Issuu on Google+

REPORT NO.

210061

SOIL INVESTIGATION AND PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION STUDY FOR 20 GORDON PARADE AND 28 SALISBURY STREET, YARRAVILLE, VICTORIA

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES VIC REPORT TO FASTNET CONSULTING PTY LTD DATE OCT 2010 VERSION 2


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Earth Sciences VIC was requested by Fastnet Consulting (Fastnet) to undertake a soil investigation and preliminary remediation feasibility study for 20 Gordon Parade and 28 Salisbury Street, Yarraville, Victoria (the site). The site also covers the Salisbury Street road reserve which is owned by Maribyrnong City Council and separates the two properties. Fastnet have requested this work to determine the chemical status of soil at the site and compare it to previous data. We further understand that Fastnet are looking to potentially develop the site for medium density residential land use. As such, this work will also be used to determining the feasibility of the proposed development. The site is part of the Stony Creek flood plain and, based on the information available, it has been historically used for the disposal of municipal and construction waste, which was generated during the construction of the Westgate Bridge. The fill material disposed in the area was never capped however, after 1970 it was landscaped to create the Westgate Golf Course (located immediately east of the site) and the vacant properties at Gordon Parade and Salisbury Street. During filling activities, the bed of Stony Creek was relocated to approximately 30 metres east of the site and enclosed within a bluestone cobble lined drain (now concrete lined). Several previous environmental investigations have been undertaken at the site, including an environmental site assessment undertaken by Site Remediation Services (SRS) at 20 Gordon Parade and 28 Salisbury Street in 2002. The investigation indicated that soil concentrations of heavy metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were in excess of applicable guidelines. Additionally, potential for acid sulfate soils and the presence of asbestos were indentified onsite. Our investigation included sampling from 14 test pits across the site and laboratory analysis of selected samples for chemicals of potential concern (CoPC). Laboratory results indicated that concentrations of heavy metals (arsenic, copper and lead in particular), TPH, benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) and total PAH in soil were above human health guidelines. The identified volume of contaminated soil is approximately 7,400 m3, and ranges in depth between 0.5 and 3.3 mBGL across the site. Asbestos was identified at depths between 0.1 and 1.5 mBGL in four of seven samples analysed. Several samples were reported with high sulfur concentrations, however their actual and potential acidity was demonstrated to be very low due to the self buffering capacity of the soil. Samples collected from within the Salisbury Street road reserve reported the second highest concentration of total PAH (162.6 mg/kg) and the highest concentration of TPH (82,500 mg/kg). It is estimated that the road reserve alone contains approximately 1,560 m3 of impacted material. A feasibility study determined that the most viable and likely successful remediation option for the site is a cap and containment system. A cap and containment system would see contaminated soil remain in-situ beneath an engineered clay cap constructed across the surface of the entire site. This cap would remove the potential exposure pathways of soil, minimise infiltration of water through fill material and effectively manage leachate through a leachate collection system. This option is considered to be the most viable for remediation of

210061_ReportV2.doc


the site as it: •

successfully removes potential exposure pathways of soil;

meets the requirements of Melbourne Water for development in areas prone to inundation;

effectively manages potential contaminant migration within the perched water table; and

is more cost effective than the other remediation options.

It is highly likely however, that further environmental investigations will be required in addition to implementation of the cap and containment system (if undertaken). The further works, as well as their estimated costs and timeframe are outlined below:

TABLE 1

FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS

Works

Importance

Costs

Timing

mandatory

$75,000.00 $100,000.00

Month 1 to Month 13

possible (based on auditor’s requirements)

$5,000.00 $10,000.00

Month 2

mandatory

$35,000.00 $45,000.00

Month 2 to Month 6

likely

$20,000.00 $25,000.00

Month 6

Human health & ecological risk assessment

likely (based on auditor’s requirements)

$20,000.00

Month 7

Development of a Cleanup Plan

mandatory

$20,000.00 $25,000.00

Month 8

Development of an environmental management plan (EMP)

mandatory

$5,000.00

Month 11

desirable

$400,000.00 to $450,000.00

Month 11 to Month 12

Environmental audit of the site Additional soil sampling Detailed groundwater assessment Soil vapour assessment

Cap and containment system

Undertaking the works listed above, followed by the construction of the cap and containment system, is considered the most practical approach in successfully developing the site for its proposed medium density residential land use. The costs associated with undertaking the above scope of works is estimated at between $580,000.00 and $680,000.00 (excluding GST). The timeframe for undertaking the works, from the time of engaging an auditor to completion of the cap and containment system, is estimated at a minimum of 13 months. This investigation has been conducted for and is the property of Fastnet Consulting as per Environmental Earth Sciences VIC proposal PO210102 V2 dated 16 July 2010, with written confirmation to proceed with the assessment received on 26 July 2010.

210061_ReportV2.doc


Project Manager Jordan Fraser Environmental Engineer Project Director / Internal Reviewer Averyll Spinks Senior Environmental Scientist 210061_ReportV2.doc

210061_ReportV2.doc


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

2

OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 1

3

SITE INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 2

4

3.1

SITE LOCATION

2

3.2

HISTORICAL INFORMATION

2

3.3

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2

GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ........................................................................... 3 4.1

GEOLOGY

3

4.2

HYDROGEOLOGY

3

5

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................... 4

6

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES VIC INVESTIGATION................................... 5

7

8

9

6.1

SITE INSPECTION

5

6.2

SOIL INVESTIGATION

5

6.2.1 Stratigraphy

6

6.3

GROUNDWATER

6

6.4

LABORATORY ANALYSIS

6

6.4.1 Analytical program

6

6.4.2 Quality assurance and quality control

7

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ....................................................................................... 8 7.1

ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

8

7.2

SOIL RESULTS

8

7.2.1 Inorganics

9

7.2.2 Organics

10

7.2.3 Asbestos

11

7.2.4 PASS

12

7.2.5 Salisbury Street road reserve

12

7.2.6 Comparison of results to previous data

12

REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES AND RESTRAINTS ..........................................................13 8.1

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

13

8.2

REMEDIATION CONSTRAINTS

14

EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL OPTIONS ...................................................................15 9.1

DO NOTHING

15

9.2

HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

15

9.2.1 Summary

15

9.2.2 Limitations

16

210061_ReportV2.doc


9.2.3 Cost estimation

16

9.2.4 Viability

16

OFFSITE LANDFILL DISPOSAL

16

9.3.1 Summary

16

9.3.2 Limitations

16

9.3.3 Cost estimation

16

9.3.4 Viability

17

ONSITE TREATMENT

17

9.4.1 Biological treatment

17

9.4.2 Thermal treatment

18

9.4.3 In-situ stabilisation

18

9.5

OFFSITE TREATMENT

18

9.6

ONSITE SOIL CAPPING AND CONTAINMENT (RECOMMENDED)

18

9.6.1 Summary

18

9.6.2 Limitations

19

9.6.3 Cost estimation

19

9.6.4 Viability

19

9.3

9.4

10

LIKELY REQUIRED WORKS .....................................................................................20 10.1 REQUIRED WORKS

20

10.1.1 Environmental audit

20

10.1.2 Additional soil sampling

20

10.1.3 Groundwater assessment

20

10.1.4 Soil vapour assessment

21

10.1.5 Risk assessment

21

10.2 LIKELY SCHEDULE OF WORKS

21

11

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................21

12

LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................23

13

REFERENCES............................................................................................................24

FIGURES TABLES APPENDICES A

PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS

B

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

C

GEOLOGICAL BORELOGS

D

LABORATORY TRANSCRIPTS & CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS

E

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL PROCEDURES

F

PROVISIONAL TIMEFRAME

210061_ReportV2.doc


1

INTRODUCTION

Environmental Earth Sciences VIC was requested by Fastnet Consulting (Fastnet) to undertake a soil investigation and preliminary remediation study for 20 Gordon Parade and 28 Salisbury Street, Yarraville, Victoria (the site). The site also covers the Salisbury Street road reserve which separates the two properties. The site is part of the Stony Creek flood plain and, based on the information available, it has been historically used for the disposal of municipal and construction waste which was generated during the construction of the Westgate Bridge. The fill material disposed in the area was never capped however, after 1970 it was landscaped to create the Westgate Golf Course (located immediately east of the site) and the vacant properties at Gordon Parade and Salisbury Street. During filling activities, the bed of Stony Creek was relocated to approximately 30 metres east of the site and enclosed within a bluestone cobble lined drain (now concrete lined). Before proceeding with the proposed development (potentially medium density residential), Fastnet have requested further delineation of fill material, particularly beneath the Salisbury Street road reserve. The findings of our investigation will be used to estimate the potential remediation requirements to assist in determining the feasibility of the development. This investigation has been conducted for, and is the property of Fastnet Consulting, as per Environmental Earth Sciences VIC proposal PO210102 V2 dated 16 July 2010, with written confirmation to proceed received on 26 July 2010. Environmental Earth Sciences VIC is not responsible for variations due to alterations of site conditions since the time of inspection, for example through illegal dumping of chemicals.

2

OBJECTIVES

The objective is to determine the chemical status of soil at the site and compare it to previous data. We further aim to determine the feasibility of any remediation options.

To achieve this objective, the scope included:

review of previous environmental site investigation reports undertaken by SRS Australia Pty Ltd (SRS);

further investigation into the extent and contamination status of fill and natural material at 11 borehole locations across the site;

investigation into the extent and contamination status of fill and natural material at 3 targeted borehole locations beneath the proposed Salisbury Street extension footprint; and

preparation of a preliminary feasibility study.

210061_ReportV2.doc

1


3 3.1

SITE INFORMATION Site location

The location of the site is shown on Figure 1, and the area of investigation is presented in Figure 2. The site is generally rectangular in shape and covers three separate parcels of land. The following details are provided for the site: Address:

20 Gordon Parade & 28 Salisbury Street

Suburb/State:

Yarraville, Victoria

Lot/Plan or Crown:

Lot 4 of land plan 76315 & Lots 1 and 2 of town plans 857507 and 908004

Council:

Maribyrnong

Land area:

3,752 m2

Planning Zone:

Residential 1 Zone (R1Z)

Planning Overlays:

Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO)

The area of investigation also included the Salisbury Street road reserve, which covers approximately 700 m2 and is situated between the two properties. The total area under investigation was approximately 4,452 m2.

3.2

Historical information

Detailed descriptions of site history have been given in several previous environmental reports (see Section 5). Based on a review of the available historical information, aerial photographs and Royal Historical Society of Victoria (RHSV) records, the site was originally located within a shallow gully formed by the flow of Stoney Creek. Sometime after 1921, the site and the surrounding area (now comprising some 15 hectares including the Westgate Golf Course) was filled with municipal waste from the municipalities of Maribyrnong and Hobson’s Bay. During the construction of the Westgate Bridge in the late 1960s and early 1970’s, additional fill, mostly construction waste, was again disposed of in the area. The fill material was not capped however, it was landscaped to create the Westgate Golf Course after 1970. During either the filling with municipal waste or the construction of the Westgate Golf Course, the bed of Stony Creek was moved approximately 30 metres east from the site and enclosed within a bluestone cobble lined drain (now concrete lined). No records relating to residential properties or other former developments at the site were identified.

3.3

Proposed development

It is proposed that the site be developed for medium-density residential land use. The site is subject to inundation and as such, the proposed development must meet Melbourne Water’s requirements for development in flood prone areas. It is a requirement of Melbourne Water that finished floor levels are a minimum of 600 mm above the applicable flood level (4.25 210061_ReportV2.doc

2


metres AHD). According to recent survey information, the current surface level of the site is between 2.61 – 3.61 mAHD, therefore extensive filling will be required. A review of the preliminary conceptual development plans drawn by DPS Engineers (presented in Appendix A) indicated approximately 3,175 m3 of fill will be required across the site to meet the finished floor levels set by Melbourne Water. This fill may potentially act as part of an engineered cap across the site if this remediation option is pursued.

4 4.1

GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY Geology

The geology of the Yarraville area has been described in the Geological Survey of Victoria (1974), 1:63 360 Geological Map – Melbourne as predominantly consisting of Newer Volcanics basalt with sedimentary deposits of Coode Island Silt following the Stoney Creek and Yarra River systems. The Newer Volcanics formation is the major surface geological formation at the site and is described as olivine basalt, dark to light grey and coarsely vesicular with minor interbedded silty sand and baked soils. The basalt flow is part of the late Quaternary period of approximately 2 to 5 million years ago and is expected to be the major surface aquifer at the site. The recent Coode Island Silt (CIS) formation is identified to the east of the site and consists of silt, silty clay, sandy clay which is often dark grey with minor peat and shell beds. The CIS sediments are extensive in the area and in many places contain sufficient iron sulphides to produce a potential acid sulfate soil (PASS) when drained and exposed to oxidation. The regional topography is relatively flat with a gentle slope in an eastern direction towards the Yarra River. Site topography reflects that of the Yarraville area, sloping east toward the Stoney Creek canal.

4.2

Hydrogeology

The Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) (1995) South Eastern Victoria Regional Aquifer Systems defines groundwater in the Upper Tertiary Aquifer System at the site as Segment C, with a Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) range of 3,501-13,000 mg/L. According to the State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) (2002) Prevention and Management of Contaminated Land, the site requires the protection of the following beneficial uses: •

maintenance of ecosystems;

stock watering;

industrial water use;

primary contact recreation; and

buildings and structures.

Groundwater movement within this system occurs through fractures in the basalt and within partially weathered zones, formed between different lava flows of the Newer Volcanics 210061_ReportV2.doc

3


formation. Yields within bores situated in the Newer Volcanics basalt of this area are relatively low. They are generally between 0.5 and 3.0 L/sec due to the limited and varying weathering of the Quaternary basalt. Regional groundwater flow is expected to be in an east/south eastern direction.

5

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Previous environmental assessments relating to the site include: •

Dames & Moore (1993), Report on a Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Lot 4, Salisbury Street, Yarraville;

Dames & Moore (1996), Environmental Site Assessment, Vacant Land, lot 4 Salisbury Street, Yarraville;

SRS Australia Pty Ltd (2002), Environmental Site Investigation Report of Residential 3 Zoned, Land on Titles: Vol. 8780 Fol. 549 & Vol. 8780 Fol. 550, End of Gordon Parade, Yarraville, Victoria; and

SRS Australia Pty Ltd (2002), Environmental Site Investigation Report of Residential 3 Zoned, Lot No. 3, End of Salisbury Street, Yarraville, Victoria.

Environmental Earth Sciences VIC conducted a review of the investigations undertaken by SRS in 2002. Test-pitting works conducted by SRS in 15 locations indicated that the natural surface was encountered at approximately 1.0 metre below ground level (mBGL) in the south western corner and approximately 3.2 mBGL in the north eastern corner of the Salisbury Street property. No sub-surface investigation was undertaken within the Salisbury Street road reserve. Fill material was found to consist of a wide variety of soild wastes including plastics, wood, metal, bricks, bluestone and general municipal garbage with varying amounts of soil, gravel and clay. Laboratory analysis of soil samples reported concentrations of heavy metals in excess of the National Environmental Protection Measure 1999 (NEPM) Health Investigation Levels (HILs) “A” for low density residential setting and “D” for medium to high density residential settings. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were found in excess of the NSW Department of Climate Change (DECC) and NEPM HIL A guidelines, respectively. Additionally, potential acid sulfate soils and the presence of asbestos were indentified onsite. Grab samples were collected from the perched water table which was encountered between 1.5 and 2.4 mBGL. Laboratory analysis reported concentrations of cobalt (Co), copper (Cu) and TPH in excess of applicable guidelines. Using the data obtained, SRS provided recommendations and cost estimates for the remediation of both the Gordon Parade and Salisbury Street properties. In order to develop the site for low density residential use, it was outlined that the contaminated material would require excavation and offsite disposal with additional monitoring and management, at a cost of approximately $ 2.85 million. In order to develop the properties for low density residential use, it was recommended that contaminated material be buried onsite and capped, with additional management and a groundwater investigation, at an estimated cost of $ 590,000.00.

210061_ReportV2.doc

4


6

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES VIC INVESTIGATION

Environmental Earth Sciences VIC personnel undertook an initial site inspection on 5 August 2010 prior to site works. The inspection included a site walkover, visual inspection and service location undertaken by J.U.L.S. The field works, conducted on 9 August 2010, included targeted soil test pit investigation and sampling. A photographic log of site works is presented in Appendix B.

6.1

Site inspection

At the time of our site inspection, the site was bound by residential properties to the north of Gordon Parade, the West Gate Golf Course to the east, commercial properties to the south and residential properties to the west. Primary site access was via the end of Gordon Parade. The site was vacant with no indications of former infrastructure. Grass covered the majority of the site and the only other vegetation present was a row of gum trees offsite to the east. Cut and fill activities are expected to have occurred at the site due to an abrupt change in surface level within the north eastern boundary of the site. Two stockpiles of soil were also present onsite at the time of inspection. Material within the stockpiles consisted of loose, grey/brown silty clay with sand and gravel.

6.2

Soil investigation

On 9 August 2010, Environmental Earth Sciences VIC undertook a soil investigation which consisted of the excavation of fourteen test pits (TP1 – TP14) across the site using a subcontracted excavator. Three of the fourteen test pit locations were located within the Salisbury Street road reserve. Samples were collected at the surface, at 0.5 m intervals or at distinct changes in lithology. Sixty-six discrete samples were collected from the test pits as well as six quality control samples. Soil samples for analysis were placed into laboratory prepared glass jars or sealable plastic bags, depending on the analyte to be tested. The jars and bags were labelled with the borehole number, depth of discrete sample collection, site reference and date before being placed in a cooler with ice. Samples were also selectively analysed in the field using a photoionisation detector (PID), which gives an indication of the likely presence of volatile hydrocarbons. The PID readings were generally low across the site (ranging between 0.0 ppm and 10.2 ppm), however elevated readings of 20.8 ppm and 25.4 ppm were recorded within test pits TP5 and TP9, at which strong hydrocarbon odours were noted. Following sampling, material from each test pit was reinstated at the depth from which it was excavated to reduce cross contamination between soil profiles. A small volume of soil not able to be reinstated was added to the two existing stockpiles onsite. All sampling procedures were undertaken in accordance with Environmental Earth Sciences Soil, gas and groundwater sampling manual (2009) and other relevant guidelines. 210061_ReportV2.doc

5


6.2.1

Stratigraphy

Field observations such as soil colour, texture, pH and odour were used to identify changes in lithology. These observations are detailed within the geological borelogs presented in Appendix C. Several cross sections were developed using borelogs from the 2010 field investigation and those developed by SRS in 2001 (Figures 3-5). Fill material was encountered across the site to a depth ranging from approximately 1.8 to 3.8 mBGL. The depth of fill generally increased toward the east/south east of the site, with depth of fill greatest at test pit locations TP5 (3.8 m) and TP11 (>3.2 m). This material comprised of loose, brown silty clay with solid waste inclusions (plastics, wood, metal, bricks, bluestone and general municipal garbage) below a layer of stiff, brown silty clay. Underlying this infilled material in several locations was reworked natural silty clay with minor rubble (glass and wood) and weathered basalt floaters. The natural soil was generally described as being medium dense, grey clay with minor silt. This natural soil is considered to be primarily derived from weathered Newer Volcanics basalt, which was encountered at several test pits between approximately 2.2 and 3.4 mBGL. Soil considered to be derived from the CIS formation was encountered between 1.5 and 1.8 mBGL in test pits TP3, TP4, TP5, TP8, TP9 and TP10. Note that the loose, black, slightly clayey silt was saturated in the majority of these locations. Soil pH generally ranged between 6.0 and 8.0 at these locations. Inclusions of glass and timber in some locations indicated that the CIS sediments were likely to be reworked natural material. Soft, silty clay with dark staining and strong hydrocarbon odour was identified within the saturated zone at approximately 1.9 mBGL in test pits TP5, TP9 and TP11. Fill material immediately above the impacted zone within TP9 (within the Salisbury Street road reserve) was found to contain oily rags, rubber, damaged tins/drums and machinery parts.

