Lower Hunter Dust Deposition Study - Interim Reportg/m2.month, which is as an annual average for an acceptable level of deposited dust, measured as insoluble solids. - Soil or rock

\\AUNTL1FP001\Projects\60330323_NSW_EPA_Dust\8. Issued Docs\8.1 Reports\60330323_Interim_LHDDS_Report_22Jul15.docxRevision D – 22-Jul-2015Prepared for – NSW Environment Protection Authority – ABN: 43 692 285 758

Lower Hunter Dust Deposition ProjectNSW Environment Protection Authority22-Jul-2015

Lower Hunter Dust DepositionStudy - Interim ReportOctober 2014 - April 2015 Results Summary

AECOM Lower Hunter Dust Deposition ProjectLower Hunter Dust Deposition Study - Interim Report


Lower Hunter Dust Deposition Study - Interim ReportOctober 2014 - April 2015 Results Summary

Client: NSW Environment Protection Authority

ABN: 43 692 285 758

Prepared byAECOM Australia Pty Ltd17 Warabrook Boulevard, Warabrook NSW 2304, PO Box 73, Hunter Region MC NSW 2310, AustraliaT +61 2 4911 4900 F +61 2 4911 4999 www.aecom.comABN 20 093 846 925

22-Jul-2015

Job No.: 60330323

AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to the latest version of ISO9001, ISO14001, AS/NZS4801 and OHSAS18001.

© AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM). All rights reserved.

AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No otherparty should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to anythird party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements andAECOM’s experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professionalprinciples. AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of whichmay not have been verified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.



Quality InformationDocument Lower Hunter Dust Deposition Study - Interim Report

Ref 60330323

Date 22-Jul-2015

Prepared by Holly Marlin and Cye Buckland

Reviewed by Chad Whitburn

Revision History

Revision RevisionDate Details

Authorised

Name/Position Signature

A 30-Jun-2015 Draft for internal review Chad WhitburnAir Quality TeamLeader

B 30-Jun-2015 Draft for client review Chad WhitburnAir Quality TeamLeader

C 07-Jul-2015 Final report for CommitteeReview

Chad WhitburnAir Quality TeamLeader

D 22-Jul-2015 Final Interim Report Chad WhitburnAir Quality TeamLeader



This page has been left blank intentionally.



Table of ContentsExecutive Summary i1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Scope of Works 12.0 Monitoring 3

2.1 Dust Monitoring Methods 32.1.1 Dust Deposition Gauges (DDGs) 32.1.2 Petri Dish (no growth media) 42.1.3 Brush Samples 5

2.2 Laboratory Analysis 62.2.1 Standard Depositional Dust Suite 62.2.2 Stereomicroscopy 72.2.3 Scanning Electron Microscopy 72.2.4 Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy 72.2.5 Chain of Custody Protocols 7

2.3 Assessment Guidelines 72.4 Monitoring Locations 72.5 Meteorological Monitoring 9

3.0 Interim Results 113.1 Standard Analyses 113.2 Identification Analyses 12

4.0 References 15

Appendix AWind Roses A

Appendix BExample Laboratory Certificates of Analysis B

List of Tables

Table 1 Monitoring Program Frequency by Analysis Counts 3Table 2 Deposited Dust Samples 4Table 3 Petri Dish Samples 5Table 4 Brush Samples 6Table 5 Ambient Air Quality Assessment Criteria (DEC 2005b) 7Table 6 Monitoring Locations and Details 8Table 7 DDG Additional Analysis Samples 9Table 8 Deposited Dust – Insoluble Solids (g/m2.month) 11Table 9 Composition Identification Analysis Results – Combined Microscopy 13

List of Figures

Figure 1 Ground Level Monitoring Locations from AS/NZS 3580.1.1 2007 (Reproduced withpermission from SAI Global Ltd under Licence 1408-C007) 8

Figure 2 Dust Deposition Monitoring Locations 10Figure 3 Six Monthly Dust Deposition Results Plot 12






i

Executive SummaryThe NSW Environment Protection Authority commissioned a study to investigate black dust deposition in theLower Hunter Region to address community concerns. The study focuses on areas located along the rail corridorbetween Hexham and Port Waratah and involves 12 months of monitoring of dust deposition using 12 dustdeposition gauges (DDGs) and random petri dish and brush sampling. The monitoring program began inOctober 2014 with this interim report providing a summary of the sampling undertaken between 15 October 2014and 15 April 2015.

This report is an interim report detailing the first six months data of a 12 month monitoring program. This data isbeing released prior to the finalisation of the study to provide additional information of the study’s samplingmethodologies and provide an indication of the format of the final report. No detailed analysis or consideration ofmeteorological variability was considered in this interim report with the findings of the study to be published in thefinal report in February 2016. No final conclusions have been derived from the first six months of data and theinterim report should be considered in the context of the studies LHDDS Methodology Report.

DDG samples undergo a standard suite of analyses (insoluble solids, ash content and combustible material).Further analysis of a very limited number of selected samples is undertaken for more detailed identificationpurposes; these consist of stereomicroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and energy dispersive X-rayspectroscopy. At the time of preparation of this report, results of additional analyses had been received for 29samples (11 brush samples, 6 DDG samples and 12 petri dish samples).

General observations of the first six months of monitoring data suggest:

- The six-month averages for dust deposition data collected from all twelve sites between October 2014 andApril 2015 range from 0.7 g/m2.month to 1.4 g/m2.month. These values are well below the EPA criterion of 4g/m2.month, which is as an annual average for an acceptable level of deposited dust, measured as insolublesolids.

- Soil or rock dust comprised the greatest proportion of the samples (average of 73 %; maximum of 95 %).

- Coal was detected in measurable amounts in 22 of the 29 samples, and comprised between 5 – 20 % of thesamples (average of 6.2 %). Coal was not detected in one sample, and detected in trace amounts in theremaining six samples.

- Soot was detected in measurable amounts in 11 of the samples and comprised between 2 – 10 % of thesamples (average of 2.1 %). Soot was found in trace amounts in all but three of the remaining samples.

- Black rubber dust was detected in measureable quantities in 3 of 29 samples, and in trace levels in a further13 samples. Rubber averaged 0.7 % of each sample.

- Halite (rock salt)/salt was found in four of the brush samples in greater than trace amounts (comprising 5 –10 % of the samples) and in six of the petri dish samples, where it formed 5 - 20 % of the samples. Onaverage, Halite accounted for 3.6 % of each sample.

