Woodville Port Road Environmental Assessment Stage 3, January 2021
~LWC Land & Water Consulting
Environmental Assessment Stage 3 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia
South Australian Environment Protection Authority
January 2021
LWC Land and Water Consulting
Document Status
Version Doc type Reviewed by Approved by Date issued DR00 Draft Report Dr James Fox Dr James Fox 18 December 2020
FR001 Final Report Dr James Fox Dr James Fox 29 January 2021
Project Details
Project Name Woodville (Port Road) Stage 3 Client South Australian Environment Protection Authority Client Project Manager Shannon Thompson LWC Project Manager Emily Picken LWC Project Director Dr James Fox File Reference LWC Draft Report (FR001) - EPA Woodville Stage 3
COPYRIGHT
Land & Water Consulting has produced this document in accordance with instructions from South Australian Environment Protection Authority. The concepts and information contained in this document are the copyright of Land & Water Consulting. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without written permission of Land & Water Consulting constitutes an infringement of copyright.
Land & Water Consulting /\Clr.A Member Company 4 – 8 Goodwood Road, Wayville SA 5034 - ACIC:A SA Telephone (08) 8271 5255 SOUTH I.UST P.Alla. - www.lwconsulting.com.au - I -""""""' Land and Water Consulting is a B-Corp Certified company. B Corporations represent an emerging group of companies that are using the power of business to create a positive impact on the world and generate a shared and durable prosperity for all. Certified B Corporations have undertaken the B Impact Assessment, scored over 80, and have signed a term sheet that declares that they will consider all stakeholders. It is a rigorous assessment that explores a company’s governance, transparency, environmental and social impact. B Corps voluntarily hold themselves to a higher level of accountability in these areas.
EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page ii
LWC Land and Water Consulting
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Land & Water Consulting (LWC) was engaged by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to undertake groundwater monitoring well installation, groundwater gauging and targeted sampling and analysis of new and existing groundwater monitoring wells in the EPA Woodville Assessment Area (the Assessment Area) centred on Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. These works formed Stage 3 of groundwater assessment in the Area (the Assessment). The Assessment was undertaken in accordance with the required scope of work.
Project Objective
The key project objective for Stage 3 works was to determine the lateral and vertical extents of chromium (Cr) and per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination within the established Assessment Area boundary for informing a potential Groundwater Prohibition Area (GPA).
Background
The former Amatek site located at 739-753 Port Road, Woodville (‘Source Site’) operated as a machine and mould manufacturing facility where chromium electroplating was undertaken. It is understood that wastewater containing hexavalent chromium (Cr VI) was disposed of into deep unlined soakage pits causing significant contamination of soil and groundwater with Cr VI.
Large scale remediation works were undertaken at the Amatek site from 1995 to 2006, reportedly removing around 60% of the mass of Cr VI from the soil and groundwater system beneath and adjacent to the Source Site.
Recently, during redevelopment and subsequent environmental assessments of various properties within the Port Road/ Woodville area (and in the vicinity of the Source Site), the EPA has been receiving various Section 83A Notification of Site Contamination that Affects or Threatens Underground Water (as required by the Environment Protection Act 1993 [EP Act]) detailing the identification of Cr VI above considered environment values. On this basis and upon further review of other environment reports prepared for other sites, the EPA as part of Stage 1 works sought additional information not only on the current existence, nature and extent of Cr VI in groundwater within the Assessment Area but whether historical activities undertaken at other sites in the area have also resulted in Cr VI impacts to the underlying groundwater system besides known contamination originating from the Source Site.
Groundwater environmental values identified for the Assessment Area based on the methodology prescribed in Section 4 of the GAR (EPA, 2018) include Recreational and Aesthetics (Primary Contact/ Aesthetics), Potable Water Supply (based on registered domestic bores for Q1 and Q2 bores); Irrigation Use; and Industrial Use.
The results of the Stages 1 and 2 assessment reported that site contamination (as defined in Section 5B of the EP Act) was present.
The actual harm to water comprised concentrations of both Cr VI and PFAS above criteria for protection of relevant environmental values.
Groundwater Aquifer Systems and Flow Direction
Based on the groundwater elevation data and consistent with previous investigations undertaken within the Assessment Area, the following conditions were identified in November 2020 GME program:
▪ Beneath the Assessment Area, the watertable Q1 aquifer is present from 4.9 to 12.5 m below ground level (BGL) followed by confining unit ranging from 3.0 to 3.5 m in thickness. The Q2 aquifer unit is then present from 8.5 to 29 m BGL and existing monitoring wells installed greater than 30 m are installed within the Q3 aquifer unit.
EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page iii
LWC Land and Water Consulting
▪ For the watertable Q1 and Q2 aquifer systems, groundwater flow is observed to be in a north westerly direction towards the coastline.
▪ The general groundwater flow direction beneath the Site and surrounds for the watertable Q1 and Q2 aquifer units is consistent with anticipated regional flow direction.
▪ With reference to the location of the Source Site and based on interpreted groundwater contours, monitoring wells MW10-Q1/ MW10-Q2 and MW11-Q1/ MW11-Q2 are considered to be background monitoring wells given they are situated up-hydraulic gradient/ cross gradient of the Source Site. No groundwater monitoring wells are installed in the Q3 aquifer unit that are located up hydraulic gradient of the Source Site.
▪ Between the watertable Q1 and Q2 aquifer systems, slight downward hydraulic gradients exist in the vicinity of MW02, MW07, MW10, MW11, MW14 and MW15 nested monitoring wells with a slight up hydraulic gradient observed in monitoring wells MW08, MW12 and MW13 nested wells. In comparison to the previous monitoring event (April 2020), results were consistent for MW08 and MW11 nested locations and had reversed for the other locations. Between the Q2 and Q3 existing wells located beneath and near the Source Site, a downward hydraulic gradient was observed between DW2 and DD10 and DD2 and DD3.
▪ Neither visual nor olfactory evidence of impacts were observed during the installation of the newly installed monitoring wells. In addition, no apparent measurable thickness of non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL), nor hydrocarbon sheen/ odour were identified. However consistent with previous, during the targeted sampling program yellow colouration of groundwater was observed indicative of Cr VI impacts at the following locations:
o MW01-Q1 – located adjacent the Source Site in a down hydraulic gradient (westerly) direction.
o DD2– Q2 well located on the Source Site.
Existence of Groundwater Contamination
Potentially contaminating activities (PCAs) were historically undertaken at the Source Site which has resulted in significant impacts to the underlying soil and groundwater systems. In accordance with Section 5B of the EP Act (1993) site contamination exists within the Assessment Area, noting:
▪ Remediation works removed around 60% (S&G, 2006) of the mass of Cr VI impact to the soil and groundwater system however a chromium plume remains down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site above relevant environmental values.
▪ The Stage 1 to 3 results have confirmed that PFAS is present in groundwater beneath the Assessment Area within the Q1, Q2 and Q3 aquifer units. While groundwater sampling of Q2 and Q3 monitoring wells located at the Source Site has confirmed the presence of PFAS above relevant guideline values, no Q1 monitoring wells are located at the chromium Source Site to confirm if PFAS impacts are emanating in groundwater in this aquifer unit. Background monitoring wells in both the watertable Q1 and Q2 aquifers have reported PFAS concentrations marginally above the laboratory LOR.
▪ Other heavy metals including manganese, boron, copper, nickel and zinc were identified above environmental values (LWC, 2019) and could be attributed to natural background levels and/ or activities undertaken at the Source Site.
Nature and Extent of Site Contamination – Chromium
▪ Plume delineation within the Assessment Area was achieved during the Stage 3 program of works. Residual Cr VI and total Cr concentrations in groundwater monitoring wells extending as far as 250 m down hydraulic gradient from the Source Site in the watertable Q1 aquifer unit and the Q2 aquifer unit.
EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page iv
LWC Land and Water Consulting
Monitoring wells installed in the Q3 aquifer unit near and at the Source Site previously reported chromium concentrations below the laboratory limit of reporting (LOR).
▪ At the targeted locations, concentrations of Cr VI in groundwater were observed to be lower than that reported previously (S&G, 2006) and that it appeared that no significant rebounding of the Cr VI plume beneath or directly down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site had occurred since remediation.
▪ For the watertable-Q1 aquifer unit, at existing locations targeted for sampling along key groundwater flow paths were consistent with previous results with the plume considered to be stable.
▪ For the Q2 aquifer unit, at existing locations targeted for sampling along key groundwater flow paths identified a slight increase in Cr VI in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q2, however concentrations were consistent with historical and considered ‘stable’ in groundwater sampled from monitoring wells MW02-Q2 and MW12-Q1.
▪ The outcomes of the Stage 3 program of works has supported the Stage 2 findings that the nature of the residual chromium contamination still present in the environment is complex but appears stable.
Nature and Extent of Site Contamination – PFAS
▪ PFAS impacts in the watertable Q1 aquifer unit are observed up to 210 m down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site (MW08-Q1 on Jones Street – 180 m and MW05-Q1 on Port Road at 210 m). With the newly installed PFAS impacts appear delineated along the flow path with the newly installed monitoring wells, to the west and north west.
▪ For the watertable Q1 aquifer unit, at existing locations targeted for sampling along key groundwater flow paths decreased slightly in groundwater sampled from MW01-Q1, was generally stable in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q1 and increased slightly in groundwater sampled from MW12-Q1.
▪ PFAS impacts in the Q2 aquifer unit have been laterally delineated down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site with the furthest Q2 wells (up to 250 m west, 180 m north west and 230 m to the west/ south west) reporting concentrations above one or more relevant guideline criteria. The Q2 background monitoring well, MW10-Q2 previously reported PFAS concentrations only marginally above the laboratory LOR.
▪ For the Q2 aquifer unit, at existing locations targeted for sampling along key groundwater flow paths, PFAS concentrations were observed to be relatively stable in groundwater sampled from DD2 (located at the Source Site), had decreased slightly in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q2 and MW12-Q2.
▪ The elevated PFAS concentrations in monitoring well pair at MW12 are more than likely from a different source, noting:
o Up gradient wells MW02-Q1 and MW03-Q1 reported lower concentrations which were marginally above the laboratory LOR.
o A review of the historical use of properties along the south western extent of Port Road (near Woodville Road) identified several locations where PFAS chemicals may have been used.
o A review of PFAS chemical compositions along the groundwater flow path also suggests PFAS concentrations observed in the vicinity of MW12 may be from a different source to that observed at the Source Site.
o A review of the lithological logs in regard to preferential groundwater flow paths and aquifer thickness along the flow path also suggests a different source of PFAS being present in the vicinity of MW12-Q2 more so than a higher permeable area or narrowing of the unit in this portion of the Assessment Area.
EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page v
LWC Land and Water Consulting
▪ Data collected during Stage 1, 2 and 3 investigations are considered sufficient to assist in development of a GPA for the area.
Summary of Conclusions
The following summarises the findings of Stage 3 works:
1. Groundwater within the Assessment Area reports elevated concentrations of Cr VI and PFAS relevant to identified environmental values.
2. These groundwater impacts constitute site contamination with respect to the definition of site contamination presented in Section 5B of the Environment Protection Act 1993. With respect to chromium and PFAS impacts, this contamination appears to be predominantly a result of historical site activity undertaken at the Source Site (739-753 Port Road).
3. For Cr VI and PFAS impacts in groundwater, there is a predicted unacceptable risk to public health where domestic bores are used in any contact capacity (including ingestion and dermal contact), notwithstanding the exceedances of the potable criteria (subject to exposure parameters such as frequency, duration etc). The EPA has advised residents in the EPA Woodville (Port Road) Assessment area by letterbox drops in May and October 2019 and September 2020 that groundwater was contaminated and that bore water should not be used for any purpose. A GPA would remove the risk to public health by restricting access to contaminated groundwater.
4. Based on the data collected to date, the extent of the residual Cr VI plume and PFAS impacts in groundwater (watertable-Q1 and Q2) is known and delineated.
5. At the targeted locations, concentrations of Cr VI in groundwater were observed to be lower than that reported previously (S&G, 2006) and that it appeared that no significant rebounding of the Cr VI plume beneath or directly down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site had occurred.
6. As per the Stage 2 program of works, beneath the Assessment Area Cr may cycle between Cr III to Cr VI (and sorbed/ de-sorbed phases), although Cr is evident as Cr VI for the 2020 monitoring events. This makes predictions of magnitude and extent of site contamination with respect to Cr VI potentially challenging over time, and it is likely that consideration of Total Cr is a better risk indicator than considering Cr speciation at any particular time and place.
The findings of the additional investigations undertaken during the Stage 3 works is considered sufficient for the EPA to support a GPA for the Woodville Assessment Area.
Please refer to the statement of limitations associated with these works (presented as Appendix R).
EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page vi
LWC Land and water ConsulbnQ
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 OBJECTIVE 2 1.3 SCOPE OF WORKS 2
2 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3 2.1 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 3 2.2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 7 2.3 CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES 10 2.4 ASSESSMENT AREA LAND USE 11 2.5 SIMPLIFIED CSM/ EXPOSURE MODEL 12 2.6 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT LINKAGES 13 2.6.1 SUMMARY OF DATA GAPS 14
3 PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 15 3.1 OVERVIEW 15 3.2 PREPARATION WORKS 15 3.3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION 16 3.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL DEVELOPMENT 17 3.4.1 New Monitoring Wells 17 3.5 SURVEYING 18 3.6 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION GAUGING AND SAMPLING 18 3.7 WASTE MANAGEMENT 19 3.8 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE 20 3.9 AQUIFER TESTING 21
4 RESULTS 22 4.1 GEOLOGY AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS 22 4.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK 22 4.3 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS AND GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION 24 4.4 GROUNDWATER FIELD PARAMETERS AND OBSERVATIONS 25 4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES 27 4.6 GROUNDWATER LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS 28 4.6.1 Speciated Chromium 28 4.6.2 PFAS 30 4.7 AQUIFER TESTING 31 4.8 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT 32
5 UPDATED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 36 5.1 GROUNDWATER AQUIFER SYSTEMS AND FLOW DIRECTION 36 5.2 NATURE AND EXTENT OF SITE CONTAMINATION 37 5.2.1 Existence of Groundwater Contamination 37
a EPA |January 2021 - . EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page vii
LWC Land and water ConsulbnQ
5.2.2 Chromium 37 5.2.3 PFAS 38 5.3 SUMMARY OF RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH AND/ OR THE ENVIRONMENT 39
6 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 40
7 REFERENCES 41
a EPA |January 2021 - . EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page viii
LWC Land and Water Consulting APPENDICES Appendix A Conceptual Site model Appendix B Chromium Speciation Concentrations, pH, Redox Potential XY Plots Appendix C Data Quality Objectives Appendix D Council Permit Appendix E Groundwater Well Permits Appendix F Plates Appendix G Groundwater Lithological Logs Appendix H Calibration Certificates Appendix I Groundwater Well Development Field Sheets Appendix J Survey Data Appendix K Waste Management Appendix L Aquifer Testing Results Appendix M Hydrographs and TDS XY plots Appendix N Groundwater Sampling Field Sheets Appendix O Certified Groundwater Laboratory Reports Appendix P Data QualIty Assessment Appendix Q Chromium and PFAS Plume Plots For Stages 1 to 3 Appendix R Statement Of Limitations
LIST OF FIGURES (REAR) Figure 1 Project Assessment Area Figure 2 Summary of Source Site and EPA Public Register Surrounding Projects and Businesses of Interest Figure 3 DEW Registered Bore Search within 500 m of the Assessment Area Figure 4 Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Plan Figure 5 Interpreted Groundwater Contours and Flow Direction (Watertable Q1 Aquifer) – November 2020 Figure 6 Interpreted Groundwater Contours and Flow Direction (Q2 Aquifer Unit) – November 2020 Figure 7a Summary of Speciated Chromium Concentrations and Selected PFAS Concentrations – Q1 Aquifer Figure 7b Summary of Speciated Chromium Concentrations and Selected PFAS Concentrations - Q2 and Q3 Aquifer Figure 8a Proportion of PFAS Concentrations – Watertable Q1 Aquifer Figure 8b Proportion of PFAS Concentrations – Q2 Aquifer Figure 9 Interpreted Speciated Chromium Concentrations for Q1 Aquifer – November 2020 Figure 10 Interpreted Hexavalent Chromium Concentration Contours (mg/L) for Q1 and Q2 Units for November 2020 Figure 11 Geological Cross Section and Interpreted Extent of Total Chromium Plume – November 2020 Figure 12 Interpreted Sum of PFHxS and PFOS Concentration (μg/L) Contours for the Q1 and Q2 Units November 2020
LIST OF TABLES (REAR) Table 1 Summary of New and Existing Operational Monitoring Wells, EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Wayville
EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page ix
LWC Land and Water Consulting
Table 2 Summary of Groundwater Field Parameters, EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Wayville Table 3a Summary of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Watertable Q1 Groundwater Analytical Results, EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville Table 3b Summary of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Q2 Groundwater Analytical Results, EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville Table 4 Summary of Historical Groundwater Analytical Results, Hexavalent Chromium LIST OF TABLES (IN TEXT) Table 2-1. Summary of Chromium Results for Other Sites within/ near the Assessment Area 5 Table 2-2. Adelaide Area – Generalised Stratigraphy (from Gerges, 2006) 7 Table 2-3. Registered Domestic Wells within the Assessment Area 9 Table 2-4. Chemical Substances of Interest (COI) 10 Table 2-5. Land Use Adjacent to the Source Site 11 Table 2-6. Summary of Sources of Contamination / Potential Hazard 12 Table 2-7. Summary of Identified Plausible Receptors (accounting for Table 2-5) 12 Table 2-8. Summary of Pathways 13 Table 2-9. Potential Contaminant Linkages 13 Table 3-1. Summary of Monitoring Well Installation Locations and Construction Details 16 Table 3-2. Adopted Analytical Schedule (Excluding QA/QC Samples) 20 Table 4-1. Summary of the Existing Monitoring Wells and Status 23 Table 4-2. Groundwater Monitoring Wells Targeted During Stage 3 GME 23 Table 4-3. Summary of the Targeted Speciated Chromium Results for November 2020 28 Table 4-4. Summary of Commercial Properties on Port Road Near Woodville Road where PFAS Chemicals may have been Used 30 Table 4-6. Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Results 31 Table 4-7. Summary of Groundwater Quality Assurance and Control – November 2020 34
LIST OF FIGURES (IN TEXT) Figure 2-1. Chromium VI in Groundwater in 2002 (S&G, 2006) 10 Figure 4-1. Total Chromium Concentrations Along the Flow Path for Watertable-Q1 29 Figure 4-2. Total Chromium Concentrations Along the Flow Path for Q2 Aquifer 29
EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page x
LWC Land and Water Consulting DEFINITION OF ACRONYMS
ADWG Australian Drinking Water Guidelines AEC Anion Exchange Capacity AFFF Aqueous Film Forming Foams AHD Australian Height Datum ALS Australian Laboratory Services Pty Ltd ANZECC Australian New Zealand Environment Conservation Council ARMCAZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australian and New Zealand ANZG Australian New Zealand Guidelines APHA American Public Health Association ASC Assessment of Site Contamination ASR Aquifer Storage Recovery ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry AWQG Australian Water Quality Guidelines BGL below ground level BTEXN benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (total), naphthalene CEC Cation Exchange Capacity CHC Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Compounds COC Chain of Custody COI Chemical Substance of Interest COPC Contaminants of Potential Concern Cr VI Hexavalent Chromium Cr III Trivalent Chromium Cr Chromium CUTEP Clean Up to Extent Practicable CSM Conceptual Site Model DEW Department of Environment and Water DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid DO Dissolved Oxygen DQI Data Quality Indicator DQO Data Quality Objectives EC Electrical Conductivity EP Act Environment Protection Act 1993 EPA Environment Protection Authority Eh Redox Potential EP Environment Protection EPP Environment Protection Policy EPR Environment Protection Regulations EQL Estimated Quality Limit Eurofins Eurofins – MGT Laboratory Pty Ltd GAR Guidelines for the Assessment and Remediation of Site Contamination GME Groundwater Monitoring Event GWB Geochemist Work Bench GPA Groundwater Prohibition Area HDPE High Density Polyethylene i hydraulic gradient IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer JSEA Job Safety and Environment Analysis K Hydraulic Conductivity LDPE Low Density Polyethylene LOR Limits of Reporting LWC Land & Water Consulting LNAPL Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid m metres mg/L milligrams per litre
EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page xi
LWC Land and Water Consulting
Mn manganese MnO manganese oxide MnO2 manganese dioxide µg/L micrograms per litre mV milli volts MGT Eurofins MGT ne Effective Porosity NATA National Association of Testing Authorities NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council NEPC National Environmental Protection Council NEPM National Environmental Protection Measures PCA Potentially Contaminating Activity PFAA Perfluoroalkyl Acids PFAS Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances PFDA Perfluorodecanoic Acid PFNA Perfluorononanoic Acid PFOS Perfluorooctane Sulfonate PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonate PID Photo-Ionisation Detector Q Quaternary QAQC Quality Assurance Quality Control RPD Relative Percentage Difference RFQ Request for Quote SA EPA South Australian Environment Protection Authority SAQP Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan SWL Standing Water Level TDS Total Dissolved Solids TRH Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons TRV Toxicity Reference Value USC Unified Soil Classification VOC Volatile Organic Compound WHO World Health Organisation WH&S Work Health and Safety Plan WQEPP Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy QAQC Quality Assurance/ Quality Control US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Vx Average Linear Velocity
EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page xii
LWC Land and water Consuttu,g
1 INTRODUCTION
Land and Water Consulting (LWC) was engaged by the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to undertake the Stage 3 Environmental Assessment for Port Road, Woodville, South Australia (‘the Assessment Area’). The Assessment Area is presented as Figure 1. 1.1 BACKGROUND
Historical operations at the former Amatek site located at 739-753 Port Road, Woodville (‘Source Site’) had resulted in significant and widespread hexavalent chromium (Cr VI) impacts to the underlying soil environment and groundwater systems. The Source Site was formerly used as a machine and mould manufacturing facility where chromium electroplating was undertaken. It is understood that wastewater containing Cr VI was disposed of into deep unlined soakage pits on the Site causing soil and groundwater impacts. Figure 2 details the location of the Source Site.
A large-scale remediation project was undertaken in 1995 where approximately 4,000 m3 of Cr VI impacted soil from the source area was excavated and disposed off-site. After remediation of the soils at the site, a groundwater dissolved phase Cr VI plume was found to have migrated some 280 m down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site. Regular groundwater monitoring was undertaken at the site from 1995 to 2005.
A groundwater remediation system was operated by Cleanaway from 1997 to 1999 targeting the watertable aquifer only. A ‘pump and treat’ system followed by post remediation assessment and monitoring was implemented by Soil & Groundwater Pty Ltd (S&G) from 2003 to 2006. It was estimated that around 60% of the mass of Cr VI present in the groundwater plume (and associated contaminated sedimentary material in the aquifer) was removed prior to Clean Up to the Extent Practicable (CUTEP) being achieved.
In recent years, during the redevelopment and subsequent environmental assessments of various properties within the Port Road/ Woodville area (and in the vicinity of the Source Site), LWC understands that the EPA has been receiving various Section 83A Notifications of Site Contamination that Affects or Threatens Underground Water (as required by the Environment Protection Act 1993) detailing the identification of Cr VI above considered environmental values.
The EPA Woodville Stage 1 and Stage 2 environmental investigation programs were subsequently undertaken to assist in (1) determining if groundwater contamination exists associated with historical potentially contaminating activities (PCAs) at 739-753 Port Road, Woodville and surrounds and (2) understanding the nature and extent of groundwater contamination within the established Assessment Area.
The scope of works for these environmental investigations comprised of groundwater monitoring well installation, well development and gauging and sampling of 18 new groundwater monitoring wells within the Assessment Area, eleven of which were installed in the watertable (present in the Q1 aquifer) and six within the Q2 aquifer system. In addition, gauging and sampling was undertaken at identified existing groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Source Site and within the Port Road Woodville Assessment Area. These included wells installed in the watertable Q1 aquifer as well as the underlying Q2 and Q3 aquifers.
During the Stage 1 and Stage 2 environmental investigations, groundwater laboratory analysis was undertaken for a combination of Speciated Chromium, Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Compounds (CHC), Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRH), Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Naphthalene (BTEXN) compounds, dissolved heavy metals, natural attenuation parameters and Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 1
LWC Land and water Consuttu,g
The results of the assessments reported that groundwater contamination exists for Cr VI, CHC (localised at a single location) and PFAS. The extent of the residual Cr VI plume was un-delineated to the west and north west of the Source Site (Amatek site) and the extent of the PFAS plume was un- delineated to the north and north west of the Source Site. Additional groundwater infrastructure was considered required to delineate the impacts. The Cr VI plume observed across the Assessment Area was considered a residual plume present following remediation works undertaken beneath and near the Source Site.
LWC was subsequently engaged in October 2020 to undertake the Stage 3 environmental assessment to determine the nature and extent of contamination (chromium and PFAS) so as to inform on a potential groundwater prohibition area (GPA). This report provides the outcomes of the Stage 3 environmental assessment undertaken within the Assessment Area which included a single field investigation conducted in October and November 2020.
1.2 OBJECTIVE
The key project objective as detailed by the EPA Request for Quote (RFQ – reference 05/25058; 62106) included the following:
▪ Determine the lateral and vertical extents of chromium and PFAS contamination within the established Assessment Area boundary for informing a potential GPA.
1.3 SCOPE OF WORKS
The scope of works as detailed by the EPA RFQ and agreed during the course of the program of work, included the following:
▪ Install and develop three groundwater monitoring wells into the watertable Q1 aquifer and three into the underlying Q2 aquifer unit.
▪ Undertake well development and surveying of the newly installed monitoring wells including a check on nearby existing wells to confirm consistency with previously surveyed datums.
▪ Complete a Groundwater Monitoring Event (GME) in November 2020 of the six newly installed monitoring wells and six select existing monitoring wells identified in the Stage 1 program of works.
o Field testing of groundwater for pH, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), redox potential (Eh) and dissolved oxygen (DO).
o Analyse groundwater for a combination of TDS, dissolved heavy metals (including Cr VI, Cr III and total Cr) and PFAS (short suite).
▪ During development, estimate well yields and well recovery at each location with interpreted information compared to literature values for the aquifer material and any relevant site-specific hydraulic conductivity estimates.
▪ Provision of this report developed in accordance with the ASC NEPM (1999, as amended 2013) detailing a summary of previous investigations, the completed assessment findings, a conceptual site model (CSM), analytical data, production of time series graphs for chromium and indicator species, hydrographs and data quality analysis, discussion on risk considerations and source locations.
EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 2
LWC Land and water Consulting 2 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
As per Section 6.3 of the Guidelines for the Assessment and Remediation of Site Contamination (GAR, EPA, 2019), the development of a site-specific CSM) can assist to assess the relationship between the source, pathway, and receptor with respect to site contamination at a site. It is an essential tool that is expected to be prepared and included in the reporting phases for the stages of assessment and remediation work (EPA 2019). A CSM may be presented in a written format or in visual representation.
EPA (2019) notes that the preparation of a well-characterised CSM, with consideration of known or potential primary and secondary sources of contamination and potential preferential pathways, will assist to ensure informed decisions are made when assessing risk and ultimately when remediation may be necessary.
The CSM for the Assessment Area was developed during the Stage 1 environmental assessment (LWC, 2019) and then further developed during the Stage 2 environmental assessment (LWC, 2020). A detailed review of the geochemical nature of impacts in groundwater beneath the Assessment Area was undertaken in the Stage 2 assessment (LWC, 2020), a summary of which is provided in Appendix A.
2.1 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
The EPA holds numerous reports/ notifications relating to site contamination assessment/ remediation works and site contamination audits in the vicinity of Port Road Woodville, South Australia. Operations at the former Amatek site located at 739-753 Port Road, Woodville (‘Source Site’) had resulted in significant and widespread Cr VI impacts to underlying soil environment and groundwater systems.
In recent years, during the redevelopment and subsequent environmental assessments of various properties within the Port Road/ Woodville area (and in the vicinity of the Source Site), LWC understands that the EPA has been receiving various Section 83A Notifications of Site Contamination that Affects or Threatens Underground Water detailing the identification of Cr VI above considered environment values. The following reports were provided by the EPA for review and consideration, with Figure 2 detailing the location of these other investigation sites in addition to a brief summary of Cr VI results reported in soils and groundwater within and around the Assessment Area.
Source Site – 739-753 Port Road
▪ CMPS&F (1995). Columbia Concrete Block Machinery Company Site at 749 Port Road (Interim Report). September 1995. EPA Ref: 10125.
▪ Golder Associates (1995). Health Risk Assessment Groundwater Contamination CCBM Site Woodville, South Australia. 5 October 1995. EPA Ref: 10125.
▪ Cleanaway (1996). Columbia Remediation Project. March 1996. EPA Ref: 10541 and 10125.
▪ Egis Consulting (2000). Draft Report to Rocla Industries Ltd for Former Columbia Facility Port Road, Wayville, South Australia – Contamination Plume Delineation. November 2000. EPA Ref: 12452.
▪ GHD (2002). Rocla Industries Limited – Former Columbia Site Woodville, SA – Additional Groundwater Monitoring Report, October/ November 2002. December 2002. EPA Ref: 12452.
▪ S&G (2003). Remediation Action Plan, Port Road Remediation Project. Prepared for Amatek Industries Pty Limited. Revision 3. March 2003. EPA Ref: 12452.
EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 3
LWC Land and water Consulting
▪ S&G (2004). Port Road Remediation Project, Project Status Report – December 2003. Prepared for Rocla Industries. January 2004. EPA Ref: 12452.
▪ S&G (2006). Draft Report, Port Road Remediation Project Completion Report – January 2006. Prepared for Amatek. January 2006. EPA Ref: 12452.
▪ S&G (2006). Addendum Port Road Remediation Project Completion Report. Prepared for Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd. 5 May 2006.
▪ Coffey Environments (2006). Auditor Submission in Relation to Groundwater CUTEP (Clean- Up To Extent Practicable) – 749 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. 13 December 2006.
Other Reports/ Notifications
▪ Peter J Ramsay & Associates (2013). Site Contamination Audit of Land Pursuant to Part 10A of the Environment Protection Act 1993, EPA Ref: 61110 05/21162 - 808-810 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. September 2013.
▪ Section 83A Notification for 822 Port Road, Woodville South – Dated 27 October 2015. Notification from GHD Pty Ltd. EPA Ref: 61558.
▪ Australian Environmental Auditors (2017). Site Contamination Audit Report, 761-763 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. Prepared for Goedecke Family Superannuation Fund. 11 January 2017. EPA Ref: 61715.
Additional reports obtained by LWC from the Public Register:
▪ Golder Associates (2004). Preliminary Contamination Assessment 2 Hughes Road1, Woodville, South Australia. Prepared for CMPS&F Pty Ltd. 21 March 1996. EPA Ref: 12540.
▪ Agon Environmental (2015). Letter for Section 83A Notification of Site Contamination of Underground Water for 759 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. 13 February 2015. EPA Ref: 61433.
▪ TMK Consulting Engineers (2015). Partial Tier 1 Preliminary Site Investigation – Environmental Site History – 809-813 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. Prepared for G. Lum Nominees Pty Ltd. and Wellable Investments Pty Ltd. 10 July 2015. EPA Ref: 61533.
▪ TMK Consulting Engineers (2015). Environmental Soil Assessment – 809-813 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. Prepared for G. Lum Nominees Pty Ltd. and Wellable Investments Pty Ltd. 31 July 2015. EPA Ref: 61533.
▪ Coffey (2017). Exit Lease Environmental Site Assessment, Woolworths Woodville Service Station, 801 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. Prepared for Woolworths Limited. 12 January 2017. EPA Ref: 61731.
▪ Section 83A Notification for 767-769 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. Notification from A.M Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd. 4 May 2017. EPA Ref: 61796.
▪ Section 83A Notification for 767-769 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. Notification from A.M Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd. 7 June 2019. EPA Ref: 61533.
The Source Site was formerly owned by the Columbia Concrete Block Manufacturing Company (CCBMC), who were acquired by BTR Nylex. The property was subsequently acquired by Amatek Industries (Amatek) when BTR Nylex assets were acquired by CSR Limited and Amatek. Chrome
1 Note, the Golders Report title details 2 Hughes Road, however it is 2 Hughes Street.
EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 4
LWC Land and water Consulting
plating of machine parts and other industrial components was undertaken over a number of decades, which resulted in contamination of soil and groundwater with Cr VI.
The Source Site was formerly used as a machine and mould manufacturing facility which included chromium electroplating works. As detailed previously, wastewater containing Cr VI was disposed of into deep unlined soakage pits on the Source Site causing significant soil and groundwater impacts.
A large-scale remediation project was undertaken in 1995 where approximately 4,000 m3 of Cr VI impacted soil from the source area was excavated and disposed off-site. After remediation of the soils at the site, a groundwater Cr VI plume was found to have migrated some 280 m down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site. Regular groundwater monitoring was undertaken at the site from 1995 onwards.
A groundwater remediation system was operated by Cleanaway from 1997 to 1999 targeting the shallow aquifer only. A review of the operation by Egis (2000) found that the dissolved phase Cr VI plume extended deeper than expected, with Cr VI measured in wells up to 57 m depth. Egis (2000) reported that the plume was not anticipated to extend much deeper than 57 m due to the lower permeability of the deeper sections of the Hindmarsh Clay. In addition, Cr VI impacts were identified in an up gradient direction from the source area, suggesting either a large source area or diffusion in the slow flowing aquifer.
A pump and treat system followed by post remediation groundwater monitoring was implemented by S&G from 2003 to 2006. The system used sodium metabisulfite (SMBS) to reduce and precipitate the Cr VI contained in 29 million litres of groundwater pumped from the aquifers underlying the Source Site. Approximately 2,200 kg of Cr VI was recovered during the 18-month period of operation for reuse. S&G (2006) estimated that around 60% of the mass of Cr VI present in the groundwater plume (and associated contaminated sedimentary material in the aquifer) was removed. Injection of approximately 41 tonnes of SMBS into the aquifer to produce an excess of this reagent was completed in late 2005.
Coffey (2006) completed a review of remediation works undertaken to date at the Source Site and concluded that groundwater remediation measures undertaken achieved CUTEP at the Source Site and that no further active remediation at (or adjacent) to the Source Site was warranted. Coffey (2006) recommended ongoing groundwater quality monitoring to demonstrate control of the Cr VI had been achieved. It appears that no groundwater monitoring had been undertaken up until Stage 1 works implemented by the EPA in 2019.
Coffey (2006) reported that around 60 m3 of chromium-impacted soil remains at the Source Site around and beneath building footings and was capped with 150 mm thick layer of concrete to isolate the impacted soil.
