, 
, 
, 
ACT Australian Capital Territory
ADI Acceptable Daily Intake
ADI(L) Australian Defence Industries Ltd
ANAO Australian National Audit Office
ANSTO Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
ANZEC Australia & New Zealand Environment Council
ANZECC Australia & New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
ARL Australian Radiation Laboratories
AUD Australian Dollar
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene, Xylene
CCS Contaminated Civil Site
CMS Contaminated Military Site
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
DEH Department of Environment & Heritage - Queensland
DELM Department of Environment and Land Management - Tasmania
DNT Dinitro toluene
DoD Department of Defence of Commonwealth of Australia
DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organisation
EPA(C) Environment Protection Agency (Commonwealth of Australia)
EPA(NSW) Environment Protection Authority (New South Wales)
EPA(SA) Environment Protection Authority (South Australia)
EPA(V) Environment Protection Authority (Victoria)
FASFP First Assistant Secretary of Facilities and Property Division (DoD)
ha hectare(s)
HASP Health & Safety Plan
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary
HMAS Her Majesty's Australian Ship
HMX Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetra nitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine
HPLC High Pressure Liquid Chromatography
ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection
IGAE Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
ISV In-Situ Vitrification
MAH Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
m AUD million Australian Dollar
MNT Mononitro toluene
NB Nitrobenzene
NEPC National Environment Protection Council
NEPM National Environment Protection Measure
NH&MRC National Health & Medical Research Council
NPI National Pollution Inventory
NSW New South Wales
NT Northern Territory
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCB Polycyclic Biphenyls
PGDN Propyl Glycol Dinitrate
PTWI Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake
PWC Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works
QLD Queensland
RDX Cyclo trimethylene trinitramine
RAAF Royal Australian Air Force
RAN Royal Australian Navy
SA South Australia
SCS Suspected Contaminated Site
SEPP State Environment Protection Policy (Victoria)
TAS Tasmania
TCE Trichloroethene
TNT Trinitrotoluene
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
USA United States of America
USATHAMA United States Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VIC Victoria
WA Western Australia
WHO World Health Organisation
This part of the study with regard to international expertise on Contaminated
Military Sites (CMS) refers to the Commonwealth of Australia. The Commonwealth
of Australia is an independent country organised in a Federal System comprising
six States: New South Wales (NSW); Victoria (VIC); Queensland (QLD); Western
Australia (WA); South Australia (SA); Tasmania (TAS);two mainland Territories:
the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and the Northern Territory (NT) and a
number of island territories.
Australia covers an area of about 7.8 million square kilometres, only slightly
smaller in extent than the USA, but with a small population of about 18 million
people mostly located in coastal cities on the eastern and southern seaboards.
The central northern and western parts of Australia have a hot and mostly dry
climate with a summer monsoonal season in the north, and are very sparsely
populated. They have therefore historically been used for large scale military
training and exercises during the world wars, and up to the present. Training
areas can be extremely large occupying in some cases in excess of 5,000 square
kilometres and ranging within a variety of climates, landforms, water bodies
and ecosystems. One training area currently being acquired by the Commonwealth,
will effectively double the area of land currently owned by the Commonwealth
Government for defence purposes.
Australian infrastructure suffered little from hostile activity during the war
periods, with only small scale activity. However, during the bombing and
shelling of Darwin, to put it in perspective, the total weight of bombs dropped
on Darwin has been estimated as about double that delivered in the attack on
Pearl Harbour. Also, extensive training activities have taken place on land
both owned by the Commonwealth Government and leased under wartime emergency
legislation and on private property. This has left a large reservoir of former
military sites mostly located in rural areas. The country has historically
approximately 1,200 sites that can be classified as Military Sites. Currently
the Commonwealth uses approximately 550 sites of which approximately 526 are
owned by the Commonwealth. The rest are leased.
The management of operational military facilities is the responsibility of the
respective base commanders within the jurisdiction of the Directors General of
the three armed services that occupy the various properties (of which
approximately 80% fall under the jurisdiction of the Australian Army).
Acquisition or disposal of military properties is the responsibility of the
Facilities and Property Division of the Department of Defence (DoD) of the
Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. A number of military sites are, or
were, jointly operated by Australia and its former WWII allies, Britain and the
USA, and therefore also are partly or wholly managed by those countries. These
include, for example, the Joint Defence Space Communications Station at
Nurrungar SA, and the Space Research Facility at Pine Gap NT, jointly operated
with the USA, and the former Woomera Rocket Range and the Maralinga Nuclear
test site formerly operated by Britain.
The 1992 Australian & New Zealand Environment and Conservation
Council/National Health and Medical Research Council (ANZECC/NH&MRC)
"Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites" define a
contaminated site as "a site at which hazardous substances occur at
concentrations above background levels and where assessment indicates it poses,
or is likely to pose an immediate or long term hazard to human health or the
environment". Background levels in these guidelines refer to "ambient levels of
a contaminant in the local area of the site under consideration". There is no
legal definition of a Contaminated Military Site either in existing or planned
national legislation, in State legislation, or as defined by the DoD.
A suspected contaminated site (SCS) is an area that, due to the nature of
historical operations and/or disposal practices, is considered to have a
potential to be contaminated. All military sites are considered to have SCS
unless proven otherwise.
Although there is no legal definition of a Contaminated Military Site, it is
perceived that Contaminated Military Sites (CMS) usually display the same main
features exhibited by equivalent Contaminated Civil Sites (CCS). Typically, a
military site is a "Broad Acre" site covering large tracts of land in both
urban and rural settings with military activities of various types at generally
isolated locations spread over very large areas resulting in typically small
focussed areas of contamination due to specific operations including some
industrial type operations.
The principal difference that defines a CMS as compared to a CCS, apart from
their legal status with regard to environmental laws and regulations discussed
further in Section 2.-3.0 below, is the potential for the presence in storage,
manufacture, use, testing, or disposal of armaments and in particular,
explosives, explosive residues, and unexploded ordnance (UXO).
Although many military sites may not have been employed specifically for the
storage or use of explosives or armaments, the prevalence of practices
involving the handling of arms and ammunition cannot be discounted, in
particular disposal practices in the immediate post World War II period were
such that burial of surplus or scrap materials was common and records are often
incomplete. Burial practices were common right up to the 1980s due to the
large areas of available land associated with military bases and a general lack
of local responsibility for environmental issues.
Although many military sites are relatively benign in operation as they include
mainly housing, educational or storage activities, environmental personnel of
the DoD and the Armed Services treat all military sites as SCS as the known
history of any site is rarely sufficiently complete to eliminate the
possibility of contamination due either to military activities, or in many
cases, to previous industrial activities before a site was acquired. This is
illustrated by the fact that over 1,000 sites are currently listed by the DoD
as potentially contaminated with UXO.
Although not intended as a register of contaminated sites, in June 1990, the
Australian and New Zealand Environment Council (ANZEC), the forerunner of
ANZECC, produced an inventory of Commonwealth activities potentially leading to
pollution and attachments to that document specifically referred to the DoD,
Army and Air Force.
The DoD has also just started to compile a register of sites where
environmental assessment surveys have been completed. SCS on military sites in
Australia can fall into any of the categories or activities listed in Table 2-1.
Table
2-1: |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to the above SCS or potentially contaminating activities, Australia
has in the last 50 years (following the end of World War II) operated a number
of overseas military bases linked to United Nations mandates, peace keeping
activities, military actions, or defence co-operation with neighbouring
countries including in:
- Korea
- Cambodia
- Somalia
- Vietnam
- Papua New Guinea (Manus Island - Naval)
- Malaysia (Butterworth)
- Zimbabwe
It is Defence Policy to meet, as a minimum, the environmental management
require-ments of the host state.
National Legislative Framework and Environmental Agencies
In Australia, until recently, environmental legislation has remained within the
province of the various States and Territories that make up the Commonwealth of
Australia and there has been little centralised control exerted by the
Commonwealth Government in this area except in relation to matters of wider
national interest such as legislation to control dumping at sea, to control the
movement - including import and export - of hazardous wastes or banned
substances and to preserve national heritage. With regard to Commonwealth
owned sites, the federal system is such that Commonwealth land is not covered
by the legislation of the individual States or Territories, even though the
land lies within the borders of those States or Territories.
Potential environmental impacts from CMS sites have been, or will be,
considered by the Commonwealth under the Environment Protection (Impact of
Proposals) Act of 1974, for example, the nuclear test site in Maralinga, South
Australia, the Albion Explosives Factory in Victoria, the Newington depot in
New South Wales, and others.
In July 1991, the Commonwealth Government announced the establishment of the
Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency (EPA(C)) to facilitate a coordinated
national approach to environment protection and particularly in areas seen to
be the Commonwealth Government's area of responsibility.
Primary objectives set for the EPA(C) were the integration of environmental
considerations into Commonwealth policy-making frameworks and the overseeing,
in partnership with the States and Territories, of the establishment of a
National environmental body for the implementation of national approaches to
environment protection. Under this framework, the individual State and
Territory agencies remain the primary enforcement bodies.
The "Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE)" was signed on 1 May
1992 by the then Heads of Government of the Commonwealth, States and
Territories to facilitate a cooperative national approach to the
environment.
An outcome of the new cooperative approach was the recent (September 1995)
establishment of the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) by Federal
Act of Parliament and mirror legislation in each State and Territory. The NEPC
is a Council of Ministers nominated by each of the States, Territories and the
Commonwealth, and is authorised to draw up National Environment Protection
Measures (NEPMs) which may be a combination of standards, goals and guidelines
and protocols, which through complementary implementing legislation will be
given effect within all areas of the Commonwealth, States or Territories. NEPMs
can cover topics including: ambient air quality; ambient water quality;
contaminated sites; hazardous wastes; etc.
National Guidelines relating to the assessment and management of contaminated
sites have been prepared. In March 1990 in the draft "National Guidelines for
the Management of Contaminated Sites", subsequently finalised in January 1992
as the "Australia and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management
of Contaminated Sites" which are now generally accepted by environmental
authorities and by environmental practitioners countrywide as a suitable
approach to the management of contaminated sites. They have also long been
accepted as the best approach to management of contaminated sites by
Commonwealth Agencies and by the DoD.
The aim of the ANZECC/NH&MRC Guidelines was stated as "to provide a
systematic framework for the prevention, assessment, clean-up and management of
existing and future contaminated sites". The Guidelines are the main guide for
the management of all SCS, whether civil or military, and have been adopted at
all levels in DoD and the armed services as the framework for the management of
CMS, together with Dutch and USEPA guidelines where relevant.
These guidelines are currently being revised by the Australian and New Zealand
Environment & Conservation Council (ANZECC), and the National Health and
Medical Research Council (NH&MRC).
ANZECC, NH&MRC and NEPC are to promote a consistent common approach
throughout Australia to the question of contaminated sites management. The
respective roles of ANZECC, NH&MRC and NEPC on this issue have not yet been
determined, but it is likely that NEPC may assume responsibility for much of
this work. The objective of ANZECC is defined as "to provide a forum for
consultation and co-ordination between State, Territory and Commonwealth
Governments of Australia and the Government of New Zealand on environmental and
conservation matters" whilst that of the NH&MRC is "to advise the
Australian community on the achievement and maintenance of the highest
practicable standards of individual and public health to foster research in the
interests of improving those standards".
Guidelines have been prepared by DoD for the management of such sites and these
refer to the activities performed and the chemicals used or produced on a site
by site basis.
State & Territory Legislation
Although Commonwealth property including Defence land is not covered by the
individual States' legislation, the requirements of State based environmental
laws require compliance when disposing of Commonwealth property, including
CMSs. As indicated above, the variability in approach and legislation from
State to State has resulted in the formulation of a variety of applicable laws,
regulations and guidelines covering all aspects of assessment, management and
clean-up of contaminated sites.
The initial approaches by the various State based environmental authorities has
in the past been relatively conservative tending to be prescriptive and
following the lead established by others, such as the approaches taken in the
Netherlands including the general acceptance and adoption of the Dutch "AB
& C" criteria for both soil and ground water quality criteria as target
investigation and clean-up criteria. There are large differences in climate,
soil, vegetation, animal species and human health considerations between
typical Australian ecosystems and lifestyles and Western European type
ecosystems and lifestyles, including a heavy reliance in the Netherlands on
groundwater as a source of potable water, the protection of which formed a
large incentive for the establishment of the Dutch criteria. This has lead to
the questioning of the relevance of this approach for Australia in the late
1980s and early 1990s and to a search for a more relevant Australian approach
including the lead provided by South Australian Health Commission in their
publication in 1991 of a "Protocol for the Health Risk Assessment and
Management of Contaminated Sites". This was a forerunner of the ANZECC
Guidelines and established the risk based approach now adopted nationally.
