INFORMATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS
August 2007
VICTORIA’S AUDIT SYSTEM AUDIT REPORT CURRENCY An environmental audit system has operated in Audit reports are based on the conditions encountered Victoria since 1989. The Environment Protection Act and information reviewed at the time of preparation 1970 (the Act) provides for the appointment by the and do not represent any changes that may have Environment Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) of occurred since the date of completion. As it is not environmental auditors and the conduct of possible for an audit to present all data that could be independent, high quality and rigorous environmental of interest to all readers, consideration should be audits. made to any appendices or referenced documentation An environmental audit is an assessment of the for further information. condition of the environment, or the nature and extent When information regarding the condition of a site of harm (or risk of harm) posed by an industrial changes from that at the time an audit report is process or activity, waste, substance or noise. issued, or where an administrative or computation Environmental audit reports are prepared by EPA- error is identified, environmental audit reports, appointed environmental auditors who are highly certificates and statements may be withdrawn or qualified and skilled individuals. amended by an environmental auditor. Users are Under the Act, the function of an environmental advised to check EPA’s website to ensure the currency auditor is to conduct environmental audits and of the audit document. prepare environmental audit reports. Where an environmental audit is conducted to determine the PDF SEARCHABILITY AND PRINTING condition of a site or its suitability for certain uses, an environmental auditor may issue either a certificate or EPA Victoria can only certify the accuracy and statement of environmental audit. correctness of the audit report and appendices as presented in the hardcopy format. EPA is not A certificate indicates that the auditor is of the opinion responsible for any issues that arise due to problems that the site is suitable for any beneficial use defined with PDF files or printing. in the Act, whilst a statement indicates that there is some restriction on the use of the site. Except where PDF normal format is specified, PDF files are scanned and optical character recognised by Any individual or organisation may engage appointed machine only. Accordingly, while the images are environmental auditors, who generally operate within consistent with the scanned original, the searchable the environmental consulting sector, to undertake hidden text may contain uncorrected recognition environmental audits. The EPA administers the errors that can reduce search reliability. Therefore, environmental audit system and ensures its ongoing keyword searches undertaken within the document integrity by assessing auditor applications and may not retrieve all references to the queried text. ensuring audits are independent and conducted with regard to guidelines issued by EPA. This PDF has been created using the Adobe-approved method for generating Print Optimised Output. To assure proper results, proofs must be printed, rather AUDIT FILES STRUCTURE than viewed on the screen. Environmental audit reports are stored digitally by This PDF is compatible with Adobe Acrobat Reader EPA in three parts: the audit report (part A), report Version 4.0 or any later version which is downloadable appendices (part B) and, where applicable, the free from Adobe’s Website, www.adobe.com. certificate or statement of environmental audit and an executive summary (part C). A report may be in colour FURTHER INFORMATION and black-and-white formats. Generally, only black- and-white documents are text searchable. For more information on Victoria’s environmental Report executive summaries, findings and audit system, visit EPA’s website or contact EPA’s recommendations should be read and relied upon only Environmental Audit Unit. in the context of the document as a whole, including Web: www.epa.vic.gov.au/envaudit any appendices and, where applicable, any certificate Email: [email protected] or statement of environmental audit.
70798-1,2&3_a 1
Places Victoria Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 Service Order No: and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga 8003301, 8003302 & CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3 8003303 ENAUABTF00455AA 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 2 This page has been left intentionally blank
70798-1,2&3_a 3
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Prepared for Places Victoria
Prepared by Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd Level 1, 436 Johnston Street Abbotsford VIC 3067 Australia t: +61 3 9290 7094 f: +61 3 9290 7499 ABN: 65 140 765 902
Project Director / Environmental Auditor
Phil Sinclair
7 October 2014
ENAUABTF00455AA Quality information Revision history
Revision Description Date Originator Approver
R01 Final 7/10/2014 Emma Moffitt Phil Sinclair
Distribution
Report Status No. of copies Format Distributed to Date
Final 1 hard copy Environment Protection Authority 7/10/2014
Final 2 CD Environment Protection Authority 7/10/2014
Final 1 hard copy Places Victoria 7/10/2014
Final 1 CD Places Victoria 7/10/2014
Final 1 hard copy City of Wodonga 7/10/2014
Final 1 CD City of Wodonga 7/10/2014
Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd i ABN: 65 140 765 902
70798-1,2&3_a 4
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Auditor Phil Sinclair
Auditor account number 75667
Auditor appointment end date 2 June 2013 – 1 June 2015
Auditor’s appointment category CL
Audit type 53X
Date EPA notified of audit 4 May 2012
Audit service order number SO 8003301 PRECINCT 1 (70798-1) SO 8003302 PRECINCT 3 (70798-2) SO 8003303 PRECINCT 4 (70798-3)
Name of person requesting audit Richard Bender Regional Director North (former employee) Victorian Urban Renewal Authority (Places Victoria) ABN: 61 868 774 623 Tel (03) 8317 3400
Relationship of person requesting Employee of land owner (with the exception of the Ambulance station audit to site owned by Ambulance Victoria)
Name of premise owner Places Victoria (with the exception of the Ambulance station owned by Ambulance Victoria)
Date of auditor engagement 7 May 2012 (the date at which contract was finalised)
Completion date of audit 7 October 2014
Reason for audit Environmental Audit Overlay
Audit Categorisation CL
Environmental Segments Air, land, groundwater, surface water
If the audit was required by an EPA Not applicable notice, licence or other, please provide EPA reference number
Current land use zoning Comprehensive Development Zone – Schedule 1 (CDZ1)
EPA Region North East
Municipality Wodonga
Dominant Lot on title plan Volume 11359 Folio 827#
Additional Lot on title plan(s) Vol. 11405 Fol. 389, Vol. 9699 Fol. 299 Vol. 9798 Fol. 188 Vol. 9798 Fol. 190 Vol. 11169 Fol. 244 Vol. 9856 Fol. 928# Vol. 11169 Fol. 249 Vol. 9569 Fol. 809 Vol. 11423 Fol. 948 Vol. 9571 Fol. 814 Vol. 10621 Fol. 606 Vol. 9571 Fol. 813 Vol.9798 Fol. 189 # part of lot is on the site
Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd ii ABN: 65 140 765 902
70798-1,2&3_a 5
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Site/Premises name Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga
Building/complex sub-unit/lot no.
Street/lot – lower number 2
Street/lot – upper number 46
Street name Elgin
Street type Boulevard
Street suffix -
Suburb / Town Wodonga
Postcode 3690
GIS coordinate of site centroid
Longitude / Easting 146.886404
Latitude / Northing -36.119211
Site area (in square metres) 69,000 m2 (approximately)
Plan of site/premises showing the Yes audit site boundaries attached
Plan of site/premises showing the No audit site boundary attached in a spatial data format
Members and categories of support Karen Teague (human health and ecological risk assessment), Tim team utilised Marshall (hydrogeology)
Further work or requirements Three of the four Statement of Environmental audit require implementation of a Soil Contamination Management Plan during development for 3 of the 4 areas covered by SoEA
Nature and extent of continuing risk Residual contamination remains at the site in the form of a surficial fill layer that contains elevated levels of metals and TPHs and remnant TPH at the base of two remediation excavations (one within Parcel 1.1 and one crossing the boundaries of Parcels 3.1 and 3.2). Concentrations of these contaminants are such that a number of beneficial uses of the site may be compromised without appropriate site management measures being applied for 3 of the 4 of the areas covered by SoEA. The attached SoEA impose conditions that will effectively manage the risks involved. These conditions include restriction on the use of groundwater at the site and application of a Soil Contamination Management Plan for 3 of the 4 SoEA areas to ensure that the contaminated soil does not impact on construction workers. There are TPH concentrations in soil that require management in some locations.
Outcome of the audit Four (4) Statements of Environmental Audit
Has EPA determined CUTEP at this No site?
Has the auditor determined CUTEP Yes at this site?
Has a GQRUZ been identified at the No (a GQRUZ has been identified by the auditor) site/beyond the site by EPA?
Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd iii ABN: 65 140 765 902
70798-1,2&3_a 6
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Does LNAPL remain at the site? No
Please indicate which of the Protected Use Precluded? Protected Beneficial Uses of Maintenance of Ecosystems groundwater are precluded due to pollution Potable water supply (desirable) Not applicable Potable water supply (acceptable) Potable Mineral Water Supply Not applicable Agriculture, Parks and Gardens Stock Watering Primary Contact Recreation Industrial water us Buildings and Structures Not considered precluded
Historic land use 1873 - 2012 approx. railway land and associated uses, including railway residences fronting South Street. Past uses include: refuelling areas, an engine turntable, engine maintenance sheds, rail ballast, commercial tenancies (mainly fronting Church Street) including dry cleaning premises and food retailer, ambulance station, police station and courthouse and a service station fronting Elgin Boulevard,
Current land use The majority of the site is vacant, except commercial use, predominantly around the perimeter (refer audit report).
Proposed future land use Mixed uses; including low density residential use, medium density residential use (including above commercial use), commercial use and public open space.
Surrounding land use – north Residential – Surrounding land use south Former rail siding to the south of Precinct 1 (Precinct 2) – Surrounding land use east Commercial uses, including a hotel (NE) and former rail corridor – Surrounding land use west Former rail corridor and commercial uses
Proposed land use zoning Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ) (details not finalised)
Nearest surface water receptor – House Creek name
Nearest surface water receptor – 250 m distance (m)
Nearest surface water receptor – West direction
Likely point of groundwater Jack in the Box Creek and Wodonga Creek discharge
Site aquifer information Shepparton Formation
Groundwater flow direction Overall direction is to the northeast but is locally variable
Groundwater TDS range (mg/L) 420 – 2,300 mg/L
Groundwater Segment A2
Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd iv ABN: 65 140 765 902
70798-1,2&3_a 7
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Are multiple aquifers impacted by No pollution at the site
Perched groundwater depth – upper Not applicable (metres below ground level (mbgl))
Perched groundwater depth – lower Not applicable (mbgl)
Regional groundwater depth – 9 upper (mbgl)
Regional groundwater depth – lower 12 (mbgl)
Number of bores within 2 km 112
Closest extractive use (distance in 900 m north east m)
Zone of groundwater plume The contamination is not considered to extend beyond the site boundary influence (m from site boundary)
Year groundwater last monitored 2014
Have you attached electronic copies Yes of current groundwater analytical results presented as a summary table?
* The above information is presented per the structure in Appendix 9 of Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit.
Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd v ABN: 65 140 765 902
70798-1,2&3_a 8
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Table of contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Background ...... 1 1.2. Purpose of environmental audit ...... 1 1.3. Organisations involved in the Audit ...... 1 1.4. Auditor’s support team ...... 2 2. Audit framework and methodology ...... 2 2.1. Environmental audits (contaminated land) ...... 2 2.2. Audit methodology ...... 4 2.3. Documents reviewed ...... 4 3. Quality and completeness of assessment consultant’s assessment reporting ...... 5 4. Site description and environmental setting ...... 11 4.1. Site details ...... 11 4.2. Site setting and surrounding land use ...... 11 4.3. Potentially sensitive areas ...... 12 4.4. Geology ...... 12 4.5. Hydrogeology ...... 12 4.6. Topography, drainage and natural water courses ...... 14 4.7. Underground storage tanks ...... 14 4.8. Landfills ...... 14 5. Site history and potential contaminants of concern ...... 15 5.1. Site history ...... 15 5.2. General site history ...... 15 5.2.1. History of Precinct 1 ...... 16 5.2.2. History of Precinct 3 ...... 16 5.2.3. History of Precinct 4 ...... 17 5.3. History of the surrounding area ...... 18 5.4. Potential Contaminants of Concern ...... 19 5.5. Potential for groundwater contamination ...... 20 5.6. Potential for soil vapour contamination ...... 20 5.7. Potential human and environmental receptors of contamination ...... 20 6. Relevant elements of the environment (Assessment of beneficial uses relevant to the site) ... 21 6.1. Land ...... 21 6.2. Groundwater...... 22 6.3. Surface water ...... 23
Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd i ABN: 65 140 765 902
70798-1,2&3_a 9
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
6.4. Air ...... 24 7. Site criteria ...... 24 7.1. Adopted criteria – soil ...... 24 7.1.1. Maintenance of ecosystems ...... 24 7.1.2. Buildings and structures ...... 27 7.1.3. Food, flora and fibre ...... 27 7.1.4. Aesthetics ...... 27 7.1.5. Human health ...... 28 7.1.6. Other soil criteria ...... 28 7.1.7. Tabulated summary of soil screening criteria...... 28 7.1.8. Evaluation of TPH criteria...... 30 7.1.9. Soil screening criteria by Precinct and Parcel ...... 31 7.2. Adopted criteria for groundwater ...... 31 7.2.1. Maintenance of ecosystems ...... 32 7.2.2. Potable water (acceptable)...... 33 7.2.3. Agriculture, parks and gardens ...... 33 7.2.4. Stock watering ...... 33 7.2.5. Industrial water use ...... 33 7.2.6. Primary contact recreation ...... 33 7.3. Buildings and structures ...... 34 7.4. Groundwater criteria summary ...... 34 7.5. Vapour assessment ...... 36 8. Environmental site assessment works ...... 37 8.1. Summary of field activities ...... 37 8.2. Soil assessment ...... 38 8.3. Findings for key areas of soil contamination ...... 39 8.4. Groundwater condition prior to and during remediation ...... 42 9. Conceptual site model ...... 44 9.1. Source, pathway, receptor relationships ...... 44 9.1.1. Sources ...... 44 9.1.2. Pathways ...... 44 9.1.3. Receptors ...... 45 9.1.4. Summary ...... 45 10. Remediation strategy...... 45 10.1. Soil remediation, general approach ...... 46 10.2. Design of Base Works ...... 46 10.3. Additional Works ...... 46 10.4. Remediation method ...... 47
Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd ii ABN: 65 140 765 902
70798-1,2&3_a 10
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
10.5. Precinct 1 ...... 48 10.6. Precinct 3 ...... 49 10.7. Precinct 4 ...... 51 10.8. Remediation excavations validation ...... 54 10.9. Groundwater remediation ...... 54 11. Validation sampling ...... 55 12. Soil stockpiling and treatment ...... 57 12.1. Stockpile formation and tracking ...... 57 12.2. Materials tracking system ...... 58 12.3. Stockpile sampling ...... 58 12.4. Onsite treatment ...... 58 12.4.1. Biopile treatment of diesel impacted soils ...... 58 12.4.2. Chemical fixation of leachable lead contamination ...... 60 12.5. Soil reclassification by application to EPA Victoria ...... 60 12.6. Off-site disposal of stockpiled materials ...... 61 12.7. Re-use of stockpiled soils ...... 61 12.8. Imported fill ...... 61 12.9. Backfilling ...... 61 13. Final site condition (soils) ...... 62 13.1. Key Contaminants associated with the final soil conditions ...... 62 13.2. Further discussion of key contaminants of concern ...... 64 13.2.1. Further discussion – arsenic concentrations ...... 64 13.2.2. Further discussion – TPH ...... 64 13.2.3. Further discussion – lead ...... 65 13.2.4. Further discussion – metals ...... 65 13.2.5. Further discussion – benzo(a)pyrene and PAH ...... 65 13.2.6. Further discussion – organochlorine pesticides ...... 65 13.2.7. Further discussion – Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) ...... 66 13.3. Beneficial uses of soil ...... 66 13.3.1. Ecosystem protection ...... 66 13.3.2. Human health protection ...... 67 13.3.3. Buildings and structures (with respect to soil impacts) ...... 75 13.3.4. Aesthetics ...... 76 13.3.5. Production of food, flora and fibre ...... 77 13.4. Vapour considerations ...... 77 13.5. Summary of soil contamination impact to beneficial uses of land ...... 78 14. Assessment of groundwater contamination ...... 78 14.1. Groundwater levels and interpreted groundwater flow direction ...... 79
Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd iii ABN: 65 140 765 902
70798-1,2&3_a 11
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
14.2. Groundwater analytical results ...... 81 14.2.1. Discussion of individual analytes ...... 84 14.3. Discussion of beneficial use impacts - groundwater ...... 87 14.3.1. Maintenance of ecosystems ...... 88 14.3.2. Potable water use ...... 88 14.3.3. Agriculture, parks and gardens ...... 89 14.3.4. Stock watering ...... 89 14.3.5. Primary contact recreation ...... 89 14.3.6. Industrial water use ...... 89 14.3.7. Buildings and structures ...... 89 14.4. Conclusions regarding groundwater results ...... 89 15. CUTEP considerations ...... 90 15.1. GQRUZ determination ...... 92 16. Summary and conclusions ...... 93 17. Statement of uncertainties ...... 95 18. References ...... 96
Tables (in text)
Table 1.1: Organisations involved in the Environmental Audit ...... 1 Table 2.1: Site Visits conducted by Auditor and/or his representatives ...... 4 Table 3.1: Quality and completeness of environmental assessment works ...... 7 Table 4.1: Summary of site details ...... 11 Table 4.2: Surrounding land use ...... 12 Table 5.1: Summary of potential contaminants of concern ...... 19 Table 6.1: Protected beneficial uses of land ...... 22 Table 6.2: Aquifer classification based on onsite TDS concentration ...... 23 Table 7.1: Background ranges of metals in fill at former law courts site...... 25 Table 7.2: Adopted EILs (mg/kg) ...... 26 Table 7.3: Adopted ESL criteria for volatile contaminants of concern (mg/kg) ...... 27 Table 7.4: Adopted audit criteria for Ecosystem Protection and Human Health (mg/kg)...... 28 Table 7.5: Health Screening levels and management limits for petroleum hydrocarbons (mg/kg) .. 30 Table 7.6: Summary of screening criteria by Precinct ...... 31 Table 7.7: Adopted Audit Criteria for the Beneficial Uses of Groundwater for key chemicals of concern (mg/L)...... 34 Table 8.1: Summary of field works undertaken...... 37 Table 8.2: Soil assessments over time ...... 39 Table 8.3: Summary of soil assessment locations per Precinct ...... 39
Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd iv ABN: 65 140 765 902
70798-1,2&3_a 12
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Table 8.4: Key contaminants of interest based on ESA data ...... 40 Table 8.5: Groundwater contaminant concentrations (before and during remediation) ...... 43 Table 10.1: Summary of Remediation Excavations – Precinct 1 (after Golder, 2014a) ...... 48 Table 10.2: Summary of Remediation Excavations – Precinct 3 ...... 49 Table 10.3: Summary of Remediation Excavations – Precinct 4 ...... 52 Table 11.1: Summary of individual validation soil concentrations in excess of adopted screening criteria at the completion of remedial works (after Golder, 2014a) ...... 55 Table 12.1: Summary of diesel-fuel impacted stockpiles (from Golder, 2014a) ...... 59 Table 13.1: Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern relative to ecological and human health (residential) screening criteria ...... 62 Table 13.2: Maximum contaminants of concern against ecological and human health (residential) criteria ...... 66 Table 13.3: Land parcels – comparison of contaminants of concern with human health (residential – low density) screening criteria and management limit criteria ...... 68 Table 13.4: Land parcels – comparison of contaminants of concern with human health (residential – medium / high density) screening criteria and management limit criteria ...... 69 Table 13.5: Land parcels – comparison of contaminants of concern with human health (open space use) Screening criteria and management limit criteria...... 71 Table 13.6: Land parcels – comparison of contaminants of concern with human health (commercial / industrial use) screening criteria and management limit criteria...... 74 Table 14.1: Summary of exceedances in most recent monitoring rounds (mg/L) ...... 81 Table 14.2: Summary of exceedances, against up and down gradient concentrations, in most recent monitoring rounds (mg/L) ...... 84 Table 14.3: Concentrations around source wells (after Golder 2014c) ...... 87 Table 14.4: Precluded beneficial use summary table ...... 88 Table 15.1: CUTEP checklist ...... 90
Tables (following text)
Table T1a – Final Soil results for Precinct 1
Table T1b – Final Soil results for Precinct 3
Table T1c – Final Soil results for Precinct 4
Table T1e – Final Results for Parcel 4 - Green Square (including 95% UCL where relevant)
Table T1f – Final Results for Parcel 3.3A (including 95% UCL where relevant)
Table T1g – Final Results for Parcel 1.1 (including 95% UCL where relevant)
Table T1h – Final Results for Parcel 3.1 (including 95% UCL where relevant)
Table T1i – Final Results for Parcel 3.2 (including 95% UCL where relevant)
Table T1j – Final Results for Parcel 3.4 (including 95% UCL where relevant)
Table T1k – Final Results for Parcel 3.4 (including 95% UCL where relevant)
Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd v ABN: 65 140 765 902
70798-1,2&3_a 13
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Table T1l – Final Results for Parcel 4.2 (including 95% UCL where relevant)
Table T1m – Final Results for Parcel Roads 3 (including 95% UCL where relevant)
Table T1n – Final Results for Roads 4 (including 95% UCL where relevant)
Table T1o – Final Results for Promenade Link (including 95% UCL where relevant)
Table T1p - Final Results for Urban Square (including 95% UCL where relevant)
Table T2 – Groundwater Results
Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location, after Golder 2014b
Figure 2 – Allotment Plan, as supplied by client
Figure 3 – Proposed Precinct Plan, as provided by client
Figure 4 – Assessment Locations – Precinct 1, after Golder, 2014a
Figure 5- Assessment Locations – Precinct 3, after Golder, 2014a
Figure 6 – Assessment Locations – Precinct 4, after Golder, 2014a
Figure 7 – Site Layout and Areas of Environmental Interest, after Golder, 2014a
Figure 8 – Completed Remediation Excavations, after Golder, 2014a
Figure 9 – Car Park TPH Concentrations, after Golder, 2014a
Figure 10 – Turntable TPH Concentrations, after Golder, 2014a
Figure 11 – Groundwater Monitoring Wells Locations, after Golder, 2014a
Figure 12 – Groundwater Levels – July 2014, after Golder 2014c
Figure 13 - Groundwater Levels – October 2013, after Golder 2014c
Figure 14 – Groundwater Levels – March 2011, after Golder 2014c
Figure 15 – Groundwater Levels – November 2010, after Golder 2014c
Figure 16 – Groundwater Levels – June 2010, after Golder 2014c
Figure 17 – TPH C10-C36 in Groundwater Monitoring Wells, after Golder 2014b
Figure 18 – Ammonia in Groundwater Monitoring Wells, after Golder 2014b
Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd vi ABN: 65 140 765 902
70798-1,2&3_a 14
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Appendices
Appendix A:- Statements of Environmental Audit (4) incorporating - Figure S showing Parcels for all 4 Statements and - Soil Contamination Management Plan for 3 of the 4 Statements.
Appendix B:- QA/QC Review
Appendix C: - Golder (2014b) Groundwater Assessment Report in Support of CUTEP (reference 117613160 197 R Rev0 dated May 2014).
Appendix D - Golder (2014c) Groundwater Flow Direction and Implications (reference 117613160- 242-L-Rev0 dated July 2014).
Appendix E - Golder (2014a) Junction Place, Wodonga (Precinct 1, 3 & 4), Environmental Assessment & Remediation Report (reference 117613160-183-R-Rev0 dated March 2014).
Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd vii ABN: 65 140 765 902
70798-1,2&3_a 15 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
1. Introduction 1.1. Background
This Environmental Audit Report has been prepared by Mr Phil Sinclair of Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd (Coffey). Mr Sinclair is an Environmental Auditor (appointed pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970). The Audit was requested by Mr Richard Bender on behalf of Places Victoria (Victoria Urban Renewal Authority), the site owner. EPA was advised of the engagement on 4 May 2012. A contract between Places Victoria and Coffey Environments was signed on 7 May 2012. The site which is the subject of this audit comprises a portion of the former Wodonga railway station and associated rail yard land located between South Street, High Street, Elgin Boulevard and Smythe Street in Wodonga, Victoria (comprising Precincts 1, 3 and 4 in accordance with the proposed Masterplan for the redevelopment shown in Figures 3). Within this report Areas 1, 3 and 4 will be referred to as “the site”, while the term “wider Junction Place site” refers to the entire former railways site (including precincts 2 and 5). The environmental audit has been conducted in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and “Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land), Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit”, EPA Pub. No. 759.2, February 2014. 1.2. Purpose of environmental audit
Places Victoria proposes to redevelop the site for a mixture of residential, open space, retail and commercial use. Under Planning Scheme Amendment C92 (PS Amendment C92), dated 9 February 2012, the former Wodonga Railway Station site was rezoned from Public Use Zone 4, Road Zone 2 and Residential 1 Zone to the new Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ). An Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) was also placed over the site at this time under PS Amendment C92. Therefore, before the proposed development can be undertaken, a Certificate of Environmental Audit or a Statement of Environmental Audit (single or multiple)an Environmental Audit must be issued for the site and Precinct 1, 3 and 4 confirming that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the proposed use/s. This audit assesses the health and environmental risks from exposure to any contaminated soil, vapours and/or waters (including groundwater) found at the site with respect to existing and potential beneficial uses. The audit also assesses the possibility of adjacent land impacting adversely upon the environmental condition of the site and vice versa. 1.3. Organisations involved in the Audit
The following is a list of parties involved in the Audit in addition to the auditor and audit team: Table 1.1: Organisations involved in the Environmental Audit
Role Organisation
Site owner: Places Victoria (with the exception of the ambulance station owned by Ambulance Victoria)
Auditor Phil Sinclair; Coffey
Coffey 1 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 16 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Role Organisation
Site Occupier: The majority of the site was vacant at the time of completing the Audit, with the following exceptions: A Thai restaurant and Cashies located on 103-105 High Street in Precinct 1;
A car dealership at 93-95 High Street in Precinct 1;
An Ambulance Station in the north eastern corner of Precinct 4;
Places Victoria site office, northern end of Precinct 3.
Environmental Site Golder Associates (Golder) Assessor:
Primary Laboratory Used by ALS Laboratory Group Pty Ltd (ALS) Site Assessor:
Secondary Laboratory Used mgt-Labmark Environmental Laboratories (mgt-Labmark) by Site Assessor:
1.4. Auditor’s support team
Refer Executive Summary. The environmental audit report was drafted by Emma Moffitt.
2. Audit framework and methodology 2.1. Environmental audits (contaminated land)
Environmental Audits are undertaken in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970 (the ‘Act’). As defined in the Act, an environmental Audit is: “A total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of any segment of the environment by any industrial process or activity, waste, substance (including any chemical substance) or noise”. The Act creates a mechanism for how a person appointed by the Victorian Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) as an Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) may issue a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit. An Environmental Audit is undertaken to examine the suitability of the site for unrestricted use. As required under the Environment Protection Act, a Statutory Environmental Audit Report shall include the following. (a) An evaluation of the environmental quality of the relevant segment of the environment.
