Docstoc

White Bay Passenger Terminal

Document Sample
White Bay Passenger Terminal Powered By Docstoc
					White Bay Passenger Terminal




  AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT
  Final
  29 September 2010
White Bay Passenger Terminal


AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Final
29 September 2010




Sinclair Knight Merz
ABN 37 001 024 095
710 Hunter Street
Newcastle West NSW 2302 Australia
Postal Address
PO Box 2147 Dangar NSW 2309 Australia
Tel: +61 2 4979 2600
Fax: +61 2 4979 2666
Web: www.skmconsulting.com

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sinclair
Knight Merz Pty Ltd. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written
permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright.
LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair
Knight Merz Pty Ltd’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the
agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no liability or
responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third
party.




The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




Contents
Executive Summary                                                                  vi
1.      Introduction                                                                1
        1.1.       General Introduction                                             1
        1.2.       Project Objectives                                               2
2.      Port Development                                                            4
        2.1.       Site Location                                                    4
        2.2.       Existing Port Activities                                         4
        2.3.       Proposed Port Activities                                         4
3.      Air Quality Criteria                                                        7
        3.1.       Air Emission Standards                                           7
        3.2.       Ambient Air Quality Objectives                                   7
4.      Existing Environment                                                        9
        4.1.       Existing Air Quality                                             9
        4.1.1.     Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)                                         9
        4.1.2.     Particulate Matter (PM10)                                       10
        4.1.3.     Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)                                           12
        4.2.       Dispersion Meteorology and Climate Conditions                   13
        4.2.1.     Wind Speed and Direction                                        13
        4.2.2.     Local Climate Averages                                          14
        4.2.3.     Temperature                                                     15
        4.2.4.     Relative Humidity                                               16
        4.2.5.     Rainfall                                                        17
        4.2.6.     Atmospheric Stability                                           17
5.      Air Quality Assessment Methodology                                        19
        5.1.       Overview                                                        19
        5.2.       Dispersion Modelling                                            19
        5.3.       Modelling Scenarios                                             22
        5.4.       Emission Rates                                                  23
        5.5.       Building Wake Effects                                           26
6.      Air Quality Impacts During Construction                                   28
        6.1.       Overview                                                        28
        6.2.       Construction Activities                                         28
        6.3.       Mitigation Measures                                             29
        6.4.       Residual Impacts                                                30


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx   PAGE ii
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




7.       Air Quality Impacts During Operations                                           31
         7.1.        Nitrogen Dioxide                                                    31
         7.2.        Particulate Matter                                                  34
         7.3.        Sulphur Dioxide                                                     35
8.       Conclusions                                                                     40
9.       References                                                                      41


List of Figures

         Figure 1-1: Site Location                                                        1
         Figure 1-2: Local terrain                                                        2
         Figure 4-1: Maximum 1 Hour Average NO2 Concentrations from Rozelle              10
         Figure 4-2: Monthly and Annual Average NO2 Concentrations from Rozelle          10
         Figure 4-3: Maximum 24 Hour PM10 Concentrations from Rozelle                    11
         Figure 4-4: Monthly and Annual Average PM10 Concentrations from Rozelle         12
         Figure 4-5: Annual and Seasonal Wind Roses for Fort Denison, 2002               14
         Figure 4-6: Average Monthly Temperatures at Observatory Hill                    16
         Figure 4-7: Average 9 am and 3 pm Relative Humidity at Observatory Hill         16
         Figure 4-8: Mean Monthly Rainfall and Number of Rain Days at Observatory Hill   17
         Figure 5-1: CALMET model extents, grid spacing and land use setup               21
         Figure 5-2: Example of ground-level wind field simulated by CALMET              22
         Figure 5-3: Building setup for each model scenario                              27
         Figure 7-1: Predicted maximum 1-hour average NOx concentrations                 32
         Figure 7-2: Predicted maximum 24-hour average PM10 concentrations               35
         Figure 7-3: Predicted maximum 10-minute average SO2 concentrations              37
         Figure 7-4: Predicted maximum 1-hour average SO2 concentrations                 38
         Figure 7-5: Predicted maximum 24-hour average SO2 concentrations                39




The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




List of Tables

         Table 3-1: Air Quality Impact Assessment Criteria                             8
         Table 3-2: Dust Deposition Criteria                                           8
         Table 4-1: Climate Summary, Sydney Observatory Hill, Sydney                  15
         Table 4-2: Frequency of Occurrence of Atmospheric Stability Class            18
         Table 5-1: Summary of meteorological parameters used for this study          20
         Table 5-2: Emission Factors for Ships at Berth                               24
         Table 5-3: Ship Stack Parameters and Pollutant Emission Rates                24
         Table 5-4: Ship Dimensions                                                   26
         Table 7-1: Predicted maximum incremental ground-level concentrations         31
         Table 7-2: Predicted maximum NO2 concentrations by OLM (Scenario 3)          33
         Table 7-3: Predicted PM10 concentrations at various locations                34
         Table 7-4: Predicted SO2 concentrations at various locations                 36




The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




Document history and status
 Revision            Date issued            Reviewed by            Approved by         Date approved       Revision type
 1                   31/05/10               M. Davies
 3                   21/06/10               M. Davies
 4                   23/06/10               S Lakmaker             K Robinson          25/06/10            PD review of final draft
 Final               30/07/10               S Lakmaker             K Robinson          30/07/10            Finalisation
 Final 1             27/09/10               S Lakmaker             M Davies            27/09/10            Practise review
 Final 3             29/09/10               S Lakmaker             M Davies            29/09/10            Finalisation




