South West System Coal Dust Management Plan

South West System

Coal DustManagementPlan

November 2013

Brisbane

Toowoomba

Chinchilla

ii Coal Dust Management Plan | South West System | November 2013

ContactAurizonT 13 23 32 E [email protected] W aurizon.com.au

New Hope GroupT 1800 882 142 E [email protected] W newhopegroup.com.au

Peabody EnergyT 07 4663 5555 E [email protected] W peabodyenergy.com

Queensland Bulk HandlingT 07 3107 4900 E [email protected] W qbh.com.au

Queensland RailT 07 3072 0600 E [email protected] W queenslandrail.com.au

Queensland Resources CouncilT 07 3295 9560 E [email protected] W qrc.org.au

YancoalT 09 8583 5300 E [email protected] W yancoal.com.au

1Coal Dust Management Plan | South West System | November 2013

ContentsGlossary 2

Chapter 1: Executive summary 31.1 The South West System coal supply chain 41.2 Coal dust, the rail corridor and the community 41.3 Coal dust and health 51.4 Coal dust mitigation 51.5 Community engagement 61.6 Conclusion 6

Chapter 2: South West System overview 72.1 Community contribution and economic investment 102.2 Opportunities for continued growth and investment 122.3 A collaborative approach 12

Chapter 3: Background facts – what we know about coal dust 133.1 What is black dust? 163.2 What is nuisance dust? 203.3 What is Particulate Matter and why is its size important? 223.4 Government regulation of coal dust 253.5 What are the facts concerning coal dust and health? 273.6 What are the sources of coal dust on the rail corridor? 29

Chapter 4: Mitigation and continuous improvements by stakeholders 314.1 Coal dust management and mitigation activities 324.2 Coal producers management and mitigation activities 334.3 Rail network management and mitigation activities 374.4 Rail operator mitigation activities 374.5 Coal Terminal Manager at Port of Brisbane mitigation activities 384.6 Continuous improvement in coal dust management 38

Chapter 5: Stakeholder engagement 39

Chapter 6: Air quality monitoring 436.1 Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report executive summary 45

References 47

2 Coal Dust Management Plan | South West System | November 2013

GlossaryCDMP Coal Dust Management Plan

DEHP Department of Environment and Heritage, Queensland Government

DSITIA Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Queensland Government

µg Microgram (= one millionth of a gram)

µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic metre. A measure of the mass of particles suspended in a unit volume of air.

µm Micrometre (= one millionth of a metre)

mg Milligram (= one thousandth of a gram)

mg/m2/day Milligrams per square metre per day. A measure of the average mass of particles settling on a unit area on a daily basis.

HGI Hardgrove Grindability Index

mtpa Million tonnes per annum

PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns

PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns

QBH Queensland Bulk Handling

QRC Queensland Resources Council

TSP Total Suspended Particulate Matter

SWS South West System (includes the Western and Metropolitan rail systems)

1Chapter 1Executive summary


This Coal Dust Management Plan has been prepared by the South West System (SWS) supply chain members as evidence of their commitment to mitigating and managing coal dust on the South West System rail corridor. This plan focuses on the transport of coal on the rail corridor through the rural and urban communities of both the Western and Metropolitan rail lines, collectively referred to as the South West System.

It also includes the train loading and unloading processes at the mines and port. Separate environmental policies, and in some cases separate dust management plans, are in place for the mines and the port and can be accessed through each company’s website (see page 41).

The plan aims to present information in a clear and transparent way. Statements about the nature, concentration and potential impacts of coal dust are referenced to scientific evidence and research that are available to the public.

The supply chain members are employers and significant contributors to economic development in regional south west Queensland, having invested $300 million directly and indirectly into the community through salaries, royalties, local goods and services in the 2011/2012 financial year.1

The SWS supply chain members take their environmental obligations seriously. They are committed to working with local communities, councils and state government to ensure that facts are available, that any arising issues are addressed and that mechanisms are in place to respond to community concerns.

1.1 The South West System coal supply chainThe SWS is the smallest coal supply chain in Australia, hauling 8.9 million tonnes per annum (mtpa), with plans for incremental growth. The supply chain members have operated in the region for more than 30 years and the companies share a long term commitment to the region and its communities.

The members of the SWS supply chain are:

Aurizon Rail transport operator

New Hope Group Coal producer

Peabody Energy Coal producer

Queensland Bulk Handling Coal export terminal operator

Queensland Rail Rail network manager

Yancoal Coal producer

The supply chain begins at the Surat and Moreton Basin coal fields west of Toowoomba and runs through Toowoomba, Ipswich and Brisbane to the Port of Brisbane.

1.2 Coal dust, the rail corridor and the communityOne of the main objectives of this plan is to establish the facts about coal dust on the SWS rail corridor and dispel misinformation that may lead to community concerns. It clarifies the following main points.

Low levels of coal in corridor dust samples.

Case studies and dust monitoring reports referenced in this plan (Chapter 3) show that coal dust typically accounted for about 10 per cent of deposited dust samples on a surface area basis at the monitoring sites.2

1 Queensland Resources Council website, www.qrc.org.au2 DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report3 New Hope Group, Rail Coal Dust Report 2013


Low levels of coal in nearby home dust samples.

Samples taken from homes adjacent to the rail corridor showed that black tyre rubber, rocks, soil and minerals, plant and insect debris make up the majority of dust.3

Train movements cause little change to 10-minute average overall dust levels.

While studies indicate that the passage of a train does increase ambient dust concentrations temporarily, as would be expected with the movement of any vehicle, it is important to understand that only a small proportion of the dust is coal compared with other sources of dust on the rail corridor and in the surrounding communities.4

Total dust levels on the corridor are comparable to the rest of Brisbane.

Dust monitoring studies have shown that the dust levels on the rail corridor are comparable to dust levels experienced at locations throughout Brisbane. The studies show that the impact of motor vehicles, industrial boilers, solid fuel heaters and climate-related factors, including drought, rain, bush fires and dust storms, all are more significant sources of dust than coal transported by rail.4

Low overall dust levels

The monitoring results showed that dust levels did not exceed the Queensland air quality objectives on any day during the four-month investigation period.

1.3 Coal dust and healthEvery study conducted to date on the South West System has confirmed that the measured levels of dust were well below the air quality objectives for the protection of human health (see appendices).4

The Queensland Department of Health has concluded that, for people living along the rail corridor, the dust concentrations measured during the investigation are unlikely to result in any additional adverse health effects.4

Thousands of Australians work directly with coal every day of the year, many with their families living in close proximity. The last reported case in Australia of Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis (CWP), commonly known as black lung disease, was more than 20 years ago.

Most references to health are in association with invisible particles that can be inhaled. These are referred to as PM10 and PM2.5 particles.

Additional research shows that the greatest source of PM10 and PM2.5 dust is combustion, including home fires, agricultural burning and vehicle exhaust.5

A study of PM10 sources showed that more than 95% of the emissions from these combustion sources were PM10 and smaller, while less than 35% of the emissions from processes such as construction and mining were smaller than PM10.

6

Studies of coal dust indicate that it is made up of particles larger than PM2.5 and often larger than PM10. These larger particles fall to the ground quickly and relatively close to their source.

Coal dust in deposited samples typically accounted for 10% of the total surface area.4 Further away from the corridor, research has shown that deposition rates of coal dust are lower.6

Often claims are made about high levels of PM10 coal dust on the rail corridor but there is no evidence to support this conclusion. On the contrary, all studies have shown that PM10 levels are well below environmental objectives and that coal is not a major contributor of PM10 particles.

1.4 Coal dust mitigationThrough extensive research and testing, there is a good body of evidence of the potential sources of coal dust and the best mitigation methods to reduce this coal dust. While the evidence shows that the levels of coal dust, and dust in general, on the SWS consistently meet air quality objectives, the supply chain members are committed to addressing community concerns and proactively taking steps to respond to these concerns.

This Coal Dust Management Plan outlines the activities that are currently being undertaken by all members of the supply chain in a coordinated effort to continue achieving low levels of coal dust at current and future production rates. These actions are based on research that has defined best practice, which has been proven to be highly effective in minimising potential dust impacts.

These start with the management of moisture levels in coal during transport.

4 DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report5 Guideline on Speciated Particulate Monitoring, Judith Chow and John Watson, Desert Research Institute, prepared for US EPA, August 1998 6 Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd, Review of Dust from Coal Trains in Queensland, report to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Inquiry:

The impacts of health on air quality in Australia, prepared for Queensland Resources Council, March 2013


1.4.5 Ongoing dust monitoring

The supply chain members have committed to a program of ongoing dust monitoring for a further 12 months to validate the effectiveness of mitigation measures and to confirm that dust levels, particularly coal dust levels, continue to meet environmental standards.

1.4.6 Continuous improvement

As technologies and processes evolve, the supply chain members will investigate further opportunities to mitigate coal dust along the corridor, driven by evidence from coal dust monitoring.

