stat1216 aecom limited preliminary site investigation and ... · the attached limited preliminary...

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Limited Preliminary Site Investigation and Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan, 385 Eagle Farm Road, Pinkenba, Queensland (the ‘Site’) for Viva Energy

The attached Limited Preliminary Site Investigation and Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan Report dated 4 June 2018 was prepared by AECOM Services Pty Ltd in respect of the Site (the ‘Report’). The report was commissioned by Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd for its own internal purposes, and the findings and conclusions reached in it should not be relied upon by any person or entity.

Viva Energy makes no representations or warranties as to, and accepts no liability for, the accuracy of any information contained in, or any interpretation of the Report. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Viva Energy accepts no liability whatsoever in relation to the information contained in this Report or any use of or reliance on such information by any person or entity.

The information contained in the Report is confidential, and any copying, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of the whole or any part of the Report is prohibited (except to the extent required by law) without the prior written consent of Viva Energy.

Viva Energy Pinkenba Terminal

Viva Energy Pinkenba Terminal, Eagle Farm Road, Pinkenba

Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd

04-Jun-2018

Limited Preliminary Site Investigation and Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan

AECOM Viva Energy Pinkenba Terminal, Eagle Farm Road, Pinkenba Limited Preliminary Site Investigation and Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan

Revision 0 – 04-Jun-2018 Prepared for – Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd – ABN: 46 004 610 459

Limited Preliminary Site Investigation and Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan

Client: Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd

ABN: 46 004 610 459

Prepared by

AECOM Services Pty Ltd Level 8, 540 Wickham Street, PO Box 1307, Fortitude Valley QLD 4006, Australia T +61 7 3553 2000 F +61 7 3553 2050 www.aecom.com ABN 46 000 691 690

04-Jun-2018

Job No.: 60567205

AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to ISO9001, ISO14001 AS/NZS4801 and OHSAS18001.

© AECOM Services Pty Limited. All rights reserved.

No use of the contents, concepts, designs, drawings, specifications, plans etc. included in this report is permitted unless and until they are the subject of a written contract between AECOM Services Pty Limited (AECOM) and the addressee of this report. AECOM accepts no liability of any kind for any unauthorised use of the contents of this report and AECOM reserves the right to seek compensation for any such unauthorised use.



Quality Information

Document Limited Preliminary Site Investigation and Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan

Ref 60567205

Date 04-Jun-2018

Prepared by Cindy Cheung

Reviewed by James Peachey

Revision History

Rev Revision Date Details Authorised

Name/Position Signature

A 11-May-2018 Draft James Peachey / Principal Geologist

B 22-May-2018 Draft James Peachey / Principal Geologist

0 04-Jun-2018 Final James Peachey / Principal Geologist



Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 2

2.0 Background to PFAS and Regulatory Framework 4 2.1 Background to PFAS 4 2.2 Overview of Practices and Migration Processes Relevant to PFAS 5

2.2.1 Practices and Mechanisms for Release of PFAS 5 2.2.2 Migration Processes 6 2.2.3 Unsaturated Zone Transport 6 2.2.4 Uncertainties in Assessing PFAS 7

2.3 Relevant PFAS Regulation and Guidance 7 3.0 Site Setting 8

3.1 Site Identification 8 3.2 Site Layout 8 3.3 Site Operations 9 3.4 Overview of Liquid Waste and Wastewater Management 11

3.4.1 Northern Terminal 11 3.4.2 Southern Terminal 11 3.4.3 Tank Compound Drainage 12

3.5 Site History 12 3.6 Review of Historical Aerial Photographs 16 3.7 Surrounding Land Uses 19 3.8 Environmental Authority 19

4.0 Environmental Setting 21 4.1 Site Topography 21 4.2 Regional and Local Geology 21 4.3 Hydrogeology 21

4.3.1 Groundwater Resources 21 4.3.2 On-Site Groundwater Conditions 21 4.3.3 Off-Site Groundwater Quality 21

4.4 Hydrology 22 5.0 Site Walkover Observations 23

5.1 Northern Terminal 23 5.1.1 Former Fire Training Paddock 23 5.1.2 Gantry Area 24 5.1.3 Sundry Warehouse (Speciality Shed) 24 5.1.4 Main Gantry Interceptor / Interceptor 1 24

5.2 Southern Terminal 24 5.2.1 Wharf 24 5.2.2 Tank Farm Interceptor / Interceptor 1 (WD3) 25 5.2.3 Tank farm 25

6.0 Review of On-Site Historical Records 26 6.1 Types of Firefighting Foams used at the Terminal 26

6.1.1 Current Firefighting Foam Inventory (April 2018) 26 6.1.2 Historical Firefighting Foam Inventory (February 2016) 27

6.2 Historical On-site Incidents 27 6.3 Historical Environmental Investigation Reports 28 6.4 Summary of Key Findings from the Preliminary Site Investigation 30

7.0 Preliminary PFAS Conceptual Site Model 32 7.1 Introduction 32 7.2 Sources 32

7.2.1 Primary Sources: 32 7.2.2 Secondary Sources: 32 7.2.3 Off-site Sources 33

7.3 Migration Mechanisms: 33



7.4 Exposure Pathways: 34 7.5 Receptors 34 7.6 Assessment of Exposure Pathways 34

8.0 Data Quality Objectives 38 8.1 Summary of Proposed Scope of Work Activities 46

9.0 Health & Safety 55 10.0 Sampling and Analysis Methodology 56

10.1 PFAS Training 56 10.2 Required Field Documentation 56

10.2.1 Field Notes 56 10.2.2 Sample Labels 56 10.2.3 Chain of Custody Forms 56

10.3 Equipment Required 57 10.4 Methodology 57

10.4.1 General PFAS Sampling Guidance 57 10.4.2 Monitoring Well Installation 59 10.4.3 Logging of Soil Bores 59 10.4.4 Soil Sampling 60 10.4.5 Well Development 60 10.4.6 Groundwater Sampling 60 10.4.7 Surface Water Sampling 61 10.4.8 Sediment Sampling 61 10.4.9 Work Zone Setup 62 10.4.10 Gauging 62

10.5 Decontamination 62 10.6 Sample Storage and Shipping 63 10.7 Laboratory Analyses 63

10.7.1 Laboratory Sample Containers 64 10.7.2 QA/QC samples 65 10.7.3 Laboratory Sample Labelling 66

10.8 Waste Disposal 66 10.9 Task Completion 66

11.0 Applicable Site Assessment Criteria 68 12.0 Reporting 70 13.0 References 71

Appendix A DEHP Notice and Correspondence A

Appendix B Historical Aerial Photographs B

Appendix C Chronology of Site Activities C

Appendix D Groundwater Bore Search Results D

Appendix E Site Walkover Photographs E

Appendix F Hydrasleeve SOP F

Appendix G Environmental Values and Water Quality G

Appendix H MSDS and Foam Testing Results H



Abbreviations

Glossary

AFFF Aqueous film forming foam

AHD Australian height datum

ASC NEPM Assessment of Site Contamination National Environment Protection Measure 1999 (as amended 2013)

AST Above ground storage tank

BTEXN Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and naphthalene

COC Chain of custody

CoPC Contaminants of potential concern

CSM Conceptual site model

DI Deionised water

DES Department of Environment and Sciences

DQIs Data quality indicators

DQOs Data quality objectives

DSI Detailed site investigation

ECF Electrochemical fluorination

ERA Environmental relevant activities

EV Environmental values

FFFP Film forming fluoro protein

FSANZ Food Standards Australia and New Zealand

GME Groundwater monitoring event

GMP Groundwater management plan

HEPA Heads of Environmental Protection Agencies

HSEP Health and safety plan

IBC Intermediate bulk container

LNAPL Light non-aqueous phase liquid

LPG Liquefied petroleum gas

mbgl Metres below ground level

NATA National Association of Testing Authorities

NDD Non-destructive drilling

NEMP National Environmental Management Plan

NEPC National Environment Protection Council

PFAS Per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances

PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid

PID Photoionisation detector



Glossary

POP Persistent organic pollutant

PSI Preliminary site investigation

QA/QC Quality Assurance / Quality Control

QTOF Quadruple time of flight

SAQP Sampling analysis and quality plan

SOP Standard operating procedure

SVOC Semi-volatile organic compounds

SWMS Safe work method statement

TDS Total dissolved solids

TOP[A] Total oxidisable precursor [Assay]

UST Underground storage tank

VOC Volatile organic compounds

VRS Vapour recovery unit



1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM) was engaged by Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd ABN 46 004 610 459 (Viva Energy) to prepare a limited Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) and Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan (SAQP) for a Stage 1 Site Characterisation and Near Field Assessment for per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other co-occurring contaminants such as hydrocarbons within the area of the Pinkenba Terminal located at 385 Eagle Farm Road, Pinkenba, Queensland, Australia (the ‘site’). A site location plan showing the site setting is provided in Figure 1.

The site has been used as a terminal for bulk fuel operations by Viva Energy (formerly The Shell Company of Australia Ltd) since 1956. In the late 1950s the lube oil blending plant was constructed on the southern terminal and began specialty operations. The site is divided into two terminals separated by Tingira Street, the northern terminal on the northern side of Tingira Street and the southern terminal on the southern side of Tingira Street, adjacent to the Brisbane River. Groundwater investigations began in the early 1990s and at least 45 groundwater monitoring events (GMEs) have been conducted at the site to date. Since 2013, groundwater monitoring at the site has been in accordance with the Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GMP) (ERM, 2013) which was updated to meet the requirements of the site licence conditions under environmental authority EPPR00327813, dated 16 December 2013.

Firefighting foams have been available for use at industrial sites since the late 1960s. Aqueous film forming foams (AFFF), which potentially contained PFAS, have been used at the site during its operational history, for firefighting training and in response to incidents. The downstream petroleum industry has typically utilised AFFF and film forming fluoro protein (FFFP) containing PFAS at their facilities to most effectively manage fire risk from accidental petroleum product release and/or for active fire suppression on class-b fires. Foam concentrate is currently stored at the site for firefighting purposes.

In accordance with the GMP, since 2013 PFAS monitoring at the site has included sampling three groundwater monitoring bores in the fire training paddock at the northern terminal. In 2017 five additional groundwater monitoring wells on the southern terminal were monitored PFAS. The results have indicated elevated concentrations of PFAS are present in groundwater beneath both northern and southern terminals in exceedance of national human health screening guideline levels for recreational contact and ecological screening guidelines levels for protection of aquatic ecosystems (HEPA, 2018).

On 30 June 2017, Viva Energy submitted a duty to notify environmental harm to the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (now Department of Environment and Science, DES) for the presence of PFAS in groundwater beneath the site.

On 28 February 2018, DES issued a Notice to conduct to commission an environmental evaluation (EE) STAT1216 (the Notice) to Viva Energy. A revised Notice was issued to Viva Energy on 6 April 2018 (reference no. STAT1216 /101/0005141), refer to Appendix A. Requirement 2 of the Notice included the following:

Stage 1 – Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment

By 18 May 2018 you must develop and submit a monitoring plan to the department to characterise the nature and extent of PFAS contamination impacts at the premises and include a near field assessment. This monitoring plan must be consented to by a contaminated land Auditor and be implemented at the premises. Comments provided to you by the department by 1 June 2018 must be incorporated in the monitoring plan before conducting further monitoring.

The Notice identified items for inclusion in the monitoring plan in Requirements 3 to 8 as follows:

3. (a) Evaluation of historical activities undertaken at the premises which has involved the use and potential release of PFAS containing material at the premises

(b) Identification of all PFAS containing products used and their PFAS formulations (if practicable);



2

(c) Identification of all contaminant source zones and pathways into the environment and

(d) Analytical data that characterises the nature of the PFAS contamination in:

i. source zones at the premises;

ii. pathways via which PFAS has migrated or has been released from the source zones into the nearfield environment;

iii. the near-field environment, described as tidal waters (including sediments) in the location of the pathways (e,g. adjacent tidal drains and the adjacent Brisbane River bank);

iv. groundwater (to the extent practicable, include groundwater monitoring in background locations identified as likely to be unaffected by PFAS releases from the premises). (Note: this requirement acknowledges the possibility that the whole site may be affected.]

4. The Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment submitted under requirement 3 must be sufficient to evaluate the extent of any PFAS contamination on site and whether any releases to the near-field environment have occurred or are occurring, considering all media potentially affected by PFAS releases including soil, any relevant affected on-site infrastructure such concrete pads, sediment, surface water, groundwater and biota offsite (acknowledging that in biota assessment, sampling to evaluate suitability of lower order biota as food for higher order predators is allowed).

5. Using the finding and results of the Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment, evaluate whether environmental harm is being caused or threatened, noting that environmental harm may be caused by the relevant activity-( a) whether the harm is a direct or indirect result of the activity; or (b) whether the harm results from the activity alone or from the combined effects of the activity and other activities or factors e.g. other activities that may release PFAS into the receiving environment.

6. The Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment submitted under requirement 3 must incorporate analysis for:

(a) the suite of 28 standard fluorinated organic compounds by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) [trace level analysis];

(b) total oxidisable precursor (TOP) Assay followed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) [trace level analysis] as in requirement (a), reported as the analyses for the resulting perfluorinated carboxylates for C4 to C14 carbon chain length (TOP C4-C14) plus perfluorinated sultanates carbon chain length C4 to C10;

(c) soil and groundwater by use of advanced mass spectrometric methods i.e. quadrupole time of flight (QTOF MS) in circumstances where a there is insufficient information available to clearly identify PFAS products used and formulations, in source zones (except in the case where the suitably qualified person and auditor provide reasonable justification that this would not reasonably further the aims of this investigation, noting that QTOF MS analysis by either a commercial laboratory capable of performing such analysis or a research intuition that has published peer reviewed literature on PFAS identification by QTOF MS are permitted and must be considered);

(d) co-occurring contaminants that may also cause environmental harm, when they are present, for example, accelerants used in fire training or contaminants spilt in the same location, identification of those contaminants using limits of reporting sufficient to evaluate any associated environmental harm.

7. The Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment submitted under requirement 3 must, to the extent practicable, include groundwater monitoring in background locations identified as likely to be unaffected by PFAS releases from the premises as well as source zone and pathway sampling [Note: this requirement acknowledges that the whole site may be affected].

8. In the event that environmental monitoring of the affected environment identifies a risk to public safety or human consumption aquatic food stuff, you must notify the department of the results and finding within 24 hours of becoming aware of the risk.

1.2 Objectives

The business objective for the site is to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements, specifically the Notice, and to assess potential risks to human health and the environment.



3

The specific objectives of this SAQP include the following:

Compliance with ‘Stage 1’ Notice STAT1216;

Present the findings of a limited preliminary site investigation including understanding of site and environmental setting, review of historical records relating to AFFF use, review of historical aerial photographs, site walkover and interviews with experienced staff; Full title searches and detailed site history review was not conducted during this limited PSI.

Present the investigation strategy for intrusive phase of works identified in the Notice ‘Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment’, which is referred to in this report as the Detailed Site Investigation (DSI). The investigation strategy includes:

- Identify suitable sampling locations to target source zones across the site;

- Identify suitable on-site groundwater sampling locations down-gradient of potential sources areas and at up-gradient locations;

- Identify suitable sampling locations for sediment and surface water in the near field environment;

- Identify the sample methodology including the current industry standard practices (including the requirements outlined in the HEPA (2018) PFAS National Environmental Management Plan [NEMP]) for conducting PFAS monitoring;

- Identify the laboratory analytical requirements including techniques and limits of reporting;

- Identify the Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements;

Identify the management considerations for the proposed works including health and safety requirements, environmental procedures, permits and permissions.



4

2.0 Background to PFAS and Regulatory Framework

2.1 Background to PFAS

Class B fluorine-containing1 firefighting foams (firefighting foams) are used for their effectiveness in extinguishing flammable liquid fires and include fluoroprotein, aqueous film forming foam and film-forming fluoroprotein foam. Firefighting foams have been used in Australia since the 1960s and have been mainly stored and used for fire suppression and fire training at military installations and civilian airports, as well as at petroleum refineries, at storage facilities and at chemical manufacturing plants. Foams are supplied as concentrates, which are then mixed with water and air to form firefighting foam.

PFAS are a complex family of more than 3,000 man-made fluorinated organic chemicals (Wang et al. 2017) that have been produced since the mid-20th century (see Plate 1). Firefighting foams are estimated to contain between 200 and 600 types of PFAS (HEPA2, 2017) with both known and unidentified PFAS of differing molecular structures present in varying proportions. Foams were produced to meet firefighting performance specifications rather than formulated to contain a specified mixture of PFAS. PFAS have been produced using two main manufacturing processes, electrochemical fluorination (ECF) and telomerisation. ECF has been used since the 1940s and produces a mixture of even and odd numbered carbon chain lengths of approximately 70% linear and 30% branched substances (ITRC, 2017). Telomerisation has been used since the 1970s and produces mainly even numbered, straight carbon chain isomers.

Plate 1 PFAS sub classes 3

1 I.e. Fluorine-containing foams are those that contain fluorosurfactants (fluorinated carbon chains). All PFAS are fluorosurfactants. The term PFAS is used preferentially in this report, rather than fluorosurfactants, which is consistent with the conventions used by Australian Agencies (e.g. Department of Health, Department of Environment and Energy, Food Standards Australia New Zealand) as well as international conventions. 2 HEPA is the Heads of Environmental Protection Agencies, Australia and New Zealand 3 Plate sourced from (Wang et al., 2017)



5

Since the late 1990s, environmental researchers have identified PFAS as environmentally persistent and non-biodegradable, meaning these compounds can travel long distances when released into the environment. They are leachable in soil, mobile in groundwater, and are considered to be bioaccumulative. Research into the potential human health and ecological effects associated with these compounds is currently ongoing, but these chemicals have been identified as emerging environmental contaminants of potential concern (COPC).

The awareness and emphasis on various PFAS is evolving and is at an early stage. The early focus has been on two of the longer fluorinated carbon chains perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs), namely perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). PFOS is listed in the Stockholm Convention as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POPs, May 20094). PFOA, its salts and PFOA-related compounds were nominated in 2015 for listing on the Stockholm Convention. The earliest date for listing of PFOA to the Convention is 2019. Australia has not yet ratified the listing of PFOS (or potential future listing of PFOA) in the Stockholm Convention. Ratification would require acceptance of international standards, including requirements relating to waste that has PFOS or PFOA, or related chemicals, above agreed limits.

There is also increasing focus on perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), PFOS and PFOA homologues, precursors and transformation compounds. PFHxS has been identified for specific assessment by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ, 2017).

At the time of preparing this report, Australian analytical laboratories, using National Association of Testing Authority (NATA) accredited methods, are currently able to analyse for around 30 PFAS. An analytical technique to assess the potential presence of carboxylic and sulfonic acid precursor compounds, which may not be detected using standard analysis, is currently available and termed ‘total oxidisable precursor assay’ (TOPA). The complexity of these potential contaminants including the lack of identification of the compounds in use, their combinations, transformation products and their behaviours contributes uncertainty to the assessment of the risks of the possible health and environmental effects. Development of environmental criteria in Australia to date has focused on PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS.

2.2 Overview of Practices and Migration Processes Relevant to PFAS

2.2.1 Practices and Mechanisms for Release of PFAS

Firefighting foams used at the site have the potential to be released into the environment through a variety of practices and mechanisms including the following:

Low volume release of foam concentrate during storage, transfer or equipment calibration

Moderate volume discharge of foam solution for apparatus testing

Occasional high volume discharge of foam solution for firefighting and fire suppression / prevention

Periodic high volume broadcast discharge for fire training

Leaks from foam distribution piping between storage and pumping locations.

Firefighting foam is applied by mixing foam concentrate and water to make foam solution. When applied to a fire, the foam solution is aerated at the nozzle to produce finished foam. During training or an incident, thousands of litres of foam solution may be applied. This is shown graphically in Plate 2. Note this only applies to firefighting practice/application to combat fires that are not contained within the above ground storage tanks or bunded areas.

4 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), May 2009.



