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 Environment Protection Act 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environmental audit reports, appointed environmental auditors who are highly certificates and statements may be withdrawn or qualified and skilled individuals.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 INFORMATION 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.gov.au/envaudit any appendices and, where applicable, any certificate Email: [email protected] or statement of environmental audit.
I 79 November ZOO4
Ar and Mrs Van Beek 7 Ascot Court I BENALLA VIC 3672 I Dear Mr and Mrs Van Beek, Fucst~rrlh02 8.i.58 1-55 I Re: Environmental Audit of Lend Pursuant to Part lXD of the Ulvironmnt Pmtectjon Act l970 at 47 Wtt Street (Lots 2 and If),Benalla, Victoria
1 am pleased to subrn~tthis Envlronrnental Audit report for a statutory audit of land at 47 Witt Street (Lots 2 and IT), Benalla, Victoria. The Environmental Audit was required by the Benalla Rural City Council prior to the redevelopment of the site for a sensitive land use (including resident~al)as the slte is affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay.
As required under Sect~on 53ZB(2) of the Envrronment Protection Act 1970 a copy of the Environmental Aud~tReport has been transmitted to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) A copy of the report has also been kansmitted to the Benalla Rural City Counc~l(both copies provided on CD).
On the basis of my evaluation of the site cond~tionsas described in the audit report, I am of the opinion that the condition of the land at 47 Witt Street (Lots 2 and 17), Benalla, Victoria on 5 November 2004 is potentially detrimental to some beneficial uses of the land at the site, precluding the issue Of a Certificate of Envtronmental Audff Therefore, a Statement of Environmental Audit has L been made for the site that it is suitable for the proposed med~umdensity residential development subject to the conditions in the Stafement. 1 An Executive Summary of our key findings and our conclusions are included in the report
1 Should you wsh to discuss any matter regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact me on 03 9690 0522.
Yours sincerely Mw? Peter J Rarnsay EPA Appointed Environmental Auctftor - Contaminated Land and Industrial Facilities ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 19 70 STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
I, Mr Peter J Ramsay of Peter J Ramsay & Associates Pty Ltd, a person appointed by the Environment Protection Authority ("the Authority") under the Environment Protection Act 1970 ("the Act") as an environmental auditor for the purposes of the Act, having:-
1. been requested by Mr Cornelius Van Beek and Mrs Debra Van Beek to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit in relation to the site located at 47 Witt Street, Benalla, Victoria being the property described as Lots 2 and 17 on Plan of Subdivision No.5240 1, Parish of Benalla, County of Delatite and is defined on Certificate of Titles Volume 9952, Folio 015, and Volume 8561, Folio 636 ('the site') owned by Mr Cornelius Van Beek and Mrs Debra Van Beek;
2. had regard to, amongst other things,- i. guidelines issued by the Authority for the purposes of Part IXD of the Act; ii. the beneficial uses that may be made of the site; and iii, relevant State environment protection policies/industrial waste management policies, namely: State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria); State Environment Protection Policy (Ambient Air Quality); State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management); State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land); State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria); Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste Acid Sulfate Soils); Industrial Waste Management Policy (Prescribed Industrial Waste); in making a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of the site by any industrial processes or activity, waste or substance (including any chemical substance); and
3. completed an environmental audit report in accordance with Section 53X of the Act, a copy of which has been sent to the Authority and the relevant planning and responsible authority.
HEREBY STATE that I am of the opinio'n that:
The site is suitable for the beneficial uses associated with medium density residential, high density residential, commercial and industrial uses subject to the following conditions attached thereto: provided that the entire site (apart from garden beds) is covered by a concrete slab and the garden beds have at a minimum 0.5 m clean fill capping.
The condition of the site is detrimental or potentially detrimental to any (one or more) beneficial uses of the site. Accordingly, I have not issued a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the site in its current condition, the reasons for which are presented in the environmental audit report. The terms and conditions that need to be complied with before a Certificate of Environment Audit lnay be issued are set out as follows: Remediation of the soil on the site where the concentrations in the soil exceed the relevant Ecological Investigation Levels. In addition, the near surface fill layer (consisting of coarse crushed rock) on the site would need to be removed. Remediation would be necessary to protect all beneficial uses, unless it can be demonstrated by risk assessment that these areas do not present a risk to all beneficial uses how&er, the near surface fill layer would still require removal. The contaminant concentrations in the soil on the site exceed guideline values which are considered to be protective of all beneficial uses.
Page 1 of 3 Other related information: Any fill that is proposed to be removed fiom the site must be tested and disposed of in accordance with EPA requirements (EPA Bulletin No. 448.1 and No. 626) and statutory requirements. Also any backfill imported onto the site must be tested in accordance with EPA Bulletin No. 448.1 to ensure that it is clean fill prior to use on-site.
TIm Statement forms part of the environmental audit report prepared by Peter J Ramsay & Associates Pty Ltd, titled Mr and Mrs Van Beek, Environmental Audit of Land Pursuant to Part of the Environment Protection Act 1970, 47 Witt Street (Lots 2 and 17), Benalla, Victoria, November 2004. Further details regardmg the condition of the site may be found in the environmental au&t report.
DATED:
SIGNED: ......
Page 2 of 3 Residential
I LEGEND Boundary of Land Subject Om 20m to Audit I I I I - I I Land Subject to Statement Approximate Scale of Environmental Audit TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
USE OF REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT: SUMMARY INFORMATION LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1. SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Beneficial Uses 2.2 Environmental Policies and Guidelines for the Audit 2.3 Environmental Quality Criteria 3. INFORMATION SOURCES 4. SlTE DESCRIPTION 4.1 Property Details 4.2 Site Features 4.3 Above Ground Storage Tanks 4.4 Underground Petroleum Storage Systems 4.5 Geology and Hydrogeology 4.5.1 Victorian Groundwater Database 4.6 Acid Sulfate Soil Potential 5. SlTE HISTORY 5.1 Information Sources 5.2 EPA Verification 5.3 Previous Land Use 5.3.1 Aerial Photographs 5.3.2 Site History Review 6. PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS OF THE SlTE 7. ASSESSMENT FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION 7.1 Potential Contaminants of Concern 7.2 Potential Contamination from On-Site Sources 7.3 Potential for Contamination from Off-Site Sources 7.4 Potential for Off-site Migration of Contamination 8. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 9. SlTE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT 9.1 Soil Vapour Survey 9.2 Soil Sampling 9.3 Analytical Program 9.4 QNQC Program 10. GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ENCOUNTERED DURING THIS AUDIT 11. ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION 11.1 Results 11.2 Interpretation 11.2.1 Statistical Analysis 11.3 QAlQC Control Program 12. QAIQC CONTROL PROGRAM 12.1 Peter J Ramsay & Associates QAlQC Program 12.2 Laboratory QC Program 12.3 Results of the QNQC Program 12.3.1 Field QA Duplicate Samples (Split Samples) 12.3.2 Field QC Duplicate Samples (Blind Replicate Samples) 12.3.3 Field QC Blank Samples 12.3.4 Laboratory QNQC 12.4 QNQC Data Evaluation 13. HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 13.1 Exposure Pathways and Risk Characterisation 13.2 Risk of Groundwater Contamination 13.3 Risk of Off-Site Exposure 14. CONCLUSIONS 15. REFERENCES LlST OF TABLES
Table 1 Environmental Quality Criteria Table 2 Groundwater Database Information Table 3 Summary of Site History Table 4 Data Quality Objectives Table R1 Summary of Analytical Results for Individual Soil Samples Table R2 Summary of Analytical Results for Composite Soil Samples Table R3 Summary of Statistical Analysis of Heavy Metal Results Table R4 Results of Quality Assurance - Duplicate Samples Table R5 Results of Quality Control - Duplicate Samples Table R6 Results of Quality Control - Blank Samples
LlST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Locality Map Figure 2 Land Subject to Audit Figure 3 Site Plan Showing Sample Locations
APPENDICES
Appendix A Certificate of Title Documentation Appendix B Copy of Proposed Development Plan Appendix C Copies of Correspondence Between Auditor and the EPA Appendix D Basis for Interpretation of Analytical Results Appendix E Site Photographs Appendix F EPA Verification Appendix G Aerial Photographs of the Site and Surrounds Appendix H Quality Assurance Plan Appendix I Soil Profile Logs Appendix J Chain of Custody Documentation Appendix K NATA Endorsed Analytical Results and Analytical Methods
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES USE OF REPORT
The preparation of this report has been undertaken for the purpose of providing a statutory environmental audit of land at 47 Witt Street (Lots 2 and 17), Benalla, Victoria and it is not intended that this report should be used for any other purpose.
This report is provided on the condition that Mr Peter Ramsay and Peter J Ramsay & Associates Pty Ltd disclaims all liability to any person other than Mr Cornelius Van Beek and Mrs Debra Van Beek, the Environment Protection Authority, and Benalla Rural City Council in respect of anything done or omitted to be done and of the consequence of anything done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether in whole or in part, upon the whole or any part of the contents of this report.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A statutory environmental audit of land was performed at 47 Witt Street (Lots 2 and 17), Benalla, Victoria for Mr Cornelius Van Beek and Mrs Debra Van Beek. The Environmental Audit was required by Benalla Rural City Council prior to redevelopment of the site for a medium density residential land use. The audit was in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970.
The land subject to the statutory audit is located at 47 Witt Street (Lots 2 and 17), Benalla, and has an area of approximately 1 600 m2. The site is proposed to be used for a medium density residential land use comprising five two-storey townhouses including gardens and ground floor car parking.