1.5 Community engagementThe supply chain members are committed to working with local communities to ensure that any arising issues are addressed and that mechanisms are in place to respond to community concerns. They are active in local communities, attend community reference group meetings and regularly sponsor programs that support education, health and safety in regional areas.

In addition, each company provides information hotlines, email addresses, websites and community engagement activities to ensure that resources and information are available about operations and activities on the SWS.

1.6 ConclusionIn summary, the evidence shows that coal dust concentrations on the SWS do not exceed air quality guidelines and that coal dust deposition is not the primary contributor to amenity concerns raised by residents along the rail corridor.

There is a clear need to communicate this information effectively to local communities, councils and government to enable a more open, informed and accurate dialogue about coal dust.

This SWS Coal Dust Management Plan presents the facts in a clearly documented fashion and is an important element in a continuing process of education and consultation that the supply chain is committed to as part of its social license to operate.

1.4.1 Moisture content management

All coal producers wash their coal or blend it to achieve an optimum moisture level which reduces dust and achieves market qualities.

1.4.2 Improved loading practices

Improved loading practices can reduce coal deposits on coal wagon ledges and wheel surfaces that are prone to spillage during transport. It also supports the ability to create a consistent surface of coal in each wagon.

1.4.3 Load profiling of coal surface

The profile of the loaded coal wagon refers to the shape of the exposed surface of coal on the top of in the wagon. A flat surface with gradually sloping sides is a tried and proven method of dust suppression.7

Garden bed profiling is being adopted at all loading facilities in the SWS.

1.4.4 Veneering

Veneering is the application of a biodegradable polymer onto the surface of the loaded coal. The veneer forms a crust over the coal load, which along with the use of a modified loading chute suggests that a significant reduction in coal dust lift-off from wagons is achievable.

New Hope Group began veneering its coal in May, 2013 and the two other coal producers will institute veneering by December 2013.

The supply chain members share a genuine commitment to continue to research, and enhance their understanding of dust mitigation activities to enable the development of improvements and technology that directly relate to any scientifically identified issues relating to the transport of coal on the rail corridor.

7 Connell Hatch, Final Report, Environmental Evaluation of Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions from coal trains Goonyella, Blackwater and Moura Coal Rail Systems for QR Limited, March 2008

2Chapter 2South West System overview


Members of the South West System supply chain are:

Company Operations

Aurizon Rail transport operator

New Hope Group Coal producer

Peabody Energy Coal producer

Queensland Bulk Handling Coal export terminal operator

Queensland Rail Rail network manager

Yancoal Coal producer

The South West System (SWS) coal supply chain includes three coal producers operating four mines, a rail transport operator, a rail network manager and an export coal terminal. The SWS includes the Western and Metropolitan rail systems and runs across approximately 650 kilometres of track from the Moreton and Surat Basin coal mines to the Port of Brisbane (see Figure 1).

The South West System has been transporting coal in the region for more than 30 years, responsibly and safely and is fully committed to continuing its operations in an environmentally responsible way.

Figure 1: South West System supply chain

Clarence-Moreton Basin

Maryborough Basin

Cameby Downs(Columboola)

New Oakleigh

Wandoan Group

New Acland (Jondaryan)

Wilkie Creek (Macalister)Kogan Creek

Meandu

Jeebropilly

Commodore

Toowoomba

Wandoan

Dalby

ChinchillaKingaroyMiles

RedbankBrisbane

Ipswich

Millmerran

Warwick

Fisherman IslandsQld Bulk Handling (QBH)

Port of Brisbane

Rolling stock depotTrain crew depotThermal coal mineTowns/citiesDomestic terminalOperating export terminalWest Moreton corridor^Existing railCoal basin

Swanbank Power Station (Sw PS)

Legend

^ Track Manager – Queensland Rail


As highlighted in Figure 2, the SWS is Australia’s smallest coal supply chain transporting 8.9 mtpa. By way of contrast, the two major rail systems in central Queensland transported a combined 158 mtpa in FY2010/2011, while 114 million tonnes passed through the Port of Newcastle from the Hunter Valley coal supply chain in 2011.8

The track infrastructure on the SWS is owned and managed by Queensland Rail. In addition to coal transport, the rail system is used by passenger trains and freight trains, which haul grain, molasses, livestock and other products.

Rail is widely recognised as the most efficient transport system for bulk minerals. One coal train on the SWS represents 40 truck movements each way from the mines to the port. The current rate of 10 to 13 trains a day represents 800 –1,040 truck trips that would otherwise operate through Toowoomba, over the Toowoomba ranges and through the urban communities of Brisbane every day.

Figure 2: Comparison of coal supply chains by volume 2010/2011 – central Queensland, south west Queensland and Hunter Valley, New South Wales

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Hunter Valley(NSW)

Goonyella System(Central QLD)

Blackwater System(Central QLD)

South West System(South west QLD)

114 mtpa100 mtpa

58 mtpa

8.9 mtpa

Note: Hunter Valley volumes are based on 2011 figures

8 Energy Publishing, Australian Coal Report, January 2012


The supply chain currently employs more than 1,500 people who make their homes and raise their families throughout the region. Their combined wages are approximately $160 million and like most people, they spend a considerable portion of their income within the community where they live.9

The members of the supply chain are showing their commitment to ongoing operations through a range of trainee, graduate and/or apprentice programs aimed at developing a skill base for continuing operations and careers at each of their companies and for the wider resources industry.

The supply chain hires local suppliers and contractors, and has made public commitments to use the services of local companies wherever possible. In the 2011/2012 financial year, more than $105 million was spent on local goods and services, providing a major source of income for regional businesses.

2.1 Community contribution and economic investmentThe SWS coal supply chain is a significant contributor to the Queensland economy, supporting thousands of direct and indirect jobs and contributing millions of dollars, by way of goods and services, royalties and social responsibility programs.

A strong coal industry benefits not only the wider Queensland economy but the surrounding local communities by bolstering regional economic development. This shared interest between the community and the coal industry ensures a strong and viable future by creating employment, investing in local infrastructure and minimising environmental impacts.

9 Queensland Resources Council website, www.qrc.org.au


In the last financial year, these programs provided funding for more than 60 not-for-profit organisations on the Darling Downs alone, to help support local and community sporting groups, schools, volunteer organisations and individuals.

South West System economic contribution at a glance (2011/2012 financial year)

Employees 1,500

Salaries $160 million

Spending on local goods and services $105 million

Royalties $62 million

The coal producers contribute royalties to the Queensland Government that are reinvested in regional infrastructure and programs. In the 2011/2012 financial year, the three coal producers from the Darling Downs region paid $62.3 million in royalties to the Queensland Government.

When all of these investments are combined, The New Hope Group, Peabody Energy, Yancoal, Aurizon and Queensland Rail contributed directly and indirectly more than $300 million to the gross regional product.

In addition, the supply chain supports local communities through significant community sponsorship and donation programs which provide regional centres with access to much needed funding for education, health, welfare, environmental and other initiatives.

Imag

es co

urte

sy o

f New

Hop

e Gr

oup

“When all of these investments are combined, The New Hope Group, Peabody Energy, Yancoal, Aurizon and Queensland Rail contributed directly and indirectly more than $300 million to the gross regional product.”


2.3 A collaborative approachThe SWS supply chain members are working collaboratively with government and communities and recognise that coal dust mitigation requires active participation by all sectors including: coal producers, coal train operators, rail network managers and coal terminals.

The commitment is to undertake a transparent process to identify effective actions. This includes:

§ to scientifically monitor dust associated with coal transport along the rail corridor

§ to implement a range of effective mitigation strategies including operational procedures, application of new techniques and training

§ to improve awareness and environmental outcomes, and ensure ongoing community support.

2.2 Opportunities for continued growth and investmentAll of the supply chain members have long term interests in continuing responsible operations in the region.

The New Hope Group is working with the State Government, landowners and the community on an approval process for the continuation of the New Acland coal mine north west of Oakey.

A revised version of the New Acland Coal Mine Stage 3 Project was announced in late 2012, and represents a number of compromises that address key community concerns associated with the previous expansion proposal for the mine.

The changes include a reduction in the total amount of land used for mining activities by more than half, moving the Jondaryan rail loading facility away from the town of Jondaryan to a remote site on the mining lease area, and leaving the Acland township in place.

There will be a significant capital investment of $700 million to undertake this project, and $95 million is expected to be spent on local products, services and suppliers in the first two years of this development.

In addition, other coal producers are looking at incremental expansions of their operations. Significant opportunities will be created with additional jobs, products and services being sourced locally.

Aurizon is working with its supply chain partners to provide the necessary rollingstock and rail operations to support this growth. This will include newer, more efficient, and quieter locomotives and coal wagons. The increased production at the mines will be matched by proposed capacity expansion at the Queensland Bulk Handling coal export terminal, which has a current capacity of 10 mtpa.

This Coal Dust Management Plan considers both the existing and proposed haulage on the South West System as well as relevant learnings from the Central Queensland Coal Dust Management Plan and other comparable studies.

“This Coal Dust Management Plan considers both the existing and proposed haulage on the SWS as well as relevant learnings from the central Queensland Coal Dust Management Plan and other comparable studies.”