6

Plate 2 Release of firefighting foam (ITRC 2017)

2.2.2 Migration Processes

PFAS are moderately to highly soluble, depending upon the individual PFAS chemical structure, can be readily dissolved/leached by infiltrating rainwater or groundwater or surface water, and can be transported a large distance from a source. The key migration processes for PFAS in water at the site are considered to include transport in stormwater drains and groundwater flow.

2.2.3 Unsaturated Zone Transport

Some PFAS can leach from soils and pavements under neutral water conditions. Consequently, the infiltration of water through the soil profile may mobilise some PFAS adsorbed onto and situated within the pore spaces of soil particles (although the rate of mobilisation can be impacted by the soil chemistry and the PFAS chain length and ionic composition). PFAS precursors may also degrade to generate PFOS and PFOA and other shorter chained PFAS in certain physiochemical environments down hydraulic gradient of identified sources.

2.2.3.1 Wastewater and Stormwater Transport

Following release events, finished foam (containing PFAS) can enter stormwater or sewerage systems. Standard treatment of wastewater at the site (via interceptors) is unlikely to have been effective in removing PFAS. There are currently insufficient data to evaluate whether this potential migration mechanism is relevant to the site.

2.2.3.2 Groundwater Transport

The five general processes used to describe the fate and transport of contaminants such as PFAS in groundwater (Domenico and Schwartz, 1990) are:

1. Advection – transport in groundwater flow

2. Diffusion – molecular diffusion in an aquifer, independent of flow

3. Dispersion – hydrodynamic spreading of a contaminant

4. Adsorption and desorption – retardation of transport

5. Degradation – biodegradation of long-chain fluorocarbons.

PFAS investigations have indicated some PFAAs (such as PFOS and PFOA) appear to have little contaminant transport retardation (i.e. adsorption or degradation) based on the extent of the observed



7

contaminant plume and properties of identified PFAS. This is likely the result of the hydrophilic properties of the functional end groups of some PFAS. These and other physiochemical properties will, in some instances, prevent PFAS from adsorbing to most soil particles. PFOS and PFOA are understood to be transported at nearly the same rate as groundwater or surface water (FSANZ, 2017).

As PFAS are transported with water, the concentrations will generally decrease with distance due to the processes of advection, diffusion and dispersion. The environmental fate of the PFAS contaminant mass is expected to be significantly influenced by groundwater movement, extraction and surface water drainage away from a source. There is currently insufficient data to evaluate whether this potential migration mechanism is relevant to the site.

While data are limited, based on a literature review, it is generally considered that PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS are persistent contaminants in the environment, and PFOS has been listed as a persistent organic pollutant under Annex B of the Stockholm Convention since 2009 as discussed in Section 2.1.

2.2.4 Uncertainties in Assessing PFAS

Of the hundreds of PFAS identified to be present in firefighting foams, toxicological and ecotoxicological data are only available for a few individual compounds. It should be noted that PFAS are always found as complex mixtures and it is currently unclear if the toxicity of the compounds will act in an additive, synergistic or antagonistic manner. The amount and variety of the different compounds can also be influenced by the nature of the source (i.e. the potential for different active ingredients in the firefighting foam over time), the amount of time the PFAS has been present in the environment, movement and dispersion from the source and the characteristics of the environment.

2.3 Relevant PFAS Regulation and Guidance

In January 2018, a PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP) (HEPA, 2018) was issued. This document provides a nationally consistent practical risk based framework for the assessment and management of PFAS contamination. The plan provides guidance on the sampling of material potentially contaminated with PFAS, sets out health and environmental guideline values for use in site investigations in Australia and provides guidance on a range of other issues including the reuse of PFAS contaminated materials, treatment and remediation and landfill disposal.



8

3.0 Site Setting

3.1 Site Identification

Site Identification details are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Site Identification Details

Features Site Information

Site Identification Pinkenba Terminal

Site Location 121 Tingiri Street, Pinkenba, Queensland, 4008

165 Tingiri Street, Pinkenba, Queensland, 4008

385 Eagle Farm Road, Pinkenba, Queensland, 4008

Latitude / Longitude 27°25'09.43"S 153°07'27.19"E

Property Description 121 Tingiri Street, Pinkenba, Queensland, 4008:

Lot 1 and 2 on SL5926;

Lot 704 on SL5967;

Lot 3 and 4 on RP79706;

165 Tingiri Street, Pinkenba, Queensland, 4008:

Lot 703 on SL2448;

385 Eagle Farm Road, Pinkenba, Queensland, 4008:

Lot 466 and 467 on SL2445;

Lot 1 and 2 on SL2446;

Lot 702 on SL2447;

Site Area Approximately 40 hectares (ha)

Registered Owner Viva Energy Pty Ltd

Current Zoning Heavy Industrial

3.2 Site Layout

The site is an operational bulk fuel terminal approximately 40ha of land divided by Tingira Street and comprises two operational areas; the northern and southern terminals (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). Products distributed from and stored and handled in the facility include gasoline, fuel additives and ethanol, aviation fuels, lubricants, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and bitumen products.

The northern terminal consists of the state business centre, the fuel gantry, the LPG tanks and gantry, the main (northern terminal) interceptor, two warehouses, a bulk lubricants import, storage and distribution facility, a former (and now decommissioned) grease plant, former drum filling area, former blending area, former ingredients warehouse, former lube oil storage warehouse, sundry warehouse, a former vehicle service shed, former tyre repair shed, a vehicle filling area and multiple Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) and a former fire training paddock (see Figure 2).

The southern terminal is subdivided further into four northern and four southern compounds each comprising multiple ASTs. Compound No. 4, located in the north-eastern portion of the southern terminal houses the bitumen plant (including control room, a bitumen loading gantry, bitumen product ASTs and an interceptor), control room, a bitumen loading gantry and an interceptor. The tank farm



9

office, main interceptor and the berth are located in the southwestern corner of the southern terminal (see Figure 3).

The site is predominantly covered by concrete, bitumen and grass. Concrete and bitumen surround the site buildings and infrastructure with grass covering the remainder of the site. Fencing exists throughout both terminals and there is a retaining wall running along the southern perimeter of the southern terminal, parallel to Brisbane River.

3.3 Site Operations

An overview of the site operations is presented in Table 2 and Table 3 below.

Table 2 Overview of Site Operation North Terminal

Area Operations

State business centre The state business centre consists of a number of offices and open plan work stations, computer rooms, print rooms and amenities.

Fuel gantry The main road gantry is located on the northern side of the main terminal. It operates 24-7 and is used for the loading of petroleum products into road tankers. Fuel additives and ethanol are blended into some products using in-line blending facilities.

Gantry product storage

There is a product storage area situated south of the main road gantry. It contains ethanol, fuel additives and solvents in above and below ground horizontal storage tanks.

Bulk LPG storage and LPG gantry

LPG is stored in the bulk LPG storage area at the eastern part of the northern terminal.

Former lubricants base oil storage

The former lubricants base oil tank farm is situated west of the bulk LPG storage area and LPG road loading gantry.It comprises nine ASTs, eight of which have been made product free and decommissioned. They were formerly used for storage of products used in grease and lubricant product blending. The largest of these tanks, Tank 40, has been cleaned and overhauled and put into service as a second main Fire Water storage tank for the site in April 2016.

Former lubricants blend plant

The lubricants blend plant was situated within the lubricants plant and storage complex along the southern boundary of the northern terminal. The blending plant ceased operations around October 2016. The blend plant was configured with various sized tanks ranging from 2,500 litres to 180,000 litres and these were connected to manifold systems via pipelines. The lubricants blend plant is currently decommissioned.

Former lube oil loading gantry

There are two former gantries in the lube oil plant, one at the ‘front’ or north of the plant and one at the ‘rear’ or south. The front gantry is a two bay gantry where lubricants were top loaded into tankers and isotainers. The front gantry also served as a receiving gantry for bulk additives and base oils that were received by road. The rear gantry is a single bay gantry where lubricants were top or bottom loaded into tankers, isotainers, and flexi-bags. The former lube oil loading gantry is currently decommissioned.

Former grease plant The grease plant was decommissioned in early 2015. The grease was imported and received in bulk bags and drums and then decanted into grease hoppers for shipment to customers.



10

Area Operations

Former lubricants warehouse, now bulk lubricants import, storage and distribution facility

The lubricants warehouse ceased operations as a warehouse in 2014 and was converted to bulk lubricants import, storage and distribution facility in December 2016.

Laboratory The laboratory is situated east of the gantry storage area. It comprises an office/laboratory building as well as flammable/combustible storage sheds to the rear. At the laboratory, samples of bitumen, lubricating oils, fuels, greases, and various speciality products are received and quality control tested against the relevant product specification prior to release.

Maintenance workshops

A maintenance building is situated at the northern boundary of the northern terminal. It contains basic engineering workshops for facility maintenance, including fitting and welding equipment and materials, maintenance tools and equipment.

Occupational health centre and training rooms

The occupational health centre and training rooms are located in the centre of the northern terminal, directly east of the main road gantry and gantry product storage area.

Former rail gantry Rail loading ceased in 2007 and the rail loading gantry has been decommissioned. All of the gantry equipment has been removed. This area is now occupied by the external bulk lubricants AST.

Vapour recovery unit (VRU)

A VRU was installed and commissioned in 2013 and enhances the facility’s environmental performance and also provides an additional safety improvement by eliminating vapours from the atmosphere near the loading gantry during vehicle loading.

Former Chemical Plant

The former chemical plant was located on the northern terminal at the location of the current sundry warehouse, blending, speciality products and aviation fuel warehouse. The plant was established in 1961 to produce organochlorine pesticides.

Table 3 Overview of site Operation South Terminal

Area Operations

Tank farm The tank farm has a total of 29 ASTs, which provide a total storage capacity of approximately 120,000m3 for various products such as gasoline, distillates, aviation fuels, lube oils, bitumen feed stock, finished bitumen, solvents and chemicals.

Tank farm office and control room

The tank farm office and control room are located on the southern boundary of the tank farm, adjacent to the Brisbane River and the wharf.

Tingira street pipe Bridge

A pipe bridge is installed across Tingira Street, to enable transfer of bulk fuels, solvents and base oils from the southern terminal to the northern terminal. The pipe bridge is 5.2 m above the road surface.

Product receipt—refinery pipelines

The majority of tank farm pipeline receipts are via the Caltex (fuels only) and BP (Jet) pipelines, which are owned by Caltex and ATOM (BJT) respectively. The tank farm operator has the overall responsibility for monitoring the flow, receipt and quality of the products and the integrity of the pipelines within the tank farm.



11

Area Operations

Product Receipt—wharf

The wharf is located on the north side of the Brisbane River on the south boundary of the tank farm. The wharf was completely reconstructed during 2009/10. The wharf is primarily used for discharging products from tankers into storage at the Terminal. Approximately 50 ship tankers are received per year. Occasionally there is a requirement to load product onto tankers at the wharf, or for the bunkering of vessels. Products handled at the wharf include liquid petroleum products, chemical solvents and bitumen products.

Bitumen storage, plant and gantry

The Bitumen plant is located at the north eastern corner of the tank farm. The plant processed bitumen feedstock into finished grades of bitumen. Processes included bitumen feedstock heating, bitumen blending (180°C) and bitumen blowing (180°C). Since 2012 the bitumen plant no longer uses bitumen feedstock and the process equipment was decommissioned.

Imported bitumen products, (typically Penn 80/100 and 60/70) are received by ship at the wharf at nominally 140°C and directed to Tanks T26 and T30 in the Tank Farm Compound No. 4. This product is either processed into higher viscosity grades for direct sale or for export to other facilities or used in blends made in-tank.

One of the primary facilities of relevance to this PFAS investigation is the former fire training paddock, where firefighting foams were discharged as part of training exercises. This facility is located on the Northern Terminal, adjacent to the northern boundary and the mangrove lined unnamed channel located off-site, see Figure 2.

3.4 Overview of Liquid Waste and Wastewater Management

Terminal wastewater includes oil-free water (i.e. stormwater), process water containing oil (i.e. oily stormwater) and domestic sewerage. The wastewater drains are marked on the terminal as a ‘red drain’. The oil-free stormwater drains are marked as a ‘blue drain’. The process water is collected in interceptors for treatment, prior to being released. There are three licensed discharge points (WD1, WD2 and WD3) located on the site. An overview of the interceptors and licensed discharge points on each terminal is provided below. The current drainage system is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

3.4.1 Northern Terminal

Interceptor 1 (main gantry interceptor) collects and treats liquid process wastes and oily stormwater from the main gantry. The treated process waste and stormwater are then released into the Brisbane River via the stone pitched drain. This is a licensed discharge point (WD1).

Interceptor 3 (base oil interceptor) collects and treats oily stormwater from the decommissioned base oil compound, vehicle filling shelter and wash down area. The treated wastewater is then released via the stone pitched drain into the Brisbane River. This is a licensed discharge point (WD2).

Interceptor 4 receives the small volume of the workshop floor area/ trade area wastewater. Minimal ingress of stormwater occurs here as the area is enclosed.

Interceptor 7 receives wastewater from the inside of the former lubricant warehouse (which is now the bulk lubricants bulk storage facility) and the former railway gantry (which is now also an external bulk lubricants storage tank). This outflow is then diverted into Interceptor 1.

Interceptor 8 receives the compressor and boiler shed wastewater, this then flows to the stone pitch drain. However, this area is decommissioned.

3.4.2 Southern Terminal

Interceptor 1 (tank farm interceptor) collects and treats liquid process wastes and oily stormwater from the majority of the site red drains including all tanks compounds and the bitumen plant (when diverted from tradewaste connection). Following treatment in the tank farm interceptor (Interceptor 1), liquid



12

process wastes and treated stormwater run-off from the bitumen plant and tank farm is released to the Brisbane River. This is a licenced discharge point (WD3).

Trade waste connection is located at the bitumen processing plant (Compound No. 4 North). The bitumen plant trade waste is discharged to the sewerage infrastructure off-site to the east via a coalescing plate separator.

3.4.3 Tank Compound Drainage

Each tank or group of tanks is located within a tank compound, separated by roadways and concrete bund walls which surround the compounds. This allows for separation between tanks and emergency containment of tank contents. Each bund has its own drainage system consisting of bund valves, drainage pits and underground piping. The pipework is connected to an interceptor external to the bunded areas. Valving on the pits allow for the manual release of rainwater to the main interceptor. Tank compounds floors are earthen / grassed, with the exception of the tank in Compound No. 3 North, where the bund is sealed with a HDPE liner with bitumen over the liner.

3.5 Site History

A timeline summarising the key events in the development of the site is shown in Table 4 below. The information presented is sourced from ERM (2014) and has not been verified by AECOM.



13

Table 4 Timeline of Key Events

Year Activity

Pre 1956 The general area was reclaimed from tidal channels and mangrove flats by hydraulic placement of dredge spoil, with minor solid filling.

1956 The terminal (north and south) was built and bulk fuel operations began on-site.

Late 1950s The lube oil blending plant was built in specialty products area.

1961 Aerial photograph shows the presence of a pond to the right of Interceptor No 1 on the southern terminal. This area had since been filled and soil and groundwater is known to be impacted by organochlorine pesticides by the former chemical plant.

Prior to 1964 A paint shop was in use in the current tyre repair shed. Paint and thinners were disposed of to a pit north of the shed.

1966 The chemical plant was established to produce organochlorine pesticides. The disposal of liquid and solid waste from the chemical plant was achieved by burial or placement in the evaporation pit, located at the site of the aviation warehouse. The waste material from the pit is thought to have been taken to the Enoggera waste disposal site, however, some of the material may have been placed in the fire practice area. The chemical plant was located on the northern terminal at the location of the current sundry warehouse, blending, speciality products and aviation warehouse.

1966 During the operation of the chemical plant, the paddock to the east of the chemical plant was used as a trial area for the spraying of herbicides.

1970s The chemical plant activities changed from the formation of organochlorine pesticides to the production of organophosphate formulations.

1970s Area to the north of the truck wash was used for the gas freeing of underground storage tanks brought onto the site. Tanks are known to have overflowed during gas freeing with most of the overflow directed to site interceptor(s). Small amounts of hydrocarbons were released to the ground during gas freeing.

1978/1979 The bitumen processing plant was built in the north-east corner of the main tank farm (southern terminal).

Prior to 1980 The former swamp to the north (currently the northern portion of the fire training paddock) and west (currently the grassy field west of the carpark) of the fire training paddock was filled with waste including soil, steel, tyres and timber. No chemicals are known to have been disposed of in this area

1975 to 1980

The paddock to the east of the Interceptor No. 1 on the southern terminal was used as a trial area for the spraying of herbicides.

1980 The LPG storage was built in the northern terminal.

1981 The drum storage area for bulk chemicals was built.

1983 The decontamination plant was built and the cleaning of contaminated drums was undertaken in this area. Solvent and wash water waste is directed to an interceptor pit in the north-western corner of the decontamination shed. The decontamination plant is currently decommissioned.

1985 Compound No. 3 North in the southern terminal was used for the disposal of tank sludges (including leaded sludge produced during tank cleaning activities)

1986 The drum storage area was extended. Material that was removed to establish the foundation for the concrete pad base is believed to have been deposited beside the



14

Year Activity

bund wall of the tank enclosure to the north of the bitumen emulsion plant.

Prior to 1989 Possible waste disposal area in the south-east corner of the northern terminal where unknown amounts of bitumen emulsion were reportedly disposed of.

1989 A preliminary site assessment of soil and groundwater contamination was undertaken at the chemical plant. The report found organochlorine contamination with the highest levels of contamination found near the chemical plant decontamination area (now the aviation warehouse), the drum storage facility (now the sundry warehouse) and to the south west of the chemical plant. The investigation also found elevated total petroleum hydrocarbons near the chemical plant. The soil in the vicinity of the former chemical plant is stated to be green in colour in some areas.

1990 An assessment of soil contamination at Pinkenba Terminal was undertaken for use in the preparation of a remediation plan for the site. The report recommended the removal of soil to the south east and south west of the chemical plant, to the east of the LPG tanks, adjacent to the northern perimeter of the tank farm bund, in the fire training paddock and the LPG tank graveyard. The removed soil was proposed to be stockpiled on site and remediated in April 1993.

1980s/1990s Former interceptor sludge treatment area where sludges were placed in a plastic lined pit, remediated, soils tested and remediated soil placed on Compound No. 3 North near Tank 14.

Early 1990s Soil from beneath the drum filling and cleaning area was moved to fill a swampy area at the western boundary of the northern terminal. Soil from across the terminal has historically been placed in this area.

1990s Soil from the concrete bunded area on the southern terminal was moved to a location west of the interceptor.

Prior to 1993 Groundwater monitoring wells (MWA, MWB and MWC) were installed in the northern terminal.

April 1993 Contaminated soil from the south east and south west of the chemical plant, to the east of the LPG tanks, adjacent to the northern perimeter of the tank farm bund, in the fire training paddock and the LPG tank graveyard was excavated and moved to create a mixed stockpile to the south of the drum filling area.

1993 Installation of seven groundwater monitoring wells. Hydrocarbon impacted soil was detected in POB1 in the northern terminal. Hydrocarbon impacted groundwater was detected in POB2, POB4, POB6, POB7 and MWB.

February 1994

Soil from the mixed stockpile (April 1993) was moved and placed under the new warehouse on the Northern Terminal and beneath the Roadway ’C' placement site. The level of organochlorine pesticides within the placed material at the warehouse was considered to be suitable for use as a termite barrier in accordance with Australian Standard AS2057.

1994 The grease plant was built.

September 1995

Light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) detected in POB4, leading to detection of leak in jet A1 pipe in the south west corner of the southern terminal.

1995 - 1996 2000 litres of Jet A1 recovered from trenches and wells between September 1995 and March 1996.

1996 Inspection of Tank 24 containing unleaded petrol in the southern terminal found serious degradation of the tank due to corrosion. The tank had previously leaked and a



15

Year Activity

rock in the existing foundation is known to have caused a hole in the tank floor. MW13 is located near tank 24.

1996 Fire in compound area housing Tank 26 in 1996. The fire caused the tank seals to rupture with a loss of approximately 400 tonnes of bitumen feedstock. Foam concentrate was used to put out the fire.

