asbestos & lead exposure risk assessment sydney ......december 2011 96980 shfa white bay ps...

Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd Level 2, 11 Khartoum Road

North Ryde NSW 2113 Ph: (02) 9889 1800 Fax: (02) 9889 1811

www.noel-arnold.com.au

SS0150:96980: JWG 96980 SHFA White Bay PS Asbestos & Lead Exposure Assessment Dec2011

Asbestos & Lead Exposure Risk Assessment Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority

White Bay Power Station, Roberts Street, Rozelle NSW

December 2011 Our Ref: SS0150:96980

December 2011

96980 SHFA White Bay PS Asbestos & Lead Exposure Assessment Dec2011 Page: i



Executive Summary Introduction

Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd (NAA) was requested by Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA) to conduct an exposure risk assessment of nominated SFHA employees, contractors and open day attendees during nominated activities and times at White Bay Power Station (WBPS) which is located on Robert Street, Rozelle NSW.

The principal objective of this report is to provide an assessment of the potential risk to human health of the identified receptor groups that have entered the buildings at WBPS, as identified by SHFA during the period between January 2004 to November 2011.

Background Information

NAA were commissioned by SHFA to undertake a Hazardous Materials Survey of the buildings at WBPS in September 2011 (NAA Hazardous Materials Survey Report (SS0150:94667, November 2011). The survey identified asbestos and lead materials at various locations within and adjacent to the buildings on the WBPS site.

Assessment Findings

The cumulative exposure to asbestos fibres for all receptor groups as a result of access to the WBPS site is not expected to be substantially different to the background environment levels. As such, their increased exposure risk above the background rate of the general population would be considered extremely low or negligible and unlikely to result in the development of an asbestos related disease.

The duration and the nature of potential lead exposure of the receptor groups as a result of access to the WBPS was short and, as such, the potential contribution to their cumulative lead exposure would be considered very small. The risk of the receptor groups developing lead-related adverse effects in the short and long term can be described as low to negligible.

Conclusion

The findings of this exposure risk assessment has found that, based on the information provided and the simulation exposure monitoring, the health risk posed by the identified asbestos and lead containing materials within the buildings at WBPS to the receptor groups is considered to be very low to negligible.

Recommendations

The following recommendations should be taken into consideration. These recommendations have been made based on this assessment and legislation requirements but have not taken into consideration other factors such as industrial and public relations.

Prepare a Hazardous Materials Management Plan for the site in accordance with The Code of Practice for the Management and Control of Asbestos in Workplaces [NOHSC: 2018 (2005)].

Action the recommendations made as per the NAA Hazardous Materials Survey Report (SS0150:94667, November 2011) including review of contractor induction processes, SWMS and requirements for asbestos and lead awareness training.

December 2011

96980 SHFA White Bay PS Asbestos & Lead Exposure Assessment Dec2011 Page: ii



Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

2. Scope ............................................................................................................. 1

3. Methodology ................................................................................................. 1

4. Background Information .............................................................................. 4

5. Legislative Requirements ............................................................................. 5

6. Outline of Asbestos and Lead Risk Assessment Process ........................... 8

7. Hazard Identification .................................................................................... 9

8. Toxicity Assessment .................................................................................... 11

9. Exposure Assessment ................................................................................. 16

10. Risk Characterisation .................................................................................. 21

11. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 24

12. Recommendations ..................................................................................... 25

Appendix A: Site Plan ......................................................................................... 25

Appendix B: Photographs ................................................................................... 26

Appendix C: Asbestos Fibre Air Monitoring Reports ........................................ 29

Appendix D: Lead Air Monitoring Reports ......................................................... 30

Appendix E: Weather Conditions ....................................................................... 31

Appendix F: References ..................................................................................... 33

December 2011

96980 SHFA White Bay PS Asbestos & Lead Exposure Assessment Dec2011 Page: iii

Statement of Limitations This report has been prepared in accordance with the agreement between the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority and Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd.

Within the limitations of the agreed upon scope of services, this assessment has been undertaken and performed in a professional manner, in accordance with generally accepted practices, using a degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by members of its profession and consulting practice. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

This report is solely for the use of Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority and any reliance on this report by third parties shall be at such party's sole risk and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or for other uses. This report shall only be presented in full and may not be used to support any other objective than those set out in the report, except where written approval with comments are provided by Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd.

Limited by Scope

It is noted that the Hazardous Materials Survey report prepared by Noel Arnold & Associates was limited by the scope of hazardous materials assessed and reported on site. There are certain areas which were inaccessible or otherwise not included in the report. Other potential hazards such as building products and accumulated dusts or soils have not been assessed. There may be other hazards present within the site that are not covered by this assessment.

December 2011

96980 SHFA White Bay PS Asbestos & Lead Exposure Assessment Dec2011 Page: 1

1. Introduction Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd (NAA) was requested by Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA) to conduct an exposure risk assessment of nominated SFHA employees, contractors and open day attendees during nominated access to White Bay Power Station (WBPS) which is located on Robert Street, Rozelle NSW.

The assessment was requested by Vanessa Weedon of SHFA and was conducted by Jason Green and Michael Burgess of Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd on 28th and 29th November 2011.

1.1 Background NAA were commissioned by SHFA to undertake a Hazardous Materials Survey of the buildings at WBPS in September 2011 (NAA Hazardous Materials Survey Report (SS0150:94667, November 2011). The survey identified asbestos and lead materials at various locations within and adjacent to the buildings on the WBPS site.

Previous to the NAA 2011 survey, a Hazardous Materials Assessment was conducted by HLA Envirosciences in February 2003 (HLA Report Ref: Project No. H6072, February 2003). This report also identified asbestos & lead materials at the site.

1.2 Objective The principal objective of this report is to provide an assessment of the potential risk to human health of the identified receptor groups that have entered the buildings at WBPS, as identified by SHFA during the period between January 2004 to November 2011.

2. Scope The scope of the assessment involved the following:

Undertake a walk through inspection of the buildings where asbestos and lead materials were previously identified;

Review of available previous relevant documentation such as hazardous survey reports made available at the time of assessment;

Conduct an exposure assessment to determine the typical levels of asbestos fibres and lead and the potential exposure of the identified receptor groups which include, SHFA employees, contractors and open day attendees; &

Review the relevant literature in order to determine the typical levels of asbestos fibres and lead within the areas accessed by the receptor groups and assess the potential asbestos and lead exposure.

3. Methodology 3.1 Site Inspection Site inspections were conducted to assess the condition and location of the asbestos and lead materials identified. Refer to NAA Hazardous Materials Survey Report (Ref. SS0150:94667, November 2011).

3.2 Interviews Interviews were conducted with various SHFA staff to confirm or augment information gathered for the assessment. The interviews considered issues related to current and past activities and events that may affect conditions of the asbestos and lead materials during the receptor group’s access to the buildings.

3.3 Documentation Review Relevant available documentation in relation to the asbestos and lead materials previously and currently identified at the site were reviewed. The purpose of the review

December 2011


was to provide useful information about the history of use or presence of asbestos and lead materials at the site.

3.4 Activity-Based Exposure Simulation Monitoring NAA developed an exposure assessment simulation program to assist in the qualification of asbestos and lead risk assessment of the receptor groups which include nominated SHFA employees, contractors and open day attendees. The following was undertaken by NAA:

Lead and asbestos air monitoring during simulated “activities” to replicate (as far as possible) the different types of scenarios/exposures in relation to the identified receptor groups that have visited WBPS; &

Allocate a representative number of samples/monitoring shifts required for each type of activity.

After the completion of the sampling/monitoring program and sample analysis, NAA has:

Considered and reviewed sources of asbestos & lead at the site; &

Reported on the condition of asbestos and lead products and assessed their contribution to asbestos & lead exposure to the receptor groups.

All samples were analysed by NATA accredited laboratories (including the laboratory at NAA).

The activity-based occupational exposure simulation monitoring at WBPS was developed to assess the following receptor groups:

A. Open Day Attendees/Guides

B. Special Interest Groups

C. Other SHFA Staff and Contractors

D. SHFA/Site Security Refer to Section 9.2 for more detail of the receptor groups.

3.4.1 Personal Air Monitoring The personal air monitoring was undertaken by NAA staff based on the supplied visiting time information for the particular receptor groups. NAA staff undertook the simulated activities over the identified routes taken by the various receptor groups inside the WBPS buildings. Refer to Appendix A for the site plans identifying the routes for the particular receptor groups. Replicate monitoring shifts were undertaken over double (and where deemed relevant triple) the identified visiting times for the particular receptor groups. The purpose of this additional sampling was to allow for worst case scenarios whereby a particular receptor group may have visited the site either for a slightly longer duration or made multiple visits to the site.

3.4.2 Static Air Monitoring Static air monitoring was undertaken at designated locations along the routes taken by the various receptor groups.

3.4.3 Asbestos

Air monitoring was undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Note on the Membrane Filter Method for Estimating Airborne Asbestos Fibres [NOHSC: 3003 (2005)]. A total of twelve (12) personal asbestos samples were taken as well as six (6) static (stationary) samples. Determination of airborne asbestos fibre samples were then performed in NAA’s NATA Accredited Laboratory. Refer to Appendix C for the asbestos air monitoring reports.

December 2011


3.4.4 Lead

The sampling and analysis for lead was performed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 3640-2009 Workplace atmospheres - Method for sampling and gravimetric determination of Inhalable dust. The sample collection was performed using SKC portable sampling pumps fitted with IOM sampling heads containing 25 mm PVC membrane filters and sampled at a flow rate of 2 litres/minute over the various times for the particular receptor groups. A total of twelve (12) personal samples were taken as well as six (6) static (stationary) samples. Lead analysis was conducted by Envirolab Services Pty Ltd using atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) analytical techniques. Refer to Appendix D for the lead air monitoring reports.

3.5 Qualitative Exposure Risk Assessment A qualitative assessment of the exposure risk of the receptor groups (which includes nominated SHFA employees, contractors and open day attendees) was conducted.

