remobilisation of lead and nickel residues in esperance€¦ · project scope purpose – to...
TRANSCRIPT
Remobilisation
of Lead and Nickel Residues in Esperance
Report of the Working Group to the Steering Committee of the
Esperance Cleanup and Recovery Project
Project Scope
Purpose
–
to determine if–
lead
–
and/or nickel
[harder, with ongoing export]–
residues in the Esperance townsite
[includes remobilisation from port to town]–
are
being
[concentrated on recent data]
–
remobilised.
[includes by air, water and by human or animal activity].
Data sets reviewedAir
•
Deposition Gauges (EsPA)
•
Hivol
samplers (EsPA)Rainwater
•
1539 tanks, 2007 (DOH/UWA/Shire)
•
5 tanks, monthly (EsPA)Homes
•
21 homes, 2007, 09 (DOH)
•
11 homes, 2008 (LED)Vegetation
•
Leaves, flowers ’08, ‘09 (DEC)
Bird feathers
•
4 sites, ’07, ‘08 (ConsCouncilWA) Playgrounds
•
10 sites, ’08, ‘09 (Shire)
Bees
-
too late, site not known.Golder
Report
-
not reviewed.
Air Sampling Sites
Lead Deposition on Gauge 8
0
5
10
15
20
25
Nov-2004
Feb-2005May-2005Aug-2005Nov-20
05Feb-2006May-2006Aug-2006Nov-20
06Feb-2007May-2007
Jul-2007
Aug-2007Sep-2007Oct-2
007Nov-20
07Dec-2007Jan-2008Feb-2008Mar-2
008Apr-2
008May-2008Jun-2008
Jul-2008
Aug-2008Sep-2008Oct-2
008Nov-20
08Dec-2008Jan-2009Feb-2009Mar-2
009Apr-2
009Le
ad C
once
ntra
tion
(mg/
m2 /m
onth
)
Concentration = 72
■ indicates concentration below limit of reporting
•Below detection before and after export.
•Some lead during port cleanup, none from final export.
•No standard for lead in dust deposition.
Lead Concentration at Hivol
site 2
0
0.05
0.1
Feb - 1Feb - 5Feb - 9Feb - 1
3Mar -
2Mar -
6Mar -
10Mar -
14Mar -
18Apr -
2Apr -
6May - 2May - 6Jun - 3Jun - 7
Jul - 2
Aug - 1Aug - 5Sep - 1Sep - 5Oct -
3Oct -
7^Oct -
11Oct -
15Nov - 2Nov - 6Nov - 1
0Dec - 1Dec - 5Dec - 9Dec - 1
3Jan 09 - 4
Jan 09 - 8*
Jan 09 - 12
Jan 09 - 16
Feb 09 - 2Feb 09 - 6
Feb 09 - 10
Feb 09 - 14
Feb 09 - 18
Feb 09 - 22
Feb 09 - 26
Mar 09 - 2
Mar 09 - 6
Mar 09 - 1
0
Mar 09 - 1
4
Mar 09 - 1
8
Mar 09 - 2
2
Mar 09 - 2
6
Mar 09 - 3
0
Apr 09 - 3
Apr 09 - 7
Apr 09 - 1
1
Apr 09 - 1
5
Apr 09 - 1
9
Apr 09 - 2
3
Apr 09 - 2
7
Individual HiVol Sampler Events Within Each Month
Lead
Con
cent
ratio
n (μ
g/m
3 )
Site 2 - Lead
Site 2 - Lead <LOD
Pre Oct 7, '08 LOD 0.01 μg/m3;Oct 7, '08 - Jan 7, '09 LOD 0.001 μg/m3;
Post Jan 7, '09 - LOD 0.003 μg/m3.
NEPM Standard (0.5 μg/m3) (Annual)
•All readings well below standard, many below LOD.
•Scale expanded to show readings -
↑error near LOD.
•Some lead (extremely low levels) –
Port shed removal?
