ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project Major Project Application Number 10-0133

Volume 2: Appendices 1 – 4

May 2011

Appendices

Volume 2

1 Preliminary Contamination Assessment – Tomago 2 Preliminary Contamination Assessment – Hexham 3 Surface Water Assessment 4 Water and Waste Water Servicing Summary

Volume 3

5 Flooding Impact Assessment 6 Groundwater Assessment – Tomago 7 Ecological Assessment

Volume 4

8 Bush Fire Threat Assessment 9 Cultural Heritage Assessment 10 Socio-economic Characterisation 11 Visual Impact Assessment 12 Traffic Study 13 Noise and Vibration Assessment

Volume 5

14 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment 15 Plume Rise Assessment 16 Preliminary Hazard Assessment

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project Major Project Application Number 10-0133

Volume 2: Appendices 1 – 4

May 2011

CR 6023_8_v3

Coffey Natural Systems Pty Ltd ABN 61005041878 Level 1, 3 Rider Boulevard Rhodes NSW 2138 Australia T (+61) (2) 9736 2400 F (+61) (2) 8765 0762 coffey.com

Project director Carolyn Balint Project manager Edward Niembro Version: Details: Approved: Date: CR 6023_8_v1 Initial draft to client CB 14/02/2011 CR 6023_8_v2 Second draft to client and Department of Planning CB 24/02/2011 CR 6023_8_v3 Final to client CB 23/05/2011

Appendix 1

Preliminary Contamination Assessment - Tomago

PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT NEWCASTLE GAS STORAGE FACILITY LOT 105, DP 1125747, 5 OLD PUNT ROAD, TOMAGO NSW

Prepared for:

AGL Energy Limited Level 22, 101 Miller Street NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2060

Report Date: 21 January 2011 Project Ref: ENAUWARA04016AA

Written by: Submitted by: Reviewed by:

Emma Coleman James McMahon Laurie Fox Senior Environmental Scientist Senior Environmental Scientist Principal

Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd ABN 65 140 765 902 19 Warabrook Boulevard Warabrook NSW 2304 Australia

21 January 2011

AGL Energy Limited Level 22, 101 Miller Street NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2060

Attention: Alex Kennedy-Clark

Dear

RE: Preliminary Contamination Assessment Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Lot 105 DP 1125747, 5 Old Punt Road, Tomago NSW

Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd (Coffey) is pleased to provide the report for the Preliminary Contamination Assessment for the Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project.

This report should be read in conjunction with the attached “Important Information about your Coffey Environmental Report”, which provides a general context for this type of environmental report.

We trust that the report meets with your current requirements. If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned on (02) 4016 2300.

For and on behalf of Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd

Emma Coleman Senior Environmental Scientist

Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd ABN 65 140 765 902 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 19 Warabrook Boulevard Warabrook NSW 2304 Australia T (+61) (2) 4016 2300 F (+61) (2) 4016 2380 coffey.com RECORD OF DISTRIBUTION

No of Report Report File Name Date Prepared for Initials copies Status

1 ENAUWARA04016AA- Draft 1 October 2010 AGL Energy Limited

R02a.pdf

1 ENAUWARA04016AA- Draft 1 October 2010 Coffey Environments Australia

R02a.doc Pty Ltd

1 ENAUWARA04016AA- Draft 26 October 2010 AGL Energy Limited

R02b.pdf

1 ENAUWARA04016AA- Draft 26 October 2010 Coffey Environments Australia

R02b.doc Pty Ltd

1 ENAUWARA04016AA- Draft 10 December 2010 AGL Energy Limited

R02c.pdf

1 ENAUWARA04016AA- Draft 10 December 2010 Coffey Environments Australia

R02c.doc Pty Ltd

1 ENAUWARA04016AA- Draft 12 January 2011 AGL Energy Limited

R02d.pdf

1 ENAUWARA04016AA- Draft 12 January 2011 Coffey Environments Australia

R02d.doc Pty Ltd

1 ENAUWARA04016AA- Final 21 January 2011 AGL Energy Limited

R02.pdf

1 ENAUWARA04016AA- Final 21 January 2011 Coffey Environments Australia

R02.doc Pty Ltd

Coffey Environments ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 General 1

1.2 Objectives and Scope of Work 2 1.2.1 Objectives 2 1.2.2 Scope 2

2 STUDY AREA IDENTIFICATION 4

2.1 Location and Setting 4

2.2 Current Surrounding Land Use 4

2.3 Topography and Drainage 5

2.4 Surface Water and Drainage 5

2.5 Geology and Hydrogeology 5

3 SITE HISTORY REVIEW 7

3.1 Scope 7

3.2 Aerial Photographs 7

3.3 Site Observations 8

3.4 Planning Certificates 9

3.5 Titles Search 11

3.6 DECCW, Contaminated Land - Record of Notices 12

3.7 Heavy Mineral Sand Mining History 12

3.8 Tomago Aluminium Smelter 13

3.9 Summary of Site History 13

4 AREAS OF CONTAMINATION CONCERN 15

5 FIELD INVESTIGATION 16

5.1 Soil and Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan 16

5.2 Soil Investigation 19

Coffey Environments ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 CONTENTS

5.3 Groundwater Investigation 20

5.4 Field Quality Assurance/ Quality Control 20 5.4.1 Soil 21 5.4.2 Groundwater 21

5.5 Laboratory Analysis 21

6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 23

6.1 Soil Profile 23

6.2 Groundwater 23

7 INVESTIGATION CRITERIA 25

7.1 Soil Investigation Criteria 25

7.2 Groundwater Investigation Criteria 27 7.2.1 Environmental Values 27 7.2.2 Drinking Water 27 7.2.3 Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems 27 7.2.4 Groundwater Investigation Criteria Summary 28

8 QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS AND ASSESSMENT 30

8.1 Soil Quality Assurance / Quality Control Results 30

8.2 Groundwater Quality Assurance / Quality Control Results 30

8.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance / Quality Control 30

9 LABORATORY RESULTS AND ASSESSMENT 33

9.1 Soil Results and Assessment 33

9.2 Groundwater Results and Assessment 37 9.2.1 Contaminant Fate Modelling 37

10 ACID SULFATE SOILS 39

10.1 Definition of Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) 39

10.2 Significance of ASS 39

Coffey Environments ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 CONTENTS

10.3 Acid Sulfate Soils Risk Map 39

10.4 Council Policy and Applicable Guidelines 40 10.4.1 Port Stephens Council ASS Policy 40 10.4.2 Applicable Guidelines 40

10.5 Acid Sulfate Soil Results 41 10.5.1 Field Screening Tests 41 10.5.2 Laboratory Results 42 10.5.3 Discussion of Results 43

11 CONCLUSIONS 44

12 LIMITATIONS 45

13 REFERENCES 46

Coffey Environments ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Important Information about your Coffey Environmental Report

Figures

Figure 1: Site Locality Plan

Figure 2: Sampling Location Plan

Figure 3: Groundwater Contour Plan (July – August 2010)

Figure 4: Primary Project Area on Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Map

Appendices

Appendix A: NSW Office of Water Groundwater Bore Data

Appendix B: Aerial Photographs

Appendix C: Section 149 Certificates

Appendix D: Historical Titles Documents

Appendix E: DECCW Search Records

Appendix F: Borehole Logs and PID Records

Appendix G: Laboratory Reports

Appendix H: Data Validation Report

Appendix I: ASS Field Screening Results

Coffey Environments I ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 ABBREVIATIONS

AGL AGL Energy Limited

AHD Australian Height Datum

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

ASS Acid sulfate soils

ASSMP Acid sulfate soils management plan

AST Aboveground storage tank

BTOC Below top of casing

C6-C36 Hydrocarbon chainlength fraction

DA Development application

DCP Development control plan bgl Below ground level

BH Borehole

BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes

COC Chemical of concern

DLWC Department of Land and Water Conservation (NSW)

DO Dissolved oxygen

EC Electrical conductivity

Eh Oxidation/reduction potential

EPL Environment Protection License

ESA Environmental site assessment

HWC Hunter Water Corporation

ID Identification

IP Interface probe

Coffey Environments II ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 ABBREVIATIONS

LEP Local environment plan

LGA Local government area

LNG Liquefied natural gas

LOR Limit of reporting

µg/L micrograms per litre mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/L milligrams per litre

MW Monitoring well

NATA National Association of Testing Authorities

NEHF National Environmental Health Forum

NEPM National Environment Protection Measure

NSW New South Wales

NSW DECCW NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (formerly NSW EPA)

NSW EPA NSW Environment Protection Authority

NOW NSW Office of Water

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCA Preliminary contamination assessment

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl

PID Photoionisation detector ppm Parts per million

PQL Practical quantitation limit

PVC Polyvinyl chloride

QA Quality assurance

Coffey Environments III ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 ABBREVIATIONS

QC Quality control

REP Regional environmental plan

RL Reduced level

RPD Relative percent difference

SB Soil bore

SEPP State environmental planning policy

SGS SGS Australia Pty Ltd

SPOCAS Suspended Peroxide Oxidation Combined Acidity and Sulfate

SPT Standard penetration test

SOP Standard operating procedures

SWL Standing water level

TAA Total actual acidity

TAC Tomago Aluminium Company

TD Total depth

TDS Total dissolved solid

TOC Top of casing

TPA Total potential acidity

TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbon

VOC Volatile organic compound

Coffey Environments IV ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the findings of a preliminary contamination assessment (PCA) for the proposed Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project (the Project) at Tomago for AGL Energy Limited (AGL). The proposed location is a portion of a property known as Tomago Aluminium Land, located in the northern part of Lot 105 in DP1125747 (Lot 105) on 5 Old Punt Road, Tomago, NSW.

The Project consists of the construction and operation of a gas plant site, a natural gas pipeline connecting the gas plant site to a receiving station and a receiving station to link the Project into the NSW gas network via the existing Sydney to Newcastle pipeline.

This PCA assesses the gas plant site, the gas access pipeline corridor and access road and utility corridor. This study area, referred to as the ‘primary project area’, is located in the northern portion of Lot 105, which is currently owned by TAC. This PCA focuses on contamination risks that may be present on the primary project area, which may constrain commercial/industrial development.

An acid sulfate soil (ASS) assessment was undertaken within the main study area. Acid sulfate soil risks were assessed along the pipeline route options and, as for contamination assessment, further assessment will be undertaken following selection of the pipeline route.

The objectives of the investigation were to provide a preliminary assessment of the potential for soil and groundwater contamination within the primary project area and an overview of ASS risks within the primary project area and along the pipeline route options.

The following scope of work was conducted for the PCA:

• Observations by a Coffey environmental scientist to visually assess potential sources of contamination, visually assess property boundaries, observe surrounding landuses, topography, drainage, and nearby sensitive environments;

• A review of a selection of historical aerial photographs for the primary project area;

• A review of historical land ownership titles;

• A search of online contaminated land databases maintained by the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW);

• A search of the NSW Office of Water (NOW) groundwater well database;

• A review of local ASS risk maps;

• A review of local geology, hydrogeology and topography;

• Collation of the above information and identification of potential areas of environmental concern (AECs) and chemicals of concern (COCs);

• Drilling of 12 boreholes (SB09 to SB11 and SB14 to SB22) using a truck mounted drill rig;

• Drilling two boreholes (BH01 and BH02) using a hand auger;

• Collection of soil samples and laboratory analysis of COCs ;

• Field screening and laboratory analysis for acid sulfate soil assessment;

• Installation of three groundwater monitoring wells (MW1 to MW3);

• Collection of three groundwater samples and laboratory analysis of COCs; and

Coffey Environments V ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Data assessment and reporting

The site history assessment identified that the eastern portion of the primary project area has been used for heavy mineral sand mining between 1970’s and 1990’s, and that the primary project area has been an industrial buffer zone for Tomago Aluminium smelter since 1981.

Based on the site history assessment, field observations and laboratory analysis, it is considered that there is a low risk of significant soil and groundwater contamination on the primary project area. Some influence of atmospheric fallout from the nearby aluminium smelter was evident with low fluoride concentrations in soil detected at the ground surface.

Groundwater parameters and concentrations of chemicals of concern were consistent with known data from the Tomago sand beds.

The results of the ASS screening tests for the primary project area showed the soils are unlikely to be ASS, and an ASSMP is not required at this stage. There is a potential that soils closer to Hunter River could be alluvial/estuarine in nature, and ASS may be present. It is recommended that if soil conditions different to those in this report are encountered during excavations on the western end of the primary project area, then further advice in regards to ASS be sought.

Based on the results of this PCA it is concluded that previous activities on and near the primary project area, have not negatively impacted on soil or groundwater quality and contamination issues do not pose a constraint to development of the gas plant site, the portion of the gas pipeline corridor and the portion of the proposed new road that fall within the primary project area.

Based on the results of this study, it is considered that further contamination assessment or remediation are not required, at this stage, in the primary project area. It is noted that conditions between sampling locations could vary from those described in this report, and if suspicious material is encountered an environmental consultant should be engaged to provide guidance on management of the material. In this context, suspicious materials include oily or odorous material, potential asbestos containing materials, drums, metal or plastic containers, former fuel tanks or machinery.

No contamination investigation has been carried out on the proposed pipeline routes, and once the preferred pipeline route is known, contamination assessment will be required. Further acid sulfate soil investigations will also be required along the pipeline route to assess the impact from trenching and horizontal directional drilling. Based on the results of further investigation appropriate liming rates can be assessed and an ASSMP prepared.

Coffey Environments VI ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

The Project consists of the construction and operation of: a) A gas plant site, which includes:

• A processing plant that will convert pipeline natural gas to liquefied natural gas (LNG) by cooling it to -162°C. It will be capable of processing up t o 66,500 tonnes of LNG per year.

• An insulated non-pressurised LNG storage tank (capable of containing up to 30,000 tonnes or 66500 m3 of LNG) and an associated containment bund to contain any potential spills or leaks.

• A re-gasification unit to convert the LNG in the storage tank back into natural gas for supply.

• A flare.

• A truck loading facility to allow the dispatch of up to 1,000 tankers of LNG per year.

• An access road to connect the gas plant site to Tomago Aluminium Company (TAC) Northern Access Road.

• Infrastructure and utility connections.

• An emergency access road.

• The subdivision of land. b) A natural gas pipeline connecting the gas plant site to the receiving station. c) A receiving station to link the Project into the NSW gas network via the existing Sydney to Newcastle pipeline.

This PCA assesses the gas plant site, the gas access pipeline corridor and access road and utility corridor, as shown on Figure 1. This study area, referred to as the ‘primary project area’, is located in the northern portion of Lot 105, which is currently owned by TAC. This PCA focuses on contamination risks that may be present on the primary project area, which may constrain commercial/industrial development.

No contamination assessment of the pipeline route options has been undertaken as a preferred route had not been selected at the time of writing this report. A preliminary contamination assessment of the pipeline route options will be undertaken following selection of the pipeline route.

A preliminary contamination and acid sulfate soils assessment of 235 Old Maitland Rd, Hexham (Hexham Receiving Station) has been carried out and is reported in Coffey (2010a).

Coffey Environments 1 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

An environmental assessment is required under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) and State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) 2005, and this PCA will form part of the environmental assessment.

The work was commissioned by AGL in response to the proposal submitted by Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd (Coffey) on 4 June 2010 (Ref: ENAUWARA04016AA-P01rev1).

1.2 Objectives and Scope of Work

1.2.1 Objectives

1.2.2 Scope

The following scope of work was conducted for the PCA:

• A review of a selection of historical aerial photographs for the primary project area;

• A review of historical land ownership titles;

• A search of online contaminated land databases maintained by the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW);

• A search of the NSW Office of Water (NOW) groundwater well database;

• A review of local ASS risk maps;

• A review of local geology, hydrogeology and topography;

• Collation of the above information and identification of potential areas of environmental concern (AECs) and chemicals of concern (COCs);

• Drilling of 12 boreholes (SB09 to SB11 and SB14 to SB22) using a truck mounted drill rig;

• Drilling two boreholes (BH01 and BH02) using a hand auger;

• Collection of soil samples and laboratory analysis of COCs ;

• Field screening and laboratory analysis for acid sulfate soil assessment;

• Installation of three groundwater monitoring wells (MW1 to MW3);

• Collection of three groundwater samples and laboratory analysis of COCs; and

• Data assessment and reporting.

Coffey Environments 2 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

The PCA has been prepared in accordance with the relevant sections of the NSW EPA Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites (NSW EPA, 1997).

Coffey Environments 3 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

2 STUDY AREA IDENTIFICATION

2.1 Location and Setting

The study area, the primary project area, comprises the northern portion of Lot 105 in DP 1125747 (Lot 105) on 5 Old Punt Road, Tomago. The study area is about 410 m wide (north to south) by 2,350 m long (east to west) (Figure 1). The study area is larger than the gas plant site, the gas access pipeline corridor and access road and utility corridor, as the exact location of gas access pipeline corridor and access road and utility corridor was not known at the time of the fieldwork.

Table 2.1 below provides a summary of the primary project area identification details.

TABLE 2.1: PRIMARY PROJECT AREA IDENTIFICATION DETAILS

Primary project area 5 Old Punt Road, Tomago NSW address

Land owner: Tomago Aluminium Company

Primary project area size Approximately 93 hectares

Title identification details Northern part of Lot 105 in DP 1125747 within the Port Stephens Council Local including Folio and Government Area Volume numbers

Current zoning Lot 105 is currently zoned as 4(a) Industrial – General A Zone

Current use Vacant industrial land

Proposed use Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

2.2 Current Surrounding Land Use

The immediate land uses surrounding the primary project area are:

• North: Native vegetation owned by Hunter Water Corporation (HWC). There are some tracks in the area.

• East : Native vegetation owned by HWC.

• West: Pacific Highway, then the Hunter River.

• South: Native vegetation and rehabilitation within the aluminium smelter industrial buffer zone, then the aluminium smelter. There are numerous tracks throughout the industrial buffer zone.

Coffey Environments 4 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

2.3 Topography and Drainage

The topography of the primary project area and surrounding land is low lying (6 m to 12 m above Australia Height Datum (AHD)) and broadly flat but locally variable due to the presence of sand dunes and ridges that form the Tomago Sand beds. A sand ridge occurs across the majority of the gas plant site. It is approximately 500 m long and 150 m wide and orientated approximately east-west. The highest point on the sand ridge is approximately at the centre of the gas plant site, at an elevation of 10 m AHD. Surrounding the ridge, the ground surface is 3 m to 6 m AHD and appears to slope gently down toward the northwest and Hunter River.

Surface water is likely to infiltrate into sandy soils after rain, with some ponding. Surface water may also follow the slope of the land in heavy rain when the water table reaches the surface.

2.4 Surface Water and Drainage

The Hunter River is the primary river within the Hunter catchment basin, the largest coastal catchment in NSW. The stretch of the Hunter River from Hexham/Tomago to the Hunter Estuary Wetlands has been identified under SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands as an important environmental conservation area. The Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar Site consists of two components, the Kooragang Nature Reserve and Wetlands Centre, previously known as Shortland Wetlands, approximately 3.5 km east of Tomago and Hexham. The gas plant site is approximately 4 km west of Fullerton Cove and 3 km east of the Hunter River at a point where the river turns toward the southwest, upstream from Hexham.

Complex dune forms contribute to the characteristically hilly dune terrain and some run off does occur during intense rainfall events and is guided by the landform to converge on the low point of each depression. Swamps or ephemeral wetlands are a common feature of the Tomago Sandbeds landscape, marking the floors of the largest and lowest depressions. Two on-site and six off-site surface water features were identified and are described in detail in the surface water assessment (Worley Parsons, 2010).

2.5 Geology and Hydrogeology

The geology of the area consists of Quaternary age sands, silts and clays known as the Tomago Sandbeds (Newcastle 1:250,000 Geological Series Sheet S1 56-2, Edition 1, 1966, NSW Department of Mines). The gas plant site is located in the south western portion of the Tomago Sandbeds area.

The Tomago Sandbeds consists of extensive inner barrier sand ridges extending from Tomago to Port Stephens in the northeast and about 5 km to 15 km inland from the present coastline. The Tomago Sandbeds comprise fine to medium grained, well sorted, quartzose beach sand with discontinuous indurated sand layers. The sand was deposited by alluvial and aeolian processes 10,000 to 120,000 years ago. The inner barrier sand slopes towards the sea and is overlain by younger sand of the outer barrier (Stockton Sands) and estuarine marine muds.

Coffey Environments 5 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

According to Woolley et al. (1995) the unconsolidated sediments can be divided into the following units (from oldest to youngest):

• Medowie Clay Member;

• Tomago Sand Member;

• Stockton Sand Member; and

• Tilligerry Mud Member.

The Tomago Sandbeds form the major aquifer in the area. The aquifer is generally unconfined (an aquifer whose upper surface is a water table free to fluctuate under atmospheric pressure). Where significant indurated sand lenses occur or where there are discontinuous clay lenses below the water table, the lower sands may behave in a semi-confined manner.

The geology and hydrogeology of the study area is described in detail in Coffey (2010b).

A search conducted through the NOW indicates that there are ten registered groundwater bores within a 1 km radius of the gas plant site. The groundwater work summaries in this database do not provide information on the bore depths, authorised purpose, water bearing zone or water levels. Each work summary lists Hunter Water Corporation Tomago in the remarks section. The bores in question are HWC production bores, or monitoring bores that are part of HWC’s Tomago water supply for Newcastle.

The groundwater bore work summaries and location plan are presented in Appendix A.

The groundwater data collected from the investigation is outlined in Sections 6.2 and 9.2 below.

Coffey Environments 6 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

3 SITE HISTORY REVIEW

3.1 Scope

The site history review undertaken by Coffey included review of the following documents:

• Historical aerial photography over the past 40-50 years;

• Council planning certificates for Lot 105;

• Previous ownership of Lot 105 through historical title information;

• Office of Water groundwater bore records (see Section 2.4.2 above);

• NSW DECCW notices under the Contaminated Land Management Act (1997); and

• Previous investigations conducted by Coffey and reports held on file, which includes information on historical sand/heavy mineral sand mining in the Tomago area.

3.2 Aerial Photographs

A summary of the review of aerial photographs available from NSW Land and Property Management Authority is presented in Table 3.1. The aerial photographs are provided in Appendix B.

TABLE 3.1: SUMMARY OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW

YEAR PRIMARY PROJECT AREA SURROUNDING LAND 1954 Vegetated. Bushland surrounds the primary project area to the north, There is a cleared area east and part of the south. adjacent to the Pacific A disturbed area, likely indicating sand mining, is located to Highway in the west of the the south of the primary project area. Vegetation in this primary project area. disturbed area appears to be thinned rather than cleared. A small circular area south of the southern boundary of the primary project area is appears to be due to vegetation associated with a low lying area. The Courtaulds textile factory is present to the south in a similar location to the current Tomago Aluminium smelter. There is an apparent air strip, to the south and west of the primary project area. This forms much of the western boundary of the primary project area. The Pacific Highway and Hunter River are located to the west of the primary project area. 1966 Land use in the primary The surrounding land use is similar to 1954. project area appears to be the There are more buildings on the factory site than in 1954. same as 1954. There is an area of vegetation that has been thinned or cleared south of the east end of the primary project area. Development is occurring along Tomago Road.

Coffey Environments 7 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

YEAR PRIMARY PROJECT AREA SURROUNDING LAND 1983 Land use in the primary The Tomago aluminium smelter has been constructed. project area appears to be the The smelter is in a similar location to the factory observed same as 1954. in the 1954 photograph. There is a large disturbed area with no vegetation, most likely from sand mining, south of the east end of the primary project area. The land to the southwest of the primary project area has also been further developed for what appear to be industrial/commercial and residential purposes. 1992 There are cleared, possibly The large disturbed area in the 1983 aerial photograph is revegetated, areas on the becoming revegetated. eastern side of the primary The freshwater wetland complex south of the southeastern project area. corner of the primary project area has started to develop. There is north-south a Extensions to the Tomago aluminium smelter are evident to clearing for a electricity cable the north. in the eastern side of the Development of land to the southwest of the primary primary project area. project area has continued for industrial/commercial and Land use in the rest of the residential purposes. primary project area appears to be the same as 1954. 2004 Vegetation density on the Increased industrial development west of the aluminium cleared areas on the eastern smelter. side of the primary project area has increased. 2010 Similar to 2004. Similar to 2004. A north-south corridor, 75 m wide, has been cleared in the western portion of the primary project area.

3.3 Site Observations

Site observations in September 2010 show the northern portion of Lot 105 was predominantly bushland with a number of unsealed four wheel drive tracks running through the primary project area. The bushland consists mainly of medium dense established vegetation across the primary project area. The southwestern portion of the primary project area, which was formerly used for sand mining, has since been re-vegetated with a mix of native trees. These trees are now well established.

There are no manmade structures on the northern portion of Lot 105 with the exception of overhead powerlines which run along the eastern and northern primary project area boundaries and also intersect the western corner of the primary project area.

A small amount of fill was observed along a 30 m to 40 m section of unsealed track in the northeastern portion of Lot 105, within the primary project area. The fill comprised crushed coal and rock.

Coffey Environments 8 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

3.4 Planning Certificates

Section 149 Certificates provide information on the zoning of the property, developments which are prohibited, and relevant local, regional, and state policies that apply to the property. They also contain information on whether a property is considered:

• to be flood and bushfire prone;

• to be in a location of mine subsidence or environmental conservation;

• to include or comprise critical habitat or items of heritage significance;

• to be declared, listed or subject to items under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

Section 149 Certificates can also include information about the property that the council considers relevant, i.e. whether the property is considered likely to be contaminated, should the council choose to include such information.

A Section 149 Certificate was obtained for Lot 105 from Port Stephens Council. The Section 149 Certificate for Lot 105 was issued under the Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000, Gazetted on 29 December, 2000 and as subsequently amended. The Section 149 Certificate in full is provided as Appendix C.

The significant issues, or those potentially impacting on the proposed development, are provided in Table 3.2.

TABLE 3.2: SPECIFIC INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SECTION 149 CERTIFICATE

ISSUE SPECIFIC INFORMATION

Is the property within land declared to be an No investigation area or remediation site under Part 3 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997?

Is the property subject to an investigation order No or a remediation order within the meaning of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997?

Is the property the subject of issued voluntary No investigation proposals or voluntary remediation proposals by the Environmental Protection Authorities, under section 19 or 26 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997?

Is the property the subject of a site audit No statement within the meaning of Part 4 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997?

Coffey Environments 9 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

ISSUE SPECIFIC INFORMATION

Types of development allowed without Exempt development development consent

Types of development allowed with Development not included in exempt or prohibited development consent development

Prohibited development Bed and breakfast establishments, boarding houses, camp or caravan sites, commercial premises, duel occupancy housing, dwellings, other than those ancillary to and on the same land as development permissible in this zone, hospitals, restricted premises, roadside stalls, shops, tourist facilities and urban housing

Applicable development control plans (DCPs) Port Stephens DCP 2007

Applicable regional environmental plans (REPs) Hunter Regional Environmental Plan 1989 and Williams River Catchment Regional Environmental Plan 1997

Applicable state environmental planning policies SEPP No. 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 21, 22, 30, 32, 33, (SEPPs) 36, 37, 44, 45 50, 55, 65, and 71, as well as SEPPs Major Projects (2005), ARTC Rail Infrastructure, Building Sustainability Index, Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries, Exempt & Complying Development Codes effective 27 February 2009 and Draft No 66

Does the property include or comprise critical No habitat?

