Meteor Downs South Project Central Queensland

Transcription

1 Central Queensland Air Quality Impact Assessment 22/2/2013 Prepared for Endocoal Limited ASK Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd ABN: ACN: PO Box 3901, South Brisbane. QLD P: F: W: E: mail@askconsulting.com.au

2 Document Control W:\6000\6090\ASKout\ Revision No Date of Issue Method of Issue Status Prepared by Reviewed by 6090R02V01_DRAFT 22/11/2012 Draft MR AM 6090R02V01 5/2/2013 Final MR AM 6090R02V02 15/2/2013 Final MR AM 6090R02V03 22/2/2013 Final MR - Disclaimer: This document and associated tasks were undertaken in accordance with the ASK Consulting Engineers Quality Assurance System, which is based on Australian Standard / NZS ISO 9001:2008. This document is issued subject to review and authorisation by a Senior Consultant noted in the above table. If the table is incomplete, this document shall be considered as preliminary or draft only and no reliance shall be placed upon it other than for information to be verified later. This document is prepared for our Client's particular requirements which are based on a specific brief with limitations as agreed to with the Client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by a third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party without prior consent provided by ASK Consulting Engineers. The information herein should not be reproduced, presented or reviewed except in full. Prior to passing on to a third party, the Client is to fully inform the third party of the specific brief and limitations associated with the commission. The information contained herein is for the identified purpose of air quality only. No claims are made and no liability is accepted in respect of design and construction issues falling outside of the specialist field of air quality engineering including and not limited to structural integrity, fire rating, architectural buildability and fit-for-purpose, waterproofing, safety design and the like. Supplementary professional advice should be sought in respect of these issues. Copyright: This report and the copyright thereof are the property of ASK Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (ABN ). It must not be copied in whole or in part without the written permission of ASK Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd. This report has been produced specifically for the Client and project nominated herein and must not be used or retained for any other purpose.

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Scope of Report Proposed Development and Study Area Overview of Mining Equipment Disturbed Areas Public Road Use Minerals Processing Sensitive Receptors Air Quality Criteria Overview Dust Deposition Concentrations Arising from Particulate and Exhaust Emissions Existing Air Quality Overview Particulate Concentration Dust Deposition Dispersion Modelling Methodology Overview Modelling Scenarios TAPM Meteorological Modelling Configuration CALMET Modelling Configuration CALPUFF Configuration Contour Generation Limitations Air Quality Assessment of Mine Operations Emission Inventory Model Results Suspended Concentrations Discussion Meteor Downs Homestead & Rolleston Workers Camp (Receptors A C) Inderi Homestead (Receptor D) Recommended Mitigation and Management Measures... 24

4 9 Conclusion References Appendix B Wind Rose Appendix C Emissions Estimates Appendix D Predicted Air Quality Contour Plots List of Figures Figure 1.1 Location of...1 Figure A.1 Proposed Mine Layout...27 Figure A.2 Location of Nearby Sensitive Receivers...28 Figure A.3 Location of Quarry...29 Figure B.1 Average Annual Wind Rose...30 Figure D.1 Mining Year FY13-24-hour Maximum PM10 Concentration Contours...37 Figure D.2 Mining Year FY13 - Maximum 24-hr Average PM2.5 Concentration Contours...38 Figure D.3 Mining Year FY13 - Maximum Annual Average PM2.5 Concentration Contours...39 Figure D.4 Mining Year FY13 - TSP Annual Average Concentration Contours...40 Figure D.5 Mining Year FY15-24-hour Maximum PM10 Concentration Contours...41 Figure D.6 Mining Year FY15 - Maximum 24-hr Average PM2.5 Concentration Contours...42 Figure D.7 Mining Year FY15 - Maximum Annual Average PM2.5 Concentration Contours...43 Figure D.8 Mining Year FY15 - TSP Annual Average Concentration Contours...44 Figure D.9 Mining Year FY13 Dust Deposition Contours...45 Figure D.10 Mining Year FY15 - Dust Deposition Contours...46 List of Tables Table 3.1 Material Movements... 4 Table 3.2 Mining Year 3 FY13 Emission Equipment List... 4 Table 3.3 Mining Year FY15 Emission Equipment List... 5 Table 4.1 Air Quality Criteria (EPP Air) for Health and Wellbeing... 8 Table 7.1 Mining Dust Emissions - Scenario 1: Year FY13 (No Control Technology) Table 7.2 Mining Dust Emissions - Scenario 2: Year FY15 (No Control Technology) Table 7.3 Mining Dust Emission Controls (NPI, Mining Version 3.1, 2012) Table 7.4 Predicted Dust Deposition Levels for Year FY13 of Operation Table 7.5 Predicted Dust Deposition Levels for Year FY15 of Operation Table 7.6 Predicted Concentration Levels for Year FY13 of Operation... 20

5 Table 7.7 Predicted Concentration Levels for Year FY15 of Operation Table 7.8 Gaseous Concentration Levels for Year FY13 of Operation Table 7.9 Gaseous Concentration Levels for Year FY15 of Operation... 21

6 1 Introduction ASK Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (ASK) was commissioned by Endocoal Limited to provide air quality, greenhouse, noise and vibration consultancy services for the proposed Meteor Downs South (MDS) Project. The MDS Project is located 20 kilometres west of Rolleston, 90 km south of Emerald and 40 km south-east of Springsure in Central Queensland as shown in Figure 1.1. The MDS Project is located adjacent the site of the current Rolleston Coal Mine. Emerald Gladstone Meteor Downs South Rolleston 60 km Figure 1.1 Location of This report addresses the air quality issues in the terms of reference and is to form an appendix to the Environmental Management Plan (EM Plan) for consideration by Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) (formerly Department of Environment and Resource Management). Central Queensland Page 1 of 46

7 2 Scope of Report This report addresses the following requirements: Identify air quality criteria relevant to the project. Develop an air emissions inventory for the proposed mine using NPI and AP-42 emission factors including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, VOCs, carbon monoxide and particulates. Particulates are assessed as total suspended particulates (TSP), particulates less than 10 µm (PM 10 ), and particulates less than 2.5 µm (PM 2.5 ). Configure and run the meteorological model TAPM for a full year, and the dispersion model CALPUFF for two mining year scenarios. The scenarios include the highest potential emission rates and worst locations for sensitive receptors. Process predicted suspended concentrations and deposition of dust and compare with health and nuisance criteria. Include emissions from road transport of product to the rail load-out. Provide recommendations on mitigation measures and monitoring programs. Greenhouse gas emissions are to be the subject of an additional report. Central Queensland Page 2 of 46