Distribution of copies
 Revision            Copy no                                Quantity                  Issued to
 1                                                                                    JBA Urban Planning
 4                   1                                      1                         JBA Urban Planning
 Final               1                                      1                         JBA Urban Planning




 Printed:                               29 September 2010

 Last saved:                            29 September 2010 01:42 PM

 File name:                             I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx

 Author:                                Shane Lakmaker
 Project manager:                       Shane Lakmaker

 Name of organisation:                  Sydney Ports Corporation
 Name of project:                       White Bay Passenger Terminal

 Name of document:                      Air Quality Assessment

 Document version:                      Final
 Project number:                        EN02809




The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




Executive Summary
Sydney Ports Corporation (SPC) proposes to develop a Cruise Passenger Terminal (CPT) within
the Glebe Island and White Bay Port Precinct on the Balmain Peninsula. Approximately 170 ships
per year would be expected to berth at the proposed CPT, with most ship visits having a turnaround
time of less than 12 hours.

The potential effects on air quality resulting from the emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), fine
particulate matter (PM10) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) from ships while at berth at the proposed CPT
were assessed using the CALPUFF (v6.263) dispersion model. The assessment was conducted in
accordance with the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water guidelines (DEC,
2005) and the Director-General’s Requirements issued for the environmental assessment of the
project. A qualitative assessment of the effect of construction of the CPT on air quality was also
conducted.

Four scenarios reflecting likely operational situations for the CPT were assessed, as follows:

      Scenario 1: A large passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 with constant emissions from 6 am to 6 pm;
      Scenario 2: A medium passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 with constant emissions for 24 hours;
      Scenario 3: A large passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 plus a medium passenger ship at Wharf
      No. 4 with constant emissions from both ships between 6 am and 6 pm; and
      Scenario 4: A large passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 with constant emissions for 24 hours.

The Pacific Dawn was used as an example of a large passenger ship, and the Nautica was used for
a medium passenger ship. Dimensions and operating parameters for these ships were obtained
from Carnival Australia, Oceania Cruises and Lloyd’s Register. Emission factors were derived
from the National Pollutant Inventory Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Maritime
Operations Version 2.0 (2008).

The results of the dispersion modelling showed that the Project is unlikely to cause exceedances of
the DECCW’s assessment criteria for NO2, PM10 or SO2 at nearest sensitive receptors. A
conservative approach was adopted for this assessment, which assumed that ships would be at the
proposed CPT every day of the year. Recent (July 2010) revisions to ship emission standards mean
that predicted impacts will progressive decrease. As an example, SO2 emissions are expected to be
80% lower than current emissions by 2020, due to tighter limits on sulphur content in the fuel.

Suitable dust mitigation measures should ensure that adverse air quality impacts do not occur
during construction of the proposed CPT.




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx                  PAGE vi
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




1.           Introduction
1.1.         General Introduction

Sydney Ports Corporation (SPC) manages and develops port facilities located in Sydney Harbour
and Botany Bay. SPC proposes to develop a Cruise Passenger Terminal (CPT) within the Glebe
Island and White Bay Port Precinct on the Balmain Peninsula. The proposed development will be
assessed under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Figure 1-1
provides a site locality plan for the proposed port development. This figure also shows the location
of nearest sensitive receptors in various directions from the development area.

       Figure 1-1: Site Location




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx              PAGE 1
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




Local terrain in the study area is shown in Figure 1-2 below. This figure shows that the area is
quite complex, in terms of the local topography. Section 5.2 outlines the methodology for
including these terrain data in the assessment.

       Figure 1-2: Local terrain




1.2.         Project Objectives

This report provides an assessment of the potential effects on air quality resulting from the
proposed development, specifically in relation to emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), fine
particulate matter (PM10) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) from ships while at berth. Ground-level
pollutant concentrations were predicted using the CALPUFF (v6.263) dispersion model. The
assessment was conducted in accordance with the Department of Environment, Climate Change
and Water (DECCW) guidelines (DEC, 2005) and the Director-General’s Requirements (DGRs)
issued for the project1. The DGRs specifically required the consideration of emissions from berthed
ships during operation and dust emissions during construction (including the potential for
contamination of the dust).



1
 The DGRs stated that the Air Quality Impact Assessment must be prepared in accordance with the EPA
approved methods (2001); these guidelines were superseded by the DEC (2005) guidelines used in this
assessment.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx                 PAGE 2
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




In summary, this report provides information on the following:

      Existing and proposed port operations;
      Relevant air quality criteria;
      Existing environmental conditions;
      Potential impacts of the proposed development during operations; and
      Potential impacts of the proposed development during construction.

As specified in the DGRs, emissions associated with the combustion of diesel fuel from passenger
ships while at berth and dust emissions during construction were considered in this assessment. As
these emissions are considered to be the primary sources of potential air quality impacts associated
with the proposed development, no additional sources were investigated.




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx              PAGE 3
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




2.           Port Development
2.1.         Site Location

White Bay is located approximately 2 kilometres (km) west of the Sydney Central Business District
(CBD). The area is surrounded by the suburbs of Balmain, Rozelle, Glebe, Pyrmont, Darling
Harbour and Millers Point as shown in Figure 1-1. Land use in the area consists of port facilities
bordered by residential areas, some of which are located adjacent to the north of the site.

