RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range ...€¦ · 4 RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt...

Department of Defence

RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program

December 2011 External Monitoring Report Revision 0

22/15592/97421 R0 RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program December 2011 External Monitoring Report

Contents

List of Abbreviations i

Executive Summary ii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Objectives 1

2. Scope of Works 2

2.1 Scope of Works 2 2.2 Methodology and Assessment Criteria 3

3. Field and Analytical Results 4

3.1 Overview 4 3.2 Groundwater Flow 4 3.3 Data Tables 6

4. Quality Assurance and Quality Control 8

4.1 Field QC Sampling 8 4.2 QA / QC Results 8

5. Discussion of Results 11

5.1 Overview 11 5.2 Zone 1 12 5.3 Zone 2 14 5.4 Zone 3 16 5.5 Zone 4 17 5.6 Zone 5 18 5.7 Salt Ash Air Weapons Range 19

6. Conclusions 20

7. Limitations 21

8. References 23

RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program December 2011 External Monitoring Report

22/15592/97421 R0

Table Index Table 2-1 Details of RAAF WLM and SAWR Facilities and

Activities 2 Table 3-1 Changes in Groundwater Directions and Gradients 5 Table 4-1 RPD Exceedances 8

Appendices A Figures B Tables

i22/15592/97421 R0 RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program December 2011 External Monitoring Report

List of Abbreviations AFFF Aqueous Film Forming Foams

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand

bgl Below Ground Level

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene, Xylenes

cfu Colony forming units

DQI Data Quality Indicators

DQO Data Quality Objectives

HAH Halogenated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons

L Litre

MBAS Methylene Blue Active Substances

mg/L Milligrams per Litre (generally equivalent to parts per million for water)

g/L Micrograms per Litre (generally equivalent to parts per billion for water)

MHSPE Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The Netherlands

NATA National Association of Testing Authorities of Australia

NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon

ppm Parts per million

PQL Practical Quantitation Limit

QA Quality Assurance

QC Quality Control

RAAF WLM RAAF Base Williamtown

RPD Relative Percent Difference

SAWR Salt Ash Air Weapons Range

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

ii RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program December 2011 External Monitoring Report

22/15592/97421 R0

Executive Summary

GHD has undertaken the December 2011 quarterly groundwater monitoring round, which forms part of an annual groundwater program at RAAF Base Williamtown (RAAF WLM) and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range (SAWR). The objective of the monitoring program is to ensure that the impact of contaminated areas on sensitive receptors, such as the Tomago Sandbeds drinking water resource and aquatic ecosystems, remains low. The monitoring program is risk based in that it targets current facilities, such as fuel handling, workshop, fire training and the sewage treatment plant, and legacy sites that pose a high risk of contamination to groundwater.

Sampling was carried out at a total of 69 groundwater monitoring locations at RAAF WLM and SAWR. Groundwater monitoring wells are positioned to provide early detection of losses from the high risk facilities and legacy sites as well as monitor potential contaminant migration off-site. Sampling was undertaken in accordance with the Ground Water Monitoring Protocol as outlined in Appendix A of GHD (2006) RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program: Methodology, Assessment Criteria and Quality Assurance / Quality Control Details (GHD document number 75918). Samples were analysed for the contaminants of concern that apply to the current or former activities in the vicinity of the particular location.

Data has been used to identify exceedances above nominated assessment criteria and any changes in groundwater flow directions, gradients and quality to highlight any potential increased risk of exposure or off-site migration. It has then been considered whether a change in management action is required at a particular facility or legacy site or if current actions are sufficient.

The main action arising out of the December 2011 monitoring round is for additional PFOS/PFOA analysis to be undertaken during the March 2012 round (in groundwater and surface water) at potential source areas and down gradient locations to develop a preliminary delineation of groundwater concentrations at RAAF WLM.

Based on the Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) procedures and results, it is considered that the data collected as part of this quarterly groundwater monitoring round are of an acceptable quality on which to base the recommendations of this report.


1. Introduction

1.1 Overview The Defence Environmental Policy 2005 communicates the commitment of Defence to adopt a leading role in environmental management.

“Defence will be a leader in sustainable environmental management to support the ADF’s capability to defend Australia and its national interests”.

Defence is committed to being a good neighbour and demonstrating that the operations of the military and the associated management of the properties that support military capability are undertaken in an appropriate manner that does not compromise the health and wellbeing of the community and the environment.

Consequently, groundwater investigations and monitoring have been undertaken at RAAF Base Williamtown (RAAF WLM) and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range (SAWR) for over a decade. The monitoring program is risk based in that it targets facilities and legacy sites that pose a high risk of contamination to groundwater, quantifies the risk of potentially contaminating activities to groundwater drinking resources on the Tomago Sandbeds and monitors contaminant movement to ensure that the risk to sensitive receptors remains low. On the ground, monitoring wells are located up gradient, down gradient and in the immediate vicinity of potentially contaminating source areas, as well as around the perimeter of the properties and in the immediate vicinity of sensitive receptors. The groundwater monitoring program has continuously been expanded and refined, based on the recommendations of various consultant studies, to target the higher risk facilities and key analytes.

This report details the work carried out and highlights results from the December 2011 quarterly monitoring round. Monitoring at RAAF WLM was undertaken between 5 and 16 December 2011. Monitoring at SAWR was undertaken on 11 December 2011.

1.2 Objectives The objective of the groundwater monitoring program at RAAF WLM and SAWR is to ensure that the impact of contaminated areas on sensitive receptors remains low by:

Monitoring groundwater quality entering and leaving these areas.

Identifying long term trends.

Early detection of losses from potential source areas of contamination at current facilities.

The primary receptor is the groundwater drinking resource within the Tomago Sandbeds, although the protection of aquatic ecosystems is also of paramount importance.

2 RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program December 2011 External Monitoring Report

22/15592/97421 R0

2. Scope of Works

2.1 Scope of Works The work carried out was a quarterly groundwater monitoring round at RAAF WLM and SAWR.

Specifically, the following works were carried out:

Sampling 61 groundwater monitoring wells at RAAF WLM and eight groundwater monitoring wells at SAWR. The locations of these wells are shown in Figures 1 to 7 in Appendix A. Wells at RAAF WLM have been grouped in Zones, with each Zone containing one or more Facilities as outlined in Table 2-1. The monitoring wells are located to target high risk facilities, such as fuel handling, workshop, fire training and the sewage treatment plant, and legacy sites that pose a high risk of contamination to groundwater.

Collection of field parameters (depth to water, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), redox potential (reported in mV), temperature and electrical conductivity (EC)) using a calibrated multi parameter water quality meter at all groundwater monitoring locations.

Analysis of each sample by a NATA accredited laboratory, according to the analytical schedules outlined in Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix B.

Reporting of results including exceedances above nominated water quality guidelines (and site specific criteria, where available) and changes from nominated baseline concentrations and groundwater flow directions and gradients.

Table 2-1 also gives the approximate distance of the closest Hunter Water Corporation (HWC) groundwater pumping station from each Zone.

Table 2-1 Details of RAAF WLM and SAWR Facilities and Activities

Zone Facilities Potential Contaminating Activity/Sources

Contaminants of Concern1

Location of Closest HWC Groundwater Pumping Station

1 E01 – legacy site

134 – current facility



549 – legacy site

FHL – current facility

Workshops, underground storage tanks (USTs), former fuel storage and trade waste treatment plant.

TPH, BTEX, PAHs, Phenols, NH4+/NH3, NOx, Heavy Metals, HAH, Total P.

600 – 1000 m, cross-gradient.



Fire training, former fuel storage.

TPH, BTEX, Phenols, Heavy Metals, NH4+/NH3, NOx, MBAS, PFOS/PFOA.

400 – 700 m, varies between up gradient, down gradient or cross-gradient.


Zone Facilities Potential Contaminating Activity/Sources

Contaminants of Concern1

Location of Closest HWC Groundwater Pumping Station

3 479 – current facility

394 – legacy site

Fire training, former landfill.

TPH, BTEX, PAHs, NH4+/NH3, Heavy Metals, MBAS, PFOS/PFOA.

500 – 1000 m, up gradient.




Fuel storage and filling, former landfill.

TPH, BTEX, PAHs, NH4+/NH3, NOx, Heavy Metals, Phenols, Sulfate, Ferrous Iron, VOCs, SVOCs.

700 – 1200 m, down gradient.

5 410 – current facility

CNN 0053 – legacy site

Sewage treatment plant with associated ponds, fuel storage, and burial sites.

TPH, BTEX, PAHs, NH4+/NH3, Total P, Reactive P, MBAS, Heavy Metals, Faecal Coliforms, VOCs, SVOCs.

2000 m, up gradient.

SAWR Target area – current facility

Spent ordnance and dump sites.

Heavy Metals, TPH, BTEX.

500 – 1000 m, down gradient and cross gradient.

1 TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene, PAH = Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, NOx = Nitrogen Oxides, HAH = Halogenated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons, MBAS = Methylene Blue Active Substances, FC = faecal coliforms, VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds, SVOCs = Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds.

Note that groundwater monitoring well W55 at Facility 410 was inaccessible and could not be sampled.

2.2 Methodology and Assessment Criteria Information regarding the methodology, adopted assessment criteria and Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) details for the groundwater monitoring program are provided in GHD (2006) RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program: Methodology, Assessment Criteria and Quality Assurance / Quality Control Details (GHD document number 75918), which should be read in conjunction with this report.


22/15592/97421 R0

3. Field and Analytical Results

3.1 Overview Results have been reported by exception to highlight identified changes in groundwater flow directions and gradients, changes in groundwater quality or assessment criteria exceedances.

3.2 Groundwater Flow Groundwater contours for the current monitoring round are shown in Figures 1 to 6 in Appendix A. Changes in groundwater flow directions and increases in groundwater hydraulic gradients throughout RAAF WLM and SAWR have been determined by comparing results for the current monitoring round with directions and gradients reported for the May 2005 monitoring round. Groundwater contours for the May 2005 monitoring round have been selected as ‘baseline’ as they are typical of the contours reported throughout RAAF WLM and SAWR between February 2003 and December 2005. The appropriateness of the nominated baseline contours is reviewed annually.

The key below outlines the change categories for groundwater direction and gradient adopted for this assessment. Changes between the May 2005 monitoring round and the current round (as well as the December 2010, March 2011, June 2011 and September 2011 rounds) have been determined for each zone and are given in Table 3-1.

Key: Direction

Less than 22.5 degrees variation.

Change between 22.5 and 45 degrees.

Change between 45 and 77.5 degrees.

Change greater than 77.5 degrees.

Key: Gradient

No increase or increase less than 50%.

Increase between 50 and 100%.

Increase between 100 and 200%.

Increase greater than 200%.


Table 3-1 Changes in Groundwater Directions and Gradients

Zone

Groundwater Flow Direction Approximate Groundwater Gradient D

ec-1

0

Mar

-11

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec

-11

Dec

-10

Mar

-11

Jun-

11

Sep-

11

Dec

-11

1 SSE SSE SSE-SE SSE-SE SSE 0.002 0.0017 0.002 0.0022 0.0021

2 SSE SSE SE-ESE SE SSE 0.002 0.0015 0.002 0.002 0.0022

3 S-SSW S-SSW S-SSW S-SSW S-SSW 0.0014 0.0015 0.0026 0.0025 0.0026

4 SSE SSE SSE SSE SSE 0.0020 0.0024 0.0025 0.0024 0.0015

5 S-SSE S-SSE S-SSE S-SSE S-SSW 0.0024 0.0024 0.0019 0.0015 0.0013

SAWR SE-NE SE-NE SE-NE SE-NE SE-ESE 0.0017 0.0015 0.0019 0.002 0.0013


22/15592/97421 R0

A change in groundwater flow direction should be addressed if it results in a more sensitive receptor, such as a surface water body or drinking water extraction wells, being down gradient of the facility. At this stage, it is considered that orange and red category changes in groundwater flow direction are suitable triggers for determining whether further management action is required.

An increase in groundwater hydraulic gradient could result in an increase in the rate of migration of groundwater contaminants off-site. At this stage, it is considered that a red category increase in groundwater gradient is a suitable trigger for determining whether current actions are sufficient or if further management action is required.