Nevertheless, Dutch guidelines are not obsolete just yet, as they are still
used in some circumstances as a yard stick for clean-up (particularly for
groundwater) and may be for a long time given the national approach has only
just started and is unlikely to completely replace former state policies for a
long time. They are also still relevant to the clean-up of CMS, as for
divestment, the CMS must comply with each State's legislation.
With the 1970 Environment Protection Act, Victoria laid the groundwork for the
establishment of an approach, now beginning to be adopted by some of the other
States (NSW, SA) in the management of contaminated sites. The ANZECC
guidelines for management of contaminated sites have been adopted by the EPA in
Victoria as part of this approach. However, the key to the approach in
Victoria is the integration of planning requirements related to future
beneficial uses of the land with appropriate management of that
contamination.
The Victorian Minister for the Department of Planning and Housing first issued
a directive to local planning authorities in 1989 under the Planning &
Environment Act of 1987 which was updated in 1992. It directed that, where SCS
is to be re-zoned from industrial mining or other activities (including the
storage of chemicals, fuels or wastes) to "sensitive" uses (including
residential, public open space, agriculture, child care, pre-school or primary
school), an Environmental Auditor appointed under the Environment Protection
Act 1970 must complete a Statutory Audit to determine the suitability of the
land for the proposed beneficial uses. Re-use of a site for commercial or
other industrial uses, or where no re-zoning is required, does not necessarily
require a Statutory Environmental Audit. This would be at the discretion of
the local planning authority. The Victorian Environmental Audit process is
illustrated in Figure 2-1 in Appendix 2-3.
The above approach has been adopted by the DoD and applies to military sites to
be closed/re-used in Victoria, NSW and SA as they have to comply with the local
State legislation before disposal. Where the CMS remains the property of the
Commonwealth Government, it is DoD's policy to comply with relevant State
legislation even though there is no legal requirement to do so on Commonwealth
owned property.
There is no requirement for the Statutory Audit in Victoria to take into
account the presence of contaminated groundwater if there is no potential for
an impact on the environmental quality of the land by the contaminated
groundwater. In assessing the potential off-site effects of contaminated
surface or groundwater, ANZECC has established water quality guidelines for
potable water, for marine and fresh water ecosystems, and for agricultural and
industrial use. Victoria also employs State Environment Protection Policies
(SEPPs) to protect various segments of the environment including surface water
bodies and (in development) for groundwater.
The EPA of Victoria (EPA(V)) therefore has a pragmatic approach to the
management of contaminated sites and is prepared to accept the presence of some
levels of contamination on a site providing that it does not conflict with the
proposed land use. The EPA(V) generally accepts the ANZECC investigation
levels or "Dutch B" levels averaged across the site as being suitable for
residential purposes or other "sensitive uses" without further concern. They
also can accept much higher levels of contamination present on a site provided
that the environmental audit indicates that they either: do not conflict with
the proposed "beneficial use" of the site; or the environmental or health risks
from the presence of the contamination can be demonstrated by a site specific
environmental or health risk assessment to be at acceptable levels.
The Victorian EPA established guidelines for EPA accredited Environmental
Auditors (Contaminated Land) in May 1992, and is currently updating these
guidelines (October 1995). The guidelines emphasise a site specific approach
that depends more on end use of the property than rigid levels set by any
criteria. Levels that might be set by an auditor for "sensitive uses" defined
as "residential, child care, kindergarten, schools, etc" would be set at lower
levels than those that could be considered acceptable for industrial or
commercial purposes for example.
It must also be noted that, where risk assessments are completed for a site,
the methodology for performance of ecological and health risk assessments
contained in the ANZECC guidelines makes reference to World Health Organisation
Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intakes (PTWI) and Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADI),
rather than USEPA based methodologies which involve the use of reference doses
and slope factors which are inherently more conservative. The resultant site
specific criteria calculated for contaminant concentrations using the ANZECC
methodology therefore tend to generate soil contamination acceptance criteria
that are substantially greater than if they would be generated by the
application of the equivalent USEPA methodology. This is discussed further in
Section 2.- 7.3.
The Victorian system, which rarely requires the complete or extensive clean-up
of a site to background levels, and in many cases can allow levels well above
threshold investigation levels, has been highly successful as it has allowed
the development of many sites throughout Victoria, which would otherwise not be
developed because of the presence of some levels of contamination, without
resorting to expensive clean-up programmes. This approach has now been adopted
by New South Wales, ACT and South Australia with regulatory bodies in NSW and
SA indicating that Victorian appointed auditors be considered appropriate
people for quality review and sign-off of contaminated sites in these States.
The Victorian EPA has been commissioned to identify and provide accreditation
for appropriately qualified people in NSW and SA as Victorian
Environmental Auditors, although "Statutory Audits" cannot yet be completed as
there is no corresponding legislation in either State.
As well as Victoria, NSW, and South Australia, the other states in the
Commonwealth, including Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland, as well as
the Northern Territory and ACT, have also developed their own strategies for
the management of contaminated sites and most of the States and Territories
have well developed legislation and guidelines that also provide effective
approaches to contaminated land issues.
The Victorian system is equally relevant to CMS and CCS, and has resulted in
significant changes in the approach to management of CMSs by DoD. However, it
is not the only approach to management of contaminated sites that is being used
successfully in Australia. The Queensland DEH takes a rather different
approach which requires all SCS (as based on site history) to be assessed prior
to development with all assessment reports submitted to DEH for sign-off and
does not employ an auditor based system. Queensland is a member of the NEPC and
the future adoption of National Environmental Protection Measures by the NEPC,
may ultimately introduce a national Australian approach to contaminated land
management involving an environmental audit process which would then be adopted
by all the States and Territories.
Administrative Framework and Responsibility for CMSs
The Commonwealth of Australia owns or leases most CMSs, although from the
historical practice of use of large areas of private land in QLD and NT for
military training, many SCS are also in private ownership. The Department of
Defence (DoD) of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has
responsibility for the management of military lands through the Facilities and
Property Division. The greater majority of sites for which contamination
assessments or clean-ups are undertaken are identified through the Commonwealth
Disposal of Assets Lists. All sites are purchased for a specific purpose with
a definite "use-by" stage, and once this stage is reached Defence's need to
retain the property ends.
Acquisition or disposal of military properties owned or leased by the
Commonwealth Government is primarily the responsibility of the First Assistant
Secretary of Facilities and Property Division (FASFP) of DoD. The structure of
the Facilities and Property Division is illustrated in Figure 2-2 in Appendix
2-3.
The management of CMS intended for disposal has historically been largely the
responsibility of the Director of the Environment and Heritage Section of the
Facilities and Property Division. However, re-organisation of environmental
management within the DoD has delegated the management of many contaminated
sites to the Estate Management Branch and other areas within the Facilities
& Property Division more appropriate for estate management, whilst the
future role for the Environment and Heritage Section is planned to be mainly
in the formulation of policy, protocols and guidelines.
CMSs are currently allocated into three general classifications as Major sites,
Medium Sites and Minor or Small Sites. The classification is partly based on
projected costs, but is also based on the degree of complexity of the issues
involved which may include the legal framework, litigation, future planning
requirements, political or public interest or other aspects of estate
management as well as the contamination issues.
Major projects have been allocated to the Directorate of Facilities Projects
that are located under the Director General Facilities - Air Force and are
funded under provisions for major capital facilities projects. At present
major decontamination projects managed in this way include the decontamination
of the Albion Explosives Manufacturing Facility in Victoria and the disposal of
the Cockatoo Island Naval Facility in NSW where there are major legal issues.
Because of these issues, no further details can be presented on Cockatoo
Island.
Medium projects are managed partly by the Environment and Heritage Section
including sites such as the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO)
facility at Salisbury in SA, RAAF Williams Airbase in VIC, Kingswood Depot in
NSW. The bulk of medium sites are now managed by the Major Property Disposals
Section of the Estate Management Branch who have responsibility for disposal of
a number of sites including Maribyrnong explosives and chemical factory in VIC,
Villawood Depot, Holsworthy Gunnery Range NSW, Toowoomba Depot QLD, Newington
Armaments Depot NSW.
Newington, located on part of the site for the year 2000 Olympics in Sydney, is
relatively straight forward in management terms and classified as a "medium"
project although likely to cost in excess of $50 million AUD for clean-up and
environmental management, which is greater than projected costs for Albion, for
example, which is classified as a major project due to the complexity of
issues. The remediation of Newington is to be undertaken by the NSW government
as part of the agreement for the sale. Small or Minor projects would be
relatively simple or low budget sites and generally comprise the smaller
properties such as Army reserve depots, rifle ranges & butts, blacksmith
shops, horse training establishment, storage depots, workshops. The small
projects are handled by the Defence Property Services Section of the Estate
Management Branch which is sub-divided into Army/Navy Programmes and Other
Programmes (including Air Force properties).
Occasionally and recently more frequently, CMSs are identified which are not on
the Disposal of Assets List. These sites are identified as a result of
increased environmental awareness within the armed services. The management of
operational military facilities falls under the responsibility of the Directors
General of the three armed services and the respective base commanders, who
also have responsibility for CMSs in the operational facilities under their
command.
All three services have therefore established a framework for environmental
management of which the Army's is the most highly developed due to the nature
of their operations over large areas and frequent establishment of temporary
facilities during training or other activities. In contrast, the Air Force
occupies mostly a small number of long term fixed bases for the operation of
aircrafts requiring a more modest environmental management infrastructure,
whilst the Naval infrastructure is relatively small scale as their primary
concern has historically been ship board operations. In all three cases, the
responsibility for management of environmental issues rests with the local base
commander who is supported by logistics and facilities staff that may include
environmentally trained personnel.
Assessments, investigations and clean-ups of CCS are financed by site owners or
the polluters. Abandoned sites, or sites where there is pressing social need to
carry out clean-up work to protect the public, may be funded out of State funds
on an individual basis. For CMS, the regional centres for DoD submit budgets
for funding requirements on a site by site basis to DoD based on an assessment
of the problem and a cost/benefit analysis. DoD fixes the priorities and
includes those projects in subsequent budgets.
All projects costing over $6 million AUD must be referred to the Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Public Works (PWC) before contracts are let. This is a
statutory requirement, and therefore also forms the cut-off point between
medium and major projects.
The management of funds with regard to decontamination activities has always
been on a site-by-site basis. The recent re-organisation of the Facilities
& Property Division of DoD has been carried out with the objective of
achieving the best return for the funds invested in each property (e.g.
minimizing clean-up costs, maximizing sale price). The organisation of
the Facilities & Property Division is detailed in Figure 2-2 in Appendix
2-3.
Whereas previously the DoD spent a lot of effort on chasing contamination on
sites to achieve a clean site, much more effort is now invested in achieving
beneficial land uses appropriate to the location of the property and to the
contamination issues with the use of risk analysis in the forefront of the
planning of decontamination goals. This has allowed the current approach to
the Newington Site (estimated cost $58 million AUD) whereas initial estimates
for clean-up were in excess of $120m AUD.
By careful assessment of the planning options in relation to the use of part of
the site for the 2000 Olympics, it has been possible to present a range of
options such as containment and monitoring of known areas of contamination that
are compatible with the likelihood of future exposure of the general public to
the site.
The current approach to maximising return from funding, as implemented on the
decontamination of DSTO Salisbury Explosives facility, is by a partnering
agreement with a private consultancy. Once the assessment of the site had
indicated an appropriate remediation strategy, a "Benchmark" price was
established for the remedial works with an indicative time frame. The
"benchmark" fee incorporated a fixed lump sum component for administration and
design for the contract by the consultant, together with a fee for remediation
costs based on the estimated volumes and rates. The incentive for the project
manager is that he receives 30% of any savings on the benchmark figure with an
upper limit to avoid excessive over-estimation to achieve theoretical savings.
As a disincentive to exceed the benchmark figure, the fixed management fee is
reduced by 2% for every 100,000 AUD that it exceeds the benchmark up to a
maximum of 20% over the benchmark. Any greater overrun is borne by DoD.
