INFORMATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS
August 2007
VICTORIA'S AUDIT SYSTEM AUDIT REPORT CURRENCY An environmental audit system has operated in Audit reports are based on the conditions encountered Victoria since 1989. The Environmenf Profecfion Acf and information reviewed at the time of preparation 1970 (the Act) provides for the appointment by the and do not represent any changes that may have Environment Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) of occurred since the date of completion. As it is not environmental auditors and the conduct of possible for an audit to present all data that could be independent, high quality and rigorous environmental of interest to all readers, consideration should be audits. made to any appendices or referenced documentation An environmental audit is an assessment of the for further information. condition of the environment, or the nature and extent When information regarding the condition of a site of harm (or risk of harm) posed by an industrial changes from that at the time an audit report is process or activity, waste, substance or noise. issued, or where an administrative or computation Environmental audit reports are prepared by EPA- error is identified, environmental audit reports, appointed environmental auditors who are highly certificates and statements may be withdrawn or qualified and skilled individuals. amended by an environmental auditor. Users are Under the Act, the function of an environmental advised to check EPA's website to ensure the currency auditor is to conduct environmental audits and of the audit document. prepare environmental audit reports. Where an environmental audit is conducted to determine the PDF SEARCHABILITY AND PRINTING condition of a site or its suitability for certain uses, an environmental auditor may issue either a certificate or EPA Victoria can only certify the accuracy and statement of environmental audit. correctness of the audit report and appendices as presented in the hardcopy format. EPA is not A certificate indicates that the auditor is of the opinion responsible for any issues that arise due to problems that the site is suitable for any beneficial use defined with PDF files or printing. in the Act, whilst a statement indicates that there is some restriction on the use of the site. Except where PDF normal format is specified, PDF files are scanned and optical character recognised by Any individual or organisation may engage appointed machine only. Accordingly, while the images are environmental auditors, who generally operate within consistent with the scanned original, the searchable the environmental consulting sector, to undertake hidden text may contain uncorrected recognition environmental audits. The EPA administers the errors that can reduce search reliability. Therefore, environmental audit system and ensures its ongoing keyword searches undertaken within the document integrity by assessing auditor applications and may not retrieve all references to the queried text. ensuring audits are independent and conducted with regard to guidelines issued by EPA. This PDF has been created using the Adobe-approved method for generating Print Optimised Output. To assure proper results, proofs must be printed, rather AUDIT FILES STRUCTURE than viewed on the screen. Environmental audit reports are stored digitally by This PDF is compatible with Adobe Acrobat Reader EPA in three parts: the audit report (part A), report Version 4.0 or any later version which is downloadable appendices (part B) and, where applicable, the free from Adobe's Website, www.adobe.com. certificate or statement of environmental audit and an executive summary (part C). A report may be in colour FURTHER I N FORMATION and black-and-white formats. Generally, only black- and-white documents are text searchable. For more information on Victoria's environmental Report executive summaries, findings and audit system, visit EPA's website or contact EPA's recommendations should be read and relied upon only Environmental Audit Unit. in the context of the document as a whole, including Web: www.epa.vic.clov.au/envaudit any appendices and, where applicable, any certificate Email: [email protected] or statement of environmental audit.
1 of 300 Appendix B - BHPL (1998) land Status Report
SlNCWR KNIGHT MER2 ME01 286: R1lRAGDG.DOC 31
2 of 300 BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK
Docklands Stadium Land Status Report
December 1998
Direct Interactive Remedial Technology P@. Ltd 3 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.O INTRODUCTION ...... 1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION...... 1 2.1 Site History ...... 1 2.2 Geology ...... 1 2.3 Site Preparation ...... 2 2.4 Substructure Works ...... 2
3.0 SITE ASSESSMENT ...... 3 3.1 Preliminary Assessment ...... 3 3.2 Validation Testing Program ...... 4 3.2.1 Surface Gravel ...... 4 3.3.2 Soil Samples...... 4 3.3.3 Quality Control ...... 6 3.3.4 Groundwater...... 7
4.0 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM ...... 8
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 8
6.0 REFERENCES ...... 8
TABLES
Table 1 - Summary of Validation Testing Program Table 2 - Statistical Summary - Western Area Table 3 - Statistical Summary - Rest of the Site Table 4 - Statistical Summary of Natural Silty Clay Table 5 - Summary of RPD Results for Duplicate Test Results
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Figure 2 - Site Boundaries Figure 3 - Final Surface Levels Prior to Construction Figure 4 - Sampling Locations
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Site History Report Appendix B - Sample Logs Appendix C - North East Stockpile Appendix D - Summary of Analytical Data Appendix E - Information on Offsite Disposal of Soil Appendix F - Groundwater Information Appendix G - Certified Analytical Results
D.I. R. T. /docklands/status report Page i 4 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium
Docklands Stadium Land Status Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd (BHPL) was awarded the contract by the Docklands Authority to construct the new multipurpose sports and entertainment centre at the Docklands. A requirement of the contract is that BHFL obtain an Environmental Audit under Section 57AA of the Environment Protection Act in order to demonstrate that the land is suitable, in an environmental sense, for its intended end use.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located in former rail yards in an area situated between Footscray Road and Spencer Street Station as shown in Figure 1. The boundary of the site for audit purposes is the current lease boundary running outside the structure wall as shown in Figure 2. The boundary is likely to be brought in to the outside wall of the Stadium to allow maximum space for other developers within the precinct’. The site covers a total area of approximately 4.5 hectares with boundaries as shown in Figure 2.
2.1 Site History
A requirement of the general Docklands Environmental Management Plan is that an archaeological investigation be carried out as part of the development of all areas of the Docklands. BHFL commissioned Mr. Gary Vines of the Living Museum of the West to carry out such a study. The program included:
0 background study of the history of the area; 0 a watching brief during initial earthworks on the site; and 0 the preparation of an archaeological assessment report.
The report makes interesting reading and it helps explain the ground conditions encountered during the excavation of the site. The report has been included as Appendix A.
The land on which the Stadium is being constructed is part of a large reclaimed area to the West of the City. The land was reclaimed starting in the mid 1800’s by filling with a variety of materials including silt dredged from the harbour, industrial waste and construction rubble.
Very little archaeological evidence was found during the excavation of the site and it was concluded ,that no further investigation was necessary’.
2.2 Geology
The geotechnical condition of the site was extensively studied by Golder Associates prior to commencement of the project (Reference 1). Excavations during earthworks and pile cap construction generally confirmed the findings of the Golder investigations.
’ It is likely that the same Environmental Auditor will be involved in other developments in the precinct. It was pointed out that the area to the south east once comprising Batman’s Hill was significant and should have an appropriate archaeological assessment.
D. I. R. T. /docklands/status report Page I 5 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium
The site was cleared of track and other surface developments prior to hand over to BHPL. The surface of the site consisted mainly of a layer of up to 1 metre of railway ballast with some areas of bitumen over layers of mixed fill several metres thick. The fill contained significant amounts of foreign material including railway line and sleepers, metal, bricks, concrete, ash, coke, and slag.
The natural soil consists of Quaternary Age deposits mainly comprising silt and silty clay with minor amounts of sandy clay, peat layers, shell beds and sand lenses (Coode Island Silt). The majority of material found during excavation was a dark brown silty clay. The higher levels of silty clay in the south eastern quadrant of the site are consistent with deposition of dredged material in that area of the site.
2.3 Site Preparation
The previous surface of the site consisted of several levels with sharp changes in elevation defined by retaining walls. There was a major retaining wall with a drop of approximately 3 metres running parallel to Footscray Road approximately 30 metres in from the boundary. There were extensive earthworks undertaken to prepare the site for construction. The earthworks included:
0 excavation and disposal of approximately 160,000 m3 (loose) of soil; 0 placing of a geogrid; 0 coverage with approximately 0.4 m of crushed rock; and 0 compaction.
Much of the surface cover consisted of railway ballast that had been removed and stockpiled on site. Approximately 10,000 m3 of fill was selected for structural and contamination qualities and stockpiled in the north east comer of the precinct (outside the lease). The material was kept for possible future use as backfill. Further descriptions of this material are included in Appendix C.
The fmal levels prior to the commencement of construction are shown in Figure 3.
2.4 Substructure Works
Part way through the initial earthworks program, piling began on the site. The overall piling program took about 12 months and consisted of approximately 3200 piles to a depth of 25 to 30 metres. Piling is complete except for some additional work which will be required along the western boundary associated with the main entrance from Footscray Road.
Substructure works which required fkrther excavation included:
0 construction of pile caps; and
0 installation of underground services.
This work required the excavation of small volumes of soil which, in most cases was stockpiled and disposed on a regular basis. A total of approximately 50,000 m3 (loose) of additional soil has been removed as part of the substructure works.
D. I.R. T. /docklands/status report Page 2 6 of 300 BAULD ERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium
At the time of writing of this report the status of the substructure works was:
0 all of the pile caps have been constructed except for the pitch and the western entrance; and installation of underground services is complete except for final tie ins of the stormwater drains to the main line running along Footscray Road (this is actually offsite in the stormwater easement located in the zone marked R1 in Figure 2).
3.0 SITE ASSESSMENT
The assessment of the soil conditions of the site was initiated prior to construction and continued throughout substructure work. The information when taken as a whole (including results from soil remaining onsite from the preliminary investigation) represents a broad coverage of the site and hence the quality of the soil remaining under the Stadium can be determined from the available test results.
3.1 Preliminary Assessment
A preliminary assessment was carried out by Golder Associates prior to awarding the contract for construction of the Stadium. The results of this assessment were made available to the tenderers for the project in a report submitted to Connell Wagner (“Golder Report” - Reference 2). This report, in addition to testing of the soil contains detailed bore logs which give good definition to the types of fill present on the site.
Samples were collected from 114 locations on a 20 metre grid covering the entire Stadium footprint. The testing program included:
0 67 composites of 4 individual samples; 0 29 composites of 3 individual samples; 0 13 composites of 2 individual samples; and 0 5 individual samples.
Full details of the sampling and testing program are included in the Golder Report and are not- reproduced in this report. However we have prepared a useful summary table of analytical results which has been included as Table D1 in Appendix D.
The information from the preliminary assessment was analysed to determine the quality of the soil which required removal from the site. The test results indicated that fill east of the major retaining wall met, on average, EPA FiZZ Material Criteria (Reference 3) with the exception of copper which was marginally above (104 versus 100 mag). The area to the west of the retaining wall was found to be more contaminated with areas of ‘Gas Works’ waste resulting in contamination with polycyclic aromatic (PAH) and petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH).
A statistical analysis of the data on the soil was sent to the EPA. This provided the basis for agreement in which most of the soil was removed from the site as Solid Inert Wuste with some limited areas disposed as Low Level Contaminated Soil (Reference 3). The information provided to the EPA and their response is included in Appendix E
As part of the site validation program the final excavation levels were compared with the levels of samples collected from each of the test pits. The test results for soil samples deemed to be still remaining on site have been isolated from the rest of the data. The “remaining” test results are summarised in Table D2 in Appendix D and the locations shown in Figure 4.
D.I. R. T. /docklands/status report Page 3 7 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium
3.2 Validation Testing Program
A site testing program was undertaken to validate the status of the soil at the site. The program consisted of the collection of samples of:
0 surface gravel; subsurface soil from pilecap locations as they were being dug out; soil from service trenches; and subsurface samples from backhoe pits dug specifically for testing purposes.
The overall total for the validation program was 12 gravel samples from surface locations and 181 subsurface soil samples from 103 locations. Testing of the samples focused on the analytes found in high concentrations in the Golder preliminary assessment. The overall testing program is summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 - Summary of Validation Testing Program
I I I ComDosites of: I Analyte Group Individual 2 I 3 I 4 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 53 Volatile Aromatic Hydrocarbons (BTEX) 5 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) 33 2 26 12 Heavy Metals 28 3 24 14 Full Screen* 7 2 2
* Includes organochlorine pesticides, phenols and cyanide
There was additional testing of duplicate samples for quality control as discussed in the following section. A summary of the test results is include in Table D3 of Appendix D. Certified analytical results are included in Appendix G.
3.2.1 Surface Gravel
The site was surfaced with approximately 0.4 metres of gravel after bulk excavations. Most of the gravel was reused ballast that had been scraped and stockpiled. Virgin crushed rock from a Bora1 quarry was imported to cover approximately !4 of the site located on the western side.
The 12 samples that were collected were all from the reused gravel. The samples were tested in composites of 4 except for TPH which was for individual samples. There was no significant contamination detected in any of the samples.
3.3.2 Soil Samples
Most of the subsurface soil samples were collected from excavations for pilecaps and underground services, on an opportunistic basis throughout the first 8 months of construction work on the project (between January and August 1998). The remaining samples for the pitch area and western concourse and entrance were collected from a series of backhoe pits dug specifically for sampling purposes.
D.I. R. T. /docklands/status report Page 4 8 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium
A statistical analysis was camed out on the results to determine if the quality of the remaining soil was consistent with the information in the preliminary assessment. For this purpose the data was divided into 2 groups along a line approximately corresponding to the former major retaining wall3. The comparison of results is summarised in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2 - Statistical Summary - Western Area
IAnalyte I C,o-C,6 I PAHs ICyanidel Cu I Pb I Zn Golders Samples Analysed 5 13 4 13 13 13 Analyte Detected 2 5 3 13 13 13 Maximum Detected 3940 1137 73.0 200 1200 470 Arithmetic Mean 1522 122 30.2 60 200 159 95% UCL 3600 303 72.5 90 406 240 BHPL Samples Analysed 17 23 5 20 20 20 Analyte Detected 13 21 4 19 19 20 Maximum Detected 13280 1624 140 270 1200 580 Arithmetic Mean 1798 194 31 93.5 139 155
Table 3 - Statistical Summary - Rest of the Site
Samples Analysed 35 101 33 101 101 101 Analyte Detected 19 59 5 101 94 101 Maximum Detected 1150 78.0 0.70 1200 720 615 Arithmetic Mean 22 1 11.1 0.10 104 98.4 130 95% UCL 315 13.7 0.15 138 121 150 - 32 44 6 45 46 45 Analyte Detected 5 21 5 45 45 45 Maximum Detected 2579 55 0.25 220 910 520 Arithmetic Mean 179 7.1 0.1 73.4 87.3 135 95% UCL 165 10.9 0.2 90.0 130 168
The statistical results are consistent with the analysis of the Golders data divided in a similar manner. The results indicate that there is elevated levels of heavy metals, mainly copper, lead and zinc over the whole site.
The Western section was found to have areas of contamination with cyanide, PAHs and TPH. The hydrocarbon contamination in the western section is visible as green bands with the distinctive odour of ‘gasworks’ waste. Testing of several of these samples indicated that there was no contamination with volatile aromatic hydrocarbons.
The following locations were included in the data for the Western Area: V22-24,V33-35,V62-75, WO1-08. The remaining samples were grouped as the ‘Rest of Site’.
D. I.R. T. /docklands/status report Page 5 9 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium
A separate exercise was carried out using only data collected for ‘natural’ silty clay samples. This was done to verify that this material was not contaminated so that most of the testing program concentrated on the fill. The statistical results are summarised in Table 4.
Table 4 - Statistical Summary of Natural Silty Clay
Analyte c,,-csI PAHS [ cu I Pb I Zn Samples Analysed 71 81 81 91 9 Analyte Detected Maximum Detected Arithmetic Mean 95% UCL-Normal 46 1
Leachability of metal contamination as measured by the standard TCLP test was found in the Golder assessment not to be a serious issue (Refer Table 4C of Reference 2). No further TCLP testing was undertaken during the validation program.
3.3.3 Quality Control
The primary laboratory for the project was Australian Environmental Services (AEL) who are NATA registered for the required analyses. A number of samples were collected in duplicate and sent to WSL Consultants for quality control purposes. WSL is also NATA registered for all required analytical methods.
A summary of the duplicate test results is included in Tables D4 of Appendix D.
A statistical analysis was undertaken on the duplicate results where both samples were above detection limits, by calculating the relative percent difference (RPD). A summary of calculated RPDs for prime contaminants is given in Table 5.
Table 5 - Summary of RPD Results for Duplicate Test Results
I TPH I P LH Total AS Cr cu Pb Zn 127% 36% 2.6% 18% 34% 6.9% SW03 2.8% 53% 19% 40% 15% 26% 59% 3 1% SW05 59% 40% 91% 13% 59% 34% 53% 8.7% SO33 29% 39% 56% S115 85% 121% 35% 66% S119 79% 44% 50% S127 33% 8.7% 2.4% 5 1% 11% 76% 4.1% S137 81% 56% 34%
~ ~ Number of 6 7 7 4 5 4 5 5 Duplicates Average RPD 47% 43% 54.1% 34.8% 35.0% 49.8% 51.3% 23.2%
Generally an RPD of 30% for metals and 50% for organics is considered acceptable. There is considerable difference in some of the results with RPDs above these benchmarks. This is not unexpected because of the heterogeneity of the samples. Inspection of the results indicates that the differences are random with no bias towards one laboratory.
D.I.R.T. /docklands/status report Page 6 10 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium
It was concluded based on: the large number of test results and the general agreement between the results of the validation program and the Golder assessment; and reasonable results of duplicate analyses; that analytical test results could be used to define the condition of the soil to remain onsite or to be disposed offsite.
3.3.4 Groundwater
Groundwater monitoring wells were installed along each of the boundaries of the site. The details of installations of the groundwater bores is included in Appendix F. An initial monitoring program was undertaken after installation of the bores in November 1997. A second round of groundwater monitoring was completed in August 1998.
Table 6 - Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Bore GWOl GW02 GW03 GW04 Boundary north east south west RL (m) 6.34 6.45 3.33 2.09 NOV-97 Aug98 NOV-97 Aug98 NOV-97 Aug98 NOV-97 Aug98
11-NOV-97 3.04 2.83 1.79 2.04 1.19 1.37 0.93 1.14 17-NOV-97 2.98 2.18 1.33 1.01 Water Quality PH 6.5 6.5 7.1 7.0 6.5 6.4 6.2 6.1 TDS 960 82 930 620 1400 1700 23000 21000 Guidelines TPH (C9-14) <0.04 CO.1 <0.04 <0.1 <0.04 <0.1 1.4 <0.1 Naphthalene <0.001 <0.0005 <0.001 <0.0005 <0.001 <0.0005 0.14 <0.0005 0.003 Phenols 0.027 <0.05 <0.001 <0.05 0.003 <0.05 0.027 <0.05 0.05 Inorganics Cyanide It is apparent from the results that GW04 is significantly different than the other 3 bores with the significantly higher salinity and the presence of hydrocarbons. The apparent groundwater flow, based on the water table heights, appears to be from northeast to southwest. As the groundwater flow is towards GW04 the contamination is thought likely to have originated on the site. This fits with the presence of soil contamination found in that area of the site. The main point that has come out of the second set of groundwater monitoring sample is that there was no longer hydrocarbons in GW04. The reasons may have something to do with the presence nearby of the temporary stormwater pit which is continually flushed with clean water and pumped to the dam. As the total dissolved solids are similar, we must be pumping to a level below the D.I.R.T. /docklands/status report Page 7 11 of 300 BAULD ERST0 N E Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium groundwater and hence have probably drawn the contamination away from the bore to be replaced with clean saltwater. It should be pointed out that there is likely to be more significant contamination of groundwater in the vicinity of the former West Melbourne Gasworks. Further work on the Docklands, especially the cleanup of the gasworks, is likely to have significant impact on the local groundwater table over the next decade. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM It is not the intention of this report to discuss in detail the construction program for Stadium. Further details are available, if required, in Construction Plans and Method Statements prepared as part of the project. The following is a brief description of the important elements considered relevant in assessing the final condition of the land. A significant amount of soil was removed during construction. As agreed with the EPA based on the Golder assessment, most of the soil was removed from the site a Solid Inert Waste. Some soil which originated in the western area of the site was contaminated with TPH and PAHs and was removed as Low Level Contaminated Soil. The Stadium footprint was benched at a level of approximately RL 2.0 as shown in Figure 3. Pilecaps and underground services were dug below this level and refilled, mainly with crushed rock. The final condition of the site, as defined in Figure 2, will find the interface with remaining soil almost completely covered with concrete or bitumen. There will be some very minor garden areas at ground level on the western side which will be filled with clean topsoil. 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The final condition of the site can be deduced by referral to the: site assessment program carried out by Golder Associates; and 0 validation program carried out by Baulderstone Hornibrook. I It is evident from visual observations and test results that there are minor area of soil contamination remaining below the Stadium. However, as the entire will be covered by the Stadium itself with water percolation limited by control of stormwater runoff, the contamination does not pose a significant environmental risk or health hazard to the future users of the site. It should be noted that there is potential health risk should future work under the Stadium require removal of the seal layer and excavation into the soil. In such a case, appropriate health and safety measures should be taken to protect the workers. 6.0 REFERENCES 1. “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Victoria Stadium, Docklands ”, Golder Associates, Report Number 96612268/108, March, 1997. 2. “Stage I Soil Sampling and Analysis Program, Proposed Victoria Stadium Site, Docklands”, Golder Associates, May, 1997. 3. EPA Bulletin 448, 1995. ~ D.I. R. T. /docklands/status report Page 8 12 of 300 BAULD ERST0 N E Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium FIGURES 13 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Figure 1 0HORNIBROOK Site Location 14 of 300 Y Y 7 I 1 Figure 7 BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK Site Boundary 15 of 300 Figure3 ? BAULDERSTOWE Final Surface Levels Prior to HORNIBROOK 0 Construction 16 of 300 EIGS Surface Gravel Samples OV21 Validation Samples W3 Samples to Western Stockpile ATP72 Golder Assessment Samples D Dockland Stadium I. I Figure 4 - Sampling Location: I ! 'Xovember 30 1998 ! ; Direct Interactive :Remedial Technology!I I Pty '! 1 i Ltd I 17 of 300 ...... BAULD ERST0 NE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium APPENDIX A SITE HISTORY REPORT 18 of 300 Archaeological asessment of the site of the Tt'ictoria Stadium Melbourne T)ock!ands 19 of 300 ~ ~___ ...... i ,.. -. ,...... ? . b? Gary Vines Melbourne's Living Museum of the W-est hc. P.0. Box 60 Iiighpoinr Cip?Victoria. 3033 i 998 20 of 300 Gary Vines Contents Contents ...... 3 Background ...... 4 The Site ...... 4 PerrnitsAiaison ...... 4 History of the Site ...... 6 Environmental History ...... 6 Aboriginal Occupation ...... 8 Early settlement ...... 8 Drainage...... 9 Noxious Industry ...... 11 Industrial Expansion and Transport Development ...... 12 Other Government Facilities ...... 12 . Description of Site ...... 15 Method ...... 17 Previous Work ...... 17 Watching Brief ...... 17 Results ...... 19 .. Fill ...... 19 Barrel Drain ...... 20 Recommendations ...... 22 Bibliography ...... 23 Publlcations ...... 23 Maps ...... 24 Maps ...... 25 Photographs ...... 26 Permits ...... 27 c 3 21 of 300 Dockland Stadium Background This archaeological investigation of the site of the new Docklands Stadium has been carried out by Gary Vines of Melbourne's Living Museum of the West Inc. for the Baulderstone Hornibrook who are the construction contractors for the stadium. Under the Aboriginal and Archaeological Relics Act and the Heritage Act 1995 owners and developers of property have a statutory obligation to ensure the protection of both Aboriginal and historic archaeological materials on land under their control. The form of this archaeological investigation was determined in discussions with Leah McKenzie, Senior Historical Archaeologist with Heritage Victoria, and Quentin Pitts of Baulderstone Hornibrook. The study has been carried out by Gary Vines, Industrial Archaeologist with Melbourne's Living Museum of the West. The Site The site of the proposed Docklands Stadium is located between Spencer Street and Footscray Road immediately West of the Melbourne CBD.This land was, prior to the develo'pment, part of the Spencer Street Railway Yards under the control of V Line, formerly the Victorian Railways Department. The specific area on which the stadium is being constructed has is part of Lot 2???, Section 73B, Parish of North Melbourne. The location of the study area is shown in Figure 1. Perm its/liais on Prior to commencement of the study a notification for the conduct of an archaeological survey was lodged with Heritage Victoria, Department of Planning & Development, under the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act I972 (& Regulations 1992). This has since been superseded by The Heritage Act 1995. In additions, discussions were held with Leah McKenzie, Senior Historical Archaeologist with Heritage Victoria, regarding the appropriate methods for investigation. Michael Crestani of Baulderstone Hornibrook were consulted regarding the construction program. A copy of the notification of an archaeological survey is included in an appendix to this report. - 4 22 of 300 Gary Vines Figure 1. Location of the Study Area E;: :,.: _...... ,_."..,... \ 23 of 300 Dockland Stadium History of the Site Environmental History Between Melbourne and Footscray was a swamp and saltmarsh environment on alluvial sediments formed by the deposition of silt from Moonee Ponds Creek and the Yarra and Maribyrnong Rivers. The principal features of the area were: -A large salt-water lagoon varjously known as Batman's Swamp or the West Melbourne Swamp, -Marshy flats surrounding the lagoon and on either side of the Yarra River, -The river itself which had natural raised levee banks with a scrub vegetation of . saltmarsh and tea tree, - An escarpment to the north and east which includes the remnants of Batman's Hill and a tongue of lava flow to the north. The West Melbourne Swamp was an irregular shaped shallow salt-water lagoon about two kilometres east to west and one and a half kilometres north to south. Its southern shore was about 500 metres from the River Yarra and its western end a kilometre from the city. Between the river and lagoon was an area of tea-tree scrub while the remainder of the flats appear to have been treeless grass and marsh. The openness of the country is evident from John Pascoe Fawkner's comment that he took thefirst ride in a chaise ... [going] down to the salt lagoon and returned back another way very good driving and although through the trees found no inconvenience from the dead wood. .' Solid blue clay formed the bottom of the lagoon and underlay the alluvial silt which comprised the deltaic deposits of the Yarra. The alluvial flats were about one metre above sea level and the lagoon was barely above the high water level of the River and so up to the 1890s floods were quite common with as much as seven feet (2.1 metres) of water covering the land. During summer the lagoon often dried out. - The term 'Batman's Swamp' appears to have been originally applied only to the lagoon, but later both Batman's Swamp and the alternative West Melbourne Swamp referred to all the low lying land north of the Yarra and west of the main North Eastern Railway. Batman's Hill, also called Mount Pleasant, was a low mound of resistant volcanic rock rising from the bank of the Yarra. It fell away to swamps and river flats on three sides and was connected to high ground by a saddle on the north east and a narrow ridge ran south almost to the river bank. It was at the top of this Gdge that John Batman established hiS'se1ection.l An escarpment, steep in places, ran roughly north west from Batman's Hill coming within about 200 metres of the lagoon and then following the east side of Moonee Ponds Creek. On the west side of the creek a tongue of basalt rock from lava flows extended south to the very edge of the lagoon tenninating in a steep cliff.* ' Map Shewing the Site of Melbourne, and the positions of the huts and buildings previous to the foundation of the township by Sir Richard Bourke in 1837. Surveyed and drawn by Robert Russell, Published by Day and Haghe, London. * Geological Survey of Victoria 1860; Cox map 1864 6 24 of 300 Gary Vines This environment rich in bird life and aquatic species of flora and fauna and would =ra was have provided a valuable food source for Aborigines. Reference is occasionally made to the abundance of wildlife in the area, and even into the 20th century the isolation afforded by the swampy nature of the ground and the river barriers protected nesting waterfowl from predators.3 A series of historical plans have been reproduced as an appendix to this report to illustrate the progressive changes to the landscape and environment in the vicinity of the Docklands Stadium site. Footscray's First Hundred Years. 7 25 of 300 Dockland Stadium Aboriginal Occupation 9 Records suggest that the area around Batman's swamp and Batman's Hill was a very important environment of Aborigines. They exploited this environment for food and materials for clothing, tools etc. Little is recorded of their activities but when Fawkner came across a group of Aborigines near Batman's Swamp he noted ...'the Blacks at first alarmed, the women in particular. When I drove towards them threw themselves into strange but pleasing positions and bellowed loudly'. Aboriginal artefacts have been recorded on the banks of the Maribyrnong River upstream of Footscray., and on the creek banks within the metropolitan area. However, most of their camping sites in inner Melbourne have long been destroyed by European settlement. Batman's Hill appears to have been a focus for Aborigines, both as a rich source of food and a ceremonial and spiritual site. This evidently led to additional conflicts between Aborigines and Europeans. The Yarra fiver formed a boundary between the Aboriginal groups of the Bunefong and WoiwurungNurundjeri tribes. The particular clan which probably frequented the lower Yarra and swamp was the Yalukit wilIam but other clans probably had rights to use this area. Early settlement Knowledge of Port Phillip Bay came to navigators and settlers in New South Wales only 14 years after settlement had begun in Australia when on January 5 1802 Lieut. John Murray aboard the Lady Nelson observed what was 'apparently a fine harbour of large extent' through the heads which guard the entrance to Port Phillip Bay. Two months later on a second visit he entered the bay and took possession of the port in the name of George III. Seven weeks after this Captain Matthew Hinders, aboard the Investigator, sailed into the bay and reported an 'extensive harbour' surrounded by country which had 'a pleasing, and in many places a fertile appearan~e'.