coal seam gas in the tara regioncoal seam gas in the tara region summary ris assessment of health...

Department of Health

Summary risk assessment of health complaints and environmental monitoring dataMarch 2013

Coal seam gas in the Tara region:

Coal seam gas in the Tara region: Summary risk assessment of health complaints and environmental monitoring data

Published by the State of Queensland (Queensland Health), March, 2013

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au

© State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2013]

You are free to copy, communicate and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the State of Queensland (Queensland Health).

For more information contact:

Executive Director, Health Protection Unit, Department of Health PO Box 2368, Fortitude Valley, BC, 4006 Telephone: 3328 9310 Email: [email protected]

An electronic version of this document is available at www.health.qld.gov.au/publications/csg/

Photo: Queensland Health image bank

Contents

1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................................42. Information sources........................................................................................................................................................43. Health complaint data...............................................................................................................................................5 3.1. DDPHU report...............................................................................................................................................................5 3.2. Dr Adam’s report...................................................................................................................................................64. Environmental monitoring data.....................................................................................................7 4.1. QGC Environmental Monitoring – ERM report.....................................7 4.1.1. Air monitoring................................................................................................................................................7

4.1.2. Water monitoring.....................................................................................................................................9

4.1.3. Soil monitoring........................................................................................................................................12

4.2. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection environmental monitoring.........................................................................................................13 4.2.1. Air monitoring – Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts report ......................................13

4.2.2. Noise monitoring..................................................................................................................................14

4.2.3. Water monitoring..................................................................................................................................14

4.3. Southern Cross University research on fugitive methane, carbon dioxide and radon..................................................................155. Discussion............................................................................................................................................................................................166. Conclusions......................................................................................................................................................................................187. Recommendations........................................................................................................................................................188. References .........................................................................................................................................................................................199. Appendices........................................................................................................................................................................................2010. Acronyms...........................................................................................................................................................................................21


4

1. IntroductionThe coal seam gas (CSG) industry has developed significantly in the Tara region over recent years. Its development has coincided with complaints from some residents alleging impacts on the health of themselves and family members. Various government and industry stakeholders have undertaken a range of initiatives that are relevant to assessing the potential for public health risks from the industry. This report provides a summary risk assessment based on the data obtained from these reports.

This summary risk assessment is framed on the following questions:-

1. What is known about the health complaints among residents in the Tara region?

2. What is known about the impacts of CSG activities on environmental factors that may affect the health of the community (environmental health determinants) in the Tara region?

3. What is the most likely relationship between the residents’ health complaints and any documented impacts of CSG activities on environmental health determinants?

This risk assessment primarily takes a community-wide focus rather than focussing on potential health impacts that may be attributable to highly site specific factors e.g. a single property’s dam contains poor quality water. Site specific issues should be assessed on a site-by-site basis. This assessment also does not address occupational health and safety impacts for CSG workers.

A range of information available to the Department of Health up to February 2013 was used for the assessment. As further information becomes available over time, it will require specific evaluation. That may necessitate amendment to this assessment.

2. Information sourcesThe following information sources were used for this risk assessment:

1. The Darling Downs Public Health Unit (DDPHU) investigation into the health complaints relating to Coal Seam Gas (CSG) activity from residents residing within the Wieambilla Estates, Tara, Queensland–July to November 2012 (Appendix 1). Report dated January 2013 by Dr Penny Hutchinson, Public Health Physician, Darling Downs Public Health Unit.

2. Health effects of coal seam gas – Tara (Appendix 2). Report for the Department of Health dated 19 February 2013 by Dr Keith Adam, Specialist in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Medibank Health Solutions Pty Ltd and Adjunct Associate Professor, The University of Queensland.

3. Environmental Health Assessment Report – Tara Complaint Investigation Report (Appendix 3). Report by ERM (Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd) dated January 2013 of QGC’s (Queensland Gas Company) environmental monitoring at nine residential sites in the Tara Estates during July 2012. The report was provided to the Department of Health by QGC and used with QGC’s permission. (Note: The ERM report comprises 784 pages. Appendix 3 of this report does not include Annex C and Annex D of the ERM report. Annex C comprises maps of the nine residential sites. Annex D comprises 717 pages of the raw analytical results used for the body of the report and photos, sampling and other details collected at the nine properties involved in the QGC monitoring program.)

4. Wieambilla Estates Odour Investigation Results: July-December 2012 (Appendix 4). Report dated January 2013 by Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Sciences, Science Delivery Division, Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA) for the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP).

5. Submission on National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination 2012 – Fugitive Emissions from Coal Seam Gas. A submission dated 19 October 2012 by Dr Isaac Santos and Dr Damien Maher, Centre for Coastal Biogeochemistry, Southern Cross University, to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Accessed 17 January 2013 from the Southern Cross University website at http://www.scu.edu.au/coastal-biogeochemistry/index.php/70/

6. Enrichment of radon and carbon dioxide in the open atmosphere of an Australian coal seam gas field. A journal article by researchers from the Centre for Coastal Biogeochemistry, School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, Lismore. It was published (as a Just Accepted Manuscript) in Environ. Sci. Technol. on 27 February 2013, DOI: 10.1021/es304538g.

7. A report dated February 2013 on noise monitoring at one site in the Wieambilla Estates by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP).

5


3. Health complaint data This section reviews the two sources of clinical information about the health complaints made by residents in the Tara region. The intent is to understand the key clinical features of the complaints e.g. nature, prevalence, severity and reversibility. This is the first step in identifying whether any particular factor/s, in particular CSG industry emissions, might have a role in their causation or exacerbation.This section reviews the two sources of clinical information about the health complaints made by residents in the Tara region. The intent is to understand the key clinical features of the complaints e.g. nature, prevalence, severity and reversibility. This is the first step in identifying whether any particular factor/s, in particular CSG industry emissions, might have a role in their causation or exacerbation.

3.1. DDPHU reportThe Darling Downs Public Health Unit (DDPHU) report on health complaints is based on two sources of clinical data. First, it uses reports from GPs and hospitals in the Tara region in regard to clinical presentations by residents claiming adverse health impacts from CSG activities. Secondly, it uses clinical data obtained during follow-up interviews of people who attended local general practitioners (GPs) and hospitals or registered health complaints related to CSG activities with 13HEALTH (13 43 25 84). Some residents’ complaints are included in both data sources. The data covers the period 4 July to 12 November 2012.

The primary purposes of the DDPHU report were determining the nature, prevalence and severity of the health complaints. It also considers aspects of the exposure of the affected residents to CSG activities (type, proximity and duration), as well as other exposures unrelated to CSG activities that could be relevant to the health complaints.

The report is based on information for 56 people from 11 families resident in the region. Symptoms were reported for 46 of these people. Two other individuals who registered complaints with 13HEALTH were excluded from the analysis as they were not residents of the region. A broad range of symptoms was reported. The predominant symptoms reported were headaches (34 people), sore, itchy eyes (18), nosebleeds (14) and skin rashes (11). Other reported symptoms with frequencies less than 10 people are detailed in Table 1 of the DDPHU report.

Nine individuals presented to local healthcare providers (total of 16 presentations). Reported symptoms included headaches, nosebleeds, skin rashes and generally feeling unwell. Clinical examination of these cases did not reveal any significant identifying findings. There was no clinical evidence of nosebleeds in those who reported this symptom. No hospital admissions that were attributed to CSG exposure arose from these presentations to local healthcare providers.

The predominant symptoms of headaches, eye irritations, nosebleeds and skin rashes are discussed in the DDPHU report. For this summary, the following key observations are drawn:

• Headaches – varying types described (dull ache and pounding); often worse at night in association with sounds of compressors from CSG wells; variable duration up to months on end; medications used ranged from simple over-the-counter analgesics to narcotic analgesics; some reports of related symptoms such as pins and needles. It is not evident that any of the headaches have been associated with a specific medical condition (e.g. migraine) or a specific diagnosis related to a toxic substance.

• Eye irritations – sore, itchy eyes experienced mainly when outside the home with symptoms settling when indoors.• Nosebleeds – predominantly reported in children; several presentations to the local GP in the study period, however GP

did not report any findings on clinical examination.• Skin rashes – more commonly reported in children; one skin rash was identified by the DDPHU public health physician

as a common skin condition that would be unrelated to CSG activities.

In regard to the period prevalence of complaints, the DDPHU report estimates that complaints were registered for approximately 3.7 per cent of the resident population in the Wieambilla Estates during July to 12 November 2012. This includes complaints registered by parents/carers for their children. Approximately 0.7 per cent of the resident population is reported to have attended the local GP clinic at Tara with symptoms described by the resident as being related to CSG activities. As an indicator of clinical severity, there were no hospital admissions attributed to exposure to CSG activities.

Following evaluation of the information obtained about the clinical complaints, the DDPHU report concluded that the investigation by itself was unable to determine whether any of the health effects reported by the community are linked to CSG activities. Reasons for this are explained in the DDPHU report.


6

In summary, the most that can be drawn from the DDPHU report is that it provides some limited clinical evidence that might associate an unknown proportion of some of the residents’ symptoms to transient exposures to airborne contaminants arising from CSG activities. The clinical evidence does not indicate any specific or unique medical conditions that can be attributed to such exposure. Rather, it points more to transient (reversible) effects at most. The test of whether any of the symptoms could be attributed to exposure to CSG emissions lies in the assessment of the data from environmental monitoring. This is discussed later in this report. Of note, the reported symptoms can have many potential causes unrelated to CSG activities and, indeed, unrelated to any other specific environmental health factor.

3.2. Dr Adam’s reportDr Keith Adam was commissioned by the Department of Health to provide an independent expert opinion on the health complaints of residents in the Tara area with particular regard to the potential for the complaints to be linked to CSG activities. Dr Adam conducted clinics at Tara Hospital on 11–12 October 2012. The clinics were advertised locally by various means, but the level of awareness achieved among residents is not known. Anecdotal comment has been received that awareness levels were low. Attendance at the clinics was voluntary and comprised individuals and family groups. Dr Adam undertook telephone consultations for people who were unable to attend in person.

Participants included adults and children. Information was obtained in regard to 23 people in total. Direct participation involved 15 people in person and two by telephone. Three of these participated as individuals and the remainder comprised separate family groups. Among the family groups, there were a further six people who were unable to attend the clinics due to school or work commitments. However, it is understood that any concerns relating to them were raised on their behalf by other family members who attended or telephoned the clinics. Dr Adam commented on the relatively small number of residents who participated in the clinics. He was unable to determine whether this was due to limited publicity of the clinics or a lack of widespread interest in the clinics among residents.

Reported symptoms are detailed in the full report. The complaints mainly related to headaches, nausea and vomiting, nosebleeds, nose, throat and eye irritation, and some skin rashes and sores. These are similar to the symptoms discussed in the DDPHU report. There were reports of odours associated with irritation of the nose and throat. There also were reports of low frequency vibration. A commonly reported pattern was improvement in symptoms when away from the area and recurrence on return.

On clinical examination, some limited nasal inflammation was observed in several cases. Dr Adam did not observe any bleeding or crusting of the nasal mucosa (inner lining of the nose) that might be expected in association with recent nosebleeds. One rash was observed, which Dr Adam was unable to identify. Apart from those limited observations, the key outcome from the physical examinations was that Dr Adam was not able to find any objective evidence of the clinical conditions which were reported. He noted the absence of clinical findings would not be unexpected for complaints of headache or nausea.

Dr Adam commented that the circumstances of potential exposure described to him by attendees would, for the most part, be expected to represent relatively low level exposure. This was based on the distance between the homes of affected individuals and CSG wells. For comparison, Dr Adam commented that his review of peer-reviewed literature in regard to occupational exposure to CSG did not identify evidence of unique or substantial harm to employees in the industry. This is highly relevant as potential exposure among workers in the industry itself could be expected to be significantly higher than in a community setting among residents located up to many kilometres from CSG sites.

The key clinical conclusion that is drawn from Dr Adam’s report is that his clinical interview and assessment of residents who attended the clinics was not able to identify any specific clinical condition or pattern that would point to an obvious relationship between the reported health complaints and exposure to chemicals or emissions involved in the CSG industry. He comments that he would expect exposure to potential CSG emissions to be low, given the distances between the affected residents’ homes and CSG wells. He particularly noted that review of any environmental monitoring would be important to test his presumption that resident’ exposure is low.

Dr Adam reviewed the ERM and DSITIA reports (Appendices 3 and 4 of this report) in regard to environmental monitoring data. His overall finding was that the results in those reports ‘do not indicate any significant exposure which could account for the ongoing symptoms’. However, Dr Adam identified one criticism of the ERM report in regard to the air monitoring results where ‘in some cases, the standard against which the results were being compared was less than the limit of detection of the analytical method’. He explained that this meant that ‘it cannot be stated with certainty that the standard was not exceeded’. Further detailed discussion of this aspect is found in the Department of Health’s assessment of the ERM report

7


(section 4.1.1 of this report). While noting this criticism, Dr Adam concluded, ‘Despite this criticism, the testing provides comfort that despite testing for a wide range of substances, the vast majority were not able to be detected’.

The Department of Health’s assessment of Dr Adam’s report is that he was unable to identify a specific clinical disease or condition that clearly could be attributed to exposure to CSG emissions. The reported symptoms, if due in any way to CSG emissions, are more suggestive of intermittent exposure to low-level irritants and odours, rather than exposure leading to significant systemic toxicological effects. It appears clear the reported symptoms are rapidly reversible based on the reports that symptoms improved when residents were away from the area. As commented by Dr Adam, review of the environmental monitoring data is necessary to identify if there is any likely association. Apart from Dr Adam’s review of available environmental data that is summarised in the preceding paragraph, further detailed review by the Department of Health follows in Section 4 of this assessment.

Apart from the clinical and environmental aspects, Dr Adam’s report also contains observations that are pertinent to the general on-going assessment and management of CSG issues. These relate to the following:• residents’ reported concerns are not exclusively about health impacts• the level of coordination between government agencies and the CSG industry in regard to environmental monitoring

and feedback to residents• the need for a comprehensive communication strategy to regain community confidence• residents’ reports of noise/vibration impacts.

As these aspects are not directly related to the clinical aspects of the health complaints, they will be considered further in the discussion section of this assessment.

4. Environmental monitoring dataThis section reviews three information sources on environmental monitoring activities that have been undertaken in the Tara region. The intent is to identify if any particular environmental health determinants have been measured at levels that could explain the symptoms that have been reported by residents. This is the second step in determining whether any particular factor/s, in particular CSG industry emissions, might have a role in the causation or exacerbation of the residents’ reported symptoms. It is based on the fundamental principle that adverse health effects can occur only if there is exposure to hazardous agents at levels and durations sufficient to induce the adverse effect.

4.1. QGC Environmental Monitoring – ERM reportQGC commissioned environmental monitoring of air, water and soil at nine residential blocks in the Wieambilla Estates near Tara. Sampling was undertaken by SGS Leeder Consulting at various times across the nine blocks during 11 to 19 July 2012. Analysis and reporting of the results was undertaken by ERM. For purposes of this assessment, the report of QGC’s environmental monitoring program is referred to as the ERM report.

The Department of Health was not involved in the design and implementation of the monitoring program or the laboratory analysis of the samples. The results in the ERM report are used in this assessment on their face value as presented in the report. The key findings in regard to air, water and soil are discussed separately.

4.1.1. Air monitoringThe ERM report indicates that air monitoring was undertaken at the nine residential lots at various times during 11 to 19 July 2012. The properties were sampled on various dates with the outcome that air sampling occurred on seven different dates (11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19 July 2012). No sampling was reported for 14 to 15 July 2012 which were weekend days. Thirteen air samples were collected. A single sample was collected at five properties with two samples at each of the remaining four properties. The sampling forms in the ERM report appear to indicate that the individual sampling periods ranged from just over seven hours to almost 22 hours. Four sampling periods were less than 12 hours. However, this level of detail is not summarised explicitly in the ERM report. At two properties there were both day time and night time samples.

Sampling was undertaken with vacuum canisters. This method provides the average air concentration of analytes over the duration of the sampling period. It does not identify short-term peaks and troughs in air concentrations that may occur during the full sampling period for a particular sample. Sampling and analysis was done in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard. The samples were submitted to SGS Leeder, a NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities)


8

accredited laboratory, for analysis of:• vacuum/pressure• volatileorganics• totalvocasn-hexane• generalgases(helium,hydrogen,methane,carbondioxide,carbonmonoxideandethylene)• sulphurgases.

ERM reviewed the laboratory quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) data and concluded the data were suitable for its intended use. Summary results are provided in Table 3 of the ERM report.

Section 7.1.3 of the report describes the screening criteria used by ERM to evaluate the results. The Australian National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) Measure (2004) (NEPM) was used as the primary criteria. However, as most of the 95 individual analytes reported by SGS Leeder are not included in the NEPM, the US EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for residential air were used as the secondary criteria. The NEPM and the RSL criteria represent air concentrations that are considered to be protective of human health over a lifetime of exposure at that concentration.

Table 7, Section 7.2.3 of the ERM report summarises the identified exceedances of the air criteria adopted for the report. The table indicates that the only exceedance related to the concentration of benzene in an overnight sample from one site. The specific concentration is not provided in the body of the report. However, review of the raw data indicates the reported result was 25 μg/m3. The NEPM value is 10.3 μg/m3 as an annual average. A second sample from the same property during day time was reported as <4.3 μg/m3. The ERM report states the average of the two samples was below the NEPM value. As the two samples combined appear to have covered a 23.5 hour period without overlap, the 24-hour average would have been very close to the NEPM annual average value. However, it is not apparent to the Department of Health nor explained in the ERM report how an average less than 10.3 μg/m3 was calculated given the individual values were 25 and <4.3 μg/m3 respectively.

Apart from this single benzene result at one property, the ERM report indicates there were no other exceedances of the air quality screening criteria. The Department of Health considers this aspect of the ERM report needs significant qualification.

The air sample analyses comprised 95 discrete analytes which are listed in Table 3 of the ERM report. Of these 95 analytes, 49 do not have criteria listed in either the NEPM or the RSLs. Three, hydrogen, helium and carbon dioxide, are normal constituents of air and would not be expected to have NEPM or RSL criteria. Excluding carbon dioxide which was detected in all samples at typical concentrations in air (0.04 per cent except one sample at an unexpectedly low 0.02 per cent), the only positive detections (i.e. concentrations above the limits of reporting) for this group of analytes were:• 31 μg/m3 of cis-1,2-Dichloroethene at one site. The remaining 12 samples were reported as below the limit of reporting

(<9.5 μg/m3 or lower). This concentration is equivalent to approximately 8 ppb (parts per billion). In contrast, its odour becomes noticeable at approximately 17 ppm (parts per million) which is 2,000 times higher. Its occupational exposure standard is 200 ppm. The reported concentration would not be expected to be associated with any adverse effects.

• 0.44, 0.23 and 0.18 μg/m3 of total VOC as n-hexane from sampling at two sites. The remaining 10 samples were reported as below the limit of reporting for the specific sample (<0.22 μg/m3 or lower). This result relates to the mass of the total VOC (volatile organic compounds) in the sample expressed as its equivalence as just n-hexane, rather than as discrete substances. No specific comment can be made other than to state that these concentrations, if due to n-hexane alone, would not be expected to be associated with any adverse effects.

There were another 20 analytes where all concentrations reported for the 13 air samples were below the NEPM or RSL criteria. Two of these analytes, toluene and o-xylene, have criteria in both reference lists. For both, the reported concentrations in all samples were substantially below both criteria values. None of the results for these 20 analytes suggest exposure at levels that would be expected to be associated with adverse health effects.

Of the remaining 26 analytes, the ERM report shows the limit of reporting for each analyte in the 13 air samples was higher than the relevant NEPM or RSL criteria value (Table 3 of the ERM report). For many of these analytes, the relevant criteria value was two or more orders of magnitude (i.e. at least 100 times) lower than the limit of reporting of the respective analyte in the samples. In this situation, while the analysis report might indicate the analyte is below the limit of reporting (i.e. a measureable concentration was not detected), it can not be categorically stated that the concentration in the sample was also below the relevant criteria value. For these 26 analytes, it is possible that the air concentrations in some samples may have exceeded the reference criteria value i.e. above the criteria value but below the limit of reporting. It is impossible to identify which analytes or samples to which this important qualification might apply. It is equally possible that some, or even all, of these analytes were not present in the air at concentrations above the reference criteria or that they were even present at

9


any measureable concentration if a more sensitive sampling and analysis methodology had been used for the program. It may also be the case that none of these 26 analytes are even related to CSG activities in the area, so their presence, if any, could be unrelated to CSG activities. It would have been helpful for more detailed analysis to have been included in the ERM report given this dilemma brought on by reference criteria that are significantly below the limits of reporting of the sampling and analytical techniques used for the air sampling.

Despite these qualifications, it remains the case there was only one analyte in any of the 13 samples that demonstrably exceeded its reference criteria. This was the benzene concentration of 25 μg/m3 in one of the two samples collected at one site. This result appears to relate to a 12-hour sample (approximately), whereas the NEPM reference value is an annual average of 10.3 μg/m3. The 12 remaining benzene results were reported as <5.9 μg/m3 or lower. Benzene is a confirmed human carcinogen and the NEPM reference value is based on limiting the risk of cancer to acceptable levels following lifetime exposure (nominally 70 years) to benzene. The second air sample (also approximately a 12-hour sample) at the same property was reported as <4.3 μg/m3, meaning the 24-hour average for the property would have been approximately 13.5 μg/m3. This average assumes the value of the second result (reported as <4.3 μg/m3) is assumed to be half the limit of reporting (i.e. 2.2 μg/m3). Using half the limit of reporting is a common method used to derive statistics for results which are below the level of reporting.

Neither the measured level of 25 μg/m3, nor the estimated 24-hour average of 13.5 μg/m3, is sufficiently high to be associated with acute impacts on health. The NEPM reference value (10.3 μg/m3) is an annual average calculated to reduce the risk of cancer from a lifetime of exposure at that level. While that site can be calculated to have experienced a 24-hour average approximating the NEPM reference value on the day that testing occurred there, all other lots experienced results that were clearly below the NEPM reference value. The explanation of this single result is unknown, but the ERM report advises ‘Benzene is not a compound that is found in CSG and this cannot be attributed to CSG activities but rather from a local source such as smoking, etc.’

In the context of a further 12 samples, including one at the same property, that are all reported as <5.9 μg/m3 or lower, it is considered that this result is an outlier which is not reflective of the general ambient air quality in the area. It is likely there is a local explanation for the result, rather than it being explained by CSG or any other industrial activities impacting on the region’s air shed. For example, it may relate to benzene emissions from sources such as petrol or smoking on the property in question near to where the sample was collected. These are given simply as examples of common alternative source of benzene which may explain this single outlier result.

Despite the qualifications the Department of Health places on the evaluation in the ERM report about the air monitoring results, it remains that the air monitoring did not identify any analytes at detectable concentrations that would be expected to be associated with adverse health effects of the type reported by residents. The air monitoring results outlined in the ERM report do not provide an explanation of the symptoms reported by residents of the area. However, the air monitoring program had important limitations. The total monitoring period was nine days, the methodology resulted in limits of reporting for some analytes that were substantially higher than reference air quality criteria and the monitoring was not designed to identify short-term peaks or troughs in air concentrations. It is considered a more strategic air quality monitoring program could be implemented to provide more useful information on the impacts of the CSG industry, if any, on ambient air quality in the region.

4.1.2. Water monitoringAspects of the ERM report concerning water relate to the same nine residential lots in the Wieambilla Estate. Samples were collected from potable drinking water sources (all nine lots) and ponds and surface water sites (five lots). The samples were analysed by SGS Leeder and compiled into the report by ERM. Over 90 chemical, physical and microbial parameters are included in the report (Table 1 of the ERM report). The water quality data were assessed against the health and aesthetic parameters of Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) (National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and National Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) 2011).


10

Table 1: Physical, chemical and microbial properties of water included in the ERM report

Assessing the suitability of water for use at the properties where samples were obtained requires the comparison of test results with the appropriate standard. According to the ERM report, all properties reported use of roof-harvested water for drinking and most household purposes. Two properties reported use of on-site ponds or surface water created by a dam for washing and bathing. The Department of Health recommends that the quality of water used for domestic purposes, other than toilet flushing and laundry, should be assessed against the ADWG. For all other uses, water is more appropriately assessed against the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Chapter 5, Guidelines for Recreational Water Quality And Aesthetics (ANZGFMWQ) (NWQMS, 2000). However, the ERM report has assessed all water against ADWG guidelines, distinguishing health from aesthetic criteria, without regard to the source or use of the water. The ADWG are generally a more conservative standard, and therefore exceedances for non-potable water use may not necessarily represent a health risk.

In addition, the ERM report in Section 7.2 summarises the results for dissolved metals, rather than total metals, the latter being more relevant to human health and generally more conservative. The following discussion refers to the data in Table 1 of the ERM report (Summary of Water Analytical Results Environmental Health Assessment Report – 0181432) using the analytical results for total metals.