1997/1998 The drum storage area to the east of the additives warehouse in the northern terminal contained drums with hydrocarbons leaking out onto the soil. The drums were subsequently taken off-site for disposal or solidified in an on-site pit prior to movement off-site to Willawong. The on-site pit (0.5m deep x 10m x 10m) was located adjacent to and south of the store building (to the south of the base oil storage area). Viscous bituminous material was mixed with approximately 60 tonnes of cement kiln fly-ash and the product removed from the site. The pit was subsequently backfilled. Soil from under the drum storage area was excavated and stockpiled on site for remediation. Tests on the soil were undertaken and the soil was found to be below investigation levels. The soil was then moved to an unknown destination on site.

July 1998 Organochlorine pesticides (including dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, dieldrin and endrin) were detected in groundwater in POB5.

January 1999

Organochlorine pesticides (including dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, dieldrin and endrin) were detected in MW09, POBZ and P085.

February Pesticide impact was delineated to the east of tank farm.

1999 Interceptor No. 1. Pesticide impact was reported to derive from impacted soil used as fill, or possibly from interceptor wastewater/sludge disposal in a pond formerly located to the east of interceptor No. 1 (refer to 1961).

January 2000

LNAPL was detected in MW07, MW13, MW20 and P081 (up to 0.777 m thickness) during biannual groundwater monitoring.

Late 2000 Soil (potentially contaminated with pesticides) was excavated from the area around the former chemical manufacturing plant (the exact location of the soil excavations is not known) and then stockpiled in a bunded but permeable area near the Bitumen Base Lubes plant.

January 2001

LNAPL was detected in MW07, MW13, MW20 and P081 during biannual groundwater monitoring.

April 2002 Oil spill of approximately 239,700 litres occurred in the base oil storage area. The area was cleaned up and impacted soil taken off-site. The western boundary of the bunded area is reportedly highly contaminated with base oil

November 2002

LNAPL was detected in MW13 and MW20 during biannual groundwater monitoring.

August 2003 Underground additives tank leak with some of the additive recovered near the gantry.

September 2003

Dieldrin above environmental investigation levels (0.37 mg/kg) was found in a soil sample to the west of the new warehouse on the northern terminal.

July 2008 During the construction of a new bulk storage tank (T30), minor hydrocarbon impacted soil was discovered within excavation material surrounding services trenches.

September 2009

During the upgrades of Tanks T5 and T14, hydrocarbon impacted soil, with concentrations exceeding 1998 commercial/industrial guidelines, was discovered within excavation material.



16

Year Activity

May 2012 A loss of additive NEM06101 was reported north of the grease plant in the northern terminal. Groundwater impact was not identified from this loss of product.

November 2013

During the potable water supply upgrade project, minor hydrocarbon impacted soil discovered near former diesel bowser location to front of fill-point office.

March 2014 During roadwork upgrades to the rail gantry, hydrocarbon impacted soil was encountered at depth during piling activities.

Source: ERM (2014) Soil Management Plan, Shell Pinkenba Terminal (CCJ900P), Eagle Farm Road, Pinkenba, Qld, Australia

3.6 Review of Historical Aerial Photographs

A total of seven historical aerial photographs have been reviewed. The historical aerial photographs spanned a period of 69 years, from 1949 to 2018. Aerial photographs were reviewed at approximately 10-year intervals (at the most appropriate scale) to allow for tracking of site use changes with particular focus on the fire training paddock, and surrounding properties over time. Copies of the aerial photographs reviewed are included in Appendix B.

Key observations made during the review of aerial photographs are summarised in Table 5.



17

Table 5 Historical Aerial Photograph Summary

Date Aerial Photograph Description

Information Source Site Site Surrounds

1949 The site appears to be undeveloped land. North: Eagle Farm Road, followed scattered rural residential properties South: Brisbane River East: Undeveloped land / mangroves West: Vacant land and an industrial facility with a wharf

Source: DNRM SVY572, Run 5, Frame 5049 Date: 28 June 1949

1958 Construction of the terminal is evident. The lube oil plant, gantry and scattered structures are located on the northern terminal. On the southern terminal, the tanks in Compounds No. 2, 3 and part 4, north and south are visible. The fire training paddock is not visible in this photo. The land appears undeveloped/swampy at that location.

North: A drainage channel (leads toward the mangroves to the east) then Eagle Farm Road, followed by a commercial property, beyond which are scattered rural residential properties South: Brisbane River East: Undeveloped land / mangroves West: Vacant land and an industrial facility with a wharf. Additional industrial developments are located further west

Source: DNRM Q768, Run 6, Frame 94 Date: 16 May 1958

1969 Additional infrastructure is visible on the northern terminal. The fire training paddock is present on the northeast corner of the site. A concrete slab appears to be located on the southern portion of the fire training paddock. The southern terminal appears unchanged with the exception that the ASTs are now visible in Compound No. 1.

North: Unchanged. South: Brisbane River East: Unchanged West: A mixture of vacant land, residential land and industrial facilities

Source: DNRM Q1939, Run 6, Frame 10 Date: 20 April 1969

1978 The site appears to be primarily unchanged, with the exception of a carpark, which is now visible on the northwest portion of the site, and large storage containers located near the grease plant and sundry warehouse. The fire training paddock appears to be covered in grass and the concrete slab is no longer visible.

North: Unchanged South: Brisbane River East: An industrial facility is now located adjacent east of the site West: A mixture of vacant land, residential land and industrial facilities

Source: DNRM Q3604, Run 12, Frame 3001 Date:14 August 1978

1987 Additional infrastructure is evident on the northern terminal. A large shed and four smaller structures are now located on the fire training paddock. The

North: A drainage channel then Eagle Farm Road, followed by a commercial property, beyond which is vacant land (the scattered rural residences are no longer visible). Boggy

Source: DNRM QC462, Run 12, Frame 112



18

Date Aerial Photograph Description

Information Source Site Site Surrounds

Bulk LPG storage area on the eastern portion of the site is now visible. The southern terminal remains primarily unchanged, with the exception of an additional AST in Compound No.1 North.

Creek is located further north of the site South: Brisbane River East: Unchanged West: Unchanged

Date:3 December 1987

1997 The northern terminal appears to be in its present day configuration. The state business centre is now visible on the northwest portion of the site. The fire training paddock appears primarily unchanged; however the four smaller structures are no longer visible. There appears to be a concrete slab on the south-eastern portion of the paddock.

North: Unchanged. Brisbane Airport is visible further north west of the site South: Brisbane River East: Unchanged West: Unchanged

Source: DNRM QC5562, Run 12, Frame 200 Date:16 August 1997

2002 The site appears primarily unchanged with the exception that the AST in Compound 3 is no longer visible. The fire training paddock appears similar to the 1997 photo; however the concrete slab is no longer visible.

North: Primarily unchanged, there appears to be an additional commercial facility further north of the site South: Brisbane River East: Unchanged West: Unchanged

Source: DNRM QAP5931, Run 12, Frame 74 Date:21 February 2002

2018 The site appears to be in its present day configuration. The AST in Compound 3 is now visible and the surface of the compound appears to be lined (i.e. not grassed). The fire training paddock appears unchanged.

North: Primarily unchanged, there appears to be an increase in commercial properties further north of the site South: Brisbane River East: Primarily unchanged, with the exception of an increase in industrial properties further east of the site West: Unchanged

Google Maps 2018



19

3.7 Surrounding Land Uses

The terminal is located alongside the Brisbane River, within the suburb of Pinkenba in the County of Stanley, Parish of Toombul. The site is currently zoned as Heavy Industrial by the Brisbane City Council Planning Scheme.

Descriptions relating to the land use surrounding the site are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 Surrounding Land Use

Direction from Site Site Use

North The Brisbane Portuguese Club (soccer club) Former Pinkenba Primary School (600m) Residential properties (700m northwest)

East Industrial properties , namely Bayer Crop Science (450m) & Origin Energy (700m)

South Brisbane River Industrial properties, namely Excel Pacific and Incitec Refinery 600m southwest

West Queensland Sheet and Steel Industrial Graincorp Liquid Terminal (bulk fuel storage)

A number of industrial properties surrounding the site are potential off-site sources of PFAS contamination. Firefighting foams could potentially have been used at Excel Pacific and Incitec Refinery, which are located approximately 600 m west of the site, and at Puma Refinery, located approximately 1.5 kilometres north. The Graincorp industrial site is adjacent to the western boundary of the southern terminal and anecdotal evidence5 suggests fire fighting foams have been used at this property. Firefighting foams could potentially have been used at commercial/industrial properties on the eastern side of the Brisbane River including the BP Refinery and Bayer Crop Science, located approximately 700 m and 450 m east of the site, respectively. The Brisbane Airport is located immediately north of the site and firefighting foam concentrate has been used for firefighting training. Foam concentrate is also known to have been released to the ground during an incident at the Qantas Hangar on 10 April 2017. The Brisbane River is located immediately adjacent south of the southern terminal. The Caltex refinery, where firefighting foams could potentially have been used, is located approximately 2.3 kilometres to the northeast, across the Brisbane River. Refer to Figure 2 and Figure 3.

3.8 Environmental Authority

The site operates a number of environmentally relevant activities (ERA) under the EA EPPR00327813 issued 16 December 2013 including:

ERA 50(2) – Bulk Materials Handling, loading or unloading 100 tonnes or more of bulk materials in a day or stockpiling bulk materials;

ERA 8(3) – Chemical Storage- storing more than 500m3 of chemicals of class C1 or C2 combustible liquids under AS1940 or dangerous goods class 3 under subsection (1C);

ERA 15 – Fuel Burning, using fuel burning equipment that is capable of burning at least 500 kg of fuel in an hour;

ERA 7(6C) – Chemical Manufacturing, manufacturing more than 10,000 tonnes but not more than 100,000 tonnes in a year, the following quantities of inorganic chemicals, other than inorganic chemicals

ERA 55 – Regulated Waste Recycling or reprocessing, regulated waste to produce saleable products;

5 Interviewee Mick Anderson, VIVA Energy 16/04/18



20

ERA56 – Regulated Waste Storage, consists of operating a facility for receiving and storing regulated waste for more than 24 hours;

ERA 60(1A) – Waste Disposal, operating a facility for disposing of less than 50,000 tonnes in a year; and

ERA 8(4) – Chemical Storage, storing 200 tonnes or more of chemicals that are solids or gases, other than chemicals mentioned in items 1 to 3 under subsection (1)(d).



21

4.0 Environmental Setting

4.1 Site Topography

The general area was reclaimed from tidal channels and mangrove flats prior to the terminal from being built with operations commencing in 1956. There is a retaining wall running along the southern perimeter of the southern terminal, parallel to Brisbane River.

The topography of the northern terminal is relatively flat with no visible gradient identified. The southern terminal is also relatively flat but with a slight gradient dipping to the southeast towards the Brisbane River. Interceptor number 1 (Release Point WD3) is centrally located on the southern boundary and all oily water from both northern and southern terminals is directed to this area prior to discharge to the Brisbane River.

4.2 Regional and Local Geology

The Brisbane 1:100,000 Geological Map, Sheet 9543, indicates the site is underlain by Quaternary coastal deposits comprising mud and sands followed by the Triassic to early Jurassic Woogaroo Subgroup consisting of quartzose, sandstones, siltstone and shale.

The site specific geological profile underlying both the northern and southern terminal consists of fill that extends to depths between 1.4 to 5.0 metres below ground level (mbgl). The fill generally consists of gravels, sands, silts and clays, which is underlain by native clay (Coffey Environments GME, 2006).

4.3 Hydrogeology

4.3.1 Groundwater Resources

The Groundwater Resources of Queensland 1:250,000 map (Department of Mines, 1987) indicates an expected groundwater yield of less than 5 L/sec with Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations between 500 and 1,500 mg/L which is considered suitable for most purposes, but marginal for human consumption. The aquifer beneath the site comprise of unconsolidated sedimentary strata such as sand and gravels.

A search of the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines registered groundwater bore database was conducted on 11 April 2017. The search identified 25 existing registered bores within 1.5 km of the site, 19 of which are located on the property immediately east of the southern terminal. Bore locations are shown on Figure 1. All registered bores are used for sub-artesian monitoring with the exception of three water supply bores (RN134409, RN134410 and RN134411) located between 115 m and 181 m south-east and hydraulically cross-gradient of the northern terminal, and west of the southern terminal. These are located within the Graincorp facility and are likely to be used for industrial purposes (e.g. cooling). There is the potential for extraction from these wells to affect local groundwater flow directions in the western portion of the northern and southern terminals due to gradient depression in the groundwater during extraction. The remaining three bores (RN22081, RN152436 and RN152437) are located between 500 m and 1 km hydraulically up-gradient to the north or cross-gradient to the southwest of the site and are considered unlikely to be potential receptors for groundwater contamination sourced from the site. The groundwater bore search results are presented in Appendix D.

4.3.2 On-Site Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater is generally encountered at less than 2.0 metres below ground level (mbgl). Typically shallow surface water levels are recorded during the wet season and deeper surface water levels are recorded during the dry season. The general groundwater flow direction across the site is to the south towards the Brisbane River. The groundwater hydraulic gradient is between 0.004 and 0.006. Section 6.3 summarises on-Site groundwater concentrations with respect to PFAS.

4.3.3 Off-Site Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality at Qantas and Brisbane Airport land located immediately to the north of Pinkenba Terminal was summarised in ERM (2017). Table 7 summarises the groundwater, surface water and



22

sediment concentrations detected at Brisbane Airport during investigations conducted in 2016 and 2017. As shown in the table, up to 10.8 mg/L PFOS and 12.0 mg/L PFHxS was detected in groundwater at Brisbane Airport in 2016.

Table 7 Off-Site Groundwater and Surface Water Quality

Site Units Max. PFOS Max. PFOA Max. PFHxS Max 6:2 FtS

Brisbane Airport (groundwater in

2016) µg/L 10,800 9.99 12,000 0.05

Brisbane Airport (surface water in

2016) µg/L 171 3.36 13.2 1.00

Brisbane Airport (sediment in 2016)

mg/kg 7.02 0.0162 0.0726 -

Qantas at Brisbane Airport (groundwater

in 2017) µg/L 1.08 8.32 0.813 653

Qantas at Brisbane Airport (surface water in 2017)*

µg/L 84.4 7.43 19.2 357

Notes: References are provided in ERM (2017). * channel along southern lease boundary.

4.4 Hydrology

The Brisbane River flows in an easterly direction parallel and immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the southern terminal.

A mangrove lined unnamed channel runs along the northern terminal’s northern and western boundaries and connects the Brisbane River with Boggy Creek. This channel is likely to be tidally influenced by both the Brisbane River and Boggy Creek. Given the proximity of the site to the Brisbane River and other surrounding tidal water bodies, groundwater at the site is likely to be tidally influenced.

Based on the site location, groundwater encountered beneath the site is likely to discharge, directly and indirectly via the unnamed channel, into middle estuary waters of the Brisbane River and estuarine and enclosed coastal waters of the Brisbane River and of Boggy Creek which have a management intent of moderately disturbed per Plan WQ1431 of South-east Queensland Map Series, Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 published in July 2010 (refer to Section 11.0).



23

5.0 Site Walkover Observations A site walkover was conducted on 16 April 2018 by two AECOM Environmental Consultants, and representatives from Viva Energy and GHD (site Auditor). The site walkover targeted the main areas where firefighting foam was known to be discharged, or stored and included visits to both the northern and southern terminals. The observations made during the site walkover are described in the subsections below. Photographs are presented in Appendix E.

5.1 Northern Terminal

The following areas of the northern terminal were inspected:

Former Fire Training Paddock

Gantry area

Sundry Warehouse (specialty shed)

Interceptor

These locations are shown on Figure 2. The observations are described below.

5.1.1 Former Fire Training Paddock

The former fire training paddock covers a large area (100 m x 70 m) is undeveloped, grassed and currently used for the storage of a small soil stockpile (8 m x 5 m x 0.8 m) (refer Photo 1). The soil stockpile is currently covered by black plastic sheeting (refer to Photo 2). A chain link fence approximately 3 m high runs along the eastern and northern boundaries of the paddock. Beyond the fence off-site to the north is an unnamed channel, which runs west to east parallel to the northern site boundary (refer Photo 3). The unnamed channel was observed to be full of water and contains mangroves (refer Photo 4). Beyond the fence to the east on-site is a vacant grassy field.

On the eastern portion of the paddock, an unlined stormwater channel was observed running north-south towards the unnamed channel located off-site (refer Photo 5). A concrete culvert was observed on the southeast corner of the paddock. The culvert appeared to be partially blocked with sediment and remnants of vegetation. The ground near the culvert appeared to be water logged (refer Photo 6). An unused disconnected water valve was observed approximately 3 m from the culvert (refer Photo 7). Waterlogged ground and slight discolouration was observed in the soil beyond the water valve, on the other side of the fence (refer Photo 8). A small concrete drain was observed near the southern boundary of the paddock. The drain appeared to be partially blocked by sediment and vegetation and the soil nearby appeared to be waterlogged (refer to Photo 9).

Fire water piping, fire hose reel and fire hydrant connections traverse the southern boundary of the paddock (refer to Photo 10). A storage shed is located on the northwest corner of the paddock (refer to Photo 11).

During the site walkover it was identified6 that the fire training paddock was formerly used on a monthly basis to train staff use of fire extinguishers. However the use of the foam concentrate and hose deployment would have been no more than 6 monthly to yearly. . The training involved using fire extinguishers to put out diesel fires within a plastic container approximately 1.5 m x 1.5 m x 1.0 m, located on a concrete slab. The finished foam was discharged over the fire and some foam would have been sprayed onto the ground surface around the container. The waste foam disposal method was unknown as the fire training was contracted out to a third party, however it was considered that the waste foam would not have been disposed to the interceptor as the waste liquid would have contained flammable materials. The earliest evidence of the fire training paddock at the site was provided by the 1969 historical aerial photograph. The last firefighting practice to take place at the former fire training paddock occurred in 1995.

6 Interviewee Bill Masclin, VIVA Energy 16/04/18, Eric Droste and Geoff Edwards VIVA Energy 30/04/18



24

It was also identified7 that surface water collected in the area to the west of the former fire training paddock (from the enclosed truck wash area and interceptor) was pumped approximately 400 m to the west, beyond the car park to the state business centre, and used to irrigate a grassy field.

5.1.2 Gantry Area

Two IBCs containing foam concentrate stored in trailers were located to the east and west of the gantry. They contain Ansulite (refer to Photo 12 and Photo 13). Wormwald are engaged to manage foam stocks and carry out testing. There used to be 20 litres carboys of foam /hoses stored in fire boxes around site. These were reported7 to be disposed of in 2016 by Suez with foam concentrate disposed of by destructive methods. It was reported that no foam concentrate has been stored in the on-site laboratory, although possibly a foam extinguisher is present.

It was identified8 that gantry deployment exercises using foam concentrate could have potentially occurred historically.

5.1.2.1 Base Oil Interceptor / Interceptor 3

The base oil interceptor, a licensed discharge point (WD2), located adjacent southwest of the lubricants base oil tank farm was inspected (refer to Photo 14). Stormwater runoff from the tank farm are collected in this interceptor for treatment (refer to Photo 15). The interceptor appeared to be in good condition.

5.1.3 Sundry Warehouse (Speciality Shed)

An IBC is present to the north of the shed containing Ansulite foam concentrate. Within the shed, in the southwestern corner there is another IBC containing foam concentrate and also a 200 litres drum of foam concentrate (refer to Photo 16). During the inspection there had been a release of foam from the drum (probably from the spear), which has resulted in a puddle of approximately 5 litres of foam concentrate around the drum on the concrete floor (which forms a bund). There were also 2 carboys of foam stored on the floor (refer to Photo 17). It was noted that following the site visit, the spill was cleaned up by Viva Energy, and all items have now been relocated to the adjacent aviation shed. The sundry shed and the aviation shed are both roofed and bunded.