(b) An assessment whether any clean-up is required to that segment of the environment.
(c) An assessment of whether the condition of the site is detrimental or potentially detrimental to the beneficial uses of the site or any segment of the environment.
(d) If any clean-up is necessary, any recommendations relating to the carrying out of the clean-up.
Coffey 2 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 17 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
When evaluating the above, the auditor must have regard to the following: (a) Any relevant State environment protection policy or industrial waste management policy.
(b) Any guidelines issued by the EPA for the purposes of the Act.
(c) Any National Environmental Protection Measure.
Depending on the outcome of the Statutory Environmental Audit Report process the auditor is required to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit or, if it is believed that the site is detrimental or potentially detrimental to one or more beneficial uses of the site, issue a Statement of Environmental Audit indicating the beneficial uses that the site is suitable for pending future clean-up to achieve a certificate. In undertaking an Audit, the auditor is required to take account of the various regulatory policies and guidance documents issued by EPA Victoria and other relevant agencies. In this respect, Victoria has a number of legislative provisions for the management of land contamination issues. Key legislation includes the Environment Protection Act 1970 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987. State Environment Protection Policies (SEPP) are subordinate legislation made under the Environment Protection Act 1970, and express in law the community’s expectations, needs and priorities for using and protecting the environment. A number of existing SEPPs are relevant to the prevention and management of contaminated land. These include: State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), No S95, 2002;
State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), No S160, 1997;
State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria), No S13, 1988 as varied on 3 June 2003 No. S107 and Schedule F7 (Waters of the Yarra Catchment) as varied in S89, 1999;
State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management), No S240, 2001; and
State Environment Protection Policy (Ambient Air Quality), No S19, 1999.
The SEPP (Prevention and Management of Contaminated Land) (SEPP (PMCL)) establishes a range of general land uses in Victoria, and provides indicators and objectives against which the protection of these uses can be assessed. The SEPP (PMCL) also identifies the links between the environmental audit and statutory planning systems, ensuring that sites that require an audit are identified and that any conditions associated with the audit outcome are implemented. Finally, the SEPP (PMCL) sets out requirements for the prevention and management of contamination of land in a manner that is consistent with existing principles of waste minimisation. Industrial Waste Management Policies (IWMP) and Guidelines (IWRG) may also be relevant to the conduct of environmental audits. These include: Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste Minimisation), No S52, 1990;
Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste Acid Sulfate Soils), No S125, 1999.
Industrial Waste Management Policy IWRG621 Soil Hazard Categorization and Management (June 2009)
Additionally, the Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009, SR No. 77/2009 may also be relevant to the conduct of the audit. In addition to the Victorian legislation, the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 2013 (NEPM) has been developed by the Commonwealth and the states and territories, through the National Environment Protection Council, to establish a nationally consistent approach to the assessment of site contamination. It aims to ensure sound environmental
Coffey 3 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 18 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3 management practices by the community and provide adequate protection of human health and the environment where site contamination exists. The NEPM also provides criteria for various compounds and soil types with which to assess potential risks to human health and the environment. The NEPM (2013) has been adopted for use in Victoria via provisions in the SEPP (PMCL). 2.2. Audit methodology
In conducting this Environmental Audit, the auditor and/or his representative has:
Reviewed site history and other relevant background information relating to the site, provided by Golder, the current site assessment consultant, and including historic reports by Senversa and URS;
Reviewed and provided comment on the work plans provided by Golder Associates;
Undertaken site visits, as detailed in Table 2.1 below, to appraise site conditions, surrounding land uses and view the assessment activities being undertaken by Golder Associates;
Reviewed the environmental condition of the site, using all available information (see Section 2.3 below);
Assessed the site contamination status and the potential risks to human health and the environment relevant to potential land uses; and
Prepared this Environmental Audit Report incorporating a groundwater Clean Up To the Extent Practicable (CUTEP) determination made by the auditor.
Table 2.1: Site Visits conducted by Auditor and/or his representatives
Date Purpose/Activity Who Attended 7 May 2012 Gain familiarity with the site, meet client and Emma Moffitt and Phil Sinclair assessor 14 August 2012 Conduct site walk over and observe Patricia Halpin monitoring well installation 23 August 2012 Observe groundwater sampling Patricia Halpin 6 March 2013 Site visit and meet with client and assessor Emma Moffitt and Phil Sinclair 26 August 2013 Observe groundwater sampling Lauren Padbury 1 July 2014 Check of selected off-site wells groundwater Patricia Halpin levels
2.3. Documents reviewed
In undertaking this Audit the auditor reviewed the following reports: Proposed development plans;
Golder (2002a) Report to the Urban and Regional Land Corporation. Environmental and Geotechnical Overview, Wodonga Central Area Redevelopment. March 2002 (2002a).
Golder (2002b) Report to VicTrack Access. Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Former Amoco and Stockyard Sites, Lot165, Elgin Street, Wodonga Victoria. July 2002 (2002b).
Coffey 4 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 19 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Golder (2011a) Report to VicTrack: Preliminary Study of Rail Ballast Contamination, Wodonga Contrail and Western Rail Corridors, Wodonga, Victoria, 22 June 2011
Golder (2011b) Preliminary Remediation Strategy and Cost Estimate. December 2011 (reference 117613160 001 R Rev0)
Golder (2012a) Framework for Assessment and Remediation, Wodonga CBD Northern Precinct Development - Junction Place. June 2012 (2012a).
Golder (2012b) Pre-remediation Environmental Assessment: Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga (November 2012) (Golder, 2012b).
Golder (2012c) Specification for Site Remediation - Junction Place Central Wodonga.
Golder (2012d) Scope of Works for Pre-Remediation Further Investigation Works (reference 117613160-005-L-Rev0, dated 6 August 2012).
Golder (2013a) Current Condition of the Land – Ambulance Station Site, Junction Place, Wodonga (reference 117613160-196-L-Rev0, dated 1 November 2013.
Golder (2013b) Final Contamination Condition of Soil – Goods Shed, Junction Place, Wodonga, dated 21 February 2013 (Golder 2013b).
Golder (2013c) Precinct 3 and 4 Rectification Assessment Works (reference 117613160 055 R Rev0, dated 8 July 2013).
Golder (2013d) Final Contamination Condition of Soil - Goods Shed (reference 117613160 028 R Rev0).
Golder (2014a) Junction Place, Wodonga (Precinct 1, 3 &4), Environmental Assessment & Remediation Report (reference 117613160-183-R-Rev0 dated March 2014).
Golder (2014b) Groundwater Assessment Report in Support of CUTEP (reference 117613160 197 R Rev0 dated May 2014).
Golder (2014c) Groundwater Flow Direction and Implications (reference 117613160-242-L-Rev0 dated July 2014).
Golder (2014d) Soil Contamination Management Plan (reference 117613160-242-L-Rev1 dated 6 October 2014).
3. Quality and completeness of assessment consultant’s assessment reporting
This environmental audit report provides an audit on the environmental quality of the segment of land at the site, and is supported by upon site assessment works conducted by the assessment consultant (Golder Associates) and prior assessments incorporated by Golder into its assessment. As part of the audit, the work completed by Golder since the start of the audit, has been reviewed by the auditor to assess its completeness in accordance with relevant regulations and guidelines. Although the specific details of the assessment, including the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination, are described in detail later in relevant sections of this environmental audit report, this section reviews the quality and completeness of the environmental assessment works performed by ERM to address point (i) of Appendix 3 of the “Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land)-Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit” (EPA Publication 759.1, 2007).
Coffey 5 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 20 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
The Golder assessment works for the site are presented in: Golder (2002) Report to the Urban and Regional Land Corporation. Environmental and Geotechnical Overview, Wodonga Central Area Redevelopment. March 2002 (2002a).
Golder (July 2002) Report to VicTrack Access. Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Former Amoco and Stockyard Sites, Lot165, Elgin Street, Wodonga Victoria. July 2002 (2002b).
Golder (2011a) Report to VicTrack: Preliminary Study of Rail Ballast Contamination, Wodonga Contrail and Western Rail Corridors, Wodonga, Victoria, 22 June 2011
Golder (2011b) Preliminary Remediation Strategy and Cost Estimate. December 2011 (reference 117613160 001 R Rev0)
Golder (2012a) Framework for Assessment and Remediation, Wodonga CBD Northern Precinct Development - Junction Place. June 2012 (2012a).
Golder (2012b) Pre-remediation Environmental Assessment: Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga (November 2012) (Golder, 2012b).
Golder (2012c) Specification for Site Remediation - Junction Place Central Wodonga.
Golder (2012d) Scope of Works for Pre-Remediation Further Investigation Works (reference 117613160-005-L-Rev0, dated 6 August 2012).
Golder (2013a) Current Condition of the Land – Ambulance Station Site, Junction Place, Wodonga (reference 117613160-196-L-Rev0, dated 1 November 2013.
Golder (2013b) Final Contamination Condition of Soil – Goods Shed, Junction Place, Wodonga, dated 21 February 2013 (Golder 2013b).
Golder (2013c) Precinct 3 and 4 Rectification Assessment Works (reference 117613160 055 R Rev0, dated 8 July 2013).
Golder (2013d) Final Contamination Condition of Soil - Goods Shed (reference 117613160 028 R Rev0).
Golder (2014a) Junction Place, Wodonga (Precinct 1, 3 &4), Environmental Assessment & Remediation Report (reference 117613160-183-R-Rev0 dated March 2014).
Golder (2014b) Groundwater Assessment Report in Support of CUTEP (reference 117613160 197 R Rev0 dated May 2014).
Golder (2014c) Groundwater Flow Direction and Implications (reference 117613160-242-L-Rev0 dated July 2014).
The quality review of the Golder reports is summarised in Table 3.1. The reviews have been assessed against, and generally follow, the structure outlined in Appendix 2 of the “Environmental Audit (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit” (EPA Publication 759.2, 2014).
Coffey 6 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 21 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Table 3.1: Quality and completeness of environmental assessment works
Contents of Site Assessment Report
A discussion of the history of the site itself as well as the surrounding land is summarised in the report Pre-remediation Environmental Assessment: Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga (November 2012) (Golder, 2012b). Site a) History of adjacent history has been reviewed in a number of phases and details of the site history land uses were obtained from numerous sources including historic aerial photographs, historic titles and surrounding audit reports. The information is considered to be sufficient to provide an indication of past site uses and potential on and off site sources of contamination.
The assessor undertook a number of site visits during the course of this project. In addition, the auditor and auditor’s assistants conducted five site visits during b) Visual Inspections field works to observe site conditions and confirm that sampling methodology was appropriate.
A review of site geology and hydrogeology is presented in Golder (2014) Groundwater Assessment Report in Support of CUTEP (reference 117613160 197 R Rev0). This information is drawn on in the subsequent environmental reports for the site. The description of geology and hydrogeology of the area was based on regional Geology and c) geological and hydrogeological maps and a review of the DSE Groundwater hydrogeology Management System Database. In addition, the previous geotechnical investigations were referred to for site specific data. Audit reports for nearby sites were also used to appreciate regional hydrogeological and geological conditions. The intrusive soil and groundwater assessments undertaken by Golder also provided further detailed information on sub-surface conditions. No permanent structures were present on the site. A temporary site “showroom”/office was located on the southeast corner of the site. This structure prevented intrusive investigations within its footprint but given the small area Condition of site involved and the comprehensive coverage of sampling locations achieved d) structures & water elsewhere, this was not viewed as an issue by the auditor. courses No bodies of water or natural water courses (either flowing or ephemeral) are present onsite. The nearest water body is House Creek which is located about 250 m to the west of the greater site.
Scope of Site Investigations to support an Environmental Audit
The general approach to the assessment was developed by Golder Associates based on review of site historical information and in consultation with the auditor. The scope and design of the sampling and analysis plan gives appropriate consideration to background information including site/ surrounding site history research and visual inspections. Soil sampling was undertaken in general accordance with AS4482.1-2005. Samples were collected from all major soil types at the site in a) Sampling & analysis program sufficient numbers as to allow meaningful differentiation between specific contaminant “populations” – in this instance natural soils and surficial fill materials. The total number of grid-based test points advanced at the site exceeded the requirements of AS4482.1-2005. Additional targeted sampling locations were also completed to address identified features of concern and delineate “hot spots” of contamination identified in the grid based sampling program.
Coffey 7 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 22 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
The twenty monitoring wells installed at the site (and additional 9 installed on the greater Junction Place site) were installed in general accordance with the Minimum Construction Requirements for Water Bores in Australia (Land and Water Biodiversity Committee 2003), and the EPA Groundwater Sampling Guidelines (EPA 2000). Groundwater well locations were positioned so as to enable appraisal of both up-gradient and down-gradient conditions and to enable appropriate triangulation for estimating groundwater flow direction. Groundwater was sampled and analysed for a broad range of contaminants including those identified as contaminants of potential concern in the desktop investigation. The sampling and analysis program is considered sufficient for the purposes of this audit.
Soil sampling methodology is discussed in Golder, 2012b and 2014a. Documentation of soil assessment work generally complied with AS4482.1-2005 and AS4482.2-1999 and other relevant guidelines. The auditor was satisfied that acceptable procedures were being followed. Compliance with The groundwater sampling methodology used by Golder for the most recent b) approved groundwater sampling rounds is discussed in Appendix G of the Golder CUTEP methods/protocols report (February 2014). The auditor’s assistant attended on-site on a number of occasions during the investigations and was able to observe groundwater sampling works. Documented sampling methods were in accordance with EPA Publication 669 Groundwater Sampling Guidelines. Groundwater sampling methods were observed by the auditor assistant on 26 August 2013.