6.3

Groundwater

Groundwater at the site is expected to occur within the Newer Volcanics basalt at a depth of less than 10 mBGL. No groundwater was collected or analysed during the investigation. A perched water table was observed in the majority of the test pits at depths between 1.8 and 2.3 mBGL. This perched water table is believed to be due to the low permeability of natural clay limiting downward migration of infiltrated water.

6.4

Laboratory analysis

The schedule for laboratory analysis was defined by the scope of our proposal and review of the previous environmental assessments. Soil samples were selected for analysis on the basis of their location, depth, field observations such as texture, colour, pH and PID reading, and location on the site relative to former sampling locations. Generally, samples from the fill material were selected for a wider range of analytes including CoPC identified in the previous investigations.

6.4.1

Analytical program

Sixty-six discrete soil samples were collected from fourteen test pits during the soil investigation. Of these, fifty-nine samples were selectively analysed for a range of chemicals of potential concern (CoPC). Three blind duplicate (intra-laboratory) samples and three split

210061_ReportV2.doc

6


duplicate (inter-laboratory) samples were also collected and analysed for quality control purposes at a rate of 5.1 %. All soil analysis was undertaken by Australian Laboratory Services (ALS), Labmark and Australian Safer Environment & Technology (ASET), which are all NATA accredited for the methods used. Laboratory transcripts for soil samples are presented in Appendix D. Soil samples were selectively analysed for the following: •

heavy metals (silver [Ag], arsenic [As], cadmium [Cd], chromium [Cr], cobalt [Co], copper [Cu], mercury [Hg], molybdenum [Mo], nickel [Ni], lead [Pb], selenium [Se], tin [Sn] and zinc [Zn]);

total and free cyanide;

TPH;

benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene (BTEX);

PAH;

phenols;

asbestos;

other analytes listed in the IWRG 621 screen; and

PASS analytes (including cation exchange capacity [CEC], organic carbon [OC], net acid generating potential [NAGP], chromium suite and SPOCAS suite).

Following the initial laboratory analysis, the following additional analysis was undertaken on selected samples: •

Australian Standard Leachate Procedure (ASLP) for benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) on samples TP6(0.0-0.1) and TP9(2.0-2.1);

ASLP for PAH on sample TP1(1.5-1.6);

ASLP for As on samples TP2(3.2-3.3) and TP7(2.0-2.1);

ASLP for Cu on sample TP10(1.8-1.9); and

TPH speciation on samples TP5(2.0-2.1), TP9(2.0-2.1) and TP11(1.9-2.0).

6.4.2

Quality assurance and quality control

Quality control is achieved by utilising NATA accredited laboratories, using standard methods supported by internal duplicates, the checking of high, abnormal or otherwise anomalous results against background and other chemical results for the sample concerned. Quality assurance is achieved by confirming field or anticipated results based upon the comparison of field observations with laboratory results. In addition, the laboratory undertakes additional duplicate analysis as part of their internal quality assurance program on the basis of one duplicate for every 20 analysed. Field observations are compared with laboratory results when they are not as expected and confirmation, re-sampling and re-analysis are undertaken if results cannot be correlated. In brief, field duplicate results were generally within the acceptable range of reproducibility and all duplicates and standards were within the acceptable reproducibility range. Further to laboratory quality assurance, intra-laboratory comparison is achieved through comparison of analytical results of samples with their corresponding blind duplicate (BD). The split 210061_ReportV2.doc

7


duplicates were sent to Labmark and the results are the basis for the inter-laboratory comparison. The potential for cross contamination of samples from sampling equipment is considered to be very low due to sampling decontamination procedures. Full laboratory transcripts and chain of custody forms are presented in Appendix D, while further discussion on QA/QC is provided in Appendix E.

7 7.1

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Assessment guidelines

The results of the soil investigation have been assessed in reference to the following assessment guidelines: •

National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC) (1999) – NEPM Ecological Investigation Levels (EILs); o

NEPC (1999) – NEPM Health Based Soil Investigation Levels (HILs); o

the IWMP (WASS) outlines the requirements for management of WASS, including reuse and disposal. Publication 655 provides an outline of WASS identification, assessment, classification and management requirements and methodologies; and

West Australian Department of Health (WA DoH) (2009) – Guidelines for the Assessment and Remediation and Management of Asbestos-Contaminated Sites in Western Australia; o

7.2

IWRG621 outlines the soil hazard categorisation threshold concentrations for soil for offsite disposal;

Industrial Waste Management Policy (IWMP) on waste acid sulfate soils (WASS) & EPA Victoria Publication 655.1 (1999); o

this document provides guidelines for contaminants commonly associated with service station sites for which HILs have not been provided;

Victorian EPA Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines (IWRG) (2009) – Publication IWRG621 - Soil hazard categorisation and management; o

HILs provide guidelines for maximum allowable concentrations for a variety of contaminants depending on land use. Refer to Table 1 for a copy of these guidelines;

NSW DECC (1994) – Guidelines for Assessing Service Stations; o

EILs provide guidance in relation to phytotoxic parameters for urban settings;

this publication is the adopted asbestos management document due to a lack of Victorian and National legislation.

Soil results

The soil on the site has been impacted by historical activities, namely the placement of fill material containing solid municipal and construction waste. A summary of soil laboratory

210061_ReportV2.doc

8


results is presented in Table 2 and described below. Complete laboratory transcripts are presented in Appendix D.

7.2.1

Inorganics

Soil samples were analysed for Ag, As, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Hg, Mo, Ni, Pb, Se, Sn and Zn in both fill and natural material across the site. Concentrations of Cr (III & VI), Ag, Mo, Se and Sn were reported below the laboratory limit of reporting (LOR) or the applicable guidelines in each sample analysed. Concentrations of As, Cd, Co, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb and Zn were reported in excess of the applicable guidelines as detailed below. Samples exceeding NEPM HIL A and NEPM HIL D guidelines for the heavy metals of highest concentrations (As, Cu and Pb) are presented in Figures 6 to 8. Arsenic •

detectable As concentrations ranged from 5 mg/kg to 590 mg/kg;

As was reported to be in excess of NEPM EIL and ‘fill material’ guidelines in 34 of the 55 samples analysed;

As was in excess of NEMP HIL A guidelines in samples TP1(0.4-0.5), TP3(2.0-2.1), TP5(0.4-0.5), TP6(0.4-0.5), TP7(0.0-0.1), TP8(1.9-2.0), TP9B(2.5-2.6), TP10(1.4-1.5), TP12(1.9-2.0), TP13(1.5-1.6), TP14(0.9-1.0) and TP14(2.8-2.9);

As was in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines in samples TP2(3.2-3.3) and TP7(2.0-2.1) only; and

As was in excess of IWRG guidelines for ‘Category C Contaminated Soil’ in TP2(3.23.3).

Cadmium •

detectable Cd concentrations ranged from 2 mg/kg to 16 mg/kg; and

Cd was found to be in excess of NEPM EIL and IWRG guidelines for ‘fill material’ in samples TP2(3.2-3.3), TP4(1.4-1.5), TP9B(2.5-2.6) and TP11(1.9-2.0).

Cobalt •

detectable Co concentrations ranged from 46 mg/kg to 320 mg/kg; and

Co was reported in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines in samples TP2(0.4-0.5), TP5(1.4-1.5), TP10(1.4-1.5), TP11(0.9-1.0) and TP14(0.4-0.5).

Copper •

detectable Cu concentrations ranged from 7 mg/kg to 2,000 mg/kg;

Cu was in excess of NEPM EIL and IWRG guidelines for ‘fill material’ in 29 of the 55 samples analysed; and

Cu was in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines in samples TP10(1.4-1.5), TP10(1.9-2.0 – split duplicate sample) and TP11(1.9-2.0).

Mercury •

detectable Hg concentrations ranged from 0.1 mg/kg to 2.6 mg/kg; and

210061_ReportV2.doc

9


Hg was in excess of NEPM EIL and IWRG guidelines for ‘fill material’ in samples TP5(2.0-2.1), TP8(0.2-0.3), TP9B(2.5-2.6) and TP11(1.9-2.0);

Nickel •

detectable Ni concentrations ranged from 5 mg/kg to 141 mg/kg; and

Ni was in excess of NEPM EIL and IWRG guidelines for ‘fill material’ in 18 of the 55 samples analysed.

Lead •

detectable Pb concentrations ranged from 14 mg/kg to 822 mg/kg;

Pb was reported in excess of NEPM EIL guidelines in samples TP3(0.4-0.5), TP3(1.41.5), TP9B(2.5-2.6) and TP11(1.9-2.0); and

Pb was in excess of NEPM HIL A and IWRG guidelines for ‘fill material’ in samples TP2(3.2-3.3), TP3(0.4-0.5), TP3(1.4-1.5), TP4(1.4-1.5), TP5(0.4-0.5), TP8(0.2-0.3), TP9B(2.5-2.6), TP10(1.4-1.5), TP11(0.0-0.1), TP11(1.9-2.0), TP12(0.4-0.5) TP13(0.00.1) and TP14(0.9-1.0).

Zinc •

detectable Zn concentrations ranged from 44 mg/kg to 3,960 mg/kg; and

Zn was found to be in excess of NEPM EIL and IWRG guidelines for ‘fill material’ in 28 of the 55 samples analysed.

Following the initial analysis, selected samples underwent ASLP analysis in order to determine the potential bioavailability (See Table 3). Analysis indicates that As and Cu in the samples analysed have some potential to become bioavailable however, they are either on or below the upper ASLP limits for categorisation as ‘Category C Contaminated Soil’. Bioavailability factors (BF) were not determined for Cu due to the lack of a total concentration in soil, however BFs of 2.4 % and 2.5 % determined for As, confirmed the low bioavailability of As in soil.

7.2.2

Organics

Soil samples analysed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), phenolic compounds, monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (MAH), organophosphorus pesticides (OPP) and volatile halogenated compounds (VHC) each revealed concentrations that were below the laboratory LOR or applicable guidelines in both fill and natural material. Concentrations of BaP, total PAH and TPH were reported in excess of the applicable guidelines as detailed below. Note that samples exceeding NEPM HIL A, NEPM HIL D and NSW DECC guidelines are presented in Figures 9 to 11: PAHs •

detectable BaP concentrations ranged from 0.6 mg/kg to 20.0 mg/kg;

BaP was reported to be in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines in samples TP5(1.4-1.5), TP8(0.9-1.0), TP9(1.9-2.0), TP11(2.9-3.0) and TP12(1.4-1.5);

BaP was in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines in samples TP1(1.5-1.6), TP3(1.4-1.5), TP6(0.0-0.1) and TP9(2.0-2.1);

detectable total PAH concentrations ranged from 0.6 mg/kg to 210.5 mg/kg;

210061_ReportV2.doc

10


total PAH was found to be in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines in samples TP3(1.41.5), TP5(1.4-1.5), TP11(2.9-3.0) and TP12(1.4-1.5); and

total PAH was in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines in samples TP1(1.5-1.6), TP6(0.00.1) and TP9(2.0-2.1).

TPH •

detectable TPH (C6-C9) concentrations ranged from 30 mg/kg to 106 mg/kg;

detectable TPH (C10-C36) concentrations ranged from 140 mg/kg to 82,500 mg/kg;

TPH (C6-C9) was in excess of NSW DECC guidelines in sample TP9(2.0-2.1); and

TPH (C10-C36) was reported to be in excess of NSW DECC guidelines in samples TP2(3.2-3.2), TP3(1.4-1.5), TP5(2.0-2.1), TP5(2.9-3.0), TP9(2.0-2.1), TP9B(2.5-2.6), TP11(1.7-1.8), TP11(1.9-2.0) and TP11(2.9-3.0).

Further analysis was undertaken in order to determine the potential bioavailability of BaP, total PAH and TPH within soil. Results indicate that BaP had a leachate concentration lower than the laboratory LOR in each of the three samples analysed. Phenanthrene was the only PAH to report a leachate concentration above the laboratory LOR, at 2.2 µg/L. The determined BF of 0.05% indicates that total PAHs in soil have a very low potential to become bioavailable. The leachate concentration for TPH was reported to be above the laboratory LOR for TPH (C16-C28) only in one of the two samples analysed. The determined BF of 18.5% indicates that TPH in soil also has a moderate to low potential to become bioavailable. Samples TP5(2.0-2.1), TP9(2.0-2.1) and TP11(1.9-2.0) underwent TPH speciation to determine the concentrations of aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbon fractions for assessment against NEPM HIL A and NEPM HIL D guidelines (See Table 4). Speciation results indicate that each sample was in excess of NEPM HIL A and NEPM HIL D guidelines for the aromatic TPH (>C16-C35) fraction, with concentrations ranging between 660 mg/kg and 8,590 mg/kg. Additionally, sample TP9(2.0-2.1) reported concentrations of the aliphatic TPH (>C16-C35) fraction in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines. A soil silica gel cleanup (SGC) was undertaken on samples TP3(1.4-1.5) and TP11(1.9-2.0) to remove any polar natural organic carbons and display only non-polar components related to petroleum products. Results of the SGC are presented against the primary TPH results in Table 5. The results indicate that the samples contain some polar natural organic carbons, however the majority of TPH reported initially relate to petroleum products in soil.

7.2.3

Asbestos

Asbestos was not visibly identified during the field soil investigation however, due to historical activities, seven soil samples were forwarded to ASET and analysed for the presence of asbestos. Results indicated that asbestos was detected in the following samples: •

crysotile asbestos was identified in samples TP5(0.4-0.5), TP7(1.4-1.5), TP9(0.4-0.5) and TP11(0.0-0.1); and

crocidolite asbestos was identified in sample TP7(1.4-1.5).

The presence of crysotile asbestos in sample TP11(0.0-0.1) indicates that the site does not comply with the WA DoH remediation objectives for asbestos impacted sites, which require the top 10 cm of soil to be completely free of visible asbestos. Asbestos was also identified in the top 10 cm of soil in the SRS (2002) investigation at sample locations V5 and V6. 210061_ReportV2.doc

11


A review of the concentration of asbestos (%w/w) across the site against the WA DoH soil asbestos investigation criteria was beyond the scope of this investigation. However, the presence of asbestos to a depth of 1.5 mBGL will result in the soil (at the affected locations) being classified as ‘Category C Contaminated Soil’ (minimum) for potential offsite disposal purposes.

7.2.4

PASS

Soil samples collected from the material representative of CIS sediments were selectively analysed for a range of PASS indicators. A summary of laboratory results for PASS samples are presented in Tables 6 and 7, with full laboratory transcripts presented in Appendix D. Five soil samples were analysed for total sulfur and compared to criteria for classification of acid sulfate soil (ASS) outlined in the EPA Victoria Publication 655.1. Results demonstrated that samples TP4(2.1-2.2), TP8(2.0-2.1), TP10(1.8-1.9) and TP11(1.9-2.0) contained elevated concentrations of sulfur. The sulfur concentrations between 0.13 and 0.73 % S indicated that the soil had the potential to become ASS when excavated (exposed to oxygen). Additional laboratory analysis was undertaken on samples TP4(2.1-2.2) and TP10(1.8-1.9), including peroxide oxidisable sulfur and chromium reducing sulfur suites, to determine the net acidity and actual risk of ASS production. Based on the results presented in Table 7, and comparison against the risk criteria listed in Table 8, sample TP4(2.1-2.2) is classified as ‘Class 1 No Risk – No Sulfur’. Please note that Class 1 soil is not ASS. Sample TP10(1.8-1.9) is classified as ‘Class 2 No Risk – Non Reactive’. Class 2 soil, while containing elevated sulfur levels, is completely self buffering and requires no form of management for PASS. These findings are confirmed by the complete absence of any actual acidity (reported as TAA) or potential acidity (reported as TPA) in both samples analysed for these parameters.

7.2.5

Salisbury Street road reserve

The Salisbury Street road reserve covers approximately 700 m2 between the Gordon Parade and Salisbury Street properties. The area is owned by the Maribyrnong City Council and is intended to be developed as an extension of Salisbury Street (see Appendix A). Three test pits (TP7 – TP9) were excavated within the road reserve with samples analysed for a range of CoPC. The results reported elevated concentrations of heavy metals, PAH and TPH (outlined in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2), as well as the presence of asbestos (Section 7.2.3). Samples analysed from test pit TP9 reported the second highest concentration of total PAH (162.6 mg/kg) and the highest concentration of TPH (82,500 mg/kg). It is estimated that the road reserve contains approximately 1,560 m3 of impacted material.

7.2.6

Comparison of results to previous data

Test pits TP5, TP10 and TP12 were assessed to target the former test pit locations. This enabled some comparison between the soil chemical data obtained during each investigation. Generally, results obtained from targeted borehole locations indicated the following;

210061_ReportV2.doc

12


As and Pb were reported to have slightly higher concentrations in the recent investigation;

Co and Cu were reported to have significantly lower concentrations in this latest sampling event when compared to previous investigations;

Zn was reported in significantly higher concentrations during this investigation;

total PAH was reported to have a much higher concentration in TP12(1.4-1.5) than its comparison sample X7(1.5); and

TPH was reported to have a much higher concentration in TP5(2.0-2.1) than its comparison sample V8(2.0).

Analysis of the data across the entire site indicates that there are significant variations in contaminant concentrations reported in each investigation. Concentrations presented in Figures 6 to 11 demonstrate the following: •

there are greater occurrences of BaP, total PAH and TPH (and at much higher concentrations) in this investigation;

elevated TPH concentrations were generally reported at greater depths in this investigation when compared to previous assessments; and

fewer locations reported concentrations of Cu in excess of applicable guidelines during this investigation.