8 3 Proposed Development and Study Area The MDS Mining Lease Area (MLA) is bordered by the Dawson Highway to the north-east. The project sits within the southern Bowen Basin and will target the coal seams of the Bandanna Formation. The target coal seam for the project has an estimated coal thickness ranging from 2.8m to 9.7m. The MDS project is proposed to be located approximately 20 km west of the township of Rolleston and immediately adjacent (to the north west) to the existing and currently operating Rolleston Coal Mine (held by Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd). The Queensland Rail (QR) Bauhinia rail line from the Rolleston Coal Mine runs approximately 3.5 km south east of the MDS MLA and continues north east to the township of Blackwater. It has been advised that the Rolleston Coal Mine is currently progressing through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) for expansion from 10 Mtpa to 20 Mtpa. 3.1 Overview of Mining The MDS Project involves the development of an open cut mine producing 1.5 Mtpa of low ash Run of Mine (ROM) thermal coal product intended for the export market. Production is expected to commence in 2013 with the mine life estimated to be between years. The production rate of coal will not be increased above 1.5 Mtpa throughout the life of the mine. Mining and processing plant equipment will operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Open cut mining will be conducted using conventional truck and shovel excavation methodology. ROM coal from the pit will be hauled to the ROM processing area via haul roads from the pits. Waste material from the pit will be stacked in the out of pit spoil dump across the life of the pit. Due to the low ash content of the coal, no Coal Handling and Preparation Plant (CHPP) will be required on site, with only screening and crushing required prior to haulage off site. Excavators will load ore and waste material from the pits into haul trucks for transport to the process area and waste dumps. After processing, coal will be transported from the process area using road transport trucks (unsealed to MLA boundary) to a rail load out facility. This rail load out facility is not included within the scope of this air quality impact assessment. The proposed MDS Project infrastructure and site layout is shown in Appendix A. In addition to the coal mining and processing operations, a quarry will also be operated on site (see Appendix A). The quarry will be operational within the construction phase of the MDS Project and then on an as needed basis. The quarry product will be utilized as the Mine Infrastructure Area (MIA) base and stockpile base in addition to its primary use for haul road construction. The expected quantity of extracted materials is estimated to be between 554,226 t and 643,711 t with an expected yield of at least 97%. The equipment to be used within the quarry will be shared with the mining operations with materials crushed and screened on site. The MDS Project operations will involve blast hole drilling, sampling, blasting, wall control, designation of material types, selective excavating of material into dump trucks and the creation of waste rock dumps to designated designs. The total MDS Project will yield a minimum of 12.8 Mt of ROM coal and 86.1 Mt of waste material. Mining is scheduled to commence in 2013, the material movements across the relevant mining years are listed in Table 3.1. Central Queensland Page 3 of 46

9 Table 3.1 Material Movements Year Total ROM Coal (Mt) Waste (Mt) FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Equipment The open pit mining will be carried out using a fleet of conventional diesel powered mining equipment consisting of hydraulic excavators, rigid body haul trucks, bulldozers, blast hole hydraulic drill rigs, front end loaders, water trucks, scrapers and road graders. The maintenance of equipment such as light vehicles will not be undertaken on site, with preference given for servicing to occur in the townships of Rolleston, Springsure or Emerald. The equipment utilised in the scenarios of interest are presented in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3. Table 3.2 Mining Year 3 FY13 Emission Equipment List Type Equipment Type Model# Location Quantity Mobile Yearly Operational Hours per Vehicle Excavator Hitachi EX3600 Pit Excavator CAT 345D Pit Drill Rig - Pit 1 N/A Off Road Truck CAT 785D Haul Roads, Pit, Waste Dump Track Dozer CAT D11 Waste Dump Track Dozer CAT D10 Quarry Front End Loader CAT 994H ROM Pad (Coal), Quarry Front End Loader CAT 993K Pit (Overburden) Water Truck CAT 777F Haul Roads Grader CAT 16M Haul Roads Scraper - Outside of Pit, Quarry Central Queensland Page 4 of 46

10 Type Equipment Type Model# Location Quantity Yearly Operational Hours per Vehicle Scrub Dozer* N/A N/A 1 N/A Light Service Haul Roads, Various Vehicles Access Roads B-Double Road Product Haul - Truck Out Route 3 N/A Diesel Generator - MIA 3 N/A Fixed Primary Crusher - ROMPAD 1 N/A Quarry Crusher - Quarry 1 N/A * Note: Air quality emissions from the Scrub Dozer are not considered to be significant and have not been included in the assessment for the Mining Year FY13 scenario. Table 3.3 Mining Year FY15 Emission Equipment List Type Equipment Type Model# Location Quantity Mobile Fixed Yearly Operational Hours per Vehicle Excavator Hitachi EX3600 Pit Excavator CAT 345D Pit Drill Rig - Pit 1 N/A Off Road Truck CAT 785D Haul Roads, Pit, Waste Dump Track Dozer CAT D11 Waste Dump Track Dozer CAT D10 ROM PAD Front End Loader CAT 994H ROM Pad (Coal) Front End Loader CAT 993K Pit (Overburden) Water Truck CAT 777F Haul Roads Grader CAT 16M Haul Roads, Pit Scraper - Outside of Pit Scrub Dozer* N/A N/A 1 N/A Light Service Vehicles Various Haul Roads, Access Roads B-Double Road Truck - Haul Out Route/Access Road 3 N/A Diesel Generator - MIA 3 N/A Primary Crusher - ROMPAD 1 N/A * Note: Air quality emissions from the Scrub Dozer are not considered to be significant and have not been included in the assessment for the Mining Year FY15 scenario. Central Queensland Page 5 of 46