Is the property in a conservation area? No

Is an item of environmental heritage on the No property?

Can development be carried out under SEPP - No Exempt & Complying Development Codes

Is the property in a Proclaimed Mine No Subsidence District

Is the property affected by road widening or No road realignment?

Coffey Environments 10 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

ISSUE SPECIFIC INFORMATION

Is there any council and other authority policies Council records indicated that the land may be that restrict development? wholly or partially contaminated. Council Contaminated Land Policy (2006) may restrict development on contaminated land.

Is the property affected by section 38 or 39 of No the Coastal Protection Act 1979

Is the land reserved for acquisition? No

Is the property affected by a Property No Vegetation Plan under the Native Vegetation Act 2003?

The Planning Certificate confirms that this property is within the Tomago Aluminium Smelter Industrial buffer zone. The Contaminated Land Policy (2006), states that when Council receives a Development Application, it will consider the likelihood of land contamination. The matters that will be taken into account will include: a) past land uses associated with contamination; b) information provided in the development application including Environmental Assessments;” c) information from site inspections; d) information held on databases by Council or the NSW Government; e) factual information volunteered by community members.

If the above investigation does not reveal that a site is or may be contaminated, the application can proceed with no further reference to this policy.

3.5 Titles Search

A land title search, undertaken by Advance Legal Search Pty Ltd on behalf of Coffey, indicated the following proprietors for Lot 105 in DP1125747 from 1892 to June 2010:

• From 1892 to 1945 members of the Cowlishaw family were the legal proprietors of a large parcel of land that included Lot 105. The family members were listed as solicitor, spinster, medical practitioner, widow and two merchants.

• From 1945 to 1951, merchant John McKee owned a reduced land parcel that included Lot 105.

• In 1951, Courtaulds (Australia) Limited purchased a reduced land parcel that included Lot 105. The Courtaulds textile factory was built on the land that is now occupied by the Tomago aluminium smelter.

Coffey Environments 11 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

• In 1981, Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Ltd purchased land including Lot 105 and is the present day proprietor.

Appendix D includes historical land title search results.

3.6 DECCW, Contaminated Land - Record of Notices

A search of the NSW DECCW contaminated land - record of EPA notices was carried out for the primary project area and surrounding properties. The record of EPA notices is located NSW DECCW website (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/prclmapp/aboutregister.aspx), and in accordance with Part of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, provides:

• A record of written notices issued by DECCW under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997;

• The names of the sites, owners or occupiers at the time of DECCW action in relation to the site; and

• Copies of site audit statements provided to DECCW under Section 52 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and relating to significantly contaminated land.

The online record of EPA notices, lists that the owner of a property at 25 School Road, Tomago as having been issued an investigation order and a remediation order. The remediation order issued in 1991 is current and the notice stated that the contamination was chromium and lead in soils and groundwater.

School Road runs close and adjacent to Tomago Road, which is about 1.6 km south of the primary project area, and as such is not considered to pose a risk to the primary project area.

The results of the search are presented in Appendix E.

3.7 Heavy Mineral Sand Mining History

RZM (Newcastle) Pty Ltd (RZM) operated within the ‘Tomago Special Mining Area’ from 1972 to 1998, and extracted rutile and zircon from the mineral sands (The Steering Committee, 1996). From 1972 to the beginning of 1986, heavy mineral sand mining was carried out to a depth of about 8 m (or about +0 AHD) by excavation of the sand, extraction of the mineral sands and replacement of the sand back in the excavation without compaction.

From 1986 to the mid-1990s, re-mining of some of the ‘Tomago Special Mining Area’ occurred to a depth about 11 m (or down to about -3 m AHD). From 1990 to 1998, deep mining started in the area to a depth of about 18 m (about -10 m AHD). Mining of the primary project area appears to have occurred in the eastern portion only.

The mining was carried out using a barge mounted, bucket wheel dredge and processing plant floating on a continually advancing pond formed by the excavation beneath the local water table. Mining was achieved by cutting three 6 m high benches in the Tomago Sand Beds to a total depth of 18 m. Mining reached a peak throughput capacity of 800 tonnes per hour.

The mine license included conditions to carry out surface rehabilitation and groundwater monitoring. Surface rehabilitation involved re-vegetation of the site, and maintaining the vegetation over a number of years. There appears to be no groundwater monitoring wells within the primary project area associated with mine rehabilitation.

Coffey Environments 12 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

Sand mining can cause elevated concentrations of sulfate and trace metals (i.e. arsenic, iron, nickel and manganese) in soil and groundwater.

3.8 Tomago Aluminium Smelter

Tomago Aluminium Smelter is located about 670 m to the south of the primary project area. The smelter was constructed in 1981, and covers about 125 ha.

Aluminium smelters can cause atmospheric fallout containing fluoride. The smelter holds an Environment Protection License, number 6163, which requires requires monitoring of surface and groundwater (fluoride, pH and conductivity) within a gazetted industrial buffer area of 16.5 km of the smelter. The license also requires monitoring of atmospheric emmissions, vegeatation, animals and ecosystems. The results of monitoring are reported annually to DECCW.

A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of the smelter land was carried out by GHD (2004). The report characterised the existing and potential issues on Tomago owned property, including both the smelter land and some industrial buffer zone land. The gas plant site, proposed gas pipeline corridor, and proposed new road were not included in the industrial buffer zone areas assessed by GHD (2004).

GHD (2004) identified elevated chemical concentrations in groundwater in the central area of the smelter land, toward the western perimeter of the smelter land, and towards the southern and southeastern side of the smelter land. The smelter is south of the groundwater divide that runs east- west immediately north of the smelter site (Coffey, 2010b). Groundwater below the smelter site flows south or southeast, away from the primary project area (Figure 3).

GHD (2004) includes a review of previous contamination assessments for the smelter land. The GHD review indicated that the regional groundwater immediately off the smelter land and within the adjacent (industrial buffer zone) areas had not been impacted by fluoride.

3.9 Summary of Site History

A summary of the site history is as follows:

• Based on the land use information available prior to the 1950’s, it’s likely the primary project area and surrounding land was largely undeveloped.

• Lot 105 is part of the southwestern portion of the Tomago Sand beds aquifer which are part of the drinking water supply for Newcastle.

• Section 149 Certificate indicated that Lot 105 may be wholly or partially contaminated.

• Heavy mineral sand mining occurred around and on the eastern portion of the primary project area from the 1970s to 1990s. Heavy mineral sand mining can cause elevated concentrations of sulfate and trace metals (i.e. arsenic, iron, nickel and manganese) in soil and groundwater.

• A textile factory was located to the south of the primary project area from the 1950s to the 1980s.

• Lot 105 which contains the primary project area was purchased by Tomago Aluminium Company in 1981.

• In 1981 Tomago Aluminium Company constructed a smelter in a similar location to the textile factory, south of the primary project area. Aluminium smelters are known to cause atmospheric

Coffey Environments 13 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

fallout containing fluoride. The EPA License for Tomago Aluminium requires monitoring of fluoride concentrations in air, groundwater, surface water, vegetation and animals.

• A previous investigation on the aluminium smelter (GHD, 2004) identified a plume of groundwater contaminated with fluoride. As groundwater below the smelter land flows towards the south, away from the primary project area, it is considered that the groundwater contamination below the smelter would not impact the primary project area.

Coffey Environments 14 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

4 AREAS OF CONTAMINATION CONCERN

Potential areas of contamination concern (ACC) and associated chemicals of concern (COC) are presented in Table 4.1 based on the site history (Section 3).

TABLE 4.1: POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONTAMINATION CONCERN AND CHEMICALS OF CONCERN

AREA OF POTENTIAL CHEMICALS OF LIKELIHOOD OF CONTAMINATION CONTAMINATING CONCERN CONTAMINATION CONCERN ACTIVITY WITHIN PRIMARY PROJECT AREA*

Impact from Atmospheric fallout Fluoride, cyanide, Low neighbouring and general industrial metals properties activities

Former heavy mineral Sand mining around Metals, sulfate, iron Low sand mining the primary project area, and potentially on the eastern portion of the primary project area resulting in potential impacts to groundwater

Access tracks Potential for imported TPH, BTEX, PAH, Very low fill** and isolated metals impacts from vehicles

NOTES:

* A qualitative assessment of the probability of contamination being detected at the potential AEC. Not an assessment of the financial risk associated with the AEC in the event contamination is detected.

**The only observed fill on site was a small amount of crushed coal and rock fill (see Section 3.3).

Metals - arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc; BTEX - benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes; TPH - total petroleum hydrocarbons; PAH - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons;

Coffey Environments 15 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

5 FIELD INVESTIGATION

5.1 Soil and Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan

The number and location of sampling points were selected to provide a preliminary assessment of contamination on the primary project area. Soil sampling locations were spaced about 200 m apart on or adjacent to the access road and pipeline access corridor. Three sampling locations were distributed across the gas plant site.

Groundwater monitoring wells were installed across the gas plant site. These were located with one well up-gradient of the gas plant footprint (MW3) and two wells down-gradient of the gas plant footprint (MW1 and MW2), as shown on Figure 2.

The suite of soil and groundwater analysis was based on the chemicals of concern identified in Section 4: TPH, BTEX, PAH, metals, fluoride, sulfate and cyanide. Groundwater samples were also analysed for pH, alkalinity, major ions, and ferrous iron concentration. Soil samples were selected for analysis on the basis of the location and related areas of environmental concern, observations of soil types during fieldwork, and to allow the spatial (lateral and vertical) distribution of potential contamination across the investigation area to be assessed.

Selected sub-samples were also subjected to acid sulfate soil field screening tests (see Section 10).

TABLE 5.1: SOIL AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN

SAMPLING LOCATION SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLES ANALYTES LOCATION DESCRIPTION AND TYPE DATE ANALYSED COORDINATES

SB9 Eastern end of access Soil 17/8/2010 0.1-0.2 m TPH, BTEX, road PAH, metals, cyanide, fluoride 32o48’49.8’S 151o43’25.5’E

SB10 Midway along access Soil 20/8/2010 0.1-0.2 m TPH, BTEX, road PAH, metals, cyanide, fluoride 32o48’78.3’S 151o43’23.1’E

SB11 Western end of access Soil 20/8/2010 0.1-0.2 m TPH, BTEX, road PAH, metals, cyanide, fluoride 32o48’74.5’S 151o43’02.6’E

Coffey Environments 16 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

SAMPLING LOCATION SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLES ANALYTES LOCATION DESCRIPTION AND TYPE DATE ANALYSED COORDINATES

SB14 Western end of Soil 20/8/2010 0.0-0.1 m TPH, BTEX, pipeline access PAH, metals, corridor cyanide, fluoride

32o48’53.6’S 151o42’85.1’E

SB15 Western end of Soil 20/8/2010 0.1-0.2 m TPH, BTEX, pipeline access PAH, metals, corridor cyanide, fluoride

32o48’55.6’S 151o43’03.3’E

SB16 Midway along pipeline Soil 19/8/2010 0.0-0.1 m TPH, BTEX, access corridor PAH, metals, cyanide, fluoride 32o48’57.7’S 151o43’18.7’E

SB17 Midway along pipeline Soil 20/8/2010 0.1-0.2 m TPH, BTEX, access corridor PAH, metals, cyanide, fluoride 32o48’59.7’S 151o43’34.6’E

SB18 Eastern end of Soil 18/8/2010 None pipeline access corridor

32o48’60.6’S 151o43’46.6’E

Coffey Environments 17 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

SAMPLING LOCATION SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLES ANALYTES LOCATION DESCRIPTION TYPE DATE ANALYSED AND COORDINATES

SB19/MW1 Northwest corner of Soil 16- 0.1-0.2 m TPH, BTEX, PAH, gas plant site 17/8/2010 metals, cyanide,

fluoride 381202E

6368627N Groundwater 30/8/2010 MW1 TPH, BTEX, PAH, metals, fluoride, cyanide, sulfate, chloride, pH, ferrous iron, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, alkalinity

SB20 Eastern end of Soil 19/8/2010 0.1-0.2 m TPH, BTEX, PAH, access road, metals, cyanide,

western side of gas fluoride plant site 0.5-0.6 m PAH, metals, 32o48’74.6’S cyanide, fluoride 151o43’65.5’E 3.0-3.1 m

SB21/MW2 Northeast corner of Soil 18- 0.1-0.2 m TPH, BTEX, PAH, gas plant site 19/8/2010 metals, cyanide,

fluoride 381681E

6368870N 0.5-0.6 m PAH, metals, cyanide, fluoride

Groundwater 30/8/2010 MW2 TPH, BTEX, PAH, metals, fluoride, cyanide, sulfate, chloride, pH, ferrous iron, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, alkalinity

Coffey Environments 18 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

SAMPLING LOCATION SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLES ANALYTES LOCATION DESCRIPTION TYPE DATE ANALYSED AND COORDINATES

SB22/MW3 Southern side of Soil 19/8/2010 0.1-0.2 m TPH, BTEX, PAH, gas plant site metals, cyanide, 0.5-0.6 m fluoride 380828E

6368998N 2.0-2.1 m PAH, metals, cyanide, fluoride

Groundwater 30/8/2010 MW3 TPH, BTEX, PAH, metals, fluoride, cyanide, sulfate, chloride, pH, ferrous iron, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, alkalinity

BH01 Northern bank of Soil 12/11/2010 1.9-2.0m ASS field screen Hunter River SPOCAS 377635E

6367265

BH02 Near the northern Soil 12/11/2010 0.5-0.6m ASS field screen bank of Hunter SPOCAS River

377935E

6367485N

Note: coordinates for SB19/MW1, SB21/MW2 and SB22/MW3 are in Map Grid of Australia (MGA) (based on GDA 1994). Coordinates for other locations are in latitude and longitude.

5.2 Soil Investigation

The soil sampling investigation was undertaken from 16 to 21 August 2010 and 12 November 2010. Sampling procedures were consistent with Coffey Environments’ Standard Operating Procedures.

Boreholes for the collection of soil samples (SB09 to SB11 and SB14 to SB22) were drilled using either a truck mounted drilling rig or an all terrain drilling rig. Both rigs used a combination of solid and hollow flight augers to advance the boreholes.

Coffey Environments 19 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

Soil samples were collected at the ground surface, about 0.5 metres below ground level (mbgl), and about 1.0 m intervals thereafter. The boreholes were extended to approximately 4.0 m to 4.5 m bgl, with the exception of SB14 which extended to 2.0 m bgl. Standard penetration tests were carried out at 1.0 m intervals in each borehole (except SB14), and environmental samples were collected using the standard penetration test sampler. SB14 was drilled to a shallower depth due to access considerations.

Borehole for the collection of acid sulfate soil samples on the northern bank of the Hunter River (BH01 and BH02) were drilled using hand augers to depths of about 2.0m. Soil samples were collected at about 0.5m intervals in each borehole.

The borehole locations are shown on Figure 2.

A clean pair of disposable gloves was used when collecting each sample. Each sample was divided into two sub-samples. One sub-sample was placed into a laboratory-supplied, acid-rinsed 250 mL glass jar, labelled with a unique identification number and placed in an ice-chilled cooler box.

The second sub-sample was placed into a zip-lock plastic bag and subjected to headspace analysis for volatile compounds using a photo-ionisation detector (PID).

Samples were transported for laboratory analysis to SGS Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney, under chain of custody conditions.

The borehole logs and PID records are provided in Appendix F.

5.3 Groundwater Investigation

Three groundwater monitoring wells were installed on 17 and 19 August 2010 to depths of 4.2 m bgl (MW1), and 4.5 m bgl (MW2 and MW3) in boreholes SB19, SB21 and SB22 respectively.

The lower 3.0 m section of the wells were screened with 50 mm machine slotted, threaded PVC. Solid (unslotted) 50 mm PVC was used to case the well to the ground surface. Coarse sand was placed within the well annulus to approximately 0.5 m above the screen, followed by an annular seal of granular bentonite pellets approximately 0.5 m thick, followed by coarse sand to about 0.1 m bgs, and then concrete to the surface.

The well locations are shown on Figure 2.

The monitoring wells were developed during installation by ‘surging’ the wells using a stainless steel bailer for about five minutes prior to installing the bentonite seal. Once the bentonite seal and concrete were installed, about three well volumes were removed using a typhoon pump.

Groundwater samples were collected from the monitoring wells on 30 August 2010. The groundwater wells were purged by pumping out three well volumes using a low flow pump with dedicated tubing for each well. Groundwater parameters were measured during purging of the groundwater. The groundwater parameters were generally stable immediately prior to sampling.

Groundwater samples were placed directly into laboratory supplied containers and stored in a chilled esky during sampling and transport.

5.4 Field Quality Assurance/ Quality Control

Sampling activities were generally based on procedures and protocols outlined in Coffey Environments ‘Standard Operating Procedures’, which is based on industry accepted standard practice.

Coffey Environments 20 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

5.4.1 Soil

The standard penetration test sampler, which came directly in contact with the soil, was decontaminated between samples by scrubbing with a solution of Decon-90™, a phosphate-free detergent followed by rinsing with potable water. A clean pair of disposable gloves was used when handling each sample.

Two wash blank samples were collected from decontaminated standard penetration test sampler to assess the efficiency of decontamination between samples. One trip spike and trip blank was taken into the field during sampling and were transported with the primary samples to check for cross contamination and potential loss of volatiles during sampling and transport.

During the soil investigation, two intra-laboratory field duplicates were collected and analysed. No inter- laboratory duplicates were collected.

5.4.2 Groundwater

Equipment used during well development, purging and sample collection was designated (used for one well and then disposed of). A clean pair of disposable gloves was used when handling each sample.

For QA/QC purposes one duplicate sample was collected and analysed. No inter-laboratory duplicates were collected.

The field equipment was calibrated before use. The calibration certificate is included in Appendix F.

5.5 Laboratory Analysis

Laboratory analysis was carried out by SGS Australia, Sydney, which is a NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities) accredited laboratory. The laboratory analytical documentation is presented in Appendix G.

Samples from the soil sampling investigation were dispatched to the laboratory on 23 August 2010 and groundwater samples on 30 August 2010 under chain of custody conditions.

A total of sixteen primary soil samples were selected for the following suite of analytes;

• Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH);

• Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX)

• Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH);

• Heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc and mercury;

• Fluoride; and

• Cyanide.

Coffey Environments 21 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

Three groundwater primary samples were collected and laboratory tested for the following suite of analytes;

• TPH;

• BTEX;

• PAH;

• Heavy metals;

• Anions (fluoride, chloride, and sulfate);

• Cyanide;

• Ferrous iron;

• pH and electrical conductivity (EC); and

• Alkalinity

Coffey Environments 22 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Soil Profile

The primary project area is located in an area with aeolian and alluvial soils overlying a ridge of residual soil and weathered rock. The subsurface soils encountered in the boreholes is summarised in Table 6.1 below.

TABLE 6.1 SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE

Borehole Soil Description

SB10, SB11 and SB14 to Aeolian: sand and clayey sand, generally fine to medium grained, SB22 pale grey-brown, pale-yellow brown, dark brown and grey, from the surface to the depth of investigation.

SB09 Residual: sand, sandy clay and clayey sand, fine to medium grained sand, low plasticity clay, brown and grey with dark red mottling, from the surface to depth of investigation.

It is possible that soils on the western side of the primary project area, close to the Hunter River, could comprise alluvial soils, although these were not observed in the boreholes drilled. Borehole SB14 was the closest borehole in the primary project area to the Hunter River (about 940m).

Detailed information on the soil profile in each borehole is provided in Appendix F.

6.2 Groundwater

Groundwater quality parameters were collected for each well during purging and sampling. Table 6.2 provides the measurements from the final purge, before sample collection.

TABLE 6.2: GROUNDWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS

PARAMETER MW1 MW2 MW3

Dissolved oxygen (DO) mg/L 1.71 1.00 1.59

Electrical Conductivity (EC) µS/cm 143.4 180.5 121.8 pH 5.47 5.49 4.96

Redox Potential mV -33 -105 264

Temperature oC 16.3 16.5 17.1

Comments Clear, no odour, no Slightly cloudy, organic Clear, no odour, no sheens odour, no sheens sheens

Coffey Environments 23 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

Standing water levels (depth in metres to groundwater from the top of the well casing (mbtoc)) were measured on 30 August 2010 at 2.89, 1.05 and 3.71 mbtoc in MW1, MW2 and MW3 respectively.

Coffey Environments 24 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

7 INVESTIGATION CRITERIA

7.1 Soil Investigation Criteria

The results of chemical analysis of soil samples have been compared to investigation levels based on the proposed redevelopment of the land.

The investigation levels for soil were established based on:

• NSW DEC (2006) Guidelines for the NSW Auditor Scheme (Second Edition);

• NSW EPA (1994) Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites; and

• NEPC (1999) National Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM).

Additional investigation levels were used where appropriate.

The NSW DEC (2006) Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme and the NEPM present health based investigation levels for different land-uses (e.g. industrial / commercial, residential and recreational).

The primary project area is in an area zoned 4(a) General Industrial, and the proposed land use is industrial. The results of soil analysis have therefore been assessed against human health based soil investigation levels (HILs) for commercial/industrial land use, provided in Column 4 of Appendix II in NSW DEC (2006).

NSW DEC (2006) guidelines do not provide threshold levels for volatile petroleum hydrocarbon compounds. NSW EPA (1994) provides an indication of acceptable cleanup levels for petroleum hydrocarbons compounds at service station sites to be reused for sensitive land-uses. For semi-volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH C16 – C35 and >C35), investigation levels are provided in the NSW DEC (2006) guidelines. However, these are based on the NEPM health-based criteria, which require the laboratory analysis to unequivocally differentiate between aromatic and aliphatic compounds. If this cannot be done, the TPH C10 – C40 criteria in the service station guidelines should be applied. For this investigation, the service station guidelines for all petroleum hydrocarbon fractions have been adopted.

There is no guideline criterion for assessment of fluoride in soils recognised in Australia. Environment Protection License number 6163 for Tomago Aluminium Smelter does not provide a fluoride criterion for soil.

A review of the international standards shows that the Canadian Ministers of the Environment (2006) Canadian Soil Guidelines for the Protection of the Environment and Human Health list a criterion of 2,000 mg/kg for fluoride. However, the Canadian guideline is not endorsed by the NSW DECCW, so no criteria has been adopted for fluoride for this assessment.

Table 7.1 below provides a summary of the soil investigation criteria adopted for this primary project area.

Coffey Environments 25 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

TABLE 7.1: SOIL INVESTIGATION CRITERIA

Analyte Adopted Criteria (mg/kg*)

2 TPH C6-C9 65

2 TPH C10-C36 1000

Benzene 12

Toluene 1.42

Ethylbenzene 3.12

Xylenes 142

Benzo(a)pyrene 51

Total PAH 1001

Arsenic 5001

Cadmium 1001

Chromium 5001

Copper 50001

Lead 15001

Nickel 30001

Zinc 350001

Mercury 751

Cyanide 12501

Fluoride N/A

Notes:

* mg/kg for dry weight

1. NSW DEC (2006) Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (2nd ed), Appendix II, Column 4 commercial/industrial (NEHF F);

2. NSW EPA (1994) Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites, Table 3 sensitive land use

Coffey Environments 26 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

7.2 Groundwater Investigation Criteria

7.2.1 Environmental Values

Environmental values of the groundwater need to be identified to assess potential environmental risks from groundwater contamination, as outlined in Appendix 2 of the NSW EPA (2007) Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Groundwater Contamination.

Rainfall recharge on the primary project area infiltrates to the Tomago Sand Beds aquifer, which is used as a drinking water source, i.e. it is freshwater. Its suitability is confirmed by electrical conductivity results for the groundwater on the primary project area.

Environmental values of groundwater beneath the primary project area are considered to be:

• Drinking water;

• Aquatic ecosystem of the Hunter River and Tomago Sand Beds ecosystems, which are discharge locations for groundwater flowing through the Tomago Sand Beds aquifer; and

• Visual amenity.

7.2.2 Drinking Water

The investigation levels presented in the NHMRC (2004) National Water Quality Management Strategy – Australian Drinking Water Guidelines are applicable to protection of the drinking water resource. Table 10.10 of the guidelines provides health and aesthetic guidelines values for assessing drinking water. For this investigation, the health guideline values have been adopted.

7.2.3 Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems

The investigation levels presented in the ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality are applicable to the protection of aquatic ecosystems of the receiving waters. As these guidelines apply to receiving waters, it is generally conservative to apply these to trigger levels also to the groundwater that discharges to receiving waters.

ANZECC (2000) advocates a site-specific approach to developing guideline trigger values based on such factors as local biological affects data and the current level of disturbance of the ecosystem. The guidelines present ‘low risk guidelines trigger values’ which are defined as concentrations of key performance parameters below which there is a low risk that adverse biological effects will occur.

These are not threshold values at which an environmental problem is likely to occur if exceeded. Rather, if the trigger values are exceeded, then further action is required which may include either further site-specific investigations to assess whether or not there is an actual problem or management/remedial action is required.

Low risk trigger values are provided for the protection of 80-99% of species in fresh waters (presented in Table 3.4.1 of the guidelines), with the trigger value depending on the health of the receiving waters.

It is understood that the EPA’s policy is that the trigger values for the protection of 95% of aquatic ecosystems should be used except where contaminants are potentially bioaccumulative in which case the trigger values for protection of 99% of species should be used. Therefore, trigger values for protection of 95% of fresh water species have been used for the majority of contaminants, and 99% of fresh water species for bioaccumulative contaminants.

Coffey Environments 27 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

ANZECC (2000) states that there is currently insufficient data to derive high reliability trigger values for various contaminants, including toluene, ethylbenzene, anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene and phenanthrene. For these contaminants, low reliability trigger values from ANZECC (2000) have been adopted.

ANZECC (2000) state that there is currently insufficient data to derive a high reliability trigger value for TPH but propose a low reliability trigger value for TPH of 7 µg/L. This guideline is generally considered by industry to be overly conservative and is also well below the standard TPH detection limit which most laboratories can achieve. Under the NSW DECC (2007) Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Groundwater Contamination, an acceptable approach is to use the Limit of Reporting (LOR) for the various TPH fractions as a groundwater investigation level. This has been adopted as the investigation level for TPH at the primary project area.

7.2.4 Groundwater Investigation Criteria Summary

The assessment criteria for groundwater adopted for this investigation are presented in Table 7.2.

