new firewater tank, firewater pumps; tank, cooling/foam and gantry
foam systems.
6. Vapour recovery unit upgrade.
7. A new security fence around the perimeter of the South Yard. This will be standard chain link
mesh security fencing. Emergency gate egress points will be provided at positions around the
fence line.
8. New 6m compound fire access roads provided around the South Yard and West Yard
compounds. The South Yard will have a full perimeter access road.
9. Two (2) new pipe bridges over Douglas Parade and Burleigh Street.
10. Demolition and works associated with the removal of existing sheds and lifting of existing
tanks in the West Yard.
p7
Detailed descriptions of relevant elements of project infrastructure pertaining to the Works Approval
are presented in the following sections.
2.2.1
Docklines
A new DN350 dockline will be installed between the Holden Dock berth and the Caltex site. The pipe
will be located alongside the existing DN300 dockline and supported on an existing industry pipe rack
between the berth and Caltex. Note there is currently a spare position available on the pipe rack.
The existing DN300 Caltex dockline will be extended from the Y-cage to the new South Yard manifold.
Blank flange take-offs are to be provided for future pigging facilities if required.
Product will be delivered to site via tankship and the new and existing docklines. The docklines will be
sized to provide 100% delivery of bulk product via tankship eliminating sole reliance on the refinery
supply lines. Tankships will berth at the existing Holden Dock and deliver fuel through the new DN350
dockline via one new 12” Marine Loading Arm (MLA). The new and existing docklines will be able to
operate simultaneously, with a connection at the two manifolds to allow flexibility.
2.2.2
New South Yard Manifold
A new manifold will be located in the South Yard to connect the existing and new docklines and allow
product to flow to all tanks via double block and bleed valves.
A densitometer and site glass will be used at the manifold for product interface detection. The new
manifold will be used to distribute all incoming fuels, both from ship and refinery, to the entire site and
will replace the existing South Yard and North Yard dockline manifolds. This allows all incoming fuel
distribution to be controlled from one location.
The existing refinery lines are to be extended from the Y-cage to the new South Yard manifold.
2.2.3
Bulk storage
The Newport Terminal currently has a total site storage capacity of 70.988ML. The proposed upgrade
works will result in an additional 179.1ML of fuel storage capacity, resulting in a total site storage
capacity of 248.4ML. The design will cater for a future terminal throughput of 4.3 billion litres per
annum.
Storage tanks
Proposed process storage tanks and their respective products and capacities are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 – Proposed storage tanks and capacities
Tank
Number
Product Stored
Tank Size
(ML)
Location
Roof Type
T13
Automotive Diesel
Oil (ADO)
30
West
Fixed
T14
Automotive Diesel
Oil (ADO)
30
West
Fixed
T15
Super Premium
Unleaded (SPULP)
15
West
Fixed
T16
Jet Fuel
15
R&T
Fixed
p8
Comment
Internal floating
blanket
T17
Unleaded
15
R&T
Fixed
Internal floating
blanket
T18
Premium Unleaded
15
R&T
Fixed
Internal floating
blanket
T19
Premium Unleaded
15
R&T
Fixed
Internal floating
blanket
T20
Automotive Diesel
Oil (ADO)
44.1
New
compound*
Fixed
*New compound to be established directly north of the West Yard as part of Stage 3 Horizons Project.
More details of tank design and operation are presented in Section 5 - Process and Technology.
The tanks will comprise the following features:





Fixed cone roofs for all tanks
Internal floating roofs will be fitted to all ULP, PULP and SPULP tanks
Internally lined
Fixed roof tanks to have frangible roofs
No equipment for the mixing of product.
Full details of tank features are presented in Section 6.4 of the Concept Design Report, Appendix 2.
It is current industry practice to store flammable and combustible products with high flash points and
low vapour pressures (i.e. Diesel and Jet fuel) in fixed roof tanks with free vents. Internal Floating
Roofs (IRF’s) are not typical in these tanks due to low emissions rates. They can also add
unnecessary complications when using floating suction tank outlets for product quality, as is the case
with Jet Fuel.
Pressure / Vacuum Vents are not commonly used for Jet or diesel tanks. These can cause additional
moisture in the tank which can be of particular concern for Jet fuel.
For tanks which store products with low flash points and high vapour pressures (i.e. motorspirit) a
floating roof structure is commonly used to minimise vapour losses. In the installation at Caltex
Horizons, Internal Floating Roofs have been selected as they will provide the required reduction in
vapour emissions and require less maintenance during their life when compared to an external floating
roof design.
All tanks will be externally painted white, to reduce heat gain and subsequent vapour loss. This shall
include painting of all appurtenances such as wind girders, nozzles, stairway and gauging platform
(where applicable). Stainless steel and aluminium parts will not be painted.
Each tank will be provided with a spiral stairway to provide access to the roof. The spiral stairway is to
be at least 710mm wide and will be supported off of the tank shell.
Fixed roof tanks are to be fitted with full roof circumferential handrails, with non-slip painted zones on
the roof plates to regularly access equipment on the tank roofs.
During Stage 3 of the Horizons development a 44.1ML tank will be installed within a new compound to
be established immediately north of West Yard.
Tank foundations
The tanks will be supported on reinforced ringbeam foundations. The foundation design will
incorporate the following features:

Designed to carry the vertical and lateral loads from operating and imposed external conditions.
p9


Designed to meet the ground bearing capacity and conditions.
Provide a suitable platform to carry the tank for its expected operating life.
The main features of the tank foundations are as follows:





The typical height of the ringbeam above grade shall be approximately 400mm to avoid flooding of
the tank floor plate to a 100 year, 72 hour rain event.
A floor leak detection system shall be fitted within the ringbeam comprising a central sump and
tell-tale drain pipes to the outside of the foundation.
The compound liner will be connected to the outside edge of the foundation and run internally
within the ringbeam to form a continuous compound lining.
The tank foundation plinth will be sealed with asphalt and graded away from the tank for water
runoff.
Steel access stairs around the foundation for access to tank valves, tank manways, sampling
points and other fittings.
As part of the project, four existing tanks in the West Yard (T356, T428, T429 and T26) will be lifted
and the foundations replaced with lined concrete ringbeams. This will bring the entire new western
compound up to current standards.
2.2.4
Pipework
Berth Pipework
The berth pipe work includes all new pipework installed at the Holden Dock berth. New pipework will
be installed between the new marine loading arm and the new DN350 dockline, as well as the existing
Mobil marine loading arm and the existing DN300 Caltex dockline.
Tank Inlet Lines
New DN300 pipes will run from the new South Yard manifold to each new tank. Existing supply lines
currently buried under Burleigh Street will also be replaced to run above ground across the new
pipebridges.
The R&T Yard pipes will run along the north side of the Yard then enter the R&T Yard from the east
side. Each product will have one DN300 pipe running to the compound (three in total) with a single
new DN300 supplying ULP to both T17 and T19.
The West Yard pipelines will cross Burleigh Street over the new pipe bridge and run west over the
existing pipe bridge (new truck entrance) to enter the West Yard from the east side.
Two main ADO DN300 lines will run from the South manifold to the West Yard and supply the two
main ADO tank groups. This will allow ADO to be accepted from ship and refinery supply
simultaneously. One new DN300 will supply SPULP to both T15 and T26.
2.3
Project Stages
It is anticipated that construction will occur in three stages.
2.3.1
Stage 1 - R&T Yard, gantry works and associated fire protection
The works within the R&T Yard will primarily occur on what is currently an empty site to the west of
the existing Newport South Yard. The new compound, four tanks, associated pumps and piping, could
p 10
be constructed in this yard with minimal disruption to the existing site operations. It is noted that in
Stage 1, tanks T17 & T19 may run on diesel, however this will not affect the design of the compound
and will still be designed and built to contain flammables.
As an interim measure the new inlet pipework would be required to be tied into the existing South Yard
manifold to enable temporary operations of the R&T Yard prior to other stages being completed. The
new Burleigh Street pipe bridge would be installed to enable outlet piping between the pump raft and
the gantry to be installed and operate. Note that construction of this bridge will require the existing
overhead power lines to be buried.
The gantry construction work would consist of demolishing the existing ALMC shed, extending the
existing gantry structure, installing the necessary pipework and constructing the new exit pavement.
The gantry extension work will impact largely on the operation of the site. A more detailed programme
to allow operations running to continue would need to be developed in the detailed design phase. The
initial fire protection works required for Stage 1 will consist of the firewater storage and reticulation,
tank foam piping and tank cooling piping. The new firewater tank and pumps will be installed in the
South yard, while all the piping will be completed around the construction of the R&T Yard tanks. The
majority of this work can be completed without interruption to the existing site, however interruption of
the existing fire protection will be required when the new system is tied-in to the existing system.
2.3.2
Stage 2 - West Yard, new docklines/manifold works, berth works and
upgrade completion
A new compound will be constructed within the West yard to include two new 30ML ADO tanks and a
new 15ML SPULP tank. The compound will also house the three existing ADO tanks T356, T428 and
T429 and the existing SPULP tank T26.
The existing compound floor and walls surrounding the existing tanks will be upgraded to meet the
required compound capacity and environmental requirements. This will involve lifting the existing
tanks, installing new GCL liners in the compound and re-founding the tanks. New compound walls will
be constructed around the existing tanks to replace the existing walls. The three new tanks and the
surrounding compounds, immediately adjacent, could be constructed with little interference to the
existing terminal operations. The upgrade of the compound around the existing tanks will need to be
carefully planned and staged to avoid lengthy down time of existing tanks.
The new DN350 dockline is to be constructed from the Caltex terminal to Holden Dock. The majority of
this dockline will run on existing support and follow the existing industry lines. This section of line on
existing supports, running from the Caltex “Y-cage” to Holden Dock could be constructed with minimal
interference to the existing Caltex operations.
The berth works will require the installation of a new 12” marine loading arm, pipework to the new
dockline, and reconfiguration of the existing 8” Mobil loading arm operating the existing dockline.
The new dockline manifolds will be located in the South Yard site, for both the existing DN300 and
newDN350 docklines. The manifold will be the only location where all the docklines and refinery lines
will be operated and distributed to the individual tanks. The final tie-in on the manifolds will contain a
period of interruptions to site operations.
The final installation of the fire protection system for the West Yard compound will be completed and
connected to the new and existing fire protection systems.
p 11
2.3.3
Stage 3 – New compound for additional Automotive Diesel Oil (ADO)
Tank
A new 44.1ML tank will be installed in a new diesel only compound area, due north of the existing
West Yard. The inlet line to the tank will tie into the existing inlet manifold in the West Yard (used for
Stage 2 and existing diesel tanks T356, T428, T429).
A new outlet line will run from the tank to the existing pump raft in the West Yard, as utilized for Stage
2.
2.4
Proposed dates
It is intended that construction of the stage 1 upgrade works will commence within two years of EPA
and planning approvals. It is envisaged that the full expansion (stages 2 & 3) will be driven by future
changes to the current internal and external operating environment which could result in some stages
being completed in parallel, The operative date and completion of the full upgrade at this stage is
envisaged to be completed by no later than 2019.
p 12
3
Approvals
3.1
Need for Works Approval
Under the Environment Protection Act 1970, premises which have the potential for significant
environmental impact are subject to works approvals. Such premises are referred to as ‘scheduled
premises’.
The Caltex Newport Terminal is classified as a scheduled premise within the Environment Protection
(Scheduled Premises and Exemptions) Regulations 2007. The proposal fits the description of a Bulk
Storage facility, as described within Schedule 1 of the Regulations as follows:
G04 (Bulk Storage)
Bulk storage facilities which have a total design capacity of more than 1·0 megalitres (in tanks
exceeding 10 000 litres capacity) and which store compounds of carbon (including petroleum
products or oil) which:
(i) contain at least one carbon to carbon bond, as well as derivatives of methane; and
(ii) are liquid at Standard Temperature and Pressure; or
(iii) contain any substance classified as a class 3 indicator in State (environment protection
policy (Air Quality Management).
The proposal involves the storage of liquid fuel in tanks which have a design capacity of more than 1
megalitre. Confirmation of the requirement for a Works Approval was verbally received by the EPA on
20th December, 2012. It was also advised that a draft Works Approval should be prepared, in order to
provide guidance for the level of detail required.
3.2
Planning
3.2.1
Overview
The proposed works are subject to the provisions of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme. Hobsons
Bay Council is the Responsible Authority for the assessment of any application required.
Pursuant to the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme (the “Scheme”), the subject site is located within the
Industrial 1 Zone and is not affected by any Overlays.
The subject land has been utilised for the purpose of fuel storage and distribution for a term greater
than 15 years and as such, pursuant to Clause 63 of the Scheme, an existing use applies to the land.
Therefore the subject proposal does not require a planning permit in relation to the use of the land.
Notwithstanding the above, pursuant to Clause 33.01-4 a planning permit is required for buildings and
works associated with the proposal. This planning permit application was lodged with Hobsons Bay
Council on 20th December, 2012 and is being progressed concurrently with this Works Approval
application.
Section 52.10 of the Scheme relates to Uses with Adverse Amenity Potential. The purpose of this
Section is:
To define those types of industries and warehouses which if not appropriately designed and
located may cause offence or unacceptable risk to the neighbourhood.
p 13
The ‘storage of petroleum products and crude oil in tanks exceeding 2,000 tonnes capacity’ is defined
as a Use with Adverse Amenity Potential and is relevant to this proposal. Schedule 52.10 sets out
threshold distances from any part of the land of the proposed buildings and works to land in sensitive
zones, including residential zones. The following threshold distances apply:


Fixed roof tanks
Floating roof tanks
300m
100m
An assessment of risk to the safety of people located off the land may be required. This is expected to
be required under the Major Hazard Facility (MHF) license (see below).
3.2.2
Referrals
As part of the planning process, Hobsons Bay Council is required to undertake referrals to the
following Authorities:


Environment Protection Authority
The Victorian WorkCover Authority
3.3
Other Approvals
At the issuing of the planning permit, the proposed upgrade works will be subject to a Building
Approval to be issued by the Hobsons Bay Council.
Reconfiguration of loading arms and other equipment at the Holden Dock fall within the Special Use
Zone – Schedule 1 in accordance with the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme and are therefore
permit exempt activities. Whilst works required at the Holden Dock are not subject to a Planning
Permit, a Works Application Form must be submitted to the Port of Melbourne Corporation in order to
obtain a Work Consent prior to any work commencing.
The site is a Major Hazard Facility (MHF), and operates under a current Safety Case. The existing
Safety Case will need to be updated to reflect the upgraded facility.
Department of Primary Industries has confirmed that there is no requirement for any approvals under
the Pipelines Act 2005, given that the facility is currently operating under MHF requirements.
3.4
Existing EPA Approvals
The Caltex Newport Terminal currently holds an Environmental Licence (EM37140) which was issued
by EPA Victoria on 25 February 1999 and last amended on 18 November 2010.
p 14
4
Environment and Community
4.1
Track record
The company’s environmental track record to date has been generally positive. Caltex has responded
to requirements under Clean-up Notices and the Environmental Improvement Plan 2008-2011 for the
site.
4.1.1
Clean-up notices
A Clean Up Notice was jointly issued to Caltex and Australasian Lubricants Manufacturing Company
(ALMC) by the EPA on 27 July 2010 (NO8541) in relation to the presence of phase separated and
dissolved phase hydrocarbon contamination in groundwater on and from the premises. This Clean Up
Notice was a revised notice which was issued as a replacement for notices NO7497, NO3109, 2638
and the un-numbered CUN dated 7 November 2007. A Clean Up Plan (CUP) was prepared by
Parsons Brinckerhoff and submitted to the EPA in November 2010.
The most recent assessment of CUP milestones indicates compliance with all applicable components
of the site CUP. During the period of 1 April 2010 through 31 March 2011, Caltex has enacted the
agreed upon Clean Up Plan (November 2010 revision) in order to manage environmental impacts at
the site and to prevent new impacts to soil, water and air. A summary of monitoring results is provided
for each media with references to audited reports. Refer Appendix 3 Progress Report for Clean-up.
4.1.2
Environmental Improvement Plan
Caltex has completed an Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) 2008-2011 for the site. A range of
actions across improvements in air quality, noise, odour, soil and groundwater management and
wastewater management have been completed or have become part of an ongoing program. An
overview of completed actions in the EIP is contained in the Annual Report for 2009 (attached within
Appendix 4). Remaining actions for air emissions and odour have since been completed and are
described in more detail in Section 7.
In addition to compliance with the EIP and Clean-up notice, Caltex has also acted on a number of
recommendations arising from the auditor’s assessment and issues register, in response to the 2009
Annual Report. These are summarised in Table 3 below:
Table 3 - Environmental improvement recommendations and actions from the Auditor’s Issues
Register
Recommendation
Action
Choice of groundwater remediation method
needs further justification, in particular the use of
active skimming
Completed - bale down testing has been
completed and transmissivity determined for
product wells, showing that active skimming is not
viable due to severely diminished returns.
Long term trends should be developed for wells
containing product and dissolved phase plume
wells, to demonstrate success of the remediation
Completed – Trends show that product is
decreasing. Dissolved benzene plume is stable in
the newer volcanics and decreasing in the
p 15
Recommendation
Action
works.
Brighton group aquifers.
Further sampling and analysis of the Burleigh
Street drain should be undertaken if product or a
sheen is observed.
Actioned – Monthly inspections of the drain are
completed and no further sheens have been
observed to date.
Bores that are incorrectly screened should be
decommissioned and reinstalled, if there are no
other representative bores.
Completed - a bore survey was undertaken using
a down hole camera and damaged bores have
been removed and decommissioned. No
additional bores have been installed as there is
adequate coverage of the area with the existing
network.
Further indoor air quality assessments should be
undertaken.
Completed – results indicate there are no
unacceptable risks to human health.
Further monitoring of the plume should be
undertaken to confirm no eastern migration as a
result of the HBCU shutdown.
Completed – monitoring and modelling confirm
that groundwater is not migrating towards the
river.
Wells should be properly maintained.
Wells are assessed and repaired as needed
during each monthly gauging event.
4.2
4.2.1
Discharges to storm water and sewer
Caltex has made an operational decision to discharge all wastewater from North and South yards to
Sewer only as trade waste. This decision to not discharge to the stormwater system eliminated the
possibility of any potential contamination from the two yards entering the Yarra River.
All discharges of stormwater from the terminal off-site are manually initiated. Stormwater valves are
closed during normal operating periods, preventing uncontrolled discharges of material to the
stormwater system. By adopting this protocol, Caltex ensures that all discharges to the stormwater
system are controlled and supervised and that the potential for dry weather discharges to the
stormwater system is avoided.
As part of the upgrade, new compound drainage systems will be constructed for the R&T and West
yards compounds. Details are outlined in Sections 5 and 7. A plan of Caltex’s existing drainage
system, showing stormwater and sewerage connections, is shown in Appendix 5.
4.2.2
Soil and groundwater impacts
As discussed in Section 4.1, the site is currently being monitored under Clean Up Notice (NO8541) in
relation to the presence of phase separated hydrocarbons and dissolved phase hydrocarbon plumes
in groundwater. The proposed upgrade works at the site will need to be done in such a way as to not
disturb the requirements of the Clean Up Notice, including the ability to meet and provide evidence of
compliance. The existing bores will be protected to enable this monitoring to continue.
Provision will be made within the drainage systems for the taking of samples of the discharge water
from the separator units for analysis and testing purposes. Monitoring wells will be positioned around
the outside of the compound and operating equipment areas for the purposes of regular sampling and
analysis of the ground water under the site.
p 16
4.2.3
Emissions to air
The expansion at the Newport Terminal will include an additional eight tanks and an extension of three
new gantry bays onto the existing gantry building. These elements have the potential to result in
vapour losses if not constructed to a high standard.
An air quality impact assessment for the proposed upgrade was undertaken, involving a review of air
quality compliance and modeling of likely additional emissions attributed to the Vapour Recovery Unit
and additional truck movements. The results showed there were no criteria exceedances of the
stipulated criteria, based on the air dispersion modeling conducted. More details are presented in
Section 8.
4.2.4
Noise
This Works Approval application will address the issue of acoustic impact on surrounding areas. Whilst
not perceived as a major concern, noise management at the site is considered an issue that requires
proper control by the Terminal. Community perceptions are increasingly a determinant of operational
acceptability and the issue of transport noise requires consideration.
The proposed upgrade will increase loading efficiency and there is also a possibility that the number of
truck movements to and from the site will increase. Therefore noise impacts must be considered. A
noise impact assessment for the proposed upgrade and growth in truck movements was undertaken,
involving a noise survey and noise modeling at the nearest sensitive receptor; and monitoring of noise
emitting plant, to determine the specific noise criteria in accordance with EPA regulations. The
predicted noise levels were found to comply with the stipulated criteria. More details are presented in
Section 8.
4.2.5
Contaminated Soil
The South Yard is known to contain contaminated soil. A 300m3 stockpile of hydrocarbon impacted
soil is located within the R&T Yard as a result of site maintenance activities. The stockpile was
previously assessed in 2007 and 2011 as being Category A Prescribed Industrial Waste due to TPH
C15-C36 concentrations and has been undergoing remediation. The pile has undergone biopiling,
involving the injection of air, water and nutrients in order to activate naturally occurring bacteria and
biological processes. As a result of remediation, the classification has been reduced to Prescribed
Waste Category B. A trial is being conducted over half the soil pile, involving the addition of a
surfactant, in order to increase the rate of remediation. The pile has been covered, in order to retain
moisture and prevent escape of emissions. It is expected that remediation to Category C Prescribed
Industrial Waste will be completed by the end of 2013 and soil will be ready for disposal.
4.3
Caltex has an active community engagement program in place. Caltex has a positive history of strong
community engagement with the local Newport community. This involves the hosting of approximately
three community meetings in the local area per year and the distribution of a community newsletter.
Caltex Newport Terminal holds Community Liaison Group meetings to provide a forum for the local
community to receive information about the facility and to raise, and have addressed, issues of
concern which they may have. Attendees at these meetings include:




The Regional Operations Manager
Community representatives
Regulator representatives (i.e. EPA, WorkSafe, City West Water)
Hobsons Bay City Council representation.
p 17
The community has previously been consulted on Caltex activities and had the opportunity to review
and provide comment on important Caltex operational documents. This includes the convening of the
Caltex Newport Terminal Community Liaison Group (CLG) for consultation on the Caltex Newport
Terminal Environment Management and Improvement Plan 2008-2011 (now complete) and Newport
Terminal Major Hazard Facility Safety Case.
Caltex held a special community meeting on 15 August 2012, attended by EPA, Aurecon and Caltex
personnel including Environmental Manager, Site Manager, OHS Manager and National Risk
Manager. Public advertisements and invitations to a variety of organisations, including Community
Liaison Group, to inform the community of Caltex’s intention to expand operations at the Caltex
Newport facility and answer any questions of concern.
Invitations and advertising details for the meeting are as follows.
4.3.1
Invitations to special community meeting
Invitations by letter were sent to the following organisations and community representatives:

















Members of the Community Liaison Group
Hobson’s Bay Council
Altona Council
Shell
BP
Mobil
WorkSafe
EPA
CFS
ALMC
Other companies on Burleigh Street
City West Water
Jemina (local power)
Local State MP (Wade Noonan)
Power Station (Douglas Parade)
Port Of Melbourne
Newport Staff/Drivers/Carriers/NPT
Contractors
4.3.2
Advertising
Advertising for the special community consultation meeting was undertaken in The Leader local
newspaper for a period of 2 papers/weeks, between 30 July and 6 August 2012.
Despite wide and timely advertising, meeting attendees comprised two members of the CLG.
Issues raised by CLG members at the special meeting of 15 August 2012 and responses to concerns
are summarized in the table below. Generally the concerns were addressed and the CLG members
expressed thanks to Caltex for the opportunity to attend and for the attendance of authorities and
Caltex representatives. Minutes of the special community consultation meeting are presented in
Appendix 6.
p 18
Community issue
Response
Who by
Concern over increased
number of tanks
Changes over refinery closures from previous plans of 2005
were noted and that Victorian supply was important.
Caltex
Risks associated with loads
put into UPS
Determined via risk assessment rom the Safety Case for the
MHF
Caltex
Visually intrusive nature of
tanks
Painted white to maximize heat reflection as operational
requirement
Caltex
Records of CLG meetings not
being provided
Copies of Minutes of previous meetings to be distributed to CLG
with meeting invitations
Caltex
Further information for
residents
Works Approval process for receiving community input will
consider comments with respect to best practice aspects of the
development.
EPA
Caltex response re Container
Fumigation Services facility as
indication of general
community support
Assurance to residents that concerns of Caltex had been
formally submitted
Caltex
Security of Caltex facility;
breaches of fence
Security measures include CCT in strategic locations; corporate
security advisor; threats and vulnerability assessment;
management plan for security continuous improvement – 93% of
actions completed for 3yr review; no breaches of security fence
Caltex
p 19
5
Process and Best Practice
5.1
The processes associated with the Caltex Newport Terminal involve the receipt of liquid fuel from
ships, refinery (via pipeline) or, on occasion, truck, the storage of fuel in tanks, and the dispensing of
fuel from tanks into road tankers via gantry bays.
5.1.1
Product Receipt
Product Receipt involves the delivery of fuel to the terminal via ship, refinery lines and, on occasion,
road tanker. The project will result in the site being setup so that it can be 100% reliant on imported
product (i.e. via tank ship) if required. However it is expected that the site will receive a supply pattern
of something like 20% of its product from the existing refinery lines with the remaining 80% from
imported fuel via ship.
Additional pipework will be installed to cater for the increased quantity of product to be received to the
site via ship. Tank ships will berth at the existing Holden Dock and deliver fuel through two loading
arms, one new 12” arm and potentially one existing 8” arm (currently owned by Mobil).
Environmental risks associated with product receipt include product spillage during transfer and air
emissions. The risks are present at a number of locations, as summarised below.
Y-Cage
When transferring refined product from a refinery, Caltex operational responsibilities extend beyond
the specific terminal boundary, to a separate and secured manifold adjacent to the terminal. This
location is commonly known as the Y-Cage distribution centre and is located on the eastern side of
Douglas Parade. This facility is operated jointly by Shell, Mobil and Caltex who each have
responsibility for their own equipment within the Cage. Caltex is responsible for its own installations
which include a set of take-off valves where its pipelines connect to the Y-Cage facility, adjacent to the
Cage.
Holden Dock
During transfer of refined product from a ship, the boundary of responsibility extends beyond the ‘Ycage‘ manifold, along a 300 mm diameter pipeline running alongside the banks of the Yarra,
northwards to the ‘Holden Dock‘, situated adjacent to the Mobil Yarraville Terminal where the ships
are docked. Surveillance of this length of line is carried out during such transfers. This is a shared
industry pipeline.
Pipelines
From the ‘Y-cage‘ manifold, refined product from each of six incoming lines at the manifold can be
directed into one of four Caltex-owned lines which cross beneath Douglas parade and run westwards
along Burleigh Street. Two of these pipelines enter either the South or North yards via valving at the
Burleigh Street valve cage; one crosses under Burleigh Street and enters the North Yard; and the
other two pipelines continue along Burleigh Street to terminate at the West Yard. All pipelines are
assigned to carry specific products to nominated tanks via the Caltex owned ‘Y-cage’ manifolds and
p 20
predetermined valve sequencing. Written procedures are provided for all these transfer operations to
ensure that Caltex personnel execute transfers safely and efficiently.
5.1.2
Bulk Storage
Each tank has a dedicated inlet pipe for receiving product from outside transfers and a dedicated
outlet pipe to provide product to the Tankwagon Loading Gantry. Internal tank transfers also occur
from time to time. Refined product tanks are equipped with automatic tank gauges fitted with high level
visual and audible alarms and are fitted with independent high level alarms. These high level alarms
are programmed to trigger within a safe response time margin of the tank reaching its safe fill height.
All tanks will be located within a bunded compound compliant with EPA publication No. 347 “Bunding
Guidelines”. The floor slabs and bund walls will be impervious to, and compatible with, the fuel types
to be contained.
Product Dispensing
Product from storage is dispensed into road tankers at the Tankwagon Loading Gantry (referred to
herein as the “Gantry”). Product feed into the Gantry from storage tanks is achieved via carefully
sequenced valve actuation.
Two main pumping stations (pump pits) are located at the Terminal to transfer product from storage to
the Gantry. One pumping station is located in the North Yard adjacent to Tank T1 and the other in the
South Yard adjacent to Tank T7.
The Gantry is located in the North Yard and consists of six truck loading bays, with Bay 1 being
equipped with 6 ‘bottom-loading‘ arms and the other Bays each equipped with four ‘bottom-loading‘
arms. All bays have specific product dispatch availability, together with a preset product arm
configuration that is clearly identifiable to operators and drivers.
Prior to entering the Gantry, tanker drivers stage (order) their required load at the staging area in the
North Yard. Once they have their correct load order they proceed to the Gantry and select the
appropriate bay and loading arm for the product they wish to load. They then enter the appropriate bay
and connect the nominated arm to the truck manifold for transfer of product.
As part of the upgrade works, the existing six bay gantry will be extended to nine bays by demolishing
the empty warehouse to the north and extending by three bays.
Loading rates from arms within the Gantry vary and are currently being improved. Vapours generated
during the loading process are fully recovered in a closed system and transferred to a Vapour
Recovery Unit.
The Gantry and access to and from the site is controlled by a software-based Terminal Automation
System (TAS) called "FUEL-FACS". There is an interlock protection within the Fuel-Facs system that
requires a physical connection of the vapour recovery pipe before allowing the loading of product. This
interlock ensures that all vapour generated during truck loading operations is directed to the vapour
recovery system. An electronic overfill protection system (Scully system) is installed in the Gantry.
There is an interlock protection within the Fuel-Facs system that requires a physical connection of the
Scully before allowing the loading of product. The Scully system ensures that electrical bonding is
achieved before filling of a tanker can commence and will automatically shut down the loading system
if the probe installed on the individual tanker compartment detects a high fill level.
The Tankwagon loading operation will be 24 hours day / 7 days a week as follows:

Truck movements are expected to be maintained at 170 trucks per day (based on current
throughput volumes and 40,000 litre tankwagons). Note: average truck movements are based on
24 hr/6.5 days per week.
p 21


Tankwagons will be semi-trailer (most movements), and 26m B-Double.
Tankwagon congestion on site will be reduced due to the 3 new bays and improvements in
loading rates, arrivals and departures will therefore be spread more evenly over a 24 hour/7 day
per week, with a slight bias in the day time.
5.2
The EPA defines ‘environmental best practice’ as follows:
The best combination of eco-efficient techniques, methods, process or technology used in an
industry sector or activity that demonstrably minimises the environmental impact of a
generator of emissions in that industry sector or activity1.
The proposal has been assessed against Australian and international standards and publications for
bulk chemical storage. The proposed expansion of operations at the bulk storage facility has been
shown to comply with all relevant standards and incorporates many features which represent
environmental best practice.
5.2.1
Design Standards
The bulk product tanks, tank foundations, secondary containment compounds and gantry extension
will be designed and constructed in accordance with the following:












AS 1692 – Steel Tanks and Flammable and Combustible Liquids
API 650 – Welded Tanks for Oil Storage
API 2000 – Venting Atmospheric and Low Pressure Storage Tanks
AS 1940 – The Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids
AS/NZS 1170 – Structural Design Actions
AS 4100 – Steel Structures
AS 1657 – fixed Platforms, Walkways, Stairways and Ladders – Design Construction and
Installation
Vic EPA Bunding Guidelines – Publication 347
Spill Containment to AS 1940 requirements.
Terminal pipework is designed to ASME B31.3.
Dockline pipework is designed to AS2885
Pumps are designed to AP1610, with single mechanical seals.
In 2009, Health and Safety Laboratory (UK) was commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive
(UK) to undertake a review of relevant published standards pertaining to the management of the
mechanical integrity of bulk storage tanks2. The research paper concluded that BS EN 14015 and API
650 provide the most up-to-date and in-depth guidance on design and construction elements.
The design has been carried out in accordance with API 650 11th Edition Addendum 2 including
seismic design and wind design using AS 1170 loading standard.
All the tanks will be constructed with fixed cone roofs, with internal floating roofs being fitted to all ULP,
PULP and SPULP tanks, in accordance with best practice.
As discussed in Section 2.2.3 above, it is current industry practice to store flammable and combustible
products with high flash points and low vapour pressures (i.e. Diesel and Jet fuel) in fixed roof tanks
1
EPA Victoria, 2002: Protocol for Environmental Management - Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Energy Efficiency in Industry, Publication 824
2
Holmes, Tony, 2009: ‘Mechanical Integrity Management of Bulk Storage Tanks – Review of
Standards’, HSE Books [online] www.hse.gov.uk/research
p 22
with free vents. Internal Floating Roofs (IFR’s) are not typical in these tanks due to low emissions
rates. They can also add unnecessary complications when using floating suction tank outlets for
product quality, as is the case with Jet Fuel.
Pressure / Vacuum Vents are not commonly used for Jet or diesel tanks. These can cause additional
moisture in the tank which can be of particular concern for Jet fuel.
For tanks which store products with low flash points and high vapour pressures (i.e. motorspirit) a
floating roof structure is commonly used to minimise vapour losses. In the installation at Caltex
Horizons, Internal Floating Roofs have been selected as they will provide the required reduction in
vapour emissions and require less maintenance during their life when compared to an external floating
roof design.
5.2.2
The Vapour Recovery Unit (VRU) is employed to ensure ongoing compliance with vapour emissions
generated from truck loading operations. A new Vapour Recovery Unit was installed during 2006-07.
The new unit was designed to cater for throughput increases in the future. An additional feature
incorporated in the new VRU includes an interlock which shuts down the Tanker Truck Loading Rack
(TTLR) when the VRU is not available, thus not allowing any loading without an operational VRU.
5.2.3
Y-Cage Redevelopment
The Caltex Off-take manifold at the Y-cage was completely replaced in 2006 and the whole manifold
area has been provided with a new concrete bund. The higher pressure capacity off-take valves
incorporated in this upgrade safeguard Caltex’s pipe system from accidental overpressure created by
other company operations. The impervious bund will provide protection from soil and groundwater
contamination from any loss of containment in the Caltex portion of the Y-cage area.
5.2.4
Piping Upgrade including South Yard Manifold
Pipes downstream of the Y-cage including the South Yard manifold all the way to all tank inlets were
replaced during 2006. A significant number of flanged joints were replaced with full section welded
joints thus eliminating flange failure issues. This upgrade, whilst providing increased receipt volume
capacity also provided added assurance on the integrity of all receipt pipelines to the facility.
5.2.5
Tank 1 Roof Seal Replacement
The floating roof seal on the 17 million litre tank No. 1 was replaced during the tank‘s 10 year offstream inspection and maintenance in 2006. The new seal provides the latest technology seal for the
tank and will keep tank emissions well below allowable limits.
5.2.6
Off-Stream Bulk Tank Inspection and Maintenance
All product tanks but tank 7 have undergone 10-yearly off-stream inspection and maintenance as per
American Petroleum Institute (API) standards. This provides confidence on the integrity of the tank
infrastructure at the site.
5.2.7
Maintenance System Upgrade
Terminal maintenance management system was replaced with a new more robust system during
2007. This system uses the same computer system used for managing other parts of the company
business and will provide a better management and monitoring of infrastructure preventative
p 23
maintenance function. Implementation of this system will improve the reliability of plant and
equipment.
5.2.8
Hydrocarbon Detectors
Two new hydrocarbon detectors have been installed in the pits in Burleigh Street and another on the
VRU slab. These will provide early warning in case of any leaks in the pits and VRU slab to enable
prompt emergency response.
5.2.9
West Yard Fire Fighting Foam Plant
The fire fighting foam system including foam reticulation pipe-work to tanks and foam hydrants have
been replaced. The upgraded system does provide fully compliant emergency response capability in
the West Yard.
5.2.10
Waste Generation and Resource Use
There will be minimal waste generated as a result of the proposed increase of bulk storage at the site.
The primary source of waste within the facility will be sump material/slops. Slops is essentially offspecification fuel product which is stored separately at the Newport Terminal (tanks T6 and T7 are
designated for slops storage) prior to being returned to the refinery for re-processing.
Slops within the upgraded areas of the Newport Terminal will be managed as per the following
arrangement:
Dockline Interface Slops
Both new docklines will pass through interface detection loops, at the dockline manifold, prior to
transfer to the required tank. Both manifolds will include piping to the existing slops tank. The new
wharfline manifold, installed during the Horizons project, will significantly reduce the slops produced
onsite compared to what is currently generated.
Gantry Compartment Slops
Gantry slops from tank truck compartments in the new gantry bays shall be by bucket into a tundish
mounted within the gantry which is in turn pumped to slops.
Terminal Maintenance Slops
It is anticipated that the existing terminal maintenance slops procedures will be used within the new
compounds.
Pump Raft and Dockline Manifolds Slops
These areas will be contained and roofed to minimise rainwater ingress into the contained areas.
Under normal draining procedures, i.e. clean water, the contained area will be pumped out into
adjacent tank compounds using an air pump. Product, or highly contaminated water, can be removed
directly from the containment via sucker truck.
Pipe Bridges
There are a number of existing supply lines currently buried under and crossing Burleigh Street that
will be replaced to run above ground across 2 new pipe bridges. This is consistent with best practice
for supply lines.
p 24
Resource Use
The principle resource use at the Newport Terminal is electricity, which is monitored on a monthly
basis as part of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) scheme. Electricity use is
reported to the MD’s on a monthly basis. The project may also consider the use low flow options for
wash rooms and offices, stormwater tanks for toilet flushing, energy efficient appliances such as A/C
etc.
5.3
There are not expected to be any competing demands with respect to the environment. Where there
may be a consideration of the respective water volumes discharged to sewer vs. stormwater, Caltex
notes the EPA’s preference for discharges to stormwater and associated reduction in pollutants to the
environment. As noted above, Caltex has sought to optimise discharge arrangements, maintaining
manual control over stormwater and trade waste discharges.
5.4
A number of options were considered during the concept design phase for all major elements of the
proposal. A summary of the options considered for key elements of the proposal is outlined in Table 4
below.
Table 4 - Alternative processes and technology considered
Process /
Technology
Options
Advantages
Disadvantages
Delivery of
fuel from ship
N/A
Storage
Vessel
Fixed Roof
Tanks
Low maintenance
External
Floating Roof
Tanks
Outcome
Sole option
The only other
berth option is a
Mobil refinery
asset for crude
oil imports.
Internal Floating
Roof (IFR)
Tanks
Increases space
for vapour.
Preferred option for
Diesel and Jet fuel.
Decreased vapour
level, resulting in
reduced air emissions.
Significant
maintenance
liability.
Not Preferred
Best practice for low
flash-point liquids.
Usable amount of
fuel is reduced as
IFR nears tank
floor.
Best practise storage for
flammable and
combustible products
with high flash points
and low vapour
pressures (i.e. Diesel
and Jet fuel).
Decreased vapour
level, resulting in
Increases risk of
water ingress into
the tank – major
risk for jet fuel.
p 25
Preferred option for
motorspirit (i.e.
Unleaded, Super
Premium Unleaded,
Premium Unleaded)
Process /
Technology
Options
Advantages
Disadvantages
reduced air emissions
for products with low
flash points and high
vapour pressures (i.e.
motorspirit).
Can add
unnecessary
complications
when using
floating suction
tank outlets for
product quality, as
is the case with
Jet Fuel.
Lower maintenance than
External Floating Roof
Tanks.
Outcome
Road tanker
loading
N/A
Vapour
Recovery Unit
(VRU)
Replace existing
VRU with a
complete new
VRU
No advantage over
upgrading options for
existing unit
Less cost
effective than
upgrading the
current unit
Not preferred
Supply a second
smaller unit and
split the flow
Another unit may be
available from another
site so an additional unit
may not be required
Caters for final
increase in
product turnover
Preferred for Stage 2
Connect a
booster blower
to the existing
VRU unit for an
approximate
20% rate
increase
Cost effective
Limited additional
capacity
Preferred for Stage 1
as an interim measure
5.5
Sole option
Current option is
industry best
practice
A review of the loading
profiles during the
detailed design will be
required to ensure the
correct VRU upgrades
are completed.
The new tanks will be located in the West Yard and South (R&T) Yard at the Caltex Newport Terminal.
Four new tanks will be located in the R&T Yard to the south of Burleigh Street, three new tanks will be
located in the West Yard to the North of Burleigh Street, adjacent Drake Street and one new tank will
be to the north of the three new tanks in the West Yard and also located adjacent Drake Street. The
proposed site layout is presented in the drawings included in Appendix 1 to this report.
The locations were selected for the following reasons:

The R&T Yard is currently vacant, with the exception of two redundant and dilapidated storage
sheds.

The West Yard comprises redundant tanks and warehouse which can easily be removed to
accommodate the proposed new tanks.

The two areas represent a logical expansion to the operational area of the Caltex Newport
Terminal.
p 26

The West Yard and R&T Yard fall within the WorkSafe Buffer area. The proposed location is
adjacent existing pipework and terminal infrastructure, and will allow for consolidation of services
between the existing and upgraded areas (i.e. for fire protection purposes).

Additional gantry bays being added as an extension to the existing gantry is a logical expansion
and efficient use of space and operational activities.
p 27
6
Resources
6.1
Carbon
As stated in Section 5 above, the Terminal’s carbon emissions are tracked monthly as part of the
NGER scheme. Emissions relate to electricity usage and fuel consumption in Caltex vehicles. The
project may consider options for reducing electricity consumption, water consumption. During the
project works there would be an opportunity to maximise recycling of wastes but under normal
operations, the terminal recycles paper/cardboard and scrap metal. All off specification product is
returned for reprocessing.
6.1.1
Video Conferencing Equipment
The company has recently equipped all regional locations including Newport terminal with video
conferencing equipment. This investment provides the capability to conduct meetings with interstate
staff and will considerably reduce staff air travel giving a sizable reduction on the company‘s overall
carbon footprint.
6.2
Water use
Under normal operations water consumption is minimal, predominantly attributed to kitchen and wash
room usage.
Large quantities of water can be required to be used for hydrotesting activities, for pressure vessels
such as tanks and pipelines. This can occur following a 10 yearly offstream tank inspection and will be
a requirement following construction of new tanks. Caltex has previously investigated the use of
alternative water for hydrotesting, including groundwater, recycled water and salt water. Where
possible, Caltex will endeavour to use saltwater for hydrotesting. Further, when hydrotesting multiple
vessels Caltex will undertake sequential hydrotests to allow for the reuse of the hydrotest water in all
vessels.
6.3
Solid waste
Solid waste disposal is minimised during normal operations and project works, through recycling
activities. The Newport Terminal segregates paper, cardboard and scrap metal for recycling. During
project works, construction and demolition wastes are segregated and recycled where possible.
6.4
The Newport Terminal generates minimal quantities of prescribed industrial wastes during normal
operations. All potentially contaminated wastes are tested and classified in accordance with the waste
classification guidelines. The Terminal uses approved and licensed waste contractors to collect,
transport and dispose of prescribed industrial waste.
p 28
7
Emissions
7.1
Air emissions
All air emissions from current operations are compliant with licence requirements.
The Progress Report for the Clean-up Notice, May 2011 notes that the potential for soil vapour
intrusion into enclosed space has been investigated at and around the site. A survey of enclosed
buildings was conducted during 2011 to identify elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons and
methane within plant buildings. No imminent risk to site workers was identified. Additional testing has
been recommended by the environmental auditor to confirm the findings. A survey of volatile vapours
within utility pits along Douglas Parade and Burleigh Street was conducted during 2011. The survey
did not identify any elevated concentrations of vapours within the utility pits surveyed.
There were a number of outstanding actions remaining, under the EIP and following on from the
Annual Report of 2009. These actions related to a number of air quality and odour issues which have
since been addressed, as follows:

Regular monitoring of VOC emissions at site boundary – no longer required by the licence;
monitoring of specified emissions from point source (VRU) is undertaken and monitoring of
VRU is undertaken at six monthly intervals.

Annual submission of a site inspection and maintenance report of facilities associated with
the control of air emissions (due 1 August) – no longer required by licence.

Conduct boundary walkover to assess odour emissions at the site boundary - Odour
assessments are conducted during daily operator site walk around. Formal monitoring is to be
conducted in response to odour complaints. No odour complaints have been received to date.
An air quality impact assessment has been conducted in support of the upgrade works. Four air pollutant release scenarios were determined as follows: 
Breathing and working losses from the eight additional tanks to be installed and the existing
tanks.

Emissions from the Vapour Recovery Unit (VRU) stack due to the nine gantry bays (three
additional gantry bays are to be constructed).

Fugitive emissions during truck loading at the nine gantry bays.

Emergency short-term emissions vented out to the environment through a vent due to a VRU
Failure.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the site were identified and air quality criteria were established for
them based on the Victorian Government’s State Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality
Management) 2001. Existing concentrations of pollutants were established based on air quality
monitoring conducted by EPA and pollutant ratios established from site emission rates.
Meteorological factors with respect to wind conditions, atmospheric stability and mixing height which
affect air pollutant dispersion were analysed from 2008 meteorological data from Altona North.
Tank emissions modelling was conducted using the US EPA TANKS software to determine the main
pollutants of concern and their concentrations based on the dimensions of the tanks, the products
contained and their throughput. The main pollutants were found to be components of Total Volatile
p 29
Organic Compounds (TVOCs) and are namely Benzene, Toulene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, n-Hexane,
Cyclohexane and Cumene (Isopropyl Benzene). Based on an analysis of emission rates and the
criteria provided by SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001, Benzene was analysed to be the main
pollutant with the potential to cause a criteria exceedance.
The hydrocarbon vapour recovery assessments carried out by Jordan Technologies Asia Pacific Pty
Ltd provided the information to derive the emission characteristics of the VRU stack as well as the
emergency release emission characteristics from the VRU vent during a VRU failure.
Dispersion modelling was conducted for all the identified emission sources using the software
packages AUSPLUME and SLAB and the results were compared with the established criteria.
No criteria exceedances of the stipulated criteria were observed based on the air dispersion modelling
conducted.
The report on the air quality impact assessment is presented in Appendix 7.
7.2
Existing risks to the Yarra River include stormwater discharge from roads and point source discharges.
Monitoring and testing of stormwater has indicated an intermittent sheen at the Burleigh Street storm
drain outfall. The sheen was identified as a hydrocarbon through laboratory testing, but a source at
Caltex or ALMC was not identified. Further monitoring (visual observation) has been proposed for the
Burleigh Street storm drain during monthly CMP events.
The design for the new upgrade works includes consideration of connections to the existing
stormwater and sewerage systems (trade waste) on the site.
The new tank bunds will drain through new SPEL separators and discharge into existing Caltex
approved discharge points. The new truck exit pavement will also drain to the existing first flush pits
and discharge points as follows:

New West Yard tankage will drain through two new SPEL interceptors and into ‘Caltex discharge
to stormwater point DWY1 EPA licence No. EM37140’.

The future large diesel tank compound in the northern west yard will also drain to DWY1 EPA
Licence EM37140. Each of the separate West compounds would be drained separately to ensure
discharges through the interceptors are kept within the capacity of the SPEL unit.

New R&T Yard will drain through 1 new SPEL interceptor and be pumped into the existing ‘South
Yard Treatment Area’.

The new tank gantry exit pavement will drain to the existing ‘Eastern Stormwater treatment area’
which in turn discharges to stormwater and approved ‘Caltex Tradewaste point DNY1 EPA licence
No. EM37140’.
The existing drainage layout and proposed tie-in points for the upgraded areas are shown in
Appendix 5.
Stormwater quality criteria have previously been adopted for the site and will continue to apply
following the upgrade works. The limits reflect requirements under Victorian water quality guidelines
and ANZSEC guidelines.
The upgrade works will not have an impact on current discharge volumes.
p 30
7.3
Discharge to groundwater
The Progress Report for the Clean-up Notice, May 2011 provides an overview of groundwater
interactions. Groundwater at the site has been impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons from site
activities, and possibly from surrounding industrial site uses (PB 2010c and PB 2011e). A minor
impact of tricholorethene has been identified near the up-hydraulic gradient boundary (West Yard).
Site groundwater impacts are characterised by benzene, TPHC6-C9 and TPH C10-C36 and phase
separated hydrocarbons (PSH). The PSH is of a weathered diesel nature from multiple historic
sources which have not been successfully distinguished using physical parameters and advanced
analytical techniques by CSIRO (2005). Groundwater modelling and historical groundwater monitoring
events have indicated that impacts above the investigation levels are limited to the Newer Volcanics
Aquifer site wide (BTEX, TPH) and the Brighton Group in the South Yard (one well, TPH C10-C36).
Impacts are prevented from impacting the Yarra River by the presence of a regional groundwater sink.
The regional groundwater sink is a result of a leaky trunk sewer beneath Douglas Parade. Local
groundwater that discharges into the sewer is treated at the Werribee sewage treatment plant.
Benzene impacts tend to be centred around Burleigh Street, Douglas Parade and the Newport
foreshore. No significant lateral changes have been identified from 2009 to 2011. However, PSH
gauging thickness has decreased significantly since March 2010. This may be a result of water table
increases from increased rainfall in the 6 months to March 2011.
As a result of the groundwater modelling efforts, the existing hydraulic boundary control system
(HBCS) was shut down on a trial basis from December to April with concurrent monitoring of
groundwater elevations and stormwater discharge at Burleigh Street drain (PB 2010b). No adverse
impacts have been identified. The HBCS remains turned-off while the hydrogeology model is being
finalised. The abstraction bore network remains available for continued monitoring.
7.4
Discharge to land
There are no discharges to land associated with the upgrade operations nor current operations. There
are no authorised discharges to land and no unplanned discharges to land have occurred.
7.5
Noise emissions
A noise impact assessment of the proposed upgrade works has been conducted and is presented in
Appendix 8. A noise survey at the nearest sensitive receptor was undertaken to determine the
specific noise criteria in accordance with Victorian EPA regulations.
The plant operations at the current Caltex plant were monitored and analysed to determine the major
noise emitting plant on-site for the current operations and proposed upgrade. A noise inventory was
then generated based on the monitored noise data and provided literature.
A noise model was created in SoundPLAN to predict the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptors
and to generate noise contours for the existing and proposed plant. The outcomes of the noise impact
assessment were as follows:

The predicted noise level from normal onsite operations comply with the stipulated criteria.

The predicted noise level from emergency fire pump operations comply with the stipulated criteria.

Noise from the increase of heavy vehicle movements is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the
nearest sensitive receivers.

Noise predictions are based on a worst case situation where all the plant items are running
concurrently throughout the day.
p 31
8
Environmental Management
8.1
All on-site personnel receive regular training on what to do in the event of a non-routine operation.
Training is a fundamental tool employed at Newport Terminal for maintaining efficient and effective
staff with skills and knowledge necessary to properly perform their day-to-day duties in line with the
company Environmental Policy and H&S Policy. Current programs that have environmental
components are:

Caltex Permit Officers – Undertake a two day competency based internal course and an external
course in safe entry and working at heights, by an accredited industry body.

Emergency Response Training

Awareness of emergency actions and procedures to be undertaken on and off site, including an
awareness of environmental considerations

Regular Health, Safety and Environment Committee meetings
All training that is undertaken is recorded on a training register which is kept up-to-date to allow
tracking of individual requirements.
Caltex has established a comprehensive emergency response network throughout the company
nationally. This commences at the corporate level where senior management are called to form the
Crisis Management Team in a specifically resourced and allocated operations centre in the Sydney
Office. This preparedness to reacting quickly and effectively to environmental or safety emergencies is
repeated throughout the Caltex organisation.
Newport Terminal is the focus for emergency response management throughout Caltex Victorian
operations as well for any incidents involving the Terminal itself.
The Caltex Terminal Emergency Response Plan applies to all Caltex terminals. It outlines the
company approach to the handling of emergencies and provides site specific information including:






Emergency contact lists
Register of hazardous materials
Terminal fire equipment
Terminal pre-fire plans for storage tanks
Terminal medical supplies
Emergency response trailer equipment
8.1.1
Local Emergency Response Plan
All Caltex sites have a Local Terminal Emergency Response Plan that operates in conjunction with the
generic national plan. The local plan contains site-specific information. A copy of Local Plan
specifically for the Newport Terminal has been provided to EPA, Hobson‘s Bay City Council and
Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB).
p 32
8.1.2
Spill Management
Caltex has a thorough incident response and investigation procedure that is instigated in the event of
an environmental incident, including spills of product. These procedures are contained within the
Terminal Emergency Plan.
To assist effective response to spills of product, all operators are trained in not only the
implementation of the incident response procedure, but also the use of spill response equipment.
Hydrocarbon Spill Kits are most appropriate for use in smaller scale spills, but can be used to restrict
the area of impact for larger spills.
Numerous Spill Kits are located around the terminal. Additionally, absorbent material is located in
large bins around the site for use in conjunction with the Spill Kits. Spill Kits and absorbent material
are located in the following locations:







Incident response trailer
The main shed in the North Yard
North Yard treatment system
Near the South Yard treatment system
Near the West Yard treatment system
Near the driver staging area
In the Y-cage
Maintenance of an adequate inventory of spill response equipment is required by condition 2.22 of
EM37140. Spill Kits are subject to regular inspections to ensure that they are kept fully stocked. The
Spill Response Checks Procedure defines the inspection frequency as monthly, with a check
conducted for both quality and quantity of contents.
8.1.3
Clean Up Equipment
Newport Terminal is equipped with specific clean up equipment including an emergency response
trailer. This trailer can be mobilised rapidly and contains a comprehensive inventory of equipment that
may be needed at the scene of an emergency incident. The total inventory has been provided to EPA
separately in the Site Emergency Response Plan.
Other clean up equipment provided at Newport Terminal include:



Localised spill kits
Sand
Absorbents
In addition to the above, Caltex has available specialist support from a company specialising in
emergency spill response who make available a 24 hour response service. Information on this service
can be viewed on www.globalspill.com.au.
8.1.4
Fire Management
The proposed upgrade works include an upgrade to the fire protection system at the Caltex Newport
Terminal. The upgrades will result in additional fire protection for the terminal. Key features of the fire
protection system include:

Two (2) new 1.1ML firewater storage tanks;

Three (3) new firewater pump sets (diesel driven rated to 12,000 LPM at 10 bar g) – two duty
pumps, one standby redundant pump;

Integrated new foam system with the existing balanced pressure foam proportioning system
including retention of the existing foam storage;
p 33

A Remotely manually activated foam system in the R&T Yard;

Extension of the existing West Yard foam system for manual activation of Tank 15 individual foam
pourers;

Installation of two (2) new hydrant ring mains, including isolation valves and new hydrants for the
West Yard and R &T Yard respectively;

Installation of spray cooling systems and fixed foam pourers on the new tanks;

Single risers servicing all cooling water sectors on each of the tanks fed from hydrant ring main
(one riser per tank); and

Extension of the existing gantry protection system to all new bays if additional bays are added
after prior flow / pressure testing of the system to confirm adequacy.
8.2
Schedule 52.10 of the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme sets out threshold distances from any part of
the land of the proposed buildings and works to land in sensitive zones. These distances are based on
the EPA guidelines AQ2/86 which addresses air emission buffers, as opposed to risk. The following
threshold distances apply for the storage of petroleum products and crude oil in tanks exceeding 2,000
tonnes capacity:

Fixed roof tanks
300m

Floating roof tanks
100m
The majority of the proposed tanks are located in excess of the requisite buffer distance from the
closest residentially zoned land. Tanks T13 and T14 are fixed roof tanks designated for the storage of
diesel fuel. These tanks are 230m and 260m respectively from the nearest residentially zoned land.
Tank T20 is approximately 150m away from the nearest residence. All tanks containing diesel are
proposed to have fixed roofs. It is not best practice to contain diesel fuel in floating roof tanks, as the
vapours from diesel fuel are very low in comparison to unleaded petrol, super unleaded petrol or
premium super unleaded petrol and typically fixed roof tanks are used with free vents. This has been
discussed above in Section 2.2.3 and Section 5.2.1.
In addition to the above separation distances, WorkSafe Victoria also has set advisory buffer
distances around Major Hazard Facilities based on levels of risk.
8.3
Management system
Caltex’s corporate expectations for Operational Excellence are detailed under 13 Elements, one of
which is ‘Environmental Stewardship’. This Element is detailed with the objective to:
”Strive to continually improve environmental performance and recue impacts from our
operations”.
The company’s vision is “to be the Australian oil refinery and marketing company most admired for its
people, partnership and performance”. The key environmental stewardship value to achieve that vision
is that “[Caltex] conduct our business in a work manner than respects the environment and benefits
the communities where we work”.
The Caltex Environment Policy is shown in Figure 4.
p 34
Figure 4: Caltex Environment Policy
p 35
8.4
Construction
A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared prior to the commencement
of works at the site. The CEMP will cover all relevant areas of environmental concern, including the
management of the site and the implementation of environmental controls. The CEMP will detail:

The environmental risks and opportunities associated with the proposed works and activities.

The legislative requirements relevant to the construction of the project.

The environmental management structure and an outline of the responsibilities of individual
project members.

The methods and types of training and awareness that will be compulsory for all site personnel.
This will include information on inductions, pre-start meetings, toolbox trainings and
communication of other project information.

The monitoring and inspection program.
8.4.1
Erosion Control and Stormwater Management
Effective stormwater management and erosion control is critical at the Newport Terminal, particularly
given the presence of contaminated soil at the site and the proximity to the Yarra River. Stormwater is
currently disposed of via the sewer under a Trade Waste Agreement and this will continue to be the
case during the construction phase of the project. Additionally, a number of controls will be
implemented to manage stormwater management during construction, including the following:

Assessment of contours and appropriate placement of drain protection and silt fencing.

Erosion and sediment control structures to be installed early in the project and regularly checked
and maintained, particularly during and after a rain event.

Controls to remain installed until the area is stabilized and Practical Completion obtained.

An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan or Map will be prepared and include onsite drainage,
stormwater run-off, site entrance and egress and stockpile management.
8.4.2
Air Quality
Construction works present the opportunity for air pollution, particularly during the demolition and
excavation phases of the project. Of particular concern is the potential for contaminated soil to
become airborne. Measures to reduce the impact of dust will include regular wetting down of works
area and restriction of vehicle speed on unsealed roads. Visual inspection and recording of daily
conditions will be undertaken as part of normal operation.
8.4.3
Noise
Construction noise has the potential to impact on nearby residential properties. Construction activity
will comply with the EPA’s Noise Control Guidelines (Publication 1254) for Construction and demolition
sites, with works complying to the following hours:
p 36
Working Hours Noise
Hours
Criteria
Normal Working Hours
7:00am – 6:00pm Monday to Friday
No noise criteria specified
7:00am – 1:00pm Saturday
Evening and Weekend
6:00pm – 10:00pm Monday to Friday
Working Hours
1:00pm – 10:00pm Saturday
Noise shall not exceed background level
by more than 10dB(A) for first 18
months of construction
7:00am – 10:00pm Sunday and public
holidays
After 18 months noise shall not exceed
background level by more than 5dB(A)
10:00pm – 7:00am Monday to Sunday
Noise inaudible within a habitable room
of any residential premise
Night and Early
Morning
Working Hours
8.4.4
Traffic Management
Traffic Management will be required during the construction phase of the project. It will be necessary
to define access routes to the site which will not interfere with existing operational traffic at the site,
which primarily consists of road tankers. It will also be necessary to ensure that construction vehicles
do not detrimentally impact on nearby residential areas.
8.4.5
Water Quality
As discussed in Section 4.1, the Newport Terminal is currently affected by an EPA issued Clean Up
Notice relating to groundwater quality. Monitoring of groundwater for the purposes of the Clean Up
Notice will continue during construction.
8.4.6
Contamination
There is known to be contaminated soil in the R&T Yard. Caltex do not intend to remove the
contaminated soil from the site, and therefore must carefully manage the contaminated material and
ensure that it does not result in any off-site impacts. Additionally, Caltex must ensure that the
proposed works do not result in any additional land contamination. Controls which may be included
within the CEMP include:

Areas identified as contaminated will be marked on a Site Plan.

The volume of material for disposal will be minimised by separating contaminated and clean fill.

Machinery and equipment will be washed down prior to exiting the site.

Site investigations will be undertaken as required by the Contaminated Land Consultant prior to
the movement of soil.

Excavation and handling of any material in contaminated areas will be done in accordance with
EPA requirements, with specialist advice from the Contaminated Land Consultant as required.

