RAAF Base Amberley - DERM Notice Report · 2014-06-10 · RAAF Base Amberley - DERM Notice Report -...

Commercial in Confidence

FINAL

Department of Defence 30 November 2009

RAAF Base Amberley - DERM Notice Report

D11059_RPTFinal_30Nov09

RAAF Base Amberley - DERM Notice Report - AECOM


“This page has been left blank intentionally”


D11059_RPTFinal_30Nov09 i

Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 About AECOM ........................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Effectiveness and Performance of the Base Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) ........................................... 3

3.0 Potential sources of contaminants ............................................................................................................. 7

3.1 Scope of Work and Project Limitations ...................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Background Information and Methodology ................................................................................................ 7

3.3 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................... 11

3.3.1 Tier One Sampling Results ...................................................................................................................... 11

3.3.2 Tier Two Sampling Results ...................................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 12

4.0 Potential sources, Pathways and receptors to releases from the STP .................................................... 15

4.1 Objectives of the Additional Sampling ..................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Summary of Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 15

4.3 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................... 18

4.3.1 Aquatic Ecosystems ................................................................................................................................ 18

4.3.2 Recreational Surface Water Use ............................................................................................................. 18

4.3.3 Use of Surface Water for Irrigation .......................................................................................................... 18

4.3.4 Use of Surface Water for Stock Watering ................................................................................................ 19

4.3.5 Use of Surface water for Drinking Water ................................................................................................. 19

4.3.6 Sediments – Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts ................................................................................................ 19

4.3.7 Sediments – Impacts to recreational Use ................................................................................................ 20

4.3.8 Pore Water Analytical Results ................................................................................................................. 20

4.4 Sludge Management and Disposal .......................................................................................................... 21

5.0 Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 25

5.1 Risk Identification ..................................................................................................................................... 25

5.2 Risk Dimensions ...................................................................................................................................... 26

5.3 Risk Analysis and Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 27

5.4 Risk Calculations ..................................................................................................................................... 35

5.4.1 Risk Calculations to Aquatic Ecosystems ................................................................................................ 35

5.4.2 Risk Calculations to Recreational Users .................................................................................................. 36

5.4.3 Risk Calculation for Irrigation ................................................................................................................... 37

5.4.4 Risk Calculation for Stock Watering ......................................................................................................... 37

5.4.5 Risk Calculation for Drinking Water ......................................................................................................... 38

6.0 Remediation Considerations .................................................................................................................... 39

6.1 Planned Upgrades and Continued Long-term Monitoring ........................................................................ 40

6.2 Environmental Off Setting ........................................................................................................................ 40

6.3 Longer Term - Replacement of the Base STP ......................................................................................... 40


D11059_RPTFinal_30Nov09 ii

6.4 Remedial Options – Stormwater Management ........................................................................................ 40

7.0 References .............................................................................................................................................. 41

List of Tables Body Report

Table 1: Tier One Sampling Locations ........................................................................................................................ 8 Table 2: Tier Two Sampling Locations ........................................................................................................................ 9 Table 3: Sludge Analytical Results ........................................................................................................................... 21 Table 4: Dimensions for Contaminated Sites Risk Assessment ............................................................................... 26 Table 5: Likelihood Scale as presented in the Defence CRAT ................................................................................. 28 Table 6: Risk Dimension Consequence Guidance as Presented in the Defence CRAT ........................................... 29 Table 7: Risk Assessment Matrix ............................................................................................................................. 35 Table 8: Risk Assessment Calculations for Aquatic Ecosystems ............................................................................. 35 Table 9: Risk Calculations for Recreational Use ....................................................................................................... 36 Table 10: Risk Calculations for Irrigation Use ........................................................................................................... 37 Table 11: Risk Calculations for Stock Watering ........................................................................................................ 38 Table 12: Risk Calculations for Drinking Water ........................................................................................................ 38

List of Figures Body Report

Figure 1: Amberley Sewerage Treatment Plant .......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Potential Pathways of Contaminants 17

Attachments Table T1 Trade Waste Analytical Data Table T2 Surface Water Analytical Results – September 2009 Table T3 Sediment Analytical Results – September 2009 Figure F1 Site Location Plan Figure F2 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations


D11059_RPTFinal_30Nov09 1

1.0 Introduction AECOM Pty Ltd was engaged by the Department of Defence (Defence) to assist with responding to an Environmental Operations Notice issued by the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) following the reporting of contamination during the Stage 2 Environmental Investigation conducted at RAAF Base Amberley. The Stage 2 Environmental Investigation (AECOM, 2009) identified levels of contamination exceeding the ANZECC (2000) guidelines for freshwater and sediments downstream of the RAAF Base Amberley sewerage treatment plant (STP) discharge point into Frogs Hollow Gully at which point Defence advised DERM.

A number of further investigations have been conducted at the Base by AECOM in response to the above findings. The aim of the additional investigations was as follows:

• Waste Audit – To identify potential sources of contamination to the Base STP, especially with respect to industrial facilities operating on-site and discharging to sewer.

• Additional sampling of surface waters and sediments – To confirm surface water and sediment findings identified during the Stage 2 Environmental Investigation and obtain a better understanding of the extent of the contamination.

• This report addresses the DERM Notice 08/04 requirements issued to Defence on the 23 September 2009. The report is set out as follows:

- Section 2 – Effectiveness and Performance of the Base STP - Section 3 – Potential sources of contaminants - Section 4 – Potential sources, pathways and receptors to releases from the STP - Section 5 – Risk Assessment and potential Impacts - Section 6 – Remediation Considerations.

1.1 About AECOM AECOM is a leading provider of advanced environmental, planning, design, engineering, management and advisory services in the buildings, energy, environment, government, mining, power, transport and water markets. Together, AECOM forms a strong global network of more than 43,000 professionals united by a common purpose to enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural and social environments. AECOM’s global environment practices offer a full range of consulting, remediation and environmental health and safety management services to our clients. Several of the team members involved in this project are recognised as suitably qualified persons under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Technical peer review of this report was undertaken by a NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECC) Accredited Site Auditor under the NSW Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, who has also previously been appointed as a Third Party Reviewer by the DERM in Queensland.



2.0 Effectiveness and Performance of the Base Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)

DERM Notice Requirement No. 1 – Determine the effectiveness and performance of the sewerage treatment plant including but not limited to the associated infrastructure (inputs, pumps, pipes, power supply, storage, processing) in minimising impacts to the environment.

The RAAF Base Amberley sewer system is separated into two catchments:

• The eastern catchment contains predominantly industrial facilities, including Hangar 76, Building 285 and all facilities north of Aviation St and east of Lincoln Avenue.

• The western catchment contains predominantly domestic and office facilities, with the exception of Hangar 410, Aircraft Wing Maintenance Workshop (Building 834) and a hangar (Building 428).

Both sewer catchments report to the Base STP located on the banks of an unnamed gully, locally referred to as Frogs Hollow Gully to the south of the main operational area of the Base (a site plan is included as Figure F1 in Attachment A). The STP is a secondary biological treatment system, consisting of an inlet screen, primary settling tanks (Imhoff tanks), biological trickle filters, secondary clarifiers and chlorine dosing (refer Figure 1). The functions of the STP elements are:

• Inlet screen – Coarse screen to remove deleterious solid matter from sewage (e.g. rags, gross solids).

• Imhoff tanks – Primary sediment chamber for removing grit, and colloidal material that will settle with the addition of flocculant. Will assist in removal of contaminants that are adsorbed to particulate matter.

• Biological Filters – Biological filtration designed to reduce organic matter that contributes to BOD and COD. Some reduction of volatile organic compounds through aeration can be expected and other hydrocarbons (both petroleum and fatty acid based) will be partially treated through aerobic digestion.

• Secondary clarifiers – Secondary sediment chamber for removing entrained solids after the filtration process. Designed to reduce suspended solids concentrations.

• Chlorine contact tank – Dosing tank to disinfect effluent and reduce incidence of faecal coliforms and pathogens.

The system is typical of sewage treatment plants of 1950’s vintage. The plant was designed to treat domestic effluent to a 20mg/L BOD and 30mg/L suspended solids discharge limit that was enforced through legislation preceding the Environmental Protection Act. This legislation pre-dated any requirement for analysis for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) or other water quality indicators (e.g. heavy metals and organics) that may form the basis of current environmental licence conditions for similar STPs.

As originally designed, the STP has a design equivalent population (EP) of 3,500 EP with a typical water discharge rate of 225L/EP. As a result, the design average dry weather flow (ADWF) for the Amberley STP is approximately 800kL/day. Based upon STP inflow data (Spotless 2009), the measured ADWF for the STP ranges between approximately 250kL/day and 350kL/day (or between approximately 30% and 45% of the design ADWF). A pump is used to recirculate the effluent back to the flow distribution chamber several times prior to discharge. Spotless, the Base garrison support contractor, has advised that the recirculation system fails if the pump breaks down.

A Virotec flocculant dosing system was recently added in an effort to improve sedimentation rates in the primary settling tanks (Geoff Kilpatrick, pers comms, 8/10/2009). Heavy metals adsorbed to sediment or other particulate matter may be removed in the primary settling tanks or clarifiers. However, dissolved metals would not be removed from the system. With the introduction of the flocculant dosing system, the recirculation pump has only been operated intermittently due to the disruption to the flocculation process in the Imhoff tank flow distribution chamber. The recirculation system is designed to return settled solids from the secondary settling tanks to the inlet, increase BOD removal and maintain sufficient flow during low flow periods to prevent the biological filters from drying out to ultimately improve the quality of effluent prior to discharge. The effectiveness of this process has been decreased due to pump break downs and problems associated with the flocculent dosing system.



Another inefficiency that has been identified with the recirculation and flocculent systems is that the recirculation pump returns water to the flow distribution chamber upstream of the Imhoff tanks causing substantial disruption to the chemical flocculation process and causing an uneven loading of solids to each of the three treatment streams.

From a solid waste (sludge) perspective, the current STP has a SPIRAC screening system that is designed and built to remove coarse solids. In addition to coarse solids, faecal material will also be removed ultimately increasing the quantity of screenings to be disposed of. An additional problem associated with this is the management of odour and vermin. Information provided by Spotless indicates that most automatic screen removal systems at STPs include a washing system that removes the faecal material from the screenings prior to screening disposal. This can be achieved with a service water solenoid valve and nozzle where pressurised water is sprayed over the screening whenever the SPIRAC screen is operational. AECOM understands that STP sludge is disposed of off-site by Pump-It, who deliver it to a licensed facility (Thiess Swanbank) on an ‘as required’ basis.

In a typical Council operated sewer system, industrial facilities are required to meet Trade Waste limits. These limits are set at a level to reduce the potential for harm to the receiving environment downstream of the STP, and also to prevent damage to the STP from high concentrations of toxic chemicals. It is important to consider that, a Council operated STP is a biological treatment system and not a specialised industrial wastewater treatment plant that would typically contain a combination of chemical, physical and biological processes to reduce the toxicity of industrial effluents.

Trade waste limits are typically derived on the basis that:

a) Trade waste will be diluted by domestic sewage from residential properties.

b) Some contaminant removal occurs during the treatment process.

The primary difference between a Council system and that at RAAF Base Amberley is the rate of dilution of the trade waste. In a Council system, industrial facilities make up a small proportion of the sewerage catchment, whereas at RAAF Base Amberley, a larger proportion of the sewerage catchment consists of industrial activities.

The location of the plant also impacts on its effectiveness of treating wastewater. The STP is located on the boundary of both the 1 in 20 year flood level and the 1 in 100 year flood level. Each time the STP is flooded the biomass in the filter beds has to be rejuvenated to allow for effective treatment of wastewater. The time taken for this process varies from several days to several weeks depending on the severity of the flood. In 2009 the STP flooded on two occasions impacting on the effluent quality discharged from the facility.



Figure 1: Amberley Sewerage Treatment Plant



3.0 Potential sources of contaminants DERM Notice Requirement No. 2 – Identify the source, cause and extent of any environmental harm being caused by the discharge of treated effluent from the Amberley Air Force Base on-site sewerage treatment plant (STP), including:

2(i) Identify all potential sources of contaminants that discharge from the Amberley Air Base STP, including trade waste or stormwater connections.

AECOM was engaged by Department of Defence to investigate the potential sources of contamination entering the Base STP. The following provides a summary of the scope of work, methodology, findings and limitations of the study.

3.1 Scope of Work and Project Limitations The scope of work undertaken by AECOM consisted of:

• Review of relevant background information.

• Preparation of a trade waste sampling plan based upon a prioritised ranking of Base activities.

• Initial sampling of wastewater at the STP inlets and wastewater at the junction of the “precinct” mains and the sewer mains (Tier 1 sampling locations) that report to the STP.

