INFORMATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS
August 2007
VICTORIA'S AUDIT SYSTEM AUDIT REPORT CURRENCY
An environmental audit system has operated in Audit reports are based on the conditions encountered Victoria since 1989. The Environmenf Profecfion Acf and information reviewed at the time of preparation 1970 (the Act) provides for the appointment by the and do not represent any changes that may have Environment Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) of occurred since the date of completion. As it is not environmental auditors and the conduct of possible for an audit to present all data that could be independent, high quality and rigorous environmental of interest to all readers, consideration should be audits. made to any appendices or referenced documentation An environmental audit is an assessment of the for further information. condition of the environment, or the nature and extent When information regarding the condition of a site of harm (or risk of harm) posed by an industrial changes from that at the time an audit report is process or activity, waste, substance or noise. issued, or where an administrative or computation Environmental audit reports are prepared by EPA- error is identified, environmental audit reports, appointed environmental auditors who are highly certificates and statements may be withdrawn or qualified and skilled individuals. amended by an environmental auditor. Users are Under the Act, the function of an environmental advised to check EPA's website to ensure the currency auditor is to conduct environmental audits and of the audit document. prepare environmental audit reports. Where an environmental audit is conducted to determine the PDF SEARCHABILITY AND PRINTING condition of a site or its suitability for certain uses, an environmental auditor may issue either a certificate or EPA Victoria can only certify the accuracy and statement of environmental audit. correctness of the audit report and appendices as presented in the hardcopy format. EPA is not A certificate indicates that the auditor is of the opinion responsible for any issues that arise due to problems that the site is suitable for any beneficial use defined with PDF files or printing. in the Act, whilst a statement indicates that there is some restriction on the use of the site. Except where PDF normal format is specified, PDF files are scanned and optical character recognised by Any individual or organisation may engage appointed machine only. Accordingly, while the images are environmental auditors, who generally operate within consistent with the scanned original, the searchable the environmental consulting sector, to undertake hidden text may contain uncorrected recognition environmental audits. The EPA administers the errors that can reduce search reliability. Therefore, environmental audit system and ensures its ongoing keyword searches undertaken within the document integrity by assessing auditor applications and may not retrieve all references to the queried text. ensuring audits are independent and conducted with regard to guidelines issued by EPA. This PDF has been created using the Adobe-approved method for generating Print Optimised Output. To assure proper results, proofs must be printed, rather AUDIT FILES STRUCTURE than viewed on the screen. Environmental audit reports are stored digitally by This PDF is compatible with Adobe Acrobat Reader EPA in three parts: the audit report (part A), report Version 4.0 or any later version which is downloadable appendices (part B) and, where applicable, the free from Adobe's Website, www.adobe.com. certificate or statement of environmental audit and an executive summary (part C). A report may be in colour FURTHER I N FORMATION and black-and-white formats. Generally, only black- and-white documents are text searchable. For more information on Victoria's environmental Report executive summaries, findings and audit system, visit EPA's website or contact EPA's recommendations should be read and relied upon only Environmental Audit Unit. in the context of the document as a whole, including Web: www.epa.vic.clov.au/envaudit any appendices and, where applicable, any certificate Email: [email protected] or statement of environmental audit. 421 47-1 -B
APPENDIX A
Civil Test Contamination Site Assessment Report, 4 August 2008 .:...... * ...... SOIL TESTING & GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS AC.N. oob 855 68B
CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT (80 Latrobe Street) MENTONE
Report No: RM 1283-00
10 Latham Street, (P.O. Box 537), Momington, 3931 Tel: (03) 5975 6644 Fax: (03) 5975 9589 also at: Dandenong (03) 9 769 2121 Wonthaggi (03) 5672 3900 Drouin (03) 5625 451 1 and Mitcham (03) 9 874 5844 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
CLIENT Paul Dunand 80 Latrobe Street MENTONE VIC.
AUTHORISED BY : Paul Dunand
PROJECT Contamination Site Assessment Report For Environmental Audit (80 Latrobe Street) Mentone VIC.
COMMISSION Carry out appropriate insitu soil sampling, observations and chemical analysis at locations as shown on the attached plan (Appendix A).
, CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET. MENTONE
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 I .1 AIM...... 4 2 SOURCE OF INFORMATION ...... 5
3 SITE HISTORY ...... 5 3.1 nTLE SURVEY ...... 5 3.2 AERIALPHOTOGRAPHS ...... 6 3.3 HISTORICAL RECORDS ...... 6 4 INVESTIGATION ...... 9 4.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 9 5 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ...... 9 5.1 GENERALISEDSUBSURFACE BOREHOLE PROFILE SUMMARY ...... 12 6 SAMPLING DESIGN ...... 12 6.1 SAMPLING PROGRAM ...... 13 7 SAMPLING CODES ...... 15 7.1 ADEQUACY OF SAMPLINGPROGRAM ...... 16 7.2 PHOTOIONIZATIONDETECTOR ...... 16 7.3 SOILSAMPLING FOR PID ...... 17 8 QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES ...... 18 8.1 BLINDREPL~CATE SAMPLE: ...... 18 8.2 SPLITSAMPLE: ...... 20 8.3 FUNSATE BLANKS: ...... 22 8.4 EVALUATIONOF QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES: ...... 22 9 EVALUATION OF COMPOSITE SAMPLES: ...... 22 10 CHAIN OF-CUSTODY FORMS ...... 22 11 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ...... 23 12 LABORATORY QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS...... 23 12.1 ANALYSISBLANK ...... 23 12.2 DUPLICATEANALYSIS ...... 24 12.3 LABORATORYCONTROL SA~~~LE ...... 24
12.4 MATIUX SPIKES ...... ~ ...... 25 12.5 SURROGATE SPIKES ...... 25 12.6 EVALUATIONOF LABORATORYQUALITY CONTROL RESULTS ...... 25 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET. MENTONE
13 ANALYTE SELECTION ...... 26 13.1 0RG.mCS SCREENING: ...... 26 13.2 INOF-GANIC SCREENING:...... 26 14 LABORATORY ANALYSIS ...... 27 14.1 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS METHODS ...... 27 15 SAMPLES ANALYSED ...... 27 16 LABORATORY WORK ...... 29
17 FINDINGS ...... 41 17.1 NATLJRALCONCENTRATION OF HEAVYELEMENTS ...... 41 17.2 BACKGROUNDSAMPLES ...... 42 17.3 NATURALCONCENTRATION OF ARSENIC IN SEDIMENTS ...... 42 18 ANALYTE LEVELS ...... 42 18.1 ARSENIC...... 42 18.2 BTEX/MAH ...... 43 18.3 TPH ...... 43 18.4 MERCURY...... 43 18.5 CHLORINATEDHERBICIDES ...... 43 18.6 ORGANOCHLORINEPESTICIDES ...... 44 18.7 ORGANOPHOSPHORUSCOMPOUNDS ...... 44 18.8 POLYAROMATICHYDR~CARBONS ...... 44 18.9 POLYCHLORINATEDBIPHENYLS ...... 44 18.10 TOTALCYANIDE ...... 44 18.1 1 UNITS OF PH ...... 44 18.12 MOISTURE...... 45 19 SUMMARY OF UNCERTAINTIES AND ASSUMPTIONS ...... 45 19.1 QUALITY ASSURANCEAND QUALITY CONTROL...... 45 19.2 QA PRoGRAMS ...... 45 19.3 QC TESTlh'G ELEMENTS...... 45 20 RISK CHAIUCTERISATION AND HEALTH APPRAISAL...... 46 20.1 PROPOSEDLAND USE ...... 46 20.2 BENEFICIALUSES TO BE PROTECTED ...... 46 20.3 DERIVATIONOF HEALTH BASED MVESTIGAT~ONLEVELS (HILS) ...... 47 21 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 47 21 .1 PROPOSED HEALTHIhVESTIGATION LEVELGUIDELINES ...... 48 21.2 EXPOSUREPATHWAYS & RECEPTO~s ...... 50 22 HEALTH RISK MANAGEMENT. RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 50
2 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
APPEND1X.A .LOCATION OF TEST SITES...... APPENDIX B .ENGINEERING LOG ...... APPENDIX C .LABORATORY DATA ...... APPENDIX D - CERTIFICATE OF TITLES ...... APPENDIX E - CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM...... APPENDIX F - PLANNING PERMITS......
3 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
1 INTRODUCTION
Civiltest Pty Ltd has been engaged by Mr.Paul Dunand to investigate the soil contamination conditions at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone. The requirements were to investigate contamination in the soil due to the past activities over the site which may have produced or caused chemical contamination of the soil.
Prior to the commencement of building works under Planning Permit for the above site, an assessment of the site by an accredited environmental auditor must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to establish that the site is not contaminated. Any contamination that exceeds the accepted standards must be removed prior to the commencement of the buildings and works in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Authority to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. For these reasons an Environmental Auditor from Egis Consulting was requested to conduct an environmental audit at the above-mentioned property. The purpose of the investigation is to enable the auditor to determine requirements to enable the site to merit a Statement or Certificate of Audit. Based on a review of the site history, and available data, a staged investigation wasimplemented. Each stage involved preparation of a work plan, review and approval of the scope of work by the Auditor, and then review of the findings from each stage, by the Auditor.
1.1 Aim
This report discusses the field investigation carried out on 30th May and 23rdJune 2000 and the subsequent chemical analysis report. This report presents the findings of an investigation consisting of two separate phases; an historical survey of previous uses of the site; and the results of systematic in situ sampling of sub surface materials. The in situ investigation was undertaken so as to assess and provide an indication of possible contamination. The investigation was conducted according to the Guidelines for Environmental Auditors Contaminated Land, Issue of Certificate of Environmental Audit, EPA Information Bulletin, WM 91/14,May 1992.
The report closes with conclusions and recommendations as recommended in EPA Bulletin WM 91/14,May 1992.
4 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
- 2 SXECE OF INFORMATION
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, National Health and Medical Research Council (ANZECC, NH&MRC), January 1992
Guidelines for environmental auditors contaminated land, May 1992;
Environmental audit system contaminated land, May 1992;
Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil, part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds, AS 4482.1-1997;
Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil, part 2: Volatile substances, AS 4482.2-1 999; 1999;
Environmental guidelines for the fired clay building products industry, Publication 607, January 1998;
Guidelines for environmental auditors contaminated land issue of certificate of environmental audit, WM 91/14, May 1992, EPA Information Bulletin;
Guidance on the design of sampling programs, sampling techniques and preservation and handling of samples, AS/NZS 5667.1 :1998;
Dutch soil concentration level, soil clean-up guideline, 1983;
National Environment Protection (Assessment of site contamination) Measure 1999.
3 SITE HISTORY
3.1 Title Survey
The initial investigation entailed a complete title survey of property number 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone which is now known as lot 86 on plan of subdivision number PS 4013331R LP11253. The search was undertaken by A’Beckett Law Searching Service back until earliest records. This search indicates ownership of the site commenced in October 1925.
J CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
The title survey indicates early owners consisted of market gardeners, fruiterers, car repairers, concrete brick makers, cabinet makers and shower screen makers.
3.2 Aerial Photographs
Aerial photographs of the site held by the Central Plans Office (Government Victoria) were searched to earliest records. The aerial photographs available for viewing are on a large scale and do not give a clear view of the site under investigation. Aerial photographs indicate the site to contain some buildings and structures at the site since 1945.
3.3 Historical Records
City of Kingston, Health Surveyors, Rates Department, Southern Rural Water, Building Permits and Mentone Historical Society were contacted for information on the History of the surrounding area. Reference is made to " Moorabbin a Pictorial History, 1862-1 994" by John Cribbin and "The Victorian Historical Magazine".
These sources give the following, historical account of the site: -
Moorabbin Municipality= Formerly Mentone was a part municipality of City of Moorabbin, which at the time, was the largest municipality in the southern corridor of the Melbourne metropolis. Its development is traceable from the earliest days of Melbourne, when it was the Parish of Moorabbin in the County of Bourke. In the early 1840's it was part of Dendy's Brighton, the outlands of which were used for farming and for grazing cattle. It was discovered that its sandy soil was ideally suited to the growing of vegetables and fruit. Due to this reason Moorabbin became the place of the market gardeners. Market gardening was the first and most durable of all Moorabbin's occupations and sustained a community for almost a hundred years.
Mentone: A seaside residential suburb on Port Philip Bay, is located 22-km southeast of Melbourne. Before the formation of the township the area was known as Balcombe, after the name of the occupier of land between Balcombe Road and Bay, west of Warrigal Road, where central Mentone is now situated.
The earliest owner in 1925 at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone was Mr Frederick Morton Judd, a retired fruiterer who jointly owned the property with Mr Walter Stanley Judd, a Market Gardener. The site may have been used as a garden as was evident from the history of the surrounding area.
In the 1950's market gardens and farms on the edge of Mentone were subdivided for housing and a shopping centre was developed in Balcombe Road. Balcombe Road had neighbouring Beaumaris for its retail catchment.
6 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
Kingston is a City Council formed on 15 December 1994, by the amalgamation of all of Chelsea and parts of Moorabbin, Mordialloc, Oakleigh and Springvale.
Records held in the Planning and Building Permit Departments, City of Kingston, date back to 1974 for the site.
Building Permit and Planning Records held by The City of Kingston related to property number 80 which is now known as lot 86 on plan of subdivision number PS 401 3331R LP11253, Photocopies of Building Permit and planning applications are appended to this report. Following are the planning applications held by the Kingston City Council.
In the year September 1974, for re-structuring of factory by the owner W.G. Osborne Pty. Ltd.
In the year October 1974, Application for Planning Permit letter by Maddock, Lonie & Chisholm solicitors.
In the year December 1974 letter of agreement made between the City of Mordialloc Council and Matthew John Osborne and Leila Margaret Osborne for construction of new factory for the purpose of manufacturing vanity units. The land was zoned under Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of works Planning Scheme Ordinance as Residential C.
In the year April 1975, for proposed alterations to the existing joinery factory, to provide preparation, dispatch areas and amenities. A garage construction with brick and iron walls, concrete floors and iron roof by M.J. & M.L. Osborne.
In the year December 1977, was registered as Entity Cabinets Pty Ltd, Company Number 140216, Wumot George Osborne, Mathew John Osborne, Leila Marget Osborne were the directors of the company.
In the year May 1982 Messrs. Maddock, Lonie & Chisholm, were issued a letter from the City Engineer for the Council concerns at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone for non-compliance with Town Planning Permit issued in respect to a factory situated in residential C Zone. The factory was originally constructed in 1949 prior to town planning control and non-conforming use rights were issued. CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
g) In the year June 1982, Maddock Lonie 8, Chisholm, wrote letter to the City of Mordialloc, Mentone regrading the agreement and acknowledgment by the ,.- applicants that the non conforming use rights of the land for the purposes of the factory or the manufacture of vanity units shall cease in the event of Clause 1 (a) not being complied with.
h) In the year December 1999, Planning Permit number KP99/415 from City of Kingston, for the development and use of the site at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone for three (3) attached multi-dwellings, in accordance with plans submitted pursuant to Condition 1 hereof.
Prior to the commencement of building works under this permit, an assessment of the site by accredited environmental auditor must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to establish that the site is not contaminated. Any contamination that exceeds the accepted standards must be removed prior to the commencement of the buildings and works in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Authority to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
4 INVE$T!GATIBN
4.1 Site Description
An initial evaluation was carried out on the 30th May 2000 to evaluate the site condition. The land of 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone is located in residential C Zone, comparatively large to the conventionally sized corner block site; with a street frontage of 15.24 m on Latrobe Street and 51.78 m on Philip Street. The site covers an area of 786 m2, with good access to social and physical infrastructure in the immediate area. The area is characterised by a diverse range of dwellings from residential dwellings to manufacturing factories varying in condition, age, materials and type of construction. The street consists mainly of single storey dwellings and there are a number of double storey dwellings around the surrounding streets.
The site is sloping away from Latrobe Street; currently undergoing construction work for dwelling for (3) attached houses. The site is devoid of any vegetation, and does not show any discoloured, oily or disturbed soil. The site does not show the presence of any chemicals, waste containers or any unpleasant odour at the site or in the soil.
Mentone Shopping Centre, Restaurants, Shops, Banks and Municipal Council Offices are located about 800 metres to the South East of the site. The Mentone Train Station is located about 800 metres to’the South/East and the beach is located about 2.0km from the site towards the west. 5 Site Geology and Hydrogeology
GeoloaQ The map sheet of Melbourne, Scale 1:63,360 produced by the Geological Survey of Victoria indicates that the site is located on contact of Tertiary Brighton Group sands (Tpr) and Quaternary (Qpd) Sand ridges and sands.
The Brighton Group is considered to comprise of the Black Rock Sandstone and the Red Bluff Sand in the Melbourne area. The site under investigation is within Red Bluff Sand according to the map.
Red Bluff Sand: - Red bluff Sand consists of 24m of clayey sand and gravel, locally with clay balls and lenses, and with a thin bed of carbonaceous sand at the base, disconformably overlies the Black Rock Sandstone. The sediments are occasionally cross-bedded and variably iron-stained, though much less ferruginous than the underlying strata. They contain fossil wood and other plant remains, and freshwater spicirles; rare hystrichosphaerids have been recorded from near the base of the unit, which is regarded as Pliocene.
9 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
The Red Bluff Sand extends northeast of the Melbourne Warp, where it is represented by thin ferruginous sand and gravel capping Palaeozoic rocks. The two formations cannot be clearly recognised subsurface southwest and west of Melbourne. The Brighton Group cannot always be distinguished subsurface from the leached upper part of the Fyansford Formation, and where the Newer Volcanics are absent it is sometimes difficult to separate from overlying Quaternary sediments.
The strata intersected at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone during the investigation consists of FILL comprised of clayey SAND and natural clayey SAND to SAND and at depth becomes sandy CLAY. This conforms to Red Bluff Sands of Brighton Group of Tertiary Sediments.
The background sample BHlO is located in the contact zone between the Recent to Pleistocene Quaternary sand ridges and the Red Bluff Sands of the Tertiary aged Brighton Group. It is difficult to determine the depositional environment and the origin of the sediment of this contact zone, as it was deposited due to Tertiary earth movements. This tectonic activity resulted in the disturbance of older structures and sediments in the region, therefore making the origins of the contact zone difficult to interpret.
Extending inland almost to the line of the Melbourne Warp is a series of parallel low northwest-tending sandy ridges, which are considered as longitudinal dunes by Whincup (1944) Kenley (1967) considered it to be due to draping of late Pliocene Quaternary sediments over existing ridges in the Tertiary sediments.
The strata intersected during the investigation for background sample BHlO consist of FILL comprised of silty SAND and natural silty SAND up to a depth of 2.0m.
The map sheet of Melbourne, Scale 1:63,360 produced by the Geological Survey of Victoria indicates that the location of background sample is falling more into Sand ridges and sands than in Redbluff Sands.