SPC proposes to locate the White Bay CPT within the Glebe Island and White Bay Port Precinct,
which is owned and controlled by SPC. The proposed CPT site is on the White Bay foreshore of
the Balmain peninsula. The site, in the main, is comprised of White Bay Wharves No. 4 and 5 and
adjacent parts of Wharves No. 3 and 6.

The site is legally described as Lot 1 DP 875201, Lot 4 DP 875201, Lot 10 DP 1008507, Lot 3 DP
879549, Lot 1 DP 1063454, Lot 10 DP 1065973, Lot 1 DP1035872, Lot 1 DP542648 and Lot 12
DP603148. The site is largely reclaimed land and is bounded on the south by an existing caisson
wharf and retaining structure. Existing development on the site is characterised by a large steel
framed shed clad in corrugated panels, some of which are of asbestos sheeting. This shed is
approximately 240m long and 50m wide. The western 85m of the shed has a high roofline (23m+),
while the remainder of the shed has a lower (10m+) roofline at the low point. The shed is set back
approximately 45m from the quay line.

The site is currently accessed from Victoria Road via Mullins and Robert Streets.

2.2.         Existing Port Activities

The White Bay site is currently used for port uses including import and export of bulk liquids,
vessel lay-up, and other short term uses such as harbour construction activities. The importing of
cars by ship that previously occurred at Glebe Island was relocated to Port Kembla in November
2008. Other port uses, including the import of dry bulk products (such as cement, sugar, gypsum
and salt), currently occur at Glebe Island.

2.3.         Proposed Port Activities

The proposed CPT will include:
       Construction of new purpose-built buildings containing:
     -     arrivals hall;
     -     baggage hall;
     -     storage and amenities area;


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx              PAGE 4
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




     -     Customs and AQIS facilities, x-ray equipment and offices; and
     - storage facilities.
     Building signage.
      Car parking, covered set down and pick up points and coach queuing areas.
      Secured providoring waiting area and wharf access.
      Offices, lunch room and amenities.
      Up to two passenger gangways.
      A Land Side Restricted Zone including a Cleared Zone (Customs, Immigration and Security).
      Operational and security lighting as well as other required security infrastructure.

In addition to the construction and operation of a CPT at WB5, Sydney Ports is also seeking
approval for the following:

      Use of wharves No. 4 and 5 White Bay for the berthing of passenger cruise ships.
      Construction and operation of a temporary passenger terminal facility (i.e. a marquee or
      similar structure) at WB4, with similar features and function to the permanent CPT proposed at
      WB5, to process passengers, crew and baggage.
      A new access road connecting to James Craig Road including intersection upgrade works.
      Pavement and wharf upgrade works.
      Installation of services.
      Refurbishment of existing office and amenities buildings.
      A long term carpark with approximately 200 parking spaces in close proximity to the WB5
      CPT.
      Demolition of a number of existing structures including the WB5 warehouse, various smaller
      brick buildings west and south of the WB5 warehouse and other existing structures such as
      fencing and parking structures.
      Use of the CPT facility at WB5 on non-ship days for a variety of functions such as exhibitions
      and corporate events, including the erection of temporary structures and signage.

The proposed CPT will be a contemporary-style building approximately 13 m high, largely sited
within the footprint of the existing warehouse. While the existing warehouse will be demolished,
elements such as the columns, cross bracing and gantry rail beams will largely be retained. The
new building will nestle into this framework and the terminal’s height will be based upon that of
the lower existing roof structure.

Each domestic cruise ship typically has a turnaround time of 10 to 12 hours, typically arriving
around 6:30 am and leaving the terminal generally by 6:00 pm. International cruise ships could

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx               PAGE 5
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




dock for up to 72 hours on infrequent occasions. Ships that dock for more than a day would
generally only account for around 10% of the cruise ships berthing at White Bay.




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx              PAGE 6
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




3.           Air Quality Criteria
3.1.         Air Emission Standards

The Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation 2002 is the main source of
emission standards for NSW. This regulation does not specifically include ship emissions.

Marpol 73/78 (Marine Air Pollution 1973/1978) is the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships, and is designed to minimise pollution of the seas including dumping, oil
and exhaust pollution. Annex VI of Marpol came into force in 2005 which sets limits on sulphur
oxides and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from ship exhausts and prohibit deliberate
emissions of ozone-depleting substances. The annex includes a global cap of 4.5% m/m on the
sulphur content of fuel oil used for shipping activities. Under revisions to the emission standards in
Annex VI, which came into force in July 2010, the current global limit on sulphur in marine fuels
will fall in two stages to 3.5% in 2012, and to 0.5% in 2020 (subject to a review in 2018).

Regulation 13 of Annex VI represents the NOx Technical Code: Technical Code on Control of
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines. The Code applies to all engines
installed on ships constructed after 1 January 2000 or engines that undergo a major conversion after
1 January 2000. Ship engines are required to operate such that NOx emissions are within the
following limits:

       17.0 g/kWh for engines less than 130 rpm (slow speed engines);
       45.0 x n(-0.2) g/kWh, when 130 < n (engine rating) < 2,000 rpm; and
       9.8 g/kWh for engines greater than 2,000 rpm (high speed engines).

