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environmental audit reports, appointed environmental auditors who are highly certificates and statements may be withdrawn or qualified and skilled individuals.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. 46825-1-B
Attachment A
Noel Arnold and Associates Pty Ltd Environmental Site Contamination Assessment Report (February 2002) Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale
December 2001 19417
MT0160:l 19417ETREP December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Executive Summary Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd (NAA) was engaged by Tradepac Pty Ltd (Tradepac) to undertake an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the site located at 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale. It is understood that the property is to be re-developed with medium density residential housing, hence a certificate or statement of environmental audit is required. The principal objective of this assessment was to identify any potential contamination arising from previous site activities that may adversely affect the redevelopment of the site for a medium density residential use. The site located at 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale was previously used for commercial purposes. Prior to its vacation and the demolition of the site buildings, the site operated as a building and plumbing suppliers for a period of approximately 40-45 years. Prior to that, the site was vacant land. Assessment of the site identified some slightly elevated heavy metal (arsenic and zinc) concentrations exceeding the NEPM EILs in near surface soils and at 0.6 m depth, predominantly in the rear half of the site. Fragments of asbestos cement (AC) sheet and other industrial rubble be.. bricks, concrete, metal, etc.) were also identified in the near surface soil and the site. Although the concentrations of heavy metals did not exceed the NEPM 'A' HILs and therefore posed a negligible health risk to humans, the elevated zinc concentrations in particular could have posed a phytotoxic risk to plants grown at the site in the future. To eliminate this risk, remediation works involving the excavation and off-site disposal of zinc contaminated soil were undertaken at the site. Validation sampling confirmed that these works successfully removed the elevated zinc concentrations and thus eliminated the phytotoxic risk. Remediation of the asbestos containing materials involved the removal of the top 0.05-0.1 m of soil from the site to landfill, followed by the mechanical sifting of the top 0.3-0.4 m of soil. Manual raking was also undertaken at the completion of the mechanical sifting to remove any remaining bonded AC sheet fragments to the extent practicable. A detailed assessment of the proposed yard and garden areas found that the asbestos content in the near surface soils ranged from 0.0002 to 0.0008% by mass, which was within the nominated guideline range of 0.0001 to 0.001%. A final visual inspection of the site confirmed that no asbestos remained in the surface soils at the site. A qLialitative assessment of the groundwater beneath the site indicates that there is a negligible risk to groundwater associated with previous activities at the site. The findings of this assessment indicate that the site is suitable for its proposed use as a medium density residential development, based on the current development plans submitted.
19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: i December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway. Parkdale Table of Contents I. Introduction ...... i 1.1 Background ...... s...... I...... l 1-2Objectives ...... i 1.3 Scope Of Work ...... 1 2. Site Description...... 2 2.1 Site Location ...... 2 2.2 Site Layout ...... 2 2.3 Site History ...... 3 2.4 Geology and Hydrogeology...... 4 2.4.1 Geology ...... 4 2.4.2 Hydrogeology ...... 5 3. Guidelines of Site Assessment ...... 5 4 . Site Investigation...... 6 4.1 Soil Sampling Program ...... 6 4.1.1 Preliminary Soil Sampling Program ...... 6 4.1.2 Soil Sampling Program - Stage 2 ...... 7 .. 4.2 Analytical Schedule ...... 7 4.2.1 Preliminary Soil Sampling Program ...... 7 4.2.2 Soil Sampling Program - Stage 2 ...... 8 5 . Remediation and Validation Works ...... 9 5.1 Remediation and Validation of Soil with Elevated Zinc Concentrations (Boreholes 5 & 8) ...... 9 5.2 Removal of Asbestos Containing Materials ...... 9 5.3 Raised Mound of Fill (South West Section of the Site) ...... 10 6 . Soil Contamination Assessment ...... 11 6.1 Adopted Acceptance Criteria ...... A1 6.2 Results ...... 12 6.2.1 Soil Sampling Program...... 12 6.2.2 Validation of Remediation Works ...... 14 7 . Groundwater Assessment ...... IS
.194 17nXEP MTO 160: 1 Page: ii December 2001
8m Qua Iity Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/ QC) m m .m m m m m 16 8.1 Blind and Split Replicate Samples ...... #.,16 8.2 Internal Laboratory Quality Control ...... 17 8.3 Summary of Quality Assu rance/Qual ity Control ...... 18
Tables. mim. m m m iim i mm m im im iaii m im m ii mirn ii m m 8 m m im m m ii m m im im m inm m m mi. im m ii i m m i m m IV Appendix A: Certificate of Title ...... XXIV Appendix 6: Royal Historical Society of Victoria RepOl-e.M(VI11 Appendix C: Historical Information from the City of
Kingston m m mim im .m ii m rn m m m ii rn m .mi. rn imm ma mi 1iimmm rn .m ii i m .mm i m . 1 m .m m .m mi i.. m 1 XXX Appendix D: Aerial Photographs ...... XLIX
Appendix E: Groundwater Database Search Results mmm.mmmm.mmmm LV
Appendix E Borehole and Test Pit Logs ~~mm~m~~imm~mm~B~ml~lmlmB~lmWIV
Appendix G: Validation Logs ~~~~mmmim~llmllm~amlmmmlm~mmllmmll~ll~~~m WII
Appendix H: EPA Waste Transport Certificates mimmmimmmmmii UOONI Appendix I: Bulk Sample Analysis Reposts...... XCI Appendix J: Calculation of Asbestos Concentrations in Proposed Garden and Yard Areas ...... XCVI Appendix K: Chain of Custody Documentation .imimmi.8mm.mlmXCVIII
Appendix L: NATA Certified Analytical Results m.miinmmimim~mIaml CXII
19417l3REP MTO16D:l Page: iii
.A December 2001
Disclaimer This report was prepared for Tradepac Pty Ltd solely for the purpose set out herein and it is not intended that any other person use or rely on it. Whilst this report is accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd cannot guarantee completeness or accuracy of any descriptions or conclusions based on information supplied to it during site surveys, visits and interviews Responsibility is disclaimed for any loss or damage, including but not limited to, any loss or damage suffered by Tradepac Pty Ltd arisiig from the use of this report or suffered by any other person for any reason whatsoever. The following should also be noted: 0 The extent of soil sampling and analysis has been targeted towards areas where contamination is considered to be most lik+, based on-site history and visual assessment. This approach maximises the probability of identifying contaminants. However, it may not identlfy contamination that occurs in unexpected locations or from unexplained sources. Soil contamination can be expected to be non-homogenous across the stratified soils where present on site, and the concentrations of contaminants may vary significantly within areas where the contamination has occurred. For this reason the results should be regarded as indicative only. 0 Contaminant movement within the soil and within ground water can follow paths of high permeability and it is possible that sampling will not have intersected these preferential pathways. In the case of groundwater, the flow can follow relatively narrow migration paths within minor aquifers. Professional judgment has been used to interpret the data obtained from site sampling and subsequent laboratory testing in order to characteriie contamination that is present on site.
19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: iv December 2001 I. Introduction 1.1 Background Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd (NU)was engaged by Tradepac Pty Ltd (Tradepac) to undertake an Environmental Site Assessment @SA) of the site located at 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale. It is understood that the property is to be re-developed with medium density residential housing, hence a certificate or statement of environmental audit is required. 1.2 Objectives The principal objective of this assessment was to identify any potential contamination arising from previous site activities that may adversely affect the redevelopment of the site for a medium density residential use. 1.3 Scope of Work In order to assess the site the following work was undertaken: 0 Soil samples were collected from surface (0.1-0.15 m depth in eight locations) and underlying natural material (0.5-0.6 m depth in eight locations) in an approximate rectangular grid pattern across the site. Additional soil samples were collected from a raised mound at the rear of the site from the near surface soils (0.15 m depth) and the underlying soils (0.6 m depth). A sample of cement sheet was also collected from the surface soil and analysed for asbestos. 0 Two 4 part composite samples were analysed for the Environmental Protection Authority of Victoria (EPAV) screening parameters; these parameters are outlined in section 4.2.1. 0 Two (2) of the eight Surface samples comprising the composite samples were analysed individually for total recoverable hydrocarbons 0and monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (BTEX). 0 A siigle surface sample collected from a raised mound at the rear of the site was analysed for the EPAV screening parameters. 0 All samples collected from the Surface soils were analysed individually for arsenic, copper and zinc. 5 All samples collected from natural soils were analysed individually for arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc (iicluding the sample collected from the raised mound). 0 Six (6) samples Collected from surface soils were analysed for nickel. 0 Two (2) samples collected from the surface soils were analysed for chromium, lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 0. Q Two (2) samples collected from the natural soils were analysed for PAH and TRH. 0 One (1) sample collected from the near surface soils underwent elutriation testing for arsenic. Two (2) samples collected from the near surface soils underwent elutriation testing for zinc. 0 One (1) sample collected from the natural soils underwent elutriation testing for zinc. Q The preliminary sampling results were validated using blind and split replicate samples. 0 Assessment of results against relevant guidelines. a Based on the visual inspection of the site, a total of eight test pits were excavated at the site to assess for the presence of asbestos in the soil. Six (6) test pits were excavated to a 1.0-1.2 m depth in a rectangular grid pattern across the site. A further two test pits were excavated to approximately 0.9 m depth in the raised mound at the rear of the site,
5 Eight near surface soil. samples were collected~ from each- test pit and~~ analysed for - - - asbestos.
19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: 1 December 2001
~ 0 An additional sample was collected from 0.6 m depth in the raised mound and analysed for heavy metals and PAH. 0 Based on the results of the soil sampling and test pit programs, remediation was undertaken at the site which involved the clearing of all vegetation from the site followed by an emu bob to remove all visible bonded asbestos cement (AC) sheet fragments from the surface. Following the emu bob, the top 5 cm of soil was scraped from the surface, stockpiled and disposed of to landfill. The raised mound of fd at the rear of the site was excavated to an approximate 0.8 metre depth and the soil disposed of to landfill. AU waste material present in the mound (including a cyclone wire fence and a concrete slab) were disposed of to landfill. o Nine (9) validation samples were collected from the walls and floor of the excavated area beneath the concrete slab and analysed for heavy metals. o The soil in the viciinity of boreholes 5 and 8 was excavated to an approximate 0.25 m depth and disposed of as fill material to landfill. o Four (4) validation samples were collected from the base of each of the excavated areas (a total of eight (8) samples) and analysed for zinc, Based on the validation sampling results, further excavation works were undertaken, with a further 0.2 metres of soil being excavated to the no& of borehole 8. A single validation sample was collected from this area and analysed for zinc. R The top 0.3-0.4 metres of soil at the site was excavated, stockpiled and trundled to remove any remaining fragments of industrial waste (ie. bricks, concrete, asbestos, etc.). Once this had-been undertaken, the site was levelled using the trundled soil. The industrial waste was disposed of to landfill, once the asbestos materials had been removed. O The surface soils were manually raked to remove any remaining industrial waste that was not removed by trundling. Asbestos materials were coUected separately and disposed of appropriately The remaining industrial waste was disposed of to landfill. o An inspection involving a longitudinal and latitudinal traverse of the site to assess the surface soil. Based on the findings of the above inspection, the exposed areas of the site (ie. yard and garden areas) were manually raked and any bonded AC sheet fragrnents were collected and weighed to determine the asbestos content (by mass) remaining at the site. 2. Site Description 2.1 Site Location The site is located at 396 Nepean Kighwq Parkdale, which is south east of the Melbourne CBD. It is located within the City of Kingston. The property being assessed and audited is identified by the Certificate of Title Volume 8106, Folio 742 (See Appendix A). The surrounding land uses are entirely residential, with the site fronting on to a service road for the Nepean Highway. The certificate of title indicates that there is an access laneway present in the southern corner of the site. At the time of this assessment, this laneway was blocked, and is not included in this assessment. The nearest permanent water body is Port Phillip Bay, which is located approximately 1 kilometre south west of the site. 2.2 Site Layout At the time of this assessment, the site was approximately rectangular, with a total area of approximately 1,320 square metres, and was relatively flat. The street frontage of the block
19417HREP MT0160:l Page: 2 December 2001 was approximately 23 metres, and the average depth of the block was approximately 59 metres. The site was completely vacant, and was predominantly grass covered. Some gravel areas were present at the rear of the site, and along the fence lines where it is understood that the driveway for the site was formerly located. A raised mound of earth extending across the rear of the site (approximately 1-3 metres from the rear fence) was present. Small fragments of demolition rubble, including concrete, wood and cement sheet were visible in the rear half of the site. The site layout is illustrated in Figure 1. 2.3 Site History A historical review of the site was undertaken in the following manner: P Review of the Cemficate of Title for the site; 0 Discussions with the Royal Historical Society of Victoria (RHSV); P Discussions with the City of Kingston Town Planning Department (including the review of historical plans of the site); and P Review of aerial photographs of the site. Review of the Certificate of Title for the site (Volume 8106, Folio 742, Lot 30 on Plan of Subdivision No. 995, Parish of Mordialloc, County of Bourke) indicated the following: o Wesley Hugh Chaplin (Builder) owned the site from the 7'h of March 1956 until the 30th of August 1957. o Midway Builders Supplies Pty Ltd owned the site from the 30thof August 1957 until the 21" of August 1969, when John McUwraith Industries Limited took ownership of the site. The site was mortgaged to R.A.C.V. Insurance Pty Ltd on the 30thof November 1971. o Abrotar Pty Ltd (based in Parramatta NSW) was the proprietor of the site from the 2"d of February 1990 until the 3 1" of August 1995, when T-id Pty Ltd took ownership of the site. C] Typical Pty Ltd owned the site until the 24* of July 1996, when John Desmond O'Brien, the owner of the adjoining property at 394 Nepean Highway took ownership of the site. Fahnle Holdings Pty Ltd purchased the site from John Desmond O'Brien on the 5'" of August 1999. o Tradepac Pty Ltd purchased the site from Fahde Holdings Pty Ltd in July 2001. Discussions with the RHSV indicated that in 1934 Nos. 394-396 Nepean Highway were not shown. The nearest occupied property was 398 Nepean Highway (then known as Point Nepean Road) which was a dairy occupied by J Dowling. The dairy remained the only occupied property becween Elm and Laburnum Streets until 1944/45. In 1954 the dairy remained at No. 398, with No. 394 occupied by R W Tichener, and No. 396 still vacant. From 1964 until 1974 McJlwraith Builders Supplies occupied the site at No. 396, with R W Tichener remaining at No. 394. No further information was available from the RHSV after 1974, as the Sands & McDougall directories upon which they rely ceased publication after this date. A copy of the RHSV report is provided in Appendix B. Review of the historical information provided by the Ciy of Kingston (refer to Appendix C) indicated that an interim development order was issued in May 1955 for the site to be subdivided into four shop sites. A permit for the construction of the shop building itself was subsequently issued in May 1956, with the construction works -completed ~ in November 1956. ~ _- - ~
19417ElXEP MT0160:l Page: 3 December 2001 A permit was issued for the site in 1957 for the erection of a store room and goods rack at the rear of the existing building on the site (approximately 3 metres from the existing building). This permit indicated that the storeroom was to be constructed from brick and timber with asbestos cement (AC) sheeting roof. A permit to construct additions to the existing shop building was issued in October 1959. There were no significant modifications to the site until October 1992, when an application was made to alter the existing sales premises (a Tradelink Plumbing Supplies store). The alterations included the removal of a chain wire fence, and its replacement with a wooden paling fence. The local drainage system for the site was also upgraded to enable it to cope with the additional stormwater run-off resulting from the extensions. An application for the construction of a concrete slab at the rear of the property (approximately 3 metres from the rear fence) was made in July 1993. This slab was to be the floor for a proposed storeroom. A demolition final inspection certificate for the site dated the 7'h of December 2000 indicated that the site buildings had been demolished in accordance with the requirements of the Bu&gAct 1993. Anecdotal evidence from the contractor engaged to excavate pits at the site indicated that during its operation as a plumbing supplies outlet, asbestos pipes used for plumbing were stored at the rear of the site. It was reported that these pipes were cut on site, but where stored and handled on concrete paved areas only. Aerial photographs of the site dating back to 1945 were inspected and are provided in Appendix D. A summary of observations is presented in Table 1 below.
Observations
' 1981 1:1O,OOO The main building on the site appeared slightly different, being rectangular rather than L-shaped. The two small structures that were present in the 1987 photograph were not present in 1981. The surrounding land uses were entirely residential. 1972 1:7,200 The main shop building appeared the same as in the 1981 photograph. There was a small building (possibly a shed) located in the south west corner of the site, and the north west corner appeared to have been cleared The surrounding land uses were residential. 1962 1:15,840 The main shop building appeared unchanged from the 1972 photograph. No other structures were visible on the site. The surrounding land uses were residential. 1945 1:6,000 The block appeared completely vacant, with the exception of several large trees. The block located to the south appeared to be a residential property (a dairy). Most of the surrounding land appeared to be vacant or residential.
2.4 Geology and Hydrogeology 2.4.1 Geology Inspection of the Geological Map Series Ringwood Mapsheet, 198 1 (scale 1:63,360) indicated that the site is located upon the Brighton Group, which comprises fine to coarse sands, with minor poorly sorted gravels, poorly consolidated. This was consistent with field observations made during the soil sampling.
19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: 4 December 2003 2.4.2 Hydrogeology A search of Victoria’s Groundwater Database identified thuty-eight (3 8) groundwater bores within a 2 kilometre radius of the site. The data indicated that twelve (12) of the bores were established for investigative purposes. Eleven (1 1) domestic groundwater bores (imcluding 3 for stock wateriig) and six (6) irrigation bores were also present. A further nine (9) bores which had an unknown use were also present. The depths of the bores ranged from 3.5 to 107 metres. The results of the groundwater database search are shown in Appendix E. The depth to the water table varied from a minimum of 2.1 metres in a bore located approximately 1.6 km east of the site in the Woodlands Golf Club (used for irrigation), to a maximum of 20 metres in a domestic bore located approximately 0.5 km south east of the site. It is noted that the latter bore was established to a depth of 75 metres, with screening present at from 65 to 69 metres below the surface. Therefore, it is likely that this bore has been established in a deep aquifer, and is not indicative of the depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the site. Typically, the standing water level in the vicinity of the site ranged between 2.1 and 8.0 metres, with a bore located within 200 metres of the site having a standing water level of 6.1 metres. Conductivity data was only provided for two (2) bores, one of which was used for domestic stock watering (located approximately 1.2 km north east of the site), and the second had an unknown use (located approximately 1.8 km north east of the site). The total dissolved solids (IDS) concentrations for these bores were 1,990 mg/L and 1,500 mg/L respectively. Based on these results, the groundwater in this region would be classified as Segment B under the EPAV State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) for the Groundwaters of Victoria. As such the beneficial uses to be protected are: 0 Maintenance of ecosystems; 0 Potable rnineral water supply; R . Agriculture, parks and gardens; O Stock watering; O Industrial water use; o Primary contact recreation (eg. Swimming and bathing); and 0 Buildings and structures. The Department of Minerals and Energy Map entitled Gn~zmdmmR- Victwia (Scale 1:1,OOO,OOO) however, indicates that the groundwater present beneath this region has TDS levels < 1,OOO mg/L. This region is therefore classified as Segment A2 under the EPAV State Environmental Protection Policy for the Groundwaters of Victoria and hence would also have potable water supply as a beneficial use. 3. Guidelines of Site Assessment The EPAV has issued Envkomental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit way 2001). These guidelines indicate that Certificates of Environmental Audit have the purpose of providing an authoritative means of ensuring the land is not adversely affected by contamination. In the event that the auditor is of the opinion that contamination of land ‘renders a site detrimental of potentially detrimental to any beneficial use that may be made of the site’, the auditor is required under Section 53 of the Environd h& Act 1970 to issue a statement to that effect. The statement may also be used to ‘indicate a use or uses that would not be compromised by the level and type of on-site contamination.’ The Guidelines indicate that the audit should folloy the 2pproach for the assessment of contamtnatd-sites Ziutliriid in &e Natiinal Environment Protection Measure (Assessmszt of
19417EIREP MT0160:l Page: 5 December 2001 * Site ' ) 1999. The NEPM also specifies guideline concentrations against which sample results can be compared. The concentrations specified in these guidelines are outlined further in Section 6.1. Reference is also made to the Australian Standards, AS4482.1-1997, &$e to the sqhgand inm-tz+ of p-6 mntaminated soil - Part I: Non-v&tzle and semi- & cvnpmh, AS4482.2-1999, Gurde to the s~?m@ngand &@tun of ptenldy anztamkd sod - Pht 2: Vohtlle c-d. The Draft State Environmental Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land) has also been released by the EPAV. The proposed policy will apply to all land in the state of Victoria and will be enforceable under Section 16 of the Enziuanma?t PYO& Act, 1970. The policy indicates that where soil and sediment samples are collected as part: of a site assessment, the sampling should be undertaken in accordance with the Australian Standard AS4482.1-1997, Gu& to the samplmg and Sg& of pow cantamznated sod, Part 1: Nm- zoLztJedm.w~c~ In addition to the above, the policy also specifies beneficial uses to be protected for each land segment or use and the indicators and objectives to be used in assessing a site. In term of groundwater assessment, the Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit (May 2001) indicate that auditors should require or undertake an assessment of the potential for groundwater to be contaminated from on-site sources and off-site sources. 4. Site Investigation ESA was undertaken accordance with the National Environment Protection Measure The in. (Assesm of Site ) 1999 and the Australian Standards AS4482.1-1997 and AS4482.2-1999, The collection of soil samples was undertaken on the 19'h of July and the 3rd of August 2001. 4.1 Soil Sampling Program 4.1.1 Preliminary Soil Sampling Program A total of eight (8) boreholes were established to approximately 0.6 m depth in a rectangular grid pattern across the site usiig a hand auger. In addition, a single borehole was established to 0.6 m depth in the raised mound of fill located at the rear of the site. The locations of these boreholes are indicated on Figure 1. Two (2) samples were collected from each borehole using a split spoon sampler to ensure that the requirements of AS4482.2-1999 were met. Samples were recovered from near surface soils (0.1-0.15 m depth), and from the underlying natural soils (0.6 m depth). Boreholes were located as '10 11 ows:
Borehole Number Location Borehole 1 Established adjacent to hardstand material (compacted gravel) in the north east corner of the site, approximately 3 metres from the site boundary with 394 Nepean Highway (northern boundary), and 10 metres from the front of the site. Borehole 2 Estabhshed in the south east corner of the site, approximately 4 metres from the site boundary with 398 Nepean Highway (southern I boundary), and 5 metres from the front of the site. 1-
19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: 6 Borehole 3 Established approximately 16 metres south west of borehole 1, and 4 metres from the northern boundary of the site. Borehole 4 Established approximately 16 metres south west of borehole 2, and 4 metres from the southern boundary of the site. Borehole 5 Established approximately 16 metres north east of borehole 7, and 4 metres from the northern boundary of the site. Borehole 6 Established approximately 16 metres north east of borehole 8, and 4 metres from the southern boundary of the site. Borehole 7 Established in the north west corner of the site, approximately 7 metres from the rear fence and 4 metres from the northern fence in an area with a gravel surface. A pile of garden waste was located approximately 2 metres west of the borehole. Borehole 8 Established in the south west corner of the site, approximately 7 metres from the rear fence and 3 metres from the southern boundary. Borehole 9 Established in the centre of a raised mound of fill located approximately 3 metres from the rear fence of the site. Borehole logs are provided in Appendix E 4A.2 Soil Sampling Program - Stage 2 Based on the results of the Visual inspection of the site, a further six (6) test pits were excavated using a backhoe in a rectangular grid across the site to assess whether asbestos was present in the soils at the site. A further two (2) test pits were excavated using a backhoe in the raised mound of fd at the rear of the site. The test pits were excavated as two intersecting trenches to a 1.0 to 1.2 metre depth to enable the soil profde in each pit to be assessed. A near surface soil sample was collected from each test pit at a 0.1-0.15 m depth. An additional sample was collected from 0.6 m depth from test pit 8 ("8) where some pieces of scrap metal were buried. Test pit logs are provided in Appendix E 4.2 Analytical Schedule Soil samples collected during the assessment were submitted to MGT Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd (MGT) for analysis. A quality control sample was submitted to a second laboratory, WSL Consultants Pty Ltd (WSL). MGT and WSL are registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA) to perform all analyses undertaken in this investigation. 4.2.1 Preliminary Soil Sampling Program The surface soil samples collected from the eight grid sampling locations were composited into two 4-part composite samples. Compositiig was performed by MGT in their laboratory in accordance with the National Environmental Health Forum (NEW) guidelines, Conp& Smdmg, 1996. The two composite surface samples and the surface sample from the raised mound at the rear of the site (19417-9-0.15) were submitted to MGT and tested for the EPAV screening parameters, which include: OmmiParameters o Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrccarbons (MA€%) - these include benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene an2~Ien~s(BTEjlj;-
19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: 7
-- - December 2001 0 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons PH); O Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CHCs); 0 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); o Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs); CI Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); and CI Phenol and Cresols;
Inommc' Purameim Heavy Metals (including Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Tin and Zinc); and LI Cyanide. One primary sample from each composite was analysed individually for TPH and BTEX based on the results of field screening with a photoionisation detector (PID). The primary samples within each composite sample are presented in Table 2 below:
Composite Sample Primary Samples Composite Sample Prima+ Samples 19417-COMP1 19417-1-0.15 194 17-cOMp2 19417-5-0.15 19417-2-0.15 19417-6-0.15 19417-3-0.15 19417-7-0.15 19417-4-0.15 19417-8-0.15
The analytical results for the composite samples were ktitially compared with the adjusted investigation criteria (adjusted criteria are obtained by dividing the investigation criteria by the number of samples making up the composite) refer section 6.1. Where the analytical results exceeded the adjusted investigation criteria., the individual (primary) samples were analysed for the analytes that exceeded the adjusted investigation criteria. All of the near surface samples from the grid sampling program were analysed individually for arsenic, copper and zinc Six (6) of the samples collected from surface soas were analysed for -n nickel (19417-1-0.15 and 19417-4-0.15 were not analysed for nickel). Two (2) of the samples collected from the surface soils (19417-2-0.15 and 19417-3-0.15) were analysed for chromium, lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). All samples collected from the natural soil were analysed individually for arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc [including the sample collected from the raised mound). Two (2) samples (19417-3-0.6 and 19417-7-0.6) were analysed for PAH and TRH. Based on the elevated heavy metal concentrations recorded in three surface samples (19417-2- 0.15, 19417-5-0.15 and 19417-8-0.15) and in one depth sample (19417-9-0.6), elutriation testing for arsenic and zinc was undertaken on these samples. 4.2.2Soil Sampling Program - Stage 2 The eight (8) near surface (0.1-0.15 m depth) samples collected from the test pits were analysed individually for asbestos by NAAs NATA accredited laboratory. The additional soil sample collected from 0.6 m depth in the raised mound (19417-TP8-0.6) was analysed for heavy metals and PAH.
19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: 8 December 2001 5. Remediation and Validation Works The following remediation and validation works were undertaken at the site based on the findings of the soil sampling program. 5.1 Remediation and Validation of Soil with Elevated Zinc Concentrations (Boreholes 5 & 8) The soil sampling program identified elevated zinc concentrations exceeding the NEPM EILs in the near surface samples collected from boreholes 5 and 8. The initial remediation works undertaken involved the excavation of the top 0.25 m of soil in the vicinity of boreholes 5 and 8 using a Bobcat. The excavated soil was subsequently stockpiled on site. Stockpile sample 19417-SP3 was collected from the soil excavated from around borehole 5, and - . stockpile sample 19417-SP4 was collected from the soil excavated from around borehole 8. A total of eight (8) validation samples (19417-V1 to 19417-V8) were collected from the bases of the remediated areas. The locations of these validation samples are shown in the validation logs provided in Appendix G. These samples were analysed individdy for zinc A rinsate blank (19417-VR1) and a trip blank (19417-VTB1) were also collected. The rinsate blank was also analysed for zinc Based on the initial validation sampling results, further remediation works were undertaken in the vicinity of borehole 8, with an additional 0.3 m of soil being excavated and disposed of to landfill. An additional validation sample (19417-V12) was collected from the base of the excavated area and analysed for zinc. Approximately 80 m3 of sod excavated as part of this stage of the remediation works was disposed of as fill material to the Dinsan Reclamation & Recycling Pty Ltd @insan) landfill in Laverton North. 5.2 Removal of Asbestos Containing Materials The test pit program undertaken at the site found that the asbestos containing building materials observed during the initial soil sampling program were limited to the surface of the site. Based on these results, all vegetation was removed from the site and an emu bob undertaken to collect all remaining fragments of asbestos containing material (bonded AC sheet) from the surface of the site. Once the emu bob was completed, a Bobcat was used to scrape approximately 5-10 cm of soil from the surface of the entire site. This soil was stockpiled and two stockpile samples (19417- SP1 and 19417-SP2) were collected and analysed for heavy metals to determine the disposal requirements of the soil. Based on the stockpile sampling results, approximately 100 m3 of soil was disposed of as fill material to the Dinsan landfill. Inspection of the site following the surface scrape indicated that asbestos containing materials and other industrial waste (ie. scrap metal, bricks, concrete fragments, etc.) were still present at the site, particularly in the rear portion of the property. To ensure that this material (particularly the bonded AC sheet fragments) was removed from the site, further remediation works were undertaken. Approximately 0.3-0.4 metres of soil from the surface of the site was excavated and stockpiled on the site. Further excavation was undertaken in areas of the site where the natural soils had not been exposed. The stockpiled soil was passed through a trundle to remove the fragments of bonded AC sheet and industrial waste from the sandy surface soils. The waste material removed by the trundle was stockpiled prior to its disposal from site. The asbestos containing materials (within this waste materid) were removed and collected in plastic bags that were sealed prior - to their off-site disposal at Reid's Waste Maagement. of the sealed-plastic bags were _- All -
19417ETREP MT0160: 1 Page: 9 December 2001 transported to Reid’s in a plastic lined bin @in A86). The remaining waste material was disposed of as inert waste at the Dinsan landfill. To ensure that the integrity of the soil analyses was maintained, sifting of the site was undertaken in several stages, with the sifted soil from each stage being replaced in the same location that it was excavated from. Once the sifted soil had been replaced, the site was tracked. A subsequent inspection of the site after its levelling identified bonded AC sheet fragments in the rear portion of the site, with the southern corner in particular having a considerable amount of waste material present. It was reported by the site contractor that the Bobcat could not access the sections of the site that were close to the boundary, hence these areas could not be trundled effectively. These areas were hand raked and any asbestos containing materials collected and sealed inside plastic bags prior to their disposal off site. A second inspection was undertaken at the completion of the raking to assess the condition of the surface and sub-surface so&. This inspection again identified fragments of AC sheet in the near surface soils. Following this inspection, the surface soils were manually raked again to remove any remaining fragments of AC sheet. A further inspection, which involved a longitudinal and latitudinal traverse of the site, found two fragments of AC sheet in the near surface soils. Based on the findings of this inspection, a detailed assessment of the proposed yard and garden areas of the site (refer to Figure 2 for locations) was undertaken. This involved the manual raking of the soil to an approximate 0.05 m depth and the collection of any fragments of AC sheet that remained The mass of the fragments collected was determined using a calibrated Sartorius balance. Each of the areas was measured to enable an accurate determination of the volume and hence the mass of soils being assessed. The asbestos concentration (by mass) was then determined for each of the proposed garden and yard areas. 5.3 Raised Mound of Fill (South West Section of the Site) The establishment of the test pits in the raised mound at the rear (south west) of the site identified the presence of a buried concrete slab approximately 0.6-0.7 metres below the surface. The mound of fill also contained a cyclone Wire fence, metal and brick fragments, and pieces of polystyrene foam. A small excavator was used to undertake the remediation of this section of the site. The raised mound of fill was excavated to expose the entire concrete slab, which extended across the rear of the site. Once the concrete slab had been exposed, it was broken up and removed from site. A further 0.1-0.2 metres of soil was excavated from beneath the concrete slab. The final excavation extended approximately 3.5 metres from the back fence across the rear of the propeq, and was approximately 0.8 metres deep. A total of nine (9) validation samples (19417-V9 to 19417-V11 and 19417-V13 to 19417-V18) were collected from the base and walls of the excavation. These samples were analysed for heavy metals. The soil excavated from this area was stockpiled and a single sample (19417-SP5) was collected. This sample was analysed for the EPAV screening parameters, as well as additional metals (aluminium, barium, chromium (VI), manganese and silver), boron, nitrites, surfactants, asbestos, styrene and flash point. At the request of the PWM landfill in Taylors Road Lyndhurst PWM, elutriation testing for aluminium was also undertaken to determine whether PWM were able to receive the soil. Approximately 40 m3of soil from this section of the site was disposed of as low level contaminated soil (LLCS) to PWM (refer to Appendix H for EPA Waste Transport Certificates). The excavated area at the rear of the site was backfilled using the trundled soil from the site. No imported fill was udlised at the site during the remediation works.