Interested parties who have contributed to the development of the Coal Dust Management Plan include:

§ Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads

§ Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

§ Queensland Department of Science, Information, Technology, Innovation and the Arts

§ Port of Brisbane

§ Queensland Resources Council.

3Chapter 3Background facts – what we know about coal dust


All members of the South West System (SWS) supply chain must maintain a strong social licence to operate, and accordingly take air quality and community health issues very seriously. This is evidenced by the commitment to adopt a co-ordinated approach to dust mitigation strategies and the development of this Coal Dust Management Plan.

This chapter addresses:

§ the facts about coal dust on and around the rail corridor

§ the reality and perception regarding coal dust and health

§ the regulatory requirements associated with coal dust

§ best practice in coal dust management related to the corridor.

Specifically, this chapter looks at the evidence and impact of coal dust on the rail corridor and adjacent communities as a result of the movement of trains.

As a starting point, it is important to note that coal produced at the SWS mines is recognised on an international scale as a low Hardgrove Grindability Index (HGI)10 coal rated between 35 and 39.

The HGI is used in specifications for coal and other commodities to indicate the grinding property. The lower the rating the harder the coal is to grind, making it less likely to produce fines and dust.

As illustrated in Figure 3 this chapter will address coal dust concerns through examination of sources, identified transmission pathways and the potential impact on receptors.

This chapter will highlight the significant difference between the concentrations and impacts of coal dust in comparison to the concentrations and impacts of ambient dust generated by other sources throughout the community.

10 Australian Coal Association Research Program, www.acarp.com.au/Downloads/ACARPHardgroveGrindabilityIndex.pdf

Figu

re 3

: Sou

rce,

path

way

and

rece

ptor

for p

artic

ulat

e m

atte

r

Hom

es a

nd p

eopl

e Po

tent

ial r

ecep

tors

of P

M10

dus

t

Rail

corr

idor

Po

tent

ial s

ourc

e of

PM

10 d

ust

Law

n m

owin

g Po

tent

ial s

ourc

e of

PM

10 d

ust

Vehi

cle

exha

ust

Pote

ntia

l sou

rce

of P

M10

dus

t

Hom

e fir

e Po

tent

ial s

ourc

e of

PM

10 d

ust

3.1.1 Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report

The South West System supply chain members commissioned the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA) to conduct dust monitoring along the Western and Metropolitan rail lines, collectively referred to as the South West System between March and June 2013.

The report concluded that ambient particle concentrations ”complied with ambient air quality objectives at all times,” with monitoring taking place at six different locations along the rail corridor where coal is transported. A seventh site, where no coal trains operated, provided a point of comparison and consistently showed similar levels of overall dust.

Microscopic examination of deposited dust samples showed that ”mineral dust (soil or rock dust) was the major component of deposited dust at each monitoring site.

16

3.1 What is black dust?A common misconception is that coal trains are a significant emitter of coal dust into the urban air and that the black dust settling in and around private residences adjacent to the SWS rail corridor is predominantly coal dust.

There have been two significant dust monitoring exercises conducted on the SWS rail corridor over the last 12 months to determine the concentrations and nature of coal dust particulates associated with the transport of coal by rail. They are:

§ Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report

§ Tennyson Dust Monitoring Investigation (see Appendix B)

Coal Dust Management Plan | South West System | November 2013

”The amount of coal dust typically accounted for about 10 per cent of the total surface area in the deposited dust samples, with individual samples ranging from trace levels up to 20 per cent of the total surface coverage. At most locations another black-coloured particle, rubber dust, was found to make up on average about 10 per cent of the deposited dust surface coverage.”

It also showed that overall dust levels on the rail corridor were equivalent to dust levels at ambient monitoring sites elsewhere in Brisbane. The study concluded that the major influence on PM10 and PM2.5 (dust) concentrations at the rail corridor monitoring sites is not rail transport emissions but regional, urban particle emission sources.

Prior to and during the monitoring period there was frequent rainfall that will have reduced dust levels compared with an earlier study during a drier period.In both studies, the measured ambient dust levels complied with air quality standards.11

11 DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report


Figure 4: Map showing the location of the monitoring sites

New Acland

Wilkie Creek

Cameby Downs

Willowburn

Oakey

Dinmore Tennyson

ChelmerFair�eldCoorparoo



Port of BrisbanePort of Brisbane

Monitoring sitesThermal coal mineOperating export terminalWest Moreton corridor^Existing railCoal basin

Legend


Source: DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report

Figure 5: Average composition analysis of deposited dust samples pre-veneering and post-veneering

Source: DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report

Coal

Plant and insect�

Tyre rubber

Soil-rock dust

Coal

Other

Plant and insect�

Tyre rubber

Soil-rock dust

12%

2%

Pre-veneering Post-veneering

14%

9%

63%

9%

11%

70%

10%

18

Analysis of deposited dust samples at the Tennyson monitoring sites indicated that whilst coal dust can travel at least 300 metres outside the rail corridor the levels of coal dust deposited are relatively minimal compared to dust from other sources.12

This was confirmed by the Western – Metropolitan systems dust monitoring study. The final report indicated that mineral dust (soil or rock dust) was the major component of the deposited dust at each monitoring site. The amount of coal dust ranged from trace levels up to 20%.13

3.1.2 Tennyson Dust Monitoring Investigation, September to October 2012

As depicted in Figure 6, the Tennyson Dust Monitoring Investigation involved monitoring at three locations in Brisbane around the Tennyson community to identify dust deposition levels.

The results of the Tennyson Dust Monitoring Investigation conducted by the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA) on behalf of the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) in September and October 2012 indicated that coal dust made up only 10% to 20% of deposited dust samples collected at the Tennyson monitoring sites.12

Figure 6: Map showing the location of the monitoring sites at Tennyson, Queensland in relation to the rail corridor

Tennyson stationMyla TerraceVivian Street

Legend

RoadsRailwayMonitoring sites 0 0.125 0.25 0.5

km

Source: DSITIA Tennyson Dust Monitoring Investigation, September to October 2012

12 DSITIA Tennyson Dust Monitoring Investigation, September to October 201213 DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report


19

Figure 7: Relative proportions of the different particle types present in deposited dust samples at the Tennyson monitoring sites

0

20

40

60

80

100Insect debris

Other mineral dust, wood, paint

Black rubber dust

Coal

Plant debris (general)

Mineral dust (soil or rock dust)

Vivian StreetMyla TerraceTennysonrailway station

40 40

20

20 20

20

50

1010101010

1010

1010

Source: DSITIA Tennyson Dust Monitoring Investigation, September to October 2012

14 Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd, Review of Dust from Coal Trains in Queensland, report to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Inquiry: The impacts of health on air quality in Australia, prepared for Queensland Resources Council, March 2013

3.1.3 Desk top research on coal dust

In March 2013 Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd, an independent air quality monitoring company, undertook a desktop review of studies related to the effect of coal trains on air quality, focusing on the impacts of coal dust from trains during transit between mine and export terminal. The studies focused on Queensland, as the majority of literature and studies have been undertaken on coal transportation in Queensland. However, the literature review also considered other studies that have been undertaken across Australian and internationally.

“The levels of coal dust were found to be well below the air quality objectives for the protection of human health and amenity impacts.”

The Katestone report found that a review of studies that have conducted air quality monitoring in the corridor and around rail systems has shown that ”whilst coal dust and the influence of coal trains on dust levels has been detected, the levels of coal dust were found to be well below the air quality objectives for the protection of human health and amenity impacts.

”The studies showed that outside the rail corridor, defined as approximately 10 metres from the tracks, coal dust concentrations were much lower than within the corridor and were even further below air quality objectives for the protection of human health and amenity.” 14



Figure 8: Sources of black nuisance dust

Soot

Mould

Rubber

Coal

3.2 What is nuisance dust?Nuisance dust is visible dust that deposits on surfaces and can make them appear dirty. Nuisance effects can be caused by particles of any size, but are most commonly associated with those larger than 20 micrometres which rapidly settle out of the air close to the source.15

Nuisance dust and surface staining may impact on amenity and can be observed in most urban and many regional areas. Nuisance dust is often associated with common human activities such as fires, soil movement, lawn mowing, road traffic, industrial/light industrial, and natural sources such as insects, soot, mould, plant matter and dust storms.

Common sources of black nuisance dust include:

§ Soot is derived from many different sources including industrial boilers, household fireplaces and the controlled or uncontrolled burning of vegetation. It can be mistaken for coal dust as it is also largely made of carbon but can be easily distinguished under a microscope.

§ Mould can be spread via airborne spores, but is mostly a result of fungal growth across a damp shaded surface. The dark green, black discolouration and texture of mould can be easily confused with other nuisance dust when it appears along roof tiles or window sills.

§ Black rubber dust is generated through the gradual wearing of tyre treads on the road surface. A small proportion of rubber particles may then become airborne. A new 10 kg passenger tyre can be expected to lose about 1.5 kg of rubber as ‘dust’ during its useful life or approximately 0.03 g per km.16 Based on approximately 10,000 vehicles per day running through a busy street, the aggregate generation of rubber dust could be approximately half a tonne per annum.

