INFORMATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS
August 2007
VICTORIA'S AUDIT SYSTEM AUDIT REPORT CURRENCY
An environmental audit system has operated in Audit reports are based on the conditions encountered Victoria since 1989. The Environmenf Profecfion Acf and information reviewed at the time of preparation 1970 (the Act) provides for the appointment by the and do not represent any changes that may have Environment Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) of occurred since the date of completion. As it is not environmental auditors and the conduct of possible for an audit to present all data that could be independent, high quality and rigorous environmental of interest to all readers, consideration should be audits. made to any appendices or referenced documentation An environmental audit is an assessment of the for further information. condition of the environment, or the nature and extent When information regarding the condition of a site of harm (or risk of harm) posed by an industrial changes from that at the time an audit report is process or activity, waste, substance or noise. issued, or where an administrative or computation Environmental audit reports are prepared by EPA- error is identified, environmental audit reports, appointed environmental auditors who are highly certificates and statements may be withdrawn or qualified and skilled individuals. amended by an environmental auditor. Users are Under the Act, the function of an environmental advised to check EPA's website to ensure the currency auditor is to conduct environmental audits and of the audit document. prepare environmental audit reports. Where an environmental audit is conducted to determine the PDF SEARCHABILITY AND PRINTING condition of a site or its suitability for certain uses, an environmental auditor may issue either a certificate or EPA Victoria can only certify the accuracy and statement of environmental audit. correctness of the audit report and appendices as presented in the hardcopy format. EPA is not A certificate indicates that the auditor is of the opinion responsible for any issues that arise due to problems that the site is suitable for any beneficial use defined with PDF files or printing. in the Act, whilst a statement indicates that there is some restriction on the use of the site. Except where PDF normal format is specified, PDF files are scanned and optical character recognised by Any individual or organisation may engage appointed machine only. Accordingly, while the images are environmental auditors, who generally operate within consistent with the scanned original, the searchable the environmental consulting sector, to undertake hidden text may contain uncorrected recognition environmental audits. The EPA administers the errors that can reduce search reliability. Therefore, environmental audit system and ensures its ongoing keyword searches undertaken within the document integrity by assessing auditor applications and may not retrieve all references to the queried text. ensuring audits are independent and conducted with regard to guidelines issued by EPA. This PDF has been created using the Adobe-approved method for generating Print Optimised Output. To assure proper results, proofs must be printed, rather AUDIT FILES STRUCTURE than viewed on the screen. Environmental audit reports are stored digitally by This PDF is compatible with Adobe Acrobat Reader EPA in three parts: the audit report (part A), report Version 4.0 or any later version which is downloadable appendices (part B) and, where applicable, the free from Adobe's Website, www.adobe.com. certificate or statement of environmental audit and an executive summary (part C). A report may be in colour FURTHER I N FORMATION and black-and-white formats. Generally, only black- and-white documents are text searchable. For more information on Victoria's environmental Report executive summaries, findings and audit system, visit EPA's website or contact EPA's recommendations should be read and relied upon only Environmental Audit Unit. in the context of the document as a whole, including Web: www.epa.vic.clov.au/envaudit any appendices and, where applicable, any certificate Email: [email protected] or statement of environmental audit.
1 of 119 Appendix 1
Report Reviewed
I 35076-1-B
GBP Developers Pty Ltd Lot 5B (No. 7-9) willow Street, Essendon EnvironmentalAudit Report JAC10632.WRPIdc 2 of 119 FINAL SITE ASSESSMENT
OF
PART FORMER TIMBER YARD LOT 5B (NO.7-9) WILLOW STREET ESSENDON
PREPARED FOR
GBP DEVELOPERS PTY LTD
Report No. 35315
3 of 119 353 lS\GBPbud &mGeoPollution Management
FINAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
STATUTORY ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
7-9 (Lot 5b) WILLOW STREET, ESSENDON
PREPARED FOR
GBP DEVELOPERS PTY LTD
GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd FileNo.: 35315 1 1 th June 1998 Doc. Ref: 353 1 5\GBP\aud
4 of 119 35315\GBP\aud 6 beoPollution Management
This final site assessment report has been prepared by GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd for GBP Developers Pty Ltd. This site assessment report satisfies the requirements for a Statutory Environmental Audit of 5 b Willow Street, Essendon, Victoria.
The report is presented for review by the EPAV-approved Environmental Auditor, Mr Jonathan Crockett of Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd, who has been appointed by Mr Anthony Zammit of GBP Developers Pty Ltd for this Site Audit.
This document has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the client, Mr Anthony Zammit of GBP Developers Pty Ltd. This report may not to be reproduced unless in full and with permission of the client.
... 111 5 of 119 3531 S\GBP\aud &#) Ge6Pollution Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS .. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... vii
1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 1. 1 Objectives ...... 1 1.2 Scope of the Investigation ...... 2 1.3 Assessment Criteria ...... 2
2 . BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...... 4 2.1 Site Identification ...... 4 2.2 General Site Description and Physical Setting ...... 4 2.3 Zoning and Proposed Development ...... 6
3 . PREVIOUS SITE ASSESSMENT ...... 6
4 . SITE HISTORY AND POTENTIAL FOR CONTAMINATION...... 7
5 . REGIONAL SUBSURFACE ENVIRONMENT ...... 8 5.1 Geology ...... 8 5.2 Hydrogeology ...... 9
6 . FIELD INVESTIGATION ...... 9 6.1 Drilling of Boreholes and Soil Sampling ...... 9 6.2 Field Screening for Volatile Organic Compounds (Soil Gas Survey) ...... 10
7 . QUALITY ASSURANCElQUALlTY CONTROL ...... 11 7.1 Field Sampling ...... 11 7.2 Laboratories ...... 11 7.3 Reporting Limits ...... 11 7.4 Sample Documentation and Dispatch ...... 13
8 . SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SCHEDULES ...... 13
9 . RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION...... 17 9.1 Shallow Site Soils ...... 17 9.2 Field Contamination Assessment ...... 17 9.2.1 Visual and Olfactory Observations ...... 17 9.2.2 Asbestos ...... 17 9.2.3 Vapour Survey ...... 18 9.3 Chemical Analysis ...... 18 9.3.1 Presentation of Results ...... 18 9.3.2 Summary of Findings...... 23
10 . DATA QUALITY EVALUATION ...... 25 10.1 Field Duplicates...... 26 10.2 Blind Duplicates ...... 28 10.3 Summary Evaluation ...... 29
I1. CONCLUSIONS...... 30
12. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 32
iv 6 of 119 353 IS\GBP\aud &#). QeoPollution Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
13. LIMITATIONS OF THIS INVESTIGATION...... 33
REFERENCES...... 33
TABLES
TABLE 1: Soil Quality Guideline Criteria TABLE 2: Reporting Limits TABLE 3a: Summary of Analyses Performed - Initial Program TABLE 3b: Summary of Analyses Performed - Further Program TABLE 4a: Compositing and Analysis Schedule - Initial Analysis TABLE 4b: Analysis Schedule - Further Analysis TABLE 5: Generalised Shallow Soil Profile TABLE 6: Summary of Analytical Results - Heavy Metals and PAH’s TABLE 7: Summary of Analytical Results - Petroleum-Related Compounds TABLE 8: Summary of Analytical Results - PCBs, CHC’s, Phenols, OC Pesticides and Cyanide TABLE 9a: Summary of Individual Analytical Results - Further Analysis: Heavy Metals and PAH’s TABLE loa: QNQC Replicate Results and Evaluation - Field Split Comp 2 and Comp 2DUP TABLE lob: QNQC Replicate Results and Evaluation - Field Split Sample B3-2 104- 1 and B3-2 104- 1DUP TABLE 1Oc: QNQC Replicate Results and Evaluation - Blind Duplicate Comp 1 and Comp BD TABLE 11: Average and Peak Concentrations of Potential Contaminants - Heavy Metals, PAH’s and TPH’s
V 7 of 119 353 I5\GBP\aud &,mGeoPollution Managemant
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Layout and Location of Sampling Points Figure 2: Composite Soil Samples Figure 3: Composite Soil Samples - Fill and Natural Soil
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Site Locality Plan Appendix B: Certificate of Title Documentation and Plan of Subdivision Appendix C: Bore Logs Appendix D. 1 :Final (NATA Endorsed) Chemical Analysis Reports - Primary Laboratory Appendix D.2: Final (NATA Endorsed) Chemical Analysis Report - Secondary Laboratory Appendix E: Chain of Custody Documentation Appendix F: Site Historical Information - Street Directory and Aerial Photographs Appendix G: Correspondence GPM/Auditor/Client
PLATES
PLATE 1: View of the cleared site looking towards the southeast site corner. New units can be seen on the eastern site boundary (background), as on 2 1" April 1998.
PLATE 2: View of the cleared site looking towards the north (rear), 21'' April 1998.
vi 8 of 119 353 I 5\GBP\aud &,m- GeoPdlution Management
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd have completed a detailed soil contamination survey of the vacant land located at Lot 5b (No. 7-9) Willow Street, Essendon, with the aim to provide a final assessment of environmental quality of site soils in the context of a Statutory Environmental Audit.
In this final site assessment report the methods used are described, results summarised and the environmental quality of the site prior to its residential redevelopment is evaluated.
ANZECC B criteria were adopted as soil quality guideline criteria for potential soil pollutants (ANZECC & NHMRC, 1992). Results are also compared with EPA ‘Clean Fill Material’ and ‘Low-level Contaminated’ Fill criteria (EPA Bulletin 448, 1995).
The site covers a total area of 592 m2. A total of seventeen (1 7) routine soil samples were collected from five sample locations across the site. A minimum of two samples were collected from each borehole location, nominally from 0.0 - 0.2 and 0.3 - 0.6 metre depth ranges. Additional samples of fill material were taken at approximately 0.5 metre intervals if fill was deeper than 0.5 metres.
Four composite groups were chemically analysed, as agreed with the Auditor, two surface composites and one natural soil composite. Analysis of surface composites was for eight heavy metals (As, Cd, Cry Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni and Zn), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s), Organochlorine Pesticides and PCB’s and pH values. One widely spaced surface composite was analysed for the balance of the “EPA Screen”, namely for an additional 6 metals, Semi-Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Phenolic Compounds and Cyanide. Individual samples were tested for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH’s) and Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MAH’s) subject to visual appraisal and PID readings. Three samples of natural soil underlying fill were also combined into one composite sample and analysed for the full range of analytes (except for TPH’s).
Further analysis was subsequently undertaken, on the basis of initial results, including samples of surface fill material from three boreholes for PAH’s, and Lead, Zinc and Chromium.
For quality control purposes, five field replicate soil samples were collected; three of which were analysed by a second laboratory (splits) and two by the primary laboratory as blind duplicates (both as composites, one split sample was individually analysed for TPH’s). One equipment blank sample was also analysed. The trip blank was not analysed as no volatile compounds were recorded by the laboratory or by field equipment.
Fill material was encountered at all sample locations, to a maximum depth of 1.2m located in the rear portion of the site. Fill material consisted of silty sandsandy silt with debris.
vii 9 of 119 353 15\GBP\aud Gb GeoPollution Management
Initial analysis results suggested that the individual PAH compound Benzo(a)pyrene and the metals lead and zinc and possibly chromium may be above the guideline criteria in one or more individual samples of surface fill.
Further analysis showed that all concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene in individual fill samples are below respective ANZECC B Criteria. Peak concentrations of the heavy metals chromium and zinc are below the EPAV Fill Material (Clean Fill) criteria. Lead is the only heavy metal present above the EPAV Fill Limits at a single test location.
The findings of this final site assessment indicate that localised pockets of low-level contaminated fill may be present on the site. Clean up of the general site will not be required for the proposed development as long as the indicated effective surface seal is established and maintained (it is understood that concrete paving is to be placed over entire site).
The presence of heterogeneous fill material including localised pockets of “Low-Level Contaminated” soil on the site implies that, unless clean up is undertaken to bring the entire site in compliance with EPA Fill Criteria, the property is not eligible for a Certificate of Environmental Audit but will receive a conditional Statement.
viii 10 of 119 353 1 S\GBP\aud &$)QeoPollution Management
1. INTRODUCTION
GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd was engaged by Mr Anthony Zammit on behalf of GBD Developers Pty Ltd to carry out a comprehensive site assessment for the purpose of an environmental audit of part of a former timber yard located at No. 7-9 (Lot 5b) Willow Street, Essendon, Victoria.
An environmental investigation was previously undertaken on the neighbouring site, formerly part of the same timber yard, by Geo Pollution Management in May 1995. The findings of the assessment are reviewed in Section 3 of this report.
The audit was required to satisfy a condition of the Council's (City of Moonee Valley) planning permit for the re-development of the site into multistorey residential units. This requirement arose as a result of a Ministerial Directive relating to potentially contaminated sites (Ministerial Directive No. 1 under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as amended in May 1992).
This investigation has been completed in accordance with GeoPollution Management proposal No. QM 785/2 dated 23'd March, 1998 and subsequent additions as required for auditing purposes. The work was authorized by written agreement dated 16'h April 1998.
The investigation program outlined in this report has been carried out in compliance with the ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council) and NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council), 1992 "Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites", the Australian Standard AS 4487.1- 1997 "Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil" as well as relevant guidelines promulgated by the Environment Protection Authority of Victoria (EPAV).
This final report is submitted to the appointed EPA Auditor for review and attachment to his Audit report.
1.I Objectives
This site assessment program was designed to satisfy the criteria for an environmental audit with the following objectives:
0 Determine the degree and extent of potential contaminants through near-surface soils 0 Determine whether potential contaminants are present at concentrations which would pose an environmental or health risk Evaluate the final environmental quality of the site prior to re-development. Provide all the information including supporting quality control data required for the preparation of the Environmental Audit report.
The final site assessment report presents:
0 a description of the site and other relevant background information
1 11 of 119 35315\GBP\aud &,baeoPollution - Management
0 a review of a previous site investigation report
0 a summary of the historical site use
0 methods used 0 the geological and hydrogeological context
0 a summary of all field and laboratory results and evaluation of analysis results according to current soil quality guideline criteria 0 quality control data and evaluation
0 recommendations.
1.2 Scope of the Investigation
The scope of work for this investigation was agreed upon with Mr Jonathan Crockett, the EPA Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) appointed for this project (GPM Work Plan dated 6t’1April 1998 and subsequent modification as per Auditor’s request; refer to Appendix G).
This site assessment addresses potential contamination across the site surface layer by analysis of samples collected from general grid locations. No specific site features were present that warranted targeting.
Soil sampling extended through any fill material, where present, and into the natural soil profile. Drilling and inspection of soil profiles extended at least 500 mm into the natural soil.
A groundwater investigation was not required at this site.
1.3 Assessment Criteria
The decision whether the site is suitable for the proposed land use or whether site clean up is required, and if so to what extent, is subject to a site-specific analysis of the collected data with respect to adopted acceptance criteria, which in the case of Environmental Audits, are set by and agreed upon with the EPA approved Auditor. The site-specific analysis incorporates a site-specific risk assessment (human health and environmental risk) considering factors such as the type of future land use, exposure pathways, surface coverage, local geology, potential off-site effects, etc.
Criteria for the assessment of potentially contaminated sites presently adopted by the EPA are essentially guideline limits for defining the extent of effort needed to investigate a site. These are adopted from ANZECC & NHMRC Guidelines (1 992) and DUTCH B levels, in the absence of ANZECC B criteria.
EPA ‘Fill Criteria’ (EPA Bulletin 448 “Classification of Wastes’) are used for classification of soil for disposal to landfill. Both EPA “Fill Material” Limits (equivalent to “Clean Fill” Limits) and “Low-Level Contaminated Fill” criteria are included in the Table below.
