INFORMATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS
August 2007
VICTORIA'S AUDIT SYSTEM AUDIT REPORT CURRENCY An environmental audit system has operated in Audit reports are based on the conditions encountered Victoria since 1989. The Environmenf Profecfion Acf and information reviewed at the time of preparation 1970 (the Act) provides for the appointment by the and do not represent any changes that may have Environment Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) of occurred since the date of completion. As it is not environmental auditors and the conduct of possible for an audit to present all data that could be independent, high quality and rigorous environmental of interest to all readers, consideration should be audits. made to any appendices or referenced documentation An environmental audit is an assessment of the for further information. condition of the environment, or the nature and extent When information regarding the condition of a site of harm (or risk of harm) posed by an industrial changes from that at the time an audit report is process or activity, waste, substance or noise. issued, or where an administrative or computation Environmental audit reports are prepared by EPA- error is identified, environmental audit reports, appointed environmental auditors who are highly certificates and statements may be withdrawn or qualified and skilled individuals. amended by an environmental auditor. Users are Under the Act, the function of an environmental advised to check EPA's website to ensure the currency auditor is to conduct environmental audits and of the audit document. prepare environmental audit reports. Where an environmental audit is conducted to determine the PDF SEARCHABILITY AND PRINTING condition of a site or its suitability for certain uses, an environmental auditor may issue either a certificate or EPA Victoria can only certify the accuracy and statement of environmental audit. correctness of the audit report and appendices as presented in the hardcopy format. EPA is not A certificate indicates that the auditor is of the opinion responsible for any issues that arise due to problems that the site is suitable for any beneficial use defined with PDF files or printing. in the Act, whilst a statement indicates that there is some restriction on the use of the site. Except where PDF normal format is specified, PDF files are scanned and optical character recognised by Any individual or organisation may engage appointed machine only. Accordingly, while the images are environmental auditors, who generally operate within consistent with the scanned original, the searchable the environmental consulting sector, to undertake hidden text may contain uncorrected recognition environmental audits. The EPA administers the errors that can reduce search reliability. Therefore, environmental audit system and ensures its ongoing keyword searches undertaken within the document integrity by assessing auditor applications and may not retrieve all references to the queried text. ensuring audits are independent and conducted with regard to guidelines issued by EPA. This PDF has been created using the Adobe-approved method for generating Print Optimised Output. To assure proper results, proofs must be printed, rather AUDIT FILES STRUCTURE than viewed on the screen. Environmental audit reports are stored digitally by This PDF is compatible with Adobe Acrobat Reader EPA in three parts: the audit report (part A), report Version 4.0 or any later version which is downloadable appendices (part B) and, where applicable, the free from Adobe's Website, www.adobe.com. certificate or statement of environmental audit and an executive summary (part C). A report may be in colour FURTHER I N FORMATION and black-and-white formats. Generally, only black- and-white documents are text searchable. For more information on Victoria's environmental Report executive summaries, findings and audit system, visit EPA's website or contact EPA's recommendations should be read and relied upon only Environmental Audit Unit. in the context of the document as a whole, including Web: www.epa.vic.clov.au/envaudit any appendices and, where applicable, any certificate Email: [email protected] or statement of environmental audit. .-- Golder Associates F+tyMd A.B.N. 64 006 107 857
Level 3,50 Burwood Road, Hawthorn, Victoria, 3 122 Australia (PO Box 6079, Hawthorn West, Vic 31 22 Australla) Telephone (031 8862 3500 S Fax (03) 8862 3501 http://www.golder.corn
REPORT ON
STATUTORY ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT 14-18 PROSPECT HILL ROAD AND 3 STATION STREET CAMBERWELL
FOR THE ZIG INGE GROUP
Submitted to:
Environment Protection Authority The Herald and Weekly Times Tower 40 City Road Southbank Victoria 3006
DISTRBUTION
1 copy - Environment Protection Authority 1 copy - Boroondara City Council 2 copies - Zig Inge Group 2 copies - Golder Associates Pty Ltd
June, 2004 0 16135 2 1/002
BEST WIUIWRS 10 WOUFOR -I-=@m OFFICES IN ADEWDE, BRISBANE. CAIRNS, MAROOCHYDORE, MELBOURNE, PERM SYDNB, NEWZEAIAND, INDONESlk HONG KONG, CHINA. MAILAND, PHIUPPINES * -d -m-r&as OFFICES ACROSS NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA. EUROPE. ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, AFRICA. --- June 2004 1 01613521/002
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report has been prepared by Mr Roger Parker of Golder Associates Pty Ltd and relates to an environmental audit of the site located at 14-18 Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street, Cambenvell. This Environmental Audit relates only to the land shown as Certificates of Title Volume 10280 Folio 735, Volume 4268 Folio 562, Volume 3700 Folio 920 and Volume 10329 Folio 090.
The assessment and confmatory validation procedures provided acceptable coverage of the site and potential areas that could have been affected by contamination sources. The range of chemicals analysed was suitable to reflect the potential contaminants, The sampling frequency was sufficient for characterisation of contamination on the site and the sampling procedures were considered appropriate. QNQC data confirmed the reliability of the chemical results.
The results of chemical analyses indicated that the natural materials on the site have arsenic concentrations above the Screening Criteria but within a range judged by the Auditor to be background. Following removal of fill from the site and validation, residual soil at the site was judged to be suitable to permit all relevant beneficial uses.
Groundwater was considered unlikely to be contaminated as a result of the former activities on the site. However, the Auditor required that one groundwater well be installed on the expected up-gradient side of the site to assess if contamination from the former service station at 2 1 to 23 Prospect Hill Road may have impacted the site. Groundwater in the installed well was not found to be polluted with respect to the relevant groundwater segment.
Based on the findings of the work undertaken by Beveridge Williams and the outcome of this Environmental Audit, a Certificate of Environmental Audit has been issues and is attached and forms part of this report.
No conclusion is made about whether soil from this site would comply with EPA requirements for off-site disposal or use. Compliance .with these requirements is the responsibility of the site’s owners or occupiers.
Golder Associates June 2004 11 01613521/002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
AUDIT INFORMATION ...... N 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 .. 1.1 Purpose ofthe Rep0rt ...... 2 1.2 Audit Activities ...... 2 1.3 Elements Comprising the Site ...... 3 2 . SITE FEATURES ...... 3 2.1 Site Description ...... 3 2.2 Site History ...... 4 . 2.3 Chemicals and Wastes of Interest ...... 5 3 . SITE CONDITIONS ...... :...... 6 3.1 Geology and Hydrogeology ...... 6 3.2 Site Investigations ...... 6 3.3 Summary of Remediation Activities ...... 11 3.4 Background Soil and Groundwater Data ...... 12 4 . QUALITY AND ADEQUACY OF INFORMATION ...... 12
4.1 Quality of Field Activities ...... :...... 12 4.2 Quality Control of Laboratory Analyses ...... 12 4.3 Adequacy of Information ...... 16 5 . BENEFICIAL USES OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE SITE ...... 16 5.1 Land ...... 17 5.2 Groundwater ...... 17 6 . EVALUATION OF SOIL ...... 18 6.1 Screening Criteria for Soils ...... 18 6.2 Risk from Exposure to Contaminated Soils at the Site ...... 22 6.3 Issue of a Certificate or Statement ...... 23 7 . EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER...... 23 7.1 Screening Criteria for Groundwater ...... 23 74 Groundwater Exposure Concentrations...... 25 7.3 Risks from Exposure to Contaminated Groundwater at the Site ...... 26 7.4 Issue of a Certificate or Statement ...... 27
Golder Associates ... June 2004 111 0 161352 1/002
8. CONCLUSIONS ...... 27 - 9. LIMITATIONS ...... 28 10. REFERENCES ...... 29
CERTIF’IFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 : Summary of Site History Table 2: Location and Medium Associated with Chemicals and Wastes of Interest Table 3: Summary of Data Collected in Investigations Undertaken Table 4: Site Investigations Table 5: Quality Control Analysis for Soil Testing Laboratories Table 6: Summary of Quality Assurance and Control Analyses Results Table 7: Soil Screening Criteria for Any Beneficial Use Table 8: Summary of Statistical Data for Natural Soil
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Locality Plan Figure 2: Site Plan Indicating Borehole and Test Pit Sample Locations Figure 3: Site Plan Indicating Validation Sample Locations
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Certificates of Title Appendix B: Site Development Plans Appendix C: Beveridge Williams Report: “Contamination Assessment and Soil Validation, 14-18 Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street ”, June 2004 Beveridge Williams Report: “Groundwater Contamination Assessment, 14-18
Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street ”: June 2004 Appendix D: Correspondence from Environmental Auditor
Golder Associstes June 2004 01613521/002
AUDIT INFORMATION
Certificate of Title Volume 4268 Folio 562; Cemficate of Title Volume 3700 Folio 920; and Certificate of Title Volume 10329 Folio 090;
Retirement Accommodation. See Appendix B for Development
Hill Road and 3 Station Street, Camberwell”, Beveridge Williams, June 2004. “Groundwater Contamtion Assessment, 14-18 Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street, Camberwell”, Beveridge Williams,
Go’lder Associates June 2004. -1- 01613521/002
1. INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared by Mr Roger Parker of Golder Associates Pty Ltd, at the request of Mr Peter Inge of The Zig Inge Group and relates to an environmental audit of the site located at 14-18 Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street, Camberwell (refer Figure l), herein referred to as “the site”. The approach undertaken for this audit complies with requirements of Part IXD of the Environmental Protection Act (Victoria) 1970.
In completing the audit, regard has been gwen to, amongst other things: i Guidelines issued by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for the purposes of Part D(D of the Act including:
f 0 Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statement of Environmental Audit, May 200 1 (Reference 1);
0 Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Appointment Guidelines, March 1997 (Reference 2).