Potable drinking water

The ERM report identified four physical or chemical parameters where the drinking water quality exceeded the ADWG: pH, aluminium, cadmium, and zinc. It is noted that the report identified an exceedance for lead at one site. In that case,

Property Specific parameters

Physical Properties pH, conductivity, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC), Biological Oxygen Demand(BOD)

Cations/Anions Sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, fluoride, carbonate (as CaCO

3), bicarbonate (as CaCO

3), hydroxide (as CaCO

3), sulphate (as SO

42-),

total phosphorous, nitrate, nitrite, total nitrogen, cyanide

Total anions, total cations, total alkalinity, Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

Metals (Total and dissolved)

Aluminium, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silica (SiO

2), silver, strontium, vanadium, zinc

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons C6-C

9, C

10-C

14, C

15-C

28, C

29-C

36 and Total C

6-C

36

PAHs (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)

3-Methylcholanthrene, 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(ghi)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Chrysene, Dibenz(ah)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene

Phenols 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol, 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol, 2,4-Dichlorophenol, 2,4-Dimethylphenol, 2,4-Dinitrophenol, 2,6-Dichlorophenol, 2-Chlorophenol, 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol, 2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol, 2-Nitrophenol, 4-Nitrophenol, Dinoseb, Hexachlorophene, m & p-Cresol, o-Cresol, Pentachlorophenol, Phenol

BTEX Benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, m & p-xylenes, o-xylene

Microbial Coliforms, thermotolerant coliforms, faecal coliforms, E. coli, standard plate count

11


the reported result was equal to the guideline value and is therefore not considered an exceedance for this review. Four rainwater tanks were not within the ADWG guideline range (6.5–8.5) for pH (three were low at 4.5, 6.0 and 6.4, and one was elevated at 8.9). One rainwater tank exceeded the aesthetic guideline concentration for aluminium (reported as 0.022 mg/L; ADWG aesthetic guideline 0.02 mg/L). Two rainwater tanks exceeded the cadmium health guideline value (reported as 0.0023 mg/L and 0.0025 mg/L; ADWG 0.002 mg/L) and the zinc aesthetic guideline value (4.8 mg/L and 5.4 mg/L, aesthetic guideline 3 mg/L).

With the exception of cadmium, all reported exceedances were for aesthetic parameters. The ADWG suggests that untreated water, with no obvious sources of contamination, that does not meet aesthetic parameters should be assessed on historical data. Further investigation and corrective action would be recommended only if test results were outside normal operating limits. The exceedances reported for these aesthetic parameters were all slightly outside the guideline values and would not be expected to represent an immediate or long-term health risk. Therefore, based on the aesthetic chemical parameters, the drinking water supplies are fit for purpose, although some would benefit from pH adjustment.

In the case of the two samples where cadmium exceeded the guideline value, the results were marginal elevations of the ADWG health guideline value. The ADWG notes that the World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline value for cadmium in drinking water is slightly different (higher) at 0.003 mg/L due to rounding in the calculation. The reported results do not exceed the WHO guideline value. As the ADWG concludes that the difference between the ADWG and WHO guideline values is not significant, the drinking water supplies would also be considered fit for purpose based on the health chemical parameters. The ADWG notes that cadmium may be found in drinking water due to impurities in the zinc of galvanised pipes or in solders used in plumbing fittings. The occurrence of elevated zinc in the same locations as the two elevated cadmium results suggests that further investigation into the storage or plumbing of drinking water supplies at those locations may be worthwhile.

Although the ERM report included the results of five types of microbial testing, the ADWG includes a health guideline value for one, E.coli. Two rainwater tanks were reported to contain E.coli, but all tanks had some type of microbial contamination as demonstrated by the other testing. The presence of microbes is expected in both roof-harvested water and untreated surface water. Further microbial analysis would be needed to identify potential health hazards. In situations where infants, the elderly and immune-compromised (e.g. dialysis, HIV, cancer patients) may consume the water, it is recommended that roof-harvested water be boiled before drinking and for personal hygiene uses such as teeth cleaning. In addition, appropriate control measures should be used to manage the quality of this water, as provided in Guidance on the use of rainwater tanks (enHealth, 2010).

Non-potable water

The analysis of water from ponds and surface water identified four physical or chemical parameters that were above the guidelines: total dissolved solids, aluminium, iron and total silica. The ERM report incorrectly identifies an exceedance of silver for one site in Table 6 (page 22 of report), whereas the summary data table (Table 1) and the laboratory reports in Annex D of the ERM report indicate that silver was not detected in any samples for this property. Two ponds had an elevated total dissolved solids result (reported as 640 and 1300 mg/L; both above the ADWG value of 600 mg/L, but only one was above the ANZGFMWQ value of 1000 mg/L). Three ponds had elevated concentrations of both aluminium (reported as 1.4, 0.94 and 2.7 mg/L; ANZGFMWQ guideline value 0.2 mg/L) and iron (reported as 1.3, 2.1, and 1.7 ; ANZGFMWQ guideline value 0.3 mg/L). One pond had an elevated concentration of aluminium (reported as 9.3 mg/L) and another had an elevated concentration of iron (reported as 0.57 mg/L). There is no ANZGFMWQ guideline value for silica in recreational water. However, three dams had silica concentrations (250, 380 and 640 mg/L) above the ADWG value of 80 mg/L. These values for aluminium, iron and silica are within the range expected for surface waters based on the soil composition in the area (and typical of western Queensland and New South Wales). Based on the physical and chemical properties, the pond water sampled was generally fit for purpose.

As with the drinking water, the surface water testing found microbial activity in all samples. All ponds had a standard plate count greater than 300 cfu/100mL, with four of the five ponds also showing E. coli activity, which is an indication of faecal contamination. Two ponds grossly exceeded the ANZGFMWQ guideline value for faecal coliforms (reported as 3,600 and 15,000 cfu/100mL; ANZGFMWQ value 150 cfu/100mL). Further microbial analysis would be needed to identify potential health hazards. Primary contact, such as swimming, bathing or other direct water-contact sports would not be recommended for these two ponds with high faecal coliforms. It should also be avoided in the other two ponds because of some evidence of faecal contamination. A water management program for the ponds should be strongly considered. Although the high bacterial levels observed in most of the pond water samples are an indication of a potential health hazard, such contamination is due to human and/or animal faeces rather than contamination by CSG water or other CSG emissions.


12

Schoeller diagrams

At the request of the Department of Health, ERM prepared Schoeller diagrams for each water sample (Annex E of ERM report). Schoeller diagrams provide a visual reference of the common ion profile of the water sample. CSG water has a distinctive common ion profile, comprising low concentrations of sulphate, calcium and magnesium, and high bicarbonate (Van Voast, 2003). This profile is useful in determining if a water source, particularly a groundwater source, has been impacted by CSG water. Based on the Schoeller diagrams and the chemical analyses provided, the water quality profiles at these nine residential sites did not match the expected profile of water that has been impacted by CSG water.

In summary, the evidence from the ERM report does not indicate that residents’ reported health symptoms are due to CSG impacts on their supplies of roof-harvested water or dam water.

4.1.3. Soil monitoringThe soil monitoring component of the ERM report relates to soil samples taken from the same nine residential properties in the Wieambilla Estates at Tara. Eight properties had four samples taken. The remaining property had five samples taken. Sampling at five properties included the property’s vegetable patch. For another two properties the samples included the ‘garden’. The remaining samples were representative of surface soil generally on the respective properties. The samples were analysed for:

• pH• moisture• conductivity• texture• metals• exchangeable metals• total nitrogen• total phosphorus• total carbon.

From a human health perspective, the metal and pH analyses are relevant. The other analyses relate to soil fertility and plant growth considerations (Hamza, 2008). Metal analyses for all samples comprised aluminium, boron, calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, potassium, sodium, sulphur and zinc. Public health guidance on soil contamination is provided in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPM). In particular, health investigation levels (HILs) are outlined in Schedule B(7a) of the NEPM (EPHC, 1999). These were the criteria used in the ERM report to evaluate the soil results. The ERM report concluded that ‘no constituents were reported in soil above health risk criteria’. The Department of Health considers this conclusion requires qualification.

Of the metals included in the analyses, HILs have been developed for only boron, copper, manganese and zinc. The other metals included in the analyses are not normally regarded as toxic soil contaminants and HILs have not been required for public health purposes. Of the metals included in the analyses that have an HIL, all reported concentrations were less than the relevant HIL for residential land.

However, the soil samples were not analysed for all metals that have HILs listed in the NEPM. Metals with HILs that were not analysed were arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (III), chromium (VI), cobalt, lead, inorganic mercury and nickel. These metals are of more relevance to public health considerations of soil contamination. It would have been preferable if analyses for these metals had been done for the soil monitoring program. However, there is no reason to expect that the background soil concentrations of these metals would increase significantly as they are not anticipated emissions of CSG activities.

In regard to pH, reported levels ranged from 4.8–6.7 (median 5.9). These levels would not be expected to pose a risk to health from direct skin contact with the soil.

In summary, the reported soil results are not remarkable from a public health perspective. They do not indicate any obvious impact from CSG activities in the area. It is considered that the reported soil results do not provide any evidence relevant to the symptoms reported by residents. The metals with Australian HILs which were not analysed are not considered likely explanations of the reported symptoms, nor is it expected that CSG activities in the region would be impacting on background soil concentrations of those metals.

13


4.2. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection environmental monitoring

4.2.1. Air monitoring – Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts ReportThe Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) initiated an odour sampling program in the Wieambilla Estate. It commissioned the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA) to assist. The report (Appendix 4) outlines the methodology and results.

Two air monitoring methods were used. First, nine short-term (30–60 seconds) air samples were collected in evacuated summa canisters. The intent was to collect samples when odour was worst with the aim of determining peak levels of VOC volatile organic compounds. Four residents collected six samples, DEHP field staff collected two samples in the coal seam gas fields area and a control sample was collected by DEHP field staff in the Barakula State Forest some 38 kilometres north of Chinchilla. The samples were collected between 3 July to 6 December 2012. Secondly, monitoring to determine long-term average air concentrations of VOC was conducted at four locations in the Wieambilla Estate and a control location in Chinchilla. This sampling was undertaken for three weeks in the period 26 September to 16 October 2012. The results from this monitoring provide an indication of long-term average ambient air concentrations as opposed to the very short-term peaks from the summa canister sampling.

The results from the sampling were compared with relevant health-based ambient air quality criteria as outlined in the report. For four substances, occupational exposure guidelines were referenced as there were no available ambient air criteria.

The results of the summa canister sampling show that 3–7 VOC were detected in each of the nine samples. These detections represent very short-term peak levels (30–60 seconds) and none exceeded their short-term (1-hour) reference criteria. The majority of the results were substantially below the respective reference criteria. Acrolein was reported at 0.5–0.6 ppb in two residential samples and the Barakula State Forest control sample. Ontario and Texas have adopted 1-hour reference criteria of 2.0 and 1.6 ppb respectively. Neither was exceeded. The Ontario 24-hour criteria is 0.17 ppb and the Texas annual criteria is 0.066 ppb, but it would be incorrect to attribute concern to the 30–60 second results of 0.5–0.6 ppb given these raw values exceed those 24-hour and annual reference criteria respectively. Acrolein is an acute irritant, but as the exposure period decreases e.g. from 24 hours (or even annual) to just a few minutes, an acceptable exposure level increases. Thus, comparing the summa canister results for acrolein with 24-hour and annual average criteria is not appropriate. It also should be noted that the passive sampling over three weeks did not identify the presence of acrolein. In summary, the summa canister sampling did not identify any VOC contaminants at levels that would be expected to be associated with adverse health effects.

In the case of the passive sampling, all results, with the exception of a single benzene result reported for one residence were well within relevant reference criteria. That sample was reported as 0.6 ppb, whereas the other four samples were all reported as <0.17 ppb. The DSITIA report identifies three reference criteria for annual average exposure to benzene. These criteria are 3 ppb (the Queensland EPP Air), 1.4 ppb (Texas) and 0.13 ppb (Ontario). Thus, the reported result of 0.6 ppb meets the Queensland and Texas reference values, but exceeds the Ontario reference value. Previous comment was made in this summary assessment in regard to a single benzene result in the ERM report. In comparison to the other four passive sampling results, including three from within the Wieambilla Estate, this single result of 0.6 ppb at one residence appears to be an outlier. For further comparison, the Air Quality Bulletin for South-East Queensland dated October 2012 (the most recent monthly report available online) shows that monthly maximum 24-hour benzene levels at the Springwood site in Brisbane ranged from 0.9–1.3 ppb during November 2011 to October 2012 (DSITIA, 2012). The annual average level at Springwood for 2011 (the most recent year for which an annual average has been reported online) was 1.1 ppb (DERM, 2011). Thus, the result of 0.6 ppb reported for one residence, while higher than the other four results, is still lower than typical ambient air concentrations reported for benzene at the long-term monitoring site for South-East Queensland at Springwood. As discussed previously in regard to the ERM report, it is considered this pattern of results of a single higher result at one property is more likely to be explained by a very local source of benzene rather than a generalised impact on ambient levels within the Tara region. In any case, the reported concentration of 0.6 ppb is not sufficiently high to be associated with acute health effects such as those symptoms reported by some residents in the area.

The DSITIA report does not indicate unacceptable short-term or longer term air concentrations of VOC. The monitoring data do not show air contaminants at concentrations that would be expected to be associated with adverse health effects. It is feasible that some contaminants may have been detectable as transient odours, but the reported concentrations from both monitoring methods do no suggest that exposure would pose likely risks of adverse health effects.


14

4.2.2. Noise monitoringDEHP undertook noise monitoring at a single residence in the Wieambilla Estate from 31 July 2012 to 6 December 2012 due to concerns by residents regarding low frequency noise. Low frequency noise is normally considered to be noise with a frequency range of 10 Hz to 200 Hz (Leventhall, 2003). Noise measurements were recorded approximately ten metres from a residential house using two logging sound level meters. Noise measurements were recorded as A-weighted, C-weighted and linear sound pressure levels. Linear 1/3 octave noise levels from 6.3 Hz to 20 kHz were also recorded. Assessment of the noise monitoring data by DEHP was limited to three time periods identified by the resident as causing noise impacts and two other randomly chosen time periods for comparison.

Environmental noise is normally composed of a complex mixture of many different frequencies which may include discrete frequencies and broad frequency ranges. To enable noise to be expressed in a simple manner which accounts for the importance of different frequency components, different frequency weighting networks have been defined. The A-weighting is the most commonly used and approximates the response of the human hearing system. It filters out the low frequency components which, at the same level, the hearing system does not respond to as well as the mid and high frequency components. C-weighting is also commonly used where filtering of only very high or very low frequencies is required. The difference between the A-weighted and the C-weighted levels gives an indication of the amount of low frequency noise present (Berglund, Lindvall and Schwela, 1999). If the difference exceeds 20 dB further investigation is generally required.

The measurements were taken by DEHP to check compliance with the low frequency noise requirements in the Environmental Authority PEN100020207 for the QGC Kenya Central Coal Seam Gas Processing Facility and not specifically for assessing health impacts. DEHP concluded that ‘while low frequency noise was detected, the level was not high enough to result in a breach of the conditions in Environmental Authority PEN100020207’. However, it was acknowledged in the DEHP report that the level of the low frequency noise had the potential to result in annoyance, even though it did not breach the conditions in the environmental authority.

Annoyance is generally accepted as being one of the major effects of exposure to environmental noise. Berglund, Lindvall and Schwela (1999) defined annoyance as ‘a feeling of displeasure associated with any agent or condition, known or believed by an individual or group to adversely affect them’. The level of annoyance from low frequency noise depends on the level and duration of the noise and also on non-acoustical factors such as the individual’s noise sensitivity, fear with respect to the source, attitude towards the source and perceived control over the situation (van Kempen, Staatsen and van Kamp, 2005). Other health related effects of low frequency noise include stress, irritation, unease, fatigue, headache, possible nausea and disturbed sleep (Casella Stanger, 2001). Sensitisation to low frequency noise often occurs over time, resulting in the person becoming more aware of the noise and not being able to shut it out or get used to it. Other people may not be able to hear the low frequency noise as it may be close to or below their threshold of hearing and/or its importance may be underestimated (Moorhouse, Waddington and Adams, 2005). Berglund, Lindvall and Schwela (1999) noted that ‘a large proportion of low frequency components in noise may increase considerably the adverse effects on health’.

The noise monitoring undertaken by DEHP was at just one location in the Wieambilla Estate, but it identified periods where the difference between the C-weighted and A-weighted sound levels exceeded 20 dB. This indicates that low frequency noise may be a problem. DEHP was unable to identify the source of the low frequency noise, but assumed in its report it was coming from the QGC Kenya Central Coal Seam Gas Processing Facility due to its location relative to the monitoring site. It is feasible that some headaches reported by some residents may be due to low frequency noise. However, low frequency noise does not provide an explanation for other commonly reported symptoms of eye irritation, nosebleeds and skin rashes.

If concerns continue in the community about low frequency noise, additional assessment by DEHP and/or industry stakeholders may be required even though the conditions in the environmental authority are being complied with at the one site where noise monitoring was undertaken. This would be needed to determine if low frequency noise is a significant issue across the area and if noise mitigation measures are required.

4.2.3. Water monitoringThis assessment is based on roof-harvested and dam water supplies that are potentially used for drinking and other household purposes. These are the potential sources of residents’ exposure to water that may be relevant to their health complaints. DEHP advised it had very little water monitoring data that would be relevant to this aspect of the assessment of the residents’ health complaints. It is considered the data in the ERM report from the QGC monitoring program is sufficient to assess the impacts of CSG activities on residents’ roof-harvested and dam water supplies, and any potential links to residents’ health complaints.

15


4.3. Southern Cross University research on fugitive methane, carbon dioxide and radonTwo documents based on research from Southern Cross University, Lismore, were reviewed.

The first was a submission to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in October 2012. It relates to a new mobile method for measuring fugitive methane and carbon dioxide emissions in a CSG setting. It is understood the method and results have not been published in a peer-reviewed publication to date. The data described in the document are taken on their face value for the purposes of this assessment.

Methane and carbon dioxide measurements were recorded serially over a wide land area in a CSG area, including the Tara region, for comparison with similarly collected measurements in non-CSG areas to the south of Tara, including northern New South Wales. Methane concentrations in the CSG area ranged from <2 ppm [~1.77 ppm] (parts per million in air) to a peak of 6.89 ppm. In the non-CSG areas, concentrations ranged from 1.78–1.94 ppm. Carbon dioxide concentrations ranged from 388–541 ppm in CSG areas, with non-CSG areas recording concentrations of 390–423 ppm.

Methane has two relevant properties in regard to human health from direct exposure:-

1. Methane is a simple asphyxiant if its concentration in air is high enough to cause a sufficient reduction in the inhaled oxygen concentration. In this circumstance, symptoms from lack of adequate inhaled oxygen can occur. The oxygen concentration of the atmosphere’s dry air is normally reported as 20.95 per cent (~209 500 ppm). The peak reported methane level of 6.89 ppm would have a negligible impact on this normal oxygen concentration and no impact on human health from direct exposure.

2. Methane is an explosive gas at concentrations of 5-15 per cent (~50 000-150 000 ppm) in air. The peak level measured is over 7 000 times lower than methane’s lower explosive limit.

Carbon dioxide is produced as a waste by the body during normal cellular respiration. It is excreted by exhalation during respiration. The concentration of carbon dioxide in exhaled air is approximately 4-5 per cent (40 000–50 000 ppm) compared to its typical concentration in inhaled air of approximately 0.04 per cent (~400 ppm). Inhalation of up to 541 ppm carbon dioxide, the peak level reported in the CSG area, is of no clinical significance.

The data reported by the Southern Cross University researchers in their submission to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is relevant to considerations of total fugitive greenhouse gas emissions from CSG deposits and activities undertaken to collect CSG resources. However, the reported results have no bearing on the specific health complaints of residents in the Tara region.

The second document was an article published on 27 February 2013 (as a Just Accepted Manuscript) in Environmental Science and Technology. The aim of the study was to assess whether atmospheric radon-222 and carbon dioxide concentrations were elevated within a coal seam gas field. The study hypothesises that radon-222 may be used as a marker to indicate the presence of other gases released as fugitive emissions from coal seam gas extraction activities. The study involved measuring radon-222 and carbon dioxide concentrations at five locations inside (three sites) and outside (two sites) a coal seam gas field over a 24-hour period. The study reported a three-fold increase in maximum radon-222 concentration inside the gas field compared to outside of it.

The study was not conducted to collect data for the purposes of a health assessment and the authors do not express any health related concerns about their findings. As noted in the report, the radon-222 concentration varied throughout the 24-hour period. At the control location outside of the gas field, the average radon-222 concentration was 3.5 Bq/m3 (approx), and the maximum was 8.5 Bq/m3 (approx). At the location within the gas field where the highest radon levels were measured, the radon-222 concentration was an average of 7.7 Bq/m3 (approx) and a maximum of 26 Bq/m3 (approx).

For comparison:

• UNSCEAR (1993) reports an average radon concentration in outdoor air of 10 Bq/m3

• ARPANSA (2012) reports that the average concentration of radon in Australian homes is about 11 Bq/m3

• The recommended action level for radon-222 in indoor air is 200 Bq/m3, and for workplaces it is 1 000 Bq/m3 (ARPANSA, 2002). These action levels are set at levels where it may be useful in deciding whether any countermeasures need to be taken to reduce or avoid exposure. All of the radon-222 concentrations observed during the study are well below the levels at which action needs to be considered.


16

The average concentrations of radon-222 observed during the study are similar to natural background levels and do not raise concerns about adverse health effects. The results do not explain the symptoms reported by the residents.

Similarly, the carbon dioxide levels reported in the paper (average 24-hour levels of ~390 ppm at the control site up to ~467 ppm near the centre of the gas field) are of no clinical significance from direct exposure. These results do not explain the symptoms reported by the residents.

5. DiscussionThe fundamental issue underlining this assessment is the concern among some residents in the Tara region that various symptoms they have experienced are related to CSG emissions. The intent of this assessment is to evaluate current information on the health complaints and environmental health determinants with a view to determining, as best as is possible, whether there is any likely association between CSG emissions and the complaints. If a likely association can be identified, measures to address any putative factors can be investigated and implemented. Alternatively, if a likely association can not be identified, greater assurance can be given to the community that emissions from the CSG industry are not considered to be having adverse health impacts.

Review of the two reports dealing with the clinical aspects of the complaints does not reveal clear evidence associating reported symptoms with CSG emissions. The most prevalent reported symptoms are headache, transient (reversible) eye irritation, nosebleeds and skin rashes. All of these are common medical complaints generally, as reflected by the following data.• WHO (2012) reports an estimated 47 per cent of the adult population suffered a headache at least once within the last

year and 1.7–4 per cent of the world’s adult population have headache on 15 or more days every month.

• Various surveys of the prevalence of skin conditions in Australia have been reported (Marks, Plunkett, Merlin et al, 1999). These data show that the prevalence of self-reported skin disease, including eczema/dermatitis, is significant in the Australian community generally:

− The national health survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1989–90 found 12.7 per cent of the population reported a disease of the skin and subcutaneous tissue within the previous two weeks.

− In 1996-97, the School Skin Survey of 2491 children in urban and rural Victoria found 54 per cent of school children aged four to 18 years were reported by themselves or their parents as currently having at least one of the following common skin conditions, such as acne/pimples, eczema/dermatitis, tinea/ringworm, and warts/papilloma. In particular, in the context of the skin rashes reported by Tara residents, eczema/dermatitis was reported by the students or parents in 15.6 per cent of children in that survey.

− The Maryborough Skin Health Survey in 1997–98 was a computer-assisted telephone interview survey in Maryborough, Victoria of 1457 adults aged 20 years and over. It found 27 per cent of people self-reported one or more skin conditions over the previous two weeks and 59 per cent self-reported at least one skin condition over the previous six months. In regard to self-reports of dermatitis/eczema in particular, the prevalence was 25.5 per cent in the previous two weeks and 12.6 per cent in the previous six months (excluding the previous two weeks).

− The Tiny Tots Survey in 1998–99 of 11 116 pre-school children aged from birth to five years found 49 per cent were reported by their parents to have skin disease. For eczema/dermatitis, the reported prevalence was 29.4 per cent.

• In regard to eye irritation: − A cross-sectional prevalence study compared residents near a chemical waste site at Kingston (south of Brisbane)

and a control site at Beenleigh (Dunne, Burnett, Lawton et al, 1990). Chronic eye irritation in the previous six months was reported by 34 per cent of the Kingston respondents (n=257) and 11 per cent of the Beenleigh respondents (n=105).

− A report by NSW Health (2003) states that the prevalence of eye, nose and throat irritation in the community is difficult to quantify. It cited a study of 2 060 Danes in whom the prevalence of work-related irritation of the eyes, nose and throat was 16 per cent, whereas 7 per cent of subjects reported having irritation at home.

• In regard to nosebleeds, lifetime incidence in the general population is estimated at 60 per cent, though fewer than 10 per cent seek medical attention. Peaks in incidence occur in children under 10 years of age and adults older than 45 years of age (Medscape Reference, 2011; NICE, 2011).

17


The complaint data in the DDPHU report suggest the overall period prevalence of complaints of specific symptoms within the total resident community is low compared to these comparison prevalence data for headaches, skin rashes and eye irritation. As the reference data for nosebleeds relate to lifetime incidence, a direct comparison can not be made. The data in the DDPHU report also suggest that complaints are generally of low clinical severity as complaints relatively rarely (~17 per cent of complainants) have resulted in attendance at the local GP or hospital for assessment or treatment and there have not been any hospital admissions reported. It is recognised that the complaint data might be affected by under-reporting for various reasons. However, the overall impression from the health complaint data is that the reported symptoms do not reflect a distinct or unique clinical pattern within the Tara region of increased symptoms over what reasonably could be anticipated in any community setting.