• Completion of a trade waste audit including collection of effluent samples from accessible points as close as possible to the point of entry into the sewer pipes (Tier 2 sampling locations) and discussions with Defence and Contractor personnel regarding the operation of the facility, including the estimated volume of trade waste discharge.

• Submission of samples to a NATA accredited laboratory for testing for selected analytes.

• Collation of laboratory analytical results and comparison against nominated guidelines.

• Reporting of findings.

The ability of the project scope of work to meet the objectives was limited by a number of factors:

• Industrial processes on the Base ceased discharging trade waste to sewer prior to sampling being undertaken. This action lead to samples being collected from individual facility’s holding tanks in order to determine what facilities were potentially discharging.

• Base personnel were aware that sampling of trade waste was being undertaken. It is possible that this may have resulted in changes to the generation and management of trade waste.

• Sampling locations were not always optimum for the assessment of discharged water quality. For example, in some cases the last chamber of a triple interceptor pit was sampled if the pit was not overflowing.

• There are no guidelines that are directly relevant to the assessment of trade waste water quality in the scenario present at RAAF Base Amberley (i.e. industrial trade waste and residential sewage being discharged to the Base STP which discharges to a creek). AECOM has adopted various guidelines for comparison purposes only.

3.2 Background Information and Methodology Potentially contaminated wastewater arising from the operation of industrial facilities, hangars, aprons, wash-down bays, fuel farms and other Base facilities are managed in one of four ways:

• Discharge direct to sewer (e.g. floor wastes, sinks, selected wash baths).

• Discharge to sewer after pre-treatment (e.g. electroplating waste).

• Discharge to stormwater after treatment through an interceptor trap (e.g. triple interceptor trap, coalescing plate separator).

• Collection in tanks/sumps, collection and transport off-site for treatment (e.g. paint shop waste).



As a result of incomplete documentation of historic Base development, uncertainty surrounds the cross connection (or otherwise) of the on-base sewer and stormwater systems. Based upon historical STP inflow data (i.e. increase in STP inflows during times of rainfall), it is apparent that cross connections occur; however, the actual source of those cross connections have not been determined despite previous investigations. As a result, the Garrison Facility Information System (GFIS) represents the best information available to assess the location and direction of facility discharges.

Many of the older facilities on Base have interceptor traps and separators installed to manage facility discharges such as wash-down water that may contain fuel, oils and other similar contaminants. Of relevance to this study are the interceptor traps at older workshops, such as 382 ECSS Mechanical Equipment Operation and Maintenance Section (MEOMS) (Building 185), GSE Workshops (Buildings 256 and 261) and the Fuel Tanker Workshop (Building 179). A review of the GFIS indicates that effluent from each of the potentially contaminating facilities that discharge to an interceptor trap generally discharge to the Base stormwater system rather than the STP. Stormwater management at the Base is also being investigated further by Defence, refer to Section 6.

Trade waste sampling locations were based on a two tier sampling strategy. The first tier of sampling was from sewers to gain an appreciation of the average pollutant concentrations discharging to the STP, and the second tier was from facilities identified as having a high or moderate risk of releasing contaminants. The locations selected were based upon AECOM’s review of the Amberley EMS Risk Register.

Tier one sampling locations were selected to target smaller catchment areas of the main sewer lines, whilst tier two sampling locations were collected from facilities that were considered higher risk to discharge contaminated wastewater as either trade waste discharges (to sewer) or via triple interceptor traps (to stormwater). The following tables provide a summary of sampling locations.

Table 1: Tier One Sampling Locations

Sample ID

Location Catchment Catchment Description

TWF_01 Upstream of the STP Western • Predominantly domestic and administration buildings

• Industrial facilities include Hangar 410 and Building 834

TWF_02 Upstream of the STP Eastern • Predominantly industrial

• Majority of Base industrial precinct

TWF_03 Immediately downstream of Hangar 410

Western • Hangar 410 only

TWF_05 Downstream of Security and Fire School

Eastern • RAAFSFS including fire training school and military working dogs

TWF_06 Downstream of Building 940

Eastern • Part of Building 940 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) Hangar

• Building 945

• TWF_04 is located upstream of this sampling location

TWF_04 In front of Building 454 Eastern • Raytheon Oxygen Building (Building 454)

• Aircraft Mechanical Equipment Maintenance Section (AMEMS) (Building 835)

• 1 SQN HQ and hangar



Sample ID

Location Catchment Catchment Description

TWF_07 In front of Building 351 Eastern • Apron area (Buildings 923 & 863)

• Small GSE workshop (Building 718)

• TWF_08 is located upstream of this sampling location

TWF_08 In front of Building 737 Eastern • C-17 temporary facilities (Buildings 468, 745)

• Remainder administration type facilities

TWF_09 Upstream of pump station outside Building 71

Eastern • Paint Shop (Building 832)

• Engine Fuel Tank Repairs (Building 289)

• TAE Engineering Workshop (Building 71)

• Engine Overhaul Workshop (Hangar 76)

• Electroplating Workshop (Building 285)

• GSE and Other Workshops (Bellman Hangars: 260, 255, 256, 261, 253, 262, 263, 258)

• Fuel Tanker Workshop (Building 179)

• TWF_10 is upstream of this sampling location

TWF_10 Pump station outside Building 94

Eastern • Aircraft Rescue and Fire Services (Building 94)

Table 2: Tier Two Sampling Locations

Sample ID

Location and Description Discharge Sample Location

TWF_11 Electroplating Workshop (Building 285) Operations include sand blasting and chemical baths. Mesh floor collects wastewater in a bunded floor that flows to TAE trade waste treatment plant.

Sewer (Eastern Catchment)

• The discharge point downstream of the electroplating workshop wastewater treatment plant.

TWF_12 Photographic Section (Building 360) Chemicals used in the development of photographs are discharged via a drain under the development machines.


• The final chamber of a triple interceptor trap downstream of Building 360.

TWF_13 Engine Overhaul Workshop (Hangar 76) Engines are disassembled and prepared for overhaul. Building has an enclosed drainage system that drains to a UST.


• A holding tank upstream of the engine overhaul workshop wastewater treatment plant.



Sample ID

Location and Description Discharge Sample Location

TWF_14 Engine Test Cell 1 (Building 610) Facility used to test overhauled and repaired TF30 engines. Wastewater from cleaning drains to a triple interceptor trap.

Stormwater • The final chamber of a triple interceptor trap downstream of Building 610 and the associated fuel farm.

TWF_15 MEOMS (Building 185) Workshop where maintenance is conducted on equipment used by 382ECSS. Includes vehicle wash bay.

Stormwater

• The final chamber of a triple interceptor trap downstream of the MEOMS wash point. (It is not certain whether the triple interceptor trap discharges to sewer or stormwater; however, it is more likely to discharge to stormwater)

TWF_16 GSE and Heavy Vehicle Maintenance Workshops Workshop where maintenance is conducted on mechanical ground support equipment, including 4WDs & quad bikes used by 382ECSS. Wash down area is located between buildings 261 & 256.

Stormwater

• Overflow (discharged water) from the triple interceptor trap downstream of the workshops’ wash point. (It is not certain whether the triple interceptor trap discharges to sewer or stormwater; however, it is more likely to discharge to stormwater)

TWF_17 Hangar 410 Conduct of deeper level maintenance on aircraft frames. Discharge of wastewater is related to the aircraft wash down.

Stormwater • The discharge point of the stormwater treatment plant on the southern side of Hangar 410.

TWF_18 Fuel Farm 2 Triple interceptor located down gradient to fuel storage area (Note that construction works are currently being undertaken in this area)

Stormwater • The final chamber of the triple interceptor trap downstream of Fuel Farm 2.

TWF_19 Fuel Tanker Workshop (Building 179) Workshop where routine maintenance is conducted on fuel tankers. Wash water drains to a sump.

Stormwater • A sump downstream of Building 179. GFIS shows this building has no connection to sewer.

TWF_20 Fuel Farm 1 Triple interceptor located down gradient to fuel storage area.

Stormwater • The final chamber of the triple interceptor trap downstream of Fuel Farm 1.

• Note that Fuel Tanker Workshop and apron areas also drain to this triple interceptor trap.

TWF_21 Engine Test Cell 2 and 3 Facility used to test TF30 and F-111 engines. Wash water from testing bays drains to triple interceptor trap.

Stormwater • The final chamber of the triple interceptor trap downstream of Engine Test Cell 2 & 3 and associated fuel farm.



3.3 Summary of Findings Analytical results for the trade waste samples were compared against various water quality guidelines to enable an assessment of:

• Contaminant concentrations relative to those that would be acceptable for discharge to a Council operated STP.

• Potential for trade waste discharges to contribute to the receiving environment downstream of the STP.

The water quality guidelines used for comparison included the Ipswich City Council trade waste limits for raw sewage, and the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC Guidelines) for waterways. These guidelines have been used for comparison purposes only and not to assess the potential environmental or human health risks associated with contamination.

As discussed earlier, in a typical Council sewerage catchment, trade waste limits would be the relevant standard to assess the concentration of contaminants in raw sewage. However, trade waste at RAAF Base Amberley makes up a higher proportion of the total volume of wastewater entering the STP (i.e. lower dilution rate) when compared to a typical Council sewerage catchment and therefore these limits do not apply to the current STP capability.

The ANZECC Guidelines (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), and the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ), 2000) provide a number of water quality objectives for different situations. Warrill Creek is within a rural catchment, and downstream of RAAF Base Amberley water use may include irrigation, livestock watering and occasionally swimming; therefore, ANZECC guidelines for these activities have been used to assess the trade waste results.

The ANZECC guidelines for protection of aquatic ecosystems (ANZECC 95% guideline) have also been used as a comparison as these guidelines are commonly applied to Defence water quality monitoring programs. It should be noted that the ANZECC guidelines are not meant to be applied directly to recycled water quality, contaminant levels in discharges from industry, mixing zones, or stormwater quality unless stormwater systems are regarded as having conservation value (ANZECC 4A, 2000).It should be noted that the discussion of findings is limited to discharges to the STP as this is the focus of this report.

Tabulated analytical results can be found in Table 1 in Attachment A.

3.3.1 Tier One Sampling Results

The following is a summary of the key findings relating to Tier one sampling results:

• All of the samples tested in the Tier One sampling reported metal concentrations less than the Ipswich Water Trade Waste criteria.

• Concentrations of arsenic and mercury did not exceed any of the assessment criteria at any of the Tier One sampling locations tested.

• Sampling indicates that cadmium is present in trade waste throughout the Base sewers, suggesting many sources. Cadmium is widely used in aircraft (airframe, shell, engine components and landing gear) as sacrificial corrosion coatings and to harden steel (DSTO, 2001). Cadmium plating is also used in armament and fasteners (e.g. cadmium plated screws). Many workshops at RAAF Base Amberley would conduct minor maintenance, including some sanding and surface coating, on cadmium plated equipment. Small amounts of cadmium are likely to enter the sewage system through informal processes such as rinsing parts, brushes or rags in sinks, hand washing, cleaning hangars etc.

• Generally, concentrations of zinc and copper were high in relation to the concentrations of other metals. Information obtained by AECOM indicates that mains water entering the base from the Ipswich water supply contains concentrations of copper and zinc that exceeds the ANZECC (2000) 95% guidelines for the protection of freshwater ecosystems.

• Concentrations of metals, with the exception of cadmium, were reported less than the ANZECC 2000 Recreation - Primary Contact guidelines in all Tier One samples tested.

• In absolute terms, the concentration of metals was consistent at each sampling site: that is, where the concentration of one metal was elevated, concentrations of other metals were also elevated. Concentrations of TPH exceeded the ICC Trade Waste guidelines at several Tier One sampling locations. A review of the



chromatograms for TPH indicated that the TPH concentrations reported for samples TWF 01 – TWF 10 are likely to represent fatty acid-based hydrocarbons and are not indicative of petroleum hydrocarbons. The sources of fatty acid-based contamination is likely to be associated with kitchen waste from the mess on Base.

It should also be noted that the concentrations of metals within the sewer were variable; however, a number of areas of the Base reported generally higher metals concentrations in the samples collected:

• Western inflow to the STP (TWF 01).

• Eastern inflow to the STP (TWF 02).

• Sub-catchment including 1 and 6 SQN, AMEMS and Raytheon (TWF 04).

• Sub-catchment including EBU, TAE, workshops, paint shop and hangars (TWF 09).

3.3.2 Tier Two Sampling Results

The following is a summary of the key findings relating to Tier two sampling results:

• Electroplating Workshop – The sample collected from the point where treated wastewater would normally be discharged to sewer reported concentrations for all metals below the Trade Waste limits. The facility is required to meet this standard under its agreed operating conditions. While none of the reported concentrations of metals exceed the Trade Waste limits, concentrations of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead and nickel exceeded one or more of the ANZECC water quality guidelines.