The exposure risk assessment of the receptor groups to the asbestos and lead materials identified is based upon the following factors:

Extent of asbestos and lead materials;

Quantity, friability (where relevant), location, accessibility and condition of the asbestos and lead products;

Potential impact or disturbance potential of the asbestos and lead products from the receptor groups;

Likelihood and quantity of fibres released and airborne lead levels within identified areas of the buildings;

Potential exposure to asbestos fibres and lead of the receptor groups which include nominated SHFA employees, contractors and open day attendees; &

Other information considered important or relevant.

December 2011


4. Background Information 4.1 Site Description The site is located at the southern end of Roberts Street, Rozelle NSW.

WBPS is a heritage-listed, former coal-fired power station on a 38,000 m2 site. The power station’s construction was completed in 1913 and generally consists of the Boiler House, Turbine Hall, Administration, Switch House, Pump House, Transformer Yard, Entertainment Rooms, onsite security office and external amenities buildings. The power station has been inactive since 1983 and the site is inaccessible to the general public.

Asbestos containing materials have been identified on the power station site in both non-friable and friable forms. Numerous asbestos containing materials remain insitu in the form of fibre cement sheeting, gaskets, cloth insulation fuses, bituminous sheeting, electrical backing boards and mastics. Lead containing materials have also been identified in the paint systems on the walls, windows, door frames and in settled dust throughout the power station.

4.2 Previous Reports Previous assessments provided by SHFA are as follows:

Hazardous Materials Assessment Report was conducted by HLA Envirosciences in February, 2003 (HLA Report Ref: Project No. H6072, February, 2003). This report also identified asbestos and lead materials.

4.3 Previous Open Day Tours Occasional guided tours of the plant have been arranged for various organisations by SHFA. Three (3) “open days” were organised whereby members of the general public were taken on a guided tour of the site by SHFA guide. Open day tours were conducted on the following dates:

Saturday 26th February 2011;

Saturday 28th May 2011; &

Sunday 29th May 2011.

4.4 Site Inspection Site inspections were conducted in November 2011 to assess the condition and location of the asbestos and lead materials identified. Refer to NAA Hazardous Materials Survey Report (Ref. SS0150:94667, November 2011).

Interviews were conducted with relevant SHFA employees in November 2011 to confirm or augment information gathered for the assessment. The interviews considered issues related to current and past activities and events that may affect conditions of the asbestos and lead materials during the receptor group’s access to the buildings.

4.5 Weather Conditions The WBPS site is subject to varying weather and in particular wind conditions which could potentially affect the relative air movement within the buildings as there is a significant number of broken windows, open doorways, roof sections missing and perimeter penetrations. It is noted that the average wind conditions were similar on all three open days and on the two days when simulated activity monitoring was conducted by NAA. However, the directions of the winds varied. These differences in wind conditions between the open days and the simulation days are not considered significant in the results of this risk assessment.

It is unknown the exact days in which the other receptor groups were onsite so the comparison of the weathers conditions between the days cannot be made. Refer to Appendix E for the BOM weather conditions for the three days for the open day as well as the two days the simulated activity monitoring was conducted by NAA.

December 2011


5. Legislative Requirements 5.1 Summary of Legislation The following NSW legislation is relevant to the management and control of risks in the workplace:

Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000; &

Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 (herein referred to as the OHS Regulation).

Under the OHS Regulation, there are general obligations for SHFA as a controller of premises, to:

Identify hazards (Section 34);

Assess risks (Section 35);

Eliminate or control risks (Section 36); &

Review risk assessment and control measures (Section 37).

In addition to above requirements, there are also specified documents for the management and control of asbestos and lead in the workplace.

5.2 Asbestos The following documents relate to asbestos management:

Code of Practice for the Management and Control of Asbestos in Workplaces [NOHSC: 2018(2005)]; &

Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos [NOHSC: 2002(2005)].

5.2.1 Current Occupational Exposure Standards

Occupational exposure standards are listed in the below document (and subsequent revisions).

Worksafe Australia [National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC)] ‘Exposure Standards for Atmospheric Contaminants in the Occupational Environment,’ May 1995 and from the Hazardous Substances Information System (HSIS) database on the Safe Work Australia website

The current exposure standards for asbestos in an occupational environment are:

- Chrysotile 0.1 fibres/mL

- Amosite 0.1 fibres/mL

- Crocidolite 0.1 fibres/mL

- Any mixture or unknown type 0.1 fibres/mL

5.3 Lead The following documents relate to lead management:

Australian Standard AS 4361.1-1995 Guide to lead paint management – Part 1: Industrial Applications;

National Standard for the Control of Inorganic Lead at Work [NOHSC:1012(1994)]; &

National Code of Practice for the Control and Safe Use of Inorganic Lead at Work [NOHSC: 2015(1994)].

5.3.1 Current Occupational Exposure Standards

Occupational exposure standards are listed in the below document (and subsequent revisions).

December 2011


Worksafe Australia [National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC)] ‘Exposure Standards for Atmospheric Contaminants in the Occupational Environment,’ May 1995 and from the Hazardous Substances Information System (HSIS) database on the Safe Work Australia website

The current exposure standard for lead in the occupational environment is:

- Lead (inorganic dust and fumes) 0.15 mg/m3

5.3.2 Indoor Air Quality Guidelines

There are no recognised indoor air quality standards for lead in Australia.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 62.1-2004 references the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation levels.

The current indoor standard for lead in the indoor environment is:

- Lead (inorganic dust and fumes) 0.05 mg/m3

5.3.3 Health Investigational Levels (HILs)

HILs are scientifically based, generic assessment criteria designed to be used in the first stage (‘screening’) of a soil assessment of potential risk to human health from chronic exposure to contaminants. HIL’s are intentionally conservative and are based on a reasonable worst-case scenario. Furthermore, HIL’s are not intended to be clean-up levels.

HIL’s for soil are commonly applied to lead in bulk dust situations in specific areas of built environments and workplaces such as roof and ceiling spaces, substations, service tunnels and other industrial locations such as WBPS.

HILs are sourced from the following document:

National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, April 2011 – Schedule B1 Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater.

HILs criteria are as follows:

Standard Residential 300 mg/kg

Recreational 600 mg/kg

Residential with minimal soil access 1,200 mg/kg

Commercial/Industrial 1,500 mg/kg

5.4 Health Surveillance Clause 165 of the NSW OHS Regulation 2001 states that “an employer must provide health surveillance for each employee who is exposed to a hazardous substance if there is a risk to the health of the employee as a result of that exposure”. Further to this, asbestos and lead are two of the hazardous substances listed.

Clause 165 also states that “the employer must ensure that the health surveillance is performed under the supervision of a medical practitioner if there is a significant risk to the health of an employee from the hazardous substance…..” and also that “the selection of the medical practitioner to supervise the surveillance must be undertaken by the employer after consultation with the relevant employees”. The health surveillance must be undertaken at the expense of the employer.

The health surveillance requirements for exposure are:

Asbestos

The gathering of occupational and demographic data;

Medical interview by a medical practitioner; &

December 2011


Records of personal exposure.

Lead

Medical and occupational history; &

Physical examination

It should be noted that the requirement for health surveillance for referenced hazardous substances such as asbestos and lead are only required for employees where there is a ‘significant’ risk to their health. Carrying out medical tests such as X-rays, lung function tests, blood lead levels, etc. is not generally recommended for short term, low risk exposures. Medical examinations of persons recently exposed will not reveal asbestos related diseases to such exposure due to the recognised latency period of time of possible exposure to symptomatic medical effects. In particular, unnecessary X-rays may indeed pose a more detrimental health effect. Health surveillance is a complicated subject and in this case, may not be required based on the risk assessment. If SHFA wish to pursue medical health surveillance (as a result of staff and/or others who have a heightened sense of concern about possible exposures to asbestos and lead), the following is considered appropriate: Counselling by an appropriately authorised medical practitioner, who is familiar

with the appropriate health surveillance requirements; &

Contact Dust Diseases Board to discuss the matter and to gauge their opinion as to whether further surveillance is necessary.

December 2011


6. Outline of Asbestos and Lead Risk Assessment Process Risk assessment is a process where toxicological data from animals and/or humans are combined with information regarding the degree of exposure, so that the potential impact of a contaminant on a specified population can be quantitatively predicted. As a written document, a risk assessment should include information on the toxicology and fate of the substance of concern as well as details on adverse effects experienced by humans due to exposure to the substance.

This asbestos risk assessment approach to human health is in accordance with general principles of risk assessment and management outlined in the EnHealth Guidelines for the Management of Asbestos in the Non-Occupational Environment, 2005.

This lead risk assessment approach to human health is in accordance with general principles of risk assessment and management outlined in the EnHealth Health-Based Soil Investigation Levels, 2001.

The following approach, based on the four (4) step risk assessment process below, has been developed to evaluate the health risks associated with the exposure to asbestos and lead in non-occupational settings such as indoor building environments.

Hazard Identification (Issue Identification)

Review relevant documentation, conduct site inspection and interviews in order to obtain relevant information such as the location, extent, type and condition of the asbestos and lead materials, quantity of asbestos and lead within the product and activities that may have resulted in the exposure to airborne asbestos fibres and lead paint and dust.

Toxicity (or Dose-response) Assessment

Review current information on the toxicity of asbestos and lead to humans in order to determine a relationship between the dose received and the incidence of an adverse health effect particularly with respect to low dose, non-occupational settings.

Exposure Assessment

Identifies the work groups or personnel who may have been exposed to asbestos and lead (e.g.; contractors, general occupants) and then estimate the likely exposure to asbestos and lead for each of the significant exposure routes.

Risk Characterisation and Evaluation

Incorporates the exposure assessment and toxicity assessment in order to characterise or evaluate the potential for adverse health effects and provide an overall assessment of risk.

December 2011


7. Hazard Identification The principal hazard associated with this exposure risk assessment is the contaminants, asbestos and lead.

7.1 Asbestos 7.1.1 Introduction

Asbestos is the generic term for a group of six (6) naturally-occurring fibrous silicate minerals belonging to the serpentine and amphibole groups of rock-forming minerals.