A review of other available environmental investigation reports (in relation to observed Cr VI impacts) within and near the Assessment Area are summarised in Table 2-1 below and Figure 2.
Table 2-1. Summary of Chromium Results for Other Sites within/ near the Assessment Area
Site Name/ PCA Chromium Observed Maximum Concentrations Interpreted Source Address/ EPA (mg/kg/ mg/L) Reference Cr VI Cr III* Total Cr* 809 & 811-813 Listed ✓ ✓ ✓ Soil Not stated. Port Road substances Cr VI – up to 24 mg/kg (reported EPA Reference (storage) in QAQC samples only) 61533 Cr III – up to 28 mg/kg Total Cr – up to 28 mg/kg Groundwater No results available 801 Port Road Service Station N/A N/A N/A Soil and groundwater not tested N/A EPA Reference for Cr. 61731
EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 5
LWC Land and water Consulting
Site Name/ PCA Chromium Observed Maximum Concentrations Interpreted Source Address/ EPA (mg/kg/ mg/L) Reference Cr VI Cr III* Total Cr* 767-769 Port EPA lists the ✓ Groundwater Cr VI – <0.01 mg/L Cr III – not reported Total Cr – up to 0.01 mg/L 822-824 Port Not recorded ✓ N/A N/A Soil Not stated. Road Results not available EPA Reference Groundwater 61558 Cr VI – up to 0.01 mg/L Cr III – results not available Total Cr – results not available 808-810 Port Agricultural ✓ ✓ ✓ Soil It is indicated that Road Activities Cr VI – <1 mg/kg contaminants in groundwater are from an off-site source. EPA reference Cr III – 38 mg/kg 61110, 61188 Total Cr – up to 40 mg/kg Groundwater Cr VI – 0.012 mg/L Cr III – not reported Total Cr – up to 0.025 mg/L 725-727 Port Metal forging N/A N/A N/A Soil N/A Road (steel fabrication) No results available EPA Reference Groundwater N/A No results available EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 6 LWC Land and water Consulting Site Name/ PCA Chromium Observed Maximum Concentrations Interpreted Source Address/ EPA (mg/kg/ mg/L) Reference Cr VI Cr III* Total Cr* 778-782 Port Service Station N/A N/A N/A Soil N/A Road Not analysed for chromium EPA Reference Groundwater 10264, 10656 Not analysed for chromium Notes: Cr III is trivalent chromium, Total Cr is total chromium, and PCA is Potential Contaminating Activity. Whilst the above site assessment reported Potential Contaminating Activities (PCAs) which may include potential Cr VI as a chemical substance of interest, these reports did not identify that actual site as a source of Cr VI and appear to have largely interpreted the identified chromium impacts to be associated with 739-753 Port Road (Source Site). Activities at the following sites may also have contributed to chromium impacts to soils and groundwater within/ near the Assessment Area: ▪ 767-769 Port Road (metal coating/ finishing). ▪ 761-763 Port Road (metal forging, motor vehicle repair/ maintenance). ▪ 759 Port Road (metal coating/ finishing). ▪ 725-727 Port Road (metal forging/ steel fabrication). 2.2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY The Department of Mines and Energy, SA (1980) 1: 50,000 Preliminary Geologic Map Resources Series (Adelaide region) indicates that the Assessment Area is underlain by Pleistocene aged Pooraka Formation soils, underlain by Hindmarsh Clay. This material is predominantly mottled red brown, yellow brown and grey clay but is often sandy, silty, micaceous or gravelly, and it contains lenses of these materials where fluvial influences have been pronounced. The clay layers are generally stiff to hard, but often have lower strength near the top of the unit due to weathering and/or the presence of a water- table in the overlying sediments. Table 2-2 details the generalised stratigraphy for the Adelaide area. Table 2-2. Adelaide Area – Generalised Stratigraphy (from Gerges, 2006) Age Lithology Hydraulic Characteristics Quaternary Mainly fluvio-lacustrine clay with minor Sand and gravels form thin aquifers, usually high in sands and grovel. salinity and low in supply. Tertiary Fossiliferous, glauconitic, partly Sand, sandstone and limestone form aquifers with carbonaceous sand, sandstone, potential supplies. Clay, chert and marl form leaky limestone, chert, marl and shell con1ining beds. The Late Tertiary sediments contain remains. Thick clay layers and thin the better quality and quantity of water. lignitir: bP.ds. Precambrian Slate, phyllite, quartzite and dolomite. Where highly fractured (near faults) high supplies of low salinity. The underlying natural water-table aquifer system is located within the recent Quaternary Pooraka Formation which consists of clayey sands and sandy, silty clays. The Pooraka Formation is largely mottled clay and silt inter-bedded with sand, gravel and on occasion can exhibit thin sandstone layers. Further down hydraulic gradient of the site (closer to the coastline) the water-table aquifer is most likely located within the St Kilda Formation which consists of interbedded brown and grey sands, silts and clays consistent with an estuarine deposit. It has widely been suggested that water-table aquifers in north western area of Adelaide whether they are located within the Pooraka, St Kilda or Hindmarsh Clay Formations depending on location from the coastline are most likely hydraulically connected and form a somewhat continuous aquifer system (and pathway) to the coast. EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 7 LWC Land and water Consuttu,g The Hindmarsh Clay Formation is located beneath the Pooraka Formation and consists of a layered sequence of mottled clays and silts of fluviatile and estuarine origin. Within this sequence, the aquifers occur as interbeds of sand and gravel that range in thickness from 1 to 18 m. The thickness, continuity and extent of individual aquifers is uncertain. The confining beds are absent or significantly thin in some areas, allowing hydraulic connection between aquifers units (Gerges, 2006). These Quaternary sediments contain up to six thin aquifers (Q1 to Q6), while the underlying Tertiary contains up to four aquifers (T1 to T4). Groundwater of varying quality occurs in the Quaternary and Tertiary aquifers. Both the Quaternary and Tertiary aquifers were designated numbers in order of increasing depth, and the aquifer numbers were prefixed with Q and T, respectively: ▪ Quaternary aquifers — Q1 to Q6. ▪ Tertiary aquifers — T1 to T4. Despite the fact that the aquifers are identified with letters indicating their age, they remain relatively independent of stratigraphic units (Gerges, 2006). The Q unit configuration in the Adelaide Plains is considered highly ambiguous, as essentially the series of Q aquifers are formed through varying discontinuous layers of sand and clay, such that the specific presence and identification of a particular Q unit is challenging. Martin and Hodgkin (2005) note that in the western metropolitan area, up to six thin confined aquifers occur within the Hindmarsh Clay. In the area of interest the Q1 depth is generally to 10 m depth or less, the top of the Q2 ranges from 16 to 30 m with the top of the Q3 ranging from 31 to 45 m (Gerges, 1999 and 2006). Martin and Hodgkin (2005) also note that the continuity and extent of individual Q aquifers is uncertain. The Quaternary aquifers vary greatly in thickness, lithology and hydraulic conductivity. Generally, grain size decreases towards the coast, and with increasing distance from surface drainage and major structures such as the Para Fault. It is noted that the sequencing/ naming of the aquifer units is inconsistent across the board, with the first aquifer unit’) sometimes called Q1 and other times just referred to as ‘watertable’. For the purposes of this assessment, the “Q” terminology is used with the watertable unit denoted as ‘watertable Q1 aquifer’. The Tertiary aquifers, namely the Hallett Cove Sandstone and the deeper Port Willunga Formation, are encountered, in the area, at a depth of around 110 m bgl and below. The Tertiary aquifers are not of interest with respect to this study. Quaternary aquifer water levels indicate a general flow towards the north west with ultimate discharge under Gulf St Vincent. Gerges (2006) reports that the deepest point in the Gulf is 25 m (i.e., assumed to be -25 m AHD), indicating that only the Q1 and Q2 Aquifers may naturally outflow into the Gulf. Deeper Quaternary aquifers are overlain by thick, low permeability sediments with their discharge opportunities limited to structures (faults) under the Gulf and/or through upward leakage. Provided that these structures possess sufficient permeability, Gerges (2006) states that they may form discharge boundaries. Their permeabilities control the amount of outflow from aquifers, head relations between aquifers, and hence leakage direction. Between the Assessment Area and the coastline, the following surface water features are present: ▪ The St Clair Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) scheme is located approximately 980 m north west of the Assessment Area. It is understood that the scheme involves the treatment of stormwater through a series of stormwater detention basins prior to discharge to the T1 and T2 tertiary aquifers approximately 250 m BGL. EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 8 LWC Land and water Consulting ▪ The Grange Golf Club ASR and the Cook Reserve/ West Lakes ASR schemes are located approximately 3.3 km to the west of the assessment area. ▪ The nearest marine water body to the Site are the man-made, tidally flushed West Lakes system which is located approximately 3.4 km west of the assessment area with the coastline thereafter. Based on the information provided by the Locations SA database (accessed in June 2019 and 2020), no other freshwater or marine water features are present. Groundwater located within the watertable Q1 aquifer unit is at a depth that it is unlikely to intersect or discharge into identified surface water features located down gradient of the Site. In addition, it is noted that the St Clair stormwater detention basins are lined. On this basis, aquatic ecosystems have not been considered an environmental value of groundwater systems beneath the Assessment Area. The Mount Lofty Hills Face Zone is considered to be an area of major recharge to the aquifer systems of the Adelaide Plains along with surface infiltration from rainfall, irrigation and/ or losses from surface water systems (creeks/ rivers/ stormwater basins etc). Significant recharge of groundwater in the Quaternary aquifers occurs via lateral flow from the Tertiary aquifers along the hills face. The Goyder Institute (2015) reported that diffuse groundwater recharge rates of around 5% of rainfall previously estimated for the Adelaide Plains (Central and Northern) is likely to be an overestimation. Chlorine mass balance modelling completed by the Goyder Institute (2015) suggest a median recharge rate of around 3.6 mm/yr to the watertable Q1 aquifer unit (i.e., 0.8% of average annual rainfall for Adelaide to be more reflective of the system. The groundwater monitoring locations selected by the EPA within the Assessment Area for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 works are located down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site (739-753 Port Road) and potential additional PCA’s. In addition, two background monitoring wells in the watertable Q1 and Q2 aquifer units were installed during the Stage 2 works program. Registered groundwater bores in a 500 m radius from the Assessment Area are shown in Figure 3. Within the Assessment Area, registered domestic use wells of note are listed in Table 2-3. The Cr VI plume in 2002 is shown in Table 2-3. Table 2-3. Registered Domestic Wells within the Assessment Area Unit Approx. Details Status Aquifer Water Cut Construction Yield Reported Number Distance Unit Data – TDS from Source Production (Year) Site Zone 6628- ~150 m north/ Installed in Unknown Qpah – From 7.5 to 100mm PVC Not 1,765 mg/L 19171 north west 1998 to Hindmarsh 14.4 m – slotted casing Recorded (1998) 18 m (Q2) Clay logged as from 9 to 18 m sand 6628- ~300 m north/ Installed in Operational Qpah – From 7.2 to 75mm PVC 1 L/s 1,968 mg/L 15578 north west 1991 to Hindmarsh 8.5 m – logged slotted casing (1991) 9.0 m (Q1) Clay as sand from 7 to 8.5 m 6628- On-Source Installed in Operational Qpah – Not stated 200mm PVC Not 2,140 mg/L 21535 Site – likely to 2003 to Hindmarsh slotted casing Recorded (2019) mislabel on 45 m (Q3) Clay from 21 to Water – Unlisted 45 m Connect and purpose this is a monitoring well. 6628- ~147 m south/ Installed in Unknown Qpah – From 7.5 to 100mm PVC 1 L/s 1,055 mg/L 19400 south west 1999 to Hindmarsh 14.0 m – slotted casing (1999) 18.0 m Clay logged as from 7.5 to 18 m (Q1) sand/ gravelly sand EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 9 LWC Land and water Consulting Based on available information for these domestic monitoring wells, it appears that domestic wells 6628- 19171 and 6628-19400 may be intersecting both the watertable Q1 and Q2 aquifer units. Given the reported salinity and yield information, there may be potential for groundwater use via unregistered groundwater wells within the Assessment Area. The SA EPA subsequently issued three notifications2, including 1 May 2019, 16 October 2019 and 14 September 2020 to all residents within the Woodville Assessment Area outlining the contamination status of the underlying groundwater and that groundwater should not be used for any purpose. It ..,, 'l 1I HJstJng \, ,/ proposed lnJ•c:don -• (Wll '\. /a,~' ~' existing ' ,,... ,,/ HtrlCUOn WIii (P2J serMn lnterval: 6 • 10 m (bgO ______txlraetion "(911 {Wt) ', ~J:Nn inttfVal: 12 • 33 m (bgl) Krven Interval: 6 - 1 O m (bQI) r,m~•l'I existing oxtractlon woll1Pt) 1njec:bon W'III(W2) scroe~ lntorva.t: 21 . 45 m (bc;all screen intarvait: S • 10 m (bglf Figure 2-1. Chromium VI in Groundwater in 2002 (S&G, 2006) 2.3 CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES The key chemical substance of interest (COI) is Cr VI associated with the Source Site. A summary of the reported COI is presented as Table 2-4. Table 2-4. Chemical Substances of Interest (COI) Chemical Substance Basic Notes on Physico-chemical Behaviour Total heavy metals Cr is a naturally occurring element and is present in the environment in several different (including Cr VI, oxidation states ranging from +6 to -2 however only the +6 (Cr VI) and +3 (Cr III) oxidation states Cr III, and total Cr) are commonly encountered in the environment (US EPA 2000). Cr III occurs naturally in the environment and is an essential nutrient (ASTDR, 2000) while nearly all Cr VI present in the environment is due to anthropogenic activity (i.e., hard chrome plating, metal alloys, corrosion inhibitors, wood preservation, dyeing, tanning etc; it can exist however in the rare mineral crocoite). At trace concentrations chromium appears to be an important nutrient in the human diet, however with all trace elements it is also toxic when concentrations increase and at very high exposure is carcinogenic (Alloway, 1990). 0 - 2- Cr VI exists in solution as monomeric ions H2CrO4 , HCrO4 (bichromate), and CrO4 (chromate), 2- or as the dimeric ion Cr2O7 (bichromate). Of note, the monomeric species impart a yellow colour to the water when the Cr VI is greater than ~1 mg/L which was generally noted in site 2- observations. Water that contains high levels of the dimeric ion Cr2O7 has an orange colour. Relatively high dissolved concentrations of Cr VI are more possible in the geochemical (i.e. subsurface) environment compared with Cr III which forms an insoluble hydroxide mineral (Cr(OH)3). 2 https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/data_and_publications/site_contamination_monitoring/assessment_areas/woodville EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 10 LWC Land and water Consulting Chemical Substance Basic Notes on Physico-chemical Behaviour Cr VI species adsorbs onto soil material, although generally less strongly than Cr III species. In addition, Cr VI minerals are more soluble than Cr III minerals at most soil and aquifer pH/ Eh values. Therefore if the natural environment has sufficient reducing capacity, it should respond to the impact of Cr VI contamination by reducing Cr VI to Cr III and immobilising it as the solid Cr(OH)3 (Deutsch, 1997). Note that this redox/ precipitation process for immobilising Cr VI was undertaken as part of the remediation works at the Source Site. Cr VI is readily soluble in water. Under high Eh (oxidizing) and alkaline (pH above 7) conditions, Cr VI can be predominant in groundwater. However, in the presence of organic matter, ferrous iron (Fe II) and sulfide, Cr VI can be readily reduced to Cr III and immobilized. Adsorption of Cr VI by clayey soil and natural aquifer materials is low to moderate under near-neutral pH ranges commonly encountered in groundwater. Other heavy metals including manganese, boron, copper, nickel and zinc have been observed above one or more relevant guidelines. Many naturally occurring trace elements such as these heavy metals are considered essential for human nutrition but may be toxic at high concentrations. These heavy metals are non-volatile, colourless and odourless. The contaminant migration of heavy metals is dominated by partitioning of the heavy metals between groundwater and the surface of aquifer solids. Per- and poly- The environmental management of the group of manufactured chemicals known as PFAS (per- fluoroalkyl and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) is a high priority for environmental regulators around Australia. substances (PFAS) This reflects the widespread presence of PFAS in the environment, its unusual chemical properties, the uncertainties associated with its potential risks, and the resulting need for a precautionary approach to protect the environment and human health. PFAS is an abbreviation for per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances. These are manufactured chemicals that have been used for more than 50 years. PFAS make products non-stick, water repellent, and fire, weather and stain resistant. PFAS have been used in a range of consumer products, such as carpets, clothes and paper, and have also been used in firefighting foams, pesticides and stain repellents. The most well-known PFAS are PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS. These three PFAS are part of a broader group of PFAS known as PFAAs, which resist physical, chemical and biological degradation, and are very stable. This stability creates a problem as these PFAS last for a long time. A wide range of other PFAS, known as precursors, can transform into PFAAs in products in the environment, and are also considered environmentally significant. It is noted that PFAS compounds are non-volatile, odourless and tasteless. PFAS are being phased out around the world because they do not break down naturally in the environment and can persist for a long time. Many PFAS chemicals have been shown to bioaccumulate up food chains. PFAS enter the body through ingestion, not through skin contact. The high solubility of PFAS in water means that PFAS may readily leach from soil to surface water and groundwater, where they can move long distances to enter creeks, rivers and lakes and become part of the food chain, being transferred from organism to organism (PFAS NEPM, 2020). Given its widespread use and ubiquitous physio-chemical behaviour in the environment, the potential exists for PFAS to be present in groundwater up hydraulic gradient of the Source Site. South Australia was the first state to ban potentially hazardous fluorinated firefighting foams on 30 January 2018. 2.4 ASSESSMENT AREA LAND USE A summary of the land use in the Assessment Area is presented as Table 2-5, noting the Assessment Area extends north west away from the Source Site in the direction of inferred groundwater flow. Table 2-5. Land Use Adjacent to the Source Site Direction Land Use North Largely residential along Hughes Street and Bower Street. East The Assessment Area extends north west away from the Source Site in the direction of inferred groundwater flow however there are further residential properties directly east of 749 Port Road on Bower Street. This direction is up hydraulic gradient of expected inferred groundwater flow. EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 11 LWC Land and water Consulting Direction Land Use South The Assessment Area extends north west away from 749 Port Road in the direction of inferred groundwater flow however the Port Road median strip is directly south with commercial properties on Port Road (north of Koolunda Avenue with residential properties fronting Port Road south of Koolunda Avenue. This direction is up or cross hydraulic gradient of expected inferred groundwater flow. West Largely commercial properties on the opposite side of Port Road (after median strip) and along Woodville Road. Residential land use is present on Cedar Avenue approximately 150 m due west of 749 Port Road. Other General inferred groundwater flow is north west towards Jones Street and Port Road – properties fronting Port Road in such direction are largely commercial in nature. 2.5 SIMPLIFIED CSM/ EXPOSURE MODEL A simplified CSM / exposure model is presented below based on the mode of action of COI emanating from the Source Site or adjacent other identified Sites with respect to impacts to human health and the environment. The identified sources, pathways and receptors are presented below. These are assembled in potential contaminant linkages. The linkages are tested for significance and those deemed to be significant are further assessed. A summary of the source(s) is presented as Table 2-6. Table 2-6. Summary of Sources of Contamination / Potential Hazard Source S Description Location S1 Potential sources are: Beneath the Assessment 1. the former Amatek site at 739-753 Port Road (Source Area Site); 2. a former service station in the southern section of 749 Port Road; 3. metal coating/ finishing at 759 Port Road and 767-769 Port Road; 4. steel fabrication works undertaken at 725 Port Road; and 5. sheet metal works undertaken at 761-763 Port Road. For the purposes of this assessment the sources are considered to be simplified to the groundwater within the Assessment Area, in the first instance. It is considered that the receptors are human beings within the Assessment Area accounting for the land uses identified in Table 2-5. These receptors comprise both sensitive (residential) and commercial type exposure scenarios and are summarised in Table 2-7. Table 2-7. Summary of Identified Plausible Receptors (accounting for Table 2-5) Receptor Description Location R R1 Commercial Worker Within Assessment Area R2 Child resident Within Assessment Area R3 Adult resident Within Assessment Area R4 Trench / Maintenance Worker Within Assessment Area EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 12 LWC Land and water Consulting Potential pathways are summarised in Table 2-8 accounting for land use based receptors, the nature of the COI and the potential extent of COI in groundwater across Q1 to Q3 units. Table 2-8. Summary of Pathways Pathways P Description P1 Migration via Q1: risk of vapour intrusion via vadose zone (inhalation of COI) P2 Abstraction and use of water from Q1 (Environmental Values) P3 Migration to Q2 groundwater + abstraction of water with subsequent exposure (Environmental Values) P4 Migration to Q3 groundwater + abstraction of water with subsequent exposure (Environmental Values) P5 Migration of volatile chemicals from Q1 unit to services and preferential migration to range of receptors 2.6 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT LINKAGES The fundamental concept of risk assessment is that there should be an exposure pathway linking the source of contamination and the exposed population. Where this linkage exists, an assessment of the nature, extent and significance of the exposure pathway is required to determine the level of risk. A summary of identified potential contaminant linkages is presented as Table 2-9. A total of 12 linkages were identified however two of these are considered to not be significant (#4 and 12). These two linkages relate to Receptor R4 (trench/ maintenance worker). Table 2-9. Potential Contaminant Linkages Source (S) Pathway (P) Receptor Linkage Potentially Rationale (R) # (L) Significant? Source 1 in P1 - Abstraction R1 L1 Yes Commercial properties to north, north west and west of sub-surface and use of water the Site (and other PCA) – down hydraulic gradient. beneath the from Q1 Potential for abstraction. Site (Environmental Values) R2 L2 Yes Residential properties to north, north west and west of (Chromium the Site (and other PCA) – down hydraulic gradient and PFAS) R3 L3 Yes Residential properties to north, north west and west of the Site (and other PCA) – down hydraulic gradient R4 L4 Yes Port Road median strip to north west of the Site (and other PCA) – down hydraulic gradient – potential for major service works and also at other commercial sites being redeveloped. P2 - Migration to R1 L5 Yes Commercial properties to north, north west and west of Q2 groundwater the Site (and other PCA) – down hydraulic gradient. + abstraction of Potential for abstraction. water with subsequent R2 L6 Yes Residential properties to north, north west and west of exposure the Site (and other PCA) – down hydraulic gradient. (Environmental Potential for abstraction. Values) R3 L7 Yes Residential properties to north, north west and west of the Site (and other PCA) – down hydraulic gradient. Potential for abstraction. R4 L8 No Unlikely to be of issue to trench environment / worker. P3 - Migration to R1 L9 Yes Commercial properties to north, north west and west of Q3 groundwater the Site (and other PCA) – down hydraulic gradient. + abstraction of Potential for abstraction. water with subsequent R2 L10 Yes Residential properties to north, north west and west of exposure the Site (and other PCA) – down hydraulic gradient. Potential for abstraction. h EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 13 LWC Land and water Consulting Source (S) Pathway (P) Receptor Linkage Potentially Rationale (R) # (L) Significant? (Environmental R3 L11 Yes Residential properties to north, north west and west of Values) the Site (and other PCA) – down hydraulic gradient. Potential for abstraction. R4 L12 No Unlikely to be of issue to trench environment / worker. The EPA advised residents in the EPA Woodville Assessment area by letterbox drops in May and October 2019 and September 2020 that groundwater was contaminated and that bore water should not be used for any purpose. A GPA would remove the risk to public health by restricting access to contaminated groundwater. 2.6.1 SUMMARY OF DATA GAPS As detailed in the preceding sub-sections, the following data gaps were identified during the Stage 2 environmental assessment: 1. Based on the data collected to date, the extent of the residual Cr VI plume and PFAS impacts in groundwater (watertable Q1 and Q2) is unknown to the west and north west of the Source Site for Cr and to the north and north west (and also south west) for PFAS. The Stage 3 environmental assessment works were commissioned with the objective of addressing these data gaps. Based on the outcomes of the chromium chemistry review (as summarised in Appendix A), consideration of Total Cr as a risk indicator will be made. EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 14 LWC Land and water Consuttu,g 3 PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 OVERVIEW To assist in determining the lateral and vertical extent of chromium and PFAS impacts in groundwater beneath the Assessment Area, associated with historical activities at the Source Site and other identified sites within the Assessment Area, the following field investigations were required: ▪ Installation of three groundwater monitoring wells installed into the watertable Q1 aquifer and three installed into the underlying Q2 aquifer unit. The watertable Q1 and Q2 wells were installed next to each other at the following locations: o Norman Street (north the Source Site). o Russel Terrace (Further north of the Source Site). o Church Street near Woodville Road (west of the Source Site). ▪ Completion of a GME of the newly installed monitoring wells and targeted existing monitoring wells. o Field testing of groundwater for pH, TDS, Eh and DO. o Analyse groundwater for heavy metals (including Cr VI, Cr III and total Cr) and PFAS (short suite). The project scope was designed by the EPA with LWC’s corresponding approach and methodology provided in a Sampling & Analysis Quality Plan (SAQP) (LWC, 2020) including the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) which are provided as Appendix C. This document was reviewed by the EPA prior to project commencement. All aspects of the work were undertaken in accordance with the following guidelines: ▪ National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (ASC NEPM), 1999 as amended 2013. ▪ South Australian Environment Protection Authority, Guidelines for the Assessment and Remediation of Site Contamination (July 2018, updated 2019) (SA EPA, 2019). ▪ South Australian Environment Protection Authority, Guidelines for the Regulatory Monitoring and Testing – Groundwater Sampling (June 2007, revised April 2019) (SA EPA, 2019). ▪ HEPA (2020) PFAS National Environmental Management Plan. Version 2.0 – January 2020. National Chemicals Working Group of the Heads of EPAs Australia and New Zealand. ▪ PFAS NEMP (2018) and Appendix 1 of the Interim Guideline on the Assessment and Management of PFAS (Department of Environment Regulation, 2017). 3.2 PREPARATION WORKS Prior to the commencement of the drilling program the following activities were undertaken: ▪ A Permit to Install Groundwater Monitoring Well was obtained from The City of Charles Sturt (refer to Appendix D). EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 15 LWC Land and water Consulting ▪ The location of each newly installed monitoring well was cleared for services by a certified Service Clearance practitioner with reference to Dial Before You Dig plans. Non-destructive drilling to depths ranging up to 1.5 m BGL. ▪ Well construction permits were obtained from the Department of Environment and Water (DEW) prior to the commencement of drilling (refer to Appendix E). ▪ Traffic control management (including application submission to Council/ Department for Infrastructure and Transport) was arranged for well installations completed at each location. 3.3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION A total of six monitoring wells were installed within the Assessment Area to assist in lateral delineation of groundwater contamination. A groundwater monitoring well location plan is presented in Figure 4 with Table 3-1 below summarising the Stage 3 well locations. Groundwater well location plates are also provided in Appendix F. Table 3-1. Summary of Monitoring Well Installation Locations and Construction Details Groundwater Location Targeted Unit Well Installation Well Screen Well Name Depth (m BGL) Interval (m) MW13-Q1 Norman Street Watertable (Q1) 9.5 3.5 - 9.5 MW13-Q2 Norman Street Q2 Aquifer 19 13 - 19 MW14-Q1 Russell Terrace Watertable (Q1) 10 4 - 10 MW14-Q2 Russell Terrace Q2 Aquifer 23.5 13 – 23.5 MW15-Q1 Church Street Watertable (Q1) 9 4 – 9 MW15-Q2 Church Street Q2 Aquifer 20 14 - 20 Groundwater monitoring wells were constructed in accordance with the Minimum Construction requirements for Water Bores in Australia (National Uniform Drillers Licensing Committee, 2020) and the minimum construction requirements that are sent out by DEW with each well permit titled ‘General Specification for Well Construction Modification and Abandonment in South Australia Pursuant to the Landscape South Australia Act 2019. Monitoring wells were drilled using the rotary mud drilling method. This drilling method involved the drill- hole being drilled by rotating bit, with cuttings being removed by continuous circulation of drilling fluid (water and natural vegetable gum) as the bit penetrated the formation. The drilling fluid was pumped down through the ports or jets in the bit, the fluid then flowed upward in the annular space between the hole and drill pipe, carrying the cuttings in suspension to the surface. At the surface, the fluid was channelled into a small portable bin where the cuttings dropped out, the drilling fluid was conditioned before being recirculated down the drill hole. When utilising this method, the drilling fluids/ muds form a membrane that inhibits flow through the walls of the drill hole and the internal pressure of the mud provides structural support to the drill hole wall. This technique is sufficient to seal the above aquifer units prior to well construction without the need for pre-collaring. The final screen design and well depth was based on the depth at which groundwater and the geological sequencing was encountered during the drilling program. The well construction details are summarised in Table 3-1 and Table 1 (at rear) with the lithological logs provided in Appendix G: ▪ Monitoring wells installed in the watertable Q1 aquifer were constructed to depths ranging from 9 to 10 m BGL. Each well was installed with Class 12 50 mm uPVC slotted (0.5 mm aperture) EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 16 LWC Land and water Consuttu,g and solid casing. The top of the screen was approximately 1 m above the observed standing water level (SWL) measured at the time of drilling. ▪ Monitoring wells installed in the Q2 aquifer were constructed to depths ranging from 19 to 23.5 m BGL. Each well was installed with Class 12 50 mm uPVC slotted (0.5 mm aperture) and solid casing. The top of the screen was installed at least 1 m below the interpreted confining clay unit, to ensure a sufficient gravel pack and then bentonite/ cement grout installed below and across the clay confining unit. The monitoring well casing was lowered in the borehole with graded filter sand (of a size compatible with the geological unit) added to the annulus between the uPVC casing and the wall of monitoring well. A hydrated bentonite seal was added above the filter sand following which was cement grout to the site surface. All wells were finished with a lockable envirocap and concrete encased gatic steel cover that is traffic rated and flush to grade. Groundwater monitoring well materials were supplied by the drilling contractor. All materials were new and undamaged. All equipment and materials (except for new materials such as sand) were decontaminated and stored in a manner to provide adequate protection from contamination or damage prior to use. All drilling equipment was de-contaminated prior to the commencement of drilling and between locations to minimise the likelihood of cross contamination, with only vegetable-based lubricants used during the drilling program. During drilling, soils were logged in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1726:2017 and the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system by an LWC Senior Civil and Environmental Engineer who also noted the presence of evidence of contamination (e.g., suspicious fill, staining or odour) where appropriate. Drill cuttings were screened in the field for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a pre-calibrated Photo Ionisation Detector (PID). Refer to Appendix G for the lithological logs and Appendix H for the calibration certificates. 3.