- Total cyanide was also detected in this sample at a concentration less than the ICC Trade Waste Limits but higher than the ANZECC primary contact guideline.

• Engine Overhaul Workshop – A sample was collected from a holding tank at a point before the facility’s wastewater treatment plant (the only accessible location for sampling); therefore, the concentrations of metals in the sample are not indicative of that previously released to sewer. It is understood that the wastewater treatment plant has been designed to treat the wastewater to meet Trade Waste limits. The reported concentrations of all metals except lead were reported below the trade waste limits, considering that the sample was taken before treatment.

• Photographic Section – Wastewater sample was taken from the final chamber of a triple interceptor trap prior to entering the sewer discharge point at the 82 Wing Photographic Section. Concentrations of all metals recorded at this point exceeded the ANZECC 95% guideline; however, no other guidelines were exceeded.

• Other contaminants – Concentrations of TPH did not exceed the ICC Trade Waste limits in samples collected from the facilities that discharge to sewer (i.e. the electroplating workshop (Building 285), the engine overhaul workshop (Hangar 76) and 82 Wing Photographic Section building).

3.4 Conclusion During the above investigation the results of sampling and analysis of trade waste from sewer mains and discharges from industrial facilities at RAAF Base Amberley have indicated the following:

• The concentrations of metals are generally within Ipswich City Council Trade Waste Criteria.

• Exceedances of ANZECC criteria were noted in many samples for various metals, however, these criteria are not directly applicable to the assessment of trade waste and have been included for comparison purposes only.

• Cadmium is present in trade waste throughout the Base sewers, suggesting that there are many sources.

• A definitive assessment of contaminant sources and their contribution to surface water quality impacts observed outside of the Base’s boundary cannot be made from this limited investigation.

• Metal contamination appears to be the result of a number of diffuse sources.



• The RAAF Base Amberley STP is not designed to treat a high industrial trade waste load resulting from increased industrial processes at the Base; however, the extent of this load impact could not be assessed as the facilities were not discharging at the time of the investigation.



4.0 Potential sources, Pathways and receptors to releases from the STP

DERM Notice Requirement No. 2 – Identify the source, cause and extent of any environmental harm being caused by the discharge of treated effluent from the Amberley Air Force Base on-site sewerage treatment plant (STP), including:

2(ii) Identify all potential pathways for contaminants to impact on surrounding environments from releases from the STP, including sludge management and disposal, and discharges to surface waters and groundwater.

2(iii) Indentify all sensitive receptors to any releases from the STP, including (ii) above (sensitive environments), primary industry uses (direct and indirect effluent irrigation and stock water uses), recreational water uses and drinking water uses.

AECOM conducted additional surface water and sediment sampling at the point where the STP discharges to an unnamed tributary to Warrill Creek known at the Base as Frog’s Hollow Gully. The surface water and sediment sampling was conducted in response to elevated contamination levels reported during the Stage 2 Environmental investigation at RAAF Base Amberley. The additional samples were used to investigate the potential pathways for contaminants released from the STP to impact on the surrounding environment and associated receptors.

Figure 2 on the following page provides a schematic identifying the sources of contaminants, potential pathways and sensitive receptors. This figure has been developed based on the outcomes of the waste audit and additional sampling investigation that is summarised below.

4.1 Objectives of the Additional Sampling Defence and DERM provided AECOM with a specific scope of work with the objective of assessing the impact of discharges from the Base STP on Frogs Hollow Gully and Warrill Creek.

4.2 Summary of Methodology Five surface water sample locations were selected to assess the potential impact on Warrill Creek of discharges from the Base STP Sample locations included the following:

• At the STP discharge point within Frogs Hollow Gully (a tributary off Warrill Creek).

• Up-stream of the confluence between Frogs Hollow Gully and Warrill Creek.

• Approximately 400 m down-stream of the confluence of Frogs Hollow Gully and Warrill Creek.

• Approximately half way along Warrill Creek (between the confluence of Frogs Hollow Gully and Warrill Creek and Warrill Creek and Bremer River junction.

• At the junction point of Warrill Creek and Bremer River.

During sampling, field parameters, such as pH, .electrical conductivity (EC), dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation reduction potential (ORP) and temperature were measured using a calibrated water quality meter. Each sample was also visually observed and descriptions of the colour, turbidity, odour and any visible sheen were recorded in the field notes.

Surface water samples were analysed for eight metals (including Cr(III) and Cr(VI)), faecal coliforms, E. coli, total nitrogen, total phosphorous, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, TPH, thiophenols, total dissolved solids, hardness, cations and anions.

• Sediment samples were collected from the five locations corresponding to the surface water sampling locations. Samples were collected across the width of Frogs Hollow Gully and Warrill Creek (where possible)



and at three depths (0-0.15 m, 0.15-0.25 m and 0.25-0.4m) at each of the locations, where possible. Sediment samples were collected using a 1.5m long tapered auger.

• Sediment samples were analysed for pH, eight metals (including Cr(III) and Cr(VI)), TPH, total organic carbon, particle size distribution, acid volatile sulfides, dilute acid extractable metals and pore water analysis.

• Appropriate samples were collected to ensure quality control / quality assurance (QA/QC) was maintained. This included field duplicates, triplicates, rinsate samples and trip blanks, as required by the Australian Standard.



Figure 2: Potential Pathways of Contaminants

Stormwater Domestic Waste

Trade Waste

Off-site disposal

(Licensed

facility)

Sewerage Treatment Plant

Sludge

Irrigation for crops and paddocks

Gully

War

rill C

reek

Sensitive Receptor # 1

Sediment and surface water / Aquatic

ecosystems / Benthic organisms


Stock watering


Primary Contact

Recreational Users

Environment

Livestock

Humans

Sew

erag

e Sy

stem

Effluent

Stormwater System



4.3 Summary of Findings The following provides a summary of the findings from the recent additional sediment and surface water sampling conducted at Frogs Hollow Gully and in Warrill Creek. Sampling locations can be seen on Figure F2 in Attachment A and tabulated analytical result can be found in Table 2 and 3 in Attachment A.

4.3.1 Aquatic Ecosystems

Reported levels of nutrients (ammonia, nitrate, total nitrogen and phosphorus) at the STP discharge point and, to a lesser extent, within Warrill Creek, indicate potential for adverse impacts to aquatic ecological receptors in these areas. While concentrations of total nitrogen and phosphorus are also reported to be marginally elevated at the Warrill Creek/Bremer River junction point, it should be noted that these parameters are also elevated (equal to or above assessment criteria) in Warrill Creek sample SW20 (upstream of the confluence with Frogs Hollow Gully), suggesting that regional sources other than the STP are likely contributing to concentrations of these nutrients in Warrill Creek.

Potential impacts to aquatic ecological receptors due to metals (in particular cadmium, copper, nickel and zinc) deriving from the STP appear to be limited to the STP discharge point and (to a lesser extent) Warrill Creek immediately downstream of its confluence with Frogs Hollow Gully.

It should be noted that the laboratory reporting limit (0.0001 mg/L) for mercury slightly exceeds the assessment criterion for aquatic ecosystem protection of 0.00006 mg/L. Mercury concentrations at or below the laboratory reporting limit of 0.0001 mg/L as is the case for this investigation, would therefore not be expected to result in direct toxicity or adverse effects to freshwater biota, but have the potential to bioaccumulate within the food chain.

4.3.2 Recreational Surface Water Use

Reported levels of nitrate at the STP discharge point and within Warrill Creek immediately downstream of its confluence with Frogs Hollow Gully indicates a potential for adverse impacts to recreational users in these locations. However, it should be noted that the reported nitrate concentration in Warrill Creek is only marginally above the guideline value for recreational use, suggesting that nitrate-related impacts to recreational uses of Warrill Creek are unlikely to be significant unless recreational users are regularly engaged in activities resulting in significant contact with surface water (e.g., swimming or bathing).

Faecal coliform levels at the STP discharge point indicate a potential risk to recreational users within Frogs Hollow Gully, but risks to recreational users of Warrill Creek are considered unlikely unless users swim or bathe in the portion of Warrill Creek immediately downstream of its confluence with STP.

Metals-related impacts to recreational surface water use are considered to be possible at the STP discharge point) due to marginally elevated concentrations of cadmium and nickel, but are not reported to extend to Warrill Creek. It should be noted that it is unlikely that Frogs Hollow Gully (located on Defence land) would be used for recreational purposes.

4.3.3 Use of Surface Water for Irrigation

Reported levels of nitrogen and phosphorus at the STP discharge point and, to a lesser extent, within Warrill Creek indicate that use of water from these locations for irrigation has the potential to adversely affect crop health or soil conditions. It should be noted however that:

• While nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations at the STP discharge point marginally exceeded long term trigger values for irrigation use, the adopted long term trigger values were the lowest of the range of values reported by ANZECC (2000). Long term trigger values for the specific crop and soil types which are irrigated at the Site may therefore be higher.

• Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations within Warrill Creek did not exceed short term trigger values for irrigation use, suggesting that irrigation with water from Warrill Creek for a period of less than 20 years is unlikely to cause adverse effects to crop or soil health.

Adverse impacts to crop or soil health due to metals within Frogs Hollow Gully or Warrill Creek surface water are not expected.



4.3.4 Use of Surface Water for Stock Watering

Reported concentrations of metals and nutrients within Warrill Creek were reported below the ANZECC (2000) stock watering guidelines and therefore are not considered likely to preclude use of surface water in Warrill Creek for stock watering purposes. Concentrations of cadmium at the STP discharge point, marginally exceeded the guideline value for stock watering, therefore potentially limiting the use of surface water from Frogs Hollow Gully from being used for stock watering.

However, reported concentrations of faecal coliforms at the STP discharge point and, to a lesser extent, in Warrill Creek immediately downstream of its confluence with Frogs Hollow Gully indicate that water from these locations is not suitable for stock watering purposes.

4.3.5 Use of Surface water for Drinking Water

AECOM is not aware of water from Warrill Creek and/or the Bremer River downstream of the STP being used for drinking water purposes. An assessment against drinking water guidelines has been undertaken for comparative purposes only. Potential impacts to human health from metals being released from the STP is limited to cadmium in Frogs Hollow Gully and (to a lesser extent) Warrill Creek immediately downstream of its confluence with Frogs Hollow Gully. The concentration of cadmium reported at SW08 was marginally elevated above the drinking water guideline. Nickel concentrations were reported above the drinking water guidelines at the STP discharge point however concentrations reported from samples collected within Warrill Creek and Bremer River were reported below drinking water guidelines.

Concentrations of faecal coliforms and E.coli reported in all samples collected, in particular at the STP discharge point, represent the highest risk to human health from a drinking perspective. It should be noted that concentrations of faecal coliforms and E.coli at all sampling locations were reported above drinking water guidelines (including at the up-gradient sampling locations SW20) indicating that other sources, such as cattle, are likely to be contributing to elevated levels. Water would need to undergo some form of disinfection prior to it being suitable for drinking purposes.

4.3.6 Sediments – Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts

To assess potential impacts to aquatic ecological receptors associated with metals deriving from the STP, reported total and dilute-acid-extractable metals concentrations in sediment samples have been compared to ANZECC (2000) interim sediment quality guidelines (ISQG).

The dilute-acid-extractable concentration of a metal is considered to provide a more accurate estimate of the bioavailable fraction of the total metal concentration within a sediment sample (ANZECC, 2000), and has therefore been used to assess potential impacts to ecological receptors where total metals concentrations exceed ISQG values. Where relevant, reported metal concentrations were also compared to background concentrations reported in Warrill Creek (SW20; a surface water sample upstream of Warrill Creek confluence with Frogs Hollow Gully) in order to assess whether reported concentrations are due to natural background levels or regional anthropogenic sources other than the STP.

Comparison of reported metals concentrations in sediments to ISQG values and background concentrations highlighted the following:

Cadmium

• The reported total and acid extractable concentrations of cadmium near the STP discharge point exceeded ISQG Low, ISQG High and background concentrations reported in Warrill Creek.

• Reported concentrations of cadmium in Warrill Creek downstream of its confluence with Frogs Hollow Gully were below ISQG and background values.

Chromium and Zinc

• The maximum reported concentrations of total chromium and zinc near the STP discharge point exceeded above ISQG Low and background values, but were below ISQG High values.

• Acid extractable concentrations of chromium and zinc were below both ISQG High and ISQG Low values.

• Reported total and acid-extractable concentrations of these metals in Warrill Creek downstream of its confluence with Frogs Hollow Gully were below ISQG values and comparable to background concentrations.



