dust emission source characterisation – port operations · 2020. 7. 17. · sampling was...

Dust Emission Source Characterisation – Port Operations

Assessment Study

Final Report

Version 1

Prepared for Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd

February 2020

Project Number: 1095

Dust Emission Source Characterisation – Port Operations Roy Hill

1095_RH_SiteSampling_Ver1.docx Page i

Dust Emissions Source Characterisation – Assessment Study

Final Report

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version Description Date Author Reviewer

A Review - Draft 09.01.20 ETA (JH) ETA (DT)

1 Final 03.02.20 ETA (JH) ETA (DT)

Approval for Release

Name Position File Reference

Jon Harper Director 1095_RH_SiteSampling_Ver1.docx

Signature

Insert Digital Signature here

Copyright of this document or any part of this document remains with Environmental Technologies and Analytics Pty Ltd and cannot be used, transferred or reproduced in any manner or form without prior written consent from Environmental Technologies and Analytics Pty Ltd.


1095_RH_SiteSampling_Ver1.docx Page ii

Executive Summary Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd (Roy Hill) commissioned Environmental Technologies & Analytics Pty Ltd (ETA) to undertake a dust emission source characterisation study for the Roy Hill port operations in Port Hedland (the Project). The purpose of the study is to undertake further on-site dust emission measurements to supplement the samples undertaken during the initial 2018/2019 survey. These samples will be utilised to develop site-specific emission factors to replace, where appropriate, the use of generic emission factors sourced from the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) Emission Estimation Technique (EET) manuals. Many of the NPI factors were primarily derived for coal mines and their applicability for dust emissions within the iron ore industry can be variable.

This report presents the results of the field survey, and the derivation of site specific emission factors for the Roy Hill port operations.

Overview of Assessment

A field measurement program was undertaken in November and December 2019. Non-conducive meteorological conditions interrupted each field survey, leading to a reduced number of samples being collected. Sampling was undertaken using a TSI 8520 DustTrak aerosol monitoring unit with specific methodologies being applied to volume sources (such as transfer stations, stackers and reclaimers) and line sources (such as conveyors) to generate emission profiles. The resultant profiles were analysed to generate horizontally integrated measures of the dust mass. Emission rates were then back calculated using the horizontal emission profiles, the vertical height of the plume and wind speed.

The study approach and methodology is consistent with similar studies for other operations in the Port Hedland region (BHP, FMG and PPA).

Key Findings

For the volume sources (transfer stations, stacking, reclaiming, screening) the results to date indicate:

there appears to be no relationship between calculated emission rates and either wind speed or ore moisture for all products during material handling.

that for the majority of the volume sources sampled the measured emission rate is significantly lower than the calculated controlled NPI emission rate.

further sampling is required for some volume sources, notably the inload transfer stations and the screening plant, but overall the number of samples provides a good representation of emissions at the Roy Hill port facility.

The summary of recommended emission factors for volume sources (transfer stations, stackers, reclaimers, screening plant and shiploader) are presented in Table ES 1.

For the line sources (conveyors) the results to date indicate:

there appears to be no relationship between calculated emission rates and either wind speed or ore moisture for all products.

the measured emission rate from conveyors is highly variable with some conveyors, such as CVR111 and CVR113 (incoming stacker conveyors) being well below the NPI controlled emission rate while


1095_RH_SiteSampling_Ver1.docx Page iii

others, such as CVR121 and CVR122, have an average emission rate above the NPI controlled emission rate.

Prior to this survey dust abatement remediation work was undertaken on CVR122 including: upgrading the dust spray bar and reinstating the conveyor skirts to their correct state. Analysis of the monitoring data indicated that these works resulted in a significant reduction in the average emission rate for lump though there was only a minor reduction to the fines emission rate.

further sampling is required for some line sources, notably the wharf conveyor, but overall the number of samples provides a good representation of emissions at the Roy Hill port facility.

The summary of recommended emission factors for conveyors are presented in Table ES 2.

Table ES 1: Recommended emission factors for Volume sources (kg/t)

Circuit Group Emission Source Data Emission Factor

Inload

Car Dumper NPI 0.002 kg/t (with a 99% control factor for enclosure and extraction)

Transfer Stations NPI 0.002 kg/tonne (with a control factor of 70%)

Stackers Site Specific Lump: 0.0004 kg/tonne

Fines: 0.0001 kg/tonne

Outload

Reclaimer Site Specific Lump: 0.00025 kg/tonne


Transfer Stations Site Specific Lump: 0.00007 kg/tonne


Screening Plant NPI 0.002 kg/tonne (with a control factor of 90%)

Shiploader Site Specific Lump: 0.0004 kg/tonne


Table ES 2: Recommended emission factors for conveyors (kg/t)


Inload





Outload



Screening Plant Site Specific Lump: 0.0022 kg/tonne


Outload Transfer Stations Site Specific Lump: 0.0007 kg/tonne


1095_RH_SiteSampling_Ver1.docx Page iv



Outload - Overland Site Specific Lump: 0.0007 kg/tonne


Wharf NPI Lump: 0.002 kg/tonne (with 80% control)

Fines: 0.002 kg/tonne (with 80% control)


1095_RH_SiteSampling_Ver1.docx Page v

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objective ............................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Study approach and assessment methodology ........................................................................................ 3

2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Emission Sources at Roy Hill Iron Ore Port Facility ............................................................................... 3

2.3 Field Measurement Methodology ........................................................................................................ 4

2.3.1 DustTrak monitor ................................................................................................................... 4

2.3.2 Calibration .............................................................................................................................. 5

2.3.3 Accounting for dust depletion ............................................................................................... 6

2.3.4 Limitations of methodology ................................................................................................... 6

2.3.5 Ore types ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.3.6 Data analysis .......................................................................................................................... 7

3 Emission Measurement Results and Comparison .................................................................................... 8

3.1 Volume Sources .................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.1 Car Dumper ............................................................................................................................ 9

3.1.2 Inload transfer stations ........................................................................................................ 10

3.1.3 Stackers ................................................................................................................................ 12

3.1.4 Reclaimers ............................................................................................................................ 14

3.1.5 Outload transfer stations ..................................................................................................... 16

3.1.6 Screening plant .................................................................................................................... 18

3.1.7 Shiploaders........................................................................................................................... 21

3.2 Line Sources (Conveyors) .................................................................................................................... 21

3.2.1 Conveyor – incoming transfer stations ................................................................................ 22

3.2.2 Conveyor – Stackers ............................................................................................................. 24

3.2.3 Conveyor – Reclaimer .......................................................................................................... 26


1095_RH_SiteSampling_Ver1.docx Page vi

3.2.4 Conveyor – screening plant.................................................................................................. 27

3.2.5 Conveyor – outgoing transfer stations................................................................................. 29

3.2.6 Conveyor – overland ............................................................................................................ 32

3.2.7 Conveyor - wharf .................................................................................................................. 34

3.3 Summary of Results ............................................................................................................................ 35

4 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 37

4.1 Volume Sources .................................................................................................................................. 37

4.2 Line Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 37

5 References ............................................................................................................................................ 39

Tables Table 2-1: Group emission classifications at the Roy Hill Iron Ore port facility

Table 3-1: NPI Emission Factors and Assumptions

Table 3-2: Number of samples, by ore type, for volume sources

Table 3-3: Number of samples, by ore type, for line (conveyor) sources

Table 3-4: Recommended emission factors for Volume sources (kilograms per tonne) (kg/t))

Table 3-5: Recommended emission factors for conveyors (kg/t)

Figures Figure 1-1 Project location and setting

Figure 2-1: Location of emission sources at Roy Hill

Figure 2-2: BAM to DustTrak calibration

Figure 3-1 Car dumper with dust extraction and baghouse (ETA, 2018)

Figure 3-2 Inload transfer stations - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-3 Inload transfer stations - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Figure 3-4 Stacker (SKR113) (ETA, 2018)

Figure 3-5 Stackers - calculated emission rates versus wind speed


1095_RH_SiteSampling_Ver1.docx Page vii

Figure 3-6 Stackers - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Figure 3-7 Reclaimer - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-8 Reclaimer - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Figure 3-9 Outload transfer stations - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-10 Outload transfer stations - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Figure 3-11 Screening plant (ETA, 2018)

Figure 3-12 Screening - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-13 Screening - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Figure 3-14 Shiploader (ETA, 2018)

Figure 3-15 Incoming transfer station conveyor - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-16 Incoming transfer station conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Figure 3-17 Incoming stacker conveyors - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-18 Incoming stacker conveyors conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Figure 3-19 Reclaimer conveyor - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-20 Reclaimer transfer station conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Figure 3-21 Screening plant conveyor - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-22 Screening plant conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Figure 3-23 Looking south along CVR122 – note dust emissions along length of conveyor

Figure 3-24 Outgoing transfer station conveyor - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-25 Outgoing transfer station conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Figure 3-26 Overland conveyor (CVR161) – note that the top of this conveyor is enclosed

Figure 3-27 Overland conveyor - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-28 Overland conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Figure 3-29 Wharf conveyor - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-30 Wharf conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture


1095_RH_SiteSampling_Ver1.docx Page viii

Appendices – Determination of Dust Emission Rates

- Emission Estimation


1095_RH_SiteSampling_Ver1.docx Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd (Roy Hill) own, and operate, an integrated mining, rail and port operations in the Pilbara

region of Western Australia. The port facility, located to the west of Port Hedland (Figure 1-1), consists of:

• Inload circuit o Car Dumper

o Two Stackers

o 10 stockpiles, with capacity of 230,000 tonnes each

o Associated conveyors and transfer stations

• Outload circuit

o Reclaimer

o Lump re-screening plant

o Shiploader

o Associated conveyors and transfer stations.