2 12 of 119 353 I S\GBP\aud &bGeoPollution Management
The criteria used for data evaluation in this investigation are shown in the table below (TABLE 1). _-
TABLE 1: Soil Quality Guideline Criteria [mglkg dry weight of soil]
ANALYTES ANZECC B EPAV FILL EPA LOW-LEVEL GUIDELINE MATERIAL CONTAMINATED LIMITS LIMITS FILL LIMITS Heavy Metals (total) Antimony (Sb) 20 ns ns Beryllium (Be) 203 11 s ns Arsenic (As) 20 (100)' 30 300 Cadmium (Cd) 3 5 50 Chromium (Cr) 50 250 2500 Cobalt (Co) 20 50 500 Copper (Cu) 60 100 1000 Lead (Pb) 3 00 300 3000 Mercury (Hg) 1 2 20 Nickel (Ni) 60 100 1000 Selenium (Se) 10 100 Tin (Sn) 50 50 500 Zinc (Zn) 200 500 5000 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH's) Total 20 20 200 Benzo(a)py re ne 1' ns ns Organochlorine Pesticides Total 1 1 10 Dieldrin 0.2 ns ns Other Individual os2 ns 11s Cyanide (total complex) 50 500 Phenolics (total) 1 1 10 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB 3) 1 1 10 Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MH's) Benzene 1 ns ns ToI uene 3' ns ns Ethyl Benzene 5' ns ns Xylenes (4 isomers) 5' ns ns Total 7 7 70 Total Petroleum Wydrocarbons (TPHS)
3 13 of 119 35315\GBP\aud &mGeohllution Management
Where soil quality acceptance criteria are exceeded, the decision on the need for site clean up is based on a site-specific risk assessment (human health and environmental risk) considering factors such as the type of hture land use, exposure pathways, surface coverage, local geology, potential off-site effects, etc.
As a basis to assess the need for hrther investigation based on composite sample results, division of the assessment criteria by the number of individual samples comprising the composite samples to allow for sample dilution is appropriate. This has been allowed for in the evaluation of data.
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 Site Identification
The site is identified as part of Crown Allotment eight Section one on Certificate of Title Vol. 2529 Folio 666, town of Essendon, Parish of Doutta Galla, County of Bourke and as Lot B on Plan of Subdivision No. PS 3473 16L. (Appendix B).
As per Client's and Architect's information the Street number site is currently 5b Willow Street, while the Council representative indicates the subject property is now numbered 7-9 Willow Street (Lorenzo Rigoni, City of Moonee Valley, verbal information).
2.2 General Site Description and Physical Setting
The site is located within the Melbourne Metropolitan Area in the City of Moonee Valley (previously the City of Essendon), approximately 7.5 km northwest of the Central Business District. A general location map is attached as Appendix A.
The site, occupying an area of approximately 592 m2, is L-shaped with a surface slope of approximately 2 to 3" towards the southeast. The site is bounded at the front (south) by Willow Street and commercial properties opposite and to the north (rear) by commercial properties and abutting Mount Alexander Road to the west (refer to Figure 1). Residential dwellings bound the property to the east and northeast. A car park adjoins the western boundary for most of its length except for the rear portion where another small vacated allotment, also part of the former timber yard but not subject to this assessment, adjoins the site.
A solid brick wall defines the property boundary at the back and paling fences along most of the western and eastern boundaries. The front is open towards Willow Street.
The bulk of the site surface is devoid of vegetation. Grasses and weeds are present along the eastern boundary. Minor residues of recent demolition, such as broken bricks, were evident over parts of the site.
4 14 of 119 iagement
Plate 1: View of the cleared site looking towards the southeast site corner. New units can be seen on the eastern site boundary (background), as on 21" April 1998.
Plate 2: View of the cleared site looking towards the north (rear), 21" April 1998. 5
15 of 119 3 53 1 5KBP\aud &mGooPoliution kanagement
At the time of our investigation the site had been cleared of buildings and pavings and all demolition rubble had been removed. Views of the site are shown on Plates 1 and 2 on the following page.
The property is located in a densely populated area with a generally low proportion of exposed ground.
2.3 Zoning and Proposed Development
The zoning of the site has been amended from ‘GENERAL INDUSTRIAL’ to ‘RESIDENTIAL C’ zone (Planning Amendment L29) under the City of Moonee Valley Planning Scheme. Rezoning of the site to ‘RESIDENTIAL C’ was required to allow for the proposed development..
The new development comprises 11 two- to three-storey attached units with the entire ground floor level designated as a car park. The entire property will be concrete paved and no exposed garden beds will be present.
3. PREVIOUS SITE ASSESSMENT
No environmental assessment has been carried out for the subject site. The area was still covered by buildings until the start of this year. The buildings were part of a timber yard which extended mainly to the east of the subject test area. An environmental audit was previously conducted of the immediately adjoining area, 5 - 7 Willow Street (now 11 Willow Street, Lorenzo Rigoni, City of Moonee Valley, verbal informat‘ion). The following assessment report was prepared by GeoPollution Management:
GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd (1997) File No. 26920/3. Final Site Assessment. 5 - 7 Willow Street, Essendon. Report prepared for Trillions Pty Ltd, 1Olh February.
The final site assessment was preceded by an initial site assessment also carried out by this company.
PETROTEST (1995) Soil Contamination Assessment (Initial), 5- 7 Willow Street, Essendon, 181h May (File No. 26920/2)
Some contamination had initially been identified in fill material by Zinc and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s). Clean up of surface fill was undertaken in the course of the final site assessment. Subsequent to clean up a Certificate of Environmental Audit was issued for the site.
6 16 of 119 353 Ij\GBP\aud 6 GeoPollution Management
4. SITE HISTORY AND POTENTIAL FOR CONTAMINATION
A brief review of the history of the site and past land uses has been undertaken. Information was sought from the following sources:
0 City of Moonee Valley, Town Planning Department,
0 Street Directory of Melbourne (Sands & McDougall), State Library of Victoria, Aerial Photography (Office of Surveyor General, Melbourne) The site assessment report for the adjoining property (GPM file No. 2692013)
Occupancy records for No. 5-7 Willow Street, Essendon (North side), listed in the Street Directory of Melbourne (Sands & McDougall; refer also to report by Royal Historical Society attached as Appendixh, show the following. Dates are approximate. F 1930’s: Store Yard on south side of Willow Street
Prior to early 1940’s: Private residences, No. 5 since approx. 1929 occupied by Turner, Hy
1950’s: Turner, Kenneth, timber merchant
1970’s to 1996: Turner, J & Sons Pty Ltd, timber merchants
The following information is sourced from the final site assessment report prepared by this company for the adjoining site, No. 5 - 7 Willow Street (refer to Section 3 above). The occupant (Mr Turner) at the time was interviewed by GPM staff in the course of the initial assessment in December 1996. The timber yard was vacated by the owners (J. Turner & Sons, Timber Merchants) in late 1996. A large shed and brick office at the front covering the subject site entirely were left in place until they were demolished only recently.
The last owners occupied the site for approximately 10 years. According to the owners the site had been a timber yard for several decades. In the early days, dating back almost 100 years, it is believed that there was a horse stable and feed stall. In the early 1960’s cabinets were built on the site, however no timber mill was present and cut timber was imported from elsewhere. There has been no significant chemical storage on the site, with only small amounts of oil being used for vehicles. According to the previous owners/occiipiers wood preservation has not been carried out on the site at any point in time.
According to Mr Turner, the timber yard initially extended west to Mount Alexander Road and north to Fletcher Road however, over time, small pieces of the property were sold off.
Aerial photographs show the following (copies of photographs are attached as Appendix F).
1956: The 1956 photograph shows the site to be part of the timber yard. The elongate building (north-south direction), however, is not present, instead an L-shape building is obvious at the rear (north-east corner). A smaller building, possibly a residence, occiipies the front half of the subject site.
7 17 of 119 353 1 5\GBP\aud &B,GeoPollution Management
1968: The 1968 photograph shows the timber yard to be very similar in appearance to the time of its closure in late 1996. An elongated L-shaped building appears to occupy the entire area subject to this site assessment.
1982: No change is obvious on the 1982 photograph compared to the 1968 photograph showing the operational timber yard. The subject test area is still covered by the L- shaped building.
It is known from the earlier assessment of the adjoining timber yard that the majority of the roof-covered elongated building was an open shed used for timber storage. A small office building of brick construction was formerly present at the front, south east corner of the (short part of L) of the subject site.
Potential for Contumination
The risk of contamination by site activities in the subject part of the former timber yard is low, as the entire site was previously covered by buildingskiheds. Possible storage of piles of pre-cut and preserved timber within the elongated part of the former building may have caused localised contamination from possible leaching of preservatives (containing certain heavy metals or phenolic compounds) if storage occurred on exposed ground. Potential contamination may also be associated with the presence of potential fill material of unknown origin imported onto the site.
General groups of contaminants anticipated at this site are as follows:
* Heavy metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons associated with heterogeneous fill
* Copper, chromium, arsenic or chlorophenols potentially associated with the storage of preserved timber in the open shed
* Petroleum hydrocarbons from storage of machine oils and fuel.
5. REGIONAL SUBSURFACE ENVIRONMENT
5.1 Geology
The site is identified on the Geological Survey of Victoria MELBOURNE Sheet (1 :63,360) as being located within the province of Pliocene ‘Red Bluff Sands’, which are part of the Brighton Group. These sands overlie Lower to Middle Tertiary ‘Older Volcanics’ and associated soil profiles.
The Older Volcanics have weathered from basaltic rock into residual clay soils.
8 18 of 119 6 GeoPollution Management
5.2 Hydrogeology
The residual clays underlying the site are relatively impermeable, while the bedrock is moderately too highly permeable depending on the degree of weathering and fracturing. The sandy material above the less permeable clay is moist to occasionally wet which may be an indication of a seasonally perched water table.
Regionally, groundwater is present through fractures in the bedrock.
Regional drainage is likely to be towards the Maribyrnong River, located less than 2.5 km to the southwest of the site.
6. FIELD INVESTIGATION
Technical and scientific staff from our Ringwood office carried out fieldwork on 21'' April 1998. A geotechnical drilling subcontractor was used to auger boreholes across the site (a geotechnical investigation was carried out in conjunction with the environmental assessment).
A Field Environmental Scientist from GeoPollution Management was responsible for soil profile logging, on-site testing and collection of soil samples and quality assurance procedures.
6.1 Drilling of Boreholes and Soil Sampling
Boreholes were advanced using a light truck mount-drilling rig (HMD 11) with solid flight augers of 95mm diameter. A total of five sampling points were located across the site.
Boreholes were advanced through fill material and at least 500 nim into the natural clay. Samples were retrieved from a minimum of two depth intervals per location, being 0.0 - 0.2m and 0.3 - 0.6m, as agreed with the Environmental Auditor. Where the thickness of the fill layer exceeded OSm, further samples of fill material were collected at approximately 0.5m intervals to the base of the fill, with the final sample collected from underlying natural soil. Final drilling depths across the site varied between 1.5 and 2.2m. Excess soil was backfilled to surface level prior to bore abandonment.
Soil samples were collected directly from the auger flights following removal of any cross- contaminated portions (outer and innermost portions of the auger cuttings).
A field contamination assessment including routine on-site vapor detection (PID, see section 6.2) was carried out concurrently with soil sampling.
9 19 of 119 353 15\GBPbud GeoPollution Management
A total of seventeen (17) routine soil samples were collected. An additional three (3) QNQC field duplicates were collected for analysis by a second laboratory. Two (2) blind
duplicate samples were also collected and these were analysed by the primary laboratory 2- under a different sample number.
An equipment blank sample of final rinse water and a trip blank sample comprising distilled water sampled at our Ringwood Office prior to travelling to the site, and stored on ice at the site together with the soil samples, were also submitted to the primary laboratory.
Soil samples were thoroughly mixed in a tray before transferring them into acid washed sample jars. All samples were collected as 'zero-headspace' samples ('jar' samples), ie. the glass jars were filled to full capacity leaving no air gaps. Subsequently, they were tightly sealed with a teflon-lined plastic screw cap. These precautions serve to minimize oxidation of chemicals and loss of volatile compounds between sample collection and laboratory analysis.
6.2 Field Screening for Volatile Organic Compounds (Soil Gas Survey)
A vapour screen was routinely conducted at each soil sampling location by inserting the probe into the open bore space immediately after exposure. This method provides a gross assessment of the presence of volatile organic compounds within the entire vertical extent of subsurface material intersected at any given time.
The instrument used for the field screen is a portable Photoionisation Detector (PID, Photovac, model Microtip IS-3000) which registers total ionisable organic compounds rather than individual compounds. Prior to commencement of field work, the instrument was calibrated using a gas mix of 105 ppm isobutylene in ultrahigh purity air contained in a plastic sample bag.
Readings represent the total concentration of all photoionizable organics in the sample (in parts per million) and results represent relative concentrations. The instrument response is accurate within +/- 10 ppm. A background reading was taken each time before testing.
If concentrations of volatile compounds were detected in excess of 10 ppm at any of the test locations, special 'headspace' samples were to be collected for laboratory analysis of volatile compounds.
IO 20 of 119 3531 S\GBP\aud &mGeoPollution Management
7. QUALITY ASSURANCElQUALlTY CONTROL
- ii- 7.1 Field Sampling
All sampling equipment including augers that had come into contact with fill or soil was decontaminated between boreholes in accordance with the work procedures adopted by GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd as part of their internal quality assurance protocol.
Hand sampling equipment was cleaned according to the following procedure before collection of each sample:
1) Brush in water containing DECON 90 (phosphate-free detergent) 2) Rinse twice in ample tap water 3) Rinse once with distilled water 4) Dry with disposable paper towel.
Water was brought on site in containers.
7.2 Laboratories
Internal laboratory quality control testing was requested as follows:
Duplicates - 10% of all samples analysed or a minimum of 1 Blanks - 1 per batch of samples analysed Spikes (Recoveries) - Duplicates with known spikes. For metals: Spike added to acid digest. For organics: Spike added to soil prior to extraction. Standards - Instrument calibration standards as required by NATA.
QA/QC methods were employed to ensure that the data, as far as possible, were accurate, precise (reproducible and repeatable) and representative.
Field replicate samples were submitted for analysis (at a rate of 10 % of total sample analyses) for the purpose of external quality assurance checks (samples sent to a second laboratory). Blind duplicates were also collected at a rate of one in ten for analysis by the primary laboratory. Blind duplicates sent to the primary laboratory were given different identification numbers to conceal their identity.
All field replicate samples were aliquots of thoroughly mixed bulk samples taken from the auger cuttings.
7.3 Reporting Limits
The following reporting limits are applicable to this analysis program (Table 2 over page). The reporting limits were approximately one fifth of the equivalent ANZECC B levels modfied for composite samples as specified by the Auditor.
21 of 119 r 3531 S\GBP\aud &mGeoPollution Management
TABLE 2: REPORTING LIMITS
ANALYTE LIMITS [mglkg dry weight of soil] Heavy Metals: Antimony 2 Arsenic 2 Beryllium 5 Cadmium 0.2 Chromium 3 Cobalt 3 Copper 5 Lead 5 Mercury 0.05 Molybdenum 5 Nickel 5 Selenium 3 Tin 3 Zinc 5 PAHs (individual) 0.1 Organochlorine Pesticides (total) 0.1 TPH Fractions C6-C9 10 C10-C14 10 C 15-C28 20 C29-C36 20 Volatile Aromatic Compounds (BTEX) Benzene 0.05 Toluene 0.05 Ethyl Benzene 0.05 Xylenes 0.05 Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 0.1 PCB’s (total) 0.5 Total Phenolics 0.1 Cyanide 5
Reporting limits are also referred to as ‘Practical Quantitation Limits’. Detection limits of the analytical method may be up to a factor of 10 lower.
Occasionally, actual reporting limits used by the laboratory may be lower than the requested values and detectable results may then be reported below the limits listed above.