TABLE 7.2: GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION CRITERIA

Analyte Drinking Water Criteria1 Aquatic Ecosystem Criteria2 (µg/L) (µg/L)

TPH C6-C9 - 40

TPH C10-C14 - 100

TPH C15-C28 - 200

TPH C29-C36 - 200

Benzene 1 950

Toluene 800 180

Ethylbenzene 300 80

Ortho-Xylene - 350

Xylenes 600 75

Anthracene - 0.013

Fluoranthene - 13

Napthalene - 16

Phenanthrene - 0.63

Coffey Environments 28 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

Analyte Drinking Water Criteria1 Aquatic Ecosystem Criteria2 (µg/L) (µg/L)

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.01 0.13

Arsenic 7 13

Cadmium 2 0.2

Chromium 5 1

Copper 2000 1.4

Lead 10 3.4

Nickel 20 11

Zinc - 8

Fluoride 1500 -

Cyanide 80 7

Sulfate 500,000 -

Notes:

1. NHMRC (2004) National Water Quality Management Strategy – Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, Table 10.10 Health Guideline Values

2. ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Table 3.4.1, Fresh Water, Protection of 95 to 99% of Species

3. ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Low Reliability Trigger Values

Coffey Environments 29 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

8 QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS AND ASSESSMENT

8.1 Soil Quality Assurance / Quality Control Results

Analysis of the wash blank collected detected concentrations below the laboratory reporting limit with the exception of copper (2 µg/L in QCA) and zinc (97 µg/L in QCA and 110 µg/L in QCA4). It is considered that these metals are likely to have been present in the demineralised water used. Taking into account that copper and zinc concentrations were well below the adopted criteria in the soil samples, it is considered that this does not affect data usability. Wash blank results are presented in Table 8.1 below.

The trip spike showed recoveries within the control limits and the trip blank showed concentrations below the detection limit, indicating that cross contamination between samples or loss of volatile compounds did not occur during sampling and transport. The results are presented in Table 8.1 below.

Two duplicate pairs, SB19 0.1-0.2 / QC1 and SB22 0.1-0.2 / QC4, were analysed. The comparison of the test results for the duplicate pairs generally showed relative percentage differences (RPDs) below the control limit of 50%, with the exception of: chromium 86% for duplicate pair SAB22 0.1-0.2 / QC4. Taking into account the nature of distribution of contaminant heterogeneity in the sandy soils it is considered that this RPD is reasonable. The relative percent difference of the duplicate and primary are provided in Table 8.1 below.

8.2 Groundwater Quality Assurance / Quality Control Results

The comparison of the groundwater test results for the primary (MW3) and field duplicate (QC1) samples showed RPDs below the control limit of 50%, with the exception of an RPD of 165% for ferrous iron. The high RPD for ferrous iron is considered to be due to concentration close to the detection limit. Given that this was the only RPD that exceeded the control limit, is not considered to affect the usability of the data. The RPD results are summarised in Table 8.2 below.

8.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance / Quality Control

The laboratory (SGS) conducted internal quality control using laboratory duplicates, spikes and method blanks. The results are shown with laboratory report sheets in Appendix G. Analytical methods used for the laboratory testing are also indicated on the laboratory report sheets. The results of laboratory quality control testing are within acceptable limits. A data validation report is presented in Appendix H.

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the field and laboratory methods for soil and groundwater are appropriate and that the data obtained is usable and considered to reasonably represent the concentrations at the sampling points at the time of sampling.

Coffey Environments 30 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 TABLE 8.1: SUMMARY OF SOIL QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS

Field_ID SB19 0.1-0.2 QC1 RPD % SB22 0.1-0.2 QC4 RPD % QCA QCA4 Trip Spike Trip Blank Date 16/8/2010 16/8/2010 19/8/2010 19/8/2010 16/8/2010 19/8/2010 Sample Primary Duplicate Primary Duplicate Wash Blank Wash Blank

Analyte Soil Water Units Units BTEX Benzene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <1 <1 0.93 <0.1 Ethylbenzene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.5 <0.5 0.89 <0.1 Toluene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.5 <0.5 0.9 <0.1 Xylene (m & p) mg/kg ug/L <0.2 <0.2 NA <0.2 <0.2 NA <1 <1 - <0.2 Xylene (o) mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.5 <0.5 - <0.1 Xylene Total mg/kg ug/L <0.3 <0.3 NA <0.3 <0.3 NA <1.5 <1.5 0.9 <0.3

Inorganics Cyanide Total mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA - - Fluoride mg/kg 1.2 1.4 15% 1.7 1.2 34% - -

Metals Arsenic mg/kg ug/L <3 <3 NA <3 <3 NA <1 <1 - - Cadmium mg/kg ug/L <0.3 <0.3 NA <0.3 <0.3 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Chromium (III+VI) mg/kg ug/L 0.7 0.6 15% 1 0.4 86% <1 <1 - - Copper mg/kg ug/L 1.9 1.7 11% 1.5 1 40% 2 <1 - - Lead mg/kg ug/L 6 4 40% 3 2 40% <1 <1 - - Mercury mg/kg mg/L <0.05 <0.05 NA <0.05 <0.05 NA <0.0001 <0.0001 - - Nickel mg/kg ug/L 1.3 1.2 8% 0.6 0.6 0% <1 <1 - - Zinc mg/kg ug/L 8 9.3 15% 5.9 4.3 31% 97 110 - -

PAH 1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Acenaphthene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Acenaphthylene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Anthracene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Benz(a)anthracene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Benzo(a) pyrene mg/kg ug/L <0.05 <0.05 NA <0.05 <0.05 NA <0.05 <0.05 - - Benzo(b)&(k)fluoranthene mg/kg ug/L <0.2 <0.2 NA <0.2 <0.2 NA <0.2 <0.2 - - Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Chrysene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Fluoranthene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Fluorene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Naphthalene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - PAHs (Sum of total) mg/kg ug/L <1.75 <1.75 NA <1.75 <1.75 NA <1.75 <1.75 - - Phenanthrene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - Pyrene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - - 2-methylnaphthalene mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - -

Solvents Methyltributyl Ether mg/kg ug/L <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 NA <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1

TPH TPH C6 - C9 mg/kg ug/L <20 <20 NA <20 <20 NA <20 <20 - <20 TPH C10 - C14 mg/kg ug/L <20 <20 NA <20 <20 NA <20 <20 - <20 TPH C15 - C28 mg/kg ug/L <50 <50 NA <50 <50 NA <50 <50 - <50 TPH C29 - C36 mg/kg ug/L <50 <50 NA <50 <50 NA <50 <50 - <50 TPH+C10 - C36 (Sum of total) mg/kg ug/L <120 <120 NA <120 <120 NA <120 <120 - -

RPD RPD exceeds control limit of 50% Value Concentrations detected in blank TABLE 8.2: SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS

SDG SE81000 SE81000 Field_ID MW3 QC1 RPD Sampled_Date-Time30/08/2010 30/08/2010

Analyte Units PQL BTEX Benzene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Toluene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Xylene (m & p) µg/L 1 <1.0 <1.0 NA Xylene (o) µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Xylene Total µg/L 1.5 <1.5 <1.5 NA

Inorganics Alkalinity (Bicarbonate) mg/l 2 3.3 3.4 3 Alkalinity (total) as CaCO3 mg/l 2 <2.0 <2.0 NA Chloride mg/l 0.05 22.0 21.0 5 Cyanide Total mg/l 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 NA Ferrous Iron mg/l 0.02 0.31 0.03 165 Fluoride mg/l 0.02 0.03 0.03 0 pH (Lab) pH_Units 0 5.0 5.0 0 Sulphate mg/l 0.1 19.0 19.0 0

Ions Calcium mg/l 0.1 3.1 3.0 3 Magnesium mg/l 0.1 4.4 4.3 2 Potassium mg/l 0.2 1.9 1.9 0 Sodium mg/l 0.1 21.0 21.0 0

Metals Arsenic mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA Cadmium mg/l 0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 NA Chromium (III+VI) mg/l 0.001 0.002 0.002 0 Copper mg/l 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 Iron mg/l 0.005 0.049 0.055 12 Lead mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA Nickel mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA Zinc mg/l 0.001 0.051 0.043 17

PAH 1-Methylnaphthalene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Acenaphthene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Acenaphthylene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Anthracene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Benz(a)anthracene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Benzo(a) pyrene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Benzo(b)&(k)fluoranthene µg/L 1 <1.0 <1.0 NA Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Chrysene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Fluoranthene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Fluorene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Naphthalene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA PAHs (Sum of total) µg/L 9 <9.0 <9.0 NA Phenanthrene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA Pyrene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA

PAH/Phenols2-methylnaphthalene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 NA

Solvents Methyltributyl Ether mg/l 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NA

TPH TPH C6 - C9 µg/L 40 <40.0 <40.0 NA TPH C10 - C14 µg/L 100 <100.0 <100.0 NA TPH C15 - C28 µg/L 200 <200.0 <200.0 NA TPH C29 - C36 µg/L 200 <200.0 <200.0 NA

RPD RPD exceeds control limit of 50% Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

9 LABORATORY RESULTS AND ASSESSMENT

9.1 Soil Results and Assessment

Soil analysis results (Table 9.1) were compared to the relevant soil investigation levels (Table 7.1). Concentrations of contaminants were either below the adopted criteria for commercial/industrial land use or below the laboratory limits of reporting (LOR).

The results are summarised below:

• Concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes were below the LOR and adopted criteria in each sample analysed;

• Concentrations TPH C6-C9 and TPH C10-C36 were below the LOR and adopted criteria in each sample analysed;

• Concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene and total PAH were below the LOR and adopted criteria in each sample analysed;

• Concentrations of metals were below the adopted criteria in each sample analysed;

• Concentrations of fluoride were detected above the LOR in 12 of the 16 samples analysed. No criteria for fluoride has been adopted;

• Concentrations of cyanide were below the adopted criteria in each sample analysed.

Fluoride concentrations were above the LOR in 12 soil samples. Fluoride was generally detected at the ground surface (concentrations between 1.0 mg/kg and 6.3 mg/kg), with the exception of three samples where fluoride was detected at 0.5-0.6 m (SB22), 2.0-2.1 m (SB22) and 3.0-3.1 m (SB20) at concentrations between 2.3 mg/kg and 5.3 mg/kg. There are currently no recognised Australian guideline criteria for fluoride in soil.

Low concentrations of fluoride and cyanide were detected in some soil samples. The fluoride concentrations are likely to be a result of atmospheric fallout from the aluminium smelter with those identified at depth possibly due to re-working of the soil during sand mining, causing former surface soils to be buried. A source for the cyanide concentrations cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty. As the concentrations are well below the adopted criteria, no further investigation is considered necessary.

These results indicate that that there is a low risk of significant or widespread soil contamination being present on the site.

The soil analytical results are presented in Table 9.1 below and the laboratory reports are provided in Appendix G.

Coffey Environments 33 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 TABLE 9.1: SUMMARY OF SOIL RESULTS

Field_ID SB9 0.1-0.2 SB10 0.1-0.2 SB11 0.1-0.2 SB14 0.0-0.1 SB15 0.1-0.2 SB16 0.0-0.1 Date 17/8/2010 20/8/2010 20/8/2010 20/8/2010 20/8/2010 19/8/2010

Analyte Units PQL ADOPTED CRITERIA BTEX Benzene mg/kg 0.1 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 3.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Toluene mg/kg 0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Xylene (m & p) mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Xylene (o) mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Xylene Total mg/kg 0.3 14 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Inorganics Cyanide Total mg/kg 0.1 1250 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 Fluoride mg/kg 0.1 2.3 <1 1.5 1.1 1 1.9 Metals Arsenic mg/kg 3 500 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Cadmium mg/kg 0.3 100 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Chromium (III+VI) mg/kg 0.3 500 1.5 1.2 1.8 5.6 1.7 2.8 Copper mg/kg 0.5 5000 3.8 2.1 4 4.4 2.1 2.7 Lead mg/kg 1 1500 11 3 4 8 2 8 Mercury mg/kg 0.05 75 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Nickel mg/kg 0.5 3000 1.4 0.9 1.7 2.8 1.3 2.1 Zinc mg/kg 0.5 35000 21 2.7 12 12 6.6 19 PAH 1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benz(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benzo(a) pyrene mg/kg 0.05 5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Benzo(b)&(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 PAHs (Sum of total) mg/kg 1.75 100 <1.75 <1.75 <1.75 <1.75 <1.75 <1.75 Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 PAH/Phenols 2-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Solvents Methyltributyl Ether mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 TPH TPH C6 - C9 mg/kg 20 65 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 TPH C10 - C14 mg/kg 20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 TPH C15 - C28 mg/kg 50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 TPH C29 - C36 mg/kg 50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 TPH+C10 - C36 mg/kg 1000 <120 <120 <120 <120 <120 <120

Value Value exceeds adopted criteria PQL Practical quantitation limit Criteria based on NSW DEC (2006) Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (2nd ed), Appendix II, Column 4 commercial/industrial use TABLE 9.1: SUMMARY OF SOIL RESULTS

Field_ID SB17 0.1-0.2 SB19 0.1-0.2 SB20 0.1-0.2 SB20 0.5-0.6 SB20 3.0-3.1 SB21 0.1-0.2 Date 20/8/2010 16/8/2010 19/8/2010 19/8/2010 19/8/2010 19/8/2010

Analyte Units PQL ADOPTED CRITERIA BTEX Benzene mg/kg 0.1 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 3.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 Toluene mg/kg 0.1 1.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 Xylene (m & p) mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 - - <0.2 Xylene (o) mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 Xylene Total mg/kg 0.3 14 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 - - <0.3 Inorganics Cyanide Total mg/kg 0.1 1250 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 Fluoride mg/kg 0.1 1.5 1.2 1.9 <1 5.3 6.3 Metals Arsenic mg/kg 3 500 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 6 Cadmium mg/kg 0.3 100 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Chromium (III+VI) mg/kg 0.3 500 0.8 0.7 <0.3 <0.3 4.6 10 Copper mg/kg 0.5 5000 2 1.9 2 <0.5 <0.5 2.1 Lead mg/kg 1 1500 2 6 4 <1 1 7 Mercury mg/kg 0.05 75 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Nickel mg/kg 0.5 3000 0.5 1.3 0.6 <0.5 1 2.5 Zinc mg/kg 0.5 35000 7 8 12 0.94 0.6 12 PAH 1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benz(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benzo(a) pyrene mg/kg 0.05 5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Benzo(b)&(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 PAHs (Sum of total) mg/kg 1.75 100 <1.75 <1.75 <1.75 <1.75 <1.75 <1.75 Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 PAH/Phenols 2-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Solvents Methyltributyl Ether mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 TPH TPH C6 - C9 mg/kg 20 65 <20 <20 <20 - - <20 TPH C10 - C14 mg/kg 20 <20 <20 <20 - - <20 TPH C15 - C28 mg/kg 50 <50 <50 <50 - - <50 TPH C29 - C36 mg/kg 50 <50 <50 <50 - - <50 TPH+C10 - C36 mg/kg 1000 <120 <120 <120 - - <120

Field_ID SB21 0.5-0.6 SB22 0.1-0.2 SB22 0.5-0.6 SB22 2.0-2.1 Date 19/8/2010 19/8/2010 19/8/2010 19/8/2010

Analyte Units PQL ADOPTED CRITERIA BTEX Benzene mg/kg 0.1 1 - <0.1 <0.1 - Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 3.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - Toluene mg/kg 0.1 1.4 - <0.1 <0.1 - Xylene (m & p) mg/kg 0.2 - <0.2 <0.2 - Xylene (o) mg/kg 0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - Xylene Total mg/kg 0.3 14 - <0.3 <0.3 - Inorganics Cyanide Total mg/kg 0.1 1250 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 Fluoride mg/kg 0.1 <1 1.7 2.3 2.5 Metals Arsenic mg/kg 3 500 4 <3 <3 <3 Cadmium mg/kg 0.3 100 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Chromium (III+VI) mg/kg 0.3 500 15 1 2.4 <0.3 Copper mg/kg 0.5 5000 0.9 1.5 0.5 <0.5 Lead mg/kg 1 1500 5 3 1 <1 Mercury mg/kg 0.05 75 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Nickel mg/kg 0.5 3000 2.8 0.6 0.6 <0.5 Zinc mg/kg 0.5 35000 6.6 5.9 4 0.6 PAH 1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benz(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benzo(a) pyrene mg/kg 0.05 5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Benzo(b)&(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 PAHs (Sum of total) mg/kg 1.75 100 <1.75 <1.75 <1.75 <1.75 Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 PAH/Phenols 2-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Solvents Methyltributyl Ether mg/kg 0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - TPH TPH C6 - C9 mg/kg 20 65 - <20 - - TPH C10 - C14 mg/kg 20 - <20 - - TPH C15 - C28 mg/kg 50 - <50 - - TPH C29 - C36 mg/kg 50 - <50 - - TPH+C10 - C36 mg/kg 1000 - <120 - -

9.2 Groundwater Results and Assessment

Groundwater analytical results (Table 9.2) were compared to the relevant groundwater investigation levels (Table 7.2). The comparison showed:

• Concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes were below the LOR and adopted criteria in each sample analysed;

• Concentrations of TPH C6-C9 and TPH C10-C36 were below the LOR and adopted criteria in each sample analysed;

• Concentrations of PAHs were below the LOR. The LOR for anthracene and benzo(a)pyrene exceeded the adopted criteria, making it impractical to assess if the concentrations exceeded the adopted criteria. Other PAH compounds had LORs below the adopted criteria;

• Concentrations of zinc exceeded the criteria for protection of fresh water aquatic ecosystems in each well. Other metals were below the adopted criteria;

• Concentrations of cyanide were below the LOR and adopted criteria in each sample analysed;

• Concentrations of fluoride were below the adopted criteria;

• Concentrations of sulphate were below the adopted criteria.

Groundwater pH indicated slightly acidic conditions and EC results indicated fresh water. These results are consistent with other groundwater data within the Tomago Sand beds. The laboratory analysis of groundwater samples for chemicals of concern showed concentrations below the adopted criteria, with the exception of zinc which exceeded the trigger values for protection of fresh water aquatic ecosystems.

The zinc concentrations could be naturally occurring, and are generally consistent with concentrations of zinc in 18 groundwater samples collected in the Tomago area for RZM in the mid 1990s (The Steering Committee, 1996).

The groundwater analytical results are presented in Table 9.2 below and the laboratory reports are provided in Appendix G.

9.2.1 Contaminant Fate Modelling

This preliminary contamination assessment considers potential current and historic contamination. The potential for future contamination is considered as part of contaminant fate modelling of chemicals likely to be used once the gas plant is operational. This assessment is described in Coffey (2010b).

Coffey Environments 37 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 TABLE 9.2: SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Field_ID MW1 MW2 MW3

Date 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010

Analytes Units PQL NHMRC ANZECC 2004 2000 BTEX Benzene µg/L 0.5 1 950 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.5 300 80 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Toluene µg/L 0.5 800 180 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Xylene (m & p) µg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 Xylene (o) µg/L 0.5 350 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Xylene Total µg/L 1.5 600 75 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5

Inorganics Alkalinity (Bicarbonate) mg/L 2 6.8 13 3.3 Alkalinity (total) as CaCO3 mg/L 2 <2 <2 <2 Chloride mg/L 0.05 25 41 22 Cyanide Total mg/L 0.005 0.08 0.007 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.02 0.8 2.9 0.31 Fluoride mg/L 0.02 1.5 0.04 0.02 0.03 pH (Lab) pH_Units 0 5.4 5.4 5 Sulphate mg/L 0.1 500,000 22 7 19

Ions Calcium mg/L 0.1 1.9 2.7 3.1 Magnesium mg/L 0.1 4.6 3.3 4.4 Potassium mg/L 0.2 1.8 2.6 1.9 Sodium mg/L 0.1 30 43 21

Metals Arsenic mg/L 0.001 0.007 0.013 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 0.002 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Chromium (III+VI) mg/L 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 Copper mg/L 0.001 2 0.0014 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 Iron mg/L 0.005 0.98 2.8 0.049 Lead mg/L 0.001 0.01 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Nickel mg/L 0.001 0.02 0.011 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Zinc mg/L 0.001 0.008 0.066 0.055 0.051

PAH 1-Methylnaphthalene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Acenaphthene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Acenaphthylene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Anthracene µg/L 0.5 0.01 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Benz(a)anthracene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Benzo(a) pyrene µg/L 0.5 0.01 0.1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Benzo(b)&(k)fluoranthene µg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Chrysene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Fluoranthene µg/L 0.5 1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Fluorene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Naphthalene µg/L 0.5 16 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 PAHs (Sum of total) µg/L 9 <9 <9 <9 Phenanthrene µg/L 0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Pyrene µg/L 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Solvents Methyltributyl Ether mg/L 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

TPH TPH C6 - C9 µg/L 40 40 <40 <40 <40 TPH C10 - C14 µg/L 100 100 <100 <100 <100 TPH C15 - C28 µg/L 200 200 <200 <200 <200 TPH C29 - C36 µg/L 200 200 <200 <200 <200 TPH+C10 - C36 (Sum of total) µg/L <500 <500 <500

Value Exceeds adopted ANZECC (2000) criteria Value Exceeds adopted NHMRC (2004) criteria <0.5 PQL exceeds adopted criteria PQL Practical quantitation limit Criteria: ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Table 3.4.1, Protection of 95-99% of species in fresh water NHRMC (2004) Australian Drinking Water Guidlines Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

10 ACID SULFATE SOILS

10.1 Definition of Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS)

Coastal acid sulfate soils (ASS) are soils which contain significant concentrations of pyrite which, when exposed to oxygen, in the presence of sufficient moisture, oxidises, resulting in the generation of sulfuric acid. Unoxidised pyritic soils are referred to as potential ASS. When the soils are exposed, the oxidation of pyrite occurs and sulfuric acids are generated, the soils are said to be actual ASS.

Pyritic soils typically form as waterlogged, saline sediments rich in iron and sulfate. Typical coastal environments for the formation of these soils include tidal flats, salt marshes and mangrove swamps below about 5 m AHD. They can also form as bottom sediments in coastal rivers and creeks.

Pyritic soils of concern on low lying NSW and coastal lands have mostly formed in the Holocene period (ie: 10,000 years ago to present day), predominantly in the 7,000 years since the last rise in sea level. It is generally considered that pyritic soils formed prior to the Holocene (ie: >10,000 years ago) have a lower potential to cause harm as pyrite would have oxidised and leached during periods of low sea level, which occurred during ice ages, exposing pyritic coastal sediments to oxygen.

10.2 Significance of ASS

Disturbance or poorly managed development and use of coastal acid sulfate soils can generate significant amounts of sulfuric acid, which can lower soil and water pH to extreme levels (generally <4) and produce acid soils, resulting in high salinity.

The low pH, high salinity soils can reduce or altogether preclude vegetation growth and can produce aggressive conditions which may be detrimental to concrete and steel components of structures, foundations, pipelines and other engineering works.

Generation of acid conditions often releases aluminium, iron and other naturally occurring elements from the otherwise stable soil matrices. High concentrations of some such elements, coupled with low pH and alterations to salinity and dissolved oxygen concentrations, can be detrimental to aquatic life.

10.3 Acid Sulfate Soils Risk Map

The Beresfield Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Map (DLWC, 1995) indicates that there is a low probability of ASS at greater than 3 m below ground surface within the primary project area. The map indicates that the soils within the primary project area comprise Pleistocene aged aeolian sand plains at an elevation of greater than 4 m AHD.

The Risk Map shows that south of the primary project area:

• The pipeline route options pass through a range of ASS categories, with a high probability of ASS occurring within 1.0 m of the ground surface along the river foreshore;

• Sediments associated with the Hunter River also have a high probability of containing ASS.

Coffey Environments 39 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

10.4 Council Policy and Applicable Guidelines

10.4.1 Port Stephens Council ASS Policy

Port Stephens Council Acid Sulfate Soil Policy (Port Stephens Council, 2004) was developed to manage disturbances to potential and actual acid sulfate soils in the Port Stephens Local Government Area. The Policy provides five planning categories where acid sulfate soils may be disturbed. The categories are:

1) Any works

2) Works below the ground surface

3) Works beyond 1m below natural ground surface

4) Works beyond 2m below natural ground surface

5) Works within 500m of adjacent class

Figure 4 shows the location of the project components on the Port Stephens Council Acid Sulfate Soil Planning Map. The primary project area falls within Category 4, the proposed pipeline routes fall within Category 4 and Category 2, and the Hexham Receiving Station is within Category 2. The Hunter River Crossing falls within Category 1. Works within these categories would require the preparation of an ASS Management Plan (ASSMP).

10.4.2 Applicable Guidelines

Action criteria for ASS assessments are provided in Ahern et al (1998) Acid Sulfate Soils Assessment Guidelines, published by the Acid Sulfate Soil Management Advisory Committee (ASMAC).

The action criteria are based on the percentage of oxidisable sulfur (or equivalent) for different soil types. For projects that disturb over 1,000 tonnes of ASS, the action criteria for oxidisable sulfur (SPOS) is 0.03 %.

TABLE 10.1: ACID SULFATE SOILS ACTION CRITERIA

1 TO 1,000 TONNES OVER 1,000 TONNES TYPE OF MATERIAL DISTURBED DISTURBED

Approx Clay Sulfur Trial Acid Trial Sulfur Trial Acid Trial Texture Content (%) (% oxidisable S) (mol H+/tonne) (% oxidisable S) (mol H+/tonne)

Sands to loamy <5 0.03 18 0.03 18 sands (Coarse)

Sandy loams to 5-40 0.06 36 0.03 18 light clay (Medium)

Medium to heavy >40 0.1 62 0.03 18 clays and silty clays (Fine)

Coffey Environments 40 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

10.5 Acid Sulfate Soil Results

10.5.1 Field Screening Tests

Ten soil samples from five boreholes (SB16, SB17, SB18, SB21 and SB22) were selected for ASS field screening tests from the primary project area. Nine samples from two boreholes (BH01 and BH02) were selected for ASS field screening tests from the northern bank of the Hunter River. The samples ranged in depth from 0.1 m to 4.4 m bgl. The samples were selected to provide representative results laterally and vertically along the proposed gas pipeline corridor, gas plant site and Hunter River crossing. The risk map indicates ASS, if present, will occur at greater than 3 m depth, and based on this most samples were from 3.0 m bgl or deeper, in the primary project area. The risk map indicates a high probability of ASS in Hunter River sediments.

The samples were screened using the ASS field screening tests based on Method 21Af and 21Bf in the 1998 ASS Manual.

The results are summarised in Table 10.2, and presented in Appendix I.

TABLE 10.2: SUMMARY OF ASS FIELD SCREENING RESULTS

Sample Location pH in Distilled pH in Hydrogen Sample Reaction to Hydrogen and Depth (m) Water Peroxide Solution Peroxide Solution

SB16 2.0-2.1 4.99 4.50 None

SB16 4.3-4.4 4.91 4.53 None

SB17 3.0-3.1 5.57 5.01 None

SB17 4.3-4.4 4.58 4.89 Slight to moderate effervescence

SB18 2.0-2.1 5.70 4.71 None

SB18 4.2-4.3 4.91 4.58 None

SB21 1.0-1.1 4.62 3.98 None

SB21 4.2-4.3 5.59 4.34 None

SB22 3.0-3.1 5.57 4.09 None

SB22 4.2-4.3 5.52 4.80 None

BH01 0.1-0.2 5.01 3.51 None

BH01 0,5-0.6 5.99 4.30 None

BH01 1.0-1.1 6.80 4.41 Slight to moderate effervescence

Coffey Environments 41 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

Sample Location pH in Distilled pH in Hydrogen Sample Reaction to Hydrogen and Depth (m) Water Peroxide Solution Peroxide Solution

BH01 1.5-1.6 7.54 3.77 Slight to moderate effervescence

BH01 1.9-2.0 7.51 1.01 Vigorous effervescence and strong odour

BH02 0.5-0.6 6.44 3.04 Slight to moderate effervescence

BH02 1.0-1.1 5.65 3.00 None

BH02 1.5-1.6 6.31 3.88 None

BH02 1.9-2.0 5.92 6.63 None

Notes: Soil pH in water below 4 can be an indication of actual ASS; and soil pH in hydrogen peroxide solution less than 3.5 can be an indication of potential ASS.

