INFORMATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS
August 2007
VICTORIA'S AUDIT SYSTEM AUDIT REPORT CURRENCY
An environmental audit system has operated in Audit reports are based on the conditions encountered Victoria since 1989. The Environmenf Profecfion Acf and information reviewed at the time of preparation 1970 (the Act) provides for the appointment by the and do not represent any changes that may have Environment Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) of occurred since the date of completion. As it is not environmental auditors and the conduct of possible for an audit to present all data that could be independent, high quality and rigorous environmental of interest to all readers, consideration should be audits. made to any appendices or referenced documentation An environmental audit is an assessment of the for further information. condition of the environment, or the nature and extent When information regarding the condition of a site of harm (or risk of harm) posed by an industrial changes from that at the time an audit report is process or activity, waste, substance or noise. issued, or where an administrative or computation Environmental audit reports are prepared by EPA- error is identified, environmental audit reports, appointed environmental auditors who are highly certificates and statements may be withdrawn or qualified and skilled individuals. amended by an environmental auditor. Users are Under the Act, the function of an environmental advised to check EPA's website to ensure the currency auditor is to conduct environmental audits and of the audit document. prepare environmental audit reports. Where an environmental audit is conducted to determine the PDF SEARCHABILITY AND PRINTING condition of a site or its suitability for certain uses, an environmental auditor may issue either a certificate or EPA Victoria can only certify the accuracy and statement of environmental audit. correctness of the audit report and appendices as presented in the hardcopy format. EPA is not A certificate indicates that the auditor is of the opinion responsible for any issues that arise due to problems that the site is suitable for any beneficial use defined with PDF files or printing. in the Act, whilst a statement indicates that there is some restriction on the use of the site. Except where PDF normal format is specified, PDF files are scanned and optical character recognised by Any individual or organisation may engage appointed machine only. Accordingly, while the images are environmental auditors, who generally operate within consistent with the scanned original, the searchable the environmental consulting sector, to undertake hidden text may contain uncorrected recognition environmental audits. The EPA administers the errors that can reduce search reliability. Therefore, environmental audit system and ensures its ongoing keyword searches undertaken within the document integrity by assessing auditor applications and may not retrieve all references to the queried text. ensuring audits are independent and conducted with regard to guidelines issued by EPA. This PDF has been created using the Adobe-approved method for generating Print Optimised Output. To assure proper results, proofs must be printed, rather AUDIT FILES STRUCTURE than viewed on the screen. Environmental audit reports are stored digitally by This PDF is compatible with Adobe Acrobat Reader EPA in three parts: the audit report (part A), report Version 4.0 or any later version which is downloadable appendices (part B) and, where applicable, the free from Adobe's Website, www.adobe.com. certificate or statement of environmental audit and an executive summary (part C). A report may be in colour FURTHER I N FORMATION and black-and-white formats. Generally, only black- and-white documents are text searchable. For more information on Victoria's environmental Report executive summaries, findings and audit system, visit EPA's website or contact EPA's recommendations should be read and relied upon only Environmental Audit Unit. in the context of the document as a whole, including Web: www.epa.vic.clov.au/envaudit any appendices and, where applicable, any certificate Email: [email protected] or statement of environmental audit.
1 of 235 Appendix A Extracts of Reports Reviewed
361 94-2-8
Document Number: 9809 Lo1 1,323-325 Yan Yean Rcad. Yarrambal Wc Job Number: 311\87980200 EnvironmentalAudit Report Author: KM\mg 2 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrarnbat\aud &bGeoPollution Management
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT
LOT 1,323-325 YAN YEAN ROAD, YARRAMBAT
PREPAREDFOR
Mr & Mrs J.K. & E. TRELOAR
GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd 8 June 2000 3 of 235 EA 1079\Treloar\Yarrarnbat\aud 0GeoPollutlon Management
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
STATUTORY ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
LOT 1,323-325 YAN YEAN ROAD, YARRAMBAT
,
PREPARED FOR
Mr. & Mrs. J.K. & E. TRELOAR
GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd File No.: EA1079 8* June 2000 Doc. Ref: EA 1079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud
4 of 235 1 ~ EAI079\Treloar\Yarrmbat\aud &mGeoPollution Management
This comprehensive site assessment report has been prepared by GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd for Mr & Mrs J.K. and E. Treloar. This site assessment report satisfies the requirements for a Statutory Environmental Audit of the subject property. The report was provided to the EPA approved Environmental Auditor, Mr Jonathan Crockett of Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd, for consideration of a request for a Certificate of Environmental Audit. Mr Jonathan Crockett was appointed as Auditor for the site by the aforementioned clients.
This document has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the clients Mr & Mrs J.K. & E. Treloar. This report is confidential and, beyond its mandatory distribution to the Auditor, EPA and Council shall not to be reproduced unless in full and with permission of the clients.
Distribution Record:
Type Number Location Contact NameRef.
Original 1 GHD Group Jonathan Crockett Photocopy 1 GHD Group Jonathan Crockett Photocopy 1 J.K. & E.Treloar Mrs E. Treloar Photocopv 1 GeoPollution Management Project File EA1079
5 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollution Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... vii
.1 . BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1.1 .1 0bjectives ...... 1 1.1.2 Scope of the Investigation ...... 2 1.1.3 Soil Assessment Criteria ...... 2
1.2 SITE DETAILS ...... 5 1.2.1 Site Identification...... 5 1.2.2 General Site Description and Physical Setting ...... 5 1.2.3 Zoning and Proposed Development ...... 8 1.2.4 Previous Site Assessment Reports ...... 8 1.2.4.1 Work conducted by SKM ...... 8 1.2.4.2Work conducted by Golder Associates ...... 8
1.3 SITE HISTORY AND POTENTIAL FOR CONTAMINATION ...... 9
11.1 FIELD METHODS ...... 12 11.1.1 Drilling of Boreholes and Soil Sampling ...... 12 11.1.2 Field Screen for Volatile Organic Compounds (Soil Gas Survey) ...... 13
11.2 QUALITY ASSURANCElQUALlTY CONTROL ...... 14 11.2.1 Field Sampling ...... 14 11.2.2 Laboratories ...... 14 11.2.3 Reporting Limits ...... 15 11.2.4 Sample Documentation and Dispatch ...... 16
11.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SCHEDULES ...... 17
11.3.1 Initial Analysis ...... ;...... 18 11.3.2 Further Analysis...... :...... 23
... 111 6 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Y~rambat\aud &mGeoPollution Managerna
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
11.4 SOIL PROFILES ...... 24 11.4.1 Regional Geology ...... 24 11.4.2 Site Lithology ...... 24 11.4.3 Regional Hydrogeology ...... 25 11.4.4 Field Contamination Assessment ...... 26 11.4.4.1 Visual and Olfactory Observations ...... 26 11.4.4.2 Vapour Survey ...... 26
11.5 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS ...... 27 11.5.1 Initial Analysis ...... 27 11.5.2 Further Analysis ...... 36
11.6 DATA QUALITY EVALUATION ...... 39 11.6.1 Split Duplicate Pairs ...... 40 11.6.2 Blind Duplicate Pairs ...... 42 11.6.3 Further Work ...... 43 11.6.3.1 Sample Exchange ...... 43 11.6.3.2 Exchange of Extracts ...... 44 11.6.3 Summary Evaluation ...... 51
-111 . GRO U N D WATE R...... 53 111.1 Introduction ...... 53 111.2 Summary and Discussion of Data...... 53 111.3 Groundwater Assessment Criteria ...... 54
-IV . CONCLUSIONS ...... 56 IV. 1 History Search and Field Observations ...... 56 IV.2 Chemical Analysis Results .Soil ...... 57 IV.3 Gro un dwa te r Assessment ...... 59 IV.4 Summary ...... :...... 60 .V . RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 61
7 of 235 iv &mGeoPollution Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
LIMITATIONS OF THIS INVESTIGATION...... 63
REFERENCES ...... 63
TABLES
TABLE 1: Soil Quality Guideline Criteria TABLE 2: Reporting Limits TABLE 3a: Summary of Chemical Analyses Performed - Initial Analysis TABLE 3b: Compositing and Analysis Schedule - Initial Analysis TABLE 4a: Summary of Chemical Analyses Performed - Further Analysis TABLE 4b: Analysis Schedule - Further Analysis TABLE 5: Typical Shallow Soil Profile TABLE 6a: Summary of Analysis Results (Composite Grid Samples) - Heavy Metals and Organochlorine Pesticides TABLE 6b: Summary of Analysis Results (Individual Samples of Comp 4) - Heavy Metals TABLE 7: Summary of Analysis Results (Individual Grid and Target Samples) - TPH, BTEX and Lead TABLE 8: Summary of Analysis Results (Composite Samples) - Heavy Metals, PAH, OP Pesticides, PCB, Phenols and Cyanide TABLE 9: Summary of Analysis Results (Individual Target Samples) - EPA Screen (except TPH and volatiles) TABLE 10: Summary of Analysis Results (Individual Target Samples) - Arsenic and Mercury TABLE 11: Summary of Further Analysis Results (Individuals of Comp 1 and further Target Samples) - Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead and Zinc TABLE 12: Elutriation Test Results (TCLP) TABLE 13: List of Split and Blind Duplicate Pairs TABLE 14: QNQC Split Duplicate Results and Evaluation TABLE 15: QNQC Blind Duplicate Results and Evaluation TABLE 16a: QNQC Split Duplicate Results and Evaluation - Sample Exchange, Sample T9-270 1- 1/-Dup TABLE 16b: QNQC Split Duplicate Results and Evaluation - Sample Exchange, Sample T 14-2701 - 1/-Dup TABLE 17a: QNQC Split Duplicate Results and Evaluation - Comparison Standard versus Slurry Preparation TABLE 17b: QNQC Split Duplicate Results and Evaluation - Slurry Preparation of T9-2701- 1/-1Dup TABLE 18a: QNQC Split Duplicate Results and Evaluation - Slurry Exchange - T9-2701-1/-1Dup TABLE 18b: QNQC Split Duplicate Results and Evaluation - Slurry Exchange - T14-2701-1/-1 Dup TABLE 19: QNQC Split Duplicate Results and Evaluation - Slurry Split - T9-270 1- 1 & T14-270 1- 1 TABLE 20: QNQC Split Duplicate Results and Evaluation - Extraction without Stone Removal TABLE 21: QNQC Split Duplicate Results and Evaluation - MGT Standard Extract Split TABLE 22: QNQC Split Duplicate Results and Evaluation - Further Sample Splits (Previously Low Results) TABLE 23: 95% UCL Average and Peak Concentrations of Potential Contaminants
V 8 of 235 ~ ~~~
EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollution Manageme
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Site Locality and Test Point Location Plans Figure 1: Site Layout &Location of Sampling Points (Grid Locations) Figure 2a: Composite Sample Plan (Grid Locations) Figure 2b: EPA Screen Composite Plan (Grid Locations) Figure 3: Location Plan - Target Locations (Grey’s Reef Mine & Vehicle Dump Areas) Appendix B: Certificate of Title Appendix C: Site Historical Information - Aerial Photographs Appendix D: Work Plan for Site Assessment Appendix E: Bore Logs Appendix F: Chain of Custody Documentation Appendix G. 1:Final (NATA Endorsed) Chemical Analysis Reports - Primary Laboratory Appendix G.2: Final (NATA Endorsed) Chemical Analysis Reports - Secondary Laboratory Appendix H Groundwater Data
PLATES
Plate 1: View (looking west) at the general site surface. The line of trees in the backgrounc indicates the former Grey’s Reef mining area (24/1/00).
Plate 2: View (looking west) at the aboveground tank (24/1/00). Target location T22 (indicatec by the wooden peg with pink flagging tape) can be seen at the base of the tank.
Plate 3: View (looking south) of the dry infilled creek bed. Rubbish and debris can be seen in tht foreground, (14/1/00).
Plate 4: View (looking northwest) at a pile of timber and debris used to fill a possible prospectin! pit or mineshaft. Target location T3 (indicated by the wooden peg with yellow flaggin! tape) can be seen on the left of the rubbish pile (14/1/00).
9 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrarnbat\aud &#) GeoPollutlon Management
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd have completed a detailed soil contamination survey of the property located at Lot 1, 323 - 325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat, (the site), with the aim to provide a comprehensive assessment report for Audit review, in consideration of a request for a Certificate of Environmental Audit.
In this final site assessment report the methods used are described, results summarised and the environmental quality of the site prior to its proposed residential subdivision and development is evaluated.
The site is rectangular in shape and covers an area of 5.538 hectares. At the time of this investigation, the site comprised woodland, pasture land, a former mining area and a small residential area. The residential area, located in the eastern corner of the site, is occupied by a single dwelling, and includes a shed, a lawn area, a storage area and a car port. The former mining area which spans the western portion of the site, is occupied by mullock heaps, infilled shafts and prospecting pits, and stockpiles of fill. This area is the inferred former location of Grey’s Reef gold mine.
A total of forty-eight (48) routine soil samples were collected from twenty-four (24) grid locations across the site. Sampling depth intervals covered natural soil at nominal intervals and surface fill at two locations. Natural soil samples were collected at all locations.
In addition, forty-three (43) routine soil samples were collected from twenty-five (25) target locations. Sampling depth intervals covered fill at nominal intervals and natural soil at one location.
Selected samples of surface natural soil and surface fill material were combined at the laboratory into eight 3-part composites. The composites were analysed for a range of potential contaminants including eight selected heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides and pH.
Two hrther three-part composite samples were combined at the laboratory from the samples representing the surface layer of natural soil. The composites were analysed for a range of potential contaminants including six selected heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, organo-phosphorus pesticides polychlorinated biphenyls, phenolic compounds and cyanide.
One of the natural surface soil samples was analysed individually for eight selected heavy metals.
Two surface natural soil samples were analysed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and the mono-aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene and xylene (BTEX).
Two surface fill samples were analysed individually for TPH and lead. One of these samples was also analysed for BTEX. One deeper fill sample was analysed individually for TPH, BTEX and Lead.
10 of 235vii EA I079\Trcloar\Yarrambat\aud (,n GeoPollution Manageme
One surface fill sample and one deeper fill sample were analysed individually for the EPA screen except TPH and volatiles, i.e. heavy metals (As, Bay Be, Cd, CoyCr, Cu, Hg, Mo, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Zn) PAH, OC Pesticides, PCB, Phenolics and Cyanide.
A further twenty-four surface fill samples were analysed individually for arsenic, ten of which were also analysed for mercury. Fourteen deeper fill (target) samples were analysed individually for arsenic, four of which were also analysed for mercury.
Based on elevated metal concentrations, one composite sample was subsequently analysed individually for zinc and three fill samples were subsequently analysed for total concentration and leachability of arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc.
ANZECC B/DUTCH B limits and ANZECC Health Investigation Limits (ANZECC & NHMRC, 1992) were adopted for evaluation of analysis results. Results were also compared with EPAV Fill and EPAV Low Level Fill Material Limits (EPA Bulletin 448, “Classification of Wastes”, 1995) for consideration with regards to any off-site disposal of any soil which may be excavated during the site preparation works for the proposed residential development. For final data evaluation, concentrations are also compared with health risk-based investigation levels for “Standard Residential Settings” (exposure scenarios), ie. NEHF Level “A” criteria (Imray and Langley 1996).
For quality control purposes, eight sets of field duplicate soil samples were collected, including four split duplicates sent to a second laboratory, and four blind duplicates sent to the primary laboratory. One blind and one split duplicate samples were analysed individually for 8 heavy metals. The remaining samples were analysed for arsenic only. As a result of elevated “Relative Percent Difference (RPD)” primarily associated with arsenic, follow up work was undertaken which included inter-laboratory sample exchange and an examination of laboratory techniques.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Site History
The site history search revealed that during the nineteenth century and in the early years oj the twentieth century Grey’s Reef Gold Mine operated in the west of the site. By 1901 a battery plant was also present. The battery plant was used for crushing quartz rock ore Historical evidence suggests that on site treatment of ore (gold processing) may also have occurred. This process involved the release of toxic elements such as mercury, cyanide and zinc from the processing materials, and arsenic from the ore itself.
Fill material, associated with the former gold mine, was found in the west of the site, tC depths of 0.15 to 1.O metres (confirmed depths only). The ground beneath the residence are2 had also been infilled to depths of 0.2 to 0.25 metres. The fill material is heterogeneous anc contains a mixture of silt, clay and/or gravel at all test locations. Refusal on coarse materia in the filVsiltstone bedrock occurred at two of the forty-nine test points.
11 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud GeoPollution Management
0 No asbestos, either in the form of sheet fragments or lagging, was observed on the site surface or within fill material.
Soil Analysis Results
The 95% UCL of the arithmetic mean of most analytes detected in natural soil and fill samples from across the site are below the ANZECC B guideline criteria except for arsenic and zinc. Peak concentrations are above the ANZECC B guideline and EPA Fill Limit for the heavy metals arsenic, cadmium, lead, and zinc, and for TPH’s in the range C~Oto C~O. Peak concentrations of arsenic and zinc exceed the EPA Low Level Contaminated Fill Limit. The peak concentrations of arsenic, lead and zinc are also above the NEHF (HIL) Level A for residential exposure settings. The identified contamination is generally associated with fill material.
While peak concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc exceeded the ANZECC B guideline limit, elutriation testing showed that elevated metals have negligible leachability.
Concentrations of heavy metals (apart from arsenic in composite samples), OC and OP Pesticides, PAH, TPH, MAH, PCB and Cyanide in samples of natural soil underlying fill were below ANZECC B criteria or not detectable and therefore are considered to represent natural background levels.
Heavy metals (apart from arsenic and zinc), OC and OP Pesticides, PCB, Phenolic compounds and cyanide in composite samples and heavy metals (apart from arsenic, cadmium, lead, zinc and TPH), OC Pesticides, PCB, Phenolic compounds, cyanide and MAH in individual samples were all reported below laboratory detection limits or well below assessment criteria.
QNQC duplicates showed some RPD’s above acceptable criteria, specifically for arsenic and to a lesser extent, chromium. Overall completeness of the QNQC data is 65%, short of the target value of 95%. Elevated relative percentage difference results are attributed to heterogeneous distributions, apparently associated with particle size, of these heavy metals in the source material and to differences in the laboratories’ sample preparation and extraction techniques. It is considered that a correction factor(s) would need to be applied to the main laboratory’s entire data set, but for arsenic in particular, as the reported concentrations appear to be under-representations of actual concentrations.
pH values in two natural soil composite samples are acidic (5.1) and outside the naturally occurring range, providing evidence of possible infiltration of process liquids from past gold mininglprocessing activities.
Apart from two isolated hotspot areas of arsenic and zinc contamination, fill material would be classified as “Low-Level Contaminated Waste” (a type of Prescribed Waste, Victorian Government, 1998) for the purpose of off-site disposal.
12 of 235 ~~~
EA 1079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud 6 GeoPollution Manageme
Groundwater Assessment
A groundwater data base search and qualitative assessment of potential impact on beneficial uses has shown the following.
Data from a total of four registered wells (all uses), located within a 4 km radius of the site were available from the Victorian Groundwater Data Base. The regional watertable in the vicinity of the subject site is likely to occur at least 5 to 10 metres below the surface.
The direction of groundwater flow beneath the site is considered likely to be south westerly (towards Plenty River).
Groundwater TDS data indicates that existing and potential beneficial uses of groundwater on- and off-site are the maintenance of ecosystems, potable water supply, agriculture, parks and gardens, stock watering, primary contact recreation, and protection of buildings and structures.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the soil data obtained during this comprehensive site assessment suggest that fill material is heterogeneous and contains arsenic above ANZECC B guideline, EPAV Low level Fill and Health Based Soil Investigation limits. Hotspot areas of cadmium, lead, zinc and TPH contamination above the ANZECC B guideline, EPAV Fill andor Health based Soil Investigation Limits, and of zinc contamination above the EPA Low-Level Contaminated Fill limit were also identified.
Hot spot areas of cadmium, lead, zinc and TPH contamination above the ANZECC B guideline some above the EPAV Fill and Health based Soil Investigation Limits and of zinc contaminatior above the EPA Low-Level Contaminated Waste limit were also identified, in particular affecting fill in a dry creek bed at the southern end of the former mining area.
In the absence of any history of underground fuel storage at the site and any significant mobild contamination by heavy metals or other soil contaminants at the site, and given the depth tc groundwater and the likely low permeability of the natural soils and bedrock beneath the fill, it ir considered that any adverse impact on beneficial uses of groundwater on- and off-site as a resul of soil contamination at the site is unlikely.
RECOMMENDA TlONS
The results obtained in this comprehensive assessment imply that, unless clean up is undertake] . to bring the entire site in compliance with ANZECC B guideline levels, the site is not considerec eligible for a Certificate of Environmental Audit but will receive a conditional Statement.
In consideration of the above, we recommend the following:
1) Removal of dumped debris, and of contaminated fill within the dry creek bed; mullock heap in the former mine area remain.
13 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollution Management 3
A conditional Statement of Environmental Audit would be issued which would state that part of the site is contaminated with arsenic of natural origin and therefore is not suitable for any or all beneficial uses but would be suitable for sensitive uses in particular residential use subject to management and containment of waste.
2) Removal of all contaminated soil including the mullock heaps and importation of clean soil to provide a cover for the former mine workings of at least 300 mm. The removal would require appropriate validation in accordance with EPA guidelines.
A conditional Statement of Environmental Audit would be issued with conditions applicable to a smaller area.
As individual analytes (cadmium, lead and TPH, arsenic and zinc) in isolated pockets on the site, as identified during this assessment, are above the EPAV Fill Material and/or EPAV Low Level Contaminated Fill limits respectively, the results indicate that fill on the site should be classified as potentially contaminated waste according to EPA Bulletin 448 (1 995) for the purpose of off- site disposal.
Fill will be subject to EPA regulations and requirements and would be classified as per Prescribed Waste Regulations 1998 (refer also to EPA Information Bulletin 626, 1998 and EPA Information Bulletin 395a, 1999) as Prescribed Waste (low- or high-level contaminated). All site fill should be treated as potentially contaminated material, unless analysis of any discrete volumes of fill (at representative frequency) excavated from the site and designated for off-site disposal, indicated otherwise.
si 14 of 235 EA I 079\Treloar\Yarrarnbat\aud &mGeoPollution Management
I. BACKGROUND
1.1. INTRODUCTION
GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd was engaged by Mr & Mrs J.K. & E. Treloar to carry out a comprehensive environmental assessment of the land located at Lot 1, 323 - 325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat, Victoria (“the site”).
The assessment report was prepared in conformance with EPA guidelines for the review of an EPA Auditor following a request for a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the site. The audit was required to satisfy a condition of the Council’s (Nillumbik Shire) planning permit for the residential re-development of the site. This requirement arose as a result of a Ministerial Directive relating to potentially contaminated sites (Ministerial Directive No. 1 under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as amended in May 1992).
This investigation has been completed in accordance with GeoPollution Management proposal No. QM 1079 dated 23rdDecember 1999 with subsequent variations as appropriate. The work was authorised by the client’s written agreement dated 4thJanuary 2000.
The investigation program outlined in this report has been carried out in compliance with the Australian Standard AS 4482. I - 1997 - Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil (1997). EPA and other relevant guideline criteria for the assessment of potential contamination are considered where appropriate.
1.1.1 Objectives
This site assessment program was designed to satisfy the criteria for an environmental audit with the following objectives:
Determine the degree and extent of potential contaminants in near-surface and deeper soils; Determine whether potential contaminants are present at concentrations that would pose an environmental or health risk; Assess potential groundwater impacts in the context of beneficial groundwater uses; Evaluate the final environmental quality of the site prior to re-zoning to low density residential use; To present an assessment report in conformance with EPA guidelines for the purpose of obtaining a Certificate (or Statement) of Environmental Audit.
I 15 of 235 EA IO79\Treloar\Yarrambahud &mGeoPollution Managema
The final site assessment report presents:
a description of the site and other relevant background information a summary of the historical site use methods used the geological and hydrogeological context a summary of all field and laboratory results and evaluation of analysis results according to current soil quality guideline limits an assessment of potential impact of the site on beneficial uses of groundwater quality control data and evaluation conclusions and recommendations.
1.1.2 Scope of the Investigation
The scope of work for this investigation was detailed in the “Sampling and Analysis Program - Final Revision” (19* January 2000), attached as Appendix D to this document. The sampling and analysis program was endorsed by Mr Jonathan Crockett, the EPA Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) appointed for this project.
The program included assessment of shallow soils at regularly spaced grid locations across the site, as well as from target locations addressing specific site features from past mining activities.
Soil samples were initially collected from twenty-four grid locations, less than the minimum number of sampling points for the assessment of a site of this size as specified in AS 4482.1- 1997. The lesser number of sampling points was agreed with the Auditor. This number was acceptable, as data from a previous site assessment were taken into account and the majority of the site was known to be uniform and unaffected by mining activities.
Drilling, inspection and sampling of soil profiles extended through fill material and into natural soil.
A physical groundwater investigation was not required at this site, however, a survey of the Victorian Groundwater Data Base and an assessment of the potential impact of the site on the beneficial uses of groundwater have been carried out.
1.1.3 Soil Assessment Criteria
The decision as to whether a site is suitable for the land use proposed or whether site clean up is required, and if so to what extent, is subject to a site-specific analysis of the collected data with respect to adopted acceptance criteria, which in the case of Environmentai Audits are set by and agreed upon with the EPA approved Auditor.
2 16 of 235 EA I079\Trcloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollution Management
Criteria for the assessment of potentially contaminated sites presently adopted by the EPA are essentially guideline limits for defining the extent of effort needed to investigate a site. These are adopted from ANZECC & NHMRC Guidelines (1 992). DUTCH B levels (internationally recognised levels developed by the Dutch Government) or National Environmental Health
Forum Level “A” guidelines (Imray & Langley 1996) are adopted in the absence of ANZECC criteria. Table 1 does not list the complete set of NEHF levels defined.
Where soil quality acceptance criteria are exceeded, the decision as to the need for site clean up is based on a site-specific risk assessment (human health and environmental risk), with consideration of factors such as the type of future land use, exposure pathways, surface coverage, local geology, and potential off-site effects.
EPA ‘Fill Classification Criteria’ (EPA Bulletin 448 “Classification of Wastes’) are referred to where off-site disposal of soil is discussed.
In order to assess the need for further investigation based on composite sample results, modified criteria were generated by dividing criteria for individual samples by the number of individual samples comprising the composites, thereby allowing for sample dilution.
Volatile organic compounds are determined in this investigation both as total ionisable organic compounds (benzene equivalents) by a field vapour screen (a rapid indicator of the relative concentrations of fuel vapours in soil pores; refer to Section I1 4.4) and by laboratory analysis.
A field headspace vapour concentration of more than 10 ppm is considered to indicate potential soil contamination, a concentration of 100 ppm+ is considered to represent a potential vapour hazard.
The criteria used for data evaluation in this investigation are shown in the table below (TABLE 1, over page).