12 22 of 119 353 I S\GBP\aud GeoPollution Management
7.4 Sample Documentation and Dispatch
Sample numbering for this sampling program was according to a defined format. Each sample was given the prefix ‘B’X”, where B stands for borehole and X is the number assigned to the borehole from which the sample was collected, as per example below: B 1-2 104- 1 (ie. Sample from borehole 1, collected on 21st April, Sample No. 1).
Samples were courier-despatched to the primary and check laboratories on the same day following completion of the field work.
Sample details, any special sample preparation methods required and analytical parameters were entered on Chain of Custody Forms (see Appendix E). These forms double as ‘Sample Analysis Request Forms’. All sample labels were cross-checked with the records kept and all required details were entered on the dispatch forms. A copy of all the forms sent out with the samples was retained in the job file.
The analytical laboratories were requested to crosscheck the samples upon receipt against the Analysis Request Forms, to sign the forms and return the signed forms by Facsimile to the GPM office.
8. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SCHEDULES
The number of test points was in accordance with the requirements of the Australian Standard AS 4487.1-1 995 based on site area.
Samples were collected from five (5) locations on site covering the following nominal intervals:
A: 0.0 - (0.1 - 0.3)m B: 0.3 - 0.6m.
Surface soil samples consisted of fill or disturbed natural material at all sample locations. At locations where depth of fill material exceeded 0.5 m, further samples of fill were collected at a rate of one sample per 0.5 metre. Depth of fill material varied between 0.1 m in the south (front of site), and 1.2 m in the north (rear) of the site.
Two composite groups of surface samples were chemically analysed, as per preliminary work plan (61h April 1998) and subsequent addition as per Auditor’s facsimile dated 9* April 1998 (Appendix G), for eight heavy metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni and Zn), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s), Organochlorine (OC) Pesticides and PCB’s and pH values. Samples of surface fill were also combined into firther 3-part composite and analysed for Semi Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, PAH’s, Phenolic Compounds and Cyanide. One composite of natural soil underlying fill material was subject to analysis for the full suite of analytes (except for pH values). Four individual samples were tested for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH’s), and two individual samples were tested for MAH’s subject to visual appraisal and PID readings. 13 23 of 119 353 15\GBP\aud &BGeoPollution Management
On the basis of initial results further analysis was subsequently undertaken for PAH’s, Lead, Zinc and Chromium, addressing all samples of surface fill material from boreholes 3, 4 and 5
Following sample collection and during transport to our Ringwood office, samples were stored on ice. Samples were refrigerated at 4 “C until dispatch on the day following completion of fieldwork. Sample dispatch followed chain of custody procedures. Copies of the combined chain of custody and analysis request forms are attached to this report as Appendix E.
The number of chemical analyses undertaken and the range of chemical parameters selected in the both the initial and further programs of analysis are summarised below in TABLES 3a and 3b (Table 3b on following page).
Chemical analysis was carried out by the NATA accredited analytical laboratory of National Analytical Laboratories (NAL), Notting Hill, used as the main or primary laboratory (routine samples). QA/QC duplicate samples were submitted to the NATA laboratory of MGT Eiivironniental Consulting Pty Ltd, Oakleigh, as the secondary laboratory with the respective chain of custody form attached as part of Appendix E. Internal QNQC procedures were followed by both subcontracting laboratories (refer to Section 10.0 below).
TABLE 3a: Summary of Chemical Analyses Performed - Initial Program
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS No. ROUTINE No. QNQC SAMPLES SAMPLES Comp. Indiv. Comp. Indiv.
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Mercury, Nickel, Lead and Zinc 1 Antimony, Beryllium, Cobalt, Selenium, Tin and Molybdenum 2 - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 3 - (PAH’s) Organochlorine PesticidesRCB’s 3 - Phenolic Compounds 2 - Semi-volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 2 - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH’s) - 3 Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons (MAH’s) - 2 Cyanide (CN-) 2 - PH 2 -
14 24 of 119 ~~ ~
353 1S\GBP\aud &BGeoPollution Management
TABLE 3b: Summary of Chemical Analyses Performed - Further Program
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS No. of Routine Individual Analyses
Chromium, Lead and Zinc 3
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 4
TABLE 4a (over page) summarises the samples analysed and their compositing for the Initial Program. TABLE 4b (page after next) summarises further samples analysed. Samples not listed in the tables were kept in storage by the laboratory (for a period of three months), in case further analysis was required.
25 of 119 353 I5\GBP\aud &mG%oPollution Management
TABLE 4a: COMPOSlTlNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEDULE - INITIAL ANALYSIS PROGRAM (Borehole locations and composite groups are indicated on the attached Figures 7, 2 and 3) - SAMPLE :OMP 30RE DEPTH PARAMI rERS ANALYSED No.s No. No. Individual Composite
Heavy metals (14), PAH’s, OC Pesticides, PCB’s, pH, individual B 1-2 104-1 1 1 0.0-0.2 No Phenolic Compounds, analysis Cyanide and Semi Volatile Chlorinated Hvdrocarbons B 1-2 Z 04-3 1 0.6-0.8 I 0.8 TPH’s and MAH’s I ~~ Heavy Metals (14), PAH’s, OC Pesticides, PCB’s individual B1-2104-4 1.o-1.2 0.8 No Phenolic Compounds, analysis Cvanide. and Semi Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Heavy Metals (8), PAH’s, 82-2 104-1 0.0-0.1 0.1 TPH’s and MAH’s OC Pesticides, PCB’s and pH Heavy Metals (8), PAH’s, OC Pesticides, PCB’s, pH, 83-21 04-1 0.0-0.3 TPH’s Phenolic Compounds, Cyanide and Semi Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Heavy Metals (14), PAH’s, OC Pesticides, PCB’s, individual B3-2104-3 3 0.5-0.7 No Phenolic Compounds, analysis Cyanide and Semi Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Heavy Metals (8), PAH’s, individual 84-2104-1 2 4 0.0-0.2 1.2 No OC Pesticides, PCB’s and I analysis pH ~~ ~~ ieavy Metals (14), Phenoli Compounds, Cyanide, OC No individual B4-2104-5 1.4-1.8 1.2 Pesticides, PCB’s, PAH’s analysis and Semi Volatile Hydrocarbons Heavy Metals (8), PAH’s, OC Pesticides, .PCB’s, pH, individual B5-2104-1 2 0.0-0.2 0.2 No Phenolic Compounds, analysis Cyanide and Semi Volatile Hydrocarbons.
TABLE 4b: ANALYSIS SCHEDULE - FURTHER ANALYSIS (Borehole locations are indicated on the attached Figure 7)
1 26 of 119 353 1 S\GBP\aud &#)GeoPollution Management
9. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION
9.1 Shallow Site Soils
Surface fill was encountered at all points across the site.
A typical profile of shallow soil as intersected is summarised in TABLE 5 below.
TABLE 5: Generalised Shallow Soil Profile
TYPE DEPTH INTERVALS DESCRIPTION [ml
Sandy Silt; grey, dark grey, black, traces of bricks and brick particles and various debris, medium dense
Natural Soil Profile (0.1 - 0.8) - (0.8 - 1.2) Silty SAND*, grey/white, medium dense II I (0.1 - 1.2) - 2.2+ Silty Sandy to Sandy CLAY, yellow, brown, grey, medium plasticity, very stiff
Appendix C shows the bore logs including field sampling and testing records.
The soil was generally in a dry to moist condition. Perched water above clay was encountered at boreholes 4 and 5 at depth of lm and 0.5 - 0.6m respectively.
9.2 Field Contamination Assessment
9.2.1 Visual and Olfactory Observations
No odours or visual signs of contamination were noted in surface soils.
9.2.2 Asbestos
No asbestos sheet fragments or lagging were observed on either the site surface or mixed with fill material below surface level.
17 27 of 119 3531 5\GBPbud &mGeoPollution Munagement
9.2.3 Vapour Survey
Potential vapour phase hazards at the subject site were assessed by conducting a soil gas survey for volatile organic compounds (VOC’s)including field borespace analysis of soil at each borehole.
Background vapour concentrations in ambient air were typically zero ppm, ie. absent.
*Please note the following in relation to the PID readings documented on bore logs: - Actual vapour concentrations in in-situ soils show gradual transitions. - Soil gas survey data represent relative levels of VOC’s in soil samples, not absolute concentrations in soil samples. - Bore space readings reflect total concentrations of vapours within the entire open borespace without indicating from which soil layer the vapours originate.
Soil gas concentrations were detected either at background level (zero ppm) or only slightly above background at all sample locations. The highest concentration was recorded at BH 1 with 10.7 ppm at a depth of 0.8m. Results of borespace analyses are recorded on bore logs included as Appendix C.
9.3 Chemical Analysis
9.3. I Presentation of Results
A total of nine samples collected from five gr locations across the site were analysed, including five samples of surface fill material, one sample of deeper fill material, and three samples of natural material.
The results of the chemical analyses including QNQC results are attached as Appendix E.l (NATA endorsed final laboratory reports). Results of analysis of composite and individual soil samples are summarised in TABLES 6, 7 and 8 (following pages). Results of further analysis are presented in Tables 9a and 9b. QNQC results are detailed and evaluated in Section 11 .O.
18 28 of 119 353 1 5\GBP\aud GeoPollution Management
The tables list the relevant assessment criteria which include:
0 ANZECC B levels (“Environmental Investigation Limits”) or AZECC Health Investigation Limits or Dutch B criteria where ANZECC B criteria are not specified (as for the individual aromatic hydrocarbon benzo(a)pyrene).
0 EPAV Fill Material Limits (EPA Bulletin 448, 1995)
Analysis results of composite samples may conceal elevated concentrations in one or more individual samples, rather than representing average concentrations in the individual samples which make up the composite. Modification of the above Assessment Criteria, specified for individual samples, according to the number of samples comprising the composite takes the potential diluting effect of sample compositing into account. Modified Assessment Criteria for three-part composites are included in the tables as appropriate.
29 of 119 TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS RESULTS - Composite and Individual Samples: Heavy Metals and PAH's [mglkg dry weight of soil]
Individual 40 20 3 50 60 60 1 300 200 20** 50* 20 1 o* 50* 1" 20 2-Part 20 10 1.5 25 30 30 0.5 150 100 10 25 10 5 25 0.5 10 ANZECC B ComP's
3-Part 13.3 6.7 1 16.7 20 20 0.33 100 Comp's 66.7 6.7 17 6.7 3.3 17 0.33 6.7 Individual 40 30 5 250 100 100 2 300 500 ns 50 ns 10 50 ns 20 EPAV 2-Part CLEAN Comp's 20 15 2.5 125 50 50 1 150 250 25 5 25 10 FILL LIMITS 3-Part 13.3 10 1.7 83 33 33 0.7 100 166 17 3.3 16 6.7 Comp's
: Dutch B Criteria in absence of ANZECC B Shaded: Levels exceeding modified ANZECC B Guideline Criteria ** NEHF Health Based Soil Investigation Levels (1996) ' : ANZECC Health Investigation Limit ': B(a)P = Benzo(a)pyrene ND: not detected
30 of 119 w 0 TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS [mglkg dry weight of soil] - Petroleum-Related Compounds CONCENTRATIONS OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS 1 SAMPLE BORE TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS VOLATILE ORG 4NICS No. No. C6-C9 C10-C14 C15-C28 C29-C36 Total >C9 Benzene Toluene Ethyl Benzene MAH’s 81-2104-3 1 <20 <20 27 21 58 C0.02 C0.02 C0.02 <0.02
82-2104-1 2 <20 <20 78 89 177 <0.02 e0.02 <0.02 C0.02
83-2104-1 3 <20 <20 240 360 610 - - - Comp F1 - - - - - <0.02 c0.02 <0.02 e0.02 1 co.1 Comp N1 - - <0.02 <0.02 C0.02 <0.02 I -<0.1
ANZECC B l EPA Fill Limits 100 ns ns ns 1000 1 3* 5* 5* 7 EPA Low-Level Contam. 1000 ns ns ns 10000 ns ns ns ns 70 Fill Limits
31 of 119 35315\GBP\aud
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - PCBs, CHCs, Phenols, OC Pesticides, Cyanide [mglkg dry weight of soil] and pH
ANALYTES COMPOSITE SAMPLES ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
COMP I COMP 2 COMP F1 COMP N1 Unmodified 2-Part 3-Part 2-Part 3-Part 3-Part ComDosite Composite Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Individual eo. 1 ns ns Total ND 0.5 I 0.33 Organochlorine Pesticides Individual eo. 1 co.1 eo. 1 co.1 I ns ns ns Total ND ND ND ND 1 0.5 0.33
Semi-Volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Individual c0.005 - ~0.05- ~0.005- c0.05 ns Ins nS Total ND 1 0.5 I 0.33
Phenols (Total) & Cresols co.1 1 Cyanide (total complex) I- eo. 1 50 PH 8.0 7.4 $1 6-8 P ns: not specified ro ND: not detected 0
BI
s I g-
32 of 119 ..
353 1S\GBPbud (#) GeoPollution Management
On the basis of the results for the initial round of analysis, further analysis of existing samples of fill material was required for selected heavy metals and PAH’s.
TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS RESULTS - Further Analysis: Heavy Metals and PAH’s [mglkg dry weight of soil]
ANZECC B - Individual 300 200 50 I# 20 EPAV CLEAN FILL LIMITS - Individual 300 500 250 20
LOW-LEVEL CONT. FILL LIMITS - Individual 3000 5000 2500 200
9.3.2 Summary of Findings
Heavy Metals
Results are shown in Tables 6,7, 8 and 9 (above) and are summarised below.
The initial results showed the concentrations for lead and zinc to be above both modified ANZECC B and EPAV Fill limits in the two composites of surface fill. One composite (Comp 2) exceeded the modified ANZECC B criterion for chromium but was well below the EPAV Fill limit. Exceedence of modified assessment criteria implies potential exceedence of metals in one or more of the individual samples. Composite Comp N1 of natural soil underlying fill contained zinc well below the ANZECC B limit.
Further analysis of individual samples comprising previous composite Comp 2 (3-part) for the heavy metals Pb, Cr and Zn, showed sample B3-2104-1 to exceed ANZECC B limits but not EPA Fill Limits for zinc and chromium (the latter marginal exceedence). Lead in the same sample exceeds both ANZECC B limits and EPAV Fill criteria. Sample B4-2 104- 1 was found to exceed ANZECC B limits for zinc but to be well within the EPAV Fill Limit.
Arsenic, cadmium, copper, nickel and mercury were all below modified ANZECC B limits in the composite samples.
23 33 of 119 I 35315\GBP\aud &mGeoPollution Management
IO. DATA QUALITY EVALUATION
The QNQC programme comprised both an internal laboratory quality control program comprising analysis of duplicates (repeat analyses), matrix spikes, blanks and known standards, as well as external quality checks by analysis of field duplicates both at an external check laboratory (QA/QC or secondary laboratory) and as blind replicates analysed at the primary laboratory under an anonymous sample number.
One trip blank and one equipment blank (both water samples) were taken and, as no significant concentration of volatile compounds were identified, only the equipment blank was analysed.
The results of analysis of field duplicate samples provide an inter-laboratory comparison with respect to analysis accuracy and precision (sub-sample variability), and indicate how well the analytical results represent the soil quality at the test locations.
The analysis results of two sets of field duplicate samples (splits) and two sets of blind replicate samples are presented on the following pages (summary table of duplicate pairs below).
Quality Assurance: Field Duplicates (Spl i tsl
Sample No. Bore No’s. Sample No. (Primary Lab.) (Secondary Lab.)
Comp 2 BH3,4,5 Comp 2DUP
Quality Control: Blind Duplicates (Primary Laboratory)
Sample No. Bore No. Sample No.