There are many potential causes of each symptom. For a specific factor/s to be a common cause of these symptoms, whether CSG-related or not, there would need to be exposure at levels sufficiently high to induce effects. For example, various hydrocarbon chemicals in air can induce headache or irritate the eyes, but these effects are not seen until exposure levels exceed a threshold for each particular substance or mixture of substances. Different substances and mixtures have different threshold levels for different clinical effects. In regard to skin rashes, there are many substances that can cause skin irritation or damage to the extent of inducing an observable skin rash e.g. dermatitis, but this typically requires direct skin contact usually with the substance in liquid or solid form. The skin is an effective barrier with the capability to resist damage from potential hazards unless the exposure is sufficient to breach its normal defensive mechanisms. For the combination of headache, eye irritation, nosebleeds and skin rashes to be caused by associated agents, presuming an origin from CSG activities, it is considered there would need to be significant exposure to the agent/s and such exposure would be expected to be evident from environmental monitoring data that was comprehensive in scope. Nosebleeds could be a potential consequence of mucosal damage due to chronic nasal irritation. However, the evidence from the clinical assessments does not indicate that such damage has occurred in individual cases. No significant nasal mucosal damage has been reported and no recent bleeding sites were observed following clinical examination. Also, if clinically significant nasal irritation from airborne irritants was occurring to the extent of inducing mucosal damage and bleeding, it would be likely to be associated with irritant effects on other parts of the respiratory tract (both upper and lower), but this is not reflected in the complaints.

The DDPHU report discusses other factors that could be relevant to some symptoms. For example, exposure to smoke from domestic wood heaters and open fires, if sufficiently high, could cause symptoms such as headache and eye irritation. However, typical exposure to smoke from domestic wood heaters and open fires generally would not be expected to be associated with nosebleeds or skin rashes. Similarly, microbiological contamination of rainwater sources used for drinking purposes might be relevant to some symptoms such as nausea and vomiting. However, there is no obvious link between microbial water contamination and other symptoms such as long-term headaches, nosebleeds and transient eye irritation that is worse when outside the residence. It is important to note that most of the dam water samples reported in the ERM report indicate microbial contamination, including faecal contamination from human and/or animal sources. This could be relevant for some symptoms reported by some residents (e.g. nausea, skin rashes, eye problems) if residents at such sites use these water sources for direct recreational contact or other purposes.

Review of the reports dealing with environmental monitoring of air, water and soil did not identify evidence of exposure to potential emissions from CSG emissions that could be anticipated to be associated with adverse health effects within the residential community. In particular, there were no air monitoring data that indicated exposure to CSG emissions that would be likely to be associated with the most commonly reported symptoms of headaches, eye irritation, nosebleeds or skin rashes. The air monitoring data in the ERM report has limitations such as detection limits for some analytes exceeding reference criteria, sampling covered a limited time period and the sampling methodology related to average levels over the sampling period rather than potential short-term peaks. Given these limitations, it is feasible that short-term peaks in levels of some airborne contaminants might explain some complaints relating to reversible eye irritation, headache and odour. However, the short-term (summa canister) air monitoring outlined in the DSITIA report did not reveal any air concentrations of VOC that might be expected to be associated with adverse health effects. In the absence of any specific monitoring data showing exposure to unacceptable air concentrations of any contaminants, it is not possible to link reported symptoms to the CSG activities or any other source. Similarly, there were no results in the water or soil sampling that can associate the reported symptoms with emissions produced by CSG activities.

As mentioned in Section 3.2, Dr Adam made a number of observations that were unrelated to his clinical assessment of the residents who participated in his clinics. First, potential health effects were not the only concern of residents. Residents also reported environmental concerns and distress about the CSG companies being able to establish wells without necessarily securing the agreement of all stakeholders. This latter point, if correct, could be a significant cause of distress which could impact on the overall health and well-being of disaffected residents. The potential mental health effects of such impacts may need further evaluation and response within the affected community.


18

Secondly, Dr Adam commented about whether there has been adequate coordination between government agencies and CSG companies that have undertaken environmental monitoring, and the feedback of such information to residents. The Department of Health recognises this concern. This assessment is one step to providing a consolidated point of feedback in regard to residents’ health complaints and available environmental monitoring data. However, this observation needs to be considered into the future in regard to the overall governance of the CSG industry from a community perspective.

Thirdly, Dr Adam commented on the importance of a comprehensive communication strategy to ensure that the community is kept well informed with a view to regaining community confidence. He commented on the importance of a single organisation or agency being responsible for overall coordination.

Finally, Dr Adam commented on the complaints of noise and vibration, particularly at night. He is uncertain of the potential cause/s, but speculated about the possibility it may be related to high-pressure piston pumps. The Department of Health agrees with Dr Adam that this issue may warrant further investigation by relevant regulatory authorities and industry stakeholders to ensure that community noise and vibration from CSG activities is maintained within acceptable limits.

6. ConclusionsBased on the clinical and environmental monitoring data available for this summary risk assessment, a clear link can not be drawn between the health complaints by some residents in the Tara region and impacts of the local CSG industry on air, water or soil within the community. The available evidence does not support the concern among some residents that excessive exposure to emissions from the CSG activities is the cause of the symptoms they have reported.

The air monitoring provided to the Department of Health was sufficient to assess whether the reported symptoms were related to CSG activities. However, the available data were insufficient to properly characterise any cumulative impacts on air quality in the region, particularly given the anticipated growth of the industry. It is necessary to assess those impacts according to health-based standards which are relevant to long-term exposure.

Noise and vibration from CSG activities were common complaints. The DEHP report on its community noise investigation at one site showed that low frequency noise did not exceed the relevant environmental authority. However, there was acknowledgement that the levels could be a source of annoyance. A potential consequence in some people of noise annoyance can be headache, which was the most reported symptom. Conversely, noise annoyance would not explain other commonly reported symptoms such as eye, nose and throat irritation, nosebleeds or skin rashes. If concerns continue in the community about low frequency noise, additional assessment by DEHP and/or industry stakeholders may be required to determine if noise mitigation measures are required.

Whilst no emissions from the CSG activities are apparent that can explain the reported symptoms, the DDPHU report identified the issue of solastalgia. This term describes the distress that is produced in people by environmental change in their home environment. Negative effects can be exacerbated by a sense of lack of control over the unfolding change process in a person’s normal environment (Albrecht, Sartore, Connor et al, 2007).

7. Recommendationsa. The CSG industry is predicted to expand significantly throughout Queensland. Given the level of community-wide

concern with CSG expansion, it is recommended that relevant government agencies establish mechanisms to ensure a coordinated response to community and social aspects identified in this report. For example, a community reference group drawn from CSG areas may assist in the identification of health, community and social concerns at a community level and in the development of appropriate responses.

b. The Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services take a lead role in advising on community support initiatives that can be implemented in areas where there are significant concerns about the impacts of CSG development.

c. Regular, timely and accurate information be provided to communities in CSG areas in relation to health, community and social concerns, including the feedback of information on environmental monitoring activities.

d. That a strategic ambient air monitoring program be established by DEHP to monitor overall CSG emissions and the exposure of local communities to those emissions. This could be based on consolidation of existing air monitoring undertaken by DEHP and industry, with supplementation where insufficient data exists. This would allow improved identification of any current and future impacts of CSG activities on ambient air quality. The Department of Health

19


would provide health-based guidance on the design of the program and participate with other agencies in the review and reporting of results. Key elements to include are:

• identification of analytes that are known or reasonably likely to be associated with CSG activities

• identification of relevant health-based reference criteria for each analyte prior to determining sampling and analysis methods. these should include short-term and/or long-term criteria (i.e. criteria for short-term peaks and longer term averages) as appropriate for each specific analyte

• use of sampling and analysis methods that will achieve limits of reporting that do not exceed the health-based reference criteria for each analyte.

e. Noise and vibration have been identified as significant concerns among residents following assessment of their health complaints. If concerns continue in the community about low frequency noise, additional assessment by DEHP and/or industry stakeholders may need to determine if noise mitigation measures are required.

f. Future health clinics related to CSG concerns may be indicated for residents in the Tara region and elsewhere. Community input should be sought in regard to the nature, location, frequency and timing of such clinics. Given the identification of mental health concerns relating to the impacts of the CSG industry on some residents in the Tara region, future clinics should include specific expertise on mental health aspects. Relevant Hospital and Health Services in CSG areas should be involved in the planning and resourcing of such clinics within their areas.

8. References Albrecht, G., Sartore, G.M., Connor, L., Higginbotham, N., Freeman, S., Kelly, B., Stain, H., Tonna, A. and Pollard, G. (2007). Solastalgia: the distress caused by environmental change. Australas Psychiatry 15, Suppl 1: S95-8. Accessed 20 February 2013 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18027145

ARPANSA (2002). Recommendations for limiting exposure to ionizing radiation (1995) and National standard for limiting occupational exposure to ionizing radiation (republished 2002). Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Yallambie, Victoria. Accessed 11 March 2013 from http://www.arpansa.gov.au/Publications/codes/rps1.cfm

ARPANSA (2012). Radon in homes: Fact sheet No. 5. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Yallambie, Victoria. Accessed 11 March 2013 from http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_radon.cfm

Berglund, B., Lindvall, T. and Schwela, D.H. (Eds) (1999). Guidelines for Community Noise. World Health Organization, Geneva. Accessed 14 March 2013 from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf

Casella Stanger (2001). Low Frequency Noise: Technical Research Support for DEFRA Noise Program. UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Accessed 14 March 2013 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk Resource/Doc/158512/0042973.pdf

Department of Environment and Resource Management (2011). Air quality bulletin: South-East Queensland, December 2011. Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane. Accessed 24 January 2012 from http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/air/documents/air-bulletins/seq11dec.pdf

Department of Science, Information, Technology, Innovation and the Arts (2012). Air quality bulletin: South-East Queensland, October 2012. Air Quality Monitoring, Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Brisbane. Accessed 24 January 2012 from http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/air/documents/air-bulletins/seq12oct.pdf

Dunne, M.P., Burnett, P., Lawton, J. and Raphael, B. (1990). The health effects of chemical waste in an urban community. The Medical Journal of Australia 152:592-597.

enHealth (2010). Guidance on use of rainwater tanks (3rd edition). Environmental Health Committee of the Australian Health Protection Committee, Canberra. Accessed 24 January 2013 from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing. nsf/Content/DD676FA1241CDD0DCA25787000076BCD/$File/enhealth-raintank.pdf

Environment Protection and Heritage Council (1999). National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure. Environment Protection and Heritage Council. Accessed 10 January 2013 from http://www.ephc.gov.au/contam


20

Hamza, M.A. (2008). Resources Management Technical Report 327: Understanding soil analysis data. Western Australian Agriculture Authority, Perth. Accessed 15 January 2013 from http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets content/lwe/land/understandingsoil_rmt.pdf

Leventhall, G. (2003). A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects. UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Accessed 14 March 2013 from http://westminsterresearch.wmin ac.uk/4141/1/Benton_2003.pdf

Marks, R., Plunkett, A., Merlin, K. and Jenner, N. (1999). Atlas of common skin diseases in Australia. Department of Dermatology, St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne. Accessed 7 January 2013 from http://www.dermatology.svhm.org.au resources/4548-atlas.pdf

Medscape Reference (24 May 2011). Epistaxis. Accessed 7 January from http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/863220 overview#aw2aab6b2b2aa

Moorhouse, A., Waddington, D. and Adams, M. (2005). Proposed criteria for the assessment of low frequency noise disturbance. UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Accessed 14 March 2013 from http://archive.defra gov.uk/environment/quality/noise/research/lowfrequency/documents/nanr45-criteria.pdf

National Health and Medical Research Council and Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2011). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines: Paper 6, National Water Quality Management Strategy. National Health and Medical Research Council, and National Resource Management Ministerial Council, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Accessed 24 January 2013 from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc publications/attachments/eh52_aust_drinking_water_guidelines_update_120710_0.pdf

NICE (2011). Epistaxis. Clinical Knowledge Summaries, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, United Kingdom. Accessed 7 January 2013 from http://www.cks.nhs.uk/epistaxis#-450531

New South Wales Health (2003). Investigation into the possible health impacts of the M5 East Motorway Stack. New South Wales Health, Sydney. Accessed 7 January 2013 from http://www0.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/2003/pdf/m5_stackreport_20-28.pdf

NWQMS (2000). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality: Volume 1 – The Guidelines. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. Accessed 24 January 2013 from http://www.environment.gov.au/waterpublications/quality/pubs/nwqms-guidelines-4-vol1.pdf

UNSCEAR (1993). Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1993 Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. United Nations, New York. Accessed 11 March 2013 from http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/1993.html

van Kempen, E.E.M.M., Staatsen, B.A.M. and van Kamp, I. (2005). Selection and evaluation of exposure-effect-relationships for health impact assessment in the field of noise and health. RIVM report 630400001/2005, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Accessed 14 March 2013 from http://rivm openrepository.com/rivm/bitstream/10029/7412/1/630400001.pdf

Van Voast, W.A. (2003). Geochemical signature of formation waters associated with coalbed methane. AAPG Bulletin 87(4): 667-676. Accessed 24 January 2013 from http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/pdf/wayne-cbmgeochem.pdf

World Health Organisation (2012). Headache disorders – Fact sheet No. 277 (October 2012). Accessed 7 January 2013 from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs277/en/

9. AppendicesAppendix 1:

The Darling Downs Public Health Unit (DDPHU) investigation into the health complaints relating to Coal Seam Gas (CSG) activity from residents residing within the Wieambilla Estates, Tara, Queensland—July to November 2012.

Report dated January 2013 by Dr Penny Hutchinson, Public Health Physician, Darling Downs Public Health Unit.

21


Appendix 2:

Health effects of coal seam gas – Tara.

Report for Queensland Department of Health dated 19 February 2013 by Dr Keith Adam, Specialist in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Medibank Health Solutions Pty Ltd, and Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Queensland.

Appendix 3:

Environmental Health Assessment Report – Tara Complaint Investigation Report.

Report by ERM (Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd) dated January 2013 of QGC’s (Queensland Gas company) environmental monitoring at 9 residential sites in the Tara region during July 2012.

Appendix 4:

Wieambilla Estates Odour Investigation Results: July–December 2012.

Report dated January 2013 by Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Sciences, Science Delivery Division, Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA) for the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP).

10. AcronymsADWG Australian Drinking Water Guidelines

ANZGFMWQ Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality

CSG Coal seam gas

DDPHU Darling Downs Public Health Unit

DEHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

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

ERM Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd

EPHC Environment Protection and Heritage Council

GP General practitioner

HIL Health investigation level

NATA National Association of Testing Authorities

NEMP National environment protection measure

RSL Regional screening levels

US EPA United Stated Environmental Protection Agency

VOC Volatile organic compounds

WHO World Health Organization

The Darling Downs Public Health Unit Investigation into the health complaints relating to Coal Seam Gas Activity from residents residing within the Wieambilla Estates, Tara, Queensland July to November 2012

FINAL REPORT January 2013 Dr Penny Hutchinson, Public Health Physician Darling Downs Public Health Unit

Some information in the report has been removed for privacy reasons.

Contents

Summary 4

Background 6

Purpose of investigation 6

Methodology 7

Results 9

Discussion 12

Conclusion 16

Foot note 17

References 18

Appendices

Appendix 1 19

Appendix 2 20

Appendix 3 22

Appendix 4 23

Acronyms

CSG Coal Seam Gas

DDPHU Darling Downs Public Health Unit

DEHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

DIP Department of Infrastructure and Planning

DNRM Department of Natural Resources and Mines

DOC Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services

GIS Geographic Information System

GP General Practice

HCC Health Contact Centre

HCP Healthcare provider

PHP Public Health Physician

Summary Health impacts due to Coal Seam Gas (CSG) have been a major community concern since the introduction of CSG industries in Queensland. Since 2008 the Darling Downs Public Health Unit (DDPHU) has received a variety of health complaints related to this industry. These have been followed up with relevant agencies and, where appropriate, local health care providers, however, no substantive evidence was available to support these allegations that the health complaints were due to CSG activities. In July 2012, an increase in the number of health complaints to Queensland Health occurred. These were made through representatives of the community of the Wieambilla Estates, a residential area located close to the CSG wells. The DDPHU was asked to undertake an investigation into these health complaints. This report describes the investigation undertaken by the DDPHU as a component of a broader health risk assessment. The health risk assessment has been undertaken to determine the likelihood of a direct physical link between the symptoms experienced by the residents of the Wieambilla Estates and exposure to the CSG related activities in the local area. The area of interest is located to the north-east of the town of Tara in South-West Queensland approximately 170 km north-west of Toowoomba (300 km north-west of Brisbane) within the Western Downs Regional Council. The estimated population of the area is 1257 persons. Purpose of Investigation The purposes of this investigation are as follows:

to determine the nature of the complaints reported by the community to determine the prevalence of the health complaints experienced by the community to determine the severity of the health complaints experienced by the community to examine the level of exposure of residents in the Wieambilla Estates to CSG activities

including: — types of exposure — proximity of residents in the Wieambilla Estates to CSG activities — duration of exposure (length of time living in the area)

to identify other potential exposures that could be relevant to the residents’ health concerns. Methodology The DDPHU undertook the following activities:

medical reporting: local healthcare providers (HCPs) were contacted to establish if residents had presented with symptoms allegedly related to exposure to CSG activities

self reporting: residents experiencing symptoms could report symptoms to Queensland Health through its 24-hour telephone assistance Health Contact Centre (HCC) on 13 HEALTH (13 43 25 84)

follow-up of residents and their families who had either presented to a local HCP or reported symptoms through the HCC by the Public Health Physician (PHP), DDPHU

mapping of the households reporting symptoms relative to the locations of the CSG wells contact was also made with the mining companies to determine whether there had been health

complaints of a similar nature reported to company HCPs. Results The data used in this report was collected between 4 July and 12 November 2012, however as of 25 January 2013, this data collection is still ongoing. The new data will be evaluated periodically to determine if it affects the overall assessment. Prevalence, nature and severity of symptoms As of 12 November 2012, Queensland Health had received reports from 11 local families representing 56 individuals (of the 56 individuals where information was provided only 46 were reported to have had symptoms). Eleven families reported symptoms through the HCC. Three families reported symptoms to

both their local general practitioner and the HCC. Local HCPs reported 16 encounters (nine individuals) who felt their symptoms were related to CSG exposure. The most common symptoms experienced were:

headache (34) sore itchy eyes (18) nose bleeds (14).

As of 12 November 2012, there had been no hospital admissions with symptoms allegedly related to exposure to CSG activities. On inquiry there have been no reported presentations by employees of the mining companies with symptom patterns similar to those reported by the residents of the Wieambilla Estates. The level of exposure of residents in the Wieambilla Estates The types of exposures individuals reported were:

noise: related to the venting of compressors at well sites and often worse at night odours: rotten egg smell dust: created by the increase in traffic on unsealed roads in the area.

The minimum distance from a household to a known active well is 1.0 km (range 1.0 to 7.2 km). There were difficulties in obtaining information on the operational status of the wells due to the rapid expansion of the industry and issues around commercial-in-confidence. Other potential exposures that could be relevant for residents’ health concerns The household environment and other environmental exposures were considered as other potential causes of symptoms. The use of wood heaters or fireplaces for heating homes may be a potential source of irritation (particularly eyes and respiratory). The use of unboiled/unfiltered rainwater for daily activities could potentially be a cause of gastrointestinal symptoms experienced as could be the handling of domestic animals. No other household exposures of note could be identified. Discussion and conclusion The results of this investigation are unable to provide the evidence for a direct causal link between health complaints and CSG activities in the area due to the following:

the nature of the complaints currently being reported are mainly non-specific and have multiple causes

the lack of any clinical findings on clinical examination the low prevalence of reported symptoms (3.7 per cent of the population) the lack of evidence of symptom patterns similar to those of the community in employees of the

mining companies other relevant environmental exposures which could also explain the symptoms no information on the presence of hazards at levels that may cause health problems.

There are significant limitations to the DDPHU investigation, primarily the reliance on residents within the Wieambilla Estates experiencing symptoms needing to report symptoms to the HCC and/or to present to local HCPs with their symptoms. The reasons for this are multiple. Another limitation of the investigation was the limited ability of DDPHU staff to undertake a clinical examination and further investigations of all individuals reporting symptoms as this is not a role undertaken by public health staff. Evaluation of comprehensive information on air, water and soil contaminants, as well as an evaluation of the level of noise currently experienced, is essential to assist in establishing the likelihood of a causal link between the symptoms experienced and exposure to CSG activities.

Background Health impacts due to CSG have been a major community concern since the introduction of CSG industries in Queensland. Exploration for CSG in the Surat Basin region commenced in 1995, however further exploration did not occur until 2000 when the Queensland Gas Company began explorations in the area. CSG activities in the area near the Wieambilla Estates (Berwyndale South) commenced in 2006. The DDPHU has received a variety of complaints from residents in the Wieambilla Estates since 2008. Initially these complaints related to environmental concerns associated with CSG related activities (primarily road dust suppression using waste water), but more recently progressed to issues relating to a range of negative health impacts. All complaints were followed up by the DDPHU with the relevant agencies and, where appropriate, local HCPs. However, no substantive evidence was available to support these complaints. In May 2012, a group called the Gasfields Community Support Group was established. This group consisted of concerned:

community members industry groups

— Queensland Gas Company — Origin Energy — Arrow Energy

government agencies — Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) — Department of State Development — Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) — Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services (DOC) — Gasfields Commission — Queensland Health — non-government agencies, such as Lifeline.

The inaugural meeting was held on 18 May 2012. In July 2012, a considerable number of reports of symptoms, such as headaches, nose bleeds, bleeding from ears, seizures and blackouts were made to Queensland Health from representatives of residents of the Wieambilla Estates. The DDPHU was asked to undertake an investigation of these reports. A health risk assessment has been undertaken to determine the likelihood of a direct physical link between the symptoms experienced by the residents of the Wieambilla Estates and exposure to CSG related activities in the local area. This report describes the investigation undertaken by the DDPHU as a component of the health risk assessment.

Population of the Tara and Wieambilla Estates Tara is a statistical local area situated within the Western Downs Regional Council. The town of Tara is approximately 170 km north-west of Toowoomba (300 km north-west of Brisbane) (refer to Appendix 1). The main complaints were received from the Wieambilla region. This region includes areas covering the north-eastern part of the Tara region as well as some parts of the Southern Downs Local Government area. As of 30 June 2011, the target area had an estimated resident population of 1257 persons, with a median age of 49.5 years. This constituted 55.5 per cent male compared to 44.5 per cent female. About 22.4 per cent of persons were aged 0 to 14 years, 65.9 per cent were aged 15 to 64 years and 11.8 per cent were aged 65 years and over. Overall 5.9 per cent stated they were from an Indigenous background and 9.2 per cent reported that they were born overseas.

Purpose of investigation The purposes of this investigation are as follows:

to determine the nature of the complaints reported by the community to determine the prevalence of the health complaints experienced by the community to determine the severity of the health complaints experienced by the community to examine the level of exposure of residents in the Wieambilla Estates to CSG activities

including: — types of exposure — proximity of residents in the Wieambilla Estates to CSG activities — duration of exposure (length of time living in the area)

to identify other potential exposures that could be relevant to the residents’ health concerns.

Methodology In order to achieve the purposes of this investigation the DDPHU undertook the following activities:

determining the nature of the complaints experienced by the community: — self reporting, 13HEALTH (13 43 25 84) — redical reporting

determining the prevalence of the health complaints experienced by the community: — self reporting, 13HEALTH (13 43 25 84) — medical reporting

determining the severity of the health complaints experienced by the community — medical reporting

determining the level of exposure of residents in the Wieambilla Estates to CSG activities which includes types of exposure

— follow up interviews of individuals reporting symptoms and their families proximity of residents in the Wieambilla Estates to CSG activities

— geo-coding of reporting households to CSG wells and establishing the status of the wells (i.e. whether they are operational or not)

duration of exposure (length of time living in the area) — follow-up interviews of individuals reporting symptoms and their families

identifying other potential exposures that could be relevant for the residents’ health concerns — follow up interviews of individuals reporting symptoms and their families.

1. Self reporting—Health Contact Centre 13HEALTH (13 43 25 84) One of the problems reported by residents of the Wieambilla Estates was difficulty in accessing medical care. The distance from the estate to the nearest town, Tara, is approximately 40 km. Other difficulties with access related to the costs of consultations at the general practice (GP).

To assist with access issues, the HCC was engaged to administer a specific questionnaire to those residents who contacted the service with health complaints relating to the CSG activities. The HCC operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week delivering confidential telephone assessment and information services to the people of Queensland. These services can be accessed by calling 13 HEALTH (13 43 25 84). The service was promoted through signage at GP surgeries and local hospitals and through the Gasfields Community Support Group who subsequently undertook a leaflet drop to advertise the service.