17 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &#) GeoPollution Manageme
TABLE 1: Soil Quality Guideline Criteria (mg/kg dry weight of soil)
ANZECCB. *- EPAV FILULOW LEVEL ANAL~ES GUIDELINE LEVELS FILL LIMITS Heavy Metals (total) Antimony (Sb) 20 ns/ns Arsenic (As) 20 3 01 13 00 Barium (Ba) 4004 ndns Beryllium (Be) 202 ns/ns Cadmium (Cd) 3 5/50 Chromium (Cr) 50 2 50125 00 Cobalt (Co) 503 501500 Copper (Cu) 60 100/1000 Lead (Pb) 300 300/3000 Mercury (Hg) 1 2/20 Molybdenum (Mo) 403 401400 Nickel (Ni) 60 100/1000 Selenium (Se) 1o3 10/100 Tin (Sn) 50 50/500 Zinc (Zn) 200 500/5000 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Total 20‘ 201200 Benzo(a)pyrene 1’ ns/ns
Organochlorine &Organophosphorirs Pesticides Dieldrin 0.2 ns/ns Other Individual OC Pesticides OS4 ns/ns Total OC Pesticides i4 1/10 Total Pesticides 24 ns/ns
Cyanide (total complex) 503 50/500 Phenolics (total) i3 1/10 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 1 1/10 Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MA Hs) Benzene 1 nslns Toluene 32 ns/ns Ethyl Benzene ndns Xylenes (4 isomers) 52 nslns Total 7 7/70
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) : ANZECC Health Investigation Level I absence of ANZECC B ’: Health Based Soil Investigation “Levels A” (NEHF, 1996) EPAV Clean Fill Limit in absence of ANZECC B Criterion ‘: DUTCH B Levels in absence of ANZECC B ns: not specified 18 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Y~rr~mbat\aud 0GeoPollution Management 1.2 SITE DETAILS 1.2.1 Site Identification The site is identified as Lot 1 on Plan of Consolidation No. 152132, being part of Crown Portion 5 Certificate of Title Vol. 9507 Folio 750 in the Parish of Morang, County of Evelyn (title information is attached as Appendix B). The site is located in the Melbourne Metropolitan Area in the suburb of Yarrambat (Nillumbik Shire Council), approximately 25 km northeast of the Central Business District. A general location map is attached as Appendix A. The site is bounded to the north, south, east and west by other rural/residential properties. Yan Yean Road forms part of the northern boundary. 1.2.2 General Site Description and Physical Setting The site is irregular in shape and covers an area of 5.538 hectares (55380 m'). Site photographs (Plates 1 to 4) are shown on the following pages. The site is located in a ruralhesidential area and lies within an area of gently undulating topography, locally modified by cut and fill landscaping. The site itself is situated on an undulating south sloping hillside and spans a dominant ridge that forms the northem boundary. The surface of the site generally slopes towards the south, with a gradient ranging between 1" and 5". The slope angle is greatest in the central portion of the site (Plate 2). In the eastern portion of the site, the gradient is approximately 4 - 5" and has an easterly component. The site ranges in elevation from approximately 148 metres to 170 metres above Australian height datum (AHD). The site comprises woodland, pasture land and a residential area divided from the remainder of the site by a fence and farm gate (Figure 1). The residence is located in the eastern portion of the site and is accessed via a gravel driveway that extends to the front (north eastern) site boundary. A shed and carport are located to the southkouthwest of the house. On the western side of the shed and carport (southwestern side of the house) is a small unused above- ground tank (Plate 1). The site surface surrounding the house consists of either grass or gravel. A number of disused cars were located on a gravelkoil surface on the western side of the house at the time of the field work for this assessment. The northern and western parts of the site, generally have the most tree coverage. In particular, the western portion (rear) of the property surrounding the inferred former Grey's Reef mining area (refer to Figure 1 & 2) is covered by native woodland. Numerous mullock heaps (mine waste) and stockpiles of fill are located in this area. This area also contains existing mine shafts and prospecting pits (which have at some point in time been infilled with assorted rubbish; see Plate 4). A dry creek bed (southern portion) has been filled with soil and debris. The majority of the rubbish (with the exception of material in the mine shafts) had been removed from the site some weeks prior to this investigation, however. pieces of metal, wood, bricks and debris were still evident at the surface (Plate 3). A former vehicle dump area at the northern end of the dry creek had been filled and levelled with soil from the surrounds in the course of the clean up. 19 of5 235 EA I079\Trcloar\Yarrainbathud &&GeoPollution Management Plate 1 : View (looking west) at the general site surface. The line of trees in the background indicates the former Grey’s Reef mining area (24/1/00). Plate 2: View (looking west) at the aboveground tank (24/1/00). Target location T22 (indicated by the wooden peg with pink flagging tape) can be seen at the base of the tank. 6 20 of 235 EA1079\T Plate 3: View (looking south) of the dry infilled creek bed. Rubbish and debris can be seen in the foreground. ( 14/ 1/OO). Plate 4: View (looking northwest) at a pile of timber and debris used to fill a possible prospecting pit or mineshaft. Target location T3 (indicated by the wooden peg with yellow flagging tape) can be seen on the left of the rubbish pile (14/1/00). 7 21 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Y arrambat\aud 0GeoPollution Management Extent of Filling Mullock heaps (mine waste), stockpiles of fill and a number of infilled prospecting pits and possible mine shafts are located in the western portion of the site. A dry creek in the south of this area has also been infilled and a small gully in the north of the mine area was vegetated with blackberries at the time of the investigation. The ground beneath the residence area in the east of the site has also been infilled and levelled. 1.2.3 Zoning and Proposed Development The zoning of the site at the time of report finalisation was referred to as “Plenty Low Density Residential ” under the Nillumbik Planning Scheme. The proposed zoning is “Low Density Residential”. Under the proposed zoning, the site will be subject to three overlays: 1) An Environmental Audit Overlay 2) A Development Plan Overlay 3) An Environmental Significance Overlay The zoning information was not confirmed with the Department of Infrastructure’s Land Titles office. It is understood that the owners intend to sell the site for possible subdivision and further residential development. Details of the proposed development were not available at the time of preparation of this report. 1.2.4 Previous Site Assessment Reports 1.2.4.1 Work conducted by SKM A comprehensive review of the mining history of the area was conducted by Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) in 1998. The work was summarised in the following report: Sinclair Knight Merz (1998): ‘Site History and Contamination Assessment from Goldmining and other Land Uses in the Plenty River Corridor”. Rej1MEl30l:Report.doc The findings relevant to the subject site are summarised in the context of the site history review in Section 1.3 below. 1.2.4.2 Work conducted by Golder Associates A preliminary contamination assessment was carried out by Golder Associates in 1999 as documented in the following report. Golder Associates Pty Ltd (I 999): ‘Preliminary Contamination Assessment of Selected Properties within the Nillumbik Shire Council Environmental , Audit Overlay, PlentylYarrambat, Victoria. REF: 9961 3533/024 22 of8 235 EA 1079\Treloar\Y arrambat\aud &#) GeoPollutlon Managema Samples were collected from twenty one locations comprising fifteen grid locations and six further locations targeting areas occupied by stockpiles and mounds. A total of twenty-seven soil samples were collected. Twenty one surface (0 - 0.1 metres) samples were collected and six deeper samples were collected from a depth of 0.4 to 0.5 metres at the targeted locations. Samples were initially submitted to the laboratory as individual samples and as two- and three- part composites. The samples were analysed for heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead and zinc) and cyanide. The analytical results were compared with the modified ANZECCDutch level B Criteria and the modified NEHF Health based Investigation levels A (HIL, for residential exposure settings). Arsenic was found to exceed the modified ANZECC level B in nine composite samples and to exceed the modified NEHF HIL Level A (Residential) in four composite samples. Chromium, copper, mercury, nickel and zinc also exceeded the modified ANZECC level B in some composite samples. The areas of elevated concentrations of arsenic generally coincided with fill mounds. Selected composite samples which exceeded the assessment criteria were subsequently analysed as individual samples. Arsenic was found to exceed the modified ANZECC level B in ten individual samples and to exceed the modified NEHF HIL Level A (Residential) in six individual samples collected from three locations. These exceedences were recorded within fill material in the west of the site within the inferred former Greys Reef Mine area. Only one further exceedence of the modified ANZECC level B for copper was observed but this was considered to be marginal and insignificant. 1.3 SITE HISTORY AND POTENTIAL FOR CONTAMINATION Information pertaining to site history, past land uses and operations was obtained from the following sources: Sinclair Knight Merz (November 1998): ‘Site History and Contamination Assessment from Goldmining and other land uses in the Plenty River Corridor”. Golder Associates Pty Ltd (August 1999): ‘Preliminary Contamination Assessment of Selected Properties within the Nillumbik Shire Council Environmental Audit Overlay, Plenty/Yarrambat, Victoria. Nillumbik Council, Planning Department, Office of the Surveyor General (Aerial Photography), The site owners. The information collated is summarised below. 23 of 235 9 EA I079\Treloar\Yanambat\aud 4 GeoPollution Management During the nineteenth century and in the early years of the present century, Grey’s Reef Mine operated in the west part of the site. By 1901, a battery plant was also present. The battery plant was used for crushing quartz rock ore. Historical evidence suggests that on site treatment of ore (gold processing) may have occurred. Gold processing required the amalgamation of crushed ore with mercury and/or solution in sodium or potassium cyanide, followed by precipitation in zinc. There is no evidence of cyanide use in the Yarrambat area. It was common during gold processing for toxic elements to be released, including arsenic from within the ore itself. The South Golden Stairs Mine was formerly located to the east of the site beyond Yan Yean Road. The mine operated in conjunction with the Golden Stairs Mine to the north during the late nineteenth century through to the depression years. A battery plant and tailings area located on the Golden Stairs Mine also served the Grey’s Reef Mine. Mining operations are reported to have ceased in 1938. Since that date the site was occupied by Mr & Mrs J.K. and E Treloar who have been farming the property, growing corn and green feeds for chickens and grazing horses. Ownership information for the property attached to the parent Title Certificate (see above Section 1.2.1) indicates that ownership of the property was transferred to John Keith Treloar in 1958, who remains the owner to the present day (refer to Appendix B): Aerial photographs of the site and environs show the following (copies of photographs are attached as part of Appendix G): 1945: The site is largely covered with trees apart from a cleared pasture area in the west. Two dirt tracks aligned approximately northeast-southwest across the site provide access to the western half of the site fiom Yan Yean Road. The soils in the inferred former Greys Reef area appear paler and the vegetation more luxuriant than the remainder of the site. 1956: The site remains largely unchanged. The dirt tracks are no longer present. The inferred Grey’s Reef Mine area is more clearly defined by a transverse band of trees, while some clearly has taken place immediately to the east. A cleared pasture area is located to the west of the former mining area. 1975: A house is located in the eastern corner of the site. The inferred Grey’s Reef iMine area remains densely wooded. The pasture area in the west of the site also remains. The dry creek and surrounds at the southern end of the mining area had been used as a vehicle dump in the past but some surface clean up had been undertaken prior to the current investigation. 24IO of 235 EA 1079\Treloar\Yanambat\aud 4m GeoPollution Managemel Pofenfial Sources of Contamination Part of the property has been used in the past for gold mining and processing, therefore, it is considered that potential significant contamination may have arisen as a result of these activities. No evidence of underground tanks or oil pits was identified. A small above ground tank was present near the residence. However, the owner indicated that the tank was bought some time ago and has never been used on site. Soil contamination may also be associated with fill material that has been imported onto the site in the residential area in the south east of the site. There is also some potential for infiltration of minor quantities of petrol or oil from dumped cars, motors or engine parts in the area of the dry creek bed and in the surrounds of the residence. 25 of 235 EA1079Yrrcloar\Y arrarnbat\aud 68GeoPollution Management II. SOIL INVESTIGATION 11.1 FIELD METHODS Technical and scientific staff from our Ringwood office carried out fieldwork for this project on 241h and 271hJanuary 2000. An Environmental Scientist from GeoPollution Management was responsible for soil profile logging, on-site testing and collection of soil samples and quality assurance procedures. 11.1.1 Drilling of Boreholes and Soil Sampling Boreholes at grid and target locations were advanced using a 95mm stainless steel hand auger to depths between 0.5 and 1.O metre. At the grid locations, augering advanced through fill material where present, into the natural clayhilt soils, and at least loom into the weathered bedrock at most locations. Refusal on bedrock occurred at one of the test points. At the target locations, augering generally advanced through fill material. Augering advanced at least 300mm into the natural clay/silt soils at two locations and lOOmm into the weathered bedrock at one location. Refusal on weathered rock occurred at three test points. Samples were retrieved from at least one depth interval per location, based on observed depth of natural soil/fill material. Sample frequency was generally two per borehole. Where the thickness of the fill layer exceeded 0.5m, further samples of fill material were collected at a rate of approximately one per 0.5 metres to a maximum depth of 1.O metre. Maximum drilling depths at individual test points across the site were between 0.4 and 1.0 metres. Excess spoil was backfilled to surface levels prior to bore abandonment. Soil samples were collected directly from the hand auger following removal of any cross- contaminated portions (outermost portions of the auger cuttings). Samples were collected in a tray before transferring them into acid washed sample jars. All samples were collected as 'zero-headspace' samples ('jar' samples), i.e. the glass jars were filled to hll capacity leaving no air gaps. Subsequently, they were tightly sealed with a teflon-lined plastic screw cap. These precautions serve to minimise oxidation of chemicals and loss of volatile compounds between sample collection and laboratory analysis. Vial samples, collected from all locations across the site, were filled to half capacity, leaving a headspace above the sample. The vials were rapidly crimp-sealed with a teflon-lined aluminium lid. 26 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollutlon Managemer Field duplicate, equipment blanks and trip blank samples were collected throughout the investigation in accordance with requirements for Quality Control specified by the Environmental Auditor. A field contamination assessment including routine on-site vapour detection (PID, see section 11.1.2) was carried out concurrently with all soil sampling. 11.1.2 Field Screen for Volatile Organic Compounds (Soil Gas Survey) A vapour screen was routinely conducted at each grid soil sampling location by inserting the probe into the open bore space immediately after exposure. This method provides a gross assessment of the presence of volatile organic compounds within the entire vertical extent of sub-surface material intersected at any given time. The instrument used for the field screen is a portable Photo-ionisation Detector (PID, Photovac, model Microtip IS-3000) which registers total ionisable organic compounds rather than individual compounds. Prior to commencement of fieldwork, the instrument was calibrated using a gas mix of 105 ppm isobutylene in ultrahigh purity air contained in a plastic sample bag. Readings represent the total concentration of all photoionisable organic compounds in the sample (in parts per million) and results represent relative concentrations. A background reading was taken each time before testing. When calibrated with isobutylene span gas, the instrument response is accurate within +/- 2 ppm or +/- 10% (whichever is greater) for 0 to 100 ppm, within +/- 10% for 100 to 1000 pprn and within +/- 15% for 1000 to 2000 ppm. Plastic bag samples were collected from discrete depth intervals, and PID “headspace” readings were recorded both as a routine check of low borespace measurements and if concentrations of volatiles were detected in excess of 10 ppm during borespace testing. Note the following in relation to the PID readings documented on bore logs: a Actual vapour concentrations in in-situ soils show gradual transitions. a Soil gas survey data represent relative levels of VOC’s in soil samples, not absolute concentrations in soil samples. a Bore space readings reflect total concentrations of vapours within the entire open borespace without indicating from which soil layer the vapours originate. 27 of 23513 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud (,m GeoPollution Management 11.2 QUALITY ASSURANCEIQUALITY CONTROL 11.2.1 Field Sampling All sampling equipment including augers that had come into contact with fill or soil were decontaminated between boreholes in accordance with the work procedures adopted by GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd as part of their internal quality assurance protocol. Hand sampling equipment was cleaned according to the following procedure before collection of each sample: 1) Brush in water containing DECON 90 (phosphate-free detergent) 2) Rinse twice in ample tap water 3) Rinse once with distilled water 4) Dry with disposable paper towel. Water was brought on site in containers. 11.2.2 Laboratories Internal laboratory quality control testing was requested as follows: Duplicates - 10% of all samples analysed or a minimum of 1 Blanks - 1 per batch of samples analysed Spikes (Recoveries) - Duplicates with known spikes. For metals: Spike added to acid ...digest. For organics: Spike added to soil prior to extraction. Standards - Instrument calibration standards as required by NATA. QNQC methods were employed to ensure that the data, as far as possible, were accurate, precise (reproducible and repeatable) and representative. Field replicate samples were submitted for analysis (at a rate of 20 % of total sample analyses) for the purpose of external quality assurance checks. This included split duplicates sent to a second laboratory and blind duplicates for analysis by the primary laboratory. Blind duplicates sent to the primary laboratory were given different identification numbers to conceal their identity. All iield replicate samples were aliquots of randomly sub-sampled bulk samples taken from the auger cuttings. 28 of 235 ~ EA 1079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud GeoPollution Managemer 11.2.3 Reporting Limits The following reporting limits are applicable to this analysis program (Table 2). The reporting limits were approximately one fifth of the equivalent ANZECC B levels (or adopted assessment criteria) for all analytes, with the exception of cyanide, which was analysed with a detection limit of approximately one third the adopted assessment criterion (modified for composite samples). The reporting limits (or lower) shown below are applicable to the analysis program for this investigation. TABLE 2: REPORTING LIMITS ANALYTES . SOIL (mglkg) Heavy Metals (total) Arsenic (As) 2 Cadmium (Cd) 0.2 Chromium (Cr) 3 Copper (Cu) 5 Lead (Pb) 5 Mercury (Hg) 0.05 Nickel (Ni) 5 Zinc (Zn) 5 Antimony (Sb) 2 Beryllium (Be) 2 Molybdenum (Mo) 10 Selenium (Se) 2 Tin. fSn\-. 3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) I 0.1 Individual Pesticides (Organochlorine) 0.01 Individual Pesticides (Organophosphorus) 0.01 Individual Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 0.1 Individual Phenolic Compounds (total) 0.1 Cyanide (total complex) 5 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) C6 - C9 Fuel Fraction 20 C10 - C14 50 C15-C28 Mineral Oil Fractions 100 C29-C36 100 Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Benzene 0.01 Toluene 0.01 Ethylbenzene 0.01 Xylenes 0.01 Reporting limits are also referred to as ‘Practical Quantitation Limits’. Detection limits of the analytical method may be up to a factor of 10 lower. 29 of 235 EA1079\Treloar\Yarrarnbat\aud &,mGeoPollution Management 11.2.4 Sample Documentation and Dispatch Sample numbering for this sampling program was according to a defined format. Each sample was given a prefix ‘G’X” or ‘T’X”, where G stands for grid, T stands for target and X is the number assigned to the location from which the sample was collected, as per example below: G1-240 1- 1 (ie. Sample from grid location 1, collected on 24‘h January, Sample No. 1). Following sample collection and during transport to our Ringwood office, samples were stored on ice. Samples were refrigerated at 4’ C until dispatch on the day following completion of field work. Sample dispatch followed chain of custody procedures. Samples were courier-despatched to the primary and secondary laboratories on the day following the field work. Routine chemical analysis was carried out by the NATA accredited analytical laboratory of Gribbles Analytical Laboratories, Notting Hill, used as the main or primary laboratory (routine samples). QNQC duplicate samples were submitted to the NATA laboratory of MGT Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd, Oakleigh, as the secondary laboratory with the respective chain of custody form attached as part of Appendix F. Internal QNQC procedures were followed by both subcontracting laboratories (refer to Section 11.6 below). Sample details, any special sample preparation methods required and analytical parameters were entered on Chain of Custody Forms (see Appendix F). These forms double as ‘Sample Analysis Request Forms’. All sample labels were cross-checked with the records kept and all required details were entered on the dispatch forms. A copy of all the forms sent out with samples was retained in the job file. The analytical laboratories were requested to cross-check the samples upon receipt against the Analysis Request Forms, and to sign the forms and return them by FAX to the GPM office. 3016 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollutlon Manageme 11.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SCHEDULES Site assessment included sampling of soil taken from grid locations across the site and from target locations T1 and T4 on 24‘hJanuary 2000. Sampling of the remaining target locations was carried out on 27‘h January 2000. The sampling and analysis program was outlined in a “Final Sampling and Analysis Program” (Work Plan) endorsed by the Auditor prior to conducting site work. A copy of the final work plan (GeoPollution Management, 19‘h January 2000) is attached as Appendix D. Initially, a total of forty eight (48) routine soil samples were collected from twenty four (24) grid locations across the site. Sampling depth intervals covered surface fill where present, and natural soil at the following nominal intervals (variations subject to actual soil profiles encountered). 1: 0.0 - 0.1 m - Natural Soil/Fill 2: 0.3 - 0.5m - where Natural SoilFill thickness was 0.5 m or more or first 200 mm of weathered rock. A further forty five (45) routine soil samples were collected from twenty five (25) target locations across the site. This included three locations which coincided with arsenic contamination previously identified by Golder Associates (I 999). Sampling depth intervals covered surface fill at the following nominal intervals (variations subject to actual soil profiles encountered). 1: 0.0-O.lm -FILL 2: 0.3 - 0.5m - where Fill thickness was 0.5 m or first 200 mm of natural soil (T2 only). At locations where depth of fill material exceeded 0.5 myfurther samples of fill were collected, if possible, at a rate of approximately one sample per 0.5m depth. Natural soil below the fill was sampled at one location only during initial sampling. Copies of the combined chain of custody and analysis request forms are attached to this report as Appendix F. 17 31 of 235 EA i 079\Treloar\Yanambat\aud &mGeoPollution Management 11.3.1 Initial Analysis The number of chemical analyses initially undertaken and the range of chemical parameters selected are summarised below (TABLE 3a, over page). Twenty one (21) samples from the surface layer of natural soils were combined at the laboratory into seven 3-part composites. A further three part composite sample from the surface layer in the residential area (comprising two fill samples and one natural soil sample) was also combined at the laboratory. The composite samples were analysed for a range of potential contaminants including eight selected heavy metals (As, Cd, CryCu, Pb, Sn, Zn and Hg) and organochlorine pesticides. Two samples were also analysed for pH value (Soil reaction). Two further three part composite samples from the surface layer of natural soil were analysed for six selected heavy metals (Be, CoyMo, Sn, Se, Sn), PAH, OC Pesticides, PCB, Phenolics and Cyanide. Three natural soil samples were analysed individually for eight selected heavy metals (As, Cd, Cry Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni and Zn). Two natural (near-surface) soil samples were analysed individually for TPH’s and BTEX. Two surface fill samples from the former vehicle dump area were analysed individually for TPH’s and lead. One of these samples was also analysed for BTEX. One deeper fill sample was analysed individually for TPH’s, BTEX and Lead. One surface fill sample and one deeper fill sample were analysed individually for the EPA screen (except TPH’s and volatile compounds) including heavy metals (As, Bay Be, Cd, Coy CryCu, Hg, Mo, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Zn), PAH’s, OC Pesticides, PCB, Phenolics and Cyanide. A further twenty four surface fill samples were analysed individually for arsenic, ten of which were also analysed for mercury. Fourteen deeper fill (target) samples were analysed individually for arsenic, four of which were also analysed for mercury. For quality control purposes, six sets of split duplicates samples and six sets of blind duplicates were collected in the field. The blind duplicates were sent to the primary laboratory, while the split duplicates were also sent to a secondary laboratory. Three of each of the six sets were combined at the laboratories into composite samples. This resulted in a total of four sets of blind duplicates and four sets of split duplicates, each comprised of one composite and three individual samples. Each composite sample was analysed for eight selected heavy metals. The remaining samples were analysed individually for arsenic. In addition one set each of blind and split duplicates was also analysed individually for mercury (refer to Section 11.6). 32IS of 235 EA 1079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollution Managemc TABLE 3a: Summary of Chemical Analyses Performed - Initial Analysis ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS No. ROUTINE No. WQC SAMPLES SAMPLES Comp. Indiv. Comp. Indiv. Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, 8 3 2 Nickel, Zinc Arsenic 8 43 2 Lead 8 6 2 Mercury 8 14 Antimony, Beryllium, Cobalt, 2 2 Molybdenum, Selenium, Tin Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 2 2 (PAH 's) Organochlorine Pesticides 8 2 Organophosphorus Pesticides 2 2 Phenolics 2 2 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 2 2 Cyanide (CN-, total complex) 2 2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) 5 Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MAH's, BTEX) - 4 pH Value 2 TABLE 3b contains a detailed listing of the samples analysed during the first round of analysis. Samples not listed in the table were kept in storage by the laboratory, in case hrther analysis was required (holding period subject to analytes). 33 of 235 19 EA I079\Treloar\Y~rambat\aud 0GeoPollution Management TABLE 3b: COMPOSITING AND ANALYSIS SCHEDULE - Initial Grid Sample Analysis (Composite groups are indicated on the attached Figure 2) SAMPLE COMP BitE D:lli FlLi PARAMETERS ANALYS ED 1 RANGE 1 THICKNESS . Individual Composite Nos No. G1-2401-1 Comp 1 Gl 0.0-0.1 0.25 Heavy Metals (8)', G2 0.0-0.1 0.05 G2-2401-1 OC Pesticides G4-2401-1 G4 0.0-0.1 0 G3-2401-1 G3 0.0-0.1 0 TPH's, BTEX Heavy Metals (8)*, G5-2401-1 Cornp 2 G5 0.0-0.1 0 OC Pesticides, pH G6-2401-1 G6 1 0.0-0.1 I 0 G8-2401-1 G8 I 0.0-0.1 I 0 Heavy Metals (8)*, G9-2401-1 Comp 3 0.0-0.1 OC Pesticides G10-2401-1 ;l; 10.0-0.1 1 Heavy Metals (8)' G7-2401-1 0.0-0.1 B Heavy Metals (8)', Heavy Metals (8)' Gll-2401-1 Comp 4 OC Pesticides, pH G12-2401-1 0.0-0.1 Heavy Metals (8)' Heavy Metals (8)'. G15 I 0.0-0.1 I 0 OC Pesticides G16 0.0-0.1 0 G13 0.0-0.1 0 Heavy Metals (8)', TPH. BTEX G17-2401-1 Comp 6 G17 I 0.0-0.1 I 0 OC Pesticides G18-2401-1 G19-2401-1 Heavy Metals (8)', G20-2401-1 Comp 7 G20 I 0.0-0.1 Io OC Pesticides, pH G21-2401-1 E;; I 0.0-0.1 1 ; G22-2401-1 0.0-0.1 Heavy Metals (a)*, I G23-2401-1 I Cornp8 G23 I 0.0-0.1 I 0 OC Pesticides G24-2401-1 y; 0.0-0.1 ; 1 1 TPH, BTEX 0.0-0.1 I-+-- I-+-- G3-2401-1 Heavy Metals (6)**, PAH, OP Pesticides, G15-2401-1 ,-PA G15 I 0.0-0.1 PCB, Phenolics, Io Cyanide G24-2401-1 7; 1 0.0-0.1 1 ; G5-2401-1 0.0-0.1 Heavy Metals (6)*, PAH, OP Pesticides, G13-2401-1 EPA PCB, Phenolics, Cyanide G22-2401-1 I ::::: I As. Cd. Cr, Cu, Pb. Hg, i, Zn *' Be, Co. Mo. I Se, Sn 34 of 235 &mGeoPollution Manageme TABLE 3c: ANALYSIS SCHEDULE - Initial Target Sample Analysis SAMPLE FILL , - * PARAMETERS ANALYSED No.s THICKNESS ' + Individual [m] T1-2401-1 Arsenic T1-2401-2 T1 I 0.3-0.5 1 0.6 I Heavy metals (total), PAH, OC Pesticides, Cyanide, PCB T2-2401-1 0.15 Arsenic T3-2701-1 OS+ Arsenic, Mercury T4-2701-1 0.0-0.1 Arsenic T4 0.5+ T4-270 1-2 0.3-0.5 Arsenic, Mercury ~~ Heavy metals (total), PAH, OC Pesticides, T5-270 1-01 T5 0.0-0.1 OS+ Cyanide, PCB T6-2701-1 0.0-0.1 Arsenic, Mercury T6 OS+ T6-270 1-2 0.3-0.5 Arsenic T7-2701-1 0.0-0.1 Arsenic T7 OS+ T7-2701-2 0.3-0.5 Arsenic, Mercury T8-2701-1 T8 0.0-0.1 Arsenic T9-2701-1 Arsenic, Mercury T9 0.5+ T9-2701-2 0.3-0.5 Arsenic T10-2701-1 0.0-0.1 Arsenic, Mercury OS+ T10-2701-2 0.3-0.5 Arsenic T11-2701-1 0.0-0.1 T11-2701-2 0.2-0.4 TI2-2701 -1 0.0-0.1 Arsenic, Mercury T12-2701-2 T12 0.3-0.5 1.o Arsenic T 12-270 1-3 Arsenic T13-2701-1 0.0-0.1 Arsenic T13 0.5+ 1 Arsenic, Mercury T13-2701-2 I 0.3-0.5 I I As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Zn +* Be, Co, Mo, Sb, Se, Sn 35 of 235 'I EA I079\Treloar\YarrambaI\aud &mGeoPollution Management TABLE 3c: ANALYSIS SCHEDULE - Initial Target Sample Analysis (Continued) ST'E I B:tE DEPTH FILL PARAMETERS ANALYSED RANGE THICKNESS Individual [m] [m] 0.0-0.1 Arsenic, Mercury OS+ T14-2401-2 0.3-0.5 Arsenic Tl5-2701-1 0.0-0.1 Arsenic 0.5+ T15-2701-1 0.3-0.5 Arsenic T16-2701-1 0.0-0.1 Arsenic, Mercury OS+ T16-2701-2 0.3-0.5 Arsenic 0.0-0.1 Arsenic T17-2701-1 T17 OS+ 0.3-0.5 Arsenic, Mercury T17-2701-2 I T18-2701-1 0.0-0.1 Arsenic, Mercury 0.5+ T18-2701-2 0.3-0.5 Arsenic 0.0-0.1 0.5+ Arsenic T20-2701-1 0.0-0.1 0.5+ Arsenic, Mercury 1 :l2: ~~ ~ 721-2701-1 0.0-0.1 Arsenic OS+ T21-2701-2 0.3-0.5 Arsenic T22-2701-1 T22 0.0-0.1 0.2 TPH, lead HA42/8-1 I 4218 0.0-0.1 0.5+ Arsenic HA43/10-1 I 43/10 0.0-0.1 0.5+ Arsenic HA43111-1 I 43/11 0.0-0.1 I 0.5+ I Arsenic I I As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, I, Zn ** Co, Mo, Se, Sn, Sb, Be 36 of 235 EA 1079\Treloar\Yarrarnbat\aud &#) GeoPollution Managemei 11.3.2 Further Analysis A number of samples were selected for further analysis, based on the outcome of the initial results. TABLE 4a shows the range and number of further chemical analyses undertaken. TABLE 4a: Summary of Chemical Analyses Performed - Further Analysis No. ROUTINE No. WQC ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS SAMPLES SAMPLES Indiv. Indiv. Arsenic 3 - Cadmium 3 - Lead 3 - Zinc 6 - TCLP*: Arsenic TCLP*: Cadmium TCLP*: Lead TCLP*: Zinc *: TCLP: Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (USEPA) TABLE 4b lists the samples analysed. GI-2401-1 Fill G1 0.0-0.1 Total Zn G2-2401-1 Fill G2 0.0-0.1 Total Zn G4-2401-1 Natural Soil G4 0.0-0.1 Total Zn T5-2701-1 Fill T5 0.0-0.1 TCLP: Cd, Pb, Zn T5-2701-2 Fill T5 0.3-0.5 As, Zn (total metals); TCLP: Cd, Pb, Zn T11-2701-2 Fill T11 0.3-0.5 As, Zn (total metals); TCLP: As T13-2701-2 Fill TI3 0.3-0.5 As, Zn (total metals); TCLP: As The equipment blanks were analysed as follows (see also Chapter 11.6): Equip-240 1 As, Zn Equip-240 1 As, Cd, Pb, Zn, TPH’s 37 of 23523 EA I079\Treloar\Yanambat\aud GeoPollution Management 11.4 SOIL PROFILES 11.4.1 Regional Geology The site is identified on the Geological Survey of Victoria YAN YEAN Sheet (1 :63,360, Part 7922 Zone 55) as being located within the province of Silurian age “Anderson Creek Formation”, consisting of massive siltstones with localised groups of massive laminated and bedded greywacke (central and western portion), and Silurian ‘Dargile Formation’ consisting of laminated and current bedded sandstones with interbedded siltstone and shale. Localised outcrops of Tertiary age “Older Volcanics Basalt” are found in the area and consist of dark grey to orange brown dense and fine-grained olivine basalt. These interspersed outcrops are remnants of a basalt flow inferred to have infilled a palaeo-channel in the ancient Tertiary land surface. Gold was extracted in the area from auriferous Silurian porphyry dykes with quartz veins. While seven shafts are shown on the map as present in a north-south alignment, approximately 250 m to the west of Yan Yean Road (incl. Golden Crown Mine) to the north of the subject Audit site, no shafts are shown on the map for the site or immediate surrounds itself. 