Hydrogeology: - Moist to wet soils were typically encountered at a depth of about 0.45-0.90 meters. A perched water table was encountered in test holes BH2 A and BH4 A.
According to ANZACINHMRC guidelines groundwater samples should be taken in areas with shallow depth to groundwater and where a site may have been used as a landfill, for lagooning wastes, underground product storage and where a suspected contaminant is extremely mobile. CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
The site history at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone does not indicate any of these uses. .. . The chemical analysis report does not indicate the presence of any contaminates in the fill or natural soil, which may have been caused by the past industrial activity at the site.
Hydrogeological assessments are required only if it is suspected that groundwater quality may be at risk, or where contamination has occurred. The site at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone does not indicate presence of any introduced contaminants in the soil, according to the health investigation levels and therefore does not require groundwater assessment for contaminates.
State Environment Protection Policy is declared under section 16(1) of the Environment Protection Act 1970. A SEPP for specified part of the environment includes:
Identification of the beneficial uses of the environment to be protected. Beneficial uses includes use of the environment such as ecosystem support, drinking water, and recreational purposes. Any seepage of contaminated water may impact on the regional groundwater quality in the vicinity of the site.
The purpose of the SEPP is to maintain groundwater quality sufficient to protect and potential beneficial uses of the aquifers throughout Victoria, by the prevention of groundwater pollution.
Under the SEPP, the groundwater environment is segmented and the SEPP requires beneficial uses for the groundwater to be protected. The site under investigation did not indicate presence of any introduced contaminants from the past industrial activity at the site in the fill soils or in the natural soils. Therefore Groundwater sampling was not required at the site since there was no contaminants present in the fill soil or natural soil which could seep through the soil and impact on the regional groundwater quality.
11 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
5,4 Generaiised Subsurface Borehole profile summary
The results of the boreholes at the site are summarised in table 1. Complete boreholes are included in the appendices.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
6 Sampling Design
The objective of the sampling program was to determine the level and extent of contamination in the Fill soil, natural soil and other different horizons. To know the full distribution of the contaminants concentration of the entire site and to collect sufficient data the following sampling pattern selection was made.
A systematic sampling pattern across the site was adopted. Sampling points were regularly spaced with a grid pattern. The total site area covers 786m2 and sampling locations were divided into eight grids.
The investigation was planned and executed in a systematic manner. A sampling plan was prepared prior to investigation. The plan documented the project, organisation and management; the sampling program; sampling procedures; laboratory test program and methods and the quality control sampling and test program. The plan is considered to confirm to current standards of best practice in I environmental industry in Victoria and the sampling procedures were verified on-site by the Auditor.
12 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET,MENTONE
6.1 Sampling Program
The positions of sampling points were selected after the preliminary investigation on 30th May 2000. Field sampling points were decided in consultation with the Auditor. Field sampling was conducted on 23rdJune 2000. Sampling locations were marked at the site as located on the plan. Sampling point BH7 was located on slabs where the present construction work is taking place and sampling point BH6 was located close to the building. After consultation with the auditor sampling point BH7 was moved by 2 meters from the West boundary line at the same grid line and similarly for sampling point BH6. These points were shifted from the plan because they were located on unexposed areas. Sampling point BH7 was under the slab and sampling point BH6 was to be covered by concrete paving. As per the suggestion of Auditors these sampling points were shifted from the original sampling plan.
Samples were collected from the surface between 0.10m-0.15 and depth samples were collected from different horizons and in the natural soil. Samples were given field sample numbers, surface samples were numbered as BHI A, BH2 A, BH3 A, BH4 A, BH5 A, BH6 A, BH7 A and BH8 A. Depth samples in the natural material were given field numbers as BH1 B, BH2 B, BH3 B, BH4 B, BH5 B, BH6 B, BH7 B BH8 B and BHIO B. Samples collected from the different horizons were given field numbers as BH5 C, BH6 C1, BH6 C2, BH7 C, and BH8 C.
As each sample was obtained it was described by a Civiltest engineer. The description included petrographic content, colour texture, -general composition, moisture content and odour. The logs for all of the boreholes, containing descriptions of the strata encountered during hand augering, are contained in the Appendices. The locations of boreholes are shown on the Appendices.
Sample number BH1 B was divided into two samples and the other sample was given field sample number BH11 B and submitted to the laboratory as two individual samples. The sampling procedure adopted for the blind replicate sample is explained under the section of quality control samples in this report.
Two depth samples were collected from the sampling location BH7 at the same point from the ground in single action. Samples were divided into two containers. One was numbered BH7 B and the other split sample was numbered as BH9 B. BH7B was .analysed by Gribbles Analytical Laboratories and the BH9 B was analysed by MGT Environmental Consultants.
13 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
All equipment was decontaminated by washing with detergent, rinsed with water, rinsea in deionised water, prior to each sampling, the decontamination procedure was followed to ensure that there was no-cross contamination from the sampling equipment and final rinse solution (rinsate blank) for the same analyte as the soil sample was collected and was named as Rinsate sample.
Shallow soil samples were collected by using a scoop and depth soil samples were collected directly from the hand augers; containers for soil samples were laboratory washed. Sample containers were marked with a code as mentioned earlier in this report. All the samples collected were stored at 4' C in the eskies and forwarded to the laboratory with chain-of-custody procedures. Splitting of the sample was performed in the field using AS 4482.1-19977 method.
14 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET,MENTONE
7 Satnpiing Codes
Following chart gives the borehole numbers; field sample numbers, Civiltest sample numbers, PID readings in ppm, depths and soil types.
Sample Codes Jable 2
All the field data is presented on the logs of boring (Appendix B).
15 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
7.1 Adequacy of Sampling Program
Table 3 Summarises the sampling and test program executed at the site, the program has achieved a high degree of completeness and the variations from the plan are justified on the basis of changes required by the field observations and conditions encountered.
The total site covers an area of 0.08 hectares. Sampling locations were divided into eight grids. This compares with the Australian Standard AS 4482.1-1997 of 6 minimum samples for 0.1 hectares. The diameter of hot spots that would be detected with this systematic grid pattern is about 15.2 m for 0.1 hectare with 95% confidence level. The eight grid sampling locations for 0.08 hectare is considered adequate on this basis.
Antimony. Arsenic. Bervllium. I I 1 to 4 samples per bore Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, I 1 background sample off-site Copper, Lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, .I Selenium, Tin and Zinc. Mercury, Chlorinated Herbicides, Organochlorine Pesticides, Organophophorus Compounds, moisture and pH,
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Total Cyanide, Total Distillable Phenolics BTEWMAH and TPH.
Summary of Samplina and Test Proa raq
7.2 Photoionization Detector
The PID is an instrument, which measures the concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in air, this was used during the time of investigation. The PID was calibrated by EnviroRent Pty. Ltd. Calibration certificate is appended in the report. Calibration gas species Iso-butylene was used for the calibration. Calibration concentration 99 ppm, balance Zero air, Gas bottle number 355154 was used for the calibration. The PID was referenced to Benzene so that the concentration is diplayed as 56.0 ppm at span setting. All PID’s are initially zero calibrated. The PID detector was calibrated in accordance with manufacture specifications.
16 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
Depth soil samples were collected in sealable plastic bags. The soil was agitated . _. and the PID spear was introduced into the bag by slightly opening the bag at the corner. The PID was kept attached for a period of at least one minute to allow the reading to equilibrate. PID readings taken during the time of the investigation are shown in table 2.
The results of the PID survey do not return absolute readings of the concentration of volatile organic compounds in the soil, but rather are used as an indication of the relative concentration of volatile organic compounds across the site. PID survey will not detect compounds with an ionisation potential greater than 10.6 electron Volts, therefore heavy end hydrocarbon chainlength groups are not detected with PID.
The result of the PID survey will vary according to several factors. Major factors include depth of any contamination, soil temperature, humidity, soil type, concentrations of adsorbed and dissolved phase contamination and the presence and absence of separate phase product. A total of seven PID readings were taken during the time of investigation. These points were targeted to locate PID readings, which would indicate the presence of Volatile organic compounds in the soil (VOClS).
As soon as each sample was obtained, it was split, with one sub-sample placed into a sealable plastic bag, and the other sub-sample collected in a bottle for chemical analysis was placed in an esky. The sample in the plastic bag was agitated and subsequently the headspace of the plastic bag was screened using PID for the concentration of VOCs. One or two samples from each borehole were selected for PID testing. Non of the samples showed any indication of VOC's. The results of the field PID screening for VOCs are written on the borelogs. 7.3 Soil Sanipling for PID
PID testing was conducted in accordance with AS 4482.2-1999, Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil, Volatile substances. Volatiles are readily lost 'from the surface layers of the soil; therefore soil samples for the determination of volatile analytes were not collected from the surface layer. The minimum depth from which satisfactory samples can be collected depends on the soil type and the prevailing conditions. The minimum sampling depth for Volatiles was determined by the soil type, the clay content and the depth to bedrock. The fill samples collected in the shallow depth were silty SAND. The soil environment is thus a complex series of equilibria. Normally, the phases will be in a state of equilibrium and the fugacites (Le. escaping tendencies) of a chemical between the phases will be equal. Sampling in sands represents a disturbance of these equilibria which allows the volatile substance to escape at the surface and at shallow depth. Volatile substances quickly dissipate from the soil surface layer. CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
Factors affecting the behaviour of volatile substances in the soil are as follows: -
0 Water solubility affects transport, partition between aqueous and other phases. 0 Vapour pressure affects the rate of loss of vapours from soil.
0 Particle size and nature directly and indirectly affects infiltration, permeation, retention, sorption and mobility of Volatiles. 8 Quality control and Quality Assurance Samples
8.1 Blind replicafe sample:
One blind replicate sample was collected to identify the variation in analyte concentration and repeatability of the laboratory's analysis. These samples were collected from the same sampling point, removed from the ground in a single action, mixed thoroughly and then were divided into two samples numbered BHI B and BH11 B and submitted to the laboratory as two individual samples.
Acceptance Criteria for (Blind Replicate) Quality Control Samples: -
Relative Percent Difference from the two Samples were calculated in the following way:
RPD= Result No.1 - Result NO. 2 x 100
Mean result
Typical 30%-50% of mean concentration of analyte, this variation can be expected to be higher for organic analysis than for inorganics, and for low concentration of analytes. The Relative Percent Difference analysed from the two samples was within the acceptance criteria as indicated in the following table for all the analytes except pH units which were showing an RPD value of 66.7%.
The sample number BHI B was preserved separately in the fridge before transporting to the Gribbles Analytical Laboratory and sample number BHSB was preserved in the esky at 4OC. The difference in the pH may be due to temperature difference in the esky and the fridge or may be due to difference in the analytical methods and the time interval used by the laboratory. Generally, the pH of the calcium chloride extract is about 0.5 to 1.0 pH unit lower but it gives more precise values. For comparison of the pH values of soils collected at the same location and different time intervals gives a variation in pH units, therefore the determination of the pH units of both extracts should be carried out at the same time interval.
18 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE
Blind replicate sample Results in ppm (soils mglkg dry, waters mgll)
ANALYTE Sample ID Sample ID Result No1 - Result No 2 x 100 Mean result
Relative Percent Difference SM -21 98-00 SM -21 99-00 Limit 30%-50% mean concentration of Split Sample of Split sample of analyte Bore BHl B Bore BHl B LOCATION Bore BHl (B) Bore 11 (B) RPD Depth (m) Depth (rn) 0.85rn 0.85m Heavy Metals b Antimony <2.0 <2.0 0.0 --, --, Arsenic c39 P) 7.6 Beryllium CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SOIL SAMPLES Ta!ZL! 19 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE 8.2 Split Sample: One Split sample was collected to provide a check on the analytical proficiency of the laboratory. The sample was removed from the ground in a single action, mixed thoroughly, and was divided into two sample bottles numbered BH7 B and BH9 B. Sample number BH7 B was submitted and analysed by Gribbles Analytical Laboratory and Sample Number BH9 B was submitted and analysed by MGT Analytical Laboratory. The same analytes were determined by both the laboratories. Acceptance Criteria for (Split Sample) Quality Control Samples: - Relative Percent Difference from the two Labs were calculated in the following way: RPD= Result No.1- Result NO. 2 x 100 Mean result Typical 30%-50% of mean concentration of analyte, this variation can be expected to be higher for organic analysis than for inorganic analysis, and also for lo,w concentration of analytes. The Relative Percent Difference analysed from the two Labs was within the acceptance criteria as indicated in the following table in all the analytes except Zinc. Concentration of Zinc detected in the Gribbles Analytical Laboratories Sample is lower than the Sample Analysed by the MGT Environmental Consulting. The discrepant Zinc result may be due to ICP-MS method used for the chemical analysis, which requires greater control of the digestion temperature to obtain uniform results. Metals bound in the silicate matrix may not be fully recovered by using ICP-MS method. The difference in the results between the split samples should, in general be within 30% of the mean concentration; the discrepancy in the test result is due to different temperature controls used for digestion. Split Sample Unconfirmed Levels Results in ppm (soils mglkg dry, waters mgll) ALYSES OF SOIL SAMPLES Ta€&A 20 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE SlREET, MENTONE Split Sample Results in ppm (soils mglkg dry, waters mgll) ANALYTE Result No1 -Result No 2 Mean result l- Relative Percent Difference analyte I LLOCATION Heavy Metals Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Molybdenum Nickel Selenium <3.0 0.0 Tin e2.0 0.0 -ant I’- -.*. % 2%. d,Bi - CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SOIL SAMPLES Table 5 21 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE One final rinse solution (rinsate blank) sample named as Rinsate was collected during the decontamination process and was analysed for ICP-MS elements. The Rinsate sample analysed for Heavy Metals using ICP-MS, Method 406-MS, showed all the analytes levels to be less than e0.005 except copper which showed a level of 0.069. The chemical analysis indicates the presence of copper only and does not indicate the presence of other heavy metals in the rinsate sample. This residual level of concentration could have occurred while pouring the rinsate sample into the container. 8.4 Evaluation of quality control samples: All the quality control data are evaluated as according to AS 4482.1-1997. Relative Percent Difference from the two Labs were calculated in the following way: RPD= Result No.1 - Result NO. 2 x 100 Mean result This variation can be expected to be higher for organic analytes than for inorganic analysis and also low concentration of analytes. In summary, the QC test results reveal a level of quality control equivalent to the accepted general standard of practice. The detection limits used in the laboratory program were appropriate to meet the investigation objectives. 9 Evaluation of Composite Samples: Reporting of test results for the composite samples has been carried in accordance with AS 4482.1-1997. When composite sampling is used the contaminant investigating level is modified; the investigation level is divided by the number of samples making the composite to give the adjusted investigation level. 