REPORT - Department of Defence · LOR : Limit of reporting . LPI NSW Land and Property Information LQL : Laboratory Quantitation Limits . MBAS Methyl blue activated substances NATA

29 September 2017

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE, PFAS BRANCH

Preliminary Site Investigation for PFAS Blamey Barracks Kapooka (0315)

REPO

RT

Report Number. 1669283_001_R_Rev1

Submitted to: Department of Defence PFAS Branch Attention: Andrew Mitchell

PSI - BLAMEY BARRACKS KAPOOKA (0315)

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

1.4 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

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

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................................. 3

3.1 Site Identification .......................................................................................................................................... 3

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

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

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

3.5 Historical Aerial Photographs........................................................................................................................ 5

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

3.7 Water Supply .............................................................................................................................................. 10

3.8 EPA Priority Sites Register Review ............................................................................................................ 10

3.9 Other Information Sources .......................................................................................................................... 10

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................. 10

4.1 Climate ....................................................................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Topography................................................................................................................................................. 11

4.3 Soil and Geology ........................................................................................................................................ 11

4.3.1 Soil ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

4.3.2 Geology ................................................................................................................................................. 12

4.3.3 Acid Sulfate Soils .................................................................................................................................. 12

4.4 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................... 12

4.4.1 Irrigation ................................................................................................................................................ 12

4.4.2 On-site Surface Water Use ................................................................................................................... 12

4.4.3 Off-site Surface Water Use ................................................................................................................... 12

4.5 Hydrogeology.............................................................................................................................................. 12

4.5.1 Local Hydrogeology .............................................................................................................................. 13

4.5.1.1 On-site Groundwater Use .................................................................................................................. 15

29 September 2017 Report No. 1669283_001_R_Rev1 i


4.5.1.2 Off-site Groundwater Use .................................................................................................................. 15

4.6 Ecology ....................................................................................................................................................... 16

5.0 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS .......................................................................................................... 16

5.1 Previous Investigations ............................................................................................................................... 16

6.0 PFAS SOURCE IDENTIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... 17

6.1 AFFF Storage ............................................................................................................................................. 17

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

6.3 AFFF Disposal ............................................................................................................................................ 18

6.4 Offsite Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 18

6.5 Incidents ..................................................................................................................................................... 19

6.6 Summary of PFAS Sources ........................................................................................................................ 19

7.0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................... 19

7.1 Step 1: State the problem ........................................................................................................................... 20

7.2 Step 2: Identification of the decision or goal of the investigation................................................................. 20

7.3 The PSI was limited to use, storage and waste disposal associated with AFFF products and associated potential PFAS contamination at the property. Step 3: Identify the information inputs ............. 20

7.4 Step 4: Define the investigation boundaries ............................................................................................... 21

7.5 Step 5: Develop the analytical approach .................................................................................................... 21

7.6 Step 6: Specify performance or acceptance limits ...................................................................................... 21

7.7 Step 7: Develop the plan for obtaining data ................................................................................................ 23

8.0 SAMPLING, ANALYTICAL AND QUALITY PLAN ................................................................................................. 24

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

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

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

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

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

10.1.3 Surface water and Sediment ................................................................................................................. 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

29 September 2017 Report No. 1669283_001_R_Rev1 ii


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

10.3.4 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................................... 32

10.3.5 Sediment and Surface water ................................................................................................................. 33

11.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ................................................................................................................................. 35

11.1 Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 35

11.2 Migration Pathways .................................................................................................................................... 36

11.3 Exposure Pathways .................................................................................................................................... 37

11.4 Receptors ................................................................................................................................................... 37

11.5 Data Gaps .................................................................................................................................................. 38

12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 38

12.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 38

12.2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 39

13.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 40

14.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................. 41

TABLES Table 1: Site Description .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Historical Aerial Photograph Review ..................................................................................................................... 6

Table 3: Registered Groundwater Bores within 500 m of the Property and downgradient areas ...................................... 13

Table 4: Sampling Strategy ............................................................................................................................................... 23

Table 5: Adopted Soil, Sediment Groundwater and Surface Water Screening Values ..................................................... 25

Table 6: Generalised soil profile ........................................................................................................................................ 26

Table 7: Number of Environmental Samples Analysed ..................................................................................................... 28

Table 8: Summary of laboratory soil results – PFAS ......................................................................................................... 30

Table 9: Summary of laboratory groundwater results – PFAS .......................................................................................... 32

Table 10: Summary of surface water results – PFAS ........................................................................................................ 33

Table 11: Summary of laboratory sediment results – PFAS .............................................................................................. 34

Table 12: Potential Human Health and Ecological Receptors ........................................................................................... 37

Table 13: Possible Receptors based on Potentially Complete Source, Pathway, Receptor Linkages .............................. 38

FIGURES Figure A: 9am and 3pm Annual Average Wind Roses for Wagga Wagga AMO (BoM, 2017) .......................................... 11

29 September 2017 Report No. 1669283_001_R_Rev1 iii


APPENDICES FIGURES

TABLES

APPENDIX A AFFF Summary

APPENDIX B Photographs

APPENDIX C Aerial photographs

APPENDIX D Other searches

APPENDIX E Registered bore search

APPENDIX F Borehole logs

APPENDIX G Data Validation

APPENDIX H Laboratory Certificates

APPENDIX I Calibration Certificates

APPENDIX J Report Limitations

29 September 2017 Report No. 1669283_001_R_Rev1 iv


DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym Definition

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

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

ASRIS Australian Soil Resource Information System ASS Acid sulfate soil BoM Bureau of Meteorology BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and naphthalene CA Commonwealth Land CLM Act Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 COC Chain of Custody CoPC Contaminants of potential concern CSM Conceptual site model CSR Defence Contaminated Site Register DBYD Dial Before You Dig Services DCD8 Defence Contamination Directive #8 Defence Department of Defence DO Dissolved oxygen DP Deposited Plan DPI NSW Department of Primary Industries DQIs Data quality indicators DQOs Data quality objectives EC Electrical conductivity EIS Environmental Impact Statement ELF Enhanced Land Force EPA Environment Protection Authority EPL Environment Protection Licence ESA Environmental Site Assessments FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s GIS A geographic information system

29 September 2017 Report No. 1669283_001_R_Rev1 v


Acronym Definition

Golder Golder Associates Pty Ltd GPS Global Positioning System HDPE high density polyethylene KMA Kapooka Military Area LDPE low density polyethylene LEP Local Environment Plan LGA Local Government Area LOR Limit of reporting LPI NSW Land and Property Information LQL Laboratory Quantitation Limits MBAS Methyl blue activated substances NATA National Association of Testing Authorities NDD Non-destructive drilling NEPC National Environment Protection Council NEPM National Environment Protection Measure NES National Environmental Significance NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council NSW New South Wales PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PFAS Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances PFHxS Perflurohexane sulfonic acid PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS Perfluorooctane sulfonate pH A description of the acidity or alkalinity of a substance POEO Act Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 PSI Preliminary Site Investigation QA/QC Quality Assurance / Quality Control RAAF Royal Australian Air Force RPD Relative Percentage Differences SAQP Sampling Analysis and Quality Plan SEPP State Environment Protection Policy SOPs Standard Operating Procedures STP Sewage treatment plant SWL Standing Water Level TDS Total dissolved solids TOC Total organic carbon TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

29 September 2017 Report No. 1669283_001_R_Rev1 vi


Acronym Definition

UXO Unexploded ordnance UNITS Units Description ha hectares km kilometre L litre m metre m AHD Metres Australian Height Datum m bgl Metres below ground level μg/kg Micrograms per kilogram μg/L Micrograms per litre °C Temperature in degrees Celsius

29 September 2017 Report No. 1669283_001_R_Rev1 vii


1.0 INTRODUCTION The Department of Defence (Defence) engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) to undertake Preliminary Site Investigations (PSI) of Blamey Barracks Kapooka (NSW), Defence property 0315. The PSI focussed specifically on the investigation of the contaminant group per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

1.1 Poly- and Perfluorinated Substances (PFAS) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are internationally commonly used chemicals in the production of stain repellents, lubricants, fire retardants and suppressants, including Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF), and pesticides, and as industrial surfactants and emulsifiers (US EPA, 2005). AFFFs are ‘Class B’ fire-fighting foams used to prevent or extinguish flammable liquid fires. AFFF forms a barrier that inhibits oxygen from feeding the fire, while limiting volatilisation of flammable vapours from fuels.

Historically (from the 1970s), Defence used AFFF (commonly 3M LightwaterTM) that contained perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). From 2004, Defence commenced phasing out legacy AFFF across the Defence Estate, however the chemical structures of PFAS make them extremely resistant to breakdown. As a result, they are persistent once released to the environment. On the basis of its physical properties, PFOS is essentially non-volatile, and would not be expected to evaporate from water (US EPA 2005). Infiltration of water could carry PFOS/PFOA into the subsurface or into groundwater. In soil-water mixtures, PFOS has a strong tendency to remain in water due to its solubility.

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

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

Fire-fighting training using fire extinguishers occurred at the fire training pad. Possible use of area near the sewage treatment plant (STP) for fire extinguisher training. Ad hoc training using fire extinguishers at the former quarry.

Testing of fire equipment including the generation of foam occurred on the grass areas either side of driveway at the Fire Station. Cleaning of AFFF equipment on hardstand with waste-water entering stormwater drain. Also ad hoc foam training in grass areas around Parade Ground.

Emergency use of AFFF during fire in excavator at the Old Commandants House/Shed.

Limited use of groundwater identified at the property, however, registered bores (stock watering, irrigation and domestic) are located off-property.

Surface water drainage lines/creeks are present at the property and join to creeks off-property before discharging to the Murrumbidgee River.

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

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

29 September 2017 Report No. 1669283_001_R_Rev1 1


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

Significance of AFFF use:

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

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

Sensitive Receptors:

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

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

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

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

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The following tasks were completed at the property:

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

Data Gap Assessment (Golder, 2016).

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

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

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

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

Historic Aerial Photographs.

Topographical, soil and geological maps.



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

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

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

Drilling of soil boreholes and collection of soil samples to a depth of 4 m below ground level. Samples were collected at the surface and at 1 m intervals throughout the soil profile to the depth of 4 m below ground level. The soil profile was logged. Soil bores were located as close as possible to the target area on the inferred down hydraulic gradient side where surface water run-off may flow, including:

Fire training pad.

Parade ground.

Fire station (grass areas beside driveway).

Former fire training areas (near Sewage Treatment Plant).

Former fire training area (Sport Oval).

Sampling of existing groundwater monitoring wells. Five existing wells were sampled.

Sampling of surface water and sediments in drainage lines/creeks at the property (developed portion of the western side of the property). Surface water and sediment samples were collected at locations near and down-gradient potential sources as well as adjacent to the property boundary. Surface water samples were collected prior to sediment samples.

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

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

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

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

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Identification The Blamey Barracks are situated on an area of almost 2,000 hectares in an outer western suburb of Wagga Wagga, which is approximately 160 kilometres west of Canberra. The property is bounded by the Stuart



Highway to the north and Olympic Highway to the east. Rural properties are to the west and south. Residential properties (suburb of San Isidore) are present immediately adjacent to the eastern and northern boundaries. The property is bound on each perimeter by a security fence. The property is located within the Wagga Wagga local government area and is wholly owned by the Commonwealth.

This section defines the parcel of land identified as the property and describes the land use characteristics of on- and off-site areas being assessed in this PSI. A summary of information regarding the Blamey Barracks Kapooka is provided in Table 1 below. The site location is illustrated in attached Figure 1.

Table 1: Site Description

Topic Data Source

Property Name and ID

Blamey Barracks Kapooka (0315) Department of Defence

Address Camp Access Road, Kapooka NSW 2661 Wagga Wagga City Council

Site Area Approximately 2000 hectares https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/

Defence Region

Southern NSW Region Department of Defence

Current Zoning Commonwealth Land (CA) SP2 – Infrastructure (Defence)

Wagga Wagga Local Environmental Plan 2010

Lot and DP

Lot 3, 8 to 12 DP205379 Lot 1 DP389778 Lot 1 to 8 DP262372 Lot 2 DP54820 Lot 58, 59, 64 to 66, 85 to 93, 113, 163 DP754567 Lot 1, 2, 4 DP725226 Lot 1 to 4 DP725227 Lot 1, 2 DP627836 Lot 1, 2, 6, 9, 10 DP113507

https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/

3.2 Current Site Use The Blamey Barracks Kapooka is the home of the 1st Recruit Training Battalion, whose main purpose is to train recruits in basic military skills. As a result, the property is occupied by facilities providing for a variety of functions including accommodation (residential including child care), administration, recreation and physical and academic training activities. There are also large areas of undeveloped lands at the property. It is understood that the property will continued to be used by Defence for these purposes.

The land was first acquired in 1942 for a Defence Engineer Training Depot (Maunsell, 2006). Although the barracks were first established during the Second World War, many of the facilities on the Barracks were constructed during the mid-1960s.

Most of the administrative operations occur at the Cantonment. It is also the location of troop accommodation, messes and academic training facilities. The base also has recreational areas including a golf course, gymnasium, and Soldiers Club. The ranges occupy a large area of the southern region of the facility.

Activities include the use of firing and weapons ranges, which has resulted in the potential for unexploded ordnance (UXO) exists at the property given the base history of use included a grenade range. Bulk fuel storage and distribution occurs at the property via numerous above ground and underground storage tanks (including from a former service station).



The base also contains sewage treatment plant, an abandoned incinerator, and several landfill areas that have been used to dispose waste from base operations. Fire-fighting training area activities have been undertaken at the property and involve fire extinguishers and small scale use of AFFF, these are discussed in detail in Section 6.0.

Outside of the developed areas, the property comprises timbered and cleared pastoral land, with minimal remnant native vegetation mainly located along watercourses. Based on information supplied by Defence personnel, we understand that some undeveloped land on the property is leased for stock.

3.3 Surrounding Land Use Surrounding land use includes the following:

North – Rural properties (farms), the Murrumbidgee River (distance from site approximately 2km) and associated flood plains including the Sturt Highway. Pomingarlarna Reserve parkland lies 3 km to the north-west of the site;

East –Olympic Highway and beyond east is the Main Southern Railway The residential area of San Isidore also forms part of the eastern boundary;

South – Rural properties associated with the Uranquinty township approximately 2.5 km from the property; and

West – Churches Plain Road, beyond which lies Sandy Creek and further rural properties.

3.4 Review of Defence Contaminated Sites Register Review of Defence Contaminated Sites Register (CSR) identified two fire training areas (RMV0049 and RMV0050) as potential areas of environmental concern to be considered as part of this program. Other than the two following CSR sites, no other information related to the use of AFFF at the property have been recorded in the CSR.