11 3.3 Disturbed Areas The total area for the MDS Project will be approximately 1610 hectares. The topsoil of the disturbed land will be stockpiled for future use in rehabilitation works. With the exception of the pit, all areas of disturbance will be rehabilitated post mining. 3.4 Public Road Use The access road to the mine site and administration offices will be via a 6.5 km road from the Dawson Highway. Shift times for the MDS Project are to be scheduled to avoid conflict with shift times at the Rolleston Coal Mine to avoid a significant increase in traffic congestion along the Dawson Highway. 3.5 Minerals Processing ROM coal from the pit will be hauled to the ROM processing area via haul roads from the pits. Due to the low ash and sulfur content of the coal, no Coal Handling and Preparation Plant (CHPP) will be required on site, with only screening and crushing required prior to haulage off site. Transport of coal from site will be via road haulage to a separate rail load out facility. Product coal will be exported through the Wiggins Island Coal Terminal in Gladstone. 3.6 Sensitive Receptors There are four nearby sensitive residential locations which have the potential to be impacted by the proposed MDS Project. The location of these receptors is presented in Figure A.2 in Appendix A. The location of the sensitive receptors relative to the proposed MDS Project site is as follows: The nearest affected sensitive receptors are described as follows: A. Meteor Downs Homestead 3.4 km north west of MDS Mine Infrastructure Area (MIA) B. Rolleston Workers Accommodation (A) 5.6 km east of MDS ROMPAD C. Rollestion Workers Accommodation (B) 6.4 km east of MDS ROMPAD D. Inderi Homestead 9.9 km north east of MDS ROMPAD Due to the distance of the Inderi Homestead (Receptor D) from the proposed site of the mining operations, it is not located within the dispersion modelling grid. The air quality impacts onto Receptor D from the proposed MDS Project, will be discussed based on the concentration and deposition contour plots produced for the modelling grid. Central Queensland Page 6 of 46

12 4 Air Quality Criteria 4.1 Overview The proposed MDS Project s operation would result in the emission of particulates characterised as total suspended particulate matter (TSP), particulate matter with equivalent aerodynamic diameters of 10 µm or less (PM10), and particles with equivalent aerodynamic diameters of 2.5 µm and less (PM2.5). There will also be exhaust emissions from mobile equipment, with emission species including carbon monoxide (CO), minor quantities of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The MDS Project s potential to generate photochemical smog and acid rain is minor and not considered further. The focus of the assessment will be on potential impacts due to emissions of particulate matter, specifically with regards to dust deposition and airborne concentration. 4.2 Dust Deposition Whilst there are no quantitative limits specified in legislation, there are guidelines designed to avoid nuisance caused by dust deposition fallout onto near horizontal surfaces. The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) normally includes, in license conditions, the guideline that insoluble deposited matter should not exceed 120 mg/m 2 /day (3.6 g/m 2 /month). This is in accordance with the Technical Guidelines for the Environmental Management of Exploration and Mining in Queensland (Department of Minerals and Energy, 1995). It should be noted that this value is a guideline for the level that may cause nuisance at a sensitive receptor such as a residence or sensitive commercial land use. It is not normally necessary to achieve this level at the boundary, but boundary measurement can assist in the assessment of whether there is risk of nuisance occurring of not. 4.3 Concentrations Arising from Particulate and Exhaust Emissions In regards to concentration, the air quality assessment has been undertaken with reference to air quality objectives specified in the Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 (EPP(Air)). The relevant objectives for the relevant pollutants have been summarised in Table 4.1. Only criteria relevant to human health and wellbeing are included in Table 4.1. The EPP(Air) incorporates the goals nominated within the National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM). The NEPM standard for PM 2.5 specifies a threshold above which reporting is required, but control measures are not required at this time. As the predicted concentrations of other particulate size fractions are very low at sensitive receptors, and the largest source of particulates is wind-blown coal dust, the ambient concentrations of PM 2.5 are not likely to be significant. Central Queensland Page 7 of 46

13 Table 4.1 Air Quality Criteria (EPP Air) for Health and Wellbeing Notes: Air Quality Indicator Criteria (µg/m 3 ) Period TSP 90 1 year PM hours hours PM year Carbon monoxide 11, hours Nitrogen dioxide hour Sulfur dioxide day 57 1 year Benzene 10 1 year Toluene Xylenes Formaldehyde hours hour 24 hours 24 hours year 1 year 1 year 1. The intent of the five allowable exceedances in the NEPM is to cater for regional events. However EHP has permitted these exceedances to be used in assessment of the impact of major developments. 2. Allowance is made to exclude 1 day but this should only be during identified bushfires. Central Queensland Page 8 of 46

14 5 Existing Air Quality 5.1 Overview It is expected that the air quality for the study area would be reasonably good with acceptable levels of pollutants for the majority of the time based on the undeveloped/rural nature of the regional area. The existing air quality for the subject area would be influenced by sporadic traffic on unsealed roads as well as bushfires and controlled burning. Localised or short-term degradation of the air quality environment would most likely be due to smoke and dust from bushfires. Existing air quality will also be affected by current operations at the existing Rolleston Coal Mine. Current operations at the Rolleston Coal Mine have not been modeled as part of this assessment. 5.2 Particulate Concentration Airborne particulate monitoring has not been undertaken at the location of the proposed site or at the positions of the identified sensitive receptors. The Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA) operates an air pollutant monitoring network within Queensland, however the majority of locations are within highly populated areas with extensive traffic flows. Therefore, while these values are not considered appropriate for a rural site, they can be considered representative of the maximum range of typical dust concentrations within the MDS Project area. Based on the results of DSITIA air quality monitoring for the township of Toowoomba (Queensland), 24 hour average and annual average background PM10 concentrations have been assumed as 20 µg/m 3 and 10 µg/m 3 respectively for the MDS Project area. Based on a typical ratio of PM10 to TSP around Australian mines being 0.39 (ACARP, 1999), a ratio of 0.4 has been used to estimate the annual average TSP concentration, resulting in an assumed existing annual average concentration of 25 µg/m 3. A PM2.5 to PM10 ratio of 0.25 has been used to determine background PM2.5 concentrations. Based on the assumed PM10 values, the 24 hour and annual average background PM2.5 concentrations have been estimated to be 5 µg/m 3 and 3 µg/m 3 respectively. 5.3 Dust Deposition Dust deposition monitoring has not been undertaken at the location of the proposed site or at the positions of the identified sensitive receptors. As existing deposition levels for the regional area are unknown and highly site specific, the existing dust deposition levels will be estimated for the purposes of this air quality impact assessment. As discussed in Section 4.2, the criteria for dust deposition is generally based on the EHP guideline that insoluble deposited matter should not exceed 120 mg/m 2 /day (3.6 g/m 2 /month). Based on this guideline and applying a conservative approach to the impact assessment, the existing dust deposition level for the study area is assumed to be half the guideline level, 60 mg/m 2 /day. This assumed level will be used in the assessment of dust fallout from the projects activities and operations. Central Queensland Page 9 of 46