10 Chain of-custody forms All the samples collected during the time of investigation were properly handled as according to AS 4482.1-1977. Handling and transportation of all the samples from 80 La!robe Street, Mentone to the Laboratory was accomplished with chain-of- custody procedures. The chain of custody form is presented in Appendices. 22 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE Sample integrity was maintained and samples were properly stored in sealed sample containers. All samples collected during the time of investigation were kept in Eskies at 4OC and forwarded to the laboratory for analysis. 11 Occupational health and safety All those who were engaged during the time of investigation were made aware of the likely contaminants, the type of operation to be carried out on site and the type of equipment to be used. All protective equipment such as gloves, First aid equipment, boots etc were used properly and all the disposable items used for sampling were collected in a bag and disposed off-site properly. 12 Laboratory Quality Control Results The following Quality Control Results provided in this section are used for laboratory Quality Purposes. 72.7 Analysis Blank Sample Number 0005804Q032 was analysed by Gribbles Analytical Laboratories for Analysis of Blank. The component of the analytical signal, which is not derived from the sample but from the reagents, glassware can be determined by processing solvents and reagents in exactly the same manner as for samples. If this is below the maximum acceptable method blank (established during the method validation), this contribution is subtracted from the gross analytical signal for each analysis before calculating the sample analyte concentration. The results are e20 mg/kg QC Blank 0005804Q032 and <0.02for 0005804Q036. ANALYTE -QC Blank-0005804Q032 Result in mglkg TPH C6-C9 <20 TPH ClO-cl4 <20 TPH C15-C28 <20 TPH C29-C36 <20 ANALYTE - QC BLANK I Result in mglkg-- I 0005804(2036 RDntDl...,, ne <0.02 ttnylbenzene C0.02 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF Blank SOI- w 23 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE 72.2 Duplicate Analysis Sample Number 0005804Q029 was analysed by Gribbles Analytical Laboratories for Duplicate Analysis. This is the complete duplicate analysis of a sample from the process batch. The sample selected for duplicate analysis is the one where the analyte concentration was easily measurable. The variation between duplicate analyses has been recorded by Gribbles Analytical Laboratories and results are in their Quality Results. The quality control, relative percent difference is ranging from 4 .O-20.4 for sample number 0005804Q029 and sample number 0005804Q034 is c1.O. 72.3 Laboratory Control Sample Sample Number 00058048031 was analysed by Gribbles Analytical Laboratories for Laboratory Control Sample. These tests were performed on a standard material or control matrix fortified with analytes class. Recovery check portions were fortified at concentrations, which were easily quantified but within the range of concentrations expected for real samples. The results are as follows: - Tin 78.4 Tin Vanadium Vanadium 98.6 Zinc 75.0 Zinc 83.6 Spike Recovery 75.0%-130% Spike Recovery 70.6%-125% CHEM ICAL A NALYSES OF LA BORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES n4I.M 24 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE 12.4 Matrix Spikes Sample Number 0005804Q33 was analysed by Gribbles Analytical Laboratories for Matrix Spikes, to monitor the performance of the analytical methods used, and to determine whether matrix interference exists. Matrix Spike Recovery is 11 1%. 12.5 Surrogate Spikes Sample Number 0005804Q042 was analysed by Gribbles Analytical Laboratories for Surrogate Spikes Analysis. For determination where appropriate such as chromatographic analysis of organics, surrogate spikes were added to all analyses. Surrogate spikes are known additions to each sample, blank and matrix spike or reference sample analysis. OC Surrogate Recovery for COMPI , 117% OC Surrogate Recovery for COMP2, 100%. 12.6 Evaluation of Laboratory Quality Control Results In summary, the Quality Results reveal a level of quality control equivalent to the accepted general standard of practice. The detection limits used in the laboratory program were appropriate to meet the investigation objectives. CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE 'i 3 Anaiyie Selection The Historical survey indicates early owners to consist of market gardeners, fruiterers, car repairers, concrete brick makers, cabinet makers, shower screen makers and vanity makers. The expected range of material handled on the site is as follows: - Dominant AaricuIturaI/horticuIturaI activities: Chlorinated Herbicides, Organochlorine Pesticides and Organophosphorus Compounds. Car Repair: BTEX, TPH, Total Phenolics and lead Cabinet Making: Heavy metals and PAH Minor Brick Makina; Antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury. The analyte selection was based on the possible contaminants arising from the past industrial activity. The following screening was adopted in accordance with the Guidelines for Environmental Auditors Contaminated Land, EPA Information Bulletin, WM 91/14, May 1992. 13.1 Organics Screening: Phenolic compounds, petroleum hydrocarbons, monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons and pesticides. 13.2 Inorganic Screening: Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, boron, chromium, lead, cadmium, copper, cobalt, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, tin and zinc. 26 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE 14 Laboratory Analysis The soil samples obtained during the time of investigation of the boreholes were sent to NATA accredited, Gribbles Analytical Laboratory for primary analysis and the second part of the Split sample was sent to MGT Environmental Consulting for analysis. 74.7 Chemical Analysis Methods 208 Anions by Ion Chromatography, Dry Weight 236 Total Cyanide by UV-Vis (SFA), Dry Weight 244 Total distillable Phenolics, Dry Weight 404FIMS Mercury by Vapour AAS, Dry Weight 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, Dry Weight 501-FID Total Petroleum, Dry Weight 502HS BTEWMAH by Headspace, Dry Weight 505-MS Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, Dry Weight 505-MS Total Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, Dry Weight 506-ECD Organochlorin Pesticides, Dry Weight 507-ECD Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Dry Weight 509-HPLC Chlorinated Herbicides, Dry Weight 512MS Organophosphorus compounds, Dry Weight El00.01 Moisture Content El08 Organochlorins Analysis, Surrogates 15 Samples analysed COMPOSITE SAMPLES ANALYSED BY GRIBBLES ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 5 COMPI, BHI A + BH2 A + BH7 B + BH8 B - Analysed for Organochlorin Pesticides, Herbicides and Organophosphorus Compounds. 0 COMP2, BH3 B + BH4 B + BH5 B + BH6 B - Analysed for Organochlorin Pesticides, Herbicides and Organophosphorus Compounds. COMP3, BHI A + BH2 A + BH7 A + BH8 A - Analysed for FULL EPA Screen and individually for Volatile Hydrocarbons. COMP4, BH3 A + BH4 A + BH5 A + BH6 A - Analysed for FULL EPA Screen and individually for Volatile Hydrocarbons. 27 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE ~~ INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES ANALYSED BY GRIBBLES ANALYTICAL LAORATORIES BHI A, Sample number 2197-00 - For Volatile Hydrocarbons TPH, BTEX individually BH2 A, Sample number 2200-00 - For Volatile Hydrocarbons TPH, BTEX individually BH3 A, Sample number 2202-00 - For Volatile Hydrocarbons TPH, BTEX individually BH4 A, Sample number 2204-00 - For Volatile Hydrocarbons TPH, BTEX individually BH 5A, Sample number 2221-00 - For Volatile Hydrocarbons TPH, BTEX individually BH 6A, Sample number 2207-00 - For Volatile Hydrocarbons TPH, BTEX individually BH 7A, Sample number 2211-00 - For Volatile Hydrocarbons TPH, BTEX individually BH 8A, Sample number 2215-00- For Volatile Hydrocarbons TPH, BTEX individually Rinsate Sample number 2218-00 - ICP-MS, including Mercury B1 B Sample number 2198-00 - ICP-MS, including Mercury BH2 B Sample number 2201-00- ICP-MS, including Mercury, Volatile Hydrocarbons TPH, BTEX BH4 B Sample number 2220-00- For Volatile Hydrocarbons TPH, BTEX BH6 B Sample number 2208-00- For Volatile Hydrocarbons TPH, BTEX BH7 B - ICP-MS, including Mercury BHI1 B Sample number 2199 - ICP-MS, including Mercury BH8 B ICP-MS, including Mercury, Volatile Hydrocarbons TPH, BTEX CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE 0 BHlO B Sample number 2213 Background Sample - ICP-MS, including Mercury SPLIT SAMPLE ANALYSED BY MGT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 0 BH9 B Split sample of BH7 B - ICP-MS, including Mercury 16 Laboratory Work The following tables summarises the results of Chemical analyses of samples delivered to Gribbles Analytical Laboratories Pty. Ltd and MGT Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. These results are tabulated against background levels B given in the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites by ANZECUNHMRC, January 1992. For those chemicals not listed or for which no investigation level is listed, Dutch B level has been utilised as according to ANZECWNHMRC, January 1992. All the laboratory data is attached (Appendix C). ‘6. 29 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE Result! 9hJALYTE Background Background Sample ID. Sample ID Sample ID Environmental Environmental SM -2197-00 SM -2200-00 SM-2202-00 Investigation investigation B levels Dutch B levels LOCATION Bore BHI (A) Bore BH2 (A) Bore BH3 (A) Depth (m) Depth (m) Depth (m) BTEXlMAH 0.15~1 0.15m 0.15m Benzene 1(d) <0.02 PH 6-8 6.9 5.1 7.7 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SOIL SAMPLES w CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE Results in ppm (soils mglkg dry, waters mgll) Background . Sample ID Sample ID Sample ID Environmental SM -2204-00 SM -2221-00 SM-2207-00 investigation investigation B levels Dutch B levels Bore BH4 (A) Bore BH5 (A) Bore BH6 (A) Depth (m) Depth (m) Depth (m) BTWMAH 0.15m 0.15m 0.15m Benzene 1 (d) T.P.H. Cis - C28 1000 c20 <20 <20 T.P.H. Czp - Cs 1000 <20 <20 25 PH 6-8 8.0 CHEMICAL ANALY SES OF SOIL SAMPLES m2u 31 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE ANA LY TE Background Background Sample ID Sample ID Sample ID Environmental Environmental SM -221 1-00 SM -221 500 Investigation Investigation B levels Dutch B levels LOCATION Bore BH7 (A) Bore BH8 (A) Depth (rn) Depth (rn) BTEWMAH 0.15m 0.15m Benzene ' 1 (a C0.02 CHEMICAL ANALYS ES OF SOIL SAMPLES T.&ldl 32 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE Results in pprn (soils rnglkg dry, waters rngll) ANALYTE Background Background Sample ID Sample ID Sample ID Environmental Environmental SM -219800 SM -2199-00 SM-2201-00 Investigation Investigation Split Sample of Split sample of Bore BHl B B levels Dutch B levels 'Ore LOCATION Bore BH1 (B) Bore 11 (B) Bore BH2 (B) Depth (m) Depth (m) Depth (m) BTWMAH 0.85m 0.85m 0.50m Benzene 1 (d) - <0.2 Ethyl Benzene 5 - c0.2 <0.2 C0.2 c2.0- 2.3 41 65 <1 .o <1 .o 4.0 <1.o 18 22 c2.0 <2.0 e2.0 c2.0 7.8 12 <5.0 <5.0 <2.0 2.6 <3.0 <3.0 <2.0 C2.0 3.6 3.4 Hydrocarbons I I I T.P.H. Cs- Co I 100 T.P.H. CIO- CI~ 500 T.P.H. CIS- C2e 1000 <20 T.P.H. Cm - Cle 1000 <20 Mercury 1 (d) 0.02 0.04 0.05 PH 6-8 5.4 10.8 5.4 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SOIL SAMPLES r&ku 33 Results in ppm (soils mglkg dry, waters mgll) <1.o e1.0 34 50 C2.0 <2.0 12 T.P.H. Cis - Cm io00 <20 <20 <20 T.P.H. Ca - Cw 1000 <20 <20 <20 Mercury 1 (d) 0.05 PH 6-8 7.0 CHEM ICAL ANALYSES 0F SOIL SAMPLES w CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE Results in ppm (soils mglkg dry, waters mgll) ANALME Background Background Environmental Environmental Investigation Investigation B levels Dutch B levels LOCATION ,# ,# 0.01 14.3 CHEM ICAL ANA LYSES OF SOIL SAMPLES mz!d2 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE ANA LYTE Background Background Sample ID Sample ID Sample ID Environmental Environmental SM-219840 SM-203-00 Investigation Investigation SM-2201-00 SM-2220-00 B levels Dutch B levels SM-2205-00 ~~;$~~~~~SM-2208-00 LOCATION BoreBHl (B) Bore BH3 (B) Bore BH2 (B) Bore BH4 (B) Bore BH7 (B) Bore BH5 (B) Bore BH8 (B) Bore BH6 (B) COMP 1 COMP 2 Depth (m) Depth (rn) Methoxychlor 0.5 co.1 co.1 Organochlorine 117 100 Pesticides, OC Surrogate Recoveries CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE Results in ppm (soils rnglkg dry, waters rngll) ANALYTE Background Background Sample ID Sample ID Sample ID Environmental Environmental SM-2198-00 SM-203-00 Investigation Investigation SM-2201-00 SM-222040 levels Dutch B levels SM-2212-00 SM-2205-00 B SM-2217-00 SM-220840 LOCATION BoreBH1 (B) Bore BH3 (B) Bore BH2 (B) Bore BH4 (B) Bore BH7 (B) Bore BH5 (B) Bore BH8 (B) Bore BH6 (B) COMP 1 COMP 2 Depth (m) Depth (m) natural natural 2 co.1 eo. 1 Chlorpyrifos Methyl eo. 1 c0.1 Diazinon co.1 CO. 1 Ethion co.1 c0.1 Fenitrothion CO.1 CO. 1 Fenthion co.1 CO. 1 Malathion co.1 c0.1 Methyl Parathion co.1 co.1 Parathion co.1 co.1 Ronnel co.1 CO.1 Moisture 15.6 15.7 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SOIL SAMPLES mku CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE Results in ppm (soils mglkg dry, waters mgll) Mercury 1 (dl 0.02 0.02 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE Results in ppm (soils mglkg dry, waters mgll) CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE ’ ANALYTE Background Background Sample ID Sample ID Sample ID Environmental Investigation Investigation SM-2200-00 SM-2204-00 B levels Dutch B levels SM-222140 ~~~~~~~ SM-2207-00 LOCATION BoreBH1 (A) Bore BH3 (A) Bore BH2 (A) Bore BH4 (A) Bore BH7 (A) Bore BH5 (A) BoreBH8 (A) Bore BH6 (A) I COMP3’ . I COMP4 ‘ I Depth (m) I Depth (m) I 20 <2 <2 eo.10 0.11 1 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF SOIL SAMPLES nb.kI5 40 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE The investigation indicates that fill soils exist to a depth of at least 1.20m. Chemical Analysis performed on the soil samples retrieved from these surface fill soils indicate that there is no contamination above B levels as given in Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, National Health and Medical Research Council (ANZECC, NH&MRC), Guidelines for the assessment and rnanaaement- of contaminated sites, January 1992. Therefore, according to these guidelines, the soils in the FILL are not contaminated. Chemical Analysis performed on the soil samples retrieved from the natural soils indicate that there is elevated concentration of arsenic above B levels as given in Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, National Health and Medical Research Council (ANZECC, NH&MRC), Guidelines for the assessment and manaaement - of contaminated sites, January 1992. The following reasons are given for the elevated concentration of arsenic in the natural soil. The arsenic levels are considered as natural concentrations in sediments. 17.1 Natural Concentration of Heavy Elements This section gives an account of the concentration of elements, which may be regarded as natural concentrations existing before the advent of industrial activity. The natural concentrations of the heavy elements provide a true reference point for estimating the extent of pollution. This is of particular importance when assessing the toxic effects of the elements. Natural levels allow contemporary levels to be seen in perspective, whether they are excessive or not. 41 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE 17.2 Background Samples One background sample was collected from borehole BHlO in the natural soil at a depth of 1.50m. According to AS 4482.1-1977 Background samples should be collected when elevated levels of analytes are encountered at a site due to wider- area natural or artificial effects. The strata intersected during the investigation for background sample BHlO consist of FILL comprised of silty SAND and natural silty SAND up to a depth of 2.0m. The map sheet of Melbourne, Scale 1:63,360 produced by the Geological Survey of Victoria indicate that the location of the background sample is in Sand ridges and sands. The patches of Qpd are alternating with Tpr frequently in the Latrobe Street area and a representative background sample is hard to obtain. Correlation between the strata from the 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone, which is located on the Tertiary,Brighton Group, Redbluff Sands and the background sample BHlO B which is located on Quaternary Sand ridges and sand hills cannot be established since they belong to two different groups. Natural arsenic is found to occur in the Brighton Group of rocks, this gives the variation in concentration levels between the background sample and the samples collected at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone. 17.3 Natural Concentration of Arsenic in sediments Arsenic is an element that occurs widely in nature. In some manner, it resembles a metal, in others a non-metal. Arsenic is rare in a pure form; arsenic is more likely to be found combined with metal sulphides such as those of iron, copper, lead and zinc. Mineral forms of arsenic such as FeAsS and As& are found in sediments. Arsenic levels are often elevated when iron levels are high in sediments, and the element is enriched in the iron phase of Fe/Mn nodules. It is likely that FeAsO4 forms by substitution for phosphate in the sediments. Arsenic is strongly sorbed onto sediments, depending on the anoxic/oxic conditions of the sediments. 