§ Coal is formed by the natural decomposition of plant matter at elevated temperature and pressure in the earth’s crust. Coal dust is a by-product of the mining and transport of coal.

Figure 8 demonstrates some of the common causes of nuisance dust and their similarity in appearance to coal dust.

15 DSITIA Tennyson Dust Monitoring Investigation, September to October 201216 Commonwealth Department of Environment, A National Approach to Waste Tyres, Prepared for Environment Australia by Atech Group, 2001


Case study 1: House tank testingNew Hope GroupIn response to community concerns about coal dust from New Hope Group’s rail loadout facility and along the SWS rail corridor, the company undertook multiple house dust and tank water sludge samples at representative locations, repeated six months apart. Sample collection locations were agreed with landowners and were submitted to independent laboratories for compositional analysis.

In the test results, coal dust ranged from 0% to 30%. Other materials identified in samples were vegetative material (ranging 5%–10%), mineral material (10%–70%), insects (10%–25%) and others such as rubber, fibres, and soot (0%–20%). Some tank water quality was compromised, such as through ecoli, but not by coal dust. The report concluded ‘visually the coal dust may appear as a higher percentage than actually present (due to the black colour)’.

Source: SKM Report, prepared for New Hope Group, Jondaryan water quality and depositional dust sampling 4 May 2012

Case study 2: Rooftop testingQueensland RailOn 26 June 2008, Queensland Rail responded to a residence in Laidley, following complaints about black coal dust settling on the roof a private home located adjacent to the South West System rail line.

A sample of the dust was taken and sent to Applied Materials Characterisation Performance (AMCP) for characterisation testing. The analysis revealed that what was originally thought to be coal dust was in fact a mix of soil minerals and biological debris. The main constituents of the sample tested were fungal spores, insect and plant debris, pollen, algae and soil minerals. Coal dust was found to be present at less than 1% of the total sample volume.

Source: AMCP Laboratory Report, Characterisation of domestic dust, Emu Place, Laidley – prepared for Queensland Rail, 2008

Various analyses of dust samples from residences along the rail corridor support the fact that black dust is often mistaken as coal, when it is actually from another source.


The Tennyson Dust Monitoring Investigation, the AMCP characterisation testing at Laidley and the independent testing of tanks and sludge samples provide evidence that nuisance dust is deposited on an ongoing basis in urban areas. However, there is a misconception that black dust observed on residential properties near rail corridors is predominantly coal dust.

This was confirmed by the Western – Metropolitan dust monitoring study. The final report indicated that mineral dust (soil or rock dust) was the major component of the deposited dust at each monitoring site. The amount of coal dust ranged from trace levels up to 20% averaging 10% across all sites.18

3.3 What is Particulate Matter and why is its size important?Scientists and regulators refer to dust as Particulate Matter (PM) to describe the particles that exist in the air we breathe. In general terms, the smaller the PM, the more relevant it is to health impacts.

Larger, visible dust is commonly referred to as nuisance dust due to its potential impact on amenity. In contrast, there are smaller particles of dust that can be suspended in the air, which are invisible to the eye and can be inhaled. It’s important to understand the difference between nuisance dust and fine PM.

17 DSITIA Tennyson Dust Monitoring Investigation, September to October 201218 DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report

PM exists naturally in the atmosphere, for example as sea-salt spray and pollens. PM comes from natural sources such as soil erosion or bush fires, and from human activities such as mining, wood burning, motor vehicles and industrial processes.

3.3.1 Sizes of PM

The measurement of PM and air quality testing is a complex science.

PM is classified according to its size, referred to as its ‘aerodynamic diameter.’ The diameter of a particle is measured and reported in micrometres (sometimes called microns). A micrometre is one-millionth of a metre and its symbol is µm.

In general, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter greater than 10 micrometres (µm) tends to be associated with amenity impacts, while particulate matter less than 10 µm (PM10) is associated with health impacts.

Most amenity impacts relate to the amount of particulate matter settling out on surfaces, hence guidelines for protection of amenity are expressed as the rate of deposition of particulate matter per unit surface area, usually measured in grams of dust that accumulates per square metre (g/m2) over a 1 month period.

As health impacts primarily relate to the concentration of suspended particulate matter that is breathed in, air quality standards to protect human health are expressed as a concentration, i.e. the mass of particulate matter that is suspended per unit volume of air, usually measured in micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3).

Volumetric air sampling equipment is used to produce an accurate measurement of suspended particulate matter concentrations within different sizes coming from all particle sources.

“Mineral dust (soil or rock dust) is the major component of deposited dust at all monitoring sites, representing up to 80% of the dust.”18


For environmental and health purposes, particles are usually described by their size as outlined in Figure 10.

Figure 9: Particle sizes and descriptions

Particle size

TSP Total Suspended Particulate matter (TSP) refers to the total of all particles suspended in the air. Even the largest of these particles is barely the width of a human hair.

’larger than’ PM10 A subset of TSP, and refers to all particles of size 10µm in diameter and greater.

PM10 Also a subset of TSP, and includes all particles smaller than 10µm in diameter (smaller than 1/7th of a hair width). Particles in the size range 2.5µm to 10µm in diameter are referred to as coarse particles (PM2.5 –10).

PM2.5 A subset of both PM10 and TSP categories and refers to all particles less than 2.5µm in diameter. PM2.5 is referred to as fine particles and is mainly produced from combustion processes such as vehicle exhaust.

Source: NSW Government, Department of Health, Fact Sheet – Mine Dust and You, 2013 19

19 NSW Government, Department of Health, Fact Sheet – Mine Dust and You, 2013

As highlighted in Figure 10, both PM2.5 and PM10 are invisible to the naked eye and are microscopic when compared with the size of a single thread of human hair or a grain of sand.

Figure 10: Sizes of Particulate Matter smaller than PM2.5 and PM10 relative to the average width of a human hair.


3.3.2 Why distinguish between two invisible particulates?

Amenity impacts from dust are usually associated with coarse particles and particles larger than PM10.

Generally it is believed that fine particles below PM2.5 in diameter may be of greater health concern than larger particles as they can reach the air sacs deep in the lungs. However, coarse particles (PM2.5–10) could also be associated with adverse health effects.20

PM from combustion sources, such as motor vehicles and wild fires consists of fine PM (PM2.5), whereas the majority of dust generated from mechanical processes, such as earthworks and mining (including coal dust from rail transit) consists predominantly of coarse PM (PM10) or greater.21

20 NSW Government, Department of Health, Fact Sheet – Mine Dust and You, 201321 Guideline on Speciated Particulate Monitoring, Judith Chow and John Watson, Desert Research Institute, prepared for US EPA, August 199822 DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report

Figure 11: Size distribution of several particulate emission sources

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

ent o

f TSP

Road andsoil dust

52.3%(<10µm)

10.7%(<2.5µm)4.5%(<1µm)

Constructiondust

34.9%(<10µm)

5.8%(<2.5µm)4.6%(<1µm)

Agriculturalburning

95.8%(<10µm)82.7%(<2.5µm)

81.6%(<1µm)

Residentialwood

combustion

95.8%(<10µm)93.1%(<2.5µm)

92.4%(<1µm)

Diesel truckexhaust

96.2%(<10µm)92.3%(<2.5µm)

91.8%(<1µm)

Crude oilcombustion

99.2%(<10µm)97.4%(<2.5µm)

87.4%(<1µm)

<1µm 1µm–2.5µm 2.5µm–10µm >10µm

Source: Guideline on Speciated Particulate Monitoring, Judith Chow and John Watson, Desert Research Institute, prepared for US EPA, August 1998 .21

3.3.3 What are the primary sources of PM10 and PM2.5?

The Western – Metropolitan systems dust study showed a close comparison between the PM10 levels measured at the Metropolitan rail system rail corridor monitoring sites and those measured at DSITIA ambient monitoring network sites in Brisbane during the monitoring period. This indicates that regional urban PM sources are a significant contributor to PM10 levels measured along the rail corridor. It also indicated that the majority of dust particle sizes associated with rail transport would be expected to be larger than PM10. These coarser particles deposit quickly and in relatively close proximity to the point of emission.22

Figures 11 and 12 compare quantities of PM10 and PM2.5 from a range of sources. They confirm that combustion sources, such as a fire or motor vehicle engines, produce much higher concentrations of the small particles than mechanical processes such as construction, mining and the movement of vehicles, including trains.21


The Queensland EPP Air quality objectives are to be progressively achieved as part of attaining the purpose of the policy over the long term.

3.4.2 Federal

The National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure 1998 – NEPM Air – establishes national standards for key air pollutants including particulates. The standards are binding on each level of Government, and hence the Queensland legislative framework prescribes the NEPM Air standards as air quality objectives under the EPP Air policy.

Figure 14 presents a summary of the EPP Air goals relating to particulates at both a State and Federal level, and shows the objectives are in parallel.