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL DEVELOPMENT 3.4.1 New Monitoring Wells Following the installation of the groundwater monitoring wells, each well was developed to minimise suspended solids and maximise the hydraulic connection between the well and the aquifer. With the exception of MW-13-Q1, all wells were developed utilising the air lifting technique. Well development included removal of a minimum of four well volumes, consistent with industry standards. A decontaminated stainless-steel bailer (and dedicated clean rope) was utilised to develop monitoring well MW13-Q1 which did not have sufficient yield to accommodate the airlifting technique. Development involved the removal of accumulated sediment and groundwater from the monitoring well and surrounding aquifer. Following the removal of each bore volume, field parameters were recorded using a calibrated water quality metre, noting that well development continued until field quality parameters stabilised (i.e., within 3% EC, 0.05 pH, 10% DO and 10m V redox and 0.5 C temperature) and/ or turbidity was reduced (i.e., extracted groundwater was generally clear and free of suspended solids). Well development occurred on the 30 October 2020 (MW14-Q1 and MW14-Q2) and 2 November 2020 (MW13-Q1, MW13-Q2, MW15-Q1 and MW15-Q2). Refer to Appendix I detailing the well development groundwater field sheets. EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 17 LWC Land and water Consuttu,g 3.5 SURVEYING The location and elevation of the top of casing of each of the new groundwater monitoring wells was surveyed by a licensed surveyor to assist in the calculation of relative water levels and groundwater flow direction. Results are presented in Table 1 at rear and in Appendix J. 3.6 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION GAUGING AND SAMPLING Targeted and newly installed watertable Q1 aquifer and Q2 monitoring wells were gauged on 16 November 2020. An interface water level probe, in addition to product detection paste, was used at each monitoring well to assess the presence of any apparent measurable light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) and dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL). A dedicated disposable bailer was also deployed at each location to assess the visual presence of hydrocarbon sheens and/ or to confirm the apparent measurable thickness of LNAPL (if present). The water level probe was thoroughly decontaminated using industry standard Liquinox (PFAS free decontamination solution) and rinsed prior and between locations. Consistent with industry standards, groundwater was sampled using low flow sampling techniques at all locations. The adopted sampling methodology was in general accordance with: ▪ Australian and New Zealand standard, Water Quality Sampling, Part 11: Guidance on Sampling of Groundwaters (AS/NZS 5667.11, 1998); ▪ HEPA (2020) PFAS National Environmental Management Plan; ▪ PFAS NEMP (2020) and Appendix 1 of the Interim Guideline on the Assessment and Management of PFAS (Department of Environment Regulation, 2017); ▪ SA EPA (2007) Regulatory Monitoring and Testing: Groundwater Sampling (revised April 2019); and ▪ Puls, R.W., and M.J. Barcelona. 1996. Low flow (minimal drawdown) ground-water sampling procedures. U.S. EPA Ground Water Issue: EPA/540/S-95/504. For both the watertable Q1 aquifer and Q2 aquifer unit, the method included placement of the pump inlet at the midpoint of the screened interval and pumping at the lowest flow rate in the first instance. Typically rates of between 0.1 to 0.5 L/min are recommended in industry standard guidelines and where achieved during the program. Prior to collection of field parameters, a flush through of groundwater entering the tubing material was undertaken and was conservatively based on 1 Litre per 10 metres of tubing. During purging and sampling the groundwater level was gauged to ensure groundwater elevation did not decline significantly (e.g., greater than 10 cm) and that water was being sampled from the targeted depth. This was required to ensure groundwater extracted from the well was fresh groundwater obtained from the adjacent formation and not stagnant water contained in the well water column. Field chemical parameters were recorded every five minutes (noting that this was sufficient time to remove one volume of the flow through the cell) and at least one well volume was removed prior to sampling. Measurement of field water parameters was undertaken until field quality parameters stabilised (i.e., within 3% EC, 0.05 pH, 10% DO, 10 mV redox and 0.5oC temperature). Parameter measurements were obtained every five minutes until field parameters over two consecutive readings had stabilised. A minimum of four readings were undertaken at each monitoring well. Field chemical parameters were recorded to ensure stable geochemical conditions existed prior to the collection of the groundwater sample. The pH, redox, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen and temperature meters were EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 18 LWC Land and water Consulting calibrated prior to the commencement of purging each day. Refer to Appendix H for a calibration certificate for the water quality meter. Between sampling locations, dedicated HDPE tubing and dedicated internal pump bladders were used with the pump decontaminated using Liquinox (a PFAS free detergent decontamination solution) and rinsed through three times with tap water. The water level was measured during the micro purging so as to ensure that the water level did not fall by more than 10 cm and that water was being sampled from the targeted depth. In addition to the pump, all monitoring equipment including the water level probe was decontaminated according to the following procedure: ▪ Wash with Liquinox (PFAS free detergent) and rinse. ▪ Triple wash with tap water. The field water quality parameters along with field observations including sheen, odour and discolouration, the date/ time of purging and sampling, measured standing water level before during and after development, measurement of total depth of the well, total volume removed, rate of removal, method and description of the Assessment Area conditions were recorded on LWC’s standard groundwater sampling sheets (refer to Appendix H). PFAS Groundwater Sampling The following provides further information on procedures adopted for the program noting that PFAS was a potential chemical substance of concern. The sampling methodology and procedures as required by the ASC NEPM (1999, as amended 2013) were supplemented by measures specific to PFAS. In accordance with the PFAS NEMP (2020) and Appendix 1 of the Interim Guideline on the Assessment and Management of PFAS (Department of Environment Regulation, 2017), additional steps were undertaken to ensure that sample contamination with external PFAS sources did not occur. Of note, the following additional procedures were undertaken: ▪ During sampling LWC field staff wore field clothing that was washed a minimum of six times. Further, no polyethylene, vinyl or PVC rain gear was worn when handling any of the PFAS sampling equipment. ▪ Dedicated/ disposal PFAS free bladders and HDPE tubing was used for each location. Noting no Teflon fittings were present, only silicon. ▪ A PFAS free pump was also utilised and decontaminated with PFAS free detergent (Liquinox) and tap water. ▪ No consumable products were used during the pumping and prior to the sampling of water into PFAS containers. ▪ PFAS specific sample containers were obtained from the primary and secondary laboratories. These bottles were filled prior to any other sample containers and the use of any consumables (i.e. filters). ▪ Only ice in plastic (polyethylene) bags to keep samples cool was utilised. 3.7 WASTE MANAGEMENT During the drilling program and well development field programs, excess soil material and extracted groundwater was collected and disposed off-site by Vacuum Waste Management. All soil cuttings were combined with drilling muds. All waters generated during development were collected in IBCs prior to EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 19 LWC Land and water Consulting collection and disposal. During the GME program, extracted groundwater was placed in drums prior to collection and disposal by Nitschke Liquid Waste. Documentation supporting such process is presented in Appendix K. 3.8 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE Groundwater samples were placed in laboratory supplied clean bottles containing appropriate preservatives, and then immediately placed into a chilled cooler box for transport to the laboratories under standard LWC Chain of Custody protocols which are consistent with the requirements of Schedule B(2) of the ASC NEPM (NEPC,1999). Note that the bottles were pre-chilled prior to being filled. All samples were clearly labelled with unique sample identification numbers consisting of the date, sample location and project number. The adopted analytical schedule (excluding quality control/ quality assessment [QA/QC] samples) is summarised in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. Adopted Analytical Schedule (Excluding QA/QC Samples) Analysis Watertable Q1 Aquifer Q2 Aquifer Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) MW02-Q1, MW06-Q1 and MW12-Q1 MW02-Q2, MW07-Q2 and MW02-Q2 Speciated Chromium MW13-Q1, MW14-Q1, MW15-Q1 MW13-Q2, MW14-Q2, MW15-Q2 including dissolved Cr (total), Cr VI and Cr III. MW01-Q1, MW08-Q1 and MW12-Q1 DD2, MW08-Q2 and MW12-Q2 PFAS short suite. MW13-Q1, MW14-Q1, MW15-Q1 MW13-Q2, MW14-Q2, MW15-Q2 Groundwater samples analysed for metals were filtered in the field using dedicated 0.45 micron filters for each well prior to being placed into a pre-acidified container. Australian Laboratory Services (ALS) were utilised as the primary analytical laboratory with inter- laboratory duplicates sent to Eurofins-MGT (MGT). Both ALS and MGT are National Associated of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited laboratories. Laboratory analysis was conducted in accordance with the requirements of ASC NEPM (1999, as amended 2013) with reference to US EPA and American Public Health Association (APHA) methods. Field QA/QC samples included the following: ▪ Two blind coded inter-laboratory duplicate and intra-laboratory duplicates; ▪ Five rinsate blanks were taken from the decontaminated augers/ drill bits during the drilling program; and ▪ One rinsate blank was collected from the decontaminated low flow pump during the GME. During the drilling program rinsate blanks were collected for speciated chromium only by running laboratory prepared deionised water over the decontaminated augers/ drill bits. During the groundwater program, the rinsate was collected from the decontaminated pump using laboratory prepared deionised water over the decontaminated pump for collection directly into laboratory prepared sampling containers. Rinsate blanks assist in confirming whether appropriate decontamination processes/ procedures have been achieved. EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 20 LWC Land and water Consuttu,g 3.9 AQUIFER TESTING Aquifer testing was undertaken on each of the newly installed groundwater monitoring wells to assist in assessing groundwater flow velocities and potential longer term contaminant migration rates beneath the Assessment Area. The aquifer conductivity testing comprised of lowering a calibrated pressure transducer down the well casing to approximately one metre above the bottom of the casing and removing a one to two litre slug of water. Water level recovery was then recorded by the pressure transducer and the recovery data analysed using published solutions for both unconfined aquifer unit and semi-confined aquifer unit (refer to Appendix L). EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 21 LWC Land and water Consuttu,g 4 RESULTS 4.1 GEOLOGY AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS The geology encountered during the Stage 3 drilling program comprised the following: ▪ Bitumen was observed at the surface at all drill locations (MW13-Q1/Q2, MW14-Q1/Q2 and MW15-Q1/ Q2). Underlying the bitumen at these locations was fill material associated largely with road base preparation including sandy gravel/ gravelly sand up to 0.5 m BGL. ▪ The underlying natural soils (within the watertable Q1 aquifer) generally comprised layers of clayey/ silty sand, sand, silty/ sandy clay and clay material ranging from low to high plasticity with groundwater encountered at around 4.9 to 5.6 m BGL during drilling. ▪ The confining unit of the watertable Q1 aquifer unit was identified at depths ranging from 8.0 to 9.0 m BGL and generally consisted of brown (with green/ grey/ red mottling) moderate to high plasticity clay with trace sand and calcareous nodules/ gravels present. The thickness of the Q1 confining unit was observed to range from 3.0 to 3.5 m, generally consistent with the Stage 1 and Stage 2 drilling programs. ▪ The top of the second aquifer unit, denoted as Q2 was observed around 11 to 12 m BGL. Interbedded layers of sandy/ gravelly/ silty clay and clayey/ silty/ gravelly sands were observed. Clays were observed to be notably firming from 18 m BGL at MW13-Q2, 23 m BGL at MW14- Q2 and around 20 m BGL at MW15-Q2. During drilling, no visual and olfactory evidence of contamination was identified. This was supported by PID readings which ranged from 0 to 0.3 ppm reported throughout the soil profile. Groundwater lithological logs detailing key field observations are provided in Appendix G with groundwater well location plates provided in Appendix F. The outcomes of the drilling programs undertaken for the Assessment Area to date have identified the following: ▪ The watertable Q1 aquifer is present from around 4.9 to 12.5 m BGL. ▪ The Q2 aquifer unit is present from 8.5 to 29 m BGL; and ▪ Existing monitoring wells installed greater than 30 m are considered to be installed within the Q3 aquifer unit. Monitoring well DD10 installed on Hughes Street (opposite the Source Site) to a depth of 57 m may intersect a deeper aquifer unit, however lithological logs are unavailable for confirmation. 4.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING NETWORK A total of 35 new and existing groundwater monitoring wells are present within the Assessment Area associated with contamination assessments (i.e., excluding other DEW registered wells). Details of existing wells (installed prior to the EPA’s assessment of the area) are summarised in Table 4-1. Noting the objective of these works to delineate previous identified impacts, only groundwater monitoring wells as detailed in Table 4-1were targeted for sampling during the Stage 3 GME. EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 22 LWC Land and water Consulting Table 4-1. Summary of the Existing Monitoring Wells and Status Well Name Location Well Depth (m) Interpreted Aquifer Status Unit DD10 Hughes Street (west, 57 m PVC Q4 Good opposite Source Site MWG Hughes Street South 3.045 m PVC (supposed to Watertable Q1 Collapsed and was side near Source Site be 8 m PVC) Dry DW2 Hughes Street (west 14.946 m PVC Q2 Good opposite Source Site) DD6 Hughes Street (west 40.986 m PVC Q3 Good opposite Source Site but further north) WB7 Hughes Street (west 8.012 m PVC Watertable Q1 Good opposite Source Site but further north) DW5 Hughes Street (west 15.0 m PVC Q2 Good opposite Source Site but further north) DD4 Source Site (near 3.494 m PVC (supposed to Q4 Collapsed/ Been entrance) be 57 m PVC decommissioned DD3 Source Site (near 36.005 m PVC Q3 No gatic cover entrance) DD2 Source Site (near 25.5 m PVC Q2 Good entrance) DW6 Source Site (near 15.001 m PVC Q2 Good entrance) MWD 759 Port Road 7.03 m PVC (based on the Watertable Q1 Good – however minor plan part blockage observed at 4.0 m BGL. DD1 759 Port Road 24.58 m PVC Q2 Good DD7 759 Port Road 40.26 m PVC Q3 Good EXMB1 Source Site (near Cap cemented shut – unable to access entrance) EXMB2 Source Site (near Cap cemented shut – unable to access entrance) Table 4-2. Groundwater Monitoring Wells Targeted During Stage 3 GME Well Name Location Target Analysis Well Depth (m PVC) Watertable Q1 Aquifer MW01-Q1 Directly west of Source Site – Hughes St PFAS 8.5 MW02-Q1 West of Source Site - Port Road Median Strip Speciated Cr 9.0 MW06-Q1 West of Source Site - Port Road Median Strip Speciated Cr 9.1 MW08-Q1 North west of Source Site - Jones Street PFAS 9.0 MW12-Q1 West of Source Site - Curtis Street Speciated Cr/ PFAS 8.0 MW13-Q1 North west of Source Site - Norman Street Speciated Cr/ PFAS 10.0 MW14-Q1 North of Source Site - Russell Terrace Speciated Cr/ PFAS 10.0 MW15-Q1 West of Source Site - Church Street Speciated Cr/ PFAS 9.0 Q2 Aquifer MW02-Q2 West of Source Site - Port Road Median Strip Speciated Cr 33.8 EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 23 LWC Land and water Consulting Well Name Location Target Analysis Well Depth (m PVC) MW08-Q2 North west of Source Site - Jones Street Speciated Cr/ PFAS 26 MW12-Q2 West of Source Site - Curtis Street Speciated Cr/ PFAS 22 MW13-Q2 North west of Source Site - Norman Street Speciated Cr/ PFAS 20 MW14-Q2 North of Source Site - Russell Terrace Speciated Cr/ PFAS 25 MW15-Q2 West of Source Site - Church Street Speciated Cr/ PFAS 22 DD2 Source Site (near entrance) PFAS ~25 4.3 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS AND GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION Groundwater elevation gauging was undertaken using an interface water level probe in addition to product detection paste in each monitoring well (across the entire network, not just the wells targeted for sampling) to assess the presence of any measurable LNAPL and also lowered to depth to assess the presence of DNAPL. A disposable bailer was also been utilised to confirm the presence of LNAPL at each location. The water level probe was decontaminated between each location. No non-aqueous phase liquids/ hydrocarbon sheens were observed in groundwater gauged at any existing and new monitoring wells and on this basis density correction of the reduced groundwater elevations was not required A summary of well information and recent and historical groundwater elevation data and corrected groundwater elevations for the 16 November 2020 groundwater gauging event is presented in Table 1 with hydrographs provided as Appendix M. It is noted that only the new groundwater monitoring wells installed in the Stage 1 to Stage 3 works and existing wells MWD and DD1 have been surveyed to metres Australian Height Datum (m AHD) with LWC relying on historical survey data for all other monitoring wells within the network. For the November 2020 monitoring program, groundwater elevation data measured was reduced relative to m AHD and used to assess groundwater contours and flow directions. Interpreted groundwater contours and inferred direction of groundwater flow are presented in Figure 5 for the watertable Q1 aquifer and Figure 6 for the Q2 aquifer. As detailed above, given limited well infrastructure and close vicinity of the existing wells installed within the Q3 well network, groundwater contours were not interpreted for the Q3 aquifer unit. The following groundwater elevation ranges were observed for the watertable-Q1 aquifer: ▪ Watertable Q1 aquifer unit – elevations ranged from 4.547 m PVC (MW12-Q1) to 5.554 m PVC (MW14-Q1). Groundwater elevations corrected to m AHD ranged from 2.676 m AHD (MW15- Q1) to 2.956 m AHD (MW10-Q1). o On average the November 2020 water levels were around 42 cm higher than that observed in April 2020. ▪ Q2 aquifer unit – elevations ranged from 4.479 m PVC (MW12-Q2) to 5.604 m PVC (MW14- Q2). Groundwater elevations corrected to m AHD ranged from 2.673 m AHD (MW15-Q2) to 2.955 m AHD (MW10-Q2). o On average the November 2020 water levels were around 42 cm higher than that observed in April 2020. EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 24 LWC Land and water Consulting ▪ Q3 aquifer unit – elevations ranged from 5.113 m PVC (DD7) to 5.434 m PVC (DD10). Groundwater elevations, corrected to m AHD ranged from 2.759 m AHD (DD10) to 2.993 m AHD (DD7). o On average the November 2020 water levels were around 82 cm higher than that observed in April 2020. For the watertable Q1 aquifer unit, interpreted groundwater contours for November 2020 gauging event (refer to Figure 5) show groundwater flow beneath the Assessment Area to be in a general north westerly direction towards the coastline. For the Q2 aquifer unit, interpreted groundwater contours for the November 2020 gauging event (refer to Figure 6) to be a north westerly direction. For the Q3 aquifer unit, groundwater elevations suggest local groundwater flow within the Q3 aquifer unit is possibly in a southerly direction. A review of hydrographs detailed in Appendix M shows correlation between water level fluctuation and rainfall data (i.e., decrease in water levels is observed following decrease in rainfall recharge and vice versa) for both the watertable Q1 and Q2 aquifer units. There was negligible correlation observed between rainfall recharge and water level fluctuations for the Q3 aquifer unit. Whilst the water level in monitoring well DD6 was observed to be slightly higher in April 2020, this was not considered to be a reflection of the high rainfall received during the month of April. When considering the water level response in nearby Q3 aquifer wells DD3 and DD7, a similar response pattern was observed for all gauging events with the exception of April 2020; potentially indicating a local influence. Noting that the water level was re-checked and confirmed during the GME program. At the rear of Appendix M are hydrographs detailing nested locations showing the magnitude of change between the aquifer units with the watertable Q1 and Q2 aquifer unit being very similar. Vertical Hydraulic Gradient Groundwater elevations detailed in Table 1 and depicted in Figures 5 and 6 indicate that between the Q1 and Q2 monitoring wells, slight downward hydraulic gradients exist in the vicinity of MW02, MW07, MW10, MW11, MW14 and MW15 nested monitoring wells with a slight up hydraulic gradient observed in monitoring wells MW8, MW12 and MW13 nested wells. In comparison to the previous monitoring event (April 2020), results were consistent for MW08 and MW11 nested locations and had reversed for the other locations. Between the Q2 and Q3 existing wells located beneath and near the Source Site, a downward hydraulic gradient was observed between DW2 and DD10 and DD2 and DD3. 4.4 GROUNDWATER FIELD PARAMETERS AND OBSERVATIONS Groundwater field parameter results are presented in Table 2 with groundwater purge sheets presented in Appendix N. Key findings for the November 2020 results included the following: Watertable-Q1 Aquifer Unit Field parameters measured indicate that the following hydro-geochemical conditions exist in groundwater monitoring wells installed within the watertable Q1 aquifer: ▪ pH values ranged between 6.99 in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q1 to 7.52 in groundwater sampled from existing well MW12-Q1 indicating circum-neutral to slightly alkaline conditions. EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 25 LWC Land and water Consulting ▪ EC ranged between 1,975 µS/cm in groundwater sampled from MW01-Q1 to 5,135 µS/cm in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q1 corresponding to calculated TDS concentrations between approximately 1,283 mg/L and 3,338 mg/L. ▪ Redox values ranged between -6.3.1 mV in groundwater sampled from MW15-Q1 to 143.5 mV in groundwater sampled from MW14-Q1. Converting these values to the Standard Hydrogen Electrode (e.g., addition of 199 mV), positive oxidation-reduction potentials were observed indicative of oxidising conditions existing beneath the Assessment Area. ▪ Dissolved oxygen ranged between 0.27 mg/L in groundwater sampled from MW14-Q1 to 4.39 mg/L in groundwater sampled from MW01-Q1. ▪ Temperature ranged from 20.6°C in groundwater sampled from MW01-Q1 to 32.2C in groundwater sampled from MW15-Q1. Q2 Aquifer Unit Field parameters measured indicate that the following hydro-geochemical conditions exist in groundwater monitoring wells installed within the Q2 aquifer unit: ▪ pH values ranged between 6.89 in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q2 to 7.10 in groundwater sampled from MW02-Q2 indicating circum-neutral conditions. ▪ EC ranged between 3,586 µS/cm in groundwater sampled from MW14-Q2 to 3,649 µS/cm in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q2 corresponding to calculated TDS concentrations between approximately 2,331 mg/L and 3,649 mg/L. ▪ Redox values ranged between -152.4 mV in groundwater sampled from MW15-Q2 to 82.8 mV in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q2. Converting these values to the Standard Hydrogen Electrode (e.g., addition of 199 mV), positive oxidation-reduction potentials were observed indicative of oxidising conditions existing within the Q2 aquifer unit. ▪ Dissolved oxygen ranged between 0.09 mg/L in groundwater sampled from MW15-Q2 to 7.77 mg/L in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q2. ▪ Temperature ranged from 21.2°C in groundwater sampled from MW14-Q2 to 26.0°C in groundwater sampled from MW12-Q2. In comparison to the previous field water quality results the following is noted, including: ▪ The pH values generally slightly increased for both the watertable Q1 and Q2 aquifer units in comparison to the April 2020 monitoring results. ▪ The salinity (EC/ TDS) results were observed to be generally within historical variation for both aquifer units (where sufficient data was available) or slightly increased compared to historical results. Further discussion on salinity and water levels is provided in Section 5.1. ▪ The redox values generally decreased compared to April 2020 results. The redox values reported for groundwater sampled from MW12-Q1, MW02-Q2 and DD2 were within historical variation, albeit at the lower end of the scale. Discolouration of Groundwater During groundwater sampling, yellow discolouration potentially indicative of chromium impacts was observed in groundwater sampled from the following locations: ▪ MW01-Q1 – located adjacent the source site in a down hydraulic gradient (westerly) direction. ▪ DD2– Q2 well located on the Source Site. EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 26 LWC Land and water Consuttu,g Historically, groundwater sampled from these two wells has reported some of the highest concentration of Cr VI throughout the network (along will monitoring well DD1 which was not targeted during the Stage 3 GME). 4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES As per LWC (2019) Stage 1 work rationale which has been supported by subsequent site-specific data collected in Stages 2 and 3, the following identified potential environmental values and corresponding guideline values have been adopted: ▪ Drinking Water o National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (2011, updated 2018) Health and Aesthetic. o PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP - 2020) Table 1 Health. o World Health Organisation (WHO - 2017) Drinking Water Guidelines (where no recreational use criteria are specified). ▪ Recreational o NHMRC (2008) Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water - Health (Primary Contact) and Aesthetics. o PFAS NEMP (2020) Table 1 Health. o WHO (2017) Drinking Water Guidelines (where no recreational use criteria are specified). ▪ Primary Industries - Irrigation o ANZG (2018) however, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC - 2000) Irrigation Long Term Trigger Values. It is noted that during the Stage 2 investigations further information was obtained on the St Clair Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) scheme located approximately 980 m north west (and down hydraulic gradient) of the Assessment Area. The scheme involves the treatment of stormwater through a series of stormwater detention basins prior to discharge to the tertiary aquifers approximately 250 m BGL. During the Stage 1 program, the basement depth of the stormwater basins was unknown and conservatively it was assumed that groundwater potentially may discharge to this feature. Subsequently during Stage 1 works, aquatic freshwater ecosystems were considered as a potential environmental value. While the base of the stormwater basins is unknown, Council have advised that the stormwater basins are in fact lined and that groundwater ingress is unlikely. On this basis aquatic ecosystems (fresh water) have been removed as an environmental value in the Stage 2 investigation program. Whilst there are domestic bores located in the defined Woodville Assessment Area it is unclear if these bores are actually utilised for drinking water purposes. Given the presence of a reticulated water supply, such a scenario is considered less likely, with the domestic bores considered to most likely be used for irrigation purposes. With reference to the NEMP (2020), exceedance of the health-based guidance values does not necessarily constitute a risk if other pathways are controlled. It is noted that no guideline criteria exist for industrial use. EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 27 LWC Land and water Consulting 4.6 GROUNDWATER LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS A summary of recent groundwater analytical results for the 2020 monitoring events is provided in Table 3a (watertable Q1) and Table 3b (Q2 aquifer), at rear, with certified analytical results presented in Appendix O. 4.6.1 Speciated Chromium A summary of speciated chromium concentrations results for Stage 3 is provided in Table 4-3 below and Figure 7a for watertable-Q1 monitoring wells and Figure 7b for Q2 aquifer wells. Table 4-3. Summary of the Targeted Speciated Chromium Results for November 2020 Aquifer Unit Chromium Concentration Summary of Adopted Guideline Exceedance/ Other Type range (mg/L) Comments Watertable Q1 Hexavalent LOR <0.01 to ▪ Consistent with previous analysis, groundwater sampled Aquifer Unit Chromium 10.9 mg/L from MW02-Q1 and MW06-Q1 exceeded the NHMRC (2008) Health Primary Contact (Recreational) guideline of 0.5 mg/L and ADWG (2017) Health guideline of 0.05 mg/L. ▪ Concentrations of hexavalent chromium was reported below the LOR in groundwater sampled from newly installed monitoring wells MW13-Q1 and MW14-Q1 and marginally above the laboratory LOR in groundwater sampled from MW15-Q1 located on Church Street. Trivalent LOR <0.01 - ▪ No guideline value is available for Cr III. Chromium 0.01 mg/L (all) ▪ Concentrations of Cr III for all new delineation monitoring wells were reported below the laboratory LOR. Total LOR<0.01 to ▪ Concentrations of total chromium in groundwater sampled Chromium 9.36 mg/L from MW02-Q1 and MW06-Q1 were reported above the ANZG (2018) Irrigation guideline of 0.1 mg/L. ▪ The higher total chromium concentrations observed in groundwater sampled from MW06-Q1 (located within the Port Road median strip) is more than likely a zone of higher residual concentrations, noting this well is positioned on the edge of the former remediation zone. Q2 Aquifer Unit Hexavalent <0.001 to 5.22 mg/L ▪ Groundwater sampled from MW02-Q2 and MW08-Q2 Chromium reported concentrations above the ADWG (2017) Health guideline of 0.05 mg/L. ▪ Groundwater sampled from MW02-Q2 reported concentration of Cr VI above the NHMRC (2008) Health Primary Contact (Recreational) guideline of 0.5 mg/L. Trivalent LOR <0.01 ▪ No guideline value is available for Cr III. Chromium ▪ Concentrations of Cr III for all new delineation and targeted monitoring wells were reported below the laboratory LOR. Total <0.001 to 4.53 mg/L ▪ Groundwater sampled from MW02-Q2 and MW08-Q2 Chromium reported concentrations of Total Cr above the ANZG (2018) Irrigation guidelines of 0.1 mg/L. Key findings of the 2020 results include the following: EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 28 LWC Land and water Consulting ▪ At the targeted locations, concentrations of Cr VI in groundwater were observed to be lower than that reported previously (S&G, 2006) and that it appeared that no significant rebounding of the Cr VI plume beneath or directly down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site had occurred post remediation. ▪ Along key groundwater flow paths, analytical results were consistent with historical data (refer to Figure 4-1 below for the watertable Q1 aquifer and Figure 4-2 for the Q2 aquifer) suggesting the chromium plumes beneath the Assessment Area appear to be stable. 35 Source Site 30 25 20 Groundwater Flow Direction 15 10 Total Chromium(mg/L) 5 0 111111 MW01-Q1 MW02-Q1 MW03-Q1 MW04-Q1 MW05-Q1 MW06-Q1 MW08-Q1 MW09-Q1 ■ May-2019 ■ Jan-2020 ■ Apr-2020 ■ Nov-2020 Figure 4-1. Total Chromium Concentrations Along the Flow Path for Watertable-Q1 Source Site 40 35 30 Groundwater Flow Direction 25 20 15 Total Chromium(mg/L) 10 5 0 DD2 DW2 MW02-Q2 MW08-Q2 MW13-Q2 ■ May-2019 ■ Jan-2020 ■ Apr-2020 ■ Nov-2020 Figure 4-2. Total Chromium Concentrations Along the Flow Path for Q2 Aquifer :;;...,:-: EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 29 LWC Land and water Consulting 4.6.2 PFAS A summary of recent and historical PFAS concentrations results is provided in Figure 7a for watertable Q1 monitoring wells and Figure 7b for Q2 aquifer wells. All groundwater monitoring wells, including DW6 (Q2 aquifer unit – upper), DD2 (Q2 aquifer unit – lower) and DD3 (Q3 aquifer unit) located on-site were targeted for PFAS analysis (as directed by the EPA). The following results were reported: ▪ Concentrations of the sum of PFHxS and PFOS in groundwater sampled from the following targeted location exceeded the NEMP (2020) Recreational Waters guideline of 2 µg/L and/ or the ADWG (2011, updated 2018) guideline of 0.07 µg/L at the following locations: o Watertable Q1 unit: MW01-Q1 (3.18 µg/L), MW08-Q1 (0.34 µg/L) and MW12-Q1 (0.3 µg/L). o Q2 aquifer unit: MW08-Q2 (0.15 µg/L) and MW12-Q2 (0.1 µg/L). All newly installed watertable Q1 and Q2 monitoring wells reported concentrations of PFAS either below the laboratory LOR or below relevant guideline criteria. All other PFAS compounds were reported either below the laboratory LOR or below relevant guideline criteria adopted. PFAS at the Source Site and at the Q2 wells located closest to the Source Site appear to be PFOS dominant. Groundwater sampled from MW12-Q2 is PFHxS dominant. The difference in PFAS signature suggest different sources of PFAS being present in this portion of the Assessment Area. Refer to Figures 8a and 8b for the proportion of PFAS concentration for the watertable-Q1 and Q2 aquifers, respectively. A review of the lithological logs in regard to preferential groundwater flow paths and aquifer thickness along the flow path also suggests a different source of PFAS being present in the vicinity of MW12-Q2 more so than a higher permeable area or narrowing of the unit in this portion of the Assessment Area. The elevated PFAS concentrations in monitoring well MW12-Q1 may be derived from a different source, noting up gradient wells MW02-Q1 and MW03-Q1 reported lower concentrations which were marginally above the laboratory LOR. A review of the historical use of properties along the south western extent of Port Road (near Woodville Road) was undertaken to determine the potential presence of additional sources of PFAS. Table 4-4 details the outcomes of such review. From this historical review, it is apparent that a number of industries including dry cleaners, automotive mechanics, a service station, transport companies as well as carpenters operated in these facilities. The desktop review was unable to confirm if PFAS chemicals were historically used at these businesses however the concentration gradient along the flow path suggests a possible off-site source of PFAS in groundwater in this portion of the Assessment Area. Table 4-4. Summary of Commercial Properties on Port Road Near Woodville Road where PFAS Chemicals may have been Used Location Business Historical Use 838 Port Road Cash Busters Pawn Shop and Power The property has been owned/ operated by Disposal Buying and Selling a combination of engineers, hire Corner of Curtis Street companies and bakers. and Port Road Warehouses located on site (contents unknown) and generally inert appearing material stored in mass on site. EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 30 LWC Land and water Consulting 840 Port Road Storefront with warehouse at the rear. The property has been owned/ operated by Historical aerials show a large number of a dry cleaning company, a cleaning cars located on site indicating the site was company, food production distributors, potentially used for vehicle repairs. carpenters/ joiners/ turners as well as other private individuals. 844-850 Port Road Medical centre with large carpark area The property has been owned/ operated by a pathology company (medical centre) and an industrial trucking company. Other companies are listed as having owned the property, the functions of which are unclear. A number of private individuals also owned the property. 