B 1-2 104-1 BH1 A-2 104 B2-2 104- 1 BH2 B-2 104
WD values (Relative Percentage Differences) include “Non-Detected” values by both laboratories and whose variation is approximated to zero.
RPD values were evaluated according to the Australian Standard AS 4482.1-1997 using the following formula to calculate FWD (Relative Percentage Difference) Values:
RPD (%) = Result 1 - Result 2 100 Mean
25 34 of 119 3531S\GBPbud (n,QeoPollutlon Management
0 Additional metals analysed as part of two EPA screens, molybdenum, beryllium, cobalt, tin, antimony and selenium, in composite samples (Comp F1 and Comp N1) were below laboratory detection limits and hence well below the respective modijied ANZECC B guideline limits.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s)
0 The initial results for PAH’s showed composite group Comp 2 (3-part surface composite) to exceed the modified ANZECC B limit for Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) implying potential exceedence of BaP in one of the individual samples. Levels of total PAH’s were within the modified ANZECC criterion (for total PAH’s) in both composite samples.
Further testing of the individual samples comprising composite Comp 2 (3-part composite) showed concentrations of both BaP and total PAH’s to be well below the ANZECC B limits at each individual location.
PAH’s were not detected in one composite sample of natural soil underlying fill.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH’s)
Light Fuel Fractions ( Mineral Oil Fractions (>C9): Heavy mineral oil fraction hydrocarbons were detectable in each sample analysed but remained below the ANZECC B guidelines. The highest concentration of mineral oil fraction hydrocarbons, 6 10 ppm, was reported for the surface sample from Borehole 3 (B3-2 104- 1). Analysis of a deeper sample of fill or natural soil from sampling point BH3 for TPH’s was not undertaken, as PID results did not suggest potential presence of TPH’s at BH3 and the sample from the test point with the highest PID readings (BH1) of 4.8 - 10.7 ppm contained only minor TPH’s (B 1-2 104-3 with 58 ppm TPH’s X9). Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons (MAHs) Analysis of two individual samples was requested for MAH’s. The laboratory reported two additional results for composites Comp F1 and Comp N1 that had not been requested but are included in Table 7. None of the samples returned detectable concentrations. Balance of €PA Screen Neither Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Semi-volatile Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (CHCs), Organochlorine Pesticides (OC Pesticides), Phenols nor Cyanide were detected in any of the samples analysed. pH values in surface soils were on the alkaline side of neutral indicating slightly alkaline surface soil conditions. 24 35 of 119 353 Ij\GBP\aud &$)GeoPollution Management 10.1 Field Duplicates Table 10a compares results of analysis of duplicate samples Comp 2 and Comp 2DUP between primary and secondary laboratories. TABLE loa: QNQC REPLICATE RESULTS AND EVALUATION Sample Cornp 2 and Comp 2DUP [mglkg (=ppm) dry weight of soil] SAMPLE DUPLICATES ARlTH M ETlC RPD* (%) Main Lab QNQC Lab MEAN* Cornp 2 Cornp 2DUP 3 6.4 4.7 72.34 I1 Arsenic II Chromium 30 38.5 44.16 I 47 I 1 Copper 20 1 45 I 32.5 I 76.92 ~~ Nickel 9 18 13.5 66.67 Mercury 0.11 0.21 0.16 62.5 Lead 190 280 235 38.30 Zinc 180 260 220 36.36 CO.1 **: Ifone ofthe results was below detection limits half the detection limit was assumed The results of heavy metal analyses indicated the maximum variation between laboratories was 76.92% (As). Other notable variations were Cu, Ni and Hg being 72.34%, 66.67% and 62.5% respectively. Variation of all other heavy metals was below 44.16%. The average ‘Relative Percent Difference’ (RPD) for heavy metal analytes is 49.66%. Reported PAH concentrations showed maximum variation between the laboratories of 11.44% (total PAH’s). PCB’s and OC Pesticides were not detected by both laboratories The overall average RPD across all analytes for this set of duplicate samples is 32.17%. 26 36 of 119 &nGeoPollution Management Table 10b compares results of analysis of individual duplicate samples B3-2104-1 and B3- 2 104- 1DUP between primary and secondary laboratories. TABLE lob: QNQC REPLICATE RESULTS AND EVALUATION Sample B3-2104-1 and B3-2104-IDUP [mglkg (=ppm) dry weight of soil] ANALYTES SAMPLE DUPLICATES ARITHMETIC RPD* (%) Main Lab QNQC Lab MEAN* B3-2104-1 83-2104-1DUP TPH‘s TPH of greater than C9 chainlength varied by 38.6% for between the laboratories. The light fuel fraction was not detected by either laboratory. The average RPD for TPH’s is 27.75%. 27 37 of 119 353 I S\GBP\aud 4m GeoPollution Management 10.2 Blind Duplicates Table 1Oc compares results for ample Comp 1 nd the blind duplicate sample Comp BD. TABLE 1Oc: QNQC REPLICATE RESULTS AND EVALUATION Sample Comp 1 and Comp BD [mglkg (=ppm) dry weight of soil] Other Individual *: RPD = Relative Percentage Difference **: If one of the results was below detection limits half the detection limit was assumed The results reported by the two laboratories indicated a maximum variation of 78.78% for Copper and 66.67% for Arsenic. Variation of all other heavy metals was below 22.22%. The average ‘Relative Percent Difference’ (RPD) for heavy metal analytes is 37.56%. The results for PAH’s show variations between the laboratories of 79.51% and 40% for benzo(a)pyrene. Relatively high variabilities for PAH’s may indicate heterogeneous distribution of these compounds in the samples (likely to be associated with particulate matter). PCB’s and OC Pesticides were not detected by both laboratories The overall average RPD across all analytes for this set of duplicate samples is 32.3 1%. 28 38 of 119 353 I5\GBP\aud (,n GeoPollution Management 10.3 Summary Evaluation Inter-Laboratory Comparison: Precision The average RPD of the field duplicates at primary and secondary laboratories is 29.96%. This is within the acceptable limit of 50%. Completeness /Acceptability When averaging RPD % over all individual analytes tested, the percentage of replicate analyses performed by primary and secondary laboratories producing acceptable results (ie. RPD < 50%) is 67%. When, on the other hand, considering the number of samples analysed that produce acceptable data, ie. average RPD’s being less than 50% for each duplicate pair, acceptability is 100%. Internal Laboratory Comparison: Blind Duplicate: The blind duplicate pair analysed by the primary laboratory shows a mean ‘Relative Percentage Difference’ of 32.3 1%. This is within the acceptable limit of 20 - 50%. Internal QNQC: Accuracy - Primary Laboratory: Spike percentage recoveries were typically between 85 and 115% and thus within the acceptable range of 75 - 125%. Some individual compounds such as Heptachlor at 70%, Methoxychlor at 50%, DDT at 55%, Endosulphan Sulphate at 60%, Endrin Aldehyde at 70% and Benzene at 130% are outside this range. However, this is considered to be insignificant as none of these compounds were detected in site samples. Accuracy - Secondary Laboratory: Spike percentage recoveries were not obtained from the secondary laboratory. Blank Samples: Rinse Water Blank: A final rinse water sample (EB-2 104) analysed for PAH’s showed no elevated concentrations. Analysis of two heavy metals was requested but could not be performed by the laboratory due to insufficient sample volume. Trip Blank: The trip blank sample (‘Trip Blank’) consisted of distilled water which was transported to the site and kept in the cooled container together with samples collected. Since no volatiles were detected during the investigation, it was not deemed necessary to analyse the trip blank. 29 39 of 119 353 I j\GBP\aud km GeoPollution Management 1I. CONCLUSIONS This site assessment focussed on the evaluation of the environmental quality of surface soils, including an assessment of the extent and quality of fill material across the site. The surface layer is the relevant stratum for assessing human exposure risks. ANZECC B/DUTCH B limits and ANZECC Health Investigation Limits (ANZECC & NHMRC, 1992) were adopted for an initial evaluation of analysis results. Results were also compared with EPAV ’ Fill Material Limits (EPA Bulletin 448, “Classification of Wastes”, 1995) in the case of chromium, lead, zinc and benzo(a)pyrene, which were identified at elevated concentrations in some of the surface samples. Significant results of this Environmental Site Assessment are as follows: 1. Concentrations of the heavy metals lead, zinc and chromium in fill material were above respective ANZECC B criteria at some locations. A single lead result exceeded the EPA Fill Material limit. 2. No Organochlorine Pesticides, Phenols, Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Biphenyls or Cyanide were detected on the site. The metals molybdenum, antimony, beryllium, cobalt, selenium and tin were also not detected. 9 3. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) were detected in surface fill composites but, as individual analysis of the constituents of one composite showed, the results were below the guideline criteria at individual test locations. 4. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mineral oil fractions) were detectable in all three samples of fill analysed but remained below the guideline criterion of 1000 ppm. 5. Natural soil on the site (underlying fill) does not contain significant levels of heavy metals or PAH’s. Results pertaining to one composited sample of natural soil underlying fill can therefore be used as reference or background values. 6. No potentially hazardous vapours were detected on the site. 7. No residues of possible asbestos sheeting or lagging materials were observed on the site. Concentrations of potential contaminants for individual samples have been presented in the tables of results (Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9, Section 9.3.1). Summary Table 11 (over page) summarises average and peak concentrations of those analytes which were present at detectable concentrations ie. heavy metals, PAH’s and TPH’s only. Averages for Chromium, Lead and Zinc were calculated from one composite result and three individual results (replacing the second composite). 30 40 of 119 35315\GBP\aud &#)GeoPollution Management . ANALYTES AVERAGE** PEAK* * ANZECC B EPAV Fill Material CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION GUIDELINE LIMITS Limits Fill Material ’: Calculated from results of one composite and three individual samples Shaded: Levels exceeding ANZECC B Guideline Criteria Shaded and Bold: Levels exceeding EPAV Fill Material Criteria The summary table shows that average concentrations of all detectable analytes in fill samples are generally within respective ANZECC B Limits. Zinc is the only metal with average and peak concentrations above the ANZECC B limit. The peak concentration of Lead exceeds the EPA Fill Material Limit. The average pH value of the surface soil is 7.7 (not included in Table 11). Analytes not listed in the above table were not detected. The results summarized above and the list of not detectable analytes (refer Tables 6, 7 and 8) represent the condition of the surface soils remaining on site at the time of project completion. 31 41 of 119 353 I S\GBP\aud (5n GeoPollution Management 12. RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this investigation indicate that localised pockets of the fill material are contaminated at low levels by the heavy metal lead and possibly by zinc. Peak concentrations indicate that the surface soil in isolated areas on the site may be classified as “Low-Level Contaminated Waste”. This implies that, unless clean up is undertaken to bring the entire site in compliance with EPA Clean Fill Criteria, the property is not considered eligible for a Certificate of Environmental Audit but will receive a conditional Statement. Under a Statement of Environmental Audit, soil classieing as “Low-level Contaminated Waste” may only remain on site, if the surface is permanently sealed by concrete pavements such that exposure pathways are eliminated. It is understood that the proposed development plan implies full coverage of the site with concrete paving such that no exposed soil will be present on the site. Should excavation of soil from the site be required, for example for installation of footings and foundations and surface trenches during the forthcoming construction, this fill shall be treated as low-level contaminated and requires EPA Approval prior to off-site transport unless statistically representative chemical analysis of material designated for off-site transport proves otherwise. The transport and disposal of Low-level Contaminated Waste is subject to EPA regulations and requirements.. Disposal may only occur at landfills licensed to accept such waste. Report Prepared By: ...... Tim Russell...... (Environmental Scientist) Report Reviewed By: ...... Karin Schwab...... Date Reviewed: ...... 11 th June 1998...... Signed on behalf of GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd: ...... (Senior Environmental Scientist) 32 42 of 119 353 15\GBP\aud (m GeoPollution Management 13. LIMITATIONS OF THIS INVESTIGATION While the spacing and number of test locations was chosen to be representative of the overall site, inherent limitations remain as for any assessment based on a limited number of spot tests. The precision with which sub-surface conditions are indicated depends not only on the frequency and method of sampling but also on the degree of uniformity of sub-surface material. The borehole logs represent the sub-surface conditions at specific test locations only. Boundaries between strata as indicated on the log sheets are often not distinct but transitional and are a result of interpretation of the field observations. Point data have been extrapolated across the site (or across certain portions of the site) using best available knowledge combined with professional judgement. No guarantees can be given as to the maintenance of the environmental condition of the site surface as described in this report, during forthcoming earthworks and building construction or other activities on the site prior to residential occupation (eg. possible occurrence of fuel or oil spillages). REFERENCES ANZECC & NHMRC (1992), Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites, January ANZECC and Victorian EPA (1 996), Guidelines For the Laboratory Analysis of Contaminated Soils, August Environment Protection Authority (1 999, Classification of Wastes. Bulletin 448, September Imray. P., Langley, A. (1 996) Health-Based Soil Investigation Levels. National Environmental Health Forum Monographs. Soil Series No. 1 33 43 of 119 GeoPollution Management 44 of 119 GeoPollution Management Project No: 3531 5 LOCATION PLAN FIGURE No: 1 Site Layout and Location of Sampling Points Residential Property BH5 e BH4 e BH3 -u$ e (D Ya BH2 e BHI e Willow Street Key: 8 Sampling Points PROJECT: No. 5 SCALE : 1: 300 approx Willow Street Essendon 45 of 119 - Q GeoPoltution Management ~ Project No: ,3531 5 LOCATION PLAN FIGURE No: 2 Willow Street Q Key: 8 Sampling Points PROJECT: No. 5 SCALE : 1: 300 approx Willow Street Essendon 46 of 119 GeoPollution Management Prdiect No: - -35315 LOCATION PLAN FIGURE No: 3 Composite Soil Samples - Fill and Natural Residential Property ----- Comp F1 Willow Street Key: 8 Sampling Points PROJECT: No. 5 SCALE : 1: 300 approx Willow Street Essendon I I 47 of 119 48 of 119 ... APPENDIX A . SITE LOCALITY PLAN 49 of 119 G e o PolI utioh Man age men t GENERAL SITE LOCATION FILE: 35315 5 Willow Street, Essendon 50 of 119 JOHN ACN 074 840 403 Our Ref. MD326s28 Gutterridge Haskins & Davey. 