The site is currently vacant and is predominantly surfaced with crushed rock. No features indicating that any underground facilities are present or were formerly present on the site were identified during the audit. Surrounding land uses are predominantly residential, with G commercial and vacant land to the north and west respectively
The results of the assessment for the audit indicate that the soil on the site is contaminated with heavy metals at levels that could cause potential environmental effect to plants and animals within an urban context.
The contaminant concentrations in the natural soil were generally low. Further, groundwater is expected to be at a depth of approximately 5 m beneath the site. In view of this and based on the results of the assessment for the audit, the potential for groundwater contamination to have occurred at the site is considered to be negligible.
On the basis of my evaluation of the results of the site assessment, I am of the opinion that the condition of the land at 47 Witt Street (Lots 2 and 17), Benalla, Victoria on 5 November 2004 is potentially detrimental to any (one or more) beneficial uses of the land at the site, precluding the issue of a Certificate of Environmental Audit. Accordingly a Statement of Environmental Audit has been made for the site, stating that the site is suitable for the proposed medium density residential development subject to the conditions outlined in the Statement and this audit report.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT: SUMMARY INFORMATION
Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land): Mr Peter J Ramsay Peter J Ramsay & Associates Pty Ltd 222 Kings Way South Melbourne VIC 3205
Environmental Auditor's Support Team: For this audit only staff of Peter J Ramsay & Associates has been used. All relevant support has been drawn from the team approved by EPA. The support team for this audit was Mr Mark Van Schoten - Geology and hydrogeology, and fate and transport.
Date Appointed as Auditor Under Environment Protection Act 1970: 14 December 1993.
Certificate of Environmental Audit Requested on 3 August 2004 by: Mr Cornelius Van Beek and Mrs Debra Van Beek 7 Ascot Court BENALLA VIC 3672
EPA Notification: The EPA was notified on 4 August 2004 that Mr Peter Ramsay had received a request to issue a Certificate of Environm.entalAudit.
Address of Site Subject to the Environmental Audit: 47 Witt Street (Lots 2 and 17), Benalla, Victoria. A locality map including the site is shown in Figure 1.
Legal Description of Site Subject to Environmental Audit: The land defined as Lots 2 and 17 on Plan of Subdivision No.52401, Parish of Benalla, County of Delatite and is defined on Certificate of Titles Volume 9952, Folio 015 and Volume 8561, Folio 636. Certificate of Title documentation for the land subject to the Environmental Audit is presented in Appendix A.
Local Government: Benalla Rural City Council Current Zoning: Residential 1 Zone (Source: Department of Infrastructure 2004) AMG Coordinates: N 5 950 500, E 410 000 Area: Approximately 1 600 m2 Site Owner: Mr Cornelius Van Beek and Mrs Debra Van Beek
Outcome of Environmental Audit: A Statement of Environmental Audit has been made for the site that it is suitable for the proposed medium density residential development subject to the conditions outlined in the Statement and this audit report. The contamination identified on the site is not migrating off site.
Completion Date of Environmental Audit: -November 2004
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AGST Above Ground Storage Tank
ALS Australian Laboratory Services Pty Ltd
AMG Australian Map Grid
ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand
Australian Standard
AWQG Australian Water Quality Guidelines
COC Chain of Custody
CPS Cathodic Protection System
DQO Data Quality Objective
DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment
EIL Ecological lnvestigation Level
EPA Environment Protection Authority
HIL Health lnvestigation Level
IWMP Industrial Waste Management Policy
MAH Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/L milligrams per litre
NATA National Association of Testing Authorities
NEPC National Environment Protection Council
NEPM National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999
NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council
OCEl Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector
OCP Organochlorine Pesticide
OPP Organophosphorous Pesticide
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PID Photoionisation Detector
PPm parts per million
QAIQC Quality Assurance / Quality Control
QAP Quality Assurance Plan
RPD Relative Percent Difference
SEPP State Environment Protection Policy
SIL Soil Investigation Level
SWL Standing Water Level
UCL Upper Confidence Limit
UPSS Underground Petroleum Storage System
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VCH Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WorkCover Victorian WorkCover Authority
WSL WSL Laboratories Pty Ltd 1. SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
The land subject to the environmental audit is located at 47 Witt Street (Lots 2 and 17), Benalla, Victoria. The scope of the environmental audit of land pursuant to Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970 included: Review of relevant documentation on the site held by Mr Cornelius Van Beek and Mrs Debra Van Beek including a proposed development plan and Certificate of Titles; Liaison and correspondence with the Victorian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) including statutory notification; Liaison with Mr Van Beek regarding the audit requirements for the assessment of the site; Site inspections of 20 August and 5 November 2004; Enquiries to the EPA, the Benalla Historical Society, the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector (OCEI), the Victorian WorkCover Authority (WorkCover) and local Council for information on the previous land uses and developments; Examination of aerial photographs of the site and its surrounds to assist in identifying historical land uses; Preparation of the Work Plan for the site assessment for the audit; Soil vapour survey for volatile organic compounds (VOCs); Soil sampling at seven locations on the site for screening of potential contaminants; Assessment of the potential for surrounding land uses to cause site contamination; Identification of the likelihood of underground and above ground facilities being present on the site, which may have caused soil or groundwater contamination based on available information and the site inspection; Appraisal of hydrogeology, geology and soil chemistry at the site as recommended by EPA; Laboratory analysis of soil samples for potential contaminants; Assessment of analytical data and quality assurancelquality control (QAIQC); Liaison and correspondence with Mr Van Beek on the results of the assessment; Evaluation of contaminant characterist~cs,fate and transport, potential harm to human health and the environment, off-site impacts and exposure pathways; Determination of the potential for groundwater at the site to be contaminated; Appraisal of the magnitude and extent of soil contamination identified at the site based on the results of the assessment; Recommendations for the property in accordance with guidelines for the assessment and management of site contamination and EPA requirements; and
PETER J RAMSAY El & ASSOCIATES Preparation of an environmental audit report in accordance with the provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and EPA's Guidelines for Environmental Auditors (Contaminated Land) as well as issue of a Certificate of Environmental Audit should the audit confirm that the environmental condition of the land is suitable for any beneficial use. Alternatively a Statement may be made specifying suitable uses of the land if residual contamination is present
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION
On 3 August 2004, 1 was engaged by Mr Cornelius Van Beek and Mrs Debra Van Beek to perform an environmental audit of land pursuant to Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970. The land subject to this audit (referred to in this report as 'the site') is located at 47 Witt Street (Lots 2 and 17), Benalla, Victoria. The site has an area of approximately 1 600 m2.
The land is proposed to be redeveloped for a residential land use, comprising five two-storey townhouses with associated ground floor carparking. There are small unsealed areas which are to be used as garden beds proposed for the development. Therefore, the development can be considered as a medium density residential land use. The statutory environmental audit was required by the planning authority. A copy of the proposed development plan (undated) for the site is presented in Appendix B.
Where land has been used for industrial/commerciaI purposes or other activities which had the potential to cause site contamination, prior to any redevelopment of the land for sensitive land use such as residential, the planning authority requires that a Statutory Environmental Audit be performed by an environmental auditor appointed under Section 53s of the Environment Protection Act 1970. A Certificate of Environmental Audit or a Statement of Environmental Audit, issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, is required to allow the land to be used and developed for a sensitive land use. This complies with Ministerial Direction No. 1 and would satisfy the planning authority that the environmental condition of the land is suitable for its intended use.
Following Mr and Mrs Van Beek's request of 3 August 2004, 1 subsequently informed the EPA on 4 August 2004 of the request to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit. A copy of my letter of notification to the EPA of 4 August 2004 and the EPA's response of 4 August 2004 are presented in Appendix C.
Assessment of the land subject to the statutory audit was undertaken for the audit by Peter J Ramsay & Associates between August and November 2004. This approach was adopted as the information available at the outset of the audit indicated that remediation was not expected to be necessary. The results of Peter J Ramsay & Associates' assessment of the land are presented in this audit report. The assessment subsequently showed that remediation would not be necessary for the proposed land use.
PETER J RAMSAY 81 ASSOCIATES 2.1 Beneficial Uses
According to EPA guidelines the beneficial uses that are to be protected in order to satisfy the requirements for a Certificate of Environmental Audit are: Human health and well being; Maintenance and preservation of natural ecosystems and associated wildlife; Groundwater quality; Surface water quality; Aesthetic enjoyment and amenity; Productive capacity of land for agriculture, silviculture or horticulture; and Integrity of artificial structures (with regard to corrosion, chemical degradation, fire or explosion risk related to contamination).
2.2 Environmental Policies and Guidelines for the Audit
The following State Environment Protection Policies (SEPPs)/lndustrial Waste Management Policies (IWMPs), guidelines and Standards were referred to for this environmental audit:
Victorian Legislation
SEPP (Waters of Victoria); SEPP (Air Quality Management); SEPP (Ambient Air Quality); SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria); SEPP (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land); IWMP (Waste Acid Sulfate Soils); and IWMP (Prescribed Industrial Waste).
Victorian EPA Guidelines
A Guide to the Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes, Publication 441, 7thedition, March 2000, EPA; Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit, Publication 759b, June 2002, EPA; Environmental Auditing of Contaminated Land, Publication 860, July 2002, EPA; and Environmental Auditor Guidelines for Appointment and Conduct, Publication 865, August 2002, EPA, Melbourne.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES Other Guidelines
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, (ANZECC Guidelines), published by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC)/National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), January 1992; NSW EPA Contaminated Site Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites, December 1994; Guidelines for the Laboratory Analysis of Contaminated Soils, 1996, ANZECC; Australian Standard AS 4482.1 - 1997, Guide to the Sampling and lnvestigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil, Part 1: Non-Volatile and Semi- Volatile Compounds, 5 September 1997, Standards Australia; Australian Standard AS 4482.2 - 1999, Guide to the Sampling and lnvestigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil, Part 2: Volatile Substances, 5 September 1999, Standards Australia; National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM), National Environment Protection Council (NEPC), 1999; and Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, ANZECC and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ), October 2000.