~ On the basis of the reports from Murray and Hinders, Governor King despatched his Surveyor-General, Charles Grimes with instructions to explore the shores of the Bay. On 2 February 1803 Grimes and his party rowed a small boat up the course of the Yarra River to its tidal limit, at about the Queen Street Bridge. Fleming, a member of his party later, described this place as 'the most eligible place for a settlement that I have seenI.5 Melbourne's first white settlement was in the vicinity of Batman's Hill. Russell's 1837 map of Melbourne shows three long narrow buildings at the top of a ridge which led down to the river with a fenced paddock, a garden and cultivated ground. These were John Batman's house and outbuildings.6 This area can be located today only from documents and no physical evidence of the first period of settlement is likely to be found because of the extensive excavations and reclamation associated with river improvements, railway copuction and city buildings, and in particular, the levelling of the top of Batman's Hill to form the Spencer Street Railway Yards. However, the topographic features which identified the site such as the high ground adjacent to the river and swamp can be identified by the informed observer.' When the Government survey was carried out under Hoddle's supervision the streets of Melbourne were laid out around the existing huts to the east of Batman's farm to take advantage R.D.Boys, First Years at Pon Phillip, 1834- 1842. Melbourne 1959. Shillinglaw, Flemming Journal Map Shewing the Site of Melbourne ... Roberr Russdl. I837 State Library of Victoria ' Miles Lewis, Submission to Historic Buildings Council, Docklands Authority, June 1992. 8 26 of 300 Gary Vines of the high ground on the north bank of the Yarra and avoid the swamps altogether. This 9 coeographic influence continued to determine future land use in the area. As land around Melbourne was surveyed and sold, the higher and more fertile areas were given preference and the swamps and riverbanks were reserved for future public purposes. Drainage The development of the land between Melbourne and Footscray was dependent of the drainage and reclamation of the Batman's Swamp. This work was a long process begun in a small way in the 1850s and has continued right up to the present day with a few remnants of the old swamp still being subject to filling operations. In the 19th century Batman's Swamp was both a banier to travel west of Melbourne and an impediment to westward expansion of the city. Development in the vicinity of the swamp was confined to its margins prior to the second world war. Most of the land south of Swamp (Dynon) Road and north of the Yarra was left empty except for rubbish tips. The Melbourne City Council, Melbourne HarbourTrust and Railways Department all operated tips in this area, which by the 1930s provided a livelihood for fringe dwellers living in the shanty town of 'Dudley Flats'. The banks of the Yarra for about a mile downstream of Spencer Street were leased out to boiling-down works, bone mills and fellmongers from the 1850s to the 1880s when the Harbour Trust resumed the land for river widening. Complete drainage and filling of the swamp was proposed from the 1860s due to it having become a vile cesspit of sewerage, stagnant pools, and refuse of every description. By the 1870s the grid of channels had been excavated, redirecting Moonee Ponds Creek and other drains into the Maribymong River opposite Footscray and creating a relatively flood free meadow. The area was then leased to dairymen for grazing milk cows and became a major source of milk for the city. A notice from the Lands Department in 188 1, called for Tenders for grazing quiet milch cows on portions of West Melbourne Swamp... for the right to depasture from the 1st August 1881 to 31st July 1882, quiet milch cows, calves and yearlings only within the portions of West Melbourne Swamp ... 8 Further reclamation of the swamp was associated with the construction of the railway yards and gasworks. The first filling of the swamp occurred in 1854 with the construction of the Wiliamstown, Geelong and Mt. Alexander and Murray River Railways which had to-first negotiate the swamp land on route to a crossing of the Maribyrnong. The route took it over the northern edge of the swamp across a causeway and across the tongue of high land near the present Lloyd St Kensington requiring vast amounts of fill and ballast obtained from cuttings at North Melbourne and Kensington. The railway opened as far as Sunbury in 1859. The new railway construction involved probably the greatest earth moving operation undertaken in the colony at that time. By 1863 the Swamp Road (later Dynon Rd.) had been constructed just south of the railway, and it too required substantial embankments across the northern edge of the swamp. 9 The gasworks was built on the bank of the river on flood-prone land in order to take advantage of transport and population factors. The City of Melbourne Gas and Coke Co. was founded on 28/8/1850 but construction was delayed until 1854-5 when work was carried out under Alex Kennedy Smith who was contracted as design manager. A special gasworks dock was excavated on the north side of the river in July 1854 and on 1/12/1854 the foundation stone Tender Notice 22 July 1881, Department of Lands and Survey Melbourne. Port of Melbourne Authority Archive * Lack 8: Ford Melbourne's Western Region, a Background History, Living Museum of the West, 1987, p.42 9 27 of 300 Doclcland Stadium was laid. In October 1855 the 195 foot chimney stack was completed and a commemorative breakfast was held on top of the stack. Gas was turned on to Melbourne on Cew Years Day 1856. Drainage of the swamp was tied to several larger issues being canvassed in Melbourne in the 1850s 60s and 70s. One was the effect of flooding of the Yarra, another was the nuisance of noxious trades and their consequent effect of the health of Melbourne and pollution of its waterways, and the third was the provision of adequate port facilities. A-Royal Commission was set up in 1873 to: 'enquire into the best means of making available the low lands adjacent to the western and southern sides of the Civ of Melbourne, situated on both banks of the River Yarra to suggest what portions of the above lands ought to be specifically reserved for canals, docks, wharves roads, tramways and other works of public utility.' The commissioners reviewed three schemes for river and dock improvement, identified the causes of flooding on the banks of the river, assessed the cost, worth and practicality of draining and reclaiming the swampland, and took evidence of the navigation hazards.1° [The Commissioners]... arrived at the conclusion that it would be inexpedient to incur the enormous expenditure requisite to render any portion of the low lying ground west of the railway eligible for the extension of the city. The West Melbourne Swamp should be enclosed and drained for ... recreation as a park or cultivation or grazing but not in any case for residences or as sites for manufactories' [and the] low land on both sides of the river... should be resented from sale' Proposals for the use of the land included the reservation of: 'I00 acres adapted for residential purposes in connection with the extension westward of the City of Melbourne. The rendering of a large extent of ground fit for the establishment of manufactories and stores in the vicinity of he Yarra and of the proposed dock. [The remainder being] well adapted for growing ordinary garden produce, sugar beet, lucerne, grasses etc. and rendering salubrious a disgusting swamp as repulsive in its present aspect as it is pestilent in its influence, [Unreclaimed land was to be used by dairymen and] a considerable extent of-such ground could be reserved for a public park for West Melbourne. It wouM be the finest piece of grassland in any park in Melbourne.' The basic recommendations of the Royal Commission were in fact carried out and remained the general approach to land use in the area for the next fifty years. The drainage scheme appears to have been successful and resulted in the provision of grazing ground for Melbourne's milk cows and parcels of reserved land were used for various public purposes such as the Victoria and Appleton Docks, Bubonic Sanatorium, Coal Canal apd railway yards, etc. Fill from excavation of the docks was used to build up adjacent land and to form another road to Footscray. This followed the old north bank of the Yarra and was later replaced by New Footscray Road, following the present route. During 1892 Dudley Street was formed to drain the railway yards, as a sustenance scheme to alleviate the plight of local unemployed." 10 Low Lancb Commission, (Final) Repon VPP 3, 88, 1873, Introduction. 11 R.L. Greenaway, 'Historical Usage of the Lands ... of the West Melbourne Swamp .._ 10 28 of 300 Gary Vines By 19 12. an additional 470 acres of the West Melbourne Swamp on the east side of the Maribyrnong River had been reclaimed. This was carried out byrhe contractor Mr. M. Walsh at the cost of E83 an acre, using a centrifugal pump to move silt a distance of up to three quarters of a mile. This method of land reclamation appears to have been common in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Several contemporary photographs show large pipelines depositing silt, dredged from the river and docks, on to the swamp.12 The remnants of the drainage system constructed to drain the swamps can still be found. One of the main channels follows the south side of Dynon Road, where part has been planted out as a bird habitat. Elsewhere the drains are now underground and out of site. The construction of the Coal Canal altered the pattern of drainage and provided fill to raise the land either side. Dredging operations by the Harbour Trust and ash dumps from the railway locomotive depot provided further fill. Today the only remnant of the original land level is to be found adjacent to the Coal Canal. Noxious Industry Because of its isolation from Melbourne and unattractive environment for building, the . land adjacent to the swamp and along the Yarra River and Moonee Ponds Creek became the preferred location of many noxious industries. Fellmongers, meat and meat by-product works, tanneries, boiling-down works, blood and bone desiccators, council rubbish depots and destructors. As early as 1855 an abattoirs was constructed on the river bank below the Spencer Street Dock to supply meat to Melbourne. When established it was probably suitably removed from places of habitation and convenient to the existing river wharves for shipment of hides and tallow but it was the precursor of many meat and animal by-product works to take up riverbank leases downstream of Melbourne. Beyond the gasworks several small sheds were constructed for the fellmongers where the wool was removed from sheep skins obtained from the abattoirs and washed. They included Brown's, Gollin & Co. W. Brown Junior and Walker. The wastes of course went into the river. Some of these works had primitive docks where small boats bringing skins and hides from the abattoirs and meatworks along the Yarra and Maribyrnong could be unloaded on the banks. & Henry Walker conducted separate works for tallow melting, soap and candle making and stearine candle making Trom about 1856. One works was on the river below the gasworks and another facing the swamp in West Melbourne. In 1867 he was fined for polluting but later claimed to have renewed his plant and was no longer a nuisance. Eugene Ascherbergs boiling- down, bone dust and artificial manure establishment nearby was probably typical of the factories having several buildings of timber and iron without stone foundations of paved floors. Only one, where the machinery was installed had an asphalted floor while ofknsive drainage oozed over and through the soil and 'a quantity of filthy rubbish and a heap of hoofs was exposed on the ground without cover of any kind.' At J.B. Scott's'works men filled vats with sheep's heads from which the fumes were carried by pipe to the furnaces and the only odours came from the carbolic acid and ammonia used as a deodoriser. In 1873 there were 14 by- product works on the lower Yarra and Batman's Swamp employing 232 hands.I3 I2 Footscray Independent Xmas Supplement, December 1912, p. 13. l3 Low Lands Commissk, Evidence of Clement Hodgkinson, Henry Walker, Sergeant Fullarton, Appendices 2& 3. 11 29 of 300 Dockland Stadium Even in the 19th century there was considerable public concern about the pollution of the area and in some respects it was seen as the worst effected part of Melbourne taking the drainage of Moonee Ponds Creek which was lined with tanneries at Flemington. However the efforts to rid the more populated areas of noxious industry were not carried through to the Lower Yarra and Batman's Swamp which, if anything, became even more polluted, as industries located further downstream and moved from the eastern to western side of Melbourne. Several convictions were made against the boiling down works but it was really only with the compulsory removal of the works for river improvements that any change was effected. But still in the 1870s it was said that: 'at the very threshold of Melbourne immediately below the gasworks a boiling down establishment dimes a sickening stench and shocks the sight with a reeking mass of putrescence and mire where filthy swine and some scarcely less filthy human beings find congenial hubitation.14 Iq 1877 the Harbour Trust began to terminate or refuse renewal of leases and licences as a precursor to dredging and realignment of the river banks down-stream of the gasworks. l5 Industrial Expansion and Transport Development Like all other parts of Melbourne and Victoria, the Docklands area received an immense stimulus from the demands imposed by and the wealth created by the gold rushes of the 1850s and 60s. Following the construction in the mid 1850s of the first rail line along the north and east edge of the swamp, the study area began to take on a transport oriented character. During the 1860s and 70s the rail system expanded with the subsequent need for additional sidings, yards, freight and passenger facilities and engine and carriage workshops. From the 1870s, following the establishment of the Melbourne Harbour Trust, the Melbourne docks underwent the massive redevelopment to meet the needs of the fast growing irnportlexport industry. Victoria Dock and the Coode Canal transformed the port and drew other transport and industrid facilities to the area. The engineering required for these services was closely liilked (although not always officially coordinated). Silt dredged and excavated from the docks, river and Coode Canal, was used to raise the level of the dock aprons and rail yards, while Batman's Hill is famous for having been levelled to create the rail yards. The last obvious remains of the hill were removed in about 1892.16 Other Government Facilities Nearly all of the surrounds of Batman's Swamp is and has always been crown land administered by the Victorian State Government. However some Commonweath facilities have been located in the area including a Bubonic Sanatorium, Customs and quarantine facilities and an airfield. The Melbourne City Council maintained a refuse destructor and sanitary depot (as did some other local counci1s)'as well as a stables, probably for its night soil and rubbish collection service. Low Lands Commission, Appendix 6, City of Melbourne Health Committee report. Is J. Lack, 'Worst Smelbourne: Melbourne's Noxious Trades' in Davidson The Outcasts of Melbourne l6 Illustrated News I April 1892. Cited in Lewis, p. 45 12 30 of 300 Gary Vines One of the few residents on Coode Island was Bill Lemarquand who was brought up on the island because his father worked at a dock in the island repairing lighters (barges) The only other family were the Hobson's, the father of which was caretaker at the animal quarantine station. The Lemarquand household comprised parents four sons and one daughter and their house was made of ships' timbers, with the daughters bedroom created from a ship's cabin. Because much of the study area has been historically a waste land, it has occasionally been occupied unofficially and illegally. Squatters camps of homeless and unemployed people have grown up during times of depression, particularly in the 1890s and 1930s. The squatters camps were transitory affairs built of old timber and corrugated iron, even lino was used to provide shelter. These humpies were located on the south end of Dudley Street in an area known as Dudley flats in the 1930s. Periodic raids by police and possibly Harbour Trust officers moved the people out and demolished the huts. Their occupants were the unemployed and underemployed labourers used by the shipping agents to fulfil peak demands for labour but otherwise left to scavenge an existence as best they could. Even today it is possible to find the occasional humpies built by the homeless on the waste land of the port. The worst pollution of the swamp and river came from the boiling-down works and bone mills located on the north bank of the Yarra. Henry Walker had the largest of these works and although his was one of the better operated works, blood and offal was allowed to run over the ground from the boiling down vats and piles of bones left in the open air." The North Melbourne Pottery was located on Laurens St. backing onto the swamp while other factories and warehouses were constructed on the high ground of West Melbourne and the small tongue of land around Lloyd St Kensington. The proximity of the main rail lines to the north and west of the state made this the preferred location for flour mills (Kimpton, Brunton, Gillespie, Minnifie) and wool stores, (New Zealan'd Loan and Mercantile, Younghusband, Goldsborough Mort),l* As the site of Melbourne's major railway terminus, Spencer Street grew to accommodate a. vast array of specialised freight facilities. The Surviving No 2 Goods Shed (previously known as A Shed and No 3 Goods Shed), represents the apex of the yard's history, as well as the high standard of nineteenth century railway architecture. Between Spencer Street and Footscray Road, a number of different platforms and sheds were erected and demolished over the -140 .- years of the yard's history. The initial complex of buildings were all hard up against Spencer Street on a 50 acre site to the north of Batman's Hill, although a larger area had been reserved for the terminus, extending westward to about two thirds of the way to the present Footscray Road. In 1870-7 1 the No 1 Goods Shed was erected immediately west of the existing station and extending across Batman's Hill, An additional goods platform was added at an oblique angle north of the shed in 1877 which formed the future alignment of much of the yard in the following decades. The Exhibition Goods Shed was added in 1881 using a section of the Melbourne International Exhibition pavilions, followed by the surviving 1889 No 2 (A Shed), the Dairy Produce Shed of 1890 and No 4 Goods Shed of 1897-8. By the turn of the century the area between Spencer Street and Cowper street was covered with buildings as far north as a line through Bourke Street. Further railway building was then confined the north east comer of the yards (with workshops, offices and amenities buildings), and the western edge (with the Potato Platform and Chaff Platform, both of 1925).'9 Ward et ai. l8 Vines.G. Western Region Industrial Heritage Srudy, LMW 1989 l9 Ward et al. 13 31 of 300 ,- - ... ..--- .. ..._. . __ .. Dockland Stadium Because of the fall of the land to the west, and the progressive development of the rail yards, they were created on several levels, stepping down to the west. Upgrading during the twentieth century brought about further filling with the most substantial changes being associated with the construction of the automatic hump shunting yard and standard rail loop in the late 1960s. The location of the swamp and difficulty of filling or flood-proofing it, resulted in a large tract of land remaining unused well into the twentieth century. By the 1950~~changes in goods handling on the railways and docks meant that large land areas were required for storing and trans-shipment of cargoes. Reclaiming the swamplands finally became an economic proposition with the development of the rail yards, container terminals, new docks and warehousing. The Victoria Dock was the first major facility to be constructed in the area of the swamp. It was completed in 1906 and joined in the 1920s by the Appleton Dock to the west. The next major development was the Swanston Dock, begun in the 1950s and onIy achieving its projected size in the last few years. The swamps also provided land for the Melbourne fish and wholesale markets when the city sites became inadequate.20 Ward et a1 14 32 of 300 Gary Vines Description of Site The site of the Docklands Stadium is located on part of the Spencer Street Railway Yards between the still active railway lines immediately west of Spencer Street Station, and Footscray Road. The rail yards are built on fill over what was originally a low flood prone area west of the Melbourne CBD. The site is on the eastern side of Batman's or West Melbourne Swamp and north west of the higher ground of Batman's Hill. The north and south boundaries of the Stadium site are marked by lines extending along the south side of Lonsdale Street and the north side ofBourke Street respectively. While the yards are generally flat, there are two major changes of level, historically associated with the progressive development of the yards. The first of these runs parallel with and on the east side of the No 3 Goods Shed and marks the western boundary of the pre 1880 rail yards which were built on the high ground north of Batman's Hill, and on the hill itself as it was levelled. The embankment along the edge of this area is a dominant feature to the south with a concrete block retaining wall running the length of the surviving goods shed. The lower area began to be used in after the 188Os, following the construction of the No 3 Goods Shed on land reclaimed from the swamp margins. The difference in level is as much as five metres reflecting the considerable rise to Batman's Hill. The second change in level occurs near the western edge of the site and is much less dramatic. This reflects the 1920s expansion of the yards with the erection of the Potato and Chaff sheds and additional shunting lines. The drop is only one or two metres and brings the level down to that of Footscray Road, about 2 metres above sea level. While the goods sheds (surviving and demolished) all finished to the south of the stadium site, the various track levels which led to them extended a considerable distance northward to provide the necessary gradual approach slope. Prior to the commencement of the Stadium excavations the entire area was covered with rail sidings. A mixture of timber and concrete sleepers were in use, lying on rock ballast up to one metre thick. Prior to commencement of excavations (and before I first inspected the site as part of the watching brief) all the rails and most of the sleepers had been removed by contractors, and the ballast had been lifted and stockpiled to the north of the site for future use _. during construction. Also during the initial phase of the stadium construction, various retaining walls built of concrete or steel rails with concrete or timber infills, were demolished and any other structures such as signal masts, overhead gantries, etc. were removed. As a consequence there were no surviving above ground artefacts on the site when the watching brief commenced. However, immediately north and south of the stadium site, both buildings and rail lines survive to indicate the former arrangement of the yards. Such features included the remnant of the Exhibition Goods Shed, the No 3 shed, the No 4 shed, and to the north most of the tracKS leading to the Automatic Hump Shunting yard. A few tracks are currently being maintained along the western perimeter of the site to provide rail access to the surviving railway goods facilities, as well as for access to the Webb Dock Goods Line. 15 33 of 300 Dockland Stadium ’). Figure 2. Plan of the site showing proposed stadium and brick drain k 16 34 of 300 Gary Vines Method The primary purpose of the archaeological investigation was to determine the extent of the surviving cultural material relating to former structures and features of the Spencer Street Railway Yards or prior occupation of the site, and to record any artefacts or other archaeological features which may have been exposed by the construction works on the site. The archaeological investigation of the Docklands Stadium was carried out as a “watching brief’ during the excavation works for footings and foundations. This has meant that the consultant was involved in periodic inspections of the excavation in progress. The total area excavated amounted to approximately 75,000 square metres, varying in depth up to five metres deep. The excavation takes to form of an oval with battered sides measuring approximately 250 metres east-west by 300 metres north south. While there was no previous indication of either Aboriginal or post contact archaeological remairis having been identified on the site, other studies had indicated the potential for such remains. Therefore, prior to undertaking the watching brief, notification of archaeological survey forms were submitted to Heritage Services Branch, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria and Heritage Victoria. As their were no archaeological sites already recorded on either of these organisation’s sites registers, it was determined that a separate excavation permit was unnecessary. Inspection of the excavation was carried out at intervals of approximately one week over a period of six weeks when the major bulk excavation work was being carried out, commencing in October 1997. Additional inspections were carried out when unusual features were identified by the site foreman Michael Crestani. These were at approximately monthly intervals. A final inspection was undertaken during the piling operations and at the completion of the excavation in May 1998. Previous Work The present study was commissioned following the identification of potential for archaeological evidence in the area. Archaeological Assessments for the City Link freeway and the Docklands area had identified the general area around Batman’s Swamp and Batmads Hill as having high cultural significance for both Aboriginal and European occupation.*I These studies did not specifically identdj the stadium site as having historical or archaeological significance. However, the historical background provided in the reports indicated that the area had a complex history and was historically associated with the major railway facility in Victoria. The consultant reviewed the previous studies and carried out further historical research. From this a strategy for investigation was developed which tied in with the construction work program. Watching Brief The procedure and method used during the watching brief was to some extent dependent on the nature and timing of construction works. On the basis of the construction program, the following strategy was developed: 1 . At the time of being commissioned to do the study an initial non-intrusive survey of the effected area was carried out to identify potential for the survival of archaeological evidence. Ward et. al. 1991, Vines, G.Dudley Flats Archaeological Assesment. City Link Authority. 1998; Du Cros & Associates, Western Link Archaeological Survey, VicRoads 1990. 17 35 of 300 Dockland Stadium This was directed at determining the likely preservation of undisturbed original ground surfaces, structures and o?her archaeological relics. This process also attempted to identify the depth or level of any potential archaeological layers (ie. the ground surface at the time of prior occupation may have been buried under more recent fill) and an attempt to determine the depth of this was required. As most of the site had already been cleared and there were almost no surface features visible, the core sampling canied out by the construction contractors was also examined to assist in this process. 2. Upon finalisation of construction plans, the archaeologist determined the likelihood and location of archaeological deposits that may be effected. Historical Plans indicated possible structures near the southern and western edges of the stadium site, such as signal boxes, the former chaff platforms, shunters cabin and gangers shed. However, as these would all have had shallow foundations, any evidence of them was probably already removed. 3. During site preparation, the archaeologist was present at the commencement of clearing, levelling, etc. This was only for short periods as only the upper levels which were deemed to be sensitive. 4. The watching brief was conducted during various stages of the construction. For example, excavation for the main arena (excavated to between 1 and 4 metres below the existing soil level) pile capping, excavation of service trenches, road construction, etc. The liaison person with Baulderstone Hornibrook (Michael Crestani) also contacted the archaeologist when any unusual features were revealed during the excavation, such as the old brick barrel drain which ran under the site. 5. The site was examined during various stages of construction and the exposed features were .# photographed and recorded. A number of pile caps were examined extending back about 150 metres either side of the creek. The locations of the pile caps that were examined and other features of the excavation are shown in Figure 2. The Docklands Stadium construction has involved a large area excavation to obtain appropriate levels with deep surface-driven piling supporting the foundations and superstructure. Apart from the arena itself and the main drainage trench, only shallow pile caps and service trenches were excavated. As a consequence of this construction method, the sub- surface deposits were exposed briefly during the pile cap and service excavations, and then filled once the concrete pile caps have been poured or pipes laid. 18 36 of 300 Gary Vines Y Results The main findings of the watching brief have been in the identification of the phases of land reclamation and levelling associated with the progressive construction of the Spencer Street Railway goods yards. The fill material shows clearly the large amount of earthworks carried out and the consequent changes in the landscape in the area, as well as the associated works which produced the material - namely the removal of Batman's Hill, and excavation of silt from Victoria Dock and other river dredging. However, there was very little else of a structural nature which was revealed in the excavations, apart from the main brick barrel drain. This is not to say that there was no cultural material exposed. As the area was progressively reclaimed it appears to have been used as an informal tip. It was also more systematically used to dispose of large quantities of waste from the railways themselves, including coke ash raked out of the locomotives fire boxes, discarded rails and sleepers, buildiqg rubble, and the inevitable rubbish of human occupation. The core samples and deeper service trenches showed a consistent level of the original . (buried) ground surface, ranging from six metres below present levels in the east of the site to about two-to three metres at the western end. This original ground level is recognisable by a black humus-rich layer only a few centimetres thick overlaying dark mottled silt and clay. This latter material graduates within a narrow zone 300 to 500 mm. thick, to the consistent grey Coode Island Silt which underlies most of the docklands area. The original soil layer was noted to lie at about one metre above sea level near Footscray Road, sloping gradually upward to the east. This corresponds with what is known of the original landscape of the area prior to the constructing the rail yards (see environmental history above). A generalised idea of the stratigraphy through the site was obtained by examining the cross sections shown in the sides of the pile cap excavations, and deeper trenches. The stratigraphy is depicted schematically in figure 3 which shows lenses of fill material over a natural soil profile dipping to the west from a high point in the south east of the site. (It should be noted that this is in part conjecture, because only a small total area of the excavations reached the depth of the original soil layer.) A larger proportion of rubble and artefact material is found towards Footscray Road. This is again reasonably consistent with the known history of land reclamation of the site and the dumping of domestic and other industrial refuse would more likely to have occurred close to the publicly accessible roads (ie apart from material dumped by the railways) . Fill Some distinctive areas of fill were identified that can be associated (with some confidence) with particular phases of reclamation of the area. These are the decayed basaltic clays of Batman's Hill, and the fine grey Coode Island Silt from the Victoria Dock excavation. Some large areas of both df these deposits were noted, particularly in the south east part of the study area, that is, closest to Batman's Hill, and presumably part of the earliest reclamation in the area. Other large deposits were found along the eastern edge of the excavation, again suggesting this material was brought here during the 1880s when the yards were being enlarged and Victoria Dock was being excavated. The other main components of the fill appeared to be brick rubble, blocks of brick masonry and bluestone and coke ash. The brick and stone was probably partly from demolished railway buildings which once stood within thegoods yards, or adjacent railway sites. Possible 19 37 of 300 Dockland Stadium candidates, based on the type of masonry (bichrome and polychrome cream, cream red and brown bricks including “Hawthorn” browns, very large rock-fated bluestone blocks typical of foundation stones, and intact sections up to 900mm thick) include the former No 1 Goods Shed of 1870, parts of the north gable wall of the No 3 Goods Shed, early goods sheds from near Spencer Street and Latrobe Street, and possibly also the North Melbourne locomotive depot. The coke ash is clearly from raking out coal-fired locomotives. This would have been done near the Locomotive Depot, as well as in various open air locations. By the turn of the century, the hundreds of locomotives working from the yards were producing so much ash that it had to * be carted by special rail lines to be dumped at the edge of Batman’s Swamp. Much of the area between Dudley Street and Footscray Road was reclaimed in this way. The ash noted in the excavations was in thin lenses sandwiched between other types of fill. In some cases it was also mixed with ballast stones, suggesting that earlier levels of the tracks were buried. The presence of a considerable number of rails and sleepers also suggests this. Barrel Drain The only major structure noted during the watching brief was a brick barrel drain which ran north-south across the site at the base of the main arena excavation. The top of the drain was therefore at about 1.8 metres above sea level. The drain is ovoid in section, constructed of a double skin (9 inch) brick wall of un-named, machine-made red bricks. The drain measures about 1400mm in height and 1200 mm wide. The drain is reinforced by a brick foundation bed about 1800mm wide rising to about one third the height of the drain. This drain was the main outlet for internal drainage from the railway yards. The section examined falls from the south east to a point near the northern edge of the stadium excavation. Plans of the site show that another branch of this drain falls from the north-east and joins at a junction near the northern edge of the stadium then heads westward to discharge into Victoria Dock. 20 38 of 300 Cross section trhough site south-east to north west I I.c 3 rD Vi 39 of 300 Dockland Stadium R eco m'mend a t io ns Y It is unlikely that any further substantial excavation is will occur in the immediate area of the Docklands Stadium. Even if such were to occur, the present watching brief has shown that there is very little in the way of archaeological evidence to be observed under the former rail yards. The only possible exception to this would be in the area to the south east on the ground once comprising Batman's Hill. This is outside of the present study area, but as the research for this study has shown, this area to have been significant in the culhhal heritage of Victoria. It is, therefore worth noting the potential here. No further archaeological investigation is deemed necessary within the area of the Docklands Stadium. However, should disturbance of other areas in the Batman's Hill area be carried out as part of any other development project in the area, then this should be preceded by an appropriate archaeological assessment. 