- Insect debris, plant debris and miscellaneous fibres were found in many of the samples.



ii




1

1.0 IntroductionThe NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has been working with community groups within the LowerHunter area through the Newcastle Community Consultative Committee on the Environment (NCCCE) to providegreater information about air quality, pollution sources, pollution composition and levels of community exposure topollutants. As part of that endeavour, the EPA has commissioned a number of projects and studies to respond toconcerns identified through the consultation process.

AECOM Australia Pty Limited (AECOM) was commissioned by the EPA to obtain information about black dustdeposition in the Lower Hunter Region, particularly in areas located along the rail corridor. The twelve monthmonitoring program began in October 2014.

The primary area of focus for the study is the rail corridor between Hexham and Port Waratah and surroundinglocations due to the distribution and intensity of air quality complaints received by the EPA in the last three years.Locations for dust monitoring were selected on the basis of historical complaints data and feedback from theNCCCE and the Lower Hunter Dust Deposition Project Reference Group (LHDDPRG).

1.1 Scope of WorksThis report provides a summary of the dust sampling undertaken between 15 October 2014 and 15 April 2015.Dust monitoring is a long-term monitoring strategy used to identify trends in local dust levels; at least 12 months ofdata are generally required to be collected before meaningful conclusions can be made. Caution should,therefore, be exercised when interpreting the results presented in this report.

The air quality monitoring network consists of 12 dust deposition gauges (DDGs), which were installed byAECOM. AECOM’s Newcastle Office is NATA accredited (Accreditation Number 2778 [14391]) for the installationand collection of depositional dust gauges. The DDG samples were collected every 30 ± 2 days and analysed forinsoluble solids and ash residue in general accordance with the requirements of AS/NZS 3580.10.1:2003 and theEPA (DEC 2005a) guidelines. In addition to the dust sampling via DDGs, some petri dish and brush samples werealso randomly collected at spatially variant locations each month.

Meteorological data for the sampling period are provided in Appendix A. These data were collected by the Officeof Environment and Heritage (OEH) at Carrington and is provided for interest.

Standard laboratory analyses are conducted by ALS Environmental Laboratory, a NATA-accredited andregistered laboratory for standard dust gauge sample analysis (NATA accreditation 825). When additionalanalyses are required, portions of the samples used for the standard analyses are collected prior to analysis andsent to the University of Queensland Materials Performance (UQMP) laboratory. Example Laboratory analysisreports are attached as Appendix B for interest to show a sample of the laboratory reports. These laboratoryreports are not intended to be a comprehensive record of all results.



2




3

2.0 Monitoring

2.1 Dust Monitoring MethodsThe following sections outline the monitoring undertaken for the study. Sampling methods were chosen toestablish long-term trends (dust gauges), undertake short-term spot checks (petri dishes) and identify composition(swab/brush samples).The monitoring program is summarised in Table 1. While the program originally proposedto include X-ray diffraction analyses, sufficient materials have not been collected to enable these analyses to beundertaken; as such, they have not been included in the monitoring to date.Table 1 Monitoring Program Frequency by Analysis Counts

Sample Type Analysis Type Samplesper Quarter

Samplesper Year

Dust gauges

Standard suite 36 144

Stereomicroscopy and Stereo Electron Microscopy/EnergyDispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy 3 12

Image 3 12

Petri dishStereomicroscopy and Stereo Electron Microscopy/EnergyDispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy 9 36

Image 9 36

Brushsamples

Stereomicroscopy and Stereo Electron Microscopy/EnergyDispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy 6 24

Image 6 24

2.1.1 Dust Deposition Gauges (DDGs)

Dust deposition monitoring is a long-term monitoring strategy used to identify trends in local dust levels, primarilyto provide an indication of the potential nuisance effects of dust fallout. Results are used to determine compliancewith the EPA guideline, which requires the collection of at least 12 months of data, and to identify long-term dustdeposition trends. Monitoring is typically undertaken for periods of at least 12 months in order to account forseasonal factors and potential variability in the collection method.

DDGs are collected every 30 ± 2 days and analysed in accordance with the requirements ofAS/NZS 3580.10.1:2003 (Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air - Determination of particulate matter -Deposited matter - Gravimetric method) and the NSW EPA Approved Methods1. Samples are analysed for thefollowing parameters:

- Insoluble solids (required for regulatory compliance);

- Ash content; and

- Combustible material.

The dates for the dust deposition sampling undertaken between October 2014 and April 2015 are shown inTable 2.

1 DEC. (2005). Approved Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Air Pollutants in New South Wales



4

Table 2 Deposited Dust Samples

Site FunnelDiameter

StartDate Collection Dates

Mayfield West 150 mm 16/10/14 14/11/14 12/12/14 9/01/15 6/02/15 6/03/15 7/4/15

Mayfield East 149 mm 16/10/14 14/11/14 12/12/14 9/01/15 6/02/15 6/03/15 7/4/15

Waratah 148 mm 16/10/14 14/11/14 12/12/14 9/01/15 6/02/15 6/03/15 7/4/15

Islington 146 mm 16/10/14 14/11/14 12/12/14 9/01/15 6/02/15 6/03/15 7/4/15

Tighes Hill 144 mm 16/10/14 14/11/14 12/12/14 9/01/15 6/02/15 6/03/15 7/4/15

Carrington 148 mm 17/10/14 14/11/14 12/12/14 9/01/15 6/02/15 6/03/15 7/4/15

Wickham 145 mm 16/10/14 14/11/14 12/12/14 9/01/15 6/02/15 6/03/15 7/4/15

Hamilton 147 mm 16/10/14 14/11/14 12/12/14 9/01/15 6/02/15 6/03/15 7/4/15

Newcastle 147 mm 17/10/14 14/11/14 12/12/14 9/01/15 6/02/15 6/03/15 7/4/15

Stockton North 149 mm 16/10/14 14/11/14 12/12/14 9/01/15 6/02/15 6/03/15 7/4/15

StocktonSouth 147 mm 16/10/14 14/11/14 12/12/14 9/01/15 6/02/15 6/03/15 7/4/15

NewcastleEast 144 mm 16/10/14 14/11/14 12/12/14 9/01/15 6/02/15 6/03/15 7/4/15

2.1.2 Petri Dish (no growth media)

The petri dishes used in this study do not contain growth media as they are used to collect dust fall rather than togrow bacteria. The purpose of the sampling is to collect specimens for analysis to identify dust composition. Petridish monitoring is a good method for collecting dust in areas where high dust loadings are likely to occur but thatare not suitable for the installation of a DDG. Such areas can include window sills or ledges located in proximity todust sources. Short term sampling (< 3 days) was conducted, with sampling sites chosen based on themeteorological conditions at the time of sampling. Efforts were made to sample during periods of higher winds,with locations chosen such that likely sources of dust were upwind of the sampling locations. The samplingduration for this portion of work was largely dependent on weather conditions. Efforts were made to avoid rainfallduring the sampling periods so that dry samples were collected, and efforts were made to avoid high variability inwind direction where possible.