Nickel Deposition on Gauge 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Nov-1995
May-1996Nov-19
96May-1997Nov-19
97May-1998Nov-19
98May-1999Nov-19
99May-2000Nov-20
00May-2001Nov-20
01May-2002Nov-20
02May-2003Nov-20
03May-2004Nov-20
04May-2005Nov-20
05May-2006Nov-20
06May-2007Aug-2007
Oct-2007
Dec-2007Feb-2008Apr-2
008Jun-2008Aug-2008
Oct-2008
Dec-2008Feb-2009Apr-2
009N
icke
l Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/m
2 /mon
th)
■ indicates concentration below limit of reporting
Concentration = 42Ave pre-April ’08
9.1mg/m2
Ave post-April ’082.0mg/m2
•Recent change shows what can be done.
•Must be guaranteed to ensure no recontamination.
Nickel Concentration at Hivol
site 2
•Licence target has been generally achieved.
•Ongoing low-level nickel emissions (well below target).
•Recently below detection during loading.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Feb
- 1Fe
b - 4
Feb
- 7Fe
b - 1
0Fe
b - 1
3Mar
- 1
Mar -
4Mar
- 7
Mar -
10Mar
- 13
Mar -
16Mar
- 19
Apr -
2Apr
- 5
Apr -
8May
- 3
May -
6Ju
n - 2
Jun
- 5Ju
n - 8
Jul -
2Ju
l - 5
Aug -
3Aug
- 6
Sep
- 1Se
p - 4
Oct -
1Oct
- 4
Oct -
7^Oct
- 10
Oct -
13Oct
- 16
Nov -
2Nov
- 5
Nov -
8Nov
- 11
Dec -
1Dec
- 4
Dec -
7Dec
- 10
Dec -
13Ja
n 09
- 3
Jan
09 -
6Ja
n 09
- 9
Jan
09 -
12Ja
n 09
- 15
Jan
09 -
18Fe
b 09
- 3
Feb
09 -
6Fe
b 09
- 9
Feb
09 -
12Fe
b 09
- 15
Feb
09 -
18Fe
b 09
- 21
Feb
09 -
24Fe
b 09
- 27
Mar 0
9 - 2
Mar 0
9 - 5
Mar 0
9 - 8
Mar 0
9 - 1
1Mar
09 -
14
Mar 0
9 - 1
7Mar
09 -
20
Mar 0
9 - 2
3Mar
09 -
26
Mar 0
9 - 2
9Apr
09 -
1Apr
09 -
4Apr
09 -
7Apr
09 -
10Apr
09 -
13Apr
09 -
16Apr
09 -
19Apr
09 -
22Apr
09 -
25Apr
09 -
28
Individual HiVol Sampler Events Within Each Month
Nic
kel C
once
ntra
tion
(μg/
m3 ) Site 2 - Nickel
Site 2 - Nickel
Licence Target (0.14 μg/m3)Shiploading events
Rainfall vs
Lead in Tankwater near port, 2008
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
Jan-08
Feb-08
Mar-08
Apr-08
May-08
Jun-08
Jul-08
Aug-08
Sep-08
Oct-08
Nov-08
Dec-08
Jan-09
Feb-09
Mar-09
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Bostock St (DG3)Crossland St (DG5)Fallan Ct (DG8)Philips St (DG12)Smith St (DG11)Rainfall (mm)
ADWG 0.01mg/L
•Spikes unrelated to rainfall or lead dust levels.
•Many confounding factors.
•Potential stocks must be removed.
DOH Tank survey
•
Post-cleaning sampling October ’07;•
Cleaning reduced lead level;
•
Some lead persisted –
may be–
Remobilisation, or
–
Lead from ’07 port cleanup;•
No sig. differences for tank or catchment characteristics.
EsPA Cleaning protocol too limited?
Lead in tanks confounding factors
•
Lead from flashing on roof, solder in gutters;•
Roof surface rough or smooth;
•
Size of tank relative to catchment;•
Size of tank relative to usage rate;
•
Tank galvanised, concrete or plastic;•
Tank cleaned, first flush device fitted;
•
Gutters, roof cleaned, wash diverted;•
Rain may mobilise, stir sediment or dilute.