40 of 300 Gary Vines Bibliography .LL. Publications "15,000 Water fowl were shot "for the table," Footscray's First Hundred Years. p.93 Backhouse James. Narrative of 16th November, 1837-43. p.506, reproduced in The Emu, .p.24-5. Billis & Kenyon, Letters of Victorian Pioneers Billott, C.P. MelbourneS Missing Chronicles by John Pascoe Fawkner. Quartet Books 1982. P.14. Bluestone Heritage Consultants, City Link Archaeological Survey, 1995. Boys, R.D., First Years at Port Phillip, 1834- 1842. Melbourne 1959. Du.Cros & Associates, Western Link Archaeological assessment..., VicRoads, 1990 "Excursion to Coode Island", Victorian Naturalist, No.XXlX May 1912. pp.5-6. Footscray Independent Xmas Supplement, December 19 12, p. 13. Footscray's First Hundred Years. Footscray Advertiser 1959. Greenaway, R.L. 'Historical Usage of the Lands ... of the West Melbourne Swamp ...I background paper for Docklands Heritage Study. Hall, Robert "The Birds of Port Phillip", The Emu, Vol XXV, 1st April, 1926, pp.239- 244. Lack, John, 'Worst Smelbourne,' in The Outcasts of Melbourne, edited by G. Davidson, D. Dunstan and C. McConville, Sydney 1985, p. 187 Lack, J, & Ford, 0. MelboumeS Westem Region an Introductory History, Living Museum of the West, 1987. Lahey, John, 'When Coode Island was a paradise for birds', The Age, 15 March 1994 page 7. Lewis, Miles, Submission to Historic Buildings Council, Docklands Authority, June ' 1992. Return of wildfowl shipped on Government Railways, Victorian Parliamentary Papers, 1864-65 Vol. 2. Rosengren, N.J., Sites of Geological and Geomorphological Significance in the Western Region of Melbourne, Conservation Forests and Lands, Victoria, 1986. - Royal Commission of Low Lands South and West of the City of Melbourne (Low Lands Commission) appointed 12 August 1872: Progress Report VPP 3,62, 1873; (Final) Report VPP 3, 88, 1873, Introduction. Appendix 6, City of Melbourne Health Cofnmittee report. The Low Lands Report includes statements of evidence from the following: Evidence of Hon T. Loader, Government Surveyor. Summary and evidence of Commissioner Clement Hodgkinson; Henry Walker, Sergeant Fullarton, Evidence of Frederick Harding, District Surveyor. w Shillinglaw, J.J., A Journey of Exploration of Charles Grimes 1802-1803 by James Flemming 1878, reprinted by City of Footscray Historical Society. Tender Notice 22 July 1881, Department of Lands and Survey Melbourne. Port of Melbourne Authority Archive. Tovey, J.R., "Some notes on Coode Island and its Flora"' Victorian Naturalist, No.XXVIII July 191 I. pp.57-61. Vines, G. Western Region Industrial Heritage Study. Melbourne's Living Museum of the West, 1989. Vines, G. Indusrrial Land and Wetland Melbourne's Living Museum of the West. 1994 23 41 of 300 Dockland Stadium Ward. A., Vines, G. & Milner, P. Docklands Heritage Study, Report to the Docklands Authority, Department of Planning 1991. Maps Map Shewing the Site of Melbourne, and the positions of the huts and buildings previous to the foundation of the township by Sir Richard Bourke in 1837. Surveyed and drawn by Robert Russell, Published by Day and Haghe, London. (State Library of Victoria Map Collection (SLV)) Melbourne and Its Suburbs, Keamy, 1855. (SLV) Hobsons Bay and River Yarra leading to Melbourne, survey by Commander H.L. Cox 1864 (SLV) Sketch Plan Shewing proposed reclamation of Batman’s Swamp as Recommended by the Royal Commission on the Low Lying Lands of the Yarra, 1874? (WP) Melbourne Harbour Trust Detail Plan, Shewing Proposed Floating Dock & River Jmprovements in the River Yarra as recommended by Sir John Coode in his Report of 17 Feb. 1879. (Port of Melbourne Authority (PMA) Archives) Plan of West Melbourne Swamp & Adjacent Ground after Works of Reclamation were completed, Lands & Survey, 1879. (Port of Melbourne Authority Archives) Plan of Melbourne and Its Suburbs, Surveyor General, 1879. (SLV) New Plan of Melbourne and Suburbs, Sands & McDougall 1885. (SLV) Victorian Railways Locality Plan of West Melbourne Swamp, c 1900 (Victorian Railways Historical Society Archives) Plan of River Yma & Victoria Dock shewing Wharves, Berths, and sheds from Queens Bridge to 1 314 miles, M.H.T. 1901 (PMA Archives) Melbourne Harbour Trust General Plan Shewing Rwer and Harbour Improvements MHT, 1906. (PMA Archives) Municipality of Melbourne, Anderson Gowan Pty Ltd. c1920 (SLV) Hobsons Bay, Yarra River and Melbourne, London Hydrographic Office, 1921, (based on H.L. Cox survey of 1864). (PMA Archives) River Yarra & Docks, Queens Bridge to Coode Island, M.H.T.C. December 1929 (PMA Archives) Melbourne Yard 1” to 100’. Victorian Railways. - Geological Survey of Victoria, Melbourne Sheet SJ 55- 1 24 42 of 300 Gary Vines Maps 25 43 of 300 44 of 300 0 45 of 300 46 of 300 ------' c urn:> ,, . I I I 7- I b 1 . --, .. _. .. .. 47 of 300 1 S TAT I ON GROUND 48 of 300 49 of 300 50 of 300 51 of 300 52 of 300 53 of 300 ! i i I i Ii 1 I Ii I I I i I- ' JEFFCOTT ! 54 of 300 __ . .. .- . . .- . . . . I Dockland Stadium Photographs -..-.. 26 55 of 300 _.._.__.__..- ~ :. -_.-- 7.. - ..- _...... , , ___...... _.. View of south end of Spencer Street Rail Yards, Goods sheds ai bottom of picture Dumping sil: from the Victoria Dock Excavation. -k 56 of 300 . - .. :. _...,.-...... Forme; Concrete ana rail retaining waif at western side of yards ~~~ Ersatation of the main arena under way. Note the grey Coode Island Silt in the cutting face 57 of 300 S~salticClay showing in excavation for pile caps Are2 excavation in progress showing bands of clay, rubble and ash 58 of 300 Pik Cap excavation prepared for pile driving. Ash and rubble in section These rails were excavated from the fill, some evidently having been covered over in situ, but most evident- ly dumped then buried 59 of 300 Brick, bluestone ana concrete masonry, recowred from the fill. Note. nme of this material appears to have bsen in sitc, but was pari of the dumped fill Barrel diain broken during excavation showing double brick skin. 60 of 300 Gary Vines Permits - 27 61 of 300 ...... ^_ ...... Melbourne's Living Museum of the West Inc. Postal address- Visitor Centre P.O.Box 60 Pipemakers Park Highpoint City Van Ness Avenue Maribyrnong Victoria 3032 Telephone 931 8 3544 e-mail-lmwbriak @ peg .apc.org Facsimile 9318 1039 imin Moon 101 1 0197 ite Registrar 5:19:12 PM [eritage Services Branch, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria rd floor- 1 15 Victoria Parade File No. 1002 itzroy 'ic. 3065 ax9412 7601 e tar Jamin, ' .se find attached a notification of an archaeological survey for a proposed assessment of the bcklands Stadium site at Footscray Road West Melbourne. am carrying out this study for Baulderstone Hornibrook, and it involves periodically inspecting ie excavations for the stadium foundations. This work is cutting down about 3 to 4 metres in the 11 of the Spencer Street Railway yards. Core samples show that the natural ground surface is !ell below the base of their excavations and a preliminary site visit has revealed that most of the 31 is rock ballast, dredged silt, and some demolition rubble, possibly from the north end of the A Dods Shed, or the Locomotive Depot, or another large masonry building. Much of the fill, and emolition rubble appears related to the construction of the Hump shunting yard in the early 970s. est Wishes, ;ary Vines irchaeologist 62 of 300 ... ___.._...... -.77 - --.---,... . , . . . . FORM D Victoria Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972 Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Regulations 1992 NOTIFICATION OF INTENTION TO CARRY OUT A SURVEY UWe* the undersigned give notice that I/we* intend to undertake a survey of Historic Archaeological Sites in the area'described as Docklands Stadium site - Spencer Street Railway Yards and shown hatched on the accompanying map. It is my/our* intention to conduct the survey between the dates 10 Oct. 1997 1 Ded. 1997 of and NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE Gary Vines Living Museum of the West P.O. Box 60 Highpoint City 3032 Dated: 10 Oct 1997 When completed this form should be returned to: The Manager Heritage Victoria Department of Planning and Development 477 Collins Strpt MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Ph. (03) 628 5436 Fax (03) 628 5650 * Please strike out whichever is not applicable. Department of Ph-g and Development ' 5th Floor Oldeffleet Buildings 477 Collins Street Melbourne PO Box Melbourne 3001 628 5537 Fax: 628 5650 3000 2240T Ph: (03) (03) 63 of 300 2nd Floor, 1 15 Victoria Parade Fitzroy VIC 3065 GPO Box 4057 Melbourne 3001 Facsimile: (03) 9412 7601 15th October 1997 AAV/086 1 h4r Gary Vines PO Box 60 HIGHPOINT CITY.VIC 3032 k Dear Gary, PROPOSED SITE SURVEY - DOCKLANDS STADIUM SITE - SPENCER STREET RAIL YARDS Thank you for providing notice of your intended survey for archaeological sites within the above project area. Your- Form D notification was received by this office on 13th October 1997. Please note that, under the terms of section 22(5)(b) of the Archaeological and Aborigigal Rel.!cs Preservation Act 1972 and associated Regulations, you are required to provide this office with: a) completed AAV record cards for any sites found during the survey; and b) two copies of any resultant project report. Blank record cards can be obtained from the Site Registrar, Mr Jamin Moon on (03) 9412-6827. Copies of the document Guidelinesfor Conducting and Reporting upon Archaeological Surveys in Victoria (last updated February 1993) are also available on request. If your project is likely to include documentation of non-Aboriginal historic sites, you should contact Heritage Victoria on (03) 9628-5457, to discuss their requirements. - Under *e terms of the Commonwealth Aborigival and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Proteclion Act 1984, specified local Aboriginal organisations throughout Victoria hold responsibility for cultural heritage matters within thpir particular community areas. Yo& proposed survey affects the area covered by the Wurundjeri Tribe Land Compensation atid Cuiturzl Heritage Cokcil .. Incorporated. I therefore recommend that you contact tiic community's Board of Directors to ...... discuss your project, and to establish how the coinmunity may best be advised of its results. Contact r_ details are as follows: Wurundjeri Tribe Land Compensation and Cultural HeFjtage Council Incorporated PO Box 26 BOOLAFUU VIC 3870 Phi 0414-797932 Administrator: Mr Bill Nicholson (snr) Cultural OFfcer: Mr Bill Nicholson c Human Services M P-Pwi 64 of 300 lnrorporafing Aboriginai dairs .. . I have forwarded a copy of your Form D notification to our AAV Regional Reritage Officer, Ms Annette Xiberras. Annette may wish to meet up with you at some stage during the field project, in order to maintain her awareness of current archaeological activities within the area. I therefore suggest that you contact Annette before the start of the survey, on ph. (03-94127057) . In general, c the Heritage Offkers have their office days on Fridays. Please feel welcome to contact me if any further information is required. r- Yours sincerely, , I .. E. - Site +egistry Officer . __- .,-.:.* Heritage Services Branch < d97-094 1 65 of 300 ...... -.-_.. - ...... A Melbourne’s Living Museum of the West Inc. Postal address- Visitor Centre P.O. Box 60 Pipemakers Park Highpoint City Van Ness Avenue Maribyrnong Victoria 3032 Victoria. Australia Australia Telephone 61 3 9318 3544 [email protected] Facsimile 61 3 9318 1039 M our Ref 211 003 14 October, 1997 Michael Crestani Baulderstone Hornibrook FAX96823586 - Victoria Stadium development - Melbourne Docklands Archaeological Assessment This is to confirm that Gary Vines of Melbourne’s Living Museum of the West will be .I conducting a watching brief over the excavation works for the Docklands Stadium on behalf of Baulderstone Hornibrook. In order to fulfil the requirements of the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Act, and Heritage Act, I have submitted “Form D‘s” or notification of an intention to conduct and archaeological ._ survey to the Heritage Services Branch, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, and Heritage Victoria. I have also had discussions with Stewart Simmons at AAV and Jane Harrington at Heritage Victoria regarding the projects and informing them of what is intended as far as the archaeological assessment. The scope of the works involves assessing the likelihood of the presence or survival of any historical or archaeological relics, assessing the potential significance of any such relicz, and periodically monitoring the excavation works to determine the nature of the material being removed or exposed. To this end I have so far inspected the site Following the commencement of earthworks. Further inspections will be undertaken on a weekly basis (or more often if unsuspected or unusual evidence is unearthed), for as long as the excavations are underway, and a final report will be prepared detailing the results of the investigation. The following is a brief report on the first inspection of the site. w Evidence from the excavation as of 10 October 1997 At the time of my first inspection of the sites, about 1/4 of the proposed excavation had been completed, down to the approximate final depth of 2 metres above sea level. This has involved an excavation below the present ground level of between three and five metres deep. So far the visible evidence suggests that the stadium excavations are entirely in fill which has been deposited as part of the construction of the Spencer Street Railway Yards. This fill comprises track ballast, Coode Island Silt (probably dredged from the Yarra, Victoria Dock or other docks), Silurian Sediments, (possibly including material excavated from Batman’s Hill), * 66 of 300 and other soil and rock, including large bluestone blocks. There is also scattered through the fill, but not in any discernible pattern, large blocks of bluestone and brick masonry, evidently from demolished buildings. - The size nature and location of these blocks suggest they may have come from either the demolished northern end of the “A” Goods Shed, The former North Melbourne Locomotive Depot, or Bridges and Culverts associated with the earlier configurations of the Railway Yards. .:. These structures were demolished around the same time that the railway goods yards underwent a major redesign and reconstruction, with the installation of the West Melbourne Hump Shunting Yard in the 1970s. Examination of historical documents and maps of the area suggests that the site has been used almost excessively for railway shunting yards from the late nineteenth century. Before this it .. was low marshy ground at the edge of Batman’s Swamp. Major development in the area 5 occurred in the late 1850s with the erection of the Government Railway Terminus at Spencer --+ Street. The buildings and lines were to the east of the Stadium site near the present Spencer Street Station. In the 188Os, the John Coode Scheme for the Port of Melbourne saw the dredging *. . of Victoria Dock and the Coode Canal, and the expansion of the railway yards using dredged .- spoil and excavated material from.Batman’s Hill to level the area for extensive railway yards. .. - These yards were modified at various times, with the large major alterations taking place when . -... : the Stagdard Gauge overpass and Hump Shunting yards were completed in the 1970s. In the more recent years, the railway goods facilities have progressively shut down and part of the yards used for car parking. More detailed information on the history and physical nature of the site will be provided in the .-: final report on the archaeological assessment. Gary Vines Industrial Archaeologist. .. . .-- .. .. i 67 of 300 . .... BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium APPENDIX B SAMPLE LOGS 68 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium Y Appendix B - Sample Logs The soils encountered during the sampling program at the stadium included: a mixture of fill types containing a variety of foreign materials; and silty clay (Coode Island silt). There were not any different materials encountered than those described in detail in the Golder Associates geotechnical and environmental assessment reports (References 1 - 4). For this reason an abbreviated sample documentation system was used to log the material types at each of the sampling locations. The logs for all of the samples collected by BHPL are included in this appendix. The log sheets should be interpretated as shown on the following page. DIRT \docldands\status report Page D-I 69 of 300 ---..------.- ~ ...... ~~~~.... ~ . .. ._.___.__.- ...... - . . .-...... _. .__ -- - BAULUtHS I UNt 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium Bottom of Excavation Depth of gravellcrushed L no foreign matter rock cover at location EzI DateDate Sample Horizon Depths C’ Location Samples Sampled Fill Natural Gravel Fill BOE Fill Description Natural type +* V30 S048,49S048.49 27-Mar-98 0.5 1.1 0.3 0.9 1.4 Mottled orangelgreyhrown clay Black silty clay (nfm) ...... Z...... v3 I SO50,5 1, 27-Mar-98 0.5 1.2 0.4 0.7 1.4 Mottled orangelgreyhrown clayClay Black silty clay (nfin) ...... v3 I ...... S050,5 1, ,...... !27-Mar-98 ...... 0.5 0.4 V32 SO52,53,54 27-Mar-98 0.5 0.3 0.8 1.4 Orange sandy clay - gravel 0.9 1.1 Black gravelly coke and slag ...... 1.2 1.4 Orange clay - brick frags and...... gravel ...... V33 [‘..,2-Apr-O8 0.6 I 0.404 0.8 Ashlcoke Black silty clay (nfm) ...... 1 S055,56 ,...... I ...... 1 ...... I...... -I ...... I...... 1...... silty i.e. SO50 @ 0.5 m SO51 @ 1.2 m sottom of each layer (See borelogs below to illustrate interpretation) - . ...... D.I. K. T Idocklandslstatus report Page D-2 70 of 300 BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium - Validation Sample Locations I I Date Sample Fill ...... ...... 0.5 ...... 0.5 0.4 ...... 0.5 ...... VI 1 I ...... so15 ...... 09-Feb-98 ...... VI2 SO I6 09-Feb-98 ...... 20-Feb-98 ...... VI4VI3 1 :XJii 1 20-Feb-98 ...... VI5 ...... 20-Feb-98 'SO20 t 20-Feb-98 ...... VI7 .I ...... S021,22 1 25-Feb-98 ...... 0.7 ...... 0.8 ...... 0.8 ...... 0.8 ...... 0.5 ...... 0.6 ...... 0.4 0.5 Slag, ash & coke V24 SO35-37 08-Mar-98 Black silty clay (nfm) ...... 0.7 O!a!?R?!kT?e!?.2a!?d ...... 0.6 Black silty clay (nfm) v25 S038,39 20-Mar-98 ...... 1 .o ...... Orange clay -gravel & small stones 0.6 Black silty clay (nfm) V26 s040,4 I 20-Mar-98 ...... I.o e.c!a~.~.~rave!..~.~ma!!..s~one~...... 0.5 silty clay (nfrn) V27 S042,43 20-Mar-98 0.8 Orange clay -gravel & small stones ...... 1 ...... Grey clay - wet ...... 0.7 Black silty clay (n V28 S044,45 20-Mar-98 ...... I ...... 1 .o ...... I Black silty clay (nfrn) ...... V29 S046,47 27-Mar-98 0.4 ...... v30 S048,49 27-Mar-98 0.5 Mottled orangetgreytbrown clay Black silty clay (nfm) Page 1 71 of 300 BAULDtHS 1UNt 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium - Validation Sample Locations I Date Samp Iepths Location Fill Natural Gravel Fill ...... V3 I ...... 0.5 ...... 1.2 ...... 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.8 V32 S052,53,54 27-Mar-98 0.9 0.3 1.1 I ...... 1.2 ...... 1.4 ...... v33 ...... 0.6 ...... 1 ...... 0.4 0.8 v34 ...... 0.5 ...... 1 ...... 0.3 0.7 ...... v35 ...... 0.4 ...... 0.9 ...... 0.1 0.6 ...... V36 ...... 0.6 ...... 0.4 ...... v37 ...... 0.7 ...... 0.5 ...... V38 ...... 0.6 ...... 0.3 v39 ...... 0.6 ...... 0.4 ...... range sand Q 0.9m Black silty clay (nfm) 0.5 WBI clay till some ash v40 1.2 - ...... 1.1 ...... 0.4 1 8,: ...... Ye!!Br.mott!ed.c!a~..w~~h.~ome.~!a.g...... Ye1 clay some ash 0.5 - V4 I S067,68 14-May-98 0.4 0.9 1.2 Black clay - ash & coke .. I 0.7 I ...... 1.2 'Grey/tan...... siltstone 0.7 0.7 Clay & gravel ash &.coke V42 S069,70 14-May-98 0.4 I .2 i - ...... 1.1 ...... 1.2 ...... !?!9.Y!?.C!?~...... 0.6 1 .o Clay & sand whole & crushed bricks v43 SO7 I ,72 14-May-98 0.4 1.2 - ...... 1.1 ...... 1.2 ...... Ye!!Br.c!a~.~..some.stones...... 0.7 Mixed fill mainly sand & clay bricks, v44 S073,74 14-May-98 0.4 1.5 1.5 - ...... 1.3 ...... metal ?..pipes,...... wood ?..glass ...... & rocks 0.9 I .3 Sandy clay & clay - pipes, rocks & bricks v45 SO75,76 14-May-% 0'4 I .5 ...... I .4 ...... 1.5 ...... Black siltkandgravel - ash,coke & roots 0.6 1 .o Orange/tan clay small siltstones V46 SO77,78 26-May-98 0.3 1.2 - ...... 1.1 ...... I .2 ...... cl s.c ...... ick & ...... c...... 0.8 v47 SO79,80 26-May-98 0.5 0.9 0.3 1.1 Or/Br clay - mottled grey & siltstones IDark brown silty clay (nfm) ...... 1.1 0.3 range clay - stones v48 SO8 132 I 26-May-98 0.2 ;;; ...... 0.8 ...... I 0.8 0.7 V49 S083,84 12-Jun-98 0.3 ...... 1.1 ...... 1.2 0.3 0.5 v50 S085,X6 12-Jun-98 0.3 ...... I .o ...... I .2 0.3 v5 I S087,88 12-Jun-98 0.3 I I0.9 I .2 Page 2 72 of 300 BAULDERSTONE HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium - Validation Sample Locations I I I Datc Samplc Depths I 1-h Fill ...... 0.5 ...... 0.5 0.6 0.6 1 V55 1 S092,'13 I 06-Aug-98 ...... 1 .o 0.7 Brown silty clay- s V.56 S094,95 06-Aug-98 ...... 1.1 0.5 Vj7 S096,97 06-Aug-98 ...... I.2 0.5 V58 S098,99,100 28-Aug-98 0.9 ...... I.4 ...... 0.5 Vj9 S IO I, 102, I03 28-Aug-98 0.8 ...... I .5 0.7 V60 S 104, IO 5 28-Aug-98 ...... I .4 0.6 V6 I S 106, I07 28-Aug-98 ...... 1.2 Ash,coke,bricks,clay pipes etc. in gravel/sand - V62 SI08,109 15-Ocl-98 0.5 1.4 I 1.8 I Dark brown silty clay (nfm) ...... mild odour 1 ...... ' V63 S I IO, I 1 I 15-0ct-98 ...... 0.5 ...... 0.6 I I .2 IBricks, rocks, sand - small amount ashicoke IDark brown silty clay (nfm) 0.5 Gravel & sand - ash & coke V64 SI 12,l l3,l 14 15-Oct-98 1 .o 0'7 I 1.6 I Dark brown silty clay (nfm) 1.2 Clay/orange sand- metal, glass & slag ...... 1.4 0.5 Gravel - ash, coke & slag V65 SI 15, I I6 15-Oct-98 1.2 I 1.6 I Dark brown silty clay (nfm) ...... 1 .0 ...... Clay - glass,rock,brick- slight I-IC odour I 0.4 Orange clay - stones Dark brown silty clay - slight PAH odour reducing V66 SI 17- I20 15-Om98 0.7 I.8 Ash, coke & slag with depth ...... 1.1 ...... Grey silty clay - PAH and HC odour 0.3 Ash & coke I V67 S121,122 1.5-Ocl-98 0'4 1.5 Dark brown silty clay (nfm) I I I 0.7 I Brown clay fill -stone - areas of sand ...... I .2 I I 0.2 0.3 I , , lAsh&coke I vox S123,124 15-Oct-98 1; 0.7 Page 3 73 of 300 BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium - Validation Sample Locations Diitc ' 1-10 zon De 11s 1,ocalion Salllplcs Sampled hvtl Fill BOE Fill Description Natural' type 0.7 VG9 S 125,126,125 15-Oct-98 0.4 1.1 ...... I .4 0.7 v70 s 12x, I29 15-Oct-98 0.4 ...... I .2 ...... 0.7 V7 I s130,13 I 15-0~1-98 0.3 Dark brown silty clay (nfm) ...... I .2 ...... 0.8 V72 s132,133 15-Oct-98 0.4 Dark brown silty clay (nfrn) ...... I .3 !?I...... 0.4 v73 S 134,135 15-0~1-98 nil ...... 1.1 ...... 1 .o v74 s 136, I37 15-Oct-98 0.7 Dark brown silty clay (nfm) ...... I .5 ...... 1 .0 V75 s138,139 15-Oct-98 0.6 Dark brown silty clay (nfm) ...... 1.4 wn!o.or?nge.brown.c!a~...... 0.7 V7h s 140, I4I 15-Oct-98 0.3 ...... 1.1 0.8 Ash, coke & slag v77 s 142,143 15-Oct-98 0.4 Dark brown silty clay (nfm) ...... 1.4 0.8 v7x s 144,145 15-Ocl-98 0.2 1 .s Dark brown silty clay (nfm) ...... 1.1 ...... 0.9 v79 s 146,147 15-Oct-98 0.4 I .5 ...... I .3 ...... 0.5 Ash, coke & slag 0.3 0.8 1.1 Orange brown clay - brick fragments ...... 1.1 ...... 0.9 0.4 I .3 ...... I .3 ...... 1 .o 0.3 I .3 ...... I .3 E.mo!!! cd..?!!X...... 1.1 0.3 I .9 Dark brown silt ...... I .5 ...... 0.5 0.6 I 0.3 I .2 0.8 I I .2 Page 4 74 of 300 BAULUERSTIINE HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium - Validation Sample Locations Depths Imxtion Natural Natural' type V85 0.8 ...... 0.6 V86 S158,159 15-Oct-98 ,.o I I I ...... I ...... Dark brown silty clay (nfm) ...... Dark brown silty clay (nfm) ...... Dark brown silty clay (nfm) U.J v90 S 166,167 15-Oct-98 Dark brown silty clay (nfm) ...... 0.7 ...... 0.5 ~ . I 0.6 I , ~ IAsh,coke&slag V9 I S 164, I65 15-0ct-98 , u.4 Dark brown silty clay (nfm) Y., , Gravelly clay till I...... V~2...... 1 ...... "'s.i.~3 ...... t...15~oct~98..~...... 0;6 ...... I...... 0.3 I ::;f 0.9"' IGravelly clay fill - bricks ...... Dark brown silty clay (nfm) - - 0.7 1 , ~ IAsh,coke&slag ...... v94 ora.g.!bro.w. ..c!a~.~.br.~ck.frag.men~s...... 0.5 Ash, coke & slag v95 0.3 Page 5 75 of 300 BAULD ERST0 N E Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium APPENDIX C NORTH EAST STOCKPILE 76 of 300 Direct Interactive Remediation Technology ...... PTX LTD A. C. N. 006 843 036 -t. Classification of Soil in Northeast Stockpile There is approximately 10,000 m3 of soil stockpiled in the north east comer of the site. This material was placed there during initial bulk earthworks by Cooks Construction for future use if required. This material was thought to be of ‘better’ quality compared to what was expected for the rest of the site. Aside from some rails, sleepers and a small amount of pipe, the amount of rubble was minimal. The origin of the soil is shown as the highlighted area in the attached map and was verified from the material tracking information supplied by Cooks Construction. Soil test data for the sample points which fall within the area was extracted from the assessment carried out by Golder Associates prior to commencement of the project. Samples were collected from 16 locations at several depths. A total of 15 composite samples were analysed and are summarised in the attached table. Statistical analysis of the results was undertaken with the results also included in the table. The mean and 95% upper confidence limits for all analytes is below the EPA criteria for fill material except for the 95% UCL for copper which is marginally above. The soil in the stockpile is therefore classified as Fill Material and may be used as required on or off site. However due to the possibility of small isolated pockets of contaminated material, the soil should not be disposed for a sensitive land use purpose. It is suitable for commercial and industrial use or in open space or landscaping. attachments: Sampling Map Test Results I I D.I. R. 1 June 18,1998 Victoria Stadium Site 77 of 300 . Y Summary of Analytical Results for Soil in North East Stockpile -- - I Composite Samples Depth -PH 00 TP56,TP57,TP58,TP59 0.2 8.4 PP 0.8 7.4 QQ 2.5 -7.4 AAA TPSO,TP81 ,TP85,TP87 0 8.4 I c":: I 8.1 DDD 2.4 -8.5 J J J TP60,TP84,TP86,TP104 0 8.5 0.8 8.2 I E I 1 2.8 8 MMM 1.5 -8 NNN TP69,TPSZ,TP89,TP105 0 0.8 8.4 1 2.8 8.5 QQQ 3.4 -7.6 Samples 13 Detected 13 Maximum 8.5 Mean 8.1 95% UCL -8.3 - * Note - Organochlorine Compounds 78 of 300 \ ',! \ ! \ ',, ! ,.. . -.. .i-. - ._.____ . . .,: ....- . -,'.-'-' 2 :-*! . :. :.- REDUCED NOT TO SCALE .- FINAL I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I IIIII SITE PLAN AND ! SAMPLING GRID 79 of 300 BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK Table D1 - Summary of Golder Associates Preliminary Assessment Data MI PAHs TPH ------1 Lab No. Composite Individual Sam es De :hs PH As Cd co Cr cu H:: Ni Pb Zn BaP Total c6cy -10g F PE CN OCPS ------I- - 65497 A 91 1 1111 1211 0.6 0.6 0 7.9 <5 <0.2 36 20 39 <0.05 140 <5 69 65742 U 1914 2014 4713 4914 2.6 2.4 2 2 7.5 15 0.2 25 36 78 0.32 58 96 160 2.9 26.8 I 65743 V 2211 2412 2611 4811 0.3 0.6 0.3 8.4 14 0.4 40 35 160 0.2 1 85 180 290 0.9 7.4 0.4 )DT 65744 w 2214 2413 2613 4812 1.1 1 0.9 7.4 54 0.5 160 59 1200 0.43 96 190 220 1.8 26.7 65745 x 2213 2415 2615 2.5 1.7 1.9 5.1 18 <0.2 10 30 14 <0.05 18 12 35 C0.5 <5 65746 Y 3411 4511 461 1 0.1 0.3 0.5 7 5.3 <0.2 17 16 50 0.14 73 100 66 1 8.2 <20 Dockland Stadium - Land Status Report Page I 80 of 300 BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK Table D1 - Summary of Golder Associates Prelimiiiary Assessment Data ------Metals- - - - - PAHs TPH Lab No. Composite -Individual - -Samples - -D€ -hs PH As Cd co Cr cu Hg Mo -Ni Pb Se Sn Zn BaP Total F PE CN OCPS 65840 QQ 5 713 5 813 5 914 2.5 2.3 2.8 7.4 8.9 <0.2 25 46 33 0.14 69 11 86 <0.5 <5 65841 RR 5211 5311 5411 5511 0.3 0.05 0 0.3 7.7 37 <0.2 24 18 74 0. I 84 60 74 <0.5 <5 Dockland Stadium - Land Status Report Page 2 81 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium Table D2 Sample Results from Golder Assessment Remaining After Bulk Earthworks 82 of 300 BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK Table D2 - Sample Results from Colder Assessment Remaining After Bulk Earthworks ------Mc - - - -P, T -1 Sample PH -As -Cd -Cr -cu Hg -Ni -Pb -Zn -BaP c6-c9 :lo-cJ, -F -'henol -CN -ocs R 6.8 15 <0.2 26 46 0.18 14 25 38 Notes: /-"i@O/3] Shaded samples remaining, others removed OCs - Organochlorine pesticides 83 of 300 Dockland Srridiirriz - Lund Status Report BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK Table D1 - Summary of Colder Associates Preliminary Assessment Data ------ill - - - Pk IS TPH- Lab No. Composite -Individual - -Sam1 -es - -De -hs - P" -As -Cd -co -Cr -cu -Hg -Ni -Pb -Zn BaP Total :10-c3t -F -PE -CN OCPS 6640 1 HHHH 5014 5 114 9614 1.7 2.6 2.2 -8.7 26 <0.2 34 45 70 0.18 85 110 150 1.1 8.2 66402 1111 5015 5 115 2.3 3.1 5.4 18 <0.2 9.9 32 16 <0.05 14 13 36 <0.5 <5 66625 KKKK 671 1 7111 7711 10711 0.2 0 0.3 0.1 8.8 <5 <0.2 25 15 26 <0.05 98 <5 47 <0.5 <5 84 of 300 Dockland Stadium - Land Status Report Page. 3 BAULD ERST0 NE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA 85 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium Table Dl Summary of Golder Associates Preliminary Assessment Data 86 of 300 .- BAULDERSTQNE 0 HORNIBROQK 3L Table D1 - Summary of Golder Associates Preliminary Assessment Data ~~ ~ ------Metals ------PAHs - Lab No. Composite Individual Sam - .- De -hs -PH As -Cd -co -Cr cu -Hg Mo -Ni Pb Se Sn -Zn BaP Tota I -:,o-c,t F PE CN OCPS 65497 A 91 I 1111 I211 0.6 0.6 0 7.9 <5 <0.2 36 20 39 <0.05 140 <5 69 <0.5 <5 <100 18933-5 A 91 1 1111 1211 0.6 0.6 0 8.9 <5 Docklond Stadium - Land Statirs Report Pc1ge I 87 of 300 ...... ~ ._.__ BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK Y Table D1 - Summary of Colder Associates Preliminary Assessment Data ~ ------MI - - - -PAHs - Lab No. Composite Individual Samples De :hs PH As Cd co Cr cu Hg Ni Pb Zn BaP Total F PE OCPS ------7 - 65840 QQ 5 713 5 813 5 914 2.5 2.3 2.8 7.4 8.9 <0.2 25 46 33 0. I4 69 II 86 <0.5 <5 6584 1 RR 521 1 5311 541 1 5511 0.3 0.05 0 0.3 7.7 37 <0.2 24 18 74 0.1 84 60 74 <0.5 <5 Docklund Stadium - Lond Stutin Report 88 of 300 ...... BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK -n Table D1 - Summary of Colder Associates Preliminary Assessment Data ------M - - Pf -IS T -H Lab No. Composite -Individual - -Sam1 -es - -De -hs - -PH -AS -Cd -co -Cr -cu -Hg -Ni -Pb Zn Ba P Total C,x, -:,lSc,, -F -PE -OCPS 6640 1 HHHH 5014 5 114 9614 1.7 2.6 2.2 8.7 26 <0.2 34 45 70 0.18 85 110 150 1.1 8.2 66402 1111 5015 5 115 2.3 3.1 5.4 18 C0.2 9.9 32 16 <0.05 14 13 36 <0.5 <5 66625 KKKK 6711 7111 7711 10711 0.2 0 0.3 0.1 8.8 <5 <0.2 25 15 26 89 of 300 Dockland Stadium - Land Status Report Page 3 y-7' BAUID ERST0 NE La 0 HORNIBROOK Docklad Stadium Table D Sample Results from Golder Assessment Remaining After Bulk Earthworks ...... * .. .. . 90 of 300 BAULDERSTONE '8 HORNIBROOK Table D2 - Sample Results from Golder Assessntettt Remniniitg After Bulk Earthworks - - - - -M - -PI TPH- Samnle I Composite Samples pll -As -Cd -Cr -cu -Ilg Ni -BaP * -F R 6.8 15 c0.2 26 46 0.18 14 25 38 .Notes: . - - - -. Shaded samples remaining, others removed OCs - Organochlorine pesticides i 91 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium Table D3 Summary of BHPL Validation Data 92 of 300 BAULDERSTON E HORNIBROOK Table D3 - Docklands Stadium - Summary of BHPL Validation Data Request Petroleum Hydrocarbons PAHS Metals Number LabID Lab Sample C6-cg I C,~-C,~I C,~-C~~ I c29-c36 B~PI Total BTEX PCBS ocs Cyanide Phenols AS I Cd I Cr I Cu 1. Co I Hg I Ni I Pb I Sn I Zn )il Samplr Ch-St03 21450-15 AEL SO03 <20 <20 <50 <50 21450-20 so0 1-4 Docklands Stadium, Land Status Report Page I 93 of 300 BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK Table D3 - Docklands Stadium - Summary of BHPL Validation Data Request Pe ileum 1 drocarl nS PAHS -Metals Number LabID Lab Sample c6-c9 c1 O-cl 4 c15-c28 c29-c36 BaP Total BTEX PCBs ocs Cyanide Phenols As Cd Cr cu -co Hg Ni Pb Sn Zn Ch-Stl 1 09191 WSL SO33 <20 <20 400 620 8 68.3 09 192 swo1 2.6 89.3 23 77 42 38 75 09 193 SW03 220 840 1500 220 5.1 148 60 3 50 3 50 240 88 ...... 09194 ...... SW05 ...... <20 ...... 21 ...... 140 ...... <50 ...... 1.8 ...... 23.9 ...... 17 ...... 70 ...... 48 ...... 28 ...... 120 Ch-Stl2 22273-1 AEL SO55 Docklands Stadium, Land Status Report 94 of 300 BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK Table D3 - Docklands Stadium - Summary of BHPL Validation Data - Request Pe oleum I rdrocarl ns P1 IS Metals Number LabID -Lab Sample : (kc9 1O-cl 4 c15-c28 c29-c36 BaP Total BTEX PCBs ocs Cyanide Phenols As Cd Cr cu co Hg Ni Pb Sn Zn Ch-stl9 24257-1 AEL S108 <20 <20 <50 <50 24257-6 ,5113 Docklands Stadium, Land Status Report Page 3 95 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium I I I I I I I I I I Table D4 I Summary of Duplicate Test Results for Split Samples I I I I I I I I I 96 of 300 BAULDERSTONE 0 HORNIBROOK 'etroleum HvdrocarbHvdrocarbons <20 220 <20 <20 <20 840 92 12.7% 3 10 1600 20.7% 850 340 85.7% 400 1500 5200 77.3% 1300 p7 620 46.9% 220 1900 86.8% <50 230 <50 Dockland Stadium, Land Status Report 97 of 300 BAULDERSTONE Land Status Reporl 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium APPENDIX E INFORMATION ON OFFSITE DISPOSAL OF SOIL 98 of 300 BAUDERSTONE HORNIBROOK Baulderstone Hornibrcnk Pty Ltd ACN oG2 625 130 55 Southbank Bculevard Southbank 3006 Woria Telephcne (03) 3684 61 11 8 September. 1997 Fax (G3) 9682 3586 Environment Protection .4uthority Olderfleet Buildinss 477 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Attention: iMr R .McClellan - Manager Operations, Yarra Region Dear Sir RE: VICTORIA ST.4DTZM - PRELIMINARY EARTHWORKS OFFSITE DISPOSAL OF INSITU MATE~UALS Thank you for meeting with us last Friday and discussing the above subject. We found it most informative and helpful in the planning of the earthworks program required prepartory to the construction of Victoria Stadium. Please frnd attached our proposed remediation plan for the earthworks. It should be noted that this plan will be incorporated into Appendix D of our Environmental Management Plan and as such addresses the major environmental issues in regard to excavation. Specific work instructions and method statements will be developed in conjunction with the earthworks sub-contractor for the project. Approximately 160,000 m' (based on in situ volumes) of material will be required to be excavated. There is limited potential for reuse of material within the project however we are exploring the possibility of using 50,000 m' to build up an adjacent area which is proposed to be used for public access. We therefore plan to dispose of the bulk of the material as solid inert waste to a licensed landfill. We understand that we do not need formal approval from the EPA to dispose of solid inert waste. However we would appreciate your review and comments on the -- remediation plan to ensure it is consistent with our discussions and meets all EPA guidelines. We also enclose a draft copy of the Project Environmental Management Plan. This plan is currently under revision to incorporate site specific procedures, and we would also appreciate any comments on this plan prior to fmalisation. Your prompt attention would be greatly appreciated as the timing of our schedule is tight. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mike Side11 on -04.1 8-39365.1.- Yours fiifiiifiillr Baulderstone Hornibrook p,Lty Gra&T-m-Ca-tIam Proiect Director - Victoria Stadium 99 of 300 Victoria Stadium - Draft Remediation Plan 1.O I3TRODUCTION The remediation Plan was developed from a detailed review of information in the contamination assessment report by Golder Associates including discussions with the staff who carried out the field work. The information suggests that the Stadium site is filled to depths of over 3 metres. The field logs in the report indicate that there is a significant amount of rubble in the fill including - concrete. bricks, bluestone, wood and metal. The soil test results in the Golder report indicate that the site contains some contamination with chemicals which will effect offsite transport and disposal. The overall goal is to prepare the site in a manner that would enable an Environmental Audit to be undertaken by an approved EPA Auditor resulting in a Statement of Audit for the proposed end use of the site as a Stadium. -- This document presents the outline of the Remediation Plan for the site. This document will be expanded in conjunction with the earthworks sub-contractor to include specific procedures for excavation, stockpiling, reuse, testing and offsite disposal. 2.0 SITE EXCAVATION The Golder test pit logs indicate that the site can be divided vertically into three horizons; surface, fill and natural. The proposed excavation plan is to a final surface level of RL 12.5. This means that the excavation will not be into the natural material although there is an area of silty clay which is described as disturbed natural arising from deposits of dredged material. The fate of the material excavated may fall into the following scenarios. 0 reuse of material on site; -_ 0 disposal of material which meets EPA Fill Material criteria (EPA Bulletin 448, Sept 1995); and 0 disposal of contaminated soil (both low level and prescribed waste). 2.1 Fill Classification The presence of significant amounts of ‘foreign’ materials in the fill gives the appearance of soil contamination. However, the results in the Golder report indicate that the site is only ~ lightly which may effect offsite transport and disposal. These contambated_wi&-chemjcals ~ ~ ~ ------____ - results are considered sufficient to determine disposal requirements for the fill. --~ ~ -_ -~ -~ __- ~-- __ ~ - The site is going to be bulk excavated, therefore the average of the results is considered the critical statistic in determining the classification of the fiil for offsite disposal. 100 of 300 Based on the statistics from the report. the only contaminant above Fill Material Criteria is Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (P.4Hs). With the, proximity of the former West Melbourne Gas Works it is possible that tar was previously used on the site to seal parts of the surface. The average PAH for the site is reported to be approximately 24 mag compared to the criteria of20 mg/kg for Fill Material. The highest PAH contamination is found along Footscray Road below the retaining wall (the 3 highest results of I 137, 263 and 95 mg/kg were in this area). The surface level of this area is approximately =+LO and as such will require minimal excavation. It is therefore proposed to treat the material excavated from this area separately. Statistical analysis was therefore carried separately by dividing the site into two parts, above and below the retaining wall as shown in Figure 1. The results are summarised in Table 1. Table 1 - Summary of Statistical Evaluation of Golder Results r Metals PAHS TPH Statistics’ pH As 1 Cr I Cu 1 Hg I Ni 1 Pb 1 Zn BaP ITotal C6-C, 1Clo-C36 , Above (north of) Retaining Wall / Samples 81 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 35 35 Detected‘ 81 79 101 101 76 100 94 101 56 59 0 19 Maximum 10.3 120 72.5 1200 0.71 140 720 615 11.4 78 I150 Mean . 8.0 17.7 29.2 104 0.20 67.1 98.4 130 1.2 11.1 22 1 95% UCL 20.8 31.7 138 0.23 73.8 121 150 1.5 13.7 3 15 Below (south of) Retaining Wall’ - Samples 10 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 5 5 Detected’ 10 11 13 13 12 13 13 13 5 5 2 2 Maximum 7 110 520 200 8.9 190 1200 470 9.7 1137 460 3940 Mean 5.6 29.6 119 60 0.91 67.8 200 159 1.7 122 150 1522 95% UCL 51.3 212 90 2.3 97.2 406 240 3.3 303 360 3600 1 Notes: l The following procedures were used for the calculations: 0 Duplicate results were averaged prior to calculations; 0 Half the value was used for results below the detection limit; 0 95% UCL was calculated on the mean * The number of samples with results reported above the detection limit ’ Samples Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, GG, HH and II 2.1.1 North of Retaining Wall By excluding the area south of the retaining wall the average for the rest of the site for total PAHs drops to 1 1.1 mgkg, well below Fill Material criteria. The other contaminants are: 0 Heavy metal where there are individual samples above Fill Material criteria, however the . _.~ averages are below except for copper at 104 mag versus cntena of-I-OO-mg’kg7- -- --Leachabilitytests-have-shownthat-the-copper-is-not-i - -- --*-- 0 Petroleum hydrocarbons were found at low concentrations at about half the locations tested with only one sample marginally above Fill Material criteria (1 100 m_@g versus 1000 mgkg). -- ~~ ~~~~~ . -. ~._ --~ ~ ~ - - ___ -- ~ __~~.. 101 of 300 Based on the statistics the material b be excavated from north of the retaining wall is classified as Fill Material. However. it is expected however, that there will be small areas where the soil contamination will be present. This combined with the large quantities of rubble means the material is unsuitable for unrestricted disposal. BH therefore plans to send the bulk of this material offsite as solid inert waste (see Section 3.1). It is also possible that there will isolable areas where the fill will be classified as Low Level Contaminated Soil (LLCS) with the possibility of a minor amount of Prescribed Waste (PW). This will be caused by pockets of hydrocarbons and PAHs and will be obvious by their odour. These areas would be isolated to stockpiles for further testing, if required, and subsequent disposal (see Section 2.3). - 2.13 South of the Retaining Wall The material south of the retaining wall appears to be different in chemical nature to that to the north. This is evidenced by: 0 A significant difference in soil acidity with this area being 2 unit more acidic; 0 Higher PAHs with an average of 122 mgkg total. 0 Hydrocarbons present with lighter fractions. Based on the statistical analysis, this area will be classified as LLCS. However it is likely that there will some areas with obviously highly contaminated which will require disposal as Prescribed Waste. 2.2 Reuse There is limited potential for reuse of material within the project however we are exploring the possibility of using 50,000 m3 to build up an adjacent area which is proposed to be used for public access. 2.2.1 Reuse During Construction The surface of the site consists mainly of sealed and paved areas, gravel and rail ballast. It is indicated in the Golder Report that the surface materials are generally free of chemical contamination. There is also reported to be significant amounts of rubble in the fill material below the surface. Gravel and ballast material will be stockpiled for reuse for the construction of haul roads and hardstand areas for the piling rigs. Other hard materials such as bricks, concrete and bluestone may also be reused on site in a similar manner or for filling of ‘soft’ spots. -~--__ There is the potentiZl-fo7thFFeGie 0-f @$iElmatel~5;000X3-5fEZtFri5l-t5EiiSFthiacF levels in areas within the Stadium leased land. There is also the potential to reuse 50,000 m3 to raise the level of the proposed public access area leading from Spencer Street into the Stadium area. This is not part of the project and requires agreement with Docklands .Authority_ The fill material reused other than ,gravel and ballast will be selected from the better - -. - materials- - during - - gxcavation basgd-0-ngructural and-Wntamination characteristics. - - ~- 102 of 300 3. 2.2.3 Recycle The preference for matenal not reused is to recycle and the earthworks sub-contractor will be encouraged to use this form of disposal for appropriate materials. The remainder of the material will be disposed offsite as solid inert waste 2.3 Stockpiles Stockpiling of materials will be used for: 0 material to be reused on site such as ,gravel and ballast; 0 rubble for recycling such as concrete, bricks and bluestone; and 0 contaminated soil for disposal. 2.3.1 Stockpiles for Reuse and Recycle The first two categories will not require any special procedures other than to minimise dust generation during tipping and shaping the stockpiles. The stockpiles will be located at convenient locations for reuse or offsite transport. 23.2 Contaminated Soil Stockpiles The preference during earthworks is to be able to excavate and directly dispose of material. However stockpiling may be undertaken where the small quantities contaminated soil are uncovered which are odorous or visually contaminated. The management of this material will be facilitated by the establishment of soil stockpile areas at strategic locations on the site. The stockpile areas would be used where the material could not be left in the vicinity of the excavation for physical or contamination reasons. The soil in the stockpile can then be disposed appropriatly according to EPA guidelines. The areas used for the storage of contaminated soil will be designed to ensure that there is limited potential for health or environmental problems. The final procedure for stockpile preparation will be worked out with the earthworks subcontractor and will include the following: 0 Location - The locations should also take advantage of easy access and natural contours to minimise erosion and prevent runoff. 0 Base Preparation - The base should be flat and compacted with a layer of material which can be removed after disposal of the contaminated soil. The better the base the less base material that will require removal. A layer of geofabric material or crushed rock would be -s.ui_table. ~~ 0 Runo~-Th-e-m-ain-objective-is-to-prevent-contamination-from-ente~g-the-en~o~ent-by-. controlling runoff. This will be accomplished by preparing an area which has runoff control such as having a bund around the area with a small gradient ending in a trench and/or pit which will act as a trap for the silt. 103 of 300 Control of Fehicles - Vehicular control should be such that spread of potentially contaminated materials by spillage or on truck tyres is minimised. Transfer trucks should not drive on contaminated stockpiles and the tracks of machines used in shaping and loading stockpiles should be cleaned before leaving the area. Dint Control - Minimisation of dust by compaction of stockpiles and watering where necessary. 3.0 DISPOSAL METHODS - Disposal of material during earthworks will be divided into three categories solid inert waste, low level contaminated soil and prescribed waste according to €PA Information Bulletin 448, 1995. 3.1 Solid Inert Waste As discussed earlier most of the material north of the retaining wall will be classified as solid inert waste and will form the.bulk of the 160,000 m3 which is anticipated to be removed. This material will be disposed to landfills licensed to accept solid inert waste. Selection of one or several landfills will be made in conjunction with the earthworks sub-contractor and records kept of volumes and destinations. 3.2 Low Level Contaminated Soil The area south of the retaining wall is classified as LLCS for disposal purposes. An application for disposal will be prepared by BH as soon as final design specifications are known which specify the excavation volume. Further material from stockpiles may require disposal as LLCS during the project. The stockpiles will be tested to satisfy the EPA that contaminant and elutriable fractions meet criteria for disposal. Disposal of LLCS will be in covered trucks to landfills licensed to receive LLCS. 3.3 Prescribed Waste It is anticipated that there will only be a minor mount of Prescribed Waste on the site. This will mostly be associated with gas works tar (PAHs) and fuel and oil spills. Information on the type and level of contamination will be supplied to a landfill licensed to accept prescribed waste to ensure that it meets their license conditions. Currently there are only 2 suitable licensed landfills, Cleanaway at Tullamarine and BFI at Lyndhurst. Disposal of prescribed waste will be in licensed trucks and requires EPA Waste Transport Certificates to be filled out. __ -4.O--~RO.CED-~~S-~~-~G Detailed site specific method statements covering all aspects of handling and disposal of soil and rubble for the project will be developed by BH. 104 of 300 - ...... 4.1 Procedures A series of work instructions and method statements connected with site remediation will be developed in conjunction with the earthworks sub-contractor as appendices to the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). These procedures will cover: 0 Excavation of contaminated soil; 0 Storage and stockpiling of materials; - 0 Separation of rubble; 0 Material tracking; and 0 Sampling and testing of soil including final site validation requirements. The EMF also includes other procedures to ensure that the earthworks do not adversely impact on air and water. .. .. 4.2 Health and Safety There are some health and safety aspects that need to be considered when handling materials with the contaminants found on the Stadium. A section of the site Occupational Health and Safety Plan will be prepared for the construction and utility workers who may be exposed to contaminants during their normal duties. Procedures will be developed for specific jobs once construction plans are fmalised. 4.3 Supervision The organisation of project will include suitable management personnel to ensure the implementation of the Em. This will include specialist environmental consultants to supervise the major earthworks part of the project. The consultants will work directly with the engineers, foremen and operators to optimise the reuse and recycle of suitable materials during the earthworks pro,oram. 4.4 Training The success of the remediation program will rely heavily on the operators in the field. To ensure the achievement of these goals a training program will be developed so that the operators are familiar with the various indications of contamination that are likely to be found on the site. 105 of 300 -- -- I: , * 106 of 300 Y 1 1 September 1997 Mr. Graham Cottanr Project Director - Victoria Stadium Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd 55 Southbank Boulevard SOUTIIBANK 3006 Our RcC 5380 Pt8 Dear Mr. Cottam, VICTORIA STADIUM - CONTAMINATED SOIL MANACiCiviENT Thank you for your letter of 8 September 1997, enclosing draft plans for contaminated soil management and projcct enviroriental management. This reply only covcrs your proposcd soil disposal program. A scparatc rcply commenting on the broadcr environmental managcmcnt plan will bc forwarded ncxt weck. The approach adopted to the classification, iiiaiiageineiit and disposal of soil in the draft remediation plan is acccptablc to EPA. Clcar records will need to be kept to provide an audit trail for soil movement. 'l'hc dctails of appropriatc record keeping und the list cjf landfills receiving soil from the Victoria Stadium site can bc sorted out via an on-site meeting ncxt week. One point that docs nccd to bc clarified is the basis for classifying the soil contamination statu.. for this site. Normally EPA would use the %%le UCL to dcfinc the average contaminant conccntratioii in any particular soil strata. Howevcr, given the presencc of building rubble throughout the soil profilc, the non elutriable nature of the contaminants, the minor excccdences ofthe clean fill criteria at the 95%1e level *adyonr qyccment to dispose of all soils leaving the site as at least solid incrt wale ai an EPA lictnscd Idfill, EPA agrees to the use ofmem values for classifying the soils at this particular site. A mean of 104 niglkg for copper versus a clean lil! criteria of lOOmg/kE is within not significant in these circumstances (espccially when analytical error is also factored in) and !1c11cesoils north of the retaining wall may be disposed of as solid incrt waste. i lei (03)9628 5533 Fax (03)9628 5699 IOD% RCCVCLEL, PAlJkfi 11 SEP '97 14:25 +613 96285853 FRCE .82107 of 300 ~~ 11.09. '97 13:2a ID :ENV I RCiriENT PROTECT I ON FAX :+613-96235053 PRGE 3 2 In finalising the remediation plan, thc agrccd record keeping procedure should be added as an appendix and the discussion on soil classification should bc'corrcctcd to rcflcct thc abovc comments. Although we may agrcc on rcmediation plans, both EPA and BHE are at liberty to seek to changc arrangcrnents should the need arise. For fudher information on this matter, or to arrange thc ncxt mccting at which we would discuss sitc managcmmt and record kccping, please contact me on 9628 5433. Yours sincerely Rod McLellan Maiiagcr - Yarra Region i 108 of 300 11 SEP '97 14:26 +613 9628.5053 PFitE. 03 BAULD ERST0 NE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium APPENDIX F GROUNDWATER INFORMATION 109 of 300 Golder Associates Pfy Ltd A.C.N. 006 107 857 MELBOURNE OFFICE 25 Butwood Road, Hawthorn. Vic 31 22 Australia (PO Box 6079, Hawthorn West, Vic 3 1 22 Australia) Telephone (03) 981 9 4044 Fax (03)981 8 7990 November 20, 1997 976 12247102 Baulderstone Homibrook Pty Ltd 55 Southbank Boulevard SOUTHMELBOURNE VIC 3205 Attention: Mr Michael Crestani RE: VICTORIA STADIUM - GR Dear Sir, INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Pty Ltd has installed res at the Victorian Stadium site, Docklands, Victoria. The installation was completed in accordance with our proposal P97234b dated October 14, 1997. The installation details together with the soil profile are presented in this report. The boreholes were located approximately at the centre of each side of the stadium beyond the excavation area as instructed by Michael Crestani from Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd. The approximate locations are given on the Site Plan, Drawing 247D01. Relative RL’s were measured using Madigan Surveying benchmarks. DRILLING & INSTALLATION DETAILS I The drilling was performed on November 5 and November 6, 1997. It involved the drilling of four 100 mm diameter boreholes using a Gemco HM12 rotary drilling rig operated by a licensed water bore driller. The boreholes were advanced using augers pressure cleaned prior to each borehole to avoid cross contamination. The borehole logsheets, GWOl to GW04, indicating the soil profile encountered have been attached together with the Method of Soil Classification and Notes and Abbreviations used in the preparation of the reports. The boreholes were drilled to at least one metre below the water table as observed during the drilling. Each borehole was then left open for up to 0.5 hr to make a measurement of the groundwater level. When this was determined, the monitoring bore was installed. The installation details are given on Drawing 247D02. Approximately one hour after installation, monitoring bores GWO1, GW02 and GW04 were bailed empty of water using a cleaned stainless steel bailer. Due to the slow inflow of water fimher development was postponed. Borehole GW03 had a larger inflow and so three well volumes were removed. Further development was conducted on November 11, 1997. Monitoring bores GW02 and GW04 were bailed dry several times using a washed stainless i .. .. - .. __...... - ...... - ...... -110 - of 300 Michael Crestani 976 12247102 19, Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd November-. 1997 steel bailer. Monitoring bore GWOl was pumped dry several times using a washed 12 V pump. Morkoring bore GW03 had 100 litres of water removed using the washed 12V pump. Initial groundwater levels were taken prior to pumping. These levels are given in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 GROUNDWATER LEVELS Monitoring Bore Water Level (RL m) GWO 1 3.04 GW02 1.79 GW03 1.19 GW04 0.93 - Rising head tests were performed in each monitoring well to assess the permeability of the material and to provide a basis for estimating the inflow into a future excavation if this was required. Tix results are given in Table 2 below. TABLE 2 PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENTS Monitoring Bore Hydraulic Conductivity (K ds) GWO 1 1.5 x lod GW02 1.4 x lod GW03 7.4 10-~ GW04 5.3 x lod Please do not hesitate to contact Ms Helen Pearce or the writer if you have any questions regarding this letter or require hrther information. Yours faithfully, GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD., per: RG Friday Principal Attachment: Borehole Logsheets GWOl to GW04 Method of Soil Classification Notes and Abbreviations Site Plan, Drawing 247D01 . Monitoring Bore Installation Details, Drawing 247D02 Important Information about your Geotechnical Report Colder Associates 111 of 300 i 112 of 300 I GW 01 GW 02 i ..p-q .. lOOrnm GW 03 GW 04 LEGEND Bentonite 171. Sand I- 4 Screen. 1 GROUNDWATER BORE i 113 of 300 Golder Associates Pty Ltd A.C.N. 006 107 857 MELBOURNE OFFICE 25 Burwood Road. Hawthorn. Vic 31 22 Australia [PO Box 6079. Hawthorn West, Vic 31 22 Australia) Telephone (03) 98 19 4044 Fax (03) 98 1 8 7990 November 28, 1997 976 12247103 Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd 55 Southbank Boulevard SOUTHMELBOURNE VIC 3205 Attention: Mr Michael Crestani - RE: VICTORIA STADIUM - GROUNDWATERSAMPLING Dear Sir, 1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Pty Ltd installed four groundwater monitoring bores at the Victoria Stadium site, Docklands, Victoria on November 5 and November 6, 1997. Installation details were reported in our letter dated November 20, 1997 (Ref No. 97612247/02). This letter presents the results from the first round of groundwater sampling from these bores. The installation and sampling was completed in accordance with our proposal P97234b dated October 14, 1997, Descriptions of the materials encountered in the bores are presented in the Reports of Boreholes GWOl to GW04 presented in Appendix A. The Method of Soil Classification together with the Notes and Abbreviations used in the preparation of the reports are also included. 2.0 SAMPLING METHOD The groundwater sampling was performed on November 17, 1997 Monitoring bores GW02 and GW04 were purged and sampled using a 0.5 litre stainless steel bailer that had been washed using a phosphate free detergent, tap water and finally distilled water. Both of these bores were bailed dry of water immediately prior to sampling. Monitoring bores GWOl and GW03 were purged and sampled using a 12 V down hole pump that had been washed using a phosphate free detergent, tap water and finally distilled water. Bore GWOl was pumped dry of water hmediately prior to sampling. Bore GW03 had 100 Litres of water removed immediately prior to sampling. Specially prepared sample bottles supplied by WSL Consultants Pty Ltd were used to hold the water needed for testing. The water taken to be tested for the presence of metals was filtered in the field using a 0.45p.m filter. Water sampled from each bore was tested in the field for pH, Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Conductivity and salinity. The results are shown in Table 1. 114 of 300 OFFICES IN ADELAIDE, BRISBANE, CAIRNS, SOLD COAST. MAROOCHYDORE. MELBOURNE. PERT%. SYDNEY WOLLONGONG. JAKARTA hyKL- SSOCIATED COMPANIES IN CANADA. FIJI, FINLAND. GERMANY. HONG KONG. HUNGARY. ITALY. SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM. UNITED STATES 5*_srru Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd -2- 9762 12247103 Mr Michael Crestani November 28, 1997 3L Table 1 - Field Measurements Monitoring PH Temperature Dissolved Conductivity Salinity Bore Oxygen GWO1 6.3 20 OC 3.25 mgfl 1600 pMHos 1 S% GW02 6.4 20 OC 3.7 mg/l 1000 pMHos 1 S% GW03 6.6 23 OC 3.0 mg/l 1500 pMHos 1 S% GW04 6.1 19.5 OC 3.25 mgA 9500 pMHos 9.8 S% All samples were kept in an esky to keep the samples cool and were delivered to WSL Consultants Pty Ltd for laboratory testing immediately after sampling the final bore. WSL Consultants F'ty Ltd is NATA endorsed for the chemical tests conducted. > 3.0 ANALYTICAL PROGRAMME Groundwater sampled from the wells was tested for a range of potential contaminants including: e PH 0 total dissolved solids e electrical conductivity e major cations and anions 0 volatile and semi volatile organic hydrocarbons e: petroleum hydrocarbons 0 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons e metals e organochlorine pesticides e cyanide 0 fluoride e polychlorinated biphenyls e total phenols 4.0 GROUNDWATER CRITERIA For screening purposes the groundwater contaminant concentrations have been compared with criteria developed by ANZECC relating to the protection of aquatic ecosystems (Reference 1) . The criteria are summarised in Table 2. ! Golder Associates 115 of 300 Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd -3 - 9762 12247103 Mr Michael CreStani ‘L November 28, 1997 Table 2 Summary of Initial Screening Criteria, Groundwater (mg/L) Zhemical ANZECC Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic I_.--.--- Ecosystems Marine Waters vletals Antimony 0.5 Arsenic 0.05 Barium Cadmium 0.002 chromium Cobalt Copper 0.005 Manganese Mercury 0.0001 Molybdenum Nickel 0.015 Selenium 0.07 zinc 0.05 ZYANIDE 0.005 ’AHS Acenaphthene 0.003 Acenaphthylene 0.003 Anthracene 0.003 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.003 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.003 Benzo@)fluoranthene 0.003 Benzo(g.h.i)pexylene 0.003 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.003 Chrysene 0.003 Dibenz(a.h)anthracene 0.003 Fluoranthene 0.003 Fluorene 0.003 Indeno(l.2.3-cd)pyrene 0.003 Naphthalene 0.003 Phenanthrene 0.003 pyrene 0.003 Total PAHs roc Methylene chloride 6.4 STEX Benzene 0.3 Note: The criteria listed arc water quality objectives for the surface water ofthe receiving water body. The analytical reporting sheets are presented in Appendix B. 5.0 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS The concentrations of contaminants in the groundwater at the site have been compared to criteria which are commensurate with its most sensitive potential beneficial use; ecosystem protection. These criteria have been derived from the ANZECC Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters (Reference 1). The measured groundwater concentrations at the site which exceed the nominated screening criteria for ‘Protection of Aquatic Ecosystem - Marine Waters” are summarised in Table 3. Golder Associates 116 of 300 Baulderstone Homibrook Pty Ltd -4- 9762 12247103 Mr Michag.! Crestani November 28, 1997 Table 3 Summary of Analytical Results - Groundwater (mg/L) Min Max Median Average No of No of lChemical samples exceedence! Metals Antimony eo.01 CO.01 0.01 0.01 4 Arsenic 0.001 0.009 0.005 0.004 4 Beryllium <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 4 Cadmium <0.001 0.002 0.0015 0.00125 4 chromium <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 4 Cobalt 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.025 4 Copper 4.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 4 Lead <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 4 Mercury <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Molybdenum CO.01 CO.01 0.01 0.01 4 Nickel CO.01 0.05 0.03 0.02 4 1 Selenium <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Tin <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 4 0.05 0.25 0.15 0.148 4 3 Major Ions Calcium 38 630 334 215 4 Chloride 120 8600 4360 9080 4 Magnesium 31 840 435 24 1 4 Potassium 8.4 170 89 57 4 Sodium 120 4100 21 10 1155 4 .- Sulphate 40 7700 3870 2065 4 Cyanide TOMCyanide XO.0 1 0.06 0.035 0.022 4 1 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 2Chloronaphthalene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Acenaphthene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Acenaphthylene 4.001 40.001 0.001 0.001 4 Anthracene 4.001 ~0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Benz(a)anthracene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Benzo(a)pyrene CO.00 1 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Benzo(b) & (k)fluoranthene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Benzo(g.h.i)perylene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Chrysene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Dibenz(ah)anthracene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Fluoranthene <0.001 dO.001 0.001 0.001 4 Fluorene 4.001 0.01 1 0.006 0.003 4 1 Indeno(l.2.3-cd)pyrene 4.001 4.001 0.001 0.001 4 Naphthalene 4.001 0.14 0.070 0.036 4 1 Phenanthrene <0.001 4.001 0.001 0.001 4 Pyrene 4.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Volatile and Semi Volatile Organic Zompounds 1.2-Dichlorobenzene 4.001 4.001 0.001 0.001 4 1.2.4 Trichlorobenzene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 1.3-Dichlorobenzene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 1.4-Dichlorobenzene . <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Hexachlorobenzene 4.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Hexachlorobutadiene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Hexachlorocyclojmtadiene 4.001 <0.001 0.00 1 0.00 1 4 Hexachloroethane <0.001 4.001 0.001 0.001 4 Hexachloropropylene 4.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Pentachlorobenzene <0.001 4.001 0.001 0.001 4 3lE.Y Species Benzene 4.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 i Chlorobenzene a001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Ethylbenzene CO.00 1 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 meta- & para-Xylene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.00 1 4 G older Associates 117 of 300 Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd -5- 976212247103 Mr Michael Creh November 28, 1997 .__.___.._...--.-.---..-- --- .-.- ..-.-.-.__. .--...... -....- ._I...... ---. :hemica1 Min - Max Median Average 1 Noof No of Sam les exceedences orthwxylene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 Toluene <0.001 <0.001 0.001 *0.001 4 ieneml PH 6.2 7.1 6.65 6.58 4 TDS 930 23000 11965 6572 4 lrganochlorinePesticides Aldrin <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 DDD 4.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 DDE <0.001 4.001 0.001 0.001 4 DDT 4.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Dieldrin <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.00 1 4 Endrin <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 HCB <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Heptachlor 4.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 Heptachlor epoxide <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.001 4 'henol Phenols <0.001 0.027 0.014 0.014 4 btal Petroleum Hydrocarbons c& Fraction <0.04 <0.04 0.04 0.04 4 C&4 Fraction CO.04 1.4 0.09 0.085 4 CI&B Fraction For the purpose of calculatik the laboratory method detection limit has been used for resuk that have been reported as below the labbratory method detection limit The data indicate that there are a number of potential exceedences of the criteria for protection of marine ecosystems. In general, these exceedences are less than ten times the criteria (except for naphthalene), which suggests that on an overall basis the groundwater is unlikely to have a significant impact on groundwater quality in the nearby receiving water body, namely the Yarra River, especially considering the potential for dilution of the groundwater as it discharges. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding the first round of groundwater monitoring. Yours Faithhlly, Robin Friday Principal HAP\RR247wp03.doc Attachments : Appendix A - Reports of Boreholes Appendix B - Laboratory Reporting Sheets Golder Associates 118 of 300 APPENDIX A 119 of 300 INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY FIELD SAMPLING OTHER AND TESTING FILL - crushed rock (20rnm) - - - - - CL Gravelly CLAY, orange brown.'fine to medium gravel. inferred stiff CL San CLAY. orange brown. fine to coarse. moist igrred stiff green brown. trace gravel CL Silty CLAY, trace gravel, with sand, dark grey, moist inferred firm _--___------ with sand, moist to wet. inferred firm S I I -a= END OF BOREHOLE @ 5.6m GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED @ 3.8m 50mm STANDPIPE INSTALLED SCREEN 2.6-5.6m SANd5.gl.Om BENTONITE SEAL 0.5-1.0m ~ 7 120 of 300 I Report of borehole must be read in conjunction wilh accompanying notes and abbreviations FIELO SAMPLING OTHER AND TESTING I I FILL...... - sphdt I Crushed rock (20mm) ------cobbles...... CL Sandy CLAY, grey, fine to medium sand, inferred Stiff...... CH Silty CLAY. grey, moist inferred firm ____------_----- trace gravel, grey, inferred firm ---__--_--_--__-___--_- grey, moist inferred vely stiff END OF BOREHOLE @ 5.7m GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED @ 4.7117 50mm STANDPIPE INSTALLED SCREEN 4.7-5.7m SAND 0.9-5.7111 BENTONITE SEAL 0.54.9m 121 of 300 INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY le1 FIELD SAMPLING I OTHER AND TESTING I ...... CH Sandy CLAY. fine to come. trace gravel, grey and orange brown, inferred very stiff CH Si1 CLAY, dark grey, moist to wet inferred soft to%m ---_------_--_------trace gravel CH Silty CLAY. dark grey, wet inferred soft to firm ______-___--_---__--- band of sand, fine to coarse END OF BOREHOLE @ 4.lm GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED @ 2.0171 SOmm STANDPIPE INSTALLED SCREEN 1.1-4.lm SAND 1.W.lm BENTONITE SEAL0.31.0m I 122 of 300 INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY FILL - Gravelly Sandy Clay, brown. inferred stiff SLAG Claye SAND, line to medium bl&k With cow graver CH Silty CLAY. dark grey, wet inferred soft END OF BOREHOLE Q 26m GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED @ 1.0m 50mm STANDPIPE INSTALLED SCREEN 0.5-26m SAND 0.48-2.6m BENTONITE 0.1 -0.48~ 123 of 300 .LL A GEOTECH N ICA L ENG I NEERI NG der the mislaRen impression that simply disdaiming re- sponsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information REPORT IS SUBJECT TO always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing MISINTERPRETATION the best available information to contractors helps pre- Costly problems can occur when other design profes- vent costly construction problems and the adversarial sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate ofa geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid scale. these problems. the geotechnical engineer should be retained to work with other appropriate design profes- READ RESPONSIBILITY sionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to CLAUSES CLOSELY review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to geotechnical issues. Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion. it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted daims being lodged against geotechnical consultants. To help prevent this problem. geotechnical BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE engineers have developed model dauses for use in writ- SEPARATED FROM THE ten transmittals. These are nof exculpatory dauses ENGINEERING REPORT designed to foist geotechnical engineers' liabilities onto someone else. Rather. they are definitive dauses which Final boring logs are developed by geotechnica! engi- identify where',georechnicai engineers' responsibilities neers based upon their interpretation of field logs begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved rec- (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation ognize their individual responsibilities and take appro- of field samples. Only final boring logs customarily are priate action. Some of these definitive dauses are likely induded in geotechnical engineering reports. These logs to appear in your geotechnical engineering report. and should not urider any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in you are encouraged to read them closely. Ycur geo- architectural or other design drawings. because drafters technical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process answers to your questions. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem. it does nothing to minimize :he possibility of contractm misinterpreting the logs during bid prepara- OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO tion. When this occurs. delays. disputes and unantici- REDUCE RISK pated costs are the all-too-frequent result. Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- discuss other techniques which can be employed to mit- tion. give Contractors ready access IO fhe comylete gcorechnical igate risk. In addition. ASFE has developed a variety of engiiieering reporf prepared or authorized for their use. materials which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE. for a Those who do not provide such access may.proceed un- complimentary copy of its publications directory. . For further information on this aspect reference should be made to "Guidelines for the Provision of Geotechnical Infomation in Construction Contracts" published by The Institution of Engineers Australia. National Headquarters, Canberra, 1987. Pubfirhcd by THE ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING FIRMS 5FEPRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 881 I Colcsvillc Road/Suite C 106/Silver Spring. Maryland 20910/(301) 505-2733 124 of 300 APPENDIX B 125 of 300 WSLConsultan S Enviroscience CLIENT: GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD (D ACN Ofll 752 it7h RE: VICTORIAN STADIUM -4 -1 JOB NO: 97612247 fib laborstory It reglatered by the Natlonal Aisoclatlon 2-8 Hawcy Street, b- of TcitinB Authoriiicr, Austrnlin. Tho teit(e) repoiicJ 01 Richmond, Victoria 3 12 I I:::eiu have bcen pcrfonilcd In nccorrlcncs with Ita iuIIli; .. I cn 'lklrplionc: t61 3 9429 4666 cI' rcgiulmliun. This docurncni sl~allno1 be teyru&;;d m Facsimile: t613 3429 2294 ckccyi in Cull. i Email: [email protected] INORGANICS -WATER am I- w ~age2of10 Water result8 expressed as mglL uniesa staled othewlee, 0 0 N 126 of 300 0 w \ WSLConsultants c I\: Enviroscience CLIENT: GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ACN 004 7’22 676 (0 RE: VICTORIAN STADIUM 41 2-8 l-larvey Street, JOB NO: 97612247 Thls Leborriory is registered by tk Nbtional Atrocirtlon t- Richmond, Victoria 31 21 of Tectlnp Authoritisr, Aumalir. The ICII(I) raportad VI.. Telephone: &I3 9429 4666 herein have becn parfortnod In rmordmcs with 111 tcrmr of registroilon. Thir documollt ahdi not ba rnprodilcod Facsimile: 413 9429 2294 ~XCCDIin full. REPORT NO 36164 Recelved: 17111167 W SAMPLE DETAILS C6-C9 >C9-C.14 >C14-C28 >C28-C36 Calcium Potasslum Magnesium SOdlUm c. F; -II u2 N LAB No DESCRIPTION LOCATION DEPTH 13 (0 .F. 88667 1 .. GWO3 .. e0.04 ~0.04 CO. I CO. 1 110 25 89668 -- -.----.. --.-. --..------.__ -- -.--.-- --. .----.- -_--53 250 L L 42 120 ...... GWOl ...... cO.04 ...... e0.04 ...... co.1 . co.1 81 24 .----- 89669 3 GW04 c0.04 1.4 co. 1 1 170 840 ~--41 ---.I- ...-- ..-.-__.-..--_-_I___ ---I--.-. .- --- ---- I.---- .....--...__. . -- ~------..------.--.-.-- ...... - ...... -.-_...__...... _-_ ...... -.-.-.- ._____.__.-.-_____-___ --.- QC Data -- ...... -...... -...... --_...... __ __~_”.__ Duplicale 896681) ~-..--.--.---- GWO1’ -.-.-- .. -- ...... - --I.._ .-._._ __ ----.--- - 41 110 -- ...... --I-79 E9m... I _-___.._--.-.-__.-.I.------_--.- 23 GW03 ~0.04 CO. 1 --- _--- ...... _ .._.....-._._...._...... -I_..--- _._-____.__--. ----_I_--- ..... -.--...... -. .... --_--...... __...... _ ...... --.-- -...... ___------._.-..---.-.._.- --- > Ln ---.I.--...... -.-_._-.___. ______-. --- Ln 0 0 METHODS SOIL ...... ---” -..-. ... WATER WSL 030 WSL 030 WSL 030 WSL 023 3120 3120 3120 B b 030 WSL A B 0 Page 3 of 10 Waler resulls expressed as mglL unless staled otherwise. @ 0 0 (J 127 of 300 0 W WSLConsultants \ I- Enviroscience N CLIENT: GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD - ACN 004 732 676 RE: VICTORIAN STADIUM ' 2-8 Harvcy Street, JOE NO: 97612247 .. Richmond, Victoria 3 12 1 Telephone:+GI 3 9429 4GGB Facsimile: t613 9429 2294 Einnil: wslco~i~n~.ctiinil.cn~i~,~~~~ METALS -WATER IREPORTNOI 36164 I SAMPLE DETAIL8 Ah&nlnlwn Ar@~nla !-tuom!urn Copper . Iron Mangan b8b LAB -- No DESCRlPnON LOCATlON OEPTN , 39667 1 ow3 0.we 0.002 0.00 qo.01 0.01 PO 8.1 .-. I_-- .. -...... - - ---.---__. _-.__.- 39668 2 QWl 0.004 co.mi 0.01 co.01 dO.01 21 0.w -~-- - _._. -- ---_ ._-_I_-____ 3Se 3 ow4 0.001 <0.001 0.02 .-..- . . -. .. ..___...... --- ...... L- 5. .- -- -.-- - v1 ac DO~~ r -I_ - --.- --. -Dupllcate - ._- - 18687 1 CwO3 4,001 0.07 -- - -.------co.01 0.01 10 6.2 - Batch Check 0.002 ..... ---- ...... _---...... , ...... - ...... -_ .-- .-- ...... , , ...... - -. . -1 ..- -- ...... ,...... --- 1 ...... 'I ...... ,...... , ...... -_...... I.-- ...... ---- ...... -...... I I I I I -I-'- Water APHA 3120813112 I METHODS 1 *-131148. Page 4 of 10 Water resulls expressed 88 mglL unlese elated otherwlee, 128 of 300 WSLConsultants Enviroscience CLIENT: GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ACN 004 752 676 RE: VICTORIAN STADIUM fhi8 Laboratory In nghtcd by tho National hioclrilon ' 2-8 I-larvcy Strcct, JOB NO: 97612247 of Telling Authorltiet, Aurtnlh The tut(n) reportad Richmond, Victoria 3 121 krcin hnve been perfonnod la rrord.lrca rl(b Its ictmi Tclephonc: 413 9429 4666 of rc,girtrrilon. Thh document 0h.ll no( be mpmd~caj Facsimile: +GI 3 9429 2294 exccpt in full. Email: wslconOozemail.com.au POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS - WATER I SAMPLE DETAILS 8 rv, ;u v, VI 0 IMETHODS cl Weter reeulte expressed ES mgll unless stated otherwlse. W E? 0 I 0 UI 129 of 300 0 W S L Cons ul tants w \ Enviroscience I- CLIENT: GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD N ACN 004 711 676 RE: VICTORIAN STADIUM (D 2-8 Harvey Street, -l JOB NO: 97612247 This Labonlory la reglrtemd by the Natlonal An8ocia~on Richmond, Victoria 312 1 of Testlng Aulhodtlcr, Auctrrllr. The tcclt(8) reportad t- Tclephonc: +GI 3 9429 466G hernia hays boon performed in wotdmca whh 110 tcnm o).. 0 Facsimile: t6 1 3 9429 2234 of roglatratlon. This documenl shall no( be rcproducd t- Email: [email protected]. arcept in full. MONOCYCLICAROMATIC HYDRO,CARBONS- WATER rg 0) I- w c. c N (D N M (0 4 4 v) r Page 6 of 10 Water resulls expressed as mD/L unlesr, stated olhewlee. IQ 0 0 m 130 of 300 0 ca I W S LConsultants \ I- Envi rosciencc N CLIENT: OOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD i ACN 001 711 676 RE: VICTORIAN STADIUM (D 4 1 . ' 2-8 Harvey Street, JOB NO: 97612247 Richmond, Victoria 3 121 t- m t61 9429 .. Telcphone: 3 4666 0 Facsimile: t(i I 3 3423 2294 Ir3 Email: [email protected] VOLATILE HALOGENATED ORGANICS -WATER REPORT NO 36164 Recelved:l 17H1187, Chlom- 1, 1,2 Chlom. bemene TrWlloro. elbromo- rlhm mslham -0.01 r0.001 4.001 .... -...... 4.Qo1 ulO.w1 <0.001 --I__----- .I----..- ...... -- .- __ -.- 1....-- - _ ...... - ...... "...... ------. _.- I-- I I 1 I I I METHODS I I WSL JBIOA Pege 7 of 10 Water results expressed as mg/L unless stated otherwise. @ 0 0 t -4 131 of 300 0 W SLConsul tan ts w ~ Enviroscience CLIENT GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ACN 004 752 6776 i RE: VICTORIAN STADIUM -1 I 2-8 Harvcy Street, JOB NO: 97612247 This Lnb rntory is ngirtored by tha National Anrodrtlon w Richmond, Victoria 3 12 1 of Telling Authorliiar, Aurtnllr. Thc tcat(8) npnnbd 0, 'I hcieln hmvo bwn potformad la rcordanco wlth Ita ttrnir .. Tclcphonc: +6 1 3 9429 4666 0 i Facsimile: of regirtration. Tblr docomarr rbll not k mproduez.4 w +613 9429 2294 axccpt in full. I Email: wslcon@ozemail,com.nu pces (AROCHLOR NO.) -WATER REPORT NO 30164 i Recehred 17111197 r SAMPLE DETAILS 1018 1221 1232 1242 1248 1264 1260 Total ! PC E's LAB NO DESCRIPTION LOCATION DEPTH 89667 1 ----.-GW03 sssss---T-""...... -- ..-..- ...... ~0,001 <0.001 <0.001 ...... co.001 _._.<0.001 __ <0.001 <0.001 co.01 ------..---. ... .------GWOI - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 co.001 co.001 e cn ------.. I--- r --_ --_ ...... ___ .-_.- .--. ....---_._...... _. ------.------_- --- QC Data - Dupllcate ...... _I_ --- .-.--..-- .....-...... _.--...... -...... _._--..I__-...... I.._.. 896700 4 GW02 I ._.- ~__ -.- ____-- L .... . -..-.....- --- -.-_.-.. . .. ------. .-.-- .I_------..--I.. 1 -_- - - ._.- .-- r, 0 ------_I_-.- ...... ---______I__-- _.-__L__. _.__._ - --_.. ---- r tr -- .I-.-__ .... --_ -___---__.------. m --- .------!a ;r ~ v, ._--..-----_ ~ - _-______-_- cn 0 c, METHODS SOIL - --.- WATER WSL 8080 WSL sogo WSL BOBO WSL BOBO WSL eoeo WSL 8oeo WSL eoeo WSL eoeo Page 8 of 10 Water resulls expressed as mglL unless staled otherwlse. QI 0 0 0 132 of 300 0 W \ WSLConsultants c. h) Enviroscience CLIENT: GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY CTD ACN On4 752 671, RE: VICTORIAN STADIUM 2-8 Harvey Screct, JOB NO: 97612247 Thir Lnboretory Is registered by thc N~iloMlAsioclatlon c. Richmond, Victoria 3 1 2 1 of Tcrling Aulhodilcr, Aurttrlir, Tha tc~l(r)reported m krcin hva been performed in accordrace with ita terhta .. Telephone:41 3 9429 4666 0 of rsglrlration. This documeni ahrll not ba nyrdwxd rp k.similc: 413 9429 2294 nxcepl in full. Email: [email protected] ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES WATER - @ lREPORTN0 I 38164 I m I c Recelved:l 17/11/97 t w h) ' 13 W I *. ;a667- 1 OW3 ~0.001 ...... -.- ...... -. ,______...... 4 v) - ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r - -- ..- --- ...... -.-...-__...... PC Dale. I__.-.-...... -.-I--.-- ... --._ ...... --.--_..--_- hlpllcote - -I MO 4 m2 - -__._ - ~ ... --.- --. --- -.- - -.- ^I_ ...... ;r- ...... -...... -..-..__ v) ------_ cn C METHODS CI Page 9 of 10 Water resulls expressed as mg/L unless aleted othewlse. @ 0 0 (D 133 of 300 WS LConsultants Enviroscience CLIENT: GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ACN an4 752 676 RE: VICTORIAN STADIUM This Llkbitory 1: mgirtmd by the Nitlonel Airoclitlon 2-8 Harvey Street, JOB NO: 97812247 ' ar Tcrtiag Aurhorlllea, Aurtrrlir. Tho tc:l(r) rapmod Richmond, Victoria 3121 hcreln hive been perf& In .ccardancs wlth its term Tclcphone: tG1 3 9429 4666 oC ragialrrilon. This document rhill no( bo repnwlaccd Fauimilc: tG13 9429 2294 aiccpi ie full. Email: [email protected] CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS - WATER REPORT NO 381s4 Recelved: 17/11/97 I I I --.--l:l-l-:.- --.--l:l-l-:.- ...... _ ...... - - ... I I I I I I I I I I I I METHODS WI Water results expressed as mglL unlese staled otherwise. 134 of 300 BAULD ERST0 NE Land Status Report 0 HORNIBROOK Docklands Stadium APPENDIX G CERTIFIED ANALYTICAL RESULTS 135 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories 22 January 1998 Baulderstone Hornibrook Private Bag 1000 NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 Your Reference : Site Validation Ch-StO3.doc Report Number: 21450 Attention: Michael Crestani Dear Michael The following samples were received by us on the date indicated. Samples: Quantity 16 Soils Date of Registration 1YO 1/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 1YO 1 /98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 13/01/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should ycu-haxany-queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. r Yours faithfully AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES .' i Xeoff Latimer Phillip' Dews Manager- Business Systems Quality Manager This document may not be repruduced except in full. Page I of I I 'I 136 of 300 ...... - PROJECT: Site Validation Ch-St03.doc REPORT NO.:21450 Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil Our Reterence: UNITS 21450-3 21450-7 21450-1 I 2 1450-15 Your Kel’erence P r Page 2 of 11 137 of 300 PA1 Is in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 21450-17 21450-18 2 1450-19 2 1450-20 Your Reference _-I GI, G2. G3, GS, G6, G7, G4 GO S0003, SO004 ___I Naphthalene mu/ka a.I <0. 1 Vluorunthene 0.5 0.5 0.7 ~~ I Page 3 of 11 138 of 300 PROJECT: Site Validation Ch-St03.doc REPORT NO.:21450 PCBs in Soil Our Reference: I 21450-18 I , I Your Reference e -- Aroclor 1016 mfl/kg c0.2 Aroclor 122 I rnd./kr c0.2 Aroclor 1242 I mflg I <0.2 I Aroclor 124X I nid/kr I c0.2 I Aroclor 1254 lIldk/kr! I Aroolor I260 mgkg 4.2 Deciiclilorobiphenyl Surrogate 2 I %Recovery 71 i ._ Page 4 of 11 139 of 300 OC Pesticides in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 2 1450-18 Your Reference --- GS, G6, G7, GI( 1-1 HCB I m&/kg I Aldrin m&Yk/ke Dieldrin Page 5 of 11 140 of 300 PROJECT: Site Validation Ch-St03.doc REPORT NO.:21450 Total Phenalim in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 21450-18 Your Reference _-I GS, G6, G7, G8 -- Total Cyanide mkYk/ke 0.05 Total Phenolics (as Phenol) m&/ke <0.05 Page 6 of 11 141 of 300 , Page 7 of I I 142 of 300 .-- QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil I ------s SamplellDuplicate % Rec. (Dup) 11 ROD:% TRHCe-Cs . mglkg 20 MEO-020 e20 21450-3 c20 11 c20 2 1450-7 77 11 98 11 RPD: 24 TRH CIO - c14 mghl 20 MEO-020 c20 21 450-3 c20 11 c20 21 450-7 78 (1 100 11 RPD: 25 TRH CIS - CZ~ mgMl 50 MEO-020 40 21 450-3 4011 40 21450-7 66 II 86 II RPD: 26 TRH c29 - C36 . mg/kg . 50 MEO-020 c50 21 450-3 4011 40 21 450-7 67 11 87 11 RPD: 26 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 PAHs in Soil -- -I I- - - SamplellDuplicate % R=. (DUP) II RPD:% Naphthalene I mglkg 0.1 ME0430 co.1 21450-17 c0.1 11 co.1 21450-1 8 114 11 112 11 RPD: 2 AcenaDhthviene mdks 0.1 ME0430 Benzolklfluoranthene mdka 0.1 MEO-030 CO. 1 21 450-1 7 0.2 0.2 21- 450-18 Nil Soike .. -- , II 1 -r - Benzola jpyrene 1 mghg I 0.1 I ME0430 I co.1 I 21 450-1 7 I 0.4 11 0.5 I 21 450-1 8 I Nil Spike I 0.1 ME0430 1 lndeno[ 123-cdjpyrene I mgncs I I I co.1 I 21450-17 . I 0.3 11 0.3 I 21450-18 I Nil Spike Dibenzolehlanthracene I mdks I 0.1 ME0430 co.1 21450-17 I co.1 II co.1 21 450-1 8 Nil Soike I .. -- . I I I Benzo[ghr]perylene I mg/kg I 0.1 I MEO-030 I co.1 I 21 450-17 I 0.3 11 0.3 I 21 450-18 I Nil Spike 1 I pTerphenyl-d14 Sufrogate 1 I %Recovery I 40 I MEO-030 I C40 I 21 450-17 I 97 11 80 I 21450-18 I Nil Spike 1 Page 8 of 11 143 of 300 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 PCBs in Soil ------I_ SamplellDuplicate - % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% Aroclor 1016 mgkl 0.2 MEO-005 c0.2 21 450-18 c0.2 11 c0.2 21 450-18 Nil Spike Aroclor 1221 mgnv3 0.2 MEO-005 c0.2 21 450-18 c0.2 11 c0.2 21450-18 Nil Spike Aroclor 1232 mdkg 0.2 MEO-005 c0.2 21 450-18 c0.2 11 c0.2 21 450-18 Nil Spike Aroclor 1242 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 G0.2 21 450-18 <0.2 11 c0.2 21 450-18 Nil Spike Aroclor 1248 mgM 0.2 ME0-005 c0.2 21 450-18 c0.2 11 c0.2 21 450-18 Nil Spike Aroclor 1254 mgkl 0.2 MEO-005 <0.2 21 450-18 c0.2 11 c0.2 21450-18 Nil Spike Aroclor 1260 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 c0.2 21 450-18 c0.2 11 c0.2 21450-18 Nil Spike Decachlorobiphenyl SUrfOgafe 2 % Recovery 50 MEO-005 INTI 21450-18 71 11 75 21450-18 Nil Spike QUALITY CONTROL PQL I METHOD I Blank I Duplicate Sm # I Duplicate I Spike Sm # I % Recovery11 1 OC Pesticides in Soil HCB mgm 0.1 MEO-005 CO. 1 21 450-1 8 co.1 11 eo.1 21450-18 Nil Spike alpha-BHC mgm 0.1 MEO-005 CO. 1 21 450-1 8 co.1 11 co.1 21450-18 Nil Spike Lindane mgM 0.1 MEO-005 co. 1 21450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-18 73 Heptachlor mg/kg 0.1 ME0405 eo. 1 21450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-18 70 Aldrin mdkg 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-1 8 79 Oxychlordane mdkg 0.1 ME0405 co.1 21450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-18 Nil Spike deka-8 HC mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 <0.1 21450-1 8 co.1 11 eo.1 21450-18 Nil Spike Heptachlor Epoxlde mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21450-1 8 eo.1 11 co.1 21 450-18 Nil Spike alpha-Endosulfan mgm 0.1 MEO-005 co. 1 21450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-1 8 Nil Spike gamma-Chlordane mgm 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21450-18 Nil Spike alpha-Chlordane mgkl 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-18 Nil Spike frans-Nonachlor ~g/kg 0.1 MEO-005 40.1 21450-1 8 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-18 Nil Spike p,p'-DDE mgkl 0.1 MEO-005 CO. 1 21 450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-1 8 Nil Spike Dieldrin mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 co. 1 21 450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-1 8 80 Endrin mgwl 0.1 ME0405 co.1 21 450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-18 92 befa-Endosulfan mdkl 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-18 Nil Spike p,p'-DDD mdkg 0.1 ME0405 co.1 21 450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21450-18 Nil Spike p,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-18 80 Page 9 of 11 144Y of 300 UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 OC Pesticides in Soil ------SamplellDuplicate I % Ret. (DUP) II RPD:% Endosulfan Sulphate mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21450-1 8 co.1 11 co.1 21450-18 Nil Spike Endrin Aldehyde mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-1 8 Nil Spike Methoxychlor mgMl 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 450-1 8 co.1 11 co.1 21 450-18 Nil Spike Endrin Ketone mglkg 0.1 ME 0-005 co.1 21 450-18 co.1 11 co.1 21450-18 Nil Spike 2,4,5,6-Tetrachloro-m-xylene Sufrogafe 1 % Recovery 50 MEO-005 INTI 21450-18 97 I1 102 21450-18 Nil Spike QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank I Total Phenolics in Soil I------I ---- I --- I Total Cyanide mglkg 0.02 ME 1-043 I c0.02 Total Phenolics (as Phenol) mgkJ 0.05 MEI-065 ~0.05 1 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 Metals in Soil ------I - SamplellDuplicate - %Ret (DUP)II RPD.% Arsenic, As mglkg 5 MEM-004 4 21450-18 e5 11 CS 21 450-1 8 82 iadmium, Cd mmg 1 MEM-010 c1 21 450-1 8 c1 11 c1 21450-1 8 87 Chromium, Cr wlhl 1 MEM-010 c1 21 450-1 8 29 11 29 21450-18 81 Copper, Cu mglb 1 MEM-010 Page 10 of 11 145i of 300 Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test INRI : Not Requested [NT] : Not tested [HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference : Hot part of NATA Registration Results Comments I Pagellof 11 146 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories - Oual Endo? Compd m=Lc 28 January 1998 -..( Baulderstone Hornibrook Docklands Stadium c/o Baulderstone Hornibrook Level 4, 55 Southbank Boulevard SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 Your Reference: Site Validation Report Number: 21519 Ch-s-t oy Attention: Michael Cristani Dear Michael The following samples were received by us on the date indicated. Samples: Quantity 8 soils Date of Registration 20/0 1/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 20/0 1/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 20/01/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faithfully AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES Phillip Dews Manager- Business Systems r’Quality Manager NATA ENDORSED DOCUMENT This document may not be reproduced except in full. Page 1 of 1 I 147 of 300 3JECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:21519 Metals in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 21519-9 2 I5 19-10 Your Reference ._-__ Comp 1 Comp 2 Arsenic, As mdkg 7 IO Barium, Ba mdkg 86 INRI Cadmium, Cd m&kg ~~~ Mercury, Hg md% 0.20 INRI Manganese, Mn mdkg 440 INRI Molybdenum, Mo mdkg <5 INRI Nickel, Ni m&a 87 INRI ~ ~~ Lead, Ph mdkg 41 25 Antimony, Sh mg/kg <5 INRI Tin, Sn mdks <5 INRI Zinc, Zn mdks 130 67 Page 2 of 11 148 of 300 'OJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:21519 PAHs in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 2 I 5 I 9-9 21519-10 Your Reference Comp 1 1Comp 2 Naphthalene 149 of 300 Page 3 of 11 3JECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:21519 Total Recoverable Hydrourrhons in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 21 5 19-2 21519-7 I Your Reference __-__ SO07 sol0 _____ Page 4 of 11 150 of 300 3JECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:21519 PCBs in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 213 19-9 Your Reference I- Comp I I I --I-I I ~~ Aroclor IO16 mdkg eo.2 Aroclor 122 I m!& e0.2 Aroclor 1232 mwke e0.2 2 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Aroclor 1242 mdkg C0.2 Aroclor 1248 mdkg <0.2 Aroclor 1254 ni&g <0.2 Aroclor I260 mdk6 <0.2 Decaclilorohiplienyl Smogare 2 Yo Kecovery I14 151 of 300 Page 5 of 11 3JE(TT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:21519 OC Pesticides in Soil Our Reference: Your Reference IlCB mfls ~~ gomma-Chlordane mks Page6of 11 152 of 300 I’I1OJECT: Sitc Valitlatioii Inorganics in Soil Our Kefercnce: IJNI’IS 2 IS 19-9 I Total Cyanide I nig/kg 0.2 I Total Phenolics (as Plienol) I Illglkg Page 7 of I I 153 of 300 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 Metals in Soil ------SamplellDuplicate -- ?& Ret. (DuP) II RPD:% Arsenic, As make 5 MEM-004 <5 21 51 9-9 7 II 7 21 51 9-9 92 II 88 II RPD: 4 Barium, Ea mgmg 0.5 MEM-010 ~0.5 21 51 9-9 86 11 80 21519-9 104 11 97 11 RPD: 7 Cadmium, Cd mgh 1 MEM-010 <1 21 51 9-9 Page 8 of 11 154 of 300 REPORT NO.:21519 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 PAHs in Soil ___I_I __-_- --- 1-1 SamplellDuplicate I % R=. @UP) I1 RPD:% Naphthalene mako 0.1 MEO-030 CO. 1 21519-9 co.1 II co.1 21 519-10 100 II 104 II RPD: 4 I .. .. "- . J Acenaphthylene mgkg 0.1 MEO-030 co.1 21519-9 co.1 11 0.1 21519-10 Nil Spike Acenaphthene mgNl 0.1 MEO-030 co.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 0.1 21519-10 99 11 101 11 RPD: 2 Fluorene mgkg 0.1 MEO-030 co. 1 21 51 9-9 co.1 (1 0.1 21519-10 Nil Spike Phenanthrene mgM 0.1 MEO-030 co.1 21 51 9-9 0.2 I1 0.2 21 51 9-10 101 1) lO\II RPD: 0 Anthracene mgkg 0.1 MEO-030 co.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 eo.1 21519-10 Nil Spike Fluoranthene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 CO. 1 21 51 9-9 0.3 11 0.4 21 51 9-1 0 105 11 109 II RPD: 4 Pyrene mgkg 0.1 ME0430 co.1 21 51 9-9 0.5 (1 0.7 21519-10 103 11 108 11 RPD: 5 Bento[a]anthracene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 co.1 21 519-9 0.2 11 0.3 21 51 9-1 0 Nil Spike Chrysene msM4 0.1 MEO-030 <0.1 21 51 9-9 0.3 11 0.4 21519-10 92 11 93 11 RPD: 1 Bento[b]fluoranthene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 co.1 21 519-9 0.4 11 0.6 21519-10 Nil Spike Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg&l 0.1 ME0430 co.1 21519-9 0.1 11 0.2 21519-10 Nil Spike Benzolalpyrene mgkg 0.1 MEO-030 eo. 1 21 51 9-9 0.4 11 0.7 21519-10 100 11 102 11 RPD: 2 Indeno[ 12Scqpyrene mgkg 0.1 MEO-030 co.1 21 51 9-9 0.3 11 0.5 21 519-10 Nil Spike Dibenzo[ah]anthracene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 co.1 21 519-9 co.1 11 <0.1 21 51 9-1 0 Nil Spike Benzo[ghJperylene Wm 0.1 MEO-030 co.1 21 51 9-9 0.3 11 0.6 21 51 9-1 0 85 11 83 11 RPD: 2 pTerpheny1-dl4 Surrogate 1 % Recovery 40 MEO-030 [NTI 21 51 9-9 111 1) 114 21 51 9-1 0 Nil Spike Page 9 of 11 155 of 300 ;\iistrali;iii OJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:21519 Eiivironrncnt:il I .;iIwriitorics QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil _------SamplellDuplicate - % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPO:% TRH c6 - C9 mgM 20 MEO-020 c20 21 51 9-2 c20 11 c20 21 51 9-7 100 11 97 I1 RPD: 3 TRH CIO - c14 mhl 20 MEO-020 c20 21 51 9-2 c20 11 e20 21 519-7 10911 112 11 RPD: 3 TRH cl5 - C28 mglkg 50 MEO-020 e50 21519-2 4011 40 21519-7 10911116))RPD:6 TRH c29 - C36 mskg 50 MEO-020 40 21 51 9-2 4011 40 21 51 9-7 123 11 141 I1 RPD: 14 ~~~ QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Srn # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 PCBs in Soil SamplellDuplicate % Ret. PUP)II I I -- I RPD% Aroclor 1016 mgm 0.2 MEO-005 c0.2 21 51 9-9 c0.2 11 e0.2 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike Aroclor 1221 mgM 0.2 MEO-005 c0.2 21 51 9-9 c0.2 II c0.2 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike Aroclor 1232 mgM 0.2 MEO-005 C0.2 21 51 9-9 c0.2 11 c0.2 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike Aroclor 1242 mgM 0.2 MEO-005 c0.2 21 51 9-9 c0.2 I1 c0.2 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike Aroclor 1248 mgh 0.2 MEO-005 c0.2 21519-9 c0.2 11 c0.2 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike Aroclor 1254 mg&I 0.2 MEO-005 c0.2 21519-9 c0.2 11 c0.2 21 51 9-9 137 Aroclor 1260 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 c0.2 21 51 9-9 c0.2 11 c0.2 21519-9 Nil Spike Decachlorobiphenyl Surrogate 2 % Recoverv 50 MEO-005 INTI 21 51 9-9 114 I1 93 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Srn # Duplicate Spike Srn # % Recovery 11 OC Pesticldes in Soil I - - - - Samplelpuplicate - % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% HCB mghl 0.1 ME0405 co.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike alpha-BHC mlkg 0.1 MEO-005 co. 1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 Lindane mgNl 0.1 MEO-005 CO.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 106 Heptachlor msM ~ 0.1 MEO-005 co. 1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 101 Aldrin mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 eo. 1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21519-9 110 Oxychlordane mghl 0.1 ME0405 co.1 21519-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike delta-B HC mgkl 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike Heptachlor Epoxide mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 4.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike alpha-Endosulfan mgMl 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21519-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike gamma4 hlordane . mgM . 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike ~ ~~ Page 10 of 11 156 of 300 UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # , Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 1) OC Pesticides in Soil --I _-__ ---- _-_-_ ----- SamplellDuplicate -- % Ret. PUP) II RPD:% alpha-Chlordane mskg 0.1 MEO-005 50.1 2151 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 2151 9-9 Nil Spike trans-Nonachlor mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike p,p'-DDE mgkg 0.1 MEO-005 eo. 1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21519-9 Nil Spike Dieldrln mgMl 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21519-9 117 Endrin mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21519-9 133 beta-Endosulfan mgkg 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike ~~ ~ p,p'-DDD mgkg 0.1 ME0405 . co.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike p,p'-DDT mgkg . 0.1 MEO-005 Endosulfan Sulphate msks 0.1 MEO-005 CO. 1 21519-9 co.1 II co.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike ~ - Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21 51 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike Methoxychlor mghl 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 21519-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike Endrin Ketone mgkg 0.1 MEO-005 co.1 - 2 151 9-9 co.1 11 co.1 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike 2,4,5,6-Tetrachloro-mxyleneSurrogate 1 % Recovery 50 MEO-005 [NTI 21 51 9-9 126 11 105 21 51 9-9 Nil Spike s QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank lnsrganics in So11 ------I --_I Total Cyanide mgkl 0.02 MEI-043 c0.02 Total Phenolics (as Phenol) maka 0.05 ME 1-065 co.05 Result Codes (INS] : lnsufflcient Sample for this test [NR] : Not Requested [NT] : Not tested [HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments Page 11 of 11 157 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories Y Ouallty Endonad Company moIDp1kim 13 February 1998 smn Baulderstone Hornibrook Private Bag 1000 NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 Your Reference: Site Validation Ch-StO5.doc Report Number: 2 1693 Attention: Mike Side11 Dear Mike The following samples were received by us on the date-indicated. Samples: Quantity 4 soils Date of Registration 9/02/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 09/02/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 09/02/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated. solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faithfully AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES N This document may not be reprOdUC4 I Geoff Latimer except in full. Phillip Dews Manager- Business Systems Quality Manager Page 1 of 6 158 of 300 Austrnkrn PROJECT: Site Valitlation Ch-St' 'loc REPORT NO.:21693 I?nvi ron men t ;i I Idaboratories Our Rel'ercnse: Your Rel'ercnce Copper, Cu m&g 18 Lead, PI1 mflg * 25 Zinc; Zn nifl/kg I40 P Page2 of 6 159 of 300 Atis t rali:in PROJECT: Site Villidiltion Ch-StOS.doc REPORT NO.:21693 En viron men t 3I I ,iiboratorits Our Reference: Your Reference I Naphthalene llldkg I Acenaphthylene mgkg Page 3 of 6 160 of 300 PROJECT: Site Validittion Ch-StOS.doc REPORT NO.:21693 Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil Our Reference: Your Reference ,.._ 161 of 300 Page4of 6 A\\\\ A us1rali:~ II PROJECT: Site Vatitlation Ch-StOS.tloc REPORT NO.: 21693 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery I( Metals in Soil _-__ _------_--_ -__- SamplellDuplicate _____ % Rec. (Dup) 11 Arsenic, As I mgk3 I 5 I MEM-004 I c5 I 21 693-5 I 15 11 16 I 21 693-5 I 90% I Chromium, Cr I mqlka I 1 MEM-010 c1 21 693-5 46 I1 48 21 693-5 93% I Copper, Cu mgNl 1 MEM-010 c1 21 693-5 18 11 19 21 693-5 99% Lead, Pb mgkl 2 MEM-010 c2 21 693-5 25 11 24 21 693-5 91 % Zinc, Zn mgMl 1 MEM-010 c1 21 693-5 140 11 140 21 693-5 86% QUALITY CONTROL PQL I METI:-OD 1, Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 PAHs in Soil I __-__ I ---_- __--_ I __-__ I SamplellDuplicate I ____- I Page 5 of 6 162 of 300 A us t ralhn PROJECT: Site Validation Ch-StO5.doc REPORT NO.:21693 ICnvironnwnt;rl I .;I boratories Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test [NR] : Not Requested [NT] : Not tested . [HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. : Not part of NATA Registration pesults Comments Page 6 of 6 163 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories auriiv Endorsad Company mmum 2 March 1998 -w Baulderstone Hornibrook Docklands Stadium Level 4,55 Southbank Blvd SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 Your Reference: Ch-St06.doc Site Validation Report Number: 2 1820 Attention: Michael Crestani Dear Michael - The following samples were received by us on the date indicated. Samples: Quantity 4 soil samples Date of Registration 20/02/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 20/02/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 20/02/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. , The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faithfully AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES ~~ Geoff Latimer Manager- Business Systems Quality Manager Paze I of 6 164 of 300 ., PROJECT: Ch-StO6.doc Site Viilidiition REPORT NO.:21820 Metals in Soil Our Rcf'rrencz: 2 1820-5 Your Reference SO17,SO18,SO1 9,S020 t Arsenic. As Chromium, Cr Copper, Cu Lead. Yb 29 59 I P- i i Page 2 of 6 165 of 300 PMls in Soil Our Reference: UNI'I'S 2 1820-5 Your Retirenee _---- SO 17,SO I8,SO 1 9,S020 ----- Naphthalene I "'&/kg I < 0.1 Acenaphthylenz I m&/kg I < 0.1 Aceiiaplithene nigkg 0.1 Fluorene mdkg < 0.1 Plienantlurne IlIkvkE < 0.1 .4lllluacclle mgkg 0.1 Fluoranthene mgkg < 0.1 Pvrene mfin < 0.1 llcllzolghr If"rylenl: I m&g I < 0.1 o-l'ervhenvl-dlJ Birrovate I I %~ecovely I 114 I 3 Page 3 of 6 166 of 300 , ?ROJECT: Ch-StO6.doc Site Viilitliition REPORT NO.:21820 Page 4 of 6 167 of 300 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 Metals in Soil ----- _-______---_- --_-_ SampleJJDuplicate __-__ % Rec. (Dup) (1 RPD:% Arsenic, As mgM 5 MEM-004 4 21 820-5 9 II 9 21 820-5 96 Chromium, Cr mglkg 1 MEM-010 <1 21 820-5 38 11 39 21 820-5 96 Copper, Cu mg/kg 1 MEM-010 <1 21 820-5 18 1) 17 21 820-5 102 Lead, Pb mg/kg 2 MEM-010 <2 21 820-5 29 I(29 21 820-5 92 Zinc, Zn mg/kg 1 MEM-010 <1 21 820-5 59 I(59 21 820-5 96 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Srn # Ob Recovery 11 PAHs in Soil --_-- ____- -__-_ ----- ___-_ SamplellDuplicate ----- % Rec. (Dup) )I RPD:% Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21820-5 I c 0.1 11 c 0.1 21 820-5 86 II 79 1) RPD: 8 Acenaphlhylene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 820-5 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 21 820-5 Nil Spike Acenaphlhene mmg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 820-5 < 0.1 11 c 0.1 21 820-5 86 )I80 (1 RPD: 7 Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 820-5 c 0.1 I( c 0.1 21 820-5 Nil Spike Phenanthrene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 820-5 < 0.1 11 < 0.1 21 820-5 85 (1 81 I( RPD: 5 Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 820-5 c 0.1 (I < 0.1 21 820-5 Nil Spike Fluoranlhene I mg/kg I 0.1 I MEO-030 I <- 0.1 I 21 820-5 I c 0.1 11 c 0.1 I 21 820-5 I 84 11 80 (1 RPD: 5 Pyrene 1 mgkl I 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 21 820-5 I c 0.1 11 c 0.1 I 21 820-5 I 84 (1 80 11 RPD: 5 Benzo(a]anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 820-5 0.1 I) c 0.1 21 820-5 Nil Spike Chrysene mgm 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 820-5 < 0.1 11 c 0.1 21 820-5 77 11 71 11 RPD: 8 Benzo[b]fluoranthene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 820-5 .z 0.1 11 c 0.1 21 820-5 Nil Spike Benzo[k]fluoranlhene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 820-5 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 21 820-5 Nil Spike Benzo[a]pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 21 820-5 c 0.1 I( G 0.1 21 820-5 89 11 76 )IRPD: 16 lndeno[ 723-cdjpyrene mgMl 0.1 MEO-030 -----21 820-5 0.1 11 c 0.1 21 820-5 Nil Spike Dibenzo[ah]anlhracene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 820-5 c 0.1 11 0.1 21 820-5 Nil Spike Benzo[gh/]perylene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 21 820-5 c 0.1 I( c 0.1 21 820-5 85 11 74 11 RPD: 14 pTerpheny1-d74 Surrogate 1 IRecovery 40 MEO-030 [NTI ' 21820-5 11411 117 21 820-5 Nil Spike Page5of 6 168 of 300 PROJECT: Ch-StO6.doc Site Validation REPORT NO.:21820 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 ' Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil ----- ____------_---_ ---__ Sample11Duplicate _---_ % Rec. (Dup) 1) RPD:% TRH c6 - C9 I mg/kg I 20 I MEO-020 I <20 I 21 820-2 I c20 I( <20 I 21 820-2 I 140 (I 144 I( RPD: 3 TRH CIO c14 mslks 20 MEO-020 c20 21 820-2 c20 II c20 21 820-2 11711118IIRPD:l L - I __ I I I, I, ~ TRH cl5 - CZ~ mg/kg 50 MEO-020 40 21 820-2 4011 60 21 820-2 90 11 91 11 RPD: 1 TRH CZ - c36 mg/kg 50 MEO-020 40 21 820-2 4011 40 21 820-2 112 II 114 11 RPD: 2 Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test [NR] : Not Requested [NT] : Not tested [HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. : Not part of NATA Registration pesults Comments Page 6 of 6 169 of 300 8 Australian Environmental Laboratories 12 March 1998 Baulderstone Hornibrook Level 4 55 Southbank Boulevard SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 Your Reference: Site Validation Report Number: 21869 el, -r+c7 Attention: Michael Crestani ! Dear Michael The following samples were received by us on the date indicated. Samples: Quantity 10 soils Date of Registration 26/02/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 25/02/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 25/02/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. a A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faitfilly AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES NATA ENDORSED D This document may not be reproduced except in full. Phillip Dews Manager- Business Systems Quality Manager i Page 1 of 10 170 of 300 P ROJ KCT: Sit e Villitl ;ition REPORT N0.:2186!J I ?