All laboratories (ALS and MGT) engaged during the various stages of Laboratory c) assessment are NATA registered and hold NATA accreditation for all analyses accreditation conducted.
Analytical detection limits for soil were appropriate for the criteria Analytical detection limits for groundwater were appropriate with the exceptions of: beryllium and vanadium which are above the adopted low reliability trigger values for the maintenance of ecosystems;
various OCP and PCB reporting limits are above the screening levels for primary maintenance of ecosystems; and
reporting limits for benzo(a)pyrene and some individual phenols above the d) Analytical detection screening level for primary contact recreation and maintenance of limits ecosystems.
Golder considers that the metal results are not a concern as these metals were not a concern at the site. The PCBs are not a significant concern as they were not a significant contaminant of concern and were detected in soils above the laboratory detection limits of 0.1 mg/kg. In terms of the B(a)P and OCPs, although they were a contaminant of concern at the site, previous rounds of groundwater testing (by Senversa) did not find these chemicals at concentrations above detection levels, using trace levels (which are appropriately low). The auditor concurs with Golder’s arguments.
Coffey 8 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 23 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Site plans indicating sample location points are included in all the various reports by Senversa, URS and Golder. Relevant Golder figures are reproduced as figures in this report. Test-pit logs are included in Appendix B of Golder, 2014a. December 2013 and e) Site plans & bore logs groundwater purging and development records are also included in Appendix K of Golder, 2014a. A selection of field records and borelogs were reviewed and together with the site plans and bore logs, and on the basis of that review finding no significant anomalies, the field records and borelogs are considered to provide sufficient information for the purposes of this audit.
An assessment of QA/QC performance is presented in Appendix B. Overall the f) Quality assurance / quality assurance procedures / quality control data provided by the assessment quality control consultant were considered acceptable, sufficient and adequate to support the findings of this audit.
No specific background samples were collected by Golder, however, the comprehensive information and analytical data sets available from the g) Background assessment of the greater Junction place site, as well as the information from samples surrounding audit reports, provided useful information regarding background conditions. This information was appraised by the auditor specifically in relation to groundwater conditions in the wider area.
Golder’s site assessment analysis program focused on potential contaminants of concern identified by the background review (which included review of historical assessments by Senversa and URS) in Section 5.7 of Golder, November 2012, Soil and repeated in subsequent reports. Generally the analytical suite for soil h) screens/targeted consisted of asbestos, metals, TPH, MAH with a limited number of sampled chemicals tested for cyanide, VOCs and OCPs. The groundwater sampling program focused on a wide suite of chemicals of potential concern. The sampling and analytical program was reviewed and endorsed by the auditor (for works undertaken since May 2012).
Other No other on-site environmental hazards were identified. No active or closed i) environmental landfills were located within 500m of the site. In addition, no EPA priority sites hazards were located within 500km of the site.
Information Required for Chemicals of Concern
a) Chemical properties There were no issues relating to chemical properties of contamination that b) Form/species required specific comment. c) Physical An interpretation of soil and groundwater results for chemicals of concern is characteristics provided in Sections 8 – 14 of this report. Potential exposure A comparison with established guideline concentrations has been undertaken to d) pathways provide guidance as to the likely toxicity of the chemicals of potential concern.
e) Potential harm The auditor has provided additional comments regarding the natural occurrence of metals in soil and groundwater. f) Detriment to Overall, the information provided regarding chemicals of concern is considered beneficial uses sufficient for the purposes of this audit.
g) Potential off-site effects
Coffey 9 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 24 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Assessing the Significance of Site Investigation Results
The significance of soil contamination results were assessed against the SEPP Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land (2002) as discussed in Section 6.3 of the Golder (2014a) ESA & Remediation report. a) Reference to Land SEPP The significance of groundwater assessment results were assessed against the SEPP Groundwaters of Victoria (1997) is discussed in Section 2.5.3 of Golder, 2014a.
b) Evaluation of risk A generalised evaluation of risk was undertaken by comparison with established NEPM, ANZECC and other relevant guidelines as appropriate (Sections 7 and Compliance with c) 14 of this report). NEPM
In some cases, other published guideline values were used to evaluate risk (e.g. d) Use of other the NSW EPA Service Station guidelines). The auditor has provided additional guidelines comments regarding other published guideline values and evaluation of risk in later sections of this report.
Evaluation of risks presented by contamination included consideration of Consideration of potential impacts to all beneficial uses of the site. The auditor has provided e) impact to all additional comments regarding potential impacts to beneficial uses of the site in beneficial uses later sections of this report.
Appropriate use of Golder has referred to the IRWG 621 guidelines for waste disposal criteria, f) waste classification although the classification of material previously removed from the site is not criteria relevant to this audit.
Appendix O of the Golder, 2014a report contains a limitations section which draws attention to the fact that, as with all site assessments, the data was derived from a number of grid and target locations at a specific point in time and that changes to site conditions are possible at a later date. Prior to Golder completing intrusive investigation works at the site; the auditor reviewed the proposed scope of works documents and provided commentary. The laboratory analytical schedule adopted by Golder included broad contaminant screening for soil and groundwater, as well as analysis targeted at specific concerns identified in the site history. The auditor generally concurred with the scope of works and provided on-going guidance where appropriate, including specific written commentary throughout the audit. The auditor and the auditor assistant attended the site several times to observe site conditions and confirm the quality of sampling methodology. The auditor reviewed Golders sampling procedures and drilling procedures and, based on observed and documented procedures, concluded that assessment works generally conformed to best practice guidelines and that any departure from best practice was not material to investigation findings. Golder field personnel were observed to follow the procedures as outlined in the scope of works documentation and the relevant sections of its reports. From an overall perspective, it is concluded that the dataset developed by the assessment consultant (Golder) provides a reliable understanding of potential site contamination and there is a high degree of certainty that the contamination profile recorded by the consultant is reliable. It is considered that the Golder reports provide an appropriate basis for completion of this environmental audit report.
Coffey 10 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 25 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
4. Site description and environmental setting 4.1. Site details
A summary of the site details is provided in Table 3.1.
Table 4.1: Summary of site details
Site Details Description
Precinct 1: 93-105 High Street, Elgin Boulevard and Bond Street, Wodonga Site Address: Precinct 3: Elgin Boulevard, 49 Church Street and 27-29 South Street, Wodonga Precinct 4: 29-45 South Street and Elgin Boulevard, Wodonga.
The site is located near to the Wodonga town centre. The site is located Site Location: between south street to the north and Elgin Boulevard to the south. The site location is shown on Figure 1. Municipality: Wodonga
Certificate of Title Numerous, see Figure 2. Details: Site Area: 6.9 ha (approx.) Comprehensive Development Zone – Schedule 1 Zoning: (CDZ1)
Proposed Site Residential and commercial, with open spaces and roadways Use: 4.2. Site setting and surrounding land use
The site is generally located in an urban (commercial and residential) setting within central Wodonga. At commencement of the audit, the site was vacant. At the time of the initial site inspections, the property was covered by a layer of fill material, and there were two stockpiles present which contained some building rubble. Since that time the stockpiles have been removed. Railway ballast was present in areas where rail lines had been present. Some rail infrastructure had been removed. After remediation had been completed, some areas of the site have continued to be used for activities consistent with the current zoning. In particular, the railway station and platform and land between there and Elgin Boulevard have been used as a venue for special events and hosted one-off (“pop- up”) film screenings. Temporary access to this area from Elgin Boulevard was also required when Elgin Boulevard was being re-routed at its eastern end. The approach to this work and the extension of Church Street at its southern extent, were discussed and agreed to by the auditor. The environmental management procedures in particular, were reviewed and verified by the auditor as being suitable and unlikely to affect the completion of the audit of the adjacent land. The site is proposed for a mixed uses; including low density residential use, medium density residential use (including above commercial use), commercial use and public open space. The surrounding land use within a 1 km radius of the site is generally commercial/industrial (to the east, west and south) and residential (to the north); (refer Executive Summary). The land uses for the land surrounding the site at the time of this audit are listed in Table 3.2 below.
Coffey 11 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 26 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Table 4.2: Surrounding land use
Direction Land use
North Residential use
East Commercial uses, including a hotel (NE) and former rail corridor
South Former rail siding to the south of Precinct 1 (Precinct 2
West Former rail corridor and commercial uses
4.3. Potentially sensitive areas
Potential sensitive areas located within a 500 m radius of the site, include: House Creek. Located approximately 250 m to the west of the greater railway site. Belvoir Park ponds and lakes. Located approximately 0.5 km to the north of the greater railway site. Jack in the Box Creek. Located approximately 1 km to the east of the greater railway site. Wodonga Creek. At its closest point, located approximately 1 km to the north of the greater railway site (also located approximately 1.7 m to the north east of the greater site). Murray River. Located approximately 1.5 km to the north east of the greater railway site. 4.4. Geology
Based on review of the Geological Survey of Victoria Wangaratta Map Sheet (1:250,000), the general area of the site is understood to be underlain the alluvial sediments of the Quaternary age Shepparton Formation (Qs) which comprises Clays, silt, sand, gravel, surface with numerous levee traces, soil often red brown. The Shepparton Formation extends across the north and east part of the Murray Basin, forming a flat lying Riverine Plain. The thickness of the Shepparton Formation is up to 100 m, but predominantly less than 70 m (Brown et al., 1991). Pre remediation ESAs (Senversa 2010a, 2010b, 2010c and 2011 and Golder 2012b) encountered a layer of fill to depths of between approximately 0.2 to 2.7 m below ground level (mbgl) (average depth approximately 0.5 mbgl) which was underlain by alluvial sediments of the Shepparton Formation. The thickness of the Shepparton Formation unit at the site was not determined (maximum depth of drilling extended to 15.2 m bgl). 4.5. Hydrogeology
The principal hydraulic unit connected to the surface is the Shepparton Formation aquifer which is dominated by clays, silts, sands and gravels. The Department of Sustainability and the Environment (DSE) Groundwater Beneficial Use Map of Eastern Victoria – Water Table Aquifers and Brown et.al (1991) indicates it is an unconfined aquifer; hence direct recharge from surface infiltration occurs over an extensive area. The formation comprises fine and course sand bodies, consisting of shoe-string sand bodies interbedded at various horizons throughout the sequence with varying degrees of lateral and vertical interconnection (Brown et al., 1991, Ticknell, 1977/8). Groundwater has been encountered across the greater railway site at depths generally ranging between 11 mbgl and 12 mbgl, encountered within the Shepparton Formation aquifer. Regional groundwater quality within the water table aquifer in the vicinity of the site is expected to lie within a range from 501 mg/L to 1,000 mg/L (in accordance with the Victorian Groundwater Beneficial Use Map Series, South Western Victoria Water Table Aquifers, Department of Sustainability and
Coffey 12 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 27 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Environment, 1995 (DSE, 1995)), which would classify as Segment A2 in accordance with the Victorian State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Groundwaters of Victoria (GoV, 1997). During the various investigations undertaken at the site to date, groundwater has been encountered at depths generally ranging between 11 and 12 mbgl, inferred to be within the Shepparton Formation aquifer. Site specific assessment of groundwater yield has not been undertaken at the site. Literature review indicates that yields within the Shepparton Formation are generally as low or lower than 0.5 L/sec, however yield has been reported as high as 14.5 L/sec (Ticknell, 1977/8, Lewis et al., 2008). While not particularly close to the site, pumping tests undertaken in the Kiewa Valley located to the south of the site indicated a specific capacity of 1.9 m2/day (Ticknell, 1977/8). Golder interpret the local groundwater flow direction is in an east to north easterly direction; likely towards the Jack in the Box Creek and Wodonga Creek which are tributaries of the Murray River. Regional groundwater flow is interpreted to be in a north-east direction towards the Murray River. Based on this, the site is considered to fall under the Rivers and Streams – Murray and Western Plains segment of the SEPP Waters of Victoria (Water SEPP). The auditor has reviewed groundwater direction available from the historic reports. Although groundwater level has risen since the earliest assessment in 2002 (Golder, 2002b), the overall groundwater direction is broadly consistent and flows to the north-east. The hydraulic gradient is relatively steep to the west of the site, but relatively flat on the site. In addition, Senversa (Senversa, 2011) suggest that groundwater flow within the Shepparton formation will preferentially flow within the higher permeability sand lenses, several of which exist underlying the site. In the north-eastern part of the site, there appears to be groundwater mounding which locally results in groundwater flow towards the north west (in the vicinity of off-site well M23). Golder attributes this mounding to local recharge from stormwater pits and drains. The Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE), Victorian Groundwater Beneficial Use Map Series (1998) indicates that the site is part of the Highlands Basin, which would classify the site as falling within Segment A2 in accordance with the Victorian State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Groundwaters of Victoria (Groundwater SEPP, 1997). This classification was supported by the groundwater assessment results collected by Senversa and Golder reported between June 2010 and March 2012, with on-site wells installed within the water table aquifer reporting concentrations of TDS in a range between 420 mg/L and 2,300 mg/L (average TDS of approximately 900 mg/L). This is consistent with the classification of nearby previously audited sites. In accordance with the Groundwater SEPP, the protected beneficial uses of groundwater classified as Segment A2 are as follows: Maintenance of ecosystems; Potable water supply (acceptable); Potable mineral water supply; Agriculture, parks and gardens; Stock watering; Industrial water use; Primary contact recreation (e.g. bathing, swimming); and Building and structures. Golder conducted a review of the Department of Sustainability and Environment Groundwater Database. Golder’s search focused on monitoring wells within a 2 km radius of the site and identified a total of 112 bores. A review of groundwater wells is presented in Appendix E of Golder, February 2014.