19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: 10 December 2001 6. Soil Contamination Assessment 6.1 Adopted Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria adopted for this assessment are those listed in the National Environmental Protection (Asse5mof Site Whl)Measure (NEPM) 1999, published by the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC). This document specifies both ecologically-based investigation levels (Elhi) and health-based investigation levels (HILs). NEPC Environmental Investigation Levels (EILs) The NEPC is currently developing regional EILs based on considerations of phytotoxicity, land use and background contaminant concentrations in natural soils. Until these regional EILs have been developed, the NEPC recommends the use of interim urban EILs, which have been developed based on considerations of phytotoxicity (copper, chromium and lead) and soil survey data (barium, phosphorus and sulfur) from four Australian capital cities. The ANZECC B values were retained for the other contaminants. These criteria are specified in the Australian cu2delinesfi the Assesmand Mkmgmof . d Sites, 1992 published by ANZECCWC(termed here as the "ANZECC Soil Guidelines"). ANZECC/NHMRC B Level Investigation Thresholds (ANZECC B) Investigation threshold levels for constituents in the 1992 ANZECC Soil Guidelines (issued in March 1992) are based on health and environmental considerations. For the purposes of this assessment, contamination concentrations reported above the ANZECC B levels would require further investigation, but do not necessanly present an environmental or health risk. Dutch Guidelines (2000) In 1994, the Dutch adopted new environmental soil contamination criteria for three environmental quality objectives: target, investigation and intervention values. The target values represent a target environmental or background level, whilst the intervention values represent a level at which some form of remedial action would be required whether in the long or short term The investigation value represents a mid point between the target and intervention values; where an exceedance of the investigation values occur, further investigations will be required whether this be further site investigations, additional laboratory analysis or an assessment of health and environmental impacts. The Dutch investigation and intervention values essentially replace the former Dutch B and Dutch C levels. The derivation of these new standards was based on risk assessment or exposure/toxicity data. In 2000, these guidelines were revised, with an additional environmental quality objective being added. These were the indicative levels for serious contamination. These levels are used for substances that do not have specified intervention values, due to a number of factors. It should be noted that these indicative levels have a greater degree of uncertainty than the intervention values. Adopted Site Acceptance Criteria For this report, the NEPM, ANZECC and Dutch investigation values have been used where possible for assessing the potential health and environmental risks. Criteria for TRH are not included in these investigation criteria. In the absence of this, the NSW EPA criteria' have been adopted for TRH. Where the ANZECC or Dutch Investigation levels were exceeded, the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), Health Investigation (A), then (D) levels specified in the NEPM
- "Guidelines for Asses-bii SFFce Station Sites". NSW EPA, Sensitive Land Use Criteria, 1994. 19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: 11 December 2001 (1999) have been referred to. These levels represent concentrations of contaminants considered suitable for standard residential developments and high-density residential developments respectively. Where the levels of a contaminant in a composite sample are being examined, adjusted acceptance criteria should be used. These criteria are calculated by dividing the acceptance criteria by the number of primary samples used to make up the composite sample. In addition to these contaminant criteria, a site-specific guideline for the fragments of asbestos cement (AC) sheet was specified. The specified level of less than 0.001% asbestos concentration (by mass) indicated that visual asbestos cement (AC) sheet in soil would be almost negligible and hence, the site would be suitable for use as medium density residential housing. 6.2 Results 6.2.1 Soil Sampling Program Compo site Samples For the two composite samples, the initial laboratory results indicated that the concentrations of the following organic compounds were less than the adjusted investigation criteria and below the limits of laboratory detection: o Chlorinated hydrocarbons; CI Organochlorine pesticides; o Polychlorinated biphenyls; and 0 Phenols and Cresols; Individual samples analysed for monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (as BTEX) and TRH did not have concentrations greater than the adopted investigation criteria. The concentrations of cyanide in the composite samples were also below adopted investigation criteria. The concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene or total PAH in both composite samples did not exceed the adjusted investigation criteria. Composite samples were also analysed for fourteen (14) metals. The concentrations of arsenic, copper and zinc exceeded the adjusted investigation criteria in both composite samples. The concentration of nickel in composite sample 19417-COW2 exceeded the adjusted investigation criteria. A summary of the analytical results that were above the adjusted investigation criteria for the composite samples is presented in Table 3 below. Detailed analyt~calresults are presented in the Tables section of this report, and the NATA certified laboratory results are provided in
Composite No. of Primary Parameter Exceeded and Concentration Found (mg/kg) Sample Samples Arsenic Copper Nickel zinc COMpl 4 8.7 55 100 cK>Mp2 4 6 28 18. 240
19417E[REP MT0160:l ' Page: 12 December 2001 Primary Samples The primary samples comprising COW 1 and COMP2 were analysed individually for arsenic, copper and zinc. The primary samples comprisiig COW2 were also analysed individually for nickel. The surface samples 19417-2-0.15 and 19417-3-0.15were also analysed individually for chromium, lead, nickel and PAH. The concentrations of heavy metals in the primary surface samples did not exceed the NEPM EILs, with the exception of arsenic in sample 19417-2- 0.15 (22 mg/kg) and zinc in samples 19417-5-0.15 and 19417-8-0.15 (360 and 230 mg/kg respectively). Elutriation testing for arsenic was subsequently undertaken on sample 19417-2-0.15. This testing indicated that the arsenic in this sample had a low leachability, with the leachate having an arsenic concentration of 0.03 mg/L. Leachability testing for zinc was undertaken on samples 19417-5-0.15 and 19417-8-0.15. The results of this analysis indicated that the zinc in these samples had a low leachability, with the leachate from samples 19417-5-0.15 and 19417- 8-0.15 having zinc concentrations of 0.67 and 0.48 mg/L respectively The surface sample collected from the raised mound at the rear of the site (19417-9-0.15) was analysed individually for an EPAV Screen. The contaminant concentrations detected in this sample were all below the NEPM Ens. All samples collected from the natural soil were analysed individually for arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and Zinc (including sample 19417-9-0.6 from the raised mound). Two (2) samples (19417-3-0.6 and 19417-7-0.6) were analysed for PAH and TRH. The concentrations of heavy metals in the natural soil samples did not exceed the NEPM EILs, with the exception of zinc in sample 19417-9-0.6 (560 mg/kg). The concentrations of PAH and TRH in the two samples analysed were well below the site acceptance criteria. Leachability testing for zinc was undertaken on sample 19417-9-0.6 based on the slightly elevated zinc concentration. This sample was found to have a low leachability, with the leachate from this sample having a zinc concentration of 2.0 mg/L. In addition to the soil samples collected during the initial soil sampling program, a sample of cement sheet found on the surface of the site was collected and analysed for asbestos. The results of analysis confirmed that the cement sheet contained asbestos. Based on this result, a total of eight (8) test pits were established across the site to assess for the presence of asbestos containing materials in the surface and natural soils at the site. The surface samples collected from 0.1-0.15 m depths in the test pits were analysed for asbestos. The results of analysis indicated that no asbestos was present in any of the near surface soil samples (refer to Appendix I for bulk sample analysis reports). During the excavation of test pits 7 and 8 in the raised mound of fill at the rear of the site, a concrete slab, a buried cyclone wire fence, metal and brick fragments and pieces of polystyrene foam were observed in the fd material. An additional soil sample (19417-TP8-0.6) was collected from test pit 8, adjacent to some metal fragments present in the soil. This sample was analysed for heavy metals and PAH. The concentrations of heavy metals and PAH in this sample were below the NEPM EILs, with the exception of zinc (220 mg/kg), which slightly exceeded the NEPM EIL. A summary of the analytical results for the priiary sample analysis that exceeded the NEPM EILs is presented in Table 4 on the following page:
19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: 13
-
~ December 2001
Sample No. Parameter Exceeded and Concentration Found (mg/kg) Arsenic zinc 19417-2-0.15 22 19417-5-0.15 3 60 19417-8-0.15 230 19417-9-0.6 560 19417-m8-0 h 220 NEpM Environment& 20 200 Investigation Level (mg/kg)
6.2.2Validation of Remediation Works Boreholes 5 & 8 The validation sampling results for the eight (8) validation samples (19417-V1 to 19417-V8) initially collected from the excavations around boreholes 5 and 8 indicated that the zinc concentrations in these samples were below the NEPM EIL, with the exception of sample 19417-V8 (390 mg/kg). Further excavation of the soil represented by sample 19417-V8 (located to the north of borehole 8) was undertaken and sample 19417-V12 was collected. This sample recorded a zinc concentration below the NEPM EIL. Detailed validation sampling results are provided in Table V1. Raised Mound of Fill The validation sampling results for the nine (9) validation samples (19417-V9 to 19417-V11 and 19417-V13to 19417-V18) collected from the walls and floor of the excavation at the rear of the property (the former location of the raised mound of a)indicated that the heavy metal concentrations in these samples were below the NEPM EILs. Detailed validation sampling results are provided in Table VI. Asbestos Containing Materials A summary of the results obtained for the detailed assessment of the proposed garden areas is presented in Table 5 belox A more detailed calculation of these results is presented in Appendix J. It is noted that all asbestos concentrations were based on a soil density of 1,600 kg/m3. The company (C.E. Lawrence & Associates (Vk) Pty Ltd) who undertook the geo- technical assessment of the site specified this value as typical for the site.
Area Number of Fragments 1 Asbestos Concentration (by mass) 1 Unit 4 backvard 4 0.0008% I 2 Units 2 & 3 backvard I 8 I 0.0004%
~~ ~ 3 (Unit 1backyard) 3 0.0005% 4 (Unit 1 front yard) 8 0.0003% 5 (Unit 2 garden bed) 2 0.0002% 6 (unit 3 garden bed) 2 0.0002%
19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: 14 December 2001 Stockpile Samples During the remediation works, five (5) stockpile samples were collected from the excavated soil. Stockpile samples 19417-SP1and 19417-SP2were collected from the soil scraped from the surface of the site and were analysed for heavy metals. The analytical results for these samples indicated that the heavy metal concentrations in these samples were below the EPAV fill material criteria specified in Table 2 of EPA Publication No. 448, ChsyTcah’cpz of Was, Septwnkr 1995. Stockpile sample 19417-SP3was collected from the soil excavated from around borehole 5, and stockpile sample 19417-9’4 was collected from the soil excavated from around borehole 8. Both of these samples were analysed for heavy metals. The analytical results for these samples indicated that their heavy metal concentrations were below the EPAV fill material criteria. Stockpile sample 19417-SP5was collected from the soil excavated from the raised mound of fill. This sample was analysed for the EPAV screening parameters, as well as additional metals (aluminium, barium, chromium (VI), manganese and silver), boron, nitrites, surfactants, asbestos, styrene and flash point. The analytical results for this sample indicated that it was classified as fill material for disposal. It is noted however, that this soil was disposed of as LLCS based on the zinc concentration in sample 19417-9-0.6,which was also collected from the raised mound of fill. 7. Groundwater Assessment NUSdesk-top groundwater assessment indicated that the estimated depth to permanent groundwater in the vicinity is between 2.1 and 8.0 metres, based on the results of a search undertaken of Victoria’s Groundwater Database. The search identified a groundwater bore within 200 metres of the site, where the depth to groundwater was 6.1 metres. Given the proximity of this bore to the site, the depth to groundwater at the site is likely to be 5 to 6 metres. The concentrations of contaminants in both surface and natural soils slightly exceeded the NEPM EILs for arsenic and zinc. Elutriation testing was subsequently undertaken on the samples with elevated metal concentrations to determine whether there was the potential for groundwater at the site to be contaminated. The results of this testing indicated that the leachability of the arsenic and zinc present in the soil from near surface and 0.6 m depth was low, being below the site acceptance criteria in all samples. Given the low leachability of these contaminants and the estimated depth to groundwater (approximately 5 to 6 metres), the potential for groundwater contamination at the site is negligible. Review of the site history also indicated that there were no underground facilities (ie. tanks, pits, interceptor traps, etc.) present on site that had the potential to contarninate groundwater. Furthermore, the adjoining land uses were almost entirely residential, hence it is unlikely that an off-site source of contamination is located close to the site.
- - -. - ~
19417ElREP MT0160:l Page: 15 December 2001 8. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) NAA quality assurance/qu&ty control (QA/QC) procedures were implemented as part of this investigation to assess data quality. The QA/QC program undertaken by NAA included the following: CI Preservation of samples in ice during transport from the field to the laboratov. a Transportation of samples with accompanying chain of custody documentation (see Appendix K) o Compliance with sample holding times. 5 Review of the results of blind and split replicate samples. 5 Collection of riisate blanks during soil sampling. R Review of internal analysis of laboratory duplicates and laboratory blanks. 8.1 Blind and Split Replicate Samples One blind and one spilt replicate sample were collected during the soil sampling program. Each replicate sample was collected in the field from a larger than usual quantity of soil, which was mixed thoroughly and quartered prior to being placed into two separate sample jars. These replicate samples are used to check the adequacy of the analpcal data. A blind replicate sample was collected from the sample 19417-3-0.15 (blind rep. 19417-QA1) and submitted to MGT to be analysed for heavy metals and PAH. A split replicate sample was taken from the sample 19417-3-0.6 and submitted to WSL Consulting Pty Ltd WSL) to be analysed for heavy metals and PA.€€ Relative percentage differences (RPDs) were calculated by dividing the difference between a sample and its replicate, by the average concentration 111 the two samples. This can be expressed as:
RPD E El - XZ) x 100% (xl + x2)/2
Where: XI = Concentration of analyte in sample; and X2 = Concentration of analyte in replicate. It should be noted that: R In instances where samples and/or their corresponding replicates return concentrations of analytes below method detection limits, quantitative comparison of samples and their replicates could not be carried out’. R Luw concentrations of andytes may result in a high relative percentage with differences in real concentration returning high RPDs which are not necessarily significant when reviewed in light of potential contamination. The results of the analysis of split and blind replicate samples with their RPDs are presented in Table 6 on the following page.
It is possible to calculate hypothetical RPDs in such circumstances using the convention of adopting values of 50% of the detection limits. The resulting values can be misleading, especidly when compnrlig =!le& analyses between laboratories reporting against different detection limits. 19417!3REP MT0160:l Page: 16 Sample No. Laboratory Parameter Analysed I E I Y
19417-3-0.15 MGT <2 <5 <5 8.6 <5 37 19417-3-0.6 I WSL c5 <5 <5 10 <5 <5 194i7EREP MT0160:i Page: 17 December 2001 3. The spike recovery procedure involves adding a known amount of reagent to a clean soil sample, which is subsequently tested. The purpose of this test is to verify the absence of matrix effects and other interferences. Recovery data is compared against acceptance criteria published in the Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Waste Water, or appropriate U.S. EPA Methods. If recoveries fall outside these criteria, the analyses are discontinued and the problem rectified. The results of the MGT in-house QMQC program (see Appendix L for results) indicated that the RPDs for the duplicate samples were all within the control limit, the method blanks were all below detection, and the spike recoveries were within acceptable limits. It is considered therefore that the andytml results are reliable and can be accepted. 8.4 Summary of Quality Assurance/Quality Control The QMQC procedures undertaken as part of this assessment have enabled the quality of the field sample collection and laboratory analysis procedures to be examined. The RPDs for the blind and split replicate samples were within the acceptable limits (30-5O0), with the exception of lead for the blind replicate sample 19417-QA1 (taken from 19417-3-0.15), lead and zinc for the split replicate 19417-3-0.6 and zinc for split replicate sample 19417-V1. The high RPD for lead for the blind duplicate sample was considered to be due to heterogeneity of the sample. The procedures of the primary laboratory were checked, and the results of analysis were confirmed with no change. The elevated RPDs for the split replicate analysis for lead and zinc were considered to be a result of heterogeneity in the samples, as well as the low concentrations reported. At such low concentrations, a small difference in the concentrations results in a large RPD. Based on the RPDs for the blind and split replicate samples, the &sate blanks and the internal laboratory QMQC results, the data is considered to be of an acceptable quality upon which to draw conclusions regarding the environmental condition of the site. 9. Discussion 9.1 Soil Soil samples were collected from nine boreholes established at the site. A total of nine surface samples (0.15 m depth) and nine natural soil samples (0.6 m depth) were collected during the initial soil sampling program. A further eight (8) surface samples (0.1-0.15 m depth) and one natural soil sample (0.6 m depth) were collected during the test pit sampling program undertaken following the completion of the borehole sampling program. The results obtained during the initial soil sampling program identified elevated concentrations of arsenic slightly exceeding the NEPM EIL in the surface soils in borehole 2. Elevated zinc concentrations exceeding the NEPM EIL were recorded in surface soils in borehole 5 and 8, as well as from 0.6 m depth in borehole 9. The later sample was collected from the raised mound of fill at the rear of the site. The concentrations of these metals did not exceed the NEPM 'A' HlLs for a standard residential development. The results of the test pit sampling program indicated that there were no asbestos fibres present in the near surface soils in each of the test pit locations. However, a visual inspection of the site identified the presence of fragments of asbestos cement (AC) sheet in some near surface soils, particularly in the rear portion of the site. It was considered that the likely source of this material was the demolition of the site buildings, rather than it being associated with any fill material present across the site. The sample collected from 0.6 rn depth from test pit TP8 recorded an elevated zinc concentration that slightly exceeded the NEPM EIL, but was well below the NEPM 'A' HE. 19417€lREP MT0160:l Page: 18 December 2001 Although the slightly elevated arsenic and Zinc concentrations did not exceed the NEPM ‘A‘ HILs, it is considered that the concentrations of zinc (ii particular) could potentially pose a phytotoxic risk to plants grown at the site in the future. To eliminate this risk and enable the site to be considered for a Certificate of Environmental Audit, the soil in areas that recorded elevated zinc concentrations was excavated and disposed of to landfiu. The bulk of the soil removed from the site was classified as fd materid, however approximately 40 m3 of LLCS with elevated zinc concentrations was removed from the raised mound of fill at the rear of the site. Validation sampling undertaken following the remediation of the areas around boreholes 5 and 8 as well as the raised mound of fill, confirmed that the remediation works successfully removed the elevated zinc concentrations. Therefore, it is considered that the zinc concentrations remaining at the site pose a negligible phytotoxic risk. In addition to the slightly elevated heavy metal concentrations, the assessment identified the presence of industrial rubble (ie. bricks, concrete, metal, etc.) and some fragments of AC sheet present broadly across the site in the near surface fd material. To remove this material, the top 0.3-0.4 m of soil was excavated and stockpiled on site, prior to being sifted using a trundle. The sifting process successfully removed the majority of the remaining industrial rubble and AC sheet fragments. The asbestos containing materials were separated from the waste material removed during the sifting process and disposed of in plastic bags to Reid’s Waste Management. The remaining waste materials (ie. bricks, concrete, etc.) were disposed of to the Dinsan landfill as inert waste. Although the mechanical sifting removed the majority of the asbestos from the site, some fragments of AC sheet remained in the near surface soils. These soils were manually raked over a period of several days to ensure that the asbestos was removed to the extent practicable. An inspection of the site found that the manual raking was successful in removing almost all of the near surface asbestos materials, however two fragments were found, a detailed assessment of the proposed yard and garden areas was undertaken. The detailed assessment found that the asbestos content of the near surface soils in the proposed garden and yard areas ranged from 0.0002 to 0.0008% by mass. Given that the concentrations fall within the nominated guideline range of 0.0001 to O.OOI%, it is considered that the remediation of the site has rendered it suitable for its proposed medium density residential use. 9.2 Groundwater The qualitative assessment of groundwater at the site indicated that the potential for groundwater contamination at the site associated with previous on and .off-site activities is negligible. Elutriation testing undertaken on the soil samples, which initially had arsenic and zinc concentrations exceeding the NEPM EILs, indicated that the leachability of these metals was quite low. Given the low leachabilities and the depth to groundwater at the site (estimated to be between 5 and 6 metres), it is considered highly unlikely that the groundwater would have been contaminated by the slightly elevated metal concentrations initially found in the soil samples at the site. Review of the site history also indicated that there were no underground facilities (ie. tanks, pits, interceptor traps, etc.) present on site that had the potential to contaminate groundwater. Furthermore, the adjoining land uses were almost entirely residential, hence it is unlikely that an off-site source of contamination is located close to the site. 19417mEP MT0160:l Page: 19 December 2001 IO. Conclusions The site located at 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale was previously used for commercial purposes. Prior to its vacation and the demolition of the site buildings, the site operated as a building and plumbing suppliers for a period of approximately 40-45 years. Prior to that, the site was vacant land. Assessment of the site identified some slightly elevated heavy metal (arsenic and zinc) concentrations exceeding the NEPM EILs in near surface soils and at 0.6 m depth, predominantly in the rear half of the site. Fragments of asbestos cement (AC) sheet and other industrial rubble be. bricks, concrete, metal, etc.) were also identified in the near surface soil and the site. Although the concentrations of heavy metals did not exceed the NEPM 'A' HILs and therefore posed a negligible health risk to humans, the elevated zinc concentrations in particular could have posed a phytotoxic risk to plants grown at the site in the future. To eliminate this risk, remediation works involving the excavation and off-site disposal of zinc contaminated soil were undertaken at the site. Validation sampling confirmed that these works successfully removed the elevated zinc concentrations and thus eliminated the phytotoxic risk. Remediation of the asbestos containing materials involved the removal of the top 0.05-0.1 m of soil from the site to landfill, followed by the mechanical sifting of the top 0.3-0.4 m of soil. Manual raking was also undertaken at the completion of the mechanical sifting to remove any remaining bonded AC sheet fragments to the extent practicable. A detailed assessment of the proposed yard and garden areas found that the asbestos content in the near surface soils ranged from 0.0002 to 0.0008% by mass, which was within the nominated guideline range of 0.0001 to 0.001%. A find visual inspection of the site confirmed that no asbestos remained in the surface soils at the site. A qualitative assessment of the groundwater beneath the site indicates that there is a negligible risk to groundwater associated with previous activities at the site. The findings of this assessment indicate that the site is suitable for its proposed use as a medium density residential developmint, based on the current development plans submitted. - 19417ETREP MTOi6O:l Page: 20 December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Figures - .. ~. .- ~ ~ ~- 19417IZlREP MT0160: 1 Page: I '4 2 4 TP 1 TP2 0 0 3 ,4 + 4 TP3 TP4 0 0 5 6 4 Soil Borehole 4- 0 10 I- TP 1 Metres @ Test Pit TP5 TP6 0 0 TP 7 TP8 [ 049 1 N Raised Mound Location Figure 1: Plan of Soil Sampling & Test Pit 2 Tradepac Pty Ltd i I fN i / I / ,, a- 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale I Survey Date: 1412/2001 I Toh Nn 1 odi 7 I'm December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Tables 19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: IV I Tradcpac Ply Ltd Job Number: 19417 Environmental Site Assessment Table 1 Soil Sampling Results. METALS 19417rcsulls 11102102 Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Number: 19417 Environmental Site Assessment Table 2 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria (1) Estimated Level I(intervention t TargetI/Z (2) Total comprising anthracene, benzols) anthracene, benzo(al pyrene, benzo(gho1 perylene benzo(k) fluranthene, chrysene, phenanthrene, fluroanthene. indeno (1.2.3-cdl pyrene 8 naphthalene (3) Total of sixteen PAH's 11/02/02 lntcrim Urban bEPC (1999) Health lnvcstigation Lcvcls- Setting [A) EPA Fill Material Dutch Tarqct Lcvcl(2000) 0.0 1 0.01 0.01 0.0 1 0.0025 0.0025 0.0 1 0.01 0.03 hmatcd Dutch lnvcstiqation Lcvcl"'(2000~ 5 2.5 25 15 Dutch lntcrvcntion Level (20001 10 5 50 30 Dutch Indicativr Level for Serious Contamination (io001 -. ,A'doptcd Acccptancc Criteria 5 2.5 25 15 I 4 I $justcd Acccptancc Criteria For Composite I I. I 1 I I I I I I I 1.25 I - I I 1-10.63 I 6.25 I I 3.75 I I I I I I I I I I I I I soil Primarics/Compositcr Samples in Comporitc i9417-COMPt 20.05 co.05 c0.05 c0.05 co.05 c0.05 ~0.05 c0.05 c0.05 c0.05 <0.05 c0.3 19417-COMP2 c0.05 c0.05 co.05 c0.05 c0.05 c0.05 c0.05 c0.05 c0.05 c0.05 co.05 4.3 i9417-9-0.1 s co.05 co.05 co.05 c0.05 c0.05 cO.05 c0.05 <0.05 co.05 co.05 co.05 c0.3 Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria (1) ' Gtimatcd Lcvcl -(intervention + Targctllt (2) Sum of 11 Chlorinated Hydrocarbons/Z 11/02/02 Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Number: 19417 Environmental Site Assessment 396 Nepean Highway. Parkdale Table 4 Soil Sampling Results. Organo-Chlorine Pesticides I I I Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria 11/02/02 Tablej 5 Soil Sampling Results. Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Phenol and Cresols. 11 Dutch Ta/qct Level (2000) 0.02 0.05 0.05‘’’ 1 Estimated Dutcli lnvcstiqation (20001 0.5 2.5 20 . 10.5 Dutdi I/lthcntion Levcl(zoo0) 1 5 40 20 Dutch Indicative Level for Serious Contamination l20001 ! Adopted Acceptance Crilcria 1 2.5 20 10.5 ofslnlples in Composite NO 4 .,..- Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria Nota (11 Estimated Level - (intcwcntion +Targct)/2 (2) Total of phenol and orto. met+ cn para cr-I 1941 7reau(ts I 11/02/02 ,I -1 -1 Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria Notes (1) btimstcd LNd - (intcwention + Targetl/l 11/02/02 1941 'Iresults Table 7 Soil Sampling Results. Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1 Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria (1) Gtimated LNCI .. [intervention + Targetllt I I 1941 7results 11/02/02 Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Number: 19417 Environmental Site Assessment 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Table Q-I Soil Sampling Results. METALS Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria (1) Estimated Levcl = (intervention + Target)/Z 19417results 11/02/02 Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Number: 19417 Table 0-2 Soil Sampling Results. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons I l200Ol ' I-I-1-1-1-1- I-I-I-I-I-I-1-1-1- Adoottd Ac:colanct Crilcria I IO"' 1 Sample ID TYPE. lOLlN0 DUP] 194 17-3-0.15 4.1 a.1 a.1 d.1 CO.l co.1 19417results 11/02/02 Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Number: 19417 Environmental Site Assessment -Validation Sampling 396 Nepean Highway. Parkdale Table V1 Soil Sampling Results. METALS Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria (1) Estimated Lcvcl (intetvcntion + Targct]/l [yjgqa>:&.. * .%<..,._ - 11/02/02 L:\Advanced File Structure\Management\auality Management System\Manual\Forms\19417validation results Tradep7c Pty Ltd Job Number: 19417 Environmental Site Assessnient -Validation Sani Table b-Vl Soil Sampling Results. METALS ,I Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria (11 Estimated Lcvcl - (intervention + TargetJ/2 I1 1941 7validation results 11/02/02 I Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Number: 19417 Environmental Site Assessment - Stockpile Sampling 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Table 5 1 Soil Sampling Results. METALS ANZECC/NHMRC (1992) Environmental 50 60 300 1 60 50 200 I I I I I I I I I I I pE?j@q Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria (I) Estimated Lcvcl =(intervention + TargetV2 I C:\Advanced File Structure\Management\Quality Management System\Manual\Forrns\19417stockpile results 11/02/02 I Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Ndmber: 19417 Envirohental Site Assessment - Stockpile Sampling Table S2 Soil Sampling Results. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 4NZECClNHMRC 119921 Enrironmcnt.1 !nwsigh!!n tcvr~ ANZECC/NHMRC (1991) Hcilth Invrrtigation LWFl I 1 lo(” NEPC ll9{9) Ecological Investigation Lcvslr - lntcrim Urban -___.__ -______---- ~ NEPC ll9s’Sl Hcrlrh Invcrtigalion Lcvcls- Setting IN I 1 10 EPA fit1 Ma’trri.1 20 Dutch Tarpit Lrvrl (ZOO01 1’” Ertimateb Dutch lnvcitiqrtion Level ‘“(1000) 10.5t1’ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t 11 1 -1 -1 Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria (1) Estimated Levd - (intmcntion + T#rgrt)/z (2) . Total comprising anthracene, benzo(a1 anthracene. benzo[a) pyrene. benzo(gho) perylene benzo(k) fluranthene. chrysene. phenanthrene. fluroanthene. indeno (1,2.3-cd)pyrene B naphthalene (3) Total of sixteen PAHs 19417stockpile results 11/02/02 Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Number: 19417 Table 53 Soil Sampling Results. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons NZECC/NHMRC (1992) Environmental I I I I I I I I I I ANZECC/NHMRC (1992) Health Investigation Level I 1-1 I I NEPC I19991.. Ecoloqical - Investigation Levels - I I I I I I I Interim Urban NEPC (1999) Health Investigation Levels- Setting (AI EPA Fill Material Dutch Target Level (2000) 0.01 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0025 0.0025 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.03 Estimated Dutch Investigation Level "' (2000) 5 2.5 25 15 Dutch Intervention Level (20001 10 5 50 30 Dutch lndicativc Level for Serious Contamination (20001 5 2.5 25 -, 15.01 19417-SP5 c0.05 c0.05 c0.05 <0.05 c0.05 co.05 co.05 c0.05 c0.05 co.05 c0.05 c0.3 -1 -1 Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria (1) Estimated Level D (intervention + TargetlD (2) Sum of 11 Chlorinated Hydrocarbons/Z 19417stockpile results NEPC1[i999) Health lnvcstigationLcvcis- Setting [A) i I 10 50 200 10 10 EPA 611kcrial I-I- 1 Dutch'Th Lcvcl (2000) 0.00006 0.00003 0.01 0.0005 0.00001 0.00001 0.00004 0.0007 0.0025 0 0 Estimidd Dutch Inverliqalion Level "'(20001 I 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.5 2.5 Du1ch:ln'tcrvention Lcvcl(20Ool 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 Dutcl1:in'dicativcLNCI for Scrious contamination ~~000) Adoott!d/Acrcotancc Criteria 2 IO 10 2.5 21 ZI 2 0.2 2.5 2 2.5 10 2.5 19417-95 co.01 <0.01 co.01 co.01 co.01 m.1 coal 4.01 co.01 <0.01 co.01 co.01 <0.01 co.01 co.01 <0.01 1 I I 1'. 19417stofkpile results 11/02/02 !II Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Number: 19417 Environmental Site Assessment - Stockpile Sampling 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Table S5 Soil Sampling Results. Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Phenol and Cresols Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria Notes (1) Estimated Level = (intervention + Target)/Z (2) Total of phenol and orto. rneta, en para cresol 1 1/02/02 19417stockpile results Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Number: 19417 - Stockpile Sampling Table S6 Soil Sampling Results. Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons NZECClNHMRC (1992) Environmental 1000 19417-SP5 e20 I Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria 1 Notes (1) Estimated Level = (intervention + Target)/Z ~ I 19417stockpile results 1 1/02/02 Tradepac PbLtd Job Number: 19417 Environmental Site Assessment - Stockpile Sampling 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Table 57 Soil Sampling Results. Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 992) Environmental Contamination (2000) I I I 65 I 25 I 12.5 19417-SP5 co.0 1 I co.01 I <0.01 *&2& Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria (1) Estimated Level = (intervention + Target)/2 19417stockpile results 1 1102102 Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Number: 19417 Environmental Site Assessment - Stockpile Samplin Table 58 Soil Sampling Results. Miscellaneous Results 1992) Environmental Dutch Intervention Level (2000) I I I I utch Indicative Level for Serious Contamination I Exceeds Adopted Acceptance Criteria Notes (1) Estimated Level = (intervention + Target)/2 19417stockpile results 1 1/02/02 I .~ ~~ December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Appendix A: Certificate of Title 19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: XXIV '.- PROPRIETOR .. I.-. TYPICAL P.TY. LIM,lTED ' '. 7 BRIDGE St. SYOHEY.N.-S.W. 2000 ,T847?00U 31/8/95. . - ... .. I JOHN K IIWRAITH INDUSPRIES @ImD of 34 York Street Richmond is now'the'proprietor Registered 21st August 1969 '' .WOPRIETOR JOH( DESHOHD O'BRIEH NO.IX82833 I3% HEMHY. PRRKDXE 31% I .. .. ' ...... IL ... V' ...... _ . - .CAVEAT:- ..'. ' 4. .. r. CAVEATOR:, FAHMLE...... HO.L~INGS PTY. .... I.TQ.. .. CAPACITY iURCHASER/FEE S,IMPiE ' .k, '' ' _'E LODGED BY i HOL'DI'NG REDLICH ab* -CAVEAT NOTICE TO: 350 WILLIAM ST. M{LBOURNE 3000 KO: V.371455N CAVEATOR: ABROTAR PTY. LTD. I % DATE: 16/4/98 CAPAC~TY: PURCHASERIFEE SII~PLE .. 575 BOURKE e. . ./- t ..... I . December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Appendix B: Royal Historical Society of Victoria Report 19417EIREP MT0160:l Page: XXVIII ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF VICTORIA INC. 239 A'Beckett Street, Melbourne 3000 I4 August 200 1 Mr Richard O'Connor Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd Level 3, 8 18 Whitehorse Road BOX HILL VIC 3 128 Dear Mr O'Connor, Re: Site report 394-396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale, In response to your fax received on 10 August 2001 we have searched Sands & McDougall directories for indication of occupation and use of the above site. In 1934 Nos 394-396 were not shown. Nearest was 398 a dairy occupied by J Dowling. This continued to be the case until 1944/45 when only the dairy appeared between Elm and Laburnum Streets. In 1954 the dairy continued at 398, with nothing noted for 396 and R W Tichener at No. 394. From at least 1964 through to 1974 when the directory ceased publication, No. 394 continued as R W Tichener with McIlwraith - builders supplies at No. 396. Nepean Highway was earlier known as Point Nepean Road, then Nepean Road and finally Nepean Highway. By 1974 the area was shown as Mordialloc rather than Parkdale. Our invoice for this research will be forwarded with the mail copy of this report. Yours sincerely, (Mrs) Wendy Baker Secretary - ~ - - - - - ~ - - - .- - Tel. (03) 9326 9288 Fax. (03) 9326 9477 Email: [email protected] ABN 36 520 675 471 Registered No. A2529 Find out more about US on our web-site \vww.vicnet.net.au/-rhsvic December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Appendix C: Historical Information from the City of Kingston -l 19417mEP MT0160: 1 Page: XXX U Ul'LI CATE h making a decision on this application the views of !he council $ ..!! 94 7 - Ofwill dale be received.taken into In considerationreply please ~UOICif received application number.fourteen day, Application Nm...... .C .. Date Received ...... TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS Interim Deoelopmenl Order made by the Melbourne and Metropoliian Board of Works on the 131 day of February, 1955. Application for a Permit to Use Land for a Specified Purpose I HEREBY APPLY for a permit to use the land described hereunder for the purpose of ...... Subdividing into 4 shop sites ...... ...... I. Interest of Applicant in land,,, ,, ,,,.Agents for Owners ...... the ...... +aOwner of land Name Kath3ea.n. ?ran.oes.... p.ia.tt .....ec ...... Mary .O.,!C.onne 11 Warren Rd., Address McSwain Street, ...... ..... Me n t; one ....Mordialloc. .... , ..... ...... ris S3. Does Owner Concur in this application? ...... Description of Land: - city. 01 Town Street and Strcei I Subdivision Area Title .-.___ Township Numbel . -Plar - --_ Dimeosm. -No. Volume -Folio ' Par kdale Nepean Highway 995 74'4" 6948 -543 x 1Y2/ w- 21 .._ , :.!. I I ...... -!..I . .(...I . j .. I - -. Signature of Applicant...... Burke & Soott ~ ! Address ..... 30.J.... Cbarr?ar?. .Rd ...... - ...... Chelte nham ...... .... ??TO be complcicd whcrc applicant is not tlic owncr Interim Development Order .made by the Melbourne and hfetropoliran Board of Works ori [ha 1st day of February, 1955. Permit +o Use Land . ApplWeQLon no. 947 Reference Application inade 21 / 5/195 5 ...... Subject to the conditions (if any) set out hereunder permission is herpby granted'for the land-- at 'and described as...... ,..."...... U...... U.. ..s...... H ,. pa^^,.-...."a~~~..~~....41..-lior d.&v&deB..-Rnd ...... _ ...... ",." ...... ...... -.... I 1.- ...-...... -..-. '."...... - CONDITIONS . ... i AI'PLICATIOE 3CIR P.%,tIT. To the Wlilding Surveyor. CITY OF LlORDIWoC. P (Cone truct I hereby xirply for a permit to It (Demoliah a buuilping .5 (Remove (irllotmant I 2- +3. So...... ,.. in Bature of construction - P Bew hilding, alteration, -adbition,, repair, ...... i...... ( ...... (xem ...... :...... ; ...... ( ...... (hddress ...... -...& ...... i;.;;w...... ,.. ( ...., . '.. ( ...... i, .; ...... (Kame ;.:.,...... ,...... ( ( ...... Purpose Tor which Building ia to be ueea ..,...... 5.,.,...'...... ,. Eetlm?.ted cost of work .m...... I undertale that the & conetructlon, demolition or removal will be carried out in conformity with the requirements of the Uniform Building Regu- lations and of the aylawa of the 3unicipdity. Dated thia.. r...... day of 194 Sirnature ...... P &nnrr, Builder, f&&Lta& Fee (Eiumber ....lp%h 7:...... permit ( (Date issued .fi'?*.fJ...... \..,Area ...... Square feet, & Strike out words which are Lna~pllcable. !. ;/ , .. CITY 'OF MOT(D1ALLOC ------J NAKE : C . DOWSE (MI DWAY'i SurPL? ERS ) SUBJXCT: submitting phns of proposed brick Rnd timber store and goods rpck to be built at the refir of the exiatlnl: hulldin(: of Ididway Builders sppliars, Nepe2n Highway, Parkdnle, and speking permission to erect the pronnsed temporary rem w.11 in ngbestoa cement sheets. Read at a meeting hold on: 10/12/56. RESOLUTION: . Proposed by Cr. -1 Seconded by Cr. - I. '* '* Quotes Given Prompt service. -. C. DOWSE BUILDER 82a Elsie Grove, Chelsea S:l5 ...... - ...... - ... ._ 'I ...... :I.i c 'I 'I .. ..+ ...... DACK 4 AR'MS HOME r; INDU5TRIAL I? JTATIUM. 4T MOO PHONE: . AND AT qC VANITY CRT . .:r . .- .. .. ...... '. N f. :. :. :.:, I.,...... ".-. L ,. .v<., .. -- City of Mordialloc P.O.Box 123, Mentone, 3 194 DX 19407 Fax: 584 8920 Telephone: 584 4366 Our Ref: MOC/3665 RGU:KW .. . 14th September, 1992 The Manager, Tradelink Plumbing Supplies Centres, C/- Dandenong Drafting Service (Vic) Pty. Ltd., Suite 8A, 50 Robinson Street, DANDENONG 3175 . Dear SirMadam, 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale I refer to your application for Permit under the Mordialloc Planning Scheme for ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING PERIHERAlL SALES PIiEMlSES The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has advised that no appeals have been lodged against Council's Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit. Accordingly, a town planning permit is issued subject to conditions as set out in the attached Permit. Please read all conditions.closely as you will be expected to comply with all requirements specified in the Permit. Should you have any enquiries in relation to any of the conditions please do not hesitate to contact Council's Town Planning Department. Please note. that where any building is proposed as part of this approval, it will be necessary for you to obtain a Building Approval from Council prior to commencement. Yoursythfully, (J. F. EDWARDS) !TOWN CLERK & CITY MANAGER encl. Municipal Offices are located at Erindisi Street, Mentone. / PLANNING Permit No. MOC13665 Planning Scheme MORDIALLOC PLANNING PERMIT SCHEME I '1 Lc; .i>:L. Responsible Authority CITY OF MORDIALLOC .. - ADDRESS OF LAND 396 NEPEAN HIGHWAY, PARKDALE THE ERECTION AND CONSTRUCTION OF i THE PERM'T . BUILDINGS AND WORKS ON LAND SITUATE AT AND KNOWN AS 396 NEPEAN HIGHWAY PARKDALE FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE EXISTING PERIPHEWL SALES PREMISES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENDORSED PLANS AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THE PERMIT AS AJTACHED ~ ___~ Date Issued 14TH SEPTEMBER. 1992 c ;...... TOWN PLANNING PERMIT - MOC13665 B 396 NEPEAN HIGHWAY. PARKDALE 1 a s:i 1952 CONDITIONS: 1. This permlt shall have no force or effect untll such time as amendlng plans have been submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plans shall be generally in accordance with those submitted wlth the appllcatlon but shall make provlslon for the followlng: a. Provlslon of prlvecy screenlng along the northern and rear western boundarles to a mlnlmum helght of 1.8m or 1.7rn ebove floor level. b. Constructlon of the exlstlng access driveways along the northern end southern sldes of the property and the rear western storage area In an all-weather seal coat of elther asphalt or concrete. c. Retention of the northern eccess and southern egress drlveways. d. Provlslon of landscaping wlthln the lendscape setback along the northern boundary adlacent to the new seles area and an assoclated Schedule denoting all shrubs to be planted. e. Removal or redlrectlon of the securlty llght et !he front of the premlses so that It does not emlt direct light beyond the property boundaries. f. The provlslon of staff parking within the rear storage area. g. A dralnage plan for the slte. 2. The Internal layout of the bulldlngs and the layout of the site and the slze of the proposed bulldlngs end works as shown on the endorsed plan shall not be altered or modifled (whether or not in order to comply wlth any Statute, Statutory Rule or Local Law or By-law or for eny other reason) wlthout the consent of the Responslble Authority. 3. The plans requlred under Condltlon Iof thls permlt shall be submltted and approved wlthln two (2) months of the date of thls permit. 4. Landscaping of the slte shall be carrled out In accordance wlth the endorsed plans wlthln three (3) months of the date of thls permlt end therelnafter malntalned to the satlsfactlon of the Responslble Authorlty. 5. Except where lawn has been approved by the Responsible Authorlty all landscaped ereas shall be covered wlth a mulch approved by the Responsible Authority to a mlnlmum depth of 75mm. 6. The mulch applied In accordance wlth Condition 5 above shall be renewed everv / TOWN PLANNING PERMIT - MOC13665 396 NEPEAN HIGHWAY. PARKDALE , ~ ~~ i 1 8 S'1 I?,:, ,J IC CONDITIONS (Cont'd.) 7. Upon completion of the landscaplng works carried out In accordance wlth the endorsed plan Council's Town Plannlng Officer shall be contacted to arrange an inspection of the site. a. Subsequent to occupatlon of the subJect land, the araas set aslde for landscaplng shall be malntalned In a neat and tldy condltlon and unhealthy or dead plants shall be replaced to the satlsfactlon of the Responsible Authorlty. 9. Surrounding all landscaplng areas there shell be constructed a protectlve kerblng of mlnlmum helght 180mm. 10. The ape8 set aslde for the parking or garaging of vehicles and so dellneated on the endorsed plan shall be made aveilable for such use and shall not be used for any other purpose. 11. The boundarles of all vehicle spaces and access lanes shall at all tlmes be designated on the flnlshed surface In accordance wlth the layout epproved on the endorsed plan end such deslgnatlon shall comprlse 50mm wide whlte llnes palnted on the flnlshed surface or en alternatlve rnaterlal to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 12. The material used to designate all vehlcle spaces and access lanes In accordance with condition 11 above shall be maintalned in good condition at all tlmes so as to be clearly visible to the satlsfactlon of the Responslble Authority 13. The surface of all vehlcle spaces end access lanes shall be properly formed to such levels that It can be used In accordance with the endorsed plan and such surface shall be sealed or paved wlth an all weather seal coat and malntalned In good condition to the satisfaction of the Responslble Authority. 14. Where the surface of the carparklng area andlor access thereto Is to be paved wlth a bitumen seal or asphalt such surface shall be constructed to a concrete kerb whlch shall exland around the perimeter of the area so paved to the satlsfactlon of the Responsible Authorlty. 15. No vehlcle under the control of the operator under thls Perrnlt or hls staff shall be parked In the streets nearby. For the purpose of thls condltlon "operatof" shall mean the appllcant, the occupler or the owner of the subject site for the time being. 16. Where any carparking area or loadlng and unloadlng area or access thereto Is located wlthln 700mm of any dlvldlng fence a protective barrler shall be Installed to the setlsfactlon of the Responsible Authority. .- 8 /> ,?. c' I-'' I.\ TOWN PLANNING PERMIT - MOC13665 i 3 -. 1932. 396 NEPEAN HIGHWAY, PARKDALE , 8 SE'i COND IT1ONS (Cont'd.) 17. The subject site, including all paved areas comprlslng carparklng spaces and access lanes thereto within the slte shall be drained so as to prevent the dlscharge of water onto any adjacent property or street other than by means of an underground plpe drain discharged to an approved outlet In a street or to an underground plpe drain that is a lawful point of discharge prlor to occupancy. 18. The site shall be drained to the satisfaction of the Resoonsible Authoritv. r----''. --\\ ," 19. Prior to the Issue oGulldlng Approval by Council's Bulldlng Department, tha 1 Applicant or Owner shall make a contribution of $730.00 to Council forthe upgrading \ of the local drainage system in order to Increase its capacity to accept'the addttionai run-off generated by the proposed development. 1 - 20. All floodlighting erected In acmxcewltn rnis P ermit sna- e+) and sultably baffled to ensure that no dlrect light is emltted outslde the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 21. The use hereby permitted shall not cause any nuisance to or prejudicially affect the amenity of the locallty by reason of the processes carried on, the materials, goods and machinery used and stored or by reason of the emission of nolse, vlbration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste products, grit or oil, the appearance of the property or otherwise. 22. A visual screen not less than 1.8m high above ground level or 1.7m above floor level whichever is the greater shall be erected along the northern and western boundaries to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authorlty. 23. There shall be no incinerator installed on site at any time. 24. Except with the further consent of the Responsible Authority trading hours for the subject premises and more specifically of the new sales areas and offices, shall not extend beyond 7.00AM to 6.00PM - Monday to Friday, 8.00AM to 4.00PM - Saturday and Closed on Sunday. 25. The existing bunting sign shall be removed and no further signs should be erected without the prior written consent of the Responslble Authority. 26. The loading and unloading of goods from vehicles and the delivery of goods to and . despatch from the premises shall at ail times be effected within the curtilage. 27. No new buildings or works shall be erected and no existing buildings shall be enlarged, rebuilt or extended without the consent of the TOWN PLANNING PERMIT - MOC/3665':b 1 8 SI 19c- 396 NEPEAN HIGHWAY, PARKDALE CONDITIONS (Cont'd.) 28. The aforementioned conditions shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority wlthln three (3) months of the date hereof. -- T 14TH SEPTEMBER, 1992 CIV OF MORDIALLOC OFFICE USE ONLY Building Fees: ...... 3.e ...... - Building Control Act 1981 FORM 5 Scaffolding Fees: ...... 2__ VICTORIA BUILDING REGULATIONS 1983 Receipt No: :%Z':?>[X*x Regulations 8.2(1); 8.4(1) and 8.6(1) Date Paid: ....I&:::>.:..% .,.. Crossing Deposit: ...... APPLICATION FOR BUILDING APPROVAL To: Development Approvals Co-Ordinator BUILDING APPrOVAL CIlY OF MORDIALLOC No: ...... 3.6%. 32 ...... P.O. BOX 123, Date Issued: ...... >. :,.%.:.3? MENTONE 3194 I I...... b.6J.w) hereby apply for an approval 'to construct to de (ish a building on Street No ...39..L.... in ....I\l.6+cf$j.fi ...... 1d..w- ...... pApw.8.a...TA st reethoad or stage of. b ilding work Oi Nature of Construction 'New BuildinglAtteratiordAdditionslRepair c- b Owner of Land NAME: .....j..!!A.O.&.k!!.d..F ...... ADDRESS: ...... 2 9C, pk~5.pr~ J~wY ...... PF.:K&Q.P.k.L...... PHONE..%.!?..5Sx..,...... Superintending NAME:...... ;...... Architect andlor Engineer ADDRESS: ...... ...... PHONE ...... Builder NAME:... 3...~-..+....R..H ...... LWE ...... ADDRESS: ..q...... %..w.k! ...... % ...... @j..gq. 4. bT r.2.. -w ...... !?fi.kgb.fi.& ...... PHONE ...... 580 152 ...... Purpose for which building is to be used: If purpose is for a Dwelling-House Attached herewith is Certificate of Guarantee Status of Domestic Building Work issued by the Housing Guarantee Fund Limited under the House Contracts Guarantee Regulations 1988. Estimated Cost of Building Work: .$...mfw...... 3090. /...... I hereby undertake that the 'construction. demolition or removal will be canid out in conformity with the requirements of the Vidofla Building Regulations 1983 and of the by-laws and bcdl laws of the municipality., .. Dated ...... 19 ...93. Signature ...... - ~ 'Strike out wordshich-are inapplicable ~ I Insert name of applicant Note: Pursuant to section 20 (22) of the Building Control Act 1981 a person shall not act as the agent of an owner unless he is authorized in writing by the owner to do so. ! I I I I i' CITY OF MORDIALLOC No...... 3% PROP. FILE No. ....! a.$.?.%.. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No. DATE MacGregor Soil Engineering Pty. Ltd. ~ ACN. 053 498 230 23 Railway Road, Bladcbum, MC. 3130 Phone: (03)894 4422 FAX. (03)894 4424 Dandenong Drafting Service (Vic) Pty Ltd, 50 Robinson Street, Dandenong, WC 3175. Re: PROPOSED ALTERATIONS NO 396, NEPEAN HIGHWAY,PARKDALE. ENGINEERING LOG Dcscnption Soil Type State kpth- Cornmen6 Borehole No. 1 4.5m from right boundary lorehole ~IY on ccnpletim 18m from front boundary Loose-medim density si lty sandy Fill mist 0.0 0.05 Loose-medium density grey silty Sand mist T ermi ne t ed 1.5 - Borehole No. 2 4.5m from left boundary Borehole dry on completion 20m from front boundary Loose-mediun density silt, sand 8 Fill 0.0 clay 0.15 Loose-rnedim density silty Sand Terminated 1.5 t Dn’ll ,Ud-e: Type: Hand DriNer: M Dafe: 03/09/92 Logged: rn Checked: ...... Job No: 923832 Reference no: 20000947 ays 1 de l3 ClTT COUNCIL Form 8 BUILDING ACT 1993 Corponcc Ccnm Ropl Avenue. BUILDING REGULATIONS 1994 Sandringham. 3 19 I Regulation 7.3 r.0. aOx17 Sandringhm Vtcrona 3 17 I Auscrah T phone: 03 9599 4444 CERTIFICATE OF FINAL INSPECTIO& imilc: 03 3598 4474 cnquiricsObayrldc.vlcgov.au -.baysidc.vicgov.au 20000633-0 \ TO:- Owner Fahwle holdings Builder: Richard Eagles 1/10 Bay Street Po Box 5244 Mordialloc 3 19 5 Mordialloc 3 195 Pro perty d etails :- no:- 396 Nepean Highway Parkdale 3 195 Municipal District City of Kingston Description of Building Works: Demolition of Squash Courts and Gymnasium As per plans Part of Building: As per plans Permitted use: Sporting facility BCA Class: 9 Allowable live load: 1 Skpa $~ydirections under Division 5 of Part 4 of the Building Act 1993 have been complied with. Building Surveyor Keith Ball Registration no: BS- 1338 Signature &;)gg29 Date of issue: Thursday, 7 December 2000 W Note: This certificate of fina1,inspection is not evidence that the building, part of the building or building work listed above complies with the Building Act 1993 or the Building Regulations 1994. Page I of I December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Appendix D: Aerial Photographs ~ ~~ Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of the Site from 1945 Job No: 19417 Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of the Site from 1971 Job No: 19417 Figure 4: Aerial Photograph of,the Site from 1981 Job No: 19417 ~ Figure 5: Aerial Photograph of the Site from 1987 Job No: 19417 December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Appendix E: Groundwater Database Search Results 19417ETREP MT0160: 1 Page: LV The Water Bureau . Department of Natural Resources and Environment Victorian Groundwater Database For enquiries regarding this report contact Sinclair Knight Merz on ph:(03) 9248 3100 BORE LOCATION REPORT 7/24/1 09:24:04 Page 1 BORE OLD RIG NO./ BORE AMG AMG EAST NORTH DATE TOTAL RLNS BORE USES DRILL LOGS AQUIF AQUIF TSS ID BORE LIC NO. AUTH SHEET ZONE COMPLETED DEPTH TYPE METHOD G D FROM TO mg/L NO. (m) (m) (m) -- PARISH 3163 - MOORABBIN 80420 10009 2457 LAND 792233 55 330400 5793700 01/03/1973 22.86 GW DM ST AGM NY 1938.0 80460 10049 2980 LAND 792233 55 330300 5792960 07/10/1974 24.68 GW DM ST CBT NY 80496 10085 19776 LAND 792233 55 329500 5793750 15/01/1983 21.33 GW DM ROM NY 80504 10093 19147 LAND 792233 55 330450 5794100 15/12/1982 22.55 GW IR ROM NY 80532 10121 20840 LAND 792233 55 331401 5792649 23/09/1983 7.20 GW DM AGH NY 80549 10138 10979 LAND 792233 55 329990 5793600 ,23/12/1982 15.00 GW DM ROT NY 80584 10173 26019 LAND 792233 55 330020 5793240 03/05/1985 82.20 GW IR ROT NY 80589 10178 23945 LAND 792233 55 330060 5794420 29/04/1985 36.50 GW NK ROT N Y 29.0 32.0 1393.5 80591 10180 18897 LAND 792233 55 330540 5794760 18/02/1983 21.30 GW NK ROT NY 115835 ***** 40905 NKN 792233 55 330994 5794061 12/05/1993 7.50 GW IV AGM NY 115836 ***** 40905 NKN 792233 55 330985 5794048 12/05/1993 9.00 GW IV AGM NY 115837 ***** 40905 NKN 792233 55 33Q975 5794059 12/05/1993 9.00 GW IV AGM NY -- PARISH 3186 - MORDIALLOC ei66e 08261 51587 LAND 792233 55 332745 5792860 31/12/1963 63.40 GW IR CBT NN 81669 08262 NONE LAND 792144 55 332990 5792300!31/12/1963 60.35 GW IR CBT NN 81670 08263 NONE LAND 55 331050 5794650.31/12/1967 36.50 GW IR NKN NN 81680 10008 2486 LAND 792222 55 333050 5793150,13/01/1973 60.96 GW NU ROM NY ' 81698 10026 2994 LAND 792233 55 331220 5794940 17/01/1973 9.19 GW m ROT NY 81701 10029 3684 LAND 792233 55 332530 5793100 27/06/1974 6.10 GW DM ST AGH NY 81740 10069 1982b' LAND 792144 55 332810 5792140 04/02/1983 68.00 GW NK ROT NY 81741 10070 19829 LAND 792144 55 332810 5792140 03/02/1983 68.00 GW NK ROT NY 81742 10071 19829 LAND 792144 55 332810 5792140'03/02/1983 84.00 GW NK ROT NY 81743 10072 19829 LAND 792144 55 332810 5792150 03/11/1983 67.50 GW IR ROT NY 81744 10073 21084 LAND 792144 55 331040 5792200 14/04/1983 15.00 GW DM AGH NY 81769 10098 19613 LAND 792233 55 331880 5792830:12/01/1984 17.07 GW DM AGH NY 81772 10101 30563 LAND 792144 55 333080 5792100 27/03/1987 107.20 GW NK ROT NN -. The Water Bureau . Department of Natural Resources and Environment Victorian Groundwater Database For enquiries regarding this report contact Sinclair Knight Merz on ph:(03) 9248 3100 BORE LOCATION REPORT 1 7/24/1 09:24 : 04 Page 2 ~ BORE OLD RIG NO./ BORE AMG ANG EAST NORTH DATE , TOTAL RLNS BORE USES DRILL LOGS AQUIF AQUIF TSS I ID BORE LIC NO. AUTH SHEET ZONE COMPLETED DEPTH TYPE METHOD G D FROM TO mg/L I NO. (m) (m) (m) I 81812 15038 NONE NKN 792233 55 331190 5793970 01/01/1988 25.00 NK NK NKN NN j 111596 ***** 38909 NKN 792144 55 331720 5791280 28/11/1991 6.70 GW IV DRV N Y 114247 ***** 40154 NKN 792144 55 331920 5791730 14/09/1992 6.00 GW IV AGM N Y 114248 ***** 40154 NKN 792144 55 331930 5791725 14/09/1992 6.00 GW IV AGM N Y 114249 ***** 40154 NKN 792144 55 331940 5791735 15/09/1992 6.00 GW IV AGM N Y 130775 ***** 46434 NKN 792222 55 332760 5792880 23/11/1996 64.00 GW NU CBT N Y 133626 ***** 50988 NKN 792144 55 332900 5792040 21/04/1998 3.50 GW IV AGM N Y I 133628 ***** 50988 NKN 792144 55 332840 5791800 21/04/1998 4.00 GW IV AGM N Y I 140634 ***I* 55610 NKN 792222 55 331700 5792740 30/05/2000 75.00 GW DM ROA N Y 142526 ***** 56253 NKN 792122 55 332270 5791520 06/10/2000 56.00 GW DM ROA N Y I 142711 ***** 51442 NKN 792222 55 330773 5794190 22/07/1998 8.00 GW IV AGM N Y 1 142713 ***** 51442 NKN 792222 55 330747 5794185 22/07/1998 8.00 GW IV AGM N Y 142715 ***** 51442 NKN 792222 55 330727 5794180 22/07/1998 8.00 GW IV AGM N Y I ***** END OF REPORT ***** l ' /I The Water Bureau . Department of Natural Resources and Environment Victorian Groundwater Database For enquiries regarding this report contact Sinclair Knight Merz on ph:(03) 9248 3100 BORE COMPOSITE REPORT 7/24/2001 09:26:09 Page 1 BORE DITR Date Aquif Aquif Lith SWL Pump Time Draw- Latest Chemical Analysis Id No Completed From To (m) Rate (h:m) down Date MTH TSS CL FE PH EC Hard (m) (m) (l/sec) (m) Sampled Total -- Parish: 3163 - MOOFLABBIN 80420 10009 01/03/1973 12.2 15.2 SAND 8.0 0.1 4.3 23/02/1973 AIR 915 3.00 8.6 3320 80460 10.049 07/10/1974 24.1 24.7 GRAV 6.1 0.4 7.6 80496 10085 15/01/1983 16.8 21.3 SAND 0.2 1:oo 80504. 