18 Analyte Levels 18.1 Arsenic The level of Arsenic at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone ranges from 38mg/kg to 85m /k in the natural material. The level of Arsenic in BH1 B is 38mg/kg, BH4 B is 0 <@==5 5mg/&9. BH11 B is 41 mgkg, and BH8 B is 85mg/kg. 42 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE The average of these samples from four locations is 57mgkg. Arsenic is known to be occurring naturally in higher concentrations in Brighton Group of rocks. The level of arsenic found during the time of the investigation at the site is naturally occurring in the soils. According to the proposed health investigation level guidelines Arsenic is below the Health investigation Level as mentioned in table 1 of ANZACINHMRC, January 1992. Therefore from the above chemical analysis data it can be concluded that there is no contamination of Arsenic in the soil at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone. 18.2 BTEWMAH The level BTEWMAH in all the soil samples analysed is lower than background B level. Therefore there is no contamination from BTEWMAH above B level in the Fill soil or in the natural soil. 18.3 TPH The level of TPH in all the soil samples analysed is lower than background B level. Therefore there is no contamination from TPH above B level in the Fill soil or in the natural soil. 18.4 Mercury The level of Mercury in all the soil samples analysed is lower than B level. Therefore there is no contamination from Mercury above B level in the Fill soil or in the natural soil. 18.5 Chlorinated Herbicides The level of Chlorinated Herbicides in all the soil samples analysed is lower than background B level. Therefore there is no Contamination from Chlorinated Herbicides above B level in the Fill soil or in the natural soil. 43 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE 78.6 Organochlorine Pesticides The level of Organochlorine Pesticides in all the soil samples analysed is lower than background B level. Therefore there is no contamination from Organochlorine Pesticides above B level in the Fill soil or in the natural soil. 78.7 Organophosphorus Compounds The level of Organophosphorus Compounds in all the soil samples analysed is lower than background B level. Therefore there is no contamination from Organophosphorus Compounds above B level in the Fill soil or in the natural soil. 78.8 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons The level of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons in all the soil samples analysed is lower than background B level. Therefore there is no contamination from Organophosphorus Compounds above B level in the Fill soil or in the natural soil. 78.9 Polychlorinated Biphenyls The level of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in all the soil samples analysed is lower than background B level. Therefore there is no contamination from Polychlorinated Biphenyls above B level in the Fill soil or in the natural soil. 18.70 Total Cyanide The level of Cyanide in all the soil samples analysed is lower than background B level. Therefore there is no contamination from Cyanide above B level in the Fill soil or in the natural soil. 78.71 Units of pH The pH units are ranging from 5.1-8.0. Depth samples BHlB, BH2B and surface sample BH2 A, are slightly acidic ranging from 5.1-5.4. Surface samples BH1 A, BH3 A, BH4 A, BH5 A and Depth sample BH3 B are ranging from 6.9-8.0 which is within the ANZAC/NHMRC environmental soil quality guidelines. 44 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE The moisture is ranging from 10.8%-14.3%. The moisture range in the Composite sample is 15.6%-I 5.7%. 19 Summary of Uncertainties And Assumptions 0 The sampling points provide a representation of the conditions within the vicinity of the sampling point. 0 The number of sampling points provides statistically meaningful data. 0 There is no other source of contamination in the vicinity of the site. 19.7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Quality assurance is interpreted to mean those systems, procedures and documents which facilitate management, correct execution and recording of evidence of completion of all the task necessary to generate the information and data necessary to characterise the site contamination and satisfy other project objectives. Quality control is the specific tests and checks, which verify and demonstrate that data generated is reliable and reproducible. 19.2 QA Programs The basic elements of quality assurance adopted as part of this project included: 0 Use of written procedures to control the execution of the work. 0 Review of the work plan, and results, in each stage of the study by the auditor. Engagement of experienced environmental specialist in fieldwork. 0 Engagement of a laboratory accredited by NATA for the tests required. 19.3 QC Testing Elements The elements of the quality control testing included the following field based program: 0 Blind replicate 0 Split Sample Rinsate blanks Background samples 45 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE Additionally, the laboratory conducts NATA requisite tests including: 0 Duplicates 0 Spikes 0 Method blanks 20 Risk Characterisation and Health Appraisal 20.7 Proposed Land Use The site at 80 Latrobe Street Mentone is located in an established residential estate undergoing proposed construction work for three (3) brick veneer multi-dwellings. The site covers an area of 786 m2 with good access to social and physical infrastructure in the immediate area. The total built up area consists of 418.5 m2 and 53.00% of the land has been used for the building. The street frontage is 15.24 m on Latrobe Street and 51.78 m on Phillip Street. As marked in the site location plan, the oran e coloured area shows the paving of the courtyards covering a total area of 70m9 . Lilydale Toppings (shown yellow) cover a small section of the area and consists mainly of crushed rock. The grassed areas and garden beds are shown in green and covers some areas fronting Latrobe Street and the main area fronting Philip Street. Concrete Path/Driveway are shown in grey and covers three locations as marked on the site plan. 20.2 Beneficial uses to be protected The samples collected form borehole BH3 depth 0.0-1.20m, BH5 depth 0.0 -20m and BH6 depth 0.0-0.20m shows traces of building rubble including bricks, glass and wood at a depth of 0.00-1.20m. The proposed plan indicates two of the locations (BH5 and BH6) will be sealed by the Driveway. Borehole BH3 will be located under the garage construction, therefore there is no danger from these materials (glass, wood and building rubble) at these locations as marked on the site plan. 46 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE ._ 20.3 Deriv&n of Health based investigation levels (HlLs) -.. The health risk assessment methodology provides the basis for estimation of HILs. Contaminant levels for a standard residential site with garden/accessible soil are based on conservative assumptions to protect a young child living on the site. The basis on which HlLs have been set should be assessed for relevance to the situation under consideration. To accommodate the range of human and ecological exposure settings, a number of generic settings are used on which HlLs can be based. HlLs are not cleanup or response levels nor are they desirable soil quality criteria. They are to be used for assessment of existing contamination only and are intended to prompt an appropriate site-specific assessment when they are exceeded. Site-specific health and ecological risk assessment should be conducted where exceeding of investigation levels indicates there is the likelihood of adverse effects on human health or ecological values for the site. The health investigation levels (HILs) of arsenic is lOOmg/kg, for a standard residential garden/accessible soil (home grown produce contributes less than 10% of vegetable and fruit intake, no poultry). This human exposure setting is based on land use. The level of arsenic and other analytes is less than the HlLs health investigation levels in all the samples analysed at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone. 21 Health Risk Assessment The process of health risk assessment is the same as the process of environmental risk assessment. Health and environmental risk assessments should be complementary in planning the management of a site, such as human health and the state of the environment. The approach is site-specific and is based on its particular characteristics, history and proposed use. The objective of health risk assessment is as follows: - 0 To establish baseline risks and whether site remediation or other action is necessary on health grounds alone; 0 To determine a tolerable level of contaminants that can remain in situ with adequate protection of public health; 0 To enable comparison of potential health impacts of various remediation techniques; To provide a consistent method for appraising and recording public health risks at sites. 47 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE 21. f Proposed Health Investigation Level Guidelines The health investigation levels are based on health consideration that have been established using a risk assessment approach for lead, cadmium, arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene, which are frequently occurring and toxicologically important contaminants. The level should not be interpreted rigidly as according to guidelines of ANZACINHMRC, January 1992. These investigation level guidelines relate to specific sampling extraction and analytical techniques. As, such, they should not be compared with other tables of values which do not use similar techniques. The Health Investigation Levels can be used only with reference to the Protocol for Health Risk Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites (Oct 1991). Proposed Health Investigation Level Guidelines (mglkg) ~~ ANALYTE Background Health Investigation levels Lead 300 Arsenic (Total) 100 Cadmium 20 Benzo(a)pyrene 1 (PAHs)' (20) Results in pprn (soils rnglkg dry, waters rngll) ANALYTE Individual samples range Composite samples range Lead 56-12 34-46 Arsenic (Total) 38-65 3.7-4.8 Cadmium <1 .&e1 .o CHEMICAL A NALYSES OF SO1L SAMPLES IhlLld6 48 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE The level of Lead, Arsenic (Total), Cadmium, Benzo(pyrene) and PAHs is below the proposed Health Investigation levels in all the samples tested at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone. 49 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE 21.2 Expcstirs Pathways & Receptors It can be concluded from the derivation of health based investigation levels (HILs) and Proposed Health Investigation Level Guidelines, that there is no risk of exposure to chemicals or physical agents at the site. The main receptors of soil contaminants are humans, plants and animals in both aquatic and terrestrial environments and buildings (including service conduits). There are no contaminants present at 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone that can affect these receptors. 22 Health Risk Management, Recommendation and Conclusions The health risk from the site depends on the toxicity of the contaminates and the exposure levels, risk can be reduced or removed by altering toxicity or exposure or both. There is sufficient information of adequate quality to make the necessary judgement about the conditions of environment at the site, and the potential impacts of these conditions on beneficial uses on the site. The site in its current condition is suitable for any beneficial use. The soils at the site do not contain any chemicals that could pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. /- //> L! ~ <.-- 4 Report Prepared by Report Reviewed by E ERNEST S D BUFFINTON BSc, MSc(Geol), Grad.Dip. Env. Mgt CIVILTEST PTY LTD 4 August 2000 50 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE APPENDIX A - LOCATION OF TEST SITES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST SITES 80 Latrobe Street, MENTONE RM 1283-00 latrobe street _- ., i II r G ? i 1. I Y .; i I I Paving I Lilydale Toppings ID \ I Concrete Path / Driveway I !-.'v) -t ID e Denotes Test Holes NOT TO SCALE LOCATION OF THE BACKGROUND SAMPLE & TEST SITE 80 Latrobe Street, MENTONE RM 1283-00 BACKGROUND SAMPLE BOREHOLE 10 (Qpd) 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone I GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF VICTORIA SCALE 1:63,360 Tertiary (Tpr)-Brighton Group, Red bluff Sands Quaternary (Qpd)- Sand ridges and sand hills APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE BACKGROUND SAMPLE SITE FOR 80 Latrobe Street, MENTONE RM 1283-00 I TESTSITE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE APPENDIX B - ENGINEERING LOG Page 1 RM1283-00 - Test Hole Classifi- cation Depth tngineering Log - X% Dark browddark grey . .%X Silty fine SAND ... Medium dense X Moist ... Traces of minor organics X Top lOOmm ... Becoming brown x:: Silty gravelly SAND . .. . With depth 0.800 Pale orange Minor yeliowhrown Sandy silty CLAY Sample BH 1B Firm - stiff Moist to very moist @0.850m 0.850 0.5 END OF BORE (23-06-2000) Page 2 RM 1283-00 Test Hole Classifi- No 2 cation Depth (m) Engineering Log X Pale browdgrey ... Silty SAND X Medium dense ... Moist to very moist Sample BH2A x:: Traces of gravel BO.150m ... With depth :x Water seeping into borehole 0.450 ... x :. Pale browdorange -- Sandy silty CLAY :. x Finn to stiff 0.500 -- 0.4 Moist to very moist 0.550 x :. END OF BORE (23-06-2000) Page 3 RM 1283-00 Engineering Log Dark browdgrey Silty fine SAND FILL Medium dense t ... Moist IFIILL Traces of building rubble Sample BH3A ... Throughout @O. 15Om (Bricks/glass/wood) Pale orange 0.3 Mottled minor yellow Sandy silty CLAY Sample BH3B Firm to stiff Moist - END OF BORE (23-06-2000) Page 4 RM 1283-00 Test Hole Classifi- NO 4 cation - m I Depth im, tngineering Log X Browdgrey ... Silty fine SAND FILL X Medium dense t ... Moist FILL X Pieces of silty CLAY ... Throughout X @O. 150m 0.500 I I X Pale browdgrey ... Silty fine SAND X Medium dense ... Moist x:: Becoming moist ... Very moist with depth X Traces of minor gravel ... With depth x:: Water entering borehole 0.900 .*. X 1 .ooo x :. 0.3 Pale greylpale orange -- Sandy silty CLAY :. x Firm to stiff Sample BH4B Moist @l.Om 1.200 END OF BORE (23-06-2000) Page 5 RM 1283-00 Test Hole Classifi- No 5 cation Depth (m) Engineering Log Brodgrey ... Silty SAND FILL X Medium dense t ... Moist FILL x ## Traces of building rubble ... Throughout 0.200 X @O. 150m Clayey silty SAND FILL Medium dense FILL Moist 0.300 X Dark browdgrey ... Silty fine SAND X Medium dense ... Moist x:: Becoming pale grey ... With depth X Water entering borehole 2.100 Pale browdyellow Mottled pale grey Sandy silty CLAY 2.200 0.3 Firm to stiff Moist to very moist 2.300 END OF BORE (23-06-2000) Page 6 RM 1283-00 Test Hole Classifi- No 6 cation Depth (m) Engineering Log X Dark browdgrey ... Silty SAND FILL X Medium dense t n.. Moist FILL X Traces of minor building rubble I.. Including concrete throughout 0.200 X @O. 150m X Pale browdgrey I.. Silty SAND X Medium dense ... Moist X Becoming paler brown @0.500m ... With traces of gravel ..:x At depth 1.100 ...... Pale orangebrown Minor mottled red Sandy silty CLAY Firm to stiff Moist 1.300 - END OF BORE (23-06-2000) Page 7 RM1283-00 Classifi- PID cation Wm) Engineering Log ... ...... Page 8 RM 1283-00 Test Hole Classifi- PID No 8 cation (PPm) Depth I~ Engineering Log (m) X Browdgrey ... Silty SAND Sample BH8A X Medium dense @O. 150m ... Moist 0.350 X X Pale browdpale grey ... Silty SAND X Medium dense ... Moist X Traces of minor gravel With depth 0.750 -IX\ I x :. Pale orangehrown 0.850 -- 0.4 Minor red :. :. x Sandy silty CLAY @0.850m -- Firm - stiff x :. Moist 1.ooo Page 9 RM1283-00 Test Hole Classifi- No 10 cation Depth (m) Dark browdgrey ... Silty SAND FILL X Medium dense t ... Moist FILL X Minor mottled pale grey ... With depth ...X 0.400 1 X Dark brown/ grey ... Silty SAND X Medium dense ... Moist 0.700 X X Pale browdpale grey ... Silty SAND X Medium dense ... Moist 2.000 X END OF BORE f23-06-2000> CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE APPENDIX C - LABORATORY DATA u 3nz!., CI\ I L I 1.5 I PI3 L1.1) Conldct ERIMANUEL E RKEST PO BO.\ 537 Batch Number : 0005804 h1 OI Sainple(s) Received : 27/06/2000 \‘IC 393 1 Replscement Report No : 18182 203 Anions by Ion Chromatography. Dry Weight 506-ECD Organochlorine Pesticides, Dry Weight 226 pH Measurement, Soil 507-ECD Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Dry Weight 236 Total Cyanide by UV-Vis (SFA), Dry Weight 509-HPLC Chlorinated Herbicides, Dry Weight 244 Total distillable Phenolics, Dry Weight 512MS Organophosphorus compounds, Dry Weight 404FlivlS Mercury by Vapour AAS, Dry Weight E1OO.O1 Moisture Content 404FIMS Mercury by Vapour AAS, mg/L El08 Organochlorines Analysis. Surrogates 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS. Dry Weight 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS. mglL 50!-FID Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Dry Weight 502HS BTEXlMAH by Headspace. Dry Weight 535-!.AS Polyarcmatic Hydrocarbons. Dry Weigh! 5051.15 Total Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, Dry Weight 1 A ffccclieclXeswlts Approve ,./-. ‘J--‘ - -./ This Laboratory is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Australia. The tests reported herin have been performed in accordance with its terms of accreditation NATA ENDORSED DOCUMENT Document may nof be reproduced except in full NATA Accreditation No. 1645 * This is the Final Report which supersedes any reports previously issuedrelating to the sample(s) included. All samples tested as submitled by clienf. # Denotes methods not covered by NATA terms of accreditation 2eported: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 Page I uf 19 0005804/001 0005804/002 0005804/003 0005804/004 0005804/005 SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL BHlA BHlB BH2A BH2B BHJA Reported: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 Page 2 of I9 U--.:::a!*fitcsl Laborator A.C.N. 006 823 0 585 Blackbum Rot Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia 31 Telephone (03) 9562 58 Fa(03) 9562 02 0005804/006 0005804/007 0005804/008 0005804/009 0005804/012 SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL BH3B BH4A BH4B BH5A BH6A Reported: -Tuesday, 17 Ju:~2000 Pngr 3 of 19 0005804/0 13 0005804/016 0005804/017 0005804/018 0005804/019 SOIL SOIL BH6B BH7A Reported: Tuesday, 11 Juiy 2000 urge 4 of 19 0005804/020 0005804/022. 0005804/024 0005804/025 0005804/026 SOIL SOIL WATER sOIL SOIL B H8B BHlOB RlNSA TE COMP 1 COMP 2 ...... .. Reported: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 Pnyr 5 of 19 0005804/020 0005804/022 0005804/024 0005804/025 0005804/026 SOIL SOIL WATER SOIL SOIL BHBB BHlOB RINSA TE COMP 1 COMP 2 Tiii Ziiii 0005804/020 00058041022' 0005804/024 0005804/025 0005804/026 SOIL SOIL WATER SOIL SOIL BHBB BHlOB RINSA TE COMP 1 COMP 2 .. . 14.3 15.6 15.' Reported: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 Pnge 7 of 19 0005804/027 SOIL COMP 3 Reported: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 Pngr 6 of 19 0005804/028 SOlL COMP 4 Reported: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 Pnge 9 0f I Y 00058041027 0005804/028 SOIL SOIL COMP 3 COMP 4 0 I I 4.I Repotled: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 Pug' IO ufl9 0005804Q029 0005804Q030 00058040031 00058040032 0005804Q033 Duplicate Spike Spike QCBlank Spike 0005804/002 Recovery Recovery METHOD Recovery 0005804/002 Lab Control BLANK SOIL 0005804Q034 0005804Q035 00058044036 00058040037 0005804Q038 Spike Duplicate QCBlank Spike Duplicate Recovery 0005804/028 Method Blank Recovery 0005804/027 SOIL RECOVERY .. . .. .. 