The Roy Hill port operations currently has an approved throughput of 60 million tonnes per annum (mtpa). During the approvals process for the 5 mtpa expansion to 60 mtpa it was noted by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) that the predicted emissions were higher than those from the BHP facilities in Port Hedland. This is potentially due to Roy Hill’s use of emission factors sourced from the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) Emission Estimation Technique (EET) manuals. While the use of emission factors sourced from the various NPI EET manuals is acceptable for emission estimation and modelling it is also noted that these factors were primarily derived for coal mines and their applicability for ore types outside of this can be variable. An alternative approach is to develop site or source specific emission factors based on the direct measurement of emissions.

The aim of this study is to undertake further on-site dust emission measurements to supplement the samples undertaken during the initial 2018/2019 survey. The combined measurements will be used to assist in developing site-specific emission factors.

1.2 Objective

The objective of this study is to undertake additional site measurements at the Roy Hill Port facility to improve the emission estimates. The field survey and subsequent data analysis will incorporate a methodology consistent to that used for other operations in the Port Hedland region including BHP, Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) and Pilbara Ports Authority (PPA).

The study will include:

• Field sampling of emission sources • Emission estimation of the emission sources • Estimation of dust abatement effectiveness (if appropriate).



Figure 1-1 Project location and setting



2 Study approach and assessment methodology

This section provides an overview of the various dust emission sources at the Roy Hill Iron Ore port facility, the emission source sampling methodology used to assist in deriving source specific emission factors, and the data analysis process used.

2.1 Overview

The primary objective of this assessment is to derive source specific emission factors for the Roy Hill port facility. Determining source specific emission factors allows an operation to transfer from generic emission factors, such as those outlined in the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining Version 3.1 (EETM for Mining Ver3.1) (Environment Australia, 2012), to ones that are more applicable to the operation. By doing so it allows a facility to more accurately undertake atmospheric dispersion modelling and assists in determining suitable dust abatement strategies.

The sampling methodology and analysis applied in this assessment is consistent with that used for other operations in the region including BHP (SKM, 2006).

2.2 Emission Sources at Roy Hill Iron Ore Port Facility

There are numerous potential sources within a material handling facility including:

• Car Dumper • Conveyors (inload and outload) • Transfer stations • Stacking • Reclaiming • Shiploading • Wheel generated emissions from sealed and unsealed roads • Wind erosion from open areas and stockpiles.

Due to the similarity in design and emissions in some of these emission sources, previous surveys grouped individual sources into group classifications. The group classification currently used for emission estimation purposes at the Roy Hill Iron Ore port facility are presented in tabular format in Table 2-1 with the actual location of the sources are presented in Figure 2-1.

Table 2-1: Group emission classifications at the Roy Hill Iron Ore port facility

Source ID Source / Infrastructure

Car Dumper CDU101

Incoming Transfer Stations TFS104, TFS105, TFS107

Stackers SKR111, SKR113

Reclaimer REC116

Outgoing Transfer Stations TFS116, TFS122

Screening Plant SCR, BIN



Source ID Source / Infrastructure

Shiploader SLD164

Conveyor – Incoming transfer station CVR105

Conveyor – Stackers CVR111, CVR113

Conveyor – Reclaimer CVR116

Conveyor – Screening Plant CVR121

Conveyor – Outgoing transfer station CVR122

Conveyor – Overland CVR161, CVR162, CVR163

Conveyor – Wharf CVR164

Figure 2-1: Location of emission sources at Roy Hill

2.3 Field Measurement Methodology

2.3.1 DustTrak monitor Sampling was undertaken using a TSI 8250 DustTrak aerosol monitoring unit. The DustTrak monitor is portable and has a measurement range of 1 to 100 milligrams per cubic metre (mg/m3) and can sample from 1 second to 30 minutes.

For this assessment sampling was completed using two separate methodologies, depending on source type:



• Volume sampling: Includes sources such as transfer stations, stackers and reclaimers. Depending on conditions, between 6 to 10 transects were undertaken by walking through the plume, downwind of the source, at distances from 10 to 100 metres (m) downwind and as close to right angles to the wind as possible. Sampling was conducted with a two second rolling average to smooth out some of the extreme fluctuations with the output logged every second. Therefore, each second, a value representing the average of the last two seconds was logged.

• Line sampling: Includes sources such as conveyors or vehicle activity. Sampling was undertaken at three to four separate locations downwind and approximately 100 m apart along the conveyor. A single upwind sample was undertaken, at each conveyor for each sample run, to determine incoming air quality concentrations. The results of the upwind sample were deducted from the averaged downwind sample to obtain a single sample result. Sampling data, from each sampling point, was collected over a five minute period with a five second sampling interval.

The resultant profiles were analysed to generate horizontally integrated measures of the dust mass. Emission rates were then back calculated using the horizontal emission profiles, the vertical height of the plume and wind speed. The methodology used to back calculate emission rates is outlined in Appendix A.

2.3.2 Calibration

The TSI 8520 DustTrak uses a laser to count the number of particles below 10 microns in diameter and is calibrated to Arizona road dust to convert these particle counts into a concentration estimate. Therefore, the instrument does not measure the actual concentration and for accurate results must be calibrated against another standard for the particulate of interest.

For this assessment the DustTrak was co-located with a MetOne BAM1020 monitor that is part of the Roy Hill boundary monitoring network. To ensure that the dust being sampled during the calibration period was similar to that being sampled as part of the dust characterisation survey a downwind monitor was always chosen. Monitoring was undertaken for 1-hour starting at the hour to ensure that the sampling period is identical to the hourly reading from the BAM1020.

The results of the calibration are presented in Figure 2-2 as the ratio of the BAM1020 to DustTrak concentrations against wind speed. This figure also presents the R2 of the line of best fit and the calculated conversion equation. The derived equation is used to convert the DustTrak concentrations to an equivalent mass balance concentration.



Figure 2-2: BAM to DustTrak calibration

2.3.3 Accounting for dust depletion

For traverses taken at large distances (greater than 500 m) from the source, the larger particles will be deposited from the dust plume. Therefore, measurements taken at these distances will underestimate the concentrations. As a result, measurements were typically taken 10 to 100 m from the source to minimise the associated depletion.

2.3.4 Limitations of methodology

While every effort is made to ensure dust sampling and emission calculations are as accurate as possible, there are sources of potential error associated with this methodology and sampling conditions. These errors may be associated with either the physical sampling of the dust, or those associated with emission estimation calculations.

Errors associated with physical sampling of dust may include the following:

• Operating conditions of the source may change (eg conveyor may shut down).

• Increased dust emissions upwind of the source (eg reclaimer may move location on a stockpile).

• Wind speed may increase/decrease during monitoring.

Errors may also be associated with source emission calculations. The main error is associated with an ‘idealised’ method of calculating an emission rate, where an empirical equation has been used to provide hourly average

y = 0.4999x + 0.5318R² = 0.7735

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

BAM

:Dus

tTra

k Rat

io

Wind Speed (m/s)



emission rate, however, in reality emissions would vary on a smaller time scale due to wind gusts, ore moisture and ore throughput.