Coffey 13 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 28 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Of the 112 bores (which includes 12 associated with the site), 2 are registered for irrigation, 9 for domestic use, 4 for domestic and stock use, 1 for aquaculture, 1 for industrial use, 3 for miscellaneous or non-groundwater uses and the remaining 82 are registered for investigation use. Based on the interpreted groundwater flow, the closest down-gradient extractive well is located 900m north east of the site, close to the Murray River (Bore ID WRK059763) and is used for irrigation purposes. The DSE Database provided limited information on geology and groundwater conditions, but the information available suggests groundwater is generally located between 8 and 20 m deep in a sand, clay and gravel lithology. 4.6. Topography, drainage and natural water courses
The site is relatively flat and no permanent surface water bodies exist at the site. The main drainage feature associated with the site is a main stormwater drain which runs south to north through the western section of Precinct 1 (parallel to Church Street). This stormwater drainage pipe takes run-off from central Wodonga and the site and discharges to the north of the site (refer to Figure 7). The nearest surface water bodies to the site are listed below: House Creek. Located approximately 250 m to the west of the greater railway site. Belvoir Park ponds and lakes. Located approximately 0.5 km to the north of the greater railway site. Jack in the Box Creek. Located approximately 1 km to the east of the greater railway site. Wodonga Creek. At its closest point, located approximately 1 km to the north of the greater railway site (also located approximately 1.7 m to the north east of the greater site). Murray River. Located approximately 1.5 km to the north east of the greater railway site. 4.7. Underground storage tanks
Underground and above ground fuel storage tanks (USTs, ASTs) have previously existed at the site. At the time of commencing remedial work (2013), there were no known USTs and ASTs on the site, however an underground water storage tank was present within Precinct 1 (associated with the former Police Station and Law Courts site). 4.8. Landfills
No waste treatment plants or landfills have been known to exist on the site. In addition, there are no known active or closed landfills within 500m of the site. During remediation works, old crockery from Country trains were found buried in on parts of the site, but these were not observed to contain putrescible waste and as such are not considered to be a source of landfill gas or leachate. No health risk associated with these waste remains at the site, as they are reported to have been removed from the site during site remediation works.
Coffey 14 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 29 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
5. Site history and potential contaminants of concern 5.1. Site history
The site history is reviewed in the following report: Golder (2014a) Junction Place, Wodonga (Precincts 1, 3 &4) Environmental Site Assessment & Remediation Report.
This report compiled the site history information which was presented in a number of earlier reports. These reports based their review of site history on the following information: aerial photographs; records held by VicTrack; the Wodonga Historical Society; historical maps and plans; certificates of Title; council records; site utility plans; site inspections by Golder, URS and Senversa; interviews with (then) current and former site staff; review of the EPA Priority Sites register; a search of registered cathodic protection systems were registered with Energy Safe Victoria (which may indicate the presence of underground storage tanks (USTs) at the site); and filing a request to search the Worksafe Victoria database to identify possible former registered dangerous goods stored on site. A summary of the site history is provided below. 5.2. General site history
The site was first developed as a railway site in 1873. The rail tracks ran through the site, however the main freight operations, maintenance and refuelling areas were primarily located within the central area of Precinct 3 (primarily within Parcel 3.2A) and Precinct 4 (Green Square). The remaining areas, located just within the site boundaries, were leased by the railway to various commercial and residential tenants. The former uses of the leased land included domestic residences along South Street, various commercial uses along High Street (including a possible dry cleaner) and a service station and bulk fuel storage site (Amoco) along Elgin Street. Figures 4-6 presents the historical land use based on a circa 1910 plan of the railway yard and station. Figure 7 presents the locations of the main historical features which are considered to represent a potential environmental concern. A summary of the primary infrastructure and operational areas (identified during the various ESAs) are summarised in the following sections.
Coffey 15 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 30 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
5.2.1. History of Precinct 1
Rail Infrastructure The rail infrastructure which was located primarily in the southern section of Precinct 1 included: Rail tracks. The rail tracks were constructed in 1873 to 1874. The Victoria to NSW line, which previously ran along the north side of the Goods Shed, was relocated to the south of the Main Station Building in the early 1960s.
Rail platform. The rail platform of Main Station Building extended across Precincts 1, 3 and 4. The platform was constructed as early as 1873 and was extended sometime after 1910.
Former railway employee car park (located in the northern section of Precinct 1).
Truck wash down area (located in the western section of Precinct 1). Non Railway Uses Various commercial premises fronting onto High Street, Wodonga: 93-95 High Street - Former Police Station and Courthouse / Car Dealership. The date of construction of the former Police Station and Courthouse is unknown, however it is present on an historical plan dated 1910. The historical plans indicate that the former Police Station and Courthouse site comprised of various buildings including the main police station building and courthouse, a garage, stable, lockup and outhouses. The police station and courthouse were demolished between 1968 and 1969. Since this time this section of the site has been used as a car dealership.
97, 99 and 101 High Street – Various commercial operations. These include commercial operations including electrical supplies, building society, engineering office, dentist, real estate agency and restaurant. Site demolished approximately 5 years ago.
103 and 105 High Street – Various commercial operations. These include commercial operations including florists, motorcycle sales, restaurant, launderette and potential drycleaners, billiard saloon, car maintenance, security and electrical appliance sales. 5.2.2. History of Precinct 3
Railway Uses
Rail Tracks including various sidings. The rail tracks were constructed in 1873 to 1874.The Victoria to NSW line, which previously ran along the north side of the Goods Shed, was relocated to the south of the Main Station Building in the early 1960s.
Main Station Building and station platform (building constructed 1873-1874, still present). Used as the main rail station for Wodonga.
Goods Shed (constructed 1873-1874, still present). Used for the storage of goods to be transported by rail. A truck wash area was identified to be located to the east of the shed.
Former Car Cleaning Shed (partly within Precinct 3 also extending onto Precinct 4). Used for the cleaning of carriages. This building was reported to have been lined with lead (constructed 1899, demolished in mid 1960s).
Former Engine Shed (western end extends into Precinct 3, however the majority of the Engine shed was primarily within Precinct 4). Also known as the locomotive shed (constructed 1899, replaced in 1910 and demolished in 1960s) and used for the storage and maintenance of steam and diesel engines. A diesel refuelling point was located to the east of the Engine Shed.
Coffey 16 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 31 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Former Loco maintenance shed. Locomotive parts were stored and maintained in the western end of the shed, offices existed in the middle and a vehicle garage was present at the eastern end (constructed in early 1970s, removed during the 2012 demolition works).
Former Turntable (constructed 1963, removed during the 2012 demolition works). Minor maintenance activities (such as grease and lubrication of locomotives) were undertaken at the turntable.
Former Locomotive maintenance pit (used following the demolition of the former Engine shed in the 1960s).
A lamp room located between the former Signal Box and the western end of the Main Station building.
Additional rail infrastructure including offices, rest houses, incinerators and signal boxes. Non Railway Uses
Former residential land is present on the northern section of Parcel 3.1 fronting onto South Street. The majority of these residential properties have been demolished (between 1988 and 2001). One residential property remains, currently used for offices by Places Victoria. Various commercial premises fronting onto Elgin Boulevard.
Former hostel (prior to 1960s) was located in the south western section of the site (demolished and replaced by the Amoco site, discussed below).
Former Tennis Courts
Former Amoco site comprising a service station, bulk fuel depot and siding were fuel deliveries where received (constructed in 1960s, demolished in the 1980s). The service station included eleven fuel storage tanks of which five were underground storage tanks (USTs). 5.2.3. History of Precinct 4
Railway Uses
Rail Tracks including various sidings. Rail tracks including the various sidings were constructed 1873-1874. This Included the former Diesel Storage Siding located to the south of the former signal box
Former Car Cleaning Shed (in part, eastern section within Precinct 3) was lined with lead (constructed 1899, demolished in mid 1960s). Within the building trains and carriages were cleaned with water and compressed air. The shed included an “Ash Pit” or “Car Maintenance Pit” in the southwest section of the former shed which was used for the maintenance of locomotives following the demolition of the former Engine Shed.
Former Engine shed (in part, eastern section extended into Precinct 3), also known as the locomotive shed (constructed 1899, replaced in 1910 and demolished in 1960s). Included former maintenance pits running the length of the building.
Former Refuelling Area 1 (referred to as the “former refuelling area” in Senversa 2010a) located to the west of the Gang Camp. Refuelling Area comprised a small shed, fuel bowser and two large ASTs (approx. 20,000 L) (constructed in 1950s and removed and replaced in the early 1970s).
Former Refuelling Area 2 (referred to as the “existing refuelling area” in Senversa 2010a). Comprised of a canopied refuelling stage with various associated infrastructure. The refuelling area was used for the supply and storage of fuel (constructed in early 1970s, removed during the
Coffey 17 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 32 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
2012 demolition works). The infrastructure included refuelling canopy and bowsers, diesel AST, diesel overflow tank and spill drains and interceptor.
Former Gang Camp. This included three storage sheds and an office, which were used to store fuels, oils, lubricants and pesticides for rail maintenance and weed spraying (constructed in early 1970s, removed during the 2012 demolition works).
Former Signal Store and associated chemical storage cabinet (date of construction unknown (first visible in the 1976 aerial photo) removed during the 2012 demolition works).
Former Signal Box A was located to the west of the station building (constructed 1898, demolished during the 2012 demolition works).
Two large above ground water tanks (constructed in at least 1909, demolished between 1968 and1969).
Additional rail infrastructure including an incinerator which was formerly located to the north west of the former Car Cleaning Shed Non-railway Uses
Former residential land fronting onto South Street. These residential properties have been demolished (between 1988 and 2001).
Ambulance Station fronting onto South Street (constructed in the late 1960s, still operating). The ambulance station site is understood to be a former residential property which has been retained (at the rear of the block) with a garage and offices added at the front of the block. Further information on the ambulance station is provided in Appendix B3 of Golder, 2014a. A UST and associated bowser was formerly present in the north west area of the Ambulance site. It is understood that the UST was removed in around 2002 (refer to GHD 2002 provided in Appendix B3 of Golder, 2014a). 5.3. History of the surrounding area
The land surrounding the audit site has been used for a range of purposes including rail related, industry, commercial and residential. Uses of note from a potential contamination perspective include: Former rail siding to the south of Precinct 1 (Precinct 2);
A former dry cleaner;
The former rail corridor to the east and west;
Former stockyards to the west (1889- 1979);
Former coal store and ash pit to the west, it is also noted that this ash was potentially spread around the surrounding area;
Former Ampol siding and depot, residual underground fuel lines were removed in 2011 (Senversa, 2011); and
Former police station and law court, 41-43 Elgin Street, Wodonga, located 300 m south west of the site which formerly contained 2 USTs which have since been removed.
No landfills were located within 500m of the site.
Coffey 18 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 33 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
5.4. Potential Contaminants of Concern
The table below is based on Table 13 from Golder (2014a) with the likelihood of contamination being based on the auditor’s own appraisal. Table 5.1: Summary of potential contaminants of concern
Location Potential for Potential for Possible Sources Contaminants (based on site Soil Groundwater history Contamination Contamination On-site sources Metals, TPH, PAH, Imported Fill Entire site High Low OCP and OPP. Locomotive refuelling points, Metals, TPH, locomotive monocyclic aromatic maintenance Use and Storage of Fuel hydrocarbons High High locations (engine (BTEX / MAH), shed & locomotive PAH. shed), Amoco service station Gang Camp, Engine Shed and Locomotive Shed Areas of oils and solvents use: TPH, chlorinated Locomotive solvents and non- Use and storage of oils and maintenance chlorinated High Moderate solvents locations solvents, phenols, (Engine Shed and PCBs and SVOCs Locomotive Shed). Turntable Vehicle maintenance (105 High Street) Key herbicides and pesticides storage locations: Gang Use and storage of Camp Areas of Arsenic, OCP, OPP. Moderate Low herbicides and pesticides herbicides and pesticides use: Rail corridors Adjacent to buildings Potentially across Use of coal and disposal of entire site but Metals, PAH, waste products from burning especially near cyanide, sulphate. High Low of coal locomotive maintenance areas Commercial vehicle maintenance operations including: Vehicle General industrial use of Metals, TPH, PAH, maintenance land, servicing of engines and chlorinated (105 High Street); High Moderate equipment solvents. Former Police garage and second hand vehicle dealership (95 High Street); Amoco service station Generally located around former Onsite burial of building Asbestos, lead, building locations materials other metals. High Low (Engine and Car Cleaning Sheds) Asbestos, arsenic, Located within rail Railway ballast TPH, other metals. High Low corridors
Coffey 19 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 34 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Location Potential for Potential for Possible Sources Contaminants (based on site Soil Groundwater history Contamination Contamination
Asbestos, TPH, Located throughout Underground services the site as linear High High metals features.