11 Relevant State Environment Protection Policies (SEPPs) / Industrial Waste Management Policies (IWMPs), namely:
0 SEPP (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), June 2002 (Reference 3);
0 SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria), December 1997 (Reference 4);
0 SEPP (Waters of Victoria), June 2003 (Reference 5);
0 IWMP (Prescribed Industrial Waste), December 2000 (Reference 6). ... 111. National Environment Protection Measures:
0 National Environment Protection Measure (Assessment of Site Contamination) 1999 (Reference 7). iv. Other documents relevant to the environmental audit system:
0 Minister’s Direction No. 1 - Potentially Contaminated Land, 14 May 1992 (Reference 8);
0 Potentially Contaminated Land Uses (IB 472), July 1995 (Reference 9). V. Other relevant published guidelines and standards:
0 ANZECC/NHMRC Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, 1992 (Reference 10);
0 Australian Standard 4482.1 Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil, Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds, 1997 (Reference 11);
0 Australian Standard 4482.2 Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil, Part 2: Volatile compounds, 1999 (Reference 12);
0 EPA Guide to the Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes (Publication 441), 2000 (Reference 13);
Golder Associates June 2004 -2- 0 1613 5 2 1/002
0 EPA Groundwater Sampling Guidelines (Publication 669), 2000 (Reference ,141;
0 EPA Management of Waste Contaminated Soil and Low Level Contaminated Soil (Publication 626), 1998 (Reference 15); vi. Subsequent advice provided as guidance to auditors before June 2004. This audit, in accordance with the above, reviews the adequacy of information about the condition of soil and groundwater at the site and the potential for detrimental impacts to relevant segments of the environment. The suitability of soil and groundwater are evaluated separately for issue of a Certificate. Only if both soil and groundwater conditions merit a Certificate will one be issued. 1.1 Purpose of the Report
The property is currently owned by the Zig Inge Group. The Statutory Environmental Audit is required by the City of Boroondara before occupation of the proposed 65 unit retirement facility. The site is currently zoned Residential 1 under the Boroondara Planning Scheme, with an Environmental Audit Overlay. The Development Plans for the proposed retirement facility are presented in Appendix B.
1.2 Audit Activities
Assessment and monitoring of remediation (fill removal) was undertaken by Beveridge Williams Pty Ltd. Beveridge Williams’ reports are attached in Appendix C. Following assessment of soil (including fill) at the site, the fill and underlying soil were removed by the developer as part of site earthworks including basement excavation. Beveridge Williams monitored the removal of fill to achieve appropriate disposal of the fill and soil and undertook validation of the final excavation. Beveridge Williams provided their draft report to the Auditor in May 2004. At that time, the Auditor raised questions about the potential for groundwater contamination from the former service station located across Prospect Hill Road, north of the site. As a consequence, a groundwater well was located on the north west comer of the site under audit to assess if contaminated groundwater may have migrated to the south and under the site.
The Environmental Audit undertaken involved the following activities:
Review and comment of the work plan proposed by Beveridge WIlliams, the owner’s chosen environmental consultant.
A site inspection during field investigation activities to assess site condition and appraise field procedures.
Evaluation of data supplied to the Auditor during the assessment and validation phases of the project.
Review of the draft Environmental Site Assessment report and provision of comments to allow finalisation of the report.
Request for assessment of groundwater -investigation due to risk of a source of off-site groundwater contamination (see Appendix D)
0 Review of the groundwater investigation report Golder Associates June 2004 -3- 01613521/002
Preparation of this report.
1.3 Elements Comprising the Site
The following general elements of the site have been considered for the purposes of this Statutory Environmental Audit:
Land at the site.
Groundwater.
The following specific elements of the environment at the site are considered relevant:
Fill: Historic infilling of the site and surrounding area with contaminated material or direct impact of fill inaterials from site activities.
Natural soils: Possible migration of contamination into the natural soils from the overlying fill material or direct impact from site activities.
Groundwater: Leaching of chemicals from overlying contaminated fill and/or natural soils.
2. SITE FEATURES
2.1 . Site Description
The site is located at the comer of Prospect Hill Road and Station Street in Camberwell, and is surrounded by a mix of commercial properties (to the north, west and south) and residential properties (to the north and east). A masonic lodge is situated on the property directly west of the site. The site boundary is illustrated in Figure 1.
The site is an irregularly shaped parcel of land, with approximitely 50 mekes of frontage to Prospect Hill Road at the north, and 25 metres of frontage to Station Street at the west. The western part of the site extends approximately 43 metres south of Prospect Hill Drive, whilst the eastern part of the site extends approximately 50 metres south of Prospect Hill Drive, giving a total site area of approximately 4,300 m2.
The site and surrounding land is currently zoned Business 2 Zone under the Boroondara Planning Scheme.
The site is currently occupied by a multi-storey retirement facility, comprising 65 units and a single-storey basement carpark. The building footprint occupies the majority of the surface of the site, with the remainder of the surface being landscaped gardens and paved walkways.
The nearest surface water body is the Yarra River, located approximately 2.7 lulometres west of the site.
Golder Associates June 2004 -4- 016135211002
2.2 Site History
Beveridge Williams undertook a site history investigation as part of the work in their report titled “Contamination Assessment and Soil Validation, 14-18 Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street, Camberwell” Reference 21 . The site history review sourced the following:
0 Sands and McDougall Directory;
Aerial photographs;
Certificates of Title (Historical Certificates of Title were sourced by the Auditor); and
Review of Statutory Environmental Audit Report for 21-23 Prospect Hill Road (information supplied by the Auditor)
Table 1 provides a summary of the site history review completed for the Site. It is noted that:
Prior to 1941 the site was used for residential purposes.
Good Year Tyre Services occupied 14 Prospect Hill Road, prior to the site being purchased by the Zig Inge group.
0 16 Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street were vacant or used for car parking purposes, prior to the site being purchased by the Zig Inge group.
0 Addington Hall Flats were present at 18 Prospect Hill Road, prior to the site being purchased by the Zig Inge group.
Table 1: Summary of Site History
Pre- 1941 Residential Residential I Residential Residential b Adding ton Hall Good Year Tyre Residential Flats Residen ti a1 1970 - 1974 Services I 1974- 1976 Vacant Land I Vacant land I Car Parking Car park 1991 - 1995
Site Purchased by Zig Inge Retirement Villages I 2002 Development of multistorey retirement building
Golder Associates June 2004 -5- 0 16 13 5 2 1/002
The land use surrounding the site is reported to have been residential until at least 1972, with a commercial building, (a Safeway supermarket), erected directly south of the site between 1972 and 1984. A fuel service station is noted to have been present at 21-23 Prospect Hill Road, northwest of the site, from the 1960s. The Statutory Environmental Audit Report for 2 1-23 Prospect Hill Road was viewed at the EPA library by the Auditor’s representative on 27 May 2004. It was noted that a Certificate of Environmental Audit was issued for the Site on 12 December 1994. No intrusive groundwater investigation was completed that Audit.
The Auditor considers the site history investigation to be adequate in terms of thoroughness and depth. I
2.3 Chemicals and Wastes of Interest
Beveridge Williams highlighted the following potential contaminants of interest based on possible activities conducted on the site and those identified in the site history review. The chemicals are likely to be associated with imported fill or the historical presence of a tyre fitting workshop at 14 Prospect Hill Road. Table 2 below presents this information.
Table 2: Location and Medium Associated with Chemicals and Wastes of Interest
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Importation of fill material Surface fill (PAHI across the central and western areas of the site; tyre fitting workshop operation at 14 Prospect Hill Road.
Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) Tyre fitting workshop Fill and natural soils operation at 14 Prospect Hill Road.
Monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Tyre fitting workshop Fill and natural soils (specifically benzene, toluene, ethyl- operation at 14 Prospect Hill benzene and xylenes (BTEX)) Road.
Metals Importation of fill material Fill and natural soils across the central and western areas of the site; tyre fitting workshop operation at 14 Prospect Hill Road.
containinants of interest for the site. However, the Auditor in undertaking review of the draft Site Assessment Report noted the former existence of a service station on the north side of Prospect Hill Road. lliis raised the potential for petroleum hydrocarbon and BTEX
~ contantination of groundwater under the site.
Golder Associates June 2004 -6- 0 16 135 2 1/002
3. SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 Geology and Hydrogeology
The geology beneath the site has been assessed from the Geological Survey of Victoria - Ringwood Mapsheet. This indicates the site is located on or very near an interface of two geological units. The site appears to be underlain by Upper Tertiary (Brighton Group) Red Bluff Sands comprising fine to coarse sands with minor, poorly sorted gravels. The western section of the site is in close proximity to the interface of the Brighton Group with the Anderson Creek Formation. The Anderson Creek Formation consists of massive Upper Silurian siltstones interbedded with thin sandstones and occasional groupings of massive, laminated and current bedded greywackes, conglomerates and clast beds. Beveridge Williams concluded that the Tertiary (Brighton Group) sediments formed a cap over the older Silurian age Andersons Creek Formation, which form the basement over much of the surrounding area.
The observations made during the Beveridge Williams site assessment are consistent with the above geology assessment. The boreholes and test pits excavated at the site identified that the underlying natural soils consisted of clays, clayey silts and clayey sands. Weathered siltstone was encountered in borehole BH04-GW1 at a depth of approximately 5 m.
As reported by Beveridge Williams the Anderson Creek Formation forms a semi confined fractured’rock aquifer system. Previous observations have shown it to be massive and to have a low primary porosity and permeability, however jointing and fracturing have imparted secondary porosity and permeability. The storage capacity of the Anderson Creek Formation and its ability to act as a conduit for the passage of groundwater is dependent on the frequency and degree of interconnection of joints and fractures, which generally are unpredictable.
A groundwater monitoring well was installed at the site on 4 June 2004. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 13.6 m, within the Anderson Creek Formation. Beveridge Williams stated that the regional groundwater flow direction is likely to be towards Port Phillip Bay to the south west of the Yarra Rwer to the west. The nearest surface water body is the Yma River, which is located approximately 2.7 kilometres west of the site.
Beveridge Williams accessed the Victorian State Groundwater Database and identified 7 bores within a 2 km radius of the site. Three of the bores were used for domestic purposes and four of the bores were used for investigation purposes
3.2 Site Investigations
An environmental investigation was undertaken on the site by Beveridge Williams with field work conducted between December 2000 and June 2004. Table 3 summarises the scope of work undertaken while Table 4 below summarises the investigations conducted on the site and the principal outcomes. As noted above the investigations consisted of an assessment of soil and subsequent installation of a groundwater well to assess risk of migration of contamination on to the site. The reports described are attached as Appendix C.
