Original source · versioned page text
Further information from consultant MCU12/0184
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (35.8 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Mr David Milligan, W Donald Milligan Pty Ltd 29 November 2013
Re: Response to Sunshine Coast Regional Further Information Request of 19 November 2013 Noise, -
Dust & Odour Issues -
Proposed Poultry Growing Sheds, Ridgewood
L26013/BH/12-002
f Why WSCALM was set at 0.2 m/s
WSCALM was set to a value of 0.2m/s to account for plume transport during the
approximate 100 hours of wind speeds predicted by the meteorological model to be
above 0 m/s but below 0.5m/s. This notwithstanding, the updated modelling has
been conducted with a WSCALM value of 0.5m/s as per request from PEL (per email
25 November 2013).
g. What the influence of thermal buoyancy on emissions would have on predicted impacts
at nearby receptors above the height of the sheds (i.e. the site should be modelled to
evaluate this).
In accordance with PEL request, representation of emissions has been updated to be
as buoyant point sources in accordance with the method presented in the Best
Practice Guidance for the Poultry Industry Plume Dispersion Modelling and
-
Meteorological Processing (PAE Holmes for DEEDI, May 2011).
This amended
source representation considers thermal buoyancy by way of
representing emissions at the predicted release temperature of air from the sheds for
each hour of the batch cycles. Vertical mechanical momentum has been excluded
using a momentum flux factor of 0 (rain hat function). The point source
characteristics have been set with varying emission velocity by hour as a function of
the ventilation rate divided by the cross sectional area of the effective 16.5m
diameter point source.
It is our understanding that this representation is in accordance with the
recommendations of PEL.
h. What the impact would be of setting the initial vertical dispersion at 6 m for a building
with a total height of 5 m (both odour and dust).
As above, the emissions representation has been updated point sources in
to
accordance with the recommendations of PEL. This issue is therefore no longer
relevant.
i. What the impact would be of setting the initial vertical dispersion as modelled for the
fitter sources rather than a more representative value for stockpile heights
MWA Environmental had previously modelled SIGZI 0.35 (1.5m stockpile height
divided by 4.3) as a conservative representation. This has been updated to SIGZI
0.70 (1.5m stockpile height divided by 2.15) for a ground level source as per
modelling guidance.
~~
/ r
~.
.J’.....~,...."
.-;;:7
.
-~~----
~::.-:~~~~ ,,1 ::-~C~.C"
"’-
.... ~ ............ "
I/~ .’
/
/
,-’ /
,.,r ’.
’\
c,"
\. ’’\
L,
"\
r/ ’
,
\
3
I’ \ ~,
.,r,J~
.r
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.