121 105 96.0 9.3.fl 96.0 YJ.fI 92.1, u A;laPflicai Laborat A.C.N. 006 82: 585 Blackburn R Nolting Hill, Victoria, Australia : Telephone (03) 9562 ! Fax (03) 9562 ( 00058040039 00058040040 00058040041 0005804Q042 00058040043 QCBlank Spike Duplicate Spike QCBlank METHOD BL Recovery 0005804/028 Recovery METHOD BL SOIL SOIL .. Reported: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 Prige I3 of 19 00058040039 00058040040 00058040041 00058044042 0005804Q043 QCBlank Spike Duplicate Spike QCBlank METHOD BL Recovery 0005804/028 Recovery METHOD BL SOlL SOlL I34 I (IS 121 Reported: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 Puge 14 of I9 GRpBLkAnalytica! Labora:, A.C.N. 006 823 585 Blackburn Rt Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia : Telephone (03) 9562 E Fax (03) 9562 ( 00058040039 0005804Q040 00058040041 00058040042 00058040043 QCBlank Spike Duplicate Spike QCBlank METHOD BL Recovery 0005804/028 Recovery METHOD BL SOIL SOIL IO5 65.11 I22 I12 I os Reported:. Tuesday, 1.1 July 2000 Ptige IS of 19 Reported: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 Pige 16 of 19 00058040044 0005804Q045 00058044048 0005804Q049 00058040050 QCBlank Duplicate QCBlank Spike Duplicate METHOD BL 0005804/028 METHOD Recovery 0005804/025 BLANK SOIL 93.0 Reported: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 Puge I7 of 19 A.C.N. 006 823 585 Blackburn RC Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia 3 Telephone (03) 9562 5 Fax (03) 9562 0 ~ -- rj,-- ..-- ....- -~-----. t 2a:L- z.:e:., .-~~,~~,~~~~~~~.~~.-~~ .. . - Duplicafe Spike QCBlank Spike Duplicate 0005804/024 Recovery METHOD Recovery 0005804/019 Lab Control BLANK 1 SOIL Reported: Tuesday, 11 July 2000 Page 18 of 19 A.C.N. 006 823 ( 585 Blackburn Ro Nolting Hill, Victoria, Australia 3, Telephone (03) 9562 5t Fax (03) 9562 0: Quality Results provided in this report are for laboratory Quality Control purposes. Reported: Tuesday, 17 July 2000 Page 19 of 19 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Closo. Oakloigh. Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276. Onkleigh. Victoria, 3166. Australia Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Fax (03) 9564 7190 Email: mgtBmgtenv.com.nu MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 140575 CLIENT :- Civiltest Soil Testing 1 10 Latham Street Mornington Victoria 3931 SITE .-. RM 1283-00 DATE RECEIVED :- 29/06/00 DATE EXTRACTED OR PREPARED :- 29/06/00 - 30/06/00 DATE REPORTED :- 10/07/00 FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. Michael Wrigtk Page 1 of 5 Laboratory Manager Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 KinQstonTown Close. Oakleiah. Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleich, Victoria. 3166. Australia Civil tes t Soil 'Testing Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 10 Latham Street Fax (03) 9564 7190 Mornington Ernail: rngtbrngtenv.com au ' Victoria 393.1 Site : RM 1283-00 Sample SM22 14 - 00 Lab. No. JN2837 Aluminium 15000 Ant imony <10 Arsenic 52 Beryl1 ium <2 Cadmium 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria 3166, Australia Postal Address PO Box 276. Oakleigh. Victona. 3166. Australia Civiltest Soil Testing Telephone (03) 9564 7055 10 Latham Street Fax (03) 9564 7190 Morn] ngton Email rngt Omgtenv corn au Victoria 3931 Site : RM 1283-00 -- HEAVY METALS-US EPA SW846 METHODS 7000(AA) & 6010B(ICP), VIC EPA METHODS 13&16. (I Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kinaston Town Close. Oakleiah. Victoria 3166. Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276.~Oaklei~h,~Vicloria.3166; Australia Civiltest Soi 1 Testing Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 10 Latham Street Fax 103)., 9564 7190 Mornington Ernail: mgtbrngtenv.corn.au Victoria 3931 Site : RM 1283-00 - MISCELLANEOUS ANA IYSES. METHODS US EPA SW846 OR APHA STANDARD MZTHODS 19TH ED. 1995. Sample Lab. No. Boron Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, wate -s mg/l.) except where specified otherwise. Date received 29/06/00 Date Reported 10/07/00 Sample SM22 14 - 00 Lab. No. JN2837 Calcium 450 Magnesium 610 Potassium 420 Sodium 380 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 tamtan TCMW aow, oamm, W~OII~,3166. ALIS~IO Posh1 Ad&ess: P.O. Box 276. Oalddd~.Wdorta. 3166. AustmIla Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Fu:(03) 9564 7190 CRITERIA USED TOASSESS QUAI,ITY CONTROL RESULTS VALIDITY ,iND I~EI,IAIIILITYOF TEST RESULTS The continuing validity and reliahility of results is accomplished by monitoring a number of Control Liniit factom: If one measurement exceeds the C.L. repeat the analysis. If the repeat is within the C.L. I. Annlysis of duplicates. Duplicates run at a minimum of 5% continue analyses. If it exceeds the C.L. discontinue analyses and correct the problem. 2. Recovery of known additions. Spikes run at a minimum of 5% with each batch of samples. 3. ,\niilysis ol'reagcnt hlank- run with each hatch of samples. W:iniine Liniit I. Aiuilysis of Ihplir:ites lftwo out ofthree successive points exceed the W.L. analyse another sample. If the nest point is less than the W.L. continue analyses, if the next point exceeds the W.L. discontinue analyses Duplicates are analysed as a matter of coune and the data analysed by means of a range chart and correct the problem. typc system. 'he range for each duplicate pair is determined and 'normalised' by dividing hy the average ol'tlie duplicate result-. *** Pdicular care needs to be taken with some soil samples with regard to sample Once enough data 1111.- heen gathered control data for each method can be developed. The homogeneity, especially with regard to 'organics' analyses. Statistical analysis may indicate mean range(R) is determined as: a prohlem exists when in fact the prohlem is really only sample homogeneity. R ( CRi ) 2. Recovery of known additions. - n The recovery of known additions is used to verify the absence of matrix effects and absence of interferences. Recovery from standards is used to verify method performance. Recovery data Wliere n = number of observations is compared against acceptance criteria published in Standards Methods for Examination of and Ri = normalised range Water and Waste water, or appropriate U.S. EPA Methods. and the viirinnce (sqtiwe of (he standard deviation) is determined as: If recoveries fall outside acceptance criteria, analyses should he discontinued and the problem rectified. s: s: = ( CR: - nR2) 3. Analysis of Reaeent Blanks n- I Reagent hlanks are used to monitor purity of reagents and the overall procedural hlank. The control critcria thus hecome: Reagent blanks arc run M a matter of course with each batch for nnalysis. Unusual or out of the .norm' results for blanks are investigated and corrective action taken before analysis of any Average range R batch is completed. WarningLimit R + Zs, Control Limit R + 3s, The normalised range for each duplicate pair is calculated and compared with the above criteria. (Iliis can tic acliieve either graphically or hy visual comparison of the data). Since the hits are ha-ed on 95% and 90% confidence levels respectively, the following actions art taken. limed on tliese statistical parameters. .Zzy-- Opera ions Manager CUSTOMER COPY CALIBRATION CERTIFiCATE FOR PHOTO IONISATION C ETECTOR. Calibration gas species: Iso-butylene. Calibration gas concentration: 99 ppm, balance .lero air Gas bottle number: 355154. This PID has been referenced to Benzene so th. t the concentration is displayed as 56,~ppm at -- span sett,ng. All PID’s are initially zero calibrated. The above detector was calibrated in accordanc ? with manufacturers is availabk uy in request. Signed: Date: . L ELBOURNE: SYDNEY: YSRISE: NE: OPERTH: d 3130-34 ADAMS DRV 3114 APOLLO CRT 8120-30 STUBBS ST 128 THE CORSO BLACKBURN 3150 SILVERWATER 2141 Norarw.! PARK 4170 WELSHPOOL 6106 PH: (03)98941608 PH: (02)97480977 PH -97); 995199 PH:(08) 9472 7311 CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE APPENDIX D - CERTIFICATE OF TITLES 3 .. ...- 5594/638, Page 1 of 10, Printed 12:45 02:06/2000. Search Enquiry 582477, Customer 104L -. II Assistant Registrar of Tiller, f 1' t T~~ANSFERAS TO PART 10 5594/638, Page 2 of 10, Printed 12:45 02/06/2000, Search Enquiry 582477, Customer 104L :-. .! pr .- .. -.. - . ., .._.. =. ....- e:? 5594/638, Page 3 of IO, Printed 12:45 02/06/2000, Search Enquiry 582477, Customer 104L . ... . -. ._...... e.. .. . -- -- - . . -.._...... - - ...... %+..- . . .. . I . .3 ...... . _. -I ...... __ - . -~ .. *. .. . . -... I... .. . .. .. . . -.. . .. 1-:. -..-- . ..: . . .. i ...... ~. -. .- -. 5594/638, Page 4 of 10, Printed 12:45 02/06/2000, Search, Enquiry 582477, Customer 104L lfili 1 - NJ 2068272 55941638,Page 5 of IO, Printed 12:4502/06/2000, Search.Enquiry 582477,Customer 104L ._ . . _...... -.. . . .. .. . . ...,. % ...... , ...... . .. . . , ..... .. .. :L-of/,< , . '/ ...... - . _- J ,. hiam Rqutnn 01 Ti//- ORIGINAL 5594/638, Page 7 of 10, Printed 12:46 02/06/2000, Search Enquiry 582477, Customer 104L .- :. _...... ,-. ,. . -..- . .- .. . .-.:-...... -._ .- ~ -:,. . 55941638, Pa&8 of 10, Printed 12:46 02/06/2000, Search.Enquiry 582477, Customer 104L ...... ...... . : :_...a.. ::..: . i'...... --;,::;.. .:...... : . . . . _i . ..-.:- . . -... -.. :. .;. .. - .-. .. __ .- _. .-.., . * -. . 3- 5594638, Page 9 of 10, Printed 12:46 02/06/2000, Search-Enquiry 582477, Customer 104L .. ~-. -...... :. :...... ... I> ~.. .. is . . . . .+ 5594/638, Page 10 of 10, Printed 12:46 02/06/2000, Search Enquiry 582477, Customer 104L 5035/842, Page 1 of 6, Printed 12:44 02/06/2000, Search Enquiry 582476, Customer 104L 5035/842, Page 2 of 6. Printed 12:44 02/06/2000, Search Enquiry 582476, Customer 104L I 50351842, Page 3 of 6, Printed 12:44 02/06/2000, Search Enquiry 582476, Customer 104L .- -. .*- . . . ..I .. .. ! ri .i. i ..- ...... ,.. 1 I. - *...... - - ...... -. .. . .> ...... %- .. . . .,.,. .>:. 1' >I...... -.1 1 . .-, .L...... :.__ ...-...... ~-...... -:.: .... /---/--- .I ...I .-. .. . . -*.... .- . ..:. . .\:: ...... - ...... I:: .. .-. .. ,- ...... :...... ,.~..-~ . .. _i:. :...... - .: ...... - . ..l - :,..,: ; . . -. .<: ..: - .- .. . ..: .- - . . .. ~ 'I; , . . -. . :: . .. .. .I ...... . .. .. -... 5035/842. Page 4 of 6, Printed 12:44 02/06/2000, Search Enquiry 582476, Customer 104L .. .. ._i 5039842, Page 5 of 6, Printed 12:44 02/06/2000, Search Enquiry 582476, Customer 104L ..... -.. -. -2 .__- I 50351842, Page 6 of 6, Printed 12:45 02/06/2000, Search Enquiry 582476, Customer 104L CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE APPENDIX E - CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM 4 ...... TECHhVCAL CONSULTANTS ACN.6ocFAb99 CHAIN-OF CUSTODY FORM westioator Conkt Person Sample Matrix late aboratory Contact Person: -I- -I- Iample ID Laboratory ID sampling Time Wafer Sludge Composite Preservation Mer(Specify) sceived by !wived by Time !ceived by -TMe I I CHAIN-OF CUSTODY FORM nves:ig!cr Contact Person Sample Matrix )ale 13\06\00 Sampling Dale Sampling Time aler Soil Sludge Compostle ?reservattcn Other (SpeciFy) -!- -!- L’ 4-23 oi; J’ c // ipnr:ure 2 linquishec ty Received by incuishee by Received by I 1 C@~-CW ..-... <...... :...... , . . .. :. . .. , , , CONSUlTAt4TS ACU. bw a27 su CHAIN-OF CUSTODY FORM esbgalor Cc.::act Person Sample Matrix -matory Conlac: Person: Other ISDeciM "A/' If .rliquiShed by Da:e Time Received by ehcvished by Dale Time WNedby . CHAIN-OF CUSTODY FORM - i::.vesJ5a1cr Contact Person Sarnde Matrix Soil Sludge :omposite Preservation Other (Specify) / / E L' ru 1'f.Y me ate ale I CHAIN-OF CUSTODY FORM -3 ,'7 M a- J InvestigatorConlac! Person SamP Malrix .aboralory Conlad Person: -mlaine ampling Date Sampling Time Water Soil c- - %4j I CONTAMINATION SITE ASSESSMENT 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE APPENDIX F - PLANNING PERMITS I 5 I 7JO'Vistoria Parade, East 3002. Tel.: 419 2 .. . . ~~ ~~ ...... -...-...... _.__-_- -. .. ..___.. . . _. - ...... I 3 MADDOCK, LONIE & CHISHOLM SOLICITORS 4 P-WALD L. CHISHOLM. U.B.. NOTARY PUBLIC AFTER HOURS Y. M. LONE. U.B. 60 MARKET STREET D. 1. CHISHOLM .- ;RY M. FRY. B.A.. U.B. (MONS.) MELBOURNE 3000 CNR. NORTN R9. TAR1 CROa. CLIVE M. REID. LL.6. TELEPHONE:62 521 I all ORYON2 JEAN ALCORN. U.B. sa 4.907 *. DAVID A. MILES. LL.8. 1. H. M. LONIE JOHN K. BENHISON IO2 UNION RD.. BALWYN 03 7000 MARINA A. ALBERT. LL.8. M. FRY B.Couu.. U.B. B. JOHN D. .ATKINS. OUR REF.: Ia/m UALVIRN ROAD. ARMADALL €WEN U. GURNEY. U.B. YOUR REF.: MOC/765--- 20 70T2 DHEiQT MARCOURT 51.. MAWHORN0. A. MILES us1 02 1144 16th October 1974. The Town Clerk,. City of Mordialloc, Council Chambers, MENTOiii3, 31 94 Dear Sir, re Application for Planning Permit - M.J. & L.M. Osborne We refer to our previous correspondence in the above nztter and enclose herewith a draft agreement for your perusal and also, of course, the perusal of Nr. & Mrs. Osborne. Upon and after the form of the agreement having been settled it would then be open to the Council to grant the permit applied for. ‘iie might add that since our letter to you of the 20th September 1974 we have read a report in the Town Planning and Local Government Guide Pages 261 - 263 of a case of Kingston-Upon-Thames Royal London Borough Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment in which case it was held that in certain circumstances a condition imposed on the grant of a permit which pur- ported to destroy existing use rights without compensation was a valid condition. The case, of course, is a decision of the English Divisional Court and we are not aware whether or not the Suprane Court in Victoria would follow such decision. However, in the light of that case we think it would be wise to insert in the permit a condition that the use could only continue whilst the owners were in occupation and using the same and that upon the cessation of such use and occupation the existing non-conforming use rights of the land would cease. That English decision would- be authority that such a as we have said above, unless Supreme Court of Victoria followed that case it co be considered a binding zuthority. aithfully, L’nC1. BETWEEN THE TqAYZi? CCUNCILLORS AND CITIZEI-IS ZF THE CITY CF ~IORiJIALLtiC (hereinafter called "the Council") cf the one part PlATTHEU JOH>I OSBGRNE and LEILA PIARGARET OSBGfiNE of :!ILatroba Street, Mentcne (hereinafter called "the applicantsf1) cf the other part liHEF?EAS : (a) Th. ap?licants are tha owners cjf the :ani situated at and known as LO Latrobe Street, Mentone, being the land more particdlarly c'escrib5d in Certificate af Title Volume 6u61 Foiio 035 (hereinafter called "ths said land"). (b) On the said land there is constructed a house and factory which house is occupied by the applicants and the factory is occupied and used by the applicants for the purpose of nanufacturing vanity units. (c) Ths applicants have applied to the Council as the responsible authority by delegation under the Melbourne & Metropolitan eoard of liorks Planning Scheme Ordinance for a permit to construct on the said land a new factory in accordance with th2 plana which accompanied the application. A copy 3f ths application is attached hereto and marked uith the letter 'AI. (d) The land is zcndd under the Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of Wcrks Planning Scheme Ordinance 8s Residential C. (0) The Council is of the opinion that but for the provisions of Clause 14 of the Planning Scheme Ordinance the propos'ed dsvolcmcnt uc:tld be orohibitsd by uirtijo ,:f t,ho orntti cinnc k- .- , ., - METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADE - FIRE PROTECTION REPORT - SHEET No.7. ' r' 17 1 . h1L-p lit y ..... !.:i.O~d.~.~.?.k~. 0.c ...... D3 t e...... $&! 7.3...... - ...... , ' .A ?phi3 nt ...... ii . .-; -.:. L . Osborce . &Fur I No. -. 0c;zpancy ...... s~.-c$.~.xx ...... -. J rJ Ox~iplion ...... iZ.$.?--- e.; ...... , ...... -FC;~.? ;.';i-e.=L ..v A!.>... .7:...... cas...... sq e; t io r, s, =<%;->,-& 7&.+*: :ic. 3; 3io;eys .Y.L?...... Sab-d!\%ioi?j-- : .... . ?, -. ';V?;!s ...... LA.-C;I ...... Flogis ...... et^ ...... - P,I.,?i ...... iaon ...... .1-2 3 ...... ns r 7 :.:??Ej .;f EsQZe : ., ...... .-..-;+:...... -. ~ --! ,. ; - - -.F-.--.JLa ...... - .J.7.- .... z'.z.ir.c2;. .. !%E..:;. ...:. .2::. i:,. .... :-.::.,.- .>. .:. ...;i. .-;.;;.x .-. :Y. .+.'.<...... -. _. -.-.e-- .- ,.., - .. ~ - -. . ~. - - Z-!-..J.-.. .. :.....-. .-.-.L,. ;... .-:.w2 ...... :.u... .c.5 .:A;. I ...... :...... hcrr: \--7.7. .--. pr>..-i;ls .a.13 it : 2s E:? X5p:: .'.'i>...... !?? z :: 2 -e j,'2 D .ZZz z 2 c i2 :C r: j I Y:s.:\,?L...... ?. c 'J .T5 j . ?,? ~2- z P 2 k?i o RS !; :: i :: 71: T:?r: I 2 2 3 I2 2 5 <>!i' .:-.i : ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... -. Fiie z.j::z:pnt --I3sr:il.d . ,. .- ,. ,_\ .- 4 . -7 . -: ' .- - .... .^ ... - -...... -=. .. -... .: - - - ..- --__ ...... - . _.- .- --.---...... :...... -. -- 2-.:. -.---e .. .:-. - - ...t.; .... ir! .... < .... :7..f ..... 'A;; .... 2 2..-.A...>-.3-'_.T._ -.:e __..".>...... ...... ,f3L7..La:ti-.. - ';I' Sri+ s'?.!:.:...... F1.,:* ;...... 'st 17:s~: ...... : See s'ncet 2. i COMPANY SEBRCH .. CLIENT: ...... RE:...... -: ...... -- - C 0 M PANY NAM E : .....EN. . f .I. .!. .Y.. .cLp\er.N k. 1.. 5.. .. p. I)/:. .rTB...... REGISTERED OFFICE: ...... L....I;)i._,t LL_p..~~~~.~.,....:..... iZqJ&&...... COMPANY NUMBER: ...... iLt-Czi(0 DATE OF INCORPORATION: ...... 5'-iE77 NOMINAL CAPITAL:...... !...,.....-...... 'E. 3 ISSUED CAPITAL:...... 'w ?.- ...... DIRECTORS: ...... ...... MQhU &.!T .....GS.&ZN.E.:J .....Sc..kJ?rCj.:L ...... I ...... ~..lj~~~~~~.~~. t...C,S.~~.~~.€_~~...... /k/L_k.&&-lfl ...... I 2 ...... - S HA R E H 0 L D E R S : ...... a,?. ....C-Lkm.%. .-...... 2... ...... ...... ...... ...... F- F- ...... ...... r.r.pep) i' SECRETARY: ...... :.!'l:.... 244. .J ..... b.G ...... ...... S-E: S-E: ...... ...... DENWFURES: ul/- ...... --- ...... ...... DATE OF LAST RETURN:. .&-I 1- .%I iCX/755 AB :VDM .. PhG;ls Enqgiries: Pir. A. Eiacsi 26th Play, 9a2. flssers. Pladdcck, Lmie dr Chisholm, Solicitors, 60 Piarkat Street, i.icLaamE, 3000. 32ar Sirs: Ra : 80 Latro5e Street, Mentone. Council is concPrned at the ncn-ccn?liance with a Town Planning Pairnit issued in respgct ta a factory situated in a Sasidentia? r3 zone. Ths factory wss crrisinally constructed in 1549 prior to town plannin; cmtrol 2nd currentl) ?oasesses nsn-cgnforrnin3 use ri;hts. Also situatad an the sans land is a dwslling in good cmdition and 3nce occupied by the owfisrs of the praperty but n3w leased by then to tenants. ?riG; tc considsratisn of the ebovmention2d application, Ccunsii rz;(ur;stPd tha ad?