RMV0049 Fire Training Pad

Information reported by Maunsell (2006) provided the following background information on the Fire Training Pad (RMV0049). This fire training pad has been used by Defence and fire services contractors for fire-fighting training. This included training in the use of fire extinguishers, fire-containing materials including AFFF, to extinguish fires. The fires were fuelled with straw, wood and small amounts of petrol, and a metal tray in the centre of the pad. The facility was reportedly used approximately every 6 months. The fenced facility consists of a grassed area with a large concrete pad with raised edges and a central drain. The facility was upgraded in 2002. The CSR noted that a burnt out car, several fire training metal trays and a stack of wooden pallets have been present on the concrete pad. The central drain is understood to direct surface water runoff to an above ground oil/water separator. It was indicated within the CSR that an underground sump is present beneath the oil water separator, which is pumped out by a domestic waste contractor once full. A corrugated metal shed is located within the facility to the south of the concrete pad. The entire facility appeared to be relatively new with very little surface staining on the concrete pad and none around the oil water separator.

RMV0050 Former Fire Training Area (South of STP)

This former fire training area is located to the south west of the STP in a former Hand Grenade Range area. The former fire training area was described as a pit (approximately 3m by 10m), which was historically used to demonstrate methods of fire extinguishment. Materials that were burnt included oil, tyres and car bodies. These activities were reported to have ceased in 2002 or 2003.

3.5 Historical Aerial Photographs Historical aerial photographs from 1966, 1979, 1986, 1995 and 2004 were obtained from NSW Land and Property Information (LPI) for review. Historical aerial imagery from 1984, 2003, 2005, 2010 and 2016 was observed via Google Earth. Copies of the aerial photographs referenced above are included in Appendix C.



The aerial photograph review was conducted to establish a general history of the development of the property and surrounding area, and to the extent possible (given photograph quality and scales) consider fire-fighting training areas. This review is summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: Historical Aerial Photograph Review Year Observations

1966 Property: Significant development on the property (appears to be facilities) is present on the eastern portion, with the majority of buildings similar to present day. Disturbed ground is apparent around many of these buildings, suggesting ongoing work. The sports ovals are also evident in locations similar to present day. A Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) is present in its current location, to the north east of the main cantonment, however no settling ponds are not evident. The central ridge is forested, similar to present day. AFFF related activities: There is no observable evidence to indicate potential areas of AFFF use or related activities. Surrounding area: Roads surrounding the site appeared consistent with the present layout including Sturt Highway (north) and Olympic Highway (south-east and east). Open fields, potentially used for livestock grazing, are located to the immediate east. Land to the south, west and north of the property appears to have been largely undeveloped or farmland with small buildings that appear to be farm residences.

1979 Property: The 1979 photograph shows the main cantonment as similar to 1966, however the area seems to be less disturbed. The disturbed ground to the south west of the cantonment now appears as a structured military range. In addition to the west of this range, a triangular shaped feature is apparent in the location of the current day Rifle Range. The trees on the central ridge appear slightly denser compared to 1966. AFFF related activities: There is no observable evidence to indicate potential areas of AFFF use or related activities. Surrounding area: Residential properties are now present on the land adjacent to the north east boundary of the property. The remaining land appears relatively unchanged.

1984 - 1986 Property: The photographs dated 1984 and 1986 show the property as similar to 1979. An additional disturbed area is present in the south east corner, in the location of the inactive Grenade Range. The Rifle Range and the range to the east of this are still present. AFFF related activities: The STP is still present as per 1966, however the ground to the south west now appears disturbed in a similar location to the Former Fire Training Area. Surrounding area: A residential dwelling appears to be present on the adjacent property to the north and east. The remaining land appears relatively unchanged.

1995 Property: The 1995 photograph shows the main cantonment as similar to present day. The STP has been upgraded and three large settlement ponds are present, as per current day. Further west of this and south of the STP more disturbed ground is apparent, known as waste areas. The Rifle Range in the south of the property has been expanded and a second range is now present adjacent to the original range. The range to the north east of the Rifle Range is also still present. The Grenade Range is now more defined in the south east corner of the property. AFFF related activities:



Year Observations The disturbed ground to the south west is more pronounced in the same location as the Former Fire Training Areas (near the STP). Possible evidence of a pit (historically used to demonstrate methods of fire extinguishment) is present at this area. Disturbed ground is also present to the west of the STP, an area now defined by Defence as a waste area. Surrounding area: Additional residential development had occurred in the areas to the north and east of the property. An area of land to the south of the property appears to have been excavated. It is unclear what the land use is.

2003 - 2005 Property: The 2003, 2004 and 2005 photographs shows the property as very similar to present day. The disturbed ground at waste areas are less well defined. The Rifle Range has been further extended to the west. AFFF related activities: The Fire Training Pad is observable in this photograph in its current location on property. The area is within a fenced compound and consists of a large concrete pad surrounded by grass, a shed and a burnt out car situated within the concreted area. There is little infrastructure in the general vicinity of the waste pit (South east of STP near the inactive Grenade Range). This waste pit is a cleared area immediately south-east of the inactive grenade range and is surrounded by natural bush. The training area to the south of the STP is overgrown with grass. The ground surface is highly disturbed across most of the area. Surrounding area: There is not considered to have been any substantial changes since the photograph taken in 1995.

2010 Property: The 2010 photographs shows the property as very similar to present day. The disturbed ground at waste areas are still present.

AFFF related activities: Photograph July 2010 shows stockpiling of soil in an area approximately 20 to 50 m south of the fire training pad. Defence (Simon Wyatt) during the interviews confirmed that it was for the Enhanced Land Force (ELF) Capital Works project. The soil was excavated from the building sites under the ELF project, stockpiled in the location south of the training pad before being redistributed to the other ELF buildings sites to support that particular construction. The project was completed towards the end of 2012.

Surrounding Area: There is not considered to have been any substantial changes since the photograph taken in 2005.

2016 Property: The 2016 photographs shows the property as very similar to present day. AFFF related activities: The 2016 photographs shows the AFFF related areas as very similar to present day. Surrounding Area: There is not considered to have been any substantial changes since the photograph taken in 2010.

There is no other evidence observable on the aerial photographs to indicate other potential areas of AFFF use or sources of PFAS contamination.

3.6 Site Inspection & Desktop Preparations A site inspection was conducted by Golder on 20 January 2017. During the site inspection and interviews were undertaken in a meeting with 5 base personnel with responsibilities on the property including, base



services, Defence EMOS Contractor (Spotless), fire services and military operations. Key personnel who provided information and were present during the site inspections were, Mr Simon Wyatt (base service manager), Mr Ross Waterhouse (base support officer), Mr Kevin Armour (base office manager), Mr Sam Dolan (Spotless contractor) and Mr Collin Cramp (former Army fire fighter at Blamey Barracks). Knowledge from the group extends back to the late 1990s. Additional information was supplied on 16 March 2017 during the field program by Jonathon Holder (Spotless contractor).

Fire-fighting Training Pad

Site personnel indicated that fire-fighting training is limited to the use of fire extinguishers on a few occasions per year. This training has predominantly been undertaken at the fire training pad. Fire training area comprises a concrete pad with a collection pit and sump. Training occurred typically twice a year over a period of approximately of a week during each event. The fire training pad was reported to be constructed in circa 1993 and used through to 2008/09. It was noted during the interviews that fire trucks may have also used the pad to test equipment generating foam in the vicinity of the pit and the grass around the pad. (See Photograph 4 to 6 in Appendix B).

Fire Station

Mr Collin Cramp indicated that testing of equipment predominantly occurred on the grassed areas either side of the driveway at the fire station. Although the specific frequency and volume of use is uncertain, testing was likely to be less frequently than monthly. Equipment was washed out on the driveway with water entering the stormwater system, AFFF was used occasionally as a detergent agent to wash the equipment.

Parade Ground

It was reported during the interview from site personnel that ad hoc spraying of water/AFFF occurred on grass areas surrounding the parade ground. (See Photograph 1 to 3 in Appendix B).

Former Fire-fighting Training Area #1 (near STP, CSR site RMV0050)

Mr Collin Cramp indicated that he had no information on AFFF being expended within the former fire-fighting area beside the Sewage Treatment Plant (area nominated in the CSR as being RMV0050) during his tenure (ceased his role at the Base approximately 10+ years ago, circa 2007). Defence utilised the Sewage Treatment Plant to conduct Gas Mask Testing. It could not be confirmed if AFFF was expended in this area prior to or after his tenure. Training was reported to have ceased in 2002 or 2003.

Former Fire-fighting Training Area #2 (approx. 300m SE from STP)

Mr Cramp identified an additional area (not identified by Defence during the Golder, 2016 assessment or in the CSR) the Old Grenade Range where AFFF was expended as part of the fire training. The area is about 300 metres south east of the Sewage Treatment Plant. Old Grenade Range is identified in the CSR by CSR numbers - RMV0054 and RMV0058 but there is no CSR information relating to AFFF use (see discussion below for these CSRs).

The type of fire-fighting activities in this area is not known but may have included either fire extinguishers and/or testing of fire equipment with fire trucks but it is understood from Defence that the quantities of AFFF used are not likely to have been large (See Photograph 7 to 8 in Appendix B).

Review of Defence Contaminated Sites Register (CSR) identified the following information:

RMV0054 Blamey Barracks Inactive Grenade Range - Buried Waste Area 3

There is little infrastructure in the general vicinity of the waste dump. This waste pit was a cleared area immediately south-east of the inactive grenade range. The pit is overgrown with grass and comprises an area of approximately 50 to 75 square metres. The ground surface at RMV0054 is highly disturbed and uneven across most of the area. Fill material was also evident across this area.

RMV0058 Weapons Range (North-East of Property - Inactive Grenade Range Ordnance)



The grenade range is currently inactive and appears to be used as a general waste tip. Domestic waste including abandoned white goods and wood waste have been dumped on the ground surface in this area. The area is grassed although areas of bare ground were present.

Former Fire-fighting Training Area #3 (Sport Oval)

Mr Cramp also identified another additional Former Fire Equipment Training Area located behind the Rugby Field (Sport Oval) where AFFF was expended on the grass (not identified by Defence during the Golder, 2016 assessment) (See Photograph 9 to 10 in Appendix B). Mr Cramp indicated fire equipment testing would involve connection of the fire truck to the fire hydrant beside the rugby change rooms and test fire equipment including expending AFFF in a 30 metre radius south east of the change rooms. This would involve the use of approximately one 20 L drum of concentrated AFFF and occurred approximately once per year.

Incidents and Miscellaneous

Site personnel indicated that one emergency incident occurred in 2006 at the Old Commandants House/Shed, where an excavator caught fire and approximately 20 L of AFFF concentrate was estimated to have been used. Foam was left on the unsealed ground and no remediation of the area has occurred.

Also Base personnel indicated that ad hoc application of AFFF during training using fire extinguishers at the former Quarry (unsealed areas) has occurred. It is noted that the quarry has been subsequently filled.

Waste Water at the Property

Information was gathered from other staff including Sam Donelan (Spotless EMOS Operations Manager) regarding the STP. He confirmed that the STP accepts sewage from the Kapooka Military Area sewer network and no process water enters the plant. Bio-solids are generated by the plant (belt press) and off-property disposal of biosolids is undertaken by the Defence Waste Contractor (Veolia). The treated water from the STP is used on the base for irrigation purposes. The main areas where irrigation occurs include the golf course fairways, sporting grounds and picnic area.

Water Use at the Property

The bore “MW007” is an active groundwater bore located on the western boundary of the property. During the site inspection with Mr Simon Wyatt, it was confirmed that the bore is used for supply of stock water for grazing animals. The bore is located on the western side of a topographical divide on the property from the known areas where AFFF has been used or stored. Monitoring of this well has been included in the groundwater monitoring program.

During the field program in March 2017, an additional two water supply bores (to those identified by Defence during the Golder, 2016 assessment) were identified by Jonathon Holder (Estate Upkeep Service Delivery Manager, Spotless). Golder have named the “MW008” and “MW009”, however, it should be noted that neither of these bores are monitoring wells, and these names are used to assist with identification. “MW008” well is referred to as the “Windmill Well” by site personnel (See Photograph 28 and 29 in Appendix B). During this interview, Jonathon mentioned that part of the property (near “MW008”) is leased to local farmers, who use groundwater from the borel for stock watering. MW008 is located approximately 500 m north-west from the Former Commandants House and Shed (where AFFF was used associated with a small fire of an excavator in 2006).

The second additional bore “MW009” is referred to as the “San Isidore Well” by site personnel. The well is understood to have been constructed during the World War 2 to supply the water to the town. The well is fenced, approximately 5-7 m diameter (appears to have a brick construction) and has not been used for many years (See Photograph 31 and 32 in Appendix B). There was a large amount of algal / weed growth on the water surface (water was present at the ground surface). Following discussion with Defence, it was confirmed that this bore would not be sampled since it is fenced to prevent access and was not in use.



Previous assessments at the property have not encountered standing groundwater to depths of approximately 20 m below ground level (m bgl) in the areas of interest for this investigation (with the exception of the areas down-gradient of the STP – see Section 4.5). Wells installed as part of the Stage 2 Investigation (Maunsell, 2006) at the former fire training area (Sport Oval) to 18 m bgl were dry.

3.7 Water Supply An understanding of onsite water use was developed based on discussions with Mr Simon Wyatt (Base Service Manager) and Mr Sam Dolan (Spotless contractor), and general observations made during the site inspection.

The site is serviced by potable mains water supplied by Riverina Water County Council.

There are no registered onsite users of groundwater or surface water for domestic water supply based on the Water NSW (http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/realtime-data/groundwater)

It was confirmed during the site inspection that the golf course and playing fields are irrigated with treated effluent from the STP.

Riverina Water County Council supplies water for domestic, commercial and industrial use to San Isidore (Ref: https://www.rwcc.nsw.gov.au/ and Dial Before You Dig Services (DBYD)). Riverina Water draws its supply from several sources (North Wagga (East Street) bores, West Wagga (McNickle Road to Moorong Street) bores, East Wagga (Kooringal Road) bores and Murrumbidgee River), then treats and pumps water to Wagga Wagga and other towns, villages and rural areas in the region. Although the exact location of each bore filed was not established, the closest bore field is understood to be the West Wagga bore field located approximately 3km north-east of the Base.

3.8 EPA Priority Sites Register Review A review of the NSW EPA Contaminated Land Register (CLR) (dated 7 April 2017) indicated that no records relating to land and/or groundwater contamination, had been issued in Kapooka (Appendix D). No information specific to PFAS sources was obtained from the CLR.

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

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

4.1 Climate The nearest Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) Weather Station is located at Wagga Wagga AMO (Station 072150). Based on information from the weather station it appears that the site experiences very warm summers, with mean daily temperatures in excess of 30°C during January and February. In contrast minimum temperatures during winter are low, with the mean daily minimum temperature ranging from 2.7°C to 3.7°C during June, July and August.

The Wagga Wagga area has an annual rainfall of 572.6 mm. Rain occurs on an average of 73 days of the year. Rainfall shows some seasonal variation throughout the year, with the highest mean monthly falls in June, July and August. The maximum number of rain days / month is 9.1, occurring in July. The lowest mean monthly rainfalls and rain days occur in January (3.9 days).The annual evaporation is far greater than the annual rainfall, indicating a water deficit in the area.


https://www.rwcc.nsw.gov.au/


Annual average wind directions are predominately easterly in the morning, and either westerly or south- westerly in the afternoon (BoM, 2017). Annual average wind roses for 9am and 3pm at Wagga Wagga are presented below.

