Surface Water Quality Monitoring RAAF Base Williamtown€¦ · Water Quality Issues Actions ......

Department of Defence

Surface Water Quality Monitoring RAAFBase Williamtown2010 Annual Report

March 2011Revision 0

22/15112/93269 R0 Surface Water Quality Monitoring RAAF Base Williamtown2010 Annual Report

Contents

List of Abbreviations i

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Overview 1

1.2 Objectives of Monitoring Program 1

1.3 Objectives of Annual Report 1

2. Summary of Recommendations 2

3. Scope of Works 3

4. Background to Monitoring Program 4

4.1 Catchments 4

4.2 Receptors 4

4.3 Current Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program 5

5. Methodology 7

5.1 Statistical Assessment 7

5.2 Assessment Criteria 7

5.3 Baseline Concentrations 10

5.4 Derivation of Site Specific Criteria 10

6. Data Assessment Results 13

6.1 Overview 13

6.2 Rainfall Data 15

6.3 Monitoring Location MD1 15

6.4 Monitoring location DD1 18

7. Discussion and Recommendations 20

7.1 Overview 20

7.2 Assessment of Current Program Against Objectives 20

7.3 Recommended Changes to the Monitoring Program 20

7.4 Suitability of Assessment Criteria and Baseline Concentrations 21

7.5 Additional Investigations and Works 22

8. Conclusions 23

9. Limitations 24

10. References 25

22/15112/93269 R0Surface Water Quality Monitoring RAAF Base Williamtown2010 Annual Report

Table IndexTable 2-1 Summary of Recommended Actions 2Table 4-1 Current Analytical Schedule for Quarterly Surface

Water Quality Sampling at RAAF WLM 5Table 5-1 Assessment Criteria for Surface Water Quality at

RAAF WLM 8Table 5-2 Summary PSC Data - Sites F8, F9 11Table 5-3 Site Specific Trigger Values 12Table 6-1 Summary Statistics for Surface Water Quality Data

– April 2010 to December 2010 (all units g/Lunless specified) 14

AppendicesA FiguresB Tables

i22/15112/93269 R0 Surface Water Quality Monitoring RAAF Base Williamtown2010 Annual 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 NewZealand

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene, Xylenes

cfu Colony forming units

Defence Department of Defence

DO Dissolved Oxygen

EC Electrical Conductivity

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FC Thermotolerant (faecal) Coliforms

GC-FID Gas Chromatograph - Flame Ionisation Detector

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

NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council

NOx Nitrate + Nitrite

NRMMC National Resource Management Ministerial Council

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units

OCP Organochlorine Pesticides

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

ppm Parts per million

PQL Practical Quantitation Limit

ii 22/15112/93269 R0Surface Water Quality Monitoring RAAF Base Williamtown2010 Annual Report

PSC Port Stephens Council

RAAF WLM RAAF Base Williamtown

Spotless Spotless P&F Pty Ltd

SS Total Suspended Solids

TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Total N Total Nitrogen

Total P Total Phosphorus

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons


1. Introduction

1.1 OverviewGHD Pty Ltd (GHD) was commissioned by Spotless P&F Pty Ltd (Spotless), on behalf of theDepartment of Defence (Defence), to carry out quarterly surface water quality monitoring atRAAF Base Williamtown (RAAF WLM) between April 2010 and December 2010. This reportsummarises results obtained since April 2010, recommends changes that should be made tothe monitoring program and identifies any further investigations that are necessary.

1.2 Objectives of Monitoring ProgramSurface water quality monitoring is undertaken to satisfy Condition of Consent No. 18 of theEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the introduction into service of the Hawk Lead-InFighter. Additionally, Defence wishes to determine whether the quality of the surface waterexiting RAAF WLM could impact receiving environments such as the aquatic ecosystems andoyster growing industry within the Port Stephens and Hunter River Estuaries and the TomagoSandbeds drinking water supply.

1.3 Objectives of Annual ReportThe primary objectives of this annual report are to:

Summarise results obtained since April 2010.

Determine whether the current monitoring program is appropriate to meet the objectivesdefined in Section 1.2.

Recommend any necessary modifications to the surface water monitoring program.

2 22/15112/93269 R0Surface Water Quality Monitoring RAAF Base Williamtown2010 Annual Report

2. Summary of Recommendations

Table 2-1 outlines the main surface water quality issues at RAAF WLM, based primarily onresults from April 2010 to December 2010 (although trend analysis includes water quality datareported between June 2008 and December 2010). Recommended actions are also outlined.Further information and discussion is provided in Section 7.

Table 2-1 Summary of Recommended Actions

Water Quality Issues Actions

Significantly increasing suspendedsolids (SS) concentration trends atMD1 and DD1 (although this couldbe attributed to channel clearingworks as well as the disturbance ofsediments during sampling due tolow water levels).

Uncertainty regarding impactsassociated with heavy metalconcentrations due to a lack ofbackground data.

Adopt an event based monitoring program atMD1 and DD1, involving first flush and follow-up sampling.

Modify parameters as outlined inSection 7.3.4.

Create a data sharing agreement with PortStephens Council (PSC) for the provision ofavailable background water quality data.

Include sites F8 and F9 in the currentmonitoring program to provide backgroundwater quality data with a view to establishingsite specific criteria for heavy metals.


3. Scope of Works

The following works were carried out as part of this annual review:

Prepare summary statistics of surface water quality data reported between April 2010 andDecember 2010.

Carry out Mann-Kendall trend analyses as required (based on water quality data reportedbetween June 2008 and December 2010).

Identify surface water quality issues arising since April 2010.

Review of available water quality data collected by PSC as part of the development of theTilligerry Creek Management Plan and their ongoing water quality monitoring program.

Recommend changes to the surface water quality monitoring program and identify anyadditional investigations required.

Evaluate the suitability of current baseline data for surface water quality.


4. Background to Monitoring Program

4.1 CatchmentsA review of the stormwater system at RAAF WLM was undertaken by Egis as part of the Phase2 Studies for the development of the Environmental Management Plan (Egis, 2001). Egisdivided RAAF WLM into five drainage catchments:

Catchment T (Tilligerry Creek).

Catchment C (Lake Cochran).

Catchment F (Fighter World).

Catchment NA (Newcastle Airport).

Catchment D (Dawsons Drain).

These catchments were renamed as MD1 (Catchment T), MD2 (Catchment F), MD3(Catchment NA) and DD1 (Catchments C and D) as part of the Water Quantity Modelling Report(PB, 2005). These catchments are shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A. Catchments MD1, MD2and MD3 discharge to Tilligerry Creek via Moors Drain to the east of RAAF WLM. CatchmentDD1 discharges to Fullerton Cove via Dawsons Drain to the south of RAAF WLM.