862 Port Road Tyreright Woodville – auto repairs The property has been owned/ operated by automotive mechanics a fuel company, a Corner of Woodville medical association dispensary and a Road and Port Road, green grocer as well as other private backing onto Church individuals. Street Other nearby properties Other nearby properties include medical N/A centres/ hospital, mixed commercial use, a church and residential land use. 4.7 AQUIFER TESTING Targeted aquifer testing was undertaken during Stage 2 and on newly installed groundwater monitoring wells for Stage 3. A summary of all hydraulic conductivity testing for monitoring wells installed within watertable Q1 and semi-confined Q2 aquifer unit were estimated using the Bouwer Rice method. Results are summarised in Table 4-5 and Appendix L presents aquifer test analysis conducted for Stage 3. Hydraulic conductivity values for the watertable Q1 unit ranged between 0.44 and 22 m/d with a geometric mean of 3.15 m/d calculated. For the underlying Q2 aquifer unit, hydraulic conductivity values ranged from 0.24 m/d to 3.22 m/d with a geometric mean of 0.92 m/d. Results are generally consistent with observations obtained during further well developments (i.e. lower hydraulic conductivity values corresponded with lower yields and vice versa). In addition, the locations where lower hydraulic conductivity values were observed generally moderate to high plasticity sandy clay was encountered during drilling compared to moderate plasticity sandy clay for the higher conductivity results. Table 4-5. Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity Results Well Name Location Interpreted Hydraulic Assessment Aquifer Unit Conductivity Stage (m/d) MW01-Q1 Hughes Street (west, opposite Source Site Watertable-Q1 22.0 Stage 2 MW02-Q1 Port Road median strip, down gradient of the Source Site Watertable-Q1 0.44 Stage 2 MW08-Q1 Jones Street, down gradient of the Source Site Watertable-Q1 2.26 Stage 2 MW12-Q1 Curtis Street, west of the Source Site Watertable-Q1 5.19 Stage 2 MW13-Q1 Norman Street , north of the Source Site Watertable-Q1 2.65 Stage 3 MW14-Q1 Russell Terrace, north to north east of the Source Site Watertable-Q1 3.07 Stage 3 EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 31 LWC Land and water Consulting MW15-Q1 Church Street, west of the Source Site Watertable-Q1 3.38 Stage 3 DW2 Hughes Street (west opposite Source Site Q2 1.25 Stage 2 MW02-Q2 Port Road median strip, down gradient of the Source Site Q2 0.245 Stage 2 MW08-Q2 Jones Street, down gradient of the Source Site) Q2 0.30 Stage 2 MW12-Q2 Curtis Street, west of the Source Site Q2 0.99 Stage 2 MW13-Q2 Norman Street , north of the Source Site Q2 3.22 Stage 3 MW14-Q2 Russell Terrace, north to north east of the Source Site Q2 0.930 Stage 3 MW15-Q2 Church Street, west of the Source Site Q2 2.02 Stage 3 Previous aquifer testing undertaken in 2002 and reported in Coffey (2006) detailed that hydraulic conductivity testing undertaken for the watertable Q1 aquifer unit was 8.39 m/d and the deep aquifer (DD1 screened in the Q2 aquifer) was 1.72 m/d. Generally, the estimates of hydraulic conductivity using the slug test method are constrained by the fact that the tests reflect the permeability near the tested well, which can be affected by disturbance during drilling, and are generally within an order of magnitude of actual values. Using the geometric mean of the aquifer tests the average linear velocity of groundwater was calculated according to the following equation: -1 Vx = K . i . ne Where Vx is the average linear velocity, K is the hydraulic conductivity, i is the hydraulic gradient and ne is the effective porosity of the tested material. For the watertable Q1 unit, it is estimated that the average linear velocity for groundwater flow beneath the site is approximately 0.012 m/d (4.4 m/yr) down gradient of the Source Site based on: ▪ estimated effective porosity of 15% based on literature. ▪ a hydraulic conductivity geometric mean of 3.15 m/d for the Hindmarsh Clay unit. ▪ hydraulic gradient of 0.0006 (measured between the Source Site and MW08-Q1). For the Q2 aquifer, it is estimated that the average linear velocity for groundwater flow is around 0.0028 m/d (1.0m/yr), based on: ▪ estimated effective porosity of 15% based on literature. ▪ a hydraulic conductivity geometric mean of 0.92 m/d for the Hindmarsh Clay unit. ▪ hydraulic gradient of 0.0004 (measured between the MW10-Q2 and MW08-Q2). 4.8 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT The quality of analytical data produced for this project has been assessed with reference to the following issues: ◼ Sampling technique; ◼ Preservation and storage of samples upon collection and during transport to the laboratory; ◼ Sample holding times; ◼ Analytical procedures; ◼ Laboratory limits of reporting; EPA |January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 32 LWC Land and water Consuttu,g ◼ Field duplicate agreement; ◼ Laboratory QA/QC procedures; and ◼ The occurrence of apparently unusual or anomalous results. Relative Percentage Differences (RPDs) were assessed where the reported concentrations were greater than the laboratory LOR in accordance with the following acceptance criteria (as referenced in Australian Standard 4482.1-2005): ◼ Where both reported concentrations are greater than 20 times the LOR: RPD% <30%; ◼ Where the higher of the two concentrations is between 10 and 20 times the LOR: RPD% <50%; and ◼ Where both concentrations are less than 10 times the LOR: RPD% has no limit. The overall assessment of data quality was undertaken in accordance with the DQO and Data Quality Indicator (DQI) processes. Laboratory QA/QC procedures and results are detailed in the certified laboratory results contained in Appendix K. A summary of the data quality assessment and a summary of the field duplicate sample RPDs are included as Appendix P. A small number of elevated RPDs exceeding the relevant criteria were observed. These were not considered to be significant in terms of the overall interpretation of the results as either: ◼ The elevated RPD% only marginally exceeded the acceptable difference; and/ or ◼ The absolute differences between reported concentrations were minor and/ or close to the laboratory LOR where precision and accuracy of reported results is compromised with the absolute difference between reported concentrations being minimal; and/ or ◼ Exceedances were reported for indicator species only; and/ or ◼ Exceedances were reported for analytes for which no relevant guideline criteria exist; and/ or ◼ Both the primary and duplicate samples were reported above/ less than guideline criteria and, as such, the breach did not result in a change in interpreted conditions; and/ or ◼ The primary sample (utilised for interpretation of results) was higher and, therefore, more conservative. Quality assurance and control for groundwater is presented in Table 4-6 below. Laboratory data is considered suitably robust for the purposes of the assessment, subject to the comments and limitations outlined above and in the relevant appendices. It is considered that quality control information indicates an acceptable degree of QA/QC information was collected and reported providing confidence in the accuracy and precision of reported results subject to the limitations discussed. EPA |January 2021 •. EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 33 Table 4-6. Summary of Groundwater Quality Assurance and Control – November 2020 Component Frequency Frequency Acceptable? Acceptance Criteria Criteria met? Reference/ Appendix Field QC Field Replicate (intra) 1 in 20 primary samples ✓ RPD <30% if both results >20 LOR ✓ Appendix P or 1 per batch. RPD <50% if the higher of the two results <>10-20 LOR No limit for RPD if both results <10 LOR Field Replicate (inter) 1 in 20 primary samples RPD <30% if both results >20 LOR Appendix P or 1 per batch. RPD <50% if the higher of the two results <>10-20 LOR ✓ No limit for RPD if both results <10 LOR Rinsate Blanks 1 per day, per matrix, per ✓ Trip Blanks 1 per esky or 1 per ✓ Component Frequency Frequency Acceptable? Acceptance Criteria Criteria met? Reference/ Appendix Secondary Laboratory 758386 Batch Reference Analysis undertaken Variable depending on the chemical ALS Report EM2020488 Appendix O in specific holding substance Holding time outliers exist for total Cr VI for sample times ‘Rinsate’. Given that total Cr has a lower LOR than Cr VI and was reported below LOR, this breach was not considered to significantly impact upon the interpretation of results. Laboratory LOR Below the adopted guideline criteria ✓ Standard laboratory limits of reporting were adopted for speciated chromium and PFAS analysis. Method blanks 1 analysed per process ✓ 5 UPDATED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL Findings from the Stage 3 works has assisted in the refinement of the CSM for the Site, as detailed below. 5.1 GROUNDWATER AQUIFER SYSTEMS AND FLOW DIRECTION The Stage 3 assessment comprised groundwater monitoring well installation (three watertable Q1 monitoring wells and three Q2 aquifer monitoring wells), well development, elevation gauging of new and existing groundwater monitoring wells across the Assessment Area, aquifer testing of newly installed monitoring wells and targeted groundwater sampling of eight monitoring wells installed in the watertable Q1 aquifer and seven monitoring wells installed into the Q2 aquifer (inclusive of the new wells). Based on the groundwater elevation data and consistent with previous investigations undertaken within the Assessment Area, the following conditions were identified in November 2020 GME program: ▪ Beneath the Assessment Area, the watertable Q1 aquifer is present from 4.9 to 12.5 m BGL followed by confining unit ranging from 3.0 to 3.5 m in thickness. The Q2 aquifer unit is then present from 8.5 to 29 m BGL and existing monitoring wells installed greater than 30 m are installed within the Q3 aquifer unit. ▪ For the watertable Q1 and Q2 aquifer systems, groundwater flow is observed to be in a north westerly direction towards the coastline. ▪ The general groundwater flow direction beneath the Site and surrounds for the Q1 and Q2 aquifer units is consistent with anticipated regional flow direction (refer to Figure’s 4 and 5, respectively). ▪ With reference to the location of the Source Site and based on interpreted groundwater contours (refer to Figure 5 for the watertable Q1 and Figure 6 for the Q2 aquifer, respectively), monitoring wells MW10-Q1/ MW10-Q2 and MW11-Q1/ MW11-Q2 are considered to be background monitoring wells given they are situated up-hydraulic gradient/ cross gradient of the Source Site. No groundwater monitoring wells are installed in the Q3 aquifer unit that are located up hydraulic gradient of the Source Site. ▪ Between the Q1 and Q2 aquifer systems, slight downward hydraulic gradients exist in the vicinity of MW02, MW07, MW10, MW11, MW14 and MW15 nested monitoring wells with a slight up hydraulic gradient observed in monitoring wells MW8, MW12 and MW13 nested wells. In comparison to the previous monitoring event (April 2020), results were consistent for MW08 and MW11 nested locations and had reversed for the other locations. Between the Q2 and Q3 existing wells located beneath and near the Source Site, a downward hydraulic gradient was observed between DW2 and DD10 and DD2 and DD3. ▪ Hydrographs provided in Appendix M show groundwater elevations are seasonally impacted by rainfall recharge and as anticipated this is observed more so in the watertable Q1 aquifer unit then in the deeper aquifer units. Based on a review of the hydrographs and the groundwater flow contours there does not appear to be evidence of other mechanisms affecting water level responses across the Assessment Area (i.e., leaking underground services/ tree uptake etc). ▪ Neither visual nor olfactory evidence of impacts were observed during the installation of the newly installed monitoring wells. In addition, no apparent measurable thickness of NAPL, nor hydrocarbon sheen/ odour were identified. However consistent with previous, during the targeted sampling program yellow colouration of groundwater was observed indicative of Cr VI impacts at the following locations: EPA | January 2021 - . EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 36 o MW01-Q1 – located adjacent the source site in a down hydraulic gradient (westerly) direction. o DD2– Q2 well located on the Source Site. 5.2 NATURE AND EXTENT OF SITE CONTAMINATION 5.2.1 Existence of Groundwater Contamination PCAs were historically undertaken at the Source Site as described in Section 2 have resulted in significant impacts to the underlying soil and groundwater systems. In accordance with Section 5B of the EP Act (1993) site contamination exists within the Assessment Area, noting: ▪ Remediation works removed around 60% (S&G, 2006) of the mass of Cr VI impact to the soil and groundwater system however a chromium plume remains down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site above relevant environmental values. ▪ The Stage 1 to 3 results have confirmed that PFAS is present in groundwater beneath the Assessment Area within the Q1, Q2 and Q3 aquifer units. While groundwater sampling of Q2 and Q3 monitoring wells located at the Source Site has confirmed the presence of PFAS above relevant guideline values, no Q1 monitoring wells are located at the chromium Source Site to confirm if PFAS impacts are emanating in groundwater in this aquifer unit. Background monitoring wells in both the watertable Q1 and Q2 aquifers have reported PFAS concentrations marginally above the laboratory LOR. ▪ Other heavy metals including manganese, boron, copper, nickel and zinc were identified above environmental values (LWC, 2019) and could be attributed to natural background levels and/ or activities undertaken at the Source Site. Further discussion is provided below. 5.2.2 Chromium Residual Cr VI and total Cr concentrations in groundwater monitoring wells extending as far as 250 m down hydraulic gradient from the Source Site in the watertable Q1 aquifer unit and the Q2 aquifer unit. Monitoring wells installed in the Q3 aquifer unit near and at the Source Site previously reported chromium concentrations below the laboratory LOR. The extent of the chromium plumes are presented in: ▪ Figure 9 (speciated chromium for watertable Q1 aquifer unit); and ▪ Figure 10 (hexavalent chromium for watertable Q1 aquifer unit and Q2). In addition, Figure 11 details cross-sections with observed chromium concentrations for the underlying aquifer systems along the key groundwater flow path down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site. These figures show that with the latest 2020 groundwater results, the plume/s in the watertable Q1 and Q2 aquifer units are laterally delineated (relevant to the ADWG, 2011 updated 2018 criteria). At the targeted locations, concentrations of Cr VI in groundwater were observed to be lower than that reported previously (S&G, 2006) and that it appeared that no significant rebounding of the Cr VI plume beneath or directly down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site had occurred. The interpolated chromium plume extents for Stage’s 1 to 3 are provided in Appendix Q, noting the relative plume stability observed during works completed in 2019 and 2020. EPA | January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 37 ▪ For the watertable Q1 aquifer unit, at existing locations targeted for sampling, along key groundwater flow paths, analytical results were consistent with historical data. ▪ For the Q2 aquifer unit, at existing locations targeted for sampling along key groundwater flow paths identified an increase in Cr VI in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q2, however concentrations were consistent with historical and considered ‘stable’ in groundwater sampled from monitoring wells MW02-Q2 and MW12-Q1. It is noted that a decrease in redox potential was observed in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q2. As previously detailed in the Stage 2 report (and summarised in Section 2 and Appendix A), chromium geochemistry (and thus the associated understanding of nature and extent of Cr VI) can be dynamic and complex within groundwater systems. Appendix B provides Cr concentration results at each location. In comparison to historical data (where available), concentrations reported in 2020 were not observed to significantly rebound beneath or directly down hydraulic gradient of the Source site at concentrations observed pre- remediation. Whilst it is known that domestic bores are located within the Assessment Area in an approximate down- hydraulic gradient location from the Source Site, the EPA has provided advice via three letterbox drops in May and October 2019 and September 2020 to all property owners that bore water is not to be used for any purpose due to contamination. Community updates on the EPA’s website for the Woodville Assessment Area note that the presence of a reticulated water supply provides safe water for drinking and irrigation purposes3. Noting the delineated extent of total Cr and Cr VI has been achieved within the Assessment Area, with respect to the nature and behaviour in terms of potential fate (persistence) and transport (mobility), the outcomes of the Stage 3 works do not change the understanding or interpretation as detailed in Stage 2 (LWC, 2020). 5.2.3 PFAS PFAS impacts in the watertable Q1 aquifer unit are observed up to 210 m down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site (MW08-Q1 on Jones Street – 180 m and MW05-Q1 on Port Road at 210 m). To the west and north west, impacts appear is now be delineated along the flow path with the newly installed monitoring wells (refer to Figure 12). As previously detailed no Q1 monitoring wells are located at the chromium Source Site to confirm if PFAS impacts are also emanating in groundwater from this Site. Background monitoring well MW10-Q1 reported PFAS concentrations only marginally above the laboratory LOR. For the watertable-Q1 aquifer unit, at existing locations targeted for sampling along key groundwater flow paths decreased slightly in groundwater sampled from MW01-Q1, was generally stable in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q1 and increased slightly in groundwater sampled from MW12-Q1. PFAS impacts in the Q2 aquifer unit laterally delineated down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site with the furthest Q2 wells (up to 250 m west, 180 m north west and 230 m to the west/ south west) reporting concentrations above one or more relevant guideline criteria. The Q2 background monitoring well, MW10-Q2 previously reported PFAS concentrations only marginally above the laboratory LOR. For the Q2 aquifer unit, at existing locations targeted for sampling along key groundwater flow paths, PFAS concentrations were observed to be relatively stable in groundwater sampled from DD2 (located at the Source Site), had decreased slightly in groundwater sampled from MW08-Q2 and MW12-Q2. The interpolated PFAS plume extents for Stage’s 1 to 3 are provided in Appendix Q, noting the relative plume stability observed during works completed in 2019 and 2020. 3 https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/data_and_publications/site_contamination_monitoring/assessment_areas/woodville h EPA | January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 38 The Stage 1 to 3 results have confirmed that PFAS is present in groundwater beneath the Site within the watertable Q1, Q2 and Q3 aquifer units. As previously discussed in Section 4.6, theelevated PFAS concentrations in monitoring well pair at MW12 are more than likely from a different source, noting: ▪ Up gradient wells MW02-Q1 and MW03-Q1 reported lower concentrations which were marginally above the laboratory LOR. ▪ A review of the historical use of properties along the south western extent of Port Road (near Woodville Road) identified several locations where PFAS chemicals may have been used. ▪ A review of PFAS chemical compositions along the groundwater flow path also suggests PFAS concentrations observed in the vicinity of MW12 may be from a different source to that observed at the Source Site. ▪ A review of the lithological logs in regard to preferential groundwater flow paths and aquifer thickness along the flow path also suggests a different source of PFAS being present in the vicinity of MW12-Q2 more so than a higher permeable area or narrowing of the unit in this portion of the Assessment Area. 5.3 SUMMARY OF RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH AND/ OR THE ENVIRONMENT The findings of the Stage 3 works has demonstrated that lateral and vertical delineation of chromium and PFAS contamination within the established EPA Assessment Area has been achieved and assisted in refinement of the risk profile to human health and the environment. The fundamental concept of risk assessment is that there should be an exposure pathway linking the source of contamination and the exposed population. Where this linkage exists, an assessment of the nature, extent and significance of the exposure pathway is required to determine the level of risk. As detailed in Section 2, the key pathways to identified human health receptors within the Assessment Area is abstraction of groundwater from the watertable Q1, Q2 and Q3 aquifer systems. The EPA advised residents in the EPA Woodville Assessment area by letterbox drops in May and October 2019 and September 2020 that groundwater was contaminated and that bore water should not be used for any purpose. The findings of the additional investigations undertaken during the Stage 3 works is considered sufficient for the EPA to support a GPA for the Woodville Assessment Area. Given the relative plume stability observed during Stages 1 to 3, it is considered that the current Assessment Area extent is sufficient to capture the current and future impacts to groundwater based on information collected to date. Targeted ongoing monitoring will assist in confirming plume stability and migration. EPA | January 2021 - . EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 39 6 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS LWC was engaged by the EPA to undertake Stage 3 environmental assessment (the Assessment) for Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. The Assessment was undertaken in accordance with the scope of works detailed in the EPA RFQ. The key project objective for Stage 3 works was to determine the lateral and vertical extents of chromium and PFAS contamination within the established EPA Assessment Area boundary for informing a potential GPA. The following summarises the findings of Stage 3 works: 1. Groundwater within the Assessment Area reports elevated concentrations of Cr VI and PFAS relevant to identified environmental values. 2. These groundwater impacts constitute site contamination with respect to the definition of site contamination presented in Section 5B of the Environment Protection Act 1993. With respect to chromium and PFAS impacts, this contamination appears to be predominantly a result of historical site activity undertaken at the Source Site (739-753 Port Road). 3. For Cr VI and PFAS impacts in groundwater, there is a predicted unacceptable risk to public health where domestic bores are used in any contact capacity (including ingestion and dermal contact), notwithstanding the exceedances of the potable criteria (subject to exposure parameters such as frequency, duration etc). The EPA has advised residents in the EPA Woodville (Port Road) Assessment area by letterbox drops in May and October 2019 and September 2020 that groundwater was contaminated and that bore water should not be used for any purpose. A GPA would remove the risk to public health by restricting access to contaminated groundwater. 4. Based on the data collected to date, the extent of the residual Cr VI plume and PFAS impacts in groundwater (watertable-Q1 and Q2) is known and delineated. 5. At the targeted locations, concentrations of Cr VI in groundwater were observed to be lower than that reported previously (S&G, 2006) and that it appeared that no significant rebounding of the Cr VI plume beneath or directly down hydraulic gradient of the Source Site had occurred. 6. As per the Stage 2 program of works, beneath the Assessment Area Cr may cycle between Cr III to Cr VI (and sorbed/ de-sorbed phases), although Cr is evident as Cr VI for the 2020 monitoring events. This makes predictions of magnitude and extent of site contamination with respect to Cr VI potentially challenging over time, and it is likely that consideration of Total Cr is a better risk indicator than considering Cr speciation at any particular time and place. The findings of the additional investigations undertaken during the Stage 3 works is considered sufficient for the EPA to support a GPA for the Woodville Assessment Area. EPA | January 2021 - . EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 40 7 REFERENCES Agon Environmental (2015). Letter for Section 83A Notification of Site Contamination of Underground Water for 759 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. 13 February 2015. Alloway, B.J (1990). Heavy Metals in Soil. Glasgow Blackie New York Halsted Press, 1990. ANZG. (2018). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian and New Zealand Governments and Australian state and territory governments, Canberra ACT, Australia. Australian Standard AS 5667.11:1998 Water Quality – Sampling Part 11: Guidance on Sampling of Groundwaters, Australian/ New Zealand Standards 5667.11:1998. Australian Standard AS 4482.1-2005 Guide to the investigation and sampling of sites with potentially contaminated soil Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds. Australian Environmental Auditors (2017). Site Contamination Audit Report, 761-763 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. Prepared for Goedecke Family Superannuation Fun. 11 January 2017. Bartlett, R.J. and J.M. Kimble, 1976. Behavior of Chromium in Soils: 11: Hexavalent Forms. J. Environmental Quality, 5(4):383-386. Bartlett, R.J. (1991). “Chromium cycling in soils and water: Links, gaps, and methods.” Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 92. Pages 17 through 24. Cleanaway (1996). Columbia Remediation Project. March 1996. CMPS&F (1995). Columbia Concrete Block Machinery Company Site at 749 Port Road (Interim Report). September 1995. Coffey (2017). Exit Lease Environmental Site Assessment, Woolworths Woodville Service Station, 801 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. Prepared for Woolworths Limited. 12 January 2017. Coffey Environments (2006). Auditor Submission in Relation to Groundwater CUTEP (Clean-Up To Extent Practicable) – 749 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. 13 December 2006. Deutsch, W.J (1997). Groundwater Geochemistry, Fundamentals and Applications to Contamination. 1997. CRC Press LLC. Egis Consulting (2000). Draft Report to Rocla Industries Ltd for Former Columbia Facility Port Road, Wayville, South Australia – Contamination Plume Delineation. November 2000. Environment Protection Act 1993 (South Australia). EPA Victoria (2000) Groundwater Sampling Guidelines. Publication 669. April 2000. Friebel. E., and Nadebaum. P., CRC Care Technical Report no. 10 - Health Screening Levels for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil and Groundwater Summary. September 2011. Gerges (1999). Thesis – The Geology & Hydrogeology of the Adelaide Metropolitan Area. Flinders University of South Australia. 2000. Gerges (2006). Overview of Hydrogeology of the Adelaide Metropolitan Area. Knowledge and Information Division for Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Report DWLBC 2006/10. June 2006. GHD (2002). Rocla Industries Limited – Former Columbia Site Woodville, South Australia – Additional Groundwater Monitoring Report, October/ November 2002. December 2002. EPA | January 2021 - . EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Page 41 Golder Associates (1995). Health Risk Assessment Groundwater Contamination CCBM Site Woodville, South Australia. 5 October 1995. Golder Associates (2004). Preliminary Contamination Assessment 2 Hughes Road, Woodville, South Australia. Prepared for CMPS&F Pty Ltd. 21 March 1996. Government of Western Australia Department of Environmental Regulation (2017). Interim Guideline on the Assessment and Management of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) – Contaminated Site Guidelines. Version 2.1. January 2017. Goyder Institute for Water Research. 2015. Assessment of Adelaide Plains Groundwater Resources: Summary Report. Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series N. 15/31. ISSN 1839-2725. Griffin, R. A., A. K. Au, and R.R. Frost. (1977). “Effect of pH on Adsorption of Chromium from Landfill- Leachate by Clay Minerals.” Journal of Environmental Science Health. Part A, Vol. 12, No. 8. Pages 431 through 449. Land & Water Consulting (2019). Environmental Assessment, Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. August 2019. Land & Water Consulting (2020). Environmental Assessment Stage 2, Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. June 2020. National Chemicals Working Group of the Heads of EPA Australia and New Zealand (2020). PFAS National Environmental Management Plan. Version 2.0. January 2020. IARC 2012, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 100. Part C: A Review of Human Carcinogens: Arsenic, Metals, Fibres, and Dusts. ISBN-13, 978-92-832-1320-8. MacKenzie RD, Byerrum RU, Decker CF, Hoppert CA, Langham RF (1958). Chronic toxicity studies: II. Hexavalent and trivalent chromium administered in drinking water to rats. American Medical Association Archives of Industrial Health, 18:232–234. Martin R and T Hodgkin (2005). State and Condition of the Adelaide Plains Sub-Aquifers. Report DWLBC 2005/32. Government of South Australia 2005. NEPC (1999). National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) 2013 Amended Measure, National Environment Protection Council, December 1999. NHMRC (2011). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, National Water Quality Management Strategy, Australia. National Health and Medical Research Council and the Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. Version 3.5 Updated May 2019. Palmer C. D and Puls R. W (1994). US EPA Ground Water Issue – Natural Attenuation of Hexavalent Chromium in Groundwater and Soils. EPA/54/5-94/505 Palmer, C.D. and P.R. Wittbrodt, (1991). Processes Affecting the Remediation of Chromium-Contaminated Sites. Environmental Health Perspectives, 92: 25-40 Palmer, C.D., and Puls, R.W. (1994). Natural attenuation of Hexavalent Chromium in Groundwater and Soils. US EPA Groundwater Issue, Technology Innovation Office, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. October 1994. Peter J Ramsay & Associated (2013). Site Contamination Audit of Land Pursuant to Part 10A of the Environment Protection Act 1993, EPA Reference 61110 05/21162 - 808-810 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. September 2013. EPA | January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Puls, R.W., and M.J. Barcelona. 1996. Low flow (minimal drawdown) Ground-water Sampling Procedures. U.S. EPA Ground Water Issue: EPA/540/S-95/504. RIVM (2001). Re-evaluation of human-toxicological Maximum Permissible Risk levels, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands. Available from: http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/711701025.html. S&G (2003). Remediation Action Plan, Port Road Remediation Project. Prepared for Amatek Industries Pty Limited. Revision 3. March 2003. S&G (2004). Port Road Remediation Project, Project Status Report – December 2003. Prepared for Rocla Industries. January 2004. S&G (2006). Addendum Port Road Remediation Project Completion Report. Prepared for Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd. 5 May 2006. S&G (2006). Port Road Remediation Project Completion Report – January 2006. Prepared for Amatek. January 2006. SA EPA (2007). Regulatory monitoring and testing – Groundwater sampling, South Australian Environment Protection Authority, June 2007. Revised April 2019. SA EPA (2009), Environment Protection Regulations (under the Environment Protection Act 1993), Version 1.7.2014, South Australia Environment Protection Authority, 2009. SA EPA (2018). Guidelines for the Assessment and Remediation of Site Contamination (July 2018, updated October 2018) (SA EPA, 2018). SA EPA (2019), Guidelines for the Regulatory Monitoring and Testing – Groundwater Sampling (June 2007, revised April 2019). Section 83A Notification for 767-769 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. Notification from A.M Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd. 4 May 2017. Section 83A Notification for 767-769 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. Notification from A.M Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd. 7 June 2019. Section 83A Notification for 822 Port Road, Woodville South – Dated 27 October 2015. Notification from GHD Pty Ltd. South Australia Department of Mines and Energy, SA 1: 50,000 Preliminary Geologic Map Resources Series (Adelaide region). 1980. Prepared by Cartographic Division. TMK Consulting Engineers (2015). Environmental Soil Assessment – 809-813 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. Prepared for G. Lum Nominees Pty Ltd. and Wellable Investments Pty Ltd. 31 July 2015. TMK Consulting Engineers (2015). Partial Tier 1 Preliminary Site Investigation – Environmental Site History – 809-813 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia. Prepared for G. Lum Nominees Pty Ltd. and Wellable Investments Pty Ltd. 10 July 2015. US EPA (1999) Understanding variation in partition coefficients Kd values Volume II, United States Office of Air and Radiation EPA 402-R-99-004B Environmental Protection, August 1999 Agency for Research on Cancer. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol100C/mono100C-6.pdf. US EPA (2000). In Situ Treatment of Soil and Groundwater Contaminated with Chromium. Office of Research and Development, EPA 625 R 00 005 October 2000. EPA | January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia US EPA 1998, Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium, in support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). WHO (2017). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. Fourth Edition Incorporating the First Addendum. ISBN 978-92-4-154995-0. EPA | January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia FIGURES EPA | January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia STATION WALK Legend ABERFELDY AVENUE Site Boundary --+--+ Railway YARINDA STREET STANLEY STREET HUGHES STREET HARVEY STREET BOWER STREET KEMP STREET WOODVILLE ROAD NORMAN STREET BELMORE TERRACE "" ffl 11.t-,ICt.~ .... • RUSSELL TERRACE W:;;.1-;ervlll~ Beterle, ,:m □ ":rorM,tol'I '11 Alltnt:y t,.04,N j,-,J..,,,; LO,!l-.le(S a, PORT ROAD ~:::~~•rk Cl GJ PARK STREET ... \ El 3-!odwMd SIMPSON STREET -· Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated October 2020 0 20 40 80 120 160 Meters NORMAN STREET HUGHES STREET JONES STREET CHURCH STREET LWC Land & Water Consulting BOWER STREET Email: [email protected] PARK STREET Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au Date: December 2020 Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 ¯ Project: WINDSOR AVENUE EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 CURTIS STREET Environmental Assessment - November 2020 Site Address: PORT ROAD Woodville, South Australia OSBORNE AVENUE Figure Title: CEDAR AVENUE EDWARD STREET Project Assessment Area OVAL AVENUE ANGUS STREET KOOLUNDA AVENUE KOOLUNDA LANE Figure in Set 1 of 12 Figure Scale: See Plan 1 Drawing Reference Revision A A Legend Site Boundary -+-+ Railway CJ EPA Registed Site CJ Business of Interest EPA Reference: 61533 PCA: Listed substances (storage) CrVI in Groundwater: N/A CrVI in Soils: <1 to 24 mg/kg EPA Reference: 61731 PCA: Service Station CrVI in Groundwater: N/A 809 & 811- 813 Port Road CrVI in Soils: N/A 801 Port Road EPA Reference: 61796 PCA: Metal coating, finishing or spray painting CrVI in Groundwater: 0.08 to 6.4 mg/L in Q1 CrVI in Soils: N/A EPA Regerence: 61715/ 61415 PCA: Metal forging, motor vehicle repair or maintenance, fill or soil importation CrVI in Groundwater: 11 to 14 mg/L in Q1 CrVI in Soil: <1 mg/kg (one sample only) EPA Reference: 61433 PCA: Metal coating, finishing or spray painting CrVI in Groundwater: up to 29.4 mg/L in Q1, 13 mg/L in Q2, 0.04 mg/L in Q3 CrVI in Soil: N/A 767-769 Port Road Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated EPA Reference: N/A October 2020 PCA: Dry cleaning 0 20 40 80 120 160 CrVI in Groundwater: N/A Meters CrVI in Soils: N/A EPA Reference: 12540 761-763 Port Road PCA: Not recorded CrVI in Groundwater: <0.01 mg/L in Q1 759 Port Road CrVI in Soils: <1 mg/kg 755A Port Road Amatek Site (Ex. Electroplating Site) 2 Hughes Street South EPA Reference:10125, 12452, 10541 ()Lwc PCA: Metal coating, finishing or spray painting, l..Bnd & Watex Gc:.