REPORT - Department of Defence...PSI - RAAF BASE WILLIAMS LAVERTON VIC (0927) 1.0 INTRODUCTION The...

29 September 2017

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE, PFAS BRANCH

Preliminary Site Investigation for PFAS RAAF Base Williams Laverton VIC (0927)

REPO

RT

Report Number. 166923_002_R_Rev1

Submitted to: Department of Defence PFAS Branch Attention: Vicki Pearce

PSI - RAAF BASE WILLIAMS LAVERTON VIC (0927)

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Poly- and Perfluorinated Substances (PFAS) ............................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Key Findings from the Data Gap Assessment .............................................................................................. 1

1.4 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.............................................................................................................................................. 2

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Site Identification .......................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Current Site Use ........................................................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Surrounding Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 5

3.4 Review of Defence Contaminated Sites Register ......................................................................................... 5

3.5 Historical Aerial Photographs........................................................................................................................ 6

3.6 Site Inspection & Desktop Preparations ....................................................................................................... 7

3.7 Water Supply ................................................................................................................................................ 8

3.8 Other Information Sources ............................................................................................................................ 8

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Climate ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Topography................................................................................................................................................... 8

4.3 Soil and Geology .......................................................................................................................................... 8

4.3.1 Soil .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

4.3.2 Acid Sulfate Soils .................................................................................................................................... 9

4.3.3 Regional Geology.................................................................................................................................... 9

4.3.4 Local Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 9

4.4 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

4.4.1 Site Surface Water Drainage ................................................................................................................ 10

4.4.2 Irrigation ................................................................................................................................................ 10

4.4.3 On-Site Surface Water Use ................................................................................................................... 10

4.4.4 Off-Site Surface Water Use ................................................................................................................... 10

4.5 Hydrogeology.............................................................................................................................................. 11

4.5.1 Regional Hydrogeology ......................................................................................................................... 11

4.5.2 Local Hydrogeology .............................................................................................................................. 11

29 September 2017 Report No. 166923_002_R_Rev1 i


4.5.2.1 Beneficial Uses of Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 11

4.5.2.2 On-site Groundwater Use .................................................................................................................. 12

4.5.2.3 Off-site Groundwater Use .................................................................................................................. 12

4.6 Ecology ....................................................................................................................................................... 14

5.0 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS .......................................................................................................... 14

6.0 PFAS SOURCE IDENTIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... 18

6.1 AFFF Storage ............................................................................................................................................. 18

6.2 AFFF Use ................................................................................................................................................... 18

6.3 AFFF Disposal ............................................................................................................................................ 19

6.4 Offsite Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 19

6.5 Summary of PFAS Sources ........................................................................................................................ 20

7.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................... 20

7.1 Step 1: State the problem ........................................................................................................................... 21

7.2 Step 2: Identification of the decision or goal of the investigation................................................................. 21

7.3 Step 3: Identify the information inputs ......................................................................................................... 21

7.4 Step 4: Define the investigation boundaries ............................................................................................... 22

7.5 Step 5: Develop the analytical approach .................................................................................................... 22

7.6 Step 6: Specify performance or acceptance limits ...................................................................................... 22

7.7 Step 7: Develop the plan for obtaining data ................................................................................................ 24

8.0 SAMPLING, ANALYSIS AND QUALITY PLAN ...................................................................................................... 25

9.0 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ....................................................................................................................................... 25

10.0 RESULTS FIELD PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 26

10.1 Description of Site Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 26

10.1.1 Soils ...................................................................................................................................................... 26

10.1.2 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................................... 26

10.1.3 Surface Water and Sediment ................................................................................................................ 27

10.2 Chemical Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 27

10.2.1 Data Validation ...................................................................................................................................... 27

10.2.2 Data Quality Indicators for Investigation Program ................................................................................. 27

10.3 Laboratory Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 28

10.3.1 Laboratory Quality Control .................................................................................................................... 28

10.3.2 Data Validation ...................................................................................................................................... 28

10.3.3 Soil Results ........................................................................................................................................... 29

29 September 2017 Report No. 166923_002_R_Rev1 ii


10.3.4 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................................... 30

10.3.5 Sediment and Surface Water ................................................................................................................ 31

11.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ................................................................................................................................. 33

11.1 Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

11.2 Migration Pathways .................................................................................................................................... 34

11.3 Exposure Pathways .................................................................................................................................... 34

11.4 Receptors ................................................................................................................................................... 35

11.5 Data Gaps .................................................................................................................................................. 35

12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 36

12.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 36

12.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 36

13.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 37

14.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................. 38

TABLES

Table 1: Site Description

Table 2: Defence Contaminated Sites Register

Table 3: Historical Aerial Photograph Review

Table 4: Geology

Table 5: Summary of Groundwater Bore Search

Table 6: Registered bores

Table 7: Documents Reviewed.

Table 8: Summary of groundwater PFAS monitoring results (AGON Environmental, 2016)

Table 9: AFFF use

Table 10: Off-site AFFF use

Table 11: Sampling Strategy

Table 12: Adopted Soil, Sediment, Groundwater and Surface Water Screening Values

Table 13: Number of Environmental Samples Analysed

Table 14: Summary of laboratory soil results – PFAS

Table 15: Summary of laboratory groundwater results – PFAS

Table 16: Summary of laboratory surface water results – PFAS

Table 17: Summary of laboratory sediment results – PFAS

Table 18: Potential Human Health and Ecological Receptors

Table 19: Possible Receptors based on Potentially Complete Source, Pathway Receptor Linkages

29 September 2017 Report No. 166923_002_R_Rev1 iii


APPENDICES FIGURES

TABLES

APPENDIX A AFFF Summary

APPENDIX B Photographs

APPENDIX C Aerial photographs

APPENDIX D Water Use Assessment

APPENDIX E Registered bore search

APPENDIX F Borehole logs

APPENDIX G Data Validation

APPENDIX H Laboratory Certificates

APPENDIX I Report Limitations

29 September 2017 Report No. 166923_002_R_Rev1 iv


DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym Definition

6:2 FTS 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid ACM Asbestos containing material(s) ADF Australian Defence Force AFFF Aqueous Film Forming Foam AHD Australian Height Datum ALS Australian Laboratory Services AMG Australian Map Grid ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council APHA American Public Health Association

ASC NEPM National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure

ASRIS Australian Soil Resource Information System ASS Acid sulfate soil B(a)P Benzo(a)pyrene BoM Bureau of Meteorology BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and naphthalene CA Commonwealth Land CLM Act Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 COC Chain of Custody CoPC Contaminants of potential concern CPE Central Photographic Establishment CSM Conceptual site model CSR Defence Contaminated Site Register DCD8 Defence Contamination Directive #8 Defence Department of Defence DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning DO Dissolved oxygen DoE Department of the Environment DP Deposited Plan DPI NSW Department of Primary Industries DQIs Data quality indicators DQOs Data quality objectives EC Electrical conductivity EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environment Protection Authority EPL Environment Protection Licence ESA Environmental Site Assessments

29 September 2017 Report No. 166923_002_R_Rev1 v


Acronym Definition

FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s GIL Groundwater investigation level GIS A geographic information system Golder Golder Associates Pty Ltd GPS Global Positioning System HDPE high density polyethylene LDPE low density polyethylene LEP Local Environment Plan LGA Local Government Area LNAPL Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid LOR Limit of reporting LQL Laboratory Quantitation Limits NATA National Association of Testing Authorities NDD Non-destructive drilling NEPC National Environment Protection Council NEPM National Environment Protection Measure NES National Environmental Significance NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council NSW New South Wales PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PFAS Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances PFHxS Perflurohexane sulfonic acid PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS Perfluorooctane sulfonate pH A description of the acidity or alkalinity of a substance POEO Act Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 PSI Preliminary Site Investigation QA/QC Quality Assurance / Quality Control RAAF Royal Australian Air Force RPD Relative Percentage Differences SAQP Sampling Analysis and Quality Plan SEPP State Environment Protection Policy SOPs Standard Operating Procedures SWL Standing Water Level TCE Trichloroethylene TDS Total dissolved solids TOC Total organic carbon TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons

29 September 2017 Report No. 166923_002_R_Rev1 vi


Acronym Definition

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UST Underground Storage Tank VIC Victoria VOC Volatile organic compounds WMIS Victorian Water Measurement Information System UNITS Units Description ha hectares km kilometre L litre m metre m AHD Metres Australian Height Datum m bgl Metres below ground level μg/kg Micrograms per kilogram μg/L Micrograms per litre °C Temperature in degrees Celsius

29 September 2017 Report No. 166923_002_R_Rev1 vii


1.0 INTRODUCTION The Department of Defence (Defence) engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) to undertake a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) of the RAAF Base Williams Laverton (Victoria), Defence property 0927. The PSI focussed specifically on the investigation of the contaminant group per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

1.1 Poly- and Perfluorinated Substances (PFAS) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are internationally commonly used chemicals in the production of stain repellents, lubricants, fire retardants and suppressants, including Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF), and pesticides, and as industrial surfactants and emulsifiers (US EPA, 2005). AFFFs are ‘Class B’ fire-fighting foams used to prevent or extinguish flammable liquid fires. AFFF forms a barrier that inhibits oxygen from feeding the fire, while limiting volatilisation of flammable vapours from fuels. Historically (from the 1970s), Defence used AFFF (commonly 3M LightwaterTM) that contained perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). From 2004, Defence commenced phasing out legacy AFFF across the Defence Estate. The chemical structures of PFAS make them extremely resistant to breakdown. As a result, they are persistent once released to the environment. On the basis of its physical properties, PFOS is essentially non-volatile, and would not be expected to evaporate from water (US EPA 2005). Infiltration of water could carry PFOS/PFOA into the subsurface or into groundwater. In soil-water mixtures, PFOS has a strong tendency to remain in water due to its solubility.

1.2 Background Defence has been undertaking a program of works to consider the potential for PFAS contamination relating to the use and storage of legacy AFFF products across the Defence Estate. As part of this program, it was identified that a PSI was required at RAAF Base Williams Laverton to address the uncertainties associated with the use of AFFF and the sensitivity of potential receptors. The findings from this PSI will be used by Defence to consider the need and program priority for further detailed site investigation. Defence’s appointed Specialist Environmental Advisor (Golder Associates) has considered the findings from this investigation and provided separate advice for Defence to consider in the implementation of the Defence PFAS Program.

1.3 Key Findings from the Data Gap Assessment A summary of the key findings of AFFF use from the Data Gap Assessment (Golder, 2016) were:

Defence personnel indicated that there had been two main areas where AFFF had predominantly been used: The Primary Fire Training Ground, which was decommissioned prior to that part of the property

being divested and is no longer part of the Base. The Secondary Fire Training Area, which is also no longer in use. The Secondary Fire Training

Area was operational between approximately 1975 and 1992 and involved monthly fire training exercises. Wet testing of fire equipment was also undertaken at this location and no longer occurs.

A bulk fuel farm was formerly located in the northern part of the property. Based on information provided by site personnel during site interview, it was indicated that a fire suppression system was not in place.

No known emergency use of AFFF at the property was reported by the Defence site personnel.

No monitoring results were available as part of the data gap assessment

29 September 2017 Report No. 166923_002_R_Rev1 1


1.4 Objectives The objective of the scope of service was to complete a PSI in accordance with the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (ASC NEPM) (NEPC, 2013) including the assessment of specific data gaps for the property and the collection of environmental samples.

The PSI is limited to use, storage and waste disposal associated with AFFF products and associated potential PFAS contamination at the property.

An additional objective of the PSI was to obtain information required for the proposed priority re-categorisation with respect to the following:

Significance of AFFF use:

Confirmation of potential source areas and additional understanding of AFFF storage, use and waste disposal.

Obtain environmental data for PFAS in soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater at or immediately down-gradient of identified source areas to further the understanding of the significance of AFFF use.

Sensitive Receptors:

Provide greater understanding, without external stakeholder engagement, of potential sensitive receptors of contamination. In particular, consideration of human receptors and receptors associated with the human food chain.

For clarity the objective of the PSI is not to assess the nature and extent of PFAS contamination (if present). As such, the understanding of PFAS contamination at the completion of the PSI will be preliminary and there is likely to be data gaps associated with initial Conceptual Site Model developed. Given the preliminary nature of the investigation and the objective to collect sufficient information for re-categorisation, the investigation was completed within the boundaries of the property and not off-property.

Given the specific objectives of the PSI the scope of services outlined does not include all aspects of a PSI that would be undertaken if the complete contamination history was to be considered, such as title history, searches of government/local council records etc., as these type of searches were considered unlikely to provide any additional information than what would be determined from the scope undertaken. In addition, given the focus of the investigation is the historic use of AFFF and potential PFAS contamination, no analysis of non-PFAS contaminants was included in the scope.

During the reporting timeframe of the project, Defence adjusted the scope of work to remove the re-categorisation task as it was no longer required as part of the on-going Defence PFAS Program development. Notwithstanding this change, the purpose of the PSI was primarily to gather additional information to develop the understanding of the PFAS conceptual site model (CSM) and identify the issue that may require further investigation.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The following tasks were completed for the scope of services:

Obtain, review and consolidate existing reports and information relating to use, storage and waste disposal of AFFF, environmental conditions (geology/hydrogeology etc.), including:

Data Gap Assessment (Golder, 2016).

Reports held on the Defence Contaminated Site Register (CSR).

Follow up interviews with Defence personnel as required (including identification of personnel not interviewed as part of Data Gap Assessment).



Review existing investigations reports to confirm the presence of available monitoring well locations, either located in the immediate vicinity of potential source areas or down-gradient of potential source areas.

Obtain and review of publically available historical information for the Property including:

Historic Aerial Photographs.

Topographical, soil and geological maps.

Undertake site inspections to gain an understanding of the existence and use of water supply bores in the vicinity of the property. This included confirming the current land use where registered bores are located. At this stage of the project life-cycle, this PSI did not include engagement with external stakeholders to confirm water use. However, as part of the interviews with Defence personnel further understanding of the use of groundwater and surface water off-property was sought.

Undertake site inspections to ground truth additional information obtained from the desktop reviews and interviews. Provisionally select investigation locations prior to preparation of the Sampling Analysis and Quality Plan (SAQP). During the site inspection, the integrity of existing monitoring wells was inspected (including location with respect to PFAS sources and serviceability of well) and a determination made if these wells could be used to achieve the investigation objectives.