The common types of commercial asbestos have been chrysotile (white asbestos), which is a serpentine mineral, and amosite (brown asbestos) and crocidolite (blue asbestos), which are amphiboles. Anthophyllite, tremolite and actinolite, which are also amphiboles, are other asbestos types used less widely.

Asbestos has been mined, processed and used in over 3,000 products in the past hundred years. Asbestos and asbestos containing materials were used extensively in Australia between the 1940’s and 1980’s1. The major uses of asbestos materials in buildings include: thermal and acoustic insulation, fire-proofing, decorative finishes and construction materials (e.g.; cement sheeting for walls, partitions and ceiling, felt membranes & vinyl tiles). Some asbestos uses including frictional materials and gaskets were only discontinued in 2003.

Chrysotile accounts for 97% of the asbestos used throughout the world2.

7.1.2 Asbestos Fibre Type

The asbestos fibre types identified in the samples collected from the WBPS site is chrysotile (white) and amosite (brown) asbestos.

Chrysotile fibres are generally white or pale greenish in colour, soft, silky, flexible and parallel but curly fibres.

Amosite fibres are generally brown in colour, hard, sharp, needle-like, non-flexible type fibres.

7.1.3 Location, Extent, Condition & Type of Asbestos

The locations of asbestos containing materials are detailed in the NAA Hazardous Materials Survey Report (SS0150:94667, November 2011).

The materials identified in the above mentioned Hazardous Materials Report are both friable and non-friable in nature and in varying level of condition from good to poor condition. Although there are numerous asbestos materials identified at WBPS, based on the information provided on tour routes (See Appendix A), the following asbestos materials are considered as having potential for disturbance by the nominated receptor groups within this report:

Boiler House, Ground Level, South-west corner, Fire Door, Ground surface - Asbestos containing millboard insulation.

Control Room, Level 1, Northern end of Reactor Tie Room, Oven - Asbestos containing millboard insulation & associated debris.

7.1.4 Friability of Asbestos

Asbestos materials such as asbestos cement products, vinyl floor tiles and electrical backing boards are referred to as bonded asbestos materials as the asbestos bundles are generally bound within the matrix of the product. For a significant quantity of asbestos fibres to be released from these bonded materials, aggressive or significant disturbance is required such as drilling, cutting or sawing particularly with power tools.

Asbestos materials such as insulation and vessel/pipe lagging are referred to as friable asbestos materials as these materials can be crushed, pulverised or reduced to a powder by hand pressure when dry or are in the form of a powder. The friable asbestos

December 2011


materials have the greatest potential for fibre release and subsequent exposure to occupants.

7.1.5 Quantity of Asbestos within Products

Friable materials are those which can easily be crumbled, pulverised or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Millboard materials are a friable asbestos containing material and can contain relatively high percentage of asbestos (70% - 90%).

7.2 Lead 7.2.1 Introduction

Lead is a naturally occurring heavy metal. Pure lead can combine with other substances to form various lead compounds. Lead carbonate (white lead) was once the main white pigment in paints for houses and public properties. Paint with lead pigment was manufactured up until the late 1960’s, and in 1969 the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Uniform Paint Standard was amended to restrict lead content in domestic paint.

Lead based paint is defined as “Any paint containing greater than 1% by dry weight of lead” in AS 4361.1-1995 Guide to Lead Paint Management.

A significant amount of older Australian buildings contain lead paint with applications on external surfaces as well as indoor walls, doors, architraves and windows including the undercoats and primers with concentration up to 20% lead was very common3.

Lead can enter the environment via several routes such as a consequences of mining and refining lead, inappropriate waste disposal, restoration (and deterioration) of buildings, vehicles with lead-based fuels, lead casting and objects such are batteries and electronic equipment4.

Lead dust is seen as one of the greatest lead hazards in the workplace as lead can be inhaled in the form of a particulate dust or as lead fume. Also there is the likely contribution of lead ingestion which can be significant particularly if smoking and/or eating occurs in conjunction with poor personal hygiene5.

As indicated by the US EPA, lead particles are usually quite large i.e. 0.04 – 1.0 mm in size6. Lead dust is different to soil in that lead in surface dusts are mobile and will decrease with declining input, precipitation, wind and cleaning.

Typical levels of street dust indicated by the US EPA are in the ranges of 80 – 130 mg/kg in rural settings to 100 – 5,000 mg/kg in urban settings6. House dusts can range from 50 -500 mg/kg to 50 – 30,000mg/kg in urban settings to even 100 – 20,000 mg/kg adjacent to point source of lead such are lead smelters.

7.2.2 Location, Extent, Condition & Type of Lead

The locations of lead containing materials are detailed in the NAA Hazardous Materials Survey Report (SS0150:94667, November 2011).

The lead-based paints and dusts identified in the above mentioned Hazardous Materials Report are generally in fair to poor condition. The lead containing paints range from 1.3 % to 25% lead in paint. The typical lead containing dust results range from 2,500 mg/kg to 21,000 mg/kg. The flaking lead paint and in particular lead dust is extensive and can be found throughout the interior areas of WBPS.

December 2011


8. Toxicity Assessment 8.1 Asbestos 8.1.1 General Since the early 1960’s the link between asbestos exposures and related diseases such as mesothelioma has become well established. Most evidence has come from studies of groups with known occupational exposures to asbestos, in which asbestos related diseases are largely a result of past high occupational exposures of persons employed in the asbestos mining, processing or production industries or in the building trade. However, it has also been shown that environmental or non-occupational exposures such as household contact with exposed workers or residences near an asbestos source such as an asbestos mine or asbestos manufacturing factory can result in asbestos related diseases such as mesothelioma1.

All types of commercially available asbestos are well known to cause fibrosis of the lung and pleura as well as cancer of the lung, mesothelium and possibly the gastrointestinal tract in humans7. There is an increased risk of lung cancer associated with age, cumulative asbestos exposure and smoking.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that there is no persuasive evidence to suggest children are more susceptible to asbestos toxicity than adults8. The Health Effects Institute (HEI)9 state that for similar cumulative exposures, short exposure times produce larger risks than long exposure times and that exposure at younger ages will produce younger excess mortality rates.

Asbestos is a ubiquitous naturally occurring mineral fibre. Berry10 established that in a study group of fifty urban dwelling 60-79 year old Australian males, the median asbestos lung burden was 0.31 million fibres per gram of dry lung tissue. Further to this, most people living in urban centres generally contain hundreds of thousands or millions of asbestos fibres in their lungs.

8.1.2 Summary of Asbestos Related Diseases

There are three (3) primary diseases associated with the inhalation of asbestos fibres, which are asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Asbestosis

Asbestosis is a form of lung disease (pneumoconiosis) directly caused by inhaling asbestos fibres, causing irreversible scarring (fibrosis) of the lung tissue, which decreases the ability of the lungs to transfer oxygen to the blood. Asbestos fibres can remain in the lungs for long periods and the fibrosis that results from their presence continues to develop for many years after exposure stops. Asbestosis may become evident 5 to 15 years after continued exposure to high respirable asbestos fibre concentrations1.

There is evidence to suggest that a threshold effect associated with asbestosis is a cumulative threshold fibre dosage of between 25 to 100 fibres.years/mL (also referred to as fibre years), which is representative of heavy exposure when compared to the current occupational time weighted average (TWA) exposure for asbestos fibres of 0.1 fibres/mL (i.e. 10 years exposure at the TWA exposure standard of 0.1 fibres/mL equates to 1 fibre.year/mL).

Lung Cancer

Asbestos causes lung cancer and acts synergistically with tobacco smoke in the development of lung cancer. Lung cancer can occur many years after initial exposure (i.e. 10 to 40 years later). Lung cancer has been identified in persons exposed to respirable asbestos in occupational environments and has been associated with exposure to any of the fibre types1.

December 2011


Mesothelioma

Mesothelioma is a cancer of the lining of the chest cavity (the pleura) or less commonly the lining of the abdominal cavity (the peritoneum). It is generally, but not always, associated with continued occupational or other high exposure to respirable asbestos. Mesothelioma generally does not occur until 20 to 50 years after exposure. Mesothelioma has been associated with all types of asbestos. However, the evidence for causality is strongest with amphiboles, in particular crocidolite. Mesothelioma incidence does not appear to be affected by smoking history.

8.1.3 Fibre Type, Size and Respirability

The physical and chemical properties of the fibres including fibre type, size and shape and also persistence in the lungs are important determinants of asbestos related diseases.

The length and diameter of the fibre are important characteristics in determining its respirability and therefore its toxicity. Respirable asbestos fibres between 5-100 μm in length with diameters less than 2 μm, and with aspect ratios greater than five to one appear to have the greatest adverse effect11. Fibres outside the respirable size range or fibres contacting the bronchi walls will be removed by the muco-ciliary escalator and expectorated or swallowed. Swallowed fibres pass through the alimentary tract and are excreted in the faeces. Fibres remaining suspended in the air may in fact be exhaled again. Asbestos fibres retained in the lung are trapped in the respiratory bronchioles and alveoli generally of the lower lobes. Bundled fibres are not respirable and hence pose less of a risk. Fibres shorter than 5 μm do not appear to cause asbestos related diseases or at least are much less potent than longer fibres. Nasal hairs would intercept most fibres 200 μm in length.

Another property unique to asbestos fibres is their ability, when ruptured with some form of mechanical force, to split along the length of the fibre into numerous fibrils of much smaller diameter. Other fibres, such as Synthetic Mineral Fibres (SMF), tend to shatter or break transversely into shorter fragments of the same diameter. This ability of asbestos to split longitudinally allows the production of extremely fine fibres with very good aerodynamic properties. The typical average fibre diameters are: amosite 0.4 microns, crocidolite 0.2 microns and chrysotile 0.16 microns12. Composition is only important in terms of durability in the lungs.

The difference in the morphology of chrysotile, having curly fibres, is important with respect to its behaviour in the respiratory system. This property has the effect of increasing the overall aerodynamic diameter of the fibres thereby making it less likely that they will penetrate to the smaller airways of the lung. The harsh needle-like structures of the Amphiboles have a greater ability to penetrate into the fine airways of lungs13.