2.3 Environmental Quality Criteria
In accordance with EPA guidelines the environmental soil quality criteria used for this audit are the NEPM Soil lnvestigation Levels (SILs), the ANZECC B (1992) environmental investigation levels and the NSW EPA guideline Contaminated Sites, Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites, December 1994 (NSW EPA guidelines).
The NEPM SlLs are comprised of the Health lnvestigation Levels (HILs) and Ecological lnvestigation Levels (EILs). The HIL criteria relevant to residential land are those contained in Columns A and D of Table 5-A in Schedule B(l) of the NEPM. The Column A criteria are for a 'Standard' residential land use with gardenlaccessible soil (home grown produce contributing less than 10% of vegetable and fruit intake; no poultry), and the Column D criteria are for a 'High Density' residential land use with minimal opportunities for soil access, including dwellings with fully and permanently paved yard space such as high-rise apartments and flats. The environmental quality criteria used for this audit are provided in Table 1.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES Table 1 Environmental Quality Criteria Analyte Background EIL ANZECC B NSW EPA Service Station HIL for a Standard HIL for a High Ranges Investigation Guideline Threshold Residential Land Density Residential Levela Concentration Use Land Use Antimony 4-44b 20 Arsenic 1-50 20 100 400 Barium 100-3 000 300 Beryllium 20 80 Cadmium 1 3 Chromium (total) 5-1 000 50 Chromium (Ill) 400 Chromium (VI) 1 Cobalt 1-40 Copper 2-1 00 100 Lead 2-200 600 Manganese 850 500 Mercury (total) 0.001-0.1 1 Mercury (methyl) Mercury (inorganic) 0.03 1 Nickel 5-500 60 Tin 1-25b 50 Vanadium 20-500 50 Zinc 10-300 200 Benzene 0.05-1 Ethylbenzene Toluene 0.01-1 Xylenes (total) TPH (Cs-Cs) TPH (Go-Ca) TPH (Cl@-C35)Aromatics TPH (ClrC35) Aliphatics TPH (>C34Aliphatics Benzo(a)pyrene Total PAH 0.95-5b Total PCBs 0.02-0.1 Aldrin <0.001-<0.05~ Dieldrin <0.005-<0.05~ Aldrin & Dieldrin Chlordane DDT, DDD & DDE DDT <0.001-0.97 Heptachlor Total Phenols 0.03-0.5 Cyanide (complexed) Cyanide (free) Sulphate 35-1 OOob 2 OOOC Sulphur 600 Phosphorous 2 000 PH 6-8b Note: All criteria expressed as mg/kg dry weight except where indicated otherwise. 'The ANZECC B Investigation Level is shown when no EIL is available. b~~~~~~ background ranges were used where no NEPM ranges available. "For protection of built structures.
PETER J RAMSAY El & ASSOCIATES When a site assessment indicates soil contaminants are present at concentrations above HlLs or ElLs for a proposed or current land use, then a site-specific risk assessment may be conducted to address relevant human health and ecological concerns. The level to which such assessments are conducted will depend on site-specific conditions. In cases of minor exceedance of investigation levels or exceedances related to contaminants which have low human toxicity and limited mobility, a qualitative risk assessment may be sufficient. The risk assessment process may lead to the development of site-specific response levels and agreed in consultation between the professionals assessing the site and the regulatory authorities.
An outline of the environmental quality criteria used by Peter J Ramsay & Associates as a basis for the interpretation of analytical results for the assessment for the audit are presented in Appendix D.
PETER J RAMSAY El & ASSOCIATES 3. INFORMATION SOURCES
Certificate of Titles and a proposed development plan (undated) for the site; and Site inspections of 20 August 2004 and 5 November 2004 to examine the site for evidence of potential soil contamination, identify surrounding land uses and undertake soil sampling from seven locations on the site.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES 4. SITE DESCRIPTION
The land subject to this audit is located in the central Victorian town of Benalla. Key features of the site and adjacent land uses are presented in Figure 2 and are described in the sections below.
4.1 Property Details
Address: 47 Witt Street, Benalla, Victoria Occupier: The site is unoccupied. Current Use: Vacant Owner: Mr Cornelius Van Beek and Mrs Debra Van Beek Area: Approximately 1 600 m2 Certificate of Title: The site is defined as Lots 2 and 17 on Plan of Subdivision No.52401, Parish of Benalla, County of Delatite, Certificate of Titles Volume 9952, Folio015 and Volume 8561, Folio 636. A copy of the Certificates of Title are shown in Appendix A. Zoning: Residential 1 Zone Local Government Administration: Benalla Rural City Council Adjacent Land Uses: North: Industrial/CommerciaI East: Witt Street and Residential South: Residential West: Vacant
4.2 Site Features
The site was inspected by Peter J Ramsay & Associates on 20August2004 and 5 November 2004. Photographs of the site taken during the site inspection of 20 August 2004 are presented in Appendix E. The findings of the inspection and information obtained in relation to the land are:
Topography: The site and the regional topography are essentially flat. Buildings: There were no buildings on the site at the time of the inspections. Surface Conditions: The site was completely unsealed at the time of the inspections. A layer of crushed rock of approximately 0.2 m thickness covers the majority of the site.
PETER J RAMSAY E& ASSOCIATES Surface Drainage: Surface drainage was observed to be generally satisfactory at the time of the assessment for the audit. Ponding of surface water was observed near the middle of the northern boundary. This was where a building was formerly located on the site. Storage Areas: No goods or wastes were stored at the site during the assessment for the audit. Vegetation: Some grass was observed along the northern and southern boundaries of the site. The vegetation was observed to be in a healthy condition. Above Ground Storage Tanks: No above ground storage tanks (AGSTs) or evidence of former AGSTs were observed at the site during the assessment for the audit (refer Section 4.3). Underground Petroleum Storage Systems: No underground petroleum storage systems (UPSSs) or evidence of former UPSSs were observed at the site during the assessment for the audit (refer Section 4.4). Underground Facilities: No underground facilities apart from sewerage, stormwater and other underground assets, were observed on the site during the assessment for the audit. Other installations: No other installations were observed on the site during the assessment for the audit.
4.3 Above Ground Storage Tanks
No evidence of AGSTs was observed on the site during the assessment for the audit.
4.4 Underground Petroleum Storage Systems
No evidence of UPSSs was observed on the site during the assessment for the audit
4.5 Geology and Hydrogeology
The Geological Survey of Victoria 1:1,000,000 Victoria Map indicates that the site is located on Quaternary Age High Level Alluvium. This deposit consists of clay, silt, sand and gravel.
PETER J RAMSAY El & ASSOCIATES The Department of Minerals and Energy 1:1,000,000 Groundwater Resources Victoria Map shows that the expected aquifer yields in the vicinity of the site are generally less than 10 L per second. This map also shows that groundwater at the site has a salinity of between 1 000 and 3 000 mg/L. Groundwater with this salinity is classified as Segment A2 (501-1 000 mg/L) Segment B (1 001-3 500 mg/L) water under the SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria). Segment A2 to Segment B groundwater has a number of beneficial uses to be protected, including potable water supply (acceptable), potable mineral water supply, agricultural use (including irrigation), stock watering, industrial water use, primary contact recreation, maintenance of ecosystems and the protection of buildings and structures.
4.5.1 Victorian Groundwater Database
A search was performed of the Department of Sustainability and Environment's (DSE's) Groundwater Database to identify wells in the vicinity of the site. The search results identified four registered wells located within 2.0 km of the site. Data extracted from the database in relation to the four wells are provided in Table 2.
The results of the database search indicate that all four wells were installed for domestic purposes. The total depth of the four wells varied between 4.8 m and 23 m below the ground surface. Two wells were also installed for stockwater and one well was installed for dairy purposes. Standing water levels ranged from 2.5 m to 5 m below the ground surface. The four wells were installed between 1970 and 1995.
Table 2 Groundwater Database Information Well ID Approximate Direction from Total Aquifer Aquifer Use SWL Distance from Site Depth (m) Interval (m) Lithology (m) Site (km) 48938 1.3 West-south-west 4.8 NS NS DM, ST, NS
48973 1.6 North-north-west 6.4 3.6 -6.4 SAND DM 2.5 49107 0.7 West-north-west 9 6-9 SAND DM 5 127524 1.5 East 23 19-23 NS DM,ST 3 Note: SWL = Standing Water Level NS = Not stated in DSE's Groundwater Database SAND = Sandstone DM = Domestic DY = Dairy ST = Stock
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES Based on the database information and our hydrogeological experience in the local area, the depth to the regional groundwater at the site is expected to be approximately 5 m below ground level. The direction of regional groundwater flow is expected to be to the south-west, toward Lake Benalla, located approximately 1.3 km south-west of the site.
4.6 Acid Sulfate Soil Potential
The EPA Publication 655 Acid Sulfate Soil and Rock (August 1999) states that "Acid sulfate soils generally occur in soil formations that: contain elevated concentrations of metal sulfides were originally deposited in marine or estuarine settings, often as soft, dark grey to dark greenish-grey muds are below or above high tide level, but generally not more than 5 metres above high tide level."