Figure A: 9am and 3pm Annual Average Wind Roses for Wagga Wagga AMO (BoM, 2017)

4.2 Topography The property is characterised by a ridge which is oriented north-south immediately to the west of the main operational area of Blamey Barracks Kapooka (Maunsell, 2006). The ridge peaks at approximately 370 m Australian Height Datum (AHD). To the east of the ridge, the property slopes down to the east to an unnamed creek at approximately 230 m AHD. To the west of the ridge, the property slopes down towards Sandy Creek at approximately 200 m AHD approximately 1 km west.

4.3 Soil and Geology 4.3.1 Soil Reference to the Wagga Wagga 1:100,000 Soil Landscape Series Sheet (8327) indicates that the soil landscape group underlying the property is the erosional Lloyd Landscape Group to the west, the erosional Pulletop Landscape group in the centre and the transferral Becks Lane Landscape group to the east. The Landscape groups are summarised as follows:

The Lloyd Landscape Group comprises rolling low hills of Ordovician metasedimentary rock. The group comprises shallow Paralithic Leptic Rudosols on ridges and upper slopes, moderately deep Mesotropihic Red Chromosols on lower slopes and moderately deep Mesoonatric Brown Sodosols in drainage lines.

The Pulletop Landscape Group comprises rolling low hills of Ordovician metasedimentary rock. The group comprises shallow to moderately deep Mesotropihic Red Chromosols on ridges and upper slopes, moderately deep Haplic Red Chromosols on lower slopes and moderately deep Subnatric Brown Sodosols in drainage lines.

The Becks Lane Landscape Group comprises gently inclined foot-slopes adjacent to hills of Ordovician metasedimentary rock. The group comprises moderately deep Red and Brown Chromosols on slopes and moderately deep Brown Dermosols near drainage lines.

A review of the borelogs contained within the two main intrusive investigation completed at the property (HLA, 2003 and Maunsell, 2006), indicates that the depth of investigation was typical up to 6 m. Two deeper bores have been drilled to 42 and 50 mbgl. Based on the intrusive works completed, the property is



underlain by an extensive sequence of clay, with regional groundwater and bedrock located at significant depth.

4.3.2 Geology The 1:250,000 Wagga Wagga geological sheet (S1 55-15) shows that the property is situated on the Ordovician Kiandra Beds in the east and Palaeozoic granite, gneissic granite and gneiss to the west. The Kiandra Beds consist of quartzite, slate, phyllite, greywacke, hornfels and schist.

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

4.4 Hydrology There are several surface water features associated with the property area. The Murrumbidgee River is located approximately 2 km north. Sandy Creek is located adjacent of the western boundary.

A water course at the eastern boundary of the property runs to the north towards the Murrumbidgee River and is likely to drain the catchments to the east of the ridge line.

The water within the drainage lines on-site is not known to be collected or used on-property for any purposes such as irrigation or stock watering.

A number of dams/ponds are present on the base which may collect surface water after rain events. Ponds present on the property are likely to be in the order of 2 to 3 m deep and constructed of local compacted clay.

There are a number of ponds associated with the STP. The STP ponds are used for catchment of treated water. The ponds are used for storage of effluent prior to secondary treatment. The secondary treated water is pumped to the irrigation tanks prior to use for irrigation on the property (Section 4.4.1). It is understood that the STP ponds are clay lined and approximately 3 to 4 m deep.

4.4.1 Irrigation The treated water from the STP is used on base for irrigation purposes. The property contains a number of irrigated areas including the golf course and various sports fields in the southern half of the property.

4.4.2 On-site Surface Water Use There are two main surface water drainage lines/creeks on the eastern side of the property (as mapped in Figure 2). Stormwater from hard-stand areas (including in front of the Fire Station) drains to these surface water drainage lines. There is no use of water from these surface water drainage lines. Surface water drainage creeks are intermittent and generally only have water after significant rainfall events during times of wet weather.

4.4.3 Off-site Surface Water Use The surface water from the drainage lines leaving the property, joins a creek offsite which discharges to Murrumbidgee River. Site personnel indicated that the creek offsite flows through the Pomingalarna Reserve, prior to discharging to the Murrumbidgee River.

4.5 Hydrogeology The superficial aquifer for the property occurs within the Mid Murrumbidgee alluvial aquifer (Department of Primary Industries, Water NSW. Ref: http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/). Groundwater flow direction across the property interpolated from data available from the Department of Primary Industries Water is towards the north-west in the direction of the Murrumbidgee River. The Murrumbidgee alluvial aquifer ranges in width


http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/


from about 1 kilometre at Gundagai, to about 20 kilometres upstream of Narrandera (Office of Water, 2011). The Mid Murrumbidgee alluvial aquifer overlies Ordovician and Devonian metamorphosed sediments and granites. The depth of the unconsolidated sediments generally increases to the west. The Murrumbidgee River and the Cowra aquifers are in the vicinity of Wagga Wagga and are the source of the town water supply bore fields of Riverina Water County Council (Department of Water and Energy, 2007). The extraction of groundwater from these bore field strongly influence groundwater levels in the area. Annual usage from the aquifer for town water supply is approximately 15 gigalitres. Increased extraction from the aquifer system for town water supply has resulted in significant declines in groundwater levels in the aquifer. The location of the bore field is described in Section 3.7.

4.5.1 Local Hydrogeology Maunsell (2006) reported that the inferred groundwater flow is towards the north to north-west in the direction of the Murrumbidgee River. However, it is noted that shallow groundwater may be influenced by local topographic features.

Within the property, the main groundwater reserves are likely to be restricted to fractures within the metasediments and granite. Some groundwater is also likely to occur in the weathered material and colluvium in the lower slope areas, above the fractured rock (Maunsell, 2006).

According to Maunsell (2006), three bores were established in 1967 within the property boundary and water was only encountered at one location at 37.4 m bgl. Groundwater was not intersected during the 2006 investigations, the bore was drilled up to 18 mbgs and no groundwater was identified. During the investigation by HLA (2003), two soil bores were drilled (42 mbgl and 50 mbgl) and groundwater was not encountered.

A search of the NSW Natural Resource Atlas records in May 2017 identified registered groundwater bores within 500 m of the property boundary and some 4 km in the inferred downgradient direction to the Murrumbidgee River to ensure coverage of San Isidore township and agricultural areas. A summary of thirty three bores is provided in Table 3, sixteen bores are used for monitoring purpose or “army training in boring”.

Table 3: Registered Groundwater Bores within 500 m of the Property and downgradient areas

Bore ID Authorised Purpose

Date Constructed

Total Depth (m bgl)

Standing Water Level (m btoc)

Salinity (µS/cm)¹

Direction of bore from Site

Gradient

GW018066 Stock 01/01/1960 19.80 14.60 - On site -

GW018067 Domestic Stock 01/01/1906 16.50 6.10 - On site -

GW019674 Stock 01/01/1946 29.90 - - 400 m west Cross gradient

GW029568 Recreation / Army training in boring

01/12/1967 86.60 67.10 - On site -

GW029569 Army training in boring 01/11/1967 91.40 - - On site -

GW029570 Domestic Stock 01/11/1967 76.20 - - On site -

GW030055 Monitoring Bore 01/05/1970 80.10 7.10 - 400 m

north Down gradient

GW030065 Monitoring Bore 01/05/1970 75.50 6.40 - 500 m

north Down gradient

GW044828 Domestic Stock 01/05/1974 36.90 19.50 - 500 m

north east Down gradient




Date Constructed

Total Depth (m bgl)


Salinity (µS/cm)¹


Gradient

GW401710 Irrigation 31/03/1997 14.00 5.00 1,500 500 m west Cross gradient

GW403324 Domestic Stock 27/04/2005 39.00 6.30 - 500 m west Cross

gradient

GW403437 Domestic Stock 07/03/2006 58.0 29.0 - 1.0 km

west Cross gradient

GW403648 Stock 19/01/2007 13.30 6.00 - 100 m north west

Down gradient

GW405097 Domestic Stock 24/04/2008 115.00 15.00 - 100 m east Cross

gradient

GW030268 Monitoring Bore 01/03/1972 96.90 7.70 0-500

ppm 1.20 km north west

Down gradient

GW030269 Monitoring Bore 01/05/1972 24.30 7.60 0-500

ppm 1.20 km north west

Down gradient

GW402132 Irrigation, Farming 15/08/2001 63.50 9.0 - 1.20 km

north west Down gradient

GW400462 Monitoring Bore 23/02/1995 17.00 - - 1.50 km

east Down gradient

GW414471 Monitoring Bore 25/06/2010 9.0 8.0 - 2.5 km






GW020231 Domestic 01/11/1961 7.30 - - 2.4 km north east

Down gradient








east Down gradient



GW020218 Domestic Stock 01/05/1963 12.80 - - 3.86 km



north Down gradient








Date Constructed

Total Depth (m bgl)


Salinity (µS/cm)¹


Gradient


north Down gradient



Notes: ¹Units are assumed as they not provided in NSW Natural Resource Atlas.

Review of the groundwater database information indicates that bores have been registered for uses including stock, domestic stock and irrigation. Whilst the depth of the wells registered for extraction (excluding monitoring bores) ranged from 7 to 115 m bgl, the majority of the wells were deep (greater than 20 m). Based on the information available on the bore registrations, the wells appear to target the Quaternary aged alluvial clay and gravel (11 to 37 mbgl) and the Ordovician aged metasediments (56 to 87 mbgl). However, the depth to the groundwater will be dependent on the topography in the specific area, such as elevation and proximity to surface water such as the Murrumbidgee River.

4.5.1.1 On-site Groundwater Use A number of onsite bores were identified during the bore search. Licencing of these 1960s era on-property bores was listed as cancelled or abandoned, with intended bore use variable between unknown, recreation, stock, domestic and irrigation. Two bores (GW029569 and GW029568) are noted to have been installed as “army training in boring” located near Kapooka Road (Appendix E).

Site personnel indicated that groundwater is extracted from two bores for stock water “MW007” and “MW008”. “MW007” is located on the western boundary of the property, which is separated by a topographical divide from the known areas where AFFF has been used or stored. “MW008” (Windmill Well) is located on the northern boundary of the property, near the Old Commandants House/Shed. Refer to Figure 2 for the locations of these wells. “MW007” is registered bore GW018066, bore licence is provided in Appendix E. No recent use of the water from the on-property well “MW009” was established during the PSI.

“MW008” and “MW009” wells do not correlate with any registered bores.

4.5.1.2 Off-site Groundwater Use Groundwater extraction is undertaken to the north of the property in the township of San Isidore. Based on the site interviews with Defence personnel and the review of registered bore details, off-property bores are likely used for stock watering and irrigation purposes, although some bores are registered as domestic. Of the 14 off-property registered bores for extractive uses (stock, domestic stock and irrigation), six are located within 500 m of the property boundary and 8 in areas further down-gradient of the property towards the Murrumbidgee River. Bore (GW405097) is the closest bore and is located within the township of San Isidore to the north and east of the property is also registered for domestic and stock use. On property interviews with Defence personnel indicated that the likely use of bores down-gradient of the property were expected to be stock watering and irrigation. This was based on their knowledge that potable water supply in this area was supplied by the Riverina Water County Council. Golder completed a curb-side inspection for groundwater bores that were registered for an extractive or unknown use, and were still registered as “active” use in the San Isidore area. The presence of the bores could not be established from the inspection because of the size of the properties. The area appears to be used for small rural allotments, with residential house and limited agistment of horses. Livestock



(cattle/sheep) or production of crops were not observed. External stakeholder communications were not included in this phase of assessment. An overview map of the completed bore search and a selection of representative bore reports is included in Appendix E. 4.6 Ecology A search of the Protected Matters Search Tool completed in 2017 by Golder did not identified any matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) which may occur at, or relate to, Blamey Barracks Kapooka.

The Marrambidya Wetland is approximately 6 km north-east of the property at its closest point. Conservation category wetlands are considered to play important roles in their urban and/or rural setting with a high degree of human interest. Surface water draining from the property may be connected to the Wetland.

Lake Albert is located 6 km east of the property, and is considered unlikely to receive discharge from surface water leaving the property.

Sensitive environmental receptors near the property include Sandy Creek to the west and an unnamed creek to the east which drain to the Murrumbidgee River approximately 1.5 km from the northern boundary of the property.

5.0 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 5.1 Previous Investigations In addition to the data gap assessment completed by Golder (2016), the following summary of previous investigations focuses on existing reports relating to use, storage and waste disposal of AFFF and environmental conditions (geology/hydrogeology etc) at the property.

Reports were sourced from the references in the Data Gap Assessment (Golder, 2016), Defence CSR or follow up interviews with Defence personnel.

2005 – Stage 1 Contamination Investigation of Kapooka Military Area (KMA) (May 2005, EarthTech)

EarthTech (2005) completed a Stage 1 Contamination Investigation which included a desktop review, CSM and risk assessment. No intrusive investigation was undertaken.

The report identified two areas of environmental concern related to use of AFFF. These were the fire training area (RMV0049) and former fire training area (RMV0050). Fire training area (RMV0049) was described as a large concrete pad within a fenced facility where fire extinguishers are used in fire training exercises. The facility was reportedly upgraded in 2002 and was used approximately every 6 months. Runoff from the pad flows into an oil water separator that drains into an underground sump. The sump is pumped out by a domestic waste contractor once full.

Former fire training area (RMV0050) (identified in this report as Training Area #1) was described as being located south west of the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and Hyder (1998) described a pit had been used to burn oil, tyres and car bodies in training exercises. EarthTech reported in 2005 that the area was tidied up and all burnt material scraped up and disposed offsite.

The report concluded that the two areas of environmental concern related to use of AFFF present a high risk of soil contamination and medium risk to groundwater and surface water contamination.

2006 – Stage 2 Environmental Investigation (July 2006, Maunsell)

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd / CH2M HILL undertook Stage 2 Environmental Investigation at KMA. This report provided assessment of risks and management strategies for the specific nominated areas of environmental interest. The Stage 2 investigation scope included geophysical surveying (of potential waste burial sites), test pitting, visual identification of contamination and the collection and analysis of shallow soil as well as sediment samples from drains down-gradient for each area.



The report identified the potential land contamination associated with activities with contaminants including metals, hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), asbestos, pesticides and AFFF (analysed as anionic surfactants).

Soil, sediment samples and surface water samples were collected at investigated areas (RMV0049, RMV0050 and RMV0054) and the results were less than the investigation level criteria adopted from the NEPM (1999). No groundwater samples were collected at Fire Training Area (RMV0049) and Former Fire Training Area (RMV0050). Groundwater was not intersected at the property in any of the deeper bores installed to the depth of 18 m bgs, as part of the Maunsell (2006) Investigation. Drilling was not continued to the regional groundwater (aquifer), which based on available data was is expected to be at greater than 40 m depth.