10.5.2 Laboratory Results

Two samples from two boreholes (BH01 and BH02) were submitted for analysis using the suspension peroxide oxidation combined acidity and sulfate (SPOCAS) method. Samples were collected near the northern bank of the Hunter River to assess the likely impact from directional drilling. The borehole locations are shown on Figure 2. The results are presented in Table 10.3.

Coffey Environments 42 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

TABLE 10.3 ASS RESULTS FOR HUNTER RIVER CROSSING

Laboratory Results Sample Depth ID (m) pH in pH TAA TPA * % Net Acidity

KCl Ox (moles/tonne) (moles/tonne) SPOS (moles/tonne)

BH01 1.9-2.0 4.7 2.3 30 640 1.0 650

BH02 0.5-0.6 4.5 4.1 64 20 0.03 81

ACTION NA NA 18 18 0.03 18 CRITERIA

Note: KCl: potassium chloride solution; TAA: titratable actual acidity; TPA: titratable peroxide acidity. Shaded values exceed the action criteria.

The laboratory results show exceedance of the action criteria for net acidity in both samples analysed. This is consistent with the ASS Risk map that shows high probability of ASS within 1.0 m of the ground surface. The results give preliminary liming rates of 49 kg/tonne and 6 kg/tonne without a factor of safety. A factor of safety of 1.5 is generally applied to liming rates to account for incomplete mixing.

10.5.3 Discussion of Results

The results of the ASS screening tests showed the soils down to about 4.0m depth in the primary project area are unlikely to be ASS.

Based on Coffey’s previous experience and the results of the field screening tests, it is considered that there is a low risk of encountering ASS within the primary project area above about 1.0m AHD. Should soil conditions different to those in this report be encountered during excavations on the western end of the primary project area, then further advice in regards to ASS should be sought.

There is a potential that soils closer to Hunter River and the sediments below the River, contain ASS and this is confirmed by the laboratory results that show ASS at about 1.0m depth.

Further soil sampling and laboratory analysis is required once the pipeline route and Hunter River Crossing is confirmed, to assess the impact from trenching and horizontal directional drilling. Based on the results of further investigation appropriate liming rates can be assessed and an ASSMP prepared.

Information on acid sulfate soils at the Hexham Receiving Station is presented in Coffey (2010a).

Coffey Environments 43 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

11 CONCLUSIONS

Groundwater parameters and concentrations of chemicals of concern were consistent with known data from the Tomago sand beds.

Information on contamination and acid sulfate soils at the Hexham Receiving Station is presented in Coffey (2010a).

Coffey Environments 44 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

12 LIMITATIONS

The findings within this report are the result of discrete/specific sampling practices used in accordance with normal practices and standards. To the best of our knowledge they represent a reasonable interpretation of the general conditions of the site. Under no circumstances, however, can it be considered that these findings represent the actual state of the site at all points.

It is the nature of contaminated site investigations that the degree of variability in site conditions cannot be known completely and no sampling and analysis program can eliminate all uncertainty concerning the condition of the site. Professional judgement must be exercised in the collection and interpretation of the data.

The investigations undertaken were limited by the short time frame and access constraints and are considered to provide only a preliminary assessment of the likely contamination conditions at the site.

In preparing this report, current guidelines for assessment and management of contaminated land were followed. This work has been conducted in good faith in accordance with Coffey Environments understanding of the client’s brief and general accepted practice for environmental consulting.

This report was prepared for AGL Energy Limited with the objective of assessing the presence of contamination on the site that could potentially impact on redevelopment of the property. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the information and professional advice included in this report. Anyone using this document does so at their own risk and should satisfy themselves concerning its applicability and, where necessary, should seek expert advice in relation to the particular situation.

This report does not cover hazardous building materials issues. Information within the report should not be used for geotechnical investigation purposes.

Coffey Environments 45 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011 Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility

13 REFERENCES

1. ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality

2. Ahern et al (1998) Acid Sulfate Soils Assessment Guidelines, published by the Acid Sulfate Soil Management Advisory Committee (ASSMAC)

3. Canadian Ministers of the Environment (2006) Canadian Soil Guidelines for the Protection of the Environment and Human Health.

4. Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd (2010a) Preliminary Contamination Assessment, 235 Old Maitland Rd, Hexham, NSW (reference ENVIWARA00561AA-R01 Rev1)

5. Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd (2010b) Newcastle Gas Storage Facility, Groundwater Assessment, Tomago NSW (reference GEOTLCOV524054AA-AB) (Coffey 2010a)

6. DLWC (1995) Beresfield Acid Sulfate Soil Risk Map, (Edition 1), Department of Land and Water Conservation, June 1995

7. Geological Survey of NSW (1966) 1:100,000 Newcastle Geological Series Sheet, No. 9130 First Edition

8. GHD (2004) Tomago Aluminium Contamination Audit, Phase 1 – Desktop Study (reference: 22/11714/60673) (GHD, 2004)

9. NSW DEC (2006) Guidelines for the NSW Auditor Scheme (Second Edition)

10. NSW EPA (1994) Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites

11. NSW EPA (1997) Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites

12. NEPC (1999) National Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM

13. NHMRC (2004) National Water Quality Management Strategy – Australian Drinking Water Guidelines

14. Port Stephens Council (2006) Contaminated Land Policy, file number S9460-016

15. Port Stephens Council (2007) Acid Sulfate Soil Planning Map

16. The Steering Committee (1996) Report No. 1 Data Review & Assessment of Hyrdrogeological and Hydrochemical Impacts of Heavy Mineral Mining on the Tomago Sandbeds, Newcastle NSW, G419/3-BP February 1996)

17. Woolley D, Mount T and Gill J (1995) Tomago Tomaree Stockton Groundwater Technical Review. NSW Department of Water Resources, February 1995.

18. WorleyParsons (2010) Newcastle Gas Storage Facility, Tomago – Principles of Surface Water Management, September 2010.

19. NSW EPA (2007) Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Groundwater Contamination

Coffey Environments 46 ENAUWARA04016AA-R02.doc 21 January 2011

Important information about your Coffey Environmental Report

Uncertainties as to what lies below the ground on potentially contaminated sites can lead to remediation costs blow outs, reduction in the value of the land and to delays in the redevelopment of land. These uncertainties are an inherent part of dealing with land contamination. The following notes have been prepared by Coffey to help you interpret and understand the limitations of your report.

Your report has been written for a specific purpose Because a report is based on conditions which existed at the time of the subsurface exploration, decisions should not be based on a Your report has been developed on the basis of a specific purpose report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. as understood by Coffey and applies only to the site or area investigated. For example, the purpose of your report may be: Consult Coffey to be advised how time may have impacted on the project and/or on the property. • To assess the environmental effects of an on-going operation. Interpretation of factual data • To provide due diligence on behalf of a property vendor. Environmental site assessments identify actual subsurface • To provide due diligence on behalf of a property purchaser. conditions only at those points where samples are taken and when • To provide information related to redevelopment of the site due they are taken. Data derived from indirect field measurements and to a proposed change in use, for example, industrial use to a sometimes other reports on the site are interpreted by geologists, residential use. engineers or scientists to provide an opinion about overall site conditions, their likely impact with respect to the report purpose and • To assess the existing baseline environmental, and sometimes recommended actions. geological and hydrological conditions or constraints of a site prior to an activity which may alter the sites environmental, Actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no geological or hydrological condition. professional, no matter how well qualified, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual interface between materials may For each purpose, a specific approach to the assessment of be far more gradual or abrupt than assumed based on the facts potential soil and groundwater contamination is required. In most obtained. Nothing can be done to change the actual site conditions cases, a key objective is to identify, and if possible, quantify risks which exist, but steps can be taken to reduce the impact of that both recognised and unrecognised contamination pose to the unexpected conditions. proposed activity. Such risks may be both financial (for example, clean up costs or limitations to the site use) and physical (for For this reason, parties involved with land acquisition, management example, potential health risks to users of the site or the general and/or redevelopment should retain the services of Coffey through public). the development and use of the site to identify variances, conduct additional tests if required, and recommend solutions to unexpected Scope of Investigations conditions or other problems encountered on site. The work was conducted, and the report has been prepared, in Your report will only give preliminary recommendations response to specific instructions from the client to whom this report is addressed, within practical time and budgetary constraints, and in Your report is based on the assumption that the site conditions as reliance on certain data and information made available to Coffey. revealed through selective point sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout an area. The analyses, evaluations, opinions and conclusions presented in this report are based on those instructions, requirements, data or This assumption cannot be substantiated until project information, and they could change if such instructions etc. are in implementation has commenced and therefore your report fact inaccurate or incomplete. recommendations can only be regarded as preliminary. Only Coffey, who prepared the report, is fully familiar with the background Subsurface conditions can change information needed to assess whether or not the report's Subsurface conditions are created by natural processes and the recommendations are valid and whether or not changes should be activity of man and may change with time. considered with redevelopment or on-going use of the site. If another party undertakes the implementation of the recommendations of this For example, groundwater levels can vary with time, fill may be report there is a risk that the report will be misinterpreted and Coffey placed on a site and pollutants may migrate with time. cannot be held responsible for such misinterpretation.

Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd ABN 65 140 765 902 Issue: 1 Revision 2 March 2010

Important information about your Coffey Environmental Report

Your report is prepared for specific purposes and Responsibility persons Environmental reporting relies on interpretation of factual To avoid misuse of the information contained in your report it is information based on judgement and opinion and has a level of recommended that you confer with Coffey before passing your uncertainty attached to it, which is far less exact than other design report on to another party who may not be familiar with the disciplines. This has often resulted in claims being lodged against background and the purpose of the report. In particular, a due consultants, which are unfounded. To help prevent this problem, a diligence report for a property vendor may not be suitable for number of clauses have been developed for use in contracts, satisfying the needs of a purchaser. Your report should not be reports and other documents. applied for any purpose other than that originally specified at the Responsibility clauses do not transfer appropriate liabilities from time the report was issued. Coffey to other parties but are included to identify where Coffey's Interpretation by other professionals responsibilities begin and end. Their use is intended to help all parties involved to recognise their individual responsibilities. Read Costly problems can occur when other professionals all documents from Coffey closely and do not hesitate to ask any develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a report. To questions you may have. help avoid misinterpretations, retain Coffey to work with other professionals who are affected by the report. Have Coffey explain the report implications to professionals affected by them and then review plans and specifications produced to see how they have incorporated the report findings.

Data should not be separated from the report

The report as a whole presents the findings of the site assessment and the report should not be copied in part or altered in any way. Logs, figures, laboratory data, drawings, etc. are customarily included in our reports and are developed by scientists, engineers or geologists based on their interpretation of field logs (assembled by field personnel), field testing and laboratory evaluation of field samples. This information should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in other documents or separated from the report in any way. Contact Coffey for additional assistance

Coffey is familiar with a variety of techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for all parties to land development and land use. It is common that not all approaches will be necessarily dealt with in your environmental site assessment report due to concepts proposed at that time. As a project progresses through planning and design toward construction and/or maintenance, speak with Coffey to develop alternative approaches to problems that may be of genuine benefit both in time and cost.

Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd ABN 65 140 765 902 Issue: 1 Revision 2 March 2010

Figures

Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project

377250 378000 378750 379500 380250 381000

LEGEND Pipeline route options Road Option 1 Railway Option 2 Proposed gas plant layout Hybrid option Primary project area

6369000 Cadastre 6369000 Gas pipeline access corridor Proposed gas plant site Proposed access road Option B Option C Pacific Highway Old Punt Road

Tomago Road Airstrip Road 6368250 6368250

New England Highway 6367500 6367500

Old Punt Road

Hexham Old Maitland Road Receiving Station

Tomago Road N 6366750 6366750 0 m 500 HUNTER RIVER Scale 1:20,000 Page size: A4 Projection: GDA 94 MGA Zone 56

377250 378000 378750 379500 380250 381000 Source: Date: Client: Figure No: Place names, roads and railways from LPMA ' Land & Property Management Authority, 2010. 10.01.2011 AGL Energy Limited Cadastre from AGL. Primary project area from Coffey Environments. MXT: Project: Preliminary Contamination Assessment Proposed access roads from Aconnex. Proposed gas plant layout from Worley Parson (December 2010). 4016AA_01_GIS001_v0_2 Project layout 1 Imagery from NearMaps (June 2010). Proposed gas plant site and pipeline corridor options from AGL. File Name: Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Note: Proposed pipeline corridor options and access road are indicative only and may be subject to change ENAUWARA04016AA_D01 5 Old Punt Road, Tomago NSW DRAFT 377000 377500 378000 378500 379000 379500 380000 380500 381000 381500

Pacific Highway Old Punt Road 6368500 6368500

Tomago Road Airstrip Road

6368000 New England Highway 6368000

BH02 z|!B

BH01 6367500 6367500 z|!B

Old Punt Road

Hexham Old Maitland Road

6367000 Receiving Station 6367000

Tomago Road N

0m 200 HUNTER RIVER Scale 1:20,000 Page size: A4 6366500 Projection: GDA 94 MGA Zone 56 6366500

377000 377500 378000 378500 379000 379500 380000 380500 381000 381500 Source: Date: Client: Figure No: Place names and roads from LPMA ' Land & Property Management Authority, 2010. 10.01.2010 AGL Energy Limited Primary project area and sampling locations from Coffey Environments. MXT: Project: Preliminary Contamination Assessment Proposed access roads from Aconnex. Proposed gas plant layout from Worley Parson (December 2010). 4016AA_01_GIS002_v0_5 Sampling location plan 2 Imagery from NearMaps (June 2010). Proposed gas plant site and pipeline corridor options from AGL. File Name: Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Note: Proposed pipeline corridor options and access road are indicative only and may be subject to change ENAUWARA04016AA_D02 5 Old Punt Road, Tomago NSW DRAFT 377000 378000 379000 380000 381000 382000 383000 384000 385000 386000

LEGEND z|! Coffey groundwater monitoring bores N B (August 2010 groundwater levels) ! A Tomago Aluminium Company bores 6372000 SK3487 6372000 A! 0m 500 3 (August 2010 groundwater levels) SK3474 Scale 1:50,000 6.1 ! ! Hunter Water Corporation Bores 5 A6 A Page size: A4 1 (July 2010 Groundwater levels) Projection: GDA 94 MGA Zone 56 E Hunter Water Corporation bores A! PS20(12) EPS20(8) Pump station 20 bores

6371000 4 6371000 230 E PS20(11) EPS20(7) 2 Interpreted groundwater contours 1.4 E ! EPS20(6) A! A A! (m AHD) SK3519 EPS20(5) 40A SK3534 A! 3 Interpreted groundwater divide ! 2.2 5.5 BL501 A A! EPS20(4) Interpreted groundwater flow direction BL502 0.7 BL503 A! 3 ! 6370000 1 EPS20(3) A 6370000 Waterbody 1.1 E E SK4930 SK5819 Bedrock outctrop EPS20(9) 1.6 3.6 PS20(2) SK3497 ! EPS20(1) Tomago coal measures A 4.6 295 A! A! Shallow bedrock 1.4 A! 3 Tomago coal measures z|! SK3535 B z|! SK4939 3.5 6369000 6369000 Hunter Water Special Area MW1 B 4.8 4 A! 1.6 MW2 Tomago Sandbeds Catchment z|!B 3 SK3508 SEPP 14 wetlands MW3 A!2 3.2 ! A! A 2 1 SK3509 4.5 ! A A! !5 A! SK3520 1.5 5.5 A A! 4.8 !5 4.2 2.2 PROJECT LAYOUT 4.8 A

6368000 ! 6368000 A 4.5! 4.6 4.8A! A!A!!A A! 4.4 ! 2.2 ! AA!4.6 ! A Proposed gas plant layout A4.7 4.6 4.5 A4.4A 4.2 !!! 4.1 4.3 AA! A!4.6 A!4.4 ! A! A!4.9A !!A Pipeline corridor options 4.7 4.3 A4 A!A! 4 ! 4.7 4.8 A 4.1 A 4.1 4 ! A! 5!! 4 A! ! A!A!A!4.4 3.7A A 3.7 Option 1 4.8A! A!A! 5.2 !!5.1!A!4.6 3.5A! 3.7 5.1A5A 43.9 4.43.94.5 3.5 Option 2 A! A! 2.3 3 2.8 A! A! Hybrid option 6367000 ! 6367000 Hexham 1 ! !2.5!A!A2.5 A !AA 2.3 2 A 2.2 Cadastre Receiving HUNTER RIVER A! 2 2 ! 1.2 ! A Station A 1.4 Primary project area 1 Gas pipeline access corridor Proposed gas plant site

6366000 6366000 Proposed access road Option B Option C 6365000 6365000 377000 378000 379000 380000 381000 382000 383000 384000 385000 386000 Source: Date: Client: Figure No: Place names, roads and railways from LPMA ' Land & Property Management Authority, 2010. Cadastre from AGL. 10.01.2011 AGL Energy Limited Proposed gas plant layout from Worley Parson (December 2010). Primary project area from Coffey Environments. MXT: Project: Preliminary Contamination Assessment Proposed access roads from Aconnex. SEPP wetlands from DoP. Tomago Sandbeds Catchment from Hunter Water. 4016AA_01_GIS003_v0_2 Groundwater contour plan 3 Proposed gas plant site and pipeline corridor options from AGL. File Name: Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Note: Proposed pipeline corridor options and access road are indicative only and may be subject to change ENAUWARA04016AA_D03 5 Old Punt Road, Tomago NSW DRAFT 376500 377000 377500 378000 378500 379000 379500 380000 380500 381000 381500 382000 382500 383000 383500

6371000 Acid sulfate soil planning categories Pipeline route options LEGEND 6371000 (1) Any works Option 2 Road (2) Works below the ground surface Option 1 Railway Proposed gas plant layout

6370500 (3) Works beyond 1m below the natural ground surface Hybrid option 6370500 (4) Works beyond 2m below the natural ground surface Primary project area (5) Works within 500m of adjacent class Cadastre Waterbody

6370000 Gas pipeline access corridor 6370000 Proposed gas plant site Proposed access road Option B 6369500 Option C 6369500 6369000 6369000

Pacific Highway Old Punt Road 6368500 6368500

Tomago Road

Airstrip Road

New England Highway 6368000 6368000 6367500 6367500

Old Punt Road

Old Maitland Road Hexham Receiving Station N 6367000 6367000 Tomago Road 0 m 500 HUNTER RIVER Scale 1:30,000 Page size: A4 6366500 Projection: GDA 94 MGA Zone 56 6366500

376500 377000 377500 378000 378500 379000 379500 380000 380500 381000 381500 382000 382500 383000 383500 Source: Date: Client: Figure No: Place names, roads, railways and waterbodies from LPMA ' Land & Property Management Authority, 2010. 10.01.2011 AGL Energy Limited Cadastre from AGL. Primary project area from Coffey Environments. MXT: Project: Preliminary Contamination Assessment Proposed access roads from Aconnex. Proposed gas plant layout from Worley Parson (December 2010). 4016AA_01_GIS004_v0_2 Acid sulfate soil planning categories 4 Acid sulfate soil planning categories from DoP. Proposed gas plant site and pipeline corridor options from AGL. File Name: Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Note: Proposed pipeline corridor options and access road are indicative only and may be subject to change ENAUWARA04016AA_D04 5 Old Punt Road, Tomago NSW DRAFT

Appendix A NSW Office of Water Groundwater Bore Data

Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project

Date/Time :07-Jun-2010 3:22 PM User :PCLARKE Report :RMGW001D.QRP Executable :S:\G5\PROD32\Ground.exe Exe Date :21-Apr-2010 System :Groundwater Database :Edbp

NSW OFFICE OF WATER Work Summary

GW079437 Licence : Licence Status Authorised Purpose(s) Intended Purpose(s) Work Type :Bore Work Status :(Unknown) Construct. Method :(Unknown) Owner Type :(Unknown)

Commenced Date : Final Depth : Completion Date : Drilled Depth :

Contractor Name : Driller : Assistant Driller's Name : Property : Standing Water Level : GWMA : - Salinity : GW Zone : - Yield :

Site Details Site Chosen By County Parish Portion/Lot DP Form A : Licensed : Region :20 - HUNTER CMA Map : River Basin : Grid Zone : Scale : Area / District : Elevation : Northing :6367871 Latitude (S) :32° 49' 15" Elevation Source : Easting :380736 Longitude (E) :151° 43' 33"

GS Map : MGA Zone :56 Coordinate Source : Negative depths indicate Above Ground Level; Construction H-Hole;P-Pipe;OD-Outside Diameter;ID-Inside Diameter;C-Cemented;SL-Slot Length;A-Aperture;GS-Grain Size;Q-Quantity;PL-Placement of Gravel Pack;PC-Pressure Cemented;S-Sump;CE-CentralisersH P Component Type From (m) To (m) OD (mm) ID (mm) Interval Details (No Construction Details Found)

Water Bearing Zones From (m) To (m) Thickness (m) WBZ Type S.W.L. (m) D.D.L. (m) Yield (L/s) Hole Depth (m) Duration (hr) Salinity (mg/L) (No Water Bearing Zone Details Found)

Drillers Log From (m) To (m) Thickness(m) Drillers Description Geological Material Comments

Remarks

Form A Remarks: HUNTER WATER CORPORATION TOMAGO BORE: BL46 Reviewed data - nothing to update. *** End of GW079437 ***

Warning To Clients: This raw data has been supplied to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) by drillers, licensees and other sources. The DNR does not verify the accuracy of this data. The data is presented for use by you at your own risk. You should consider verifying this data before relying on it. Professional hydrogeological advice should be sought in interpreting and using this data. 1 NSW OFFICE OF WATER Work Summary

GW079455

Licence : Licence Status Authorised Purpose(s) Intended Purpose(s) Work Type :Bore Work Status :(Unknown) Construct. Method :(Unknown) Owner Type :(Unknown)

Commenced Date : Final Depth : Completion Date : Drilled Depth :

Contractor Name : Driller : Assistant Driller's Name : Property : Standing Water Level : GWMA : - Salinity : GW Zone : - Yield :

Site Details Site Chosen By County Parish Portion/Lot DP Form A : Licensed : Region :20 - HUNTER CMA Map : River Basin : Grid Zone : Scale : Area / District : Elevation : Northing :6368154 Latitude (S) :32° 49' 6" Elevation Source : Easting :381616 Longitude (E) :151° 44' 7"

Water Bearing Zones From (m) To (m) Thickness (m) WBZ Type S.W.L. (m) D.D.L. (m) Yield (L/s) Hole Depth (m) Duration (hr) Salinity (mg/L) (No Water Bearing Zone Details Found)

Drillers Log From (m) To (m) Thickness(m) Drillers Description Geological Material Comments

Remarks

Form A Remarks: HUNTER WATER CORPORATION TOMAGO BORE: P15 Reviewed data - nothing to update. *** End of GW079455 ***

GW079456

Licence : Licence Status Authorised Purpose(s) Intended Purpose(s) Work Type :Bore Work Status :(Unknown) Construct. Method :(Unknown) Owner Type :(Unknown)

Commenced Date : Final Depth : Completion Date : Drilled Depth :

Contractor Name : Driller : Assistant Driller's Name : Property : Standing Water Level : GWMA : - Salinity : GW Zone : - Yield :

Site Details Site Chosen By County Parish Portion/Lot DP Form A : Licensed : Region :20 - HUNTER CMA Map : River Basin : Grid Zone : Scale : Area / District : Elevation : Northing :6368203 Latitude (S) :32° 49' 4" Elevation Source : Easting :381565 Longitude (E) :151° 44' 5"

Water Bearing Zones From (m) To (m) Thickness (m) WBZ Type S.W.L. (m) D.D.L. (m) Yield (L/s) Hole Depth (m) Duration (hr) Salinity (mg/L) (No Water Bearing Zone Details Found)

Drillers Log From (m) To (m) Thickness(m) Drillers Description Geological Material Comments

Remarks

Form A Remarks: HUNTER WATER CORPORATION TOMAGO BORE: P16 Reviewed data - nothing to update. *** End of GW079456 ***

GW079484

Licence : Licence Status Authorised Purpose(s) Intended Purpose(s) Work Type :Bore Work Status :(Unknown) Construct. Method :(Unknown) Owner Type :(Unknown)

Commenced Date : Final Depth : Completion Date : Drilled Depth :

Contractor Name : Driller : Assistant Driller's Name : Property : Standing Water Level : GWMA : - Salinity : GW Zone : - Yield :

Site Details Site Chosen By County Parish Portion/Lot DP Form A : Licensed : Region :20 - HUNTER CMA Map : River Basin : Grid Zone : Scale : Area / District : Elevation : Northing :6369460 Latitude (S) :32° 48' 23" Elevation Source : Easting :380702 Longitude (E) :151° 43' 33"

Water Bearing Zones From (m) To (m) Thickness (m) WBZ Type S.W.L. (m) D.D.L. (m) Yield (L/s) Hole Depth (m) Duration (hr) Salinity (mg/L) (No Water Bearing Zone Details Found)

Drillers Log From (m) To (m) Thickness(m) Drillers Description Geological Material Comments

Remarks

Form A Remarks: HUNTER WATER CORPORATION TOMAGO BORE: PS20(1) Reviewed data - nothing to update. *** End of GW079484 ***

GW079507

Licence : Licence Status Authorised Purpose(s) Intended Purpose(s) Work Type :Bore Work Status :(Unknown) Construct. Method :(Unknown) Owner Type :(Unknown)

Commenced Date : Final Depth : Completion Date : Drilled Depth :

Contractor Name : Driller : Assistant Driller's Name : Property : Standing Water Level : GWMA : - Salinity : GW Zone : - Yield :

Site Details Site Chosen By County Parish Portion/Lot DP Form A : Licensed : Region :20 - HUNTER CMA Map : River Basin : Grid Zone : Scale : Area / District : Elevation : Northing :6367977 Latitude (S) :32° 49' 11" Elevation Source : Easting :381007 Longitude (E) :151° 43' 44"

Water Bearing Zones From (m) To (m) Thickness (m) WBZ Type S.W.L. (m) D.D.L. (m) Yield (L/s) Hole Depth (m) Duration (hr) Salinity (mg/L) (No Water Bearing Zone Details Found)

Drillers Log From (m) To (m) Thickness(m) Drillers Description Geological Material Comments