15 6 Dispersion Modelling Methodology 6.1 Overview In order to predict the fate of the pollutants after they are emitted to air, a mathematical model is used to simulate their dispersion. These models have a large uncertainty associated with them, but are useful in estimating statistical averages over long simulation times. With sources close to ground level, the critical wind conditions tend to be near-calm i.e. low wind speeds. Gaussian plume models such as Ausplume cannot model calm conditions, and have low accuracy in light winds, especially in valleys where katabatic flows are present and where drainage flows turn to follow the valley. CALPUFF, being a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model, is able to simulate stagnation over time, which is critical in calm conditions. Its meteorological preprocessor CALMET performs diagnostic simulation of terrain effects on the wind field. It has a specific slope flow algorithm, which predicts katabatic flows (Scire, J.S. & Robe, F.R., 1997). Due to the low source height, the worst conditions may be calm conditions. Thus CALPUFF (Version 6.4.2) was chosen as the most appropriate model. The dust predictions undertaken for this assessment are based on the following method: Production years selected for modelling were chosen based on the highest potential to cause impact to nearby sensitive receivers. Dust emissions estimates were based on accepted methods and data consolidated by the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) and the Environmental Protection Agency of The United States of America (USEPA). The main emission calculation methods utilised are included in Appendix C. Prediction of input meteorology using TAPM developed by the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. TAPM has a prognostic 3 dimensional meteorological component which can be used to generate hourly meteorological data for input into Gaussian plume models. Enhancement of TAPM input meteorology using CALMET, the meteorological preprocessor for CALPUFF. Prediction of dust concentrations and depositions with CALPUFF developed by Earth Tech. 6.2 Modelling Scenarios The modelling scenarios selected to predict emissions from the MDS Project include: Scenario 1: Year FY13 Scenario 2: Year FY15 Based on the most recent mining schedule provided by Endocoal Limited through McCollum Environmental Services (MEMS) (dated 12/9/2012), the production years indicated above have been determined as the worst case in regards to potential for air quality impacts. Production year FY15 was selected for modelling as it is the highest overburden production year, produces substantial ROM coal and has a significant mobile equipment fleet. Production year FY13 was Central Queensland Page 10 of 46

16 selected for modelling, despite its low ROM coal production rate, due to the significant quantity of overburden produced, the mobile equipment fleet required and the proposed operation of the quarry in the initial production year. The equipment used in the modelling scenarios is included in Section 3.2. The emission rates determined for the modelled sources are presented in Section TAPM Meteorological Modelling Configuration The prognostic meteorological model TAPM, was used to generate weather data over a full year. TAPM is a model developed by CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research in Australia. It incorporates 3-dimensional prognostic spatial and temporal meteorological prediction using the Bureau of Meteorology Local Area Prediction Scheme (LAPS) synoptic analysis data (Puri et al 1998). LAPS uses a network of observational data at large scale to provide meteorological forecasts for TAPM over the period of the modelling run (2005). In addition to the observational meteorological data, TAPM requires gridded land use and topographic data. The land use data includes categories such as urban structures, different vegetation types and coverage, surface roughness, and water bodies. The USGS data set is provided with the model and is used as the default. This has a resolution of approximately 900 m, which is adequate for regional scale modelling. TAPM was setup using four nested 60 x 60 grids centred on latitude south, longitude east, which are coordinates to the east of the ROM processing area. The four nested grids were as follows: 1200 km x 1200 km with 20 km resolution 300 km x 300 km with 5 km resolution; 78 km x 78 km with 1.3 km resolution; and 24 km x 24 km with 0.4 km resolution. 30 vertical levels were used with lower level steps at 10 m, 25 m, 50 m, 75 m and 100 m up to 8 km altitude. Boundary conditions on the outer grid were derived from the synoptic analysis. Non-hydrostatic pressures were ignored due to the flat terrain. No local meteorological data was available for assimilation into the model run, and the LAPS data was expected to be adequately representative of this location. The frequency distributions of occurrences of winds for each direction sector and for each wind class (wind rose) as generated by TAPM for the simulated year of 2005 is presented in Appendix B. Based on the wind rose presented in Appendix B it can be seen that the highest wind speeds originate from the east-southeast. Overall, the dominate wind directions arefrom the south and north-northeast both occurring for over 10% of the time each, with the least common direction for wind being from the west. Calm conditions are predicted to occur approximately 1% of the time. 6.4 CALMET Modelling Configuration CALMET, the meteorological pre-processor for CALPUFF, was run over the full year 2005 based on TAPM surface data near the sources plus upper air meteorological profiles at three points within the CALMET grid. The output was a three dimensional grid of wind-field data for incorporation into CALPUFF. Central Queensland Page 11 of 46