The appropriateness of these management action triggers is reviewed annually. For the December 2011 round, the changes in groundwater flow direction and groundwater gradients were minimal, and therefore no further action is required.

3.3 Data Tables Data for the December 2011 monitoring round are given in Tables 3 to 17 in Appendix B. Note that all data are to be reviewed with reference to the discussion contained in Section 5.

Exceedances above nominated assessment criteria have been highlighted according to the key below (assessment criteria referred to as ‘guidelines’ in key). In addition, changes in groundwater quality over time have been identified by comparing results to ‘baseline’ concentrations. Following a review of historical groundwater data for RAAF WLM and SAWR, data for the February 2003 monitoring round have generally been nominated as ‘baseline’ concentrations for the purpose of identifying changes in concentrations for wells installed prior to 2006. These data are reasonably typical of concentrations reported since ongoing groundwater monitoring began in 1999. Data for the May 2006 round have generally been nominated as ‘baseline’ concentrations for identifying changes in concentrations for wells installed in 2006.

Increases in exceedance categories between the nominated baseline monitoring rounds and the current monitoring round have been shaded according to the key below. These changes only apply to analytes that have assessment criteria because they are based on changes in exceedance categories.

At this stage, it is considered that any increase in exceedance categories should be a trigger for determining whether current actions are sufficient or if further management action is required, since changes could represent an increased risk of impact to down gradient receptors.


Key: Exceedances categories highlighted as follows

within 1.1 times guideline concentrations

greater than 1.1 and up to 2.5 times guideline concentrations

greater than 2.5 and up to 10 times guideline concentrations

greater than 10 times guideline concentrations

Changes from 'baseline' (Feb 2003) indicated as follows

up an exceedance category

up two exceedance categories

up three or more exceedance categories


22/15592/97421 R0

4. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

4.1 Field QC Sampling Field QC samples for this monitoring round comprised eight duplicate (intra-laboratory) samples and eight rinsate samples. A description of these QC samples and the methodology by which that QA/QC has been assessed is provided in GHD (2006) RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program: Methodology, Assessment Criteria and Quality Assurance / Quality Control Details (GHD document number 75918).

4.2 QA / QC Results

4.2.1 Field QC

Assessment of field QC duplicate samples was undertaken by calculating the RPD of the duplicate sample pair. The duplicate samples were analysed for the same parameters as the primary samples. All RPD results were within the acceptable range with the exception of the results outlined in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 RPD Exceedances

Well Name QC Sample Facility Analyte RPD (%)

B123 QA01 E01 Dissolved Zinc 33

W20 QA09 134 Dissolved Nickel 67

B117 QA03 E06 N03N Nitrate 120

Nitrite + Nitrate 67

W21 QA05 384 N03N Nitrate 40

Nitrite + Nitrate 40

W60 QA07 410

Dissolved Copper 60

Dissolved Iron 33

Dissolved Zinc 145

These RPD exceedances can generally be attributed to laboratory precision at low concentrations (most less than ten times the limit of reporting).


Rinsate blanks were collected on 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 16 December 2011 and results indicate that decontamination of equipment was generally adequate. All analytes were reported below the laboratory Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL), with the exception of naphthalene within sample QA02 which was detected at a concentration of 1.2 µg/L and MBAS within sample QA18 which was detected at a concentration of 0.1 mg/L. The two wells sampled prior to rinsate QA02 had detections of naphthalene at concentrations of 164 µg/L and 176 µg/L, which may have impacted on the results of the rinsate. The two wells sampled prior to rinsate QA18 had detections of MBAS at concentrations of 0.4 mg/L and 0.1 mg/L. Since the concentrations of all other analytes in these rinsate samples were below PQL, and that the detections of naphthalene and MBAS were only slightly above PQL, these concentrations reported are considered to have minimal impact on the results for each day’s sampling.

The results of the field QC indicate that the data collected as part of this quarterly groundwater monitoring round is of an acceptable quality on which to base the recommendations of this report.

4.2.2 Laboratory QC

Assessment of laboratory QC was undertaken internally by the testing laboratory, however, the results were independently reviewed and assessed by GHD. Laboratory QC samples were generally within the acceptable ranges, with the exception of several outliers for laboratory control spikes, matrix spikes and surrogates which have been discussed by the laboratory in their reports.

The analytical laboratory undertook the analyses utilising its own internal procedures and test methods (for which it is NATA accredited) and in accordance with its own QA system which forms part of its NATA accreditation.

The results of these internal laboratory QC analyses are included with the certificates of analyses. Other internal laboratory quality control procedures, as required for NATA registration, are performed and are not reported by the laboratories.

4.2.3 QA/QC Evaluation

An evaluation of the DQIs for the project is provided below:

Data Representativeness – GHD considers that data is representative of actual groundwater quality at RAAF WLM and SAWR at the locations monitored at the time of sampling.

Document Completeness – GHD have maintained records of all sampling events. This information includes the person undertaking the sampling, the date and location of all samples and the analysis requested and field observations.

Data Comparability:

– The project laboratory is NATA certified for the analyses undertaken.

– Sampling was undertaken in general accordance with GHD’s Standard FOP.


22/15592/97421 R0

Precision and Accuracy for Sampling and Analysis – Field and laboratory QC assessments of data have been undertaken and results suggest that data is of acceptable quality on which to base the recommendations of this report.

Decision Rules – Data was compared against investigation guidelines made or endorsed by NSW EPA.


5. Discussion of Results

5.1 Overview The following discussion is based on data obtained from the December 2011 groundwater monitoring round at RAAF WLM and SAWR and is therefore relevant only for this point in time and subject to review in the next monitoring round. In the case where no additional action is required for a particular facility, this is not meant to imply that there are no contamination issues at this facility. Rather, it implies that the current actions should continue or previous recommendations should still be investigated.

Comparisons have been made between results for the December 2011 round and the nominated assessment criteria, as well as data from the baseline rounds (generally February 2003 for wells installed prior to 2006, May 2006 for wells installed during 2006, and June 2006 for wells installed at Facility 410), and have been discussed by exception.

As discussed in the May 2006 quarterly groundwater monitoring report, although dissolved heavy metal concentrations (particularly aluminium) frequently exceed nominated assessment criteria, they are, to a large extent, likely indicative of background concentrations of the Tomago Sandbeds. The mobilisation of iron and other metals, including arsenic, aluminium, zinc, and manganese, within the Tomago Sandbeds has been induced through the oxidation of grey sands found at 13 m to 21 m below ground level (bgl). This oxidation process has a well-documented link to the historical mineral sand mining and water extraction that has taken place within the Sandbeds (Woolley et al., 1995; GHD, 1995).

GHD is currently in the process of establishing and revising site-specific criteria for RAAF WLM and SAWR for some heavy metals based on concentration data for wells (located on both Defence and HWC land) representative of background conditions (GHD, 2009b). Background wells have been nominated by GHD based primarily on their location (ie up gradient of facilities and legacy sites, or close to site boundaries) and observed groundwater chemistry (ie low organic and metal concentrations) and include SK3493 and SK5387 (HWC wells near SAWR), W12, W26, W29, W30, W31 and W38. In this discussion, reference has been made to site-specific criteria proposed by GHD (2009b):

Aluminium=1.23 mg/L.

Chromium =0.002 mg/L.

Copper= 0.001 mg/L.

Iron= 0.70 mg/L.

Zinc =0.06 mg/L.


22/15592/97421 R0

5.2 Zone 1

5.2.1 Facility E01

Current results do not indicate that additional action is required at this legacy site, although well W25 could be removed from the monitoring program as discussed in GHD (2010a) and GHD (2011). GHD understands that further assessment at this site is being undertaken by the University of South Australia.

Dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons and phenols were generally present at concentrations below the February 2003 baseline concentrations at all the monitoring wells in which groundwater contamination has previously been detected. Exceptions to this trend have been identified at wells W19 and B123 in the vicinity of the source zone and are detailed as follows:

Concentrations of TPH C6-C9 at W19 (increase from 263 µg/L in February 2003 to 580 µg/L in December 2011).

Concentrations of TPH C10- C36 at B123 (increase from 11,160 µg/L in February 2003 to 20,300 µg/L in December 2011).

Meta and Para Xylene concentrations at W19 (increase from 77 µg/L in February 2003 to 221 µg/L in December 2011).

3 and 4 Methylphenol concentrations at B123 (increase from below the laboratory PQL in February 2003 to 37.5 µg/L in December 2011).

3 and 4 Methylphenol concentrations at W19 (increasing from below the laboratory PQL in February 2003 to 12 µg/L in December 2011).

TPH and BTEX concentrations at up gradient well W17 and at down gradient well W22 (approximately 200 m down gradient from the source zone) generally continue to be reported below the laboratory PQL, however naphthalene concentrations were reported at 1.8 µg/L at W17. Napthalene concentrations continue to exceed the assessment criteria by greater than 10 times at locations B123, W18 and W19.

As noted during previous groundwater monitoring rounds, wells W19 and B123 are in the vicinity of the petroleum hydrocarbon source zone, which is a reducing environment. Geochemical evidence, including iron and manganese concentrations, suggests that natural attenuation (biodegradation) of the dissolved hydrocarbon plume is occurring and restricting its down gradient migration. Note that reported BTEX and TPH concentrations are typically higher at W18 than at W25, even though well W25 is approximately 40 m closer to the source zone. This has been observed for most monitoring rounds (including February 2003), however this monitoring round has seen a decrease in total xylene concentrations at W18 and thereby xylene concentrations were higher at W25. TPH concentrations continue to be higher at W18. A desktop assessment of petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations at Facility E01 was undertaken by GHD (GHD, 2010a) and concluded that a secondary TPH source in the vicinity of W18 is unlikely while enhanced natural attenuation of the TPH plume is likely occurring in the vicinity of W25.


Concentrations of ammonia at all locations were below the February 2003 baseline, except at B123 (increase from 1.18 mg/L in February 2003 to 5.32 mg/L in December 2011) and W19 (increase from 1.88 mg/L in February 2003 to 6.39 mg/L in December 2011). This would be attributable to the reducing environment around the source zone. Concentrations of nitrate as N exceeded the assessment criterion at locations B123 by 22 times and at locations W17 and W25 by two times.

Reported dissolved heavy metal concentrations have been assessed against the nominated criteria in Table 5-1 in the GHD (2006) RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program: Methodology, Assessment Criteria and Quality Assurance / Quality Control Details (GHD document number 75918).and preliminary site specific criteria (GHD, 2009b), as well as concentrations at background and up gradient wells. Concentrations were generally less than the assessment criteria and/or preliminary site specific criteria, were within the range of concentrations previously reported at the up gradient well (W17) and/or nominated background and up gradient wells for RAAF WLM, or were similar to February 2003 concentrations, with the exception of the following:

Iron concentration at B123 (3.92 mg/L) exceeded the assessment criterion by 13 times, exceeded concentrations reported in February 2003 by three times and exceeded concentrations reported at W17 by nearly 10 times. The elevated iron concentration is attributable to the reducing environment around the source zone and is within the range of concentrations previously reported at this location.

5.2.2 Facility 134

Current results do not indicate that additional action is required at this facility at this stage. A preliminary plume delineation investigation has been undertaken by (GHD, 2010b) and found that further investigations in the area of Facility 134 are not required at this stage, although a secondary source of chlorinated solvents may be present in the vicinity of well W44.

Concentrations of TPH C10-C36 and TPH C6-C9 were below the laboratory reporting limit at all locations for this monitoring round. Concentrations of phenols were below laboratory detection levels at all locations.

Concentrations of chlorinated solvents were generally consistent with previous sampling rounds and no exceedances were reported. Detectable concentrations of solvents were identified at well W42 (near the historical source zone at W20) and at down gradient wells W44 and W80.

Most dissolved heavy metal concentrations were less than the assessment criteria and/or preliminary site specific criteria, were within the range of concentrations previously reported at the nominated background and up gradient wells for RAAF WLM, or were similar to February 2003 concentrations, with the exception of the following:

Iron concentration at W43M (2.09 mg/L) exceeded the assessment criterion by nearly seven times and the site specific criterion by three time, although is within the range of concentrations previously reported at this location.