An initial Conceptual Site Model (CSM) was developed, based on the available information. The CSM identified potential sources, possible pathways for contaminant migration and potential receptors for PFAS contamination. Based on the initial CSM, the targeted sampling program was presented in a SAQP (Golder 2017). The SAQP provided justification for the proposed targeting sampling locations, media to be sampled and analytical program. The SAQP also included details on the methodologies employed across the sampling, analytical and quality aspects of the program to ensure that the data obtained is of a quality required for the objectives of the PSI. Field QA/QC was implemented in accordance with NEPM procedures and particular attention paid to avoiding PFAS cross-contamination from sampling methods or equipment. The CSM was subsequently refined based on the results of the investigation program and presented in this PSI report.

Collection of soil samples from one soil bore located at the Secondary Training Area and conversion into a groundwater monitoring well. Soil samples were collected from surface, 0.5 m below ground surface (m bgs), 1.0 m bgs and every metre thereafter to a total depth of 5 m. Installation of a groundwater monitoring well.

Groundwater was sampled from seven existing groundwater monitoring wells and one new well. Selected monitoring wells for sampling targeted the shallowest groundwater unit and target the following potential source areas:

Former Secondary Fire Training Area.

Western Boundary of property formerly used for wet testing.

Sampling and analysis of 7 surface water and sediments from Doherty’s Drain and Laverton Creek.

Samples were analysed at Eurofins/ MGT (primary laboratory) and Australian Laboratory Services (secondary laboratory), using National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) certified methods.

Preparation of a PSI report in accordance with the requirements of ASC NEPM (NEPC, 2013).

Updating of the Defence CSR for each property with the results of the PSI.

The site inspection and field investigation scope were completed in January and March of 2017, respectively.



3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Identification The RAAF Base Williams site is located in Laverton, approximately 20 kilometres west of Melbourne, Victoria. The property is approximately 150 hectares and is bounded by the railway line and Maher Road to the south. Sayers Road and Old Geelong Road border the north of the site. The former RAAF airfield was located to the west of the property. Residential properties are present immediately adjacent to the western and eastern boundaries. The site is bound on each perimeter by a security fence.

A summary of information regarding the property is provided in Table 1 below. The site location is illustrated in attached Figure 1.

Table 1: Site Description

Topic Data Source

Property Name and ID

RAAF Williams Laverton (0927) Department of Defence

Address Maher Road, Laverton VIC

Site Area 150 hectares (ha) approximately Maunsell, 2009

Current Zoning Commonwealth Land (CA) Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

3.2 Current Site Use The property was first developed for use by the RAAF in 1921. Prior to use by Defence, the land formed part of Chirnside Estate and was used for grazing of livestock. Defence has occupied the property continuously since 1921 and conducted a wide range of activities including flight training, flight programs and testing, air surveys, air shows, assembly and maintenance of aircraft, firefighting training and the storage and testing of explosives and weapons (Maunsell, 2009). Prior to 1996 the property also included a large parcel of land to the west which hosted the runways and taxiways for the air force base. Williams Laverton base no longer hosts aircraft and the airfield was sold for redevelopment. The former airfield is now occupied by the residential developments of Williams Landing and ongoing residential development of this area continues today. The property has a wide range of uses including Department of Defence training facilities, storage, maintenance and administration buildings and sporting facilities. Current occupants of the property include:

Combat Support Unit Williams;

Headquarters RAAF Training Command;

Defence International Training Centre;

No. 4 Air Transportable Health Flight;

RAAF Central Band;

Defence Publishing Service;

Defence Material Organisation;

No. 21 Squadron;

Australian Defence Force (ADF) School of Languages;



golf course;

swimming pool;

meteorological station;

former Central Photographic Establishment (CPE) facilities;

hospital, health and childcare facilities;

cafeteria;

cinema and police station;

auxiliary equipment and buildings;

base accommodation and housing residences; and

storage, warehouse facilities, hangars and workshops.

Defence reported that there are no proposed changes to the current land use and it is understood that Defence will continue to use the property for its current use. 3.3 Surrounding Land Use Surrounding land use includes the following:

North – Laurie Emmins Reserve, comprising a picnic area, recreational lake, sporting clubs and a scout hall.

East – The residential suburbs of Laverton, is situated directly east of the property. Laverton Secondary College is located 100 metres east of the property.

South – The railway corridor and Aircraft train station are located directly south of the site followed further south by a light industrial area. Further south is the Princes Freeway and residential area.

West – The former RAAF Williams airfield is located west of the property. This area has been redeveloped for low density residential use (known as “Williams Landing” development area).

3.4 Review of Defence Contaminated Sites Register Review of Defence Contaminated Sites Register (CSR) identified 35 contaminated sites within the Williams Laverton property. The nature of the contamination ranges from petroleum hydrocarbon contamination associated with aircraft fuel storage and use, to a mix of potential contaminants associated with former sewage treatment facilities, landfills, electroplating facilities etc. There are no entries in the contaminated sites register associated with PFAS compounds.

The primary source areas list in Table 2 which are the subject of this PSI are associated with the following contamination issues:

Table 2: Defence Contaminated Sites Register AFFF Suspected Source Area

Contaminated Sites Register

Description of known issues

Secondary Fire Training Area

VIC1046 / VT0040

• Known and suspected land filling up until 1989 as well as a range of other land uses with potential to cause contamination. • Groundwater in this area did not report hydrocarbon contamination apart from a minor chloroform concentration. No Volatile organic compounds (VOC) or Trichloroethylene (TCE) levels were reported above site investigation guidelines.



AFFF Suspected Source Area

Contaminated Sites Register

Description of known issues

Wet Testing Area VT0043

• Area used for refuelling and aircraft maintenance. Anecdotal evidence of potential dumping of workshop chemicals and fuel. • Building 36 soil samples has exceedances in Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) and PAH compound benzo (a) pyrene B[a]P. Soil samples in Building 32 has exceedances in TPH. Presence of TPH, BTEX, isopropyl benzene and TCE has been identified in two wells behind Building 34. (Maunsell, 2009)

3.5 Historical Aerial Photographs Historical aerial photographs have been obtained on a number of occasions by different consultants undertaking Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs).

Aerial Photographs Presented By SMEC (2005) Provides A Good Basis For Undertaking An Historical Aerial Photograph Review For The Investigation Of Former Activities In AFFF Use Areas (APPENDIX C ).

The aerial photograph review was conducted to establish a general history of the development of the property and surrounding area, and to the extent possible (given photograph quality and scales) consider fire-fighting training areas. This review is summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Historical Aerial Photograph Review Date Photo Reference Description of Conditions

1951

Project M12, Film 1424, Run 20, Photo 130

Onsite: Several areas of disturbed ground along the northern boundary, and in the north and north west corners of the property. Doherty’s Drain and Laverton Creek are present and in approximately the same alignment as found today. The ornamental pond (western dam on Doherty’s Drain) is present and appears to extend under Sir Richard Williams Ave to the east. Access roads run through the area identified as the secondary fire training area. Circular zone of disturbed ground possibly indicating the extent of landfilling. Offsite: Mostly farmland surrounding the property, with scattered housing to the south of the railway line.

1956

Project M3, Film 1164, Run 2, Photo 128.

Onsite: Disturbance along northeast boundary evident. Far eastern corner adjacent to creek, appears to be covered by fill materials. The ornamental pond appears fuller and extends further east beyond Sir Richard Williams Ave. Offsite: Start of housing development adjacent to north east boundary.

1960

Project M13, Film 1092, Run 22, Photo 14, 15.

Onsite: Filling along Doherty’s Drain in north-west of property. Some soil disturbance along northern boundary. Continued easterly extension of the ornamental pond. Offsite: The eastern segment of the property appears to have been sold and housing development underway.

1962 Project M6, Film 1525, Run 12, Photo 99

Onsite: No major changes. Possible further fill materials present on the eastern boundary.



Date Photo Reference Description of Conditions Offsite: Continued residential development along the south eastern boundary.

1972

Project M23N, Film 2648, Run 2, Photo 99

Onsite: Main oval developed. Area of disturbance on northern boundary near centre. Fire station building present north of the hangers on the western boundary. Offsite: Significant residential development to east and some to south of railway line.

1976 Project M50N, Film 3051, Run 33W, Photo 97

Onsite: Some filling and alterations to the line of Doherty’s Creek in northwest corner of the property. Ground in the northwest (in the vicinity of the secondary fire training area) appears disturbed or heavily trafficked. Offsite: As above.

1978

Project 7822-2/79, Film 3320, Run 8, Photo 118, 119

Onsite: Doherty’s Drain is less prominent and may have been straightened/lined or piped and buried. The ornamental pond is restricted to its present day extent, west of Sir Richard Williams Ave. Doherty’s Drain is straightened and lined from Sir Richard Williams Ave to the centre of the property. Stockpiles of soil appear to be present north east of main oval.

1985 Project 7822-2, Film 3935-184, Run 8, Photo 184

Onsite: Some disturbed ground in north east corner of the property. Offsite: Some activity and new buildings north-west of property for unknown use.

1991 Project 2072, Film 4409, Run 20W, Photo 10

Onsite: No major disturbed areas. Third dam present along Doherty’s Drain. No other major changes. Offsite: Residential properties increasing to south of property.

3.6 Site Inspection & Desktop Preparations An inspection of the Williams Laverton base and surrounding area was conducted by Golder on 17 January 2017. The following activities were undertaken to develop an understanding of the known former uses of AFFF on the property, and current use of surface water and groundwater both on and off site:

Interview of Defence personnel regarding current site activities and information on water use on and around the site. Personnel included:

Christine Linczowski (Base Support Manager),

Wing Commander Nigel Leurs,

Air Commodore Geoffrey Hartland, and

Gary Helman (Former Fire Training Officer).

Site walkover with Gary Helman and gauging of existing groundwater monitoring wells in key investigation areas, and inspection of surface water features.

Curb-side ground truthing of land use associated with offsite groundwater bores registered with an extractive use in the vicinity of the site.

Discussion with Williams Laverton base support personnel regarding the potential use of surface water or groundwater on site.



Inspection of the golf course to assess likely source of irrigation water.

A subsequent telephone interview was conducted with Wing Commander Robert Coopes on 5 April 2017. Commander Coopes was the fire officer at Williams Laverton during the 1970s and 1980s.

3.7 Water Supply An understanding of onsite water use was developed based on discussions with Christine Linczowski (Base Support Manager), Gary Helman (Former Fire Training Officer), and general observations made during the site inspection.

The property is serviced by potable mains water. There are no registered onsite users of groundwater or surface water. There are no known non-registered uses of groundwater or surface water on the property.

While it could not be confirmed during the site inspection, indications are that the golf course is irrigated with mains water supply based on discussion with the Defence personnel and site observations. No pumping equipment or irrigation production bores were observed during the site inspection.

Offsite residential and commercial properties also have access to mains water as the primary water source. A summary of on and off property surface water and groundwater use is provided in Section 4.4.3 and 4.4.4.

3.8 Other Information Sources Given the long history of use of the property by the Department of Defence, other searches usually conducted as part of a PSI (for example a Certificate of Title search) were not undertaken as it was considered that they would either contain limited beneficial information with respect to potential AFFF use and/or would not be available for commonwealth lands, such as historical title documents, council records or work cover documentation for storage of goods.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Information from a number of sources, including previous site investigations and public reports on regional information were reviewed to establish the environmental setting of the site. Knowledge of the environmental setting provides an initial understanding of the potential PFAS migration pathways and the sensitivity of the receiving environment.

4.1 Climate The nearest Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) weather station is Laverton RAAF station (087031), located onsite. The site has been active since 1941. The climate statistics discussed in this section are based on data between 1981 and 2010.

The Melbourne region generally has a cool, temperate climate with mean daily maximum temperatures ranging from 13.8 °C (July) 25.9 °C (February). The site and surrounding area receives an average of 486.8mm of rainfall per year with the highest rainfall months being October and November (51 to 52 mm respectively). There are, on average, 159 cloudy days per year and 138 days with rain.

4.2 Topography The property is located within the flat lying, basaltic plains of Western Victoria and gently slopes to the south east towards Port Phillip Bay. The property is relatively flat but is incised by Laverton Creek which runs across the north eastern corner of the property. There are low hills towards the north and north-western extent of the property that have been partly constructed with fill material.

4.3 Soil and Geology 4.3.1 Soil In the north east of the property around Laverton Creek there are recent alluvial terraces of silts and sands. Due to previous site activities, including quarrying and land-filling, some parts of the site are expected to be



underlain by fill material. More substantial earthworks and filling has occurred in the northern half of the site particularly during development of the golf course.

The site is located outside of the area of ‘probable Acid Sulfate Soils’ as mapped by Agriculture Victoria’s Centre for Land Protection Research. However, the contaminated sites register notes the presence of a large stockpile of acid sulphate soil across the north eastern section of the site (VT0039). The reported notes indicate that this stockpile of Coode Island Silt was sourced from a development site at Lorimer Street Fishermans Bend. The stockpile volume is approximately 2,500 - 3,000 m3 and the surveyed area of the stockpile is 8,307 m2.

4.3.2 Acid Sulfate Soils On-line Acid sulfate soil (ASS) mapping hosted by the Australian Soil Resource Information System (ASRIS) was reviewed. The ASRIS mapping is based on existing data sets which have been converted to a national classification system (ASRIS 2011). ASRIS Acid Sulfate Soils Map indicates that there is no known occurrence of acid sulfate soils for the property.

4.3.3 Regional Geology The Geological Survey of Victoria (1974) 1:63,360 Melbourne geological map shows the site as underlain by the Quaternary-Tertiary Newer Volcanics. The Newer Volcanics formation consists of olivine basalt and olivine labradorite basalt, and is light to dark grey in colour, coarsely vesicular in places, and can include minor interbedded silty sand and baked soil. Individual basalt flows can be separated by clayey palaeosols.

The Newer Volcanics overlies both marine and continental geological formations. In the vicinity of the property the Newer Volcanics likely overly the Newport Formation which in turn overlies the Werribee Sands.

4.3.4 Local Geology Extensive drilling and geological logging has been conducted during the installation of over 80 groundwater observation bores across the property. Within the area of the property, bore logs show the geological sequence to comprise an upper layer of residual basaltic clays which typically comprise high plasticity brown clays sometimes with minor calcareous gravels. The residual clays are typically in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 m thick and overlie basalts of the Tertiary age Newer Volcanics Group.

At most locations the Newer Volcanics sequence persisted to the maximum depth of drilling (typically up to 25 m bgl), however, at location GWA/1, sands and clays were encountered at a depth of 23 m bgl which are most likely representative of the Tertiary Age, Brighton Group sedimentary sequence.

The onsite geology is broadly summarised in Table 4.

Table 4: Geology Geological unit Depth range Description

Surface clays 0 to 2 m Natural clays and reworked natural soil. Upper basalt 2 to 8 m Upper basalt flow. Clay Intermittent

(variable thickness)

Residual clay formed from weathered basalt. Exists as a low permeability layer between the upper and lower basalt.