-iwttng service stations, surface coating Land & Water Consulting Email: [email protected] CrVI in Groundwater: 808-810 Port Road Site Address: Woodville, South Australia 725-727 Port Road EPA Reference: 61558 Figure Title: PCA: Not recorded CrVI in groundwater: up to 0.01 mg/L in Q1 Summary of Source Site and EPA Public Register CrVI in soils: N/A Surrounding Projects and Businesses of Interest EPA Reference: 10264, 10656 EPA Reference: 61110, 61188 PCA: Service station PCA: Agricultural Activities CrVI in Groundwater: N/A Figure CrVI in groundwater: 0.005 to 0.012 mg/L in Q1 CrVI in Soils: N/A Figure in Set 2 of 12 CrVI in soils: <1 mg/kg (three samples only) Scale: See Plan 2 778-782 Port Road Drawing Reference Revision --c::==--7 A A 6628-8810 Legend 6628-26343 6628-21712 6628-26336 Assessment Area Boundary 6628-22455 6628-22948 6628-22938 6628-22941 6628-22944 00 0 000° 6628-277080 6628-22947 Cadastre 6628-22937 6628-22940 6628-22943 6628-27709 6628-27702 CJ 6628-22948 6628-27702 6628-27708 6628-27703 6628-22944 6628-30447 6628-30447 6628-27701 6628-27707 6628-27707 Purpose of DEW Registered Bore 6628-27701 6628-17862 6628-17862 ?! Irrigation 6628-18260?! 6628-27172 ?! 6628-13613 6628-13613 ?! Domestic 6628-17444 ?!6628-17444 6628-18534 !( Drainage ?! ?!6628-15577 !( Investigational !( Town Water Supply 6628-16121 6628-15871 ?! ?! !( 6628-20402 Monitoring 6628-22572 6628-18105 !( Observational 6628-8820 6628-20623 ?! 6628-19972 ?! 6628-13484 ?! !( ! Unlisted ? 6628-18822 6628-8828 ?! 6628-12364 ?!6628-8827 6628-29412 6628-29411 6628-8819 6628-8826 6628-30295 6628-8818 6628-15578 6628-8816 ?! 6628-20232 ?! 6628-30237 6628-30296 6628-30239 6628-30236 6628-30238?! 6628-19171 6628-17499 6628-15989 6628-30241 ?! ?! 6628-20156 6628-20315 6628-19905 6628-20312 6628-30243 6628-30299 6628-18658 6628-8825 6628-30297 6628-21061 ?! 6628-30240 6628-21535 ?! ?! 6628-8824 6628-8821 6628-30298 6628-20314 6628-19204 6628-21763 6628-30542 ! ! 6628-20316 6628-19908 ? ? 6628-20744 6628-8823 6628-19897 0 40 80 160 240 320 ?! Meters 6628-8747 6628-8751 6628-15157 6628-26582 ! 6628-8817 6628-19400 6628-26583 6628-30555 ? 6628-18624 6628-8748 ?! 6628-30541 6628-17405 6628-24570 ! ?! 6628-8752 ? 6628-16803 6628-21685 ?! 6628-8749 6628-28825 LW Lard & Watf1f Co-&Jtt 6628-28824 6628-8753 6628-28823 6628-28822 Land & Water Consulting 6628-20315 Email: [email protected] Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au 6628-20155 Date: April 2020 6628-15246 6628-20312 6628-20153 6628-12302?! ?! 6628-13692 6628-18002 Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 ¯ ?! Project: 6628-16777 ! 6628-21286 6628-8754 6628-20313 6628-15593 6628-20235 ? !( ?! 6628-16612 1/ EPA Assessment Area - Woodville South, Stage 2 - April 2020 6628-30243 6628-20311 6628-8755 0 0/ 6628-15322 6628-30299 6628-30297 6628-19907j ?! 6628-25932 6628-19904 ?! • Site Address: 6628-13285 6628-19901 ·;1 • 6628-8760 6628-19906 6628-20321 6628-12041 6628-19898 6628-19900~,., ,, 6628-20320 Woodville, South Australia Port Road6628-19902 6628-17791 6628-16953 6628-20152 ?! ! ~ 6628-21535 Figure Title: 6628-19706 ? • 0 ?! 6628-16887 6628-19903 DEW Registered Bore Search within 500 m of the ?! • 6628-20314 0 Assessment Area 6628-20316 0 6628-30298 • Figure in Set 3 of 12 Figure Scale: See Plan 3 6628-20154 • Drawing Reference Revision A A Legend Site Boundary MWC A! Railway A! Watertable Aquifer Unit (Q1) MWB ! Quarternary Aquifer System (Q2) A! A A! Quarternary Aquifer System (Q3) DW1 A! Decomissioned/ Destroyed Well A! MWD DD7A! ! DD1A A! MW14-Q1 MW14-Q2 MW13-Q1 A!! MWE MW13-Q2 A ! A! AA! DW5 A! WB7 DD6 ! A!A MW09-Q1 A! WB6 A! Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated MW08-Q2 October 2020 A! WB3 0 20 40 80 120 160 MW07-Q1 A Meters AA!! MW07-Q2 MW08-Q1 A! MW01-Q1 ! MW05-Q1 A A! A! MW15-Q1 MW15-Q2 DD10 A! A! A A! MW06-Q1 !A! DD9 MW04-Q1 !A!A !A A! A! ()Lwc ! A ! l..Bnd & Watex Gc:.-iwttng A A DW2 MW02-Q2 ! MWF A ! Land & Water Consulting ! ! WB9 ! A Email: [email protected] A A A!! Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au A! A!A MW03-Q1A! !A A!AA!!! WB5A AA DD4 Date: December 2020 WB15 EXMB1 MW12-Q2 WB8 MWG A! ! ! WB4 ! ! DD3 Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 A!A! A A DW3 A A DW6 ¯ MW12-Q1 A!A!DD8 MWA A! A! A! Project: A!A! DD5 ! A! A WB2 EXMB2 DD2 EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 A! Environmental Assessment - November 2020 Site Address: MW10-Q1 Woodville, South Australia MW11-Q2 !A! MW10-Q2 A A! Figure Title: MW11-Q1 A! Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Plan Figure in Set 4 of 12 Figure Scale: See Plan 4 Drawing Reference Revision A A STATION WALK Legend ABERFELDY AVENUE Site Boundary --+--+ Railway A! Groundwater Monitoring Well (Q1) YARINDA STREET Interpreted Groundwater Elevation STANLEY STREET HUGHES STREET Inferred Groundwater Elevation HARVEY STREET ______.Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction 2.85 Groundwater Elevation (m AHD) BOWER STREET KEMP STREET WOODVILLE ROAD NORMAN STREET rm MW14-Q1 BELMORE TERRACE " MW13-Q1 2.75 m AHD A! Fl'OJp.-ct "" rrlJ "'.r<:>)· ,:m □ ·,orMrtol'I '11 Alltnt:y t,.04,N j,-,J..,,,; I nrlf!rlP,.,l 2.80 m AHD MW09-Q1 ,;"~.u• a, PORT ROAD A! um~~rt>•rk GJ PARK STREET ... SIMPSON STREET 2.85 m AHD Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated October 2020 MW08-Q1 MW07-Q1 ! 0 20 40 80 120 160 A Meters A! NORMAN STREET 2.70 m AHD HUGHES STREET MW05-Q1 JONES STREET A! MW15-Q1 MW06-Q1 A! A! MWD CHURCH STREET MW04-Q1 A! WB7 A! A! MW03-Q1 MW01-Q1 Land & Water Consulting ! ! BOWER STREET 2.90 m AHD Email: [email protected] A AMW02-Q1 A! PARK STREET Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au Date: November 2020 MW12-Q1 Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 A! ¯ Project: WINDSOR AVENUE EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 CURTIS STREET Environmental Assessment - November 2020 Site Address: 2.95 mMW10-Q1 AHD PORT ROAD ! Woodville, South Australia MW11-Q1 A OSBORNE AVENUE A! Figure Title: CEDAR AVENUE Interpreted Groundwater Contours and Flow EDWARD STREET Direction (Watertable Q1 Aquifer) - November 2020 OVAL AVENUE ANGUS STREET KOOLUNDA AVENUE KOOLUNDA LANE Figure in Set 4 of 10 Figure Scale: See Plan 45 Drawing Reference Revision A A STATION WALK Legend ABERFELDY AVENUE Site Boundary --+--+ Railway A! Groundwater Monitoring Well (Q2) YARINDA STREET Interpreted Groundwater Elevation BELMORE TERRACE STANLEY STREET Inferred Groundwater Elevation RUSSELL TERRACE HARVEY STREET ______.Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction KEMP STREET 2.85 Groundwater Elevation (m AHD) BOWER STREET Note: Water Level at DW6 Excluded. WOODVILLE ROAD NORMAN STREET 2.75 m AHD MW14-Q2 HUGHES STREET MW13-Q2 A! "" ! A ffl 11.t-,ICt.~ .... • W:;;.1-;ervlll~ Beterle, ,:m □ ":rorM,tol'I '11 Alltnt:y 2.80 m AHD t,.04,N j,-,J..,,,; LO,!l-.le(S a, PORT ROAD ~:::~~•rk Cl GJ PARK STREET ... \ El 3-!odwMd SIMPSON STREET -· 2.85 m AHD HUGHES STREET Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated October 2020 MW08-Q2 NORMAN STREET ! 0 20 40 80 120 160 2.70 m AHD A MW07-Q2 Meters A! MW15-Q2 JONES STREET A! DD1 CHURCH STREET DW5 A! A! 2.90 m AHD LWC MW02-Q2 BOWER STREET Land & Water Consulting ! DW2 PARK STREET Email: [email protected] A Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au ! DW6 A ! AA!DD2 Date: November 2020 MW12-Q2 Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 A! ¯ Project: WINDSOR AVENUE EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 Environmental Assessment - November 2020 CURTIS STREET 2.95 m AHD Site Address: PORT ROAD MW10-Q2 Woodville, South Australia MW11-Q2 A! OSBORNE AVENUE A! Figure Title: CEDAR AVENUE Interpreted Groundwater Contours and Flow EDWARD STREET Direction (Q2 Aquifer) - November 2020 ANGUS STREET KOOLUNDA AVENUE OVAL AVENUE KOOLUNDA LANE Figure in Set 5 of 10 Figure Scale: See Plan 25 Drawing Reference Revision A A MW09-Q1 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 15/04/2020 MW08_Q1 29/05/2019 9/01/2020 16/04/2020 18/11/2020 MW13-Q1 17/11/2020 MW14-Q1 16/11/2020 S Legend TA CRIII <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 TI CRIII <0.01 <0.10 0.12 - CRIII <0.01 CRIII <0.01 A ON B CRVI <0.01 0.004 <0.01T CRV I 0.06 0.39 0.51 - CRVI <0.01 CRVI <0.01 E E W Site Boundary R E A FETotal CR 0.002 0.004 0.005R LKTotal CR 0.054 0.258 0.632 - Total CR 0.002 Total CR <0.001 L T D S -+-+ Railway PFHxS &Y PFOS - <0.01 <0.01 PFHxS & PFOS - 0.27 0.6 0.34 PFHxS & PFOS <0.01 PFHxS & PFOS 0.06 A A V D PFOA E - <0.01 N <0.01 PFOA - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 PFOA <0.01 PFOA <0.01 ! N I A Watertable Aquifer Unit (Q1) U R E A MW05_Q1 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 14/04/2020 Y MWD (Q1) 29/05/2019 10/01/2020 15/04/2020 BE Shaded cells indicate exceedances of the following CRIII <1.00 L CRIII 10.4 <0.20 1 2.96 0.29 M S criteria: O TA CRVI 0.01 2.89 1.48 RE CRVI 1.06N 8.62 12.1 D HA LE A T Y ADWG (2018) Aesthetic Total CR 2.97 2.01 1.77 E R Total CR 11.5 8.44 S 13.1 O RRAC VE T ADWG (2018) Health R PFHxS & PFOS - 1.41R 0.97 PFHxS & PFOS - 0.12 0.24 Y E E ST ET PFAS NEMP (2.0) Drinking Water - Health L E R PFOA - PFOA -B <0.01 <0.01 IL E 0.04 0.01 O K E NHMRC (2008) Aesthetics W V EM T E D R O P NHMRC (2008) Health (Primary Contact) S S T T PFAS NEMP (2.0) Recreational - Health R WO R T E EE E E ANZG (2018) Irrigation Long Term Trigger Values T T E N R O T R S M Chromium concentrations presented as mg/L A S N E PFHxS, PFOS and PFOA concentrations S H T MW14-Q1 G R U presented as µg/L E E A! H T MW13-Q1 ! 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 16/04/2020 18/11/2020 MW07_Q1 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 14/04/2020 A MW02_Q1 RUS CRIII <1.00 CRIII 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 4.42 0.73 <0.01 S E CRV I 1.04 13.9 6.23 5.34 CRVI <0.01 0.01 <0.01 L L T Total CR 5.46 10.2 6.96 4.62 Total CR 0.011 0.011 0.006 E RRA PFHxS & PFOS - - PFHxS & PFOS - 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 C PFOA - <0.01 <0.01 - PFOA - <0.01 <0.01 E T E E R T MW09-Q1 S P K O A! R R T A R P O A T D E E R T S S I S M E P H S G MW06_Q1 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 15/04/2020 18/11/2020 U Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated O H CRIIIN 12.6 <1.00 1 <0.01 October 2020 MW08-Q1 CRVIS 17 T 1.09 12.3 10.9 A! 0 20 40 80 120 160 R MW07-Q1 Total CR Meters E 13.7 12.7 13.3 9.36 A! N E O PFHxS & PFOST - 0.02 0.04 - R M A PFOA - <0.01 <0.01 - N WB7 (Q1) 30/05/2019 9/01/2020 16/04/2020 MW05-Q1 S ! TR AMW06-Q1 E CRIII <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 MW15-Q1 E A! A! T CRVI 0.02 0.02 <0.05 MWD T Total CR 0.018 0.018 0.046 MW15-Q1 16/11/2020 C E H MW04-Q1 A! WB7 E U R PFHxS & PFOS - 17.2 14.9 CRIII <0.01 R ()Lwc C A! A! T LBrd & Wator Coosult.-g H S PFOA - 0.24 0.26 CRVI 0.02 S MW03-Q1 MW01-Q1 K TR B R Land & Water Consulting Total CR 0.014 E ! ! ! O A Email: [email protected] E A AMW02-Q1 A W P Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au T E PFHxS & PFOS <0.01 R S Date: November 2020 PFOA <0.01 TR MW12-Q1 EE A! T Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 ¯ MW12-Q1 9/01/2020 16/04/2020 18/11/2020 T Project: E CRIII <0.01 <0.01 0.01 E W R IN T D CRVI 0.009 0.01 <0.01 S S EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 O S R Environmental Assessment - November 2020 Total CR 0.009 0.011 0.011 I A T V R E PFHxS & PFOS 0.13 0.17 0.3 U N C U PFOA 0.02 0.02 <0.01 E Site Address: MW04_Q1 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 15/04/2020 CRIII 2.28 <1.00 0.48 P MW10-Q1 O Woodville, South Australia E R A! CRVI 1.2 5.61 4.01 MW11-Q1 U T T N R O E ! E O S Figure Title: Total CR 3.48 4.15 4.49 E A A B V D O R C A R PFHxS & PFOS - 0.16 0.12 T E E N S D U A E D Summary of Speciated Chromium Concentrations S A N E A PFOA - <0.01 <0.01 R D N V U E A W U E and Selected PFAS Concentrations - Q1 Aquifer G V V A N E A R L U N N D E A U L MW03_Q1 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 17/04/2020 MW11-Q1 9/01/2020 17/04/2020E A MW01_Q1S 29/05/2019OO 13/01/2020 15/04/2020 18/11/2020 MW10-Q1 9/01/2020 16/04/2020 V TR K CRIII <1.00 CRIII <0.01 <0.01 O E K CRIII <0.01 <0.01 1.06 0.12 CRIII E 26.9 O <1.00 <0.50 - T O CRVI 1.07 7.73 4.06 CRVI 0.002 <0.01 CRVI 0.98LU 35.7 26 - CRVI 0.006 <0.01 Figure in Set 7a of 12 Figure N D Total CR 2.13 6.36 4.18 Total CR 0.002 0.002 Total CR 27.9 32.2A 24.9 - Total CR 0.004 0.005 Scale: See Plan L 5.26 A 4.9 3.18 PFHxS & PFOS - 0.02 0.04 PFHxS & PFOS 0.01 0.02 PFHxS & PFOS - N PFHxS & PFOS 0.05 0.02 7a E Drawing Reference Revision PFOA - <0.01 <0.01 PFOA 0.01 0.01 PFOA - 0.03 0.04 0.03 PFOA <0.01 <0.01 A A DD7 (Q3) 28/05/2019 10/01/2020 MW13-Q2 17/11/2020 MW14-Q2 17/11/2020 Legend CRIII 0.02 <0.01 CRIII <0.01 CRIII <0.01 CRV I <0.01 CRVI <0.01 T CRVI <0.01 <0.01 E HA Site Boundary K E R Total CR 0.02 0.003 Total CR <0.001 E Total CR <0.001 R V T E N MP Y O PFHxS & PFOS <0.01 PFHxS & PFOS <0.01 S S -+-+ Railway B R S S TR O M T E E W A PFOA <0.01 R PFOA <0.01 E ! E N E H T A Quarternary Aquifer System (Q2) R S E G S DD1 (Q2) 28/05/2019 10/01/2020 15/04/2020 T T U DW5 (Q2) 30/05/2019 10/01/2020 17/04/2020 R H TR E ! E CRIII 33.8 <1.00 <0.50 E CRIII <0.01 0.01 <0.01 A Quarternary Aquifer System (Q3) E T MW14-Q2 T CRV I 0.07 33.4 30.2 A! CRVI 0.02 0.013 0.01 MW13-Q2 Shaded cells indicate exceedances of the following Total CR 33.9 30.5 28.7 A! Total CR 0.01 0.013 0.013 criteria: PFHxS & PFOS - 0.99 0.65 PFHxS & PFOS - 6.82 7.12 ADWG (2018) Aesthetic PFOA - <0.01 <0.01 PFOA - 0.01 <0.01 ADWG (2018) Health DW5 A! RUS DD6 (Q3) 30/05/2019 10/01/2020 PFAS NEMP (2.0) Drinking Water - Health NHMRC (2008) Aesthetics S CRIII <0.01 <0.01 D E BE L NHMRC (2008) Health (Primary Contact) A L L CRVI <0.01 <0.001 O T M PFAS NEMP (2.0) Recreational - Health MW08_Q2 6/06/2019 9/01/2020 R 16/04/2020 18/11/2020 E O E DD6 RRA RETotal CR 0.001 <0.001 L ANZG (2018) Irrigation Long Term Trigger Values Depth (m)1524191919 ! T D IL A C E A V E CRIII <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 RRAC O D DW2 (Q2) 30/05/2019 13/01/2020 17/04/2020 Chromium concentrations presented as mg/L R O CRVI <0.01E <0.01O 0.03 0.05 0.12 PFHxS, PFOS and PFOA concentrations L CRIII 19.4E 2 <0.50 W Total CR 0.006IL 0.007 0.024 0.049 0.124 presented as µg/L V CRVI 0.6 14.9 20.8 PFHxS & PFOS -D - 0.48 0.42 0.15 O Total CR 20 16.9 21 PFOA - O - <0.01 <0.01 0.02 W PFHxS & PFOS - 2.43 1.47 T E PFOA - <0.01 <0.01 MW07_Q2 6/06/2019 8/01/2020 14/04/2020 T ERE Depth (m)15242222 ET R S CRIII <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 TS DD3 (Q3) 30/05/2019 10/01/2020 SE SH CRVI <0.01 <0.01 0.009 <0.01 EG CRIII <0.01 <0.01 HU Total CR 0.004 0.003 0.006 0.008 GH CRVI <0.01 <0.001 DD10 U PFHxS & PFOS - - 0.24 0.2 A! H Total CR 0.004 0.003 PFOA - - <0.01 <0.01 MW08-Q2 ! DD2 (Q2) 30/05/2019 10/01/2020 17/04/2020 18/11/2020 A DW2 MW07-Q2 T CRIII 24.3 <1.00 0.9 - E A! A! E CRV I 0.18 36.3 36.8 R - EXMB1 N T DD3 O Total CR S !DD2 R 24.5 32.5 37.7 - S A A! M E A! DW6 A PFHxS & PFOS ! N 2.24 4.46 3.2 2.65 N A! A Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated O EXMB2 S PFOA <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 J TR E October 2020 E MW15-Q2 T 30/05/2019 10/01/2020 17/04/2020 015 306090120 A! DW6 (Q2) Meters CRIII 2.63 <0.10 0.72 DD1 DD7 DW5 T ! CRVI E 1.12 2.82 2.04 AA! DD6! E MW15-Q2 16/11/2020C A Total CR R 3.75 2.47 2.76 H ! T U A S CRIII <0.01R PFHxS & PFOS 0.92 1.67 C K 2.33 H R CRV I <0.01 MW02-Q2 PFOAA <0.01 <0.01 0.01 ST R ! B P Total CR <0.001 E A DW2A! O E ! DW6 DD3 W T A E PFHxS & PFOS 1.77 DD10 A!A!A!! R AADD2 S PFOA 0.03 EXMB1 TR EXMB2 E E W Land & Water Consulting MW12-Q2 T IN Email: [email protected] D Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au A! S O R A Date: November 2020 V E T N MW12-Q2 10/01/2020 16/04/2020 18/11/2020E U Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 E E ¯ R CRIII 0.08 <0.10 <0.01T S Project: CRVI 0.46 0.2 0.24 IS T Total CR 0.538 0.271R 0.228 U EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 PFHxS & PFOS 0.28 0.16 C 0.1 Environmental Assessment - November 2020 PFOA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 P Site Address: O MW02-Q2 6/06/2019 8/01/2020 16/04/2020 18/11/2020 R T Depth (m) 15 24 22 22 22 R MW10-Q2 O O S Woodville, South Australia MW11-Q2 A A! B CRIII 3.26 2 <1.00 0.41 <0.01 D O ! E R A U N Figure Title: CRVI 2.61 2.98 14.5 4.79 5.22 N E C E A E V Total CR 5.87 4.98 10.9 5.2D 4.53 V E Summary of Speciated Chromium Concentrations A A N R A U PFHxS & PFOS - - T A - and Selected PFAS Concentrations - Q2 and Q3 0.04 0.05 V D E E E E N E N U E Aquifer PFOA - - <0.01 <0.01 - U D U P R E N W L O T MW11-Q2E 9/01/2020 17/04/2020A MW10-Q2 R 28/01/2020 16/04/2020 S V R T A D OO R S CRIII <0.01 <0.01 S K CRIII <0.01 <0.01 L T O U A R A CRVIV <0.01 <0.01 E CRVI D <0.01 Figure in Set Figure G E 0.003 7 7b of 11 N O T A Total CR 0.002 0.007 Total CR 0.002 0.009 Scale: See Plan PFHxS & PFOS <0.01 <0.01 PFHxS & PFOS 0.03 <0.01 77b Drawing Reference Revision PFOA <0.01 <0.01 PFOA <0.01 <0.01 A A S Legend MW05-Ql TA V1Wl4-Ql TI A ON B T E E W Site Boundary R E A FE R LK L T D S -+-+ Y Railway A A V D E N ! N I A Watertable Aquifer Unit (Q1) U R E A Y BE 10:2 FTS L 1111 M S O TA RE N PFOS D HA LE 1111 A T Y E R S O RRAC V T R E R 4:2 FTS Y E 1111 E ST ET L E R B IL E O K E PFHxA W V EM T 1111 E D R O P PFBS S S T T 1111 R WO R T E EE E E T T E PFPeA N R 1111 O T R S M PFBA A S 1111 N E S H T MW14-Q1 G 8:2 FTS R U E 1111 E A! H T MW13-Q1 PFHpA A! 1111 RUS 6:2 FTS S 1111 E L L PFHxS T 1111 E RRA PFOA C 1111 E T E PFHxS, PFOS and PFOA concentrations E R T presented as µg/L MW09-Q1 S P K O A! R R T A R P O A T D E E R T S S I S M OM E P H S G U Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated O H N October 2020 MW08-Q1 S T A! MW01-Q1 0 20 40 80 120 160 R MW07-Q1 Meters E MW 5-Ql A! N E O 003 O_Co2 T R M A N MW05-Q1 S ! TR AMW06-Q1 E MW15-Q1 E A! A! T MWD T C E H MW04-Q1 A! WB7 E U R R ()Lwc C A! A! T l.Brd & Wator Coosult.-g H S S MW03-Q1 MW01-Q1 K TR B R Land & Water Consulting E ! ! ! O A Email: [email protected] E A AMW02-Q1 A W P Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au T E R ST Date: December 2020 0_14 R MW12-Q1 EE A! T Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 ¯ T Project: E E W R IN T D S S EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 O IS R Environmental Assessment - November 2020 MW12-Ql T A V R E U N C U 1102 E Site Address: MW04-Ql MWll-Ql P MW10-Q1 O Woodville, South Australia E R A! MW11-Q1 U T T N R O E ! E O S Figure Title: E A A B V D O R C A R T E E N S D U A E D S A N E A R D N V U E A W U E Proportion of PFAS Concentrations - Q1 Aquifer G V V A N E A R L U N N D E A U L E A S OO Q_28 V TR K O E K E O T O LU Figure in Set 8a of 12 Figure N D A Scale: See Plan L Q_l A a N 8 E om Drawing Reference Revision A A S Legend MW07-Q2 TA TI MWDS-02 A ON B T E E W Site Boundary R E A FE R LK L T D S -+-+ Y Railway A A V D E N ! N I A Watertable Aquifer Unit (Q1) U R E A Y BE 10:2 FTS L 1111 M STA O RE N PFOS D HA LE 1111 A T Y E R S O RRAC VE T 4:2 FTS R Y RE 1111 E S E L TR T B IL E E O K E PFHxA W V EM T 1111 E D R O P PFBS S S T T 1111 R WO R T E EE E E T T E PFPeA N R 1111 O T R S M PFBA A S DWS 1111 N E S H T G 8:2 FTS R MW14-Q2 U 0.00 E 1111 E ! H T MW13-Q2 A PFHpA A! 1111 RUS 6:2 FTS S 1111 E L L PFHxS T 1111 E RRA PFOA C 1111 E T E PFHxS, PFOS and PFOA concentrations E R T presented as µg/L 1.12 S P K O R R T A R P O A T D E E R DW6 T S S S I E M H P G S U Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated O H N October 2020 MW08-Q2 S T A! T 0 20 40 80 120 160 R MW07-Q2 E Meters E E A! R N E T O T R S M S A E N N S O TR J E MW15-Q2 E A! T T C DD1 DW5 E H ! E U A A! R ()Lwc R C T Lard & Wator Coosult.-g H S S MW02-Q2 K TR B R Land & Water Consulting E ! DW2 O A Email: [email protected] E A W P Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au T ! DW6 E A ! R ADD2 S Date: December 2020 TR MW12-Q2 EE A! T Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 ¯ T Project: MW12-Q2 E E W R IN T D S EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 S O S R Environmental Assessment - November 2020 I A T V R E U N U C E Site Address: P MW10-Q2 O Woodville, South Australia MW11-Q2 E R ! U T A T ! R O E A N S E O B Figure Title: E V A R D O C E A R T E N S D U A E N D S A E A R E D N V U A V W U E Proportion of PFAS Concentrations - Q2 Aquifer G V A N E A R L U N N L D E A U E A S OO V TR K O E K E O T O LU Figure in Set 8b of 12 Figure N D A Scale: See Plan LA N 8b IJ.G3 E 1.47 Drawing Reference Revision A A MW14-Q1 Trivalent Chromium Legend Assessment Area Boundary <0.01 to 4 mg/L 4 to 8 mg/L Groundwater Monitoring Wells Targeting the Following Aquifer Unit: 8 to 12 mg/L ! Watertable Aquifer Unit (Q1) 12 to 16 mg/L A 16 to 20 mg/L EPA Registered Site/ Sites of Interest MW13-Q1 20 to 24 mg/L ADWG (2011, as updated 2018) 24 to 28 mg/L Criterion for Hexavalent Chromium 28 to 32 mg/L of 0.05 mg/L 32 to 36 mg/L ◄ Interpreted Groundwater Flow Direction MW09-Q1 WB7 MW08-Q1 MW10-Q1 MW01-Q1 MWD ? ? B _,. ...,..., I Sl:honPaf!I MW07-Q1 MW04-Q1 .... Dud"'°Ptrl I D MW06-Q1 MW03-Q1 .,, <0.01 mg/L MW05-Q1 MW02-Q1 Wilktir,.fle 1:1 mi Q ;Jl:ltluM ~JalhC Cfi'f" j ALllinby i:-.• Ga~, Ill HA'ffll"r.nrshtl e MW11-Q1 ft.\dillHP.1k ' MW12-Q1 :, ' DD _.,.., -· qAdt>la~l.oo MW15-Q1 Ill CJ MW14-Q1 Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated April 2020 Hexavalent Chromium 0 30 60 120 180 240 Meters <0.01 to 4 mg/L 4 to 8 mg/L 8 to 12 mg/L 12 to 16 mg/L MW13-Q1 16 to 20 mg/L ()Lwc 20 to 24 mg/L l..Bnd & Watex Gc:.-iwttng Land & Water Consulting 24 to 28 mg/L Email: [email protected] Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au 28 to 32 mg/L Date: December 2020 32 to 36 mg/L <0.01 mg/L Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 ¯ Project: MW09-Q1 EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 2 Environmental Assessment - November 2020 WB7 MW08-Q1 MW10-Q1 MW01-Q1 20 mg/L Woodville, South Australia MW07-Q1 MW05-Q1 MW04-Q1 16 mg/L MW06-Q1 MW03-Q1 ? MW02-Q1 Figure Title: 12 mg/L ? Interpreted Speciated Chromium Concentrations 8 mg/L for Q1 Aquifer - November 2020 ? MW11-Q1 MW12-Q1 4 mg/L MW15-Q1 Figure in Set 9 of 12 Figure 0.05 mg/L Scale: See Plan 9 Drawing Reference Revision A A MW14-Q1 Legend Q1 Aquifer Assessment Area Boundary (Stage 2) <0.01 to 4 mg/L EPA Registered Site/ Sites of Interest 4 to 8 mg/L 8 to 12 mg/L Groundwater Monitoring Wells Targeting the Following Aquifer Units: 12 to 16 mg/L MW13-Q1 16 to 20 mg/L A! Watertable Aquifer Unit (Q1) 20 to 24 mg/L A! Quarternary Aquifer System (Q2) 24 to 28 mg/L ADWG (2011, as updated 2018) 28 to 32 mg/L Criterion for Hexavalent Chromium of 0.05 mg/L 32 to 36 mg/L Interpreted Groundwater Flow Direction <0.01 mg/L ◄ MW09-Q1 Note: Contours for the Q2 aquifer were interpreted utilising data from recently installed Q2 wells WB7 (LWC, 2018 to 2020) and historical wells installed MW08-Q1 MW10-Q1 to around 24 m BGL (i.e. historical wells installed MW01-Q1 to around 15 m BGL were excluded). MWD 24 mg/L 20 mg/L MW07-Q1 MW05-Q1 MW04-Q1 16 mg/L MW06-Q1 MW03-Q1 ? MW02-Q1 12 mg/L Im El sampiic,nu ? QMBl;,,d1Aqu1tc-),a 8 mg/L ·---~1:HtnMn~ aCI HOl't"I ? ,_\ ...... 0 \ AM11tidt Cl MW11-Q1 MW12-Q1 4)MN•M'Zf' 4 mg/L ' -·.., _.... T~;art(lll MW15-Q1 1xJdr,1 0.05 mg/L m MW14-Q2 Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated April 2020 Q2 Aquifer !A <0.01 to 4 mg/L 0.05 mg/L ? 4 to 8 mg/L ? ? 8 to 12 mg/L 12 to 16 mg/L MW13-Q2 ? 16 to 20 mg/L ! ()Lwc A l..Bnd & Watex Gc:.-iwttng 20 to 24 mg/L ? Land & Water Consulting Email: [email protected] 24 to 28 mg/L Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au 28 to 32 mg/L ? Date: December 2020 32 to 36 mg/L Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 ¯ 36 to 40 mg/L Project: ? DW5 EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 2 Environmental Assessment - November 2020 MW08-Q2 !A MW10-Q2 DW6 !A DW2 !A DD1 !A ! 32A mg/L Site Address: !A 28 mg/L MW02-Q2 24 mg/L ? MW07-Q2 Woodville, South Australia !A !A 20 mg/L ? 16 mg/L Figure Title: 12 mg/L ? 8 mg/L ? Interpreted Hexavalent Chromium Concentration (mg/L) Contours for the Q1 and Q2 4 mg/L MW11-Q2 Units November 2020 MW12-Q2 ! MW15-Q2 A !A !A <0.01 mg/L Figure in Set 10 of 12 Figure Scale: See Plan 10 Drawing Reference Revision A A Legend Cross Section Transect (A-A') Groundwater Monitoring Well Well Screen Interval ? ? ? Unknown Well Screen Interval Approximate Depth to Water Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction .___ (April 2020) 32.2 Total Chromium Concentration (mg/L) Interpreted Extent of Total Chromium ■ Plume in April 2020 725-727Port Road MW01-Q1 DD2 DW6 767-769Port Road MW10-Q2 739-753Port Road MW07-Q1 MW06-Q1 MW03-Q1 MW02-Q2 MW02-Q1 759Port Road Western Site Boundary MW10-Q1 739-753Port Road MW04-Q1 761-763Port Road EasternSite Boundary MW07-Q2 A' Ground A Level 2 Approximate A 4 Depth to Water 6 Total Cr Total Cr Total Cr Total Cr 8 4.49 mg/L 4.62 mg/L 24.9 mg/L 0.005 mg/L Watertable A' Total Cr Total Cr 10 0.006 mg/L Total Cr Q1 Aquifer 9.36 mg/L 4.18 mg/L 12 ? Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated Total Cr 14 ? Clay October 2020 ? 2.76 mg/L Note: Concentrations Reported at each Monitoring 16 Well are the Latest Results Reported for that Well Depth Below Ground Level(m) 0 85 170 340 510 680 18 Meters Total Cr Total Cr 0.008 mg/L Total Cr 20 0.009 mg/L 4.53 mg/L Q2 Aquifer 22 ? ? Total Cr 24 ? 37.7 mg/L ? ()Lwc Land & WatEJrGors.Jlting 26 Land & Water Consulting Email: [email protected] Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au 28 Date: December 2020 Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 30 ¯ Confining Layer Project: 32 (Thickness Unknown) EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 Environmental Assessment - November 2020 Site Address: Woodville, South Australia Figure Title: Geological Cross Section and Interpreted Extent of Total Chromium Plume - November 2020 Figure in Set 11 of 12 Figure Scale: See Plan 11 Drawing Reference Revision A A MW14-Q1 Legend Q1 Aquifer Assessment Area Boundary (Stage 2) <0.01 to 3 µg/L EPA Registered Site/ Sites of Interest 3 to 6 µg/L 0.07 µg/L 6 to 9 µg/L Groundwater Monitoring Wells Targeting the Following Aquifer Units: 9 to 12 µg/L 12 to 15 µg/L MW13-Q1 A! Watertable Aquifer Unit (Q1) 15 to 18 µg/L A! Quarternary Aquifer System (Q2) PFAS NEMP (2020) Criterion for Sum of PFHxS and PFOS of 0.07 µg/L Note: Contours for the Q2 aquifer were interpreted utilising data from recently installed Q2 wells MW09-Q1 (LWC, 2018 to 2020) and historical wells installed to around 24 m BGL (i.e. historical wells installed to around 15 m BGL were excluded). WB7 MW08-Q1 MW10-Q1 MW01-Q1 MWD rm 0 -- MW07-Q1 MW04-Q1 l MW06-Q1 MW03-Q1 (;;J Cl'(J)ldo,,Park. MW05-Q1 MW02-Q1 Ill w"1Cl0)"1k111 i ...~,., i ml ~ ...... i;a ,_ MW11-Q1 " H,ndm:i,,c~~ ~ 1"-ldal'I--~ r,~.i,... \ Mel. df- MW12-Q1 i MW15-Q1 -· l<(Ml..1 Note: Basemap sourced from Nearmap dated MW14-Q2 April 2020 Q2 Aquifer 0 30 60 120 180 240 Meters <0.01 to 1 µg/L 1 to 2 µg/L 0.07 µg/L 2 to 3 µg/L 3 to 4 µg/L MW13-Q2 0Lwc >4 µg/L l..Bnd & Watex Go--.wttng Land & Water Consulting Email: [email protected] Web: www.lwconsulting.com.au Date: December 2020 Projection: GDA 1994, Zone 54 ¯ Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 2 DW5 Environmental Assessment - November 2020 MW08-Q2 MW10-Q2 DW6 DW2 DD1 DD2 Site Address: MW07-Q2 MW02-Q2 Woodville, South Australia Port Road 0.07 µg/L 1 µg/L Figure Title: 778-782 Port Road Interpreted Sum of PFHxS and PFOS Concentration (µg/L) Contours for the MW11-Q2 Q1 and Q2 Units November 2020 MW12-Q2 MW15-Q2 <0.01 µg/L Figure in Set 12 of 12 Figure Scale: See Plan 12 Drawing Reference Revision A A TABLES EPA | January 2021 EPA Assessment Area – Port Road, Woodville, South Australia Land & Water Consulting WC Table 1. Summary of New and Existing Operational Monitoring Wells, EPA Assessment Area - Port Road, Woodville Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 Client: Environment Protection Authority Job Number: GI-05 Reduced Level Reduced Level Well Depth Well Depth (mPVC) 28 May 2019 16 June 2019 7 January 2020 17 April 2020 16 November 2020 Monitoring Eastings^ Northings^ Screen Interval Location Description Consultant Top of PVC Top of Gatic Lid (mPVC) Drilling Measured During Wells (MGA) (MGA) (m BGL) Depth to Water (m Water Level Depth to Water (m Water Level Depth to Water (m Water Level Depth to Water (m Water Level Depth to Water (m Water Level (mAHD) (mAHD) Depth Sampling Comments Comments Comments Comments PVC) (mAHD) PVC) (mAHD) PVC) (mAHD) PVC) (mAHD) PVC) (mAHD) Watertable Aquifer Unit (denoted as Q1) MW01-Q1 Hughes Street, Adjacent Source Site LWC 275041.35 6137252.93 8.182 8.301 8.5 8.375 4 to 8.5 5.819 2.363 5.740 2.442 - 5.556 2.626 - 5.736 2.446 - 5.317 2.865 MW02-Q1 Port Road Median Strip, Nested Wells LWC 274942.80 6137253.50 8.214 8.328 9.0 8.815 3 to 9.0 5.905 2.309 5.844 2.37 - 5.638 2.576 - 5.821 2.393 - 5.398 2.816 MW03-Q1 Port Road Median Strip LWC 274921.97 6137253.42 8.207 8.312 8.7 8.614 4.2 to 8.7 5.905 2.302 5.835 2.372 - 5.627 2.580 - 5.820 2.387 - 5.396 2.811 MW04-Q1 Port Road Median Strip LWC 274913.01 6137275.70 7.921 8.104 8.5 7.527 4.5 to 8.5 5.635 2.286 - - Not accessible 5.352 2.569 - 5.538 2.383 - 5.114 2.807 Sheen on water under gatic MW05-Q1 Port Road Median Strip LWC 274858.31 6137318.96 7.924 8.018 8.5 7.780 4 to 8.5 5.667 2.257 5.607 2.317 - 5.380 2.544 5.583 2.341 - at surface when opened 5.154 2.770 MW06-Q1 Port Road Median Strip LWC 274849.64 6137305.70 7.733 7.824 9.1 9.041 3 to 9.0 5.467 2.266 5.406 2.327 - 5.182 2.551 - 5.384 2.349 - 4.949 2.784 MW07-Q1 Port Road Median Strip, Nested Wells LWC 274823.52 6137352.71 7.588 7.686 9.1 9.056 3.1 to 9.1 5.352 2.236 5.305 2.283 - 5.057 2.531 - 5.256 2.332 - 4.816 2.772 MW08-Q1 Jones Street, Nested Wells LWC 274928.44 6137364.42 7.520 7.615 9.0 9.021 3 to 9.0 5.268 2.252 5.21 2.310 - 4.998 2.522 - 5.184 2.336 - 4.754 2.766 MW09-Q1 Bower Street LWC 274896.91 6137460.80 7.41 7.535 8.5 8.255 4 to 8.5 5.220 2.190 5.152 2.258 - 4.936 2.474 - 5.124 2.286 - 4.685 2.725 MW10-Q1 Park Street LWC 275237.77 6137115.92 8.394 8.475 10.5 - 4.5 to 10.5 - - - - - 5.646 2.748 Installed December 2019 5.811 2.583 - 5.438 2.956 MW11-Q1 Oval Avenue LWC 274975.54 6137090.43 8.149 8.175 7.5 - 3.5 to 7.5 - - - - - 5.492 2.657 Installed December 2019 5.687 2.462 - 5.262 2.887 MW12-Q1 Curtis Street LWC 274824.21 6137213.68 7.332 7.451 8 - 3.5 to 8.0 - - - - - 4.778 2.554 Installed December 2019 4.969 2.363 - 4.547 2.785 MW13-Q1 Norman Street LWC 275002.63 6137557.54 7.646 7.742 10 - 3.5 to 9.5 ------4.928 2.718 Installed October 2020 MW14-Q1 Russell Terrace LWC 275221.93 6137571.28 8.343 8.400 10 - 4.0 to 10.0 ------5.554 2.789 Installed October 2020 MW15-Q1 Church Street LWC 274700.63 6137302.25 7.535 7.603 9 - 4.0 to 9.0 ------4.859 2.676 Installed October 2020 MWD~ 759 Port Road Egis Consulting 274977.92 6137285.28 7.996 8.063 - 7.03 unknown 5.695 2.301 5.620 2.376 - 5.415 2.581 - 5.605 2.391 - 5.212 2.784 Collapsed, total depth was Collapsed, total depth was MWG Hughes Street South side near Source Site Egis Consulting 275038.48 6137221.99 8.305 - - 3.045 unknown DRY - DRY - --As per previous --As per previous 8 mPVC --8 mPVC No gatic cover. Well cap WB7 Hughes Street (west opposite Source Site but further north) Golder* 275058.51 6137275.55 8.126 - - 8.012 unknown 5.792 2.334 5.738 2.388 - 5.539 2.587 - 5.710 2.416 present only. 5.305 2.821 Quarternary Aquifer System (interpreted as Q2) MW02-Q2 Port Road Median Strip, Nested Wells LWC 274943.38 6137254.26 8.243 8.325 33.8 32.06 12.8 to 30.8 5.935** 2.308 5.89 2.353 - 5.665 2.578 - 5.852 2.391 - 5.432 2.811 MW07-Q2 Port Road Median Strip, Nested Wells LWC 274824.80 6137351.54 7.604 7.680 26.0 24.73 12 to 26 6.882** 0.722 5.315 2.289 - 5.068 2.536 - 5.284 2.320 - 4.844 2.760 MW08-Q2 Jones Street, Nested Wells LWC 274929.29 6137365.41 7.504 7.611 26 24.16 12 to 26 5.297** 2.207 5.188 2.316 - 4.979 2.525 - 5.170 2.334 - 4.731 2.773 Installed January 2020 MW10-Q2*** Park Street South LWC 275236.84 6137114.90 8.394 8.472 25 - 16 to 25 - - - - - 5.674 2.720 Water level recorded 5.813 2.581 - 29/1/2020 5.439 2.955 MW11-Q2 Oval Avenue LWC 274976.67 6137091.81 8.145 8.271 23 - 9 to 23 - - - - - 5.491 2.654 Installed December 2019 5.670 2.475 - 5.260 2.885 MW12-Q2 Curtis Street LWC 274822.36 6137213.17 7.276 7.462 22 - 10 to 22 - - - - - 4.703 2.573 Installed December 2019 4.895 2.381 - 4.479 2.797 MW13-Q2 Norman Street LWC 275004.68 6137555.73 7.682 7.784 20 - 13 to 19 ------4.953 2.729 Installed October 2020 MW14-Q2 Russell Terrace LWC 275224.11 6137569.27 8.389 8.424 25 - 13 to 23.5 ------5.604 2.785 Installed October 2020 MW15-Q2 Church Street LWC 274699.45 6137303.03 7.564 7.597 22 - 14 to 20 ------4.891 2.673 Installed October 2020 DD1~ 759 Port Road Egis Consulting 274975.50 6137282.70 8.028 8.106 - 24.58 unknown 5.706 2.322 5.644 2.384 - 5.437 2.591 - 5.625 2.403 - 5.202 2.826 DD2 Source Site (near entrance) Egis Consulting 275061.47 6137241.01 8.250 - - 25.508 unknown 5.878 2.372 5.804 2.446 - 5.656 2.594 - 5.815 2.435 - 5.396 2.854 Gatic Cover Broken DW2 Hughes Street (west opposite Source Site) Egis Consulting 275036.03 6137246.04 8.212 - - 14.946 unknown 5.878 2.334 5.810 2.402 - 5.620 2.592 - 5.797 2.415 - 5.387 2.825 DW5 Hughes Street (west opposite Source Site but further north) Egis Consulting 275063.19 6137281.53 8.161 - - 15.0 unknown 5.825 2.336 5.753 2.408 - 5.570 2.591 - 5.747 2.414 - 5.338 2.823 DW6 Source Site (near entrance) Egis Consulting 275062.42 6137240.10 8.220 - - 15.0 unknown 5.862 2.358 5.781 2.439 - 5.606 2.614 - 5.783 2.437 - 5.377 2.843 Quarternary Aquifer System (interpreted as Q3) No gatic cover. Well cap DD3 Source Site (near entrance) Egis Consulting 275060.36 6137241.80 8.236 - - 36.005 unknown 5.89 2.346 5.782 2.454 5.624 2.612 As per previous 5.805 2.431 As per previous present only. 5.389 2.847 No Gatic Cover Well decommissioned, Well decommissioned, previous depth was previous depth was DD4 Source Site (near entrance) Egis Consulting 275059.27 6137242.83 8.216 - - 3.395 unknown 2.273 - 2.284 - approximately 57 m. Water ------approximately 57 m. Water considered to be from considered to be from surface. - surface. DD6 Hughes Street (west opposite Source Site but further north) Egis Consulting 275057.16 6137274.20 8.182 - - 40.986 unknown 7.124 1.058 5.719 2.463 - 6.273 1.909 - 6.333 1.849 - 5.336 2.846 DD7 759 Port Road Egis Consulting 274976.60 6137283.80 8.106 - - 40.26 unknown 5.560 2.546 5.485 2.621 - 5.670 2.436 - 6.261 1.845 - 5.113 2.993 DD10 Hughes Street (west, opposite Source Site) Egis Consulting 275040.51 6137252.09 8.193 - - 57 unknown 6.292 1.901 6.190 2.003 - -- - 6.170 2.023 - 5.434 2.759 Notes: With the exception of those listed below, no further existing monitoring wells within the historical monitoring well network were able to be located. A review of Water Connect suggests that wells along Port Road were decommissioned with appropriate permits. * Inferred from Auditor Review of CUTEP Submission for 749 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia (Coffey, 2006) ^ Coordinates from existing wells were sourced from spatial software (ArcMap) based on field observations ** Gauging undertaken prior to well development *** Gauged on 28 January 2020 due to well being installed at a later time. At this time MW10-Q1 was also gauged with a water level of 5.677mPVC/ 5.784mTOC (corresponds to 2.717mAHD corrected) observed. ~ Reference elevations (mAHD) were amended based on a survey conducted in May 2020. The previous recorded elevations for the top of PVC were MWD: 8.093 m AHD and DD1: 8.102 m AHD Page 1 of 1 Land & Water Consulting WC Table 2. Summary of Groundwater Field Parameters, EPA Assessment Area - Port Road, Woodville Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville South Stage 3 Client: Environment Protection Authority Job Number: GI-05 Electrical Conductivity Total Dissolved Dissolved Monitoring Wells Location DescriptionDate pH Redox (mV) Temperature (°C) Sampling Observations (µS/cm) Solids (mg/L) Oxygen (ppm) Watertable MW01-Q1Hughes Street, Adjacent Source Site May-19 6.72 1944 1264 212.3 21.5 2.86 Yellow/brown, moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen, becomes yellow/green Jan-20 7.20 2909 1891 128.8 23.5 4.07 Yellow, moderate to high turbidity, no odour, no sheen Apr-20 6.83 1900 1235 215.5 22.9 2.49 Light brown, low turbidity, no odours or sheen Nov-20 7.01 1975 1283 111.7 20.6 4.39 Yellow, very low turbidity, no odour or sheen MW02-Q1 Port Road Median Strip, Nested Wells May-19 6.80 3280 2132 213.2 21.5 1.74 Cream/brown, high turbidity, no odours or sheen Jan-20 6.96 3551 2308 109.0 25.7 8.90 Yellow/light brown, moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 6.89 3382 2198 185.3 22.3 0.42 Light brown, low turbidity, no odours or sheen Nov-20 7.01 3698 2404 83.0 23.3 1.92 Clear to brown, low