Initially a full questionnaire was administered by the service. However, following complaints from representatives of the Gasfields Community Support Group around waiting times and the resultant mobile phone costs, a much shorter screening questionnaire was developed (refer to Appendix 2). All

completed screening questionnaires were forwarded to the PHP, DDPHU, who then contacted the complainant and administered a more detailed follow-up questionnaire (refer to Appendix 4). 2. Medical reporting Initially any allegations made to Queensland Health or to Queensland’s Minister for Health were followed up by the DDPHU with the local HCPs for verification. Medical reporting involved regular contact (twice weekly) with the local HCPs in the area and, included both the GP surgeries and local hospitals. The towns of Tara, Dalby, Chinchilla and Miles were included as part of the investigation as these places are in close proximity to CSG activity in this region. The DDPHU contacted local general practitioners and local hospitals in these towns requesting information on presentations from residents who believed their health complaints were related to exposure to CSG activity. The hospitals and GPs were also provided with a questionnaire they could complete when someone presented with symptoms (refer to Appendix 3). An opinion was sought as to the likelihood these symptoms were related to CSG activities. In addition to this, medical representatives from the mining companies were also contacted to determine if any employees had reported symptoms. Any presentations to HCPs were followed up by the PHP, DDPHU, using the more detailed follow-up questionnaire (refer to Appendix 4).

3. Follow up of individuals and their families A detailed questionnaire was developed to capture further information about the symptoms experienced by those reporting symptoms and their families (refer to Appendix 4). Other information, included:

relevant past medical history social history family history (e.g. number of people in each household) whether there are pets or other animals at the residence an exposure history an assessment of the local home environment (e.g. water supply, effluent management).

4. Mapping of households reporting symptoms to the locations of Coal Seam Gas wells Mapping of the region to demonstrate the proximity of households reporting symptoms to CSG wells was undertaken using Mapinfo version 11.5. The map was developed using three data layers.

1. First layer: is from the State Digital Road Network dataset1, and shows the Queensland road network with road names.

2. Second layer: obtained from DNRM shows the Coal Seam Gas boreholes2 in the area, as at 27 September 2012. This data was provided as an excel spreadsheet with the boreholes geo-coded and categorised according to their status3 and mapped accordingly.

3. Third layer: shows the locations of the households reporting symptoms. There addresses were geo-coded using Property Address Queensland, a cadastral dataset maintained by the DNRM. The distances of the closest CSG wells to each residence was then calculated using the Geographic Information System (GIS) tool Mapinfo ver 11.5 and noted accordingly.

Citation for SDRN:Unique Record ID: 8004924B-F0A4-4821-8076-02AA4E0B99C8Title: QLD SDRN StreetsCustodian: Pitney Bowes SoftwareJurisdiction: Queensland

Well data from Geological Survey Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM)

‘Producing Hydrocarbons’; Suspended/Capped/Shut-In; Plugged and Abandoned;Unknown.

Note: maps are removed for privacy reasons

Results The data use in this report was collected between 4 July 2012 and 12 November 2012, however as of 25 January 2013, this data collection is still ongoing. The new data will be evaluated periodically to determine if it affects the overall assessment. 1. The nature of the complaints experienced by the community Table 1 details the types of symptoms reported and the number of people affected by them. The most common symptom was headache (34), followed by sore, itchy eyes (18) and nose bleeds (14). Although individuals from a variety of age groups complained of nose bleeds, this symptom and skin rashes were reported predominantly in children. A number of people reported symptoms of depression and anxiety, but these conditions were often pre-existing.

It was noted that while there were community concerns about children with bleeding from the ears, no households reported this symptom either to the HCC or their local HCP. Table 1: Symptoms reported by residents to the Health Contact Centre 13HEALTH (13 43 25 84) and local healthcare providers Symptoms Number of people

reporting symptom

Headaches 34

Sore, itchy eyes 18

Nose bleeds 14

Skin rashes 11

Nausea 8

Pins and needles 7

Nasal congestion 6

Metallic taste 5

Depression 5

Diarrhoea <5

Respiratory symptoms <5

Anxiety/ stress <5

Blackouts <5 2. The prevalence of the health complaints experienced by the community As of 12 November 2012, Queensland Health had received reports from 13 families representing 58 individuals (of the 58 individuals where information was provided only 48 were reported to have had symptoms). Eleven families contacted the HCC, of the remaining families, one reported symptoms to the GP and another reported symptoms through the Gasfields Community Support Group. Three families reported their symptoms to both, the GP and the HCC. Two individuals who reported symptoms were not residents but had visited the area on a bus trip and were excluded from further analysis. The analysis was conducted on the information provided by the remaining 11 households representing 56 individuals. Follow-up with the local mining companies revealed that there had been no employees presenting to their healthcare personnel with a similar pattern of symptoms to those described by the residents.

3. The severity of the health complaints experienced by the community Local HCPs reported 16 encounters (nine individuals) who felt their symptoms were related to CSG exposure. The symptoms, included headache, nose bleeds, skin rashes and generally feeling unwell. The individuals affected with symptoms ranged from young children to adults. Several individuals presented on more than one occasion with the same symptoms. Findings on physical examination PHP, DDPHU, followed-up with the local GP at Tara (who was the only HCP who report seeing patients with possible CSG related symptoms) who advised that physical examination did not reveal any significant findings. In particular, examination of all individuals who had complained of nose bleeds failed to find any evidence of a recent bleed. Hospital admissions As of 12 November 2012, there were no reported hospital admissions related to CSG exposure. 4. The level of exposure of residents in the Wieambilla Estates to CSG activities Types of exposure Table 2 details the individual exposures reported at each household. Residents reported varying exposures to noise, odours and dust. One resident observed that even though the family did not experience any odours or fumes at their residence, they did experience this when out driving mainly through Chinchilla. Several residents identified a noise they related to the venting of the compressors at the CSG well sites. Residents reported the noise tended to be worse at night. Residents’ reports also suggested that considerable dust appears to be generated by the increase in traffic on the unsealed roads in this area. Table 2: Individual exposures reported at each household Household Exposure: Y = Yes and N = No

Odours/fumes Waste water Dust Noise/ vibration

1 Y (Windy days) N N N

2 Y (Rotten egg smell)

N (Waste water used to wash down roads; now stopped)

Y (Mainly when drilling)

Y (Noise from compressor)


N Y (Dust storms) N

4 N Y (Run off into dam)

N Y (Light hum mainly noticed at night)

5 N Y Y Y (Venting from compressor)

6 Y Y Y Y

7 Y (Sweet smell) N N Y (Mainly traffic noise)

8 Y N N N


N Y (Unsealed roads)

N

10 N N Y Y (Humming noise)

11 N (Notices when driving)

N Y (Unsealed roads)

N

Total 7 3 7 6

The proximity of residents’ households in the Wieambilla estates to CSG activities The proximity of households to the nearest well ranges from 1.0–7.2 km (median 2.2 km). The minimum distance from a household to a known active well is 1.0 km. However, the current status of the well is difficult to determine due to delays in receipt of information from the Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP) and issues around commercial in-confidence. Duration of exposure (length of time living in the area) Nine of the 11 families (82 per cent) had been living in the area for five years or less with some only moving to the area within the last 12 to 18 months. Most of the homes (78 per cent) where residents have reported symptoms have been built within the last 15 years. 5. Other potential exposures that could be relevant to the residents’ health concerns Household exposures The majority of households use wood heaters or fireplaces for heating their homes and most use gas for cooking. Many of the homes are not connected to the electricity grid and use generators for electricity supply. The majority of households have animals, mostly dogs and cats, and also other domestic animals. Water supply Table 6 details the water supplies to the households. The majority of households reported use of rainwater for most of their activities although some households still use dam water for showering and laundry.

Effluent management The majority of households use a septic system for effluent disposal.

Discussion Although there is information in the published literature about potential negative health effects resulting from exposure to CSG activities, there is no conclusive evidence of health effects directly related to this exposure. This may be due to the minimal levels of exposure to potentially hazardous contaminants in air, water and soil in community settings. When determining whether a particular activity is generating health risks from hazardous agents, a number of factors need to be considered:

the nature of the agent i.e. what it is any known harmful effects on health the level of exposure at which the agent causes harm i.e. concentration in the environment,

duration of the exposure (hours, days, months or years) the exposure pathways i.e. whether it is ingestion, inhalation or topical the nature of the exposed population, including vulnerable groups (such as children or the

elderly)

1. Nature of the complaints experienced by the community The main symptoms reported by the residents were headaches, nose bleeds, sore eyes and rashes. Each will be discussed in detail in turn. Headache The most common symptom, headache, was described by the majority of complainants as a generalised headache more predominant around the eyes. Most described their headache as a dull ache, although a few described a pounding sensation. The headaches generally would worsen over the day and be most intense at night. At night most of the residents advised that the headache would worsen as they could hear the sound of the compressors coming from the CSG wells. Although some residents advised they were awakened during the night from other causes, whilst awake they were conscious of the headache. There were no reports of sleep disturbance from headache. The headache was often described as being present for months on end. Some complainants perceived benefits from simple over the counter analgesics. However, some complainants advised they had received narcotic analgesia in order to settle the headache. Several complainants advised they had consulted their GP about the headaches which was verified by the medical reporting (seven presentations from July to 12 November 2012). Some complainants noted pins and needle in the hands or lips associated with their headache. There are many causes of headache and the symptom itself is very subjective. The lack of associated symptoms and the reported characteristics of the headache suggest that the nature of the headaches is benign rather than being indicative of serious medical conditions affecting the head or brain. To determine if the CSG activities play a role, a review of the environmental investigation is required. Eye irritation The second most common symptom reported was sore, itchy eyes. The complainants said they experienced sore, itchy eyes mainly when outside and the symptoms would settle on entering the home. These symptoms can be associated with irritation from environmental sources as well as other causes e.g. infection (bacterial or viral), allergies and underlying systemic disease. To determine if the CSG activities play a role, a review of the environmental investigation is required. Epistaxis (nose bleeds) This symptom seems to have caused the most angst within the community. This symptom was reported predominantly in children. Several of the complainants provided quite graphic descriptions of their children with blood pouring from their noses on a daily basis for several months. If nose bleeds were of such frequency and severity, then this would lead to health problems related to anaemia from chronic blood loss. There were no such reports. Several residents (mainly children) presented to the local GP for epistaxis since medical reporting commenced in July 2012. On no occasion did the general practitioner report any findings on physical examination.

Types of nose bleeds There are two types of nose bleeds:

1. Anterior nose bleeds which start in the area of the lower part of the nasal septum close to the nostrils called Little’s area. These are more common in children and young adults and are usually mild and easy to control.

2. Posterior nose bleeds originate from far back in the nose and are often due to arterial bleeding.

They can present a risk of airway compromise or aspiration of blood. They are more common in older people and are more difficult to control.

“Epistaxis is so common that almost everyone has had a nosebleed on at least several occasions, usually as a result of trauma. It has peaks of incidence at age 2–10 and 50–80 years old. Both sexes are affected equally. American studies calculate the incidence in the general population as being 60 per cent with less than 10 per cent seeking medical attention” (Knott, 2010). Causes of nose bleeds Nose bleeds often have no particular cause (spontaneous) or may be caused by:

environmental factors e.g. cold dry air, low humidity, high altitudes, chemical fumes, smoke local factors e.g. infection, rhinitis (allergic, non-allergic), sinusitis trauma e.g. hitting or bumping the nose, picking the nose, blowing the nose, nasal fracture or

foreign body abnormal structure of the nose e.g. nasal polyps, deviated nasal septum Arteriosclerosis (usually older patients) abnormal blood vessels in the nose (Rendu-Osler-Weber Syndrome an inherited disorder) tumours (benign or malignant) of Nasopharynx or Paranasal sinuses (evidence on physical

examination or CT scan) septal perforation (visible on examination) nasal abuse of illegal drugs e.g. cocaine and amphetamines blood clotting disorders e.g. Haemophilia, Leukaemia, Thrombocytopenia or von Willebrand’s

Disease (history of previous Epistaxis or bleeding from elsewhere on clinical examination e.g. easy bruising and evidence from investigations)

Medicines: — those that affect blood clotting e.g. aspirin, warfarin, non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs — cold and allergy medicines — oxygen (high concentration) — nasal inhalers — steroid nasal sprays.

(Fried, 2012) Therefore, potential causes for the reported nose bleeds are multiple and may be more a reflection of the age group than any particular cause. For emissions from CSG activities to be relevant to the reports of nose bleeds, it is considered there would need to be substantial exposure to irritant contaminants at levels associated with significant irritation of the nose, eyes and airways. To determine if the CSG activities play a role, a review of the environmental investigation is required. Skin rashes This symptom was another more commonly reported in children. Skin rashes also have multiple causes ranging from environmental irritants, allergies, infections (bacterial, viral, fungal), drug reactions and underlying systematic disorders e.g. SLE, psoriasis. To determine if the CSG activities play a role, a review of the environmental investigation is required. 2. The prevalence of the health complaints experienced by the community The estimated population for the Wieambilla Estate (exposure) area is 1257. As of 12 November 2012, 56 residents have been involved in the investigation and 46 have reported symptoms. The 46 residents

with symptoms equates to approximately 3.7 per cent of the population. Follow-up with the mining companies revealed no presentations from employees with similar symptom patterns to those described by the community. 3. The severity of the health complaints experienced by the community. As of 12 November 2012, nine individuals presented to the local GP at Tara with symptoms described as being related to CSG activities. This represents 0.7 per cent of the population. As of 12 November 2012, there have been no admissions to hospital for these symptoms. This indicates that although residents may have experienced these symptoms, they generally were not severe enough to warrant visiting the local GP or hospital for treatment. 4. The level of exposure of residents in the Wieambilla Estates to Coal Seam Gas activities Types of exposure Odour/fumes, dust and noise all rated highly as exposures to CSG activities. The most common odour reported by residents was of a rotten egg gas smell. This generally is caused by hydrogen sulphide. Exposure to water appears to be a historical one where previously waste water was used to dampen down the dust on the unsealed roads (this practice has now ceased). The majority of roads in the area of the Wieambilla Estates are unsealed and with the increase in the volume of traffic due to the resource development this is the most likely cause of the dust. The major noise complaint was related to the noise coming from the compressors and was described as a humming sound.

Proximity of residents in the Wieambilla Estates to CSG activities The majority of households reporting symptoms lived within 1–3 km of the nearest wells. One of the difficulties in reviewing the proximity of the wells to their dwelling is determining when the well became operational. For example, up until recently, the Duke CSG Wells were not operational. Duration of exposure (length of time living in the area) The majority of households reporting symptoms have lived in the Wieambilla Estates for five years or less. 5. Other potential exposures that could be relevant for the residents’ health concerns Household exposures Most of the dwellings were built within the last 15 years. The majority of households reporting symptoms used wood heaters or open fires for heating, therefore exposing occupants to smoke, a potential irritant of eyes, nose, throat and airways. It is worthwhile noting that the formal symptom reporting has occurred almost exclusively during the winter months (July) when the use of wood heaters and open fires could be expected to peak. Most households had animals on their properties (mainly dogs and cats), but there was no evidence to suggest that any animals were experiencing symptoms of irritation. Water supply Nearly all households were using rainwater for drinking purposes. However, in the majority of cases this water was not boiled or filtered prior to consumption. Some households were using dam water for laundry and showering. Limitations of the Darling Downs Public Health Unit investigation One of the main limitations of this investigation was the reliance on residents within the Wieambilla Estates to report symptoms to the HCC and/or to present to local HCPs with their symptoms. A small number of residents reported symptoms through both channels but overall the number of residents reporting symptoms represented only 3.7 per cent of the population.

Possible reasons for potential under-reporting of symptoms include:

lack of awareness of reporting mechanisms (the HCC service was advertised through local GPs and hospitals as well as by word of mouth and a leaflet drop undertaken by the Gasfields Community Support Group)

costs and/or access issues (often GPs in rural areas are heavily booked so it is difficult to see a doctor at the time of experiencing symptoms)

concern residents would experience a negative reaction from health care providers if they reported that their symptoms were related to CSG.

information reported to the HCC was not provided to the DDPHU. There were often discrepancies between what was reported by the residents and what was reported by the local HCPs. This arose where the resident presented to the HCP with what they believed were symptoms related to CSG but the HCP believed that there was another cause for the symptoms and therefore did not record this as a presentation. Similarly there have been no reported presentations by employees of the mining companies with symptom patterns similar to those described by the residents. There are multiple potential reasons for this including:

the employees are not experiencing symptoms employees are presenting to health-care providers outside the local area (many mining

employees work fly in/fly out or drive in/drive out rosters so they leave the local area and return to their usual place of residents between working shifts)

employee concerns that if they report similar symptoms to those in the community it may jeopardise their employment.

Another limitation of the investigation was the limited ability of DDPHU staff to undertake a clinical examination and further investigations of all individuals reporting symptoms as this is not a role undertaken by public health staff.

Conclusion Given the nature of the health complaints, there are multiple potential causes and explanations. This investigation by itself is unable to determine whether any of the health effects reported by the community are linked to exposure to Coal Seam Gas activities. The reasons for this are multiple and include:

the nature of the symptoms—apart from Epistaxis and skin rashes, the predominant symptoms reported by the residents of the Wieambilla Estate are subjective and non-specific with a lack of clinic findings

the low number of individuals affected—the estimated population for the Wieambilla Estate (exposure) area is 1257. Fifty-six residents have been involved in the investigation. However, only 46 have reported symptoms. This equates to approximately 3.7 per cent of the population. There is also a degree of individual susceptibility to developing a reaction to environmental exposures

the lack of evidence of employees working within the CSG industry having similar symptoms. If community members were experiencing symptoms due to CSG activities, it would be highly likely for workers in the industry to be reporting similar and probably more severe effects due to their likely much higher exposure

the severity of the symptoms—nine out of 46 who had reported symptoms actually presented to the local GP and there were no reports of presentations or admissions to the local hospitals. This is in contrast to the comments made by the residents who have complained that this is a serious issue that needs urgent attention and warrants immediate suspension of all CSG activity in the region.

other possible sources of air and water contamination—no environment is absolutely pure and there are multiple contaminants in air and water which may be of natural or man-made origin.

These can cause symptoms in individuals and the difficulty is in determining what contaminant has caused the symptoms. The majority of residents use wood-fired heaters or open fires for heating in the winter time (when the majority of complaints occurred) and both could explain some of the symptoms the residents are complaining of e.g. eye irritation, nasal congestion, headache. The majority of residents use rainwater for drinking purposes and the majority do not filter or boil their drinking water. This water can also be contaminated with bacteria, viruses or other organisms which are unlikely to be caused by CSG activities, but may cause the symptoms experienced by the residents e.g. nausea and vomiting. Other communicable diseases such as Q-fever, Leptospirosis and Ross River fever may cause some of the symptoms experienced by the residents and these causes also need to be excluded. The local GP has been informed of this and will investigate accordingly.

To better assess whether these reported symptoms could be related to exposure to CSG activities, comprehensive information on air, water and soil contaminants, as well as an evaluation of the level of noise currently experienced needs to be obtained. Environmental monitoring of these factors has been undertaken by other government agencies and industry. Queensland Health intends to access that information to assist in assessing whether the medical complaints detailed in this report may be due in some way to hazardous emissions from CSG activities.

Foot note Although not within the scope of this investigation, throughout this investigation the community has continued to voice concerns about the psychological impacts of the rapidly progressing CSG industry with anecdotal reports of increased levels of anxiety, depression and even suicidal ideation. The author has personally experienced the distress the community feels about the environmental changes through the follow up interviews and at the gas field Community Support meetings attended. A new concept ‘Solastalgia’ has been used to describe the distress that is produced by environmental change impacting on people while they are directly connected to their home environment. These negative effects can be exacerbated by a sense of lack of control over the unfolding change process (Albrecht et al 2007). It is the perception of the author that Solastalgia is contributing significantly to the ill health of this community.

References Fried M.P., “Epistaxis: Approach to the patient with nasal and Pharyngeal Symptoms”, The Merck Manual online: for Health –care professionals. 19th Edition, Chapter updated 2012. www.merckmanuals.com/professional/ear_nose_and_throat_disorders_html (Accessed 11/10/2012) “Emergency and Assessment: Nose bleeds”, CARPA (2009). CARPA Standard Treatment Manual, 5th edition. Alice Springs: Central Australian Rural Practitioners Association Inc. www.remotephcmanuals.com.au/html/publications/ref/1_Emergency_and_Assessment/nose_bleeds/ (accessed 11/10/2012) Knott. L “Nose bleeds (Epistaxis)” Patient.co.uk, Document ID: 2522 version 2.1, last checked 20/04/2010 http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Nosebleed-(Epistaxis).htm#ref-3 (accessed 10/1/2013) Albrecht G, Sartore G, Connor L, Higginbotham N, Freeman S, Kelly B, Stain H, Tonna A, Pollard G “ Solastalgia: The Distress Caused by Environmental Change” Australasian Psychiatry 2007, Vol. 15, No. s1 Pages S95-S98 http://apy.sagepub.com/content/15/1_suppl/S1 (accessed 25/1/2013)

Appendix 1 Map of the state of Queensland, Australia outlining the area of interest

Appendix 2 13 HEALTH (13 43 25 84) Questionnaire Health complaints related to exposure to Coal Seam Gas (CSG)

Date: ......../......../....... Registration ID: …………………………

Registration

Name: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. First name Surname

Date of birth: ......./......../............................. Age: ..............Years Months Sex: Male Female

Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Non-Indigenous Unknown

Address: ………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………...…………………………………… ........................................................................................................................................................ Postcode: ............................................ Home tel: ...................... Mob: .................................... Email: ............................................................................................ How many people live at home? ………………………………………

Please provide details of names and dates of birth and relation to person registering

Name (first and surname) Date of birth Relation to person registering

Usual General Practitioner: Dr ................................................................................................................................................................... Address: ........................................................................................................................................ Postcode: ............................................ Telephone: ................... Mob: .................................... Email: ............................................................................................

CASE DETAILS: Name: .................................................................................................................................................................................... First name Surname

Date of birth: ......./......../........ ............. Age: .............Years Months Sex: Male Female

Symptoms experienced (tick more than one)

Headaches Date of onset ......../......../........ Duration………………………

Epistaxis Date of onset ......../......../........ Duration………………..……

Sore/itchy eye Date of onset ......../......../........ Duration……….………….…

Family

Is anyone else in the family currently experiencing similar symptoms? Yes No Unknown

If yes, please tick symptom and number of affected family members

Symptom Number affected Symptom Number affected

Headaches Vomiting

Epistaxis Nausea

Sore/ itchy eyes Diarrhoea

Skin rash Metallic taste in mouth

Bleeding from ears

Is the client happy for Public Health staff to contact them to obtain further details? Yes No

What is the best number to contact them on? …………………………

Appendix 3 GP/Hospital Monitoring Questionnaire Health complaints related to exposure to Coal Seam Gas (CSG)

Date: ......../......../....... Registration ID: …………………………

CASE DETAILS: Name: .............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Address: ………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………….

........................................................................................................................................................ Postcode: ............................................


Symptoms experienced (tick more than one)

Headaches Date of onset ......../......../........ Duration……………

Epistaxis Date of onset ......../......../........ Duration……………

Sore/ itchy eyes Date of onset ......../......../........ Duration……………

Skin rash Date of onset ......../......../........ Duration……………

Bleeding from ears Date of onset ......../......../........ Duration……………

Vomiting Date of onset ......../......../........ Duration……………

Nausea Date of onset ......../......../........ Duration……………

Metallic taste in mouth Date of onset ......../......../........ Duration……………

Family

Is anyone else in the family currently experiencing similar symptoms? Yes No Unknown

If yes, please tick symptom and number of affected family members

Symptom Number affected Symptom Number affected

Headaches Vomiting

Epistaxis Nausea

Sore/ itchy eyes Diarrhoea

Skin rash Metallic taste in mouth

Bleeding from ears

In your opinion is there another explanation for these symptoms? Yes No

Is the client happy for Public Health staff to contact them to obtain further details? Yes No

What is the best number to contact them on? …………………………

Appendix 4 Follow up Questionnaire Health complaints related to exposure to Coal Seam Gas (CSG)

Date: ...........................................................................

Name of interviewer: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

CASE DETAILS: Case Identification No: .............................................................. Name: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. First name Surname


Name of parents/carer: ................................................................................................................................................................................

Name of the parent answering questionnaire:..........................................................................................................................................

Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Non-Indigenous Unknown

Address: ………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………...… ........................................................................................................................................................ Postcode: ............................................ Home tel: ...................... Mob: .................................... Email: ............................................................................................ Occupation: ...................................................................................... Work telephone: .......................................................................... Work place Address: ………………………………………….………………… Postcode: ............................................................................ Usual General Practitioner: Dr ................................................................................................................................................................... Address: ........................................................................................................................................ Postcode: ............................................ Telephone: ................... Mob: .................................... Email: ............................................................................................

CLINICAL DETAILS:

Symptom onset: Date: ......../......../........ Time:........ Unknown

What are the symptoms you experiencing: ………………………………………….…………………………………………………………..……

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Further details about symptoms (duration, severity, exacerbating or relieving factors, activities at symptoms onset) : ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Did you seek medical advice? Yes No

If Yes, do you consent to Queensland Health to contact your local health care provider for further information? Yes No

If Yes, Name of local health care provider .............................................................................................................................................. Address: ........................................................................................................................................ Postcode: ............................................ Telephone: ................... Mob: .................................... Email: ............................................................................................