The majority of Defence activities at RAAF WLM take place within Catchments MD1 and DD1.Catchment MD1 contains workshops, fuel storage and former landfilling areas including FormerFuel Farm 1 (Facility E01), Engine Repair (Facility 134), Battery Workshop (Facility 26), FormerCaltex Service Station (Facility 549), Fuel Farm 3 (Facility 384), Fuel Farm 3A (Facility 509) andNorth-East Landfill (Facility E06). Catchment DD1 contains former fuel storage, fire training,runway and former landfilling areas including Former Fuel Farm 2 (Facility E03), Fire TrainingPad (Facility 465) and Fire Training Pit (Facility 479), as well as much of the Stage 1redevelopment area.1 Note that the area of Catchment DD1 to the north of the runwaydischarges into Lake Cochran at the southern end of the catchment before draining off site viaDawsons Drain.

4.2 ReceptorsStormwater runoff generated within the above catchments discharges into three receivingwaters:

Tilligerry Creek (Port Stephens Estuary) via Moors Drain.

Fullerton Cove (Hunter River Estuary) via Dawsons Drain.

Tomago Sandbeds (a potable water supply for the lower Hunter region).

Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cove are part of state/nationally (Tilligerry Creek) or internationally(Fullerton Cove) significant wetland systems. They also contain commercial oyster operations.

1 Stage 1 redevelopment works at RAAF WLM commenced in 2004


Due to the permeable sandy soils, shallow groundwater and flat topography, there isconsiderable connectivity between groundwater of the Tomago Sandbeds (underlying RAAFWLM) and surface water within open unlined channels. Surface water can infiltrate relativelyquickly and recharge groundwater. In the same way, there is a pathway for impactedgroundwater to discharge into drainage channels.

4.3 Current Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program

4.3.1 Monitoring Program

The current surface water quality monitoring program commenced in May 2003 and involvedmonthly water quality monitoring at two locations (MD1 and DD1) until June 2008 when thesampling frequency was reduced to quarterly monitoring. MD1 and DD1 are situated at thepoints of discharge from catchments MD1 and DD1 respectively and are shown in Figure 1 inAppendix A. Note that only surface water level monitoring has been historically undertaken atthe discharge points from catchments MD2 and MD3. This was discontinued in 2008.

The current analytical schedule is given in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Current Analytical Schedule for Quarterly Surface Water Quality Sampling atRAAF WLM

Sam

ple

loca

tion

TPH

5

Spec

iate

d Ph

enol

s1

Turb

idity

BO

D2

Susp

ende

d So

lids

(SS)

Nitr

ogen

oxi

des

(NO

x)

Tota

l Nitr

ogen

(Tot

alN

)

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(Tot

al P

)

Tota

l Rea

ctiv

ePh

osph

orus

(TR

P)

Faec

al C

olifo

rms

Hea

vy M

etal

s3

MB

AS4

DD1 Q A Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

MD1 Q A Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

1. 12 priority analytes, analysis undertaken in April 2010 only.

2. Biochemical oxygen demand.

3. Heavy metal analysis (filtered) includes As, Cd, Cu, Cr (III+VI), Hg, Pb and Zn.

4. Methylene blue active substances.

5. TPH analysis undertaken using the silica gel cleanup.

It is noted that as per the recommendations of the 2008-2009 Annual Report (GHD, 2010), asilica gel cleanup method for TPH analysis was undertaken for all monitoring rounds in 2010 toensure that detections only include petroleum hydrocarbons. The silica gel cleanup removespolar compounds in the sample extract, allowing only non polar petroleum based compounds tobe analysed by the Gas Chromatograph - Flame Ionisation Detector (GC-FID).


Surface water samples were collected by manual grab sampling. Sampling rounds havecoincided with rainfall events on occasions, however this has not always been the case.Figure 2 in Appendix A identifies the date of each quarterly monitoring round between April2010 and December 2010. Monitoring was undertaken on, or around, the 20th of each month,with the exception of monitoring undertaken for the last round, which was conducted on 9December 2010. The actual date of monitoring depended on site access, sample holding timerequirements and rainfall.

The April 2010 monitoring round was undertaken following 0.4 mm of rain in the week prior tosampling. 32.2 mm of rain fell during the week prior to sampling in June 2010. 9.4 mm of rainfell in the 24 hours prior to sampling in September 2010, and 36.4 mm of rain fell during the10 days prior to sampling in December 2010.

4.3.2 Quality control

One blind field duplicate sample (intra-laboratory) was collected for every monitoring roundbetween April 2010 and December 2010. Results can be found in each quarterly report.

Laboratory quality control procedures have typically included analysis of the following:

Laboratory Duplicate Samples: The analytical laboratory collects duplicate sub-samples fromone sample submitted for analytical testing at a rate equivalent to one in twenty samples peranalytical batch, or one sample per batch if less than twenty samples are analysed in a batch. Alaboratory duplicate provides data on analytical batch and the analytical precision (repeatability)of the test result.

Spiked Samples: An authentic field sample is spiked by adding an aliquot of knownconcentration of the target analyte(s) prior to sample extraction and analysis. A spikedocuments the effect of the sample matrix on the extraction and analytical techniques.

Certified Reference Standards: A reference standard of known (certified) concentration isanalysed along with a batch of samples. The Certified Reference Standard provides anindication of the analytical accuracy of the test method.

Surrogate Standard / Spikes: These are organic compounds which are similar to the analyteof interest in terms of chemical composition, extractability, and chromatographic conditions(retention time), but which are not normally found in environmental samples. These surrogatecompounds are spiked into blanks, standards and samples submitted for organic analyses bygas-chromatographic techniques prior to sample extraction. They provide a means of checkingthat no gross errors have occurred during any stage of the test method leading to significantanalyte loss.

Laboratory Blank: Usually an organic or aqueous solution that is as free as possible of analyteof interest to which is added all the reagents, in the same volume, as used in the preparationand subsequent analysis of the samples. The reagent blank is carried through the completesample preparation procedure and contains the same reagent concentrations in the finalsolution as in the sample solution used for analysis. The reagent blank is used to correct forpossible contamination resulting from the preparation or processing of the sample.


5. Methodology

5.1 Statistical AssessmentFor the purposes of this annual report, surface water quality data were assessed by statisticaltrend analysis and against water quality criteria.

The following summary statistics were calculated for surface water quality data reported forlocations MD1 and DD1 between April 2010 and December 2010:

The mean ± standard error concentration for each parameter at individual locations2.

The maximum and minimum concentration for each parameter at individual locations.