/ice 07 ycur firin royardlncj ttiz possibility of Council entziins into soae form of leGal aGreemsnt with tnz applicant/ OL~YZT tc ensure that the issuanc? of a Town Plamin; Parnit would nst Grant an;. rizhts to any porson other than tk;a a>plic~nt/cw~~i tc carry on a businass on the site. At th2 tima, Coilncil ExprEsssd its sj,mpathy to tho a?p1icant/own3rts situation as ;lis wir'e was 2 ;a:spls.;iz 323 sould fi3t bz lsft an ha; awn. *- .,.a: In rzspcnsc to Council's raqusst yJur firm forwarded a cop;- af a diart a;r-?anant dated 15th Octobzr, !971, which rest2ict.s thi us? sf t-13 subjsct land for the pilrpose of cabinet making to P1.J. Ir L.i?. Osborn? and provides tha Council protection and the right of action a;ainst the smsr/zcnupicr S~CIZ:~ttlE subject land o? s.a?d G-P ~33dbj 5x2 c:~:L;T g?rs3r:. _. !?p5ri ssttlencnt cr^ tt;e AGr eenent betussn Coilncil snd tns &?3liczr.t/ \ ewers, r1.3. & L.R. Usborn= on ths 75th Decoribfr, ?374, Ccuncil rEsolwEd to grant 2 Town Planning Permit for the purpcsc of [:Enovations and Szconstruction of the existing Factory subjcrt t; ronciticns. . .. ./i. -2- Your attention is drawn to Conditim No. 7 on Tow, Planning Permit lo. flOC/7ti5 which.states as follows - 11-.ins Farqit shall lapse when the applicant, M.J. & L.F. OsbornE, ceases ta be the owner/occupier of the subject przpsrty snd to manecje and conduct the business thereon.” An insqacticn of tho subjsct land and subssqusnt enquiries revoalad that the cwnsrs of the subject land n3 lsngsr occupy the dwellin; on the site and that the house is being let to tanants. Tha awnass of the subject land appoar tc havs inawPd to Tasmania t3 mana2e a Piotel zr,3 Restaurant establishment. A recent title and cair,pan:/ seerch 37 the subject property snd business conducted tbsraon rcvaaled tr,a owners cif both to be P1.3. & L.Pl. Osborne. . 11-1 an i,zfsrinal interview with ths Pianager of tha factory, Pir. Pi. Bluett, it was adrnittpd that tha cwnirs of the business canductsd on the subject ?snd wre rS.3. & L.M. 0sbo;.De. flr. Eluett alsc; stated that he ua3 Erqloyad by th2 awnars as Manager of the business carriEd out on tn, sitc. In rsference to th5 Gbovsnanticned Agreansnt and T;wn Planninj Permit it is requzsttd that ysu advise whather Council is abli to take any form ai legal action against M.J. ic L.L. Osbarne hzui~=regard ta - ttia lesa1 validity of tha Agrssrnant whetkr the owner is in breach of any of thE nnditions of the Agreement, and tn? effect of Ccnditicn Lo. 7 of tha relEvant Town Planning Perni t. It is ccnsidered that as fS.3. & L.M. Osborne no 1on;er occupy the subject property they aro in breach of Condition SZI. 7 on the Town Plennincj Parmit thereby losing any non-conforminG use rights they may have had pursuant to the provisions or’ the Melbourne metropolitan Planning Scheme. Gifford on pegs 208 of Tha Victorian Town Planning handbook, Oth Edition, states - “A non-ccnforming user who applies for and rcceiwes a permit and who acts upon that permit to rebuild his premises will thereafter .. . . b.? treated as reliing solely on the permit and as having abandoned his non-conforming use rights.“ In this case the owners have accepted and ected u2.m a Toun Plznning ?armit thareby abandoning thair non-conforming use rights. It has Sean astablished that the ownsrs era no lcncjer ocrzgants of the subjsct propErty and therefore it would appear thzt the Psrmit has lapssd. . Fleasa find enclosed copies clf all relevant corres;andance concerning this matter. Yours faithfully, (0. C. TAT?!ELL), CITY EKZINZEil. JOHN LVSTOV CLllSHOLW C3"r"lrar.l 2CHN CLPJE hll:C+ELL 9510 '.'3.,r ?,I' PIOC/765 22, P.! IHL/PIF 2 e3;e '33i., 1.3 !.'EL3J,?:.E iy . The Town Clerk, /' City of Mordialloc, Council Chambers, /- Mentone Parade, MENTONE, 3194 Dear Sir, re 80 Latrobe Street, Mentone - M.J. & L.M. Osborne We refer to your letter of the 24th May 1982. It appears from the inspection and interview with the Manager of the factory, Mr. M. Bluett, as follows :- 1. The house is being let to tenants. 2. The property is still owned by M.J. & L.f.1. Osborne. 3. The business is still in the name of M.J. & L.M. Osborne. 4. The business is conducted on'the subject land by N.J. & L.E.I. Osborne. 5. Nr. Bluett is employed by Mr. & Mrs. Osborne as Manager of the business. In our correspondence with you at the time of the ?reparation of the agreement we stated, inter alia, as follows :- 1. . "In our opinion any condition which purported to limit the operation of a permit to a particular person would be invalid as it would not properly relate to the use of the property but only to who may Gse the property. It is clear that when a . . ./2. . ihe Town Clerk, . .City of Mordialloc - -2- 3rd June 1982 planning permit is granted the benefit of such permit runs with the land and is not personal to the applicant or to the owner of the land. (See page 2 of letter of 20th September 1974). 2. An alternative method would be to grant the permit subject to a condition that it would be for a limited period of time. However, we have some doubts as to the validity of such a condition that the permit was only for a specified time as it could be argued, in our opinion, that such a condition did not properly relate to the use or development of the land. In other words, in granting a permit the responsible authority has permitted the use or development and that use or development cannot be terminated at some specified date in the future." (See page 2 of letter of the 20th September 1974) 3. "Whilst the Council can to a certain extent, as we have set out above, control the construction of a building and require its removal, none- theless, the non conforming use rights which the present owner apparently has would be passed on to any such purchaser and the purchaser would have the benefit of these non conforming use rights which arise by virtue of the Town and Country Planning Act and the Planning Scheme Ordinance and the agreement between the Council and the owner could not take these away." (See page 4 of letter of the 20th September 1974). We are not aware of any specific decision of the Plailning Appeals Board on the question of inserting a condition which limits the operation of the permit to a use being carried on by a particular person. This has probably not been done because it is generally accepted that a planning permit runs with the land and is not individual to the applicant. This is deaonstrated by a decision of the Town Planning Appeals 'i'ribcnzl (as it then was) -in Rabenalt vi City of Prahran 1979-81 VPA Vol. 18 at pages 352 and 353 where it was said as fGll0WS :- "Whilst we recognise the grant of a planning permit is not personal in the sense that it is not related or tied to the person making the application or proposed to conduct the use at that time but rather . attaches and runs with the land, we still believe ' some consideration must be given to the likely . management and control of the premises ...... . . ./3. -7:he Town Clerk, City of Mordialloc -3- 3rd June 1982 As previously stated, we entertain some considerable doubt as to the likelihood of good management and supervision of patrons, particularly those on the younger side. In particular, we were quite unimpressed by Mr. Amatols attitude to the prospect of schoolchildren being present during imrmal school hours. It may be remembered that his answer was V7ell I can't do much because it is just hard to kick them out or send them home"." With regard to a condition limiting the operation of a permit for a specified time, this is now specifically provided for by Section 18 (7) which provides as follows :- "A permit may authorise the use of land for a particular purpose for a specified period only but on application made before the expiry of the permit such period may be extended for a further specified period." This subsection was inserted by Act No. 9364. However, that sub- section was not in operation at the time the permit here was granted. The agreement made on the 16th December 1974 provided, inter alia, that the applicants undertook and agreed that the factory will only be occupied and used by the said applicants and in the event of the property being sold, etc. "or the applicants parting with possession of all or any part of the said factory .....'I the use shall cease. It is important therefore to note that the undertaking of the applicants was related to the occupation and use of the factory and not the house. Condition 7 on the permit is somewhat wider and it refers to the permit lapsing when M.J. b L.M. 0sborne"ceases to be the owner/occupier of the subject property and to manage and conduct the business thereon." It appears to us from the factual information that we have summarized above, it cannot be said that either the agreement has not been complied with nor that there is a breach of Condition 7. Clause 1 (a) of the agreement only requires the factory to be occupied and used by the applicants and precludes them from parting with the possession of all or any part of the factory. The fact that Mr.& Mrs. Osborne apparently employ a Manager does not, in our opinion, mean they are not the owners or occupiers of the factory, nor necessarily that they parted with possession of the factory. Further, with regard to Condition 7, it appears that before there is a breach of that condition, they have to - .1 cease to be the owner/occupier of the subject property: .2 cease to manage and conduct the business thereon. Whilst it may be argued they are not the occupiers of the subject property in that part of the property, i.e. the house, has been let to tenants, we do not think there is any evidence that they are not managing and conducting the business, even though this is done by a Manager. . . ./4. $he Tom Clerk, . City of Mordialloc -4- 3rd June 1982 4 With regard to your reference to page 208 of the Victorian Town Planning Handbook we are not certain on what basis that text book might make such statement. However, obviously if in fact a person who had non conforming use rights applied for and obtained a permit for a different use to that which had non conforming use rights and acted on that permit, then he t~~cul6lose his non conforming use rights because that activity would have ceased. However, in this case, as we understand it, the application was for a permit to construct buildings, i.e. development, as opposed to changing the use. We note in this regard that the permit which in fact was issued was somewhat ambiguous because it refers to permitting "buildings and works erected thereon in accordance with the plans submitted and to be used for the purpose of renovations and reconstruction of factory". However, if in fact the same use has continued as was previously carried on, i.e. the manufacture of vanity units, it does not appear to us that the application for and the issue of the permit will of itself mean that the applicants had abandoned or lost their non conforming use rights. Clause 1 (b) of the agreement contains an acknowledgment and agreement by the applicants that the non conforming use rights of the land for the purposes of the factory or the manufacture of vanity units shall cease in the event of Clause 1 (a) not being complied with. As we have stated above, we do not think this situation has yet arisen. If and when the situation does arise, of course, the problem will be that the provisions of that clause can only be enforced aSainst Mr. & Mrs. Osborne and not against any successor in title (see item 3 above in regard to our letter of the 20th September 1974). We would be happy to discuss this matter with you in more detail if you so desire. 9 ~ 2- S-GG:ii:OI :CIt: cT Einastcn Form J PLAvNING Permit No. K999/415 PERWT Planning Scheme ICIXGSTON Responsible Authority CITY OF MNGSTOS ADDRESS OF THE LAW: I i I so- 80 (Lot 86 on Plan of Subdivision No.11253) Latrobe Street, Mentone THE PERMIT ALLOWS: 1 To develop and use this site for three (3) attached multi-dwellings, in accordance with plans to be submitted pursuant to Condition 1 hereof. THE FOLLOWIiVG COhDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PEFUPZIT. 1. Before the development and/or use starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Res2oxxI?iz Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. wl’neii zpproveri L-;: plm will be endorsed and will then form part of the pennit. The plans nust be brw~:c c:if wih dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generdly in accordL;.:, wi& the plans submitted with the application but modified to show: a) provision of a landscape plan and associated planting schedule for the site, uitk s~r? plan to be prepared by a qualified landscape professiond and hcoiporating a 50% component of advanced planting species at the fiontzge and rear of the sire; b) the bedroom window on the eatern elevation of dwelling 1 provided with obscux glazing to a height of 1.6 merres height above the dwelling’s llrst floor finished 5~: level or fitted with an appropriate screening device to preveni overlooking KOUX~S5: abutting property to the east; c) the driveway/ accessway for all dwellings nominated in an all weather colouxd concrete seal-coai; and d) the 1.5m high timber picket fences painted or stained in a c.olour(s) to inarch he .. dwellings .. 2. The development and/or use as shown on the endorsed plans must nor be eltered uihoc: 1:: ?zrittcn consent of the Responsible Authonry. 3. 3”a;z the development mdo use commence heincrease in s:om water run-ori Eo: :?.< dzveloprnent must be provided for by eithci: 2) he construction of m on-site stom w~terdetention Wiih delzjed re!eare into the storm vmer system; or ,\ 2j ttz pqment of a SI, 140.00 draiEa;e 1w-y Signarure for thc Responsible Authority ?Ianning 3nd Envirocmcnr Rcsulsiions 1987 Form 4 i 82-JUN-2038 11:10 61395814588 PLANNING PERiiT NO. KP99/415 No. 80 Latrobe Street. Mentone 4. Prior to the commencement of buildmg works under this permit, an assessment of ine sit: 3;: ;- accredited enviionmental auditor must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsil.i: Authority to establish that the site is not contaminated. Any conrainination that evceecs :I: ...... accepted standards must be removed prior to the commencment of the buildinss an2 work :- accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Authonry to ihe sarisr’acxn ,:- the Responsible Authority. 5. Consmction on the site shall be restricted to the following times: Monday to Friday 7:OOam to 7:00pm Saturday 9:OOam to 6:00pm Or o~erwiseas approved by the Responsible Authority in writing. 6. Before the use allowed by this permit starts, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed. GL-. must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping nut ::e:-. be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 7. Before the use starts, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths is shosn c: the endorsed plans must be: a) Constructed to rhe satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance wiih ice plz,s. c) Surfaced with an all weather seal coat to the satisfaction of the Responsij!e Aut-.-:.-- d) Drained !o the satisfaction of the Responsible Authoriy. Parkkg areas and access lanes must be kept avaihble for these purposes E! rli :lixs .! mainrzined to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 8. All boundary fences shall be repaired andor replaced as necessary to he sarisfactim 1-f -:: Responsible Authority. 9. Ex:emai clothes dyng faciliries shall be provided for each dwelling. 10. Finishsd Flcor Levels shown.on.. the endorsed plans must nor be altered or mcdifird x.--*-... writter! Council consent. 11. All brizlwork on or faciqg the boundaries of the site must be raked and c1:axd CT r~r-~ic,:-- srarcir-d that is well presented to neighbouring properties to the satisfactior? si !he 2 Date ljjued ..... PyI$/!?.?...... Signabre for the Responsible Authority Plr-.niAg and Envi:onwnc Rcpulrrions 1987 Fom 4 PLANNING PEWTNO. KP99/415 No. 80 Latrobe Street, Meotone 12. Once the development of the land has been completed the nature strip in front of beImc mcz- be landscaped within six months to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authony; if -rl. landscaping of the nature sl5p is denimentally affected during development of the land. 13. Convenient taps or fixed sprinkler system must be provided to the satisfacpon of I-.: Responsible Authority capable of watering all communal and private lawns and lin&ctr: areas, including turf block visitor car parkmg where provided. 14. Once the development has scarted it must be continued and completed to the sadsfaccion .:: ::-.- Responsible Authority. 15. ns permit will expire if one of the following cimunmces applies: a) The development and/or use idare not started withjn two years of the due ?I-i..-. . permit. b) The development is not completed within four years of the date or' this permit. The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred IO if a request is made in writing before the p&t expires or wihn three months afterwuds. !Vote: Prior to the removal and replanting of any nature smp trees, the consent of Councils Team Leader Park and Urban Design. Mr.David Digby must be soughr. Date Iwed .....d{i.$/?.? ...... Signature for the Responsible Authority Planning and En+onmcni Rcgdaiions 1957 Form 4 82-JUN-2888 11:11 61395814588 2- 6-OG:ii:07 :City of liln$stcr, PLANNING Permit Number: KP991973 Planning Scheme: KINGSTOS PERMIT Responsible Authority: CITY OF KISGSTO3 ADDRESS OF THE LAND: 1 i Bo. 80 (LOT 86 ON P&N OF SUBDIVISIONNo. 11253) LATROBESTREET, i MENTONE i THE PERMIT ALLOWS: i The subdivision of the land into three (3) lots in accordance with the attachedl i endorsed plans. ! THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT: 1. The subdivision as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without rht prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 2. The applicant or owner must pay to the Responsible Authority an rno~., equivalent to three (3%) per cent of the site value of all land in the subaivisic;.. Ths payment must be made before a Statement of Compliance is issued. -.7 Before the plan of subdivision can be Certified, the Owner of the land must entr into an Agreement with the Responsible Authority under Section 173 of :ht Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for the development of the creax.: lots in accordance with Planning Permit KP99/415 issued by the Cit). of fing:!:c on the 21 December, 1999. All costs associated with the Agreement will be bomr by the owner. 4. Condition required by United Energy The applicant shall enter into an agreement with UE for a supply of electricit-,, to each lot shown on the endorsed plans. 5. Conditions required by South East Water -Water a) The owner of the subject land must enter into an agresment with Sou& ' East Water limited for the provision of water supply facilities and id51 2i: requirements to its satisfaction. Date Issued Signature for the Responsible PLANNING PERMIT KP99/415 - NO. 80 LATROBE STREET,MENTONE Sewerape b) The owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with So~h East Water limited for the provision of sewerage facilities and fulfil all requirements to its satisfaction. 6. Conditions required by Melbourne Water: a) Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the Owner shall enier t?ro and comply with an agreement with Melbourne Water Corporation, under Section 269A of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works .4c; 1958, for the provision of drainage works and the acceptance of surface and storm water fiom the subject land directly or indirectly inin Melbourne Water’s drainage system. b) No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water’s drains or watercourses. c) Separate application direct to Melbourne Water mwbe made for any nc:r storm water connection to Melbourne Water’s drains or watercourses. d) Prior to certification, the Plan of Subdivision must be refenec !o Melbourne Water, in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision 1988. 