- Page 2 of 10 171 of 300 ..,>..I* PAHs in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 2 1863-7 2 1869-9 2 1869-1 1 2 1869-12 Your Reference ---_- SO27 SO29 S022,26,28,30 l,23,2S --.-- SO2 I Naphthalene I mfl/ka I 0.4 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 -I Acenaphthylene m@kg 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Acenaphthene mag c 0.1 c 0.1 c 0.1 c 0.1 Fluorene muke < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 - Phenanthrene makg 0.7 < 0.I < 0.1 < 0.1 Anthracene makg 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Fluormthene m.?Jkc I .8 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 - Pyrene I '"fl/kg I 2.8 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 1 < 0.1 t Benzolalanthracene I m.a/kl: I 1.3 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 Chrysene I m@g I 1.5 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 Benzolblfluoranthene I mukc 2.3 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 - Benzo[k]fluoranthene mag 0.x < 0.1 c 0.1 < 0.1 Benzo[a]pyrene m@g 2.8 < 0. I < 0.1 < 0.1 lndenol123-cdlpvrene mt?/kl! 2.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 d Di henzo[ah]anUuacene mfl/kg 0.4 C 0.I < 0.1 < 0.1 13cnzo~ghi]peryler,c mflg 3.0 c 0.I < 0.I < 0.I p-l'e1yhenyl-dl4Srrrrozofe I % Kecovcry I I4 I30 I19 96 I Page3of 10 .,:. : i I -. 172 of 300 ' I -. REIWRT NO.:218W Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 2 1869-3 2 1869-4 Your Reference ______SO23 SO24 TRH c6 - C9 ingkg * <20 <20 P Page 4 of 10 173 of 300 , c. PCBs in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 21 869-12 Your Reference ----- SO2 1,23,25 ----- Aroclor IO 16 I mdks I < 0.2 I Aroclor 122 1 I mwlw I c 0.2 I Aroclor 1232 mg/kg < 0.2 Aroclor 1242 mg/kg < 0.2 Aroclor 1248 mag < 0.2 Aroclor 1254 mgkg c 0.2 Aroclor 1260 mdk/k!: < 0.2 Decachlorohiphenyl Sitrrogaic 2 36 Recovery 125 I Page 5 of 10 ,> :.. '<',-,' 174 of 300 PROJECT: Si tc Valitl;it ion REPORT NO.:2186!J OC Pesticides in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 2 1869-12 Your Reference ----- S021,23,25 --___ Lindane mg/kg < 0.1 Heptachlor nigkg < 0. I Aldrin m&/kr: < 0. I Oxychlordane < 0.1 delra-BIIC Heptachlor Epoxide mg/knc!: < 0.1 alpha-Endow 1hi Il'gik/kg < 0.1 I Xo,,i,,ro-Clilorii;inc nlflg 0. I aloha-Chlordane IllWkE < 0.1 Irons-Nonachlor inglkg < 0.I I p,p'-D1)13 I IllJAX I .: 0. I I Dieldrin ingkg < 0. I I Endrin wk! < 0.1 c be/a-Endosulf;w nifikr? < 0.1 p,p'-DDD nlgkg < 0. I p,p'-DDT mdkg < 0.1 Endosulfan Sulphate mdkg < 0.1 Endrin Aldehydc mgkg < 0.1 Methoxychlor mfl/kg < 0.1 Endrin Ketone mdks < 0.1 2,4,5,6-TelracIiIoro-~~i-~leneStcrrozore f $4 Recoverv 135 Page 6 of 10 175 of 300 ..I! Australinn Environmental La bora t or ies Inorganics iii Soil Our I I I Page 7 of IO ,:.. '. , 176 of 300 I I ..I QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Srn # Duplicate Spike Srn # % Recovery /I PAHs in Soil ______-_- _____ . ______SamplellDuplicale _____ YO Rec. (Dup) (1 RPD:%o Naphthalene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 869-7 0.4 11 0.4 21869-9 112 I( 118 I( RPD. 5 Acenaphlhylene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 869-7 0.5 11 0.3 21 869-9 Nil Spike Acenaphlhene rngm 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 2 1869-7 < 0.1 11 < 0.1 21869-9 112(111711RPD 4 Fluorene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 2 1869-7 < 0.1 11 < 0.1 21 869-9 Nil Spike Phenanlhrene rng/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21869-7 0.7 I( 1.5 21869-9 107 11 116 11 RPD 8 ’ Anthracene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21869-7 0.2 11 0.5 2 1869-9 Nil Spike Fluoranlhene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 869-7 1.8 114.1 21 869-9 109 11 116 (1 RPD: 6 Pyrene rn9M 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21869-7 2.8 (1 4.7 2 1869-9 112 11 118 11 RPD. 5 Benzo[a]anlhracene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 2 1869-7 1.3 11 2.2 21 869-9 Nil Spike Chrysene rnglkl 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 2 1869-7 1.5 (1 2.2 2 1869-9 98 11 102 11 RPD. 4 Benzo[b]fluoranthene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 2 1869-7 2.3 11 2.9 2 1869-9 Nil Spike Benzo[k]fluoranthene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 869-7 0.8 11 1.0 2 1869-9 Nil Spike Benzo(a1pyrene rng/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 2 1869-7 2.8 11 3.2 21869-9 106 1) 106 11 RPD. 0 Indeno[ 723-cdlpyrene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21869-7 2.2 11 2.7 2 1869-9 Nil Spike Dibenzo[ah]anthracene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 2 1869-7 0.4 11 0.4 2 1869-9 Nil Spike Benzo[ghi]pery lene rngM 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 21 869-7 3.0 11 3.2 21 869-9 140 11 142 11 RPD: 1 p-Terphenyl-d74 Surrogate 7 YO Recovery 40 MEO-030 INTI 21 869-7 114 11 56 2 1869-9 Nil Spike Page 8 of 10 177 of 300 .,- .*..I. ~~nvlE!URLYV)r@ONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # YO Recovery I( hWktJU&i6bt6 Hydrocarbons in Soil -_--- ____- -_--_ -_-_- __--- SamplellDuplicate -_--- O/O Rec. (Dup) I( RPD:% L TRH c6 - CS mg/kg 20 MEO-020 <20 21869-3 <20 11 <20 21 869-4 96 11 92 11 RPD 4 TRH C1O - c14 mglkg 20 MEO-020 <20 2 1869-3 <20 11 <20 2 1869-4 97 (1 94 I( RPD 3 TRH Cis - Cze mglkg 50 MEO-020 <50 2 1869-3 4011 40 21 869-4 77 11 75 11 RPD 3 TRH CZ9 - c36 mgh3 50 MEO-020 40 2 1869-3 6011 <50 21 869-4 59 I( 55 11 RPD 7 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # YO Recovery 1) PCBs in Soil _____ --_------___-- ._--- SamplellDuplicate ____- O/O Rec (Dup) 11 RPD '/o Aroclor 1016 mg/kg 02 MEO-005 < 02 2 1869- 12 < 0211< 02 21869-12 Nil Spike Aroclor 1221 mglkg 02 MEO-005 < 02 2 1869- 12 < 0211< 02 21869-12 Nil Spike Aroclor 1232 mglkg 02 MEO-005 < 02 21 869-12 < 0211< 02 21 869-12 Nil Spike Aroclor 1242 mglkg 02 MEO-005 < 02 21 869-12 < 021(< 02 21 869-12 Nil Spike Aroclor 1248 mglkg 02 MEO-005 < 02 21 869-12 < 0211< 02 21 869-12 Nil Spike Aroclor 1254 mmJ 07 MEO-005 03 31oc,'3 13 0711. 02 31869 I) Nil Spike Aroclor 1260 mglkg 02 MEO-005 < 02 21 869-12 < 0211< 02 21 869-12 Nil Spike Decachlorobiphenyl Surrogate 2 % Recovery 50 MEO-005 INTI 21 869-12 125 11 126 21 869-12 Nil Spike QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # YO Recovery 11 OC Pesticides in Soil ----______--_-- _--_- SamplellDuplicate __-_- % Rec (Dup) 11 RPD Oh HCB mgh 01 MEO-005 < 01 21 869-12 < 0111< 01 21 869-12 Nil Spike alpha-BHC mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 2 1869- 12 < Olllc 01 21 869-12 Nil Spike Lindane mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 2 1869-12 < 0111< 01 21 869-12 119 Heplachlor mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 2 1869- 12 < 0111< 01 21 869- 12 113 Aldrin mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 21 869-12 < 0111< 01 21 869-12 137 Oxychlordane mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 21 869-12 < 0111< 01 21 869-12 Nil Spike dello-BHC mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 21869-12 < 0111< 01 21 869-12 Nil Spike Heptachlor Epoxide mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 2 1869- 12 < 0111< 01 21 869-12 Nil Spike - alpha-Endosulfan mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 21869-12 < 0111< 01 21 869-12 Nil Spike gamma-Chlordane mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 21 869-12 < 0111< 01 21 869-12 Nil Spike alpha-Chlordane mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 21869-12 < 0111< 01 21 869-12 Nil Spike trans-Nonachlor mglkg 01 MEO-005 01 2 1869- 12 < 0111< 01 21 869-12 Nil Spike p.p'-DDE mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 21 869-12 < 0111< 01 2 1869- 12 ~ Nil Spike Dieldrin mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 21869-12 < 0111< 01 21 869-12 134 Endrin mglkg 01 MEO-005 < 01 21 869-12 < 0111< 01 21 869-12 123 beta-Endosulfan mgb 01 MEO-005 < 01 21 869-12 < 01)1< 01 21 869-12 Nil Spike Page 9 of 10 ... !' ' 178 of 300 ' . ./ UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Srn # Duplicate Spike Sin # "/o Recovery 1) ------__------_ _-__------SamplellDuplicate -____ YO Rec. (Dup) )I I,iil)or;ttortcs RPD:% p,p'-DDD mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 2 1869- 12 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 21869-1 2 Nil Spike p,p'-DDT mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 . 21 869-12 < 0.1 11 < 0.1 2 1869- 1 2 110 Endosulfan Sulphate mgw 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 21869-12 < 0.1 11 < 0.1 2 1869- 12 Nil Spike Endrin Aldehyde mgwl 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 21 869-1 2 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 21869-12 Nil Spike Methoxychlor mgw 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 2 1869- 12 < 0.1 11 c 0.1 2 1869- 12 Nil Spike Endrin Ketone rnglkg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 21 869-12 < 0.1 11 < 0 1 2 1869- 12 Nil Spike 2,4,5,6-Tetrachloro-n1-xylene Surrogate 7 % Recovery 50 MEO-005 [NTI 21 869-12 135 11 132 21 869-12 Nil Spike QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 lnorganics in Soil _---______---_- -_-__ -_--_ Samplepplicate -__-- % Rec. (Dup) )I RPD:% Total Cyanide m9lkg 0.02 MEI-043 < 0.02 2 1869-7 Nil Replicate 2 1869-9 Nil Spike Tolal Phenolics (as Phenol) mglkg 0.05 MEI-065 < 0.05 2 1869-7 Nil Replicate 21 869-9 Nil Spike Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test [NR] : Not Requested [NT] : Not tested [HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments : I Page 10 of 10 179 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories Quality Endorsed Company W-LrW 19 March 1998 -bnb Baulderstone Hornibrook Private Bag 1000 NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 Your Reference: Site Validation ch- e08' Report Number: 2 1975 Attention: Michael Crestani Dear Michael The following samples were received by us on the date indicated. Samples: Quantity 7 Soils Date of Registration 10/03/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 06/03/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 06/03/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faitfilly AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES -2IL NATA ENDORSED DOCUMENT This document may not be reproduced . except in full. Geoff Latimer Phillip Dews Manager- Business Systems Quality Manager Page 1 of 7 180 of 300 PROJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:21975 Metals in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 2 1975-7 2 1975-8 2 1975-9 Your Reference _____ SO36 S032,034,037 SO3 1,033,035 Arsenic, As mdke 7 I2 I8 Chromium, Cr mgkg 17 35 53 Copper, Cu m&e I5 22 97 Lead, Pb m&e 12 27 87 Zinc, %n mgkg 19 170 260 . 1.. Page2 of 7 181 of 300 _____~~~ I’AHs in Soil Our Reterence: UNITS 21975-7 21975-8 21975-9 Your Reference _____ SO36 S032,034,037 SO3 1,033,035 _-_-- ~~ ~~~ Acenaplitliylene mflg < 0.1 0.1 13 , Acenaphthene mgkg < 0.1 < 0.1 2.0 Fluorene I mflg I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I 6.8 I Phenantluene I ni&/kg I < 0.I I 0.3 36 I Antluacena mflg < 0.1 0.1 17 Fluoriuithene mbl: < 0.1 0.9 59 l’yrcne mgkg i: 0.1 1.H 170 Uanzola liuitluacerie m&/kg < 0.1 0.8 52 Cbsene m&/kr < 0.1 0.9 49 I Beuolbllluoranthene I m&g I < 0.1 I 1.o I 54 I Benzo[k]lluoranthene I I < 0.1 I 0.4 I 12 Benzola lpwene I mfiE I < 0.1 I .2 74 I Indenol I23-cd]pyrene mkYb < 0.1 0.6 36 Dibenzolah]anthracene mgkg < 0.1 < 0.1 7.6 Bznzo(ghilpery1ene mflg < 0.1 0.9 43 p-l’erphenyl-dI4 Surroware I O/b Recovery 83 82 INTI P 2 Page 3 of 7 182 of 300 PROJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:21975 Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 2 1975-6 Your Reference __-I SO35 __I- TRH '26 - C9 mg/ks 28 TRH CIO- cl4 mg/k/kg 480 'I'RH CIS- CZX m&/kg 8700 TRlI CZ~- c36 m&/ki: 4100 ! 'P c Page 4 of 7 183 of 300 Inorganics in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 2 1975-7 Your Reference _____--_-- SO36 2 Total Cyanide mwb < 0.02 . .. Page5 of 7 184 of 300 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 Metals in Soil _--_- -____ --___ -_-I SamplellDuplicate -- % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% Arsenic, As mg4l 5 MEM-004 c5 21 975-7 7 II 7 21975-8 86 11 87 11 RPD: 1 Chromium, Cr mg/kg 1 MEM-010 c1 21975-7 17 11 17 21975-8 79 11 88 11 RPD: 11 Copper, Cu mg/kg 1 MEM-010 e1 21 975-7 15 I( 16 21 975-8 86 11 89 )IRPD: 3 Lead, Pb mglkg 2 MEM-010 c2 21 975-7 12 11 12 21975-8 81 11 80 II RPD: 1 Zinc, Zn mg/kg 1 MEM-010 c1 21 975-7 19 11 19 21975-8 79 )I84 (1 RPD: 6 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 PAHs in Soil _--_- -___- --___ __------SamplellDuplicate --_-- % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% 1 Naphlhalene I mdkg I 0.1 I MEO-030 I c 0.1 I 21 975-7 I c 0.1 11 c 0.1 I 21 975-7 I 80 1 Acenaphthylene m.llkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 21 975-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 21975-7 Nil Spike Acenaphthene mgh 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 21 975-7 c 0.1 1) c 0.1 21 975-7 82 Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 ME 0-030 c 0.1 21 975-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 21 975-7 Nil Spike Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 21 975-7 c 0.1 11 0.1 21 975-7 82 Anthracene malka 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 21 975-7 c 0.1 II c 0.1 21975-7 Nil Soike ____~ 1 Fluoranthene I mg/kg I 0.1 I MEO-030 I c 0.1 I 21975-7 I c 0.1 11 0.1 I 21975-7 I a4 I Pyrene I mghl I 0.1 I MEO-030 I c 0.1 I 21 975-7 I c 0.1 1) c 0.1 I 21975-7 I 87 Benzolalanthracene~~ I malko-I I 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 21975-7 I c 0.1 II c 0.1 I 21 975-7 Nil Soike I .. I , I I I Chrysene I mghl I 0.1 I MEO-030 I 0.1 I 21 975-7 I 0.1 11 c 0.1 I 21975-7 I 62 1 Benzo[b]fluoranthene I mdkg I 0.1 I MEO-030 I c 0.1 I 21 975-7 I c 0.1 1) c 0.1 I 21975-7 I Nil Spike I Benzolklfluoranthene I malka I 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 21 975-7 I c 0.1 II c 0.1 I 21 975-7 43 I BenzoIsIpyrene I mgkJ I 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 I 21975-7 I c 0.1 11 c 0.1 21975-7 Nil Spike lndenoI72Scd)pyrene I mglkg I 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 21 975-7 I c 0.1 11 c 0.1 21 975-7 Nil Spike Dibenzolehlant hracene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 21 975-7 c 0.1 (1 0.1 21975-7 30 BenzoIghqperylene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 21975-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 21975-7 Nil Spike pTerphenyl-d74 Surrogate 7 % Recovery 40 MEO-030 INTI 21 975-7 83 11 81 21975-7 Nil Spike Page6 of 7 P 185 of 300 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Srn # % Recovery (1 Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil -____ _---- _--__ __-__ ----- Sample11Duplicate _____ % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% TRH CS - C9 rngw 20 MEO-020 c20 21 975-6 28 11 23 21 975-6 86 TRH CIO - c14 mglkg 20 MEO-020 c20 21 975-6 480 11 420 21 975-6 97 TRH CIS - CZS rnglkg 50 MEO-020 c50 21 975-6 8700 11 6300 21 975-6 110 ~ TRH CZ~- C36 mgNl 50 MEO-020 40 21 975-6 41 00 11 3500 21 975-6 WBGI QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank lnorganics in Soil ------______-- _---- Total Cvanide rnalka 0.02 ME 1-043 c 0.02 Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test [NR) : Not Requested [NT] : Not tested [HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. . : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments P Page 7 of 7 186 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories Quality Endorsed Company ILotonLrm 25 March 1998 I"** L.r.,* Baulderstone Hornibrook Private Bag 1000 NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 Your Reference: Site Validation Ch- St09.doc Report Number: 22073 Attention: Michael Crestani Dear Michael The following samples were received by us on the date indicated. / -. Samples : Quantity 16 Soils 7' Date of Registration 18/03/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 18/03/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 18/03/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. .<. Yours faithfully AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES 5 Geoff Latimer Manager- Business Systems This document ilia! nut be n*pn#ducedc-rrtyt in 11111: Page 1 of 8 187 of 300 ,... , Australian JJECT: Site Validation Ch-St09.doc *,.'A' REPORT NO.: 22073 Environmental Laboratories Metals in Soil Our Ilclercnce: IJNII'S 22073-12 22073-14 22073-16 22073-17 22073-I8 Your Rclcrencc _____ swoi SW03 SW05 S038,040, S039,04I, 043, 042,044 045 ----_ Arsenic, As I mgkg I IG I 40 I I5 I 19 I 20 Chromium, Cr I m/kr? 75 300 38 56 . I 84 I Coppcr, Cu mflg 35 270 34 44 xo Lead, Pb mg/kg 27 130 48 23 10 r. Zinc, Zn mg/kg 70 I20 1 IO 95 150 -., Page2 of 8 188 of 300 {' Australian -.. .. REPORT 22073 Environrncntal NO.: Laboratories PAHs in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 22073-9 22073-10 22073-1 1 22073-1 2 22073- 13 22073-14 22073- I 5 22073-16 Your Reference -_-__ SO3 I SO33 SO3 5 SWOI sw02 SW03 S W04 SWO5 ._-__ Naphthalene msncg < 0.1 0.3 23 2.3 5.1 0.2 12 I2 Acenaphthylene msncg 0. I 0.2 28 0.8 2.1 3.1 1.1 3.5 Acenaphthene msncg < 0.1 < 0.1 6.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.4 0. I < 0.1 Fluorene md% < 0.1 < 0.1 23 0.6 2.0 1 .o 1.0 2.7 Phennnthrene m@% 0.5 1.5 I GO 3.1 11 9.2 6.3 IS Anthracene m&S 0.2 0.3 53 0.7 2.9 3.1 1.4 3.8 Fluoranthene m&S 1.2 e 0.1 150 2.1 4.9 22 3.7 4.6 . Pyrcnc rndkg I .2 7.8 390 1.9 - 9.7 23 5.7 3.3 IJerv.o[ojnnlluiiccnc Illglkg 0.5 3.3 I IO I .3 3.3 II I .9 2.7 Chrysene rngkg 0.G 4.9 IO0 1.3 3.1 I1 I .9 2.5 Benzol 6jlluornnl)iene m&S 0.7 5.4 IO0 1.5 3.2 13 1.9 2.0 Beiuo[&jIluoranthene m&!: 0.2 1.4 25 0.5 0.9 4.7 0.6 0.G Benzol a jpyrene W%S 0.6 5.4 IO0 1.4 4.1 8.8 1.9 2.7 lndeno[ 123-ccfJpyrene m&S 0.3 3.4 11 0.6 1.6 G. 1 0.9 0.8 Dibcnzo[ah]mchracsne me/ke c 0.1 0.7 11 0.1 0.4 1.1 0.2 172 Benzo~hi]perylene mdks 0.3 3.9 75 0.6 1.9 4.9 0.9 I .o p-Terphenyl-dl4 Surrogate / YORecovery 88 63 INTI 98 85 111 56 xo ? Page 3 of 8 189 of 300 . ,.. : ' c REPORT NO.: 22073 PNIs in Soil Our Reference: lJNlTS 22073-1 7 22073- I8 Your Rel'crence __.__ S038,040, S039,041, _____ 042,044 043,045 , \ Naphthalene mglks < 0.1 < 0.1 Acenaphthyl ene m69 < 0.1 < 0.1 AcenaDhthenc mda < 0.1 < 0.1 ~~ Fluorene mg/ke < 0.1 < 0.1 Phenanthrene 4% < 0.1 < 0.1 Anthracene mg/ke c 0.1 < 0.1 Fluoranthene mglkg < 0.1 c 0.1 Pyrene m&e < 0.1 < 0.1 Benzo [u ]anthracene mglkg < 0.1 < 0.1 Cheno rnwk?/ka < 0.1 < 0.1 ~~~ Beno[ b]fluoranthene mglke < 0.1 < 0.1 Benzo[k]fluoranthene mglke < 0.1 < 0.1 Benzo[u]pyrene mf& < 0.1 < 0.1 Inden01 I2J-cd]pyrene mpncg < 0.1 < 0.1 . Dibenzo(ah]anthraccne mdks c 0.1 - < 0.1 Bcnzokhijperylene mdks < 0.1 < 0.1 p'l'erphenyl-d/4 Stirrogore / YORecovery 90 81 Page4 of 8 190 of 300 _- ', i " Australian '. . JJECT: Sitc Validation Ch-St09.doc REPORT NO.:22073 Environrncntal Laboratories Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 22073-3 22073-7 22073-9 22073- 10 22073-12 22073- I3 22073-14 22073-1 5 Your Reference _____ SO42 SO43 SO3 I SO33 SWOl ' sw02 SW03 SW04 _____ Tcbl Recovernble Hydrocarbons in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 22073-16 Your Reference ______._ swos 191 of 300 Page 5 of 8 Ausrraiian DJECT: Site Validation Ch-St09.doc REPORT NO.:22073 Environmental Laboratories BTEX in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 22073-12 22073-I3 22073-14 22073-15 22073-I6 Your Relerence ----- swo _____ I sw02 SW03 SW04 swos Benzene ' m&g c 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 c 0.1 Toluene '"&/kg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Ethyl Benzene m&g c 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 c 0.1 c 0.1 . Xylenes m&g C 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 C 0.3 BTEX Surrogate Spike % Recovery 48 46 27 49 36 P -. t Page 6 of 8 192 of 300 ,I,- ) - Australian . t ..OJECT: Sitc Validation Ch-St09.doc REPORT NO.:22073 Environrncntal Laboratories QUALlPl CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Srn # Duplicate Spike Sm # Recovery I( Metals in Soil --___ -__-_ ---__ ---_------SarnplellDuplicate _____ Oh Rec. (Dup) (1 RPD:Oh Arsenic, As mglkg 5 MEM-004 <5 22073-12 16 11 16 22073-14 91 11 91 11 RPD: 0 Chromium, Cr mg/kg 1 MEM-010 <1 22073-12 75 11 78 22073-14 78. )I68 (1 RPD: 14 Copper, Cu mglkg 1 MEM-010 <1 22073-1 2 35 11 37 22073-14 68 11 76 (1 RPD: 11 Lead, Pb mglkg 2 MEM-010 <2 22073-12 27 11 27 22073-14 70 11 68 11 RPD: 3 Zinc, Zn mgm 1 MEM-010 <1 22073-1 2 70 11 71 22073-14 92 11 90 11 RPD: 2 Benzo[e]pyrene mgM 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22073-9 0.6 11 0.4 lndenoI723-cdjpyrene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22073-9 0.3 11 0.2 Plbenzo[eh]anthracene mgMl 0.1 ME 0-030 e 0.1 22 0 7 3 - 9 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 Benzo[ghdperylene mglkg , 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22073-9 0.3 11 0.2 pTerphenyl-dl4 Surrogate 1 Oh Recovery 40 MEO-030 INTI 22073-9 88 11 83 193 of 300 Page7of 8 Australian " . ,OJECT: Site Validation Ch-StO9.doc - .. REPORT NO.:22073 Environmental Laboratories QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Srn # % Recovery 11 Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil -___- -____ -__-- ---_------SamplellDuplicate -__-_ % Rec (Dup) 11 RPD:% TRH c6 - C9 rng/kg 20 MEO-020 c20 22073-9 c20 1) c20 22073-1 2 100 11 94 11 RPD: 6 TRH CIO - c14 rnglkg 20 MEO-020 c20 22073-9 c20 11 c20 22073-12 108 11 101 11 RPD: 7 TRH cl5 - C28 rnglkg 50 MEO-020 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank BTEX in Soil ______------Benzene mglkg 0.1 MEO-018 < 0.1 Toluene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-018 0.1 Ethyl Benzene mglkg 0.1 MEO-018 c 0.1 Xylenes rngM 0.3 MEO-018 c 0.3 BTEX Surrogale Spike Oh Recovery MEO-017 [NTI Result Codes (INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test [NR] : Not Requested (NTj : Not tested [HBG] : Results not reported due to Hlgh Background Interference. . : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments Page 8 of 8 194 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories Ouality i Endorsed Comnanv 6 April 1998 Baulderstone Hornibrook Docklands Stadium Level 4, 55 Southbank Blvd Southbank VIC 3006 P Your Reference: Ch St@doc Site Validation Report Number: 2221 9 Attention: Michael Crestani Dear Michael 1 .- The following samples were received by us on the date indicated. Samples: Quantity 9 soils Date of Registration 2 7/03/98 ’ Date of Receipt of Samples: 27/03/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 27/03/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accoinpanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this repoi-t. Unless otherwise stated. solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faithfully AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES This document ma? not be Geo Latimer wpniduced e\crpc in full. Phillip Dews &Manager- Business Systems Quality Manager Page 1 of 12 195 of 300 ~nnronrnenrai Laboratories Metals in Soil I Our keferenoe: 222 19-7 222 19-8 222 19-9 222 19-10 22219-1 1 Sour Rel>rciice ? -_ . Page2of 12 196 of 300 Australian PROJECT: ChiStO9.tloc Site Validation REPORT NO.:22219 Environmental Laboratories Your Reference ~~ 1h)r:iiitIiciic Illgkg <: 0.I .: 0.I < 0. I O.X .: 0.1 I'yrcnc nlglhg 0.1 c' 0.1 < 0.1 0.x < 0.1 I3cnzol~~limtluacene mgkg 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.3 < 0.1 Chrysene mdks < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.3 < 0.1 Benzol b llluoranthene mf/kt! < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.5 < 0.1 ~~ Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 < 0.1 Benzol a I pyrene mdks < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.7 < 0.1 lndenol l23-cd]pyrene mdkg < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1 0.4 < 0.1 Dibenzo[ah]anthracene mg/kg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Benzohghr lpetylene mdkg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.4 < 0.1 p-Terphenyl-df 4 Surrogate I % Recovery 87 95 84 72 94 ? Page 3 of 12 197 of 300 Environmental Laboratories 'l'otrl Recoverahlz Iiydrocdrhons in Soil Our Reference: i.rNrrs 222 19-3 222 19-6 22219-8 222 19-9 Your Relerence _-_-- SO48 snsi so53 S(JS4 ____. i ? P Page 4 of 12 198 of 300 _-- Australian PROJECT: Ch-St09.doc Site Validation REPORT NO.:22219 Environmental Laboratories 222 19-10 Your Reference S04G,SO48,S05 0 ~~~ I Aroclor I242 I Illlh Page 5 of 12 199 of 300 w Laboratories OC Pesticides iu Soil I Our Reference: 22219-10 Your Ilefcreiisc: I ? I Aldrin I mgkg I c 0.1 I Icptachlor Lposidz c 0.1 ali~hu-Endosullin I IlldkI! I c 0.1 I ~ ~~~~~ garnma-Chlordane mgkg < 0.1 alpha-Chlordane mg/kg < 0.1 trans-Nonachlor mg/kg < 0.1 p,p'-DDE msncg < 0.1 Dieldrin m&Yh < 0.1 Endrin mdkc < 0.1 I beta-Endosulfan I mgkg I < 0.1 I p,p'-DDD I mg/ks I < 0.1 D.D'-DDT I m&r! I < 0.1 I ~ I Endosulfm Sulphate mg/ks < 0.1 Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg < 0.1 Methoxychlor mg/kg < 0.1 Endrin Ketone mdk/ke. < 0.1 r 2,4,5,6-Tetrachloro-rn-xyleneStirrogate I I %Recovery 1 118 I PageGof 12 200 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Ch-St09.cloc Site Validation REPORT NO.:22219 Environmental Laboratories Our Kel'erence: Your Ilel'ereiice c P Page 7 of 12 201 of 300 I Environmental CDLaboratories QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Srn # Duplicate Spike Sm # Ob Recovery 11 Metals in Soil ----_ __--_ ---_- _-___ _-__- Sample11Duplicate ---__ % Rec. (Dup) )I -- I I Antimony, Sb I mg/kg I 5 I MEM-010 I c5 I 22219-7 I INRlll[NRl I 22219-8 I 88 Tin, Sn I mgM I 5 I MEM-010 I <5 I 22219-7 I INRlII[NRl 22219-8 93 Zinc, Zn I mglkg I 1 MEM-010 c1 22219-7 I 55 )I 54 22219-8 101 QUALITY CONTROL I UNITS I PQL I METHOD Blank I Duplicate Sm # Duplicate % Recovery 11 .I PAHs in Soil _-_-_ __-_- _---- I _---- _--_- I SamplellDuplicate I ----- I % Rec. (Dup) 11 I Naphthalene mgm 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22219-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 22219-8 79 11 82 1) RPD: 4 Acenaphthylene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22219-7 < 0.1 11 c 0.1 22219-8 Nil Spike Acenaphthene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22219-7 c 0.1 )I 0.1 22219-8 81 11 84 1) RPD: 4 Fluorene mnlkn-- 0.1 ' MEO-030 < 0.1 22219-7 c 0.1 I1 0.1 222 19-8 Nil Soike Phenanthrene mghl 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22219-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 22219-8 79 11 82 11 RPD: 4 Anthracene mgM 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22219-7 0.1 11 c 0.1 22219-8 Nil Spike Fluoranthene I mglkg I 0.1 I MEO-030 I < 0.1 I 22219-7 I 0.1 11 c 0.1 I 22219-8 I 79 11 81 11 RPD: 2 Pvrene malka 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22219-7 c 0.1 II c 0.1 22219-8 80 I1 81 II RPD: 1 I I -- I I I I I, I, Benzo[e]anthracene mgncg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22219-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 22219-8 Nil Spike Chrysene w&l 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22219-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 22219-8 67 11 67 1) RPD: 0 Benzo[b]fluoranthene I mglkg I 0.1 I MEO-030 I c 0.1 I 22219-7 I c 0.1 11 c 0.1 I 22219-8 I Nil Spike I Benzofkllluoranthene I malka I 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 22219-7 I c 0.1 II c 0.1 I 22219-8 Nil Spike I BenzoIaIpyrene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22219-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 22219-8 67 11 66 11 RPD: 2 lndeno[ 12ScdJpyrene rngw 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22219-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 22219-8 Nil Spike DibenzoIahjanthracene mgM 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22219-7 c 0.1 11 < 0.1 22219-8 Nil Spike Benzo[ghijperylene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22219-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 22219-8 65 11 66 11 RPD: 2 Page 8 of 12 CQ 202 of 300 UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Srn # Duplicate Spike Srn # % Recovery 11 PAHs In Soil __--- __--______--- -___ SarnplellDuplicate -_-_- % Rec. (Dup) I( 1RPD:% p-Terphenyl-dl4 Surrogate 1 % Recovery 40 ME 0-030 INTI 22219-7 87 )I81 22219-8 Nil Spike I QUALITY CONTROL ~ ~ ~~ I TRH C2Q- c36 I mglkg I 50 I MEO-020 I c 50 I 22219-7 I INRI II c50 I 22219-8 I 1081111011RPD 2 * QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Srn # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 PCBs In Soil ___-_ _--_- --__ ------Sarnple1)Duplicate ----- % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% Aroclor 1016 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 0.2 22219-1 0 c 0.2 11 c 0.2 22219-10 Nil Spike Aroclor 1221 rnglkg 0.2 MEO-005 c 0.2 22219-10 c 0.2 11 0.2 22219-1 0 Nil Spike Aroclor 1232 mgm 0.2 MEO-005 c 0.2 22219-1 0 0.2 11 0.2 22219-10 Nil Spike Aroclor 1242 rnalko 0.2 MEO-005 c 0.2 22219-10 c 0.2 II c 0.2 22219-10 Nil SDike ~~ ~ Aroclor I248 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 c 0.2 22219-10 0.2 11 0.2 22219-1 0 Nil Spike Aroclor 1254 msM 0.2 ME 0-005 c 0.2 22219-1 0 c 0.2 11 0.2 2221 9-10 135 Aroclor 1260 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 c 0.2 22219-10 0.2 11 0.2 22219-1 0 Nil Spike Decachloroblphenyl Sumgate 2 % Recovery 50 MEO-005 WI 22219-10 1181197 22219-1 0 Nil Spike Page9of 12 203 of 300 - ~~~~ ~ Environmental Laboratories OC Pesticides in Soil Page 10 of 12 204 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Ch-StO9.doc Site Validation REPORT NO.:22219 Environmental Laboratories QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank lnoraanics in Soil __--_ ----- ______---- Total Cyanide mgh 0.02 MEI-043 c 0.02 Total Phenolics (as Phenol) mglkg 0.05 ME 1-065 c 0.05 E Page 11 of 12 205 of 300 nnwronmenwi CiULaboratories QUALITY CONTROL UNITS I DUP. Sm# I Duplicate I SpikeSm# I % Recovery11 Metals in Soil I --___ --___ Sample II Duulicate ---__ % Rec.IDuu) II RSD: I Arsenic, As mg/kg Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 22219-1 1 93 (1 89 (1 RPD: 4 Cadmium, Cd mglkg Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 2221 9-1 1 98 11 95 11 RPD: 3 Chromium. Cr rnctlka Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 22219-1 1 99 II 96 II RPD: 3 I Copper. Cu I mg/kg I Nil Replicate I Nil Replicate I 22219-11 I 97 It 93 II RPD: 4 -1 I Mercury, Hg I rnglkg I Nil Replicate I Nil Replicate I 22219-1 1 I 104 I1 108 I1 RPD: 4 I Nickel, Ni mg/kg Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 22219-1 1 95 11 91 11 RPD: 4 Lead, Pb mglkg Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 22219-1 1 91 11 89 11 RPD: 2 Tin, Sn mg/kg Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 2221 9-1 1 92 11 89 1) RPD: 3 Zinc. Zn malko Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 22219-1 1 98 II 95 II RPD: 3 Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test [NR] : Not Requested [NT] : Not tested (HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments ! Page12of 12 206 of 300 c' : BAULDERSTONE 1 ; DOCKLANDS STADIUM ;.TETEZE-l -9 GPR 1998 BL:ek:l3224 Envi ro science 7 April 1998 Docklands Stadium c/o Baulderstone Hornibrook -..-.--...... --..--YII) Level 4, 55 Southbank Blvd RE: ANALYSES SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 Attention: Mr. M. Crestani Certificate of Analvsis WSL Report No. 39236 - Chemical Analyses Date Sampled 01/04/98 Received by WSL Consultants on 01/04/98 Instructions were received on 01/04/98 Analyses were commenced on 01/04/98 Soil samples were tested in accordance with the analytical methods described in "Chemical Analysis of Polluted Soils" VIC EPA, Publication 139, Nov. 1981 and WSL in-house methods, with the results expressed as mglkg dry weight unless stated otherwise. Water samples were tested in accordance with the analytical methods described in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Waste Water", APHA 19th Edn. 1995 and WSL in-house methods, with the results expressed as mglLitre unless stated otherwise. Results pertain to samples as received. Details of this Test Report were faxed as a preliminary report on 7 April 1998. Yours faithfully WSL CONSULTANTS PTY LTD This Laboratory is registered by the National Associatioi of Testing Authorities. Australia. The test(s) reportei herein have been performed in accordance with its tern of registration. This document shall not be reproduce1 except in full. Page 1 of 4 WSL Consultants Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 004 752 676 2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 31 21, Ausrralia A NATA .lccredired Laborarov Telephone: +61 3 9429 4666 Facsimile: +61 3 3429 2234 An Approved Quaranrine Premises Email: [email protected] An Approved EPA Auditor 6: Analyst Rt(SCU 207 of 300 WSLConsultants Enviroscience CLIENT: DOCKLANDS STADIUM A( :N 0114 752 076 RE: ANALYSES ' 2-8 Harvcy Street, IWiniond, Vicroris 3 I2 1 'lklcplioiic to1 3 0420 4666 I$csiiiiilc: +61 3 9429 2294 Eiiinil: [email protected] t METALS - SOIL lEPORT NO Received: SAMPLE DETAILS Lead Zinc AB No I DESCRIPTION I 23 77 42 ___ . - - .. -_ .. .- .. 60 350 350 __ ~ ..... - ...... _ ... _... 17 70 48 ______...... l- -...... ___- . - - -.-.. __ -. -. - -. ___- ...... - ...... - ...... - - - .. .__ .... _ .... - ...... - ...... . . _. . -.. - . . -...... - .. ._ .... .... .- ...... - - -- . . - ...... - ...... _- ._ ._ ... ._... ._...... ...... ~ .. ... _...... I .... - -. ... __ 0) Recovery .... -...... iOB 111 ...... - .... - ...... I ___ .... - ...... --I - - - - -1 .I ...... _. .. __- - ...... _... - ...... 1.- - ..... -_ I I I ...... __ ...... - .- ..... - _. ... _ ...... - ..... - ...... _...... -. ... -. ...... ___I.I ...... 1 - _II WSL 023 A WSL 023 A WSL 023 A WSL 023 A WSL023A I ._.. --. __ ._.- . WATER I I Page 2 of 4 Soil results expressed as mglkg dry weight unless stated otherwise. 208 of 300 WSLConsultants Enviroscience CLIENT: DOCKLANDS STADIUM ACN 0114 752 676 RE: ANALYSES 2-8 Hnrvcy Srrcct, IWiriiotid, Victoria 3 I2 I 'I'clrphoric: +GI 3 9429 4666 Fncsiiiiilc: +6 I 3 7429 2294 hail: wslcoti~,ozcriiail.cotii.air TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS - SOIL 39236 Received: 01104198 I SAMPLE DETAILS I C6-C9 I >C9-C14 >C 14 - C 28 >C 28 - C 36 -I.....-__II_ LAB No 1 DESCRIPTION LOCATION DEPTH e20 <20 400 Eqg- - .-__ ...... 220 840 1500, ---- ... -...... _... 19194 SW05 <20 21 140 --__- .- -.___-______.____- - ___ --.-I-- ._.- ...... - - ...... __ ...... - ...... -__. . - ...... _ ...... _ ...... _...... I ...... _ ...... ___- ...... - _...... - ._ ...... _...... ...... -. -...... __ ...... ______.... ._...... -I ...... I-...... -. . ... - ..... -.- - . ....- __. WSL 030 WSL 030 Page 3 of 4 Soil results expressed as mglkg dry weight unless stated otherwise. 209 of 300 w au,onsuitants Enviroscience CLIENT: DOCKLANDS STADIUM ACN 004 752 676 RE: ANALYSES 2-8 Harvcy Srrect, Ricliniond. Victoria 3 I2 I 'Iclcphone: t6l 3 9429 4666 Iksiniilc: +GI 3 0429 2294 Eninil: wslconOozcinail.coiii.aii POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS - SOIL EPORT NO - - - Received: 01104l90 SAMPLE DETAILS Naph. Acenaph- Acenapt :Iuorane Anlhra- Fluor- Pyrenc Renzo(a) hrysene Benzolbl Benzo(k) Benzo(a) lndeno olal PAH lhelene lhylene lhena anlhra- fluoran- pyrene 1234 LAB ...... - ...... _ ... cane lhene pyrene NO IESCRlPTlON LOCATION DEPTH T - - -T - - - P 09191 033 0.4 1.3 . 12 5.4 6.6 4.3 4.2 8.0 4.4 co.1 4.3 68 __ - ~ .- _- __ __- - ___ .... - ...... _..... 