Dry cleaning (at two Chlorinated Location of potential locations, at 105 High Street solvents, in dry cleaning in Precinct 1 and offsite to the High High particular PCE. operations south east, in Precinct 2)
Off-site sources
Off-site (up Stockyard (located off-site to Ammonia, nitrate, hydraulic gradient of the west, in Precinct 5 ) OCP, OPP. Low High the site) Off-site (up ash wastes (located off-site to Metals, PAH, hydraulic gradient of the west, in Precinct 5) cyanide, sulphate. High Low the site)
5.5. Potential for groundwater contamination
Based on the findings of the multiple phases of site history assessment, summarised in Golder (2014a) it is considered that the groundwater at the site has a high potential to be contaminated. 5.6. Potential for soil vapour contamination
Because of the documented historical use and storage of hydrocarbons at the site, the potential for risk from soil vapour has been assessed through comparison with HSL and ESL criteria. Although some areas of buried waste were identified at the site, both the depth and nature of the shallow depth, and non-putrescible nature of the material, did not meet the description of a landfill. The investigation did not discover any evidence of landfilling activities occurring within a 500m radius of the site. 5.7. Potential human and environmental receptors of contamination
Based on the gathered background information, it is anticipated that exposure to potential contaminants from soil (including soil vapour) or groundwater at the site may occur through the following potential pathways. Human worker dermal contact (short-term construction or maintenance activity) with surface and sub-surface soils;
Human worker ingestion of soils (short-term construction or maintenance activity) with surface and sub-surface soils;
Human worker inhalation of airborne dusts (short-term construction or maintenance activity) with surface and sub-surface soils;
Off-site human residents and commercial workers through dust inhalation resulting from on-site construction activity/disturbance of surface soils;
Coffey 20 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 35 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Ingestion of surface soil by site users (non-construction/maintenance);
Dermal contact with surface and sub-surface soils by site users (non-construction/maintenance);
Plant uptake through garden cultivation in surface and sub-surface soils and subsequent ingestion through consumption of the garden produce;
Plants and soil fauna;
Vapour impact to on-site users from volatilisation from site soils (indoor);
Vapour impact to off-site users from volatilisation from site groundwater (indoor and outdoor);
Users of extracted groundwater; and
Off-site ecosystems – where groundwater may emerge
It is noted that for the purposes of an Audit, consideration must be given to potential receptors in the context of unrestricted use; i.e. consideration needs to be given to all potential receptors under any potential site use.
6. Relevant elements of the environment (Assessment of beneficial uses relevant to the site)
All elements of the site, and all beneficial uses of those elements, have been considered in the completion of this environmental audit report. The term ”Beneficial Use” is defined in the Act and those beneficial uses to be protected for the various elements are set out within various State Environment Protection Policies established pursuant to the Act. Elements forming part of the site have been evaluated as noted below. 6.1. Land
The State environmental protection policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land) 2002 [“the Land SEPP”] sets out the regulatory framework for the prevention and management of contaminated land within the State of Victoria. The intent of this framework is to maintain and maximise (to the extent practicable) the quality of the land environment in Victoria, in order to protect its existing and potential beneficial uses. The Land SEPP identifies and defines specific land use categories as well as a number of protected beneficial uses associated with each of the land use categories. EPA Victoria considers that land (soil) is polluted where current and/or future protected beneficial uses for the relevant land use categories are precluded. Beneficial uses of land are considered to be precluded when relevant soil quality objectives set out in the Land SEPP for those beneficial uses have been exceeded. Based on this assessment, the auditor can evaluate the potential to issue a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit, based on the proposed land use. Based on the proposed range of uses at the site; (including low, medium and possibly high density residential / commercial / public open space uses), the beneficial uses of land requiring protection are shaded in Table 6.1. Other beneficial uses have been considered in the context of determining
Coffey 21 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 36 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
whether the site would also be suitable for beneficial uses relevant to a type of development different than the proposed site use.
Table 6.1: Protected beneficial uses of land1
Land Use
Beneficial Sensitive Use uses Parks & Recreational Agricultural Commercial Industrial Reserves High /Open Space Other Density
Maintenance of Ecosystems:-
Natural Ecosystems
Modified Ecosystems
Highly Modified Ecosystems
Human Health
Buildings & Structures
Aesthetics
Production of Food, Flora & Fibre
All beneficial uses would need to be protected for unrestricted use of the site, and the issuing of a Certificate of Environmental Audit. 6.2. Groundwater
The quality of groundwater in Victoria is protected under the State environmental protection policy Groundwaters of Victoria 1997 [“the Groundwater SEPP”]. The stated goal of this policy is to “maintain and where necessary improve groundwater quality sufficient to protect existing and potential beneficial uses of groundwater throughout Victoria”. The protected beneficial uses of groundwater are defined in Groundwater SEPP on the basis of the inherent capacity of the groundwater at the site to support specific uses (i.e. the concentration of total
1 Table drawn from State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), 2002.
Coffey 22 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 37 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3 dissolved solids). The significance of contaminant impact upon groundwater is assessed in conjunction with the applicable beneficial use. Information on groundwater salinity is presented in Section 4.5. Based on the information available the groundwater would be classified as Segment A2, under the Victorian Government (1997) State Environment Protection Policy Groundwaters of Victoria (Groundwater SEPP). Protected beneficial uses of Segment A2 groundwater are shown in table 6.2 below.
Table 6.2: Aquifer classification based on onsite TDS concentration2
Beneficial Uses Segments Based on TDS Range (mg/L)
A1 A2 B C D
0 - 500 500 – 1,000 1,000 – 3,500 3,500 – 13,000 > 13,000
Maintenance of Ecosystems
Potable Water
Supply
- Desirable
- Acceptable
Potable Mineral Water Supply
Agriculture, Parks and Gardens
Stock Watering
Industrial Water Use
Primary Contact Recreation
Buildings & Structures Shading indicates beneficial uses to be protected for this site based on TDS. * Potable mineral springs are not present in the area and this beneficial use is not considered relevant. 6.3. Surface water
Surface water is not an element to be audited as there are no surface water bodies present at the audit site. Offsite surface water bodies receiving groundwater represented the aquatic ecosystems requiring protection when groundwater contamination has been assessed in this audit. Consideration of the groundwater beneficial use Maintenance of Ecosystems requires consideration of the potential for impact on surface water bodies receiving input from the groundwater aquifer. The
2 Table drawn from State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), 1997.
Coffey 23 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 38 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3 auditor considers the nearest downgrading water receptor is likely to be the Jack in the Box Creek and the Wodonga Creek, both of which are tributaries of the Murray River. However, it is noted that groundwater direction at the site is somewhat complicated by the near-flat gradient and by interaction with various man made features such as deep sewers, water mains and the local stormwater drainage system. 6.4. Air
Beneficial uses of air may be considered relevant in determining the outcome of the environmental audit, where those beneficial uses may be adversely affected by the condition of other elements at the site. The potential impacts to air could potentially be in the form of volatiles derived from site based contamination or, in the form of landfill gas, in particular methane, migrating from the surrounding landfills. However, a review of nearby landfills indicates none are located with a 500m radius of the site, therefore landfill gas is not considered to be a potential concern.
7. Site criteria 7.1. Adopted criteria – soil
To evaluate the potential impact to all beneficial uses, audit criteria were adopted against which site conditions could be compared in order to assess the possibility of issuing a Certificate of Environmental Audit. Where the site does not meet all these criteria, a Certificate of Environmental Audit may not be able to be issued. Audit soil criteria were adopted based on environmental indicators and objectives listed in Table 2 of the Land SEPP. The beneficial uses which need to be considered for audit purposes are listed below: Maintenance of ecosystems;
Human health;
Buildings and structures;
Aesthetics; and
Production of Food, Flora and Fibre.
It is noted that not all beneficial uses may be relevant to the proposed landuse. However it a requirement of the audit system, that land must first be considered for all beneficial uses. If the soil fails for a given beneficial use, it can then be further considered in terms of its relevance to the proposed use. Two sets of NEPM guidelines are referred to in this document: (NEPM 1999) which were subsequently superseded by the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013 (No. 1) (NEPM 2013) which came into operation on 16 May 2013. The amendment occurred after the assessment and remediation of this site had commenced, meaning that the 1999 NEPM criteria and approach, were used in earlier phases of investigation and remediation. The most recent investigations were conducted in line with the NEPM 2013 criteria. These are also the criteria presented in Tables at the rear of this report. 7.1.1. Maintenance of ecosystems
During the early investigative works, the National Environment Protection Council National Environment Protection Measure, Assessment of Site Contamination (NEPM 1999) Ecological
Coffey 24 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 39 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Investigation Levels (EILs) were used. The NEPM 1999 EILs reflected a natural ecosystem in an urban setting and were based on phytotoxicity and soil survey data. The screening against the NEPM 1999 EILs identified that arsenic and lead were the primary inorganic chemicals of concern at the site. During the course of the project the more recent NEPM 2013 EIL and ESL criteria were adopted. The NEPM 2013 provides a limited number of generic EIL criteria for certain contaminants. There are also a number of ‘added contaminant limits’ which are designed to be applied to ‘background’ levels to derive site specific EILs. The added contaminant limits allow for variations in soil pH and CEC. Given that soil investigation identified that both soil pH (4.2-8.3 pH units) and soil texture were highly variable, the most conservative values for pH and CEC have been adopted. The site is not a known area of ecological significance, thus the criteria adopted were for ‘Urban residential/public open space’ use. Where no other guidelines are available, the background level becomes the objective. A review of the audit report for the neighbouring site, the former police station and law courts complex (CH2M HILL 2008) identified background levels for a number of metals within the natural material as follows: 3 Table 7.1: Background ranges of metals in fill at former law courts site .
Analyte Range in Natural Material (mg/kg)
Arsenic <2-3.7
Boron <2-23
Barium 48-210
Beryllium <1-2.9
Cadmium <1
Cobalt 4-23
Chromium 8.3-73
Copper 5.5-24
Mercury <0.01-0.09
Lead 6.7-28
Manganese 32-840
Nickel 3-37
Selenium <2
3 Located to the south of the site.
Coffey 25 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 40 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Analyte Range in Natural Material (mg/kg)
Tin <2-140
Vanadium 13-95
Zinc 19-54
Using the natural background levels and the guidance presented in the new NEPM, the following site based EILs have been adopted.
Table 7.2: Adopted EILs (mg/kg)
Analyte Generic EILs Range in Natural Material Added contaminant limits Adopted EIL where available at neighbouring site (urban res./open space)
Arsenic 100 not relevant Not relevant 100
Boron <2-23 23
Barium 48-210 210
Beryllium <1-2.9 2.9
Cadmium <1 <1
Cobalt 4-23 23
Chromium 8.3-73 73
Copper 5.5-24 60 84
Mercury <0.01-0.09 0.09
Lead 6.7-28 1100 1128
Manganese 32-840 840
Nickel 3-37 30 67
Selenium <2 <2
Tin <2-140 140
Vanadium 13-95 95
Zinc 19-54 70 124
DDT 180 180
Naphthalene 170 170
Coffey 26 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 41 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
In order to address the potential risk posed to ecosystems by volatile contaminants, NEPM 2013 provides the following ecological screening levels (ESLs). The criteria adopted are for urban residential and open space use and for coarse textured material (i.e. the most conservative values listed), which is considered appropriate given that the fill material, while variable, contained a significant component of sands and gravels.
Table 7.3: Adopted ESL criteria for volatile contaminants of concern (mg/kg)
ESL (mg/kg) coarse material, Urban Residential and Public Open Space Chemical or group
F1 180
F2 120
F3 300
F4 2800
Benzene 50
Toluene 85
Ethylbenzene 70
Xylenes 105
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.7
7.1.2. Buildings and structures
The Land SEPP states that contamination must not cause the land to be corrosive to or adversely affect the integrity of structures or building materials. For the consideration of buildings and structures, assessment of pH of soils has been made in accordance with Australian Standard AS2159 – 2009 “Piling – Design and Installation” (AS2159 2009). 7.1.3. Food, flora and fibre
The Land SEPP states that contamination must not “adversely affect produce quality or yield” or cause the level of any applicable chemical substance to exceed the level of the chemical that is specified by the Australian New Zealand Food Authority, Food Standards Code. It is considered that if the ecological protection criteria are exceeded, this beneficial use may also be compromised. 7.1.4. Aesthetics
The Land SEPP states that “contamination must not cause the land to be offensive to the senses of human beings”. Currently there are no concentration-based aesthetic criteria for soil. While aesthetic observations are subjective, it is considered that if there is discolouration, noticeable odour from the soil on the site or if there are obvious components of waste, such as rubble, slag, bagged waste or similar, then there is a potential aesthetic concern.
Coffey 27 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 42 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
7.1.5. Human health
Although the earlier investigations made reference to the NEPM 1999 HIL criteria, the most recent investigations refer to NEPM 2013 Health-based Investigation Levels (HILs) for the protection of the beneficial use “Human Health”. These HILs provide for a range of exposure settings and associated site uses including: standard residential with garden / accessible soil (HIL A)4;
residential with minimal soil access (HIL B):
recreational, public open space (HIL C ), and;
commercial / industrial (HIL D).
HIL A values were used to evaluate the potential impact to the protection of human health in the context of unrestricted site use. Comparisons with other HIL criteria have also been conducted in order to determine whether the site would be suitable for other land uses as proposed for the three precincts. 7.1.6. Other soil criteria
During the course of the investigation, stockpiles of soil material at the site were removed and disposed of off-site. In order to classify the material for off-site disposal, Golder referred to the waste disposal classification criteria set out in EPA Waste Soil Regulations as presented in Information Bulletin IWRG621. For some waste soils, approval was also obtained to reclassify waste soils from EPA. 7.1.7. Tabulated summary of soil screening criteria
Table 7.4 displays the adopted Audit criteria for the most significant contaminants of potential concern at the site. The table includes criteria for HIL A, HIL B and HIL D).