Petri dish monitoring is a passive method, which relies on the natural deposition of dust onto the surface of thedish. The petri dish needs to remain in the monitoring location until sufficient dust has accumulated to enableanalysis to be undertaken. In the absence of a relevant Australian standard, the required duration of exposurevaries depending on the deposition rate and the type of analysis required. Initial monitoring and analysisdetermined that exposure for 1 - 2 days typically provided a sufficient dust sample for the required laboratoryanalysis. Sampling protocols related to quality control and chain of custody procedures were similar toAS/NZS 3580.10.1:2003.

Twelve petri dish samples were collected between 15 October 2014 and 15 April 2015; details are provided inTable 3.



5

Table 3 Petri Dish Samples

Sample Location Sampling Start Time Sampling End Time SamplingTime Sampling Notes

Tighes Hill DDG Site 14/11/14, 9:20am 15/11/14, 18:30pm 33 h 10 m

Mayfield East DDGsite 17/12/14, 8:30am 18/12/14, 8:15am 23 h 45 m

Slight amount of rainovernight (<1 mm). 1233radio reported 9 airquality alerts triggered inthe Hunter Valley on17/12

Carrington DDG site 17/12/14, 8:40am 18/1214, 8:30am 23 h 50 m

Slight amount of rainovernight (<1 mm). 1233radio reported 9 airquality alerts triggered inthe Hunter Valley on17/12

Mayfield West DDGsite 18/2/15, 9:45am 20/02/2015, 10:00am 48 h 15 m <1 mm rain recorded at

Newcastle

Tighes Hill - rail line 18/02/2015, 10:00am 20/02/2015, 10:15am 48 h 15 m <1 mm rain recorded atNewcastle

Waratah DDG site 18/02/2015, 10:15am 20/02/2015, 10:25am 48 h 10 m <1 mm rain recorded atNewcastle

Islington DDG site 18/02/2015, 10:25am 20/02/2015, 10:35am 48 h 10 m <1 mm rain recorded atNewcastle

Mayfield 5/3/2015, 9:50am 6/03/2015, 16:00pm 30 h 10 m No rain

Tighes Hill - rail line 5/03/2015, 9:40am 6/3/2015, 16:07pm 30 h 27 m No rain

Warabrook 8/04/2015, 9:25am 8/04/2015, 4:35pm 7 h 10 m No rain

Stockton South DDGsite 8/04/2015, 8:50am 8/04/2015, 4:10pm 7 h 20 m No rain

Stockton North DDGsite 8/4/2015, 9:00am 8/4/2015, 4:15pm 7 h 15 m No rain

2.1.3 Brush Samples

Brush sampling is an active method for dust deposition collection, where the dust from a target surface is brushedinto a clean petri dish. Similar to the petri dish sampling described above, the purpose of brush monitoring is tocollect a sample in order to analyse the composition of the dust. Brush sampling is a good method for assessingthe composition of dust which has accumulated over time, such as occurs in attics, on window sills, or understructures.

As there is no time-dimension for the sample collected (that is, the dust has been landing on that area for anunknown time period), the sample cannot be compared against a criterion and cannot be linked to a specificsource (as potential contributing sources may have been varied over the sample time). Sampling sites for thisportion of the study were based on proximity to potential sources and areas of interest. Efforts were made tosample at residences in the community that expressed interest in taking part in the study.

Eleven brush samples were collected between 15 October 2014 and 15 April 2015; details of the samples areprovided in Table 4.



6

Table 4 Brush Samples

Sample Location Sampling Date Sampling Notes

Islington DDG site 12/12/2014Top of meter box. Generally out of the rain. Appearedto be uncleaned for long period. Hard to brush all dustoff.

Stockton South DDG Site 12/12/2014

Outdoor sink. Significant amount of hair or fabric fibre inthe sample. Unknown source. Resident believed thedust/material was deposited there naturally (laterindicated that this area may have been used for plantpotting).

Stockton South DDG Site 6/03/2015 Sample collected from window sill on back porch.Protected from the weather.

Stockton 6/03/2015 Sample collected from along a ledge below louvres onthe back porch of the property.

Mayfield East 6/03/2015 Top of fence - generally protected from the weather.

Tighes Hill 6/03/2015Sample collected from top of meter box in front porch.Porch faces the rail line with a large amount of dustappearing brown in colour collected.

Carrington 6/03/2015Top of meter box on front porch. Out of the rain.Appeared to be uncleaned for long period. Largeamount of loose brown coloured dust.

Wickham DDG site 6/03/2015Outdoor window sill on back porch. Protected from theweather. Small amount of dust collected from a smallsurface area.

Hamilton North 6/03/2015Sample collected from window sill in back porch area.Protected from the weather. Residents stated they get alot of dust, which they believe to be coal dust.

Tighes Hill DDG site 6/03/2015 Sample collected from small ledge below windows inthe back porch area. Protected from the weather.

Islington DDG site 6/03/2015

Sample collected from bathroom window sill (insidehouse). The window is left slightly open at one end, withthe sill left uncleaned for approximately 1 month beforesample was taken. Small amount collected.

2.2 Laboratory AnalysisThe standard analyses are performed by ALS, a NATA-accredited and registered laboratory for standard dustgauge sample analysis. When additional analyses are required, portions of the samples used for the standardanalyses are collected prior to analysis and sent to University of Queensland Materials Performance (UQMP).