The management of Commonwealth contaminated sites and the funds allocated by
the Commonwealth is currently under review by the Australian National Audit
Office (ANAO) who have circulated draft criteria for the audit. The results of
the audit and any recommendations or changes in approach with regard to funding
arrangements for CMS will be available in about July 1996.
Over and above the general funding of the Facilities and Property Division
activities from the Commonwealth government defence budget, (which currently
appears to be the major source of finance for decontamination activities
related to CMS) part of the revenue from the sale of a particular site (eg
Newington) may be foregone in return for a reduced involvement in the
decontamination activity, i.e. the sale price may be lower, but the
Commonwealth is released from any costs or liabilities for clean-up.
Other sources of funds include a sharing of expenses where a site was operated
jointly with another country. Clean-up of some joint Australian/USA facilities
are being negotiated and may be conducted on a 50/50 basis. The
decontamination of the former British nuclear testing sites at Maralinga is
being managed by the Department of Primary Industries rather than DoD with
about 40% of the estimated cost for decontamination being covered by an
ex-gratia payment by Britain.
An indirect source of funding for work on assessment and decontamination of
contaminated sites was that provided to Australian Defence Industries (ADI(L)).
ADI(L) was a semi-government organisation set up for the manufacture of arms
and explosives which was corporatised then privatised in 1995. Until 1995, it
was partly supported and granted immunity by the Commonwealth Government. As
ADI(L) had responsibility for some of the most heavily contaminated explosives
factory sites (Albion, Maribyrnong, St Marys etc), it set up its own
decontamination division which conducted research into methods for assessment
and decontamination of explosives contaminated sites and established and
conducted field trials with innovative equipment such as thermal desorption
technology.
There are no statistics available on just how many sites exhibit certain types
of contamination or the extent of that contamination and its relationship with
the activities that took place on that site. Each CMS has been dealt with on
an individual basis. In this Section, a number of the larger CMS that have
been identified are discussed in relation to the types of activities, chemicals
used and the extent of contamination discovered.
Major Military Bases & Training Areas
Typical military operations include the housing, movement and training of large
numbers of people and the movement and operation of their equipment. A typical
military base therefore includes the operational areas, storage areas for
equipment, housing and catering areas for staff, and large areas of relatively
unused space where training activities, weapons testing, and temporary storage
of equipment or temporary encampments for personnel may be located.
Air Force bases, some Naval shore bases and long term Army camps or barracks
therefore take on the character of small towns with all the ancillary services
including shops, service stations, canteens, recreational facilities, waste
disposal areas and water, power and sewerage reticulation including sewage
treatment plants. Added to that, they have maintenance facilities, stockpiles
of fuel and ammunition, and on the large sites, fire training areas, rifle
ranges, gunnery and bombing ranges, as well as any specialist activities
associated with their particular service requirements.
Training areas are a particular problem as they occupy vast areas and are often
on private property where the defence approach is to get permission to use the
property and compensate for any damage.
As most military sites in Australia are both secure and tend to be large with
extensive open areas that can be readily used for establishment of small
specialist operations or for waste disposal they have often been targeted in
the past for the establishment of specialised industries related to manufacture
and testing of armaments and in some cases explosives.
Gunnery ranges such as Holsworthy in NSW, have been used for the disposal of
UXO and burial of surplus equipment. Point Cook airfield was used for military
training and fire training activities involved the deliberate release of
flammable chemical wastes of unknown sources into pits to produce smoky fires
for training of base fire fighting crews. PCBs drained from electrical
equipment were stored in a compound on Laverton airfield, part of RAAF Williams
Airbase. Surplus machine guns stripped from equipment were buried in concrete
in a military depot in Toowoomba QLD and had to be located during clean-up of
the site.
The common factors on military sites appear to be the presence of petroleum
based fuels for vehicles, aircraft, vessels and for heating. Gunnery and
bombing ranges can be very large with small fragments of UXO dispersed over
wide areas. Metallic lead in rifle range butts is also a common feature. The
extent of contaminated areas on such sites however tends to be relatively small
and focused.
Wastes comprising mostly domestic wastes from living areas have commonly been
dumped within the boundaries of military sites in the past, although this
practice is changing with all the armed services making use of local domestic
garbage removal and industrial waste removal services wherever available.
However, for the older sites, which represent most of those likely to be
decontaminated as part of a disposal programme, the presence of numerous solid
waste tips is a common factor.
Most major disposal operations for military bases (such as RAAF Williams) have
not progressed much further than the initial characterisation of contamination
as most of the early work completed by DoD was on the former explosives
manufacturing facilities (Albion, Maribyrnong, St Marys etc). The likely range
of contaminants is known to include:
C petroleum hydrocarbons related to all fuel storage, transport, re-fuelling,
and usage activities, such as for heating, power generation, workshops,
maintenance etc;
C - metals; in particular, copper, lead & zinc, mostly from building
materials, electrical equipment, paints and ammunition; but also mercury from
electrical switchgear, arsenic and chrome from pesticides, wood preservatives,
plating etc, and a range of other metals related to specific uses such as
nickel, cadmium, silver etc;
- UXO and explosives residues from ranges and from ammunition storage and
disposal;
- PAHs from boiler houses, bunker fuels, bitumen, ash wastes;
- chlorinated hydrocarbons used as degreasing agents in workshops and plating
shops;
- solvents (petroleum and aromatic hydrocarbons, phenols etc) in paints and
cleaning materials;
- PCBs previously present in electrical equipment;
- organochlorine pesticides from pest control practices;
- asbestos in building materials, lagging, insulation and fire retardants.
Training areas tend to have few contaminants except those associated with
domestic landfills, and the use of fuels, explosives and the presence of UXO.
However, they can also have particular problem materials such as arsenic
impregnated ammunition boxes and phosphorous grenades.
The potential for the presence of UXO is a problem during assessment and
decontamination of all CMS as it is impossible to completely screen a site for
all possible UXO or fragments of munitions. The DoD approach to UXO
contamination is discussed in detail below.
Armaments Factories and Fabrication on Military Sites
As part of the industrial expansion of Australia, particularly during and
immediately after WWII, armaments manufacturing facilities were set up both as
independent facilities such as aircraft manufacturing, or as small fabrication
or maintenance areas within existing military bases such as at Laverton
Airfield, part of RAAF Williams, in order to cope with the demand for military
equipment to the western allies.
Activities on these sites included: metal fabrication, machining, treatment and
finishing including metal pickling (with acids), hardening (cyanide) and
plating (metals); component manufacture; painting and assembly of completed
armaments; storage, handling and disposal of raw materials and wastes; and
other associated industrial operations or processes aimed at manufacture and
testing of armaments and weapons including boiler houses, waste water
treatment, bulk fuel storage, etc.
The profile of contamination in these areas is generally typical of that which
may be associated with similar civilian industrial operations and may include a
full range of metals and other inorganics, petroleum hydrocarbons, aromatic
hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons and semi-volatile organic compounds,
PCBs, asbestos etc.
Contamination above investigation thresholds has been detected at several of
the factory sites in both soil and groundwater. It is extensive in some areas
and groundwater quality across these sites is often poor with a range of
contaminants exceeding national water quality guidelines.
Commonly occurring contaminants include:
- petroleum hydrocarbons (C6-C36) from fuels and cutting
oils;
- various volatile and semi-volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons & phenols
used as cleaning agents and degreasing agents;
- metals including: copper, chromium and cadmium from plating lines
Less common contaminants include:
- benzene
- phthalate
- metals including: arsenic, cobalt, lead, nickel, zinc, manganese, molybdenum,
selenium,
- polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
- cyanide
- PCBs
It is possible that some of the contamination may come from off-site sources or
have been imported with fill materials.
Asbestos is also frequently present on such sites. It is often been
incorporated into building materials in the form of asbestos cement sheeting,
and is used as lagging in boilers and furnaces and as a fire retardant.
Explosives Manufacturing Sites
Most of the experience obtained with CMS in Australia relates to the major
explosives manufacturing facilities established either before or during WWII.
They are important with regard to the DoD's approach to management of CMS as
most of the experience and expertise within the Facilities & Property
Division was gained on these sites.
The Albion site in Victoria was the first to be investigated in the late 1980s,
and many of the techniques for assessment of contamination associated with
explosive residues were developed on that site. The compounds or contaminants
detected on the Albion site were described as follows:
- Explosives Residues: "Red water", "Yellow Water", nitroglycerine, RDX,
2,4-DNT, 2,4,6-TNT, MNT, carbamite;
- Organic compounds: petroleum hydrocarbons, toluene, organic carbon,
cyclohexanone, dimethyl aniline;
- Metals: mercury, titanium, lead, barium, calcium, magnesium, potassium,
sodium,
- Anions: bicarbonate, carbonate, chloride, sulphate
- Other: asbestos
Albion, like other explosives industry sites occupies a large area comprising
mainly buffer zones with very little potential for contamination. The
contamination is generally confined to the relatively small proportion of the
site where manufacturing took place and to settlement ponds.
Of the wide range of contaminants listed above, TNT, 2,4-DNT, 2,6-DNT, RDX,
lead, barium and mercury were found to be the most significant and wide spread.
The approximately 500 hectares (ha) are split into two main areas of roughly
equal size. Area 1 comprising mainly buffer zones and storage areas is mildly
contaminated with a few small discrete areas of higher contamination. Volumes
of soil for remediation have been based on grid sampling with an assumption of
a contaminated area extending a radius of 7.5 metres around any sampling point,
to arrive at an estimate of 100,000 m; of contaminated soil, or about 400 m;
per ha. Area 2 represents mainly the manufacturing areas. Approximately 200,000
m; of moderately contaminated soil requiring remediation has been identified at
a few scattered sites representing less than 3% of the total area of Area 2.
The St Mary's munitions facility in NSW covers about 1,500 ha, three times the
size of Albion. Activities included manufacture of explosives and extensive
destruction of surplus explosives after WWII. Approximately 85% of the
explosives contamination is concentrated in sediments within former evaporation
ponds constructed to receive large volumes of wash waters from the explosive
destruction process. Levels of RDX and TNT residues in the ponds ranged from
below action levels to 140,000 mg/kg.
The Draft Australian Standard for the Sampling of Potentially Contaminated
Soils also lists the following chemicals associated with the manufacture of
explosives:
Acetone, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, pentachlorophenol, ammonia, sulphuric
acid, nitroglycerine, calcium cyanamide, lead, ethylene glycol, methanol,
copper, aluminium, bis(2-ethyl hexyl) adipate, dibutyl phthalate, sodium
hydroxide, mercury and silver.
A groundwater monitoring programme at Albion indicated the presence in
groundwater of the following contaminants at concentrations in the ranges
indicated:
RDX <50 - 235 µg/L
2,4,6-TNT <10 - 650 µg/L
2,6-DNT <10 - 2,100 µg/L
2,4-DNT <10 - 2,640 µg/L
MNT <10 - 3,190 µg/L
Metals detected in the groundwater at various concentrations were as
follows:
barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, manganese, tellurium, titanium,
aluminium, beryllium, cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc.
Metals tested but not detected included: arsenic, antimony, selenium.
Total dissolved solids in the groundwater varies from negligible to 29,000
mg/L. Background levels of TDS in the vicinity of the site are generally in
the range 1,000 to 7,500 mg/L.
The Explosives Factory Maribyrnong occupies a large site in the loop of the
Maribyrnong River in Melbourne VIC. Processes included the manufacture of
explosives and assembly of armaments and manufacture of other industrial
chemicals. In addition to the explosive compounds (as detailed for other sites
above), other chemicals included:
- acids (nitric and sulphuric) and alkalies;
- red fumed nitric acid;
- isopropyl nitrate;
- ammonia and ammonium nitrate;
- nitrocellulose;
- lacquers and paints;
- war chemicals including mustard gas, phosgene, and napalm.
Villawood, a 5.2 ha property in NSW was used for manufacture of explosives,
tanks and prefabricated houses, and has been used as a stores depot. The site
has a range of low level contamination including: heavy metals, organochlorine
pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, chlorobenzene, petroleum hydrocarbons from fuel and
asbestos. The main focus of decontamination activity is chlorobenzene and 1,2
dichloro benzene. Clean-up is estimated at $0.5 million AUD or $100,000 AUD
per ha.