Emissions of NOx are controlled by emission standards for new ship engines. The revisions to
Annex VI set new “Tier 2” standards that apply from 2011. The Tier 2 standards will cut
emissions by 16 to 22%, relative to current (Tier 1) standards. Tier 3 standards were also set in the
Annex VI revisions. These standards will cut NOx emissions from new engines by about 80%,
relative to Tier 1.

The proposed CPT does not fall under Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations
Act 1997. An Environment Protection Licence with associated emission criteria would therefore
not be required for the CPT.

3.2.         Ambient Air Quality Objectives

The primary sources of air pollutants associated with port operations are diesel fuel combustion
products released by ships and trucks. Emissions from ships were the focus of this assessment as
emissions from approximately 150 trucks per day are unlikely to cause adverse air quality impacts.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx               PAGE 7
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




The DECCW regulates air quality in NSW and air quality impact assessment criteria specified by
the DECCW (DEC, 2005) are shown in Table 3-1 for the key pollutants relating to this project,
namely NO2, PM10 and SO2. These pollutants are associated with ship exhaust emissions.

      Table 3-1: Air Quality Impact Assessment Criteria
                                                                                                              3
                Pollutant                                Averaging Period                  Concentration (µg/m )
                                                                                                          µ
                                                                1 hour                                246
 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
                                                                Annual                                62
                                                               24 hours                               50
 Fine particulates (PM10)
                                                                Annual                                30
                                                             10 minutes                               712
                                                                1 hour                                570
 Sulphur dioxide (SO2)
                                                               24 hours                               228
                                                                Annual                                60

It should be noted that the above criteria apply to the cumulative level of all pollution sources in the
area. As such, the background air quality resulting from other industry, motor vehicles and
environmental sources was considered in this assessment.

The DECCW also specify dust deposition goals (Table 3-2), which are relevant to the construction
period. The maximum total dust deposited over a 12 month period at any location due to all
sources should not exceed 4 g/m2/month, but any particular project should not add more than
2 g/m2/month of dust.

      Table 3-2: Dust Deposition Criteria
                                                                                                2
                      Averaging Period                                            Deposition (g/m /month)
                                                                                            2
                         Annual (total)                                                4 g/m /month
                                                                                            2
                      Annual (increase)                                                2 g/m /month




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx                               PAGE 8
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




4.           Existing Environment
4.1.         Existing Air Quality

Air quality in the vicinity of White Bay will be influenced by pollutants emitted regionally and
within the Sydney airshed. Pollution levels are measured by the DECCW, which operates air
quality monitoring stations around the region. The closest DECCW monitoring site to White Bay
is at Rozelle Hospital, approximately 1.5 km west of the site (refer to Figure 1-1). The Rozelle
station monitors NO2, PM10 and ozone (O3). Data from the Rozelle station were obtained from the
DECCW’s Quarterly Air Quality Monitoring Reports to provide background estimates of NO2 (1
hour maximum) and PM10 (24 hour maximum) levels. There are no known, publicly available SO2
background monitoring data in the area of interest.

4.1.1.       Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)

The production of NOx occurs in most combustion processes due to the oxidation of nitrogen in the
fuel and air. A number of oxides of nitrogen are formed, including nitric acid (NO) and NO2. The
NO to NO2 ratio is generally 90:10 by volume of the NOx at the point of emission however all the
NO emitted into the atmosphere is ultimately oxidised to NO2 and other oxides of nitrogen. The
rate at which this conversion occurs depends on a number of factors including temperature,
topography, local meteorological circulation patterns, the presence of an inversion, and the
presence of ozone. The rate of conversion can affect ground-level concentrations of NO2.

Figure 4-1 shows that the maximum 1-hour average NO2 concentrations from data collected
between January 2001 and July 2006 at Rozelle were well below the DECCW criterion of
246 µg/m3, with a maximum recorded concentration of 176 µg/m3 in April 2002. Figure 4-2 shows
the monthly average NO2 concentrations; it can be seen from this figure that monthly average NO2
concentrations were greatest during the warmer months of the year, reflecting an increased reaction
rate of NOx to NO2. Although the DECCW does not specify a monthly average air quality criterion
for NO2, the data from Figure 4-2 show that annual average NO2 concentrations were well below
the annual average DECCW criterion of 62 µg/m3. The highest annual average NO2 concentration
was 32 µg/m3, recorded in 2005.




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx             PAGE 9
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




       Figure 4-1: Maximum 1 Hour Average NO2 Concentrations from Rozelle




      Figure 4-2: Monthly and Annual Average NO2 Concentrations from Rozelle




4.1.2.       Particulate Matter (PM10)

Airborne particulate matter is any material, except uncombined water, that exists in a solid or liquid
state in the atmosphere or gas stream at standard conditions. Airborne particles generally range in
size from 0.001 - 500 µm diameter, with most particles in the atmosphere being 0.1 - 10 µm in


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx               PAGE 10
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




diameter. Fine particulate matter is defined as particles with aerodynamic sizes less than 10 µm,
referred to as PM10. Particulate matter is generated from a range of activities including industry,
motor vehicles, waste disposal, ocean salt, wind erosion, roadway dust, bush fires and plant matter
(for example, pollen and seed).

Figure 4-3 shows the monthly maximum 24 hour PM10 concentrations from Rozelle for data
collected between January 2004 and December 2006. While maximum PM10 concentrations in the
area were typically below the average 24 hour average criterion of 50 µg/m3, exceedances of the
criterion were recorded during the summer months of 2004 and 2006 and in September 2006.
Bushfires in the Sydney region during those time periods are likely to have been the cause of the
exceedances.