Golder Associates June 2004 -7- 01613521/002
In March and April 2001, nineteen boreholes were drilled at the site. The locations of the sample points are illustrated in Figure 2. Boreholes BHO1-1 to BH01-15 were drilled in an approximate grid pattern in sections of the site other than the tyre workshop, which was still operating. Boreholes BHO1-16 to BHO1-19 targeted infrastructure in the workshop such as hydraulic hoists, a drain and pit and an above ground storage tank.
In September 2002, thirteen test pits were excavated at the locations indicated in Figure 2. The test pits were undertaken to further delineate soil Contamination.
Fill was identified at 2 1 locations, and generally comprised dark brown sandy silt and clayey sand. Brick, glass and ceramic fragments were noted at five locations in fill, and a tyre was reported at a depth of 2.3 metres in the vicinity of the former tyre fitting workshop in the eastern part of the site. Slight hydrocarbon odours were noted in natural soils at two locations in the vicinity of the former tyre fitting workshop, as well as at one location in fill material in the southern central part of the site. It is noted that PID (photo-ionisation detector) readings appear at only five of the 32 soil logs provided by Beveridge Williams. These locations were within the Goodyear warehouse where volatile hydrocarbons were considered to be a contaminant of interest. Beveridge Williams stated that no other PID readings were conducted across the remainder of the site as they considered that the possibility of volatile organic compounds in the remainder of the site was negligible. None of the PID readings were higher than those commonly generated by ambient air conditions.
The Australian Standard 4482.1-1997 “Guide to the Sampling and investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil”, recommends that a minimum of 13 sampling locations, based on a square grid, is required for 95% confidence in detecting a hotspot 23.1 m in diameter for a site 0.5 hectares in area. Fifteen grid locations and four targeted locations were investigated at the site (area of 0.43 hectares) during the initial assessment works. Further investigation works (13 test pits) were undertaken for assessment of areas of interest and for further delineation of contamination. in the initial contamination investigations composite samples of fill and natural soils were analysed for a broad screen of analytes including pH, sulphate, cyanide, fluoride, metals, I polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHC), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), organochlorine pesticides (OCP) and phenols. Individual samples collected from around the site were analysed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (MAH) and volatile halogenated organics (VHO). Selected individual samples in the vicinity of the tyre centre were analysed for metals, TPH, MAH and PAH. Where composite samples exceeded the modified assessment criteria, individual samples from within the composite were analysed.
One groundwater monitoring well was constructed at the site on 4 June 2004 in order to investigate possible groundwater contamination at the site migrating from the .former service station located on the opposite side of Prospect Hill Road. Groundwater flow in the area is likely to be in a westerly or south westerly direction. Given the location of the service station was directly north of the audit site, there was some risk that contamination could migrate under the site, particularly the north west comer of the audit site. Groundwater contamination was judged to be unlikely to have occurred from the audit site and therefore only one well was considered necessary to assess the impact of the possible off-site source of contamination.
Golder Associates June 2004 . -8- 0 16 13521l002
Table 3: Summary of Data Collected in Contamination Investigation
Number soil bores / test pits / validation sample locations 32
~ ~ ~~ Number of samples collected / analysed from: Surface (0.0 - 0.3 metres below post-excavation ground surface) 20 individual & 2 composite From subsurface (0.3 - 0.5 metres below post-excavation ground surface) 18 individual & 4 composite
Soil at depth (0.5 - 3.0 metres below current ground surface) 36 individual & 5 composite Range of chemicals analysed for soil pH, sulphate, total cyanide, fluoride, metals, TPH, MAH, WO, PAH, CHC, PCB, OCP, total phenols. Number of groundwater bores I I on-site Range of chemicals analysed in groundwater pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), metals, TPH, MAH, VHO
Golder Associates June 2004 9 0 1G 13 5 2 1/002
Table 4: Site Investigations
Beveridge Williams (May To characterise the site in terms A site history review Fill was identified to a maximum depth of greater than 2.7 metres below ground 2004). "Contamination of condition and extent and level. Assessment and Soil distribution of any Review of geology and hydrogeology 9 Brick, ceramic and glass fragments were observed in the fill. Validation, 14-1 8 Prospect Hill Contamination Road and 3 Station Street, Site inspection 9 Benzo(a)pyrene concentrations in fill were found in a range of Golder Associates June 2004 10 0 16 13 52 1/002 Underlying natural soils were reported to be Free of impact by the contaminants observed in the fill, with the exception of arsenic, thought to occur at naturally elevated concentrations in Brighton Group sands. Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation Validation sampling was conducted at the site following remediation activities. P Arsenic concentrations were reported in the range of <5 - 100 rng/kg F Other analytes were reported to be below the assessment criteria Analyte concentrations were reported to bc below the assessment criteria. Bevcridgc Williams To investigatc any groundwater The installation of one groundwater Groundwater at the site was classified as Segment C. (Junc2004). “Groundwatcr contamination migrating from monitoring well Investigation, 14-1 8 Prospect thc formcr service station TPH and BTEX werc reported in the groundwater at concentrations below the IHill Road and 3 Station Street, located oppositc the site. The sampling and analysis of one assessment criteria. groundwater sample Groundwater was found to dernonstratc exceedences of the adopted criteria for cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, and zinc. However groundwater was considered to be not polluted on the basis that thc contamination was at concentrations that were not likely to pose any significant risk to protected beneficial uses. Golder Associates June 2004 -11- 0 16 13521/002 3.3 Summary of Remediation Activities Remediation and validation was undertaken at the site during September and October 2002. Beveridge Williams was engaged as the environmental consultant and conducted all validation sampling and reporting. Fill with concentrations of PAHs and metals in excess of EPA Fill Material criteria were located at: 0 18 Prospect Hill Road. Fill depths ranging from 0.3 to 0.6 m. 0 Beneath the former workshop building at 14 Prospect Hill Road. Fill depths of up to 0.7 m. 2,102 tonnes of Low Level Contaminated Soil was removed from these areas in September 2002 and disposed of off-site at Brooklyn Landfill A brick lined well was identified on 14 September 2002 at 14 Prospect Hill Road, beneath the former workshop. The well had a depth of approximately 2.7 m. The well and surrounding soil was excavated and four validation samples (three wall samples and one floor sample) were collected and analysed. Fill in the remaining areas of the site was excavated and disposed of off-site as part of the construction of the basement carpark. The final excavation was validated by collecting and analysing samples from 32 locations across the excavation floor and fourteen samples from five locations on the excavation walls. The validation results are presented in Table 15 of Beveridge Williams' Contamination Assessment and Soil Validation report (Appendix C) The depth of the excavation works at the site varied from approximately: 0 4 to 6 m at 18 Prospect Hill Road for the bulk excavation. 3 m at the north east comer (area outside basement) of 18 Prospect Hill'Road. 1 in for the southern half of 16 Prospect Hill Road. 4 m for the northern half of 16 Prospect Hill Road (basement area). 0.5 to 1.O m along the northern boundary outside the basement at 16 Prospect Hill Road. 2 to 3 m at 14 Prospect Hill Road for the bulk excavation, including the removal of the decommissioned hoists, brick lined well and associated fill. 0 0.5 to 1.O m along the northem boundary outside the basement at 14 Prospect Hill Road. 1 to 3 m at 3 Station Street for the bulk excavation. Golder Associates June 2004 -12- 0 161352 1/002 3.4 Background Soil and Groundwater Data Off-site background soil sampling was not undertaken as part of the investigation. However natural soils were sampled from around the site to a depth of up to 3.0 m. Samples with the greatest concentrations of arsenic were located in natural soils at depths of 2-3 m. Across the site, natural soil samples that were analysed from shallower depths were reported as having reduced arsenic concentrations. It is considered that the elevated levels of arsenic in the natural soils are associated with background concentrations of arsenic at depth in the Brighton Group geology of the Site. 4. QUALITY AND ADEQUACY OF INFORMATION 4.1 Quality of Field Activities A representative of the Auditor performed a site inspection on 9 September 2001 during the initial phase of the soil investigation. Drilling of soil bores and soil-sampling procedures were observed. Beveridge Williams’ documented field procedures (refer to the “Contamination Assessment and Soil Validation” Report in Appendix C) have been reviewed, were reported to have been followed throughout the fieldwork and are considered satisfactory by the Auditor. During the initial assessment works (March 2001) surface soil samples (0.0 to 0.1 rn) were collected directly from the ground surface and soil samples from depth were collected directly from the flights of the solid augers used during dnlling. It is noted that this sampling method is not best practice, as it does not minimise the potential for the loss of volatiles. However it is noted that the majority of the soil samples analysed from the March 2001 assessment represents regions of soil that have subsequently been excavated and disposed of off-site. Volatiles were not reported at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits in validation samples that were collected from the walls and floor of the post-excavation site surface in November 2002. The Auditor is satisfied that field procedures including decontamination, sampling fi-equencies and soil logging were adequate for the purposes of this assessment. The soil sampling technique used for the March 2001 assessment is not considered to be best practice. However given excavation activities that have occurred at the site and the absence of indicators of volatile contamination in the subsequent validation samples that were analysed, the Auditor is satisfied that sampling from augerflights has not compromised the outcome of the investigation. 