17 The CALMET grid covered 12 x 12 kilometres with 60 x 60 cells spaced at 200 metres. The vertical grid was divided into cells with face heights of 0, 20, 50, 100, 180, 300, 450, 650, 900, 1200, 1500 and 1800 metres. Mixing height calculation parameters were set to default values except that the depth of the inversion layer was set to 200 metres above the mixing height and the maximum mixing height was set to 1500 metres to accommodate limitations in the number of layers exported from TAPM. The latter setting will tend to reduce vertical velocity and hence mixing on turbulent days, which is a conservative approach for low sources. Temperature prediction parameters were set to default except that the radius of influence for temperature observations was reduced from the default 500 kilometres to 250 kilometres to place greater weighting on the closest temperature data. Surface wind observations were extrapolated vertically using similarity theory. Kinematic effects of terrain on vertical velocity were included with the empirical factor set to the default value of 0.1. Divergence minimisation was used. The critical Froude number was set to 1. The radius of influence of terrain features was set to 4 km. The maximum radius of influence of observational data in the step 2 field was set to 3 kilometres at the surface and 4 kilometres aloft. The relative weighting of the diagnostic field over observations was set to 0.2 kilometres at the surface and 0.5 kilometres aloft. The O Brien procedure was turned on and smoothing left at one pass near the surface. 6.5 CALPUFF Configuration The three dimensional wind fields from CALMET were entered into CALPUFF for the full year CALPUFF was run over a smaller computational grid (12 kilometres x 10 kilometres) with spacing of 200 metres, and with receptors gridded over the same domain. Chemical transformation was not included in the modelling which causes an over-prediction of airborne concentrations. Dry deposition was modelled with vegetation state set to active and stressed. This setting will tend to reduce deposition and hence overpredict suspended concentrations. Wind speed profile was set to the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) Rural exponents. Calm conditions were not invoked until the wind speed dropped below 0.2 m/s. Transitional plume rise, partial penetration of boundary layers, and vertical wind shear (abrupt changes in direction with height) were included. The model included the turbulence generated around each chimney stack, called stacktip downwash, which tends to spread the emissions toward the ground. Puff-splitting was turned off, and the maximum number of puffs released per time step was set to 60. Dispersion coefficients were derived by the model using turbulence generated by micrometeorology, the default recommended in the CALPUFF User s Guide. The Probability Density Function (PDF) method was used to calculate vertical dispersion in convective conditions. Heffter curve was used to compute time-dependent dispersion beyond 550 m. The partial plume height adjustment method was used to allow winds to approach hills as terrain increases. Coefficients were set to 0.5 for unstable and 0.35 for stable conditions allowing the plume to approach the ground faster in stable conditions. Central Queensland Page 12 of 46

18 6.6 Contour Generation The coordinates of a grid representative of the area around the proposed site were derived using WGS84 coordinates and Google Earth Professional. The rectangular grid chosen had a southwest corner of (633425, ), a northeast corner of (645425, ) and a grid interval of 200 metres with zero height receptors. ASK has obtained coordinates from Google Earth, which uses the WGS84 grid, and topography from client data based on GDA94. The WGS84 and GDA94 grids are identical to an accuracy of less than one metre. All coordinates in this report are rounded off to the nearest metre and are therefore valid for both coordinate grids. Contours of pollution concentrations were generated using the GIS software Surfer 9. Surfer was then used to overlay the model outputs onto a scan of a rectified aerial photograph of the area. Contours shown in this report were generated using the Kriging method with a grid spacing of 200 metres and contours created with smoothing set to high. 6.7 Limitations The uncertainties associated with this type of assessment are normally only dealt with in a qualitative manner. Typical 95% confidence intervals require a multiplicative factor of 2 or 3. In this case, the uncertainty is high due to assumptions regarding the details of emission sources and operating information. Hence the results should be interpreted as providing an indication of impacts. Central Queensland Page 13 of 46

19 7 Air Quality Assessment of Mine Operations The dispersion modelling used in the air quality assessment of the MDS Project is based on the latest scenario and fleet information for the project as provided by MEMS. 7.1 Emission Inventory MDS Project operations that have the potential to generate particulate emissions have been assessed and included in dispersion modelling. Emission rates have been calculated using the emission factor equations detailed in the NPI Manual (Mining) Version 3.1 and included in this report in Appendix C. A summary of the main dust generating activities, their locations and emission rates (without control technology) is presented in Table 7.1 and Table 7.2. There is the potential for particulate emissions to be reduced through the implementation of control technologies. Emission controls proposed to be utilised to reduce particulate emissions are presented in Table 7.3, with the control efficiency of these technologies based on the control factors presented within the NPI Manual (Mining) Version 3.1. The only proposed emission control technology used in the dispersion modeling was the application (spray) of water onto unsealed roads, as this control method is generally considered standard operating procedure in mining projects. Emission sources have been located based on the expected position of the activity relative to the mine site. Central Queensland Page 14 of 46

20 Table 7.1 Mining Dust Emissions - Scenario 1: Year FY13 (No Control Technology) X (m) Y (m) Description PM10 emission rate (g/s) PM2.5 emission rate (g/s) TSP emission rate (g/s) Excavator on Overburden Front End Loader (FEL) on Overburden Excavator on coal Front End Loader (FEL) on Coal Track dozer at Overburden dump Track dozer at quarry Truck unloading Overburden Truck unloading ROM coal Drilling in pit Blasting in pit CAT 785D Overburden haul CAT 785D Overburden haul CAT 785D OB haul CAT 785D Overburden haul CAT 785D Overburden haul CAT 785D ROM haul CAT 785D ROM haul CAT 785D ROM haul CAT 785D ROM haul CAT 785D ROM haul Light vehicle travel Light vehicle travel Light vehicle travel Light vehicle travel B-Double product coal haul B-Double product coal haul B-Double product coal haul Central Queensland Page 15 of 46

21 X (m) Y (m) Description PM10 emission rate (g/s) PM2.5 emission rate (g/s) TSP emission rate (g/s) B-Double product coal haul B-Double product coal haul Water truck travel N/A N/A N/A Grader Primary crushing (ROMPAD) Scraper Scraper Drilling in quarry Blasting in quarry Loading haul trucks with quarry rock Truck unloading quarry rock to quarry crusher Quarry rock crusher Loading to haul trucks with quarry product rock Generator (1) Generator (2) Generator (3) Various Wind Erosion from 4.158E E E -5 exposed surfaces g/m 2 /s g/m 2 /s g/m 2 /s Notes: 1. Emissions from blasting modelled using worst case blast. Blast emissions spread across one hour period each day. This method is conservative in regards to the long term concentration and deposition levels but is accurate for short term (24 hour) predictions. Table 7.2 Mining Dust Emissions - Scenario 2: Year FY15 (No Control Technology) X (m) Y (m) Description PM10 emission rate (g/s) PM2.5 emission rate (g/s) TSP emission rate (g/s) Excavator on Overburden Front End Loader (FEL) on Overburden Exacavator on coal Front End Loader (FEL) on Coal Track dozer on coal Central Queensland Page 16 of 46