7. Reticulated water, sewerage and elecmcity must be availzble to each lot shonn or. the endorsed plans before any lot can be used or occupied. 8. Once the subdivision has started it must be continued and completed 10 GI-: satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 9. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: .- a) The subdivision is not stated within two years of the date oithis permit. b) The subdivision is not completed within five years of the date of cx? , permit. The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is ntd:? in writing before the permit expires or withm three months afterwards. Footnote: If further infonation is required in relation to Melbourne Water’s germ:: conditions shown above, please contact Alma Murphy on telepnono ’ 9235 2131, quoting Melbourne Watk’s reference 57135. ...... Signature for he. -...... 1-~...... - ...... Responsible 02-JUN-2888 11:12 61395814588 96X APPENDIX B ~ Correspondence between Auditor and Civil Test 18 August, 2000 Egis Consulting Australia Pty Ltd 390 St Kilda Road MELBOURNE VlC 3004 Attention: Tasos Katopodis Dear Tasos RE: ENVlRONMENTAL AUDIT AT 80 LATROBE STREET MENTONE Further to the letter we have received from your office yesterday regarding our report number RM 1283-00 we arc making the following clarification with reference to your lettcr: 0 The COMPI in the contamination Site Assessinent Report for Environmcntal Audit (4 August 2000, Report Nuiiiber RM1283-00)was fonned from BHI B, BH2 B, BH7 B and BH8 B, as mcntioned in pagc 36 of the report and chain of custody forni. 0 Faxing 5 pages of facsimik of 20/07/00. Total number of pagcs including cover sheet is 5 pagcs. 0 MGT test results were faxed today. Current Zoning of 80 Latrobe Strect, Mentone is under Rcsidential 1. Yours faithfully Emmanuel Ernest CIVILTEST PTY LTD KEF: EE 10 Latham Street, (P.0. Box 537), Mornington. 3931 lek (03)5975 6640 Fax: (03) 5975 9589 also at: Dandenong (03)9 769 2121 Wonthaggi (03) 5672 3900 Drouin (03) 5625 451 1 and Mitcham (03) 9 874 5844 Soil Testing & Geotechnical Consultants FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION NOPages: 5 (including this cover sheet) Please Reply: Telephone: (0359)75 6644 Fax: (0359)75 9589 Message: Civiltest Pty Ltd PO Box 537 MORNINGTON VIC 3931 20 July, 2000 Egis Consulting Australia Pty Ltd 390 St Kilda Road MELBOURNE VIC 3004 Attention: Tasos Katopodis Dear Tasos RE: ENVlRONMENTAL AUDIT AT 80 LATROBE STREET MENTONE Further to our discussion and your letter dated lgthJuly 2000, we are making the following amendments to the report number RM 1283-00. 1. Original Land Titles will bc provided for review. A clean copy of the current Iand title showing an accurate survey of the site under Audit will be included. 2. The survey dat3 presented in Section 3.2 and 3.3 will not be included in the final report since it does not relate cornpletcly to thc site under Audit. 3. Section 3.4 repetition of commentq will not be included in the final report instcad 3 combined intcrpretation of all the Aerial Photographs will be included. The original Acrial Photographs are available only to bc viewed and not for purchase at the Land and Survey Information Centre. Civilest viewed the aerial photographs and the interpretation is based on viewing of these original photographs. If it is required for the auditing purpose IO include the original Aerial Photographs in the rcport, we can order a copy from Vic Image, which would take 2 to 3 weeks normally. All the photographs are taken form 1945 are ranging from the scale of 1:7,920 to 1:20,000 the photographs presentcd in the draft report were thc best aerial photographs available for viewing at Land Survcy Information Centre. The scale of best photographs available is in the following scale: - Year 1945, best photographs available on scale 1:18,860 Year 1956, best photographs available on scale 1: 12,000 Year 1956, best photographs availablc on scale 1:12,000 10 Latham Street, (P.0. BOX 537), Morningtan, 3931 181: (03) 5975 6644 Fax: (03) 5975 9589 also at: Dandenong (03) 9 769 2121 Wonthaggi (03) 5672 3900 Orouin (03) 5625 451 1 and Mitcharn (03) 9 874 5844 Year 1958, best photographs available on scale 1: 12,000 If you let us know which scale would be preferable for auditing purpose than we would order those Aerial photographs to be printed and sent to you. The disposition of the sile and surrounding environment is changing from 1945 to 1990 according to the aerial photographs included in the report and acnal photographs vicwed at Land and Survey Information Centre. There is an increase in building establishment and decrease in thc vegetation from 1940s to 1990s. This information will be included in the final report. 4. Section 3.5 Historical Records, redundant information will be deletcd and relevant information froin the site specific use and nearby surrounds perspective will be amended in the final report. 5. Section 4 (h), the work completed by Civiltest indicated in our draft report that the site is contaminated with Arsenic, after cvaluating coinments made in your letter in scction we do agree with your comments on elevated arsenic occurring naturally in the Brighton Group of sediments, could you suggest any referenced document which we can include in our final report. The soil samples collectcd at the site are from Brighton Group of scdiments. 6. Our final report will include site description as according to current land title showing accurate survey of the report. 7. Final report will include more information in paragraph 4 of section 6 Sitc Geology and Hydrogeology. More information on aquifer typc and configuration, groundwater flow directions and rates, vulnerability of the aquifer system to contamination will bc included. Previous field investigations bore logs, depth and past level measurements will be discussed in the report. 8. Scction 7 paragraph 2, will be amended and the diameter will include measure in meters that would be detcctcd in systematic grid pattern which would be 15.2-19.9 meters. 9. A tabular form will be included in section 7.1 to clarify sample numbers against depths and soil types. 10. PID testing was conductcd in accordance with AS 4482.2-1999, Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil, Volatile substances. Volatiles are readily lost from thc surface layers of the soil, for this reason, soil samplcs for tlie determination of volatile analytes were not collected from the surface layer. The minimum depth from which satisfactory samples can be collected dcpends on the soil type and the prevailing conditions. The minimum sampling depth for volatiles were determined by the soil type, the clay content and the depth to bedrock. The fill samples collected in the shallow dcpth were silty SAND. The soil environment is thus a complex scries of equilibria. Nortnally, the phases will bc in a state of equilibrium and the fugacites (i.c. escaping tendencies) of a chemical between the phases will be equal. Sampling in sands reprcsents a disturbance of these equilibria which allows thc volatile substance to escape at the surface and at shallow depth. Volatile substances quickly dissipatc from the soil surface layer. Therefore, monitoring of thc airspace directly abovc the soil will not producc significant readings. i1. Numbcr of RPL) values provide in Table 2 has been correct and will be included in our final report. 12. Nickel mull will not be included in the final rcport sincc the variation is only due to different limits. The discrepant Zinc rcsult m3y be due to ICP-MS rncthod, which requires greater control of thc digestion tcmperature to obtain uniform results. Metals bound in the silicate matrix may not be filly recovcred by using TCP-MS method. USEPA Method may be used 3s alternative to this method, which gives betier extraction efficiencics for Zinc. Laboratory trials at EPA (Victoria) have however, shown that the digestion timc for USEPA Method is longer. 13. In Section 8.3, the copper results in the rinsate blank (0.069 mgL) is high. The following decontaniiiiation procedures was used to collect the rinsate blank :- Removed soil adhering to the hand auger by scrapping, brushing and wiping with towels. Hand auger was thoroughly washcd in the bucket with phosphate-free detergent, and was rinsed thoroughly in a sccond bucket with di-ionised water and the rinsatc sample was collccted from the bucket. The chemical analysis indicatcs the presencc of copper only and docs not indicatc the presence of other heavy metals in the water sample. If thc contamination were occurred through the hand auger or the buckcts than it would have shown the prescnces of other heavy metals associated along with it. Therefore thc high level of copper in the water sample could have come from the sprinkle of tap water while poring in to the container. The decontamination procedure used at the site were in accordance wid1 the procedures AS 4482.1-1997. All thc soil samples were collected at the respcctive location with the right procedure. 14. Section 10, top page of 20, chromium will be excluded in this section. All the samples collectcd at the site were stored in Eskies at 4OC and forwarded to the laboratory; this will be amended in the final report. 15. In section 12, Laboratory quality control results, matrix spike results wilI be included in thc table form to indicate the spike results ranges to justify conclusions that the data set was acceptable. 10. Section 14.2 paragraph 2 will not be included in the final report. 17. The basis for the Analyte selcction criteria will include more details in the final report. The use of' health based investigation levels to complement the environmental investigation level will be included in the final report. 18. In Tablc 9 the pH results for BH1 B and the duplicates were very different this may be due to preservative tcchnique used, sample number BH1 B was stored in the fridge and latcr transferred to esky due to lack of space in the esky. Duplicate Sample was delivered directly in the esky. 19. Bore BHlO is backgound bore as indicated in page 32, Tablc 1 I, column 6, 3 plan of borehole location would be included in the ha1rcport. 20. We do agree on your commcnts that the elevated arsenic results are naturally occurring in Brighton Group of sediments (could you suggest any reference). We do agree with your comments on that the site history does not lend itself to arsenic contamination only, and it is rare for contamination from site activities to be in deeper natural soils and not in surface fill. It is possible that background sample testcd may be in contact of Tertiary sand ridges and sands. ‘The site undcr investigation is located on Tcrliary sands therefore we agree on your comments that the elevated Arsenic levels found at the site is natural and this will bc amended in our report. Morc delail will be included on this topic in our final report. In our final report irrelevant infonnation will be excluded and will provide sufficient logical arguments for thc contamination identified. Yours faithhlly Ernmnnuel Ernest CIVILTEST PTY LTD REF: EE TOTRL P. 06 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION MELBOURNE OFFICE TO Emmanuel Ernest ~~~~~~ ~ ~ COMPANY Civil Test FAX NO. 5975 9589 FROM Susan Walsh, Environmental Management Telephone (03) 9272 6666 Facsimile (03) 9272 661 1 JOB/FILE NO. VP8502.001 DOC NO. 14-3133 DATE 17 August 2000 NO. OF PAGES 1 (incl this page) SUBJECT ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT - 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE Dear Emmanuel, We are in the process of finalising the audit report for the above property and require clarification of a number of issues as follows: the Contamination Site Assessment Report for Environmental Audit (4 August 2000) details the samples which were analysed as composites by Gribbles. The report notes (Section 15) that individual samples BH1 A and BH2 A were included in both COMP1 and COMP3. However, the Chain of Custody indicates that samples BH1 A and BH2 A were part of COMP3 only. Please confirm (in writing) that COMP1 was formed from BH1 B, BH2 B, BH7 B and BH8 B; Your facsimile of 20/07/00 to Tasos Katopodis indicated that 5 pages, including the cover sheet were to be sent. We actually received the cover sheet and pages 2 to 4 of the fax. For completeness, could you please send page 1 of the fax to Tasos; F, Further testing of samples per our facsimile of 9 August has been completed by both Gribbles and MGT. We have received laboratory reporting of the analytical results from Gribbles, but not from MGT. Can you forward these as soon as they are available; and Can you please advise us of the current zoning of the site under the City of Kingston Planning Scheme. Regards Egis Consulting Australia Pty Ltd Susan Walsh Project Environmental Scientist Privileged and confidential information may be contained in this facsimi/e. If you are not the addressee. you may not use, copy or deliver this faCSimih3 to a third parry. N you receive this facsimile by mistake. please notily Egis Consu/tingAustralia Pty Limited immediately by telephone or fax On the above numbers. CR - \~elmOB\Work8\Environmenta~rojects\vp\ 14-3 733.doc Page 1 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited A Groupe Egis Company ACN 000912 630/AEN 18 000 912 630 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Australia MELBOURNE OFFICE TO Emmanuel Ernest COMPANY Civil Test Pty Ltd FAX NO. 5975 9589 FROM Tasos Katopodis, Environmental Management Telephone (03) 9272 6666 Facsimile (03) 9272 661 1 JOB/FILE NO. VP8502 .OO 1 DOC NO. 14-3051 DATE 9 August 2000 NO. OF PAGES 2 (incl this page) SUBJECT ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT - 80 IATROBE STREET, MENTONE cc. Paul Dunand (fax No. 9580m ' '78i\ Emmanuel, Further to your final assessment report received by me last Friday, I am writing to request the testing of some further samples collected by CivilTest as part of the field investigation for the above project. I have spoken to Paul Dunand about this and he is aware that this testing is required to assist me in completing my audit. Can you please request the principal laboratory (Gribbles) to test the following: I SAMPLE NUMBER I ANALYTES I I 1A. 2A. 7A and 8A I Arsenic and Vanadium I 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A Arsenic, Copper, Vanadium and Zinc 3B,4B, 5B, 5C, 6B, 6C, 7B,8C Arsenic 1B, 28, 78, 88 TCLP then Arsenic In addition, can you ask Gribbles to split samples 3A, 4A, 5A and 6A and send them to your secondary laboratory (MGT) for check testing for arsenic, copper, vanadium and zinc. This work is required relatively urgently so three day turnaround (ie. the quickest turnaround that does not attract surcharge) should be requested of the laboratories, with results provided on Monday of next week. Can you forward me a copy of the results immediately upon receipt from the laboratories. Privileged and confidential information may be contained in this facsimile. If you are not the addressee, you may not use, copy or deliver this facsimile to a third paw. lf you receive this facsimile by mistake, please notify Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited immediately by telephone or fax on the above numbers. CR - \\MelmOB\Wo~~nvironmentaAProjects\vpW5O~AXE~l4-3051 .doc Page 1 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited A Groupe Egis Company ACN000912630/ABN 18000912630 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION In regard to the report, there a few issues that require resolving, however, I will write to you in due course regarding these. Regardn Tasos Katopodis CR - \Welm0B\WorkB\EnvironmentaAProjecis\vp~50~AX€~14-3051.doc Page 2 390 St Kiida Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Australia MELBOURNE OFFICE TO Emmanuel Ernest COMPANY Civil Test Pty Ltd FAX NO. 5975 9589 FROM Tasos Katopodis, Environmental Management Telephone (03) 9272 6666 Facsimile (03) 9272 661 1 IOB/FILE NO. VP8502.001 DOC NO. 14-2862 DATE 19 July 2000 NO. OF PAGES 3 (incl this page) SUBJECT ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT - 80 LATROBE STREET, MENTONE Emmanuel We have received a copy of your draft report titled “Contamination Site Assessment Report for Environmental Audit (80 Latrobe Street) Mentone” and provide the following comments: 1. It is difficult to discern anything from Land Titles provided in Appendix D due to the poor quality of copies. Also the land titles seem to be for the greater parcel of land extending to the Nepean Highway. I require a clean copy of the current land title showing an accurate survey of the site under Audit only. 2. The survey data presented in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 is difficult to understand and considering point 1 above, I am not sure of its relevance. 3. In Section 3.4, there seems to be repetition in commentary from paragraph to paragraph. How does the disposition of the site and surrounding environment change from photo to photo? The . .. aerial photographs presented in Appendix J are of no use due to the large scale and poor quality of copies provided. 4. The historical records for Moorabbin and Mentone are interesting reading, however, there is a lot of redundant information provided. What is the relevance of this information from a site specific use and nearby surrounds perspective? 5. Section 4 (h) provides information on the planning permit for the site. Paragraph 2 refers specifically to the environmental requirements of the planning permit. Has the work completed by Civil Test met this requirement? 6. Site description is not clear; needs to gel with Land Title (see points 1 and 2 above). Privileged and confidential information may be contained in this facsimile. If you are not the addressee, you may not use, copy or deliver this facsimile to a third pafly. If you receive this facsimile by mistake. please notify Egis Consulting Australia Ply Limited immediately by telephone or fax on the above numbers. CR - W:EnvironmentaWrojects\vp~O~~ES\l4-2862.d0~ Page 1 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia Egis Consulting Australia p1y Limited A Groupe Egis Company ACN 000 912 630 / ABN 18 000 912 630 7. The summary of the groundwater database information provided in paragraph 4 of Section 6 is not clear. Insufficient argument is provided on the hydrogeological setting to justify that no groundwater investigation was required particularly as you infer later in the document that the site is contaminated at depth by Arsenic. 