PAST MEDICAL HISTORY:

What is your health like generally? Any significant medical history? Yes No If yes, please provide details ……………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Do you suffer from any allergies? Yes No Unknown

If yes, please provide details……..………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Medications: Are you taking any prescribed medications? Yes No Unknown

If yes, please provide details……………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Are you taking any over the counter medications or any alternative medicine treatments? (Herbal remedies/naturopathic

medications/ homeopathy) Yes No Unknown

If yes, please provide detail………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Do you drink alcohol? Yes No Unknown

If Yes, How much in average would you consume in a week? ……………………….

Do you smoke? Yes No Unknown

If Yes, How much on average would you consume in a day? ……………………….

Does anyone else at home smoke? Yes No Unknown

If yes provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………….…….………………….…………………………

Special diets/ dietary requirements vegetarian vegan gluten free lactose free other (please specify)

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

FAMILY HISTORY:

Any family history of health problems? Yes No Unknown

If yes, please provide details…………..…………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

How many people live at home? ………………………………………

Is anyone else in the family experiencing similar symptoms? Yes No Unknown

If yes, please provide details in table below.

Name DOB Relationship to interviewee Symptoms

Is anyone in the household pregnant? Yes No Unknown, If yes gestation? (weeks)………………………

Do you have any animals on your property? Yes No Unknown

If yes, please provide details….…………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Have any of your animals been sick? Yes No Unknown

If yes, please provide details……………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Do you think these signs and symptoms are related to CSG exposure? Yes No Unknown

If Yes, Why do you feel that it is related to CSG? …………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

EXPOSURE HISTORY:

Are you currently exposed to any of the following?

Fumes or odour from CSG wells Yes No Unknown If Yes; since when Date ......../......../........

Waste water from CSG activity Yes No Unknown If Yes; since when Date ......../......../........

Dust Yes No Unknown If Yes; since when Date ......../......../........

Loud noise, vibration associated

with CSG activity Yes No Unknown If Yes; since when Date ......../......../........

Other comments…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….............

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

How long have you lived in the area? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

What is the size of your property? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Proximity of closest CSG well to your house?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Proximity of closest CSG well to the boundary of your property? ………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Number of wells in your local vicinity…………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Do you undertake any regular activities in close proximity to the CSG wells? Yes No Unknown

If Yes, please provide further details (Type of activity and duration etc) …………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…

Are there any schools playgrounds, community buildings in close proximity to the CSG wells? Yes No Unknown

If Yes, please provide further details (Type of activity and duration etc) ………………………………………………………………..……

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY (These are questions about your home environment)

Approximately what year was your home built? ………………………………………

Which of the following do you have in your home?

Please circle those that apply.

Air conditioner Air purifier Central heating (gas or oil?) Gas stove Electric stove Fireplace

Wood stove Humidifier

Have you recently acquired new furniture or carpet, refinished furniture, or remodelled your home? Yes No

Unknown

Are pesticides or herbicides (bug or weed killers; flea and tick sprays, collars, powders, or shampoos) used in your home or

garden, or on pets? Yes No Unknown

If Yes, please provide details…….………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………

Do you (or any household member) have a hobby or craft (scrapbooking woodwork, work on cars)? Yes No N/A


……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Have you ever changed your residence because of a health problem? Yes No Unknown


……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

What water supply do you have to your house? (dam, bore, reticulated, rainwater) if different supplies what do you use each supply for? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

If other than reticulated water do you use water filters, boil water for drinking and showering? Yes No Unknown

If using a filter, what type is it? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Do you grow your own vegetables? Yes No

If Yes, what water do you use on the vegetables (dam, bore, reticulated, rainwater)? ……………………………………………..……

To manage effluent, what system do you use?

council sewer septic system composting toilets other…………………………………………………………………

Are you happy for the public health to contact you for further information? Yes No

What is the best way to contact you?.........................................

Any further comments? ….…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………….……

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Medibank HSD – HSA Letterhead - mono 18.01.10

Medibank Health Solutions Pty Ltd ABN 99 078 934 791

GPO Box 9821 Brisbane 4001

Phone 07 3307 9401

Fax 07 3307 9441

www.medibankhealth.com.au

Tuesday, 19 February 2013

Health Effects of Coal Seam Gas - Tara

Please note: some information about individual cases has been deleted from this version of the report, which is intended for public distribution, to ensure those individuals’ privacy.

I visited Tara on 11 and 12 October as requested, to undertake a review of individuals who believe their health has been adversely affected as a result of coal seam gas exploration being undertaken in the region. Queensland Health provided the consultation room with the Tara health facility, and also advertised my attendance, and made appointments for those families and individuals who telephoned. In addition, I undertook telephone consultations of 2 individuals who were not able to attend in person. I explained to all attendees that I was collecting information to present a report to Queensland health. I assured them that I would only be presenting the identified the group data, rather than individual case histories, but explained that, because the small numbers involved, it might be possible to identify some individuals from the symptoms described, and hence I could not provide complete anonymity. I have listed in an Appendix to this report the individuals who presented for examination, or telephoned, so that the names could be omitted if the report is to be released to the public.

Health Complaints

I was provided with a questionnaire which has been developed by Queensland Health for use when individuals telephoned the helpline. I used that as a template to provide some structure to my interviews, although I was not constrained by the template. Please find set out below the symptoms reported by the individuals whom I examined.

Common symptoms

• headache - specific comments: all the time now; headaches began around 2005/2006, CT scan normal, diagnosed as migraine; however reported to coincide with gas wells; Endone and tramadol didn't work

• nausea and vomiting

• nosebleeds - descriptions varying from some blood on a handkerchief, some crusting in the nose, through to frank bleeding. Some have been referred to, and are awaiting ENT review.

• irritation of nose, throat and eyes

• Various rashes and sores (a hand infection requiring antibiotic treatment; a diagnosis of school sores, with swabs apparently negative) and ongoing reported redness and cracking over the metacarpo-phalangeal joints of the hand

• a case of asthma, with a reported aggravation with a sulphur smell possibly associated with drilling.

• A complaint of pins and needles in hands and feet, and a complaint that it hurts to walk.

of 8

Individuals reported that they can smell gas morning and evening, when they report nostrils and throat burning, particularly when the wind drops. It is also reported that visitors will complain of a smell and irritation to which local residents have apparently become somewhat more tolerant. Some individuals also complained of an awareness of a low frequency vibration, which was noticeable when they placed their head on a pillow. A common pattern reported is of improvement in symptoms when away from the area with a recurrence of symptoms on return.

Examination

I undertook an examination of individuals where relevant. In several cases, the nasal mucosa appeared a little inflamed, but I did not see any other evidence of bleeding or crusting of the nasal mucosa. One individual had a papular rash which I was unable to identify. That apart, I was not able to find any objective evidence of the clinical conditions which were reported.

Other Information

Several individuals expressed a lack of confidence at a lack of trust in Queensland Health, and in some cases in local doctors. Some of the residents interviewed feel they have been treated poorly by Queensland Health, and question why results have not been returned. Residents also reported concern about anecdotal information, for example, "people are getting brain aneurysms in the USA". Another individual had become concerned about visitors from outside the area, because of a perception that is now too dangerous.

Locations and utilities

Most homes were located approximately 1-1.2 km from nearest well, and more distant from compressor stations. There were usually several wells in the vicinity, but further away. One examinee told me that the nearest well was drilled two and a half years ago, but symptoms were first experienced six months ago. In most cases, drinking water was provided rainwater collected from the roof and stored in tanks. One family used to bottled water for drinking. Some families used settled dam water for toilet flushing.

Coal Seam Gas

Coal seam gas (CSG) is the name given to any naturally occurring gas trapped in underground coal seams by water and ground pressure. The most common gas found in coal seams is methane, which is why the term Coal Bed Methane (or CBM) is used interchangeably with CSG. The water, which is under pressure from the weight of overlying rock material, holds the gas in place - when the water pressure is reduced the gas is released. In the extraction (or production) process, the water pressure is reduced when a well is drilled into a coal seam and the water is gradually pumped out of the seam. This allows the gas to flow to the surface in the well. Intrinsic properties of coal as found in nature determine the amount of gas that can be recovered. Once a well has been drilled it becomes the only conduit for gas and water to reach the surface. The two products are separated below ground, with water being transferred to centralised collection and treatment points, and the gas being piped to processing facilities where it is dried, compressed and fed into commercial pipelines. Gas contained in coal bed methane is mainly methane and trace quantities of ethane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and few other gases. Unlike much natural gas from conventional

of 8

reservoirs, cabled methane contains very little of the heavier hydrocarbons such as propane or butane, and no natural gas condensate. Coal seam gas is not novel or unique. Coal seam gas is also released during coal mining, when effective mine ventilation is required to prevent methane reaching explosive levels (5-15%). Thus, coal miners have been, and are regularly exposed to coal seam gas in the course of their work. Despite regular monitoring of the health of coalminers both in Queensland and internationally, no health effect from potential exposure to methane has been recognised.

What are the main health hazards associated with breathing in methane?

Methane is not toxic below the lower explosive limit of 5% (50000 ppm)1. However, when methane is present at high concentrations, it acts as an asphyxiant. Some closely related aliphatic hydrocarbons (propane, butane and isobutane) which may be present in trace quantities may be weak cardiac sensitizers in humans following inhalation exposures to high concentrations (greater than 5% for isobutane and greater than 10% for propane). Methane gas is not a skin irritant. Methane gas does not irritate the eyes. Harmful effects are not expected following long-term exposure. Methane does not accumulate. Methane is not expected to cause cancer.

Hydraulic fracturing - fracc(k)ing

Hydraulic fracturing - or fraccing - is a process used in areas where the character of a coal seam impedes gas flowing readily into a gas well. In these areas, hydraulic fracturing (fraccing) may be used to increase the permeability of a coal seam and improve gas flow. During the process, a fluid comprising mostly (99.5%) water and sand, and 0.5% of other additives, outlined below, is pumped at high pressure down the cased well and into the coal seam. This creates fractures in the seam in a horizontal plane up to 100’s of metres around the well, which are then held open by sand. Additives may be required to:

• enhance fracture initiation

• help lubricate the flow of the sand into the fractures

• prevent microbial or chemical reactions prevent or limit microbial or chemical reactions from occurring in the seam

• prevent formation of scale deposits that may affect the well or pumps.

They might include the following2:

Additive Type Main Compound(s) Purpose

Diluted Acid Hydrochloric Acid, muriatic acid Dissolves minerals

Biocides Glutaraldehyde, Tetrakis, hydoxymethyl phosphonium sulfate

Eliminates bacteria in water that produce corrosive products

Breaker Ammonium persulfate/ sodium persulfate

Delayed break gel polymer

Corrosion Inhibitor n,n-dimenthyl formamide, methanol, naphthalene, naptha, nonyl phenol, acetaldehyde

Prevents corrosion of pipes

Friction Reducer Mineral oil, polyacrylamide Reduces friction of fluid

1 http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/methane/health_met.html

2 Hydraulic Fracturing in Coal Seam Gas Mining: The Risks to Our Health, Communities, Environment and Climate. Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith and Dr Rye Senjen, National Toxics Network, September 2011

of 8

Additive Type Main Compound(s) Purpose

Gel Guar gum Thickens water

Iron Control Citric acid, thioglycolic acid Prevent metal oxides

KCl Potassium chloride Brine solution

pH Adjusting Agent Sodium or potassium carbonate Maintains pH

Scale Inhibitor Ethylene glycol Prevents scale deposits in pipe

Surfactants Isopropanol, 2-Butoxyethanol Affects viscosity of fluid

Crosslinker Ethylene glycol Affects viscosity of fracking fluid

A good deal of community concern around the fraccing process arises from:

1. the potential harmful effects of some of the chemicals used (although they are used in very low concentrations)

2. the possibility for environmental contamination when some of the material is released from the well, and

3. the possibility of contamination of underground aquifers. Whilst the coal seam gas companies provide generic information about the additional materials used in fraccing solutions, there is some reluctance to provide details of chemicals used due to commercial confidentiality. This leads to a perception that the companies are "hiding something". It is true that some of the chemicals used in drilling and hydraulic fraccing, and naturally occurring contaminants released from the coal seam during mining, could harm human health, given sufficient dose and duration of exposure. However, the information and misinformation provided to the community about these chemicals by the drilling companies on one hand, and those opposed to coal seam gas on the other contribute to the concerns in the community, and the lack of confidence in the information provided. On the one hand, the coal seam gas companies emphasise that many of the additives used in fraccing fluids "are made of substances commonly found in many household products". On the other hand, information provided both to the community, and in submissions to government enquiries by those opposed to coal seam gas fails to correlate the effects attributed to the various chemicals to likely exposure scenarios. For example, Arrow energy provides the following information:

About 99.5 per cent of the material pumped into a frac well comprises water and sand. The remaining 0.5 per cent is made up of minor quantities of additives used to:

Different additives may be used in different wells depending on the local conditions. In general, the additives used in fraccing fluids are made of substances commonly found in many household products.

The fraccing fluids used by Arrow are:

• acetic acid, food grade (the basis of vinegar, also used in herbicides)

• surfactants (also used in soaps and toothpaste) • bactericides (to inhibit the formation of bacteria that may corrode steel and cement,

also used in agricultural treatment of crops)

• guar gum (from the guar bean, vegetable gum is also used in ice cream and fed to cattle).

Like many common household products these additives can be toxic in highly concentrated forms, however in fraccing they are heavily diluted and present minimal risk as they remain isolated throughout the process."

of 8

On the other hand, the National Toxics Network asserts that "Over 78% of the chemicals are associated with skin, eye or sensory organ effects, respiratory effects and gastrointestinal or liver effects. The brain and nervous system can be harmed by 55% of the chemicals. Symptoms include burning eyes, rashes, coughs, sore throats, asthma-like effects, nausea, vomiting, headaches, dizziness, tremors, and convulsions." The same could be said about a wide range of chemicals, provided the dose was high enough. More specifically, they state that "Methanol causes central nervous system depression in humans and animals as well as degenerative changes in the brain and visual system. Chronic exposure to methanol, either orally or by inhalation, causes headache, insomnia, gastrointestinal problems, and blindness in humans and hepatic and brain alterations in animals." They provide no information about the dosage or duration of exposure necessary to produce some of these more severe effects. Some of these concerns could be allayed by better and more objective information provided by the various informants, and by the results of monitoring testing for air and water contamination. During my interviews, I was told that a variety of monitoring had been undertaken in and around Tara, and some of the people interviewed had even been provided with evacuated stainless steel canisters, to allow them to collect air samples at the time when they are aware of a particular smell. However, the results of this testing appear to have been presented in an ad hoc fashion by different people at different times, without necessarily giving a clear overview of likely exposure. Uninformed comments by doctors who are not familiar with toxicological principles may also contribute to concerns.

Environmental Monitoring I was provided with the following reports of investigations into environmental contamination associated with coal seam gas extraction:

• Wieambilla Estates Odour Investigation Report, July – December 2012. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Sciences, Science Delivery Division, Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, January 2013 (DSITIA).

• Environmental Health Assessment Report – Tara Complaint Investigation Report. Report prepared for Queensland Gas Company by Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd, January 2013 (ERM).

I also understand that sampling was undertaken by SIMTARS in March 2010, but I have not seen the results of those tests. The DSITIA air monitoring investigation at Wieambilla Estate focused on measuring the concentration of volatile organic compounds species in the air when it was present in the community. Sample for analysis were collected by residents during times when odour was considered to be at its worst, by drawing on the sample into evacuated Summa canister. The samples are collected was then sent for laboratory analysis by GCMS. In addition, DEHP staff collected 2 samples, together with a control sample collected in the Barakula State Forest, 38 km north Chinchilla. Additional monitoring is conducted by using passive diffusion samplers, which measure average concentrations over a period of time. A number of volatile organic compounds were detected in samples collected from different sites, but all results were substantially less than the ambient air quality guidelines, often by a factor of 100 or more. There was no evidence of harmful levels of any substance, even when collected at the time of maximal odour. The power of this study is that it gave residents the opportunity to collect samples at a time when they felt the odour was maximal, rather than just samples collected at a point in time, which may or may not have corresponded to maximal odour (and hence presumed exposure).

of 8

The ERM study undertook an analysis of samples of air, soil, and potable water collected from 9 Lots in the Wieambilla area in July 2012. A minimum of 4 soil samples, one water sample of drinking water, and one air sample was collected from each site. Five of 9 water samples demonstrated the presence of E. coli, a human bowel pathogen which is used as a marker of possible contamination of water supplies. It is not related to CSG activity. Two samples showed an excessive level of cadmium, and one of those also contained lead. I would not expect these to arise from CSG exploration or production. Further exceedances were documented in relation to water aesthetics, but again it was not possible to relate them directly to CSG activity. No soil constituents exceeded standards, and one air sample demonstrated the presence of benzene. Two air samples had been collected from outside, and the other sample did not demonstrate the presence of benzene. Benzene is not a normal constituent of coal seam gas, and so its source is uncertain. One criticism which can be made of this study is that in some cases, the standard against which the results were being compared was less than the limit of detection of the analytical method. For example, the US EPA RSLS for 1,1,1,2-tetrachloromethane is 0.33 µg/m3, whilst the limit of detection varied between 8.3 µg/m3 and 12 µg/m3. Thus it cannot be stated with certainty that the standard was not exceeded, although it does not invalidate the conclusion that 1,1,1,2-tetrachloromethane was not detected at the limit of detection. Despite this criticism, the testing provides comfort that despite testing for a wide range of substances, the vast majority were not able to be detected. Overall, these results do not indicate any significant exposure which could account for the ongoing symptoms

Summary and Opinion I undertook interviews with a number of individuals and families who live in and around Tara, and who are concerned about the potential effects of coal seam gas. Given the apparent level of community concern, I was perhaps surprised that a relatively small number of people elected to come and see me. Whether this was due to a lack of widespread interest, or due to limited pre-publicity, as was suggested to me by some people I cannot determine. In any case, the small numbers make it difficult to generalise from my observations. It was also clear from my discussions that potential health effects are only one of the concerns, alongside environmental concerns, and distress about the manner in which the coal seam gas companies are able to establish wells without necessarily securing the agreement of all stakeholders. Affected individuals describe a variety of symptoms predominantly including headache, nose bleeds, and nausea, as detailed above. Objectively, there was little to be seen, although of course, clinical signs would not be expected for headaches or nausea. The relationship between these symptoms and potential exposure to chemicals involved in the production of coal seam gas remains unclear, and indeed in many cases there appears to have been little effort to correlate symptoms with exposure, or with the known toxicological effects of specific substances. Exposure to coal seam gas has now occurred for many years, first in coal miners, and now in the coal seam gas drilling industry, without evidence of unique or substantial harm to employees in those industries. Most of the information I was able to identify on searching was anecdotal or speculative; there is little to support the current assertions in peer-reviewed literature. I would expect that the circumstances of exposure described to me for the most part would lead to relatively low level exposure, given the distance between the homes of affected individuals and wells, and the testing results made available to me would support that presumption.

of 8

It would appear that the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, and the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection have each undertaken some monitoring, and some individuals have been left with evacuated flasks to capture samples when they next become aware of the smells. I am aware that the gas companies have undertaken some of their own monitoring. I am not sure if any individual body has taken responsibility for collating and assessing all of this information, to gain an overall impression of potential exposures, or to correlate with specific complaints. In addition, where such monitoring has been undertaken, the process of feedback to some individuals would appear to have been ad hoc without an appreciation of other sources of information provided, or the context in which the information is being received, increasing the risk that the results might be misunderstood, or that individuals may be being given mixed messages. I would therefore recommend that the following further information be obtained, or collated where already available:

1. mapping of the location of wells, with current status, together with location of complainants/complaints, to better understand the relationship between possible exposure and reported symptoms. This has been done to some extent for the Wieambilla area in the ERM report (page 26), but this would not appear to have covered all complaints.

2. some general meteorological data concerning prevailing winds, to understand where any fugitive emission plume might go

3. information about monitoring which has been undertaken to date by government agencies and/or coal seam gas companies in

a. air, and

b. water. In cases of public health concern such as this, it is important to ensure that all appropriate investigations have been undertaken, and a thorough risk assessment be completed. However, this alone is insufficient, if the concerns of the population are not allayed. This may require a comprehensive communication strategy over some time to regain the confidence of the community, and to dispel perceptions that information is being withheld. As a relative latecomer, I may be unaware of some of the strategies which have already been implemented. However, it is important that one organisation or agency should have ownership of the problem, and the role of coordinating the responses by all involved parties. There were also complaints of noise/vibration noticed particularly at night, and sometimes described as being heard in the pillow when in bed at night. I am aware that the fraccing process requires the sand/water slurry to be pumped underground at high pressure, but I do not have detail about how this is achieved. However, it is plausible that high-pressure pumps, particularly if they utilise pistons, might produce a vibration which is transmitted through the ground for some distance from the site of the pump. I consider this is an issue which warrants further investigation. In circumstances such as these, complaints around health can become intertwined with environmental and other concerns. Whilst it is important from a scientific point of view to attempt so far as possible to separate these issues, one must remain mindful when communicating with the community that they tend to view them all as parts of a whole. I would welcome the opportunity to have further discussions with you, should you so desire. Yours faithfully

Coal seam gas Queensland Health Final [cleaned] March 2013.doc Page 8 of 8

Keith Adam M.B., B.S., F.A.F.O.E.M. Specialist in Occupational Medicine Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Queensland

References

Inquiry into coal seam gas / General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. [Sydney, N.S.W.] : The Committee, 2012. - xxi, 330 p.; 30 cm. (Report No. 35)

Hydraulic Fracturing in Coal Seam Gas Mining: The Risks to Our Health, Communities, Environment and Climate. Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith and Dr Rye Senjen, National Toxics Network, September 2011

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/methane/health_met.html

Environmental Health Assessment Report

www.erm.com

Queensland Gas Company

January 2013

0181432R01

Tara Complaint Investigation Report

FINAL REPORT


ENVIRONMENTAL

HEALTH ASSESSMENT

REPORT

Tara Complaint Investigation

Report

0181432R01

January 2013

This disclaimer, together with any limitations specified in the report, apply to use of this report. This

report was prepared in accordance with the contracted scope of services for the specific purpose stated

and subject to the applicable cost, time and other constraints. In preparing this report, ERM relied on: (a)

client/third party information which was not verified by ERM except to the extent required by the scope

of services, and ERM does not accept responsibility for omissions or inaccuracies in the client/third

party information; and (b) information taken at or under the particular times and conditions specified,

and ERM does not accept responsibility for any subsequent changes. This report has been prepared

solely for use by, and is confidential to, the client and ERM accepts no responsibility for its use by other

persons. This report is subject to copyright protection and the copyright owner reserves its rights. This

report does not constitute legal advice.

Approved by: Ken Kiefer

Position: Project Manager

Signed:

Date: 8 January 2013

Approved by: Greg Wheeler

Position: Partner Director

Signed:

Date: 8 January 2013

Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd Quality System


Environmental Health Assessment Report

Tara Complaint Investigation Report

January 2013

Final

REF: 0181432R01

www.erm.com

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND 1

1.2 RISK ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES 1

2 ISSUES IDENTIFICATION

2.1 BACKGROUND 2

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2

2.2.1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION 2

2.2.2 HYDROLOGY 3

2.3 CSG SOURCES AND MIGRATION 3

2.3.1 CSG WATER 3

2.3.2 CSG AIR 4

2.3.3 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAYS 5

2.3.4 AIR PATHWAYS 5

3 FIELDWORK

3.1 FIELD METHODOLOGY 7

3.2 WATER 7

3.3 SOIL 8

3.4 AIR 8

4 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS

4.1 LABORATORY ANALYSIS WATER 9

4.1.1 WATER ION CHEMISTRY 9

4.2 LABORATORY ANALYSIS SOIL 10

4.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS AIR 10

5 DATA EVALUATION

5.1 DATA QUALITY EVALUATION 11

5.1.1 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 11

5.1.2 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES 11

5.1.3 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 13

5.1.4 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 14

6 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

6.1 SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR LINKAGES (SPR LINKAGES) 16

6.1.1 SENSITIVE HUMAN RECEPTORS 16

6.1.2 SUMMARY OF COMPLETE SPR LINKAGES 16

CONTENTS

7 TIER 1 CHEMICAL SCREENING

7.1 TIER 1 SCREENING CRITERIA 19

7.1.1 WATER 19

7.1.2 SOIL 20

7.1.3 AIR 20

7.2 TIER 1 SCREENING RESULTS 21

7.2.1 WATER 21

7.2.2 SOIL 22

7.2.3 AIR 22

8 CONCLUSIONS

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA

FIGURE 2 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF AIR ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TABLE 4 QUALITY CONTROL - FIELD DUPLICATES - WATER

TABLE 5 QUALITY CONTROL - FIELD DUPLICATES - SOIL

ANNEXURES

ANNEX A REFERENCES

ANNEX B SCOPE OF WORKS: WATER, AIR, AND SOIL MONITORING OF PRIVATE

LAND IN KENYA BLOCK (QCOPS-OPS-USP-SOW-000020)

ANNEX C LOT FIGURES

ANNEX D SGS ANALYTICAL REPORTS

ANNEX E SCHOELLER DIAGRAMS

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0181432R01/FINAL/8 JANUARY 2013

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Queensland Gas Company (QGC) contracted Environmental Resources Management

Australia Pty Ltd (ERM) to conduct an Environmental Health Assessment Report

(EHAR) on the results of sampling conducted at nine (9) rural residential properties

(Lots) within the Tara Estates and QGC’s wells (hereafter collectively referred to as

the ‘study area’). Complaints from the Tara Estates triggered the need to complete an

environmental investigation at their Lots. ERM’s review was based on the results

from the environmental investigations at the Lots and at QGC’s wells in the study

area.