380 Lonsdale Street, MELBOURNE. 3000. Attention Mr J. Crockett 1-i Jkir Johnathan. i *.i. . Re: SOILAUDIT I ,t- WILLOW STREET, ESSENDON. 'ti:: 'dAL' I refer to your facsimile transmission of June 5. . . __.* The original Title we were provided ( Volume 2529; Folio 666) is enclosed attachment A. It is dimensioned on the Dimase Berry Plan of Survey 6371, as attachment B. The site was enlarged to accommodate the existing brick building by way of Plan of Subdivision 3473 16L attachment C. This is verified by the M. F. Rogan check survey attachment D. I enclose a copy of the Town Planners wording of the amendment, attachment E. If you have any further questions please contact me or the Client, GBP Developers, h4r Anthony Zammit, on 9 606 0066 Yours faithfillly f- JOHN, L. DOUGLAS. ---' DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, PROJECTMANAGEMENT 165 PELHAtM STREET CARLTON 3053 TEL: (03) 9349 4755 FAX: (03)9349 4766 51 of 119 .. UNDER THE 'TRANSFER OF LAND ACT 1890.' ...... . ..._ a,; ::: :...... -.. ._ .....- .- I:. ! I i? \ .. t i ..i la. QG C'. .. __--. 2.-. - --. - .._--.,.!*.',i :. .. :.._.. X6iI." ...... 113-j !i i ::"'*. .-I ...... :11vn -., ...... ,.* *-e*...... *I...._ ...... I.-, ., b.p.wlo, ...... 52 of 119 P I Y - t CERTIFICATION BY SURVEYOR 5 0 2 e L 0 316bm' a f e t- W UIi w de\. 9891 Fol. 250 m l- tn ro BE COMPLETED WHERE APPLICABLE THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN CONNECTED TO PERMANENT MARKS NOS: IN PROCLAIMED SURVEY AREA NO. THE LAND IN THE SURVEY IS SHOWN ENCLOSED 3Y CONTINUOUS THICK LINES rlTLE REF: t PLAN OF SURVEY --39-96 * t I- 270' 00' O 0' i a WILLOW STREET CROWN ALLOTMENTS 6,7,.889 (PARTS) NUMBER OF SHEETS IN PLAN : I NUMBER OF THIS SHEET :t SCALE I 0 RIG I NAL LENGTHS ARE IN METRES SURVEYORS REF. JFF~cEUSE o#LV ~~~coPTV LTD 53 of 119 . 3 :.. I c I .. A P 8 c i 2 16Lrn' k C n - 37.17 270'00' 50.80 WILLOW STREET 54 of 119 .. ,O.?if t I-- ei- ...... . .- -- I i-J'j ,-.- c. * .. 1 ... I ! 55 of 119 ..---- ..------mw.rr.-.-. .-..... ".....- .. ..-.....-. . ... 1' AM L29 L. Rigoni Moonee Valley 5 May 1998 John Douglas Group Pty Ltd ,, 1655 Pelham street t Moonee Valley City Council CARLTON VIC 3053 Civic Centre Cnr Parcoe Vale Rd & Kellaway Avenue Dear Sir, PO Box 126 Moonee Ponds Victoria Australia 3039 PLANNING AMENDMENT L29, Telephone61+0392438888 PROPOSAL: 11 dwehgs and ass'bciated car parking Facsimile 61 + 03 9375 4393 SITE: 7 Willow Street, Essenkion I refer to our letter dated 15 April 1998, regarding the above amendment and associated development of the site at 7. Willow Street, Seridon, and wish to draw to your attention the requirement of Amendment L 29 which requires as follows: Before a residential use conimences or before buildings and works are corislrucled or carried OU~in association with a dwelling: (a) A certijkate of emironinenla1 airdit miist be issued for [he land in accordance with Section 57AA of the Environment Protection Acl 1970; or; (b) An environniental auditor appointed under the Environntent Prolecliori Acl 1970 must make a statement in accordance with section 57AA(S)(b)'of [lie Etivironnieril Protection Act I970 that the erzvironmenlal conditions are suitable for residential use. A copy of Amendment L29, approved on 11 June 1997, is attached for your information. An investigation of our files indicates that evidence of the above requirement is gutstandb. This requirement must be satisfied prior to any buildings or works are constructed on the site. If you have any queries in relation to this matter, please contact Lorenzo Rigoni Planning Unit Co-ordinator on telephone 9243 8853. I yurs faithfully / Statutory Planning Manager enc. 1' 56 of 119 .. 1. a. . . .. , . - .,...... - .. .?__ ...... APPENDIX B CERTIFICATE OF TITLE DOCUMENTATION AND PLAX OF SUBDIVISION 57 of 119 .. -f .. . .- ...... ~ .-/ .. .. I 58 of 119 I' ._-. Cn n.1 J I h i. c '1 16 11 /A' .. -a I . -4. . '..e .. 59 of 119 . -I 4 .. I ..% I-. . 1 (\ "'.I ...... $4 04\- t ,. L i .. 'vi..- :*. .-?.C;-r . 3 . ' ,-,-.--. .... --.- ..__...... 60, -.crol+hof 119 -- ...... , ...... Fig iJlf& E :bd U:El 86/98/28 swsnoa mor . 99Lt6E6 E0 19 : ... 353 lS\GBPbud GeoPollution Management B L 61 of 119 Geo Po t Iuti o n -Manage ment BoreNo: 1 ~ Environmental Scientists.and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: 35315.. Date: ..21/04/98 BORE LOG Sheet: .... 1. of ..5... PROJECT: ...... Final Site Assessment ...... Scientist: P. Bayne TYPE OF SITE: ...... Former Timber Yard ...... Logged By.: D. Slade SITE ADDRESS: ...... 5B Willow Street, Essendon...... Drill Method: CLIENT:...... GBP Developers Pty Ltd...... Solid Flight Auger HMD I1 I Bore Diameter: 95 mm I Sampling: AugedGrab : ExDosed Ground (refer to Figure 1) I Inclination: approx. 20 SE lamp1 Material Description Consistency/ Ground Depth Type Sample Remarks/ Density Water/ of Soil No. Moisture [ml Test Data ~~~ Sandy si1t , white/gre y , MD D 0.0- Soil/ BI- PID Readings: trace brick fragments, 0.2 Jar 2104-1 BG: 0.0 ppm wire, glass, plaster board 0.2- Soil/ BI- Blind Duplicate taken Jar 2 104-2 0.45 BS: 4.8 ppm (0.45m) 0.6- Soil/ BI- 0.8 Jar 2 104-3 BS: 10.7 ppm (0.8m) MD D 1 .o- Soil/ BI- Silty SAND, 1.2 Jar 2 104-4 greyiwhite BS: 5.4 ppin (1.3m) StIVSt D/M Sandy CLAY, red/yellow/brown, medium plasticity TERMINATED at 2.2m ~~~ - hloisture Condition Cons eney tive Dei Testing U50 lube Sample (Undisturbed) VS verysolt PID PhotoionizationDetector J63 Tubc Saiiiple (Undisturbed) S soli tl hard I L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading 7PID) suger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff Dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) lar Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading VD very dense WL Water Level Issue: 5 62 of 119 Revision/Update: 02/07/97 I GeoPo!iution Management. / 2Bore No: Environmental Scienti,sts and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Job No: 35315.. I IlECZEF BORE LOG Sheet: ....2. of ..5... PROJECT:...... Final Site Assessment ...... Scientist: P. Bayne Logged By.: D. Slade TYPE OF SITE: ...... Former Timber Yard ...... ~ SITE ADDRESS: ...... 5B Willow Street, Essendon...... Drill Method: CLIENT:...... GBP Developers Pty Ltd...... Solid Flight Auger AugedGrab approx. SE ~ iation: 2" Surface/Surrounl Exposed Ground (refer to Figurev 1) 'amp1 t- t- Depth Material Material Description Consistency/ Ground Depth Type Sample Remarks/ of Soil Type Density Water/ of Soil No. Moisture [in] Test Data FILL Sandy silt, grey/dark MD D 0.0- Soil/ B2- PID Readings: Jar 2104-1 grey, some debris (brick 0.1 BG: 0.0 ppm fragments, wire, glass, 0.2- Soil/ B2- Blind duplicate taken Jar 2 104-2 0.1 plaster board) 0.4 BS: 8.9 ppin (0.4m) SOIL Silty SAND, MD D 0.8- Soil/ B2- PROFILE 1 .o Jar 2 104-3 grey 0.8 -~ Silty, sandy CLAY, VSt D/M ye1 low/brown, medium plasticity TERMINATED at 1.5m hloisturr Condition Consistency Relative Density Testing UjO Tube Sample (Undisturbed) VS verysort VSt verystiff VL veryloose PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) s soft H hard L loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) F firni Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff Dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Readinn- I VD verydense I WL Water Level Issue: 5 63FORM of 119 Ell01 RevisionlUpdate: 02/07/97 Issued by: KBS GeoPoIlution Management Environmental Scientists and Engineers - PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 Date: ..21/04/98 BORE LOG Sheet: ....3. of ..5... PROJECT: ...... Final Site Assessment ...... Scientist: P. Bayne TYPE OF SITE: ...... Former Timber Yard ...... Logged BY.: D. SITE ADDRESS: ...... 5B Willow Street, Essendon...... Drill Method: CLIENT:...... GBP Developers Pty Ltd...... Solid Flight Auger I Surface/Surrounds: ExDosed Ground (refer to Fig. 1) I Inc iation: approx. 2OSE Sample Matcrial Material Description Consistency/ Ground Depth Type Sample Remarks/ Type Density Water/ of Soil No. Moisture bl Test Data FILL Sandy silt, dark MD DIM 0.0- Soil/ B3- PID Readings: greylblack, various 0.3 Jar 2104-1 BG: 0.0 ppm debris, trace charcoal 0.3- Soil/ B3- Duplicate taken (Split) Jar 2 104-2 fragments 0.5 Soil/ B3- BS: 0.4 ppm (O.3m) 0.5- Jar 2 104-3 0.7 SOIL VSt D/M PROFILE Sandy, silty CLAY, yellow/brown/grey, medium plasticity BS: I .Opptn (1.2m) TERMINATED at 1.5m s;llllplc lype 1 hloisture Condition Cons' ency l7i tivc DCI Testi ne- VS verysotl VSt verystiff PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist S soft H hard loose BG Background Reading (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) W wet F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace Reading (PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage SI stiff Dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading- Vial Headspace Sample I VD verydense I WL Water Level 64FORM of 119 UIO RcvisionlUpdav: 02/07/97 Issued by: KBS Ge6Po I btio n Manageme nt .- Bore~o?- -4- Environmental Scientists and Engineers - PO-BOX 441 RtNGWOOD.3134 Job No: 35315.. Date: ..21/04/98 BORE LOG Sheet: ....4. of ..5... PROJECT:...... Final Site Assessment ...... Scientist: P. Bayne TYPE OF SITE: ...... Former Timber Yard...... Logged By.: D. Slade SITE ADDRESS: ...... 5B Willow Street, Essendon...... Drill Method: CLIENT:...... GBP Developers Pty Ltd...... Solid Flight Auger Drill Rig: HMD I1 I Bore Diameter: 95 inin I SamDling: Auger/Grab .. aigure 1) I Inclination: armox. 20 SE ;amp1 Depth Material Material Description Consistency/ Ground Depth TlQe Sample Remarks/ of Soil Type Density Water/ of Soil No. [ml Moisture [ml Test Data FILL Silty sand, black MD MIW 0.0- Soill 84- PID Readings: some debris, 0.2 Jar 2104-1 BG: 0.0 ppm 0.3- Soill 84- perched water at 1.Om Jar 0.6 2 104-2 Duplicate taken (Split) Soill 84- 0.8- Jar 2 104-3 I .o BS: 0.0 ppm (0.5m) 1.1- Soil/ B4- 1.3 Jar 2 104-4 I .4- Soil/ B4- 1.6 Jar 2 104-5 BS: 0.0 ppm (1 .Om) 1.2 SOIL Sandy, silty CLAY, VSt WIM PROFILE orange/yellow/brown BS: 0.0 ppm (1 Sm) medium plasticity BS: 0.Oppm (2.3m) TERMINATED at 2.4m Con :ency ttive Dei Testing... Us0 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) D dry VS veryson VSt verystiff VL PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M nioist s soft H hard IL loose I BG Background Readin., IPID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) W wet F firm Fb friable MD moderately BS Borespace ReadingTPID) . Auger Grab (Flight Auger) 3 Seepage St stiff Dense HS Headspace Reading (PID) Jar Zero-Headspace Sample entering D dense PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading Vial Headspace Sample VD verydense WL WaterLevel Issue: > 65 of 119 Rrvision/Updakz 02/07/97 - I 1 GeoPoClution Management .. BoreNo: , 5 Environmental Scientists and Engineers PO BOX 441 RINGWOOD 3134 JobNo: 35315.. ~~~ I Date: ..21/04/98 BORE LOG Sheet: ....5. of .. 5... PROJECT:...... Final Site Assessment ...... Scientist: P. Bayne TYPE OF SITE: ...... Former Timber Yard ...... Logged By.: D. Slade SITE ADDRESS: ...... 5B Willow Street, Essendon...... Drill Method: CLIENT: ...... GBP Developers Pty Ltd...... Solid Flight Auger Drill Rig: HMD I1 I Bore Diameter: 95 inm I Sampling: A u p;er/Grab Surface/Surrounds: Exoosed Ground (refer to Fizure 11 I Inclination: approx. 20 SE ;amp11 Depth Material Material Description Consistency/ Ground Depth Type Sample Remarks/ of Soil SPe Density Water/ of Soil No. [ml Moisture [ml Test Data FILL Silty sand, black MD MI W 0.0- Soil1 B5- PID Readings: some debris, trace 0.2 Jar 2104-1 BG: 0.0 ppm 0.2 charcoal fragments 0.3- Soil1 B5- Duplicate taken (Split) Jar 2 104-2 0.5 BS: 0.9 ppm (0.3m) SOIL Silty SAND, grey, MD M/W PROFILE perched water at 0.5- 0.6 0.6m Sandy CLAY, VSt M yellow/brown/grey, medium plasticity BS: 0.0 ppm (1.2111) 1.2 ~~~ TERMINATED at 1.2m - - Sample Type hloisture Condition Con5 enes RI itive Dei Testine I D dry vs very son vst- very stiff VL PID Photoionization Detector U63 Tube Sample (Undisturbed) M moist s son H hard L loose I BG Background Readin? (PID) SSP Split Spoon Sample (Undist.) W wet F firni Fb friable F3 Bore&e Reading(PID) Auger Grab (Flight Auger) Seepage St stiff Dense 1 Hcadspace Reading (PID) 3 Jar Zero-Headspace Sample entering :D ;:ods;tely Pocket Penetrometer Reading Vial Headspace Sample VD verydense WL Water Level Issue: s 66 FORMof 119 E/IO Revision/Update: 02/07/97 Issued by: KBS GeoPollution Management APPE a 1 ANALYTICAL ES'CiLT ATA EN 67 of 119 NATIONAL RNRLYTICRL lRBORRTORl€S A division of Gribbles Pathology (Vic.) Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 006 823 089 585 BLACKBURN ROAD NOTTING HILL VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 31 68 TELEPHONE 03 9562 5899 FACSIMILE 03 9562 0336 U CERTIFICATE OF ANAI,\’SIS DATE 5 JUNE 1998 LABORATORY NURIBER A P R RI 2 840 R4 ET110 DS Metals NAL E102.I-15, E102.Hb Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocai.bons NAL EIOS/EI.35 Organochlorine Pesticides NAL EIOS/E135 Poly c 11 lo r i nat ed B i p lien y I s NAL 1: I OS/E 135 Volat i les NAL I? 106.0 I Phenols NAL E 122.0I Cyanide N.Al, G510.02 RESlJ LTS .i *, I Approved By I . ( ,I .