5.1.4 Main Gantry Interceptor / Interceptor 1

The main gantry interceptor in the northern terminal was inspected (refer to Photo 18 and Photo 19). This is a licensed discharge point (WD1) where liquid process wastes and treated stormwater runoff the northern terminal are collected in this interceptor for treatment. The interceptor appeared in good condition. An IBC of Ansulite foam concentrate was present on the eastern side of the interceptor.

5.2 Southern Terminal

The following areas of the Southern Terminal were inspected:

Wharf

Tank farm interceptor

Tank farm

These locations are shown on Figure 3. The observations are described below.

5.2.1 Wharf

The fire suppression system at the wharf was inspected (refer to Photo 20). The fire suppression system at the wharf is semi-automatic. After the system is switched on, a valve at the foam storage area (which contains 4 IBCs of foam concentrate) has to be opened. The foam is connected via stainless steel pipe to a foam monitor at the wharf which is able to discharge water or foam (refer to Photo 21). Weekly tests of control system are carried out but no foam concentrate is used during testing. The current wharf was built in 2012. The wharf area contains 2 x 70 kg foam fire extinguisher (Ecofoam fluorine free) (refer to Photo 22). Following construction, the foam monitor was

7 Interviewee Sally Evans, VIVA Energy 16/04/18 8 Interviewee Geoff Edwards, VIVA Energy 30/04/18



25

commissioned which involved testing using foam which was discharged to the open bare earth section adjacent to the wharf. There was another foam monitor prior to 2012 which was potentially tested periodically.

It was identified9 that in the mid-2000s, there was testing of the foam systems on the wharf which sprayed the foam using a spear, back to the landside. The site was not affected by the 2011 floods, and the water did not reach over the top of the bank.

The river bank is exposed at low tide, which mainly has rocks present on the slope. There is access at two locations; a boat ramp and a set of stairs near the interceptor outfall (refer to Photo 23). The riverside is a secure area with no access permitted. Barnacles are present on the pylons of the wharf (refer to Photo 24). These support structures are not chemically treated9. Small crabs were observed on the exposed rocky bank.

5.2.2 Tank Farm Interceptor / Interceptor 1 (WD3)

The tank farm interceptor was inspected (refer to Photo 25). This is a licensed discharge point (WD3) where liquid process wastes and treated stormwater runoff from the bitumen plant and tank farm are collected in this interceptor for basic oil/water separation treatment. A sluice valve is used to prevent and/or permit the flow of the liquids. The interceptor appeared in good condition.

5.2.3 Tank farm

Compound No. 1 south (Tanks 1- 4) and Fire Wall C was inspected. The tank farm is divided into 4 compounds, separated by concrete bund walls and roadways. This allows for separation between tanks and emergency containment of tanks contents (refer to Photo 26). Each bund has its own drainage system consisting of bund valves, drainage pits and underground piping (refer to Photo 27). The pipework is connected to an interceptor external to the bunded areas. Valving on the pits allow for the manual release of rainwater to the main interceptor. Only Compound No. 3 North bund is sealed with a HDPE liner10. The other compounds are earthen/grassed (refer to Photo 28).

A number of tanks (those that don’t contain bitumen) have fire suppression systems installed. These either discharge foam at the base of the tank (where it floats to the surface) or at the rim of the tank. The top and bottom conductors are pressure tested periodically with the waste foam concentrate flushed out, collected and disposed off-site. Around six conductors are connected to a fire wall where foam is stored in an IBC (refer to Photo 29). There are eight fire walls with six of these containing foam connections. During an emergency response event, the foam concentrate is manually connected the conductor pipe for the relevant tank. There are no automatic fire suppression systems that use foam concentrate and there is one automatic water system9.

It was identified8 that historical testing using foam concentrate occurred at the tanks in Compound No.1 North and South and Compound No. 2 North and South. There was potential for finished foam to reach the ground in the compound. The foam testing exercises occurred perhaps every 5 to 10 years, or when major upgrades to tanks and equipment were completed.

9 Interviewee Bill Masclin, VIVA Energy 16/04/18 10 Interviewee Geoff Edwards, VIVA Energy 30/04/18



26

6.0 Review of On-Site Historical Records This section reports the findings of reviews of available historical records kept at the Pinkenba Terminal in relation to the use of firefighting foams containing PFAS, and potential for the discharge / release of foams containing PFAS to ground. The records reviewed included:

Firefighting foam inventory records;

Foam testing records;

Anecdotal information from interviews;

Site layout ‘as built’ drawings;

Information on historical incidents;

These are discussed in the subsections below.

6.1 Types of Firefighting Foams used at the Terminal

Firefighting foam inventories for April 2018 and February 2016 have been provided by Viva Energy. Limited historical foam inventory was available for review, as it is the policy of the terminal to retain only records relevant to its current use and storage of hazardous chemicals, as such, historical copies of the inventory prior to 2016 were not available from Viva Energy for review.

Viva Energy has advised AECOM that currently the foam used at the terminal is C6 purity compliant, supplied by Wormwald. TOP analysis has been conducted on the foam concentrates. It was also noted that historically 3M Lightwater was stored in intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) on the southern terminal and in one IBC on the northern terminal in 201511. In addition, approximately 42 former fire boxes were located on-site in 2015. The fire boxes usually contained between two and four 20 L foam drums. The typical brand of foam was Ansulite and Angus Tridol.

PFAS formulations of the firefighting foams used at the terminal are presented in Appendix H.

6.1.1 Current Firefighting Foam Inventory (April 2018)

The current volume of firefighting foam concentrate stored at the Terminal is identified in Table 8 below. This table is based on information supplied to AECOM by Viva Energy.

Table 8 Current (April 2018) Inventory of Firefighting Foam Concentrate

Area Storage Vessel Volume (litres) Type of Foam

Roadway D Gantry IBC 1000 Ansulite 3%/6% ARC

Roadway E Gantry IBC 1000 Ansulite 3%/6% ARC

Roadway C Gantry IBC 1000 FluroproteinA

Tank Farm Firewall B (Road 1)

IBC 1000 Ansulite 3%/6% ARC

Tank Farm Firewall C (Compound 1 South)


Tank Farm Firewall E ( Road 3)


Tank Farm Firewall F (Compound 2 Nth)


Tank Farm Firewall G (Compound 3 South)

2 x IBC 2000 Ansulite 3%/6% ARC

Tank Farm Wharf Foam Monitor

4 x IBC 4000 Ansulite 3%/6% ARC

11 Interviewee Sally Evans, VIVA Energy 16/04/18



27


NT Sundries Warehouse 4 x Pales (20 L) 80 Ansulite 3%/6% ARC

NT Additives Warehouse Drum 200 Ansulite 3%/6% ARC

NT Sundries Warehouse Drum 200 Ansulite 3%/6% ARC

NT Sundries Warehouse IBC 1000 Ansulite 6% AFFF

Total Quantity of Foam Concentrate in Storage 14,480

Note: A – Viva Energy has indicated that this IBC has now been relocated waiting for disposal.

As shown in Table 8, the total inventory at the site in April 2018 was 14,480 litres.

6.1.2 Historical Firefighting Foam Inventory (February 2016)

The volume of firefighting foam concentrate stored at the Pinkenba Terminal in 2016 is identified in Table 9 below.

Table 9 Historical (February 2016) Inventory of Firefighting Foam Concentrate


Roadway D Gantry IBC 1000 AFFF

Roadway E Gantry IBC 1000 AFFF

Roadway C Gantry IBC 1000 Fluroprotein

Tank Farm Firewall B (Road 1)

IBC 1000 AFFF

Tank Farm Firewall C (Compound 1 South)

IBC 1000 AFFF

Tank Farm Firewall E

( Road 3) IBC 1000 AFFF

Tank Farm Firewall F (Compound 2 Nth)

IBC 1000 AFFF

Tank Farm Firewall G (Compound 3 South)

2 x IBC 2000 AFFF

Tank Farm Wharf Foam Monitor

4 x IBC 4000 AFFF

NT Sundries Warehouse 4 x Pales (20 L) 80 AFFF

NT Additives Warehouse Drum 200 AFFF

Bitumen Plant Drum 200 AFFF

Total Quantity of Foam Concentrate in Storage 13,480

As shown in Table 9 , the total inventory at the site in April 2016 was 13,480 L.

6.2 Historical On-site Incidents

Limited information is available regarding historical on-site incidents. The incident register database for the terminal was not able to be reviewed at this time and information is pending from Viva Energy. The following information is based on site interviews and ERM (2014) Soil Management Plan. Only incidents involving the release of foam concentrate is presented in Table 10.



28

Table 10 Incident Database Register (Environmental Incidents)

Date of Incident

Incident description Reference

1994

In 1994 (or 1996 according to ERM [2014]) a bitumen tank (Tank 26) caught fire, which caused the tank seals to rupture with a loss of approximately 400 tonnes of bitumen feedstock. Foam concentrate was used to put out the fire with the foam concentrate sourced from stocks from on site, from Brisbane Airport and from the fire brigade. The tank was destroyed and replaced. It was unknown how much foam was sprayed, or what types were used or how the foam was cleaned up afterwards.

Interview with employee Mick Anderson on 16/04/2018

1997 or 1998

In 1997 or 1998 there was a leak from Tank 12 following a failure of the seal at the pump. A foam blanket was deployed. The type of foam, the volume of foam concentrate used and how the finished foam was cleaned up afterwards was not known.

Interview with employee Mick Anderson on 16/04/2018

6.3 Historical Environmental Investigation Reports

Monitoring for PFAS commenced at the site in 2013 and AECOM has reviewed all historical environmental reports that have included PFAS monitoring. No reports that included soil analytical data were available for review. A complete list of historical environmental investigations conducted for the site is presented in Appendix C this is based on references provided in currently available reports. A summary of historical groundwater PFAS analytical results are presented in Table 11. A total of eight monitoring wells (out of 56 existing monitoring wells) have been sampled for PFAS at the Pinkenba Terminal. Three wells have been regularly monitored for PFAS since 2013 and PFAS has been consistently detected in these wells. Five wells were monitored on one occasion in 2017 and PFAS was detected in all these wells.

Three monitoring wells on the northern terminal, which are all located in the vicinity of the former fire training paddock have been monitored on a biannual basis since 2013. Results show higher PFAS concentration have been consistently present in monitoring well UW02, which is located in the southern portion of the former fire training paddock. PFOS concentrations have ranged between 59 and 507 µg/L. PFAS concentrations were detected in groundwater samples from five monitoring wells on the southern terminal in June 2017 with PFOS concentrations between 0.24 and 7.25 µg/L in four of the wells (MW04, MW12, MW13, MW15) and at 53.2 µg/L in MW16. Monitoring well MW16 is located adjacent to Tank 26 and may be associated with foam discharged in response to an incident at this tank in the mid to late 1990s. The June 2017 GME report (AECOM, 2017) identified that groundwater samples from both the northern and southern terminals exceeded human health screening levels for recreational activities and ecological screening levels for protection of marine ecosystems.



29

Table 11 Summary of Historical Groundwater Monitoring Analytical Results

Well ID Date

Sampled PFHxS (µg/L)

6:2 FTS (µg/L)

PFOA (µg/L) PFOS (µg/L)

Northern Terminal

POB02

13/03/2013 - <0.0075 <0.005 <0.021

16/07/2013 - - - 0.03

26/03/2014 - - <0.1 <0.1

30/07/2014 - - <0.01 0.02

27/03/2015 - <0.5 <0.1 <0.1

5/08/2015 - <0.1 <0.02 <0.02

24/02/2016 - <0.1 <0.01 0.02

27/07/2016 - <0.05 <0.01 0.1

28/02/2017 0.05 <0.05 <0.01 0.12

10/08/2017 0.05 <0.05 <0.01 0.04

20/03/2018 0.04 <0.05 <0.01 0.05

MWC

16/07/2013 - - - <0.02

26/03/2014 - - <0.1 0.2

30/07/2014 - - <0.01 0.12

27/03/2015 - <0.5 <0.1 <0.1

5/08/2015 - <0.1 0.11 0.25

25/02/2016 - <0.5 <0.05 <0.05

27/07/2016 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

28/02/2017 0.55 <0.05 0.02 0.08

10/08/2017 0.52 <0.05 0.02 0.1

20/03/2018 0.49 <0.05 <0.05 0.1

UW02

13/03/2013 - 0.9 13.4 507

16/07/2013 - - 84.7

27/03/2015 - <5 2.5 59

5/08/2015 - 0.4 2.51 121

25/02/2016 - <0.5 2.19 90.5

27/07/2016 - 0.28 3.54 120

28/02/2017 108 0.22 3.43 166

10/08/2017 68.8 0.55 3.38 89.3

20/03/2018 97 0.2 3.64 156

Southern Terminal

MW04 28/02/2017 1.48 <0.05 0.05 1.91

MW12 28/02/2017 2.21 <0.05 0.06 7.25

MW13 28/02/2017 1 <0.05 0.13 2.46

MW15 28/02/2017 2.29 <0.05 0.11 0.24

MW16 28/02/2017 43.1 <0.05 1.00 53.2

Note: Bolded numbers denotes concentration detected above the LOR.



30

6.4 Summary of Key Findings from the Preliminary Site Investigation

The key information identified during the review of on-site records is summarised below:

Since 2015, the main types of firefighting foam used at the site was 3M Lightwater, AFFF, Ansul Fluroprotein, and Ansulite 3%/6% ARC. The current inventory indicates that approximately 14,480 litres of foam concentrate is being stored at the site in various IBCs and smaller containers. No information is available from Viva Energy regarding the types or volumes of firefighting foam used prior to 2015, however it is likely that the foam concentrate types in the 2015 inventory were on-site for a period of at least 5 to 10 years as the product (especially 3M) did not degrade. There was also evidence that the foam totes were ‘topped up’ with other foams (as 5 L samples were drawn each year for efficiency testing of the foams and therefore were topped up from other IBCs or 20 L drums). This was an assumption made based on the PFOS/PFOA concentrations in laboratory tests completed in 2015.

A number of on-site potential sources of PFAS have been identified including the fire training paddock, locations where AFFF has discharged in response to incidents, leaks and spills from storage locations and locations where AFFF was discharged during testing of fire suppression systems.

The fire training paddock is the only location on site known to be used for firefighting training using foam concentrate. The earliest evidence of the fire training paddock at the site was provided by the 1969 historical aerial photograph. The last firefighting practice to take place at the former fire training paddock occurred in 1995. Based on anecdotal information, the frequency of fire extinguisher training using foam at the fire training paddock during the 1990s was 6 monthly to yearly. The frequency of training prior to the 1990s has not been identified.

The fire training paddock is located on unsealed ground in the northern portion of the northern terminal adjacent to an off-site mangrove lined drainage channel. On the eastern portion of the paddock, an unlined stormwater channel was observed running north-south towards the mangrove lined channel located off-site. Firefighting training using foam concentrate at the fire training paddock would have discharged to grade and the finished foam potentially entered the unlined stormwater channel via runoff or seeped into the ground. PFAS concentrations in groundwater beneath the area of the fire training paddock have been consistently detected and are the highest detected at the site with the maximum concentration of 507 µg/L recorded in UW02 in March 2013 (when monitoring for PFAS commenced.

Firefighting foam is known to have discharged in response to incidents in the mid to late 1990s at Tank 26 and Tank 12. The foam would have either been collected and disposed of off-site, or run off into surface water drains that flowed into Interceptor 1 or seeped into the ground. The PFAS impact reported in the monitoring well located near Tank 26 (MW16) during the June 2017 GME contained the highest concentrations of PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA on the southern terminal.

No information has been identified regarding the potential use of firefighting foams at the site in response to incidents prior to the 1990s.

On the southern terminal, elevated concentrations of PFAS were detected in all five groundwater wells (MW04, MW12, MW13, MW15 and MW16) that were sampled, located approximately 30-60m from the Brisbane River during the June 2017 GME.

Testing of the foam historically occurred at the gantry and at Compounds No.1 and No. 2 North and South in the southern terminal. The foam would have either been collected and disposed of off-site, or run off into surface water drains that flowed into Interceptor 1, or seeped into the ground.

The grassy field, west of the carpark and state business centre was historically irrigated with surface water collected from the area west of the former fire training paddock (including the truck wash bay and workshop Interceptor 4).

No soil samples or other media was available to be reviewed for PFAS related impacts.

Based on the available information reviewed the following data gaps and uncertainties relate to the conceptual understanding of the site:



31

- Limited spatial and temporal groundwater data on-site. Monitoring for PFAS commenced in 2013 and a total of 8 out of 56 monitoring wells from the existing well network have been sampled for PFAS at the Pinkenba Terminal. Three wells have been regularly monitored for PFAS since 2013 and PFAS has been consistently detected in these wells. Five wells were monitored on one occasion in 2017 and PFAS was detected in all these wells. The extent of PFAS in groundwater across the site has not been characterised. The potential for PFAS to migrate in groundwater onto the site from off-site sources is not known.

- Limited soil and sediment data on-site. No soil or sediment samples have been collected and analysed for PFAS related impacts in source areas on the site.

- The contaminant flux migrating in groundwater or water discharges off-site and the potential impacts at the receiving environment.

- Potential migration pathways to the unnamed channel and Brisbane River is currently unknown.

- Hydrogeological conditions beneath the site are currently not well understood. Tidal influence on the unnamed creek and the effect on site groundwater are unknown. The potential for PFAS impacted surface water from the Brisbane River to impact the unnamed channel is not known.

- The total mass of firefighting foam historically used on the site is uncertain. The historic formulations of the foam potentially prior to 2005 are unknown.



32

7.0 Preliminary PFAS Conceptual Site Model

7.1 Introduction

A preliminary CSM has been developed based on the review of the available data which have been collected to date. The preliminary CSM is a dynamic tool that will be continually challenged and updated throughout the assessment process as new information becomes available. Its development will be an iterative process. At the end of each phase of investigation or where key pieces of information become available, the CSM will be refined, as required.

The purpose of the preliminary CSM is to provide an understanding of the nature and extent of PFAS impacts and the migration mechanisms, and the exposure pathways by which identified receptors may be exposed to PFAS from the site, and to serve as a framework to assess potential risks to human health and ecological receptors. The preliminary CSM also assists in identifying uncertainties and data gaps.

In accordance with national guidance on assessment of contamination (NEPM, 2013), potential risks to receptors are evaluated based on three components:

Source: A potentially hazardous substance that has been released into the environment

Receptors: A person, ecosystem or ecological member potentially at risk of experiencing an adverse response following exposure to the source or derivatives of the source

Pathway: A mechanism by which receptors can become exposed to the source or derivatives of the source.

This relationship is commonly known as a Source-Pathway-Receptor (SPR) linkage. Where one or more elements of the SPR linkage are missing, the exposure pathway is considered to be incomplete and no further assessment is required. The preliminary PFAS site conceptual model is presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

7.2 Sources

Key findings from the preliminary CSM are as follows:

7.2.1 Primary Sources:

Historical firefighting training at the former fire training paddock using foam containing PFAS on the northern terminal.

Areas where there were historical incidents requiring discharge of large volumes of finished foam, potentially containing PFAS, including Tank 12 and Tank 26 on the southern terminal.

Areas where historical foam testing was occasionally carried out including the gantry and tanks in Compounds 1 and 2 North and South in the southern terminal.

Locations used for storage of AFFF. Current locations include around the gantry, at the sundry warehouse, at the wharf storage and at the tank compounds.

7.2.2 Secondary Sources:

Infrastructure such as pipework, hoses, pumps, tanks, drains that have been exposed to firefighting foams containing PFAS have the potential to be ongoing secondary sources of contamination by residual PFAS leaching out of items.

Surface soil where firefighting foam containing PFAS was discharged to surface.

PFAS in unsaturated zone soil beneath potential source area zones following leaching from ground surface.

PFAS in sediment, surface water and biota within the mangrove lined channel located adjacent north off-site.



33

PFAS in sediment, surface water and biota at discharge points along the adjacent banks of the Brisbane River located off-site to the south.

PFAS in soil along the unlined drainage channel and the concrete culvert located on the eastern portion of the paddock.

The stone pitched drain which collects treated stormwater from the site and discharges into the Brisbane River. The drain runs parallel to the tank farm and the adjacent east site.