At one sample location, black discoloured soil was observed and it was reported that the significant Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) impacts were associated with historic fire training activities in this area. Concentrations of organic compounds in other samples in soil samples at Fire Training Area (RMV0049) and Former Fire Training Area (RMV0050) were reported below the laboratory quantitative limits. At the time of the investigation, PFAS were assessed by analysis for anionic surfactants as methyl blue activated substances (MBAS). MBAS were detected at three locations in soil samples marginally above the laboratory quantitative limits (LOR). Other locations results were less than LOR. AFFF/PFAS was not included in risk assessment as there were no appropriate guidelines at that time. However, detection of MBAS could potentially indicate the presence of PFAS contamination in the soils.

2010 – Environmental Review of Fire Fighting Training and Facilities, Kapooka Military Area (February 2010, Aurecon)

A review of firefighting facilities at the site was undertaken by Aurecon (2010). The project focused on the management of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) compounds, as well as hydrocarbons used as accelerants during testing on the following areas: Fire Vehicles; and Training and Testing Areas. It is noted that the Aurecon report lists Automated Hangar Systems at airfields and Hangar Fire Points, in the introduction, however, these activities are not discussed further within the report for Kapooka.

The issues identified at Kapooka were mainly a result of training requirements to be able to effectively deal with domestic fires such as buildings fires, car fires, rubbish fires and occasional bush fires.

The storage of AFFF in the Base was reported to have sufficient bunding and spill capture for the quantities being handled. AFFF storage was reported to include 20 L containers of 6% Fuel Master AFFF and 1% Bush Master BFFF. The report noted that no 3M Lightwater was stored on Base.

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

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

6.1 AFFF Storage The main AFFF product used at the property historically was 3M Lightwater which contained PFOS, PFOA and 6:2 FTS, however, this has been replaced by Ansulite. The product was stored in small (20-40L) drums provided in bulk on wooden pallets, predominantly in storage areas in the vicinity of the fire station. AFFF is also present in fire extinguishers at locations as required around the property and historically at the fire training pad.

Once the chemicals have been delivered to the Base they are stored in a small purpose built store room behind the fire station (Aurecon, 2010). It is noted that this has been in a few locations throughout the history



of the fire station. The store shed is shared between ground maintenance staff and fire personnel and has a bunding capacity of approximately 22,000L. Within the storage shed are 20L containers of 6% Fuel Master AFFF and 1% Bush Master BFFF (Aurecon, 2010). Due to the environmental risks of 3M Lightwater and in line with Defence’s policy the management of AFFF products, 3M Lightwater was progressively replaced with Ansulite. Base personnel indicated that there is no 3M Lightwater stored on Base. Personnel also indicated that records are kept of chemicals entering and exiting the storage area.

Currently, storage limited to 60 L within a dedicated tank on the fire truck. It is noted that bulk fuel storage at the property is in the order of 30,000 L in an underground storage tank, and is located adjacent the fire station.

6.2 AFFF Use A number of training activities are conducted at the Base. In general the training only occurs when there is a lower risk of bushfires (approximately only 6 months in the year) (Aurecon, 2010).

Fire-fighting training is undertaken at the fire training pad. The concrete training pit is approximately 10 m x 10 m. The whole fire training area is fenced in (approximately 1 m high fence). Fire is set in the metal containers with personnel using either hand held extinguishers to put out the fires. Typically, 2x 9 kg foam extinguishers, 2 x 2.5 kg DCP extinguishers and 3 to 4 water extinguishers are used. At completion of any activities, the area is hosed off and the waste water directed through a drain in the middle of the concrete pad into an underground storage tank. According to personnel very little splash occurs off the pad and during time of high winds training is halted.

At the fire station, training with use of the fire equipment is conducted out the front of the building with the water spray directed at the grassed area (current practice is that no foam is used during this training). It was reported during the interview from site personnel that spraying of water/AFFF previously occurred on grass areas surrounding the parade ground in the past. The fire trucks hold two additional 20L drums of 6% Fuel Master AFFF. A hazmat trailer parked in the car park at the rear of the fire station contains 6% Ansulite. The trailer is parked on a hardstand area and is stored with spill kits to enable rapid response to any spills on base.

There are three areas identified as informal former fire-fighting training areas, two located near the STP (west and south) and one area near Sport Oval, where AFFF was expended.

6.3 AFFF Disposal At the fire training pad, site personnel indicated that waste water, including foam from the training extinguishers, is collected within the associated storage tank which was regularly pumped out and disposed off-site by a waste contractor (as required). To date there have been no reported system failures. A visual inspection of the tank is undertaken to confirm when the storage tank needs to be emptied. Currently any rain water and stormwater runoff drains into the system and enters the underground storage tank.

Defence indicated that Spotless (Contractor) disposed of some bulk stocks of the 3M Lightwater that they had through waste contractor SITA in 2008.

It is understood that foam historically generated at former training areas at the STP (west and south areas) and the Sporting Field, were in unsealed areas and soak to ground.

In addition, foam generated at the fire station associated with the fire equipment training and associated cleaning of equipment, either soaked to ground or was drained to the stormwater system at the end of the driveway.

6.4 Offsite Sources There is no information to indicate potential primary off-site sources of PFAS contamination. There is a possibility that PFAS contamination may arise as a consequence of the application of AFFF by firefighters attending vehicle accidents along the Olympic Highway or Stuart Highway.



6.5 Incidents Site personnel indicated that one emergency incident occurred in 2006 at the Old Commandants House/Shed, where an excavator caught fire and approximately 20 L of AFFF Concentrate was estimated to have been used. Foam was left on the unsealed ground and no remediation of the area has occurred since that time.

Site personnel indicated that ad hoc application of AFFF during training using fire extinguishers at the former Quarry (unsealed areas) occurred historically. It is noted that Quarry has been filed with imported fill material to some 30 m.

6.6 Summary of PFAS Sources Based on the information reviewed, the most likely sources of the PFAS are related to site activities. The identified AFFF contamination is inferred to be associated with several primary and secondary source areas within the large (2000 ha) property. The timing, exact location and, mass of AFFF that historically discharged at source areas were not recorded and therefore are not well known, however, to the extent known by current personnel were documented in Appendix A. The main source areas were associated with fire-fighting or fire equipment training activities using AFFF. The potential source areas are:

Fire Training Pad;

Fire Station;

Former Fire Training Area #1 (West of STP);

Former Fire Training Area #2 (South of STP);

Former Fire Training Area #3 (Sport Oval);

Ad hoc use around parade ground;

Ad hoc use around Former Quarry; and

Incident occurred at Old Commandants House / Shed.

Identified sources are summarised in the table presented in Appendix A.

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

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

the overall objective of the site assessment

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

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

the degree of flexibility to conduct follow-up investigations.

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

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



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

The DQO process involves the seven steps as follows:

Step 1: State the problem

Step 2: Identify the decision or goal of the investigation

Step 3: Identify the information inputs

Step 4: Define the site boundaries

Step 5: Develop the analytical approach

Step 6: Specify performance or acceptance limits

Step 7: Develop the plan for obtaining data.

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

7.1 Step 1: State the problem The original driver for the PSI was to address the identified data gaps associated with uncertainty on the categorisation of the Blamey Barracks Kapooka property.

Identified data gaps during project scoping at Blamey Barracks Kapooka included:

Existence and use of bores in the vicinity of the property.

Confirmation of use of the former fire training area (west of the STP) with historical AFFF products and the activities undertaken in this area.

Presence of PFAS in soil, groundwater, sediment and surface water on the site, at nominated potential source areas and possible migration pathways.

Current and historical use and disposal of AFFF containing PFAS on and off-site is not adequately understood.

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

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

7.3 Step 3: Identify the Information Inputs For the PSI the major inputs were:

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

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

Publically available historical information for the Property including:

Historic Aerial Photographs.



Topographical, soil and geological maps.

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

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

7.4 Step 4: Define the investigation boundaries The lateral boundaries of the investigation area are shown in Figure 1. The property has an area of approximately 2000 hectares.

The vertical boundaries of the investigation area are:

Soil - generally to a depth of 4 m;

Groundwater - the groundwater aquifer underlying the property at depths greater than 18 m;

Surface water – if present during the field investigation; and

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

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

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

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

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

7.6 Step 6: Specify performance or acceptance limits Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) are developed based on the following PARCC parameters including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

No TyvekTM clothing was worn;

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

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

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

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

Chemical (blue) ice packs were not used;

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

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

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

Matrix spike sample sets;

Surrogate spikes; and

Laboratory control samples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All critical locations and depths sampled;

Representative samples collected; and

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



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

Whether SOPs for sampling protocols have been adhered to; and

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

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

Comparability Issues of comparability between data sets were reduced through adherence to the same SOPs on each data gathering activity.

In addition the data was collected by experienced samplers and NATA accredited laboratory methodologies were employed in all laboratories.

7.7 Step 7: Develop the plan for obtaining data Sample locations have been selected based on the observed site conditions and on the site history and interview information. The broader sampling strategy are presented in Table 4 and proposed locations are shown in Figure 3.

Table 4: Sampling Strategy Source Media Sampling Strategy

Fire Station (Figure 3B and Figure 3C)

Soil BH001, BH002, BH003 and BH004

2 boreholes in grass either site of driveway (4 locations -20 samples in total)

Groundwater Not encountered and therefore no well installed. Surface water/sediment (SD001 to SD004)

4 location along drain that flows between fire station and fire training pad (4 samples)

Parade Ground (Figure 3B and Figure 3C)

Soil (BH005 and BH006)

2 boreholes in grass between parade ground and fire station (10 samples)

Groundwater Unlikely to be encountered and therefore no monitoring well installed.

Surface water/sediment (SD001 to SD004)

Same drain as fire station

Fire Training Pad (Figure 3C and Figure 3E)

Soil BH011, BH012 and BH013

2 boreholes on the down gradient sides of the fire training pad, plus one borehole at drain down gradient (3 location - 15 samples in total)

Groundwater Not encountered and therefore no monitoring well installed. Surface water/sediment (SD001 to SD004)

Same drain as fire station

Former Fire Training Area # 1 and # 2 (STP) (Figure 3D)

Soil BH007, BH008 BH009 and BH010

4 boreholes in the former fire training area (20 samples)

Groundwater MW004, MW005, MW006

Three (3) existing wells are located down-gradient of the former fire training area (3 samples). Note these wells are also down-gradient of the STP and differentiation between contributions from the STP or the



Source Media Sampling Strategy former fire training areas located near the STP has not been possible.

Surface water/sediment (SW007/SD007)

Collect sample from STP effluent pond (1 sample)

Former Fire Training Area #3 (Sport Oval) (Figure 3A)

Soil (BH014 and BH015)

2 boreholes in former fire training area (10 samples)

Groundwater Not encountered and therefore no monitoring well installed. Surface water/sediment (SW005/SD005 and SD006)

2 locations along drain that flows between ovals (2 samples)

Range Training Area (Figure 2)

Groundwater MW007

1 existing well onsite in the western boundary of the property that is utilised for stock water purposes (1 sample)

Windmill Well (Figure 2)

Groundwater MW008

1 existing well onsite in the north – eastern boundary of the property that is utilised for stock water purposes (1 sample)

Other (Figure 2)

Groundwater (MW001, MW002 and MW003)

3 existing wells onsite, however they were dry during site inspection on 20 January 2017 and during field program in March 2017)

Note: *Windmill Well (MW008) identified and added during the field program.

Previous assessments at the property have not encountered standing groundwater to depths of approximately 20 m below ground level (bgl) in the areas of interest for this investigation. Wells installed as part of the Stage 2 Investigation (Maunsell, 2006) at the former fire training area (Sport Oval) to 18 m bgl were dry.

8.0 SAMPLING, ANALYTICAL AND QUALITY PLAN A Sampling, Analytical and Quality Plan (SAQP) was prepared for this investigation as documented in the report titled Blamey Barracks Kapooka (0315) Sampling, Analysis and Quality Plan, dated 10 March 2017.

The SAQP included full discussion of the sampling methods and field procedures adopted for the site investigation and should be read in conjunction with this report.

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

Existing groundwater well “MW008” (Windmill Well) was identified during the field program, sampled and analysed. This well was sampled using a PFAS free bailer. A grab groundwater sample was collected.

Surface water and sediment samples (co-located) were proposed to be collected from seven locations. However, only two surface water samples were able to be collected, as surface water was not present within the drainage lines on the property due to the dry conditions during the sampling program in March 2017.

MW001, MW002 and MW003 were dry during site inspection on 20 January 2017 and during field program in March 2017.

This deviation from the SAQP enabled additional information to be collected to further advance the objective of the PSI.



9.0 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The analytical results are screened against an adopted set of guideline values as part of a Tier 1 screening level assessment (Table 5).

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

Draft Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) PFAS Screening Criteria (May 2017) for human health and ecological screen criteria for soils. Although there are some residential areas on the property, they were remote for the areas of investigation. As such, the commercial/industrial land use was considered appropriate for the PSI screening of soils.

Draft Commonwealth Environmental Management Guidelines (Department of the Environment and Energy, 2016) for the protection of ecological values. Given the receiving environment is freshwater, the Freshwater investigation levels have been adopted. The 95 % protection of species is considered appropriate as the receiving water bodies are considered to be slightly to moderately disturbed based on the long history of agriculture in the region.

Table 5: Adopted Soil, Sediment Groundwater and Surface Water Screening Values Exposure Scenario PFOS/PFHxS PFOA 6:2FTS

Soil and Sediment Health-based screening criteria (direct contact only) – Commercial/Industrial 20 mg/kg*** 100 mg/kg*** -

Ecological screening criteria (indirect- to account for bioaccumulation and/or off-site transport) – Commercial/Industrial

0.14 mg/kg**/*** - -

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

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

Protection of Environmental Values – Freshwater 95 % species protection 0.13 µg/L** 220 µg/L -

Notes: * DCD8 – Amendment 1

** - PFOS only

*** - OEH, May 2017

µg/L – microgram per litre

mg/kg- milligram per kilogram

PFHxS - Perflurohexane sulfonic acid

6:2 FTS – 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid

Although it is noted in the OEH draft guidelines that the soil guideline values are not to be used for sediment, given the lack of standing water and there are no published sediment guideline values, they have been used as a guide only for the PSI.



10.0 RESULTS FIELD PROGRAM The field investigation program was conducted between 13 March 2017 and 16 March 2017. The findings of the PSI field program are presented in the following sections. The investigation locations are presented in Figures 3a to 3e, details of the drilling methods, soil stratigraphy and soil sampling intervals are included in soil bore logs in Appendix F, data validation summary sheet is presented in Appendix G and the laboratory certificates, chain of custody sheets and sample receipts are presented in Appendix H. Calibration certificates for the field equipment and ground penetrating radar field record are shown in APPENDIX I.

10.1 Description of Site Conditions 10.1.1 Soils In general, the subsurface soil condition encountered throughout the investigation area encountered:

Table 6: Generalised soil profile Approximate depth, m bgl Description

0.0 to 0.2 Silty CLAY, brown, medium grained with some gravel. 0.2 to 4.0 (end of investigation) CLAY, grey, medium plasticity.

These conditions are consistent with the anticipated geology based on the previous investigations and geological maps. Boreholes were drilled using a combination of push tubing and solid stem auger to a total depth of up to 4 m bgl. Geological logs are provided in APPENDIX F.