22 X Y PM10 emission PM2.5 emission TSP emission Description (m) (m) rate (g/s) rate (g/s) rate (g/s) (ROMPAD) Track dozer at Overburden dump Track dozer at Overburden dump Truck unloading Overburden Truck unloading ROM coal Drilling in pit Blasting in pit Scraper Scraper CAT 785D Overburden haul CAT 785D Overburden haul CAT 785D Overburden haul CAT 785D Overburden haul CAT 785D Overburden haul CAT 785D ROM haul CAT 785D ROM haul CAT 785D ROM haul CAT 785D ROM haul CAT 785D ROM haul Light vehicle travel Light vehicle travel Light vehicle travel Light vehicle travel B-Double product coal haul B-Double product coal haul B-Double product coal haul B-Double product coal haul B-Double product coal haul Primary crushing (ROMPAD) Central Queensland Page 17 of 46

23 X (m) Y (m) Description PM10 emission rate (g/s) PM2.5 emission rate (g/s) TSP emission rate (g/s) Water truck travel Grader Generator (1) Generator (2) Generator (3) Notes: Various Wind Erosion from exposed surfaces 4.158E -5 g/m 2 /s 2.079E -6 g/m 2 /s 8.314E -5 g/m 2 /s 1. Emissions from blasting modelled using worst case blast. Blast emissions spread across one hour period each day. This method is conservative in regards to the long term concentration and deposition levels but is accurate for short term (24 hour) predictions. Table 7.3 Mining Dust Emission Controls (NPI, Mining Version 3.1, 2012) Emission Source Control(s) Utilised Control Efficiency Applied Loading to trucks with Overburden No control utilised 0% Loading to trucks with Coal No control utilised 0% Bulldozing Coal No control utilised 0% Bulldozers on Overburden No control utilised 0% Truck Unloading Overburden No control utilised 0% Truck Unloading Coal No control utilised 0% Drilling No control utilised 0% Blasting No control utilised 0% Wheel Dust Generation from Application (spray) of water onto haul roads Unpaved Roads (2 litres/m 2 /hr) 50% Use of Grader No control utilised 0% Plant Activities No control utilised 0% ASK has also been advised that Endocoal Limited will consider the use of water sprays at stockpiles, however this control has not been included in the assessment. Central Queensland Page 18 of 46

24 7.2 Model Results Dust Deposition The predicted mining case dust depositions at the nearest sensitive receptors to the MDS Project are shown in Table 7.4 and Table 7.5 for production years FY13 and FY15 respectively. For a cumulative assessment against the project air quality criteria the predicted levels include the assumed background levels for dust deposition as outlined in Section 5. The predicted regional results of the CALPUFF dispersion modelling for the MDS Project are presented as dust contour plots in Appendix D. The dust contours show the predicted dust deposition for years FY13 and FY15. The predicted dust contours are to visually show the predicted regional influence of the proposed mining operation and do not include the assumed background levels identified in Section 5. Table 7.4 Predicted Dust Deposition Levels for Year FY13 of Operation Receptor ID# Location Yearly Average Dust Deposition (mg/m 2 /day) Criterion for insoluble dust 120 A Meteor Downs Homestead 99 B Rolleston Workers Accommodation (A) 96 C Rolleston Workers Accommodation (B) 85 Table 7.5 Predicted Dust Deposition Levels for Year FY15 of Operation Receptor ID# Location Yearly Average Dust Deposition (mg/m 2 /day) Criterion for insoluble dust 120 A Meteor Downs Homestead 100 B Rolleston Workers Accommodation (A) 96 C Rolleston Workers Accommodation (B) 85 The predicted dust deposition rates are below the EHP guideline value of 120 mg/m 2 /day for all locations for both modeled production years (refer to Table 7.4 and Table 7.5) The predicted maximum dust deposition rate including background is 100 mg/m 2 /day, which occurs at Receptor A during year FY15. Central Queensland Page 19 of 46

25 7.2.2 Suspended Concentrations The predicted mining case dust concentrations at the nearest sensitive receptors to the MDS Project are shown in Table 7.6 and Table 7.7 for production years FY13 and FY15 respectively. For a cumulative assessment against the air quality criteria the predicted levels include the assumed background levels for dust concentration (TSP, PM10 and PM2.5) as outlined in Section 5. The exhaust emission concentrations have also been predicted at the nearest sensitive receptors, with the concentrations for production years FY13 and FY15 presented in Table 7.8 and Table 7.9. The predicted regional results of the CALPUFF dispersion modelling for the MDS project are presented as dust contour plots in Appendix D. The dust contours show the predicted TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 concentration levels for years FY13 and FY15. The predicted dust contours are to visually show the predicted regional influence of the proposed mining operation and do not include the assumed background levels identified in Section 5. The annual average concentrations are the average of 8760 one hour concentrations, the monthly average concentrations are the average of 720 one hour concentrations while the 24 hour concentration is the 24-hour midnight to midnight concentration. Maximum 24-hour averaged concentrations are generally experienced under adverse meteorological conditions when mixing height is reduced due to a winter inversion. Table 7.6 Predicted Concentration Levels for Year FY13 of Operation Receptor ID# TSP Annual Average Concentration ( g/m 3 ) PM10 24h Average Concentration ( g/m 3 ) Maximum 6 th Highest PM2.5 Concentration ( g/m 3 ) Annual Average 24h Average Criterion A B C Central Queensland Page 20 of 46

26 Table 7.7 Predicted Concentration Levels for Year FY15 of Operation Receptor ID# TSP Annual Average Concentration ( g/m 3 ) PM10 24h Average Concentration ( g/m 3 ) Maximum 6th Highest PM2.5 Concentrations ( g/m 3 ) Annual Average 24h Average Criterion A B C Table 7.8 Gaseous Concentration Levels for Year FY13 of Operation Receptor ID# Toluene (µg/m 3 ) Benzene (µg/m 3 ) Xylene (µg/m 3 ) Formaldehyde (µg/m 3 ) CO (µg/m 3 ) SO 2 (µg/m 3 ) Oxides of Nitrogen (µg/m 3 ) Period 24 hours 1 Year 1 Year 24 Hours 1 Year 24 Hours 8 Hours 1 Hour 1 Day 1 Year 1 Hour 1 Year Criteria , A B C Notes: µg/m 3 limit is specified for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) only, not total NO X. Table 7.9 Gaseous Concentration Levels for Year FY15 of Operation Receptor ID# Toluene (µg/m 3 ) Benzene (µg/m 3 ) Xylene (µg/m 3 ) Formaldehyde (µg/m 3 ) CO (µg/m 3 ) SO 2 (µg/m 3 ) Oxides of Nitrogen (µg/m 3 ) Period 24 hours 1 Year 1 Year 24 Hours 1 Year 24 Hours 8 Hours 1 Hour 1 Day 1 Year 1 Hour 1 Year Criteria , A B C Notes: µg/m 3 limit is specified for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) only, not total NO X. Central Queensland Page 21 of 46