The health risk associated with chrysotile is considered less than that of amosite and crocidolite due to the physical and chemical properties of the fibres. The retention of amphibole fibres in the lungs is higher than chrysotile due to the fibre’s durability and resistance to the lung’s clearance mechanisms. Therefore, the amphibole fibres such as crocidolite and amosite are considered more potent than chrysotile and appear to be the critical fibres in the development of mesothelioma.

Many publications indicate that the toxic and carcinogenic effects of the asbestos fibres can be correlated not only to the fibre length and fibre diameter but also to the physical and chemical properties of the fibre at the surface13,14,15. Monschaux et al., 1981 and Pott, 1978 report that in biological experiments with animals it has been shown that the toxic and carcinogenic potency decreases with increased leaching of the chrysotile fibres.

8.1.4 Exposure–Response Relationship

Various literature indicates, that based on persons exposed occupationally to elevated concentrations of airborne asbestos fibres, the risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma

December 2011


has been observed to increase with the extent (level and duration) of exposure to asbestos.

Studies, which provide dose response information on the inhalation effects of asbestos in humans are summarised in Table 3-1 in the ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Asbestos (2001). In many studies, a linear dose response relationship has been observed between lung cancer and asbestos exposure. However, there is a delay of 10 to 20 years following exposure before the increased risk can manifest. The ATSDR (2001) suggest a delay of 20 to 40 years as the latency period required for asbestos induced mesothelioma. As previously noted, the incidence of asbestos related diseases described in Section 8.1 was associated with exposure to high concentrations of airborne asbestos fibres. Enheath (2003) reported that workplace atmospheric asbestos levels in the mining and manufacturing industries would have been well above 100 fibres/mL prior to more stringent workplace practices were introduced. Workers handling loose asbestos were commonly exposed to hundreds of fibres/mL. HEI (1991) noted that estimated levels published for the crocidolite miners of Western Australia varied from 20 to 100 fibres/mL. Occupational exposure to asbestos in the 1960’s was commonly around 20 fibres/mL for many high risk industries with much lower exposure levels in subsequent years. Due to the introduction of more stringent work practices such as enclosed systems and dust extraction systems in the asbestos manufacturing processes in recent years in Australia, exposure levels to asbestos in these occupational settings has been reduced significantly. NICNAS (1999) notes that personal monitoring data for Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd in Australia, (who manufactured chrysotile containing frictional materials such as brake disc pads and clutches), had approximately 84% of the 461 samples taken between 1992 and 1997 were <0.1 fibres/mL. The ATSDR (2001) notes the cumulative exposure levels that have been associated with lung fibrosis in groups of chronically exposed workers, which include the British asbestos textile factory workers (38 fibre.years/mL), Indian asbestos cement workers (62 fibre.years/mL), British Columbian chrysotile miners and millers (30 fibre.years/mL), South African crocidolite and amosite miners (70 fibre.years/mL). Some epidemiological studies have detected little or no increase in lung cancer until the cumulative exposure dose of asbestos exceeds 25 to 100 fibre.years/mL. Enhealth (2003) notes that Doll and Peto (1985) endorsed the Ontario Royal Commission suggested threshold for asbestosis of 25 fibre.years/mL (eg; 25 years exposures at 1 fibre/mL). They also estimated a 1% increase in the standardised mortality ratio for lung cancer per year of exposure to 1 fibre/mL. ATSDR (2001) notes that signs of lung fibrosis and increased mortality associated with asbestosis and non-malignant respiratory disease have been observed in groups of workers with chronic cumulative exposures as low as 15 to 70 fibre.years/mL and 32 to 1,271 fibre.years/mL for asbestosis-associated mortality. Such exposures would result from 40 years of occupational exposure to air concentrations of 0.125 to 30 fibres/mL. EnHealth (2005) notes that in a review of dose-response at low levels of asbestos exposure, Iwatsubo et al (1998) state that there were no cases of mesothelioma among the Wittenoon crocidolite miners exposed for less than 3 months and none among the North American insulators whose exposure lasted less than 15 months. NICNAS (February 1999) noted that there was no detectable excess deaths due to lung cancer, gastrointestinal cancer or other cancer in a mortality study of over 13,000 workers at a UK factory producing frictional products between 1941 and 1986. The workers were generally exposed to 5 to 20 fibres/mL in certain areas between 1931-1950, 5 fibres/mL after 1950 and <1 fibre/mL after 1970.

The exposure of asbestos to persons in ambient conditions and inside buildings is several orders of magnitude lower than the concentrations in occupational settings indicated above. The levels of asbestos in the ambient and indoor environment are discussed in more detail in Section 9.3.1. ATSDR (2001) notes that the cumulative or lifetime exposure level of asbestos in the ambient (outdoor) air, which has a typical

December 2011


concentration of 2x10-6 fibres/mL is 0.000014 fibre.years/mL. ATSDR (2001) notes that the cumulative exposure level of asbestos in the indoor air, which has a typical concentration of 3x10-6 fibres/mL is 0.00019 fibre.years/mL. It should be noted that the cumulative exposure level for ambient and indoor air is based on the typical airborne asbestos fibre concentration over a life span of 70 years and assuming 10% of the time is outdoors and 90% of the time is indoors.

It is reasonable from a biological viewpoint to use data from occupational studies to derive estimates of risk for non-occupational exposures to asbestos fibres. However, differences in the route of exposure, type and characteristics of fibres, episodal or chronic exposure levels and time patterns (e.g.; age of initial exposure, duration of exposure) must be considered. Therefore, there are a number of inherent uncertainties when the risk is evaluated for low level exposures in non-occupational settings by extrapolating from estimates derived at high exposure levels due to the difference in several orders of magnitude.

8.2 Lead 8.2.1 General The main pathways of lead (in any form) to humans are via inhalation and/or ingestion. Lead is toxic to the body and with repeated inhalation or ingestion of lead paint particles will result in lead poisoning or plumbism3. Various issues can occur if people are in the vicinity of lead painted structures and other lead containing materials and locations such as external areas, footpaths or contaminated soil. The lead materials may be disturbed, resuspended or tracked into a building where lead levels can be accumulated and it can be inhaled or ingested.

8.2.2 Summary of Lead Related Effects Lead exposure has been shown to induce effects in a number of body systems. Acute effects of high-level exposure (typically 70 – 100 µg/dL) are clinical emergencies which can be encephalopathy (brain injury) or massive neurological function failure. Also other symptoms include stomach pain, vomiting, convulsion (fits), loss of consciousness and possibly death. Body systems that can be affected include the haematopoietic systems (conditions such as anaemia), the nervous system and gastrointestinal systems (e.g. colic & constipation), kidneys, reproductive systems, as well as the cardiovascular systems16. Unborn babies are highly susceptible to lead exposure where by high levels subjected to the pregnant mother may cause a miscarriage. Lead is transferred to the baby via the umbilical cord as well as small amounts of lead can pass to the breast milk5. There is also evidence that elevated lead exposures can adversely affect sperm mortality, size, numbers and quality in occupationally exposed males. As indicated by the ATSDR (2007), there have been very few studies undertaken with regards to the cardiovascular/renal and neurobehavioral effects relating to bone lead concentrations in excess of 10 µg/dL17. Inorganic lead particles are inhaled and primarily deposited in the bronchiolar and alveolar regions of the respiratory tract where it can be absorbed and excreted primarily in urine and faeces 17. Faecal/urinary excretions rates would be higher with the larger particles. Acute exposure to lead products is rare in occupational environments with the exception of heavy lead industrial workplaces. It is more common for lead poisoning to be present as a chronic disease where by a gradual accumulation can occur. The effects of ongoing repeated lead exposure have been studied extensively with animal investigation mainly with the oral route of exposure18. Effects to the various body systems such as the haemopoeitic, renal, nervous and reproductive systems have been reported. These adverse effects are generally seen where blood lead levels greater than > 60 µg/dL.

December 2011


It was noted in a recent study by Navas-Acien et. al. 19 in 2008 relating to long term effects of lead on the cardiovascular system that the observational effect of lead on blood pressure was moderate, the association could be causal and there was not sufficient evidence to link a causal relationship of lead exposure to clinical adverse cardiovascular issues.

8.2.3 Exposure–Response Relationship Lead based paint is defined as having greater than 1% lead by dry weight in AS 4361. The concentration or percentage lead in the painted surface can affect the potential level of lead concentration in the body. Ingestion of paints with a higher percentage lead can potentially lead to higher lead concentrations in the body. The condition of the painted surfaces impacts on the potential for ingestion into the body. Surfaces in poor or deteriorating condition represent a higher potential for transfer onto skin or other body surfaces. If good hygiene practices are not followed (e.g. washing hands before eating or smoking), then the risk of ingestion is greatly increased. The rate of inhalation of airborne lead dust, such as lead paint that has been sanded, will depend on the relative disturbance of the lead products, the airborne concentration, the relative amount of accumulated dust present and the size of the dust particles. Pregnant women and children are the most susceptible to lead exposure. Even low lead blood levels may have a detrimental effect. Donovan (1996) has cited WHO studies that state that sustained blood lead concentrations of 10 µg/dL are associated with a drop of 1 – 3 IQ points in children aged 4. Also, a further decrease of 2.6 IQ points was associated with an increase in blood lead concentrations from 10 – 20 µg/dL. Therefore, even low blood lead levels in children can be detrimental as they can absorb a much greater percentage of lead into their bodies when compared to adults. Also there is the greater possibility of ingestion generally due their proximity to floor areas and greater hand-to-mouth activities which make them more vulnerable to lead exposure than adults. The only Australia-wide study of blood lead concentrations of 1,575 children occurred in 1995. This study was undertaken 9 years after all new cars were required to run on unleaded petrol. This study indicated that the average (geometric) blood lead concentration in 1994 for 1 to 4 your olds was 5.1 µg/dL with 7% exceeding the 10 µg/dL level and 1.7% exceeding the 15 µg/dL level 20.