10.1.2 Groundwater Given the limited amount of groundwater levels data available, this preliminary investigation has not sought to independently assess groundwater flow direction.

Groundwater was assessed at various areas across the property including the STP area (in vicinity of the former fire training area, including MW004, MW005 and MW006) and two existing wells (bores) on the property (“MW007” and “MW008”) located in the western and northern portions of the property respectively. Field water quality results and gauging data is provided in Table A.

Based on the relatively shallow groundwater in the area of the STP compared to the absence of groundwater across the majority of the property, it is considered likely that the STP is influencing groundwater occurrence in the vicinity of the STP and has created a perched groundwater unit which is unlikely to be connected to the regional groundwater system.

Groundwater in the vicinity of the STP The STP and the three groundwater monitoring wells are located down-gradient of the potential fire-fighting training areas in the vicinity of the STP. As indicated above, groundwater in these wells is considered likely to be perched and significantly influenced by the operation of the STP.

Groundwater was typically measured 3.5 to 7.5 m below ground. There were no noticeable odours or sheens, and non-aqueous phase liquid were not encountered in the locations sampled.

Groundwater in the STP area (MW004 to MW006) was typically fresh (TDS less than 1,000 mg/L) with field calculated TDS (calculations based on field Electrical Conductivity (EC)) concentrations ranging from 600 mg/L to 840 mg/L. Groundwater pH values in the area ranged from 6.9 (MW004) to 7.1 (MW005).

Groundwater at other areas of the Property Groundwater levels at MW007 could not be measured due to the well head construction. Water levels at MW008 were 6.9 m below ground. Groundwater in the bores MW007 and MW008 was typically slightly brackish (TDS <2,000 mg/L) with field calculated TDS concentrations were 1,115 mg/L and 1,775 mg/L. Groundwater pH values were 6.6 (MW007) to 7.9 (MW008).



10.1.3 Surface water and Sediment Surface water samples were only collected from two locations (see Section 8.0), as the drainage lines / creek along the property were dry during the field program in March 2017 due to dry summer conditions and no recent significant rainfall events (See APPENDIX B, Photographs 15 to 25). The samples were taken from the permanent features at the property including the dam near the Sport Oval (SW005) and the STP settling pond (SW007) (See APPENDIX B, Photographs 23 to 24 and 26). Source of water in these two locations are rainwater runoff (SW005) and treated effluent from the pond in the STP (SW007).

Surface water samples had field calculated TDS concentrations indicate that the water is fresh ranging from 395 mg/L to 730 mg/L. pH was also reported at near neutral conditions with an average of pH 7.9.

Sediment samples were collected from five locations along the drainage lines / creek (See APPENDIX B, Photographs 16, 18, 22 and 25).

Sediments from the dam and STP effluent pond consisted predominantly of silty clay and high plasticity brown clay with some organic matter at surface. Creek and drainage channels through the area are highly vegetated by reeds and grasses. The sediments in creek and drainage channels were predominantly a combination of decaying organic matter and clay (grey to brown in colour).

Field results and sediment description is provided in Table A and Table B.

10.2 Chemical Analysis Soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment samples were submitted to the nominated laboratories for analysis. Laboratory results are summarised and presented against adopted screening criteria in Table C, D and E, and full laboratory reports (ALS batch number ES1706394 and Eurofins batch number 538644) and chain of custody documentation is provided in APPENDIX H.

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

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

The Laboratory Quantitation Limits (LQL) were below the adopted criteria where technically possible;

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

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

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

Results < 10 times LOR: any RPD acceptable;

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

Results ≥ 20 times LOR: RPD < 30%.



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

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

10.3 Laboratory Analysis In accordance with the sampling and analytical schedule presented in SAQP (Golder, 2017), samples were collected for PFAS analysis. Copies of the certificates of analysis are presented in APPENDIX H.

A summary of the soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater sample numbers (including QC sampling) submitted for laboratory analysis is presented in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Number of Environmental Samples Analysed Parameter Soil Sediments Surface Water Groundwater

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

PFAS 75 11 7 1 2 2 5 2 Note: QA/QC samples comprise duplicate and triplicate samples. In addition rinsate samples were analysed. 10.3.1 Laboratory Quality Control Laboratory analysis was conducted in accordance with the standard test methods outlined in Schedule B(3) of the NEPM (NEPC, 2013), US EPA, American Public Health Association (APHA) or equivalent modified methods supported by adequate quality control.

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

ALS Laboratory Group, located in Smithfield, NSW, for primary soil and water samples and intra laboratory duplicate samples; and

Eurofins, located in Lane Cove, NSW, for inter-laboratory duplicate samples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Representativeness The data produced by the laboratories was representative:

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

Samples - were handled, stored and transported in accordance with the requirements NEPC (2013). Samples were transported under full chain of custody documentation. The laboratory returned a copy of the signed COC acknowledging the receipt data and time and identity of samples included in the shipment (APPENDIX H). PFAS sample bottles were double-bag in polyethylene zip-lock bags, and ice were placed inside two plastic bags to eliminate cross-contamination.

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

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

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

Completeness and Comparability Representative samples were collected including soil, groundwater, and sediment samples. Surface water samples were not able to be collected at all the nominated locations as the drainage lines / creek along the property were dry during the field program in March 2017. In addition, some monitoring wells were also dry (MW001, MW002 and MW003).

This was envisaged at the time of preparation of the SAQP.

Although the collection of the surface water data would be useful in understanding the potential migration pathways, the sediment data will be used in this assessment.

There is no existing data available for PFAS analyses at Blamey Barracks to compare the current results.

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

10.3.3 Soil Results Soil samples were collected from fifteen locations at the surface and at 1 m intervals throughout the soil profile to the depth of 4 m below ground level on 15 March 2017 and 16 March 2017. The soil samples were analysed for a suite of PFAS in accordance with the SAQP.

The soil sample analysis results are presented in Table E and summarised in Table 8 below for specific PFAS where assessment criteria are available. The complete suite of PFAS are presented in Table E, however, the discussion presented below is limited to the key PFAS chemicals (PFOS, PFOA and 6:2 FtS) where adopted guidelines are available.

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



Table 8: Summary of laboratory soil results – PFAS

No of Samples Analysed (primary samples)

Analyte Concentration Range (mg/kg)*

No. of Samples with Detections above Laboratory LOR

Exceeded Human Health Commercial and Industrial Soil Quality Guideline (direct contact only)

Exceeded Ecological screening criteria (Commercial and industrial, indirect)

75 Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)

<0.0002 to 0.056

34 Nil -

75 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) <0.0002 to 3.7

42 - 1.15 mg/kg (BH001 at 0m); 2.6 mg/kg (BH001 at 1m); 0.174 mg/kg (BH002 at 0m); 0.22 mg/kg (BH002 at 1m); 0.462 mg/kg (BH003 at 0m); 3.7 mg/kg (BH003 at 1m); 0.404 mg/kg (BH003 at 2m); 0.394 mg/kg (BH004 at 1m); 0.789 mg/kg (BH004 at 2m); 0.782 mg/kg (BH008 at 1m); 1.33 mg/kg (BH008 at 2m); 0.5 mg/kg^ (BH009 at 0m); and 0.556 mg/kg (BH009 at 1m).

75 Perfluorohexane

sulfonic acid (PFHxS)

<0.0002 to 0.74 49 -

-

75 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) <0.0002 to 3.7 51 Nil -

75 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2

FtS) <0.0002 to 0.04

11 - *

Note: * - the concentration ranges include duplicates and triplicates results (conservative);

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



Fire Station (grass areas beside driveway) Maximum contaminant concentrations were as follows:

PFOS was detected above the laboratory LOR at a maximum concentration was 3.7 mg/kg in BH003 at depth of 1.0 m.

PFOA concentrations were detected above the laboratory LOR to a maximum concentration of 0.055 mg/kg in BH001 at depth of 1.0 m.

6:2 FtS concentrations were above the laboratory LOR in three locations (BH001, BH003 and BH004). The maximum concentration was 0.0399 mg/kg in BH004 at depth of 2.0 m.

Concentrations of PFAS were generally higher in the upper 2 m of the soil profile. Also the higher concentrations where detected in the two bores closest to the Fire Station. This distribution of PFAS contamination in the soil is consistent with the understanding of the use of AFFF in this area.

Parade ground near the Fire Station (BH005 and BH006) PFOS concentrations were detected above the laboratory LOR at 0.0 m to 1.0 m samples in both locations. The maximum concentration was 0.0155 mg/kg in surface sample at BH006.

PFOA was less than the laboratory LOR at two locations, with exception of surface sample at BH006 (0.002 mg/kg).

6:2 FtS concentrations were less than the laboratory LOR.

These detections of PFAS are consistent with the reported historical spraying of AFFF around the Parade ground.

Two Former Fire Training Area (near the STP) (BH007 to BH010) Maximum contaminant concentrations were as follows:

PFOS was detected above the laboratory LOR in the majority of samples, with the maximum concentration was 1.33 mg/kg in BH008 at depth of 2.0 m.

PFOA concentrations were detected above the laboratory LOR at three locations (BH007, BH008 and BH009) at the depths from 0.0 m to 2.0 m. The maximum concentration was 0.0038 mg/kg in BH008 at depth of 1.0 m.


The presence of PFAS in the soil at these location supports the reported use of AFFF in these areas.

Fire Training Pad (BH011 to BH013) Maximum contaminant concentrations were as follows:

PFOS concentrations were detected above the laboratory LOR at all locations in the surface sample. The maximum concentration was 0.0064 mg/kg in BH013.

PFOA was detected above the laboratory LOR on the surface at two locations (BH011 and BH013). The maximum concentration was 0.0014 mg/kg in BH013 at depth of 0.0 m.

6:2 FtS concentrations were less than the laboratory LOR with the exception of BH013 at 0.0 m depth (0.0098 mg/kg).

The generally low concentrations of PFAS chemical, and the reduced suite of PFAS detected down-gradient of the training pad indicates that the operation and construction of the training pad and associated practices has limited the presence of PFAS in the surrounding soil (albeit still present at low concentrations).



Former Fire Training Area (Sport Oval) (BH014 and BH015) Maximum contaminant concentrations were as follows:

PFOS was detected above the laboratory LOR. The maximum concentration was 0.116 mg/kg in BH014 at surface.

PFOA concentrations were less than the laboratory LOR, except the surface sample at BH014 (0.0048 mg/kg).


The presence of PFAS in the soil at this location supports the reported use of AFFF in this area.

10.3.4 Groundwater Groundwater samples were collected from five locations, including 3 monitoring wells located down-gradient of the STP and two bores used for supply of stock water on the property.

The groundwater sample analysis results are presented in Table C and summarised in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Summary of laboratory groundwater results – PFAS

No of Samples Analysed

Analyte Concentration Range (µg/L)*

No. of Primary Samples

with Detections

above Laboratory

LOR

Exceeded Human Health - Drinking

Water Quality

Exceeded Ecological Values –

Freshwater (95 %

Species Protection)

5 Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) <0.0005 to 0.05 3 Nil Nil

5 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) <0.0003 to 0.11 4 - Nil

5 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) <0.0005 to 0.19 4 - -

5 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) <LOR to 0.21 4

0.21 µg/L (MW004); 0.19 µg/L

(MW006); and 0.111 µg/L (MW008)

-

5 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2

FTSA) <0.001 to 0.013

3 Nil -

Note: * - the concentration ranges include duplicates and triplicates results

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

Groundwater in the STP area (MW004 to MW006) Sum of PFHxS and PFOS was detected at the three locations above the laboratory LOR. The maximum concentration was 0.21 µg/L in sample MW004, located east of the STP (and the Former Fire Training Areas). Concentrations of sum of PFHxS and PFOS were above the adopted screening criteria (Human Health - Drinking Water Quality - 0.07 µg/L) in MW004 and MW006.

Concentrations of PFOS were below the Ecological Values – Freshwater (95% Species Protection - 0.13 µg/L) in MW004, MW005 and MW006.



PFOA concentrations were above the laboratory LOR in the three monitoring well locations. The maximum concentration was 0.05 µg/L in sample MW006.

6:2 FtS concentrations were above the laboratory LOR in the three monitoring well locations. The maximum concentration was 0.013 µg/L in sample MW005.

Based on the location and the monitoring purpose of these wells, it is likely that the groundwater is influenced by the operation of the STP and represent perched groundwater in this area. Given the presence PFAS in the groundwater samples (MW004 to MW006) in the vicinity or immediately downgradient of the STP and also the former fire training areas in this area of the property, it is not possible to distinguish between these possible PFAS sources.

Groundwater in the extraction wells (MW007 and MW008) Sum of PFHxS and PFOS was detected above the adopted screening criteria (Human Health - Drinking Water Quality - 0.07 µg/L) at MW008 (0.111 µg/L), located on the northern boundary of the property (Windmill Well). PFOA and 6:2 FtS concentrations were less the laboratory LOR in MW008. However, the construction of this bore is not understood, and as such it is not possible to assess the potential source of the PFAS in this groundwater. The only reported use of AFFF in this general area of the property was 20 L of concentrate used in a fire incident associated with the Old Commandants House/Shed, in 2006 (located approximately 500 m south-east of MW008)

PFAS concentrations were less than the laboratory LOR in the groundwater sampled from the bore located on the western boundary of the property (MW007).

10.3.5 Sediment and Surface water Surface water and sediment samples (co-located) were proposed in the SAQP (Golder, 2017) to be collected from seven locations and analysed for PFAS. However, only two surface water samples were able to be collected, as surface water was not present within the drainage lines on the property due to the dry conditions in March 2017.

Surface Water The surface water analysis results are presented in Table D and summarised in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Summary of surface water results – PFAS

No of Samples (primary Samples)

Analyte Concentration Range (µg/L)*

No. of Samples

with Detections

above Laboratory

LOR

Exceeded Human Health -

Recreational water quality

value

Exceeded Ecological Values –

Freshwater (95 %

Species Protection)

2 Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) 0.006 to 0.012 2 Nil Nil

2 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 0.043 to 0.096 2 - Nil

2 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) 0.039 to 0.09 2 - -

2 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) 0.082 to 0.17 2 Nil -

2 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) <0.001 to <0.05

0 Nil -


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



SW005 was collected from the dam near the Former Fire Training Area (Sport Oval) and SW007 sample was collected from the pond near the STP (Former Fire Training Area).

Sum of PFHxS and PFOS was detected at two locations above the laboratory LOR. The maximum concentration was 0.165 µg/L in sample SW007.

Concentrations of PFOS were below the Ecological Values – Freshwater (95% Species Protection - 0.13 µg/L) in SW005 and SW007.

PFOA concentrations were above the laboratory LOR in two locations. The maximum concentration was 0.012 µg/L in sample SW007.

6:2 FtS concentrations were below the laboratory LOR in both locations.

The surface water sample collected from the dam has also received water that contains PFAS, this may be associated with irrigation waters, using treated effluent from the STP, used to irrigate sporting fields in the area of the dam or from former fire training activities that occurred in this region of the property.