Table 7.4: Adopted audit criteria for Ecosystem Protection and Human Health (mg/kg).
Human Health
Analyte Low-medium Commercial/ density residential High density Open Space residential HIL B3 Use HIL C4 Industrial Use HIL A2 HIL D5 Metals
Arsenic 100 500 300 3,000
Cadmium 20 150 90 900
Chromium (III) NS NS NS NS
Chromium (VI) 100 500 300 3,600
Cobalt 100 600 300 4000
4 These criteria are also adopted for other sensitive uses such as children’s services facilities and primary schools.
Coffey 28 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 43 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Human Health
Analyte Low-medium Commercial/ density residential High density Open Space residential HIL B3 Use HIL C4 Industrial Use HIL A2 HIL D5 Copper 6,000 30,000 17,000 240,000
Lead 300 1200 600 1500
Manganese 3800 14,000 19,000 60,000
Mercury 40 120 80 730 (inorganic)
Methyl mercury 10 30 13 180
Nickel 400 1200 1200 6000
Zinc 7400 60000 30000 400000 Inorganics
Cyanide NS NS NS NS (complexed)
Cyanide (free) 250 300 240 1500 PAHs
Total PAH 300 400 300 4,000
BaP TEQ 3 3 40 Phenols
Phenol 3,000 45,000 40,000 240,000 Chlorinated pesticides
Chlordane 50 90 70 530 Pesticides (including Organochlorine pesticides)
Aldrin + Dieldrin 6 10 10 45
DDT+DDD+DDE 240 600 400 3,600
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Total PCB7 1 1 1 7 Notes: 1: Not specified 2: NEPM 2013 Schedule B(1) Health based Investigation Levels (HILs) (A) – Standard Residential / sensitive use – Unless otherwise specified. 3: NEPM 2013 Schedule B(1) Health Investigation Levels (HILs) (D) – Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access – Unless otherwise specified. 4: NEPM 2013 Schedule B(1) Health Investigation Levels (HILs) (C) – Public Open Space such as Parks, playgrounds, playing fields (ovals), secondary schools and footpaths. 5: NEPM 2013 Schedule B(1) Health Investigation Levels (HILs) (D) – Commercial/Industrial Use 6: NSW EPA Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites. 7: Provided dioxin-like PCBs are assessed
Coffey 29 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 44 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
7.1.8. Evaluation of TPH criteria
Golder initially selected interim screening levels for the assessment of TPH for sensitive land uses from the NSW EPA Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites (1994). Alternative screening levels in the context of a commercial setting have been considered from the following sources: The Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC CARE) Technical Report no. 10 (2011) provides health screening levels (HSLs) for TPH fractions (petroleum sources only) in different soil types and at different depths for a range of exposure settings (e.g. residential, commercial) and exposure pathways (e.g. direct contact, vapour intrusion). CRC CARE also provides HSLs for the consideration of risk to human health in the scenario of a utility worker working in a shallow trench (“Intrusive Maintenance Workers”): and The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canada-Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil (CCME, 2008) also provides health screening levels (HSLs).
Since the time of the publication of the Golder Environmental Assessment & Remediation Report (2014a), Golder has made extensive revisions to their results interpretation, based on the changing requirements of the client, and based on feedback from the auditor. Thus, the new results interpretation is based on the criteria presented in the 2013 NEPM.
NEPM 2013 presents HSL criteria to assess the risk to human health from vapour intrusion based on differing land use scenarios, soil types and depth intervals. Management limits are also used to assess the physical risk posed by hydrocarbon contaminants and, like HSLs, different criteria are used for different landuses and soil types. The adopted hydrocarbon screening criteria are presented in the table below. For the purposes of the audit, HSLs for coarse/sandy soil in the surface 1m have been used in the first instance. If exceedances of that limit were found to be present, the depth of the exceedance was checked and the data point compared against HSLs for the relevant depth.
Table 7.5: Health Screening levels and management limits for petroleum hydrocarbons (mg/kg)
HSL for vapour intrusion (sand, <1m) Management Limits (coarse soil)
TPH Fraction HSLA & B HSL C HSL D Residential, Commercial low-high recreation/ Commercial/ parkland and density open Industrial and open Industrial residential space space use. Benzene 0.5 NL 3 - -
Naphthalene 3 NL NL - -
TPH C6 – C10 F1 45 NL 260 700 700
TPH > C10 – C16 110 NL NL 1,000 1,000 F2
TOH > C16 – C34 - - - 2,500 3,500 F3
TPH > C34 – C40 F4 - - - 10,000 10,000 Notes (1) The geology at the site has been conservatively assumed to comprise sand (referred to as coarse soil in Management limits) NL: non-limiting. Soil saturation concentration is the concentration at which the pore water phase cannot dissolve anymore of an individual chemical.
Coffey 30 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 45 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
7.1.9. Soil screening criteria by Precinct and Parcel
Given that the site is to be divided into a number of smaller parcels, with differing proposed uses, it was initially considered that different criteria are relevant to the different parcels, as presented in the table below. Note that towards the end of the audit process, it was decided that alternate criteria would also be considered to give the most flexible possible outcome for the client. Table 7.6: Summary of screening criteria by Precinct
Precinct Land Parcel Proposed Land Relevant Screening Criteria use based on Masterplan
Precinct 1.1 Commercial Ecological and Human Health (Commercial) 1 Urban Square Public Open Space Ecological and Human Health (Open Space )
Precinct 3.1 Commercial Ecological and Human Health (Commercial) 3 3.2 Commercial Ecological and Human Health (Commercial)
Promenade Public Open Space Ecological and Human Health (Open Space ) Link
3.3 Commercial Ecological and Human Health (Commercial)
3.4 Commercial Ecological and Human Health (Commercial)
Precinct 4.1 Commercial/High Ecological and Human Health (High Density 4 Density Residential Residential Use)
4.2 Low Density Ecological and Human Health (Low and Residential Medium Density Residential Use)
4 (Green Public Open Space Ecological and Human Health (Open Space) Square)
7.2. Adopted criteria for groundwater
As discussed in Section 6.2, groundwater is classified as Segment A2 under the Victorian SEPP – Groundwater. In accordance with the SEPP Segment A2, the protected beneficial uses of groundwater include: Maintenance of Ecosystems;
Potable water (acceptable);
Stock Watering;
Agriculture, Parks and Gardens;
Industrial;
Primary Contact Recreation;
Coffey 31 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 46 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Buildings and Structures; and
Potable Mineral Water Supply.
It is noted that the beneficial use of potable mineral water is not relevant as the site is not within a recognised mineral springs area, and this beneficial use is not discussed further. Other beneficial uses are discussed further below. 7.2.1. Maintenance of ecosystems
The criteria for the protection of ecosystems are designed to apply at the point of discharge to a surface water environment. Golder has interpreted local groundwater direction to be in an east to north easterly direction, likely towards the Jack in the Box Creek and Wodonga Creek which are tributaries of the Murray River5. Regional groundwater flow is interpreted to be in a north-east direction towards the Murray River. Based on this, the site is considered to fall under the Rivers and Streams – Murray and Western Plains segment of the SEPP Waters of Victoria (Water SEPP). Therefore the relevant criteria are considered to be the ANZECC 2000 criteria. NEPM 2013 generally supports the use of the ANZECC 2000 95% protection levels, but for some chemicals, for instance where bioaccumulation may occur, the 99% levels are required to be used instead. In the absence of relevant investigation levels for petroleum hydrocarbon contamination (in ANZECC 2000), guidelines levels for TPH have been drawn from the Dutch Intervention Criteria (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment Directorate – General for Environmental Protection (VROM 2000). Nitrate criteria for ecosystem protection The NEPM 2013 refers back to the ANZECC 2000 for guidance on Nitrate levels. However, as noted by Golder, the errata slip in ANZECC (2000) states that nitrate screening levels for the protection of Ecosystems are “Under review”". This means that the nitrate (as N) ecosystem protection criterion indicated is considered uncertain. Golder states that a draft nitrate (as N) criterion for 95% protection of freshwater ecosystems value of 1.7 mg/L has been proposed. However, until such time as the review of the guidelines is finalised, this draft criterion could not be adopted without greater justification. Therefore in the interim, Golder has adopted a value of 13 mg/L for nitrate (as N), sourced from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME 2003). The auditor has considered Golder’s proposed approach but considers that a more relevant criterion could be derived from the SEPP WoV. The Kiewa River is in the “Forests A” segment and the objective for total nitrogen for this segment is 0.35 mg/L. This is the starting point for the auditor’s assessment of groundwater nitrogen impacts. The auditor notes that when nitrogen already exists in an area, the background levels can be adopted as the new objective. This will be discussed later in the audit report. TPH criteria for ecosystem protection Golder has drawn upon criteria for mineral oil numbers for TPH contained in Dutch Intervention Guidelines (VROM). The VROM Criteria indicate that mineral oil is defined in the analysis standard and is considered a mixture of aliphatic hydrocarbons and as such does not consider mixtures of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons such as petrol. These criteria were used for screening purposes only.
5 There is mounding in the north eastern part of the site which causes local north westerly flow.
Coffey 32 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 47 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
7.2.2. Potable water (acceptable)
NEPM 2013 provides drinking water criteria which are based on the Australian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines (NHMRC 2011). In the absence of relevant investigation levels for petroleum hydrocarbon contamination (in ANZECC 2000), guidelines levels for TPH have been drawn from the NSW EPA (1994) Service Station Guidelines. 7.2.3. Agriculture, parks and gardens
The groundwater quality objectives (GWQOs) adopted for the beneficial use: ‘agriculture, parks and gardens’ were those set out in ANZECC 2000 for ‘irrigation and general water use’ for long term use (<100 years). It is noted that criteria are only available for inorganics and herbicides. 7.2.4. Stock watering
The GWQOs that have been adopted for the beneficial use ‘stock watering’ include ANZECC (2000) ‘Primary Industries – Livestock drinking water quality guidelines’ for sheep (as the most conservative guideline) have been adopted. Where there are no stock watering specific objectives in ANZECC (2000) (e.g. organic toxicants), ANZECC 2000 recommends adopting drinking water guidelines for human health (NHMRC, 2011). These adopted criteria have been used for screening purposes only. 7.2.5. Industrial water use
No guidelines are currently available which can be used to assess groundwater quality suitability for general industrial use, although limited industry-specific guidance is available. Based on current land use and development, it is not considered likely that this beneficial use would ever be realised. Golder has proposed that if other beneficial uses are protected, this beneficial use will also be considered protected. By inference, it some other groundwater beneficial use is not protected, there will be some industrial uses that are not protected. 7.2.6. Primary contact recreation
Golder refers to ANZECC 2000 recreation water criteria to and the criteria provided in the National Health and Medical Council (NHMRC) Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water, February 2008. These guidelines are based on the drinking water criteria presented in NHMRC 2004 (which have now been superceded by NHMRC 2011). Golder notes that ANZECC (2000) states that when applying drinking water criteria to recreational use scenarios: “higher concentrations of toxicants may be tolerated occasionally if it is assumed that a person will ingest a maximum of 100 mL water during a normal swimming session compared with 2 L/day for potable water”. Golder indicated that if the initial drinking water criteria was exceeded, it would consider if an adjustment factor (10 to 20 fold) could be applied to the drinking water criteria. In the absence of relevant investigation levels for petroleum hydrocarbon contamination (in ANZECC 2000), guidelines levels for TPH have been drawn from the Dutch Intervention Criteria (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment Directorate – General for Environmental Protection (VROM 2000).
Coffey 33 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 48 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
7.3. Buildings and structures
The SEPP (GoV) specifies that introduced contaminants shall not cause groundwater to become corrosive to structures of building materials. To assess this, Golder adopted the exposure classifications for concrete piles and steel piles outlined in Australian Standard 2159-1995 “Piling- Design and Installation” (AS2159-1995), which include guidelines for pH and some major ions. The auditor is aware that a more recent version of this guideline exists and has adopted the less-stringent criteria in the more recent version (AS2159-2009). In accordance with AS3600- 2009 groundwater is considered to be potentially corrosive when groundwater sulfate exceeds 1000 mg/L sulfates or when pH falls below 5.5, although non- conformance with these criteria does not necessarily indicate corrosive conditions, as other aquifer parameters also influence corrosively potential. 7.4. Groundwater criteria summary
A table of adopted audit groundwater criteria is presented below.
Table 7.7: Adopted Audit Criteria for the Beneficial Uses of Groundwater for key chemicals of concern (mg/L).