The differences between chemical concentrations reported in each investigation are considered to be due to the heterogeneity of fill material across the site. Additionally, the lack of survey data of previous test pit locations meant that targeted locations were estimated and samples may therefore not be representative of the material analysed in 2002.

8 8.1

REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES AND RESTRAINTS Regulatory framework

The investigation levels for this site are dictated by the ultimate requirement for remediation of soil to a level that provides protection to potential beneficial users of land. In accordance with the SEPP, and the most likely future land use being residential with minimum soil access, the following beneficial uses are to be protected. •

maintenance of highly modified ecosystems;

human health;

buildings and structures; and

aesthetics.

The maintenance of natural and modified ecosystems, and production of food and fibre, are not considered relevant beneficial uses for this site due to the highly modified nature of the site (impacted by historical filling) and the current status of Edgars Creek (diverted and concrete lined). While all potential beneficial uses of land should be considered, these beneficial uses are not likely to require future protection.

210061_ReportV2.doc

13


The SEPP lists indicators and objectives for each beneficial use to be protected and in turn, lists the relevant guidelines. The NEPM HIL D investigation levels for soil are to be used in the assessment of contamination for the protection of human health and ecosystems at the site. The provisional NEPM EILs are derived from values supplied in ANZECC 1992a and from soil survey data from four Australian capital cities. The EILs for soil are limited and interim in nature and, although widely adopted, are based on total metal concentrations in soil, which bears little relevance to the protection of plant and soil fauna. In light of this, EIL values should be used as an indicator for potential ecological impact, with other factors considered in determining the potential for ecological impact.

8.2

Remediation constraints

Prior to the assessment of available remedial technologies, it is important to identify the restraints of the site that will potentially impact on remediation. These are outlined as follows: •

the subject site includes the Salisbury Street road reserve, which separates the Gordon Parade and Salisbury Street properties. The road reserve covers approximately 700 m2 and contains a large volume of fill material, which is reported to contain concentrations of organic and inorganic chemicals above the adopted guidelines. The area is owned by the Maribyrnong City Council and would need to be included in any remediation activities undertaken prior to development of the site;

the presence of CIS sediments across the site indicates the potential for acid sulfate soils to be generated during excavation activities (if any). Two soil samples analysed for PASS indicated that no risk exists within that material, however the inconsistent deposition of fill and natural material across the site may require some form of PASS management if excavation is to be undertaken;

the variety of soil contaminants identified may influence which remediation techniques could be effectively implemented at the site. Treatment of inorganic and organic chemicals is generally undertaken using different methods, however integrating different types of remediation is a widely adopted practice. The presence of asbestos and inert waste (concrete, brick, etc) will also require remediation or management in order to protect the beneficial uses of the site;

a perched water table was observed at approximately 1.8 to 1.9 mBGL, with relatively high recharge toward the east/south east of the site. This water may impact any remediation activities, as contamination has been identified within and below this saturated zone;

no detailed investigations have been undertaken at the site to determine the chemical status of groundwater or its potential influence on future land use;

site access occurs via Gordon Parade or Salisbury Street, which are both restricted for heavy vehicle access due to the narrow streets and low overhead power lines; and

the size of the site also limits remediation technologies, as full excavation of the impacted material is likely to be extensive. Furthermore, the local residential setting requires strict environmental controls for several potential remediation options, as air quality, noise and aesthetic impacts (among others) will need to be managed.

210061_ReportV2.doc

14


9

EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL OPTIONS

The SEPP outlines that where a state of pollution exists, the land must be cleaned up and/or managed so that: •

there is no immediate threat to human health (onsite or offsite) or the environment offsite;

contamination does not preclude protected beneficial uses of the relevant land use; and

the risk of contamination from the site adversely affecting any beneficial use protected under any SEPP offsite is reduced to a level acceptable to the Authority.

The assessment of the practicability of remediation of soil contamination identified within the site boundary is provided in the following sections. The assessment includes the consideration of financial, logistical, technical and environmental issues.

9.1

Do nothing

The “do nothing” option involves the site being left in its current condition with no remediation or management implemented. Onsite contamination has been identified in excess of the health investigation levels outlined for each potential land use, and ecological guidelines. If no remediation or management of land is undertaken, the current status of the site will not be acceptable for any land use outlined in the SEPP, including the proposed medium density residential. Additionally, the historic use of the site for the disposal of municipal and construction waste, as well as the extent of contamination identified onsite, ‘may’ trigger the EPA to require the site be cleaned up to reduce the risk to human health and the environment. Due to the reasons listed above, the “do nothing” option is not considered viable for the site.

9.2 9.2.1

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Summary

Assessment of current chemical levels in soil would be evaluated from a human health and ecological perspective to determine whether soil is safe to remain in-situ with no further management. A quantitative risk assessment would be achieved through: •

a toxicity assessment involving research into the CoPC, their behavioural properties, toxicology (including carcinogenicity) and dose-response relationships;

an exposure assessment that would consider different exposure scenarios for low-level contaminants remaining in place, and provision of a series of settings to allow risk characterisation;

a risk characterisation, which would aim to arrive at a series of site specific criteria values for soil, based on factors such as depth and position on the site; and

a flora and fauna baseline study (if needed).

210061_ReportV2.doc

15


9.2.2

Limitations

The high concentrations of several contaminants are such that they are likely to present a risk to human health and the environment if they remain in-situ without management following a risk assessment. Note however, that no groundwater or soil vapour assessments have been conducted at the site. Additionally, the site remains between 1.67 and 0.64 m below the applicable flood level, so further works would be required to meet the requirements of Melbourne Water.

9.2.3

Cost estimation

The cost to undertake a Human Health & Ecological Risk Assessment is estimated at approximately $20,000.00. It is likely that further investigations are required at the site in order to determine the risks to human health and the environment (i.e. groundwater and soil vapour). These further works would be in addition to the estimated cost of a Human Health & Ecological Risk Assessment, and could potentially range between $20,000.00 and $50,000.00.

9.2.4

Viability

This risk assessment may determine that no unacceptable risk exists with some identified contaminants remaining in place. However, it is likely that several contaminants, TPH and PAH in particular, are likely to remain a risk to human health and the environment if no further remediation or management is undertaken. In that instance, the site would remain unacceptable for any land use outlined in the SEPP, including the proposed medium density residential. The risk assessment is a viable option however, it may need to be incorporated with additional remediation and/or management works (such as soil capping [Section 9.6])..

9.3 9.3.1

Offsite landfill disposal Summary

Contaminated soil would be excavated and transported to an offsite landfill facility for disposal to allow development of the site following importation of clean fill material. The identified volume of contaminated soil is approximately 7,400 m3 (or approximately 11,100 tonnes).

9.3.2

Limitations

One ‘Category A’ hotspot was identified in test pit TP9, which cannot be disposed offsite until it has been demonstrated to be immobile or has been immobilised (where required) with EPA approval. Additional leachability testing would be required prior to acceptance of the material by landfill. Landfill space for the disposal of 7,400 m3 may not be readily available. Further, offsite disposal would also result in up to 500 truck movements.

9.3.3

Cost estimation

It is estimated that, on average, the top 1.95 m of soil across the site would require excavation and disposal. The depth of excavation in some areas, particularly the north east of the site, would be as shallow as 0.5 mBGL, while more impacted zones would require excavation down to 3.3 mBGL. The depth of impacted soil classified as ‘Category C’ material for offsite disposal is presented in Figure 12. The majority of contaminated soil would likely be disposed offsite as ‘Category C’ material, with an additional 90 m3 (135 tonne approximately) excavated and disposed from ‘Category 210061_ReportV2.doc

16


B’ hotspots (Refer to Figure 13 for these locations). The single ‘Category A’ hotspot (approximately 10 m3) would require onsite treatment and/or reclassification prior to offsite disposal. Based on current landfill disposal fees and estimated earthworks fees, the approximate cost of landfill disposal within Victoria would be in excess of $1.65 million. Approximately 10,575 m3 of imported clean fill material would then be required to bring the site surface level to a minimum of 600 mm above the applicable flood level (4.25 mAHD). The costs associated with acquiring, transporting and reinstating this amount of ‘fill material’ are estimated to be in excess of $210,000.00. Additional costs would be associated with the development of an environmental management plan (EMP) to provide controls during excavation and offsite transport, the supervision of remediation works and a soil validation program undertaken prior to soil reinstatement to ensure no contaminated material remains onsite.

9.3.4

Viability

Offsite disposal to landfill is available in Victoria, however the waste hierarchy detailed in the SEPP states that offsite disposal is amongst the least preferred management options. Additionally, this volume of soil may not be readily accepted at metropolitan landfills, in particular the 100 m3 of ‘Category B’ material. This may result in greater costs associated with transport to an alternate landfill if required.

9.4

Onsite treatment

Several physical, chemical and biological treatment options are available as onsite soil remediation techniques. The options detailed in the following sections have been proven effective in Victoria, however their viability is dependent on site conditions and the nature of soil contaminants. The implementation of any onsite treatment options would be undertaken following the development of a Cleanup Plan.

9.4.1

Biological treatment

Biological treatment techniques, including bioremediation and phytoremediation, are cost effective treatment options which have been proven capable of effectively treating organic contaminants, particularly hydrocarbons, in soil. Additionally, the recovery and re-use of heavy metals is possible using phytoremediation techniques. The size of the site is the major limitation for biological treatment, as it may not be large enough to treat up to 7,400 m3 of impacted soil. Additionally, the presence of asbestos at depths between 0.1 and 1.5 mBGL would require additional management. Its inert characteristics prevent it from being effectively treated in-situ and, as such, it may require further delineation and management during any biological treatment. Environmental Earth Sciences VIC have extensive experience in biological treatment, including large phytoremediation projects. We consider this option potentially viable for the site, dependant on the following: •

if the site does not have sufficient surface area for excavation and treatment activities, a staged treatment approach may be required;

a risk assessment should be undertaken to assess the risk of heavy metal concentrations in soil. If a risk is present, a biological method effective in heavy metal treatment (i.e. phytoremediation) or an alternate remediation option (i.e. stabilisation) should be integrated into the biological treatment process;

210061_ReportV2.doc

17


asbestos impact should be delineated and effectively managed; and

odour, vapour and dust emissions must be managed due to the residential setting;

9.4.2

Thermal treatment

Again, asbestos is a major limitation for thermal treatment, which involves heating the soil through steam injection or vitrification to increase the volatility of contaminants. Other limitations for the use of thermal treatment at the site include its high cost, high energy use, the presence of a perched water table within the impacted area and the production of volatile gas by-products during treatment. In-situ thermal treatment is considered a potentially viable remediation option for the site, however greater research into the option, with the above limitations considered, would be required.

9.4.3

In-situ stabilisation

Soil stabilisation involves the addition of stabilising agents to soil to reduce the mobility of contaminants. Stabilisation is effective for inorganics such as heavy metals and asbestos, however it is less effective for the treatment of TPH and PAHs. Other limitations to the technique include the presence of a perched water table potentially requiring dewatering, and the risk (considered low) of solidified soil impacting future site use. In-situ stabilisation is also considered a potentially viable remediation option for the site, however as we are dealing with a range of organic and inorganic contaminants greater research would be required.

9.5

Offsite treatment

The treatment options described above may also be undertaken offsite following the excavation and transport of impacted soil. Successful offsite treatment of impacted soil may result in it being available for beneficial reuse. Offsite treatment is considered potentially viable for this site subject to similar limitations as those relating to onsite treatment. However, the addition of increased cost and energy expenditure relating to the excavation and transport of approximately 7,400 m3 of soil mean that offsite treatment options are not favourable for the site.

9.6 9.6.1

Onsite soil capping and containment (recommended) Summary

The construction of a cap and containment system would allow impacted soil to remain insitu beneath an engineered soil cap across the surface of the entire site. This cap would aim to remove the potential exposure pathways and minimise infiltration of water through fill material. Its design would also be modified to meet the requirements of Melbourne Water. Design details of the cap and containment system will be developed within a Cleanup Plan. Initial design specifications include the following: •

a topsoil layer above the clay cap in unpaved areas;

guidelines outlined within EPA Publication 788 – Siting, design, operation and rehabilitation of landfills indicate a minimum cap thickness of 1.0 m. However, at this stage, we consider a minimum cap thickness of 0.6 m across the site suitable.

210061_ReportV2.doc

18


this will require the importation of approximately 2,670 m3 of material and will meet Melbourne Water’s requirements for finished surface levels within any open carports. In order to meet Melbourne Water’s requirements for finished surface levels beneath the proposed building areas (see DPS plans in Appendix A), an additional 970 m3 of material will be required. This will mean a total of approximately 3,640 m3 of clean fill material would need to be imported for the construction of the cap;

an effective leachate collection system may need to be installed prior to the construction of the cap to manage the potentially contaminated perched water table. If needed, this system would include a leachate interception drain extending along the eastern boundary of the site, ending in a leachate sump. This sump would need to be pumped out and disposed to trade waste regularly; and

an EMP to provide guidance during the construction and ongoing use of the cap.

9.6.2

Limitations

a minimum cap thickness of 0.6 m across the site would result in higher surface levels than some of those shown in the DPS plans (access roads and eastern boundary). If these designs are final, excavation and management of soil in these areas would be required, thereby resulting in cost increases;

the unconsolidated nature of fill material onsite may require geotechnical assessment and compaction prior to capping to ensure there is no risk of land subsidence;

a groundwater investigation would be required to determine whether an ongoing source of contamination exists from the material remaining in-situ.

9.6.3

Cost estimation

It is anticipated that the design of an engineered cap (detailed in the Cleanup Plan) would be undertaken by a suitably qualified engineer and will cost approximately $20,000.00 to $25,000.00. The preparation of an EMP will be undertaken by an environmental consultant and it is estimated to cost approximately $5,000.00. Both the Cleanup Plan and the EMP will be reviewed by an appointed Site Auditor for approval. The costs associated with the construction of the cap and containment system would be detailed within the Cleanup Plan, however preliminary estimates indicate that the construction may range from approximately $400,000.00 to approximately $450,000.00.

9.6.4

Viability

This option is considered to be the most viable option for remediation of the site as it: •

successfully removes potential exposure pathways to future onsite users;

meets the requirements of Melbourne Water for development in areas prone to inundation;

effectively manages potential contaminant migration within the perched water table; and

is more cost effective than the other remediation options.

This option may not remove the risk of future impact to groundwater (and potentially surface water). Infiltration and leachate migration will be managed, however if an existing source of groundwater contamination is identified within the groundwater investigation and risk assessment, it may require ongoing monitoring and/or management.

210061_ReportV2.doc

19


10 LIKELY REQUIRED WORKS Based on the findings of our historical investigation, our site observations and reported soil chemical concentrations across the site, it is highly likely that further environmental investigations will be required in addition to any soil remediation or management undertaken at the site.

10.1 Required works 10.1.1

Environmental audit

The site is currently zoned residential (R1Z) and will not require re-zoning for the proposed medium density residential development. However, the historical use of the site for disposal of municipal and construction waste means that it is likely that the Maribyrnong City Council will require an environmental audit of land to be undertaken by an EPA accredited environmental auditor prior to any future development. It is likely that this will be in the form of a 53V audit, which relates to “the risk of any possible harm or detriment to a segment of the environment caused by any industrial process or activity, waste, substance or noise” (EPA Publication 952.2, 2007). The costs of the Auditor’s component would be in addition to the costs of any further investigations required and may range between $75,000.00 and $100,000.00. This component of additional works is largely dependent on the required scope and the appointed Auditor.

10.1.2

Additional soil sampling

The recommended sampling density outlined within Australian Standard AS4482.1 (1997) Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil, Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds has already been met for the site. The observed discrepancies in soil data reported in the 2002 and 2010 investigations (detailed in Section 7.2.6) may cause the Auditor to request additional soil sampling and analysis to confirm the chemical status of soil at the site. Additionally, the Auditor may request targeted sampling to confirm the presence of highly elevated PAH and TPH concentrations. The scope of any additional soil sampling is likely to be relatively minor, with costs estimated at between $5,000.00 and $10,000.00.

10.1.3

Groundwater assessment

No detailed groundwater investigations have been undertaken to determine the hydrological conditions and chemical status of groundwater beneath the site. A detailed groundwater investigation will be required to determine whether the site has impacted local groundwater conditions. The investigation would most likely involve: •

preparation of a sampling and analysis plan (SAP);

the installation of a minimum of three groundwater bores;

a minimum of two rounds of groundwater sampling;

laboratory analysis for CoPC; and

assessment of groundwater conditions in relation to the potential future land use and potential offsite receptors.

210061_ReportV2.doc

20


The costs associated with undertaking a detailed groundwater investigation at the site are likely to be between $35,000.00 and $45,000.00.

10.1.4

Soil vapour assessment

The low concentration of volatile contaminants (BTEX, TPH[C6-C9]) across the site indicates that soil vapour intrusion at the site may not pose a great risk. However, the high concentrations of semi-volatile contaminants (PAH and TPH [C10-C36]) and the proposed residential land use mean that a soil vapour assessment would likely be required prior to any construction works. This is also dependent on the chemical status of groundwater beneath the site. A soil vapour assessment at the site is likely to cost between approximately $20,000.00 and $25,000.00.

10.1.5

Risk assessment

If an onsite capping and retention system was developed at the site, a quantitative risk assessment would be required to ensure that contaminants do not pose a risk to human health or the environment if they were to remain in-situ. As detailed in Section 9.2, chemical levels in soil would be evaluated from a human health and ecological perspective. The costs associated with a Human Health & Ecological Risk Assessment are estimated at approximately $20,000.00.

10.2 Likely schedule of works The potential timeframe presented in Appendix F is based on our recommended remediation strategy (also detailed in Section 9.6) and estimates that completion of construction of the cap can occur within 13 months. This anticipated timeline allows for the majority of environmental works to be completed in 6 months following 1 month for an Environmental Auditor to be engaged and review the site history. The cap design and implementation is likely to then take 6 months, including approximately 6 weeks for construction. This timeframe presents the ‘best-case’ time estimate and is largely provisional as timing is dependent on the potential scope of required works. Furthermore, any additional works will require the approval by an appointed auditor before being undertaken as well as a review upon completion. Ongoing management would also likely be required following the development of the site to ensure the beneficial uses of land and groundwater remain protected. The scope of ongoing management will likely be detailed within an EMP and approved by the appointed auditor.

11 SUMMARY The soil investigation undertaken by Environmental Earth Sciences VIC demonstrated that soil at the site contains concentrations of heavy metals (As, Cu and Pb in particular), TPH, BaP and total PAH above human health and ecological guidelines. Laboratory results generally aligned with the data presented in the previous SRS (2002) soil investigations however, higher concentrations of PAHs and TPH were identified. Of note, was total PAH concentrations which ranged from 0.6 mg/kg to 210.5 mg/kg, and TPH (C10-C36) concentrations which ranged from 140 mg/kg to 82,500 mg/kg.