The objective of this EHAR was to identify if the results reported from the

environmental investigations indicate the potential for Coal Seam Gas (CSG)

activities to produce emissions that may impact on the health of local residents.

Study Area

The environmental investigations were undertaken at nine (9) Lots, described as

follows:

Lot 1

Lot 5

Lot 7

Lot 8

Lot 9

Lot 13

Lot 127

Lot 166

Lot 237

Twelve (12) CSG wells are located between 0.6 km and 17 km from the Lots and are

used for the extraction of CSG and water from the Walloon coal seam.

Human Receptors and Exposure Pathways

The residential receptors in the study area were considered in the risk assessment.

Releases of coal seam gas and coal seam water have not occurred. Accordingly, there

are no complete SPR linkages between coal seam gas production in the study area and

the Lots. However, the EHAR conservatively considered the following pathways

potentially complete:

Direct contact with soil (incidental ingestion and dermal contact);

Ingestion from the domestic use of water; and

Inhalation of ambient air.


ii

Risk Characterisation Results

The screening of water, soil and air data identified several constituents which

exceeded health based criteria, which indicates potential health risks, however, the

presence of these constituents within the study area is not due to CSG activities and

are from other sources.

Overall, the review of the reported investigation results from the study area does not

indicate the presence of constituents related to CSG activities that may impact the

health of residents.


1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Queensland Gas Company (QGC) contracted Environmental Resources

Management Australia Pty Ltd (ERM) to conduct an Environmental Health

Assessment Report (EHAR) on the results of sampling conducted at nine (9)

rural residential properties (Lots) within the Tara Estates and QGC’s wells

(hereafter collectively referred to as the ‘study area’) which requested

environmental investigations at their Lots. Complaints from the Tara Estates

triggered the need to complete an environmental investigation at their Lots.

ERM’s review was based on the results from the environmental investigations

at the Lots and at QGC’s wells in the study area.

The objective of this EHAR was to identify if the results reported from the

sampling program indicate the potential for Coal Seam Gas (CSG) activities to

produce emissions that may impact on the health of local residents.

1.2 RISK ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES

The overall objective for environmental investigations with in the study area

was to identify whether environmental media sampled (including water, soil,

and air) indicate the potential for CSG activities conducted by QGC or other

CSG proponents to produce emissions that may impact the health of local

residents.


2

2 ISSUES IDENTIFICATION

2.1 BACKGROUND

The environmental investigation was undertaken at nine (9) Lots, described as

follows:

Lot 1

Lot 5

Lot 7

Lot 8

Lot 9

Lot 13

Lot 127

Lot 166

Lot 237

Twelve (12) CSG wells are located between 0.6 km and 17 km from the Lots

and are used for the extraction of CSG and water from the Walloon coal seam

(Figure 1).

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.2.1 Study Area Description

The Tara Estates study area, is located approximately 2.5 kilometres west of

the town of Wieambilla and covers an area of approximately 19 hectares (ha).

The study area location is illustrated in Figure 1, Annex A. The study area

currently comprises nine (9) Lots, which are vegetated with dense scrub to

open woodland. Buildings (located in small clearings on each Lot) generally

include a house, numerous water tanks and small sheds. The majority of

residents are utilising rain water for drinking which is stored in water tanks

(generally poly tanks), captured from the main dwelling roof (generally tin).

No groundwater is extracted for drinking water purposes. Other features

include animal pens, dams, caravans and shipping containers. Dams are also

utilised for bathing and irrigation purposes on some Lots, water is generally

stored in Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs).


3

2.2.2 Hydrology

Surface Water

Wieambilla Creek flows from north to south, east of the study area. Jack

Creek branches off Wieambilla Creek north of the study area and flows south-

west to the west of all nine (9) Lots, with the exception of Lot 1 and Lot 9,

which are located further west of Jack Creek.

Dams are present on Lot 5 (1 dam), Lot 8 (5 dams, 2 used for toilet flushing

and irrigation), Lot 9 (1 dam and some ephemeral water bodies), Lot 13 (2

dams and an ephemeral water body), Lot 127 (1 dam), Lot 166 (1 dam, no

longer used for drinking water) and Lot 237 (1 dam used for irrigation).

It is noted that Lot 237 floods following periods of heavy rainfall and drains to

the north-east.

2.3 CSG SOURCES AND MIGRATION

2.3.1 CSG Water

QGC’s petroleum leases that are nearest the study area are named Codie, Kate

and Kenya. Codie wells are to the west (within the study area) and north-

west (beyond the study area). Kate wells are to the east and north within the

study area. Kenya wells are further to the north, beyond the study area.

CSG water composition data is available for 14 Codie wells which are of

similar construction and location to other Codie, Kate and Kenya wells. The

average chemical composition is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Average Groundwater Composition for Codie Wells

CSG Wells

TDS

Averag

e mg/L

Sodium

Average

mg/L

Chloride

Average

mg/L

Total Alkalinity (as

CaCO3) Average mg/L

Averag

e of pH

COD_WH002 2600 1053 365 1850 8.5

COD_WH003 2217 902 185 1783 8.4

COD_WH004 2100 940 196 5220 8.4

COD_WH005 2167 947 320 1633 8.3

COD_WH006 3229 1286 331 2343 8.5

COD_WH007 2300 1015 238 1850 8.4

COD_WH008 2643 1090 281 2043 8.6

COD_WH009 2250 1020 175 1900 8.5

COD_WH010 2550 1020 315 1900 8.6

COD_WH011 2125 818 220 1550 8.5

COD_WH012 2288 931 284 1713 8.5

COD_WH014 2260 928 290 1700 8.6

COD_WH015 2567 1027 430 1800 8.2

COD_WH017 2333 923 238 1789 8.6

AVERAGE 2437 998 277 2080 8.5


4

2.3.2 CSG Air

CSG air composition data is available for 14 Codie wells which are of similar

construction and location to other Codie, Kate and Kenya wells. The average

chemical composition is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Average Gas Composition for Codie Wells

CSG Wells

Average of

Carbon Dioxide

N Mol %

Average of

Ethane N Mol

%

Average of Methane

N Mol %

Average of

Nitrogen N

Mol %

COD_WH002 0.11 0.017 97.9 1.97

COD_WH003 0.20 0.018 98.5 1.23

COD_WH004 0.21 0.018 98.3 1.50

COD_WH005 0.25 0.020 97.6 2.13

COD_WH006 0.38 0.020 98.7 0.93

COD_WH007 0.14 0.018 98.5 1.33

COD_WH008 0.17 0.019 98.6 1.17

COD_WH009 0.13 0.020 98.2 1.65

COD_WH010 0.12 0.018 98.5 1.36

COD_WH011 0.26 0.020 98.6 1.18

COD_WH012 0.22 0.020 98.2 1.55

COD_WH014 0.18 0.020 97.7 2.10

COD_WH015 0.30 0.020 97.1 2.63

COD_WH017 0.19 0.018 98.3 1.53

AVERAGE 0.21 0.019 98.3 1.50

In addition, a gas monitoring study has been undertaken by the Queensland

Government Simtars, Gas Monitoring at Tara Gas Field for Safety and Health

Division, DEEDI Brisbane report (7 May 2010), in response to concerns raised

by Tara residents, with sampling completed between 30 and 31 March 2010.

The investigation inspected and sampled a number of “Lauren” and “Codie”

wells. The summary of the findings were as follows:

No gas leaks were detected;

No toxic gases or volatile organic compounds were found in ambient air downwind from the wells;

Methane gas was Not Detected downwind of any of the seven well heads tested;

Testing of the coal seam gas from Codie #6 showed a gas that was high in methane content and low in other volatile organic compounds;

An air sample from over the over pressure vent sample on Codie #6 has elevated methane and was attributed to a venting safety relief valve on pipe work from the well head to a gas separator at the site. The venting is a normal function of this valve. When the measurement was taken a metre away from the vent, no methane was detected;


5

Ambient air samples collected downwind from an operating well (Codie #6) showed no presence of coal seam gas components; and

No public health standards were exceeded in any of the samples of ambient air.

2.3.3 Surface Water Migration Pathways

No releases of coal seam gas production water to surface water have occurred

and therefore there are no pathways of potential impact from QGC

infrastructure via surface water migration pathways.

2.3.4 Air Pathways

Meteorological data for the period 16-18 July 2012 supplied by QGC (Annex

D) indicates that the prevalent wind directions are north-easterly to south-

easterly. Wind speed was generally recorded at between 5-10 metres per

second (m/s), but ranged from 0 to 22 m/s. Reference to the Bureau of

Meteorology (BoM) website data confirms these wind directions.

Data gathered in the field by SGS Leeder (as per field methodology described

in Section 3.1 below) does not align with the QGC and BoM data. This is likely

to be due to the effect of dense scrub / vegetation described at each of the

Lots, which would have impacted upon wind movements in specific

locations. As such, the field data collected by SGS Leeder is of limited use

when considering wind patterns within the study area as a whole and

potential air contamination sources, given they reflect specific conditions on

each Lot based more on vegetation clearing.


6

3 FIELDWORK

Field activities were conducted between 11 and 19 July 2012. The field

activities are summarised in Table 3, below.

Table 3 Fieldwork Activity Summary

Location

Fieldwork

Dates Fieldwork Activity Summary

Lot 1 12, 13 and 17

July 2012

4 soil samples (north, south, east [vegetable garden] and

west);

2 water samples (dam and water tank [drinking water]); and

2 ambient air samples (near house and driveway).

Lot 5 11 and 12 July

2012

4 soil samples (playground, vegetable garden, dam overflow

channel and dam spoil stockpile);


1 ambient air sample (backyard).


2012

4 soil samples (dam, swamp, dam spoil and driveway);

1 water sample (water tank [drinking water]); and

2 ambient air samples (outdoor kitchen samples taken from

the same location during different time periods).

Lot 8 12 July 4 soil samples (north [garden], south [near former chicken

pen], west [ fenced area around house] and west [black loam

from end of block]);

1 water sample (kitchen tap [drinking water]); and

1 ambient air sample (front yard).


2012

4 soil samples (front gate, vegetable garden [2 samples] and

drainage line);


1 ambient air sample (crest of property).

Lot 13 13, 16 and 17

July 2012

4 soil samples (around house and from vegetable garden);


1 ambient air sample (

Lot 127 19 July 2012 4 soil samples (rear of Lot, area of cracked earth, drainage line

and garden);


1 ambient air sample.

Lot 166 17, 18 and 19

July 2012

4 soil samples (north, south, east and west);


2 ambient air samples (front of Lot and house).

Lot 237 12, 13, 16 and

17 July 2012

5 soil samples (vegetable garden, east, driveway, sample 4

and sample 5);

3 water samples (dam, drinking water and water tank); and

2 ambient air samples (daytime yard and overnight yard).


7

3.1 FIELD METHODOLOGY

Fieldwork included sampling and analysis of water, soil and air samples on

each of the nine (9) Lots in accordance with QCGs Scope of Works: Water, Air,

and Soil Monitoring of Private Land in Kenya Block QCOPS-OPS-USP-SOW-

000020_0 (QGC Scope of Works). Details pertinent in QGCs Scope of Works

for each sample matrix are described below. Field notes required in QCGs

Scope of Works included the following:

GPS location of monitoring points (Latitude/Longitude) reported in

decimal degrees;

Photographs of monitoring locations, conditions, equipment and other

aspects pertinent to representation of the conditions of the monitoring Lot

and equipment on the day of sampling;

Meteorological conditions and observations at the time of

sampling/monitoring including temperature, wind speed and direction,

and barometric pressure;

Observations of physical condition of tank and water delivery

infrastructure (taps and plumbing) used in collection of water samples;

and

Field observations and notes pertinent to the monitoring program or likely

to impact the quality or representativeness of results.

All samples were required to be stored and transported appropriately under

Chain of Custody (COC) documentation, samples were to be transported to

the laboratory as soon as possible and analysed within specified holding

times to ensure validity of results.

3.2 WATER

QCG’s Scope of Works required water samples to be collected from potable

drinking water sources representative of quality and end use for each

residence and to meet the requirements of DEHPs ‘Monitoring and Sampling

Manual 2009. Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009. Version 2, September

2010’.

Leeder Consulting also collected water samples as per their internal

specifications LS-QCG-004 Sampling of Water from Ponds and Surface Water

Sites, which details Safety, Equipment, Contamination Prevention and

Procedures.


8

3.3 SOIL

QCGs Scope of Works required soil samples to be collected to represent

general soil conditions of each property and at depths considered to represent

potential impacts on and the health of crops or plants growing on each

property. Sampling was also required to follow AS 4482 series – Guide to the

investigation and sampling of sites with potentially contaminated soil.

3.4 AIR

QCGs Scope of Works required air samples to be collected to obtain a

representative sample of the condition on the day of sampling, but in line

with the following points:

Monitoring should be taken upwind of the residence, in order to be

representative of any exposure at the residence from contaminants related

to sources outside the property boundary;

Where practicable, monitoring should be conducted downwind of any

CSG infrastructure or operations within the property boundary of

surrounding properties;

Monitoring should be conducted over a suitable time period so as to

provide a representative sample of any contaminate exposure;

Monitoring must not be conducted near artificial contaminant sources

which could adversely impact the results including LPG/natural gas

appliances, vehicle exhausts, fires, organic solvents, etc; and

Should long term monitoring be conducted using active/passive sampling

equipment left on site, adequate controls and processes to eliminate or

identify tampering of sampling equipment should be in place.

Monitoring of ambient air was also required in accordance with AS 3580 series

– Methods for Sampling and Analysis of Ambient Air.


9

4 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS

A summary of laboratory analytical results is presented in Tables 1 - 3.

Analytical laboratory reports, chain of custody, and analysis request

documentation are included in Annex D.

4.1 LABORATORY ANALYSIS WATER

Water samples were submitted to SGS Leeder (a NATA accredited laboratory)

for analysis of:

pH;

Conductivity;

Anions and cations;

Organic carbon (dissolved and total);

Biological oxygen demand;

Nitrogen (Nitrate as N, Nitrite as N and Total Nitrogen);

Total cyanide;

Total and dissolved metals (suite of 21 metals – aluminium, arsenic,

barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,

manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silica, silver,

strontium, vanadium and zinc);

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH);

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH);

Phenols;

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX); and

Coliforms.

4.1.1 Water Ion Chemistry

Ion profiles for the Lots are provided in Schoeller Diagrams (Annex E), which

does not indicate similarity between the CSG water and the dam and poly

tank water indicating that the reported concentrations are not linked to CSG

water, rather localised environmental conditions.

The history of the storage tanks used for drinking water and dam water is also

unknown.


10

4.2 LABORATORY ANALYSIS SOIL

Soil samples were submitted to SGS Leeder (a NATA accredited laboratory)

for analysis of:

pH;

Moisture;

Conductivity;

Texture;

Metals (suite of 12 – aluminium, boron, calcium, copper, iron, magnesium,

manganese, molybdenum, potassium, sodium, sulphur and zinc);

Exchangeable metals;

Total nitrogen;

Total phosphorus; and

Total carbon.

4.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS AIR

Air samples were submitted to SGS Leeder (a NATA accredited laboratory)

for analysis of:

Vacuum / pressure;

Volatile organics;

Total VOC as n-hexane;

General gases (helium, hydrogen, methane, carbon dioxide, carbon

monoxide and ethylene); and

Sulphur gases.


11

5 DATA EVALUATION

The goal of data collection is to adequately characterise the nature and extent

of potential contamination issues arising from an investigation area. Data

collection is an important component of issue identification and the quality of

a risk assessment is dependent on the quality of input data on which it is

based.

A detailed assessment of the quality of the data used in this assessment and

the preliminary evaluation of this data is outlined herein.

5.1 DATA QUALITY EVALUATION

5.1.1 Data Quality Objectives

The amount, nature and quality of the data used in this risk assessment have

been determined by the data quality objectives (DQOs). Consideration of the

DQOs has been given to ensure the reported data are sufficient to characterise

water, soil and air impacts at sampling locations within the study area.

In establishing DQOs for this risk assessment the following general processes

have been applied1:

Issue identification – consideration of the setting of the study area and data

required to assess plausible exposure pathways and receptors;

Identification of information needed to adequately characterise the hazard

and quantify exposures (including previous assessments, investigations,

interviews, historical information, government/agency records);

Definition of the spatial/temporal adequacy of the data; and

Setting of acceptable limits for decision and data quality errors relative to

consequences.

5.1.2 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Samples

Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QA/QC) samples are used to verify that

sampling and analytical systems used in support of project activities are

effective and the quality of the data generated is appropriate for making

decisions. A review of the method for assessing QA/QC using field and

laboratory QC samples is provided below.

1 Adapted from the US EPA, Quality Assurance – QA/G-4, Guidance for the Data Quality

Objectives Process, in accordance with consideration of Data Quality Objectives described in the

National Environmental Protection (Site Contamination) Measure, 1999 (NEPM).


12

Precision

Precision is a measure of the degree of agreement between replicate

measurements of the same source or sample. Precision is expressed by RPD

between replicate measurements. Replicate measurements can be made on

the same sample or on two samples from the same source. Precision is

generally assessed using a subset of the measurements made.

The laboratory limits for precision, as measured by the RPD between

analyses, are the laboratory control limits, based on historical data calculated,

as specified in the analytical methods.

Precision is calculated using the following equation, where Xl and X2 are

duplicate measurements:

100

2

(%)21

21

XX

XXRPD

Accuracy

Accuracy measures the level of bias that an analytical method or

measurement exhibits. To measure accuracy, a standard, or reference material

containing a known concentration, is analysed or measured and the result is

compared to the known value. Several QC parameters are used to evaluate

the accuracy of reported analytical results and are listed below.

Holding times and sample temperatures;

Laboratory control spike percent recovery;

Laboratory matrix spike percent recovery (organics);

Spike sample recovery (inorganics);

Surrogate spike recovery; and

Blank sample results.

Surrogate Recovery - Surrogate spike recovery is used to evaluate the

accuracy of reported measurements. A surrogate standard is a distinct

chemical that behaves similarly to the target chemical and is purposely added

to the sample prior to cleanup and extraction. The surrogate spike recovery is

used to assess recovery of the target chemical from the sample matrix. A

known amount of a surrogate standard is added to the sample prior to

cleanup. The amount of the surrogate detected in the analysis is compared to

the amount added and the percent recovery is determined. Accuracy is

calculated as follows:

100%K

TXR


13

where:

R = recovery

X = analytical result of spike sample

T = analytical result of the un-spiked aliquot

K = known addition of the spiked compound

Blanks - Accuracy is also evaluated by comparing results for the analysis of

blank samples to results for investigative samples. Blanks are artificial

samples designed to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination of

environmental samples that may be introduced by field or laboratory

procedures. Contaminant concentrations in blanks should be less than

detection or reporting limits.

5.1.3 Data Quality Assessment Criteria

Analytical data used to form conclusions presented in this assessment were

adopted from the SGS reports for each Lot provided in Annex D. As part of

these investigations, the QA/QC data were evaluated to determine which met

or exceeded acceptable specifications for the study area assessment. This data

assessment process was undertaken to ensure that the sample data was of a

suitable standard to be utilised for each report.

The quality of analytical data was considered based on the following:

1. Field Quality

Collection and analysis of field duplicate samples at a rate greater than 1

in 20 primary samples. Relative percent differences (RPDs) of the

primary and duplicate samples are required to be within the acceptable

range of 50%;

The inclusion of trip blanks and trip spikes in field sample storage and

transportation. Subsequent analysis of trip blanks are required to be

less than the laboratory limit of reporting (LOR) and trip spike

recoveries are required to be within acceptable recovery criteria; and

Preparation of field rinsate blanks. Subsequent analysis is required to be

below the laboratory LOR.

2. Laboratory Quality

Preparation of laboratory method blank samples, meeting the required

frequency of 1 in 20 samples. Subsequent analysis is required to be

below the laboratory LOR;


14

Preparation of laboratory matrix spike samples, surrogates and

laboratory control samples meeting the required frequency of 1 in 20

samples. Subsequent analysis is required to have a percent recovery

within the established limits;

Preparation of laboratory duplicate samples meeting the required

frequency of 1 in 20 samples. Subsequent analysis is required to be

within the acceptable RPD range of 70% to 130%; and

Compliance of container requirements and holding times.

3. Adequacy of Investigation

Sufficient samples collected to adequately characterise spatial and

temporal heterogeneity in chemical concentrations at the site.

5.1.4 Data Quality Assessment Summary

The data review process involves the comparison of the reported chemical

concentrations in water, soil, and air samples with conservative health risk

screening criteria. The reported concentrations are provided in the laboratory

report as Annex D. Laboratory analysis was completed by SGS Leeder (a

NATA accredited laboratory) per the methods identified in the QGC Scope of

Works.

Field QA/QC

Two field duplicate QA/QC water samples were taken per the 16 total water

samples. Four field duplicate QA/QC soil samples were taken per the 36 total

soil samples. The field duplicate sampling rate for soil and water meet the 1

per 20 samples criteria. No field duplicate air samples were taken.

Field duplicate RPDs were in the acceptable range in reference to AS4482.1-

2005 or were not able to be calculated due to analyte concentrations recorded

beneath the laboratory LOR, with the some exceptions between primary and

duplicate water and soil samples, refer Table 4 and Table 5, respectively.

The discrepancy in the RPD noted between the water and soil duplicate pairs

is most likely due to the low levels of the reported analytes. Even a minor

alteration in concentration between samples can result in a high RPD value

when the original concentration is low, or due to the heterogeneous nature of

soils. As such, the calculated RPD values are not considered an indicator of

poor integrity of results.

Two field blank samples were taken, one air and one water. No soil rinsate

blank samples were taken. No analytes were reported above the LOR in the

blank results.


15

Laboratory QA/QC

Laboratory QA/QC analyses (e.g. duplicates, blanks, spikes, and surrogate

recoveries) are summarised below:

All RPDs generated between duplicate laboratory samples were in the

acceptable range according to AS4482.1-2005;

No target analytes were reported in the analysis blanks; and

All laboratory method blanks had reported concentrations within

acceptable limits defined by the laboratory.

As such, the data is considered suitable for its intended use (to provide an

assessment of potential contaminant sources that could be associated with

Tara Residents’ complaints).


16

6 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

6.1 SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR LINKAGES (SPR LINKAGES)

For exposure to the identified receptors to be considered possible, a

mechanism (‘pathway’) must exist by which contamination from a given

source can reach a given receptor. A complete ‘source-pathway-receptor’

exposure mechanism is referred to as a ‘SPR linkage’.

The potential SPR linkages are evaluated for completeness based on the

existence of:

A source of chemical contamination;

A mechanism for release of contaminants from identified sources (e.g. fugitive emissions from the gas infrastructure at the surface, including from the coal seam gas well head);

A contaminant retention or transport medium (e.g. soil, air, groundwater etc.);

Potential receptors of contamination (e.g. groundwater, surface water, people); and

A mechanism for chemical intake by the receptors at the point of exposure (ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation or a combination thereof).

Whenever one or more of these elements are missing, the SPR linkage is

incomplete and the potential risk to the identified receptor is considered

unlikely.

6.1.1 Sensitive Human Receptors

This assessment was to address concerns raised by residents of nine (9) Lots

of in the study area. None of the CSG infrastructure lies within the direct

vicinity of these residences.

6.1.2 Summary of Complete SPR Linkages

Surface releases of coal seam gas production water to surface water have not

occurred. In addition, the Queensland Government’s gas monitoring study

found no gas leaks were detected and ambient air samples collected

downwind from an operating well (Codie #6) showed no presence of coal

seam gas components. Accordingly, the no complete SPR linkages between

coal seam gas production in the study area and Lots exist.


17

The CSM and potentially complete SPR linkages for the study area are

illustrated in Figure 2 and summarised in Table 4.


18

Ta

ble

4

Su

mm

ary

of

Exp

osu

re P

ath

wa

ys

Co

nsi

der

ed f

or

Hu

ma

n R

ecep

tors

PR

IMA

RY

R

EL

EA

SE

ME

DIA

OF

EX

PO

SU

RE

M

EC

HA

NIS

M(S

)C

ON

CE

RN

RO

UT

E(S

)R

EC

EP

TO

RS

(Nin

e r

esid

ential pro

pert

ies in T

ara

)

Off-

site R

esid

ent

Derm

al C

onta

ct

Ingestion

Inhala

tion

Derm

al C

onta

ct

Ingestion

Inhala

tion

Derm

al C

onta

ct

Ingestion

Inhala

tion

=

Pote

ntially

com

ple

te e

xposure

path

way

=

Sig

nifi

cant

exposure

route

=

Min

or

or

insig

nifi

cant

exposure

path

way

=

Lim

ited o

r in

sig

nifi

cant

exposure

route

=

Incom

ple

te e

xposure

path

way

PR

IMA

RY

SO

UR

CE

(S)

No r

eport

ed s

pill

(s)

from

any o

f th

e C

SG

wells

in

the T

ara

Are

a

No g

as leaks found a

t

wells

. A

mbie

nt

air

sam

ple

s c

olle

cte

d

dow

nw

ind fro

m C

odie

#6

show

ed n

o p

resence o

f

coal seam

gas

com

ponents

.