Explosives Handling, Storage, and Testing Sites
Some very large sites established for the storage, distribution and testing of
explosives, and for the specialist research have also been in the forefront of
sites assessed for contamination, although little actual clean-up has been
done. These include sites such as Newington in NSW, the former east coast
armaments depot which is being replaced as it no longer meets UN standards due
to the proximity of commercial and residential developments. The Newington
site forms part of the site chosen for the 2000 Olympics. Other such sites
include DSTO Salisbury in South Australia, Ravenhall at Deer Park in Victoria
and Marrangaroo in NSW.
Clean-up is currently underway at DSTO Salisbury in SA which covers
approximately 1,800 ha (which includes the RAAF Base Edinburgh). The site is
occupied by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) for
activities that have included missile development and testing, ordnance
research and testing and disposal, explosives manufacture and electronic
weapons development. It is also partly occupied by the RAAF Base, an army base
and associated facilities. Other activities include railway sidings, and
cropping and grazing in buffer zones between operational units.
Contaminants are located on 35 sub-sites spread over the area with an estimated
volume of 90,000 m; of affected soils for remediation (or approximately 50 m;
per ha). Heavy metals are the principal contaminants at the majority of the 35
sub-sites, with a small number that include petroleum hydrocarbons from fuels,
volatile organic compounds from solvents, asbestos and explosives residuals
from the testing and disposal. Operational areas targeted included areas where
detonator formulations were produced including mercury fulminate, lead azide,
and lead styphnate. Nine of the sites were waste dumps, and six were filled
concrete tanks. Dumped wastes included electroplating wastes. Two sites were
contaminated with radioactive wastes including magnesium-thorium alloys from
missile and rocket bodies and low level gamma emitters from obsolete amplifier
valves.
No significant widespread contamination by explosives was detected. That
detected was principally propellants and some instances of RDX, Tetryl, 2,3-DNT
and TNT. The metal contamination to be cleaned up includes mercury, zinc,
chromium, arsenic (from sheep dips[1]), and to a
lesser extent copper and cadmium. The asbestos is principally in the form of
asbestos sheeting or vinyl tiles from building materials. Organochlorine
termiticides were suspected to be present beneath buildings (However, at the
time when this Study was written, neither their presence nor absence was
proven.)
Groundwater is principally contaminated with trichloro ethylene (TCE), other
associated chlorinated hydrocarbons (including 1,1 dichloro ethene and 1,4
dichloro benzene), PAHs, and petroleum hydrocarbons
(C6-C9). However the salinity of the groundwater also
makes it unlikely to be suitable for a wide range of beneficial uses and
clean-up will be limited to one or two restricted areas of TCE contaminated
groundwater, whilst groundwater quality is being extensively monitored on the
remainder of the site.
The explosives storage and testing facility at Ravenhall VIC occupied a site of
213 ha comprising mostly buffer zones used for agriculture surrounding the
testing facility. Activities included a railway siding and sheds to tranship
and store military equipment and explosives, including ammunition and
propellants during WWII. Later uses included rocket motor static firing tests,
explosive trials for fuses, flares and other pyrotechnics and the destruction
of surplus test materials by burning.
Primary contaminants anticipated were copper, lead, zinc, RDX and TNT. A total
of up to 2,500 m3 of contaminated soil was estimated for the whole
site. However, the site investigation indicated only about 0.1% of the site was
contaminated. Contaminants identified were mainly arsenic, copper, lead and
zinc. The bulk of the significant contamination was limited to the two main
testing areas involving about 350 to 400 m; of contaminated soil over less than
100 m2. About 2,000 m3 was affected by a small proportion
of ash & coal. No explosive residues were detected. The buffer zones were
found to be uncontaminated, which was confirmed by later investigation for a
prison development. Levels of barium of up to 2,200 mg/kg were considered to
be naturally occurring trace elements in the basaltic soils. Rumours of
disposal of radioactive wastes on the site were investigated using gamma
detection equipment with none detected.
The former RAN armaments depot at Newington, together with other NSW State
owned land in Homebush bay area of Sydney, forms part of the Olympic site. A
major amount of effort has gone into characterising the site contamination.
The site covers a range of ecosystems including saline river, brackish
wetlands, dry land vegetation and the Newington Ridge Forest all of which have
heritage importance. The major source of contamination on the site is a number
of landfills, seepage from the landfills and into the wetlands. Numerous
extensive investigations since 1989 have identified the following
contaminants.
- PAHs (benzo-a-anthracene, naphthalene);
- the metals arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury and
zinc;
- benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, chloro benzene;
- ammonia;
- organochlorine pesticides including DDT and dieldrin;
- asbestos; and
- possibly UXO.
High ecological risks identified were associated with PAHs, ammonia, benzene,
toluene, cadmium, copper and zinc. It was initially anticipated that Dioxins
would be a major problem on the site, but the testing indicated that this was
unlikely.
Marangaroo is a 1,700 ha ammunition depot in NSW, and has also been used for
explosive ordnance disposal. The principal contaminants detected were
explosive ordnance waste, UXO and chemicals including preservatives,
pesticides, herbicides, PAHs, BTEX, PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, halogenated
hydrocarbons, neutralising agents, asbestos and chemical warfare agents (types
not specified). The contamination is spread over 100 sites in the storage and
disposal areas, and also in the major watercourses. The contamination is
considered to have been spread principally by airborne dispersal from blast and
fall out, and burning. The Environmental Assessment at Marangaroo is estimated
to cost about $1.5 million AUD, or about $1,000 per ha AUD. Clean-up costs
have not yet been estimated.
Naval Dockyards & Shore Bases
Naval dockyards tend to be relatively small and as they are located in Port
Areas, they are usually surrounded by similar civilian sites. As they usually
contain workshops and metal fabrication areas, paint shops and other services,
they potentially have a similar range of contaminants to the armaments
manufacturing sites including:
- petroleum hydrocarbons
- solvents, monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
- metals
- cyanides
- chlorinated hydrocarbons
- PCBs
- PAHs
- phenols
- organochlorine pesticides
- tributyltin (from anti-fouling paints).
As with other defence industries, there is a ubiquitous presence of asbestos in
insulation, lagging, fire proofing and in dockyard buildings as asbestos cement
roofing and cladding materials, but also potentially to past stockpiles derived
from stripping of asbestos containing materials from ships in the 1980s.
Frequently as dockyards and shore establishments are located in filled areas,
there is also the potential for fill typically contaminated with metals TPH or
PAH. This was found to be the case with the shore establishment HMAS Cerberus
in Victoria.
A particular contaminant that may also be present on Naval sites is OTTO Fuel.
This is a fuel loaded into torpedoes that does not require oxygen to burn. It
comprises propyl- glycol dinitrate (PGDN) which is a carcinogen and is volatile
and toxic. This can also be found on airbases where it is used for fuelling of
airborne torpedoes. There is no information concerning whether any residues
have been detected on CMS.
Nuclear Test Sites
During the 1950s and 1960s, atmospheric nuclear tests were carried out by the
British Government on Australian territory. Tests were undertaken at Maralinga
and Emu in South Australia, and at the Monte Bello Islands in the Indian Ocean
just off the west coast of Western Australia. The first, in the Monte Bello
islands involved the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear bomb on a ship and two
later ones on land were also atmospheric. Later tests at Maralinga and Emu
(about 190 km to the north east of Maralinga) involved the testing of trigger
devices above ground specifically to assess the distribution of fall out.
The nuclear weapons testing and development programme in Australia conducted by
the British Government included 12 atmospheric tests and a large number of
"minor trials". Seven atmospheric tests and hundreds of the "minor trials"
were carried out at Maralinga. The "minor trials" dispersed plutonium in
narrow plumes extending about 20 kilometres in length which presents a serious
radiological hazard at three sites. Residual plutonium in surface layers
exists as finely divided dust, as small sub-millimetre particles and as surface
contamination on larger fragments of debris. Two of the atmospheric tests and
five of the "minor trials" were held at Emu. Clean-up of the contaminant
plumes was attempted by the British Government in 1968 (Operation Brumby) by
ploughing to a depth of 150-250 mm in an attempt to reduce surface
contamination.
In 1986, the Australian and British Governments established a Technical
Assessment Group (TAG) to assess clean-up costs and options based on the
assumption of some degree of future access to the test site lands by their
traditional owners, the Maralinga Tjarutja Aborigines. See Section 2-7.2 -
Nuclear Test Sites.
Other Sites with Radioactive Wastes
A proportion of the defence weapons research establishments, depots,
operational sites and other facilities have produced quantities of radioactive
wastes for various reasons. These have included: radioluminescent instrument
dials and compasses (radium); radioactive sources for instruments or hospital
equipment; depleted uranium ballast from aircraft & rockets; thorium
coatings from aircraft windshields; gaseous tritium light sources from ambush
lights and road markers; and minute quantities of plutonium dispersed in soil.
Sites with Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)
All bombing ranges, artillery and naval gunnery ranges have a potential for the
presence of UXO, including unexploded shells or bombs, practice bombs and other
explosive devices. Common practice within the armed services is to record the
location of the fall of these devices and to follow up after use of the
range.
UXO includes the unexploded fragments of bombs or shells that may have
disintegrated and not completely burned. These may be small and very hard to
detect as well as spread over a wide area. The Commonwealth Governments policy
with regard to UXO and methods for investigation of sites is discussed in
Section 2.-7.0.
DoD has organised the management of CMS under Regional Environmental Managers,
has established its own registration system and keeps files on sites found by
investigations to be contaminated. The DoD does not maintain a central register
of SCS and as yet there is no national register that incorporates these
sites.
Although DoD and the various services do not keep central registers of
chemically contaminated sites, the Logistics Policy Branch of the Logistics
Division of the DoD does maintain a register of sites potentially contaminated
with unexploded ordnances (UXO). Approximately 1070 such sites have been
identified including existing gunnery and bombing ranges, together with a large
number of properties mostly located in Queensland. Although the Queensland
sites were never owned or permanently occupied by the DoD or the Army, they
were used during and immediately after World War II as training areas by both
the Australian Armed Services and those of Britain and the USA.
The DoD philosophy appears to be that the very nature of military operations is
such that all military sites must be considered as SCS and therefore they are
treated on that basis until the information is available to determine the
environmental quality of the site. No site is released for sale or lease
without an environmental evaluation of the contamination status of the land in
relation to the local environmental legislation applicable in that State.
Individual State registers do incorporate some military sites within their
lists where there is suspected, known or confirmed contamination. For example,
the Victorian State Register of Confirmed Contaminated Sites includes HMAS
Lonsdale, a Navy shore establishment. The Queensland register also includes
defence sites in general on the basis of their historical military usage in
keeping with the Queensland's Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH)
policy for the inclusion on the register of all SCS.
General
All current site assessments carried out on behalf of DoD on CMS are required
to follow the ANZECC Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of
Contaminated Sites (Appendix 2-1).
The ANZECC Guidelines are comprehensive and set out the framework for
identification and assessment of SCS. This includes: site investigation
methods; sampling and analysis requirements; threshold investigation levels;
and the methodology for ecological and health risk assessments where
contamination exceeds threshold levels. As these are nationally based
guidelines and accepted in principal by all environmental authorities
throughout Australia, they are a universal reference for all practitioners
including DoD. The ANZECC recommended approach to the Assessment and
Management of a SCS is summarised in Figure 2-3 attached (in Appendix 2-3).
The laboratory testing performed for environmental assessments is carried out
in accordance with the ANZECC guidelines and the results are compared with soil
quality acceptance criteria adopted under these guidelines. These criteria are
designated A & B levels and are approximately equivalent to the so-called
Dutch "A" and "B" criteria for soil contamination (for details see Section
2.-7.3).
For Defence contamination surveys, analytical results from the first stage
assessment are also compared with the ANZECC threshold investigation levels
(Appendix 2-1), or where they do not exist, the Dutch Guidelines, and/or USEPA
guidelines derived from the US-American data benches IRIS (Integrated Risk
Information System) and HEAST (Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables).
These USEPA guidelines are used to determine concentrations for contaminants
beyond which permanent adverse affects occur to human and ecological receptors.
There is no threshold level for genotoxic carcinogens. If the results of the
sampling indicate a potential problem, funds may be allocated for a second
stage investigation programme to assess the extent of any areas of
contamination.