      Figure 4-3: Maximum 24 Hour PM10 Concentrations from Rozelle




Figure 4-4 shows the average monthly PM10 concentrations from Rozelle for 2004 to 2006,
together with the annual averages. The annual averages were all below the DECCW criterion of
30 µg/m3, at around 20 µg/m3.




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx             PAGE 11
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




      Figure 4-4: Monthly and Annual Average PM10 Concentrations from Rozelle




4.1.3.       Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

Sulphur dioxide is generated during the combustion of fuels containing sulphur, such as coal or oil.
Emission sources include petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, shipping and motor vehicles
but, overall, emissions of SO2 in the metropolitan area are generally low. As mentioned in
Section 4.1, no background monitoring data relating to SO2 were available for the White Bay area.
It is expected, however, that in the absence of significant nearby sources of SO2, background
concentrations will be low.

The DECCW’s Current Air Quality in NSW reported that no exceedances of SO2 criteria have been
measured in Sydney since monitoring began in the early 1950s (DECCW, 2010). It was also
reported that, in Sydney, maximum 1-hour average SO2 concentrations are typically less than 20%
of the (570 µg/m3) criteria, and that maximum 24-hour average concentrations are between 8 and
12% of the (228 µg/m3) criteria. Annual averages are between 5 and 10% of the (60 µg/m3)
criteria.

Maximum hourly average SO2 concentrations have been extracted from the DECCW’s online air
quality database for the Randwick, Chullora and Lindfield sites. For the period between 1 Jan 2008
and 22 Sep 2010, the maximum 1-hour average SO2 concentration from all three sites was
2.9 pphm, which is equivalent to 76 µg/m3 at 25 degrees Celsius. Maximum 10-minute and 24-
hour average concentrations could not be extracted from the DECCW’s online air quality database.



SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx             PAGE 12
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




For the purposes of this assessment the following background SO2 concentrations have been
assumed to apply to the White Bay area:

       Maximum 1-hour average concentrations of 76 µg/m3;
       Maximum 10-minute average concentrations of 109 µg/m3 (1.43 x 76)
       Maximum 24-hour average concentrations of 23 µg/m3 (10% of 228 µg/m3); and
       Annual average concentrations of 6 µg/m3 (10% of 60 µg/m3).

4.2.         Dispersion Meteorology and Climate Conditions

4.2.1.       Wind Speed and Direction

Wind is a major meteorological influence in the dispersion of pollutants. The prevailing winds in
central Sydney are determined by both synoptic and local influences.
The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) collects wind speed and wind direction data at Fort Denison
(Station No. 66022), located approximately 3.6 km north-northeast of the site. Given the proximity
of Fort Denison to the area of interest and the exposure, data from this site are likely to be
representative of the wind conditions experienced in the White Bay area. The DECCW also
collects meteorological data from Rozelle which is a residential site.
Figure 4-5 shows annual and seasonal wind-roses for the Fort Denison site. It can be seen from
this figure that wind direction in the area varies according to the season. Westerly winds occur
throughout the year and are the predominant wind direction, particularly in winter and autumn.
Summer and spring winds can be from a range of directions, with east to northeasterly sea breezes
prevailing in summer. The frequency of calm conditions (that is, winds less than or equal to 0.5
m/s) is low at around 1%.




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx            PAGE 13
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




      Figure 4-5: Annual and Seasonal Wind Roses for Fort Denison, 2002




4.2.2.       Local Climate Averages

The climate is characterised by warm summers and cool, mild winters. The daily maximum and
minimum temperatures experienced in central Sydney are moderated by its coastal location, and the
dispersion of pollutants is greatly influenced by localised coastal wind flows. The rainfall received

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx              PAGE 14
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




in central Sydney exhibits a seasonal variation and is generally reliable all year round. Climate
data from the Bureau of Meteorology’s Observatory Hill station are shown in Table 4-1 (BoM,
2008).
      Table 4-1: Climate Summary, Sydney Observatory Hill, Sydney
Jan       Feb       Mar       Apr          May     Jun       Jul       Aug        Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec   Years
                                        o
Mean maximum temperature ( C)
25.9      25.7      24.7      22.4         19.4    16.9      16        18         20    22    24    25    1859-2008
                                       o
Mean minimum temperature ( C)
18.6      18.8      17.5      14.7         11.5    9.2       8         8.9        11    14    16    18    1859-2008
Mean rainfall (mm)
103       118       130       126          121     131       98        82         69    77    84    78    1859-2008
                                 o
Mean 9 am temperature ( C)
22.4      22.3      21.1      18.2         14.6    11.9      11        13         16    19    20    22    1859-2008
Mean 9 am relative humidity (%)
71        74        74        72           73      74        71        66         62    61    66    67    1859-2008
Mean 9 am wind speed (km/h)
8.6       8.2       7.9       8.8          10.5    11.9      13        13         12    12    11    9.8   1859-2008
                                 o
Mean 3 pm temperature ( C)
24.8      24.9      24        22           19.3    16.9      16        17         19    21    22    24    1859-2008
Mean 3 pm relative humidity (%)
62        64        62        59           57      57        51        50         51    55    58    59    1859-2008
Mean 3 pm wind speed (km/h)
17.9      16.8      15.2      13.8         12.7    13.6      15        18         18    19    19    20    1859-2008



4.2.3.       Temperature

The average monthly temperatures recorded at Observatory Hill between 1859 and July 2008 are
shown in Figure 4-6. The highest temperatures were typically recorded in January and February
(with average monthly temperatures greater than 25oC), while the coldest temperatures occurred in
July (average minimum temperature of 8oC).