- ACraneBSc SENIOR CHEMIST \I SENIOR CHEhllST APRM2S-H) ... I OF17 68 of 119 Rgr : 2 of.. . 17 FINAL REI'ORl DATE : 5/06/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Referrnce : 35315 Results expressed in ing/kg. LABID Received Moisi Sample I I-DI DICHLORO TRI I 2-DI I ?-DI BROMO CIILORO I I I-TRI I I 2-TRI CHLORO CARBON TRI TETRA- BROMO. 13-DI- in-PROPYL CHLORO MliTllANE CIILORO CIILORO CHLORO DlCllLORO BENXNIZ CHLORO CHLORO DIBROMO TETRA CIILORO CHLORO- FORM CllLORO BENZENIZ ET1I AN E ME'TIIANE PROPANE ETHANE hlE'TIIANE ETHANE ETllANE METHANE CIILORIDF. ETllENE ETHYLENE PKOPYLENE APRM2840 22/04/98 10.7 COMP FI APRM2841 22/04/98 16.4 COMP NI co.o2o co.050 A blank space indicates no icsi performed. 69 of 119 hge : 3 of.. . 17 FINAL RIPORT DATE : 5/06/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENI' Job Referelice : 35315 Results expressed in rng/kg. LAUID Received Moist Sample (c) I 2-DI- (I) I 2-DI- DIUKOMO- BROMO- 4-CIILORO- 2+3-CliLORO- I I 2 2 I 2-DI- I 3-DI- I 4-DI- I 2 3-TRI- I 2 J-TRI- ISOI'ROPYI. IIIXA- CHLORO- CIILORO- hlETHANE CHLORO- TOLUENE TOLUENE 'TEI'RACHL. CIILORO- CHLORO- CHLORO- CIILORO- CIILOKO- BENZIJNE CIILOKO~I-3- ETllYLENE ETIIYIXNE MFI'IIANE OROETNANE BENZENE BENZENE BENZENE BENZENE BENZENE BUTADllJNE APRM2840 22/04/98 10.7 COMP FI < 0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 < 0.005 <0.005 <0.020 < 0.005 APRM28Jl 22/04/98 16.4 COMP NI < 0.005 <0.005 A blank space indicates no lesi performed 70 of 119 hge : 4 uf., . 17 FINAL REPORT. DATE : 5/06/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Refcrcncc : 35315 Results expressed in mglkg dry weight. LABID Reccivcd Moist Sample As Cd Co Cr Cu Hg Mo Ni Pb SC s 11 Zn Be Sb APRM2837 22/04/98 6.9 COMP I <2 APRM2838 22/04/98 I I .4 COMP 2 3 APRM2839 22/04/98 9.8 COMP BD 2 APRM2840 22/04/98 10.7 COMP FI <2 0.07 <5 <3 <2 APRM2841 22/04/98 16.4 COMP NI <2 A blank space indicates no test performed. 71 of 119 0 Page : 5 of.. . 17 FINAL REPORT. DATE : 5/06/98 Client : CEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Reference : 35315 Results expressed in mglkg dry weight. LABlD Received Moist Sample HCB a-BHC LINDANE HEPTACHLOR ALDRIN b-BHC d-BHC HEPTACHLOR- DDE DIELDRIN EPOXIDE APRM2837 22/04/98 6.9 COMP I <0.1 APRM2838 22/04/98 I I .4 COMP 2 <0.1 c 0. I < 0. I < 0. I < 0. I <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 APRM2839 22/04/98 9.8 COMP BD APRM2841 22/04/98 16.4 COMP NI C0.l <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 co.1 A blank space indicates no test performed. 72 of 119 u PJ~C: 6 01'. . . 17 FINAL. REPORT DATE : 5/06/98 Clienl : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Rclcrciicc : 35315 Results expresscd in niglkg dry weight. LABID Received Moist Sample DDD DDT ENDRIN MElHOXYCHLOR CHLORDANE a-ENDO- b-ENDO- ENDOSULPHAN ENDRIN SULPHAN SULPHAN SULPHATE ALDEHYDE APRM2837 22/04/98 6.9 COMP I <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 0. < 0. APRM2838 22/04/98 I I .4 COMP 2 <0.1 < 0. I <0.1 <0.1 < 0. < 0. <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 APRM2839 22/04/98 9.8 COMP ED <0.1 APRM2841 22/04/98 16.4 COMP NI <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 c 0. < 0. co.1 <0.1 A blank space indicates no lesi performed . 73 of 119 PJ~C: 7 of.. . 17 FINAL REPORT DATE : 5/06/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Rckrriicc : 35315 Resulis exprcssed in inglkg dry weight. LABID Rcceived Moist Sample NAP ACY ACE FLU PHE ANT FLA PYR BAA CHR BBF BKF BAP IPY DBA BGP APRM2837 22/04/98 6.9 COMP I <0.1 <0.1 APRM2838 22/04/98 I I .4 COMP 2 APRM2839 22/04/98 9.8 COMP BD <0.1 <0.1 APRM2841 22/04/98 16.4 COMP NI A blank space indicates no test performed 74 of 119 u ~agc: a 01'... 17 FINAL REPORT DATE : 5/06/98 Clienl : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Reference : 35315 Results expressed in inglkg dry weight. LABID Received Moist Sample AROCLOR AROCLOR AROCLOR AROCLOR AROCLOR TOTAL 1016 I242 I 248 I254 I260 PCBs APRM2837 22/04/98 6.9 COMP 1 APRM2838 22/04/98 I I .4 COMP 2 APRM2839 22/04/98 9.8 COMP BD APRM2841 22/04/98 16.4 COMP NI <0.1 co.1 <0.1 co.1 A blank space indicates no test performed 75 of 119 , U Page : 9 of.. . 17 FINAL REPORT DATE : 5/06/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Reference : 35315 Results expressed in mglkg dry weight. LABlD Received Moist Sample TPH TPH TPH TPH BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL XYLENES TOTAL CN pH C6-C9 CIO-C14 C15-C28 C29-C36 BENZENE PHENOLS APRM2814 22/04/98 1.3 81-2104-3 0.6-0.8 < 20 < 20 27 21 <0.02 co.02 <0.02 <0.02 AF'RM2816 22/04/98 6.9 82-2104-1 0.0-0.1 < 20 < 20 78 89 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 APRM2819 22/04/98 8.8 B3-2104-1 0.0-0.3 < 20 < 20 240 360 ' APRM2830 22/04/98 9.1 8-2104 < 20' < 20 1 IO 120 APRU2831 22/04/98 6.9 COMP 1 8.0 APRM2838 22/04/98 11.4 COMP 2 7.4 APRM2840 22/04/98 10.7 COMP Fl <0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.1 <0.1 L 1 APRM2841 22/04/98 16.4 COMP NI <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.1 <0.1 space indicates no lest performed. .. 76 of 119 0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT * Rge : IO of ... 17 FINAL RI:POKT DATE : 5/06/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Rekrencc : 35315 Resulis expressed in mg/kg. LABlD Received hloisl Sample I I-DI DICHLOKO TRI I ?-DI 12-01 BKOMO CIILORO I I I-’TKI I I ?-‘IltI CllLORO CARBON TRI TETRA- BROMO- I3-1)I- n.I’HOI’YL CIILOKO METIIANE CHLORO CIlLORO CIlLOKO DlCllLOKO BENZENE CllLORO CIlLORO DIBKOMO TETRA CIjLORO CIlLORO- FOKM CllLORO BENZENE ETHAN1 METHANE PROPANE ETllANE LIETIIANE ETHANE ETIIANE METIIANE CHLORIDE ETIIENE ETIIYLENE I’ROPYLENE I A blank space indicaler no lesi performed. 77 of 119 u QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT I’dgc : I I of.. . 17 FINAL REPORT DATE : 5/06/98 Client : CEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Rekrciice : 35315 Results expressed in mg/kg. LABID Received hloisi Sample (c) 12-DI- (1) I 2-DI- DIBROMO- BROMO- 4-CHLORO. ?+3-CHLORO- I I 2 ? I ?-DI- I 3-DI- I 4-DI- I 2 3-TRI- I 2 4-TRI- ISOPROPYL IIEXA- CHLORO- CIILORO- METHANE CIILORO TOIAIENE TOLUENE TETRACHL- CIiLORO- CIILORO- CHLORO- CIILORO- CIILORO. BENZENE CIILORO-1-3.BUTADI ENE ETHYLENE ETHYLENE M ET11 AN E OROETHANE BENZENE BENZENE BENZENE BENZENE BENZENE APRM3217 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK < 0.005 A blank space indicates no test performed 78 of 119 U QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT Page : 12 of.. . 17 FINAL REPORT. DATE : 5/06/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Reference : 35315 Results expressed in mg/kg dry weight. LABlD Received Moist Sample As Cd Co Cr Cu Hg Mo Ni Pb Se Sn Zn Be Sb APRM3124 22/04/98 6.9 COMP I 0.09 duplllAPRM2837 APRM2837 22/04/98 6.9 COMP 1 0.06 APRM3124 22/04/98 6.9 COMP 1 40.0 Re1 '70 Difference APRM3160 22/04/98 6.9 COMP I <2 A b,iank space indicates no test performed. 79 of 119 U QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT Wgc : 13 of.. . 17 FINAL REPORT. DATE : 5/06/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Refercnce : 35315 Results expressed in niglkg dry weight. LABID Received Moist Sample HCB a-BHC LJNDANE HEPTACHLOR ALDRIN h-BHC d-BHC HEPTACHLOR. DDE DIELDRIN EPOXIDE APRM3107 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK < 0. I APRM3108 22/04/98 0.0 QA SPIKE I .9 1.7 I .7 I .4 2.0 I .7 I .6 2. I 2.2 2.3 spikelAPRM3IO'I APRM3108 22/04/98 0.0 QA SPIKE 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Expected Result APRM3108 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK 95.0 85.0 x5.0 70.0 100 85.0 80.0 I 05 I IO 115 70 Recovery APRM3107 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK < 0. I APRM3109 22/04/98 6.9 COMP I < 0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 <0.1 co.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 dupltlAPRM2837 APRM2837 22/04/98 6.9 COMP I < 0. I <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 APRM3109 22/04/98 6.9 COMP I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Re1 70 Difference A blank space indicates no test performed 80 of 119 u QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT Page : 14 of ... 17 FINALREPORT DATE : 5/06/98 Clienl : GEOPOLLlJTlON MANAGEMENT Job Reference : 35315 Rcsulls expressed in nig/kg dry weight. LABID Received Moist Sample DDD DDT ENDRIN METHOXYCHLOR CHLORDANE a-ENDO. b-ENDO- ENDOSULPHAN ENDRIN SULPHAN SULPHAN SULPHATE ALDEHYDE APRM3107 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK <0.1 <0.1 APRM3108 22/04/98 0.0 QA SPIKE 2.4 1.1 2. I I .o I .9 2.3 2.0 I .2 1.4 spikclAPRM3107 APRM3108 22/04/98 0.0 QA SPIKE 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Expectcd Resul~ APRM3108 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK I20 55.0 I05 50.0 95.0 I15 100 60.0 70.0 70 Recovery APRM3107 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK <0.1 APRM3109 22/04/98 6.9 COMP I <0.1 <0.1 A blank space indicates no test performed. 81 of 119 w D QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT Page : I5 of.. . 17 FINAL REPORT DATE : 5/06/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Reference : 35315 Resul~sexpressed in mglkg dry weigh(. LABID Received Moist Sample NAP ACY ACE FLU PHE ANT FLA PYR BAA CHR BBF BKF BAP IPY DBA BGP APRM3109 22/04/98 6.9 COMP I MAYM3483 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK MAYM3484 22/04/98 0.0 QA SPIKE 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.5 1.9 2.0 1.6 2.1 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.2 I .3 I .7 spikelMAYM3483 MAYM3484 22/04/98 0.0 QA SPIKE 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Expected Rcsull MAYM3484 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK 110 105 110 110 110 125 95.0 100 80.0 105 75.0 85.0 75.0 60.0 65.0 85.0 7n Rccovcry MAYM3483 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK <0.1 co.1 <0.1 MAYM3485 22/04/98 8.8 B3-2104-1 0.0- 0.1 0.1 <0.1 A blank space indicates no lest performed. 82 of 119 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT Page : 16 01'. . . 17 FINAL REPORT DATE : 5/06/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Reference : 35315 Results expressed in mg/kg dry weight. LABID Received Moist Sample AROCLOR AROCLOR AROCLOR AROCLOH AROCLOR TOTAL 1016 I242 1248 I254 I260 PCBs APRM3110 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK <0.1 APRM31 I I 22/04/98 0.0 QA SPIKE 2.0 I .9 3.8 spikelAPRM31 IO APRM31 I I 22/04/98 0.0 QA SPIKE 20 2.0 4.0 Expected Result APRM3111 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK 100 95.0 95.0 % Recovery APRM3110 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK < 0.I <0.1 <0.1 APRM3112 22/04/98 6.9 COMP I < 0. I A blank space indicates no lesl performed. 83 of 119 U QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT Page : 17 of., . 17 FINAL REPORT DATE : 5/06/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Reference : 35315 Results expressed in mg/kg dry weight. LABID Received Moist Sample TPH TPH TPH TPH BENZENE TOLUENE ETHYL XYLENES TOTAL CN pH C6-C9 CIO-C14 C15-C28 C29-C36 BENZENE PHENOLS APRM3093 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 APRM3094 22/04/98 0.0 QA SPIKE 1.3 1.1 0.95 2.2 spikelAPRM3093 APRM3094 22/04/98 0.0 QA SPIKE I .o I .o 1 .o 2.0 Expected Result APRM3094 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK 130 I IO 95.0 I IO % Recovery APRM3093 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK < 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 APRM3128 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 APRM3129 22/04/98 0.0 QA SPIKE 590 spikelAPRM3128 APRM3129 22/04/98 0.0 QASPIKE 600 Expected Result APRM3129 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK 98.3 % Recovery APRM3128 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK < 20 APRM3130 22/04/98 7.3 81-2104-3 0.6-0.8 < 20 < 20 25 21 dupltlAPRM2814 APRM2814 22/04/98 7.3 81-2104-3 0.6-0.8 < 20 < 20 27 21 APRM3130 22/04/98 7.3 81-2104-3 , 0.6-0.8 0 0 7.7 0 Rei % Difference APRM3173 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK APRM3174 22/04/98 0.0 QASPIKE 4.5 spikdAPRM3173 APRM3174 22/04/98 0.0 QASPIKE 5.0 Expected Result APRM3174 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK 90.0 % Recovery APRM3173 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK APRk3217 22/04/98 0.0 BLANK <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 A,blank space indicates no test performed. i 84 of 119 A division of Gribbles Pathology (Vic.) Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 006 823 089 585 BLACKBURN ROAD NOTTING HILL VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 31 68 TELEPHONE 03 9562 5899 FACSIMILE 03 9562 0336 0 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS DATE 7 May 1998 - .- LABORATORY NUMBER APRM2S 12A j j N;ition;il Association of Testing 1 CLlENT Geo Pollution Management Aiilliorilies, Auslralia i SAMPLE Sample/s received 22/4/9S R'lETH ODS Metals NAL E102.HS Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons NAL EIOS.12 RESULTS Please refer to attached page/s for results .*- I ._ ,l r Approved By .I H Zhang MSc SENIOR CHEMIST APRM2817 ... 1 OF -I 85 of 119 Page : 2 of...4 FINAL REPORT. DATE : 7/05/98 Clienf : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Reference : 35315 Results expressed in nig/kg dry weight (mg/L for Water). LABID Received Moisr Sample Cr P b Zn APRM2819 22/04/98 8.8 83-2104-1 0.0-0.3 63 420 290 APRM2822 22/04/98 11.3 B4-2104-1 0.0-0.2 16 240 310 APRM2827 22/04/98 13.6 B5-2104-1 0.0-0.2 9 170 78 Insufficient Sample IO test EB-2104 for Pb and Zn. 86 of 119 Pdge : 3 of.. .4 FINAL REPORT DATE : 7/05/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Reference : 35315 .Results expressed in mg/kg dry weight , LABID Received Moist Sample NAP ACY ACE FLU PHE ANT FLA PYR BAA CHR BBF BKF BAP 1PY DBA BGP APRM2819 22/03/98 8.8 83-2104-1 0.0-0.3 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 APRM2822 22/04/98 11.3 B4-2104-1 0.0-0.2 < 0.1 0.1 CO.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 < 0.1 0.2 APRM2827 22/04/98 13.6 85-2104-1 0.0-0.2 <0,1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 <0.1 0.2 A blank space indicates no test performed. 87 of 119 D hge : 4 of.. .4 FINAL REPORT DATE : 7/05/98 Client : GEOPOLLUTION MANAGEMENT Job Relerence : 3531.5 Results expressed in mg/L. LABlD Received Sample NAP ACY ACE FLU PHE ANT FLA PYR BAA CHR BBF BKF BAP IPY DBA BGP APRM2835 22/04/98 EB-2104 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 ~0.001 A blank space indicates no test performed. 