Environmental audits, assessments and clean-ups of CMS are usually carried out
or managed on behalf of DoD by specialist environmental consulting and
engineering companies. Approximately 6 to 8 such companies regularly perform
assessments, environmental monitoring or manage clean-ups for DoD. Equipment
for sampling and other surveys is provided by experienced drilling, civil
engineering, and specialist contractors. For example, there are two or three
specialist companies providing UXO detection services. ADI(L) with its
background in the defence industry specialises in the provision of
investigation and decontamination contracting services to DoD including UXO
detection.
In general, all military sites are considered to be potentially contaminated. A
decentralised system for registering sites that actually have been found to be
contaminated has been established as detailed in Section 2.-6.0.
Preliminary environmental assessments to identify SCS are generally based on a
combination of the known history of contamination on the site, which can be
derived from both anecdotal and written records, and an assessment/audit of
activities carried out at the site including present activities. Records that
may be consulted include: current and historic maps & plans; historical
photographs and air photos; government gazettes which may refer to activities
such as bombing and artillery ranges; and groundwater databases. A detailed
site inspection will be completed to look for evidence of any activities that
may have resulted in contamination. As part of the results of the assessment a
Sampling and Analysis Plan may be prepared to assess the presence and likely
extent of any potential contamination indicated by the historical
assessment.
One of the characteristics of CMS is that there are often good records kept by
the military authorities regarding former activities on the long established
military sites. Record keeping with regard to ordering of materials, the
retention of spare parts and equipment, and the organised disposal of surplus
materials or wastes is usually comprehensive.
General Strategy for Soil Sampling
Consultants are employed by DoD on the basis of their appropriate experience to
develop and conduct work plans which include implementation of the sampling and
analysis plans and data management plans. These plans conform to local and
international guidelines and standards on sampling, the spacing of samples
points and the number and amounts of samples including Quality
Assurance/Quality Control samples, methods of collection, storage and handling.
Standards and guidelines referenced include amongst others:
- USEPA SW-846 - Test methods for evaluating solid waste
- Draft Australian Standard on sampling and analysis of potentially
contaminated soils
- The Draft ANZECC guidelines for the analysis of contaminated soils
- The Draft guidelines for consultants reporting on contaminated soils (NSW)
- Contaminated sites sampling design guidelines prepared by the EPA (NSW).
New South Wales EPA has also produced guidelines on the assessment of service
station sites and for management of environmental issues relating to
underground storage tanks and petrol station sites, the Australian Institute of
Petroleum has produced Codes of Practice for the design, installation,
operation and removal of underground storage tanks.
Anecdotal information on activities and the location of waste disposal sites
with careful review of good quality air photos, is followed up by use of
specialised geophysical methods such as magnetometers and electromagnetic
induction surveys, which often provide the best indication of the location of
disposal areas, including unauthorised areas used for burial of wastes.
Sampling at SCS sites can be done by use of hand excavation or augering
equipment, mechanical excavators or typically hollow flight auger drills with
tube samplers. Spacing varies depending on the size and history of the site.
The Draft Australian Standard and EPA (NSW) guidelines indicate the minimum
number of sampling points for site characterisation based on hotspot detection
by systematic sampling patterns. This ranges from a minimum of 5 points for
sites of under 500 m2 (0.05 ha or 100 points per ha to detect a
hotspot of 11.8 metre diameter with 95% confidence) in both the guidelines and
the standard, up to 120 points on 30 ha (a minimum of 4 points per ha with
projected detection of a hotspot of 59 metre diameter with 95% confidence) in
the Draft Australian Standard. The EPA (NSW) guidelines, which extend up to a
maximum of 55 points over 5 ha (equivalent to 11 points per ha with projected
detection of a hotspot of 35.6 metre diameter with 95% confidence), disclaim
responsibility for blanket approval of the appropriateness of these minimum
spacings and also give no guidance for sites of more than 5 ha.
Each CMS is investigated on an individual basis, usually with a combination of
sample points located on a grid pattern together with selected sampling points
focussed on SCSs. For example, the chemical screening plan prepared for RAAF
Williams on the basis of the initial historical studies and facilities audit,
ranked the airbase into four main types of areas on the basis of the potential
for contamination as follows:
Level 1: Areas of very low potential for contamination (airfield areas,
runways, taxiways and adjoining grass areas where there was no history of
potentially contaminating activities).
Level 2: Areas of low potential for contamination (administration and housing
areas and with a few localised SCSs such as heating oil storage tanks, petrol
service station site, etc)
Level 3: Areas of moderate to high potential for contamination (maintenance,
manufacturing, storage areas, aircraft service facilities, bulk fuel storage
and refuelling areas, fire training areas etc)
Level 4: Areas of high to very high potential for contamination (landfill
areas, liquid disposal sites etc)
On the above rankings, the suggested sampling density was as follows:
Level 1: 500 metre grid with some selected groundwater sampling points.
Level 2: 200 metre grid with a minimum of 2 additional points focussed at each
local SCS identified and selected groundwater sampling points.
Level 3: 100 metre grid with a minimum of 2 additional points focussed at each
local SCS identified and groundwater sampling points spread throughout each
area ranked as Level 3 and individually at each fuel facility.
The strategy for investigation of Level 4 areas was different in concept due to
the potential presence of uncharacterised wastes in landfills. Geophysical
methods including magnetometers or electromagnetic resonance (EM) are used to
define the boundaries of landfills followed-up by the installation of a limited
number of boreholes to characterise the wastes together with groundwater
monitoring bores on the perimeter to monitor any migration of contaminants to
the rest of the site or off-site. Other ranking systems may be developed on a
site by site basis.
Handling of Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)
In 1990, the Commonwealth government prepared a policy on the "Management of
Land Affected by UXO". This referred both to existing sites and to sites
disposed of or held in private hands. It is stated in the policy document that
"The Commonwealth is generally under no legal obligation to commit resources to
reduce known hazards associated with UXO contamination. Notwithstanding this,
the Commonwealth may take action to reduce UXO hazards in some cases".
Such actions proposed by the Commonwealth UXO policy may include:
- Maintain and make available records of SCS
- Seek to influence planning proposals on affected land
- Render safe any UXO discovered by the public
- Inform the public by warning signs
- Restrict access to affected land controlled by the Commonwealth
- Provide technical advice
- Manage all land occupied by the Commonwealth and used for firing live
ammunition to restrict access and the level of UXO
- Take reasonable steps to reduce the hazard on Commonwealth land to be
divested
- Take action in particular cases on private land affected by UXO.
There are occasional incidents involving UXO. But these are usually found to
be due to the mishandling of UXO located by the public. In general, the level
of management of UXO is such that the risk to the public can be considered to
be low enough that, for example, a naval gunnery range in WA is managed as a
bushland reserve and the public is admitted between firings. A great effort is
made to locate any UXO after completion of each exercise. There is a
distinction here in the rigorous management of impact zones as compared to the
surrounding buffer areas which may have public access.
In general, detection methods for UXO include magnetometers, electromagnetic
resonance devices (EM61) and ground penetrating radar. However, it is not
possible to guarantee complete success in removal of UXO. Geophysical
techniques are also used to examine CMS sites for UXO (from possible bombing
range activities and disposal of ordnance by burial). However, complete surveys
of sites using EM61 type electromagnetic resonance equipment or high resolution
magnetometers are time consuming as spacing of survey lines is typically no
more than a few metres apart. Computer enhancement of the results to identify
anomalous peaks in the data can provide a few scattered point anomalies that
require follow-up with ground penetrating radar at individual soil sampling
sites, or physical investigation of numerous anomalies from metal fragments,
few of which may represent UXO. Even with the most sophisticated equipment
available, detection rates cannot be guaranteed to be 100% and some areas, such
as adjacent to wire fences, are subject to interference.
Chemical Screening
Preliminary screening for chemical contaminants comprises a basic set of
contaminants for which all samples are tested and a secondary set of site
specific analytes related to site history. The basic set may normally include
metals, TPH, PAH, explosives. Selection of samples for further testing would
be based on head space screening with a photo ionisation detector to assess the
presence of volatile or semi-volatile compounds, and on visual and odour
indications of the potential presence of contamination.
Screening for metals and organics on sites where the historical information is
inadequate to indicate the range of contaminants likely to be present, will
often include the use of ICP-MS and GC-MS mass spectrometry to screen for a
broad range of potential contaminants at moderate cost. Explosive residues are
screened using high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) with UV detection on
acetonitrile extracts of samples prepared as liquid slurries to avoid loss or
breakdown of the analytes that may occur using other methods (USATHAMA Methods
8H Explosives in Water by HPLC, 12-27-82 and Method 2C Cyclo trimethylene
trinitramine (RDX) in Soil and Sediment samples, 12-3-80). Explosives residues
routinely screened by HPLC for CMSs include:
- HMX (Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetra nitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine)
- RDX (Cyclo trimethylene trinitramine)
- NB (Nitrobenzene)
- 1,3-DNB (1,3-Dinitrobenzene)
- 1,3,5-TNB (1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene)
- MNT (Mononitro toluene)
- 2,4-DNT (2,4-Dinitro toluene)
- 2,6-DNT (2,6-Dinitro toluene)
- 2,4,6-TNT (2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene)
- Tetryl (2,4,6-Trinitro phenyl methyl nitramine)
Typically, review of the results of the detailed surveys indicate the absence
of contamination over most of the survey area and identifies some isolated hot
spots. Further sampling and analysis related to these areas will be based on
risk analysis related to the potential end use of the site, the possible need
to establish the concentration and lateral and depth distribution of
contaminants with upper confidence limits of about 95% for clean-up, for the
characterisation of contaminants as to speciation, leachability and
bioavailability to provide sufficient data for disposal or treatment options,
or for quantitative risk assessment particularly where some contamination is
likely to remain on site.
Nuclear Test Sites
The programme methodology employed in the assessment of clean-up options for
Maralinga by the Australian/British Technical Assessment Group (TAG) included
the following stages:
- Source term definition: aerial and ground surveys to determine the extent of
contamination, particle sizing, fragment collection and specific activity
measurements to determine its nature;
- Bioavailability: gut transfer, lung dynamics and wound sites in experimental
animals; environmental transfer factors for vegetation, fruiting bodies and
collectable food animals; soil profiles, physical concentrating factors;
- Exposure routes: quantitative anthropological studies into cultural habits,
food sources, food gathering and daily activities, instrumented simulated
Aboriginal practices and past-times in contaminated areas, quantification of
natural and artificial dust raising activities;
- Dose assessment: using standard International Commission on Radiological
Protection (ICRP) dosimetric factors or experimental values;
- Uncertainty analysis: value judgement on upper and lower bounds for
experimental dosimetric parameters; worst case value judgements on parameters
not amenable to experimental measurement, eg. probability of cuts/wounds, soil
ingestion by infants.
For Defence contamination surveys, analytical results from the first stage
assessment are at first compared with the ANZECC threshold investigation levels
(Appendix 2-1).
The "A" Level ANZECC criteria are equivalent to natural (low) background levels
and indicate a range of levels, as soils in Australia have a wide range of
background "contamination" levels. "Background levels" in Australia can, and
often do, exceed levels at which they would be considered to be a potential
risk to the environment and/or human health. For example: background levels of
arsenic in excess of 1,000 mg/kg can occur in soils associated with the gold
mining areas in western Victoria. This can be compared to the ANZECC
environmental investigation level of 20 mg/kg and health investigation level of
100 mg/kg; and to the former Dutch "C" criteria of 50 mg/kg and the new Dutch
"Intervention" level of 55 mg/kg.
The "B" level ANZECC criteria are threshold levels at which one may have cause
to investigate further if the circumstances are warranted, but are not intended
as clean-up levels. The ANZECC criteria are summarised in Table 2.-1-1 in
Appendix 2-1 for reference.
The ANZECC guidelines do not indicate other reference levels for soil
contamination and require that, for levels exceeding the ANZECC threshold
values (or in their absence, Dutch B investigation levels), risk assessment
techniques be used to assess the potential for adverse health or ecological
effects resulting from the presence of contamination on the site, or from
potential migration of the contamination to receptors off-site. Although
computer programmes for health and ecological risk assessments are available
and widely used including "Risk Assistant" based on USEPA protocols, and the
Dutch based "HESP" and Canadian based "Aeris", they are not widely favoured for
use on CMS by DoD as they all include default values related to European or
North American soils, climates and lifestyles. There is no specifically
Australian equivalent and risk assessments are generally calculated manually
using the protocols established by ANZECC. As discussed above, initial
assessments are compared to the ANZECC ecological threshold values and health
investigation thresholds and, where ANZECC levels are unavailable, the Dutch
criteria are used for reference then. If justified, quantitative ecological and
health risk assessments may be completed for specific contaminants related to
the proposed end use of the land.