The Publication advises that most acid sulfate soils were deposited during the last 10,000 years (Holocene geological age) but may be as old as a million years ago (Tertiary age). Examples are the Coode Island Silt and the Brighton Group formations respectively. Acid sulfate properties may also exist in present day estuarine and marine sediments. Concentrations of metal sulfides in rocks also pose an environmental risk, and in Victoria these are usually associated with gold-bearing sediments and most coal deposits (other than those in the Latrobe valley). Sulfides have also been noted in siltstones (Silurian age), which underlie the Melbourne-Ringwood-Kilmore area.
The site is not located in a geomorphic environment conducive to the formation of acid sulphate soils. In addition, the geology beneath the site does not consist of sulfidic ores. Field indicators for potential acid sulfate conditions as described in EPA Information Bulletin Publication 655 Acid Sulfate Soil and Rock (August 1999) were not encountered during the assessment. Therefore, the potential for acid sulphate soils to be present on the site is low.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES 5. SITE HISTORY
5.1 lnformation Sources
The site history of the land subject to the audit was reviewed in order to identify the potential for contaminated soil to be present on the site resulting from historical activities including landfilling.
The site history has been compiled from information obtained from the following sources: Documentation provided by Mr and Mrs Van Beek; Aerial photographs of the site and surrounds held by the DSE; Benalla Historical Society; OCEI; . Workcover; Benalla Rural City Council; EPA; and Discussions held with Mr Cornelius Van Beek.
lnformation obtained from these sources was used to determine uses of the land since the early 1950s.
We requested that Mr Van Beek provide copies of the following information relating to the contamination assessment for the audit which may be available: Certificates of Land Title and Historical Land Title Certificates for the audit site; Council requirements regarding any environmental issues on the site; Statutory Notices or EPA Declarations issued under environmental legislation; Current and historical site plans; Environmental reports relating to site contamination; Geotechnical reports which may have been prepared for planninglfoundation design purposes; Any information available on the history of the land and any other environmental issues; Copy of Planning Permits or Applications for the site; Site plans of the property clearly showing existing site features and including any underground facilities; and Any endorsed or proposed development plans for the site.
Mr Van Beek subsequently provided a copy of the proposed development plan for the site and the Certificate of Titles for the property. 5.2 EPA Verification
The site is not listed in the following EPA records relating to contaminated sites or other sites known to the EPA: The current version of the EPA Priority Sites Register database; and The EPA List of Issued Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audits, 15 October 2004.
However, the following property located near (approximately 600 m away) the site is listed on the EPA Priority Site Register database: Lot 2, Saleyards Road, Benalla.
A copy of the verification provided by ANSTAT (dated 23 August 2004) for the Priority Sites Register is given in Appendix F.
5.3 Previous Land Use
The previous land use has been determined from aerial photographs and site history information reviewed by Peter J Ramsay & Associates.
5.3.1 Aerial Photographs
Aerial photographs of the site taken in 1972, 1982 and 1987 held by the DSE were examined to identify previous land uses, as well as any potential landfilling activities on the site, that may have involved contaminated soil or wastes. Copies of the 1972, 1982 and 1987 aerial photographs of the site and surrounds are shown in Appendix G.
The 1972 aerial photograph of the site shows a medium-sized elongated building located on the site. The building is adjacent to the northern boundary and extends towards the north-eastern corner of the site. The eastern portion of the site appears to be unsealed with some small stockpiles of material in this area. There appears to be some soil disturbance in the western portion of the site and some small containers are also evident in the western portion. Vacant land is visible to the south and west of the site. To the north the land use is low density commercial/industriaI, whilst to the east is farmland.
The building in the north of the site is still evident in the 1982 aerial photograph. Approximately four trees are located on-site, two each in the eastern and western portions of the site: Apart from this there are no further changes to the site or surrounding land uses.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES A second 'T' shaped building is located in the south-eastern portion of the site in the 1987 aerial photograph. No other changes to the site are evident. Development for residential properties has begun on land to the east of the site. To the west is parkland whilst land to the north and south is used for commercial/industriaI purposes.
5.3.2 Site History Review
Mr Van Beek, an owner of the site, advised that a pre-cast concrete manufacturing facility had operated on the property for at least 45 years until 2004. Prior to this, Mr Van Beek understands that the site was vacant.
In discussions held with Mr Neil Cartlidge, Building Surveyor of the Benalla Rural City Council, we were advised that in the 1950s the site was used for the pre-fabrication and welding of scrap metal. A building was constructed on the site in the late 1950s. The building construction materials were timber framing, steel and corrugated iron for the roof. It had an unsealed floor. In the late 1970s, the scrap metal facility ceased operation and a concrete batching and vibration plant began. This continued until earlier this year when the operations ceased and the building on the site was demolished.
The Benalla Historical Society could not provide any information relevant to the site.
WorkCover was requested to search their Dangerous Goods Licence database to identify if the property is, or had been, licensed due to the storage of dangerous goods. WorkCover advised that there are no records pertaining to the storage of dangerous goods held for the site.
The OCEl maintains a register of catholic protection systems (CPSs) which are installed to protect UPSSs. The OCEl found no record of a CPS installed or having been installed at the site.
The site history information is summarised in Table 3.
Table 3 Summary of Site History Period AllotmentlOccupant or Land Use 1950s - Late 1970s The site was used as a scrap metal facility. Late 1970s - early 2004 The site's use remained commercial/industria1. It was occupied by a concrete batching and vibration plant. Early 2004 - present The site was unoccupied.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES In view of the site history it was considered that there was some potential for soil contamination to have occurred as a result of past uses of the site. The potential for contamination of the site is discussed in Section 7.
PETER J RAMSAY E& ASSOCIATES 6. PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS OF THE SITE
There were no records of any previous environmental investigations having been conducted 'at the site.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES 7. ASSESSMENT FOR POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION
7.1 Potential Contaminants of Concern
Based on the results of the site history investigation it is apparent that the site has been used for commercial/industriaI purposes since the early 1950s until early 2004.
From a review of the site history information, potential contaminants in the soil and groundwater, which may have originated from the previous activities undertaken on the site, are considered to be: Heavy metals, organic contaminants and asbestos potentially present in any fill imported onto the site; and Possible application of pesticides and herbicides.
7.2 Potential Contamination from On-Site Sources
The potential for contamination of the soil at the site to have occurred from on-site sources is considered to be low. Site history investigations and our site inspection found no evidence of UPSSs located at or having been previously located at the site. There was no evidence to suggest that the site had been used for heavy industrial purposes.
However, there is the potential for soil contamination due to fill material, which may have been imported onto the site, and from chemicals associated with the former use of the site as a scrap metal facility and storage facility for concrete materials. There is also the potential for soil contamination from pesticides and herbicides to have occurred on the site. In addition, soil contamination by asbestos could have occurred when the former buildings on the site were demolished.
Groundwater
In view of: the relatively low potential for significant soil contamination, the shallow depth of fill (that is, less than 0.5 m), the inferred depth to groundwater (that is, approximately 5 m) and the absence of evidence that UPSSs or other underground facilities exist or have previously existed at the site, the potential for groundwater at the site to be contaminated from on-site sources is considered to be very low. 7.3 Potential for Contamination from Off-Site Sources
Land in the vicinity of the site has been used for predominantly residential, commercial and light industrial purposes since the late 1950s. Vacant land adjoins the site to the west.
In addition, several properties at a distance of over 1 km from the site have had a Statement of Environmental Audit made for them. No other commercial or industrial premises with processes that have the potential to cause contamination in the vicinity of the audit site were identified.
The potential fo~contamination to have resulted from off-site sources is considered to be low
-Soil
No surface evidence of potential contamination resulting from leachate or wastes entering the site from adjacent properties was observed during the site inspection. However, the fill on the site has the potential to be contaminated.
Groundwater
Potential off-site sources of groundwater contamination include the property at Lot 2 Saleyards Road, Benalla which is listed on the EPA priority register, and the numerous properties in the area that have been issued with a Statement of Environmental Audit. However, as the property at Lot 2 Saleyards Road is located across the hydraulic gradient approximately 600 m away, and the properties that have had a Statement of Environmental Audit issued for them are located in excess of 7 krn from the site, there is only a very low potential for contaminated groundwater (if present) to migrate onto the land from these possible off-site sources.
No other potential off-site sources of groundwater contamination were identified in the vicinity of the site.
7.4 Potential for Off-site Migration of Contamination
If soil contamination had occurred, the potential for off-site migration would be low, as the site has a relatively level topography.
Groundwater
In view of the expected low potential for the groundwater at the site to be contaminated, the potential for any off-site migration of contamination is considered to be very low. There are no sensitive ecosystems on or adjacent to the land. Groundwater leaving the site would be expected to flow toward Lake Benalla, located approximately 1.3 km south-west of the site.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES 8. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Data quality objectives (DQOs) for all aspects of the environmental audit were established. The DQOs are presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4 Data Quality Objectives Investigation Aspect DQOs Documentation Complete site inspection proforma, soil profile logs and chain of custody documentation. Sampling Sampling in accordance with EPA and NEPM guidelines, and QAP (Appendix H). The soil profile was adequately detailed on logs. Analytical Program Screen site for all potential contaminants, as indicated by the site history, site inspection, and EPA guidelines. Field QAlQC Program In accordance with QAP, EPA and NEPM guidelines. Collection of a split of a minimum of 10% of the samples as field duplicate samples (5% QA (split samples to a secondary laboratory) and 5% QC (blind samples to the primary laboratory)) as well as blanks. Comparison of duplicate results with acceptable NEPM criteria and rectification of discrepancies where necessary (refer to Section 12.3). Laboratory QAIQC Program NATA registered laboratories (primary and secondary) and methods; appropriate detection limits and sufficient and acceptable internal QAIQC program (see Section 12.3.4). Human Health and Environmental Impact Determination of the potential risk posed by the site to Analysis human health and/or the environment. Assessment of the suitability for proposed use in accordance with EPA and NEPM guidelines and determine remediation necessary to achieve suitability. Reporting Reporting in accordance with EPA and NEPM guidelines. Note: QAP = Quality Assurance Plan NATA = National Association of Testing Authorities
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES 9. SITE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
The field activities for the contamination assessment of land at the site for the audit were undertaken by Peter J Ramsay & Associates on 20 August 2004. The assessment was performed according to: EPA guidelines; Guidelines issued under Schedule B of the NEPM; and ANZECC guidelines published by ANZECCINHMRC, January 1992.