Diesel exhaust More than 96%. PM10 and smaller.

Construction dust Less than 35%. PM10 and smaller.

Figure 12: PM10 emission sources

Home fire More than 95%. PM10 and smaller.

Agriculture burning More than 95%. PM10 and smaller.

3.4 Government regulation of coal dustThere is an extensive regulatory framework that regulates the management of air quality in Queensland and Australia, and provides for the management of PM more broadly. A summary of these air quality objectives is presented below. These objectives relate to dust in general and are not specific to coal dust, which the previous sections have shown is a small proportion of overall dust.

3.4.1 Queensland

The Environmental Protection (Air) Policy (EPP) 2008 – established under the Environment Protection Act 1994 – provides air quality objectives for enhancing or protecting environmental values. It provides objectives for health and wellbeing for PM2.5, PM10 and Total Suspended Particles (TSP).

Source: Guideline on Speciated Particulate Monitoring, Judith Chow and John Watson, Desert Research Institute, prepared for US EPA, August 1998 .21


Figure 13: EPP Air Quality – objectives for particulates

Indicator Environmental value

Queensland air quality objectives

µg/m3 at 0˚C

Federal air quality objectives

µg/m3 at 0˚CPeriod

PM2.5 Health and wellbeing25 25* 24 hours

8 8 Annual

PM10 Health and wellbeing 50 50 24 hours**

*The Federal NEPM (Air) is an advisory reporting standard. The goal is to gather sufficient data nationally to facilitate a review of the standard in time. **The objective is allowed to be exceeded on up to 5 days each year.

It should be noted that there are no nuisance (deposition) thresholds in existence for dust in Australia. There are thresholds established in New Zealand, which have been used as a guide in Australia for dust deposition.23

3.4.3 How does the SWS supply chain compare against State and Federal air quality standards?

As can be seen in Figures 14 and 15, all PM10 and PM2.5 measurements taken during both the Western – Metropolitan and Tennyson studies showed levels well below the Federal and State air quality objectives. There is no study to date that has shown any evidence of concentrations in excess of any regulatory threshold on the SWS.

Figure 14: Maximum 24-hour PM10 concentrations

0

10

20

40

50

30

70

60

Max

imum

PM

10 c

once

ntra

tion

(µg/

m3 )

EPP Air objective

Pre-veneering timeframePost-veneering timeframe

Pre-veneering timeframe Post-veneering timeframe


WynnumSouthBrisbane

WoolloongabbaRockleaChelmer(East)

Coorparoo(North)

Fairfield(East)

Dinmore(South)

Oakey(North)

Rail corridor backgroundmonitoring site(no coal trains)

Brisbaneambient air monitoring

network sites

Rail corridormonitoring sites

(coal trains)

Note: This chart shows PM10 concentrations from all sources, not just coal transport. Source: DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report

23 New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of Dust Emissions, 2001


The key points are:

§ Coal dust tends to be found in particulate sizes above PM10 and therefore is not likely to be able to penetrate the human lungs.

§ Coal dust has been specifically linked to only one health issue, known as Coal Worker’s Pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung disease. This arises from continuous and direct exposure to coal dust, literally at the coal face in an underground mine, over long periods of time.25

§ Effective health and safety technology and consistent enforcement of regulations has led to the elimination of this disease in the Australian mining industry to the point that the last occurrence in Queensland and New South Wales was more than 20 years ago.25

§ All PM10 and PM2.5 measurements taken during the SWS air quality monitoring studies were well below any applicable health thresholds.26

The Queensland Department of Health has concluded that, for people living along the rail corridor, the dust concentrations measured during the investigation are unlikely to result in any additional adverse health effects.26

Figure 15: Average PM2.5 concentrations

0

3

6

12

9

Aver

age

PM2.

5con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3 )

EPP Air objective

WynnumSouthBrisbane

WoolloongabbaRockleaChelmer(East)

Coorparoo(North)

Fairfield(East)

Dinmore(South)

Oakey(North)

Rail corridor backgroundmonitoring site(no coal trains)

Brisbaneambient air monitoring

network sites

Rail corridormonitoring sites

(coal trains)


Pre-veneering timeframe Post-veneering timeframe


The standards mentioned above relate to ambient particulate concentrations. The measurements taken during the Tennyson and Western – Metropolitan studies were in close proximity to the source inside the rail corridor. Therefore it can be concluded that these levels would be the highest measures in terms of exposure levels resulting from PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from rail transport. Adjacent residences are likely to experience levels lower than those measured and further below any applicable health thresholds from this source.

3.5 What are the facts concerning coal dust and health?

3.5.1 Does coal dust affect health or amenity along the rail corridor?

As previously mentioned, in March 2013 a Katestone review of air quality monitoring studies in rail corridors and around rail systems has shown that whilst coal dust and the influence of coal trains on dust levels has been detected, the levels of coal dust were found to be well below the air quality objectives for the protection of human health and amenity impacts.24

Note: This chart shows PM2.5 concentrations from all sources, not just coal transport. To verify full compliance, monitoring over a 12-month period is required. This will be done on the SWS through a continuous 12-month monitoring program. Source: DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report


25 Coal Services, Coal Service and NSW Coal Mining Industry Continue to protect mine workers from ‘black lung’ disease, 22 August 201226 DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report


The current exposure limit for workers at mines today in Queensland for respirable coal dust is 3000 µg/m3 over any 8 hour period.27

The total dust levels measured within the corridor immediately after a passing coal train are less than 1% of the exposure limit for workers at mines. Using occupational impacts as a benchmark (with the community expected to achieve significantly lower impacts) the impacts of a passing train are negligible.

The four-month-long Western – Metropolitan dust study showed that train movements cause little change to 10-minute average overall dust levels.28

27 Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2001 – Queensland Government28 DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring

Program, Final Report


30 DSITIA Tennyson Dust Monitoring Investigation, September to October 2012

3.5.2 What studies have been conducted outside the rail corridor?

Studies referenced in the Katestone report showed that outside the rail corridor, defined as approximately 10 metres from the tracks, coal dust concentrations were much lower than within the corridor and were well within air quality objectives for the protection of human health and amenity.” 29

Analysis of deposited dust samples at the Tennyson monitoring sites indicated that whilst coal dust can travel at least 300 metres outside the rail corridor the levels of coal dust deposited are relatively minimal compared to dust from other sources.30

Health and coal dust

Case study 3Lyttelton, New ZealandA study published in 2006 related to the community of Lyttelton in New Zealand considered health impacts in the contest of possible doubling of coal transport, unloading, stockpiling and handling activities, at a mine site.

The study found that respiratory health of children living close to mine sites was very similar to that of children in communities that were distant from such sites.

Source: Health Effects on Coal Dust in a Non-Occupational Context: Literature Review (2006)

Case study 4The University of Newcastle-upon-TyneThe University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne’s Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, published a study in December 1999 that looked into possible links between opencast coal mining and respiratory health. The key findings showed that little evidence was found for associations between living near an opencast site and an increased prevalence of respiratory illnesses, asthma severity, and the prevalence and incidence of daily symptoms.

Source: Do Particulates from Opencast Coal Mining Impair Children’s Respiratory Health?, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, December 1999.


3.6.2 Can coal dust levels be reduced even further?

The SWS supply chain members are committed to responding to community concerns.

All of the evidence indicates that there are no significant health or amenity issues associated with coal dust on the SWS. Extensive research in Queensland and overseas has identified the practices listed in Chapter 4 as the most effective in addressing coal dust. They are based on the analysis that 80% of coal dust comes from the tops of wagons as shown in Figure 16.

3.6 What are the sources of coal dust on the rail corridor? Six months of dust monitoring on the South West System have been completed through the Tennyson and Western – Metropolitan dust studies. At no time in those six months did total dust levels exceed air quality standards.

3.6.1 Why are coal dust levels so low?

The South West System coal supply chain is the smallest in Australia and because of the limited quantity of coal transported (see chart on page 9), there will be lower levels of coal dust. The speed of trains is also slower than other supply chains as they transit the metropolitan area, reducing the potential for dust to lift off the top of coal loads.

Almost all of the coal transported on the SWS is washed. Coal washing removes the majority of fines that might exist and adds moisture content to the coal which further reduces dust. This contributes to achieving optimum moisture content for managing dust and has led to low levels of dust on the rail corridor.

A small proportion of the coal from the system is able to be mined clean without washing, but is blended with a larger amount of washed product, and loaded onto trains at a moisture and size specification comparable to other coals in the corridor.