210061_ReportV2.doc

21


Asbestos was identified at depths between 0.1 and 1.5 mBGL in four of the seven samples analysed. Several samples were reported with high sulfur concentrations, however their actual and potential acidity was demonstrated to be very low due to the self buffering capacity of the soil. Several potential remediation and management options, including offsite landfill disposal, onsite treatment and offsite treatment were considered potentially viable options. However, they were not considered favourable due to their limitations and requirements for greater research and development. Limitations included factors such as minimal reduction of risk to human health or the environment, not complying with Melbourne Water requirements, poor financial viability and poor environmental outcome. A capping and containment system is considered the most viable option for remediation of the site. Impacted soil would remain in-situ beneath an engineered soil cap constructed across the surface of the entire site. This option is considered to be the most viable for remediation of the site as it: •

successfully removes potential exposure pathways to future site users;

meets the requirements of Melbourne Water for development in areas prone to inundation;

effectively manages potential contaminant migration within the perched water table; and

is more cost effective than the other remediation options.

Please note however, that it is highly likely that further environmental investigations will be required in addition to implementation of the cap and containment system (if undertaken). The further works, as well as their estimated costs and timeframe are outlined in Table 1. Undertaking the works listed in Table 1, followed by the construction of the cap and containment system, is considered the most practical approach in successfully developing the site for its proposed medium density residential land use. The costs associated with undertaking the scope of works is estimated at between $580,000.00 and $680,000.00 (excluding GST). The timeframe for undertaking the works, from the time of engaging an auditor to completion of the cap and containment system, is estimated at a minimum of 13 months.

210061_ReportV2.doc

22


TABLE 1

FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS

Works

Importance

Costs

Timing

mandatory

$75,000.00 $100,000.00

Month 1 to Month 13

possible (based on auditor’s requirements)

$5,000.00 $10,000.00

Month 2

mandatory

$35,000.00 $45,000.00

Month 2 to Month 6

likely

$20,000.00 $25,000.00

Month 6

Human health & ecological risk assessment

likely (based on auditor’s requirements)

$20,000.00

Month 7

Development of a Cleanup Plan

mandatory

$20,000.00 $25,000.00

Month 8

Development of an environmental management plan (EMP)

mandatory

$5,000.00

Month 11

desirable

$400,000.00 to $450,000.00

Month 11 to Month 12

Environmental audit of the site Additional soil sampling Detailed groundwater assessment Soil vapour assessment

Cap and containment system

12 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared by Environmental Earth Sciences VIC ABN 13 109 404 024 in response to and subject to the following limitations: 1. The specific instructions received from Fastnet Consulting; 2. The specific scope of works set out in PO210102 V2 issued by Environmental Earth Sciences VIC for and on behalf of Fastnet Consulting, is included in Section 2 (Objectives) of this report; 3. May not be relied upon by any third party not named in this report for any purpose except with the prior written consent of Environmental Earth Sciences VIC (which consent may or may not be given at the discretion of Environmental Earth Sciences VIC); 4. This report comprises the formal report, documentation sections, tables, figures and appendices as referred to in the index to this report and must not be released to any third party or copied in part without all the material included in this report for any reason; 5. The report only relates to the site referred to in the scope of works being located at 20 Gordon Parade and 28 Salisbury Street, Yarraville (“the site”); 6. The report relates to the site as at the date of the report as conditions may change thereafter due to natural processes and/or site activities; 7. No warranty or guarantee is made in regard to any other use than as specified in the scope of works and only applies to the depth tested and reported in this report, 8. Fill, soil and rock to the depth tested on the site may be fit for the use specified in this report. Unless it is expressly stated in this report, the fill, soil and/or rock may not be suitable for classification as clean fill if deposited off site; and

210061_ReportV2.doc

23


9. Our General Limitations set out at the back of the body of this report.

13 REFERENCES ANZECC, 1992a, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites. Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE), 1995, Victorian Groundwater Beneficial Map Series. South Eastern Victoria regional aquifer systems. Department of Primary Industries (DPI), 2003, Acid Sulfate Soil Hazard Maps and Guidelines for Coastal Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), 2009, Victorian coastal acid sulfate soils strategy. Environmental Earth Sciences Pty Ltd (2007) Quality Assurance and Environmental Management Manual. Environmental & Earth Sciences Pty Ltd, 2005b, Soil, gas & groundwater sampling manual. Work Instruction 01. EPA Victoria, 1999, Publication 655.1 – Information Bulletin Acid Sulfate Soil and Rock. EPA Victoria, 2001, Publication 788 Best Practice Environmental Management – Siting, design, operation and rehabilitation of landfills. EPA Victoria, 2007, Publication 952.2 Environmental Auditor Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Audit Reports on Risk to the Environment. Geological Survey of Victoria (GSV) (1974) Melbourne 1:63 360 Geological Series Map Part 7822, Zone 55, Sheet SJ 55-1. Industrial Waste Resource Guidelines – Publication IWRG621 ‘Soil Hazard Categorisation and Management’. National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), 1999, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure. NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, 2008, Service station sites: assessment & remediation. SRS Australia Pty Ltd, 2002, Environmental Site Investigation Report of Residential 3 Zoned, Land on Titles: Vol. 8780 Fol. 549 & Vol. 8780 Fol. 550, End of Gordon Parade, Yarraville, Victoria; and SRS Australia Pty Ltd, 2002, Environmental Site Investigation Report of Residential 3 Zoned, Lot No. 3, End of Salisbury Street, Yarraville, Victoria. Standards Australia, 2005, Guide to the investigation and sampling of sites with potentially contaminated soil. Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds. AS 4482.1. Standards Australia, 1999, Guide to the investigation and sampling of sites with potentially contaminated soil. Part 2: Volatile Substances. AS 4482.1. Victorian Government, 2002, State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land). Victorian Government Printer. Victorian Government Gazette (1999). Industrial Waste Management Policy (IWMP) Waste Acid Sulfate Soils (WASS).

210061_ReportV2.doc

24


West Australian Department of Health (WA DoH), 2009, Guidelines for the Assessment and Remediation and Management of Asbestos-Contaminated Sites in Western Australia.

210061_ReportV2.doc

25


ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES GENERAL LIMITATIONS Scope of services The work presented in this report is Environmental Earth Sciences response to the specific scope of works requested by, planned with and approved by the client. It cannot be relied on by any other third party for any purpose except with our prior written consent. Client may distribute this report to other parties and in doing so warrants that the report is suitable for the purpose it was intended for. However, any party wishing to rely on this report should contact us to determine the suitability of this report for their specific purpose.

Data should not be separated from the report A report is provided inclusive of all documentation sections, limitations, tables, figures and appendices and should not be provided or copied in part without all supporting documentation for any reason, because misinterpretation may occur.

Subsurface conditions change Understanding an environmental study will reduce exposure to the risk of the presence of contaminated soil and or groundwater. However, contaminants may be present in areas that were not investigated, or may migrate to other areas. Analysis cannot cover every type of contaminant that could possibly be present. When combined with field observations, field measurements and professional judgement, this approach increases the probability of identifying contaminated soil and or groundwater. Under no circumstances can it be considered that these findings represent the actual condition of the site at all points. Environmental studies identify actual sub-surface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are taken. Actual conditions between sampling locations differ from those inferred because no professional, no matter how qualified, and no sub-surface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden below the ground surface. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than an assessment indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from that predicted. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated. However, steps can be taken to help minimize the impact. For this reason, site owners should retain our services.

Problems with interpretation by others Advice and interpretation is provided on the basis that subsequent work will be undertaken by Environmental Earth Sciences VIC. This will identify variances, maintain consistency in how data is interpreted, conduct additional tests that may be necessary and recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. Other parties may misinterpret our work and we cannot be responsible for how the information in this report is used. If further data is collected or comes to light we reserve the right to alter their conclusions.

Obtain regulatory approval The investigation and remediation of contaminated sites is a field in which legislation and interpretation of legislation is changing rapidly. Our interpretation of the investigation findings should not be taken to be that of any other party. When approval from a statutory authority is required for a project, that approval should be directly sought by the client.

Limit of liability This study has been carried out to a particular scope of works at a specified site and should not be used for any other purpose. This report is provided on the condition that Environmental Earth Sciences VIC disclaims all liability to any person or entity other than the client in respect of anything done or omitted to be done and of the consequence of anything done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether in whole or in part, on the contents of this report. Furthermore, Environmental Earth Sciences VIC disclaims all liability in respect of anything done or omitted to be done and of the consequence of anything done or omitted to be done by the client, or any such person in reliance, whether in whole or any part of the contents of this report of all matters not stated in the brief outlined in Environmental Earth Sciences VIC’s proposal number and according to Environmental Earth Sciences general terms and conditions and special terms and conditions for contaminated sites. To the maximum extent permitted by law, we exclude all liability of whatever nature, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, for the acts, omissions or default, whether negligent or otherwise for any loss or damage whatsoever that may arise in any way in connection with the supply of services. Under circumstances where liability cannot be excluded, such liability is limited to the value of the purchased service.

General Limitations

6 April 2009

Page 1 of 1


FIGURES

210061_ReportV2.doc


N

GORDO N

SALISB

URY ST REET

PARAD E

SITE LOCATION

Source: Nearmap.com.au

Title:

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

0

20

40

60

Horizontal Scale in Metres

80

100

Location: 20 Gordon Pde.and

28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Fastnet Consulting Project Man: JF Scale: As Shown Drawn By: LB Date: Sept. 2010 Client:

Locality Map Job No: 210061

Figure

1


N

V13

A

GORDON PARADE

TP1 V2

V1

TP2

TP4

V5

Westgate Golf Course

V3

V4

20 Gordon Parade TP3 V8

Sto

TP5

mer

V7

For

V6

C

TP13 XP1 TP14

XP3

TP12

TP11 28 Salisbury Street XP4

XP6

TP10

l ana ek C

XP2

TP9

C’

C re

TP7 Salisbury Street Road Reserve

B’

Ston y

TP8

XP7 XP5

N ew

B

Cr ee k

e urs Co

SALISBURY STREET

ny

TP6

XP11

A’ 0

5

10

15

20

25

Scale in Metres

LEGEND: EES test pit locations (2010) SRS test pit locations (2001) Site boundary Cross section location (refer Figures 3, 4 and 5)

Title:

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

Site Plan and Sampling Locations

Location: 20 Gordon Pde.and

28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Fastnet Consulting Project Man: JF Scale: As Shown Drawn By: LB Date: Sept. 2010 Client:

Job No: 210061

Figure

2


A

A’

TP1

V77I-4

TP3

V77I-7

TP1

SRS-XP4

0

FILL - Loose, sandy clayey silt

FILL - Loose silty clay matrix with solid waste (plastic, glass, wood, bluestone, rubbish etc.)

(m BGL)

1

FILL - Loose, black silt with minor clay (reworked Coode Island Silt sediments)

Perched water table

2

NATURAL - Medium dense, grey/green clay

3

NATURAL - Weathered, brown, vesicular basalt (Newer Volcanics)

? ?

4

? ?

? ?

Title:

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

Location: 20 Gordon Pde.and

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

0

10

20

30

40

Horizontal Scale in Metres

50

Client:

Conceptual Cross Section A - A’

28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Fastnet Consulting

Project Man: JF

Scale: As Shown

LB

Date: Sept. 2010

Drawn By:

Job No: 210061

Figure

3


B

B’ TP7

0

TP8

TP9

FILL - Loose, brown clayey silt

FILL - Loose black silt (Coode Island Silt) 1

FILL - Loose, brown silty clay with solid waste (bluestone, wood, plastic, paper, rubbish etc.)

(m BGL)

Oil drum and machinery inclusion Perched water table 2

NATURAL

- Dens

e, gre y/blu e

clay FILL - Loose, black silt with minor clay and wood, paper inclusions (reworked Coode Island Silt sediments)

3

NATURAL - Weathered, brown, vesicular basalt (Newer Volcanics)

? ?

?

4

?

? ?

Title:

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

Location: 20 Gordon Pde.and

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

0

2

4

6

8

Horizontal Scale in Metres

10

Client:

Conceptual Cross Section B - B’

28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Fastnet Consulting

Project Man: JF

Scale: As Shown

LB

Date: Sept. 2010

Drawn By:

Job No: 210061

Figure

4


C

C’ TP13

TP11

TP10

0

FILL - Loose, brown clayey silt with roots

1

Rubbish inclusions (plastic, paper, glass)

FILL - Loose, brown silty clay with building rubble (bluestone and concrete)

(m BGL)

Perched water table 2

FILL - Soft, black silty clay with reeds. Reworked Coode Island Silt

FILL - Soft, dark, reworked natural silty clay

NATURAL - Dense, grey/blue clay 3

NATURAL - Weathered, brown, vesicular basalt (Newer Volcanics)

?

?

? 4

?

? ?

Title:

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

Location: 20 Gordon Pde.and

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

0

2

4

6

8

10

Horizontal Scale in Metres

Client:

Conceptual Cross Section C - C’

28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Fastnet Consulting

Project Man: JF

Scale: As Shown

LB

Date: Sept. 2010

Drawn By:

Job No: 210061

Figure

5


N

GORDON PARADE

TP1 113(05)

V13

V2 120(0.1)

V1

TP2 540(3.3)

TP4 180(2.0) V5

Westgate Golf Course

V3

V4 20 Gordon Parade

TP3 158(2.1)

TP6 114(0.5)

TP8 174(2.0) Salisbury Street Road Reserve

TP14 148(1.0) 119(2.9)

28 Salisbury Street XP4

TP10 103(1.5)

C re e

XP6 XP3 130(1.0) TP12 111(2..0) 1501.5) TP13 TP11 112(1.6)

ek

k Ca

TP9 278(2.6)

XP2

XP1

Cr e

XP7

XP5 140(1.0)

N ew

TP7 101(0.1) 406(2.1)

y

e ur s Co

SALISBURY STREET

ton er S

TP5 166(0.5)

n al

V8

Ston y

V7 190(0.2)

m For

V6 130(0.5)

XP11

0

5

10

15

20

25

Scale in Metres

LEGEND: EES test pit locations (2010) SRS test pit locations (2001) Site boundary

148(1.0)

As concentration (mg/kg) / (sample depth in m) in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines

406(2.9)

As concentration (mg/kg) / (sample depth in m) in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines

Elevated Arsenic (As) Concentrations

Title:

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

20 Gordon Pde.and 28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Location:

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

Client:

Fastnet Consulting

Project Man: JF

Scale: As Shown

LB

Date: Sept. 2010

Drawn By:

Job No: 210061

Figure

6


N

GORDON PARADE

V13

TP1

V1

V2 2200(0.1) 1700(0.5) TP2

TP4

V5

Westgate Golf Course

V3

V4 20 Gordon Parade TP3

TP8 Salisbury Street Road Reserve

28 Salisbury Street XP1 TP14

XP6

TP11 1190(2.0)

XP4 1600(0.5)

TP10 1890(1.5)

C re e

TP13

XP3 2100(0.1) 2400(05)

XP7 1900(0.5)

Ston y

TP12

TP9

N ew

XP2

ek

e ur s Co

TP7

Cr e

n al

y

k Ca

TP5

ton er S

SALISBURY STREET

V7 V8 2700(0.5) 2400 (0.5) 4900 (1.0) TP6 3200(2.0)

m For

V6 1300(0.5)

XP5 1800(0.5)

XP11

0

5

10

15

20

25

Scale in Metres

LEGEND: EES test pit locations (2010) SRS test pit locations (2001) Site boundary

1600(0.3)

Cu concentration (mg/kg) / (sample depth in m) in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines

4900(1.0)

Cu concentration (mg/kg) / (sample depth in m) in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines

Elevated Copper (Cu) Concentrations

Title:

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

20 Gordon Pde.and 28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Location:

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

Client:

Fastnet Consulting

Project Man: JF

Scale: As Shown

LB

Date: Sept. 2010

Drawn By:

Job No: 210061

Figure

7


N

GORDON PARADE

TP1

V13

V2

V1 390(10.5)

TP2 485(3.3)

TP4 337(1.5)

Westgate Golf Course

V3

V5 420(05)

V4 3300(0.5)

20 Gordon Parade

28 Salisbury Street

XP1

TP14 354(1.0)

XP4

XP6 520(0.5) TP11 514(0.1) 683(2.0

n al k Ca

XP3

TP9 773(2.6)

TP10 325(1.5)

C re e

TP12 431(0.5)

ek

Ston y

TP13 326(0.1)

Salisbury Street Road Reserve

Cr e

XP7 XP5

N ew

T3 358(0.3)

TP7

XP2

y

e ur s Co

SALISBURY STREET

ton er S

TP6

V7 V8 530(1.0) 840(2.0) TP5 394(0.5)

m For

V6 3600(0.5) 420(1.0)

TP3 731(0.5) 822(1.5)

XP11

0

5

10

15

20

25

Scale in Metres

LEGEND: EES test pit locations (2010) SRS test pit locations (2001) Site boundary

337(1.5)

Pb concentration (mg/kg) / sample depth (m) in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines

3600(0.5)

Pb concentration (mg/kg) / sample depth (m) in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines

Elevated Lead (Pb) Concentrations

Title:

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

20 Gordon Pde.and 28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Location:

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

Client:

Fastnet Consulting

Project Man: JF

Scale: As Shown

LB

Date: Sept. 2010

Drawn By:

Job No: 210061

Figure

8


N

GORDON PARADE

TP1 20.0(1.5)

V13

V1

V2

TP2

TP4

V5

Westgate Golf Course

V3

V4 20 Gordon Parade

TP3 4.7(1.5)

Salisbury Street Road Reserve

XP2 TP12 2.2(1.5) 2.3(1.5)

28 Salisbury Street

XP1 4.5(1.5) TP14

XP6

XP3

TP13

TP9 1.1(1.5) 6.0(1.5)

TP11 1.8(1.5)

XP4

ek

n al

TP7

Cr e

TP10 1.0(1.5) XP7

XP5

N ew

TP8 1.6(1.5)

k Ca

y

e ur s Co

SALISBURY STREET

ton er S

TP6 2.4(1.5)

TP5 1.5(1.5)

C re e

V8

Ston y

V7

m For

V6 1.1(1.5)

XP11

0

5

10

15

20

25

Scale in Metres

LEGEND: EES test pit locations (2010) SRS test pit locations (2001) Site boundary

1.1(1.5)

BaP concentration (mg/kg) / sample depth (m) in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines

6.0(1.5)

BaP concentration (mg/kg) / sample depth (m) in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines

Title:

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

20 Gordon Pde.and 28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Location:

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

Client:

Benzo(a)Pyrene Concentrations >1.0 mg/kg

Fastnet Consulting

Project Man: JF

Scale: As Shown

LB

Date: Sept. 2010

Drawn By:

Job No: 210061

Figure

9


N

GORDON PARADE

V13

TP1 210.5(1.5)

V1

V2

TP2

TP4

V5

Westgate Golf Course

V3

V4 20 Gordon Parade

TP3 44.0(1.5)

y

TP8

TP10

TP13 28 Salisbury Street

XP1 39.0(1.50) TP14

XP6

XP3

TP11 27.6(3.0)

XP4

Ston y

TP12 26.8(1.5) XP2 21.9(1.0)

TP9 162.6(2.1)

k Ca

Salisbury Street Road Reserve

ek

XP7 XP5

N ew

TP7

Cr e

e ur s Co

SALISBURY STREET

ton er S

TP5 22.6(1.5)

TP6 102.9(0.1)

n al

V8

C re e

V7

m For

V6

XP11

0

5

10

15

20

25

Scale in Metres

LEGEND: EES test pit locations (2010) SRS test pit locations (2001) Site boundary

39.0(1.0)

PAH concentration (mg/kg) / sample depth (m) in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines

102.9(0.1)

PAH concentration (mg/kg) / sample depth (m) in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines

Title:

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

20 Gordon Pde.and 28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Location:

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

Client:

Total PAH Concentrations >20 mg/kg

Fastnet Consulting

Project Man: JF

Scale: As Shown

LB

Date: Sept. 2010

Drawn By:

Job No: 210061

Figure

10


N

GORDON PARADE

V13

TP1

V1

V2

TP2

TP4

V5

1220(3.3)

V4

Westgate Golf Course

V3

2100(1.0) 25,540(0.5) 2580(2.0) 20 Gordon Parade

TP3

4760(1.5)

y

TP8 Salisbury Street Road Reserve

TP12 XP2

TP13 28 Salisbury Street

XP1

XP4

1090(1.0) TP14

TP9

82,500(2.1) 3050(2.6)

XP6

XP3

TP10

1040(0.5) 1490(1.0)

21,260(1.0) 1400(1.5)

TP11

2390(1.8) 4910(2.0) 2580(3.0)

ek

XP7 XP5

N ew

TP7

e ur s Co

SALISBURY STREET

Cr e

n al

TP6

k Ca

ton er S

TP5

4420(3.0) 11,900(2.1)

C re e

V8

Ston y

V7

4065(1.0)

m For

V1310

1310(0.2)

XP11

0

5

10

15

20

25

Scale in Metres

LEGEND: EES test pit locations (2010) SRS test pit locations (2001) Site boundary

102.9(0.1)

TPH (C6-C36) in mg/kg (sample depth in m)

Title: TPH (C10-C36) Concentrations

in Excess of NSW DECC Guidelines

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

20 Gordon Pde.and 28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Location:

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

Client:

Fastnet Consulting

Project Man: JF

Scale: As Shown

LB

Date: Sept. 2010

Drawn By:

Job No: 210061

Figure

11


N

GORDON PARADE

TP1 2.1 V2 0.5

V1 1.0

TP2 3.3

TP4 2.0

Westgate Golf Course

V3 3.3

V4 2.0

V5 0.5

20 Gordon Parade

TP3 2.1

T3

2.0 TP7 2.1 Salisbury Street Road Reserve

28 Salisbury Street

XP1 2.5

XP4 0.5

XP6 1.0

k Ca

XP3 1.5

TP10 2.0

TP11 3.0

C re e

TP13 1.6

TP12 2.5

XP7 1.0 XP5 2.0

N ew

XP2 2.0

TP9 2.6

ek

e ur s Co

SALISBURY STREET

Cr e

n al

y

Ston y

TP5 3.0

TP6 3.0

ton er S

V8 2.0

V7

m For

V6 1.0

TP14 2.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

Scale in Metres

LEGEND: EES test pit locations (2010) SRS test pit locations (2001) Site boundary

2.9

Depth (mBGL)

Depth of ‘Category C’ Classified Soil

Title:

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

20 Gordon Pde.and 28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Location:

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

Client:

Fastnet Consulting

Project Man: JF

Scale: As Shown

LB

Date: Sept. 2010

Drawn By:

Job No: 210061

Figure

12


N

GORDON PARADE

TP1 1.5 (PAH & BaP) V2

V1

TP2 3.3 (As)

TP4

V4 0.5 (Pb)

V5

Westgate Golf Course

V3

20 Gordon Parade TP3

y

T3

XP2

TP13

TP12

XP3 1.0 (TPH)

28 Salisbury Street

XP1

TP9 2.1 (TPH)

k Ca

Salisbury Street Road Reserve

ek

XP6 TP10 XP7

TP11

XP4

XP5

N ew

TP7

e ur s Co

SALISBURY STREET

Cr e

C re e

TP6 0.1 (PAH & BaP)

ton er S

TP5 2.1 (TPH)

n al

V8

Ston y

V7

m For

V6 0.5 (Pb)

TP14

0

5

10

15

20

25

Scale in Metres

LEGEND: EES test pit locations (2010) SRS test pit locations (2001) Site boundary

2.1 (TPH)

Depth of hotspot (m) - (Category B contaminant)

2.1 (TPH)

Depth of hotspot (m) - (Category A contaminant)

Title:

ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

20 Gordon Pde.and 28 Salisbury St. Yarraville, VIC.

Location:

THE KNOW AND THE HOW

Client:

Locations of ‘Category B’ and ‘Category A’ Hotspot

Fastnet Consulting

Project Man: JF

Scale: As Shown

LB

Date: Sept. 2010

Drawn By:

Job No: 210061

Figure

13


TABLES

210061_ReportV2.doc


TABLE 2

NEPM HEALTH BASED INVESTIGATION LEVELS (1999)

Substance

Health-based Soil Investigation Levels (mg/kg)

Exposure Settings

A

Aldrin + Dieldrin Arsenic (total)

a

a

D

E

F

10

40

20

50

100

400

200

500

Benzo (a) pyrene

1

4

2

5

Beryllium

20

80

40

100

3,000

12,000

6,000

15,000

Cadmium

20

80

40

100

Chlordane

50

200

100

250

Chromium (III)

12%

48%

24%

60%

Chromium (VI)

100

400

200

500

Cobalt

100

400

200

500

Copper

1,000

4,000

2,000

5,000

Cyanides (complexed)

500

2,000

1,000

2,500

Cyanides (free)

250

1,000

500

1,250

DDT + DDD + DDE

200

800

400

1,000

Heptachlor

10

40

20

50

Lead

300

1,200

600

1,500

1,500

6,000

3,000

7,500

Methyl Mercury

10

40

20

50

Mercury (inorganic)

15

60

30

75

Nickel

600

2,400

600

3,000

Total PAH

20

80

40

100

PCB’s (total)

10

40

20

50

8,500

34,000

17,000

42,500

TPH C16-C35 aromatics

90

360

180

450

TPH C16-C35 aliphatics

5,600

22,400

11,200

28,000

TPH>C35

56,000

224,000

112,000

280,000

Zinc

7,000

28,000

14,000

35,000

Boron

Manganese

Phenol

B

C

Exposure Setting(s): 1. ‘Standard’ residential with garden/accessible soil (less than 10% intake of home grown produce; no poultry): this category includes children’s day-care, pre-schools etc. 2. Residential with substantial vegetable garden (contributing up to 50% of vegetable and fruit intake) and poultry providing all dietary egg intake and 25% poultry meat intake. 3. Residential with substantial vegetable garden (contributing up to 50% of vegetable and fruit intake); poultry excluded. 4. Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access includes high-rise apartments and flats. 5. Parks, recreational open space and playing fields: includes secondary schools. 6. Commercial/Industrial: includes premises such as shops and offices as well as factories and industrial sites. (If, however, a commercial site is also used for residential purposes or regular soil access by children if possible then the appropriate ‘residential’ setting should be used.) It is assumed that thirty years is the duration of exposure. a Site and contaminant specific. 7. 8. Shaded column specifies the relevant guidelines for this investigation.

210061_ReportV2.doc

T1


TABLE 3

ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SOIL RESULTS SUMMARY

Analyte

Units

LOR

NSW DECC

NEPM 1999 EIL

NEPM 1999 HIL A

NEPM 1999 HIL D

Fill Material

Cat C

Cat B

Aluminium

mg/kg

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Arsenic

mg/kg

5

-

20

100

400

20

Cadmium

mg/kg

1

-

3

20

80

Chromium (III+VI)

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

Chromium (hexavalent)

mg/kg

0.5

-

1

Cobalt

mg/kg

2

-

Copper

mg/kg

5

Lead

mg/kg

Manganese

TP1

TP1

TP1

TP1

TP2

TP2

TP2

TP2

TP3

TP3

TP3

TP3

TP3

(0.4-0.5)

(1.0-1.1)

(1.5-1.6)

(2.0-2.1)

(0.4-0.5)

(1.4-1.5)

(1.9-2.0)

(3.2-3.3)

(0.4-0.5)

(0-0.1)

(1.4-1.5)

(2.0-2.1)

(2.4-2.5)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<1

-

500

2000

113

<5

37

30

42

73

24

590

53

5

77

158

19

3

100

400

2

<1

<1

<1

<1

1

<1

16

2

<1

2

2

<1

-

-

-

-

59

31

-

28

29

47

-

126

92

20

-

65

36

100

400

1

500

2000

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

100

400

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

183

-

-

-

46

-

-

-

-

-

100

1000

4000

100

5000

20000

265

7

23

15

728

115

106

358

463

26

474

202

16

5

300

600

300

1200

300

1,500

6,000

191

14

60

32

155

108

87

485

731

21

822

198

26

mg/kg

0.1

-

500

1500

6000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.1

-

Mercury

mg/kg

0.1

-

1

15

60

1

75

300

0.5

<0.1

0.1

<0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

1

0.7

<0.1

0.5

0.4

0.2

Molybdenum

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

-

40

1,000

4,000

-

-

<2

-

-

-

<2

-

-

-

7

-

-

Nickel

mg/kg

2

-

60

600

2400

60

3,000

12,000

76

17

39

27

141

41

41

122

76

13

77

52

27

Selenium

mg/kg

5

-

-

-

-

10

50

200

-

-

<5

-

-

-

<5

-

-

-

<5

-

-

Silver

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

-

10

180

720

-

-

<2

-

-

-

<2

-

-

-

<2

-

-

Tin

mg/kg

5

-

-

-

-

50

500

-

-

-

<5

-

-

-

202

-

-

-

268

-

-

Zinc

mg/kg

5

-

200

7000

28000

200

35,000

140,000

496

52

133

93

127

413

414

3960

810

50

1170

587

53

Cyanide (Free)

mg/kg

1

-

-

250

1000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cyanide Total

mg/kg

1

-

-

500

2000

50

2,500

10,000

-

-

<1

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

8

-

-

Fluoride

mg/kg

40

-

-

-

-

450

10,000

40,000

-

-

80

-

-

-

180

-

-

-

120

-

-

Acenaphthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.6

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Acenaphthylene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

3.1

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

0.5

<0.5

-

Anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

4.4

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

0.8

<0.5

-

Benz(a)anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

18.1

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

4.1

<0.5

-

Benzo(a) pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

1

4

1

5

20

-

<0.5

20

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

4.7

<0.5

-

Benzo(b) & (k)fluoranthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

30.3

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

0.7

-

-

7.5

<0.5

-

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

15.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

3.2

<0.5

-

Chrysene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

15

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

3.2

<0.5

-

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

3.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

0.7

<0.5

-

Fluoranthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

38.2

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

0.9

-

-

7.6

<0.5

-

Fluorene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.6

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

12.2

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

2.7

<0.5

-

Naphthalene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

0.8

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Phenanthrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

12.2

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

2.5

<0.5

-

Pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

37.2

-

-

0.6

<0.5

1.2

-

-

6.5

<0.5

-

210061_ReportV2.doc

T2


TABLE 2

ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SOIL RESULTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Analyte

Units

LOR

NSW DECC

NEPM 1999 EIL

NEPM 1999 HIL A

NEPM 1999 HIL D

Fill Material

Cat C

Cat B

Sum of PAH

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

20

80

20

100

TPH C6 - C9

mg/kg

10

65

-

-

-

100

TPH C10 - C14

mg/kg

50

-

-

-

-

TPH C15 - C28

mg/kg

100

-

-

-

TPH C29-C36

mg/kg

100

-

-

TPH+C10 - C36 (sum)

mg/kg

50

1000

Benzene

mg/kg

0.2

Ethylbenzene

mg/kg

Toluene

TP1

TP1

TP1

TP1

TP2

TP2

TP2

TP2

TP3

TP3

TP3

TP3

TP3

(0.4-0.5)

(1.0-1.1)

(1.5-1.6)

(2.0-2.1)

(0.4-0.5)

(1.4-1.5)

(1.9-2.0)

(3.2-3.3)

(0.4-0.5)

(0-0.1)

(1.4-1.5)

(2.0-2.1)

(2.4-2.5)

400

-

<0.5

210.5

-

-

0.6

<0.5

2.8

-

-

44

<0.5

-

650

2,600

-

<10

<10

-

-

<10

<10

<10

-

-

<10

<10

-

-

-

-

-

<50

<50

-

-

<50

<50

<50

-

-

<50

<50

-

-

-

-

-

-

<100

330

-

-

250

<100

590

-

-

1690

120

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<100

460

-

-

390

<100

630

-

-

3070

240

-

-

-

-

1,000

10,000

40,000

-

<50

790

-

-

640

<50

1220

-

-

4760

360

-

1

-

-

-

1

4

16

-

<0.2

<0.2

-

-

<0.2

<0.2

<0.2

-

-

<0.2

<0.2

-

0.5

3.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

mg/kg

0.5

1.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Xylene (m & p)

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Xylene (o)

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Aldrin + Dieldrin

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

10

40

-

1.2

4.8

-

-

<0.61

-

-

-

<0.06

-

-

-

<0.3

-

-

chlordane

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

50

200

-

4

16

-

-

<0.61

-

-

-

<0.06

-

-

-

<0.3

-

-

DDT+DDE+DDD

mg/kg

0.05

-

-

200

800

-

50

50

-

-

<0.61

-

-

-

<0.06

-

-

-

<0.3

-

-

Organochlorine pesticides (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

<0.61

-

-

-

<0.06

-

-

-

<0.3

-

-

Other organochlorine pesticides (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

-

10

50

-

-

<0.61

-

-

-

<0.06

-

-

-

<0.3

-

-

Phenol

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

8500

34000

-

-

-

-

-

<1

-

-

<0.5

<1

-

-

-

<1

-

-

Phenols (halogenated) (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

1

10

320

-

-

<0.61

-

-

-

<0.06

-

-

-

<0.3

-

-

Phenols (non-halogenated) (sum)

mg/kg

1

-

-

-

-

60

560

2,200

-

-

<1

-

-

-

<1

-

-

-

<1

-

-

Note(s): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

- = not analysed or no guideline available; LOR = laboratory limit of reporting; Italic = result in excess of NSW DECC guidelines; Bold = result in excess of NEPM EIL guidelines; Underlined = result in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines; Shaded = result in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines Orange – in excess of ‘Fill Material’ guidelines; Red = in excess of ‘Catergory C’ guidelines; Blue = in excess of ‘Category B’ guidelines; and Refer to Appendix D for complete transcripts.

210061_ReportV2.doc

T3


TABLE 2

ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SOIL RESULTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Analyte

Units

LOR

NSW DECC

NEPM 1999 EIL

NEPM 1999 HIL A

NEPM 1999 HIL D

Fill Material

Cat C

Cat B

Aluminium

mg/kg

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Arsenic

mg/kg

5

-

20

100

400

20

Cadmium

mg/kg

1

-

3

20

80

Chromium (III+VI)

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

Chromium (hexavalent)

mg/kg

0.5

-

1

Cobalt

mg/kg

2

-

Copper

mg/kg

5

Lead

mg/kg

Manganese

TP4

TP4

TP4

TP4

TP5

TP5

TP5

TP5

TP5

TP6

TP6

TP6

TP6

(0.4-0.5)

(0-0.1)

(1.4-1.5)

(2.1-2.2)

(0.4-0.5)

(1.4-1.5)

(2.0-2.1)

(2.9-3.0)

(3.9-4.0)

(0.4-0.5)

(0-0.1)

(1.4-1.5)

(1.9-2.0)

-

-

-

-

<1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

500

2000

-

<5

15

10

166

6

28

-

7

114

43

<5

55

3

100

400

-

<1

13

<1

3

<1

2

-

<1

1

1

<1

<1

-

-

-

-

-

21

21

-

55

10

-

-

70

56

38

32

31

100

400

1

500

2000

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100

400

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

61

184

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100

1000

4000

100

5000

20000

-

28

334

22

553

118

171

-

24

242

247

18

38

5

300

600

300

1200

300

1,500

6,000

-

31

337

15

394

56

104

-

33

147

175

26

90

mg/kg

0.1

-

500

1500

6000

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Mercury

mg/kg

0.1

-

1

15

60

1

75

300

-

<0.1

0.2

0.3

0.7

0.9

2.6

-

0.4

0.3

0.4

<0.1

0.2

Molybdenum

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

-

40

1,000

4,000

-

-

-

<2

-

-

<2

-

-

-

-

-

-

Nickel

mg/kg

2

-

60

600

2400

60

3,000

12,000

-

29

54

17

80

14

7

-

34

69

48

47

28

Selenium

mg/kg

5

-

-

-

-

10

50

200

-

-

-

<5

-

-

<5

-

-

-

-

-

-

Silver

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

-

10

180

720

-

-

-

<2

-

-

<2

-

-

-

-

-

-

Tin

mg/kg

5

-

-

-

-

50

500

-

-

-

-

6

-

-

10

-

-

-

-

-

-

Zinc

mg/kg

5

-

200

7000

28000

200

35,000

140,000

-

54

745

76

717

579

310

-

52

472

439

92

251

Cyanide (Free)

mg/kg

1

-

-

250

1000

-

-

-

-

<1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<1

-

Cyanide Total

mg/kg

1

-

-

500

2000

50

2,500

10,000

-

1

-

1

-

-

19

-

-

-

-

<1

-

Fluoride

mg/kg

40

-

-

-

-

450

10,000

40,000

-

-

-

120

-

-

190

-

-

-

-

-

-

Acenaphthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<1

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Acenaphthylene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<1