Remarks

Form A Remarks: HUNTER WATER CORPORATION TOMAGO BORE: SK3464 Reviewed data - nothing to update. *** End of GW079507 ***

GW079509

Licence : Licence Status Authorised Purpose(s) Intended Purpose(s) Work Type :Bore Work Status :(Unknown) Construct. Method :(Unknown) Owner Type :(Unknown)

Commenced Date : Final Depth : Completion Date : Drilled Depth :

Contractor Name : Driller : Assistant Driller's Name : Property : Standing Water Level : GWMA : - Salinity : GW Zone : - Yield :

Site Details Site Chosen By County Parish Portion/Lot DP Form A : Licensed : Region :20 - HUNTER CMA Map : River Basin : Grid Zone : Scale : Area / District : Elevation : Northing :6368127 Latitude (S) :32° 49' 7" Elevation Source : Easting :381507 Longitude (E) :151° 44' 3"

Water Bearing Zones From (m) To (m) Thickness (m) WBZ Type S.W.L. (m) D.D.L. (m) Yield (L/s) Hole Depth (m) Duration (hr) Salinity (mg/L) (No Water Bearing Zone Details Found)

Drillers Log From (m) To (m) Thickness(m) Drillers Description Geological Material Comments

Remarks

Form A Remarks: HUNTER WATER CORPORATION TOMAGO BORE: SK3466 Reviewed data - nothing to update. *** End of GW079509 ***

GW079510

Licence : Licence Status Authorised Purpose(s) Intended Purpose(s) Work Type :Bore Work Status :(Unknown) Construct. Method :(Unknown) Owner Type :(Unknown)

Commenced Date : Final Depth : Completion Date : Drilled Depth :

Contractor Name : Driller : Assistant Driller's Name : Property : Standing Water Level : GWMA : - Salinity : GW Zone : - Yield :

Site Details Site Chosen By County Parish Portion/Lot DP Form A : Licensed : Region :20 - HUNTER CMA Map : River Basin : Grid Zone : Scale : Area / District : Elevation : Northing :6368449 Latitude (S) :32° 48' 56" Elevation Source : Easting :381452 Longitude (E) :151° 44' 1"

Water Bearing Zones From (m) To (m) Thickness (m) WBZ Type S.W.L. (m) D.D.L. (m) Yield (L/s) Hole Depth (m) Duration (hr) Salinity (mg/L) (No Water Bearing Zone Details Found)

Drillers Log From (m) To (m) Thickness(m) Drillers Description Geological Material Comments

Remarks

Form A Remarks: HUNTER WATER CORPORATION TOMAGO BORE: SK3467 Reviewed data - nothing to update. *** End of GW079510 ***

GW079511

Licence : Licence Status Authorised Purpose(s) Intended Purpose(s) Work Type :Bore Work Status :(Unknown) Construct. Method :(Unknown) Owner Type :(Unknown)

Commenced Date : Final Depth : Completion Date : Drilled Depth :

Contractor Name : Driller : Assistant Driller's Name : Property : Standing Water Level : GWMA : - Salinity : GW Zone : - Yield :

Site Details Site Chosen By County Parish Portion/Lot DP Form A : Licensed : Region :20 - HUNTER CMA Map : River Basin : Grid Zone : Scale : Area / District : Elevation : Northing :6368303 Latitude (S) :32° 49' 1" Elevation Source : Easting :381454 Longitude (E) :151° 44' 1"

Water Bearing Zones From (m) To (m) Thickness (m) WBZ Type S.W.L. (m) D.D.L. (m) Yield (L/s) Hole Depth (m) Duration (hr) Salinity (mg/L) (No Water Bearing Zone Details Found)

Drillers Log From (m) To (m) Thickness(m) Drillers Description Geological Material Comments

Remarks

Form A Remarks: HUNTER WATER CORPORATION TOMAGO BORE: SK3468 Reviewed data - nothing to update. *** End of GW079511 ***

GW079542

Licence : Licence Status Authorised Purpose(s) Intended Purpose(s) Work Type :Bore Work Status :(Unknown) Construct. Method :(Unknown) Owner Type :(Unknown)

Commenced Date : Final Depth : Completion Date : Drilled Depth :

Contractor Name : Driller : Assistant Driller's Name : Property : Standing Water Level : GWMA : - Salinity : GW Zone : - Yield :

Site Details Site Chosen By County Parish Portion/Lot DP Form A : Licensed : Region :20 - HUNTER CMA Map : River Basin : Grid Zone : Scale : Area / District : Elevation : Northing :6367742 Latitude (S) :32° 49' 19" Elevation Source : Easting :381242 Longitude (E) :151° 43' 53"

Water Bearing Zones From (m) To (m) Thickness (m) WBZ Type S.W.L. (m) D.D.L. (m) Yield (L/s) Hole Depth (m) Duration (hr) Salinity (mg/L) (No Water Bearing Zone Details Found)

Drillers Log From (m) To (m) Thickness(m) Drillers Description Geological Material Comments

Remarks

Form A Remarks: HUNTER WATER CORPORATION TOMAGO BORE: SK3499 Reviewed data - nothing to update. *** End of GW079542 ***

GW079726

Licence : Licence Status Authorised Purpose(s) Intended Purpose(s) Work Type :Bore Work Status :(Unknown) Construct. Method :(Unknown) Owner Type :(Unknown)

Commenced Date : Final Depth : Completion Date : Drilled Depth :

Contractor Name : Driller : Assistant Driller's Name : Property : Standing Water Level : GWMA : - Salinity : GW Zone : - Yield :

Site Details Site Chosen By County Parish Portion/Lot DP Form A : Licensed : Region :20 - HUNTER CMA Map : River Basin : Grid Zone : Scale : Area / District : Elevation : Northing :6368609 Latitude (S) :32° 48' 51" Elevation Source : Easting :380598 Longitude (E) :151° 43' 28"

Water Bearing Zones From (m) To (m) Thickness (m) WBZ Type S.W.L. (m) D.D.L. (m) Yield (L/s) Hole Depth (m) Duration (hr) Salinity (mg/L) (No Water Bearing Zone Details Found)

Drillers Log From (m) To (m) Thickness(m) Drillers Description Geological Material Comments

Remarks

Form A Remarks: HUNTER WATER CORPORATION TOMAGO BORE: TAB52 Reviewed data - nothing to update. *** End of GW079726 *** *** End of Report ***

Appendix B Aerial Photographs

Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project

APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION

client: drawn ELC AGL ENERGY LIMITED project: approved PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT NEWCASTLE GAS STORAGE FACILITY PROJECT date 25-10-10 TOMAGO NSW title: scale NTS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 1954 original A4 project no: ENAUWARA04016AA figure no: 1954 size

APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION

client: drawn ELC AGL ENERGY LIMITED project: approved PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT NEWCASTLE GAS STORAGE FACILITY PROJECT date 25-10-10 TOMAGO NSW title: scale NTS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 1966 original A4 project no: ENAUWARA04016AA figure no: 1966 size

APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION

client: drawn ELC AGL ENERGY LIMITED project: approved PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT NEWCASTLE GAS STORAGE FACILITY PROJECT date 25-10-10 TOMAGO NSW title: scale NTS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 1983 original A4 project no: ENAUWARA04016AA figure no: 1983 size

APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION

client: drawn ELC AGL ENERGY LIMITED project: approved PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT NEWCASTLE GAS STORAGE FACILITY PROJECT date 25-10-10 TOMAGO NSW title: scale NTS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 1992 original A4 project no: ENAUWARA04016AA figure no: 1992 size

APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION

client: drawn ELC AGL ENERGY LIMITED project: approved PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT NEWCASTLE GAS STORAGE FACILITY PROJECT date 25-10-10 TOMAGO NSW title: scale NTS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 2004 original A4 project no: ENAUWARA04016AA figure no: 2004 size

APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION

client: drawn ELC AGL ENERGY LIMITED project: approved PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT NEWCASTLE GAS STORAGE FACILITY PROJECT date 10-1-11 TOMAGO NSW title: scale NTS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 2010 original A4 project no: ENAUWARA04016AA figure no: 2010 size

Appendix C Section 149 Certificate

Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project

116 Adelaide Street, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 PO Box 42, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 DX21406 ABN 16 744 377 874 Appln No.: 58715 PLANNING Cert No.: 32714 Page No.: 1 Receipt No.: 1221789 CERTIFICATE Issue Date: 03/06/2009

Applicant Ref.: CAITLIN SPILLER - EW00408aa Parcel No: 43985

APPLICANT DETAILS:

COFFEY ENVIRONMENTS PTY LTD 19 WARABROOK BOULEVARDE WARABROOK NSW 2304

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:

5 Old Punt Road TOMAGO 2322 LOT: 105 DP: 1125747

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

This certificate provides information on how a property (such as land, a house, a commercial building, etc) may be used and the limits on its development. The certificate contains information Council is aware of through its records and environmental plans, along with data supplied by the State Government. The details contained in this certificate are limited to that required by Section 149 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

NAME OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN APPLYING TO THE PROPERTY:

Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 – Gazetted on 29th December, 2000 in Government Gazette No. 170 and as subsequently amended.

DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN(S) EXHIBITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 66 (1)B OF THE EP&A ACT:

Draft Local Environmental Plan 2000 – Amending LEP is on exhibition from 26 March to 30 April 2009.

This plan aims to amend Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 by:

(a) amending the wording of certain clauses; (b) amending, replacing or deleting certain definitions; (c) altering level of heritage significance for certain heritage items; and (d) inclusion of the list of existing “potential archaeological items” as “heritage items”.

(See attached draft Instrument for further detail)

No Draft Local Environmental Plans currently exist which affect the site the subject of this certificate.

PLANNING CERTIFICATE (Also known as a Section 149 Certificate)

Telephone: 02 4980 0255 Fax: 02 4987 3612 Email: [email protected] Web: www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au

116 Adelaide Street, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 PO Box 42, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 DX21406 ABN 16 744 377 874 Appln No.: 58715 PLANNING Cert No.: 32714 Page No.: 2 Receipt No.: 1221789 CERTIFICATE Issue Date: 03/06/2009

ZONING:

4(a) - INDUSTRIAL GENERAL "A"

The purposes for which development may be carried out in accordance with the above zones are as follows:

Zone No 4(a) - Industrial General “A” Zone

ITEM 1: Development allowed without development consent

• exempt development

ITEM 2: Development allowed only with development consent

Any development not included in Item 1 or 3.

ITEM 3: Development which is prohibited

Development for the purpose of:

• bed and breakfast establishments, • boarding-houses, • camp or caravan sites, • commercial premises, • dual occupancy housing, • dwellings, other than those ancillary to and on the same land as development permissible in this zone, • hospitals, • restricted premises, • roadside stalls, • shops, • tourist facilities, • urban housing.

SITE SPECIFIC CLAUSES APPLYING TO THE PROPERTY UNDER PORT STEPHENS LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN(S):

PLANNING CERTIFICATE (Also known as a Section 149 Certificate)

Telephone: 02 4980 0255 Fax: 02 4987 3612 Email: [email protected] Web: www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au

116 Adelaide Street, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 PO Box 42, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 DX21406 ABN 16 744 377 874 Appln No.: 58715 PLANNING Cert No.: 32714 Page No.: 3 Receipt No.: 1221789 CERTIFICATE Issue Date: 03/06/2009

The land the subject of this certificate is affected by access restrictions: CLAUSE 41 - DIRECT ACCESS TO CERTAIN ROADS IS RESTRICTED.Please contact Council's Strategic Planning Section for further information.

NAME OF EACH DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN APPLYING TO THE PROPERTY: A DCP adds further detail to Local Environmental Plans and may address issues such as building height, carparking etc. Copies of the plans are available from Council. This section includes any Development Control Plan prepared by the Director-General Planning NSW.

PORT STEPHENS DCP 2007 - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2007

NAME OF REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN(S) APPLYING TO THE PROPERTY: Including Draft Regional Environmental Plans exhibited pursuant to Section 47(b) of the EP&A Act.

HUNTER REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1989.

WILLIAMS RIVER CATCHMENT REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1997.

NAMES OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICIES APPLYING TO THE PROPERTY: Including Draft State Environmental Planning Policies exhibited pursuant to Section 39(2) of the EP&A Act.

S.E.P.P. NO 1 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

S.E.P.P. NO 4 - DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT CONSENT.

S.E.P.P. NO 6 - NUMBER OF STOREYS IN A BUILDING.

S.E.P.P. NO 8 - SURPLUS PUBLIC LAND.

S.E.P.P. NO 9 - GROUP HOMES.

S.E.P.P. NO 10 - RETENTION OF LOW COST RENT ACCOMMODATION.

S.E.P.P. NO 11 - TRAFFIC GENERATING DEVELOPMENTS.

S.E.P.P. NO 15 - RURAL LANDSHARING COMMUNITIES.

S.E.P.P. NO 21 - CARAVAN PARKS.

PLANNING CERTIFICATE (Also known as a Section 149 Certificate)

Telephone: 02 4980 0255 Fax: 02 4987 3612 Email: [email protected] Web: www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au

116 Adelaide Street, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 PO Box 42, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 DX21406 ABN 16 744 377 874 Appln No.: 58715 PLANNING Cert No.: 32714 Page No.: 4 Receipt No.: 1221789 CERTIFICATE Issue Date: 03/06/2009

S.E.P.P. NO 22 - SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL PREMISES.

S.E.P.P. NO 30 - INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE.

S.E.P.P. NO 32 - URBAN CONSOLIDATION.

S.E.P.P. NO 33 - HAZARDOUS AND OFFENSIVE DEVELOPMENT.

S.E.P.P. NO 36 - PLANNING INITIATIVES FOR MANUFACTURED HOME ESTATES.

S.E.P.P. NO 37 - CONTINUED MINES AND EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES.

S.E.P.P. NO 44 - KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION.

S.E.P.P. NO 45 - PERMISSIBILITY OF MINING.

S.E.P.P. NO 50 - CANAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.

S.E.P.P. NO 55 - REMEDIATION OF LAND.

S.E.P.P. NO 65 - DESIGN QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT DEVELOPMENT.

S.E.P.P. NO 71 - COASTAL PROTECTION.

SEPP (MAJOR PROJECTS) 2005

SEPP (ARTC Rail Infrastructure)

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries)

SEPP - Exempt & Complying Development Codes effective 27 February 2009

DRAFT S.E.P.P. NO 66 - INTEGRATION OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORT.

DO THE PROPERTIES DIMENSIONS PERMIT THE ERECTION OF A DWELLING- HOUSE?

The erection of a dwelling-house (where permitted by the land use tables) may be prohibited because of a development standard relating to the minimum area on which a dwelling-house may be PLANNING CERTIFICATE (Also known as a Section 149 Certificate)

Telephone: 02 4980 0255 Fax: 02 4987 3612 Email: [email protected] Web: www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au

116 Adelaide Street, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 PO Box 42, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 DX21406 ABN 16 744 377 874 Appln No.: 58715 PLANNING Cert No.: 32714 Page No.: 5 Receipt No.: 1221789 CERTIFICATE Issue Date: 03/06/2009 erected. This development standard is dependent upon the zoning of the land. Clauses 14, 19, 34 and 35 of Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 are relevant in this regard and can be found at Annexure A to this certificate.

DOES THE PROPERTY INCLUDE OR COMPRISE OF CRITICAL HABITAT?

Council’s records indicate that the land subject of this certificate DOES NOT include or comprise of critical habitat.

IS THE PROPERTY IN A CONSERVATION AREA?

The property subject of this certificate is not within a conservation area.

IS AN ITEM OF ENVIRONMENTAL HERITAGE SITUATED ON THE PROPERTY?

No item(s) of Environmental Heritage are situated on the land the subject of this certificate.

IS THE PROPERTY PART OF ANY APPLICATION FOR “DECLARED STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT”? Development is judged to be "State significant" if it involves development of economic, social or environmental significance to the State or regions. For more information contact Department of Planning.

Development to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) applies has been declared as State significant development by the Minister for Planning.

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT MAY BE CARRIED OUT ON THE PROPERTY UNDER STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (EXEMPT AND COMPYING DEVELOPMENT CODES) 2008?

Complying Development may NOT be carried out under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 on the property for the reason that the land is excluded by clause 1.19 of the SEPP due to it being one or more of the following:

• land that is bush fire prone land; or • a flood control lot; or • excluded land identified by an environmental planning instrument; or

PLANNING CERTIFICATE (Also known as a Section 149 Certificate)

Telephone: 02 4980 0255 Fax: 02 4987 3612 Email: [email protected] Web: www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au

116 Adelaide Street, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 PO Box 42, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 DX21406 ABN 16 744 377 874 Appln No.: 58715 PLANNING Cert No.: 32714 Page No.: 6 Receipt No.: 1221789 CERTIFICATE Issue Date: 03/06/2009

• land identified on an Acid Sulfate Soils Map as being Class 1 or Class 2; or • land that comprises, or on which there is, an item that is listed on the State Heritage Register under the Heritage Act 1977 or that is subject to an interim heritage order under the Heritage Act 1977; or • land that comprises, or on which there is, a heritage item or a draft heritage item; or • land within a heritage conservation area or a draft heritage conservation area; or • unsewered land to which Drinking Water Catchments Regional Environmental Plan No 1 applies; or • land that is an environmentally sensitive area; or • land within a wilderness area (identified under the Wilderness Act 1987); or • land that is reserved for a public purpose in an environmental planning instrument.

IS THE PROPERTY AFFECTED BY SECTION 38 OR 39 OF THE COASTAL PROTECTION ACT 1979?

Section 38 or Section 39 of the Coastal Protection Act is not applicable in respect to the site the subject of this Certificate.

IS THE PROPERTY IN A “PROCLAIMED MINE SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 15 OF THE MINE SUBSIDENCE COMPENSATION ACT 1961?

Section 15 of the Mine Subsidence Compensation Act is not applicable in respect to the land the subject of this Certificate.

IS THE PROPERTY AFFECTED BY ROAD WIDENING OR ROAD REALIGNMENT?

Council's records indicate that the land the subject of this Certificate is NOT affected by any road widening or road realignment under:- (1) Section 25 of the Roads Act 1993; or (2) any environmental planning instrument; or (3) any resolution of the Council.

ARE THERE ANY COUNCIL AND OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY POLICIES THAT RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT?

PLANNING CERTIFICATE (Also known as a Section 149 Certificate)

Telephone: 02 4980 0255 Fax: 02 4987 3612 Email: [email protected] Web: www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au

116 Adelaide Street, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 PO Box 42, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 DX21406 ABN 16 744 377 874 Appln No.: 58715 PLANNING Cert No.: 32714 Page No.: 7 Receipt No.: 1221789 CERTIFICATE Issue Date: 03/06/2009

Council's records indicate that the land the subject of this certificate may be wholly or partially contaminated. Council has adopted a contaminated land policy on 28 November 2006, which may restrict development on contaminated land. any purchaser(s)/user(s) of the subject site must satisfy themselves that the land is fit, or may reasonably be made fit, for the purposes proposed for the site. Responsibility for identification and management of contaminated land rests with the landowner. Further information may be obtained by contacting Council's Environmental Services Section on 49800169.

Council's records indicate that the land subject of this certificate is NOT affected by Council's Policy for Aircraft Noise Exposure in Port Stephens.

ARE THERE ANY FLOOD RELATED DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS?

Council's records indicate that the land may be wholly or partially flood prone land. On 19 December 2000, Council adopted a policy which restricts development on land so effected. Development on flood prone land is subject to flood related development controls. Information on the extent of flooding and development controls on land is available from Council's Strategic Planning Section and you are advised to make further enquiries.

IS THE LAND RESERVED FOR ACQUISITION?

Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 does not provide for the acquisition of the land subject of this certificate by a public authority, as referred to in Section 27 of the Act.

WHICH DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION PLANS APPLY IF THIS PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED? A Development Contribution Plan – commonly known as a Section 94 Plan – outlines the financial costs Council charges if a property is developed and Council believes the development will require additional services or facilities such as parks, road etc. Copies of the Plans are available from Council.

Port Stephens Section 94 Development Contribution Plan Port Stephens Section 94a Development Contribution Plan

IS THE PROPERTY AFFECTED BY ANY OF THE MATTERS OUTLINED IN SECTION 59(2) OF THE CONTAMINATED LAND MANAGEMENT ACT 1997?

Council’s records indicate that the land to which this certificate relates IS NOT: • within land declared to be an investigation area or remediation site under Part 3 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997,

PLANNING CERTIFICATE (Also known as a Section 149 Certificate)

Telephone: 02 4980 0255 Fax: 02 4987 3612 Email: [email protected] Web: www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au

116 Adelaide Street, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 PO Box 42, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 DX21406 ABN 16 744 377 874 Appln No.: 58715 PLANNING Cert No.: 32714 Page No.: 8 Receipt No.: 1221789 CERTIFICATE Issue Date: 03/06/2009

• subject to an investigation order or a remediation order within the meaning of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, • the subject of a voluntary investigation proposal or voluntary remediation proposal the subject of the Environmental Protection Authority’s agreement under section 19 or 26 of the Contaminated Land Management Act, or • the subject of a site audit statement within the meaning of Part 4 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

BUSHFIRE PRONE LAND

The land is shown as bush fire prone land in Council's records. Further details of any applicable restrictions on development of the land may be obtained on application to Council.

IS THE PROPERTY AFFECTED BY A PROPERTY VEGETATION PLAN UNDER THE NATIVE VEGETATION ACT 2003?

Council has not been notified of any Property Vegetation Plans under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 that affect the land to which this certificate applies.

THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 149(5): This information is provided in accordance with Section 149(5) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act. Section 146(6) states that Council shall not incur any liability in respect of advice provided in good faith pursuant to Section 149(5) of the Act. If this information is to be relied upon, it should be independently checked.

Port Stephens Council must take into consideration the likely effect of proposed development on the heritage significance of a heritage item, heritage conservation area, archaeological site or potential archaeological site, and on its setting, when determining an application for consent to carry out development on land in its vicinity. Please contact Council's Strategic Planning Section for more information on 49800326.

When determining a development application on known or potential archaeological sites of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage significance, Port Stephens Council must consider an assessment of how the proposed development would affect the conservation of the site and any relic known or reasonably likely to be located at the site. Please contact Council's Strategic Planning Section on 49800326 for more information.

Council resolved on 17 November, 1998 to adopt an amended Tree Preservation Order in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Model Provisions 1980 and Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000. The Tree Preservation Order applies to the whole of the land within the Port Stephens Local Government Area. This order prohibits the ringbarking, cutting down, topping, lopping,

PLANNING CERTIFICATE (Also known as a Section 149 Certificate)

Telephone: 02 4980 0255 Fax: 02 4987 3612 Email: [email protected] Web: www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au

116 Adelaide Street, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 PO Box 42, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324 DX21406 ABN 16 744 377 874 Appln No.: 58715 PLANNING Cert No.: 32714 Page No.: 9 Receipt No.: 1221789 CERTIFICATE Issue Date: 03/06/2009 pruning, removing, injuring or wilful destruction of any tree or trees specified in Council's policy, except with the written consent of the Council. Contact Council's Environmental Services Section by telephoning 49800169 for more information.

This property is located within the Tomago Aluminium Smelter Buffer zone. Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Ltd are required to take all reasonable steps to acquire certain properties within this buffer zone. Please contact the Company Secretary, Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Limited, PO Box 405, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324

All areas of the Port Stephens local government area are now, or are forecast to be, affected by aircraft noise from time to time. Further information concerning the degree of impact of noise from aircraft can be obtained from the council's Sustainable Planning Group and you are advised to make further enquiries.

For further information, please contact .. for P G GESLING Council’s Strategic Planning Section General Manager

PLANNING CERTIFICATE (Also known as a Section 149 Certificate)

Telephone: 02 4980 0255 Fax: 02 4987 3612 Email: [email protected] Web: www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au

ANNEXURE A

CLAUSES 14, 19, 34 AND 35 OF PORT STEPHENS LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2000 DWELLING-HOUSES

Clause 14 – Dwelling-houses and dual occupancy housing in rural zones

(1) This clause applies to land within any rural zone.

(2) The consent authority shall not consent to the erection of a dwelling-house or dual occupancy housing on an allotment of land to which this clause applies if:

(a) in the case of land within Zone No. 1(a) – the allotment has an area of less than 4,000 square metres, or (b) in the case of land within Zone No. 1(c1), 1(c2), 1(c3) or 1(c4) – the allotment has an area of less than 3,500 square metres, or (c) in the case of land within Zone No. 1(c5) – the allotment has an area of less than 2,000 square metres, or (d) in any case: (i) if the allotment was created before the appointed day - the consent authority is of the opinion that the allotment was intended to be used for any one or more of the purposes (other than the purpose of a dwelling-house or dual occupancy housing) for which it could have been used (with or without the consent of the consent authority) under the environmental planning instrument under which it was created, or

(ii) if the allotment was created after the appointed day - the allotment was intended to be used for any one or more of the purposes (other than the purpose of a dwelling-house or dual occupancy housing) for which it may be used (with or without the consent of the consent authority) under this plan.

(3) Despite subclause (2), the consent authority may consent to the erection of a dwelling- house or dual occupancy housing on any one or more of the allotments created to correspond to the parts into which a single allotment is (or was) divided by a public road.

(4) However, the consent authority shall not consent to the erection of dual occupancy housing on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the two dwellings give the appearance of being an integrated development by sharing infrastructure such as access arrangements, fire breaks and services, and (b) the clustering of rural buildings has regard to topographical features, and (c) any clearing necessary for the dwellings is minimised.

(5) The consent authority shall not consent to the carrying out of development involving the erection of more than one dwelling house on an allotment of land to which this clause applies unless the development is for the purpose of dual occupancy housing.

(6) The subdivision of any dual occupancy development shall not be permitted unless the subdivision may be carried out in accordance with the provisions of clause 13.

ANNEXURE B

ANNEXURE A

CLAUSES 14, 19, 34 AND 35 OF PORT STEPHENS LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2000 DWELLING-HOUSES

Clause 19 Dwelling-houses, dual occupancy housing and urban housing

(1) Consent must not be granted to the erection of a dwelling-house, dual occupancy housing or urban housing on land in a zone, or on land within a precinct of the Nelson Bay (West) Area, specified in the Table to this subclause, unless:

(a) the allotment on which the existing or proposed building is or is proposed to be erected has an area of not less than the minimum area for each dwelling specified in the Table in respect of the type of housing, zone or precinct concerned, and

(b) the ratio of the gross floor area of the building to the site area of the allotment does not exceed the ratio identified for the relevant zone or precinct concerned, and

(c) the height of the building does not exceed the maximum height identified for the relevant zone or precinct concerned.