22/15592/97421 R0

5.2.3 Facility 26

Current results do not indicate that additional action is required at this facility. Continue to monitor TPH and heavy metal concentrations at W49 on a quarterly basis to provide background groundwater quality data.

Concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons TPH C6-C36 were below laboratory detection levels. All dissolved heavy metal concentrations were below the assessment criteria and/or site specific criteria.

5.2.4 Fuel Hydrant Line

Due to the elevated concentrations of TPH C6-C9 and TPH C10-C36 in groundwater in the vicinity of the December 2009 fuel spill, it is recommended that monitoring at wells W112 and W113 continue on a quarterly basis and that BTEX analysis be included in the analytical suite.

Monitoring at this facility was undertaken at the five wells located along the FHL (W107-W111), as well as three additional wells installed in the vicinity of the Squadron 2 Parking/Refuelling Apron (W112-W114). These additional wells were installed in December 2010 following Avtur fuel spills in December 2009.

No detections of TPH in the range C6-C36 were reported at the wells located along the FHL. However, there was an exceedance in the TPH C10-C36 concentration by approximately two times at W112, located immediately down gradient of the December 2009 fuel spill, and elevated concentrations of TPH C6-C9 were reported at wells W112 and W113. TPH concentrations at W112 and W113 were generally higher than those reported in December 2010. It is recommended that BTEX analysis be included in subsequent monitoring rounds at W112 and W113.

5.3 Zone 2

5.3.1 Facility E03

Current results do not indicate that additional action (beyond that which has been recommended in the 2010 Annual Report) is required at this legacy site.

Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (TPH C6-C9 and C10-C36) were below laboratory detection limits at both monitoring locations (W9 and W10).

Dissolved heavy metal concentrations were above the assessment criteria and above the concentrations previously reported in February 2003 for the following:

Iron concentration at W10 (1.3 mg/L) exceeded the assessment criterion by four times and slightly exceeded the site specific criterion.

Iron concentrations at W9 (1.84 mg/L) exceeded the assessment criterion by six times and exceeded the site specific criterion.

Note that these iron concentrations were within the range previously reported at these locations. MBAS concentrations were reported at the laboratory PQL of 0.1 mg/L for both samples. Concentrations of phenols were below the laboratory PQL at both locations.


5.3.2 Facility 165

Based on PFOA and PFOS groundwater concentrations at this facility, it is recommended that additional PFOS/PFOA analysis be undertaken during the March 2012 round (in groundwater and surface water) at potential source areas and down gradient locations to develop a preliminary delineation of groundwater concentrations at RAAF WLM. A fate and transport model is also required to assess the risk of elevated PFOS/PFOA concentrations to down gradient receptors.

Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (TPH C6-C9 and C10-C36) reported in December 2011 were consistently below the laboratory detection limit and/or assessment criterion.

Potential impacts from the use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at this facility have been assessed using the methylene blue active substances test (MBAS), which is a non-specific test used to monitor for anionic surfactants, as well as analysis for Perfluorooctyl acids and sulfonates (PFOS/PFOA/FtS). The MBAS concentration at down gradient well W51 was slightly higher than at up gradient well W50. MBAS detected at down gradient well FTP1 was less than the concentration reported in May 2006.

PFOS and PFOA analysis undertaken at this facility in December 2011 revealed:

PFOS concentrations exceeded the adopted criterion at all monitoring locations. Exceedances ranged from two orders of magnitude at the up gradient well (W50) to three orders of magnitude at the down gradient wells (W51 and FTP1).

PFOA concentrations exceeded the adopted criterion at all locations (by up to six times).

PFOS and PFOA are components of the 3M AFFF that is no longer used at RAAF WLM. Therefore, the reported concentrations represent a legacy impact to groundwater. The Ansulite AFFF currently used at RAAF WLM does not contain PFOS or PFOA. Based on statistical trend analysis of MBAS concentrations reported at FTP1 and W51 since 2006, there is a statistically significant decreasing trend in MBAS. This suggests that PFOS and PFOA concentrations in groundwater may also have reduced over this time.

Nevertheless, based on the elevated PFOS and PFOA concentrations detected in groundwater at Facility 165, and the relatively close proximity of Facility 165 to the stormwater system, it is considered a high priority for Defence to assess the risk of off-site migration of PFOS and PFOA and determine the risk of impact to off-site receptors, including HWC borefields and private groundwater wells. It is recommended that this assessment include further groundwater and surface water monitoring and the development of a fate and transport model for PFOS/PFOA migrating from the fire training areas and any other source areas identified by further monitoring.


22/15592/97421 R0

5.4 Zone 3

5.4.1 Facility 479

Based on PFOA and PFOS groundwater concentrations at this legacy site, it is recommended that additional PFOS/PFOA analysis be undertaken during the March 2012 round (in groundwater and surface water) at potential source areas and down gradient locations to develop a preliminary delineation of groundwater concentrations at RAAF WLM. A fate and transport model is also required to assess the risk of elevated PFOS/PFOA concentrations to down gradient receptors.

No petroleum hydrocarbon detections were reported in December 2011. The MBAS concentrations at down gradient wells W53, W54 and B122 were marginally higher than the concentration reported at up gradient well W52, although down gradient concentrations were consistently less than the concentrations reported in May 2006.

PFOS and PFOA analysis undertaken at this facility in December 2011 revealed:

PFOS concentrations exceeded the adopted criterion at all monitoring locations. Exceedances ranged from two orders of magnitude at the up gradient well (W52) to three orders of magnitude at the down gradient wells (W53, W54 and B122).

PFOA concentrations exceeded the adopted criterion at all locations (by up to five times) with the exception of upgradient well W52.

As discussed for Facility 165, the reported concentrations of PFOS and PFOA at the Fire Training Pit represents a legacy impact to groundwater. Statistically significant decreasing trends in MBAS concentrations have also been detected at most groundwater monitoring wells at this facility, suggesting that PFOS and PFOA concentrations in groundwater may also have reduced over this time.

Nevertheless, based on the elevated PFOS and PFOA concentrations detected in groundwater at Facility 479, and the close proximity of Facility 479 to the site boundary, it is considered a high priority for Defence to assess the risk of off-site migration of PFOS and PFOA and determine the risk of impact to off-site receptors, including HWC borefields and private groundwater wells. It is recommended that this assessment include further groundwater and surface water monitoring and the development of a fate and transport model for PFOS/PFOA migrating from the fire training areas and any other source areas identified by further monitoring.

5.4.2 Facility 394

Current results do not indicate that additional action is required at this legacy site.

The concentration of ammonia was reported slightly above the assessment criterion at W40, with a concentration of 1.16 mg/L, however this concentration was below the baseline concentration.


Concentrations of heavy metals were generally below the assessment criteria and/or preliminary site specific criteria, within the range of concentrations previously reported at the nominated background and up gradient wells for RAAF WLM, or were similar to February 2003 concentrations. Elevated dissolved iron concentrations (associated with reducing conditions within the landfilled area) were generally similar to previous rounds. The highest concentration of dissolved iron was reported at W40, nearly 40 times the preliminary site specific criterion. This concentration was lower than the baseline concentration. Zinc concentrations at W37 were reported above the assessment criterion and were five times greater than the February 2003 concentrations, but were lower than the site specific criterion.

5.5 Zone 4

5.5.1 Facility E06

Current results do not indicate that additional action is required at this legacy site.

No petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH C10-C36) or PAH exceedances were reported for the December 2011 monitoring round.

Dissolved heavy metal concentrations were generally below the assessment criteria and / or preliminary site specific criteria, within the range of concentrations previously reported at the nominated background and up gradient wells for RAAF WLM, or were similar to February 2003 concentrations, with the exception of the following:

Elevated concentrations of dissolved iron and zinc continue to be reported in the vicinity of the previously land filled area (particularly W36 and B117). The highest concentration of dissolved iron was reported at monitoring well W36 at 61 times the assessment criterion, and the highest concentration of dissolved zinc was reported at monitoring well W30 at a concentration slightly above (less than two times) the site specific criterion. Reported concentrations of iron and zinc were in the range of previously reported at these locations.

Elevated nitrate concentrations continue to be reported at down gradient locations (W105, W30 and W31). The concentrations reported in December 2011 were in the range previously reported at these locations and continue to show an oxidising of reduced nitrogen down gradient of the land filled area.

5.5.2 Facility 384

Since petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations generally appear to be increasing at W47, statistical analysis will be undertaken in the next annual report to confirm whether there is an increasing trend and to inform what actions should be taken.

Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (TPH C6-C9 and C10-C36) were below the laboratory PQL and/or assessment criteria at all locations. Total xylenes and naphthalene concentrations at W47 marginally exceeded the assessment criteria (ie less than two times the assessment criteria). Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations at W47 were below those reported in September 2011 and below the concentrations reported in May 2006.


22/15592/97421 R0

Petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH C10-C14) were detected at well W21 (60 µg/L), situated down gradient of W47. The concentration was below the laboratory PQL during the previous monitoring round. It is estimated that the distance from W47 to the RAAF WLM boundary in the direction of groundwater flow is over 1 km.

Natural attenuation at W47 and W21 is expected, given the oxidising state of the groundwater (greater than 2 mg/L). Elevated concentrations of nitrate concentrations at W47, which exceeded the assessment criteria by nearly 40 times, suggest possible oxidation of reduced nitrogen species.

5.6 Zone 5

5.6.1 Facility 410

Current results do not indicate that additional action is required at this facility, although it is recommended that an investigation of the extent of the nutrient plume(s) be carried out in conjunction with the decommissioning of the STP. It is also recommended that appropriate action be taken to allow access to well W55.

There were no exceedances of TPH C6-C36, BTEX and PAHs at any of the wells at this facility.

Heavy metal concentrations were generally either less than the assessment criteria and/or preliminary site specific criteria, within the range of concentrations previously reported at the nominated background and up gradient wells for RAAF WLM, or were similar to baseline concentrations with the exception of the following:

Dissolved copper concentration at B101 (0.005 mg/L) exceeded the assessment criterion by 3.5 times and increased from concentrations reported in February 2003 which were below the laboratory PQL.

Dissolved zinc concentration at B101 exceeded the assessment criterion by 63 times and the site specific criterion by almost ten times.

Statistical trend analysis will be undertaken as part of the next annual review to assess whether heavy metal concentrations at B101 are increasing.

Total phosphorous concentrations continued to exceed the assessment criterion at all groundwater monitoring locations. The highest exceedances, which were two orders of magnitude greater than the assessment criterion, continued to be reported at wells adjacent to the effluent ponds. Concentrations during this monitoring round were generally greater than the February 2003 baseline concentrations suggesting effluent contamination from the ponds is still occurring. GHD anticipates that further investigations of elevated nutrient concentrations will be carried out when the STP is decommissioned.

Thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms were detected at W57, W59 and W60 with reported counts of 2 cfu/100 mL, 8 cfu/100 mL and 4 cfu/100 mL respectively. These counts were generally lower than those reported in the previous monitoring round and lower than those reported in June 2006.


5.7 Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Current results do not indicate that additional action is required at this facility.

Heavy metal concentrations were generally below the assessment criteria and/or preliminary site specific criteria, within the range of concentrations previously reported at the nominated background and up gradient wells for SAWR, or were similar to February 2003 concentrations. The following exceptions are noted:

Concentrations of dissolved cadmium at locations MB8, MB6 and MB2 exceeded the assessment criterion and increased from February 2003 concentrations. The highest concentration was reported at location MB6 at 14 times the assessment criterion.

Copper concentrations that exceeded the assessment criterion were detected at MB2, MB8 and MB3. Concentrations of copper at the locations were slightly above the February 2003 baseline values.

Iron concentrations exceeded the assessment criterion and were approximately two times greater than the site specific criterion at MB2 and MB8.

Although exceedances of the assessment criteria and February baselines concentrations did occur, dissolved metal concentrations were within the ranges previously reported at SAWR.

Total metal concentration data for December 2011 indicates that metals at down gradient well SK3493 were predominantly in the dissolved (bioavailable) phase.


22/15592/97421 R0

6. Conclusions

GHD has undertaken quarterly monitoring as part of the Groundwater Monitoring Program for RAAF WLM and SAWR. Changes in groundwater flow and groundwater quality have been assessed to identify whether immediate action is required. High priority actions required based on the monitoring data obtained from the December 2011 are as follows:

Add BTEX to the analytical suite for monitoring wells W112 and W113 situated near the fuel spill site at the FHL.