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

0.9

<0.5

<0.5

<1

-

1.8

<0.5

-

Benz(a)anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

2.3

<0.5

<0.5

<1

-

9.4

<0.5

-

Benzo(a) pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

1

4

1

5

20

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

1.5

<0.5

<0.5

<1

-

12.4

<0.5

-

Benzo(b) & (k)fluoranthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

2.6

<0.5

<0.5

<1

-

17.9

<0.5

-

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

0.8

<0.5

<0.5

<1

-

7.4

<0.5

-

Chrysene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

1.9

<0.5

0.6

<1

-

8.6

<0.5

-

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<1

-

1.7

<0.5

-

Fluoranthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

4.5

<0.5

0.5

<1

-

15

<0.5

-

Fluorene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<1

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

0.8

<0.5

<0.5

<1

-

6.4

<0.5

-

Naphthalene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<1

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Phenanthrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

2.9

<0.5

<0.5

<1

-

4.8

<0.5

-

Pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

4.4

<0.5

1.4

<1

-

17.5

<0.5

-

210061_ReportV2.doc

T4


TABLE 2

ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SOIL RESULTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Analyte

Units

LOR

NSW DECC

NEPM 1999 EIL

NEPM 1999 HIL A

NEPM 1999 HIL D

Fill Material

Cat C

Cat B

Sum of PAH

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

20

80

20

100

TPH C6 - C9

mg/kg

10

65

-

-

-

100

TPH C10 - C14

mg/kg

50

-

-

-

-

TPH C15 - C28

mg/kg

100

-

-

-

TPH C29-C36

mg/kg

100

-

-

TPH+C10 - C36 (sum)

mg/kg

50

1000

Benzene

mg/kg

0.2

Ethylbenzene

mg/kg

Toluene

TP4

TP4

TP4

TP4

TP5

TP5

TP5

TP5

TP5

TP6

TP6

TP6

TP6

(0.4-0.5)

(0-0.1)

(1.4-1.5)

(2.1-2.2)

(0.4-0.5)

(1.4-1.5)

(2.0-2.1)

(2.9-3.0)

(3.9-4.0)

(0.4-0.5)

(0-0.1)

(1.4-1.5)

(1.9-2.0)

400

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

22.6

<0.5

2.5

<1

-

102.9

<0.5

-

650

2,600

<10

-

<10

-

-

<10

30

42

<10

-

<10

<10

-

-

-

-

<50

-

<50

<50

-

<50

150

100

<100

-

<50

<50

-

-

-

-

-

<100

-

<100

<100

-

150

4760

1810

<200

-

220

<100

-

-

-

-

-

-

<100

-

<100

<100

-

120

7010

2510

<200

-

430

<100

-

-

-

-

1,000

10,000

40,000

<50

-

<50

<50

-

270

11,900

4420

<100

-

650

<50

-

1

-

-

-

1

4

16

<0.2

-

<0.2

-

-

<0.2

<0.2

<0.2

<0.2

-

<0.2

<0.2

-

0.5

3.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

mg/kg

0.5

1.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Xylene (m & p)

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Xylene (o)

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

Aldrin + Dieldrin

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

10

40

-

1.2

4.8

-

-

-

<0.03

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

-

-

chlordane

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

50

200

-

4

16

-

-

-

<0.03

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

-

-

DDT+DDE+DDD

mg/kg

0.05

-

-

200

800

-

50

50

-

-

-

<0.05

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

-

-

Organochlorine pesticides (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

<0.03

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

-

-

Other organochlorine pesticides (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

-

10

50

-

-

-

<0.03

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

-

-

Phenol

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

8500

34000

-

-

-

-

-

-

<1

-

-

<1

<0.5

<1

<0.5

-

-

-

Phenols (halogenated) (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

1

10

320

-

-

-

<0.03

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

-

-

Phenols (non-halogenated) (sum)

mg/kg

1

-

-

-

-

60

560

2,200

-

-

-

<1

-

-

<1

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,2-dichlorobenzene

mg/kg

0.02

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.02

-

-

0.03

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,4-dichlorobenzene

mg/kg

0.02

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.02

-

-

0.04

-

-

-

-

-

-

Note(s): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

- = not analysed or no guideline available; LOR = laboratory limit of reporting; Italic = result in excess of NSW DECC guidelines; Bold = result in excess of NEPM EIL guidelines; Underlined = result in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines; Shaded = result in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines Orange – in excess of ‘Fill Material’ guidelines; Red = in excess of ‘Catergory C’ guidelines; Blue = in excess of ‘Category B’ guidelines; and Refer to Appendix D for complete transcripts.

210061_ReportV2.doc

T5


TABLE 2

ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SOIL RESULTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Analyte

Units

LOR

NSW DECC

NEPM 1999 EIL

NEPM 1999 HIL A

NEPM 1999 HIL D

Fill Material

Cat C

Cat B

Aluminium

mg/kg

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Arsenic

mg/kg

5

-

20

100

400

20

Cadmium

mg/kg

1

-

3

20

80

Chromium (III+VI)

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

Chromium (hexavalent)

mg/kg

0.5

-

1

Copper

mg/kg

5

-

Lead

mg/kg

5

Manganese

mg/kg

Mercury

TP7

TP7

TP7

TP8

TP8

TP8

TP8

TP8

TP8

TP9

TP9

TP9

TP9

TP9B

(0.9-1.0)

(0-0.1)

(2.0-2.1)

(0.2-0.3)

(0.9-1.0)

(1.9-2.0)

(2.0-2.1)

(2.4-2.5)

(2.9-3.0)

(0.4-0.5)

(0.9-1.0)

(1.9-2.0)

(2.0-2.1)

(2.5-2.6)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

500

2000

16

101

406

23

9

174

-

-

14

6

20

19

-

278

3

100

400

<1

1

<1

1

<1

2

-

-

<1

<1

<1

<1

-

10

-

-

-

-

-

37

28

22

24

59

-

-

44

45

12

-

-

188

100

400

1

500

2000

<0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

100

1000

4000

100

5000

20000

22

230

40

80

28

132

-

-

12

59

157

484

-

255

300

600

300

1200

300

1,500

6,000

29

190

198

358

26

144

-

-

21

34

34

43

-

773

0.1

-

500

1500

6000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

mg/kg

0.1

-

1

15

60

1

75

300

0.1

0.5

0.8

1.7

0.1

0.2

-

-

<0.1

<0.1

0.1

0.1

-

1.8

Molybdenum

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

-

40

1,000

4,000

<2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10

-

-

Nickel

mg/kg

2

-

60

600

2400

60

3,000

12,000

39

47

53

17

25

94

-

-

24

75

80

54

-

79

Selenium

mg/kg

5

-

-

-

-

10

50

200

<5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<5

-

-

Silver

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

-

10

180

720

<2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<2

-

-

Tin

mg/kg

5

-

-

-

-

50

500

-

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<5

-

-

Zinc

mg/kg

5

-

200

7000

28000

200

35,000

140,000

58

307

122

114

45

614

-

-

75

48

76

175

-

1810

Cyanide (Free)

mg/kg

1

-

-

250

1000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cyanide Total

mg/kg

1

-

-

500

2000

50

2,500

10,000

<1

-

-

-

22

-

-

-

-

-

-

<1

-

-

Fluoride

mg/kg

40

-

-

-

-

450

10,000

40,000

180

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

50

-

-

Acenaphthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.6

4.2

<0.5

Acenaphthylene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.6

<2.5

<0.5

Anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.6

13

<0.5

Benz(a)anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

0.7

-

2.1

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

0.9

13.1

0.7

Benzo(a) pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

1

4

1

5

20

<0.5

-

0.6

-

1.6

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

1.1

6

0.7

Benzo(b) & (k)fluoranthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

0.7

-

3

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

1.9

13

1

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

1

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

0.9

4.8

0.9

Chrysene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

0.6

-

1.8

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

0.7

15.1

0.8

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.6

<2.5

<0.5

Fluoranthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

1.3

-

3.9

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

1.9

40.4

1

Fluorene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.6

3.1

<0.5

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

0.9

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

0.7

3.5

0.7

Naphthalene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

-

-

5

<0.6

<2.5

<0.5

Phenanthrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

0.5

-

1.7

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

0.6

8.8

<0.5

Pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

1.4

-

3.6

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

1.8

37.2

1.4

Sum of PAH

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

20

80

20

100

400

<0.5

-

5.8

-

19.6

<0.5

-

-

-

-

5

10.5

162.2

7.2

210061_ReportV2.doc

T6


TABLE 2

ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SOIL RESULTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Analyte

Units

LOR

NSW DECC

NEPM 1999 EIL

NEPM 1999 HIL A

NEPM 1999 HIL D

Fill Material

Cat C

Cat B

TPH C6 - C9

mg/kg

10

65

-

-

-

100

650

TPH C10 - C14

mg/kg

50

-

-

-

-

-

TPH C15 - C28

mg/kg

100

-

-

-

-

TPH C29-C36

mg/kg

100

-

-

-

TPH+C10 - C36 (sum)

mg/kg

50

1000

-

Benzene

mg/kg

0.2

1

Ethylbenzene

mg/kg

0.5

Toluene

mg/kg

Xylene (m & p)

TP7

TP7

TP7

TP8

TP8

TP8

TP8

TP8

TP8

TP9

TP9

TP9

TP9

TP9B

(0.9-1.0)

(0-0.1)

(2.0-2.1)

(0.2-0.3)

(0.9-1.0)

(1.9-2.0)

(2.0-2.1)

(2.4-2.5)

(2.9-3.0)

(0.4-0.5)

(0.9-1.0)

(1.9-2.0)

(2.0-2.1)

(2.5-2.6)

2,600

<10

-

<10

-

<10

<10

-

-

-

-

<10

<10

106

<10

-

-

<50

-

<50

-

<50

<50

-

-

-

-

<50

<50

1160

<50

-

-

-

<100

-

<100

-

<100

<100

-

-

-

-

<100

<100

32,700

1320

-

-

-

-

<100

-

<100

-

<100

140

-

-

-

-

190

<100

48,600

1730

-

-

1,000

10,000

40,000

<50

-

<50

-

<50

140

-

-

-

-

190

<50

82,500

3050

-

-

-

1

4

16

<0.2

-

<0.2

-

<0.2

<0.2

-

-

-

-

0.3

<0.2

<0.2

<0.2

3.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

0.5

1.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

Xylene (o)

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

Aldrin + Dieldrin

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

10

40

-

1.2

4.8

<0.06

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.6

-

-

chlordane

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

50

200

-

4

16

<0.06

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.6

-

-

DDT+DDE+DDD

mg/kg

0.05

-

-

200

800

-

50

50

<0.06

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.6

-

-

Organochlorine pesticides (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

<0.06

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.6

-

-

Other organochlorine pesticides (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

-

10

50

<0.06

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.6

-

-

Phenol

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

8500

34000

-

-

-

<1

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<1

<2.5

<0.5

Phenols (halogenated) (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

1

10

320

<0.06

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.6

-

-

Phenols (non-halogenated) (sum)

mg/kg

1

-

-

-

-

60

560

2,200

<1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<1

-

-

Note(s): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

- = not analysed or no guideline available; LOR = laboratory limit of reporting; Italic = result in excess of NSW DECC guidelines; Bold = result in excess of NEPM EIL guidelines; Underlined = result in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines; Shaded = result in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines Orange – in excess of ‘Fill Material’ guidelines; Red = in excess of ‘Catergory C’ guidelines; Blue = in excess of ‘Category B’ guidelines; and Refer to Appendix D for complete transcripts.

210061_ReportV2.doc

T7


TABLE 2

ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SOIL RESULTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Analyte

Units

LOR

NSW DECC

NEPM 1999 EIL

NEPM 1999 HIL A

NEPM 1999 HIL D

Fill Material

Category C

Category B

TP10

TP10

TP10

TP10

TP10

TP11

TP11

TP11

TP11

TP11

TP12

TP12

TP12

(0.1-0.2)

(1.4-1.5)

(1.8-1.9)

(1.9-2.0)

(2.4-2.5)

(0-0.1)

(0.9-1.0)

(1.7-1.8)

(1.9-2.0)

(2.9-3.0)

(0.4-0.5)

(1.4-1.5)

(1.9-2.0)

Aluminium

mg/kg

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<1

-

-

-

-

-

<1

-

-

-

-

Arsenic

mg/kg

5

-

20

100

400

20

500

2000

48

103

-

33

9

10

-

98

100

15

42

36

111

Cadmium

mg/kg

1

-

3

20

80

3

100

400

1

1

-

2

<1

<1

-

2

6

<1

2

<1

<1

Chromium (III+VI)

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

43

30

-

136

44

26

-

-

119

6

33

22

38

Chromium (hexavalent)

mg/kg

0.5

-

1

100

400

1

500

2000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

-

-

Cobalt

mg/kg

2

-

-

100

400

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

109

-

-

-

111

-

-

Copper

mg/kg

5

-

100

1000

4000

100

5000

20000

377

1890

-

641

12

66

-

593

1190

53

343

33

19

Lead

mg/kg

5

300

600

300

1200

300

1,500

6,000

144

325

-

231

17

514

-

288

688

24

431

60

30

Manganese

mg/kg

0.1

-

500

1500

6000

-

-

-

-

-

5.6

-

-

-

-

-

<0.1

-

-

-

-

Mercury

mg/kg

0.1

-

1

15

60

1

75

300

0.3

0.6

-

0.4

<0.1

0.2

-

0.6

1.2

0.9

0.6

0.1

0.1

Molybdenum

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

-

40

1,000

4,000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<2

-

-

-

-

-

Nickel

mg/kg

2

-

60

600

2400

60

3,000

12,000

56

120

-

70

17

23

-

55

84

5

69

48

27

Selenium

mg/kg

5

-

-

-

-

10

50

200

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<5

-

-

-

-

-

Silver

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

-

10

180

720

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<2

-

-

-

-

-

Tin

mg/kg

5

-

-

-

-

50

500

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

170

-

-

-

-

-

Zinc

mg/kg

5

-

200

7000

28000

200

35,000

140,000

288

297

-

720

52

492

-

917

2080

79

2550

200

44

Cyanide (Free)

mg/kg

1

-

-

250

1000

-

-

-

-

<1

-

<1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<1

Cyanide Total

mg/kg

1

-

-

500

2000

50

2,500

10,000

-

<1

-

2

-

-

-

<1

-

-

-

-

<1

Fluoride

mg/kg

40

-

-

-

-

450

10,000

40,000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

320

-

-

-

-

-

Acenaphthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

Acenaphthylene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

Anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

1

-

0.7

<0.5

Benz(a)anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1.2

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

2

-

2.4

<0.5

Benzo(a) pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

1

4

1

5

20

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

1.8

-

2.3

<0.5

Benzo(b) & (k)fluoranthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

3

-

3.6

<0.5

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.9

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

1.3

-

1.6

<0.5

Chrysene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1.1

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

2.1

-

2.4

<0.5

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

Fluoranthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

4.3

-

5

<0.5

Fluorene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

1.3

-

<0.5

<0.5

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.8

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

1

-

1.3

<0.5

Naphthalene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

0.8

-

<0.5

<0.5

Phenanthrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.7

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

4.3

-

2.6

<0.5

Pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1.9

-

-

-

<0.5

0.7

4.2

-

4.9

<0.5

210061_ReportV2.doc

T8


TABLE 2

ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SOIL RESULTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Analyte

Units

LOR

NSW DECC

NEPM 1999 EIL

NEPM 1999 HIL A

NEPM 1999 HIL D

Fill Material

Category C

Category B

TP10

TP10

TP10

TP10

TP10

TP11

TP11

TP11

TP11

TP11

TP12

TP12

TP12

(0.1-0.2)

(1.4-1.5)

(1.8-1.9)

(1.9-2.0)

(2.4-2.5)

(0-0.1)

(0.9-1.0)

(1.7-1.8)

(1.9-2.0)

(2.9-3.0)

(0.4-0.5)

(1.4-1.5)

(1.9-2.0)

Sum of PAH

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

20

80

20

100

400

-

-

-

11.6

-

-

-

<0.5

0.7

27.6

-

26.8

<0.5

TPH C6 - C9

mg/kg

10

65

-

-

-

100

650

2,600

-

-

-

<10

-

-

-

<10

<10

<10

-

<10

<10

TPH C10 - C14

mg/kg

50

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<50

-

-

-

<50

70

<50

-

<50

<50

TPH C15 - C28

mg/kg

100

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

340

-

-

-

680

1760

1050

-

240

130

TPH C29-C36

mg/kg

100

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

540

-

-

-

1710

3080

1530

-

500

120

TPH+C10 - C36 (sum)

mg/kg

50

1000

-

-

-

1,000

10,000

40,000

-

-

-

880

-

-

-

2390

4910

2580

-

740

250

Benzene

mg/kg

0.2

1

-

-

-

1

4

16

-

-

-

<0.2

-

-

-

<0.2

<0.2

<0.2

-

<0.2

<0.2

Ethylbenzene

mg/kg

0.5

3.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

Toluene

mg/kg

0.5

1.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

Xylene (m & p)

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

Xylene (o)

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

Aldrin + Dieldrin

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

10

40

-

1.2

4.8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

-

chlordane

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

50

200

-

4

16

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

-

DDT+DDE+DDD

mg/kg

0.05

-

-

200

800

-

50

50

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

-

Organochlorine pesticides (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

-

Other organochlorine pesticides (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

-

10

50

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

-

Phenol

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

8500

34000

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

-

<1

<0.5

-

-

-

<0.5

Phenols (halogenated) (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

1

10

320

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

-

Phenols (non-halogenated) (sum)

mg/kg

1

-

-

-

-

60

560

2,200

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<1

-

-

-

-

-

Note(s): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

- = not analysed or no guideline available; LOR = laboratory limit of reporting; Italic = result in excess of NSW DECC guidelines; Bold = result in excess of NEPM EIL guidelines; Underlined = result in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines; Shaded = result in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines Orange – in excess of ‘Fill Material’ guidelines; Red = in excess of ‘Catergory C’ guidelines; Blue = in excess of ‘Category B’ guidelines; and Refer to Appendix D for complete transcripts.