The site assessment activities followed the procedures described in the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) presented in Appendix H. The soil sampling program was a systematic sampling program to assess the general areas of the site.
The sampling program was designed to provide an assessment of the land for potential soil contamination. This is in accordance with EPA guidelines and specifically the NEPM. The program was appropriate to assess for environmental exposures for land that is proposed for a residential land use.
Field activities comprised: A visual assessment for indicators of potential contamination; Soil vapour survey for VOCs; and Sampling of near surface and subsurface soil including fill and natural soil for analysis for potential contaminants.
Sample locations were investigated by visual inspection. Indicators used to determine the presence of potential contamination included: Ionisable vapour detected by a Photoionisation Detector (PID); Odour; Discolouration or oily soil; Free product or oily sheen; and Industrial wastes in the fill.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES 9.1 Soil Vapour Survey
During the sampling program the concentrations of total ionisable compounds released from the matrix of soil samples were measured. Total ionisable compounds were measured by taking headspace readings of the soil samples. This provides an initial qualitative screening of the degree of contamination of the soil with VOCs. The methodology for the headspace soil vapour survey is presented in the QAP.
The concentration of ionisable vapours was determined by a 10.6 eV Mini Rae 2000 PID calibrated to read "isobutylene equivalent v/v (pip)". The PID readings obtained during the soil vapour survey are presented on the Soil Profile Logs in Appendix I.
The concentration of ionisable vapours measured in the headspace above soil samples ranged from 2.5 ppm to 27.0 ppm (v/v isobutylene equivalent). The maximum level of 27.0 ppm was measured in a sample of fill retrieved from the near surface in a test pit excavated in the north- eastern portion of the site. No odour was encountered in this sample.
9.2 Soil Sampling
Locations for soil sampling were identified based on the results of the site history, the site inspection and assessment of the geology of the site. Sample locations were referenced to existing ground features and positioned subject to on-site services, subsurface conditions and other constraints, which were encountered during fieldwork activities.
Soil samples were recovered from seven test pits excavated across the site (numbered 1 to 7). The sample locations are shown on the site plan in Figure 3.
Qualified and experienced environmental engineers and hydro geologists from Peter J Ramsay & Associates performed the on-site activit~es.This involved logging of sample locations and retrieval of soil samples. Test pits were backfilled following soil sample activities. Logs of soil condition, sample depth details and the soil profile in the seven test pits were recorded in the field on standard Soil Profile Log sheets (Appendix I).
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES Soil samples of approximately 250 grams were retrieved from various depths (0 m to 1.2 m) at each sample location. Disturbed samples were retrieved directly from the wall of each test pit where it was impractical to use split spoon sampling equipment (for example, in gravely or sandy soil or very dense soil) to collect undisturbed samples or where there was no indication of odorous soil or volatile compounds in the soil. For each soil sample, one 250 ml glass jar sealed with a Teflon lined lid was used. The jars were entirely filled with soil so that no headspace was present in each jar above the soil sample. This method of sampling ensures that the loss of volatiles during sample storage is minimised.
Each sample container was labelled with the following information: A sample number (which consists of the site identifier, sample location number and sample depth); and Date of sample collection.
A labelling system identifies the origin of each soil sample collected, e.g. 401 111A. The number 4011 identifies the site; the number 1 refers to the sample location number and the letter A refers to the depth at which the sample was taken. The letters used to indicate sample depths are: A Near surface sample (0.1 m - 0.3 m). Nominal - 0.2 rn. B Subsurface sample (0.3 m - 0.7 m). Nominal - 0.5 m. C Subsurface sample (0.7 m - 1.2 m). Nominal - 1.0 m.
Please note that the above sample numbering cobvention is not followed where it is necessary to conceal the identity of duplicate samples (see Section 12.1). In such cases, a fictitious sample location number is used. ldentification of the soil samples together with soil sample depths are given on the Chain of Custody (COC) documentation in Appendix J and in the Tables of Results. 0
Sixteen primary soil samples were analysed individually. Also, on the basis of field observations three composite soil samples were formed. Samples retrieved from the same depth andlor same soil strata were combined to form the composite soil samples to provide the maximum amount of information while minimising analytical requirements. Analysis for volatile contaminants is not performed on composite samples due to the potential for the loss of volatiles during the compositing process. Composite soil samples 401 11C1, 401 1lC2 and 401 1lC3 were formed from three individual soil samples. ldentification of the individual soil samples together with the sample depth of each individual sample that made up the composite soil samples are given on the COC documentation in Appendix J and in the Tables of Results. Sampling equipment in contact with samples was decontaminated prior to sampling in accordance with the QAP. Samples were stored in chilled and insulated containers whilst on- site, prior to delivery to the laboratories. COC documentation (Appendix J) detailing the required analyses and detection limits (where non-standard) accompanied the samples to the laboratory. The environmental engineer signed the appropriate section of the COC form before providing the samples to the laboratories.
9.3 Analytical Program
The analytical program involved sending the primary soil samples to a laboratory designated as the primary laboratory. In addition, blind replicate samples and blank samples were dispatched to the primary laboratory. Field duplicate (split) samples were sent to a second laboratory for quality assurance purposes.
The selection of analytes was based on our review of the site history, our observations during the site inspection and EPA site assessment guidelines. The analytes for the soil samples comprised:
Inorganic species: Heavy metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (total), cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, tin, vanadium and zinc); Fluoride; Cyanide; Sulfate; pH; and Asbestos.
Organic species: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs); Monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (MAHs); Volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons (VCHs); Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs); Organophosphorous pesticides (OPPs); and Total phenolic compounds.
The analytical program for the soil samples is outlined in the COC documentation. The samples 0 were selected for analysis based on the results of the assessment for indicators of potential contamination, the soil vapour survey and the audit objectives.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES WSL Laboratories Pty Ltd (WSL) was selected as the primary laboratory. Australian Laboratory Services Pty Ltd (ALS) was used as the secondary, or control laboratory, for implementation of Peter J Ramsay & Associates' quality assurance program. The laboratories are approved by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA), and the analyses were performed in accordance with the laboratories' NATA registration. Final laboratory reports bear the NATA stamp. Test methods used are recognised USEPA and EPA procedures. Analytical detection limits were specified by Peter J Ramsay & Associates.
9.4 QAlQC Program
QAIQC program was implemented by Peter J Ramsay & Associates during the contamination assessment of the site, to appraise the accuracy and reproducibility of the analyses. The program is discussed in Section 12.
PETER J RAMSAY El & ASSOCIATES 10. GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ENCOUNTERED DURING THIS AUDIT
Fill was encountered in all seven test pits excavated at the site. The depth of fill across the site varied between 0.2 m and 0.4 rn. The fill encountered was variable in composition and consisted of grey-brown to light-brown silty gravel. An area of silty clay fill was encountered in the north-eastern portion of the site.
Natural soil was encountered in all seven test pits. The natural soil encountered was predominantly an orange-brown sandy clay.
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits excavated at the site. Based on our search of the DSE's Groundwater Database (see Section 4.5.1) the depth to the regional aquifer is expected to be approximately 5 rn below the ground surface level. The regional groundwater flow direction is expected to be toward Lake Benalla, which is located approximately 1.3 krn south-west of the site.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES 11. ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
The analytical results for the soil samples from the contamination assessment of land for the audit are presented in the NATA endorsed laboratory results included in Appendix K and are summarised in the Tables of Results. These data are presented according to their location in numerical order of sample numbers.
11.1 Results
The analytical results for the soil samples are summarised in Table R1 (individual soil samples), and Table R2 (composite soil samples) of this report. The organic and inorganic contaminant concentrations in the soil samples have been compared with background ranges, NEPM ElLs and the HlLs for low density residential land use. Also, the ANZECC environmental investigation (B) levels and the threshold concentrations for sensitive land use contained in the NSW EPA Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites (NSW EPA's threshold concentrations) are used where no EIL exists. The results exceeding the criteria are highlighted in the tables accordingly. The detection limits for the analytes were set below background levels for Australian soil. '
It should be noted that equivalent criteria for the composite samples have been derived by dividing the relevant criteria by the number of primary samples used to form the composite samples. This allows comparison of the analytical results with the relevant criteria. The results exceeding the criteria are highlighted in the tables accordingly.
11.2 Interpretation
The analytical results for the soil samples retrieved from the site show that the concentrations of the organics and inorganics analysed for, apart from arsenic, barium, manganese, nickel, vanadium and zinc in several samples, are below ElLs and well below the HlLs for a standard residential land use.