There are also limitations in the moisture concentrations data provided by Roy Hill for both the inload and outload circuits. The moisture concentrations are recorded as an average over an entire loading time (train or shiploading) and may not correspond to the actual moisture when the measurement was undertaken. As such, any analysis of moisture should be undertaken as a general trend rather than being interpreted as a definitive value.

2.3.5 Ore types

Currently Roy Hill operate a single mine with ore being processed through a beneficiation plant resulting in two wet products – lump and fines. This supports a more simplified description of emission sources and emission inventory compared to other operations in the region which handle a larger number of ore product types.

2.3.6 Data analysis

For reporting and analytical purposes the samples taken, by ore type, from each source, were plotted against the recorded wind speed and the ore moisture to assist in determining if the emissions vary by these parameters. If there is no variation due to these variables then a simple emission factor (kg/tonne) can be utilised.



3 Emission Measurement Results and Comparison

A field measurement program was undertaken in November / December 2019 and the measurements undertaken during this survey were incorporated into those from the previous field sampling program undertaken in December 2018 and March 2019 (ETA, 2019).

As stated in Section 1.1 it was noted by DWER that one of the primary reasons that the predicted emissions from the Roy Hill export facility were higher than those from the BHP facilities was due to the use of NPI emission factors. These emission factors, which are sourced from the NPI EET Manual for Mining version 3.1, are commonly used for emission estimation and modelling though as they were primarily derived for coal mines their applicability for sources outside of this can be variable. For the Roy Hill 60 mpta modelling assessment the primary emission factor utilised was 0.002 kg per tonnes (kg/t) which is the default emission factor for high moisture ore (from metalliferous mines) for handling, transferring, conveying and bucket wheel reclaimers. Reductions to the calculated emissions can be applied depending on the type of dust abatement employed.

The NPI for Mining (Ver2.3) has a series of control methods that can be employed with an associated emission reduction. When two or more controls are used then it is recommended that the controls be multiplicative. The controls used in the emission estimation for the 60 mtpa modelling are as follows:

• Car dumper: 99% reduction for full enclosure of the car dumper with extraction into a baghouse • Conveyors: 80% reduction for belt washing • Transfer Stations: 70% reduction for enclosure (chute) • Stackers: 63% reduction for luffing stacker with water sprays • Reclaimer: 50% reduction for water sprays • Shiploader: 63% reduction for luffing loader with water sprays.

The results of the field surveys completed to date are contained within the following sections and a summary of the on-site sampling data is provided in Appendix B. For comparison purposes the site-specific emission concentrations that have been determined from the site sampling are compared to the relevant NPI values for each source. These concentrations have been determined using the default NPI PM10 emission factor noted above based on a potential maximum operating rate of 11,250 (inload), 12,700 (outload) tonnes per hour (tph). These NPI emission factors are listed in Table 3-1 both with and without emission controls for each emission source type.

Table 3-1: NPI Emission Factors and Assumptions

Circuit Group Emission Source

NPI Emission Factor (kg/t)

Uncontrolled Emission Rate (g/s)

Control Factor (%)

Controlled Emission Rate

(g/s)

Inload

Car Dumper

Conveyors

Transfer Stations

Stackers

0.002 6.3

6.3

6.3

6.3

99%

80%

70%

63%

0.06

1.25

1.9

2.3

Outload Reclaimer

Conveyors

0.002 7.1

7.1

50%

80%

3.5

3.8



Circuit Group Emission Source

NPI Emission Factor (kg/t)

Uncontrolled Emission Rate (g/s)

Control Factor (%)

Controlled Emission Rate

(g/s)

Transfer Stations

Screening Plant

7.1

7.1

70%

99%

2.1

0.1

For reporting purposes the results of the survey have been presented in categories: volume and line sources.

3.1 Volume Sources

The following sections outline the results of the site monitoring program for volume sources including:

• Transfer stations • Stackers • Reclaimers • Screening plant.

During the first survey a total 23 samples were undertaken on volume sources at the Roy Hill operations in Port Hedland, with a further 3 taken during the December 2019 survey. Ideally a minimum of three samples are required before an indication of the potential emission rate can be determined while four, or more, samples are required to determine if a relationship exists between the wind speed or ore moisture.

Table 3-2: Number of samples, by ore type, for volume sources

Source Fines Lump TOTAL

Train Unloader N/A N/A N/A

Inload Transfer Stations - 2 2

Stackers 3 3 6

Reclaimer 7 2 9

Outload Transfer Stations 4 2 6

Screening Plant 1 2 3

Shiploaders N/A N/A N/A

3.1.1 Car Dumper

As outlined in Section 2.2 Roy Hill operates a single Car Dumper (CDU) at the port facility. No measurements have been undertaken at this source as there are safety concerns relating to working in close proximity to the



heavy haulage railway during shunting operations. The absence of source specific emission samples from this point is not a concern as the car dumper is fully enclosed with an extraction system and, from visual inspection, appears to have no visible dust emissions. The car dumper, along with the extraction system and baghouse, are shown in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1 Car dumper with dust extraction and baghouse (ETA, 2018)

3.1.2 Inload transfer stations

The inload circuit at the Roy Hill operations includes three transfer stations (TFS104, TFS105 and TFS107). The location of these transfer stations is shown in Figure 2-1. As presented in Table 3-2 only two samples were collected during the first survey at these transfer stations with no further samples being collected during the 2019 survey. The low number of samples highlights the difficulty in obtaining samples at these transfer stations. This is due to a combination of reasons including limited access immediately around the transfer stations (restrictions due to safety issues) and additional operations occurring either upwind or adjacent to the source (reclaiming, vehicle activity etc).

The relationship between the wind speed and calculated emission rates, for the inload transfer stations is presented in Figure 3-2, while the relationship between ore moisture and calculated emission rates is presented in Figure 3-3. For comparison purposes the estimated NPI emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled emissions, as outlined in Table 3-1, is displayed in the figures. Unfortunately only two samples, (both lump product), have been sampled and this is insufficient to draw any reliable conclusions in regard to emissions varying by either wind speed or ore moisture. Both samples were well below the NPI controlled emission rate providing an indication that the emission rates previously used in the modelling are very conservative resulting in an overestimation in the potential impacts from these sources.



Figure 3-2 Inload transfer stations - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-3 Inload transfer stations - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Moisture (%)

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



Recommendations: Although the monitoring data indicates that the emission rate from the inload transfer stations is lower than the controlled NPI emission rate there is insufficient data to confirm this. It is recommended that the NPI (controlled) emission rate continued to be utilised for these sources.

3.1.3 Stackers

The inload circuit at the Roy Hill operations includes two stackers (SKR111 and SKR113) one of which is shown in Figure 3-4. As presented in Table 3-2 a total of six samples have been collected from the stackers – three for fines and three for lump.

Figure 3-4 Stacker (SKR113) (ETA, 2018)

The relationship between the wind speed and calculated emission rates for the stackers is presented in Figure 3-5, and the relationship between ore moisture and calculated emission rates is presented in Figure 3-6. For comparison purposes the estimated NPI emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled emissions, as outlined in Table 3-1, is also displayed in the figures.

From these figures the following can be determined:

• Emissions for both lump and fines products are below the NPI controlled emission rate. • The monitored emissions for lump products are 52% of the calculated emission rate while for fines the

monitored emissions are 16% of the calculated emission rate.



• There are insufficient samples for both lump and fines to determine if there is any variation in emissions by either wind speed or ore moisture.

Figure 3-5 Stackers - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



Figure 3-6 Stackers - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Recommendations: Based on the monitoring data collected it is recommended that the following emission factors be utilised to represent emission from stacking operations:

• Lump: 0.0004 kg/tonne • Fines: 0.0001 kg/tonne

These recommended emission factors have been determined by averaging the calculated emission rate for each sample (using the inload/outload rates noted in Section 3) and then averaging these results for each product type. This process was also utilised for each source type.

3.1.4 Reclaimers

The outload circuit at the Roy Hill operations consists of a single reclaimer (Rec116). During the first survey a total of seven samples were collected from the reclaimer – five for fines and two for lump. During the second survey another two samples were collected – both for fines.

The relationship between the wind speed and calculated emission rates for the reclaimer is presented in Figure 3-7, while the relationship between ore moisture and calculated emission rates is presented in Figure 3-8. For comparison purposes the estimated NPI emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled emissions, as outlined in Table 3-1, is displayed in the figures.