Material for offsite disposal will be transported in accordance with the EPA waste tracking system.
p 37
8.4.7
Waste Management
All litter and construction waste will be disposed of appropriately. All waste will be removed from the
site to the correct receiving facilities. Demolition material and prescribed waste will be disposed of in
accordance with EPA requirements, with copies of all licences and relevant transport certificates being
retained.
8.5
Environmental Monitoring
Environmental monitoring will be conducted as part of the continuing monitoring activities currently
being conducted on the site, as per requirements of the EPA licence, including ground water and
stormwater quality and air emissions.
p 38
Appendices
Appendix 1
Site Layout
LEGEND:
NEW COMPOUND FOR STAGE 3 (HORIZONS
PROJECT). PIPING AND CONFIGURATIONS TO
BE CONFIRMED AT A LATER STAGE OF DESIGN.
INLET PIPEWORK
OUTLET PIPEWORK
EXISTING PIPEWORK
BUND WALL
/
INTERMEDIATE BUND WALL
\
GAS EASEMENT
\
ALL NEW COMPOUNDS TO BE DRAINED
TO UPGRADED INTERCEPTORS
(HORIZONS PROJECT)
/
NEW 6m WIDE ACCESS & MAINTENANCE ROAD
(HORIZONS PROJECT)
/
/
EXISTING WHARFLINE
FROM HOLDEN DOCK
/
/
EXISTING VEHICLE ACCESS
FROM DRAKE STREET
/
NEW QUICKFLUSH TANKS FOR
ALL NEW DIESEL TANKS
(HORIZON PROJECT)
EXISTING SWITCH HOUSE
NEW COMPOUND ACCESS ROAD
TO LINK WITH NEW TTLR ACCESS
NEW TTLR ACCESS PROJECT
(SEPERATE CALTEX PROJECT)
/
/
NEW TANK MANIFOLD OUTLET
(HORIZONS PROJECT)
TANKER GANTRY EXIT PAVEMENT
TO DRAIN TO EXISTING EASTERN
STORMWATER TREATMENT AREA
VRU TO BE UPGRADED TO SUIT
EXPANSION OF TTLR
(HORIZON PROJECT)
NEW WHARFLINE FROM HOLDEN DOCK
(HORIZONS PROJECT)
TRUCK EXIT TO DOUGLAS PARADE
ALMC
AC
CE
RA SS
MP
/
AREA 3
LAB
/
RELOCATE EXISTING GATES
FOR VEHICLE ACCESS
(HORIZONS PROJECT)
\
\
\
LUBE
DRUM
STORAGE
FOAM
TW1
NEW COMPOUND TO INCLUDE UPGRADE OF
EXISTING DIESEL & T26 COMPOUND
(HORIZONS PROJECT)
EN
MANUFACTURING
AREA 4
DRUM STORAGE
AREA 2
E
NC
A
R
T
NEW TTLR EXIT PAVEMENT TO DRAIN TO EXISTING
EASTERN STORMWATER TREATMENT AREA
(HORIZONS PROJECT).
(EASTERN STORMWATER TREATMENT DISCHARGES
TO STORMWATER AND APPROVED CALTEX
TRADEWASTE POINT DNY1 EPA LICENSE # EM37140)
T246
T243
T247
VEHICLE
ACCESS
CAR
PARK
T103
DRUM STORAGE
AREA
T248
FIRE
WATER
TANK
TW3
Ø
FOAM
PLANT
T242
SHED
SHED
T101
T32
NEW ADDITIVE UPGRADE
(CALTEX UPGRADE PROJECT)
/
Ø
T245
T313
/
BUND WALL
/
T301
TRUCK LOADING
BAYS
SHELL
Images: site overlay
T1
/
/
SLIDING
GATES
/
/
/
CAR
PARKING
Ø
NOT IN
SERVICE
/
NEW PIPEBRIDGE OVER BURLEIGH STREET
(HORIZONS PROJECT)
U187
VEHICLE
ACCESS
GATE D2
/
VEHICLE
ACCESS
/
2 WHARFLINES & 6 REFINERY LINES TO CROSS NEW
PIPEBRIDGE TO SOUTH YARD (HORIZONS PROJECT)
/
/
/
T13
D184
OFFICES
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
GATE
D5
/
\
PERIMETER FENCE
EXISTING SPULP TANK (RECENTLY CONVERTED)
NEW PIPEWORK TO BE FITTED AS PART OF
SEPERATE CALTEX PROJECT
NEW 2.2m HIGH PERIMETER WALL
EXISTING INTERCEPTOR TO BE
REPLACED & UPGRADED
NEW PIPEBRIDGE AS PART OF CALTEX
"PIPEBRIDGE' PROJECT
TRUCK ENTRY FROM
BURLEIGH STREET
VEHICLE
ACCESS
PERIMETER FENCE
BUND ACCESS
NEW PUMP STATION FOR R & T YARD TANKS
(HORIZON PROJECT)
WATER CONTAINMENT
SYSTEM
\
/
/
NEW 2.0m HIGH NORTH/SOUTH
INTERNAL WALL
ALL OTHER INTERMEDIATE WALLS
600mm AVERAGE HEIGHT
SLIDING
GATE D3
T3
WORKSHOP
LAB &
MEETING ROOM
NEW PIPEBRIDGE OVER DOUGLAS PARADE
(HORIZONS PROJECT)
ESS
ACCC
EXISTING WATER CONTAINMENT SYSTEM
TO BE RELOCATED TO ALLOW FOR NEW
INLET LINES & METERS
(HORIZONS PROJECT)
CAR
PARK
T12
T11
T8
NEW WHARFLINE MANIFOLD & REFINERY LINE
TIE-IN POINT
(HORIZONS PROJECT)
T9
T10
ACCCESS CROSSING
L
AL
FW2
W
T4
FW1
BU
ND
BUND
ACCE
SS
BUN
D AC
CESS
GATE
D4
Cad File: P:\225440 - Caltex\Project Delivery\CADD\DRGS\Mech\225440-DW-L001.dwg
EXISTING CALTEX "Y" CAGE
SSIN
CRO
NEW 6m WIDE ACCESS & MAINTENANCE
RING ROAD (HORIZONS PROJECT)
T7
G
BUND WALL
EXISTING INTERCEPTOR TO BE
REPLACED & UPGRADED
T6
T2
PERIMETER FENCE
Xrefs: 2d West Yard Bund, 2d R&T Yard, ADG_A1HS, Exisiting Caltex site, new roadway, new pipework, new wharfline
TE
GA USE
O
H
EXISTING GANTRY TO BE EXTENDED BY 3 BAYS
(HORIZONS PROJECT)
SLIDING
GATE D1
DRUM CONVEYOR
Plot Date: 20/04/2012 9:45:49 a.m.
Name: Chris Young
GATE
HOUSE
LUBE OIL BUILDING
T214
T244
IT
EX
OPERATION
OFFICE
\
OFFICE
\
ADMIN
OFFICE
U188
/
Ø
LUBE DRUM STORAGE
FLAMMABLE
LIQUIDS
STORE
AREA 5
U189
SWITCH
HOUSE
AMENITIES
NEW DIESEL & SPULP
PUMPS ARE PART OF
CALTEX FLOWRATES
PROJECT"
/
EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM
TO BE UPGRADED/ASSESSED FOR CAPACITY
TO CATER FOR NEW WEST YARD TANKAGE
(SEPERATE CALTEX PROJECT)
VEHICLE
ACCESS
UPGRADED FIREWATER SYSTEM & FIREWATER
TANK FOR R & T YARD (OR UPGRADE EXISTING
SOUTH YARD SYSTEM FOR CAPACITY)
(HORIZONS PROJECT)
ETER
VEHICLE ACCESS
TO TANK FARM
E
FENC
PERIM
T2 TO BE CONVERTED TO JET AS PART OF
CALTEX "JET SUPPLY UPGRADE" PROJECT
NEW QUICKFLUSH TANK FOR
JET TANK
(HORIZON PROJECT)
R & T YARD DRAINAGE TO BE PUMPED TO
EXISTING OR UPGRADED SEPA SYSTEM
(HORIZON PROJECT)
CLIENT
REV DATE
REVISION DETAILS
APPROVED
DRAWN
DESIGNED
PROJECT
PRELIMINARY
P.BYRNE
P.BYRNE
CALTEX AUSTRALIA
NEWPORT HORIZON
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT No.
CHECKED
F
E
D
C
B
A
20.04.12
27.02.12
09.02.12
19.12.11
17.11.11
15.11.11
REVISED TO INCLUDE STAGE 3 COMPOUND
ISSUED FOR CONCEPT DESIGN
WAS L004
3rd GANTRY BAY ADDED
REVISED TO CLIENT COMMENTS
ISSUED FOR COMMENT
D.MARTIN
D.MARTIN
D.MARTIN
TITLE
APPROVED
DATE
D.MARTIN
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TANK FARMS
TANK LOCATION LAYOUT
225440
SCALE
SIZE
1:1000
A1
DRAWING No.
REV
L-001
F
Appendix 2
Concept Design Report
AL
TI
EN
D
FI
N
O
C
Projec
ct: Concept Design Report
Caltex Newport Terminal
T
Horizon
ns Project
Referrence: 225440
Prepa
ared for: Caltexx
Australia Petroleum Pty
P
Ltd
Revis
sion: 1
1 Marrch 2012
Appendix 3
Progress Report for
Clean-up
Parsons
Brinckerhoff
Australia
Pty Limited
ABN 80 078 004 798
Level 15
28 Freshwater Place
SOUTHBANK VIC 3006
Australia
Telephone +61 3 9861 1111
Facsimile +61 3 9861 1144
Email [email protected]
Certified to ISO 9001; ISO 14001;
AS/NZS 4801
Our reference
A+ GRI Rating: Sustainability Report 2009
2162474A/hirthd/**
19 May 2011
Mike Tangtatco
EPA Victoria
Environmental Performance Unit
GPO Box 4395
Melbourne VIC 3001
Dear Mike Tangtatco,
EPA Environmental Progress Report for Clean Up Notice 8541 Caltex Newport Terminal and ALMC
Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) was commissioned by Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd (Caltex) to provide
EPA with a summary of environmental progress under Clean Up Notice (CUN) 8541. The CUN was
issued to Caltex and Australasian Lubricants Manufacturing Company Pty Ltd (ALMC) on 27 July 2010
for the properties located at 411 Douglas Parade and 21-32 Burleigh Street, Newport, Victoria (the site).
The permit requires annual reporting of environmental progress to EPA on 31 May of each year.
According to the CUN, “[the report must detail]… progress of the clean up action, completion of
milestones, results of any monitoring and any other information requested by EPA.” At present, no
additional information has been specified by the EPA.
1.
Overall progress of clean up action
During the period of 1 April 2010 through 31 March 2011, Caltex has enacted the agreed upon Clean Up
Plan (November 2010 revision) in order to manage environmental impacts at the site and to prevent new
impacts to soil, water and air. A summary of monitoring results is provided for each media with references
to audited reports which are available upon request.
1.1
Soil
The soil at the site is known to have had historical impacts of petroleum fuels and oils as the site has
operated since the 1920s under various corporate entities. No new releases affecting soil at the site have
occurred during the period of 1 April 2010 through 31 March 2011. An historical soil impact from oil was
noted at ALMC in the bunded area near tanks 301 and 303 during April 2010. It has been advised that
clean up of the impacted area will be undertaken in the second half of 2011. Caltex have completed a
bund upgrade project at the terminal. This work involved installation of a concrete barrier around above
ground tanks 1 and 5 within the North Yard. The project involved excavating a significant amount of soil
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence
\\AUMELF1\PROJ\C\CALTEX_AUS_PETROLEUM\2162474A_CALTEX_NEWPORT_2011\05_WRKPAPERS\WP\DRAFT\EPA
LETTER - MAY 2011\2162474A-LTR-006-B1.DOCX
2/5
2162474A
(1,600m3) which was stored in the West Yard and classified for offsite disposal as Fill Material (PB
2010d). A second (final) phase of stockpiled soil assessment is proposed (approximately 1,000m 3).
A 300m 3 stockpile of hydrocarbon impacted soil is located within the R&T Yard as a result of site
maintenance activities. The stockpile has been assessed in 2007 and 2011, and was classified as
Category A Prescribed Industrial Waste due to TPH C15-C36 concentrations (PB 2011b). The stockpile
will undergo further bioremediation assessment utilising detailed analysis of biological populations as
remediation progresses, and work has been proposed to accelerate the biodegradation of recalcitrant
TPH C15-C36 compounds by improving the biopile management. The stockpile is kept covered and is
stored in a secure area that is not routinely accessible to site workers and has erosion prevention
measures in-place.
1.2
Water
Groundwater at the site has been impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons from site activities, and possibly
from surrounding industrial site uses (PB 2010c and PB 2011e). A minor impact of tricholorethene has
been identified near the up-hydraulic gradient boundary (West Yard).
Site groundwater impacts are characterised by benzene, TPHC6-C9 and TPH C10-C36 and phase
separated hydrocarbons (PSH). The PSH is of a weathered diesel nature from multiple historic sources
which have not been successfully distinguished using physical parameters and advanced analytical
techniques by CSIRO (2005). Groundwater modelling and historical groundwater monitoring events have
indicated that impacts above the investigation levels are limited to the Newer Volcanics Aquifer site wide
(BTEX, TPH) and the Brighton Group in the South Yard (one well, TPH C10-C36). Impacts are prevented
from impacting the Yarra River by the presence of a regional groundwater sink. The regional
groundwater sink is a result of a leaky trunk sewer beneath Douglas Parade. Local groundwater that
discharges into the sewer is treated at the Werribee sewage treatment plant. Benzene impacts tend to be
centred around Burleigh Street, Douglas Parade and the Newport foreshore. No significant lateral
changes have been identified from 2009 to 2011. However, PSH gauging thickness has decreased
significantly since March 2010. This may be a result of water table increases from increased rainfall in
the 6 months to March 2011.
As a result of the groundwater modelling efforts, the existing hydraulic boundary control system (HBCS)
was shut down on a trial basis from December to April with concurrent monitoring of groundwater
elevations and stormwater discharge at Burleigh Street drain (PB 2010b). No adverse impacts have been
identified. The HBCS remains turned-off while the hydrogeology model is being finalised. The abstraction
bore network remains available for continued monitoring.
Other risks to the Yarra River include stormwater discharge from roads and point source discharges.
Monitoring and testing of stormwater has indicated an intermittent sheen at the Burleigh Street storm
drain outfall. The sheen was identified as a hydrocarbon through laboratory testing, but a source at
Caltex or ALMC was not identified. Further monitoring (visual observation) has been proposed for the
Burleigh Street storm drain during monthly CMP events.
Over a Century of
3/5
2162474A
1.3
Air
The potential for soil vapour intrusion into enclosed space has been investigated at and around the site
(PB 2011a). A survey of enclosed buildings was conducted during 2011 to identify elevated
concentrations of hydrocarbons and methane within plant buildings. No imminent risk to site workers was
identified. Additional testing has been recommended by the environmental auditor to confirm the findings.
A survey of volatile vapours within utility pits along Douglas Parade and Burleigh Street was conducted
during 2011 (PB 2011c). The survey did not identify any elevated concentrations of vapours within the
utility pits surveyed.
Assessment of plant emissions to air from permitted processes is not included within this review, as
permitted processes are not addressed within the CUN.
2.
Completion of milestones
A brief summary of CUP milestones (Table 1) is provided within this section, so that compliance may be
demonstrated. Any recommendations for further environmental works are included in a separate table of
milestones (Table 2).
Table 1. CUP (November 2010) Section 9, First Quarter 2011 Milestones
Item
Field Completion
Date
Report Date
Outcome
Assessment of Burleigh
Street drain outfall
3 December 2010
to 21 March
2011, plus
observations from
July through
September 2010
4 May 2011
Intermittent sheen observed,
intermittent dissolved phase
hydrocarbons detected, sources not
identified. Further monitoring and
assessment recommended. Not related
to HBCS shut-down, as sheen observed
while HBCS operating.
Completion of bore
construction
assessment
27 January 2011
17 March 2011
Missing bore construction data collected
with borehole camera. Well network
maintenance advised, and
decommissioning of two bores.
Assessment of R&T
Yard biopile
22 February 2011
6 May 2011
There was a significant microbial
population present, including
species/groups capable of degrading
C15-C36 hydrocarbons.
Recommendation for improving
bioremediation of waste, and continued
monitoring.
Over a Century of
4/5
2162474A
Assessment of air
quality in low ventilation
areas on-site
13 January 2011
25 February
2011
No imminent hazards identified, further
investigation using laboratory methods
recommended.
Assessment of air
quality in utility vaults
along Douglas Parade
frontage owned by
Caltex and Hoffman’s
Transport
December 2010
through March
2011
30 March 2011
Concentrations of VOCs were within
acceptable ranges (background
conditions). No indications of soil
vapour intrusion.
Table 2. CUP (November 2010) Section 9, Continuing Program Milestones
Item
Field Completion
Date
Report Date
Outcome
Ongoing sampling
of the groundwater
monitoring network
September 2010
and March 2011
11 June 2010,
May 2011
Suring the assessment period, groundwater
flow direction has remained consistent,
flowing towards the MWTS. Water
elevations have been noted to increase
throughout the period of record, based on
gauging and continuous recording gauges.
The presence of PSH has markedly reduced
in thickness and number of impacted wells.
Exceedances of dissolved hydrocarbon
impacts have remained relatively static, as
well as the lateral extent.
Ongoing operation
of PSH removal
monthly
May 2011
No recordable quantity of PSH was removed
during operation of the HBCS.
A total of 23 L PSH was removed during the
CMP program through manual bailing. Initial
passive skimmer recover rates appear to be
higher than manual bailing.
Perform PSH
transmissivity tests
as necessary
None required
Not reported
Insufficient PSH recovery or thickness
identified as a precursor to transmissivity
testing.
Revised CMP
strategy at least
once per year
Not applicable
April 2010,
March 2010
and May 2011
Changes to the number and location of
absorbent socks, passive skimmers and
manual bailing occurred on 3 occasions to
maximise PSH recovery.
Over a Century of
5/5
2162474A
HBCS decommissioned during April 2011.
Ongoing well
network
maintenance
September 2010
and March 2011
11 June 2010,
May 2011
Well caps replaced as needed, and some
minor recommendations for well head
repairs.
Identify efficiencies
for quality control
2011
May 2011
Recommendation for consideration and
costing of converting historical data to
ESDAT format.
Annual reporting of
tank and line
integrity monitoring
2010-2011
May 2011
No tank or line integrity failures reported.
The milestones included in Tables 1 and 2 indicate compliance with all applicable components of the site
CUP. If you have any questions or would like to review any supporting documents, please contact the
undersigned.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Hirth
Senior Environmental Scientist
Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited
References
PB 2011a. Indoor Air Quality Preliminary Assessment – Caltex Newport terminal and ALMC, Rev. 1. 25
February 2010.
PB 2011b. Biopile Soil Classification – Caltex Newport Terminal and ALMC. 6 May 2011. 3
PB 2011c. Off-site Utility Vault Assessment – Caltex Newport Terminal and ALMC. 30 March 2011.
PB 2011d. Burleigh Street Drain Stormwater Monitoring – Caltex Newport Terminal and ALMC. 4 may
2001.
PB 2011e. Annual Environmental Summary and March 2011 Groundwater Monitoring Event Report for
Caltex Newport Terminal and ALMC (presently in-review).
PB 2010a. Clean Up Plan, Caltex Newport terminal, November 2010 Revision. 29 November 2010.
PB 2010b. Monitoring Plan for trial HBCS shutdown at the Caltex Newport Terminal. 7 October 2010.
PB 2010c. Caltex Newport Terminal September 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Event. 18 April 2011.
PB 2010d. Caltex Newport Terminal - West Yard Stockpile Classification. 7 May 2010.
Over a Century of
Appendix 4
Annual Report 2009
Caltex Newport Terminal
Annual Report June 2008-June 2009
Contents
Page Number
1. Background
1 2. Environmental Management and Improvement Plan – Progress
2 3. Non-Compliances
8 4. Air monitoring
9 4.1 Ambient Air Monitoring at Site Boundary.
9 4.2 Vapour Recovery Unit Monitoring
5. 10 Stormwater Monitoring
11 5.1 Trends
11 5.2 Non-compliances
14 5.3 Corrective Actions
14 5.3.1 5.3.2 14 15 MBAS Non Compliances
pH Non Compliance
6. NATA Endorsed Laboratory Certificates
16 7. Environmental Complaints
17 8. Environmental Incidents
18 9. Greenhouse Gas and Energy
19 Annual Report 2009.docx
Page i
Tables
Table 1 Summary VRU Monitoring results
Table 2 Summary of Stormwater Monitoring Results
Appendices
Appendix A NATA Endorsed Laboratory Certificates - Air
Appendix B NATA Endorsed Laboratory Certificates - Stormwater
Annual Report 2009.docx
Page ii
Newport Terminal - 2009 Annual Report
1.
Background
Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd (‘Caltex’) is pleased to present this Annual Report (June
2008-June 2009) in accordance with Condition 3.25 of EPA Waste Discharge Licence
EM37140.
The following information is submitted in accordance with the condition 3.25:

Details of progress of implementation of environmental actions listed in the most
recent EPA approved Environmental Management and Improvement Plan (EIMP);

Details of any non-compliances with any condition of this licence during the previous
calendar year;

An analysis of air and stormwater monitoring data including:
o
Trends over a minimum of a three year period;
o
Non-compliances with the licence and or State Environment Protection
Policies for the previous year;
o
Actions taken to prevent recurrence of any monitoring data and noncompliances.

Copies of NATA endorsed laboratory analysis certificates for environmental
monitoring required to be conducted by this licence during the previous calendar
year;

A summary of the number, nature and actions taken in regards to any environmental
complaints received in the previous calendar year;

A summary of the number, nature and actions taken in regards to any environmental
incidents received in the previous calendar year;

Details of any new environmental improvement actions arising from incidents, audits
or inspections, environmental monitoring, complaints or any other mechanism of
identification during the previous calendar year; and
Page 1
2.
Environmental Management and
Improvement Plan – Progress
The current Newport Terminal EIMP was implemented in September 2008. Since then, the
Newport Terminal has undergone an extensive internal management restructure. In July
2009, the current EIMP program and action items were reviewed by the new management
and the Supply and Distribution Environmental Specialist. The review concluded that the
current program focused primarily on establishing continuing systems for monitoring and
maintenance, with little emphasis on environmental improvements. In addition, the terminal
has successfully completed and submitted the Newport Safety Case, as required for Major
Hazard Facilities, which has incorporated relevant environmental risks and actions, which
are not adequately reflected in the EIMP. As such the current EIMP has been placed under
review, to allow for development of new actions, that support and are aligned with the Safety
Case findings, reflect the current terminal maintenance systems and drive environmental
improvement.
For purposes of compliance with licence condition 3.25(a), the status of all existing Action
Items identified in the current Environmental Management and Improvement Plan (EIMP) is
summarised below:
Pipelines (Page 39)
Continue pipeline painting program as part of
the preventative maintenance program.
Investigate installation of an Armco railing or
concrete barrier to protect exposed pipelines
on Burleigh St.
Completion Date
ON GOING PROGRAM
REVIEW COMPLETED
NOVEMBER 2008
Page 2
Completion Date
Pump Pit Operation (Page 40)
Establish
pump
maintenance
program,
including regular inspection and vibration
testing.
IMPLEMENTED
DECEMEBER 2008
Air Emissions (Pages 43-46)
Completion Date
Regular monitoring of all identified discharge
ON GOING PRGRAM
points
Regular monitoring VOC emissions at site
NOT COMPLETED
boundary
DURING 2008/2009
LICENCE PERIOD AND
PROGRAM UNDER
REVIEW
Annual submission of a site inspection and
NOT COMPLETED
maintenance report of facilities associated with
DURING 2008/2009
the control of air emissions ( due 1st August)
LICENCE PERIOD AND
PROGRAM UNDER
REVIEW
Odour (Page 49)
Completion Date
Conduct boundary walkover to assess odour
NOT COMPLETED
emissions at the site boundary
DURING 2008/2009
LICENCE PERIOD AND
PROGRAM UNDER
REVIEW
Any odour sources identified will be brought to
the attention of the Maintenance Supervisor
ONGOING PROGRAM
and actioned accordingly
Page 3
Section 12 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(Pages 33 - 34)
Constantly
investigate
energy
Completion Date
reduction
strategies for inclusion in future terminal
ONGOING PROGRAM
projects
Noise (Pages 51 - 52)
Completion Date
Undertake annual site walk around to assess
noise.
Follow up any findings with implementation of
a noise reduction program
Wastewater and Stormwater Management
(Pages 52 - 60)
Inclusion of stormwater monitoring data in site
Annual Report to provide to EPA
ONGOING PROGRAM
ONGOING PROGRAM
Completion Date
ON GOING PROGRAM
Where exceedences are noted report to EPA
and undertake investigation to identify source
ON GOING PROGRAM
of contamination
If necessary, temporarily divert to sewer
ON GOING PROGRAM
Report exceedences to CLG
ON GOING PROGRAM
Include upgrade of west yard wastewater
treatment
system
in
terminal
capital
expenditure plan for 2009 - 2011
Complete
weekly
stormwater outfall.
visual
inspection
of
COMPLETED
DECEMBER 2008
ON GOING PRGRAM
Page 4
Evaluate water recycling opportunities.
COMPLETED
OCTOBER 2008
Completion Date
Soil and Groundwater (Pages 60 - 64)
Review extent of HBCS and assess benefit of
extending system across the site
COMPLETED
DECEMBER 2009
Optimise HBCS to maximise product recovery
Review of CUN actions
ON GOING PROGRAM
COMPLETED JUNE
2009
Identification and reporting of onsite sources
and undertake control actions as required.
ON GOING PROGRAM
Waste Management (Pages 65 - 66)
Completion Date
Assessment of asbestos management plan
ONGOING PROGRAM
Evaluation of recycling opportunities for office
COMPLETED MARCH
wastes.
2009
Emergency Response (Pages 69 - 72)
Completion Date
As a result of the Bruncefield Report the ERP
is being critically reviewed with a focus on fire
water management.
Conduct
emergency
response
drills
specified in the ERP
Tank Farm Operations (Pages 40 - 41)
Complete upgrade of North Yard ULP bund
as
COMPLETED JUNE
2009
ONGOING PROGRAM
Completion Date
IN PROGRESS
Page 5
Tank Farm Operations (Pages 40 - 41)
Completion Date
Replacement of all cast iron tank valves during
10 year T&I.
Implement
inspection
schedule
for
pipe
supports
Assess alternatives for secondary and tertiary
containment systems.
ONGOING PROGRAM
ONGOING PROGRAM
COMPLETED
DECEMBER 2008
Inspection and maintenance of Tank 7
COMPLETED
DECEMBER 2008
Operation of north and west yard tanks at
reduced capacity until bund upgrades are
ONGOING PROGRAM
completed
Tanker Truck Loading Rack Operations
(Pages 41 - 42)
Audit
of
loading
rack
operations
and
implementation of preventative maintenance
program for loading arms
Replacement of TTLR underground slops tank
Completion Date
COMPLETED
DECEMBER 2008
COMPLETED APRIL
2009
Storage and Handling of Packaged Goods
Assessment
implementation
required.
of
Lubrizol
of
bunding
corrective
actions
and
as
Completion Date
COMPLETED
SEPTEMBER 2009
Page 6
Three EIP actions have not been completed during the 2008/2009 licence period. These
actions are:
1. VOC monitoring at the site boundary,
2. Submission of a terminal maintenance report, and
3. Annual odour monitoring assessment
The work associated with the three actions was not able to be resourced under the new
terminal structure. The requirements of the outstanding actions will be discussed at the
upcoming EPA meeting later this month.
Page 7
3.
Non-Compliances
As reported in Section 2, three EIMP actions have not been completed during the reporting
period due to a lack of allocated resources (two air monitoring actions and one reporting
action). Due to the installation of the Vapour Recovery Unit the two air monitoring actions will
be reviewed for their currency and relevance. All outstanding actions will be discussed at the
next EPA meeting and a plan for completion will be developed.
Page 8
4.
Air monitoring
4.1
Ambient Air Monitoring at Site Boundary.
As reported, the requirement to undertake ambient air monitoring at the boundary has not
been complied with (licence condition 3.26).
A review of previous results and trends indicate that ambient air quality has improved
significantly with the installation of the Vapour Recovery Unit. During the last four years
boundary monitoring there has been only two exceedences of the benzene limit (October
2005 and January 2007).
The exceedence in October 2005 is most likely related to an operational incident affecting
the Shell VRU emissions on the day of testing. The January 2007 exceedence is most likely
related to the Caltex loading rack emissions. As reported in the 2007/2008 annual return
subsequent ambient air monitoring, conducted in November 2007, after the installation and
commissioning of the VRU, has confirmed that emissions from the loading rack have
significantly reduced. There were no exceedences of the NEPM air toxics reported during
the November 2007 monitoring event.
In light of the history of results and the impact of the VRU, the validity and value of this
program is being reviewed.
Page 9
4.2
Vapour Recovery Unit Monitoring
The six monthly vapour recovery unit monitoring has been completed during the reporting, in
accordance with licence condition 3.2.
Table 1 – Summary of VRU Monitoring
Unrecovered Vapours
Design Limit
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
99.57%
1.54
10
October 2007
99.89%
0.37
10
January 2008
99.99%
0.03
10
March 2008
98.98%
2.94
10
June 2008
98.89%
3.05
10
March 2009
99.53%
1.51
10
Date of VRU Test
% Efficiency
July 2007
Results are able to confirm that since commissioning, the unrecovered vapours emitted from
the VRU are consistently below the design limit of 10mg/L.
Page 10
5.
Stormwater Monitoring
As reported in the 2007/2008 annual report, Caltex continues to only discharge stormwater
from one licenced discharge point, which drains clean stormwater from the west yard. All
other stormwater is discharged to the trade waste sewer.
Stormwater discharges are completed on a batch process, after testing has confirmed that
the water quality complies with the release criteria.
In accordance with the conditions of the Waste Discharge Licence, stormwater is analysed
for the following:

Total Organic Compounds

Total Petroleum hydrocarbons

Methyl Blue Active Substances (MBAS)

Monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Total suspended solids

pH

Dissolved Oxygen

Acute Toxicity

Electrical Conductivity
Laboratory certificates are included in Appendix B.
5.1
Trends
Minor exceedences of the MBAS guidelines (0.2 mg/L) have historically been reported from
the West Yard. There does not appear to be any obvious source of MBAS as surfactants
are not used on either the Caltex or the ALMC sites.
A summary of the last three years monitoring is presented below.
Page 11
Table 2 – Summary of Stormwater Monitoring
Date
Toxicity
MBAS
Conductivity
DO
Limit
>100
0.2
-
6.5
Jan 06
NMT
0.22
460
6.3
Feb 06
97
<0.2
Not tested
Apr 06
>100
0.3
June 06
>100
Nov 06
pH
TSS
TOC
Benzene
Toluene
-
-
0.01
-
8.1
75
17
<0.001
6.1
7.5
25
33
290
6.6
7.4
4
0.4
330
6.0
7.7
>100
<0.2
350
7.2
Jan 07
NMT
0.3
450
Mar 07
>100
<0.2
May 07
>100
Jul 07
Ethyl
Xylene
C6-C9
C10-C14
C15-C28
C29-C36
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.05
0.4
0.1
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.05
1.1
<0.1
30
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.05
0.5
0.2
4
12
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.05
1.7
0.1
7.4
86
46
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.05
0.7
<0.5
6.2
7.7
8
66
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Not
Not
Not
Not
Tested
Tested
Tested
Tested
500
6.4
7.3
3
18
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.05
0.7
<0.1
<0.2
200
7.2
7.1
24
8.3
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.05
0.6
0.2
>100
0.3
280
7.2
7.2
2
13
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.05
0.2
<0.1
Dec 07
>100
3.3
480
6.9
7.3
41
57
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.05
<0.1
<0.1
Mar 08
NMT
0.3
390
6.6
7.5
46
14
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.05
0.1
<0.1
Jul 08
NMT
<0.2
290
6.6
7.8
12
12
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.05
0.4
0.2
Sep 08
>100
<0.2
400
8.8
8.6
4
13
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
0.13
1.7
<0.1
Nov 08
NMT
0.4
340
6.6
7.1
16
8
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.05
0.2
<0.1
6.5 8.5
Benzene
All results are in mg/L.
Page 12
Page 13
5.2
Non-compliances
Sampling was conducted in accordance with the conditions of the Waste Discharge Licence.
There have been no discharges to stormwater from the terminal in the first half of 2009. Red
highlighting indicates a non compliance with the ANZSECC Water Quality Guidelines for
Recreational Purposes. Blue highlighting indicates a missed sample.
A summary of non compliances reported to date is presented below;
5.3
Date of Discharge
Non Compliance
January 2006
MBAS
April 2006
MBAS
June 2006
MBAS
January 2007
MBAS
July 2007
MBAS
December 2007
MBAS
March 2008
MBAS
November 2008
MBAS
September 2008
pH
Corrective Actions
5.3.1
MBAS Non Compliances
There is history of non compliance with the set MBAS limit of 0.2mg/L (8 non compliances in
3 years). The cause of this issue is not known, as the use of detergents within the terminal
and the ALMC site is not approved.
After the initial non compliance an investigation was undertaken to determine the source of
the detergent material. The investigation concentrated on delineating the interconnection
between the Caltex terminal and the adjacent ALMC site. The results of this investigation
did not detect a source of the detergent. To control stormwater flows from the ALMC site, all
Page 14
drainage lines that connect the ALMC site to the Caltex site have been blocked. This was
completed in 2006.
Further improvements include the redirection of stormwater from the south and west yards
SEPA units, which now discharge to the trade waste sewer.
A second investigation into this on going issue is now underway. The investigation will
include additional testing and will look at procedural changes, to prevent future incidents.
5.3.2
pH Non Compliance
There was one further non compliance during the 2008/2009 reporting, related to pH (result
of 8.6 vs limit of 8.5, September 2008 discharge). Onsite pH testing indicated that the pH of
the discharge was within the acceptable range. The cause of the non compliance is
unknown and an investigation is in progress.
Page 15
6.
NATA Endorsed Laboratory Certificates
NATA endorsed laboratory certificates for stormwater monitoring are included in Appendix A.
Page 16
7.
Environmental Complaints
There have been no environmental complaints reported as a result of site operations over
the 2008/2009 reporting period.
Page 17
8.
Environmental Incidents
There have not been any reportable environmental incidents within the 2008/2009 reporting
period.
Page 18
9.
Greenhouse Gas and Energy
The monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gases will now be managed through the
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) scheme, in accordance with the
requirements of the NGER Act (2007).
Page 19
Appendix A
NATA Certified Reports for:
1. Vapour Recovery Unit Monitoring
2. Stormwater Monitoring
Appendix 5
Drainage Layout
Appendix 6
Minutes of Special Community
Consultation Meeting
Caltex Community Liaison Group Public Meeting
Date:
15/08/2012
MINUTES of MEETING
Attendees:
EPA:
Carmel Vlachos
John Frame
AURECON:
Jacqui McLeod
Kelly Nelson
COMMUNITY:
Bill Beale
Sandy Beale
CALTEX STAFF:
Neil McCartney
Pam Meers
Michael Caragounis
Gary Powrie
Jo Derrick
Rebecca Haupt
Apologies
Matt Dunlop (Resident)
Michele Lanera (Resident)
Wade Noonan MP (State Member for Williamstown)
Tim Lellyett (Jordan Technologies)
David Di Giovine (Shell)
Mike Tangtatco (EPA)
MEETING OPEN, WELCOME and SAFETY MOMENT
5:30pm – Start
(A) Overview of Agenda and Emergency Evacuation – Neil McCartney
Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd ABN 17 000 032 128 ACN 000 032 128
December 14, 2012
(B) OE Moment – Michael Caragounis
Overview of food poisoning risk and increase in number of cases within Australia. Increased risk
with age.
(C) Operations and Safety Performance – Jo Derrick
• 1 x Contractor First Aid & 4 minor spills YTD;
• Tanker truck roll and loading arm break away incident and risk of third party vehicle;
• 10 Ltr petrol spill by overfilling, which was contained;
• Ron Finemore Transport truck dip hatch gasket seal failure 1-3 Ltr;
• Kick bucket incident (driver kicked bucket causing minor spill);
• Security Guard trip over car park bollard – First Aid only;
• YTD tracking well;
st
• 31 March – Restructure (Distribution incorporated into Marketing);
 Reasons to improve communication once focus within the business.
Issues update:
• Safety Case re-licencing due 2014;
• Caltex currently reviewing Safety Case;
• CFS – general discussion
st
nd
• WorkSafe Annual Inspection completed 21 & 22 July
• Noted 7 of Control measures that were audited;
• Best Annual Inspection to date.
• WorkSafe requested to use Caltex as an example for others ralting to Safety Case.
Question?
How do we determine what loads are put onto UPS.
Answer
Determine via a risk assessment from the Safety Case.
Critical pieces of equipment are identified and put onto UPS.
Items like Fire Alarm, LEC, IHHH & emergency lighting are maintained.
(D) Environmental Performance – Pam Meers
• Non conformance to be reported to ground contamination (to be made the same as
previous years);
•
Environmental Performance stats reviewed:
 Stormwater results outside of State requirements (refer presentation).
•
Terminal commenced project to upgrade separators, in line with industry best practices.
•
Emissions Performance:
 Air emissions all within limits;
 VRU efficiency 99.2% (excellent).
•
Contamined Site Management:
 2012 $490K spend on site clean up;
 25L (2011) free phase product removed;
 Targeted clean up projects:o R&T Yard contaminated soil;
o South Yard contaiminated delination.
2
December 14, 2012
o
o
o
Fraction mapping to find target areas;
Permanent decommissioning of ground water;
EPA endorsement of remediation and clean up plans.
(E) Horizons Upgrade Overview – Gary Powrie
• Improvements (3 stage program):
 State current storage
 Ext traffic flow and vehicle query
 Fire protections upgrade;
• Commence stage 1 next year
•
Upgrade Stage 1:
 4 new tanks (South Yard);
 Increased efficiency of TTLR;
 Upgrade Fire protection;
 Re-configuration of traffic flow
•
Upgrade Stage 2:
 3 new tanks in West Yard;
 Bund upgrade;
 New dockline to Holden Dock (on existing easement