Sediment The sediment sample analysis results are presented in Table E and summarised in Table 11 below.

Table 11: Summary of laboratory sediment results – PFAS No of Samples

(Primary Samples)

Analyte Concentration Range (mg/kg)*

No. of Samples with Detections above Laboratory LOR

Exceeded the Criteria

7 Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) <0.0002 to 0.005 1 Nil

7 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) 0.0009 to 0.054 7 -

7 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) <0.0002 to 0.0041 5 -

7 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) 0.0009 to 0.058 7 Nil

7 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) <0.0005 0 Nil


Fire Station (SD001 to SD004) Sediment locations were selected in areas hydraulically down gradient of the Fire Station, the Fire Training Pad and the Parade Ground.

PFOS was detected above the laboratory LOR at the four locations. The maximum concentration was 0.0539 mg/kg in sample SD002, located in the drainage line / creek between the Fire Station and the fire training pad.

PFOA concentrations were mostly below the laboratory LOR. The maximum concentration was 0.005 mg/kg in sample SD002.

6:2 FtS concentrations were below the laboratory LOR at the four locations.

Former Fire Training Area (Sport Oval) (SD005 and SD006) PFOS concentration (0.0053 mg/kg at SD005 and 0.0015 mg/kg at SD006) and sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) (0.0058 mg/kg at SD005 and 0.0015 mg/kg at SD006) were detected at both locations. PFOA and 6:2 FtS concentrations were below the laboratory LOR.



STP pond (SD007) PFOS concentration (0.0009 mg/kg) and sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) (0.0009 mg/kg) were detected at SD007. PFOA and 6:2 FtS concentrations were below the laboratory LOR.

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

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

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

A visual schematic of the initial conceptual site model is provided as Figure 4.

11.1 Sources A number of source areas where legacy AFFF was used and introduced into the environment were identified. Details are provided in APPENDIX A and shown on Figure 2.

Fire Training Pad (Building 352 and 353)

Fire training area comprises a concrete pad which drains to a collection pit and sump. Training with fire extinguishers typically occurred 6 monthly between 1993 and 2008/09.

During the PSI, 15 primary soil samples were collected from three soil boreholes and one sediment sample in the vicinity of the Fire Training Pad. Review of the analytical results indicated that PFAS concentrations were detected above the laboratory LOR. PFAS detections found around the pit may be indicative of foam overshoot or windblown dispersal that distributed PFAS onto soils in multiple directions or dispersion in surface water runoff and infiltration.

Fire Station

An operational Fire Station has been present at the Base since the 1960s. Testing of fire equipment including the generation of AFFF previously occurred on the grass either side of the driveway, with fire equipment cleaned on the driveway. The fire equipment were washed out after exercises on the hard stand driveway and wash down would have drained to the stormwater system and into the on-site surface drains/creek, which migrate offsite to the north-east. The frequency and volume of AFFF used is uncertain, however, during the period 2000 to 2005 it is understood that “foam drills” occur approximately 6 times a year, but are likely to have occurred prior to this date and possibly after.

During the PSI, 20 primary soil samples were collected from four soil boreholes on the grass area, where AFFF were sprayed in the vicinity of the fire station. Concentrations of PFAS were generally higher in the upper 2 m of the soil profile, and also higher in the two bores closes to the Fire Station. This distribution of PFAS contamination in the soil is consistent with the understanding of the use of AFFF in this area. The presence of PFAS at the 4 m interval also indicates that vertical migration of PFAS has occurred.

Grass areas around parade ground

It was reported that during dry spells that foam was sprayed from fire trucks as part of equipment testing onto dry grass located around the parade ground. The period of time, frequency and volume of AFFF used was not identified.



PFAS was detected at the two locations assessed which supports the reported spraying of AFFF around the Parade ground.

Former Fire Training Areas #1 and #2 (STP)

There are two areas near the STP were identified as potentially being used as a fire training areas. It is likely that approximately 20 L of concentrate per year was used at each of these areas.

The former activity for the southern area was identified and described as a pit (approximately 3m by 10m), which was historically used to demonstrate methods of fire extinguishment. Materials that were burnt included oil, tyres and car bodies. These activities were reported to have ceased in 2002 or 2003.

During the PSI, 20 soil samples were collected from four soil boreholes and three groundwater monitoring wells were sampled in the vicinity of the STP. The presence of PFAS in the soil at these location supports the reported use of AFFF in these areas. The presence of PFAS in the groundwater, also indicates the use of PFAS in this area but cannot be distinguished from the STP which may also be contributing to PFAS in groundwater at these wells.

Former Fire Training Area #3 (Sport Oval)

This area was reportedly used as a former fire training area, as identified during the interviews, with approximately 20 L of AFFF concentrate per year. Fire trucks had been connected to the fire hydrant beside the rugby change rooms and expended the AFFF in a 30 metre radius south east.

During the PSI, 10 soil samples were collected from two soil boreholes. The presence of PFAS in the soil at this location supports the reported use of AFFF in this area.

Old Commandants House

In 2006, approximately 20 L of AFFF concentrate used to generate the foam in a fire emergency response at the Old Commandants House.

Off-site

To date, no primary off-site source areas have been identified.

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

Detected concentrations of PFAS in the sediment samples in the drain/creek indicates that PFAS has moved along these lines from the fire training pad, fire station and grass areas around parade ground sources. The concentrations of PFAS in the sediment are low, and generally decrease along the drainage line, however, they are present in SD004 which is located some 500 – 800 m from these source areas. SD004 is located some 200 m from the eastern boundary of the property near Kapooka Road property boundary.

The presence of PFAS in the surface water and sediment in the STP pond indicates that the STP may have received waste water that contains PFAS. In addition, the treated effluent in present within the pond is understood to be used for irrigation of the golf course and sporting field on the property. This may be the pathway for PFAS to be present in the dam located near the sporting field (as well as fire training formerly occurring in this area).

PFAS were generally reported in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells located downgradient of the STP and the former fire training areas. However, the source cannot be differentiated between the STP and the former fire training areas in the vicinity of the STP. Groundwater in the vicinity of the STP is considered likely to be perched. The presence of PFAS indicates that this may be potential migration pathway.



The bore “MW007” is an active groundwater bore located on the western boundary of the property and used for supply of stock water to grazing animals. No PFAS concentration was detected. The bore is located on the western side of a topographical and hydrogeological divide on the property from the known areas where AFFF has been used or stored.

Groundwater extracted from “MW008” is currently used for supply of stock water to grazing animals. “MW008” it is referred to as the “Windmill Well”. This well is located approximately 500 m north-west from the Former Commandants House/Shed (where AFFF was used during a fire incident in 2006). PFAS concentrations were detected in sample collected from “MW008”. It is not known if the use of AFFF for the incident at the Old Commandants House is the source of PFAS detected in groundwater at the Windmill Well (“MW008”) or if this detection is a result of contaminant migration from other source areas.

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

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

Dermal contact or ingestion of impacted surface water or groundwater. Groundwater may be accessible when extracted for uses such as domestic (non-potable), agricultural, or other purposes.

Ecological receptors present within the surface waters in off-property waterways which are fed by surface water or perched water from the property.

Ingestion of food items grown with impacted surface water or groundwater. Such as, recreational fishing in off-property water ways or stock consuming groundwater.

11.4 Receptors Potential human health and ecological receptors for both on-property and off-property locations are presented in Table 12 below. The receptors listed within Table 12 are those considered to be present either on- or off-property, however, may not be at risk from exposure to PFAS contamination as an exposure pathway may be incomplete.

Table 12: Potential Human Health and Ecological Receptors Human Health Ecological

On-Property

Defence Personnel / Contractors

Visitors

Intrusive, construction or maintenance workers

Residential, including early child care centre

Consumers of produce (stock)

Terrestrial Ecological Receptors (Stock)

Off-Property

Residential Receptors

Intrusive, construction or maintenance workers

Domestic bore users

Consumers of impacted produce or biota

Recreational Uses of Surface water or Groundwater

Terrestrial Ecological Receptors (stock and other)

Aquatic Ecological Receptors

Domestics pets



Based on an initial screening of potential linkages between source, pathway and receptors and considering the exposure pathways outlined in Section 11.3, the sub-set of potential receptors presented in Table 13 are considered to represent potentially complete linkages between contamination sources and receptors based on existing information. Table 13 has not included possible off-property receptors given the absence of investigation results to confirm if there are complete linkages between on-site sources and off-property receptors.

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

Table 13: Possible Receptors based on Potentially Complete Source, Pathway, Receptor Linkages Human Health Ecological

On-Property

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

Consumers of produce (stock)

Terrestrial Ecological Receptors (Stock consuming extracted groundwater)

Given the prevalence of mains water supply to the local area it is not considered likely that surface water or groundwater would be commonly used offsite for drinking water. It was beyond the scope of the project to confirm the actual off-property water use.

Groundwater at wells MW007 and MW008 is known to be used for stock water, however it was noted that the regional groundwater is likely to be fresh to slightly brackish, and relatively neural pH and would not preclude the use for drinking water.

There are some 14 off-property register bores down-gradient of the property used for registered uses including stock, domestic stock and irrigation.

11.5 Data Gaps The following key data gaps exist at the completion of the PSI:

The extent of PFAS in soil, and groundwater in the vicinity and down-gradient of the source areas.

Type of stock, quantity, and frequency of groundwater being supplied from the Windmill Well (MW008)

Source of PFAS identified in Windmill Well (MW008)

Assessment of potential preferential transport pathways leading off-site, in particular associated with drainage lines/ surface water bodies.

Confirmation of use of groundwater from off-site wells.

Use of off property creeks for recreational purpose and/or for recreational fishing.

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



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

Consideration of water use at and surrounding the property indicated that domestic water supply for both the Base and the surrounding areas (primarily the inferred down-gradient community of San Isidore) is supplied with potable mains water from Riverina Water County Council.

Groundwater use on site is limited to two extraction bores used to supply water for stock. The quantity and frequency of the use of this water, and the stock that use this groundwater is unknown. Based on the groundwater samples that were collected as part of this PSI, PFAS was identified in the groundwater at the Windmill well (MW008).

There are a number of registered groundwater bores, inferred to be down-gradient of the property, in the community of San Isidore. The listed uses of the registered bores include stock, domestic stock and irrigation. These bores are some 2 km from the identified source areas on the property. Base personnel indicated that it was likely that the use of groundwater in San Isidore would be for irrigation or stock. An inspection of the San Isidore area was undertaken however, specific use of the bore water could not be confirmed given no external offsite stakeholder communication was undertaken. No crops or live stock were observed in this area, other than the agistment of horses.

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

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

In particular, it is recommended that further consideration be given to understanding the use of groundwater from the Windmill Well (MW008) including:

Establishing the details associated with water use, including but not limited to, what stock use the water, quantity of water used, frequency of water used.

Establish the details of the well construction, such as depth, screening of the well, etc, if possible

Re-sampling to confirm the presence of PFAS in groundwater.

Consideration should also be given to managing the use of groundwater from the Windmill well (MW008) until the outcomes of the above are known.



13.0 REFERENCES Aurecon 2010 - Environmental Review of Fire Fighting Training and Facilities, Kapooka Military Area,

February 2010.

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

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

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

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

Department of Water and Energy 2007 – Mid Murrumbidgee Alluvium, Groundwater Management Area Gundagai to Narrandera, Groundwater Resources Status Report – 2007.

EarthTech 2005 - Stage 1 Contamination Investigation of Kapooka Military Area, May 2005.

Golder 2016 - Category 2 Property – Data Gap Assessment- Blamey Barracks Kapooka (0315)(Golder Ref 1541479-043-R-Rev0, dated 7 September 2016).

Golder 2017 – Blamey Barracks Kapooka Sampling, Analysis and Quality Plan (Golder Ref 1652034-057-R-Rec0, dated 10 March 2017).

HLA 2003 - Firing Range Preliminary Soil Contamination Investigation, Kapooka Military Area, prepared for SSL Asset Services.

Maunsell 2006 - Stage 2 Environmental Investigation of Kapooka Military Area, July 2006.

National Environment Protection Council National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (as amended May 2013).

National Health and Medical Research Council and Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council Guidelines for Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, 2011.

Office of Environment and Heritage, 2017. Draft PFAS Screening Criteria. May 2017

Office of Water, NSW Government 2011 - Water Resources and management overview Murrumbidgee catchment, January 2011.

Riverina Water Country Council, Annual Report 2015- 2016 (https://www.rwcc.nsw.gov.au/images/pdf/Publications/20152016AnnRepRWCC.pdf).

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

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

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

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



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

Report Signature Page

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Olga Bukhteeva Andrew Holloway Environmental Engineer Principal Environmental Scientist

OB&AH/FMM/ob

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

\\golder.gds\gap\brisbane\jobs\contam\2016\1669283 defence psi cat 2\correspondence out\1669283_001_rev1_psi_kapooka\1669283-001-r-rev1 psi report blamey barracks

kapooka.docx



FIGURES


BLAMEY BARRACKS

519,000 522,000 525,000 528,000 531,000

6,105

,000

6,105

,000

6,108

,000

6,108

,000

6,111

,000

6,111

,000

6,114

,000

6,114

,000

6,117

,000

6,117

,000

CLIENTDEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE

LEGENDProperty Boundary

COPYRIGHT1. World Street Map - Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS,Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community,sourced 29.07.2016.

PROJECTPFC PROGRAM: CATEGORY 2 PROPERTY DATA GAPASSESSMENTTITLEPROPERTY LOCALITY - BLAMEY BARRACKS (0315)

1669283 001 1 1

2017-06-13

DP

-

SD

SD

Path: J:\env\2016\1669283 Defence PSI Cat 2\GIS\Project\1669283-001-HS-F001-Rev1-Locality-Map.mxd

!THE SITE

LOCATION MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T S

IZE

HA

S B

EE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M:

CONSULTANT

PROJECT No. CONTROL Rev. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 1,000 2,000 3,000

METRES

PROJECTION: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

REFERENCE SCALE: 1:50,000 (at A3)

0 10km

2. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS,Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China(Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Murrumbidgee River

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

Former Commandants House and Shed (Incident)

Former Fire Training Areas#1 & #2 (STP)

Former FireTraining Area #3 (Sport Oval)

Dam

Former Quarry

Parade Ground

Fire-fight Training Pad

Fire Station

STURT HWY

OLYMPIC HWY

MW001MW002

MW003

MW004MW006

MW008

MW009

MW007

MW005

522,000 524,000 526,000 528,000

6,108

,000

6,108

,000

6,110

,000

6,110

,000

6,112

,000

6,112

,000

6,114

,000

6,114

,000


LEGEND@A Existing Groundwater Monitoring Well

@A Bore

Drainage lines

Property Boundary

Kapooka Site FeaturesCurrent Sites

Former Sites

COPYRIGHT1. Aerial image sourced from Nearmap Pty. Ltd, aerial dated11.03.2015, sourced 28.07.20162. Road data sourced from MapInfo StreetPro.3. World Street Map - Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS,Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community,sourced 29.07.2016.