From these figures the following can be inferred:

• Emissions for both lump and fines products are well below the calculated NPI controlled emission rate. • The average monitored emissions for lump products are 28% of the calculated emission rate and for

fines the average monitored emissions are lower at 14% of the calculated emission rate.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Moisture (%)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



• For fines there appears to be a very slight increase in emissions with wind speed however further samples would be required to confirm this. There is insufficient variation in the moisture to determine any potential relationship between the emission rate for fines and the ore moisture.

• There are insufficient samples of lump to determine if there is any variation in emissions by either wind speed or ore moisture.

Figure 3-7 Reclaimer - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



Figure 3-8 Reclaimer - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Recommendations: Based on the monitoring data collected it is recommended that the following emission rates be utilised to represent emissions from reclaiming operations:

• Lump: 0.00025 kg/tonne (note that even though only two samples have been taken they were both significantly below the controlled NPI emission rate)

• Fines: 0.00016 kg/tonne

3.1.5 Outload transfer stations

The outload circuit at the Roy Hill port operations consists of a number of transfer stations however the surveys have focussed on the two primary ones within the stockyard operations – TFS116 and TFS122. During the first survey a total of five samples were collected from the outload transfer stations – three for fines and two for lump, while for the second survey only a single sample for fines was collected.

The relationship between the wind speed and calculated emission rates, for the transfer stations, is presented in Figure 3-9, and the relationship between ore moisture and calculated emission rates is presented in Figure 3-10. For comparison purposes the estimated NPI emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled emissions, as outlined in Table 3-1, is displayed in the figures.


• Emissions for both lump and fines products are well below the calculated NPI controlled emission rate. • The average monitored emissions for lump products are 11% of the calculated emission rate while for

fines the average monitored emissions are lower at 7% of the calculated emission rate.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Moisture (%)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



• Based on Figure 3-9 there is no relationship between the emissions of fines and the wind speed. • There is also no apparent relationship between the fines moisture and the emission rate (Figure 3-10). • There are insufficient samples of lump to determine if there is any variation in emissions by either wind

speed or ore moisture.

Figure 3-9 Outload transfer stations - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



Figure 3-10 Outload transfer stations - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

Recommendations: Based on the monitoring data collected it is recommended that the following emission rates be utilised to represent emissions from reclaiming operations:

• Lump: 0.00007 kg/tonne (note that even though only two samples have been taken they were both significantly below the controlled NPI emission rate)

• Fines: 0.00003 kg/tonne.

3.1.6 Screening plant

The outload circuit at the Roy Hill port operations has a single screening plant (for lump) although there are also three bins attached to the plant for fines (Figure 3-11). As presented in Table 3-2 a total of three samples were collected from the screening plant – one for fines and two for lump.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Moisture (%)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



Figure 3-11 Screening plant (ETA, 2018)

The relationship between the wind speed and calculated emission rates, for the transfer stations, is presented in Figure 3-12, while the relationship between ore moisture and calculated emission rates is presented in Figure 3-13. For comparison purposes the estimated NPI emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled emissions, as outlined in Table 3-1, is displayed in the figures.

From these figures the following can be surmised:

• There are insufficient samples to undertake any analysis of emissions against wind speed and ore moisture.

• Of the three samples undertaken, two returned emission rates higher than the controlled emission rates previously used to determine emissions from the Roy Hill operations (Table 3-1).



Figure 3-12 Screening - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-13 Screening - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Moisture (%)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



Recommendation: Based on the monitoring data collected it is recommended that the default NPI emission factor (Table 3-1) continue to be used however the reduction applied should be 90% as it is more representative than the value of 99% used in the previous emission estimation. Further sampling is required for both lump and fines.

3.1.7 Shiploaders

As outlined in Section 2.2 Roy Hill operates a single shiploader at the port facility (Figure 3-14). No measurements have been undertaken at this source as there are safety concerns relating to working over water. In the absence of measurements it is recommended that the updated emission factors for stacking be utilised as the two processes (stacking and shiploading) are effectively identical based on the type of equipment used.

Figure 3-14 Shiploader (ETA, 2018)

3.2 Line Sources (Conveyors)

The Roy Hill port operations has numerous conveyors. The primary source of emissions from conveyors is associated with carry-back on the return side of the conveyor belt. This emission occurs when moist product, which has adhered to the conveyor, begins to dry out along the return run and is emitted along the length of the conveyor – primarily at return idlers and belt drives.

As noted in Section 2.2 various emission sources within the Roy Hill port operations have been grouped into classifications based on their similarity in design and emissions. The number of samples collected, by product, for each of the sources is listed in Table 3-3 and the following sections contain the results from sampling from the conveyors.



As stated in Section 3.1 a minimum of three samples are ideally required before an indication of the potential emission rate can be determined while four, or more, samples are required to determine if a relationship exists between the wind speed or ore moisture.

Table 3-3: Number of samples, by ore type, for line (conveyor) sources

Source Fines Lump TOTAL

Incoming Transfer Stations 7 3 10

Stackers 4 4 8

Reclaimer 4 3 7

Screening Plant 7 6 13

Outload Transfer Stations 7 10 17

Outload - Overland 4 3 7

Wharf 1 1 2

3.2.1 Conveyor – incoming transfer stations

During the first site survey five samples were collected along conveyor CVR105 – three for fines and two for lump. The second survey collected another five samples – four for fines and one for lump. As presented in Table 3-3 a total of 10 samples have been collected from this conveyor – seven for fines and three for lump.

The relationship between the wind speed and calculated emission rates, for the transfer stations, is presented in Figure 3-15, and the relationship between ore moisture and calculated emission rates is presented in Figure 3-16. For comparison purposes the estimated NPI emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled emissions, as outlined in Table 3-1, is displayed in the figures.


• There is a high degree of scatter in the data for both lump and fines. • Given the scatter in the monitoring data no relationship between the emission rate and ore moisture

can be determined.

Field observations indicated that there is visible dust emanating from the return idlers on CVR105 with the highest emissions observed towards the tail end.



Figure 3-15 Incoming transfer station conveyor - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-16 Incoming transfer station conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Moisture (%)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



Recommendation: Although there is a high degree of scatter in the monitoring data collected to date, the analysis does indicate that the currently utilised NPI controlled emission factor is too low. It is therefore recommended that the following emission factors be utilised to represent emissions from CVR105:

• Lump: 0.0009 kg/tonne • Fines: 0.0008 kg/tonne.

3.2.2 Conveyor – Stackers

Each of the stackers has a conveyor (CVR111 and CVR113) which have been grouped together for emission estimation purposes. During the first site survey six samples were collected along these conveyors – three for fines and three for lump. The second survey collected another two samples – one for fines and one for lump. As presented in Table 3-3 a total of eight samples have been collected from this conveyor – four for fines and four for lump.

The relationship between the wind speed and calculated emission rates, for the stacker conveyors are presented in Figure 3-17, while the relationship between ore moisture and calculated emission rates is presented in Figure 3-18. For comparison purposes the estimated NPI emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled emissions, as outlined in Table 3-1, is displayed in the figures.


• There is no apparent relationship between the calculated emission rate and wind speed for either lump or fine product.

• There is no apparent relationship between the calculated emission rate and ore moisture for either lump or fine product.

• The lump samples had an average emission rate that is 60% of the NPI controlled emission rate. • The samples for fines had an emission rate that is 23% of the NPI controlled emission rate

Recommendation: Based on the monitoring data collected it is recommended that the following emission factors be utilised to represent emissions from conveyors CVR111 and CVR113:




Figure 3-17 Incoming stacker conveyors - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-18 Incoming stacker conveyors conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Moisture (%)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



3.2.3 Conveyor – Reclaimer

There is a single conveyor associated with the reclaimer (CVR116). During the first site survey a total of four samples were collected from this conveyor – two for fines and two for lump. The second survey collected another three samples – two for fines and one for lump. As presented in Table 3-3 a total of seven samples have been collected from this conveyor – four for fines and three for lump.

The relationship between the wind speed and calculated emission rates, for the reclaimer conveyor, are presented in Figure 3-19, and the relationship between ore moisture and calculated emission rates is presented in Figure 3-20. For comparison purposes the estimated NPI emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled emissions, as outlined in Table 3-1, is displayed in the figures.

From these figures the following can be determined:

• There is no apparent relationship between the sampled emission rate and either wind speed or ore moisture for lump or fines.

• The three samples for lump had an average emission rate slightly lower than the NPI controlled emission rate.

• The four samples for fines also had an average emission rate slightly lower than the NPI controlled emission rate.