• Concentrations of chromium (VI) in all analysed sediment samples were below laboratory limits of reporting, indicating that chromium present in sediment samples appears to be predominantly in the less toxic trivalent form.

Mercury

• The maximum reported concentration of total mercury near the STP discharge point exceeded the ISQG Low, ISQG High, and background values.

• Reported acid extractable concentrations of mercury were below both ISQG Low and ISQG High near the STP discharge point. Previous sediment sampling conducted within Frogs Hollow Gully that identified elevated concentrations of mercury at the STP discharge point and further downstream (approximately 50 m) did not include weak acid extraction analysis. Therefore the data previously obtained does not allow assessment of the bioavailable fraction of mercury likely to be present in sediments within Frogs Hollow Gully. However, total and acid extractable concentrations of mercury in Warrill Creek downstream of its confluence with Frogs Hollow Gully were below laboratory reporting limits and ISQG values.

Copper

• The maximum reported concentration of total copper near the STP discharge point exceeded ISQG Low, ISQG High and background levels. However, acid extractable concentrations of copper were below both ISQG High and ISQG Low values.

• Total and acid-extractable concentrations of copper in Warrill Creek downstream of its confluence with Frogs Hollow Gully were below ISQG values and comparable to background concentrations.

Nickel

• The maximum reported concentration of total nickel near the STP discharge point exceeded the ISQG Low, ISQG High and background concentrations. The reported maximum acid extractable concentration of nickel exceeded the ISQG Low, but was below the ISQG High.

• Within Warrill Creek samples SED08 and SED02 (downstream of confluence with Frogs Hollow Gully), reported total concentrations of nickel marginally exceeding the ISQG Low, however the reported concentrations were comparable to those reported in Warrill Creek upstream of the FHG confluence (SED20), suggesting that the presence of nickel in these locations may be associated with naturally occurring or regional anthropogenic sources rather than the STP point source.

• Reported acid-extractable concentrations were below the ISQG Low and the ISQG High in all sampled locations within Warrill Creek, suggesting that adverse ecological impacts due to nickel in these locations is not likely.

4.3.7 Sediments – Impacts to recreational Use

Reported metals concentrations in sediment did not exceed NEPC (1999) HIL E values for recreational soil, with the exception of the maximum concentration of cadmium reported in sample SED03 (August 2009 sampling event) approximately 50 m downstream of the STP discharge point. The reported total concentration of cadmium at this location (44 mg/kg) marginally exceeded the HIL E of 40 mg/kg, and is therefore not considered to indicate potential for significant adverse human health risks to potential recreational users or occasional visitors.

It should also be noted that the HIL E guidelines are derived for soil assuming that a recreational user may be exposed to soil on a semi-daily basis, and that they may be in regular contact with and ingest up to 100 mg of soil on each day of exposure. It is expected that the nature and magnitude of exposure to sediments within the vicinity of the STP by recreational users would be significantly lower than that assumed in the derivation of the HIL E guideline value.

4.3.8 Pore Water Analytical Results

• Consistent with the sediment assessment guidelines pore water from sediment samples were also analysed for metals. Overall, the pore water analytical results indicated that concentrations of cadmium, chromium (III), copper and nickel reported near the STP discharge point were above background levels, suggesting that the STP may have been a source of these metals. These results are consistent with those reported for



surface water and sediment above, which indicated that these metals are elevated in surface water and/or bulk sediment samples near the STP discharge point.

• However, reported concentrations of the majority of metals within Warrill Creek downstream of the Frogs Hollow Gully junction are comparable to those reported upstream of this junction point, suggesting that the STP is not causing elevated pore water metals concentrations within Warrill Creek relative to background/regional conditions . An exception to this is cadmium, which is reported to be present above both background concentrations and aquatic ecosystem protection guideline values within Warrill Creek (concentrations up to 0.0094 mg/L relative to the aquatic ecosystem protection guideline of 0.0002 mg/L).

• It should also be noted that the reported concentrations represent total, rather than dissolved, concentrations, and are therefore likely to overestimate the bioavailable fraction of metals within pore water samples. It is also worth noting that all analytical processes used for the extraction of pore waters have been shown to affect the chemistry and toxicity of the pore waters (Environmental Trust, 2005).

4.4 Sludge Management and Disposal AECOM has been advised by Defence that sludge is removed from the STP tanks on average once every three months. The sludge is spread out across the drying beds and removed through a licensed contractor for appropriate off-site disposal once dry. As mentioned above, AECOM understands that STP sludge is disposed of off-site by Pump-It, who deliver it to a licensed facility (Thiess Swanbank) on an ‘as required’ basis.

At Defence’s request AECOM also collected one sludge sample from the sludge drying beds during the above investigation. The sludge sample was analysed for eight metals (including Cr (III) and Cr (VI)), fractionated TPH, total nitrogen, TKN, total phosphorous and ammonia. The following table provides a summary of the analytical results:

Table 3: Sludge Analytical Results

Analyte LOR

(mg/kg)

Grade C1 – unrestricted use

Soil contamination

ceiling concentration

guidelines

mg/kg

Grade C2 – if exceeded

should not be used

mg/kg

RAAF Sludge

(mg/kg)

QC04

(Duplicate of RAAF SLUDGE)

(mg/kg)

QC04 - A

(Triplicate of RAAF SLUDGE)

(mg/kg)

In-organics

Ammonia as N

20 2,200 2,230 1,100

Total Nitrogen

20 22,200 28,600 21,00

TKN 20 22,200 28,600 -

Phosphorous 2 18,600 24,100 12,000

Metals and Metalloids

Arsenic 1 20 60 5 7 2.3

Cadmium 0.1 11 20 310 349 190

Chromium (VI)

1 - - <1 <1 <1

Chromium (Total)

1 - - 507 550 270



Analyte LOR

(mg/kg)

Grade C1 – unrestricted use

Soil contamination

ceiling concentration

guidelines

mg/kg

Grade C2 – if exceeded

should not be used

mg/kg

RAAF Sludge

(mg/kg)

QC04

(Duplicate of RAAF SLUDGE)

(mg/kg)

QC04 - A

(Triplicate of RAAF SLUDGE)

(mg/kg)

Chromium (III)

2 100 - 4002 500 - 30002 507 550 270

Copper 1 100 - 2003 2500 871 973 470

Lead 1 150 - 3004 420 82 87 60

Mercury 0.1 1 15 3.3 3.7 1.4

Nickel 1 60 270 618 662 390

Zinc 1 200 - 2505 2500 888 1,010 500

TPH

TPH C6 – C9 10 - - 183 164 83

TPH C10 – C14

50 - - 610 700 420

TPH C15 – C28

100 - - 8,540 10,300 4,900

TPH C29 – C36

100 - - 8,660 9,910 7,800

TPH C10 – C36

(sum total)

50 - - 17,800 21,000 13,120

Exceedances of both Grade C1 and C2 have been highlighted, results bolded and presented in italics exceed the Grade C1 guidelines.

Notes (taken from NRMMC, 2004):

1 Grade C1 limit of 1 mg/kg reflects food safety concerns regarding plant uptake of cadmium. Some plants have a higher uptake of cadmium under certain conditions.

2 Chromium – although the NEPM (Assessment of Site Contamination) includes limits for both Cr (III) and Cr (VI), Cr (III) is expected to be the dominant form in biosolids.

3 Copper – values of between 100 to 200 mg/kg have been adopted in State/Territory guidelines. The most stringent NEPM value is 100 mg/kg based on ecological protection. Where biosolids are applied to land the Soil Contaminant Concentration should not exceed the lower criteria.

4 Lead – values of between 150 to 300 mg/kg have been adopted in different State/Territory guidelines. He most stringent NEPM value is 300 mg/kg based on ecological protection.

5. Zinc – values of between 200 to 250 mg/kg have been adopted in various State/Territory guidelines. The most stringent NEPM value is 200 mg/kg based on ecological protection. Where biosolids are applied to land the Soil Contaminant Concentration should not exceed the lower criteria.

As biosolids are not applied to land at RAAF Base Amberley, the criteria provided in the Guidelines for Sewerage Systems Biosolids Management have been used for comparative purposes only. From the above table it can be seen that concentrations of cadmium exceeds both grades for the application to land and therefore would not be suitable for reuse. Concentrations of chromium (III), copper, mercury, nickel and zinc exceed the Grade C1 –



unrestricted land use guidelines however are less than the maximum concentration for application to land. It should be noted that sludge is taken off-site for disposal to an appropriately licensed facility and would be required to meet the appropriate landfill criteria.



5.0 Risk Assessment DERM Notice Requirement No. 2(iv) – Undertake a risk assessment and quantify the impacts to Warrill Creek and the Bremer River from the discharges of contaminants from the STP with reference to the ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines, including assessment of the following:

1) Risks to aquatic ecosystems

2) Risks to recreational users of downstream waters

3) Risks to livestock drinking water quality

4) Risks to human drinking water quality.

A detailed human health and ecological risk assessment is under development, using a conceptual site model (CSM) approach to identify “source – pathway-receptor” parameters. Based on the findings of the additional sampling, an initial human health and ecological risk assessment was conducted by comparison of the collected data against human and ecological threshold level, as discussed in Section 4.3, above. The preliminary risk assessment comparisons against generic threshold levels suggest:

a) Risks to aquatic ecosystems are considered to be generally low for surface waters, based on comparison of collected data against the ANZECC water quality guidelines for levels that are protective of ecosystems (but see Section 4.3.1 for further detail).

b) Risks to recreational users of downstream waters is considered to be generally low, based on comparison of collected data against the ANZECC water quality guidelines for recreational use (but see Section 4.3.2 for further detail).

c) Risks to livestock drinking water is considered to be low, based on comparison of collected data against the ANZECC water quality guidelines for livestock drinking (but see Section 4.3.4 for further detail)

d) Risks to human drinking water quality is considered to be possible within Frogs Hollow Gully and Warrill Creek immediately downstream of their confluence, based on concentrations of cadmium and nickel reporting above the drinking water threshold levels, and significantly elevated levels of faecal coliforms and E.coli reported in all samples collected, in particular at the STP discharge point.

A more detailed risk assessment is under consideration to better quantify the likely risks posed from the STP discharges, so that a prioritised remedial response may be developed in consultation with DERM. Further consideration of the interaction between the upstream sources, likely pathways, and the sediments-water interaction still requires more detailed quantification.

In addition to the preliminary human and ecological risk assessment, an assessment of potential risks to Warrill Creek and Bremer River relating to discharges from the Amberley STP was conducted using the Defence (2005) Contaminated Risk Assessment Tool (CRAT). The contaminated risk assessment model was developed based on the AS/NZS 4360:1999 Risk Management, and assesses the likelihood and consequence scale based on probabilities of occurrence and impacts upon Defence’s operations.

5.1 Risk Identification The potential contaminant migration pathways and receptors were assessed and potential risk scenarios associated with contamination identified as follows:

• Exposure of ecological receptors to contaminated surface water through direct or indirect exposure pathways. Direct exposure pathways would include dermal contact whilst indirect pathways would include ingestion or flora uptake.

• Exposure of ecological receptors (stock) to contaminated surface water direct and indirect exposure pathways. Direct exposure pathways would include stock watering whilst the indirect exposure pathway associated with this receptor would be dermal contact.

• Exposure to ecological receptors (crops) to contaminated surface water through direct exposure pathways. The exposure pathway would be associated with the irrigation of crops using surface water supplies.



• Exposure of human receptors (recreational users of Warrill Creek and Bremer River) to contaminated surface water and or sediment. Exposure pathways associated with these receptors include dermal contact or ingestion of surface water. The exposure pathway to contaminated sediments is likely to be only through dermal contact.

5.2 Risk Dimensions • The dimensions for the risk assessment of contaminated sites as defined in the Defence CRAT are listed in

the table below.

Table 4: Dimensions for Contaminated Sites Risk Assessment

Risk Dimension Description

Capability Capacity of the facility to support the user unit in delivery of its primary outputs.

Impact on the ability of the ADF to protect Australia and fulfil its national security obligations.

Impact on the ADF’s ability to train and equip for war and for the conduct of peacetime operations.

Impact on the ability of Defence to develop its capability as detailed in the Defence White Paper.

Impact on Civil (non defence) Capability as a consideration for shared facilities.

Occupational Health and Safety (Staff and Public) Impact on the physical and psychological well being of military and Defence employees, contractors, communities in Defence regions and the public in general.

Legislative Compliance Compliance with regulatory requirements and the impact of failing to comply. Including but not limited to Federal, State, Territory, Local, foreign treaty, indigenous land use agreements, Defence Instructions of Defence Policy.