Testing the dustiness of coals, called Dust Extinction Moisture (DEM), may allow optimisation of moisture to limit dust emission.31

Moisture levels throughout the body of coal in a wagon while in transit have a minor influence on coal dust generation. While the surface moisture level is more relevant, the application of a sprayed veneer cover has been shown to be most effective.32

In addition, studies have shown that dust levels on the rail corridor are comparable with dust levels at locations throughout Brisbane. The impact of motor vehicles, industrial boilers, solid fuel heaters and climate, including drought, rain, bush fires and dust storms all are more significant sources of dust than coal. Coal consistently represented a small proportion of deposited dust in the rail corridor.33

31 AS 4156.6 Coal Preparation. Determination of dust/moisture relationship for coal.32 Coal Dust Management Plan, Feb 2010, QR Network, Section 5.133 DSITIA Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report

Figure 16: Proportion of coal dust emitted from the wagon surface, door leakage, spilled coal in the corridor, trapped coal and residual coal in unloaded wagons

Residual coal in unloaded wagons

Spilled coal in corridor

Door leakage

Trapped coal

Wagon surface

1%9%

6%

4%

80%

Source: Connell Hatch, Final Report, Environmental Evaluation of Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions from coal trains Goonyella, Blackwater and Moura Coal Rail Systems for QR Limited, March 2008

4Chapter 4Mitigation and continuous improvements by stakeholders


They have committed to fund the dust monitoring program on the rail corridor being undertaken by the Department of Science Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts to continuously measure overall dust levels, how much of that dust is coal and the impact of coal dust management practices including veneering on the coal dust levels. This data will be publicly available.

The supply chain companies have their own environmental policies, and in some cases, separate dust management plans, which can be accessed on their company websites, listed on page 41.

4.1.1 Moisture content management

The supply of coal during the loading process with an appropriate moisture content is shown to minimise dust and make all other mitigation methods more effective. Optimum moisture levels are achieved through the washing and blending processes that are designed to meet commercial specifications and result in low levels of dust.

4.1.2 Improved loading practices

Improved loading practices can reduce coal deposits on coal wagon ledges and wheel surfaces that can spill during transport. It also supports the ability to create a consistent surface of coal in each wagon.

4.1.3 Load profiling of coal surface

The profile of the loaded coal wagon refers to the shape of the exposed surface of coal above the sill of the wagon. A flat surface with gradually sloping sides is referred to as a ‘garden bed’ or ’bread loaf’ profile. An irregularly shaped load has a greater erodible surface area and is subject to greater air speeds than the ‘garden bed’ shape. Wind tunnel modelling has shown that the three mound case (representing the irregularly shaped load) exhibits slightly higher velocities and turbulence intensities than the ‘garden bed’ configuration.34

The South West System (SWS) supply chain members are committed to a whole-of-supply chain approach to ensure the proactive identification and effective management and mitigation of potential coal dust at every stage of operations. This is evidenced through a number of activities that are currently being undertaken, as outlined below.Supply chain operators meet strict environmental conditions and proactively initiate coal dust management processes to ensure the health and safety of employees, neighbours, visitors and the wider community.

Chapter 3 has shown that coal dust on the corridor is a small proportion of the total dust deposited, but supply chain members are committed to responding to community concerns and are implementing reasonable and effective mitigation practices.

4.1 Coal dust management and mitigation activitiesThe SWS supply chain members recognise the need to effectively manage coal dust. They have applied the learnings obtained from both Australian and international coal supply chains to define the coal dust mitigation activities that are being and will be applied on the supply chain by the coal producers, rail and track operators and the coal terminal manager.

This chapter outlines the specific actions being implemented across the SWS supply chain.

All supply chain members will undertake training with their staff, including managers, operational staff and machine operators, in the techniques to minimise coal dust outlined in this chapter.

34 Connell Hatch, Final Report, Environmental Evaluation of Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions from coal trains Goonyella, Blackwater and Moura Coal Rail Systems for QR Limited, March 2008


4.2 Coal producers management and mitigation activitiesCoal from the West Moreton and Surat basins is internationally recognised as a low Hardgrove Grindability Index (HGI) coal, which is a hard coal containing low levels of fines and therefore low levels of dust. This is one of several reasons the level of coal dust on the South West System relative to other supply chains in Australia and internationally, is significantly lower.

All coal producers on the SWS are applying the following practices which have previously been shown to be best practice in managing coal dust:

§ wash the majority of their coal (see details as follows) prior to loading

§ monitor coal at the load out aiming to achieve the optimum moisture content to limit dust generation during rail transport and achieve market qualities.

§ monitor loading procedures to minimise spilled coal

§ monitor wagons to ensure that the doors are firmly closed before the train departs the loading station

§ incorporate profiling of the loaded coal to minimise potential for dust lift-off

§ have already or will install veneering stations at the mine site to spray loaded coal wagons.

35 BNSF Railway, http://www.bnsf.com/customers/what-can-i-ship/coal/coal-dust.html. viewed June 2013

One of the major US rail operators has found that coal dust releases can be partially reduced by loading coal wagons with a modified loading chute that produces a rounded contour of the coal that eliminates irregular surfaces that can promote the loss of coal dust through shifting of coal while in transit.35 Flat profiling to minimise irregular surfaces is being adopted at all loading facilities in the SWS.

4.1.4 Coal surface veneering

Veneering is the application of a biodegradable binding agent onto the surface of the loaded coal. The veneer forms a crust over the coal load which, along with the use of a modified loading chute, has been shown to reduce coal dust lift-off from the tops of wagons by up to 85% in central Queensland.35


Trains from its New Acland mine are coated with biodegradable veneering solution which is a proven method of reducing the amount of dust from wagons.

The solution dries to form a flexible ‘crust’ over the coal and significantly reduces dust from being released from the wagons.

The new veneering station will move from near the town of Jondaryan, where the rail loading facility is currently located, to a remote new site on the mining lease as part of the mine’s future planning.

All New Acland and Jeebropilly coal is washed, which results in higher levels of total moisture which further reduces any tendency for dust.

The company is currently undertaking the following measures:

§ Continuing to monitor coal at the load out aiming to achieve the optimum moisture content to limit dust generation during rail transport and achieve market qualities

§ Implementing load profiling to flatten the coal load in the wagons to reduce wind exposure and dust generation

§ Applying a veneer of a biodegradable binding agent to the top of loaded coal wagons, creating a coating over the coal that significantly reduces dust

§ Utilising sill sweeping technology to remove spilled coal from wagon edges prior to transportation

§ Continuing routine cleaning of coal spillage between and around rails at the load out

§ Providing support for a dust monitoring program on the rail corridor to confirm the effectiveness of the veneering process

4.2.1 New Hope Group

The New Hope Group operates an Environmental Management System (EMS) that is consistent with AS/NZS ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems and which is used to manage air quality and other significant environmental matters internally. The EMS, first developed in 2009, is being revised during 2013 as part of its continuous improvement cycle.

The New Hope Group currently produces approximately 5.8 mtpa of coal, from two thermal mines in southern Queensland, representing about 65% of the coal transported on the SWS. It operates the New Acland coal mine north west of Oakey on the Darling Downs with its rail loading facility currently located near the town of Jondaryan. It also operates the smaller Jeebropilly coal mine, which is located near Amberley, with its rail loading facility at Ebenezer.

New Hope continuously monitors the air quality conditions at its rail loading facilities. It operates according to strict environmental requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and specifically meets all the Environmental Authority (EA) and Development Approval (DA) conditions set by the Queensland Government.

New Hope goes beyond requirements in the best interests of its neighbours, communities and the wider region.

Early in 2013, the New Hope group became the first company transporting coal along the South West System to begin the process of profiling and veneering coal wagons.


4.2.2 Peabody Energy

Peabody Energy operates the Wilkie Creek mine, located in Macalister. Wilkie Creek plans the production of up to 2.3 million tonnes of saleable thermal coal each year.

The thermal coal produced from Peabody Energy’s mine is monitored for its moisture content, and generally has a 12% moisture content. Overhead loading and garden bed profiling of coal wagons is a current operational practice that minimises coal dust lift off.

The coal from Peabody Energy mines in the region has a Hardgrove Grindability Index (HGI) rating of 35 – 45, among the hardest coals to grind, making it less likely to produce small particles or ”fines” that might create dust.

Approximately 90% of the coal produced at Wilkie Creek mine is washed, and the remaining 10% is blended with washed coal to further reduce the potential for fines and dust.


§ Continuing to monitor coal at the load out aiming to achieve the optimum moisture content to limit dust generation during rail transport and achieve market qualities

§ Implementing load profiling to flatten the coal load in the wagons to reduce wind exposure and dust generation



§ Continuing to monitor wagon sills during loading processes to prevent coal spillage onto wagon edges prior to transportation

By end of December 2013

§ Installing a veneering station and applying a veneer of a biodegradable binding agent to the top of loaded coal wagons, creating a coating over the coal that significantly reduces dust


§ Implementing loading practices to flatten the coal load in the wagons to reduce wind exposure and dust generation



§ Continuing to monitor wagon sills during loading processes to prevent coal spillage onto wagon edges prior to transportation

By end of December 2013

§ Installing a veneering station and applying a veneer of a biodegradable binding agent to the top of loaded coal wagons, creating a coating over the coal that significantly reduces dust

4.2.3 Yancoal

Yancoal’s Cameby Downs Mine is located at Columboola and produced 1.4 million tonnes of saleable thermal coal in 2012. Coal is loaded directly from the product stockpiles via a conveyor to a train load out bin on the rail loop located just off the main line to Brisbane.