Upgrade Stage 3:
 1 x ADO Tank (North/East).
•
•
Review Site Plan
•
Review 3D Model
• Discussed new tanker entry on Burleigh Street and exit onto Douglas Parade –
improved safety with access.
Question??
Less tanks in the past was the re-assurance) but know you are proposing additional tanks
Answer
Jo noted 2005 plans of increased tanks/refinery closures changing:
Victoria supply important;
Stage 1 confirmation of 2005 plan
Reviewed new access traffic flow proposal plan from Burleigh Street.
(F) Open Forum/Questions
• Pam noted consulting community prior to lodging any applications;
•
Bill noted previous minutes would be good, as did not receive previous minutes;
•
Community not receiving mailed minutes;
•
Minutes to be sent out with invitations
•
EPA (Carmel) note: Assesses application only, and co-ordinate further assessment.
3
December 14, 2012
•
CFS (Bill) - part of group (300-400 people) residents; question regarding support for
residents, support from Caltex.
GENERAL
Next meeting not yet scheduled.
MEETING CLOSED - 1910hrs
4
Appendix 7
Air Quality Impact
Assessment
Project: Caltex Newport Terminal Horizons Project
Reference: 225440
Air Quality Report
Revision: 2
Australia
8 May 2013
ABN 54 005 139 873
55 Grenfell Street
Adelaide
South Australia 5000
T
F
E
W
+61 8 8237 9777
+61 8 8237 9778
[email protected]
www.aurecongroup.com
a)
b)
copy version.
Air Quality Report
Report Title
Document ID
225440
Project Number
File Path
\\aurecon.info\shares\AUADL\Admin\Data\General Staff\Disciplines\Noise
and Vibration\Projects\Caltex Newport Air Quality and
Noise\AQ\Report\Caltex Newport AQ Report 20130418mn.docx
Client
Caltex Australia
Client Contact
Rev
Date
Prepared by
Author
Verifier
Approver
0
21 June 2012
Final
MN
MN
NCM
JM
1
18 April 2013
Final – Revision 1
MN
MN
GW
NCM
2
8 May 2013
Final – Revision 2
MN
MN
GW
NCM
Current Revision
2
Approval
Author Signature
Name
Title
Approver Signature
Magaesh Naidu
Senior Engineer – Air
Quality
Name
Title
Project 225440| File Caltex Newport AQ Report 20130508mn.docx | 8 May 2013 | Revision 2
Neil Mackenzie
Associate
Contents
1.
Introduction
2
2.
Site and Operations
3
2.1
Nearest Sensitive Receptors
3
2.2
Operations and Associated Air Quality Issues
3
2.2.1
Tanks Capacities and Products
3
2.2.2
Tank Annual Turnovers
5
2.2.3
5
3.
Pollutants of Concern
8
3.1.1
Benzene
8
3.1.2
Toulene
8
3.1.3
Xylenes
9
3.1.4
Cumene (Isopropyl benzene)
9
3.1.5
Cyclohexane
9
3.1.6
Hexanes (-n)
10
3.1.7
Ethylbenzene
10
4.
Criteria
11
5.
Existing Environment
12
5.1
Monitoring of Air Toxics in Newport and Spotswood
12
5.2
Project Background Pollutant Levels
13
6.
7.
Meteorology
14
6.1
Overview
14
6.2
Wind
14
6.3
Atmospheric stability
17
6.4
Mixing height
19
Emissions
21
7.1
Tank Emissions
21
7.1.1
Emissions Mechanism
21
7.1.2
Vents
21
7.1.3
Tank Emissions Estimation
24
7.2
VRU Stack emissions
29
7.3
Fugitive Emissions from Additional Loading Gantries
31
7.4
Emergency VRU Vent Emissions
33
7.5
Pollutant Contributions
34
Project 225440 | File Caltex Newport AQ Report 20130508mn.docx | 8 May 2013 | Revision 2 | Page 1
7.6
8.
9.
Ranking of pollutants
35
Dispersion Modelling Methodology
36
8.1
AUSPLUME
36
8.2
SLAB
37
Assessment
38
9.1
Normal Operation
38
9.2
VRU failure
40
10. Conclusion
42
11. References
43
Appendices
Appendix A
TANKS 4.09D Summary Files
Appendix B
AUSPLUME 6.0 Files
Appendix C
Benzene Vapour Concentration
Index of Figures
Figure 2.1 Nearest Sensitive Receptors.................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2.2 Site Layout ............................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2.3 VRU Schematic Diagram (Source: Jordan Technologies 2012)............................................ 7
Figure 5.1 Comparison of Benzene Concentrations at Different Sites (Source: EPA Victoria) ............ 12
Figure 6.1 Wind Speed Class Frequency Distribution at Altona North, 2008 ....................................... 14
Figure 6.2 Seasonal and Annual Wind roses for Altona North, 2008 ................................................... 16
Figure 6.3 Stability class frequency distribution, Altona North, 2008 .................................................... 18
Figure 6.4 Hourly mixing height profile, Altona North, 2008.................................................................. 20
Figure 7.1 Vertical Fixed Roof Tank (Source: US EPA)........................................................................ 21
Figure 7.2 Internal Floating Roof Tank (Source: US EPA) .................................................................... 22
Figure 7.3 Peripheral roof vent at Caltex Newport Site ......................................................................... 23
Figure 7.4 External Floating Roof Tank (Source: US EPA) .................................................................. 24
Figure 7.5 VRU Stack ............................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 7.6 Tank truck loading with vapour recovery (Source: US EPA 1995) ...................................... 31
Figure 7.7 VRU vent .............................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 9.1 Cumulative Benzene Ground Level Concentrations, mg/m3 (99th percentile, 3 minute
average) ......................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 9.2 Benzene Ground Level Concentrations, mg/m3 (3 minute average) from Emergency VRU
Vent ................................................................................................................................................ 41
Index of Tables
Table 2.1 Additional Tanks ...................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2.2 Existing Tanks ......................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2.3 Tank Turnovers ....................................................................................................................... 5
Table 4.1 SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001 Criteria ..................................................................... 11
Table 5.1 EPA Victoria Air Toxics Monitoring Results .......................................................................... 12
Table 5.2 Background Pollutant Concentrations ................................................................................... 13
Table 6.1 Atmospheric stability categories ............................................................................................ 17
Table 6.2 Frequency distribution of atmospheric stability class versus wind speed, Altona North, 2008
........................................................................................................................................................ 17
Table 6.3 Observed Stability Class versus Time of Day, Altona North, 2008 ....................................... 18
Table 7.1 Tank Parameters ................................................................................................................... 25
Table 7.2 Tank Pollutant Emission Rates ............................................................................................. 27
Table 7.3 Tank emission points ............................................................................................................. 28
Table 7.4 Ranking of Tank Contributions .............................................................................................. 28
Table 7.5 VRU Stack Parameters ......................................................................................................... 30
Table 7.6 VRU Stack emission rates..................................................................................................... 31
Table 7.7 Loading Loss Computation Parameters ................................................................................ 32
Table 7.8 Gantry emission rates ........................................................................................................... 32
Table 7.9 VRU Vent Emission Parameters ........................................................................................... 34
Table 7.10 Pollutant contributors ........................................................................................................... 34
Table 7.11 Ranking of Pollutants .......................................................................................................... 35
Table 8.1 AUSPLUME Modelling Parameters....................................................................................... 36
Table 8.2 SLAB Modelling Parameters ................................................................................................. 37
Table 9.1 Predicted Pollutant Ground Level Concentrations at Sensitive Receptors ........................... 38
Executive Summary
Aurecon has been commissioned to conduct an air quality assessment of the upgrade of the Caltex
Newport Terminal known as the Newport “Horizons” project.
Upon analysis of the site and the operations involved after the upgrade, four air pollutant release
scenarios were determined as follows:




tanks
Emissions from the Vapour Recovery Unit (VRU) stack due to the nine gantry bays ( three
additional gantry bays are to be constructed)
Fugitive emissions during truck loading at the nine gantry bays
failure
The nearest sensitive receptors to the site were identified and air quality criteria were established for
them based on the Victoria Government’s State Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality
Management) 2001.
Existing concentrations of pollutants were established based on air quality monitoring conducted by
EPA Victoria and pollutant ratios established from site emission rates.
affect air pollutant dispersion were analysed from 2008 meteorological data from Altona North.
pollutants of concern and their concentrations based on the dimensions of the tanks, the products
contained and their throughput. The main pollutants were found to be components of Total Volatile
Organic Compounds (TVOCs) and are namely Benzene, Toulene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, n-Hexane,
Cyclohexane and Cumene (Isopropyl Benzene). Based on an analysis of emission rates and the
criteria provided by SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001, Benzene was analysed to be the main
Ltd provided the information to derive the emission characteristics of the VRU stack as well as the
emergency release emission characteristics from the VRU vent during a VRU failure.
Dispersion modelling was conducted for all the identified emission sources using the software
packages AUSPLUME and SLAB and the results were compared with the established criteria.
No criteria exceedances of the stipulated criteria were observed based on the air dispersion modelling
conducted.
i
1.
Introduction
Aurecon has been commissioned by Caltex Australia to conduct an air quality assessment of the
upgrade of their existing Newport Terminal. The upgrade is known as the Newport “Horizons” project.
The Horizons upgrade (stage 1 & 2) is to cater for 4.3 billion Litres per annum. The current site
throughput is approximately 2.2 billion per annum.
The terminal upgrade comprises of the following main elements:







Design to cater for a future terminal throughput of 4.3 billion litres per annum.
Additional tank storage:
60ML ADO – West Yard
15ML SPULP – West Yard
30ML ULP – R&T Yard
15ML PULP– R&T Yard
15ML JET– R&T Yard
A new tank compound in the R&T Yard and the rebuilding and extension of existing
compounds in the West Yard.
Addition of three new gantry bays onto the existing gantry building complete with a new exit
pavement.
A new DN350 dockline from Holden dock to the terminal, complete with a new marine loading
arm at the berth to service the existing and new docklines.
All docklines and existing refinery lines to be re-routed into the Caltex South Yard and into a
Site to be setup so that it can be 100% reliant on imported product (i.e. via tank ship). It is
expected that the site will receive 20% of its product from the existing refinery lines with the
remaining 80% from imported fuel via ship.
Aurecon’s scope of works for this assessment includes the following:







Identifying all the air pollutant sources on-site based on the operations taking place
Identifying the nearest sensitive receptors to the site
Identifying and understanding the impact of the pollutants of concern
Establishing air quality criteria
Preparing an emissions inventory with emission rates and discharge conditions
Conducting air dispersion modelling to predict the ground level concentrations of the pollutants
at the nearest receptors and
Assessing the air quality impact at the nearest sensitive receptors by comparing the predicted
ground level concentrations of the pollutants against the established criteria.
The elements of the upgrade with the potential to cause an air quality impact which are assessed in
this report are the following:




Breathing losses associated with the additional eight tanks due to the upgrade.
Vapour losses from the product loading system with three new gantry bays and
The additional hydrocarbon vapour emissions from the Vapour Recovery Unit (VRU) stack
due to the operation of the three new gantry bays and
A VRU failure whereby hydrocarbon vapours are vented out to the environment through a
vent
2.
Site and Operations
2.1
Nearest Sensitive Receptors
The existing Caltex Newport Terminal is located in Newport, Victoria. The site is in a predominantly
industrial area where its industrial neighbours include Shell Newport Terminal and Newport Power
Station. The nearest sensitive receptors are residential properties on Craig Street, Ramsey Street and
High Street as shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Nearest Sensitive Receptors
2.2
Operations and Associated Air Quality Issues
2.2.1
Tanks Capacities and Products
The additional tanks are identified in a site layout map of the Caltex Newport Terminal which is
provided in Figure 2.2. Table 2.1 lists the additional tanks which will be present due to the upgrade
and their capacities.
Table 2.1 Additional Tanks
Tank Number
Tank capacity, millions of litres
T13
Product Stored
ADO
T14
ADO
30.00
T15
SPULP
15.00
T16
JET
15.00
T17
ULP
15.00
T18
PULP
15.00
T19
ULP
15.00
T new
ADO
44.00
30.00
Total
179.00
The additional annual throughput provided by these eight tanks is expected to be 2.1 billion litres of
product.
Table 2.2 lists the existing tanks and their capacities.
Table 2.2 Existing Tanks
Tank Number
T1
Product Stored
ULP
Tank capacity, millions of litres
16.59
T2
SPULP
5.40
T3
PULP
5.41
T4
JET A-1
5.67
T5
ULP
3.29
T6
SLOPS
0.52
T7
SLOPS
1.40
T8
ALPINE DIESEL
0.97
T9
ALPINE DIESEL
0.97
T10
JET A-1
5.71
T11
NOT IN USE
-
T12
PULP
1.42
T26
NOT IN USE
-
D184
SLOPS
0.02
T356
DIESEL
6.46
T428
DIESEL
6.54
T429
DIESEL
5.27
T710
ADDITIVE
0.04
T720
ADDITIVE
0.04
Total
65.70
The existing tanks produce an annual throughput of 2.2 billion litres and the total site annual
throughput is expected to be 4.3 billion litres. It should be noted that the tank capacities are assumed
to be the working volumes of the tanks. The main sources of pollutant emissions associated with the
tanks are the breathing losses and working losses of the tanks. The tank emissions are discussed in
detail is Section 7.1.
2.2.2
Tank Annual Turnovers
The annual turnover of each tank affects the annual throughput of the site, which in turn influences the
total pollutant emissions produced each year. Table 2.3 below summarises the turnover for each
product carried in the existing and new tanks.
Table 2.3 Tank Turnovers
Product
ALPINE DIESEL
Tanks Containing Product 2
T8, T9
Turnover3
24.4
T16, T4, T10
7.64
T18
13.0
T17, T19, T1, T5
41.1
T15, T2,
8.1
DIESEL
T13, T14, Tnew, T356, T428, T429
14.2
SLOPS
T6, T7, D184
12.0
JET
PULP
ULP
SPULP
1
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
2.2.3
Automotive Diesel Oil (ADO) is classified under Diesel
It is assumed that all the tanks of the same product are turned over an equal number of times each year.
The turnovers were computed by analysing utilisation data from the representative month of January
2012.
The turnover value for JET was calculated by dividing total site throughput by the total number of JET
arms.
The Newport Terminal is equipped with a Jordan Technologies activated carbon adsorption /
absorption Vapour Recovery Unit (VRU). The operation of the VRU is shown in a schematic diagram
in Figure 2.3.
The product loading system in the three new gantry bays channels hydrocarbon vapours into the VRU.
Based on hydrocarbon recovery assessments carried out by Jordan Technologies Asia Pacific Pty Ltd,
approximately 99% of the hydrocarbon vapours are recovered. The unrecovered hydrocarbon vapour
emissions are then released through the VRU stack onto the environment. The emissions that occur
through this pathway are discussed in detail in Section 7.2.
During product loading of the trucks at the three new gantry bays, vapour losses occur due to the
flanges, valves, the pipes and the collection system. The loading losses that occur are discussed in
detail in Section 7.3.
During a VRU failure, hydrocarbon vapours are bypassed from entering the VRU system and are
vented out to the environment through a vent. This emergency scenario and the emissions that occur
are discussed in detail in Section 7.4.
The tanks, VRU stack, additional three gantries and VRU emergency vent are identified in Figure 2.1.
Additional Tanks
Main VRU Stack
Emergency VRU vent
Additional 3 Gantry Bays
Figure 2.2 Site Layout
Figure 2.3 VRU Schematic Diagram (Source: Jordan Technologies 2012)
p7
Project 225440 | File Caltex Newport AQ Report 20130508mn.docx | 8 May 2013 | Revision 0
3.
Pollutants of Concern
The pollutants of concern from the site have been identified to be the following:







Benzene
Toulene
Xylene
Cumene
Cyclohexane
Hexane
Ethyl Benzene
These pollutants were identified from the tank emission modelling carried out which is discussed in
detail in Section 7.1.
The environmental effects of these pollutants are discussed in the sub-sections below. The
information provided is sourced from the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) Fact Sheets provided by
the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
3.1.1
Benzene
Benzene has a high acute toxic effect on aquatic life. It can cause death in plants and roots and
damage to the leaves of many agricultural crops.
Benzene is carried in the air. If released to the soil, benzene will usually breakdown quickly. It can be
mobile in soil and may contaminate groundwater. Benzene is only slightly soluble in water but is
readily absorbed by the lipid phase (fatty parts) of aquatic organisms, which can result in transport in
the environment.
In the atmosphere, benzene can react with other chemicals to produce phenol, nitrophenol,
nitrobenzene, formic acid and peroxyacetyl nitrate. It is a "precursor" hydrocarbon leading to the
formation of photochemical smog. It will usually breakdown over a few days, with the products
eventually ending up in the air. It can be washed out of the air by rain but will evaporate and continue
to contaminate the air. It can attach to rain or snow and be carried back down to the ground. Benzene
in soil or water will decompose with the presence of oxygen. It does not build up concentration levels
in plant or animal tissues.
3.1.2
Toulene
Toluene evaporates when exposed to air. It also evaporates from water. In the air, it is quickly reacted
into other chemicals. In water and soil, bacteria break it down. It has moderate acute (short-term)
toxicity on aquatic life. Toluene has caused membrane damage to the leaves in plants. It has
moderate chronic (long-term) toxicity to aquatic life. Chronic and acute effects on birds or land animals
have not been determined. Toluene is expected to minimally bio-accumulate.
Industrial emissions of toluene can produce elevated, concentrations in the atmosphere around the
source. Because of its short life expectancy in the atmosphere toluene is expected to be confined to
the local area within which it is emitted. Toluene that makes its way into the ground, and does not
evaporate, may move through the ground and enter groundwater (bore water). However, it is
degraded in the water within days.
Toluene also quickly evaporates to a gas if released as a liquid. It evaporates from both water and soil
when exposed to air. It will break down in the air in a few days into other chemicals (benzaldehyde
and cresol) which are harmful to humans). In soil and water, bacteria will break it down.
3.1.3
Xylenes
Xylenes have a high acute (short-term) toxicity to aquatic life. They cause injury to various agricultural
and ornamental crops. They also have high chronic (long-term) toxicity to aquatic life. There is
insufficient data to predict the acute or chronic toxicity of xylenes on birds or land animals. Xylene is
expected to moderately bio-accumulate in fish.
Industrial emissions of xylenes can produce elevated but still low level concentrations in the
atmosphere around the source. Because of its short life expectancy in the atmosphere, xylenes are
expected to be confined to the local area within which they are emitted. Since it does not bind well to
soil, xylenes that makes their way into the ground may move through the ground and enter
groundwater (bore water).
Most of the xylenes are released into the atmosphere where they are quickly degraded by sunlight.
When released to soil or water, they quickly evaporate. They may leach into the groundwater (bore
water).
3.1.4
Cumene evaporates when exposed to air. In the air, it is quickly reacted into other chemicals. In water
and soil, bacteria break it down. It has moderate acute (short-term) toxicity on aquatic life and high
acute toxicity to birds. Insufficient data is available to predict the toxicity of cumene to plants and land
animals. It has moderate chronic (long-term) toxicity to aquatic life. Cumene is expected to minimally
bio-accumulate.
Industrial emissions of cumene can produce elevated concentrations in the atmosphere around the
source. Due to its short life expectancy in the atmosphere, Cumene is expected to be confined to the
local area within which it is emitted. Cumene that makes its way into the ground, and does not
evaporate, is degraded in the water within days. As Cumene is used in many consumer products and
found in tobacco smoke, short-term indoor concentrations may be elevated above the levels
considered safe for workers.
Cumene evaporates to a gas if released as a liquid. It will break down in the air in a few days into
other chemicals (isopropylphenols). In the water (very small quantities will enter the water); bacteria
will break it down in three to ten days. Cumene is a volatile organic chemical (VOC) and will contribute
to the formation of smog.
3.1.5
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexane is non-persistent in water, with a half-life of less than 2 days. The half-life of a pollutant is
the amount of time it takes for one-half of the chemical to be degraded. Virtually 100% of cyclohexane
will end up in the air.
Cyclohexane has moderate acute toxicity to aquatic life. It has caused membrane damage in an
ornamental crop species. Insufficient data is available to evaluate or predict the short-term effects of
cyclohexane on birds or land animals.
Cyclohexane has moderate chronic toxicity to aquatic life. Insufficient data is available to evaluate or
predict the long-term effects of cyclohexane on plants, birds or land animals.
Cyclohexane enters the environment mainly in industrial and municipal discharges. Cyclohexane
evaporates when exposed to air. It dissolves slightly when mixed with water. Most direct releases of
cyclohexane to the environment are to air. Cyclohexane also evaporates from water and soil exposed
to air. Once in air, it is expected to break down to other chemicals. Due to it being a liquid that does
not bind well to soil, Cyclohexane that makes its way into the ground can move through the ground
and enter groundwater. Plants and animals living in environments contaminated with cyclohexane can
store small amounts of the chemical.
Cyclohexane by itself is not likely to cause environmental harm at levels normally found in the
environment. Cyclohexane can contribute to the formation of photochemical smog when it reacts with
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and other volatile organic carbon substances in the air.
3.1.6
Hexanes (-n)
Due to its very low solubility in water and high volatility, Hexane will usually be rapidly transported to
the atmosphere without major damage to the biota. In the atmosphere, it is one of the volatile organic
substances that contribute to the formation of photochemical smog through interaction with nitrogen
dioxide and ozone.
Hexane is carried in the air. If released to the soil, hexane will usually quickly evaporate to the
atmosphere. Hexane is only slightly soluble in water but is readily absorbed by the lipid phase (fatty
parts) of aquatic organisms, which can result in transport in the environment.
Due to its high volatility and low solubility in water, hexane in the environment will mainly be in the
atmosphere. In the atmosphere, hexane is expected to exist almost entirely in the vapour phase due
to its relatively high vapour pressure. The dominant tropospheric loss process for hexane is by
reaction with the hydroxyl (OH) radicals. The calculated half-life and lifetime of hexane due to reaction
with the OH radical are 1.8 days and 2.6 days respectively. The products of the OH radical-initiated
reaction include 2-hexanone, 2- and 3-hexyl nitrate and 5-hydroxy-2-pentanone.
3.1.7
Ethylbenzene
Acute toxic effects may include the death of animals, birds, or fish, and death or low growth rate in
plants. Ethylbenzene has a high acute toxicity to aquatic life. It has caused injury to various
agricultural crops. Insufficient data is available to evaluate or predict the short-term effects of
ethylbenzene on birds or land animals. Ethylbenzene has a slight tendency to bio-accumulate.
Ethylbenzene is very volatile so is mostly present in air. It can also be transported by water. It can also
move very quickly into groundwater, since it does not readily bind to soil. About 99.5% of
ethylbenzene will eventually end up in air while the rest will end up in the water.
Once in the air, other chemicals help break down ethylbenzene into chemicals found in smog. This
breakdown happens in about 3 days with the aid of sunlight. In surface water such as rivers and
harbours, ethylbenzene breaks down by reacting with other compounds naturally present in the water.
In soil, the major way ethylbenzene is broken down is by soil bacteria.
4.
Criteria
Air quality criteria in Victoria are provided by the Victoria Government’s State Environment Protection
Policy (SEPP) (Air Quality Management) December 2001 under the Environment Protection Act 1970.
The criteria applicable to the project are presented in Table 4.1 below.
Table 4.1 SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001 Criteria
1,2,3
Substance
Class
Reason for
Classification
Design Criteria4, mg/m3
Averaging
Time
Odour
Toxicity
3-min
-
0.053
Benzene
3
Cumene (Isopropyl
benzene)
IARC Group 1
carcinogen
2
Odour
3-min
0.039
8.1
Cyclohexane
2
Toxicity
3-min
-
35
Ethyl benzene
2
Toxicity
3-min
-
14.5
Hexane (-n)
2
Toxicity
3-min
-
5.9
Toulene
2
Odour
3-min
0.65
12.3
Xylenes
2
Odour
3-min
0.35
11.4
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Class 1 indicators: common or widely distributed air pollutants which are established as environmental
indicators in the State environment protection policy (Ambient Air Quality) and may threaten the
beneficial uses of both local and regional air environments;
Class 2 indicators: hazardous substances that may threaten the beneficial uses of the air environment by
virtue of their toxicity, bio-accumulation or odorous characteristics;
Class 3 indicators: extremely hazardous substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic,
highly toxic or highly persistent, and which may threaten the beneficial uses of the air environment;
The design criteria are to be assessed in 99.9 percentile levels.
The project-specific air quality design criteria is taken to be the lower of the toxicity and odour (when
present) criteria for all the pollutants.
5.
Existing Environment
5.1
Monitoring of Air Toxics in Newport and Spotswood
EPA Victoria monitored the air toxics – Benzene, Toulene and Xylene from January 2006 and January
2007. The monitoring locations were on High Street, Newport and Craig Street, Spotswood which are
in proximity to the locations of the nearest sensitive receptors to the Caltex Newport site. 55 samples
were taken at Newport and 59 samples were taken at Spotswood. The monitored levels are
considered representative of the existing ground level concentrations of Benzene, Toulene and Xylene
in 2012 as there were no significant changes in the industrial activities occurring in the vicinity of the
monitoring locations. The monitoring results are summarised in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 EPA Victoria Air Toxics Monitoring Results
Benzene, ppb
Toulene, ppb
Xylene, ppb
1.0
4.3
4.4
Not applicable
15.1
16.6
0.8
2.2
1.0
Not applicable
9.3
6.6
Annual Investigation Level
3.0
100.0
200.0
24 hour investigation level
Not applicable
1000.0
250.0
Newport
Annual average
Maximum 24 hour level
Spotswood
Annual average
Maximum 24 hour level
Criteria
The air quality monitoring sites at Newport and Spotswood are compared with other sites in Figure 5.1
for monitored concentrations of Benzene.
Figure 5.1 Comparison of Benzene Concentrations at Different Sites (Source: EPA Victoria)
The Annual Average Investigation Level is not exceeded at any of the sites and the main contributors
to Benzene concentrations at Spotswood and Newport are considered to be the Caltex Newport
Terminal and the Shell Newport Terminal.
5.2
Project Background Pollutant Levels
The assessment criteria are in 3-minute average pollutant levels as discussed in Section 4. The SEPP
(Air Quality Management) 2001 requires pollutant background concentrations to be added to the
modelled site emissions. Maximum 24 hour average levels of the pollutants were considered to be
suitable to be added to the predicted 99.9th percentile 3 minute average pollutant levels to obtain the
cumulative pollutant ground level concentrations suitable for criteria comparison. The rationale behind
this is that the 99th percentile 3min predicted pollutant concentration is unlikely to occur
contemporaneously with the maximum 3minute average or the 99th percentile 3min average
background pollutant level.
There is limited monitoring data publically available for the assessment pollutants so assumptions
were made to derive the background pollutant concentrations as summarised in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Background Pollutant Concentrations
Pollutant Maximum 24h level ppb mg/m3 Assumptions The max 24h level of benzene is the ratio of the annual
average concentration of Benzene to Toulene at Newport
obtained from Table 5.1 multiplied by the maximum 24h
level of Toulene.
The ratio of Cumene to Toulene emission rates obtained
from the total site pollutant emissions in Table 7.6 was
used to derive this value.
The ratio of Cyclohexane to Toulene emission rates
obtained from the total site pollutant emissions in Table
7.6 was used to derive this value.
The ratio of Ethylbenzene to Toulene emission rates
obtained from the total site pollutant emissions in Table
7.6 was used to derive this value.
The ratio of Hexane (-n) to Toulene obtained from the total
site pollutant emissions in Table 7.6 was used to derive
this value.
Benzene
3.5
0.012
1.1
0.006
Cyclohexane
4.8
0.018
Ethylbenzene
1.9
0.009
Hexane (-n)
12.5
0.047
Toulene
15.1
0.061
The maximum 24 hour average monitored Toulene level
at Newport from Table 5.1was used.
Xylenes
16.6
0.078
The maximum 24 hour average monitored Xylenes level at
Newport from Table 5.1 was used.
6.
Meteorology
6.1
Overview
The ground-level concentrations resulting from a constant discharge of contaminants change
according to the weather (particularly, wind) conditions at the time. Meteorology is fundamental for the
dispersion of pollutants because it is the primary factor determining the diluting effect of the
atmosphere. Therefore, it is important that meteorology is carefully considered when modeling
dispersion. Pollutant rise at the release point is affected by ambient temperature and relative humidity
at the release point. Pollutant dispersion over distance is affected by:



Wind speed, profile and turbulence intensity (which are affected by terrain)
Temperature gradient which is determined from atmospheric stability
Mixing height
Meteorological data was obtained from EPA Victoria for a meteorological station at Paisley High
School, Blenheim Rd, Altona North. This station is 2 km South-west of the site and is considered
representative of the meteorological conditions at the Caltex site and its surrounds. The year 2008 has
also been accepted as a representative year by EPA Victoria. In accordance with SEPP (Air Quality
Management) 2001, the metrological data has to have been approved by the Authority, which is EPA
Victoria in this case.
This data was used primarily as the meteorological input for the AUSPLUME air dispersion modelling
conducted, which is described in Section 8.
Wind conditions, atmospheric stability and mixing height are examined in the following sections to
investigate typical flow regimes and directions of poor dispersion.
6.2
Wind
The observed wind conditions at the Altona North meteorological station in 2008 are discussed in this
section. The wind conditions are presented are analysed in seasonal and annual patterns. The
frequency distribution of wind through classes is presented in Figure 6.1 and seasonal and annual
wind roses are presented in Figure 6.2
35
30.4
30
30.1
29.6
25
%
20
15
9.1
10
5
0
0.5
Calms
0.5 - 2.1
2.1 - 3.6
3.6 - 5.7
Wind Class (m/s)
5.7 - 8.8
0.3
0.0
8.8 - 11.1
>= 11.1
Figure 6.1 Wind Speed Class Frequency Distribution at Altona North, 2008
The majority of the wind speeds range from 0.5m /s and 8.8m/s. The AUSPLUME modelling software
has a tendency to under-predict concentrations under calm conditions (<0.5 m/s). The lack of
substantial calm conditions in the observed data indicates that under-prediction will be unlikely for the
dispersion modelling exercise described in Section 8.
The wind roses in Figure 6.2 illustrate that most of the winds through this region are largely from the
North and the South with a marginal influence of winds from the East. The nearest-sensitive receptors
are located South-west and North-west of the site and are likely to experience source-to-receiver
winds for most of the year.
Worst - case Wind Condition to the Nearest Sensitive Receptor
A worst-case wind condition is required to analyse the emergency scenario of the VRU venting during
a VRU failure. The nearest sensitive receptor was identified to be the property on the junction of Craig
Street and Bernard Street which is 500m 320°N of the vent. Wind speeds were analysed for the
directions 270° to 360° and the 99.9th percentile wind speed was determined to be 9.8 m/s.
NORTH
NORTH
25%
20%
20%
16%
15%
12%
10%
8%
5%
4%
WEST
EAST
WEST
EAST
NORTH
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 11.1
>= 11.1
8.8 - 11.1
12%
8.8 - 11.1
5.7 - 8.8
SOUTH
15%
5.7 - 8.8
SOUTH
3.6 - 5.7
9%
3.6 - 5.7
2.1 - 3.6
2.1 - 3.6
0.5 - 2.1
6%
0.5 - 2.1
Calms: 0.15%
Calms: 0.91%
3%
WEST
Summer
EAST
Autumn
NORTH
NORTH
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
25%
15%
20%
15%
8.8 - 11.1
9%
10%
SOUTH
6%
5%
WEST
>= 11.1
12%
3%
EAST
WEST
5.7 - 8.8
3.6 - 5.7
2.1 - 3.6
EAST
0.5 - 2.1
Calms: 0.53%
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 11.1
>= 11.1
8.8 - 11.1
SOUTH
8.8 - 11.1
5.7 - 8.8
5.7 - 8.8
SOUTH
3.6 - 5.7
3.6 - 5.7
2.1 - 3.6
2.1 - 3.6
0.5 - 2.1
0.5 - 2.1
Calms: 0.72%
Winter
Whole Year
Calms: 0.32%
Spring
Figure 6.2 Seasonal and Annual Wind roses for Altona North, 2008
p 16
6.3
Atmospheric stability
The degree of stability in the atmosphere will affect the dispersion of emissions from a source. The
Pasquill-Gifford (P-G) stability category scheme is used to denote atmospheric stability. Stability class
under this scheme is designated a letter from A-F (and sometimes G), ranging from highly unstable to
extremely stable.
Atmospheric movement is characterised by four basic conditions that describe the general stability of
the atmosphere. In stable conditions, vertical movement is discouraged, whereas in unstable
conditions the “air parcel” tends to move upward or downward and to continue that movement. When
conditions neither encourage nor discourage vertical movement, beyond the rate of adiabatic heating
or cooling, they are considered neutral. When conditions are extremely stable, cooler air near the
surface becomes trapped by a layer of warmer air above it. Under these conditions, called an
inversion, virtually no vertical air motion occurs.
The data presented in Table 6.1 illustrates how the amount of incoming solar radiation affects stability,
as does wind speed.
Table 6.1 Atmospheric stability categories
Day-time incoming
Wind
Speed
Solar radiation
1
(m/s)
(mW/cm2)
>60
30-60
<30
1 hour
Night-time
before sunset
Cloud cover (octas)
or after sunrise
Overcast
0-3
4-7
2
8
< 1.5
A
A-B
B
C
D
F or G
F
D
2.0 – 2.5
A-B
B
C
C
D
F
E
D
3.0 – 4.5
B
B-C
C
C
D
E
D
D
5.0 – 6.0
C
C-D
D
D
D
D
D
D
> 6.0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Notes:
1.
2.
Wind speed is measured to the nearest 0.5m/s.
Category G is restricted to night-time with less than 1 octa of cloud and a wind speed less than 0.5m/s.
The frequency distribution of stability class with wind speed classes in Table 6.2 shows that neutral
conditions occur through all wind speeds but stable and unstable conditions only occur through the
lower wind speed ranges (predominantly those below 5.7 m/s).
Table 6.2 Frequency distribution of atmospheric stability class versus wind speed, Altona North, 2008
Wind speed (m/s)
Stability Class
0.5-2.1
A
152
B
257
C
161
D
760
E
0
F
1293
2.1-3.6
57
206
666
984
352
398
3.6-5.7
0
236
833
1189
331
0
5.7-8.8
0
0
125
692
0
0
8.8-11.1
0
0
3
34
0
0
>11.1
0
0
0
6
0
0
The stability class frequency distribution for 2008 in the predictive modelling the site is graphically
illustrated in Figure 6.3.
y
50
45
q
y
41.9
40
35
30
% 25
20.1
20
19.5
15
10
7.8
5
7.9
2.4
0
0.0
A
B
C
D
Stability Class
E
F
G
Figure 6.3 Stability class frequency distribution, Altona North, 2008
Stability class frequency distribution with respect to time of day is detailed in Table 6.3 and the data
provided highlights the time of day stable or unstable conditions can be expected.
Table 6.3 Observed Stability Class versus Time of Day, Altona North, 2008
Hour of day
Stability class
A
C
D
E
1
0
B
0
0
2
0
0
2
138
47
178
3
0
0
2
132
51
181
4
0
0
2
132
53
179
5
0
0
2
151
46
167
6
0
0
3
153
39
171
7
0
0
4
215
30
117
8
0
0
7
311
16
32
9
0
42
69
255
0
0
10
26
90
161
89
0
0
11
47
85
209
25
0
0
12
55
83
195
33
0
0
13
42
83
201
40
0
0
14
28
107
174
57
0
0
15
11
101
189
65
0
0
16
0
80
207
79
0
0
17
0
30
178
158
0
0
0
0
0
F
Hour of day
Stability class
A
B
1
113
D
252
E
18
0
C
0
0
F
19
0
1
58
271
16
20
20
0
0
8
267
35
56
21
0
0
1
251
45
69
22
0
0
2
187
77
100
23
0
0
0
141
97
128
24
0
0
1
142
70
153
The results demonstrate the high frequency of unstable meteorological conditions during the day time
and neutral to stable conditions being prevalent during the night. This is as expected as mixing is
enhanced during the day time due to solar irradiation as well as mechanical mixing by the wind.
However during the night, mixing only occurs through mechanical means i.e. wind, which is less
pronounced in comparison to day time hours. This leads to more stable meteorological conditions
being observed.
6.4
Mixing height
The mixing height is the height of the turbulent (boundary) layer of air near the earth’s surface, into
which ground level emissions will be rapidly mixed. A plume emitted above this height will remain
isolated from the ground until the mixing height reaches the height of the plume. A plume emitted
below this height will be mixed subject to the stability class and wind climate. The height of the mixing
layer is controlled by convection (resulting from solar heating of the ground during the day) by
mechanically generated turbulence as the wind blows over ‘rough’ ground and also presence or
absence of higher level subsidence.
The hourly mixing height profile (average, minimum and maximum) for Altona North in 2008 is
provided in Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.4 Hourly mixing height profile, Altona North, 2008
The estimated mixing height for this site rises very quickly in the early morning from just after sunrise
until mid-afternoon, at which point the mixing height remains at a relatively stable value until returning
to a lower level early in the evening. This diurnal variation in the atmospheric structure is expected.
Large values for mixing height occur in the summer months as expected due to the greater convective
effects. The main change throughout the year is the length of the period where strong convection and
wind variation occurs.
7.
Emissions
7.1
Tank Emissions
7.1.1
Emissions Mechanism
Emissions from storage tanks can be categorised as working and standing losses. Working losses are
the combined loss from filling and emptying a tank. As the liquid level increases, the pressure inside
the tank increases and vapours are expelled from the tank. A loss during emptying occurs when air
drawn into the tank becomes saturated with organic vapour and expands, thus exceeding the capacity
of the vapour space.
Standing losses occur through the expulsion of vapour from a tank due to the vapour expansion and
contraction as a result of changes in temperature and barometric pressure. This loss occurs without
any change in the liquid level in the tank.
7.1.2
Vents
Tank leakage losses occur through vents present in the roofs of the tanks. The project involves
vertical fixed roof tanks, external floating roof and internal floating roof tanks.
Vertical fixed roof tanks have a single centre breather vent as shown in Figure 7.1. For this project, the
vent assumed to have an exit velocity of 0.1m/s.
Figure 7.1 Vertical Fixed Roof Tank (Source: US EPA)
Internal floating roof vents have a centre vent and peripheral vents as shown in Figure 7.2. For this
project, each tank is assumed to have 12 peripheral vents with rain hats. Figure 7.3 displays the
peripheral vent of an existing internal floating roof tank on-site.
Figure 7.2 Internal Floating Roof Tank (Source: US EPA)
Tank Vent for
Internal Floating
Roof Tank
Figure 7.3 Peripheral roof vent at Caltex Newport Site
An external floating roof tank consists of an open-topped cylindrical steel shell equipped with a roof
that floats on the surface of the stored liquid, as shown in Figure 7.4. The floating roof consists of a
deck, fittings and rim seal system. The floating decks are usually constructed of welded steel plate and
are of two general types – pontoon and double-deck. With all types of external floating roof tanks, the
roof rises and falls with the liquid level in the tank. External floating decks are equipped with a rim seal
system attached to the deck perimeter and in contact with the tank wall. The purpose of the floating
roof and rim seal system is to reduce evaporative loss of the stored liquid.
Figure 7.4 External Floating Roof Tank (Source: US EPA)
7.1.3
Tank Emissions Estimation
The US EPA computer software TANKS (v 4.09d) was used to estimate hydrocarbon emissions from
the propose facility. The program estimates volatile organic compound (VOC) and hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions from fixed- and floating-roof storage tanks. TANKS is based on the
emission estimation procedures from AP-42 Section 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks (US EPA 2006)
For this project, the equations and data in this software are based on the National Pollutant Inventory
Emissions Estimation Technique Manual for Fuel and Organic Liquid Storage Version 3.3 May 2012
(NPI 2012). This document provides emission factors for Australian conditions as well as a TANKS
software user manual. A database of the chemical content of various fuel types commonly used in
Australia are also provided.
The vapour concentration of benzene for JET fuel is provided by Caltex and is provided in Appendix C
of this report. This value has been used in lieu of the value provided in the database discussed above.
The parameters used to model each tank are provided in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Tank Parameters
Tank
UTM Co-ordinates, m
Product Stored
Equivalent
product in
TANKS
New Tanks
Tank Size
(millions of
litres)
Type of Tank2
Diameter
,m
x
y
T13
314283
5810452
ADO
Diesel
30
VFRT
44
T14
314346
5810445
ADO
Diesel
30
VFRT
44
T15
314278
5810379
SPULP
Aus RON 98
15
IFRT
31
T16
314421
5810219
JET
Avgas 100
15
VFRT
31
T17
314392
5810198
ULP
Aus ULP 92
15
IFRT
31
T18
314354
5810167
PULP
Aus PULP 95
15
IFRT
31
T19
314422
5810162
ULP
Aus ULP 92
15
IFRT
31
Tnew3
314309
5810560
ADO
Diesel
44
VFRT
53
Existing Tanks
T1
314538
5810333
ULP
AUS ULP 92
16.592
EFRT
37.9
T2
314548
5810229
SPULP
AUS RON 98
5.403
EFRT
22.4
T3
314499
5810231
PULP
AUS PULP 95
5.407
EFRT
22.4
T4
314520
5810176
JET A-1
Jet Kerosene
5.668
VFRT
22.4
T5
314487
5810330
ULP
AUS ULP 92
3.293
IFRT
17.2
T6
314585
5810240
SLOPS
ULP
0.516
IFRT
6.9
T7
314583
5810223
SLOPS
ULP
1.403
IFRT
10.3
T8
314539
5810197
ALPINE
DIESEL
Diesel
0.970
T9
314552
5810189
ALPINE
DIESEL
Diesel
0.967
T10
314489
5810195
JET A-1
KEROSENE
5.706
VFRT
22.4
T11
314563
5810197
0.051
VFRT
0.0
T12
314522
5810206
1.420
EFRT
12.1
T26
314261
5810354
5.238
IFRT
0.0
D184
314648
5810297
SLOPS
ULP
0.020
HFRT
1.7
T356
314347
5810384
DIESEL
DIESEL
6.456
VFRT
29.3
T428
314345
5810343
DIESEL
DIESEL
6.542
VFRT
29.3
T429
314384
5810336
DIESEL
DIESEL
5.266
VFRT
29.3
T710
314607
5810308
ADDITIVE
ULP
0.035
HFRT
6.9
T720
314597
5810305
ADDITIVE
ULP
0.035
HFRT
6.9
NOT IN USE
PULP
AUS PULP 95
NOT IN USE
VFRT
VFRT
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
All the tanks have a height of 21.6m.
VFRT - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank, IFRT- Internal Floating Roof Tank, EFRT – External Floating Roof
Tank and HFRT – Horizontal Floating Roof Tank.
Tnew has not been attributed a tank number.
The tanks characteristics used for the TANKS modelling are described in Table 7.2.
8.6
8.6
Parameter
Assumption/ Notes
All Tanks
Diameter (ft)
Measured from Overall Site Plan (Drawing No. 71581)
Tank Volume (gal)
Refer to Table 2.1 and Table 2.2
Turnovers per year
Refer to Table 2.3
Net Throughput (gal/yr)
Working Volume multiplied by Turnovers per Year
External Floating Roof Tank (EFRT)
Internal Shell Condition
Gunite Lining
Paint Colour/Shade
White
Paint Condition
Good
Roof Type
Pontoon
Roof Fitting Category
Typical
Tank Construction
Welded
Primary Seal
Mechanical Shoe
Secondary Seal
None
Internal Floating Roof Tank (IFRT)
Self-Supporting Roof?
Yes
Number of Columns
0
Effective Column diameter
0
Internal Shell Condition
Gunite Lining
External Shell Colour/Shade
White
External Shell Condition
Good
Roof Colour/Shade
White
Roof Paint Condition
Good
Primary Seal
Mechanical Shoe
Secondary Seal
Rim Mounted
Deck Type
Welded
Deck Fitting Category
Typical
Vertical Fixed Roof Tank (VFRT)
Maximum Liquid Height (ft)
65 (Maximum value available)
Average Liquid Height (ft)
Adjusted until the Working Volume is obtained
Is Tank Heated?
No
Shell Colour/Shade
White
Shell Condition
Good
Roof Colour/Shade
White
Roof Condition
Good
Roof Type
Cone
Roof Height (ft)
7
Roof Slope (ft/ft) (Cone)
0.14
Vacuum Setting (psig)
0
Pressure Setting (psig)
0
The results of the TANKS modelling as well as the inputs applied are presented in Appendix A. The
emissions of the various pollutants of concern are output in lbs/year. These results are then converted
to g/s and are presented in Table 7.2 for each tank. These emission rates form the input into the
dispersion modelling discussed in Section 8.
Table 7.2 Tank Pollutant Emission Rates
Emission Rate, g/s
Benzene
Cumene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
New Tanks
Hexane (-n)
Toulene
Xylene
T13
0.001539
0.002234
0.000532
0.000532
0.000838
0.001460
0.001389
T14
0.001539
0.002234
0.000532
0.000532
0.000838
0.001460
0.001389
T15
0.000996
0.000147
0.001093
0.001570
0.002171
0.017582
0.008441
T16
0.000311
0.000156
0.000804
0.000621
0.001268
0.001325
0.003503
T17
0.004213
0.000436
0.003459
0.006692
0.008456
0.024634
0.033795
T18
0.001546
0.000166
0.001532
0.002453
0.002503
0.010093
0.012471
0.004213
0.000436
0.003459
0.006692
0.008456
0.024634
0.033795
T new
0.002318
0.003364
0.000801
0.000801
0.001262
0.002198
0.002092
T1
0.005600
0.000403
0.004648
0.006327
0.013380
0.025331
0.031722
T2
0.001868
0.000083
0.002097
0.001014
0.005587
0.016376
0.005246
T3
0.002120
0.000090
0.002144
0.001447
0.004587
0.007748
0.007167
T4
0.000138
0.000070
0.000358
0.000277
0.000565
0.000591
0.001562
T5
0.001672
0.000172
0.001373
0.002641
0.003369
0.009734
0.013335
T6
0.000231
0.000020
0.000191
0.000309
0.000514
0.001183
0.001554
T7
0.000388
0.000036
0.000320
0.000555
0.000829
0.002092
0.002797
T8
0.000082
0.000118
0.000028
0.000028
0.000044
0.000077
0.000074
T9
0.000082
0.000118
0.000028
0.000028
0.000044
0.000077
0.000074
T10
0.000456
0.000092
0.000473
0.000365
0.000745
0.000779
0.002059
0.001393
0.000046
0.001413
Not In Use
0.000765
0.003127
0.004501
0.003746
0.000207
0.000361
0.000344
T19
3
Existing Tanks
T11
T12
T26
Not In Use
D184
0.000381
0.000553
0.000132
Negligible
0.000132
T428
0.000380
0.000551
0.000131
0.000131
0.000207
0.000360
0.000343
T429
0.000330
0.000479
0.000114
0.000114
0.000180
0.000313
0.000298
0.059178
0.152910
0.167196
T356
T710
Negligible
T720
Total
0.031797
0.012001
0.025662
Negligible
0.034023
The TVOC emissions of all the new tanks was determined 19.0 g/s and the respective benzene
emission rate is 0.0101 g/s. Based on this, the percentage of benzene in TVOC used for this project is
determined to be 0.053%. The new tanks were used to determine this percentage instead of all the
tanks as a more conservative percentage value was obtained.
For the purpose of AUSPLUME modelling described in Section 8.1, each tank was modelled
effectively as a point source. The point source parameters as described in Table 7.3 below.
Table 7.3 Tank emission points
Parameter
Value
Unit
Height of tank emission point1, m
21.6m
m
Diameter3, mm
250
mm
Exit Temperature2
17
°C
Exit velocity3, m/s
0.1
m/s
Notes:
1.
2.
The average height of the tanks was used as the emission points.
The exit temperature was obtained from the average temperature provided by the TANKS modelling
software from Altona, Victoria.
Conservative values were used to estimate the diameter of the emission point and the exit velocity.
3.
Using Benzene emissions as an indicator, the tanks have been ranked in Table 7.4 below to identify
which tanks are the worst pollutant contributors.
Table 7.4 Ranking of Tank Contributions
Tank
contribution
percentage, %
Product Stored
Tank capacity,
millions of
litres
Rank
Tank
Benzene
emissions, g/s
1
T1
0.005600
17.6
ULP
16.59
2
T17
0.004213
13.2
ULP
15
3
T19
0.004213
13.2
ULP
15
4
T new3
0.002318
7.3
ADO
44
5
T3
0.002120
6.7
PULP
5.41
6
T2
0.001868
5.9
SPULP
5.4
7
T5
0.001672
5.3
ULP
3.29
8
T18
0.001546
4.9
PULP
15
9
T13
0.001539
4.8
ADO
30
10
T14
0.001539
4.8
ADO
30
11
T12
0.001393
4.4
PULP
1.42
12
T15
0.000996
3.1
SPULP
15
13
T10
0.000456
1.4
JET A-1
5.71
14
T7
0.000388
1.2
SLOPS
1.4
15
T356
0.000381
1.2
DIESEL
6.46
Product Stored
Tank capacity,
millions of
litres
1.2
DIESEL
6.54
0.000330
1.0
DIESEL
5.27
T16
0.000311
1.0
JET
15
19
T6
0.000231
0.7
SLOPS
0.52
20
T4
0.000138
0.4
JET A-1
5.67
21
T8
0.000082
0.3
ALPINE DIESEL
0.97
22
T9
0.000082
0.3
ALPINE DIESEL
0.97
Rank
Tank
Benzene
emissions, g/s
16
T428
0.000380
17
T429
18
Tank
contribution
percentage, %
Total
0.03180
100
Note: Tanks T11 and 26 are not in use and the tank emissions from D184, T710 and T720 are negligible.
It can be seen from Table 7.3 that Tanks T1, T17 and T19 are the main pollutant contributors in the
plant when analysing both new and existing tanks.
7.2
VRU Stack emissions
An existing vapour recovery unit (VRU) is located on site and is sized to operate the existing six-bay
gantry. As part of the concept design work, Jordan Technologies were asked to investigate the options
available to upgrade the VRU system to accommodate the three new additional bays.
Three outcomes were proposed as follows:
Option 1 – Replace existing with a complete new VRU.
Option 2 – Supply a second smaller unit and split the flow.
Option 3 – Connect a booster blower to the existing VRU unit for an approximate 20% rate increase.
Regardless of the option, the additional emissions with regard to residual hydrocarbon vapour due to
the additional three gantry bays are the same. However, the vapour exit conditions at the stack may
differ with regard to flow rate. The existing stack is modelled with the scenario of nine gantry bays
operating in order to simulate a worst-case scenario.
The existing VRU stack on-site is shown in Figure 7.5 below.
VRU Stack
Figure 7.5 VRU Stack
The exit velocity of all three options is estimated to be 0m/s for dispersion modelling purposes as the
VRU stack was observed to have a rain hat.
Table 7.5 presents the parameters used to model the VRU stack.
Table 7.5 VRU Stack Parameters
Parameter
Value
Unit
Notes
Height of vent, m
10m
m
Estimated based on site observations
Diameter, mm
305
mm
Jordan Technologies 2012
Exit Temperature
26.32
°C
Exit velocity m/s
0
m/s
Due to the presence of a rain hat
TVOC Emission Rate1
0.859
g/s
Note:
1. The Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TVOC) emission rate is based on monitoring conducted by
Jordan Technologies at a sampling point of the existing stack in February 2012 for 6 gantry bays. The
emission rate of 34.37 g/min measured was multiplied by 1 ½ times to simulate the 9 gantry bays which
is the total number of gantry bays.
The emission rates of the individual pollutants have been obtained by multiplying the TVOC emission
rate in Table 7.2 by the percentage of each pollutant in the TVOC emissions from the new tanks from
TANKS modelling. The emissions rates of the VRU stack are presented in Table 7.6.
Table 7.6 VRU Stack emission rates
Pollutant
Emission rates, g/s
Benzene
0.00046
0.00032
Cyclohexane
0.00034
Ethyl benzene
0.00047
Hexane (-n)
0.00066
Toulene
0.00246
Xylene
0.00228
For example, the percentage of the Benzene emission rate in the TVOC emission rate of all the new
tanks from the TANKS modelling results was determined to be 0.053%. This percentage was applied
to the VRU stack TVOC emission rate in Table 7.6 to obtain the Benzene emission rate of 0.00046 g/s
in Table 7.5.
7.3
Fugitive Emissions from Additional Loading Gantries
During product loading at the nine gantry bays, leakages occur from both the trucks and the vapour
collection system. The emissions from the vapour collection system are accounted for by the VRU
stack discussion in the previous section. Figure 7.6 below displays a typical truck loading operation
which is similar to that occurring at the 6 gantries currently present on-site.
Figure 7.6 Tank truck loading with vapour recovery (Source: US EPA 1995)
The US EPA AP42 document Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids (US EPA 1995) was
used to obtain the emission factors for the loading losses of the gantry. The loading losses are
considered to be Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TVOCs).
The document defines loading loss,
in lb/103 gal by the following equation:
12.46
1
100
The description of the parameters and values used to calculate loading loss are provided in Table 7.7.
Table 7.7 Loading Loss Computation Parameters
Parameter
Definition
Value
Unit
Saturation factor
1
-
True vapour pressure of liquid
loaded, pounds per square inch
absolute,
6.5
Note
Default parameter for vapour
recovery systems
psia
Derived from Table 7.1.2 AP42
Organic Liquid Storage Tanks (US
EPA 2006). The value is estimated
based on the Hydrocarbon vapours
having a molecular weight of 63.5.
Molecular weight of vapours
63.5
lb/lb-mole
This is the molecular weight used in
Jordan Technologies in their
calculations in their Caltex Newport
VRU Hydrocarbon Assessments
(Jordan Technologies 2011)
Temperature of bulk liquid
loaded
520
°R (°F+460)
A temperature of 15°C is assumed.
%
VRU efficiency of 99.8% was
determined by Jordan Technologies
in their calculations in their Caltex
Newport VRU Hydrocarbon
Assessment (Jordan Technologies
2012)
Overall reduction efficiency
99.8
The TVOC loading loss emissions from all the 9 bays in the gantry was computed to be 0.0198 lbs/103
gal. Using the annual throughput of 4.1 billion litres of product, the TVOC emission rate was
determined to be 0.316 g/s. The pollutant emissions of the various pollutants are provided in Table 7.8
below.
Table 7.8 Gantry emission rates
Pollutant
Emission rates, g/s
Benzene
0.00017
0.00012
Cyclohexane
0.00012
Ethyl benzene
0.00017
Hexane (-n)
0.00024
Toulene
0.00091
Xylene
0.00084
Note:
The benzene vapour concentration percentage of 0.053% from the pollutant contributions of the new
tanks from the TANK modelling was used to derive the emission rates.
In comparison with the emission rates from the tanks and the VRU stack, the gantry loading loss
emissions from the trucks for nine gantry bays are considered negligible and are not considered
further in this assessment. This is further explained in Section 7.5.
7.4
Emergency VRU Vent Emissions
In the event of a failure of the VRU, a vent is used to divert vapour flowing from the gantry to the VRU
system into the atmosphere. Figure 7.7 displays the emergency VRU vent. Figure 2.2 displays the
location of the vent in the site layout.
Emergency VRU Vent
Figure 7.7 VRU vent
From the figure above, it can be seen that the vent stack is reduced to two flame arrestors and
pressure relief valves.
An emergency scenario is determined based on the inlet hydrocarbon vapour emissions monitored
during a hydrocarbon recovery assessment (Jordan Technologies 2011a ) carried out by Jordan
Technologies Asia Pacific Pty Ltd. The SLAB dispersion model (as described in Section 8) was used
to model the short-term continuous release of benzene into the atmosphere.
Benzene has been identified as the pollutant to have the highest potential to exceed the SEPP (Air
Quality Management) 2001 criteria as described in Section 7.6 and the concentration of benzene in
the TVOCs emitted was obtained by using the percentage of benzene in the TVOC emissions from the
new tanks from TANKS modelling which was determined to be 0.053%.
Table 7.9 below lists the emission parameters for a worst-case emissions scenario.
Table 7.9 VRU Vent Emission Parameters
Parameter
Value
Unit
Notes
UTM x co-ordinate
314619
m
-
UTM y co-ordinate
5810341
m
-
Benzene emission rate
9.475 x 10-6
kg/s
Jordan Technologies 2011a. The concentration
of benzene is assumed to be 0.053% of
hydrocarbon vapour. This is based on the
percentage of benzene emissions from the all
the project tanks.
Duration of emissions
4
hours
This time period was the monitoring period
during in Jordan Technologies 2011a and is
representative of the time period whereby trucks
continue loading with the VRU being nonoperational.
Actual area of opening
0.049
m2
An effective diameter of 250mm is assumed
based on the thickness of the pipe
Wind Speed
9.8
m/s
The 99.9 percentile wind speed in the directions
270° to 360° was obtain from 2008
meteorological data from Altona North.
Wind direction
321
°N
Direction of nearest residence from the vent
Stability Class
E
-
Slightly stable atmospheric conditions are used.
Averaging Time
3
min
SEPP(Air Quality Management) 2001
assessment period
7.5
Pollutant Contributions
Table 7.10 below details the pollutant contributions from the three identified pollutant sources (Tanks,
VRU stack and the gantries).
Table 7.10 Pollutant contributors
Emission rates
Benzene
VRU Stack
0.00046 (1.5%)
Gantries
0.00017 (0.5%)
Tanks
0.03041 (98.0%)
Total
0.03103 (100%)
0.00032 (2.5%)
0.00012 (0.9%)
0.01210 (96.5%)
0.01254 (100%)
Cyclohexane
0.00034 (1.3%)
0.00012 (0.5%)
0.02549 (98.2%)
0.02596 (100%)
Ethyl benzene
0.00047 (1.5%)
0.00017 (0.6%)
0.03099 (97.9%)
0.03164 (100%)
Hexane (-n)
0.00066 (1.5%)
0.00024 (0.4%)
0.05584 (98.4%)
0.05674 (100%)
Toulene
0.00246 (1.5%)
0.00091 (0.5%)
0.16438 (98.0%)
0.16775 (100%)
Xylene
0.00228 (1.5%)
0.00084 (0.5%)
0.15343 (98.0%)
0.15656 (100%)
Notes:
1.
2.
Both existing and new tanks, 9 loading gantries and projected VRU emissions for 9 gantries have been
used to derive these values.
The concentration percentages of the various pollutants from the TANKS modelling of the new tanks
have been used to work out the individual pollutant contributions.
It can be seen from Table 7.10 that the emissions from tanks dominate the emissions from the site.
The emissions from the gantries are lower compared to the tanks and the VRU Stack. It should be
noted that the pollutant emissions from the gantries are fugitive and are at ground level. They are
generally contained within the gantries due to them being partially enclosed. The gantry emissions are
therefore not considered as significant emission sources.
7.6
Ranking of pollutants
An Emission Metric was calculated for all the identified pollutants to determine which pollutant had the
highest potential for non-compliance with the SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001 criteria. The
Emission Metric was computed using the total site emission rate for each pollutant from the tanks as
provided in Table 7.2 and the given criteria. The emission metric was then used to rank the pollutants.
The results are presented in Table 7.11.
Table 7.11 Ranking of Pollutants
Benzene
Total Site
Emission
Rate, g/s
0.0323
Design
Criteria,
mg/m3
0.053
0.6
Metric
Contributio
n, %
36.7
0.0134
0.039
0.3
18.8
3
Cyclohexane
0.0269
35
0.0
0.0
7
Ethyl benzene
0.0329
14.5
0.0
0.1
6
Hexane (-n)
0.0585
5.9
0.0
0.6
5
Toulene
0.1745
0.65
0.2
14.4
4
Xylene
0.1628
0.35
0.5
29.2
2
Pollutant
Emission
Metric1
Rank
1
Note:
1.
Emission Metric = Design Criteria / Total Site Emission Rate
Based on the above, Benzene is the pollutant determined to have the highest potential for a criteria
exceedance.
8.
Dispersion Modelling Methodology
8.1
AUSPLUME
The AUSPLUME v6.0 air dispersion model was used in this assessment to model the dispersion of
tank emissions and VRU stack emissions.
AUSPLUME is the EPA Victoria approved air dispersion model for modelling air pollutant emissions in
Victoria. The modelling was carried out in accordance with the requirements set out in the State
Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) Schedule C.
AUSPLUME is based on the USA EPA Industrial Source Complex – Short Term (ISCST3) model and
was developed by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria to enhance the ISCST3model
and make it applicable to Australian conditions. The model uses the Gaussian dispersion model
equations to simulate the dispersion of a plume from point, area or volume sources. Mechanisms for
determining the effect of terrain on plume dispersion are also provided. AUSPLUME operates on an
hourly time step, and, therefore, requires hourly wind speed, wind direction and other dispersion
parameter data. The dispersion of each pollutant plume is determined for each hour using
conventional Gaussian model assumptions.
The general input parameters used in the AUSPLUME dispersion modelling are summarised in Table
8.1.
Table 8.1 AUSPLUME Modelling Parameters
Parameter
Input
Modelling Centre (UTM Co-ordinates)
314364m, 5810444m
Modelling Doman
1500m x 1500m
Grid Resolution
15m
Number of Sensitive Receptors
3
Terrain
Assumed Flat
Wind Profile
Irwin “Urban” wind profile
Roughness height
0.4m
Meteorological Data
Altona North 2008 provided by EPA Victoria
Averaging Period
3 minutes
Percentile
99.9th
The specific pollutant source characteristics and emission rates are discussed in detail in Section 7.
Tracers were not utilised for the AUSPLUME modelling and the emission rates for all the pollutants
presented in Table 7.2 for the tanks and Table 7.5 for the VRU stack were directly input into the
AUSPLUME model. Background concentrations for the pollutants were also added from Table 5.2 to
output cumulative results in the form of ground level concentrations.
The results therefore contain emissions from the new tanks, the existing tanks and the background
pollutant concentrations in the area and the pollutants modelled were:
 Benzene,
 Cumene (Isopropyl benzene),
 Cyclohexane,
 Ethyl benzene,
 Hexane (-n),
 Toulene and
 Xylene
Detailed modelling parameters are listed in the AUSPLUME files and are presented in Appendix B.
8.2
SLAB
The SLAB model was used to model the dispersion of Benzene from the VRU vent during the
emergency scenario of a VRU failure.
SLAB is an US EPA approved model used to simulate the atmospheric transport and dispersion of
dense gas releases from vents. Its solution is generalized to apply to neutral (passive) and buoyant
gas releases. It assumes a similarity shape to cross-wind distributions of concentrations and other
variables. It solves the one-dimensional (in downwind distance) equations of momentum, conservation
of mass, species, and energy, and the equation of state. The model can be applied to continuous and
instantaneous releases, and accounts for user-selected finite duration release times and the effects of
averaging times. SLAB does not calculate source release rates, but can calculate the dispersion from
liquid pool evaporation, horizontal and vertical jets at any height, and instantaneous volume sources.
The general input parameters used in the AUSPLUME dispersion modelling are summarised in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2 SLAB Modelling Parameters
Parameter
Input
Modelling Doman
1500m x 1500m
Grid Resolution
15m
Terrain
Assumed Flat
Roughness height
1m
Meteorological Data
Worst-case wind condition of 9.8m at 320°N
Averaging Period
3 minutes
Time period of Release
4 hours
Height of vent
6m
Pollutant modelled
Benzene
The specific pollutant source characteristics and emission rates are discussed in detail in Section 7.4.
9.
Assessment
9.1
Normal Operation
Each of the pollutants was modelled at a representative location at each of the areas containing
sensitive receptors as identified in Section 2.1. The applicable design ground level pollutant
concentration criteria are presented in Section 3.1.
The results of the AUSPLUME modelling are presented in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1 Predicted Pollutant Ground Level Concentrations at Sensitive Receptors
High St1
Pollutant
Ramsey St2
Craig St3
Design
Criterion
Project
Contribution
Cumulative
Level
Project
Contribution
Cumulative
Level
Project
Contribution
Cumulative
Level
Benzene
0.0038
0.0159
0.0039
0.0160
0.0036
0.0157
Cumene
(Isopropyl
benzene)
0.0015
0.0075
0.0020
0.0080
0.0015
0.0075
Cyclohexane
0.0032
0.0212
0.0030
0.0210
0.0023
0.0203
35
Ethyl benzene
0.0044
0.0135
0.0035
0.0125
0.0030
0.0120
14.5
Hexane (-n)
0.0075
0.0550
0.0066
0.0542
0.0056
0.0531
5.9
Toulene
0.0182
0.0795
0.0197
0.0810
0.0120
0.0733
0.65
Xylenes
0.0224
0.0999
0.0173
0.0948
0.0145
0.0920
0.35
0.053
0.039
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
High Street Assessment Location UTM Co-ordinates: 314130, 5809928
Ramsey Street Assessment Location UTM Co-ordinates: 314062, 5810572
Craig Street Assessment Location UTM Co-ordinates: 314287, 5810736
From Table 9.1 above, no exceedances of the design criterion were present at the nearest sensitive
receptors for all the pollutants.
Benzene has been analysed to be the pollutant with the highest potential to exceed the SEPP (Air
Quality Management) 2001 criteria as discussed in Section 7.6. Although compliance with the
stipulated criterion for Benzene was achieved at the nearest sensitive receptors, further analysis with
regard to its dispersion was considered necessary.
Ground level concentration contours for benzene were plotted from the AUSPLUME modelling results
and are presented in Figure 8.1. The dispersion of Benzene at the surrounds of the Caltex Site is
displayed graphically. Based on the contour chart, the stipulated ground level concentration of 0.053
mg/m3 criterion is not exceeded at all the nearest sensitive receptors.
N
T15
SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001 Benzene Criterion: 0.053 mg/m3 (99th percentile, 3 min average)
Figure 9.1 Cumulative Benzene Ground Level Concentrations, mg/m3 (99th percentile, 3 minute average)
p 39
9.2
VRU failure
Worst-case Benzene emissions from the vent were assessed at the nearest sensitive receptor during
a VRU failure whereby hydrocarbon vapours are emitted through the emergency vent identified in
Figure 2.2.
The nearest sensitive receptor was identified to be the property on the junction of Craig Street and
Bernard Street which is 500m north-east of the vent.
Figure 9.2 provides the emission contours of Benzene for a worst-case 3 minute period. The
assessment criteria have been established in Section 4 to 0.053mg/m3 or 0.017ppm. The benzene
emissions at the nearest sensitive receptor were found to be negligible as shown in Figure 9.2.
Within the site, the SLAB modelling exercise revealed that 0.017ppm is exceeded at 1m from the vent.
Therefore, it is recommended that during the venting of hydrocarbons during a VRU failure, no Caltex
staff member should be in proximity to the VRU vent. It is recommend that a safety distance of 3m
from the vent should be observed,
SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001 Benzene Criterion: 0.017ppm (99th percentile, 3 min average)
Figure 9.2 Benzene Ground Level Concentrations, mg/m3 (3 minute average) from Emergency VRU Vent
p 41
10. Conclusion
Aurecon has completed an air quality assessment of the upgrade of the Caltex Newport Terminal
known as the Newport “Horizons” project.
Upon analysis of the site and the operations involved after the upgrade, four air pollutant release
scenarios were determined as follows:




tanks
Emissions from the Vapour Recovery Unit (VRU) stack due to the nine gantry bays ( three
additional gantry bays are to be constructed)
Fugitive emissions during truck loading at the nine gantry bays
failure
The nearest sensitive receptors were found to be residences on High Street, Ramsey St and Craig
Street and applicable air quality criteria were established from SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001.
Existing concentrations of pollutants were established based on air quality monitoring conducted by
EPA Victoria and pollutant ratios were established from site emission rates.
pollutants of concern and their concentrations were based on the dimensions of the tanks, the
products contained and their throughput. The main pollutants were found to be components of Total
Volatile Organic Compounds (TVOCs) and are namely Benzene, Toulene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, nHexane, Cyclohexane and Cumene (Isopropyl Benzene). Based on an analysis of emission rates and
the criteria provided by SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001, Benzene was analysed to be the main
Ltd provided the information to derive the emission characteristics and rates of the VRU stack as well
as the emergency release emission characteristics from the VRU vent during a VRU failure.
Fugitive emissions during truck loading at the 3 additional gantry bays were investigated and the
emission rates were found to be negligible.
affect air pollutant dispersion were analysed as a part of this assessment.
Dispersion modelling using the AUSPLUME software was conducted for all the tanks (both existing
and new) and the VRU stack. The sensitive receptors were assessed for all pollutants against the
established criteria and no criteria exceedances were observed. No toxicity or odour impact is
expected. Ground level concentrations of benzene are presented in contours to observe the
dispersion of the pollutants in the surrounds of the Caltex site.
Benzene emissions from the VRU vent during a VRU failure were modelled using the SLAB software
and no criterion exceedance was observed at the nearest sensitive receptor at Craig Street under
worst-case meteorological conditions.
11. References
EPA Victoria 2000. AUSPLUME Gaussian-plume Dispersion Model Technical User Manual.
Environment Protection Authority Victoria, 2000.
Ermak, D L 1990. User’s Manual for SLAB: An Atmospheric Dispersion Model for Denser-ThanAir Releases. ACRL-MA-105607, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550.
Jordan Technologies 2011(a). Hydrocarbon Recovery Assessment for Carbon Adsorption/ Absorption
Vapour Recovery Unit (VRU) ETCNPT1805-AR-28. Jordan Technologies Asia Pacific Pty Ltd. 18th
May 2011
Jordan Technologies 2011(b). Hydrocarbon Recovery Assessment for Carbon Adsorption/ Absorption
Vapour Recovery Unit (VRU) ETCNPT0908-AR-29. Jordan Technologies Asia Pacific Pty Ltd. 9th
August 2011
Jordan Technologies 2012. EPA Compliance Test for Carbon Adsorption/ Absorption Vapour
Recovery Unit (VRU) EPA090212-CNPT. Jordan Technologies Asia Pacific Pty Ltd. 9th February 2012
NPI 2004. Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Version 2.0.
Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities. National Pollutant Inventory. Feb 2004.
NPI 2012. Emissions Estimation Technique Manual for Fuel and Organic Liquid Storage Version 3.3
Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities. National Pollutant Inventory. May 2012.
NPI Substance Fact Sheets. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities. National Pollutant Inventory.
http://www.npi.gov.au/substances/factsheets.html
SEPP (Air Quality Management) 2001. State Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality
Management) Victoria Government Gazette. December 2001.
US EPA 2006. Section 7.1 Organic Liquid Storage Tanks Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition, AP-42. United States
Environmental Protection Agency
US EPA 1995. Section 5.2 Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids. Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition, AP-42. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
WHO 2000. Benzene. In: Air quality guidelines for Europe, 2nd ed. Copenhagen, World
Health Organization Regional Office for Europe
(http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf).
Appendix A
TANKS 4.09D Summary
Files
TANKS 4.0 Report
T13
Altona
VIC
Caltex
Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
ADO Same as T14
TANKS 4.0.9d
Emissions Report - Summary Format
Tank Indentification and Physical Characteristics
Identification
User Identification:
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
N
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.10
65.00
144.32
65.00
32.50
7,920,000.00
14.20
112,464,000.00
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):
Diameter (ft):
Liquid Height (ft) :
Avg. Liquid Height (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
Net Throughput(gal/yr):
Is Tank Heated (y/n):
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
Cone
Paint Characteristics
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Roof Characteristics
Type:
Height (ft)
Slope (ft/ft) (Cone Roof)
Breather Vent Settings
Vacuum Settings (psig):
Pressure Settings (psig)
Meterological Data used in Emissions Calculations: Altona, VIC (Avg Atmospheric Pressure = 14.74 psia)
file://C:\Program Files\Tanks409d\summarydisplay.htm
Page 1 of 4
Page 4 of 4 is blank
and it has been
removed from all
the following
calculation sheets
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
T13 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
ADO
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Distillate fuel oil no. 2
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Toluene
Unidentified Components
Xylene (-m)
60.10
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
Vapor Pressure (psia)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
0.0003
0.0098
0.0001
0.9800
0.0011
0.0001
0.0010
0.0042
0.0035
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
0.0002
0.0002
0.0001
0.0021
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.9970
0.0001
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
188.00
106.17
86.17
92.13
0.76
106.17
Mol.
Weight
TANKS 4.0.9d
Liquid Contents of Storage Tank
66.45
57.36
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
61.91
69.0000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
130.0000
106.1700
86.1700
92.1300
68.9154
106.1700
2.7773
1.0850
0.0463
1.1274
0.0060
0.0990
1.7858
0.3040
5.9980
0.0823
3.3500
1.3928
0.0649
1.4389
0.0081
0.1354
2.2573
0.4023
6.0037
0.1130
3.0527
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.0070
0.1159
2.0102
0.3502
6.0053
0.0966
Basis for Vapor Pressure
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 1: VP60 = .0065 VP70 = .009
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Emissions Report for: Annual
Altona, VIC
Components
ADO
TANKS 4.0.9d
Individual Tank Emission Totals
Losses(lbs)
23.14
15.95
58.20
36.93
36.93
155.15
106.92
662,907.80
5.51
Total Emissions
90.97
5.51
98,883.97
132.01
8.68
Breathing Loss
31.42
96.50
101.41
564,023.83
31.42
15.13
Working Loss
49.52
14.40
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
204.18
Hexane (-n)
Cyclohexane
86.28
1,368.83
82.11
660,946.93
1,164.65
98,591.48
Xylene (-m)
562,355.45
Toluene
Page 3 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
TANKS 4.0.9d
Gunite Lining
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
0.00
0.00
101.68
3,963,000.00
8.10
T15
Altona
VIC
Caltex
Internal Floating Roof Tank
SPULP
Internal Shell Condition:
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Mechanical Shoe
Rim-mounted
Y
Rim-Seal System
Primary Seal:
Secondary Seal
Typical
Welded
Tank Dimensions
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
Self Supp. Roof? (y/n):
No. of Columns:
Eff. Col. Diam. (ft):
Deck Characteristics
Deck Fitting Category:
Deck Type:
Deck Fitting/Status
Access Hatch (24-in. Diam.)/Unbolted Cover, Ungasketed
Automatic Gauge Float Well/Unbolted Cover, Ungasketed
Roof Leg or Hanger Well/Adjustable
Sample Pipe or Well (24-in. Diam.)/Slit Fabric Seal 10% Open
Vacuum Breaker (10-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask.
Quantity
1
1
33
1
1
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
61.91
57.36
66.45
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
T15 - Internal Floating Roof Tank
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
SPULP
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Gasoline (RVP 10)
Hexane (-n)
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Avg.
Min.
Max.
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
66.0000
86.1700
92.1300
65.3333
106.1700
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
0.0101
0.0017
0.0110
0.0181
0.6403
0.0203
0.1965
0.0048
0.0973
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
TANKS 4.0.9d
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
60.10
5.0826
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
5.3802
2.0102
0.3502
89.0173
0.0966
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
0.0034
0.0000
0.0038
0.0006
0.6727
0.0111
0.0187
0.2871
0.0026
Mol.
Weight
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
92.00
86.17
92.13
26.47
106.17
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 4: RVP=10, ASTM Slope=3
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
Components
TANKS 4.0.9d
Deck Fitting Loss
Deck Seam Loss
69.17
Total Emissions
Page 3 of 4
Withdrawl Loss
Losses(lbs)
Rim Seal Loss
8,684.87
10.19
0.00
75.92
0.00
109.03
7.77
0.00
150.83
2,303.50
0.00
59.96
0.00
5,954.09
0.06
0.00
1.44
10.12
8.80
427.28
0.01
1.31
Benzene
SPULP
25.52
586.32
1,221.13
65.49
0.00
812.62
5,649.66
107.47
0.00
120.57
0.00
1.63
43.15
0.00
0.24
5.89
4.73
1,169.98
661.36
1,549.64
Cyclohexane
579.33
Hexane (-n)
8.00
28.58
3,812.58
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
1.09
122.68
287.44
Gasoline (RVP 10)
14/02/2000
Xylene (-m)
TANKS 4.0 Report
T16
Altona
VIC
Caltex
JET
TANKS 4.0.9d
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
N
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.14
65.00
101.68
65.00
32.50
3,963,000.00
7.60
30,118,800.00
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
Cone
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Type:
Height (ft)
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
Kerosene
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
60.10
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
162.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
86.17
92.13
163.43
106.17
Mol.
Weight
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Avg.
Min.
Max.
0.0136
0.0068
0.0353
0.0273
0.0557
0.0582
0.6492
0.1538
TANKS 4.0.9d
66.45
57.36
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
61.91
0.0001
0.0009
0.0002
0.0017
0.0002
0.0012
0.9842
0.0115
14/02/2000
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
130.0000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
86.1700
92.1300
160.0036
106.1700
0.0078
1.0850
0.0463
1.1274
0.0990
1.7858
0.3040
0.0027
0.0823
0.0101
1.3928
0.0649
1.4389
0.1354
2.2573
0.4023
0.0042
0.1130
0.0090
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
2.0102
0.3502
0.0049
0.0966
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
Components
TANKS 4.0.9d
Losses(lbs)
11.44
20.27
26.23
5.09
10.13
243.32
92.04
88.05
43.17
55.86
10.83
21.57
1,581.74
5.75
41.35
1,026.90
Total Emissions
29.63
43.22
742.72
22.90
114.25
Breathing Loss
46.71
482.19
839.02
48.82
Working Loss
Ethyl benzene
129.07
Kerosene
Hexane (-n)
Cyclohexane
544.71
Benzene
Xylene (-m)
Toluene
Page 3 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
TANKS 4.0.9d
Gunite Lining
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
0.00
0.00
101.68
3,963,000.00
41.10
T_17
Altona
VIC
Caltex
ULP Same as T19
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Mechanical Shoe
Shoe-mounted
Y
Rim-Seal System
Primary Seal:
Secondary Seal
Typical
Welded
Tank Dimensions
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
No. of Columns:
Deck Type:
Deck Fitting/Status
Quantity
1
1
33
1
1
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Month
All
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
86.17
323.44
92.13
90.98
106.17
Mol.
Weight
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Avg.
Min.
Max.
0.0031
0.0000
0.0027
0.0005
0.0100
0.0000
0.0053
0.9763
0.0020
14/02/2000
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=7.945, B=2014.46, C=215
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
0.0093
0.0010
0.0077
0.0153
0.0183
0.0000
0.0560
0.8149
0.0775
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
86.1700
323.4400
92.1300
66.1112
106.1700
5.0826
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
2.0102
0.0034
0.3502
6.0578
0.0966
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TANKS 4.0.9d
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
57.36
60.10
61.91
66.45
T_17 - Internal Floating Roof Tank
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
ULP
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Tetraethyllead
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
TANKS 4.0 Report
T_17 - Internal Floating Roof Tank
Altona, VIC
TANKS 4.0.9d
Deck Fitting Loss
Deck Seam Loss
Total Emissions
Page 3 of 4
Withdrawl Loss
Losses(lbs)
Rim Seal Loss
2.32
6.09
0.00
24,618.73
2,340.48
1,692.75
0.30
2,248.97
4.69
12.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
27,980.14
2,347.50
1,711.14
0.30
30.26
292.64
240.26
33,654.40
0.00
464.81
0.00
0.00
587.35
0.00
0.03
0.00
7.20
6.12
0.00
2,303.50
30.21
1.11
281.87
231.12
23.07
30,211.48
0.02
463.14
3.56
3.03
552.87
1,139.41
0.55
Benzene
Components
ULP
Cyclohexane
11.41
Tetraethyllead
1,112.44
Hexane (-n)
Ethyl benzene
Xylene (-m)
14/02/2000
Toluene
TANKS 4.0 Report
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
TANKS 4.0.9d
Gunite Lining
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
0.00
0.00
101.68
3,963,000.00
13.00
T18
Altona
VIC
Caltex
PULP
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Mechanical Shoe
Shoe-mounted
Y
Rim-Seal System
Primary Seal:
Secondary Seal
Typical
Welded
Tank Dimensions
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
No. of Columns:
Deck Type:
Deck Fitting/Status
Quantity
1
1
33
1
1
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
92.00
86.17
323.44
92.13
23.69
106.17
Mol.
Weight
Option 4: RVP=9.5, ASTM Slope=3
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=7.945, B=2014.46, C=215
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Avg.
Min.
Max.
0.0034
0.0000
0.0034
0.0006
0.8210
0.0083
0.0000
0.0068
0.1541
0.0024
14/02/2000
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
0.0100
0.0012
0.0099
0.0176
0.7815
0.0152
0.0000
0.0709
0.0038
0.0898
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
66.0000
86.1700
323.4400
92.1300
66.5525
106.1700
5.0826
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
5.3802
2.0102
0.0034
0.3502
52.9129
0.0966
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TANKS 4.0.9d
60.10
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
57.36
66.45
61.91
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
PULP
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Gasoline (RVP 10)
Hexane (-n)
Tetraethyllead
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
Components
TANKS 4.0.9d
Losses(lbs)
Page 3 of 4
12,998.88
Total Emissions
3.92
0.02
0.01
145.25
168.47
94.60
11.47
0.00
19.16
1.28
7.92
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10,294.75
866.25
701.08
0.01
173.89
170.39
106.44
11.53
107.42
0.00
0.63
5.44
15.58
0.00
Deck Seam Loss
9.48
1,891.28
7.74
2,303.51
Deck Fitting Loss
Cyclohexane
0.00
677.80
95.85
9,555.94
Withdrawl Loss
Ethyl benzene
858.12
3.83
1,139.42
Rim Seal Loss
Hexane (-n)
7,467.97
Benzene
PULP
Tetraethyllead
7.70
567.12
2.69
0.00
935.51
Gasoline (RVP 10)
355.08
Xylene (-m)
36.40
Toluene
175.64
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
T_new
Altona
VIC
Caltex
new ADO Tank
TANKS 4.0.9d
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
N
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.08
65.00
173.90
65.00
32.50
11,624,800.00
14.20
165,072,160.00
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
Cone
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Type:
Height (ft)
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
61.91
57.36
66.45
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
T_new - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
ADO
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
0.7163
1.0850
0.0463
1.1274
0.0060
0.0990
1.7858
0.3040
1.3938
0.0823
0.7163
1.3928
0.0649
1.4389
0.0081
0.1354
2.2573
0.4023
1.3995
0.1130
Avg.
Min.
Max.
69.0000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
130.0000
106.1700
86.1700
92.1300
68.6374
106.1700
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
0.0003
0.0098
0.0001
0.9800
0.0011
0.0001
0.0010
0.0042
0.0035
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
TANKS 4.0.9d
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
60.10
0.7163
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.0070
0.1159
2.0102
0.3502
1.4011
0.0966
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
0.0007
0.0010
0.0002
0.0088
0.0002
0.0004
0.0007
0.9874
0.0006
Mol.
Weight
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
188.00
106.17
86.17
92.13
0.76
106.17
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 1: VP60 = .0065 VP70 = .009
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
T_new - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Altona, VIC
TANKS 4.0.9d
Losses(lbs)
9.49
39.89
87.65
55.61
55.61
233.65
161.02
234,246.48
Total Emissions
9.49
27.49
39,993.09
Breathing Loss
193.76
14.96
133.53
194,253.38
Working Loss
46.11
Benzene
Components
ADO
46.11
72.69
152.71
2,061.39
Cyclohexane
351.94
Hexane (-n)
1,709.45
231,293.51
145.33
26.07
39,488.93
24.81
126.64
120.52
191,804.58
Ethyl benzene
Xylene (-m)
Toluene
Page 3 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
Gunite Lining
White/White
Good
TANKS 4.0.9d
124.40
4,383,606.00
41.10
T1
Altona
VIC
Caltex
External Floating Roof Tank
ULP
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Pontoon
Typical
Tank Dimensions
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
Type:
Fitting Category
Tank Construction and Rim-Seal System
Construction:
Welded
Primary Seal:
Mechanical Shoe
Secondary Seal
None
Deck Fitting/Status
Access Hatch (24-in. Diam.)/Bolted Cover, Gasketed
Unslotted Guide-Pole Well/Ungasketed Sliding Cover
Gauge-Hatch/Sample Well (8-in. Diam.)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask.
Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Pontoon Area, Ungasketed
Roof Leg (3-in. Diameter)/Adjustable, Center Area, Ungasketed
Rim Vent (6-in. Diameter)/Weighted Mech. Actuation, Gask.
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
19
24
1
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
86.17
323.44
92.13
90.98
106.17
Mol.
Weight
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Avg.
Min.
Max.
0.0027
0.0000
0.0023
0.0004
0.0087
0.0000
0.0046
0.9794
0.0018
14/02/2000
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=7.945, B=2014.46, C=215
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
0.0093
0.0010
0.0077
0.0153
0.0183
0.0000
0.0560
0.8149
0.0775
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
65.0000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
86.1700
323.4400
92.1300
64.6472
106.1700
5.9803
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
2.0102
0.0034
0.3502
7.1473
0.0966
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TANKS 4.0.9d
60.10
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
57.36
66.45
61.91
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
T1 - External Floating Roof Tank
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
ULP
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Tetraethyllead
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
TANKS 4.0.9d
Deck Fitting Loss
0.00
Deck Seam Loss
388.96
76,653.90
Total Emissions
Page 3 of 4
Withdrawl Loss
0.00
Losses(lbs)
Rim Seal Loss
0.00
27.96
0.22
45.00
16,556.75
27.31
254.85
27,314.59
322.88
0.43
89.11
32,782.57
439.49
Benzene
Components
ULP
929.44
0.27
0.00
1,759.59
0.00
2,203.46
0.00
0.00
70,581.87
6.96
0.00
38.23
0.00
144.15
0.00
0.00
208.96
76.90
418.73
29.33
499.86
0.27
16,215.96
75.70
1,530.44
13.79
2,116.06
285.43
0.00
22,258.11
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
58.07
32,107.80
14/02/2000
152.25
Cyclohexane
Tetraethyllead
Xylene (-m)
Toluene
TANKS 4.0 Report
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
Gunite Lining
White/White
Good
TANKS 4.0.9d
73.50
1,427,473.00
8.10
T2
Altona
VIC
Caltex
SPULP
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Pontoon
Typical
Tank Dimensions
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
Type:
Fitting Category
Construction:
Welded
Primary Seal:
Mechanical Shoe
Secondary Seal
None
Deck Fitting/Status
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
13
9
1
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Month
All
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
0.0101
0.0017
0.0110
0.0181
0.6403
0.0203
0.1965
0.0048
0.0973
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
0.0034
0.0000
0.0038
0.0006
0.6727
0.0111
0.0187
0.2871
0.0026
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
92.00
86.17
92.13
26.47
106.17
Mol.
Weight
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
66.0000
86.1700
92.1300
65.3333
106.1700
5.0826
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
5.3802
2.0102
0.3502
89.0173
0.0966
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TANKS 4.0.9d
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
57.36
60.10
61.91
66.45
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
SPULP
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Gasoline (RVP 10)
Hexane (-n)
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
Components
TANKS 4.0.9d
Deck Fitting Loss
0.00
Deck Seam Loss
129.76
32,569.62
Total Emissions
Page 3 of 4
Withdrawl Loss
0.00
Losses(lbs)
Rim Seal Loss
0.00
5.80
0.34
45.45
13,470.93
5.04
29.88
2,966.93
70.42
145.67
0.41
54.43
16,131.77
0.00
Benzene
SPULP
0.00
388.09
0.00
364.42
1,137.54
7.67
0.00
8,513.49
21,814.44
51.44
0.00
149.26
0.00
32.64
252.35
0.00
53.55
34.47
60.08
9,062.30
9.19
583.00
3,867.65
61.60
288.68
178.75
302.19
14.24
1,899.81
Cyclohexane
Hexane (-n)
41.28
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
4,631.60
14/02/2000
10,852.33
Xylene (-m)
Gasoline (RVP 10)
TANKS 4.0 Report
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
Gunite Lining
White/White
Good
TANKS 4.0.9d
73.50
1,428,529.00
13.00
T3
Altona
VIC
Caltex
PULP
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Pontoon
Typical
Tank Dimensions
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
Type:
Fitting Category
Construction:
Welded
Primary Seal:
Mechanical Shoe
Secondary Seal
None
Deck Fitting/Status
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
13
9
1
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
92.00
86.17
323.44
92.13
23.69
106.17
Mol.
Weight
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=7.945, B=2014.46, C=215
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Avg.
Min.
Max.
0.0034
0.0000
0.0034
0.0006
0.8210
0.0083
0.0000
0.0068
0.1541
0.0024
14/02/2000
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
0.0100
0.0012
0.0099
0.0176
0.7815
0.0152
0.0000
0.0709
0.0038
0.0898
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
66.0000
86.1700
323.4400
92.1300
66.5525
106.1700
5.0826
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
5.3802
2.0102
0.0034
0.3502
52.9129
0.0966
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TANKS 4.0.9d
60.10
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
57.36
66.45
61.91
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
PULP
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Gasoline (RVP 10)
Hexane (-n)
Tetraethyllead
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
Components
TANKS 4.0.9d
Losses(lbs)
Page 3 of 4
34,368.12
Total Emissions
0.00
0.00
148.91
6.25
147.28
0.00
0.24
0.00
Deck Seam Loss
46.29
45.27
13,471.00
Deck Fitting Loss
5.72
47.80
4,765.26
Withdrawl Loss
47.18
54.21
16,131.86
Rim Seal Loss
0.29
Benzene
PULP
55.44
Cyclohexane
0.00
100.48
538.17
318.64
497.82
0.00
28,029.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.49
0.00
0.00
91.09
112.04
31.81
0.00
11,060.23
84.01
338.00
72.43
427.92
4,581.39
8.98
3,724.05
0.00
0.00
38.09
109.08
2,076.54
134.17
Hexane (-n)
Tetraethyllead
13,244.90
18.15
14/02/2000
2,486.70
Ethyl benzene
Gasoline (RVP 10)
Xylene (-m)
Toluene
TANKS 4.0 Report
T4
Altona
VIC
Caltex
JET A-1
TANKS 4.0.9d
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
N
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.19
65.00
73.50
50.00
32.50
1,497,486.00
7.60
11,380,893.60
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
Cone
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Type:
Height (ft)
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
Jet kerosene
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
57.36
66.45
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
61.91
0.0078
1.0850
0.0463
1.1274
0.0990
1.7858
0.3040
0.0027
0.0823
0.0101
1.3928
0.0649
1.4389
0.1354
2.2573
0.4023
0.0042
0.1130
Avg.
Min.
Max.
130.0000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
86.1700
92.1300
160.1535
106.1700
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
0.0001
0.0009
0.0002
0.0017
0.0002
0.0012
0.9842
0.0115
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
TANKS 4.0.9d
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
60.10
0.0090
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
2.0102
0.3502
0.0048
0.0966
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
0.0137
0.0069
0.0354
0.0274
0.0558
0.0583
0.6483
0.1542
Mol.
Weight
162.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
86.17
92.13
163.43
106.17
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Option 1: VP60 = .0085 VP70 = .011
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
TANKS 4.0.9d
Breathing Loss
9.61
Total Emissions
Losses(lbs)
Working Loss
703.27
Altona, VIC
Components
5.29
387.06
4.83
4.32
316.21
24.90
Benzene
2.66
Jet kerosene
2.17
19.24
41.03
39.25
108.47
13.71
455.93
11.20
22.58
Cyclohexane
59.70
10.59
250.93
21.60
18.45
8.65
48.77
17.65
Hexane (-n)
205.00
Ethyl benzene
Xylene (-m)
Toluene
Page 3 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
TANKS 4.0.9d
Gunite Lining
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
0.00
0.00
56.60
870,011.00
41.10
T5
Altona
VIC
Caltex
ULP
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Mechanical Shoe
Rim-mounted
Y
Rim-Seal System
Primary Seal:
Secondary Seal
Typical
Welded
Tank Dimensions
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
No. of Columns:
Deck Type:
Deck Fitting/Status
Quantity
1
1
16
1
1
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
86.17
323.44
92.13
90.98
106.17
Mol.
Weight
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Avg.
Min.
Max.
0.0032
0.0000
0.0027
0.0005
0.0101
0.0000
0.0054
0.9761
0.0021
14/02/2000
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=7.945, B=2014.46, C=215
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
0.0093
0.0010
0.0077
0.0153
0.0183
0.0000
0.0560
0.8149
0.0775
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
86.1700
323.4400
92.1300
66.1078
106.1700
5.0394
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
2.0102
0.0034
0.3502
6.0054
0.0966
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TANKS 4.0.9d
60.10
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
57.36
66.45
61.91
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
ULP
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Tetraethyllead
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
TANKS 4.0.9d
13,498.92
Total Emissions
Page 3 of 4
0.00
Deck Seam Loss
Losses(lbs)
1,348.63
11.94
116.16
Deck Fitting Loss
0.00
95.39
11,914.94
4.25
0.00
Withdrawl Loss
111.17
0.02
235.35
0.74
11.91
183.43
Rim Seal Loss
Benzene
0.00
234.04
Components
ULP
0.00
0.12
0.00
676.13
0.00
926.30
3.61
0.00
0.66
0.00
13.62
0.00
91.15
0.00
182.66
7.27
218.04
2.77
0.63
0.12
0.11
667.59
2.38
923.05
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
0.00
Cyclohexane
1.27
11,255.41
0.48
0.00
Tetraethyllead
1,316.43
Xylene (-m)
9,709.25
14/02/2000
229.73
Toluene
TANKS 4.0 Report
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
TANKS 4.0.9d
Gunite Lining
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
0.00
0.00
22.60
136,327.00
12.00
T6
Altona
VIC
Caltex
SLOPS
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Mechanical Shoe
Rim-mounted
Y
Rim-Seal System
Primary Seal:
Secondary Seal
Typical
Welded
Tank Dimensions
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
No. of Columns:
Deck Type:
Deck Fitting/Status
Quantity
1
1
9
1
1
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Month
All
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
86.17
323.44
92.13
90.98
106.17
Mol.
Weight
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Avg.
Min.
Max.
0.0032
0.0000
0.0027
0.0005
0.0101
0.0000
0.0054
0.9761
0.0021
14/02/2000
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=7.945, B=2014.46, C=215
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
0.0093
0.0010
0.0077
0.0153
0.0183
0.0000
0.0560
0.8149
0.0775
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
86.1700
323.4400
92.1300
66.1078
106.1700
5.0394
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
2.0102
0.0034
0.3502
6.0054
0.0966
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TANKS 4.0.9d
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
57.36
60.10
61.91
66.45
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
SLOPS
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Tetraethyllead
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
Components
TANKS 4.0.9d
Deck Fitting Loss
Deck Seam Loss
Total Emissions
Page 3 of 4
Withdrawl Loss
16.08
2,424.56
Losses(lbs)
Rim Seal Loss
0.00
1.38
0.00
13.28
3.04
0.00
965.39
0.00
12.74
0.01
1,365.20
2.59
0.30
1.37
93.97
10.44
Benzene
SLOPS
0.00
0.01
0.25
82.20
Cyclohexane
107.94
0.00
2,146.54
21.45
0.00
35.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.20
0.47
1.98
9.75
0.01
942.34
20.93
76.49
24.98
105.76
0.05
0.00
1,112.47
0.95
0.51
Hexane (-n)
0.19
Ethyl benzene
Tetraethyllead
91.73
Xylene (-m)
14/02/2000
Toluene
TANKS 4.0 Report
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
TANKS 4.0.9d
Gunite Lining
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
0.00
0.00
33.90
370,873.00
12.00
T7
Altona
VIC
Caltex
SLOPS
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Mechanical Shoe
Rim-mounted
Y
Rim-Seal System
Primary Seal:
Secondary Seal
Typical
Welded
Tank Dimensions
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
No. of Columns:
Deck Type:
Deck Fitting/Status
Quantity
1
1
11
1
1
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
86.17
323.44
92.13
90.98
106.17
Mol.
Weight
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Avg.
Min.
Max.
0.0031
0.0000
0.0027
0.0005
0.0100
0.0000
0.0053
0.9763
0.0020
14/02/2000
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=7.945, B=2014.46, C=215
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
0.0093
0.0010
0.0077
0.0153
0.0183
0.0000
0.0560
0.8149
0.0775
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
86.1700
323.4400
92.1300
66.1112
106.1700
5.0826
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
2.0102
0.0034
0.3502
6.0578
0.0966
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TANKS 4.0.9d
60.10
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
57.36
66.45
61.91
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
SLOPS
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Tetraethyllead
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
Components
TANKS 4.0.9d
Losses(lbs)
Page 3 of 4
3,704.71
Total Emissions
0.38
0.00
0.02
45.31
37.96
18.94
2.48
1,060.55
2.21
5.80
0.00
10.88
0.53
2.88
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,217.27
194.32
145.29
0.02
57.61
38.55
22.20
2.49
26.94
0.00
0.07
138.73
0.00
Deck Seam Loss
1.43
191.81
3.40
1,086.27
Deck Fitting Loss
Cyclohexane
0.00
2,017.63
23.10
2,475.99
Withdrawl Loss
Ethyl benzene
0.76
0.45
142.45
Rim Seal Loss
Hexane (-n)
0.29
Benzene
SLOPS
Tetraethyllead
139.08
Xylene (-m)
14/02/2000
Toluene
TANKS 4.0 Report
T8,T9
Altona
VIC
Caltex
ALPINE DIESEL
TANKS 4.0.9d
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
N
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.49
60.00
28.30
60.00
18.00
256,274.00
24.40
6,253,085.60
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
Cone
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Type:
Height (ft)
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
61.91
57.36
66.45
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
T8,T9 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
diesel
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
4.6506
1.0850
0.0463
1.1274
0.0060
0.0990
1.7858
0.3040
9.9982
0.0823
5.5463
1.3928
0.0649
1.4389
0.0081
0.1354
2.2573
0.4023
10.0038
0.1130
Avg.
Min.
Max.
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
130.0000
106.1700
86.1700
92.1300
66.4466
106.1700
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
0.0003
0.0098
0.0001
0.9800
0.0011
0.0001
0.0010
0.0042
0.0035
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
TANKS 4.0.9d
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