11.4.2 Site Lithology Fill material was encountered in the west of the site, associated with the former Grey’s Reef mine area, and in the eastern comer of the site associated with the residential area. The fill generally consisted of a mixture of sand, gravel and clay and contained some organic material. Natural Clayey Silt underlies the filled areas and the remainder of the site. The natural soils are underlain by extremely weathered siltstone bedrock. A typical profile of shallow soil as intersected is summarised in TABLE 5 below. Bore logs, including field sampling and testing records, are presented in Appendix E. 38 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollutlon Managemer TABLE 5: Typical Shallow Soil Profile I DESCRIPTION GraveVcrushed rock, silt and clay, Residential Area: 0-(0.2-0.25) I brown/prev. medium density, dry Silt & siltstone rubble, clay and silty clay, Former Mine Area: 0-(0.15- 1 .O) brown/pink/yeIlow/grey, with organic fragments, medium density, dry 0.25 - 0.5 Clayey SILT, light brown/light grey, Residential medium dense and dry Area: 0.5 - 0.7 Silty CLAY, orange/brown, medium plasticity, dry to moist Silty CLAY, minor gravel, orange/brown/ Former Mine Area: yellow and clayey SILT, light (0.15-0.6) (0.6-0.9) - yellow/light brown, medium density, dry Remainder of Site: Clayey SILT, light grey/brown/ light 0 - (0.5-0.8) yellow, medium density, dry Extremely weathered SILTSTONE, Residential Area: 0.7 light yellow/light grey Former Mine Area: 0.5 - 1 .O+ Extremely weathered SILTSTONE, orange/brown/ye 1low Remainder of Site: 0.4 - 0.8 I I .4.3 Region a I Hy d rogeo logy The natural silty clays underlying the site have a relatively low permeability. The fill material, which overlies the natural soils in parts of the site, is moderately to highly permeable. Locally, a seasonally variable perched water table near surface overlies the less permeable clays. Regionally, groundwater is present through fractures in the bedrock. Groundwater was not encountered in the course of this investigation to a maximum depth of 1 .O metres. Hence, actual depth to groundwater has not been ascertained. The regional groundwater table in the vicinity of the site is likely to occur at a depth of at least 5 to 10 metres. 39 of 23525 EA1079\Treloar\Y nrrambathud &mGeoPollution Management The local hydraulic gradient is likely to be directed towards Plenty River which flows in a south-westerly direction approximately 1 .O km to the west of the site. 11.4.4 Field Contamination Assessment 11.4.4.7 Visual and Olfactory Observations No visual or olfactory evidence of soil contamination was noted in fill material across the site. No asbestos-containing materials were noticeable in introduced or indigenous soils. 11.4.4.2 Vapour Survey Potential vapour phase contamination at the subject site was assessed by conducting a soil gas survey for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Field borespace readings were recorded at each location during sampling. Background vapour concentrations in ambient air were recorded as 0.0 - 1.8 ppm. Soil gas concentrations were detected at levels equivalent or similar to background levels (between 0.0 and 2.1 ppm) at all sample locations. Results of bore space monitoring and sample headspace tests are recorded on bore logs attached as Appendix E. 4026 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollution Managemc 11.5 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS 11.5.1 Initial Analysis Results of the chemical analysis undertaken are attached as Appendix G.l (NATA endorsed final laboratory reports). Appendix G.2 includes QC results reported by the secondary laboratory (refer to Chapter 11.6 for QNQC evaluation). Analysis results are summarised in Table 6a (composite heavy metals, OC Pesticides and pH), Table 6b (individual heavy metals of composite sample Comp 4) and Table 7 (individual volatile analyses with lead), Table 8 (balance of composite analyses), Table 9 (individual EPA screen analyses except volatiles), and Table 10 (individual arsenic and mercury analyses). The tables also list one or more of the following screening criteria: 0 ANZECC B levels (“Environmental Investigation Limits”), or where ANZECC B criteria are not specified, ANZECC Health Investigation Limits (as for the individual aromatic hydrocarbon benzo(a)pyrene) and Dutch B criteria (for example the individual Organochlorine Pesticides) 0 EPAV Fill Material (“Clean Fill”) and Low-Level Contaminated Waste Limits (EPA Bulletin 448, 1995) as appropriate. 0 NEHF Health Investigation Guideline Levels (HIL) for residential exposure settings (“Level A”). Analysis results for composite samples may conceal elevated concentrations in one or more individual samples, rather than representing average concentrations in the individual samples that make up the composite. Modrjication of the above assessment criteria specified for individual samples, according to the number of samples comprising the composite, takes the potential diluting effect of sample compositing into account. Modified Assessment Criteria for three-part composites are included in the tables as appropriate. Results are summarised in the following the tables and discussed in detail below the tables. 41 of 235 27 EA I079\Trrloor\Yan~ibat\aud TABLE 6a: SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS RESULTS - Heavy Metals, Organochlorine Pesticides and pH [mglkg dry weight of soil] COMP SAMPLE DEPTH CONCENTRATIONS OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS No. No.s [ml HEAVY METALS OC Pesticides As Cd Cr cu Pb Ni Indiv. Total G 1-2401-1 Comp 1 G2-2401-1 0.0-0.1 3.6 Unmodified ANZECC B'Guideline 20 3 50 60 300 60 200 1 0.53 1 6-8 Levels Modified for 3-part Comp 6.67 1 16.67 20 100 20 66.67 0.33 0.167 0.33 EPA FILL LIMITS Unmodified 30 5 250 100 300 100 500 2 1 42 of 235 EA I079\Treloor\Yorrambal\aud TABLE 6b: GRID AND TARGET LOCATIONS (Individual Samples of Comp 4) - Heavy Metals [mglkg dry weight of soil] I I CONCENTRATIONS OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS DEPTH TYPEOF SAMPLE HEAVY METALS No. (m) SOIL I. I .. G7-240 1-1 0.0-0.1 SOIL G11-2401-1 I 0.0-0.1 1 SOIL G12-2401-1 1 0.0-0.1 1 SOIL 8.3 1 4.0 1 5.6 I 5.5 I 19 1 0.02 I 3.0 I 15 ANZECC B LEVELS 20 3 50 60 300 1 60 200 EPA FILL LIMITS 30 5 250 100 300 2 100 500 43 of 235 I I CONCENTRATIONS OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS SAMPLE Depth TYPE TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS VOLATILE ORGANICCOMPOUNDS No. (m) OF C6-C9 Clo-C14 C1s-C20 C29-C36 Total Benzene Toluene Ethyl Xylenes Isopropyl Total Lead MATERIAL , <\ ‘>CS Benzene Benzene MAH’s G3-2401-1 0.0-0.1 Natural Soil e20 74 140 240 454 c0.02 c0.02 c0.02 c0.02 ND G17-2401-1 0.0-0.1 Natural Soil <20 33 71 220 324 c0.02 c0.02 c0.02 c0.02 ND - GI ANZECC B Guideline ro 100 ns ns ns 1000 1 3* 5* 5* 7 300 0 LevelslEPA Fill Limits B.I * 44 of 235 EA IO79\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &#) GeoPollution Managemc TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS RESULTS (Composite Samples) - Heavy Metals, PAH’s, OP Pesticides, PCB’s, Phenols and Cyanide [mglkg dry weight of soil] EPAV FILL MATERIAL LIMITS ns ns 50 40 10 50 20 ns ns ns Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Phenolics (totall Comp EPA 1 : ~3-2401-1 Comp EPA 2 : ~5-2401-1 G 1 5-2401-1 G13-2401-1 G24-2401-1 G22-2401-1 45 of 235 31 Et\ 1079~Trcloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollution Management TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS RESULTS (Individual Samples) - EPA Screen (except TPH's and Volatiles; refer to Table 2) [mglkg dry weight of soil] ~ ~~ ~ EPAV LOW ANALYTES SAMPLE N0.s ANZECC B EPA V FILL LEVEL FILL GUIDELINE MATERIAL MATERIAL ~ ~ Ti-2401-2 T5-2701-1 LEVELS LIMITS LIMITS Heavy Metals (tola[) Antimony (Sb) G.0 G.0 20 Barium (Ba) 14 220 4004 Beryllium (Be) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PA H s) Total <2 <2 20' 20 200 Benzo(a)pyrene Organochlorine Pesticides Total ND ND lJ 1 10 Dieldrin ~ Cyanide Total Complex Phenolics (totao 46 of 23537 EA I079\Trelonr\Yarrambat\aud ($) GeoPollution Managernea TABLE 10: TARGET SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS (Grey’s Reef Mine Area) - Arsenic and Mercury [mglkg dry weight of soil] ANZECC B Guideline Limits 20 1 NEHF Level “A” Health Investigation 100 15 EPAV Fill Limits 30 .2 EPAV Low-Level Contaminated Fill Limit 300 20 47 of 235 33 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrarnbat\aud &mGeoPollution Management TABLE 10 cont’d: TARGET SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS (Grey’s Reef Mine Area) - Arsenic and Mercury [mglkg dry weight of soil] Concentrations of Heavy Metals T18-2701-1 T18 0.0-0.1 2.7 co.01 T18-2701-2 T18 0.3-0.5 2.3 - ANZECC B Guideline Limits 20 1 NEHF Level “A” Health Investigation 100 15 EPAV Fill Limits 30 2 EPAV Low-Level Contaminated Fill Limit 300 20 48 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollutlon Manageme The findings of the initial round of analysis are summarised below. Arsenic: Arsenic occurred at concentrations potentially in excess of ANZECC B guideline limits in three natural soil composites. Composite Samples Comp 3, Comp 4 and Comp 7 contained arsenic at 8.4 mgkg, 7.5 mgkg and 7.0 mgkg respectively, marginally above the modified ANZECC B limit of 6.67 ppm. Analysis of the three individual samples comprising composite sample Comp 4 returned results below reporting limits or, where detected, showed concentrations below ANZECC B criteria. Arsenic exceeded the NEHF “A” Health Investigation Level (HIL) of 100 mgkg in six target samples. One sample contained arsenic at a level equivalent to the HIL. The EPAV Fill limit of 30 mgkg was exceeded in a further sixteen samples and the ANZECC B guideline limit of 20 mgkg was exceeded in a further three samples. The EPAV Low-Level contaminated fill limit for arsenic was exceeded by one target sample only. Cadmium: Cadmium occurred in one fill sample (T5-2701-1) at 8.0 mgkg, above the ANZECC B guideline and EPAV fill limits of 3 mgkg and 5 mgkg respectively. Lead: Lead occurred in one fill sample (T5-2701-1) at 520 mgkg, above the ANZECC B guideline, NEHF A and EPAV fill limits of 300 mgkg. Zinc: Zinc occurred at concentrations in excess of ANZECC B guideline limits in one near-surface (fill/soil) three part composite, ie. composite sample Comp 1 which contained zinc at 130 mg/kg, above the modified ANZECC B limit of 66.67 mgkg. Target point sample T5-2701-1 (fill) contained zinc at 6,300 mgkg, above the ANZECC B guideline and EPAV Low Level Fill limits of 200 mgkg and 5000 mgkg respectively. pH: pH occurred at concentrations outside the ANZECC B guideline limits in two natural soil composites. Composite Samples 2 and 7 both had an acidic pH of 5.1, outside the ANZECC B limit of 6-8. TPH’s: TPH’s occurred at concentrations in excess of the ANZECC B guideline and EPAV fill limits in one fill sample. Shallow fill sample T5-2701-1 contained TPH’s (X9) at 1128 mgkg, above the ANZECC BEPAV fill limit of 1000 mgkg. 35 49 of 235 EA i079\Treloar\Yarmmbat\aud &mGeoPollution Management Other Parameters: All other parameters (PAH’s, MAH’s, Cyanide, Organochlorine Pesticides, Organophosphorus Pesticides, PCB’s, Phenolics, and a further ten heavy metals) returned results below reporting limits or, where detected, showed concentrations below ANZECC B Criteria. 11.5.2 Further Analysis Further analyses of samples were selected based on the results of the initial analysis. The individual samples of composite sample Comp 1 were each analysed for zinc due to elevated levels of zinc in the original composite sample. Selected deeper fill samples were analysed for arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc due to high concentrations of these parameters in the shallow fill samples at the same locations. Three deeper fill samples were analysed for arsenic and zinc. One of the deeper fill samples was also analysed for cadmium and lead. The results are summarised in the following the tables and discussed in detail below TABLE 11: INDIVIDUALS OF COMP 1 AND FURTHER TARGET SAMPLE ANALYSIS [mglkg dry weight of soil] ANZECC B Guideline Limits 20 3 300 200 NEHF Level “A” Health Investigation 100 20 300 7000 EPAV Fill Limits 30 5 300 500 EPAV Low-Level Contaminated Fill Limits 300 50 3000 5000 36 50 of 235 EA1079\Treloar\Yarrambatbt\aud &$) GeoPollution Managemq Arsenic: Arsenic occurred at concentrations in excess of ANZECC B guideline limits in the three deeper fill samples analysed. Samples T5-270 1-22 and Tl l-270 1-2 both contained arsenic at 27 mg/kg while sample T13-2701-2 contained arsenic at 250 mg/kg. The latter concentration also exceeded the EPAV fill limit (30 mg/kg) and the NEHF A Health Investigation Level (100 mg/kg)* Cadmium: The deeper fill sample (T5-2701-2) contained cadmium at 3.2 mgkg, which was slightly above the ANZECC B guideline of 3 mgkg. Lead: Lead was detected in the deeper fill sample (T5-2701-2) at 210 mg/kg which was below ANZECC ByNEHF A and EPAV Fill Limits of 300 mg/kg. Zinc: Zinc was identified in two samples above the ANZECC B guideline limit of 200 mg/kg. Shallow fill sample G2-2401-1 contained zinc at 360 mg/kg and deeper fill sample T5-2701-2 contained zinc at 1,200 mg/kg, above the EPA Fill Limit. 37 51 of 235 EA I079\Trelonr\Yarrarnbat\aud &mGeoPollution Management Elutriation Testing - Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead and Zinc Elutriation testing of samples showing the highest concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc was undertaken in order to determine metal leachability (“Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure”, TCLP method). Elutriation testing of fill samples T5-2701-1 and T5-2701-2 was commissioned for cadmium, lead and zinc and of fill samples T11-2701-2 and T13-2701-2 for arsenic. Results are summarised in Table 12 below. Table 12: Elutriation Test Results (TCLP) Lead 0.046 0.14 - 50 Zinc 34 22 50 The elutriation test results (“TCLP” test) for arsenic, cadmium and lead indicate that the leachability of these metals is low. The TCLP results for zinc indicate that this metal has a moderate leachability, however, the leachable fraction remains below the EPAV low level limit. We note that the elutriation test results above are conservative, since the adopted laboratory TCLP methodology employs an acid solution far more aggressive than any natural fluids likely to percolate through the soil profile at the site, thus exaggerating the leachable fraction of the metals under natural in-situ conditions. 52 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yiurambatbud 0GeoPollution Manageme 11.6 DATA QUALITY EVALUATION The QNQC program comprised both an internal laboratory quality control program comprising analysis of duplicates (repeat analyses), matrix spikes, blanks and known standards, as well as external quality checks by analysis of field duplicates (split samples) both at an external check laboratory (QNQC or secondary laboratory) and as blind duplicates analysed at the primary laboratory under anonymous sample numbers. The results of analysis of field duplicate samples provide an inter-laboratory comparison with respect to accuracy and precision (sub-sample variability), and indicate how well the analytical results represent the soil quality at the test locations. One trip blank and one equipment blank (both water samples) were taken and, as no volatile compounds were identified, only the equipment blanks were analysed for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and zinc subject to elevated analytes detected in the soil samples collected on the same day. The analysis results of the following four sets of field duplicate samples and four sets of blind replicate samples are presented below. TABLE 13: LIST OF SPLIT AND BLIND DUPLICATE PAIRS a) Quality Assurance: Field Duplicates (Splits) Sample No. Bore Split Duplicate No. (Primary Lab.) No.s (Secondary Lab.) T4-270 1- 1 T4 T4-270 1- 1DUP T9-270 1- 1 T9 T9-270 1- 1DUP T14-2701-1 T14 T14-2701-1DUP COMP 7 G 19,G20,G21 COMP DUP b) Quality Control: Blind Duplicates (Primary Laboratory) Comp No. Indiv. Sample Bore No.s Blind Duplicate No.s No.s Comp Indiv. COMP 3 G8-2401-1 G8 COMP B A-240 1 Gl O-2401-1 G10 B-240 1 G9-2401-1 G9 C-240 1 N/A T14-270 1- 1 T14 N/A D-270 1 T9-2701-1 T9 E-270 1 T4-270 1- 1 T4. F-270 1 39 53 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambatbud &mGeoPollution Management Following receipt of initial results, a series of QNQC checks, sample and extract exchanges was carried out between the two laboratories involved, on the basis of large variations for arsenic. The following tables include calculated values of “Relative Percentage Differences” (RPD). RPD values (Relative Percentage Differences) include “Non-Detected” values, which are approximated to zero. Where one result is above and the other is below detection limits, half the detection limit is assumed for the not detected results. Where both results are below the detection limits, RPD is assumed to be nil. RPD values were evaluated according to the Australian Standard AS 4482.1-1997 using the following formula to calculate RPD (Relative Percentage Difference) Values: RPD (“’0) = Result 1 - Result 2 100 Mean 11.6.1 Split Duplicate Pairs Table 14 compares analysis results of duplicate pairs by primary and secondary laboratories respectively. The table includes results of re-analysis of two samples for arsenic by the second laboratory commissioned due to significant variations from the main laboratory during initial analysis. 40 54 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud 0GeoPollution Manageme TABLE 14: QNQC SPLIT DUPLICATE RESULTS AND EVALUATION ARITHMETIC Arsenic 13 Reported 655 135.88 lloo 4/2/00 Arsenic 21 0 Reported 'Oo0 16/2/00 605 130.58 r 280 Reported4/2/00 158.50 153.31 Arsenic 37 Reported 300 16/2/00 168.50 156.08 Mercury 0.25 0.31 0.28 21.43 COMP 7 and COMP DUP: *: RF'D = Relative Percentage Difference Bold and Underlined: RPD >SO% NA: Not Applicable Variations between heavy metal concentrations ranged between 0% for cadmium and 153.3% for arsenic. The greatest variations were recorded for arsenic and chromium with RPDs of 153.3% and 99.2% respectively. Variations in results may be due to one or more of the following reasons - Sample splitting - Sample heterogeneity - Sample preparation techniques at the laboratories - Sample extraction and analysis techniques. 55 of 235 &mGeoPollution Management The repeat analysis of arsenic by the second laboratory confirmed higher results by the second laboratory, indicating good repeatability of the results by the same laboratory. As the large differences between the main laboratory’s and the QNQC laboratory’s analysis results remained, the two sample pairs were subsequently exchanged between the laboratories and reanalysed. A series of follow-up check testing of arsenic variation was carried out and is presented in Section 11.6.3 of this chapter. The overall average ‘Percent Relative Difference’ (RPD) across all analytes for this set of duplicate samples is 64.3 %, and is therefore outside the acceptable limit. 11.6.2 Blind Duplicate Pairs Table 15 compares results for results for blind duplicate pairs. TABLE 15: QNQC BLIND DUPLICATE RESULTS AND EVALUATION T14-2701-1 and 0-2707: Arsenic 37 35 36 5.5 Mercury 0.25 0.16 0.205 43.9 Arsenic 13 40 26.5 101.89 Arsenic 8.4 9.9 9.15 16.40 Cadmium 4.0 <1.o ND ND Chromium 4.2 3.4 3.8 21.05 Copper 4.2 4.1 4.15 2.41 Lead 24 18 16 37.50 Mercury 0.04 0.02 0.03 66.67 * - Nickel 3.9 2.8 3.35 32.84 Zinc 27 20 23.5 29.79 56 of 23543 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\au~ &mGeoPollution Managemei Variations between reported heavy metal concentrations ranged between 0% for cadmium and 101.89% for arsenic. The only other RPD above 50% was for mercury at 66.67%. Given that sample preparation and extraction techniques were identical, variations between blind duplicates are considered to be mainly due to sample heterogeneity. The overall average ‘Relative Percent Difference’ (RPD) across all analytes for this set of duplicate samples is 32.6% and is therefore acceptable. 11.6.3 Further Work 11. 6.3. I Sample Exchange Two samples were exchanged between the laboratories in an initial attempt to resolve significant discrepancies in results for the duplicate pairs T9-270 1- 1m9-2701 - 1DUP and T14- 270 1- 1/T14-270 1- 1DUP (Tables 16a and 16b). No variations in sample preparatiodextraction techniques from standard laboratory techniques were requested at this stage. Arsenic 930 140 535 -147.7 - DUPLICATE SAMPLES ANALYTE (Primary Laboratory) ARITHMETIC RPD* (%) Tl4-2701-1 T14-2701-1 DUP MEAN analysed by analysed by WQCLab Main Lab Arsenic 280 71 175.5 -119.1 Each laboratory reported its results in the range of those previously reported for .the equivalent routine or duplicate sample. Subsequently, enquiries were made pertaining to the laboratories’ sample preparation and extraction techniques with the following findings. 43 57 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &#) GeoPollution Management Gribbles (GAL) did not perform any sieving or standardised screening to remove coarse particles and did not grind the samples. Instead, oversize particles were removed manually. This gave rise to some concern that manual removal of stones is arbitrary and the preparation did not have a uniform surface area for acid digestion to act upon. Therefore the representativeness of GAL’S results with regard to the bulk samples was doubtful. The main differences between laboratories were with regard to the method of removal of larger size particles (manual selection or sieving), sub-sampling (or absence thereof) by cone & quartering and the extraction method (Microwave or Nitric Acid/Hydrogen PeroxideA-Iydrochloric Acid). It was suspected that the differences in laboratory results were both due to sample splitting and particle size range in the sub-samples for extraction, grinding (or lack thereof) and extraction methods. The above findings indicated that sample heterogeneity and extraction techniques were likely to be the main reasons for the discrepancies between the two laboratories. 11.6.3.2 Exchange of Extracts In order to address the issues involved, as requested by the Environmental Auditor (correspondence dated March 23,2000), the following further analysis was commissioned: Homogeneity Issue: Preparation of aqueous slurry samples and splitting of slurries between MGT and Gribbles. Particle Size Issue: The sample with the highest arsenic concentrations was subjected to grinding without stone removal or screening and analysed by both MGT and Gribbles. Different Extraction Techniques: MGT were asked to prepare an extract as per their standard method and send it to Gribbles for metals analysis and compare with previous results reported by Gribbles. Obtain a broad “correction factor” for GAL results: Several additional samples were analysed by MGT using their standard method, including two other samples with high arsenic concentrations and three from the general site with low arsenic concentrations. These sample were analysed for arsenic and three other metals. In addition, recent data on arsenic analysis of a recognised standard sample were requested from both laboratories. These are attached to the end of Appendix G. 1 and G.2. 58 of 23544 &mGeoPollutlon Managemel a) Sample Homogeneity Sliirry Preparations Reanalysis was initially commissioned following slurry preparation of two samples by Gribbles. Preparation of slurry samples and splitting of samples between MGT and Gribbles was also carried out subsequently (Tables 17a and 17b). Table 17a also includes previous results presented in Table 14 above. ANALYTES DUPLICATE SAMPLES ARlTHM ETlC RPD* (%) Routine Sample Split Duplicate MEAN (Main Lab) (QAIQC’Lab) The arsenic result following slurry preparation reported by GAL was more than twice as high as the non-slurried sub-sample analysed previously, indicating that sample homogeneity in preparation is an important contributing factor in variations between laboratories. Repeat analysis of the original routine sample following slurrying by Gribbles yields also a higher result but only approx. half as high as MGT’s split duplicate results resulting in an RPD still slightly above 50%. This suggests a true variation between the field replicates. MGT Report No. 1381 19 also includes arsenic results for standard soils. The samples selected for slurry preparation were the duplicate pair from T9 with the highest reported Arsenic concentrations, including the routine sample originally dispatched to Gribbles and a portion of the split duplicate originally sent to MGT. Slurry analysis yielded 570 ppm of arsenic for the routine sample and 1300 ppm for the split duplicate. 59 of 235 EA1079\Trcloar\Yarrambat\aud (#)GeoPollutlon Management ANALYTES , DUPLICATE SAMPLES ARITHMETIC RPD' (%) GAL MGT MEAN (Main'Lab) (QNQC Lab) Arsenic 570 930 750 48.0 I Arsenic 1300 950 1125 31.1 The above table indicates that RPDs are greatly reduced as a result of slurry preparations. Both RPD's are now less than 50%. Gribbles had previously reported much lower results for both samples using standard sample preparation techniques. This suggests that sample homogeneity may be the main underlying problem. It is noted that, following slurry preparation, Gribbles were obtaining a similar result as MGT originally reported result for the split duplicate sample. The RPD in this case is less than 50%. 60 of 23546 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\au~ &mGeoPollution Managemei Exchange of Slurries Tables 1 Sa and 1Sb show results of a slurry exchange. - Slurry Exchange T9-2701-1/-1Dup :mg/kg (=ppm) dry weight of soil] DUPLICATE SAMPLES ANALYTES T9-2701-1 T9-2701-1DUP ARlTH METlC RPD* (%) analysed by analysed by MEAN QNQC Lab Main Lab Arsenic 900 1000 950 10.53 Arsenic 280 71 175.5 -119.1 The above table indicates that subsample heterogeneity and/or extraction play a role in variations between laboratories. A low WD value resulted from analysis of the split slurry samples for T9, while the same for T14 resulted in an RPD value still greater than 50%. Sliirry Preparations prepared by Gribbles and analysed by MGT and Gribbles: Table 19 shows results for splits of a slurry prepared by Gribbles. DUPLICATE SAMPLES ANALYTES T9-2701-1 T9-2701-1 ARITHMETIC RPD' (%) analysed by analysed by MEAN QNQC Lab (MGT) Main Lab (GAL) 570 Arsenic 900 735 (previous result) 44.89 Arsenic 280 280 280 0 Analysis of the same slurry by the two laboratories yielded acceptable RPD's. 61 of 235 47 EA I079\Trclonr\Yarrarnbat\aud (#)GeoPollution Management b) Particle Size Sample were ground without stone removal or screening and analysed for arsenic as per standard techniques. DUPLICATE SAMPLES ANALYTES T9-2701-1 DUP T912701-1 DUP ARITHMETIC RPD* (%) analysed by analysed by MEAN Main Lab (GAL) QiQC Lab (MGT) Arsenic 1000 950 975 5.13 The GAL result of 1000 ppm following grinding without stone removal compares to an original result of 2 10 ppm using Gribbles’ standard sample preparation technique. This indicates that random particle size discrimination and the lack of grinding by GAL were likely to be contributing factors in variations of results. A higher result yet of 1300 ppm had been reported for a slurried subsample of the same soil sample (as reported on 6/3/2000). c) Extraction Method The results of splitting of an extract prepared by MGT between the laboratories are summarized in Table 21 below (following page). 62 of 23548 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrarnbatbud &mGeoPollution Managemei DUPLICATE SAMPLES ANALYTES (Primary Laboratory) ARITHMETIC RPD' (%) Gribbles I MGT MEAN T4-2701-1DUP: 45 Arsenic 2.3 23.65 180.55 (Previous result) Cadmium 0.035 ~0.5 0.143 150.35 Lead I 1.2 I 21 I 11.1 I 178.38 Zinc 1 2.6 54 1 28.3 1 181.63 280 Arsenic 12 146 183.56 (Previous result) Cadmium 0.005 c0.5 0.128 191.41 Lead 1 .o 22 11.5 182.61 .Zinc 2.2 42 22.1 180.09 Large discrepancies were recorded for two split extracts prepared by MGT. Previous routine arsenic results by Gribbles (GAL), using their own standard extraction method, were 13 ppm for T4-2701-1 and 37 ppm for T14-2702-1. The large discrepancies in results for subsamples from the same extract as reported by the two laboratories (Table 2 1 suggest) that laboratory analysis and detection methods may also play a role in poor data quality. d) Unprepared samples from Gribbles to MGT for standard extraction and analysis of As, Cd, Pb and Zn MGT were asked to analyse additional samples, previously analysed by Gribbles, for up to 4 metals using their own standard extraction method. Three samples with previously reported low results (grid points) and two samples with previously reported elevated results (target points) were selected. Results are tabulated below (Table 22). 