Individual Soil Samples
Elevated heavy metal concentrations were measured in some samples retrieved from the site. The contamination is predominantly confined to the upper 0.5 m below ground surface.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES Arsenic (27 mglkg), barium (320 mglkg to 900 mglkg), manganese (520 mglkg and 560 mglkg), vanadium (51 mglkg to 93 mglkg) and zinc (240 mglkg) concentrations were measured above their respective ElLs in some samples retrieved from across the site. However, all these metal concentrations are within their respective background concentrations and are well below their HlLs for a standard residential land use. Also, it is likely that the vanadium concentrations are naturally elevated as this is indicative of a sandy clay.
The pH in soils sampled from the site was marginally outside the range for typical Australian soils of 6 to 8. Six of the 14 soil samples analysed contained a pH greater than 8. However, these results are not considered to be significant for a medium density residential land use.
Composite Soil Sample
The analytical results for the three composite soil samples are presented in Table R2. Sample 401 11C1 was formed from three near surface samples of fill (401 IIlA, 4A and 7A), composite soil sample 401 11C2 was formed from three samples of natural soil retrieved from approximately 0.5 m depth (401 1/2B, 38 and 6B) and composite soil sample 401 1lC3 was formed from three samples of natural soil (401 111 B, 4B and 5B).
The results show that apart from arsenic, barium, manganese, nickel, vanadium and zinc the organic and inorganic species analysed for in the composite soil samples were either not detected or were well below their equivalent EILs. However, the elevated heavy metal concentrations are well below their equivalent HlLs for a low density residential land use, and are therefore not considered to be significant.
In view of the analytical results for the samples and the soil chemistry and hydrogeology of the site, groundwater beneath the site is not expected to have been adversely impacted by the near surface soil contamination. This view is based on the-shallow depth of the contaminated fill, the concentrations of heavy metals in the underlying natural soils being predominantly below the EIL criteria, and the expected depth to regional groundwater of approximately 5 m.
11.2.1 Statistical Analysis
The results of the statistical analysis for heavy metals are presented in Table R3.
A statistical analysis for the heavy metal concentrations in the samples retrieved from the site showed that apart from barium and vanadium, the 95% Upper Confidence Limits (UCLs) of the means of the heavy metal concentrations in the soil samples do not exceed their respective EILs, and are well below their HlLs for a standard residential land use.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES The 95% UCLs for barium and vanadium were 428.1 mglkg and 77.0 mglkg respectively. These are above the ElLs for these heavy metals of 300 mglkg for barium and 50 mglkg for vanadium. There are no HlLs for these heavy metals. However, they are well within the background ranges for these metals in Australian soils. In view of this, it is considered that the concentrations of these metals in the soil on the site do not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment for a medium density residential land use.
11.3 QAlQC Control Program
A QAIQC program was implemented during the assessment, to appraise the accuracy and reproducibility of the analyses. The results of the program are discussed in Section 12.
PETER J RAMSAY El & ASSOCIATES 12. QAlQC CONTROL PROGRAM
Inaccuracies in sampling and analytical programs can result from many causes, including collection of unrepresentative samples, cross contamination between samples, unanticipated interferences between elements during laboratory analyses, equipment malfunctions and operator error (USEPA 1986). Inappropriate sampling, preservation, handling, storage and analytical techniques can also reduce the precision and accuracy of results.
The NEPM has documented procedures for QA and QC for sampling and analysis to ensure that the required degree of accuracy and precision is obtained. The NEPM and the EPA recommend the use of two laboratories for the implementation of a quality assurance proqram for the analvses in addition to the quality control procedures followed by the primary laboratory.
Peter J Ramsay & Associates initiated a QNQC program to appraise the accuracy and reproducibility of the analyses. The accuracy of an analysis is a measure of the variation between the concentration of an analyte obtained by the method and the true concentration in the sample. This is determined by comparing the analytical results from field duplicate samples analysed at two laboratories, and by the laboratory's internal QC programs. The precision of a result is a measure of the reproducibility of the result. This is, in effect, a measure of the natural spread of data about the mean result.
According to the NEPM a split of a minimum of 10% of the samples as field duplicate samples (5% QA and 5% QC) as well as blanks is required. Where less than 20 samples are to be analysed, a minimum of two field duplicate samples (one QA and one QC) and a blank is considered sufficient.
In this audit, two QA duplicate samples (split samples) and two QC duplicate samples (blind replicate samples) were taken and analysed. A rinsate blank and a trip blank were also taken. The rinsate blank and the trip blank were analysed by the primary laboratory. That is, at least 10% of the samples were field QNQC samples as well as blank samples. The laboratories also performed internal QC programs in accordance with their NATA registration.
12.1 Peter J Rarnsay & Associates QAlQC Program
The QNQC program for this audit is in accordance with the recommendations of the EPA and the NEPM. The results of the QNQC program are discussed in Section 12.3. Soil samples were retrieved and analysed in accordance with the NEPM recommendations for the use of containers, preservation techniques and holding times.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES Field QA Duplicate Samples (Split Samples)
Field QA duplicate samples are used as a check on the accuracy of the field sampling and the analytical procedures. Two soil samples were selected at random. Each soil sample was split in the field to form a primary sample and a QA duplicate (split) sample. The split samples were sent to the secondary laboratory and were analysed. The results of the analyses for the QA duplicate samples (analysed by the secondary laboratory) are compared with the results from the primary laboratory to determine the accuracy of the sampling and analytical procedures.
Field QC Duplicate Samples (Blind Replicate Samples)
Field QC duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the field sampling procedures and laboratory analyses. Two soil samples were selected at random. Each soil sample was split in the field to form a primary sample and a QC duplicate (blind replicate) sample. The QC duplicate samples were labelled with a sample identification number different to their primary sample number in order to conceal their identity. The duplicate soil samples were analysed by the primary laboratory. The results of the analysis of the blind replicate samples are used to determine the precision of the sampling and analytical procedures.
Field QC Blank Samples (Rinsate Blank and Trip Blank)
Up to 5% of the total number of primary samples are blanks collected in the field. Blanks are comprised of trip blanks and rinsate blanks. A trip blank is a sample of deionised water prepared prior to sampling. The trip blank is carried through the sampling program, transported with the samples to the laboratory and stored with the samples. They are used to identify laboratory errors or to identify sources of contamination due to sample storage and handling.
Rinsate blanks are samples of deionised water collected from the field equipment after decontamination. They are used to determine the effectiveness of the decontamination procedures. One rinsate blank and one trip blank were collected in the field during the sampling program and were analysed by the primary laboratory.
12.2 Laboratory QC Program
The laboratories perform internal QAlQC programs in accordance with their NATA registration to ensure that the analytical procedures are followed correctly and with the required degree of accuracy. This involves the laboratories preparing and analysing their own duplicate samples, blanks and analytical standards. The results from the laboratories internal duplicate samples are compared with the results from the primary (field) samples, in order to determine the precision of the analyses. The duplicate samples are subjected to the same preparation and analytical procedures as the primary samples.
Reagent blank analyses and instrument calibrations using chemical standards are routinely conducted by the laboratories.
The laboratories also determine the accuracy of the analytical procedures used as part of their internal quality control procedures. This is determined using either control samples (where the concentration of the species to be determined is known) or matrix spikes.
The laboratories are required to analyse matrix spikes or control samples at a minimum frequency of 5% of the total number of primary samples. This is consistent with the approach recommended by the USEPA.
The results of analyses of method blanks, duplicates and control samples were compared by the laboratory to established quality assurance criteria for precision and accuracy. If the results did not meet the criteria the analyses were repeated. These criteria are: Method blanks should not return any positives on analysis; Duplicate soil samples should not vary by more than 35% from the mean result; and Control samples should generally give a recovery of 75-125%.
12.3 Results of the QAlQC Program
The analytical results of the QA and QC duplicate analyses have been compared using the Relative Percent Difference (RPD). The RPD is a measure of the difference between the results of the duplicate analyses. The RPD is calculated by:
SamplejA) - Sample(B) RPD= xl00 Mean of Samples(A) -t (B)
According to the USEPA methodology (USEPA 1986), the criteria for valid results for laboratory duplicates are that the RPDs are required to be ~20%for waters and <35% for soil. Where the duplicate results are lower than five times the detection limit, the USEPA methodology indicates that the results are valid if the difference between the results for the duplicate soil sample is equal to or less than twice the detection limit.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES For samples split in the field, the NEPM refers to Australian Standard AS4482.1-1997, which provides a guide to the validity of the data obtained from duplicate samples. According to the Australian Standard an RPD of up to 50% is the acceptance criteria. RPDs of up to 50% are considered to demonstrate good correlation between duplicate analytical results. The Australian Standard also states that the variation can be expected to be higher for organic analytes than for inorganics, and for low concentrations of analytes. Based on Peter J Ramsay & Associates' experience, RPDs up to 70% are considered to be acceptable for organic species. RPDs of 100% or more generally considered to demonstrate poor correlation.
12.3.1 Field QA Duplicate Samples (Split Samples)
The results of the QA duplicate analyses by the secondary laboratory are presented in Table R4 with the corresponding primary laboratory's results and the RPDs.
The results show a high correlation for the PAH analyses and a poor correlation for the heavy metal analyses. All the RPDs for the PAH analyses are less than the acceptance criterion of 7O0/0 for organics. Seven of the 15 RPDs for the heavy metals were greater than the acceptance criterion of 50% for inorganics. These were barium (124%), chromium (77%), cobalt (93%), lead (94%), manganese (106%), nickel (124%) and zinc (125%) in sample 401112B. In each case, the higher metal concentrations were used in the interpretation of the results for the audit. Apart from vanadium, which is naturally occurring, none of these concentrations exceeded the EIL or HIL criteria for a standard residential land use. Therefore, the discrepancies do not affect the outcome of the assessment and the results indicate that an acceptable level of accuracy was achieved in the sampling and analytical program.