7.2.3 Off-site Sources

The following off-site sources have the potential to affect groundwater, sediment and biota quality beneath, on or surrounding the site.

Use of firefighting foams at Brisbane Airport, located immediately north of the site.

Qantas incident in 2017 at Brisbane Airport, which released foam concentrate to ground and surface water.

Potential use of firefighting foams / other chemicals containing PFAS at Excel Pacific and Incitec Refinery, located approximately 600 m west of the site.

Potential use of firefighting foams / other chemicals containing PFAS at Graincorp adjacent to the western boundary of the southern terminal. Anecdotal evidence12 suggests that Graincorp contains a foam bladder system in its gantry and a foam bladder on the wharf.

Potential use of firefighting foams / other chemicals containing PFAS at BP Refinery and Bayer Crop Science located approximately 700 m and 450 m east of the site, respectively.

Potential use of firefighting foams / other chemicals containing PFAS at the Caltex Refinery, located approximately 2.3 km across the Brisbane River to the northeast.

These potential off-site sources near the Terminal may affect surface water, sediment and biota quality in the Brisbane River and within creek and drainage channels near the site including the unnamed channel adjacent to the northern boundary of the Site.

7.3 Migration Mechanisms:

A variety of migration mechanisms may have contributed to the migration of PFAS from the site:

Discharge of PFAS to ground surface

Leakage of PFAS from storage infrastructure

Spilling of PFAS to ground surface during filling and decanting operations

Sorption of PFAS to soil in areas where firefighting foams were historically used

Localised dispersion of firefighting foams with wind during historical application

Surface water run-off containing PFAS flowing into surface water and migration within the drainage system into the Brisbane River and the mangrove lined unnamed channel

Leaching of PFAS from soil and infiltration to groundwater in areas where firefighting foams were historically used

Lateral and vertical migration of PFAS in groundwater under the influence of groundwater flow and PFAS dispersion

Sorption of PFAS to soil below the groundwater table during migration with groundwater. Sorption to soil slows down the migration of PFAS but sorbed PFAS may continue to diffuse back into groundwater and act as a secondary source, if conditions are suitable

Transport of sediment containing PFAS in Brisbane River, mangrove lined unnamed creek and Boggy Creek

12 Interviewee Mick Anderson, VIVA Energy 16/04/18



34

Extraction of PFAS in groundwater. Three water supply bores (RN134409, RN134410 and RN134411) are located between 115 m and 181 m south-east and hydraulically cross-gradient of the northern terminal, and west of the southern terminal. These are located within the Graincorp facility and are likely to be used for industrial purposes (e.g. cooling). The potential for historical irrigation using groundwater cannot be discounted.

7.4 Exposure Pathways:

The following potential exposure pathways have been identified for the site and off-site:

Persons incidentally ingesting PFAS impacted soil

Persons in direct contact with PFAS impacted surface water during recreational activities

Persons drinking or using PFAS impacted abstracted groundwater from groundwater bores

Persons consuming PFAS impacted biota

Ecological receptors in direct contact with PFAS impacted soil, sediment and surface water

7.5 Receptors

The following potential receptors have been identified:

Personnel who work at the site

Recreational users of the surface water (Brisbane River, mangrove lined unnamed channel, Boggy Creek)

Intrusive (i.e. involved in soil excavation) maintenance workers who may conduct infrequent maintenance activities at the site and come into contact with impacted soil

Visitors to the site who stay for a short period and are not frequently present at the site

Users of abstracted groundwater

Human consumers of impacted biota

The terrestrial ecosystem following potential off-site irrigation using water

The aquatic ecosystem of the Brisbane River, mangrove lined unnamed channel and Boggy Creek

7.6 Assessment of Exposure Pathways

The table below presents an assessment of the exposure pathways.



35

Table 12 Preliminary PFAS Conceptual site Model

Source Pathway Transport

Mechanism Receptor Linkage

PFAS in soil Excavation of soil during construction activities

Human health: incidental ingestion of soil, direct contact of soil (dermal contact and dust inhalation)

Intrusive maintenance workers

Unlikely due to use of occupational health and safety controls

General Terminal activities

Human health: incidental ingestion of soil, direct contact of soil (dermal contact and dust inhalation)

Commercial workers / Visitors

Possible as workers would not be subject to the same occupational health and safety controls as excavation workers

Uptake and bioaccumulation in plants and terrestrial biota

Ecological: ingestion of plants and terrestrial biota by higher order ecological receptors

Terrestrial ecosystem Unlikely as PFAS impacted water was not used for irrigation. Water used for irrigation was sourced from the truck wash bay and workshop Interceptor 4.

PFAS in groundwater

Groundwater transport in aquifer followed by extraction

Human health: direct ingestion or incidental ingestion or dermal contact with groundwater (on-site)



Groundwater transport in aquifer followed by extraction for recreational and domestic uses and irrigation

Human health: direct ingestion or incidental ingestion or direct contact of groundwater (off-site)

Residents Possible. Foams with PFAS have been discharged to ground since possibly the 1970s. Currently no extraction bores are known to be located down-hydraulic gradient of the site.

Groundwater discharge to surface waters / sediments

Human health: incidental ingestion or direct contact with sediment or surface water (off-site)

Resident / Recreational user

Possible. PFAS impacted groundwater wells are located within 60 m from the Brisbane River.

Ecological (off-site) Ecosystem (off-site) Possible. PFAS impacted groundwater wells are located within 60 m from the Brisbane River.

Accumulation of PFAS in sediment along

Excavation of soil during construction

Human health: incidental ingestion or direct contact with sediment (on-


Possible. Potential for finished foams containing PFAS to have been



36



drainage channels on-site to unnamed channel, Boggy Creek and Brisbane River

activities site) transported through the drains and along drainage channels to the Mangrove lined channel, Boggy Creek and Brisbane River.

Human health: incidental ingestion or direct contact with sediment (off-site)


Uptake and bioaccumulation in plants and terrestrial biota in drainage channels

Ecological: ingestion of plants and terrestrial biota by higher order ecological receptors

Terrestrial ecosystem Possible. It is noted that the drainage channels/culverts were partially blocked by sediment and vegetation so it is possible that the original level is less than 2 m below the current ground level. The root and habitation zone for species is considered to apply from surface to 2 m depth below ground level.

PFAS in surface water (unnamed channel, Boggy Creek, Brisbane River)

Surface water transport in drains (stormwater and trade waste) on and off-site into unnamed channel, Boggy Creek and Brisbane River. Discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface water

Human health: direct ingestion or incidental ingestion or direct contact with on-site surface water (i.e. surface water, drainage)



Human health: direct ingestion or incidental ingestion or direct contact with off-site surface water (unnamed channel, Boggy Creek, Brisbane River)

Recreational user Possible. Potential for finished foams containing PFAS to have been discharged into the unnamed channel, Boggy Creek and Brisbane River.

Uptake and bioaccumulation in aquatic biota

Ecological: ingestion of biota by higher order ecological receptors

Aquatic ecosystem Possible. Potential for finished foams containing PFAS to have been discharged into unnamed channel, Boggy Creek and Brisbane River.

Human health: direct ingestion of biota

Residents/Recreational User

Possible. Cannot be discounted at this stage.

Accumulation of PFAS in creek / river sediment

Incidental exposure during recreational activities

Human health: incidental ingestion or direct contact of sediment (off-site)


Possible. Cannot be discounted at this stage.



37



Bioaccumulation in aquatic biota

Ecological: ingestion of biota by higher order ecological receptors

Aquatic ecosystem

Human health: direct ingestion of biota

Residents/Recreational User



38

8.0 Data Quality Objectives This SAQP is designed to provide preliminary characterisation of the nature and extent of PFAS contamination impacts at the site and at key up-gradient and downgradient boundary locations.

Schedule B2 - Guideline of Site Characterisation. National Environment Protection (Assessment of site Contamination) Measure 1999. (National Environment Protection Council, 2013) specifies that the nature and quality of the data produced in an investigation will be determined by the DQOs. As referenced by NEPM, the DQO process is detailed in the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G-4 : EPA/240/B-06/001), February 2006. The US EPA defines the process as ‘a strategic planning approach based on the Scientific Method that is used to prepare for a data collection activity. It provides a systematic procedure for defining the criteria that a data collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect’.

The DQO process underpinning the preliminary SAQP for Stage 1 – DSI is documented in Table 13. Table 14 presents a reconciliation of the Requirements against the proposed work scope.



39

Table 13 Data Quality Objectives

Gap 1: Evaluation of historical activities undertaken at the site which involved the use and potential release of PFAS

Gap 2: Characterisation of extent of PFAS in soil, groundwater, sediment and surface water in the near field

Problem Statement A Comprehensive PSI of the potential historical uses of firefighting foam containing PFAS at the site has not been completed. Although a limited PSI was conducted for this SAQP (which included a site walkover and employee interviews), no detailed evaluation of historical activities on-site has been undertaken. The identification of all PFAS containing products historically used and their PFAS formulations are unknown.

To date there has been limited characterisation for PFAS and co-occurring contaminants in groundwater with other environmental media in the on-site near field environment not characterised. These, include at the locations of potential sources areas, in groundwater across the site and along potential pathways including tidal waters and sediments (i.e. tidal drains and Brisbane River bank). There are a number of known PFAS sources in the vicinity of the site and the potential for off-site sources to affect the near field environment is not known.

Decision Identification

Are all potential historical PFAS source zones on-site and off-site identified? Are all pathways via which PFAS has migrated or has been released from the source zones into the near field environment adequately identified?

Is the extent of the PFAS and co-occurring contaminants in the near field environment adequately characterised on-site and are any risks apparent to human health or the environment?

Decision Inputs A comprehensive PFAS Phase I investigation will be completed and the conceptual site model will be updated to identify the source-pathway-receptor linkages for PFAS at the site that could be potentially complete.

Groundwater The existing groundwater monitoring network has been reviewed to identify locations to target for analysis for PFAS and co-occurring contaminants. The selected groundwater sampling locations and justification for the selection of these wells in the context of the identified potential source areas are presented in Table 15 below with the locations of these wells shown on Figure 2 and Figure 3. A total of 32 wells (POB01, POB02, POB03, POB05, MWA, MWB, MWC, MWD, MWE, MWF, UW02, E03, E04, MW29, MW01, MW02, MW03, MW04, MW07, MW08, MW10A, MW11, MW12, MW13, W15, MW16, MW17, MW18, MW19, MW20, MW21 and MW22) out of the 56 existing wells on-site have been selected for PFAS and co-occurring contaminants analysis in samples of groundwater from beneath the Terminal.



40



In addition 5 new groundwater wells (MW34, MW35, MW36, MW37 and MW38) on the northern terminal will be installed for delineation purposes. To improve understanding of hydrogeological conditions beneath the site, data loggers should be installed into two locations in the northern terminal and two locations in the southern terminal and record changes in groundwater level for a period of at least one-week. Soil The fire training paddock is known to have been used for firefighting training using foam concentrate. The soil in this potential source area will be characterised by the excavation of 12 shallow test pits (or drilling) to approximately 2m depth. Six test pits will be located close to the likely location where the former training exercises took place. Six further test pits will be excavated at locations stepped out. Four surface soil samples will be collected from locations along the on-site drainage channel. Surface soil samples will be collected from other potential source zone locations with two samples collected from bunds to Tanks 12 and 26, Compounds 1 and 2, the wharf foam monitor testing area and 10 on-site storage locations. Sediment and surface water samples For the purpose of the near field assessment, four co-located sediment and surface water samples (SED1 to SED4 and SW1 to SW4) will be collected from the mangrove lined unnamed channel adjacent north of former fire training paddock. Three sediment samples (SED5 to SED7) will be collected from the Brisbane River, near the drain outfalls to understand the potential partitioning of PFAS to sediment when the freshwater comes into contact with saltier water. Water and Sediment samples from drains Water from within the three interceptors (WD1, WD2 and WD3), stone pitched drain and the trade waste connection drain discharging waste water from the site will be collected. Sediment will also be collected (if available) from the stone pitch and trade waste drains.



41



The locations of these samples are shown on Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Study Boundaries The study area comprises the site, as indicated on Figure 1.

The study area comprises the site and the immediate off-site environment sediment and surface water sample locations as indicated on Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Decision Rule Should additional information regarding historic source zones, potential migration pathways or PFAS products used on-site, further assessment will be required.

Should groundwater, soil, surface water and sediment results indicate a potentially unacceptable risk to human health or environment; further assessment and/or management will be required.

Decision Optimisation

NA The groundwater samples scheduled to be collected from selected monitoring wells and analysed for PFAS. The analytical results will be compared against NEMP (HEPA, 2018) screening levels to assess risk. The investigation design is based on a review of existing available data and will be subject to Auditor review and approval. The sampling design will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary during fieldwork implementation to ensure that the relevant DQOs are met to adequately address the data gap.

Table 14 Reconciliation of Requirements Against Proposed Work Scope

Requirement No.

Requirement Comment

2 By 18 May 2018 you must develop and submit a monitoring plan to the department to characterise the nature and extent of PFAS contamination impacts at the premises and include a near field assessment. This monitoring plan must be consented to by a contaminated land Auditor and be implemented at the premises. Comments provided to you by the department by 1 June 2018 must be incorporated in the monitoring plan before conducting further monitoring.

This report, which includes a SAQP, is considered to provide the monitoring plan.

3a Evaluation of historical activities undertaken at the premises which has involved the use and potential release of PFAS containing material at the premises.

Limited PSI information is included in this report.

3b Identification of all PFAS containing products used and their PFAS formulations (if practicable).

All available Viva Energy records and interviews with suitable Viva Energy staff have been conducted to ascertain information on PFAS products and are included in this report



42

Requirement No.

Requirement Comment

(see Appendix H).

3c Identification of all contaminant source zones and pathways into the environment.

This report has identified the main potential contaminant source zones and pathway into the environment.

3d(i) Analytical data that characterises the nature of the PFAS contamination in source zones at the premises.

This report identifies a scope of work to characterise soil and groundwater contamination beneath the main potential source zone (fire training paddock) and collection of surface soil samples from storage areas and incident locations where foam was used.

3d(ii) Analytical data that characterises the nature of the PFAS contamination in pathways via which PFAS has migrated or has been released from the source zones into the nearfield environment.

This report identifies a scope of work to characterise groundwater pathways beneath the site and potential surface water pathways at the site including soil in surface water channels features and within interceptors.

3d(iii) Analytical data that characterises the nature of the PFAS contamination in the near-field environment, described as tidal waters (including sediments) in the location of the pathways (e,g. adjacent tidal drains and the adjacent Brisbane River bank).

This report identifies a scope of work to characterise sediment and surface water (drainage channel and Brisbane River).

3d(iv) Analytical data that characterises the nature of the PFAS contamination in groundwater (to the extent practicable, include groundwater monitoring in background locations identified as likely to be unaffected by PFAS releases from the premises).

One groundwater well from the existing well network has been selected to be potentially representative of background groundwater conditions. Monitoring well MW29 is located off-site, downgradient to the southeast of the northern terminal. However, it is to be noted that the surrounding area is occupied by heavy industrial facilities, and anecdotal evidence suggests fire fighting foams have been used by neighbouring properties (i.e Graincorp and Brisbane Airport), and as such this location may not be an ideal background sampling location (free of PFAS).

4 The Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment submitted under requirement 3 must be sufficient to evaluate the extent of any PFAS contamination on site and whether any releases to the near-field environment have occurred or are occurring, considering all media potentially affected by PFAS releases including soil, any relevant affected on-site infrastructure such

This report identifies a scope of work to characterise a range of media including soil, groundwater, sediment and surface water. The report has identified potential areas of infrastructure (e.g. concrete pads, where a leaking container in the sundry warehouse was observed during the site



43

Requirement No.

Requirement Comment

concrete pads, sediment, surface water, groundwater and biota offsite (acknowledging that in biota assessment, sampling to evaluate suitability of lower order biota as food for higher order predators is allowed).

walkover). Sampling of the concrete slabs will be conducted, where practicable, on an opportunistic basis. If the Stage 1 identifies concrete to be a secondary source, targeted sampling of concrete could be conducted as part of a later phase of the investigation. It is noted that coring of concrete structures would require appropriate re-instatement /sealing. The report has not identified potential biota that might be impacted. It is considered that there is insufficient evidence at this stage to conduct targeted biota sampling. The findings of the DSI will provide information to improve the conceptual understanding of contaminant migration at the site. If required, biota sampling could be conducted at a later of the investigation.

5 Using the finding and results of the Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment, evaluate whether environmental harm is being caused or threatened, noting that environmental harm may be caused by the relevant activity-( a) whether the harm is a direct or indirect result of the activity; or (b) whether the harm results from the activity alone or from the combined effects of the activity and other activities or factors e.g. other activities that may release PFAS into the receiving environment.

The DSI will include assessment against the screening criteria identified in this report. If required, based on the findings of the DSI, quantitative human health and environmental risk assessments could be conducted as a later phase of the investigation.

6a The Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment submitted under requirement 3 must incorporate analysis for the suite of 28 standard fluorinated organic compounds by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) [trace level analysis].

The scope of work activities identified in this report includes analysis for the 28 standard PFAS compounds.

6b The Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment submitted under requirement 3 must incorporate analysis for total oxidisable precursor (TOP) Assay followed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) [trace level analysis] as in requirement (a), reported as the analyses for the resulting perfluorinated carboxylates for C4 to C14 carbon chain length (TOP C4-C14) plus perfluorinated sultanates carbon chain length C4 to C10.

The scope of work in this report includes analysis of a selection of samples in source areas (i.e former fire training paddock) for TOP Assay (refer to Section 8.1).



44

Requirement No.

Requirement Comment

6c The Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment submitted under requirement 3 must incorporate analysis for soil and groundwater by use of advanced mass spectrometric methods i.e. quadrupole time of flight (QTOF MS) in circumstances where a there is insufficient information available to clearly identify PFAS products used and formulations, in source zones (except in the case where the suitably qualified person and auditor provide reasonable justification that this would not reasonably further the aims of this investigation, noting that QTOF MS analysis by either a commercial laboratory capable of performing such analysis or a research intuition that has published peer reviewed literature on PFAS identification by QTOF MS are permitted and must be considered).

Analysis of soil and groundwater samples by QTOF MS is not included in this scope of work due to the limitations of this analytical method, which has a very limited library. The focus of the Site Characterisation and Near Field Assessment (DSI) is to establish PFAS concentrations in various environmental media at and adjacent to the site to assess human health and ecological risks. Dependant on the groundwater and surface water results from the DSI (i.e PFAS results would potentially indicate if different types of foam residues are present in different locations/media), it is considered that QTOF MS analysis could be included in Stage 2 works.

6d The Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment submitted under requirement 3 must incorporate analysis for co-occurring contaminants that may also cause environmental harm, when they are present, for example, accelerants used in fire training or contaminants spilt in the same location, identification of those contaminants using limits of reporting sufficient to evaluate any associated environmental harm.

The scope of work activities identified in this report includes analysis for soil and groundwater from the fire training paddock for a non-PFAS suite including volatile organic compounds (VOC) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC) for the assessment of accelerants that may have been used during firefighting training. Soil samples from the potential source areas will also be analysed for a petroleum hydrocarbon analytical suite including total recoverable hydrocarbons, BTEX, PAHs and phenols. In addition, all groundwater samples will be analysed for a major ions suite. It is noted that this is a PFAS focused investigation and as such other COPCs (i.e organochlorine pesticides) have not been considered.

7 The Site Characterisation and near Field Assessment submitted under requirement 3 must, to the extent practicable, include groundwater monitoring in background locations identified as likely to be unaffected by PFAS releases from the premises as well as source zone and pathway sampling.

Refer to the comments under Requirement 3. Review of publically available information will be conducted in the DSI to assess regional impacts and identification of suitable background sampling locations (which will be collected at a later phase of investigation).

8 In the event that environmental monitoring of the affected environment identifies a risk to public safety or human consumption aquatic food stuff, you must notify the department of the results and finding within 24 hours of becoming aware of the risk.