8.2.4 Health Investigation Levels There were two approaches for setting Health Investigation Levels for lead which were assessed and the results compared. These were based on the World Health Organisation (WHO) Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake (PTWI) for lead of 25µg/kg/week for children and allowing that soil to contribute 52% of the PTWI and a HIL of 306 mg/kg was calculated. There were other estimates of exposure to lead from other sources that were taken into account such as air, food and drinking water sources. The assumption of soil/dust ingestion was set at 80mg/day for lead whereby this PTWI is seen as not to result in a net increase in the body burden of lead for a child which is 13.2 kg. The other approach is based on the lead blood level as a safe “level of concern” and then applying the uptake and biokinectic modelling to obtain the soil criteria 22. .

December 2011


9. Exposure Assessment 9.1 General The next step in the assessment process is to identify the work groups who may be exposed to asbestos fibres and lead to estimate the magnitude, frequency, extent and duration of exposures within the time period considered, which are varying time periods depending on the receptor groups.

By considering the receptor groups during the time period at WBPS, it is possible to estimate the potential level of asbestos or lead exposure by which the group may be exposed. The results of the exposure assessment will then be considered in conjunction with the specific toxicity criteria to provide an overall assessment of the risk.

The determination of the asbestos and lead exposure to the receptor groups has been based on the information provided, our assessment of the activities undertaken at WBPS within the time frame, an estimate of the duration of activities potentially resulting in asbestos and lead exposure and the application of exposure estimates for the asbestos and lead related disturbance activities referenced from published literature. There are a number of assumptions made in order to determine the exposure estimate(s), which are outlined in this report.

There are four (4) main elements that form part of the exposure assessment:

Identification of the receptor groups that may have been exposed to asbestos fibres and lead;

Identification of the exposure pathways;

Identification of the activities by which exposure may occur for each receptor group; &

Estimation of the airborne asbestos fibre and lead concentrations as a result of the specific activity.

9.2 Identification of Receptor Groups The following summarises the receptor groups and their particular locations that were frequented during their time within the buildings onsite. Refer to Appendix A for the site plans and the identified routes relating each receptor group.

9.2.1 Receptor Group A - Open day attendees and guides

The open day/pubic tours were undertaken on 26th February, 28th May and 29th May 2011. The open days typically consisted of a mix of individual and family groups accessing the buildings on a single tour. There was a pre-determined route that guides took tour groups on. The route was as follows:

1. Entry to the WBPS via the eastern side of the Boiler House

2. From Boiler House through to the Turbine Hall

3. Up the stairs within the Turbine Hall and Pump House

4. Down the stairs to exit the building via the north end of the Pump House.

Along the route the tour also briefly entered the doorways to the Coal Handling Shed, Administration Building and the Entertainment Hall. All other areas in the buildings were restricted.

Open day tours lasted for approximately 30 minutes and were conducted in groups of up to 20 people at a time escorted by SHFA staff tour guides (working in pairs). The SHFA tour guides may have undertook up to 10 tours during a single day period. Based on this information, it is estimated that up to approximately 3,000 people attended over the three open days.

December 2011


Below are the subgroups within Group A:

A1 – Open day attendees – up to 3,000 members of the general public, including children

A2 – Open day SHFA tour guides – 10 people operating in pairs

9.2.2 Receptor Group B - Special Interest Groups

The following special interest groups were taken through only on the one occasion. The date of this tour was not provided. The same route was used as the open day tours and was for up to 30 minutes:

B1 - Sydney Harbour Trust – Heritage Managers (x3) and SHFA Staff (x2)

B2 - Heritage Consultants (x2) & SHFA staff (x1)

B3 - University of NSW – Planning students (x25) & SHFA Staff (x2)

The following special interest group was taken through the same locations as the open day tour as well as additional time spent in the former Workshop, Switch House (electrical areas), Control Room and the Administration Offices which was for up to 60 minutes:

B4 - Former employees (x7)

9.2.3 Receptor Group C - Other SHFA Staff and Contractors

Miscellaneous SHFA Staff and Contractors are known to have accessed the site and worked on the external sections of the building and/or accessed the Boiler House to store items and retrieve them. This has been reported up to 30 minute events on a casual basis up to 5 times per month. This receptor group have been operating periodically since 2004.

9.2.4 Receptor Group D - SHFA/Site Security

Prior to the installation and electronic security system in 2007, security guards would undertake one routine walkthrough of WBPS per work shift as well as assist contactors periodically entering the building for minor works. This has been reported as being up to approximately 20 internal site visits per month (plus additional visits as required to escort contractors or to investigate security incidents). These events would be similar to the former employee routes through the power station (Group B4). After 2007 there has been little requirement for the security guards to enter the main buildings. This is estimated to occur up to 4 times per week for short periods of time (i.e. less than 30 minutes).

9.3 Identification of the Exposure Pathways 9.3.1 Asbestos

The two (2) principal routes of exposure to asbestos in the non-occupational environment are inhalation of ambient air and, to a much lesser degree, ingestion of drinking water. In the case of high levels of exposure some of the inhaled asbestos fibres may also be swallowed with mucous secretion from the respiratory tract. Imray(13)

states, however, that there is no convincing evidence that ingested asbestos is carcinogenic in animals and that the vast majority of ingested asbestos passes through the intestinal tract and is excreted in the faeces. Exposures through the skin and possible ingestion of asbestos in foods are considered to be much less important.

December 2011


i. Identification of the Asbestos Disturbance Activities

As previously discussed, the receptor groups who may have been exposed to asbestos fibres within WBPS include:

A. Open day Attendees/Groups



D. SHFA/Site Security

Refer to Appendix A for the site plans showing the routes of the Receptor Groups A to D.

Groups A1, A2, B1, B2 & B3 are all considered to have spent the least amount of time within the WBPS buildings (30 minutes). Based on their activities (walking and observing) and their stated tour route (not near any asbestos materials in poor or damaged condition), that it is unlikely that any asbestos containing materials were disturbed by these receptor groups.

Group B4 is considered to have spent about 60 minutes within the WBPS buildings during the period of assessment (January 2004 to November 2011). The stated tour route of this receptor may have been in the vicinity of some asbestos materials in poor or damaged condition, however, based on their activities (walking and observing), there is unlikely to have been any asbestos disturbance activities by this receptor group. Note that this assessment does not make comment on potential exposure risk of former employees during the operation of the site or outside of the period of assessment.

Groups C & D are considered to have spent the most amount of total time within the WBPS buildings in short periods over numerous years. These groups are considered to have been in the general vicinity of the two high risk asbestos items mentioned in Section 7.1.3. However, based on their activities (walking, observing, retrieving equipment, etc), there is likely to have been a low risk of any asbestos disturbance activities by these receptor group.

ii. Estimation of Airborne Asbestos Levels

Studies have indicated that short term minor disturbance activities on asbestos materials are likely to result in elevated fibre concentrations in the workers breathing zone. However, there is no evidence to indicate there is an impact on the ambient asbestos levels in buildings outside the work area.

The disturbance activities involved with these receptor groups are considered to very low, was over a short period of time and generally localised to designated walkways and corridors. The airborne asbestos concentrations surrounding these areas is likely to have not been significantly effected or unchanged. In addition, the risk of inhaling airborne fibres decreases significantly with increasing distance from the source of disturbance.

NAA conducted an activity-based simulation exposure monitoring program (Refer to Section 3.4 for further details). Personal asbestos air fibre monitoring was conducted along the routes indicated by the different receptor groups within WBPS (Refer to Appendix A for the site plans showing the routes of the Receptor Groups A to D). Static air sampling was also conducted in designated stationary positions for the duration of the monitoring day.

The results of the air monitoring indicated the airborne asbestos fibre concentrations were all less than the reporting limit of <0.01 fibres/mL during these activity-based simulations with the exception of the monitoring for the 30 minutes sampling events. Due to the short sampling time of some simulations (30 minutes), the reported results were less than the reporting limit of <0.02 fibres/mL. This is not considered significant as all laboratory reported results are less than the detection limit for the method and are very low. Monitoring was carried out in accordance with the Guidance Note on the

December 2011


Membrane Filter Method for Estimating Airborne Asbestos Fibres [NOHSC: 3003 (2005)]. Refer to Appendix C for the reporting.

9.3.2 Lead

The two (2) principal routes of exposure to lead in the occupational environment are inhalation of ambient air and, via ingestion of lead particles.

i. Identification of the Lead Receptor Groups

As previously discussed, the receptor groups who may have been exposed to lead products in the locations the groups were taken within WBPS include:

A. Open day Attendees/Guides



D. SHFA/Site Security

Groups A1, A2, B1, B2 & B3 are all considered to have spent the least amount of time within the WBPS buildings (30 minutes). Based on their activities (walking and observing) and their stated tour route, it is possible that there was minor lead paint or dust disturbance activities by these receptor groups for a short duration.

Group B4 is considered to have spent about 60 minutes within the WBPS buildings during the period of assessment (January 2004 to November 2011). Based on their activities (walking and observing) and their stated tour route, it is possible that there was minor lead paint or dust disturbance activities by these receptor groups for a short duration. Note that this assessment does not make comment on potential exposure risk of former employees during the operation of the site or outside of the period of assessment.

Groups C & D are considered to have spent the most amount of total time within the WBPS buildings in short periods over numerous years. Based on their activities (walking and observing) and their stated tour route, it is possible that there was lead paint or dust disturbance activities by these receptor groups.

ii. Estimation of Airborne Lead Levels

NAA conducted an activity-based simulated exposure monitoring program (Refer to Section 3.4 for further details). Personal lead air monitoring was conducted along the routes indicated by the different receptor groups within WBPS (Refer to Appendix A for the site plans showing the routes of the Receptor Groups A to D). Static air monitoring was also conducted in designated stationary positions for the duration of the monitoring day.