Trend analysis was carried out for some parameters to determine the presence or absence ofstatistically significant water quality trends. All available data between June 2008 and December2010 were used. This equated to approximately three years of quarterly monitoring events, withmonitoring events spaced evenly throughout each year. The analysis was carried out with MannKendall testing (P=0.05 to denote statistical significance) using MINITAB statistical software.The Mann Kendall is a nonparametric test (i.e. data does not need to be normally distributed)and is generally considered more suitable to interpreting pollution monitoring trends thanstandard parametric linear regressions and time series plots. This statistical test can be easilymodified to deal with multiple observations per time period and generalised to deal with multiplesampling locations and seasonality effects. The trend analysis was set up to account for non-detects by substituting a value equivalent to the reported PQL. In some cases, spikes in data orchanges in PQLs may result in a significant trend being identified when no trend may exist. Inthese cases, it was necessary to review the time series of reported results to verify whether astatistically significant trend actually exists.

5.2 Assessment CriteriaSurface water quality data have been assessed, in most cases, with respect to the “AustralianWater Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters” (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000) defaulttrigger values for:

Toxicants for the protection of aquatic ecosystems at the 99% level of protection (for heavymetals and phenols).

Physical and chemical stressors for slightly disturbed ecosystems for NSW estuaries andNSW coastal rivers (for NOx, TN, TP, TRP, turbidity and SS).

Protection of human consumers of aquatic food (for FCs).

The assessment criteria used have been summarised in Table 5-1.

As requested by Spotless and Defence, the 99% level of protection has been selected due tothe sensitive nature and relatively high ecological value of the receiving estuarine systems. Bothfreshwater and marine water criteria have been identified in Table 5-1.

2 Where a large number of concentrations less than PQLs were reported, mean concentrations and standard errorswere not calculated. Where the mean and standard error were calculated, non-detects were substituted with a valueequivalent to the reported PQL.


Freshwater criteria are lower in most cases and have generally been adopted to assess thesurface water quality data. Marine water criteria have been adopted in place of the freshwatercriteria where they are lower than freshwater criteria (e.g. copper). The nominated assessmentcriterion for each analyte is also shown in Table 5-1. Note that the nominated criteria areconsistently lower than the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) toxicant guidelines for the protection ofsaltwater aquaculture species.

Where no ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) criteria are available or suitable, other guidelines havebeen referenced such as the Dutch Intervention Level for Mineral Oil in Groundwater(MHSPE, 1994) for the assessment of TPH. For some analytes, including Methylene BlueActive Substances (MBAS) and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), assessment criteria havenot been developed yet.

Table 5-1 Assessment Criteria for Surface Water Quality at RAAF WLM

Parameter

Protection ofAquatic

Ecosystems -Freshwater(a)

µg/L(b)


Ecosystems –Marine Water(a)

µg/L(b)

Adopted Criteriaµg/L(b)

Heavy Metals

Arsenic (as AsV) 0.8 - 0.8(k)

Cadmium 0.06 0.7 0.06(k)

Chromium (III) - 7.7 7.7

Chromium (VI) 0.01 0.14 0.01(k)

Copper 1 0.3 0.3(k)

Lead 1 2.2 1

Mercury 0.06 0.1 0.06(k)

Zinc 2.4 7 2.4(k)

Non Metallic Inorganics

NOx 40(c) 10(d) 10

TN 350(c) 350(d) 350

TP 25(c) 35(d) 25

TRP 8(c)(m) 4(d)(m) 4

TPH

TPH C10-C36 7(e) / 600(f) 600(j)


Parameter


Ecosystems -Freshwater(a)

µg/L(b)


Ecosystems –Marine Water(a)

µg/L(b)

Adopted Criteriaµg/L(b)

Phenols

Phenol 85 270 85

2-Chlorophenol 340 / 300(i) 340(g) 340

2.4-Dichlorophenol 120 120(g) 120

2.4.5-Trichlorophenol 0.5(e) 4(e) 0.5

2.4.6-Trichlorophenol 3 3(g) 3

Pentachlorophenol 3.6 11 3.6

Other

Turbidity (NTU) 6(c) 6(d) 6

TSS 6,000(c) 6,000(d) 6,000

FCs (cfu/100mL) 0(i) 14(h) 14(l)

1. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000), 99%

Protection Level for freshwater and marine water.

2. All units in g/L unless indicated.

3. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) trigger value for physical/chemical stressors for NSW coastal rivers, slightly disturbed

ecosystems – Table 8.2.3.

4. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) trigger value for physical/chemical stressors for NSW estuaries, slightly disturbed

ecosystems – Table 8.2.3.

5. These values are low reliability trigger values (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000).

6. MHSPE (1994) Dutch Intervention Level for Mineral Oil in Groundwater.

7. Fresh water criteria used.

8. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000a) guideline for protection of human consumers of aquatic food.

9. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (NHMRC/NRMMC, 2004) health-based guideline.

10. MHSPE (1994) criterion adopted since the low reliability ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) criterion is below the

laboratory PQL.

11. Laboratory PQL exceeds adopted criterion.

12. The Australian Drinking Water Guideline has not been adopted due to the relatively large distances between

surface water channels and groundwater pumping stations. The closest pumping station to any major surface water

channel carrying stormwater from RAAF WLM is approximately 750 m up gradient.

13. Value for filterable reactive phosphorus.


5.3 Baseline ConcentrationsIn order to detect changes in surface water quality over time, data have also been compared to‘baseline’ concentrations. A baseline concentration was calculated for each analyte for bothMD1 and DD1 by taking the 80th percentile concentration of monthly results reported at theselocations between May 2003 and November 2004. This period has been assumed to representpre-redevelopment concentrations for RAAF WLM. The methodology for calculating baselineconcentrations conforms to the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) procedure for establishing site-specific criteria. Baseline concentrations are given in Table 1 and Table 2 in Appendix B.Although seasonal variations in surface water quality may exist, separate baselineconcentrations for individual seasons could not be calculated due to a lack of baseline data.

Where the majority of results between May 2003 and November 2004 were reported as lessthan the PQL, the PQL was adopted as the baseline concentration. Analytes not monitoredbetween May 2003 and November 2004 (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, zinc, turbidity) do nothave baseline concentrations. The appropriateness of all baseline concentrations is discussedin Section 7.4.

5.4 Derivation of Site Specific Criteria

5.4.1 Data

Regular water quality monitoring is undertaken by Port Stephens Council (PSC) as part of thedevelopment of the Tilligerry Creek Catchment Management Plan and its ongoing water qualitymonitoring program. The Tilligerry Creek catchment (the Catchment) covers an area ofapproximately 130km², encompassing Fullerton Cove, Bobs Farm, Williamtown, Salt Ash,Tanilba Bay and Lemon Tree Passage. Tilligerry Creek flows generally northeast across a low-lying floodplain, through a network of floodgates where it discharges to Port Stephens itselfthrough a wide estuarine area. Tilligerry Creek is also within the proposed Port Stephens–GreatLakes Marine Park. The dominant land uses within the Catchment are agricultural, rural andurban residential, mineral and construction sand mining, and oyster farming. RAAF WLM islocated across the south western area of the catchment. Surface water discharge from RAAFWLM to Tilligerry Creek (via Moors Drain) enters the creek at Salt Ash near the intersectionbetween Lemon Tree Passage Road and Michael Drive.