As biota sampling is not included in the scope of the Stage 1 works, information will not be collected during the investigation to inform scenarios where there are public safety risks from human consumption of aquatic biota.



45

Requirement No.

Requirement Comment

Notwithstanding this, should a public safety be identified (e.g. if significant PFAS concentrations are detected in sediments or surface water of the unnamed channel or the Brisbane River), the notification process will be followed for the duty to notify DES of environmental harm as set out under ss. 320 to 320 G of the Environmental Protection Act 1994.



46

8.1 Summary of Proposed Scope of Work Activities

The proposed scope of work for the DSI includes the following activities:

Update of the PSI;

Sampling of soil from the fire training paddock at up to 12 soil bores to approximately 2 m depth (up to 36 samples), which is the main potential source area of PFAS contamination at the site;

Sampling of surface soil from up to 22 locations (samples taken at 0.1 and 0.5 mbgl) at potential source areas across the site including tank bunds, foam monitor testing area and storage locations;

Installation of four data loggers for a minimum period of one-week to understand groundwater level fluctuations and the influence of tidal changes;

Sampling of surface soil at 0.1 and 0.5 mbgl at four locations along the drain within the fire training paddock;

Installation of five groundwater wells on the northern terminal to approximately 6 mbgl for delineation purposes (three wells for delineation at UW02, one well at the irrigation paddock along the western portion of the site and one well near the eastern boundary line);

Sampling of soil at the new groundwater well locations (up to 15 samples);

Sampling of groundwater from 13 out of the 22 wells from the existing monitoring well network (including potentially lost wells) and from the five new wells on the northern terminal;

Sampling of groundwater from 19 out of the 34 wells from the existing monitoring well network on the southern terminal;

Sampling of water from within the three interceptors (WD1, WD2, WD3) discharging waste water from the Site;

Sampling of water and sediment (if available) from the stone pitched drain and tradewaste connection drain.

Where practicable, a small number of concrete samples with be collected on an opportunistic basis during the fieldworks.

Sampling of sediment from four sample locations along the mangrove lined unnamed channel adjacent to the northern boundary of the site;

Sampling of surface water from four sample locations adjacent north of the site on the mangrove lined unnamed channel. Samples will be collected on two occasions representative of flooding and ebbing tide;

Sampling of surface water from one sample location adjacent south of the site on the Brisbane River. Samples will be collected on two occasions representative of flooding and ebbing tide;

Sampling of sediment from three locations adjacent south of the site, at drain outfalls on the Brisbane River. Samples will be collected on two occasions representative of flooding and ebbing tide;

Submission of soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment samples for analytical testing of PFAS with six selected soil and six selected groundwater samples from the source areas (i.e former fire training paddock, Tank 12 and Tank 26) analysed for TOPA and non-PFAS (VOCs and SVOCs). One shallow soil sample per soil bore drilled will be analysed for a petroleum hydrocarbon suite including TRH, BTEX, PAH and phenols. Four soil samples to be analysed for Australian Standard Leaching Procedure (ASLP). All groundwater samples to be analysed for anions and cations; and

Compilation of data into an investigation report and update the conceptual site model (CSM).

Sample locations are summarised in Table 15 and on the Figure 2 and Figure 3.



47

Table 15 Summary of proposed sampling locations and justification for their selection

Area of Interest Location Monitoring bores/Sample location

Justification

Northern Terminal

Former Fire Training Paddock

Northern boundary MWC and UW02 The only two monitoring wells in the former fire training paddock (source area). Concentrations of PFOS have been historically detected in UW02 at concentrations that exceed NEMP guidelines for human health and protection of ecological ecosystems. PFAS has also been detected in MWC at lower concentrations.

MW34, MW35 and MW36

New monitoring wells installed to approximately 6 m depth for PFAS delineation of the impact in well UW02.

12 shallow soil bores / test pits

The former fire training paddock is considered to be the principal potential source area for PFAS at the site. The shallow soil at 12 locations to approximately 2 m depth will be characterised.

Drainage feature 4 surface soil samples

The drainage feature is a potential pathway for waste foam containing PFAS to have been discharged from the former fire training paddock. The surface soil at four locations will be characterised. Surface soil will be collected from 0.1 m and at 0.5 m depth.

Foam storage locations around the gantry

Gantry 3 surface soil samples

One surface soil sample will be collected from unsealed ground at locations adjacent to three locations where firefighting foam has been stored historically to investigate the potential for leaks and spills. Surface soil will be collected from 0.1 m and at 0.5 m depth.

Northern sewer main line Northern boundary MWF To assess the potential of PFAS migration through a preferential pathway along the sewer line/bedding sands.



48


Justification

Irrigation point Western portion of northern terminal.

MWE and MWD or MW38

These bores have been selected to assess the irrigation point as depicted in the Environmental Management Manual for the Pinkenba Terminal (Viva Energy, 2015). No other bores are located on the western portion of the north terminal. It is noted that these bores may be lost or abandoned, as they haven’t been sampled since 2011. If the bores cannot be located, then replacement groundwater well MW38 will be installed to approximately 6 m bgl.

Release point WD1, Main Gantry Interceptor

Central-west portion of terminal, near underground storage tanks

E03 This bore is located adjacent east of WD1 and near the stormwater drainage lines. The Environmental Management Manual for the Pinkenba Terminal (Viva Energy, 2015) indicates that WD1 is where liquid process wastes and treated stormwater runoff from the Main Terminal are released to the Brisbane River, via the stone pitched drain at approximately 6.4 km adopted middle thread distance (AMTD), following treatment in the Main Gantry Interceptor. Groundwater bore EO3 is located adjacent to the Main Gantry Interceptor. Anecdotal evidence13 suggests historical foam testing occurred at the Gantry.



E04 Bore located adjacent west of WD1. Anecdotal evidence13 suggests historical foam testing occurred at the Gantry.



POB01 Bore located approximately 8 m north (up-gradient) of WD1. Anecdotal evidence12 suggests historical foam testing occurred at the Gantry.

WD1 WD1 To assess PFAS concentrations within waste water in the interceptor.

13 Interviewee Geoff Edwards, Viva Energy, 30/04/18



49


Justification

Release point WD2, Base Oil Interceptor

Central-east portion of terminal, near water tank, LPG tanks and cooling water tanks

POB02 This well is located adjacent to WD2 and near the stormwater drainage lines. The Environmental Management Manual for the Pinkenba Terminal (VIVA 2015) indicates that WD2 is where treated stormwater runoff from the Main Terminal are released to the Brisbane River via the stone pitched drain at approximately 6.4 km AMTD, following treatment in the Base Oil Interceptor. Groundwater well POB02 is located adjacent to the Base Oil Interceptor and downgradient of the source area (fire training paddock).

PFAS has been previously detected in this well.

WD2 To assess PFAS concentrations within waste water in the interceptor.

Downgradient stormwater line to the south

Adjacent to the Sundry and Aviation warehouses

MWB To assess potential PFAS migration through the stormwater drainage line/bedding sands located downgradient of the source area.

Central - eastern boundary of the northern terminal

East of the Bulk LPG Storage Area, in the grassy field.

MW37 New monitoring well installed to 6 mbgl for delineation purposes. No wells are currently located on the eastern portion of the northern terminal.

Downgradient near the south-eastern boundary line.

Southeast portion of the northern terminal

MWA Located near the southern boundary to the east to characterise groundwater migrating from the northern terminal.

Downgradient near the southwestern boundary line, near oil water drainage lines.

Southwest portion of northern terminal

POB03 Located near the southern boundary to the west to characterise groundwater migrating from the northern terminal, and to assess potential PFAS migration through oily water drainage lines.



50


Justification

Off-site, downgradient to the southeast.

Off-site, adjacent southeast of the northern terminal

MW29 This location is within the existing well network and is considered potentially suitable for use as an off-site background well. However, it is to be noted that the surrounding area is occupied by heavy industrial facilities, and anecdotal evidence suggests fire fighting foams have been used by neighbouring properties (i.e Graincorp and Brisbane Airport), and as such this location may not be an ideal background sampling location (free of PFAS).

Southern Terminal

North-western Boundary North-western boundary of southern terminal

MW01 One well along the north-western boundary selected to characterise groundwater migrating onto the site.

Tank 12 bund Tank 12 bund 3 near surface soil samples

Three near surface soil samples (taken from 0.1m and 0.5 m depths) will be collected from the bund to Tank T12. This is to investigate soil quality at a location where firefighting foam is known to have been discharged in response to a historical incident.

Tank 26 bund Tank 26 bund 3 near surface soil samples


Area where foam has been discharged during testing of the foam monitor on the wharf

Adjacent to wharf 3 near surface soil samples


Eastern portion of the southern terminal

Adjacent to foam storage areas in Tank Compounds No. 1 north and south

7 near surface soil samples

Seven near surface soil samples (taken from 0.1m and 0.5 m depths) will be collected from foam storage areas at Compound No. 1 to investigate the potential for leaks and spills.



51


Justification

Foam storage area for foam monitor on wharf

Adjacent to wharf, opposite Tank Farm Office

2 near surface soil samples

Two near surface soil samples (taken from 0.1m and 0.5 m depths) will be collected from foam storage areas at the wharf to investigate the potential for leaks and spills.

North-central Boundary North-central boundary of southern terminal

MW02 One well along the north-central boundary selected to characterise groundwater migrating onto the site.

Southwestern Boundary, near stormwater line

Southwestern boundary of southern terminal

MW03 One well along the south-western boundary selected to characterise groundwater migrating onto the site, and also to assess potential PFAS migration through stormwater drainage lines.

Down-gradient oil water line to the south

Northwest portion, near Compound No.2 North tanks.

MW13 Well located to assess potential PFAS migration via oily water drainage lines/bedding sands.

PFAS has been historically detected in this well in exceedance of ILs. Anecdotal evidence14 suggests historical foam testing occurred at Compounds No.1 and 2 North.

Down-gradient oil water line to the south

Southwest portion, near Compound 2 south tanks.

MW08 Well located to assess potential PFAS migration via oily water drainage lines/bedding sands.

Anecdotal evidence14 suggests historical foam testing occurred at Compounds No.1 and 2 South.

Compound 2 south tanks near oil water drainage lines


MW07 Well located to assess potential PFAS migration via oily water drainage lines/bedding sands. MW07 is located adjacent west of oily water drainage line. Anecdotal evidence14 suggests historical foam testing occurred at Compounds No.1 and 2 South.

Compound 2 south tanks near oil water drainage lines


MW20 Well located to assess potential PFAS migration via oily water drainage lines/bedding sands. Anecdotal evidence14 suggests historical foam testing occurred at Compounds No.1 and 2 South.

14 Interviewee Geoff Edwards, Viva Energy, 30/04/18



52


Justification

Down-gradient Boundary Southwest corner of southern terminal, near stormwater drainage line.

MW04 Well located to characterise groundwater migrating from the site. PFAS has been historically detected in groundwater in this well.

Down-gradient Boundary Southwest boundary line

MW10A One well along the south-western boundary selected to characterise groundwater migrating from the site.

Down-gradient Boundary Southwest boundary line

MW11 One well along the south-western boundary selected to characterise groundwater migrating from the site.

Down-gradient oily water and stormwater lines

South of Compound 2 south tanks.

MW12 To assess PFAS migration through oily water and stormwater drainage lines/bedding sands. PFAS has been detected in groundwater in this well.

Release Point WD3, Tank Farm API Separator.

South-central boundary line, adjacent east of Tank Farm Separator

POB05 This well is located adjacent to WD3 and near the stormwater drainage line. The Environmental Management Manual for the Pinkenba Terminal (Viva Energy, 2015) indicates that WD3 is where liquid process wastes and treated stormwater runoff from the Bitumen Plant and the Tank farm to the Brisbane River released at the Viva Energy Pinkenba wharf at approximately 6.3 km AMTD, following treatment in the Tank Farm Interceptor. Groundwater well POB05 is located adjacent east to the Tank Farm Interceptor.

Downgradient to the south, near oil water drainage line.

South-central portion, near Compound No. 3 south tank.

MW15 To assess PFAS migration through oily water drainage lines/bedding sands. PFAS has been detected in this bore in exceedance of ILs. Anecdotal evidence suggests a historical fire incident occurred at Tank 12 where discharge of large volumes of foam potentially occurred.

Downgradient to the south, near oil water drainage line and Release Point WD3

South-central portion, between Compound No. 3 south tank and WD3.

MW21 To assess PFAS migration, located approx. 7 m downgradient of MW15 where PFAS has been historically detected.

WD3 To assess PFAS concentrations within waste water in the interceptor.



53


Justification

Downgradient boundary, near stormwater drainage line.

Southeast boundary line

MW22 One well has been selected along the south-eastern boundary to characterise groundwater leaving the site and to assess potential PFAS migration through stormwater drainage line/bedding sands.

Downgradient to the southeast.

South-eastern portion, near Compound No. 4 south tanks.

MW16 To characterise groundwater south of the ASTs. PFAS has been historically detected in this well. Anecdotal evidence suggests a historical fire incident occurred at Tank 26 where discharge of large volumes of foam potentially occurred.

Eastern boundary, near stormwater drainage lines.

Eastern boundary line MW17 One well has been selected along the eastern boundary to characterise groundwater leaving the site and to assess potential PFAS migration through stormwater drainage line/bedding sands.

Downgradient of ASTs and Interceptor No.2

Adjacent south of Compound No. 4 north tanks

MW18 To characterise groundwater downgradient of ASTs and Interceptor No.2.

Eastern boundary, downgradient from Trade Waste Connection stormwater drainage line.

Eastern boundary line MW19 One well has been selected along the eastern boundary to characterise groundwater leaving the site. Bore MW19 is approx. 6 m down-gradient from the Trade Waste Connection stormwater drainage line.

Off-site Unnamed Channel

Off-site Sediment from the mangrove lined unnamed channel

Off-site adjacent north of the former fire training paddock.

SED1, SED2, SED3, SED4

Selected to characterise the near field environment (mangrove lined unnamed channel). These samples are co-located with the surface water samples.

Off-site Surface water from the mangrove lined unnamed channel

Off-site adjacent north of the former fire training paddock.

SW1, SW2, SW3, SW4

Selected to characterise the near field environment (mangrove lined unnamed channel). These samples are co-located with the sediment samples. Samples will be collected on two occasions to represent low and high tide.



54


Justification

Off-site Brisbane River

Off-site Sediment from the Brisbane River at drainage outfall locations

Brisbane River at drainage outfall locations on the southern terminal.

SED5, SED6, SED7

Selected to characterise the near field environment (Brisbane River bank).

Off-site Surface water from the Brisbane River, down gradient from MW16

Off-site, east of WD3 and west of stone pitched drain located along the eastern boundary line

SW5 Selected to characterise the near field environment (Brisbane River) down gradient of MW16 where the maximum PFAS concentrations on the Southern Terminal have been historically detected. Samples will be collected on two occasions to represent flooding and ebbing tide.



55

9.0 Health & Safety A comprehensive project-specific Health, Safety and Environment Plan (HSEP) will be developed for the project. The implementation of this SAQP must be undertaken in conjunction with and under the overarching authority of the HSEP. Activity-specific sate work method statements (SWMS) must be developed and adhered to for all non-routine activities.

All personnel working on-site will be inducted into AECOM’s HSEP prior to conducting work at the site. AECOM will be responsible for ensuring all subcontractors working for AECOM adhere to the HSEP and AECOM’s health and safety policies.



56

10.0 Sampling and Analysis Methodology

10.1 PFAS Training

Prior to mobilisation to site for each sampling event, all field staff will receive training on PFAS sampling requirements.

10.2 Required Field Documentation

10.2.1 Field Notes

Field notes shall be maintained to record all field sampling events. The location of quality control (e.g. duplicate and rinsate) sample collection points shall also be noted.

10.2.2 Sample Labels

Sample containers shall be labelled, as a minimum, with the following information:

AECOM project number (60527457 – 10.0)

Name of sampler

Sample ID

Date of sample collection

An ball-point pen shall be used for labelling, to ensure that the lettering is not erased during transit to the laboratory.

10.2.3 Chain of Custody Forms

A Chain of Custody (CoC) form shall be completed, documenting the sample identification number and analytes. The chain of custody documents the chain of events from sample collection to delivery at the laboratory and provides a traceable account of sample handling. The CoC form shall be signed by the sample collector, the courier (if applicable), and the receiving laboratory.

The CoC form shall include the following information:

Name of site/job number

Date and time of sample collection

Sample type

Number and type of containers

Name of sampler

Analyses required

Signatures of the sampler and laboratory receiver.

Upon receipt of the original documents accompanying the samples at the laboratory, the laboratory shall provide a sample receipt advice (noting temperature of samples upon receipt, analyses required and any non-conformances) and return the signed CoC form to confirm analyses to be performed.

To minimise the potential for cross contamination during a sampling event, the sampling will be performed during any specific event from the bores with the anticipated lowest PFAS groundwater concentration to the bores likely to have the potential highest PFAS groundwater concentration, based on previous sampling results.



57

10.3 Equipment Required

In addition to field documentation listed above and in the HSEP the following equipment is needed to undertake the groundwater sampling task:

Safety equipment including:

- Photo-ionisation detector (PID)

- Lower explosive limit meter (LEL)

- Respirator with organic vapour cartridge (each person needs to be fit tested)

- 2-way site radio

- Bollards, barrier tape and work zone signs

- Two 4.5 kg (minimum) fire extinguishers

- Nitrile gloves

- Standard site personal protection equipment (PPE), which is Teflon-free.

Groundwater sampling equipment including:

- An oil/water interface probe, which includes:

Product detection optical sensor

Water detection conductivity sensor

Measuring tape with increments of 0.001 m.

- Water quality meter (WQM)

- Deionised water (laboratory-supplied PFAS-free), buckets and scrubbing brushes to wash equipment

- Toolbox (including tools for opening outer well casings)

- Sample bottles (laboratory supplied 250 ml polycarbonate containers with polypropylene screw caps), cooler and ice (no blue ice)

- Groundwater sampling consumables (Hydrasleeves- suitable for PFAS sampling)

- Ball point pens for labelling bottles

- Rubbish bags.

Surface water and sediment sampling equipment including:

- Sampling Pole, Waders

- Shovel/Hand Trowel/Petit Polar Sediment Sampler

- Brush, Bucket and Deionised Water (Decontamination of trowel and any other reusable sampling equipment (do not use Decon 90 – use deionised water) between the collection of samples).

- Water Quality Meter

10.4 Methodology

10.4.1 General PFAS Sampling Guidance

Guidance on PFAS groundwater sampling is provided in the NEMP (HEPA, 2018). The guidance includes the following:

Quality control samples (duplicates and triplicates) should be sampled at a frequency of 1 in 10, which is greater than the 1 in 20 samples identified in AS4482.1-2005 and ASC NEPM.



58

Rinsate samples should be collected to verify decontamination or if there is doubt about whether materials are PFAS free. Field and trip samples should be collected to verify the integrity of the sampling and decontamination procedures. Rinsate and blank should use PFAS-free water that has been certified by the laboratory.

Precautions should be taken to limit cross contamination of samples. Materials and products that should not be worn or used during any stage of sampling at the site or during transport include new clothing (fabric treatments), stain and water resistant products, sunscreen, cosmetics, fast food wrappers, Teflon, sampling containers with Teflon lined lids, foil, sticky notes, waterproof papers, drilling fluids, decontamination solutions and reusable freezer blocks.

The general order of sampling in the field is important to reduce the chance of sample contamination. Sampling should proceed from areas of likely low concentration of PFAS contamination to areas of likely higher concentration.

For each groundwater sample collected, the required minimum volume is 250 mL as per USEPA (2009). Polypropylene or HDPE sample containers supplied by the laboratory and suitable for PFAS sampling should be used. Glass containers with lined lids are not suitable for PFAS analysis.

Decontamination of sampling equipment should not use detergents unless they have been confirmed to be PFAS-free. Deionised water (which is certified to be PFAS-free) should be used.