Table

MINIMUM SITE AREA PER FLOOR HOUSING PRECINCT DWELLING SPACE MAXIMUM TYPE ZONE (where specified) RATIO HEIGHT 2(a), Dwelling- 2(c) Unspecified Areas 500 m2 0.5:1 9m house 2(a) Hill Tops 600 m2 0.5:1 9m 2(a) Unspecified Areas 300 m2 0.5:1 8m Dual 2(c) Unspecified Areas 250 m2 0.5:1 8m Occupancy 2(a) Upper Slopes 500 m2 0.5:1 8m Housing 2(a), 2(c) Foreshore and Lower Slopes 300 m2 0.5:1 8m Town Centre Edge, 2(a), Town Centre Housing, 2(c) Wahgunyah Neighbourhood 250 m2 0.5:1 8m

2(a) Upper Slopes 500 m2 0.5:1 8m Urban 2(a) Unspecified Areas 300 m2 0.5:1 8m Housing Foreshore and Lower 2(a) Slopes 300 m2 0.5:1 8m Town Centre Edge, 2(a) Wahgunyah Neighbourhood 250 m2 0.5:1 8m 2(c) Town Centre Housing 150 m2 1.8:1 15m 2(c) Foreshore; Unspecified Areas 150 m2 1.8:1 15m

ANNEXURE B

ANNEXURE A

CLAUSES 14, 19, 34 AND 35 OF PORT STEPHENS LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2000 DWELLING-HOUSES

Clause 34 - Subdivision within environment protection zone No. 7(f1)

(1) The consent authority shall not consent to the subdivision of land within the environment protection zone No. 7(f1) unless each allotment to be created by the subdivision has an area of not less than 40 hectares.

(2) Notwithstanding subclause (1), the consent authority may consent to a subdivision of land referred to in that sub-clause involving the creation of not more than one allotment having an area of less than 40 hectares if the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the allotment to be created is lawfully used for a purpose other than a dwelling-house, dual occupancy housing or agriculture, or

(b) the allotment to be created may, by reason of a development consent granted in respect of that allotment, lawfully be used for a purpose other than a dwelling-house, dual occupancy housing or agriculture.

Clause 35 - Development within all environment protection zones

(1) The consent authority must not grant consent to a development application relating to land within an environment protection zone unless it is satisfied that:

(a) the carrying out of the proposed development will not harm or compromise ecological habitats, and

(b) the land is not subject to high bushfire hazard, and

(c) where a dwelling-house is permissible on the land (with or without the consent of the consent authority), each allotment to be created by any proposed subdivision has an area of land, suitable for the erection of a dwelling-house, which is not affected by slopes greater than 30%, and (d) where a dwelling-house or dual occupancy housing is permissible on the land, any proposed building will have a height of no more than 9 metres in the case of a dwelling-house and 8 metres in the case of dual occupancy housing, and

(e) any subdivision will occur in an orderly and efficient manner and will not create undue demands on the provision of services and infrastructure for the locality, and

(f) the land concerned has an adequate area of suitable soils available for on-site septic effluent disposal, located away from drainage lines and shallow or impervious soils, unless reticulated water and sewerage services are available.

(2) The consent authority must not consent to the erection of a dwelling house or dual occupancy housing on an allotment having an area of less than 40 hectares created pursuant to a consent referred to in clause 34(2).

ANNEXURE B

(draft) Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No )

(draft) Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No ) under the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

I, the Minister for Planning, make the following local environmental plan under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Kristina Keneally, M.P. Minister for Planning

ANNEXURE B

(draft) Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No )

Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No ) under the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

1 Name of Plan

This plan is Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No ).

2 Aims of plan

This plan aims to amend Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 by:

3 Land to which plan applies

This plan applies to all land to which the Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 applies.

4 Amendment of Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000

Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 is amended as set out in Schedule 1.

ANNEXURE B

(draft) Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No )

Schedule 1 Amendments

[1] Clause 11 Zone Nos 1(c1), 1(c2), 1(c3), 1(c4), 1(c5) – Rural Small Holdings (4) Omit “clearing”

Insert instead “clearing native vegetation” in alphabetical order.

[2] Clause 12 (1) (a) (ii) Omit clause

Insert instead Clause 12 (1) (a) (ii) “to change common allotment boundaries of an adjoining allotment, but not so as to create additional allotments”.

[3] Clause 14 (4) Omit “clause.

Insert instead (4) However, the consent authority shall not consent to the erection of dual occupancy housing on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (a) the two dwellings are clustered giving the appearance of being an integrated development; and (b) have shared infrastructure such as common driveway access, fire breaks and services, and (c) rural buildings are clustered, and (d) any clearing necessary for the dwellings is minimised.

[4] Clause 26 Zone SP1 Defence and Airport Related Employment Development Zone (4) Omit “clearing”

Insert instead “clearing native vegetation” in alphabetical order in the list of “development allowed only with development consent”

[5] Clause 29 Recreation zones Omit “clearing” from lists of “development allowed only with development consent” in Zone 6(a) and 6(c)

Insert instead “clearing native vegetation” in lists of “development allowed only with development consent” in Zone 6(a) and 6(c)

[6] Clause 32 Omit “clearing” from lists of “development allowed only with development consent” in Zone 7(a), 7(c), 7(f1) and 7(f3).

ANNEXURE B

(draft) Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No )

Insert instead “clearing native vegetation” in lists of “development allowed only with development consent” in Zone 7(a), 7(c), 7(f1) and 7(f3).

[7] Clause 51A Omit all reverences to “Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources” and “NSW Fisheries”.

Insert instead “relevant government department”.

[8] Schedule 2 Heritage Part 1 Heritage items of State significance Omit “DP 753204 31A and 33A Ocean Avenue (16.3/1 and 16.33/1) Birubi Point Cemetery”

“Lot 801, DP 881208 35 Elizabeth Street (98.35) Anglican Cemetery”

“Lot 7002, DP 1052993 7 Hinton Road (99.7) Hinton Pioneer Cemetery”

“Reserve No 40511 53C Tarean Road (121.53/3 Karuah Cemetery”

“Reserve No 82387 41A Stockton Street (239.41/1) Nelson Bay Cemetery”

“Pt Lot 20, DP 753161 Lot 7008, DP 1051708 1A and 2 Elizabeth Avenue (283.1/1 and 283.2) Raymond Terrace Cemetery and Pioneer Hill Cemetery”

“Port Stephens Street Road Reserve (Adam Place) Ornamental planting of Phoenix canariensis (Canary Islands Date Palm)”

ANNEXURE B

(draft) Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No )

“DP 758899 10 Grape Street (733.10) Seaham Cemetery”

[9] Schedule 2 Heritage Part 2 Heritage items of Local significance Insert instead in alphabetical order of suburb name . “DP 753204 31A and 33A Ocean Avenue (16.3/1 and 16.33/1) Birubi Point Cemetery”

“Lot 801, DP 881208 35 Elizabeth Street (98.35 Anglican Cemetery”

“Lot 7002, DP 1052993 7 Hinton Road (99.7) Hinton Pioneer Cemetery”

“Reserve No 40511 53C Tarean Road (121.53/3 Karuah Cemetery”

“Reserve No 82387 41A Stockton Street (239.41/1) Nelson Bay Cemetery”

“Pt Lot 20, DP 753161 Lot 7008, DP 1051708 1A and 2 Elizabeth Avenue (283.1/1 and 283.2) Raymond Terrace Cemetery and Pioneer Hill Cemetery”

“Port Stephens Street Road Reserve (Adam Place) Ornamental planting of Phoenix canariensis (Canary Islands Date Palm)”

“DP 758899 10 Grape Street (733.10) Seaham Cemetery

Lot 2, DP 826917

ANNEXURE B

(draft) Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Amendment No )

57 Newline Road (810.57) Eagleton Shipyard site”

“Lot 2, DP 194920 110 East Seaham Road (811.110) Burrowel Homestead, off Dixon Street “

“Lot 1, DP 538498 1 Warren Street (366.1) Porphyry Point site”

“Lot 2, DP 782062 27 Paterson Road (604.27) Pomfrett’s Cottage - slab cottage”

[10] Schedule 2 Heritage Part 4 Potential archaeological sites Omit all of Part 4 Potential archaeological sites

[11] Definitions Omit the definitions of clearing, earthworks, potential archaeological site, and utility undertaking.

Insert instead:

clearing native vegetation has the same meaning as in the Native Vegetation Act 2003; earthworks means excavation or filling;

public utility undertaking means any of the following undertakings carried on or permitted to be carried on by or by authority of any Government Department or under the authority of or in pursuance of any Commonwealth or State Act: (a) railway, road transport, water transport, air transport, wharf or river undertakings, (b) undertakings for the supply of water, hydraulic power, electricity or gas or the provision of sewerage or drainage services, and a reference to a person carrying on a public utility undertaking includes a reference to a council, electricity supply authority, Government Department, corporation, firm or authority carrying on the undertaking.

ANNEXURE B

Appendix D Historical Title Documents

Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project

ADVANCE LEGAL SEARCH PTY LIMITED (ACN 077 067 068) ABN 49 077 067 068 PO Box 149 Telephone: +612 9754 1590 Yagoona NSW 2199 Mobile: 0412 169 809 Facsimile: +612 9754 1364 Email: [email protected]

07th June 2010

COFFEY ENVIRONMENTS Pty Ltd 19 Warabrook Boulevard WARABROOK NSW 2304

Attention: Emma Coleman

RE: 5 Old Punt Road, Tomago Job Number: PO P14651 Job Ref: GEOTWAR21072AC

Current Search

Folio Identifier 105/1125747 (title attached) DP 1125747 (plan attached) Dated 01ST June 2010 Registered Proprietor: TOMAGO ALUMINIUM COMPANY PTY LIMITED

Title Tree 2 Lot 105 DP 1125747

Folio Identifier 105/1125747

Folio Identifier 5/1043561

Folio Identifier 1/878496

Folio Identifier 1/131902

Certificate of Title Volume 6352 Folio 184

Certificate of Title Volume 5533 Folio 186

CTVolume 2372 Folio 49 & CTVolume 1042 Folio 231

Certificate of Title Volume 1042 Folio’s 230 & 231

*****

Summary of Proprietors 3 Lot 105 DP 1125747

Year Proprietor

(Lot 105 DP 1125747) 2009 – todate Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Limited (Lot 5 DP 1043561) 2002 – 2009 Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Limited (Lot 1 DP 878496) 1998 – 2002 Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Limited (Lot 1 DP 131902) 1996 – 1998 Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Limited (Part Portion 6 Parish Stockton – Area 674 Acres 0 Roods 24 Perches – CTVol 6352 Fol 184) 1981 – 1996 Tomago Aluminium Company Pty Limited 1951 – 1981 Courtaulds (Australia) Limited (Part Portion 6 Parish Stockton – Area 1146 Acres – CTVol 5533 Fol 186) 1945 – 1951 John Thomas McKee, merchant (Portion 6 Parish Stockton – Area 1973 Acres – CTVol 2372 Fol 49 & CTVol 1042 Fol 231) 1945 – 1945 Reginald Cowlishaw, solicitor Stella Cowlishaw, spinster 1923 – 1945 Reginald Cowlishaw, solicitor Stella Cowlishaw, spinster Leslie Cowlishaw, medical practioner 1918 – 1923 Reginald Cowlishaw, solicitor Jane Cowlishaw, widow 1913 – 1918 Reginald Cowlishaw, solicitor Catherine Chambers Cowlishaw, widow Mahlon Clarke Cowlishaw, merchant (Portion 6 Parish Stockton – Area 1973 Acres – CTVol 1042 Fol’s 230 & 231) 1892 – 1913 Mahlon Clarke Cowlishaw, merchant Thomas Cowlishaw, merchant

*****

Appendix E DECCW Search Records

Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project

DECCW | Search results Page 1 of 1

You are here: Home > Contaminated land > Record of EPA notices

Search results

Your search for: LGA: Port Stephens Council Matched 1 notice relating to 1 site.

Search Again Refine Search

Suburb Address Site Name Notices related to this site Tomago School Drive Genkem Pty Ltd 1 current Page 1 of 1 27 September 2010

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/prclmapp/searchresults.aspx?&LGA=6400&Sub... 27/09/2010

Appendix F Borehole Logs and PID Records

Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project

job no:

ENAUWARA04016AA

sheet 1 of 1 PhotoIonisation Detector (PID) Results

client: AGL office: WARABROOK principal: date: 17/08/10 project: PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT by: SM location: checked by:

PID serial number: MINIRAE 2000 (SN: 110-002708) lamp voltage: 10.6eV

PID Calibration Record

Date / Time of Calibration: _ 17/8/2010 _& 20/8/2010 Calibration gas: 100 ppm ISOBUTYLENE

 Zero Calibration (0.0ppm) Actual __0.0______ppm  Span Calibration (__100__ppm) Actual Reading ____100______ppm

Calibrated by: _____SM______

BACKGROUND MAXIMUM LAST DURATION SAMPLE ID DEPTH READING READING READING NOTES (mins) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

SB09 0.1 - 0.2 0.0

0.5 – 0.6 0.4

1.0 – 1.1 0.7

2.0 – 2.1 1.0

3.0 – 3.1 1.2

SB10 0.1 – 0.2 0.5

0.5 – 0.6 0.1

1.0 – 1.1 0.6

2.0 – 2.1 0.9

SB11 0.1 – 0.2 0.4

0.5 – 0.6 0.0

1.0 – 1.1 0.4

3.0 – 3.1 0.8

SB14 0.0 – 0.1 0.0

0.5 – 0.6 0.3

1.9 – 2.0 1.0

job no:

ENAUWARA04016AA

sheet 1 of 1 PhotoIonisation Detector (PID) Results

client: AGL office: WARABROOK principal: date: 17/08/10 project: PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT by: SM location: checked by:

PID serial number: MINIRAE 2000 (SN: 110-002708) lamp voltage: 10.6eV

PID Calibration Record

Date / Time of Calibration: _ 18/8/2010, 19/8/2010, 20/8/2010_ Calibration gas: 100 ppm ISOBUTYLENE

 Zero Calibration (0.0ppm) Actual ___0.0______ppm  Span Calibration (__100__ppm) Actual Reading ______100_____ ppm

Calibrated by: ____SM______

BACKGROUND MAXIMUM LAST DURATION SAMPLE ID DEPTH READING READING READING NOTES (mins) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

SB15 0.1 – 0.2 0.7

0.5 – 0.6 0.6

2.0 – 2.1 0.0

3.0 – 3.1 0.2

4.3 – 4.4 0.3

SB16 0.0 – 0.1 0.8

0.5 – 0.6 1.0

1.0 – 1.1 0.4

SB17 0.1 – 0.2 1.0

0.5 – 0.6 0.4

1.0 – 1.1 0.3

2.0 – 2.1 0.6

SB18 0.0 – 0.1 0.1

0.5 – 0.6 0.1

1.0 – 1.1 0.0

2.0 – 2.1 0.3

job no:

ENAUWARA04016AA

sheet 1 of 1 PhotoIonisation Detector (PID) Results

client: AGL office: WARABROOK principal: date: 17/08/10 project: PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT by: SM location: checked by:

PID serial number: MINIRAE 2000 (SN: 110-002708) lamp voltage: 10.6eV

PID Calibration Record

Date / Time of Calibration: _16/8/2010, 18/8/2010, 19/8/2010 ____ Calibration gas: 100 ppm ISOBUTYLENE

 Zero Calibration (0.0ppm) Actual _____0.0____ppm  Span Calibration (__100__ppm) Actual Reading _100______ppm

Calibrated by: ___SM______

BACKGROUND MAXIMUM LAST DURATION SAMPLE ID DEPTH READING READING READING NOTES (mins) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

SB19 0.1 – 0.2 0.0

0.5 – 0.6 0.0

1.0 – 1.1 1.0

2.0 – 2.1 1.2

SB20 0.1 – 0.2 0.1

0.5 – 0.6 0.4

1.0 – 1.1 0.1

2.0 – 2.1 1.2

3.0 – 3.1 1.0

4.3 – 4.4 0.8

SB21 0.1 – 0.2 0.7

0.5 – 0.6 0.3

1.0 – 1.1 0.1

2.0 – 2.1 0.8

job no:

ENAUWARA04016AA

sheet 1 of 1 PhotoIonisation Detector (PID) Results

client: AGL office: WARABROOK principal: date: 17/08/10 project: PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT by: SM location: checked by:

PID serial number: MINIRAE 2000 (SN: 110-002708) lamp voltage: 10.6eV

PID Calibration Record

Date / Time of Calibration: _ 19/8/2010 ____ Calibration gas: 100 ppm ISOBUTYLENE

 Zero Calibration (0.0ppm) Actual ____0.0_____ppm  Span Calibration (__100__ppm) Actual Reading ____100______ppm

Calibrated by: ____SM______

BACKGROUND MAXIMUM LAST DURATION SAMPLE ID DEPTH READING READING READING NOTES (mins) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

SB22 0.1 – 0.2 0.9

0.5 – 0.6 1.0

1.0 – 1.1 0.4

2.0 – 2.1 0.3

Appendix G Laboratory Reports

Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project

ANALYTICAL REPORT 1 September 2010

Coffey Environments Pty Ltd Lot 101, 19 Warabrook Blvd Warabrook NSW 2304

Attention: James McMahon

Your Reference: ENAUWARA04016AA

Our Reference: SE80904 Samples: 63 Soils, 5 Waters Received: 24/08/2010 Preliminary Report Sent: Not Issued

These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions.

For and on Behalf of: SGS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Sample Receipt: Angela Mamalicos [email protected] Production Manager: Huong Crawford [email protected]

Results Approved and/or Authorised by:

Page 1 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

MBTEX in Soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-1 SE80904-6 SE80904-9 SE80904-1 SE80904-1 4 7 Your Reference ------SB9 0.1-0.2 SB10 SB11 SB14 SB15 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted (MBTEX) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Date Analysed (MBTEX) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MtBE) mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benzene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Toluene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Ethylbenzene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 m&p- Xylenes mg/kg <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 o- Xylene mg/kg <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Total Xylenes mg/kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 BTEX Surrogate (%) % 73 67 76 71 65

MBTEX in Soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-2 SE80904-2 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 SE80904-4 2 5 1 5 1 Your Reference ------SB16 SB17 SB19 SB20 SB21 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Page 2 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

MBTEX in Soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-5 SE80904-5 SE80904-6 5 6 5 8 8 Your Reference ------SB22 SB22 QC1 QC4 Trip Blank 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Page 3 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

BTEX in Soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-6 9 Your Reference ------Trip Spike Sample Matrix ------Soil

Date Extracted (BTEX) 27/08/2010 Date Analysed (BTEX) 30/08/2010 Benzene mg/kg 93% Toluene mg/kg 89% Ethylbenzene mg/kg 90% Total Xylenes mg/kg 90% BTEX Surrogate (%) % 99

Page 4 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

TRH in soil with C6-C9 by P/T Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-1 SE80904-6 SE80904-9 SE80904-1 SE80904-1 4 7 Your Reference ------SB9 0.1-0.2 SB10 SB11 SB14 SB15 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted (TRH C6-C9 PT) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Date Analysed (TRH C6-C9 PT) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010

TRH C6 - C9 P&T mg/kg <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 Date Extracted (TRH C10-C36) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (TRH C10-C36) 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010

TRH C10 - C14 mg/kg <20 <20 <20 <20 <20

TRH C15 - C28 mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

TRH C29 - C36 mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

TRH in soil with C6-C9 by P/T Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-2 SE80904-2 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 SE80904-4 2 5 1 5 1 Your Reference ------SB16 SB17 SB19 SB20 SB21 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted (TRH C6-C9 PT) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Date Analysed (TRH C6-C9 PT) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010

TRH C10 - C14 mg/kg <20 <20 <20 <20 <20

TRH C15 - C28 mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

TRH C29 - C36 mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Page 5 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

TRH in soil with C6-C9 by P/T Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-4 SE80904-5 SE80904-5 SE80904-6 5 5 8 8 Your Reference ------SB22 QC1 QC4 Trip Blank 0.1-0.2 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted (TRH C6-C9 PT) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Date Analysed (TRH C6-C9 PT) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010

TRH C6 - C9 P&T mg/kg <20 <20 <20 <20 Date Extracted (TRH C10-C36) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (TRH C10-C36) 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010

TRH C10 - C14 mg/kg <20 <20 <20 <20

TRH C15 - C28 mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

TRH C29 - C36 mg/kg <50 <50 <50 <50

Page 6 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

PAHs in Soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-1 SE80904-6 SE80904-9 SE80904-1 SE80904-1 4 7 Your Reference ------SB9 0.1-0.2 SB10 SB11 SB14 SB15 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Naphthalene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Acenaphthylene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Acenaphthene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Fluorene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Phenanthrene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Anthracene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Fluoranthene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Pyrene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Chrysene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Benzo[b,k]fluoranthene mg/kg <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Indeno[123-cd ]pyrene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Dibenzo[ah]anthracene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Benzo[ghi]perylene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Total PAHs (sum) mg/kg <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 Nitrobenzene-d5 % 89 91 95 88 89 2-Fluorobiphenyl % 87 89 90 87 86 p -Terphenyl-d14 % 81 81 81 79 78

Page 7 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

PAHs in Soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-2 SE80904-2 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 2 5 1 5 6 Your Reference ------SB16 SB17 SB19 SB20 SB20 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Naphthalene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Acenaphthylene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Acenaphthene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Fluorene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Phenanthrene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Anthracene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Fluoranthene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Pyrene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Chrysene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Benzo[b,k]fluoranthene mg/kg <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Indeno[123-cd ]pyrene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Dibenzo[ah]anthracene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Benzo[ghi]perylene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Total PAHs (sum) mg/kg <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 Nitrobenzene-d5 % 93 89 92 93 87 2-Fluorobiphenyl % 90 87 89 88 88 p -Terphenyl-d14 % 82 83 79 80 84

Page 8 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

PAHs in Soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-3 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 9 1 2 5 6 Your Reference ------SB20 SB21 SB21 SB22 SB22 3.0-3.1 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Naphthalene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Acenaphthylene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Acenaphthene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Fluorene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Phenanthrene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Anthracene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Fluoranthene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Pyrene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Chrysene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Benzo[b,k]fluoranthene mg/kg <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Indeno[123-cd ]pyrene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Dibenzo[ah]anthracene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Benzo[ghi]perylene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Total PAHs (sum) mg/kg <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 Nitrobenzene-d5 % 87 85 81 94 80 2-Fluorobiphenyl % 84 82 80 87 79 p -Terphenyl-d14 % 86 82 82 91 83

Page 9 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

PAHs in Soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-4 SE80904-5 SE80904-5 8 5 8 Your Reference ------SB22 QC1 QC4 2.0-2.1 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Naphthalene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Acenaphthylene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Acenaphthene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Fluorene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Phenanthrene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Anthracene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Fluoranthene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Pyrene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Chrysene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Benzo[b,k]fluoranthene mg/kg <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Indeno[123-cd ]pyrene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Dibenzo[ah]anthracene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Benzo[ghi]perylene mg/kg <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Total PAHs (sum) mg/kg <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 Nitrobenzene-d5 % 77 95 95 2-Fluorobiphenyl % 71 89 89 p -Terphenyl-d14 % 89 89 89

Page 10 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

Anions in soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-1 SE80904-6 SE80904-9 SE80904-1 SE80904-1 4 7 Your Reference ------SB9 0.1-0.2 SB10 SB11 SB14 SB15 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Fluoride, F 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 2.3 <1.0 1.5 1.1 1.0

Anions in soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-2 SE80904-2 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 2 5 1 5 6 Your Reference ------SB16 SB17 SB19 SB20 SB20 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Fluoride, F 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.9 <1.0

Anions in soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-3 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 9 1 2 5 6 Your Reference ------SB20 SB21 SB21 SB22 SB22 3.0-3.1 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Fluoride, F 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 5.3 6.3 <1.0 1.7 2.3

Anions in soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-4 SE80904-5 SE80904-5 8 5 8 Your Reference ------SB22 QC1 QC4 2.0-2.1 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Fluoride, F 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 2.5 1.4 1.2

Page 11 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

Inorganics Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-1 SE80904-6 SE80904-9 SE80904-1 SE80904-1 4 7 Your Reference ------SB9 0.1-0.2 SB10 SB11 SB14 SB15 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted (Total Cyanide) 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 Date Analysed (Total Cyanide) 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 Total Cyanide mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.7

Inorganics Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-2 SE80904-2 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 2 5 1 5 6 Your Reference ------SB16 SB17 SB19 SB20 SB20 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Inorganics Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-3 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 9 1 2 5 6 Your Reference ------SB20 SB21 SB21 SB22 SB22 3.0-3.1 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Inorganics Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-4 SE80904-5 SE80904-5 8 5 8 Your Reference ------SB22 QC1 QC4 2.0-2.1 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted (Total Cyanide) 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 Date Analysed (Total Cyanide) 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 Total Cyanide mg/kg 0.2 <0.1 <0.1

Page 12 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

Metals in Soil by ICP-OES Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-1 SE80904-6 SE80904-9 SE80904-1 SE80904-1 4 7 Your Reference ------SB9 0.1-0.2 SB10 SB11 SB14 SB15 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted (Metals) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (Metals) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Arsenic mg/kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Cadmium mg/kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Chromium mg/kg 1.5 1.2 1.8 5.6 1.7 Copper mg/kg 3.8 2.1 4.0 4.4 2.1 Lead mg/kg 11 3 4 8 2 Nickel mg/kg 1.4 0.9 1.7 2.8 1.3 Zinc mg/kg 21 2.7 12 12 6.6

Metals in Soil by ICP-OES Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-2 SE80904-2 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 2 5 1 5 6 Your Reference ------SB16 SB17 SB19 SB20 SB20 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted (Metals) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (Metals) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Arsenic mg/kg <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 Cadmium mg/kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Chromium mg/kg 2.8 0.8 0.7 <0.3 <0.3 Copper mg/kg 2.7 2.0 1.9 2.0 <0.5 Lead mg/kg 8 2 6 4 <1 Nickel mg/kg 2.1 0.5 1.3 0.6 <0.5 Zinc mg/kg 19 7.0 8.0 12 0.94

Page 13 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

Metals in Soil by ICP-OES Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-3 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 9 1 2 5 6 Your Reference ------SB20 SB21 SB21 SB22 SB22 3.0-3.1 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted (Metals) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (Metals) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Arsenic mg/kg <3 6 4 <3 <3 Cadmium mg/kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Chromium mg/kg 4.6 10 15 1.0 2.4 Copper mg/kg <0.5 2.1 0.9 1.5 0.5 Lead mg/kg 1 7 5 3 1 Nickel mg/kg 1.0 2.5 2.8 0.6 0.6 Zinc mg/kg 0.6 12 6.6 5.9 4.0

Metals in Soil by ICP-OES Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-4 SE80904-5 SE80904-5 8 5 8 Your Reference ------SB22 QC1 QC4 2.0-2.1 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted (Metals) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (Metals) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Arsenic mg/kg <3 <3 <3 Cadmium mg/kg <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 Chromium mg/kg <0.3 0.6 0.4 Copper mg/kg <0.5 1.7 1.0 Lead mg/kg <1 4 2 Nickel mg/kg <0.5 1.2 0.6 Zinc mg/kg 0.6 9.3 4.3