PROJECTPFC PROGRAM: CATEGORY 2 PROPERTY DATA GAPASSESSMENTTITLELOCATION OF AFFF PRODUCT USE - BLAMEY BARRACKS(0315)

1669283 001 1 2

2017-06-13

KAF

-

SD

SD

Path: J:\env\2016\1669283 Defence PSI Cat 2\GIS\Project\1669283-001-HS-F002-Rev1-Kapooka-AFFF-Use_updated.mxd

!THE SITE

LOCATION MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T S

IZE

HA

S B

EE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M:

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

METRES



0 10km

4. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme,USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the

Murrumbidgee River

Sheet01

Sheet02

Sheet03

Sheet04

Sheet05

OLYMPIC HWY

NORMAN DUCK AV

KAPO

OKAR

D

525,500 526,000 526,500 527,000 527,500

6,109

,500

6,109

,500

6,110

,000

6,110

,000

6,110

,500

6,110

,500

6,111

,000

6,111

,000


LEGENDKey Map

Property Boundary



1669283 001 1

2017-04-12

KAF

-

SD

SD

Path: J:\env\2016\1669283 Defence PSI Cat 2\GIS\Project\1669283-001-HS-KeyMap-Rev1-BH-Locations.mxd

3

1

452

LOCATION MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T S

IZE

HA

S B

EE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M:

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 100 200 300 400 500

METRES



0 2km

4. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme,USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan,METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and

KeyMap

@A@A

@A

@A

BH014BH015

SW005 / SD005

SD006


LEGEND@A Borehole

@A Surface Water / Sediment Sample

Property Boundary



1669283 001 2

2017-04-12

KAF

-

SD

SD

Path: J:\env\2016\1669283 Defence PSI Cat 2\GIS\Project\1669283-001-HS-F003A-to-F003B-Rev2-BH-Locations.mxd

3

1

452

LOCATION MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T S

IZE

HA

S B

EE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M:

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 30 60 90 120

METRES



0 2km


3A

@A @A

@A@A

@A

@A

BH001 BH002

BH003BH004

BH005

BH006


LEGEND@A Borehole


Property Boundary



1669283 001 2

2017-04-12

KAF

-

SD

SD


3

1

452

LOCATION MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T S

IZE

HA

S B

EE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M:

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 10 20 30 40

METRES



0 2km


3B

@A @A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A @A

@A

@A

@A

@A

KAPO

OKA R

D

BH001 BH002BH003

BH004BH005

BH006

BH010

BH011BH012 BH013

SD001SD002

SD003

SD004


LEGEND@A Borehole


Property Boundary



1669283 001 2

2017-04-12

KAF

-

SD

SD


3

1

452

LOCATION MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T S

IZE

HA

S B

EE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M:

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 50 100 150 200

METRES



0 2km


3C

@A

@A

@A

@A

@A

BH007

BH009

BH010

SW007 / SD007

BH008


LEGEND@A Borehole


Property Boundary



1669283 001 2

2017-04-12

KAF

-

SD

SD


3

1

452

LOCATION MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T S

IZE

HA

S B

EE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M:

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 30 60 90 120

METRES



0 2km


3D

@A

@A@A

@A

BH011BH012

BH013

SD001


LEGEND@A Borehole


Property Boundary



1669283 001 2

2017-04-12

KAF

-

SD

SD


3

1

452

LOCATION MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T S

IZE

HA

S B

EE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M:

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

0 10 20 30 40

METRES



0 2km


3E

Site B

ou

nd

ary

CLIENT: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PROJECT: PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION (PFAS) RAAF BASE KAPOOKA

DRAWN: KLS DATE: 06/06/2017 TITLE: CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

CHECKED: AH DATE: 06/06/2017 PROJECT NO. 1669283 REV. 0

SCALE: NOT TO SCALE CONTROL: 002-R FIGURE No. 4

Grass around parade ground

7m

10m 8m

Residual Clay Soils

Ordovician Metasediments

Weathered Rock (Clay with Shale fragments)

MW006

MW005

MW004

Settling Pond

Settling Pond

STP

Fire Training Pad

Fire Station

Dam

Drainage Line/ Creek

Former Fire Training Areas (STP) Fire Station Former Fire Training

Area (Sport Oval)

Limited information on regional ground water

bores - Groundwater not encountered

Site B

ou

nd

ary

Residual Clay Soils


Weathered Rock (Clay with Shale fragments)

Murrumbingee River

17m

115m

Drainage Line/ Creek

Domestic Stock

GW405007 Monitoring

Bore

GW400462

Alluvium

San Isidore Agricultural Land

Groundwater Flow

Groundwater Flow

Source Area

Surface Water Body

Murrumbingee River

Weathered Rock (Clay with Shale Fragments

Residual Clay Soils


Alluvium

Groundwater Flow

Fractures

Site Buildings

Residential Properties

Legend

Co

nti

nu

es

in t

he

se

ctio

n b

elo

w


TABLES


Golder Associates Pty Ltd1 of 14

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

Table A: Groundwater Quality ParametersDefence AFFF - Category 2 Site PSIBlamey Barracks Kapooka (0315)Project number: 1669283

Location Date Sampled Easting** Northing Total Depth (m) DO (ppm) EC (µS/cm) TDS (mg/L) pH (pH units) Er (mV) Eh* (mV) Temp (°C) SWL (mbtoc) CommentsMW001 16/03/2017 0526616 6109807 11.4 - - - - - - - - DryMW002 16/03/2017 0526800 6109931 10.05 - - - - - - - - DryMW003 16/03/2017 0526834 6110279 11.0 - - - - - - - - DryMW004 16/03/2017 0526877 6110989 8.80 3.26 930 604.50 6.86 124.0 323.00 22.70 7.50 Clear, low turbid, no odour.MW005 16/03/2017 0526793 6110936 10.50 4.07 1294 841 7.12 106.0 305 18.2 3.76 Clear, low turbid, no odour.MW006 16/03/2017 0526517 6111066 6.96 2.87 1060 689 7.04 120.0 319 23.5 4.56 Light brown, low turbid, no odour.MW007 16/03/2017 05227118 6111790 - 5.01 2730 1775 6.62 182.0 381 21.5 - Clear, low turbid, no odour.MW008 16/03/2017 0524931 6114761 - 5.41 1715 1115 7.94 156.0 355 23.1 6.85 Clear, low turbid, no odour.

SW005 15/03/2017 0526631 6109485 - 1.45 607 395 6.58 -17.0 182 25.4 -Dark brown-grey, organic odour, med turbid.

SW007 15/03/2017 0526562 6110974 - 7.80 1123 730 9.17 311.0 510 25.6 - Light yellow, sweet odour, low turbid.Notes:‒ not measuredppm = Parts per millionL = LitreDO = Dissolved OxygenEC = Electrical ConductivityµS/cm = Microsiemens per centimetreTDS = Total Dissolved Solids (estimated based on EC value multiplied by 0.65)*Eh = Redox Potential (measured with a platinum electrode and silver/silver chloride reference electrode (Er) and converted to Eh by Eh = Er + 199 mV)mV = MillivoltsTemp = TemperatureoC = Degree in Celsius**Zone: 55H



Table B: Field Observation-Sediment SamplingDefence AFFF - Category 2 Site PSIBlamey Barracks Kapooka (0315)Project number: 1669283

Sampling Location Investigation Depth (m)

Description

SEDIMNENT 1 (SD001) 55H 0526134 06110308 0.0 - 0.2 Dry. CLAY with sand, fine grained, dark grey/brown. No odour.SEDIMNENT 2 (SD002) 55H 0526229 06110331 0.0 - 0.2 Dry. Silty CLAY, grey. No odour.SEDIMNENT 3 (SD003) 55H 0526646 06110387 0.0 - 0.2 Dry. CLAY with some medium gravels, subangular, brown- grey. No

odour.SEDIMNENT 4 (SD004) 55H 0526824 06110506 0.0 - 0.2 Dry. CLAY, brown- orange. No odour.SEDIMNENT 5 (SD005) 55H 0526631 06109485 0.0 - 0.3 Muddy silty CLAY, dark grey/brown. Organic odour.SEDIMNENT 6 (SD006) 55H 0526705 06109612 0.0 - 0.2 Dry. CLAY, grey-brown. No odour.SEDIMNENT 7 (SD007) 55H 0526562 0611974 0.0 - 0.3 Muddy silty CLAY, dark brown. Sweet odour.

Note:m: metres **Zone: 55H

Coordinates



Table C: Groundwater Analytical ResultsPer- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)Site: Blamey Barracks Kapooka (0315) 0315_MW004 0315_MW005 0315_MW007 0315_MW008Project number: 1669283 16/03/2017 16/03/2017 16/03/2017 16/03/2017 16/03/2017 16/03/2017 16/03/2017

0315_MW004_170316 0315_MW005_170316 0315_MW006_170316 0315_QC110_170316 0315_QC210_170316 0315_MW007_170316 0315_MW008_170316PS PS PS FD FT PS PS

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

N-Methyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOSE) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.001 <0.001Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.0005N-methyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (MeFOSAA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.05 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.0005 0.56 220 0.0174 0.0076 0.0185 0.023 0.05 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.0003 0.13 0.0205 0.0144 0.0881 0.0888 0.11 <0.0003 0.0252Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.0005 0.19 0.0418 0.0519 0.0478 0.08 <0.0005 0.0855Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) µg/L 0.0003 0.07 0.21 0.0562 0.14 0.137 0.19 <0.0003 0.111PFAS (Sum of total - Lab Reported) µg/L 0.0003 0.307 0.0958 0.204 0.202 - <0.0003 0.16Sum of PFAS (WA DER 10, calculated) µg/L 0.0003 0.282 0.0864 0.192 0.192 - <0.0003 0.148Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.05 <0.002 0.023Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.0005 0.015 0.001 0.0057 0.0051 0.03 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.0005 0.0057 0.0008 0.005 0.0061 0.02 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0013 0.0013 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.0005 0.0037 0.0006 0.0052 0.0048 0.02 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0025 0.002 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.0005 0.0056 0.0036 0.0028 0.0023 <0.01 <0.0005 0.0034Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.0005 0.0188 0.0058 0.0057 0.0047 <0.01 <0.0005 0.0088Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.0005 0.026 0.0072 0.0122 0.0113 0.01 <0.0005 0.01454:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.0016:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.001 5 0.004 0.013 0.005 0.005 <0.05 <0.001 <0.0018:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.00110:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.001N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamide (EtFOSA) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.001 <0.001N-Methyl PFO sulfonamide (MeFOSA) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.001 <0.001Perfluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.05 <0.0005 <0.0005N-ethyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (EtFOSAA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.05 <0.0005 <0.0005

Legend:

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

Value exceeds 'Protection of Environmental Values – Freshwater 95 % species protection

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

Human Health - Drinking Water Quality PFOS/PFHxS

0315_MW006Location_CodeSampled Date

Sample IDSample Type

Protection of Environmental Values – Freshwater 95 % species

protection



Table D: Surface Water Analytical ResultsPer- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)Site: Blamey Barracks Kapooka (0315) 0315_SW007Project number: 1669283 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017

0315_SW005_170315 0315_QC109_170315 0315_QC209_170315 0315_SW007_170315PS FD FT PS

ChemName Unit LOR

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) by LCMSN-Methyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOSE) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.001Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.0005N-methyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (MeFOSAA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.05 <0.0005Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.0005 5.6 220 0.006 0.0071 <0.01 0.012Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.0003 0.13 0.0551 0.0429 0.07 0.0956Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.0005 0.0428 0.0388 0.09 0.0692Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) µg/L 0.0003 0.7 0.0979 0.0817 - 0.165PFAS (Sum of total - Lab Reported) µg/L 0.0003 0.145 0.13 - 0.218Sum of PFAS (WA DER 10, calculated) µg/L 0.0003 0.136 0.122 - 0.206Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.05 <0.002Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.0005 0.0036 0.0039 < 0.05 0.0048Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.0005 0.0023 0.0024 < 0.01 0.0023Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 0.0006Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.0005 0.0042 0.0047 0.04 0.0036Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) µg/L 0.0005 0.0013 0.0015 <0.01 0.0022Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.0005Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.0005Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.0005Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.0005Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) µg/L 0.0005 0.0023 0.0017 <0.01 0.0046Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) µg/L 0.0005 0.0051 0.0049 <0.01 0.0051Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.0005 0.022 0.0217 <0.01 0.01854:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.0016:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.001 50 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.0018:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.00110:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTSA) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.001N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamide (EtFOSA) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.001N-Methyl PFO sulfonamide (MeFOSA) µg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.001Perfluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.05 <0.0005N-ethyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (EtFOSAA) µg/L 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.05 <0.0005

Legend:

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

Value exceeds 'Protection of Environmental Values – Freshwater 95 % species protection

Health Based Guidance -Recreation Water

Quality

0315_SW005

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

Protection of Environmental Values –

Freshwater 95 % species protection

Location_CodeSampled Date

Sample IDSample Type



Table E: Soil Analytical ResultsPer- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)Site: Blamey Barracks Kapooka (0315)Project number: 1669283 0315_BH001 0315_BH001 0315_BH001 0315_BH001 0315_BH001 0315_BH002 0315_BH002 0315_BH002

0315_BH001_0.0_170315 0315_BH001_1.0_170315 0315_BH001_2.0_170315 0315_BH001_3.0_170315 0315_BH001_4.0_170315 0315_BH002_0.0_170315 0315_BH002_1.0_170315 0315_QC102_1703150 1 2 3 4 0 1 1

PS PS PS PS PS PS PS FD15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017

ChemName Unit LORPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

N-Methyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOSE) mg/kg 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (PFDS) mg/kg 0.0002 0.0172 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0028 <0.0002 <0.0002N-methyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (MeFOSAA) mg/kg 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) mg/kg 0.0002 100 - 0.005 0.056 0.0129 0.0014 0.0004 0.002 0.0004 0.0003Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) mg/kg 0.0002 0.14 1.15 2.6 0.0859 0.0378 0.0128 0.174 0.222 0.178Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) mg/kg 0.0002 0.0518 0.741 0.342 0.0134 0.0068 0.0152 0.0066 0.0034Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) mg/kg 0.0002 20 1.2018 3.341 0.4279 0.0512 0.0196 0.1892 0.2286 0.1814PFAS (Sum of total - Lab Reported) mg/kg 0.0002 1.27 3.84 0.677 0.0628 0.0228 0.204 0.232 0.183Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) mg/kg 0.001 0.014 0.027 0.007 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) mg/kg 0.0002 0.0085 0.143 0.0713 0.0035 0.0008 0.0022 0.0015 0.0009Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) mg/kg 0.0002 0.0013 0.0329 0.0093 0.0005 <0.0002 0.0008 <0.0002 <0.0002Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) mg/kg 0.0002 0.0009 0.0003 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0008 <0.0002 <0.0002Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) mg/kg 0.0002 <0.0002 0.0281 0.0206 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) mg/kg 0.0002 0.0004 0.0019 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0011 <0.0002 <0.0002Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) mg/kg 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) mg/kg 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) mg/kg 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) mg/kg 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) mg/kg 0.0002 0.0013 0.0577 0.0317 0.0009 0.0004 0.0007 <0.0002 <0.0002Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) mg/kg 0.0002 0.0015 0.0665 0.0582 0.002 0.0005 0.0005 <0.0002 <0.0002Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) mg/kg 0.0002 0.0009 0.0448 0.0342 0.0029 0.0009 0.0005 <0.0002 <0.00024:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.00056:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.0005 0.0032 0.0364 0.0038 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.00058:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.0005 0.0064 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0006 <0.0005 <0.000510:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamide (EtFOSA) mg/kg 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE) mg/kg 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005N-Methyl PFO sulfonamide (MeFOSA) mg/kg 0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005Perfluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA) mg/kg 0.0002 0.0112 0.0018 0.0005 0.0004 0.0002 0.0027 <0.0002 <0.0002N-ethyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (EtFOSAA) mg/kg 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002Moisture % 1 10.2 16.2 11.4 4.9 4.6 20.7 15.9 15.7

Legend:

LOR - Limit of Reporting FD - Field DuplicatePS - Primary Sample FT - Field Triplicate- Not Analysed * - Soil criteria are not to be used as screening values for sediments.