Lead dust in housesInternal dust(std. 0.04 μg/cm2 accessible to young children)
Survey <0.04 0.04-0.24 >0.24LED 2008(near port)
1062.5%
637.5%
0
DOH 2009(transects)
11986%
1611%
43%
•Focus on points common to both surveys.
•Export ceased, some cleaning, still exceedances.
•Surfaces may have been overlooked –
cleaning protocol must be thorough.
•Need ongoing monitoring for recontamination.
Internal lead levels in cleaned houses
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
1 2 3
House
Lead
con
cent
ratio
n (u
g/cm
2)
BeforeAfterRecent
•Blue –
pre-cleaning, Red –
after, 2007, Yellow –
2009.
•House 1 –
2/10 surfaces v, high, rest low (ave. 0.02).
•Recontamination or surfaces overlooked in cleaning?
0.8 Master bedroom0.6 Lounge, near window0.0470.0250.0220.0160.0150.0100.009
Lead dust in houses•
’07 DOH survey
–
cleaning controlled
lead dust but recontamination occurred;•
’08 LED survey
–
some accessible
surfaces still above limit; ceiling voids may be ongoing source of contamination;
•
’09 DOH survey
–
recontamination or overlooked surfaces?
Thorough cleaning protocol with verification.
Lead in flowers March ’08 vs
‘09
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 11
Site 13
Site 14
Site 15
Site 17
Lead
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/kg
)
20082009
* * * * *
*Concentration <LOR
Close to port –
may be from ’07 cleanup
Much lower in 2009, but some still above remote control.
Lead in flowers (’09) vs Distance from Port
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Distance from Port (km)
Lead
con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/kg
)
•Remote sites show background level.
•Some sites close to port low, but still slightly elevated.
•Traces of lead transferred from adjacent old leaves?
Lead on Bush Bird Feathers•
First sample Oct 2007 found high to very high lead levels at impact sites;
•
Second survey Oct 08, levels “much lower”, bulked samples to get readings;
•
Food chain (ants) sampled to check for bioaccumulation. No high lead found.
•
What is ultimate fate of lead in envt?•
Lead binds to surfaces -
Harder to remobilise; andHarder to cleanup.
Lead in Playgrounds
•
Some swabs of slide handrails above standard –
equipment cleaned, ‘soft-fall’
sand replaced, if present;•
Some again elevated after cleaning –
suggests remobilisation –
how?•
Isotopic analysis of recent swabs –
not
Magellan lead.
Nickel – the surveysHouses
•
DOH –
did not get data;
•
LED –
“continual recontamination”;Remobilisation from ceiling or new nickel?
Rainwater
•
DOH –
8% >ADWG after cleaning;•
EsPA –
2 sites >ADWG most of last year;
New nickel, since other sites OK?
Feathers
•
higher at impact sites in ’08;•
almost undetectable in
’09;
Flowers
•
’09 well below ’08 but still some nickel at sites close to port;
Playgrounds
•
all sites below detection at February 2009.
Conclusions of data review•
No significant remobilisation of lead in air;
•
Some detected in rainwater, playgrounds after cleaning, but source unclear.
•
Near port ongoing low level lead on flowers may be historic from leaves.
•
Ongoing low levels of nickel detected.•
Further sampling will help to focus cleanup area.
Recommendations•
No general remobilisation, Cleanup OK.
•
Protocol must be thorough to remove possible sources of micro-remobilisation (tanks, roofs, cavities).
•
Verification sampling needed.•
Ongoing sampling to detect possible remobilisation.
•
Strict controls on nickel handling to avoid new nickel contamination.
Acknowledgements•
Paul Clifton, Shire of Esperance
•
Michelle Crisp, LED•
Nick Dunlop, Conservation Council of WA
•
Richard Grant, Esperance Port Authority•
Martin Matisons, DOH
•
Peter McCafferty, ChemCentre•
Peter Skitmore, DEC
and, of course, Wayne
& Sam.