Water quality data from water quality monitoring undertaken between December 2004 andDecember 2010 at three locations within the Tilligerry Catchment was provided by PSC. Thelocations are described as follows:

F8 – Salt Ash Flood Gates Site, located approximately 6.8 km east of RAAF WLM.

F9 – Upper Tilligery Creek, located approximately 4.8 km east of RAAF WLM.

B5 – Lemon Tree Passage Tidal Pool Site, located approximately 19 km north east of RAAFWLM.

Site B5 is located at Lemon Tree Passage, and is the discharge point to Port Stephens througha wide estuarine area.


Sites F8 and F9 are located across the central area of the Catchment, and are not consideredto be directly affected by Defence’s activities at RAAF WLM since they are situated upstream ofthe point where Moors Drain discharges into Tilligery Creek. Based on this, sites F8 and F9 areconsidered to characterise background conditions across the Catchment.

The ANZECC and ARMCANZ Guidelines (2000) recommend that, for the purpose of derivingambient values and site specific trigger values, a sufficient amount of data needs to be collectedand that it should characterise seasonal variations:

“A minimum of two years of continuous monthly data at the reference site isrequired before a valid trigger value can be established. “ (Volume 1, Section7.4.4.1).

The background data provided by PSC (for sites F8 and F9) currently available at the time ofpreparing this report included approximately five years of monitoring data with weekly and / orfortnightly analysis undertaken for parameters including the following: pH, turbidity, conductivity,faecal coliforms, total nitrogen and total phosphorous. Therefore, it is considered appropriate toderive site specific trigger values for these parameters based on data for sites F8 and F9.

The results from analysis undertaken by PSC at F8 and F9 are summarised in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2 Summary PSC Data - Sites F8, F9

pH (pHunits)

Turbidity(NTU)

Conductivity(dS/m)

FaecalColiforms

(cfu/100ml)

Total N(mg/L)

Total P(mg/L)

F8 F9 F8 F9 F8 F9 F8 F9 F8 F9 F8 F9

NumberofSamples

100 100 100 101 101 101 119 120 97 96 97 96

Minimum 6.9 6.5 5.0 3.2 0.1 0.2 4 1 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01

Maximum 8.1 8.9 213.0 108.0 52.0 27.7 8600 14400 140 6 1.2 1.1

Median 7.3 7.4 36.5 19.0 5.0 1.6 240 200 1.25 0.93 0.09 0.13

5.4.2 Derivation of Site Specific Trigger Values

The site specific trigger values were derived on the basis of the ANZECC and ARMCANZ(2000) Guidelines procedure. The recommended process is to calculate a series of differentpercentiles for different parameters based on reference site data as follows:

For physicochemical parameters: 20th and/or 80th percentile.

For nutrients and non toxic compounds: 80th percentile.

For heavy metals: 80th percentile.

At this stage, surface water quality data have been compared to ANZECC / ARMCANZ (2000)default trigger values, although derived site specific trigger values have been referred to whereavailable.


Based on the dataset provided in Table 5-2, the highest value for the 80th percenticle calculatedfor sites F8 and F9 were derived as the site specific trigger values, as summarised in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3 Site Specific Trigger Values

Parameter Unit 80th percentile F8 80th percentile F9Site Specific

DerivedTrigger Value

pH pH units 7.1 - 7.5 1 7.2 - 7.8 1 7.1-7.8

Turbidity NTU 60.2 38.0 60.2

EC dS/m 29.3 2.2 29.3

Faecal coliforms cfu/100ml 560.0 628.0 628.0

Total N mgN/L 1.7 1.5 1.7

Total P mgP/L 0.17 0.27 0.27

Notes:1 Range shown is for the 20th percentile and 80th percentile, calculated for pH only as per ANZECC (2000).


6. Data Assessment Results

6.1 OverviewA statistical summary of surface water quality data reported between April 2010 and December2010 is presented in Table 6-1. Quarterly concentration data is given in Table 1 and Table 2 inAppendix B. The following discussion highlights key assessment results and any surface waterquality issues arising during this period, including any water quality trends that have beenidentified from the Mann-Kendall analysis. Each monitoring location has been discussedseparately.


Table 6-1 Summary Statistics for Surface Water Quality Data – April 2010 to December 2010 (all units g/L unless specified)

pH EC (

s/cm

)

DO

(mg/

L)

TPH

C6-

C9

TPH

C10

-C36

Ars

enic

(a)

Cad

miu

m(a

)

Chr

omiu

m(a

)

Cop

per(a

)

Lead

(a)

Mer

cury

(a)

Zinc

(a)

Phen

ols(b

)

NO

x

TKN

Tota

l N

Am

mon

ia

Tota

l P

TRP

BO

D

MB

AS

SS Turb

idity

(NTU

)

FC (c

fu/1

00m

L)

Mean(d) 5.7 107.3 5.5 - - 1.0 0.4 - - - - 52.0 - 88 375 425 183 58 - - 675 16750 3.5 -

Std Error(d) 0.4 29.1 1.4 - - 0.0 0.1 - - - - 2.6 - 5 58 33 20 32 - - 131 3844 1.2 -

Minimum 5.1 26.1 1.6 <20 <200 <1 0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.1 6.0 <PQL 80 400 500 150 <10 <10 <2000 300 18000 1.1 2

Maximum 6.7 159.8 8.5 <20 <200 1 0.4 1 2 <1 <0.1 17.0 <PQL 100 600 600 240 140 <10 10000 900 30000 6.6 160

MD

1(c)

Mann Kendall (f) (e)

Mean(d) 6.4 85.9 9.7 - - - - - - - - - - 30 400 400 - 50 - - 150 10500 1.0 39

Std Error(d) 0.2 7.4 1.5 - - - - - - - - - - 9 82 82 - 33 - - 29 6429 0.2 18

Minimum 5.9 65.9 7.1 <20 <200 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.1 <5 <PQL <10 <100 <100 30 <10 <10 4000 100 <1000 0.9 <2

Maximum 7.0 101.8 13.7 <20 <200 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.1 14 <PQL 50 600 600 40 130 <10 6000 200 24000 1.6 78

DD

1(c)

Mann Kendall (e)

1. Dissolved concentration (filtered).

2. 12 priority analytes (one round only).

3. Four samples taken at MD1 and DD1.

4. Mean or standard error not calculated if more than 60% results < PQL.

5. = Significantly increasing trend.