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx                             PAGE 15
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




      Figure 4-6: Average Monthly Temperatures at Observatory Hill




4.2.4.       Relative Humidity

The average monthly 9 am and 3 pm relative humidity recorded at Observatory Hill over the past
53 years is presented in Figure 4-7. Relative humidity was higher at 9 am than 3 pm, with annual
averages of 69% and 57% respectively.

      Figure 4-7: Average 9 am and 3 pm Relative Humidity at Observatory Hill




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx           PAGE 16
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




4.2.5.       Rainfall

The average monthly rainfall and monthly number of rain days for the past 150 years at
Observatory Hill are presented in Figure 4-8. The average annual rainfall was 1215 mm, which
fell over an average of 138 days. Average rainfall was highest from February to June, and the
maximum average rainfall occurred in June (131 mm). March had the greatest average number of
rain days (13.3), while August had the fewest (9.9).

      Figure 4-8: Mean Monthly Rainfall and Number of Rain Days at Observatory Hill




4.2.6.       Atmospheric Stability

Atmospheric stability affects the dispersion of pollutants released from a source. The Pasquill-
Gifford-Turner stability class assignment system has six stability classes, denoted as A (unstable)
to F (stable). Pollutants spread rapidly under unstable conditions, which are characterised by
warm, sunny days with light winds. Pollutants spread very slowly under stable conditions, which
typically occur at night when the sky is clear, winds are light and an inversion is present.

The frequency of occurrence of each atmospheric stability class was determined from historical
cloud cover data (obtained from the BOM for Sydney airport) and temperature profiles for 2002;
details are shown in Table 4-2. It can be seen from this table that F-class stabilities have been
determined to occur most often in the study are (46%). This suggests that dispersion will be slow
for the majority of the time.




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx              PAGE 17
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




      Table 4-2: Frequency of Occurrence of Atmospheric Stability Class
         Pasquill-Gifford-Turner Stability Class                                  Frequency of occurrence (%)
                                 A                                                            0.2
                                 B                                                            4.3
                                 C                                                           12.0
                                 D                                                           27.3
                                 E                                                           10.0
                                 F                                                           46.1
                               Total                                                         100




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx                                 PAGE 18
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




5.           Air Quality Assessment Methodology
5.1.         Overview

This section provides the methodology applied to the assessment of operational air quality impacts.
The assessment was conducted in accordance with DECCW guidelines (DEC, 2005).

5.2.         Dispersion Modelling

Dispersion modelling of the emissions from berthed ships was conducted using the CALPUFF
(v6.263) dispersion model and its associated programs (CALMET, which generates meteorological
files for use in the CALPUFF model, and CALPOST, which processes the output from the
CALPUFF program). CALPUFF is a Gaussian puff model that represents pollutant emissions as a
series of puffs whose movement is tracked until they reach the limits of the study area. Gaussian
puff models are generally accepted as being more accurate than Gaussian plume models (such as
AUSPLUME) for modelling the dispersion of pollutants under complex meteorological or
topographical conditions, such as those that occur in coastal regions.
CALPUFF uses three-dimensional wind fields generated by CALMET to predict the dispersion of
pollutants. CALMET requires the following data to generate the wind fields:

       Terrain and land use;
       Surface meteorology; and
       Upper air meteorology.

A surface meteorological file was prepared using wind speed and wind direction data from Fort
Denison, meteorological data from Observatory Hill, and meteorological data from the DECCW
monitoring station at Rozelle. Upper level meteorological data were generated using The Air
Pollution Model (TAPM) developed by CSIRO.

TAPM consists of coupled prognostic meteorological and air pollution concentration components
that can predict winds, temperature, pressure, water vapour, cloud/rain water and turbulence,
removing the need for site-specific observations. The model also includes urban/vegetation
canopy, soil effects and radiative fluxes. TAPM has the capability to assimilate meteorological
observation data, enabling the model to produce results that more accurately reflect actual
conditions.

Meteorological data were generated for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002 (the year
with the highest NO2 concentrations recorded by the DECCW at Rozelle). TAPM was configured
with four nested grids of 25 x 25 x 25 points with grid spacings of 30 000, 10 000, 3 000 and
1 000 m. The terrain and land use files were generated using AUSLIG 9 second (~250 m) terrain

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx            PAGE 19
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




data. Hourly observations of wind speed and direction from the Fort Denison and Rozelle
automatic weather stations were assimilated into the TAPM prognostic meteorological output.
Details of the setting used for TAPM and CALPUFF are provided in Table 5-1.