2.2.1 Standard Depositional Dust Suite

The standard dust suite involves analysing samples for insoluble solids, ash content and combustible material.Insoluble solids are the total filterable material within each sample. Once filtered, the filtered portion of the sampleis dried and weighed, and the material is burned in a furnace at approximately 850 °C. Combustible materials,such as vegetative matter, coal and insects, are lost in the process, and the remaining non-combustible materialis weighed and recorded. Although combustible matter is typically used as an indicator of contamination due toinsects and vegetation, coal fines are also combusted in this process (should a sample contain a high percentageof coal, the percentage of combustible material would also be expected to be high). The resultant ash residueprovides an indication of the ‘inorganic’ or non-combustible sample contents. As the purpose of this study was toinvestigate black dust, the soluble portions of the samples were not analysed.



7

2.2.2 Stereomicroscopy

Stereomicroscopy is the first stage of the identification analyses for dust samples, and combines microscopeswith digital cameras so that high magnification digital photos can be obtained. This method enables individual dustparticles to be identified through visual analysis. This method is satisfactory for the preliminary identification ofcoarser dust particles.

2.2.3 Scanning Electron Microscopy

Scanning electron microscopy is used when fine dust particles need more detailed investigation andcharacterisation, and when semi-quantitative and qualitative information is needed on the chemical composition ofthe dust. Scanning electron microscopy is used in this study to identify dust particles by their texture, chemicalcomposition and crystalline structure, and to confirm the findings of the stereomicroscopy analysis.

2.2.4 Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy

Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy systems are attachments to scanning electron microscopy instruments,which identify the spectra of the sample materials. The spectra are used identify the elemental composition ofdust particles.

2.2.5 Chain of Custody Protocols

Chain of Custody (CoC) procedures are followed to maintain and document sample possession from the time ofcollection to handover to the laboratory for analysis. CoC records accompanied samples at all times once thesamples were collected. When transferring possession of the samples, the individuals relinquishing and receivingthe samples signed, dated, and noted the time of transfer on the CoC record. The CoCs also include any fieldnotes that may assist with analysis.

AECOM field staff reviewed all CoC documentation prior to dispatch of the samples to the laboratory.Appropriately signed CoC records were sent from the laboratory to AECOM via email to confirm sample delivery.

2.3 Assessment GuidelinesThe assessment criteria applicable in NSW for the assessment of deposited dust in ambient air are specified inthe EPA’s Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales (DEC,2005b), and are shown in Table 5. No criteria apply to petri dish or brush sampling.Table 5 Ambient Air Quality Assessment Criteria (DEC 2005b)

Analyte Averaging Period Criteria Units

Dust deposition as insoluble solids Annual 2 (maximum increase) g/m2.month

4 (total maximum) g/m2.month

2.4 Monitoring LocationsThe requirements for the monitoring locations are specified by the Australian Standard for siting monitoringinstruments AS/NZS 3580.1.1 20072; the requirements are reproduced in Figure 1.

2 Australian Standard AS/NZS 3580.1.1 2007, Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air – Guide to siting air monitoringequipment



8

Figure 1 Ground Level Monitoring Locations from AS/NZS 3580.1.1 2007 (Reproduced with permission from SAI Global Ltd underLicence 1408-C007)

Suburbs included in the monitoring program were chosen based on the history of complaints made to the EPA,and sampling locations were selected in consultation with relevant community groups and residents. Additionalsampling locations were chosen to spatially represent the greater region, provide additional data from sitesproximal to rail lines, and to provide comparative data from locations not proximal to rail lines. The locationschosen meet the following standards as closely as possible:

- Australian Standard AS/NZS 3580.1.1 2007, Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air – Guide tositing air monitoring equipment; and

- Australian Standard AS/NZS 3580.10.1 2003, Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air – Method10.1: Determination of particulate matter - deposited dust – gravimetric method.

The locations of the monitoring sites are summarised in Table 6 and shown in Figure 2. A dust gauge is locatedat each site, which is sampled on a monthly basis. Petri dish and brush samples were also randomly collected atspatially variant locations each month as outlined in Table 1. For the first two months, a single petri dish and asingle brush sample were collected at one location each month to provide a general understanding of the likelycomposition of dust in the area and the likely exposure time required. These data were used to help guide thefuture deployment of the sample methods.Table 6 Monitoring Locations and Details

Suburb Location Selection Reason

Mayfield West OEH Monitoring Station Proximity to Industrial Drive

Mayfield East Public School Complaints

Waratah Community Centre Proximity to rail line

Islington Private Residence Proximity to rail line

Tighes Hill Private Residence Complaints

Carrington OEH Monitoring Station Complaints

Wickham Private Residence Proximity to rail line

Hamilton Retirement Village Proximity to rail line

Newcastle OEH Monitoring Station Complaints

Stockton North OEH Monitoring Station Complaints

Stockton South Private Residence Complaints

Newcastle East Foreshore Park Complaints



9

Each month one depositional dust gauge sample is selected for Stereomicroscopy and Scanning ElectronMicroscopy analysis. This selection is based on the prevailing wind direction for the monitoring period and eachsites location in regards to potential sources of black dust. A summary of the samples sent for this additionalanalysis is provided in Table 7.Table 7 DDG Additional Analysis Samples

Month Sampling Site

October 2014 Carrington (Requested Tighes Hill on CoC)

November 2014 Islington

December 2014 Mayfield East

January 2015 Mayfield West

February 2015 Tighes Hill

March 2015 Waratah

2.5 Meteorological MonitoringIn addition to the dust monitoring undertaken for the study, meteorological data recorded during the monitoringperiod were obtained in order to determine local wind conditions in an attempt to identify the potential sources ofdust. Data were obtained from the OEH from their monitoring station at Carrington. Wind roses, which showmeasured wind speeds and directions, are provided in Appendix A. As shown, the winds blow from all directions,with a slight predominance of winds from the east-northeast and east. The strongest winds typically blow from thesouth.



10

Figure 2 Dust Deposition Monitoring Locations



11

3.0 Interim ResultsThe results of the monitoring undertaken between October 2014 and April 2015 are summarised in the followingsections. Example laboratory certificates of analysis are provided in Appendix B. The results represent datacollected for only a six month period, meaningful conclusions regarding the sample results cannot be made at thispoint.

3.1 Standard AnalysesThe levels of insoluble solids captured in the deposited dust are summarised in Table 8 and presented graphicallyin Figure 3. Samples collected at Mayfield East in October, November and December 2014 were considered tobe contaminated due to the presence of beetles in the samples; with these samples removed from consideration,the highest level of insoluble solids collected to date were captured at Stockton South (2.7 g/m 2.month, February2015). The Islington site has the highest rolling average (1.4 g/m2.month) for the data captured between October2014 and April 2015.