63 of 235 49 EA 1079\Trcloar\Yarrarnbat\aud GeoPollution Management DUPLICATE SAMPLES ANALYTES (Primary Laboratory) ARITHMETIC RPD" (%) Gribbles MGT MEAN (Previous Results) (New Results) Arsenic c2.0 12 6.5 169.23 Cadmium c1.o ~0.5 NA NA Lead 18 17 17.5 5.71 Zinc 33 40 36.5 109.59 Arsenic 7.8 18 12.9 -79.07 Cadmium <1 .o ~0.5 NA NA Lead 8.8 11 9.9 22.22 Zinc 16 34 25 -72.0 Arsenic 8.3 10 19.15 8.88 Cadmium <1.o ~0.5 NA NA Lead 19 18 18.5 5.41 Zinc 15 29 22 -63.64 Arsenic 47 150 98.5 -104.57 Arsenic 300 690 495 -78.79 Arsenic was reported by MGT at values between 1.2 and greater than 6 times above Gribbles' results. Results for other metals were apparently affected to a lesser degree by different subsampling and extraction methods. Zinc appeared to be the only other metal showing significant differences (MGT results again higher) varying between 1.2 and 2.12 fold. 64 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollution Managemei 11.6.3 Summary Evaluation Inter-La bora tory Comparison (Field Duplicates): Precision The overall average ‘Percent Relative Difference’ (RPD)across all analytes for field duplicate samples is 64.3 %, and is therefore outside the acceptable range of 0 - 50%. The greatest variations were recorded for arsenic and chromium with RPDs of 153.3% and 99.2% respectively. Acceptability / Completeness The percentage of field duplicate analyses performed by primary and secondary laboratories (completeness) producing acceptable results was 50% compared to a desirable value of 95%. RPD variations greater than the acceptable 50% occurred for arsenic and chromium. These differences are considered to be due to the non-homogenous distribution of these substances in fill material across the site and due to variations in laboratory extraction techniques. Internal Laboratory Comparison (Blind Duplicates): Precision Blind duplicate pairs analysed by the primary laboratory showed mean ‘Relative Percentage Difference’ of 32.6%, indicating good repeatability. Acceptability / Completeness The percentage of blind duplicate analyses performed by the primary laboratory producing acceptable results (completeness) was 83.3% compared to a desirable value of 95%. Overall Completeness: Completeness is an indicator of the success of the sampling and analysis program. Completeness should be at least 95%. The overall completeness for this data set is 65%. 65 of 235 EA 1079\Treloar\Yarrambatbud GeoPollution Management Internal QMQC: Accuracy - Primary Laboratory: Spike percentage recoveries were between 60 and 132 %. Recoveries outside of the generally acceptable range of 75 - 125% applied to the heavy metals arsenic, beryllium, boron, molybdenum and antimony, OC Pesticides and PCB's. The metals outside the range were all between 70 to 75% recovery indicating possible slight under-representation of actual concentrations. Accuracy - Secondary Laboratory: Spike percentage recoveries reported by the secondary laboratory were between 82.% and 10 1'YO within the acceptable range of 75%- 125%. Equipment Blank Samples Rinse Water Blanks: The equipment blanks were analysed for arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc, following identification of elevated concentrations of these compounds in soil samples during the initial round of analysis. Trace concentrations of zinc were detected in both rinsate blanks. The zinc concentrations were considered to be insignificant and not to affect the quality of the data. None of the remaining analytes of concern were detected in the rinsate blank samples. Trip Blank: Analysis of trip blank samples was not considered necessary given the absence of vapour contamination at the site. 66 of 23552 EA 1079\TreIoar\Yarrambat\aud &bGeoPollution Managemei 111. GROUNDWATER 111.1 Introduction This section covers groundwater information obtained from the Victorian Groundwater Data Base (via Sinclair Knight Men). A well location plot and discussion of anticipated groundwater flow direction are provided. Selected data from the Victorian Groundwater Data Base are included as Appendix H to this report. Appendix H includes data from a total of four registered wells (ie. all uses), located within a 4 km radius of the site, the closest of which is located at 2.5 km distance to the west, beyond the Plenty River. The data are presented as four database reports including “Location”, “Aquifer Details” “Chemistry” and “Composite” (Appendix H). Four further registered boreholes are listed in the database which are under the authority of the Department of Energy & Minerals. No wells were located on the site. 111.2 Summary and Discussion of Data Groundwater Extraction Wells in Vicinity of Site Four wells are registered as groundwater investigation wells. Aquifer data is available for three of the wells. One of the wells, located approximately 3.5 km east of the site, is screened from 7.9 m to 19.8 m in “sand”. The standing water level within this bore was recorded as 4.9 metres on 131h April 1971, indicating that the aquifer is confined. The most recent salinity data (26* May 1971) indicates a total dissolved solids content of 3,084 mg/L. Salinity data obtained a few weeks prior to this date varied from 6,967 to 7,897 ma. The variation in salinity may be attributable to the degree of well developmentlpurging taken place prior to sampling. This well is in use for domestic purposes and has a yield of approximately 1 litrekec (Vsec). The two remaining wells for which groundwater data is available are located west of the site, beyond the Plenty River. One of these wells is screened from 18.3 m to 50.3 m in basalt. Tertiary aged basalt is known to locally overlie Silurian sediments upon which the site is located (refer also to Section 11.4.1 above). The standing water level within this bore was recorded at 13.7 metres on 21” November 1972, indicating that the aquifer is confined. This well has a yield of approximately 0.6 Vsec and is under the authority of the municipality/shire. The remaining well is screened from 16.3 m to 40.3 m within clay. The standing water level within this bore was recorded at a depth of 16.4 m on 24* February 1988. This well is used for domestic purposes. Details of its available yield are not known. 67 of 235 53 EA i 079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &#) GeoPollution Management No groundwater chemistry data, including groundwater salinity, were available for the wells west of the site. No standing water levels or groundwater chemistry is available for the four registered Department of Energy and Minerals investigation boreholes. I I I.3 Groundwater Assessment Criteria The State Environment Protection Policy Groundwaters of Victoria (EPA 1997) refers to the application of ANZECC criteria for assessment of groundwater quality with respect to identified beneficial uses of groundwater. The ANZECC salinity guideline limit for the protection of ecosystems and for raw drinking water is 1000 mg/L. A limit of 3,000 mg/L is specified for stock watering. Groundwater records have shown that groundwater in the vicinity of the site is used for domestic use. For the assessment of beneficial use, the lowest salinity value is used as it represents the most conservative case. TDS (total dissolved solids) in groundwater from the “sand” aquifer was approximately 3,000 mg/L, corresponding to Segment B of the State Environment Protection Policy Groundwaters of Victoria (EPA 1997), prescribing protection of groundwater for the following beneficial uses; 3 Maintenance of Ecosystems, 3 Stock Watering, > Potable mineral water supply 3 Agricultural, parks and gardens 3 Industrial water use, 3 Primary contact recreation and 3 Buildings and Structures Groundwater from the clay deposits is used for domestic purposes and thus is likely to also correspond the above beneficial uses. The basaltic aquifer overlies the sediments which underlie the subject site and thus is not relevant to this discussion. Given: 3 the closest groundwater receptor for consideration for the maintenance of ecosystems is the Plenty River, located approximately 1.0 km to the west of the site, and approximately the same distance down-gradient in terms of groundwater flow (approximately south-west); 3 the absence of any receiving surface waters closer to the site which might have been used for recreation; 68 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollution Managemei r- > the “non-mineral” nature of the groundwater; and 3 the proposed residential redevelopment of the site, the most likely potential beneficial uses for groundwater beneath the site are potable water, agriculture, parks and gardens, and buildings and structures. 69 of 235 55 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &#) GeoPollution Management IV. CONCLUSIONS This site assessment focussed on the evaluation of the environmental quality of near-surface soils, including an assessment of the extent and quality of fill material across the site. The surface layer is the relevant stratum for assessing human exposure risks. ANZECC B/DUTCH B limits and ANZECC Health Investigation Limits (ANZECC & NHMRC, 1992) were adopted for evaluation of analysis results. Results were also compared with EPAV Fill and EPAV Low Level Fill Material Limits (EPA Bulletin 448, “Classification of Wastes”, 1995) for consideration with regards to any off-site disposal of any soil which may be excavated during the site preparation works for the proposed residential development. For final data evaluation, concentrations are also compared with health risk-based investigation levels for “Standard Residential Settings” (exposure scenarios), ie. NEHF Level “A” criteria (Imray and Langley 1996). Significant results of this Environmental Site Assessment are summarised below: IV.l History Search and Field Observations The site history search revealed that during the nineteenth century and in the early years of the twentieth century, Grey’s Reef Gold Mine operated in the west of the site. By 1901 a battery plant was also present. The battery plant was used for crushing quartz rock ore. Historical evidence suggests that on site treatment of ore (gold processing) may also have occurred. This process involved the release of toxic elements such as mercury, cyanide and zinc from the processing materials, and arsenic from the ore itself. Mining operations are reported to have ceased in 1938. Since that date the site has been occupied by Mr & Mrs J.K. and E. Treloar who farmed the site, growing corn and green feeds for chickens, and grazed horses. Visual evidence of former mining is still present in a northeast-southwest traversing band in the western portion of the site which features mullock heaps, fill mounds and infilled prospecting pits (or possible shafts). A dry creek bed at the southern end of former mining area has been infilled and its surrounds have been used for dumping of vehicles. The site history investigation, site inspection and site interviews have indicated that no underground facilities (in-ground fuel storage tanks or pits) are present or have ever been present within the site boundaries. Fill was found in the west of the site, associated with the former gold mine, to depths of 0.15 to 1.O metres plus (total fill depth unconfirmed at most test locations). Fill was also found in the eastern corner of the site associated with the residential development to depths of 0.2 to 0.25 metres. Rehsal on coarse material in the filVsiltstone bedrock occurred at two of the forty nine test points. The fill material is heterogeneous and contained a mixture of silt, clay andor gravel at all test locations. 70 of 235 -56 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud 4b GeoPollution Managema 0 No asbestos, either in the form of sheet fragments or lagging, was observed on the site surface or within fill material. IV.2 Chemical Analysis Results - Soil Concentrations of most potential contaminants were below ANZECC B levels in surface and deeper fill and natural soil samples analysed, apart from arsenic, cadmium, lead, zinc and TPH’s. Fill material typically contains arsenic at levels above the ANZECC B limit. The peak concentration at test location T13 (second sample) was 430 mag, in excess of the EPAV low-level contaminated fill limit (“Prescribed Waste”). The NEHF “A” Health Investigation Level was exceeded in seven target samples and the EPAV Fill limit was exceeded in a further seventeen samples. Arsenic contamination was present in both the surface fill layer (0.0-0.1 m) and in deeper fill (0.3-0.5m). The 95% UCL value of the arithmetic mean of the sample concentrations is 78.8 mgkg, which is in excess of the ANZECC B guideline and EPAV Fill limits. Higher concentrations of arsenic were typically reported by the second laboratory, with a second sample in the Prescribed Waste range at 1 100 mgkg (target test point T9). Cadmium, lead, zinc and TPH’s were identified at concentrations above the ANZECC B guideline and EPAV fill limits in one shallow fill sample (T5). Further heavy metal analysis of deeper fill at this location identified arsenic and cadmium marginally above the ANZECC B guideline levels and zinc above both the ANZECC B guideline and EPAV fill b limits. The 95% UCL of the arithmetic mean for cadmium, lead, zinc and TPH are all below the ANZECC guideline and EPAV Fill limits. Elutriation test results for samples showing the highest concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc indicated that the leachability of the first three metals is low, and that leachability of zinc is moderate but does not exceed the EPAV Fill guideline limit for elutriable fractions. Arsenic was identified in excess of the ANZECC B guideline limit in three natural soil composite samples. Further analysis of the individual samples from one of the composite samples returned results below reporting limits or, where detected, showed concentrations below ANZECC B criteria. Zinc was identified in excess of the ANZECC B guideline limit in one natural soil sample. 57 71 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &#) GeoPollution Management Concentrations of detected contaminants in all grid and target samples analysed (surface, deeper fill and natural soil) were averaged and are summarised in TABLE 23. Upper confidence limits (at 95%) of mean concentrations were calculated according to NSW EPA Sampling Design Guidelines (NSW EPA 1995). TABLE 23: 95% UCL OF ARITHMETIC AVERAGE AND PEAK CONCENTRATIONS OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS [mg/kg dry weight of soil] EPA LOW LEVEL FILL LIMITS4 50 I 1000 5000 ns I I Dutch B Limit adopted in absence of ANZECC B guideline Shaded: Average or peak concentration above ANZECC B / ANZECC Health level Bold & shaded: Level exceeds EPA Fill Limits Bold, shaded & underlined: Level exceeds NEHF Level “A” (HIL health based investigation level) Bold, shaded, underlined & italics: Level exceeds EPA Low Level Fill Limits ns: not specified Table 23 shows that 95% UCL of the arithmetic mean of most analytes detected in natural soil and fill samples from across the site to be below the ANZECC B guideline criteria except for arsenic and zinc. Peak concentrations are above the ANZECC B guideline and EPA Fill Limits for the heavy metals arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc, and for TPH’s in the range CIOto c36 (heavier mineral oil fraction hydrocarbons). The peak concentration of arsenic and zinc also exceeds the EPA Low Level Contaminated Fill Level. The peak concentrations of arsenic and lead are above the NEHF HIL Level A. While peak concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc exceeded the ANZECC B levels, elutriation testing showed that elevated metals have negligible leachability. 58 72 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud @) GeoPollution Managemel pH values in two natural soil composite samples are acidic (5.1) and outside the naturally occurring range, providing evidence of possible infiltration of process liquids from past gold mining/processing activities. OC and OP Pesticides, PAH, PCB and Phenolics in composite samples were all reported below laboratory detection limits. Heavy metals (apart from arsenic and zinc) were well below assessment criteria in composite samples. OC Pesticides, PCB, Phenolic compounds, cyanide, MAH and heavy metals apart from arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc in individual samples were all reported below laboratory detection limits or well below assessment criteria. QNQC duplicates showed some RPD’s above acceptable criteria, specifically for arsenic and chromium. Further work indicated that lead and zinc were also affected. Overall completeness of the QNQC data was 65% short of the target value of 95%. Elevated relative percentage difference results are attributed to heterogeneous distributions, apparently associated with particle size, of these heavy metals in the source material and to differences in the laboratories’ sample preparation and extraction techniques. It is considered that a correction factor(s) would need to be applied to the main laboratory’s entire data set, but for arsenic in particular, as the reported concentrations appear to be under-representations of actual concentrations. As individual analytes (arsenic and zinc) are locally above the EPAV Low Level Contaminated Fill limits, fill material in those areas would be classified as Prescribed Waste, according to EPA Bulletin 448 (1995) for the purpose of off-site disposal. The subject areas are an infilled creek bed at the southern end of the former inferred Grey’s Reef Mine area and two fill mounds within the former mining area itself. IV.3 Groundwater Assessment A groundwater data base search and qualitative assessment of potential impact on beneficial uses has shown the following. Data from a total of four registered wells (all uses), located within a 4 km radius of the site were available from the Victorian Groundwater Data Base. The regional watertable in the vicinity of the subject site is likely to occur at least 5 to 10 metres below the surface. The direction of groundwater flow beneath the site is considered likely to be between southwesterly (towards Plenty River). Groundwater TDS data indicates that existing and potential beneficial usesof groundwater on- and off-site are the maintenance of ecosystems, potable water supply, agriculture, parks and gardens, stock watering, primary contact recreation, and protection of buildings and structures. 59 73 of 235 EA1 079\Treloar\Yarrambahd 0GeoPollution Management IV.4 Summary In summary, the soil data obtained during this comprehensive site assessment suggest that fill material is heterogeneous and contains pockets of arsenic above ANZECC B guideline and Health Based Soil Investigation (HIL) limits. Two hot spots of arsenic contamination in the former mining area are above EPAV Low level Contaminated Waste limits (EPA Bulletin 448, 1995). Hot spot areas of cadmium, lead, zinc and TPH contamination above the ANZECC B guideline, some above the EPAV Fill and Health based Soil Investigation Limits and of zinc contamination above the EPA Low-Level Contaminated Waste limit were also identified, in particular affecting fill in a dry creek bed at the southern end of the former mining area. In the absence of any history of underground fuel storage at the site, and the absence of any significant mobile contamination by heavy metals or other soil contaminants at the site, and given the depth to groundwater and the likely low permeability of the natural soils and bedrock beneath the fill, it is considered that any adverse impact on beneficial uses of groundwater on- and off-site as a result of soil contamination at the site is unlikely. 60 74 of 235 - ~ ~~ EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollution Manageme V. RECOMMENDATIONS The results obtained in this comprehensive assessment imply that, unless clean up is undertaken to bring the entire site in compliance with ANZECC B guideline levels, the site is not considered eligible for a Certificate of Environmental Audit but will receive a conditional Statement. In consideration of the above, we recommend the following: Removal of dumped debris, and of contaminated fill within the dry creek bed; mullock heaps in the former mine area remain. A conditional Statement of Environmental Audit would be issued which would state that part of the site is contaminated with arsenic of natural origin and therefore is not suitable for any or all beneficial uses but would be suitable for sensitive uses in particular residential use subject to management and containment of waste. Removal of all contaminated soil including the mullock heaps and importation of clean soil to provide a cover for the former mine workings of at least 300 mm. The removal would require appropriate validation in accordance with EPA guidelines. A' conditional Statement of Environmental Audit would be issued with conditions applicable to a smaller area. As individual analytes (cadmium, lead and TPH, arsenic and zinc) in isolated pockets on the site, as identified during this assessment, are above the EPAV Fill Material andor EPAV Low Level Contaminated Fill limits respectively, the results indicate that fill material on the site should be classified as potentially contaminated waste according to EPA Bulletin 448 (1995) for the purpose of off-site disposal. Fill will be subject to EPA regulations and requirements and would be classified as per Prescribed Waste Regulations 1998 (refer also to EPA Information Bulletin 626, 1998 and EPA Information Bulletin 395a, 1999) as Prescribed Waste (low- or high-level contaminated). All site fill should be treated as potentially contaminated material, unless analysis of any discrete volumes of fill (at representative frequency) excavated from the site and designated for off-site disposal, indicated otherwise. 61 75 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud &mGeoPollution Management Draft Report Prepared By: ...... Fionnuala Collins...... ( Environmental Scientist) Draft Report Reviewed By: ...... Dr. Karin Schwab.. ... Date Draft Report Issued: ...... I 61h May 2000...... Date Final Report Issued: ...... 8Ih June 2000...... Signed on behalf of GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd: ...... , Dr. Karin B. Schwab (Principal Environmental Scientist) 62 76 of 235 EA IO79\Treloar\Y anambat\aud &mGeoPollution Managema LIMITATIONS OF THIS INVESTIGATION While the spacing and number of test locations was chosen to be representative of the overall site, inherent limitations remain as for any assessment based on a limited number of spot tests. The precision with which sub-surface conditions are indicated depends not only on the frequency and method of sampling but also on the degree of uniformity of sub-surface material. The borehole logs represent the sub-surface conditions at specific test locations only. Boundaries between strata as indicated on the log sheets are often not distinct but transitional and are a result of interpretation of the field observations. Point data have been extrapolated across the site (or across certain portions of the site) using best available knowledge combined with professional judgement. No guarantees can be given as to the maintenance of the environmental condition of the site surface as described in this report, during future earthworks and building construction or any other activities on the site prior to residential occupation (eg. possible occurrence of fuel or oil spillages). REFERENCES ANZECC & NHMRC (1992) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, January ANZECC and Victorian EPA (1996) Guidelines For the Laboratory Analysis of Contaminated Soils, August Environment Protection Authority (1995) Classification of Wastes. Bulletin 448, September Environment Protection (Prescribed Waste) Regulations (1998) Statutory Rule No. 95, 1998 Environment Protection Authority (1 998) Environment Protection (Prescribed Waste) Regulations 1998. Management of Waste Contaminated Soil and Low Level Contaminated Soil. EPA Information Bulletin. Publication 626, October Environment Protection Authority ( 1999) Industrial Waste Strategy. Instructions for Completion of Waste Transport Certificates. EPA Information Bulletin. Publication 395a, August Imray, P., Langley, A. eds ( 1996) Health-Based Soil Investigation Levels. National Environmental Health Forum (NEHF) Monographs, Soil Series No. 1 NSW Environment Protection Authority (1 995) Contaminated Sites. Sampling Design Guidelines, September Standards Australia (1997) Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of potentially Contaminated Soil. Part 1 : Non-volatile and Semi-volatile Compounds. Australian Standard AS 4482.1- 1997. 63 77 of 235 GeoPollution Management APPENDICES 78 of 235 .. '...... ".. ., .... APPENDIX A i. :...... L ..; , . ' ...... >. . ,. . -. .. . ' ...... - .: .. SITE LOCALITY & .. ...... *. ._...: . . *. I . .._...... 79 of 235 .. GeoPollution Management I Project NO: EA1079 COMPOSITE PLAN I FlGURENo: 2a Composite Sample Plan - (Grid Locations) .-._.----.__ ;,‘e-- -- ‘a. : G2 / COMP 2 COMP 3 / COMP4 / COMP 6 COMP 5 / CoMP Inferred Grey’s Reef r Mine Area 1 Refer to separate figure for this area ‘. ‘. %. -. ---. ---__._._._.-.-.- / COMP 8 feG22 G23@ G24 e*;-- e Key: e Sampling Points PROJECT: Lot 1 SCALE : 1: 2000 approx 323-325 Yan Yean Road Yarrambat 80 of 235 GeoPollution Management Project NO: EA1079 LOCATION PLAN FIGURE No: 1 Site Layout and Location of Sampling Points - (Grid Locations) Shed and Carport G2 -Above ground fuel tank e e G5 G6 e e e iG9 G8 G7 e e e G10 G11 G12 e e e G15 G14 G13 e e e G16 G17 G18 G21 -. e e e '. '. G20 G19 inferred Grey's Ree -. Mine Area . Refer to figure 1 b for more detail '. '. .. -. ---. ---____._._.-.--- e e e G22 G23 G24 I PROJECT: Lot 1 323-32581 of Yan 235 Yean Rc Yarrambat GeoPollution Management Project No: EA1079 LOCATION PLAN FIGURE No: 2b EPA SCREEN COMPOSITE PLAN GRID LOCATIONS \ \ i Inferred Grey's Reef Mine Area I Key: e Sampling Points 1 PROJECT: Lot 1 SCALE : 1: 2000 approx 323-325 Yan Yean Road 82 of 235 Yarrambat GeoPollution Management Project No: EA1079 LOCATION PLAN FIGURE No: 3 Location Plan - Target locations (Grey's Reef Mine Area and vehicle dump areas) Continuation of site towards Yan Yean Road It$@--,T14 T11 -Mullock Heap I UT9 Former vehicle dumD area nVW ------Dirt Track n T7@ .*(I...pits Dry creek bed filled with rubble ..*------. S. 'Y Pit filled with timber Disturbed siltstone e-----' (fill) e~2 T3 -7 l\ \r ------Q Key: 8 Sampling Points PROJECT: Lot 1 0 Fill Mounds SCALE : 1: 750 approx 323-325 Yan Yean Roac Yarrambat 83 of 235 ...... SITE HISTORICALL. INFORMATION Photographs 84 of 235 .. EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud giaoPo88u9isw MenagmmaB 1945 Aerial Photograph of the site (arrow pointing at south-west corner of site) - State Aerial Survey, Run 43, 12/1945, Project Ref: M2 5, 1 : 6,000 85 of 235 EA I079\Treloar\Yarrambat\aud 1956 Aerial Photograph of the site (arrow pointing at south-west corner of site) - State Aerial Survey, Run 16,0211956, Project Ref: M3 250, 1 : 12,000 86 of 235 1975 Aerial Photograph of the'site (arrow pointing at south-west corner of site) - State Aerial Survey, Run 19, 11/1975, Project Ref: M50N 1243, 1 : 10,000 87 of 235 APPENDIX D WORK PLAN FOR SITE ASSESSMENT ...... ... 88 of 235 GeoPollution Management Environmental Scientists and Engineers File No.: EA1079 Date: 19” January 2000 GUTTERLDGE HASKINS AND DAVEY PA., 380 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 Attention: Mr Fraser Watt RE: SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM - FINAL REVISION Project: Environmental Audit Lot 1,323 - 325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat Dear Fraser, In response to your facsimile of 17” January 2000, I have reviewed the planned program once more and our final proposal is presented below. Since our previous work plan (dated 17* January) we have reviewed fbrther results from Golder’s report (copy currently being couriered to your office. Previous test points and relevant results can be referenced fiom this report (we are currently still holding the full Golder report in case you require any additional information). The initial site assessment carried out by Golder Associates has indicated elevated arsenic concentrations in the western portion of the site coinciding with the “inferred Grey’s Reef Mine kea” as indicated on the site plan included in the Golder report. The Mine area consists of numerous fill mounds, mullock heaps and prospecting pits which are approximately indicated on the attached Figure 2. Since the initial stage of the Audit in 1998, car bodies and most other rubbish have been removed from the south-western corner of the site and loose fill has been pushed across to level this area. Review of analysis results fiom the full Golder report has shown that three “hot spots” of arsenic contamination were detected in the former mining area. These are sample points HA 4218 with concentrations of 1000 and 640 ppm HA 43/10 with concentrations of 400 and 470 ppm and HA43/11 with concentrations of 360 and 130 ppm of arsenic. We have taken coordinates for the three test points fiom Golder’s plan and will attempt to identify the locations. Ifwe have not allocated a test point in the vicinity as yet, we will then take additional samples to determine the extent of the hot spots. The following scope of work is proposed. A. SOIL 1. Proposed Samplinq Intervals: Sampling intervals will be as follows (with minor variations subject to actual soil profiles encountered). GeoPollution Management Pty. Ltd. ACN 067 a5754 241107 - 113 Heatherdale Road, Ringwood. Victoria. 3134 Phone: (03) 9873 2799 Fax: (03) 9873 289989 of 235 P.O. Box 441 Ringwood. Victoria. 3134 ~~ ~~~ GeoPoIIution Management A: 0.0-O.lm B: 0.2 - (0.4 - 0.5m) Sampling at all locations will include natural soil below any fill material if present. Where deeper fill is encountered at the site (fill mounds), additional samples of fill will be collected at a rate of one sample for every half metre. a) Grid Points Each grid test point will be advanced to a minimum of 0.5 metres to veri@ soil profiles. We will collect one surface sample only at grid test points where natural soil is exposed at surface. If fill is encountered at surface, at least one additional sample of natural soil underlying fill will be collected. No grid points will fall in the inferred previous mine area as this is covered by target points (see below). b) Target Points A minimum of two soil samples will be collected from each target point in the former mine and rubbish dump areas. Most sampling in this area will only be possible with hand equipment. Hence, sampling depth may be limited if rehsal on compacted siltstone rock or other coarse material is encountered. As mentioned above, if previously identified “hot spots” do not coincide with planned test points in the near vicinity, we would take additional samples. This may result in an additional three sampling points. 2. Sampling Pattern: a) Grid Points We propose to overlay the site by a 45 x 45 m grid with one grid point in the centre (or as close as possible to the centre) of each grid sector as shown on the attached Figure 1. This would result in a total of 24 grid points. b) Target Points A total of 18 (+3?) target points will be placed on fill mounds, mullock heaps and at prospecting pits that have previously not been sampled. Three points will be located in the area of the former rubbish dump and infilled dry creek bed. The proposed sampling fiequency will result in 24 grid sampling points and 21 (+3?) target sampling points. 3. Analysis Schedule The following table summarises the proposed analysis schedule. Eight composited grid-locatior: surface samples will be analysed as shown. All compositing will be carried out at the laboratory. Samples from eighteen target locations in the area of mine workings .will be analysec individually for arsenic and mercury. The plan allows for two samples per test point to bc analysed for arsenic and 50% of samples to be analysed for mercury. 90 of 235 GeoPollution Management Two widely-spaced samples from the general site will be analysed for the balance of an EPA Screen. Three surface samples targeting the area of dumped rubbish including the former dump area and the infilled creek bed will be analysed for petroleum-related compounds and two samples from this area will be subject to full EPA SCREEN analysis. Should any deeper fill appear suspect, additional EPA SCREEN analysis may be necessary. Proposed Analyses: - __ -- - ______PROPOSED ANALYTES APPLICABILITY Grid Locations only (24) lnorganics Heavy Metals (87 8 composite surface samples (three- part) & 3 individual surface samples (as a check on compositing) Organics Organochlorine Pesticides 8 composite surface samples (three- Part) Organophosphate Pesticides Min. 2 composite samples, in stockyards and any areas where animal husbandry was practiced Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH's) Min. 2 composite surface samples (three-part). additional if visual signs of contamination detected Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH's) Min. 2 individual samples, additional if PID field test results >20 ppm or odours are detected Volatile Aromatics (Benzene, Toluene, Min. 2 individual vial samples, Benzene, Xylenes) additional if PID field test results >20 ppm or odours are detected pH Value 2 composite samples Balance of EPA Screen Antimony, Beryllium, Cobalt, Molybdenum. Selenium, Tin (6 metals), Phenolic Compounds, Cyanide (total), 2 composite of near-surface 611 PCB's (three-part) Tarnet Locations (21 (+3?u Arsenic 36 (+6?) individual samples Mercury 18 (+3?) individual samples Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Lead 2 individual sa'mples Full EPA Screen Heavy metals (14). OC Pesticides. PCB's. Phenolic Two individual samDles (one each Compounds, Cyanide (total), from vehicle dump area and infilled Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH's), creek) Volatile Aromatics (MAH's). Polycyclic Aromatic 91 of 235 Hydrocarbons (PAH's). GeoPoIlution Management ~ QA/QC Samples: Field Duplicate (Split) Samples: Heavy Metals (8*) 1 composite sample (grid) Arsenic 2 individual target sample Mercury 1 individual target sample Blind Duolicate Samples: .. Heavy Metals (8.) 