Recommendation: Based on the monitoring data collected it is recommended that the following emission rates be utilised to represent emissions from conveyor CVR116:


Figure 3-19 Reclaimer conveyor - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



Figure 3-20 Reclaimer transfer station conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

3.2.4 Conveyor – screening plant

The conveyor CVR121 transfers ore to the top of the screening plant. As presented in Table 3-3 a total of 13 samples have been collected from this conveyor – seven for fines and six for lump. During the first site survey a total of eight samples were collected from this conveyor – four for fines and four for lump. The second survey collected another five samples – three for fines and two for lump.

The relationship between the wind speed and calculated emission rates, for this conveyor, are presented in Figure 3-21, and the relationship between ore moisture and calculated emission rates is presented in Figure 3-22. For comparison purposes the estimated NPI emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled emissions, as outlined in Table 3-1, is displayed in the figures.


• Although there appears to be a relationship between the calculated emission rate and the wind speed, for both lump and fines, there is also a high degree of scatter in the data indicating that any apparent relationship may not actually exist.

• There is no relationship between the ore moisture and emission rate for both products. • The average calculated emission rate for lump is at the uncontrolled NPI emission rate. • The average calculated emission rate for fines returned an emission rate that was at the NPI controlled

emission rate.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Moisture (%)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



Recommendation: Based on the monitoring data collected it is recommended that the following emission factors be utilised to represent emissions from conveyor CVR121:


Figure 3-21 Screening plant conveyor - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



Figure 3-22 Screening plant conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

3.2.5 Conveyor – outgoing transfer stations

The conveyor CVR122 transfers ore from the screening plant towards the shiploader and this conveyor is presented in Figure 3-23. As shown in Table 3-3 a total of 17 samples were collected from this conveyor – seven for fines and 10 for lump. During the first site survey a total of 13 samples were collected from this conveyor – five for fines and eight for lump. The second survey collected another four samples – two for fines and two for lump.

During the first survey it was observed that there were visible emissions along the length of this conveyor, solely from the return side of the belt with the highest emissions observed towards the head end of the conveyor. These emissions are visible in Figure 3-23. Prior to the second survey Roy Hill undertook abatement work along this conveyor (pers. comm Rios Vera, 2019) primarily upgrading the dust spray bars at the head end of the conveyor.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Moisture (%)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



Figure 3-23 Looking south along CVR122 – note dust emissions along length of conveyor

The relationship between the wind speed and calculated emission rates, for the two separate surveys at this conveyor are presented in Figure 3-24, while the relationship between ore moisture and calculated emission rates, for the two separate surveys, is presented in Figure 3-25. For comparison purposes the estimated NPI emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled emissions, as outlined in Table 3-1, is displayed in the figures.


• With regard to the calculated emission rates against wind speed there is a degree of scatter in the data which complicates the analysis however based on the current data it appears that:

o For fine there has been minimal change in the calculated emission rate with the average emission reducing from 3.3 grams per second (g/s) down to 3.1 g/s. This makes minimal change to the emission factor as it remains the same at 0.0009 kg/tonne.

o For lump there has been a significant change with the average emission rate reducing from 6.1 g/s down to 2.8 g/s. This reduction resulted in the emission factor changing from 0.0017 kg/tonne down to 0.0007 kg/tonne.

• There is no relationship between the calculated emission rate and ore moisture.

Recommendation: Based on the monitoring data collected it is recommended that the following emission rates be utilised to represent emissions from conveyor CVR122:




Figure 3-24 Outgoing transfer station conveyor - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-25 Outgoing transfer station conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Fines (Survey 1)

Fines (Survey 2)

Lump (Survey 1)

Lump (Survey 2)

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Moisture (%)

Fines (Survey 1)

Fines (Survey 2)

Lump (Survey 1)

Lump (Survey 2)

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



3.2.6 Conveyor – overland

The overland conveyor (CVR161) is approximately 2,700 m and transfers ore from the processing facility to the shiploader and is shown in Figure 3-26. As shown in Table 3-3 a total of seven samples were collected from this conveyor – four for fines and three for lump. During the first site survey a total of three samples were collected from this conveyor – two for fines and one for lump. The second survey collected another four samples – two for fines and two for lump.

Figure 3-26 Overland conveyor (CVR161) – note that the top of this conveyor is enclosed

The relationship between the wind speed and calculated emission rates, for this conveyor are presented in Figure 3-27, while the relationship between ore moisture and calculated emission rates is presented in Figure 3-28. For comparison purposes the estimated NPI emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled emissions, as outlined in Table 3-1, is displayed in the figures.


• The average calculated emission for fines is slightly lower than the controlled NPI emission rate. • The average calculated emission for lump is higher than the controlled NPI emission rate. • There is no relationship between ore moisture and the calculated emission rates.

Based on the monitoring data collected it is recommended that the following emission rates be utilised to represent emissions from conveyor CVR161:




Figure 3-27 Overland conveyor - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

Figure 3-28 Overland conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Moisture (%)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



3.2.7 Conveyor - wharf

The wharf conveyor (CVR164) is the final conveyor before the ore is loaded onto a vessel. As presented in Table 3-3 only two samples have been collected along this conveyor – this is primarily due to issues accessing the wharf.

The relationship between the wind speed and calculated emission rates, for this conveyor, are presented in Figure 3-29, while the relationship between ore moisture and calculated emission rates is presented in Figure 3-30. For comparison purposes the estimated NPI emission rates for controlled and uncontrolled emissions, as outlined in Table 3-1, is displayed in the figures.

With only a single sample each of fine and lump products taken, no conclusions can be drawn at the present time.

Recommendation: Continue using the NPI controlled emission factor for both lump and fines until further samples can be collected.

Figure 3-29 Wharf conveyor - calculated emission rates versus wind speed

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled



Figure 3-30 Wharf conveyor - calculated emission rates versus ore moisture

3.3 Summary of Results

The summary of recommended emission factors for volume sources (transfer stations, stackers, reclaimers, screening plant and shiploader) are presented in Table 3-4 while the summary of the recommended emission factors for conveyors are presented in Table 3-5.

Table 3-4: Recommended emission factors for Volume sources (kilograms per tonne) (kg/t))


Inload

Car Dumper NPI 0.002 kg/t (with a 99% control factor for enclosure and extraction)

Transfer Stations NPI 0.002 kg/tonne (with a control factor of 70%)



Outload




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Emiss

ion

Rate

(g/s

)

Moisture (%)

Fines

Lump

NPI - Controlled

NPI - Uncontrolled





Screening Plant NPI 0.002 kg/tonne (with a control factor of 90%)

Shiploader Site Specific Lump: 0.0004 kg/tonne


Table 3-5: Recommended emission factors for conveyors (kg/t)


Inload





Outload



Screening Plant Site Specific Lump: 0.0022 kg/tonne


Outload Transfer Stations Site Specific Lump: 0.0007 kg/tonne


Outload - Overland Site Specific Lump: 0.0007 kg/tonne


Wharf NPI Lump: 0.002 kg/tonne (with 80% control)

Fines: 0.002 kg/tonne (with 80% control)



4 CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study is to undertake further on-site dust emission measurements at the port operations with the aim of developing site-specific emission factors with the aim of facilitating the improvement of emission estimates.

A field measurement program was undertaken in November / December 2019 and the data from this field survey was used to compliment data collected in a previous survey. The field survey methodology and data analysis is consistent methodology to that used for other operations in the Port Hedland region (BHP, FMG and PPA).

The findings of the study are outlined below:

4.1 Volume Sources

Overall a total of 26 samples were taken at volume sources at the Roy Hill operations in Port Hedland including:

• Transfers stations • Stacking • Reclaiming • Screening

The results of these samples indicated that:

Overall there appears to be no relationship between calculated emission rates and either wind speed or ore moisture for all products during material handling.

The results to date indicate that for the majority of the volume sources sampled the measured emission rate is significantly lower than the calculated controlled NPI emission rate.

Further sampling is required at some sources to ensure that the recommended emission rates are statistically valid.

The recommended emission factors for volume sources, by product, for each source grouping are presented in Table 3-4. Further sampling is required for some volume sources, notably the inload transfer stations and the screening plant, but overall the number of samples provides a good representation of emissions at the Roy Hill port facility.

4.2 Line Sources

Overall a total of 64 measurements where undertaken along various conveyors at the Roy Hill operations.

The results of these samples indicate that:

Overall there appears to be no relationship between calculated emission rates and either wind speed or ore moisture for all products for emissions from conveyors.

The results to date indicate that for the majority of the conveyors sampled, the lump product resulted in higher emission rates.

