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.