27 PM2.5 The predicted annual average PM2.5 concentrations are below the EPP(Air) guideline value of 8 g/m 3 for all receptors during both modelled years (refer to Table 7.6 and Table 7.7). The predicted maximum annual average PM2.5 concentration is 4 g/m 3, which occurs at Receptor A during years FY13 and FY15. The predicted highest PM hour concentrations are below the EPP(Air) guideline value of 25 g/m 3 for all receptors for both modelled production years (refer to Table 7.6 and Table 7.7). The highest predicted PM hour concentration is 9 g/m 3, which occurs at Receptor A and Receptor B during year FY13. PM10 The predicted maximum 24hr average PM10 concentrations are below the EPP(Air) guideline value of 50 g/m 3 for all receptors for both modeling year scenarios (refer to Table 7.6 and Table 7.7). The predicted maximum 24hr average PM10 concentration is 47 g/m 3, which occurs at Receptor A during year FY13 operations. TSP The predicted annual average TSP concentrations are below the EPP(Air) guideline value of 90 g/m 3 for all receptors during both modelled years (refer to Table 7.6 and Table 7.7). The predicted maximum annual average TSP concentration is 29 g/m 3, which occurs at Receptor A during years FY13 and FY15. Gases The results of the gaseous predictions are presented in Table 7.8 and Table 7.9. Based on the predicted concentration levels at the nearby sensitive receptors it is evident that airborne concentrations from mobile equipment exhausts and blasting are well below the nominated criteria for all chemical species. 7.3 Discussion Meteor Downs Homestead & Rolleston Workers Camp (Receptors A C) The results of the dispersion modelling for operational years FY13 and FY15 are presented in Section 7.2. The results presented in Table 7.4, Table 7.5, Table 7.6 and Table 7.7 show that both the nominated annual and short term concentration and deposition limits are predicted to be achieved at nearby sensitive Receptors A, B and C. The predicted regional results of the CALPUFF dispersion modelling are presented in Appendix D. The contours presented in Figures D.1 D.10 show the predicted TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations and dust deposition levels for years FY13 and FY15. Central Queensland Page 22 of 46

28 The results of the gaseous predictions are presented in Table 7.8 and Table 7.9. The results presented in Table 7.8 and Table 7.9 determine that exhaust emissions from mobile equipment are well below the nominated criteria for all chemical species for mining scenario years FY13 and FY15. Based on the mining schedule provided by Endocoal Limited through McCollum Environmental Services (MEMS) (dated 12/9/2012), the production years modelled were determined as the worst case in regards to potential for air quality impacts onto nearby sensitive receivers. Modelling of production year FY15 represents the worst case potential for impacts from mining operations alone. Production year FY15 is the highest overburden production year, produces substantial ROM coal and has a significant mobile equipment fleet. Based on the air quality modelling methodology utilized to predict impacts from this production year, the concentrations and deposition are predicted to be within the air quality criteria presented in Section 4. Modelling of production year FY13 represents potential impacts from both mining and quarry operations. The quarry is located towards the north of the MLA and in closer proximity to the identified sensitive receptors in comparison to the MDS pit, processing area and MIA. Based on the air quality modelling methodology utilized to predict impacts from both mining production and quarry material production, concentrations and deposition are predicted to be within the air quality criteria presented in Section Inderi Homestead (Receptor D) Due to the distance of the Inderi Homestead (Receptor D) from the MDS Project site it is not located within the dispersion modelling grid and therefore no detailed concentration or deposition results were generated for this receptor. However, it is acceptable to comment on the potential air quality impacts which could be expected at Receptor D based on the discrete results obtained for Receptors A C (presented in Table 7.4 Table 7.9) and the concentration and deposition contour plots for the regional area (presented in Appendix D). Although the Inderi Homestead is not within range of the contour plots presented in Appendix D, it is anticipated that dust deposition and concentration levels will be well below the nominated criteria for both mining year scenarios. This comment can be made with confidence based on the emission sources all being ground level and the fact that compliance with the concentration and deposition criteria is achieved within the bounds of the dispersion modelling grid. In regards to gas concentration, based on the predicted concentration levels at the Receptors A C (presented in Table 7.8 and Table 7.9) being well below the nominated criterion for all chemical; species, it is expected that airborne concentrations from mobile equipment exhausts will also be well below the nominated criterion at Receptor D. Central Queensland Page 23 of 46

29 8 Recommended Mitigation and Management Measures Compliance with relevant criteria is anticipated based on the application of standard mitigation measures. To confirm this and ensure ongoing compliance, some monitoring is recommended. Ongoing watering of all haul routes should be undertaken using both mine haul road water trucks and light on-road water trucks on applicable routes. Minimise drop heights when front end loaders load onto trucks and when trucks unload to waste dump. Permanent waste dumps should be rehabilitated as soon as practical. Ongoing dust fallout deposition monitoring should be undertaken at four locations on the site boundary: o In the direction of Receptor A to the north-west. o Adjacent to the Rolleston Coal Mine lease to the south-west. o In the direction of Receptors B and C to the north-east. o To the south-east as a background site. Should a complaint be received, further monitoring would be required. Central Queensland Page 24 of 46