      Table 5-1: Summary of meteorological parameters used for this study

Parameter                                   Description
TAPM (v4)
Number of horizontal grid points            25 x 25
Outer grid spacing                          30 km x 30 km
Vertical levels                             25
Meteorological grid resolution              4 grids at 30 km, 10 km, 3 km and 1 km spacing
                                                 o                   o
Grid centre coordinates                     -33 52’ latitude, 151 11’ longitude
CALMET (v6)
Meteorological grid domain                  5 km x 5 km
Meteorological grid resolution              0.1 km
Number of grid cells                        50 x 50 x 9
Surface meteorological station              Fort Denison (BOM): Wind speed, wind direction (~ 3.6 km NNE of site)
                                            Observatory Hill (BOM): Temperature (~ 2.5 km ENE of site)
                                            Rozelle (DECCW): Wind speed, wind direction, temperature (~1.5 km W
                                            of site)
                                            Sydney Airport (BOM): Cloud cover (~ 10.4 km S of site)
                                            TAPM: Ceiling height, pressure and relative humidity
Upper air meteorological station            Data extracted from TAPM for Rozelle site
Simulation length                           8760 hours (Jan 2002 to Dec 2002)
Mode                                        Diagnostic wind module



Figure 5-1 shows the model extents, terrain and land use information used as input to the
CALMET model. The location of the surface meteorological station is also shown. Terrain
information was extracted from the NASA Shuttle Research Topography Mission (SRTM)
database, which has global coverage at approximately 90 metre resolution. Land use data were
extracted from aerial imagery.




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx                           PAGE 20
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




      Figure 5-1: CALMET model extents, grid spacing and land use setup




Model predictions have been made at 790 discrete receptors, closely spaced (approximately 25 m)
near the emission sources and coarsely spaced at locations further from the emission sources.

Figure 5-2 shows a snapshot of winds as simulated by the CALMET model for stable night-time
conditions. The plot shows the effect of the terrain on the flow of winds for a particular set of
atmospheric conditions where the variations in wind speed and direction at various locations of the
study area are evident.




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx             PAGE 21
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




       Figure 5-2: Example of ground-level wind field simulated by CALMET




5.3.         Modelling Scenarios

Information provided by SPC on likely operational scenarios for the CPT development informed
the modelling scenarios. The operational scenarios include:

1) A large passenger ship at berth at Wharf No. 5 for 12 hours per day (6 am – 6 pm) for up to
   approximately 170 days per year, plus a medium passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 for 72 hours
   on 3 occasions per year (ships not at berth at the same time);
2) A large passenger ship at berth at Wharf No. 5 for 12 hours per day (6 am – 6 pm) for up to
   approximately 170 days per year, plus a medium passenger ship at berth at Wharf No. 4 for 12
   hours (6 am – 6 pm) for 10 days per year (ships at berth concurrently); and


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx          PAGE 22
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




3) A large passenger ship at berth at Wharf No. 5 for 12 hours per day (6 am – 6 pm) for up to
   approximately 170 days per year, plus a large passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 for 72 hours on 3
   occasions per year (ships not at berth at the same time).

In practice, the scenarios for modelling are identified as follows:
       Scenario 1: A large passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 with constant emissions from 6 am to 6 pm;
       Scenario 2: A medium passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 with constant emissions for 24 hours;
       Scenario 3: A large passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 plus a medium passenger ship at Wharf
       No. 4 with constant emissions from both ships between 6 am and 6 pm; and
       Scenario 4: A large passenger ship at Wharf No. 5 with constant emissions for 24 hours.

The Pacific Dawn was used as an example of a large passenger ship, and the Nautica was used for
a medium passenger ship. Dimensions and operating parameters for these ships were obtained
from Carnival Australia, Oceania Cruises and Lloyd’s Register.

No scenario has been modelled where two cruise ships are concurrently berthed at WB5 and WB4
outside of the hours of 6am to 6pm as this will not be a normal or likely operating scenario. There
are however circumstances when it would be possible that two cruise ships would be concurrently
berthed outside of the hours of 6am to 6pm. These circumstances include:

1) One international ship staying overnight and one domestic ship which is delayed in arriving in
   port (and therefore delayed in departing the port) which extends its occupation of a berth at
   White Bay beyond 6pm. This situation would only occur if the domestic ship was subject to
   adverse weather conditions or mechanical difficulties, leading to a second ship in port outside
   of the hours 6am-6pm. However, in this situation the ship would still only be in berth for up to
   12 hours.
2) One international ship staying overnight and one domestic ship which is required to stay
   overnight. This would only occur in exceptional circumstances due to major mechanical
   failure, quarantine or immigration requirements.
3) Two international ships which require overnight berthing at White Bay. This is considered
   highly unlikely situation as it would mean there was no domestic ship berthed at WB5 and that
   two international ships were capable of fitting underneath the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

5.4.         Emission Rates

Ship emissions for existing and future scenarios were determined using the National Pollutant
Inventory Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Maritime Operations Version 2.0 (2008).
Emissions were calculated using the emission factors in Table 5-2.



SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx             PAGE 23
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




      Table 5-2: Emission Factors for Ships at Berth

                   Substance                                        Auxiliary Engine Emission Factors (kg/kWh)*
                       NOX                                                                    0.0145
                       PM10                                                                    0.001
                       SO2                                                                    0.0097
* Emission factors for weighted average fuel burn (Table 7 of NPI Emission Estimation Technique Manual for
Maritime Operations Version 2.0) – to be used when fuel type unknown.

The above emission factors relate to emissions from auxiliary engines. The ships modelled in this
assessment, however, run a single main engine while at berth. Emisisons were estimated by
multiplying the above emission factors by the engine power operating while at berth. Carnival
Australia (Carnival) indicated that the Pacific Dawn operates one 9720 kW engine at 8000 kW
while at berth. Oceania Cruises staff indicated that the Nautica also kept one engine in operation
while the ship was at berth, but did not provide engine size or operating regime information. An
internet search indicated that the Nautica engines were 3280 kW; due to their relatively small size,
the ship was assumed to operate one engine at 100 % while at berth.