6. = Significantly decreasing trend.


6.2 Rainfall DataA plot of daily rainfall at RAAF WLM between January 2008 and December 2010 is given inFigure 2, Appendix A. Total rainfall in 2008, 2009 and 2010 was 1463.8 mm, 1081.8 mm and937.8 mm respectively. The average annual rainfall for RAAF WLM is 1118.1 mm, with theaverage annual rainfall based on data recorded between 1942 and 1996. Based on this, anabove average rainfall was recorded for 2008, with 2009 and 2010 seeing below averagerainfall.

6.3 Monitoring Location MD1

6.3.1 Location

Samples at monitoring location MD1 in 2010 were taken from the downstream end of the controlstructure for the monitoring period, following the clearing of sediment in the vicinity of the outletin 2009. This waterway receives flow from all five stormwater pipes that discharge fromcatchment MD1. Three of these pipes drain into a stormwater pit prior to discharge at thedownstream end of the control structure.

6.3.2 pH and Electrical Conductivity

Surface water at MD1 was consistently fresh over the monitoring period and was generallymildly acidic. No statistically significant trend was identified for pH. The pH range identified wasbelow the derived site specific trigger values.

A significantly decreasing trend in EC was evident at MD1. Note that this may have beeninfluenced by the low EC (26 µS/cm) identified during the final sampling round in December2010. This was a five fold decrease in comparison to the September 2010 sampling round, withall other concentrations between April 2010 and September 2010 ranged from 107 µS/cm to160 µS/cm.

6.3.3 Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPH C6-C36 concentrations were below laboratory detection limits for all four monitoring rounds.Concentrations of phenolic compounds were also below the laboratory PQL during analysisundertaken for the April 2010 round only.

No statistically significant trends in petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations were evident.

6.3.4 Heavy Metals

Dissolved concentrations of chromium, lead and mercury were at, or below, the laboratorydetection limit for the four rounds of monitoring between April 2010 and December 2010.


Dissolved concentrations of arsenic were consistently reported at 1 µg/L for all sampling rounds,marginally exceeding the assessment criterion by 1.25 times. Dissolved concentrations ofcadmium exceeded the assessment criterion in three out of four monitoring rounds (by up to6.7 times), and dissolved concentrations of copper exceeded the assessment criterion by 6.7times for one monitoring round. Concentrations of dissolved zinc were consistently above theassessment criterion for all monitoring rounds (up to 7 times in April 2010), howeverconcentrations decreased to 2.5 times the assessment criterion in December 2010.

No statistically significant trends in heavy metal concentrations were evident.

6.3.5 Nitrogen and Phosphorus

NOx concentrations at MD1 exceeded the nominated assessment criterion (by up to 10 times)during all four monitoring rounds between April 2010 and December 2010. TN exceeded theassessment criterion by up to three times during three sampling rounds, although all TNconcentrations identified were below the derived site specific trigger value (background TNexceeds the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) default trigger value by approximately five times,reflecting a relatively high nitrogen load throughout the catchment). TKN concentrations indicatethat most of the nitrogen present at MD1 is in a reduced form i.e. organic nitrogen and / orammonia / ammonium. This relationship is consistent with historical monitoring and is a result ofrelatively low flow through the channel (negligible mixing and aeration of water) and thepresence of organic material in the water.

TN, TKN and NOx concentrations did not exceed respective baseline concentrations during thefour monitoring rounds.

No statistically significant trends in nitrogen concentrations were identified.

Total P concentrations exceeded the assessment criterion (by up to six times) in three out offour sampling rounds, however only exceeded the baseline concentration on one occasion(December 2010). The elevated concentration reported in December 2010 coincided with thelower total SS concentration. Reactive phosphorous analysis undertaken in 2010 indicates thatthe majority of phosphorous detected at MD1 was in a form not biologically available under theexisting surface water conditions. It is noted that the Total P concentrations identified were allbelow the derived site specific trigger value.

No statistically significant trends in phosphorus concentrations were evident.

6.3.6 Other Parameters

BOD and MBAS

BOD and MBAS concentrations were below the baseline concentrations for all four monitoringrounds.

No statistically significant trends in BOD or MBAS concentrations were evident.

SS and TurbidityTurbidity and SS concentrations exceeded the assessment criteria in April 2010, with SSconcentrations also exceeding the assessment criterion in June 2010 and September 2010.


Sampling in June and September 2010 were undertaken following rainfall events. Reportedexceedances in SS concentrations during rainfall were by up to about 1.6 times the baselineconcentration. It is likely that the elevated concentrations in SS during April 2010, June 2010and September 2010 are associated with channel clearing works undertaken in 2009, resultingin greater concentrations of suspended sediment, lower water levels and less vegetation to trapsediment. Lower water levels would also be associated with lower rainfall during 2010.Disturbance of sediment during sampling is more likely when water levels are lower.

The increase in SS at MD1 also coincided with moving the sampling location from the upstreamto the downstream side of the control structure (from December 2009). The stormwater pit onthe upstream side allows settling of sediment but has the disadvantage that only three of thefive stormwater pipes discharge into it. The downstream side receives discharge from all fivestormwater pipes at this location but is prone to higher SS for the reasons outlined above.

No statistically significant trends for turbidity were identified. A significantly increasing trend inSS was evident at MD1. It is noted that whilst no data was available from PSC for SS, turbiditylevels for all monitoring rounds were below the derived site specific trigger value derived forturbidity.

Faecal Coliforms

Thermotolerant (faecal) coliform counts exceeded the assessment criterion for one monitoringround (April 2010) by up to 12 times. The baseline concentration was also exceeded in April2010 (by up to 1.6 times). It is noted that FC counts were below the derived site specific triggervalue for all monitoring rounds.

It is considered that exceedances in the April 2010 monitoring round may be attributed to thedisturbance of sediments during sampling due to low water levels at MD1.

No statistically significant trends in the thermotolerant (faecal) coliform count were evident.

6.3.7 Summary of Surface Water Quality Issues at MD1

The following surface water quality issues were identified at MD1 between April 2010 andDecember 2010.

A statistically significant increasing trend was observed for SS. SS concentrationsconsistently exceeded the assessment criterion and baseline concentration, with theexception of the December 2010 monitoring round. It is noted that the elevatedconcentrations in SS during April 2010, June 2010 and September 2010 could be attributedto channel clearing works and the disturbance of sediments during sampling due to lowwater levels.

Heavy metal concentrations frequently exceeded the assessment criteria (99% protectionlevel) although no statistically significant trends were identified.

Note that the concentrations reported at MD1 were at the lower end of the range ofconcentrations for typical Australian urban stormwater, reported by Mitchell et al. (2002).