Lower basalt 8 to 23 m Lower basalt flow Brighton Group >23 m Encountered beneath the lower basalt at one (previous)

location on property. Comprised of clayey sands.

4.4 Hydrology Surface waterbodies that occur on the property are Laverton Creek which runs across the north-east corner of the property, and Doherty’s Drain, a tributary of Laverton Creek that runs from west to east across the



northern half of the property. Laverton Creek discharges to Port Phillip Bay approximately 5 kilometres downstream.

The closest off-site surface waterbodies are Skeleton Creek, approximately 800 m south of the property, and a lake in the Laurie Emmins Reserve, approximately 300m north of the property.

4.4.1 Site Surface Water Drainage Two main surface water drainage lines cross the northern half of the property. Doherty’s Drain enters property below ground in the north western corner of the property and discharges to a series of three constructed lakes from west to east across the property. The constructed lakes are shallow approximately 1 m deep. Doherty’s Drain is ephemeral and was mostly dry at the time of site inspection and sampling program.

The first (westernmost) dam on Doherty’s Drain is referred to as the ornamental pond and is immediately south of the former secondary fire training area and reportedly receives stormwater runoff from the former wet testing area.

The second and third dams are positioned further east along Doherty’s Drain and serve primarily as water features and water hazards for the golf course. Construction of a central wall divides the two dams and extends their length along the course of Doherty’s Drain.

When actively flowing Doherty’s Drain flows from west to east across the property connecting the three dams via concrete lined spillways and underground pipes (under road ways) prior to discharging to Laverton Creek.

Laverton Creek is a permanent watercourse which enters the property from the north and flows south across the eastern portion of the property. The confluence of Laverton Creek and Doherty’s Drain is on the eastern boundary of the property.

4.4.2 Irrigation The property contains a number of irrigated areas including the golf course and various sports fields in the northern half of the property.

Based on the discussions held with base management and observations made during the site inspection, it is understood that irrigation water is sourced from mains supply.

4.4.3 On-Site Surface Water Use There are no known extractive uses of surface water onsite. The site inspection conducted on 17 January 2017 did not identify pumps or pipework drawing water from the three onsite dams/lakes.

Furthermore, surface water is not used for primary or secondary contact recreational uses. Surface water does have aesthetic value across the site creating the golf course water hazards as well as the ornamental lake.

4.4.4 Off-Site Surface Water Use There are no registered or other known extractive uses of surface water offsite. It is not known the extent of use of Laverton Creek for recreational activities (either water sports or fishing).

Down-gradient of the property in the vicinity of Laverton Creek are a number of sporting fields and a golf course. The source of water for irrigation of these areas is not known, with the exception of AB Shaw Reserve which has a groundwater extraction bore (Table 6). It is also noted that Altona Sewage Treatment Plant is located east of the property and adjacent to Laverton Creek. Laverton Creek discharges Port Phillip Bay adjacent to Cheetham Wetland.



4.5 Hydrogeology 4.5.1 Regional Hydrogeology The uppermost aquifer at the property is the New Volcanics aquifer, a fractured rock aquifer that extends across most of western Victoria. The Newer Volcanics aquifer is a multi-layer fractured rock aquifer system with sheet-like basalt aquifers separated by clay layers. Groundwater is typically present in fractures zones, joints and the vesicular flow tops and bottoms. The uppermost aquifer is more vesicular, fractured and weathered, and is unconfined with a shallow water table, where the deeper aquifers are considered to be confined to semi-confined.

The uppermost aquifer is unconfined whilst lower aquifers are confined. The general direction of groundwater flow is towards the south-east towards Port Phillip Bay. The water table discharges locally to rivers, streams and wetlands.

Hydraulic characteristics within the Newer Volcanic Aquifer System appear to be highly variable with transmissivities between 50-300 m2/day and bore yields from 0.4-40 L/sec (Leonard, 2006).

4.5.2 Local Hydrogeology The local hydrogeology is broadly defined by the presence of two basalt aquifers separated by an intervening clay aquitard, where present. The upper basalt is generally unconfined whilst the lower basalt aquifer is confined.

Hydrogeological interpretation presented by Maunsell (2009) offers a comprehensive conceptual understanding of local hydrogeological conditions. The upper Newer Volcanics aquifer is present across the property and is hydraulically separated from the lower Newer Volcanics aquifer by a low permeability inter-basalt clay.

The geometry of the aquifer is such that, in places, the potentiometric surface can be below the top of the inter-basalt clay and the upper aquifer can be dry. Generally, the upper aquifer was shown to be absent across the northern half of the property and groundwater exists primarily in the lower aquifer.

Hydraulic testing conducted on property by (SMEC, 2005) reported hydraulic conductivity ranging from 3 x 10-3 to 2.6 x 10-1 m/s. Groundwater flow in both the upper and lower Newer Volcanics aquifers is generally towards the south and south-east.

4.5.2.1 Beneficial Uses of Groundwater In Victoria groundwater is protected under the State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Groundwater’s of Victoria 1997 (Groundwater SEPP), issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1970 (Victoria).

The Groundwater SEPP defines a range of beneficial uses on the basis of groundwater salinity (i.e. the lower the salinity, the greater the range of potential beneficial uses). Previous hydrogeological assessments (Maunsell, 2009) conducted at the site have classified groundwater as falling under Segment C, based on the total dissolved solids (TDS) range of 3,501 – 13,000 mg/L.

Beneficial uses that require protection under Segment C include the following:

Maintenance of Ecosystems;

Stock Watering;

Industrial Water Use;

Primary Contact Recreation (e.g. bathing and swimming); and

Buildings and Structures.



4.5.2.2 On-site Groundwater Use Groundwater bores located on Commonwealth land, such as the property, are not required to obtain bore construction licences or register their use with the State Government. Therefore, a search for registered uses of groundwater on property does not necessarily provide a good indication of the presence of groundwater users. Based on the site inspection and interview of Defence personnel, it is understood that groundwater is not extracted for use on property.

A review of previous environmental site assessment reports indicates the presence of over 80 groundwater observation bores (monitoring wells). Most of these bores were observed to still exist across the property. Almost all bores have been constructed with 50 mm well casing which limits their effective use for groundwater extraction.

The extensive groundwater monitoring bore network have been installed throughout a series of investigations undertaken at the property to assess contamination. The distribution of monitoring wells reflect the investigations that have been undertaken to assess the conventional contamination sources (petroleum storage and use of chlorinate solvents) and therefore have not specifically targeted AFFF activity. However there is some degree of overlap with the known conventional contamination sources.

Groundwater monitoring well depths were from 6.5 metres below top of casing (mbTOC) to 19 mbTOC, and targeted the upper basalt layer (~2 to 8 m) and lower basalt layer (~8 to 23 m). The majority of groundwater investigation wells target the upper basalt.

All bore logs and well construction details were not available for review, however, based on the data provided in Appendix P of Maunsell (2009) report, two basalt aquifers separated by an intervening clay aquitard (the inter-basalt clay) are present at the property. The upper basalt appears to be the primary groundwater unit predominantly targeted with the existing groundwater monitoring network at the property. It was indicated that upper basalt aquifer and lower basalt aquifer are separated by a leaky inter-basalt clay aquitard. Recharge of upper basalt predominantly from rainwater infiltration and possibly from recharge from lower basalt. Recharge of lower basalt is considered to be from regional recharge system.

Assessment of conventional contamination had shown that highest concentrations of contaminants of concern were in the upper basalt.

4.5.2.3 Off-site Groundwater Use Data from Visualising Victoria’s Groundwater (http://www.vvg.org.au/) a Victorian government web-GIS tool that combines groundwater data from various sources, indicates that groundwater in the vicinity of the property is saline (3500 – 7000 mg/L) and unlikely to be suitable for drinking water purposes. Reticulated potable water is available within the area (part of the greater Melbourne Metropolitan area).

A summary of potential groundwater bores in the vicinity of the property was undertaken as part of Golder 2016. Additional information was gathered from the Victorian Water Measurement Information System (WMIS) and used to further assess the distribution and details of on- and off-site bores. The WMIS is the state-wide repository of groundwater bore information managed by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) for the State Government Victoria.

The bore search identified 92 registered bores within three kilometres of the site boundaries, of which 38 are observation/monitoring bores. The results of the Groundwater Bore Search are displayed in APPENDIX E . Table 5 provides a summary of registered groundwater bores uses and the distance between the property and the off-site bores.

Table 5: Summary of Groundwater Bore Search Number of groundwater bores

Registered Use Comments

22 Destroyed or decommissioned or capped No access to groundwater available



Number of groundwater bores

Registered Use Comments

38 Observation or groundwater investigation wells

These bores typically accessed by professionals trained in the assessment of groundwater, for either measuring groundwater levels, and/or water quality. As such, not likely to provide a pathway to a sensitive receptor.

5 Stock or Domestic or Irrigation

Appear to be bores where groundwater may be extracted and used. 3 km south east (ID 96881) 1.2 km south east (ID 96919) 1.5 km east (ID 96920) 1.8 km east (ID WRK039523) 1.7 km south west (ID WRK960196)

3 Non groundwater bores Assumed to be either geological investigation only and/or no well installed. As such, access to groundwater not anticipated.

24 Unknown use or Miscellaneous

Status of these wells is not defined. However, the wells closest to the property were reviewed to the extent possible and are discussed in Appendix D. Total depth varies from 8.5 m to 37.5 m 11 bores - 3 km south 6 bores - 1.7 km - 2 km north east 3 bores - 1.6 km south west 3 bores - 1 km north 1 bore – 2 km east

During January 2017 Golder completed a curb-side water use assessment of the 29 groundwater bores that were registered for an extractive (stock, domestic or irrigation) or unknown use, and were not recorded as having been decommissioned. External stakeholder communications were not undertaken in this phase of assessment and as such definitive conclusions on the actual use of borewater was not established.

A table summarising the observations made during the water use assessment is provided in Appendix D. Of the 29 bores with a registered extractive or unknown use, two bores (WRK039523 and WRK960196) were identified as likely to remain active and were also located down-hydraulic gradient of the Williams Laverton property. In addition, there were 6 registered bores where site observations could not provide an indication if the bore was active or disused.

This assessment to consider a bore ‘disused’ was made in consideration of the age of construction of the registered bore, its registered use and its location. If the bore was constructed at a time when the locality was used for another purpose (eg farmland), registered for stock and is now used for other purposes (ie residential subdivision), then it was considered likely that the bore would be currently disused/inactive.

Further details of these two registered bores are summarised in Table 6.

Table 6: Registered bores BORE ID REGISTERE

D USE LAND USE LOCALITY RECONNAISSANCE COMMENT

WRK039523 IRRIGATION Sports fields

Large irrigation bore and piping network present near playground in the centre-south of the site. Appears to be well maintained and likely remains in active use. Likely irrigation of sports fields using a combination of



BORE ID REGISTERED USE

LAND USE LOCALITY RECONNAISSANCE COMMENT

bore water and reclaimed stormwater (signs confirm stormwater reuse).

WRK960196 DOMESTIC AND STOCK Industrial

Commercial showrooms & warehouses for two businesses. Bore water sign observed. Well head observed in front garden of one business connected to sprinklers watering other business gardens. Garden includes one citrus fruit tree. Location is down gradient of the former primary fire training area (now off property to the west of existing Williams Laverton base).

4.6 Ecology The southern half of the Williams Laverton base is predominantly covered by pavement, buildings and highly modified vegetation. Grassed road reserves, lawns and garden beds exist across the southern half of the property and are well maintained.

The northern half of the property, while less developed with buildings and paving, has also undergone significant disturbance, particularly during construction of the golf course and periodic alterations to the watercourses throughout the property’s history.

Doherty’s Drain has been significantly altered from its natural state. It currently runs through underground pipes across the north-western corner of the property and is dammed at three points. Dam spillways are connected either by open, concrete lined channels or underground pipes. Laverton Creek crosses the north-eastern segment of the property and most large vegetation has been removed along its length.

Laverton Creek and the three constructed dams along Doherty’s Drain appear to support well developed ecosystems of flora and fauna. A search of the Protected Matters Search Tool conducted by Maunsell (2009) and repeated by Golder in 2017 identified several matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) which may occur at, or relate to, RAAF Williams Laverton.

The matters of NES were reported to include a range of threatened plant and animal species, migratory species and one Wetland of International Significance (RAMSAR site). Further investigation of the data base confirmed that the RAMSAR wetland is the Western Shoreline of Port Phillip Bay and Bellarine Peninsular, located approximately 8 km offsite to the south. The threatened animal species identified were also listed for the wider Laverton area and are thought to be associated with migratory species and are unlikely to be specific to the property. The threatened plant species include particular woodlands and grasslands of the Victorian Volcanic Plain.

5.0 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS The following reports obtained from the Defence CSR and were reviewed to identify potential indicators of former AFFF use and areas of known environmental PFAS contamination as well as the environmental setting for the property.

Table 7: Documents Reviewed.