210061_ReportV2.doc

T9


TABLE 2

ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SOIL RESULTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Analyte

Units

LOR

NSW DECC

NEPM 1999 EIL

NEPM 1999 HIL A

NEPM 1999 HIL D

Fill Material

Category C

Category B

TP12

TP13

TP13

TP13

TP13

TP14

TP14

TP14

(2.4-2.5)

(0.4-0.5)

(0-0.1)

(1.5-1.6)

(2.0-2.1)

(0.9-1.0)

(1.6-1.7)

(2.8-2.9)

Aluminium

mg/kg

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Arsenic

mg/kg

5

-

20

100

400

20

500

2000

74

8

90

112

7

148

<5

119

Cadmium

mg/kg

1

-

3

20

80

3

100

400

1

<1

3

<1

<1

4

<1

2

Chromium (III+VI)

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

97

36

85

-

97

92

<2

68

Chromium (hexavalent)

mg/kg

0.5

-

1

100

400

1

500

2000

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

-

-

Cobalt

mg/kg

2

-

-

100

400

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

66

-

-

Copper

mg/kg

5

-

100

1000

4000

100

5000

20000

98

24

267

60

21

568

<5

175

Lead

mg/kg

5

300

600

300

1200

300

1,500

6,000

142

38

320

93

38

354

<5

233

Manganese

mg/kg

0.1

-

500

1500

6000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Mercury

mg/kg

0.1

-

1

15

60

1

75

300

0.3

<0.1

0.5

0.4

0.1

0.6

0.6

0.5

Molybdenum

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

-

40

1,000

4,000

-

-

-

<2

-

-

-

-

Nickel

mg/kg

2

-

60

600

2400

60

3,000

12,000

49

49

66

44

17

107

<2

69

Selenium

mg/kg

5

-

-

-

-

10

50

200

-

-

-

<5

-

-

-

-

Silver

mg/kg

2

-

-

-

-

10

180

720

-

-

-

<2

-

-

-

-

Tin

mg/kg

5

-

-

-

-

50

500

-

-

-

-

33

-

-

-

-

Zinc

mg/kg

5

-

200

7000

28000

200

35,000

140,000

472

88

560

147

109

1130

<5

804

Cyanide (Free)

mg/kg

1

-

-

250

1000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<1

-

Cyanide Total

mg/kg

1

-

-

500

2000

50

2,500

10,000

-

-

-

1

-

-

<1

-

Fluoride

mg/kg

40

-

-

-

-

450

10,000

40,000

-

-

-

160

-

-

-

-

Acenaphthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Acenaphthylene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Benz(a)anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Benzo(a) pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

1

4

1

5

20

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Benzo(b) & (k)fluoranthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

0.5

<0.5

-

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Chrysene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Fluoranthene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

0.8

<0.5

-

Fluorene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Naphthalene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

210061_ReportV2.doc

T10


TABLE 2

ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SOIL RESULTS SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Analyte

Units

LOR

NSW DECC

NEPM 1999 EIL

NEPM 1999 HIL A

NEPM 1999 HIL D

Fill Material

Category C

Category B

TP12

TP13

TP13

TP13

TP13

TP14

TP14

TP14

(2.4-2.5)

(0.4-0.5)

(0-0.1)

(1.5-1.6)

(2.0-2.1)

(0.9-1.0)

(1.6-1.7)

(2.8-2.9)

Phenanthrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Pyrene

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.6

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

0.7

<0.5

-

Sum of PAH

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

20

80

20

100

400

0.6

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

2

<0.5

-

TPH C6 - C9

mg/kg

10

65

-

-

-

100

650

2,600

<10

<10

-

<10

<10

<10

<10

-

TPH C10 - C14

mg/kg

50

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<50

<50

-

<50

<50

<50

<50

-

TPH C15 - C28

mg/kg

100

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

170

<100

-

<100

140

270

110

-

TPH C29-C36

mg/kg

100

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

130

<100

-

<100

140

540

280

-

TPH+C10 - C36 (sum)

mg/kg

50

1000

-

-

-

1,000

10,000

40,000

300

<50

-

<50

280

810

390

-

Benzene

mg/kg

0.2

1

-

-

-

1

4

16

<0.2

<0.2

-

<0.2

<0.2

<0.2

<0.2

-

Ethylbenzene

mg/kg

0.5

3.1

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Toluene

mg/kg

0.5

1.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Xylene (m & p)

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Xylene (o)

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<0.5

<0.5

-

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

-

Aldrin + Dieldrin

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

10

40

-

1.2

4.8

-

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

chlordane

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

50

200

-

4

16

-

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

DDT+DDE+DDD

mg/kg

0.05

-

-

200

800

-

50

50

-

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

Organochlorine pesticides (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

Other organochlorine pesticides (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

-

10

50

-

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

Phenol

mg/kg

0.5

-

-

8500

34000

-

-

-

<0.5

-

-

<1

<0.5

-

-

-

Phenols (halogenated) (sum)

mg/kg

0.03

-

-

-

-

1

10

320

-

-

-

<0.12

-

-

-

-

Phenols (non-halogenated) (sum)

mg/kg

1

-

-

-

-

60

560

2,200

-

-

-

<1

-

-

-

-

Note(s): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

- = not analysed or no guideline available; LOR = laboratory limit of reporting; Italic = result in excess of NSW DECC guidelines; Bold = result in excess of NEPM EIL guidelines; Underlined = result in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines; Shaded = result in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines Orange – in excess of ‘Fill Material’ guidelines; Red = in excess of ‘Catergory C’ guidelines; Blue = in excess of ‘Category B’ guidelines; and Refer to Appendix D for complete transcripts.

210061_ReportV2.doc

T11


TABLE 3

SOIL ASLP RESULTS

Analyte

LOR

Cat C

Arsenic

0.1

Copper

TP1

TP2

(1.51.6)

(3.2-3.3)

0.7

-

0.7

0.1

200

-

Naphthalene

1

-

Acenaphthylene

1

Acenaphthene

TP5 (2-2.1)

TP6

TP7

TP9

TP9B (2.5-2.6)

TP10

(0-0.1)

(2-2.1)

(2-2.1)

-

-

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2.6

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Fluorene

1

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Phenanthrene

1

-

2.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Anthracene

1

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Fluoranthene

1

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Pyrene

1

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Benz(a)anthracene

1

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Chrysene

1

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

1

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

1

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.5

1.0

<0.5

-

-

<0.5

-

<0.5

-

-

Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene

1

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Dibenz(a.h)anthracene

1

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Benzo(g.h.i)perylene

1

-

<1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

TPH C10 - C14

50

-

-

-

<50

-

-

-

<50

-

TPH C15 - C28

100

-

-

-

110

-

-

-

<100

-

TPH C29-C36

50

-

-

-

<50

-

-

-

<50

-

TPH+C10 - C36 (sum)

50

-

-

-

110

-

-

-

<50

-

Benzo(a)pyrene

Note(s): 1. 2. 3. 4.

(1.8-1.9)

- = not analysed or no guideline available; all units in Âľg/L, except As and Cu (reported in mg/L); LOR = laboratory limit of reporting; and Refer to Appendix D for complete transcripts.

210061_ReportV2.doc

T12


TABLE 4

TPH SPECIATION RESULTS

Analyte

Units

LOR

NEPM HIL A

NEPM HIL D

TP6

TP9

TP1

TP5

TP11

(0-0.1)

(2.0-2.1)

(1.5-1.6)

(2.0-2.1)

(1.9-2.0)

Aliphatic C16-C35

mg/kg

100

5,600

22,400

-

16,600

-

3,000

1,000

Aliphatic > C35

mg/kg

100

56,000

224,000

-

9,600

-

1,900

700

Aromatic C16-C35

mg/kg

90

90

360

-

8,590

-

2,160

660

Aromatic > C35

mg/kg

100

-

-

-

7,400

-

2,700

700

Note(s): 1. Bold = in excess of NEPM HIL A guidelines; 2. Shaded in excess of NEPM HIL D guidelines; and 3. Refer to Appendix D for complete transcripts.

TABLE 5

TPH SILICA GEL CLEANUP RESULTS Primary Result

Analyte

Units

LOR

SGC Result

Primary Result

SGC Result

TP3

TP3

TP11

TP11

(1.4-1.5)

(1.4-1.5)

(1.9-2.0)

(1.9-2.0)

TPH C10 - C14

mg/kg

50

<50

<50

70

<50

TPH C15 - C28

mg/kg

100

1,690

1,090

1,760

790

TPH C29-C36

mg/kg

100

3,070

2,070

3,080

1,120

TPH+C10 - C36 (sum)

mg/kg

50

4,760

3,160

4,910

1,910

Note(s): 1. Refer to Appendix D for complete transcripts.

TABLE 6

SUMMARY OF PASS RESULTS

Sample

Net acidity criteria (1-1000 tonnes) Depth Total sulphur - %S (oven-dry)

Acid trail - mol H+ /tonne (oven-dry)

TP3

1

2.0-2.1

0.06

37.46

TP4

2

2.1-2.2

0.13

81.16

TP8

1

2.0-2.1

0.13

81.16

TP10

1

1.8-1.9

0.59

368.33

TP11

1

1.9-2.0

0.73

EPA 665.1 criteria

2

0.1 /0.06

455.73 1

2

1

62 /36

Note(s): 1. 1 criteria derived for medium to heavy clays and silty clays with approximate clay content > 40%; 2. 2 criteria derived for sandy loams to light clays with approximate clay content 5-40%; and 3. bold indicates concentration exceeds adopted EPA 665.1 criteria.

210061_ReportV2.doc

T13


TABLE 7 Sample ID

Units TP3

SUMMARY OF PASS RESULTS CONTINUED Depth

Texture

Interval

Group

Acid^ TAA

Sulfur

TPA

A - SPOS

Buffering B - SCR

m 2.0-2.1

ANC

Ca + Mg

NAA

NAB

LR

SPOS

SCR

NA x 1.02 x 1.5 x BD 3

kg H2SO4/T 3

---

---

---

---

kg CaCO3/m

41.30

4

---

---

---

---

8.87

1.22

-21.58

0

TP4

2.1-2.2

2

<0.10

<0.10

1.22

0.18

26.26

5

TP8

2.0-2.1

3

---

---

---

---

50.00

4

---

---

---

---

TP10

1.8-1.9

3

<0.10

<0.10

8.26

4.68

14.10

5

19.88

8.26

-9.43

0

---

---

---

---

TP11

1.9-2.0

3

---

---

---

---

214.00

4

Note(s): 1. TAA total actual acidity; TPA titratable potential acidity (TSA = TPA-TAA); SCR chromium reducible sulfur; SPOS peroxide oxidisable sulfur; TOS total oxidisable sulfur; ANC acid neutralizing capacity; NA net acidity (sulfur + acid – buffering); OP oxidation potential; LR lime requirement; 2. *includes accounting for fineness factor (FF); ^ if pHKCl <4.5 determine retained acidity (SNAS) and determine NA as sulfur + acid + retained acidity– buffering; and 3. texture groups are: 1. Coarse = sands; 2. Medium = sandy loams/silts to light clays; 3. Fine = medium to heavy clays, silty clays 4. laboratory calculated ANC; and 5. ANC values derived from primary ANC value reported in %CaCO3.

210061_ReportV2.doc

T14


TABLE 8

SOIL SULFIDE HAZARD CLASSES

Risk Hazard Class Texture Group

No risk

Risk

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3

Class 4

‘No-sulfur’

‘Non-reactive’

‘Moderate Risk’

‘High Risk’

Sulfur

NA

Sulfur

1 (Coarse)

1

N/A

>1 (<10)

2 (Medium)

2

N/A

>2 (<20)

3 (Fine)

3

N/A

NA

Sulfur

NA

Sulfur

NA

4

<3

>1

>3

>10

>5

4

<6

>2

>6

>20

>10

4

<9

>3

>9

>30

>15

>3 (<30)

Note(s): 1. all units in kg H2SO4 generated per tonne of soil 2. NA net acidity (sulfur + acid – buffering capacity) 3. Texture groups are: 1. Coarse: sands; 2. Medium: loams/silts-light clays; 3. Fine: medium to heavy clays, silty clays 4. sulfur levels exceeding the values in brackets require confirmation through incubation tests or weathering trials

210061_ReportV2.doc

T15


APPENDIX A

210061_ReportV2.doc

PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS


APPENDIX B

210061_ReportV2.doc

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG


Plate 1 -

View of the site prior to works. Note the existing soil stockpiles and test pit marker flags

Plate 2 -

Excavation for test pit TP1

210061_Report.doc


Plate 3 -

View of excavated test pit TP1

Plate 4 -

View of perched water infiltration within test pit TP7

210061_Report.doc


Plate 5 -

Hydrocarbon impacted fill material excavated from test pit TP9. Note the presence of oil drums, rags and machine parts

Plate 6 -

Perched water within test pit TP9 with a visible sheen on the surface

210061_Report.doc


Plate 7 -

210061_Report.doc

View of the site following test pit reinstatement


APPENDIX C

210061_ReportV2.doc

GEOLOGICAL BORELOGS


Geological Borelog Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

Fill: Loose, light brown/grey CLAYEY SILT with organic matter

pH - water

Reading

PID/FID

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP1

pH - soil

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Background

LOCATION Gordon Pde Lot SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

No odour throughout M1

Fill: Soft, grey SILTY CLAY with roots

0

0

0

0

Fill: Loose, brown SILTY CLAY with large bluestone and rubble inclusions

1.0

D

8.0

Minor rubbish (paper, glass, timber and steel) inclusions

D

Natural: Medium dense, brown SILTY CLAY with iron oxide staining

2.0

M1

Hole collapsing between 1.5 and 1.9 mBGL

7.5

Becoming very moist

Natural: Saturated, grey/dark brown SILTY CLAY with weathered basalt rock inclusions

W EOH at 2.7 mBGL refusal on basalt

3.0

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


Geological Borelog Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

Fill: Loose, brown CLAYEY SILT with sand and roots

pH - water

Reading

PID/FID

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP2

pH - soil

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Background

LOCATION Gordon Pde Lot SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

No odour

D

Fill: Stiff, weathered, brown CLAY

Fill: Loose, brown SILTY CLAY with rubble and rubbish (glass, paper, steel)

1.0

D

0

0.8

M1

0

1.5 9.0

Natural: Soft, grey/dark blue SILTY CLAY 2.0

Organic odour

0

1.9

0

3.3

Weathered basalt rock inclusions

Becoming saturated in clay lenses

3.0

W

EOH at 3.4 mBGL refusal on basalt

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


Geological Borelog

Fill: Loose, brown SANDY SILT with grass and roots

Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

pH - water

Reading

PID/FID

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP3

pH - soil

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Background

LOCATION Gordon Pde Lot SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

D No odour throughout

Fill: Loose, brow SILTY CLAY with weathered basalt floaters and rubbish (paper, glass bottles, rubber, wood) D

1.0

0

4.5

0

1.4 8.0

Fill: Loose, black, fine grained CLAYEY SILT M2

Becoming moist

2.0

M2

M3

Natural: Dense, grey/dark blue CLAY with minor silt and weathered basalt inclusions

7.5 Point of water strike difficult to measure due to collapse of hole and amount of water

Extremely saturated W

3.0

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


Geological Borelog Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

Fill: Loose, light brown SANDY SILT with grass and roots

pH - water

Reading

PID/FID

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP4

pH - soil

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Background

LOCATION Gordon Pde Lot SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

No odour throughout

Fill: Stiff, brown SILTY CLAY sand, gravel, bluestone and steel inclusions

Becoming loose

Natural: Medium loose, dark grey/black, fine grained SILT

D

0

1.2

BD1 D SP1

0

1.8 7.0

M2

0

0.6 6.0

1.0

2.0

EOH at 2.4 mBGL refusal on basalt

3.0

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


Geological Borelog JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

0

0.6 7.5

M1

0

1.8 8.0

W

0 12.6

HC odour

W

0 20.8

HC odour

M2

0

No odour

pH - water

D

pH - soil

Background

PID/FID

Borehole Log: TP5

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Reading

LOCATION Gordon Pde Lot SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

Fill: Loose, brown SILTY CLAY with grass Fill: Stiff, grey/brown CLAY with bluestone rocks and rubble

Fill: Loose, brown SILTY CLAY with rubbish (plastic, glass, wood and paper) and bluestone and brick rubble

Fill: Soft, saturated, grey/dark grey CLAYEY SILT with dark staining and rubbish (paper, wood) inclusions

No odour

D 1.0

Water strike at approx 1.8 mBGL 2.0

3.0

Natural: Firm, grey/dark blue CLAY with minor silt

6.4

4.0

EOH at 4.5 mBGL target depth NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


Geological Borelog

Fill: Loose, brown CLAYEY SILT with roots

Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

pH - water

Reading

PID/FID

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP6

pH - soil

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Background

LOCATION Gordon Pde Lot SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

D No odour throughout

Fill: Loose, light brown SILTY CLAY with plastic and paper rubbish and concrete and bluestone rubble

Fill: Becoming stiff, weathered CLAY with rubble

D

0

1.2 7.5

D

0

2.8 8.0

W

0

1.7

1.0

Natural: Medium dense, grey CLAY Water strike at 1.9 mBGL

2.0

Weathered basalt floaters

Natural: Weathered BASALT with dense grey clay

W EOH at 2.5 mBGL refusal on basalt

3.0

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


Geological Borelog PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

Reading

pH

Background

PID/FID

Logged by JF

Moisture Content

Fill: Loose, brown CLAYEY SILT with grass and roots

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP7

D

0

0.6

D

0

1.2

D

0

0.1 8.0

pH - water

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

pH - soil

LOCATION Salisbury St - road reserve SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

No odour throughout

Fill: Firm, brown SILTY CLAYwith gravel

Large bluestone and building rubble inclusions

1.0

Large weathered basalt floater inclusions

Plastic, paper and wood rubbish

Natural: Soft, grey CLAY with weathered basalt inclusions

Water strike at 1.9 mBGL 2.0

W

0

1.2 7.5 EOH at 2.2 mBGL refusal on basalt

3.0

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


Geological Borelog Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

pH - water

Reading

PID/FID

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP8

pH - soil

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Background

LOCATION Salisbury St - road reserve SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

Fill: Loose, brown CLAYEY SILT with roots No odour throughout

Fill: Loose, brown SILTY CLAY with bluestone and brick rubble

D

7.5

D

0

1.4 8.0

W

0

2.1

1.0

Fill: Medium loose, dark grey/black SILT with brown, weathered silty clay lenses, minor wood and paper inclusions 2.0

Natural: Dense, grey/blue CLAY with minor silt and weathered basalt inclusions

Water strike at 1.9 mBGL 8.0

W

0

0.8

M2

0

1.1

PASS sample

3.0

EOH at 3.2 mBGL target depth

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


Geological Borelog Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

Fill: Loose, brown CLAYEY SILT with roots and sand

pH - water

Reading

PID/FID

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP9

pH - soil

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Background

LOCATION Salisbury St - road reserve SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

No odour

Fill: Stiff, brown and grey CLAY with roots

D

Fill: Loose, black, fine grained SILT

Fill: Loose, brown SILTY CLAY with bricks, bluestone rubble and minor rubbish (paper and glass)

7.0

D

0

0.6 8.0

W

0 25.4

1.0

Oily rag, foam, rubber and drum parts within silty clay

Fill: Soft, grey/black silty clay with oil staining and weathered basalt floaters 2.0

Very strong HC/oil odour

Water strike at approx 1.9 mBGL PASS sample Lithology hard to distinguish due to hole collapse and water presence

Natural: Dense, grey/blue CLAY with minor silt M2

No odour EOH at 2.6 mBGL at target depth

3.0

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


Geological Borelog

Fill: Loose, dark brown CLAYEY SILT with roots and sand

Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

D

pH - water

Reading

PID/FID

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP10

pH - soil

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Background

LOCATION Salisbury St Lot SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

No odour

Fill: Medium dense, brown, weathered CLAY

Fill: Loose, dark brown SILTY CLAY with brick and bluestone rubble and rubbish (plastic, paper and glass)

D

0

0

8.0

1.0

D

M1

Fill: Soft, black SILTY CLAY with organic material (reeds)

2.0

PASS sample

BD2 W SP2

0

0.8 7.5

M2

0

1.2

Minor organic odour

Natural: Firm, grey/blue CLAY with minor silt

3.0

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.