60.10
5.0826
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.0070
0.1159
2.0102
0.3502
10.0055
0.0966
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0013
0.0000
0.0001
0.0001
0.9982
0.0001
Mol.
Weight
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
188.00
106.17
86.17
92.13
0.76
106.17
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 1: VP60 = .0065 VP70 = .009
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
T8,T9 - Vertical Fixed Roof Tank
Altona, VIC
Components
TANKS 4.0.9d
Breathing Loss
5.67
Total Emissions
Losses(lbs)
Working Loss
56,380.34
8.22
0.61
6,058.94
1.96
5.06
0.88
50,321.39
7.34
1.96
Benzene
diesel
3.09
5.37
0.21
5.11
1.75
72.55
Cyclohexane
0.58
56,276.40
0.21
0.55
0.33
7.80
1.75
4.80
6,047.77
2.75
4.57
Hexane (-n)
64.76
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
50,228.63
Xylene (-m)
Page 3 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
T10
Altona
VIC
Caltex
JET A-1
TANKS 4.0.9d
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
N
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.19
65.00
73.50
50.00
12.00
1,507,525.00
7.60
11,457,190.00
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
Cone
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Type:
Height (ft)
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
Jet kerosene
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
60.10
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
162.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
86.17
92.13
163.45
106.17
Mol.
Weight
Option 1: VP60 = .0085 VP70 = .011
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Avg.
Min.
Max.
0.0342
0.0069
0.0354
0.0274
0.0558
0.0583
0.6278
0.1542
TANKS 4.0.9d
66.45
57.36
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
61.91
0.0002
0.0009
0.0002
0.0017
0.0002
0.0012
0.9841
0.0115
14/02/2000
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
130.0000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
86.1700
92.1300
165.8435
106.1700
0.0078
1.0850
0.0463
1.1274
0.0990
1.7858
0.3040
0.0023
0.0823
0.0101
1.3928
0.0649
1.4389
0.1354
2.2573
0.4023
0.0038
0.1130
0.0090
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
2.0102
0.3502
0.0045
0.0966
TANKS 4.0 Report
TANKS 4.0.9d
Breathing Loss
Total Emissions
Losses(lbs)
Working Loss
Altona, VIC
Components
6.37
31.69
927.34
4.18
20.81
609.01
2.19
10.88
318.33
32.84
Benzene
Jet kerosene
25.37
54.11
51.76
143.03
21.56
582.17
16.66
35.53
33.99
93.93
8.71
382.33
11.27
18.57
17.77
49.10
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
199.84
Cyclohexane
Xylene (-m)
Toluene
Page 3 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
Gunite Lining
White/White
Good
TANKS 4.0.9d
39.60
375,164.00
13.00
T12
Altona
VIC
Caltex
PULP
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Pontoon
Typical
Tank Dimensions
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
Type:
Fitting Category
Construction:
Welded
Primary Seal:
Mechanical Shoe
Secondary Seal
None
Deck Fitting/Status
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Month
All
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
106.17
92.00
86.17
323.44
92.13
23.69
106.17
Mol.
Weight
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=7.945, B=2014.46, C=215
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Avg.
Min.
Max.
0.0034
0.0000
0.0034
0.0006
0.8210
0.0083
0.0000
0.0068
0.1541
0.0024
14/02/2000
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
0.0100
0.0012
0.0099
0.0176
0.7815
0.0152
0.0000
0.0709
0.0038
0.0898
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
106.1700
66.0000
86.1700
323.4400
92.1300
66.5525
106.1700
5.0826
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.1159
5.3802
2.0102
0.0034
0.3502
52.9129
0.0966
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TANKS 4.0.9d
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
57.36
60.10
61.91
66.45
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
PULP
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Gasoline (RVP 10)
Hexane (-n)
Tetraethyllead
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
Components
TANKS 4.0.9d
Deck Fitting Loss
Deck Seam Loss
Total Emissions
Page 3 of 4
Withdrawl Loss
Losses(lbs)
Rim Seal Loss
20.52
58.77
0.00
8.85
1,815.26
208.59
164.76
0.00
2,031.19
10,818.69
31.12
89.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,379.81
19,769.98
260.23
312.62
0.00
3.18
96.79
24,191.07
98.15
0.00
0.00
53.12
0.00
0.00
217.19
44.28
0.24
0.00
13,176.82
45.28
0.00
23.30
2.79
7.33
2,322.80
23.00
109.59
29.21
0.16
40.95
8,691.45
29.87
35.31
Benzene
PULP
Cyclohexane
4.84
72.29
7,136.03
Hexane (-n)
Ethyl benzene
Xylene (-m)
Toluene
1,339.77
Tetraethyllead
Gasoline (RVP 10)
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
T356
Altona
VIC
Caltex
Diesel
TANKS 4.0.9d
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
N
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.15
65.00
96.10
32.50
32.50
1,705,675.00
14.20
24,220,585.00
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
Cone
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Type:
Height (ft)
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
60.10
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
4.6506
1.0850
0.0463
1.1274
0.0060
0.0990
1.7858
0.3040
9.9982
0.0823
5.5463
1.3928
0.0649
1.4389
0.0081
0.1354
2.2573
0.4023
10.0038
0.1130
Avg.
Min.
Max.
5.0826
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.0070
0.1159
2.0102
0.3502
10.0055
0.0966
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
130.0000
106.1700
86.1700
92.1300
66.4466
106.1700
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
0.0003
0.0098
0.0001
0.9800
0.0011
0.0001
0.0010
0.0042
0.0035
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0013
0.0000
0.0001
0.0001
0.9982
0.0001
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
188.00
106.17
86.17
92.13
0.76
106.17
Mol.
Weight
TANKS 4.0.9d
66.45
57.36
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
61.91
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
Diesel
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 1: VP60 = .0065 VP70 = .009
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
Components
TANKS 4.0.9d
Losses(lbs)
26.47
263,338.85
Total Emissions
9.14
38.41
6.88
68,424.90
Breathing Loss
9.14
19.59
194,913.95
Working Loss
9.98
14.41
Benzene
Diesel
28.43
2.38
6.77
23.89
Cyclohexane
338.87
25.10
262,853.41
2.38
6.21
3.74
88.05
6.52
18.58
68,298.77
6.77
17.68
10.67
Hexane (-n)
250.82
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
194,554.64
Xylene (-m)
Page 3 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
T428
Altona
VIC
Caltex
Diesel
TANKS 4.0.9d
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
N
-0.03
0.03
7.00
0.15
65.00
96.10
32.50
32.50
1,728,396.00
14.20
24,543,223.20
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
Cone
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Type:
Height (ft)
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Month
All
57.36
66.45
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
61.91
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
Diesel
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
4.6506
1.0850
0.0463
1.1274
0.0060
0.0990
1.7858
0.3040
9.9982
0.0823
5.5463
1.3928
0.0649
1.4389
0.0081
0.1354
2.2573
0.4023
10.0038
0.1130
Avg.
Min.
Max.
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
130.0000
106.1700
86.1700
92.1300
66.4466
106.1700
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
0.0003
0.0098
0.0001
0.9800
0.0011
0.0001
0.0010
0.0042
0.0035
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
TANKS 4.0.9d
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
60.10
5.0826
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.0070
0.1159
2.0102
0.3502
10.0055
0.0966
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0013
0.0000
0.0001
0.0001
0.9982
0.0001
Mol.
Weight
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
188.00
106.17
86.17
92.13
0.76
106.17
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 1: VP60 = .0065 VP70 = .009
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
Components
TANKS 4.0.9d
Losses(lbs)
26.40
262,603.08
Total Emissions
6.54
65,092.72
Breathing Loss
9.12
38.30
19.85
197,510.36
Working Loss
9.49
Benzene
Diesel
28.81
9.12
25.03
14.37
23.82
2.26
337.93
6.86
6.21
262,118.99
Cyclohexane
5.91
2.26
83.76
3.56
18.83
64,972.72
6.86
17.92
10.81
Hexane (-n)
254.16
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
197,146.27
Xylene (-m)
Page 3 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
T429
Altona
VIC
Caltex
Diesel
TANKS 4.0.9d
Identification
City:
State:
Company:
Type of Tank:
Description:
N
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.15
65.00
96.10
28.00
28.00
1,391,277.00
14.20
19,756,133.40
Tank Dimensions
Shell Height (ft):
Diameter (ft):
Volume (gallons):
Turnovers:
White/White
Good
White/White
Good
Cone
Shell Color/Shade:
Shell Condition
Roof Color/Shade:
Roof Condition:
Type:
Height (ft)
Page 1 of 4
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
All
Month
60.10
Liquid
Bulk
Temp
(deg F)
4.6506
1.0850
0.0463
1.1274
0.0060
0.0990
1.7858
0.3040
9.9982
0.0823
5.5463
1.3928
0.0649
1.4389
0.0081
0.1354
2.2573
0.4023
10.0038
0.1130
Avg.
Min.
Max.
5.0826
1.2310
0.0550
1.2753
0.0070
0.1159
2.0102
0.3502
10.0055
0.0966
66.5000
78.1100
120.2000
84.1600
130.0000
106.1700
86.1700
92.1300
66.4466
106.1700
Vapor
Mol.
Weight.
0.0003
0.0098
0.0001
0.9800
0.0011
0.0001
0.0010
0.0042
0.0035
Liquid
Mass
Fract.
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0013
0.0000
0.0001
0.0001
0.9982
0.0001
Vapor
Mass
Fract.
92.00
78.11
120.20
84.16
188.00
106.17
86.17
92.13
0.76
106.17
Mol.
Weight
TANKS 4.0.9d
66.45
57.36
Daily Liquid Surf.
Temperature (deg F)
Avg.
Min.
Max.
61.91
Altona, VIC
Mixture/Component
Diesel
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethyl benzene
Hexane (-n)
Toluene
Xylene (-m)
Calculations
Page 2 of 4
Option 2: A=7.009, B=1462.266, C=215.11
Option 2: A=6.905, B=1211.033, C=220.79
Option 2: A=6.9636, B=1460.793, C=207.78
Option 2: A=6.841, B=1201.53, C=222.65
Option 1: VP60 = .0065 VP70 = .009
Option 2: A=6.975, B=1424.255, C=213.21
Option 2: A=6.876, B=1171.17, C=224.41
Option 2: A=6.954, B=1344.8, C=219.48
14/02/2000
TANKS 4.0 Report
Altona, VIC
Components
TANKS 4.0.9d
Losses(lbs)
5.52
23.19
6.60
3.79
2.40
2.40
10.09
227,753.11
293.62
20.70
21.75
12.49
7.92
7.92
33.28
22.94
228,173.73
Total Emissions
5.52
6.28
6.95
69,187.23
Breathing Loss
8.70
89.03
15.98
158,986.50
Working Loss
Cyclohexane
15.16
69,059.69
Benzene
Diesel
Ethyl benzene
14.42
Hexane (-n)
204.59
Toluene
158,693.42
Xylene (-m)
Page 3 of 4
14/02/2000
Appendix B
AUSPLUME 6.0 Files
Benzene
1
__________
Caltex
__________
Concentration or deposition
Concentration
Emission rate units
grams/second
Concentration units
milligrams/m3
Units conversion factor
1.00E+03
Constant background concentration
1.21E-02
Terrain effects
None
Smooth stability class changes?
No
Other stability class adjustments ("urban modes") None
Ignore building wake effects?
Yes
Decay coefficient (unless overridden by met. file) 0.000
Anemometer height
10 m
Roughness height at the wind vane site
0.300 m
DISPERSION CURVES
Horizontal dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford
Vertical dispersion curves for sources <100m high Pasquill-Gifford
Horizontal dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural
Vertical dispersion curves for sources >100m high Briggs Rural
Enhance horizontal plume spreads for buoyancy?
Yes
Enhance vertical plume spreads for buoyancy?
Yes
Adjust horizontal P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes
Adjust vertical P-G formulae for roughness height? Yes
Roughness height
0.400m
Adjustment for wind directional shear
None
PLUME RISE OPTIONS
Gradual plume rise?
Yes
Stack-tip downwash included?
Yes
Building downwash algorithm:
PRIME method.
Entrainment coeff. for neutral & stable lapse rates 0.60,0.60
Partial penetration of elevated inversions?
No
Disregard temp. gradients in the hourly met. file? No
and in the absence of boundary-layer potential temperature gradients
given by the hourly met. file, a value from the following table
(in K/m) is used:
Wind Speed
Stability Class
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
________________________________________________________
1
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
2
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
3
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
4
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
5
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
6
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
WIND SPEED CATEGORIES
Boundaries between categories (in m/s) are: 1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80
WIND PROFILE EXPONENTS: "Irwin Urban" values (unless overridden by met. file)
AVERAGING TIME: 3 minutes.
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
__________________________
Caltex
SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
__________________________
STACK SOURCE: VRU
X(m) Y(m) Ground Elev. Stack Height Diameter Temperature Speed
3145789 5810304
0m
10m
0.31m
22C 0.0m/s
No building wake effects.
(Constant) emission rate = 4.60E-03 grams/second
No gravitational settling or scavenging.
STACK SOURCE: T13
314283 5810452
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T14
314346 5810445
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T15
314278 5810379
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
file:////aurecon.info/...20Air%20Quality%20and%20Noise/AQ/Further%20work%20March%202013/AUSPLUME%20files/calbenzene.txt[18/04/2013 12:53:55 PM]
STACK SOURCE: T1
314538 5810333
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T16
314421 5810219
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T2
314548 5810229
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T17
314392 5810198
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T3
314499 5810231
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T18
314354 5810167
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T4
314520 5810176
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T19
314422 5810162
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T5
314487 5810330
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: TNEW
314309 5810560
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T6
314585 5810240
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T356
314347 5810384
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T7
314583 5810223
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T428
314345 5810343
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T8
314539 5810197
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T429
314384 5810336
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T9
314552 5810189
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
______________________
Caltex
STACK SOURCE: T10
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
314489 5810195
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T12
314522 5810206
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
______________________
The Cartesian receptor grid has the following x-values (or eastings):
313522.m 313537.m 313552.m 313567.m 313582.m 313597.m 313612.m
313627.m 313642.m 313657.m 313672.m 313687.m 313702.m 313717.m
313732.m 313747.m 313762.m 313777.m 313792.m 313807.m 313822.m
313837.m 313852.m 313867.m 313882.m 313897.m 313912.m 313927.m
313942.m 313957.m 313972.m 313987.m 314002.m 314017.m 314032.m
314047.m 314062.m 314077.m 314092.m 314107.m 314122.m 314137.m
314152.m 314167.m 314182.m 314197.m 314212.m 314227.m 314242.m
314257.m 314272.m 314287.m 314302.m 314317.m 314332.m 314347.m
314362.m 314377.m 314392.m 314407.m 314422.m 314437.m 314452.m
314467.m 314482.m 314497.m 314512.m 314527.m 314542.m 314557.m
314572.m 314587.m 314602.m 314617.m 314632.m 314647.m 314662.m
314677.m 314692.m 314707.m 314722.m 314737.m 314752.m 314767.m
Cumene
314782.m 314797.m 314812.m 314827.m 314842.m 314857.m 314872.m
314887.m 314902.m 314917.m 314932.m 314947.m 314962.m 314977.m
314992.m 315007.m
and these y-values (or northings):
5809674.m 5809689.m 5809704.m 5809719.m 5809734.m 5809749.m 5809764.m
5809779.m 5809794.m 5809809.m 5809824.m 5809839.m 5809854.m 5809869.m
5809884.m 5809899.m 5809914.m 5809929.m 5809944.m 5809959.m 5809974.m
5809989.m 5810004.m 5810019.m 5810034.m 5810049.m 5810064.m 5810079.m
5810094.m 5810109.m 5810124.m 5810139.m 5810154.m 5810169.m 5810184.m
5810199.m 5810214.m 5810229.m 5810244.m 5810259.m 5810274.m 5810289.m
5810304.m 5810319.m 5810334.m 5810349.m 5810364.m 5810379.m 5810394.m
5810409.m 5810424.m 5810439.m 5810454.m 5810469.m 5810484.m 5810499.m
5810514.m 5810529.m 5810544.m 5810559.m 5810574.m 5810589.m 5810604.m
5810619.m 5810634.m 5810649.m 5810664.m 5810679.m 5810694.m 5810709.m
5810724.m 5810739.m 5810754.m 5810769.m 5810784.m 5810799.m 5810814.m
5810829.m 5810844.m 5810859.m 5810874.m 5810889.m 5810904.m 5810919.m
5810934.m 5810949.m 5810964.m 5810979.m 5810994.m 5811009.m 5811024.m
5811039.m 5811054.m 5811069.m 5811084.m 5811099.m 5811114.m 5811129.m
5811144.m 5811159.m
DISCRETE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS (in metres)
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
1 314130 5809928 0.0 0.0
3 314287 5810736 0.0 0.0
2 314062 5810572 0.0 0.0
_____________________________________________________________________________
METEOROLOGICAL DATA : EPAV Altona North AMS AWS Data BoM Laverton Clouds M
e
1
__________
Caltex
__________
Concentration
Emission rate units
grams/second
Concentration units
milligrams/m3
1.00E+03
6.05E-03
Terrain effects
None
No
Yes
Anemometer height
10 m
0.300 m
DISPERSION CURVES
Yes
Yes
Roughness height
0.400m
None
PLUME RISE OPTIONS
Gradual plume rise?
Yes
Yes
PRIME method.
No
(in K/m) is used:
Wind Speed
Stability Class
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
________________________________________________________
1
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
2
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
3
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
4
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
5
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
6
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
file:////aurecon.info/...%20Quality%20and%20Noise/AQ/Further%20work%20March%202013/AUSPLUME%20files/CALCUMENE.TXT[18/04/2013 12:53:52 PM]
STACK SOURCE: T16
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
__________________________
Caltex
314421 5810219
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T17
__________________________
314392 5810198
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: VRU
3145789 5810304
0m
10m
0.31m
22C 0.0m/s
STACK SOURCE: T18
314354 5810167
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T13
314283 5810452
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T19
314422 5810162
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T14
314346 5810445
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: TNEW
314309 5810560
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T15
314278 5810379
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T1
314538 5810333
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T7
314583 5810223
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T2
314548 5810229
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T8
314539 5810197
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T3
314499 5810231
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T9
314552 5810189
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T4
314520 5810176
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T10
314489 5810195
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T5
314487 5810330
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T12
314522 5810206
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T6
314585 5810240
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
Cyclohexane
1
STACK SOURCE: T356
314347 5810384
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T428
314345 5810343
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T429
314384 5810336
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
______________________
Caltex
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
______________________
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
1 314130 5809928 0.0 0.0
3 314287 5810736 0.0 0.0
2 314062 5810572 0.0 0.0
_____________________________________________________________________________
e
__________
Caltex
__________
Concentration
Emission rate units
grams/second
Concentration units
milligrams/m3
1.00E+03
1.80E-02
Terrain effects
None
No
Yes
Anemometer height
10 m
0.300 m
DISPERSION CURVES
Yes
Yes
Roughness height
0.400m
None
PLUME RISE OPTIONS
Gradual plume rise?
Yes
Yes
PRIME method.
No
(in K/m) is used:
Wind Speed
Stability Class
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
________________________________________________________
1
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
2
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
3
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
4
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
5
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
6
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
file:////aurecon.info/...lity%20and%20Noise/AQ/Further%20work%20March%202013/AUSPLUME%20files/CALCYCLOHEXANE.TXT[18/04/2013 12:53:53 PM]
STACK SOURCE: T16
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
__________________________
Caltex
314421 5810219
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T17
__________________________
314392 5810198
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: VRU
3145789 5810304
0m
10m
0.31m
22C 0.0m/s
STACK SOURCE: T18
314354 5810167
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T13
314283 5810452
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T19
314422 5810162
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T14
314346 5810445
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: TNEW
314309 5810560
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T15
314278 5810379
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T1
314538 5810333
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T7
314583 5810223
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T2
314548 5810229
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T8
314539 5810197
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T3
314499 5810231
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T9
314552 5810189
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T4
314520 5810176
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T10
314489 5810195
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T5
314487 5810330
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T12
314522 5810206
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T6
314585 5810240
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
Ethylbenzene
1
STACK SOURCE: T356
314347 5810384
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T428
314345 5810343
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T429
314384 5810336
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
______________________
Caltex
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
______________________
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
1 314130 5809928 0.0 0.0
3 314287 5810736 0.0 0.0
2 314062 5810572 0.0 0.0
_____________________________________________________________________________
e
__________
Caltex
__________
Concentration
Emission rate units
grams/second
Concentration units
milligrams/m3
1.00E+03
9.04E-03
Terrain effects
None
No
Yes
Anemometer height
10 m
0.300 m
DISPERSION CURVES
Yes
Yes
Roughness height
0.400m
None
PLUME RISE OPTIONS
Gradual plume rise?
Yes
Yes
PRIME method.
No
(in K/m) is used:
Wind Speed
Stability Class
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
________________________________________________________
1
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
2
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
3
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
4
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
5
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
6
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
file:////aurecon.info/...ity%20and%20Noise/AQ/Further%20work%20March%202013/AUSPLUME%20files/CALETHYLBENZENE.TXT[18/04/2013 12:53:53 PM]
STACK SOURCE: T16
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
__________________________
Caltex
314421 5810219
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T17
__________________________
314392 5810198
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: VRU
3145789 5810304
0m
10m
0.31m
22C 0.0m/s
STACK SOURCE: T18
314354 5810167
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T13
314283 5810452
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T19
314422 5810162
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T14
314346 5810445
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: TNEW
314309 5810560
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T15
314278 5810379
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T1
314538 5810333
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T7
314583 5810223
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T2
314548 5810229
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T8
314539 5810197
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T3
314499 5810231
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T9
314552 5810189
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T4
314520 5810176
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T10
314489 5810195
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T5
314487 5810330
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T12
314522 5810206
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T6
314585 5810240
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
Hexane
1
STACK SOURCE: T356
314347 5810384
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T428
314345 5810343
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T429
314384 5810336
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
______________________
Caltex
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
______________________
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
1 314130 5809928 0.0 0.0
3 314287 5810736 0.0 0.0
2 314062 5810572 0.0 0.0
_____________________________________________________________________________
e
__________
Caltex
__________
Concentration
Emission rate units
grams/second
Concentration units
milligrams/m3
1.00E+03
4.75E-02
Terrain effects
None
No
Yes
Anemometer height
10 m
0.300 m
DISPERSION CURVES
Yes
Yes
Roughness height
0.400m
None
PLUME RISE OPTIONS
Gradual plume rise?
Yes
Yes
PRIME method.
No
(in K/m) is used:
Wind Speed
Stability Class
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
________________________________________________________
1
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
2
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
3
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
4
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
5
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
6
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
file:////aurecon.info/...%20Quality%20and%20Noise/AQ/Further%20work%20March%202013/AUSPLUME%20files/CALHEXANE.TXT[18/04/2013 12:53:54 PM]
STACK SOURCE: T16
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
__________________________
Caltex
314421 5810219
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T17
__________________________
314392 5810198
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: VRU
3145789 5810304
0m
10m
0.31m
22C 0.0m/s
STACK SOURCE: T18
314354 5810167
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T13
314283 5810452
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T19
314422 5810162
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T14
314346 5810445
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: TNEW
314309 5810560
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T15
314278 5810379
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T1
314538 5810333
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T7
314583 5810223
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T2
314548 5810229
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T8
314539 5810197
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T3
314499 5810231
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T9
314552 5810189
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T4
314520 5810176
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T10
314489 5810195
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T5
314487 5810330
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T12
314522 5810206
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T6
314585 5810240
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
Toulene
1
STACK SOURCE: T356
314347 5810384
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T428
314345 5810343
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T429
314384 5810336
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
______________________
Caltex
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
______________________
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
1 314130 5809928 0.0 0.0
3 314287 5810736 0.0 0.0
2 314062 5810572 0.0 0.0
_____________________________________________________________________________
e
__________
Caltex
__________
Concentration
Emission rate units
grams/second
Concentration units
milligrams/m3
1.00E+03
6.13E-02
Terrain effects
None
No
Yes
Anemometer height
10 m
0.300 m
DISPERSION CURVES
Yes
Yes
Roughness height
0.400m
None
PLUME RISE OPTIONS
Gradual plume rise?
Yes
Yes
PRIME method.
No
(in K/m) is used:
Wind Speed
Stability Class
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
________________________________________________________
1
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
2
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
3
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
4
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
5
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
6
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
file:////aurecon.info/...20Quality%20and%20Noise/AQ/Further%20work%20March%202013/AUSPLUME%20files/CALTOULENE.TXT[18/04/2013 12:53:54 PM]
STACK SOURCE: T16
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
__________________________
Caltex
314421 5810219
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T17
__________________________
314392 5810198
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: VRU
3145789 5810304
0m
10m
0.31m
22C 0.0m/s
STACK SOURCE: T18
314354 5810167
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T13
314283 5810452
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T19
314422 5810162
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T14
314346 5810445
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: TNEW
314309 5810560
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T15
314278 5810379
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T1
314538 5810333
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T7
314583 5810223
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T2
314548 5810229
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T8
314539 5810197
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T3
314499 5810231
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T9
314552 5810189
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T4
314520 5810176
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T10
314489 5810195
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T5
314487 5810330
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T12
314522 5810206
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T6
314585 5810240
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
Xylenes
1
STACK SOURCE: T356
314347 5810384
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T428
314345 5810343
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T429
314384 5810336
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
______________________
Caltex
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
______________________
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
1 314130 5809928 0.0 0.0
3 314287 5810736 0.0 0.0
2 314062 5810572 0.0 0.0
_____________________________________________________________________________
e
__________
Caltex
__________
Concentration
Emission rate units
grams/second
Concentration units
milligrams/m3
1.00E+03
7.75E-02
Terrain effects
None
No
Yes
Anemometer height
10 m
0.300 m
DISPERSION CURVES
Yes
Yes
Roughness height
0.400m
None
PLUME RISE OPTIONS
Gradual plume rise?
Yes
Yes
PRIME method.
No
(in K/m) is used:
Wind Speed
Stability Class
Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
________________________________________________________
1
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
2
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
3
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
4
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
5
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
6
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.035
file:////aurecon.info/...%20Quality%20and%20Noise/AQ/Further%20work%20March%202013/AUSPLUME%20files/CALXYLENE.TXT[18/04/2013 12:53:55 PM]