4.2 Quality Control of Laboratory Analyses A total of 70 individual samples and 11 composite samples were analysed during the assessment phase of the soil investigation works undertaken by Beveridge Williams. WSL Consultants was used as the primary laboratory for the assessment. ALS Environmental was used as the secondary laboratory for the assessment. Both laboratories are certified by NATA for the analyses undertaken. Three field duplicates and three field splits were also submitted for analysis. Therefore, field duplicates were collected at a rate of 3.7% and field splits were collected at the same rate during the investigation. Golder Associates June 2004 -13- 01613521/002 During the validation phase, 38 individual samples and 8 composites were submitted for analysis. Three field duplicates and three field splits were collected and analysed, giving a rate of collection of 6.5% for each QA sample type. For the combined assessment and remediation phases 108 individual samples and 19 composite samples were analysed, whlst six field duplicates and six field splits were analysed. The overall sampling rate for each of field duplicates and field splits was therefore 4.8%. This figure is slightly below the sampling rate of 5% recommended by the Australian Standard AS4482.1- 1997 “Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Con tami 11 ated Soi 1” Two rinsate blanks were analysed for metals during the assessment phase. One field split was analysed for the groundwater investigation works for the one primary groundwater sample that was collected. Both the primary and secondary laboratories utilised internal quality assurance procedures including analysis of method blanks, spiked samples and internal duplicates. A summary of quality control analyses for each laboratory are set out in Table 5 below. Table 5 - Quality Control Analyses for Soil Testing Laboratories Number of % of Total Number of % of Total Samples Primary Samples Primary Samples Samples Analysed Analysed Method Blanks 9 7.1% 4 5 7% Laboratory 36 28.3% 2 29% Duplicates Spiked Samples 1 40 1 31.5% 1 7 1 100% WSL Consultants were engaged as the primary laboratory, whilst ALS Environmental was engaged as the secondary analytical . laboratory. Both laboratories are accredited by the National Association of Testing Laboratories (NATA). Quality controVquality assurance sampling for soil investigations undertaken by Beveridge Williams consisted of the analysis of six blind duplicates at the primary laboratory for metals, TPH, MAH, PM, OCP, VHO. Six field splits were submitted to the secondary laboratory for the analysis for metals, TPH, MAH and PAH. Section 5.5 of Beveridge Williams’ Contamination Assessment and Soil Validation Report in Appendix C presents the results of the analyses that are summarised in Table 6. Golder Associates June 2004 -14- 0 1613 521/002 Quality control/quality assurance sampling for the groundwater investigation undertaken by Beveridge Williams consisted of the analysis of one field split at the secondary laboratory for metals, TPH and MAH. Section 5 of Beveridge Williams’ Groundwater Contamination Assessment Report in Appendix C presents the results of the analyses that are summarised in Table 6. Table 6: Summary of Quality Assurance and Control Analysis Results .. 9 Arsenic (98%, 122%), chromium (5 1%), manganese (1 28%, 67%), lead (S8%, 121%) and zinc (SO%, 95%). 12 Arsenic (75?!0), boron (79%, 95%, 1OOYO), barium (1 29%), chromium (55%, 112%, 6 1%, 78%), copper (1 OS%), manganese (9W0) and lead (67%). 2 Antimony (1 87%), selenium (1 90%) 0 0 Golder Associates r . June 2004 -15- 0 16 1352 1/002 32 DDT (69%, G9%, 68%, 71 %), methoxychlor (74%, 74%, 73%, 7 I %), b-endo-sulphan (62%, 63%, 62%), endosulphan sulphate (62%, 62%), benz(a)anthracene (l43%, 143%), Chrysene (1 29%, 129%), benzo(a)pyrene (136%, 136%), heptachlor (53%, 73%), b-BHC (69%), manganese (49%), phenols (70%), styrene (70%, 73%) endrin (64%), 1 2- dichloroethene(cis) (73%), 1 I-dichloro propene (65%, 73%), 1 2- dibromo 3-chloro propoane (65%) and 1 3- dichloropropene(cis) (73%) 10 CbC9 (46%, 47%), benz(a)anthracene (71 %), benzo(b)fluoranthene (69%, 68%), dibenz(a,h) anthracene (73%), chromium (1 28%), manganese (1 26%), and lead (1 26%, 129%) 1 TPH C10-C14 (73%) 0 Several minor discrepancies were noted in the quality assurance analyses. Out of range results were noted for metals in duplicate / split samples and organochlorine pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated hydrocarbons in internal laboratory spikes. None are significant enough to influence the conclusions of the Audit. Golder Associates June 2004 -16- 01613521/002 Discrepancies found in soil data do not pose concern over the validity of results. The quality of the data is of acceptable precision and accuracy to adequately characterise the condition of soils at the site. 4.3 Adequacy of Information Beveridge Williams supplied information on the following aspects of the site: 0 Historical data, indicating previous use of the site. 0 Distribution and frequency of sampling locations to obtain a judgement of the contamination status of the site. An analytical suite sufficient to identify a broad spectrum of likely contaminants. 0 Accuracy and reproducibility of results verified via QPJQC sampling. Soil contamination sampling procedures suitable to produce accurate results. The scope of the investigation undertaken is discussed in Section 3.2. For a site of 5000 square metres, the Australian Standard 4482.1 requires 13 grid based sampling points for 95% confidence of detection of a circular hotspot with a diameter of 23.1 m. The sampling points undertaken in the Beveridge Williams’ investigations exceed the number recommended by the Australian Standard. It is noted that the first phase of investigation of the site involved the placement of 15 sampling locations on a gnd basis and 4 targeted locations. Sampling undertaken during the second phase of investigation was undertaken at 13 targeted test pit locations. Validation samples were subsequently analysed from 48 locations following excavation works. Three samples of imported fill were collected from landscaped areas. contamination status of soil and groundwater on site. d by the consultant is adequate to meet the requirements of an 5. BENEFICIAL USES OF THE ELEMENTS OF TEE SITE As discussed in Section 1.3, the relevant elements of the site are land and groundwater. Before considering whether the site is suitable for the proposed activities at the site, consideration must be given to any beneficial use that may be made of these elements. The issue of a Certificate of Environmental Audit requires the Auditor to be satisfied that the contamination at the site is neither detrimental nor potentially detrimental to any beneficial use of any relevant elements of the environment at the site If the site is not suitable for any beneficial use, but is safe for the protected beneficial uses associated with the plausible hture activities at the site, a Statement of Environmental Audit may be issued. Golder Associates June 2004 -17- 01613521/002 5.1 Land Beneficial uses for the protection of land are provided in Reference 3 (SEPP Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land). For the land to be suitable for issue of a ‘Certificate, all of the nominated beneficial uses need to be protected as follows: maintenance of ecosystems (natural, modified and highly modified); human health; buildings and structures e aesthetics; and production of food, flora and fibre. The land is to be used for a 65-unit retirement facility. Categories of land uses are listed in Reference 3 (SEPP Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land). It is unclear as to which category applies to a retirement facility of this type. For the purpose of this audit, it is judged that this is a “sensitive use” but better represented as high density residential use than low density residential use. It is also possible that it could be considered in the “commercial” use category but this is less conservative from a health risk perspective than sensitive use - high density residential. Based on the SEPP (Reference 3), the beneficial uses to be protected for this land use are: maintenance of ecosystems (highly modified); human health; buildings and structures; and aesthetics. The residential classification(s) are based upon the development plans (provided in Appendix B). 5.2 Groundwater The groundwater sample collected from the site in June 2004, was reported as having a total dissolved solids concentration of 6800 mg/L, classifying the groundwater as Segment C. The reported concentration is consistent with the Victorian Groundwater Beneficial Map Series, which also indicates that the groundwater at the site is classified as Segment C. Provided below is a summary of the protected beneficial uses for Segment C (refer SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria) (Reference 4)) for consideration in issuing a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the site: Golder Associates June 2004 -18- 01613521/002 0 maintenance of ecosystems; stock watering; industrial water use; primary contact recreation; and 0 buildings and structures Beneficial uses of groundwater must be protected both on and off site. 6. EVALUATION OF SOIL 6.1 Screening Criteria for Soils Indicators and objectives for protection of beneficial uses of land are set out in Table 2 of the SEPP (SEPP Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land). Objectives listed in the SEPP include: Maintenance of qatural ecosystems - Regional Ecological Investigation Levels (if Ecosystems mblished) Llodified ecosystems - Ecological Investigation Levels as published in the NEPM (Reference 7) Highly modified ecosystems - levels approved by the Authority Human Health Must not be greater than: 0 The investigation level specified in the NEPM (Reference 7) 0 Levels derived using a risk assessment in accordance with the NEPM (Reference 7) 0 Levels approved by the Authority Buildings and Contamination must not cause the land to be corrosive to or adversely Structures affect the integrity of structures or building materials (specific chemical parameters include pH, sulfate, Redox potential and salinity) Aesthetics Contamination must not cause the land to be offensive to the senses of human beings ~ Food, Flora and Contamination of land must not: Fibre Adversely affect the produce quality or yield; and Affect the level of any indicator in food, flora or fibre produced at the site such that the level of the indicator is greater than that specified by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, Food Standards Code. Golder Associates June 2004 -19- 0 16 13 5 21 10 0 2 Based on the objectives of the SEPP (Reference 3) screening criteria for soils, as shown in Table 7, have been adopted to be protective of any beneficial use on the following basis. The lowest criterion from either NEPM HIL A’ or NEPM EIL (Reference 7, Table 5-A, Schedule B(1)) has been adopted. Where no criterion is available for a particular contaminant, ANZECC (Reference 10) or other guidelines have been consulted. Criteria for sensitive use taken from NSW EPA Service Station Guidelines (Reference 16) have been adopted for total petroleum hydrocarbons and monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. - Table 7: Soil Screening Criteria for Any Beneficial Use Arsenic 20 NEPM 10 50 Boron 3000 NEPM 1500 6500 Barium 300 NEPM 150 650 Cadmium 3 NEPM 1.5 7.5 I Chromium I . 