10093 15/12/1982 21.3 22.5 LMST 5.2 0.4 2:00 14.9 80532 10121 23/09/1983 6.0 7.0 SAND 2.4 0.2 0:30 80549 10138 23/12/1982 14.0 15.0 CLAY 0:30 80584 10173 03/05/1985 9.1 12.2 CLAY 4.6 0:30 19.8 21.3.SAST 74.0 82.2 BASA 8.0 80589 10178 29/04/1985 8.0 15.0 SAND 4.8 0.3 15:OO 8.0 29/04/1985 PUM 1393 600 5.00 7.8 2500 404 29.0 32.0 SAND 5.0 80591 10180 18/02/1983 15 : 00 115835 12/05/1993 7.0 7.5 SAND 115836 12/05/1993 8.5 9.0 SAND 115837 12/05/1993 8.5, 9.0 SAND -- Parish: 3186 - MORDIALLOC 81668 08261 31/12/1963 15 : 00 81669 08262 31/12/1963 56.1 60.3 BASA 2.1 4.4 81670 08263 31/12/1967 81680 10008 13/01/1973 56.4 61.0 81698 10026 17/01/1973 2.7 9.1 SAND 2.7 0.2 2.4 81701 10029 27/06/1974 6.1 4.6 6.1 81740 10069 04/02/1983 81741 10070 03/02/1983 81742 10071 03/02/1983 81743 10072 03/11/1983 58.0 65.0 CLAY 6:OO 81744 10073 14/04/1983 6.0 13.7 SAND 6.0 0.4 .:. ... . P The Water Bureau . Department of Natural Resources and Environment Victorian Groundwater Database For enquiries regarding this report contact Sinclair Knight Merz on ph:(03) 9248 3100 I BORE COMPOSITE REPORT 7/24/2001 09:26:09 Page' 2 BORE DITR Date Aquif Aquif Lith SWL Pump Time Draw- Latest Chemical Analysis Id No Completed From To (m) Rate (h:m) down Date MTH TSS CL FE Pn EC Hard (m) (m) (l/sec) (m) Sampled Total 81769 10098 12/01/1984 0.2 81772 10101 27/03/1987 96.0 107.2 MUST 10.0 6.0 81812 15038 01/01/1988 111596 28/11/1991 4.6 6.7 CLAY 114247 14/09/1992 4.0 4.2 CLAY 2.3 114248 14/09/1992 4.0 CLAY 114249 15/09/1992 4.2 FEST 130775 23/11/1996 5.5 63.7 5.5 7.0 8:OO 133626 21/04/1998 8:00 133628 21/04/1998 8:00 140634 30/05/2000 70.0 75.0 20.0 3.0 l:oo 142526 06/10/2000 50.0 56.0 3.0 3.0 2:oo 142711 22/07/1998 142713 22/07/1998 142715 22/07/1998 ***** END OF REPORT ***** The Water Bureau. Department of Natural Resources and Environment Victorian Groundwater Database For enquiries regarding this report contact Sinclair Knight Merz on ph: i03) 9248 3100 BORE CHEMISTRY REPORT 24/1/1 09125:33 Page 1 <------.------.------(mg/Li ----.------.----.-~------> BORE OLD SAMPLE SAMPLE METH SAMPLE SAMPLE TSS CL CO3 HC03 TOT SO4 N CA MG NA K FE HARD pH EC ORG PES HM MIEl BAC IS0 NUT OTH ID BORE NO DATE FROM x) AL.K (mi (mi -- PARISH 3163 - MOORABB IN 80410 10009 12831 23/02/73 AIR 1938 915 11 195 5.9 a6 51 3.0 213 8.58 3320 yes yes 80589 10178 34139 19/04/85 PUM 29.0 32.0 1393 600 305 250 54 0.2 100 37 350 5.0 403 7.80 2500 yes yes ***e* END OF REPORT **+** The Water Bureau . Department of Natural Resources and Environment Victorian Groundwater Database For enquiries regarding this report contact Sinclair Knight Merz on ph:(03) 9248 3100 AQUIFER,REPORT 24/7/1 09 : 24 : 52 Page 1 BORE OLD WATER FRO14 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 3163 --MOORABBIN l ' 80420 10009 SCREEN 12.2 15.2 NOT NKN 8.0 .08 4.26 PUM 01/03/1973 WATER 12.2 15.2 SAND 15.2 127 NKN 8.0 .08 4.26 PUM 01/03/1973 1 80460 10049 SCREEN 24.1 24.7 NOT NKN 6.1 .30 7.62 SUR 07/10/1974 WATER 24.1 24.7 GRAV 24.7 127 NKN 6.1 .38 7.62 07/10/1974 80496 10085 SCREEN 16.8 19.8 SAND 120 PSL 3 .20 1:oo AIR 15/01/1983 WATER 16.8 21.3 SAND 21.3 127 PVC 18.3 .20 AIR 15/01/1983 80504 10093 WATER 21.3 22.5 llvlST 21.6 127 PO9 5.2 21.6 .38 14.93 AIR 15/12/1982 SCREEN 21.6 22.5 LMST ssw 5.2 .38 2:oo 14.93 AIR 15/12/1982 80532 10121 WATER 6.0 7.0 SAND 6.0 90 PVC 2.4 .25 PUM 23/09/1983 SCREEN 6.0 7.2 SAND 58 ssw 2.4 .25 0:30 PUM 23/09/1983 80549 10138 WATER 14.0 15.0 CLAY 14.0 125 PVC 15.0 AIR 23/12/1982 SCREEN 14.0 15.0 CLAY ssw 0:30 AIR 23/12/1982 80584 10173 WATER 9.1 12.2 CLAY 74.6 140 P12 4.6 21.3 03/05/1985 WATER 19.8 21.3 SAST 74.6 140 P12 03/05/1985 WATER 74.0 82.2 BASA 74.6 140 P12 8.0 76.0 12.63 60.00 AIR 03/05/1985 I SCREEN 74.6 82.2 BASA OPN 8.0 12.60 0:30 60.00 AI. R 03/05/1985 80589 10178 WATER 8.0 15.0 SAND 29.0 114 P12 4.8 14.0 .25 8.00 PUM 29/04/1985 I SCREEN 29.0 32.0 SAND 82 ssw 1 5.0 1.01 15:oo 21.00 PUM 29/04/1985 WATER 29.0 32.0 SAND 29.0 114 P12 5.0 27.0 1.01 21.00 PUM 29/04/1985 1 115835 ***** SCREEN 5.0 7.5 50 PSL 12/05/1993 WATER 7.0 7.5 SAND 5:O 50 PVC 12/05/1993 115836 ***** SCREEN 5.5 9.0 50 PSL 12/05/1993 WATER 8.5 9.0 SAND 5.5 50 PVC 12/05/1993 115837 ***** SCREEN 5.5 9.0 50 PSL 12/05/1993 WATER 8.5 9.0 SAND 5.5 50 PVC 12/05/1993 The Water Bureau . Department of Natural Resources and Environment Victorian Groundwater Database For enquiries regarding this report contact Sinclair Knight Merz on ph:(03) 9248 3100 AQUIFER REPORT 24/7/1 09:24:52 Page 2 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 3186 - MORDIALLOC 81669 08262 SCREEN 56.1 60.3 NOT NKN 2.1 4.42 PUM 31/12/1963 WATER 56.1 60.3 BASA 60.3 203 NKN 2.1 4.42 PUM 31/12/1963 81680 10008 WATER 56.4 61.0 56.1 203 NKN 61.0 AIR 13/01/1973 81698 10026 SCREEN 1.5 5.2 SAND PSL 2.7 .19 2.40 BAL 17/01/1973 WATER 2.7 9.1 SAND 1.5 127 PVC 2.7 9.1 .19 2.40 BAL 17/01/1973 81701 10029 WATER 6.1 NKN 4.6 6.10 PUM 27/06/1974 81743 10072 SCREEN 58.0 67.5 NOT OPN 6:00 AIR 03/11/1983 WATER 58.0 65.0 CLAY 58.0 150 STL 58.0 AIR 03/11/1983 81744 10073 WATER 6.0 13.7 SAND 10.7 100 PVC 6.0 .38 PUM 14/04/1983 SCREEN 10.7 11.6 SAND PSL 6.0 .38 14/04/1983 81769 10098 WATER 17.1 100 PVC 17.1 .1S PUM 12/01/1984 81772 10101 WATER 96.0 107.2 MUST 95.8 200 GIR 10.0 6.00 AIR 27/03/1907 SCREEN 96.0 107.2 NOT NKN 10.0 6.00 AIR 27/03/1987 111596 ***** WATER 4.6 6.7 CLAY . 6.0 38 PVC 28/11/1991 SCREEN 6.0 6.7 CLAY 50 SSL 28/11/1991 114247 * * * 'SCREEN 3.0 6.0 SAND 50 PSL 2.3 14/09/1992 WATER 4.0 4.2 CLAY 3.0 50 P18 2.3 14/09/1992 114248 ***** SCREEN 3.0 6.0 CLAY 50 PSL 14/09/1992 WATER 4.0 CLAY 3.0 50 P18 14/09/1992 114249 ***** SCREEN 3.0 6.0 SAND 50 PSL 15/09/1992 WATER 4.2 FEST 3.0 50 P18 15/09/1992 130775 ***** WATER 5.5 63.7 64.0 200 ABS 5.5 64.0 7.00 AIR 23/11/1996 133626 ***** SCREEN 0.5 3.5 NKN 21/04/1998 133628 i* * * SCREEN 1.0 4.0 CLAY NKN 21/04/1998 140634 ***** SCREEN 67.5 69.0 95 STM 20.0 3.00 l:oo AIR 30/05/2000 WATER 70.0 75.0 67.5 100 PVC 20.0 69.0 3.00 AIR 30/05/2000 142526 ***** .WATER 50.0 56.0 53.0 100 PVC 3.0 56.0 3.00 AIR 06/'10/2000 d The Water Bureau . Department of Natural Resources and Environment Victorian Groundwater Database For enquiries regarding this report contact Sinclair Knight Merz on ph:(03) 9248 3100 AQUIFER REPORT 24/7/1 09:24 : 52 Page 3 , 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) SCREEN 53.0 56.0 ssw 3.0 4.00 2:oo AIR 06/10/2000 142711 ***** SCREEN 5.0 8.0 50 PSC BAL 22/07/1998 142713 ***** SCREEN 5.0 8.0 50 PSC BAL 22/07/1998 142715 ***** SCREEN 5.0 8.0 50 PSC BAL 22/07/1998 ***** END OF REPORT ***** December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Appendix F: Borehole and Test Pit Logs 19417ETREP MTO160: 1 Page: LXIV Noel Arnold €t Associates SOIL LOG REPORT 'lient: Tradepac Pty Ltd 3b Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale 3b Number: 19417 orehole Location: 1 Advancement Method: Hand Auger/Split Spoon Sampler ogged by: BRG Surface Conditions: Silty Sand/Gravel hecked by: ROC Thickness of Concrete if present: N/A late hole commenced: 19/07/01 late hole comdeted: 19/07/01 ISlLTY SAND; Brown, loose to medium density, fine grained, few I ID - 0 ppm SILTY SAND; Light grey, medium density, fine grained, damp ID - 0 ppm Borehole terminated @ 0.6 m depth Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level - - 1 1102102 Noel Arnold 8 Associates SOIL LOG REPORT Client: Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Job Number: 19417 Borehole Location: 2 Advancement Method: Hand AugerlSplit Spoon Sampler Logged by: BRG Surface Conditions: Silty Sand Checked by: ROC Thickness of Concrete if present: N/A Date hole commenced: 19/07/01 TY SAND; Dark brown, loose to medium density, fine grained, PID - 2 pprn :dium grained, moist .TY SAND; Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density, fine ained, damp LTY SAND; Grey, medium density, fine grained, 3-Oppm amp irehole terminated @I0.7 rn depth Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level 11/02/02 Noel Arnold 8 Associates SOIL LOG REPORT Iient: Tradepac Pty Ltd ob Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale ob Number: 19417 ;orehole Location: 3 Advancement Method: Hand Auger/Split Spoon Sample ogged by: BRG Surface Conditions: Silty Sand :hecked by: ROC Thickness of Concrete if present: N/A late hole commenced: 19/07/01 late hole comnlptpd. SILTY SAND; Brown, loose to medium density, fine grained, dam PID - 0 ppm (Blind rep. QA1 taken) SILTY SAND; Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density, fine grained, damp 'ID - 0 ppm Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level ~- 11/02/02 Noel Arnold €t Associates SOIL LOG REPORT ent: Tradepac Pty Ltd I 3 Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale 3 Number: 19417 rehole Location: 4 Advancement Method: Hand AugerlSplit Spoon Sampler gged by: ERG Surface Conditions: Silty SandlGravel ecked by: ROC Thickness of Concrete if present: N/A ite hole commenced: 19/07/01 ~ LTY SAND; Brown, loose to medium density, fine grained, I I :quent fine gravel and brick fragments, damp ~~~~~~~~ PID - o pp m %' SAND: Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density, fine I I ained, damp I LTY SAND; Liqht grey, medium density, fine grained, damp )!$?$$f&~b:.6:';1pID - 0 ppm orehole terminated @ 0.8 m depth Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level 11/02/02 Noel Arnold €t Associates SOIL LOG REPORT lient: Tradepac Pty Ltd ~~ ib Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale )b Number: 19417 orehole Location: 5 Advancement Method: Hand AugerlSplit Spoon Sampler igged by: ERG Surface Conditions: Silty Sand hecked by: ROC Thickness of Concrete if present: N/A ate hole commenced: 19/07/01 ate hole comp 'equent fine to medium gravel inclusions, damp PID - 0 pprn ID - 0 ppm Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level - - - -___ ._ - F:/W4wdocs/Quality/l9417borelogs.~ls 11/02/02 Noel Arnold €t Associates SOIL LOG REPORT :nt: Tradepac Pty Ltd I Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale I Number: 19417 ,ehole Location: 6 Advancement Method: Hand AugerlSplit Spoon Sampler jged by: BRG Surface Conditions: Silty Sand ecked by: ROC Thickness of Concrete if present: N/A te hole commenced: 19/07/01 (SILTY SAND; Dark brown, loose to medium density, fine I 4 (grained, moist I 3 - 21 ppm SILTY SAND; Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density. fine grained, damp SILTY SAND; Light grey, medium density, fine grained, damp D-Oppm 1Borehole terminated Q 0.6 m depth I Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level Noel Arnold Et Associates SOIL LOG REPORT ob Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale ob Number: 19417 lorehole Location: 7 Advancement Method: Hand AugerlSplit Spoon Sample ogged by: BRG Surface Conditions: Silty Sand 'hecked by: ROC Thickness of Concrete if present: N/A late hole commenced: 19/07/01 late hole comr JLTY SAND; Dark brown, loose to medium density, fine Irained, several fine to medium brick and gravel inclusions, moi 'ID - 0 ppm ILTY SAND; Dark grey, medium density, fine grained, moist 'ID - 0 ppm orehole terminated @ 0.8 m depth Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level - - - - - ~ ~- - ~ - - ~ - - Noel Arnold €t Associates - SOIL LOG REPORT lient: Tradepac Pty Ltd )b Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale )b Number: 19417 orehole Location: 8 Advancement Method: Hand AugerlSplit Spoon Sampler igged by: BRG Surface Conditions: Silty Sand/Gravel hecked by: ROC Thickness of Concrete if present: N/A ate hole commenced: 19/07/01 ate hole compl LNSAND; Dark brown, loose to medium density, fine ,ained. several fine to medium brick and gravel inclusions, moi! 4ND; Yellow/brown, loose to medium density, fine grained, mor D-Oppm LTY SAND; Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density, fine rained, damp ILTY SAND: Light grey, medium density, fine grained, damp ILN SAND: Dark grey, medium density, fine grained, damp D-Oppm orehole terminated @ 0.8 m depth Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level Noel Arnold €t Associates SOIL LOG REPORT Client: Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Job Number: 19417 Borehole Location: 9 Advancement Method: Hand AugerlSplit Spoon Sample togged by: BRG Surface Conditions: GrasslSilty Sand Zhecked by: ROC Thickness of Concrete if present: N/A )ate hole commenced: 19/07/01 3ate hole com :ed: 1 sln71or ilLW SAND; Dark brown, loose to medium density, few fine wick fragments, fine grained, moist 'ID - 0 ppm JLlY SAND; Light grey/brown, loose to medium density, fine \rained, moist ID - 0 ppm orehole terminated @ 0.6 m depth Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level - .__. ~.- Noel Arnold €t Associates TESTPIT LOG REPORT lient: Tradepac Pty Ltd ib Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale )b Number: 19417 :st Pit Location: TP 1 Contractor: O'Neill Plumbing Igged by: ROC Excavator: Komatsu WA30 hecked by: WMM Bucket Size: 0.05 m3 ate pit commenced: 3/08/01 Surface Conditions: Silty Sand I asbestos fragments visible medium to coarse brick and concrete fragments, moist nall pieces of chipbaord present I 0.15 m depth SILTY SAND: Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density, fine ectrical cable observed in pit medium grained, moist Note (1): SWL: Standing Water Level 11/02/02 Noel Arnold Et Associates TESTPIT LOG REPORT Client: Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Job Number: 19417 Test Pit Location: TP2 Contractor: O'Neill Plumbing Logged by: ROC Excavator: Komatsu WA30 Checked by: WM M Bucket Size: 0.05 m3 Date pit commenced: 3/08/01 Surface Conditions: Silty Sand ;ILN SAND: Dark brown, loose to medium density, few nedium to coarse brick and concrete fragments, moist ;ILTY SAND; Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density, fin Irained, damp ILTY SAND: Dark brownlorange, medium density, fine to iedium grained, moist est pit terminated @ 1.1 m depth Note (1): SWL: Standing Water Level Noel Arnold €t Associates TESTPIT LOG REPORT ent: Tradepac Pty Ltd b Nanie: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale b Number: 19417 I st Pit Location: TP3 Contractor: O'Neill Plumbing gged by: ROC Excavator: Komatsu WA30 iecked by: WMM Bucket Size: 0.05 m3 ite pit commenced: 3/06/01 Surface Conditions: Silty Sand ite pit compli LTY SAND: Brownlgrey, loose to medium density, frequent I asbestos fragments visible ie gravel inclusions LTY SAND; Dark brown, loose to medium density, fine ained, moist LTY SAND; Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density, fine ,ained, damp ILTY SAND; Dark brownlorange, medium density, fine to iediuni grained, moist ~~ est pit terminated @ 1.1 m depth Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level Noel Arnold €t Associates TESTPIT LOG REPORT Client: Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Job Number: 19417 Test Pit Location: TP4 Contractor: O'Neill Plumbing ROC Excavator: Komatsu WA30 WMM Bucket Size: 0.05 m3 zed: 3/08/01 Surface Conditions: Silty Sand LTY SAND; Dark brown, loose to medium density, fine lo asbestos fragments visible ,ained, few fine ceramic and gravel inclusions, moist LTY SAND; Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density, fine ained, damp LTY SAND; Dark brownlorange, medium density, fine to :dim grained, moist st pit terminated @I 1.1 m depth Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level Noel Arnold €t Associates TESTPIT LOG REPORT lient: Tradepac Pty Ltd 3b Name: Environmental Site Assessnient - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale 3b Number: 19417 est Pit Location: TP 5 Contractor: O'Neill Plumbing ogged by: ROC Excavator: Komatsu WA30- hecked by: WMM Bucket Size: 0.05 m3 late pit commenced: 3/08/01 Surface Conditions: Silty Sand late pit compl LTY SAND; Dark brown, loose to medium density, fine o asbestos fragments visible in pit. rained, few fine gravel inclusions, moist :w AC sheet fragments visible on irface near TP5 ILTY SAND; Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density, fine rained, damp ILTY SAND; Dark brownlorange, medium density, fine to iediuni grained, moist :st pit terminated @? 1.3 rn depth Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level Noel Arnold €t Associates TESTPIT LOG REPORT Client: Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Job Number: 19417 Test Pit Location: TP6 Contractor: O'Neill Plumbing ROC Excavator: Komatsu WA30 WMM Bucket Size: 0.05 m3 en ced: 3/08/01 Surface Conditions: Silty Sand md: 3108101 LTY SAND; Dark brown, loose to medium density, fine Io asbestos fragments visible in pit. rained, few fine gravel inclusions, moist 'everal AC sheet fragments visible on urface near TP6 ~~ ILTY SAND; Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density, fine rained, damp ILTY SAND; Dark brownlorange, medium density, fine to iedium grained, moist :st pit terminated @ 1.3 m depth tiNote (I): SWL; Standing Water Level Noel Arnold €t Associates TESTPIT LOG REPORT Client: Tradepac Pty Ltd Job Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Job Number: 19417 Test Pit Location: TP7 Contractor: O'Neill Plumbing ROC Excavator: Komatsu WA30 WMM Bucket Size: 0.05 n13 enced: 3/08/01 Surface Conditions: Silty SandlGrass LTY SAND; Dark brown, loose to medium density, few fine I asbestos fragments visible ick fragments, fine grained, moist ilystryrene fragments buried at 1-0.15 m depth rried cyclone wire fence present at LTY SAND; Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density, fine 25-0.3 m depth ,ained, damp oncrete slab (100 mm thick) present t 0.7 m depth ILTY SAND; Dark brownlorange, medium density, fine to iedium grained, moist est pit terminated Q 1.2 m depth Note (1): SWL; Staniding Water Level Noel Arnold €t Associates TESTPIT LOG REPORT :lient: Tradepac Pty Ltd ob Name: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Highway,-. Parkdale ob Number: 19417 est Pit Location: TP8 Contractor: O'Neill Plumbing ogged by: ROC Excavator: Komatsu WA30- :hecked by: WMM Bucket Size: 0.05 m3 late pit commenced: 3/08/01 Surface Conditions: Silty Sand/Grass ed: 3/08/01 lo asbestos visible rained, moist lLlY SAND; Dark brown, loose to medium density, few fine rick fragments, fine grained, moist AND; Yellow, medium density, fine to medium grained, fev ietal, brick fragments, moist 'ID - 0 ppm ILTY SAND; Light brownlgrey, loose to medium density, fint rained, damp ILTY SAND; Dark brownlorange, medium density, fine to iedium grained, moist :st pit terminated @ 1.2 m depth Note (1): SWL; Standing Water Level December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Appendix G: Validation Logs 19417mEP MT0160:l Page: WII Noel Arnold €t Associates VALIDATION LOG Client:: L:\Advanced File Structure\Management\Quality Management System\Manual\Forrns\Naen508ValidationLog 1911 2/01 Noel Arnold Et Associates VALIDATION LOG Client:: ,TM&Phi . Logged by: &'L Job Name: 3216 u$c&' Hw ,f%'%LOtHe Conime n ts: Job Number: ,iyY17 Instrument Type: - L:\Advanced File Structure\Management\Quality Management Systern\Manual\Forms\Naen508ValidationLog 1911 2/01 Noel Arnold €t Associates VALIDATION LOG I I I I I I I I L:\Advanced File Structure\Management\Quality Management System\Manual\Forms\NaenSO8ValidationLog 1911 210 1 December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Appendix W: EPA Waste Transport Certificates 19417ETREP MT0160: 1 Page: uoo(v1 VVH~I c I nfiiusrun I utn I IHGATE 1. Name of Waste Producer ...... Name of Emergency EPA VICTOR IA 2. Proposed DisposallTreatmenffStorage Site Technical Support GPO BOX 4395QQ MELBOURNE 3001 3. Intended Disposal Route - Recycling 0 Landfill d ChemlPhys Treatment 0 Storage 0 Incineration0 . lmmobilisation 0 Biodegradation 0 Other 0 4. Description of Waste 5. Waste Code No. (List 1) ~1Contaminants (List 2) U.N. Number Plass BulWo. of Packages , Tngrup , Amount of Waste kilograms or cubic metres or litres I declare that to the best m knowledge and,belief the above information is true and corr ct Name and Position .m&?:..0 (ON~Ok-...... 43W.dfir-\( dWLW Signature...... -...... Date -. - ' 4. i*. 6. .Name of'Transporter...... Ml.y&K .....:.$.: ...... :: ...... Address ...... ;...... 1 ...... 5 ...... :...... 1 ...... Vehide No. 1 Registration Transport Permit No. Vehicle No. 2 Registration TransDort Permit No. 7. Address TyDe_. of Treatment (List., . 4).:, ...... : 1 , ...... :-. .. .I: ...... .. 9. Are there any discrepancies between-the wastes described above and the waste received? $, .I ... NO Briefly note discrepancy:.; ...... :...... :...... ~ ...... i ...... 10. Name and address of any other waste receiver to which the waste receiver intends that the waste be transported ...... :...... 11. I hereby acknowledge acceptance of the waste described in part A. .. Name: ...... :...... ,.. . ._I. ,., I . .... Signature ...... '...... i ...... ~ ...... 2...... Date I. Name of Waste Producer ...... P.W..G ...... Postcode I I - EPA ...... Phone [ q% 3 8 @131%3,3t 1 VI CTO RIA ?. Proposed DisposaVrreatmenVStorageSite State Technical Support LYrn\* - GPO BOX 439SQQ Pw PA' MELBOURNE 3001 3. Intended Disposal Route - Recycling 0 Landfill @k Chem/Phys Treatment 0 , % . :- Storage 0 Incineration CI lrnrnobilisation 0 Biodegradation0 a Other 0 t. Description of Waste .. ( Contaminants (List 2) ... U.N. Number rassq Lacking Group BulWNo. of Packages -1 -1 , , msEl ...... Amount of Waste kilograms or cubic metres., iL or litres I '. I declare that to the best ' y know dge elief the above information is heand correct. Name and Position& ....D.w ...... Signature ...... Date 5. Name of Transporter ...... i...... Address Vehicle No. 1 Reaistration Transport Permit No. Vehicle No. 2 Registration Transport Permit No. I acknowledge receipt Name (in block letters) 7 *___.La ..... amatbre'.:;.;:: .... :...... :...:..::..;..::i.)...... :...:...:.:..:..:: ..... -"Date 7. ..*...... or cubic metres or litres 9. Are there any discrepancies between the wastes described above and the waste received? -. Briefly note discrepancy:...... A:.!...... - 10. Name and address of any other waste receiver to which the waste receiver intends that the waste be transported ...... 11. I hereby acknowled ... Name ...... Signature Date COPY 1 ...... - ...... ---. ENVIHUNMENT PKU I tL'i IUN AU I HUH1 I Y WASTE TRANSPORT CERTIFICATE 385103 . Name of Waste Producer ...... Y~.WN-E...... ...... Postcode . . Name of Emergency Contact M T'EPA ...... VICTORIA Technical Support I. Proposed DisposallTreatmentlStorage Site GPO BOX 439544 LYNhWK MELBOURNE 3001 I. Intended Disposal Route - Recycling 0 Landfill &E Chem/Phys Treatment 0 .. Storage 0 Incineration 0 lmmobilisation0 Biodegradation 0 . Other 0 ,. Descriotion of Waste Contaminants (List 21 .. i"o\ i%ckingGroup BulWNo. of Packages , , -1 Amount of Waste kilograms ! . or cubic metres ! or litres I deciare that to the best of ge and belief the above information is true and correct. Name and Position..: ...... :...... Signature ...... i ...... :...... Date 4 \,ols!l 5. Name of Transporter...... :...... 7. Licence No,. Type~. of Treatment (List 4) _::.-:. .---:I.. '\ ...... I ...... : , ...... or cubic metres or litres 9. Are there any discrepancies between the wastes described above aid the waste received? - -~~. NO Briefly'note discrepancy: .'s&...... -...... 10. Name and address of any other waste receiver to which the waste receiver intends that the waste be transported Name..< ...... ~ ~ ~~ Signature Date- COPY1 9 WASTE TRANSPORT CERTIFICATE 885104 1. Name of Waste Producer ...... Postcode -1 N me of Emergency Contact EPA ...... k'c%m brqW6. Phone1 q 4 31% 3 43, 1 1 VICTORIA ?. Proposed DisposaLTreatrnenVStorage Site State Technical Support GPO BOX 4395QQ won MELBOURNE 3001 ...... j 3. Intended Disposal Route - Recycling 0 Landfill ChemlPhys Treatment 0 Storage 0 incineration 0 lmmobilisation 0 Biodegradation Other 0 1. Descriotion of Waste .. .. -...... ' ,j Contaminants (List 2) Waste Origin (List 3) ,.i *! U.N. Number Packing Group BulkMo. of Packages b= c35m Amount of Waste or cubic metres or litres ge and belief mation is true and correct ...... !, Signature ...... ,. .:...... -... Date A\ 6. Name of Transporter ...... Address ...... 7...... Vehide No. 1 Reaistration Transwrt Permit No. 1 Vehide No. 2 Reqistration Transport Permit No. 1 acknowledge receipt ....1 ! Name (in block letters) ...... Signature .:.:...;:.::.:..+ ...... -...... :Date. .! ..! 7. I ...... or cubic metres litres :" ; 9. Are there any discrepancies between the wastes described above and the waste received? 1-c,+?YS, - .. YES Briefly note discrepancy:...... : ...... '.. 10. Name and address of any other waste receiver to which the waste receiver intends that the waste be transported ...... - ... .! 11. . I hereby.acknowledge acceptance of the waste described in part A. Name...... Signature ...... :...... :...... Date 1 COPY 1 December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Appendix I: Bulk Sample Analysis Reports NOEL ARNOLD I3 ASSOCIA1 ES pP( LTD ACNonc, ji~nw ABN 76n0~.11~1110 Lcvel 3. 818 Whilehorse Rd. Box Hill, Victoria 31 28 Auslralia Phone: (03) 9890 881 1 J Fax: (03) 9890 8911 Email: melbourneQnoel-arnold.com.au Services www.noel-arnold.corn.au 25 July 2001 OurRef: 19417 19417 bsa MT0160:l:rg Attention: Jeff Clark Tradepac PO Box 2097 MPTONEAST VIC 3188 .. Dear Sir, Re: Bulk Sample Analysis: Asbestos Fibre Identification This letter presents the results of asbestos fibre identification analysis performed on samples collected by Brendan Gladman, Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd on 19 July 2001. Samples were collected from 394-6 Nepean Highway, Parkdale. All sample analysis was performed in accordance with Noel Arnold and Associates Pty Ltd Method Number 2 in our Melbourne Laboratory. The results of the asbestos identification analysis are presented in the appended table. Should you require further information please contact the undersigned. 2 Yours faithfully NOEL ARNOLD AND ASSOCIATES PTY LTD CHRISTINE EDWARDS Approved Identifier NATA ENDORSED DOCUMENT National Association of Testing Authorities, Austral;a This document may nor be reproduced except in full. Accredited Laboratory Number: 5450 Approved Signatory: &&m& Sampling not covered by the terms of the NATA registration. Page 1 of 2 Pra c tica1 So 1u tion s July, 2001 Melbourne Laboratory m 19417 SAMPLE- ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 2 of 2 19417/01 394-6 Nepean Highway, Parkdale - Chrysotile (white asbestos) Parkdale - surface debris - hard grey compressed cement sheet material - 95 x L65x lorn All samples analysed by polarised light microscopy, including dispersion staining. Note 1: Confirmation by another analytical technique advised due to the nature of the sample. 1 -. 