88 of 119 3 5 3 15 GBPhud GeoPollution Management 89 of 119 A.C.N. 005 085 521 3 Kingston Town Close, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166 Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oakleigh. Victoria, 3166 Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Fax: (03) 9564 7190 6 May 1998 Geo Pollution Management P.O.Box 441 Ringwood 3 134 Att Dr K Schwab Dear Karin MGT ANALYTICAL REPORT NO 125299 Please find attached our analysis results for the Essendon 353 15 samples received 22.4.98 Yours Faithfully 90 of 119 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Tom Close. Oaldeigh. Victoria, 3166, Australla Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, Oaldeigh, Victoria, 3166, Australia Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 I Fax: (03) 9564 7190 MGT ANALYSIS REPORT 125299 CLIENT .- Geo Pollution Management P.O. Box 441 Ringwood Victoria 3134 SITE .- ESSENDON 35315 DATE RECEIVED :- 22/04/98 DATE REPORTED :- 06/05/98 QA/QC DETAILS :- The QA/QC for these samples is detailed in this report no : 125299 A total of 9 duplicate, 6 matrix spike % recovery and 12 method blank analyses or sets of analyses were carried out on this batch of samples. All QA/QC results for duplicates, matrix spike % recoveries, method blanks and known QC standards were within the set acceptable criteria. FINAL REPORT :- The results in this report supersede any previously corresponded results. y~--ijizr-Opera ions Manager Page 1 of 6 91 of 119 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kinaston Town Close. OaMelah. Victoria. 5166. Australia Postal Address P 0 Box 276 Oaldelgh, Victoria. 3166, Australia Geo Pollution Management Telephone (03)9564 7055 1 P,O. Box 441 Fax (03)9564 7190 I Ringwood Victoria 3134 Site : ESSENDON 35315 I HEAVY METALS VIC EPA PUB.139 METHODS 13&16(Hq) US EPA SW846 I ICOMP 2 DUP ICOMP 2 DUP DuplMethod Blank Ispike % Recov I I eo. \’ Nickel 18 20 05 I Zinc 260 280 eo. 05 1 I I I I 1 ~~ Extraction with (1+3) HN03 & HC1. Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Date received 22/04/98 Date Reported 06/05/98 Report No. 125299 Page 2 of 92 of 1196 1 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES US EPA SW846 METHOD 8080 Sample ICOMP 2 DUP IMethod Blank I I I I \ ., Lab. No. AP1878 Aldrin eo. 01 eo. 001 I CY-BHC eo. 01 eo. 001 8-BHC co. 01 eo. 001 U - BHC eo. 01 eo. 001 Lindane co.01 eo. 001 Chlordane co.1 eo. 01 4,4 -DDD eo. 01 co. 001 4,4 -DDE 0.01 eo. 001 4,4' -DDT 0.01 eo. 001 I Dieldrin eo. 01 eo. 001 Endosulfan I eo. 01 co. 001 Endosulfan I1 eo. 01 eo. 001 Endrin eo. 01 co. 001 Heptachlor eo. 01 eo. 001 Heptachlor epoxide co. 01 co. 001 Methoxychlor eo. 01 co. 001 , Toxophene co.1 eo. 01 I I I I I I Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. i This Labornlory is rogislofod by tho Nolmel Associalon 01 lonb Auihomios. Auslrnlie. Tho Report No. 125299 Page 3 of 93 of 1196' losl(s) rcpartod hoioin haw born porloormod in lrtordenco wlh ls lams 01 roginrstion This dommml shsll MI bo robmducod excap1 in 1t11. . Postal Add&: P.O. Box 276; Oaldeis; Victoria; 3166; Australia Geo Pollution Management Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Pro. Box 441 Fax: (03) 9564 7190 Ringwood \' Victoria 3134 Site : ESSENDON 35315 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS US EPA SW846 METHOD 8310(HPLC) & 8270(GC/MS). ~~ 'Lab.No. AP1878 Naphthalene 0.12 co. 001 98% Acenaphthylene c0.2 eo. 001 Acenaphthene co.1 eo. 001 Fluorene co.1 co. 001 94% Phenanthrene 0.29 co. 001 102% Anthracene co.1 eo. 001 ~~ Fluoranthrene 0.57 eo. 001 Pvrene 0.55 eo. 001 91% b Benzo (a)anthracene 0.26 co. 001 Chrvsene 0.28 co. 001 ~~ ~ Benzo (b)f luoranthene 0.26 co. 001 Benzo (k)f luoranthene 0.15 co. 001 Benzo (a)pyrene 0.44 eo. 001 106% Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene co.1 co. 001 Benzo (9,h, i) pervlene 0.26 eo. 001 I I I I I I Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. I' Date received 22/04/98 Date Reported 06/05/98 Report No. 125299 Page 4 of94 of 1196 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kingston Town Close, OaMeigh, Victoria, 3166, Australia Postal Address: P.O. Box 276, OaMeigh, Victoria, 3166, Australia Geo Pollution Management Telephone: (03)9564 7055 P,O. Box 441 Fax: (03)9564 7190 Ringwood Victoria 3134 I Site : ESSENDON 35315 Sample COMP 2 DUP Method Blank Lab. No. AP1878 Total PCB'S as Arochlor 1260 co.1 co. 01 1 Date received 22/04/98 Date Reported 06/05/98 This Labornlory is rogislotod by tho Nnlhl ksocisliin 01 Toning Authomlos. Aurlrnlie. ho Report No. 125299 Page 5 95 of 1196 lest($) rownod horom hvo born pollormod in of mxordsnco wnh nr lafmr 01 rogMrslion. lhii documml shall no1 bo roproducod oxcopt h 1,111 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Kinaston Town Close. Oakleiah. Vlctorla. 3166. Australla Postal Add& P.O. Box 276: Oaldeigh: Victorla; 3166: Auswalia Geo Pollution Management Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Pro.Box 441 Fax: (03) 9564 7190 ,I I Ringwood Victoria 3134 Site : ESSENDON 35315 TOTAL RECOVERABLE HYDROCARBONS (GC) MGT METHOD 100A-GC II 1B3-2104-1DUP 1B3-2104-1DUP IMethod Blank ISpike % Recov I I ~~ Lab. No. AP1879 AP18 79D T.R.H. C, -C, Fraction by GC c2 0 c20 eo. 02 II I I II T.R.H. C,,-C,, Fraction by GC c50 T.R.H. C,,-C,, Fraction by GC 190 210 co.1 I, I I I I I I Results in ppm (soils mg/kg dry, waters mg/l). Extraction MGT 300A soils, USEPA 3510 waters. I I' 'I Date received 22/04/98 Date Reported 06/05/98 Report No. 125299 Page 6 of96 of 1196 Environmental Consulting Pty. Ltd. 3 Mngston Town Close, OaMeIoh. Vidocia. 3166, Ausbalia Posts1 Address: P.O. Box 276, Oaldeloh. Victwia. 3166, Australia Telephone: (03) 9564 7055 Fax: (03) 9564 7190 6 VALIDITY AND RELIADII,IIY OF TEST RESULTS The continuing validity and rcliability of results is accoinplishcd by nioiiltoring a iiuiiihcr of Control Limit factors : Ifone rneasurcmcnt cxcceds thc C.L. rcpwt the analysis. lrtlic rcpcit is williiii ihc (: 1. I. Analysis ofduplicatcs. Duplicatcs run at a mininiurn of 5 % continue analyses . If it cxccais the C.L. discontinuc analyscs and correct the Iiroblcm 2. Rccovery of known additions. Spikes run at a minimum of S % \rith cacli bntcli of samplcs. 3. Analysis of rragent blanks run with wch batch of samples. Wnrnine Limit If two out of thrcc succcssivc points csdthc W.L. analysc mother samplc. If~hciicst poizit is less than the W.L. continue analyses. ifthc ncxt point cxcccds the W.L. discoiitiinic nnnlyscs I.J\nnlvsis of Duolicntes and correct thc problcm. Dupliwtcs arc analyscd as a matter of course and the data analysed by means of a rangc chart "'Panicular care ncais to be taken with some soil smplcs with regard to saiiiplc type system. The range for each duplicate pair is dctcrmincd and 'normaliscd' by dividiiig by homogcncity. especially with regard to 'organics' analyscs. Statistical analysis inay indicate a thc average of thc duplicate rcsulfs. problcm exists when in fact thc problcm is rcally only smplc Iioinogcncity. Once cnough data hw bccn gathcrcd control data for cach mctliod can bc dcvclopcd. llic nicaii rangc (R) is dctcrmincd as : 2. Recoverv of known ndditionr. R = ( ERi ) The recovery of known additions is urd to verify the abscncc of matrix cffccts aid nbsuiicc of n inlerfcrences. Recovery from standards is uscd to verify mcthod pcrfonnancc. Rccovcn data is compared against acceptance criteria publishcd in Standards Mcthods for Eraniiiiatiuli of whcrc n = numbcr of obscrvatioiis Water and Waste water. or appropriam U.S. €PA Methods and Ri = normnliscd rmgc If rccovcrics fall outsidc acceptance criteria. mlyscs should bc dircontinucd aiid tlic problciii and the variance (square of the standard deviation) is dctcrmined as : rcctificd. syl = (ERi' -nR') 3.0 Annlvsis of Reneent Blanlq n- I Reagent blanks nrc used lo monitor purity of rcagcnts and thc ovcrall proccdural blank. The control criteria thus become : Rwgcnt blanks arc run as a matter of course with each batch for analysis. Unusual or out of the 'norm' rcsulls for blanks arc invcstigatcd and corrcctivc action takcn before aiialysis of :in? Average rangc R batch is complctcd. Warning Limit R + 2s, Control Limit R + 3s, Tlic nornialiscd ranme for cach duplicatc pair is calculatcd and coniparcd \nth the abow criteria. (This can bc achicvcd cithcr graphically or by visual coniparison of thc data.) Sin= the limits arc bascd on 95 % and YO % confidenu: levcls rcspcctivcly , thc following actions arc taken. bascd on these statistical parametcrs. --*.F----- G. Black. 97 of 119 .. ., . -... ...... CHAIN OF-CUSTODY ,. DOCUMENTATION , .. .. -. .. . <- ...... 98 of 119 P.l AFT! 22 'a%3-lii12 NIX FINACYTICFlt LFIES 03 95G 0336 .-a , *b A' QqopM~tliBnMahg9fnont 2m a940 CHAIN OF CUSTODY 22CIPR'SAM 9r40 AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST Job No.: 36316 Project: Essendon Laboratory: NAL Ry Lid Request No, 3 Date: ' 21104198 Sheet 1 of 2 SAMPLE BH DEPTH SAMPLE COMP. COMPOSITE PARAMEJER8 No. No, tml TYPE WITH No. REPU WTE D 82-2104-1 COmpOSite : Heavy rnaals (8% E1-2 104-1 1 0,o - 0.2 Soil/ J, a . Comp 1 PAH's, OC-Pestlcldee and PCE'a **, pH 8 1-2 1 04-2 0.2 - 0.46 SollIJ Please Hold - 81 -2 104-3 0.6 - 0.8 Soil/J Individual; TPH'e, MAH's 87-21 04-4 SolllJ Pleese Hold I B 1-2104-1 Composite: AE Shown Comp 1 Individual: TPH's and MAH'B . Soil/J - Please Hold SoilIJ - Please Hold 64-2164-1 Compoeite : Heavy metals (89, 85-2104-1 PAH's, OC-Pesticide6 PCB'o Sol/ J, a Comp 2 and PH Indlvldual: TPH'e 'Soil/J Please Hold SolllJ Please Hold c Soill J, a ~~-~~~4~Comp 2 Cornpoalte : As shown SoWJ Plesee Hold Soil/J Please Hold 64-2 1 04-4 1.1 - 1.3 SolllJ Please Hold 84-2 104-6 1.4- 1.8 SoWJ Please Hold I I 66-2 104- 1 6 0.0 - 0.2 Compl Composite : AE shown L I I 3 85-2104-2 6 ' 0.3 0.5 SollN - 1 Please Hold ComrnentslSpscld instructionr: Requested Turnaround: standard 54ay turnaround Raque6 Form Prepared By: Results by Turr, 29th April, p.m. pleais Tim Ruesell '8 Metals: As, Cd, Cr. Co, Pb, Hg, NI, Zn Deopatch Date Deepatch Method: **PCB's and OCP's from rrme roan 2 1104198 Courier 99 of 119 - ! I: .. FURTHER SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST Request No. 3 Date: 21t64188 Sheet 2 of 2 I SAMPLE BH DEPTH SAMPLE COMP. COMPOSITE PARAMETERS I No. No. [ml TYPE WITH No. REQUESTED i ! 8-2104 Composite: Heavy Metals (e)*, I A-2 104 SolltJ *' PAH's, OC Pesticide8/PCB's' , 1 A-2 IO4 Composite: A3 Shown 8-2 104 SolllJ Comp BD Individual: TPH's I EB-2 104 Water Please Hold I i TRIP-21 04 Water Please Hold Please composlte and analyee the following samplse. Some of the samples below are'in other compoeltes above, 83-21 04-1 Composite: Heavy Metals (6)' '*, 86-2104-1 Comp Phenolic Compounds, Cyanlde B1-2104-1 1 0.0-0.2 SoillJ F1 (Totall and Chlorlnated Hydrocarbons (semi.vol) I 61-2104-1 Cpmp ,., I 83-2104-1 3 O.O*O. 3 66.2 104.1 Composite: As Shown 1 I 81-2104*1 Camp F1 88-2104-1 6 0.0-0.2 fi3.2104.1 Composite: As Shown 63-2104-3 Composite: Heavy Metals (e).**, I 64-21 046 P>enolic Compounde, 61 -2 104-4 1 1.0-1.2 Soil/J I N1 oCh+x@'and Chlorinated, I Hydrocarbona (semi ,vel],p&, m\*, I 61-21044 Camp N1 I 03-2 7 04-3 3 0,6-0.7 64-2104.6 Composite : As Shown ! I 64-2104-6 4 1.4-1.6 Comp Compostte: As Shown I so'''J 83-2104-3B1-2104-4 NI I I CommentslSpeolal Instruotlone: Requested Turnaround: standard 6 day turnaround I Resulte by Tuer, 28th Apdi, p.m. please Request Form Prepared By: ! *e Metelr: A@. Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, NI, Zn Tim Russell I i. '"PCB'a mnd OCP's from same soan Oespetch Date Despatch Method: I rcrc6Metals: Sb, Be, Co, Ma, $e end 8n 2 1/03/9$ Courler I Requested By: Datpj2e8z 21IO419 PhillpBe yne lei ad) I I ISSUE 6 FORM Y102 REVISION: 26/01 I98 . iowsdBy: KBS b j. 100 of 119 PAI NU, UJ YO Y OLLO FURTHER SAMPLE ANALYBII REQUE8T 30bNo.: ad316 PraJeol: Essendon .A*. Request No. 4 I%b1 1106m bheot 1 of 1 . .*.,. .-.a4 CQM POSIT E PARAMETERS "* Nb, ReQU88T'ED 1 (Preulour PAH'e, Pb,tn and Cr .' CQmp 2) -. (Pnvlaur PAH'& Pb, 2n rind Cr 7 CUnP 2) -.. (PflVlOU8 PAH'e, Pb, En anU Cr / cornp 2) / I. -*7I., I ! Karin Schhweb espetch Deb! DespmMethad: I 101 of 119 MGT €ONSI$TING -- ~ , - - @loo2 t ~irr,tieoPo\tution Management CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST flGT ~5dddd.&. Jab ko.: 35315 Project: Essendon Laboratory: d-k Request No. 3 Date: 2 1/04/98 Sheet 1 of '1 7 SAMPLE BH DEPTH SAMPLE COMP. COMPOSITE PARAMETERS No. NO. TYPE WH No, REQUESTED 84-21 04-1 DUP Composite: Heavy Metals (8)*, 83-2104-1 DUP 0.0-0.3 Soil/J, a B6-2104-1 Dup Comp PDUP PAH's, OC Pesticides/PCB's Individual: TPH's 83-2104-1 DUP Camp PDUP 0.0-0.2 sOii'J' a As 85-2104-1 DUP Composite; Shown E3-2104-1 DUP 0.0-0.2 Comp PDUP Composite: As Shown. I I I I Comrnents/Special Instructions: Requested Turnaround: standard 5-day turnaround Request Form Prepered By: Results by Tues, 28th April, p.m. please *6 Metals: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Zn J = jar 2 1/04/9 8 Courier a = amber jar Requested By: Date Requested:21/04/98 lslgnad) Date: Please return signed form to this office (Fax 9879 6226) ISSUE: 6 FORM Ell02 REVISION: 2ai0119a lamed By: KBS 102 of 119 . 353 1 S\GBP\aud GeoPollution Management APPE F 103 of 119 (0Rfc4( ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF VICTORIA INC. I~OYALMINT. Phone: 9670-1219 280 WILLIAM STREET, MELBOURNE 3000 Facsimile: 9670-1241 30 April 1998 Mr Tim Russell GeoPollution Management 15/21 Eugene Terrace RINGWOOD VIC 3134 Dear Mr Russell, Re: 5 Willow Street, Essendon Willow Street, originally Little Willow Street is first named in Sands & McDougall directories in 1882, but it was not until 1890 that four residents were named. Street numbering began in 1890 and from that date until 1963 No 5 Willow Street was a private home. In 1964 it became the premises of Turner & Sons, Timber Merchants who were still occupying the site in 1974 when the Sands & McDougall directory ceased publication. Council rate records may be useful in establishing occupation and use since 1974. Our invoice for this research is enclosed with the mail copy of this invoice. Yours since rely, Wendy Baker Secretary 104 of 119 1982 Aerial Photograph of the site (arrows pointing at southern site boundary (front of site) - State Aerial Survey, Run 1,0311982, Project Ref: M 7822II 15,l : 10000 105 of 119 0GeoPollution Management 1968 Aerial Photograph of the site (arrows pointing at southern site boundary (front of site) - State Aerial Survey, Run 18, 10/1968, Project Ref: M25N 656, 1 : 9600 106 of 119 353 Lj\GBP\aud (,m GeoPollution Management 1956 Aerial Photograph of the site (arrows pointing at southern site boundary (front of site) - State Aerial Survey, Run 8,02/1956, Project Ref: M 3 250, 1 : 12000 107 of 119 . . .