400 I NEPM I 200 I 1,000 I Cobalt , 100 I NEPM I 50 250 Copper 100 NEPM 50 250 Manganese 500 NEPM 250 1,250 Mercury 1 NEPM 0.5 2.5 I Nickel I 60 I NEPM I 30 I 150 I Lead 300 NEPM 150 750 Zinc , 200 NEPM 100 500 Sulphate 2000 NEPM 1000 5000 TPH C&, 65 NSW SS 33 163 TPH C,,-C3, 1000 NSW SS 500 2500 Benzene 1 NSW SS 0.5 2.5 I Toluene I 1.4 I NSWSS I 0.7 I 3.5 I Ethylbenzene 3.1 NSW SS 1.6 7.8 Xylene 14 NSW SS 7 35 Benzo(a)wrene 1 NEPM 0.5 2.5 ~ Total PAH ~ -1 20 I NEPM I 10 I 50 I Individual 0.2 ANZECC 0.2 0.5 Pesticides I Health investigation level - “Standard” residential settings with garden / accessible soil (homegrown produce contributing less than 10% of vegetable and fait intake; no poultry). Golder Associates June 2004 -20- 01 613521/002 In addition, the soil should be free of all waste, objectionable odours and visually unacceptable materials. Specific criteria for protection of the beneficial uses of Buildings and Structures and Food Flora and Fibre have not been established gven that: 0- There are no known adverse chemical conditions in soil in the area that would impact on buildings and structures and the extent of contamination observed at the site is not at concentrations that could adversely impact on buildings and structures. There are no known adverse chemical conditions in soil in the area that would impact on food, flora and fibre and the extent of contamination observed at the site is not at concentrations that would be expected to adversely impact on production of food, flora and fibre. Application of Screening Criteria The screening criteria have been applied in accordance with the requirements of the NEPM (Reference 7). The arithmetic mean of the data set for each contaminant has been compared directly against the screening criteria. However, to consider the potential for localised elevated concentrations which could be masked by the mean, other ,criteria also apply. The standard deviation of the data set must be less than 50% of the screening criteria and no single result must exceed 250% of the screening criteria. Soil Screening Criteria for Average or Exposure Concentrations In accordance with the NEPM (Reference 7), exposure concentrations have been taken as the average concentrations within the natural soils over the site (ie fill material has not been considered since all fill material is reported to have been removed from the site during remediation activities). Therefore, the relevant domain of interest is the natural soil profile. Within the domain it is necessary to limit both the average concentrations, standard deviations and maximum individual sample concentration levels to demonstrate that the soils are suitable for the issue of a Certificate. A summary of the soil exposure concentrations for natural soil calculated from data collected by Beveridge Williams is shown in Table 8. Full tables of data are presented in Table 17 of Beveridge Williams Contamination Assessment and Soil Validation report contained within Appendix C. Table 8 contains a summary of results for metals (12), sulphate, total petroleum hydrocarbons, monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzo(a)pyrene, total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and individual organochlorine pesticides. Analyses for other contaminants were generally low or below the laboratory reporting limits. Table 8 incorporates the results obtained from three samples of the 150 m3 of imported soil brought onto the site for the landscaped areas of the development. The samples were analysed for a broad screen of contaminants. TPH (C,5-C36)and phenols were reported at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits in the imported fill samples, however the concentrations were below the assessment criteria. Concentrations of the other analytes tested were either below the assessment criteria or laboratory reporting limits. Golder Associates June 2004 -- o 16I 3 5211~002 Tablc S: Suiiimary of Statistical Data for Ilcniaiiiing Soil ~ ~- Arsenic 35 8 21 24 20 6.7 25 15 10 3.4 100 57 50 16.7 Boron 24 8 17 9 3000 1000 31 8 1500 500 160 26 6500 2500 Barium 27 8 47 52 300 100 43 66 150 50 190 210 750 250 Cadmium 27 8 c0.2 0.2 3 1 0.00 0.03 1.5 0.5 C0.2 , 0.3 7.5 2.5 Chromium 29 8 29 36 400 133 20 19 200 67 73 76 1000 333 Cobalt 27 8 5.7 5.9 100 33 1.4 1.2 50 17 10 8 250 83 Copper 30 8 11 13 100 33 10 15 50 16.7 50 48 250 83 Manganese 24 8 34 35 500 167 33 19 250 83 170 68 1250 41 7 Mercury 27 8 0.06 0.05 1 0.33 0.04 0.00 0.5 0.17 0.24 0.05 2.5 0.83 Nickel 27 8 8.9 7.3 60 20 7.5 3.7 30 10 37 14 150 50 Lead 27 8 18 19 300 100 15 19 150 50 61 65 750 250 Zinc 28 8 26 12 200 67 46 11 100 33 230 37 500 167 Sulphate’ 1 8 10 144 2000 667 324 333 10 940 5000 1667 TPH C6Gg 18 0 c20 65 0.0 33 c20 163 TPH CIO-C~G 18 0 181 1000 157 500 690 2500 Benzene 17 0 c0.5 1 0.0 0.5 c0.5 2.5 Toluene 17 0 c0.5 1.4 0.0 0.7 c0.5 3.5 Ethylbenzene 17 0 c0.5 3.1 0.0 1.6 c0.5 7.8 Xylene 17 . 0 c0.5 14 0.0 7 <0.5 35 Benzo(a) 15 8 co.1 co.1 1 0.33 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.17 Total PAHs 15 8 c1 Golder Associates June 2004 -22- 016 13521/002 The Average Screening Criteria was exceeded by arsenic (individual and composite). The estimated. standard deviations for the mean Concentrations of arsenic (individual and composite) and barium (composite) exceeded the Standard Deviation Screening Criteria. The maximum individual results for arsenic (individual and composite) exceeded the Maximum Individual Screening Criteria. 6.2 Risk from Exposure to Contaminated Soils at the Site The screening criteria have been applied in accordance with the requirements of the NEPM (Reference 7). (For comprehensive tabulation of results, refer to the assessment report contained within Appendix C) The arithmetic mean of the data set for each contaminant has been compared directly against the screening criteria. However, to consider the potential for localised elevated concentrations which could be masked by the mean, other criteria also apply. The standard deviation of the data set must be less than 50% of the screening criteria and no single result must exceed 250% of the screening criteria. For the chemicals of interest at the site, the average arsenic concentration is above the Average Screening Criteria. The maximum concentration of arsenic also exceeds the Maximum Individual Screening Criteria. The Standard Deviation Screening Criteria was exceeded by arsenic samples. The modified Standard Deviation Screening Criteria was exceeded by barium for composite samples however the standard deviation concentration of boron in individual samples was below the Standard Deviation Screening criteria, indicating that boron concentrations at the site are below the screening criteria. The concentrations of arsenic are likely to have resulted from natural enrichment within the Brighton Group (Red Bluff) Sands underlying the site. Elevated arsenic concentrations were reported for different locations spread around the site, and there is no discernible trend relating the elevated arsenic concentrations to possible contamination sources. Given that the arsenic concentrations are believed to be representative of background conditions, the ecological risks at the site are considered to be acceptable. The maximum arsenic concentration reported for the site of 100 mgkg is equal to the NEPM HE A guideline for arsenic, ,which is appropriate for residential properties with accessible soil. The maximum arsenic concentration reported for the site of 100 mgkg is significantly below the NEPM D guideline for arsenic of 400 mg/L, which is appropriate for residential properties with minimal opportunities for soil access, such as high rise apartments and flats. Given that the NEPM HLL A guideline has not been exceeded at the site, the human health risks associated with soils at the site are considered to be acceptable. The pH concentrations reported for the remaining soils ranged from 5.8-8.5 pH units. The maximum sulphate concentration was reported as 940 mg/kg (reported for a composite). Based upon these concentrations, the Australian Standard AS2150-1995 “Piling - Design and Installation” (Reference 20) indicates that the remaining soils at the site should be “non- aggressive” towards sub-surface structures. The human health and environmental risk associated with the residual chemicals in thefill at I this site are considered to be acceptable given the intended high density residential use. I Golder Associates June 2004 -23- 0 16 13521/002 6.3 Issue of a Certificate or Statement This Section discusses whether the condition of soils at the site merits a Certificate of Environmental Audit. As indicated in Section 1, the conditions of both soil and groundwater must merit a Certificate for one to be issued. Refer to Section 7 for discussion of groundwater conditions. The concentrations of all chemicals of interest are below the screening criteria with the exception of arsenic and barium. The arsenic and barium concentrations at the site are believed to be indicative of background conditions and are not believed to represent a human health or ecological risk. The condition of soils at the site merits a Certificate of Environmental Audit. The soils at the site are judged to have not and are not polluting another segment of the environment. 7. EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER The potential for contamination of groundwater at the site was considered during the Audit by reviewing former site activities and the assessed condition of groundwater via one groundwater monitoring wells installed at the site. No indications of groundwater contamination, such as the presence of underground storage tanks were identified on the site. Past land use suggested little potentially contaminating activity and concentrations of contaminants in imported fill were not sufficiently high to be mobile. The Auditor was satisfied that the groundwater at the site was unlikely to be contaminated by activities associated with the use of the land. However, the occurrence of a service station due north of the site raised concern about the possibility of groundwater contamination from an off-site source. Examination of the Environmental Audit Report for the site located at 21 to 23 Prospect Hill Road did not provide the Auditor with confidence that groundwater under the service station was unlikely to be contaminated. Thus the Auditor requested a groundwater well to be installed on the ~orthwest corner of the site subject io this Audit. The location of the well was chosen on the basis that groundwater flow was likely to be south or south west and thus the most likely area of impact, if any, was the north west comer of the site. Only one well was considered necessary given that the only issue for the Auditor was to prove that the subject site was unlikely to be contaminated rather than to assess the nature and extent of contamination that might result from the site at 21 to 23 Prospect Hill Road. 7.1 Screening Criteria for Groundwater Based on the SEPP “Groundwaters of Victoria’’ (Reference 4), the results of this investigation indicate that groundwater at the site is likely to be Segment C, as groundwater in the monitoring well was reported as having a TDS of 6800 mgL. All potential beneficial uses of this segment must be protected. The protected beneficial uses are discussed below: Golder Associates June 2004 -24- 01613521/002 Protection of Ecosystems in the Yarra Catchment. The SEPP Groundwaters of Victoria reference the relevant SEPP for surface waters, which in this case is the SEPP “Waters of Victoria” (Reference 5). This SEPP stipulates that Schedule F7 “Waters of the Yarra Catchment” applies and classifies the ecosystems in the Yarra Catchment, where the groundwater from the site is likely to discharge, as a ‘highly modified ecosystem with some habitat values’. The SEPP Waters of Victoria states that where the ANZECC Guidelines has been referenced in Schedule F7 the 2000 version of the Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters (AWQG) (Reference 17) needs to be used and the level of ecosystem protection that needs to be used to determine the objective is 90% for “highly” or “largely modified” aquatic ecosystems. As groundwater from the site is likely to enter the Yarra River downstream of Dights Falls, both freshwater and marine ecosystem protection values have been used, as it is not certain whether the Yarra hver is a marine or a freshwater aquatic ecosystem at the point of discharge. Protection of Agricultural Water Supply for Stock Watering. The SEPP Groundwaters of Victoria refers to those criteria specified for livestock in the 1992 AWQG (Reference 18). Protection of Primary Contact Recreation uses, such as direct interaction with the groundwater in trenches and swimming pools or contact with groundwater that has discharged into the nearby surface waters. The SEPP Groundwaters of Victoria references the ANZECC Recreational Water Guidelines (Reference 18) that basically refer to the ANZECC guideline criteria for raw water for dnnking water purposes for toxicants. Also, both documents state that “higher concentrations of toxicants may be tolerated occasionally if it is assumed that a person will ingest a maximum of 100 mL water during a normal swimming session ... compared with 2 Udfor potable water”. Golder Associates experience is that this equates to an increase in the ANZECC drinhng water criteria of approximately 10 to 20 fold, depending on the contaminant, taking other pathways into account. Where specific criteria were not available in the ANZECC guidelines, criteria for tap water were sourced from the 1996 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (Reference 19). These criteria are also likely to be protective of workers that might be exposed to groundwater that is extracted and used in an industrial setting. Industrial Water Use. The SEPP Groundwaters of Victoria refers to those criteria specified for industrial use in the 1992 AWQG. A range of criteria applicable to various industries is presented in the 1992 AWQG and should be consulted if groundwater use for industrial purposes is considered. Criteria for the beneficial uses of maintenance of ecosystems, stock watering and primary contact recreation have been considered to be protective of the protected beneficial use of industrial water use in this Audit. Buildings and Structures. The SEPP Groundwaters of Victoria states that concentrations of pH, sulphate and redox potential should be considered but does not specify a reference. Therefore, in this report we have referred to AS2159-1995 Piling - Design and Installation (Reference 20). Criteria for the beneficial uses of maintenance of ecosystems, stock watering and primary contact recreation have also been considered to be protective of the protective beneficial use of buildings and structures in this Audit. For this investigation we have compared the groundwater data to four sets of criteria, presented in Table 9, (based upon protection of the beneficial uses of maintenance of ecosystems, stock watering and primary contact recreation), which are protective of the relevant beneficial uses (including building and structures and industrial use) of the groundwater at or emanating from the site: Golder Associates June 2004 -25- 0 16 13521/002 Table 9: Objectives Cited by SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria) Notes: A - the criteria used was the most sensitive criteria for the range of criteria for a variety of livestock. B - Note that chemicals marked (B) are based on low reliability toxicity and should be used with caution D - may not protect key test species from chronic toxicity. E - the values have been calculated using a hardness of 30 mg!L CaC03. H - Based on 1996 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines J - NSW EPA Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites - Value based on odour and aesthetics, due to formation of visible sheen L - Low reliability marine trigger value for arsenic in marine waters ID - insufficient data to derive a reliable trigger value. 7.2 Groundwater Exposure Concentrations Investigation of groundwater at the site has been reported in “Groundwater Contamination Assessment, 14-1 8 Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street, Camberwell” June 2004 prepared by Beveridge Williams (Reference 22). Analytical results are presented in Table 15 of that report. The results reported for the Beveridge Williams’ groundwater investigation have been compared against the screening criteria for groundwater. Table 10 presents a summary of the groundwater criteria exceedences. Golder Associates June 2004 -26- 01613521/002 - Table 10: Summary of Groundwater Criteria Exceedances I Cobalt I Ecosystem Protection (Marine) - 0.014 I 0.08 I Ecosystem Protection (Marine) - 0.03 Copper 0.01 1 Ecosystem Protection (Aquatic) - 0.0018 Manganese Primary Contact Recreation - 0.1 1.4 Ecosystem Protection (Aquatic) - 0.0 13 Nickel 0.11 Primary Contact Recreation - 0.1 Ecosystem Protection (Marine) - 0.023 Zinc 1.5 Ecosystem Protection (Aquatic) - 0.015 Criteria exceedences were variously noted for the metals cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel and lead. Concentrations of 0.04 mg/L of TPH C,,-C,,, 0.001 mg/L of benzene and 0.001 mg/L of toluene were reported in the well. The secondary laboratory, ALS, reported 0.136 mg/L of TPH C,5-C28. These concentrations are below the assessment criteria but suggest that the service station at 21 to 23 Prospect Hill Road may have had some impact on groundwater quality in the area but is unlikely to be impacting the site which is the subject of this Audit. 7.3 Risks from Exposure to Contaminated Groundwater at the Site The results of the groundwater assessment indicated concentrations of various metals above the protected beneficial use criteria. The concentrations of manganese and nickel are not considered to preclude the beneficial use of Primary Contact Recreation, as the criteria that were used were based upon raw drinlung criteria and are considered to be conservative. The metals concentrations are below or within the 10 to 20 fold increase in criteria concentrations that is considered suitable when applying the raw drinlung water criteria for recreational purposes based on the oral intake exposure route. As the ecosystem protection criteria are applicable at the point of discharge which is likely to be the Yarra River, some 2.7 km to the west, the concentrations of the metals are unlikely to be elevated above the ecosystem support criteria at that point due to dilution and dispersion of these compounds as they move through the soil or rock environment. The concentrations of TPH, benzene and toluene that were reported in the groundwater sample do not preclude the relevant beneficial uses of groundwater. The pH of the groundwater was reported as being 5.8 pH units. According to the Australian Standard 2159-1995 “Piling - Design and Installation” (Reference 20) subsurface conditions may be “mild” towards subsurface structures should they encounter groundwater. Golder Associates June 2004 -27- 0161 3521/002 7.4 Issue of a Certificate or Statement Based on the absence of groundwater pollution, a Certijcate of Environmental Audit can be issued for groundwater on the site. r, This report has been prepared by Mr Roger Parker of Golder Associates Pty Ltd and relates to an environmental audit ofthe site located at 14-18 Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street, Cambenvell. This Environmental Audit relates only to the land shown as Certificates of Title Volume 102SO Folio 735, Volume 4268 Folio 562, Volume 3700 Folio 920 and Volume 10329 Folio 090. The assessment and confirmatory validation procedures provided an acceptable coverage of the site and potential areas that could have been affected by contamination sources. The range of chemicals analysed was suitable to reflect the potential contaminants. The sampling frequency was sufficient for characterisation of contamination on the site and the sampling procedures were considered appropriate. QNQC data confirmed the reliability of the chemical results. The results of chemical analyses indicated that the natural materials on the site have arsenic concentrations above the Screening Criteria but within a range judged by the Auditor to be background. Following removal of fill from the site and validation, residual soil at the site was judged to be suitable to permit all relevant beneficial uses. Groundwater was considered unlikely to be contaminated as a result of the former activities on the site. However, the Auditor