The coal from the Yancoal mines in the region has a Hardgrove Grindability Index (HGI) rating of 36–39, among the hardest coals to grind, making it less likely to produce small particles or ”fine” that might create dust. Approximately 60% of the coal produced at the Cameby Downs mine is washed, with the remainder blended to the specific moisture content required which further reduces the potential for fines and dust.


§ Continuing to monitor coal at the load out aiming to achieve its optimum moisture content to limit dust generation during rail transport and achieve market qualities


§ Work with supply chain members to assist in the coordination and/or facilitation of community consultation and complaint management activities.

§ Facilitate ongoing coal dust monitoring activities on the SWS and assist in the distribution/communication of data as required.

4.4 Rail operator mitigation activitiesAurizon is the sole coal train operator providing coal haulage services on the corridor.

Aurizon is committed to working with the supply chain members to address train-related coal dust management issues. This is being achieved through a number of strategies, as outlined below.

Aurizon operated an average of 13 coal trains a day in 2012 on the SWS, delivering coal from the West Moreton and Surat Basins to the Port of Brisbane. These operations are managed in a consistent manner with all of the coal producers, with a focus on rail operations and driver behaviours that seek to minimise coal dust along the corridor.


§ Adherence by locomotive drivers to the train speeds of 60 kph, which has been shown through extensive wind-tunnel testing to be a speed that minimises the escaping dust from the top of wagons.36

§ Manage train movements to ensure that profiling and veneering of loaded wagons is effectively undertaken to maximise air quality in transit.

§ Employ detectors near the mines and port to notify locomotive drivers immediately if a door opens in a wagon. Drivers then stop the train in order to prevent spillage of coal from the bottom of the wagons.

§ Monitor individual wagon weights to prevent overloading, which keeps the coal levels at a height that is shown to minimise dust lift off.

§ Continue to focus on locomotive driver training, including prevention of hard braking, bunching and vibration of wagons to reduce coal shifting and spillage.

4.3 Rail network management and mitigation activitiesQueensland Rail is the network manager providing and maintaining rail infrastructure on the SWS which is utilised by both freight and passenger services. Queensland Rail grants and manages third party rail operator access to the network via commercial agreements.

Queensland Rail is committed to working with stakeholders to identify and manage impacts associated with activities being undertaken on its network.

In an effort to reduce potential impacts associated with potential coal dust generation during coal transport, Queensland Rail will continue to:

§ Develop, implement and review commercial access agreements that regulate the behaviour of third party operators on Queensland Rail’s network.

§ Monitor and enforce conditions governing network use by third party operators to ensure our actions align with the relevant Queensland Government policies and commitments.



4.5 Coal Terminal Manager at Port of Brisbane mitigation activitiesQueensland Bulk Handling is the coal terminal manager at the Port of Brisbane, and is committed to working with supply chain members to reduce coal dust from coal trains, and optimise cleaner coal transport practices, as evidenced by the activities listed below.

Queensland Bulk Handling operates at approximately 9 mtpa with a capacity of 10 mtpa in 2012, and growth plans aimed at 15 mtpa, dependent upon market conditions. In 2010, Queensland Bulk Handling completed stage one and stage two of its expansion plans including associated upgrades to the ship loader and out-load sampler, totalling $100 million.

§ Continuing to monitor coal as it arrives at the coal terminal to verify it is close to its optimum moisture content to limit dust generation during unloading processes and achieve market qualities

§ Covered in-load dump stations and enclosed conveyors transport coal to stockpiles and are routinely monitored to minimise dust.

§ Coal unloading practices are videoed in order to record the levels of residual coal remaining in wagons, which are reported to Aurizon for agreed action. If required, loading will cease until the operator can identify and stop the cause.

§ A high hopper alarm identifies possible coal overflows from in-load hoppers in order to avoid coal being transferred into the adjacent ballast or build up on the wagon wheels and axles.

§ Water fogging sprays at the rail receival hoppers reduce coal dust as coal is transferred to stockpiles

§ Sills of wagons are monitored prior to return journey back to the mine to prevent coal spillage

§ Providing support for further dust deposition sampling in communities near the Port of Brisbane, dust monitoring on the rail corridor and ongoing monitoring at the terminal.

4.6 Continuous improvement in coal dust managementThe SWS supply chain has made a commitment to continuous improvement and a program of ongoing dust monitoring for a further 12 months to validate the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Developing technologies and processes are being considered for further dust mitigation, if required.

These projects require further research in order to assess their cost and effectiveness and will be undertaken in the context of the ongoing air quality monitoring results. They are:

§ Further inspection processes for identifying coal on wagon sills after loading.

§ The use of water, air or vibration to remove the residual coal trapped on external surfaces.

§ With increased tonnages, investigate wagon designs to reduce trapped coal on external surfaces and new locomotives that are more efficient, quieter, and have more precision at low speeds while loading.

§ Investigate new designs for load out infrastructure.

§ Research coal washing and handling to reduce fine particles

§ Test veneers and application rates that enable surface moisture to approximate DEM and to manage fine particles

The companies understand that environmental management is a dynamic process that must keep pace with increasing environmental standards and higher community expectations for protection of the environment.

Thorough evaluation of all monitoring data is used to adjust, change or improve coal dust mitigation practices and for further evaluation.

Chapter 5Stakeholder engagement

5


Each member of the supply chain is a responsible environment manager, committed to working in partnership with neighbours and local communities to achieve the best outcomes for those in the regions surrounding its operations.

Figure 17 highlights the local communities situated along the SWS rail corridor. The supply chain members are committed to engagement with these communities, Local Government and State Government to openly share facts and information to help increase their understanding of coal dust monitoring and mitigation activities.

The members of the South West System (SWS) supply chain, collectively and individually, have committed to a transparent process of sharing information about the effective management of coal dust along the rail corridor.The information provided to stakeholders is evidence-based, and references scientifically-supported data and other appropriate research.

Currently, each member of the supply chain offers a number of avenues for communities and stakeholders to raise issues and answer queries or concerns about their operations in the region. Figure 18 outlines these contact details.

Figure 17: Communities along the South West System rail corridor

Toowoomba

SouthernDowns

WesternDowns

South BurnettGympie

SunshineCoast

MoretonBay

GoldCoast

Logan and Redlands

Ipswichand WestMoreton

North Burnett

Brisbane

Clarence-Moreton Basin

Maryborough Basin

Cameby Downs(Columboola)

New Oakleigh

Wandoan Group

New Acland (Jondaryan)

Wilkie Creek (Macalister)Kogan Creek

Meandu

Jeebropilly

Commodore

Toowoomba

Wandoan

Dalby

ChinchillaKingaroyMiles

RedbankBrisbane

Ipswich

Millmerran

Warwick


Port of Brisbane

Rolling stock depotTrain crew depotThermal coal mineTowns/citiesDomestic terminalOperating export terminalWest Moreton corridor^Existing railCoal basin

Swanbank Power Station (Sw PS)

Legend



Figure 18: Communication channels for stakeholder queries

Company Community Hotline Community email Website

Aurizon 13 23 32 [email protected] www.aurizon.com.au

New Hope Group 1800 882 142 [email protected] www.newhopegroup.com.au

Peabody Energy 07 4663 5555 [email protected] www.peabodyenergy.com

Queensland Bulk Handling 07 3107 4900 [email protected] www.qbh.com.au

Queensland Rail 07 3072 0600 [email protected] www.queenslandrail.com.au

Queensland Resources Council

07 3795 9560 [email protected] www.qrc.org.au

Yancoal 02 8583 5300 [email protected] www.yancoal.com.au

In addition there are a number of Community Reference Groups and stakeholder engagement activities through which the supply chain members will continue to provide information to stakeholders.

Reference groups § New Acland Community Reference Group

§ New Oakleigh Community Consultation meetings

§ Oakey Community Information Centre

§ Oakey Community Liaison Officer

§ Cameby Downs Community Reference Group – servicing Chinchilla and Miles

Engagement activities § ongoing direct briefings with relevant Local Councils, State Government MPs and Ministers and

Federal Government MPs

§ media releases

§ site visits for land owners and other engagement activities

§ existing company quarterly newsletters

§ fact sheets.

42 Coal Dust Management Plan | South West System | November 2013 42 Coal Dust Management Plan | South West System | November 2013

“The monitoring results showed that ambient particle concentrations complied with ambient air quality objectives at all rail corridor monitoring sites during both the pre- and post-veneering monitoring periods.”Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report

Chapter 6Air quality monitoring

6


The independent Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Sciences branch of the Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA) undertook air quality monitoring for the period March to June 2013.Monitoring was undertaken at the following locations along the rail corridor:

§ Coorparoo

§ Fairfield

§ Tennyson

§ Dinmore

§ Toowoomba

§ Oakey

§ Chelmer – selected as a control site as coal freight trains do not pass by this location.

The monitoring sites were immediately adjacent to the rail corridor.