30 9 Conclusion An air quality assessment has been conducted for the proposed Meteor Downs South (MDS) Project. The results and recommendations of the assessment are as follows: The results of the dispersion modelling for operational years FY13 and FY15 are presented in Section 7.2. The results presented in Table 7.4, Table 7.5, Table 7.6 and Table 7.7 show that both the nominated annual and short term concentration and deposition limits are predicted to be achieved at nearby sensitive Receptors A (Meteor Downs Homestead), B (Rolleston Workers Accommodation A) and C (Rolleston Workers Accommodation B). The predicted regional results of the CALPUFF dispersion modelling are presented in Appendix D with concentration and deposition contours presented in Figures D.1 D.10. Although the Inderi Homestead was not within the modelling grid and is not within range of the contour plots, it is anticipated that dust deposition and concentration levels will be well below the nominated criteria for both mining year scenarios. The results of the exhaust emissions predictions are presented in Table 7.8 and Table 7.9. Based on the predicted concentration levels at the nearby sensitive receivers it is evident that airborne concentrations of pollutant species are well below the nominated criteria for all chemical species. Please contact the undersigned with any queries on Yours faithfully ASK Consulting Engineers Mitch Ryan Project Engineer Andrew Martin Air Quality Manager Central Queensland Page 25 of 46

31 References ACARP (1999), Fine Dust and the Implications for the Coal Industry, Report C7009. DME (1995), Technical Guidelines for the Environmental Management of Exploration and Mining in Queensland, Department of Minerals and Energy. DoE (1990), Draft Strategy for Cleaner Air for Queensland (Department of Environment). EPA (2004), Air Emissions Inventory: South-east Queensland region, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. EPA (2008), Environmental Protection Air Policy, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. Environment Australia (2008), National Pollutant Inventory Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Fugitive Emissions. Environment Australia (2011), National Pollutant Inventory Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining Version 3.0. NEPC (2003), National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure, National Environmental Protection Council, Attorney-General s Department, Canberra. Puri K., Dietachmayer G.S., Mills G.A., Davidson N.E., Bowen R.A. & Logan L.W. (1998), The new BMRC Limited Area Prediction System, LAPS, Aust. Met. Mag. Vol 47 pp QEPP (2008), Queensland Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. Scire J.S. & Robe F.R. (1997), Fine-Scale Application of the CALMET Meteorological Model to a Complex Terrain Site, Air and Waste Management Association s 90th Annual Meeting. USEPA (1999), Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, EPA AP-42, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, 7th Ed. Central Queensland Page 26 of 46

32 Appendix A Mine Layout and Sensitive Locations Figure A.1 Proposed Mine Layout Central Queensland Page 27 of 46

33 Figure A.2 Location of Nearby Sensitive Receivers Central Queensland Page 28 of 46

34 Figure A.3 Location of Quarry Central Queensland Page 29 of 46

35 Appendix B Wind Rose The frequency distributions of occurrences of winds for each direction sector and for each wind class (wind rose) as generated by TAPM for the simulated year of 2005 is presented below in Figure B.1. Wind speed and direction data is in the form of m/s and blowing from respectively. Figure B.1 Average Annual Wind Rose (Source: CALMET 2005). Central Queensland Page 30 of 46

36 Appendix C Emissions Estimates Emission rate estimation equations for significant dust generating activities are provided below. Coal Loading by Shovel or Front End Loader TSP PM / /. Where: E = Emission factor M = Soil moisture content (%) Bulldozing Coal TSP / /. PM / /. Where: E = Emission factor s = Material silt content (%) M = Soil moisture content (%) Central Queensland Page 31 of 46

37 Bulldozing Overburden TSP 2.6. / /. PM / /. Where: E = Emission factor s = Material silt content (%) M = Soil moisture content (%) Drilling Emission rate factors of 0.59 kg/hole for TSP and 0.31 kg/hole for PM10 as outlined in the NPI Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Mining Version 3.1. Blasting /. Where: E = Emission factor A = Area blasted (m 2 ) M = Soil moisture content (%) D = Depth of the blast holes (m) Wheel Dust Generation from Unpaved Roads TSP / Where: E = Emission factor s = Material silt content (%) W = mean vehicle weight (tons) Note lb/vmt was converted to kg/vkt by multiplying lb/vmt by Central Queensland Page 32 of 46

38 PM / Where: E = Emission factor s = Material silt content (%) W = mean vehicle weight (tons) Note lb/vmt was converted to kg/vkt by multiplying lb/vmt by Use of Grader TSP / Where: E = Emission factor S = Mean Vehicle Speed (km/hr) PM / Where: E = Emission factor S = Mean Vehicle Speed (km/hr) Wind Erosion from Active Stockpiles TSP / / 15 Where: E = Emission factor S = Silt content (% by weight) P = number of days per year where rainfall is greater than 0.25mm f = percentage of time that wind speed is greater than 5.4 m/s at the mean height of the stockpile Central Queensland Page 33 of 46

39 PM / 2 / / 15 Where: E = Emission factor S = Silt content (% by weight) P = number of days per year where rainfall is greater than 0.25mm f = percentage of time that wind speed is greater than 5.4 m/s at the mean height of the stockpile Note: PM10 emission factor based on AP-42 (USEPA, 1998) statement that 50% of TSP is emitted as PM10 Central Queensland Page 34 of 46

40 Appendix D Predicted Air Quality Contour Plots Mining Year FY13 Concentration Contour Plots Figure D.1 Mining Year FY13-24-hour Maximum PM10 Concentration Contours ( g/m 3 ) Figure D.2 Mining Year FY13 - Maximum 24-hr Average PM2.5 Concentration Contours ( g/m 3 ) Figure D.3 Mining Year FY13 - Maximum Annual Average PM2.5 Concentration Contours ( g/m 3 ) Figure D.4 Mining Year FY13 - TSP Annual Average Concentration Contours ( g/m 3 ) Mining Year FY15 Concentration Contour Plots Figure D.5 Mining Year FY15-24-hour Maximum PM10 Concentration Contours ( g/m 3 ) Figure D.6 Mining Year FY15 - Maximum 24-hr Average PM2.5 Concentration Contours ( g/m 3 ) Figure D.7 Mining Year FY15 - Maximum Annual Average PM2.5 Concentration Contours ( g/m 3 ) Figure D.8 Mining Year FY15 - TSP Annual Average Concentration Contours ( g/m 3 ) Mining Year FY13 & FY15 Deposition Contour Plots Figure D.9 Mining Year FY13 Dust Deposition Contours (mg/m 2 /day) Figure D.10 Mining Year FY15 - Dust Deposition Contours (mg/m 2 /day) Central Queensland Page 35 of 46

41 Central Queensland Page 37 of 45

42 Central Queensland Page 38 of 46

43 Central Queensland Page 39 of 46