The EPA has a dust deposition guideline value of 2 grams per square metre per month (g/m2.month) as anincrement and a total acceptable deposited dust level of 4 g/m2.month, which apply to annual average insolublesolids. The rolling averages for data collected between October 2014 and April 2015 are all below the incrementaland total guideline values.Table 8 Deposited Dust – Insoluble Solids (g/m2.month)

SiteInsoluble Solids Summary (g/m2.month)

Oct 14 Nov 14 Dec 14 Jan 15 Feb 15 Mar 15 RollingAverage

Mayfield West 0.6 1.3 0.7 0.8 2.2 0.4 1.0

Mayfield East 2.6c 12.0c 3.3c 0.9 1.5 0.8 1.1

Waratah 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.9

Islington 1.9 1.3 1.4 0.8 2.0 0.9 1.4

Tighes Hill 1.6 1.3 1.4 0.5 2.2 0.7 1.3

Carrington 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.9

Wickham 1.2 1.4 1.2 0.5 1.3 0.6 1.0

Hamilton 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.3 1.1 0.8 0.9

Newcastle 0.8 1.6 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.8

Stockton North 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7

Stockton South 1.6 1.4 0.6 0.4 2.7 0.7 1.2

Newcastle East 0.7 1.1 0.9 1.4 0.7 0.9 1.0

c = contaminated



12

Figure 3 Six Monthly Dust Deposition Results Plot

3.2 Identification AnalysesAt the time of preparation of this report, results of additional analyses undertaken by UQMP had been received for29 samples (11 brush samples, 6 DDG samples and 12 petri dish samples). Details of the sampling types,locations and results of samples are shown in Table 9.

Soil or rock dust was present in all of the samples, and comprised the greatest proportion of the samples (averageof 73 %; maximum of 95 %). Coal was detected in measurable amounts in 22 of the 29 samples, and comprisedbetween 5 – 20 % of the samples (average of 6.2 %). Coal was not detected in one sample, and detected in traceamounts in the remaining six samples. Soot was detected in measurable amounts in 11 of the samples(comprising 2 – 10 % of the samples and averaging 2.1 %), and in trace amounts in all but three of the remainingsamples.

Black rubber dust was detected in measureable quantities in 3 of 29 samples, but was detected at trace levels ina further 13 samples. Black rubber accounted for an average of 0.7 % of all samples. Halite (rock salt)/salt wasfound in four of the brush samples in greater than trace amounts (comprising 5 – 10 % of the samples) and in sixof the petri dish samples, where it formed 20 % of three samples, 5 % of two samples and 10 % of one sample.Halite accounted for an average of 3.6 % of the samples. Insect debris, plant debris and miscellaneous fibreswere found in many of the samples. Copper sludge was found in relatively high concentrations in two of the DDGsamples (20 % and 30 %) and in trace amounts in another two DDG samples and two petri dish samples. Thesource of the copper sludge in the DDG samples is expected to be the copper sulphate used in DDGs to preventalgal growth.



13

Table 9 Composition Identification Analysis Results – Combined Microscopy

SampleType

UQMP#

DateExposed

DateCollected Sampling site

Percentage of SampleBlack Inorganics and Minerals Unclassified General Organic Types

Coal SootBlackRubberDust

Soil orRockDust

Salts* Alumina CopperSludge

P/SSlimeandFungi

InsectDebris -General

PlantDebris(General)

Wood Fibres(miscellaneous) Paint

Brush

13146 N/A 12/12/2014 Islington (DDG site) 5 tr tr 95 tr tr tr tr tr13147 N/A 12/12/2014 Stockton South (DDG site) 5 10 50 tr 5 30 tr13287 N/A 6/03/2015 Stockton South (DDG site) 5 2 tr 68 20 513288 N/A 6/03/2015 South Stockton 10 10 65 5 1013289 N/A 6/03/2015 Mayfield East (DDG site) tr tr tr 95 5 tr tr tr13290 N/A 6/03/2015 Tighes Hill 5 tr tr 80 5 tr 5 tr 5 tr13291 N/A 6/03/2015 Carrington 5 90 5 tr tr tr13292 N/A 6/03/2015 Wickham (DDG site) 20 2 tr 73 tr tr 5 tr13293 N/A 6/03/2015 Hamilton North tr tr 80 10 tr 5 5 tr13294 N/A 6/03/2015 Tighes Hill (DDG site) tr tr tr 90 tr tr 10 tr13295 N/A 6/03/2015 Islington (DDG site) 10 5 55 10 20

DDG

13079 17/10/2014 14/11/2014 Carrington 10 5 5 75 tr tr 513143 12/12/2014 9/01/2015 Islington 5 tr tr 95 tr tr tr tr13173 12/12/2014 9/01/2015 Mayfield East 10 2 18 30 30 tr 1013239 9/01/2015 6/02/2015 Mayfield West 5 tr tr 95 tr tr tr13286 6/02/2015 6/03/2015 Tighes Hill tr 50 20 30 tr13398 6/03/2015 7/04/2015 Waratah 5 5 5 75 tr 10

Petri Dish

13080 14/11/2014 15/11/2014 Tighes Hill (DDG site) 5 tr tr 90 tr 5 tr13144 17/12/2014 18/12/2015 Carrington (DDG site) tr tr 90 10 tr tr tr13145 17/12/2014 18/12/2014 Mayfield East (DDG site) tr tr 95 5 tr tr tr tr13296 18/02/2015 20/02/2015 Mayfield West (DDG site) 5 tr 75 2013297 18/02/2015 20/02/2015 Tighes Hill 10 5 tr 65 tr 20 tr13298 18/02/2015 20/02/2015 Waratah (DDG site) 10 tr tr 60 20 tr 10 tr13299 18/02/2015 20/02/2015 Islington (DDG site) 5 tr tr 90 5 tr tr tr13300 5/03/2015 6/03/2015 Mayfield tr tr 70 20 tr 10 tr tr13301 5/03/2015 6/03/2015 Tighes Hill 10 tr 10 50 20 tr 1013399 8/04/2015 8/04/2015 Warabrook 10 tr 50 30 1013400 8/04/2015 8/04/2015 Stockton South (DDG site) 15 5 65 5 1013401 8/04/2015 8/04/2015 Stockton North (DDG site) 10 10 60 tr 20 tr

tr = trace amounts* Salt, calcium sulphate and haliteN.B: Fly ash and cement dust were only found in trace amounts in a few samples; they are not included in the table above;

Copper sludge was found in relatively high concentrations in two of the DDG samples (20 % and 30 %) and in trace amounts in another two DDG samples and two petri dish samples. The source of the copper sludge in the DDG samplesis expected to be the copper sulphate used in DDGs to prevent algal growth.