required that one groundwater well be installed on the expected up-gradient side of the site to assess if contamination from the former service station at 21 to 23 Prospect Hill Road may have impacted the site. Groundwater in the installed well was not found to be polluted with respect to the relevant groundwater segment. Based on the findings of the work undertaken by Beveridge Williams and the outcome of this Environmental Audit, a Certificate of Environmental Audit has been issued and is attached and forms part of this report. No c.onclusion is made about whether soil from this site would comply with EPA requirements for off-site disposal or use. Compliance with these requirements is the responsibility of the site’s owners or occupiers. Golder Associates June 2004 -28- 0161352 1/002 9. LIMITATIONS This report represents a review of certain information relating to the subject site located at 14- 18 Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street, Cambenvell, Victoria (as shown in Figure I), that was obtained from the sources and contacts noted by methods described in this report. Golder Associates and the Auditor have used reasonable care to: 0 avoid reliance upon data and information that is inaccurate; and confirm that the data and information on which the Auditor has relied in forming an opinion regarding the condition of the site constitute an adequate basis for forming that opinion. However, Golder Associates and the Auditor were not able to verify the accuracy or completeness of all data and information available to Golder Associates and the Auditor. Our conclusions presented herein are based on the information available to us during our audit, and some of those conclusions could be different if the information upon which they are based is determined to be false, inaccurate, or incomplete. Golder Associates and the Auditor makes no legal representations whatsoever concerning any matter including, but not limited to, ownership of any property or the interpretation of any law. Golder Associates and the Auditor hrther disclaim any obligations to update the report for events talung place after the time during which we conducted our audit. R J Parker of Golder Associates Pty Ltd Environmental Auditor (appointed pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970) Term of Appointment: To 1 February 2008 Golder Associates June 2004 -29- 0161352 1/002 10. REFERENCES Reference 1 Environment Protection Authority, Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certzjkates and Statenzents of Environmental Audit, May 2001. Reference 2 Environment Protection Authority, Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Appointment Guidelines, March 1997. Reference 3 Environment Protection Authority, State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), Government Gazette, Victoria, June 2002. Reference 4 Environment Protection Policy, State Environment Protection Authority (Groundwaters of Victoria), Government Gazette, Victoria, December 1997. Reference 5 Environment Protection Policy, State Environment Protection Authority (Waters of Victoria), Government Gazette, Victoria, June. 2003. Reference 6 Environment Protection Authority, Industrial Waste Management Policy (Prescribed Industrial Waste), Government Gazette, Victoria, December 2000. Reference 7 National Environment Protection Council National Environment Protection Measure (Assessment of Site Contamination), 1999. Reference 8 Minister’s Direction No. 1 - Potentially Contaminated Land, 14 May 1992. Reference 9 Environment Protection Authority, Potentially Contaminated Land Uses (IB 472), July 1995. Reference 10 Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council / National Health and Medical Research Council Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, 1992. Reference 11 Australian Standard 4482.1 Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil, Part I: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds, 1997. Reference 12 Australian Standard 4482.2 Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil, Part 2: Volatile compounds, 1999. Reference 13 Environment Protection Authority, Guide to the Sampling and Analysis of Wafers, Wasfewaters,Soils and Wastes (Publication 441), 2000. Golder Associates June 2004 -30- 0 16135211002 Reference 14 Environment Protection Authority, Groundwater Sampling Guidelines (Publication 669), 2000. Reference 15 Environment Protection Authority, Management of Waste Contaminated Soil and Low Level Contaminated Soil (Publication 626), 1998. Reference 16 NSW Environment Protection Authority, Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites, 1994. Reference 17 Australian and New Zealand Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. National Water Quality Monitoring Strategy, October 2000. Reference 18 Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Australian Water Quality Guidelinesfor Fresh and Marine Waters,November 1992. Reference 19 NHMRC and ARMCANZ National Health and Medical Research Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. National Water Quality Monitoring Strategy. Commonwealth of Australia, 1996. Reference 20 Australian Standard 2159 Piling - Design and Installation, 1995. Reference 21 Beveridge Williams, Contamination Assesssment and Soil Validation, 14-18 Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street, June 2004. Reference 22 Beveridge Williams, Groundwater Contamination Assessment, 14-18 Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street, June 2004. Golder Associates ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970 CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT I, Roger Parker of Golder Associates Pty Ltd a person appointed by the Environment Protection Authority (‘the Authority’) under the Environment Protection Act 1970 (‘the Act’) as an Environmental Auditor for the purposes of the Act, having: 1. been requested by Mr Peter Inge of the Zig Inge Group to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit in relation to the site located at 14-18 prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street, Camberwell defined as Certificates of Title Volume 10280 Folio 735, Volume 4268 Folio 562, Volume 3700 ‘Folio 920 and Volume 10329 Folio 090 (‘the site’) ownedoccupied by the Zig Inge Goup; 2. had regard to, among other things, (i)- guidelines issued by the authority for the purposes of Part IXD of the Act; (ii) the beneficial uses that may be made of the site, and (iii) relevant State Environment Protection Policies / Industrial Waste Management Policies, namely SEPP (Waters of Victoria) 2003 SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria) 1997 SEPP (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land) 2002 IWMP (Waste Minimisation) 1990 IWMP (Prescribed Industrial Waste) 2000, in making a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of the site by any industrial processes or activity, waste or substance (including any chemical substance), and 3. completed an Environmental Audit Report in accordance with Section 53X of the Act,.a copy of which has been sent to the Authority and the relevant planning and responsible authority. HEREBY CERTIFY that I am of the opinion that the condition of the site is neither detrimental nor potentially detrimental to any beneficial use of the site. Other related information Off-site disposal of soil must be undertaken in accordance with relevant EPA Regulations and Guidelines (EWPA Bulletin 448). Part of and to be read Golder Associates Page 1 of2 in conjunction with Golder Associates Report Reference 01613521/002 This Certificate forms part of Environmental Audit Report (Golder Associates Pty Ltd, Statutory Environmental Audit, 14-18 Prospect Hill Road and 3 Station Street, Camberwell, Report Number 01613521/002, June 2004). Further details regarding the condition of the site may be found in the Environmental Audit Report. Signed ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITOR Part of and to be read Golder Associates Page 2 of2 in conjunction with Golder Associates Report Reference 0 I6 13.521/002 I I( Ill I 45567-1 I I -A Ill I FIGURES Golder Associates i I -- LEGEND: SITE BOUNDARY AND 0 10 20 30 40 SOm SITE LOCATION 1:lOOO DRAWING TAKEN FROM BEVERIDGE WILLIAMS & CO PTY LTD, DRAWING NO: 08869 FIGURE 1 I SOQURwmDROAD T-(m)M(nlsoo =LE PROXI m HAwTHoIwvC31P kclhll(m)~ssOl 1:lOoo A4 01613521/F01 I FIGURE 1 LEGEND: - SITE BOUNDARY @BHOl-l DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BOREHOLE XTP02-20 DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PITS 0 S 10 15 20 ZSm +BH04-GW' DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GROUNDWATER BORE 1:soo 1 - - - - - d aRyT PROJfCl ZIG INGE GROUP ENVlRON MENTAL AUDIT mum nm RW 17.06.04 SITE PLAN INDICATING BOREHOLE AND (Wbh TEST PIT SAMPLE LOCATIONS M- pd SoBuRWmoRMD rartmoe=a.?sa YALE PROJfCT lb HAWlMoRllMrJlP F-(m)San= 1:500 A4 016135211F02 I FIGURE 2 LEGEND: SITE BOUNDARY e WALL SAMPLE X FLOOR SAMPLE 0 5 10 15 20 25m 1:500 DRAWING TAKEN FROM BEVERIDGE WILLIAMS & CO PTY LTD, DRAWING NO: 08869 FIGURE 3 APPENDIX A Certificate of Title Golder Associates Legalco Online Information System WLTO- ALTS & Imaaed TlUe. Plan. Survey Regort and Instrumen PCS-CERTIFICATE-VIEW for titles Footec [Register Search Statement] # 2448504 - 2968558104029 '18074659' Copyright State of Victoria. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act or pursuant to a written agreement. The information from the Register of Land is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. The State of Victoria accepts no responsibility for any subsequent releaee, publication or reproduction of the information. REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT Land victoria Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 3126761. PARENT TIYLES : Volume 02103 Polio 436 . volume 07991 Folio 066 created by instrument PS312676A 29/05/1996 REGISTERED PROPRIETOR Estate Fee Simple Sole Proprietor ZIG INGE RETIREMENT VILLRGES (CAMBERMELL) PTY LTD of 35 WHITEHORSE ROAD DEBPDENE 3103 V092839P 15/02/1999 ENCUMBRANCES, NOTICES -_------_-_____------CnVEATS AND MORTGAGE vs92mow 15/02/1999 AUSTRALIA p;ND NEW ZFALAND aANKlNCI GROUP LIMITED Any encumbrances created by Section 98 Tranefer of Land Act 1958 or Section 24 SubdZvision Act 1988 and any other encumbrances shown or entered on the plan set out under DIAGRAM MtA1ION below. AGRE- Section 173 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 V995009A 16/04/1999 AGREEMEXC Section 173 Planning and Environment Act 1987 ABI~~~BRDoa/o4/2002 NOTICE Section 9(l)(a) Retirgment Villages Act 1986 AB204049C 10/04/2002 NIL STA-T END http://wuw.legalco.corn.au/index.cgi?J68 9RT 1 odGxkaW 1~ZW~XJ~~EPW~~~~ZPUF.. . 24/09/2003 19/05 '04 WED l0:OS [TX/RX NO 75791 @I013 13 @I014/015 6/0_5-L!