Coal

Seam

Gas

Pro

duction

Surface W

ate

r

Fugative

Em

issio

ns to

air f

rom

CS

G

infrastu

ctu

re

Am

bie

nt

air o

f re

sid

ents

or

work

ers

Surface

Rele

ase o

f F

low

back/

pro

duction

� ��


19

7 TIER 1 CHEMICAL SCREENING

The Tier 1 risk assessment process involves comparison of the observed

chemical concentrations in soil and groundwater at the study area with

conservative ‘Tier 1’ screening criteria.

The aim of this process is to assess which contaminant concentrations are

unlikely to cause a significant risk to human health.

Contaminants with concentrations above the Tier 1 screening criteria are then

assessed further as part of the Tier 2 risk assessment.

The two fundamental inputs required to complete a Tier 1 risk assessment

include:

The definition of appropriate generic screening criteria for the identified

SPR linkages (outlined in Section 6); and

The appropriate delineation of potential contaminants of concern in water,

soil and air to ensure that sampling is representative of concentrations

found in the study area.

While complete human exposure pathways were not identified between coal

seam gas sources and the residents, due to the lack of releases and the

distance from the wells to the residents, the data were still included in the Tier

1 assessment of potential risks.

7.1 TIER 1 SCREENING CRITERIA

7.1.1 Water

The Tier 1 screening criteria applied to the groundwater data were the

NHMRC (2004) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, National Health and

Medical Research Council.

These guidelines were developed to provide concentrations at which water is

considered to be acceptable to drink without being toxic to human health.

The NHMRC state that their guidelines define what is safe, good quality

water at the point of use (at the tap), addressing both health and aesthetic

quality aspects of supplying good quality drinking water.

Aesthetic guidelines were established to indicate the smallest concentration or

amount that would be just detected by a trained group of people, would

produce noticeable stains on laundry, cause corrosion or encrustation of pipes

or fittings or would lead to the perception that water was not of good quality

for drinking. These guideline values are usually lower than the health

guideline values.


20

The approach used to derive the guideline values for risks to health is

outlined in the NHMRC (2004) document (Section 6.3.3) and are considered

over a lifetime of consumption, considering potential background exposure to

chemicals.

This Tier 1 water screening is considered conservative, because there doesn’t

appear to be a complete SPR linkage for contaminants associated with coal

seam gas productions and water.

7.1.2 Soil

The Tier 1 screening criteria applied to the soil data were the NEPM ‘A’

(NEPM 1999). These guidelines are the Health Investigation Levels (HIL) for

residential land use. These values are listed in the Schedule B(1) Guideline on

the Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater, National Environmental

Protection Measure.

These criteria are designed to represent a level of acceptable concentrations

for surface soils on a residential property. They consider the chronic toxic

effects from exposure via inhalation, ingestion or dermal contact with

contaminants in soils for a child and adult residents over the course of their

life.

The exposure parameters and the toxicity data used to calculate these

screening criteria are outlined within the NEPM Schedule B(4) Guideline on

Health Risk Assessment Methodology (1999).

This Tier 1 soil screening is considered conservative, because there does not

appear to be a complete SPR linkage for contaminants associated with coal

seam gas productions and soil.

7.1.3 Air

The primary Tier 1 screening criteria applied to the air data was the National

Environment Protection (NEPM; Air Toxics) Measure, (2004). The National

Environment Protection (NEPM; Air Toxics) Measure (2004) were developed

by the National Environment Protection Council and were based on exposure

within a residential property over the course of a lifetime that would not

induce toxic health effects in a resident. The health basis for these levels was

from toxicological and epidemiological evidence of a level at which no health

effects are observed or expected.

Where NEPM air criteria were not available the US EPA (2012) Regional

Screening Levels (RSLs) for residential air were considered. The US EPA

RSLs combines current human health toxicity values with standard exposure

factors to estimate contaminant concentrations in air that are considered by

the US EPA to be protective of human exposures (including sensitive groups

such as children or the aged), over a lifetime. It was also recognised that often


21

it is difficult to determine a source of concentration in ambient air for more

common compounds.

7.2 TIER 1 SCREENING RESULTS

The maximum analytical concentrations identified in water, soil and air and

the appropriate Tier 1 screening criteria are summarised in Tables 1-3 attached.

The approach and outcomes of this Tier 1 screening assessment are

summarised below.

7.2.1 Water

A summary of the constituents reported in air in exceedances of health and

aesthetic criteria are summarised in Table 5 and Table 6, respectively.

Table 5 Tier 1 Water Health Exceedances Summary

Location Exceedances Notes

Coal Seam Water Fluoride

Lot 1 E.coli The presence of E.coli in drinking water is unlikely

due to CSG activities.

Lot 5 None

Lot 7 None

Lot 8 None

Lot 9 Cadmium ; E.coli The presence of cadmium and E.coli in drinking

water is not due to CSG activities and is from other

sources.

Lot 13 E.coli The presence of E.coli in drinking water is not due

to CSG activities and is from other sources.

Lot 127 Cadmium; lead The presence of cadmium and lead is not due to

CSG activities and is from other sources.

Lot 166 E.coli The presence of e.coli is not due to CSG activities

and is from other sources.

Lot 237 E.coli The presence e.coli is not due to CSG activities



22

Table 6 Tier 1 Water Aesthetics Exceedances Summary


Coal Seam

Water

pH, TDS,

chloride,

sodium

Lot 1 TDS,

aluminium,

iron, silica, and

silver

The presence of TDS, aluminium, iron, silica, and silver

is not due to CSG activities and is from other sources.

Lot 5 pH The irregular pH is not due to CSG activities and is

from other sources.


from other sources.

Lot 8 None

Lot 9 Aluminium The presence of aluminium is not due to CSG activities



from other sources.

Lot 127 Zinc The presence of zinc is not due to CSG activities and is

from other sources.

Lot 166 Aluminium,

iron and pH

The presence of aluminium, iron, and irregular pH is

not due to CSG activities and is from other sources.

Lot 237 TDS,

aluminium, and

iron

The presence of TDS, aluminium, and iron is not due to

CSG activities and is from other sources.

7.2.2 Soil

No constituents were reported in soil above health risk criteria.

7.2.3 Air

A summary of the constituents reported in air in exceedance of criteria are

summarised in Table 7.

Table 7 Tier Air Exceedances Summary


Coal Seam Gas None -

Lot 1 None -

Lot 5 None -

Lot 7 None -

Lot 8 None -

Lot 9 None -

Lot 13 None -

Lot 127 None -

Lot 166 None -


23


Lot 237 Benzene Benzene was reported in the overnight sample in air

above health risk criteria. The average of the two

samples was below the NEPM 2004; Air Toxics level.

No other constituents were reported in air above health

risk criteria. Benezene is not a compound that is found

in CSG and this cannot be attributed to CSG activities

but rather from a local source such as smoking, etc.


24

8 CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of the EHAR are as follows:

The review of the reported investigation results from the study area does not

indicate the presence of constituents related to CSG activities that may impact

the health of residents.

Figures

Tables

Table 4 - Quality Control - Field Duplicates - Water

Environmental Health Assessment Report - 0181432

January 2013

� � � � � � � � � � � � � ¡ ¢ � � � � � � � � � � � � � ¡ ¢£ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ª « ¬ ® ¯ ° ª « ¬ ª « ¬ ® ¯ ¯ ± � � ª « ¬ ª « ¬ ® ° ° ª « ¬ ª « ¬ ® ° ¯ ± � �ª ² ® ² ³ ² ´ µ ¢ ¡ � � ¶ � · � · � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´ª ² ³ ² ¹ ´ µ � � ¶ � · � · � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´ª ² ³ ² ´ µ � � ¶ � · � · � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´ª ² ³ ´ � � ¶ � · � · � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´ª ² ³ ´ � � � ¢ ¡ ¶ � � � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´ª ² ³ ´ � � ¸ � ¡ � · � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´ª ² ´ � � ¶ � · � · � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´ª ´ º ¶ � · � · � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´ª ´ » ¢ ¡ ¶ � � ´ ³ ² ´ ¼ � ¸ � ¡ � · � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´ª ´ ½ � ¡ � · � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´® ´ » ¢ ¡ ¶ � � ¶ · � � ¸ ¡ ¶ � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´³ ´ º ¶ � · � · ´ ® ´ � ¢ ¡ ¶ � � � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´³ ´ ½ � ¡ � · � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´° ² ¬ ª ´ � � � ¢ ¡ ¶ � � ¾ ¢ ¸ ¿ À � Á � ¸ ¡ ¶ � � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Â ¢ ¸ � � ¶ ¡ ¶ ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Â ¢ ¸ � � ¶ ¡ ¶ � � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Â � � � � ¸ � � � ¬ Ã ³ ¬ Ã ¹ ´ Ã Ä Ä Ã ® ¯ Ã Ä ³ Ã ³Â ¸ ¡ ¶ � � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Â � Å ¢ ¸ � « Ã « « ® « Ã « « ® « Ã « « Ã « « ¬ « Ã « « ¬ « Ã «Æ � � � � � « Ã « ª ª « Ã « ª ´ ¬ Ã ° « Ã « ¯ « Ã « ¯ « Ã «Æ ¢ ¸ ¿ ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Æ ¢ ¸ ¿ · À � Á � � � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Æ ¢ ¸ ¿ · À ¾ Á Ç � � · � � ¸ ¡ ¶ ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Æ ¢ ¸ ¿ · À È ¶ � Á � ¢ � � � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Æ ¢ ¸ ¿ · À É Á Ç � � · � � ¸ ¡ ¶ ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Æ ¢ ¸ ¿ · À � Á � ¸ ¡ ¶ � � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Æ ¢ � � � � � � � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Æ � � � ¾ · ¸ � ¡ ¢ À � Å º � º Ê ® Á ³ ® ³ ª ª Ã ³ « « ´ ´Æ � · � · È � � � Ê Ë � È ¢ ¸ � ¢ � � ¸ ¼ Ä Ä « Ã « « « ´ ´Æ · � · ¸ « Ã « ª ª « Ã « ª ® ´ ³ Ã ³ « Ã « ª « Ã « ¬ Ä ¹ Ã ¬º ¬ « ´ º ¬ ³ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´º ¬ ¹ ´ º ª ¯ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´º ª Ä ´ º ® « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´º ´ º Ä « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´º � ¼ � � � � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´º � � � � � « Ã ® ¹ « Ã ³ ´ ¬ ® Ã ® « Ã ¯ « Ã ¹ ³ Ã ¹º � � ¾ · ¸ � ¡ ¢ À � Å º � º Ê ® Á « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´º ¶ � · � � ¼ ¢ ¬ Ä ¬ ¯ ¹ Ã ³ Ä Ä « Ã «º ¶ � · � � � � « Ã « « ª « Ã « « ® ´ ³ « Ã « « « ´ ´º ¶ � � Å ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´º · ¾ � � ¡ « Ã « « ª « Ã « « ª « Ã « « Ã « « ® « Ã « « ® « Ã «º · � � Ç · � � Å ® « « ® « « « ¬ ¯ Ã ª « « ´ ´º · ¸ ¼ � ¡ � Ì � ¡ � À � Í Î � Á ¬ ® « ¬ ® « « Ã « ª « ª « « Ã «º · � � ¢ � « Ã « « ¬ « Ã « « ¬ « Ã « « Ã « « ³ « Ã « « ³ « Ã «� � ¾ ¢ ¸ ¿ À � ¶ Á � ¸ ¡ ¶ � � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´� � ¸ · Å ¢ ¾ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´� � Å Å · � Ì ¢ ¼ Ê � È � ¸ � º � � ¾ · ¸ ¯ ¯ « Ã « ³ ³ « Ã «Ï Ã · � � ® « « ® « « « ¬ ¯ Ã ª « « ´ ´Ï ¡ ¶ � � ¾ ¢ ¸ ¿ ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Ð � ¢ � � º · � � Ç · � � Å ® « « ® « « « ¬ ¯ Ã ª « « ´ ´Ð � � · � � ¸ ¡ ¶ ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Ð � � · � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Ð � � · � � ¼ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Ñ ¢ Ë � ¶ � · � · � ¶ ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Ñ � ¼ � · Ë � ¼ ¢ À � Å º � º Ê ® Á « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Ò ¸ ¼ ¢ ¸ · À ¬ ² ª ² ® ´ ¼ Á � � � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Ò � · ¸ ¬ Ã ® ¬ Ã ® « Ã « « Ã « ® ¯ « Ã « ® ª ¬ ° Ã ¬Ó ¢ � ¼ « Ã « « ® « Ã « « ® « Ã « « Ã « « ª « Ã « « ª « Ã «� Ô � ´ º � ¢ Å · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´� Ô � ´ Õ � � ¢ ¸ ¢ Å « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´» � È ¸ ¢ Å � � � ª Ã ¯ ª Ã Ä ´ ® Ã ¹ ³ Ã ° ³ Ã ° « Ã «» � ¸ È � ¸ ¢ Å ¢ « Ã « ® ¹ « Ã « ³ ´ ¬ ® Ã ® « Ã « ª « Ã « ® Ã ®» ¢ � � � � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´» · � � ¾ ¼ ¢ ¸ � � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´½ � � ¶ ¡ ¶ � � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´½ � É ¢ � « Ã « « ¬ « Ã « « ª Ö × × Ø Ù « Ã « « ° « Ã « « ° « Ã «½ � ¡ � � ¡ ¢ � Å ½ « Ã « ª « Ã « ª « Ã « « « ´ ´½ � ¡ � � ¡ ¢ � Å ½ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´· ´ º � ¢ Å · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´· ´ Õ � � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´� ¢ ¸ ¡ � ¶ � · � · � ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´� Ñ À � Ñ Ú ¸ � ¡ Å Á Ã ¯ Ã Ä ´ ¬ Ã ¹ ³ Ã ³ Ã ¹ ª Ã ª� ¶ ¢ ¸ � ¸ ¡ ¶ � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´� ¶ ¢ ¸ · � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´� · ¡ � Å Å � � � « Ã ª « Ã ¹ ´ ³ Ã ° « Ã Ä ª « Ã ¯ Ä ® Ã ®� � � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Í ¢ � ¢ ¸ � � � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Í � � � � À Í � Ê ª Á ¬ ® ¬ ³ ´ ° Ã ³ ª Ã ° ª Ã ® Ã ¯Í � � Ì ¢ � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´Í · ¼ � � � ª ¹ ª ´ ® Ã Ä ª ¹ ª ¹ « Ã «Í ¡ � ¸ ¼ � � ¼ � � � ¡ ¢ º · � ¸ ¡ À º Ð Ú Î » Ó Á ¬ ° « « ® « « « Ö Û Û Ø Ü « « ´ ´Í ¡ � · ¸ ¡ � � � « Ã « « ¯ « Ã « « ¯ « Ã « « Ã « ¬ « Ã « ¬ ¬ ´ Ä Ã ¹Í � � � ¶ � ¡ ¢ � Å Í Ê ³ À ª ´ Á « « ´ ´ ° « ° « « Ã «µ ¶ ¢ � � · ¡ · � ¢ � � ¸ ¡ º · � � Ç · � � Å ® « « ® « « « ¬ ¯ Ã ª « « ´ ´µ · � � ¢ ¸ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � Â � É � � � ¸ � ¡ � À � Å º � º Ê ® Á ³ ® ³ ª ª Ã ³ « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � Â � � � � ¸ � � � ¬ Ã ³ ¬ Ã ° ´ ¬ Ä Ã ³ Ä Ã ® Ä ® Ã ®µ · ¡ � � Â ¸ � · ¸ Å À � ¢ Ý Î Ó Á ¬ Ã ³ ¬ Ã ³ « Ã « ¬ Ã ° ¬ Ã ° « Ã «µ · ¡ � � Â � Å ¢ ¸ � « Ã « « ® « Ã « « ® « Ã « « Ã « « ¬ « Ã « « ¬ « Ã «µ · ¡ � � Æ � � � � � « Ã « ª ª « Ã « ª ¯ ´ ª ³ Ã « « Ã « ¯ « Ã « ¯ « Ã «µ · ¡ � � Æ ¢ � � � � � � � « Ã « « ¬ « Ã « « ¬ « Ã « « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � Æ · � · ¸ « Ã « ª ª « Ã « ª ® ´ ³ Ã ³ « Ã « ª ¬ « Ã « ¬ Ä ¬ « Ã «µ · ¡ � � º ´ º ® « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � º � ¼ � � � � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � º � ¡ � · ¸ Å À � ¢ Ý Î Ó Á ¬ Ã ³ ¬ Ã ³ « Ã « ¬ Ã ¬ Ã « Ã «µ · ¡ � � º ¶ � · � � � � « Ã « « ª « Ã « « ® ´ ³ « Ã « « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � º · ¾ � � ¡ « Ã « « ª « Ã « « ® ´ ³ « Ã « « Ã « « ® « Ã « « ® « Ã «µ · ¡ � � º · � � ¢ � « Ã « « ¬ « Ã « « ¬ « Ã « « Ã « « ³ « Ã « « ³ « Ã «µ · ¡ � � º � � ¸ � ¼ ¢ « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � � � Å Å · � Ì ¢ ¼ Í · � � ¼ Å ³ « ° « « ´ Ä Ã « ¬ ¹ « ¬ « ´ Ã ¹µ · ¡ � � Ò � · ¸ ¬ Ã ® ¬ Ã ³ ´ ° Ã ³ « Ã « ³ ¯ « Ã « ¹ ¬ ´ Ã ¬µ · ¡ � � Ó ¢ � ¼ « Ã « « ® « Ã « « ® « Ã « « Ã « « ª « Ã « « ª « Ã «µ · ¡ � � » � ¸ È � ¸ ¢ Å ¢ « Ã « ³ « Ã « ³ Ä ´ ª « Ã ª « Ã « ª « Ã « ® Ã ®µ · ¡ � � » ¢ � � � � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � » · � � ¾ ¼ ¢ ¸ � � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � ½ � É ¢ � « Ã « « ¬ « Ã « « ª Ö × × Ø Ù « Ã « ¬ ¬ « Ã « ¬ ´ ® ° Ã «µ · ¡ � � ½ � ¡ � · È ¢ ¸ « Ã ® « Ã ® « Ã « « Ã ª « Ã ª « Ã «µ · ¡ � � Ê � È � ¸ � º � � ¾ · ¸ Ä Ä « Ã « ³ ¹ ´ ª ª Ã ªµ · ¡ � � � ¶ · Å � ¶ · � · � Å « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � Í ¢ � ¢ ¸ � � � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � Í � � � � À Í � Ê ª Á ® ¯ « ® Ä « ´ ª Ã ® Ã ® ® Ã ¬ Ã ªµ · ¡ � � Í � � Ì ¢ � « « ´ ´ « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � Í ¡ � · ¸ ¡ � � � « Ã « « ¯ « Ã « « ¯ « Ã « « Ã « ¬ ª « Ã « ¬ ¬ ¯ Ã °µ · ¡ � � Í � Å � ¢ ¸ ¼ ¢ ¼ Í · � � ¼ Å ¬ ¹ « ¬ ® « ¬ ³ Ã ® « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � Þ � ¸ � ¼ � � � « Ã « « Ä « Ã « ¬ ¬ ´ ª « Ã « « « ´ ´µ · ¡ � � ß � ¸ « Ã « ¬ « Ã « ¬ « Ã « « Ã « ® « Ã « ® « Ã «Þ � ¸ � ¼ � � � « Ã « « Ä « Ã « ¬ ´ ¬ « Ã ¹ « « ´ ´ß � ¸ « Ã « ¬ « Ã « ¬ ® ª « Ã ° « Ã « ª Ä « Ã « ® ´ ® Ã ³à á â â © ¤ ¨ ã± � � Å · � ¡ Å � ¼ ¢ ¡ ¶ ¢ � ¢ � ¡ � ¾ � ¢ � � � � ¡ · Ç ¹ « ä � � ¢ � ¸ ¾ · � ¼

å á ¨ Û æ ¥ âå á ¨ ç æ ¥ â

Ta

ble

5 -

Qu

ali

ty C

on

tro

l -

Fie

ld D

up

lica

tes

- S

oil

En

vir

on

me

nta

l H

ea

lth

Ass

ess

me

nt

Re

po

rt -

01

81

43

2

Jan

ua

ry 2

01

3

è éê ëìéíîê ïðñò óôðê õìöïè éê ëìéíîê ïðñò óôðê õìöïè éê ëìéíîê ïðñò óôðê õìöïè éê ëìéíîê ïðñò óôðê õìöï

÷ øùú ûüýþÿ�þÿ��þÿ�þÿ��þÿ�þÿ��þÿ�þÿ��þþÿ�þÿ��ÿ�þÿ�þÿ��ÿþÿ�þÿ��þþÿ�þÿ��

�ð óëê �ê óëþ�ÿÿ�þÿÿ � �� ÿÿ�ÿÿÿ �þÿ ��þ�ÿÿ��ÿÿ� ��þþÿÿþ�ÿÿ

��

� �é��

ÿÿþþÿÿ

�þþÿ

� ì�� ìöê �

ÿÿ� ��þ �� þ� �ÿ þ��ÿÿ

�ÿÿ�

� ìð õê óë

�þÿÿ �ÿ�� þ�ÿÿþ�ÿÿ� �þ ��þÿþ�ÿ �� þÿ�ÿÿ�� þ

� ìöê �� õ! ì��ï� ìôìõê öí" ëï#��ÿÿ �$� � � ��þ �þ��ÿ�� ÿÿ�� þ �� þ��

� ��ñ óõöê %ê öí"� & $��ÿ� �� ÿ �þ�þÿ�ÿ ��ÿ��ÿ��ÿ��

� �ôôïé

ÿÿ�� ÿÿ

�ÿÿ�

� õ! ��ð óëê �ê óë" ëï#��ÿÿ �$ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

�ÿÿ�

� õ! �� ìð õê óë" ëï#��ÿÿ �$þ��

�� ÿÿ

�ÿÿ�

� õ! �� ì��ï'ê óë" ëï#��ÿÿ �$ÿÿ �þþ �þþþþþþþÿ

� õ! �è �öì''ê óë" ëï#��ÿÿ �$ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

�ÿÿ�

� õ! �( �ñê óë")$ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

�ÿÿ�

� õ! �( �ñê óë" ëï#��ÿÿ �$ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

�ÿÿ�

* é��

ÿÿ�þÿÿÿ �� þÿÿÿ�þÿÿÿ��ÿÿ��ÿÿ �� þ��ÿÿÿ��ÿÿÿÿ

� ì��ï'ê óë

��ÿ�þÿ� �ÿ�ÿÿ ��þ ��þ�ÿ��ÿþ� �þ �� ÿ��ÿ

��ÿ ��

� ì��ì�ï'ï

þþ� �� þ��

�� þ��

� �ð í+ñ ï�óëÿÿÿÿÿ

�þÿÿÿÿ �

ô,

�� ÿ ÿ�

�� ÿ��þ� �� ÿ

è �öì''ê óë

��ÿ�þÿ�þ�ÿþ�ÿ �� ÿ��ÿ ��þ � ��

( �ñê óë

�� ÿ��ÿ� �� þ��ÿ�� þ��ÿ��ÿ� �þ��

( óð ô! óé

ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

�ÿÿ�

- �öìð� ìé+ ��ÿÿÿþþÿÿÿ� ��þÿÿÿ��ÿÿÿþ� � þþ��ÿÿÿþ�ÿÿÿ

��ÿ��ÿÿ��ÿÿ ��

- �öìð.ê öé��ï��ÿÿ��ÿÿ �þÿ �� þ�ÿÿþ ÿÿ�� þÿ� ��ÿÿ��ÿÿÿ� ÿþ�ÿ�� þ��

- �öìðè! �'ô! �éó' � ÿ�� þ ÿþ�ÿ� ��

�þþ �� ÿ �þ ��

/ê �õ

��þ��þÿ�þÿ

��ÿþ ��

�� ÿ

0 122ýøü3 �èò '�óö'êñ ïö! ïìõõïôöì+ð ïðê ëê ö�4 ÿ) ìéïê �+ �ðñ

5 1ü66� �èò

�èò5 1ü�7 ù3ü5 1ü��8 ýù9 �èò5 1ü��6 1:ü; �èò

Annex A

References


A1

REFERENCES

AS 4482 series – Guide to the investigation and sampling of sites with potentially contaminated soil AS 3580 series – Methods for Sampling and Analysis of Ambient Air. DEHPs ‘Monitoring and Sampling Manual 2009. Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009. Version 2, September 2010’. NEPM (1999). National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, National Environment Protection Council. NEPM (2003). National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) Measure, National Environment Protection Council. NEPM (2004) Air Toxics Measure NHMRC (2004). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines National Health and Medical Research Council. QCGs Scope of Works: Water, Air, and Soil Monitoring of Private Land in Kenya Block QCOPS-OPS-USP-SOW-000020_0 (QGC Scope of Works) Queensland Government Simtars, Gas Monitoring at Tara Gas Field for Safety and Health Division, DEEDI Brisbane report (7 May 2010)


A2

TPHCWG (1997). Development of Fraction Specific Reference Doses (RfDs) and Reference Concentrations (RfCs) for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group US EPA (2012). Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants. May. WHO (2000). Guidelines for Air Quality, World Health Organisation. WHO (2005). Petroleum Products in Drinking-water. Background document for developing of WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality., World Health Organisation, . WHO (2008). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, World Health Organisation.