6.4 Monitoring location DD1

6.4.1 Location

Monitoring location DD1 is located on the south-western boundary of RAAF WLM within thedischarge channel from Lake Cochran.

6.4.2 pH and Electrical Conductivity (EC)

Surface water at DD1 was consistently fresh over the monitoring period, ranging from 5.9 to 7.0,and generally mildly acidic. pH values were below derived site specific trigger values. Nostatistically significant trends in pH or EC were evident.

6.4.3 Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TPH C6-C36 concentrations were below laboratory detection levels for all monitoring roundsbetween April 2010 and December 2010. Concentrations of phenolic compounds were alsobelow the laboratory PQL during analysis undertaken for the April 2010 round only.

No statistically significant trends in petroleum hydrocarbons were evident.

6.4.4 Heavy Metals

Dissolved concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead and mercury were below laboratorydetection levels for all monitoring rounds between April 2010 and December 2010. Dissolvedconcentrations of zinc exceeded the assessment criterion in June 2010 and September 2010,by up to 4.2 times. No monitoring of zinc was undertaken prior to December 2006 and thereforeno baseline concentration is available for comparison.

No statistically significant trends in heavy metal concentrations were evident.

6.4.5 Nitrogen and Phosphorus

NOx concentrations at DD1 exceeded the nominated assessment criterion and baselineconcentration (by up to five times) in three monitoring rounds. Total N concentrations were alsoidentified above assessment criterion in three monitoring rounds, by up to 1.8 times. As forMD1, TKN concentrations indicate that most of the nitrogen present at DD1 is in a reduced formi.e. organic nitrogen and / ammonia / ammonium. It is noted that TN concentrations were belowthe derived site specific trigger value.

Total phosphorus concentrations exceeded the assessment criterion (by up to 5.2 times) in twomonitoring rounds, however were below the derived site specific trigger value. Reactivephosphorus analysis undertaken in 2010 indicates that the majority of phosphorus detected atDD1 is in a form not biologically available under current surface water conditions.

No statistically significant trends in nitrogen or phosphorus concentrations were evident.


6.4.6 Other Parameters

BOD and MBASMBAS concentrations were below the baseline concentrations for all monitoring rounds.

BOD concentrations marginally exceeded the baseline concentration for one monitoring round(April 2010) by 1.2 times.

No statistically significant trends in BOD or MBAS concentrations were identified.

SS and TurbidityTurbidity levels between April 2010 and December 2010 were generally low, and belowassessment criterion. SS concentrations were reported above assessment criterion andbaseline concentrations during April 2010 and June 2010, at up to 4.5 times the baselineconcentration in June 2010.

A statistically significant increasing trend in SS concentrations was evident. The elevated SSconcentration is considered to be associated with channel clearing works in 2009 as well as thedisturbance of sediments caused by sample collection in shallow water.

Faecal Coliforms (FC)

Thermotolerant (faecal) coliform counts exceeded the assessment criterion (by up to 5.6 times)and the baseline count (by up to ten times) for all monitoring rounds between April 2010 andDecember 2010. It is noted that FC counts were below the derived site specific trigger value forall monitoring rounds.

6.4.7 Summary of Surface Water Quality Issues at DD1

The following surface water quality issues were identified at DD1 between April 2010 andDecember 2010:

Significantly increasing trends in SS concentrations were evident, although likely to beassociated with sediment disturbance and low water levels.

Concentrations of zinc often exceeded the assessment criteria (99% protection level),although no statistically significant trend was evident.

Note that the concentrations reported at DD1 were at the lower end of the range ofconcentrations for typical Australian urban stormwater, presented by Mitchell et al. (2002).Furthermore, concentrations reported at DD1 were generally lower than those at MD1. This maybe attributable to particle settlement within Lake Cochran and the fact that the drainage systemthroughout Catchments C and D is primarily made up of open unlined drains that allow forinfiltration of stormwater into the aquifer.


7. Discussion and Recommendations

7.1 OverviewAlthough apparent surface water quality impacts at MD1 and DD1 are relatively minor, there aresome deficiencies in the current surface water quality monitoring program at RAAF WLM andconsequently some uncertainty regarding the level of impact on off-site receptors. Theseuncertainties are discussed in the following sections, as well as recommended actions toimprove the monitoring program.

7.2 Assessment of Current Program Against ObjectivesThe current water quality monitoring program has been assessed against the programobjectives outlined in Section 1.2. The assessment is as follows:

The current program provides some information regarding potential off-site impacts toreceiving waters, however there are several data gaps with regard to monitoring locations,parameters and events.

The current program relies on background surface water quality data collected by PSC.

The current program provides only limited event based data.

7.3 Recommended Changes to the Monitoring Program

7.3.1 Overview

Recommended changes to the surface water quality monitoring program are outlined below.These changes are considered appropriate for meeting the program objectives.

7.3.2 Monitoring Locations

It is considered that the two current on-site surface water monitoring locations are appropriate.Monitoring downstream of the control structures at each location should be undertaken whenpossible, although it may be appropriate to sample at the upstream location at MD1 when waterlevels are low at the downstream end.

Site specific criteria have been derived for pH, EC, turbidity, faecal coliforms, TN and TP, basedon data collected and provided by PSC. It is noted that no background monitoring data wereavailable for other parameters, i.e. heavy metals.

Based on this, it is recommended that a data sharing agreement with PSC be developed toensure that available background surface water quality data results are provided for the revisionof site specific trigger values (for pH, EC, faecal coliforms, TN and TP) and incorporation intothe annual report. In addition, dissolved heavy metal sampling at sites F8 and F9 could beincluded in the current quarterly monitoring program to enable the calculate of site specifictrigger values when sufficient data have been reported.


7.3.3 Monitoring Frequency

In order to better detect elevated contaminant loads, it is recommended that the surface watermonitoring program be modified to an event based program. This involves the collection ofsamples at each location under first flush conditions, followed by the collection of a secondsample within 24-48 hours following the first flush. The time period between monitoring eventscould be flexible, although at least one monitoring event should be undertaken in each seasonover a two year period.

To minimise the risk of missing a first flush event, passive stormwater samplers could beinstalled within the downstream channels at MD1 and DD1.

7.3.4 Changes to Parameters

The following changes are recommended. Monitoring of a parameter is to be continued for allrounds unless specified.

Heavy Metals

Only analyse for Cr(VI) when Cr (III + VI) concentrations are above 10 µg/L.

More information is required regarding background concentrations of heavy metals beforemonitoring of any particular metal species should be discontinued. Although mercury hasbeen consistently reported below the laboratory PQL since May 2003, it is a contaminant ofconcern (particularly within Catchment MD1) and monitoring should continue at this stage.