%A!??i(1A.WU IT8~~ls3uy~,~~~,~~~~~3)L""J 1u.u:HERBERT rage I LII GEERL RUNDLE JSTate of Victoria.. This publicationis copyrighL No pan may be reproduced by eny process except In accordance wieh heprovisions of me Cm-ghrAct d pursuant to a rmtten agreement.The mbrrnanon fmm tm Register or Land Is ortlyvalid at the cime end in the form obtained hmthe LANOATAD +Sern. The Stet@of Victoria accepts no.nsponsibifity for ary subsequent release. publication or reproduction of the infomuan. ps 312676A PROSPECT HILL ROAD north 89O20' . 39.23 1 n vrm 1 582 ml -a s. TJ m il '?r . 2 335 mZ 39.23 I 269O20' .... 19/05 '04 WED 10:08 [TX/RX NO 75791 @lo14 RECORD OF -4LL .4I)DJXTONS OR CE4WGES IPS 312676A 1 TO TEE PLiN LAhD MODEC4TION ’ LOT 2 I ,CONSOLIDATION - LOT 1 RESERVATION OF EASEMENT Lor I I CU€AT\ON OF EPSGMENT I I- (0 \ 0 ul I 0 IP aW L 1 I- I ..O 0 Q) I I 1 I i I I 3 I I I -l ul -l (0 I I u I 1I 0 I I I-L 1- cn --- - I \ I 1. I. 1 i I I 1 3/05 '04 10:09 FAX 81 3 9800 4412 HERBERT GEER & RUNDLE 002/015 VIC LTO - ALTS & Imaged Title, Plan, Survey Repod and Instrumen Page ofL Legalco Online Information System VIC LTO - ALTS i% lmaaed Title. Plan. Survev ReDOrt and lnshurneq PCS-CERTIFICATE-VIEW for titles Footer: [Register Search Statement] k 2442565 - 2961809151205 '16018732' Copyright state of Victoria. This publication is copyright - No part may be reproduced by any procesi3 except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act or pursuant to a written agreement. The information from the Register of Land is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. The State of Victoria accepts ne responaibility for any eubsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information. Lot 1 on Title Plan 6934305 (formerly know as part of Portion 115 AT CAMBERWELL Parish of Boroondara). PARENT TITLE Volume 03678 Folio 529 Created by instrument 912915 27/11/1919 REGISTERED...... PROPRIETOR Estate Fee Simple Sole Propriecor ZIG INGE WTIREKENT VILLAGES(CAMBERWEL1L) PTY LTD Of 35 WHITEHORSE ROAD DEEPEND 3103 VB 9283 6C3 15/02/1999 ENCUMBRANCES,_--_____--__---_-_------CAVEATS AND NOTICES MORTGAGE VR92840W 15/02/1999 AUSTRAGIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED Any encumbrances created by Section 98 Transfer of Land Act 1958 or Section 24 Subdivision Act 1968 and any other encumbrances shown or entered on the plan set out under DIAGRAH LOCATION below. AGREEMENT Section 173 Planning and Environmenc Act 1987 AB1998BBD 08/04/2002 NOTICE Section 9(1) (a) Retirement Villages Act 1986 AB204049C 10/04/2002 NIL STATEMENT END http ://www. Iegalco .corn. adindex .cgi?Qh.k9RT1 odGxkaW 1 nZW5 xJklEP Wxj byZPUF..- 22/09/2003 19/05 '04 WED 10:06 [TX/RX NO 75791 @I002 9/05 ‘03 10: 09 .FA_X.sl-,a_,Q-~P_o4~1,4,t2_____ .-.@?%~~T-.GEER tk @l003/015 0 State of Vidoria. This publiceb’on is copyrirn. No wt me9 be reproduced by any prcceSs except in accordance with tt10 provisions of the Copytight c\d or ~clmmttoa mitten agreement The infarmadon from the Register of Land is only -lid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATM System. The State of Victoria ewpk no responslBJllty lor any subsequent release. pubticarion or reproduction of me infarmstian. TITLE PLAN EDITION 1 TP 699430J Nololions . Laatton of Lend I Pariah: AT CAMBERWELL PARWOF BOROONCLARA rm&ip: Sen: tfhmALbbnmt CmwnPorUat 115(- LaszFLpn ~dof~m: Derfred From: VOL 4288 FOL5B2 DcpS Limiradoa: NIL ANV REFERENCE TO W.Mp IN THE TEXT MEANS THE DIAGRAM SHOWN ON . THISTITLEPLAN FOR TUE LhND REQIETRY. WO VlCTORlR. FOR TlTLE DIAOWM PURPOSES AS P&T OF THE LAND TITLES AUTOMATION PROJECT E:oL .OUR. CODE 1‘=YELL OW RURE.D 19/05 ‘04 WED lO:Ot? [TX/RX NO 75791 @003 004/015 yage? or 3 Legalco.Online Information System VIC LTO - ALTS 8 lmaaed Title. Plan. Sulvev Report and Instrumen PCS-CERTIFICATEVIEW for titles Footer: (Register Search Statement] # 2442820 - 296Z06155615 '16021 326' Copyright State of Victoria. Thi6 publication is copyright. No parc may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act or pursuant co a written agreernene. The information from the Register of Land is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANIlATA RE- R.l. System. The State of Victoria accepte no reepomibility for any subsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information. WGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT Land Victoria ------__-__I____------Security no : 124007510619M VolUne 03700 Folio 920 J Produced 22/09/2C03 03:56 pm LAND------DESCRIPTION Lor 1 on Title Plan 42189SQ (formerly known as part of Portion 115 Parish of Boroondata) - PmENT TITLE Volume 02386 Folio 100 Created by instrument 0208148 25/06/1976 REGISTERED PROPRIETOR ...... EBtate Fee Simple Sole Proprietor ZIG INGE RETIRFNfZNT VILLAGES (CAMBERWELL) PTY LTD of 35 WHITEHORSE ROAD DEEPDENE 3103 VE92837D 15/02/1999 ENCUMBFSNCES,______------_-___-_------CAVEATS AND NOTICES MORTGAGE VB92840P 15/02/1999 AUSrrWTA AND NEW ZEIUAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED CAVEAT AB753346F 12/12/2002 Caveator -. CITIPOWER PTY Capacity SEE CAVEAT Lodged by CITIPOWER LIMITED Notices to CITIPOWER PTY of LEVEL 15 624 BOURKE STFSET MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Any encumbrances created by Section 98 Transfer of Land Act 1958 or Seekion 24 Subdivision Act 1988 and any other encumbrance6 shown or entered on the plan set: out under DIAGRAm LOCATION below. AGREEMENT Section 173 Planning and Environment Act 1987 V995007G 16/04/1399 AGREEMENT Section 173 Planning and Environment Act 1987 AB199888D 08/Q4/2002 NOTICE Section 9(1) (a) Retirement Villages Acc 1986 AB204049C 10/04/2002 D1AGJW-M LOCATION c------__-_ SEE DIAGRAlYl ON IMAGED FOLrO VOLUME 3700 FOLIO 920 FOR FUR?HER DETAILS AND BOUNDARIES http://www.legalco.com.au/index-cgi?ZlM9RTI odGxkaW1 nZ WSxJkIEP WxjbyZPUF... 22/09/2003 19/05 '04 WED 10:OS [TX/RX NO 75791 a004 @005/015 rage L ot 3 http://wvw.legalco.com.au/index.cgi?ZlM9RTlodGxkaW 1nZW5xTklEP WxjbyZPUF.. - 22/09/2003 19/05 '04 WED 10308 [TX/RX NO 75791 @I005 8/05 '04 l0:ll FAX 61 3 9600 4412 RERBERT GEER & RUNDLE @006/015 p-=-r I u'- -9' Y 19/05 '04 WED 10:06 [TX/RX NO 75791 @I006 /05 '04 10:12 FAX 61 3 9600 4412 HERBERT GEER & RUNDLE @l007/015 J -_ -.y. i*- . - ,..- - . *. . , ._ . .- - .- . . . _. -.. , *.. . r. ... ' . ._...... -...... 19/05 '04 WED 1O:OS [TX/RX NO 75791 @I007 '. #" ... , _- PROSPECT HILL ROAD -. GU *. -. . _. ... ._ 19/05 '04 WED 10:06 [TX/RX NO 75791 @IO08 9009/015 Page of2 Legalco Online Information System VIC LTO - ALTS B lrnaaed Title. PJan. Survev Report and Instrumen PCS-CERTIFICATE-VIEW for titles Fooler: [Register Search Statement] # 2444436 - 2963810104435 '16038086' Copyrighr State of Victoria. This publication ie copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provieions of the Copyright Ace or pureuant to a written agreement. The information from the Register of Land is only valid at the time and in the form obtained from the LANDATA REGD TM System. The State of Victoria accept6 no responsibility for any Eubsequent release, publication or reproduction of the information. REGISTER SEARCH STATEMENT Land Victoria __----______-r_------Security no : 124007518960V Volume 10329 Folio 090 / Produced 23/09/2003 10:44 am LAND DESCRIPTION Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 4063045. PARENT TITLE Volume 03777 Polio 351 Creaked by instrument PS406304S 22/05/1997 REGISTERED PROPRIETOR Eetate Fee simple Sole Proprietor ZIG INGE IEETIREMENT VILLAGES (CAMBERWELL) PTY LTD of 35 FJHITGHORSE ROAD DEEPDENE 3103 V092830A 25/02/1999 ENCUMBRANCES, CkVEATS AND NOTICES ----__-----__I______------MORTGAGE VB92840W lS/02/1999 AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEAIAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED Any encumbrances created by Section 98 Transfer of Land Act 1958 or Seccion 24 Subdivision Act 1988 and any ocher encumbrances shown or entered on the plan set out under DIAGRAM LOCATION below. AGREEMENT Section 173 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 V995008D 16/04/1999 AGREENENT Section 173 Planning and Environment Act 1987 AB~~Y~~EIDoa/04/2002 NOTICE Section 9(1)(a) Retirement Villages Act 1986 AB204049C 10/04/2002 DIAGX4M LOCATION ------SEE PS406304S FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND BOUNDARIES NIL STATEMENT END http://uww. legalco.com.au/index.cgi?OIk9RT 1odGxkaW 1nZWSdklEPWxj byZPUF.. . 23/09/2003 19/05 '04 WED 10:OB [TX/RX NO 75791 a009 RERBERT GEER .% RUNDLE a 010/015 !L.!?% .'lyq~,I~l?li~B~"~~u~~~?py!i$!!i~p%~%'~ay De reproduced by any process wepl in accordance I*ith the pmisions ofthe CopyrighAr;r Dr want to a miaen agreement.The informan'on horn the Register of Land is only Mild m hetime and in the form obtained from the VINOATW mm.The Sbte idoria accepts no responsibilii fnr any subsequent release. p_ub!li&nor ~e~roducdond the infnmation. 'Stage No. LTO use only Plan Number PLAN OF SUBDIVISION EDITION 3: PS 406304s 1 Under Section 3SW of the Subbirlslon Acf 1988 . I-/ I I Lacatlon of Land Counoll Certlflcatlon and End orsament Parlrhr BOROONDARA Council Noma: BOROONOARA Crfl COuflCL Raft fornrhlp: A. TMa le a pbn ieetlm 3518 ~rrneSubaivlrlon ACI 1988 mien aoae Section: Croat. any addlllunnd lots. Crown Aliotmont: 8. plan Ir st.mpt rrm Pqrl J of UI srrbdlcL.lbn Act mm. C?QUn Portlonr 115 LTO baee recprdi CHART 111 0. It It crrltflid amdw mctlon 4 of cho SllDdlvisios Aci 1988. iltle References: Yoi s777 Fol 351 Last Plun Reference: Postal Addrams: 18 PROSPECT HLL ROAD CAMBERWELL AMG Co-ordhatecl N 5 811 250 Io1 WOL tonka or phl E 329 100 Zone 35 tlons I UD LAHO IS TO BE ACaUIRED ON THE BASIS OF ThIS PLAN. ..- SUr*eyI- lhl~pbn \a 14- b0i.d on .my. .The land belng rubdlvldad h enrloscd rlhh thlclr cmthuous ilnc~. TD hr eomdatd thwr opplkabls. This burvey has bsan connected to perrnamnt marks noCs). MMf3 1932. PSM 145 In proclaimed Surrey Area no,- I Easement Information .. rbtr; @& Lad BonofltodAn fmour 01 2 BOROOnDARa CITY courdcii SEE LAND THIS PLAN DlClG IN 2 19/05 '04 WED 10:06 [TX/RX NO 75791 a010 1/05 ‘04 10:13 FAX 61 3 9600 4412 HERBERT GEER & RUNDLE 011/015 ed by IANDATbB. Land Regisvy timestamp 23ll9r2003 10:45 Page 2 of 3 . 4 1 I 2 1 J 1 4 ! -- 5 6 t I 1’/87rn2 Helller McFarland Lana Surveyors & 70-n P/oM#J I 19/05 ‘04 WED 10:08 [TX/RX NO 75791 @loll w \ 0 *PLAN NUMBER en MODIFICATION TABLE 0 P I- RECORD OF ALL ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE PUN .- I PS406.3045 I ..O I- 0 AFrPmED LAND) PAR=/ 2 w2 LAND/ PAfWR DEALING ASSISTANT tDEHllNER MODIFICATION DATE TIME EDmoN m CREATED REGISTRAR ,I- NUMBER NUMBER OF nnES 0 m LOT 1 E-l RESERVATION OF EASEMENT V 09 20 A Q, 3 0 2 .o 0 P P Lor 1 E-l ~TIO~or: f=hu6MENr 181 I- X 089' 3 h) ! - 'H 3m eP c, B t- I m \ (P 0 en 0 3 la E I- ..O 0 - 0) I 4 en .l m Y @ 0 I- N @ \. 0 0 I- CL h) en APPENDIX B SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS Golder Associates Li -_=------ I II I