Equipment (e.g. pumping equipment, water quality meter, interface probe) containing Teflon parts should not be used. The equipment to be used for collecting groundwater samples includes low flow peristaltic pumps using silicone or HDPE tubing or polypropylene HydraSleeves. Consumable sampling equipment should not be reused.

Larger sample volumes may be necessary if the required limit of reporting are ultra-trace and /or if a TOPA or TOA analysis is to be performed on the same sample.

Further information on sampling requirements were presented in interim guidance on the assessment and management of PFAS published by Western Australia’s Department of Environmental Regulation (January 2017) identified the following potential sources of environmental sample contamination during PFAS investigations and recommended mitigation practices and alternatives.



59

These requirements will be implemented during the sampling program.

10.4.2 Monitoring Well Installation

Monitoring well construction will nominally comprise a 50 mm diameter uPVC screen and plain casing with screw fittings installed in an approximately 150 mm diameter borehole. Wells will be installed to an approximate depth of 6.0 mbgl, with a slotted screen length of 5.5 m from 0.5 – 6.0 mbgl. The final screened depth will be dependent on the observation of groundwater strikes and rises during drilling.

Screened sections will be installed in a gravel filter pack, which will be placed to just above the top of the screen and isolated with a bentonite seal to just below the surface. Each well will be installed with stick up/steel monuments. A water tight enviro-cap will be installed on the top of each well casing to prevent accidental blockage of the well. Wells will be developed immediately following installation using a submersible pump to purge any accumulated sediment or introduced water. The wells will be purged until visually clear and the drilled and measured depths (post-development) concur. All new well locations will be surveyed for location and elevation to metres AHD by a licensed surveyor to an accuracy of ± 0.05 m in the X-Y plane and to an accuracy of ± 0.002 m in the Z axis

10.4.3 Logging of Soil Bores

To support subsequent data interpretation, soil bores will have the geological strata logged in the field in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and AECOM SOP (Appendix F).

For each soil bore the following details will be clearly presented on the logs:

Name of the field scientist supervising the investigation and the rig/equipment type and the sampling method;

Date of sampling, unique sampling location number, depth of sampling, sample type and unique sample number;

Samples (where needed to be characterised for potential volatile hydrocarbon contaminants on-site) will be field screened for VOCs by placing a soil sample inside a resealable plastic bag. The



60

headspace inside the bag will be allowed to equilibrate for 15 minutes prior to VOC screening using a photo ionisation detector (PID). To minimise volatile losses during soil sampling, soil samples will be obtained from a push tube or hollow stem auger. In addition, the sample jars will be filled with zero headspace and chilled to <4 °C;

All field records will be rigorously documented and comprise field observations of colour, odour, field-screening PID results and details of any unusual material encountered; and

Completed graphic logs will be presented with surface elevations (to accuracy ±10 mm) with depth scale in metres.

10.4.4 Soil Sampling

Soil samples shall be collected and handled in a manner that ensures field personnel safety, and the integrity of the sample itself.

Shallow soil samples collected near the ground surface (no greater than 0.15 m bgs) are to be collected using a hand auger. Where hand augering may be impeded by the presence of large rocks, a crowbar can be used as an alternative. Non-destructive digging (NDD) like vacuum excavation will be used to clear the locations for underground utilities up to 1.5 mbgs at soil bore locations. The NDD water will be PFAS free. The vacuum excavation will be stopped approximately 100mm before the desired depth and soil samples will be collected by hand auger. Some shallow soil bores will be constructed to a maximum of 1.5 mbgs using hand augering technique. As an alternative approach, test pits will be excavated to the target depth to allow the collection of soil samples in the fire training paddock. The waste NDD water/sludge will be stored in drums pending off-site disposal to a licensed landfill facility, potentially under a contaminated soil disposal permit, if required.

Soil samples beyond 1.5 mbgs will be collected from plastic sleeves recovered from the sonic drill rig or push tube on the Geoprobe drilling rig or drill cuttings recovered from solid stem auger or air hammer drill as part of the monitoring well installations.

Field personnel will describe the nature of each sediment sample (soil type, colour, staining, etc.). Further information on the correct techniques to be employed when using a hand auger to collect samples is presented in the AECOM standard operating procedure (SOP) attached in Appendix F.

The soil sample volume required by the laboratory is dependent upon the number of analytes requested to be analysed. AECOM will work with the laboratories to ensure that appropriate sample volumes are collected for the number of analytes requested.

As per the NEMP (HEPA, 2018) the quality assurance and quality control samples required include duplicate and triplicates, rinsate, field and trip blanks.

10.4.5 Well Development

Following completion of the bore to the target depth and installation of a monitoring well screen, the bore will be developed to remove particulate matter that may be present from well drilling and construction. Wells will be developed by air lifting by the licensed driller with water quality parameters taken by the AECOM field engineer during the development process. The development reduces sample turbidity by removing fine particulate matter from the filter pack and the geologic formation near the well.

10.4.6 Groundwater Sampling

Groundwater samples will be collected in accordance with the AECOM SOP attached in Appendix F. AECOM SOPs are derived from recommendations made in the National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM, Schedule B [2]) Guideline on site Characterisation (2013) which states:

An appropriate method of groundwater sampling should be selected in relation to the nature of the target analytes (PFAS) and the hydraulic characteristics of the monitoring bore. In general, the use of low-flow submersible pumps or positive-displacement pumps capable of controlling flow rates and



61

minimising purging requirements are the preferred methods of groundwater sampling for site characterisation purposes. No-purge sampling techniques may also be appropriate, particularly for long-term monitoring applications.

Each well will be sampled using dedicated HydraSleeves that are suitable for PFAS sampling (i.e. constructed of HDPE). The twine used to lower the HydraSleeves should be made of polypropylene, which is suitable for PFAS sampling. The weights used to lower the HydraSleeve to the screened section of the well should be made of stainless steel. It is not expected that any sampling equipment other than the Hydrasleeve, twine and weight will be lowered into the well during the sampling. It will be ensured that there is sufficient water column in each well for a representative water sample to be obtained using the no-purge technique.

No purge groundwater sampling will be undertaken in accordance with the procedures set out in the EPA Publication 668 Hydrogeological Assessment Guidelines and 669 Groundwater Sampling Guidelines. A new HydraSleeve and new twine will be used for the sampling of each well and the will not be reused. The HydraSleeve will be left in the well for a minimum of 24 hours before removal and decanting into laboratory supplied polypropylene 250 mL sampling container suitable for PFAS. Groundwater monitoring wells will be gauged at the completion of groundwater sampling.

Groundwater quality parameters (temperature, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), dissolved oxygen (DO) and redox potential (ORP)) will be measured in the field prior to sample collection to demonstrate conditions of the groundwater in the well. Groundwater used for the measurement of water quality parameters will be collected in a new unpreserved lab-supplied plastic bottle at each location

As per the NEMP (HEPA, 2018) the quality assurance and quality control samples required include duplicate and triplicates, rinsate, field and trip blanks.

10.4.7 Surface Water Sampling

The surface water sample collection method employed is dependent on the nature of the location (i.e. unnamed channel/river location and depth of water to be sampled).

At channel or interceptor locations, surface water samples will be collected using a sampling pole to retrieve water from the midpoint of the water column, and towards the centre of the channel (where possible to collect samples with consideration to hazards associated with working near a water body). If the channel location to sample is shallow and the bank gradient allows easy access, the sample can be collected into the sample bottle by a gloved hand. Care will be taken to ensure the water column at the sampling location is not agitated during sampling.

Surface water sampled from within the Brisbane River will be sampled using the same methodology for channel sampling, however sampling from the centre point of the river may not be practicable from shore based locations. At shore based locations, samples will be collected from the midpoint of the water column adjacent the sampling location.

At each sample location, field personnel will note the channel/water body morphology, soil type and nature of surface water flow and photo document the location. Surface water samples will be collected in appropriate sample bottles.

10.4.8 Sediment Sampling

Sediment samples will be collected and handled in a manner that ensures field personnel safety, and the integrity of the sample itself.

Sediment samples will be collected from the unnamed channel and Brisbane River using a shovel or hand trowel, except in the case where a boat is required for sampling where a Petit Ponar sediment sampler will be used.

Field personnel will describe the nature of each sediment sample (soil type, colour, staining, etc.).

Sediment samples for PFAS analysis will be collected in 250 mL unpreserved laboratory supplied PFAS specific sample containers.



62

The sediment or soil sample volume required by the laboratory is dependent upon the number of analytes requested to be analysed. AECOM will work with the laboratories to ensure that appropriate sample volumes are collected for the number of analytes requested.

10.4.9 Work Zone Setup

Obtain permits and conduct toolbox talks daily.

Calibrate the WQM and bump test PID/LEL daily.

Set WQM to measure Conductivity not TDS.

Set up work zone at each well location. Drive and park vehicle as close as practical to well location. In wet conditions first walk the path through any wet and potentially boggy ground prior to driving off the road. Delineate work zone around well with bollards, connected by barrier poles or hazard tape.

To minimise manual handling, fire extinguishers can remain in vehicle brackets, but must still be easily accessible rather than taking them out at every site. Position vehicle such that the location of the extinguishers are upwind and outside the hazardous zone (1.5 m) around the well.

PID and LEL monitoring to be undertaken prior to and during sampling of each well. Refer to HSEP for procedure when an alarm limit is exceeded.

10.4.10 Gauging

Groundwater monitoring wells will be gauged prior to and following completion of groundwater sampling with an oil/water interface probe to measure depth to groundwater, total depth of the wells, and to detect the presence of LNAPL.

If LNAPL is observed (this includes a sheen), the well will typically will not be sampled.

Gauging will be consistent with the HydroSleeve SOP (Appendix F), noting that before deploying the Hydra Sleeve in the well, the depth to water measurement will be used to determine the preferred position of the HydraSleeve in the well.

Before and between sampling each well, the interface probe and all other equipment which will be placed down bore will be decontaminated using laboratory-supplied deionised (DI) water that is certified to be PFAS-free to reduce the potential for cross contamination.

Document well condition issues (e.g. bolt missing, lid broken, accumulated water in the pit) on the sampling form and then notify the Project Manager.

Types of laboratory analyses and associated bottles are discussed in Section 10.7.

Samples for PFAS analysis will not be filtered. If there are samples with high sediment loads, it is important that both the primary and secondary laboratory use comparable procedures when preparing these samples, such as use of a centrifuge before taking an aliquot for analysis.

Decontaminate equipment following the procedure detailed in Section 10.5.

Variations from the above are to be discussed with the Project Manager and documented.

10.5 Decontamination

Dedicated sampling equipment (HydraSleeves, weights and twine) are to be used that will negate the need for decontamination. If reused, stainless steel weights used for the HydraSleeves will need to be decontaminated at the start of each day and between bore locations using laboratory supplied deionised water, which is certified as being PFAS-free.

Following the sampling, gauging will be undertaken. The interface probe will need to be decontaminated at the start of each day and between bore locations by wash in a solution of laboratory supplied deionised water that is certified to be PFAS-free. Decon-90, or other detergents are not to be used as this solution potentially contains PFAS.

Prior to sampling, the sampling personnel should wash their hands with soap and rinse thoroughly in tap water before donning a clean, new pair of disposable nitrile gloves. Nitrile gloves should be worn



63

at all times. A new pair of nitrile gloves should be worn for each sample collected. Additional hand washing prior to donning the new pair of gloves is necessary if the old pair of gloves was compromised or if the personnel’s ungloved hands touched items that may represent potential PFAS contamination since last being washed. New gloves shall also be put on after handling any non-dedicated sampling equipment, contact with non-decontaminated surfaces, or when judged prudent by field sampling personnel. This includes touching of hair, face, clothing or other part of the body while gloves are on. Sampler will change gloves if they touch anything unrelated to sampling equipment.

10.6 Sample Storage and Shipping

Samples are to be placed immediately on ice in a cooler dedicated for PFAS samples (and quality assurance samples) and stored between 1° and 4°C. The ice should be PFAS-free and ice blocks should not be used. The ice should be double bagged and secured to avoid meltwater from contacting sample containers in the esky. At the end of the day, samples are to be shipped to the appropriate laboratories or stored in a designated sample fridge for maintaining sample temperatures.

A trip blank supplied by the analytical laboratory should be kept in the cooler during all stages of sample collection and transport.

The Field Lead will arrange couriers to collect and deliver samples to both primary and secondary laboratories. Bottles are to be packed with ice around them in coolers each morning prior to collection by courier. Laboratory contact numbers to arrange couriers are:

ALS – primary laboratory for soil, groundwater , surface water and sediment

Eurofins – secondary laboratory for soil, groundwater, surfaceand sediment

The laboratory analyses on the COC that is sent with samples couriered to the laboratories. A copy of the COC is to be emailed to the Data Management Team each day.

10.7 Laboratory Analyses

All samples will be analysed for the standard PFAS suite identified in Table 16. Selected samples (6 soil and 6 groundwater samples) will be analysed for TOPA and selected soil samples will be analysed for ASLP. Selected soil and groundwater samples will be analysed for accelerants. The laboratory analysis codes which will be used in the COC for the different COPCs are provided below in Table 17.

Table 16 Compounds Analysed in the Full PFAS Suite

PFAS Group Compound Abbreviation CAS No.

Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonic Acids

Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid PFBS 375-73-5 Perfluoropentane sulfonic acid PFPeS 2706-91-4 Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid PFHxS 355-46-4 Perfluoroheptane sulfonic acid PFHpS 375-92-8 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid PFOS 1763-23-1 Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid PFDS 335-77-3

Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylic Acids

Perfluorobutanoic acid PFBA 375-22-4 Perfluoropentanoic acid PFPeA 2706-90-3 Perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxA 307-24-4 Perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHpA 375-85-9 Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA 335-67-1 Perfluorononanoic acid PFNA 375-95-1 Perfluorodecanoic acid PFDA 335-76-2 Perfluoroundecanoic acid PFUnDA 2058-94-8 Perfluorododecanoic acid PFDoDA 307-55-1 Perfluorotridecanoic acid PFTrDA 72629-94-8 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTeDA 376-06-7

Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonamides

Perfluorooctane sulphonamide FOSA 754-94-6 N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamide MeFOSA 31506-32-8



64

PFAS Group Compound Abbreviation CAS No.

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamide EtFOSA 4151-50-2 N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanol

MeFOSE 2448-09-7

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanol

EtFOSE 1691-99-2

N-Methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid

MeFOSAA 2355-31-9

N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid

EtFOSAA 2991-50-6

Fluorotelomer Sulfonic Acids

4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 4:2 FTS 757124-72-4 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 6:2 FTS 27619-97-2 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 8:2 FTS 39108-34-4 10:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid 10:2 FTS 120226-60-0

Table 17 Laboratory Analysis Codes

Analysis ALS Laboratory Code

PFAS (Extended Suite) – 28 compounds EP231X

PFAS (Extended Suite) – 28 compounds (Total Oxidisable Precursor Assay [TOPA])

EP231X (TOPA)

TRH/BTEXN/PAH/Phenols S-24

VOC/SVOC S-23, W-23

DI Water Leach ZHE EN60Z-DI

Trip Blank - BTEXN, C6-C10, F1 S-18, W-18

10.7.1 Laboratory Sample Containers

Table 18 summarises the details of the sample containers and maximum hold times for the laboratory analysis.

Table 18 Laboratory containers

Sample Type

Analysis Method Media Container Type (Preservation)

Holding Time

Soil

Primary Duplicate Triplicate

PFAS / TOPA

Solid

PFAS plastic jar (unfiltered) 180 days

VOC/SVOC Glass organics jar (unfiltered)

7 days

TRH/BTEXN/PAH/Phenols

7 days

Leachate ASLP Leach

(non-volatile) – EN60

Water 150 mL Soil Jar (Nil

Preservation) – remove Teflon liner

180 Days

Groundwater

Primary Duplicate Triplicate Rinsate

Field Blank Trip Blank

PFAS

Water

250 mL Plastic Bottle (unfiltered)

14 days

Major ions Plastic bottle (filtered) 28 days

VOC/SVOC Organics bottle (unfiltered) 7 days

Primary PFAS TOPA 250 mL Plastic Bottle

(unfiltered) 14 days



65

Sample Type

Analysis Method Media Container Type (Preservation)

Holding Time

Surface Water

Primary Duplicate Triplicate Rinsate

PFAS Water 250 mL plastic bottle

(unfiltered) 14 days

Sediment

Primary Duplicate Triplicate

PFAS Solid PFAS Plastic jar 180 days

10.7.2 QA/QC samples

One intra-laboratory field duplicate and one inter-laboratory field duplicate are to be collected per 10 primary samples (as per NEMP)

- Intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory field duplicates are to be collected using 250 mL polypropylene bottles

- Analysed for full PFAS suite, 28 analytes.

Rinsate (equipment) blank

- These should be collected before and after each use of non-dedicated equipment (e.g. HydraSleeve weights), each day.

- Laboratory supplied, de-ionised water is to be poured over the HydraSleeve weight (if reused)

- Analysed for standard PFAS suite, 28 analytes.

- Laboratory analysis of one rinsate per day will be scheduled. The remaining rinsate blanks, will be put on hold pending the results of the analysed rinsate

Field Blank

- One soil and one water field blank to be used and analysed by the primary laboratory.

- Use the same laboratory supplied de-ionised water source as that used in rinsate samples.

- De-ionised water poured directly into bottles. This will be done as a baseline assessment of the de-ionised water sent from the primary laboratory.

- Analysed for standard PFAS suite, 28 analytes.

Trip Blank

- One per event to primary laboratory

- Use the same laboratory supplied trip blank, which uses de-ionised water source (PFAS-free)

- The blank is to remain in the cooler and accompany the samples from collection in the field to the laboratory.

- Analysed for standard PFAS suite, 28 analytes and TRH/BTEX.

Trip Spike

- A trip spike is to be included for all batches where groundwater samples are to be analysed for TRH/BTEX

- The spike is to remain in the cooler and accompany the samples from collection in the field to the laboratory



66

10.7.3 Laboratory Sample Labelling

Sample bottles are to be labelled as per the examples provided in Table 19 below. If there is uncertainty on labelling, contact the Project Manager.

Table 19 Sample bottle labelling for groundwater sampling

Sample Type Example Identifier Nomenclature

Soil (Primary Sample) BH100-020710 BH100 = Example location 020710 = Sampling Date (2 July 2010)

Groundwater (Primary Sample)

GW100-020710 GW100 = Example location 020710 = Sampling Date (2 July 2010)

Groundwater (intra-laboratory field duplicate)

QC100-020710 QC100 = Example location 020710 = Sampling Date (2 July 2010)

NOTE: The parent sample should be noted on QC sample register.

Groundwater (inter-laboratory field duplicate)

QC200-020710 QC200 = Example location 020710 = Sampling Date (2 July 2010)

NOTE: The parent sample should be noted on QC sample register.

Rinsate QC300-020710 QC300 = Example location 020710 = Sampling Date (2 July 2010)

NOTE: Location number from well sampled prior to rinsate should be noted on QC sample register.

Field Blank FB1-020710 FB1 = Field Blank 1 020710 = Sampling Date (2 July 2010)

Trip Blank TP1-020710 TB1 = Trip Blank 1 020710 = Sampling Date (2 July 2010)

Surface water SW1-020710 SW1 = Example location 020710 = Sampling Date (2 July 2010)

Sediment SED1-020710 SED1 = Example location 020710 = Sampling Date (2 July 2010)

10.8 Waste Disposal

Groundwater generated during the development and sampling of monitoring wells will be placed in drums or IBCs, which will be transported to a location on-site for storage in an IBC for future management (such as off-Site disposal under a Contaminated Soil disposal permit). Used consumables (e.g. nitrile gloves, tubing) are to be contained in garbage bags and disposed each day into the appropriate waste-type skip bins located at the Terminal.

Excess soil cuttings generated on-site will be transported to a location on-site and stored in covered skip bins or 55 gallon drums for future management.

10.9 Task Completion

At the completion of sampling event:

Organise returning the hire equipment to suppliers.

Tidy up site office.



67

Provide groundwater calibration sheets to Field Lead. This includes original calibration forms from suppliers for all hired equipment. Copies are to be provided to the site office at the end of the event. Original forms to be stored in project files.