1 NOEL AHNOLU VI AYdJCIAI !3 1'1 Y LI IJ h.l'.h. 1111Is 1111 0111 4.H.h. 713 llll1, 1111 0111 Lrvrl 3, 818 Whitehtrrse Hd. Box liill, Virloria 31 28 Aiislr;ilia Plionr: (03) 9890 8811 U Fax: (03) 9890 8911 Emnil: mcIbouriir~iio~l-arii~ild.coin.au Services w w w.riocI -;I mold .coni .;I u 08 August 2001 OurRef: 19417-1 19417-1 bsa h4T0160l:vm Attention: Jeff Clarke Tradepac Pty Ltd PO Box 2097 HAMPTONEAST VIC 3188 Dear Sir, Re: Bulk Sample Analysis: Asbestos Fibre Identification This letter presents the results of asbestos fibre identification analysis performed on samples collected by Richard O'Connor, Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd on 3 August 2001. Samples were collected from 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale. All sample analysis was performed in accordance with Noel Arnold and Associates Pty Ltd Metliod Number 2 in our Melbourne Laboratory. The results of the asbestos identification analysis are presented in the appended table. Should you require further information please contact the undersigned. Yours faithfully, NOEL ARNOLD AND ASSOCIATES PTY LTD CHRISTINE EDWARDS Approved Identifier NATA ENDORSED DOCUMEm National Association of Testing Authorities, AUStralia This document may nor be reproduced except in full. Accredited Laboratory Number: 5450 Approved Signatory: Sampling not covered by the terns of the NATA registration. Page 1 of 2 Prcrctical Solutions t August, 2001 Melbourne Laboratory llEBBl 19417-1 SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 2 of 2 19417/02 Sod sample 19417-TPI-0.15- sod sample No asbestos fibres detected 19417/03 Soil sample 19417-TP2-0.1 - sod sample No asbestos fibres detected 19417/04 Sod sample 19417-TP3-0.1 - sod sample No asbestos fibres detected ~ ~~~___~~~~ ~___ 19417/05 I Sod sample 19417-TP4-0.1 - sod sample No asbestos fibres detected 19417/06 Soil sample 19417-TP5-0.1 - sod sample No asbestos fibres detected 19417/07 Soil sample 19417-TP6-0.1 - sod sample No asbestos fibres detected <5CIn2 19417/08 Sod sample 1941.7-TP7-0.1 - sod sample No asbestos fibresdeteGd All samples analysed by polarised light microscopy, including dispersion staining. Note 1: Confirmation by another analybcal technique advised due to the nature of the sample. December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Appendix J: Calculation of Asbestos Concentrations in Proposed Garden and Yard Areas t- m 19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: XCVI Calculation of asbestos content (% by mass) in exposed areas - 396 Nepean Hwy, Parkdale I I Akea No of Fragments Mass of Asbestos (9) Area Dimensions (LxW) Volume of Soil (m3) Soil Density (kglm3) Mass of Soil (9) Asbestos Content (%w/w) 1 4 19.32044 10.0 rn x3.0 rn . 1.5 1600 2400000 0.0008% 2 8 30.6387 23.1 rn x 4.2 rn 4.851 1600 7761600 0.0004% 3 3 11.15147 7.2 rn x 4.1 m 1.476 1600 2361 600 0.0005% 4 8 31.01 7 19.0 rn x 7.4 rn 7.03 1600 11248000 0.0003% 1~5 2 4.56295 5.0 rn x 5.0 m 1.25 1600 2000000 0.0002% 6 2 4.94472 5.0 m x 5.0 rn 1.25 1600 2000000 0.0002% All volumes are based on the assumption that raking extended to a 50 rnm depth (the approximate tooth length of the rake used) December 2001 Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Appendix K: Chain of Custody Documentation n 19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: XCVIII Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd ’ Chain of Custody Record ~ ~~~~~ Requested Analyses: All anames to be conducted to NATA methods. unless agreed Job No. :cKzduy, Max sm@e dEplh Juplicaie Cornmenls Relhquished By: I Resulls Required By: Sample Storage All samples are to be slored f& a period of Lhree mnlhs unless otherwise agreed. Requirements: - L\MAST€RSWact505ChabCusbrty.doc Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd -- Chain of Custody Record Clieilt: Projecl Name: Address: Sampled BY: Re[inqulshed By: Date: Time: Date: Time: Rec=vknI i?A lq k/of 2-0 4-0 pm L Results Requlred By: Date: Time: Sample Storage All samples are fo be stored lor a period ol three months unless olhenvise agreed. Requirements: 15MAS~aclSoSthaIn~~.doc , y .1,. --?7 - 0 f3 GI Nh Noel Arnold & Associates m Pty Ltd - d I Level Whltehorse Road 8ox Hlll 3128 Phone: 9890 8811 zb Fax(O3) 9890 BW 1 m L!€Y&M 3,828 Victorla B (03) 0 0 N 2 m . . ...--.-- I Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Road Box Hill Victoria 3328 8 Phone: (03)9890 881 1 (4 Fax (03)9890 89 I1 Chain of Custody Record I I All samples are lo be slored lor a period of three monlhs-7 unless oVle&vke agreed. N 0 0 Noel Arnold & Associates Pty LM Level 3,818 WhitehoA Road Box Hill Viaoria 3128 '4: Phone; (03) 9890 8911 IFax (03) 9890 8911 Chain of Custody Record al - N SampledBy: 0 4 1 I I E 5 r- t In10 01 f L; cn0 cn I a cd P J 0 I Z I 8 wJ 1 I I 9 U 6).. 1- I I 2 f Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Road Box Hill Victoria 3128 F Phone: (03) 9890 8811 IFax (03) 9890 8911 Chain of Custody Record Client: 1 MoEFqC Requested Analyses: All analyses to be conducted to NATA methods, unless agreed Project Name: Sample NO Example [email protected] 2% Address: f'ARYOQLc Job NO localion Max sample oep!h dupllcale Sampled By: &CC I I Relinquished By: bL Time: I Date: Iz 1%lo, 1 Il..yXw I Results Required By: Date: Time: Sample Storage All samples are to be stored for a period of three months unless otherwise agreed. Requirements: I . ...-C.-~-LU4LThdr..,=L"A"* Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd .. Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Road Box Hill Victoria 3128 4 Phone: (03) 9890 8811 IFax (03) 9890 8911 ~ Chain of Custody Record Client: TMOFPRC Requested Analyses: All analyses lo be conducted to NATA methods. unless agreed Job Number: \ q\ 7 n .I___ I I I I I I I I I I I I I II Sample No. Example: 99999.01.0.250 Job No. localion Max sample aeplh duplicate Sampled By: &)C, Comments \yVI7 -V !- ____I +%%+--- Relinquished By: Time: I Method of Shipment: I Remarks: @IC I Date: 27 )4\ ol Results Required By: Time: Sample Storage All samples are lo be stored for a period'of three months unless olhenvise agreed. I Date: Requirements: I L:\MASTERS\Nac1505CnainofCuslWy doc TD PSL, Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Road Box Hill Victoria 3128 T Phone: (03) 9890 8811 I9 Fax (03)9890 8911 '. Chain of Custody Record .. . Project Name: Address: I( m .. Requirements: L:\MASTERS\Nacl505Chai~ofCu,lodydK Noel Arnold & Associates Ply Ltd Level 3,818 Whltehorse Road Box Hill Vlctoria 3128 f62 Phone: (03) 9890 8811 aE Fax (03) 9890 8911 chain of Custody Record ' Client: /;~~FP/K Requested Analyses: All analws La be conduded lo NATA methods. unless weed I Job Number: (qU17 . I Pr4ecl Name: Address: PMICO4 1E 1 SarnpledBy: mc It Relinquished By: Tlma: Method of Shlpmant I llsc q: 00 tm I 1 I I I Results Raqulred By: Date: Tho: Sample Sloroge All samples are Io be stored for a psricd al three months un18s.a olhawlse agreed. Rnqulr~nenln: L.M(A~ERS'N~~ast(lolMKu~da .. Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Road Box Hill Victoria 3128 4 Phone: (03) 9890 8811 0 Fax (03)9890 8911 Chain of Custody Record Client: w$PfiC Requested Analyses: All analyses to be conducted to NATA methods, unless agreed Job Number 19 417 Project Name .a Sample NO Example 99999 01 0 250 Address ff&ld Job No locabon Mal sample aeplh 3 duplcale Sampled By ROC -3- Comments Relinquished By: ~ Method of Shipment: Remarks: . $7 hy- ~,TnnmLln@l phf Received By: Q6UUWW I Timely 3. 33 ,.,- I * I I I Results Required&: Date: ' ' Time: Sample Storage All samples are to be stored for a period of three months unless otherwise agreed. Requirements: I 'I Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Road Box Hill Victoria 3128 a Phone: (03) 9890 8811 IFax (03) 9890 8911 Chain of Custody Record Client: l5f#mQ& TWiPAC 1 Requested Analyses: All analyses to be conducted to NATA methods, unless agreed Job Number: w 14417 Project Name: Sample No. Example: 99999-01-0.250 Address: ' p&QmA[ Job No. location Max sample deplh duplicale Sampled By: ~J-JC Comments I Relinquished By: c, Date: 1 /lolo I Received By: Date: Results Required BY: Time: ' ' Sample Storage All samples are to be stored for a period of three months unless otherwise agreed. I Date: ' Requirements: L:\MASTERSWaclMSChainofCusl~y.d~ Chain of Custody Record C 5 c c U 0 t4a d d ? c;; Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd Level 3, 815 Whitehorse Road Box Hill Victoria 3128 ZS Phone: (03)9890 8811 3 Fax (03)9890 8911 Chain of Custody Record Environmental Site Assessment Tradepac Pty Ltd 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Appendix L: NATA Certified Analytical Results 19417ETREP MT0160:l Page: CXII I( ' 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 I Ernail: mgtbmgtenv.corn.au MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 148127 CLIENT :- Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roas Box Hill Victoria 3128 SITE :- PARKDALE 19417 DATE RECEIVED :- 19/07/01 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 19/07/01 - 20/07/01 DATE REPORTED :- 02/08/01 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC €or these samples is detailed in this report no : 148127 A total of 2 duplicate, 7 matrix spike % recovery and 9,methodblank analyses or sets of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results for duplicates, matrix spike % recoveries, method blanks and.!aown QC standards were within the set acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. . .. Mi c ha81 Wr ig@ Laboratory Manager Page 1 of 10 NATA Assrediled Lnboralory Number: 1261 Thlr IDbnalOry b amsdilad by Ihs NallOnal As~aialbn01 Pslmg Aulhomiss. I Sample COMP 1 COMP 2 Spike % Recov Meth.Bl.(mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY3101#Soil JY3102#Soil JY3102S#Soil - -~~ ~ I 2-Chloronaphthalene c0.05 c0. 05 - eo.005 1,2-Dichlorobenzene c0. 05 c0. 05 106% c0.005 1,3-Dichlorobenzene I I I I f I Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. Date received 19/07/01 Date Reported 02/08/01 'I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleigh. Victoria. 3166. Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Rod Fax (03) 9564 7190 Box Hill Email: [email protected] Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. I ICOMP 1 ICOMP 1 Dup ICOMP 2 ISpike % Recov IMeth.Bl.(mg/l)I Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY3101#Soil JY3101D#Soil JY3102#Soil JY3102S#Soil Antimony <10 c10 Date received 19/07/01 Date Reported 02/08/01 NATA Accredited Laboralow Number: 1261 Tilts labalW b acUsdll~Jby he Naliml Associslion01 bslu~gAulhorhis. Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleigh, Victoria, 3166, Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse ROax Fax (03) 9564 7190 Box Hill Ernail: [email protected] au Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 II CYANIDE (CN-) US EPA SW846 METHOD 9010B. I Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY3101#Soil JY3102#Soil Cyanide (total) <5 <5 c0.05 , ! 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166, Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone: (03)9564 7055 Level 3. 818.~ Whitehorse Fax (03)9564 7190 Box-Hiii Ross Ernail: [email protected] Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 MAH's AROMATIC VOLATILE ORGANICS US EPA SW846 METHODS 8021B,8260B,5030 & MGT 350A Sample 2-0.15 6-0.15 Spike % Recov Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY3103#Soil JY3104#Soil JY3104S#Soil Benzene eo. 01 co. 01 101% eo.001 rolhene eo. 01 eo. 01 99% co. 001 Eth$l Benzene eo. 01 eo. 01 93 % Lesults in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Date received 19/07/01 Date Reported 02/08/01 NATA Acoredltsd Laboralow Number: 1261 imThu laborslory is acsndled tq heNslional Arsaieiwn 01 Teslha Aulhorflies. I 1 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh, Victoria. 3166, Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roa Fax (03) 9564 7190 Box Hill Ernail: [email protected] Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES US EPA SW846 METHOD 8081A. ICOMP 1 ICOMP 2 ICOMP 2 Dup Ispike 2 Recov IMeth.Bl.(mq/l)I ~~ Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY3101#Soil JY3102#Soil JY3102D#Soil JY3102S#Soil Aldrin co. 01 (Y - BHC eo. 01 eo. 01 eo. 01 96% co .001 l3-BHC eo. 01 4,4 -DDD eo. 01 eo. 01 eo. 01 933, eo. 001 4,4 -DDE Heptachlor epoxide eo. 01 CO. 01 eo. 01 100% d Sample COMP 1 COMP 2 Spike % Recov Meth.Bl.(mg/l) Lab. No. / Sarnule matrix JY3101#Soil JY3102#Soil JY3102S#Soil Naphthalene co.1 co.1 98% co. 001 Acenaphthylene co.1 co.1 9 0% co. 001 Acenapht hene co.1 co.1 88% co. 001 Fluorene . co.1 co.1 89% co. 001 11 Phenanthrene I co.1 co.1 I 91% I co.001 I I II I ~ ~~ Anthracene co.1 co.1 96% IIBenzo (a)anthracene I co.1 ' I co.1 I 95% I co.001 I I II 11 Chqkene I co. 1 I 10.1 I 93% I co.001 I I II ~ ~ ~- ~ Benzo (b)f luoranthene co. 1 co.1 89% co. 001 Benzo (k)f luoranthene co.1 co.1 90% co. 001 Benzo (a)pyrene 0.11 co.1 91% co. 001 ~ Dibe'nzo(a, h) anthracene co.1 co.1 90% co. 001 Benzo (9, h,i) perylene co.1 co.1 96% co. 001 ~ ~ ~~~ Indeno(l,Z,3-cd)pyrene I co.1 co.1 I 95% co.001 * NATA Accredited L!borslorv Numbar: 1261 ~ This labom~xyb accrddilsd ,?y lh? Nalional AssOCbliOn 01 %slingAulhodlies. Sample COMP 1 COMP 2 Meth. B1. (mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY3101#Soil JY3102#Soil Total PCB's as Arochlor 1260 <0.1 co.1 co. 01 I I Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 1 PHENOLS & CRESOLS - HPLC- JRNL. CHROM 464(1989) 405-410 I Sample COMP 1 COMP 2 Spike % Recov Meth.Bl.(mg/l) Lab, No. / Sample matrix JY3101#Soil JY3102#Soil JY3102S#Soil Phenol <0.1 co.1 95% co.01 Cresols (total) co.1 <0.1 - co.01 I I 1 I I I Resullts in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. I I1 I1 Date received 19/07/01 Date Reported 02/08/01 .,... NATA AccrsdHed Liboiiiry Number: 1261 1 This laboralwy h e&sd by Iho Nalional ArroclalDn 01 hrlmg Aulhomles. Sample 2-0-15 6-0.15 Spike % Recov Meth.Bl.(mg/l) Lab. NO. / Sample matrix JY3103#Soil JY3104#Soil JY3104S#Soil ~~ T.R.H. C,-2, Fraction by GC e20 <20 - i I ,I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kinaston Town Close. Oakleioh. Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Add&: P.O. Box 276,'0aklei MOT ANALYSIS REPORT 148263 CLIENT :- Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Box Hill Ross Victoria 3128 SITE .-. PARKDALE 19417 DATE RECEIVED :- 26/07/01 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 26/07/01 - 27/07/01 I' DATE REPORTED :- 07/08/01 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 148263 I A total of 2 duplicate, 7 matrix spike "0 recovery and 9 method blank analyses or sets of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results for duplicates, matrix spike % recoveries, method blanks I and known QC standards were within the set acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. .. Michael Wright? Laboratory Manager Page 1 of 14 NATA Accdlled Lab&& .. Number: 1211 This labontory aayillrmed b, !ha NalloMl As~oslallonol Zrtlng AulhOrlliar. l b I 1 -Sam€ !e 9-0.15 Spike % Recov Meth.Bl.(mg/l) Lab. INO. / Sample matrix JY4128#Soil JY4128S#Soil - ~ -Ben2 41 chloride c0.05 - c0.005 2-04oronaphthalene c0.05 - c0.005 1,2- jichlorobenzene c0.05 91% ~~~ Hexa ihlorobutadiene co. 05 - eo. 005 Hexa ~ _____ ~~ I I I I I I Lts in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. NATA Accrsdltsd I Numbec1261 ~ This lihnalrm k IFI: Sample 1-0.15 1-0.15 Dup 2-0.15 3-0.15 4-0.15 5-0.15 Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY412O#Soil JY4120D#Soil JY4121#Soil JY4122#Soil JY4 12 3 #Soi 1 JY4124#Soil Antimony ------Arsenic 8.9 8.6 22 c2 3.1 11 Beryl1 ium ------Cadmium ------Chromium - - 15 - - - Cobalt ------Copper 3s - 24 e5 46 32 Lead - 34 25 - - - Mercury - - - - - Molybdevm ------Nickel - - 11 - - 28 Selenium ------Tin ------Zinc 12 0 110 69 37 12 0 360 I 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh, Victoria. 3166, Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roas Fax (03) 9564 7190 Box Hill Email: rngtOmglenv.corn.au Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 II HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. II Samp 1," 6-0.15 7-0.15 8-0.15 9-0.1s 1-0.6 2-0.6 Lab. ,No. / Sample matrix JY412S#Soil JY4126#Soil JY4127#Soil JY412B#Soil JY4129#Soil JY413O#Soil Ant imonv - - - <10 - - Arseaic c2 9.2 I a .7 I 4.8 I 2.4 I <2 II Beryl'lium - <2 11 Cadmium I - Chromium - Cobalt - <5 Copper <5 26 21 I 23 <5 <5 Lead - - I - I 33 I 5.4 I 15 II Mercury - I <0.1 IIMolybdenum ' I - IlNlckel I c5 - - <10 - - 79 230 12 0 23 30 Iiiwraction with H202, HN03 & HC1. ResAlts in ppm (sc .Is mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). II 11 Date received 26/07/01 Date Reported 07/08/01 NATA Accredlled Liboralory Number: 1261 Thu labwalav b acnaasd bv the NallMal Aswrtslbn ol brlina Aulhdliss 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 9564 7190 NoelLevel Arnold 3, 818 WhitehorseAssociates RoazPt Ltd (03) Box Hill Email: mgtO mgtenv.corn.au Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. II Sample 2-0.6 DUp 3-0.6 4-0.6 5-0.6 6-0.6 7-0.6 Lab. No. / SamDle matrix JY4130D#Soil JY4131#Soil JY4132#Soil JY4133#Soil JY4134#Soil JY4135#Soil ~~ Antimony ------Arsenic <2 c2 <2 I 2.9 <2 3.8 Bervlliurn - - - I - - Cadmium ------Chromium <5 <5 ~ II ~ HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. ~ -11 I s amp l'e 16-0.6 19-0.6 I QAl ]Spike % Recov IMeth.Bl.(rng/l)I Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY4136#Soil JY4137#Soil JY4138#Soil JY4138S#Soil Ant imonv - - - - <0.5 Arsenic <2 5.9 2.4 93% Cobalt - - - c Date received 26/07/01 Date Reported 07/08/01 NATA Accredited Lab&& Number: 1261 mh iebom~qb anradllad bj th? NallonelAssocialion 01 Testing Aulhornles. Sample 9-0.15 Meth.Bl. (mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY4128#Soil Cyanide (total) <5 ~. 1 I Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). NATA Aecrsdlmd Lab&& Numben1261 ' 1 Thu Iabmloy b acwedllrmdd by Iha Nallonnl Asaocblbn ot Tsrlmp Aulhorllisr. Sample 9-0.15 Spike % Recov Meth.Bl.(mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY4128#Soil JY4128S#Soil lbldrin I co.01 I 98% I co.001 I CY-BHC eo. 01 93% eo. 001 IS-BHC eo. 01 103% eo. 001 (T - BHC eo. 01 104% eo. 001 Lindane eo. 01 - eo. 001 Chlordane co.1 - co.01 4,4' -DDD eo. 01 96% co. 001 4,4'-DDE I co.01 I 102% I <0.001 1 I I 4,4 ' -DDT eo. @1 106% eo. 001 Dieldrin eo. 21 109% eo. 001 Endosulfan I co.01 104% eo. 001 Endosulfan I1 I co.01 I 101% I eo.001 I I I. Endrin eo. 01 92% eo. 001 Heptachlor eo. 01 98% eo. 001 Heptachlor epoxide co. 01 99% eo. 001 Methoxychlor eo. 01 - eo. 001 Toxophene co.1 - eo. 01 ~ I I I I I I Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. I Date received 26/07/01 Date Reported 07/08/01 I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleioh.-- Victoria. 3166. Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roax Fax (03) 9564 7190 Box Hill Email: mgl@ rngtenv.corn.au Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 1 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS US EPA SW846 METHOD 8310(HPLC) & 8270C(GC/MS). I 1 Sarnule 12-0.15 19-0.15 13-0.6 Lab. No. / Sample matrix I JY4121#Soil I JY4128#Soil I JY4131#Soil 3Y4 135#Soil 3Y413 8#Soi 1 JY4138S#Soil Naphthalene co.1 co.1 co.1 Acenaphthylene c0.1 co.1 co.1 co.1 <0.1 90% ~~ Ac enabh thene I co.1 1- ~ co.1 co.1 co.1 <0.1 93% Fluorene co.1 co.1 co.1 co.1 <0.1 88% Phenanthrene co.1 co.1 co.1 co.1 ~~ Pyrene co.1 co.1 0.15 co.1 <0.1 104% Benzo (a)anthracene co.1 co.1 co.1 co.1 <0.1 102% Chrysene co.1 co.1 co.1 co.1 <0.1 101% ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~- Benzo (b)f luoranthene co.1 co.1 co.1 co.1 <0.1 96% Benzo (k)f luoranthene co.1 co.1 co.1 co.1 co.1 94% Benzo (a)pyrene co.1 co.1 co.1 co.1 NATA Accredllsd Laboratory Number: 1261 ma !nbm3llOly b accrsddsd by Iha Na1lone.l Asxrlalion ol hrlmg Aulhwilas. Sample Meth.Bl. (mg/l) Lab. No. / SamDle matrix ~~~ - Naphthalene co. 001 Acenaphthylene eo. 001 -~ Acenaphthene eo. 001 Fluorene eo. 001 Phenanthrene co.001 - I eo.001 I I Fluoranthrene co. 001 Pyrene I eo. 001 ~ Benzo (a)anthracene co. 001 Chrysene eo. 001 Benzo (b)f luoranthene eo. 001 I1 ~ IlBenzo (k)f luoranthene ~ I. ~ Benzo (a1 pyrene ’ eo. 001 Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene eo. 001 -- - Benzo (g,h, i)perylene eo. 001 ~~ I I I I I I Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. + Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166. Australia roe1 Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 ,eve1 3, 818 Whitehorse Roax Fax (03) 9564 7190 lox Hill Ernail: mgtO mgtenv.com.au 'ictoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB's) US EPA SW846 METHOD 8082. Samp 9-0.15 Meth.Bl. (mg/l) Lab (. lo. / Sample matrix JY4128#Soil Tota PCB'S as Arochlor 1260 co.1 eo. 01 1 1 I I I I ~ ~ ~~~ s in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. Date received 26/07/01 Date Reported 07/08/01 Sample 9-0.15 Spike % Recov Meth.Bl.(mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY4128#Soil JY4128S#Soil Phenol co.1 99% eo. 01 Cresols (total) co.1 100% eo. 01 I Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. Date received 26/07/01 Date Reported 07/08/01 'I I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleiah.-. Victoria. 3166. Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephonef (03) 9564 7055 Level 3 818 Whitehorse Roax Fax (03) 9564 7190 Box Hili Ernail: [email protected] Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 TOTAL RECOVERABLE HYDROCARBONS (GC) MGT METHOD 100A-GC 19-0-15 13-0.6 17-0.6 ISpike % Recov IMeth.Bl.(mg/l) I I I I Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY4128#Soil JY413 l#Soil JY4135#Soil JY4 135S#Soi 1 T.R.H. C,-C, Fraction by GC c20 c20 c20 - ~~ ~ T.R.H. C,,-C,, Fraction by GC c50 <50 <50 98% I I I I I I I Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. Date received 26/07/01 Date Reported 07/08/01 NATA Accrdted L.bL.(ory Number: 1261 Thn lahlowh Smsrmed bv Iha Nalhl Asrocialbn oI Testma Autl-ilier I 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 Ernail: mgtOrngtenv.corn.au MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 148411 CLIENT :- Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roatf Box Hill Victoria 3128 SITE :- PARKDALE 19417 DATE RECEIVED :- 03/08/01 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 03/08/01 - 04/08/01 DATE REPORTED :- 13/08/01 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for thesasamples is detailed in this report no : 148411 A total of 1 duplicate, 2 matrix spike % recovery and 2 method blank analyses or sets of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results for duplicates, matrix spike % recoveries, method blanks and known QC standards were within the set acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. /A?&j7Michael Wright Laboratory Manager Page 1, of 3 Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 r HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. Samp4e TP8 -0.6 TP8-0.6 Dup Spike % Recov Meth.Bl.(mg/l) I L&. /NO. / Sample matrix AUO372#Soil AU0372D#Soil AUO372S#Soil Ant irnony c10 c10 - c0.5 Arsenic 6.7 7.3 92% co. 02 Berylllium c2 c2 90% co .02 Cadmium c0.5 c0.5 100% co. 02 Chromium 19 21 94% c0.05 Cobalt c5 c5 100% c0 .05 Copper 23 25 104% ~ ~ ____~ Zinc I 22 0 220 1 - c0.05 NATA Accredited LaboialDry Number: 1261 This Iabomllly b -.d by Ihe NsllDnnl AssdalDn 01 T.rlinq Aulhorilias. Sample TP8-0.6 Spike % Recov Meth.Bl.(mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix AUO372#Soil AUO372S#Soil IlNaphthalene I co.1 I 90% I co.001 . I I I II Acenaphthylene co.1 93% co. 001 Acenaphthene co.1 95% CQ. 001 Fluorene co.1 102% eo. 001 Phenanthrene co.1 96% co. 001 Anthracene co.1 92% eo. 001 Fluoranthrene 0.10 99% eo. 001 Pyrene 0.10 102% eo. 001 Benzo (a)anthracene co.1 90% eo. 001 I Chrysene co.1 93% CD. 001 I Benzo (b)f luoranthene co.1 91% eo * 001 Benzo(k)fluoranthene c0.1 89% eo. 001 Benzo (a pyrene co.1 97% eo. 001 Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene c0.1 90% co. 001 Benzo (g,h, i) perylene co.1 93 % eo. 001 Indeno ( 1,2,3- cd)pyrene co.1 95% eo. 001 Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, Waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. -'I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166,Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleiqh. Victoria. 3166. Australla Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Fax+613 9564 7190 Ernail: rngtOmgtenv.corn.au MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 148545 CLIENT :- Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roas Box Hill Victoria 3128 SITE :- PARKDALE 19417 DATE RECEIVED :- 09/08/01 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 09/08/01 - 10/08/01 DATE REPORTED :- 21/08/01 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 148545 A total of 1 duplicate, 2 matrix spike % recovery and 2 method blank analyses or sets of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results for duplicates, matrix spike % recoveries, method blanks and known QC standards were within the set acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. Michael Wridt Laboratory Manager Page 1 of 3 I 1 NATA Accredlted LUbOralDN Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address PO BOX276. Oakleigh. Victoria. 3166, Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone + 61 3 9564 7055 Level 3 818 Whitehorse Roax Fax+613 95647190 Box Hili Ernail mgterngtenv corn au Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. IILab. No. [ Sample matrix I AUO 96 3 #So i 1 I AUO 96 3 D#So i 1 I AUO 96 3 S#So i 1 I I I II -~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Chromium <5 e5 101% Extraction with H202, HN03 & HC1. Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Date received 09/08/01 Date Reported 21/08/01 I' Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address P 0 Box 276 Oakletah. Victoria 3166 Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd TeLphone: + 61 3 95647055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roax Fax+ 61 3 9564 7190 Box Hill Email: [email protected] Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 I POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS US EPA SW846 METHOD 8310(HPLC) & 8270C(GC/MS). 13-0.15 Ispike % Recov IMeth.Bl.(mg/l) I I I ~ - ~ - ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ /No. / Sample matrix AUO963#Soil AUO963S#Soil Naphdha 1ene co.1 98% co. 001 Acen'aphthylene co.1 90% eo. 001 Acendphthene co.1 8 9% co. 001 Fluorene co.1 888; co. 001 Phenanthrene co.1 93% co. 001 Anthracene co.1 102% co. 001 Fluoranthrene co.1 99% co. 001 qrrene co.1 98% eo. 001 Benzo (a)anthracene CO.l 104% co. 001 Chrysene co.1 102% co. 001 Benzo/(b)f luoranthene eo. L 100% eo. 001 Benzo\(k)f luoranthene co.1 91% eo. 001 Benzol( a)pyrene eo.1 99% co. 001 Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene co.1 90% co. 001 Benzo!(g,h, i) perylene co.1 97% co. 001 Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene e0.1 92% eo. 001 0 tnvironmemal Lonsuir;ing r dy. LL~. 3 Kingston Town Close. Oakleigh. Viclona 31%. Austrab Postal Address: P.O. Bow 276, Oakleioh. Victoria. 3166. Ausiralia Tdephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Fax+Gl 3 9564 7t90 Email: [email protected] MGT ?WALYSIS REPORT 149010 CLIENT :- Noel Arnold iL Associates Pt Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Rod BGx Hill victoria 3128 SITE : - PARKDALE 19417 DATE RECEIVED :- 03/ 0 9/ 01 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 03/09/01 - 04/09/01 G DATE REPORTED ;- 06/09/01 z QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in tha6 report no : 149010 X total of 1 duplicate and 1 method blank analyses or set0 of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results for duplicates, method blank and known QC standards were withln the aet acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The re6ulCs in this report supersede any previously corresponded resuits. ?age 1 of 2 0 'I Environmental Lonsuiting rcy. Lr;d. 63 3 KmgsbnTovm Close. Oakleigh. Victana 3166. hadla PO5ld Pcddles5 P 0 Box 276. OaMeigh. Viclona. 3166. Auslraha Noel Arnold Associates Pt Ltd 'klephone + 61 3 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roar; Fax+613 95647190 Box Hill Ernail: [email protected] au Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 I 1 WAVY METALS ELUTRIATB ANALYSIS-METHOD USEPA sww 7000 6r 6010~.TCLP us &PA METHOD 1311 Sample 2-0.15 2-0.15 DuP 5-0.15 8-0.15 9-0.6 Meth. El. (rngil) Lad. NO. / Sample matrix SE0015#Soil SEOOlSD#Soil SE0016#Soil SE0017kSoil SEUOlB#Soil ,Arsenic 0.03 I 0.03 ~ II ~ I I 1 ~ -r (3 In Results in ppm (mg/ll in ieachate. G. u Date rzceived 03/09/01 Date Reported 06/09/01 Report No. 149Cl.O Pacje 2 of 2 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria 3166,Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166. Australia Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Fax+613 95647190 Ernail: [email protected] ~~~ MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 149621 CLIENT ..- Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Rod Box Hill Victoria 3128 SITE .-. PARKDALE 19417 DATE RECEIVED :- 27/09/01 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 27/09/01 - 28/09/01 DATE REPORTED :- 03/10/01 FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. Michael Wriggt Page 1 of 4 Laboratory Manager 1s 1 I I I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address P.0 Box 276, Oakleigh, Victoria. 