Additional PFOS/PFOA analysis to be undertaken during the March 2012 round (in groundwater and surface water) at potential source areas and down gradient locations to develop a preliminary delineation of groundwater concentrations at RAAF WLM. A fate and transport model is also required to assess the risk of elevated PFOS/PFOA concentrations to down gradient receptors.

Field and laboratory QC assessments of data have been undertaken and results suggest that the data is of acceptable quality on which to base the recommendations of this report.


7. Limitations

This December 2011 Quarterly Monitoring Report (“Report”):

1. Has been prepared by GHD Pty Ltd (“GHD”) for the Department of Defence.

2. May only be used and relied on by the Department of Defence.

3. Must not be copied to, used by, or relied on by any person other than the Department of Defence without the prior written consent of GHD and subject always to the next paragraph.

4. May only be used for the purpose as stated in Section 1 of the Report (and must not be used for any other purpose).

GHD and its servants, employees and officers otherwise expressly disclaim responsibility to any person other than the Department of Defence arising from or in connection with this Report.

To the maximum extent permitted by law, all implied warranties and conditions in relation to the services provided by GHD and the Report are excluded unless they are expressly stated to apply in this Report.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this Report:

Were limited to those specifically detailed in Section 3.1 of this Report.

Were undertaken in accordance with current profession practice and by reference to relevant environmental regulatory authority and industry standards, guidelines and assessment criteria in existence as at the date of this Report.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this Report are based on assumptions made by GHD when undertaking the services mentioned above and preparing the Report (“Assumptions”), as specified throughout this Report.

GHD expressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this Report arising from or in connection with any of the Assumptions being incorrect.

Subject to the paragraphs in this section of the Report, the opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this Report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed at the time of preparation of this Report and are relevant until such times as the site conditions or relevant legislations changes, at which time, GHD expressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this Report arising from or in connection with those opinions, conclusions and any recommendations.

No investigations have been undertaken into any off-site conditions, or whether any adjoining sites may have been impacted by contamination or other conditions originating from this site.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this Report are based on information obtained from, and testing undertaken at or in connection with, specific sampling points and may not fully represent the conditions that may be encountered across the site at other than these locations. Site conditions at other parts of the site may be different from the site conditions found at the specific sampling points.


22/15592/97421 R0

GHD has considered and/or tested for only those chemicals specifically referred to in this Report and makes no statement or representation as to the existence (or otherwise) of any other chemicals.

Site conditions (including any the presence of hazardous substances and/or site contamination) may change after the date of this Report. GHD expressly disclaims responsibility:

Arising from, or in connection with, any change to the site conditions; and

To update this Report if the site conditions change.

Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Report GHD makes no warranty or representation as to the presence or otherwise of asbestos and/or asbestos containing materials (“ACM”) on the site. If fill material has been imported on to the site at any time, or if any buildings constructed prior to 1970 have been demolished on the site or material from such buildings disposed of on the site, the site may contain asbestos or ACM.

Subsurface conditions can vary across a particular site and cannot be exhaustively defined by the investigations carried out prior to this Report. As a result, it is unlikely that the results and estimations expressed or used to compile this Report will represent conditions at any location other than the specific points of sampling. A site that appears to be unaffected by contamination at the time of the Report may later, due to natural causes or human intervention, become contaminated.

Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Report, GHD makes no warranty, statement or representation of any kind concerning the suitability of the site for any purpose or the permissibility of any use, development or re-development of the site.

These Disclaimers should be read in conjunction with the entire Report and no excerpts are taken to be representative of the findings of this Report.


8. References

ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

GHD (1995) Tomago and North Stockton Sandbeds Hydrogeological Assessment.

GHD (2006) RAAF Base Williamtown and SAWR Groundwater Monitoring Program: Additional Investigations and Well Augmentation. July 2006.

GHD (2008). RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program: 2007-2008 Annual Report.

GHD (2009a). RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program: 2008-2009 Annual Report.

GHD (2009b). RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program Updated Site Specific Criteria for Heavy Metals.

GHD (2010a). Groundwater Monitoring Program, RAAF Base WLM and SAWR: Petroleum Hydrocarbon Assessment, Facility E01. Letter Report.

GHD (2010b). Plume Delineation Investigation: Facility 134, RAAF Base Williamtown. December 2010.

GHD (2011), RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program, 2010 Annual Report, March 2011.

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (MHSPE) (1994). Environmental Quality Objectives in the Netherlands – A review of environmental quality objectives and their policy framework in the Netherlands.

NHMRC/NRMMC (2011). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. National Health and Medical Research Council/Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.

Woolley, D., Mount, T. and Gill J. (1995) NSW Department of Water Resources, Tomago Tomaree Stockton Groundwater – Technical Review.

GHD (2006) RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range Groundwater Monitoring Program: Methodology, Assessment Criteria and Quality Assurance / Quality Control Details (GHD document number 75918).


Appendix A

Figures

W12

W44

GW6

W17W19

B123W25W18

W20 W41W42 W43M

W80

W107

W108W49

W3 W82W109

W111

W110

W22

GW5

W112W113

W114

Job NumberRevision

FigureDate

Levels 2 & 3 GHD Tower, 24 Honeysuckle Drive Newcastle NSW 2300 Australia T 61 2 4979 9999 F 61 2 4979 9988 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com

G:\22\15592\CADD\Drawings\12 - December 2011 Figures\22-15592-FIG01_FIG07.dwgCad File No:24 February 2012 - 9:41 AMPlot Date: Rebecca J Cocks/Newcastle/GHD/AUPlotted by:

01

Transfield Services Pty LtdGroundwater MonitoringRAAF WLM and SAWRGroundwater Contour Planfor Zone 1

22-15592ADEC 11

NLEGEND

Groundwater Contours in Metres AHD

B122 Facility E01 (L)

B122 Facility 26 (C)


B122 Facility 549 (L)

W82 Facility 480

W107 Fuel & Hydrant line wells

NOTE:Potential contaminating activities = Workshops, former fuelstorage, underground storage tanks. Closest groundwaterpumping station is 600 - 1000m cross-gradient.

Legacy Site

Current Facility(L)(C)

0 300m100 200

SCALE 1:10,000 AT ORIGINAL SIZE

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ghd.com/

FTP1

W50

W51

W9

W10

B8

B5

B108A

Job NumberRevision

FigureDate



02


22-15592ADEC 11

N

NOTE:Potential contaminating activities = Fire training and former fuel storage

0 150m50 100

SCALE 1:5000 AT ORIGINAL SIZE


LEGEND

Monitoring Wells



B122 HWC Pumping Wells

Legacy Site

Current Facility

(L)

(C)


http://www.ghd.com/

W37

W40

B121

B122

W52

W53

W54

N

0 150m50 100


Job NumberRevision

FigureDate



03


22-15592ADEC 11

Groundwater Contours inMetres AHD

LEGEND

Monitoring Wells


NOTE:Potential contaminating activities = Fire training and former landfill.Closest groundwater pumping station is 500 - 1000m up-gradient

Legacy Site

Current Facility(L)(C)



http://www.ghd.com/

W6

W11

W34

W36

B117

W33

W32

W31

W35

W30

W45

W46W79

W83

W21W47

W48

W105

W106

W75

W76

B114B115

Job NumberRevision

FigureDate



04


22-15592ADEC 11

N

0 150m50 100


NOTE:Potential contaminating activities = Fuel storage / filling and former landfill.Closest groundwater pumping station is 700 - 1200m down-gradient.


LEGEND Monitoring Wells



Legacy Site

Current Facility

(L)

(C)

W107 Fuel & Hydrant line wells


http://www.ghd.com/

W26

B101A

W14

W27

W57

W58W59

W60

W65

W66

W71

W55W56

N

0 150m50 100


Job NumberRevision

FigureDate



05


22-15592ADEC 11


LEGEND Monitoring Wells

B122Facility 410 (C)

NOTE:Potential contaminating activities = Sewage treatmentplant and associated ponds, and fuel storage. Closestgroundwater pumping station is 2000m up-gradient.Current Facility(C)


http://www.ghd.com/

MB1

MB2

MB3

MB4

MB5

MB6MB7

MB8MB9S

SK5387

MB9D

SK3493

PS14(1)

N

0 300m100 200


Job NumberRevision

FigureDate


G:\22\15592\CADD\Drawings\12 - December 2011 Figures\22-15592-FIG01_FIG07.dwgCad File No:10 February 2012 - 10:02 AMt Date: Rebecca J Cocks/Newcastle/GHD/AUPlotted by:

06

Transfield Services Pty LtdGroundwater MonitoringRAAF WLM and SAWRGroundwater Contour Planfor Salt Ash Air Weapons Range

22-15592ADEC 11

NOTE:Potential contaminating sources = Spent ordnance and dump sites .

LEGEND

Monitoring Wells included inOngoing Monitoring Program


B122

HWC Pumping StationPS00

3.60


http://www.ghd.com/

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 1

Zone 2

PS 7A(1)PS 7A(3)

PS 7(1)

Zone 3

Job NumberRevision

FigureDate



07

Transfield Services Pty LtdGroundwater MonitoringRAAF WLM and SAWRLocation of Zones atRAAF Base Williamtown

22-15592ADEC 11

N

0 300m100 200


LEGEND

B122 HWC Pumping Wells

Approximate Zone Boundaries


http://www.ghd.com/


Appendix B

Tables


Table 1 Analytical Schedule for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring at RAAF WLM

Faci

lity

TPH

BTE

X

Spec

iate

d Ph

enol

s1

PAH

s

Met

als

Am

mon

ia a

s N

Nitr

ite a

s N

Nitr

ate

as N

Hal

ogen

ated

A

lipha

tics

MB

AS

Tota

l P

Faec

al

Col

iform

s

Sulfa

te

Chl

orid

e

Ferr

ous

Iron

Rea

ctiv

e P

VOC

/SVO

C

PFO

S / P

FOA

/ FT

S

W17

E01

X X X X X2 X X

W19 X X X X X2 X X

B123 X X X X X2 X X

W25 X X X X X2 X X

W18 X X X X X2 X X

W22 X X X X X2 X X

W20

134

X X X X3 X

W41 X X X X3 X

W42 X X X X3 X

W43M X X X X3 X

W44 X X X X3 X

W80 X X X X3 X

W49 26 X X3


22/15592/97421/R0

Faci

lity

TPH

BTE

X

Spec

iate

d Ph

enol

s1

PAH

s

Met

als

Am

mon

ia a

s N

Nitr

ite a

s N

Nitr

ate

as N

Hal

ogen

ated

A

lipha

tics

MB

AS

Tota

l P

Faec

al

Col

iform

s

Sulfa

te

Chl

orid

e

Ferr

ous

Iron

Rea

ctiv

e P

VOC

/SVO

C

PFO

S / P

FOA

/ FT

S

W9 E03

X X X X4 X X X

W10 X X X X4 X X X

W50

165

X X X X

W51 X X X X

FTP1 X X X X

W37

394

X2 X

W40 X2 X

B121 X2 X

W52

479

X X X

W53 X X X

W54 X X X

B122 X X X

W105 E06

X X X X3 X X X

W106 X X X X3 X X X


Faci

lity

TPH

BTE

X

Spec

iate

d Ph

enol

s1

PAH

s

Met

als

Am

mon

ia a

s N

Nitr

ite a

s N

Nitr

ate

as N

Hal

ogen

ated

A

lipha

tics

MB

AS

Tota

l P

Faec

al

Col

iform

s

Sulfa

te

Chl

orid

e

Ferr

ous

Iron

Rea

ctiv

e P

VOC

/SVO

C

PFO

S / P

FOA

/ FT

S

W6 X X X3 X X X

W35 X X X3 X X X

W34 X X X3 X X X

W36 X X X3 X X X

W33 X X X3 X X X

B117 X X X3 X X X

W32 X X X3 X X X

W30 X X X3 X X X

W31 X X X X3 X X X

W45

384

X X

W46 X X

W47 X X X X X5 X X X

W48 X X

W21 X X X X X5 X X X


22/15592/97421/R0

Faci

lity

TPH

BTE

X

Spec

iate

d Ph

enol

s1

PAH

s

Met

als

Am

mon

ia a

s N

Nitr

ite a

s N

Nitr

ate

as N

Hal

ogen

ated

A

lipha

tics

MB

AS

Tota

l P

Faec

al

Col

iform

s

Sulfa

te

Chl

orid

e

Ferr

ous

Iron

Rea

ctiv

e P

VOC

/SVO

C

PFO

S / P

FOA

/ FT

S

W79 X X

W83 X X

W26

410

X X X X2 X X

B101 X X X2 X X X

W14 X X X2 X X

W27 X X X2 X X

W55 X X X X2 X X

W56 X X X X2 X X

W57 X X X2 X X X

W58 X X X2 X X X

W59 X X X2 X X X X

W60 X X X2 X X X X

W107 FHL

X

W108 X


Faci

lity

TPH

BTE

X

Spec

iate

d Ph

enol

s1

PAH

s

Met

als

Am

mon

ia a

s N

Nitr

ite a

s N

Nitr

ate

as N

Hal

ogen

ated

A

lipha

tics

MB

AS

Tota

l P

Faec

al

Col

iform

s

Sulfa

te

Chl

orid

e

Ferr

ous

Iron

Rea

ctiv

e P

VOC

/SVO

C

PFO

S / P

FOA

/ FT

S

W109 X

W110 X

W111 X

W112 X

W113 X

W114 X

Note:

1 Includes 12 priority analytes

2 Dissolved metals analysis includes Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn

3 Dissolved metal analysis includes: Ag, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Sb, Zn, Al, As, Pb, Hg 4 Dissolved metals analysis includes Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn

5 Dissolved metal analysis includes: Pb and Fe


22/15592/97421 R0

Table 2 Analytical Schedule for Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring at SAWR

Metals (Filtered)

Metals (Total)

Total Hardness

TPH / BTEX

MB2 X X

MB3 X X

MB5 X X

MB6 X X

MB8 X X

MB9D X X

SK3493 X X X

SK5387 X X

Note: Metal analysis includes: Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Pb, Zn.

Table 3 - Groundwater Monitoring Data for Facility E01 (mg/L unless indicated)Note: data to be reviewed with reference to discussion in Section 5 in report

Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

ASSESSMENT CRITERIAFeb-03 B123 2.79 3.72 5.60 0.32 3 23.0 197.0Dec-11 B123 1.67 4.84 5.7 0.99 -64 20.4 1015.0Dec-11 QA01 - - - - - - -Dec-11 RPD - - - - - - -Feb-03 W12 - - - - - - -Feb-03 W17 - - - - - - -Dec-11 W17 2.11 4.54 6.0 0.66 -126 19.7 331.0Feb-03 W18 2.55 3.57 5.30 0.26 28 24.8 156.9Dec-11 W18 1.95 4.17 5.3 0.92 -91 22.2 438.0Feb-03 W19 2.16 3.86 6.32 0.25 60 23.4 445.9Dec-11 W19 1.59 4.43 6.1 0.84 -126 21.4 760.0Feb-03 W22 2.08 3.40 5.89 0.42 166 22.6 137.6Dec-11 W22 1.52 3.97 6.1 1.15 71 19.3 117.6Feb-03 W23 - - - - - - -Feb-03 W25 2.31 3.62 5.23 0.32 49 22.4 129.2Dec-11 W25 1.71 4.22 5.4 0.25 -53 20.4 145.1

Field Parameters

Table 3 (cont.) - Groundwater Monitoring Data for Facility E01 (mg/L unless indicated)Note: data to be reviewed with reference to discussion in Section 5 in report

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ug/L)

Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Ben

zene

Ethy

l Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Met

a &

Par

a Xy

lene

Ort

hoXy

lene

Tota

l Xyl

enes

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

ASSESSMENT CRIT 950 80 180 75 600Feb-03 B123 nd 57 nd 444 144 588 996 6660 4240 260 11160Dec-11 B123 <5 37 <5 334 29 363 930 13000 7330 <50 20300Dec-11 QA01 <5 37 <5 329 29 358 940 12900 6530 <50 19400Dec-11 RPD 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 12 0 5Feb-03 W12 - - - - - - - - - - -Feb-03 W17 - - - - - - - - - - -Dec-11 W17 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Feb-03 W18 1 87 3 115 72 187 632 4910 3640 221 8771Dec-11 W18 <1 30 <5 30 12 42 190 3440 2730 <50 6170Feb-03 W19 nd 36 nd 77 nd 77 263 5350 3320 430 9100Dec-11 W19 <5 34 <5 221 <5 221 580 4070 690 <50 4760Feb-03 W22 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndDec-11 W22 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Feb-03 W23 - - - - - - - - - - -Feb-03 W25 nd 40 nd 126 21 147 250 2250 1940 191 4381Dec-11 W25 <1 15 <5 62 13 75 190 1810 950 <50 2760

BTEX (ug/L)


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Am

mon

ia

Nitr

ate

Chr

omiu

m

Cop

per

Iron

Man

gane

se

Zinc

2.4D

imet

hylp

heno

l

3&4

Met

hylp

heno

l

Nap

htha

lene

Phen

anth

rene

Pyre

ne

Rem

aini

ng A

naly

tes

ASSESSMENT CRIT 0.9 0.16 0.001 0.0014 0.3 1.9 0.008 2 16 2Feb-03 B123 1.18 nd 0.001 nd 1.2 0.04 0.008 11 nd - - - <PQLDec-11 B123 5.32 3.56 0.003 <0.001 3.92 0.186 0.01 <1.9 37.5 166 <1.9 <1.9 <PQLDec-11 QA01 5.36 4.35 0.003 <0.001 4.07 0.189 0.014 <1.9 35.5 164 <1.9 <1.9 <PQLDec-11 RPD 1 20 0 0 4 2 33 0 5 1 0 0 -Feb-03 W12 - - - - - - - - - - - - -Feb-03 W17 - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dec-11 W17 0.19 0.37 0.004 <0.001 0.4 0.016 0.011 <1 <2 1.8 <1 <1 <PQLFeb-03 W18 1.24 nd nd nd 0.6 0.006 0.015 10 nd - - - <PQLDec-11 W18 0.6 0.04 0.005 <0.001 0.67 0.011 <0.005 <1.9 <3.8 224 <1.9 <1.9 <PQLFeb-03 W19 1.88 nd 0.001 nd 12.6 0.982 0.008 nd nd 464 0.7 0.2 <PQLDec-11 W19 6.39 0.12 0.002 <0.001 2.26 0.22 0.012 <1.9 12 176 <1.9 <1.9 <PQLFeb-03 W22 - - - - - - - nd nd - - - <PQLDec-11 W22 0.12 0.02 0.002 0.001 0.16 0.027 0.012 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <PQLFeb-03 W23 - - - - - - - - - - - - -Feb-03 W25 1.25 nd 0.001 nd 0.2 0.013 0.009 4 nd - - - <PQLDec-11 W25 0.85 0.31 0.002 <0.001 0.07 0.011 0.024 <1.9 <3.8 72.2 <1.9 <1.9 <PQL

PAH/Phenols (ug/L)Nutrients Dissolved Metals

Table 4 - Groundwater Monitoring Data for Facility 134 (mg/L unless indicated)Note: data to be reviewed with reference to discussion in Section 5 in report

Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

ASSESSMENT CRITERIAFeb-03 W20 3.47 4.16 5.86 0.52 17 23.5 314.7Dec-11 W20 2.91 4.71 5.8 2.43 33 20.4 115.9Dec-11 QA09 - - - - - - -Dec-11 RPD - - - - - - -Feb-03 W41 3.51 4.16 5.53 0.39 62 22.9 181.5Dec-11 W41 2.97 4.70 6.1 1.46 77 19.8 456.0Feb-03 W42 3.57 4.16 5.26 0.90 172 24.0 134.0Dec-11 W42 3.02 4.71 5.3 1.33 86 21.0 145.1Feb-03 W43 3.77 4.09 4.99 0.42 108 21.4 113.9Dec-11 W43M 2.59 4.84 5.0 0.87 43 19.9 229.0Feb-03 W44 3.50 3.98 5.32 0.40 78 21.7 169.3Dec-11 W44 2.89 4.59 5.2 0.38 64 20.3 160.9Dec-11 W80 2.70 4.52 4.5 1.95 69 20.9 186.8

Field Parameters

Table 4 (cont.) - Groundwater Monitoring Data for Facility 134 (mg/L unless indicated)Note: data to be reviewed with reference to discussion in Section 5 in report

Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Ben

zene

Ethy

l Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Met

a &

Par

a Xy

lene

Ort

hoXy

lene

Tota

l Xyl

enes

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

ASSESSMENT CRITER 950 80 180 75 600Feb-03 W20 nd nd nd nd nd nd 345 3460 1060 479 4999Dec-11 W20 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 QA09 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 RPD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Feb-03 W41 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndDec-11 W41 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Feb-03 W42 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndDec-11 W42 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Feb-03 W43 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndDec-11 W43M <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Feb-03 W44 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndDec-11 W44 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 W80 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200

BTEX (ug/L) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ug/L)


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Alu

min

ium

Ant

imon

y

Ars

enic

Ber

ylliu

m

Cad

miu

m

Chr

omiu

m

Cop

per

Iron

Lead

Man

gane

se

Mer

cury

Nic

kel

Silv

er

Zinc

ASSESSMENT CRIT 0.0008 0.003 0.0075 0.00013 0.0002 0.001 0.0014 0.3 0.0034 1.9 0.00006 0.011 0.00005 0.008Feb-03 W20 2.59 nd nd nd nd 0.001 nd 0.8 nd 0.026 nd 0.002 nd 0.011Dec-11 W20 0.61 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0002 0.001 <0.001 0.08 <0.001 0.009 <0.0001 0.001 <0.001 0.031Dec-11 QA09 0.59 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0002 <0.001 <0.001 0.08 <0.001 0.009 <0.0001 0.002 <0.001 0.027Dec-11 RPD 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 14Feb-03 W41 0.578 nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.8 nd 0.09 nd nd nd 0.016Dec-11 W41 0.14 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.001 0.005 <0.0001 0.002 <0.001 0.011Feb-03 W42 0.284 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.009 nd 0.001 nd 0.031Dec-11 W42 0.24 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.001 0.005 <0.0001 0.002 <0.001 <0.005Feb-03 W43 0.283 nd 0.001 nd 0.0001 nd nd 0.5 nd 0.01 nd 0.001 nd 0.031Dec-11 W43M 0.24 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 2.09 <0.001 0.009 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 0.011Feb-03 W44 0.242 nd 0.002 nd 0.0001 0.001 nd 0.9 nd 0.053 nd nd nd 0.013Dec-11 W44 0.25 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 0.24 <0.001 0.016 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005Dec-11 W80 0.33 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 0.62 <0.001 0.005 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 0.01

Dissolved Metals


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

2.4D

imet

hylp

heno

l

2Met

hylp

heno

l

3&4

Met

hylp

heno

l

Phen

ol

Rem

aini

ng A

naly

tes

cis1

.2D

ichl

oroe

then

e

Tric

hlor

oeth

ene

Tetr

achl

oroe

then

e

Rem

iani

ng A

naly

tes

ASSESSMENT CRITE 2 320 330 70Feb-03 W20 21 44 896 39 <PQL 5 16 8 <PQLDec-11 W20 <1 <1 <2 <1 <PQL <5 <5 <5 <PQLDec-11 QA09 <1 <1 <2 <1 <PQL <5 <5 <5 <PQLDec-11 RPD 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Feb-03 W41 nd nd nd nd <PQL nd nd 2 <PQLDec-11 W41 <1 <1 <2 <1 <PQL <5 <5 <5 <PQLFeb-03 W42 nd nd nd nd <PQL nd nd 4 <PQLDec-11 W42 <1 <1 <2 <1 <PQL 9 37 <5 <PQLFeb-03 W43 nd nd nd nd <PQL nd nd 5 <PQLDec-11 W43M <1 <1 <2 <1 <PQL <5 <5 <5 <PQLFeb-03 W44 nd nd nd nd <PQL nd 3 36 <PQLDec-11 W44 <1 <1 <2 <1 <PQL <5 22 <5 <PQLDec-11 W80 <1 <1 <2 <1 <PQL <5 <5 28 <PQL