Ensure all field parameters (form groundwater sampling forms) and laboratory analytical results are entered into ESDAT.



68

11.0 Applicable Site Assessment Criteria Based on the site location, groundwater encountered beneath the site is likely to discharge, directly and indirectly via the unnamed channel, into middle estuary waters of the Brisbane River and estuarine, enclosed coastal waters of the Brisbane River and of Boggy Creek which are considered moderately disturbed; as indicated by Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009.

As defined in Brisbane River Estuary environmental values and water quality objectives (July 2010), environmental values (EVs) for the surface water receptors described above include:

aquatic ecosystems

human consumers of aquatic food

primary recreational use (i.e. swimming)

secondary recreational use (i.e. boating)

visual recreational use

industrial use

cultural and spiritual values.

For the purpose of the assessment, aquatic ecosystems and primary recreational use (i.e. swimming) are considered relevant. As the groundwater beneath the site was found to be brackish and the surface water bodies surrounding the site are estuarine, only marine water investigation levels will be considered.

The adopted soil and groundwater investigation levels are presented below in Table 20 and Table 21:

Table 20 Adopted Investigation Levels for PFAS

Media Environmental Value PFAS Guideline/Reference Value

Soil Industrial/Commercial PFOS + PFHxS 20 mg/kg

PFOA 50 mg/kg

Ecological- indirect exposure (due to potential for insect- eating birds)

PFOS 0.01 mg/kgA

Groundwater / Surface Water

Recreational contact with waters (e.g. children playing in creek)

PFOS + PFHxS 0.7 µg/LA

PFOA 5.6 µg/LA

Aquatic ecosystem protection (Marine)

PFOS 0.00023 µg/LA

PFOA 19 µg/LA

Protect high order avian fauna PFOS 0.047 µg/LB

Protect secondary poisoning in mammals

PFOS 0.00053 µg/LC

Marine

Sediment No applicable sediment guidelines are available from NEMP (HEPA, 2018). The data collected will be assessed via environmental risk assessment in the later stages of works.

Notes: A - NEMP (HEPA, 2018) B – Giesy et al 2010 Giesy, J.P et al (2010) Aquatic Toxicology of Perfluorinated Chemicals in D.M. Whitacre (ed.), Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Reviews of Environmental contamination and Toxicology 202, 1-52. C- Guideline value for PFOS to protect against secondary poisoning Dutch RIVM 2010 Environmental risk limits for PFOS. A proposal for water quality standards in accordance with the Water Framework Directive. RIVM Report 601714013/2010



69

Table 21 Adopted Soil and Groundwater Investigation Levels (ILs) for hydrocarbons

Media Adopted IL Rationale

Groundwater

Groundwater Investigations Levels (GILs) for marine water developed by the NEPC and documented by NEPM Assessment of Site Contamination Measure 2013 and published in the “Schedule B1, Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater”.

Due to the estuarine nature of the surface waters near the site marine water GILs will be selected.

The Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) 2000 Guidelines for the protection of marine waters (95% species protection level) have been adopted.

ANZECC guidelines will be also considered appropriate as screening levels for COPCs which have no GIL values.

Health Screening Levels (HSLs) consider potential human health exposures due to vapour intrusion from impacted groundwater. HSLs have been developed for different soil types and depths. Based on historical data, a sand profile was considered applicable. The selected HSLs for groundwater are as follows: HSL ‘D’ (commercial/industrial), sand, depth to groundwater: 2-4m.

As the nature of the site is commercial/industrial, HSL ‘D’ is considered appropriate for the groundwater beneath the site. Historical data shows the predominant lithology beneath the site is sand therefore sand will be selected as the most appropriate soil profile for screening purposes.

HSLs are only applicable to groundwater at depths greater than 2 mbgl. As such, site-specific target levels (SSTLs) were developed for the inhalation of volatiles in indoor air from impacted groundwater by on-site commercial receptors. The SSTLs were calculated using the methodology consistent with the development of the Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC CARE) HSLs (Friebel and Nadebaum 2011). Specific input parameters were used in the Extension Model published by CRC CARE as part of the development of HSLs to allow for such modifications of HSLs in a manner consistent with the original development of the HSLs.

Historically, a number of wells (26) gauged during GMEs had SWLs shallower than 2 mbgl and therefore SSTLs were considered applicable in addition to the adopted HSLs. The SSTL were originally calculated for the July 2012 GME undertaken by ERM.

Soil Soil data will be evaluated by comparison with the following NEPM investigation levels:

Soil HSL for Intrusive Maintenance Workers (shallow trench), sand;

Soil HSL- D for Vapour Intrusion, commercial/ industrial land use, sand;

Soil HIL- D for commercial/ industrial land use; Soil EIL for commercial/ industrial land use, coarse

grained soil; and Soil ESL for commercial/ industrial land use, coarse

grained soil.

The adopted depth range will be determined based on the

sampling depth of each soil sample.

As the nature of the site is commercial/industrial, HSL ‘D’ or HIL ‘D’ is considered appropriate for the soil on-site. Historical data shows the predominant lithology beneath the site is sand therefore sand will be selected as the most appropriate soil profile for screening purposes.

It is noted that human consumers may need to be assessed in future stages and that other relevant assessment criteria for other potential exposures will be further considered at a later stage.



70

12.0 Reporting The findings of the contamination investigation will be presented in a report that will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Schedule B2 - Guideline of Site Characterisation. National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999. (National Environment Protection Council, 2013) and s389 of the EP Act and will include:

an executive summary, providing a brief summary of the investigation’s objectives, scope of work, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions and recommendations;

a summary of the previous investigations including the results of the assessment of the reliability of the data from the previous investigations for the purposes of the investigation;

a review of publicly available data for background assessment and assessment of current river impact;

a summary of the history of the site;

discussion of the data quality objectives;

regulatory framework of the investigation;

details of field investigations undertaken on the site;

site assessment criteria;

results of field investigations and analytical results;

discussion of QA/QC compliance;

comparison and factual interpretation of the results with respect to the site assessment criteria and requirements of the Notice;

discussion of the results of the investigation with respect to the objectives of the investigation;

provision of a full set of data tables and diagrams supporting the report findings;

inclusion of detailed field logs and records and other supporting information;

evaluation of data trends;

uncertainty analysis and potential data gaps;

updated conceptual site model; and

conclusions regarding the nature and extent of contamination at the site and the implications for further assessment, remediation and/or management of contamination.



71

13.0 References AECOM 2017 Q1 2017 Groundwater Monitoring Report Viva Energy Pinkenba Terminal, Eagle Farm Road, Pinkenba

AECOM 2017 Q3 2017 Groundwater Monitoring Report Viva Energy Pinkenba Terminal, Eagle Farm Road, Pinkenba

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2009, Draft Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls. www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf

Brooke, D., Footitt, A., and T.A. Nwaogu., 2004. Environmental Risk Evaluation Report: Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS)

Cheng, J., Vecitis, C.D., Park, H., Mader, B.T., and M.R. Hoffmann, 2008, Sonochemical Degradation of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in Landfill Groundwater: Environmental Matrix Effects. Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 42 (21) pp 8057 to 8063

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP), (2016), Environmental Management of Firefighting Foam Policy, QLD Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Revision 2, July 2016,

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP), 2018, Notice to conduct or commission an environmental evaluation (ref STAT1216 /101/0005141), February 2018

Environmental Protection (Water) Policy (EPP) 2009, Queensland Government, reprint current from 6 December 2016

ERM, 2013, GMP Pinkenba Terminal, August 2013

ERM, 2013, Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring Event (Q3 2013), Shell Pinkenba Terminal (CCJ900P), Eagle Farm Road, Pinkenba, QLD.

ERM 2014, Soil Management Plan, Shell Pinkenba Terminal (CCJ900P), Eagle Farm Road, Pinkenba, Qld, Australia

ERM, 2017, Qantas Hangar 3, AFFF LOC Event, Brisbane Airport Environmental Evaluation Notice (EEN), July 2017.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2008, Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and their Salts. The EFSA Journal. Volume 653. pp1�131

FSANZ (2017), Perfluorinated chemicals in food. Food Standards Australia New Zealand and associated supporting documents.

HEPA 2018, PFAS National Environmental Management Plan, January 2018

ITRC (2017), PFAS Fact Sheets, Interstate Technology Regulatory Council, 2017 at http://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/

National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) (1999), National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (as amended in 2013)

US EPA, 2002. ‘Revised Draft Hazard Assessment of Perfluorooctanoic Acid and its Salts’

UNEP, 2006. Risk Profile on Perfluorooctane Sulfonate. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee. Geneva, 6 -10 November 2006

Wang F., Liu C. and Shih K., 2012. Adsorption behaviour of perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) on boehmite, Chemosphere 89 (2012) p1009-1014

Wang Z, DeWitt J, Higgins C, Cousins I (2017). A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)? Environ. Sci. Technol., 51 (5): 2508–2518.

VIVA Energy Australia 2015, Environmental Management Manual, OPS-387-M, Pinkenba Terminal, March 2015



72

Figures



73

Figure 1 Site Location Figure 2 Groundwater Monitoring Bore Locations: Northern Terminal

Figure 3 Groundwater Monitoring Bore Locations: Southern Terminal

Figure 4 Preliminary PFAS site Conceptual Model: Northern Terminal

Figure 5 Preliminary PFAS site Conceptual Model: Southern Terminal

AECO

M does

not w

arrant

the ac

curacy

or co

mplete

ness o

f infor

mation

displa

yed in

this ma

p and

any pe

rson u

sing it

does

so at t

heir o

wn ris

k. A

ECOM

shall

bear n

o resp

onsibili

ty or lia

bility fo

r any

errors

, faults

, defec

ts, or

omiss

ions in

the inf

ormatio

n.

@A

@A@A@A

@A@A@A@A

@A@A

@A

@A

@A

@A@A

@A

@A@A@A

@A@A@A

@A

@A

@A

1.5km Radius

LYTTON ROAD

SIBLEY ROAD

GOSPORT STREET

NORT

H ROA

D

BARKU COURT

AVENUE A

MUNDIN STREET

UNWI

N ST

REET

RADIOST

REE T

LUKE STREET

LINDUM ROAD

MCBR

IDE R

OAD

HARRIS ROAD

EAGLE FARM ROAD

FREIGHT STREET

RAND

LE R

OAD

YARRA STREET

PRIORS ROAD

KIRRA STREET

BANC

ROFT

ROAD

LOMANDRA DRIVE

PORT

OFBR

ISBAN

E MOTORWAY

FARRER STREET

SERPENTINE ROAD

WYU NA COU RT

TRAD

E STRE

ET

ANTON ROAD

BENJAMINPLA

CE

PAND

ANUS

AVEN

UE

PAME

LA ST

REET

MAIN

MYR

TLET

OWN

ROAD

TINGIRA STREET

MARIN

E DRIV

E

PARINGA ROAD

PERIMETER ROAD

TANGALOOMA FLYER

22081

134409134410 134411

152016152017 152020

152022152024 152025

152436152437

Filename:

0 270 540135

metres

´1:20,000 (when printed at A4)

A4 size

Data sources:Base Data: (c) 2018 (DNRM)

www.aecom.com

PROJECT ID

LAST MODIFIEDCREATED BY

60567205RGRG - 17 Apr 2018

LEGENDSite Boundary1.5km Site BufferCadastral Boundary

@A DNRM Registered BoresDATUM GDA 1994, PROJECTION MGA ZONE 56

F1Map

VERSION: 1

Document Path: \\aubne1fp003\Projects\605X\60567205\4. Tech Work Area\4.99 GIS\02_MXDs\20180416_CC_2018PreliminarySamplingAndAnalysisQualityPlan\F1_60567205_A4P_SiteLocation.mxd

SITE LOCATION

VIVA ENERGY AUSTRALIAPINKENBA TERMINAL

2018 Preliminary Sampling andAnalysis Quality Plan

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

SITE LOCATION

BEAUDESERT

BRISBANE

CABOOLTURE

CALOUNDRA

DALBY ESK

GATTON

GOLDCOAST

IPSWICH LOGANCENTRAL

REDCLIFFE

TOOWOOMBA

WARWICK

OVERVIEWE

M.V. Services

Shed

Trades AreaTyre Repair Shed

Shed Former FirePractice Paddock

Lube Oil Plant

Warehouse

Warehouse

Grease Plant

DrumFillingArea Blending

Speciality

Products

Ingredients

Warehouse

Bulk LPG Storage Area

Lube Oil Store

State Business Centre

Employees and Visitors Car Parking

Employees Car Parking

First AidOffice

Amenities Blockand Training Rooms

Transformer OilPurification Bldg

Water TankLPG Tanks

Cooling Water

SundryWarehouse

Aviation Warehouse

CompressorShed

StockpiledSoil Area

Laboratory

LPGSingle Bay

Road LoadingGantry

Store

T40

T39

T37T36

T34T35

T30T33

T31

Underground Storage Tanks

Water Tank

Water Tank

&(

&(

&(

&(

&(

&(

&(

&,

&,

&,&, &,

&,

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

TINGIRA STREET

UNNAMED CHANNEL

SED1/SW1

6 Additional test pit locationsto be confirmed followingresults of 6 initial test pits.

WD1

WD2

IrrigationPoint

SED2/SW2

SED3/SW3

SED4/SW4

MWD

MWE

MWF

POB01

POB03

MWC

MWB

POB02

MWA

MW31

MW32

MW30

MW33

MW29

E01

E04

E02

E03

UW02

MW38

MW34

MW36

MW35 MW37

Filename:

0 60 12030Metres


VIVA ENERGY AUSTRALIA - PINKENBA TERMINAL

A3 size

Data sources:Base Data: (c) State of Queensland (DNRM 2018)

AECO

M does

not w

arrant

the ac

curacy

or com

pleten

ess of

informa

tion dis

played

in this

map a

nd any

perso

n usin

g it do

es so

at thei

r own ri

sk. A

ECOM

shall

bear no

respon

sibility

or liab

ility for

any e

rrors,

faults,

defec

ts, or o

missio

ns in t

he info

rmation

.www.aecom.com

PROJECT ID


60567205RGRG: 8/06/2018

LEGEND

!(New Groundwater Well Location to be Sampled forPFASSite BoundaryStrata (Lot)Decomissioned/Out-of-Service Area

@A Monitoring Well

@A Lost/Destroyed Monitoring Well

@? Unknown Well (UW##)SewerOily WaterStormwater

! Proposed Groundwater Sample Location for PFAS

!(I Irrigation Point

!(S Proposed co-located sediment, surface water andlocations for PFAS

!(R Release Point Water Sample&( Shallow Soil Sample&, Soil Sample

@ Data Logger Location

DATUM GDA 1994, PROJECTION MGA ZONE 56

F2Map

VERSION: 1

____________________________________________

PROPOSED SAMPLINGLOCATIONS FOR PFAS - NORTHERN TERMINAL2018 Preliminary Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan

Interceptor No.1

Wharf

Tank FarmOffice

Bitumen LoadingGantry

InterceptorNo.2

CompoundNo.3 North

CompoundNo.2 North

CompoundNo.1 North

T22

T21T20

T16

T17

T3

T4

T5

T2

T6

T7

T9

T8

T10

T11

T1

T24

T25

T13

T12

T28

T29

T26

T27

B8B7

B6B4

B5

B3B10

B9

T23

!(T

!(S

!(S!(R

!(S

!(R

&(&(

&(

&(

&(

&(

&(&(

&(

&(

&(&(

&(

&(

&(

&(

&(

&(&(

Trade Waste

WD3

MW19

MW18

MW17

MW16

MW15

MW21

MW26

POB05MW28

MW24

MW27

MW25MW22

MW23

RW1MW05

MW12

MW11

MW10A

MW06

MW08

MW07

MW20POB04

MW13

MW04MW03

MW02

MW01

MW09RW2

SED7/SW5

SED6

SED5

Trade Waste

WD3

StonePitched DrainAccess Point

Filename:

0 60 12030

Metres


A3 size

www.aecom.com

PROJECT ID


DATUM GDA 1994, PROJECTION MGA ZONE XX

Map

VERSION:

P:\605X\60567205\4. Tech Work Area\4.99 GIS\02_MXDs\20180416_CC_2018PreliminarySamplingAndAnalysisQualityPlan\F3_60567205_A3_L_ProposedGroundwaterSamplingLocationsPFAS_Southv2.mxd

Data sources:

Base Data: (c) State of Queensland (DNRM 2018)

60567205RGRG: 22/05/2018 F31

LEGEND

Ground Water Flow Direction

Site BoundaryStrata (Lot)

@A Monitoring Well

@A Lost/Destroyed Monitoring Well

Oily WaterStormwater

! Proposed Groundwater Sample Location for

!(S Proposed, surface water locations for

!(R Release Point Water Sample

!(T Trade Waste Connection

&( Shallow Soil Sample

@ Data Logger Location

VIVA ENERGY AUSTRALIA - PINKENBA TERMINAL

PROPOSED SAMPLINGLOCATIONS FOR PFAS - SOUTHERN TERMINAL2018 Preliminary Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan

MapPROJECT ID

CREATED BY

LAST MODIFIED

VERSION:

www.aecom.com

F4

60567205

RG

RG: 22 May 2018

2


2018 Preliminary Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan

AE

CO

Mdoes

not

warr

ant

the

accura

cy

or

com

ple

teness

of

info

rmation

dis

pla

yed

inth

ism

ap

and

any

pers

on

usin

git

does

so

atth

eir

ow

nrisk.A

EC

OM

shall

bear

no

responsib

ility

or

liabili

tyfo

ra

ny

err

ors

,fa

ults,d

efe

cts

,or

om

issio

ns

inth

ein

form

ation

.

A3 Size

PRELIMINARY PFAS SITE CONCEPTUALMODEL - NORTHERN TERMINAL

1

Groundwater FlowTowards Channel

Fire PracticePaddock

PFAS dissolved ingroundwater

Migration of contaminants of potential concernto surface water, sediment and biota

Migration of contaminants of potential concernin groundwater

2

1

1

BrisbanePortugueseSoccer Club

2

Groundwater Table

CB

Channel connectingBrisbane River with

Boggy Creek

MarineDrive

SiteBoundary

3

Migration of contaminants of potential concernfrom soil to groundwater, with potential overlandflow to drains

3

3

1 11 1

D

SundryWarehouse

Groundwater FlowTowards Brisbane River

POTENTIAL PATHWAYS POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

HistoricalFoam Testing

at Gantry

?

?

?

3

Impacted residual soil

22

2

?

MapPROJECT ID

CREATED BY

LAST MODIFIED

VERSION:

www.aecom.com

F5

60567205

RG

RG: 22 May 2018

2


PRELIMINARY PFAS SITE CONCEPTUALMODEL - SOUTHERN TERMINAL

2018 Preliminary Sampling and Analysis Quality Plan

AE

CO

Mdoes

not

warr

ant

the

accura

cy

or

com

ple

teness

of

info

rmation

dis

pla

yed

inth

ism

ap

and

any

pers

on

usin

git

does

so

atth

eir

ow

nrisk.A

EC

OM

shall

bear

no

responsib

ility

or

liabili

tyfo

ra

ny

err

ors

,fa

ults,d

efe

cts

,or

om

issio

ns

inth

ein

form

ation

.

A3 Size

South

MW16

MW12

MW15

PFOS in groundwater

MW04

1

1 1

B

Migration of contaminants of potential concernto surface water, sediment and biota

Migration of contaminants of potential concernin groundwater

2

Migration of contaminants of potential concernfrom soil to groundwater, with potentialoverland flow to drains

3

C

?

?

HistoricalFoam Testingat CompoundNo.1 and No.2

HistoricalFire Incidentat Tank 26

D

D

3 3

1 1

HistoricalFire Incidentat Tank 12

2

A

B

C

D

Human Commercial

Human Recreational

Ecological

Maintenance Workers

1 1 11

3 3 3 3 3

Impacted residual soil2

22 22

? ?

?



A

Appendix A

DEHP Notice andCorrespondence

stat1216 aecom limited preliminary site investigation and ... · the attached limited preliminary...

Documents