Author Year Title

Maunsell / AECOM 2009 RAAF Base Williams, Laverton Stage 2 Environmental Investigation SMEC 2006 Stage 2 Environmental Investigation RAAF Williams Laverton SMEC 2005 RAAF Base Williams. Laverton: Stage 1 Environmental Investigation



Author Year Title

CMPS&F 1994 Review of Site History Prepared by ADI-IDD and Recommendations for Revisions to CMPS&F Work Plan, Report 2 Laverton Priority 2 Area RAAF Williams, Site Contamination Assessment, March 1994

CMPS&F 1994 Review of Site History Prepared by ADI-IDD and Recommendations for Revisions to CMPS&F Work Plan, Report 3 RAAF Williams, Site Contamination Assessment, April 1994

Dames & Moore 1993 Department of Defence, RAAF Williams, Stage 2 and 2A Audits, Combined Reports on Site Assessments and Chemical Screening Programs, August 1993

Dames & Moore 1993 Department of Defence, RAAF Williams, Stage 2A Pollution Audit Report, September 1993

Maunsell / AECOM 2009 Stage 3 Environmental Investigation Initial Environment Review Maunsell / AECOM 2009 RAAF Williams Laverton Stage 3 Pilot Trials

SMEC 2006 Stage 2 Environmental Investigation RAAF Williams Laverton – Appendices

Maunsell / AECOM 2008 Stage 3 Information Assessment Report, RAAF Base Williams (Laverton)

G-tek 2002 Post Activity Report, UXO Clearance, RAAF Williams, Laverton Defence Maintenance Management

2011 Annual Report - Groundwater Monitoring Engineering Operations, Comprehensive Maintenance Services – Southern Victoria, October 2011

Defence Maintenance Management


Defence Maintenance Management


GHD 2013 RAAF Base Williams Groundwater Contamination Status - 2012 Groundwater Monitoring Event, January 2013

GHD 2013 DEHP RAAF Base Williams Stage 3 AZ5387, Groundwater Contamination Status Report, 18 January 2013

Environmental Earth Sciences 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Report for RAAF Williams Laverton - November

2013, 9 June 2014 GHD 2014 Further Groundwater Investigations, RAAF Base Williams, July 2014

Aurecon / Prensa 2015 Stage 1 Environmental Investigation - RAAF Base Laverton, 26 June 2015

Aurecon / Prensa 2015 Remediation and Management Cost Estimates - RAAF Base Laverton, 26 June 2015

AGON Environmental 2016 AFFF Summary Report - RAAF Williams Laverton, RAAF Williams Point

Cook, HMAS Cerberus, RAAF East Sale AGON Environmental 2016a Groundwater Monitoring Report - Southern Victoria and Tasmania

Two reports - AGON Environmental (2016) and Maunsell (2009), provide a concise understanding of the site history and conceptual site model (Maunsell, 2009), and a preliminary understanding of PFAS contamination at the property. A summary of each document is provided below:

2016 – AFFF Summary Report - RAAF Williams Laverton, RAAF Williams Point Cook, HMAS Cerberus, RAAF East Sale (AGON Environmental, August 2016)



The work completed by AGON Environmental at RAAF Base Williams Laverton, included groundwater sampling from 40 groundwater wells as part of the scheduled site groundwater monitoring program. Groundwater sampling was conducted predominantly in the south western section of the base, an area described as the ‘finger’, which has been subject to extensive groundwater assessment and remediation activities in response to chlorinated and non-chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination. This round of monitoring conducted by AGON Environmental was the first to include PFAS (20 compounds) in their analytical schedule.

A desktop study of former AFFF use at the RAAF Williams Laverton base was not undertaken as part of this work and the design of the groundwater monitoring activities did not take into account likely areas of AFFF use.

Groundwater wells were sampled using low-flow sampling techniques using a peristaltic pump and low density polyethylene (LDPE) tubing. For wells exhibiting very poor recharge, dedicated disposable bailers were used to collect an indicative sample. Reference to decontamination procedures were documented, however, no comment was made in relation to the actual process or decontamination products that may have been used. The potential for external cross-contamination by PFAS containing products cannot be discounted based on the information provided in the report.

PFOS and PFOA were detected at concentrations above the limit or reporting (LOR) at 34 locations, and 6:2 FTS at one location. The highest PFOS concentrations were recorded in GW34/1 at 1.5 mg/L (VT0043, Wet Testing Area). A summary of PFAS results are presented in Table 8.

Table 8: Summary of groundwater PFAS monitoring results (AGON Environmental, 2016)

VT Well ID PFOS (µg/L)

PFOA (µg/L)

6:2 FTS (µg/L)

VT0043 (Wet Test Area)

GW34/1 1500 38 <0.05

GWAM/5 16 0.34 <0.05

VT0046 (Finger)

GW 2/1 0.3 0.02 <0.05

GW2/2 0.79 0.22 0.11

GW2/3 2.5 0.05 <0.05

GW 2/4 0.02 <0.01 <0.05

GW 2/5 0.28 <0.01 <0.05

GW 2/6 <0.01 0.02 <0.05

GW 2/7 0.41 0.01 <0.05

GW 2/8 0.04 <0.01 <0.05

GW7/10 0.48 0.04 <0.05

GW 7/12 0.01 0.02 <0.05

GW 7/13 <0.01 0.02 <0.05

GW7/14 1.3 0.02 <0.05

GW 81/1 0.18 0.01 <0.05

GW 81/3 1.9 0.13 <0.05

GW 81/4 0.2 0.05 <0.05

GW 81/6 1.8 0.03 <0.05



VT Well ID PFOS (µg/L)

PFOA (µg/L)

6:2 FTS (µg/L)

GW 81/7 0.37 0.02 <0.05

GW 88A/1 <0.01 0.01 <0.05

GW 886/1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05

GW 90/1 3.6 0.2 <0.05

GW 90/3 <0.01 0.01 <0.05

GW 155/2 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05

GW 155/5 0.06 0.15 <0.05

GW 155/6 0.55 0.31 <0.05

GW 155/7 0.97 0.22 <0.05

GW582/3 0.59 0.01 <0.05

GW 582/4 0.03 0.02 <0.05

GW 582/5 0.03 0.02 <0.05

GW 582/7 0.03 0.02 <0.05

GW582/8 0.02 <0.01 <0.05

GW 582/2 0.15 <0.01 <0.05

VT0049 GW598/1 0.67 0.01 <0.05

VT0199 (Finger)

GW7/1 1.3 0.05 <0.05

GW7/3 0.06 0.03 <0.05

GW7/5 0.08 0.06 <0.05

GW7/6 2.9 0.08 <0.05

GW7/7 0.93 0.07 <0.05

GW7/9 0.41 0.02 <0.05

2009 – RAAF Base Williams, Laverton Stage 2 Environmental Investigation (Maunsell/AECOM, 2009)

Maunsell/AECOM’s Stage 2 environmental investigation report provides a detailed summary the property’s history and (non-PFAS) contamination status.

Maunsell reported that that the property had been used for variety of purposes since being established for RAAF purposes in 1921 with activities including flight training, flight programs and testing, air surveys, air shows, the assembly, maintenance and refuelling of aircraft, fire-fighting training, electroplating and photographic production works, and the storage and testing of explosives and weapons.

The investigation involved the installation of groundwater monitoring wells and collection of soil and groundwater samples in the vicinity of the following Defence CSR reference sites at Williams Laverton:

VT0046 Hazchem and Drum Storage area

VT0199 Building 7 Electroplating Areas

VT0043 Aircraft Maintenance and Refuelling



VT0049 Old Photographic Site

VT0040 Open Space Areas

VT0045 UST Remediated Petroleum

VT0214 Building Footprints

Chlorinated hydrocarbons and other petroleum hydrocarbons including Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) were reported at a number of locations across the property. PFAS compounds were not analysed as part of this assessment. Field assessment data, borehole logs and well construction records were provided.

6.0 PFAS SOURCE IDENTIFICATION This preliminary site investigation is specifically focussed on the potential contamination associated with the use of AFFF for fire-fighting training, equipment testing and fire related incidents. These activities may trigger potential releases of PFAS to the environment.

Presented below is a summary of the understanding of AFFF Storage, Use and Waste Disposal for the property. A summary for each source area is presented in APPENDIX A . This information is based on the collective knowledge gained from interviews, site inspections and previous reports considered as part of the Data Gap Assessment (Golder, 2016) and this PSI.

6.1 AFFF Storage The main AFFF product historically used at the property historically was 3M Lightwater which contained PFOS, PFOA and 6:2 FTS. The 3M Lightwater product was since replaced by Ansulite. AFFF was reported stored in 200 L drums in storage warehouses in two locations: the western ‘finger’ area and in a storage warehouse near the former fire station, located to the north of the wet testing area. Based on the interviews conducted with Defence personnel, there were no known major spills or leaks of AFFF concentrate at the property.

6.2 AFFF Use AFFF use involved mixing AFFF concentrate from the storage drums directly into the tanks of the fire trucks in line with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

AFFF was used either during fire training, wet testing of equipment or in response to aircraft incidents. Further details of AFFF use at Williams Laverton has been summarised in Table 9 based on discussions with two former Fire Training Officers at the site; Gary Helman and Robert Coopes.

Table 9: AFFF use AFFF Use Area Frequency Period Description Source

Secondary fire training area

Weekly to Monthly

~1974- 1975 (possibly longer)

Activities in the secondary fire training area included discharge of foam to the grassed hillside. There was no infrastructure in this area, and no use of hot fire training. Each application of would be in a slightly different section of the secondary fire training area, and was for the training in use of fire-fighting equipment. Gary Helman recalls that foam used was AFFF.

Robert Coopes indicated that the use of the secondary fire training area was discontinued at approximately

Gary Helman

Robert Coopes



AFFF Use Area Frequency Period Description Source the same time as AFFF was introduced (c. 1975).

Wet testing area (incorporates an area on the western boundary of the property, and likely including off-site land)

Weekly 1974-1996 Regular weekly testing of fire equipment included discharge of AFFF to the concrete apron and ground further west (as indicated on Figure 3).

On completion of AFFF use in the wet testing area, residual foam was washed down into the apron’s stormwater drains which discharged to the ornamental lake (part of Doherty’s Drain) to the north. It is likely (as shown in Figure 3) that part of the wet test area comprised land that is not currently part of the property (i.e. off-site).

Gary Helman

Robert Coopes

Air movements (western finger)

Weekly 1974-1996 Attend to aircraft ‘hot wheels’ incidents on a weekly basis. Aircraft that had returned to the hanger area would park and fire trucks would drive out and hose down the aircraft with AFFF to prevent fires. Occurred at least weekly.

Robert Coopes

6.3 AFFF Disposal AFFF was actively used during firefighting training and equipment testing. Training occurred on sealed and/or unsealed ground with AFFF waste water either soaking to ground or entering stormwater drains. AFFF is not known by those personnel interviewed to have been disposed of via any other routes.

If AFFF did require disposal it would have been removed from property by waste contractors engaged by Defence under a site-wide contract (pers.comm. Robert Coopes).

6.4 Offsite Sources AFFF was historically used by Defence in areas of the former property which have since been divested. These areas are considered offsite for the purpose of this investigation. These locations include the Runways of the former airstrip and Fire Training Area (primary) (Table 10).

Table 10: Off-site AFFF use AFFF Use Area Frequency Period Description Source

Runways (land to the west of the current property - divested in approximately 1998)

Weekly 1974-1996 Attend to aircraft ‘hot wheels’ incidents on a weekly basis. Aircraft would park on runway or taxiways and fire trucks would drive out and hose down the aircraft with AFFF to prevent fires. Occurred at least weekly at different locations.

On an annual basis fire crew may have responded to an incoming

Robert Coopes



AFFF Use Area Frequency Period Description Source aircraft incident by discharging AFFF to a wider area of the runway.

Fire training area (primary) (land to the west of the current property - divested in approximately 1998)

Weekly 1974-1996 Regular, weekly hot burning fire training drills including burning of fuel in pits and disused aircraft.

Robert Coopes

Gary Helman

These former AFFF use areas are considered potential offsite sources for the purpose of interpreting the onsite occurrence and distribution of PFAS contamination.

No other known offsite sources of PFAS contamination are known or suspected in the vicinity of the property.

6.5 Summary of PFAS Sources Based on the information reviewed, the most likely sources of the PFAS are related to Defence related site activities, that either occurred within the current or former boundaries of the property. Three areas have been identified where AFFF was suspected to have been used within the current boundary of the property. They are:

Wet testing area

Secondary fire training area

Air movements (western finger)

The timing, exact location and, mass of PFAS that historically discharged at source areas were not recorded and therefore are not known. However, the extent of information known by current personnel has been documented above and in APPENDIX A

7.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES As per Schedule B2 (Guideline on Site Characterisation) of the NEPM “a systematic planning process is used for defining the objectives of a site assessment and to develop a sampling plan for the collection and evaluation of representative data to achieve those objectives. Without systematic planning, the site assessment may be ambiguous or inconclusive, which may lead to additional sampling requirements, resulting in increased costs and project delays”.

In its simplest form, the planning process outlined in the NEPM should consider:

the overall objective of the site assessment,

the decision(s) to be made on the basis of the site assessment findings,

the constraints on the assessment (financial, time and logistical), and

the degree of flexibility to conduct follow-up investigations.

This project level information can then be used to identify the specific site information needed to address the assessment objectives.

The Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) process is used to define the type, quantity and quality of data needed to support decisions relating to the environmental condition of a site. The seven step DQO/data quality



indicator (DQI) process is identified in Schedule B2 of the NEPM as one example of a suitable systematic planning approach for site investigations.

The DQO process involves the seven steps as follows:

Step 1: State the problem

Step 2: Identify the decision or goal of the investigation

Step 3: Identify the information inputs

Step 4: Define the site boundaries

Step 5: Develop the analytical approach

Step 6: Specify performance or acceptance limits

Step 7: Develop the plan for obtaining data.

The DQO process has been applied as described below, to ensure that data collection activities are appropriate and achieve the stated objectives.

7.1 Step 1: State the problem The original driver for the PSI was to address the identified data gaps associated with uncertainty on the categorisation of RAAF Base Williams Laverton property.

Identified data gaps during project scoping at RAAF Base Williams Laverton included:

The existence and use of registered groundwater bores in the vicinity of the property.

The source of water used for golf course irrigation on the property.

The presence of PFAS in soil, groundwater (in the vicinity of source area), surface water and sediment on the property.

7.2 Step 2: Identification of the decision or goal of the investigation The PSI was completed in accordance with the NEPM requirements for a Preliminary Site Investigation. The assessment targeted specific data gaps for the property and the collection of environmental samples to support the project objective.

The PSI was limited to use, storage and waste disposal associated with AFFF products and associated potential PFAS contamination at the property.

7.3 Step 3: Identify the information inputs For the PSI the major inputs were:

Existing reports and information relating to use, storage and waste disposal of AFFF, environmental conditions (geology/hydrogeology etc.).

Existing investigations reports to confirm the environmental setting of the site including the presence of available monitoring well locations, either located in the immediate vicinity of potential source areas or at down-gradient of potential source areas.

Publically available historical information for the Property including:

Historic Aerial Photographs.

Topographical, soil and geological maps.



Site inspection and interview with Defence identified employees regarding the use, storage and disposal of AFFF.

Collection of representative soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater samples, and laboratory analysis of the samples at source locations.

7.4 Step 4: Define the investigation boundaries The lateral boundaries of the investigation area are shown in Figure 1. The property has an area of approximately 150 hectares.

The vertical boundaries of the investigation area were:

Soil - generally to a depth of 5 m.

Groundwater - the groundwater aquifer immediately underlying the site is up to 15 m deep.

Surface water – Doherty’s Drain (and associated dams) where it enters the site in the north-west, and exits in the east. Laverton Creek where it enters the site in the north, and exits in the east.

Sediments - in drainage lines and dams to a depth of 0.15 m.

7.5 Step 5: Develop the analytical approach The purpose of this step was to define the parameters of interest, specify action levels and combine the outputs of the previous DQO steps to develop a series of options if certain trigger events occur.

A decision on the acceptance of the analytical data will be made on the basis of the DQI (Section 10.2.2).

The results of soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater analytical data were compared with the adopted site criteria (Section 10.3) to assess the presence of PFAS at the property to support the re-categorisation process.