8. In section 7 paragraph 2, it is stated that ‘the diameter of the hotspot that can be detected with this grid pattern is 95%’. The diameter should be a measure in metres that would be detected if a systematic grid pattern was evoked to a certain confidence level (in the case of environmental sampling, commonly adopted as 95% probability). 9. Some further clarity, probably in tabular form, is required in Section 7.1 to clarify sample numbers against depths and soil types. 10. It was observed that PID testing was not undertaken on the shallow samples; can you please I explain this? 11. A number of RPD values provided in Table 2 are incorrect. 12. The argument presented in the last paragraph regarding discrepant nickel results is confusing and probably unnecessary (variation is simply due to different reporting limits used by the two laboratories). However, no comment seems to have been provided regrading the discrepant zinc results. 13. The copper result in the rinsate blank (0.069 mg/L) is high. This is typically not expected if de- ionised water was used. Can you please explain this result and the implications regarding decontamination procedures used on-site. 14. In section 10, top of page 20 - what are labile analytes? You also refer to chromium (VI), yet no testing was undertaken for this analyte. 15. In section 12 which discusses the internal laboratory quality control, you need to present some results (eg matrix spike results ranging from X% to Y%) to justify conclusions that the data set was ‘& acceptable. 16. The relevance of paragraph 2 in Section 14.2 is not clear. 17. The basis for the criteria presented is not clear. The use of health based investigation levels to complement the environmental investigation levels has not been canvassed. 18. In Table 9 the pH results for BH1 B and it’s duplicate are very different. Can you please explain this discrepancy? 19. It is assumed that bore BH10 was a background bore. Where was this bore located (a plan would help)? 20. Your assessment indicates that the fill soils are clean, the natural soils are contaminated with arsenic and the background soil was clean. You infer that on this basis the natural soils at the site are contaminated. If you run this argument, then clean-up would be required in accordance with the planning permit!. CR - W::\Environmenta~rojecls\vp~O~~E~14-2862.doc Page 2 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia I believe that the elevated arsenic results are naturally occurring in the Brighton Group sediments, because: (i) the site history does not lend itself to arsenic contamination only; and (ii) it is rare for contamination from site activities to be in deeper natural soils and not in surficial fill (unless the fill was placed after contamination occurred). Therefore, what needs to be discerned on-site is which natural soils pertain to the dune sands and which natural soils pertain to the Brighton Group. In addition, was the background sample tested a dune sand or a Brighton Group material? A logical argument could be developed regarding naturally occurring arsenic in the Brighton Group if these differenciations can be made. However, this would also require significantly more testing for arsenic (including elutriation testing). 21. In Section 20.1 the proposed disposition of the site is not clear. This needs to be related to a clear and detailed site plan showing areas of building, pavements, vegetationlgrass etc. 22. The health risk characterisation of arsenic presented in Sections 20.2 to 20.1 1 is alarming and seems to infer that a significant contamination situation exists at the site. A much briefer analysis which also considers published health investigation levels (HILs) would be preferred. 23. In Section 21, it is necessary to more clearly discuss exposure routes in relation to proposed site layout (refer to Point 21 above). 24. The beneficial use ‘aesthetics’ has not been considered. What is the implication of having waste materials (eg. glass) in the fill in bores 3, 5 and 6. 25. The report contains numerous typographical errors throughout the text. We have not checked the laboratory reports against tabulated results for typographical errors. This will be done later and may reveal further errors. In summary, the report is somewhat disjointed, contains too much irrelevant information and does not VL. provide sufficient logical arguments for the contamination identified. Please note that assessment for the purposes Environmental Audit requires the highest level of rigour and understanding of the relevant areas of science (geology, hydrogeology, chemistry, toxicology etc), but also the regulatory framework. Your response to the issues raised in this fax would be appreciated, particularly how you propose to further investigate the possibility that the arsenic is naturally occurring. Regards fl Tasos Katopodis CR - W:Un~ionmentahProjects\vp~5O~~E~l4-2862.doc Page 3 390 St Kilda Road Melbourne VIC 3004 Australia APPENDIX C ' Further Analyses - Laboratory Reports L TD -’ CiVH ...... FACSl MILE TRANSMISSION yp.ec-2. Sol &J.257\ ... I..... ;. ..- . . .., .... (...... -i.. .” :\,,..:’ -r NoPages: /a (including this cover sheet) Please Reply: Telephone: (0359) 75 6644 Fax: (0359)75 9589 Message: Civiltest Pty Ltd PO Box 537 PAORNINGTON VIC 3931 R eplacemend Analyticul Report Replacement for Report no: 18182, issued on: 03 Jul ZOO0 CIVIL TEST PTY L'IU Contact , EMMANJET, ERNEST PO BOX 537 Hatch Nuniler ' 0005m MORNINGTON Job Rcf Sample(s) KecuvcJ 27/06/2000-_ OY/OtU2000 VIC 3931 Replacerneix Kzport No : 2074 Methods: 208 Anions by Ion Chromatography, Dry Weight 505-MS Total Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons. Dry Weight 226 pH Measurement. Soil 506-ECD Organochlorine Pesticides, Dry Weight 236 Total Cyanlde by UV-VIS (SFA). Dry Wsight 507-ECD Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Dry Weight 246 Total distillable Phenolics, Dry Weight 509-HPLC Chlorinated Herbicides, Dry Weight 404FIMS Mercury by Vapour AAS. Dry Welght 512MS Organophosphorus compounds, Dry Weight 404FIMS Mercury by Vapour AAS, rng/L E1OO.O1 MOlSture Content 40QMS Elements by ICP-MS, Dry Weight E108 Organochlorines Analysis. Surrogates 4D6-MS Elements by ICP-MS. mglL 406-MS Elements by ICP-MS, TCLP 501-FID Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Dry Welght 502HS BTEXIMAH by Headspace, Dry Welght 505-MS Polyarornatic Hydrocarbons, Dry Weight 4ttach ed Results Approved by: John Lcwcy DipApp.Sci (Chcmimy) Senior Analya - hlclals ..r. ':--_ Daniel Dam DAppSci (Cliernidiyj Senior .4n;lJyr;L - Chromatography This Laboratory is accredited by the NaGanal Association of Testing AutnM1IIes. AUSlraliB. The lest5 reported herin have been perfamed in accordance with its terms of acucdilallon. NATA ENDORSED DOCUMENT Daeumenr may no? be repmduced except in fulf. NATA Accdiarlan No. 16.45 * This is the Final Report whlch SU~~IS~~I~Sany rem& previously issued relating ZD the sample(sJ Included. AlIsompreJ les!ed 6s sutmtled3y cfent. #Denotes methods no1 comdby NATA lermr of ecnedk3fior1 Reporred: Monday, 16 August 2000 Pagc I of 20 14-Qffi-ZQ@0 11:20 NRLNTWRK 94% P. Rl R esulfi Replacentcnl Report No: 20074 00058adKKH 0005801/062 00058041Q03 0005804/006 000581Ld/o05 SOIL SOL SOIL SOIL SOIL BHlA Bni B BH2A BHZB 6h1a ~TWlrl.4Hby CC. DRY LVEIGFll Method: 502H5 Unie mgkg Beizme c0.02 4.02 4.02 c0.02 Elhylbwcrie cn.02 c0.02 c0.02 c0.02 Toluene cu.02 eo.02 co.02 c0.02 Xylcncs ~0.02 CQ.02 c0.02 c0.02 ELEnIENI'S 9 IC1'-MS. DRY WIGHT Mnhod: A06.MS Unib: rngikg hiiony c2.0 2.3 Ars;cnic 3.1 3s 6.0 65 1.9 Beryllium c1.0 4.a Cadmiiim 4.o 5.4 5. I 5.a 7.7 Reported: Monday, T4 Augusr 2000 Pwc 2 nf 29 14-RUG-2000 11 : 21 NRLNTWRK 94% P. c13 HClLHlWRK -> 61 59 759 589 PAGE 083 BTEWMAHby GC. DRY WEICI-TT Mchod 502HS UniE: rri& Bcnzmc 4.02 c0.02 c0.02 Wlylbciucnc CO.02 co.02 c0.02 Tolucnc a02 co.02 CO.02 Xylcnts c.o.02 Reported: Monday, 11 Augosr ZOO0 Pap 3 tf 29 I4-Rut-2ElElEl 11 71 NPI NTIJRY qA% D 177 MLWTWRK -> 61 59 759 509 POGE 804 Results Replacentent Heport No: 20074 i BTEXMAH by GC. DRY WEIGIIT hiehod: SOZHS Uniu:mgkg Bcnzmc co.02 co.02 Wlylbenrcnc CO.02 co.02 Toluene <0.01 co.02 XylellCS co.01 co.02 ELEMENS by ICP-MS. DRY WEIGHT bl~lh~ddOb-MS Unib: III& hmic a0 2.6 84 <2.0 2.0 COPF 1s vanndiurn 9.5 Zinc 75 HYDROCARBONS 0.DRY WElCHT hlchod: 501 .RD Uniu: mgkg TPH C6. C9 c20 c20 TPH C10 ~ C14 c20 c2u PI4 c15 - c29 c20 TPH C23 - C36 25 c2 0 OVENMOJSTLRE CONTENT Method: E1OO.O1 Units; 9,; WJ’W Moisurrc 21.3 11.3 16.3 5.2 5.3 Reported: Monday, 14 August 2000 Pap4 of20 NRLNTW 0 ljlA T HFlLlTURK -> 61 59 759 589 PAGE 885 Results Rqlncment Repor' No: 20074 0005804/016 OLlOSBO4A)I I 0005604A)I6 00058[16019 0005806tV20 SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL BH7A BHTB BMIB BHBA BnSB BTE~AHby CC, DRY WIGHT Mcthod 502HS Unik mgkg Bai~uie 4.02 <0.02 <0.02 Wylbcnzene co.02 LO.02 c0.02 I'olurnc 40.0: c0.02 50.02 Xylcncs <0.02 c0.02 40.02 ELEMENTS hy ICP-MS, DRY WEIGHT Merhod: JM-blS Units. mg4q htimuny c2.0 c2.0 mnic C2.0 57 41 3.0 Bciylliuni C] .o Rcpolted: Monday, fAAugust PO00 Pagc 5 of20 NCU NTItIPK 9AY rnu ooo . 14-88-88 11:21 CHLORINATED HERBICIDES. DRY WEIGIIT Method: 509-HPLC Units: mgkg ?,.l.S-Tnchlarophenoxy- c0.001 Repofled: Monday, 14 August 2000 Png6 6 of20 94% P. 06 Results Replacement Heport No: 20074 I 0005806B2f 0005804.Q22 0005804024 0005804x125 OOOS804fl26 SOIL soli WATER SOIL SOIL BWBC am OB RINSATE cornpi cow 2 MEWCUKY ay VAPOUR-AAS,DRY WEIGHT Mahod: 4WFIMS Unif.5: mgkg MCICUIY 0.01 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES,DRY WElCIIT Mclhod: S06-lXD Units. mgkg Aldrin co.1 c.0.1 alpha .BHC c0.1 c0.1 alpha. Fndosulphnn CO.1 c.0.1 bcia - BHC 4.1 Ca.1 bcu - Fndosulphsn co. 1 co.1 Chlordane a.1 c0.1 DDD co.1 c0.1 DDE c0.1 c0.1 DDT eo.1 <0.1 dclia - BHC CO.1 c0.1 Dieldrin 4.1 c0.1 Endmlphan siilpha~c CO.l c0.1 Endrin co.1 c0.1 Endrin xlhhydc co.1 4.1 Ilcptichlor 4.1 co. 1 Wcyt~hlorcpoxidc cn.1 ;a. 1 Hcnachlorobmzcnc CO.1 c0.1 Lindmc -0.1 <.o. 1 Mclhoxych lor so. 1 c.0.1 0RGANOCHL.OFUNE PESTICIDES, SURROGATE RECOVERIES hluhnd: 506.ECT) Uniu: O/a Recovered oc SllKO8atC RCCOVCry 117 1 on ORCAP30PHOSPHORL5 COMf'OUNDS. DRY WICHT Merhod 512MS Units: mgii Chlopyifos c0.1 c0.1 Otlorp~fo'osMrihyl <0.1 c0.1 Diazinon CO.1 c0.1 Mion <0.1 c0.1 Fenilrothion co.1 co.1 Fcnlhion co.1 CO.1 RIJsOiion eo. I a.1 hfclhyl Purdltiiun a.1 Reporred: Monday. 11 August 2000 Pugc 7 0120 WTWRK 94% P. 07 HClLHTWRK -> 61 59 5BY YHGL uutl 14-88-88 11 :22 759 Results Replacmw &portNo: 20074 00058041027 W05804/028 0005804fl59 00058MlD60 000580A/D61 SOIL SOIL TCLP TCLP TCLP COMP 3 cow4 BH18 TCLP BWZB TCLP 8H7B TCLP Mcthod: 208 IJniLc: rngkg Fluu~dc C2.U c2.0 B'rEXfhlAH by CC.DRY WT-IGKT Mehod: 502HS Units: mgk4 Bmme P. 08 bl 59 759 509 Results RephmW Report No: 20074 00058061027 00058tMD28 sOIL SOIL COHP3 COMP4 alpha - BHC <0.1 c0.1 rlpho - Fndemlphan (0.1 cn.1 bet3 - BHC C'O.1 co.1 bch - hdo~lph~ 40.1 CO.1 Chlordanc c0.1 a1 DDD C.n.1 ai DDE zo.l co.1 DDT co.1 co.1 dclla - BHC a.1 4.1 Dieldrin a1 co.1 Endoalphul sulphxe co.1 al Endrin co.1 co.1 Endrin Aldchydc <0.1 a.1 Heytachlor 40.1 co.1 Hcpuchlmpoxidc c0.1 a.l Hcsxhlorobcnzcnc <0.1 c0.1 Lindane a.1 -=x.l Mllhoxychlor 4.1 cn.1 OVEN MOISTURE CONTENT Mclhod E100.01 Unils: 06 WIW Moisture 10,s 10.7 POLYARObL4TlC HYDROCARBONS, DRY WlICHI' Method: jO>-hlS Units: rng@ Accnnphhcnc co.1 c0.1 Accnaphlhylcnc c.o.1 Reported: Monday. 1.4 August 2000 Pqz 9 of20 WRK 94% P. 09 14-08-1313 ii :24 HClLHTURK -> 61 59 759 5B9 YRGE 818 1 Resuh Replacmmtt Repon No: 20074 000~061027 0005e01~2e oooseomsg ooo~omm ooose06m sOIL SOIL TCLP TCLP 7CLP COMP 3 COMPI BW1B TCLP 8H26 TCLP BH73 TCLP PaArnclor 1242 <0.1 co.1 PCB moclor 1348 -3.1 a.1 PCD mlor1% PCB Noclor 1260 Totnl PCB'a l'O'l.4L CYANIDE DETER~IINATIOIV,DRY UTIGIIT Mclhod: 236 UniB: rn& Tordl Cyuriidc a.10 0 11 TOTAL DISTILLABLE PHENOLICS.DKY WElGI~IT Melhod: 241 Unia: rnge Toul Phenolics CO.1 4.1 Reported: Monday, 14 Augusr ZOOQ Page IO of 20 14-RUG-2308 11:2? 94% P IGI 00658061062 TCLP meTCLP ELEMENTS by ICP-hlS, TCLP ESTk4CT Mchod: 40t-MS Unils: rngL fusscnic <0.005 Repomd: Monday, 14 August 2000 Pyle 11 of 29 KRLNTLIRK 9A% D 11 14-88-t3~1 11 :25 NBLHTWRK -> 61 5Y '/by 5tlY rHtif; UlL Rephmrc~nrRepo~ No: 20074 I 0005804Q029 W05B04QO30 0005804Qo31 00058064032 00058044033 Ooplkate Spike Splke QCBlenk Splke 00058MlD02 Recwery Recovery IWmUOD Recovsry OD0580d~2 Lab Control BUNK SOIL HYDROCARDOYS, AS RECEIVE0 hlclhod: 501vFlI) Uniw: m& TPH CG - C9 TPH CIO- CIA TPH C15 - C23 TpH c29 - C36 QC RESULTS - DUTLlCATES Rclativc PcTcmt Diffcrcnce. $6 Antimony Cl .o Arsenic 1.6 Barium 12.0 BuyIlium Reponed: Monday. l4 Augusr 2000 Pugc 13 of 10 NRLNTWK 94% P. 12 Qual@ Results ltephmterrl Report NO: 2Cm4 00058OdQO3A 00058040035 0005804W36 00058044037 0005804403B spike Duplicate QCBlank Splke Dupfrcere Recovery 0005804~92028 Merhod Bknk Recovery 00058adJo27 SOIL RECOVERY DTEXMAlI by GC, AS RECEIVED Md~od:502HS UnitF: mgkg Bcnrmc TPH CI 0 ~ CI 4 Reponed: Monday, 14 August Zoo0 Page 13 of 20 14-RUG-2008 11 : 29 NRLNTLIXK 94% P. 13 Quality Results ReplacenlEnt Rep~No: 20074 00 05804 QD3gI, 0005804QLldD 00058044041 00DSBOdQOd2 00058040043 OCBlenk Spike Duplicate spike QCBlannk METHOD BL Recovery 00058041V28 Recovery METHOD BL SOIL SOIL ORGANOCHLORINEPESTICIDES. AS RECEPED Mclhnd: 506.FLD Units: m& .Slliriil a.1 alpha .RHC cn.1 alpha - Endosvlphvl c0.1 bcra - BHC 10.1 bctn - hdosulphan co. 1 Chlorduic CO. 1 DDD /-0.1 DDE c0.1 DD T c0.1 LILi - BHC c0.1 Dicldrin c0.1 Lndosllphan sulphJtc C0.1 Endrin eo. 1 Endrin Akhchyde c0.1 Hcplachlor c0.1 IIcptachlonpaxidc c0.1 tlexhchlorobmzcnc c0.1 LindYrc <0.1 Mclhoxychlor c0.1 POLYAROMATIC WDROCARBONS, AS RECEF'ED Muhod SOSMS Units: rn$g Accnayhdicnc QC RESULTS ~ DUPLICATES Relative Percent Difference. % PCS Ardor 1016 c1.0 Pc6.4mclor 1252 c1.0 Reported: Monday. 14 August 2000 yagi? 14 of 28 14-QUI-2900 11:30 NRLNTWRK 94% P. 14 I Quality Results HeplnCen1eni Report No: 20071 00058064039 0005B0490~~000580dQo47 W05804Q042 0005804QO43 QCBlank Spike spflce QCBlanh METHOD 01 Recovery Recovey METHOD 01 SOIL SOIL pm hraclor 1248 ~ Reported; Monday. ld August 2000 Page 15 0j2rl NRLNTW 94% P. 15 QCBlank Spike DUplICat9 Splke QCBknk METHOD BL Rerovew 0005804x)28 Rocovery METHOD BL SOIL SOIL 105 65 .n 1 ?I 112 108 Reponed: Monday, laAugust 2000 pug< 16 qr7a N P “100 I.. -. .. TnTQI P. 17 CIVIL ESZTWD- ...... -:... -/...... Soil Testing & Geotechnical Consultants FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION ~"pages: 5 (including this cover sheet) Please Reply: Telephone: (0359) 75 6644 Fax: (0359)75 9589 Message: Civiltest Pty Ltd PO 60x 537 MORNINGTON VIC 3931 I] 0005806QlMA 00058044045 00058044048 00058064049 0005804Q050 QCBlank Dupllcak QCBlenk Splke Duplkale MflTHOD BL OOOS801X)28 MmHOD Recovery 0005806Al25 BLANK SOIL CHLORINATETI HERBICIDES. AS RECEIVED Method: S09.HPJ.C Units: rn& 2.6.S-T~Cctilviu~ticnuxy- 20.5 aceric add(2dT) 1.4 .Dichlorophcnoxy- €0.5 acetic acid (24D) Z.M~yl-J.chloroph,heo~y- c.o.5 xuic acid @iCP.q) ORGANOPHOSPZlORUS COMPO UNUS, AS RECEIVED Method: 512hlS Urrik: mgkg Chloly yifos cu.1 chlorpyl-ifos Mcthyl co.1 Diazinon CO.1 Uhion 40.1 k'eniuorhion .?u. 1 Fcnthion co.1 Mdahion CO.1 Mcthyl Pararhion --0.1 Parvhion a1 Ronricl bctn ~ hdomlphan c1.0 Chlonlnnc c1.0 DDD Reported: Monday. 14 August 2000 PUgC 17 0/38 Id-RUG-2099 11 :32 94% P. 17 ~~ I Quality Results Aqhconmt Rcpon No: 20074 1 00058OAPOAA 00058OAQ945 00058OApOAB OOOSSOAWAO OOD58OAQO~O QCBlank Dupllcate QCBlank Spike Duplicare M€THOD BL 0005801A)28 METHOD Recoven 0005804/025 BUNK sorL Mcrhoxychlor <1.0 Xccnaphlhcnc C1.0 .r\ccnaphhylcnc Cl.0 ?\n(hruccnc c1.0 Bcnz( a)nnthrnccnc c1.0 Ba~ro(a)pyraic c1.0 Bcnro(b)fluormdicric c1.0 Bmzo(g,h.i)puylcnc 4 Reponed: IAorday, 11August 2000 PLgC 18 of 20 14-FIE-2800 11 :32 NQI NTl,lRK 94% D 10 19-Utl-Mtl 11 :3U NALHTURK -> 61 59 759 509 PAGE 819 I Quality Results Rephcemtnt hponAb: 20074 00058044051 0005804 0052 00058044056 00058044057 00058040058 Duplicsrp spike QCBlsnk Splke Dupllcare 0005804x)24 Recovery MRHO0 Recovcty 000580AA)19 Leb Control BLANK 1 SOIL HYDROCARBOflS,AS RECEIVED Mchod: 501-FID Units: m& Tf’H C6 - C9 TPH C10. C14 TPW c15 - c2s rplI C?9 - C36 QC RESULTS -DUPLICATES Relative Pacmt Diffcrcnce. % Antimony 4.0 Arsenic <1.0 Bcryllium s1.0 Boron -:1 . IJ Cadmium 11.0 Chromium c.1 .o Cobdl c1.0 CuPPa G.S Lad c1.0 Molybdenum c1.0 Nickel Cl.0 Sclcnium c1.0 Tin c1.0 TPH C6 - C3 Reported: Monday, lA August 2000 Page I9 of 29 14-RUG-2886 11:33 NFILNTWW O”., Hephcement wortNo: 20074 1 0005804QO63 0005804Q064 00056044065 00058040066 0005804Q067 Duplicate Spike Spike Dupllcate Spike OM)S8OdfiOl Recovey Recovery 0005806061 Recovey 0005806/001 Lab Control Lab Concml QC WSULTS - DLlPLlCATES Rclaijvc Pcrccnt Diffcrcnce. ?6 AisuiiL: 11.5 3.8 Coppa 2.8 Vnnsdium 1.7 Zinc 1.9 QC RESULTS - SPIKED SAMPLES PucmL Rccovq. % mmriic 76.4 87 3 102 Coppa 99.8 95.7 Vanadium 87.0 88.9 Zinc 79.2 91.5 Oualify Results pmvlded In fils reponare forlaborabry Quallry Conwlpurposes. ReDorrdr Monday. 14 August 2000 Pagc 311 of 20 TOTRL P. 85 ...... Soil Testing & Geotechnical Consultants FACSl MI LE TRANSMISSION TO: S LISAN WAlSM Date: 22b8 2000 NoPages: 4 (including this cover sheet) Please Reply: ...... :.... Telephone: (0359)75 6644 - dGsia3 -00' I Fax: (0359)75 9589 , SGs . fi ,, & ;.a(s.lm .. 1.. 1.. .. 7-K r.. . ' Message: ...... , ,.. Civiltest Pty Ltd PO Box 537 MORNINGTON VIC 3931 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. MGT ANRLYSXS REPORT 141320 CLrRNT SXTE : - Bx-CRIBBLX6 RMl283-00 DATH RECEIVED :- l0/00/00 DATE IutTAACTw OR PREP- I- ZO/O0/00 - ll/OB/00 sa DATE RICPORm I- 17/08/00 QA/Qc DETAILS :- The QA/QC for theme samplee ie detailed in thie report no : 141310 A total of 1 duplicate, 1 matrix spike % recovery and 1 method bLank anaLyece or eats of analyeae were carried out on thie batch oL 0amphS. All W/QC resulte for duplicatee, matrix epike 0 racwcry, metbod blank and known QC standards were within the est acceptable criterla. ~1blA1. mPoaT :- The resulte in thle report eupereede any previously cottaeponded reeulte. mchae1 wrigut Laboratory Manager Page 1 of 3 9) 0. 0 B Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Klnaslm form Cb.OaMrld tkwh aim. Awmra - HEAVY METALS-WS #PA SWB46 blETRODS 7000 (AN b 601081ICP1, VXC SPA METI( ODs 11&16. Sample 3A 3A Dup QA SA 6A Spike k Recov Lab. Uo. AUO954 AU095 OD hCJ09SS AU0956 A00957 AUO957S Arsenic 6.1 7.0 4.9 7 -9 4.2 103 'c Copper 9.5 9.8 15 14 20 94 % Vanadium 20 23 20 48 14 - 1 I I 1 r I Extraction with H202, KN03 & HCl. Resulte in pprn (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). 1' Y Date received I O/OO /00 Rate Reported 17/08/00 Report No. 141310 Page 2 of 3 r I XEAVY KBTAZS-US SPA St646 METRODS 7000(AA1 br 60108(ICP1, VIC BPA bzBTBM)S 13&16. Sample Meth 81. (mg/l) , Lab. No. ll~senic I C0.02 I 1 I II ~ -~ ~ 1 Copper f L Report No. 141320 Page 3 of 3