For the majority of the conveyors the calculated emission rates were slightly lower than the NPI controlled emission rate.

The main exception to this is conveyor CVR121 (screening) which had monitored emissions, primarily for lump that were equivalent to the uncontrolled NPI emission rate.

Dust abatement work along conveyor CVR122 was successful in reducing emissions, primarily for lump product.



The recommended emission factors for volume sources, by product, for each source grouping are presented in Table 3-5. Further sampling is required for some line sources, notably the Wharf conveyor, but overall the number of samples provides a good representation of emissions at the Roy Hill port facility.



5 References

Environment Australia (2012a) National Pollutant Inventory Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining Version 3.1, Environment Australia, Canberra, Australia. http://www.npi.gov.au/handbooks/approved_handbooks/mining.html

Hanna, S.R., G.A. Briggs and R.P. Hosker (1982). Handbook on Atmospheric Dispersion Report DOE/TIC-11223 (DE820002045). U.S. Department of Energy.

Turner, D.B. (1970). Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. Office of Air Programs. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. North Carolina.

Vlad Rios Vera, (2019). Personnel communication 28 November 2019

Zimmerman, J.R & Thompson, R.S. (1975). User’s Guide for HIWAY, a high way pollution model. USEPA, Research Triangle Park. North Carolina.

http://www.npi.gov.au/handbooks/approved_handbooks/mining.html



– Determination of Dust Emission Rates

The methodology utilised for the field sampling (as outlined in Section 2) is identical to that used to develop the emission equations for the BHP Iron Ore operations at Nelson Point and Finucane Island. By incorporating the same methodology across the various facilities in Port Hedland will ensure consistency in the sampling and emission estimation methodologies.

The methodology is as follows:

The emission rates were calculated using the relationship between concentration, emission rate and the volume of air into which the pollutant is dispersed. If the dust cloud is dispersed in a volume of air of rectangular shape, Δy metres perpendicular to the wind, Δz metres in the vertical and of length equal to the wind speed U, in m/s, the concentration χ, will be

χ = 𝑄𝑄∆𝑦𝑦.∆𝑧𝑧.𝑈𝑈

(Equation 1)

Where:

χ = concentration (g/m3)

Q = emission rate (g/s)

∆𝑦𝑦 = Distance perpendicular to wind (m)

∆𝑧𝑧 = Vertical distance (m)

𝑈𝑈 = Wind speed (m/s)

For concentrations along the plume centreline a more realistic Gaussian shape is assumed (as opposed to

constant concentrations in the horizontal and vertical). Therefore, ∆𝑦𝑦 in Equation 1 is replaced by √2𝜋𝜋.𝜎𝜎𝑦𝑦 and

is presented in Equation 2.

𝑥𝑥 = 𝑄𝑄2π.𝜎𝜎𝑦𝑦.𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧.U

(Equation 2)

Where:

𝑥𝑥 = Concentration (g/m3)



𝑄𝑄 = Emission rate of substance (g/s)

𝜎𝜎𝑦𝑦 = Plume width standard deviation (m)

𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧= Vertical plume spread standard deviation (m)

𝑈𝑈= Wind speed (m/s)

For ground level concentrations, from ground level sources, Equation 3 is used, where a factor of two has been introduced to Equation 2, to simulate reflection of the plume at the ground.

𝑥𝑥 = 𝑄𝑄π.𝜎𝜎𝑦𝑦.𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧.U

Equation 3

Equation 3 will be approximately valid for the sources sampled in the trials, as they are all near ground level, with relatively large initial plume spreads.

For line sources, such as vehicular traffic or conveyors, the concentration (χ) is determined by Equation 4.

𝑥𝑥 = 2𝑞𝑞sin(∅).�√2π�.𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧.U

Equation 4

Where:

𝑥𝑥 = Concentration (g/m3)

𝑞𝑞 = Line source strength (g/s/m)

∅ = The angle between wind direction and line source (º)


𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧 = Vertical plume spread standard deviation (m)

To determine the line source strength, the concentration downwind of the line source is measured, along with the wind speed and angle between wind direction and line source. The vertical plume spread standard deviation is then estimated using Equation 5.

𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧 = 𝑎𝑎(𝑥𝑥 + 𝑥𝑥0)𝑏𝑏 Equation 5

Where:

𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧 = Vertical plume standard deviation (m)

𝑥𝑥 = Downwind distance (m)

𝑥𝑥0 = Virtual distance (m)



𝑎𝑎 = Dimensionless empirical parameter

𝑏𝑏 = Dimensionless empirical parameter

The dimensionless empirical parameters used to calculate the plume spread parameters in Equation 5 are outlined in

Appendix Table 1: Dimensionless Constants Used to Calculate Plume Spread Parameters

Pasquill-Gifford stability class Parameter a Parameter b

A 0.180 0.945

B 0.145 0.932

C 0.110 0.915

D 0.085 0.870 Source: Zimmerman and Thompson (1975)

The virtual distance is used to simulate the effect of the initial vertical plume size (𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧0) at the source. It is

determined by estimating the initial ‘size’ of the dust cloud at the point of generation, dividing by 2.15 (Turner, 1970) and then inverting Equation 5 to get Equation 6.:

𝑥𝑥0 = �𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧0a�1𝑏𝑏 Equation 6

The stability class was determined the using Pasquill Gifford stability classification based on wind speed and solar radiation (Hanna et al, 1982).

Inverting Equation 4, the line emission rate is determined by Equation 7.

𝑞𝑞 = sin∅.�√2𝜋𝜋�.𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧.𝑈𝑈.𝑥𝑥2

Equation 7

For point sources, such as stacking, or from area sources, the emission rate was determined by rearranging Equation 3 to get Equation 8.

𝑄𝑄 = 𝜋𝜋.𝜎𝜎𝑦𝑦 .𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧.𝑈𝑈. 𝑥𝑥 Equation 8

By measuring the integrated horizontal flux of dust (𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖) equal to ∫ 𝑥𝑥 𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦 or 𝑥𝑥𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎∆𝑦𝑦 or 𝑥𝑥𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎√2𝜋𝜋.∆𝑦𝑦, the emission rate can be determined by Equation 9.



𝑄𝑄 = �√2𝜋𝜋�2

.𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧.𝑈𝑈. 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Equation 9

Where:

𝑄𝑄 = Emission rate of substance (g/s)

𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧= Vertical plume spread standard deviation (m)


𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = Integrated horizontal flux of dust (g/m2)

For measurements which are not at the plume centreline, the reduction in concentrations were determined assuming a term R as presented in Equation 10.

𝑅𝑅 = 𝑒𝑒𝑥𝑥𝑒𝑒 ��− 12� . �∆𝑧𝑧

𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧� ²� Equation 10



- Emission Estimation B.1: Volume source

Sample No.

Date Time Source

Meas. Conc Stability

Class

Empirical Coefficient

Initial Plume

Size

Virtual Dist.

Source-Transect Distance

Vertical plume spread

@ sampler

Roughness Correction

Factor

Adj Vertical Plume Spread

@ Transect

Source Height Reduction

Factor

WS @

10m

WS @ Plume Height

WS @ Sample Height

PM10 Mass Flux

Calibration Factor

Corrected PM10 Ore

Type

Ore Moisture

(mg/m3) a b (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (g/s) (g/s) (%)

18RH001 11/12/2018 15:00 SKR113 1.6 D 0.085 0.870 2 15.6 90 4.9 1.5 7.2 6 0.7 7.7 7.1 6.1 0.14 3.28 0.47 FINES 0

18RH002 11/12/2018 15:50 Rec115 2.0 C 0.110 0.915 2 10.3 40 4.0 1.5 6.0 2 0.9 5.8 4.6 4.6 0.07 3.41 0.25 FINES 9.22

18RH004 12/12/2018 8:20 TSF105 11.0 C 0.110 0.915 3 16.1 60 5.8 1.5 8.7 1 1.0 1.9 1.4 1.5 0.16 3.91 0.64 LUMP 4.58

18RH006 12/12/2018 11:10 Rec115 3.4 B 0.145 0.932 2 7.3 80 9.3 1.5 13.9 3 1.0 3.8 3.2 3 0.19 3.60 0.68 FINES 9.13

18RH007 12/12/2018 12:15 SKR111 11.5 B 0.145 0.932 3 11.4 50 6.7 1.5 10.2 4 0.9 4.3 3.8 3.4 0.60 2.17 1.29 LUMP 4.36

18RH008 12/12/2018 13:45 Rec115 9.8 B 0.145 0.932 2 7.3 50 6.3 1.5 9.6 1 1.0 4.5 3.3 3.6 0.39 2.13 0.82 LUMP 4.49