Phenols (ug/L) Halogenated Aliphatics (ug/L)


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

TOC

Ele

vatio

n

East

ing

(AM

G)

Nor

thin

g (A

MG

)

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

ASSESSMENT CRITERIAMay-06 W49 7.235 392194 6371145 3.06 4.18 5.36 0.00 136 22.0 131.3Dec-11 W49 7.235 392194 6371145 2.13 5.11 5.33 0.93 58 20.2 212.2

Field Parameters


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Alu

min

ium

Ant

imon

y

Ars

enic

Ber

ylliu

m

Cad

miu

m

Chr

omiu

m

Cop

per

Iron

Lead

Man

gane

se

Mer

cury

Nic

kel

Silv

er

Zinc

ASSESSMENT CRIT 0.0008 0.003 0.0075 0.00013 0.0002 0.001 0.0014 0.3 0.0034 1.9 0.00006 0.011 0.00005 0.008May-06 W49 60 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 0.002 0.001 0.16 0.004 0.125 <0.0001 0.004 <0.001 0.005Dec-11 W49 0.43 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 0.001 <0.001 <0.05 0.001 0.009 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005

Dissolved Metals


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 600May-06 W49 <20 140 200 <50 340Dec-11 W49 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ug/L)


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

MB

AS

ASSESSMENT CRITERIAFeb-03 B8 3.21 5.09 4.56 0.56 253 22.2 90.6 -Dec-11 B8 1.59 6.71 - - - - - -Feb-03 W10 3.09 5.44 4.45 0.95 306 23.3 69.0 -Dec-11 W10 1.43 7.09 5.4 0.98 24 19.9 49.1 0.1Feb-03 W9 2.54 5.37 5.19 0.67 246 23.1 142.2 -Dec-11 W9 0.61 7.29 4.5 0.44 124 19.2 154.3 0.1

Field Parameters


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Ben

zene

Ethy

l Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Met

a &

Par

a Xy

lene

Ort

hoXy

lene

Tota

l Xyl

enes

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

ASSESSMENT CRITE 1 80 180 75 600Feb-03 B8 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndDec-11 B8 - - - - - - - - - - -Feb-03 W10 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndDec-11 W10 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Feb-03 W9 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndDec-11 W9 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ug/L)BTEX (ug/L)


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Ber

ylliu

m

Cad

miu

m

Chr

omiu

m

Cop

per

Iron

Man

gane

se

Zinc

Am

mon

ia

Nitr

ate

All

Ana

lyte

s

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 0.0002 0.001 0.0014 0.3 0.5 0.008 0.9 0.16Feb-03 B8 nd 0.0004 nd nd 0.3 0.005 0.024 0.26 0.12 <PQLDec-11 B8 - - - - - - - - - -Feb-03 W10 nd 0.0001 nd 0.003 nd 0.012 0.037 0.08 0.64 <PQLDec-11 W10 - <0.0001 0.002 <0.001 1.3 0.032 0.007 <0.010 0.27 <PQLFeb-03 W9 nd 0.0001 nd nd nd 0.062 0.013 0.03 0.68 <PQLDec-11 W9 - <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 1.84 0.048 0.023 0.07 0.04 <PQL

Nutrients Phenols (ug/L)Dissolved Metals

Table 7 - Groundwater Monitoring Data for Fuel Hydrant Line (mg/L unless indicated)Note: data to be reviewed with reference to discussion in Section 5 in report

Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

TOC

Ele

vatio

n

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er

Leve

l

pH

TDS

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 600Dec-11 W107 6.582 0.97 5.617 5.1 - 1.39 8 20.0 46.6 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 W108 6.172 0.37 5.807 4.9 - 1.17 49 20.7 49.2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 W109 6.621 0.70 5.926 5.2 - 1.42 45 20.6 55.2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 QA13 - - - - - - - - - <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 RPD - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0Dec-11 W110 6.665 1.10 5.570 5.5 - 2.81 35 19.9 52.2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 W111 7.170 0.65 6.520 5.6 - 0.66 30 20.5 51.0 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 W112 - 1.38 - 6.3 - 1.20 -82 21.5 268.0 1200 1130 160 <50 1290Dec-11 W113 - 1.29 - 5.3 - 0.78 43 20.0 67.8 230 450 110 <50 560Dec-11 W114 - 0.97 - 5.8 - 3.55 95 20.1 50.7 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200

Field Parameters Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ug/L)


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

MB

AS

6:2

Fluo

rote

lom

er

Sulfo

nate

(6:2

FtS

)

Perf

luor

ooct

anoa

te

PFO

S

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 0.0005 0.0003May-06 FTP1 1.82 4.64 5.35 1.54 -123 21.5 111.0 3.6 - - -Dec-11 FTP1 0.73 5.73 5.3 0.20 21 19.3 146.7 0.4 0.0002 0.00181 0.3Jul-06 W50 1.76 5.29 5.59 1.27 22 17.3 121.8 0.3 - - -Dec-11 W50 0.77 6.28 5.0 2.61 150 19.7 73.4 0.1 0.0001 0.00309 0.0142May-06 W51 1.75 4.65 5.68 0.45 -215 21.4 248.0 9.2 - - -Dec-11 W51 0.66 5.74 5.1 3.11 50 19.8 195.6 0.3 <0.0001 0.00094 0.254

Field Parameters PFOS and PFOA


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Ben

zene

Ethy

l Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Met

a &

Par

a Xy

lene

Ort

hoXy

lene

Tota

l Xyl

enes

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

ASSESSMENT CRITE 950 80 180 75 600May-06 FTP1 <10 <10 <10 <20 <10 <30 <200 <50 200 50 250Dec-11 FTP1 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Jul-06 W50 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 50 200 80 330Dec-11 W50 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200May-06 W51 <10 <10 <10 <20 <10 <30 <200 70 200 60 330Dec-11 W51 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200



Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

MB

AS

6:2

Fluo

rote

lom

er

Sulfo

nate

(6:2

FtS

)

Perf

luor

ooct

anoa

te

PFO

S

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 0.0005 0.0003May-06 B122 3.82 4.51 6.31 3.13 100 14.0 70.0 1.4 - - -Dec-11 B122 1.89 4.9 4.58 51 19.8 60.8 0.4 <0.0001 0.00071 0.266Dec-11 QA17 - - - - - - - 0.4 <0.0001 0.00074 0.314Dec-11 RPD - - - - - - - 0 0 4 17May-06 W52 3.28 4.48 6.50 3.63 -181 20.2 450.0 1 - - -Dec-11 W52 1.33 6.43 4.9 1.69 98 19.3 62.9 0.1 <0.0001 0.00035 0.0458May-06 W53 3.15 4.43 5.29 0.67 -149 21.6 71.4 0.6 - - -Dec-11 W53 1.22 6.36 5.3 0.37 64 19.1 40.8 0.3 <0.0001 0.00231 0.22May-06 W54 3.19 4.39 5.24 1.90 -142 21.0 88.1 1.9 - - -Dec-11 W54 1.27 6.31 4.9 3.03 70 18.9 74.1 0.3 <0.0001 0.00143 0.266

Field Parameters PFOS and PFOA


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Ben

zene

Ethy

l Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Met

a &

Par

a Xy

lene

Ort

hoXy

lene

Tota

l Xyl

enes

MTB

E

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

ASSESSMENT CRITE 950 80 180 75 600May-06 B122 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 - <20 90 400 80 570Dec-11 B122 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 - <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 QA17 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 - <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 RPD 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0May-06 W52 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 - <20 <50 300 80 380Dec-11 W52 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 - <20 <50 <100 <50 <200May-06 W53 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 - <20 90 200 50 340Dec-11 W53 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 - <20 <50 <100 <50 <200May-06 W54 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 - 40 250 500 70 820Dec-11 W54 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 - <20 <50 <100 <50 <200



Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

ASSESSMENT CRITERIAFeb-03 B121 2.36 4.13 6.50 0.41 59 22.3 440.3Dec-11 B121 1.20 5.18 6.3 2.28 10 19.9 258.0Dec-11 QA15 - - - - - - -Dec-11 RPD - - - - - - -Feb-03 W16 2.20 3.88 6.94 0.29 49 22.2 440.5Feb-03 W37 2.12 4.15 4.77 0.50 89 20.8 161.9Dec-11 W37 0.77 5.50 4.4 4.95 67 18.2 151.1Feb-03 W40 2.11 3.97 6.20 0.41 40 21.5 330.4Dec-11 W40 0.83 5.25 6.2 0.47 -27 19.4 263.0

Field Parameters


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Am

mon

ia

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

ASSESSMENT CRITE 0.9 600Feb-03 B121 0.74 nd 138 414 172 724Dec-11 B121 0.15 - - - - -Dec-11 QA15 0.14 - - - - -Dec-11 RPD 7 - - - - -Feb-03 W16 1.58 nd nd nd nd ndFeb-03 W37 0.34 nd nd nd nd ndDec-11 W37 0.35 - - - - -Feb-03 W40 2.15 nd 116 313 94 523Dec-11 W40 1.16 - - - - -

Inorganics TPH (ug/L)


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Chr

omiu

m

Cop

per

Iron

Man

gane

se

Zinc

ASSESSMENT CRITE 0.001 0.0014 0.3 1.9 0.008Feb-03 B121 nd nd 3.8 0.433 0.005Dec-11 B121 <0.001 <0.001 4.9 0.337 0.008Dec-11 QA15 <0.001 <0.001 4.95 0.348 0.008Dec-11 RPD 0 0 1 3 0Feb-03 W16 nd nd 4.4 0.312 0.007Feb-03 W37 nd nd 0.3 0.012 0.01Dec-11 W37 <0.001 <0.001 0.28 0.007 0.054Feb-03 W40 nd nd 40 0.263 0.007Dec-11 W40 0.001 <0.001 25.9 0.283 0.008

Dissolved Metals


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

Am

mon

ia

Nitr

ate

Nitr

ite

Nitr

ite &

Nitr

ate

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 0.9 0.16 3Feb-03 B117 2.66 4.51 6.38 0.41 44 23.1 439.2 0.43 nd 0.02 -Dec-11 B117 1.36 5.81 6.6 0.79 -26 19.7 318.0 0.62 0.01 0.01 0.02Dec-11 QA03 - - - - - - - 0.62 0.04 <0.01 0.04Dec-11 RPD - - - - - - - 0 120 0 67Dec-11 W105 1.35 5.70 4.5 0.73 52 20.2 64.1 <0.010 0.17 <0.01 0.17Dec-11 W106 1.54 6.59 4.8 1.36 54 19.5 49.9 0.04 0.02 <0.01 0.02Feb-03 W11 3.14 4.74 - - - - - - - - -Dec-11 W11 1.34 6.54 - - - - - - - - -Feb-03 W30 3.43 4.65 4.26 0.35 144 21.7 88.3 0.62 nd nd -Dec-11 W30 2.11 5.98 4.3 1.69 61 20.2 92.1 0.04 1.05 <0.01 1.05Feb-03 W31 2.94 4.22 4.52 0.53 169 22.7 211.6 0.15 0.35 nd -Dec-11 W31 1.46 5.69 4.5 0.30 83 19.3 292.0 0.02 0.23 <0.01 0.23Feb-03 W32 2.61 4.38 5.77 0.46 19 23.0 241.3 0.21 nd nd -Dec-11 W32 1.06 5.92 6.2 0.45 36 19.4 164.9 0.14 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Feb-03 W33 2.45 4.47 6.12 0.39 47 21.3 265.3 0.32 nd nd -Dec-11 W33 0.87 6.06 6.2 2.08 18 18.5 245.0 0.31 0.03 <0.01 0.03Feb-03 W34 3.40 4.58 4.35 0.39 269 21.7 97.3 0.10 0.01 nd -Dec-11 W34 1.74 6.25 4.5 1.37 88 19.1 94.0 0.08 0.01 <0.01 0.01Feb-03 W35 2.59 4.88 4.54 0.39 85 21.5 137.0 0.29 nd nd -Dec-11 W35 1.22 6.25 4.5 3.16 49 20.5 237.0 0.05 0.08 <0.01 0.08Feb-03 W36 2.26 4.56 6.53 0.40 521 20.5 467.7 0.71 nd 0.02 -Dec-11 W36 0.77 6.05 6.1 0.68 26 18.5 439.0 0.39 0.01 0.02 0.03Feb-03 W6 3.10 5.29 4.40 0.87 94 20.4 94.2 0.31 nd nd -Dec-11 W6 1.40 6.99 4.6 1.08 66 18.4 76.2 <0.010 0.06 <0.01 0.06