Human health risk assessment is based on WHO numbers for Acceptable Daily
Intake (ADI) and Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake (PTWI) calculated on body
weight of individuals and the site specific assessment of exposure pathways for
the identified contaminants. Potential absorption is assessed from the
bioavailability of each chemical considered and the total amount ingested based
on typical ingestion or absorption rates set out in the ANZECC guidelines. For
the purposes of exposure assessment it is recommended in the guidelines that an
estimated soil ingestion level for children of 1-5 years of 100 mg/day of soil
from all routes be used.
Estimated human soil intakes for exposure assessment purposes from ANZECC
guidelines are:
- 0-1 year negligible
- 1-5 years 100 mg/day
- 5-15 years 50 mg/day
- Adult 25 mg/day
The above numbers are considered to be typical for total ingestion of soil by
all possible routes, including inhalation, but would be generally
representative of a European style culture. These numbers would not apply
where the opportunities for ingestion of soils are much greater, such as may
occur in outback Australia. The outdoor lifestyle typical of traditional
Australian Aboriginal culture can afford increased opportunities for ingestion
of soils associated with outdoor eating and living in an often dusty
environment as was indicated by studies relating to the former nuclear test
sites at Maralinga.
The Maralinga studies concluded that the most significant radiological pathways
are inhalation of resuspended activity, for which the largest doses are
received by 10 year old children, and the ingestion of contaminated soil by
infants in the first year of life.
The risk assessment model recommended by ANZECC is based on that established by
the USEPA guidelines for superfund sites - the Human Health Evaluation Manual
EPA/540/1-85/060 of 1989.
Clean-up attainment goals have in the past been defined by State based
environmental agencies, more recently with reference to the National guidelines
provided by ANZECC. In the absence of any Australian defined clean-up criteria,
the Dutch B investigation levels, and in some cases the Dutch C levels for both
soils and groundwaters, have been used as de-facto clean-up criteria. Clean-up
attainment goals for CMS are established by the DoD on a site by site basis
depending on the location and potential land uses and economic restrictions.
The size of military sites makes them attractive for re-development where they
are in an urban environment. Clean-up of the contaminated parts of a large
training site is less likely if it is in a rural area where property values are
low and the cost of decontamination cannot be justified. The target is to find
appropriate uses of such properties, for example: grazing for a large training
area, or the sale of a rifle range to a rifle club.
Frequently, community perceptions and pressure have also established clean-up
goals for contaminated sites in the past, for example Albion where the
availability of a large area of land close to the City of Melbourne generated
pressure for complete clean-up to provide space for development of housing.
These community pressures frequently have resulted in unrealistic goals that
are uneconomic to attain ($50-60 million AUD at the tax payers expense for $9
million AUD worth of land at Albion) when the integration of appropriate
planning for a site with realistic contamination management goals would provide
a better commercial outcome for the community as a whole.
With the establishment of the Accredited Environmental Auditor system in
Victoria and its progressive acceptance in other states, DoD and others are now
relying more heavily on the Auditors to establish risk based clean-up criteria
on a site by site basis in keeping with economically attainable future land use
goals.
Acceptance criteria proposed for Albion and St Marys sites were based on health
risk assessments which established target criteria for concentrations in soils
based on carcinogenicity of the explosives as follows:
Contaminant Albion Criteria St Marys Criteria
2.4 DNT 1.5 mg/kg 1.0 mg/kg
2.6 DNT 0.5 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg
2.4.6 TNT 30 mg/kg 15 mg/kg
RDX 10 mg/kg 10 mg/kg
Nuclear Test Sites
Following the investigation of Maralinga (see Section 2.-7.2), the Technical
Assistance Group report put forward a number of options. The preferred option
as agreed between the Commonwealth Government, the Maralinga Tjarutja and the
South Australian Government specified remediation of the most heavily
contaminated sites and some restrictions on access to less contaminated areas.
The rehabilitation project began in 1994 and is due for completion in the year
2000. Details with respect to remedial attainment goals are not available.
The TAG report also concluded that there was no radiological reason why the
Monte Bello Islands could not be returned to Western Australian control. It is
intended to manage the islands as a Conservation Park and the absence of
potable water and their remoteness, ensures that visitation will be casual and
present no radiological risks.
The ANZECC Guidelines indicate a preferred order of options for site clean-up
and management as follows:
- On-site treatment of the soil so that the contaminant is either destroyed or
the associated hazard is reduced to an acceptable level;
- Off-site treatment of excavated soil which, depending on the residual levels
of contamination in the treated material is then returned to the site, removed
to an approved waste disposal site or facility or used as fill for landfill.
Should it not be possible for either of these options to be implemented, then
other options that should be considered include:
- Removal of contaminated soil to an approved site or facility, followed where
necessary by replacement with clean fill;
- Isolation of the soil by covering with a properly designed barrier.
- Choosing a less sensitive land use to minimise the need for remedial works
which may include partial remediation.
- Leaving contaminated material in-situ providing there is no immediate danger
to the environment or community and the site has appropriate controls in
place.
Soil Technologies
Clean-up technologies trialed and used on Australian sites generally comprise
conventional well tested methods as projects are generally too small to invest
large sums in trialing innovative technologies.
Those used in Australia include for soils:
- Excavation and Landfill
- Capping and containment
- Solidification
- Soil washing
- In-Situ Vitrification (at Maralinga)
- Bioremediation/Land farming
- Thermal Desorption
- Base Catalysed Dechlorination of PCBs.
High temperature incineration is not an option in Australia due to community
pressure although hospital wastes are routinely incinerated in many low
temperature incinerators linked to hospitals.
! Excavation and Landfill
Of the foregoing, the excavation and off-site landfill option is the most
commonly practised, particularly in Victoria where disposal of contaminated
soils to engineered landfills is feasible at relatively modest cost, whilst
on-site landfill and/or capping and containment is probably the most common on
CMS (eg Newington and DSTO Salisbury sites) where it is planned to contain some
existing landfills on site. Containment on site is more desirable where
feasible rather than the transfer to another off-site landfill which creates a
second contaminated site.
Clean-up methodologies considered for Albion and St Marys have included on and
off-site removal of contaminated soils to secure landfills (Albion),
bioremediation by land farming or bioreaction, physico/chemical treatment by
incineration or steam volatilisation and including thermal desorption (see
below) and mechanical separation by soil washing at St Marys. The landfill
areas remaining at Albion would be prohibited from future use except for open
space including a golf course. Low temperature thermal treatment was selected
for decontamination of the St Mary's site.
At present, clean-up on the Albion site has amounted mainly to the stockpiling
of contaminated soils in various segregated stockpiles and the treatment of the
soils has been minimal. However, an extensive groundwater monitoring programme
has been established.
! Clean-up of Radioactive Contamination
On nuclear test sites, an attempted clean-up at Maralinga in the 1960s was
unsuccessful. The initial clean-up attempt called "Operation Brumby", was
initiated by the British Government, but failed largely due to inadequate
funding. The techniques attempted involved ploughing of the footprint of the
fall-out plumes to turn over and bury the contaminated soils and contaminated
equipment at shallow depth beneath the surface. However wind erosion of the
sandy soils rapidly re-exposed the contamination and also exposed more
contaminated equipment that was previously buried in the sand.
The current clean-up programme at Maralinga is proceeding under the direction
of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and is managed by Works
Australia, a Government owned engineering business. The Australian Radiation
Laboratory (ARL) is the project regulator. The methodology is primarily
excavation and land filling. It will involve excavation and removal of the top
200 mm of soil and disposal into deep trenches which will then be suitably
capped. It is proposed to use aircraft with detection equipment flying at
about 50 feet for identification of contaminant plumes and any other
radioactive material to assist in the process. The use of in-situ
vitrification is being trialed on the Taranaki site at Maralinga and is
discussed further below.
For other radioactive wastes, sites such as DSTO Salisbury in South Australia
and the Kingswood Depot in NSW have accumulated radioactive wastes from various
sources. Clean-up of these sites is planned for sale of the properties.
Defence facilities in Victoria, and the St Marys armaments factory in NSW have
in the past also accumulated and stored low or medium level wastes from various
sources including instruments, experimental nuclear materials and from hospital
wastes, universities, and medical practitioners. These have been transferred
to the ANSTO radioactive isotope reactor at Lucas Heights in NSW for
conditioning and packaging, from where they were recently transferred to the
former rocket test range at Woomera in South Australia for temporary
medium-term storage in a bunker building.
The handling and storage of these materials follows national guidelines, namely
the 1992 NH&MRC "Code of Practice for the Near-Surface disposal of
Radioactive Waste in Australia". Material transported to Woomera includes the
radionuclides: radium-226; americium-241; strontium-90; cobalt-60; caesium-137;
tritium; carbon-14; plutonium-239; europium-152 and caesium-134.
The current situation is considered to be temporary and long-term solutions are
still under investigation. It is considered likely that Woomera will be used
for storage of all such wastes derived from clean-up of military and civil
sites for some years until a permanent solution is found. Costs are
unknown.
* Stabilisation and Solidification
Stabilisation and solidification comprises a group of waste-treatment processes
designed to: reduce waste solubility, mobility and toxicity; improve handling
characteristics; or limit the potential for migration by reducing the exposed
surface area. Thus, stabilisation and solidification, when done properly, can
be an effective and reliable immobilisation technique for metals.
Nearly all stabilisation and solidification processes involve the addition of
materials to the waste, and thus increasing the total waste volume. These
volume increases usually range from 30% to 60%. They are therefore
unattractive for use on CMS except where contaminated material needs to be
stabilised to allow removal off-site to a secure landfill.
* In-situ Vitrification (ISV)
The Department of Primary Industries has contracted the US firm Geosafe to
determine the feasibility of stabilising 22 plutonium contaminated burial pits
at the Taranaki site at Maralinga. ISV involves the electric melting of soil,
waste and debris to destroy contaminants or immobilise them within a high
integrity vitrified residual product. The ISV process works by melting soil in
place using electricity applied between four graphite electrodes inserted into
the ground in a square configuration. Electricity applied to the electrodes
flows through a conductive starter path which heats up and causes the
surrounding soil to melt. Once the soil is molten it becomes electrically
conductive. Continuous application of electricity results in joule heating
within the molten soil between the electrodes and leads to a melt zone growing
steadily downward and outward through the contaminated soil.
Phase 1 of the feasibility trials completed in 1994 involved engineering scale
ISV tests and crucible melt studies using debris and uncontaminated soils from
Taranaki. The results indicated that the ISV process could be applied to the
soil and debris combinations at the site.
Phase 2 conducted in 1995 involved a series of ten on-site engineering scale
tests and three intermediate scale demonstrations using an 85 kW system capable
of producing melts up to 5 tons to obtain site specific process data. Two of
the intermediate scale demonstrations used radioactive materials, including
blast debris from the original weapons tests.
The principal objective of the intermediate scale radioactive ISV
demonstrations was to collect sufficient data to determine if the ISV process
could be expected to effectively treat the contaminated soil and debris in the
Taranaki pits and to obtain data to confirm the behaviour of plutonium in the
process. Data from the tests and demonstrations were also gathered to support
the design of a full-scale ISV process machine tailored to the conditions of
the Taranaki site.
Results of ISV trials are currently under review. A decision on use of the
technology at Maralinga will be made later this year.
* Land farming
Land farming of soils contaminated with organic compounds requires large
surface areas for remediation to spread the soil in thin layers. It typically
requires a long treatment time, but is comparatively less expensive than other
remediation techniques.
Land farming or other bioremediation methods to rid the soil of nitro aromatic
and other explosive residues has been considered by DoD at a number of sites
including Albion and St Marys in conjunction with physico/chemical methods to
deal with the remainder of contaminants. At Albion it was estimated this would
need a similar or greater amount of organic matter to be added to the soil to
be effective (up to 2 or 3 times) and would need frequent turning. DoD
considered that they did not have sufficient facilities (or available horse
manure!) to achieve this for 600,000 m3 of combined soil and manure.
Other concerns of the DoD were the low concentration of residues in much of the
soils which it was considered would not sustain the process, and on sites where
the levels might be higher such as St Marys, it was anticipated that the
toxicity of the contaminants would also kill the bacteria and halt the process.