18RH011 13/12/2018 8:00 Screening 4.9 C 0.110 0.915 2 10.3 50 4.7 1.5 7.1 3 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.02 4.63 0.07 LUMP 4.74

18RH012 13/12/2018 9:10 TFS122 2.3 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 40 4.9 1.5 7.5 2 1.0 4.3 3.4 3.4 0.08 3.54 0.27 LUMP 4.37

18RH014 13/12/2018 10:30 Screening 11.0 A 0.180 0.945 2 5.7 80 12.1 1.5 17.9 3 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.21 4.19 0.89 LUMP 4.58

18RH015 13/12/2018 11:30 SKR111 14.2 A 0.180 0.945 3 8.7 40 7.1 1.5 10.8 2 1.0 2.8 2.2 2.2 0.43 3.74 1.60 LUMP 4.62

18RH018 14/12/2018 9:05 TFS122 1.0 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 30 3.8 1.6 5.9 2 0.9 2.8 2.2 2.2 0.02 3.74 0.06 FINES 8.94

18RH020 14/12/2018 10:45 Rec115 4.0 B 0.145 0.932 2 7.3 80 9.3 1.5 13.9 2 1.0 4.7 3.7 3.7 0.26 3.50 0.91 FINES 9.01

18RH021 14/12/2018 11:15 SKR111 1.3 A 0.180 0.945 3 8.7 50 8.5 1.5 12.8 3 1.0 2.9 2.4 2.3 0.05 3.72 0.19 FINES 9.15

18RH023 14/12/2018 13:45 Rec115 3.4 C 0.110 0.915 2 10.3 80 6.8 1.5 10.0 3 1.0 7.0 5.9 5.6 0.26 3.32 0.87 FINES 8.9

18RH026 16/12/2018 7:30 TFS116 2.4 D 0.085 0.870 1 7.1 30 2.0 1.5 3.0 2 0.8 6.8 5.4 5.4 0.06 3.33 0.20 FINES 8.85

19RH001 23/01/2019 14:00 SKR113 8.8 C 0.110 0.915 3 16.1 90 7.8 1.5 11.5 6 0.9 3.9 3.3 3.1 0.48 3.58 1.71 LUMP 4.68

19RH002 23/01/2019 14:40 TFS107 6.4 C 0.110 0.915 2 10.3 80 6.8 1.5 10.0 2 1.0 5.8 4.6 4.6 0.38 3.41 1.29 LUMP 4.39

19RH008 20/03/2019 10:50 TFS116 8.5 A 0.180 0.945 1 2.7 30 4.9 1.6 7.6 1 1.0 2.5 1.8 2 0.15 3.78 0.56 Lump 4.6

19RH012 20/03/2019 14:00 Rec115 8.7 B 0.145 0.932 2 7.3 65 7.8 1.5 11.7 2 1.0 3.6 2.9 2.9 0.38 3.61 1.37 Lump 4.95

19RH014 21/03/2019 9:10 Outload 3.0 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 40 4.9 1.5 7.5 1 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.02 4.19 0.09 Fines 10.4

19RH016 21/03/2019 10:15 Screening 1.8 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 60 5.0 1.5 7.5 3 0.9 8.9 6.4 7.1 0.12 3.21 0.38 Fines 10.01

19RH021 31/07/2019 7:30 SKR113 5.4 D 0.085 0.87 2 15.6 40 2.8 1.5 4.3 3 0.8 4.5 3.6 3.6 0.13 2.80 0.37 FINES 8.9

19RH026 1/08/2019 7:00 REC116 6.0 C 0.11 0.915 2 10.3 80 6.8 1.5 10.0 4 0.9 2.3 1.8 1.8 0.15 1.66 0.25 FINES 9.5

19RH041 2/08/2019 16:00 TPR121 53.9 D 0.085 0.87 2 15.6 10 1.4 1.6 2.2 0 1.0 7.2 5.7 5.7 0.87 4.12 3.56 LUMP 5

19RH045 3/08/2019 9:40 TPR121 15.6 D 0.085 0.87 2 15.6 8 1.3 1.6 2.1 0 1.0 4.8 3.8 3.8 0.16 2.92 0.46 FINES 10.1

19RH051 29/11/2019 10:40 TFS116 5.4 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 40 4.9 1.5 7.5 1 1.0 3.5 2.5 2.8 0.13 2.29 0.29 FINES 10.12

19RH070 3/12/2019 8:50 REC116 9.8 B 0.145 0.932 3 11.4 70 8.7 1.5 13.0 4 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.14 1.04 0.15 FINES 9.76

19RH078 4/12/2019 13:15 REC116 5.6 A 0.18 0.945 2 5.7 50 8.0 1.5 12.2 3 1.0 3.5 2.8 2.8 0.25 2.29 0.57 FINES 10.06



B.2: Line sources

Sample No.

Date Time Source

Meas. Conc

WS @ 10m

WS@ plume

WS @ sample

Ht

Angle of wind to source

Stability Class

Empirical Coefficient Vertical

plume ht @ source

Virtual Dist.

Source Sampler

perp distance

Vertical plume

spread @ sampler

Emission rate

(10um)

DustrTrak Cal

Factor

Corrected PM10

Emissions Ore Type

Ore Moisture

(mg/m3) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (deg) a b (m) (m) (m) (m) (mg/(ms)) (mg/(ms)) (%)

18RH003 11/12/2018 16:15 CVR116 0.21 3.9 2.8 3.1 85 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.55 0.44 3.44 1.5 FINES 9.05

18RH009 12/12/2018 14:00 CVR116 0.08 4.2 3.1 3.4 80 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.59 0.20 3.38 0.7 LUMP 4.49

18RH010 12/12/2018 15:30 CVR111 0.22 3.8 2.7 3.0 80 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.59 0.49 3.45 1.7 LUMP 5.34

18RH013 13/12/2018 CVR122 1.81 4.1 3.0 3.3 85 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.59 4.35 3.40 14.8 LUMP 4.38

18RH017 13/12/2018 15:30 CVR161 0.31 3.3 3.3 2.6 70 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.60 0.57 3.32 1.9 LUMP 4.81

18RH019 14/12/2018 CVR122 0.79 1.7 1.2 1.3 80 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.59 0.76 3.97 3.0 FINES 8.82

18RH022 14/12/2018 11:30 CVR111 0.08 4.1 2.9 3.3 85 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.59 0.19 3.40 0.7 FINES 8.93

18RH024 15/12/2018 7:40 CVR105 0.07 3.7 3.6 3.0 85 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 5 1.07 0.26 3.27 0.8 FINES 9.24

18RH025 15/12/2018 14:10 CVR164 0.06 3.4 2.4 2.7 80 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.52 0.11 3.52 0.4 LUMP 4.57

18RH027 16/12/2018 8:00 CVR105 0.27 5.6 5.6 4.4 85 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 5 0.74 1.11 2.99 3.3 LUMP 4.73

19RH003 23/01/2019 15:15 CVR113 0.13 4.0 2.9 3.2 85 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.55 0.28 3.41 0.9 LUMP 4.57

19RH005 24/01/2019 12:05 CVR116 0.21 3.1 2.3 2.5 85 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.55 0.35 3.57 1.3 FINES 9.35

19RH006 24/01/2019 14:00 CVR161 0.21 2.0 2.0 1.6 75 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.56 0.22 3.66 0.8 FINES 9.44

19RH007 20/03/2019 9:20 CVR122 2.39 2.0 2.0 1.6 80 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.59 2.75 3.65 10.0 Lump 4.52

19RH009 20/03/2019 11:15 CVR121 2.27 2.9 3.1 2.3 85 A 0.180 0.945 1 2.7 1 0.63 4.11 3.37 13.9 Lump 4.72

19RH010 20/03/2019 12:10 CVR122 0.97 4.5 4.5 3.6 45 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.64 1.96 3.13 6.1 Lump 4.72

19RH011 20/03/2019 14:00 CVR111 0.07 4.1 3.0 3.3 50 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.63 0.14 3.40 0.5 Lump 5.28

19RH013 20/03/2019 16:20 CVR116 0.35 3.9 2.8 3.1 70 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.56 0.71 3.44 2.4 Lump 5.05

19RH015 21/03/2019 9:30 CVR121 0.16 3.1 3.3 2.5 80 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.59 0.29 3.33 1.0 Fines 10.4