Field Parameters Nutrients


PAH (ug/L)

Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Ben

zene

Ethy

l Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Met

a &

Par

a Xy

lene

Ort

hoXy

lene

Tota

l Xyl

enes

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

All

Ana

lyte

s

ASSESSMENT CRITE 950 80 180 75 600Feb-03 B117 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 206 nd 206 -Dec-11 B117 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200 - Dec-11 QA03 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200 - Dec-11 RPD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Dec-11 W105 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200 <PQLDec-11 W106 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200 <PQLFeb-03 W11 - - - - - - - - - - - -Dec-11 W11 - - - - - - - - - - -Feb-03 W30 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -Dec-11 W30 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200 - Feb-03 W31 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -Dec-11 W31 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200 <PQLFeb-03 W32 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -Dec-11 W32 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200 - Feb-03 W33 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -Dec-11 W33 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200 - Feb-03 W34 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -Dec-11 W34 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200 - Feb-03 W35 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -Dec-11 W35 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200 - Feb-03 W36 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd <PQLDec-11 W36 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200 - Feb-03 W6 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -Dec-11 W6 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200 -



Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Alu

min

ium

Ant

imon

y

Ars

enic

Ber

ylliu

m

Cad

miu

m

Chr

omiu

m

Cop

per

Iron

Lead

Man

gane

se

Mer

cury

Nic

kel

Silv

er

Zinc

ASSESSMENT CRIT 0.0008 0.003 0.0075 0.00013 0.0002 0.001 0.0014 0.3 0.0034 1.9 0.00006 0.011 0.00005 0.008Feb-03 B117 0.06 nd 0.001 nd nd nd nd 15.4 nd 0.616 nd nd nd 0.007Dec-11 B117 0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 10.4 <0.001 0.188 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 0.035Dec-11 QA03 0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 10.7 <0.001 0.188 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 0.033Dec-11 RPD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6Dec-11 W105 0.98 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.001 0.018 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005Dec-11 W106 0.8 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 0.001 <0.001 1.84 <0.001 0.026 <0.0001 0.002 <0.001 0.028Feb-03 W11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dec-11 W11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Feb-03 W30 1.15 nd 0.001 nd 0.0001 nd nd 0.4 nd 0.009 nd 0.001 nd 0.019Dec-11 W30 0.7 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 1.12 <0.001 0.12 <0.0001 0.001 <0.001 0.097Feb-03 W31 0.89 nd nd nd 0.0001 nd nd 0.4 nd 0.066 nd nd nd 0.011Dec-11 W31 0.73 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 0.21 <0.001 0.01 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 0.03Feb-03 W32 0.12 nd 0.003 nd nd nd nd 4.7 nd 0.01 nd nd nd 0.012Dec-11 W32 0.08 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 4.35 <0.001 0.194 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.005Feb-03 W33 0.15 nd nd nd nd nd nd 5.2 nd 0.479 nd nd nd 0.008Dec-11 W33 0.2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 5.9 <0.001 0.466 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 0.024Feb-03 W34 1.06 nd nd nd 0.0002 nd nd 1.8 nd 0.027 nd 0.002 nd 0.021Dec-11 W34 0.74 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 3.64 <0.001 0.015 <0.0001 0.002 <0.001 0.033Feb-03 W35 0.69 nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.6 nd 0.015 nd nd nd 0.016Dec-11 W35 0.91 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 0.97 <0.001 0.004 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 0.017Feb-03 W36 0.1 nd nd nd nd nd nd 26.5 nd 0.862 nd 0.002 nd 0.009Dec-11 W36 0.12 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 18.5 <0.001 0.715 <0.0001 0.004 <0.001 0.032Feb-03 W6 1.7 nd 0.004 nd nd nd nd 2.1 nd 0.04 nd 0.003 nd 0.022Dec-11 W6 1.02 <0.001 0.004 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 1.03 <0.001 0.012 <0.0001 0.002 <0.001 0.026

Dissolved Metals


Inorganics

Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

Nitr

ate

Sulfa

te

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 0.16Feb-03 W21 - - - - - - - - -Dec-11 W21 2.43 5.75 5.0 2.01 95 20.0 173.3 0.03 20Dec-11 QA05 - - - - - - - 0.02 20Dec-11 RPD - - - - - - - 40 0May-06 W45 2.88 4.64 5.64 0.59 -128 22.3 146.8 - -May-06 QA2 2.88 4.64 5.64 0.59 -128 22.3 146.8 - -May-06 RPD - - - - - - - - -Dec-11 W45 1.22 6.30 5.0 0.25 164 18.9 58.6 - - May-06 W46 3.24 4.61 5.57 1.27 -124 23.9 125.2 - -Dec-11 W46 1.60 6.25 6.0 0.79 38 20.2 44.1 - - May-06 W47 4.55 4.49 4.94 0.98 -103 23.7 130.0 - -Dec-11 W47 3.12 5.92 5.3 2.78 93 21.1 131.0 6.37 11May-06 W48 3.20 4.45 5.37 0.26 -93 23.2 107.7 - -Dec-11 W48 1.92 5.73 5.5 3.22 112 19.4 94.4 - - Dec-11 W79 1.32 6.26 5.3 0.26 87 20.2 86.3 - - Dec-11 W83 1.45 6.15 4.7 0.43 92 20.5 122.5 - -

Field Parameters


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Ben

zene

Ethy

l Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Met

a &

Par

a Xy

lene

Ort

hoXy

lene

Tota

l Xyl

enes

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

ASSESSMENT CRITE 950 80 180 75 600Feb-03 W21 - - - - - - - - - - -Dec-11 W21 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 60 <100 <50 60Dec-11 QA05 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 60 <100 <50 60Dec-11 RPD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0May-06 W45 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200May-06 QA2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200May-06 RPD - - - - - - - - - - -Dec-11 W45 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200May-06 W46 <1 16 65 228 84 312 370 8070 3100 90 11260Dec-11 W46 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 110 <100 <50 110May-06 W47 <1 <2 <2 4 <2 4 <20 270 <100 <50 270Dec-11 W47 2 16 <5 87 45 132 280 220 <100 <50 220May-06 W48 1 7 2 3 5 8 50 800 600 <50 1400Dec-11 W48 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 W79 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 W83 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200



Dissolved Metals

Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Ferr

ous

Iron

Iron

Lead

2,4-

dim

ethy

lphe

nol

Nap

htha

lene

Rem

aini

ng A

naly

tes

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 0.3 0.0034 2 16Feb-03 W21 - - - - - -Dec-11 W21 0.41 0.41 <0.001 <1 <1 <PQLDec-11 QA05 0.41 0.39 <0.001 <1 <1 <PQLDec-11 RPD 0 5 0 0 0 0May-06 W45 - - - - - -May-06 QA2 - - - - - -May-06 RPD - - - - - -Dec-11 W45 - - - - - - May-06 W46 - - - - - -Dec-11 W46 - - - - - - May-06 W47 - - - - - -Dec-11 W47 <0.05 0.1 <0.001 1.3 22.8 <PQLMay-06 W48 - - - - - -Dec-11 W48 - - - - - - Dec-11 W79 - - - - - - Dec-11 W83 - - - - - -

PAH/Phenols (ug/L)


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

TOC

Ele

vatio

n

East

ing

(AM

G)

Nor

thin

g (A

MG

)

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

ASSESSMENT CRITERIAFeb-03 B114 7.090 392478 6371112 2.85 4.24 5.07 0.91 138 25.8 107.5Dec-11 B114 7.090 392478 6371112 1.5 5.59 Depth to wa - - - -Feb-08 W75 6.735 392608.8 6371379 2.57 4.17 4.20 2.00 74 24.5 93.5Dec-11 W75 6.735 392608.8 6371379 1.04 5.70 Depth to wa - - - -

Field Parameters


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Ben

zene

Ethy

l Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Met

a &

Par

a Xy

lene

Ort

hoXy

lene

Tota

l Xyl

enes

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

ASSESSMENT CRITE 950 80 180 75 600Feb-03 B114 nd nd nd 16 5 21 38 624 199 nd 823Dec-11 B114 - - - - - - - - - - -Feb-08 W75 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 W75 - - - - - - - - - - -



Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Lead

Alu

min

ium

Ant

imon

y

Ars

enic

Ber

ylliu

m

Cad

miu

m

Chr

omiu

m

Cop

per

Iron

Man

gane

se

Mer

cury

Nic

kel

Silv

er

Zinc

ASSESSMENT CRITE 0.0034 0.0008 0.003 0.0075 0.00013 0.0002 0.001 0.0014 0.3 1.9 0.00006 0.011 0.00005 0.008Feb-03 B114 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dec-11 B114 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Feb-08 W75 <0.001 0.42 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 0.13 0.011 <0.0001 0.034 <0.001 0.089Dec-11 W75 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

TOC

Ele

vatio

n

East

ing

(AM

G)

Nor

thin

g (A

MG

)

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

ASSESSMENT CRITERIAMay-06 GW1 6.79 392524 6371038 3.22 3.57 5.10 1.30 216 22.0 143.8May-06 GW2 6.49 392560.7 6371045 2.97 3.52 4.84 0.86 205 22.0 66.5May-06 GW3 7.18 392570.9 6371012 3.71 3.47 4.62 0.59 212 24.4 166.4May-06 GW4 7.04 392553.8 6371012 3.56 3.48 5.24 0.25 -38 24.6 200.7May-06 GW5 6.80 392574.1 6371019 3.36 3.44 5.21 0.00 -83 23.7 129.9May-06 QA1 6.80 392574.1 6371019 3.36 3.44 5.21 0.00 -83 23.7 129.9May-06 RPD - - - - - - - - - -Dec-11 GW5 6.80 392574.1 6371019 2.12 4.68 - - - - -May-06 GW6 6.42 392577.1 6371029 2.92 3.50 4.95 0.00 -54 23.6 86.6

Field Parameters


PAH (ug/L)

Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Am

mon

ia

All

Ana

lyte

s

Ben

zene

Ethy

l Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Met

a &

Par

a Xy

lene

Ort

hoXy

lene

Tota

l Xyl

enes

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

ASSESSMENT CRITE 0.9 950 80 180 75 600May-06 GW1 0.034 <PQL <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200May-06 GW2 <0.010 <PQL <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200May-06 GW3 0.144 <PQL <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200May-06 GW4 0.143 <PQL <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200May-06 GW5 0.02 <PQL <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 <50 100 <50 <200May-06 QA1 0.022 <PQL <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200May-06 RPD 10 - - - - - - - - - - - -Dec-11 GW5 - - - - - - - - - - - - -May-06 GW6 0.043 <PQL <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 70 <100 <50 70

Nutrients BTEX (ug/L) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ug/L)