Contaminant concentrations in excess of the guidelines provided in Section 9.0 may indicate the need for further investigation of human health and environmental risk.

7.6 Step 6: Specify performance or acceptance limits DQIs were developed based on the following PARCC parameters including:

P - Precision: A quantitative measure of the variability (or reproducibility) of data;

A - Accuracy: A quantitative measure of the closeness of reported data to the “true” value;

R - Representativeness: The confidence (expressed qualitatively) that data are representative of each media present on site;

C - Completeness: A measure of the amount of useable data from a data collection activity, and whether it is all the data required to enable the objectives to be met; and

C - Comparability: The confidence (expressed qualitatively) that data may be considered to be equivalent for each sampling and analytical event.

The measures/criteria employed to enable review of these parameters are described below and detailed in SAQP (Golder 2017a).

Precision Field precision was monitored through the use of Golder’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and ensuring that these were complied with throughout the sampling event(s). Suitable performance indicators for assessment of laboratory precision include performance of intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory duplicate sample sets through calculation of Relative Percentage Differences (RPD).



Accuracy (Bias) Accuracy in the field activities was monitored through the use of SOPs and ensuring that these were complied with throughout the sampling event(s). Furthermore, since PFAS are found in numerous items the following special precautions will be taken during all sampling activities:

No use of TeflonTM containing materials (i.e. TeflonTM tubing, bailers, tape, plumbing paste);

No TyvekTM clothing were worn;

No clothing with stain or water resistant treatments (such as GoreTexTM) were worn;

No Post-ItTM Notes were to be handled or brought on site;

No fast food wrappers, aluminium foil, disposable cups or microwave popcorn were to be handled or brought on site;

Hands were to be washed prior to any sampling activities after handling such items listed above, and Nitrile gloves are to be worn during all sampling and sample handling activities; and

Chemical (blue) ice packs were not to be used;

PFAS can bind to glass, therefore all samples were collected into laboratory supplied high density polyethylene (HDPE) or polypropylene containers.

The closeness of the reported data to the “true” value is assessed through review of performance of:

Method blanks, which are analysed for the analytes targeted in the primary samples;

Matrix spike sample sets;

Surrogate spikes; and

Laboratory control samples.

Representativeness To ensure representativeness of the field data, all appropriate media were sampled as identified in this report.

To ensure the data produced by the laboratory is representative of conditions encountered in the field, the following steps were taken:

Blank samples were run at the laboratory in parallel with field samples to confirm there are no unacceptable instances of laboratory artefacts;

Review of RPD values for field and laboratory duplicates to provide an indication that the samples were generally homogeneous, with no unacceptable instances of significant sample matrix heterogeneities; and

The appropriateness of collection methodologies, handling, storage and preservation techniques were assessed to ensure/confirm there was minimal opportunity for sample interference or degradation (i.e. volatile loss during transport due to incorrect preservation/transport methods/sampling technique for example).

Completeness In assessing the completeness of the field data the following is considered:

All critical locations and depths sampled;

Representative samples collected; and

An appropriately experienced sampling team is engaged in the investigation program.



In validating the degree of completeness of the analytical data sets acquired during the program the following was considered:

Whether SOPs for sampling protocols have been adhered to; and

Copies of all project chain of custody (COC) documentation are reviewed and presented.

It can therefore be considered whether the proportion of “useable data” generated in the data collection activities was sufficient for the purposes of the assessment.

Comparability In the event that the reported data sets were comprised of data sets from separate sampling events, issues of comparability between data sets were reduced through adherence to industry recognised sampling techniques. It is noted that this was limited to sampling events undertaken by different consultants.

In addition the data was collected by experienced samplers and National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA) accredited laboratory methodologies were employed in all laboratories.

7.7 Step 7: Develop the plan for obtaining data Sample locations were selected based on the observed site conditions and on the site history. The investigations may identify further areas requiring assessment and thus the overall approach would be modified as required following refinement of the preliminary CSM presented in SAQP (Golder 2017a). The broader sampling strategy is presented in

Table 11 and proposed locations are shown in Figure 2 to Figure 4. Changes to the sampling and analytical plan are discussed in Section 8.0.

Table 11: Sampling Strategy Source Media Sampling Strategy

Former Secondary Fire Training Area

Soil 1 borehole in the centre of the former secondary fire training area (7 samples) (BHGA01/GWGA01)

Groundwater A total of four groundwater samples were collected from: Three existing wells, one located up-gradient and two

located down-gradient of this area.

One new monitoring well were installed in the centre of the former fire training area and sampled.

Surface water/sediment Collect seven samples from the lakes/dams along Doherty’s Drain, and Laverton Creek.

Wet Testing Area

Soil No drilling activities were proposed in the wet testing area during this phase of work. No soil samples were collected.

Groundwater A total of four groundwater samples were collected from existing wells. No new wells were installed during this phase of assessment given the existence of suitable wells in this source area.



8.0 SAMPLING, ANALYTICAL AND QUALITY PLAN A Sampling, Analytical and Quality Plan (SAQP) was prepared for this investigation as documented in the report titled RAAF Base Williams Laverton (0927) Sampling, Analysis and Quality Plan, dated 10 March 2017.

The SAQP includes comprehensive description of the sampling methods and field procedures adopted for the site investigation and should be read in conjunction with this report.

The SAQP was implemented as proposed with the following deviation noted:

The well casing at GWD/1 was discovered to be bent just below the surface and could not be sampled with the low flow pump or a bailer. This well was purged using a waterra pump and foot valve. A representative groundwater sample was collected after a three well volumes had been purged.

Existing groundwater monitoring well GW34/1 was proposed to be sampled. However, tubing stored in the well by previous investigation activities was unable to be retrieved with the equipment available during the site work and GWAM/5 was sampled in its place. The replacement well GWAM/5 was within 50 m of the nominated well, which provided spatial coverage for the Wet Testing Area. It is noted that the highest concentration of PFOS and PFOA were detected in GW34/1 during the previous monitoring in 2016. Irrespective, the monitoring undertaken as part of the PSI confirms the presence of PFAS at comparable concentrations between the two monitoring data sets.

These deviations from the SAQP are not considered to affect the outcome of the assessment and the objectives of the PSI can still be met.

9.0 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The analytical results are screened against an adopted set of guideline values as part of a Tier 1 screening level assessment (Table 12).

The Defence project guidelines (Defence Contamination Directive #8 (DCD8), Amendment 1 and 2, DoD Sept 2016 and May 2017) for poly and per-fluoroalkyl substances has been adopted for this PSI. Complementing DCD8, the supplementary criteria have been selected to support the assessment for exposure pathways not referenced in DCD8:

Draft Commonwealth Environmental Management Guidelines (Department of the Environment and Energy, 2016) for the protection of ecological values. Given the receiving environment is freshwater, the Freshwater investigation levels have been adopted. Although the receiving environment is considered to be slightly to moderate disturbed based on the dams and piping associated with Doherty’s Drain as well as the effects of urbanisation on Laverton Creek, the Victorian EPA (2016) Information Bulletin has indicated that as PFOA/PFOS have been shown to bio accumulate and biomagnify in wildlife, that the 99 % level of species protection is recommended. It is also noted due to limits of detection of laboratory methods, that the laboratory detection limit will be used as a practical standard for slightly to moderately disturbed environments.

Table 12: Adopted Soil, Sediment, Groundwater and Surface Water Screening Values Exposure Scenario PFOS/PFHxS PFOA 6:2FTS

Soil and Sediment Health-based screening levels (direct contact only) – Residential 6 mg/kg*/** 16 mg/kg* 60 mg/kg*

Groundwater and Surface water Health Based Guidance - Drinking water quality value 0.07 µg/L 0.56 µg/L 5.0 µg/L*

Health Based Guidance -Recreation Water Quality 0.7 µg/L 5.6 µg/L 50 µg/L*



Exposure Scenario PFOS/PFHxS PFOA 6:2FTS

Protection of Environmental Values – Freshwater 99 % species protection 0.00023 µg/L** 19 µg/L -

Notes: * DCD8 – Amendment 1

** - PFOS only

µg/L – microgram per litre

mg/kg- milligram per kilogram

PFHxS - Perflurohexane sulfonic acid

6:2 FTS – 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid

The soil guideline values were adopted for sediment samples as a guide only for the PSI.

10.0 RESULTS FIELD PROGRAM The field investigation program was conducted between 6 March 2017 and 9 March 2017. The findings of the field and analytical programs are presented in the following sections. The sample locations are presented in Figures 2 to 4, details of the drilling methods, soil stratigraphy and soil sampling intervals are included in soil bore logs in APPENDIX F , data validation summary sheet is presented in APPENDIX G and the laboratory certificates, chain of custody sheets and sample receipts are presented in APPENDIX H .

10.1 Description of Site Conditions 10.1.1 Soils Subsurface conditions were investigated at one location (BHGA01), in the centre of the former secondary fire training area. This area is positioned on a grassed hill at an elevation higher than most locations across the property.

The borehole was drilled using a combination of solid stem auger and air hammer to a total depth of 13.5 m bgl. Geological log for BHGA01 is provided in APPENDIX F . Following drilling, BHGA01 was converted to a groundwater monitoring well GWGA01.

Fill material, comprised primarily of clay with gravels and some inert waste (bricks, limestone, sandstone, basalt, wire, tiles etc.), was encountered to a depth of approximately 10 m bgl. The fill horizon encountered at BHGA01 is significantly thicker than reported elsewhere across the site and may indicate extensive filling to create the present day hill, or the borehole may have encountered part of a former landfill which was listed in the Defence CSR to be located further south of the drill location.

The underlying basalt was encountered immediately below the fill and, based on drill cuttings, appeared highly weathered. The borehole was advanced 3.5 m into the basalt before being terminated.

10.1.2 Groundwater Groundwater was assessed in the secondary fire training area (GWE/1, GWD/1, GWB/1 and GWGA01) and the wet testing area (GWAM/2, GWAM/3, GWAM/5 and GWAM/6). Field water quality results and gauging data is provided in Table A.

Groundwater was typically 5.0 to 7.5 m below ground surface in both areas. Groundwater flow direction from the property has been the subject of several site-wide hydrogeological investigations drawing on gauging data collected across a network of over 80 onsite groundwater monitoring wells. This preliminary investigation has not sought to independently assess groundwater flow directions, however, the data collected suggest a southerly flow direction which is consistent with the conclusions of Maunsell (2009).

Groundwater was typically saline with field calculated TDS concentrations ranging from 1,300 mg/L to 13,000 mg/L and is consistent with the Segment C Beneficial Use of Groundwater (Section 4.5.2.1). There



were no noticeable odours or sheens, and non-aqueous phase liquid were not encountered in the observation wells sampled.

10.1.3 Surface Water and Sediment Surface water and sediment samples were collected from five locations along Doherty’s Drain and two locations along Laverton Creek.

Surface water exists in three separate dams along the length of Doherty’s Drain. Field calculated TDS concentrations indicate that the water is relatively fresh ranging from 174 mg/L to 430 mg/L. Field measured salinity progressively increased down-stream from SW01 to SW05 (west to east). Sediment at each locations consisted predominantly of silts and high plasticity grey clay with some organic matter at surface.

Laverton Creek is highly vegetated by reeds and grasses where it crosses the property. Laverton Creek flows perennially although in places this flow is through dense vegetation where access to standing water is difficult. Salinity is markedly higher in Laverton Creek than Doherty’s Drain with field calculated TDS ranging from 1,930 mg/L to 2,350 mg/L. The presence of dense vegetation and low flow rates along Laverton Creek has led to the development of stagnant ponds of water with decaying organic matter, very low dissolved oxygen and reducing redox potential. Where they could be observed, sediments in Laverton Creek were predominantly a combination of decaying organic matter and clay.

Surface water quality parameters is provided in Table B.

10.2 Chemical Analysis Soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment samples were submitted to the nominated laboratories for analysis. Laboratory results are summarised and presented against adopted screening criteria in Table C, D and E, and full laboratory reports (ALS batch number EM1702858 and Eurofins batch number 537407) and chain of custody documentation is provided in APPENDIX H .

10.2.1 Data Validation 10.2.2 Data Quality Indicators for Investigation Program The dta quality indicators (DQIs) for the field work sampling and analysis implemented during the investigation works, to ensure that the DQO (Section 7.0) have been met, included the following:

The sampling program has obtained samples from the nominated media at the investigation locations;

The Laboratory Limit of Reporting (LOR) were below the adopted criteria where technically possible;

Sample preservation, storage, and holding time of samples were within acceptable limits;

Field and analytical laboratory sample Chain-of-Custody (CoC) procedures and documentation were completed;

Analytical results for replicated samples, including field and laboratory duplicates and inter-laboratory duplicates, expressed as Relative Percent Difference (RPD) were within the nominated acceptance criteria for field duplicates and splits. Australian Standard AS4482.1-2005 (SA 2005) indicates that acceptable results are indicated by a RPD of better than 30 to 50 %, but notes that the variation can be expected to be higher for organic analytes than inorganic analytes, and higher where there are low concentrations of analytes. Tiered acceptance criteria have been adopted for assessment of RPDs as follows:



Results < 10 times LOR: any RPD are acceptable;

Results ≥ 10 times and < 20 times LOR : RPD < 50% and

Results ≥ 20 times LOR: RPD < 30%;

Rinsate blanks were collected at the frequencies outlined in SAQP to assess the potential for cross-contamination during field sampling. Results were below the laboratory limits of reporting and therefore acceptable; and

Laboratory spikes, controls and surrogates targeted were within 70% and 130%, demonstrating the reliability of the laboratory results reported.

10.3 Laboratory Analysis In accordance with the sampling and analytical schedule presented in SAQP, samples were collected for PFAS analysis. Copies of the certificates of analysis are presented in APPENDIX H .

A summary of the soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater samples (including QC sampling) submitted for laboratory analysis is presented in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Number of Environmental Samples Analysed Parameter Soil Sediments Surface Water Groundwater

Primary QA/QC Primary QA/QC Primary QA/QC Primary QA/QC

PFAS 7 2 7 2 7 2 8 2 Note: QA/QC samples comprise duplicate and triplicate samples. In addition rinsate samples were analysed. 10.3.1 Laboratory Quality Control Laboratory analysis was conducted in accordance with the standard test methods outlined in Schedule B(3) of the NEPM (NEPC 2013) or equivalent modified methods supported by adequate quality control.

The laboratories undertook the required PFAS analysis using NATA certified methods. The laboratories for this investigation were:

Eurofins for primary soil and water samples and intra laboratory duplicate samples; and

ALS Laboratory Group for inter-laboratory duplicate samples.

The laboratory certificates, including chain of custody documentation, are presented in APPENDIX H .