Other Parameters

Carry out more specific tests for the presence of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF), viathe use of the MBAS field test kit and analysis of samples at the University of SouthAustralia.

7.4 Suitability of Assessment Criteria and Baseline ConcentrationsThe assessment criteria outlined in Section 5.2 is considered generally appropriate at thisstage. However, note that the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) criteria currently adopted for arsenic,cadmium, chromium, copper and mercury (99% level of protection of aquatic ecosystems) areless than the laboratory PQLs. This emphasises the importance of obtaining backgroundsurface water quality data in order to calculate site specific criteria for these metals. Theprocedure for calculating site specific criteria is outlined in Section 8.3.5.5 ofANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000).

Baseline concentrations have been assessed by identifying unusually high or lowconcentrations. GHD considers that the current baseline concentrations for MD1 and DD1 aregenerally suitable and their use should be continued to assist with the interpretation of resultsfor each monitoring report. Once site specific criteria for heavy metals have been established, itmay be appropriate to replace the baseline concentrations for metals with these.


7.5 Additional Investigations and WorksWater quality data obtained from PSC was reviewed. As outlined in Section 7.3.2, it isrecommended that sites F8 and F9 be included in the quarterly monitoring program to allow forthe derivation of site specific trigger values for heavy metals.


8. Conclusions

GHD has undertaken a review of the surface water quality monitoring program at RAAF WLM,focusing on data reported between April 2010 and December 2010. The main surface waterquality issues at RAAF WLM and recommended changes to the monitoring program areoutlined in Table 2-1.


9. Limitations

This Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report (“Report”):

1. has been prepared by GHD Pty Ltd (“GHD”) for Spotless P & F Pty Ltd on the behalf of theDepartment 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 Defencewithout the prior written consent of GHD.

If the Department of Defence wishes to provide this Report to a third party recipient to use and rely upon,then GHD’s prior written consent will be required. Before this Report is released to the third party recipient,the third party recipient will be required to execute a GHD prepared deed poll under which the recipientagrees:

to acknowledge that the basis on which this Report may be relied upon is consistent with theprinciples in this section of the Report; and

to the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD shall not have, and the recipient forever releasesGHD from, any liability to the recipient for loss or damage howsoever in connection with, arisingfrom or in respect of this Report whether such liability arises in contract, tort (includingnegligence),

To the maximum extent permitted by law, all implied warranties and conditions in relation to the servicesprovided 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 specificallydetailed in section 3 of this Report.

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

Subject to the paragraphs in this section of the Report, the opinions, conclusions and anyrecommendations in this Report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed at thetime of preparation after which time, GHD expressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omissionfrom, this Report arising from or in connection with those opinions, conclusions and any recommendations.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this Report are based on information obtainedfrom, and testing undertaken at or in connection with, specific sample points. Site conditions at other partsof the site may be different from the site conditions found at the specific sample points.

Investigations undertaken in respect of this Report are constrained by the particular site conditions, suchas the location of buildings, services and vegetation. As a result, not all relevant site features andconditions may have been identified in this Report.

Site conditions (including any the presence of hazardous substances and/or site contamination) maychange 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.

GHD has prepared this Report on the basis of information provided by Port Stephens Council, which GHDhas not independently verified or checked (“Unverified Information”) beyond the agreed scope of work.

GHD expressly disclaims responsibility in connection with the Unverified Information, including (but notlimited to) errors in, or omissions from, the Report, which were caused or contributed to by errors in, oromissions from, the Unverified Information.


10. References

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

Egis (2001). RAAF Base Williamtown Environmental Management Plan: Phase 2 Studies –Stormwater Management Study.

GHD Pty Ltd (2009). Surface Water Monitoring RAAF Base Williamtown: March 2009 SurfaceWater Quality Report.

GHD Australia Pty Ltd (2010). Surface Water Quality Monitoring RAAF Base Williamtown: 2008-2009 Annual Report.

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (MHSPE) (1994). Environmental QualityObjectives in the Netherlands - A review of environmental quality objectives and their policyframework in the Netherlands.

NHMRC/NRMMC (2004). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. National Health and MedicalResearch Council/Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council.

Mitchell, V.G., Mein, R.G. and McMahon, T.A. (2002). ‘Utilising Stormwater and WastewaterResources in Urban Areas’. Australian Journal of Water Resources, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 31-43.

Parsons Brinckerhoff (2005) Water Quantity Modelling Report: Williamtown RAAF Base.


Appendix A

Figures

Current Surface Water Monitoring Locations

Client: Department of DefenceProject: Surface Water Monitoring RAAF WLM

scale as shown date 11 February 2011Figure 1

job no 2215112

CLIENTS PEOPLE PERFORMANCE

24 Honeysuckle Drive Newcastle NSW 2300 Australia 61 2 4979 9999 61 2 4979 9988 [email protected] www.ghd.com.auT F E W

MD1

DD1

Monitoring Location

*

Catchment boundaries developed by ParsonsBrinckerhoff (Water Quality Modelling Report, 2005)*

Sampling Events in 2009-2010

Client: Department of DefenceProject: Surface Water Monitoring RAAF WLM

scale as shown date 11 February 2011Figure 2

job no 2215112

CLIENTS PEOPLE PERFORMANCE

24 Honeysuckle Drive Newcastle NSW 2300 Australia 61 2 4979 9999 61 2 4979 9988 [email protected] www.ghd.com.auT F E W

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Daily rainfall for RAAF WLM (mm) Date of monitoring


Appendix B

Tables

Table 1 - Surface Water Quality Data for MD1 (ug/L unless specified)

Sample Date pH EC (us/cm) DO (mg/L) Temp (OC) C6-C9 C10-C14 C15-C28 C29-C36 C10-C36- - - - - - - - 600

MD1 Baseline - - - - <20 <50 777 154 1090Apr-10 6.7 160 6.4 22.1 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Jun-10 5.1 107 8.5 17.4 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Sep-10 5.9 136 1.6 19.2 - <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-10 5.2 26 5.5 21.4 - <50 <100 <50 <200

Mean 5.7 107.3 5.5 20.0 - - - - -Standard Error 0.4 29.1 1.4 1.1 - - - - -

Minimum 5.1 26.1 1.6 17.4 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Maximum 6.7 159.8 8.5 22.1 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200

Mann-Kendall Trend - D - - - - - - -4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Field Parameters TPH

Assessment Criteria

Page 1 of 8

Table 1 (cont'd) - Surface Water Quality Data for MD1 (ug/L unless specified)

Sample Date Phen

ol

2-C

hlor

ophe

nol

2-M

ethy

lphe

nol

3&4-

Met

hylp

heno

l

2-N

itrop

heno

l

2.4-

Dim

ethy

lphe

nol

2.4-

Dic

hlor

ophe

nol

2.6-

Dic

hlor

ophe

nol

4-C

hlor

o-3-

Met

hylp

heno

l

2.4.