Environment and Heritage Impact on the environment, including contamination, damage to flora and fauna, fire, noise, soil damage and erosion, green house gas emission, bio-diversity, feral animals and water quality.

Environmental management in the strategic context of Defence business.

Impact on Heritage listed assets.



Risk Dimension Description

Financial Efficiency An assessment of the potential for increased costs that would be incurred if the works were not performed in the preferred funding year. This includes costs directly related to the project itself and any flow on costs that may result if the works are not performed.

Short-term cost of prevention vs. long-term cost recovery.

This would also cover reductions in costs and return on investment. i.e. shorter payback period if work performed now, costs now for long-term savings.

Cost estimates should be inclusive of GST.

Personnel Impact on Military and Defence employees, in the context of staff morale, staff retention and productivity.

Reputation Impact on Defence’s reputation in managing the estate, political and media attention to defence estate matters, community concerns or actions over activities.

Impact on compliance with Government commitments as opposed to specific government policy/legislation.

5.3 Risk Analysis and Evaluation The risk assessment was based on the assessment of the consequences associated with surface water and sediment contamination within Frogs Hollow Gully and Warrill Creek if Defence did not take any management action and the likelihood of the consequences occurring.

The process undertaken for the risk assessment was as follows:

• For RAAF Base Amberley, the likelihood of each of the risk scenarios was considered using the likelihood scales presented in the Defence CRAT, reproduced as Table 5.

• Consequences of the risk scenario were assessed using the threat criteria and consequence scales presented in the Defence CRAT and reproduced as Table 6.

• The Risk Score was calculated for each contamination area and each risk scenario.

Risk Score = Likelihood rating + maximum consequence rating.

The Risk Score was then allocated a Risk Level (Very High, High, Medium or Low) in accordance with the risk matrix.

• The highest Risk Level (i.e. lowest Risk Score) for the various exposure scenarios assessed in each contamination area was adopted as the overall Risk Score for that area. This approach represents a precautionary or more conservative approach of overall risks. The highest Risk Level is called the Risk Band.

• The Risk Priority is determined by totalling the risk scores for each risk dimension.



Table 5: Likelihood Scale as presented in the Defence CRAT

Rating Likelihood

This potential to occur and lead to the assessed consequences

1 Almost Certain Has happened several times in the past year and in each of the previous 5 year OR has a >90% chance of occurring in the next 24 months if the risk is not mitigated.

3 Likely Has happened at least once in the past year and in each of the previous 5 years OR has a 60-90% chance of occurring in the next 24 months if the risk is not mitigated.

5 Possible Has happened during the past 5 users but not in every year OR has a 40-60% chance of occurring in the next 24 months if the risk is not mitigated.

7 Unlikely May have occurred once in the last 5 years OR has a 10-30% chance of occurring in the future if the risk is not mitigated.

9 Rare Has not occurred in the past 5 years OR may occur in exceptional circumstances, i.e. less than 10% chance of occurring in the next 24 months if the risk is not mitigated.



Table 6: Risk Dimension Consequence Guidance as Presented in the Defence CRAT

Rating Capability OHS Legislative Environment and Heritage Financial Efficiency Personnel Reputation

1 (s

ever

e)

All activities cease AND unable to conduct missions or training activities OR all activities cease AND major unacceptable delays in delivery of capability. AND For major assets resumption not possible within 24 hours. For important assets resumption not possible within 7 days. For support assets resumption not possible within 28 days.

One or more fatalities or life threatening injuries or illness. OR Public or staff exposed to a severe, adverse long-term health impact or life threatening hazard.

Potential large-scale class action, AND/OR prosecution with maximum fine imposed.

Irreversible and extensive damage is caused to a World Heritage Listed, a Commonwealth Heritage Listed, a National Heritage Listed or a Defence Heritage Listed area or asset. OR Irreversible and extensive damage is caused to a Matter of National Environmental Significance under the EPBC ACT. OR Irreversible and extensive damage is caused to the Environment OR Contamination levels result in acute toxicity to receptors (NEPM 1999) OR Severe impact on Defence’s ability to create a sustainable environment for future use.

Cost Risks (these include management of the site, remediation now and in the future and loss of capability) associated with the site would be severe (exceed $10 MIL)

Serious negative affect on staff morale effecting all staff associated with the structure, with significant loss of productivity, > 5 days lost

OR

A high number (>80%) of the affected staff are highly likely to be re-considering their continued service or employment within defence

OR

Industrial action is about to be taken.

Detrimental international media reports.

OR

Subject of international government attention.

OR

Non realisation of a government commitment.




6 (M

ajor

)

Some activities curtained

AND

Missions or training activities can be conducted however in a significantly degraded state.

AND

For major assets resumption not possible within 24 hours.

For important assets resumption not possible within 7 days.

For support assets resumption not possible within 28 days.

One or more major injuries or illness requiring major surgery or resulting in permanent disablement.

OR

Public or staff exposed to a hazard that results in major surgery, permanent disablement, or permanent adverse health effects.

High profile legal challenge AND/OR prosecution with 50% to maximum fine imposed.

Irreversible and extensive damage is caused to a non Heritage listed area or asset.

OR

Irreversible and extensive damage is caused to a non environmentally significant area or asset.

OR

Significant damage is caused to a Heritage Listed area or Asset from which it will take up to 10 years to recover.

OR

Significant damage is caused to the environment or asset from which it will take up to 10 year to recover.

OR

Contamination levels results in observable impacts on receptors as defined in the NEPM

OR

Impact on Defence’s ability to manage the environment in a sustainable manner.

Cost Risks (these include management of the site, remediation now and in the future and loss of capability) associated with the site would be major ($5 MIL up to $10 MIL).

Major negative affect on staff morale, affecting more than half the staff associated with the structure with major loss of productivity, > 1 day lost.

Over 50% of affected staff are likely to be reconsidering their continued service or employment within defence

OR

Threat of Industrial Action.

Sustained detrimental national or state media reports.

OR

Subject of a number of parliamentary questions and ministerials.

OR

Sustained community outrage




6 (M

ajor

)

Some activities curtained

AND

Missions or training activities can be conducted however in a significantly degraded state.

AND




One or more major injuries or illness requiring major surgery or resulting in permanent disablement.

OR

Public or staff exposed to a hazard that results in major surgery, permanent disablement, or permanent adverse health effects.

High profile legal challenge AND/OR prosecution with 50% to maximum fine imposed.

Irreversible and extensive damage is caused to a non Heritage listed area or asset.

OR

Irreversible and extensive damage is caused to a non environmentally significant area or asset.

OR

Significant damage is caused to a Heritage Listed area or Asset from which it will take up to 10 years to recover.

OR

Significant damage is caused to the environment or asset from which it will take up to 10 year to recover.

OR

Contamination levels results in observable impacts on receptors as defined in the NEPM

OR

Impact on Defence’s ability to manage the environment in a sustainable manner.

Cost Risks (these include management of the site, remediation now and in the future and loss of capability) associated with the site would be major ($5 MIL up to $10 MIL).

Major negative affect on staff morale, affecting more than half the staff associated with the structure with major loss of productivity, > 1 day lost.

Over 50% of affected staff are likely to be reconsidering their continued service or employment within defence

OR

Threat of Industrial Action.

Sustained detrimental national or state media reports.

OR

Subject of a number of parliamentary questions and ministerials.

OR

Sustained community outrage




11 (m

oder

ate)

Some activities curtailed AND missions, training or Cadet activities can be conducted however one or more of the significant requirements of the mission or training would not be met.

AND




One or more injuries or illness requiring treatment by a physician or hospitalisation.

OR

Public or staff exposed to a hazard that could cause injuries or moderate adverse health effects.

Some legal constraints imposed with up to half of maximum fine imposed.

OR

Non Compliance with Department Policy.

Moderate damage to the environment (as defined by s%28 of the EPBC Act) or a heritage listed asset, which is repairable.

OR

Contamination levels may result in perceived moderate impact on receptors as defined in the NEPM.

OR

Possible impact on Defence’s ability to manage the environment in a sustainable manner.

Cost Risks associated with the site would be moderate ($1 MIL up to $5 MIL).

Moderate negative affect on staff morale, affecting less than half the staff associated with the structure, with some loss of productivity, < 1 day lost.

OR

Some (up to 50%) of staff impacted may be reconsidering their continued service or employment within defence.

OR

Employee representative involvement.

Limited detrimental national or state media reports

OR

Subject of a parliamentary question or ministerial

OR

Organised community concerns and complaints.




16 (m

inor

)

Minimal activities curtained AND missions, training or Cadet activities can be conducted with minor degradation to several missions or training requirements.

OR

Minor delays or minor performance degradation.

One or more injuries or illness requiring treatment by a qualified first aid person.

OR

Exposed of public and staff to a hazard that could cause minor injuries or minor adverse health effects.

Minor technical legal challenge OR legal breach.

Minor damage to the environment or heritage asset that is immediately contained on-site. It will take less than 2 years for the resource or asset to fully recover. OR Disturbance to scarce or sensitive environmental ore heritage resources. OR Contamination levels exceed Health Investigation Levels (HILs) or Ecological Investigation Levels (EILs) as defined by the NEPM OR Minor impacts on Defence’s ability to manage the environment in a sustainable manner.

Cost Risks associated with the site would be minor ($0.5 MIL up to $1 MIL).

Minimal affect on staff morale, affecting a small number (<25%) of the staff associated with the structure with possible minor productivity loss.

OR

Staff are unlikely to be re-considering their continued service or employment within defence.

High profile detrimental local media reports.

OR

Subject of local government action.

OR

Random substantiated complaints from the community.




21

(Neg

ligib

le)

Minimal activities curtained AND missions, training or Cadet activities can be conducted with minor degradation to one mission or training requirement.

AND

Negligible performance impact.

Minor injury or ailment that does not require medical treatment by a physician or a qualified first aid person.

Negligible legal impact OR legal breach.

Negligible damage that is contained on-site.

AND

The damage is fully recoverable with no permanent effect on the environment or the asset. It will take less than 6 months for the resources to fully recover.

OR

Contamination levels have no measurable impact above background levels.

OR The sustainable use of Defence land questioned.

Cost Risks (these include management of the site, remediation now and in the future and loss of capability) associated with the site would be negligible (less than $500,000).

Little or no impact on Personnel in any area.

Low profile detrimental local media reports.

OR

Trivial substantiated complaints from the community.



Table 7: Risk Assessment Matrix

Risk Assessment

Likelihood Rating

Consequence Rating

Severe

1

Major

6

Moderate

11

Minor

16

Negligible

21

Almost Certain

1

Very High

2

Very High

7

High

12

Medium

17

Low

22

Likely

3

Very High

4

High

9

Medium

14

Medium

19

Low

24

Possible

5

High

6

High

11

Medium

16

Medium

21

Low

26

Unlikely

7

High

8

Medium

13

Medium

18

Low

23

Low

28

Rare

9

High

10

Medium

15

Low

20

Low

25

Low

30

5.4 Risk Calculations The following sections present the risk calculations for the different receptors identified for the Warrill Creek and the Bremer River based on potential downstream impacts for the Base STP.

5.4.1 Risk Calculations to Aquatic Ecosystems

Contaminants noted above the ANZECC (2000) 95% criteria for aquatic ecosystem protection and the ISQG included the following:

Surface water

- Nutrients – ammonia, nitrate, total nitrogen and phosphorous

- Metals and metalloids – cadmium, copper and nickel

Sediments

- Metals and metalloids –nickel.

Table 8: Risk Assessment Calculations for Aquatic Ecosystems

Receptor Pathway Risk Dimension

Likelihood of Risk

Dimension Occurring (1,3,5,7 or

9)

Consequence Rating

(1,6,11,16 or 21)

Risk Score (Likelihood +

Consequence)

Risk Level

Risk Band and

Priority

Ecological Receptors

Ingestion or dermal contact of/with contaminated surface water.

Capability 7 16 23 Low Medium (133 )

OHS n/a n/a n/a n/a Legislative

Compliance 5 16 21 Medium

Environment and

Heritage

5 16 21 Medium




Likelihood of Risk


9)

Consequence Rating

(1,6,11,16 or 21)


Consequence)

Risk Level

Risk Band and

Priority

Financial Efficiency

5 21 26 Low

Personnel 7 16 23 Low

Reputation 3 16 19 Medium Ecological Receptors

Ingestion or dermal contact of/with contaminated sediments.

Capability 9 21 30 Low Low (180)


Compliance 9 21 30 Low

Environment and

Heritage

9 21 30 Low


9 21 30 Low


Reputation 9 21 30 Low

5.4.2 Risk Calculations to Recreational Users

Contaminants noted above the ANZECC (2000) criteria for recreational (both primary/secondary contact and NEPM HIL-F) use included the following:

Surface Waters

- Nutrients – ammonia and nitrate

- Faecal coliforms

Sediments

- No exceedances reported above NEPM HIL-F guidelines.