14




15

4.0 ReferencesDEC. (2005a). Approved Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Air Pollutants in New South Wales,Environment Protection Authority, Sydney.

DEC. (2005b). Approved Methods and Guidance for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New SouthWales, Environment Protection Authority, Sydney.

Standards Australia. (2003b). AS/NZS 3580.10.1: 2003, Methods for Sampling and Analysis of Ambient Air-Determination of Particulate Matter – Deposited Matter – Gravimetric Method, Standards Australia.



16




Appendix A

Wind Roses



A-1

Appendix A Wind RosesWind roses were prepared for the Carrington data. As shown, the winds blow from all directions, with a slightpredominance of winds from the east-northeast, and east. The strongest winds typically blow from the south. Thepredominant wind directions for each month are summarised below:

- October: Northwest, east-northeast and east;

- November: East-northeast and east;

- December: East-northeast and south-southeast;

- January: East-northeast and east;

- February: East-northeast, east and southeast; and

- March: South-southeast.

Wind Rose – Carrington, October 2014 – March 2015



A-2

Wind Rose – Carrington, October 2014

Wind Rose – Carrington, November 2014



A-3

Wind Rose – Carrington, December 2014

Wind Rose – Carrington, January 2015



A-4

Wind Rose – Carrington, February 2015

Wind Rose – Carrington, March 2015



A-5




Appendix B

Example LaboratoryCertificates of Analysis



B-1

Appendix B Example Laboratory Certificates of Analysis

1 1.00 True

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSISWork Order : Page : 1 of 5EN1410640

:: LaboratoryClient AECOM Australia Pty Ltd Environmental Division Newcastle

: :ContactContact MR CYE BUCKLAND Peter Keyte

:: AddressAddress 17 WARABROOK BOULEVARDE

WARABROOK NSW, AUSTRALIA 2304

5/585 Maitland Road Mayfield West NSW Australia 2304

:: E-mailE-mail [email protected] [email protected]

:: TelephoneTelephone +61 02 4911 4900 +61 2 4014 2500

:: FacsimileFacsimile +61 02 4911 4999 +61 2 4967 7382

:Project 60330323 Task 1.1 QC Level : NEPM 2013 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement

:Order number 60330323 Task 1.1 Date Samples Received : 20-Nov-2014 16:00

:C-O-C number ---- Date Analysis Commenced : 27-Nov-2014

Sampler : CYE BUCKLAND Issue Date : 04-Dec-2014 21:06

Site : ----

13:No. of samples received

Quote number : ---- 12:No. of samples analysed

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted.

This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information:

l General Comments

l Analytical Results

SignatoriesThis document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories indicated below. Electronic signing has been

carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11.

Signatories Accreditation CategoryPosition

Dianne Blane Laboratory Coordinator (2IC) Newcastle - Inorganics

NATA Accredited Laboratory 825

Accredited for compliance with

ISO/IEC 17025.

R I G H T S O L U T I O N S | R I G H T P A R T N E R

2 of 5:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EN1410640

60330323 Task 1.1:Project

AECOM Australia Pty Ltd

General Comments

The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, APHA, AS and NEPM. In house

developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request.

Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis.

Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis.

Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference.

When sampling time information is not provided by the client, sampling dates are shown without a time component. In these instances, the time component has been assumed by the laboratory for processing purposes.

CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society.

LOR = Limit of reporting

^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting

ø = ALS is not NATA accredited for these tests.

Key :

Analysis as per AS3580.10.1-2003. Samples passed through a 1mm sieve prior to analysis.l

Sampling data was supplied by AECOM Newcastle. NATA Accredition No. 2778. Corporate Site No. 14391.l

Subcontract results to follow when available.l

3 of 5:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EN1410640



Analytical Results

Tighes Hill

16/10/14 - 14/11/14

Islington

16/10/14 - 14/11/14

Waratah

16/10/14 - 14/11/14

Mayfield East

16/10/14 - 14/11/14

Mayfield West

16/10/14 - 14/11/14

Client sample IDSub-Matrix: DEPOSITIONAL DUST

(Matrix: AIR)

[14-Nov-2014][14-Nov-2014][14-Nov-2014][14-Nov-2014][14-Nov-2014]Client sampling date / time

EN1410640-005EN1410640-004EN1410640-003EN1410640-002EN1410640-001UnitLORCAS NumberCompound

Result Result Result Result Result

EA120: Ash Content

0.4 1.3 0.7 1.2 0.9g/m².month0.1----Ash Content

7 22 11 19 14mg1----Ash Content (mg)

EA125: Combustible Matter

0.2 1.3 0.4 0.7 0.7g/m².month0.1----Combustible Matter

4 22 8 11 11mg1----Combustible Matter (mg)

EA141: Total Insoluble Matter

0.6 2.6 1.1 1.9 1.6g/m².month0.1----Total Insoluble Matter

11 44 19 30 25mg1----Total Insoluble Matter (mg)

4 of 5:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EN1410640



Analytical Results

Stockton North

16/10/14 - 14/11/14

Newcastle

17/10/14 - 14/11/14

Hamilton

16/10/14 - 14/11/14

Wickham

16/10/14 - 14/11/14

Carrington

17/10/14 - 14/11/14


(Matrix: AIR)

[14-Nov-2014][14-Nov-2014][14-Nov-2014][14-Nov-2014][14-Nov-2014]Client sampling date / time

EN1410640-010EN1410640-009EN1410640-008EN1410640-007EN1410640-006UnitLORCAS NumberCompound


EA120: Ash Content

0.7 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.7g/m².month0.1----Ash Content

12 13 15 7 11mg1----Ash Content (mg)


0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2g/m².month0.1----Combustible Matter

6 6 6 5 5mg1----Combustible Matter (mg)


1.1 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.9g/m².month0.1----Total Insoluble Matter