09192 26 4.8 12 2.3 2.2 1.8 1.1 2.6 1.2 0.1 1.0 89 _I __ ...... ~- - ___- _..... - ...... - . ._ - . .- ...... - . 09193 wo3 14 4.5 25 12 12 7.6 5.5 5.1 4.9 0.9 3.9 150 _- ~ ____ ~- -- __ 09194 1.9 2.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.8 4.4 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.9 0.8 co. 1 0.9 24 -__. ___. ______.______-- -. __ ...... _ .. ____ . __ .-- _ ...... - . . I-- ___ .__ - - __ _. __ - ..... - .. -. - -. ? __ I ___ ----I--___ __.. ___ __.- -______- .... _...... - .- - .. . _...... - ...... - ...... - ...... ...... -~- .. 1...... - -. . ~ -. _.. ._ - ...... -----I-- ...... -. - ----___. - --I- - _-- ...... __ ... . - ..... _...... - ...... ...... _...... - . -. .... -...... _ ...... ,...... __ -...... -...... - ___ ...... - ...... - ...... ^ ...... - - - - - 2 WE 8100 - METHODS I Page 4 of 4 I Soil results expressed as mglkg dry weight unless stated otherwise. 210 of 300 ? Australian Environmental Laboratories i Quality Endorsed Company rntm~m 16 April 1998 SY**I*U.I, Bauld ers to n e Horn i b ro o k Private Bag 1000 NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 Your Reference: Site Validation Ch -St 12.doc Report Number: 22273 Attention: Michael Crestani Dear Michael /- i. z ‘d The following samples were received by us on the date indicated. Samples: Quantity 9 Soils Date of Registration 2/04/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 02/04/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 02/04/98 Th_ese samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless othenvise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. ’ r-... A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. ~... Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faithfilly AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES reproduced except in Cull. Geoff Latimer Manager- Business Systems Page 1 of 11 211 of 300 Austraiian Environmental Laboratories Torn1 Ibxovernhlc l.lytlroc;trboiis in Soil .. Our Reltreticc: UN l,TS 22273-5 22213-1 Your Iklbrciicc _-__- so59 swn6 __-__ 'l'i P- Page 2 of I I I 212 of 300 Australian REPORT NO.: 22273 Environmental Laboratories PMls in Soil Our Reliirencc: IINI'I'S 22273-1 22273-3 22273-5 22273-7 22273-8 22273-9 22273-10 Your I I Naphthelcne I tng'kg I < 0.1 I 0.3 I 4.5 I 5.5 I 0.4 I < 0.1 Asenaphtfi~lctie mdk I < 0.1 I < 0.1 1.1 9.2 1.1 I < 0.1 I c 0.1 I Accnaphthcnc I mgkg I .' 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I I .s I < 0.1 I < 0.1 < 0.1 Fluorene mdkc I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 10 0.6 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 Phenanthrene I m!& I < 0.1 I 0.3 I I .9 I 64 I 7.5 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I . htluacene I mrr/krr I < 0.1 I < 0.1 0.7 19 2.3 I < 0.1 I < '0.1 I 8 Fluornnthenc mg/kg < 0.1 0.4 4.6 69 14 < 0.1 < 0.1 Pyrene m&/kg I 0.1 < 0.1 5.9 62 12 < 0.1 < 0.1 Benzo[a]anthrncene mg/kg < 0.1 0.1 3.1 25 5.8 < 0.1 < 0.1 Chrysene mpncg < 0.1 0.2 3.7 20 5.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Drtuo[ b]Iluornnthene m!lk/kg < 0.1 0.2 5.5 25 7.6 < 0.1 < 0.1 Benzo[kjfluornnUiene mgkg < 0.1 0.2 2.0 8.6 2.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 Benzo[a]pyrene mfl/kg < 0.1 0.1 3.8 23 6.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 lndcno[IZf-cdjpyrcnc mflg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 14 4.2 < 0.1 c 0.1 Dibctuo[ahJiinUu;ic~ti~ n1@g <: 0.1 < 0.1 0.4 I .8 I 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 Be~UOl&lpe~ylene m&a < 0.1 < 0.1 2.6 11 I 3.7 < 0.1 < 0.1 ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ p-Terplienyl-dl4 Surrogate I %Rccovety I I I 85 I 173 I I67 I INTI 1 INTI 130 I 90 I Page 3 of 11 213 of 300 Australian .OJECT: Sitc Viilitliition Ch-Stl2.tloc REPORT NC).:22273 Environrncntal Laboretories PCUn in Soil Our Rct'erence: UNITS 22273-5 Your lletkrence -_--- 5059 _____ Aroclor 1016 mag < 0.2 Aroclor 122 1 Ill& c 0.2 Aroclor 1232 mc/ke < 0.2 Aroclor 1242 n1&s c 0.2 Aroclor 1248 m&g < 0.2 Aroclor 1254 m&g < 0.2 Aroclor 1260 m&g < 0.2 Page 4 of 11 e 214 of 300 .I ,. Australian ’ .. OJECT: Sitc V:ilidation Ch-Stl2.doc REPORT NO.:22273 Environmental Laboratories OC Pesticides in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 22273-5 Your Reference ___-- SO59 _____ HCB m&/kg < 0.1 alpha-BHC mfl/kg < 0.1 Lindane mflg < 0.1 Heptachlor mg/kg < 0.1 Aldrin mdkc < 0.1 ~~ Oxychlordane I msncg I < 0.1 I delta-BHC I m&c I c 0.1 I ~ Endrin < 0.1 befa-Endosulfan mg/ks < 0.1 D.D’-DDD mdkn < 0.1 ~~ p,p’-DDT mg/ks < 0.1 Endosulfan Sulphate mg/kg c 0.1 Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg < 0.1 Methoxychlor m&g < 0.1 Endrin Ketone mdkc < 0.1 Page 5 of 11 215 of 300 nrmrarian UJECST: Site Validation Ch-Stl2.doc REPORT NO.:22273 Environmental Laboratories Total Phenolics in Soil Our Reference: mt-rs 22273-5 Your Reference _____ SO59 --_-_ a , Total Cyanide m&s 14 Total Phenolics (as Phenol) mdke 0.19 Page 6 of 11 216 of 300 \ Australian .kOJECT: Site Viilidation Ch-Stl2.doc Environrnental REPORT NO.: 22273 Laboratories SOSG, SOSR, SO60 i -,., P Page 7 of 11 217 of 300 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Srn # Duplicate Spike Sm # Oh Recovery 11 Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil _-_-- ____- ____- ____------SarnplellDuplicate ----- % Rec (Dup) 11 1 TRH c6 - C9 wl/k!3 20 MEO-020 <20 22 2 73 - 5 67 11 110 22273-7 81 1) 76 11 RPD: 6 TRH CIO - c14 rnglkg 20 MEO-020 <20 22273-5 490 11 720 22273-7 85 11 80 11 RPD: 6 TRH CIS- CZ~ rngm 50 MEO-020 40 22273-5 1500 11 2500 22273-7 94 11 86 11 RPD: 9 TRH CZ~- c36 rnglkg 50 MEO-020 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Srn # Duplicate Spike Srn # % Recovery 11 PAHs in Soil _---- _-_------____- -____ Sample11Duplicate ____- % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% Naphthalene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 2 22 73 - 5 4.5 11 6.3 22273-3 104 11 57 11 RPD: 58 ' Acenaphthylene rngh 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22273-5 1.1 11 < 0.1 22273-3 126 1) 68 11 RPD: 60 Acenaphthene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030. 0.1 22273-5 < 0.1 11 < 0.1 22273-3 Nil Spike ~~ ~ ~ Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 22273-5 < 0.1 11 < 0.1 22273-3 Nil Spike . Phenanthrene rng/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22273-5 1.9 11 3.2 22273-3 116 11 69 11 RPD: 51 Anthracene rng/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22273-5 0.7 11 0.98 2 22 7 3- 3 Nil Spike Fluoranthene rnm 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22273-5 4.6 11 6.0 22273-3 . 11 1 11 71 11 RPD: 44 Pyrene rnmg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22273-5. 5.9 11 7.6 22273-3 116 11 73 11 RPD: 46 Benzo(8]anthracene rngb 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22273-5 3.1 11 3.9 2 2 27 3 - 3 Nil Spike Chrysene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 22273-5 3.7 11 4.5 22273-3 80 11 58 11 RPD: 32 Benzo[b]fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22273-5 5.5 11 7.0 22273-3 Nil Spike Benzo(k1fluoranthene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22273-5 2.0 11 2.5 22273-3 Nil Spike Benzo[s]pyrene rnglkg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 22273-5 3.8 11 5.3 22273-3 37 11 52 11 RPD: 34 lndeno[ 723-cqpyrene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 22273-5 < 0.1 )I 0.1 22273-3 Nil Spike Dibenzo[eh]anthracene rng/kg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 22273-5 0.4 11 0.6 22273-3 Nil Spike Benzo(gh4perylene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 22273-5 2.6 (1 4.2 22273-3 58 11 40 (1 RPD: 37 pTerphenyLd74 Surrogate 7 % Recovery 40 MEO-030 INTI 22273-5 Nil Replicate 22273-3 Nil Spike Page 8 o? 1:l ? k' 218 of 300 i': Australian , .,OJECT: Site Validation Ch-Stl2.doc REPORT NO.:22273 Envir'onmqntal Laboratories Q UA LlTY CONTR 0 L UNITS PQL METHOD Blank PCBs in Soil _____ --__------_-_- ~ ~___ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ Aroclor 101 6 I mgM 0.2 1- MEO-005 c 0.2 Aroclor 1221 I malka I 0.2 MEO-005 I < 0.2 ~ ~~ I Aroclor 1232 I malka I 0.2 I MEO-005 I c 0.2 I I Aroclor 1242 I mglkg I 0.2 I MEO-005 I 0.2 I Aroclor 1248 mgk3 0.2 MEO-005 c 0.2 Aroclor 1254 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 < 0.2 Aroclor 1260 Q/kg 0.2. MEO-005 < 0.2 QUALITY CONTROL OC Pesticides in Soil _____ PQL-_--_ --_-_ I ___-_ I I I~ I I HCB f rnalka ~1 0.1 I MEO-OO~< 0.1 1 BlphB-BHC mglkg . 0.1 MEO-005 0.1 Lindane mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 Heptachlor mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 Aldrin mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 ' < 0.1 Owchlordane malka 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 Page9of 11 219 of 300 Australian . iOJtCT: Site Validation Ch-St1Z.doc REPORT NO.:22273 Environmental L~~WHCONTROL I UNITS I PQL I METHOD I Blank 1 OC Pesticides In Soil _-___ __-_- _-___ __-__ Endrin Ketone mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Total Phenolics in Soil _____ ------_---- Total Cyanide mg/kg 0 02 MEI-043 c 002 Total Phenolics (as Phenol) mdkq 0 05 MEI-065 005 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Srn # Oh Recovery 11 Metals in Soil ______-_-______-- Sample((Dup1icate _____ % Rec. (Dup) 11 1 Antimony, Sb I mdkg I 5 I MEM-010 I c5 I 22273-5 I Nil Replicate 1 22273-2 Nil Spike Arsenic, As mg/kg 5 MEM-004 <5 22273-5 Nil Replicate 22273-2 Nil Spike I I I I ~~ ~~ I Cadmium, Cd mglkg 1 MEM-010 cl 22273-5 Nil Replicate 22273-2 Nil Spike Chromium, Cr mglkg 1 MEM-010 <1 22273-5 Nil Replicate 22273-2 Nil Spike Copper, Cu mg/kg 1 MEM-010 <1 22273-5 Nil Replicate 22273-2 Nil Spike Nickel, Ni Wkg 1 MEM-010 cl 22273-5 Nil Replicate 22273-2 Nil Spike Lead, Pb mg:kg 2. MEM-010 e2 22273-5 NII Replicate 22273-2 Nil Spike .- Tin, Sn mg/kg 5 MEM-010 4 22273-5 NII Replicate 22273-2 NII Splke Zlnc, tn I mglkg I 1 I MEM-010 I el I 22273-5 I NII Repllcate I 22273-2 I Nil Splke I Mercury, Hg I mgm I 0.05 MEM-005 e 0.05 22273-5 I 0.91 11 0.92 I 22273-2 78 Page 10 of 11 220 of 300 Lead, Pb Kllkg 22273-1 12 II 12 22273-5 78 11 82 (1 RPD: 5 Tin, Sn mglkg 22273-1 INRI I1 INRI 22273-5 R9 11 84 11 RPD: 6 Zinc, Zn mg/kg 22273-1 90 11 77 22273-5 72 11 92 11 RPD: 24 Mercury, Hg mglkg 22273-1 INRI II [NRI 22273-5 Nil Spike esult Codes . FNS] : insufficient Sample for this test [NR] : Not Requested [NT] : Not tested [HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. . : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments Page 11 of 11 221 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories Quality EndorsedCompany Wlolll.7Om 20 April 1998 smI.M-*l Bau Ide rs tone Horn i b roo k Private Bag 1000 NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 Your Reference: Site Validation a- 13 Report Number: 22360 Attention: Mike Side11 Dear Mike The following samples were received by us on the date indicated. Samples: Quantity 2 Soil sample Date of Registration 9/04/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 9/4/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 9/4/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated. solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faithfully AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES r I -Geoff Latimer Phillip Dews Manager- Business Systems Quality Manager NATA Endorsed Test Reyurt This document may not he reproduced except in full. Page i of 6 222 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Site VitlidiItio11 REPORT NO.: 22360 Environmental Laboratories Total Recoverahle I lydrocarhotis in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 22360-2 Your Relerence _____ SO63 _____ Page 2 of 6 223 of 300 ? ..U. V.X. 1.V.. ” .,., Environmental eB Laboratories PNls in Soil ? Our Reference: UNITS 22360-1 Your Keference _---_ SO6 I,S062,SO6 3,S064 ---_- I NaphUialene -rmZc/kr! I < 0.1 I ~ ~~ Acenaphlh y lene nigkg < 0.1 Ace~~i~pl~ll~ene n1dkg < 0.1 I:lUOl cne m& < 0.1 I’henillltlll cnc n1r?/krr i 0. I ~ ~ ~~ - Antluacene nigkg < 0.1 I~liioranthene mdkg < 0.1 I’yrene mr?/krr < 0.1 ~ ~~ 13cnzol a]anlhracene mgkg < 0.1 Chrysene mdkg < 0.1 Benzol b]lluornnUiene mdkr: < 0.1 Beruo[k]lluoranthene mdks < 0.1 Bemola lwrene m&r < 0.1 lndenoII23-cdjpyrene mgks 2 0.1 Di benzo Iah ]anthracene mdkg < 0.1 Benzolahilpewlene m&rr < 0.1 I p’l’erphenyl-dll Siirrogare 1 % Recovery 101 I Page 3 of‘ G 224 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Site Valitliition REPORT NO.: 22360 Environmental Laboratories Metals in Soil Our Reference: Your Reference 1 Ciidniiurn, Ctl niflg INltI Cluoriiiuni, Cr mflg 19 Copper, Cu mflg 7 Lead, Ph mflg 9 Zinc. Zn mag 19 . Page 4 of 6 225 of 300 W Laboratories QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil ___-_ _-_-- ____- -_-__ --___ SarnplellDuplicate TRH c6 - C9 rnglkg 20 MEO-020 c20 22360-1 INRI II c20 ~ TRH CIO - c14 rngW 20 MEO-020 c20 22360-1 INRI It c20 TRH c15 - C28 mgkl 50 MEO-020 c50 22360-1 INRI II c50 TRH c29 - c36 WIlkLl 50 MEO-020 40 22360-1 [NRI II e50 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS POL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate PAHs in Soil ------I ----- I ----_ ---_- SarnolellOuolicate Naphthalene I mglkg I 0.1 I MEO-030 I c 0.1 I 22360-1 I c 0.1 11 c 0.1 Acenaohthvlene I rnnlka I 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22360-1 I c 0.1 II c 0.1 I ~~ ~ Acenaphlhene I mglkg I 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22360-1 1 I I I 1 c 0.ljc 0.1 1 Fluorene mgw 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22360-1 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 Phenanthrene mgkl 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22360-1 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 Anthracene rnalka 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22360-1 c 0.1 I1 c 0.1 ~ ~~ Fluoranthene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22360-1 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22360-1 c 0.1 11 0.1 Benzo[a]anthracene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22360-1 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 Chrysene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 22360-1 c 0.1 I( c 0.1 Benzolblfluoranthene mnlka 0.1 ME 0-030 c 0.1 22360-1 c 0.1 II c 0.1 I Benzolklfluoranthene I mg/kg I 0.1 I MEO-030 I c 0.1 I 22360-1 I c 0.1 II c 0.lI Benzo[a]pyrene ~!3n?3 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22360-1 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 Indeno[ 723-cqpyrene mgkl 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22360-1 c 0.1 11 < 0.1 Dibenzo[ah]anthracene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22360-1 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 Benzo[ghqperylene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 22360-1 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 ~Terohenvl-dI4Sunoaate 1 % Recoverv 40 MEO-030 lNTl 22360-1 Nil Reolicate ? Page 5 of 6 226 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:22360 Environmental Laboratories QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Srn # Duplicate Spike Sm # Oh Recovery 11 Metals in Soil _____ ----- _---- -__-- --___ SarnplellDuplicate _____ % Rec. (Dup) (1 I Arsenic, As I mglkg I 5 I MEM-004 I <5 I 22360-1 I 9 II 9 I 22360-1 I 90% I Cadmium, Cd mglkg 1 MEM-010 Zinc, Zn mg/kg ' 1 MEM-010 c1 22360-1 19 11 19 22360-1 87% Pesult Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for thls test [NRJ : NotRequested [NT] : Not tested [HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. . : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments ? Page6of 6 227 of 300 .:...... _ \...".'...... Australian Environmental Laboraiories Ouality Endorsed Company mwLrnm 25 May 1998 sur&* Ann.* Baulderstone Hornibrook Docklands Stadium Level 4, 55 Southbank Boulevard SOUTHBANK ' VIC 3006 Your Reference: Site Validation Report Number: 22727 cil -stI y Attention: Michael Crestani Dear Michael -.- The following samples were received by us on the date indicated. --3,.-3 Samples: Quantity 12 Soil samples Date of Registration 13/05/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 14/5/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 14/5/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faithfully AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES 3.41A Endorsed ;? fhis docunicnl ai+ not bc i. Geoff Latimer rqiruducc~drwcpl in full. Ph'llib Dews Client Liaison Manager Qkua ty Manager Page 1 of 12 228 of 300 .. 4' i Australian ,I i3 ,.3JECT: Site Validation ._L REPORT NO.: 22727 Environmental Laboratories PAHs in Soil 1 Our Reference: UNITS 22727-7 22727-8 22727-9 22727- 10 22727-1 I 22727-12 22727-13 22727-14 Your Reference -____ SOG8 SO71 SO73 SO74 SO75 S07G Nnplilhalene I mgk/kp I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 AceneDhtlivlene I nicr/kc I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 - Acennphllierie < 0.1 Fluorene mgkg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 I < 0.1 < 0.1 c 0. I Phennnthrene ingkg 0.6 2.8 2.6 0.6 1.1 I I .4 < 0.1 I c 0.1 I Anthracene tnS/kg < 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0. I Fluoranthene msncg 1.1 4. I 3.4 1.3 4.1 3.2 0.5 < 0.I Pvrenr Illr?/kl! I .2 4.1 3.4 1.5 4.7 3.3 0.5 <: 0. I I .VI I I I I Benzo[a]anlhr~lcene I mgkg I 0.5 I 2.0 I 1.3 I 0.7 2.2 1.3 < 0.1 c 0. I Chrysene I WYb! I 0.G I I .7 I 1.3 I 0.7 2.2 I 1.9 < 0.1 0.1 Benzol b)lluornntliene I tiidkg 0.G 2.2 1.5 0.8 3.3 2.5 < 0.1 I .: 0.1 I Benzo[kjlluoranthene I m&! J < 0.1 I 0.97 I 0.6 I < 0.1 Benzolalpyrene I mp/ka I 0.5 2.2 I .4 I 0.9 - ____ Indenoil 23-cd]pyrene mgkg < 0.1 I .4 0.9 0.5 DibenzolahJanllirHcriie niglkg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1 1 0.1 < < I Benzo(ghrJpery1ene mpncg < 0.1 I .4 0.95 0.6 2.4 I 1.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 p-Terphenyl-dl4 Siirrogote 1 YORecovery I19 I23 124 127 130 142 126 I 121 I Page2of 12 229 of 300 ..--.I..".. XUJLL I : ate vaiiaation REPORT NO.:22727 Environmental Laboratories Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 22727-7 22727-10 22727- 12 Your Reference __--_ SO68 SO74 SO76 ----- ? .Page3 of 12 230 of 300 c r- *. Australian :OJECT: Site Validation REPORT 22727 Environmental NO.: Laboratories I OC Pesticides in Soil Our Rel'erericc: UNI-I'S 22727-7 22727-IO Your Rcl'crcrice _-___ SO68 SO74 ----_ I ICB '"dks < 0.1 < 0.1 oll,ha-BI.1C mdks < 0.1 < 0.1 Lindnnc mdks < 0.1 < 0.1 tIeptacIiIor mp/ks < 0.1 < 0.1 Aldrin . m&s < 0.1 c 0.1 .. ? Page 4 of 12 231 of 300 Environmental Laboratories PCBs in Soil Our Ilelcretice: UNITS 22727-7 22727-10 I )'our Reference Aroclor IO I G I mdks I < 0.2 I < 0.2 I Aroclor I22 I I mdkg I < 0.2 < 0.2 Aroclor 1232 mdks < 0.2 < 0.2 Aroclor 1242 mg/kg < 0.2 < 0.2 Aroclor 1248 mdkg < 0.2 < 0.2 Aroclor 1254 mpncg < 0.2 < 0.2 Aroclor l2GO mpncg < 0.2 < 0.2 Page 5 of 12 232 of 300 i ! Australian ...-0JECT: Sitc Validation REPORT NO.: 22727 Environrnen tal Laboratories i Page 6 of 12 233 of 300 AUJLTalIUn REPORT NO.: 22727 Environmental Laboratories Tokd I’lieriolics it1 Soil ()ur Ikl‘crcncc: UNI’I‘S 22727-7 22727-IO Your Rel‘erense ____- SO68 SO74 --___ ‘I~ot~ilI’lietiolics (as I’lienol) mfl/kg c 0.05 C 0.05 P ? Page 7 of 12 234 of 300 .. ; i.l ...... r- i b .,': Australian !. ': :3. :.' lOJECT: Sitc Viilidstion ' ..I. . REPORT NO.:22727 Environmental .. Laboratories Orir I ... ? 235 of 300 Page 8 of 12 A ustra 1ia ii i ..OJECT: Site V;ilitl;ition REPORT NO.:22727 Environmcntal Laboratories Q UALlTY CONTR 0 L UNITS POL METHOD Blank PAHs in Soil ______-___ -__-_ I _____ Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 Acenaphthylene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 AcenaDhthene mdkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 ~~ Fluorene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 Fluoranthene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 Benzo[e]anthracene . mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 - Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 Benzolblfluoranthene mdkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 Benzo[k]fluoranthene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 Benzo[e]pyrene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 Indeno[ 723-cqpyrene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 DibenzoIehJanthracene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 Benzo[gh/]perylene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 p-Terphenvl-dl4 Surrogate I % Recoverv 40 MEO-030 fNTl Page9of 12 236 of 300 .. i Australian . dOJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:22727 En vi ron men ta I Laboratories . QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil ______-_-_ __-______1 TRH c6 - C9 mm!3 20 MEO-020 c20 TRH CIO - c14 mg/kg 20 MEO-020 c20 TRH cl5 - CZ~ mglkg 50 MEO-020 40 TRH c29 - c36 mg/kg 50 MEO-020 40 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 OC Pesticides in Soil ______--_ _-_-_ -_-__ SarnplellDuplicate _____ % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% HCB mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 0.1 22727-8 (NR] 11 0.1 22727-10 Nil Spike alpha-BHC mcUkq 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 lNRl 11 c 0.1 22727-10 Nil SDike Lindane I mgM I 0.1 I MEO-005 I c 0.1 I 22727-8 I (NR] II c 0.1 I 22727-10 I 69 Heptachlor I mmg I 0.1 I ,MEO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 I [NR] 11 c 0.1 I 22727-1 0 75 - Aldrin mg/kg 0.1 M EO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 [NR] 11 c 0.1 22727-10 88 Oxychlordane mg/k!3 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 (NR] 11 c 0.1 22727-10 Nil Spike delta-BHC mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 0.1 22727-8 (NR] 11 0.1 22727-10 Nil Spike Heptachlor Epoxide mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 (NR] 11 c 0.1 22727-10 Nil Spike alpha-Endosulfan mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 INRI I1 0.1 22727-10 Nil Soike gamma-C hlordane mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 I [NR] 11 C 0.1 22727-10 Nil Spike elpha-Chlordane mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 [NR] (1 0.1 22727-10 Nil Spke frans-Nonachlor mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 (NR] 11 0.1 22727-10 Nil Spike p,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 22 7 2 7 -8 [NR] (1 c 0.1 22727-10 Nil Spike Dieldrin mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 (NR] 11 c 0.1 22727-10 98 Endrin mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 INRI (1 c 0.1 22727-10 87 beta-Endosulfan mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 [NR] 11 c 0.1 22727-10 Nil Spike p.p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 22727-8 (NR] 11 c 0.1 22727-10 Nil Spike p,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 0.1 22727-8 [NR] 11 c 0.1 22727-10 73 Endosulfan Sulphate mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 0.1 22 7 2 7 - 8 (NR] 11 < 0.1 22727-10 Nil Spike Endrln Aldehyde mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 0.1 22 7 2 7 - 8 [NR] 11 0.1 22727-1 0 Nil Spike Methoxychlor w/kg 0.1 MEO-005 0.1 22727-8 [NR] (1 c 0.1 22727-10 Nil Spike i Endrin Ketone I mglkg I 0.1 I MEO-005 I c 0.1 I 22727-8 I INRlII< 0.1 I 22727-10 I Nil Soike Page 10 of 12 237 of 300 Australian (OJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:22727 Environmental Laboratories QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # Ox, Recovery 11 PCBs in Soil _---- -____ ---______- _____ SampleJIDuplicate ---__ Oh Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% Aroclor 101 6 mglkg 0.2 ME 0-005 c 0.2 22727-8 [NR] 11 c 0.2 22727-1 0 Nil Spike Aroclor 1221 mdkg 0.2 ME 0-005 c 0.2 22727-8 lNRl I1 c 0.2 22727-10 Nil SDike Aroclor 1232 mg/kg 0.2 ME 0-005 c 0.2 22727-8 [NR] 11 c 0.2 22727-1 0 Nil Spike Aroclor 1242 mg/kg 0.2 MEO-005 c 0.2 22727-8 [NR] 11 c 0.2 22727-1 0 Nil Spike Aroclor 1248 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 c 0.2 22727-8 [NR] II c 0.2 22727-10 Nil Spike Aroclor 1254 mg/kg 0.2 MEO-005 c 0.2 22727-8 [NR] 11 c 0.2 22727-10 104 Aroclor 1260 mg/kg 0.2 MEO-005 c 0.2 22727-8 [NR] 11 c 0.2 22727-10 Nil Spike QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery I( Metals in Soil ---_. -e------_-___ SampleJIDuplicate % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% Arsenic, As mg/kg 5 MEM-004 c5 22727-7 12 II 12 22727-8 78 11 82 II RPD: 5 Cadmium, Cd mglkg 1 MEM-010 cl 22727-7 <1 11 <1 22727-8 77 11 79 I1 RPD: 3 Chromium, Cr wlkg 1 MEM-010 e1 22727-7 16 11 17 22727-8 72 11 72 11 RPD: 0 Copper, cu mg/kg 1 MEM-010 e1 22727-7 100 11 110 22 72 7 - 8 83 II 62 (1 RPD: 29 Lead, Pb mglkg 2 MEM-010 c2 22727-7 60 11 61 22727-8 [HBGl Nickel, Ni mglkg 1 MEM-010 cl 22727-7 48 II 51 22727-8 75 11 75 11 RPD: 0 Antimony, Sb m9lk9 5 MEM-010 c5 22727-7 6 I1 7 22727-8 62 11 65 11 RPD: 5 Selenium, Se mgw 5 MEM-010 <5 22727-7 e5 11 e5 22727-8 69 11 71 11 RPD: 3 Zinc, Zn mglkg 1 MEM-010 c1 22727-7 82 11 80 22727-8 WGI Mercuw. Ha malka 0.05 MEM-005 c 0.05 22727-7 0.26 I1 0.26 22727-8 82 II 89 II RPD: 8 Page 11 of 12 238 of 300 4' -' .. Australian 3OJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:22727 Environmental Laboratories QUALITY CONTROL I Total Phenolics in Soil I UNITS--__- I PQL____- I METHOD-_-__ I Blank_--_- I I Total Phenolics (as Phenol) I rng/kg I 0.05 I MEI-065 I c 0.05 I Q U ALl TY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank -__-_ ----_ -_-_- --_-- Total Cyanide mg/kg 0.02 MEI-043 c 0.02 Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test [NR] : Not Requested [NT) : Not lested [HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. . : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments Page 12 of 12 239 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories 1 June 1998 Baulderstone Hornibrook Dock,lands Stadium Level 4, 55 Southbank Boulevard SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 Your Reference: Site Validation Ch-St 15.doc Report Number: 2285 1 Attention: Michael Crestani Dear Michael The following samples were received by us on the date indicated. Samples: Quantity 6 soils Date of Registration 26/05/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 26/05/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 26/05/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of ths report. Unless otherwise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faithhlly AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES m-, This document may not be P trpmduced except in full. Geoff Latimer -Phillip Dews Client Liaison Manager Quality Manager Page 1 of 6 (Analaha Pty. Ltd.) ACN 004 591 66l 231 BLIM.~~Road Hawthorn Victoria 3113 .Austmlia Telephone: (61 3) 9819 4326 Facsiniile: (61 3) 9818 4126 240 of 300 , ...... _..--. .~._ Australian PROJECT: Site Valitliitiun Ch-Stl5.doc REPORT NO.: 22851 Environmental Laboratories hle~ulsin Soil I Our Reference: UNITS 22851-2 2285 1-4 2285 1-6 22851-7 Your Reference Arsenic. As I mflg I 13 I 13 I 22 I 30 Cluomiuni. Cr I nifllkrr-- I 37 48 22 50 Copper, Cu mflg 110 32 69 31 L.ead, Pi1 1nflg 240 19 66 33 Zinc, 2.n m&kg 200 80 I I I I I 69 I 66 , ._ Page 2 of 6 241 of 300 environmental 1,aI)oratories Our Reference: Your Kelerence mg/kg .I 0.3 I 0.5 I < 0.1 I AcznaphUiylcne ma/kt: I 0.5 0.6. I < 0.1 AcenipliUiene nigkg 0.3 < 0.1 < 0.1 I Fluorene mgkp < 0.1 0.3 < 0.1 mflg 1.6 4.0 < 0.1 mgkg 0.9 1.0 < 0.1 mgkg 4.8 6.2 < 0.1 I Pvreni mdh 5.0 11.7 < 0.1 Uenzo[ a Iiudluacene mgkp 2.5 4.0 < 0.1 Chrvsene mgkg 2.3 4.0 < 0.1 mdkkr: 3.6 5.7 < 0.1 ~~ mfle I .4 I .n < 0.1 mgkg 3.5 6. I < 0.1 mgk/kl: 3.0 5.3 < 0.1 nigkg < 0.1 0.11 < 0.1 mgk/kg 2.7 6.0 < 0.1 % Recovery I I2 I06 94 Page 3 of 6 242 of 300 Australiarr PROJECT: Site Viilitlatiun CIr-StlS.tloc REPORT NO.:22851 Eirviruiiiiiental 1,ahoraturies Total llrcoverahlr Ilydrocarbons in Soil Our Iloliiranca: tJNI'I'S 228s 1-5 22851-6 Your Krlirrencr -___ SO8 I SO82 -__- Page 4 of 6 243 of 300 nnvirunrncniai I Laboratories QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 Metals in Soil --_-_ ----_ _--_- __--- _--_- SamplellDuplicate ----- % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% ~~ Arsenic, As mg/kg 5 MEM-004 c5 22851-2 13 11 13 22851-4 85 11 88 (1 RPD: 3 Chromium, Cr mglkg 1 MEM-010 c1 22851-2 37 11 37 22851-4 89 11 90 I( RPD: 1 Copper, Cu mglkg 1 MEM-010 c1 22851-2 llOlll20 22851-4 95 1) 99 I( RPD: 4 Lead, Pb mglkg 2 MEM-010 c2 22851-2 240 11 220 228514 85 11 87 11 RPD: 2 Zinc, Zn mQlkQ 1 MEM-010 c1 22851-2 200 It 210 228514 90 II 90 I1 RPD. 0 PAHs in Soil Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 I 22851-6 I 1.811 1.8 22851-6 Nil Spike Benzo[a]pyrene I mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22851-6 6.1 11 6.6 22851-6 IHW Indeno(723-cqpyrene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22851-6 5.3 11 5.8 22851-6 Nil Spike Dibenzo[ah]anthracene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 22851-6 0.8 11 0.8 22851-6 Nil Spike Benzo[gh/]perylene wml 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 22851-6 6.0 11 6.3 22851-6 70 pTerphenyl-dl4 Surrogafe 7 Oh Recovery 40 MEO-030 INTI 22851 -6 106 11 106 22851-6 103 Page5of 6 /' 244 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Site Validation Ch-Stl5.doc REPORT NO.:22851 Enviroii me ntal Laboratories QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery )I Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil _-_-- _--_- __------_ I_- SamplellDuplicate --- % Rec. (Dup) (1 RPD:% TRH CS - CO mgM 20 MEO-020 <20 22851-5 <20 11 c20 22851-6 72 TRH CIO - c14 mglkg 20 MEO-020 <20 22851-5 c20 11 <20 22851-6 76 TRH CIS- C28 mgkg 50 MEO-020 c50 22851-5 4011 40 22851-6 77 TRH c29 - C38 mg/kg 50 MEO-020 40 22851-5 4011 40 22851-6 72 Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample lor this test (NR] : Not Requested (NT] : Not tested (HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments /P I Page6of 6 245 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories 18 June 1998 Baulderstone Hornibrook Docklands Stadium Level 4, 55 Southbank Boulevard SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 Your Reference: Site Validation Ch-St16.doc Report Number: 23052 Attention: , Michael Crestani Dear Michael The following samples were received from you on the date indicated. Samples: Qty. 6 soils Date of Registration 15/06/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 12/06/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 12/06/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions is attached. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report.' Unless otherwise stated, solid samples areexpressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faitffilly AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES '. %off Latimer Phihip Dews Client Liaison Manager . .~ This document may not be reproduced except in full. I Page 1 of 6 246 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Site Viilidation Ch-Stl6.tloc REPORT Environmental NO.:23052 Idaboratories 'I'oiul Recoverahle Ilydrocrr1)ons in Soil - Our Reference: UN n-s 23052-3 23052-4 Your Reference SO85 SO86 _-__ 'I'RII cc - e9 mgkg <20 <20 ?'kt1 el0 - c14 mgkncp <20 <20 'I'RtI CIS - CZE ni&g Page 2 of 6 247 of 300 - , Environmental I Laboratories PAHs in Soil Our Keference: UNII'S 23052-7 23052-8 Your Ketbrence ----- SO83,SO85,SO SO84,SO86,SO 87 nn ___-_ Naphthalene mg/k/kg < 0.1 < 0.1 Acenuplilliy lene nig&g < 0.1 < 0.1 AcenaDhthene nir/kr < 0.1 0.4 ~~ Fluorene mg/kg < 0.1 0.6 PhenanUuriie mflg < 0.1 I .3 Anllsacene mgkg < 0.1 I .3 Fluoranthene mr?/kr < 0.1 8.1 I'yrene mg/kg 0.1 7.5 lle1lZo[ ulanUlraccne mg&g < 0.1 4.5 3 Cluysena mg/k/kg < 0.1 3.9 c Benzol bllluoranthcne 11igkg < 0.1 3.n Benzolkl tluoranthene mr/k./kn < 0.1 1.5 Benzol alpyrene muks < 0.1 3.2 Indene[ 123-cdpyrene mg/kg < 0.1 1.8 Dihenzol ah ]anthracene muks < 0.1 0.4 Benzo~hi]perylene mg/kkg < 0.1 1.5 Page 3 of 6 248 of 300 .-. Australian PROJECT: Site Viilitl;ition Ch-St 16.cloc REPORT NO.:23052 Environmental Laboratories Metals in Soil Our Reference: 23052-7 2 30 5 2 - n Your Ketrence SOX3,SOXS,SO SO84.SO86,SO n7 88 Arsenic, As I m&g I Chromiuni. Cr Copper. Cu m&/kp y220 Irad, Ph Zinc. Zn Illdlil! , I ._ Page 4 of 6 249 of 300 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 Tofal Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil -_--_ _-__- _-_-- _I__-- SampleJJDuplicate - % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% TRH c6 - C9 mglkg 20 MEO-020 c20 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 23052-4 93 TRH Clo - c14 mglkg 20 MEO-020 <20 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 23052-4 98 TRH CIS - C26 malka 50 MEO-020 c50 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 23052-4 72 ~~ TRH Cz9 - c36 I mglkg I 50 I MEO-020 I c50 I Nil Replicate I Nil Replicate I 23052-4 I 52 I QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 PAHs in Soil ------_ --_-- _I- -- SampleJIDuplicate - 96 Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% Naphlhalene ' mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23052-7 c 0.1 11 0.1 23052-8 WBGl Acenaphlhylene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 23052-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 23052-8 IHBGl Acenaphlhene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23052-7 c 0.1 11 < 0.1 23052-8 WGl Fluorene mgm 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23052-7 < 0.1 11 < 0.1 23052-8 WBGI Phenanthrene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23052-7 < 0.1 11 0.1 23052-8 IHBGl Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 23052-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 23052-8 [HBGl Fluoranthene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23052-7 c 0.1 11 < 0.1 23052-8 WBGl Pyrene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 23052-7 0.1 11 c 0.1 23052-8 WGl Benzo[ alanlhracene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23052-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 23052-8 WBGl ~ Chrysene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23052-7 < 0.1 11 < 0.1 23052-8 [HBGI Benzo[b]fluoranthene W/k9 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 23052-7 0.1 11 0.1 23052-8 WGl Benzo(klf1uoranthene JngJkg 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 23052-7 c 0.1 11 0.1 23052-8 WGI Benzo[ alpyrene mgm 0.1 MEO-030 -= 0.1 23052-7 c 0.1 11 < 0.1 23052-8 IHBGl lndeno[ 723-cqpyrene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23052-7 c 0.1 11 < 0.1 23052-8 [HBGI DibenzoIahlanthracene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23052-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 23052-8 IHBGl Benzo[gh~]perylene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 23052-7 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 23052-8 IHW Page 5 of 6 250 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Site Validation Ch-Stl6.doc REPORT NO.:23052 Environmental La horatories _---_ ____- -__------Metals in Soil I---SamplellDuplicate --- % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% Arsenic, As mg/kg 5 MEM-004 c5 23052-7 5 It 6 23052-8 94 11 86 I( RPD: 9 Chromium, Cr mglkg 1 MEM-010 <1 23052-7 35 11 35 23052-8 81 II 84 (1 RPD: 4 Copper, Cu mglkg 1 MEM-010 c1 23052-7 15 1) 16 23052-8 70 I(84 11 RPD: 18 Lead, Pb mg/kg 2 MEM-010 c2 23052-7 29 11 31 23052-8 (HBG1 Zinc, Zn mg/kg 1 MEM-010 c1 23 0 5 2 - 7 47 11 52 23052-8 84 11 85 I1 RPD: 1 Result Codes (INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test [NR] : Not Requested . [NT] : Not tested [HBG) : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments Page6of 6 251 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories Y 23 August 1998 Baulderstone Hornibrook Docklands Stadium Level 4, 55 Southbank Boulevard SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 Your Reference: Ch-St17.doc Site Validation Report Number: 23626 Attention: Mike Side11 Dear Mike .. .. . The following samples were received by us on the date indicated. Samples: Quantity 9 soils Date of Registration 610 819 8 Date of Receipt of Samples: 06/08/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 06/08/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faitfilly AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES Laboratory Manager Quality Manager Page 1 of 11 252 of 300 ..