STACK SOURCE: T16
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
__________________________
Caltex
314421 5810219
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T17
__________________________
314392 5810198
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: VRU
3145789 5810304
0m
10m
0.31m
22C 0.0m/s
STACK SOURCE: T18
314354 5810167
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T13
314283 5810452
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T19
314422 5810162
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T14
314346 5810445
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: TNEW
314309 5810560
0m
23m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T15
314278 5810379
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T1
314538 5810333
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T7
314583 5810223
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T2
314548 5810229
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T8
314539 5810197
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T3
314499 5810231
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T9
314552 5810189
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T4
314520 5810176
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T10
314489 5810195
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T5
314487 5810330
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T12
314522 5810206
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T6
314585 5810240
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T356
314347 5810384
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T428
314345 5810343
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
STACK SOURCE: T429
314384 5810336
0m
22m
0.25m
17C 0.1m/s
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
______________________
Caltex
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
______________________
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
No. X
Y ELEVN HEIGHT
1 314130 5809928 0.0 0.0
3 314287 5810736 0.0 0.0
2 314062 5810572 0.0 0.0
_____________________________________________________________________________
e
AUSPLUME OUTPUT FILES
Benzene
DISCRETE RECEPTOR CONCENTRATIONS
AVERAGING TIME = 3 MINUTES
X (m) Y (m) CHI
Flag Pole Ht
314130. 5809928. 1.592E-02
0.0
314062. 5810572. 1.595E-02
0.0
314287. 5810736. 1.568E-02
0.0
(milligrams/m3)
Cumene
X (m) Y (m) CHI
Flag Pole Ht
314130. 5809928. 7.514E-03
0.0
314062. 5810572. 8.022E-03
0.0
314287. 5810736. 7.521E-03
0.0
(milligrams/m3)
Cyclohexane
X (m) Y (m) CHI
Flag Pole Ht
314130. 5809928. 2.122E-02
0.0
314062. 5810572. 2.101E-02
0.0
314287. 5810736. 2.029E-02
0.0
(milligrams/m3)
Ethylbenzene
X (m) Y (m) CHI
Flag Pole Ht
314130. 5809928. 1.346E-02
0.0
314062. 5810572. 1.252E-02
0.0
314287. 5810736. 1.201E-02
0.0
(milligrams/m3)
Hexane
X (m) Y (m) CHI
Flag Pole Ht
314130. 5809928. 5.502E-02
0.0
314062. 5810572. 5.415E-02
0.0
314287. 5810736. 5.312E-02
0.0
(milligrams/m3)
Toulene
X (m) Y (m) CHI
Flag Pole Ht
314130. 5809928. 7.950E-02
0.0
314062. 5810572. 8.095E-02
0.0
314287. 5810736. 7.328E-02
0.0
(milligrams/m3)
Xylenes
X (m) Y (m) CHI
Flag Pole Ht
314130. 5809928. 9.989E-02
0.0
314062. 5810572. 9.482E-02
0.0
314287. 5810736. 9.198E-02
0.0
(milligrams/m3)
Appendix C
Benzene Vapour
Concentration
ABN 54 005 139 873
55 Grenfell Street
Company Address2
South Australia 5000
T +61 8 8237 9777
F +61 8 8237 9778
E [email protected]
W www.aurecongroup.com
Aurecon offices are located in:
Angola, Australia, Botswana, China,
Ethiopia, Hong Kong, Indonesia,
Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Mozambique,
Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria,
Philippines, Singapore, South Africa,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda,
United Arab Emirates, Vietnam.
Appendix 8
Noise Impact Assessment
Project: Caltex Australia Newport
Newport Horizons Project – Noise Impact
Assessment
Reference: 225440
Australia Newport
Revision: 1
28 March 2013
ABN 54 005 139 873
Level 12, 60 Albert Road
South Melbourne VIC 3205
PO Box 321
Australia
T
F
E
W
+61 3 8683 1333
+61 3 8683 1444
[email protected]
aurecongroup.com
a)
b)
copy version.
Newport Horizons Project – Noise Impact Assessment
Report Title
Document ID
225440
Project Number
File Path
\\Aurecon.info\shares\AUADL\Admin\Data\General Staff\Disciplines\Noise
and Vibration\Projects\Caltex Newport Air Quality and
Noise\Noise\Report\Noise Impact Assessment_20130321GW.docx
Client
Caltex Australia Newport
Client Contact
Rev
Date
Prepared by
Author
Verifier
Approver
0
21 June 2012
Final
GW
GW
BD
JM
1
28 March 2013
Revision
GW
GW
BD
DM
Current Revision
1
Approval
Author Signature
Name
Title
Approver Signature
Geoff White
Acoustic Consultant
Name
Title
Project 225440 | File Noise Impact Assessment_20130328GW.docx | 28 March 2013 | Revision 1
Caltex Australia Newport
Date | 28 March 2013
Reference | 225440
Revision | 1
ABN 54 005 139 873
PO Box 321
Australia
T
F
E
W
+61 3 8683 1333
+61 3 8683 1444
[email protected]
aurecongroup.com
Contents
1
Overview
3
2
Sensitive Receptors
4
3
Legislation and Guidelines
6
4
Environmental Noise Survey
13
4.1
Source Emissions
13
4.2
Background Monitoring
15
4.3
Attended Monitoring
15
5
Project Specific Criterion
18
6
Newport Horizons Project Upgrade Description
19
7
Noise Emission Inventory
20
8
Noise Modeling Methodology
23
9
Assessment
24
9.1
Normal Operations
24
9.2
Emergency Operations (fire pumps)
24
9.3
Road Traffic Noise
24
10
Conclusion
27
11
References
28
Appendices
Appendix A
Noise Contours
Appendix B
Unattended Monitoring
Appendix C
Selected Pumps SPL
Index of Figures
Figure 1 | Sensitive Receptor Locations .................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2 | Land use zoning around project site – Receptor 1 ................................................................. 7
Figure 3 | Land use zoning around project site – Receptor 2 ................................................................. 9
Figure 4 | Land use zoning around project site – Receptor 3 ............................................................... 11
Figure 5 | Noise source measurement locations ................................................................................... 13
p1
Figure 6 | Attended Monitoring locations ............................................................................................... 17
Figure 7 | Modelled Noise Source Locations ......................................................................................... 22
Figure 8 | Current and Proposed Alteration to Truck Route .................................................................. 25
Index of Tables
Table 1 | Project Specific Environmental Noise Emission Criteria at 81 Home Road – Receptor 1 ....... 8
Table 2 | Project Specific Environmental Noise Emission Criteria at 1 Benar Street – Receptor 2 ...... 10
Table 3 | Project Specific Environmental Noise Emission Criteria at 39 Home Road – Receptor 3 ..... 12
Table 4 | Results of attended noise survey (Dated 10 May 2012) ........................................................ 14
Table 5 | Unattended Monitoring Results at Representative Receiver Locations ................................. 15
Table 6 | Attended Monitoring Results .................................................................................................. 16
Table 7 | Project Specific Criterion ........................................................................................................ 18
Table 8 | Noise Emission Inventory ....................................................................................................... 21
Table 9 | Noise impact at Receiver Locations ....................................................................................... 24
Table 10 | Predicted Emergency Fire Pump Noise Impact at Receiver Locations ............................... 24
p2
1
Overview
Caltex Australia Pty Ltd (Caltex) commissioned Aurecon to perform a noise impact assessment for the
proposed New Horizons Project (NHP) upgrade approximately 10 kilometers from the Melbourne CBD
in Newport, Victoria.
Caltex intends to upgrade the current facility with the addition of 8 new tanks and associated
infrastructure for the storage of Automotive Diesel Oil (ADO), Super Premium Unleaded Petroleum
(SPULP), Premium Unleaded Petroleum (PULP), Unleaded Petroleum (ULP) and Jet Fuel (JET).
The upgrade will allow Caltex to increase the output of the facility with the existing Tanker Truck
Loading Rack (TTLR) to be extended with the introduction of three new loading bays.
As part of the planning approval process, Caltex requires a noise study associated with the operation
of the project as part of an environmental impact assessment. It is understood that the Environmental
Protection Authority Victoria (EPAV) will review the impact assessment.
p3
2
Sensitive Receptors
The nearest noise sensitive receptors to the facility are located to the northwest, west and southwest
of the facility. Figure 1 illustrates the site and the nearest sensitive receptors.
N
Figure 1 | Sensitive Receptor Locations
The nearest residential receptor is located approximately 250 m to the southwest of the site.
Residential uses have been identified in Figure 1 other land use within the area can be described as
heavy to light industrial, with some open space and public use facilities also located within the area.
p4
The relevant noise criteria will be calculated and the compliance at the identified sensitive receptors
will be assessed as per the Victorian guidelines.
p5
3
Legislation and Guidelines
The Victoria State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and
Trade) No-1 policy (SEPP N1) provides a framework for environmental planning and a clear set of
publicly agreed environmental objectives. Determination of project specific noise limits are based on
the methodology in the SEPP N-1 policy and the type land use around the noise sensitive area.
Environmental noise assessment was undertaken based on the nearest noise-sensitive receivers
identified as follows:
•
•
•
Receptor 1 – Residential property at 81 Home Road, located south of the project site
Receptor 2 – Residential property at 1 Benar Street, located north-west of the project site
Receptor 3 – Residential Property at 39 Home Road, located south of the project site
Figure 2 – 4 below shows the land use zones around the project site, with circles centred at the
nearest noise sensitive residential property boundary. Unattended environmental noise logging was
undertaken at representative sites in order to derive noise limits at the nearest sensitive receivers.
p6
Figure 2 | Land use zoning around project site – Receptor 1
p7
Based on the methodology in SEPP N-1 policy, and the proportion of industrial/commercial/residential
type land use around the nearest sensitive residential land use boundary, the project specific noise
emission criteria were established and are summarised in Table 1.
Project Specific Environmental Noise Emission Criteria at 81 Home Road – Receptor 1
Time
Zoning
Levels1
Background Noise
Levels, L90 in dB(A)2
Project Specific Environmental Noise Limits at the Boundary of
Noise Sensitive Residential Properties, LAeq dB(A)
Caltex site operating in
normal mode3
Emergency Plant (e.g. fire
pumps)4
Daytime
(7am6pm)
58
41
54
64
52
37
47
52
47
36
44
49
Evening
(6pm10pm)
Night
time
(10pm7am)
1
The zoning levels were based on the proportion of land type use within the circles according to SEPP.
2
Background noise conducted on 10-13 May 2012. Refer to Table 1.Background noise monitoring was conducted at 101 Hodson Street.
Details of the survey can be found in Section 4.
3
Established according to SEPP N1 approach.
4
SEPP N1 noted that: "the noise limit shall be increased by 10dB for day period and by 5dB for other periods" for emergency fire pumps.
Table 1 | Project Specific Environmental Noise Emission Criteria at 81 Home Road – Receptor 1
p8
p9
Project Specific Environmental Noise Emission Criteria at 1 Benar Street – Receptor 2
Time
Zoning
Levels1
Background Noise
normal mode3
pumps)4
Daytime
(7am6pm)
59
43
55
65
52
50
50
55
47
47
47
52
Evening
(6pm10pm)
Night
time
(10pm7am)
1
2
Background noise conducted on 10-13 May 2012. Refer to Table 1.Background noise monitoring was conducted at 18 Robb Street.
3
4
Table 2 | Project Specific Environmental Noise Emission Criteria at 1 Benar Street – Receptor 2
p 10
p 11
Project Specific Environmental Noise Emission Criteria at 39 Home Road – Receptor 3
Time
Zoning
Levels1
Background Noise
normal mode3
pumps)4
Daytime
(7am6pm)
50
41
50
60
44
37
44
49
39
36
39
44
Evening
(6pm10pm)
Night
time
(10pm7am)
1
2
Background noise conducted on 10-13 May 2012. Refer to Table 1.Background noise monitoring was conducted at 18 Robb Street.
3
4
Table 3 | Project Specific Environmental Noise Emission Criteria at 39 Home Road – Receptor 3
p 12
4
Environmental Noise Survey
4.1
Source Emissions
A noise survey around the Caltex site was conducted on 10 May 2012 between 2pm and 5pm to
determine the noise emissions emitted from the Caltex site.
Attended spot measurements were carried out using a Type 1 Larson Davis LD 831 sound level meter
(equipped with a LD PRM831 pre-amplifier and a PCB 377B02 ½ microphone). The sound level meter
used was field calibrated with a Larson Davis LD CA 200 pistonphone prior to the measurements. The
microphone of the sound level meter was fitted with an approved windshield at all times over the
measurement period. The measurement locations are shown in Figure 5. Results of the noise survey
are shown in Table 4.
Not all noise sources were available for measurement during the site visit. Where noise levels could
not be directly measured, in consultation with Caltex site staff, noise levels will be derived from
Aurecon’s internal database and input into the environmental noise model.
N
Figure 5 | Noise source measurement locations
p 13
Summary of the existing environmental noise levels is presented in Table 3 below. It should be noted
that the weather was calm with neutral wind conditions (< 5 m/s) condition throughout the survey.
Results of attended noise survey (Dated 10 May 2012)
Location No.
(Refer to Figure 3)
Measured Noise Levels,
dB(A)
Measurement time/Duration
LAeq #
LA10
^^
LA90
Note
^
1
13:20/0:00:21
76.8
78.4
75.7
2
13:21/0:00:23
74.4
81.2
70.8
3
13:21/0:00:21
69.5
70.4
68.7
4
13:22/0:00:22
70.2
71.3
67.8
5
13:23/0:00:21
71.2
73.4
69.1
6
13:25/0:00:29
76.5
76.8
76.3
7
13:26/0:00:33
78.4
78.6
78.1
8
13:29/0:00:46
74.2
76
71.3
Note 2
9
13:31/0:00:31
75.2
75.4
74.9
Note 3
10
13:35/0:00:30
75.6
76.3
75.1
11
13:37/0:00:15
77.7
77.8
77.6
12
13:38/0:00:15
80.2
78.9
78.3
13
13:38/0:00:17
79.6
80.1
79.2
14
13:39/0:00:20
77.8
78
77.6
15
13:40/0:00:26
81.1
81.4
80.8
16
13:41/0:00:24
81.4
81.6
81.2
17
13:48/0:00:33
73.6
73.8
73.4
Note 5
18
13:51/0:00:08
78.9
83.2
67.8
Note 6
Note 1
Note 4
Table 4 | Results of attended noise survey (Dated 10 May 2012)
#
LAeq refers to A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level over measurement period. It is used to quantify the
average noise level over a time period.
^^
LA10 refers to the A-weighted noise level which is exceeded for only 10% of the measuring period. It is usually used as the
descriptor for intrusive noise level and represents ambient road traffic noise in general.
^
LA90 refers to the A-weighted noise level which is exceeded for 90% of the measuring period. It is usually used as the
descriptor for background noise level during the measurement period.
Note 1:
Noise level differences are due to the varying number of trucks filling at the TLG at one particular time, all
measurements taken at 5 metres.
Note 2:
Measurement is of B-Double entering the TLG from stationary muster point, measurement at 7 metres.
Note 3:
Measurement of North Yard compressor system, measurement taken at 3 metres.
Note 4:
Measurement of pumps/motors located within the vapour recovery unit. Measurement 10 at 7 metres,
measurements 11 -16 at 1 metre.
p 14
Note 5:
Measurement of north yard pump pit, measurement taken at 6 metres.
Note 6:
Measurement of truck pass by, Burleigh street.
4.2
Background Monitoring
Unattended noise monitoring was conducted at two representative receiver locations in order to
determine the current background noise levels in the area. Unattended monitoring results are
summarized in Table 5 and are presented in graphical format in Appendix B.
Unattended Monitoring Results
Receptor 1 – 101 Hobson Street
Date
Background LA90 dB(A)
Ambient LAeq dB(A)
Day (7am –
6pm)
Evening (6pm
– 10pm)
Night (10pm –
7am)
Day (7am –
6pm)
Evening (6pm –
10pm)
Night (10pm
– 7am)
10/05/2012
34*
41
44
46
50
49
11/05/2012
41
37
36
50
46
42
12/05/2012
41
-
-
45
-
-
Median LA90 &
Average LAeq
41
37
36
47
47
45
*Not a complete daytime period. Based on attended measurements undertaken at the site this is considered extremely low and
not representative of normal conditions at the location.
Receptor 2 – 18 Robb Street
Date
Background LA90 dB(A)
Ambient LAeq dB(A)
Day (7am –
6pm)
Evening (6pm
– 10pm)
Night (10pm –
7am)
Day (7am –
6pm)
Evening (6pm –
10pm)
Night (10pm
– 7am)
10/05/2012
43
48
48
51
53
54
11/05/2012
43
42
41
52
46
46
12/05/2012
44
44
44
50
48
46
Median LA90 &
Average LAeq
43
42
41
51
49
49
Table 5 | Unattended Monitoring Results at Representative Receiver Locations
4.3
Attended Monitoring
Attended noise monitoring was undertaken at four locations in order to confirm the results of the
background monitoring detailed in Section 4.2. Attended monitoring results are detailed in Table 5;
Figure 5 shows the attended monitoring locations.
p 15
Attended Monitoring Results
Location
1
2
3
4
Date/Time
Time Period
Measurement
Duration
LA90 dB(A)
LAeq dB(A)
LMAX dB(A)
7/03/2013 11:02
Day
15 mins
50
51
65
7/03/2013 19:45
Evening
15 mins
45
46
51
7/03/2013 22:37
Night
15 mins
43
45
52
12/03/2013 08:20
Day
15 mins
44
51
69
12/03/2013 20:16
Evening
15 mins
38
43
59
12/03/2013 22:14
Night
15 mins
38
39
48
7/03/2013 11:23
Day
15 mins
51
54
69
7/03/2013 20:06
Evening
15 mins
45
47
56
7/03/2013 23:00
Night
15 mins
42
47
64
12/03/2013 08:42
Day
15 mins
41
47
66
12/03/2013 20:38
Evening
15 mins
44
48
68
12/03/2013 22:36
Night
15 mins
41
42
51
7/03/2013 11:52
Day
15 mins
50
51
58
7/03/2013 20:28
Evening
15 mins
44
46
57
7/03/2013 23:21
Night
15 mins
43
54
74
12/03/2013 09:01
Day
15 mins
39
45
70
12/03/2013 21:03
Evening
15 mins
39
43
51
12/03/2013 22:53
Night
15 mins
39
40
47
7/03/2013 12:14
Day
15 mins
49
51
58
7/03/2013 20:52
Evening
15 mins
43
46
56
7/03/2013 23:42
Night
15 mins
43
47
60
12/03/2013 09:22
Day
15 mins
43
49
71
12/03/2013 21:21
Evening
15 mins
41
45
56
12/03/2013 23:14
Night
15 mins
40
42
52
Table 6 | Attended Monitoring Results
Results of the attended monitoring confirm that the data recorded during the unattended monitoring
period accurately reflects the background environment. During the attended monitoring it was noted
that at all locations traffic noise was the dominant source, additionally reverse beepers could be
clearly heard from across the river mouth at the container site/dock location.
p 16
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Figure 6 | Attended Monitoring locations
p 17
5
Project specific criteria has been assessed as per the SEPP N-1, specifically due to the
industrial/residential mix found within the area and further existing noise generating premises in the
area Clause 18 of the SEPP has been enacted to develop the project specific criteria.
Using the following equation noise limits for multiple premises was calculated:
− 10 × log ( )
New industries, plant expansion or major new sources should be abated to the equation above in
decibels at the noise sensitive area (for each period of the day), where N is the total number of
existing and likely contributing industrial plant installations.
Project specific criteria have been developed based on the methodology provided by the SEPP N-1
and the Site Noise Limit and the Emergency Plant Noise Limit are presented in Table 7 below.
Time of Day
Site Noise Limit dB(A)
Emergency Plant Noise Limit dB(A)
All Receivers
Day
44
54
Evening
38
43
Night
33
38
Table 7 | Project Specific Criterion
For the purpose of this assessment the site noise limit was chosen on the basis of the background
assessment conducted at Receptor 3 – 39 Home Road. The calculated noise limit at this receptor was
lower than that calculated at Receptors 1 & 2 allowing for a more conservative approach.
p 18
6
Newport Horizons Project Upgrade
Description
Caltex Australia plan to upgrade their existing Newport terminal to increase the total site storage
capacity and annual fuel throughput. The upgrade is known as the Newport “Horizons” project.
The terminal upgrade comprises the following main elements:
•
•
Design to cater for a future terminal throughput of 4.3 billion litres per annum.
Additional tank storage:
−
−
−
−
−
•
•
•
•
•
60ML ADO – West Yard
15ML SPULP – West Yard
30ML ULP – R&T Yard (initially 15ML ULP and 15ML ADO)
15ML PULP– R&T Yard
15ML JET – R&T Yard
A new tank compound in the R&T Yard and the rebuilding and extension of existing compounds in
the West Yard.
Addition of three new gantry bays onto the existing gantry building complete with a new exit
pavement.
A new DN350 dock-line from Holden dock to the terminal, complete with a new marine loading
arm at the berth to service the existing and new dock-lines.
All dock-lines and existing refinery lines to be re-routed into the Caltex South Yard and into a
Site to be setup so that it can be 100% reliant on imported product (i.e. via tank ship). It is
expected that the site will receive 20% of its product from the existing refinery lines with the
remaining 80% from imported fuel via ship.
The concept design report outlines the main features of the Horizons project, including staging of
construction. A preliminary construction programme and cost estimate is provided in the appendices. It
is anticipated that once Caltex approval is granted to proceed to construction, that full detail design
would be completed for the site upgrade.
p 19
7
Based on Section which details the plant upgrade, a noise emissions inventory was generated as
provided in Table 8. The table contains Sound Power Level data in octave bands for the various plant
operational on-site. The references and assumptions used for the Sound Power Levels of the various
sources are also detailed in this table.
The locations of the noise sources are provided in a site layout map in Figure 7.
From site visits and analysis of the monitoring results no tonality or impulsiveness has been detected
emanating from sources on-site.
Pump data is provided in Appendix C along with supplier data stating the sound pressure level of the
selected pumps.
p 20
Table 8 | Noise Emission Inventory
Sound Power Level, dB(A)
Source
No.
Total
Source Description
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
dB(A)
Notes
91
92
94
97
93
91
86
80
102
Measurement of northern pump pit pumps, back
calculated to determine single pump noise. It is
assumed that all new pumps will be of similar
make/model and capacity.
1
Northern Pump Pit Pumps
2
Southern Pump Pit Pumps
3
R & T Yard Pumps
4
New West Yard Pumps
5
Southern Yard Pump Platform Pumps
6
Vapour Recovery Unit Large Pumps
84
83
82
83
88
78
74
64
92
Measurement taken on site.
Vapour Recovery Unit Small Pumps
75
77
88
81
83
77
79
73
91
Measurement taken on site.
Compressor Station
52
62
82
79
79
73
71
57
90
Measurement Taken on site.
7
8
45
52
61
73
77
77
74
61
87
Measurement taken of overall truck loading gantry
noise, back calculated to determine the noise of a
single gantry station bay. It is assumed new bays will
be of similar equipment/capacity.
54
61
70
77
81
80
78
76
90
Measurement taken on site of truck entering gantry.
Noise of truck exiting is assumed to be the same.
North Yard Fire Pump 1
83
96
99
100
102
99
95
87
107
13
North Yard Fire Pump 2
69
80
94
101
105
105
100
94
110
14
South Yard Fire Pump
58
78
58
94
104
103
98
88
108
15
West Yard Fire Pump
71
87
95
101
102
103
99
91
108
9
Truck Loading Gantry Pumps
10
Trucks entering Gantry
11
Trucks exiting Gantry
12
p 21
Sound data sourced from Petroch Services Caltex
Newport Terminal Noise Survey. Report Ref:
CX09008-05 Rev3A
Figure 7 | Modelled Noise Source Locations
p 22
8
Noise Modeling Methodology
Noise modelling was undertaken using International Standard ISO 9613-2: 1996 Acoustics -Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors -- Part 2: General method of calculation, using
SoundPLAN© a proprietary acoustics software package.
The SoundPLAN© model has been verified during numerous instances by Aurecon during previous
environmental noise projects and the predicted levels are deemed to be conservative and
representative of the noise levels to be expected during plant operations. The method assumes worst
case noise emission conditions, such as down wind noise propagation or moderate temperature
inversion and takes into account the following physical effects:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geometrical divergence
Atmospheric absorption (10ºC and 80% Humidity)
Ground effect (0.5)
Reflection from surfaces
Screening by obstacles
Worst-case meteorological effects
Noise associated with plant activity will depend on factors such as the type of equipment used,
operations being performed and the condition of the equipment. The sound level produced from such
activities also depends on the fraction of time the equipment is operated. It has been assumed that all
plant operates concurrently and all operational activities occur simultaneously.
The area is generally flat, and therefore, effects of screening due to ground elevation have been
assumed to be negligible.
Due to the location/elevation of the sources and the acoustic shielding provided by the positions of the
buildings/tanks, the buildings/tanks have been incorporated into the noise model.
All existing noise sources have been included in the model to ensure that the total cumulative noise
impact from the proposed expansion operations and existing plant is included within the model.
p 23
9
Assessment
9.1
Normal Operations
Table 9 details the sound levels experienced at the nearest sensitive receptor in each nominated
sensitive receiver area. Contour plots of the modeled results are presented in Appendix A.
Noise Impact at Receiver Locations
Receiver
Description
LAeq dB(A)
1
Nearest northern receiver located at 1 Benar street.
29
2
Nearest western receiver located at 2 Ramsay Street.
17
3
Nearest southern receiver located at 81 Home Road.
22
4
Nearest south easterly receiver located at 1 Hobson Street.
33
Table 9 | Noise impact at Receiver Locations
The results of the noise modelling indicate that the proposed development will not have an adverse
impact on the nearest sensitive receivers.
9.2
Emergency Operations (fire pumps)
Table 7 details the sound levels experienced at the nearest sensitive receivers when fire pumps are
operational. Contour plots of the modeled results are presented in Appendix A.
Noise Impact at Receiver Locations
Receiver
Description
LAeq dB(A)
1
Nearest northern receiver located at 1 Benar street.
2
Nearest western receiver located at 2 Ramsay Street.
3
Nearest southern receiver located at 81 Home Road.
29
4
Nearest south easterly receiver located at 1 Hobson Street.
36
36
33
Table 10 | Predicted Emergency Fire Pump Noise Impact at Receiver Locations
Table 10 indicates that under emergency conditions when the fire pumps are running in conjunction
with all other sources the development will still not exceed the project specific criterion. This is a
conservative assessment of the emergency operations as it is extremely unlikely that other equipment
would continue to operate in conjunction with the fire systems.
9.3
Road Traffic Noise
Currently the facility processes on average 160 trucks per day, with the proposed upgrade the facility
will experience some 300 movements per day. The current procedure is for trucks to enter and leave
from the same point on Douglas Parade, the new procedure will see trucks enter from Burleigh and
exit from the current entry/exit on Douglas Parade. Figure 8 details the current route and proposed
route for the new development.
p 24
Truck movements will be spread out over the day seeing an increase from 6 trucks per hour to 12.5
trucks per hour with an envisaged slight bias towards day operations.
N
Figure 8 | Current and Proposed Alteration to Truck Route
p 25
Given the distance from the nearest noise sensitive receiver to the route of the trucks (approx. 440m)
and the current heavy vehicle loads experienced in the area it is unlikely that the increase in trucks will
have an adverse impact on the nearest sensitive receivers.
p 26
10
Conclusion
Aurecon has completed a noise assessment of the proposed Caltex Newport Horizons Upgrade
Project.
A noise survey at the nearest sensitive receptor was undertaken to determine the specific noise
criteria in accordance with Victorian EPA regulations.
The plant operations at the current Caltex plant were monitored and analysed to determine the major
noise emitting plant on-site for the current and proposed upgrade. A noise inventory was then
generated based on the monitored noise data and provided literature.
A noise model was created in SoundPLAN to predict the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptors
and to generate noise contours for the existing and proposed plant.
•
•
•
•
The predicted noise level from normal onsite operations comply with the stipulated criteria.
The predicted noise level from emergency fire pump operations comply with the stipulated criteria.
Noise from the increase of heavy vehicle movements is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the
nearest sensitive receivers.
Noise predictions are based on a worst case situation where all the plant items are running
concurrently throughout the day.
p 27
11
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
References
Environment Protection Act 1970, State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from
Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1, 1989, Victorian Government Gazette No. S 31
Designation of Types of Zones and Reservations in the Metropolitan Region Planning Schemes
for the Purposes of State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce,
Industry and Trade) No. N-1. Environment Protection Authority, State Government of Victoria,
February 2000.
SEPP N-1 and NIRV Explanatory Notes, Publication 1412, October 2011. EPA Victoria.
Google Earth
Nearmap
Petroch Services, Caltex Newport Terminal Noise Survey, November 12&18, 2009. Report Ref.
CX9008-05 Rev 3A
Victorian Planning Schemes Online
p 28
Appendix A
Noise Contours
Normal Operations
Emergency Operations (Fire Pumps)
Appendix B
Unattended Monitoring
101 Hobson Street
18 Robb Street
Appendix C
Selected Pumps SPL
RE: ITT Pump sound Pressure requirements
Page 1 of 2
Grech, Charlie [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 4:34 PM
To: Geoff White
Geoff,
I hope this reaches you. Please confirm, thank you.
Kind regards
Charlie Grech
Sales Engineer
ITT Blakers
Sydney, New South Wales
+61 2 9987 1422 | Mob: 0408 905 810 | Fax: +61 2 9987 1433
[email protected]
www.blakerspumps.com.au www.itt.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments and/or linked documents, is intended for the sole use of the intended
addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the original sender
immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporation.
From: Grech, Charlie
Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2013 6:14 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: Czlonka, Anna
Subject: ITT Pump sound Pressure requirements
Geoffrey,
Please find below the details requested for the pumps supplied under PO No. 7000054557 (Caltex).
Pump models supplied (two types):
iTT 3700 XLA 8x12 #21S with 90 kW
Combined sound pressure (pump and motor at full load) = 82.9 dB
iTT 3700 LX 8x12 #17S with 75 kW
Combined sound pressure (pump and motor at full load) = 81.5 dB
I trust the above suffices your requirements, please do not hesitate in contacting me if further assistance is
required, thank you.
Kind regards
Charlie Grech
Sales Engineer
ITT Blakers
https://webmail.au.aurecongroup.com/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAC05... 25/03/2013
Page 2 of 2
Sydney, New South Wales
+61 2 9987 1422 | Mob: 0408 905 810 | Fax: +61 2 9987 1433
[email protected]
www.blakerspumps.com.au www.itt.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments and/or linked documents, is intended for the sole use of the intended
addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the original sender
immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporation.
https://webmail.au.aurecongroup.com/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAC05... 25/03/2013
ABN 54 005 139 873
PO Box 321
Australia
T +61 3 8683 1333
F +61 3 8683 1444
E [email protected]
W aurecongroup.com
ABN 54 005 139 873
Aurecon Centre
850 Collins Street
Docklands Vic 3008
PO Box 23061
Docklands Vic 8012
Australia
T +61 3 9975 3000
F +61 3 9975 3444
E [email protected]
W aurecongroup.com

Application form for EPA works approval

Transcription

Similar documents

21000-Gallon Frac Tank - E-Tank

How to Manually Regenerate or Cycle Your Kinetico Softener

RV Camping Checklist

hearts aflutter tank top

Xactics Polyethylene Tank Brochure

Double-wall Oil Tanks - Roth Double

Grease tank

Portable RV Waste Pump - Xylem Flow Control

Thought experiment

Solahart Fact File