18 19 21 12 16mg1----Total Insoluble Matter (mg)

5 of 5:Page

Work Order :

:Client

EN1410640



Analytical Results

------------Newcastle East

16/10/14 - 14/11/14

Stockton South

16/10/14 - 14/11/14


(Matrix: AIR)

------------[14-Nov-2014][14-Nov-2014]Client sampling date / time

------------------------EN1410640-012EN1410640-011UnitLORCAS NumberCompound


EA120: Ash Content

0.7 0.4 ---- ---- ----g/m².month0.1----Ash Content

12 7 ---- ---- ----mg1----Ash Content (mg)


0.9 0.3 ---- ---- ----g/m².month0.1----Combustible Matter

14 4 ---- ---- ----mg1----Combustible Matter (mg)


1.6 0.7 ---- ---- ----g/m².month0.1----Total Insoluble Matter

26 11 ---- ---- ----mg1----Total Insoluble Matter (mg)

UQMP File Reference: C01680.12 Page 1

LABORATORY TEST REPORT

Subject:

EXAMINATION OF DUST FALLOUT GAUGE DEPOSIT BY OPTICAL AND ELECTRON MICROSCOPY

UQMP Project No.

C01680.12

Prepared for:

Hayley Worthington, ALS Environmental

Prepared By:

Fiona Jones

Date:

23rd December 2014

Sample Description:

Dust Gauge Sample #

Date Exposed

Date Collected

UQMP #

1 Carrington (Dust Fallout Gauge) 17/10/14 14/11/14 UQMP # 13079

2 Tighes Hill Petri Dish 14/11/14 15/11/14 UQMP # 13080

Method Ref: Internal UQMP methods.

AS 3580.10.1 - 2003 Methods for sampling and analysis of particulate matter - Deposited matter - Gravimetric method

Report for ALS Environmental Re: Characterisation of Dust Deposition Deposits

UQMP File Reference: C01680.12

Page 2

1. INTRODUCTION One sample was supplied as washings from a dust fallout gauge deposit whilst the other was a loose deposit in a petri dish. The dust fallout gauge deposit was filtered onto a membrane filter and the loose deposit was mounted directly onto conductive carbon tape. Both samples were examined by stereomicroscopy to check for particle distribution and general appearance and then analysed by Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (SEM/EDS). There is insufficient deposit for both samples to analyse further by X-Ray Diffraction. 2. RESULTS A table of results is attached. Appendix A Section 3 attached presents the table of results of the combined microscopy observations. Section 3.2 contains the particle identity legend. Appendix B Section 4 presents the colour picture micrographs of the Stereo microscopy images. Appendix C Section 5 displays the Illustrative SEM photomicrographs and spectra taken of the overall areas of the Insoluble matter. Appendix D Section 6 attached presents illustrative SEM photomicrographs and spectra taken of representative particles that were common among many of the deposits. The SEM photomicrographs were taken with Back Scattered Electron (BSE) imaging in which average atomic number is roughly proportional to brightness. For example, coal particles appear darker than siliceous mineral dust and biological particles somewhat darker again.

Signed for and on behalf of Applied Materials Characterisation and Performance

Jim Haig



3. APPENDIX A 3.1 TABLE OF COMBINED MICROSCOPY RESULTS

PARTICLE IDENTITY PERCENTAGE (Projected area basis)

SAMPLE # UQMP # 13079 UQMP # 13080

SAMPLE ID PARTICLE TYPE Carrington

Tighes Hill Petri Dish

BLACK

COAL 10 5 SOOT 5 tr BLACK RUBBER DUST 5 tr

INORGANICS & MINERALS

MINERAL DUST (Soil or Rock Dust.) 75 90 MINERAL DUST (type = Fly Ash ) MINERAL DUST (type = Cement Dust) MINERAL DUST (type =glassy) GLASS FRAGMENTS COPPER SLUDGE

P/S SLIME & FUNGI tr INSECT DEBRIS tr tr

PLANT DEBRIS (General) 5 5 PLANT DEBRIS (type = plant char ) PLANT DEBRIS (type = )

GENERAL ORGANIC TYPES

WOOD DUST FIBRES (type = Miscellaneous ) STARCH PAINT tr PLASTIC FRAGMENTS RED RUBBER DUST

COMMENTS



3.2 PARTICLE IDENTITY LEGEND

Insect parts/debris Includes arachnids. Present as crushed body fragments, trichomes, wing scales, etc.

P/s slime Polysaccharide slime. This extra-cellular bio-polymeric material may have different sources which might include microbiological growth, vertebrate excreta, decomposing biological matter, etc. Sometimes seen in these samples as a stringy gel binding other particles together. Sometimes fungal hyphae associated with the gel.

Copper sludge

Some well developed turquoise crystal growths can be found, but usually as subhedral to euhedral grains. Sometimes as blue highlights on a greenish cakey material. This is probably copper salts precipitated from the copper sulfate algaecide solution as the hydroxide, with or without sulfate and or phosphorous inclusion.

Mineral matter Usually equant siliceous appearance and typically colourless to brown, transparent to translucent, euhedral, rounded grains. The clays very fine particles. Other constituents of siliceous appearance, sand etc.

Plant Debris/ char Usually as trichomes, fragmented tissue, reproductive products and structures. Sometimes charred particles from incinerator, grass or bush fires.

Fly ash particles Appears as spheroidal particles - colourless, milky or black

Coal dust Black, equant, sharp angled grains. Some glossy; some edges dark brown translucent.

Soot Black glossy spherical to botryoidal aggregates, typically hollow or lacey. Usual source is incompletely burnt organic liquids, eg. fuel oils.



4. APPENDIX B 4.1 TABLE OF STEREOMICROSCOPY PICTURE MICROGRAPHS

StMPM1. Carrington, UQMP # 13079. The majority of the sample was observed as mineral dust.

StMPM2. Tighes Hill Petri Dish, UQMP # 13080. An image of the deposit mounted on conductive carbon tape. The black area scattered throughout the image is the exposed carbon tape.

StMPM3. Tighes Hill Petri Dish, UQMP # 13080. An SEM/BSE image at 500 times.



5. APPENDIX C 5.1 SEM/BSE IMAGE AND SEM/EDS SPECTRUM OF AN OVERALL AREA OF THE DEPOSIT

PM1. Carrington, UQMP # 13079. An SEM/BSE image of a characteristic overall area selected for SEM/EDS analysis.