10.3.2 Data Validation Precision and Accuracy (Bias) Following completion of the field program, the information collected was checked, collated, and summarised in tabular form. The results of the laboratory analyses have been assessed and validated progressively using recognised QA procedures.

The primary objective of the data validation process has been to ensure that the data reported can be used to achieve the project objectives.

The validity of the analytical data reported has been assessed by a critical review of the QC check sample results. The validation process is based upon the following data validation guidance documents:

National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPC 2013);

USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Inorganic Data Review (US EPA, 2010); and



USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review (US EPA, 2008).

Accuracy and precision measurements from the appropriate QC check samples have been compared with the analytical DQOs to assess the quality of the analytical data. Data validation records are presented in APPENDIX G .

Representativeness The data produced by the laboratories was representative:

Method Blanks – Analytes were not detected above the Laboratory Limit of Reporting (LOR);

Rinsate Blanks - Analytes were not detected above the Laboratory Limit of Reporting (LOR);

Field Duplicate RPDs (interlaboratory and intralaboratory) - Review of RPD values for field and laboratory duplicates provided an indication that the samples are generally homogeneous;

Fieldwork - decontamination procedures were undertaken at each location. Three rinses (1x tap water, 2x DI water) were used to clean instruments and tools. For soil work, scrub with wire brush (metal) then rinse were used; and

Samples - were handled, stored and transported in accordance with the requirements NEPC (1999). Samples were transported under full chain of custody documentation. The laboratory returned a copy of the signed COC acknowledging the receipt data and time and identity of samples included in the shipment (APPENDIX H ).

Completeness and Comparability Representative samples were collected at the proposed locations including soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment samples.

In order to access comparability, field sampling procedures, laboratory sample preparation procedures, analytical procedures and reporting limits were similar to established protocols. The data from the AGON (2016) monitoring and the data obtained during this investigation was considered to be equivalent within the variance expected for groundwater quality variability over time, as well as sampling and analytical procedures.

Overall The QA/QC program and quality of the analytical data is considered to be sufficient for environmental interpretation and to allow the objectives of the investigation to be assessed.

10.3.3 Soil Results Soil samples were collected from one location at the surface, 0.5 m and at 1 m intervals throughout the soil profile to the depth of 5 m below ground level on 7 March 2017. The soil samples were analysed for a suite of PFAS in accordance with the SAQP to assess the extent of PFAS in soil at the identified potential source areas.

The soil sample analysis results are presented in Table E and summarised in Table 14 below for specific PFAS compounds where assessment criteria have been adopted.

Table 14: Summary of laboratory soil results – PFAS

No of Samples Analysed Analyte Concentration

(mg/kg) No. of Samples with Detections above Laboratory LOR

Exceeded adopted Criteria

7 Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)

<0.005 (Eurofins) <0.0002 (ALS)*

0 Nil



No of Samples Analysed Analyte Concentration

(mg/kg)

No. of Samples with Detections above Laboratory LOR

Exceeded adopted Criteria

7 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)

<0.005 (Eurofins) 0.004 (ALS)*

1 -

7 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)

<0.005 (Eurofins) 0.0003 (ALS)*

1 -

7 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated)

<0.005 (Eurofins) 0.0043 (ALS)*

1 Nil

7 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS)

<0.01 (Eurofins) <0.0005 (ALS)*

0 Nil

Note: * - Field triplicate results (ALS)

Concentrations of PFAS in soil samples were below the adopted screening criteria in the investigated areas at the property.

10.3.4 Groundwater Groundwater samples were collected from eight locations. The groundwater sample analysis results are presented in Table C and summarised in Table 15 below.

Table 15: Summary of laboratory groundwater results – PFAS

No of Samples (Primary) Analysed

Analyte Concentration Range (µg/L)


Exceeded Human Health - Drinking Water Quality

Exceeded Ecological Values – Freshwater (99 % Species Protection*)

8 Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) <0.01 to 3.3 6

1.4 µg/L (MWGWAM/2)

3.3 µg/L (MWGWAM/5)

Nil

8 Perfluorooctane

sulfonic acid (PFOS)

<0.01 to 120 7 -

27 µg/L (GWAM/2) 8.9 µg/L

(GWAM/3) 120 µg/L

(GWAM/5) 5 µg/L

(GWAM/6) 0.03 µg/L (GWB/1)

0.057 µg/L (GWE/1)^ 0.07 µg/L

(GWGA01)

8 Perfluorohexane

sulfonic acid (PFHxS)

0.03 to 53 8 - -

8 Sum of PFHxS

and PFOS (calculated)

0.06 to 173 8 55 µg/L (GWAM/2) NA






Exceeded Human Health - Drinking Water Quality


12.6 µg/L (GWAM/3) 173 µg/L

(GWAM/5) 18 µg/L

(GWAM/6) 0.3 µg/L (GWB/1) 0.14 µg/L (GWD/1)

0.106 µg/L (GWE/1)^ 0.39 µg/L

(GWGA01)

8 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2

FTSA) <0.05

0 Nil -

Note: ^ - Triplicate result used as a conservative measure (highest value)

- * Laboratory LOR used as a practical standard for ‘slightly to moderately disturbed environments

Secondary fire training area (GWB/1, GWD/1, GWE/1 and GWGA01) Concentrations of PFAS compounds were detected at each sample location in the Secondary Fire Training Area. Reported concentrations for sum of PFHxS and PFOS were above the adopted drinking water criteria. PFOA and 6:2FtS concentrations were below the adopted drinking water criteria.

The concentrations of PFAS in groundwater detected at the secondary fire training area during this monitoring confirm the detection of PFAS from the 2016 monitoring data.

Wet testing area (GWAM/2, GWAM/3 GWAM/5 and GWAM/6) Concentrations of PFAS compounds detected at each sample location. The concentrations for sum of PFHxS and PFOS were above the adopted drinking water criteria, with the maximum combined PFOS & PFHxS concentration in this area (173 µg/L at GWAM/5) which is several orders of magnitude higher than the adopted drinking water criteria of 0.07 µg/L.

PFOA concentrations were above the adopted drinking water criteria of 0.56 µg/L in GWAM/2 (1.4 µg/L) and GWAM/5 (3.3 µg/L) locations. 6:2FtS was below the laboratory detection limit.

The concentrations of PFAS in groundwater detected at the wet testing area during this monitoring confirm the detection of PFAS from the 2016 monitoring data.

10.3.5 Sediment and Surface Water Surface water and sediment samples were collected from seven locations.

Surface Water The surface sample analysis results are presented in Table D and summarised in Table 16 below. Table 16: Summary of laboratory surface water results – PFAS



No of Samples Analysed



Exceeded Human Health - Recreational water quality value


7 Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) 0.02 to 0.04 7 Nil -

7 Perfluorooctane

sulfonic acid (PFOS)

0.02 to 0.351 7 -

0.351 µg/L (SW01) 0.1 µg/L (SW02)

0.08 µg/L (SW03)

0.07 µg/L (SW04)

0.16 µg/L (SW05)

0.02 µg/L (SW06)

0.03 µg/L (SW07)

7 Perfluorohexane

sulfonic acid (PFHxS)

0.02 to 0.09 7 - -

7 Sum of PFHxS

and PFOS (calculated)

0.04 to 0.408^ 7 Nil NA

7

6:2 Fluorotelomer

sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA)

<0.05 0 Nil -

Note: ^ - Triplicate result used as a conservative measure (highest value)

* Laboratory LOR used as a practical standard for ‘slightly to moderately disturbed environments

A range of PFAS compounds were detected at low concentration in the surface water samples collected from both Doherty’s Drain and Laverton Creek. Reported concentrations were below the adopted recreational use guidelines. PFOS exceeded the adopted guidelines for the protection of freshwater aquatic ecosystem (Environmental Values) at the seven monitoring locations tested.

Sediment The sediment sample analysis results are presented in Table E and summarised in Table 17 below.

Table 17: Summary of laboratory sediment results – PFAS No of Samples (Primary) Analysed

Analyte Concentration Range (mg/kg)


Exceeded the Criteria

7 Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)

<0.005 (Eurofins) < 0.0002 (ALS)*

0 Nil




Analyte Concentration Range (mg/kg)


Exceeded the Criteria

7 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) <0.005 to 0.075 4 -

7 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)

<0.005 (Eurofins) 0.0004 (ALS)*

1 -

7 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) <0.005 to 0.075 4 Nil

7 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA)

<0.01 (Eurofins) 0.0005 (ALS)*

1 Nil

Note: * - Field triplicate results (ALS)

Concentrations of PFAS in sediment samples were below the adopted screening criteria at the property.

11.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL The revised initial conceptual site model (CSM) for the PFAS at RAAF Base Williams Laverton is summarised below. The CSM is based on the initial CSM presented in the SAQP (Golder 2017) and was revised following completion of the PSI (as document above). The CSM is an iterative process where it is updated when new data becomes available, as investigations, assessments, remediation progress.

The initial CSM aims to provide an understanding of the potential for exposure to the identified PFAS contamination. A potential risk can only exist where confirmed sources and receptors are linked by a complete exposure pathway. Based on the objectives of the PSI the CSM only considers PFAS. The various elements of the conceptual model of PFAS contamination and exposure, relevant to RAAF Base Williams Laverton are summarised below.

A visual schematic of the initial conceptual site model is provided as Figure 5.

11.1 Sources A number of source areas where legacy AFFF was used and introduced into the environment were identified. Details are provided in APPENDIX A and shown on Figure 1.

Wet Testing Area

The review of historical documents and interviews with current and former base personnel indicated that there has been regular weekly “wet testing” of fire equipment including discharge of AFFF to the concrete apron and ground. .

During the PSI, 4 groundwater samples were collected in the vicinity of the Wet Testing Area. Review of the analytical results indicated that PFAS concentrations were detected above the laboratory LOR, and confirm the detection from monitoring completed in 2016 (AGON, 2016). PFAS detections in groundwater found in this locality may indicate that PFAS can migrate into soils in multiple directions or dispersion in surface water runoff and infiltration. Contamination, associated with the former operations at the Wet Testing Area, may also be present in soil and groundwater in off-site areas to the west of the property (formerly part of the property).


Activities in the Secondary Fire Training Area was reportedly used for a relatively short period of time between 1974 and 1975 and included discharge of foam to the grassed hillside. There was no contained fire pit or any other infrastructure and AFFF would have soaked into the ground.

During the PSI, 7 primary soil samples were collected from one soil borehole located in the middle of the secondary fire-training area, where AFFF were sprayed. Concentrations of PFAS were generally less than



the laboratory LOR. PFAS was also confirmed to be present in groundwater in this area indicating that PFAS have migrated through the soil profile to groundwater.

Air Movements (western finger)

Activities in the Air Movement area included attending to aircraft ‘hot wheels’ incidents on a weekly basis. Aircraft that had returned to the hanger area would park and fire trucks would hose down the aircraft wheels with AFFF to prevent fires.

Monitoring data from 2016 confirmed the presence of PFAS in groundwater in this area.

Off-site Sources

There are a number of Defence former operations associated with the use of AFFF that have occurred in land which has been divested and is currently not part of the RAAF Base Williams Laverton. These areas include former Fire Training Ground (primary) and operation that occurred on the runways of the former airstrip.

These areas were not assessed as part of the PSI.

11.2 Migration Pathways Once released to the environment due to spills, leaks, application of foams, etc., AFFF can result in PFAS being present in soil, sediment surface water and groundwater. The pathways by which PFAS may migrate through the environment as dissolved species with water undergoing processes such as desorption, adsorption, leaching, or bioaccumulation.

Surface impacts may be associated with deposition/adsorption of PFAS to soil from use of AFFF or from overland flow of waste water. PFAS may migrate in stormwater and surface water that flows along drainage lines into nearby dams, wetlands, or other surface water bodies.

The results of the program identified the presence of PFAS in both the sediment and surface water of Doherty’s Drain and Laverton Creek, indicating that PFAS is migrating along these flow paths, and given the proximity of sampling points to the property boundary may be migrating off-site.

Given the depth of the ponds (approximately 1 m) associated with Doherty’s Drain, and groundwater in the order of 6 to 7 m bgl, groundwater is considered unlikely to discharge to surface water at the property. Conversely, water may drain from the ponds and Laverton Creek and migrate to groundwater through the unconsolidated clay and fractured Basalt.

The presence of PFAS in the groundwater indicates that PFAS has migrated to the groundwater, likely to be via rainwater infiltration leaching PFAS present in the surface soils or directly via waste water containing PFAS when discharged to unsealed areas. There are registered bores in the area for the extraction of water for agricultural purposes (crop or live-stock). These are considered to be limited given the redevelopment of the area for urban use, however, as groundwater is used for irrigation of sporting fields and gardens associated with an industrial complex, agricultural use cannot be discounted. The use of surface water or groundwater for drinking water is considered to be low as potable mains water is supplied to the property and surrounding areas.

11.3 Exposure Pathways The following exposure pathways are considered to be complete pathways for the exposure to media that may contain PFAS.

Dermal contact or ingestion of impacted soil and sediment. Generally, direct contact with soils is limited to the top 0.5 m, although construction or intrusive workers may disturb and be exposed to deeper soils.

Dermal contact or ingestion of impacted surface water or groundwater. Groundwater may be accessible when extracted for uses such as domestic (non-potable), agricultural, or other purposes. Recreational use of surface water in Laverton Creek may occur off-property.



Ecological receptors present within the surface waters of Doherty’s Drain, and Laverton Creek. Aquatic receptors presented in Laverton Creek may be exposed to impacted surface water.

Ingestion of food items grown with or within impacted surface water or groundwater. Such as, recreational fishing within Laverton Creek.

11.4 Receptors Potential human health and ecological receptors for both on-property and off-property locations are presented in Table 18 below. The receptors listed within Table 18 are those considered to be present either on- or off-property, however, may not be at risk from exposure to PFAS contamination as an exposure pathway may be incomplete.

Table 18: Potential Human Health and Ecological Receptors Human Health Ecological

On-Property

Defence Personnel / Contractors

Visitors

Intrusive, construction or maintenance workers

Aquatic Ecological Receptors

Off-Property

Residential Receptors

Intrusive, construction or maintenance workers

Domestic bore users

Consumers of impacted produce or biota

Recreational Uses of Surface water or Groundwater

Terrestrial Ecological Receptors

Aquatic Ecological Receptors

Domestics pets

Based on an initial screening of potential linkages between source, pathway and receptors and considering the exposure pathways outlined in Section 11.3, the sub-set of potential receptors presented in Table 19 are considered to represent potentially complete linkages between contamination sources and receptors. Table 19 has not included possible off-property receptors given the absence of investigation results to confirm if there are complete linkages between on-site sources and off-property receptors.