1 composite sample (grid) Arsenic 2 individual target sample Mercury 1 individual target sample EquiDment Blanks /Trip Blanks* (1 each Der day): Heavy Metals (8*) as required based on elevated levels in samples Analysis of trip blank subject to findings of routine analyses ': Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel and Zinc Proposed Laboratory Subcontractors: Subcontracting main and QNQC laboratories will be Gribbles Analytical Laboratories, Nottinl Hill (main laboratory) and MGT Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd, Oakleigh (seconc laboratory). B. GROUNDWATER A qualitative assessment of groundwater on- and off-site will be conducted. This will include 0 a search of the Victorian Groundwater Database, and 0 a discussion of regional depth to groundwater, existing and potential beneficial uses o groundwater and potential for groundwater to be contaminated. Please provide your feedback at your earliest convenience. We aim to commence field work withii approximately 1 week. Yours faithhlly DR KARN B. SCHWAB 92 of 235 .. '. , ...... I ..... 8 1...... '. .I. ,.: ,.: ...... -...... .-...... : ...... ,...-. -. - . .. .:<. .:<. ... : . .-...... ... .,.' ...... -. - ...... ... APPENDIX E . .- BORE LOGS ...... - .. _f ...... ~. . . :. : ...... - .. _. .. : ...... _ 93 of 235 ...... -...... '- .. GeoPollution Management Bore No: G1 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..1.. of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar ...... Sampling Method: Drill fig: HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 rnrn Grab Samples Surface/Surrounds: ExDosed Ground (refer to igure 1) ion: approx. 1 "S .. ... MD PID Readings: & Clay, browdgrey BG: 0.0 ppm Soil/ Jar SOlL Clayey SILT, light MD/D D PROFILE brodlight grey Silty CLAY, orange/ vsm Dhl brown, medium Soil/ BS: 0.0 pprn (0.h) 1'1 plasticity Jar ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, light yellow/ light grey TERMINATED at 0.9m amole Type 1 Moisture Condition Coni :eney dative Density Testine U50 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) VS verysot? :c ;;stiff :mTP: BG PhotoionizationBackground Reading Detector (PID) TubeSiplyistu: zst s soft I %' SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) I i F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense Headspace Reading (PID) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading Vial, Heads ace Sam le VD ve dense WL Water Level .~FORM UlOl Issue:~~ 5 94 of 235 Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management I BoreNo: G2 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..2.. of ..24.. PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Augered By: D. Woods SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill R : NA I Drill Method: Hand Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples Surfac Zurrounds Exposed Ground (refer ta Ggure 1) I Inch ion: approx. level c .> hnples Depth Material teri Ground Depth me Sample Remarks/ of Soil Type Water/ Iml .No. [ml .I Moishire Test Data - FILL Crushed Rock PID Readings: 0.05 BG: 0.0 ppm MD 0.0- Soill G2- Admixed Gravel, Silt 2401-1 & Clay, brodgrey 0.1 Jar 0.2 SOIL Clayey SILT, yellow/ PROFILE light brown G2- 0.3- Soill 240 1-2 BS: 0.0 ppm (OSm) 0.5 0.5 Jar ~ ~~~ ~ - TERMINATED at 0.5m amole Tvoe I Moisture Condition Con itency -r elative Density Testing U50 Tube Sample (GAdisturbed) VS verysoft VS~verystiff VL veryloose PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) S soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff D dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar. Zero-Headspace Sample entering -1 PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading I VD very dense I WL Water Level 95 of 235 Issue: j FORM EA01 Revicinn Date. _.."7 1 /nX/9X fcciirrl hv. YRc GeoPollution Management BoreNo: G3 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..3.. of ..24.. PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS:...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill Rig: HMDlI I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples Inclin; <, <, 'y _I Saiple No. Clayey SILT, grey/ MD PID Readings: PROFILE light grey Soil/ G3- BG: 1.2 ppm 2401-1 J,V BS: 2.3 ppm (0.1 m) Clayey SILT, orange/ MD/D light grey/grey Soil/ G3- BG: 1.5 ppm J,V 240 1-2 BS: 2.0 ppm (0.5rn) ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, orange/ yellow TERMINATED at 0.5m - 'ample Type I Moisture Condition Con 7.elative 0 Testine VS verysoft VS~verystiff VL veryloosc~ PID Photoionization Detector s soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS BOfKpaCZ Reading (PID) St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) D dense pp Pocket Penetrometer Readin: VD verydense WL Water Level I I 96 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM Ell01 Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management BoreNo: G4 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 lob No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG sheet: ..4..of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill Ri HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mrn Grab Samples Surface iurrounds. ExDosed Ground (refer to Figure 1) I Inclin ion: aDDrOX. I OS *. ;, Sample [ml , No. L- i- SOIL Clayey SILT, grey/ MD D PID Readings: PROFILE brown BG: 0.0 pprn 0.15 0.0- Soil/ G4- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, orange/ MD/D D light grey/grey 0.45 0.3- Soil/ G4- 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, orange/ light brown 0.6 TERMINATED at 0.6m ample Type I Moisture Condition Cor ,tency Lelative Density Testing US0 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) D dry VS verysoft U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist S soft SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) W wet F firm Auger Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage St stiff J Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering V Vial, Headspace Sample 97 of 235 Issue: 5 Revision Date: 21/08/98 GeoPollution Management BoreNo: G5 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 JobNo: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..5.. of ..24.. PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS:...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill Rj : HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 91 nm Grab Samples [nclination: approx. 2-3 OS -...... I...... I. ..-, . ' d '% .. lample @Pth Type-' Sample :, , .. No. .I ,\ ...... ; .. : :- ...5: ,. . . ., >..:; ...... I ...... , ...... ,, 4'": .: .: .' -:. , . SOIL Clayey SILT, grey/ MD PID Readings: PROFILE brown BG: 0.0 ppm r G5- 0.1 0.0- SoiY 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, orange/ MD/D D light brown 0.45 0.3- Soil/ G5- 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, orange/ light brodlight grey 0.55 TERMINATED at 0.55m I I iample Type I Moisture Condition con stencv I Lelative Density Testing ! US0 TubeSam-ple(Undisturbed) D dry VS verysoft U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist s soft SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undisl.) W wet F firm Auger Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage St stiff J Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering V Vial. Headspace Sample 98 of 235 ' Issue: 5 ' Revision Date: 21/08/98 issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management BoreNo: G6 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..6.. of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged__ By: T. Russell CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar ...... Sampling Method: Drill fig: HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 9. nm Grab Samples -.,' I-+- iamPl€ Type Sample 1 [ml No. SOIL Clayey SILT, grey/ MD D PID Readings: PROFILE light brown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.1 0.0- Soil/ G6- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, yellowl MD/D D light brown 0.45 0.3- SoiV G6- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, light grey /light yellow 0.55 TERMINATED at 0.55m - ample Type I Moisture Condition Con tency -r dative D Testing U50 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) D dry VS verysoR VSt very stiff VL very loose PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist S soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) W wet F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PO I Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense pp Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Headspace Sample I VD verydense I WL Water Level 99 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM UlOl Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management BoreNo:~ G7- Environmental Scientists and Engineers- PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 I Job No: EA1079 I Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet : ..7.. of ..24.. ~~~~ ~ PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar ...... Sampling Method: Drill Rig: HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples Surface hrrounds Exposed Ground (refer to igure 1) - , .( , II, I. ;amp1c Depth * M&rial eri Depth ’ Type Sample ’ Type ’ ofSoil 1<[ml No., ~ [ml 1 - SOIL Clayey SILT, grey/ MD PID Readings: PROFILE light brown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.1 0.0- SoiV G7- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, orange/ MD/D D light brown 0.45 0.3- SoiV G7- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, orange/ yellow/light brown 0.55 TERMINATED at 0.55m - #ampleType I IMoisture Condition con tency .elative D Testing US0 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) D dry VS verysofi 3se PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist s soft BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) W wet F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) 4uger Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) I Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Headspace Sample I VD verydense I WL Water Level 100 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM UlOl Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPolIution Management I BoreNo: G8 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..8.. of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill fig: HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples Surfacc Inclin ion: approx. 1-2 OS ~. - IC j. ; ~,-> c '2 r A" ;aniple I, Depth Depth Type Sample Remarks/ .of Soil .[ml No. ' [ml ' 'Test Data - Clayey SILT, grey/ PID Readings: brown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.15 0.0- Soil/ GI 240 -I 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, orange/ MD/D D light grey/grey 0.5 0.3- SoiV G8- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, orangel yellow/light brown 0.55 TERMINATED at 0.55m - ;ampleType I Moisture Condition Con iteney Ielative Densn Testing U50 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) D dry VS verysoR VS; very stiff VL very loose PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist S soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist) W wet F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) J Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense pp Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Headspace Sample I VD very dense I WL Water Level101 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM WlOl Revision Date: 2 1/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management 1 BoreNo: G9 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..9.. of 24.. PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit ...... I Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill Rig: HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples igure 1) - ion: approx. 4-5 "S 1. ::":; .. ' ,. I ' " c, 6 %.I.<, -. ;!:& .;; . ; *"is..,.\: ,z. . .I -. . ,r .... .; ,...... ;ample jiaieri . CbisistCncy/... ije.;ljity I. .!, Ground Depth Type Sample Remarks/ Water1 . No. ; %Type ...... [ml .:.,/.: 2 -' Moisture Test Data ...... ;., .. . :.,, .... - SOIL Clayey SILT, light MD D PID Readings: PROFILE greybrown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.0- Soil/ G9- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, light M D/D D brodlight yellow 0.5 0.3- Soil/ G9- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, orangel light yellow/light grey 0.6 - TERMINATED at 0.6m ample Type I lMoisture Condition Cor ,tency 1 Testing U50 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) Ddry VS vetysoft vst vervstim I PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist s sofi H hari BG Background Reading (PID) W wet F firm Fb friable MD l;ooemoderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) 1; Auger Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) J Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Headspace Sample VD ve dense WL Water Level 102 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM Ut01 Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management Bore No: G10 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..lo. of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill Rig: HMDII 1 Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples igure 1) - I Inchi ion: approx. 4-5 "S ~I, iample Giound Depth Toe Sample Water/ [ml No. Moisture - ~~ Clayey SILT, grey/ MD D PID Readings: light brown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.0- Soil/ GIO- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, light MD/D D browdlight yellow 0.3- Soil/ G10- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) 0.5 Jar 2401 -2 Extremely weathered Siltstone, light yellow/light grey - TERMINATED at 0.6m Sample Type 1 Moisture Condition co tency l- Testine US0 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) D dry U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist) W wet Auger Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage J Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering V Vial. Headspace Sample r 103 of 235 Issue: 5 Issued by: KBS GeoPolIution Management Bore No: G11 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..11. of ..24.. . ~~~~~~~~ PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill R HMDIl I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 9: nm Grab Samples Surfacc lurrounds Exposed Ground (refer to - Inclin ion: approx. 2 OS ." .' '' Dt-pth Depth Sample ' ofsoil *"bl No. ~ [ml \I SOIL Clayey SILT, grey/ PID Readings: PROFILE light brown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.1 0.0- Soil/ GI I- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, light browdlight yellow 0.5 0.3- Soil/ G11- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, light brown/ light grey 0.6 TERMINATED at 0.6m ample Type 1 iMoisture Condition Consistency I Testine :O :O TubeSam-pI;(Undistu: ;: U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) 1 SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage Jar. Zero-Headspace Sample entering V Vial. Heads ace Sam le 104 of 235 Issue: 5 Revision Date: 21/08/98 GeoPollution Management I BoreNo: G12 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 31 34 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/0 1/00 . . BORE LOG Sheet: ..12. of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... I Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... I Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... I Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar ...... Sampling Method: Drill R Surfact jurrounds ..... - < ...... :...... -,-_I. I $.-> . F i .A '?. ;, .,'-.. - ,I...... <:;: hnpl€ .-.Depth.:,, . Material:? 6rounb' Depth Type : Sample Remarks/ "Water/ of Sot$ L ' Type ' [ml . No. :[ml Moisture Test Data . .: .;,:...... - SOIL Clayey SILT, grey/ ' MD D PID Readings: PROFILE light brown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.15 0.0- Soill 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, orange/ MD/D D light brown 0.45 0.3- SoiV 0.5 Jar ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, light yellow/ yellow/light grey 0.55 TERMINATED at 0.55m I -. - x ample Type I Moisture Condition Con tency I US0 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) D dry VS verysoR VS~very stir VL very loose- PlD Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist s soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist) W wet F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PO I Jar. Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading- V Vial. Headspace Sample I VD verydense I WL Water Level 105 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM Ulol Revisinn Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management 1 BoreNo: G13 Environmental Scientists and Engineers- PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/0 1/00 .. I BORE LOG Sheet: .. 13. of ..24.. PROJECT: Environmental Audit Scientist: T. Russell ~ ...... 1 TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham i SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell Exposed Ground (refer to igure 1) Inclination: approx. 1 OS . . _. - - ,.I ",' .. , A- Consistency/ Ground Depth Sample Remarks/ '*iity Water/ , IT1 No. Moisture Test Data ...... ,...... - Clayey SILT, grey/ MD D PID Readings: PROFILE light brown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.0- Soil/ G13- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, orange/ MD/D D light brown 0.3- SoiV G13- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, light yellow/ yellow/light grey - TERMINATED at 0.6m - - ample Type I ~ Mxture Condition COl ~tency I:elative D sitv I Testing vs very soft vst very stiff VL very loose PID Photoionization Detector s soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PIDI Jar, ZemHeadspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading VD very dense WL Water Level 106 of 235 Issue: 5 Revision Date: 2 1/08/98 - GeoPollution Management Bore No: G14 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/0 1/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..14. of ..24.. PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: : HMDlI I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples Exposed Ground (refer to igure 1) I Inclin ion: approx. 2 OS >' Iamples : , , * .Cd Sample 3 'Remaiks/ No. Test Data -, Clayey SILT, grey/ MD D PID Readings: light brown BG:0.0 ppm 0.1 0.0- Soil/ (314- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, light MD/D D yellow/light brown 0.4 0.3- Soil/ (314- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 Extremely weathered Siltstone, light brownl light grey 0.5 TERMINATED at 0.5m - ~arnrdeTyPt . I Moisture Condition Con tency -r elative I Testing :O :O TubeSampl:(U~di_" sr VS verysofl VS~very stiff VL veryloose PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) 1 i s soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar. Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Heads ace Sam le I VD very dense I WL Water Level 107 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM UlOl Revision Date: 2 I /08/98 Issued by: KBS ~~ IGeoPolIution Management BoreNo: G15 I Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/0 1/00.. ‘BORE LOG Sheet: ..15. of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples Surface ;urrounds- Exposed Ground (refer to Figure 1) I Inclination: aoerox. 5 OS .^ *,- ’ +e,.’, ‘ Material Groyd Depth Sample Remarks/ The .Water/ ’ [ml No. Moisture Test Data SOIL Clayey SILT, light MD D PID Readings: PROFILE gre y/ligh t brown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.15 0.0- Soil/ G15- ~ 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, light MD/D D yellow/light brown 0.3- SoiV (315- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, light brown/ orange - TERMINATED at 0.6m - I Moisture Condition Con Itenev -r dative 0 sity I Testing VS verysoft VSt very stiff VL very loose PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist S soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) W wet F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PlD) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PlD) J Jar. Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Headspace Sample VD verydense WL Water Level I 108 of 235 FORM 0101 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management BoreNo: G16 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. Sheet: ..16. of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS:.;.. ...Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill R' : HMDlI I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples Surface hrroundz Exposed Ground (refer to Figure 1) I Inclin dion: amrox. 5 "S "d%A . ~ A, "/ ~~ ' I I Samples .?? >* <" Dkpth Material Consistency1 Ground Sample Remarks/ of Soil ,me Density Water1 [?I No. rm1 Moisture Test Data .I - SOIL Clayey SILT, light MD D PID Readings: PROFILE grey/brown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.15 0.0- Soil/ G16- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, light MD/D D yellowAight brown 0.55 0.3- Soil/ G16- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, light yellowl orange 0.65 - TERMINATED at 0.65m - ;ample Type I hloisture Condition Con 5tencv ,elative Denn Testing y50 TubeS&pl;(Undistu: d+ VS verysoft VS; very stiff VL very Ioos; PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) 1 S soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PlD) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar. Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Heads ace Sam le I VD verydense I WL Water Level 109 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM EA01 Revision Date: 2 1/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management Bore No: G17 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: .,2410 1/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..17. of ..24.. PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill R' HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples Surface urrounds: ExDosed Ground (refer to Figure 1) - I Inclination: approx. 2-3 OS Depth Sample :Depth < ' Remarks/ ofSoil ~ , No. rm1 Test Data ,:bI , .A .... - SOIL Clayey SILT, MD PID Readings: PROF1LE grey/light brown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.1 0.0- Soill G17- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, light MD/D D yellow/light brown 0.5 0.3- Soil/ G17- BS: 0.0 ppm (Oh) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, light yellow/ light yellow 0.6 - TERMINATED at 0.6m - ample Type 1 Moisture Condition Cor stency I telative 0 Testing VS verysoft VSt verystiff VL very loose- PID Photoionization Detector s soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading I VD verydense I WL WaterLevel 110 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM UlOl Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management Bore No: G18 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..18. of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill Rig: HMDIl I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples Surface/Surrounds Exposed Ground (refer to I Inclii ion: approx. 0.5-1 "S ...... , . .; - _I.. : ..... :!:-,-. . :, ;ample ,>- Depth Materjal .Ground Depth Type Sample Remarks/ of Soil +Type . .:'water! [ml No. .. MoistureL Test Data .[ml ..... r'r: ...... - - SOIL Clayey SILT, light D PID Readings: PROFILE grey/brown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.15 0.0- Soill G18- 2401-1 0.1 J,V Clayey SILT, light D yellow/light brown/ grey 0.5 0.3- Soill (318- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.511) 0.5 J,V 240 1-2 ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, light yellowl light brown 0.55 TERMINATED at 0.55m - iamde Typr I Moisture Condition Cor tency I lelative Dens5 Testing :O :O TubeSam-pl;(Undistu: d& VS verysot? VSt verystiff VL veryloose- PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) 1 S sot? H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PIDI SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense pp Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Heads ace Sam le I VD verydense I WL Water Level 111 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM UlOl Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management Bore No: G19 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..19. of ..24.. PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill Rig: HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 9: nm Grab Samples /Surrounds: Exposed Ground (refer tc igure I) "< .'" Sample Material Material Description Ground Depth Type Sample Remarks/ of Soil -me I , Water/ [ml No. Moisture Test Data - MD D PID Readings: BG: 0.0 ppm 0.1 0.0- Soill G19- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, MD/D D grey/light brown 0.45 0.3- Soill G19- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5~1) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 Extremely weathered Siltstone, light brown/ light yellow 0.55 TERMINATED at 0.55m ample Type Moisture Condition con itencv lelative Density Testing ;O ;O TubeSamp1;ndistu; VS verysoft vsi very stin PID PI lotoionization Detector ; soft H hard B,ackground Reading (PID) U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) 1 zst s BG SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff HS Hleadspace Reading (PlD) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering dense PP Pc xket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Heads ace Sam le WL Hiater Level 112 of 235 Issue: 5 -FORM WlOl Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management~ I BoreNo:~~ G20 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/0 1/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..20. of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill Rig: HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 9: nm Grab Samples Sample . :- - Depth Sample , Remarks/ [ml * NO. Test... Data ...... MD D PID Readings: BG: 0.0 ppm 0.1 0.0- Soil/ G20- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, light MD/D D yellow/light brown 0.3- Soil/ G20- BS: 0.0 ppm (OSm) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 0.5 - REFUSAL at 0.5m on extremely weathered Siltstone - ample Type I Moisture Condition Con stency Testing YO TubeSampI;(Undktu: $y VS verysofi vst very stiff Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) 1 S soft H hard Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firm Fb friable MD moderately Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense Headspace Reading (PID) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering dense Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Heads ace Sam le Water Level 113 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM EA01 Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management BoreNo: G21 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/0 1/OO.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..21. of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat...... Logged_- By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill Rig: HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mrn Grab Samples Surface/Surrounds: ExDosed Ground (refer to igure 1) Inclination: approx. 2-3 OS -.I .I .:.;:.&?2 .,,,,,<,:a . .1 ;.. ...:.. 2- ...... :< .. I, - .. ?.+ ...... L'..j ;ample Depth' Material Corisistericyi Depth Type Sample Remarks/ of Soil ' ?fie . .I . @Gty i ., [ml No. ..I :.'.<,. * ... Test Data Iml ...... c SOIL Clayey SILT, light MD PID Readings: PROFILE grey/light brown BG: 0.0 pprn 0.1 0.0- Soill G21- 2401-1 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, light MD/D D yellow/light brown 0.45 0.3- Soil/ (321- BS: 0.0 pprn (0.5rn) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, light brown/ orange 0.55 - TERMINATED at 0.55m - ample Type I Moisture Condition Con tencv ILelative Density Testing ;SO TubeSmpI;(Undistu~ VS verysoft VSI- very stiff VL veryloose PID Photoionization Detector zy L loose BG Background Reading (PID) U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) 1 S soft H hard SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D- dense-~ ~ PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Heads ace Sam le I VD very dense I WL Water Level 114 of 235 Issue: s FORM UlOl Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS I GeoPollution Management BoreNo: G22 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/0 1/OO.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..22. of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot I, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Trelo...... Sampling Method: Drill R HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples Surfact I Inclini .on: approx. 2-3 OS i” 2 Samples Depth Ground Depth Type’ Sample Material Description“,.x Remarks/ of Soil water1 ’ [ml No. ~ rm1 Moisture Test Data SOIL Clayey SILT, grey/ MD D PID Readings: PROF1LE light browdlight BG: 0.0 ppm yellow 0.0- Soil/ G22- 0.1 Jar 2401-1 0.4 Silty CLAY, orangel VSt/H D/M brown, medium plasticity (322- 0.3- Soil/ 240 1-2 BS: 0.0 ppm (OSm) 0.5 Jar 0.75 ~~ ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, orange/ browdyellow 0.85 TERMINATED at 0.85m - ample TYDC I Moisture Condition con itency -r elative 0 sity Testine U50 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) VS verysofl VSt very stiff VL very loose PID Photoionizati& Detector TubeSamp1;ndistu: ?st S soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) p”SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) 1 i F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Heads ace Sam le I VD verydense I WL WaterLevel 115 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM UlOl Revision Date: 2 I /08/98 Issued by: !E3 ~ GeoPollution Management BoreNo: G23 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..23. of ..24.. PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Grab Samples sL . ;'. ,, n^A-.2.,l ;ample Material Material Description . Consistincy/ Ground Depth Type Sample Remarks/ $ Type Density Water/ [ml No. Moisture Test Data - SOIL Clayey SILT, grey/ MD D PID Readings: PROFILE light brown BG: 0.0 ppm 0.0- SoiV G23- 2401-1 0.1 Jar 0.4 Silty CLAY, orange/ vsm Dh4 brown, medium plasticity 0.3- Soil/ G23- BS: 0.0 ppm (O.5m) 0.5 Jar 240 1-2 0.8 ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, orange/ browdyellow 0.9 TERMINATED at 0.9m ample Type I Moisture Condition COl tency l- Testine US0 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) ;'e SOA Tt stiff zL-?l-F'[D BG Photoioninti&Background Reading Detector (PID) U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) I" I SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) Fb friable LID moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading VD ve dense WL Water Level 116 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM UlOl n n-.. -t,nnmo ~ GeoPollution Management 3oreNo: G24 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 rob No: EA1079 late: ..24/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..24. of ..24.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... killer: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... 2ogged By: T. Russell CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Drill Rig: HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples Surface/Surrounds Exposed Ground (refer to igure 1) - I Inclin, Ion: approx. 