Emissions of SO2 are a function of the fuel sulphur content. The weighted average fuel burn
emission factor assumes a sulphur content of 2.4 %. This value was consistent with advice
provided by Carnival, which indicated that the fuel used for refuelling in Sydney has a sulphur
content of 2 + 0.5 %. Further advice from Shell, who supply fuel to cruise ships that are refuelled
in Sydney Harbour, indicated that the sulphur content of their fuel is 2.36 %, which is consistent
with the 2.4 % used in the SO2 emissions estimation.

Table 5-3 shows the ship stack parameters, provided by Carnival and Oceania Cruises (except
where otherwise indicated), and the pollutant emission rates as used by the CALPUFF model.

      Table 5-3: Ship Stack Parameters and Pollutant Emission Rates
                                     Scenario 1           Scenario 2                        Scenario 3              Scenario 4
  Ship size                            Large                Medium              Large                   Medium         Large
  (example ship)                   (Pacific Dawn)          (Nautica)        (Pacific Dawn)             (Nautica)   (Pacific Dawn)
  Ship location                       Wharf 5               Wharf 5            Wharf 5                  Wharf 4       Wharf 5
  Ship height (m)                         40                   37                   40                    37            40
  Stack easting (m)                    332382               332382                332382               332125         332382
  Stack northing (m)                  6251709              6251709                6251709              6251593       6251709
  Stack height (m)                        48                  44.8                  48                   44.8           48
  Base elevation (m)                      0                    0                     0                     0             0
  Stack diameter (m)                      1                   0.8                    1                    0.8            1
  Exhaust velocity (m/s)                 24.3                 24.3                 24.3                  24.3          24.3
  Exhaust temperature (oC)               160                  160                   160                   160           160
  Exhaust temperature (K)                433                  433                   433                   433           433
  Duration                              12 h/d               24 h/d                12 h/d                12 h/d       24 h/d



SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx                                              PAGE 24
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




                                     Scenario 1           Scenario 2                     Scenario 3          Scenario 4
  Mass emission rates (g/s)
  NOx                                   32.2                 13.2                 32.2                13.2      32.2
  PM10                                   2.2                  0.9                 2.2                 0.9       2.2
  SO2                                   21.6                  8.8                 21.6                8.8       21.6




Fuel consumption data have also been obtained from Carnival and Oceania Cruises. At idle, the
average fuel consumption of vessels has been stated at approximately:

      1.8 tonnes per hour for ships equivalent to the Pacific Dawn; and
      0.9 tonnes per hour for ships equivalent to the Nautica.

On the basis of 2.4% sulphur content in the fuel, the SO2 mass emission rates are calculated to be
24 g/s and 12 g/s for the Pacific Dawn and Nautica respectively. These results are reasonably
consistent with the results determined using the NPI method. Under the recent (July 2010)
revisions to emission standards, the global limit on sulphur in marine fuels will fall to 0.5% in
2020. This will mean that SO2 mass emission rates will be proportionally lower; that is
approximately 20% (0.5/2.4) of the emission estimates shown in Table 5-3.

All four modelling scenarios were developed to simulate the effect of emissions while at berth and
results are expected to be indicative of actual impacts, due to the unpredictability of when and
which ships will arrive. The emission estimates assume that the main engines for the Pacific Dawn
and Nautica will be running while at berth, but at a reduced load. For example, the Pacific Dawn
has 4 x 9720 kW main engines and it has been assumed that (based on information from Carnivale)
one of these engines is operated at 8000 kW (approximately ¼ of the operating output for the ship)
for the entire time while at berth.

It is recognised that, in reality, there will be increased engine load, and emissions, for
approximately 30 minutes during the berthing and departing processes. This increase in load is
likely to vary from less than ¼ power (as assumed for continuous operations while at berth) up to ½
power, depending on the ship, weather conditions and tugs. Given this variability, it is not possible
to accurately estimate emissions and simulate, using a dispersion model, the likely impact of any
increase in emissions in the 30 minute periods either side of a ship at berth. Thus, more specific
predictions which include increased emissions before and after berthing could not be made with
considerable confidence. While the short-term (10-minute and 1-hour average) model predictions
of incremental concentrations could be affected by the increased emissions during berthing and
departing processes, it should also be recognised that the development area is an existing port with
various existing shipping activities, some of which will be displaced by the Project. In this context,
background air pollutant concentrations will already include contributions from those emission


SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx                                   PAGE 25
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




sources, and to a large extent the assumed, and conservative, background levels for this assessment
will take account of existing and future berthing and departing processes.

5.5.         Building Wake Effects

Each ship at berth was considered to be a building for the purposes of modelling building wake
effects. Each ship was defined as having a single tier and included in the Building Profile Input
Program (BPIP). The PRIME building wake algorithm was selected for modelling purposes.
Dimensions for the structures included in BPIP are shown in Table 5-7 and Figure 5-3.

       Table 5-4: Ship Dimensions

                                                                                  Dimensions
                 Structure                           Height (m), not
                                                                                  Length (m)   Width (m)
                                                     including stack

Large passenger ship (Pacific Dawn)                           40                     245          36
Medium passenger ship (Nautica)                               37                     205          25




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx                        PAGE 26
AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT




      Figure 5-3: Building setup for each model scenario




SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02809\Deliverables\EN02809_WhiteBay_Air_Quality_Final_3.docx   PAGE 27

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:33
posted:6/18/2011
language:English
pages:34