Table 9: Risk Calculations for Recreational Use


Likelihood of Risk


9)

Consequence Rating

(1,6,11,16 or 21)


Consequence)

Risk Level

Risk Band and

Priority

Recreational Users

Dermal contact with contaminated surface water.

Capability 9 21 30 Low 154, Medium

OHS 9 11 20 Low Legislative


Environment and

Heritage

n/a n/a n/a n/a


9 21 30 Low


Reputation 5 16 21 Medium Recreational Users

Dermal contact with contaminated

Capability 9 21 30 Low 180, Low

OHS 9 21 30 Low




Likelihood of Risk


9)

Consequence Rating

(1,6,11,16 or 21)


Consequence)

Risk Level

Risk Band and

Priority

sediments. Legislative Compliance

9 21 30 Low

Environment and

Heritage

n/a n/a n/a n/a


9 21 30 Low



5.4.3 Risk Calculation for Irrigation

Contaminants noted above the ANZECC (2000) Long Term Irrigation and Short Term Irrigation values included the following:

- Nutrients – Nitrogen and phosphorous.

Table 10: Risk Calculations for Irrigation Use


Likelihood of Risk


9)

Consequence Rating

(1,6,11,16 or 21)


Consequence)

Risk Level

Risk Band and

Priority

Soil and/or Crops

Watering of crops and/or soil.




Environment and

Heritage

7 21 28 Low


9 21 30 Low



5.4.4 Risk Calculation for Stock Watering

No exceedances of the ANZECC (2000) criteria for stock watering were noted in samples collected within Warrill Creek and the Bremer River.



Table 11: Risk Calculations for Stock Watering


Likelihood of Risk


9)

Consequence Rating

(1,6,11,16 or 21)


Consequence)

Risk Level

Risk Band and

Priority

Livestock Ingestion contact of contaminated surface water.




Environment and

Heritage

9 21 30 Low


9 21 30 Low



5.4.5 Risk Calculation for Drinking Water

One exceedance of the NHMRC (2004) was reported within Warrill Creek and the Bremer River during the additional sampling event. The exceedance was for cadmium and was reported downstream of the confluence of Frogs Hollow Gully and Warrill Creek.

Table 12: Risk Calculations for Drinking Water


Likelihood of Risk


9)

Consequence Rating

(1,6,11,16 or 21)


Consequence)

Risk Level

Risk Band and

Priority

Humans Ingestion of contaminated surface water.


OHS 7 16 23 Low Legislative


Environment and

Heritage

n/a n/a n/a n/a


9 21 30 Low





6.0 Remediation Considerations DERM Notice Requirement No 3 – Identify remediation actions required as a result of the release of the contaminants from the STP that ensure the integrity of ANZECC Water Quality values are maintained in Warrill Creek and the Bremer River and for various uses identified in notice 2 (iv) (a) – (d) above.

Defence has instigated management options to minimise any potential further impacts to Warrill Creek once becoming aware of exceedances of the relevant guidelines. The first action taken by Defence was to divert some of the trade wastewater stream from the sewer lines and therefore the STP.

Other methods being implemented by Defence include the following:

Short Term Actions A

• Diverting trade wastewater discharges from the sewer lines. Currently trade waste is being contained in tanks and taken off-site for disposal to an appropriate facility.

• Investigate facility specific/ point source solutions for each trade waste facility.

Short Term Actions B

• Undertake $70K worth of improvements to the STP. These improvements will focus on better removal of nutrients and faecal coliforms from the wastewater stream prior to discharge. Up-grades to the STP include:

- automation of the recirculation pump to provide a consistent flow of effluent through the plant by turning the reticulation pump on for low flow periods,

- washing of screenings prior to disposal to overcome the uptake of faecal material into the screenings,

- redirection of recirculation water evenly across the Imoff tanks to reduce disruption to the chemical flocculation process and reduce uneven loading of solids to the three treatment streams,

- provision of a stand-by recirculation pump,

- installation of testing equipment (including a portable spectrophotometer) to monitor effluent quality for heavy metals, dissolved oxygen and pH.

- In addition, up-grades will include the supply and installation of a flow paced delivery system.

Short Term Actions C

• Flushing of all sewer lines to remove any residual contamination that may be present in the lines from historical practices.

Short Term Actions D

• Conduct monthly surface water sampling of discharges from the STP, Frogs Hollow Gully and Warrill Creek both upstream and downstream of the discharge point until at least June 2010.

• Conduct monitoring and sampling of the STP.

Short Term Actions E

• Defence will undertake an audit of all triple-interceptor traps and above ground storage tanks with a view of improving stormwater quality across the Base.

The following section provides a summary of potential remediation actions, including any net environmental benefits and limitations that could be undertaken to assist with maintaining the integrity of ANZECC Water Quality values in Warrill Creek and the Bremer River.



6.1 Planned Upgrades and Continued Long-term Monitoring Planned upgrades and continued long term monitoring is the preferred initial remedial action based on the exceedances of contaminants reported in samples collected from Frogs Hollow, Warrill Creek and the Bremer River, the relatively low risks to aquatic ecosystems, recreational users, irrigation uses, livestock drinking water and human drinking water. Long term monitoring will assist in the assessment of any future management actions required and any further improvements to the STP.

The limitation of this remedial action is that the capabilities and technologies of the STP in its current state are not considered industry best practice and given the Base redevelopment and proposed growth. Based on Defence’s Environmental Policy strategic objectives this option is dependant upon improving the STP performance and handling of trade waste output at the Base.

6.2 Environmental Off Setting In addition to planned upgrades and continued long term monitoring, discussed above, environmental off setting would be implemented if considered necessary. The principle underlying environmental off setting is that any adverse environmental impacts are counterbalanced by environmental improvements at an alternative location where greater net environmental improvements may be realised. In this situation Defence could conduct improvements to the habitat values of Warrill Creek, downstream of the Frogs Hollow Gully, to counterbalance the impacts identified in Frogs Hollow Gully. Some of the potential net environmental benefits of this remedial option include the following:

• Improved water quality

• Increased bank stabilisation and reduced erosion

• Increased biodiversity

• Increased environmental value of a waterway that is currently considered to be in poor condition. The Bremer River Catchment streams have been issued a rating of D, indicating that the streams are generally in a poor condition and are unlikely to meet set ecosystem health values in most of the reporting region.

6.3 Longer Term - Replacement of the Base STP Given that the current STP is not considered to be industry best practice and the fact that it is located within a 1 in 20 flood zone Defence is currently investigating future options for replacement of the Base STP. As this option will require considerable planning and a significant amount of financial investment the net environmental benefit of this remedial option would not be recognised in the near future.

Continued long term monitoring would also be included as part of this remedial options.

6.4 Remedial Options – Stormwater Management Although stormwater is not considered to be the focus of this notice, the stormwater system at the Base dates back to the 1940s with a legacy of drainage systems across the Base. A comparison between dry weather flow rates and wet weather flow rates indicates that there may be some connectivity between the sewerage system and the stormwater system. Defence are therefore proposing to undertake an audit of all triple-interceptor traps and above ground storage tanks with a view to improving stormwater quality across the Base.



7.0 References AECOM, 2009. Stage 2 Environmental Investigation Part 3 – Water Quality Monitoring and Detailed Assessment, RAAF Base Amberley .

ANZECC/NHMRC, 2000. Guidelines for the Assessment of Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

ANZECC 4A, 2000, An Introduction to the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

Environmental Trust, 2005. Handbook for Sediment Quality Assessment. CSIRO: Bangar NSW.

Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC), 2004 National Water Quality Management Strategy – Guidelines for Sewerage Systems Biosolids Management.



Attachments

TABLE 1Trade Waste Analytical Results, RAAF Base Amberley

Analytical Results - Amberley RAAF Base September 2009Field_ID TWF-01 TWF-02 TWF-03 TWF-04 TWF_05 TWF_06 TWF_07 TWF_08 TWF_09 TWF_10 TWF_11Sampled_Date-Time 21/09/2009 21/09/2009 21/09/2009 21/09/2009 22/09/2009 22/09/2009 22/09/2009 22/09/2009 23/09/2009 23/09/2009 23/09/2009ChemName Units Limit of

Reporting (LOR)

Ipswich Water Trade Waste Management

ANZECC (2000) Primary Contact Recreation

ANZECC (2000) Ecosystems Fresh

Water (95%)Main sewer

line in to STP (west)

Main sewer line to in to

the STP (east)

Main sewer line behind Hanger 410

Main sewer line in front of Facility 454

Main sewer line adjacent

to Fire Training School

Main sewer line near

Facility 454

Main sewer line in front of Facility 351

Main sewer line near

Facility 737

Main sewer line adjacent to southern pumping station

Sump behind Aircraft,

Rescue & Fire Services

Discharge point at

Electroplating Facility - Sewer

Arsenic mg/L 0.001 5 0.05 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 2 0.005 0.0002 0.0407 0.0103 0.0009 0.0189 0.0003 0.0017 0.0006 0.0084 0.0620 0.0011 0.974Chromium (III+VI) mg/L 0.001 20 0.05 0.043 0.015 <0.001 0.013 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.051 <0.001 1.79Copper mg/L 0.001 10 1 0.0014 0.337 0.183 0.523 0.194 0.071 0.154 0.073 0.166 0.247 0.094 1.16Lead mg/L 0.001 5 0.05 0.0034 0.012 0.006 0.001 0.008 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.008 0.011 0.002 0.235Nickel mg/L 0.001 10 0.1 0.011 0.088 0.029 0.002 0.033 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.005 0.062 0.005 1.58Zinc mg/L 0.005 10 5 0.008 1.17 0.178 0.052 0.361 0.376 0.159 0.07 0.168 0.181 0.322 0.144Total Metals Silver mg/L 0.001 5 0.05 0.00005 0.002 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.009Total Mercury Mercury mg/L 0.0001 0.001 0.0006 <0.0001 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003 <0.0001 0.0003Hexavalent Chromium Chromium (hexavalent) mg/L 0.01 10 0.001 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Trivalent Chromium - TotalChromium (Trivalent) mg/L 0.01 0.043 0.015 <0.01 0.013 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.051 <0.010 1.79Free CN by Discrete AnalyserCyanide (Free) mg/L 0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 1.19Total Cyanide Cyanide Total mg/L 0.004 5 0.1 0.007 <0.004 0.035 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 2.73TPH - Semivolatile FractionTPH C 6 - C 9 Fraction µg/L 20 40 40 20 40 20 140 <20 <20 50 40 50TPH C10 - C14 Fraction µg/L 50 1100 690 2160 2080 1200 2400 360 730 2490 3650 <50TPH C15 - C28 Fraction µg/L 100 12700 4900 9600 6300 9000 8400 1700 2900 27700 7440 <100TPH C29-C36 Fraction µg/L 50 2120 1050 1100 2810 890 2160 780 960 1780 1490 <50TPH+C10 - C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 10000 600* 15900 6610 12800 11200 11100 13000 2860 4570 32000 12600 <50TPH Volatiles/BTEXBenzene µg/L 1 10 950 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Ethylbenzene µg/L 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Toluene µg/L 2 5 4 <2 2 3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Xylene (m & p) µg/L 2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Xylene (o) µg/L 2 350 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Phenols 2,4,5-trichlorophenol µg/L 1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4.0 <2.0 <1.02,4,6-trichlorophenol µg/L 1 10 20 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4.0 <2.0 <1.02,4-dichlorophenol µg/L 1 160 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4.0 <2.0 <1.02,4-dimethylphenol µg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4.0 <2.0 <1.02,6-dichlorophenol µg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4.0 <2.0 <1.02-chlorophenol µg/L 1 490 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4.0 <2.0 <1.02-methylphenol µg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4.0 <2.0 <1.02-nitrophenol µg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <4.0 <2.0 <1.03-&4-methylphenol µg/L 2 43.7 39.3 261 358 46 194 12.3 52 98.7 319 <2.04-chloro-3-methylphenol µg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1.9 <1 <1 <4.0 <2.0 <1.0Pentachlorophenol µg/L 2 5000 10 10 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <8.0 <3.9 <2.0Phenol µg/L 1 50000 320 14.1 7.1 52.3 64.5 9.9 26.4 3.2 7.2 54.0 128 <1.0

* = Dutch Intervention value (2000)

D1122901_WaterAnalytical_6Oct09LAP.xls

TABLE 1Trade Waste Analytical Results, RAAF Base Amberley

Analytical Results - Amberley RAAF Base September 2009Field_IDSampled_Date-TimeChemName Units Limit of