However, it is considered that any future investigation / risk assessment would further consider all potential receptors to further develop the understanding of the CSM in the event additional data will be available for evaluation.

Table 19: Possible Receptors based on Potentially Complete Source, Pathway Receptor Linkages Human Health Ecological

On-Property

Intrusive, construction or maintenance workers (potential contact with contaminated soil/sediment/surface water/sediment)

Aquatic Ecological Receptors (fish, turtles etc. living in pond and Laverton Creek)

11.5 Data Gaps The following key data gaps have been identified to consider in further assessment:



Delineation of the extent of PFAS in soil, and groundwater in the vicinity and down-gradient of the source areas. This is likely to require assessment of potential contamination off-site to allow consideration of potential linkages between source, pathway and off-property receptors.

Contamination associated with off-site sources (former Defence operations) including the former fire training area (primary) and the airstrip.

Confirmation of use of groundwater from off-site wells.

Use of Laverton Creek for recreational purpose and/or for recreational fishing.

12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 Conclusions The PSI was completed in accordance with the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (ASC NEPM) (NEPC, 2013) including the assessment of specific data gaps for the property and the collection of target environmental samples.

The PSI historical review has refined the understanding of the history of AFFF use, storage and waste disposal and identified potential primary sources of PFAS contamination. The intrusive investigation including the collection of soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater provided data to confirm that the operations undertaken at the identified sources have led to the presence of PFAS contamination in the soil and groundwater at these source areas. The collection of limited sediment, surface water and groundwater samples has indicated that PFAS contamination has migrated from the sources areas, however the extent of this cannot be assessed based on the scope of the PSI. The current understanding of source areas, potential migration pathways and receptors is presented in the initial CSM in Section 11.0.

Consideration of water use at and surrounding the property indicated that domestic water supply for both the Base and the surrounding areas is available from mains water. Current groundwater extraction and use is considered to be limited to two off-site bores, with the likely use to be for irrigation of a sports field and gardens located at an industrial complex, however, other uses cannot be discounted.

During the reporting timeframe, Defence adjusted the scope of work to remove the re-categorisation task as it was no longer required as part of the on-going Defence PFAS Program development.

12.2 Recommendations Further investigation is recommended to progress the understanding of the contamination Conceptual Site Model and the consequential assessment of potential risk. In developing the scope of work for a further investigation, consideration of the data gaps identified in Section 11.5 is recommended.



13.0 REFERENCES Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource

Management Council of Australia and New Zealand Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Paper No 4, October 2000.

Defence 2016, Defence Contamination Directive (DCD) #8, (Amendment 1) – Interim Screening Criteria. Defence Project Guidance for Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Department of Defence, Estate and Infrastructure Group, September 2016.

Defence 2017, Defence Contamination Directive (DCD) #8, (Amendment 2) – Interim Screening Criteria. Defence Project Guidance for Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Department of Defence, Estate and Infrastructure Group, May 2017.

Department of the Environment and Energy, 2016. Commonwealth Environmental Management Guidelines on Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Draft. October 2016.

Golder 2016 - Category 2 Property – Data Gap Assessment- RAAF Base Williams Laverton (0927) (Golder Ref 1541479-043-R-Rev0, dated 7 September 2016).

Golder 2017 – RAAF Base Williams Laverton (0927) Sampling, Analysis and Quality Plan (Golder Ref 1652034-058-R-Rec0, dated 10 March 2017).

Leonard, 2006. Hydrogeology of the Melbourne Area. Australian Geomechanics. Vol. 41 No. 3 September 2006 pp 63-74.

Maunsell 2009. RAAF Base Williams, Laverton Stage 2 Environmental Investigation. 14 January 2009.

SMEC Australia 2005. RAAF Base Williams Laverton, Stage 1 Environmental Investigation. Ref: 31543.024WL. April 2005.

VicEPA 2016. Incoming Water Standards for Aquatic Ecosystem Protection: PFOS and PFOA. Publication 1633. Environment Protection Authority Victoria, August 2016.

Victoria, 1997. State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Groundwaters of Victoria 1997 (Groundwater SEPP).

WA Department of Environment Regulations 2017. Interim Guideline on the Assessment and Management of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Contaminated Sites Guideline. January 2017.

US EPA 2005. USEPA Hazard Assessment of PFOA and PFOS.

US EPA 2008. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review.

US EPA 2010. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Inorganic Data Review.



14.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION Your attention is drawn to the document Important Information Relating to this Report, which is included in APPENDIX I of this report. The statements presented in this document are intended to advise you of what your realistic expectations of this report should be, and to present you with recommendations on how to minimise the risks associated with the services provided for this project. The document is not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Golder Associates, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in so doing.

Report Signature Page

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Andrew Holloway Francene Mitchell Principal Environmental Scientist Principal Environmental Scientist

JS/AH/ob/ljp

A.B.N. 64 006 107 857 Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

\\golder.gds\gap\brisbane\jobs\contam\2016\1669283 defence psi cat 2\correspondence out\1669283_002_rev1_psi_williams laverton\1669283-002-r-rev1-psi report williams

laverton.docx



FIGURES


POIN

T CO

OK R

OAD

BLADIN S TRE ET

OLD GEELONG ROAD

TR IHOL M AVENUE

RAILWAY AVE NUE

AV IAT IONR OAD

PRINCES FREE WAY

WACKETT STREET

MAHE R ROAD

PRINCES FREE WAY

PRIN CES IN-HIGH

RAMP OF

SAYE RS ROAD

Secondary FireTraining Area

WetTesting

Area

Air Movements

D OHERTYS DRAIN L AV ERT ON CREEK

LAVERTON C RE EK

DOHERTYS DRAIN

32

34

36

302,000 303,000 304,000

5,807

,000

5,807

,000

5,808

,000

5,808

,000

CLIENT

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE

LEGENDWatercourse

Inferred Area of Historical AFFF Use

RAAF Laverton Boundary

Golf Course

Waterbody

COPYRIGHTBasemaps sourced from Esri Online Basemaps.Road, Property & Water © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment,Land, Water and Planning, 2016.

PROJECT

PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION (PFAS)RAAF BASE WILLIAMS - LAVERTONTITLE

AREAS OF HISTORICAL AFFF USE

1669283 002-R 0 1

2017-05-31

AFE

-

JH

AH

Path: S:\Department of Defence\RAAF Base Williams Laverton\Project\Deliverable\1669283-002-R-F0001-RevA.mxd

LOCATION MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E S

HE

ET

SIZ

E H

AS

BE

EN

MO

DIF

IED

FR

OM

:

CONSULTANT

PROJECT No. CONTROL Rev. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 100 200 300 400 500

METR ES

PROJECTION: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

REFERENCE SCALE: 1:7,500 (at A3)

32 Building No.

@A

@A

@A

@A @A

@A

@A @A

@A

@A @A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

!>!>

!>

!>

!>

! >

!>

SW07SW05SW04SW03

SW02SW01

SW06

DO HERTYS DRAIN

DOHERTYS D RAIN

LAVERTO N CREEK

LAVERTON C RE EK

DOHERTYS DRAIN

P OINTCOOK

ROAD

RAILWAY AVE NUE

T RIH OLM

AVENU E

AVIAT IONR OAD

BLADIN STREET

HIGH

STR

EET

WACKE TT STREET

MAHE R ROAD

PRINCES FREE WAY

PALMERS -PRIN CESI N RAMP ON

PRINCES FREE WAY

HIG H -P R INCES I NRAMP ON

OLD GEELONG ROAD

NEWLAND-PRINCES

OUT RAMP ON

PRINCES IN- HIGH RAM P OF

SAYE RS ROAD

GWAM/1

GWAM/4GW33/1

GW34/1

GW36/1

GW514/1GW549/1

GW598/1

GW130/1

GW130/2GW130/3

GWA/1

GWB/2

GWC/1

GWG/1

GWG/2

GWH/1

GWH/2

GWI/1

GWJ/1

GWK/1

GWM/1GWOFF/1

GWAM/2

GWAM/3

GWAM/5

GWAM/6

GWB/1

GWD/1

GWE/1

GWGA01

303,000 304,000

5,807

,000

5,807

,000

5,808

,000

5,808

,000

CLIENT


LEGEND!> Surface Water/Sediment Sample Location

@A Existing Groundwater Bore

@A Sampled Groundwater Bore

Watercourse


Waterbody


COPYRIGHTBasemaps sourced from Esri Online Basemaps.Road & Property (c) The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land,Water and Planning, 2016.

PROJECT


SAMPLE LOCATION PLAN

1669283 002-R 0 2

2017-05-31

AFE

-

-

-

Path: S:\Department of Defence\RAAF Base Williams Laverton\Project\Deliverable\1669283-002-R-F0002-Rev0.mxd

LOCATION MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E S

HE

ET

SIZ

E H

AS

BE

EN

MO

DIF

IED

FR

OM

:

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 100 200 300 400 500

METR ES



@A

@A

@A

@A

@A @A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A @A

@A@A

@A

@A@A@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

GW81/5GW155/5

GW7/1

GW7/3

GW7/4

GW7/5

GW7/6GW7/7

GW7/8GW7/9

GW7/10

GW7/11

GW7/12

GW7/13

GW7/14

GW7/15

GW2/1

GW2/2 GW2/3

GW2/4GW2/5

GW2/6 GW2/7 GW2/8

GW90/1

GW90/2

GW90/3

GW90/4

GWSTP/1

GW582/1GW582/2GW582/3

GW582/4GW582/5

GW582/6GW582/7 GW582/8

GW81/1

GW81/2GW81/3

GW81/4 GW81/6

GW81/7GW88A/1

GW88B/1

GW155/1

GW155/2 GW155/3GW155/4

GW155/6GW155/7

MWAMWB

PW1

INSET MAP

REFER TO INSET

@A

@A

@A

@A @A

@A

@A @A

@A

@A @A

@A

@A @A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

DO HERTYS DRAIN

DOHERTYS D RAIN

LAVERTON CREEK

LAVERTON C RE EK

DOHERTYS DRAIN

PO INTC OOK

ROAD

T RIH OLM

AVENU E

RAILWAY AVE NUE

AVIAT IONR OAD

BLA DIN STREET

HIGH

STR

EET

WAC KE TT S TREET

MAHE R ROAD

PRINCES FREE WAY

HIGH-PR I N C ES

INRA M

P

O N

PRINCES FREE WAY

NE WLAND-PRINCES

OUT RAMP O N

PALME RS-P RINCESI N RAMP ON

OLD GEELONG ROAD

PRINC ES IN- HIGH RAM P OF

SAYE RS ROAD

GWAM/1

GWAM/227

GWAM/3

8.9

GWAM/4

GWAM/516120

GWAM/613

GW33/1

GW34/11500

GW36/1

GW514/1GW549/1

GW130/1

GW130/2GW130/3

GWA/1

GWB/10.03

GWB/2

GWC/1GWD/1<0.01

GWE/10.01

GWG/1

GWG/2

GWH/1

GWH/2

GWI/1

GWJ/1

GWK/1

GWM/1GWOFF/1

GWGA010.07

302,000 303,000 304,000

5,807

,000

5,807

,000

5,808

,000

5,808

,000

CLIENT


LEGEND@A Existing Groundwater Bore

Watercourse


Waterbody


NOTE

COPYRIGHTBasemaps sourced from Esri Online Basemaps.Road & Property © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land,Water and Planning, 2016.

PROJECT


PFOS IN GROUNDWATER

1669283 002-R 0 3

2017-05-31

AFE

-

-

-


LOCATION MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E S

HE

ET

SIZ

E H

AS

BE

EN

MO

DIF

IED

FR

OM

:

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 100 200 300 400 500

METR ES



PFOS (ug/L) Concentration - Agon, June 2016

PFOS (ug/L) Concentration - Golder, Feb 2017

0.48<0.01

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A @A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A @A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

GW81/4

GW7/1

GW7/3

GW7/4

GW7/5

GW7/6GW7/7

GW7/8GW7/9

GW7/10

GW7/11

GW7/12GW7/13

GW7/14

GW7/15

GW2/1GW2/2

GW2/3

GW2/4 GW2/5

GW2/6 GW2/7GW2/8

GW90/1

GW90/2

GW90/3

GW90/4GWSTP/1

GW582/1

GW582/2GW582/3

GW582/4GW582/5 GW582/6

GW582/7 GW582/8

GW81/1

GW81/2 GW81/3

GW81/5 GW81/6

GW81/7GW88A/1

GW88B/1

GW155/1

GW155/2GW155/3

GW155/4

GW155/5GW155/6

GW155/7

MWA

MWB

PW1

INSET MAP

REFER TO INSET

Only PFOS data in the Wet Training and Secondary Training Areas arepresented. Other PFAS available in referenced reports.

!>!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

D OH ER TYS DRAIN L AV ERT ON CREEK

LAVERTON C RE EK

DOHE RTYS DRAIN

SW070.050.0059

SW050.25

0.026

SW040.12ND

SW030.11ND

SW020.140.075SW01

0.220.059

SW060.04ND

POIN

T CO

OK R

OAD

BLADIN S TRE ET

OLD GEELONG ROAD

TR IHOL M AVENUE

RAILWAY AVE NUE

AV IAT IONR OAD

PRINCES FREE WAY

WACKETT STREET

MAHE R ROAD

PRINCES FREE WAY

PRIN CES IN-HIGH

RAMP OF

SAYE RS ROAD

302,000 303,000 304,000

5,807

,000

5,807

,000

5,808

,000

5,808

,000

CLIENT


LEGEND!> Surface Water/Sediment Sample Location

Watercourse



Waterbody

COPYRIGHTBasemaps sourced from Esri Online Basemaps.Road & Property (c) The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land,Water and Planning, 2016.

PROJECT


PFOS IN SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT

1669283 002-R 0 4

2017-05-31

AFE

-

-

-


LOCATION MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E S

HE

ET

SIZ

E H

AS

BE

EN

MO

DIF

IED

FR

OM

:

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 100 200 300 400 500

METR ES



Sum of PFHxS & PFOS in Surface Water (ug/L)

Sum of PFHxS & PFOS in Sediment Sample (ug/L)

0.140.09ND Non Detect

11.3m

9.63m

12m

12.25m

18.0m 18.2m

Upper Basalt

GWAN/2

Inter Basalt Clay

?

?

? ?

?

?