6-Tr

ichl

orop

heno

l

2.4.

5-Tr

ichl

orop

heno

l

Pent

achl

orop

heno

l

Assessment Criteria 85 340 - - - - 120 - - 3 0.5 3.6MD1 Baseline <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Apr-10 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0Mean - - - - - - - - - - - -

Standard Error - - - - - - - - - - - -Minimum <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2Maximum <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2

Mann-Kendall Trend - - - - - - - - - - - -

Phenols

Page 2 of 8


Sample Date Arsenic Cadmium Cr (lll+VI) Cr (Vl) Copper Lead Mercury ZincAssessment Criteria 0.8 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.3 1 0.06 2.4

MD1 Baseline - - - - - - - -Apr-10 1 0.4 <1 - 2 <1 <0.1 17Jun-10 1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.1 16Sep-10 1 0.1 1 <1 <1 <0.1 16Dec-10 1 0.1 1 - <1 <1 <0.1 6

Mean 1.0 0.4 - - - - - 52.0Standard Error 0.0 0.1 - - - - - 2.6

Minimum <1 0.1 <1 <10 <1 <1 <0.1 6.0

Maximum 1 0.4 1 <10 2 <1 <0.1 17.0% > Criteria

% > Baseline% < PQL

Mann-Kendall Trend - - - - - - - -

4 4 1 1 1 1 1 14.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.0

Dissolved Heavy Metals

Page 3 of 8


Sample Date NOx as N TKN TN NH3 TP TRP BOD MBAS SS Turbidity (NTU)

FC (cfu/100mL)

Assessment Criteria 10 - 350 25 4 - - 6000 6 14MD1 Baseline 210 1568 1630 101 - 19200 1780 12200 - 104

Apr-10 80 600 600 150 50 <10 10000 900 18000 6.6 160Jun-10 90 <100 <100 180 40 <10 3000 300 19000 2.6 2Sep-10 80 400 500 240 <10 <10 <2000 700 30000 1.1 ~5Dec-10 100 500 600 160 140 <10 <2000 800 <5000 3.7 ~7

Mean 88 375 425 183 58 - - 675 16750 3.5 -Standard Error 5 58 33 20 32 - - 131 3844 1.2 -

Minimum 80 400 500 150 <10 <10 <2000 300 18000 1.1 2Maximum 100 600 600 240 140 <10 10000 900 30000 6.6 160

Mann-Kendall Trend - - - - - - - - Up - -

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.0

Nutrients Other

Page 4 of 8

Table 2 - Surface Water Quality Data for DD1 (ug/L unless specified)

Sample Date pH EC (us/cm) DO (mg/L) Temp (OC) C6-C9 C10-C14 C15-C28 C29-C36 C10-C36- - - - - - - - 600

DD1 Baseline - - - - <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Apr-10 7.0 102 7.1 19.3 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Jun-10 5.9 66 13.7 11.7 <20 <50 <100 <50 <200Sep-10 6.2 89 10.1 18.4 - <50 <100 <50 <200Dec-10 6.4 87 7.7 26.3 - <50 <100 <50 <200

NSW EPA/ANZECC NC NC NC NC 10,000 300 140Dutch Intervention NC NC NC NC NC 30 150

Mean 6.4 85.8 9.7 18.9 - - - - -Standard Error 0.2 7.4 1.5 3.0 - - - - -

Minimum 5.9 65.9 7.1 11.7 <20 <50 <100 <50 0Maximum 7.0 101.8 13.7 26.3 <20 <50 <100 <50 0

% > Criteria - - - - - - - - -% > Baseline - - - - - - - - -

% < PQL - - - - - - - - -Mann-Kendall Trend - - - - - - - - -

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Field Parameters TPH

Assessment Criteria

Page 5 of 8

Table 2 (cont'd) - Surface Water Quality Data for DD1 (ug/L unless specified)

Sample Date Phen

ol

2-C

hlor

ophe

nol

2-M

ethy

lphe

nol

3&4-

Met

hylp

heno

l

2-N

itrop

heno

l

2.4-

Dim

ethy

lphe

nol

2.4-

Dic

hlor

ophe

nol

2.6-

Dic

hlor

ophe

nol

4-C

hlor

o-3-

Met

hylp

heno

l

2.4.

6-Tr

ichl

orop

heno

l

2.4.

5-Tr

ichl

orop

heno

l

Pent

achl

orop

heno

l

Assessment Criteria 85 340 - - - - 120 - - 3 0.5 3.6DD1 Baseline <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Apr-10 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <2.0Mean - - - - - - - - - - - -

Standard Error - - - - - - - - - - - -Minimum <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2Maximum <1 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2

Mann-Kendall Trend - - - - - - - - - - - -

Phenols

Page 6 of 8


Sample Date Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Mercury ZincAssessment Criteria 0.8 0.06 0.3 1 0.06 2.4

DD1 Baseline - - - - - -Apr-10 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <0.1 <5Jun-10 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <0.1 9Sep-10 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <0.1 10Dec-10 <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <1 <0.1

Mean - - - - - -Standard Error - - - - - -

Minimum <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <0.1 <5Maximum <1 <0.1 <1 <1 <0.1 14

% > Criteria - - - - - -% > Baseline - - - - - -

% < PQL - - - - - -Mann-Kendall Trend - - - - - -

4 4 4 4 4 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

Dissolved Heavy Metals

Page 7 of 8


Sample Date NOx as N TKN TN NH3 TP TRP BOD MBAS SS Turbidity (NTU)

FC (cfu/100mL)

Assessment Criteria 10 - 350 25 40 - - 6000 6 14DD1 Baseline <10 555 552 - - 5000 202 5400 - 8

Apr-10 10 600 600 <10 50 <10 6000 100 16000 0.9 60Jun-10 40 200 200 40 20 20 4000 100 24000 1.6 17Sep-10 50 400 400 30 <10 <10 <2000 200 2000 1.2 ~12Dec-10 20 400 400 <10 130 <10 <2000 200 <5000 1.5 78

Mean 30 400 400 - 50 - - 150 10500 1 39Standard Error 9 82 82 - 33 - - 29 6429 0.2 18

Minimum <10 <100 <100 30 <10 <10 4000 100 <1000 0.9 <2Maximum 50 600 600 40 130 <10 6000 200 24000 1.6 78

Mann-Kendall Trend - - - - - - - - Up - -

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0

Nutrients Other

Page 8 of 8

Surface Water Quality Monitoring RAAF Base Williamtown€¦ · Water Quality Issues Actions ......

Documents

Transcript of Surface Water Quality Monitoring RAAF Base Williamtown€¦ · Water Quality Issues Actions ......