3166. Australla /Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone. + 61 3 9564 7055 Level.3, 818 Whitehorse Roax Fax+ 61 3 9564 7190 \Box Hill Ernail: [email protected] yictoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. IlTin ' I ~ Zinc I 18 I 18 I 53 I 47 160 41 I I Extrabtion with H202, HN03 & HC1. Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). I I Date received 27/09/01 Date Reported 03/10/01 % NATA Accredited Lab9ory Number: 1261 , Thu IsbDnl~yb accrsddd by the NaIiOnaIAaMclallon 01 Bslina Authorkiss. Sample v7 V8 QAV 1 SP1 sP2 SP3 Lab. No. / Sample matrix SE3697#Soil SE3698#Soil SE3699#Soil SE3700#Soil SE3701#Soil SE3702#Soil Antimony - - - c2 <2 e2 Arsenic - - - 8.7 8.9 3.9 Beryllium - - - c2 c2 <2 Cadmium - - - c0.5 co.5 <0.5 Chromium - - - 19 18 7.1 Cobalt - - - c5 <5 <5 copper - - - 16 33 12 Lead - - - 62 73 23 ~ ~~ Mercury - - - co.1 co.1 <0.1 Molybdenum - - - <5 <5 <5 Nickel - - - 12 17 5.8 Selenium - - - <2 <2 <2 Tin - - - Date received 27/09/01 Date Reported 03/10/01 -RgJ NATA Accredlled LaboraCow Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166, Australia Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Fax+61 3 95647190 Ernail: rngt Omgtenv.com.au MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 149632 CLIENT :- Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roa3 Box Hill Victoria 3128 SITE :- PARKDALE 19417 DATE RECEIVED :- 28/09/01 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 28/09/01 - 29/09/01 DATE REPORTED :- 03/10/01 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 149632 A total of 1 duplicate, 3 matrix spike % recovery and 8 method blank analyses or sets of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results'for duplicates, matrix spike % recoveries, method blanks and known QC standards were within the set acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. Mic ha e 1 Wr igh't Laboratory Manager Page 1 of 12 I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. sampfe SP5 Meth.B1. (mg/l) Lab. 1 No. / Sample matrix SE3783#Soil Benzyl chloride c0. 05 c0. 05 2-ChToronaphthalene c0. 05 c0.05 ?icnlorobenzene c0.05 eo. 05 1)lI3-Dichlorobenzene c0.05 c0.05 1 I 4 -Dichlorobenzene c0.05 c0.05 Hexa I’ Date received 28/09/01 Date Reported 03/10/01 I- HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. sample SP5 SP5 Dup Spike % Recov Meth.Bl.(mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix SE3783#Soil SE3783D#Soil SE3783S#Soil Boron 16 17 - co.5 Aluminium 4500 4700 - c1 Antimony- c5 c5 88% co .os II -~ I I I Arsenic 5.2 5.4 86% co * 02 Barium 43 47 116% c0.5 Beryllium c2 c2 84% ~~ ~ Mercury co.1 <0.1 98% co.001 Molvbdenum c5 c5 80% c0.05 ((Nickel 14 I 13 96% I c0.05 I I I Selenium e2 c2 80% c0.02 Silver c5 c5 - ~ ~ Extraction with H202, HN03 & HC1. Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). L 'I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close. Oakleigh, Victona 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleigh. Victona. 3166, Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roas Fax+613 95647190 Box Hill Email: [email protected] Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 MISCELLANEOUS ANALYSES. METHODS US EPA SW846 OR APHA STANDARD METHODS 19TH ED. 1995. 1 Sample SP5 Lab. No. / Sample matrix SE3783#Soil Azure A (surfactant s) 0.67 Chromium (hexavalent) c5 --__I____-pp- ~~ ~~ - I' Date received 28/09/01 Date Reported 03/10/01 NATA Accredlled Laboratory Nurnbec 1261 Thir laboralory b rrcromtb bv Ihe Nsrlonal Asralatmn 01 Tsallno Authoritins Sample SP5 Lab. NO. / Sample matrix SE3783#Soil Cyanide (total) <5 J &I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh, Victoria, 3166, Australla Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Rod Fax+613 95647190 Box Hill Email: mgtC?mgtenv.corn.au Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 MAHIS AROMATIC VOLATILE ORGANICS US EPA SW846 METHOD 8021B,8260B,5030 & MGT 350A (PURGE & TRAP GC) I SP5 ISpike % Recov IMeth.Bl.(mg/l) I I I ~ ~~ ~- ~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ;No. / Sample matrix SE3783#Soil SE3783S#Soil Benzene co. 01 93% eo. 001 Toluene co.01 95% -~ ~ ~~ ~ Xylenes co.01 90% I I I ~~~ I ~~ Results in pprn (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Date received 28/09/01 Date Reported 03/10/01 Sample SP5 Lab. No. / Sample matrix SE3783#Soil Nitrite (N) c10 Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). I Date received 28/09/01 Date Reported 03/10/01 'I I 1 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166, Australla Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166, Australla Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roax Fax+ 61 3 9564 7190 Box Hill Email: rngtOrngtenv.corn.au Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 I ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES US EPA SW846 METHOD 8081A. Sample SP5 Meth.Bl. (mg/l) Lab.~No. / Sample matrix SE3783#Soil Aldrin co.01 co.001 - ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ __ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~Y-BHV co.01 co. 001 I f3 - BHC co. 01 co. 001 1 U - BHC co.01 co.001 Lindane co * 01 co.001 ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ Chlordane co.1 co. 01 4,4 ' -DDD eo. 01 eo. 001 4,4 ' -DDE co.01 co.001 4,4 ' -DDT C.O. 01 co. 001 Dieldrin eo. 01 co. 00'1 Endosulfan I co.01 co. 001 Endosulfan I1 co. 01 co. 001 Endrin co. 01 co. 001 Heptachlor co. 01 co. 001 ~ ~~~ 'Heptachlor epoxide co. 01 co. 001 Methoxychlor eo. 01 co. 001 Toxophene co.1 co. 01 Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, Waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. Sample SP5 Meth.Bl. (mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix SE3783#Soil Naphthalene co.1 eo. 001 Acenaphthylene co.1 eo. 001 ~~ ~ ~ Acenaphthene co.1 eo. 001 Fluorene eo.1 co. 001 Phenanthrene eo.1 eo. 001 Anthracene co.1 eo. 001 Fluoranthrene co.1 eo. 001 I co.1 I co.001 I ~~ ~ I II Benzo (a)anthracene c0.1 eo. 001 Chrysene co.1 eo. 001 Benzo (b)f luoranthene co.1 co .001 llBenzo (k)f luoranthene I z0.1 I co.001 I I I I. II I c0.1 I co.001 I ~~ ~ IlDibenzo (a,h) anthracene I eo.1 I co.001 I II Benzo (g,h, i) perylene co.1 eo. 001 Indeno ( 1,2,3- cd)pyrene co.1 eo. 001 ~ 'I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166, Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Rod Fax+ 61 3 9564 7190 Box Hill Email: rngtBmgtenv.corn.au Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB's) US EPA SW846 METHOD 8082. Sample SP5 Meth.Bl. (mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix SE3783#Soil Total, PCB's as Arochlor 1260 co.1 Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, Waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. Date received 28/09/01 Date Reported 03/10/01 NATA Accredited Labohlory Number: 1261 Sample SPS Meth.Bl. (mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix SE3783#Soil Phenol I ~-~~ ~~~ ~- ~ .~ ~~--~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. I 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address PO Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166, Australia ,Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone + 61 3 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roas Fax+ 61 3 9564 7190 /Box Hill Ernail: mgtQ rngtenv corn au Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 TOTAL RECOVERABLE HYDROCARBONS (GC) MOT METHOD 100A-GC (C6-C9 FRACTION BY PURGE & TRAP GC/FID) I I SP5 (Spike % Recov IMeth.Bl.(mg/l) I I I ;I ab. :NO. / Sample matrix SE3783#Soil SE3783S#Soil T.R.H. C,-C, Fraction by GC <2 0 - co. 02 T.R.H. C,,-C,, Fraction by GC c5 0 94% eo. 05 T.R.H. C,,-C,, Fraction by GC ~~~ ~ ~~ I I ;I I I I I I I NATA Accredlled Lab$alory Number: 1261 ,.;_I _.__.__.,______-.>..,.. _.._. ,.-...... - ...... i 1 A divisiur; oi Enviro-Idel Austialia Pty. Ltd. ;.BN 31 ot,7 389 Acr: obi .W 389 NATA ~cg31 :O 8 Hall Stiect. Newport. Victoria 301 5 Ph: (03)9398 0277 Fax: (03)9398 0351 esp Ernail: [email protected]:au Environn~ei?tal& Me1bour ne : Safety Professionals Sydney Newcastle Launceston DATE: lSTOCTOBER, 2001 ESP JOB NUMBER: 2038L NAME: MGT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING PTY LTD ADDRESS: P.0 BOX 276 OAKLEIGH, VIC. 3166 SAMPLED FROM: AS RECEIVED PROJECT NAME: PARKDALE MGT JOB NUMBER: 19417 SAMPLED BY: AS RECEIVED RECEMZD ON: 28THSEPTEMBER, 2001 TEST METHOD: Qualitative identification of asbestos types in bulk samples by polarised light microscopy, including dispersion staining using ESP in-house Method NO. 2. ESP LAB. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION RESULT NO. E87882 SE 3783: SOIL (120 x 65 x 3mm) CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS DETECTED Samples analysed on an &-received basis. R Approved Identifier Approved Signatory’ NATA Accredited Laboratory umber: 3110. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. BOX 276. Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166, Australia Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Fax+613 95647190 Email: [email protected] MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 149657 CLIENT :- Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roas Box Hill Victoria 3128 SITE ..- PARKDALE 19417 DATE RECEIVED :- 28/09/01 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 28/09/01 - 29/09/01 DATE REPORTED :- 03/10/01 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 149657 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. Michael Wrig& Laboratory Manager Page 1 of 2 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address PO BOX 276, Oakleigh, Victona, 3166, Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone + 61 3 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roax Fax+613 95647190 Box Hill Ernail rngterngtenv corn au Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. SamDle Iv9 lV9 DUD lVl0 lVll Ispike S Recov IMeth.Bl.(mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix SE3929#Soil SE3929D#Soil SE3930#Soil SE3931#Soil SE3931S#Soil Antimony <5 <5 <5 <5 82% ~ Beryl 1 ium <2 <2 <2 <2 82% ~ Chromium 5.8 5.8 5.5 <5 96% <0.05 Coba 1t <5 <5 <5 <5 90% 3 Kingston Town Close. Oakleigh, Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria. 3166. Australia Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Fax+ 61 3 9564 7190 Email: rngtOrngtenv.com.au MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 149676 CLIENT :- Noel Arnold 9 Associates Pt Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roas Box Hill Victoria 3128 SITE :- PARKDALE 19417 DATE RECEIVED :- 01/10/01 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 01/10/01 - 02/10/01 DATE REPORTED :- 05/10/01 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 149676 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. Michael Wright Laboratory Manager Page 1 of 2 Sample v12 V12 Dup Spike % Recov Meth.Bl.(mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix OC0107#Soil OC0107D#Soil OC0107S#Soil 2 inc 10 10 94% eo. 05 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh, Victoria, 3166,Australia Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Fax+613 95647190 Email: mgt8mgtenv.com.au MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 149704 CLIENT .-. Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Road Box Hill Victoria 3128 SITE :- PARKDALE 19417 DATE RECEIVED :- 02/10/01 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 02/10/01 - 03/10/01 DATE REPORTED :- 05/10/01 FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. Michael Wrigh4 Laboratory Manager Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166,Auslralia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone. + 61 3 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roa3 Fax+613 95647190 Box Hill Email: [email protected] Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 MISCELLANEOUS ANALYSES. METHODS US EPA SW846 OR APHA STANDARD METHODS 19TH ED. 1995. Sample SP5 ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ I ~~~~~~ I Lab. No. / Sample matrix OCO251#Soil Fluoride (total) 46 pH (units) (1:5 aqueous extract) 7.8 I' J] Date received 02/10/01 Date Reported 05/10/01 Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166, Australta Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Fax+613 95647190 Email: [email protected] I MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 149705 CLIENT :- Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Box Hill Ross SITE .- PARKDALE 19417 DATE RECEIVED :- 02/10/01 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 02/10/01 - 03/10/01 DATE REPORTED :- 05/10/01 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 149705 A total of 1 method blank analyses or sets of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results for 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 2 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Victoria 3166, Australla Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh, Victoria. 3166, Australia Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roaz Fax+ 61 3 9564 7100 BOX Hill Email: mgtOmgtenv.corn.au Victoria 3120 Site : PARKDALE 19417 I HEAVY METALS ELUTRIATE ANALYSIS-METHOD USEPA SW846 7000 & 6010B. TCLP Us EPA METHOD 1311 Sample SP5 Meth.Bl. (mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix OCO252#Soil Aluminium 2.0 eo.05 f/ReSUltS in ppm (mg/l) in leachate. I' Date received 02/10/01 Date Reported 05/10/01 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Vicloria 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria. 3166, Australia Telephone: + 61 3 9564 7055 Fax+613 95647190 Ernail: [email protected] MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 150321 CLIENT :- Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roas Box Hill Victoria 3128 SITE :- PARKDALE 19417 DATE RECEIVED :- 31/10/01 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 31/10/01 - 01/11/01 DATE REPORTED :- 12/11/01 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 150321 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. Michael Wrig& Laboratory Manager Page 1 of 3 NATA Accrsdiled Laboratory Number: 1261 Thh laborploy b wredilad by the Nallonal *ssosiali 01 TBha Aulhorlliss Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, Oaklelgh, Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address PO Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria. 3166, Australla Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telephone + 61 3 9564 7055 Level 3, 818 Whitehorse Roat; Fax+613 95647190 Box Hill Ernail rngtgrngtenv corn au Victoria 3128 Site : PARKDALE 19417 HEAVY METALS USEPA 6010B (ICP), 7470/1 (WAA) SamDle I vi3 IV13 DUD I vi4 Iv15 IVI~ I Vi7 ~ ~~ Lab. No. / Sample matrix OC3999#Soil OC3999D#Soil OC4OOO#Soil OC4001#Soil OC4002#Soil OC4003#Soil Ant imonv ~-~ Arsenic c2 c2 e2 <2 <2 <2 Beryl 1ium <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 Cadmium ~0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5 c0.5 c0.5 c0.5 ~ Chromium <5 <5 8.0 <5 <5 <5 Cobalt <5 <5 c5 CoDDer <5 <5 <5 <5 C5 c5 Lead <5 <5 e5 CS <5 C5 Mercury co.1 c0.1 t0.1 c0.1 co.1 co.1 Molybdenum Extraction with H202, HN03 & HC1. Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Date received 31/10/01 Date Reported 12/11/01 WSLConsultants" WSL Consultants rty.Led. Enviroscience A.C.N. 004 752 676 A.B.N. 49 004 752 676 2-8 Harvey Srreet, Richmond, Victoria 3 121, Australia QUALITY MANAGEMW Telephone: +61 3 9429 4666 Facsimile: +61 3 9429 2294 SYSTEM Y I Email: [email protected] Web: www.wsl.corn.au Date : 4-Sep-2001 WSL Report No: 388844 WSL JobNumber: 17153 Client: Noel Arnold & Associales Job Reference: 194 17 LAB NUM Received Sample As Cr cu Ni Pb Zn 388844 31-Aug-2001 19417 3-0.6 c5 <5 c5 4 10 <5 A blank space indicates no test performed Resulls expressed as mg/kg dry weight -.WSLConsultants" hviroscience QUALITY MANACEhtEhT SYSTEM Your Ref: 19417 - Parkdale 5 September 2001 Noel Arnold & Associates Suite 15/16 Level 3, 81 8 Whitehorse Road Date Received: 31/08,2001 BOX HILL VIC 3128 Date Sampled: 31/08/2001 Atteriticn: Mr. Richard O'Connor Certificate of Analvsis WSL Report Number: 388844 The sarnple(s) referred to in this report were analysed by the following methods: Analyte(s) Method Metals WSL-032 PAHs WSL81OOB Results pertain to samples as received Details of this report were faxed on: 5/09/2001 Yours faithfully WSL Consultants Pty Ltd Evan Jones Manager Of Chemistry This Laboratory is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The test(s) reported herein have been performed in accordance with its terms of accreditation. This document shall not be reproduced except in full. w s L Consultants Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 004 752 676 A.B.N. 49 004 752 676 A NATA Accredited Laboratory Page 1 of 3 2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 3 12 1, Australia An Approved Quarantine Premises Telephone: tG1 3 9429 4666 Facsimile: +G1 3 9429 2294 An Approved EPA Auditor RECYCLTD8, Email: wsl&sl.com.au Web: w.wsl.coni.au Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 KlngstDn Town awe. Oa#Sl@, VldDd., 3166, Australla p0s!d AdQeSr: P.0. BOX 276, Oa#el@l,Vlctala, 3166, Austda Tdaplons: (03)9564 7055 b Fu: (03)9564 7390 CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS OUALITY CONTROL RESULTS VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF TEST RESULTS The continuing validity and reliability of results is accomplished by monitorkg a number of Control Limit fadors: If one measurement exceeds the C.L repeat the analysis. Ifthe repeat is within the C.L 1. Analysis of duplicates. Duplicates run at a minimum of 5% continuo ~aly~cs.Ifit 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. warnlne Limit 1. Analysis of Duplicates Iftwo out ofthree successive points exceed the W.L.. analyse another sample. Ifthe next point is less than the W.L continue analyses. ifthe next point exceeds the W.L. discontinue analyses Duplicaics arc analysed as a matter of come and the data analysed by means of a range chart and comectthe problem. type system. The range for each duplicate pair is determined and 'normalised' by dividing by the average of the duplicate results. *** Paxticular care needs to be taken with same soil samples with regard to sample Once enough data has been gathered control data for each method can be developed. 'Ihe 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 sample homogeneity. 2. Recovery of known additions. - n ?he recovery of known additions is used to verify the absence of matrix effects and absence of interferences. Recovery from standards is used to veemethod performance. Recovery data Where n anumber of observations is compared 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 (square of the standard deviation) is determined as: Ifrecoveries fall outside acceptance criteria, analyses should be discontinued Ad the problem rectified. 3. Analvsis of Reaeent Blanks n- 1 Reagent blanks are used to monitor purity of reagents and the overall procedural blank. The control critcria thus become: Reagent blanks rue run as a matter of course with each batch for analysis. Unusual or out of the 'norm' results for blanks are investigated and corredve action taken before analysis of any Average range R batch is completed. WamingLimit R+2+ Control Limit R+3+ The nonnalised range for ekh 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% confidence levels respectively. the followkg adons are taken, based on these statistical parameten. M. Wright J Laboratory Manager Sample V18 vR2 Spike % Recov Methd Blk Lab. No. / Sample matrix 0C4004#Soi~ OC4005#Water OC4005S#Water - Arsenic <2 co. 02 88% eo. 02 Beryllium <2 eo. 02, 89% eo. 02 Cadmium ~0.5 eo. 02 92% eo. 02 Chromium <5 eo.05 90% eo. 05 Cobalt <5 ~~ ~ ~ Mercury <0.1 Date received 31/10/01 Date Reported 12/11/01 I NATA Accredlledm Laboralow WaLLonsultants’” WSL Consultants PV. Ltd. Enviroscience A.C.N. 004 752 676 A.B.N. 49 004 752 676 2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 3 12 1, Australia Telephone: +61 3 9429 4666 Facsimile: +GI 3 3429 2294 Email: wsl&sl.com.au Web: www.wvsl.corn.au Dale : 4-Sep-2001 WSL Report No: 388844 WSL JobNumber: 17153 Client: Noel Arnold S: A5sociates Job Reference: 19117 LAB NUM Received Sample NAP ACY ACE FLU PHE ANT FLA PYR BAA CHR BBF BKF BAP DBA BCP IPY TOTAL PAH 388844 31-Aug-2001 1Y417 34.6 ~o.1 A blank space indicates no lesi performed Results expressed as mgkg dry weight Page f of.. 3 WSLConsultantslh' Enviro science QUALITY MANAGEMEKT SYSTEM Your Ref: 19417 28 September 2001 -.. Noel Arnold & Associates Suite 15/16 Level 3, 81 8 Whitehorse Road Date Received: 27/09/200, BOX HILL VIC 3128 Date Sampled: 27/09/2001 Attention: Mr. Richard O'Connor Certificate of Analysis WSL Report Number: 395676 The sample(s) referred to in this report were analysed by the following methods: Analyte(s) Method Metals WSL-032 Reaul:s pe<&i :C samples iis isceiveil Details of this report were faxed on: 28/09/2001 b ~~~ ltants Pty Ltd Victor Willms Director Of Chemistry This Laboratory is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Australia. The tesr(s) reported herein have been performed in accordance with its terms of accreditation. This document shall not be reproduced except in full. s Pry. Ltd. W L Consultants Page 1 of 2 A.C.N. 004 752 676 A.B.N. 49 004 752 676 A NATA Accredited Laboratory 2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 3121, Australia An Approved Quarantine Premises An Approved EPA Audiror RFLYCLED Telephone: +GI 3 9429 4666 Facsimile: +61 3 9429 2294 6% Ernail: wslOwsl.com.a~~Web: www.wsl.coin.au WSbLonsultants" WSL Consultants pry. Ltd. Enviroscience A.C.N. 004 752 676 'A.B.N. 49 004 752 676 %3t I 2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 3 121, Australia QUALITY MANAGEMENT Telephone: +GI 3 9429 4666 Facsimile: +61 3 9429 2294 S Y S T E 1.4 1 Ernail: [email protected] Web: www.wsl.com.au Date : 28-Sep-2001 WSL Report No: 395676 WSL JobNurnber: 17153 Client: Noel Arnold 8: Associates Job Reference: 19417 LAB NUM Received Sample Zn 395676 27-Sep-2001 VI 8 A blank space indicates no test performed Results expressed as rng/kg dry weight Page 2 of.. 2 Attachment B Relevant Correspondence with Assessor and Client Facsimi le Noel Arnol ates Ply Ltd -~ e--- To: Mr Tasos Katopodis Company: Egis Consulting Australia Pty Ltd Phone: 9272 6666 Fax: 9272 6611 Copies To: Mr Jeff Clarke (Tradepac) - 9521 0337 From: Richard O'Connor Company: Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd Phone: (03) 9890 8811 Fax: (03) 9890 8911 Qur Ref: MQ5814workplan Date: 13/07/01 -., .! Pages including this cover page: 6 J'w Subject: Revised Workplan for 394-396 Nepean Hwy, Parkdate ImpomnC This h-ie conalns confidential information inwnded only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, yw are advised any dlstrlburion, pbblicatiao or copying of the facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsmile in emr, please telephone us Immediately and arrangemenls will be made for its return. Tasos, Please find artached the revised workplan for the environmencd site assessment (to audit ssandard) to be undden a1 394-396 Nepean Hwy, Parkdale. If you have any queries or require any Luther infomtion, please contact me on 9890 881 1. Kind Regards Richard O'Connor Practical Snlutinns Nod Amold 8 Assodates Level 3,818 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill ABN 76 - 006 318 010 Occupational Heal% €iSafety 0 Environmental Management 0 Risk Management w~~~uALm/Fo~pJA~lO.Co~npnyFacsimile 06 9E6'ON ___ - _- KlSK acK m6 318 010 ABN. 76 006 318 010 Level 3. 818 Whitehorse Rd, Box Hill. Victoria 3128 Ausmlie Management Phonc: (031 9890 8811 Fax: (031 9890 0911 Ewil: [email protected] Senn'ces www.noe1-amold.mrn.au 13 July 2001 Our Ref; MQ5814 MQ5814vorkpkn mlml Mr Tasos Kat~padis Egis CodtingAustralia 390 St Kilda Road MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Dear Tasos, Re: Proposed Environrnentaf Site Assessment Work Plan - 394-396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale 1. Background The site ro be assessed is located at 394-396 Nepean Highway Parkdale, and is approximarely 1320 m2in area. We believe that hesire was ininally developed in 1956 and since 1957 or dxreabours has been Q builders hardware and plumbing supply. In 1970, the site was a coral plumbing supplies outlet. Eased on this information the following area to he assessed is approximarely 0.13 hectares We understand that Tradepac Pty Ltd (Tradepac) wish to develop the above properry for residentid use and wishes to obtain a cedficate or srarement of environmental audit under the Environmental Prorecuon kveable Neighbourhoods) Act, 2001 (formerly Secuon 57Afi of the Envhonmentd Protection Act (1970)). To achieve this, an Environment4 Site hessmenr @SA) is required for &e site in conjuncdon ~liththe slppoinunent of an independent EPA accredited contamhared land auditor. The purpose of the assessment is to iden+ any potenrid contamination on the site as a result of previous site mivmes. 2. Wo r kplan Noel Arnold and Assodates propose to recover 14 samples from 7 grided locations across the site The level of assessment proposed is in accordance with the minimum sampling densirj outlined in &e Australian Standard - Gii4 to tl, sump& 4 matqpik of pomaaly ccmzmhd (AS4482.1-1997)for a site of 0.13 hectares. This level of assessmt would provide an indication as to whether there is any significmt contamination on the site. h undertaking these investigations, Noel Arnold & Associates will complete the follolwing steps in general accordance with the €PA Guidelines for the Assessment of Contaminated Land, &e Nauonal Environmend Proteaion (Assessnamr of Site Gzammmm' . )Masure 1999 (NlPM) and Ausualian Standards AS4482.1-1997 and AS4482.2, Gz& ra thF and kmajpbz qfpmdlymWail, Part 2: Vbkzt& sib- 1999. o Sitehistoryreview; a Siwsamphg ZQCl 9E6'ON 9 A review of the hydrwgeolog at the site; 0 Laboratory analysis of samples recovered from site (including internal and external QMQC checks); u Assessment of redts against acceptance criteria (PEPM/ANZECC); a Prepamion of a bound Assessment ~POH. 3. Sampling and Analysis It is proposed &at the sampling and analysis will be undertaken as follows. Site Location Approx. Depths No. NO. Analyses No. Samples Composites or Locations Samples for Analysis d Giid samples 7 Surface 7 2 EPA Sucm 0.5-0.6 in 7 OM Background 1 surface 1 OV) samples 0.5-0.6m 1 O(2) QA/W 3 Contaminants of concemD) Totals 16 5 IGundxr of xmples will be dcpedcnr on &e ouIcoinc of the €PA Screen Results. (2) Backgruund mnples will be analysed if clcv;ired cowmhant concmrracions ue recorded. (3) * of cmcm will be selected bascd on chc resulu of &e EPA Screens. -minimise costs, soil samples will be composited prior to analysis. Samples will be To composited in 1 x 3-part, and 1 x 4 pat composite samples and analysed for an EPA screen. Ir: should be noted that, where composite samples are used, they are only pernlitted for like rnzuerials at the same horizontd stratum. The plan outlined in Table 1is provisional and subjecr to what might be revealed during acrual investigauons and as a result of the screening analyses. Addiuonal analyses may be required to funher analyse discrete (individual) samples of composites exceeding the modified invesrigation criteria. 3.1 Soil sampling During our site investigations, rhe sire his~oryinformuon will be confirmed. The hisorical i~vestigationwill involve the following: u Review of aerial photographs of the site; P Discussions with former site employees (where possible); O Discussions with the Ruyd Historical Society of Victoria FSV); and a Discussions with the Ciy of Iiingston. Soil samples will be recoxrered from the site at near surface 0 - 150 mm, and 0.5-0.6 rn depths The labrarory will hold the samples den at OS-0.6 m for fkue analysis (only if necessary) based upon the results from samples analysed kom &e upper sampling depths A hand auger MQfsl4workplan MTU16O:l Page: 2 36 9Z6'0N d be used to advance the boreholes, with a splir spoon sampler being used 10 recover the samples in accordance wirhrhe requirements of AS4452.2-1999. During sampling, all samples will be checked with a photoionisanon demxor (PID) for the presence of volatile petroleum hydrocarbon nmterials Borelogs will be prepared for each smpling locarion and included in the assessment report. Soil sampling d be condmed using carefully documenred and supervised Qdv Assurance and QuhyControl procedures. All samples d be placed in near glass sample bodes specially prepared and provided with aluminium foil lined caps. All samphg implements d be cleaned and washed with deionised vmer between each sampling locarion. Phosphate free daergent d be used for pre-washing heimplemenrs Once colIected rhe samples will be inunediady placed in ice chests and chiUed wirh ice for transport co the laboratory. Cornpositkg of samples d occur in the labonrory. Portions of all individual samples will be retained for follow-up analyses if necessary. Full domamuonwill be kept of soil bore locations, soil characteristics and field observations, in accordance with the sampling plan, which d also document &e QMQC procedures. &-of-Custody documentarion will be prepared for sample uansfer from the sire to the hb0~~0~. 