1 OS 1- kunple Depth Material Material Description Consistency/ Ground Depth Type. Sample Remarks/ of Soil " Type. 1 Density Water/ [ml No. Moisture Test Data rm1 .I ,I I.. , 1' ., x. - SOIL Clayey SILT, minor MD D PID Readings: PROFILE Gravel, browdlight BG: 0.0 ppm grey 0.0- Soil/ G24- 2401-1 0.2 0.1 Jar Clayey SILT, light MD/D D yellow/light grey 0.3- Soill G24- BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) 240 1-2 Silty CLAY, orange/ vsm D/M 0.5 Jar browdyellow, medium plasticity - TERMINATED at 0.7m - ;ample Type -1 Moisture Condition Con itenev I.elative Densitv I Testing ;50U50 TubeSampl;(Undistu:Tube Sample (Undisturbed) D dry VS verysoft VS; very stiff VL veryloose PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist s soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) W :,st wet F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) 1 3 Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) J Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading 117 of 235 V Vial. HeadspaceHeads ace SampleSam le VD verydense I WL Water Level FORM Ell01 ... __.IL. .. -10- GeoPollution Management- I BoreNo: T1 PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 34 Environmental Scientists and Engineers 31 1- Date: ..24/01/ BORE LOG Sheet: ..l ..of..; PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. F TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: s. 1 SITE ADDRESS:...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrarnbat ...... Logged By: T. f CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Trelo ...... SamDling Metho I" Drill Rig: HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Sample! I . Surface Exposed Ground (refer to igure 1) I Inch .on: approx. 1-2' kqples ':-,- TW. . S?ple, No. - i Admixed Silt & MD D PID Readings: Siltstone Rubble, browdpink SoiY TI- Not taken 2401-1 0.15 Jar Admixed Silty Clay, MD/D D Clay, Silt & Rubble, yellow/gre ylbrown SoiV T1- 240 1-2 0.6 Jar SOIL Silty CLAY, minor VSt D/M PROFILE Gravel, orangelbrown/ yellow I 0.9 TERMINATED at 0.9m ample Type I Moisture Condition itency klati6 Density Testing TubeSam-pl;(Undist: $: VS verysoft VSt verystiff , veryloose PID Photoionization Det U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) 1 s soft H hard L loose BG Background Readin SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading y50 Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetromete V Vial. Heads ace Sam le VD very dense WL Water Level issue: 5 FORM UlOl118 of 235 Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management BoreNo: T2 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..24/0 1/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ..2.. of ..8.. PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Driller: S. Ham SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: HMDII I Drill Method: Solid Flight Auger I Bore Diameter: 9f nm Grab Samples lurrounds: Exeosed Ground (refer to Figure 1) Inclination: amrox. 1-20 s ;ample Depth Typ” c Sample p1 , No. - Test Data - FILL Admixed Silt & PID Readings: Siltstone Rubble Soil/ T2- Not taken 0.0- 2401-1 0.15 0. I Jar SOIL Clayey SILT, light MD/D D PROFILE yellow/light brown 0.3- SoiY T2- 240 1-2 0.6 0.5 Jar ROCK Extremely weathered Siltstone, yellowl orange/light brown 0.7 TERMINATED at 0.7m - imple Type I Moisture Condition Con tencv T Testing J50 Tub amole IUndisturkd) I D dry VS verysoft Photoionization Detector TubeSamp1;iUndistu;j rnnst s soft Background Reading (PID) jSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) 1 F firm Borespace Reading (PID) hger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense Headspace Reading (PID) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering dense Pocket Penetrometer Reading Vial. Heads ace Sam le Water Level 119 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM EA01 Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS Bore No's: T3-T4, GeoPollution Management T6-Tl0, T13-T21 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..27/0 1/OO.. BORE LOG Sheet : .. ..3. .of.. 8.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Augered By: D. Woods SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar ...... Sampling Method: Drill Rig: N/A I Dill Method: Hand Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 rnrn Grab Samples ion: approx. 2-3" S ...... i ,., .....ir ...... i. .. ,.;, ..~ .r ...... , ?,i'.; c,,?z.; I.. :.-?,, ~ .<:':>:;:<<;; .; .<:':>:;:<<;; ...... d.<... ,:>'.? . 1 ~. '.pep$;.; Depth Sample ," . .. 'Rem&h,.. - I of,Soil;- [ml No. ... +nI * -?. . Test Data ' ;: .. c Admixed Silt, Clay & MD/D D PID Readings: Siltstone 0.0- SoiV TX- Not taken 2701-1 0.1 Jar 0.3- Soil/ TX- 0.5 0.5 Jar 270 1-2 ~~ - TERMINATED at 0.5m - imple Type I Moisture Condition con teney -T elative Dens7 Testing VS verysotl vsi very stiff VL very loose- PID Photoionization Detector ~ TubeSamplrndistut zst S soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PIDI SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist) 1 F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading(PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense~~ PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial, Heads ace Sam le I VD verydense I WL Water Level Issue: 5 FORM VI01120 of 235 Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management BoreNo's: T5 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..27/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ... .4..of..8.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental A.udit...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Augered By: D. Woods SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT:...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: : NIA I Drill Method: Hand Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mrn Grab Samples 'igure 1) - e, ianiple >- 'Depth Depth Type Sample Remarks/ of Soil rm1 No. '. rm1 Test Data - FILL Admixed Silty Clay & MD PID Readings: Si1tstone Rubble, BG: 0.0 ppm some organic material 0.0- Soill T5- 2701-1 0.1 Jar BS: 1.2 ppm (0.1 m) 0.3- Soill T5- BS: 0.8 ppm (0.4m) 0.5 0.5 Jar 2701-2 REFUSAL at 0.5m on Siltstone - amole TYM I Moisture Condition Con tencv dative D ;ity Tcstine 150 TubeSam~l;(U~distu~ ; $: VS vetysoft VS; vervstiff I vely I XPID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) I s soft H hard I L loose I BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace ReadingiPID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading V Vial. Heads ace Sam le I VD verydense I WL Water Level Issue: 5 FORM UlOl121 of 235 Revision Date: 21/08/98 Issued by: KBS ~GeoPollutionManagement Bore No: T11 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..27/01/00.. BORE LOG Sheet : ....5. .of.. 8.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Augered By: D. Woods SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar ...... Sampling Method: Drill Rig: NlA I Drill Method: Hand Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 -im Grab Samples Surface/Surrounds: igure 1) nclination: approx. 2" S ample r, me Sample Remarks/ No. Test Data FILL MD/D D DIDReadings: Siltstone 0.0- Soill T11- \lot taken 2701-1 0.1 Jar 0.2- Soill T11- 0.4 0.4 Jar 270 1-2 REFUSAL at 0.4m -- ample Type I IMoisture Condition con teacv dative Density Testing :50 TubeSam-pl;(UndistuI dq+ VS verysoft VS; verystiff VL veryloose PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) 1 s soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense pp Pocket Penetrometer122 of Reading 235 V Vial, Heads ace Sam le VD verydense WL Water Level Issue: 5 FORM UlOl GeoPollution Management BoreNo: TI2 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 Date: ..27/0 1/00.. BORE LOG Sheet: ... .6..of. -8.. PROJECT:...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1,323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: Surface/Surrounds Exposed Ground (refer to Figure 1) - Inclin ion: approx. 2" S ;ample GIound Depth Type Sample A ' Remarks/ Water/ :[ml No. Moisture Test Data I ,...... - - I. FILL D PID Readings: Siltstone 0.0- Soill T12- Not taken 2701-1 0.1 Jar 0.3- Soil/ T12- 0.5 Jar 270 1-2 0.8- Soill T12- 1 .o Jar 270 1-3 1.o - TERMINATED at 1.0m ;ampleTyDe I Moisture Condition co ,tency Lelative Density Testing y50 Tube S&pl;(Uidistu: ' z: U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) 1 SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undkt) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering V Vial. Heads ace Sam le 123 of 235 Issue: 5 GeoPollution Management BoreNo: T22 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: EA1079 BORE LOG Date: ..27/0 1/00.. Sheet : ... .7..of. .8.. PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Augered By: D. Wood5 SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar ...... Sampling Method: Drill fig: N/A I Drill Method: Hand Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 rnm Grab Samples Surface/Surrounds igure 1) approx. 2O S $,ample I ., . Type< Skple Remarksf No. L Test Data MD PID Readings: & Clay, browdgrey SoiV T22- BG: 1.8 pprn 2701-1 Jar BS: 2.1 pprn (0.1 rn) Clayey Silt, yellow/ MD/D D light brown Soil/ T22- BG: 1.6 pprn Jar 2701-2 BS: 2.0 pprn (0.4m) REFUSAL at 0.4m on Siltstone Rock ample Type I ,Moisture Condition con tencv :elative D Testine J50 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) D dry VS verysoft VS~verystiff I ZL velyi J63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist S soft H hard loose ISP Split Spoon Sample (Undist) W wet F firm hger Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage St stiff Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering I Vial. Headspace Sample 124 of 235 Issue: 5 ,__I * ..-e Revision Date: 21/08/98 ~ ~~ GeoPollution Management I Bore No's: HA4218 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 I BORE LOG Sheet: ....8..of..8.. I I PROJECT: ...... Environmental Audit ...... Scientist: T. Russell TYPE OF SITE:...... Rural Residential Property...... Augered By: D. Woods SITE ADDRESS: ...... Lot 1, 323-325 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat ...... Logged By: T. Russell CLIENT: ...... Mr & Mrs J.K. & E Treloar...... Sampling Method: DdlR : N/A I Drill Method: Hand Auger I Bore Diameter: 95 mm Grab Samples Surfacc hrround:. Exposed Ground (refer tc I Inclin ion: Approx , I, 3amples >-. , \I, Depth Depih Sample Remarks/ ofsoil ,bl ' No. rm1 Test Data FILL Admixed Silt, Clay & MD/D D 0.0- Soil/ HAXI Siltstone Y-l 0.1 J,V 0.3- SoiV HAXI 0.5 J,V Y-2 0.5 TERMINATED at 0.5m ample Type I Moisture Condition con tency elative~~ D, Testing Tube Sample (Undisturbed) D dry VS verysofl VS~verystiff VL very1 PID Photoionization Detector Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist j sofl H hard loose BG Background Reading (PID) P Split Spoon Sample (Undist) W wet : firm Fb friable MDL moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage it stiff 1 dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar, Zero-Headspace Sample entering- D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading Headspace Sample r Vial. I VD verydense WL Water Level 125 of 235 Issue: 5 FORM F/lnl Revision Dare: 2 I /flX/OR ...... -. .,. , . . _.. . .. APPENDIX F .. CHAIN OF CUSTODY .... DOCUMENTATION .. .. ._. I...... '_I.. .. ., :- :,...... 126 of 235 GRIBBLES C\NC\LVTICL\L PAGE 02 CHAIN Of CUSTODY AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST Jab No.: EA 1078 Request No. 177 SAMPLE BH DEPTH SAMPLE COMP, COMPOSITE PARAMETERS No. No. Iml TYPE WITH No. REQUESTED 62.7014 Camp comp: H.avy Nktnt6 @Y d 0.0-0.1 SoWJ , G1-240 1-1 Gl 092401-1 oc Pestk#sr G1 SoillJ - Please Huld Gf -2401-2 0.3-0.5 - G1-2401-1 cmo 1 C0mp:AS StIOwtl (22-2401 -1 G2 0.0-0.1 SoiVJ a.2401-1 G2-2001-2 Plbae Hold ’ 1 I G3-2401-1 G3 0.0-0.1 S0iVJ.v 63-2461 -2 63 0.3-0.4 SOiUJ,V G42401-1 64 0.0-0.1 SoWJ 04-2401.2 - 64 0.3-0.45 Soll/J 65-2401-1 G5 0.0-0.1 SoWJ G5-2401-2 GS 0.3-0.46 SoillJ G0-2a01-1 G6 0.0.0.1 SaillJ r G8-2401-2 0.3-0.46 SoillJ -I -1 base Hdd I G7-240 1- 1 07 I 0.0-0.1 I SoiVJ,v 07-240 1-2 67 I 0.3-0.45 1 S~il/J,v I I nstructlona: Results by Friday Ith Februay 2000 Please *Heavy Metals (9: As, W. Cr, Cu, NI, Pb, &I, Hg 127 of 235 GRIBBLES ANALYTICAL PAGE 03 CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND SAMPLE ANALYSiS REQUEST Laboratory: Gribbies Analytical Labs Job No.: EA 1079 Project: Yamambet RequestNa. in Date: 28/01/00 Sheet 2 of 9 PARAMETERS Rewbby Friday Uh February 2000 Plea80 ‘Heavy Metals (8): As, Cd, Cr, Cu, NI, Pb. Zn, Hg Phse return slgnrd form to this amce (Fu9873 2199) Is9uE: e FORM En00 REVISION: ~~W~ISB hall* KBS 128 of 235 28/01/2000 15: 04 0395620336 GRIBBLES CNALVTICAL -,,-.-- -- .. - ' ..--. PCGE 04 WAIN OF CUSTODY AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST Jab No.; EA 1070 Dde: 28101100 Sheet 3 of 9 Request No. 177 'I DEPTH SAMPWE COMP. .coMPoS~~ PARAMETERS SAMPLE BH TYPE WITH No. REQUESTED No. NO. [ml v G1+2441-1 amp5 COmp: As shorn G16-24O1.1 01 5 0.0-0.1 SOivJ Q16.m-1 01 6 0.3-0.5 SOillJ - flewHdd G15-2401.2 0.0-0.1 SOillJ 414-2441-1(315.2401-1 Camp 5 comp:A6shovJn Gl6-2401-1 G16 G1 e-240 1-2 G16 0.3-0.5 SoilN Pbaw Hdd 01%2411-1 Camp 8 comp: As shown Gl7-2401-1 G17 0.0-0.1 Sail/J.v G,Mal-, Indiv5Pn'r and BTM G17-2401-2 017 0.3-0.5 SdllJ,~ plar#re Hdd GlSZ401-1 cmge c4mp: G 18-2061 -1 G18 0.0-0.1 G17-2401.1 Aa shorm G16-2491-2 018 0.3-0.5 SoiUJ . Pleasa Hdd Camp: Metab (a)., bc 1 8-2401 -1 G19 0.w.1 Soi'lJ Camp 7 Heavy G G21.rn1.1muD1-' Paticide4 md pH h 61 9-2461 -2 Gl9 0.3-0.45 SoWJ Pkase Hold G1024QI-1 Corn? G20-2001.1 G 20 0,o-o.l SOWJ a.zm-1 camp: Ap shww -G20-2401-2 G2O 0.3-0.5 SolVJ - Pk4se Hdd 621-2401-1 621 0.04.1 %i"J -2401-1=lEm-l Camp7 comg: A6 shawl " ~2 1.2401 -2 021 0.3-0.46 SoiVJ .. Pbaae Hold Camp: Heavy Hetab (Or adOC G22-2001-1 022 0.0-0.1 op2ca1-' Camp8 - Sa'W 0#2aaI-1 PestkMa G22-2401-2 G22 0.4-0.6 SdWJ - Please Hold ComrnemslSpecirl Instructlonr: Requested Turnaround: Standard Turnaround Results by Friday 4th February ZOO0 Plrats Request Form Preparled By: Tim Russell 'Heavy ldetalt (8):AS, Cd, Ct, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg Despatch Date: Despatch Method' 2m1m coullu -ReqwSledBy: Date m Ruwi k Dete: 72/! 129 of 235 CWNOP CU8MDY AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST Job No,: EA 1079 PmJeeL Yomamba Labaralory; Odbbles Analytlcal Labs ReqllostNa. 177 Date: 20l01/00 Sheet 4 of 0 I Standard Turnaround Raqqoeat Form Prepared By: Tim Russall Despatch bare: // ISSUE: 6 130 of 235 28/@1f2000 15: 04 0395626336 GRIBBLES PNAL'fTICAL - -" -. PAGE 66 CWNOF CUSTODY AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST et^. 2~mim Sheet 5 of 8 RequestNo. In SAMPLE BH DEPTH SAMPLE COMP. COMfW8IE PARAMETERS NO. NO. Iml TYPE m NO. REQUESTED 16-2701 -1 T6 0.0-0.1 SaYtJ - Ammk, M-ry f6-2701-2 TB 0.34.5 SoiUJ - AMlC 1 L 17-2701-1 T7 0.00.1 sow - Amak T7-2701-2 T7 0.3-0.5 Soll/J Anmi, T8-270 1-1 T8 0.0.0.1 SoilfJ - Ammic T&2701-2 ta 0.3-0.6 SoillJ - pkase hold T82701-1 TB 0.06.1 SoiVJ - - Merwy TG-270 1-2 TB 0.3-0.6 SoiUJ - - Ammk TlO-2701-1 T10 0.0-0.1 SoWJ - - mlc,Mewry 110-2701-2 T10 0.3-0.5 SoWJ Anwlk TI1-2701-1 TI 1 0.04.1 SoWJ Arsenic Tl l -2701 -2 T11 0.24.4 SoiUJ - krenic, Mmy rl Tl2-2701-1 fl2 0.09.1 SoiVJ - kwnikl*rcury T12-2701-2 T12 0.3-0.6 SdUJ - Anenk CommrrtelSpoclrl Innrualocr.: RequeSted Tumamund: Standard Turnaround IR.rUlm by Fdday 4th Febnrary 2OW Please Request Form Prepared By: Ern Russell Wmvy Matala (8):Ao, Cd, Cr, Cu, NI. Pb, Zn, Hg rmpatch Date: bespstdr Mahod: 26/01100 Cauda RsqwStsdBy: D m Rusa8n Date: zg /! Phase return dgned fonn to this Mw(Fax 9873 199) 131 of 235 CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND SAMPLE ANALYSS REQUEST Sheet 6 of 9 RWWNQ. ?n oate: 28l011M) SAMPLE 0n DWTH SAMPLE Cap. CbMP08lfE PCuZAAlLtERS TYPE WlTH REQUESTED No. NO. Iml No. Tl2-2701-3 112 0.8-1 .o SoiUJ - Arsenic 113-2701-1 T13 0.0-0.1 SoiW - AWiG T13-2701-2 T13 0.3-0.6 SOiHJ - Arrenk, M#cury - TlQ-2701.1 t14 0.04.1 SOiVJ - AmnkMerWry f142701-2 T14 0.3-0.5 SoiVJ Ami0 115-2701-1 116 0.6-0.1 SoYrJ 1 - Amk T16-2701-2 T15 0.3-0.6 SoWJ AMic Tl6-2701-1 T1 e 0.04.1 SoillJ - mlc.Mew 11&2701-2 TI 6 0.3-0.6 SoillJ - Arsonic fl7-2701-1 T17 0.04.1 SoWJ - Mi T17-2701-2 TI 7 0.3-0.6 SoilN - -,Msrrury T18-2701-1 T18 0,Od.l SoiVJ mk,Mwarty T18-2701-2 T18 0.3-0.6 SoiVJ - Arsenic fl9-2701-1 TI9 0.0-0.1 SOWJ ArmiG Commontr/Bpeclal Instructions: Requested Turnaround: Standard Turnaround ! Rawlg by Friday 4th Febwy 2060 Plute Request Form Propared By: Tlm Russell.i 'Heavy Metals (8):As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg Despatd, Date: DeapaCfl Method:' 2s/01/00 Courier RequestdedBy: D Tim Rubsell 132 of 235 ~ 28/61/2080 15: 04 6395620336 GRIBBLES PNALYTICAL I __-_..._ ...._ -- - --.a .' '. -- PAGE oa CHAIN OF CUSTODY AN0 SAMPlE ANALYSIS REQUEST Request No. in Date: 28K)1100 sheet 7 of 9 9 OEPTH SAHPLt COMP. COMPOSITE PARAMErn8 8AMPLENo. NO.en ctnl WE WlTH No. REQUESTED T19-2701-2 T19 0.3-0.8 Soil/J phase W T2&270 1- 1 T20 0.0-0.1 SoilN,v Anonkrn~ry T20-2701-2 T2O 0.3-0.5 Soil/J,v - plate hold T21-2701-1 TZ1 0.0-0.1 SoillJ - - Anenk t21-2701-2 T2 1 0.3-0.5 GoiUJ - - Amk 122-270 1 -1 T22 0.0-0.1 SO~UJ,V TPH'r, Lead t22-270 1 -2 f22 0.244 S0iUJ.v - please hold Equip-2401 WEt# pleasew I Trip2401 Water - please hdd Equip-2701 -----War1 - pleas. hold Trlp-2701 Water e - pbaw hold A-2401 0-2401 COMP s . G2401 HIlwy uI.tab (81. 8-2401 .- A24M COMP B C-2401 ma shewn h?cow B &ova A-2401 c-2401 SoWJ B246, COMP B aa ahown far COHP 6 above c I CommentstSp.cirl Jnruuctlonr: Requested Turnaround: Standard Turnaround Rasutts by F'nday 4th Fabmaty 2060 Pltmsa Request FanPrepared By: Tim ~usse w *Heavy Memla (8):As, Cd, Cr, Cu, N1, Pb,Zn. Ha Despatch Date: DespetchMetnoc mimo Courie Requested By: TiRlrsseU Date: b 2-8 1, 133 of 235 CHAIN Of CUSTODY AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST RequedNo. 177 Date: 28/61100 Sheet 8 of 9 SAMPLE BH DEPTH SAMPLE COMP. COMPOSm PARAMETERS No. No. [ml TYPE m No. REQUESTED D-1701 SolllJ - -9-ry E-2701 SoiW - Ammb 6270 1 SoiUJ - kmnk HA 4218-1 6218 0.0-0.1 SoillJ Anonic HA 4ua-2 4218 0.3-0.5 SoWJ - pleaas hold HA 43110-1 43/16 0.0-0.1 SaillJ - - Anenk HA 43110-2 43/10 0.34.5 SoiVJ please hdd HA 4311-1 4311 1 0.04.1 SdllJ Ananic HA 43JI1-2 4311 1 0.3-0.5 SoiUJ - pleaee hold I- In addition pleaso compoelte the following sarnplt36 03-2401-1 COmp: HorVy Wh(6)L*, PAWS, G 1 5-2461- 1 0.60.1 Camp EPAl Gl5-2401-1 Org- PocWder, G24-2QOl-1 Phmoli G24-240 1- 1 24 0.0-0.1 SoiIlJ Cyanide and PCBr 1 Standard Turnaround Results by Friday 4th Febfuary 2000 Ple&sa Request Form Prepared By: Tlm Russell .Heavy Metab (8):&, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg Despatch Date: Despatch Method: 2m1100 Caulier -:Heavy Me- (I):Cob an, 8bl Se, Bel Mo Requested By: Date Requested:28/1/00 7lhRUSW ISSUE: Q FORM Uld3 REWSIOK MRB ISmJadBy'KaS 134 of 235 PbGE 10 CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST PmJect: Yarmmbat laboratory: Gribbles Analytical Labs Job No.; EA 1079 SAMPLE EH DEPTH SAMPLE COW. COMPOSm PARAMETERS No. No. [ml TYPE WITH No. REQUIST€D 06-2401-1 5 0.0-0.1 SoillJ G5-2401-1 Comp 413-2401-1 13 0.0-0.1 SoiW 013-2401 -1 €PA2 0!22-2401-1 622-2401-1 22 O.GO.1 I I I Requested Turnaround: Standard Turnaround hub by Fdday 4th February 2000 Pkam Requbst FmPrepfed By: Heevy Metals (8):As, Cd, Cr. Cu, NI, Pb, Zn, Hg ':Heavy Motalr (6): Co, In, 8bo $e, Be, MO 'laam Mum si- fom to tnlr ofRa (Faob73 2#9) 135 of 235 311'01 '00 ION 13:17 FAX 81 3 956.1 7180 M.GT CONSULTING 8 002 GiPoPollutlon Marwgement CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST Job No.: EA1079 Project: Yarrambat Laboratory: MGT Environmental Pty Ltd Request No. 407 Dater 28/01/00 Sheet 1 of 1 I G20-2401-IDUP I G20 I G21-2401-IDUP I 621 T4-2701-1 DUP T4 T9-2701-1 DUP T9 T14-2701-1DUP T14 I CornmentslSpecial lnstruc Ions: Requested Turnaround: Results by Friday 4th February please Heavy Metals? As, Cd, Cf, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg REVISION: 2HMM 136 of 235 PAGE GRIBBLES ANALYTICbL 01 16/02/2090 15: 31 9395620336 - --,-.,-a4 FURTHER $AMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST r 1 AMPLE BH DEPTH amPLE COMP. COMPOSITE PARAMtTERs NO. NO. tml me WITH Na. REWEWED G1*24014 01 0.0-0.1 SoillJ t . tlnc oniy G2-2401.1 02 0.0-0.1 8OiYJ Zinc only P A G4-2401-1 G4 0.0-0.1 9oIW - LlnC only I n-nai.2 75 I 0.36.5 SoiVJ TCLP: Cd, Pb, Ln TI 1-2701.2 71 1 galUJ - ! YCLC ; Am 713-2709.2 7'13 O.$O.S SOUJ - TCLP: A8 , Equip2401 - Watar . - A., 23l Equip-2701 - Water - 4& Cd, Pb, Zn, TPH'r I Y - , I - 1 I 1 1 Standard 5 Day Turnaround Result8 by 7hundry I7th Fobruary 2000 plrrre Requoot Form Prepereel By: br Karln 3c(\wrb Oampkr held at Grfbbln. Pkwnhr to your bespatch Dote: latch No. 0000622 Plrrrm rerign new lab numbon to the abovr ramplt8 and iorue mruttr In a now npoft (Instead of npfrclng your provfoua roport No. 11011). 137 of 235 @ 002 M6T CONSOLTISG 10102 '00 THV 16:94 FAX 61 3 996.1 7180 P. 02 lB--PEB--BB 13J:42 GCOP9LLUTIOH IIRNRGEIIENT 61 3 98732899 FURTHER SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST aRequestNo. 408 bate: 1om2~00 Sheet 1 of 1 SAMPLE SH DEPTH SrWPLE COMP. COMPOSITE PARAMETERS No. No. m1 TYPE WlTH NO. REQUESTED Tg2701-I DUP 19 0.0-0.1 .WI, J .-'.c.. \'il7 Arsenic- T14-270f-1 DUP TI4 0.0-0.1 Soli, J .c* \h5 Arsanlc' I i . 1 I I 1 I 138 of 235 16-16. FEB. aQE4 :15: 01 CGRIBBLES ANXYTICFIL 95628336 " ' ---No.757 P.l/1 FURTHER SAMPLE ANALY313 REQUEST I Job No,: EAlOTe ProJed: Yamnibst Laboratory: Gribbles Analytlul Laboratorlor Request No. 189 Date: 1WW ShW 1 of I 48 Hour lurnamund 1 0 eo O$U k Karin Schwab 1*4nD,il hold at Orlbblrn. Plrur mlrr to your bsprt& Dote: DapilthMahod: 139 of 235 APPENDIX G.1 ANALYTICAL RESULTS (NATA ENDORSED) - Primary Laboratory .. 140 of 235 Replacement Analytical Report<< Replacement for Report no: 12435, issued on: 02 Feb 2000 GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Contact : T.RUSSELL 24/107-113 HEATHERDALE ROAD Batch Number : 0000622 P.0 BOX 441 Job Ref : EA1079 RINGWOOD Sample(s) Received : 28/01/2000 05/04/2000 VIC 3134 .. Replacement Report No : 13786 Methods: 208 Anions by Ion Chromatography, Dry Weight 507-ECD Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Dry Weight 226 pH Measurement, Soil 512MS Organophosphorus compounds, Dry Weight 236 Total Cyanide by UV-Vis (SFA), Dry Weight E1OO.O1 Moisture Content 244 Total distillable Phenolics, Dry Weight 404FIMS Mercury by Vapour AAS, Dry Weight 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, Dry Weight 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, Slurry 501-FID Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Dry Weight 502HS BTEWMAH by Headspace, Dry Weight 505-MS Polyarornatic Hydrocarbons, Dry Weight 505-MS Total Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, Dry Weight 506-ECD Organochlorine Pesticides, Dry Weight 1 Attached Results Appro Werner Mueller B.App.Sci. MRACI Chief Chemist Anthony Crane John Lewey B.App.Sci. (Environmenlal) DipApp.Sci (Chemistry) Senior Analyst Senior Analyst - Metals This Laboratory is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Australia. The tests reported herin have been performed in accordance with its terms of accreditation. NATA ENDORSED DOCUMENT Document may not be reproduced except in full. NATA AccredltaUon No. 1645 This is the Final Report which supersedes any reports previously issued relaUng to the sample@)included. All sampks tested as submitted by dient # Denotes methods not covered by NATA terms of accreditation Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page I of 28 141 of 235 0000622@03 0000622'007 0000622@11 0000622@12 0000622/D17 63-2401-1 67-2401-1 611-2401-1 612-2401-1 617-2401-1 28/01/2000 26M)1/2000 26M)lEOOO 26M)1/2000 26M)lEOOO BTEXlMAH by GC, DRY WEIGHT Method: SMHS Units: m@g Benzene 4.02 <0.02 Ethyl Benzene 402 <0.02 Toluene 402 4.02 Xylene <0.02 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 406-MS Units: mgkg Arsenic 4.0 7.8 8.3 Cadmium c1.0 c1.0 <1.0 Chromium 2.8 2.5 5.6 Copper 5.1 2.4 5.5 Lead I8 8.8 19 Nickel 3.5 2.1 3.0 Zinc 33 16 15 HYDROCARBONS (TF' 1G Method: 501-FID Units: mgkg TPH C6 - C9 <20 QO TPH CIO - Cl4 74 33 TPH CIS - C28 I40 71 TPH C29 - C36 240 220 MERCURY by .I VAPOUR-AAS,DRY. . . . , $EIG . . Method: 404RMS Units: mgkg Mercury 0.02 0.02 0.02 Reported: Frlday, 07 April 2000 Page 2 of 28 142 of 235 0000622/025 0000622'026 0000622/027 0000622l028 0000622/029 COMP 1 COMP 2 COMP 3 COMP 4 COMP 5 28/01/2000 2&/01/2000 28/01ROOO 28/01ROOO 28/01/2000 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 406-MS Units: mglkg Arsenic 3.6 2. I 8.4 7.5 4.0 Cadmium <1.0 e1.0 <1.0 1 7- PIXMEASUREMENT, ,> I P * ,&,.P'? -t, Method: 226 Units: pH Units pH (I:5 in UHP Water) 5. I Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 3 of 28 143 of 235 0000622/030 0000622/031 0000622'032 0000622'033 0000622/034 COMP 6 COMP 7 COMP 8 11-2401-7 11-2401-2 2afu1~000 28/01/2000 2m1/2000 2w01/2000 28/01/2000 ANIONS by ION CHROMATOGRAPHY, DR Method: 208 Units: mglkg fluoride <2.0 BTEX/MAH by GC, DRY WEIGHT Method: 502HS Units: mglkg Benzene <0.02 Ethyl Benzene <0.02 Isopropyl Benzene (Cumene) <0.02 Toluene c0.02 Vinyl Benzene (Styrene) <0.02 Xylene c0.02 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIG Method: 406-MS Units: mglkg Antimony c2.0 Arsenic 3.5 7.0 4.6 14 14 Barium 14 Beryllium c1.0 Cadmium 4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Chromium 2.5 3.1 4.8 7.2 Cobalt 4.0 Copper 2.7 3.0 4.8 5.1 Lead 13 18 13 12 Molybdenum 6.0 Nickel 2.2 3.4 4.7 3.0 Selenium c3.0 Tin 4.0 Vanadium 5.3 Zinc 15 15 22 3.2 HYDROCARBONS ("PA), DRY WEIG Method: 501-flD Umts: mgltg TPH C6 - C9 QO TPH CIO - C14 QO TPH CIS - C28 QO TPH C29 - C36 QO .. MERCURY by vApom-&-DRy:;~G . . .- . .. ,, . .. . ORGANOCHL~~~-DRY~~G~~-,* z I, i Irr; .'L g%8w--1 Method: 506-ECD Umts: rngkg Aldnn 4.I 4.I 4.I 4. I alpha - BHC 4.1 4.I 4.I 4. I alpha - Endosulphao 4.I 4. I 4.I 4.I bera- BHC 4.I 4.I 4.I 4.I Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 4 of 28 144 of 235 0000622/030 000062ZO31 00006224732 00006224733 000062ZO34 COMP 6 COMP 7 COMP 8 T1-2401-1 TI-2401-2 28/01)2000 2m1nooo 28/01/2000 2m1)2000 28/01)2000 beta - Endosulphan 4.I 4. I 4.I 4.1 Chlordane 4. I 4.I 4.I 4.I DDD 4.I 4.I 4.1 eo. I DDE 4.I eo.I 4.I 4.I DDT 4.I 4.I 4.I eo.I delta - BHC 4.I 4.1 4.I POLYCHLORINAT~~I .,BIPHE~~U Method: 507-ECD Units: mflg PCB Aroclor 1016 4. I Reported: Fdday. 07 April 2000 Page 5 of 28 145 of 235 0000622U30 0000622U31 0000622/032 000062ZO33 000062ZO34 COMP 6 COMP 7 COMP 8 T1-2401-1 Tl-2401-2 2&/01/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 PCB Aroclor 1242 4.1 PCB Aroclor 1248 eo.I PCB Aroclor 1254 eo. I PCB Aroclor 1260 eo.1 Total PCBs 4.I TOTAL CYANIDE DETERMINATION, DRY WEIGHT Method: 236 Units: mgkg Total Cyanide 4.10 TOTAL DLWILLABLE PHENOLICS, D Method: 244 Units: rngkg Total Phenolics 4. I Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 6 of 28 146 of 235 00006224735 00006ZHl36 00006ZHl37 0000622/038 00006ZHl39 T2-2401-1 T3-2701-1 T4-2701-1 T4-2701-2 T5-2701-1 2m1/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 ANIONS by ION CHROMATOGRAPHY,DR Method: 208 Units: mgkg fluoride Q.0 BTEX/MAH by GC, DRY WEIGHT Method: 502HS Units: mgkg Benzene c0.02 Ethyl Benzene 4.02 Isopropyl Benzene (Cumene) 0.19 Toluene c0.02 Vinyl Benzene (Styrene) c0.02 Xylene c0.02 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 406-MS Units: mgkg Antimony c2.0 Arsenic 21 8.6 13 8. I 26 Barium 220 Beryllium c1.0 Cadmium 8.0 Chromium 19 Cobalt 7.6 Copper 52 Lead 520 Molybdenum d.0 Nickel 25 Selenium c3.0 Tin 23 Vanadium 4.5 Zinc 6300 HYDROCARBONS (TPH),DRY WEIGHT Method. SOL-FID U~ts:mgkg TPH C6 - C9 40 TPH CIO - C14 88 TPH C15 - C28 300 TPH C29 - C36 740 :,N MERCURY by VAPOUR-,US,:DRY.. .. .I . .. . . WEIG&.. ,_ ., . . Method: WFIMS Units: mgkg Mercury 4.01 0.01 0.06 ,.7 .' - ORGANOC~L~~P~~~,DR~~G~~~.+*,T.:y$$5 I <.*,* :>UT- ...I ..A,<* .%. _.__,-.1. -.., .a?..2@ ...... Method: 5MECD Units: mgkg Aldrin 4.I alpL - BHC ' 4.1 Jph- Endosulphan ' 4.1 beta - BHC 4.1 Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 7 of 28 147 of 235 0000622/035 0000622'036 0000622/037 0000622'038 0000622'039 72-2401-1 73-2701-1 T4-2701-1 T4-2701-2 15-2701-1 26vo1/2000 28/01/2000 2&/01/2000 2&/01/2000 2m1/2000 beta - Endosulphan 4.1 Chlordane 4.I DDD 4.1 4. I 4.I 4. I Repofled: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 8 of 28 148 of 235 0000622r035 0000622/036 0000622/037 00006W038 0000622U39 T2-2401-1 T3-2701-1 T4-2101-1 T4-2701-2 T5-2701-1 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 2&101/2000 FCB Aroclor 1260 4.I Total KB's d).1 TOTAL CYANIDE DETERMINATION, DRY WEIGHT Method: 236 Units: rnglkg Total Cyanide 0.90 TOTAL DISIlLLABLE PHENOLICS, DRY WEIGHT . _. .~ Method: 244 Units: rnglkg Total Phenolics 4.I Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 9 of 28 149 of 235 0000622040 00006m1 0000622442 00006W043 0000622/044 T6-2701-1 T6-2701-2 77-2701-1 77-2701-2 T8-2701-1 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 2m1/2000 2m1/2000 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Method. 406-MS Units: mflg Arsenic 44 35 3. I 5.3 17 MERCURY by VAPOUR-AAS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 404FlMS Units: rnglkg Mercury 0.01 Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page IO of 28 150 of 235 0000622045 00006221046 0000622@47 0000622/048 0000622/049 T9-2701-1 T9-2701-2 T10.2701-1 T10-2701-2 T11-2701-1 2E1101/2000 2&V1/2000 2&101/2000 2&V1/2000 2&V1/2000 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 406-MS Units: mgkg Arsenic 210 I80 34 36 41 MERCURY by VAF’OUR-AAS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 404FIMS Units: mgkg Mercury 0.06 0.12 OVEN MOISTURE CONTENT Method: E1OO.O1 Units: 95 w/w Moisture 8.2 6.1 8.9 4.9 5.9 ieporteti: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 11 of 28 151 of 235 00006221050 00006m51 0000622/052 00006224753 0000622/054 T11-2701-2 T12-2701-1 T12-2701-2 T12-2701-3 T13-2701-1 2&101/2000 28/01/2000 2&101/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 ELEMENTS by ICP-Ms, DRY WEIGHT Method: 406-MS Units: mgkg Arsenic 26 66 44 23 300 MERCURY by VAPOIJR-AAS. DRY WEIGHT Method: 404FlMS Units: mgkg Mercury 7 0.23 OVEN MOISTURE CONTE ' Method: Elm 01 Units: % w/w Moisture 6.3 6.6 5.6 4.8 1.4 Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 12 of 28 152 of 235 0000622/055 0000622/056 00006221057 00006W058 0000622/059 T13-2701-2 T14-2701-1 T14-2701-2 T15-2701-1 T152701-2 2WO1/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 2EvolROOO ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Method. 406-MS Units: m#g Arsenic 430 31 81 IO0 32 MERCURY by VAPOUR-AAS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 404FlMS Units: m#g Mercury 4.01 0.25 OVEN MOISTURE Method: E100.01 Units: 96 w/w Moisture 6.3 48 4.2 6.8 9.3 Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 13 of 28 153 of 235 00006m60 00006m61 0000622/062 0000622/063 0000622/064 Tl6-2701-1 T16-2701-2 TI 7-2701-1 T17-2701-2 T18-2701-1 2m1/2000 28m1/2000 28m1/2000 28mmooo 28m112000 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 406-MS Units: mflg Arsenic I10 91 14 12 2.1 MERCURY by VAPOUR-AAS, DRY WEIGHT- Method: 404FlMS Units: mflg Mercury 4.0 I 4.01 OVEN MOISTURE CONTENT Method: E100.01 Units: 9i w/w Moisture 6.I 5.2 10.5 11.0 6.8 Reported: Friday, 07 Aprll2000 Page 14 of 28 154 of 235 Results Replacement Report No: 13786 0000622/065 00006224766 WOO6224767 00006224768 00006224769 T18-2701-2 T19-2701-1 72&2701-1 721-2701-7 721-2701-2 2&101/2000 26MllROOO 2&101/2000 2&101/2000 2&101/2000 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 406-MS Units. mglkg Arsenic 2.3 38 I60 18 85 MERCURY by VAPOUR-AAS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 404FlMS Units: mglkg Mercury 0.04 OVEN MOISTURE CONTENT Method: E100.01 Units: 9% w/w Moisture 11.5 6.5 8.8 54 1.5 Reported: Friday, 07 Aprll2000 Page 15 of 28 155 of 235 0000622/070 0000622U74 0000622/075 0000622/076 0000622/077 f22-2701-1 COMP B D-2701 E-2701 F-2701 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 28/01/2000 2m1/2000 28/01/2000 ., ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT .. Method: 406-MS Units: mgkg Arsenic 9.9 35 150 40 Cadmium c1.0 Chromium 3.4 Copper 4. I Lead IO 18 Nickel 2.8 Zinc 20 HYDROCARBON Method: 501-FID TPH C6 - C9 QO TPH CIO - C14 44 TPH CIS - C28 190 TPH C29 - C36 MERCURY by DRY WE1 Method: 404FlMS Mercury 0.02 0.16 OVEN MOISTURE CO Method: E100.01 Units: % w/w Moisture 10.7 9.8 4.5 7.0 13.8 Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 16 of 28 156 of 235 0000622/078 0000622/079 0000622/080 00006WOE 1 0000622/082 HA42B-1 HA-QWl0.1 HA4m1-1 COMP EPA 1 COMP EPA 2 21vo112000 21volL2000 2&VlROOO 21volROOO 21vo1/2000 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 406-MS Units: mgkg Antimony <2.0 4.0 Arsenic 14 50 51 Beryllium <1.0 <1.0 Cobalt 4.0 <2.0 Molybdenum 4.0 4.0 Selenium ~3.0 c3.0 Tin <2.0 4.0 ORGANOPHOSPHORUS OUNDS, Method: 512MS Units: mgkg Chlorpyrifos # 4.I 4. I Chlorpyrifos Methyl # Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page17of28 157 of 235 0000622/078 00006224l79 00006224l80 00006W081 0000622U82 HA4m-1 HA-4WlO-1 HA-4Wll-1 COMP EPA 1 COMP EPA 2 2m1L2000 2m1L2000 2m1/2000 2m1L2000 2&/01ROOO POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS Method: 507-ECD Units: rnglkg PCB Aroclor 1016 4.I 4.I PCB Aroclor 1242 Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 18 of 28 158 of 235 0000622418 00006224 19 0000622420 0000622/151 0000622453 HA 42B-2 HA 4WlO-2 HA 4Wl1-2 T9-2701- Tl4-2701- 1 lretest SLURRY 2tvO1/2000 2tvO1Ro000 2tvOlROOO m4nooo 6mmooo ELEMENTS by ICP-MS (Slurry), DRY WIG Method.406-MS Units. mglkg Arsenic 570 280 OVEN MOISTURE CONTENT Method: E100.01 Units: 9i w/w Moisture 5.9 13.9 18.9 Repofled: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 19 of 28 159 of 235 00006220121 00006220722 00006220123 00006220126 00006220127 0CBlank Spike Duplicate 0CBIank Spike Method Blank Recovery 0000622ro03 METHOD Recovery 2&lo1/2000 CLEAN SOIL 2&101/2000 BLANK CLEAN SOIL 2&UO1/2000 31/01/2000 31/01/2000 BTEX/MAR by GC, AS RECEIVED Method: 5MHS Units: mglkg Benzene 4.02 Ethyl Benzene 4.02 Isopropyl Benzene (Cumene) 4.02 Toluene 4.02 Vinyl Benzene (Styrene) 4.02 Xylene 4.02 HYDROCARBONS, CEIVED Method. 