12.3.2 Field QC Duplicate Samples (Blind Replicate Samples)
The results for the QC duplicate soil samples are presented in Table R5 with the corresponding laboratory's results and the RPDs.
The results show an excellent correlation for the analyses as all the analytes are less than the acceptance criterion of 50% for the heavy metal analyses and 70% for PAH analytes. The results indicate that an excellent level of precision was achieved in the sampling and analytical program.
12.3.3 Field QC Blank Samples
A rinsate blank and a trip blank were analysed for heavy metals and TPH for QC purposes. The analytical results for the blanks are presented in Table R6.
PETER J RAMSAY El & ASSOCIATES The results of the blank analyses indicate that cross contamination between samples and sample locations is unlikely to have occurred as all analytes were below laboratory detection limits in the blank samples.
12.3.4 Laboratory QNQC
The QAIQC programs of all laboratories used for this investigation have been reviewed to ensure that the sample data is reliable and complete. COC documentation andlor sample receipts were signed and dated by the laboratories to confirm that samples were received in good condition within acceptable time limits. The analytical methods used for the laboratories' internal QNQC program are NATA accredited and details of the methods are provided in the laboratory reports in Appendix K. The laboratories QAlQC programs include analysis of internal duplicate samples, spike recoveries, surrogate standards and laboratory blanks.
A review of the results of the internal QNQC has shown that the great majority of these were within the laboratories' recommended range for acceptable reproducibility. Therefore, Peter J Ramsay & Associates considers the laboratory data obtained in this assessment to be of acceptable precision, accuracy and reliability and representative of the site conditions encountered.
12.4 QNQC Data Evaluation
The DQOs were met during the investigation, as demonstrated throughout the report. Documentation was maintained and complete, the site was assessed in accordance with EPA requirements, the data have been shown to be comparable and representative of the site, while precision and accuracy has been demonstrated in the field and laboratory QNQC programs.
PETER J RAMSAY El & ASSOCIATES 13. HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
13.1 Exposure Pathways and Risk Characterisation
Some heavy metal contamination above the EIL criteria but well below the HIL criteria for a standard residential land use was identified in the soil on the site during the assessment for the audit. The ElLs are threshold generic values that indicate a potential environmental effect to plants and animals within an urban context. The HlLs were developed to protect the most sensitive receptor to contaminants, namely young children, and are guideline values.
In view of the results of the assessment, the EPA guidelines and the NEPM guidelines it is my opinion that the site conditions determined by the audit indicate thatthe current condition of the land is potentially detrimental to some of the beneficial uses of the land. That is, there is the potential for plants and animals to not be protected at the site. In view of the near surface crushed rock layer on the site the beneficial use of aesthetics is also not currently protected.
For the proposed medium density residential development there could be a potential risk of contaminant uptake by plants should garden areas be developed on the site. In view of this, the issue of a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the site is precluded without remediation of the contamination on the site or a risk assessment being undertaken. In addition, the near surface fill layer on the site would need to be removed.
Therefore, I propose to make a Statement of Environmental Audit for the site.
In drawing this conclusion, consideration has been given to the EPA's view on providing conditions for Statements, Victorian SEPPs and IWMPs.
13.2 Risk of Groundwater Contamination
In view of: the site history and features on the property; the contamination was not above HlLs for a standard residential land use; the contaminants were predominantly confined to the near surface; groundwater is expected to be approximately 5 m below ground level; the natural clayey soil underlying the fill at the site; and the contamination at the site is proposed to be predominantly contained by - an impervious (concrete) slab in areas where the townhouses, associated paved areas and driveways will be developed, and 3 - at a minimum, 0.5 m of clean fill capping in areas where garden beds are to be placed; it is considered that there is negligible potential for groundwater contamination to have occurred at the site, or to occur in the future.
13.3 Risk of Off-Site Exposure
Heavy metals were measured above the EIL criteria in soil samples retrieved from the site. This contamination was investigated during the audit.
The concentrations of contaminants in the fill and natural soil on the site are well below the HlLs for a standard residential land use (with gardenlaccessible soil). Further, the residual contamination is predominantly proposed to be sealed beneath concrete slabs or at least 0.5 m of clean fill capping. Therefore, there is no potential for off-site exposure to humans or the environment from the contamination at the site (such as via dust inhalation or surface water run- off).
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES 14. CONCLUSIONS
In view of: the site history; the site inspection; the analytical results for the soil samples retrieved from the site; EPA Guidelines for Auditors; Victorian SEPPs and IWMPs; the Australian Standards; and the NEPM and ANZECC guidelines; it is considered that the site could present a potential risk to plants and animals. Therefore a Cerfificate of Environmental Audit cannot be issued for the site. However, the site is considered suitable for a medium residential land use with conditions.
Consequently a Statement of Environmental Audit with conditions has been made for the site and is attached to this report. The Statement indicates that the site is conditionally suitable for the proposed medium density residential development shown in the proposed development plan (undated) provided that the development is undertaken in accordance with the proposed development plan. A minimum of 0.5 m of clean fill capping is to be used in the garden beds and the remainder of the site is to be covered by a concrete slab (such as in the proposed residential development) to prevent access to the underlying soil.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES 15. REFERENCES
ANZECC 1992, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation CouncillNational Health and Medical Research Council (ANZECC guidelines).
ANZECC 1992, Australian Water Quality Guidelines For Fresh and Marine Waters, November 1992 (AWQG).
ANZECC 2000, Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, ANZECC and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, October 2000 (A WQG).
ANZECC 1992, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation CouncillNational Health and Medical Research Council (ANZECCINHMRC)
Department of Planning and Housing 1992, Minister's Direction No. 1 Potentially Contaminated Land, 14 May 1992, Department of Planning and Housing, Melbourne.
Environment Protection Authority 2000, A Guide to the Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes, Publication 441 (7th Edition), March 2002, EPA, Melbourne.
Environment Protection Authority 2002, Environmental Auditor - Contaminated Land, Guidelines for Issue of Cerfificates and Statements of Epvironmenfal Audit, Publication 759b, June 2002, EPA, Melbourne.
Environment Protection Authority 2002, Environmental Auditing of Contaminated Land, Publication 860, July 2002, EPA, Melbourne.
Environment Protection Authority 2002, Environmental Auditor Guidelines for Appointment and Conduct, Publication 865, August 2002, EPA, Melbourne.
Langley, A., Markey, B. & Hill, H. 1996, The Health Risk Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, Proceedings of the Third National Workshop on the Health Risk Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, Contaminated Sites Monograph Series No. 5, South Australian Health Commission, Rundle Mall, S.A. National Environment Protection Council 1999, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, 10 December 1999, (NEPM).
Standards Australia 1997, Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil, Part I: Non-Volatile and Semi Volatile Compounds, AS 4482.1-1997, Standards Australia, 5 September 1997.
Standards Australia 1999, Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil, Part 2: Volatile Substances, AS 4482.2-1999, Standards Australia, 5 September 1999.
Victorian Government 1970, Environment Protection Act 1970, Government printer, Melbourne.
Victorian Government 2002, State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), No. S59, Victorian Government Gazette.
PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES
t
Industrial/CommerciaI
+ mC 0 9
Residential
Boundary of Land Subject
Om 0 Approximate Scale F~gure2 Land Subject to Audit i--- N
Industrial/CommerciaI
-c m 0 3
Residential
Boundary of Land Subject
Om , Test Pit Number and I I I Locatlon Approximate Scale Figure 3 Site Plan Showing Sample Locations
Table R1 Summary of Analytical Results for Individual Soil Samples I Sample Number 401 11 Health lnvestlgatlor Background Ranges Ecological Imestigati Level (HIL) (Low Dens Level (EIL) Residential) Analvte IA 1B 1C ZA 28 2C 3A 38 4A 48 5A 58 6A 68 7A 78
Metals Antimony c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 c5 444 (a) 20 (b) Arsen~c 9 17 27 6 10 6 9 8 12 1-50 20 100 Barium 150 900 180 390 180 150 390 130 100 320 100-3000 300 Beryllium c5 c5 6 c5 ~5 c5 c5 c5 c5 20 Cadmium 1 1 c0.2 c0.2 c0.2 0.3 cO.2 0.4 0.3 ~0.2 1 3 20 Chromium 20 43 59 22 37 33 23 28 42 5-1 000 400 (c) 12% (c) Cobalt 6 6 11 c5 12 11 7 7 9 17 140 100 Copper 44 16 25 25 34 33 20 17 15 2-1 00 100 1000 Lead 140 39 53 55 90 37 84 36 37 2-200 600 300 Manganese 170 500 320 160 580 210 280 130 490 520 850 500 1500 Mercury c0.05 ~0.05 ~0.05 ~0.05 ~0.05 ~0.05 c0 05 c0 05 ~0.05 0 0014.1 1 (d) 15 (d) Nickel 20 17 44 21 17 36 15 27 17 5500 60 600 Tin ~5 15 c5 c5 ~5 ~5 c5 c5 c5 5 1-25 (a) 50 (b) Vanadium 64 54 82 51 S3 73 54 69 31 88 20-500 50 Zinc 120 52 81 120 240 65 170 75 50 10-300 200 7000 Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MAHs) Total MAHs ND ND ND Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) Cs-Cg ~20 ~20 c20 c20 c20 c20 c20 65 (e) Clo-cl, ~20 c20 c20 c20 c20 c20 c20 1000 (e) c15-ca c50 52 420 ~50 100 670 170 1000 (e) Cw-cs c50 ~50 140 c50 c50 160 110 1000 (e) f otal Clo-C, above detection lim~ts ND 52 560 ND 100 830 280 1000 (e) 5600 (f) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Total PAHs ND NO ND ND ND 0.95-5 (a) 20 (e) 20 Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (VCHs) Total VCHs ND ND ND Phenols c0.l 0.030.5 (a) 8500 Total Cyanide c5 500 (9) Soluble Sutphate 110 140 150 480 260 240 87 380 35-1000 (a) 2000 (h) pH (units) 6.8 7.2 8 4 6.2 8.8 6.3 8.3 7.3 9.1 6.9 9.0 7.5 8.8 6.8 6-8 (a) Asbestos MA NA NA NA
Note : Results expressed as mgtkg dry weight unless indicated otherwise. (a) ANZECC background ranges (used where no NEPM ranges available). ND = No individual species was detected above the laboratory detection limits. (b) ANZECC B level criteria (used where no EIL available). NA = No asbestos detected. (c) Criterion for chromium (Ill). Results that have been shaded in green exceed the ElLs for soil. (d) Criterion for inorganic mercury. Resultsthat have been shaded in red exceed the Hlls for soil for a low density res~denitalland use. (e) NSW EPA (1994) threshold concentration (used where no EIL available). (f) NEPM uitenon for TPH (C,,-C,) aliphatics. (9) Critenon for complexed cyanide [El (h) For protection of built structures IP -rn
0, 9 a 5 z Table R2 Summary of Analytical Results for Composite Soil Samples
Equivalent HIL (Low Composite Sample Number 40111 Equivalent EIL for 3 way Densitv Reaidentiall for a 3 I composite sample I way composite sample Analyte C1 C2 C3 . I
Metals Antimony 6.7 (a) Arsenic 6.7 Barium 100 Beryllium Cadmium I Chromium 133 (b) Cobalt Copper Lead 200 Manganese 167 Mercury 0.3 (c) Nickel 20 Tin 17 (a) Vanadium 17 Z~nc 67 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Total PAHs Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) Total OCPs Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) Total OPPs Phenols Total Phenols Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Total PCBs 0.3 (a) 3.3 Total Cyanide 167 (e) Fluoride Soluble Sulphate Asbestos
Note : Results expressed as mglkg dry weight unless indicated otherwise. (a) ANZECC B level criteria (used where no EIL available). ND = No individual species was detected above the laboratory detection limits. (b) Criterion for chromium (Ill). NA = No asbestos detected (c) Criterion for inorganic mercury. 401 11C1 is a composite soil sample of samples 401 VIA, 4A 8 7A. (d) NSW EPA (1994) threshold concentration (used where no EIL 401 1lC2 is a composite soil sample of samples 401 1/28, 38 & 6B. available). 401 1lC3 is a composite so11 sample of samples 401 111B. 48 & 58. (e) Criterion for cyanide (wmplexed). Results that have been shaded in green exceed the equivalent Ells for soil. Results that have been shaded in red exceed the equivalent HlLs for a low density residential land use land use. Table R3 Summary of Statistical Analysis of Heavy Metal Results
Sample Number 4011 As Ba Mn Ni Va Zn 1B 150 170 64
Max 27.0 900.0 560.0 44.0 93.0 240.0 Sum 104.0 2890.0 3340.0 214.0 659.0 973.0 Count 9 10 10 9 10 9 Mean 11.56 289.00 334.00 23.78 65.90 108.11 Standard Dev 6.69 239.93 168.27 10.03 19.06 62.97 Alpha 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 df 8 9 9 8 9 8 Students t 1.86 1.833 1.833 1.86 1.833 1.86 CV (4.2 for N Dist) 0.58 0.83 0.50 0.42 0.29 0.58 UCL (95%) (N Dist) 15.70 428.07 431.54 30.00 76.95 147.15 Note: Results expressed as rnglkg dry weight unless indicated otherwise Table R4 Results of Quality Assurance - Duplicate Samples
Sample Number 4011/1A Sample Number 401 112B Primary Split RPD Primary Split RPD Analyte Sample Sample* (%I Sample Sample* (%I
Metals Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Tin Vanadium Zinc Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Naphtalene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene Benzo(g.h.l)perylene Indeno(l.2.3.cd)pyrene Total PAHs
Note: Results expressed as mglkg dry weight. Sample labelled in the field identically to the primary sample and subsequently analysed by the secondary laboratory. RPDs that have been shaded exceed the acceptance criteria. Table R5 Results of Quality Control - Duplicate Samples
Sample Number 401 IllA Sample Number 401112B Primary Blind RPD Primary Blind RPD Analyte Sample Replicate* (%I Sample ~e~licate' (%)
Metals Antimony <5 <5 40 Arsenic 17 15 13 Barium 180 160 12 Beryllium <5 <5 40 Cadmium ~0.2 0.5 40 Chromium 43 42 2 Cobalt 11 9 20 Copper 16 16 0 Lead 39 35 11 Manganese 320 250 25 Mercury <0.05 <0.05 40 Nickel 17 17 0 Tin <5 <5 <50 Vanadium 82 77 6 Zinc 52 54 4 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Naphtalene Note Results expressed as mglkg dry welght * Labelled 401 1150A In the fleld and subsequently analysed by the prlmary laboratory # Labelled 401 1151B In the f~eldand subsequently analysed by the prlmary laboratory RPDs that have been shaded exceed the acceptance crlterla Table R6 Results of Quality Control - Blank Samples Sample Number 401 11 Analyte RBI TBI Metals Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) c6-c9 C10-cl4 c15-c28 c29-c36 Total Clo-C36 above detection limits Note: Results expressed as mgIL. RB = Rinsate Blank TB = Trip Blank Results that have been shaded exceed the acceptance criteria. 4 PETER J RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES 1 Appendix A .( Certificate of Title 1Documentation REGISTER BOOK VOL. 9 3 5 2 FOL. 0 1 5 VICTORIA " . , UNDER THE emTRANSFEROF LAND ACT" CORIE VAN EEEY 6 DEBRA ANN VAN BEEX OF 124 CLARKE STREET BENALLA ARE JOINT ' PROPRIETORS OF AN ESTATE IN FEE SIMPLE SUBJECT TO THE ENCUMBRAflCES NOTIFIED i HEREUNDER IN ALL THAT PIECE OF LAND IN THE PARlSH OF BENALLA BEING LOT 17 ON PLAN OF , . ' SU~D~VISION,No.524o1 c A rs suouw rlcloris sr conrlluovi rms o* isi HEREON----,------. . ------7--- , , , . '@ DATE: 26/io/85 OERPVED FROM VOL.8265 FOt.794 P494513W OF TlTLU ...... ,.I '. ';.-">'. , :'. .... :i: . ' ... I : . ;; , , , .' , . '. . , ,:.<:,,.,yz , , . , ... '..,Y ,..,' ' , ; ' ..... , . .\.?.,I , , ... , . * tho 24th day 1965 :' .,.t : -': .. ;' MTED of March .!a . 8 , ' i ,(,; 4 *; :., ?$$. , .:I. ; 9. $:3-y.l ,:,>! :, I.-... .,.:i3.. ' ...... g;5 ./..:.: " . . , , ,'$;.:? . :' ...... : :,:2.?,;:,,:$- .. I..,.-; ,*. ,.::. .... ,, :,, < 1. ., . .. *.: .' : .. '.. - #(,. .L. :*:4.. ..el ...... ;y$:j%$:, 'i. , ...... b::' .. ' . ... ?<,.+,~;~,..:: . : .a .... i333.!., ... ..:...... g.': c* : ...... t :.r" a. . . .' ...... . , .. . . .,.+ ,".:.-. ' I . . .: -.-.. - ...... I7 !: . ,:,.!.. - .,..; ..': a.".'.,~ .:. .: . I., ; ,:. . .,:. . ,* -:. ' .. -. ,..... ,..,;L!- . " ;, '.... ;. ,;.-,...... '. . ,. .. ..,,,, :: ..+<~j.l:~~~~';* . :*,. .,A - 8 .., .:c ... . . 6 :.'a,: >;,;+<.i :<;. . . +r . . .; , :< ,- 6.:. .: , '.: ,f . .,... , .3. ' t . ';.I,'- .:.. .. . - .. ...* ' ,. ... -,+-j-!.&,:*.L:+ ' : ;, ;ji' ...... h ,,., fr..,., i;:\: ' , . . . . I.?;.....~.qa.. ,.,,s,. . . '...... '! . , . ..:. . <...... ,. :,..aq:L*s; .:- ;;; ...... I ... ,. , 5% :*!$?+ .... 8'- ...... ,. . .;*::j* !$. . . . .- ...... ' %'.'*': .." I...... < ',;'&:,.;".,,; "' I... I . I'. . ' . . MwuMmwn.Memmr . , 1 : .. .I /. ... ,.'... - .. ... I . 1, ;. .t.,%,.'... , .,,o ."\ '...... ;, ;, *,:. ,'%w. * ',:( ..;, 1 ,.. ' ::. , I ' ' e . . ,,,;>. 8. '.-'" .... ! .:. . . !. . .-.. . . 2.. ! r. ,W," <. ....~5"L' ...... , i i.2 ..+.;,- ,-..%%iy...... I. a n, wrvrr . . 4 ,' . , . L f : 4. I g ' ----- '------A-----A----- n-----n-----a----- a - - - - - a - Appendix B Copy of Proposed Development Plan r mb. dm.&om