3.2 Analytical Program It is proposed &at the soil analydd program will inidally involve die analysis of two composkes for an EPA screen. "he EPA Screen pmmers are: Inorganic parameters Cd,Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Zn,Mo, As, Se, Co,Ni, Be, Sn and Sb Organic parameters Phenolic compounds; Organochlorine (OC)pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (l'CBs); PeuoIeum hydrocarbons (C,-CJ - TRH; Polyqclic arornauc hydrocarbons (PAHs); Chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHG); Monoqdc aromatic hydrocarbons - BTEX. One individual soil sample from each composite will be selected for ?RH and BTEX analysis based on the results of field screening with the PID. Noel Arnold & Associates has considerable experience in &e use of laboratories for environmental assessmenu including MGT Environmental Consultants aid WSL Consultants. Both MGT (primary laboratory) and MSL (secondary laboratory) are accredked with the National Assouadon of tesimg Authorities (NATA) for all the identified analyses MQ5814workplan MT0160:l Page: 3 3,s Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) The QMQC program for the environmental site assessment will comply with the requiremenrs of AS4482.1-1997. A blind duplicate sample will be recovered for every 20 samples collected during the site assessment. A split duplicate sample will also be recovered for every 20 samples collecred during the assessment, and submitted to the secondary labratory for analysis Both the blind and split duplicae samples will be analysed for rhe contaminanu of concern, which will be determined from the resulrs of the inirial soil sampling In addition to the blind and split duplicare samples, a rinsare blank will be collected from the sampling equiprnenr: on each day char sampling is performed. The rinsatc blank will also be analysed for the concaminants of concern. 4. Groundwater Assessment An assessment of groundwater on site and off site dl be undertaken. The beneficial uses of graunher d be considered ad discussed wih reference to the SmEd Prmmim Poky (Gnmdzwm of Vi),with the fallowing being addressed: (11 The previous use (if any) of groundmer on the site; 0 The &sting beneficid uses of groundwater in rhe vicinity of the site; and D The likely beneficial uses of groundwater both on and off the sire. The groundwmr investigation will inirially consist of a desk-top review of the Victorian Groundwater Database, as wd as consideration of the resulcs of the soil sampling progrun. Should the results of soil samphg indicate that there is the potential for groundwater at rhe site to have been contaminated, die installation of groundwater monkonng bores may be required. The attached plan shows the proposed sampling locations for the grid sampling program If my further informatioil is required or if you have any queries regarding this information please do nol: hesitate to contact me on (03) 9890 88 I1 or 0438 003 439 Yours sincerely NOEL ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD RICHARDO’CQNNOR Health, Safeq & Environment Consultant MQSBlrlworkplafl MT016O:l Page: 4 ;Od 9Z6’ON 4 0 10 +-Sampling Locmion -Metres Plan of Proposed Soil Sampling Locations - 394-394 Nepean Highway, Parkdole 9I30 9E6'ON TT99ZLZ6 '3OSStl 8 CIlONW 130N ~ FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION figis MELBOURNE OFFICE TO Mr Richard O'Connor COMPANY Noel Arnold and Associates FAX NO. (03) 9890 891 1 FROM Tasos Katopodis, Environmental Management Telephone (03) 9272 6666 Facsimile (03) 9272 661 1 JOBIFILE NO. VP8803.001 Egis Document No. 14-5878 DATE 19 July 2001 NO.OFPAGES 2 (incl this page) SUBJECT SITE INSPECTION - TRADEPAC, 394-396 NEPEAN HWY, PARKDALE Richard Following our review of Noel Arnold and Associates' Revised Work Plan for 394-396 Nepean Hwy, Parkdale and site inspection this morning, I am writing to advise you of a number of areas requiring clarification or amendment, as detailed below. Revised Work Plan 1. All depth samples should be taken to a sufficient depth to ensure that natural soils are -sampled. From discussions with Brendan of Noel Arnold and Associates on site, we believe this has been undertaken. 2. We would like to see some inorganics (some selected metals) and one organic (say, PAHs) tested as part of the WQCtesting of samples, regardless of the results of the EPA screen. 3. Although 4 part composites are acceptable, it is better practice to use two or three part composites. As there are now 8 sampling locations, we would prefer that samples be composited as 2 X 3 part composites and 1 X 2 part composite, rather than 2 X 4 part composites; 4. The auditor expects that some of the samples taken at depth 0.5-0.6 m should be analysed by the laboratory regardless of the results from the samples analysed from the upper sampling depths; Site inspection 1. The site boundary needs to be clarified, particularly on the north west boundary, where the site adjoins another vacant block. As illustrated in the diagram below, it is unclear if the Pnvileged and confidential information may be contained in this facsimile. If you are not the addressee, you may not use, copy or deliver this facsimik to a thrrd pa*. If you receive this facsimile by mistake, please notify Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited immediately by telephone or fax on the above numbers. CR - W:En vironmentaAProjects\vp\8803FAXES\14-5874 doc Page 1 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Ply Limited ACN 000 912 630 I ABN 18 000 912 630 the australian groupe egis company I FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION &gis MELBOURNE OFFICE ~ ~~ boundary continues from the fence line at the rear of the site to the front of the site (boundary line A), or from the brick wall boundary at the front of the site to the rear (boundary line B). There is approximately 2 metres difference between these two boundaries, and this determines the scope of the site assessment. Please provide us with clarification of the legal boundary of the site. From the Certificate of Title faxed to us, it is unclear which is the correct boundary. 2. The site is covered in rubble, containing concrete, rubble and brick, which appears to have been the sub-base for a concrete slab. Amongst this rubble, pieces of cement sheeting were identified which have the potential to contain asbestos. We requested that Brendan from Noel Arnold and Associates collect several samples of this material for testing for asbestos. 3. There is an area of raised cut and fill and surrounding bund at the rear of the site with a dense grass cover. I have requested that Brendan take an additional sample of this material for individual analysis by the laboratory. 4. The soil sampling methodology being used by Noel Arnold and Associates was assessed on site, and seen to be adequate. \ Can you please ensure that the amendments required to the site sampling and laboratory analysis listed above area incorporated, and clarify the site boundary with us . If you require any further information or clarification on the issues raised here, please call me or Andrew Roy on 9272 6666. Regards puwL%Egis Consulting Australia Pty Ltd yf Tasos Katopodis CR - W:Environmentaf!J%jects\vp\8803FAXES\14-5874.d0c Page 2 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia pty Limited ACN 000912 630 lABN 18 000 912 630 the australian groupe egis company iN\l Facsimile Noel Arnold & Associates Ptv Ltd To: Mr Andrew Roy Company: Egis Consulting Australia Phone: 9272 6666 Fax: 9272 6611 From: Richard O’Connor Company: Noel Arnold &Associates Pty Ltd Phone: (03) 9890 8811 Fax: (03) 9890 8911 Our Ref: 19417audfax3 Date: O9/08/01 Pages including this cover page: 21 ~ Subject: Primary Sample Analytical Results for 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale Important: This fdcsimile conbins confidential information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the Intended ren’pient you are advised any dktribution, publicadon or copying of the ~acslrnlleis strictly prohlblted. If you have received thls facsimile in error, please telephone us immediately and arrangements will be made For its return. Andrew, Please find hersdl a su~~~lilryof rhe reSdKS of our further analytical program as derailed in our fax dared the 26* ofJuly 2001 (ref. 19417audf;url): The results of analysis undertaken on die near surface sample (19417-9-0.15) and 0.6 metre deprh sample (19417-9-0.6)collecced from the raised mound ar the rear of rhe properry indimred that the contaminanr concentrations were all beIow &e NEPM Environmental hvesugauon Lev& (E&), with the exception of zinc in sample 19417-9-0.6. The concenmtion of zinc in &is sample (560 mgflrg) exceeded the EIL, however it was well below bo& the ‘A‘ and ‘D’ HE. for low and high density residential developments respectively An elevared arsenic concenmtion (22 mg/kg) slightly exceeding the NEPM EIL was recorded in the near surface sample from borehole 2 (19417-2-0.15). This concentradon was well belww bath the ‘A‘ and ‘D’KIL. Elevated zinc concennarions exceeding the NEPM EL were recorded in the surface samples from boreholes 5 and 8 (19417-5-0.15 & 19417-8-0.15). These concenrrations were well below the R‘ md ‘D’ HE. Practical- Snlutions Noel Amold & Level 3,818 Whlbhorse Road, Box Hill AEN 76 - OD6 318 010 0 Wpatjonal Health 8 Safety EnvitonmenSal Management 0 Wsk Management W4WDOQIPW~R~lO.&~@nyFaElmlle Facsimile NU3 #UnWIII P A559oaces ny uu I Askms TmPzts A tor4 of eight (8) test pirs were excavated usiig a backhoe on Friday the 3"" of August, 2001. Six of the test pits (Tl?l-'II?6) were exavated in a rectangular gid pXtern across the site, in accordance with the requiremenrs of your fax dated the 30"' of July, 2001. An additional mo pits (TPt & ?p8) were excavated in the raised mound at the rear of the she. The excavation of these pits identified the presence of a buried cyclone wire fence approximately 0.5 metres below the surface in TP7. In addition, a concrae slab was detected at 0.6-0.7metre depth in TP7. Fder excavauon was undden to dererminc rhe enmof the slab, which excended appro-yinlately 3 meues from the rear fence. The northern exam of the slab was nor determined, however TP8 wxexcavated approximately 3.5 meucs sou& eaT of P7to ai approximate 1 metre depth and no evidence of the concrete slab was detected in dzis test pit. Pieces of metal however, were observed in so& at a 0.5-0.6 metre depth. An additional soil sample (19417-TP8-0.6)was recovered from rhe soil where the med pieces were observed and malysed for heavy metals and PAH. The results of analysis hdcaced that only hezinc concentration (220 mg/kg) exceeded the NEPM EILs. This concenuation was well below both the 'A' and 'D'HILs. The Vldinspection of each of the test pits did not identify die presence of any buried asbestos at the sire Samples were collected from the neu surface soils from all 8 test pits and andysed for asbestos. The results of analysis are provided and indared that there were no asbestos fibres present in the sod. ' Visual inspection of the site identified the presence of small fragments of asbestos cement (AC) sheeting sitring on the surface, which are Wyto have resulted from the demolition of the building. 'The kqpents of AC shea appear confined to the rear half of the site, and could be removed by undertaking an emu-bob of the site. Given hat the exrenr of the concrete slab at the rear of the site was nor determined, it is proposed that furrher acavarion using a lqer acavator be undertaken to enable the concrere slab to be removed from the site. Once the slab has been removed, validation sampling will be undertaken to derermine whether there is any conramhauon present beneath the slab. It is proposed thar these samples be analysed for heavy metals, PAH and TRH. If you have any queries regarding this information, please don't hesitate to contact me on 9890 88 11. Kind Rep;lrds Richard O'Comor Anachmenu: o AnayncalResUlts a Asbestos Resulrs o Site Plan Showing Test Pit and Borehole Locations 2 19417audfax3 09/08/0111:57 TT992L26 t '3OSStl 'B CllONiftJ 130~ st7:z-L I '+ +-2 TP TP2 +3 +-4 ! TP3 TP4 0 e 5 6 Soil Borehole f -e. +- 0 10 TPl -Metres Test Pit TP5 TP6 a 7 8 4 ...... ____.__^_..I TP7-_---.-.. ...TP8 . ---. I.,_.-_..-. ---. I --,-.---- Raised Mound _-_,.___-._,. -.-. --- ...... - Figure Phil Soil Sarnph & Test Pit Locations_. .... !I ...... __.._1:. .- .--...... of ..--~ - --- I Tradepac Pty Ltd ' 394 Nepean Highway, Parkdale ..-- __, ._._-._I.____^ .. -__...... TTOO7J7C L '7nccU P filnhllll-! 17nN Ci7:CT Tla/Rtl/wl 1 I\ I \ 1 :-;--- Level 3. 81 0 Whitchorsc Rd. Box Hill, Victoris 31 28 Australia nont: 1031 9890 ami =rn=l.rement Fax: (03) 9890 8911 I, Email: rnclbome@noel-~rnnld.com.au ww~.noel-amold.com.au 06 August 2001 Anention: Jeff Uarke Tradepac Pry Ltd PO Box 2097 HAMM'ONEAST VIC 3188 Dear Su, Re: Bulk Sample Analysis: Asbestos Fibre Identification This later presents &e results of asbestos fibre idendficarion analysis performed on samples collected by Richard O'cOnnor, Noel Arnold & Assodates Pty Ltd on 3 August 2001. Samples were collected from 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale. AU sample analysis was performed in accordance with Noel Arnold and Assodates Pry Ltd Method Number 2 in our Melbourne Laboratory. , The results of the asbestos identification analps are presented in the appended table. Should you require Merinformation plwe contact the undersigned. Yours &thfdy, NOEL ARNOLD AND ASSOCIATES FTY LTD CHRISTIJYE EDWARDS Approved Identifier Approved Signatory: Sampling not cwered by the terms of the NATA registration. Page 1 of 2 Practical Sohtions August, 2041 Melbourne Labratory 19417-1 SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS Page 2 of 2 Soil sample 19417-TPI-0.15- soil sample No asbestos fibres derecced I 19417'02 AI1 samples analysed by polarised light microscopy, including dispersion staining. Nok 1: Confirmation by another analytical technique advlsed due to the nature of the sarnDle. 19417-1 bsa Mm16O:l CLIKm :- Noel Arnold k Associates Pt Ltd r.evei 3, am ~httebmeema8 Box Hill Victoria 3128 SlTB :- PAILKDALE 19417 DATE5 RBC&NKD :- 26/07)01 OATS BXTRACTBD OA PRBPARFS :- 26/07/01 - 27/07/01 DATE =OR- :- 07 /08 /01 @/QC DBTAILS :- The QA/W for these earnplea ie detailed in this report no : 148263 A total of 2 duplicate. 7 lsatrix spike % recovery and 9 method blank anallysea or sets of analysee were cerriad out on thte batch of samples. A~AQA/QC result6 Lor duplicates, matrix spike % recoveriee. method blanks and hnawn QC standards were warltbln the Bet acceptable criteria. PIW RRPORT :- The results in this report eupersede any p~eviou~lycorresponded resulte. Page 1 of 1 Environmental Consulti1fg Pty. Ltd. -4 -I 3 Klngtmn TmClose. Oeklelgh, Vlclorie 3168, Australla 3 Posbl Address: P.0. Oax 276, Oekleigh, Vina. 3LB8, Auelrolb 3 Nod Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd Telghane: (031 fB6-4 709(L z Level. 3, 810 Whitehorse Roa8 Cu (00) 6564 7 tB0 Box Hi11 . Emit mgl8~nr.comeu Victorla 3128 Site : PARRDALC 19417 CHLORIHATBD HYDROCARBONS us EPA ma46 ~THOD80zm E BOBIA, Sample 9-0.15 Spike % Recav Meth,Bl.(rng/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix JY4 12 8 #So i 1 JY4I28S#Soi1 - 1 I Benzyl chloride I c0.05 - cO.005 2 -Chloronapht ha1 rne 40.05 - ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~- 111.4 - Dichlorobenzene J K0.05 69% cO.005 t-4 rl D 11 Hieltach1ombenzene I ~ ~ I?. eo, 1. He xachl of a? t han e 05 93% <0.005 ; 3 1 1 3 Tetrachlorobenzenes rl 4 El 0 \ 0 D \ Q) m p 0 Noel Arnold & Associatee Pt Ltd Level,3 810 Whitehorse Rod BOX llili 1 Somp 1 e 1-0.15 1-0.15 DUP 2-0.15 3-0-15 '4- 0.15 15-0.15 Lab. No. / SmpLe matrix ilY4 120#Soil Jy~12OD#Sotl JY4121HSOiL JY4322HSoi.l JY4123fiSoil JY9l24#Soil Antimony - - - - - Arsenic 8.9 B .6 22 <2 3. L 11 d - Beryl1 ium I - - - I Cadmium - - Chromj urn , IS - - I - Cobalt - - - - L v 35 24 <5 46 32 Tl Copper r Lead - 34 25 - - - J Flercury - - - - - n3 I" Molybdenum 1 - 1 d Nickel - 11 28 3 1 J Seleni urn - - - 3 xL Tin - - - - - I 1 Zinc 12a _I IfO 69 37 iza 360 II 1 I i 1 3 ~ L Bxtraction with H302, %NO3 6 HCI. Results in ppm (soils rng/kg dry, waters mg/l). i' n Date received 26/07/01 Date Reported 07/OR/01 ..U rl a4 \ a3 \ n 50 30 IB -I Environmental Consultirad Pty. Ltd. 3 ffinasbn lbwn Me,OeWeigh, WHorie 3166.Alabd~e I Sample 6-0.15 7-0.15 '8-0.15 9-0.15 1-0.6 2-0.6 Lab. NO. / Sample matrix JY4 12 5#Soi I JY412 6#Soil JYQ12711SoI1 JY4 126#Soil JY4129hSoil JY413O#SoiL mt imony - - - c10 - - lArsenic c2 9.2 R -7 4.8 2.4 c2 - - <2 - - I - - ~ ~ Ch rom 1 urn 1 - 18 eS e5 -Coba 1t - e5 - - 8 Copper <5 26 21 23 <5 d5 Lead - - 33 5.0 15 Mercury - <0.1 - - Molybdenum - - ClO - - r I Nicke 1 <5 26 14 18 <5 Noel Arnold &. bs$ociates Pt: Ltd Level 3, 61.8 Whitehorse Rod nnx Hill Sample 6-0.6 9-0.6 QA 1 (Spike % Recov Merh.Bl.fmg/l) Lob. No. / Sample matrix JYOl36#Soil JY4137HSoil JY413BiCSoil a413~SWOi 1 Antimony -. - - <0.5 Arsenic <2 5.9 2.9 93% .eo. 02 1 Beryl A iurn - - cQ. 02 d I Cadmium - - 1 96% 1 c0.02 Chromium F5 30 3.8 102% e0 .OS Cobalt - - - 1 Rickel . I ~ ~~ Tin - - co.5 Zinc 99 56 0 56 94% co 05 I 1 I 1 h I I lelmphom: (03)8584 7059 NDCA Arnold & Associates Pt LtA Fen (03)Q564 7190 Level 3 810 Whitehorse Roax Box Hilt Emall: m@Oms(snu.wmau Victoria 3120 Site : PAIIKDWB 29417 CYANIDE (CW-1 US EPA me46 mmo~90x0~- Sample 9-0.15 Meth .B1. (mg/l) Lab. io. / Samplc rnatrir JY4 12BRSoi I J 1 Cyanide (total) CS ~~ - I 1 I 1 r L 1 1 Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). L! Date received 26/07/05 Date Reported 07/08/02 Environmental Consuttirlg Pty. Ltd, 3 Klngslon Twm Olow,Uahlelgh Wrla 3166, Aurlrab Postal Addnws: P.O. bx278, WaJgh, Wdata. 9!8& Noel. Arnold & Associatea Pt LCd Te[ephono- (03)S64 1055 Lcvel, 3 B1R Whitehoree Rod Fax @3) Bss( 7 180 Box tLzli Emall: mgr8mgrewmm.eu Victoria 3128 Site ; PARKDALE 19417 wm’e AROMATIC VOLATILE ORGANICS us BPA ma46 MB~QDS~ozi~.az60~,5030 L MGT 3fOA Spike % Recov Meth.Bl.(mg/l) Tab. No. / Sample matrix S14128#Soil JY4120S#Soil d Benzene I I I 1 1 I 1 I I Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Date received 26/07/01 Datc Reported 07/08/01 4: 4: =lo B Environmental Coneulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kn@mTwn Close, Oewe$h. Vic@fia3166. Auslralii PomJAddrsSs: P.O. kx278, Om~dsigh,UmoM. 3488, Auslrek Noel Arnold & Associates Pt Ltd lelephone: (03) 8564 70% Level 3 818 Whitehorse Roa8 Fan (03) 9564 7 890 Box Hili Em@ [email protected] S amp1 e 9-0.15 'Spike B Remv Meth.Bl.[mg/l)' tab. No. / Sample matrix JY41213 U Soi 1 3Y412BS#Soil Aldrin (Y -BHC co.01 104% ~ ~ -~ ~~ __ Endosulfan I1 eo. 01 101% co -001 Rndrin <0.01 92% Met honychlor Tonophene CO. 1 Noel Arnold & AssociaLes Pt Ltd Level 3, 810 Whitehorse Aoas Box Hill Victoria 3128 Site : P?iftWALX 19417 r POLYNUCLEAR AROH&TIC HYDROCARBONS US EPA SW846 MBTBOD 8310(HPLC) 6r B27OC1(3C/blS) . Sample 2-0.15 9-0.15 3-0.6 7-0.6 Q.41 Spike % Recov Lab. No. / Sample matrix Jv412lHsail ~~412a #soi 1 JY4131i~Soi1 nsI3s#soil ~y4138#soil ~us138S#Soi1 Naphthalene co.1 €0. I __ -~ -~ Pyrene eo-1 L Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, water9 mg/l). Extcaction MGT 300A soils, USRPA 3510 waters. Dale received 26/07/01 Date Reported Q7/08/01 0 D4 40 3s3 Environmentel Consulting Pty. Ltd. 9 IUIIQSB~ Town Close, Oaklelgh VModm3fW hlrab Poybl Address: P.O. Bur 276, OaWelgh, Vlclok. 3188. AMTrab Noel Arnold 6 Eysociacea Pt. Telephone: (03)BMQ 7W 3, 818 Whitehorse Roa Ltd Fer: [N)9564 7bBo Level 5 ErnaO: rngtf#rnglenv.oom.au Sarnpl e Met\, . R1. (mg/l) Lab. No. / Sample matrix Naphthalene co . OD1 Acenaphthylene CO .UOL a)ant hracenc eo- oai Chrysene co. 001 l Benzo(b1 lluoranthene co. 001 I Berizo (k1 f luoranthene co - 001 Benzo (alpyrene Dibenzo [a,h) ant hracenc 40.001 Bonaa (g,h, i) perylene 6 -lo 3t3 Environmentel Consultit Id Pty. Ctd. -I -.I 3 mionTin Unw, Oakkigh. Vcmis 2tG6, Aose J POSWwwr: P.O, Bnne, Dakleigh. vkboria, 3168. We & Pt Telephm: (03)MI9 7wS Z5 Noel Arnold Associatca Ltd Level 3, 919 Whltehorsc R0a8 ~rnp) e509 71ea Box Hill EmJk mgtQrngtenu.com Bu Victorla 312B Site ; PARKDALE 19417 POtYCklLORX~TBDBXPHBNXLS (PCte.8) us EPA 8~846MBTHOD 8082. 9-0-15 IMeth- El. (mg/l) I I / Sample matrix JY4 I26# Soi 1 1 I Totak PCM's as Arochlor 1260 1 €0.1 I I! 1 I ~ 1 1- ResulCs in ppm (soilu mg/kg dzy, waters mg/l). Bxtraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 35iO waters. II Date received 26/07/01 Date Reparted 07/08/01 ------v) $2 39 Environmental Consultir .& Pty. Ltd. 9~funTownClose. Oekldnh, Vidarla3166. Amah Victoria 3128 Sgte : PARKDIUA 19417 PHENOGS h CRBSOtS - HPLC- JRNL. MROM 464(19t191 405-410 Sanipl e 3-0.15 Spike % Recov Meth.01. (n?g/ll Lab. No, / Sample matrix JY4 128RSo 1 1 JY4 12BSt)Sai 1 Phenol (0.1 99% CO .02 Cresofs (tota1 1 co, L 100% do. 01 J J I i 1 I I - I I I 1 Results in ppm !soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Ext.t-action MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. 1 Oate received 26/07/01 Date Reported 07/0d/01 Victoria 3120 Site : PARKDALE 19417 TOTAL RBCOVERSBLE XMROCARBOIlS (GC) MQT MBTHOD 100A-UC 1 I I 1 1 I I I I Results in pprn (soils mq/kg dry, waters mg/l). Bxtractian MGT 300A soils, USBPA 3510 waters. Date received 26/07/01 Date Reported 07/08/01 rl rl 9 9 >N N 7', Mercuiy LO'( rl'9 '/ 73?3 dp.aQr c Molybdenum 4 10 410 9s '( 4 0-I( Nickel 9..6 io 7'I /$/p 4 oar ~ Seleniutn Ll 42 4JoQ ?- Tin d !a 4to 103% c 0,j- Zinc '2 2213 I 4 a.W -Iw 0 I' z Date ritceived 03/08/01 r( 0 \ W 0 \ m -- I ,is FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION MELBOURNE OFFICE TO Richard OConnor COMPANY Noel Arnold and Associates FAX NO. (03) 9890 891 1 FROM Andrew Roy, Environmental Management Telephone (03) 9272 6622 Facsimile (03) 9272 661 I JOBlFlLE NO. VP8803.000.001 Document No. 14-5986 DATE 16 August 2001 NO.OFPAGES 2 (incl this page) SUBJECT PRIMARY SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR 396 NEPEAN HWY, PARKDALE Richard In response to your fax dated the 918101, we would like to make the following comments regarding the primary sample analytical results, and the next steps in the assessment and remediation of the Tradepac site at 396 Nepean Hwy, Parkdale: I. As you noted, NEPM EIL criteria were exceeded for zinc in the 0.6 metre depth sample from . the raised mound at the rear of the site and in surface samples from boreholes 5 and 8, and for arsenic from borehole 2. While these samples meet ‘A NEPM HIL criteria, you will need to make an assessment of the phytotoxic risk posed by arsenic and zinc exceeding these ecological criteria if no remediation action is taken, and/or the appropriate steps to be taken if it is necessary to mitigate this risk. 2. The mound at the back of the site contains fragments of metal, fencing wire, and the concrete slab you identified. Your suggestion that the concrete slab be removed, and some additional sampling below the slab is reasonable. However, how do you propose to manage the rest of the other contamination in the fill at the rear of the site? 3. What, if anything, is proposed for the surface fill layer covering the rest of the site, which contains elevated level of zinc and arsenic (as discussed in point I above), and some rubble? 4. Have you made any assessment of the potential impact of the contamination identified on groundwater quality? It may be necessary to do some elutriation testing to support the case for why groundwater does not need to be investigated. Privileged and confidential informafion may be contained in this facsimile. Nyw are not the addressee, you may not use, copy or deliver this facsimile to a third pa@. If you receive this.facsimiJeby mistake, please notify Egis Consulting Australia Pfy Limited immediafely by telephone or fax on the above numbers. CR - W::\Environmenta~~jectslvpl8803~~€S\14-5986. doc Page 1 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited ACN OD0 912 630/ABN 18 000 912 630 the australian groupe egis company FACSIMILE TEAMSMISSION figis MELBOURNE OFFICE To address these issues, we propose the following suggestions: 1. We agree that an emu bob of the site should be taken to remove asbestos material from the surface, however we suggest that all vegetation will first need to be cleared from the site so that it is possible to clearly see any remaining asbestos material. 2. Following the emu bob and collection of asbestos material, we suggest that the top 5-1Ocm of soil be removed from the surface of the site; 3. The mounded area at the back of the site be excavated to the depth of natural soil, with all waste material (including the concrete slab, fencing material, etc) being disposed of to the appropriate landfill. If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact Tasos or me on 9272 6666. Regards .. CR - ~!.\Environmenta~roje\Projecfs\vp\8803VAXES\I4-5986.doc Page 2 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited ACN 000 912 630 /ABN 18 000 912 630 the australian groupe egis company Facsimi le Noel Arnold & Associates Ptv Ltd To: Mr Andrew Roy Egis Consulting Australia Company: . y""*F 1- ~ -...*&"? Phone: 9272 6622 : vp.sso.3 &{DVpJP fax: 9272 6611 --'u %W@L 'l-k- I From: Richard O'Connor I Company: Noel Arnold & Associates Pty Ltd Phone: (03)-- 9890 8811 Fax: (03) 9890 8911 Our Refi 19417audfax4 Important: This facdmile contains confidential Information intended only for the addressee. If you are not heinmded redpient you are advised any distribution, publication or copylng of the facsimlle is strictly pmhibited. If you have received his 'an 7CC'IlN m The raised mound of fill material at the reaf of the sire d be excavared to nadsoils, wirh dl metal fragments, che wire fence, concrete slab and other waste inaterials being rem,oved from the site. Some of the soil will require off-site disposal to landfill in accordance with EPA Publication No. 448 due to the elevated zinc concentration recorded in sample 19417-9-0.6. Once the mound of fill has been excavated, validation sampling will be undertaken beneath the concrete slab. It is proposed that these samples be malyscd for heavy metals, given rhat the only contaminants identified at the site have been metals. I The soil samplbg results identified slighdy ekwated concentrations of zinc in surface sarnges from boreholes 5 and 8, and arsenic in the surface sample from borehole 2. The arsenk concentration in borehole 2 (22 rngkg) only slightly exceeded the NEPM EL (20 mg/kg) ad is considered to pose a minimal phytotoxic risk. The concentrations of zinc howwer, are slighdy greater, and it is therefore recommended that horciculnrral advice be sought when selebg appropriate plants, should these areas be developed as garden areas. 8 The results of eluuiadon testing of the surface samples d dso provide a bener indication of the kelihd of the arsenic and zinc concentrations in the surface soil posing a phytotoGc risk. Should these contaminmu be present in these soils in a form that has a low leachabiliq they would be less likely to be taken up through the roots of plants, hence the pborOZric risk would be low. Should the zinc have a high leachability, the phytotoluc risk would be greater, and we mould recommend that the areas with elevated Zinc concenuauons would need to be removed horn the site We look forward to your response to these proposed works. KindRegards Richard O'Gnnor FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION figis MELBOURNE OFFICE TO Richard 0'Conn.or COMPANY Noel Arnold and Associates FAX NO. (03) 9890 891 1 FROM Andrew Roy, Environmental Management Telephone (030 9272 6666 Facsimile (03) 9272 661 1 JOBlFlLE NO. VP8803.000.001 Document no. 14-6032 DATE 31 August 2001 NO.OFPAGES 1 (incl this page) SUBJECT PROPOSED FURTHER WORKS AT 396 NEPEAN HIGHWAY, PARKDALE Richard In response to your fax dated 20 August 2001, we wish to advise that, with the exception of the zinc contamination discussed in your dot point number 6, we believe that the proposed further works at 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale that you propose are reasonable. With regard to the elevated zinc concentrations in surface samples from boreholes 5 and 8 (dot point 6 in your fax of 20/8/01), we suggest that you seek direction from Jeff Clarke at Tradepac on the extent of work to be undertaken for the remediation of the site, as follows: If this contaminated soil is to be left on site, with horticultural advice being sought on the selection of appropriate plants as you suggest, the site may only be eligible for Statement of Environmental Audit; If, however, this material is removed from site, and additional testing proves that the contamination has been adequately remediated, then the site would be eligible for a Certificate of Environmental Audit. You will need to outline to Tradepac the relative costs and benefits of site remediation to a level acceptable to gain a Certificate of Environmental Audit. Please advise us of the results of the additional elutriation testing when this becomes available, and results of the further works proposed. Regards Privileged and confidential information may be contained in this facsimile. If you are not the addressee, you may not use, copy or deliver this facsimile to a third party. If you receive this facsimile by mistake, please notify Egis Consulting Australia Ply Limited immediately by telephone or fax on the above numbers. CR - \\MelmOl\WorkEnvironmental\Projecfs~vp\88O3FAXES\l4-6O32.doc Page 1 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited ACN 000 912 630 I ABN 18 000 912 630 the australian groupe egis company FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION MELBOURNE OFFICE TO Richard O'Connor COMPANY Noel Arnold and Associates FAX NO. (03) 9890 891 1 FROM Andrew Roy, Environmental Management Telephone (03) 9272 6666 Facsimile (03) 9272 661 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ JOBlFILE NO. VP8803.000.001 DOCNO. 