Page 14 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

Mercury Cold Vapor/Hg Analyser Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-1 SE80904-6 SE80904-9 SE80904-1 SE80904-1 4 7 Your Reference ------SB9 0.1-0.2 SB10 SB11 SB14 SB15 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted (Mercury) 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 Date Analysed (Mercury) 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 Mercury mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Mercury Cold Vapor/Hg Analyser Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-2 SE80904-2 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 2 5 1 5 6 Your Reference ------SB16 SB17 SB19 SB20 SB20 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Mercury Cold Vapor/Hg Analyser Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-3 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 9 1 2 5 6 Your Reference ------SB20 SB21 SB21 SB22 SB22 3.0-3.1 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Mercury Cold Vapor/Hg Analyser Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-4 SE80904-5 SE80904-5 8 5 8 Your Reference ------SB22 QC1 QC4 2.0-2.1 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil

Date Extracted (Mercury) 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 Date Analysed (Mercury) 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 Mercury mg/kg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Page 15 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

Asbestos ID in soil Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-1 SE80904-6 SE80904-9 SE80904-2 2 Your Reference ------SB9 0.1-0.2 SB10 SB11 SB16 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.0-0.1 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Analysed 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 Sample Description 71 g sand 47 g sand 58 g sand 78 g sand,soil Asbestos ID in soil - No No No No asbestos asbestos asbestos asbestos detected detected detected detected

Page 16 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

MBTEX in Water (µg/L) Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-6 SE80904-6 3 6 Your Reference ------QCA QCA4 Sample Matrix ------Water Water

Date Extracted (MBTEX) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Date Analysed (MBTEX) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MtBE) µg/L <1 <1 Benzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 Toluene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 Ethylbenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 m&p-Xylene µg/L <1 <1 o-Xylene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 Total Xylenes µg/L <1.5 <1.5 Surrogate % 94 104

Page 17 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

TRH in water with C6-C9 by P/T Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-6 SE80904-6 3 6 Your Reference ------QCA QCA4 Sample Matrix ------Water Water

Date Extracted (TRH C6-C9 PT) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Date Analysed (TRH C6-C9 PT) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010

TRH C6 - C9 P&T in µg/L µg/L <40 <40 Date Extracted (TRH C10-C36) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (TRH C10-C36) 31/08/2010 31/08/2010

TRH C10 - C14 µg/L <100 <100

TRH C15 - C28 µg/L <200 <200

TRH C29 - C36 µg/L <200 <200

Page 18 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

PAHs in Water Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-6 SE80904-6 3 6 Your Reference ------QCA QCA4 Sample Matrix ------Water Water

Date Extracted 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Naphthalene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 2-Methylnaphthalene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 1-Methylnaphthalene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 Acenaphthylene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Acenaphthene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Fluorene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Phenanthrene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Anthracene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Fluoranthene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Pyrene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Benzo[a]anthracene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Chrysene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Benzo[b,k]fluoranthene µg/L <1.0 <1.0 Benzo[a]pyrene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Indeno[123-cd ]pyrene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Dibenzo[ah]anthracene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Benzo[ghi]perylene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 Total PAHs µg/L <9 <9 Nitrobenzene-d5 % 97 103 2-Fluorobiphenyl % 97 102 p -Terphenyl-d14 % 108 120

Page 19 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

Trace HM (ICP-MS)-Dissolved Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-6 SE80904-6 3 6 Your Reference ------QCA QCA4 Sample Matrix ------Water Water

Date Extracted (Metals-ICPMS) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Date Analysed (Metals-ICPMS) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Arsenic µg/L <1 <1 Cadmium µg/L <0.1 <0.1 Chromium µg/L <1 <1 Copper µg/L 2 <1 Lead µg/L <1 <1 Nickel µg/L <1 <1 Zinc µg/L 97 110

Page 20 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

Mercury Cold Vapor/Hg Analyser Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-6 SE80904-6 3 6 Your Reference ------QCA QCA4 Sample Matrix ------Water Water

Date Extracted (Mercury) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Date Analysed (Mercury) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Mercury (Dissolved) mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001

Page 21 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

Moisture Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-1 SE80904-6 SE80904-9 SE80904-1 SE80904-1 4 7 Your Reference ------SB9 0.1-0.2 SB10 SB11 SB14 SB15 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Analysed (moisture) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Moisture % 16 17 5 12 6

Moisture Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-2 SE80904-2 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 SE80904-3 2 5 1 5 6 Your Reference ------SB16 SB17 SB19 SB20 SB20 0.0-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Analysed (moisture) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Moisture % 6 6 12 10 22

Moisture Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-3 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 SE80904-4 9 1 2 5 6 Your Reference ------SB20 SB21 SB21 SB22 SB22 3.0-3.1 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 0.1-0.2 0.5-0.6 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Analysed (moisture) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Moisture % 13 28 16 20 20

Moisture Our Reference: UNITS SE80904-4 SE80904-5 SE80904-5 SE80904-6 8 5 8 8 Your Reference ------SB22 QC1 QC4 Trip Blank 2.0-2.1 Sample Matrix ------Soil Soil Soil Soil

Date Analysed (moisture) 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 27/08/2010 Moisture % 22 22 21 <1

Page 22 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

Method ID Methodology Summary

SEO-018 BTEX / C6-C9 Hydrocarbons - Soil samples are extracted with methanol, purged and concentrated by a purge and trap apparatus, and then analysed using GC/MS technique. Water samples undergo the same analysis without the extraction step. Based on USEPA 5030B and 8260B.

SEO-017 BTEX/TRH C6-C9 - Determination by Purge and Trap Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionisation Detection (FID) and Photo Ionisation Detection (PID). The surrogate spike used is aaa-trifluorotoluene.

SEO-020 Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons - determined by solvent extraction with dichloromethane / acetone for soils and dichloromethane for waters, followed by instrumentation analysis using GC/FID. Where applicable Solid Phase Extraction Manifold technique is used for aliphatic / aromatic fractionation.

SEO-030 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons - determined by solvent extraction with dichloromethane / acetone for soils and dichloromethane for waters, followed by instrumentation analysis using GC/MS SIM mode.

SEI-038 Water Soluble Chloride After carrying out a 1:5 soil:water extraction, an aliquot of the extract is reacted with mercuric thiocyanate forming a mercuric chloride complex. In the presence of ferric iron, highly coloured ferric thiocyanate is formed which is proportional to the chloride concentration. Reference NEPM, Schedule B(3), 401 and APHA 4500Cl-

Water Soluble Sulphate After carrying out a 1:5 soil:water extraction ,sulphate in the extract is precipitated in an acidic medium with barium chloride. The resulting turbidity is measured photometrically at 405nm and compared with standard calibration solutions to determine the sulphate concentration in the sample. Reference NEPM, Schedule B(3), 401 and APHA 4500-SO42-.

AN287 Cyanide (Total or Free) - Total Cyanide is determined by colourimetric method using Discrete Analyser, following distillation of the acidified sample. Free Cyanide is determined by colourimetric method using Discrete Analyser on filtered sample. Complex Cyanide is the difference of Total and Free Cyanide. Based on APHA 21st Edition, 4500-CN C and E.

SEM-010 Determination of elements by ICP-OES following appropriate sample preparation / digestion process. Based on USEPA 6010C / APHA 21st Edition, 3120B.

SEM-005 Mercury - determined by Cold-Vapour AAS following appropriate sample preparation or digestion process. Based on APHA 21st Edition, 3112B.

AN602 Analysed using in house method AN602 - Qualitative identification of Asbestos Fibres, Synthetic Mineral Fibres and Organic Fibres in bulk samples (including building materials and soils) using Polarised Light Microscopy and Dispersion Staining Techniques. Our NATA Accreditation does not currently cover the identification of Synthetic Mineral Fibres and Organic Fibres, however, according to new NATA requirements, the reporting of these fibres is compulsory if detected.

PEO-800 PEO-800 - Volatile Organic Compounds and the C6-C9 Hydrocarbons fraction in waters, soils and sediments analysed by SGS Perth using Purge & Trap GC/MS. Method based on USEPA 8260, contained in SW846 Update 1, July 1992.

Page 23 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

Method ID Methodology Summary

AN318 Determination of elements at trace level in waters by ICP-MS technique, in accordance with USEPA 6020A.

AN002 Preparation of soils, sediments and sludges undergo analysis by either air drying, compositing, subsampling and 1:5 soil water extraction where required. Moisture content is determined by drying the sample at 105 ± 5°C.

Page 24 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery MBTEX in Soil Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted (MBTEX) 27/08/1 SE80904-1 27/08/2010 || SE80904-4 27/08/10 0 27/08/2010 6 Date Analysed (MBTEX) 30/08/1 SE80904-1 30/08/2010 || SE80904-4 30/08/10 0 30/08/2010 6 Methyl-tert-butyl ether mg/kg 0.1 SEO-018 <0.1 SE80904-1 <0.1 || <0.1 SE80904-4 119% (MtBE) 6 Benzene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-018 <0.1 SE80904-1 <0.1 || <0.1 SE80904-4 105% 6 Toluene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-018 <0.1 SE80904-1 <0.1 || <0.1 SE80904-4 108% 6 Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-018 <0.1 SE80904-1 <0.1 || <0.1 SE80904-4 110% 6 m&p- Xylenes mg/kg 0.2 SEO-017 <0.2 SE80904-1 <0.2 || <0.2 SE80904-4 104% 6 o- Xylene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-018 <0.1 SE80904-1 <0.1 || <0.1 SE80904-4 110% 6 Total Xylenes mg/kg 0.3 SEO-018 <0.3 SE80904-1 <0.3 || <0.3 SE80904-4 107% 6 BTEX Surrogate (%) % 0 SEO-018 79 SE80904-1 73 || 71 || RPD: 3 SE80904-4 124% 6

Page 25 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank BTEX in Soil

Date Extracted (BTEX) 27/08/1 0 Date Analysed (BTEX) 30/08/1 0 Benzene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-018 <0.1 Toluene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-018 <0.1 Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-018 <0.1 Total Xylenes mg/kg 0.3 SEO-018 <0.3 BTEX Surrogate (%) % 0 SEO-018 79

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery TRH in soil with C6-C9 Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD by P/T %RPD

Date Extracted (TRH 27/08/1 SE80904-1 27/08/2010 || SE80904-4 27/08/10 C6-C9 PT) 0 27/08/2010 6 Date Analysed (TRH 30/08/1 SE80904-1 30/08/2010 || SE80904-4 30/08/10 C6-C9 PT) 0 30/08/2010 6

TRH C6 - C9 P&T mg/kg 20 SEO-018 <20 SE80904-1 <20 || <20 SE80904-4 118% 6 Date Extracted (TRH 30/08/1 SE80904-1 30/08/2010 || [NR] [NR] C10-C36) 0 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (TRH 31/08/1 SE80904-1 31/08/2010 || [NR] [NR] C10-C36) 0 31/08/2010

TRH C10 - C14 mg/kg 20 SEO-020 <20 SE80904-1 <20 || <20 [NR] [NR]

TRH C15 - C28 mg/kg 50 SEO-020 <50 SE80904-1 <50 || <50 [NR] [NR]

TRH C29 - C36 mg/kg 50 SEO-020 <50 SE80904-1 <50 || <50 [NR] [NR]

Page 26 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery PAHs in Soil Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted 30/08/2 SE80904-1 30/08/2010 || SE80904-9 30/08/2010 010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed 30/08/2 SE80904-1 30/08/2010 || SE80904-9 30/08/2010 010 30/08/2010 Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 SE80904-9 114% 2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 [NR] [NR] 1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 [NR] [NR] Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 SE80904-9 104% Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 SE80904-9 117% Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 [NR] [NR] Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 SE80904-9 109% Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 SE80904-9 112% Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 SE80904-9 109% Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 SE80904-9 114% Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 [NR] [NR] Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 [NR] [NR] Benzo[b,k]fluoranthe mg/kg 0.2 SEO-030 <0.20 SE80904-1 <0.20 || <0.20 [NR] [NR] ne Benzo[a]pyrene mg/kg 0.05 SEO-030 <0.05 SE80904-1 <0.05 || <0.05 SE80904-9 96% Indeno[123-cd ]pyren mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 [NR] [NR] e Dibenzo[ah]anthrace mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 [NR] [NR] ne Benzo[ghi]perylene mg/kg 0.1 SEO-030 <0.10 SE80904-1 <0.10 || <0.10 [NR] [NR] Total PAHs (sum) mg/kg 1.75 SEO-030 <1.7 SE80904-1 <1.7 || <1.7 [NR] [NR] Nitrobenzene-d5 % 0 SEO-030 92 SE80904-1 89 || 83 || RPD: 7 SE80904-9 89% 2-Fluorobiphenyl % 0 SEO-030 89 SE80904-1 87 || 81 || RPD: 7 SE80904-9 87% p -Terphenyl-d % 0 SEO-030 100 SE80904-1 81 || 82 || RPD: 1 SE80904-9 76% 14

Page 27 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery Anions in soil Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted 30/08/1 SE80904-1 30/08/2010 || SE80904-4 30/08/10 0 30/08/2010 1 Date Analysed 30/08/1 SE80904-1 30/08/2010 || SE80904-4 30/08/10 0 30/08/2010 1 Fluoride, F 1:5 soil:water mg/kg 0.1 SEI-038 <0.1 SE80904-1 2.3 || 2.1 || RPD: 9 SE80904-4 96% 1

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery Inorganics Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted (Total 31/08/1 SE80904-1 31/08/2010 || SE80904-6 31/08/10 Cyanide) 0 31/08/2010 Date Analysed (Total 01/09/1 SE80904-1 1/09/2010 || SE80904-6 01/09/10 Cyanide) 0 1/09/2010 Total Cyanide mg/kg 0.1 AN287 <0.1 SE80904-1 0.1 || 0.2 || RPD: 67 SE80904-6 80%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery Metals in Soil by ICP-OES Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted (Metals) 30/08/2 SE80904-1 30/08/2010 || SE80904-6 30/08/2010 010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (Metals) 30/08/2 SE80904-1 30/08/2010 || SE80904-6 30/08/2010 010 30/08/2010 Arsenic mg/kg 3 SEM-010 <3 SE80904-1 <3 || <3 SE80904-6 104% Cadmium mg/kg 0.3 SEM-010 <0.3 SE80904-1 <0.3 || <0.3 SE80904-6 105% Chromium mg/kg 0.3 SEM-010 <0.3 SE80904-1 1.5 || 1.5 || RPD: 0 SE80904-6 116% Copper mg/kg 0.5 SEM-010 <0.5 SE80904-1 3.8 || 3.2 || RPD: 17 SE80904-6 111% Lead mg/kg 1 SEM-010 <1 SE80904-1 11 || 9.6 || RPD: 14 SE80904-6 107% Nickel mg/kg 0.5 SEM-010 <0.5 SE80904-1 1.4 || 1.3 || RPD: 7 SE80904-6 110% Zinc mg/kg 0.5 SEM-010 <0.5 SE80904-1 21 || 17 || RPD: 21 SE80904-6 114%

Page 28 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery Mercury Cold Vapor/Hg Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD Analyser %RPD

Date Extracted 31/08/2 SE80904-1 31/08/2010 || SE80904-6 31/08/2010 (Mercury) 010 31/08/2010 Date Analysed 31/08/2 SE80904-1 31/08/2010 || SE80904-6 31/08/2010 (Mercury) 010 31/08/2010 Mercury mg/kg 0.05 SEM-005 <0.05 SE80904-1 <0.05 || <0.05 SE80904-6 100%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Asbestos ID in soil

Date Analysed [NT]

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery MBTEX in Water (µg/L) Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted (MBTEX) 27/08/1 [NT] [NT] LCS 27/08/10 0 Date Analysed (MBTEX) 27/08/1 [NT] [NT] LCS 27/08/10 0 Methyl-tert-butyl ether µg/L 1 SEO-018 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 105% (MtBE) Benzene µg/L 0.5 SEO-018 <0.5 [NT] [NT] LCS 101% Toluene µg/L 0.5 SEO-018 <0.5 [NT] [NT] LCS 105% Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.5 SEO-018 <0.5 [NT] [NT] LCS 106% m&p-Xylene µg/L 1 PEO-800 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 99% o-Xylene µg/L 0.5 SEO-018 <0.5 [NT] [NT] LCS 101% Total Xylenes µg/L 1.5 SEO-018 <1.5 [NT] [NT] LCS 100% Surrogate % 0 SEO-018 92 [NT] [NT] LCS 76%

Page 29 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery TRH in water with C6-C9 Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD by P/T %RPD

Date Extracted (TRH 27/08/1 SE80904-6 27/08/2010 || LCS 27/08/10 C6-C9 PT) 0 3 27/08/2010 Date Analysed (TRH 27/08/1 SE80904-6 27/08/2010 || LCS 27/08/10 C6-C9 PT) 0 3 27/08/2010

TRH C6 - C9 P&T µg/L 40 SEO-018 <40 SE80904-6 <40 || [N/T] LCS 100% in µg/L 3 Date Extracted (TRH 30/08/2 SE80904-6 30/08/2010 || LCS 30/08/10 C10-C36) 010 3 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (TRH 31/08/2 SE80904-6 31/08/2010 || LCS 31/08/10 C10-C36) 010 3 31/08/2010

TRH C10 - C14 µg/L 100 SEO-020 <100 SE80904-6 <100 || <100 LCS 99% 3

TRH C15 - C28 µg/L 200 SEO-020 <200 SE80904-6 <200 || <200 LCS 88% 3

TRH C29 - C36 µg/L 200 SEO-020 <200 SE80904-6 <200 || <200 LCS 69% 3

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery PAHs in Water Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted 30/08/2 SE80904-6 30/08/2010 || SE80904-6 30/08/2010 010 3 30/08/2010 6 Date Analysed 30/08/2 SE80904-6 30/08/2010 || SE80904-6 30/08/2010 010 3 30/08/2010 6 Naphthalene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 SE80904-6 103% 3 6 2-Methylnaphthalene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.5 SE80904-6 <0.5 || <0.5 [NR] [NR] 3 1-Methylnaphthalene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.5 SE80904-6 <0.5 || <0.5 [NR] [NR] 3 Acenaphthylene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 SE80904-6 93% 3 6 Acenaphthene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 SE80904-6 110% 3 6 Fluorene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 [NR] [NR] 3 Phenanthrene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 SE80904-6 103% 3 6 Anthracene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 SE80904-6 104% 3 6 Fluoranthene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 SE80904-6 102% 3 6 Pyrene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 SE80904-6 110% 3 6

Page 30 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery PAHs in Water Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Benzo[a]anthracene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 [NR] [NR] 3 Chrysene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 [NR] [NR] 3 Benzo[b,k]fluoranthe µg/L 1 SEO-030 <1.0 SE80904-6 <1.0 || <1.0 [NR] [NR] ne 3 Benzo[a]pyrene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 SE80904-6 94% 3 6 Indeno[123-cd ]pyren µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 [NR] [NR] e 3 Dibenzo[ah]anthrace µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 [NR] [NR] ne 3 Benzo[ghi]perylene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE80904-6 <0.50 || <0.50 [NR] [NR] 3 Total PAHs µg/L 9 SEO-030 <9 SE80904-6 <9 || <9 [NR] [NR] 3 Nitrobenzene-d5 % 0 SEO-030 118 SE80904-6 97 || 85 || RPD: 13 SE80904-6 107% 3 6 2-Fluorobiphenyl % 0 SEO-030 113 SE80904-6 97 || 86 || RPD: 12 SE80904-6 106% 3 6 p -Terphenyl-d % 0 SEO-030 130 SE80904-6 108 || 102 || RPD: 6 SE80904-6 117% 14 3 6

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery Trace HM Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD (ICP-MS)-Dissolved %RPD

Date Extracted 27/08/2 [NT] [NT] LCS 27/08/2010 (Metals-ICPMS) 010 Date Analysed 27/08/2 [NT] [NT] LCS 27/08/2010 (Metals-ICPMS) 010 Arsenic µg/L 1 AN318 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 103% Cadmium µg/L 0.1 AN318 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS 102% Chromium µg/L 1 AN318 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 101% Copper µg/L 1 AN318 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 101% Lead µg/L 1 AN318 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 98% Nickel µg/L 1 AN318 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 103% Zinc µg/L 1 AN318 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 104%

Page 31 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery Mercury Cold Vapor/Hg Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD Analyser %RPD

Date Extracted 27/08/2 [NT] [NT] LCS 27/08/2010 (Mercury) 010 Date Analysed 27/08/2 [NT] [NT] LCS 27/08/2010 (Mercury) 010 Mercury (Dissolved) mg/L 0.0001 SEM-005 <0.000 [NT] [NT] LCS 107% 1

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Hold sample-NO test required

Sample on HOLD [NT] [NT]

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Moisture

Date Analysed [NT] (moisture) Moisture % 1 AN002 <1

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate MBTEX in Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date Extracted (MBTEX) SE80904-4 27/08/2010 || 5 27/08/2010 Date Analysed (MBTEX) SE80904-4 30/08/2010 || 5 30/08/2010 Methyl-tert-butyl ether mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.1 || <0.1 (MtBE) 5 Benzene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.1 || <0.1 5 Toluene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.1 || <0.1 5 Ethylbenzene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.1 || <0.1 5

m&p- Xylenes mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.2 || <0.2 5

o- Xylene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.1 || <0.1 5

Total Xylenes mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.3 || <0.3 5

BTEX Surrogate (%) % SE80904-4 81 || 72 || RPD: 12 5

Page 32 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Recovery TRH in soil with C6-C9 by Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD P/T %RPD

Date Extracted (TRH C6-C9 SE80904-4 27/08/2010 || [NR] [NR] PT) 5 27/08/2010 Date Analysed (TRH C6-C9 SE80904-4 30/08/2010 || [NR] [NR] PT) 5 30/08/2010

TRH C6 - C9 P&T mg/kg SE80904-4 <20 || <20 [NR] [NR] 5 Date Extracted (TRH SE80904-4 30/08/2010 || SE80904-6 30/08/10 C10-C36) 5 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (TRH SE80904-4 31/08/2010 || SE80904-6 31/08/10 C10-C36) 5 31/08/2010

TRH C10 - C14 mg/kg SE80904-4 <20 || <20 SE80904-6 124% 5

TRH C15 - C28 mg/kg SE80904-4 <50 || <50 SE80904-6 115% 5

TRH C29 - C36 mg/kg SE80904-4 <50 || <50 SE80904-6 119% 5

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate PAHs in Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date Extracted SE80904-4 30/08/2010 || 5 30/08/2010 Date Analysed SE80904-4 30/08/2010 || 5 30/08/2010 Naphthalene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5 2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5 1-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5 Acenaphthylene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5 Acenaphthene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5 Fluorene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5

Phenanthrene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5

Anthracene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5

Fluoranthene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5

Page 33 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate PAHs in Soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Pyrene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5 Benzo[a]anthracene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5 Chrysene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5 Benzo[b,k]fluoranthene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.20 || <0.20 5 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.05 || <0.05 5 Indeno[123-cd ]pyrene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5 Dibenzo[ah]anthracene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5 Benzo[ghi]perylene mg/kg SE80904-4 <0.10 || <0.10 5 Total PAHs (sum) mg/kg SE80904-4 <1.7 || <1.7 5 Nitrobenzene-d5 % SE80904-4 94 || 93 || RPD: 1 5 2-Fluorobiphenyl % SE80904-4 87 || 86 || RPD: 1 5 p -Terphenyl-d14 % SE80904-4 91 || 89 || RPD: 2 5

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Anions in soil Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date Extracted SE80904-4 30/08/2010 || 1 30/08/2010 Date Analysed SE80904-4 30/08/2010 || 1 30/08/2010 Fluoride, F 1:5 soil:water mg/kg SE80904-4 6.3 || 6.4 || RPD: 2 1

Page 34 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Recovery Inorganics Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted (Total SE80904-3 31/08/2010 || SE80904-5 31/08/10 Cyanide) 1 31/08/2010 8 Date Analysed (Total SE80904-3 1/09/2010 || SE80904-5 01/09/10 Cyanide) 1 1/09/2010 8 Total Cyanide mg/kg SE80904-3 <0.1 || <0.1 SE80904-5 86% 1 8

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Metals in Soil by ICP-OES Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date Extracted (Metals) SE80904-3 30/08/2010 || 9 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (Metals) SE80904-3 30/08/2010 || 9 30/08/2010 Arsenic mg/kg SE80904-3 <3 || <3 9 Cadmium mg/kg SE80904-3 <0.3 || <0.3 9 Chromium mg/kg SE80904-3 4.6 || 4.2 || RPD: 9 9 Copper mg/kg SE80904-3 <0.5 || <0.5 9 Lead mg/kg SE80904-3 1 || 1 || RPD: 0 9 Nickel mg/kg SE80904-3 1.0 || 0.98 || RPD: 2 9 Zinc mg/kg SE80904-3 0.6 || 0.6 || RPD: 0 9

Page 35 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Mercury Cold Vapor/Hg Base + Duplicate + Analyser %RPD

Date Extracted (Mercury) SE80904-3 31/08/2010 || 9 31/08/2010 Date Analysed (Mercury) SE80904-3 31/08/2010 || 9 31/08/2010 Mercury mg/kg SE80904-3 <0.05 || <0.05 9

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Inorganics Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date Extracted (Total SE80904-5 31/08/2010 || Cyanide) 5 31/08/2010 Date Analysed (Total SE80904-5 1/09/2010 || Cyanide) 5 1/09/2010 Total Cyanide mg/kg SE80904-5 <0.1 || <0.1 5

Page 36 of 37 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE80904

Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test [RPD] : Relative Percentage Difference [NR] : Not Requested * : Not part of NATA Accreditation [NT] : Not tested [N/A] : Not Applicable [LOR] : Limit of reporting Report Comments Sampled by the client

Even after disintegration it can be very difficult, or impossible, to detect the presence of asbestos in some asbestos-containing bulk materials using polarised light microscopy. This is due to the low grade or small length or diameter of asbestos fibres present in the material, or to the fact that very fine fibres have been distributed intimately throughout the materials.

No respirable fibres detected using trace analysis technique Asbestos analysed by Approved Identifier Ravee Sivasubramaniam. Samples analysed as received. Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis. Date Organics extraction commenced: NATA Corporate Accreditation No. 2562, Site No 4354 Note: Test results are not corrected for recovery (excluding Air-toxics and Dioxins/Furans*) This document is issued by the Company subject to its General Conditions of Service (www.sgs.com/terms_and_conditions.htm). Attention is drawn to the limitations of liability, indemnification and jurisdictional issues established therein.

This document is to be treated as an original within the meaning of UCP 600. Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company's findings at the time of its intervention only and within the limits of client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents. Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Quality Control Protocol Method Blank: An analyte free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volume or proportions as used in sample processing. The method blank should be carried through the complete sample preparation and analytical procedure. A method blank is prepared every 20 samples. Duplicate: A separate portion of a sample being analysed that is treated the same as the other samples in the batch. One duplicate is processed at least every 10 samples. Surrogate Spike: An organic compound which is similar to the target analyte(s) in chemical composition and behavior in the analytical process, but which is not normally found in environmental samples. Surrogates are added to samples before extraction to monitor extraction efficiency and percent recovery in each sample. Internal Standard: Added to all samples requiring analysis for organics (where relevant) or metals by ICP after the extraction/digestion process; the compounds/elements serve to give a standard of retention time and/or response, which is invariant from run-to-run with the instruments. Laboratory Control Sample: A known matrix spiked with compound(s) representative of the target analytes. It is used to document laboratory performance. When the results of the matrix spike analysis indicates a potential problem due to the sample matrix itself, the LCS results are used to verify that the laboratory can perform the analysis in a clean matrix. Matrix Spike: An aliquot of sample spiked with a known concentration of target analyte(s). The spiking occurs prior to sample preparation and analysis. A matrix spike is used to document the bias of a method in a given sample matrix.