The testing was conducted in two stages. Stage One included two months of testing to establish a baseline of dust data on the rail corridor. Stage Two monitored dust levels after the New Hope Group began to apply a coating to all loaded coal wagons, which has been shown to significantly reduce coal dust. The following are the major points of the study:

Air quality and impact on health and amenity

These results include all sources of dust, of which coal is a small proportion.

§ The monitoring results showed that ambient particle concentrations (dust) levels complied with air quality objectives at all rail corridor monitoring sites throughout the four months of monitoring

§ Ambient PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations did not exceed the Queensland Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 (EPP Air) 24-hour average air quality objectives of 50 ug/m3 and 25 ug/m3 respectively on any day during the monitoring period. The highest average PM2.5 concentration measured was less than the EPP Air annual objective value of 8 ug/m3

§ The PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations measured at the monitoring sites located on the rail system were comparable to those measured at sites elsewhere in Brisbane, during the monitoring period

§ Considerable variation was found among the relationship between 24-hour average PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations and the frequency of winds blowing from the direction of the rail corridor across the monitoring sites. This is consistent with other sources of PM10 and PM2.5 particles, such as motor vehicle emissions, being a greater influence on PM10 and PM2.5 levels measured at the rail corridor monitoring sites than rail emissions

Deposited dust samples – quantity of coal dust compared with other sources of dust

§ Mineral dust (soil or rock dust) was the major component of the deposited dust at each monitoring site. Coal was consistently detected in deposited samples, but was only detected at trace levels at Chelmer, a part of the system not used by coal trains.

§ Coal particles typically accounted for about 10 per cent of the total surface area in the deposited dust samples, with the amount present in individual samples ranging from trace levels up to 20 per cent of the total surface coverage. At most locations another black-coloured particle, rubber dust, was found to make up on average about 10 per cent of the deposited dust surface coverage.

§ A general trend towards decreased dust deposition rates and lower level of coal dust in deposited dust samples was observed at most monitoring sites following the implementation of veneering at the New Hope mine. However, further monitoring will be conducted over a 12-month period to track this trend.

Train movements and their impact on total dust levels

§ During the monitoring period, the passage of trains was found to result in little change in 10-minute average PM10 and PM2.5 at Tennyson, Fairfield and Coorparoo monitoring sites. There was also little difference seen in the particle level variations associated with the passage of different train types past the monitoring sites.


6.1 Western – Metropolitan Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report executive summaryIn March 2013 the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA) commenced an investigation into particle levels along the Western and Metropolitan Rail Systems used by trains hauling coal from mines in the Clarence-Moreton and Surat Basins in southern Queensland to the Port of Brisbane. The main objective of the investigation was to obtain information on ambient particle levels along the coal rail corridor and to evaluate the effectiveness of a coal wagon veneering trial which commenced at the New Acland mine north of Oakey in May 2013. Coal from the New Acland mine accounts for approximately 60 per cent of all coal transported to the Port of Brisbane on the Western and Metropolitan rail systems.

The timing of the coal dust monitoring program was dictated by the date of commencement of coal wagon load profiling and veneering program at the New Acland mine in May 2013. Reduced dust emissions due to frequent rainfall during the investigation period, particularly in the months prior to and during the pre-veneering monitoring period, will have reduced measured particle levels.

The investigation focused on acquiring data to assess both health and nuisance impacts in the community, together with determination of the contribution of coal particles to overall dust levels.

The monitoring program collected information on:

§ PM10 (particles less than 10 micrometres in diameter) and PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter) levels – to assess possible human health impacts

§ deposited dust (dustfall) – to assess possible amenity degradation (dust nuisance) impacts and to determine the contribution of coal particles to overall dust levels

§ real-time particle levels – to assess the changes in short-term particle levels associated with the passage of different train types on the Metropolitan rail system.

Monitoring was conducted at six locations along the Western and Metropolitan rail systems used to transport coal to the Port of Brisbane (Oakey, Willowburn (Toowoomba), Dinmore, Tennyson, Fairfield and Coorparoo) and one background location on a section of the Metropolitan rail system not used by coal trains (Chelmer).

This report summarises the monitoring results obtained by DSITIA over the four-month dust monitoring program between early March and early July 2013, and provides an assessment of the impact of coal wagon veneering on ambient particle levels along the rail corridor following the commencement of coal wagon load profiling and veneering at the New Acland Mine on 2 May 2013.

The monitoring results showed that ambient particle concentrations complied with ambient air quality objectives at all rail corridor monitoring sites during both the pre- and post-veneering monitoring periods.

Ambient PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations did not exceed the Queensland Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 (EPP Air) 24-hour average air quality objectives of 50 µg/m3 and 25 µg/m3 respectively on any day during the investigation period. The highest average PM2.5 concentration measured during either the pre- or post-veneering periods was less than the EPP Air annual objective value of 8 µg m3. A number of observations point to the major influence on PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at the rail corridor monitoring sites being regional urban particle emission sources rather than rail transport emissions.

These include the close correspondence between PM10 and PM2.5 levels measured at Metropolitan line rail corridor sites and DSITIA ambient air monitoring network sites elsewhere in Brisbane; the highest 24-hour PM2.5 concentration during the pre-veneering period being recorded at the Chelmer background monitoring site; the lack of any strong relationship between PM10 and PM2.5 levels and the proportion of winds from the direction of the rail corridor; little difference between PM10 and PM2.5 measurements recorded on days when no coal and few freight train services were running and the average concentrations over the monitoring period; and the results of statistical analyses which found that any impact from veneering was less than the day-to-day variability in PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.


Insoluble dust deposition rates did not exceed the trigger level for dust nuisance of 4 g/m2/30days above background levels (or 130 mg/m2/day averaged over a 30-day period) recommended by the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment at any of the rail corridor monitoring sites during both the pre- and post-veneering monitoring periods.

Microscopic examination showed that mineral dust (soil or rock dust) was the major component of larger particles that settled from the air at each monitoring site during both the pre- and post-veneering monitoring periods. Coal dust was consistently detected in the deposited dust from all monitoring sites along the rail corridor used by coal trains, but was only detected at trace levels in one sample at the Chelmer background monitoring site located on a section of the Metropolitan rail system not used by coal trains. The amount of coal dust ranged from trace levels up to 20 per cent of the total surface coverage. Another black-coloured particle, rubber dust, was found at most locations, typically accounting for about 10 per cent of the surface coverage.

A general trend towards decreased dust deposition rates and lower levels of coal dust in the deposited dust samples was observed at most monitoring sites following the implementation of rail wagon veneering at the New Hope Mine. While this suggests that veneering has reduced the loss of coal particles during transit, monitoring over a period longer than one to two months is needed to demonstrate that this improvement is ongoing. Collection of deposited dust samples over a 12 month period at one rail corridor monitoring site within Brisbane as part of the second phase of the Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program will monitor this.

During both the pre- and post-veneering monitoring periods, the passage of trains was found to result in little change in 10-minute average PM10 and PM2.5 levels at the Tennyson, Fairfield and Coorparoo monitoring sites. There was also little difference seen between the particle level variations associated with the passage of different train types past the monitoring sites.

The Queensland Department of Health has concluded that, for people living along the rail corridor, the dust concentrations measured during the investigation are unlikely to result in any additional adverse health effects.


ReferencesAS 4156.6 Coal Preparation. Determination of dust/moisture relationship for coal.

Aurizon website; www.aurizon.com.au

Australian Coal Association Research Program, http://www.acarp.com.au/Downloads/ACARPHardgroveGrindabilityIndex.pdf

BNSF Railway, accessed from: http://www.bnsf.com/customers/what-can-i-ship/coal/coal-dust.html

Coal Dust Management Plan, Feb 2010, QR Network, Section 5.1

Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2001 – Queensland Government

Coal Services, Coal Service and NSW Coal Mining Industry Continue to protect mine workers from ‘black lung’ disease, 22 August 2012

Commonwealth Department of Environment, A National Approach to Waste Tyres, Prepared for Environment Australia by Atech Group, 2001

Connell Hatch, Final Report, Environmental Evaluation of Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions from coal trains Goonyella, Blackwater and Moura Coal Rail Systems for QR Limited, March 2008

Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Tennyson Dust Monitoring Investigation, September to October 2012

Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Western – Metropolitan Rail Systems Coal Dust Monitoring Program, Final Report

Energy Publishing, Australian Coal Report, January 2012

Guideline on Speciated Particulate Monitoring, Judith Chow and John Watson, Desert Research Institute, prepared for US EPA, August 1998

Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd, Review of Dust from Coal Trains in Queensland, report to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs Inquiry:The impacts of health on air quality in Australia, prepared for Queensland Resources Council, March 2013

New Hope Group, Rail Coal Dust Report, 2013

New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of Dust Emissions, 2001

NSW Government, Department of Health, http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/factsheets/Pages/mine-dust.aspx, accessed June 2013

Queensland Resources Council website, accessed at www.qrc.org.au

Coal Dust Management Plan South West System

November 2013

South West System Coal Dust Management Plan

Documents

Transcript of South West System Coal Dust Management Plan