Reporting (LOR)

Ipswich Water Trade Waste Management

ANZECC (2000) Primary Contact Recreation

ANZECC (2000) Ecosystems Fresh

Water (95%)

Arsenic mg/L 0.001 5 0.05Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 2 0.005 0.0002Chromium (III+VI) mg/L 0.001 20 0.05Copper mg/L 0.001 10 1 0.0014Lead mg/L 0.001 5 0.05 0.0034Nickel mg/L 0.001 10 0.1 0.011Zinc mg/L 0.005 10 5 0.008Total Metals Silver mg/L 0.001 5 0.05 0.00005Total Mercury Mercury mg/L 0.0001 0.001 0.0006Hexavalent Chromium Chromium (hexavalent) mg/L 0.01 10 0.001Trivalent Chromium - TotalChromium (Trivalent) mg/L 0.01Free CN by Discrete AnalyserCyanide (Free) mg/L 0.004Total Cyanide Cyanide Total mg/L 0.004 5 0.1 0.007TPH - Semivolatile FractionTPH C 6 - C 9 Fraction µg/L 20TPH C10 - C14 Fraction µg/L 50TPH C15 - C28 Fraction µg/L 100TPH C29-C36 Fraction µg/L 50TPH+C10 - C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 10000 600*TPH Volatiles/BTEXBenzene µg/L 1 10 950Ethylbenzene µg/L 2Toluene µg/L 2Xylene (m & p) µg/L 2Xylene (o) µg/L 2 350Phenols 2,4,5-trichlorophenol µg/L 1 12,4,6-trichlorophenol µg/L 1 10 202,4-dichlorophenol µg/L 1 1602,4-dimethylphenol µg/L 12,6-dichlorophenol µg/L 12-chlorophenol µg/L 1 4902-methylphenol µg/L 12-nitrophenol µg/L 13-&4-methylphenol µg/L 24-chloro-3-methylphenol µg/L 1Pentachlorophenol µg/L 2 5000 10 10Phenol µg/L 1 50000 320

* = Dutch Intervention value (2000)

TWF_12 TWF_13 TWF_14 TWF-15 TWF-16 TWF-17 TWF-18 TWF-19 TWF-20 TWF-2123/09/2009 23/09/2009 23/09/2009 24/09/2009 24/09/2009 24/09/2009 24/09/2009 24/09/2009 24/09/2009 25/09/2009

TIT behind Photographic

Section - Sewer

TIT behind Engine

Overhaul Workshop -

Sewer

TIT at Engine Test Cell 1 -

Drainage

TIT behind MEOMS - Drainage

TIT discharge point from

GSE Workshop -

Drainage

Discharge point post TIT &

treatment plant associated with Hanger 410 -

Sewer

TIT at Fuel Farm 2 - Sewer

Sump near Fuel Tanker

Workshop - Drainage/sewer

TIT near Fuel Farm 1 - Drainage

TIT AT Engine Test Cell 2 & 3 - Drainage

<0.001 0.008 <0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.004 <0.001 <0.0010.0004 0.0120 0.0007 0.0158 0.0081 0.0034 0.0002 0.0310 0.0004 0.00120.007 0.234 <0.001 0.005 0.011 0.006 <0.001 0.032 <0.001 <0.0010.023 0.097 0.019 0.091 0.151 0.017 0.008 0.480 0.010 0.0040.002 5.46 0.010 0.044 0.373 0.002 0.003 0.069 0.006 0.0020.050 0.125 <0.001 0.005 0.021 0.003 <0.001 0.023 0.003 <0.0010.343 0.255 0.078 0.418 1.63 0.062 0.048 2.94 0.328 0.019

0.026 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

<0.0001 0.0004 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

<0.010 0.234 <0.010 <0.010 0.011 <0.010 <0.010 0.032 <0.010 <0.010

0.030 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004

0.026 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 0.004 <0.004 <0.004 0.041 <0.004 <0.004

<20 240 <20 <20 100 <20 <20 <1000 <20 <20740 750 60 2620 109000 500 1090 26900 150 <501580 1990 590 12200 36000 1260 4190 19000 670 1601190 970 120 5370 26100 680 470 10600 260 <503520 3720 770 20200 171000 2450 5750 56500 1090 160

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <50 <1 <1<2 <2 <2 <2 28 <2 <2 <50 2 <2<2 <2 <2 <2 4 <2 <2 <50 <2 <2<2 <2 <2 <2 21 <2 <2 <100 <2 <2<2 <2 <2 <2 11 <2 <2 <50 <2 <2

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0 6.6 <1.0 <1.0<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.01.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0<2.0 3.8 <2.0 35.0 46.7 <2.0 <2.0 106 <2.0 <2.0<1.0 <1.0 <1.0 21.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <4.0 <1.0 <1.0<2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <4.0 <2.0 <2.0 <4.0 <2.0 <2.0<1.0 1.1 <1.0 9.1 62.7 <1.0 <1.0 11.5 <1.0 <1.0

D1122901_WaterAnalytical_6Oct09LAP.xls

Field_IDSW_Dischpt SW_Junctpt SW02 SW08 SW20 QC01

(SW_Dischpt)QC01-A

(SW_Dischpt)

Sampled_Date-Time 16/09/2009 17/09/2009 17/09/2009 17/09/2009 17/09/2009 16/09/2009 16/09/2009ChemName Units LOR ANZECC (2000)

Ecosystems Fresh Water (95%)

NHMRC (2004) Drinking Water

ANZECC (2000) Primary Contact

Recreation

ANZECC (2000) Irrigation LTV

ANZECC (2000) Irrigation STV

ANZECC (2000) Stock Watering

Down-stream Down-stream Up-stream

Benzene µg/L 1 950 1 10 - - - - - - <0.5Ethylbenzene µg/L 2 80(1) 300 - - - - - - <1Toluene µg/L 2 180(1) 800 - - - - - - <1Xylene (m & p) µg/L 2 - - - - - - <2Xylene (o) µg/L 2 350 - - - - - - <1Xylene Total µg/L 600 - - - - - - <3

Alkalinity (Hydroxide) as CaCO3mg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10Alkalinity (total) as CaCO3 mg/L 1 36 177 140 70 172 36 93Ammonia as N mg/L 10 0.9(6) 0.5(9) 0.01 9.19 0.07 0.1 2.56 0.06 9.27 <1Anions Total meq/L 0.01 7.41 8.52 6.01 6.65 6.16 7.52 -Bicarbonate as CaCO3 mg/L 1 36 177 140 70 172 36 93Calcium (Filtered) mg/L 1 38 44 34 36 39 34 35.8Carbonate as Alkalinity mg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10Cations Total meq/L 0.01 7.57 8.31 5.85 6.85 6.37 7.33 -Chloride mg/L 1 250(9) 400 142 166 102 125 88 144 280Hardness as CaCO3 mg/L 1 200(9) 152 224 169 162 202 136 140Ionic Balance % 0.01 1.07 1.25 1.35 1.33 1.6 1.28 -Magnesium (Filtered) mg/L 1 14 28 20 18 25 13 13.1Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.01 0.7 50 10 90 21.7 0.33 0.77 12.2 <0.01 23.4 280Nitrite (as N) mg/L 0.01 3 1 9.1 0.42 0.62 0.05 0.59 <0.01 0.48 4.1Nitrogen (Total Oxidised) mg/L 0.01 22.2 0.96 0.82 12.8 <0.01 23.8 -Nitrogen (Total) mg/L 0.1 0.5(3) 5 25(8) 33.1 2.4 1.5 19.8 0.5 37.9 77Phosphorus mg/L 0.01 0.05(3) 0.05 0.8(8) 1.83 0.3 0.14 0.52 0.16 1.74 1.79Potassium (Filtered) mg/L 1 22 7 7 15 6 20 19Sodium (Filtered) mg/L 1 180(9) 300 76 84 52 74 50 78 77.4Sulphate (Filtered) mg/L 1 500 400 2000 53 14 16 40 12 50 110TDS mg/L 1 500(9) 1000 511 435 317 405 318 508 410TKN (as N) mg/L 0.1 11 1.4 0.6 7 0.5 14 -

Faecal Coliforms cfu/100mL - 0 150(4) - 1000(5) 100 >60,000 10 40 410 90 - - E. coli cfu/100mL - 0 48,000 10 40 310 90 - -

Thiophenol mg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 -

Arsenic mg/L 0.001 0.024 0.007 0.05 0.1 2 0.5 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 0.0008(h) 0.002 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.0152 0.0003 0.0007 0.0048 <0.0001 0.0142 0.014Chromium (VI) mg/L 0.002 0.001 0.05 0.1 1 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.02Chromium (Total) mg/L 0.001 0.05 1 0.009 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.009 0.0064Chromium (III) mg/L 0.002 0.012(1)(h) 0.009 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.009 <0.05Copper mg/L 0.001 0.005(h) 2 1 0.2 5 0.4 0.036 0.003 0.018 0.012 0.008 0.04 0.033Lead mg/L 0.001 0.026(h) 0.01 0.05 2 5 0.1 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.005Mercury mg/L 0.0001 0.00006(2) 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0001 <0.0001Nickel mg/L 0.001 0.043(h) 0.02 0.1 0.2 2 1 0.127 0.004 0.011 0.064 0.004 0.12 0.12Zinc mg/L 0.005 0.031(h) 3(9) 5 2 5 20 0.053 <0.005 <0.005 0.01 <0.005 0.046 0.041

Arsenic mg/L 0.001 0.024 0.05 0.1 2 0.5 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 0.0008(h) 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.0138 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0021 <0.0001 0.0303 - Chromium (Total) mg/L 0.001 0.05 1 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.002 - Copper mg/L 0.001 0.005(h) 1 0.2 5 0.4 0.025 0.003 0.002 0.007 <0.001 0.035 - Lead mg/L 0.001 0.026(h) 0.05 2 5 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - Mercury mg/L 0.0001 0.00006(2) 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 - Nickel mg/L 0.001 0.043(h) 0.1 0.2 2 1 0.119 0.003 0.005 0.05 0.001 0.14 - Zinc mg/L 0.005 0.031(h) 5 2 5 20 0.049 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.07 -

TPH C 6 - C 9 Fraction µg/L 20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20TPH C10 - C14 Fraction µg/L 50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <40TPH C15 - C28 Fraction µg/L 100 200 <100 <100 <100 <100 100 <100TPH C29-C36 Fraction µg/L 50 140 <50 <50 <50 <50 130 161TPH+C10 - C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 300 <50 <50 <50 <50 280 161Notes:Bold - Elevated concentration

Bold - Exceedance of ANZECC (2000) Secondary Contact Recreation

Bold - Exceedance of NHMRC (2004) Drinking Water1.Low reliability trigger value, to be only used as an indicative interim working level2. 99% level of protection (recommended where chemical may bioaccumulate)3.Guideline for south-east Australia - lowland river4. Water quality guideline for recreation - primary contact5. Water quality guideline for secondary contact6. Figure may not protect key test species from chronic toxicity7. Value is that reported for irrigation of pasture and fodder for grazing animals (i.e., cattle, sheep and goats). See report text.8. Value is lowest of range reported by ANZECC (2000).9. Aesthatic drinking water guidelines(h) Guideline value has been corrected for hardness. See report text.