turbitity, no odour or sheen MW03-Q1 Port Road Median Strip May-19 6.88 3134 2037 211.1 19.2 1.10 Cloudy brown, moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen Jan-20 6.95 3685 2395 110.0 25.6 3.03 Yellow/light brown, moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 6.93 3293 2140 209.9 22.0 0.92 Green/ grey, low to moderate turbidity, no odours or sheen MW04-Q1 Port Road Median Strip May-19 6.95 2173 1412 212.0 19.9 3.49 Cream, high turbidity, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.08 3452 2244 109.7 25.0 1.58 Yellow, moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 6.92 2594 1686 156.8 21.5 2.43 Light brown, low to moderate turbidity, no odours or sheen MW05-Q1 Port Road Median Strip May-19 6.84 4740 3081 211.8 20.7 0.64 Cream, high turbidity, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.65 5066 3293 143.4 22.7 8.47 Clear to light brown, moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 6.86 3462 2250 174.0 21.5 0.42 Light brown to clear, low turbidity, no odours or sheen MW06-Q1 Port Road Median Strip May-19 6.94 3472 2257 210.6 20.1 0.43 Cloudy, brown, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.58 2258 1468 147.3 20.6 13.09 Brown, medium turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 6.94 3448 2241 171.2 20.8 0.26 Pale yellow, low to moderate turbidity, no odours or sheen Nov-20 7.01 4250 2763 90.6 22.6 0.48 Clear to brown, low turbidity, no odour or sheen MW07-Q1 Port Road Median Strip, Nested Wells May-19 6.98 2986 1941 211.8 20.3 0.12 Cream, high turbidity, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.36 1609 1046 90.8 22.5 0.74 Clear, no turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 7.14 1329 864 120.1 21.3 0.36 Clear, no turbidity, no odour or sheen MW08-Q1 Jones Street, Nested Wells May-19 6.77 5100 3315 210.9 22.4 2.72 Cream, high turbidity, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.16 5150 3348 138.6 24.7 1.02 Yellow/light brown, no odour or sheen Apr-20 6.82 4914 3194 202.9 22.7 0;.53 Brown to clear, low turbidity, no odours or sheen Nov-20 6.99 5135 3338 108.2 22.5 1.08 Brown, low turbidity, no odour or sheen MW09-Q1 Bower Street May-19 6.86 3570 2321 209.7 21.6 0.64 Cream, high turbidity, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.06 3898 2534 112.4 26.7 3.15 Clear, brown, medium turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 6.97 3461 2250 218.7 22.8 0.42 Brown to clear, low turbidity, no odours or sheen MW10-Q1 Park Street May-19 ------Jan-20 7.48 2873 1867 85.9 24.4 0.99 Clear to light brown, low to moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 7.06 2664 1732 191.2 21.5 6.81 Light brown, low turbidity, no odours or sheen MW11-Q1 Oval Avenue May-19 ------Jan-20 7.61 2142 1392 73.0 22.1 1.88 Clear to light brown, low to moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 7.20 1922 1249 194.0 22.6 0.62 Clear, no turbidity, no odour or sheen MW12-Q1 Curtis Street May-19 ------Jan-20 8.46 1971 1281 59.5 23.4 1.18 Light brown, low to moderate turbidity, no sheen, possible hydrocarbon odour, slight H2S o Apr-20 7.39 1987 1292 167.7 23.3 0.14 Light brown to clear, low turbidity, no odours or sheen Nov-20 7.52 2029 1319 75.0 23.4 0.91 Clear, moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen MW13-Q1 Norman Street on Road Nov-20 7.07 3980 2587 40.2 23.3 0.97 Clear to brown, low to moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen MW14-Q1 Russell Terrace on Road Nov-20 7.23 3816 2480 143.5 20.9 0.27 Clear to brown, low turbidity, no odour or sheen MW15-Q1 Church Street on Road Nov-20 7.29 2136 1389 -6.3 32.2 0.49 Brown, low turbidity, no odour or sheen MWD 759 Port Road May-19 7.08 2671 1736 210.3 20.0 8.75 Cloudy brown, medium turbidity, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.67 2079 1351 34.3 22.2 6.29 Dark brown, moderate to high turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 7.17 2761 1795 263.5 23.7 6.77 Light brown, low turbidity, no odours or sheen WB7 Hughes Street (west opposite Source Site but further north) May-19 6.95 2647 1721 210.1 21.0 1.17 Clear, slightly brown, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.37 3044 1979 92.1 22.8 0.94 Clear, low to moderate turbidity, no odours or sheen Apr-20 7.05 2446 1590 167.4 21.2 0.27 Brown, low turbidity, no odours or sheen Quaternary Aquifer System (interpreted as Q2) MW02-Q2 Port Road Median Strip, Nested Wells May-19 7.03 3026 1967 121.4 21.0 0.68 Pump placed at 13 mbgl, slightly yellow, no turbidity, no odour or sheen May-19 7.63 3012 1958 22.8 20.8 9.01 Pump placed at 24 mbgl, brown, high turbidity, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.09 3604 2343 108.4 25.2 0.71 Light brown, moderate to high turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 7.01 3405 2213 176.8 21.7 0.15 Light brown/ green, low turbidity, no odours or sheen Nov-20 7.10 3636 2363 79.4 22.6 3.59 Brown/clear, very low turbidity, no odour or sheen MW07-Q2 Port Road Median Strip, Nested Wells May-19 7.14 3071 1996 95.5 20.7 0.79 Pump placed at 13 mbgl, brown, moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen May-19 7.13 3069 1995 80.9 20.7 1.44 Pump placed at 21.5 mbgl, brown, high turbidity, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.27 3404 2213 87.2 25.4 3.46 Red/brown, moderate to high turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 7.05 2351 1528 153.6 22.0 7.74 Light brown, low turbidity, no odours or sheen MW08-Q2 Jones Street, Nested Wells May-19 6.84 4925 3201 135.9 20.8 0.16 Pump placed at 13 mbgl, brown, moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen May-19 6.83 5068 3294 126.4 21.3 0.27 Pump placed at 24 mbgl, brown, high turbidity, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.03 5333 3466 180.9 23.6 3.06 Brown, moderate to high turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 6.69 5292 3440 207.2 21.7 0.64 Light brown, low turbidity, no odours or sheen Nov-20 6.89 5614 3649 82.8 23.0 7.77 Brown, low to moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen MW10-Q2 Park Street May-19 ------Jan-20 8.70 2380 1547 127.6 24.5 0.51 Light brown, low to moderate turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 7.41 3046 1980 187.7 21.4 0.44 Brown to clear, low turbidity, no odours or sheen MW11-Q2 Oval Avenue May-19 ------Jan-20 7.52 3108 2020 81.3 26.5 0.46 Light brown, low to medium turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 7.03 2736 1778 201.3 21.7 0.50 Light brown, low turbidity, no odours or sheen MW12-Q2 Curtis Street May-19 ------Jan-20 7.25 4588 2982 42.1 22.4 0.67 Cream/yellow, medium turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 6.85 4068 2644 183.9 22.1 0.21 Light brown/ clear, low turbidity, no odours or sheen Nov-20 6.99 4928 3203 24.4 26.0 3.22 Clear to brown, low turbidity, no odour or sheen MW13-Q2 Norman Street on Road Nov-20 6.95 4358 2833 38.0 23.3 0.22 Clear, very low turbidity, sewage odour MW14-Q2 Russell Terrace on Road Nov-20 7.06 3586 2331 -93.1 21.2 0.25 Clear, no turbidity, sulfur odour, no sheen MW15-Q2 Church Street on Road Nov-20 6.97 3927 2552 -152.4 23.2 0.09 Clear to brown, very low turbidity, sulfur odour, no sheen DD1 759 Port Road May-19 6.94 3052 1984 209.7 20.6 0.33 Clear, slightly green/ yellow, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.37 3344 2174 58.7 21.5 4.30 Yellow/green, low turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 6.98 3126 2032 196.0 21.7 0.36 Green, low turbidity, no odours or sheen DD2 Source Site (near entrance) May-19 6.80 3234 2102 212.4 20.5 2.58 Clear, yellow, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.16 3900 2535 43.7 21.3 0.24 Yellow/green, low turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 6.89 3704 2408 204.5 21.1 0.19 Yellow/ green, low turbidity, no odours or sheen Nov-20 6.99 3701 2406 81.9 22.4 2.48 Yellow/clear, very low turbidity, no odour or sheen DW2 Hughes Street (west opposite Source Site) May-19 6.83 2911 1892 209.0 20.1 1.02 Clear, slight yellow, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.12 4421 2874 139.3 22.9 0.43 Yellow, low turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 7.01 2832 1841 202.3 21.7 1.80 Yellow, low turbidity, no odours or sheen DW5 Hughes Street (west opposite Source Site but further north) May-19 6.83 3191 2074 211.2 20.5 0.71 Clear, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.22 3575 2324 19.5 21.2 0.59 Clear, low turbidity, no odour or sheen Apr-20 6.94 3229 2099 206.5 20.8 0.40 Clear, low turbidity, no odours or sheen DW6 Source Site (near entrance) May-19 6.88 2662 1730 211.5 20.2 0.18 Clear, slight yellow, no odours or sheen Jan-20 7.32 2604 1693 -55.5 21.9 0.20 Clear, low turbidity, H2S odour, no sheen Apr-20 7.04 2138 1390 201.3 20.7 0.28 Slight yellow, low turbidity, no odours or sheen Quaternary Aquifer System (interpreted as Q3) DD3 Source Site (near entrance) May-19 6.71 3293 2140 211.3 19.8 0.80 Clear, no odour or sheen Jan-20 6.91 3575 2324 -127.3 21.2 3.50 Clear, low turbidity, H2S odour, no sheen DD6 Hughes Street (west opposite Source Site but further north) May-19 7.28 1668 1084 202.0 17.3 0.83 Clear, no odour or sheen Jan-20 7.57 2013 1308 -176.4 23.1 2.71 Clear, H2S odour, low turbidity, no sheen DD7 759 Port Road May-19 8.26 1758 1143 205.1 19.7 0.47 Clear, possible organic odour, no sheen Jan-20 8.34 1721 1119 -143.8 20.4 1.02 Clear, low turbidity, H2S odour, no sheen Notes: With the exception of those listed below, no further existing monitoring wells within the historical monitoring well network were able to be located. A review of Water Connect suggests that wells along Port Road were decommissioned with appropriate permits. * Inferred from Auditor Review of CUTEP Submission for 749 Port Road, Woodville, South Australia (Coffey, 2006) Page 1 of 1 Land & Water Consulting WC Table 3a - Summary of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Watertable Q1 Groundwater Analytical Results, EPA Assessment Area - Port Road, Woodville Field ID MW01_Q1 MW01_Q1 DUP03 DUP03A MW01_Q1 MW01-Q1 MW02_Q1 MW02-Q1 MW02-Q1 MW02-Q1 MW03_Q1 MW03-Q1 MW03-Q1 MW04_Q1 MW04-Q1 MW04-Q1 Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 Lab Report EM1908397 EM2000647 EM2000647 696579 EM2006592 EM2020488 EM1908397 ES2000666 EM2006592 EM2020488 EM1908397 ES2000666 EM2006592 EM1908397 ES2000666 EM2006592 Client: Environment Protection Authority Lab Name ALS ALS ALS MGT ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS Job Number: GI-05 Date 29/05/2019 13/01/2020 13/01/2020 13/01/2020 15/04/2020 18/11/2020 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 16/04/2020 18/11/2020 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 17/04/2020 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 15/04/2020 Sample Type Normal Normal Intra-Laboratory Inter-Laboratory Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Location Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Aquifer Q1I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 Drinking Water Recreational ADWG (2011, ADWG (2011, PFAS NEMP 2.0 NHMRC (2008) PFAS NEMP 2.0 ANZG 2018 Analyte Unit ALS LOR MGT LOR updated NHMRC (2008) updated 2020 Table 1 Health (Primary 2020 Table 1 Irrigation LTVs 2018) Aesthetics 2018) Health Health Contact) 1 Health Aesthetic General Electrical Conductivity (Lab) uS/cm 1 2,080-----3,340---3,390--2,390-- Total Dissolved Solids (Lab.) mg/L 10 ------1,870------Total Dissolved Solids (Calc.) mg/L 1 1,350-----2,170--- 2,200 - - 1,550 - - Natural Attenuation Parameters Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.05 <0.05-----<0.05---<0.05--<0.05-- Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.01 9.19 -----10.7 - - - 14.3--8.08- - Methane mg/L 0.01 <0.01-----<0.01---<0.01--<0.01-- Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric (filtered) mg/L 1 133 -----161 ---172 --99 -- Speciated Chromium Chromium (Trivalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 26.9 <1.00 <1.00 <0.005 <0.50 - 4.42 <1.00 0.73 <0.01 1.06 <1.00 0.12 2.28 <1.00 0.48 Chromium (hexavalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 0.05 0.5 0.98 35.7 35.5 32 26 - 1.04 13.9 6.23 5.34 1.07 7.73 4.06 1.2 5.61 4.01 Chromium (III+VI) (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.1 27.9 32.2 32.8 32 24.9 - 5.4610.26.964.622.136.364.183.484.154.49 Metals Arsenic (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 - - <0.001 0.002 - - <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 - Barium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.02 2 20 0.039 0.043 0.043 <0.05 - - 0.103 0.121 - - 0.091 0.119 - 0.123 0.152 - Beryllium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.06 0.6 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 - - <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 - Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.05 0.05 4 40 0.5 0.37 0.35 0.34 <0.5 - - 0.65 0.73 - - 0.7 0.77 - 0.8 1.06 - Cadmium (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0002 0.002 0.02 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.002 - - <0.0001 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 - Cobalt (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 - - <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 - Copper (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 12 1200.2<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 - - <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 0.002 - 0.002 <0.001 - Lead (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 - - <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 - Manganese (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.005 0.1 0.5 0.1 5 0.2 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 - - 0.034 0.012 - - 0.009 0.006 - 0.069 0.002 - Mercury (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.001 - - <0.0001 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 - Nickel (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.2 0.2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 - - <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 0.002 - <0.001 0.001 - Selenium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 0.01 - Vanadium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 - Zinc (filtered) mg/L 0.005 0.005 3 32<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.01 - - <0.005 <0.005 - - <0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 <0.005 - TPH C6-C9 µg/L 20 <20---- -<20---<20--<20-- C10-C14 µg/L 50 <50---- -<50---<50--<50-- C15-C28 µg/L 100 <100 - - - - - <100 - - - <100 - - <100 - - C29-C36 µg/L 50 <50---- -<50---<50--<50-- +C10-C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 <50---- -<50---<50--<50-- C6-C10 mg/L 0.02 <0.02---- - <0.02 - - - <0.02 - - <0.02 - - C10-C16 mg/L 0.1 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- C16-C34 mg/L 0.1 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- C34-C40 mg/L 0.1 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- C10-C40 (Sum of total) µg/L 100 <100 - - - - - <100 - - - <100 - - <100 - - F1 minus BTEX mg/L 0.02 <0.02---- - <0.02 - - - <0.02 - - <0.02 - - F2 minus Naphthalene mg/L 0.1 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- BTEX Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <1---- -<1---<1--<1-- Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <2---- -<2---<2--<2-- Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3 300 3 300 <2---- -<2---<2--<2-- Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <2---- -<2---<2--<2-- Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <2---- -<2---<2--<2-- Xylene Total µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <2---- -<2---<2--<2-- Total BTEX mg/L 0.001 <0.001 - - - - - <0.001 - - - <0.001 - - <0.001 - - Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <5---- -<5---<5--<5-- PAH Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <0.05---- - <0.05 - - - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - MAH 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05---- - <0.05 - - - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05---- - <0.05 - - - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - Styrene µg/L 0.05 430 430 <0.05---- - <0.05 - - - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <0.05---- - <0.05 - - - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <0.5---- -<0.5---<0.5--<0.5-- Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3 300 3 300 <0.05---- - <0.05 - - - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <0.10---- - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <0.05---- - <0.05 - - - <0.05 - - 0.06 -- Xylene Total µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <0.05---- - <0.05 - - - <0.05 - - 0.06 -- Halogenated Benzenes 1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- 1,1-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- 1,1-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 30 30 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 0.1 1* <0.10---- - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - 1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 1 1,500 1 1,500 <0.10---- - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - 1,2-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 3 3 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- 1,2-Dichloroethene (sum cis & trans) µg/L 0.1 60 60 <0.10---- - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- 1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 20 20 <0.10---- - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - 1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 0.3 40 0.3 40 <0.10---- - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - 2-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- 4-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- Benzyl chloride mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 - - - - - <0.0002 - - - <0.0002 - - <0.0002 - - Bromobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.10---- - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - Bromochloromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5---- -<0.5---<0.5--<0.5-- Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.1 60* <0.10---- - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - Bromoform µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10---- - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - Bromomethane µg/L 0.5 1 1 <0.5---- -<0.5---<0.5--<0.5-- Carbon tetrachloride µg/L 0.05 3 3 0.73 ---- - <0.05 - --<0.05- - <0.05 - - Chlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 10 300 10 300 <0.10---- - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - Chlorodibromomethane µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10---- - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - Chloroethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5---- -<0.5---<0.5--<0.5-- Chloroform µg/L 0.1 300* 3.12 ---- - <0.10 - --0.11 - - <0.10 - - cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5---- -<0.5---<0.5--<0.5-- Dichloromethane µg/L 1 4 4 <1.0---- -<1.0---<1.0--<1.0-- Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 0.04 0.7 0.7 <0.04---- - <0.04 - - - <0.04 - - <0.04 - - Tetrachloroethene µg/L 0.05 50 50 0.26 ---- - <0.05 - --<0.05- - <0.05 - - trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1---- -<0.1---<0.1--<0.1-- Trichlorobenzene (total) mg/L 0.0001 0.005 0.03 0.005 0.03 <0.0001 - - - - - <0.0001 - - - <0.0001 - - <0.0001 - - Trichloroethene µg/L 0.05 20* <0.05---- - <0.05 - - - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5---- -<0.5---<0.5--<0.5-- Trihalomethanes mg/L 0.0001 0.25 0.25 0.00312 ---- - <0.00010 - --0.00011 - - <0.00010 - - Vinyl chloride µg/L 0.3 0.3 0.3 <0.3---- -<0.3---<0.3--<0.3-- Solvents MTBE mg/L 0.0001 <0.0001 - - - - - <0.0001 - - - <0.0001 - - <0.0001 - - PFOS/PFOA 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 -<0.1<0.1 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.02 0.01 - 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - 0.14 0.1 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.01 - 5.22 5.27 3.6 4.86 3.16 - 0.02 0.04 --0.03 <0.01 - 0.02 0.02 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.02 - 0.03 0.03 - 0.04 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 Sum of PFAS (WA DER List)2 µg/L 0.01 - 5.32 5.37 - 4.98 3.21 - 0.02 0.04 --0.03 <0.01 - 0.16 0.12 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.07 2 - 5.26 5.31 3.67 4.9 3.18 - 0.02 0.04 --0.03 <0.01 - 0.16 0.12 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.56 10 - 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.04 0.03 - <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 Sum of US EPA PFAS (PFOS + PFOA) µg/L -0.01 ---3.71 ------Sum of enHealth PFAS (PFHxS + PFOS + PFOA) µg/L -0.01 ---3.78 ------Notes 1 A factor of 10 has been applied to the ADWG 2017 Drinking Water - Health criteria to obtain the NHMRC (2008) Recreational Water - Health (Primary Contact) criteria except for volatile compounds * WHO (2017) guideline criteria have been adopted where no ADWG 2017 guideline criteria were available 2 PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFBS,PFHxS, PFOS, 6:2-FTS and 8:2-FTS Page 1 of 4 Land & Water Consulting WC Table 3a - Summary of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Watertable Q1 Groundwater Analytical Results, EPA Assessment Area - Port Road, Woodville Field ID MW05_Q1 MW05-Q1 MW05-Q1 MW06_Q1 MW06-Q1 MW06-Q1 MW06-Q1 MW07_Q1 MW07-Q1 MW07-Q1 MW08-Q1 MW08-Q1 MW08-Q1 MW08-Q1 Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 Lab Report EM1908397 ES2000666 EM2006592 EM1908397 ES2000666 EM2006592 EM2020488 EM1908397 ES2000666 EM2006592 EM1908319-AA ES2000666 EM2006592 EM2020488 Client: Environment Protection Authority Lab Name ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS Job Number: GI-05 Date 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 14/04/2020 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 15/04/2020 18/11/2020 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 14/04/2020 29/05/2019 9/01/2020 16/04/2020 18/11/2020 Sample Type Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Location Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Aquifer Q1I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 Drinking Water Recreational ADWG (2011, ADWG (2011, PFAS NEMP 2.0 NHMRC (2008) PFAS NEMP 2.0 ANZG 2018 Analyte Unit ALS LOR MGT LOR updated NHMRC (2008) updated 2020 Table 1 Health (Primary 2020 Table 1 Irrigation LTVs 2018) Aesthetics 2018) Health Health Contact) 1 Health Aesthetic General Electrical Conductivity (Lab) uS/cm 1 5,040 - - 3,770 - - - 3,170 - - 4,940 - - - Total Dissolved Solids (Lab.) mg/L 10 ------2,190------Total Dissolved Solids (Calc.) mg/L 1 3,280 - - 2,450 - - - 2,060 - - 3,210 - - - Natural Attenuation Parameters Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.01 9.25 - - 15.5 - - - 13.2 - - 37.5 - - - Methane mg/L 0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 - - - <0.01 - - <0.01 - - - Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric (filtered) mg/L 1 346 --181 ---133 --319 --- Speciated Chromium Chromium (Trivalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 2.96 <1.00 0.29 12.6 <1.00 1 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.10 0.12 - Chromium (hexavalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 0.05 0.5 0.01 2.89 1.48 1.09 17 12.3 10.9 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.06 0.39 0.51 - Chromium (III+VI) (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.1 2.97 2.01 1.77 13.7 12.7 13.3 9.36 0.011 0.011 0.006 0.054 0.258 0.632 - Metals Arsenic (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 - 0.001 0.002 - - <0.001 <0.001 - 0.001 0.002 - - Barium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.02 2 20 0.115 0.149 - 0.069 0.087 - - 0.095 0.044 - 0.151 0.161 - - Beryllium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.06 0.6 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 - - Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.05 0.05 4 40 0.5 0.92 0.89 - 0.83 0.9 - - 0.61 0.6 - 0.93 0.82 - - Cadmium (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0002 0.002 0.02 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 - - Cobalt (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.05 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 - - Copper (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 12 1200.2<0.001 0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 <0.001 - 0.002 <0.001 - - Lead (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 2 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 - - Manganese (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.005 0.1 0.5 0.1 5 0.2 0.298 0.262 - 0.027 0.002 - - 0.084 0.006 - 0.019 0.005 - - Mercury (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 - - Nickel (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.2 0.2 <0.001 0.003 - <0.001 0.001 - - <0.001 <0.001 - 0.002 0.006 - - Selenium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 - - Vanadium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.1 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 - - Zinc (filtered) mg/L 0.005 0.005 3 32<0.005 0.006 - <0.005 0.006 - - <0.005 <0.005 - 0.007 <0.005 - - TPH C6-C9 µg/L 20 <20 - - <20 - ‐ -<20- -<20- - - C10-C14 µg/L 50 <50 - - <50 - ‐ -<50- -<50- - - C15-C28 µg/L 100 <100 - - <100 - ‐ - <100 - - <100 - - - C29-C36 µg/L 50 <50 - - <50 - ‐ -<50- -<50- - - +C10-C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 <50 - - <50 - ‐ -<50- -<50- - - C6-C10 mg/L 0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 - ‐ - <0.02 - - <0.02 - - - C10-C16 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - C16-C34 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - C34-C40 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - C10-C40 (Sum of total) µg/L 100 <100 - - <100 - ‐ - <100 - - <100 - - - F1 minus BTEX mg/L 0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 - ‐ - <0.02 - - <0.02 - - - F2 minus Naphthalene mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - BTEX Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <1 - - <1 - ‐ -<1- -<1- - - Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <2 - - <2 - ‐ -<2- -<2- - - Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3 300 3 300 <2 - - <2 - ‐ -<2- -<2- - - Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <2 - - <2 - ‐ -<2- -<2- - - Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <2 - - <2 - ‐ -<2- -<2- - - Xylene Total µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <2 - - <2 - ‐ -<2- -<2- - - Total BTEX mg/L 0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 - ‐ - <0.001 - - <0.001 - - - Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <5 - - <5 - ‐ -<5- -<5- - - PAH Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 - ‐ -<0.05------MAH 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 - ‐ - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 - ‐ - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - Styrene µg/L 0.05 430 430 <0.05 - - <0.05 - ‐ - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <0.05 - - <0.05 - ‐ -<0.05------Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <0.5 - - <0.5 - ‐ -<0.5------Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3 300 3 300 <0.05 - - <0.05 - ‐ -<0.05------Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <0.10 - - <0.10 - ‐ -<0.10------Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 - ‐ -<0.05------Xylene Total µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <0.05 - - <0.05 - ‐ - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - Halogenated Benzenes 1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - 1,1-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - 1,1-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 30 30 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 0.1 1* <0.10 - - <0.10 - ‐ - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - 1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 1 1,500 1 1,500 <0.10 - - <0.10 - ‐ - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - 1,2-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 3 3 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - 1,2-Dichloroethene (sum cis & trans) µg/L 0.1 60 60 <0.10 - - <0.10 - ‐ - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - 1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 20 20 <0.10 - - <0.10 - ‐ - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - 1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 0.3 40 0.3 40 <0.10 - - <0.10 - ‐ - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - 2-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - 4-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - Benzyl chloride mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 - - <0.0002 - ‐ - <0.0002 - - <0.0002 - - - Bromobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.10 - - <0.10 - ‐ - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - Bromochloromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 - ‐ -<0.5- -<0.5- - - Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.1 60* <0.10 - - <0.10 - ‐ - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - Bromoform µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10 - - <0.10 - ‐ - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - Bromomethane µg/L 0.5 1 1 <0.5 - - <0.5 - ‐ -<0.5- -<0.5- - - Carbon tetrachloride µg/L 0.05 3 3 0.44 - - 0.44 - ‐ - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - Chlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 10 300 10 300 <0.10 - - <0.10 - ‐ - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - Chlorodibromomethane µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10 - - <0.10 - ‐ - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - Chloroethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 - ‐ -<0.5- -<0.5- - - Chloroform µg/L 0.1 300* 0.99 - - 0.88 - ‐ - 0.28 - - 0.23 - - - cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 - ‐ -<0.5- -<0.5- - - Dichloromethane µg/L 1 4 4 <1.0 - - <1.0 - ‐ -<1.0- -<1.0- - - Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 0.04 0.7 0.7 <0.04 - - <0.04 - ‐ - <0.04 - - <0.04 - - - Tetrachloroethene µg/L 0.05 50 50 <0.05 - - <0.05 - ‐ - <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - ‐ -<0.1- -<0.1- - - Trichlorobenzene (total) mg/L 0.0001 0.005 0.03 0.005 0.03 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 - ‐ - <0.0001 - - <0.0001 - - - Trichloroethene µg/L 0.05 20* <0.05 - - <0.05 - ‐ - 1.12 --1.1 - - - Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 - ‐ -<0.5- -<0.5- - - Trihalomethanes mg/L 0.0001 0.25 0.25 0.00099 - - 0.00088 - ‐ - 0.00028 - - 0.00023 - - - Vinyl chloride µg/L 0.3 0.3 0.3 <0.3 - - <0.3 - ‐ -<0.3- -<0.3- - - Solvents MTBE mg/L 0.0001 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 - ‐ - <0.0001 - - <0.0001 - - - PFOS/PFOA 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.1 -<0.1<0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.02 0.01 - <0.02 0.03 - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - 0.02 0.03 0.02 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.01 - 0.12 0.21 - 0.02 0.04 --0.03 0.03 - 0.25 0.57 0.32 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Sum of PFAS (WA DER List)2 µg/L 0.01 - 0.12 0.24 - 0.02 0.04 --0.03 0.03 - 0.27 0.6 0.34 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.07 2 - 0.12 0.24 - 0.02 0.04 --0.03 0.03 - 0.27 0.6 0.34 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.56 10 - <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Sum of US EPA PFAS (PFOS + PFOA) µg/L -0.01 ------Sum of enHealth PFAS (PFHxS + PFOS + PFOA) µg/L -0.01 ------Notes 1 A factor of 10 has been applied to the ADWG 2017 Drinking Water - Health criteria to obtain the NHMRC (2008) Recreational Water - Health (Primary Contact) criteria except for volatile compounds * WHO (2017) guideline criteria have been adopted where no ADWG 2017 guideline criteria were available 2 PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFBS,PFHxS, PFOS, 6:2-FTS and 8:2-FTS Page 2 of 4 Land & Water Consulting WC Table 3a - Summary of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Watertable Q1 Groundwater Analytical Results, EPA Assessment Area - Port Road, Woodville Field ID MW09-Q1 MW09-Q1 MW09-Q1 MW10-Q1 MW10-Q1 MW11-Q1 MW11-Q1 MW12-Q1 MW12-Q1 MW12-Q1 MW13-Q1 DUP02 DUP02 MW14-Q1 MW15-Q1 Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 Lab Report EM1908319-AA ES2000666 EM2006592 ES2000666 EM2006592 EM2000647 EM2006592 EM2000647 EM2006592 EM2020488 EM2020488 EM2020488 758386 EM2020488 EM2020488 Client: Environment Protection Authority Lab Name ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS MGT ALS ALS Job Number: GI-05 Date 29/05/2019 8/01/2020 15/04/2020 9/01/2020 16/04/2020 9/01/2020 17/04/2020 9/01/2020 16/04/2020 18/11/2020 17/11/2020 17/11/2020 17/11/2020 16/11/2020 16/11/2020 Sample Type Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Intra-Laboratory Inter-Laboratory Normal Normal Location Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Aquifer Q1I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Drinking Water Recreational ADWG (2011, ADWG (2011, PFAS NEMP 2.0 NHMRC (2008) PFAS NEMP 2.0 ANZG 2018 Analyte Unit ALS LOR MGT LOR updated NHMRC (2008) updated 2020 Table 1 Health (Primary 2020 Table 1 Irrigation LTVs 2018) Aesthetics 2018) Health Health Contact) 1 Health Aesthetic General Electrical Conductivity (Lab) uS/cm 1 3,520------Total Dissolved Solids (Lab.) mg/L 10 ------1,010--1,9001,8501,210 Total Dissolved Solids (Calc.) mg/L 1 2,290------Natural Attenuation Parameters Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.05 <0.05------Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.01 13.9------Methane mg/L 0.01 <0.01------Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric (filtered) mg/L 1 222 ------Speciated Chromium Chromium (Trivalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 <0.01 <0.01 Chromium (hexavalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 0.05 0.5 <0.01 0.004 <0.01 0.006 <0.01 0.002 <0.01 0.009 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 <0.01 0.02 Chromium (III+VI) (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.1 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.009 0.011 0.011 0.002 0.003 0.003 <0.001 0.014 Metals Arsenic (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 - <0.001 - <0.001 ------Barium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.02 2 20 0.08 0.113 - 0.17 - 0.087 - 0.052 ------Beryllium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.06 0.6 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 - <0.001 - <0.001 ------Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.05 0.05 4 40 0.5 0.62 0.66 - 0.74 - 0.98 - 1.57 ------Cadmium (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0002 0.002 0.02 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 - <0.0001 - <0.0001 ------Cobalt (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.05 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 - <0.001 - <0.001 ------Copper (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 12 1200.2<0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 - <0.001 - <0.001 ------Lead (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 2 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 - <0.001 - <0.001 ------Manganese (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.005 0.1 0.5 0.1 5 0.2 0.101 0.009 - 0.013 - 0.008 - <0.001 ------Mercury (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 - <0.0001 - <0.0001 ------Nickel (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.2 0.2 <0.001 0.003 - <0.001 - 0.002 - <0.001 ------Selenium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 - <0.01 - <0.01 ------Vanadium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.1 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 - <0.01 - <0.01 ------Zinc (filtered) mg/L 0.005 0.005 3 32<0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 - <0.005 - <0.005 ------TPH C6-C9 µg/L 20 <20------C10-C14 µg/L 50 <50------C15-C28 µg/L 100 <100------C29-C36 µg/L 50 <50------+C10-C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 <50------C6-C10 mg/L 0.02 <0.02------C10-C16 mg/L 0.1 <0.1------C16-C34 mg/L 0.1 <0.1------C34-C40 mg/L 0.1 <0.1------C10-C40 (Sum of total) µg/L 100 <100------F1 minus BTEX mg/L 0.02 <0.02------F2 minus Naphthalene mg/L 0.1 <0.1------BTEX Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <1------Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <2------Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3 300 3 300 <2------Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <2------Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <2------Xylene