- .. , ...... , ...... ,,. .. : .. .- .. .. APPENDIX G .- ...... .. .. co SPONDENCE GPM / AUDITOR / CLIENT 108 of 119 GeoPo II u tio n Ma nagem ent Environmental Scientists and Engineers File No.: 35315 Date: 6" April 1998 Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd 380 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000 Attention: Mr Jonathan Crockett RE: PROPOSED SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM Project: Environmental Audit - Unit Development Location: 5B Willow Street, Essendon Dear Jonathan, The following is a brief outline of our proposed investigation program for final assessnient of the above site. No. 5B covers an area of 592 m2. Building demolition has recently taken place and the site surface has been cleared. The following scope of work is proposed. Proposed Sampling Pattern: A total of five sampling points are proposed to be placed across the entire investigation area in a triangular pattern. We anticipate to collect at least two soil samples, a minimum of one sample representing fill material and one representing immediately underlying natural soil, at each location at the following intervals (subject to actual soil profiles encountered). A: 0.0 - (0.2 - 0.3) m - FILL B: 0.3 - 0.5 m - where Fill thickness is 0.5 m or more*, or 0.2 - 0.4 m - where Fill thickness if 0.4m only* C: first 200tm of natural soil *Shoiildjill be deeper. than 0.6111,additional samples ofjll will be collected 01 half metre iiitei-vals. GeoPollution Management Pty. Ltd. ACN ow 625 754 15/21 Eugene Terrace Ringwood. Victoria. 3134 Phone: (03) 9879 6612 Fax: (03) 9876 9613 P.O. Box 441 Ringwood, Victoria. 3134 109 of 119 - GeoPbllutlon Management Proposed Analysis Schedule The following table summarises the proposed analysis schedule. Analysis is based on composite samples for ail but volatile parameters. This includes the near-surface layer of fill, with natural soil samples to be analysed subject to the outcome of fill analyses. Range of Proposed Analyses (refer also to affached Figure 1) PROPOSED ANALYTES APPLICABILITY Grid Locations only (5) lnorganics Heavy Metals (8’) Two composite surface samples (one two-part, one three-part) Organics Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) Two composite surface samples (one two-part, one three-part) Organochlorine PesticideslPCB’s Two composite surface samples (one two-part, one three-part) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH’s) Min. 2 individual samples, additional if PID field test results >20 ppmdetected Volatile Aromatics (Benzene, Toluene, Min. 2 individual vial samples, Benzene, Xylenes) additional if PID field test results >20 ppm detected Balance of “€PA Screen (1 Additional Composite Sample)” Antimony, Beryllium, Cobalt, Molybdenum, Selenium, Tin (6 metals), Phenolic Compounds, Cyanide (total) Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (semi-volatile) One additional widely spaced composite surface fill sample Note: Samples of natural soil to be analysed subject to contaminant levels in fill. Levels in natural soil samples are to be used as reference values. Add. two composite samples of deeper fill if required QNQC Samples: Field Duplicate (Split) Samples: Heavy Metals (87, composite sample PAH‘s composite sample OC PesticideslPCBs composite sample TPH‘s individual sample Blind Duplicate Samples: Heavy Metals (87, composite sample PAH’s composite sample OC PesticideslPCBs composite sample TPH’s individual sample Equipment Blanks ITrip Blanks’ (1 each per day): Heavy Metals (8’). .. (PAH’s. TPH’s) final rinse water sample - Based on elevated levels in samples, if any ’Analysis of trip blank subject to findings of routine analyses *: Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel and Zinc 110 of 119 Gee PolI u t ion Man age ment Laboratow Subcontractors: All routine samples will be sent to National Analytical Laboratories (NAL), Notting Hill. QNQC duplicates will be analysed by MGT Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd, Oakleigh. We plan to carry out the field work as soon as possible after your feedback has been received. Yours faithfilly DR. KARIN B. SCHWAB 111 of 119 Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd Facsimile MNSl&WGENClMDli CIWRUdLIENTAL SCll'hnISTO 6 RWW$*OK33 MANA(IR:i A C.N. ob8 488 373 380 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000' Australia Telephone (03)92702200 Facsimile (03)9600 1300 ernail: [email protected] q%'jq 6226 I DATE 9 April, 1998 FAX Ne 9eis9e3 TO GeoPallutian Management ATTENTION Dr Karin Schwab v FROM Jonathan Crockett SUBJECT Willow Street. Essendan Site Assessment I JOBNo 8767/01 REPLY REQUIRED: YES I I NO1 I TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS ONE I 1 In reply to your letter of 6 April, I have reviewed your sampling and analysis plan and it is acceptable subject to the followlng: 1, I expect at least one composite of natural sail to be analysed for the full list of analytes 2. TPH and BTEX should be analysed where the sample is from an area that is suspected by visual obsetvlation or odour to be contaminated with hydrocarbons, irrespective of the PI0 reading 3. please analyse soil pH on the two surface composites &-a Jonathan Crockett, per. Auditor 112 of 119 GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd 15/21 Eugene Terrace Ringwood VIC 3134 Ph: (03) 9879 6612 Fax: (03) 9876 9613 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION No. Pages Following: 3 Date: 29/4/98 Job No.: 35315 Fax No. Dialled: 9600 1300 Quote No.: - Attention: Mr Jonathan Crockett Corn panylO rganization : Gutteridge Haskins 8 Davey Pty Ltd Sender: Karin Schwab PLEASE CALL 9879 6612 IF PART OR ALL OF THIS TRANSMISSION HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED MESSAGE: RE: 5B Willow Street, Essendon Dear Jonathan, We have received prelim. analysis results for the above site. Copies of the results sheets showing detectable levels are attached (I’m not sure if they will all be legible). Heavy metals, PAH’s and TPH’s are the only detectable contaminants in Compl (2-part composite) and Comp2 (3-part composite) of surface fill. Of the metals, concentrations of lead and zinc are potentially above (ie above modified) ANZECC B limits in both composite samples of surface fill. Benzo(a)pyrene is marginally above the modified ANZECC 6 Health level of 0.33 ppm for the 3-part composite. TPH’s were detectable in all surface samples analysed but remain below the guideline criteria. No other analytes were detectable. Results for CompNl comprising natural soil show levels of analytes within background. On the basis of the above results, we propose the following,further analysis of individual samples: Compl: Pb,Zn Comp2: PAH’s Please confirm that the above further analysis is sufficient to complete the Audit. Thank you and Regards Karin Schwab Copy to Anthony Zammit Fax: 0354 261 346 Fax3531 S-Crockettl 113 of 119 Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd CONSULTING -me moremrfiSCIENTISTS a PLANKERB .PROJECT MPHKSRS Facsimile AC.N. ma 4aa 373 380 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3006 Auhlia Telephone (03)92702200 Facslmlle (03)9600 1300 ,mail: [email protected] DATE 1 Mav 1998 FAX No 98796226 TO GeoPolkrtion Management ATTENTlON Phil BayneMsrin Schwab FROM Jonathan Ctuckett - SUBJECT WiIlaw Street -~ PROJECT I JOBNo 6767101 I REPLYREQUIRED: YES I I NO I N I TOTALPAGESINCLUDINGTHISONE I 1 I I have reviewed the results for Willow St and comment as follows: 1. If Comp 2 is the 3-part as you state in the fax this is the one for which sub samples should be analysed for Pb, Zn and I would suggest Cr 2. I think it unnecessary to analyse sub samples for cornp i for metal 3. I agree PAHs should be analysed on sub samples making up Comp 2 Jonathan Cmkett Auditor 114 of 119 . Ceopollution Management Pty Ltd 1512 1 Eugene Terrace Ringwood VIC 3134 Ph: (03) 9879 6612 Fax: (03) 9876 9613 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION No. Pages Following: 3 Date: 7/5/98 Job No.: 35315 Fax No. Dialled: 9600 1300 Quote No.: Attention: Mr Jonathan Crockett CompanylOrganization: Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd Sender: Karin Schwab PLEASE CALL 9879 6612 IF PART OR ALL OF THIS TRANSMISSION HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED MESSAGE: RE: 58 Willow Street, Essendon Dear Jonathan, We have received further analysis results for the above site. Copies of the results sheets are attached. Hopefully they’re legible. Results show marginal elevations above ANZECC B Limits for Cr and Pb in the surface sample at BH3, and for Zn in the surface sample at location BH4. PAH’s are below ANZECC Limits in all three samples. We are working on our Draft Report, and look forward to your comments with regards to the above. Thank you and Regards Karin Schwab Copy to Anthony Zarnrnit Fax: 0354 261 346 Fax353 I5-Crockct1l 115 of 119 Dear sirs, I have reviewed the analyticat results from GeoPonution Management for the Willow Street site. Because some guidelines ~PCexceeded for the metals tine, lead and chromium and bec81.Wfiom my observations of the site there arc mataials present that indicate potential for other contamhetion tbat the sampling has not picked up I will not bc able to isme a C-cate of Environmental Audit. To do so would require either some minor soil removal, further samprtng or a health-based risk assessment all of which me beyond the cmmt scope of work for GM, and GaaPollution Management. I alluded to this issue in my offer of 23 ‘. March. .c ,+’ ‘a.Please find attached a draft Statement of Environmental Audit. ?he wording up to the conditions cannot be -changed as it is specified by the EPA. I do request you and yo~rclient to &cw the wording of the - conditions. ‘T 4 w. ‘ ’ In addition to CftoPollution Management’s report (wldch we understand is nearing comptedon) we stilt require the following infomratio~befoe wc can comptete OW audit mort. confirmation of the name and address of the owner tbe site ’ of a good legiilt copy of the certificate of title 9 full details ofthe plan of subdivision I will be canfirming the zoning and the wording of Condition 1. 116 of 119 ------_- -. ----.- -. - --. .-- .------. - DRAFT ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1978 SECTION 57AA STATEMENT OF ENWRONA1ENTAL AUDIT I, Jonathan Ashton Cmkett of Guttetfdge Haskin8 & Davcy €'Cy Le 380 hnsdale &4elboume,a person appointed by the Emiromnt Protection AuWty ("the Authority") derthe Eavitonment RateCtioa Act 1970 ("the Act") as an mviromntal audimr for the purposes of tbe Ac~,bavbg: - 1, been rpqugsted by the owner GPB Developers Pty Ltd???????????of ??T???to issue a CedBcate of Enwntal a. Audit fa relation to Ute laud kuow as SB?'?? Willow St, Esscadon, Victoria., Lot B on PIan of Subdivfsion tv*- -Area????,PS347316L, Certilicate of Title VOW__ Folh - -&. 3: had regard to, amongst other things, - by the Autharity for the pwpors of secdm 57AA of the Act; "r" (i) guidelines issued a(*. (ii) the bendkid aes that may be made of the land at the site; and id mking a total assessment of the nam and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible ham or dcaimcnr which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of the relevaat segmest at &e Site by my fdustrial pesor activity, waste or substance (including any chemical substance); and 3. cmpplaed tm environmental audit qolt in accordance with section 57AA(2) dthe Acf a copy of wbieh has bcen sent to the AuMty. .. HEREBY STATE that I am of the opinion that the condition of tbt bad at tbc site is detrimentel or potentially detrimental IT to btaeficial use of the land at the site. Accordingly, I nAue to bsue A Certi6cate of Enviromnral Audit fbr the site in its current contaminated condition and state my reason fir this rdlml b that concen~mtiomof the metals chrorniUm lead and '''a- zinc are pnsent In several locations in excess of Australinn sad New zealand &vimnment and CbnsnvationCouncil q! (ANEE) 1992 ~VeSdgiitiontmls by up to 55%. .''? #It. HOWEVER I bm of the opinion tha; provided the followbg conditioos are met, tht site is suitable for medium to high . I deasity rsidential use prbvidcd the foRowfing conditions am mer: Cadition.1. litat &e fotlowidg uses which are perodtted by the current -? toning shall be permitted: - agricultun (to be checked) Candition 2. That oecppam and owners of besf@ an made mere of the pnxtnct of coetmimtd soil on tie site dinputtiah tbt vegetable grdmsbauld not be atabltshcd witbaut placing at least 150 mm of Clem top soil on the site * DATED: L1998 ... SIGNED: ...... ,...... __...... ~"...... ,...... rrr Jonathan Ashton Crockett .::g-_ (Emiroamcnml Audh) .**. :$r !' -!y -6 117 of 119 GeoPollution Management Pty Ltd 15/21 Eugene Terrace Ringwood VIC 3134 Ph: (03) 9879 6612 Fax: (03) 9876 9613 -? No. Pages Following: 0 Date: r:-) Job No.: 35315 Fax No. Dialled: 9600 1300 Quote No.: Attention: Mr Jonathan Crockett CompanylOrganization: Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd Sender: Phil Bayne PLEASE CALL 9879 6612 IF PART OR ALL OF THIS TRANSMISSION HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED MESSAGE: RE: 58 Willow Street, Essendon Dear Jonathan, I refer to our facsimile of 7h May 1998, which included results of further analysis at the above site, summarised below; Results of further analysis of individual samples show marginal elevations above ANZECC B Limits for Cr (63 ppm), Pb (420 ppm) and Zn (290 ppm) in the surface sample at BH3, and for Zn (310 ppm) in the surface sample at location BH4. PAH’s are below ANZECC Limits in all three samples. We are working on our Draft Report, and look forward to your comments with regards to the above. Thank you and Regards Phil Bayne Fax3531 5-Crocke113 118 of 119 I‘ Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd CONSULTING ENGNEERS * ~‘/.ENTALSCIEN&PUNNEB *PROJECTWERS 119 of 119