Value exceeds 'Ecological screening criteria supported by OEH Contaminants and Risk, Environment Protection Science Branch (Commercial and industria, indirect contact) (EC 2017)

Ecological screening criteria supported by OEH Contaminants and Risk,

EnvironmentProtection Science Branch

(Commercial and industrial, indirect contact) *

Value exceeds the Human Health Commercial and Industrial Soil Quality Guideline (direct contact only) OEH/NSW Health 2017

Human Health Commercial and Industrial Soil Quality

Guideline (direct contact only) OEH/NSW

Health 2017

Sample TypeSampled Date

Sample TypeLocation Code

Location DescriptionField_ID

Sample Depth (m)



Table E: Soil Analytical ResultsPer- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)Site: Blamey Barracks Kapooka (0315)Project number: 1669283


N-Methyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (MeFOSE) mg/kg 0.0005Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (PFDS) mg/kg 0.0002N-methyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (MeFOSAA) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) mg/kg 0.0002 100Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) mg/kg 0.0002Sum of PFHxS and PFOS (calculated) mg/kg 0.0002 20PFAS (Sum of total - Lab Reported) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) mg/kg 0.001Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA) mg/kg 0.0005Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid (PFHpS) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid (PFPeS) mg/kg 0.0002Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) mg/kg 0.00024:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.00056:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.00058:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.000510:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTSA) mg/kg 0.0005N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamide (EtFOSA) mg/kg 0.0005N-Ethyl PFO sulfonamidoethanol (EtFOSE) mg/kg 0.0005N-Methyl PFO sulfonamide (MeFOSA) mg/kg 0.0005Perfluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA) mg/kg 0.0002N-ethyl-PFO sulfonamidoacetic acid (EtFOSAA) mg/kg 0.0002Moisture % 1

Legend:

LOR - Limit of Reporting FD - Field DuplicatePS - Primary Sample FT - Field Triplicate- Not Analysed * - Soil criteria are not to be used as screening valu





Health 2017

0315_BH002 0315_BH002 0315_BH002 0315_BH003 0315_BH003 0315_BH003 0315_BH003 0315_BH003 0315_BH004 0315_BH004

0315_BH002_2.0_170315 0315_BH002_3.0_170315 0315_BH002_4.0_170315 0315_BH003_0.0_170314 0315_BH003_1.0_170314 0315_BH003_2.0_170314 0315_BH003_3.0_170314 0315_BH003_4.0_170314 0315_BH004_0.0_170314 0315_BH004_1.0_1703142 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1

PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0273 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.006 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0005 0.0002 0.001 0.0078 0.0271 0.0163 0.0012 0.0009 0.0031 0.00240.119 0.0303 0.0458 0.462 3.7 0.404 0.0386 0.0239 0.124 0.394

0.0089 0.0039 0.0241 0.0517 0.0484 0.456 0.0243 0.0181 0.0084 0.0130.1279 0.0342 0.0699 0.5137 3.7484 0.86 0.0629 0.042 0.1324 0.4070.131 0.0351 0.0785 0.648 4.08 1.05 0.0745 0.0496 0.176 0.428

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.008 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.0008 0.0003 0.0025 0.0075 0.0883 0.0512 0.0041 0.0026 0.0025 0.0034

<0.0002 <0.0002 0.0003 0.0024 0.0116 0.009 0.0004 0.0004 0.0016 0.0013<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0044 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0032 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0049 0.0261 0.0075 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0025 0.0023<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0034 0.001 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0035 0.0009<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0016 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0043 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.001 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0024 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.001 <0.00020.0014 0.0004 0.0014 0.0054 0.0686 0.032 0.0015 0.001 0.0008 0.00160.0003 <0.0002 0.0016 0.0024 0.0516 0.0403 0.0022 0.0016 0.0004 0.00060.0002 <0.0002 0.0018 0.002 0.0411 0.0245 0.0022 0.0011 0.0003 0.0006

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0036 0.0138 0.001 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0044 0.0083<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0057 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0082 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0006 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0007 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0477 0.0002 0.001 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0047 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

12.5 20.1 10.1 15.3 15.9 20.6 7.8 7.5 7.5 12.6

Fire Station (grass areas beside driveway)






Legend:






Health 2017


0315_BH004_2.0_170314 0315_BH004_3.0_170314 0315_BH004_4.0_170314 0315_BH005_0.0_170314 0315_BH005_1.0_170314 0315_BH005_2.0_170314 0315_QC101_170314 0315_BH005_3.0_170314 0315_BH005_4.0_170314 0315_BH006_0.0_1703142 3 4 0 1 2 2 3 4 0

PS PS PS PS PS PS FD PS PS PS14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0214 0.0018 0.0004 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.00020.789 0.0374 0.0129 0.0124 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.01550.209 0.0356 0.0081 0.0003 0.0005 0.0004 0.0004 <0.0002 0.0002 0.00040.998 0.073 0.021 0.0127 0.0005 0.0004 0.0004 <0.0002 0.0002 0.01591.39 0.0965 0.0245 0.0127 0.0016 0.0007 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 0.0163

0.004 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.0365 0.0066 0.0012 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0099 0.001 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0148 0.0019 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0011 0.0003 <0.0002 0.0007 <0.0002 0.00020.0013 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

0.231 0.0019 0.0005 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0181 0.0039 0.0007 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0152 0.0048 0.0007 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.00050.0399 0.0016 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

13.1 7.2 7.6 10.8 9.6 11.6 10.1 13.4 16.6 8.6

Parade ground






Legend:






Health 2017


0315_BH006_1.0_170314 0315_BH006_2.0_170314 0315_BH006_3.0_170314 0315_BH006_4.0_170314 0315_BH007_0.0_170315 0315_BH007_1.0_170315 0315_BH007_2.0_170315 0315_QC103_170315 0315_QC203_170315 0315_BH007_3.0_1703151 2 3 4 0 1 2 2 2 3

PS PS PS PS PS PS PS FD FT PS14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.01 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0.0005 0.0015 0.0005 <0.005 <0.00020.0102 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0159 0.0062 0.0054 0.0013 <0.005 <0.00020.0002 0.0008 <0.0002 0.0005 0.001 0.0028 0.0007 0.0004 <0.005 <0.00020.0104 0.0008 <0.0002 0.0005 0.0169 0.009 0.0061 0.0017 - <0.00020.0104 0.001 0.0004 0.0007 0.0179 0.0101 0.009 0.0028 - <0.0002<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001

<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0.0006 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0006 <0.0002 0.0003 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 - <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0011 0.0006 <0.01 <0.0002

10.8 13.6 11.3 15.4 2.7 8.4 11 13 10 14.1

Former Fire Traini






Legend:






Health 2017


0315_BH007_4.0_170315 0315_BH008_0.0_170315 0315_BH008_1.0_170315 0315_BH008_2.0_170315 0315_BH008_3.0_170315 0315_BH008_4.0_170315 0315_BH009_0.0_170315 0315_QC105_170315 0315_QC205_170315 0315_BH009_1.0_1703154 0 1 2 3 4 0 0 2 1

PS PS PS PS PS PS PS FD FT PS15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0014 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.01 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 0.0038 0.0025 <0.0002 0.0016 0.0006 0.0007 <0.005 0.0014<0.0002 0.0167 0.782 1.33 0.0003 0.0023 0.324 0.467 0.5 0.5560.0003 0.0034 0.033 0.0768 0.0074 0.0266 0.0038 0.0047 <0.005 0.01380.0003 0.0201 0.815 1.4068 0.0077 0.0289 0.3278 0.4717 - 0.56980.0009 0.0261 0.833 1.42 0.0513 0.0507 0.332 0.479 - 0.593<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001

<0.0002 0.0029 0.0043 0.0068 0.0192 0.0094 0.0009 0.0012 <0.005 0.0035<0.0002 <0.0002 0.0005 0.0013 0.0011 0.0011 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 0.0006 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 <0.005 <0.00020.0006 0.0011 0.0006 0.0009 0.0028 0.0012 <0.0002 0.0008 <0.005 <0.0002

<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0003 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 0.0055 0.0026 <0.0002 0.0019 0.002 0.0008 <0.005 0.0157<0.0002 0.0008 0.0014 0.0023 0.0095 0.0038 <0.0002 0.0003 <0.005 0.0007<0.0002 0.0006 0.0008 0.0012 0.011 0.0028 <0.0002 0.0002 <0.005 0.0006<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.01 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 - <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 0.0016<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 0.001 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.001 0.0014 <0.005 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.01 <0.0002

8.8 1.3 8.1 17.3 16.8 26 3 1.7 2.1 12

Soil Samples

ng Area (west of STP)






Legend:






Health 2017


0315_BH009_2.0_170315 0315_BH009_3.0_170315 0315_BH009_4.0_170315 0315_BH010_0.0_170315 0315_BH010_1.0_170315 0315_QC104_170315 0315_BH010_2.0_170315 0315_BH010_3.0_170315 0315_BH010_4.0_170315 0315_BH011_0.0_1703142 3 4 0 1 1 2 3 4 0

PS PS PS PS PS FD PS PS PS PS15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 14/03/2017

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0019 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.00030.0148 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0107 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.00080.109 0.0142 0.0007 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

0.1238 0.0142 0.0007 0.0109 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.00080.237 0.023 0.0019 0.0145 0.0008 <0.0002 0.0008 0.0005 0.0006 0.002

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.0481 0.004 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0003 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0051 0.0004 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0063 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0025 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.021 0.0016 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

0.0284 0.0024 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 0.001 0.0036 0.0008 <0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0009<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

11.3 8.2 11.4 1.7 14.4 9 13.1 15.6 13.2 4.1

Former Fire Training Area (south of STP)






Legend:






Health 2017


0315_BH011_1.0_170314 0315_BH011_2.0_170314 0315_BH011_3.0_170314 0315_BH011_4.0_170314 0315_BH012_0.0_170314 0315_BH012_1.0_170314 0315_BH012_2.0_170314 0315_BH012_3.0_170314 0315_BH012_4.0_170314 0315_BH013_0.0_1703141 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0

PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0014<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0011 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0064<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0009 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0013<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.00770.0007 0.0007 0.0012 0.0008 0.0031 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0008 0.0246<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0006 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0018<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.003<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0009<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.006<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0018<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.00050.0007 0.0007 0.0012 0.0008 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0008 <0.0005

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

9.5 8.6 9.5 8.6 5.9 16.6 13.6 20.3 12.8 3.4

Fire Training Pad






Legend:






Health 2017


0315_QC100_170314 0315_BH013_1.0_170314 0315_BH013_2.0_170314 0315_BH013_3.0_170314 0315_BH013_4.0_170314 0315_BH014_0.0_170315 0315_QC106_170315 0315_BH014_1.0_170315 0315_BH014_2.0_170315 0315_BH014_3.0_1703150 1 2 3 4 0 0 1 2 3

FD PS PS PS PS PS FD PS PS PS14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 14/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0013 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0048 0.0037 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0062 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.116 0.0695 0.0017 0.0006 <0.00020.0014 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0483 0.0414 0.0085 0.001 0.00020.0076 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.1643 0.1109 0.0102 0.0016 0.00020.0303 0.0008 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.185 0.126 0.0403 0.0047 0.0008<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0010.0017 0.0008 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0029 0.0019 0.0083 0.0012 0.00040.0019 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0006 0.0004 0.0005 <0.0002 <0.0002

<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0026 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0012 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0009 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0102 0.0067 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.001 0.0008 0.0066 0.0007 0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0012 0.0007 0.0147 0.0012 <0.0002<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.00050.0098 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.00050.0036 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.00050.0009 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

2.8 11.9 12.7 11.6 7.2 2 1.2 8.4 15.7 14.8






Legend:






Health 2017

0315_BH014 0315_BH015 0315_BH015 0315_BH007 0315_BH015 0315_BH015 0315_BH015 0315_BH015

0315_BH014_4.0_170315 0315_BH015_0.0_170315 0315_QC107_170315 0315_QC203_170315 0315_BH015_1.0_170315 0315_BH015_2.0_170315 0315_BH015_3.0_170315 0315_BH015_4.0_1703154 0 0 2 1 2 3 4

PS PS FD FT PS PS PS PS15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.01 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 0.0012 0.0006 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 <0.005 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 0.0012 0.0008 - <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 0.0012 0.0008 - <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

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

13.6 2.9 2 2.3 7.5 9.1 10.9 12.8

Former Fire Training Area (Sport Oval)






Legend:






Health 2017

0315_SD001 0315_SD002 0315_SD003 0315_SD004 0315_SD005 0315_SD005 0315_SD006 0315_SD007Fire Station Fire Station Fire Station Fire Station Sport Oval Sport Oval Sport Oval STP

0315_SD001_170314 0315_SD002_170314 0315_SD003_170316 0315_SD004_170316 0315_SD005_170315 0315_QC108_170315 0315_SD006_170316 0315_SD007_1703150 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2

PS PS PS PS PS FD PS PS14/03/2017 14/03/2017 16/03/2017 16/03/2017 15/03/2017 15/03/2017 16/03/2017 15/03/2017

<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 0.0005 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.00020.0102 0.0539 0.004 0.0126 0.0053 0.0025 0.0015 0.00090.0006 0.0041 0.0007 0.0018 0.0005 0.0006 <0.0002 <0.00020.0108 0.058 0.0047 0.0144 0.0058 0.0031 0.0015 0.00090.0108 0.0607 0.0047 0.0144 0.0058 0.0105 0.0015 0.0009<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

<0.0002 0.001 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0072 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005<0.0002 0.001 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002<0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002

8.9 26.4 6.7 3.7 66.1 78 3.9 30.2

Sediment Samples


APPENDIX A AFFF Summary



APPENDIX B Photographs



APPENDIX C Aerial photographs



APPENDIX D Other searches



APPENDIX E Registered bore search



APPENDIX F Borehole logs



APPENDIX G Data Validation



APPENDIX H Laboratory Certificates



APPENDIX I Calibration Certificates



APPENDIX J Report Limitations


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

Documents

REPORT - Department of Defence · LOR : Limit of reporting . LPI NSW Land and Property Information LQL : Laboratory Quantitation Limits . MBAS Methyl blue activated substances NATA