- . . - ...... __ .. -. . . ., - .------.--.. Australian PROJECT: Ch-Stl7.doc Site Validation REPORT NO.: 23626 Environmental Laboratories Total llrcoveruhle tlydrocarhons in Soil Our Rel'ermce: mrrs 23626-2 23626-6 23626-9 Your Reference SO90 so94 SO97 i Page 2 of 11 253 of 300 w-w Laboratories PAHs in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 23626-10 23626-1 1 23626-12 Your Reference _____ SO~~,SO~O,SO~so92,so94,so9 SO~~,SO~~,SO~ _____ I 6 7 Naphthalene m&&! < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Acenaohthvlene m&c < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Fluorene mg/kg < .?.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Phenanthrene muk < 0.1 1.1 < 0.1 Antluicenr: m&/kn < 0.1 0.5 < 0.1 I Benzo[ b]tluoranthene I mdkg I < 0.1 I 2.3 I < 0.1 1 Benzo[kllluoranthene I mdke I < 0.1 I 1 .o I < 0.1 I Renzola lpyrene I m&c I < 0.1 2.4 I < 0.1 I lndeno[ 123-cdpyrene I mdkg I < 0.1 I I .9 < 0.1 t Di benzol ah lanthracene I m&r I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I Bewokhi lperylene I mg/kg I < 0.1 I 2.2 < 0.1 ~-Teruhenvl-dfI Surrovate I I %Recoverv I 90 96 I 87 Page 3 of 11 254 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Ch-Stl7.doc Site Validation REPORT NO.:23626 Environniental Laboratories PCBs in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 23626-6 Your Reference _____ SO94 ~ ~~~ Aroclor 1016 Aroclor I22 1 I mfl/kl: I < 0.2 Aroclor 1232 I mr?/kr I < 0.2 I ____~~~~_____~~~ I Aroclor 1242 mg/kg < 0.2 Aroclor 1248 mg/kg < 0.2 Aroolor 1254 rnhg < 0.2 ____~~ r Aroclor 1260 i ._ Page 4 of 11 255 of 300 Laboratories C)C Pesticides in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 23626-6 Your Reference ----_ SO94 __-I Lindane ni@g < 0.1 I leptachlor mdks < 0.1 Aldrin mdkg < 0.1 Oxychlordaie mgkg < 0.1 alpha-Chlordmz mgkg < 0.1 vans-Nonachlor < 0.1 p.p'-DDE nlgks < 0.1 2 Dieldrin m&g < 0.1 Endrin mdkg < 0.1 beta-Endosulfm m&/kg < 0.1 D,P'-DDD m&g < 0.1 p,p'-DDT I mal: I < 0.1 I Endosulfan Sulphate I m*/kr I < 0.1 I Methoxvchlor I rndr I < 0.1 I I Endrin Ketone I m&g I < 0.1 I Page 5 of I1 256 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Ch-Stl7.d~Site Validation REPORT NO.:23626 Environmental Laboratories Metals in Soil Our ltelerence: UNITS 23626-10 23626-1 I 23626- I2 Your Re1'2rence _____ so89,so9o,so9 so92,so94,so9 so93.so95.so9 I 6 I Arsenic, As m&/kC: 7 ' ... Page 6 of 11 257 of 300 Australian Environmental PROJECT: Ch-Stl7.cloc Site Validation REPORT NO.:23853 Laboratories PAlls in Soil Our Retbrancc: IINITS 23853-1 I 23853-12 Your 1~r:1‘2rencs _-___ S099,S102,S10 SI00,S103,SI0 4,s I06 5,S107 -_--- NnphUinlens niflg < 0.1 < 0.1 Accnaplillivlsne I ni@/ks I < 0.I I < 0.I Acrnarthtlienr: I inr/kr! I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I I I’yranc I Infig .: 0.I Page 3 of 6 258 of 300 !8&,&,V Laboratories Told I1ccovcrahle I lydrocarhons in Soil Our Kekrence: UNI'I'S 23853-7 23853-8 Your Hrlbrence ----_ SI04 SI05 ----- 2 259 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories Y Ouality Endorsod Company -*soscmkm 10 September 1998 Baulderstone Eornibrook Docklands Stadium Level 4, 55 Southbank Boulevard SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 Your Reference: Ch-Stl$doc Site Validation Report Number: 23853 Attention: Mike Side11 Dear Mike The following samp2s were received by us on the date llid' icatec Samples: Quantity 10 soils Date of Registration 3 1/08/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 3 1/08/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 3 1/08/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned Yours faitffilly AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES Shane Carruthers hidp Dews %- Laboratory Manager uality Manager Page 1 of 6 260 of 300 011VI1UIIIIICllLi(l WNRWWNTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank OC Pesticides in Soil ---_ I I-- I _II I I Endrin Ketone I mg/kg I 0.1 I MEO-005 I c 0.1 I ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 Metals in Soil -_I-__--- --_-- --__- -I-- SamplellDuplicate I- % Rec. (Dup) )I RPD:% Arsenic, As mglkg 5 ME M-004 4 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 23626-10 104 II 102 11 RPD: 2 Chromium. Cr rnalka 1 MEM-010 <1 Nil ReDlicate Nil ReDlicate 23626-10 I 97 I1 100 II RPD: 3 ~~~~ 1- Copper. Cu I rnglkg I 1 I MEM-010 I c1 I Nil Replicate I Nil Replicate I 23626-10 I 105 II 107 II RPD: 2 1 Lead, Pb mgM 2 MEM-010 <2 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 23626-10 94 11 95 )IRPD: 1 Zinc, Zn mgMl 1 MEM-010 <1 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 23626-10 99 11 100 11 RPD: 1 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Metals in Soil -- I_-I --_-- I _------SamDlellDuolicate Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 1 MEM-010 c1 23626-6 1 II <1 Mercury, Hg mg/kg 0.05 MEM-005 c 0.05 23626-6 0.87 11 0.90 Nickel, Ni mgkl 1 MEM-010 <1 23626-6 a4 11 82 Antimony, Sb mglkg 5 MEM-010 c5 , 23626-6 <5 II INTI Selenium, Se mglkg 5 MEM-010 <5 23626-6 c5 11 c5 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate lnorganics in Soil _-___ _-_-_ --_-_ ---- SamplellDuplicate Total Cyanide mg/kg 0.02 ME 1-043 < 0.02 23626-6 c 0.02 I1 c 0.02 Total Phenolics (as Phenol) mglkg 0.05 MEI-065 c 0.05 23626-6 Nil Replicate Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test [NR] : Not Requested [NT] : Nottested (HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments Page 11 of 11 261 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Ch-Stl7.doc Site Validation REPORT NO.:23626 Environmental Laboratories QUALITY CONTROL PCBs in Soil I UNITS-_-_- I PQL---- I METHOD----- I """" I Aroclor 101 6 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 < 0.2 Aroclor 1221 mgm 0.2 MEO-005 c 0.2 Aroclor 1232 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 < 0.2 Aroclor 1242 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 0.2 Aroclor 1248 mg/kg 0.2 MEO-005 c 0.2 Aroclor 1254 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 < 0.2 I Aroclor 1260 I mglkg I 0.2 I MEO-005 I c 0.2- 1 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank I OC Pesticides in Soil ----- I-- I ---- I _-I-1 Endrin Aldehyde 0.1 I MEO-005 I c 0.1 I Methoxychlor I mglkg I 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 r Page 10 of 11 262 of 300 Laboratories I QUALITY CONTROL I UNITS I PQL I METHOD I Blank I Duplicate Sm # I Duplicate I Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil I------SamplellDuplicate TRH C6 - C9 mg/kg 20 ME 0-020 c20 23626-9 c20 11 c20 TRH C~O- c14 mg/kg 20 MEO-020 e20 23626-9 c20 11 c20 TRH cl5 - Cz8 mgh 50 MEO-020 40 23626-9 4011 40 TRH CZS- C36 mgMl 50 ME 0-020 c50 23626-9 4011 e50 I QUALITY CONTROL PQL I METHOD I Blank I Duplicate Sm# I Duplicate I Dibenzo(ab]anthracene 0.1 MEO-030 0.1 23626-1 1 0.1 )Ic 0.1 Benzo[gb~]petylene mgMl 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23626-11 2.2 11 1.2 ~~Ter~henvl-dl4Surrooate 1 % Recoverv 40 MEO-030 INTI 23626-1 1 96 I1 97 Page 9 of 11 263 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Ch-Stl7.d~Site Validation REPORT NO.: 23626 2 Environmental . Laboratories Inorganics in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 23626-6 Your Reference --_I SO94 ----- Total Cyanide I m& I < 0.02 c Total Phenolim (as Phenol) I mar! I < 0.05 I Page 8 of 11 264 of 300 Laboratories Metals in Soil Our Reference: IJNITS 23626-6 Your Reference _---_ so94 -_- I Cadmium, Cd I m@g I 1 I Mercury, IIg I m@/kg I 0.87 Nickel, Ni I mkvk/ke I 84 Antimony, Sh I I <5 I Selenium. Se I nir/kr I <5 I I L t Page 7 of 11 265 of 300 Laboratories Metids in Soil Our Kelercnce: Your Kefircncz hsciiic, As infig 61 sx Chromium. Cr nigAg I30 110 Copper, Cu nizk/kr 80 G6 Lead, Ph mgkg G I 7 Zinc, Zn Illgkg 110 I IO Page 4 of 6 266 of 300 Australian Environmental PROJECT: Ch-St17.tloc Site Vitlidation REPORT NO.: 23853 Laboratories QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank I Total Recoverable Hvdrocarbons in Soil _-___ -_--- -____ I _---- TRH CS - C9 mdkg 20 ME 0-020 <20 2 TRH C~O- c14 mdkg 20 MEO-020 c20 TRH CIS - CZ~ mglkg 50 ME 0-020 40 TRH CZJ c36 mgkl 50 ME 0-020 - 40 A QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovely I( PAHs in Soil _---- ____- __-_------SamplellDuplicate -__-- % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23853-1 1 c 0.1 11 < 0.1 23853-1 1 72 Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 23853-11 c 0.1 11 < 0.1 23853-1 1 Nil Spike Acenaphthene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23853-11 c 0.1 11 < 0.1 23853-1 1 83 Fluorene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 23853-11 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 23853-11 Nil Spike Phenanthrene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 23853-11 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 23853-11 104 Anthracene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23853-11 c 0.1 11 < 0.1 23853-11 Nil Spike Fluoranthene mQlkQ 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23853-11 c 0.1 II c 0.1 23853-1 1 131 7-Pvrene I mglkg I 0.1 I MEO-030 I < 0.1 I 23853-11 I 0.1 I1 c 0.1 I 23853-11 I 144 I Benzo[a]anthracene mg1ki-I 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23853-11 c 0.1 11 c 0.1 23853-1 1 Nil Spike Chrysene mgkl 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23853-11 c 0.1 1) c 0.1 23853-1 1 92 Benzolblfluoranthene mdkQ 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23853-11 < 0.1 I1 4 0.1 23853-1 1 Nil !hike ~~~ ~ Benzo[k]fluoranthene mgkl 0.1 ME 0-030 c 0.1 23853-11 0.1 11 0.1 23853-1 1 Nil Spike Benzo[ alpyrene mmg 0.1 ME 0-030 c 0.1 23853-11 < 0.1 11 c 0.1 23853-1 1 57 Indeno[ 7 23-cqpyrene mg/kg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23853-1 1 < 0.1 1) 4 0.1 23853-1 1 Nil Spike Dibenzo[ah]anthracene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 c 0.1 23853-1 1 < 0.1 11 < 0.1 23853-1 1 Nil Spike Benzo[ghflperylene mglkg 0.1 MEO-030 < 0.1 23853-1 1 < 0.1 11 0.1 23853-1 1 61 ' pTerphenyl-d74 Surrogate 1 % Recovery 40 MEO-030 <40 23853-11 INTI II 94 23853-1 1 Nil Spike Page5of 6 267 of 300 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 Metals in Soil _-_-- _---- __-_- _---- -_--- SamplellDuplicate --- % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD:% Arsenic, As mg/kg 5 ME M-004 c5 23853-1 1 61 1161 23853M/ L S(t IUSpke 3 ?- Chromium, Cr mg/kg 1 MEM-010 <1 23853-1 1 130 11 120 23853-wf~ 'Ti>M-Spke 3. Copper, Cu mdkg 1 MEM-010 <1 23853-1 1 80 11 82 23853H I L 9 9 NMptRF') 7 ' Lead, Pb mglkg 2 MEM-010 <2 23853-1 1 6 II 5 23853H I L 77 NHplk?? 3-5 Zinc, Zn mglkg 1 MEM-010 <1 23853-1 1 11011 110 23853-x I L, -3 &&+k-3L Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test (NRJ : Not Requested [NT] : Not tested [HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments c Page 6 of 6 268 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories 9 November 1998 Baulderstone Hornibrook Docklands Stadium Level 4, 55 Southbank Boulevard SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 Your Reference: Site Validation Ch- Stl9.doc Report Number: 24257 Attention: Michael Crestani Dear Michael Tbe following samples were received by us on the date indicated. Samples: Quantity 68 soils Date of Registration 16/ 10/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 15/10/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 16/10/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies this analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faitfilly AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES /5Cks=- Shane Carruthers / Laboratory Manager NMA Endorsed Test Report This document may not be 1 reproduced except in full. Page 1 of 18 (.\ii~il~il~~Pty. 1.til.i .\CS 004 .591 6(4 ?:{I Hiinraulil H~mItltil\~th~wn \-it.ta,rio 312 .\ic.-tralia T&pl:ui~: (61 3) 9819 4326 Facaiiiiile: (61 3) 9818 4126 269 of 300 En vi ron nien t :I I PROJECT: Site Validation Ch-Stl9.doc REPORT NO.: 24257 Laboratories Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 24257-1 24257-9 242.57-12 24257-13 24257-18 24257-20 24257-30 24257-40 Your Reference _____ SI08 SI I6 SI 19 SI20 SI25 SI27 SI37 SI47 _-I <20 <20 <20 I30 <20 +fp- <20 <20 310 240 <20 2300 250 <50 I300 850 <50 <50 I Page 2 of 18 270 of 300 i A us t raI ia n Environmental "ROJECT: Site Validittion Ch-St l9.doc REPORT NO.:24257 IA horatories Your KeVerenue c 271 of 300 Page 3 of 18 Environment a I PROJECT: Site Validation Ch-St19.doc REPORT NO.: 24257 Laboratories PA1Is in Soil Our Kefereiice: UNITS 24257-12 24257-13 24257-20 24257-30 ' 242 57-48 24257-69 24257-70 24257-7 I Your Ket'ercnce ----- SI 19 SI20 SI27 SI37 Sl55 S108,SI I0,SI I SI I5,SI 17.SI2 S123,SI25.S13 2 I 4 ----- b Naphlhaleiie mdk 28 < 0.5 35 1.7 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 ~ Acenaphlhylene mp/ks 42 < 0.5 8.0 2.6 < 0.1 2. I < 0.1 < 0.1 Acenaphtliene me/kg 6.0 < 0.5 4.6 < 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Fluorene mgflcg 46 < 0.5 9.2 < 0.5 < 0.1 2.0 < 0.1 < 0.1 Plieiiantlircne m&a 330 3.0 65 1.5 < 0.1 16 < 0.1 c 0.1 Page 4 of 18 272 of 300 Australian Environmental PROJECT: Site Validation Ch-Stl9.doc REPORT NO.: 24257 La bora tories PAISin Soil Our Kclcrcnoc: UNITS 24151-73 14151-74 24251-76 242 57-17 24157-78 24257-79 24251-80 24251-82 Your Reticrcncc _.___SI2X,S13O,S13 S14O,S142 S144,S146,SI 7 S145,S147,S17 S148,S I50,SI 52 SI 5431 56,SI 5 S 160,s 161,s I6 S 164,S166 _____ 1 4 5 8 2 Naplithaleiic mdks < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 ~~ ~~ ~ Acenaplithylene mfikg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1 Acenaplitlicne mfig < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Fluorene mwka < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 c 0.1 < 0.1 ~ ~ I I'licnantlircnc I mdkE I 0.7 I 0.6 < 0.1 0.5 I I .2 I 0.93 < 0.1 < 0.1 I Aiilliriiccne "'fig 0.7 0.5 < 0. I 0.4 1.1 0.8 c. 0.1 < 0.1 I~luoranlhcnc mg/k!3 2.2 I .4 < 0.1 0.9 1.7 2.3 0.7 < 0.1 I'yrcne mwka , 2.3 1.6 < 0.1 I .3 1.8 1.5 0.9 c 0.1 -- I . t I~enzo~aJaiitliIaccnc I mdkg I 1.2 I 0.8 < 0.1 I 0.7 I 0.x I 1.1 < 0.1 I 0.1 I Cliryscne I mg/kg I 0.8 I < 0.1 < 0.1 I 0.6 I 0.6 I 0.9 < 0.1 I < 0.1 I IJciuoI h ~lli~or~~~~ll~c~~c I in&s I < 0.1 1 < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 < 0.1 I < 0.1 I < 0.1 I 0. I I Ilcnzolkl Ihioriinllienc mukg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Benzol.. o Jpyrcnc mdkE 1 .o 0.9 < 0.1 0.8 0.8 1.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 lndeno[ 123-cdlpyrene mg/kE < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.5 < 0.1 Dihenzol ah Jantliroceno mg/kg < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Bewokhi Jpcrylene mfiE 0.8 1.1 < 0.1 0.9 0.7 1.o < 0.1 < 0.1- p-Tcrplieiiyl-dl4 Surrogate I % Recovery 90 93 81 96 93 93 94 88 273 of 300 Page 5 of 111 Environmental PROJECT: Site Validation Ch-St19.doc REPORT NO.: 24257 Laboratories PAIis in Soil Our Reference: mrrs 24257-t~ Your Reference -_--- S 168,s 170,s I7 2 -___ Naphthalene mg/kl: < 0.1 Acenaphthylene n1g/k!3 < 0.1 Acenaphthene m&/kg < 0.1 Fluorene I mdks I < 0.1 I Phenanthrene I I < 0.1 I Anthracene mg/kg < 0.1 Fluoranthene nwk < 0.1 Pyrene mg/kg < 0.1 Benzololanthracene m&/kn < 0.1 Chrysene < 0.I Benzo[b J tluoranthene mgkg < 0.1 Bcnzolkltluoranthene mr/ke. < 0.1 Benzo[aJpyrene lndenol I23-cdJpyrene IXhcnzo[ ah lanthracene < 0.1 13enzo~hrjperylcne 0.1 p-l'erphenyl-dI4 Surrogate I % Recovery Page 6 of I8 274 of 300 Australian Environmental "ROJECT: Site Validation Ch-St19.doc REPORT NO.: 24257 Laboratories PCBs in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 24257-6 24257-20 242S7-3 I Your Reference _____ S113 SI27 SI38 Aroclor 10 I6 I "'k% I < 0.2 <2.0 # 0.2 Aroclor I22 I I me/ke I < 0.2 I <2.0 H I 0.2 ~~~ I Aroclor 1232 mg/kg < 0.2 <2.0 H < 0.2 Aroclor 1242 tng/kg < 0.2 <2.0 ii 0.2 Aroclor I248 "'g/kS c 0.2 c2.0 H < 0.2 Aroclor I254 nl&g i 0.2 c2.0 # < 0.2 Aroclor 1260 mg/kg < 0.2 <2.0 # < 0.2 I ... 275 of 300 Page 7 of 18 Environmental Laboratories c OC Pesticides in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 24257-6 24257-20 24251-3 I Your Reference -_--_ SI13 SI27 SI38 m&c I-ICB I YY I < 0.1 I trans-Nonachlor I mhe. I < 0.1 I <1.0# I ~ < 0.1 I Dieldrin < 0.1 I Endrin I mds! I < 0.1 I <1.0# I < 0.1 befa-Endosulfan mdks < 0.1 <1.0 # < 0.1 p.p'-DDD mdks < 0.I c1.0 u < 0.1 p,p'-DDT mdks < 0.1 <1.0 # 0.7 Endosulfan Sulphate mdks < 0.1 Page 8 of 18 276 of 300 Australian Environmentid 'ROJECT: Site Validation Ch-Stt9.tloc REPORT NO.:24257 La boratories Metals in Soil (hir Ilel'crciicr: UNITS 24257-6 24257-8 24257-9 24257-15 ' 24257-20 24257-3 I 24257-69 24257-70 Your Ilelerrnce I 277 of 300 Page 9 of 18 Environmental PRUJELT: Site Validation Ch-St I9.doc REPORT NO.:24257 La bora tories Mchls it] Soil Our Kelerence: UNITS 24257-71 24251-72 24251-13 24257-14 ‘ 24251-75 24257-76 24257-77 24257-78 Your Reterence __-__ S123,SI25,S13 S124,S 12G,S13 S128,SI 30~13 SI 4O,S142 S141,S143 S144,S146,S17 S145,S147,S17 S148,SI 50,s I5 4 5 2 4 5 2 ____- Aixciiic, As mg/kg <5 <5 8 24 11 99 IG <5 Chromium, Cr mg/kg 20 63 21 29 43 18 24 50 Copper, Cu mg/kg IO0 50 13 1 10 91 19 XG 1GO I .e;id, l’h mpncg 1s 11 63 I20 220 17 x2 110 Zinc, Zn n1dkg 15 200 99 1 XO 210 18 120 330 L ._ 2 Page 10 of 18 278 of 300 Australian En viron nie n t :iI 'ROJECT: Sitc Valitlation Ch-St 19.doc REPORT NO.: 24257 Laboratories Metals in Soil Our Rcference: wrrs 24257-79 24257-80 24257-81 24257-82 24257-83 Your Ilcl'erence ___-- SI 54,SI 5h,S I5 SI 60,S161,SlG S IG3,SIG5,SlG S 164,SIGb S 16X,S17O,SI72 _____ 8 2 7 Arsenic, A. melkt: 18 <5 21 <5 <5 Chrombim,Cr mdkg 23 40 63 G9 53 Copper, Cu m&g 110 56 78 78 75 Lead, Ph m&g 13 310 240 27 26 Zinc, Z.n tngkg 120 I10 420 56 I 46 Page 11 of IS 279 of 300 Environmental ROJECT: Site Viilidation Ch-Stl9.doc REPORT NO.: 24257 Laboratories Metals in Soil 2 Our Reference: UNITS 242574 2425'7-20 24257-3I Your Reference ----- _____ SI 13 Si27 SI38 Cadmium, Cd '"&/kg Mercury, tlg m&g Nickel, Ni m&E Antimony, Sb m&g Selenium, Se m&g / Page 12 of 18 280 of 300 Australian Environmental DROJECT: Sitc Validation Ch-St l9.doc REPORT NO.: 24257 Laboratories Inorganics in Soil Our Reference: UNITS 24257-6 2425’7-20 24257-3 I Your Reference _-___ SI 13 SI27 SI38 ___-_ Total Cyanide I m&/kg I 0.09 I 140 I 0.67 I Total Phenolics (as Phenol) I mukg I < 0.05 I 0.08 I < 0.05 1 281 of 300 Page 13 of 18 24257 Environment :i I 'ROJECT: Site Validation Ch-St I9.doc REPORT NO.: La horatories QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % RecoveryT- PAHs in Soil _-__- _-______-_-__ -_-__ SamplellDuplicate ___I % Rec @UP) I1 RPD % Naphthalene mglkg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 28 1) 61 24257-12 [HBGI Acenaphthylene mglkg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 42 11 77 24257-12 Nil Spike Acenaphthene mglkg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 601114 24257-12 IHW Fluorene mg/kg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 46 II 95 24257-12 Nil Spike Phenanthrene mglkg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 330 11 490 24257-12 [HBGI Anthracene mglkg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 96 1) 150 24257-12 Nil Spike Fluoranthene mglkg 01 ME 0-030 c 01 24257-12 300 1) 400 24257-12 WGI Pyrene mglkg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 250 11 340 24257-12 IHBGl Benzo[alant hracene mglkg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 100 11 140 24257-12 Nil Spike Chrysene mglkg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 72 11 94 24257-12 WGI Benzo[b]fluoranthene mmg 01 ME 0-030 c 01 24257-12 96 11 120 24257-12 Nil Spike Benzo[k]fluoranthene mglkg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 33 li 47 24257-12 Nil Spike Benzo[a]pyrene mglkg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 a3 11 100 24257-12 IHBGl Indeno[ 723-cqpyrene mglkg 01 ME 0-030 c 01 24257-12 71 1188 24257-12 Nil Spike Di benzo[&]ant hracene mglkg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 901112 24257-12 Nil Spike ~~ Benzo[ghqperylene mglkg 01 MEO-030 c 01 24257-12 62 11 74 24257-12 [HBGI pTerphenyl-dl4 Surrogate 1 % Recovery 40 MEO-030 INTI 24257-12 94 11 107 24257-12 Nil Spike P Page 14 of 18 3 282 of 300 A 11st ral ia n En vi ron men t :I I ROJECT: Site Validation Ch-Stl9.doc REPORT NO.:24257 La bora tories I QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery (1 PCBs in Soil ___-- -_-__ _---- __-__ _---_ Sample((Dup1icate -I__ % Rec. (Dup) I( RPn.% Aroclor 1016 mghl 0.2 MEO-005 < 0.2 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 24257-6 Nil Spike Aroclor 1221 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 < 0.2 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 24257-6 Nil Spike Aroclor 1232 malka 0.2 MEO-005 0.2 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 24257-6 Nil Spike Aroclor 1242 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 < 0.2 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 24257-6 Nil Spike Aroclor 1248 mgh 0.2 MEO-005 < 0.2 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 24257-6 Nil Spike Aroclor 1254 mg/kg 0.2 MEO-005 < 0.2 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 24257-6 93 Aroclor 1260 mglkg 0.2 MEO-005 < 0.2 Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 24257-6 Nil Spike QUALITY CONTROL UNITS PQL METHOD Blank OC Pesticides in Soil -______I ---_- I ----- 1 HCB mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 alpha- BH C mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 Lindane mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 Heptachlor mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 Aldrin mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 Oxychlordane malka 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 delfa-BHC mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 Heptachlor Epoxide mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 =I< 0.1 I alpha-Endosulfan mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 gamma-Chlordane mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 -< 0.1 alpha4 hlordane mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 trans-Nonachlor mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 ..P,P'-DDE malka-I 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 P Dieldrin mglkg 0.1 ME 0-005 < 0.1 Endrin mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 beta-Endosulfan mgM 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 p.p'-DDD mgkl 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 p,p'-DDT mglkg 0.1 ME0-005 < 0.1 Endosulfan Sulphate mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 Endrin Aldehyde mglkg 0.1 MEO-005 < 0.1 Page 15 of 18 283 of 300 REPORT NO.:24257 OC Pesticides in Soil Methoxychlor I mgkl 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 Endrin Ketone I mg/kg 0.1 MEO-005 c 0.1 c QUALITY CONTROL UNITS POL - METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Spike Sm # % Recovery 11 Metals in Soil ----- I ----_ --_-- - SamplellDuplicate -__-- % Rec. (Dup) 11 RPD.% r Arsenic, As mg/kg 5 MEM-004 e5 24257-6 88 1) 04 24257-8 75 11 86 I( RPD 14 Chromium, Cr mglkg 1 MEM-010 c1 24257-6 18 11 17 24257-8 76 11 83 11 RPD 9 Copper, Cu mglkg 1 MEM-010 e1 24257-6 69 (1 68 24257-8 Nil Spike Lead, Pb mglkg 2 MEM-010 c2 24257-6 230 11 240 24257-8 69 11 76 11 RPD 10 Zinc, Zn mglkg 1 MEM-010 c1 24257-6 200 I( 190 2 4 2 5 7 -8 71 11 84 11 RPD 17 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS POL METHOD Blank Duplicate Sm # Duplicate Metals in Soil ---_ I- -I__-_------_- SamplellDuplicate Cadmium, Cd mgM 1 MEM-010 c1 24257-6 3 II 3 Mercury, Hg mglkg 0.05 MEM-005 c 0.05 24257-6 Nil Replicate Nickel, Ni mglkg 1 MEM-010 cl 24257-6 43 II 42 Antimony, Sb mmg 5 MEM-010 c5 24257-6 <5 (1 c5 Selenium, Se mgM4 5 MEM-010 c5 24257-6 c5 (1 c5 QUALITY CONTROL UNITS POL METHOD Blank Inorganics in Soil __--- -__-_ ----_ --_-_ 1 Total Cyanide I mglkg I 0.02 I MEI-043 I c 0.02 I Total Phenolics (as Phenol) I malka I 0.05 MEI-065 c 0.05 Page 16 of 18 284 of 300 A\\\\ Australian Environment;il 'ROJECT: Site Validation Ch-Stl9.doc REPORT NO.:24257 Laboratories I QUALITY CONTROL DUP. Sm# I Duplicate I SpikeSm# % Recovery 11 PAHs in Soil _--_ ----- I SamoteI~Duolicate I . ----- % Rec.(Dup) 11 RSD: Naphthalene mglkg Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 24257-71 Acenaphthene ma/ka Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 24257-71 104 I ~~ Phenanthrene mg/kg Nil Replicate Nil Replicate Fluoranthene mgkl Nil Replicate Nil Replicate 24257-71 +I Pyrene Nil Replicate I Nil Replicate I 24257-71 120 104 BenzoIajpyrene I mghl I Nil Replicate I Nil Replicate I 24257-71~___ I I Benzo[gh/]perylene I mglkg I Nil Replicate I Nil ReDlicate 1 ~~ 24257-71 58 I QUALITY CONTROL UNITS Dup. Sm# Duplicate Metals In Soil I-_--_--- Sample I( Duplicate Arsenic, As mgh 24257-71 c5 11 c5 Chromium, Cr mgM 24257-71 20 11 21 Copper, Cu mgk3 24257-71 100 11 97 Lead, Pb mglkg 24257-71 15 11 15 ' Zinc, Zn wlkg 24257-71 75 11 72 I QUALITY CONTROL 1 UNITS I Dup. Sm# I Duplicate 1 PAHs in Soil I -- I ---_- Sample 11 Duplicate Naphthalene I mglkg I 24257-71 c 0.1 11 1.5 Acenaphthylene I mgkl I 24257-71 c 0.1 )I2.4 Acenaphthene I mghl I 24257-71 I c 0.1 )I c 0.1 Fluorene I mglkg I 24257-71 I c 0.1 )I4.6 Phenanthrene mg/kg 24257-71 c 0.1 )I 12 Anthracene mglkg 24257-71 c 0.1 )I 36 Fluoranthene m9/kg 24257-71 0.6 )I35 Pyrene mg/kg 24257-71 0.6 11 30 Benzo(e]anthracene mgm 24257-71 c 0.1 11 10 C hrysene mgkg 24257-71 c 0.1 11 12 Benzo[k]fluoranthene mgM 24257-71 c 0.1 11 4.3 Benzo[alpyrene mgkl 24257-71 c 0.1 11 9.2 285 of 300 Page17of 18 Environment;il PROJECT: Site Validation Cti-S 19.doc REPORT NO.:24257 taoL I UNITS I DU~.S~#I Duplicate I PAHs in Soil ------_- I I I Sample 11 Duplicate I lndenol123-cdl~vrene I malka I 24257-71 I c 0.1 I1 16 Dibenzo[ah]anthracene mg/kg 24257-71 c 0.1 11 1.4 BenzoIghQperylene mg/kg 24257-71 c 0.1 11 5.6 pTerphenyl-dl4 Surrogate I 96 Recovery 24257-71 86 11 91 QUALITY CONTROL I UES I Dup_Sm# Metals in Soil I Arsenic, As mg/kg 24257-20 57 11 77/76 Chromium, Cr mglkg 24257-20 160 11 1501150 Comer. Cu malka 24257-20 4 II 24/25 Lead, Pb mglkg 24257-20 I 54 11 58/59 Zinc, Zn mg/kg 24257-20 I 71 11 73/66 i Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test [NR] : Not Requested [NT] : Not tested (HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments # Note: Detection limit raised due to sample matrix interference. P Page 18 of 18 286 of 300 QUALITY MAHACEMENT SYSTEM BL:dh:13773 22 October, 1998 Baulderstone Hornibrook ...... -...,-- L.ab-.N,o: Level 4, 55 Southland Boulavard ...... Docklands Stadium SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 ...... -.-.--Ae : Soil Samples CI,,ctZQ Attention: Mr. M. Crestani Certificate of Analysis WSL Report No: 176707 Date Sampled 15. 0.98 Received by WSL Consultants 15. 0.98 Instructions were received 16. 0.98 Analyses were commenced 16. 0.98 The sample(s) referred to in this report were analysed by the following methods: Analyte(s) Method I Analyte(s) Method Metals WSL 023 A TPH WSL 030 Mercury WSL 023 C PAH WSL 8100 Results pertain to samples as received. Details of this report were faxed on 21.10.98. Yaks. fait +u 11y , W L Con qltants Pty Ltd This Laboratory is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Australia. The test(s) reponed Lti herein have been performed in accordance with its terms Lyons id. of accreditation. This document shall not be reproduced Director of Scientific Services except in full. Page 1 of 5 WSL Consdtanrs Pry. Ltd. AC.N. 004 752 676 2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Vicroria 3 121, Ausrralia A NATA Accredited Laboratory Telephone: +61 3 9429 4666 Facsimile: +61 3 9429 2234 An Approved Quarantine Premises Wazn Email: [email protected] An Approved EPA Auditor & Analyst 287 of 300 Web Page: www.wsl.consulrants.com.au i W I-I VVALVUA SUAAILV Richmond, Victoria 3 Enviroscience Telephone: +61 3 9429 4d6 A( :N 01)4 752 076 Facsimile: +GI 3 9429 2294 Ernail: [email protected] Web Page: www.wsl.consultants.com.au Page : 2 0f.J FINAL REPORT NO. 176707 DATE :2l/lO/l998 Client : BAULDERSTONE HORNIBROOK Job Reference : Docklands Stadium Results expressed in mgkg dry weight. LAB NUM Received Sample As Cr cu Pb Zn TPH TPH TPH TPH C6-C9 C IO-C I4 C 15-C28 C29-C36 I76707 15/10/1998 SI I5 <5 6 54 17 37 < 20 92 5200 1900 t. I76708 15/10/1998 SI 19 ’ 176710 15/10/1998 SI27 96 I80 19 120 74 < 20 410 1600 230 t. I7671 I 15/10/1998 SI37 < 20 120 340 < 50 A blank space indicates no test performed. 288 of 300 2-8 Harvey Street, WSLConsultantsRichmond, Victoria 3 ,Enviroscience Telephone: +6I 3 9429 4066 QUALITY ACN on4 752 676 Facsimile: +61 3 9429 2294 MNNEMal Email: [email protected] SYSTEM Web Page: www.wsl.consulranrs.com.au Page: 3 01... 5 FINAL REPORT NO. I76707 DA’II: :2111011998 Clietit : UAULDERSTONli IlORNlUROOK Job Reference : Docklands Stadium Results expressed tiiflg dry in weiylil. BGP IPY TOTAL I.AU NUM Received Sample NAP ACY ACE FLU PHE ANT FLA PY R UAA CHR BBF UKF BAP DBA PA11 94 2700 176708 I511011998 SI19 34 70 14 87 560 I60 500 450 I70 I50 87 I IO 130 I2 14 < 24 31 460 176710 ‘1511011998 SI27 32 23 6.9 10 56 9.4 92 81 22 23 19 20 I1 0.1 3.1 I .9 31 176711 I511011998 SI37 1.6 2.3 1.2 0.5 0.9 0.6 2.4 2.4 3.4 4.5 2.1 2.8 0.9 0.6 A blank space iiidicates no test perfonned. 289 of 300 ~~~Lonsul~an~s- - Richmond, Victoria 3 Enviroscience Telephone: +61 3 9429 4666 ACN 1104 752 676 Facsimile: t6l 3 9429 2294 Email: [email protected] Web Page: www.wsl.consultants.com.au QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT Page : 4 of. ..5 FINAL REPORT NO. 176707 DATE :2 1/10/1998 Client : BAULDERSTONE HORNIBROOK Job Reference : Docklands Stadium Results expressed in mg/kg dry weight. LAB NUM Received Sample As Cr cu Pb Zn TPH TPH TPH TPH C6-C9 C IO-C I4 C I5-C28 C29-C36 I77463 151 I0/1998 SI 19 < 20 I30 4500 2100 dupltl 176708 176708 51 I0/1998 SI 19 < 20 92 5200 1900 I77463 5/10/1998 SI 19 0 34.2 14.4 10.0 Re1 % Difference 177464 5/10/1998 BLANK < 20 < 20 < 50 < 50 I) .- I77635 5/1O/I998 SI 15 <5 46 26 dupltl I76707 I76707 511 0/1998 SI 15 <5 54 37 I77635 511 O/I 998 SI 15 0 16.0 34.9 Re1 % Difference 177636 511 0/1998 SI 15 83 76 I40 120 spike/ I76707 I77636 5/IO/I 998 SI 15 83 86 130 I20 Expected Result I77636 51 IO/ I998 SI 15 100 87.5 1 I3 IO0 ?LORecovery I76707 I5/ IO/I 998 SI 15 <5 6 54 37 I77637 I 511 O/I 998 BLANK A blank space indicates no test performed. 290 of 300 2-8 Harvey Street, WSLConsultants Richmond, Victoria 3 Enviroscience Telephone: +61 3 7429 4666 . ACN 004 752 670 Facsimile: +61 3 9429 2274 QUALITY SYSTEMMNNmENr 11 Email: [email protected] Web Page: www.wsl.consultants.com.au QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT Page: 5 or...5 FINAL REPORI NO. I76707 DAl’li :21/10/1998 Client : BAULDERSTONE IIORNIBROOK Job Rcfcrcncc : Docklands Stadium Resulls cxprcsscd in niY/kg dry wciglit. LAB NUM Reccivcd Snniplc NAP ACY ACE FLU PHE ANT FLA PYR BAA CHR BBF BKF BAP DBA BGP IPY TOTAL PAH A blank space intlicutcs no test pcrfonncd. 2 291 of 300 Australian Environmental Laboratories 9 2 September 1998 Baulderstone Hornibrook Docklands Stadium Level 4, 55 Southbank Boulevard SOUTHBANK VIC 3006 Your Reference: Site Validation - GrouuAtd&tefl Report Number: 23625 Attention: Mike Siddell Dear Mike The following samples were received by us on the date indicated Samples: Quantity . 4 waters Date of Registration: 6/08/98 Date of Receipt of Samples: 06/08/98 Date of Receipt of Instructions : 06/08/98 These samples were analysed in accordance with your written instructions. A copy of the instructions accompanies ths analytical report. The results and associated quality control are contained in the following pages of this report. Unless otherwise stated, solid samples are expressed on a dry weight basis and liquid samples as received. A preliminary report was issued under the same report number. Should you have any queries regarding this report please contact the undersigned. Yours faitfilly AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORIES This document may 201 be n.produred elcept in full. Shane Carruthers -'Phillip bews Laboratory Manager Quality Manager i (Analabs Ply. Ltd.) ACN 004 591 661 23 1 Bunvood Road Hawthorn Victoria 3 122 Australia Telephone: (61 3) 9819 4326 Facsimile: (61 3) 9818 1126 This report supersedes previous report .Vo.23625 issued on 21sr August 1998. Page 1 of 2929 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.: 23625 Environmental Laboratories lot Recoverable Iiydrocarhons in Water Our Reference: UNITS 23625-1 23625-2 23625-3 23625-4 Your Keferetioe Bore I I3ore 2 Bore 3 Bore 4 1 ... 293 of 300 PROJECT: Site Valid ;I t’ion REPORT NO.:23625 PtuIs in Water Our Reference: Your Reference ~~ ~~ Acenaphthylene @La < 0.5 Acenaphthene ps‘1 I < os F I uo r e ne @/L, < 0.5 Phenanthrene 11dL < 0.5 Anthracene }ldl* < 0.5 Fluoranthenc lldl. i 0.5 Pyrene It@ < 0.5 13enzo[a lanthracene lldl, < 0.5 Chrysene pdl. < 0.5 I3anzo[b I lluoranthene @I, < 0.5 f3enzo(k]fluordnthene 1tdId < 0.5 lkis re pot^ siipersetles previous report No. 23625 issired on 21st August 1998. Page 3 of 9 294 of 300 c Australian PROJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.: 23625 Environmental Laboratories AI1 metitls in water (hir I ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ Arscnic, AT mg/L < 0.050 < 0.050 < 0.050 < 0.050 Copper, Cu ingK < 0.005 c 0.005 0.009 0.030 Nickel, Ni mg/l, om6 3 295 of 300 i PQurA nf 4 Ausrrarran PROJECT: Site Vitlitlittion' REPORT NO.:23625 Environmental Laboratories Inorganics in Water Our Iteference: I M II'S 23625-1 23625-2 23625-3 23625-4 Your Reference Bore I Bore 2 Bore 3 Bore 4 Totsl Plienolics (as Phenol) nig/l, < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Pi1 pl4 Units 6.5 7.0 6.4 * G.1 Total 1)isrolved Solids mgll. x20 620 I 7r10 2 IO00 I./his repor1 siii~ersedesprevious reporl No. 23625 issued on 21sI August 1998. Page 5 of 9 296 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.: 23625 Environmental Laboratories I TEST I UNITS I PQL I METHOD I I TRHCs-Cg I ma/L I 0.05 I MEO-020 I TRH CIO- c14 mg/L 0.1 MEO-020 TRH cl5 - C2e mg/L 0.2 MEO-020 TRH c29 - C3e I mg/L I 0.2 MEO-020 I P 297 of 300 1 This report supersedes previous report No.23625 issued on 21st August 1998. PaQe6of 9 A us tralian PROJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:23625 Environmental Laboratories I TEST I UNITS I PQL I METHOD Naphthalene PglL 0.5 MEO-030 Acenaphthylene 1dL 0.5 MEO-030 I Acenaphthene I pglL I 0.5 I MEO-030 Fluorene ItdL 0.5 MEO-030 Phenanthrene 0.5 MEO-030 Anthracene IN- 0.5 MEO-030 Fluoranthene ILg/L 0.5 MEO-030 Pyrene ItdL 0.5 MEO-030 Benzolalant hracene I@- 0.5 MEO-030 Chrysene ,tglL 0.5 MEO-030 Benzo[b]fluoranthen I e I Pg'L I 0.5 I ME0-030 I Benzo[kfluoranthen e 0.5 I ME0-030 MEO-030 I Benzolghflperylene I 1tglL- 0 5 I MEO-030 This report supersedes previous report No. 23625 issued on 21st August 1998, Page7of 9 298 of 300 Australian PROJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:23625 Environmental Laboratories I TEST I UNITS I PQL I ' METHOD I I Arsenic I mg/L I 0.05 I MEM-010 I I Comer in water I mo/L I 0.005 I MEM-010 I Nickel mg/L 0.005 MEM-010 Lead in water mglL 0.005 MEM-010 Zinc, Zn mdL 0.03 MEM-010 2 299 of 300 1 This report supersedes previous report No.23625 issued on 21st August 1998. Page8of 9 AuJrra!ran PROJECT: Site Validation REPORT NO.:23625 Environmental Laboratories UNITS METHOD Total Phenolics (as MEI-065 Phenol) pH Units MEI-001 Total Dissolved Solids ma/L MEI-017 Result Codes [INS] : Insufficient Sample for this test [NR] : Not Requested (NT] : Not tested [HBG] : Results not reported due to High Background Interference. : Not part of NATA Registration Results Comments 2 This report supersedes previous report No.23625 issued on 21st August 1998. Page9of 9 300 of 300 I 4