Total µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <2------Total BTEX mg/L 0.001 <0.001------Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <5------PAH Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 ------MAH 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05------1,3,5-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05------Styrene µg/L 0.05 430 430 <0.05------Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 ------Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 ------Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3 300 3 300 ------Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 ------Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 ------Xylene Total µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <0.05------Halogenated Benzenes 1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1------1,1-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1------1,1-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 30 30 <0.1------1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 0.1 1* <0.10------1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 1 1,500 1 1,500 <0.10------1,2-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 3 3 <0.1------1,2-Dichloroethene (sum cis & trans) µg/L 0.1 60 60 <0.10------1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1------1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1------1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 20 20 <0.10------1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 0.3 40 0.3 40 <0.10------2-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1------4-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1------Benzyl chloride mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 ------Bromobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.10------Bromochloromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5------Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.1 60* <0.10------Bromoform µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10------Bromomethane µg/L 0.5 1 1 <0.5------Carbon tetrachloride µg/L 0.05 3 3 <0.05 ------Chlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 10 300 10 300 <0.10------Chlorodibromomethane µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10------Chloroethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5------Chloroform µg/L 0.1 300* <0.10 ------cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1------Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5------Dichloromethane µg/L 1 4 4 <1.0------Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 0.04 0.7 0.7 <0.04------Tetrachloroethene µg/L 0.05 50 50 <0.05 ------trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1------Trichlorobenzene (total) mg/L 0.0001 0.005 0.03 0.005 0.03 <0.0001 ------Trichloroethene µg/L 0.05 20* <0.05------Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5------Trihalomethanes mg/L 0.0001 0.25 0.25 <0.00010 ------Vinyl chloride µg/L 0.3 0.3 0.3 <0.3------Solvents MTBE mg/L 0.0001 <0.0001 ------PFOS/PFOA 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 <0.02 0.14 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.1 -<0.1<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.10 < 0.05 <0.1 <0.1 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.02 0.01 - <0.02 <0.02 0.03 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.05 0.07 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 0.04 <0.02 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.1 0.28 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 Sum of PFAS (WA DER List)2 µg/L 0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.15 0.19 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 < 0.05 0.06 0.14 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.07 2 - <0.01 <0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.17 0.3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 < 0.01 <0.05 <0.05 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 < 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.56 10 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Sum of US EPA PFAS (PFOS + PFOA) µg/L -0.01 ------<0.01 -- Sum of enHealth PFAS (PFHxS + PFOS + PFOA) µg/L -0.01 ------<0.01 -- Notes 1 A factor of 10 has been applied to the ADWG 2017 Drinking Water - Health criteria to obtain the NHMRC (2008) Recreational Water - Health (Primary Contact) criteria except for volatile compounds * WHO (2017) guideline criteria have been adopted where no ADWG 2017 guideline criteria were available 2 PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFBS,PFHxS, PFOS, 6:2-FTS and 8:2-FTS Page 3 of 4 Land & Water Consulting WC Table 3a - Summary of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Watertable Q1 Groundwater Analytical Results, EPA Assessment Area - Port Road, Woodville Field ID MWD MWD MWD WB7 WB7 WB7 DUP2 DUP2 Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 Lab Report EM1908397 EM2000647 EM2006592 EM1908397 ES2000666 EM2006592 EM2006592 714958 Client: Environment Protection Authority Lab Name ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS Eurofins MGT Job Number: GI-05 Date 29/05/2019 10/01/2020 15/04/2020 30/05/2019 9/01/2020 16/04/2020 16/04/2020 16/04/2020 Sample Type Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Intra-Laboratory Inter-Laboratory Location Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Aquifer Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 I Q1 Drinking Water Recreational ADWG (2011, ADWG (2011, PFAS NEMP 2.0 NHMRC (2008) PFAS NEMP 2.0 ANZG 2018 Analyte Unit ALS LOR MGT LOR updated NHMRC (2008) updated 2020 Table 1 Health (Primary 2020 Table 1 Irrigation LTVs 2018) Aesthetics 2018) Health Health Contact) 1 Health Aesthetic General Electrical Conductivity (Lab) uS/cm 1 2,880--2,870---- Total Dissolved Solids (Lab.) mg/L 10 ------Total Dissolved Solids (Calc.) mg/L 1 1,870--1,860---- Natural Attenuation Parameters Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - 0.1 ---- Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.01 17 --9.66---- Methane mg/L 0.01 <0.01--<0.01---- Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric (filtered) mg/L 1 126 --187 ---- Speciated Chromium Chromium (Trivalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 10.4 <0.20 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.01 0.006 Chromium (hexavalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 0.05 0.5 1.06 8.62 12.1 0.02 0.02 <0.05 0.04 0.038 Chromium (III+VI) (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.1 11.5 8.44 13.1 0.018 0.018 0.046 0.043 0.044 Metals Arsenic (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 - 0.002 0.002 --- Barium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.02 2 20 0.098 0.1 - 0.149 0.166 --- Beryllium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.06 0.6 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 --- Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.05 0.05 4 40 0.5 0.73 0.76 - 0.45 0.56 --- Cadmium (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0002 0.002 0.02 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 --- Cobalt (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.05 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 --- Copper (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 12 1200.2<0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 --- Lead (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 2 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 --- Manganese (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.005 0.1 0.5 0.1 5 0.2 <0.001 <0.001 - 0.121 0.11 --- Mercury (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 --- Nickel (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.2 0.2 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 0.001 --- Selenium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 --- Vanadium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.1 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 --- Zinc (filtered) mg/L 0.005 0.005 3 32<0.005 <0.005 - 0.006 0.007 --- TPH C6-C9 µg/L 20 <20 - - <20 - - - - C10-C14 µg/L 50 <50 - - <50 - - - - C15-C28 µg/L 100 <100 - - <100 - - - - C29-C36 µg/L 50 <50 - - <50 - - - - +C10-C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 <50 - - <50 - - - - C6-C10 mg/L 0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 - - - - C10-C16 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - C16-C34 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - C34-C40 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - C10-C40 (Sum of total) µg/L 100 <100 - - <100 - - - - F1 minus BTEX mg/L 0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 - - - - F2 minus Naphthalene mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - BTEX Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <1 - - <1 - - - - Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 3 - - <2 - - - - Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3 300 3 300 <2 - - <2 - - - - Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <2 - - <2 - - - - Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <2 - - <2 - - - - Xylene Total µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <2 - - <2 - - - - Total BTEX mg/L 0.001 0.003 - - <0.001 - - - - Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <5 - - <5 - - - - PAH Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - MAH 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - Styrene µg/L 0.05 430 430 <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 2.6 - - <0.5 - - - - Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3 300 3 300 <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - - Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - Xylene Total µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - Halogenated Benzenes 1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - 1,1-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - 1,1-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 30 30 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 0.1 1* <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - - 1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 1 1,500 1 1,500 <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - - 1,2-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 3 3 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - 1,2-Dichloroethene (sum cis & trans) µg/L 0.1 60 60 <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - - 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - 1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 20 20 <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - - 1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 0.3 40 0.3 40 <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - - 2-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - 4-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - Benzyl chloride mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 - - <0.0002 - - - - Bromobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - - Bromochloromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 - - - - Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.1 60* <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - - Bromoform µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - - Bromomethane µg/L 0.5 1 1 <0.5 - - <0.5 - - - - Carbon tetrachloride µg/L 0.05 3 3 <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - Chlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 10 300 10 300 <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - - Chlorodibromomethane µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - - Chloroethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 - - - - Chloroform µg/L 0.1 300* 0.1 - - 0.26 - - - - cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 - - - - Dichloromethane µg/L 1 4 4 <1.0 - - <1.0 - - - - Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 0.04 0.7 0.7 <0.04 - - <0.04 - - - - Tetrachloroethene µg/L 0.05 50 50 <0.05 - - 0.16 - - - - trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - Trichlorobenzene (total) mg/L 0.0001 0.005 0.03 0.005 0.03 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 - - - - Trichloroethene µg/L 0.05 20* <0.05 - - <0.05 - - - - Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 - - - - Trihalomethanes mg/L 0.0001 0.25 0.25 0.0001 - - 0.00026 - - - - Vinyl chloride µg/L 0.3 0.3 0.3 <0.3 - - <0.3 - - - - Solvents MTBE mg/L 0.0001 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 - - - - PFOS/PFOA 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.1 -<0.1<0.1 -<0.1<0.1 <0.1 - Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.02 - 0.02 <0.02 - 0.12 0.12 0.12 - Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.02 0.01 - 0.04 <0.02 - 0.05 0.04 0.03 < 0.01 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.01 - 1.37 0.97 - 17.1 14.9 12.3 14 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.02 - 0.03 0.02 - 0.17 0.17 0.14 - Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - 0.05 0.06 0.06 - Sum of PFAS (WA DER List)2 µg/L 0.01 - 1.5 1 - 17.7 15.6 12.9 - Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.07 2 - 1.41 0.97 - 17.2 14.9 12.3 14 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.56 10 - 0.04 0.01 - 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.2 Sum of US EPA PFAS (PFOS + PFOA) µg/L -0.01 ------14.2 Sum of enHealth PFAS (PFHxS + PFOS + PFOA) µg/L -0.01 ------14.2 Notes 1 A factor of 10 has been applied to the ADWG 2017 Drinking Water - Health criteria to obtain the NHMRC (2008) Recreational Water - Health (Primary Contact) criteria except for volatile compounds * WHO (2017) guideline criteria have been adopted where no ADWG 2017 guideline criteria were available 2 PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFBS,PFHxS, PFOS, 6:2-FTS and 8:2-FTS Page 4 of 4 Land & Water Consulting WC Table 3b - Summary of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Q2 Groundwater Analytical Results, EPA Assessment Area - Port Road, Woodville Field ID MW02-Q2 (13) MW02-Q2 (24) MW02-Q2 MW02-Q2 MW02-Q2 MW07_Q2 (13) MW07_Q2 (24) MW07-Q2 MW07-Q2 MW08_Q2 (13) MW08_Q2 (24) MW08-Q2 MW08-Q2 MW08-Q2 MW10-Q2 MW10-Q2 Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 Lab Report EM1908825 EM1908825 ES2000666 EM2006592 EM2020488 EM1908825 EM1908825 ES2000666 EM2006592 EM1908825 EM1908825 ES2000666 EM2006592 EM2020488 ES2002975 EM2006592 Client: Environment Protection Authority Lab Name ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS Job Number: GI-05 Date 6/06/2019 6/06/2019 8/01/2020 16/04/2020 18/11/2020 6/06/2019 6/06/2019 8/01/2020 14/04/2020 6/06/2019 6/06/2019 9/01/2020 16/04/2020 18/11/2020 28/01/2020 16/04/2020 Sample Type Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Location Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Aquifer Q2 - 15 mI Q2 - 24 m I Q2 I Q2 I Q2 I Q2 - 15 m Q2 - 24 m I Q2 I Q2 I Q2 - 15 m I Q2 - 24 m I Q2 I Q2 I Q2 I Q2 I Q2 I Drinking Water Recreational ADWG (2011, ADWG PFAS NEMP 2.0 NHMRC NHMRC (2008) PFAS NEMP 2.0 ANZG (2018) Analyte Unit ALS LOR MGT LOR updated (2011, (2020) Table 1 (2008) Health (Primary (2020) Table 1 Irrigation LTVs 2018) updated Health Aesthetics Contact) 1 Health Aesthetic 2018) Health General Electrical Conductivity (Lab) uS/cm 1 3060 3050 ---3140 3220 - - 5220 5190 ----- Total Dissolved Solids (Lab.) mg/L 10 ----1,920 ------Total Dissolved Solids (Calc.) mg/L 1 1990 1980 --- 2040 2090 - - 3390 3370 ----- Natural Attenuation Parameters Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 ----- Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.01 10.3 9.07 --- 10 10.4 - - 35.9 37.4 --- -- Methane mg/L 0.01 <10<10---<10<10--<10<10----- Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric (filtered) mg/L 1 309 366 ---193 189 --378 381 ----- Speciated Chromium Chromium (Trivalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 3.26 2 <1.00 0.41 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Chromium (hexavalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 0.05 0.5 2.61 2.98 14.5 4.79 5.22 <0.01 <0.01 0.009 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.003 <0.01 Chromium (III+VI) (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.1 5.87 4.98 10.9 5.2 4.53 0.004 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.024 0.049 0.124 0.002 0.009 Metals Arsenic (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.001 0.002 0.001 - - <0.001 <0.001 0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 - Barium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.02 2 20 0.064 0.085 0.069 - - 0.106 0.108 0.105 - 0.165 0.19 0.138 - - 0.146 - Beryllium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.06 0.6 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 - Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.05 0.05 4 40 0.5 0.24 0.28 0.35 - - 0.33 0.33 0.4 - 0.5 0.49 0.56 - - 0.19 - Cadmium (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0002 0.002 0.02 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 - Cobalt (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - 0.001 0.001 <0.001 - 0.002 0.002 0.002 - - <0.001 - Copper (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 12 120 0.2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 - Lead (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 - Manganese (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.005 0.1 0.5 0.1 5 0.2 0.018 0.02 0.009 - - 0.114 0.132 0.066 - 0.139 0.184 0.102 - - 0.003 - Mercury (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 - Nickel (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.2 0.2 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - 0.038 0.059 0.003 - 0.029 0.057 0.033 - - <0.001 - Selenium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 - Vanadium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 - Zinc (filtered) mg/L 0.005 0.005 3 32<0.005 0.005 <0.005 - - 0.006 <0.005 <0.005 - 0.006 0.008 <0.005 - - <0.005 - TPH C6-C9 µg/L 20 <20 <20 - - - <20 <20 - - <20 <20 - - - - C10-C14 µg/L 50 <50 <50 - - - <50 <50 - - <50 <50 - - - - C15-C28 µg/L 100 <100 <100 - - - <100 <100 - - <100 <100 - - - - C29-C36 µg/L 50 <50 <50 - - - <50 <50 - - <50 <50 - - - - +C10-C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 <50 <50 - - - <50 <50 - - <50 <50 - - - - C6-C10 mg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - - - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - - - - C10-C16 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - C16-C34 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - C34-C40 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - C10-C40 (Sum of total) µg/L 100 <100 <100 - - - <100 <100 - - <100 <100 - - - - F1 minus BTEX mg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - - - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - - - - F2 minus Naphthalene mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - BTEX Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <1 <1 - - -<1<1- -<1<1- - - - Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <2 <2 - - -<2<2- -<2<2- -- - Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3300 3300 <2 <2 - - -<2<2- -<2<2- -- - Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <2 <2 - - -<2<2- -<2<2- - - - Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <2 <2 - - -<2<2- -<2<2- - - - Xylene Tota µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <2 <2 - - -<2<2- -<2<2- -- - Total BTEX mg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - - <0.001 <0.001 - - <0.001 <0.001 - - - - Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <5 <5 - - -<5<5- -<5<5- - - - PAH Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 0.13 0.15 - - - 0.08 0.06 --0.13 0.09 ---- MAH 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - - - - 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - - - - Styrene µg/L 0.05 430 430 <0.05 <0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - - - - Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <0.05 <0.05 - - - <0.05 0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - - - - Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <0.5 <0.5 - - - <0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 <0.5 - - - - Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3300 3300 0.07 0.07 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - - - - Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 0.16 0.17 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - - Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 0.11 0.12 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - - - - Xylene Tota µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 0.27 0.29 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - - - - Halogenated Benzenes 1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 1,1-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 1,1-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 30 30 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 0.1 1* <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - - 1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 1 1,500 1 1,500 <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - - 1,2-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 3 3 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 1,2-Dichloroethene (sum cis & trans) µg/L 0.1 60 60 <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - - 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 20 20 <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - - 1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 0.3 40 0.3 40 <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - - 2-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - 4-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - Benzyl chloride mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 - - - <0.0002 <0.0002 - - <0.0002 <0.0002 ---- Bromobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - - Bromochloromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - - - <0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 <0.5 - - - - Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.1 60* <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - 0.11 0.13 ---- Bromoform µg/L 0.1 100* 0.16 0.18 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - - Bromomethane µg/L 0.5 1 1 <0.5 <0.5 - - - <0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 <0.5 - - - - Carbon tetrachloride µg/L 0.05 3 3 0.08 0.11 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - --- Chlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 10 300 10 300 <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - 0.3 <0.10 - - - - Chlorodibromomethane µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10 0.11 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - 0.16 0.2 ---- Chloroethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - - - <0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 <0.5 - - - - Chloroform µg/L 0.1 300* 0.36 0.44 - - - 0.6 0.58 - - 0.2 0.23 - --- cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - - - <0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 <0.5 - - - - Dichloromethane µg/L 1 4 4 <1.0 <1.0 - - - <1.0 <1.0 - - <1.0 <1.0 - - - - Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 0.04 0.7 0.7 <0.04 <0.04 - - - <0.04 <0.04 - - <0.04 <0.04 ---- Tetrachloroethene µg/L 0.05 50 50 <0.05 <0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - --- trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - Trichlorobenzene (total) mg/L 0.0001 0.005 0.03 0.005 0.03 <0.0001 <0.0001 - - - <0.0001 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 <0.0001 - - - - Trichloroethene µg/L 0.05 20* <0.05 <0.05 - - - 1.53 1.7 --1.16 0.95 ---- Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - - - <0.5 <0.5 - - <0.5 <0.5 - - - - Trihalomethanes mg/L 0.0001 0.25 0.25 0.00052 0.00073 - - - 0.0006 0.00058 - - 0.00047 0.00056 - --- Vinyl chloride µg/L 0.3 0.3 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 - - - <0.3 <0.3 - - <0.3 <0.3 - - - - Solvents MTBE mg/L 0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 - - - <0.0001 <0.0001 - - <0.0001 <0.0001 - - - - PFOS/PFOA 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 --<0.05 <0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - - - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - - - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.02 0.01 - - <0.02 0.02 ---0.1 0.08 --0.02 0.02 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.01 --0.04 0.03 ---0.14 0.12 --0.46 0.4 0.11 0.03 <0.01 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - - - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 - - - <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Sum of PFAS (WA DER List)2 µg/L 0.01 --0.04 0.05 ---0.24 0.2 --0.48 0.42 0.17 0.33 <0.01 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.07 2 --0.04 0.05 ---0.24 0.2 --0.48 0.42 0.15 0.03 <0.01 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.3 <0.05 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.56 10 - - <0.01 <0.01 - - - <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 Sum of US EPA PFAS (PFOS + PFOA) µg/L - 0.01 ------Sum of enHealth PFAS (PFHxS + PFOS + PFOA) µg/L - 0.01 ------Notes 1 A factor of 10 has been applied to the ADWG 2017 Drinking Water - Health criteria to obtain the NHMRC (2008) Recreational Water - Health (Primary Contact) criteria except for volatile compounds * WHO (2017) guideline criteria have been adopted where no ADWG 2017 guideline criteria were available 2 PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFBS,PFHxS, PFOS, 6:2-FTS and 8:2-FTS Page 1 of 4 Land & Water Consulting WC Table 3b - Summary of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Q2 Groundwater Analytical Results, EPA Assessment Area - Port Road, Woodville Field ID MW11-Q2 MW11-Q2 MW12-Q2 MW12-Q2 MW12-Q2 MW13-Q2 MW14-Q2 MW15-Q2 DUP01 DUP01 DW2 DW2 DUP02 DUP02A DW2 Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 Lab Report EM2000647 EM2006592 EM2000647 EM2006592 EM2020488 EM2020488 EM2020488 EM2020488 EM2020488 758386 EM1908397 EM2000647 EM2000647 696579 EM2006592 Client: Environment Protection Authority Lab Name ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS MGT ALS ALS ALS MGT ALS Job Number: GI-05 Date 9/01/2020 17/04/2020 10/01/2020 16/04/2020 18/11/2020 17/11/2020 17/11/2020 16/11/2020 16/11/2020 16/11/2020 30/05/2019 13/01/2020 13/01/2020 13/01/2020 17/04/2020 Sample Type Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Intra-Laboratory Inter-Laboratory Normal Normal Intra-Laboratory Inter-Laboratory Normal Location Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Aquifer Q2 I Q2 I Q2 I Q2 I Q2 I Q2 Q2 I Q2 I Q2 I Q2 I Q2 - 15 m I Q2 - 15 m I Q2 - 15 m I Q2 - 15 m I Q2 I Drinking Water Recreational ADWG (2011, ADWG PFAS NEMP 2.0 NHMRC NHMRC (2008) PFAS NEMP 2.0 ANZG (2018) Analyte Unit ALS LOR MGT LOR updated (2011, (2020) Table 1 (2008) Health (Primary (2020) Table 1 Irrigation LTVs 2018) updated Health Aesthetics Contact) 1 Health Aesthetic 2018) Health General Electrical Conductivity (Lab) uS/cm 1 ------3,210 ---- Total Dissolved Solids (Lab.) mg/L 10 ----2,760 2,190 1,990 1,840 1,840 2,200 ----- Total Dissolved Solids (Calc.) mg/L 1 ------2,090 ---- Natural Attenuation Parameters Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.05 ------<0.05 ---- Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.01 ------18.4 ---- Methane mg/L 0.01 ------<0.01 ---- Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric (filtered) mg/L 1 ------148 ---- Speciated Chromium Chromium (Trivalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 <0.01 <0.01 0.08 <0.10 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 19.4 2 0.6 <0.005 <0.50 Chromium (hexavalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 0.05 0.5 <0.01 <0.01 0.46 0.2 0.24 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.005 0.6 14.9 15.6 17 20.8 Chromium (III+VI) (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.1 0.002 0.007 0.538 0.271 0.228 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 20 16.9 16.2 17 21 Metals Arsenic (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.1 <0.001 - <0.001 ------0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 - Barium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.02 2 20 0.094 - 0.126 ------0.041 0.056 0.057 0.06 - Beryllium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.06 0.6 0.1 <0.001 - <0.001 ------<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 - Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.05 0.05 4 40 0.5 0.2 - 0.45 ------0.28 0.29 0.27 0.24 - Cadmium (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0002 0.002 0.02 0.01 <0.0001 - <0.0001 ------<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.002 - Cobalt (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.05 <0.001 - <0.001 ------<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 - Copper (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 12 120 0.2 <0.001 - <0.001 ------<0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.01 - Lead (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 2 <0.001 - <0.001 ------<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 - Manganese (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.005 0.1 0.5 0.1 5 0.2 0.037 - 0.022 ------<0.001 0.001 0.001 <0.05 - Mercury (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.002 <0.0001 - <0.0001 ------<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.001 - Nickel (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.2 0.2 <0.001 - <0.001 ------<0.001 0.002 0.002 <0.01 - Selenium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.02 <0.01 - <0.01 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.003 - Vanadium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.1 <0.01 - <0.01 ------<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - Zinc (filtered) mg/L 0.005 0.005 3 32<0.005 - <0.005 ------<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.005 - TPH C6-C9 µg/L 20 ------<20---- C10-C14 µg/L 50 ------<50---- C15-C28 µg/L 100 ------<100 ---- C29-C36 µg/L 50 ------<50---- +C10-C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 ------<50---- C6-C10 mg/L 0.02 ------<0.02 ---- C10-C16 mg/L 0.1 ------<0.1 ---- C16-C34 mg/L 0.1 ------<0.1 ---- C34-C40 mg/L 0.1 ------<0.1 ---- C10-C40 (Sum of total) µg/L 100 ------<100 ---- F1 minus BTEX mg/L 0.02 ------<0.02 ---- F2 minus Naphthalene mg/L 0.1 ------<0.1 ---- BTEX Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 ------<1---- Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 ------<2---- Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3300 3300 ------<2---- Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 ------<2---- Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 ------<2---- Xylene Tota µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 ------<2---- Total BTEX mg/L 0.001 ------<0.001 ---- Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 ------<5---- PAH Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 ------<0.25 ---- MAH 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 ------<0.05 ---- 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 ------<0.05 ---- Styrene µg/L 0.05 430 430 ------<0.05 ---- Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 ------<0.05 ---- Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 ------<0.5 ---- Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3300 3300 ------<0.05 ---- Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 ------<0.10 ---- Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 ------<0.05 ---- Xylene Tota µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 ------<0.05 ---- Halogenated Benzenes 1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L 0.1 ------<0.1 ---- 1,1-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 ------<0.1 ---- 1,1-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 30 30 ------<0.1 ---- 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 0.1 1* ------<0.10 ---- 1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 1 1,500 1 1,500 ------<0.10 ---- 1,2-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 3 3 ------<0.1 ---- 1,2-Dichloroethene (sum cis & trans) µg/L 0.1 60 60 ------<0.10 ---- 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 ------<0.2 ---- 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 ------<0.1 ---- 1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 20 20 ------<0.10 ---- 1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 0.3 40 0.3 40 ------<0.10 ---- 2-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 ------<0.1 ---- 4-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 ------<0.1 ---- Benzyl chloride mg/L 0.0002 ------<0.0002 ---- Bromobenzene µg/L 0.1 ------<0.10 ---- Bromochloromethane µg/L 0.5 ------<0.5 ---- Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.1 60* ------<0.10 ---- Bromoform µg/L 0.1 100* ------<0.10 ---- Bromomethane µg/L 0.5 1 1 ------<0.5 ---- Carbon tetrachloride µg/L 0.05 3 3 ------<0.05 ---- Chlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 10 300 10 300 ------<0.10 ---- Chlorodibromomethane µg/L 0.1 100* ------<0.10 ---- Chloroethane µg/L 0.5 ------<0.5 ---- Chloroform µg/L 0.1 300* ------0.36 ---- cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 ------<0.1 ---- Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 0.5 ------<0.5 ---- Dichloromethane µg/L 1 4 4 ------<1.0 ---- Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 0.04 0.7 0.7 ------<0.25 ---- Tetrachloroethene µg/L 0.05 50 50 ------0.18 ---- trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 ------<0.1 ---- Trichlorobenzene (total) mg/L 0.0001 0.005 0.03 0.005 0.03 ------<0.0001 ---- Trichloroethene µg/L 0.05 20* ------<0.05 ---- Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 0.5 ------<0.5 ---- Trihalomethanes mg/L 0.0001 0.25 0.25 ------0.00036 ---- Vinyl chloride µg/L 0.3 0.3 0.3 ------<0.3 ---- Solvents MTBE mg/L 0.0001 ------<0.0001 ---- PFOS/PFOA 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.10 <0.1 <0.05 - <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.02 0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.16 0.1 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 - <0.02 <0.02 0.05 <0.02 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.28 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - 2.43 2.33 1.4 1.47 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.01 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 Sum of PFAS (WA DER List)2 µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.28 0.16 0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 - 2.43 2.33 - 1.47 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.07 2 <0.01 <0.01 0.28 0.16 0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - 2.43 2.33 1.45 1.47 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.56 10 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 0.08 <0.01 Sum of US EPA PFAS (PFOS + PFOA) µg/L - 0.01 ------<0.01 - - - 1.48 - Sum of enHealth PFAS (PFHxS + PFOS + PFOA) µg/L - 0.01 ------<0.01 - - - 1.53 - Notes 1 A factor of 10 has been applied to the ADWG 2017 Drinking Water - Health criteria to obtain the NHMRC (2008) Recreational Water - Health (Primary Contact) criteria except for volatile compounds * WHO (2017) guideline criteria have been adopted where no ADWG 2017 guideline criteria were available 2 PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFBS,PFHxS, PFOS, 6:2-FTS and 8:2-FTS Page 2 of 4 Land & Water Consulting WC Table 3b - Summary of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Q2 Groundwater Analytical Results, EPA Assessment Area - Port Road, Woodville Field ID DW5 DUP1_ DUP1 DW5 DW5 DW6 DUP2_ DUP2 DW6 DW6 DD1 DD1 DD1 DUP1 DUP1 Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 Lab Report EM1908397 EM1908397 658903 EM2000647 EM2006592 EM1908397 EM1908397 658903 EM2000647 EM2006592 EM1908319-AA EM2000647 EM2006592 EM2006592 714958 Client: Environment Protection Authority Lab Name ALS ALS Eurofins MGT ALS ALS ALS ALS Eurofins MGT ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS Eurofins MGT Job Number: GI-05 Date 30/05/2019 30/05/2019 30/05/2019 10/01/2020 17/04/2020 30/05/2019 30/05/2019 30/05/2019 10/01/2020 17/04/2020 28/05/2019 10/01/2020 15/04/2020 15/04/2020 15/04/2020 Sample Type Normal Intra-Laboratory Intra-Laboratory Normal Normal Normal Intra-Laboratory Intra-Laboratory Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Intra-Laboratory Inter-Laboratory Location Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site On-Site On-Site On-Site On-Site