The results of the air monitoring indicated the airborne lead concentrations were all less than the reporting limit of <0.01 mg/m3 during these activity-based simulations with the exception of the monitoring for the 30 minutes sampling events. Due to the short sampling time of some simulations (30 minutes), the reported results were less than the reporting limit of <0.02 mg/m3. This is not considered significant as the laboratory reported results were all <1 µg/filter which is a very low. The sampling and analysis for lead was performed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 3640-2009 Workplace atmospheres - Method for sampling and gravimetric determination of Inhalable dust. Refer to Appendix D for the reporting.

As indicated by the AIOH (2009), there are a number of studies that have attempted to link occupational exposure limits (OEL) with blood lead and airborne lead levels. There is a likely correlation between lead levels in blood and hand surfaces of workers in a lead processing facility (21). A comprehensive review was undertaken of the ingestion of hazardous substances at work by Cherrie et al (2006). This review indicated that even with successful reduction of inhalation and dermal exposure there is still likelihood of lead level increasing via ingestion23. Therefore blood lead levels are to be used as the primary indicator of exposure and air monitoring is considered to be complementary to evaluate the effectiveness of the controls of airbourne lead.

December 2011


As the air monitoring results for all the samples taken were below the reporting limit of <0.01mg/m3 it would be reasonable to state that a blood lead monitoring programme would not be required. However this monitoring would be required where a risk assessment indicated a significant need for lead blood testing 6.

iii. Estimation of Lead Ingestion Levels

Lead ingestion by the receptor groups from lead paint and settled dust is a contributing factor to the overall receptor groups’ lead exposure. No additional surface testing of lead levels was undertaken as part of this assessment. As indicated by the NAA hazardous materials survey referenced previously, elevated lead dust levels were identified in the general vicinity of the routes taken by the receptor groups. It is likely that individuals within each receptor group may have touched or otherwise come into contact with surfaces such as hand rails, doors and to a lesser extent, items of plant and horizontal surfaces such as window sills and floors during their visit/s to WBPS buildings. It is also likely that that there may have been a certain amount of soil/dust on the individual’s shoes upon exiting the building at the completion of their visit/s to the internal areas of the WBPS buildings. Due to relatively infrequent nature of the visit/s and short duration (30 -60 minutes) of all the receptor groups and the adult age of receptors (with the exception of Group A1 - Open day attendees) this is considered to be a low risk in contributing to the individual’s overall lead exposure which includes the potential inhalation and ingestion of lead. Group A1 – Open day attendees – Children (under the age of 18) Anecdotally, receptor group A1 (open day attendees) consisted of approximately 10 – 30% children under the age of 18 year old. As previously discussed, children are considered as a higher risk group (as opposed to adults) for previously mentioned toxicological evidence as well as less likelihood of children to exercise good hygiene practices (e.g. washing hands before eating). The risk of ingestion is increased for children who were present on the open day tours. However, due to duration of potential exposure of the receptor (generally a single - 30 minute visit to the site), it is considered to be a low risk in contributing to the individual’s overall lead exposure which includes the potential inhalation and ingestion of lead.

December 2011


10. Risk Characterisation 10.1 General Risk characterisation involves the combination of the information collected from the toxic assessment and exposure assessment in order to provide an overall assessment of risk.

10.2 Asbestos 10.2.1 Background Concentrations of Airborne Respirable Asbestos Fibres

Asbestos is a ubiquitous naturally occurring mineral fibre and is widespread in the environment. The general population is exposed to low levels of asbestos fibres primarily by inhalation but also ingestion.

Background concentrations of asbestos in air and water have been studied in Australia as well as overseas. Sources of ambient or background asbestos fibre concentrations arise from release of asbestos containing friction materials, vast areas of asbestos cement clad roofing and other asbestos products, large natural asbestos deposits, contaminants in other minerals such as talc and vermiculite, emissions from mining and associated processing, and asbestos product manufacturing. Asbestos is also released during removal of asbestos building products and waste handling.

The exposure of asbestos to persons in ambient conditions and inside buildings is several orders of magnitude lower than the concentrations in occupational settings. Airborne asbestos concentrations in remote areas of the United States have been reported to be generally less than 0.0005 fibres/mL and up to 0.002 fibres/mL in urban areas 24. The asbestos fibre concentration in the outdoor environment of West Australian schools, which had asbestos cement roofs was <0.002 fibres/mL25. Background air concentrations have been estimated in London to range from 0.00055 to 0.0062 fibres/mL 26. American Board on Toxicity and Environmental Health Hazards27 estimated that ambient air concentrations of asbestos fibres are in the order of 0.0004 f/mL. The airborne asbestos fibre concentration in the urban environment in the vicinity of asbestos processing plants has been measured in the range of 0.0001 to 0.01 fibres/mL.

Literature indicates that the airborne asbestos concentrations in indoor building environments containing asbestos materials are similar to the outdoor concentrations. The HEI (1991) indicated that the mean respirable asbestos fibre concentration in public and commercial buildings, based on 1377 air samples is 0.00027 fibres/mL, which is in the order of 50,000 times lower than the occupational levels of the past.

10.2.2 Assessment of Exposure for Receptor Groups

There were no specific disturbance activities identified as part of the assessment by any of the receptor groups. Some receptor groups may have been in the vicinity of asbestos materials, but given the activities undertaken whilst at WBPS (walking and observing), the potential contribution to all the receptors groups’ cumulative exposure to asbestos fibres would be considered very low to negligible.

EnHealth (2005) indicates that isolated exposure to asbestos fibres of short duration is extremely unlikely to result in the development of an asbestos related disease, as fibre concentrations are likely to be insufficient to increase an individual’s lifetime cumulative exposure.

Based on the estimated duration and concentration of exposure to asbestos by the all receptor groups (i.e. below the reporting limits of <0.01 & <0.02 fibres/mL) during activities at WBPS, their increased cumulative exposure to asbestos fibres during this activity would be considered to be negligible and not above the cumulative background levels of the ambient and indoor environment.

Furthermore, the risk of the receptor groups present onsite within the specified areas to develop asbestos related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer from

December 2011


exposure to asbestos in the non-occupational environment has been described as ‘undetectably low’ or negligible by various literature.

The estimated lifetime cancer risk for the exposure to asbestos in an outdoor and indoor environment is considered to be extremely low or a ‘rare-event’ risk, which is similar to other natural risk situations such as death from lightning and hurricanes.

10.3 Lead 10.3.1 Background Concentrations of Lead

Human exposure to lead above baseline levels is common. Baseline levels are referred to naturally-occurring levels in the environment whether is be from lead in soil or dust which not due to human influence17. As indicated by the ATSDR (2007) lead emissions have decreased significantly over the past four decades.

Atmospheric lead concentrations can vary widely and generally decrease with vertical and horizontal distance from emission sources17. It is known that lead levels are on average 50% lower indoors than would be found outdoors (this is also dependant on rural or urban settings). In a comparison ATSDR (2007) mentions that remote areas of the Antarctic could have 0.00076 µg/m3 and adjacent to stationary lead sources it could be a minimum of 10 µg/m3.

Monitoring was undertaken in studies of 147 sample sites throughout the Unites States which indicated a maximum quarterly average lead air levels of 0.36 µg/m3 in 1984 and 0.2 – 0.4 µg/m3 in 198628.

In 1983 baseline studies of daily lead intake in a non-urban environment were estimated to be 0.5 µg/day for 2 year old child and 1.0 µg/day for adult working indoors and 2.0 µg working outdoors 17.

There is also potentially high level of lead in industries such are lead smelting, refining, battery manufacturing, steel welding, constructions, printing, firing ranges, etc. In these work areas the major routes of exposure are inhalation and ingestion of lead bearing dusts and fumes17. In smelting and refining industry, lead levels are up to 4,470 µg/m3. Breathing zone results of welders of structural steel have averaged concentrations of 1,200 µg/m3.

Lead concentrations in children was studied during 1991 and 1994 in the US and the overall geometric mean for lead for children greater that 1 was 2.3 µg/dL and amongst 1 - 5 years olds approximately 4.4% have lead blood level greater than 10 µg/dL, 1.3% greater than 15 µg/dL and 0.4% greater than 20µg/dL17. Daily lead intake levels of children were estimated by the US EPA for young children and baseline exposure to dusts, including intake due to normal hand-to-mouth activity27. This is 0.2 g/day for children 1- 6 years old versus 0.1 g/day for adults when both indoor and outdoor ingestions of soil including dust are considered. For children who engage in pica behaviour (soil eating) their ingestion rate can be as high as 5 g/day. Indoor dust levels in the home were able to correlated with households with children with elevated lead blood level (i.e. greater than 8.8 µg/dL) where the window sill results were 1.01 mg/kg and children with low lead blood level (i.e. less than 3.7µg/dL) with results of 0.38 mg/kg

10.3.2 Assessment of Exposure for Receptor Groups There is potential for low-level lead disturbance activities by all receptor groups at WBPS, however the results of the simulation monitoring indicate that inhalation of significant lead is unlikely. Due to relatively infrequent nature of the visit/s and short duration (30 -60 minutes) of all the receptor groups and the adult age of receptors (with the exception of Group A1 - Open day attendees) the risk of exposure via ingestion is considered to be low. The potential risk of ingestion is increased for children who were present on the open day tours. However, due to duration of potential exposure of the receptor (generally a single - 30 minute visit to the site) risk of exposure via ingestion is considered to be low.

December 2011


The potential lead exposure at WBPS for all receptors is considered to be a low risk in contributing to the individual’s overall lead exposure which includes the potential inhalation and ingestion of lead.

December 2011


11. Conclusion The findings of this exposure risk assessment has found that, based on the information provided and the simulation exposure monitoring, the health risk posed by the identified asbestos and lead containing materials within the buildings at WBPS to the receptor groups is considered to be very low to negligible.

11.1 Asbestos There were no specific disturbance activities identified as part of the assessment by any of the receptor groups. Some receptor groups may have been in the vicinity of asbestos materials, but given the activities undertaken whilst at WBPS (walking and observing), the potential contribution to all the receptors groups’ cumulative exposure to asbestos fibres would be considered very low to negligible.

Furthermore, the risk of the receptor groups present within the WBPS buildings during the designated time frames to develop asbestos related diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer from exposure to asbestos in the non-occupational environment has been described as ‘undetectably low’ or negligible by various literature.