Bold - Exceedance of ANZECC (2000) Ecosystems Fresh Water (95%)

Thiophenol

Bold - Exceedance of ANZECC (2000) Primary Contact Recreation

Metals and Metalloids (dissolved)

Bold - Exceedance of ANZECC (1992) Irrigation LTVBold - Exceedance of ANZECC (1992) Irrigation STVBold - Exceedance of ANZECC (2000) Stock Watering

Table 2: Surface Water Analytical Results -September 2009

TPH

Metals and Metalloids (total)

Inorganics

BTEX

Microbiological1,000(7)

Table 3: Sediment Data Analytical Results -September 2009Field_ID ANZECC (2000)

Sediment Quality Guidelines - Low

ANZECC (2000) Sediment Quality Guidelines - High

NEPM HIL E 1999 (Recreation)

RAAFSED_02A_0-0.15m Down

stream

RAAFSED_02A_0.15-0.25m - Down

stream

RAAFSED_02A_0.25-0.4m Down

stream

RAAFSED_08A_0.0-0.1m

RAAFSED_08A_0.1-0.3m

RAAFSED_20A_0-0.20m

RAAFSED_20B_0-0.20m

RAAFSED_20C_0-0.20m

RAAFSED_DischptA_0.0-0.15m



RAAFSED_DischptB_0-0.15m

Sampled_Date-Time 17/09/2009 17/09/2009 17/09/2009 18/09/2009 18/09/2009 17/09/2009 17/09/2009 17/09/2009 16/09/2009 16/09/2009 16/09/2009 16/09/2009ChemName Units LOR

pH (Lab) pH_Units 0.1 - - - 7.2 7.3 7.6 6.8 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.2 6.8 6.8 6.8

(+)75µm % 1 - - - 21 20 22 9 8 26 21 21 7 7 6 8(+)150µm % 1 - - - 14 12 14 7 6 22 17 17 4 3 3 4(+)300µm % 1 - - - 4 3 4 4 3 13 11 10 2 1 1 3(+)425µm % 1 - - - 1 1 1 3 2 8 7 7 2 1 <1 2(+)600µm % 1 - - - 1 1 <1 2 1 5 4 5 2 <1 <1 2

(+)1180µm % 1 - - - 1 <1 <1 2 1 3 2 4 1 <1 <1 1(+)2.36mm % 1 - - - <1 <1 <1 1 <1 1 <1 2 1 <1 <1 1(+)4.75mm % 1 - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1(+)9.5mm % 1 - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

(+)19.0mm % 1 - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1(+)37.5mm % 1 - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1(+)75.0mm % 1 - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Soil ClassificationFines (<75)µm % 1 - - - 79 80 78 91 92 74 79 79 93 93 94 92Fines (>75)µm % 1 - - - 21 20 22 8 8 25 21 19 6 7 6 7Fines (>2)mm % 1 - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 1 2 2 <1 <1 1Fines (>6)cdm % 1 - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

InorganicsAmmonia as N mg/kg 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Moisture % 1 - - - 35 31.1 30.4 34.8 28.1 42.1 34.1 35.9 38.2 34.2 28.9 47.9Nitrogen (Total Oxidised) mg/kg 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nitrogen (Total) mg/kg 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TKN (as N) mg/kg 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Phosphorus mg/kg 2 21 52 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Acid Volatile Sulfur % 0.001 - - - 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 - - - - Total Organic Carbon

Total Organic Carbon % 0.02 - - - 1.79 0.80 0.54 2.53 1.00 2.19 2.35 3.05 0.84 0.75 0.71 3.08Extractable Metals

Arsenic mg/kg 1.0 <1.0 - - <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.1 - - <1.0Cadmium mg/kg 0.1 0.2 - - 0.6 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.5 - - 24.0Chromium mg/kg 1.0 2.8 - - 2.2 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.2 - - 22.0

Copper mg/kg 1.0 7.6 - - 7.7 - 6.8 5.6 8.5 11.2 - - 32.5Lead mg/kg 1.0 4.1 - - 4.0 - 3.4 2.6 3.8 7.2 - - 11.3

Mercury mg/kg 0.10 <0.10 - - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 - - <0.10Nickel mg/kg 1.0 8.0 - - 8.7 - 5.7 5.1 6.2 11.8 - - 39.3Zinc mg/kg 1.0 17.9 - - 21.0 - 12.6 8.8 14.6 30.7 - - 61.0

Total MetalsArsenic mg/kg 1 20 70 200 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Cadmium mg/kg 0.1 1.5 10 40 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 1 <1 27Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 1 - - 200 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Chromium (III+VI) mg/kg 1 80 370 - 30 37 31 27 32 29 29 32 45 30 31 70Chromium (Trivalent) mg/kg 2 - - 24000 30 37 31 27 32 29 29 32 45 30 31 70

Copper mg/kg 1 65 270 2000 21 24 20 26 24 20 19 23 34 28 27 88Lead mg/kg 1 50 220 600 <5 <5 <5 5 <5 6 <5 6 6 7 7 16

Mercury mg/kg 0.1 0.15 1 30 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Nickel mg/kg 1 21 52 600 31 31 28 33 33 29 28 31 41 33 30 95Zinc mg/kg 1 200 410 14000 68 75 66 69 74 71 72 81 56 55 53 132

TPHTPH C 6 - C 9 Fraction mg/kg 10 - - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

TPH C10 - C14 Fraction mg/kg 50 - - 50 <50 <50 <50 <50 50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50TPH C15 - C28 Fraction mg/kg 100 - - <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 120 <100 130 <100 <100 <100 <100TPH C29-C36 Fraction mg/kg 100 - - <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 110 <100 <100 <100 <100

TPH+C10 - C36 (Sum of total) mg/kg 50 - - 50 <50 <50 <50 <50 170 <50 250 <50 <50 <50 <50Notes:Bold Exceedance of ANZECC (2000) Sediment Quality Guidelines - HighBold Exceedance of ANZECC (2000) Sediment Quality Guidelines - Low

Particle Sizing

Bold Exceedance of NEPM HIL E 1999 (Recreation)

1

Table 3: Sediment Data Analytical Results -September 2009Field_ID ANZECC (2000)

Sediment Quality Guidelines - Low

ANZECC (2000) Sediment Quality Guidelines - High

Sampled_Date-TimeChemName Units LOR

pH (Lab) pH_Units 0.1 - -

(+)75µm % 1 - -(+)150µm % 1 - -(+)300µm % 1 - -(+)425µm % 1 - -(+)600µm % 1 - -

(+)1180µm % 1 - -(+)2.36mm % 1 - -(+)4.75mm % 1 - -(+)9.5mm % 1 - -

(+)19.0mm % 1 - -(+)37.5mm % 1 - -(+)75.0mm % 1 - -

Soil ClassificationFines (<75)µm % 1 - -Fines (>75)µm % 1 - -Fines (>2)mm % 1 - -Fines (>6)cdm % 1 - -

InorganicsAmmonia as N mg/kg 20 - -

Moisture % 1 - -Nitrogen (Total Oxidised) mg/kg 0.1 - -

Nitrogen (Total) mg/kg 20 - -TKN (as N) mg/kg 20 - -Phosphorus mg/kg 2 21 52

Acid Volatile Sulfur % 0.001 - -Total Organic Carbon

Total Organic Carbon % 0.02 - -Extractable Metals

Arsenic mg/kg 1.0Cadmium mg/kg 0.1Chromium mg/kg 1.0

Copper mg/kg 1.0Lead mg/kg 1.0

Mercury mg/kg 0.10Nickel mg/kg 1.0Zinc mg/kg 1.0

Total MetalsArsenic mg/kg 1 20 70

Cadmium mg/kg 0.1 1.5 10Chromium (hexavalent) mg/kg 1 - -

Chromium (III+VI) mg/kg 1 80 370Chromium (Trivalent) mg/kg 2 - -

Copper mg/kg 1 65 270Lead mg/kg 1 50 220

Mercury mg/kg 0.1 0.15 1Nickel mg/kg 1 21 52Zinc mg/kg 1 200 410

TPHTPH C 6 - C 9 Fraction mg/kg 10 - -

TPH C10 - C14 Fraction mg/kg 50 - -TPH C15 - C28 Fraction mg/kg 100 - -TPH C29-C36 Fraction mg/kg 100 - -

TPH+C10 - C36 (Sum of total) mg/kg 50 - -Notes:Bold Exceedance of ANZECC (2000) Sediment Quality Guidelines - HighBold Exceedance of ANZECC (2000) Sediment Quality Guidelines - Low

Particle Sizing

Bold Exceedance of NEPM HIL E 1999 (Recreation)

RAAFSED_DischptB_0.15-0.25m

RAAFSED_DischptB_0.25-0.4m

RAAFSED_DischptC_0-0.15m

RAAFSED_DischptC_0.15-0.25m

RAAFSED_DischptC_0.25-0.4m

RAAFSED_Junctpt_0-0.15m

QC02 (RAAFSED_DischptA_0-

0.15m)

QC02 - A (RAAFSED_Dischpt

A_0-0.15m)

QC03 (RAAFSED_08A_0-

0.1m)

QC03 - A (RAAFSED_08A_0-

0.1m)

16/09/2009 16/09/2009 16/09/2009 16/09/2009 16/09/2009 17/09/2009 16/09/2009 16/09/2009 18/09/2009 18/09/2009

6.9 6.8 6.7 7 7.6 8 - - - -

8 9 10 6 6 35 - - - - 6 6 7 4 4 27 - - - - 4 2 4 2 2 15 - - - - 3 1 3 2 1 10 - - - - 2 <1 2 1 1 6 - - - - 2 <1 2 1 1 2 - - - - 1 <1 1 <1 <1 1 - - - -

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - - - - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - - - -

92 91 90 94 94 65 - - - - 7 9 9 6 6 34 - - - - 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 - - - -

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - 36.9 28.9 39.9 34.3 28.5 28.8 50.2 44 30.1 46

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.001 - - - -

1.07 0.82 1.20 0.76 0.70 0.95 - - - -

- - 1.0 - - <1.0 - - - - - - 3.5 - - <0.1 - - - - - - 2.4 - - <1.0 - - - - - - 17.8 - - 4.4 - - - - - - 7.2 - - 1.7 - - - - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - - - - 14.4 - - 3.0 - - - - - - 22.1 - - 7.0 - - - -

<5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <2 <5 <23 1 4 <1 <1 <1 38 30 2 2.2

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <134 30 2 28 27 24 69 57 28 3734 30 32 28 27 24 69 57 28 3732 28 18 25 24 17 103 56 26 269 7 7 7 6 <5 18 18 6 11

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.4 0.79 <0.1 <0.136 29 14 26 25 20 120 71 28 3362 58 22 52 50 48 139 110 73 86

<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10<50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <50 <50

<100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 85 190 190<100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 74 190 190<50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 159 380 380

2

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

BR

EM

ER

R

IV

ER

C U N N I N G H A M H I G H W A Y

WA

R R I L L CR

EE

K

PU

RG

A

CR

EE

KSW02

SW08

SW20

SW_Junctpt

SW_DischPt

471,000

471,000

472,000

472,000

473,000

473,000

474,000

474,000

6,9

40

,00

0

6,9

40

,00

0

6,9

41

,00

0

6,9

41

,00

0

6,9

42

,00

0

6,9

42

,00

0

6,9

43

,00

0

6,9

43

,00

0

6,9

44

,00

0

6,9

44

,00

0

PROJECT ID

LAST MODIFIED

CREATED BY

D1105918

BN

BN 26 November 2009

°HORIZONTAL DATUM WGS 1984PROJECTION UTM ZONE 56 South

0 150 300 450

Metres

F2

Figure

File Path: G:\Projects\D1105918\Figures\MXD\D1105918_002_Fig2_SW_Locations_Results_VerB.mxd

ENVIRONMENT

www.aecom.comDepartment of Defence

Additional Sampling – Frogs Hollow Gully andWarrill Creek

RAAF Base Amberley

Surface Water and Sediment SamplingLocations

Data Sources:

1. Background aerial photographs: Department of Defence, 20082: Sediment sample locations and concentrations: © 2009 AECOMAustralia Pty Ltd.

LEGEND

!. Surface Water Sample Location

1:15,000 when printed at A3

AECOM does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of informationdisplayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk.AECOM shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, oromissions in the information.


Worldwide Locations

Australia +61-2-8484-8999 Azerbaijan +994 12 4975881 Belgium +32-3-540-95-86 Bolivia +591-3-354-8564 Brazil +55-21-3526-8160 China +86-20-8130-3737 England +44 1928-726006 France +33(0)1 48 42 59 53 Germany +49-631-341-13-62 Ireland +353 1631 9356 Italy +39-02-3180 77 1 Japan +813-3541 5926 Malaysia +603-7725-0380 Netherlands +31 10 2120 744 Philippines +632 910 6226 Scotland +44 (0) 1224-624624 Singapore +65 6295 5752 Thailand +662 642 6161 Turkey +90-312-428-3667 United States +1 978-589-3200 Venezuela +58-212-762-63 39

Australian Locations Adelaide Brisbane Canberra Darwin Melbourne Newcastle Perth Sydney Singleton www.aecom.com

About AECOM Australian Locations

AECOM is a leading provider of advanced environmental, planning, design, engineering, management and advisory services in the buildings, energy, environment, government, mining, power, transport and water markets.

From our offices across Australia and New Zealand, we leverage AECOM’s global reach while providing a unique blend of local knowledge, innovation and technical excellence combined with a personal commitment to meeting our clients’ specific needs.

Together, AECOM forms a strong global network of more than 43,000 professionals united by a common purpose to enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural and social environments.

AECOM has over 740 offices across Africa, the Americas, Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, the United Kingdom & Europe.

For more information, please visit: www.aecom.com

Adelaide Brisbane Canberra

Darwin Mackay

Melbourne Newcastle

Perth Singleton

Sydney

RAAF Base Amberley - DERM Notice Report · 2014-06-10 · RAAF Base Amberley - DERM Notice Report -...

Documents

Transcript of RAAF Base Amberley - DERM Notice Report · 2014-06-10 · RAAF Base Amberley - DERM Notice Report -...