Quality Acceptance Criteria The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here: http://www.au.sgs.com/sgs-mp-au-env-qu-022-qa-qc-plan-en-09.pdf

Page 37 of 37 ANALYTICAL REPORT 7 September 2010

Coffey Environments Pty Ltd Lot 101, 19 Warabrook Blvd Warabrook NSW 2304

Attention: James McMahon

Your Reference: ENAUWARA04016AA

Our Reference: SE81000 Samples: 4 Waters Received: 31/8/10 Preliminary Report Sent: Not Issued

These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions.

For and on Behalf of: SGS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Sample Receipt: Angela Mamalicos [email protected] Production Manager: Huong Crawford [email protected]

Results Approved and/or Authorised by:

Page 1 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

MBTEX in Water (µg/L) Our Reference: UNITS SE81000-1 SE81000-2 SE81000-3 SE81000-4 Your Reference ------MW1 MW2 MW3 QC1 Sample Matrix ------Water Water Water Water Date Sampled 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010

Date Extracted (MBTEX) 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 Date Analysed (MBTEX) 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MtBE) µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 Benzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Toluene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Ethylbenzene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 m&p-Xylene µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 o-Xylene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Total Xylenes µg/L <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 Surrogate % 113 125 115 123

Page 2 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

TRH in water with C6-C9 by P/T Our Reference: UNITS SE81000-1 SE81000-2 SE81000-3 SE81000-4 Your Reference ------MW1 MW2 MW3 QC1 Sample Matrix ------Water Water Water Water Date Sampled 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010

Date Extracted (TRH C6-C9 PT) 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 Date Analysed (TRH C6-C9 PT) 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 2/09/2010

TRH C6 - C9 P&T in µg/L µg/L <40 <40 <40 <40 Date Extracted (TRH C10-C36) 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 Date Analysed (TRH C10-C36) 3/09/2010 3/09/2010 3/09/2010 3/09/2010

TRH C10 - C14 µg/L <100 <100 <100 <100

TRH C15 - C28 µg/L <200 <200 <200 <200

TRH C29 - C36 µg/L <200 <200 <200 <200

Page 3 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

PAHs in Water Our Reference: UNITS SE81000-1 SE81000-2 SE81000-3 SE81000-4 Your Reference ------MW1 MW2 MW3 QC1 Sample Matrix ------Water Water Water Water Date Sampled 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010

Date Extracted 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 2/09/2010 Date Analysed 3/09/2010 3/09/2010 3/09/2010 3/09/2010 Naphthalene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 2-Methylnaphthalene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1-Methylnaphthalene µg/L <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Acenaphthylene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Acenaphthene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Fluorene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Phenanthrene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Anthracene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Fluoranthene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Pyrene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Benzo[a]anthracene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Chrysene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Benzo[b,k]fluoranthene µg/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Benzo[a]pyrene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Indeno[123-cd ]pyrene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Dibenzo[ah]anthracene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Benzo[ghi]perylene µg/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Total PAHs µg/L <9 <9 <9 <9 Nitrobenzene-d5 % 90 88 84 86 2-Fluorobiphenyl % 87 83 83 81 p -Terphenyl-d14 % 94 98 94 95

Page 4 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

Anions in water Our Reference: UNITS SE81000-1 SE81000-2 SE81000-3 SE81000-4 Your Reference ------MW1 MW2 MW3 QC1 Sample Matrix ------Water Water Water Water Date Sampled 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010

Date Extracted 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 Date Analysed 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 Fluoride, F mg/L 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.03 Chloride, Cl mg/L 25 41 22 21 Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 22 7.0 19 19

Page 5 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

Inorganics Our Reference: UNITS SE81000-1 SE81000-2 SE81000-3 SE81000-4 Your Reference ------MW1 MW2 MW3 QC1 Sample Matrix ------Water Water Water Water Date Sampled 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010

Date Extracted (Total Cyanide) 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 3 3 3 3 Date Analysed (Total Cyanide) 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 3 3 3 3 Total Cyanide mg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Date Extracted (Fe2+) 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 Date Analysed (Fe2+) 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 31/08/2010 Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.80 2.9 0.31 0.03

Page 6 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

Date Extracted (pH) 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 Date Analysed (pH) 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 pH pH Units 5.4 5.4 5.0 5.0 Date Extracted (Conductivity) 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 Date Analysed (Conductivity) 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 Electrical Conductivity µS/cm 160 190 130 130 Date Extracted (Alkalinity) 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 Date Analysed (Alkalinity) 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010 1/09/2010

Bicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 6.8 13 3.3 3.4

Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0

Page 7 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

Trace HM (ICP-MS)-Dissolved Our Reference: UNITS SE81000-1 SE81000-2 SE81000-3 SE81000-4 Your Reference ------MW1 MW2 MW3 QC1 Sample Matrix ------Water Water Water Water Date Sampled 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010

Date Extracted (Metals-ICPMS) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Date Analysed (Metals-ICPMS) 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 Arsenic µg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 Cadmium µg/L <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chromium µg/L 1 2 2 2 Copper µg/L <1 <1 1 1 Lead µg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 Nickel µg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 Zinc µg/L 66 55 51 43 Iron µg/L 980 2,800 49 55

Page 8 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

Metals in water by ICP-OES Our Reference: UNITS SE81000-1 SE81000-2 SE81000-3 SE81000-4 Your Reference ------MW1 MW2 MW3 QC1 Sample Matrix ------Water Water Water Water Date Sampled 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010 30/08/2010

Date Extracted (Metals) 3/09/2010 3/09/2010 3/09/2010 3/09/2010 Date Analysed (Metals) 3/09/2010 3/09/2010 3/09/2010 3/09/2010 Calcium (Dissolved) mg/L 1.9 2.7 3.1 3.0 Magnesium (Dissolved) mg/L 4.6 3.3 4.4 4.3 Potassium (Dissolved) mg/L 1.8 2.6 1.9 1.9 Sodium (Dissolved) mg/L 30 43 21 21

Page 9 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

Method ID Methodology Summary

AN199 Ferrous Iron - Determined by colourmetric technique using Discrete Analyser, based on APHA 21st Edition, 3500 - Fe B.

AN101 pH - Measured using pH meter and electrode based on APHA 21st Edition, 4500-H+. For water analyses the results reported are indicative only as the sample holding time requirement specified in APHA was not met (APHA requires that the pH of the samples are to be measured within 15 minutes after sampling).

SEI-037 Ammonia - Determined by salicylate colourimetric method using Discrete Analyser.

AN106 Conductivity and TDS by Calculation (cTDS) - Conductivity is measured using a conductivity cell and dedicated meter, in accordance with APHA 21st Edition, 2510. TDS is calculated by TDS(mg/L)=0.6 x Conductivity(µS/cm).

Page 10 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

Method ID Methodology Summary

SEI-012 Alkalinity - determined by titration with standard hydrochloric acid, in accordance with APHA 21st Edition, 2320B.

AN318 Determination of elements at trace level in waters by ICP-MS technique, in accordance with USEPA 6020A.

SEM-010 Determination of elements by ICP-OES following appropriate sample preparation / digestion process. Based on USEPA 6010C / APHA 21st Edition, 3120B.

Page 11 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery MBTEX in Water (µg/L) Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted (MBTEX) 02/09/1 SE81000-3 2/09/2010 || LCS 02/09/10 0 2/09/2010 Date Analysed (MBTEX) 02/09/1 SE81000-3 2/09/2010 || LCS 02/09/10 0 2/09/2010 Methyl-tert-butyl ether µg/L 1 SEO-018 <1 SE81000-3 <1 || <1 LCS 104% (MtBE) Benzene µg/L 0.5 SEO-018 <0.5 SE81000-3 <0.5 || <0.5 LCS 102% Toluene µg/L 0.5 SEO-018 <0.5 SE81000-3 <0.5 || <0.5 LCS 105% Ethylbenzene µg/L 0.5 SEO-018 <0.5 SE81000-3 <0.5 || <0.5 LCS 105% m&p-Xylene µg/L 1 PEO-800 <1 SE81000-3 <1 || <1 LCS 99% o-Xylene µg/L 0.5 SEO-018 <0.5 SE81000-3 <0.5 || <0.5 LCS 102% Total Xylenes µg/L 1.5 SEO-018 <1.5 SE81000-3 <1.5 || <1.5 LCS 101% Surrogate % 0 SEO-018 111 SE81000-3 115 || 110 || RPD: 4 LCS 75%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery TRH in water with C6-C9 Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD by P/T %RPD

Date Extracted (TRH 02/09/1 SE81000-3 2/09/2010 || LCS 02/09/10 C6-C9 PT) 0 2/09/2010 Date Analysed (TRH 02/09/1 SE81000-3 2/09/2010 || LCS 02/09/10 C6-C9 PT) 0 2/09/2010

TRH C6 - C9 P&T µg/L 40 SEO-018 <40 SE81000-3 <40 || <40 LCS 98% in µg/L Date Extracted (TRH 02/09/1 SE81000-3 2/09/2010 || [NR] [NR] C10-C36) 0 2/09/2010 Date Analysed (TRH 3/09/10 SE81000-3 3/09/2010 || [NR] [NR] C10-C36) 3/09/2010

TRH C10 - C14 µg/L 100 SEO-020 <100 SE81000-3 <100 || <100 [NR] [NR]

TRH C15 - C28 µg/L 200 SEO-020 <200 SE81000-3 <200 || <200 [NR] [NR]

TRH C29 - C36 µg/L 200 SEO-020 <200 SE81000-3 <200 || <200 [NR] [NR]

Page 12 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery PAHs in Water Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted 02/09/1 SE81000-3 2/09/2010 || SE81000-4 02/09/10 0 2/09/2010 Date Analysed 03/09/1 SE81000-3 3/09/2010 || SE81000-4 03/09/10 0 3/09/2010 Naphthalene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 SE81000-4 82% 2-Methylnaphthalene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.5 SE81000-3 <0.5 || <0.5 [NR] [NR] 1-Methylnaphthalene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.5 SE81000-3 <0.5 || <0.5 [NR] [NR] Acenaphthylene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 SE81000-4 78% Acenaphthene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 SE81000-4 92% Fluorene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 [NR] [NR] Phenanthrene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 SE81000-4 95% Anthracene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 SE81000-4 97% Fluoranthene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 SE81000-4 99% Pyrene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 SE81000-4 106% Benzo[a]anthracene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 [NR] [NR] Chrysene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 [NR] [NR] Benzo[b,k]fluoranthe µg/L 1 SEO-030 <1.0 SE81000-3 <1.0 || <1.0 [NR] [NR] ne Benzo[a]pyrene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 SE81000-4 75% Indeno[123-cd ]pyren µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 [NR] [NR] e Dibenzo[ah]anthrace µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 [NR] [NR] ne Benzo[ghi]perylene µg/L 0.5 SEO-030 <0.50 SE81000-3 <0.50 || <0.50 [NR] [NR] Total PAHs µg/L 9 SEO-030 <9 SE81000-3 <9 || <9 [NR] [NR] Nitrobenzene-d5 % 0 SEO-030 105 SE81000-3 84 || 94 || RPD: 11 SE81000-4 75% 2-Fluorobiphenyl % 0 SEO-030 104 SE81000-3 83 || 90 || RPD: 8 SE81000-4 72% p -Terphenyl-d % 0 SEO-030 108 SE81000-3 94 || 104 || RPD: 10 SE81000-4 94% 14

Page 13 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery Anions in water Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted 01/09/1 [NT] [NT] LCS 01/09/10 0 Date Analysed 01/09/1 [NT] [NT] LCS 01/09/10 0 Fluoride, F mg/L 0.02 SEI-038 <0.02 [NT] [NT] LCS 97% Chloride, Cl mg/L 0.05 SEI-038 <0.05 [NT] [NT] LCS 99% Sulphate, SO4 mg/L 0.1 SEI-038 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS 99%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery Inorganics Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted (Total 06/09/2 SE81000-1 06/09/20103 || LCS 06/09/20103 Cyanide) 0103 06/09/20103 Date Analysed (Total 06/09/2 SE81000-1 06/09/20103 || LCS 06/09/20103 Cyanide) 0103 06/09/20103 Total Cyanide mg/L 0.005 AN287 <0.005 SE81000-1 <0.005 || <0.005 LCS 83% Date Extracted 31/08/2 SE81000-1 31/08/2010 || LCS 31/08/2010 (Fe2+) 010 31/08/2010 Date Analysed 31/08/2 SE81000-1 31/08/2010 || LCS 31/08/2010 (Fe2+) 010 31/08/2010 Ferrous Iron mg/L 0.02 AN199 <0.02 SE81000-1 0.80 || 0.80 || RPD: 0 LCS 105%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery Inorganics Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD %RPD

Date Extracted (pH) [NT] [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR] Date Analysed (pH) [NT] [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR] pH pH Units 0 AN101 [NT] [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR] Electrical Conductivity µS/cm 1 AN106 [NT] [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR] Date Extracted 01/09/2 [NT] [NT] LCS 01/09/2010 (Alkalinity) 010 Date Analysed 01/09/2 [NT] [NT] LCS 01/09/2010 (Alkalinity) 010 Bicarbonate Alkalinity as mg/L 2 SEI-012 <2.0 [NT] [NT] LCS 107% CaCO3 Carbonate Alkalinity as mg/L 2 SEI-012 <2.0 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR] CaCO3

Page 14 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery Trace HM Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD (ICP-MS)-Dissolved %RPD

Date Extracted 30/08/2 [NT] [NT] LCS 30/08/2010 (Metals-ICPMS) 010 Date Analysed 30/08/2 [NT] [NT] LCS 30/08/2010 (Metals-ICPMS) 010 Arsenic µg/L 1 AN318 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 107% Cadmium µg/L 0.1 AN318 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS 94% Chromium µg/L 1 AN318 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 97% Copper µg/L 1 AN318 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 95% Lead µg/L 1 AN318 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 97% Nickel µg/L 1 AN318 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 98% Zinc µg/L 1 AN318 <1 [NT] [NT] LCS 99% Iron µg/L 5 AN318 <5 [NT] [NT] LCS 111%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS LOR METHOD Blank Duplicate Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Sm# Recovery Metals in water by Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD ICP-OES %RPD

Date Extracted (Metals) 03/09/2 [NT] [NT] LCS 03/09/2010 010 Date Analysed (Metals) 03/09/2 [NT] [NT] LCS 03/09/2010 010 Calcium (Dissolved) mg/L 0.1 SEM-010 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS 96% Magnesium (Dissolved) mg/L 0.1 SEM-010 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS 99% Potassium (Dissolved) mg/L 0.2 SEM-010 <0.2 [NT] [NT] LCS 100% Sodium (Dissolved) mg/L 0.1 SEM-010 <0.1 [NT] [NT] LCS 96%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Recovery TRH in water with C6-C9 by Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD P/T %RPD

Date Extracted (TRH C6-C9 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR] PT) Date Analysed (TRH C6-C9 [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR] PT)

TRH C6 - C9 P&T in µg/L [NT] [NT] [NR] [NR] µg/L Date Extracted (TRH [NT] [NT] SE81000-1 02/09/10 C10-C36)

Date Analysed (TRH [NT] [NT] SE81000-1 03/09/10 C10-C36)

TRH C10 - C14 µg/L [NT] [NT] SE81000-1 102%

Page 15 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Spike Sm# Matrix Spike % Recovery TRH in water with C6-C9 by Base + Duplicate + Duplicate + %RPD P/T %RPD

TRH C15 - C28 µg/L [NT] [NT] SE81000-1 98%

TRH C29 - C36 µg/L [NT] [NT] SE81000-1 96%

QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Inorganics Base + Duplicate + %RPD

Date Extracted (pH) SE81000-4 1/09/2010 || 1/09/2010 Date Analysed (pH) SE81000-4 1/09/2010 || 1/09/2010 pH pH Units SE81000-4 5.0 || 5.0 || RPD: 0 Electrical Conductivity µS/cm SE81000-4 130 || 130 || RPD: 0 Date Extracted (Alkalinity) SE81000-4 1/09/2010 || 1/09/2010 Date Analysed (Alkalinity) SE81000-4 1/09/2010 || 1/09/2010

Page 16 of 17 PROJECT: ENAUWARA04016AA REPORT NO: SE81000

Samples analysed as received. Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis. Date Organics extraction commenced: NATA Corporate Accreditation No. 2562, Site No 4354 Note: Test results are not corrected for recovery (excluding Air-toxics and Dioxins/Furans*) This document is issued by the Company subject to its General Conditions of Service (www.sgs.com/terms_and_conditions.htm). Attention is drawn to the limitations of liability, indemnification and jurisdictional issues established therein.

Page 17 of 17

Appendix H Data Validation Report

Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project

DATA VALIDATION REPORT – ENAUWARA04016AA

Lab Batches: SE80904, SE81000

DATA COMPLETENESS

Field Considerations

Yes / No Comment

Were all critical locations Yes sampled?

Were all critical depths sampled? Yes

Were the SOPs appropriate and Yes complied with?

Was the sampler adequately Yes experienced?

Was the field documentation Yes complete?

Is a copy of the signed chain of Yes custody form for each batch of samples included?

Laboratory Considerations

Yes / No Comment

Were all critical samples Yes analysed according to sampling plan?

Were analytes analysed as per Yes sampling plan?

Were the laboratory methods Yes appropriate?

Were the laboratory methods Yes adopted NATA endorsed?

Was the NATA Seal on the Yes laboratory reports?

Were the laboratory reports Yes signed by an authorised person?

Were the laboratory PQLs below No The laboratory PQL was greater than the criteria for the criteria? benzo(a)pyrene, anthracene, and phenanthrene in DATA VALIDATION REPORT – ENAUWARA04016AA

Lab Batches: SE80904, SE81000

groundwater

Was sample documentation Yes complete?

Were sample holding times Yes complied with?

COMPLETENESS CONCLUSION

Yes / No Comment

Was data adequately complete? Yes

DATA COMPARABILITY

Field considerations

Yes / No Comment

Was there more than one Yes sampling round?

Were the same sampling Yes methodology and SOPs used for all sampling?

Was all sampling undertaken by Yes the same sampler?

Were sample containers, Yes preservation, filtering the same?

Could climatic conditions No It is not considered that climatic conditions would (temperature, rainfall, wind) have affect the data comparability. influenced data comparability?

Were the same types of samples Yes collected (filtered, size fractions etc) for each media?

DATA VALIDATION REPORT – ENAUWARA04016AA

Lab Batches: SE80904, SE81000

Laboratory Considerations

Yes / No Comment

Were the same analytical Yes methods used (including clean up)?

Were the PQLs the same? Yes

Were the same laboratories Yes used?

Were the units reported the Yes same?

COMPARABILITY CONCLUSION

Yes / No Comment

Was data adequately Yes comparable?

DATA REPRESENTATIVENESS

Field Considerations

Yes / No Comment

Was appropriate media Yes Soil and groundwater were sampled. sampled?

Was media identified sampled? Yes

Were the samples properly and Yes adequately preserved? This includes keeping the samples chilled, where applicable.

Were the samples in proper Yes custody between the field and reaching the laboratory?

Were the samples received by Yes One sample, SB11 2.0-2.1, was not received by the the laboratory in good condition? laboratory.

DATA VALIDATION REPORT – ENAUWARA04016AA

Lab Batches: SE80904, SE81000

Laboratory Considerations

Yes / No Comment

Were all samples analysed Yes according to SAQP?

REPRESENTATIVENESS CONCLUSION

Yes / No Comment

Was data adequately Yes representative?

DATA PRECISION AND ACCURACY

Field considerations

Yes / No Comment

Were the SOPs appropriate and Yes Based on available Coffey Environments Standard complied with? Operating Procedures.

DATA VALIDATION REPORT – ENAUWARA04016AA

Lab Batches: SE80904, SE81000

Laboratory Considerations for Soil

TPH BTEX PAH Metals Fluoride Cyanide Asbestos

Primary 11 12 16 16 16 16 4

Field QA/QC

Intralab Dup 2, 18% 2, 16% 2, 12% 1, 12% 2, 12% 2, 12% 0

Interlab Dup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trip Spike NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA

Trip Blank 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA

Wash Blanks 2 2 2 2 0 0 0

LAB QA/QC

Lab Blanks 1 2 1 1 1 1 0

Lab Dups 2 2 2 2 2 3 0

Matrix Spikes 2 1 1 1 1 2 0

Lab Control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Surrogate 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 DATA VALIDATION REPORT – ENAUWARA04016AA

Lab Batches: SE80904, SE81000

Laboratory Considerations for Water

TPH BTEX PAH Metals Anions Cyanide Ferrous Iron pH & EC Alkalinity

Primary 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Field QA/QC

Intralab Dup 1, 25% 1, 25% 1, 25% 1, 25% 1, 25% 1, 25% 1, 25% 1, 25% 1, 25%

Interlab Dup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trip Spike NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Trip Blank NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Wash Blanks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LAB QA/QC

Lab Blanks 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

Lab Dups 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0

Matrix Spikes 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lab Control 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1

Surrogate 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 DATA VALIDATION REPORT – ENAUWARA04016AA

Lab Batches: SE80904, SE81000

Yes / No Comment

Field QA/QC

Were an adequate number of Yes Refer to above tables. field duplicates analysed? Soil duplicate samples exceeded the requirement of 1 intra-laboratory per 10 primary samples. No inter- laboratory duplicates were collected.

Water duplicates exceeded the requirement of 1 intra-laboratory per 10 primary samples. No inter- laboratory duplicates were collected.

Were the RPDs of the field No Soil duplicates within control limits? An RPD of 165% was recorded for ferrous iron in groundwater. This is considered to be due to concentrations close to the detection limit.

Were an adequate number of Yes trip blanks analysed?

Were the trip blanks free of Yes contaminants

Were an adequate number of Yes trip spikes analysed?

Were the trip spikes recoveries Yes within control limits?

Were an adequate number of Yes Two wash blanks were collected for the soil wash blanks analysed? sampling.

Were the wash blanks free of NA Concentrations of copper and zinc were recorded in contaminants? the wash blanks. It is considered that these metals were present in the water used for the wash blank. Concentrations of zinc and copper were well below the criteria in the soil samples and therefore this is not considered to affect data usability.

Lab QA/QC

Were an adequate number of Yes laboratory blank samples analysed?

Were the blanks free of Yes DATA VALIDATION REPORT – ENAUWARA04016AA

Lab Batches: SE80904, SE81000 contaminants?

Were an adequate number of Yes laboratory matrix spikes and laboratory control samples analysed?

Were an adequate number of Yes surrogate spike samples analysed?

Were the spikes recoveries Yes within control limits?

Were an adequate number of Yes laboratory duplicates analysed?

Were the laboratory duplicate No An RPD of 67% was recorded for cyanide in soil. RPDs within control limits? This is considered to be due to low concentrations, with the actual difference in concentrations only 0.1mg/kg.

PRECISION AND ACCURACY CONCLUSION

Yes Comment / No

Was soil data adequately Yes precise?

Was soil data adequately Yes accurate?

Was water data adequately Yes precise?

Was water data adequately Yes accurate? DATA VALIDATION REPORT – ENAUWARA04016AA

Lab Batches: SE80904, SE81000

Table D1: Laboratory Methodologies (SGS)

Analysis Method Based On NATA Registered

TPH C6-C9/BTEX Based on USEPA 8260 Yes

TPH C10-C36 Based on USEPA 8015B Yes

PAH Based on USEPA 8270 Yes

Metals Based on USEPA 200.7 (soil) Yes / USEPA 6020A (water)

Asbestos In-house method AN602 Yes

Anions (Fluoride, Chloride, Based on APHA 4500 Yes Sulphate)

Cyanide Based on APHA 4500-CN C Yes & E (soil)

Ferrous iron Based on APHA 3500 – Fe B Yes pH Based on APHA 4500 Yes

EC Based on APHA 2510 Yes

Table D2: Soil Holding Times (SGS)

Soil Analysis Holding Time Maximum Time Between Holding Times Met Sampling and Extraction

TPH C6-C9/BTEX 14 days 11 days Yes

TPH C10-C36 14 days 13 days Yes

PAH 14 days 13 days Yes

Metals 6 months 13 days Yes

Fluoride 7 days 13 days No

Cyanide 7 days 14 days No

Asbestos NA 15 days NA

DATA VALIDATION REPORT – ENAUWARA04016AA

Lab Batches: SE80904, SE81000

Table D3: Water Holding Times (SGS)

Water Analysis Holding Time Maximum Time Between Holding Times Met Sampling and Extraction

TPH C6-C9/BTEX 7 days 3 days Yes

TPH C10-C36 7 days 3 days Yes

PAH 7 days 3 days Yes

Metals 6 months 1 day Yes

Fluoride, Chloride, 28 days 2 days Yes Sulphate

Cyanide 14 days 6 days Yes

Ferrous Iron 24 hrs 1 day Yes pH 6 hrs 2 days No

EC 28 days 2 days Yes

Alkalinity 24 hrs 2 days No

Comments:

Holding times were exceeded for fluoride and cyanide in soil, and pH and alkalinity in groundwater. These exceedances are not considered to affect the data usability.

Appendix I ASS Field Screening Results

Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Newcastle Gas Storage Facility Project

Job Number ENAUWARA04016AA

acid sulfate soil screening test office: Newcastle Page 1 of 1 client: AGC date: principal: test location: Warabrook project: tested by: location: TOMAGO checked by: date samples recovered: pH meter used/serial no: HORIBA D-24 date of calibration:

hydrogen peroxide pH prior to use: 4.78 hydrogen peroxide temperature prior to use: Water pH -7.01

PHFOX PHF (oxidation in 30% hydrogen peroxide) Sample soil pH in 1:5 Sample Number Depth (m) Effervescence Odour Colour change Location description distilled time pH temp PH Change (see note 1 (see note during Additional comments water (mins) FOX (°C) (ie PHF-PHFOX ) below) 2 below) reaction SB16 2.0-2.1 4.99 4.50 Nil

SB16 4.3-4.4 4.91 4.53 Nil

SB17 3.0-3.1 5.57 5.01 Nil

SB17 4.3-4.4 4.58 4.89 1b

SB18 4.2-4.3 4.91 4.58 Nil

SB18 2.0-2.1 5.70 4.71 Nil

SB21 4.2-4.3 5.59 4.34 Nil

SB21 1.0-1.1 4.62 3.98 Nil

SB22 4.2-4.3 5.52 4.80 Nil

SB22 3.0-3.1 5.57 4.09 Nil

NOTES: 1. Observed Effervescent Reaction: A. No visible effervescence B. Slight to moderate effervescence C. Vigorous effervescence D. No Reaction 2. Observed Odour: 1. None 2.Moderate 3.Strong

Form Number:Warabrook 149;Issue 2.0