501-FID Units: mgkg TPH C6 - C9 QO TPH CIO - Cl4 QO TPH C15 - C28 QO TPH C29 - C36 40 QC RESULTS - Relative Percent Difference, % Benzene <1.0. Isopropyl Benzene (Cumene) c1.0 Toluene 7.0 Vinyl Benzene (Styrene) <1.0 Xylene <1.0 QC RESULTS - SPIKED SAMPLES "< Percent Recovery, % TPH C15 - C28 82.8 Benzene 98.0 Ethyl Benzene I16 Isopropyl Benzene (Cumene) 111 Toluene 104 Xylene I16 Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 20 of 28 160 of 235 00006220128 00006220129 00006220130 00006220131 00006220132 Duplicate Duplicate Spike Duplicate Spike 00006ZZO39 0000622/012 Recovery 0000622/044 Recovery 31BlL2000 1BZ?OOO 0000622/012 1B24?000 0000622/044 lBZ?OOO 1BZ?OOO QC RESULTS - DUPLICATES "^ Relative Percent Difference, 96 Antimony C1.0 Arsenic 9.I c1.0 Biuium 2.8 Beryllium 4.9 Boron c1.0 Cadmium C1.0 Chromium I .5 c1.0 Cobalt 13.5 1.3 Copper c1.0 16.7 Lead 3.2 Manganese 17.3 11.7 Molybdenum . c1.0 Nickel 16.8 14.9 Selenium 2.2 Vanadium c1.0 17.7 Zinc 17.1 4.5 TPH C6 - C9 c1.0 TPHCIO-C14 9.5 TPH CIS - C28 29.4 TPH C29 - C36 19.1 QC RESULTS-. SPI&E~'SN'I~LES,. ,,. .. Percent Recovery. 96 Antimony 75.5 Arsenic IO0 83.3 Byium 88.0 87.8 Beryllium 99.0 92.2 Boron 96.0 90.9 Cadmium 98.0 97.4 Chromium 77.1 Cobalt I14 116 Copper I09 I10 Lead 84.4 90.4 Manganese 18.1 Molybdenum 104 96.I Nickel I08 I07 Selenium 88.6 Tin 93.6 I06 Vanadium 83.5 73.7 Zinc I07 - 109 Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Pose 21 of 28 161 of 235 00006220133 00006220134 00006220 135 00006220136 00006220137 Dupllcate Splke QCBlank OCBIank Duplicate 000062m64 Recovery METHOD METHOD 0000622/p39 imBooo 0000622/064 BUNK BUNK immooo 14BOOO l/vZ?OOO immooo ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES, AS RECEIVED 1, Method. 506-ECD Units: mgkg Aldrin eo.I alpha - BHC c0.1 alpha - Endosulphan co.I beta - BHC 4.1 beta - End~~ulphan co.I Chlordane eo.1 DDD co.I DDE 4.I DDT eo. I delta - BHC eo. I Dieldrin eo.I Endosulphan sulphate 4.1 Endrin eo.I Endrin Aldehyde 4.I Heptachlor eo.I Heptachlorepoxide co. I Hexachlorobenzene 4.I Lindane 4.I Methoxychlor co.1 POLYAROMATIC HYDRO Method: 505-MS Units: mgkg Acenaphthene 4.05 Acemphthylene 4.05 Anthracene 4.05 Benz(a)anthncene 4.05 Benzo(3)pyrene 4.05 Benzo(b)fluomthene 4.05 Benzo(g.h.i)perylene 4.05 Benzo(k)fluorulthene 4.05 chrYQ= 4.05 Dibenz(ah)anthracene 4.05 Fluomthene 4.05 Fluorene 4.05 Indend I23cd)pyrene 4.05 Naphthalene 4.05 Phenanthrene 4.05 me 4.05 QC R~~ULTS-~D@>-?XT~SJ~-I-. -,_ ". -.- >..>-, - Relvive Rrcent Diffmnce. 96 Antimony <1.0 Boron <1.0 Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 22 of 28 162 of 235 00006220133 00006220134 0000622Q135 000062ZQ136 000062ZQ137 Dupllcate Spike QCBlank QCBlank Duplicate 00006221064 Recovery METHOD METHOD 00006221039 lm~ooo 0000622/064 BLANK BLANK 1mmooo 1m*ooo 1mmooo 1ma2000 Cadmium c1.0 Chromium 22. I Copper 19.6 Molybdenum c1.0 Nickel 9.4 Vanadium 2.1 Aldrin c1.0 dpha - BHC c1.0 alpha - Endosulphan c1.0 beta - BHC c1.0 beta - Endosulphan c1.0 Chlordane c1.0 DDD c1.0 DDE c1.0 DDT c1.0 delta - BHC c1.0 Dieldrin c1.0 Endosulphan sulphate c1.0 Endrin c1.0 Endrin Aldehyde c1.0 Heptachlor c1.0 Heptachlorepoxide c1.0 Hexachlorobenzene c1.0 Lindane c1.0 Methoxychlor c1.0 chlorpyrifos c1.0 Chlorpyrifos Methyl c1.0 Diazinon c1.0 Ethion c1.0 Fenitrothion c1.0 Fenthion c1.0 Malathion c1.0 Methyl mion c1.0 Pmthion c1.0 Ronnel c1.0 Acemphthene c1.0 Acenaphthylene c1.0 Anthncene c1.0 Ben~akmhracene c1.0 Benzo(a)pyrene c1.0 Benzo(b)fluonnthene c1.0 Benzo(g.h.ihj)perylene c1.0 Benzo(k)fluomthme c1.0 Ctuysene c1.0 Reported: Friday, 07 Aprll2000 Page 23 of 28 163 of 235 00006220133 00006220134 00006220135 00006220136 00006220137 Dupllcate Spike OCBlank OCBlank Duplicate 0000622/064 Recovery METHOD METHOD 0000622/039 1m2L2000 0000622/I64 BLANK BLANK 1m2/2000 1m2/2000 irnzzooo 1/02/2000 Dibenz(a.h)anthcene <1.0 Ruoranthene c1.0 Fluorene c1.0 Indene( I .2.3-c,d)pyrene <1.0 Naphthalene c1.0 Phenanthrene c1.0 Pyrene <1.0 QC RESULTS - SPIKkD SAMPLES Percent Recovery, 4% Antimony 73.7 Arsenic 70.9 Beryllium 73.7 Boron 71.4 Cadmium 75.4 Cobalt 83.8 Copper 81.7 Lead 71.4 Molybdenum 73.5 Nickel 78.7 Tin 84.8 Zinc 81.8 Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 24 of 28 164 of 235 00006ZQ 138 00006220139 00006ZQ141 00006ZQ 146 00006ZQ 147 QCBlank Duplicate Spike OCBlank Spike METHOD 00006m81 Recovery METHOD Recovery BLANK immooo CLEAN SOIL BLANK CLEAN SOIL immooo immooo 1/vmooo ORGANOPHOSPHORUS COMPOUNDS, AS RECEIVED Method. 5 12MS Units: mgkg Chlorpynfos # 41 Chlorpynfos Methyl # 41 Diazinon # CU. I Ethion # 4.I Fenitrothion # 4.I Fenthion # 4.I Malathion # 4.I Methyl Panthion # 4.1 Parathion # 4.I Ronnel # 4.I POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB's) Method: 507-ECD Units: rngkg PCB Aroclor 1016 eo. 1 PCB Aroclor 1242 eo. 1 PCB Aroclor 1248 4.1 PCB Aroclor 1254 4.1 PCB Aroclor 1260 co. I Total PCBs 4. I QC RESULTS - D Relatlve Percent Difference, 96 Aldnn c1.0 alpha - BHC <1.0 alpha - Endosulphan c1.0 beta - BHC c1.0 beta - Endosulphan 4.0 Chlordane c1.0 DDD 22.2 DDE 28.6 DDT C1.0 delta - BHC c1.0 Dieldnn c1.0 Endosulphan sulphate c1.0 Endnn c1.0 Endnn Aldehyde c1.0 Heptachlor c1.0 Heptachlorepoxide c1.0 Hexachlorobenzene c1.0 Lindane c1.0 Methoxychlor c1.0 chlorpyrifos c1.0 Chlorpynfas Methyl c1.0 Reported: Frlday, 07 April 2000 Page 25 of 28 165 of 235 00006220 138 00006220139 0000622014 1 00006220146 00006220147 QCBlank Duplicale Splke OCBlank Spike METHOD 000062211181 Recovery METHOD Recovery BLANK immooo CLEAN SOIL BLANK CLEAN SOIL 1mmooo 1m2L?ooo immooo immooo Diazinon <1.0 Ethion c1.0 Fenitrothion <1.0 Fenthion <1.0 Malathion <1.0 Methyl Pmthion c1.0 Parathion <1.0 Ronnel <1.0 Acenaphthene <1.0 -. Acenaphthylene <1.0 Anthracene <1.0 Benz(a)anthncene 28.6 Benzo(a)pyrene 28.6 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 33.3 Benzo(g.h,i)perylene 40.0 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 33.3 Chiysene 40.0 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene <1.0 fluoranthene 15.4 fluorene c1.0 Indene( 12.3s.d)pyrene 22.2 Naphthalene <1.0 Phenanthrene c1.0 Pyrene 28.6 QC RESULTS - SPI Percent Recovery, % PCB Aroclor 1016 128 PCB Aroclor 1260 925 Total FCBs 110 Aldrin 97.5 alpha - BHC 97.5. alpha - EndoSulphm 11.5 bera- BHC 87.5 beta - Endmulphiln 15.0 Chlordane 88.8 DDD 80.0 DDE 80.0 delta - BHC 92.5 Dteldrin 70.0 Endasulphan sulphate 61.5 Endrin Aldehyde 70.0 Heptachlor 60.0 Heptachlorepoxide 65.0 Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 26 of 28 166 of 235 00006220138 0000622Q139 00006220141 00006220 146 0000622Q 147 QCBlank Duplicate Spike OCBIank Spike METHOD 0000622/081 Recovery METHOD Recovery BLANK 1mmooo CLEAN SOIL BLANK CLEAN SOIL 1/omooo immooo immooo 1mmooo Hexachlorobenzene 95.0 Lindane I10 Chlorpyri fos 80.0 Chlorpyrifos Methyl 10.0 Diazinon 12.5 Fenitrothion 61.5 Fenthion 80.0 Methyl Pmthion 70.0 Panthion 15.0 Ronnel 82.5 Acenaphthene 112 Aceqhth ylene I32 Anthracene 128 Benz(a)anthracene I05 Benzo(a)pyrene 90.0 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 81.5 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 90.0 Benzo(k)fluoranthene I18 Chrysene 108 Dibenz(eh)anthracene 80.0 Fluoranthene I05 Fluorene I22 tndeno( I ,2,3-c.d)pyrene I18 Naphthalene I30 Phenanthrene I18 Pyrene I02 Reported: Frid8y, 07 April 2000 Page 27 of 28 167 of 235 00006220148 00006220149 00006220152 00006220154 00006220155 Duplicate Duplicate Duplicate Duplicate Spike 00006Z2?l39 00006Z2?l81 00006W151 00006W153 Recovery immooo immooo m34?000 6m4L?ooo 00006W153 M)mooo QC RESULTS- DUPLICATES Relative Percent Difference, 9'0 Arsenic 13.8 4.7 PCB Aroclor 1016 c1.0 c1.0 PCB Aroclor 1242 c1.0 c1.0 PCB Aroclor 1248 c1.0 <1.0 PCB Aroclor 1254 c1.0 cl.0 PCB Aroclor 1260 c1.0 c1.0 Total PCBs c1.0 c1.0 QC RESULTS - S AMPLE Percent Recovery, 9% Arsenic 117 Quality Results provided in this report are for laboratory Qualify Control purposes. Reported: Friday, 07 April 2000 Page 28 of 28 168 of 235 GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Contact : KARINSCHWAB 24/107-113 HEATHERDALE ROAD Batch Number : 0001032 P.0 BOX 441 Job Ref : EA1079 RINGWOOD Sample(s) Received : 10/02/2000 VIC 3134 Report No : 11494 Methods:, 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, Dry Weight 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, mg/L 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, TCLP 501-FID Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, mg/L E1OO.O1 Moisture Content John Levvey Werner Mueller Dip.App.Sci (Chemistq) B.App.Sci. MRACI Senior Analyst - Metals Chief Chemist This Laboratoly is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The tests reported herin have been performed in accordance with its terms of accreditation. NATAENDORSEDDOCUMENT Document may not be reproduced except in full. NATA Accredltatlon No. 1645 This is the Final Report which supersedes any reports previously issued relatlng to the sample(s) included. All samples tested as submitted by dient. # Denotes methods not covered by NATA terms of accreditation Reported: Tuesday, 15 February 2000 Page I of 6 169 of 235 0001032/001 0001032/002 0001032/003 0001032/004 0001032/005 61-2401-1 62-2401-1 G4-2401-1 T5-2701-2 T11-2701-2 Soil Soil Sol1 Soil Soil ELEMENTS by ICP-MS Method: 406-MS Units: mglL Arsenic 21 21 Zinc I200 12 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 406-MS Units: mglkg Zinc 9.3 360 21 OVEN MOISTURE CONTENT Method: E100.01 Units: 9i w/w Moisture 6.8 17.7 8.8 Reported: Tuesday, 15 February 2000 Page 2 of 6. 170 of 235 0001032/006 0001032/007 0001032/008 0001032/009 0001032/010 T13-2701-2 EQUIP-2401 EQUIP-2701 TCLP T52701- TCLP TI1- 2 2701-2 Soil Water Water Soil Soil ELEMENTS by ICP-MS Method: 406-MS Units: mgiL Arsenic 250 c0.005 <0.005 Cadmium <0.005 Lead 4.005 Zinc 9.0 0.006 0.0 14 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, TCLP EXTRACT Method, 406-MS Units: mgiL Arsenic 0.097 Cadmium 0.017 Lead 0.14 Zinc 22 HYDROCARBONS in SOLUTION Method. 501-FID Units: mg/L TPH C6 - C9 Reported: Tuesday, 15 February 2000 Page 3 of 6 171 of 235 0001032/011 TCLP T13- 2701-2 Soil ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, TCLP EXTRACT Method: 406-MS Units: mg/L Arsenic 0.47 Reported: Tuesday, 15 February 2000 Page I of 6 172 of 235 IAnalyllcal bboratorles A.C.N. 006 823 089 585 Blackburn Road Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia 3168 Telephone (03) 9562 5899 TaX (03) 9562 0336 000103200 12 0001032001 3 0001 0320014 0001032001 5 0001032001 6 Duplicate Duplicate Spike Duplicate OCBIank 0001032/011 0001032/006 Recovery 0001032/007 METHOD 0001032/006 BLANK HYDROCARBONS in SOLUTION Method: 501-FID Units: mgL TPH C6 - C9 4.04 TPH CIO - C14 c0.04 TPH CIS - C28 I .. QC RESULTS - DUPLICATES .. ., .. I. Relative Percent Difference. % Arsenic 7.0 19.0 c1.0 Cadmium ci.0 25.0 14.3 LRad 10 3 3.9 Zinc 23.6 14.0 QC RESULTS - SPIKED SAMPLES Percent Recovery. TO Arsenic 90.2 Cadmium 105 Lead 128 Zinc 119 Reported: Tuesday, 15 February 2000 Page 5 of 6 173 of 235 0001032Q017 Spike Recovery CLEAN WATER QC RESULTS -SPIKED SAMF'LES Percent Recovery. 96 TPH CIS - C28 107 Qualjty Results provided in this report are for laboratory Quality Control purposes. Repoad: Tuesday, 15 February 2000 Page 6 of 6 174 of 235 Replacement Analytical &eport Replacement for Report no: 11494, issued on: 15 Feb 2000 GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Contact : KARINSCHWAB 24/107-113 HEATHERDALE ROAD Batch Number : 0001032 P.0 BOX 441 Job Ref : EA1079 RINGWOOD Sample(s) Received : 10/02/2000 16/02/2000 VIC 3134 .. Replacement Report No : 11648 Methods: 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, Dry Weight 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, mg/L 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, TCLP 501-FID Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Dry V ‘E It 501 -FID Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, mg/L E1OO.O1 Moisture Content j_^ Attached Results Approved by: John Levvey Werner Mueller Dip.App.Sci (Chemistry) B.App.Sci. MRACI Senior Analyst - Metals Chief Chemist This Laboratory is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The tests reported herin have been performed in amrdance with its terms of accreditation. NATA ENDORSED DOCUMENT Document may not be reproduced except in full. NATA Accreditation No. 1645 This Is the Final Report which supersedes any reports previously issued relating to the sample@) included. All samples tested as submitted by dient # Denotes methods not covered by NATA terms of accreditation Reported: Friday, 16 February 2000 Page 1 of 7 175 of 235 0001032M01 0001032M02 0001032/003 0001032/004 0001032M05 GI-2401-1 G2-2401-1 G4-2401-7 T5-2701-2 T11-2701-2 ionazooo iommooo 10/02/2ooo iommooo iommooo ELEMENTS by ICP-MS Method 406-MS Units. mg/L Anenic 27 zinc 12 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 406-MS Units: mglkg Cadmium 3.2 Lead 210 Zinc 93 360 21 HYDROCARBONS (TPH),DRY WE Method: 501-FID Units: mglkg TPH C6 - C9 <20 TPHCIO-C14 <20 TPH CIS - C28 67 TPH C29 - C36 160 OVEN MOISTURE CONTENT Method: E100.01 Units: 9% w/w Moisture 6.8 17.7 8.8 Reported: Friday, 18 February2000 Page 2 of 7 176 of 235 Analytical Laboratories A.C.N. 006 823 089 585 Blackburn Road Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia 3168 Telephone (03) 9562 5899 Fax (03) 9562 0336 0001032/006 0001032/007 0001032/008 0001032/009 0001032/010 T13-2701-2 EQUIP-2401 EQUIP-2701 TCLP T5-2701- TCLP Tll- 2 2701-2 io/0212000 iommooo iommooo 1mmooo lwomooo ELEMENTS by ICP-MS -- . - Method. 406-MS Units: mgL Arsenic 250 <0.005 <0.005 Cadmium <0.005 Lead <0.005 Zinc 9.0 0.006 0.0 14 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, TCLP EXTRACT Method: 406-MS Units: mgL Arsenic 0.097 Cadmium 0.017 Lead 0.14 Zinc 22 HYDROCARBONS in SOLUTION Method. 501-RD Units: mgL TPH C6 - C9 <0.04 TPH ClO - C14 4.04 TPH C15 - C28 Reported: Frlday, 18 February 2000 Page 3 of 7 177 of 235 0001032/011 0001032/019 TCLP T13- T5-2701-1 2701-2 TCLP 1ommooo 1mmooo by ICP-MS, EXTRACT ELEMENTS TCLP ~ . Method. 406-MS Units: mg/L Arsenic 0.47 Cadmium 0.032 Lead 0.046 Zinc 34 Reported: Friday, 18 February 2000 Page J of 7 178 of 235 I Quality Results <. Replacement Report No: 11648 00010320012 00010320013 0001032001 4 0001032OO15 0001032001 6 Duplicate Duplicate Spike Duplicate OCBlank 0001032M11 0001032/006 Recovery 0001032/007 METHOD I i~omooo i4maooo oooio3mo6 i4/02/2000 BLANK 12/02/2000 11/02/2000 HYDROCARBONS in SOLUTION Method: 501-FID Units: m@L TPH C6 - C9 Reported: Friday, 18 February2000 Page 5 of 7 179 of 235 00010320017 00010320020 00010320021 00010320022 00010320023 Spike Spike OCBIank Spike Duplicate Recovery Recovery METHOD Recovery 0001032/004 CLEAN 0001032/004 BLANK CLEAN SOIL 1WO2L'OOO WATER i7m2~'ooo 16/02/2000 IWO~L'OOO HYDROCARBONS, AS RECEIVED Method 501-FID Units: mgkg TPH C6 - C9 <20 TPH CIO - C14 <20 TPH C 15 - C28 c20 TPH C29 - C36 c20 QC RESULTS - DUPLICATES TPH C6 - C9 <1.0 TPH C10 - C14 c1.0 TPH CIS - C28 7. I TPH C29 - C36 QC RESULTS - SPIKED ShPL Percent Recovery, % Cadmium 113 Lead 99 2 TPH CIS - C28 107 116 Reported: Friday, 18 February 2000 Page 6 of 7 180 of 235 0001032Q024 00010320025 Duplicate Spike 0001032/019 Recovery 18D2QOOO Check Standard QC RESULTS - DUPLICATES Relative Percent Difference, % Cadmium 2.0 Lead 12.6 Zinc 7.7 QC RESULTS - SPIKED SAMPLES Percent Recovery. 9% Cadmium 103 Lead I03 Zinc I12 Quality Results provided in this report are for laboratory Quality Control purposes. Reported: Friday, 18 February 2000 Page 7 of 7 181 of 235 CEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Contact : DR KARIN SCWAB 241107-113 HEATHERDALE ROAD Batch Number : 0001429 P.0 BOX 441 Job Ref : EA 1079 RINCWOOD : VIC 3134 Sample(s) Received 23/02/2000 Report No : 11922 I 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, Dry Weight I E1OO.O1 Moisture Content Attac Werner Mueller Dip.App.Sci (Chemistry) B.App.Sci. MRACl Senior Analyst - Mwls Chief Chemist This Laboratoly is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Austmlia. The tests reported herin have been performed in accordance with its terms of accreditation. NATA ENDORSED DOCUMENT Document may not be reptvduced except In fvll. NATA Accreditation No. 1645 7hls Is the Final Report which supersedes any reports previously Issued relating to the sample(s) included. All samples tested as submitted by dent TY Denotes mewsnor covered by NATA terms of accreditation Reported: Friday, 25 February 2000 Page 1 of 3 182 of 235 IAnalytlcal Laboratories A.C.N. 006 823 089 585 Blackburn Road Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia 3168 Telephone (03) 9562 5899 Fax (03) 9562 0336 0001429/001 0001429/002 T9-2701-1DUP T14-2701- lDUP SOlL SOIL ELEMENTS by ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Method: 406-MS Units: mgkg Arsenic 140 71 OVEN MOISTURE CONTENT Method: El00 01 Units: 9% w/w Moisture 6.4 4.5 Reported: Frlday, 25 February 2000 Page 2 of 3 183 of 235 00014290003 00014290004 Duplicate Spike 0001429B01 Recovery 0001429B01 QC RESULTS - DWLIC Relative Percent Difference. Arsenic 8.2 QC RESULTS -SPIKE LFS Percent Recovery. % Arsenic 76.8 Quality Results provided in this report are for laboratory Quality Control purposes. Reported: Friday, 25 February 2000 Page 3 of 3 184 of 235 ortno: 12436, is GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Contact : DR KARIN SCWAB 24/107-113 HEATHERDALE ROAD Batch Number : 0001429 P.0 BOX 441 Job Ref : EA1079 RINGWOOD Sample(s) Received : 23/02/2000 05/04/2000 VIC 3134 .. Replacement Report No : 13751 Methods: 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, Dry Weight 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, Slurry 406-MS Metals/Elements by ICP-MS (Dry Soils) E1OO.O1 Moisture Content Werner Mueller Dip.App.Sci (Chemistry) B.App.Sci. MRACl Senior Adyst - Metals Chief Chemist This Laboratory is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The tests reported herin have been performed in accordance with its terms of accreditation. NATAENDORSEDDOCUMENT Document may not be reproduced except in full. NATA Accredltation No. 1645 7711s is the Final Report which supersedes any reports prevlously issued relating to the sample@) Included. AI1 samples tested as submitted by client # Denotes methods not covered by NATA terns of accreditation Reported: Thursday, 06 April 2000 Page I of3 185 of 235 0001429/001 0001429B02 0001429B05 0001429/011 7-9-2701-7 DUP T14-2701- T9-2701-1DUP T9-2701-7DUP 1DUP retest 23/132/2000 M)~OOO 5mmooo 23/02/2000 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS(SIUT), DRY WEIG Method:406-MS Units: mgkg Arsenic I300 ELEMENTS by ICP-MS,DRY SOILS Method: 406-MS Units: mgkg Arsenic ELEMENTS by ICP- Y WEIGHT Arsenic 140 71 OVEN MOISTURE C Method: E100.01 Units: '70 w/w Moisture 6.4 4.5 Reported: mumday, 06 Aprll2000 Page 2 of 3 186 of 235 00014290003 00014290004 00014290006 00014290007 00014290012 Duplicate Spike Duplicate Spike Duplicate oooi4zgmoi Recovery 0001429B05 Recovery 00014zgmi I 2mmooo oooi4zgmoi am3~ooo 00014zgm05 mmooo z4mmooo 7B3DOOO QC RESULTS - DUPLICATES Relative Percent Difference. 46 Arsenic 8.2 20.5 9.3 QC RESULTS -SPIKED SAMPLES Percent Recovery, % Arsenic 76.8 I13 Quality Results provided in this report are for laboratory Ouaiity Control purposes. Reported: Thursday, 06 Aprii 2000 Puge 3 of3 187 of 235 Replacement Analytical Report Replacement for Report no: 13773, issued on: 06 Apr 2000 GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Contact : KARIN SCHWAB 24/107-113 HEATHERDALE ROAD Batch Number : 0002871 P.0 BOX 441 Job Ref : 05/04/00 RING W OOD VIC 3134 Sample(s) Received : 05/04/2000 Replacement Report No : 14778 Methods : 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, mg/L 4ttached Results Approved by: - Anthony Cme John Lewey B.App.Sci. (Environmenral) Dip.App.Sci (Chemistry) Senior Analyst Senior Analys~- Metals This Laboratory is accrediied by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The tests reported herin have been performed in accordance with its terms of accreditation. NATA ENDORSED DOCUMENT Document may not be reproduced except in full. NATA Accreditation No. 1645 This is the Final Report which supersedes any reports previously issued relating to the samplefs) included. AI1 samples tested as submitted by client #Denotes methods not covered by NATA terms of accreditation Reported: Thursday, 04 May 2000 Page 1 of 3 188 of 235 I Results Replacement Report No: 14778 0002871B01 0002871B02 WATER EXTR WATER EXTR T4-2701-1DUP T14-2701- lDUP ELEMENTS by ICP-MS Method: 406-MS Units: mglL Arsenic 2.3 12 Cadmium 0.035 4.005 Lead I .2 I .o Zinc 2.6 2.2 Reported: Thursday, 04 May 2000 Page 2 of 3 189 of 235 1 I Quality Results Replacement Report No: 14778 00028710003 Duplicate 0002871/001 QC RESULTS - DLPLICATES Relative Percent Difference, % Arsenic <1.0 Cadmium <1.0 Lead c1.0 Zinc 2.3 Quality Results provided in this report are for laboratory Quality Control purposes. Reported: Thursday. 04 May 2000 Page 3 of 3 190 of 235 GeePollution Management 24flO7-113 Heatherdale Road Ringwood VIC 3134 Ph: (03)8873 2799 Fax: (03) 9673 289s or (03)eo73 2684 -FACSIIMILE TRANSMISSION No. Pages Followlng: 1 Dm: 07/03/2000 Job No.: EA1079 Fax No. Dhlkd; 9562 0336 FgOY WernerMueller Cornpany/OrganitPtion: Gribbles Analytical Laboratories +-=TO= Or Karin Schwab PLEASE CALL 9373 2799 IF PART OR All. OF THE TRANSMISSION HAVE NOT BEEN RECEWD No. EAlO79l Dear Werner, In light of the recent discrepancies in Arsenic resutts reported between your Laboratory and MGT, including both your lab and MGT reproducing thair previous resutts on either the routine or split duplicates, we are requlred to obtain detailed information from you pertaining to the methods uwd. 1. Please describe the mlhod of sample preparaffonfrom receipt of sample untll w prlca weighing out for extractian. {OJ 0: SAMXE acgac: SOP. \ 5~4 2. Were the samples dried prior to analysis, or were factors applied to tho final result to A/oC dd account for moisture eoiitent. woaCAF-1 3. If samples were drled, hm wore they dried? Ovedair? Tencg/duration? Vvas there any means of checking :state of dryness? (Replicate weighing showing limited weight 0 4~ loss over time?) 4. Was the sample fradioned/coned/quarterd? A. 4rpjJ-fLe 5, Was a whole fraction gniund of crushed, or was a sieving employed to mmove Jp coarse particles, rock and stone? 6. If 'stme' rencved, m$ithts quantmed? c- 191 of 235 No.489 P.2/2 RgslOf?_ GeoPollutlon Management 241074 13 Cfcathsrdale Road Ringwood VlC 3134 Ph: @3)98T3nW Fax. (03) 9873 2889 or (03)sei73 2884 7, What was the tVpi1 pz~rticlesize subjected to extraction (Le, sub 2mm, sub lmrn, s-& sub 0.1 mm etc) -4za-V- PfY sop- 8. Matsample mass waq extracted? LO J (MIk4- 9. What was the temperature (or wattage for microwave extraction)? What was the 5- - r~ duration of extraction7 1'- -0 LJ 16. What was the final rnakwp volume? 11. Wt was the final &ad of ICP anatysis? 12, Was hydride generation employed? de 13. Was the instrumental resldlng within your standard calibration range, or did B.'/-&( 4h subsequent dilutions en;iue? cJ*- &A. 14. Were elutriatlon tests mnducted? &- WY . +-e- Thank you in advance for aiisisting IS in clarifying this issue, Regards Dr Karin Schwab 192 of 235 Facsimile Message __ -To: Dr Karin Sthwab Far Number: 98732899 Comuany: GeoPollution Mamgement --From: Werner Mueller DATE: 6 April 2000 Pages; 3 including this page. Plaaae atlvise us if any pages are unclear or not received. NOTE : ??nemalpaper facsimiles shodd 5e sopied ot?hplein paper for long-ten safe starage n urger,: 0 For Review Please Comment 'J Please Reply n Xesutts FallawinS RE: Metals Testing in So& Dear Karin, Plem find attached die results of an in-house reference material soil. Our experience has shown that discrepancies are usually due to homogeneity issues of the soil. I? would appear tbat ctuf standard homogenisation technique may not be appropriate to the soil rypes subxittd 'We ofka number of specific hornogenisation techniques for metals testing. A very effeaive and simple om being a dry grinding of the entire soil sample in a mortar and pestle prior to sieving:. Adriaa wdl contact yau tomorrow regankg the feasibility cf this tec~quefor you routine samples. 193 of 235 GRIBBLES RNRLYTICGL 95620336 No.181 P.213 If you requkc further information regarding any of these matters please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, Werner Mueller 194 of 235 GEOGAL D Ill . .. __. w\ 195 of 235 ...... I ... APPENDIX G.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS (NATA ENDORSED) I Split.._ -Duplicates_...... (Secondary Laboratory) .. 196 of 235 .. Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 005 085 521 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166 Postal Address: PO. Box 276, Oakleigh, Victoria, 3166 Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Fax: (03) 9564 7 190 11 February 2000 Geo Pollution Management P.O. Box 441 Ringwood Victoria 3134 Att: Dr K. Schwab Dear Karin MGT ANALYTICAL REPORT NO 137671 Please find attached the analysis results for the YARRAMBAT EA1079 samples received 28/01/00 Yours faithfully - Michael Wright Laboratory Manager 197 of 235 Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria. 3166, Australia Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Fax (03) 9564 7190 Email: [email protected] MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 137671 CLIENT ..- Geo Pollution Management P.O. Box 441 Rin ood Vicgria 3134 II SITE :- YARRAMBAT EA1079 DATE RECEIVED :- 28/01/00 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 28/01/00 - 29/01/00 DATE REPORTED :- 11/02/00 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 137671 A total of 1 duplicate, 1 matrix spike % recovery and 1 method blank analyses or sets of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results for duplicates, matrix spike % recovery, method blank and known QC standards were within the set acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. C .. . Michael Wrig Laboratory Manager Page 1 of 198 3of 235 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleigh, Victoria. 3166. Australia Geo Pollution Management Telephone: (03)9564 7055 P.O. Box 441 Fax (03)9564 7 190 Ri ngwood Email: [email protected] Victoria 3134 Site : YARRAMBAT EA1079 Sample COMP DUP T4-2701-1 DUP T4-2701-1 DUP T9-2701-1 DUP T14-2701-1 DUP Spike % Recov Lab. No. / Sample matrix JA1815#Soil JA1816#Soil JA1816D#Soil JA1817#Soil JA1818#Soil JA1818S#Soil Arsenic 15 45 42 1100 280 82% Cadmium ~0.5 - - - - 92% Chromium 9.2 - - - - 88% Copper e5 - - - - 96% Lead 21 - - - - 100% raction with (1+3) HN03 & HC1. Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Date received 28/01/00 Date Reported 11/02/00 199 of 235 Report No. 137671 Sample Meth.Bl. (mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix Arsenic eo. 02 Cadmium eo.02 Chromium eo.05 Copper eo. 05 Lead eo. 05 Mercury eo. 001 Nickel eo. 05 Zinc eo. 05 200 of 235 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 KhJSbm Tom ao8e. Oalddm. Vlctoh. 3166. AmhUa I POrhl Mess:P.O. Box 276.O.#d#1. Wduh, 3166. AusbaUa Tdephaa: (03) 9564 7055 I Fa:(03) 9564 7190 I CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF TEST RESULTS The continuing validity and reliability of results is accomplished by monitoring a number of Control Linlit factors: If one measurement exceeds the C.L. repeat the analysis. If the repeat is within the C.L I. Analysis of duplicates. Duplicates run at a minimum of J% continue analyses. If it exceeds the C.L discontinue analyses and correct the problem. 2. Kecovery of known additions. Spikes run at a minimum of J% with each batch of samples. 3. Analysis of reagent blanks run with each batch of samples. Warnlne Llnut I. Analvsis of DupUcates Iftwo out ofthree successive points exceed the W.L analyse another sample. Ifthe nesi point is less than the W.L continue analyses, ifthe next point exceeds the W.L.discontinue analyses Duplicates are analysed as a matter of course and the data analysed by means of a range chart and correct the problem. type system. The range for each duplicate pair is determined and 'normalised' by dividing by the average of the duplicate results. *** Particular care needs to be taken with some soil samples with regard to sample Once enough data has been gathered control data for each method can be developed. The homogeneity, especially with regard to 'organics' analyses. Statistical analysis may indicate mean range(R) is determined as: a problem exists when in fact the problem is really only sample homogeneity. R a( ZRi) 2. Recovery of known additions. n The recovery of known additions is used to verify the absence of matrix effects and absence of interferences. Recovery from standards is used to verify method performance. Recovery data Where n = number of observations is compared against acceptance criteria published in Standards Methods for Examination of and & normalised range Water and Waste water, or appropriate US. EPA Methods. and the variance (square of the smdard deviation) is determined as: Ifrecoveries fall outside acceptance criteria, analyses should be discontinued and the problem rectified. s: s: = ( Z&' - nR') 3. Analvsb of Reaeent Blanks n- 1 Reagent blanks are used to monitor purity of reagents and the overall procedural blank. The control criteria thus become: Reagent blanks are run as a matter of course with each batch for analysis. Unusual or out of the 'norm' results for blanks are investigated and corrective action taken before analysis of any Average range R batch is completed. .. Waming Limit R + 2s, Control Limit R + 3s, . The normulised range for each duplicate pair is calculated and compared with the above criteria. (This can be achieve either graphically or by visual comparison ofthe data). Since the limits are based on 9J% and 90% confidence levels respectively, the following actions are taken. based on these statistical parameters. ---- Opera ions Manager 201 of 235 1111 AE.N. 005 085 521 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166 Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria. 3166 Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Fax: (03)9564 719C 15 February 2000 Geo Pollution Management P.O. Box 441 Ringwood Victoria 3134 Att: Dr K Schwab Dear Karin MGT ANALYTICAL REPORT NO 137885 Please find attached the analysis results for the YARRAMBAT EA1079 samples received 10/02/00 Yours faithfully Michael WrightY Laboratory Manager 202 of 235 Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh, Victoria, 3166, Australia Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Fax (03) 9564 7190 Email: mgte majestic.com.au ~~ MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 137885 CLIENT :- Geo Pollution Management P.O. Box 441 %~~~?~3134 SITE :- YARRAMBAT EA1079 DATE RECEIVED :- l0/02/00 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 10/02/00 - 11/02/00 DATE REPORTED :- 15/02/00 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 137885 A total of 1 duplicate and 1 method blank analyses or sets of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results €or duplicates, method blank and known QC standards were within the set acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. I' Michae 1 Wr igl# 203 of 235 Laboratory Manager Page 1 of 2 Sample T9-2701-1DUP T9-2701-1DUP D T14-2701-1DUP Meth.Bl. (mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix FE1311#Soil FE1311D#Soil FE1312#Soil Arsenic 1000 1100 300 c0.02 204 of 235 Repnrt No. 177RRS Pr7nP 7 of 7 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Towrn am,OlMdm. Wctoda. 