EOH at 3.0 mBGL target depth


Geological Borelog

Fill: Loose, brown SILTY CLAY with grass and roots

Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

D

pH - water

Reading

PID/FID

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP11

pH - soil

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Background

LOCATION Salisbury St Lot SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

No odour

Fill: Stiff, brown SILTY CLAY with bluestone and concrete rubble

Becoming loose

D

0

0.8 7.5

1.0

M1

Fill: Soft, dark grey SILTY CLAY with dark staining

W

0 10.2

HC odour

2.0

8.0

Water strike at approx 1.9 mBGL PASS sample Difficult to distinguish lithology at depth due to hole collapse and saturation

Natural: Dense, grey/green CLAY

3.0

EOH at 3.2 mBGL hole collapse

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


Geological Borelog Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

Fill: Loose, light brown SILTY CLAY with rubbish (plastic, glass) and concrete rubble with steel wire

Shell inclusions

pH - water

Reading

PID/FID

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP12

pH - soil

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Background

LOCATION Salisbury St Lot SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

No odour

D

0

0.1 7.5

D

0

0.8

W

0

9.2 8.0

Slight HC odour

BD3 M2 SP3

0

1.2 8.5

No odour

1.0

Fill: Medium dense, brown and orange weathered basaltic CLAY

Fill: Soft, grey and brown SILTY CLAY with weathered basalt floaters and glass and wood inclusions 2.0

Natural: Medium dense, grey CLAY with minor silt

PASS sample

Weathered basalt inclusions 3.0

EOH at 3.1 mBGL target depth

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


Geological Borelog Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

pH - water

Reading

PID/FID

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP13

pH - soil

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Background

LOCATION Salisbury St Lot SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

Fill: Loose, brown CLAYEY SILT with roots No odour throughout Fill: Stiff, brown SILTY CLAY with minor concrete and bluestone rubble D

8.0

Becoming loose

1.0

0

Fill: Soft SILTY CLAY with weathered basalt floaters

Natural: Medium dense, grey/blue CLAY

1.2 8.5

W

2.0

M2

Water strike at approx 1.8 mBGL

0

0.9

EOH at 2.4 mBGL refusal on basalt

3.0

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


Geological Borelog Logged by JF

PROJECT: Fastnet

Proj. Manager JF

pH

pH - water

Reading

PID/FID

Moisture Content

Duplicate

Lost

Undisturbed

Disturbed

Depth metres

STRATIGRAPHY

GRAPHIC LOG

SAMPLES

Borehole Log: TP14

pH - soil

JOB NUMBER 210061 DATUM DATE 9 August 2010

Background

LOCATION Salisbury St Lot SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER NGWE DRILL METHOD TP

Odour

Comments

Fill: Loose, brown SANDY SILT with grass roots D

Fill: Stiff, brown CLAY with weathered basalt floaters and roots

No odour throughout

Garbage (plastic, glass, wood etc) in a loose, brown clay matrix

D

0

0.6 7.5

1.0

M2

Fill: Medium dense, brown/grey CLAY with minor gravel

Water strike at approx 1.8 mBGL

Natural: Medium dense, grey/green/blue CLAY with minor silt

2.0

W

0

1.2 7.5

Weathered basalt inclusions EOH at 2.9 mBGL refusal on basalt 3.0

NOTE: This bore log is for environmental purposes only and is not intended to provide geotechnical information.


APPENDIX D

210061_ReportV2.doc

LABORATORY TRANSCRIPTS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS


EM1008731 False

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS :

Page

: 1 of 78

Amendment

EM1008731 :1

Client

: ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES

Laboratory

: Environmental Division Melbourne

Contact

: MR JORDAN FRASER

Contact

: Steven McGrath

Address

: P.O.BOX 2253

Address

: 4 Westall Rd Springvale VIC Australia 3171

Work Order

FOOTSCRAY VIC, AUSTRALIA 3011 E-mail

: jfraser@eesi.biz

E-mail

: steven.mcgrath@alsenviro.com

Telephone

: +61 03 96871666

Telephone

: +61-3-8549 9600

Facsimile

: +61 03 96871844

Facsimile

: +61-3-8549 9601

Project

: 210061

QC Level

: NEPM 1999 Schedule B(3) and ALS QCS3 requirement

Order number

: ----

C-O-C number

: ----

Date Samples Received

: 11-AUG-2010

Sampler

: JF

Issue Date

: 27-AUG-2010

Site

: YARRAVILLE

Quote number

: EN/010/10

No. of samples received

: 71

No. of samples analysed

: 63

This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. All pages of this report have been checked and approved for release. This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information: l General Comments l Analytical Results l Surrogate Control Limits


NATA Accredited Laboratory 825 This document is issued in accordance with NATA accreditation requirements. Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025.

Signatories This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories indicated below. Electronic signing has been carried out in compliance with procedures specified in 21 CFR Part 11. Signatories

Position

Accreditation Category

Emily Yuen Myles.Clark Myles.Clark Nancy Wang Nikki Stepniewski Stephen Hislop Stephen Hislop Xingbin Lin

Senior Organic Instrument Chemist Acid Sulfate Soils Supervisor Acid Sulfate Soils Supervisor Senior Semivolatile Instrument Chemist Non-metallic Supervisor Senior Inorganic Chemist Senior Inorganic Chemist Senior Organic Chemist

Organics Bne Acid Sulphate Soils Inorganics Organics Inorganics Inorganics Stafford Minerals - AY Organics

Environmental Division Melbourne 4 Westall Rd Springvale VIC Australia 3171 Tel. +61-3-8549 9600 Fax. +61-3-8549 9601 www.alsglobal.com


Page Work Order Client Project

: : : :

3 of 78 EM1008731 Amendment 1 ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES 210061

General Comments The analytical procedures used by the Environmental Division have been developed from established internationally recognized procedures such as those published by the USEPA, developed procedures are employed in the absence of documented standards or by client request. Where moisture determination has been performed, results are reported on a dry weight basis. Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insuffient sample for analysis. Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference. When date(s) and/or time(s) are shown bracketed, these have been assumed by the laboratory for processing purposes. If the sampling time is displayed as 0:00 the information was not provided by client. Key :

CAS Number = CAS registry number from database maintained by Chemical Abstracts Services. The Chemical Abstracts Service is a division of the American Chemical Society. LOR = Limit of reporting ^ = This result is computed from individual analyte detections at or above the level of reporting

l

'Am'

Amosite (brown asbestos)

l

'Ch'

Chrysotile (white asbestos)

l

'Cr'

Crocidolite (blue asbestos)

l

Legend for Asbestos Type:

l

't' Trace levels

l

'UMF' Unknown mineral fibres

l

ANC Fizz Rating: 0- None; 1- Slight; 2- Moderate; 3- Strong; 4- Very Strong.

l

Asbestos analysis was subcontracted to ASET.

l

Asbestos Identification: Samples were analysed by Polarised Light Microscopy including dispersion staining.

l

Confirmation by alternative techniques is recommended for samples where unknown mineral fibres are detected.

l

EG048: EM1008731 #8 matrix spike failed for Total Hexavalent Chromium by Alkaline Digestion due to possible sample matrix interference. This has been confirmed by re-digestion and

l

re-analysis. EP066-EM/075-EM: Particular samples required dilution prior to analysis due to matrix interferences (dark colour). LOR values have been adjusted accordingly.

l

EP071: EM1008731_24 LOR for particular sample raised due to high moisture content.

l

EP071: Poor matrix spike recovery due to high level contaminants present in sample EM1008731-069.

l

EP074-UT: particular sample ( EM-1008731-020) shows poor surrogates recovery due to matrix interferrence. Confirmed by re-analysis.

l

EP074-UT: Particular sample ( EM-1008731-068) shows minor hit of 1,4 dichlorobenzene & 1,2 dichloro benzene. Confirmed by re-analysis.

l

EP074-UT: particular smaple ( EM-1008731-MB,003,008,013,020,031,041,052,061,068), LOR has been raised for DCM due to laboratory background level.

l

EP075(SIM): EM1008731-042 required dilution prior to analysis due to matrix interferences (internal standard responses could not be determined from neat). LOR values have been

l

adjusted accordingly. EP075(SIM): LOR for particular sample EM1008371-024 raised due to high moisture content.

l

EP075(SIM): Sample EM1008731-018 shows poor surrogate recoveries. Confirmed by re-extraction and re-analysis.

l

EP075(SIM): Sample EM1008731-025 shows poor duplicate results due to sample heterogeneity. Confirmed by re-extraction and re-analysis.

l

EP075-EM: Poor recovery for some surrogates due to dilution required to analyse the sample.

l

EP080/075(SIM): Sample EM1008731-040 shows poor surrogate recoveries due to the nature of the sample (charcoal). Confirmed by re-extraction and re-analysis.

l

EP080: Poor surrogate recoveries for sample EM1008783-053 due to high moisture content.

l

Liming rate is calculated and reported on a dry weight basis assuming use of fine agricultural lime (CaCO3) and using a safety factor of 1.5 to allow for non-homogeneous mixing and

l

poor reactivity of lime. For conversion of Liming Rate from 'kg/t dry weight' to 'kg/m3 in-situ soil', multiply 'reported results' x 'wet bulk density of soil in t/m3'. NAGP, Chromium Suite, SPOCAS and CEC conducted by ALS Brisbane, NATA Site No. 818.

l

Retained Acidity not required because pH KCl greater than or equal to 4.5

APHA, AS and NEPM. In house


Page Work Order Client Project

l

: : : :

4 of 78 EM1008731 Amendment 1 ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES 210061

This report has been amended as a result of a request to correct sample identification numbers (IDs) received by ALS from Jordan Fraser on 27/08/10. All analysis results are as per the previous report.


Page Work Order Client Project

: : : :

5 of 78 EM1008731 Amendment 1 ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES 210061

Analytical Results Client sample ID

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

Client sampling date / time Compound

CAS Number

TP1 (0.4-0.5)

TP1 (1.0-1.1)

TP1 (1.5-1.6)

TP1 (2.0-2.1)

TP2 (0.4-0.5)

09-AUG-2010 15:00

09-AUG-2010 15:00

09-AUG-2010 15:00

09-AUG-2010 15:00

09-AUG-2010 15:00

LOR

Unit

EM1008731-001

EM1008731-002

EM1008731-003

EM1008731-004

EM1008731-005

1.0

%

20.7

26.7

15.1

22.8

12.5

EA055: Moisture Content ----

^ Moisture Content (dried @ 103째C)

EG005T: Total Metals by ICP-AES Arsenic

7440-38-2

5

mg/kg

----

----

----

7440-43-9

1

mg/kg

----

----

37 <1

----

Cadmium

----

----

Copper

7440-50-8

5

mg/kg

----

----

23

----

----

Lead

7439-92-1

5

mg/kg

----

----

60

----

----

Molybdenum

7439-98-7

2

mg/kg

----

----

<2

----

----

Nickel

7440-02-0

2

mg/kg

----

----

39

----

----

Selenium

7782-49-2

5

mg/kg

----

----

<5

----

----

Silver

7440-22-4

2

mg/kg

----

----

<2

----

----

Tin

7440-31-5

5

mg/kg

----

----

<5

----

----

Zinc

7440-66-6

5

mg/kg

----

----

133

----

----

Arsenic

7440-38-2

5

mg/kg

113

<5

----

30

Cadmium

7440-43-9

1

mg/kg

2

<1

----

<1

42 <1

Chromium

7440-47-3

2

mg/kg

59

31

----

28

29

Copper

7440-50-8

5

mg/kg

265

7

----

15

728

Lead

7439-92-1

5

mg/kg

191

14

----

32

155

Nickel

7440-02-0

2

mg/kg

76

17

----

27

141

Zinc

7440-66-6

5

mg/kg

496

52

----

93

127

7439-97-6

0.1

mg/kg

0.5

<0.1

0.1

<0.1

0.1

0.5

mg/kg

----

----

<0.5

----

----

57-12-5

1

mg/kg

----

----

<1

----

----

16984-48-8

40

mg/kg

----

----

80

----

----

----

0.10

mg/kg

----

----

<5.00

----

----

Benzene

71-43-2

0.2

mg/kg

----

----

<0.2

----

----

Toluene

108-88-3

0.5

mg/kg

----

----

<0.5

----

----

Ethylbenzene

100-41-4

0.5

mg/kg

----

----

<0.5

----

----

108-38-3 106-42-3

0.5

mg/kg

----

----

<0.5

----

----

100-42-5

0.5

mg/kg

----

----

<0.5

----

----

95-47-6

0.5

mg/kg

----

----

<0.5

----

----

EG035T: Total Recoverable Mercury by FIMS Mercury

EG048: Hexavalent Chromium (Alkaline Digest) Hexavalent Chromium

18540-29-9

EK026G: Total Cyanide By Discrete Analyser Total Cyanide

EK040T: Fluoride Total Fluoride

EP066: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Total Polychlorinated biphenyls

EP074A: Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

meta- & para-Xylene Styrene ortho-Xylene


Page Work Order Client Project

: : : :

6 of 78 EM1008731 Amendment 1 ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES 210061

Analytical Results Client sample ID

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

Client sampling date / time

TP1 (0.4-0.5)

TP1 (1.0-1.1)

TP1 (1.5-1.6)

TP1 (2.0-2.1)

TP2 (0.4-0.5)

09-AUG-2010 15:00

09-AUG-2010 15:00

09-AUG-2010 15:00

09-AUG-2010 15:00

09-AUG-2010 15:00

LOR

Unit

EM1008731-001

EM1008731-002

EM1008731-003

EM1008731-004

EM1008731-005

----

0.2

mg/kg

----

----

<0.2

----

----

----

0.2

mg/kg

----

----

<0.2

----

----

Vinyl chloride

75-01-4

0.02

mg/kg

----

----

<0.02

----

----

1.1-Dichloroethene

75-35-4

0.01

mg/kg

----

----

<0.01

----

----

Methylene chloride

75-09-2

0.4

mg/kg

----

----

<0.6

----

----

trans-1.2-Dichloroethene

156-60-5

0.02

mg/kg

----

----

<0.02

----

----

cis-1.2-Dichloroethene

156-59-2

0.01

mg/kg

----

----

<0.01

----

----

Chloroform

67-66-3

0.02

mg/kg

----

----

<0.02

----

----

1.1.1-Trichloroethane

71-55-6

0.01

mg/kg

----

----

<0.01

----

----

Carbon Tetrachloride

56-23-5

0.01

mg/kg

----

----

<0.01

----

----

107-06-2

0.02

mg/kg

----

----

<0.02

----

----

Trichloroethene

79-01-6

0.02

mg/kg

----

----

<0.02

----

----

1.1.2-Trichloroethane

79-00-5

0.04

mg/kg

----

----

<0.04

----

----

Tetrachloroethene

127-18-4

0.02

mg/kg

----

----

<0.02

----

----

1.1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane

630-20-6

0.01

mg/kg

----

----

<0.01

----

----

1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane

79-34-5

0.02

mg/kg

----

----

<0.02

----

----

Hexachlorobutadiene

87-68-3

0.02

mg/kg

----

----

<0.02

----

----

Chlorobenzene

108-90-7

0.02

mg/kg

----

----

<0.02

----

----

1.4-Dichlorobenzene

106-46-7

0.02

mg/kg

----

----

<0.02

----

----

1.2-Dichlorobenzene

95-50-1

0.02

mg/kg

----

----

<0.02

----

----

120-82-1

0.01

mg/kg

----

----

<0.01

----

----

----

0.01

mg/kg

----

----

<0.01

----

----

----

0.01

mg/kg

----

----

<0.01

----

----

----

0.01

mg/kg

----

----

<0.01

----

----

----

0.01

mg/kg

----

----

<0.01

----

----

1330-20-7

0.50

mg/kg

----

----

<0.50

----

----

Compound

CAS Number

EP074A: Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Continued ^ Sum of monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ^ Sum of monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

EP074I: Volatile Halogenated Compounds

1.2-Dichloroethane

1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene ^ Sum of volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons ^ Sum of other chlorinated hydrocarbons (VIC EPA 448.3) ^ Sum of volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons ^ Sum of other chlorinated hydrocarbons (VIC EPA 448.3) ^ Total Xylenes

EP075(SIM)B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 91-20-3

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

208-96-8

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

Acenaphthene

83-32-9

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

Fluorene

86-73-7

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

Naphthalene Acenaphthylene


Page Work Order Client Project

: : : :

7 of 78 EM1008731 Amendment 1 ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES 210061

Analytical Results Client sample ID

Sub-Matrix: SOIL

TP1 (0.4-0.5)

TP1 (1.0-1.1)

TP1 (1.5-1.6)

TP1 (2.0-2.1)

TP2 (0.4-0.5)

09-AUG-2010 15:00

09-AUG-2010 15:00

09-AUG-2010 15:00

09-AUG-2010 15:00

09-AUG-2010 15:00

Unit

EM1008731-001

EM1008731-002

EM1008731-003

EM1008731-004

EM1008731-005

Client sampling date / time Compound

CAS Number

LOR

EP075(SIM)B: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Continued 85-01-8

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

Anthracene

120-12-7

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

Fluoranthene

206-44-0

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

Pyrene

129-00-0

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

56-55-3

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

Chrysene

218-01-9

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

205-99-2

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

207-08-9

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

50-32-8

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene

193-39-5

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

Dibenz(a.h)anthracene

53-70-3

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

191-24-2

0.5

mg/kg

----

<0.5

----

----

----

Phenanthrene

Benz(a)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(g.h.i)perylene

EP075A: Phenolic Compounds (Halogenated) 95-57-8

0.03

mg/kg

----

----

<0.61

----

----

2.4-Dichlorophenol

120-83-2

0.03

mg/kg

----

----

<0.61

----

----

2.6-Dichlorophenol

87-65-0

0.03

mg/kg

----

----

<0.61

----

----

4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol

59-50-7

0.03

mg/kg

----

----

<0.61

----

----

2.4.5-Trichlorophenol

95-95-4

0.05

mg/kg

----

----

<0.61

----

----

2.4.6-Trichlorophenol

88-06-2

0.05

mg/kg

----

----

<0.61

----

----

935-95-5

0.03

mg/kg

----

----

<0.61

----

----

4901-51-3/58-90-2

0.05

mg/kg

----

----

<1.22

----

----

87-86-5

0.2

mg/kg