Pond

GW39/1

GWGA0


Site

Bo

un

dar

y

GW598/1

Air Movement Area

Wet Testing Area

Hangers

Base Facility

Irrigation

(WRK039523)

Off Property

Pond

Port Phillip Bay

Playing

Field

Off Property

Site B

ou

nd

ary

Brighton Group

Laverton Creek

Domestic and

Stock

(WRK96019) Pond

Former RAAF

Airfield

Further Off Property

Lower Basalt

Source Area

Surface Water Body

Port Phillip Bay

Clay

Upper Basalt

Inter Basalt Clay

Lower Basalt

Brighton Group

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

Bedrock Fractures

Hangers/ Site Building

Discharge to Groundwater table

Residential Properties Note: Not all borelogs/ well constructions logs available

Legend

CLIENT: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PROJECT: PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION (PFAS) RAAF BASE WILLIAMS—LAVERTON

DRAWN: KLS DATE: 31/05/2017 TITLE: CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

CHECKED: AH DATE: 31/05/2017 PROJECT NO. 1669283 REV. 0

SCALE: NOT TO SCALE CONTROL: 002-R FIGURE No. 5


TABLES


Golder Associates Pty Ltd1 of 7

Prepared by: JHS 24/03/2017 Checked by: TA 12/04/2017

Table A: Groundwater Quality ParametersDefence AFFF - Category 2 Site PSIRAAF Base Williams Laverton VIC (0927)Project number: 1669283

Location Date Sampled DO (ppm) EC (mS/cm) TDS (mg/L) pH (pH units) Er (mV) Eh* (mV) Temp (°C) SWL (mbtoc) CommentsGWGA01 9/03/2017 6.65 10.14 6591 7.68 71 270 19.6 7.448GWAM/2 8/03/2017 2.72 10.42 6773 6.85 114 313 20.0 6.244GWAM/3 8/03/2017 2.03 2.08 1352 8.07 59 258 22.6 6.555GWAM/5 9/03/2017 4.09 4.30 2795 8.43 69 268 17.9 6.518GWAM/6 9/03/2017 2.69 19.90 12935 5.04 113 312 19.6 7.201GWB/1 8/03/2017 4.40 14.04 9126 7.61 81 280 17.4 5.006

GWD/1 7/03/2017 1.02 6.41 4167 7.34 87 286 18.0 4.995Sampled with waterra pump due to bend in casing.

GWE/1 8/03/2017 0.68 14.34 9321 7.88 86 285 17.7 7.239Notes:‒ not measuredppm = Parts per millionL = LitreDO = Dissolved OxygenEC = Electrical ConductivitymS/cm = Millisiemens per centimetreTDS = Total Dissolved Solids (estimated based on EC value multiplied by 0.65)*Eh = Redox Potential (measured with a platinum electrode and silver/silver chloride reference electrode (Er) and converted to Eh by Eh = Er + 199 mV)mV = MillivoltsTemp = TemperatureoC = Degree in Celsius

Golder Associates Pty Ltd2 of 7

Prepared by: JHS 24/03/2017 Checked by: TA 12/04/2017

Table B: Surface Water Quality ParametersDefence AFFF - Category 2 Site PSIRAAF Base Williams Laverton VIC (0927)Project number: 1669283

Location Date Sampled DO (ppm) EC (µS/cm) TDS (mg/L) pH (pH units) Er (mV) Eh* (mV) Temp (°C) CommentsSW01 6/03/2017 7.94 268 174 8.27 89 288 21.6 Turbid, brown, high organic matterSW02 6/03/2017 9.48 546 355 8.89 82 281 26.4 Low turbidity, no odourSW03 6/03/2017 6.22 450 293 6.20 75 274 23.9SW04 6/03/2017 7.55 500 325 9.15 71 270 25.1

SW05 6/03/2017 0.25 661 430 7.06 -48 151 22.0High turbidity, stagnant, decaying organic matter.

SW06 6/03/2017 4.91 3610 2347 8.06 3 202 23.7SW07 6/03/2017 0.07 2970 1931 6.91 -112 87 19.8 Stagnant, decaying organic matter.

Notes:‒ not measuredppm = Parts per millionL = LitreDO = Dissolved OxygenEC = Electrical ConductivityµS/cm = Microsiemens per centimetreTDS = Total Dissolved Solids (estimated based on EC value multiplied by 0.65)*Eh = Redox Potential (measured with a platinum electrode and silver/silver chloride reference electrode (Er) and converted to Eh by Eh = Er + 199 mV)mV = MillivoltsTemp = TemperatureoC = Degree in Celsius

Table C: Groundwater Analytical ResultsPer- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)Site: RAAF Base Williams Laverton (0927) 0927_MWGWAM/2 0927_MWGWAM/3 0927_MWGWAM/5 0927_MWGWAM/6 0927_MWGWB/1 0927_MWGWD/1 0927_MWGWE/1 0927_MWGWE/1 0927_MWGWE/1 0927_MWGWGA01Project number: 1669283

8/03/2017 8/03/2017 9/03/2017 9/03/2017 8/03/2017 7/03/2017 8/03/2017 8/03/2017 8/03/2017 9/03/20170927_MWGWAM/2_SS170309 0927_MWGWAM/3_SS170309 0927_MWGWAM/5_SS170309 0927_MWGWAM/6_SS170309 0927_MWGWB/1_S_170308 0927_MWGWD/1_S_170307 0927_MWGWE/1_S_170307 0927_QC104_170308 0927_QC204_170308 0927_MWGWGA01_SS170309

PS PS PS PS PS PS PS FD FT PS

ChemName Unit LORPer- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) by LCMS

N-Methyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOSE) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <1.5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.005 <0.05Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.32 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 <0.01N-methyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (MeFOSAA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <1.5 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.002 <0.05Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 0.56 19 1.4 0.21 3.3 0.46 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.00023* 27 8.9 120 5 0.03 <0.01 0.03 0.03 0.057 0.07Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 28 3.7 53 13 0.27 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.049 0.32Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) µg/L 0.2 0.07 55 12.6 173 18 0.3 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.106 0.39PFAS (Sum of total - Lab Reported) µg/L 0.2 - - - - - - - - 0.139 -Sum of PFAS (Swedish 11 + 8:2FTSA, lab reported) µg/L 0.2 - - - - - - - - 0.082 -Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 0.97 0.14 1.5 0.53 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.05Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 6.6 0.8 10 2.7 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.04Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 0.8 0.12 1.3 0.27 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 <0.01Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 <0.01Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 1.5 0.17 2.6 0.74 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.002 0.01Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 <0.01Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.44 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 <0.01Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.62 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 <0.01Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 <0.01Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.57 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 <0.01Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 1.8 0.39 5.5 0.63 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 0.01Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 2.5 0.34 6.1 1.5 0.05 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 0.008 0.03Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 2.7 0.27 5.6 1.7 0.05 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 0.015 0.044:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 <0.016:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.05 5 <0.05 <0.05 <1.5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.005 <0.058:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 <0.0110:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 <0.01N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamide (EtFOSA) µg/L 0.005 - - - - - - - - <0.005 -N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <1.5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.005 <0.05N-Methyl PFO sulfonamide (MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <1.5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.005 <0.05Perfluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA) µg/L 0.05 0.06 <0.05 <1.5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.002 <0.05N-ethyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (EtFOSAA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <1.5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.002 <0.05

Legend:LOR - Limit of Reporting FD - Field DuplicatePS - Primary Sample FT - Field Triplicate- Not Analysed * - Laboratory LOR used as a practical standard for ‘slightly to moderately disturbed environments

Protection of Environmental Values – Freshwater 95 % species protection

Location_Code

Sampled DateSample ID

Area

Human Health - Drinking Water Quality

PFOS/PFHxS

Value exceeds the Department of Health - Health Based Guidance - Drinking water quality value (3 April 2017)

Secondary Fire Training AreaWet Testing Area

Protection of Environmental Values – Freshwater 99 % species

protection

Sample Type

Table D: Surface Water Analytical ResultsPer- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)Site: RAAF Base Williams Laverton (0927) 0927_SW01 0927_SW01 0927_SW01 0927_SW02 0927_SW03 0927_SW04 0927_SW05 0927_SW06 0927_SW07Project number: 1669283 6/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017

0927_SW01_170306 0927_QC101_170306 0927_QC201_170306 0927_SW02_170306 0927_SW03_170306 0927_SW04_170306 0927_SW05_170306 0927_SW06_170306 0927_SW07_170306PS FD FT PS PS PS PS PS PS

ChemName Unit LORPer- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) by LCMS

N-Methyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOSE) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.005 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.002 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01N-methyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (MeFOSAA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.002 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 5.6 19 0.02 0.02 0.018 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.00023* 0.19 0.21 0.351 0.1 0.08 0.07 0.16 0.02 0.03Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.057 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.02Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) µg/L 0.2 0.7 0.22 0.24 0.408 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.25 0.04 0.05PFAS (Sum of total - Lab Reported) µg/L 0.2 - - 0.533 - - - - - -Sum of PFAS (WA DER 10, calculated) µg/L 0.2 - - 0.177 - - - - - -Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.023 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.006 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.003 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.002 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.009 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.017 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.014:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.016:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.05 50 <0.05 <0.05 0.027 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.058:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0110:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamide (EtFOSA) µg/L 0.005 - - <0.005 - - - - - -N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.005 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05N-Methyl PFO sulfonamide (MeFOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.005 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Perfluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.002 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05N-ethyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (EtFOSAA) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.002 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Legend:

LOR - Limit of Reporting FD - Field DuplicatePS - Primary Sample FT - Field Triplicate- Not Analysed * - Laboratory LOR used as a practical standard for ‘slightly to moderately disturbed environments

Value exceeds the Defence Contamination Directive #8 (DCD8), Amendment 1 and 2, DoD Sept 2016 and May 2017 - Health Based Guidance - Recreation Water Quality

Protection of Environmental Values – Freshwater 99 % species

protection

Protection of Environmental Values – Freshwater 99 % species protection

Location_CodeSampled Date

Sample IDSample Type

Health Based Guidance -Recreation Water Quality

Table E: Soil Analytical ResultsPer- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Sample TypeSite: RAAF Base Williams Laverton (0927) Location CodeProject number: 1669283 Location Description

Field_ID 0927_BHGA01_0.0_170307 0927_QC103_170307 0927_QC203_170307 0927_BHGA01_0.5_170307 0927_BHGA01_1.0_170307 0927_BHGA01_2.0_170307 0927_BHGA01_3.0_170307Sample Depth (m) 0 0 0 0.5 1 2 3

Sample Type PS FD FT PS PS PS PSSampled Date 7/03/2017 7/03/2017 7/03/2017 7/03/2017 7/03/2017 7/03/2017 7/03/2017

ChemName Unit LORMoisture % 1 4.2 5.5 6.6 8.7 3.6 1.4 <1

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)N-Methyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOSE) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (PFDS) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005N-methyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (MeFOSAA) mg/kg 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) mg/kg 0.005 16 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) mg/kg 0.005 6 <0.005 <0.005 0.004 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.0003 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) mg/kg calc ND ND 0.0043 ND ND ND NDSum of PFAS mg/kg 0.0002 - - 0.0043 - - - -Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0054:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0056:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.01 60 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.018:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.00510:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005N-Ethyl PFO sulfanoamide (EtFOSA) mg/kg 0.0005 - - <0.0005 - - - -N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005N-Methyl PFO sulfonamide (MeFOSA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005Perfluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA) mg/kg 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005N-ethyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (EtFOSAA) mg/kg 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Legend:

LOR - Limit of Reporting FD - Field DuplicatePS - Primary Sample FT - Field Triplicate- Not Analysed

Value exceeds the Department of Health - Human Health – Residential Soil Quality Guideline (direct contact only)

Soil Samples

Human Health Residential Soil Quality Guideline (direct contact only)

Former Secondary Fire Training Area0927_BHGA01


Field_IDSample Depth (m)

Sample TypeSampled Date

emName Unit LORMoisture % 1r- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)N-Methyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOSE) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (PFDS) mg/kg 0.005N-methyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (MeFOSAA) mg/kg 0.01Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) mg/kg 0.005 16Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) mg/kg 0.005 6Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) mg/kg 0.005Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) mg/kg calcSum of PFAS mg/kg 0.0002Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) mg/kg 0.005Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) mg/kg 0.0054:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.0056:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.01 608:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.00510:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.005N-Ethyl PFO sulfanoamide (EtFOSA) mg/kg 0.0005N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE) mg/kg 0.005N-Methyl PFO sulfonamide (MeFOSA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA) mg/kg 0.005N-ethyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (EtFOSAA) mg/kg 0.01

Legend:




0927_SD01 0927_SD01 0927_SD01 0927_SD02 0927_SD03 0927_SD04

0927_BHGA01_4.0_170307 0927_BHGA01_5.0_170307 0927_SD01_170306 0927_QC102_170306 0927_QC202_170306 0927_SD02_170306 0927_SW03_170306 0927_SW04_1703064 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

PS PS PS FD FT PS PS PS7/03/2017 7/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017

1.8 1.4 34 51 41 42 31 42

<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.0073 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 0.059 0.035 0.0678 0.075 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.0004 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

ND ND 0.059 0.035 0.0682 0.075 ND ND- - - - 0.0772 - - -

<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.0006 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.0005 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

- - - - <0.0005 - - -<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.0006 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Sediment Samples


Field_IDSample Depth (m)

Sample TypeSampled Date

emName Unit LORMoisture % 1r- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)N-Methyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOSE) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (PFDS) mg/kg 0.005N-methyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (MeFOSAA) mg/kg 0.01Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) mg/kg 0.005 16Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) mg/kg 0.005 6Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) mg/kg 0.005Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) mg/kg calcSum of PFAS mg/kg 0.0002Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) mg/kg 0.005Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) mg/kg 0.0054:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.0056:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.01 608:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.00510:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.005N-Ethyl PFO sulfanoamide (EtFOSA) mg/kg 0.0005N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE) mg/kg 0.005N-Methyl PFO sulfonamide (MeFOSA) mg/kg 0.005Perfluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA) mg/kg 0.005N-ethyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (EtFOSAA) mg/kg 0.01

Legend:




0927_SD05 0927_SD06 0927_SD07

0927_SW05_170306 0927_SW06_170306 0927_SW07_1703060 0 0

PS PS PS6/03/2017 6/03/2017 6/03/2017

85 54 66

<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<0.005 <0.005 <0.0050.026 <0.005 0.0059

<0.005 <0.005 <0.0050.026 ND 0.0059

- - -<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005

- - -<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.005 <0.005 <0.005<0.01 <0.01 <0.01


APPENDIX A AFFF Summary



APPENDIX B Photographs



APPENDIX C Aerial photographs



APPENDIX D Water Use Assessment



APPENDIX E Registered bore search



APPENDIX F Borehole logs



APPENDIX G Data Validation



APPENDIX H Laboratory Certificates



APPENDIX I Report Limitations


Golder Associates Pty Ltd 124 Pacific Highway St. Leonards, New South Wales 2065 Australia T: +61 2 9478 3900

Date post:	19-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times