Another concern is that at the low concentrations of Albion, the process would
be extremely slow and unable to achieve target levels for residential use of
the site.
* Low Temperature Thermal Treatment (Thermal Desorption)
Soils affected with petroleum hydrocarbons or explosive residues can be
remediated physically by thermally desorbing the petroleum hydrocarbons from
the soil under a slight vacuum. The off gas from desorption is then treated
with a thermal oxidiser. The low temperature treatment system comprises a kiln
and a dual-venturi collision scrubber. The entire operation can be fuelled by
propane.
To treat hydrocarbon affected soils, the soil is fed into a hopper with a
telescopic front-end loader. The soil is then conveyed to a heat zone and
heated to a pre-determined temperature ranging from 230°C-290°C using
infra-red heat.
Thermal desorption has been trialed by ADI (L) on the explosives manufacturing
site at St Marys in NSW. It has been used on the explosive residues dispersed
through the sediments in settling ponds. It is considered not to be suitable
for disposal of UXO materials in soils due to the inherent dangers of explosion
during the heating process.
In trials at St Marys (see below) 300 to 350oC were found to be most
appropriate for TNT. The off gas is then passed through a thermal oxidiser to
form CO2 and water vapour. The flue gas is then passed through a
wet scrubber to remove dust and particulate matter and the remediated soil
exits with added moisture from the scrubber solution and is ready to be used as
backfill. The St Marys' plant has an afterburner that heats the off gases to
980oC.
Using this treatment method, the soil at St Marys was remediated to
non-detectable levels with a typical throughput rate of approximately 140 cubic
metres per day or around 250 tonnes per day. The St Marys plant was rated at
20 tonnes per hour, a theoretical output of 480 tonnes per day if a twenty four
hour operation was run. Trials of thermal desorption at the St Marys site are
discussed in Section 2.-13.0.
* Bioremediation
Bioremediation refers to a broad spectrum of water, waste, sludge and soil
treatment approaches each having a biological treatment component. Biological
treatment can be accomplished by bacteria, fungi, and higher plants. It may be
used alone or in conjunction with other unit processes.
Biological systems can be tailored to meet the budgetary limitations for
disposal of a CMS by treating wastes, soils, and groundwater over extended time
periods after containment is achieved and immediate human health risks are
minimised. There is usually sufficient time and space available on CMS to
allow for the bioremediation process. It is therefore frequently considered as
a component of CMS clean-up.
DoD experience in trials on CMS sites, is that the toxicity of the explosive
residues can be a limiting factor on the success of bioremediation. If
however, the toxicity is not limiting, optimal nutrient and oxygen conditions
can be established.
Applications of bioremediation in Australia on both CCS and CMS include:
- on-site treatment of water, sludge and soil in an impoundment (pit, pond or
lagoon) using nutrient addition, aeration and controlled mixing
- treatment of soils or sludges by conventional land-based surface treatments,
such as Land farming or composting; these approaches required good soil
management and control of soil aeration, pH, temperature and moisture, and
nutrient status
- in-situ treatment of contaminated soils and groundwater through stimulation
of indigenous organisms by the addition of oxygen and nutrients
- treatment of liquid or solid wastes in bioreactors, such as activated-sludge
systems, aerated lagoons, slurry reactors, and so on.
Groundwater Remediation Technologies
Groundwater clean-up is not frequently carried out on CMS. Technologies that
are available include:
- Pump & Treat
- Dual phase pumping
- Carbon filtration
- Air stripping
- Vacuum extraction
- Membrane separation
- Bioremediation
- Precipitation, and
- Oxidation (both ozone and hydrogen peroxide).
Most groundwater decontamination activity in Australia is centred on sites
where petroleum products have been spilled or leaked from storage tanks and
typically involves passive scavenger systems or active scavenger or dual phase
pumps to remove non-aqueous phase liquids and contaminated groundwater.
Processes include groundwater pumping to oil/water separators, stripping
towers, and carbon filtration systems with disposal of excess water to sewer or
to land. Many CMS are monitored for migration of contaminants (eg Albion,
Newington) and there is recovery and treatment of leachate from landfill areas,
but there is very little active groundwater clean-up in progress.
While circumstances surrounding groundwater remediation projects vary from site
to site, the most commonly encountered situation involves organic contamination
of soils and groundwater in which carbon adsorption and bioremediation may be
the most economical solution. In this case, the design is required to design
for intangible factors and incorporates the extensive use of computer models
which are either available within the industry or are developed in-house by
consultants. Several computer models are used for air stripper design and for
carbon adsorption unit design. Experience in the application of such
remediation methods ranges from pilot-scale to full-scale, but is however
limited.
The DoD favours in-situ bioremediation methods on CMS as this is relatively
passive and economic, and timescale is not generally a major issue.
Prioritizing of sites for clean-up is on a site by site basis depending on the
disposal programme of DoD as described in Section 2.-3.0. Emergency clean-up
or decontamination may be carried out on operational sites by the armed
services as an appropriate response to a contamination emergency. However all
other decontamination activities will depend on commercial considerations for
eventual land use or on the potential for on site human health risks or
off-site effects to neighbours. Some areas will be isolated, maintained and
monitored where appropriate.
Political pressure may change priorities in some limited high profile cases
such as Albion and Maralinga. In some cases, like Newington, the priority was
originally determined by the limited use of the site for storage of explosives,
rather than the onset of the Olympics which has since added urgency to the
work.
Prioritizing sites for clean-up of UXO generally follows a policy of the most
urgent cases being those where the site has already been developed for
residential purposes, or is in the process of being developed. The second
category are those areas for which future developments are planned. The
remainder fall into the least urgent category and may include rural sites where
there is little chance of development, although some consideration is given to
former grazing properties that are to be used for agriculture in the future.
Health & Safety for work on CMS is based on both national legislation and
State legislation. Two relevant acts are applicable in these areas on
Commonwealth or Defence property, the National Occupational Health and Safety
Commission Act of 1985 which established the National Health & Safety
Commission, and the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment)
Act of 1991, the purpose of which was to promote the occupational health and
safety of persons employed by the Commonwealth, including the Department of
Defence.
The Department of Defence therefore takes health & safety of employees and
contractors on Defence property very seriously and has active health &
safety management in place throughout Defence and the armed services. All
activities on CMS are therefore strictly regulated and contracts for
assessments and decontamination activities require the preparation of a
comprehensive site specific health & safety plan (HASP).
Typically a HASP is required to cover the following areas:
- Organisation & Responsibilities
- Scope of work and range of site conditions
- Identification of hazards
- Standard operating procedures employed to prevent accidents, injuries,
exposures, etc.
- Personal Protective Equipment
- Training
- Monitoring
- Emergency Procedures
- Medical Surveillance
- First Aid Equipment
- Accident records
- Safety Inspections
- Implementation of the Plan
- Site Safety Officer.
Costs are estimated for clean-up on a site by site basis as the cost will vary
enormously depending on possible future land uses, location of the site,
availability and charges for secure landfills, feasibility of containment
on-site, and on the complexity of contaminants discovered.
Typical costs for major air or army base sites covering over 500 ha may be in
the ranges:
Historical assessments $5,000 - $15,000 AUD
Sampling & analysis $50,000 - $1,500,000 AUD
Risk Assessments $10,000 - $50,000 AUD
As indicated in Section 2.-3.0, costs for decontamination of single CMS are
generally categorised by DoD as follows:
Small projects 0 - $1 million AUD
Medium projects $1 - $6 million AUD
Major projects $6 - $60 million AUD (or even more)
As a specific example, clean-up on the DSTO Salisbury site in South Australia
is principally done by excavation and landfill on a selected part of the site
at a projected cost of about $2.3m AUD for the earthworks and an overall cost
(including assessment costs of $0.5m AUD and project management) of around $3
to 4 million AUD or about $45 per m3. It is one of the first sites
in SA to be cleaned up under the review of a Victorian Accredited Environmental
Auditor.
The clean-up at Maralinga site is expected to be completed in 2000 at a cost of
$104 million AUD. The British Government is contributing an ex-gratia payment
of $45 million AUD.
Some representative estimated clean-up costs are summarised in Table 2-2
below.
Table
2-2: |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: All of the "Total Cost" figures included in this table are estimates
that are based on the reported costs to date together with estimates to
complete the remediation process.
In 1994 the annual budget for the DoD for investigation and emergency action on
contaminated sites was reported to be $3-4 million AUD. The total budget for
the Facilities and Property Division of the DoD for 1995/96 is approximately
$530 million AUD for New Works and Acquisitions which is mainly expended on
land acquisition and construction of new or additional base facilities.
Approximately another $350 million AUD is allocated in the annual budget for
Repairs & Maintenance which includes costs related to property disposals as
well as the budgets estimated for on-going base maintenance, both of which may
have a component relating to assessment, monitoring or clean-up of
contamination.
From individual project budgets listed for 1995/96, those identified as
relating to assessments or decontamination projects controlled by the
Facilities & Property Division relating to disposals of major or medium
sites, comprised approximately $11 million AUD spread over about 30 projects
including on-going and new projects.
The budget for environmental costs for assessment and decontamination for
disposal of minor sites amounted to slightly under $1 million AUD for 1995/96
for about 35 projects most of which have minimal environmental assessment work
components.
Budgets for assessment, monitoring or clean-up of contamination on operational
bases branches are assigned, based on priority, from the individual
base/facility budgets for maintenance and would comprise some portion of the
remainder of the Repairs & Maintenance budget. These figures are not
readily available but the total is anticipated not to be large.
The DoD publishes a "Guide to Consultants and Contractors" (The Green Book)
which outlines proposed new facilities projects (with budget estimates) and
property disposals over the next five years. However, the total budgets for
disposals (approximately 100 properties) and for Repairs & Maintenance is
not listed. Most of the environmental budgets controlled by the Facilities and
Property Division are concentrated on a few major sites.
For example, the amounts budgeted for decontamination in 1995/96, estimates for
some of these projects are as shown in Table 2-3.
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes:
* with Newington, the budget figure of $58m AUD is the most recent risk based
estimate for rehabilitation of the site. However this does not appear in DoD
budget estimates as the site is to be sold without clean-up to the State
Government and the $1.5m AUD in the 1995/96 DoD budget is for further site
characterisation only and is therefore also considered a "medium" project.
# with Albion, the figures quoted above come from the 1995/96 DoD Additional
Estimates for DG-AF and are indicated as decontamination costs only and do not
include all earlier costs. In a paper to the trilateral on environmental
security, DoD quotes the total budgeted figure for Albion as $57 million AUD,
costs to date as $21 million with 60% of the site remediated and projected sale
price as $9 million AUD.
Although the decontamination of some CMS with the expenditure of large budgets
has, out of necessity, given impetus to the search for and trial of new
technologies, such as thermal desorption at the St Marys explosives site,
research and development of alternative technologies is not generally conducted
in these areas by the DoD, although there has been some defence funded research
with regard to groundwater contamination with explosive residues that is
described below. The munitions manufacturing arm of the government ADI(L) as
the original operator of the explosives manufacturing sites, through their
industrial decontamination division, has been at the forefront of developing
new technologies for military sites.
Thermal Desorption
The results of initial laboratory trials for St Marys on a pilot rotary kiln
indicated that the thermal desorption process was feasible for explosives
residues and a small pilot plant was established for full scale tests. Tests
were conducted on samples with levels of 500 mg/kg of TNT. These were reduced
to below detection limits at temperatures of about 350 oC in
acceptable residence times. This supported a decision to initiate design and
fabrication of a full scale thermal treatment unit.
The unit was set up in a central location on site. Careful analysis of the
soils in the evaporation ponds minimised the volume of throughput to the plant.
The soil was pre-processed to reduce particle size and dry it. The process was
run at nominally 20 tonnes per hour, 350oC and with a soil moisture
content of 12%. Sampling of the feed stock indicated the level of contaminants
varied substantially. However, all of the processed soils were below clean-up
criteria in nearly 200 samples.
Some representative test results indicated that, for an RDX initial
concentration of 780 mg/kg, the removal rate was 99.99%; and for 2,4,6 TNT at
an initial concentration of 200 mg/kg, the removal rate achieved was 99.95%,
both examples having final concentrations below the detection limits of 0.1
mg/kg. The end product soil retained its structure and was suitable for
engineered fill. One drawback to the thermal desorption process is that it
also completely sterilises the soil. Nutrients and mulch would need to be
added if it is to be suitable for agricultural re-use.