EDS1. Carrington, UQMP # 13079. The SEM/EDS spectrum of the overall area is rich in carbon, silicon, aluminium the balance of the elements are considered trace. The SEM/EDS spectrum is consistent with the microscopy observations of a deposit consisting mostly of mineral dust with a minor organic component comprised of coal, soot, rubber dust, plant debris and insect debris. The trace amounts of copper, sulfur and phosphate can be attributed to the copper sludge.

001001001001001001001001 0.5 mm0.5 mm0.5 mm0.5 mm0.5 mm

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

keV

001

0

800

1600

2400

3200

4000

4800

5600

6400

Cou

nts

C

O

Na

Mg

Al

Si

PS K

Ca

Ti

Fe

Fe Fe

Cu

Cu Cu



5.2 SEM/BSE IMAGE AND SEM/EDS SPECTRUM OF AN OVERALL AREA OF THE DEPOSIT

PM2. Tighes Hill Petri Dish, UQMP # 13080. An SEM/BSE image of a characteristic overall area selected for SEM/EDS analysis.

EDS2. Tighes Hill Petri Dish, UQMP # 13080. The SEM/EDS spectrum of the area selected is rich in carbon, aluminium and silicon with minor amounts of sodium and chloride, the balance of the elements are trace level. The majority of the deposit was found to contain mineral dust note the elevated aluminium and silicon peaks with the carbon of the deposit allocated to plant debris, coal and traces of soot, rubber dust and insect debris.

023023023023023023023023

200 µm200 µm200 µm200 µm200 µm

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

keV

023

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

2800

3200

Cou

nts

C

ONa

Mg

Al

Si

PS

Cl

Cl K

Ca

Ti

Fe

Fe Fe



6. APPENDIX D SEM/BSE IMAGES AND SEM/EDS SPECTRA OF TYPICAL PARTICULATES COMMON TO THE DEPOSIT

6.1 AN SEM/BSE IMAGE AND SEM/EDS SPECTRA OF A COAL PARTICLE

PM1. Carrington, UQMP # 13079. An SEM/BSE image of a particulate annotated with 002 is selected for SEM/EDS analysis.

EDS1. Carrington, UQMP # 13079. The SEM/EDS spectrum of the particle annotated with 002 shows elevated levels of carbon with trace amounts of aluminium, silicon, sulfur, potassium, iron and copper. The particle morphology and the elemental profile is typical of a low ash coal. The traces of copper are consistent with copper sludge contamination.

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

keV

002

0

1500

3000

4500

6000

7500

9000

10500

12000

13500

Cou

nts

C

O Al

Si

S

S

K Fe Cu



6.2 AN SEM/BSE IMAGE AND SEM/EDS SPECTRA OF AFELDSPAR PARTICLE


EDS2. Carrington, UQMP # 13079. The SEM/EDS spectrum of the particle annotated with 005 displays major peaks of aluminium and silicon with minor amounts of potassium, iron and copper and trace amounts of the balance of the elements. Copper sludge is present again as a trace contaminant. The spectrum is characteristic for aluminosilicate rich mineral dust most likely feldspar.

005005005005005005005005

20 µm20 µm20 µm20 µm20 µm

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

keV

005

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Cou

nts

C

O

Mg

Al

Si

PSK

K

Ti

FeFe

Fe

Cu

Cu Cu



6.3 AN SEM/BSE IMAGE AND SEM/EDS SPECTRA OF A SOOT PARTICLE


EDS3. Carrington, UQMP # 13079. The SEM/EDS spectrum of the particle annotated with 003 shows a predominance of carbon with minor amounts of aluminium, silicon and sulfur the balance of the elements are at trace levels. The SEM/EDS spectrum and ‘lacey’ particle appearance is consistent with soot.

003003003003003003003003


0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

keV

003

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Cou

nts

C

O Al

Si S

S

K

Ca

Fe

Cu

Cu Cu



AN SEM/BSE IMAGE AND SEM/EDS SPECTRA OF A RUBBER DUST PARTICLE

PM4. Tighes Hill Petri Dish, UQMP # 13080. An SEM/BSE image of a particulate annotated with 054 is selected for SEM/EDS analysis.

EDS4. Tighes Hill Petri Dish, UQMP # 13080. UQMP # 13080. The SEM/EDS spectrum of the particle annotated with 054 shows elevated levels of carbon, aluminium, silicon with minor and trace amounts of the balance of the elements. The sausage shape structure and SEM/EDS elemental profile is characteristic of rubber dust.

054054054054054054054054


0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

keV

054

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

2400

2700

Cou

nts

C

ONa

Mg

Al

Si

PS

Cl

K

Ca

Ca

Fe

Fe Fe Zn Zn


TERMS OF REPORT UQ Materials Performance is a registered business of UniQuest Pty Limited. The employees and University of Queensland staff and consultants operating with UniQuest will make all reasonable efforts to ensure an accurate understanding of client requirements. The information in reports is based on that understanding, and UniQuest strives to be accurate in its advice and to engage suitably qualified consultants with requisite skills of the highest order. While all reasonable care will be taken in the preparation of reports, all information, assumptions, and recommendations therein are published, given, made, or expressed on the basis that: (a) Any liability of any nature which would otherwise exist or arise in any circumstances by

reference to any part or any omission from this report is excluded to the maximum extent permitted by law;

(b) Any liability which is unable to be excluded is limited to the minimum sum permitted by

law; (c) These provisions bind any person who refers to, or relies upon, all or any part of a

report; and (d) These provisions apply in favour of UniQuest and its directors, employees, servants,

agents and consultants. The client shall indemnify UniQuest and its directors, employees, servants, agents, consultants, successors in title and assigns against any claim made against any or all of them by third parties arising out of the disclosure of reports, whether directly or indirectly, to a third party. A laboratory certificate, statement, or report may not be published except in full, unless permission for publication of an approved abstract has been obtained, in writing from the Managing Director of UniQuest. Samples will be destroyed within 30 days unless collected by the client, or alternative arrangements have been agreed to by UniQuest.



B-1

This is the end of the document

AECOM Australia Pty LtdABN 20 093 846 925

Documents

Lower Hunter Dust Deposition Study - Interim Reportg/m2.month, which is as an annual average for an acceptable level of deposited dust, measured as insoluble solids. - Soil or rock