On-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Aquifer Q2 - 15 mI Q2 - 15 m I Q2 - 15 m I Q2 - 15 m I Q2 - 15 m I Q2 - 15 m I Q2 - 15 m I Q2 - 15 m Q2 - 15 m I Q2 - 15 m I Q2 - 25 m I Q2 - 25 m I Q2 - 25 m I Q2 - 25 m I Q2 - 25 m I Drinking Water Recreational ADWG (2011, ADWG PFAS NEMP 2.0 NHMRC NHMRC (2008) PFAS NEMP 2.0 ANZG (2018) Analyte Unit ALS LOR MGT LOR updated (2011, (2020) Table 1 (2008) Health (Primary (2020) Table 1 Irrigation LTVs 2018) updated Health Aesthetics Contact) 1 Health Aesthetic 2018) Health General Electrical Conductivity (Lab) uS/cm 1 3,440 3,200 - - - 2,790 2,850 - - - 2,920 ---- Total Dissolved Solids (Lab.) mg/L 10 ------Total Dissolved Solids (Calc.) mg/L 1 2,240 2,080 1800 - - 1,810 1,850 1500 - - 1,900 ---- Natural Attenuation Parameters Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.06 - - <0.05 <0.05 < 0.05 - <0.05 ---- Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.01 22.9 18.5 22 --16.7 16.8 20 --22.9 ---- Methane mg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 < 0.05 - - <0.01 <0.01 < 0.05 - - <0.01 ---- Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric (filtered) mg/L 1 205 147 160 --148 155 150 --132 ---- Speciated Chromium Chromium (Trivalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 <0.01 20.1 12 0.01 <0.01 2.63 2.78 < 0.005 <0.10 0.72 33.8 <1.00 <0.50 2.5 < 0.005 Chromium (hexavalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 0.05 0.5 0.02 0.96 13 0.013 0.01 1.12 1.05 3.9 2.82 2.04 0.07 33.4 30.2 28.4 34 Chromium (III+VI) (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.1 0.01 21.1 25 0.013 0.013 3.75 3.83 3.9 2.47 2.76 33.9 30.5 28.7 30.9 34 Metals Arsenic (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.1 <0.001 0.001 0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 < 0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 --- Barium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.02 2 20 0.115 0.05 0.05 0.13 - 0.083 0.086 0.09 0.102 - 0.072 0.105 --- Beryllium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.06 0.6 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 < 0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 < 0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 - - - Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.05 0.05 4 40 0.5 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.44 - 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.34 - 0.28 0.26 --- Cadmium (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0002 0.002 0.02 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 < 0.0002 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 < 0.0002 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 --- Cobalt (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.05 <0.001 <0.001 < 0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 < 0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 --- Copper (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 12 120 0.2 0.012 0.015 < 0.001 <0.001 - 0.001 0.001 0.021 0.002 - 0.001 0.002 --- Lead (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 2 <0.001 0.001 < 0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 - <0.001 <0.001 --- Manganese (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.005 0.1 0.5 0.1 5 0.2 0.004 0.003 < 0.005 0.001 - 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.008 - <0.001 0.002 --- Mercury (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 < 0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 < 0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 <0.0001 --- Nickel (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.2 0.2 0.01 0.006 < 0.001 <0.001 - 0.001 <0.001 0.013 <0.001 - 0.001 <0.001 --- Selenium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.004 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 0.004 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 --- Vanadium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.1 <0.01 <0.01 < 0.005 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 < 0.005 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 --- Zinc (filtered) mg/L 0.005 0.005 3 320.101 0.058 < 0.005 <0.005 - 0.011 0.01 0.47 0.01 - <0.005 <0.005 --- TPH C6-C9 µg/L 20 <20 <20 < 200 - - <20 <20 <20 - - <20---- C10-C14 µg/L 50 <50 <50 < 500 - - <50 <50 <50 - - <50---- C15-C28 µg/L 100 <100 <100 < 1000 - - <100 <100 <100 - - <100 ---- C29-C36 µg/L 50 <50 <50 < 1000 - - <50 <50 <100 - - <50---- +C10-C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 <50 <50 < 1000 - - <50 <50 <100 - - <50---- C6-C10 mg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 < 0.2 - - <0.02 <0.02 < 0.02 - - <0.02 ---- C10-C16 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 0.05 - - <0.1 <0.1 < 0.05 - - <0.1 ---- C16-C34 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 - - <0.1 ---- C34-C40 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 - - <0.1 ---- C10-C40 (Sum of total) µg/L 100 <100 <100 < 1000 - - <100 <100 <100 - - <100 ---- F1 minus BTEX mg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 < 0.2 - - <0.02 <0.02 < 0.02 - - <0.02 ---- F2 minus Naphthalene mg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 0.05 - - <0.1 <0.1 < 0.05 - - <0.1 ---- BTEX Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <1 <1 <10 - - <1 <1 <1 - - <1---- Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <2 <2 <10 - - <2 <2 <1 - - <2---- Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3300 3300 <2 <2 <10 - - <2 <2 <1 - - <2---- Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <2 <2 <20 - - <2 <2 <2 - - <2---- Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <2 <2 <10 - - <2 <2 <1 - - <2---- Xylene Tota µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <2 <2 <30 - - <2 <2 <3 - - <2---- Total BTEX mg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 - - - <0.001 <0.001 - - - <0.001 ---- Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <5 <5 <100 - - <5 <5 <10 - - <5---- PAH Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 0.07 --- <0.05 <0.05 ------MAH 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <10 - - <0.05 <0.05 <1 - - <0.05 ---- 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <10 - - <0.05 <0.05 <1 - - <0.05 ---- Styrene µg/L 0.05 430 430 <0.05 <0.05 <10 - - <0.05 <0.05 <1 - - <0.05 ---- Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <0.05 <0.05 <10 - - <0.05 <0.05 <1 ------Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <0.5 <0.5 <10 - - <0.5 <0.5 <1 ------Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3300 3300 <0.05 <0.05 <10 - - <0.05 <0.05 <1 ------Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <0.10 <0.10 <20 - - <0.10 <0.10 <2 ------Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <10 - - <0.05 <0.05 <1 ------Xylene Tota µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <0.05 <0.05 <30 - - <0.05 <0.05 <3 - - <0.05 ---- Halogenated Benzenes 1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <10 - - <0.1 <0.1 <1 - - <0.1 ---- 1,1-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <10 - - <0.1 <0.1 < 0.01 - - <0.1 ---- 1,1-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 30 30 <0.1 <0.1 <10 - - <0.1 <0.1 < 1 - - <0.1 ---- 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 0.1 1* <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 ---- 1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 1 1,500 1 1,500 <0.10 <0.10 <10 - - <0.10 <0.10 < 1 - - <0.10 ---- 1,2-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 3 3 <0.1 <0.1 <10 - - <0.1 <0.1 < 0.01 - - <0.1 ---- 1,2-Dichloroethene (sum cis & trans) µg/L 0.1 60 60 <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 ---- 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 ---- 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 ---- 1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 20 20 <0.10 <0.10 <10 - - <0.10 <0.10 < 1 - - <0.10 ---- 1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 0.3 40 0.3 40 <0.10 <0.10 <10 - - <0.10 <0.10 < 0.01 - - <0.10 ---- 2-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 ---- 4-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <10 - - <0.1 <0.1 < 1 - - <0.1 ---- Benzyl chloride mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 --- <0.0002 <0.0002 --- <0.0002 ---- Bromobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.10 <0.10 <10 - - <0.10 <0.10 <1 - - <0.10 ---- Bromochloromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <10 - - <0.5 <0.5 <1 - - <0.5 ---- Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.1 60* <0.10 <0.10 <10 - - <0.10 <0.10 <1 - - <0.10 ---- Bromoform µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10 <0.10 <10 - - <0.10 <0.10 <1 - - <0.10 ---- Bromomethane µg/L 0.5 1 1 <0.5 <0.5 <10 - - <0.5 <0.5 <1 - - <0.5 ---- Carbon tetrachloride µg/L 0.05 3 3 <0.05 <0.05 <10 - - <0.05 <0.05 <1 - - 1.91 ---- Chlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 10 300 10 300 <0.10 <0.10 <10 - - <0.10 <0.10 < 0.01 - - <0.10 ---- Chlorodibromomethane µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 ---- Chloroethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <10 - - <0.5 <0.5 <1 - - <0.5 ---- Chloroform µg/L 0.1 300* 1.59 0.37 <10 - - 1.1 1.06 <5 - - 1.75 ---- cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <10 - - <0.1 <0.1 < 0.01 - - <0.1 ---- Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <10 - - <0.5 <0.5 <1 - - <0.5 ---- Dichloromethane µg/L 1 4 4 <1.0 <1.0 - - - <1.0 <1.0 - - - <1.0 ---- Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 0.04 0.7 0.7 <0.04 <0.04 --- <0.04 <0.04 --- <0.04 ---- Tetrachloroethene µg/L 0.05 50 50 <0.05 0.18 <10 - - 0.45 0.49 0.69 - - <0.05 ---- trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <10 - - <0.1 <0.1 <1 - - <0.1 ---- Trichlorobenzene (total) mg/L 0.0001 0.005 0.03 0.005 0.03 <0.0001 <0.0001 - - - <0.0001 <0.0001 - - - <0.0001 ---- Trichloroethene µg/L 0.05 20* <0.05 <0.05 <10 - - <0.05 <0.05 0.03 - - <0.05 ---- Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <10 - - <0.5 <0.5 < 1 - - <0.5 ---- Trihalomethanes mg/L 0.0001 0.25 0.25 0.00159 0.00037 --- 0.0011 0.00106 --- 0.00175 ---- Vinyl chloride µg/L 0.3 0.3 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <10 - - <0.3 <0.3 <50 - - <0.3 ---- Solvents MTBE mg/L 0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 - - - <0.0001 <0.0001 - - - <0.0001 ---- PFOS/PFOA 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 -- -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.02 - - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - 0.03 <0.02 <0.02 - Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.02 - - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.02 0.01 - - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.01 <0.02 <0.02 - 0.02 0.02 <0.02 0.01 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.01 -- -6.82 7.12 0.92 0.9 1.1 2.33 1.67 - 0.97 0.63 0.43 0.56 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.02 - - - 0.06 0.06 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 0.03 <0.02 - Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.02 - - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - Sum of PFAS (WA DER List)2 µg/L 0.01 - - - 6.89 7.18 0.92 0.9 - 2.33 1.68 - 1.02 0.68 0.43 - Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.07 2 -- -6.82 7.12 0.92 0.9 1.11 2.33 1.67 - 0.99 0.65 0.43 0.57 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 - - - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.56 10 -- -0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 Sum of US EPA PFAS (PFOS + PFOA) µg/L - 0.01 ------0.56 Sum of enHealth PFAS (PFHxS + PFOS + PFOA) µg/L - 0.01 ------0.57 Notes 1 A factor of 10 has been applied to the ADWG 2017 Drinking Water - Health criteria to obtain the NHMRC (2008) Recreational Water - Health (Primary Contact) criteria except for volatile compounds * WHO (2017) guideline criteria have been adopted where no ADWG 2017 guideline criteria were available 2 PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFBS,PFHxS, PFOS, 6:2-FTS and 8:2-FTS Page 3 of 4 Land & Water Consulting WC Table 3b - Summary of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Q2 Groundwater Analytical Results, EPA Assessment Area - Port Road, Woodville Field ID DD2 DD2 DD2 DD2 Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 Lab Report EM1908397 EM2000647 EM2006592 EM2020488 Client: Environment Protection Authority Lab Name ALS ALS ALS ALS Job Number: GI-05 Date 30/05/2019 10/01/2020 17/04/2020 18/11/2020 Sample Type Normal Normal Normal Normal Location On-Site On-Site On-Site On-Site Aquifer Q2 - 25 mI Q2 - 25 m I Q2 - 25 m I Q2 - 25 m I Drinking Water Recreational ADWG (2011, ADWG PFAS NEMP 2.0 NHMRC NHMRC (2008) PFAS NEMP 2.0 ANZG (2018) Analyte Unit ALS LOR MGT LOR updated (2011, (2020) Table 1 (2008) Health (Primary (2020) Table 1 Irrigation LTVs 2018) updated Health Aesthetics Contact) 1 Health Aesthetic 2018) Health General Electrical Conductivity (Lab) uS/cm 1 3,740 --- Total Dissolved Solids (Lab.) mg/L 10 ---- Total Dissolved Solids (Calc.) mg/L 1 2,430 --- Natural Attenuation Parameters Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - - Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.01 18.5 --- Methane mg/L 0.01 <0.01 - - - Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric (filtered) mg/L 1 572 --- Speciated Chromium Chromium (Trivalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 24.3 <1.00 0.9 - Chromium (hexavalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 0.05 0.5 0.18 36.3 36.8 - Chromium (III+VI) (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.1 24.5 32.5 37.7 - Metals Arsenic (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 - - Barium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.02 2 20 0.019 0.024 - - Beryllium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.06 0.6 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 - - Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.05 0.05 4 40 0.5 0.27 0.27 - - Cadmium (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0002 0.002 0.02 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 - - Cobalt (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.05 <0.001 0.001 - - Copper (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 12 120 0.2 0.008 <0.001 - - Lead (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 2 <0.001 <0.001 - - Manganese (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.005 0.1 0.5 0.1 5 0.2 0.009 0.008 - - Mercury (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 - - Nickel (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.2 0.2 0.002 <0.001 - - Selenium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 - - Vanadium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.1 <0.01 <0.01 - - Zinc (filtered) mg/L 0.005 0.005 3 320.013 <0.005 - - TPH C6-C9 µg/L 20 <20 - - - C10-C14 µg/L 50 <50 - - - C15-C28 µg/L 100 <100 - - - C29-C36 µg/L 50 <50 - - - +C10-C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 <50 - - - C6-C10 mg/L 0.02 <0.02 - - - C10-C16 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - - C16-C34 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - - C34-C40 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - - C10-C40 (Sum of total) µg/L 100 <100 - - - F1 minus BTEX mg/L 0.02 <0.02 - - - F2 minus Naphthalene mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - - BTEX Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <1 - - - Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <2 - - - Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3300 3300 <2 - - - Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <2 - - - Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <2 - - - Xylene Tota µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <2 - - - Total BTEX mg/L 0.001 <0.001 - - - Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <5 - - - PAH Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <0.25 - - - MAH 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - - 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - - Styrene µg/L 0.05 430 430 <0.05 - - - Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <0.05 - - - Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <0.5 - - - Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3300 3300 <0.05 - - - Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <0.10 - - - Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - - - Xylene Tota µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <0.05 - - - Halogenated Benzenes 1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - - 1,1-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - - 1,1-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 30 30 <0.1 - - - 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 0.1 1* <0.10 - - - 1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 1 1,500 1 1,500 <0.10 - - - 1,2-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 3 3 <0.1 - - - 1,2-Dichloroethene (sum cis & trans) µg/L 0.1 60 60 <0.10 - - - 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.2 - - - 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - - 1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 20 20 <0.10 - - - 1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 0.3 40 0.3 40 <0.10 - - - 2-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - - 4-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - - Benzyl chloride mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 - - - Bromobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.10 - - - Bromochloromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - - - Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.1 60* <0.10 - - - Bromoform µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10 - - - Bromomethane µg/L 0.5 1 1 <0.5 - - - Carbon tetrachloride µg/L 0.05 3 3 0.12 - - - Chlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 10 300 10 300 <0.10 - - - Chlorodibromomethane µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10 - - - Chloroethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - - - Chloroform µg/L 0.1 300* 0.56 - - - cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - - Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - - - Dichloromethane µg/L 1 4 4 <1.0 - - - Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 0.04 0.7 0.7 <0.25 - - - Tetrachloroethene µg/L 0.05 50 50 1.29 - - - trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - - - Trichlorobenzene (total) mg/L 0.0001 0.005 0.03 0.005 0.03 <0.0001 - - - Trichloroethene µg/L 0.05 20* 0.13 - - - Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - - - Trihalomethanes mg/L 0.0001 0.25 0.25 0.00056 - - - Vinyl chloride µg/L 0.3 0.3 0.3 <0.3 - - - Solvents MTBE mg/L 0.0001 <0.0001 - - - PFOS/PFOA 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.02 0.01 <0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.01 2.24 4.43 3.18 2.63 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Sum of PFAS (WA DER List)2 µg/L 0.01 2.24 4.49 3.21 2.66 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.07 2 2.24 4.46 3.2 2.65 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.56 10 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Sum of US EPA PFAS (PFOS + PFOA) µg/L - 0.01 ---- Sum of enHealth PFAS (PFHxS + PFOS + PFOA) µg/L - 0.01 ---- Notes 1 A factor of 10 has been applied to the ADWG 2017 Drinking Water - Health criteria to obtain the NHMRC (2008) Recreational Water - Health (Primary Contact) criteria except for volatile compounds * WHO (2017) guideline criteria have been adopted where no ADWG 2017 guideline criteria were available 2 PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFBS,PFHxS, PFOS, 6:2-FTS and 8:2-FTS Page 4 of 4 Land & Water Consulting WC Table 3c - Summary of Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Q3 Groundwater Analytical Results, EPA Assessment Area - Port Road, Woodville Field ID DD3 DD3 DD6 DD6 DD7 DD7 Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 3 Lab Report EM1908397 EM2000647 EM1908397 EM2000647 EM1908319-AA EM2000647 Client: Environment Protection Authority Lab Name ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS ALS Job Number: GI-05 Date 30/05/2019 10/01/2020 30/05/2019 10/01/2020 28/05/2019 10/01/2020 Sample Type Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Location On-Site On-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Off-Site Aquifer Q3 Q3 I Q3 I Q3 I Q3 Q3 Drinking Water Recreational ADWG (2011, ADWG (2011, PFAS NEMP 2.0 PFAS NEMP 2.0 ANZG (2018) Analyte Unit ALS LOR MGT LOR NHMRC (2008) NHMRC (2008) Health updated 2018) updated 2018) (2020) Table 1 (2020) Table 1 Irrigation LTVs Aesthetics (Primary Contact) 1 Aesthetic Health Health Health General Electrical Conductivity (Lab) uS/cm 1 4,240 - 1,950 - 1,640 - Total Dissolved Solids (Calc.) mg/L 1 2,760 - 1,270 - 1,070 - Natural Attenuation Parameters Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 - Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.01 0.88 - 0.02 - <0.01 - Methane mg/L 0.01 <0.01 - 0.016 - 0.019 - Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric (filtered) mg/L 1 1,030 - 46 - 31 - Speciated Chromium Chromium (Trivalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 Chromium (hexavalent) (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.005 0.05 0.5 <0.01 <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.01 <0.01 Chromium (III+VI) (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.1 0.004 0.003 0.001 <0.001 0.02 0.003 Metals Arsenic (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 Barium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.02 2 20 0.028 0.039 0.089 0.093 0.05 0.086 Beryllium (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.06 0.6 0.1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Boron (filtered) mg/L 0.05 0.05 4 40 0.5 0.16 0.17 0.6 0.53 0.55 0.54 Cadmium (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0002 0.002 0.02 0.01 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Cobalt (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.05 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Copper (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 12 120 0.2 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Lead (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.1 2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Manganese (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.005 0.1 0.5 0.1 5 0.2 4.25 2.63 0.141 0.121 0.02 0.084 Mercury (filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Nickel (filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.02 0.2 0.2 0.045 0.004 0.01 0.008 0.002 0.005 Selenium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.1 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Vanadium (filtered) mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Zinc (filtered) mg/L 0.005 0.005 3 320.005 <0.005 0.252 <0.005 0.005 <0.005 TPH C6-C9 µg/L 20 <20 - <20 - <20 - C10-C14 µg/L 50 <50 - <50 - <50 - C15-C28 µg/L 100 <100 - <100 - <100 - C29-C36 µg/L 50 <50 - <50 - <50 - +C10-C36 (Sum of total) µg/L 50 <50 - <50 - <50 - C6-C10 mg/L 0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 - <0.02 - C10-C16 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - C16-C34 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - C34-C40 mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - C10-C40 (Sum of total) µg/L 100 <100 - <100 - <100 - F1 minus BTEX mg/L 0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 - <0.02 - F2 minus Naphthalene mg/L 0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - BTEX Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <1 - <1 - <1 - Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <2 - <2 - <2 - Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3300 3300 <2 - <2 - <2 - Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <2 - <2 - <2 - Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <2 - <2 - <2 - Xylene Tota µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <2 - <2 - <2 - Total BTEX mg/L 0.001 <0.001 - <0.001 - <0.001 - Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <5 - <5 - <5 - PAH Naphthalene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - - - MAH 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 - 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 - Styrene µg/L 0.05 430 430 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 - Benzene µg/L 0.05 1 1 <0.05 - <0.05 - - - Toluene µg/L 0.5 25 800 25 800 <0.5 - <0.5 - - - Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.05 3300 3300 <0.05 - <0.05 - - - Xylene (m & p) µg/L 0.1 <0.10 - <0.10 - - - Xylene (o) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - - - Xylene Tota µg/L 0.05 20 600 20 600 <0.05 - <0.05 - 0.07 - Halogenated Benzenes 1,1,1-trichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - 1,1-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - 0.2 - 1.9 - 1,1-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 30 30 <0.1 - <0.1 - 0.1 - 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 0.1 1* <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 - 1,2-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 1 1,500 1 1,500 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 - 1,2-dichloroethane µg/L 0.1 3 3 <0.1 - <0.1 - 10.9 - 1,2-Dichloroethene (sum cis & trans) µg/L 0.1 60 60 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 - 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - 1,3-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 20 20 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 - 1,4-dichlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 0.3 40 0.3 40 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 - 2-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - 4-chlorotoluene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - Benzyl chloride mg/L 0.0002 <0.0002 - <0.0002 - <0.0002 - Bromobenzene µg/L 0.1 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 - Bromochloromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 - <0.5 - Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.1 60* <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 - Bromoform µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 - Bromomethane µg/L 0.5 1 1 <0.5 - <0.5 - <0.5 - Carbon tetrachloride µg/L 0.05 3 3 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 - Chlorobenzene µg/L 0.1 10 300 10 300 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 - Chlorodibromomethane µg/L 0.1 100* <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 - Chloroethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 - <0.5 - Chloroform µg/L 0.1 300* <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 - cis-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 - <0.5 - Dichloromethane µg/L 1 4 4 <1.0 - <1.0 - <1.0 - Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 0.04 0.7 0.7 <0.04 - <0.04 - <0.04 - Tetrachloroethene µg/L 0.05 50 50 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 - trans-1,2-dichloroethene µg/L 0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - Trichlorobenzene (total) mg/L 0.0001 0.005 0.03 0.005 0.03 <0.0001 - <0.0001 - <0.0001 - Trichloroethene µg/L 0.05 20* <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 - Trichlorofluoromethane µg/L 0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 - <0.5 - Trihalomethanes mg/L 0.0001 0.25 0.25 <0.00010 - <0.00010 - <0.00010 - Vinyl chloride µg/L 0.3 0.3 0.3 <0.3 - <0.3 - 3.3 - Solvents MTBE mg/L 0.0001 <0.0001 - <0.0001 - <0.0001 - PFOS/PFOA 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (10:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 - <0.02 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) µg/L 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 - <0.02 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) µg/L 0.02 0.01 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 - <0.02 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.98 - <0.01 - <0.01 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 - <0.02 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) µg/L 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 - <0.02 Sum of PFAS (WA DER List)2 µg/L 0.01 0.96 0.98 - <0.01 - <0.01 Sum of PFHxS and PFOS µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.07 2 0.96 0.98 - <0.01 - <0.01 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) µg/L 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) µg/L 0.01 0.01 0.56 10 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 - <0.01 Sum of US EPA PFAS (PFOS + PFOA) µg/L - 0.01 ------Sum of enHealth PFAS (PFHxS + PFOS + PFOA) µg/L - 0.01 ------1H.1H.2H.2H-perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) µg/L - 0.05 ------Notes 1 A factor of 10 has been applied to the ADWG 2017 Drinking Water - Health criteria to obtain the NHMRC (2008) Recreational Water - Health (Primary Contact) criteria except for volatile compounds * WHO (2017) guideline criteria have been adopted where no ADWG 2017 guideline criteria were available 2 PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFBS,PFHxS, PFOS, 6:2-FTS and 8:2-FTS Page 1 of 1 Land & Water Consulting WC Table 4 - Summary of Historical Groundwater Analytical Results, Hexavalent Chromium Project: EPA Assessment Area - Woodville Stage 2 Client: Environment Protection Authority Job Number: GI-04 Depth of Targeted Golder Associates Egis Consulting Australia S&G LWC Well Well (m) Unit Apr-95 Jun-95 Jul-95 Aug-95 Sep-96 Jul-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Dec-97 Mar-98 Jun-98 Sep-98 Dec-98 Jul-99 Nov-99 Feb-00 Aug-00 Jul-01 Jan-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Jan-04~ Jul-04 Nov-04 Jan-05 Feb-05~ Mar-05 Jul-05 Nov-05 May/ Jun-19 Jan-20 Apr-20 Nov-20 MW01-Q1 8.5 Q1 ------0.98 35.7 26 - --j MW02-Q1 9 Q1I ------~ - ~ ~ 1.04 13.9 6.23 5.34 MW03-Q1 8.7 Q1I ------1.07 7.73 4.06 - ~ I I 4.01 - MW04-Q1 8.5 Q1I ------I - - I I 1.20 5.61 I J MW05-Q1 8.5 Q1I - -I - -I -I - - I ------~ I I ~ I I I ~ I I 0.01 2.89 I 1.48 - MW06-Q1 9.1 Q1I - -I -7 -I ------I I I I I 1.09 17 I 12.3 10.9 I I += I <0.01 - MW07-Q1 9.1 Q1I - -I - -I -' - - 'I ------'I ~ 'I I 'I - I - I <0.01 0.01 MW08-Q1 9 Q1 - - -7 - -I - - I ------7 0.06 0.39 0.51 - I I I - ' I - I I I MW09-Q1 8.5 Q1I - -l -7 -I - - - l ------7 I I I <0.01 0.004 I <0.01 - ~ MW10-Q1 10.5 Q1 - - -I - -7 - - I ------l - 0.006 <0.01 - I I ~ ~ I - - ~MW11-Q1 7.42 Q1 - -I - - -7 - - I ------I -+ I I -----t - 0.002 <0.01 - I I I + r MW12-Q1 8 Q1'I - -I -' - - - - I ------' I - 0.009 0.01 <0.01 I MW13-Q1 9.5 Q1 ------I l I ------I I I I - - - <0.01 I I - - - I 7 -----t ~MW14-Q1 10 Q1 l ------l 7 I ------l 1 I 1 l - -+ - <0.01 I MW15-Q1 9 Q1 I ------I I I ------I I - I I I I I - - - 0.02 J I - 7 ~ WB2 8 Q1I - -I - -I <0.05 <0.05 <0.05I <0.05 <0.05I <0.051 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.01I - <0.05I <0.011 - - -I ------1 ------I - ----+ I WB3 8 Q1I 73.5 - 74l 80 76 74 82 79 89 85.3 92.1 79.59 83.24 86 83.9 - 69 45.8 27.2 37.4 - 36 - - - - 41 41 40 -I - - 66 65 - - ---I r I 'I I - I I I - I I I I I I I I ' I I I t WB4 8 Q1I 0.06 - -7 0.01I <0.05I <0.05 <0.05I <0.05 Not Located - -i t WB5 8 Q1I - 1.9 1.4l 1.3 1.1I 0.71 1.1 1.1 1.1I 1.77 1.43 1.157 0.84I 1.47 1.39I - 1.51I 1.22l - - -I 0.58 - - -I -l 0.87I 0.62 <0.01 -l - - -I -7 0.71 I - ---~ WB6 ~ 8 Q1I - 11.9+ 10 I 9.8 5I 5.3 5.8 4.9 5.5I 4.98 4.08 3.46 3.62 0.28 1.85I - 2.24I 13.4I - - -I - - - 19.1 -I 19 20.5 8.1 -I - 7.59 8.5 7 - I - ---I WB7 8 Q1T - 0.26 0.28 0.18 0.2 0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.01I - <0.05 <0.01 ------<0.01 - <0.01 - - - - - <0.010 0.02 0.02 <0.05 - - I - I I 1 I I 1 ~WB8 8 Q11 - 2.22=t 2.3 ' 2.8 7.2I 7.5 7.8 8.3 8.1I 7.45 7.38 5.5 7 6.4 6.41l - 5.7 4.71 - - -I - - - - -'7 - - - -'l ------1 ~ WB9 ~ 8 Q1I - 9.1 6 15 15I 11 13I 15 14I 16.5l 17.2 15.1 17.85 15.8 14.9I - 13 2.05I - -l -I - - - 10.6 -I 13.5 -l 4.2 3.35I ------I ~ WB10 8 Q11 - <0.01--+ <0.01 <0.01 <0.05I <0.05 <0.05I <0.05 <0.05I <0.05l <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.01 <0.01I - <0.05 <0.017 <0.05 -l -I - - - - -I <0.01 -l <0.01 -I ------1 ~ I I I WB11 ~ 8 Q1I - -I -I <0.01I 0.07I <0.05 no accessI <0.05 <0.05I <0.05I <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.01I - <0.05 <0.01 <0.05 -I -I - - - - - <0.01I -I <0.01 - -I ------I WB12 - 8 Q11 - - - <0.01 0.1I <0.05l <0.05I <0.051 <0.05I <0.05I <0.05I <0.05l <0.05I <0.01l <0.01I - <0.05 <0.01l -I -I -I - - -I -I -I <0.01I -I <0.01I -I -I -I -I -I - -I ---1 I ~WB13 8 Q11 - - - <0.01 Not Located t WB14 8 Q1 - - - 33 16 11 19 19 13 18.1 18 15.1I 19.69I 18I 18.2 -l 19.3 14.2 20.4I - -I - -I -I 18 -l 24.5I - 18 - -I -I -I -I 10 -I ---I t WB15 8 Q1 - - -I 0.58 2.3 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.5I 1.06I 0.94 0.6 0.36 0.83 0.58 - 0.13 0.13 0.14 - -I 0.22 - - - - 0.1~ - 0.12 - - - - - <0.010 - --- MWA - 8 Q1 ------0.66 - 0.63 0.67' 0.69 - -1 1.4 - - - -'1 0.4~ - 0.36 -' ------MWB 7.5 Q1 ------<0.01 - <0.05 0.1 ------l ------~ I - - ~MWC 7.5 Q1l ------l ------<0.01 - <0.05 <0.01 <0.05 - -I - - - - -l ------MWD - 7.5 Q1I - - - - -I - - I - - -I - - - - 20.1 - 17.7~ 23.6 29.4 - -I 14 - - - -I 21.5~ - 29 - -~ - - - - 1.06 8.62 12.1 - MWE 7.5 Q1 - -7 -I - -I - - - -I - - - -I - 18.6 - 21.3 14.3 12.5 ------I ------I I ~ I ~ - ~MWF 7.5 Q1'1 - - - -'... ~ ------' - - - - 9.51 - 15 14.2 - -' -I - - - - -'l - -' - -l ------' MWG 7.5 Q1=::]__ ------0.38 - 0.54 0.17 - - - 0.17 - - - -I 0.17 - <0.01 -I - - - - - I - --- - ,. - ~ MWH 7.5 Q1 ------17.7 - 15.9 16.5 - - -I - - - 15.3 -I 18.5 - 16.1 14.7I - - - - 12.5 1 - --- '--- a.Nr...... _ ...... + MWI 7.5 Q1 ------<0.01 - <0.05 <0.01I - - - <0.01 - - - - <0.01 - <0.01 ------t - ow, I I - I I I - t DW1 15 Q2 ------0.19 - 0.08 0.13 0.54 -I - 1.3 - - - -I - -I - -I - - - - 6 1 - --- ...... I - - - t DW2 15 Q2'----~ ------113 - 112 70.1' 88.5 81.9l - 180 - - 69 - 94 80 66 - - - 80 73.6 - 1 0.6 14.9 20.8 - DW3 15 Q2 ------<0.01 - <0.05 <0.01 0.06 0.06I -+= - - - - - 0.35 - 0.8 ------I - --- • f------~ . - --- DW4 15 Q2 ------<0.01 - <0.05 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05I - <0.01 - - <0.01 - <0.01 - <0.01 ------7 ,____ --+ - ~ -----t - 7 7 DW5 15 Q2 ------~ - <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05I ------I 0.01 -I <0.01 -I - - - - 0.01 0.02 0.013 0.01 - ~DW6 15 Q2 ------115 119I 59.7' 87 65.4I - 86 - - 28.7 - 24 22.5 40 32.8 52.2 54.1 56.5 52.1 - I 1.12 2.82 2.04 - DW7 15 Q2 ------<0.05 <0.051 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.02 - - - - <0.01------l -- --- f------I -+ DD1 25 Q2 ------0.127 <0.05I <0.01 1.48 -I - - - 2.47 - - 4 ------0.64I 0.07 33.4 30.2 - I------DD2 25 Q2 ------301 3701 239I 533 424I - - - 158 - 138 114 125I 52.1 36.3 35.2 31.3 37.5 40 - I 0.18 36.3 I 36.8 - -- I--- - - FMW02-Q2 (13m) 33.8 Q2 ------..0-141.i:- --·¼ ------~ :· 1 I 7 2.61 - --Fl MW02-Q2 (24m) 33.8 Q2 ------I I I 2.98 14.5 4.79 5.22 ...... ------/ / ,x.. - - MW07-Q2 (13m) 26 Q2 -~ ------1 I I I <0.01 - -- .... ~ ~MW07-Q2 (19m) 26 Q2 ------I I I I - 0.009 <0.01 - >---- - MW07-Q2 (24m) 26 Q2I ------I I I I I I <0.01 - I -- '--- - MW08-Q2 (13m) 26 Q2I ------7 l I I <0.01 - -- - ' ' Fl MW08-Q2 (19m) 26 Q2I ------I I I I - 0.03 0.05 0.12 J MW08-Q2 (24m) 26 Q2I ------l I 1 <0.01 - - -- '--- - I MW10-Q2 25 Q2I ------7 I I 7 - 0.003 I <0.01 - < j'> :::::-,, . ~ I MW11-Q2 23 Q2I ------I I I I - 0.002 I <0.01 - ~ f-- ' MW12-Q2 22 Q2I - - -~ ------' I I I ' - 0.46 I 0.2 0.24 J MW13-Q2 19 Q2 I ------I I I I - -I - <0.01 ' '-~~ I-- MW14-Q2 23.5 Q2 I ------I I - -I - <0.01 1-- I I I I MW15-Q2 20 Q2 I ------I I I "T I - -I - <0.01~ DD3 40 Q3I ------7 - 490' 63.3I 177 100I - - 56 - - 0.04'I <0.01 0.02I 0.06 0.01'I 64I - 17l <0.020I - ' <0.01 <0.001I -I - DD4 57 Q3I ------~~">/ - - - -l - 1.3 1.16I <0.05 <0.05l ------I Well Decommissioned ::J DD5 40 Q3I ------I - -I ------I -~ 0.12 0.06 0.14 -I ------I <0.01 - -I -~ - -I -I -I - I --I I - DD6 40 Q3 - - - - -I ------0.08 <0.01 - <0.05 -I - <0.01 - - - <0.01 - <0.01 ------<0.01 <0.001 - - I I ~ - I I ~ I I ~ DD7 40 Q3I - - - -I - - - '"T ------'"T - <0.05"T 0.02 <0.05 - - - <0.01 - - -I 0.04 - <0.01 ------I <0.01 <0.01I - - I DD8 40 Q3 - - - -I -' - - - - -'I ------<0.05 <0.01 - <0.05'I - - - <0.01 - - <0.01 -' ------I - ---I DD9 40 Q3 - - - -I - - - - -l -I ------~ 0.12 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05I - - <0.01 - - - <0.01 - <0.01 ------I - ---I DD10 57 Q3I - -l - -I - - - - -l -I ------0.023 <0.01l <0.05 <0.05I - - <0.01 - - - 0.03 - <0.01 - - - - - <0.010 I - ---I += ~ EXMB1 45 Q3I - -I -I -I -I -I - I -I -I -I - -I - -I -I - -I -I - - 49 -I 285 - - 240 225 250I 113 59.2 85.3 50.2 64.5 64.3 - I - ---I E EXMB2 42l Q3I -l -I - -I - -I - I -I -7 - -I - -l - - - - -I -l - -' - -l -I -I -± - -I 10I 7.27± 3.95l 3.75I 5I 31 - I - ---I l J Page 1 of 1