Biological

Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

Faec

al C

olifo

rms

Am

mon

ia

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 0 0.9 0.01Feb-03 B101 1.67 2.02 6.25 0.36 16 19.6 440.6 - 2.22 0.86Dec-11 B101 0.81 2.88 5.4 0.49 67 20.3 382.0 - 0.02 0.13Feb-03 W14 1.65 1.64 6.06 0.36 16 21.8 295.3 - 0.190 ndDec-11 W14 0.90 2.38 5.7 0.72 23 18.4 207.8 - 0.14 0.03Feb-03 W26 1.16 2.37 5.65 0.44 27 22.3 191.0 - 0.320 0.02Dec-11 W26 0.56 2.97 5.1 0.94 -20 19.9 132.3 - 0.21 0.04Feb-03 W27 1.13 1.29 5.64 0.41 7 22.1 221.1 - 0.370 ndDec-11 W27 0.52 1.90 5.5 0.63 21 18.8 274.0 - 0.37 0.04Jun-06 W55 0.61 2.94 5.10 0.45 -118 20.0 - - 0.290 <0.01Dec-11 W55 Inaccessible - - - - - - - -Jun-06 W56 0.78 2.95 8.43 0.20 -122 20.7 - - 0.437 <0.01Dec-11 W56 0.52 3.21 6.0 1.24 -65 20.3 303.0 - 0.26 0.03Jun-06 W57 0.91 2.72 5.01 0.21 -140 19.6 - 20 0.291 0.01Dec-11 W57 0.73 2.90 6.5 0.14 64 19.0 479.0 2 0.02 0.06Jun-06 W58 0.79 2.71 6.11 0.50 -88 20.0 293.0 - 3.37 <0.01Dec-11 W58 0.57 2.93 6.1 1.54 -15 19.3 439.0 - 0.79 0.97Jun-06 W59 1.19 2.69 6.54 0.30 -41 18.1 300.0 80 0.789 0.08Dec-11 W59 0.96 2.92 6.9 1.27 55 22.4 465.0 8 <0.010 2.07Jun-06 W60 1.14 2.45 6.36 0.43 70 17.1 366.0 - 0.545 0.41Dec-11 W60 0.94 2.66 6.9 0.79 70 21.7 559.0 4 0.01 3.42Dec-11 QA07 - - - - - - - 3 <0.010 3.44Dec-11 RPD - - - - - - - 29 0 1

Field Parameters Inorganics


Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Ben

zene

Ethy

l Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Met

a &

Par

a Xy

lene

Ort

hoXy

lene

Tota

l Xyl

enes

C6-

C9

C10

-C14

C15

-C28

C29

-C36

Tota

l C10

-C36

ASSESSMENT CRITE 950 80 180 75 600Feb-03 B101 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 116 nd 116Dec-11 B101 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Feb-03 W14 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 118 nd 118Dec-11 W14 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Feb-03 W26 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndDec-11 W26 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Feb-03 W27 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd ndDec-11 W27 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Jun-06 W55 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 480 100 100 680Dec-11 W55 - - - - - - - - - - -Jun-06 W56 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 5520 100 <50 5620Dec-11 W56 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 180 <100 <50 180Jun-06 W57 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 15600 3100 270 18970Dec-11 W57 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Jun-06 W58 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 1190 200 <50 1390Dec-11 W58 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Jun-06 W59 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 400 200 140 740Dec-11 W59 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Jun-06 W60 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <4 <20 3320 300 70 3690Dec-11 W60 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 QA07 <1 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-11 RPD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Chr

omiu

m

Cop

per

Iron

Man

gane

se

Mer

cury

Zinc

Nap

htha

lene

All

Rem

aini

ng A

naly

tes

ASSESSMENT CRITE 0.001 0.0014 0.3 1.9 0.00006 0.008 16Feb-03 B101 nd nd nd 0.039 nd 0.005 - -Dec-11 B101 0.002 0.005 0.07 0.347 - 0.509 - - Feb-03 W14 nd nd 0.1 0.02 nd 0.005 - -Dec-11 W14 <0.001 0.001 0.32 0.022 - 0.032 - - Feb-03 W26 nd nd 1.00 0.116 nd 0.006 - -Dec-11 W26 0.002 <0.001 0.4 0.019 - 0.008 <1 <PQLFeb-03 W27 nd nd nd 0.021 nd 0.008 - -Dec-11 W27 0.002 <0.001 0.12 0.02 - <0.005 - - Jun-06 W55 0.002 <0.001 2.24 0.155 <0.0001 0.006 <1.0 <PQLDec-11 W55 - - - - - - - -Jun-06 W56 0.001 <0.001 3.12 0.323 <0.0001 0.009 <1.0 <PQLDec-11 W56 0.002 <0.001 1.7 0.115 - <0.005 1.2 <PQLJun-06 W57 0.003 0.007 1.15 0.291 <0.0001 0.025 - -Dec-11 W57 0.001 0.002 0.06 0.121 - <0.005 - - Jun-06 W58 0.001 <0.001 2.52 0.56 <0.0001 0.01 - -Dec-11 W58 0.001 0.001 0.71 0.057 - 0.005 - - Jun-06 W59 0.001 0.002 0.44 0.256 <0.0001 0.008 - -Dec-11 W59 <0.001 0.002 0.05 0.013 - 0.005 - - Jun-06 W60 <0.001 0.005 0.21 0.204 <0.0001 0.018 - -Dec-11 W60 <0.001 0.002 0.07 0.018 - 0.044 - - Dec-11 QA07 <0.001 0.001 <0.05 0.016 - 0.007 - - Dec-11 RPD 0 67 33 12 - 145 - -

PAH (ug/L)Dissolved Metals

Table 16 - Groundwater Monitoring Data for Facility CNN 0053 (mg/L unless indicated)Note: data to be reviewed with reference to discussion in Section 5 in report

Sam

plin

g D

ate

Sam

ple

ID

Surf

ace

Elev

atio

n

Cas

ing

Ris

er

TOC

Ele

vatio

n

East

ing

(AM

G)

Nor

thin

g (A

MG

)

Dep

th to

Wat

er

Cor

r.Wat

er L

evel

pH

TDS

DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

MB

AS

ASSESSMENT CRITERIADec-11 W66 - - 4.3 - - 1.27 3.04 - - - - - - -

Field Parameters

Table 17 - Groundwater Monitoring Data for SAWR (mg/L unless indicated)Note: data to be reviewed with reference to discussion in Section 5 in report

Inorg.

Sam

ple

Dat

e

Wel

l ID

Dep

th T

o W

ater

Cor

r .W

.L.

pH DO

Red

ox P

oten

tial

Tem

pera

ture

E.C

ond

Tota

l Har

dnes

s C

aCO

3

ASSESSMENT CRITERIAFeb-03 MB1 2.52 7.28 5.08 0.89 201 23.3 75.5 -Dec-11 MB1 1.27 8.53 - - - - - -Feb-03 MB2 2.67 6.83 4.83 0.47 131 22.1 112.3 -Dec-11 MB2 1.20 8.30 4.9 1.55 10 19.4 33.5 12Feb-03 MB3 3.59 7.09 4.23 0.55 312 21.2 62.0 -Dec-11 MB3 2.64 8.05 3.9 0.99 58 19.5 36.0 <1Feb-03 MB4 3.45 6.55 4.40 0.55 301 19.7 59.3 -Dec-11 MB4 2.86 7.14 - - - - - -Feb-03 MB5 5.36 6.39 4.49 0.53 139 19.8 57.5 -Dec-11 MB5 4.76 6.77 4.0 1.34 35 17.7 55.8 4Feb-03 MB6 2.96 6.64 3.88 3.25 389 21.9 72.4 -Dec-11 MB6 1.81 7.79 4.6 1.22 13 18.2 45.5 7Feb-03 MB7 4.88 6.67 4.35 0.73 220 20.2 56.2 -Dec-11 MB7 4.07 7.48 - - - - - -Feb-03 MB8 2.58 6.42 4.54 0.54 176 23.6 86.8 -Dec-11 MB8 0.89 8.11 6.2 1.58 11 20.4 260.0 93Feb-03 MB9D 2.49 6.01 4.13 0.55 224 19.8 57.4 -Dec-11 MB9D 0.63 7.88 4.6 0.68 29 18.1 47.0 <1Feb-03 MB9S 2.45 6.05 4.16 0.56 314 21.1 85.4 -Feb-03 SK3493 2.67 4.56 4.39 0.57 147 19.4 130.6 -Dec-11 SK3493 0.46 6.76 4.3 0.33 17 18.2 124.2 8Feb-03 SK5387 3.37 7.49 4.78 0.51 107 19.4 124.0 -Dec-11 SK5387 1.80 9.06 4.4 0.04 1 16.8 64.4 4Dec-11 QA11 - - - - - - - 4Dec-11 RPD - - - - - - - 0

Field Parameters

Table 17 (Cont.) - Groundwater Monitoring Data for SAWR (mg/L unless indicated)Note: data to be reviewed with reference to discussion in Section 5 in report

Sam

ple

Dat

e

Wel

l ID

Ant

imon

y (T

OTA

L)

Ant

imon

y

Cad

miu

m (T

OTA

L)

Cad

miu

m

Chr

omiu

m (T

OTA

L)

Chr

omiu

m

Cop

per (

TOTA

L)

Cop

per

Iron

(TO

TAL)

Iron

Lead

(TO

TAL)

Lead

Man

gane

se (T

OTA

L)

Man

gane

se

Zinc

(TO

TAL)

Zinc

0.0002 0.0002 0.001 0.001 0.0014 0.0014 0.3 0.3 0.0034 0.0034 1.9 1.9 0.008 0.008Feb-03 MB1 - nd - nd - nd - nd - 0.2 - nd - 0.018 - 0.021Dec-11 MB1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Feb-03 MB2 - nd - nd - nd - 0.006 - 1.7 - 0.002 - 0.111 - 0.036Dec-11 MB2 - <0.001 - 0.0007 - 0.001 - 0.014 - 1.28 - <0.001 - 0.039 - 0.042Feb-03 MB3 - nd - 0.0001 - nd - nd - 0.2 - 0.001 - 0.002 - 0.011Dec-11 MB3 - <0.001 - <0.0001 - <0.001 - 0.002 - 0.18 - 0.003 - 0.003 - 0.008Feb-03 MB4 - nd - 0.0001 - nd - nd - nd - nd - 0.011 - 0.009Dec-11 MB4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Feb-03 MB5 - nd - nd - nd - nd - 0.1 - nd - nd - 0.009Dec-11 MB5 - <0.001 - <0.0001 - <0.001 - <0.001 - 0.16 - <0.001 - 0.001 - <0.005Feb-03 MB6 - nd - 0.0001 - nd - nd - 0.3 - nd - 0.012 - 0.013Dec-11 MB6 - <0.001 - 0.0028 - <0.001 - 0.001 - 0.08 - <0.001 - 0.002 - 0.005Feb-03 MB7 - nd - nd - nd - 0.001 - 0.1 - nd - 0.005 - 0.011Dec-11 MB7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Feb-03 MB8 - nd - nd - nd - nd - 0.8 - nd - 0.038 - 0.018Dec-11 MB8 - <0.001 - 0.0008 - <0.001 - 0.002 - 1.79 - <0.001 - 0.621 - 0.032Feb-03 MB9D - nd - nd - nd - nd - 0.2 - nd - 0.002 - 0.005Dec-11 MB9D - <0.001 - 0.0002 - <0.001 - <0.001 - 0.14 - <0.001 - 0.004 - 0.006Feb-03 MB9S - nd - nd - nd - nd - 0.1 - nd - 0.011 - 0.01Feb-03 SK3493 - nd - nd - nd - nd - 0.1 - nd - 0.002 - 0.01Dec-11 SK3493 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.28 0.25 <0.001 <0.001 0.009 0.008 <0.005 <0.005Feb-03 SK5387 - nd - nd - nd - nd - 0.4 - nd - 0.004 - 0.015Dec-11 SK5387 - <0.001 - <0.0001 - 0.002 - <0.001 - 0.24 - <0.001 - 0.001 - <0.005Dec-11 QA11 - <0.001 - <0.0001 - 0.002 - <0.001 - 0.26 - <0.001 - 0.001 - 0.006Dec-11 RPD - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 8 - 0 - 0 - 18

Metals


GHD

Level 3 GHD Tower 24 Honeysuckle Drive Newcastle NSW 2300 PO Box 5403 Hunter Region Mail Centre NSW 2310 T: (02) 4979 9999 F: (02) 4979 9988 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2012

This report has been prepared by GHD in response to a specific brief issued by Department of Defence services presented by GHD. This report is intended for the sole use of the client. It has been prepared in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission and on the basis of specific instructions and information provided by the client. The contents and conclusion of this report cannot be relied upon by any third party.

This report should not be altered, amended or abbreviated, issued in part or issued incomplete in any way without prior checking and approval by GHD.

Document Status

Rev No. Author

Reviewer Approved for Issue

Name Signature Name Signature Date

0 J. Fowler S. Gray

A Monkley 02/04/2012

RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range ...€¦ · 4 RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt...

Documents

Transcript of RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt Ash Air Weapons Range ...€¦ · 4 RAAF Base Williamtown and Salt...