11.2 Lead Lead exposure via inhalation is considered unlikely at WBPS based on the simulation monitoring. The risk of exposure via ingestion is considered to be low due to the nature of activities on the site and the relatively short potential exposure durations.

The potential lead exposure at WBPS for all receptors is considered to be a low risk in contributing to the individual’s overall lead exposure which includes the potential inhalation and ingestion of lead.

December 2011


12. Recommendations The following recommendations have, therefore, been made. It should be noted that these recommendations have been made based on this assessment and legislation requirements but have not taken into consideration other factors such as industrial and public relations.

Prepare a Hazardous Materials Management Plan for the site in accordance with The Code of Practice for the Management and Control of Asbestos in Workplaces [NOHSC: 2018 (2005)].

Action the recommendations made as per the Noel Arnold & Associates NAA Hazardous Materials Survey Report (SS0150:94667, November, 2011 including review of contractor induction processes, SWMS and requirements for asbestos and lead awareness training.

December 2011



White Bay Power Station, Roberts Street, Rozelle NSW Appendix A: Site Plan

North

KEY - Approximate route taken by Groups A1, A2, B1, B2, & B3 - Approximate route taken by Groups B4 & D

- Approximate route taken by Group C

Drawing 1 of 3

Date: December 2011

Simulated Exposure Air Monitoring Routes

White Bay Power Station Robert Street Rozelle, NSW

Consultant: MRB

North



Drawing 2 of 3

Date: December 2011



Consultant: MRB

North



Drawing 3 of 3

Date: December 2011



Consultant: MRB

December 2011



White Bay Power Station, Roberts Street, Rozelle NSW Appendix B: Photographs

December 2011


Photo 1. View of activity-based simulation

personnel with asbestos and lead personal monitoring equipment attached, front

Photo 2. View of activity-based simulation personnel with asbestos and lead personal monitoring equipment attached, rear


personnel - Boiler House, Ground Floor, Central Northern Location

Photo 4. View of activity-based simulation personnel - Boiler House, Ground Floor, Central Northern Location


personnel - Turbine Hall, First Floor, East Side, Northern Location

Photo 6. View of activity-based simulation personnel - Turbine Hall, First Floor, Central area, Northern Location

December 2011



personnel - Administration Building, upper floor

Photo 8. View of activity-based simulation personnel - Switch House, Ground Floor, Central Corridor


personnel - Switch House, Level 4, Control Room

Photo 10. View of activity-based simulation personnel - Switch House, Level 3

December 2011



White Bay Power Station, Roberts Street, Rozelle NSW Appendix C: Asbestos Fibre Air Monitoring Reports

SS0150:96980.001 White Bay Power Station Air Monitoring Report 20111128 Page 1 of 1

ASBESTOS FIBRE AIR MONITORING REPORT

Our Ref: SS0150:96980.001 White Bay Power Station Air Monitoring Report 20111128

Client: Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority

Attention: Vanessa Weedon

Job Location: White Bay Power Station, Robert Street, Rozelle NSW

Report Date: Tuesday 29th November, 2011 Test Date: Monday 28th November, 2011 Sampling Procedure: Control & Exposure Sampled By: Pumps On: JWG & MRB Pumps Off: JWG & MRB

Method: Filters examined in accordance with Safe Work Australia’s Guidance Note on the Membrane Filter Method for the Estimation of Airborne Asbestos Fibres, 2nd Edition, 2005 [NOHSC:3003: (2005)] – Refer NAA Internal Laboratory Test Method NALAB 301.

Filter No. Test Type Sample Location

Sample Period

Start-Finish

Average Flow Rate

(L/min)

Fibres/ Fields

Result(s) Fibres/mL

Static Air Monitoring During Exposure Assessment Works

1389 Field Blank – – 0.0/100 –

1232 Ground Level, Boiler House, Western Wall, Central – On ladder. 0910 – 1400 1.20 0.0/100 < 0.01

2002 Level 1, Turbine Hall, Eastern Side, Northern End – On locker 0920 – 1401 1.20 0.0/100 < 0.01

Exposure Air Monitoring Conducted Throughout Site – Group A, B1, B2 & B3

136 Personal Monitoring – Consultant 1 0936 – 1008 1.60 3.0/100 < 0.02


222 Personal Monitoring – Consultant 1 0938 – 1011 0.00 1.0/100 VOID


Exposure Air Monitoring Conducted Throughout Site – Group A, B1, B2 & B3





Note 1: Filter Number 222 voided due to mechanical failure

APPROVED COUNTER & SIGNATORY: MICHAEL BURGESS

This document is issued in accordance with NATA’s accreditation requirements.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. Corporate Site No. 5450, Site No. 3402 Sydney Laboratory.

This document shall not be reproduced, except in full.


ASBESTOS FIBRE AIR MONITORING REPORT

Our Ref: SS0150:96980.002 White Bay Power Station Air Monitoring Report 20111129



Job Location: White Bay Power Station, Robert Street, Rozelle NSW

Report Date: Wednesday 30th November, 2011 Test Date: Tuesday 29th November, 2011 Sampling Procedure: Control & Exposure Sampled By: Pumps On: JWG & MRB Pumps Off: JWG & MRB

Method: Filters examined in accordance with Safe Work Australia’s Guidance Note on the Membrane Filter Method for the Estimation of Airborne Asbestos Fibres, 2nd Edition, 2005 [NOHSC:3003: (2005)] – Refer NAA Internal Laboratory Test Method NALAB 301.

Filter No.

Test Type Sample Location

Sample Period

Start-Finish

Average Flow Rate

(L/min)

Fibres/ Fields

Result(s) Fibres/mL


2121A Field Blank – – 0.0/100 –

613 Ground Level, Boiler House, Western Wall, Central – On ladder. 0811 – 1410 1.20 0.0/100 < 0.01

1040 Level 1, Turbine Hall, Eastern Side, Northern End – On locker 0813 – 1408 1.20 0.0/100 < 0.01

1050 Level 2, Administration Building, Western Entrance – On desk 0815 – 1405 1.20 0.0/100 < 0.01

2000 Level 4, Switch House, Western Side of Control Room – On ledge 0817 – 1415 1.20 0.0/100 < 0.01

Exposure Air Monitoring Conducted Throughout Site – Group B4 & D





Exposure Air Monitoring Conducted Throughout Site – Group C




288 Personal Monitoring – Consultant 2 1136 – 0000 1.40 0.0/100 VOID

Note 1: Filter Number 288 voided due to mechanical failure


APPROVED COUNTER & SIGNATORY: MICHAEL BURGESS

This document is issued in accordance with NATA’s accreditation requirements.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. Corporate Site No. 5450, Site No. 3402 Sydney Laboratory.

This document shall not be reproduced, except in full.

December 2011



White Bay Power Station, Roberts Street, Rozelle NSW Appendix D: Lead Air Monitoring Reports

of 2

Our Ref: SS0150:96980.001

LEAD DUST AIR MONITORING REPORT



Report Date: Friday 2nd December, 2011 Test Date: Monday 28th November, 2011

Job Location: White Bay Power Station, Robert St, Rozelle NSW

Type of Test: Lead Air Monitoring Sampling Procedure: Control & Exposure

Monitoring Period:

0912 – 1358 hours Sampled By: Jason Green & Michael Burgess

Method: The sampling and analysis for lead in dust was performed in accordance with Australian Standard (AS) 3640-2009 “Workplace Atmospheres – Method for sampling and gravimetric determination of inhalable dusts”. The sample collection was performed using SKC Universal Sampler (Model 224-PCXR-8) portable sampling pumps fitted with IOM sampling heads containing 25 mm PVC membrane filters (SKC) and sampled at a flow rate of 2,000 mL/minute.

The filters were then sent to an external laboratory (Envirolab Services Pty Ltd) for lead analysis by mineral acid digestion and Inductively Coupled Plasma – Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES). All measurements were expressed as a dust concentration in milligrams per cubic metre of air sampled i.e. mg/m3.

FILTER No. SAMPLE LOCATION

SAMPLE PERIOD

Start/Finish

SAMPLE VOLUME

m3 LEAD

mg/filter RESULT mg/m3


S133 Ground Level, Boiler House, Western Wall, Central – On ladder. 0912 – 1358 0.572 < 0.001 < 0.01

S134 Level 1, Turbine Hall, Eastern Side, Northern End – On locker 0922 – 1359 0.554 < 0.001 < 0.01

Exposure Air Monitoring Conducted Throughout Site – Refer to Groups A, B1, B2 & B3

S305 Personal Monitoring – Consultant 1 0940 – 1012 0.064 < 0.001 < 0.02

304 Personal Monitoring – Consultant 2 0941 – 1013 0.064 < 0.001 < 0.02



December 2011

Page 2 of 2


SAMPLE PERIOD

Start/Finish

SAMPLE VOLUME

m3 LEAD


Exposure Air Monitoring Conducted Throughout Site – Group D

S115 Personal Monitoring – Consultant 1 1148 – 1317 0.178 0.002 < 0.02




The above results are below the occupational exposure standard for lead dust in air which is 0.15mg/m3 in accordance with the WorkSafe Australia (National Occupational Health & Safety Commission) “Exposure Standards for Atmospheric Contaminants in the Occupational Environment, [NOHSC:1003(1995)], May 1995.”

Please see attached NATA accredited Envirolab Services Certificate of Analysis (Ref: 65707). Yours Sincerely

Michael Burgess Hazardous Materials Consultant

of 2

Our Ref: SS0150:96980.002

LEAD DUST AIR MONITORING REPORT



Report Date: Friday 2nd December, 2011 Test Date: Monday 28th November, 2011

Job Location: White Bay Power Station, Robert St, Rozelle NSW

Type of Test: Lead Air Monitoring Sampling Procedure: Control & Exposure

Monitoring Period:

0810 – 1415 hours Sampled By: Jason Green & Michael Burgess

Method: The sampling and analysis for lead in dust was performed in accordance with Australian Standard (AS) 3640-2009 “Workplace Atmospheres – Method for sampling and gravimetric determination of inhalable dusts”. The sample collection was performed using SKC Universal Sampler (Model 224-PCXR-8) portable sampling pumps fitted with IOM sampling heads containing 25 mm PVC membrane filters (SKC) and sampled at a flow rate of 2,000 mL/minute.