3166, Aurb-.lla Porhl Mess:P.O. Box 276.O.ldd&, Vlctoda. 3166. AuBrlla Tdeplons: (03)9564 7055 Fax: (03)9564 7190 CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF TEST RESULTS 'Ihe continuing validity and reliability of results is accomplished by monitoring a number of Control Lhlit factors: Ifone measurement exceeds the C.L. repeat the analysis. Ifthe repeat is within the C.L. I.Analysis of duplicates. Duplicates run at a minimum of 5% continue analyses. If it exceeds the C.L discontinue analyses and correct the problem. 2. Recovery of known additions. Spikes run at a minimum of 5% with each batch of samples. 3. Analysis of reagent blanks run with each batch of samples. Warnine Lhut 1. Analysis of DupUcates If two out of three successive points exceed the W.L. analyse another sample. If the ned point is less than the W.L. continue analyses, ifthe next point exceeds the W.L. discontinue analyses Duplicates are analysed as a matter of course and the data analysed by means of a range chart and corredthe problem. type system. merange for each duplicate pair is determined and 'normalised' by dividing by the average of the duplicate results. *** Particular care needs to be taken with some soil samples with regard to sample Once enough data has been gathered control data for each method can be developed. The homogeneity. especially with regard to 'organics' analyses. Statistical analysis may indicate mean range@) is determined as: a problem exists when in fact the problem is really only sampls homogeneity. Rn(CRi) 2. Recovery of known additions. - n The recovery of known additions is used to verify the absence of matris etTects and absence of interferences. Recovery from standards is used to verify method performance. Recovery data Where n = number of observations is compared against acceptance criteria published in Standards Methods for Examination of and & normalised range Water and Waste water, or appropriate U.S.EPA Methods. and the vclriance (square of the sedard deviation) is determined as: If recoveries fall outside acceptance criteria, analyses should be discontinued and the problem rectified. s,' s,' - ( CRf - nR2) 3. Analysis of Reaeent Blanks n- 1 Reagent blanks are used to monitor purity of reagents and the overall procedural blank. The control criteria thus become: Reagent blanks are run as a matter of course with each batch for analysis. Unusual or out of the .norm' results for blanks are investigated and corrective action taken before analysis of any Average range R batch is completed. Warning Limit R + Is, Control Limit R + 3s, ' The normalired range for each duplicate pair is calculated and compared with the above criteria. (This can be achieve either graphically or by visual comparison of the data). Since the limits are based on 95% and 90% coniidence levels respectively, the following actions are tiken, based on these statistical parameters. 205 of 235 IlNW AkN. 005 085 521 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166 Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166 Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 fax: (03) 9564 7190 25 March 2000 Geo Pollution Management P.O. Box 441 Ringwood Victoria 3134 Att: Dr K. Schwab Dear Karin MGT ANALYTICAL REPORT NO 138119 Please find attached the analysis results for the YARRAMBAT EA1079 EX-GRIBBLES samples received 24/02/00 Yours faithfully 206 of 235 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleigh, Victoria, 3166, Australia Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Fax (03) 9564 7190 Email: [email protected] MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 138119 CLIENT :- Geo Pollution Management P.O. Box 441 %%:?: 3134 SITE :- YARRAMBAT EA1079 EX-GRIBBLES DATE RECEIVED :- 24/02/00 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 24/02/00 - 2S/02/00 DATE REPORTED :- 25/03/00 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 138119 A total of 2 duplicate and 3 method blank analyses or sets of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results for duplicates, method blanks and known QC standards were within the set acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. 207 of 235 Page 1 of 3 Poslal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleigh, Victoria, 3166. Auslralia Geo Pollution Management Telephone: (03)9564 7055 P:O. Box 441 Fax (03) 9564 71 90 Ri ngwood Email: [email protected] Victoria 3134 Site : YARRAMBAT EA1079 EX-GRIBBLES HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. I/ sample lT9-2701-1 lT9-2701-1 Dup lT14-2701-1 1Meth.Bl. (mg/l)lStdl True IStdl MGTResult Lab. No. / Sample matrix FE24 55#Soil FE2455D#Soil FE2456#Soil Arsenic 930 950 280 eo. 02 90 81 I I I I I I Extraction with (1+3) HN03 & HC1. Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Date received 24/02/00 Date Reported 25/03/00 Comments Stds 1 & 2 are Standard Soils .. . 208 of 235 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleiah.". Victoria. 3166. Australia Geo Pollution Management Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 P:O. Box 441 Fax (03) 9564 7190 R 1 ngwood Email: mgtOmajestic.com.au Victoria 3134 Site : YARRAMBAT EA1079 EX-GRIBBLES Sample Std2 True Std2 MGTResult Lab. No. / Sample matrix Arsenic 4.8 5.0 raction with (1+3) HN03 & HC1. Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Date received 24/02/00 Date Reported 25/03/00 Comments Stds 1 & 2 are Standard Soils. 209 of 235 ~~ Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 mmpen TOWTI aw,o.~el*, vlctntia. 3166. mia Porhl Mea:P.O. Box 276.Oa#d(#1.Vlctcda. 3166. AuBrlla Tdephone: (03) 9564 7055 Fu:(03) 9564 7190 CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS OUALITY CONTROL RESULTS VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF TEST RESULTS The continuing validity and reliability of results is accomplished by monitoring a number of Control Linut factors: If one measurement exceeds the C.L. repeat the analysis. Ifthe repeat is within the C.L. I, Analysis ofduplicates. Duplicates run at a minimum of 5% continue analyses. If it exceeds the C.L. discontinue analyses and correct the problem. 2. Recovery of known additions. Spikes run at a minimum of 5% with each batch of samples. 3. Analysis of reagent blanks run with each batch of samples. Warnine Lhlit 1. Analysls of Duplicates If two out of three successive points exceed the W.L. analyse another sample. If the nest point is less than the W.L. continue analyses, Xthe next point exceeds the W.L. discontinue analyses Duplicates are analysed as a matter of course and the data analysed by means of a range chart and correct the problem. type system. The range for each duplicate pair is determined and 'normalised' by dividing by the average of the duplicate results. *** Particular care needs to be taken with some soil samples with regard to sample Once enough data has been gathered control data for each method can be developed. The homogeneity, especially with regard to 'organics' analyses. Statistical analysis may indicate mean range(R) is determined as: a problem exists when in fact the problem is really only sample homogeneity. R E( XRi ) 2. Recovery of known additions. n The recovery of known additions is used to verify the absence of matxis effects and absence of interferences. Recovery from standards is used to verify method performance. Recovery data Where n = number of observations is compared against acceptance criteria published in Standards Methods for Esamination of and R, = normalised range Water and Waste water, or appropriate U.S.EPA Methods. and the variance (square of the standard deviation) is determined as: If recoveries fall outside acceptance criteria, analyses should be discontinued and the problem rectified. s: s: = ( Xb2- nR2) 3. Analysis of Reaeent Blanks n- I Reagent blanks are used to monitor purity of reagent9 and the overall procedural blank. The control criteria thus become: Reagent blanks are run as a matter of course with each batch for analysis. Unusual or out of the 'norm' results for blanks are investigated and corrective action taken before analysis ofany Average range R batch is completed. Warning Limit R + 2s, Control Limit R + 3s, Ihe nomialised range for each duplicate pair is calculated and compared with the above criteria. (Tllis can be achieve either graphically or by visual comparison of the data). Since the limits are based on 95% and 90% confidence levels respectively, the following actions are laken. based on these statistical parameters. 210 of 235 I AC.N. 005 085 521 ~~~~~~~~ 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria, 3166 Postal Address: P.O. Box 276,Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166 Telephone: (03)9564 7055 Fax: (03)9564 7190 26 April 2000 Geo Pollution Management P.O. Box 441 Ringwood Victoria 3134 Att: Dr Karin Schwab Dear Karin MGT ANALYTICAL REPORT NO 138830 Please find attached the analysis results for the YARRAMBAT EA1079 samples received 30/03/00 Yours faithfully -0pel;drtions Manager 211 of 235 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh, Victoria, 3166, Australia Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Fax (03) 9564 7190 Email: [email protected] r MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 138830 CLIENT :- Geo Pollution Management P.O. Box 441 Rin ood Vicgria 3134 SITE ..- YARRAMBAT EA107 9 DATE RECEIVED :- 30/03/00 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 30/03/00 - 31/03/00 DATE REPORTED :- 26/04/00 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 138830 A total of 1 duplicate, 1 matrix spike % recovery and 1 method blank analyses or sets of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results for duplicates, matrix spike % recovery, method blank and known QC standards were within the set acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. I' wL$k-A parywL$k-A B Opera on8 Manager Page 1 of 2122 of 235 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleigh. Victoria. 3166, Australia Geo Pollution Management Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 P,O. Box 441 Fax (03) 9564 7190 R 1ngwood Email: [email protected] Victoria 3134 Site : YARRAMBAT EA1079 II HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. I; s amp1 e lT9-2701-1 DUP lT4-2701-1 DUP lT4-2701-1 DUP lT14-2701-1 DUPlSpike % Recov IMeth.Bl.(mg/l) 1'I ItLab- No. / Sample matrix lMA3318#Soil lMA3319#Soil IMA3319D#Soil IMA332O#Soil IMA332OS#Soil 1 II Arsenic 950 - - - - co .02 Cadmium - <0.5 ~0.5 <0.5 90% I I I I I I Extraction with (1+3) HN03 & HC1. Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). I' 11 Date received 30/03/00 Date Reported 26/04/00 213 of 235 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 lanorbn Tan aao, vldprlr. 3168. Ausbrlr PodAd&Bsx P.O. Bapr m,oddddl, vldprlr. 316&&mbaa T.lrphm: (OS) w&( m55 Fax: (OS) OS64 7190 CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS QUALITY CONTROLRESULTS VALIDITY AND RELIABILITYOF TEST RESULTS The continuing validity md reliability of results is accomplished by monitoring a number of Control LLmit factors: Ifone measurement exceeds the C.L repeat the analysis. Ifthe repeat is within the C.L I. Analysis of duplicates. Duplicates run at a minimum of J% continua analyses. If it exceeds the C.L discontinue analyses and correct the problem. 2. Recovery of known additions. Spikes run at a minimum of 5% with each batch of samples. 3. Analysis of reagent blanks run with each batch of samples. WamineLLmit 1. Analvsls of Duplicates Iftwo out of three successive points exceed the w.L andyse another sample. lfthc next point is less than the W.L continue analy~es,ifthe next point exceeds the W.L discontinue analyses Duplicates are analysed as a mPtlcr of course and the data analysed by means of a range chart and correct the problem type system. Tho range for each duplicate pair is determined and 'normalised' by dividing by tlio averago of the duplicalc results. *** Particular care needs to be taken with some soil samples with regard to sample Onco enough data has been gathered control data for each method CM be developed. The homogeneity, especially with regard to 'organics' M~YSCS.Statistical ~aly~imay indicate mean range@) is detumined as: a problem exists when in fa$ the problem is really only sample homogeneity. R=(C4) 2. Recovcw of known additions. - n The recovery of known additions is used to verify the absence of matrix effects and absence of interferences. Recovery from standards is used to verify method pcrformancc. Recovery data Where n - number of observations is compared against acceptance criteria published in Standad Methods for Examination of and & - normalised range Wpter and Waste water, or appropriate U.S.EPA Methods. and the V~~~MCO(squaro of tho standard deviation) is determined as: Ifrecovenea fall outside acceptance criteria. M~~~SCSshould be discontinued and the problem rectified. 3. Analysis of Reaecnt Blanks n- I Reagent blanks am used to monitor purity of reagents and the overall procedural blank Ihe control criteria thus become: Reagent blanks are run as a matter of come with each batch for ~aly~is.Unusual or out of the 'nom' results for blanks are investigated and corrective action taken before analysis of any Averagerange R batch b completed. .. Warninghit R+ls, Control Limit R + 39, Ihe normalised range for each duplicate pair is calculated and compared with the above criteria mis CM be achiove either graphically or by visual comparison ofthe data). Since the hitsare based on 95% and 90% confidence levek respedvely, the following actions are taken, based on these statisticd parameters. 214 of 235 AC.N. 005 085 521 3 Kingston Town Close. Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166 Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166 Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Fax: (03) 9564 7190 26 April 2000 Geo Pollution Management P.O. Box 441 Ringwood Victoria 3134 Att: Dr Karin Schwab Dear Karin MGT ANALYTICAL REPORT NO 139014 Please find attached the analysis results for the YARRAMBAT EA1079 samples received 06/04/00 Yours faithfully Pqi=-=-mer tions Manager 215 of 235 I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kinaston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oaklei ~ MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 139014 CLIENT :- Geo Pollution Management P.O. Box 441 Rin ood Vicgria 3134 SITE :- YARRAMBAT EA1079 DATE RECEIVED :- 06/04/00 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 06/04/00 - 07/04/00 DATE REPORTED :- 26/04/00 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 139014 A total of 1 duplicate, 1 matrix spike % recovery and 1 method blank analyses or sets of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results for duplicates, matrix spike % recovery, method blank and known QC standards were within the set acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. Page 1 of 2163 of 235 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oaklegh. Victoria, 3166, Australia Geo Pollution Management Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 P.O. Box 441 Fax (03) 9564 7190 R i ngwood Ernail: [email protected] Victoria 3134 Site : YARRAMBAT EA1079 II HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13L16. Sample T9 - 2701 - 1 T14-2701-1 G7 -2401- 1 G7-2401-1 Dup Gll-2401-1 G12-2401-1 Lab. No. / Sample matrix AP0725#Soil AP0726#Soil AP0727#Soil AP0727D#Soil AP0728#Soil AP0729#Soil Arsenic 900 280 12 11 18 10 ~~~ Cadmium I ~0.5 I ~0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5 Lead 17 17 11 18 34 29 1 Extraction with (1+3) HN03 & HC1. Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). I1 Date received 06/04/00 Date Reported 26/04/00 217 of 235 Report. No. 1.79OY4 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, OaWeigh. Victoria 3166, Australia Poslal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleigh, Victoria. 3166, Australia Geo Pollution Management Telephone: (03)9564 7055 P,O. Box 441 Fax (03) 9564 7 190 R ingwood Email: mgt8majestic.com.au Victoria 3134 Site : YARRAMBAT EA1079 HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. I; sample T11-2701-2 lT13-2701-2 Ispike % Recov IMeth.Bl.(mg/l) I I ~~~~~ IILab. No. / Sample matrix AP0730#Soil AP0731#Soil AP0731S#Soil Arsenic 150 690 92% I I I I ~~ ~~ Ii Extraction with (1+3) HN03 & HC1. Res ilts in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l) . Date received 06/04/00 Date Reported 26/04/00 218 of 235 CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS VALlDlTY AND RELIABILITY OF TEST RESULTS The continuing validity and reliability of results is accomplished by monitoring a number of Control Wt factors: If one measurement exceeds the C.L repeat the analysis. Ifthe repeat is within the C.L I. Analysis of duplicatw; Duplicatu run at a minimum of J% continue analyses. If it exceeds the C.L discontinue analyses and correct the problem. 2. Recovery of known additions. Spikes run at a miaimUm of 5% with cach batch of samples. 3. Analysis of reagent blanka run with each batch of ramplw. WarnlneWt 1. Analysh ofDu~Ucatcs Iftwo out of three succcosivo points exceed tho W.L dyseanother sample. Ifthe next point is less than tho W.L continue analy~~,ifthe next point exceeds the W.L discontinue analyses Duplicates analysed as a matter of courso and tho data dysedby means of a range chart and comd the problem. type system. The rango for each duplicato pair is determined and 'nodised' by dividing by the average of tho duplicotc results. *** Particular cam needs to be taken with some soil samples with regard to sample Once enough data has been gathered control data for each method can be developed. Tho homogeneity, especially with regard to 'organics' M~~SCS.Statistical ~alpUmay indicate mean range(R) is detumined as: a problem exists when in fact tho problem is really only sample homogeneity. R-(C&) 2. Recovery of known additions. n The recovely of known additions is used to verify the absence of matrix effecls and absence of interferences. Rocovcry fmm standards is used to verify method perfo~~n~cc.Recovery data Where n - number of observations is cornparod against acceptance criteria published in Standards Methods for Examination of and R( - normalised range Water and Waste water, or appropriate U.S. EPA Methods. and the variance (squaro of tho strndard deviation) is determined as: Ifrecovaiw fall outside acceptance criteria, analyses should be discontinued and the problem rectified. h2 ( mz- nR2) 3. Andy& of Rcaeent Blanka n- 1 Reagent blanks am used to monitor purity of reagents and the overall procedural blank The control criteria thus become: Reagent blanks am run eu a mattcr of course with each batch for analysis. Unusual or out of tho 'norm' resub for blanks are investigated and corrective action taken before analpis of any Averagerange R batch is completed. Warningbit R+2s, Control Limit R + 3.9, The normalised range for each duplicato pair is calculated and compared with the above criteria mu can bo achiovo either gnphicdly or by visual cornpubon of lho data). Since the limits aro baaed on 9% and 90% confidonco lovek respectively. tho following actions are taken. based on theso stalktical puameters. 219 of 235 091'03 '00 THV 10:53 F.U 131 3 9364 7180 YGT CONSULTIKG +++ GEOPOLLLTION @ 001 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 005 085 521 3 Kingston Town Cbse, Oaldeigh. Victoria. 3166 Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, OakJelgh. moria. 3188 Teleuhone; (03)9584 7056 Fax: (03)9564 7193 FACSIMILE TJUNSMISSION DETAILS. FAX : (613) 9564 7190. Re:- QNQC Discrepancy - Arsenic (Your Job No. U1079) Dear Karin, As requested in your fax dated 7.3.2000,I provide the following details on our methodology, as well as some general comments, to help you clarify any differences obtained. We initially received two samples for Arsenic analysis and obtained the following results:- Sample T9-270 1- 1Dup. (la1 8 17) Arsenic 1100 m@g. Sample T14-2701-1Dup(Jal818) Arsenic 280 mg/kg. Due to some difference between these results and thosc obtained by Gribbles we were requested to confirm the results by re-analysis. The ~~alyEedresults obtained were:- Sample T9-2701-1Dup.(Fe1311) Arsenic 1000 m@g. In-house Duplicate 1100 mgkg Sample T14-2701-1Dup(Fc1312) Arsenic 300 mg/kg, Given that these were check samples of primary work performed by Gribbles Analytical, and that Gribbles must have obtained differing results, we were subsequently requested to send the samples back to Gribbles so that they could analyse our splits, and we received a portion of their sample for analysis. The results of these subsequent analyses were ESfollows:- Sample T9-2701-1.(Fe2455) Arsenic 930 mg/kg. In-house Duplicate 950 mgkg Sample T14-2701-1(Fe2456) Arsenic 280 m&. These results agreed well with our originally an-d samples. T am not privy to any resultr obtained by Gribbles, but it varsthat their analysis results agreed with their originally reported results as well, but differed significantly from ours. ~allpageinot recehcd, please mtad leabow on (03) 564 7055. 220 of 235 09/03 '00 TIE 10:59 FA1 61 3 9564 7190 MiGT COSSULTING -w+ GOPOLLUTION B 002 This would tend to suggest a methodology related reason for the varying results bemen laboramies. In order to further segregate exactly where the problem lies, it would be necessary to split acid extracts ratha than samples. Such a procedure would indicate whether the analyticat determination itself, or the prepantiadextraction procedure, is where the variation is occuring. Experience ells me that even slight differences in sample preparation procedures or facton such as the length or temperatun of extractlon, the acid strength and even the ratio of acid to sample may all result in differences to the final concentretion determined It is most li&+ that it is !his prepmalion and 1 or exnaction stage thal is caustng the variation It is quite possible that written descriptions of methodology employed by each laboratory may provide a glaring difference, but it is also possible that the differences may be so subtle . that they are nat able to be discerned. In such circumswces, the only real way to confm where the problem exists is to split the acid extracts. It is hi@y unlikely that either laboratory would provide differing results for an 'acid extract'. This could really only OCQWif incorrect calibration standards were being used, and all laboratories have considerable checks in place to confirm the inregrity of such standards. On occasions in the past, where circumstances such as these have occumd, it has been found that it is the sample preparation or digestion procedure where the differences emmanare. Our approach has always been to analyse certified of standard soils of known concentration by the same tcchnique, and as long as thew results fall within the acceptable range, we can be confident that our procedure is providing a true indication of the levels present. Certain samples are SD ma homogeneous however, that even if all correct analytical procedures art employed, the mere way the samples are treated is enough to produce markedly differing results. To take an exueme example, if we were to rcccive a sample of fine clay powder, containing one large rock of approx 6cm diameter, we could either remove the rock and analyse only the clay powder, or we could crush the rock to a similiar consistency and analyse the entire sample. Each approach would give markedly different results, but which is more representative of the true result. In order to determine this, questions relating to the actual sampling technique in the field need to be addressed. Is the % of rock contained m the sample truely reprcstnt&vc of the situation in the field or has a spurious piece of rock happened to be placed in the sample? Mast protocols dictate removing large exrraneous materials prior to analysis, in an attempt to overcome this problem. The methodolow details art as follows:- (Ihave followed the numbering system employed in your fax, answering each query in turn.) 1. Samples were manually ground with a mom k pestle to break up any aggiomerated soil. Any rocks or extraneous material greater than 5mm were removed by sieving. These were weighed and set aside. They were not analysed Please note that bath these samples consisted dveqfine powdery material (c lmm) inbmpersed with rocks vaying in size mp to 40mm. ,!"allpagar not received,plense coma the abave on (03) 564 7055. 221 of 235 MGT CONSULTING +++ GEOPOLLUTION If Gribbles crushed the entire sample, including the rocks, (which are unlhly to contain any Arsenic), then this would result in a lower result, and may possibly account for the differences. The samples were tben homogtnised by cone & quarter procedure. A 2 gram sub-sample was takcn for digestion. 2. Samples are digested in a field moist state, and a codonfactor applied to convert results to (‘dry basis” after analysis. For sample T9-2701-1 the moistm content WRS detennmed to be 8.2 % Wet results were multiplied by 100 to obtain results on a dry basis. (100 - 8.2) For sample T14-2701-1 the moisture content was determined to be 4.4 % Wet results were multiplied by 100 to obtain results on a dry basis. (1 00 - 4.4) 3. Samples were analysed in a field moist state. 4. Samples were coned & quartered to obtain subsample for analysis. This was done after preliminary sample preparation described in Point 1. 5. As described in point 1, samples were seived to remove extraneous materials greater than 5mm in size. (ie rocks and sticks.) as detailed in ANZECC EPA 1996 “Guidelinesfor the Laboratory Anatyslj of Contaminated Soik” 6. Removed material was not quantified. 7. The Qpical particle sizc subjected UIextraction was sub lmm. (probably sub 0.5mm) 8. A 2 gram subsample was takcn. 9. Samples were emacted at 95 C with Nitric Acid /Hydrogen Peroxide for 2 hours. Hydrochloric Acid was then addzd and the mixhlfe digested for a further 30 mins. 10 The fiaat makeup volume was 4Oml. 11. Analysis was performed by ICP-AES 12. Hydride Generation was not used. 13. Instrumental readinga exceeded the calibration range and required dilution to bring it within range for both samples. 14. Elmtion teas were not requested. If all pages not received, pIease contad the above on (03) 364 7055 222 of 235 09/03 '00 THU 10:59 FAX 61 3 8564 7180 IGT CONSULTING ++* GEOPOLLUTIOEi Qa I Please call me if you need finthcr clarification.I would be most interested in the outcome of this exercise, once you have all the hfomation to hand. i ! 223 of 235 --+ GEI)POLLUTIOF @OOl 04/09 '00 TEF 19:Sl F.43 61 3 9564 7190 MGT COSSCLTING Environmental Consulting Ply. Lcd. A.C.N. ods 085 521 3 ffingslon Town Close, Oakldgh, Victoria, 3188. &&aila Postal Address: P.0 Eax 276, Oaldoigb, \Ilclotla. 3186, ~~&dh Teldwna: (03)9564 70% Fax (03) 9564 7190 Emall: [email protected] FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION DETAILS. FAX 61-3-9564 7190. 224 of 235 - - __ .. .. _. . .. .- ...... a c.. 0 Feb 00 01 0 0 CRM Monitoring for Arsenic (As) February 2000 r 1 r.< + +4 Date of Analysls 225 of 235 @? Page 1 0 0 FJ /'''.,. C c.. L' Feb 00 0 a CRM Morritorinq Method: Arsenic (As) Acceptance Criteria Dale of Calculated Cak Analysis LowerRanae e E!xwMM oblalned wnc Recovery 9/m 80 120 10B a 25 0.27 108% 1012100 60 120 108 0.25 0.27 108% 11/2/00 80 120 104 0.25 0.26 104% 14NOO ao 120 104 OX 0.28 104% 15/2/00 80 i20 104 0.25 0.20 104% 16NOO ao 120 104 0.25 0.26 104% 1712/00 a0 120 116 0.25 0.29 116% 1moo 60 120 108 0.25 027 108% 21/2/00 BO 120 104 025 0.28 104% 221ZOO 80 120 112 025 0.28 112% 23/2/00 80 120 108 025 0.27 106% 2812100 80 120 108 025 an 108% 2912400 80 120 . .- 108 0.25 an 108% .. . 226 of 235 0 c r CRM Monitoring for Arsenic (As) I- March 2000 UI Date of Analysis Page 1 227 of 235 Mar 00 CRM Monitoririq Method: Arsenic (As) Acceptance Criteria -Date of -Calc. Anaksis Lower Ranae UmrRanae HPS conc obtained wnc Recovely 1/3/00 BO 120 108 0.25 0.27 108% Z31W 80 120 112 0.25 0.28 112% 313100 ao 120 104 0.25 0.26 104% 4/3100 80 120 108 0.25 0.27 108% 14rYOO 60 120 100 0.23 0.25 100% 15/3100 80 120 104 0.25 0.26 104% 16f3100 80 120 100 n .25 0.25 100% immo 80 120 loo 0.25 0.25 100% 2113/00 ao 120 108 0.25 027 108% ?,213100 80 I20 iw 0.25 026 104% 23J3foo BO 120 104 0.25 026 104% 2813100 80 120 104 0.25 0.a 104% 27/3!00 80 120 104 0.25 0 .a 104% 28/3100 80 120 108 0.25 0.27 108% 30/3mn 80 i20 112 0-2s 0.28 112% 228 of 235 4 Feb 00 c 0 --- _I__--- -.. 2 Calculated Recovery of Known Additions for Arsenic February 2000 I60 140 120 1MI BO 60 229 of 235 Page t 0 c.. Feb 00 0 UI Pecoverv of Known Addhions Method: Arsenic Acceptance Criteria Calculated -___Result for m!SL Uouer Recovery Sample Sample with Known -UC. Dale of Analvsis Lab No. Ranae R anae 0 -Result bnAddltlm Addition Recavew 1IrnO 1836 80 120 87.2 0.12 2.3 2.5 07% 1/2/00 fe77 80 120 86 0.05 2.2 2.5 86% azo0 fel43 80 120 89.6 0.06 23 2.5 80% 212100 fe163 80 120 68.4 0.09 23 2.5 B8Yo 3/2/00 fez1 8 80 120 Bl.2 0.02 23 2.5 91% 3#00 le226 BO 120 80.8 0.03 23 2.5 91 % 312100 fe237 80 120 88 1.6 3.8 2.5 88% 412100 fe427 BO I20 90.1 0.03 2.3 2.5 91 % 7NoO re557 00 120 95.6 0.1 1 2.5 2.5 9696 7M00 fe620 80 120 83.2 0.22 2.3 2.5 83% am00 fa24 80 120 89.2 0.07 2.3 2.5 89% 8/2/00 fe70S 80 120 87.6 0.11 2.3 2.5 88% 8/2/00 fe799 80 120 90 0.05 2.3 2.5 90% , 8/2/00 fe808 60 120 86 0.25 2.4 2.5 86% Page 2 230 of 235 , ... EA1079\TrcloaAYarrarnbatbud ...... I...... I ... .... \...... -...... c. :. ~. APPENDIX H .. ...... -.:.:.. .. - /-GROUNDWATER;DATA+.- ._ ...... :.. .. .'/ , . ' ...... , *.. .'.. .: ...... 1...... ' .._.. . .* I ~..- ...%. ... '...... : :I - . .. -. ..P...... ~ .. .,: . . ..' .<; .. '..: ...... , . .:I'c.... ._..... - .. _.d ,... 231 of 235 -:.,. : :.& .. ..::.> ;;.. .: . ;.,x- ~ ... !. ' .I .',, ...... The Water Bureau De artnient of Natural Resources and Environment Victorian Groundwater Database For enquiries regar ing this report contact Sinclair Knight Merz on ph:(03) 9248 3100 B AQU IFER REPORT 28/1/0 10: 14:53 Page 1 BORE OLD WATER FROM TO LITHO CASING DIA TYP APER SWL PUMP PUMP PUMP DRAW REC EC TEST TEST ID BORE SCREEN (m) (m) LOGY DEPTH (mm) (mm) (m) DEPTH RATE TIME DOWN TIME TYPE DATE NO. (m) (m) (l/sec)(H:M) (m) (H:M) --PARISH 2724 - GREENSBOROUGH 66390 10001 SCREEN 7.9 19.8 NOT NKN 4.9 1.26 13.71 13/04/1971 WATER 7.9 19.8 SAND NKN 4.9 1.26 13.71 13/04/1971 --PARISH 3183 - -MORANG 81383 10002 WATER 18.3 50.3 BASA 5.5 203 GIR 13.7 70.1 63 36.57 BAL 21/11/1972 SCREEN 18.3 50.3 NOT NKN 13.7 63 36.57 BAL 21/11/1972 81387 10006 SCREEN 16.3 40.3 CLAY PS L 16.4 24102/ 1988 WATER 19.0 35.0 CLAY 16.3 50 PVC 16.4 40.3 24/02/1988 --PARISH 3310 - NILLUMBIK 114281 ***** SCREEN 15.3 19.8 SIST 50 PSL 24/08/1992 WATER 17.6 19.8 SIST 15.3 50 PVC 241081 1992 114282 ***** WATER NOT 13.2 50 PVC 25/08/1992 SCREEN 13.2 19.2 SIST 50 PSL 25/08/1992 ***** END OF REPORT ***** 232 of 235 The Water Bureau De artnient of Natural Resources and Environment Victorian Groundwater Database for enquiries regara ing this report contact Sinclair Knight Merz on ph:(03) 9248 3100 BORE COMPOSITE REPORT 1/28/2000 10: 16: 16 Page 1 ;1qu1 1 Id No Completed ?:Am To (m) Rate (h:m) down Date MTH TSS CL FE PH EC Hard (m) (m) (1 /sed (m) Sampled Total --Parish: 2724 - GREENSBOROUGH 66390 10001 13/04/1971 7.9 19.8 SAND 4.9 1.3 13.7 26/05/1971 FLO 1410 7.7 5167 --Parish: 3183 - -MORANG 81383 10002 21/11/1972 18.3 50.3 BASA 13.7 0.6 36.6 81387 10006 24/02/1988 19.0 35.0 CLAY 16.4 81390 15003 320422 00044 01/06/1971 320423 00045 21/06/1971 320425 00047 27/07/1971 320426 00048 29/07/1971 --Parish: 3310 - NILLUMBIK 114281 24/,08/1992 17.6 19.8 SIST 114282 25/08/1992 NOT ***** END OF REPORT ***** .. . 233 of 235 Appendix B Certificate of Title Document Number: 9809 Lot 1,325325 Yan Yean Road. Yammbal Vic Job Number: 31 1\87980200 Environmental Audit Report Author: KMhg 234 of 235 REGISTER BOOK I I VOL. 9507 FOL. 7 50 UNDER THE *’TRANSFER OF LAND ACT” JOHN KEITH TRELOAI3 of Yul Yean Road YJrrambat Farmer is the proprietor of an- estate in fee simplo .subject to the encumbrances notified hereunder in- - - - i 8 all that piece of land in the Parish of Morani. County of Evelyn being tho- -- land in Plan of Consolidation IJo.152132 md beinc part of Crown Portion 5- -- which land is shown enclosed by continuous linea on the map heroon------ Issued pursuant to Section 97A (2) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 ENCUMBRANCES REFERRED TO Dorived from Vols .a581 Fols. 9488. 235 of 235