Plant Uptake Trials
More recently, to establish data on typical contaminants found on CMS for use
in risk assessments, some plant uptake trials are being conducted on explosive
residues, although no results have yet been published.
UXO Detection Equipment
The Geophysical Research Institute of the University of New England in
Armidale, in NSW is currently assessing the effectiveness of various forms of
detection equipment for UXO on behalf of ADI(L). Instruments being evaluated
include a range of magnetometers, electromagnetic induction equipment, and
ground penetrating radar. Preliminary results indicate that, whilst no single
instrument or combination of instruments can give a 100% detection rate, the
most effective all round instrument for detection of UXO which includes ferrous
metal, is a caesium vapour high definition imaging magnetometer. The
Geophysical Research Institute has developed its own GRI-TM4 model magnetometer
with computer and recorder hardware and software package which can give high
quality 2 or 3-dimensional plots of enhanced images.
Other equipment evaluated includes; electromagnetic inductance equipment models
EM-61 and EM-31; the "Minelab" series of commercial mine detectors used by the
army (models E1A1, F1A3 and SD2000), various non-imaging magnetometers, and the
"Pulse Ekko" models of ground penetrating radar. ADI(L)'s views on the radar
are that it is slow and cumbersome to use and difficult to interpret and is
therefore more suited to location of specific objects over small areas rather
than broad area surveys. The DoD considers the EM equipment to be suitable in
areas clear of obstructions other than the target UXO, but can be severely
affected by fences or other artefacts.
Mobility and In-situ Bioremediation of Explosives Residues in
Groundwater
A long term study on the mobility of explosives (munition) residue contaminants
in groundwater has been proceeding for some time on the site of the former
Albion Explosives Factory, at Deer Park in Melbourne VIC. It is a joint
project between DoD and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO) and was initiated to determine the mobility of munition
residues and their degradative potential in groundwater.
The research has studied the long term variations in concentration of
contaminants in the groundwater and their mobility through the underlying
fractured basalt aquifer. Recent experiments were conducted to examine the
ability of the natural microbial population in groundwater microcosms to
degrade the munition compounds and also to examine the effects of addition of
amendments (nutrients) to sterile groundwater.
It was found that, in the sterile microcosms, natural degradation occurred in
the absence of any "amendment" with TNT the most easily degraded followed by
2,4-DNT then 3-NT. The addition of oxygen gave the highest degradation rate.
The addition of carbon and phosphate also increased the degradation rate. It
was concluded by CSIRO that the observed decreases in concentration of the
munition compounds were probably due to abiotic degradation or adsorption
processes, and in the carbon and phosphate amended microcosms, the variability
in concentration of the munitions compounds may have been due to buffering of
the groundwater by the added carbon or phosphate.
The second phase of experiments was established to determine if degradation of
the munition compounds was possible in non-sterile Albion groundwater under
sulfate-reducing conditions. A significant decrease in the munitions
concentrations in the sterile control was observed. No significant greater
loss of munition compounds was observed in any of the non-sterile microcosms
except for slightly greater decrease in the concentration of 2,4-DNT in the
carbon amended microcosms, and of TNT and 2,4-DNT in the phosphate amended
microcosms. Changes in the nitrate and nitrite concentrations indicated that
nitrate reduction is the dominant metabolic process.
Further work planned includes, sampling and analysis of water from existing
boreholes, field tracer experiments, laboratory investigation of degradative
potential in columns of weathered basalt (including with various "amendments"),
research on microbial strains capable of degrading munitions, and modelling to
determine plume-scale estimates of degradation rates and of the fate of the
munition plume in the long term.
Dames & Moore would like to thank the following people for providing
significant background information and documentation for this Study: Mr Geoff
Davis, Assistant Secretary - Resources and Project Management, Department of
Defence, Canberra; Mr John Ashe, Assistant Secretary - Environment Assessment
Branch, Environment Protection Agency, Canberra; Mr Leigh Edwards, Assistant to
First Assistant Secretary of Facilities and Property Division of the Department
of Defence, Canberra; Richard Dale, Project Officer with the Government and
Infrastructure Section - Environment Assessment Branch of the Environment
Protection Agency, Canberra; Mr Pat Davoren, Manager,
Rehabilitation/Radioactive Waste Policy, Mineral Industries and Nuclear Policy
Branch of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. Dames & Moore
would also like to thank the large number of staff of both the Department of
Defence and the Environment Protection Agency who very kindly assisted Dames
& Moore either by finding references, by providing verbal information, or
by pointing the way to available information sources.
Australian National Audit Office: "Draft Criteria for the Efficiency Audit on
the Management of Commonwealth Contaminated Sites" . October 1995, (Audit
results due mid 1996)
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and National
Health and Medical Research Council (ANZECC/NH&MRC): Australian and New
Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites.
Pages 1-14. January 1992
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC): Draft
Guidelines for the Analysis of Contaminated Soils. June 1995
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC):
National Water Quality Management Strategy - Australian Water Quality
Guidelines for Fresh & Marine Waters. November 1992
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC): Draft
Guidelines for the Analysis of Contaminated Soils. June 1995
Commonwealth of Australia: Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment.
May 1992
Commonwealth Government Media Reference MIN 58/95 Announcing Sale of Newington
Armaments Depot to the NSW Government. 30 June 1995
Davy, D.R., Davoren, P.J., and Collett, A.C.: "Test site Clean-Up - the
Maralinga Rehabilitation Project. US Department of Energy Risk Assessment
Forum, Charleston South Carolina. 1996
Department of Defence (Navy Office): Defence Instructions (Navy) OPS 19-1 -
Policy for the Disposal of Shipborne Wastes. Commonwealth of Australia.
December 1994
Department of Defence (Assistant Chief of the Defence Force for Logistics):
Commonwealth Policy on the Management of Land Affected by Unexploded Ordnance.
Commonwealth of Australia. November 1990
Department of Defence: Medium Works contract (1994 version) "95/678 - DSTO
Salisbury Site Remediation - Phase 2". 1994
Department of Defence: Facilities and Property Plan - 1995-2000. Commonwealth
of Australia, Pages 1-3, 22-27. July 1995
Department of Manufacturing and Industry Development Victoria: Arsenic in the
Environment. Page 38. February 1991
Directorate of Environment & Heritage, Facilities & Property Division,
DoD: Trilateral on Environmental Security Cooperation - Australia-Canada-USA -
The Clean-up of Contaminated Sites. Commonwealth of Australia. November 1995
Environment Protection Authority of New South Wales: Draft Guidelines for
Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Soils. August 1995
Environment Protection Authority of New South Wales: Contaminated Sites -
Sampling Design Guidelines. September 1995
Environment Protection Division, Department of the Arts, Sport, the
Environment, Tourism and Territories: Proposed Commonwealth Environment
Protection Agency -Position Paper for Public Comment. Commonwealth of
Australia, Pages 4-20. July 1991
Environment Protection Agency: National Environment Protection Council.
Commonwealth of Australia, Environment Protection Agency - Information
Bulletin. December 1995
EPA Victoria: Guidelines For Environmental Auditors - Contaminated Land - Issue
of Certificates of Environmental Audit. April 1991
EPA Victoria: Draft Guidelines For Environmental Auditors - (Contaminated Land)
- Conducting Environmental Audits of Land. June 1995
EPA Victoria: Personal communication from Mr Phil Sinclair of Environmental
Chemicals Branch. December 1995
Federal Ministry of Education Science Research and Technology: International
Experience in Remediation of Contaminated Sites - Synopsis, Evaluation and
Assessment of the Applicability of Methods and Concepts. Germany. July 1995
Geosafe Corporation: In Situ Vitrification Fact Sheet 11/94.
Langley A J, El Saadi O (eds). South Australian Health Commission: Protocol for
the Health Risk Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites. 1991
Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, Staatsuitgeverij: Soil
Protection Guideline .The Hague, Netherlands. 1983, rev 1991
Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment, Staatsuitgeverij:
Intervention Values for the clean-up of soils. The Hague, Netherlands. 1993
Rolfe G. Hartley: Overseas Practices in the Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Military Sites. Former Director Environment and Heritage,
Facilities and Property Division, Department of Defence, Internal report.
October 1995
Department of Primary Industries and Energy: Rehabilitation of Former British
Nuclear Test Sites in Australia, Report by the Technical Assessment Group.
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra (1990).
Royal Australian Survey Corps for Department of Defence Facilities &
Property Division: Map of Commonwealth Owned Defence Establishments and
Significant Leased Properties within Australia. March 1993
Standards Australia: DRAFT Australian Standard - Analysis of Soils - The
Sampling of Potentially Contaminated Soil (April 1995)
Tozer, N.H., Crain, P., Truong, T.: "The Application of Low Temperature Thermal
Desorption for the Removal of Explosives Residues From Soil" Proceedings of
the 2nd National Hazardous & Solid Waste Convention - Melbourne Victoria -
Pages 460-467. May 1994
Toze, S., Zappia. L., and Davis, G.B.: "Mobility and Degradation of Munition
Residues in Fractured Rock Aquifers at the Albion Explosives Factory,
Melbourne" Ninth Progress Report to The Department of Defence - prepared by
the Centre for Groundwater Studies, CSIRO Division of Water Resources, Western
Australia. October-December 1995. Report No 96-8. 1995
USEPA: Test Methods for Evaluation Solid Waste. Publication SW-846, third
edition. 1986
Victorian Department of Planning and Environment: Minister's Direction -
Potentially Contaminated Land. Commonwealth of Australia. 9 October 1989,
updated 14 May 1992
Thompson, L. and Costello, J.M.: Vitrification of TRU-Contaminated Buried
Waste: Results from Radioactive Demonstrations at Taranaki. Proceedings of
the Symposium on Waste Management at Tucson Arizona 1996. 1996
Withers, N. J.: Embracing Risk Management - The Homebush - Newington
Experience. Report of DoD and Olympic Committee - Sydney 2000. November 1995
ANZECC Contamination Assessment Criteria
The information below outlines the current criteria used to assess soil and
groundwater contamination in Australia.
ANZECC Guidelines: Contaminated Sites
The "Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites", known
as the ANZECC/NHMRC guidelines have been adopted by most EPAs and Commonwealth
agencies for the assessment and management of contaminated sites.
These environmental soil quality guidelines quote "background" (A Level) and
"environmental investigation" (B Level) criteria for a range of contaminants.
The guidelines propose the use of site-specific criteria for soil and
groundwater depending on the proposed land use and the potential exposure
pathways for humans and environmental impairment.
Australian authorities generally comply with the guidelines for assessment and
management of contaminated sites (ANZECC/NHMRC, 1992) which include decision
making procedures on the need for a detailed site investigation or remedial
action. These guidelines contain recommendations for interim A and B levels,
where:
- A level = concentration representative of background in soils for which
Australian data is available for most contaminants of concern. Should be
viewed as indicative values, particularly as the natural levels of a range of
chemicals vary tremendously.
- B level = investigation threshold level concentration above which a detailed
investigation should take place; the detail of the investigation depending on
site specific factors.
These levels are shown in Table 2.-1-1.
Where levels exceed the investigation criteria, further investigation may
include human health and/or ecological risk assessments to establish site
specific clean-up criteria.
In assessing potential contamination of groundwater, the criteria that are
commonly used for reference (in Victoria) are those published by ANZECC in the
"National Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters", November 1992
and the Dutch "B" criteria for groundwater .
The ANZECC criteria are specified criteria for surface and groundwater in
Victoria and the tests on water samples from the site are compared with the
ANZECC water quality guidelines for raw waters for drinking purposes. The
relevant criteria are summarised in Table 2.-1-2. Guideline values for stock
waters, irrigation or marine or fresh water ecosystem protection are in many
instances significantly greater than those listed in Table 2.-1-2 and should be
referenced separately where relevant.
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Soil Concentration Guidelines (all concentrations are in mg/kg in air-dried
soil)
Note: (1) The Australian B levels are environmental investigation levels
(relevant where the primary concern is for environmental effects), except for
PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene and total PAH) and the values also in brackets for As, Cd
and Pb, which are health investigation thresholds (where the potential concern
is human health effects).
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Click here for Picture
Click here for Picture
Click here for Picture
[1] In the past, sheep used to be disinfected with an arsenic-based pesticides in Australia.
,
,
,