14-6859 DATE 9 October 2001 NO.OFPAGES 1 (incl this page) SUBJECT OUTCOMES OF AUDITOR SITE VISIT - 396 NEPEAN HWY, PARKDALE Richard Further to our phone conversation earlier today, I wish to confirm the outcomes of our visit today to inspect the remediation of the Tradepac site at 396 Nepean Hwy, Parkdale. On inspection of the site, we noted a number of issues which currently make the site unacceptable for the issue of a Certificate of Environmental Audit, as follows: Fragments of asbestos cement sheeting were found at several locations (at least four) across the site, with several pieces being found in the soil in-between the original sample boreholes No. 5 and 6. As previously outlined, EPA has indicated that no asbestos is acceptable in the top one metre of the soil profile, and all practicable means should be taken to remove all asbestos from site. We are concerned that asbestos may still be widely distributed across the site, and it will be necessary to demonstrate to us that all asbestos has been removed. Solid waste material including brick, rubble, concrete, metal and glass was distributed across the site. While we recognise that it may not be possible to remove all traces of construction material from an urban site such as this, the current large extent of such . material across the site is unacceptable. 0 Waste from the removal of the concrete slab at the rear of the site has been stockpiled on the adjoining land. This material should be disposed of to a suitable landfill. Privileged and confidential information may be contained in this facsimile. If you are not the addressee, you may nof use, copy or deliver this facsimile to a third party. If you receive this facsimile by mistake, please noti& Egis Consulting Australia Ply Limited immediately by fe/ephone or fax on the above numbers. CR - \\MelmOl \Work\Environmenta~~jects\vp\~803~~€S\~4-6859,doc Page 1 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited ACN 000 912 630 /ABN 18 000 912 630 the australian groupe egis company FACSIMILE TRRNSMISSION Ggis MELBOURNE OFFICE As the site currently stands, we do not believe it is acceptable for a Certificate of Environmental Audit or a Statement of Environmental Audit. Please advise us how you wish to proceed to address the issues raised above. Regards Egis Consulting Australia Pty Ltd An a rewRoy CR - \\MelmOl \WorkEnvironmenta~rojec!s~vp\8803FAX€.S\14-6859.doc Page 2 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited ACN 000 912 630 l ABN 18 000 912 630 the australian groupe egis company Ggis FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION MELBOURNE OFFICE TO Richard OConnor CC: Jeff Clarke COMPANY Noel Arnold and Associates Tradepac FAX NO. (03) 9890 891 1 (03) 9521 0337 FROM Neil Robertson, Environmental Management Telephone (030 9272 6666 Facsimile (03) 9272 661 1 JOBlFlLE NO. VP8803.000.001 Document no. 14-7335 DATE 14 November 2001 NO.OFPAGES 2 (incl this page) SUBJECT RESIDUAL ASBESTOS AT 396 NEPEAN HIGHWAY, PARKDALE Richard Further to previous correspondence and discussions on this issue, the Auditor carried out an inspection of the above site on Monday 12" November to verify the effectiveness of the clean- up of residual asbestos sheeting in the surface soil. AT The inspection identified that there still appears to be residual asbestos sheeting fragments in surface soils at the site. At least ten fragments of asbestos sheeting material were noted during the Audit& visit. This raises the concern that sifting of the surface soils undertaken to remove asbestogsheeting has not been fully effective. In order to resolve this issue prior to finalisation of the Audit, the following action needs to be undertaken: > A joint inspection of the site by representatives of the Auditor, your office and the site owner, to carry out a detailed emu-bob of the site together, to verify the current condition of the surface of the site in relation to visible asbestos sheeting. > Following verification of the status of the surface soils, the Auditor will to write to the EPA to obtain advice on the way forward, given that the Auditor is unable to categorically confirm that the soil profile of the site does not contain any fragments of residual asbestos sheeting. > Following receipt of advice on the matter from EPA and implementation of any action required by EPA, the audit should be able to be finalised. Privileged and confidential information may be contained in this facsimile. If you are not the addressee, you may not use. copy or deliver this facsimile to a third party. If you receive this facsimile by mistake, please notify Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited immediately by telephone or fax on the above numbers. CR - \VMelmOllWork\Environmenta~rojecls\vp\8803~~€S\~4-7335.doc Page 1 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited ACN 000 912 630 I ABN 18 000 912 630 the australian groupe egis company FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION figis MELBOURNE OFFICE In the absence of Andy Roy this week, I am available to undertake the site inspection as the Auditor's representative. As discussed, I will meet you at the site at 10.00 am on Thursday 15th November. Rega rd s , tGiJ LL Egis Consulting Australia Neil Robertson CR - \Wle/mO1\Work~nvifonmenfa~~jelProjecfs\vp\B803\FAXdoc Page 2 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia F'ty Limited ACN 000 912 630 / ABN 18 000 912 630 the austraiian groupe egis company + FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION degis MELBOURNE OFFICE TO Sherie Kirby CC: Jeff Clarke COMPANY City of Kingston Tradepac FAX NO. (03) 9581 4500 (03) 9521 0337 FROM Tasos Katopodis, Environmental Management -Telephone (03) 9272 6666 Facsimile (03) 9272 661 1 JOBlFlLE NO. VP8803.001 Document no. VP-FO-112-02 - ~~ ~ DATE 30 January 2002 NO.OFPAGES 3 (incl this page) E SUBJECT DRAFT STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, 396 NEPEAN HIGHWAY, PARKDALE Dear Sherie, Further to our meeting yesterday, please find attached a draft copy of the Statement of Environmental Audit for the above site. As discussed can you please comment on the following two issues: Is Clause 1(ii) required? From our meeting, I understand that there are sufficient hold points / checks in the systems operated by Council to ensure that Condition l(i) is implemented, therefore, Council are satisfied that an inspection post-construction by an Environmental Auditor is not necessary. Will the Statement trigger a 173 agreement for the site? My previous experience is that this is generally the case in the City of Kingston, where the audit outcome is a Statement. Upon resolution of these issues to the satisfaction of all concerned parties, I will be in a position Your earliest attention to this fax would be much appreciated. Regards, Tasos Kazpodis Principal - Environmental Management Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Privileged and confidential information may be contained in this facsimile. If you are not the addressee, you may not use, copy or deliver this facsimile to a third parfy. If you receive this facsimile by mistake, please notify Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited immediately by telephone or fax on the above numbers. CR - ~~~nvironmental\Projects\vp\8803~~€SIV~-FO-~f2-02.doc Page 1 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited ACN 000 912 630 / ABN 18 000 912 630 the australian groupe egis company % DRAFT ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970 STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT I, Mr Tasos Katopodis of Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited, a person appointed by the Environment Protection Authority (“the Authority”) under the Environment Protection Act 1970 (“the Act”) as an environmental auditor for the purposes of the Act, having: been requested by Mr Jeff Clarke of Tradepac Pty Ltd to issue a certificate of environmental audit in relation to the site located at 396 Nepea cate of Title Volume 8106 Folio 742) owned by 2. had regard to, amongst other things: (i) guidelines issued by the Authority for the purposes of Part IXD of the Act; (ii) the beneficial uses that may be made of the site; and (iii) relevant State environment protection policieslindustrial waste management policies, namely the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria), State Environment Protection Policy (The Air Environment), State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste Minimisation) and Industrial Waste Management Policy (Prescribed Waste), in making a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of the site by any industrial processes or activity, waste or substance (including any chemical substance); and completed an environmental audit report in accordance with Section 53X of the Act, a copy of which has been sent to the Authority. HEREBY STATE that I am of the opinion that 1. The site is suitable for the following beneficial uses subject to the conditions attached thereto: Maintenance of modified ecosystems, human health, produckon of food and flora, buildings and structures and aesthetics in the context of medium or high density residential land use, subject to the following conditions: (i). Prior to occupancy, all buildings, drive-ways and landscaped areas are to be established as per the development plans associated with Town Planning Application Number KP011784. Relevant drawings (CONFIRM NUMBERS) are attached to this Statement. (ii) An Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) is to be engaged at the completion of site works to confirm that the development works have been completed in accordance with Town Planning Application Number KP011784. 2. The condition of the site is detrimental or potentially detrimental to any (one or more) beneficial uses of the site. Accordingly, I have not issued a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the site in its current condition, reasons for which are presented in the environmental audit report. The terms and conditions that need to be complied with before a Certificate of Environmental Audit may be issued are set out as follows: The shallow soil profile (generally top 0.5m) contains minor quantities of AC sheet fragments (measured as up to 0.0008% by mass CHECK). The upper 0.5m would need fo be cleaned-up so that no AC Sheet fragments remain at the site. Other related information: Should AC sheet fragments be encountered at the site, these should be handled and disposed of in accordance with relevant regulations. This Statement forms part of the environmental audit report prepared by Mr Tasos Katopodis and titled, Tradepac Pty Ltd, 396 Nepean Highway, Parkdale, Victoria, Environmental Audit Report (No: VP8803.001, D). Further details regarding the condition of the site may be found in the environmental audit report. DATED: s I G NED: TASOS KATOPODIS ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITOR (Statement not valid unless signed and dated) I- z-uz; Y:UY ;City of Kingston 161 39581 4500 # 1/ 1 -cityCity ,ofof KING FAX COVER SHEET DATE: ATTENTION: DESTINATION: Egis Consulting Australia Pty Ltd FAX NUMBER: 9272 6611 FROM: Sherie Kirby FAX NUMBER: 9581 4500 Should you not receive any part of this fax please contact the writer immediately. Thank-you for meeting with me on the 29* January, 2002. I have since discussed the points raised in your facsimile (dated 30thJanuary, 2002) with my manager, Ian Nice, and wish to confirm the following matters: ' The condition specified under Clause 1 (ii) of the draft statement of environmental audit for the subject site is not required to be included as a condition ofany permit issued for the proposal, given that Council has sufficientstatutory authority to ensure that any development approval is complied with. ' The provision ofa statement of environmental audit will not require the applicant to enter into a Section 173 agreement with Council, A condition of any permit issued for the proposed development on this site will require that any requirements stipulated on a statmmt of environmental audit must be complied with. If you have any Merqueries, please contact me on 9581 4894. Regards, Sherie, Cc: Jcff Clarke c/- Tradepac FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION MELBOURNE OFFICE TO Richard OConnor CC: Jeff Clarke COMPANY Noel Arnold and Associates Tradepac FAX NO. (03) 9890 8911 (03) 9521 0337 FROM Andrew Roy, Environmental Management Telephone (030 9272 6666 Facsimile (03) 9272 661 1 JOBlFlLE NO. VP8803.000.001 Document no. VP-FO-94-02 DATE 1 February 2002 NO.OFPAGES 3 (incl this page) SUBJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ~~~ Richard Thankyou for forwarding your report. We would like to clear up a few queries we have before you finalise your draft. Specific details are provided in the attached table. These are mostly inconsistencies and minor corrections. We have provided a space alongside each item for your comment, and can provide you with an electronic copy of this to you via email if it is of help. Thanks for your assistance. Regards, Egis Consulting Austral' 4\"-%- Andrew Roy Privileged and confidenfial information may be contained in this facsimile. If you are not the addressee, you may not use, copy or deliver fhis facsimile to a third party. If you receive this facsimile by mistake, please notify Egis Consulting Ausfralia Pty Limited immediately by telephone or fax on fhe above numbers. CR - W:EnvironmentaAProjects\vp\8803FAX€S'\VP-f 0-94-02.doc Page 1 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited ACN 000 912 630 I ABN 18 000 912 630 the australian groupe egis company .... 43 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Ggis MELBOURNE OFFICE Draft Report review - Environmental Site Assessment: VP 8803.001 Client: Tradepac Pty Ltd, Nepean Hwy, Parkdale VIC. Assessor: Noel Arnold and Associates Pty. Ltd 2.3 Clarification of Midway ownership (1856 or 1956?). 2.3 Relationship between Tradepac and Fahnle? 2.3, App. A Fahnle (title deed) vs Fahwle (building permit)? and C 3 The reference to the Act is not technically correct. The Livable Neighbourhoods Act is the vehicle for the amendment to the EP Act. Auditing now falls under Section 53 of the EP Act 1970. 4.2.1 IWere composite samples 1 and 2 made up in field or by laboratory from individual soil samples? How were samples homogenised and duplicates made? 5.1, 8.2 /Samples VR1 , VR2, and VTB2 analysed and noted in COC, but sampling and results not reported in text of report. 5.2 How / where was collected asbestos disposed of? ~ ~__ 5.2 Was sifted soil tracked to maintain integrity of soil analyses with respect to known location on site. 6.1 Check number of bores in GDB search 6. I 'There are new Dutch criteria (2000) - have these been considered? ~~~ 6.1 Asbestos criteria not correctly stated. The 0.001% by mass is a guide only. It would be prudent not to reference it as an EPA criterion ~ 6.2.1 Elutriation analyses and results reported but no lab reports included in Appendix H. CR - ~~~nvironmenta~~je~slv~\8803~~€S\VP-FO-94-02.doc Page 2 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited ACN 000 912 630 lABN 18 000 912 630 the australian group egis company ;J, FACSIMILE TRAHSMlSSlON Ggis MELBOURNE OFFICE 8.2.2 Please confirm definition of a laboratory method blank provided in your report. Have rinsate blanks been analysed? 9.1 Can you please confirm basis for sending "waste material" containing asbestos to landfill as, inert waste? ITables INurnber of numerical errors in concentrations I Appendix C Planning permit has reference to demolition of squash courts / gymnasium. This does not match our understanding of the site history. Appendix J Missing Appendix J Appendix L Missing page 2 of MGT report #I49010 Appendix Two of the four LLCS disposal forms are not G signed off by receiving authority. Appendix H Elutriation lab report of SP5 for Aluminium included but no reference to this is made in the text of the report. CR - W:EnvironmentaWmjectslvp\8803FAXES~VP-F0-94-!l2.doc Page 3 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited ACN 000 912 630 / ABN 18 000 912 630 the australian group egis company3 Facsimile Noel Arnold & Associates Ptv Ltd ~ ~ __ To: Mr Andrew Roy Company: Egis Consulting Australia Phone: 9272 6666 Fax: 9272 6611 Copies To: Jeff Clarke (Tradepac - 9521 0337) From: Richard O'Connor Our Ref: 19417audfax8 Subject: Environmental Site Assessment - 396 Nepean Hwy Par kd a le Important This facsimile conlains amiidential informarJon Intended onty for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipjent, you are advised any disbibutlon, publication or mpying of the facslmlfe is strictly pruhibikd. If yuu have Wedthis farsimile in mor, please telephone us immediately and arrangements will be made Far 11s return Andrew, Please hd attached our response to your facsimile dated the I" of Februaty 2002. Please note that all of these issues will be addressed in our find report, which should be re-issued by the end of the week. If you have my funher queries, please don't hesitate to contact me on 9896 8757. KindRegards Richard O'connor Practical Solutions Noel Arnold & hssociates Level 3,818 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill AEN 76 - 006 318 010 eoazqmiormlHeaIth8Safety 0 Envlronmenbl Management 0 Risk Management wwccww~ia-~ecslrrme ...... ,...... Section Issue . Ad-&: . I t.3 Ckirification of Midway ownership (1856 OS 1957 is the correct year as spe&ed in 1956?). the Certificate of Title. This has been amended in the report. !.3 Relationship between Tradepac and Fahnlld PaMe was the vendor of the property when Tradepac purchased it. !3,App. A Fabnle (title deed) YS Pahwk (building permit}? Typographical error on the building md C permit, 3 The reference to the Act is not techni4 The reference to the Tivale cornea. The Livable Neighburhoods Act is the Neighbourhoods Act has been deleted &de for the amendment to the EP Act and replaced with a direct reference to Audkhg now falls derSection 53 of the EF Section 53 of the El? ACL tAa 1970. ?2.1 Were composite samples 1 and 2 made up inComposite samples were made up in Geld or by laboratory from individual soilthe laboratory from individual soil samples? How were sampIes homogenlsed andsamples. With respect to duplime duplicates made? (blind and split} samples, these were collected in the field. A sample of soil was mixed thoroughly and quartered before being placed into the samplq jars. j.1,8.2 Samples VRl, W,and VTBZ anatysed and Samples VR1 and VR2 were hare noted in CCC, hut sampling and Tesutts notblank samples mUected duMg the reported in text of report. remediation phase of the assessment A single trip blank (VJBl) was collected but not an+. Reference to the collection of these samples and the sample results will be included in the final report. 5.2 How / where was collected asbestos disposed The asbestos mllected horn the site Of? was collected in a desi@ asbestos bin (Bin A861 supplied by Read's - Waste Management. 52 was sifted soil ddto maintain integrity 01 "he site was sifted in sections, Faith soil analyses with respect to known location on each section being replaced once it site. had been sifted. This meant that soil was not vansported around the site, thus the integrity of the soif + was maintained 6.1 lcheck number of bores in GDB search 1N.mb.r of bores L con- to bel 19417audfax8 07/02/02 1k31 2 ...... , ...... _ ...... s sue ...... _. &i?Ti' " ...... :...... I 3s. Itere are new Dutch criteria (2000) - have these These have not been reviewed. ieen considered? ubestos criteria not correctly stated. The The report will be amadd to indicate 1.001% by mass is a guide only. It would bethat the 0.001% by mass was used a Rudent not to reference it as an EPA Pitdon guide to determine whether the site was suitable for fnediwn residential use and is not criterion hriation analyses and results reported but no "be elmiation results are found on h reports included in Appmdm L page 2 of MGT reporr #149010 (the missing page). 'lease confirm definition of a laboratory method Rinsate blanks VR1 and VR2 have dank provided in your report been anafysed, however R1 has not herinsaw bl& been analysed2 h you please confirm basis for sending "waSte The asbestos &al was separd mdcontaining asbestos to landfill as ine~~fiwm the industrial rubble removed me? during sifting prior to the rubble being disposed of from site Since this dcontained no- asbestos it was %unba of numerical errors in concentrations Results tables to be checked thoroughly for typographical errors. ?lann;n- permit has reference to demolition of Discussions with Jeff Clarke indicated ;+ courts 1 gymnasium This does notthat Fahnle Holdhgs Pty Ltd was natch mxr understanding of the site history, responsible for obtaining the demolition pennit. Jeff spoke with &e City of Kingston, who indicated that the mistake was a typographical error, and that no furrher action was required, __ ~~ ~ ~ VGSsiag Appendix J This appendix was missing from the draft report due to a photocopying error. It will be present in the hnal report. Missing page 2 of MGT report if149010 This page was missing from the draft report due to a photocopying error. It 19417audfax8 07102f02 11:31 3 .. .. Section Issue ' ' "Action...... ! will be present in the iind report. ~~ Appendix Two of the four UCS disposal forms are nor Jeff Clarke to fax to NAA G signed off by receiving author+. AppendixL EluuiaXion lab "pg~of SP5 for Aluminim Elurxiation testing of this sample was included but no reference to this is made in the requested by the 1andf;fl receiving the text of the report. LLCS. Areferencetothisana&sd be made within the final report. 19417audfax8 07/02/02 11:31 4 II\?lYLI nu I I I LIY rnur u+ .. 1 TRADEPAC 'PTVa 1 LTD, * A.C.N. 007419016 A.B.~.22OO74loOlO &mall: [email protected] Phone: 9598 3887 AN mail: P.0. Box 2097, Fab9521 0337 WPTONEAST 3188. Mobile: 0412 337767 < FA C$IMILE .. ./ To: ...... S I flo. - 6AK From: Jeffrey Clarke '.c P , q, Date: ...... r ..&" Re: ...... Fbid e/+ z7.25. ...... I ...... I ...... I,. ..... 11*....*.....;..,...... ...... ,v.b,.., **. ...... , ...... '...... Volume 03106 Folio 742 1225305789315 Page 1 ... Produced 10/09/2001 01 :57 pm VICTOR I A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE UNDER THE TRANSFER OF LAND ACT I certify that the registered proprietor Is the proprletor of the to the encumbrances, caveats and notlcee described '. ,* I LAND---- .-. .L LOT 30 on Plan of Subdivision 000995. PARENT TITLE Volume 06948 Folio 543 Credted by instrument A123306 07/03/1956 REG I STEREO PROPRIETOR c------_-c_-_ ESTATE FEE SIMPLE Tenants in common As to I. of a total of 3 equal undivided shares SOLE PROPRIETOR TRADEPAC PTY LTD; 56 DAVID ST. HAMPTON 3188 As to 1 of a total of 3 equal undivided shares SOLE PROPRIETOR JAPRYM PTY LTD; 7 HAROLD ST. BULLEEN 3105 As to 1 of a total of 3 equal undivided shares SOLE PROPRIETOR MALROD PTY LTD; 6 UXBRIDGE AV. DONCASTER 3108 X703943H 29/08/2001 Any encumbrances created by Section 98 Transfer of Land Act 1958 or Section 24 Subdivision Act 1988 and any other encumbrances shown or entered on the plan or imaged folio set out under DIAGRAM LOCATION below, 01AGRAM LOCATION ------I SEE DIAGRAM ON IMAGED FOLIO VOLUME 08106 FOLIO 742 FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND BOUNDARIES END OF CERTIFICATE THIS CERTIFICATE CONTAINS INFORMATION CORRECT AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. CURRENT INFORMATION SHOULD BE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF THE REGISTER. Attachment C Auditor’s Verification Sample Laboratory Resu Its - @I002 18/02 '02 YON 12:32 FAX 81 3 9564 7190 YGT CONSULTING +++ CMPSBIF MELB Environmentai Consulting Pty. Ltd. 9.B-N 50 005 086 521 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh, Vlctaria, 3166, AusRalia2 Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oaklelgh, Victoria, 3166, Australla Telephone: + 61 3 8564 7055 Fax + 61 3 9564 7190 Emall: [email protected] .- 18 February 2002 Egis coneulting 390 St Kilda Rd Melbourne Victdria 3004 Att: Mr S. Baker Dear Simon MGT ANRGYTICAL REPORT NO 252217 Please find attached the analyeis results for the PARKDAtE VPBBO3-000-001 samples received 05/02/02 Michael Wright Laboratory Manager li I I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. $< < 3 Kingston TmClose. Oakleigh, Victoria 3186, Austolia i Pwlal kkil~tis:P-0. Bax278. Oakleigh. Vlaoria, 3166. Australia Teiqhone: + 61 7055 3 9561 < Fax+ 61 3 9664 7190 ? Email: [email protected] E 5 c r < < ,’ MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 152217 i < c C :- ita Contaultin CLIENT E t 380 St Kilda R% C Melbourne < Victoria 3 004 J k t SITE :- PARXDALB VP8803-000-001 C DATE RCCCEX- S- os/oa/oa DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 05/02/02 06/02/02 - E G DATE REPORTED :- ia/oz/oa c QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samplea is detailed fn this report no : 152217 A total of 6 duplicate, 2 matrix spike % recovery and 6 method blank analysee or sets of analyeee were carried out on this batch of eamp1ee. All QA/QC resulte for duplicates. matrix =pike % recoveriee, method blanks and known QC standarde were within the 6et acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The result8 in chi6 report eupersede any previouely corresponded results. 4 4 4 Y Michael Wright Laboratory Uanager Page 1 of 6 I d C C I-' 0 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. \ 0 3 Khgston TiC~SR. Oaklelgh, Victoria 3166. Ausim N Postal Address: P-0- BOX 276. Oakleiph. Vidoria. 3166, Aumlia E is Consultin Telephone: +ai 3 %SBQ7055 330 St Kilda Fd Fa+ 61 3 9569 71% Melbourne &aJ mgl B mgtwv.comau - Victoria 3004 Site : PARKDALE VP8803-000-001 HEAVY METALS USEPA 6020B (ICP), 7470/1 (CVAA) Sample AVI/O - 0.2 AVl/O-0.2 Oup AV2/0-0-2 AV3 / 0 - 0 .2 AV4/ 0 - 0.2 Spike % Recov - Lab. NO. / Sample matrix FEa33S#Soil PE0335D#Soil FE0336#Soil FEO337#Soil PE0338#Soil FE10338S#Soil Boron 5-1 5-0 5.7 6.2 5.1 - Rluminium 1000 1700 090 1300 1800 - Antimony c10 c10 Beryl1 i urn <2 e2 c2 CZ c2 88% Cadmium Date received 05/02/02 Date Reported 18/02/02 Report: No. 152217 Page 2 of 6 I- Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. ? C 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166, Auslmlia P Pwlal Address: P.O. Box 276, -Weigh. VCIoM, 3166, Austraua 1 9564 7055 C %is consult in Telephom: + 6 3 P 390 St Kilda Rs Fax+ 61 3 8564 7190 Melbourne Ernail: [email protected] Victoria 3004 Site : PARRDAGB VPB803-000-001 5 c HEAVY METALS USEPA 60108 (ICP), 7470/1 (CVAA) rl P c I C 1 Sample Meth .B1. (mg/l) ll~ab.NO. / Sample matrix 5 co .05 ;I C Aluminium 43.5 U C eo-5 I C I I 1 I I IF c0.02 I ll - I- U C I Beryllium Report NO. 15a217 Page 3 of 6 Environmentel Consulting Pty. Ltd. c. m 3 Kingslnn Town Clm. Oaldeigh Vjctaria 3 ISS, Auslmha Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Oakleigh, Viclorb. 3 168, Australia Egis Consultin Teiephnne: + 61 3 9564 7055 390 St Kilda R8 Fax+ 61 3 9564 7 i90 Melbourne Email: rngtt3mgtenvmrn.au Victoria 3 004 site : PARKD~~~0803-000-001 II HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000 (AA) & 601DB(ICP), VIC BPA WBTEODS 13&16. Sample AVl/O-O -2 IAV1/0-0-2 Duo IAVZ/O-O.Z I AV3/ 0 - 0 - 2 IAV4 / 0 - 0.2 (Spike t Recov Lab- No. / Sample matrix strontium I,,Thallium Ei tanium I Zinc 11- II Extraction with H202, HN03 & HCl. Resulta in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). I' II Date received 05/02/02 Date Reported 10/02/02 + + m Report No. 152217 Page 4 of 6 E? 0 I- ,0 I Environmental Consulting PCy. Ltd. C n 3 Kingslon Town Close. OaMeigh. Vichia 3186. Aueimlla Postal Address. P.O. Box 276, Oakldqh, Viclaria. 166. Aumlia 3 C n 5 c h c. IF Sample Meth-B1- (mg/l) I ab- No- / Sample matrix ; C strontium c0.5 c c Thallium t0.5 a c c0.5 C Tin IF t0.5 - Titanium I- O ~ Zinc KO. 05 B G 5c ZA E t d 1 I 1 I 4 4 4 i Report No. 152217 Paae 5 of b l- a \ C ~ - -- . . N PoslelAdd+: P.O. Box n6.Oaklei$h.-Victoris, 3166 Austcaha E is Consultin TBlqhone: + 61 3 E!= 7055 330 St Kilda Fax+61 3 95&1719o Me1bourne Email: [email protected] Victoria 3004 Site : PARKDALB VPB803-000-001 I METALS-US EPA 893646 7000IAA) 6t 6010B(ICP). Sample IAVl/O- 0 - 2 IAVl/O-O.Z Dup iAV2/0-0.2 1 AV3 / 0- 0 - 2 1 AV4 /O - 0.2 IMeth. B1. (mg/l) I I 1 IFE0335#Soil )FE0335D#Soil IPB0336#Sail IFE0337#Soil 1 PEO338#Soil I ~~ / Calcium 2300 2400 1400 78 0 1500 CO. 05 Magnesium 1100 1200 610 300 1300 CO - 05 Potassium 140 140 92 290 130 ~ I Extn with (1+3) KN03 & HC1-Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l) Date received 0~/02/02 Date Reported 18/02/02 a 0 Report No. 152217 Page 6 of 6 0 01