19RH017 21/03/2019 11:00 CVR122 0.67 6.9 6.9 5.5 80 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.52 2.35 2.86 6.7 Fines 9.98

19RH018 30/07/2019 12:15 CVR105 1.95 5.0 5.0 4.0 90 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.55 5.35 3.02 16.1 FINES 9.5

19RH020 30/07/2019 15:45 CVR105 2.39 1.4 1.4 1.1 90 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.55 1.79 1.21 2.2 FINES 9.8

19RH023 31/07/2019 13:50 CVR105 1.71 3.0 3.0 2.4 60 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.61 2.68 2.03 5.4 LUMP 4.3

19RH024 31/07/2019 15:00 CVR122 0.47 4.2 4.2 3.3 60 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.61 1.02 2.62 2.7 LUMP 4.5

19RH025 31/07/2019 16:10 CVR121 4.20 4.7 4.9 3.7 60 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.57 9.55 2.86 27.3 LUMP 4.1

19RH027 1/08/2019 8:00 SKR113 0.96 2.2 1.6 1.8 90 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.55 1.16 1.63 1.9 LUMP 4.5

19RH028 1/08/2019 9:20 CVR161 0.13 2.6 2.6 2.1 90 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.55 0.19 1.85 0.4 FINES 9.9

19RH029 1/08/2019 12:00 CVR121 2.72 2.2 2.3 1.8 60 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.61 3.13 1.63 5.1 FINES 10.2

19RH031 1/08/2019 14:30 CVR164 0.17 0.7 0.5 0.6 45 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.59 0.05 0.90 0.0 FINES 9.7

19RH032 1/08/2019 15:40 CVR111 0.06 1.7 1.2 1.4 90 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.55 0.06 1.40 0.1 FINES 9.5

19RH033 1/08/2019 16:30 CVR111 0.26 1.6 1.2 1.3 60 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.57 0.21 1.33 0.3 FINES 9.3

19RH034 2/08/2019 7:15 CVR122 0.54 6.1 6.1 4.9 90 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.52 1.73 3.60 6.2 LUMP 4.2



Sample No.

Date Time Source

Meas. Conc

WS @ 10m

WS@ plume

WS @ sample

Ht

Angle of wind to source

Stability Class

Empirical Coefficient Vertical

plume ht @ source

Virtual Dist.

Source Sampler

perp distance

Vertical plume

spread @ sampler

Emission rate

(10um)

DustrTrak Cal

Factor

Corrected PM10

Emissions Ore Type

Ore Moisture

(mg/m3) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (deg) a b (m) (m) (m) (m) (mg/(ms)) (mg/(ms)) (%)

19RH035 2/08/2019 8:15 CVR121 2.61 8.9 9.4 7.1 60 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.53 10.60 4.97 52.7 LUMP 4.3

19RH036 2/08/2019 10:00 CVR122 0.96 8.4 8.4 6.7 90 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.52 4.22 4.75 20.0 LUMP 4.8

19RH037 2/08/2019 11:00 CVR121 1.76 7.4 7.8 5.9 90 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.52 6.73 4.21 28.4 LUMP 4.5

19RH039 2/08/2019 14:30 CVR122 1.13 7.0 7.0 5.5 90 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.52 4.08 4.01 16.4 LUMP 5.1

19RH040 2/08/2019 15:30 CVR121 2.52 5.6 6.0 4.5 60 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.53 6.48 3.34 21.7 LUMP 5.2

19RH042 2/08/2019 16:45 CVR122 0.61 4.9 4.9 3.9 60 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.53 1.35 2.96 4.0 LUMP 5

19RH043 3/08/2019 7:15 CVR122 0.41 5.0 5.0 4.0 90 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.52 1.07 3.02 3.2 FINES 9.8

19RH044 3/08/2019 9:00 CVR121 1.33 6.2 6.5 4.9 90 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.52 4.27 3.62 15.4 FINES 9.9

19RH047 3/08/2019 11:45 CVR122 0.59 5.7 5.7 4.5 60 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.53 1.54 3.36 5.2 FINES 10.3

19RH048 3/08/2019 12:30 CVR121 2.70 5.9 6.3 4.7 60 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.53 7.30 3.49 25.5 FINES 10.2

19RH050 3/08/2019 14:30 CVR122 1.19 4.2 4.2 3.3 45 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.55 1.89 2.61 4.9 FINES 10.2

19RH052 29/11/2019 10:50 CVR121 0.72 4.0 4.2 3.2 30 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.71 1.01 2.51 2.5 FINES 10.12

19RH053 29/11/2019 11:50 CVR122 0.07 4.2 4.2 3.4 60 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.61 0.16 2.66 0.4 FINES 10.12

19RH055 29/11/2019 15:30 CVR105 1.04 3.6 3.6 2.9 45 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.64 1.70 2.34 4.0 FINES 10.12

19RH056 30/11/2019 8:30 CVR105 2.08 4.6 4.6 3.6 90 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.55 5.25 2.82 14.8 FINES 10.12

19RH057 30/11/2019 9:10 CVR121 0.78 7.0 7.5 5.6 90 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.52 2.84 4.06 11.5 FINES 10.6

19RH058 30/11/2019 10:50 CVR105 1.92 3.6 3.6 2.9 90 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.52 3.57 2.33 8.3 FINES 10.6

19RH060 30/11/2019 16:00 CVR161 0.09 5.8 5.8 4.6 80 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.52 0.27 3.41 0.9 Lump 5.39

19RH061 1/12/2019 7:30 CVR122 0.94 5.7 5.7 4.6 60 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.53 2.46 3.39 8.3 FINES 10.12

19RH062 1/12/2019 11:00 CVR121 0.63 3.6 3.8 2.8 45 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.64 1.01 2.31 2.3 Lump 4.76

19RH063 1/12/2019 12:00 CVR122 0.50 4.8 4.8 3.8 45 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.59 0.98 2.92 2.9 Lump 4.76

19RH064 1/12/2019 14:30 CVR105 3.63 3.4 3.4 2.7 90 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.59 7.15 2.22 15.8 Lump 4.76

19RH065 2/12/2019 9:00 CVR121 0.57 6.7 7.1 5.3 60 D 0.085 0.87 1 7.1 1 0.53 1.74 3.87 6.7 Lump 4.76

19RH066 2/12/2019 10:15 CVR122 0.76 4.8 4.8 3.8 60 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.57 1.75 2.91 5.1 Lump 4.76

19RH067 2/12/2019 14:00 CVR161 0.15 4.6 4.6 3.7 80 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.55 0.39 2.85 1.1 FINES 10.03

19RH068 2/12/2019 17:00 CVR111 0.16 2.4 1.7 1.9 90 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.55 0.21 1.74 0.4 FINES 10.03

19RH069 3/12/2019 7:45 CVR116 0.85 1.7 1.2 1.3 90 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.59 0.83 1.37 1.1 FINES 9.76

19RH071 3/12/2019 9:50 CVR121 1.66 2.8 3.0 2.2 90 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.59 2.73 1.93 5.3 FINES 9.76

19RH072 3/12/2019 10:45 CVR105 2.28 3.0 3.0 2.4 70 A 0.180 0.945 1 2.7 1 0.63 4.01 2.01 8.1 FINES 10.34

19RH073 3/12/2019 14:00 CVR161 0.23 4.3 4.3 3.4 80 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.59 0.56 2.66 1.5 Lump 5.08

19RH074 3/12/2019 16:15 CVR116 0.52 3.0 2.1 2.4 80 C 0.110 0.915 1 4.8 1 0.55 0.83 2.01 1.7 Lump 5.08

19RH075 4/12/2019 8:30 CVR161 0.47 1.5 1.5 1.2 80 B 0.145 0.932 1 3.5 1 0.59 0.40 1.26 0.5 FINES 10.06

19RH076 4/12/2019 10:40 CVR116 1.07 2.2 1.6 1.8 90 A 0.180 0.945 1 2.7 1 0.62 1.48 1.65 2.4 FINES 10.06

19RH077 4/12/2019 12:30 CVR111 0.26 3.1 2.2 2.4 70 A 0.180 0.945 1 2.7 1 0.63 0.46 2.06 1.0 Lump 5.56

Roy Hill Infrastructure – Port Operating Licence Amendment Application –

Increase in Export 2 Environment

Appendix 5 - Roy Hill 70Mtpa Throughput Increase - Air Quality Modelling Assessment

dust emission source characterisation – port operations · 2020. 7. 17. · sampling was...

Documents