The filters were then sent to an external laboratory (Leeder Consulting Pty Ltd) for lead analysis by mineral acid digestion and Inductively Coupled Plasma – Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES) using Leeder Consulting Method MA-1400.FL.02 Metals. All measurements were expressed as a dust concentration in milligrams per cubic metre of air sampled i.e. mg/m3.


SAMPLE PERIOD

Start/Finish

SAMPLE VOLUME

m3 LEAD



S116 Ground Level, Boiler House, Western Wall, Central – On ladder. 0810 – 1410 0.720 <0.001 < 0.01

S34 Level 1, Turbine Hall, Eastern Side, Northern End – On locker 0812 – 1408 0.712 <0.001 < 0.01

S140 Level 2, Administration Building, Western Entrance – On desk 0814 – 1405 0.702 <0.001 < 0.01

S141 Level 4, Switch House, Western Side of Control Room – On ledge 0816 – 1416 0.718 <0.001 < 0.01

Exposure Air Monitoring Conducted Throughout Site – Group B4 & D

S131 Personal Monitoring – Consultant 1 0830 – 0930 0.120 <0.001 < 0.01




December 2011

Page 2 of 2


SAMPLE PERIOD

Start/Finish

SAMPLE VOLUME

m3 LEAD


Exposure Air Monitoring Conducted Throughout Site – Group C





The above results are below the occupational exposure standard for lead dust in air which is 0.15mg/m3 in accordance with the WorkSafe Australia (National Occupational Health & Safety Commission) “Exposure Standards for Atmospheric Contaminants in the Occupational Environment, [NOHSC:1003(1995)], May 1995.”

Please see attached NATA accredited Envirolab Services Pty. Ltd. Certificate of Analysis (Ref: 65707). Yours Sincerely

Michael Burgess

Hazardous Materials Consultant

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 65707

Client:

Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd

Level 2, 11 Khartoum Rd

North Ryde

NSW 2113

Attention: Michael Burgess

Sample log in details:

Your Reference: SS0150:96980

No. of samples: 26 Filters

Date samples received / completed instructions received 30/11/11 / 30/1/11

Analysis Details:

Please refer to the following pages for results, methodology summary and quality control data.

Samples were analysed as received from the client. Results relate specifically to the samples as received.

Results are reported on a dry weight basis for solids and on an as received basis for other matrices.

Please refer to the last page of this report for any comments relating to the results.

Report Details:

Date results requested by: / Issue Date: 2/12/11 / 1/12/11

Date of Preliminary Report: Not Issued

NATA accreditation number 2901. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. Tests not covered by NATA are denoted with *.

Results Approved By:

Page 1 of 5Envirolab Reference: 65707

Revision No: R 00

Client Reference: SS0150:96980

Lead on filter

Our Reference: UNITS 65707-1 65707-2 65707-3 65707-4 65707-5

Your Reference ------------- Blank 01 Blank 02 Blank 01A Blank 02A S106

Type of sample ------------ Filter Filter Filter Filter Filter

Lead µg/filter <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Lead on filter


Your Reference ------------- S71 S309 S103 S305 304



Lead on filter


Your Reference ------------- S16 S301 S115 S304 S129


Lead µg/filter 1 <1 2 2 2

Lead on filter




Lead µg/filter 2 <1 <1 <1 <1

Lead on filter





Lead on filter

Our Reference: UNITS 65707-26

Your Reference ------------- S131

Type of sample ------------ Filter

Lead µg/filter <1


Revision No: R 00


Method ID Methodology Summary

Metals-006 Determination of various metals on filters by ICP-AES/MS and or CV/AAS.


Revision No: R 00


QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm# Duplicate results Spike Sm# Spike %

Recovery

Lead on filter Base ll Duplicate ll %RPD

Lead µg/filter 1 Metals-006 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS-1 97%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Spike % Recovery

Lead on filter Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Lead µg/filter [NT] [NT] LCS-2 95%


Revision No: R 00


Report Comments:

Asbestos ID was analysed by Approved Identifier: Not applicable for this job

Asbestos ID was authorised by Approved Signatory: Not applicable for this job

INS: Insufficient sample for this test PQL: Practical Quantitation Limit NT: Not tested

NA: Test not required RPD: Relative Percent Difference NA: Test not required

<: Less than >: Greater than LCS: Laboratory Control Sample

Quality Control Definitions

Blank: This is the component of the analytical signal which is not derived from the sample but from reagents,

glassware etc, can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples.

Duplicate : This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. If possible, the sample

selected should be one where the analyte concentration is easily measurable.

Matrix Spike : A portion of the sample is spiked with a known concentration of target analyte. The purpose of the matrix

spike is to monitor the performance of the analytical method used and to determine whether matrix interferences exist.

LCS (Laboratory Control Sample) : This comprises either a standard reference material or a control matrix (such as a blank

sand or water) fortified with analytes representative of the analyte class. It is simply a check sample.

Surrogate Spike: Surrogates are known additions to each sample, blank, matrix spike and LCS in a batch, of compounds

which are similar to the analyte of interest, however are not expected to be found in real samples.

Laboratory Acceptance Criteria

Duplicate sample and matrix spike recoveries may not be reported on smaller jobs, however, were analysed at a frequency

to meet or exceed NEPM requirements. All samples are tested in batched of 20. The duplicate sample RPD and matrix

spike recoveries for the batch were within the laboratory acceptance criteria.

Duplicates: <5xPQL - any RPD is acceptable; >5xPQL - 0-50% RPD is acceptable.

Matrix Spikes and LCS: Generally 70-130% for inorganics/metals; 60-140% for organics and 10-140% for SVOC and

speciated phenols is acceptable.


Revision No: R 00

December 2011



White Bay Power Station, Roberts Street, Rozelle NSW Appendix E: Weather Conditions

December 2011


December 2011



White Bay Power Station, Roberts Street, Rozelle NSW Appendix F: References

December 2011


1 EnHealth (2005) Management of Asbestos in the Non-Occupational Environment;

2 National Industrial Chemical Notification and Assessment Scheme (February 1999) Chrysotile

Asbestos Priority Existing Chemical No.9;

3 Standards Australia AS4361.2 – 1998 Guide to lead paint management – Part 2: Residential

and commercial buildings, 1998 Standards Australia, Homebush, NSW;

4 National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Information Paper – Blood lead levels

in Australia, August, 2009 NHMRC, Australian Government;

5 Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists (AIOH) AIOH Position Paper – Inorganic Lead

and Occupational Health Issues, March, 2009, AIOH Exposure Standards Committee,

Tullamarine, Vic;

6 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1989). "Interim Guidance on Establishing Soil Lead

Clean-up Levels at Superfund Sites." Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER

Directive Number 9355.4-02;

7American Board on Toxicity and Environmental Health Hazards, Asbestiform Fibres – Non

Occupational Health Risk, Commission of Life Sciences , National Research Council;

8 Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety (Third revised edition) International

Labour Organisation, Geneva 1989;

9 Health Effects Institute (1991), Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: A Literature

Review and Synthesis of Current Knowledge;

10 Berry, G. Rogers, A.J. Pooley, F.D. Mesothelioma – Asbestos Exposure and Lung Burden,

Department of Mining, Geological and Minerals Engineering, University College, Wales, UK;

11 Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Register - Toxicological Profile for Asbestos (2001);

12 Jaurand, M.C., et al. (1980). Chemical and photoelectron spectrometry analysis of the

phospholipid model membranes and red blood cell membranes on to chrysotile fibres Med.

37, 169-174;

13 Monschaux, G., et al. (1981). Mesotheliomas in rats following inoculation with acid leach

asbestos and other mineral fibres. Carcinogenesis 2, 229-236;

14 Pott, F. (1978). Some aspects on the dosimetry of the carcinogenic potency of asbestos

fibrous dust. Staub Reinhalf. Luft. 38(12), 486-489;

December 2011


15 Imray, P. and Neville, G. (1993) approaches to the Assessment and Management of

Asbestos in Contaminated Sites, Contaminated Sites Monograph Series No. 2;

16 Winder, C & Stacey N. Ed., Occupational Toxicology, 2nd Edition, 2004, CRC Press, London;

17 ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), Toxicological Profile for Lead,

Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007;

18 American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Documentation of

TLV’s and BEL’s for Lead and Inorganic Compounds, 2001) Cincinnati, Ohio;

19 Navas-Acien A, Guallar E, Silbergeld E, Rotherberg SJ. Lead exposure and cardiovascular

disease – a systematic review, Environ Health Perspect 115:1388-94, 2006;

20 Donovan J, Lead in Australian Children Report on the National Survey of Lead in Children,

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 1996;

22 EnHealth (2001) Health-based Soil Investigation Level , Commonwealth of Australia,

Paragon Printers;

23 Cherrie, J, Semple, S, Chrisdtopher, Y, Saleem, A, Hughson, G & Phillips, A (2006). How

important is Inadvertent Ingestion of Hazardous Substances at Work? Annals of Occupational

Hygiene, 50(7): 693-704;

24 World Health Organisation (1998) Environmental Health Criteria 203 – Chrysotile Asbestos;

25 The Western Australian Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances (August 1990)

Asbestos Cement Products;

26 Jaffrey SAM (1990) Environmental Asbestos Fibre Release from Brake and Clutch Linings of

Vehicular traffic. annals of Occupational Hygiene, 34(4): 529-534;

27 American Board on Toxicity and Environmental Health Hazards, Asbestiform Fibres – Non

Occupational Health Risk, Commission of Life Sciences , National Research Council; &

28 EPA 1986 Air Quality for Lead, Research Triangle Park, NC US Environmental Protection

Agency, EPA600883028F.

asbestos & lead exposure risk assessment sydney ......december 2011 96980 shfa white bay ps...

Documents