Annex B

Scope of Works: Water, Air,

and Soil Monitoring of

Private Land in Kenya Block

(QCOPS-OPS-USP-SOW-

000020)

Scope of work

QCOPS-OPS-USP-SOW-000023_0

Date Printed: Friday, December 21, 2012 Page 1 of 4Note: This copy may not be the current revision. Refer to the Document Management System before use.

Production Chemistry

Scope of work – A Health/Occupational hygiene/Chemistry review of the results from sampling at the Tara Estates


Revision Record

Issue Date Reason for Issue Responsible Accountable

A 5/10/2012 Initial Draft Melinda Toyne

D. Trevithick-Harney

QGC LIMITED

275 George Street

Brisbane QLD 4000

GPO Box 3107

Brisbane QLD 4001

Tel: +61 (0)7 3024 9000

Fax: +61 (0)7 3024 8999

www.qgc.com.au

ABN 11 089 642 553

Scope of work



1.0 Overview

QGC operates coal seam gas extraction and processing facilities in the Surat Basin. Private landowners within the Tara Estates have voiced concerns that they are experiencing adverse healthconditions due to the close location of and operation of QGC’s CSG facilities.

As part of a commitment to the local community, QGC promised to conduct a detailed sampling and analysis programme to determine if QGC’s CSG activities are impacting on the health of local residences.

SGS Leeder consulting was engaged to conduct sampling at four residential locations within the Tara estate. The scope of sampling and analysis was defined in document (QCOPS-OPS-USP-SOW-000020_0) which included:

- Air monitoring - Drinking Water and recreational water Quality- Soil Monitoring

Once confirmation that the sampling would occur, the number of sampling locations was then expanded to nine residential locations due to more landowners expressing an interest in participatingin the investigation. The sampling programme was conducting over two weeks in July 2012.

A desk top health/occupational hygiene/chemistry review is required on the results of sampling conducted at the 9 locations within the Tara Estates in July 2012. All samples were taken and analysed by SGS Leeder a NATA certified third party laboratory (in some cases specialised analysis have been sub contracted out to other third party laboratories).

2.0 Reporting requirements

2.1. Executive Summary

To summarise the results of the following lines of investigation.

Structured to detail specify/answer the following:

Location of where the sampling was conducted

Distance to QGC infrastructure/operations

Are there any detectable chemical impact of QGC’s CSG activities on the landowners?

Are there any detectable chemical impact from QGC’s CSG activities that is impacts the health of the landowners?

Are there any identifiable health/occupational hygiene impacts of concern that could impacts on the landowners health? If yes what would these health impacts be?

Are there any activities of concern that could impacts on the landowner’s health? If yes what would these health impacts be?

2.2. Site location

Detail the site location of each of the 9 landholders sampling locations and put the locations in contextto the distance from current QGC CSG infrastructure and operations. It may be of value to review thehistorical weather patterns and wind direction if available.

Scope of work



2.3. Site Activities (QGC)

Details what infrastructure QGC has in the immediate area (+10 km). Describes the function of each infrastructure present and what chemical emission expected during normal operation. For example:

Well head - To extract coal seam methane and water from the Walloons coal seam.- Coal seam methane has a chemical composition of 98% Methane, 1.7% Nitrogen, 0.3%

Carbon Dioxide.- Coal Seam Water has a chemical composition TDS 2300mg/L, Sodium 1000mg/l

Chloride 330 mg/l, total Alkalinity 1800 mg/l pH 8.8

2.4. Review of Tara Estates Air quality versus Coal Seam Gas composition

Review the air quality analysed at each of the land owners’ property and compare it with CSG composition to determine if there are any species present that can be linked with emissions from QGC’s operations.

2.5. Review of Tara Estates Water quality versus CSG extracted water composition

Review the water quality analysed at each of the land owners’ property and compare it with CSG water composition to determine if there are any species present that can be linked with water releasesfrom QGC’s operations.

2.6. Review of Tara Estates Drinking Water quality versus Australian Drinking Water Guidelines

Review the quality of the drinking water sampled at each of the land owners properties and compare it with the Australian Standard for Drinking Water. If parameters detected are outside the Australian Drinking Water Standard need to indicate what potential heath effects would be experienced for each exceedences.

2.7. Review of Tara Estates Dam Water quality versus Australian Recreational Water Guidelines

Review the quality of the dam water sampled at each of the land owners properties and compare it with the Australian Standard for Recreational Water. If parameters detected are outside the Australian Recreational Water Standard please indicate what potential heath effects would be experienced for each exceedences. Also need to review the impacts of using this water for showering and watering plants for human consumption would be required.

2.8. Review of soil sampling events

Review the soil quality detected and look for any link to CSG water quality or if the soil present is representative of sodic soil that is typical for the area.

2.9. Review of photographs and field observations taken during the sampling event

Review the photographs and observations made during the sampling event and look for areas of concerns or activities that may have a negative impact to the health of the land owners, for example:

- Use of 1000L chemical containers for water storage options for shower water - Incineration of waste near house and burying of ash in shallow pits

Scope of work



- Collection and consumption of mushrooms- Sewage treatment- Storage of Lead acid batteries- Location of diesel generator- Impact of domestic animals

Though these activities can not be reviewed against Australian Standards or have detailed chemical investigational data associated with them, the highlighting of activities of medical concern could then be the basis of other investigation/conversations with Queensland Health or if required independent medical practitioners.

2.10. Conclusions

A detailed summary and discussion on whether there is evidence of QGC’s CSG activities impacting on the residences of the Tara Estates. Please note that noise is covered in a separate investigation.

Detailed analysis and reporting on the impacts of drinking water and other observations noted at each of the land owners properties and the potential heath impacts of any exceedences detected couldhave on the land owners.

3.0 Documentation

- 9 SGS Leeder reports containing data for each individual land owner- Maps of the Sampling locations and associated QGC infrastructure- Australian Drinking Water Standard- Australian Recreational Water Standard- Chemical composition of CSG gas from the Codie field- Chemical composition of produced water from the Codie field

Annex C

Lot Figures

Annex D

SGS Reports

Annex E

Scholler Diagram

< = < >< = > >> <> < <

? @ A B C @ D C E F G C H I H J KL MNOPNQ RSQT MNU VPWX YZ C [ \ ] ^ _ ^ E E ` a b ^ c H G ^d H ef [ E g h H i j

< = < >< = > >> <> < <

? @ A B C @ D C E F G C H I H J KL MNOPNQ RSQT MNU VPWX YZ C [ \ ] ^ _ ^ E E ` a b ^ c H G ^d H ef [ E g h H i j k d _ l

< = < >< = > >> <> < <

? @ A B C @ D C E F G C H I H J KL MNOPNQ RSQT MNU VPWX YZ C [ \ ] ^ _ ^ E E ` a b ^ c H G ^d H e k i [ ` H e m E ^ n [ E E ^ n o ^ \ lf [ E g h H i j

< = < < >< = < >< = >>> <> < <

? @ A B C @ D C E F G C H I H J KL MNOPNQ RSQT MNU VPWX YZ C [ \ ] ^ _ ^ E E ` a b ^ c H G ^d H e p i [ ` H e m E ^ n [ E E ^ n o ^ \K ] o n q ^ i h H m

< = < < >< = < >< = >>> <> < <


< = < < >< = < >< = >>> <> < <


< = < >< = > >> <> < <


< = < < >< = < >< = >>> <> < <


< = < < >< = < >< = >>> <> < <

? @ A B C @ D C E F G C H I H J KL MNOPNQ RSQT MNU VPWX YZ C [ \ ] ^ _ ^ E E ` a b ^ c H G ^d H ef [ E g h H i jd c ] i j ] i G _ H o ^ c

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Sciences, Science Delivery Division Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts

Wieambilla Estates Odour

Investigation Results

July – December 2012

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Sciences, Science Delivery Division

Page 2 of 18

Prepared by: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Sciences, Science Delivery Division Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts © The State of Queensland (Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts) 2012 Copyright inquiries should be addressed to [email protected] or the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, 41 George Street Brisbane QLD 4000 Published by the Queensland Government, January 2013 This document has been prepared with all due diligence and care, based on the best available information at the time of publication. The department holds no responsibility for any errors or omissions within this document. Any decisions made by other parties based on this document are solely the responsibility of those parties. Information contained in this document is from a number of sources and, as such, does not necessarily represent government or departmental policy. January 2013

Wieambilla Odour Investigation Results: July - December 2012

Page 3 of 18

Summary

The Queensland Government commenced a community sampling program for volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) in the Wieambilla Estate in response to community concerns about the

impacts of air emissions from the local coal seam gas fields on the health and well-being of the

surrounding community. The results of the community sampling program conducted between July

– December 2012 indicate that a number of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in

the ambient air, at levels generally well below relevant guidelines and criteria used to assess VOC

concentrations.


Page 4 of 18

Table of contents

Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 5

Monitoring study design .............................................................................................................. 6

Results and Discussion................................................................................................................ 8

Volatile Organic Compounds 8

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 15

References .................................................................................................................................. 16

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Appendix 1: List of all VOCs monitored 17


Page 5 of 18

Introduction

People living in the Wieambilla Estate have raised concerns about the impacts of air emissions

from the local coal seam gas fields on the health and well-being of the surrounding community.

These concerns have primarily focused on odours and the potential health implications from those

odours. The Wieambilla Estate is located half-way between Chinchilla to the north and Tara to the

south of the estate.

In response to residents’ concerns raised about the health impact of odour emissions from the

local coal seam gas fields on surrounding residential areas, the Department of Environment and

Heritage Protection (DEHP) initiated a community sampling program for odours in July 2012. The

Science Delivery Division of the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and

the Arts (DSITIA) was commissioned to assist in the study. This report details the results of this

study.


Page 6 of 18

Monitoring study design

The DEHP and DSITIA air monitoring investigation at the Wieambilla Estate focused on acquiring data on the concentration of volatile organic compound species in the air when odour was present in the community.

A very helpful tool used by DSITIA to aid in odour complaint investigations is the summa canister (see Figure 1) which can be supplied to complainants to sample the air when odours are detected. A summa canister is an evacuated canister that is used to collect an instantaneous air sample. This method of obtaining an air sample is simple and can be used by any individual concerned about odours or emissions from a nearby source of air pollution. Participants receive written instructions on how to take a sample of air using the summa canister. It is at the discretion of the participant as to when a sample is taken.

Samples of air for VOC analysis were collected by residents during times when odour was detected at its worst. Residents were supplied with an evacuated summa canister. Air samples were collected by opening the canister valve, allowing the canister to come to atmospheric pressure and closing the valve (typically takes 30 to 60 seconds). The canister was then sent for laboratory analysis using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC/MS) in accordance with USEPA Compendium Method TO-15 Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in air collected in specially-prepared canisters and analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)1. The analysis was carried out by the Queensland Government Forensic and Scientific Services Laboratory. The TO-15 analysis method can measure up to 102 VOC compounds.

Four Wieambilla Estate residents participated in the community sampling program using the

summa canisters and collected six samples. Samples collected by these residents are identified

as:

•

•

•

•

DEHP staff collected two samples associated with the coal seam gas fields. These samples are

identified as:

• TO1743;

• Rhyme Pond.

Figure 1: Example of Summa Canister


Page 7 of 18

A control sample was also collected by DEHP staff at the Barakula State Forest some 38 km north

of Chinchilla.

VOC monitoring was also conducted using passive diffusion samplers to collect airborne VOCs on

adsorbent material, followed by extraction of the adsorbed compounds and characterisation using

capillary gas chromatography. The passive sampler worked by diffusion of gaseous VOC

molecules through a permeable membrane and subsequent capture by Tenax TA adsorbing

material positioned inside the permeable membrane. The passive samplers were deployed at four

locations in the Wieambilla Estate and a control location in the town of Chinchilla for three weeks to

maximise the detection of any VOCs present. Following collection, the passive samplers were

sealed and sent for laboratory analysis. The average VOC concentration over the sampling period

was calculated from the VOC mass collected, the sampling time and the rate of diffusion of the

VOC species through the permeable membrane. Deployment and retrieval of the passive

samplers was carried out by DEHP staff and the analysis was carried out by Gradko Environmental

in the United Kingdom.

Four passive samplers were located in the Wieambilla Estate and are identified as:

•

•

•

•

A fifth passive sampler was located in the township of Chinchilla as a control.


Page 8 of 18

Results and Discussion

Volatile Organic Compounds

Substances that are included in the VOC category include aliphatic hydrocarbons (such as hexane), aromatic hydrocarbons (such as benzene, toluene and the xylenes), and oxygenated compounds (such as acetone and similar ketones).

To assess the measured VOC concentrations, a number of sources of environmental and human

health guidelines/criteria were considered to cover the full range of VOCs detected in the samples.

These included the Queensland Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 (EPP Air) air quality

objectives, Ontario’s Ambient Air Quality Criteria and the Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality Effects Screening Levels (ESLs). For four of the compounds, Pentane, 3-Methylpentane,

Methylcyclohexane and 3-Methylhexane there are no environmental and human health

guidelines/criteria. For the first three compounds the United States National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs) are provided

while Germany’s occupational exposure limit is provided for 3-Methylhexane for assessment.

The number of compounds detected in the samples from the summa canister sampling ranged

from 3 to 7. It should be noted that the results from the Summa canister are from a 1-minute

sampling period and cannot be directly compared with guideline values that have longer averaging

periods (10-minute, 1-hour, 24-hours or annual averages). Concentrations determined using short-

term sampling techniques relates to times when air quality was considered by the community to be

poor (odour present) and pollutant levels are expected to be at a maximum. This means that VOC

concentrations in the short term samples are expected to be significantly higher than samples

collected over a longer time frame, when air with little or no pollutants would also be sampled. For

assessment purposes if the levels of individual VOCs measured in the Summa canister samples

are less than the long term averages used to assess the exposure impacts as shown in the column

‘Guideline/Criteria’ in Table 1, then it can be assumed that the guideline/criteria would be met.

However, if the levels of VOCs from the canister are higher than the longer term guideline/criteria it

does not necessarily mean that the guideline/criteria was not met (ie. it cannot be demonstrated as

meeting the guideline/criteria). It should be noted that none of the measured concentrations of

VOCs in the summa canister samples collected over a 1-minute period were higher than the longer

term guideline/criteria.

The number of compounds detected in the passive diffusion samples ranged from 4 to 18. The

results of the passive diffusion sampling are shown in Table 2. The measurement of Phenylmaleic

anhydride could possibly be derived from an ozone-adsorbing artefact of the Tenax TA adsorbing

material used in the passive sampler to adsorb the VOCs2. Detection limits of <0.17ppb on the

three week averaged results were achieved compared with the summa canister of 0.5 – 1.0 ppb on

the 1-minute averaged results. This has resulted in more compounds being detected. If the levels

of VOCs over the whole year were similar to the concentrations experienced over the three week

sampling period then the relevant guidelines and criteria for annual average used to assess VOC

concentrations in ambient air would not be exceeded.

.


Page 9 of 18

Table 1: Results from summa canister sampling for chemical compounds with concentrations greater than the Limit of Reporting.

Ambient Air Guideline/Criteria Chemical

Compound

TO-1743

(ppb)

HPV 1

(ppb)

HPV 1

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

Barakula

State

Forest

(ppb)

Rhyme

Pond

(ppb)

Averaging

Period ppb µg/m

3 Source Effect

Sampling Date 3/07/12 4/07/12 4/07/12 11/09/12 1/11/12 25/11/12 1/12/12 4/12/12 6/12/12

Compounds

detected 3 3 3 4 6 5 7 6 5

Alkanes

24 Hour 2,027 7,500 Ontario Health

1 Hour 1,500 5,300 Texas Odour Hexane 3 19.2 8.4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Annual 57 200 Texas Health

Alkenes

Propene n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a <0.5 7.7 <0.5 <0.5 24 Hour 2,210 4,000 Ontario Health

Haloalkanes/

alkenes

24 Hour 147 320 Ontario Health

1 Hour 1,030 500 Texas Health Chloromethane <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7


1 Hour 10,000 50,000 Texas Health Dichlorodifluro-

methane <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6

Annual 1,000 5,000 Texas Health


Annual 12 44 Ontario Health

1 Hour 1,100 3,600 Texas Health

Methylene

chloride <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 5.2 0.7 0.7


Alcohols

1Hour 10,096 19,000 Ontario Odour

1 Hour 10,000 18,800 Texas Health Ethanol <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.8 1.5 1.6 5.5 1.5 1.2



Page 10 of 18


Compound

TO-1743

(ppb)

HPV 1

(ppb)

HPV 1

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

Barakula

State

Forest

(ppb)

Rhyme

Pond

(ppb)

Averaging

Period ppb µg/m

3 Source Effect

Sampling Date 3/07/12 4/07/12 4/07/12 11/09/12 1/11/12 25/11/12 1/12/12 4/12/12 6/12/12

Carbonyls


1 Hour 2,500 5,900 Texas Health Acetone <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.4 1.5 5.6 10 6.7 2.0


24 Hour 400 1,000 Ontario Health

1 Hour 440 1,300 Texas Odour Methyl ethyl

ketone 1.5 1.5 4.8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Annual 900 2,600 Texas Health

1 Hour 2.0 4.5 Ontario Health


1 Hour 1.6 3.2 Texas Health

Acrolein <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 <0.5

Annual 0.066 0.14 Texas Health

1 Hour 40 150 Texas Health Vinyl acetate 4.4 3.9 4.6 <0.5 <0.5 1.0 0.6 0.7 <0.5


Aromatics

24 Hour 1,000 4,112 EPP Air Health

Annual 100 410 EPP Air Health

30 Minute 260 1,069 EPP Air Odour

24 Hour 504 2,000 Ontario Odour

Tolulene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <0.5 1.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

1 Hour 170 640 Texas Odour


1 Hour 250 1,250 Texas Health 1,2,4-

Trimethylbenzene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <0.5 0.7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5



Page 11 of 18

Table 2: Results from passive diffusion sampling for chemical compounds with concentrations greater than the Limit of Reporting.


Compound

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

Chinchilla

Control

(ppb) Averaging Period ppb µg/m

3 Source Effect

Sampling Date 26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

Compounds

detected

5 4 5 18 5

Alkanes

Pentane <0.17 <0.17 <0.09 0.3 <0.17 8 Hour 120,000 350,000

NIOSH REL


1 Hour 1,500 5,300 Texas Odour Hexane <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.5 <0.17



1 Hour 850 3,500 Texas Health Heptane <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.3 <0.17


1 Hour 432 3,500 Texas Health Tetradecane <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.2


1 Hour 108 1,000 Texas Health Hexadecane 0.2 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17


1 Hour 10 100 Texas Health Heptadecane <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.4 <0.17



1 Hour 1,000 3,400 Texas Health Cyclohexane <0.17 0.6 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17


1 Hour 1,300 3,800 Texas Odour 2-methylbutane

(Isopentane) <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 0.4 <0.18



Page 12 of 18


Compound

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

Chinchilla

Control


3 Source Effect


–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

3-Methylpentane <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.3 <0.17 8 Hour 100,000 350,000 NIOSH REL

3-Methylhexane <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.3 <0.17 8 Hour 500,000 1,500,00 Germany Occ. Health OEL

1 Hour 503 3,500 Texas Health 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl-

heptane 1.2 <0.17 <0.17 0.2 <0.17


Methylcyclohexane <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.2 <0.17 8 Hour 400,000 1,600,000 NIOSH REL

Haloalkanes/alkenes


1 Hour 300 2,000 Texas Health Tetrachloroethylene <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.4 <0.17

Annual 3.8 26 Texas Health

Alcohols

1 Hour 107 600 Ontario Odour

1 Hour 500 2,700 Texas Health 2-ethyl-1-Hexanol 0.2 <0.17 0.3 <0.17 <0.17


Carbonyls

1 Hour 5,013 19,000 Ontario Odour

1 Hour 4,000 14,400 Texas Health Ethyl Acetate <0.18 <0.18 <0.18 0.2 <0.18


Aromatics



Annual 0.13 0.45 Ontario Health

1 Hour 54 170 Texas Health

Benzene <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.6 <0.17

Annual 1.4 4.5 Texas Health


Page 13 of 18


Compound

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

Chinchilla

Control


3 Source Effect


–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

24 Hour 1,000 4,112 EPP Air Health


30 Minute 260 1,069 EPP Air Odour

24 Hour 504 2,000 Ontario Odour


Toluene <0.17 6.6 <0.17 7.0 0.5


24 Hour 250 1,184 EPP Air Health



10 Minute 657 3,000 Ontario Odour


Xylene <0.17 1.8 <0.17 1.3 0.8


24 Hour 231 1,000 Ontario Health

10 Minute 438 1,900 Ontario Odour


Ethylbenzene <0.17 0.8 <0.17 0.2 0.6



1 Hour 250 1,250 Texas Health 1,2,4-

Trimethylbenzene <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 0.2 <0.17


24 Hour 7.4 30 Ontario Health

1 Hour 40 150 Texas Odour Phenol <0.17 <0.17 0.12 0.3 <0.17



Page 14 of 18


Compound

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

(ppb)

Chinchilla

Control


3 Source Effect


–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12

26/09/12

–

16/10/12


1 Hour 9.1 50 Texas Health Benzothiazole <0.18 <0.18 0.12 <0.18 <0.18

Annual 0.9 5 Texas Health


10 Minute 9.5 50 Ontario Odour


Naphthalene 0.4 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17 <0.17


1Phenylmaleic

anhydride 0.6 <0.17 0.4 0.5 0.4

Terpenes

1 Hour 10 60 Texas Odour Alpha-Pinene <0.17 <0.17 0.2 <0.17 <0.17


1 Suspected ozone-adsorbing artefact of the Tenax TA adsorbing material used in the passive sampler to adsorb the VOCs.


Page 15 of 18

Conclusion

This investigation is based on limited air sampling conducted in the residential area in the Wieambilla

Estate during July - December 2012. The results of the community sampling program indicate that a

number of VOCs were detected in the ambient air, at levels generally well below relevant guidelines and

criteria used to assess VOC concentrations in ambient air.


Page 16 of 18

References 1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999) Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic

Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. Second Edition. Compendium Method TO-15 Determination of Volatile

Organic Compounds (VOCs) in air collected in specially-prepared canisters and analyzed by Gas

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).

2 Lee, J. H.; Batterman, S. A.; Jia, C.; Chernyak, S. Ozone Artefacts and Carbonyl Measurements Using

Tenax GR, Tenax TA, Carbopack B and Carbopack X Adsorbents; J Air and Waste Management

Association 2006, 56, 1503-151.


Page 17 of 18

Appendix

Appendix 1: List of all VOCs monitored

In addition to the key pollutants measured, a range of additional pollutants were analysed for with the TO15 method.

The full range of VOCs analysed for include:

Propene Trichloroethylene 2-Methylbutane

Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,4 Dioxane 1-Pentene

Chloromethane Methyl methacrylate Pentane

Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro- Heptane Isoprene

Ethene, chloro- 1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-, (Z)- trans-2-Pentene

1,3-Butadiene 2-Hexanone cis-2-Pentene

Methane, bromo- 1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-, (E)- 2,2-Dimethylbutane

Ethyl Chloride Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro- Cyclopentane

Ethanol Toluene 2,3-Dimethylbutane

2-Propenal Methane, dibromochloro- 2-Methylpentane

Acetone Ethane, 1,2-dibromo- 3-Methylpentane

Trichloromonofluoromethane Tetrachloroethylene 1-Hexene

Isopropyl Alcohol m- & p-Xylene Methylcyclopentane

Ethene, 1,1-dichloro- Styrene 2,4-Dimethylpentane

Methylene chloride Benzene, chloro- 2-Methylhexane

Carbon disulfide Ethylbenzene 2,3-Dimethylpentane

Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoro- Methane, tribromo 3-Methylhexane

Ethyl acetate Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro- 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane

Ethylene, 1,2-dichloro-, (E)- o-Xylene Methylcyclohexane

Ethane, 1,1-dichloro- Toluene, 4-ethyl- 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane

Methy tert-butyl ether Benzene, 1,3,5-trimethyl- 2-Methylheptane

Vinyl acetate Benzene, 1,2,4-trimethyl- 3-Methylheptane

2-Butanone Benzene, 1,3-dichloro- Octane

Ethylene, 1,2-dichloro-, (Z)- Benzene, 1,4-dichloro- Nonane

n-Hexane Benzene, 1,2-dichloro- Cumene

Trichloromethane Benzene, 1,2,4-trichloro- Propylbenzene

Tetrahydrofuran Naphthalene 3-Ethyltoluene

Ethane, 1,2-dichloro 1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro- 2-Ethyltoluene

Ethane 1,1,1-trichloro- Propane Decane

Benzene Isobutane 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene

Carbon Tetrachloride 1-Butene 1,3-Diethylbenzene


Page 18 of 18

Cyclohexane Butane 1,4-Diethylbenzene

Propane, 1,2-dichloro- trans-2-Butene Undecane

Methane, bromodichloro- Cis-2-Butene Dodecane

Methyl ethyl ketone

Compounds in bold type were present at concentrations greater than the minimum measurable

concentration.

coal seam gas in the tara regioncoal seam gas in the tara region summary ris assessment of health...

Documents