Analyte Maintenance Agriculture, Primary Potable water Stock of 2 3 Parks and Contact 1 (acceptable) watering 4 2 Ecosystems Gardens Recreation pH 6-8.5 Metals
Aluminium 5 5
Arsenic 0.01 0.5 0.1 0.01
Arsenic(III) 0.024
Arsenic(V) 0.013
Beryllium 0.06 0.1 0.06
Boron 0.037 5 0.5
Cadmium 0.00002 0.002 0.01 0.01 0.002
Chromium (III) - -
Chromium (VI) 0.001 0.05 0.05
Chromium 1 0.1 (Total) Cobalt - 1 0.05 -
Copper 0.0014 2 0.4 (sheep) 0.2 2
Iron NL 0.2
Lead 0.0034 0.01 100 2 0.01
Manganese 1.9 0.5 NL 0.2 0.5
Mercury 0.001 0.001 (inorganic)
Coffey 34 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 49 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Analyte Maintenance Agriculture, Primary Potable water Stock of 2 3 Parks and Contact 1 (acceptable) watering 4 2 Ecosystems Gardens Recreation Methyl mercury
Mercury (Total) 0.00006(5) 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001
Nickel 0.011 0.02 1 0.2 0.02
Selenium 0.005 (5) 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01
Vanadium NS NS NS 0.1 NS
Zinc 0.008 - 20 2 - Inorganics
Chloride - - 700 -
Cyanide 0.007 0.08 0.08
Nitrogen 0.35 5
Nitrate 0.35 50 400 50
Ammonia 0.35 / 0.9(7) 0.5A 0.5A
MAHs
Benzene 0.95 0.001 0.001
TPH
(6) (6) (6) (6) (6) TPH C6-C10 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
(6) (6) (6) (6) (6) TPH C10-C36 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
PAHs
Benzo(a)pyrene
Naphthalene 0.016 -
Total PAH Phenols
Phenol 0.32 Notes: 1: Guideline from ANZECC 2000 95% Freshwater Ecosystem protection level 2: NHMRC 2011 Australian Drinking Water Criteria as nominated by NEPM 2013 3: ANZECC 2000 criteria for Livestock drinking water 4: ANZECC 2000 Water quality for irrigation and general water use. Long Term Trigger Values. 5 ANZECC 2000, 99% species protection levels used where directed by NEPM 2013. 6: NSW EPA 1994 7 ANZECC 2000 has a 95% ecosystem protection value = 0.9mg/L while the SEPP WoV has a total nitrogen criterion = 0.35mg/L (Forest A segment). Where ammonia > 0.35mg/L, more detailed consideration is required. ɫ: ANZECC 2000 Low reliability criteria A: Aesthetic Criteria used where no health based criteria are available NS Not specified NL No limit as not considered sufficiently toxic
Coffey 35 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 50 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
7.5. Vapour assessment
Golder has screened hydrocarbon vapour impacts against the soil NEPM 2013 HSLs for direct contact and vapour intrusion for a commercial use scenario and for intrusive maintenance workers. The auditor has also taken into account the HSLs for residential land use in assessing the risk posed by volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (refer Section 13.4).
Coffey 36 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 51 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
8. Environmental site assessment works 8.1. Summary of field activities
Assessment works at the site were conducted by URS, Senversa and Golder Associates over a number of stages. A summary of the environmental field works is provided in the table below. Note that there were also multiple stages of desk based historic assessments, as well as a number of geotechnical investigations, but these have not been described below.
Table 8.1: Summary of field works undertaken
Date Type of work Area of Report Site Reference
June – July Golder undertook a preliminary contamination Precinct 3 Golder 2002 assessment involving both soil and groundwater (August sampling, of the former Amoco service station as well 2002b) as an area within precinct 5 (outside the current audit area). This involved a total of 18 soil locations and the installation of 5 groundwater monitoring wells. August 2010 Senversa undertook various soil and groundwater All Senversa - November assessments for VicTrack across the greater site. The Precincts 2010a, 2010b, works comprised a site history assessment and 2010c and 2011 intrusive investigation comprising approximately 165 2011 soil investigation locations and 15 groundwater monitoring wells within the portion of the greater site that is undergoing Environmental Audit. March 2011 Environmental & Safety Professionals was Rail Appendix N of commissioned by VicTrack to undertake a visual corridor, all Golder inspection of asbestos works at the site in early March precincts (2012b) 2011, where the identified asbestos was removed by Zealmore Pty Ltd, resulting is the issuing of Clearance Certificates in accordance with OH&S regulations. June 2011 Golder conducted an intrusive investigation of the All Golder Railway Ballast Precincts (2011a)
May 2012 & Sampling in the Goods Shed Precinct 3 Golder December (2013b) 2012
August 2012 Pre-remediation soil and groundwater assessment All areas Golder – October works. Some remediation also occurred off-site in (2012b) Precinct 5 and railway ballast was stockpiled within 2012 Precinct 3. 2013 Main Remediation Works. For more information about All areas Golder the Golder 2013 remediation works; refer Section 10. (2014a) One round of groundwater monitoring. 2014 One well (MW27) at the ambulance station was All areas Golder sampled. One round of gauging was conducted. (2014b) and Golder (2014c)
Coffey 37 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 52 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
The findings of these works are reported in the following documents:
Golder (2012b) Pre-remediation Environmental Assessment: Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga (November 2012) (Golder, 2012b).
Golder (2002b) Report to VicTrack Access. Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Former Amoco and Stockyard Sites, Lot165, Elgin Street, Wodonga, Victoria. July 2002 (2002b).
Golder (2011a) Report to VicTrack: Preliminary Study of Rail Ballast Contamination, Wodonga Contrail and Western Rail Corridors, Wodonga, Victoria, 22 June 2011
Golder (2011b) Preliminary Remediation Strategy and Cost Estimate. December 2011 (reference 117613160 001 R Rev0)
Golder (2012a) Framework for Assessment and Remediation, Wodonga CBD Northern Precinct Development - Junction Place. June 2012 (2012a).
Golder (2012b) Pre-remediation Environmental Assessment: Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga (November 2012) (Golder, 2012b).
Golder (2012c) Specification for Site Remediation - Junction Place Central Wodonga.
Golder (2012d) Scope of Works for Pre-Remediation Further Investigation Works (reference 117613160-005-L-Rev0, dated 6 August 2012).
Golder (2013a) Current Condition of the Land – Ambulance Station Site, Junction Place, Wodonga (reference 117613160-196-L-Rev0, dated 1 November 2013.
Golder (2013b) Final Contamination Condition of Soil – Goods Shed, Junction Place, Wodonga, dated 21 February 2013 (Golder 2013b).
Golder (2013c) Precinct 3 and 4 Rectification Assessment Works (reference 117613160 055 R Rev0, dated 8 July 2013).
Golder (2013d) Final Contamination Condition of Soil - Goods Shed (reference 117613160 028 R Rev0).
Golder (2014a) Junction Place, Wodonga (Precinct 1, 3 &4), Environmental Assessment & Remediation Report (reference 117613160-183-R-Rev0 dated 2014a).
Golder (2014b) Groundwater Assessment Report in Support of CUTEP (reference 117613160 197 R Rev0 dated May 2014).
Golder (2014c) Groundwater Flow Direction and Implications (reference 117613160-242-L-Rev0 dated July 2014).
Summaries of the site investigation works are provided in the following sections. 8.2. Soil assessment
The overall soil assessment dataset is presented in Appendix B of Golder, 2013b. A summary of total sample numbers is presented in Table 11 of Golder (2013b) and is reproduced below.
Coffey 38 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 53 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Table 8.2: Soil assessments over time
Report No. of No of samples for each analyte locations Total Metals PAHs TPH MAH Cyanide VOCs OCPs
Golder 18 38 37 9 19 10 8 8 8 2002
Golder 18 22 18 19 18 1 - - - 2010/2011
Senversa 143 252 181 175 212 58 26 43 27 (2011/2012)
Golder 113 291 124 127 211 64 18 34 51 (2013)
Total 292 603 360 330 460 133 52 85 86
A breakdown of soil samples per district in presented in Table 8.3 below.
Table 8.3: Summary of soil assessment locations per Precinct
Precinct Precinct area (m2) No. of assessment Overall sampling frequency locations (sample locations per area)
Precinct 1 12,910 55 1 sample / 235 m2
2 Precinct 3 36,070 154 1 sample / 235 m
2 Precinct 4 20,895 83 1 sample / 250 m
The auditor has conducted a review of the sampling locations and is satisfied that while the grid based requirements of AS4482.1 may not have been met for all parts of the site, the number of targeted and untargeted locations is sufficiently large and of such density that the likelihood of a potential area of environmental concern having being missed is low. Any remaining uncertainty has been addressed by requiring the development and implementation of a Soil Contamination Management Plan as a condition of the audit outcomes for all but a limited part of the site. 8.3. Findings for key areas of soil contamination
Based on the findings of the ESAs, Golder identified that the key soil contaminants of interest were metals (copper, lead and arsenic), petroleum hydrocarbons (predominantly related to diesel) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The ESA assessment locations recording these key contaminant concentrations nominally above either the (then relevant) NEPM 1999 EILs or NEPM HIL A values are presented in Figure 6a of Golder 2014a. This figure also references these exceedences to historical activities and features. Golder Figure 6a and Figure 7 of this report, indicate where areas of potential environmental concern may be present and the historical land use / operational activities which may be linked to these elevated soil concentrations.
Coffey 39 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 54 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
The ESAs also identified aesthetic impacts (e.g. anthropogenic waste, ash, etc.) in fill at the site. These aesthetic impacts predominantly relate to wastes from the former rail operations, burial of materials and the historical demolition of the rail infrastructure.
During the ESAs, the asbestos containing materials (ACM) were identified in three of the 244 assessment locations (2002 to 2012). This predominantly related to the minor presence of asbestos cement sheeting and suggested limited evidence of ACM. In addition, limited evidence of surface ACM was noted prior to commencing remedial works.
Table 8.4 below provides a summary of the key contaminants of interest based on the key source areas.
Table 8.4: Key contaminants of interest based on ESA data
Activities and potential Potential Source Locations Potential Contaminants Contaminants identified sources of contamination based on the Site History based on site history* during ESAs
Imported fill Imported fill used as part of Metals, TPH, PAH, OCP and Fill identified to be present the filling of the site. This fill OPP. across much of the site. Key could be present across the contaminants related to whole site. metals (predominantly arsenic, copper, lead, mercury and zinc), PAH and TPH. Use and storage of fuel Key refuelling areas and Metals, TPH, monocyclic Fuel contamination is mainly maintenance locations: aromatic hydrocarbons attributed to the storage and (BTEX / MAH), PAH. use of diesel for locomotives Locomotive (TPH in the C10 to C40 range). refuelling points. Areas of diesel contamination Locomotive identified during the ESAs maintenance related to: locations (Engine Shed and Locomotive Locomotive Shed). refuelling areas Amoco service adjacent to the station former Engine Shed (Precinct 3). An area east of the former turntable, potentially associated with former drainage lines down gradient of the Turntable, Engine Shed and refuelling point (Precinct 3). Area of the former employee car park associated with drainage interceptor pit or the former police station garage (Precinct 1). Refer to Figure 5
Coffey 40 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 55 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Activities and potential Potential Source Locations Potential Contaminants Contaminants identified sources of contamination based on the Site History based on site history* during ESAs
Use and storage of oils and Key oils and solvents storage TPH, chlorinated solvents Solvent, phenols and PCBs solvents locations: and non-chlorinated were not identified as solvents, phenols, PCBs and contaminants during the Gang Camp SVOCs ESAs. Engine Shed and TPH contamination noted in Locomotive Shed the locomotive maintenance Areas of oils and solvents locations (Engine Shed and use: Locomotive Shed) and turntable area (Precinct 3). Locomotive maintenance locations (Engine Shed and Locomotive Shed). Turntable Vehicle maintenance (105 High Street) Use and storage of Key herbicide and pesticide Arsenic identified Arsenic, OCP, OPP. herbicides and pesticides storage locations: predominantly in the rail Gang Camp corridors (Precincts 1, 3 and 4) associated with timber Areas of herbicides and treatment for railway pesticides use: sleepers. Refer to Figure 6a Rail corridors of Golder 2014a. Adjacent to OCP (aldrin, dieldrin and buildings heptachlor) detected predominantly around the commercial buildings / operations in Precinct 1. Use of coal and disposal of Fill generated as part of the Metals, PAH, cyanide, Coal and ash deposits noted waste products from burning operation of the site as a sulphate. in fill around rail corridors, of coal former rail yard. This fill could locomotive maintenance be present across the whole facilities within the northern site. Most likely to be section of the former rail yard adjacent to locomotive and in platform fill (Precincts maintenance locations 3 and 4). Key contaminants relate to metals and PAHs. General industrial use of Commercial vehicle Metals, TPH, PAH, Minor metals and TPH land, maintenance operations chlorinated solvents. contamination identified in servicing of engines and including: areas of general industrial equipment Vehicle land use. maintenance (105 High Street) Former Police garage and secondhand vehicle dealership (95 High Street) Amoco service station Onsite burial of building Generally located around Asbestos, lead, other metals. Asbestos (ACM) noted in 3 of materials former building locations the 244 assessment locations (Engine and Car Cleaning completed prior to 2013. Sheds) Demolition waste was noted in fill adjacent to areas where former operational buildings were demolished in the 1960s (generally northern section of Precincts 3 and 4). Elevated lead concentrations (refer to Figure 6a of Golder 2014a) noted in the central section of Precinct 4, assumed to be associated with the demolition of the former Car Cleaning Shed which was lead lined.
Coffey 41 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 56 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Activities and potential Potential Source Locations Potential Contaminants Contaminants identified sources of contamination based on the Site History based on site history* during ESAs
Railway ballast Located within rail corridors Asbestos, arsenic, TPH, ESAs identified elevated other metals. arsenic concentrations within the fines component of the railway ballast (Precincts 1, 3 and 4), refer to Figure 6a of Golder 2014a, with localised diesel impacts of TPH noted in ballast south of the former signal box (Precinct 3) Underground services Located throughout the site Asbestos, TPH, metals. Redundant services present as linear features. on-site. Figure 6a of Golder 2014a presents the general alignment of the main stormwater drainage lines, including the drainage interceptor pit located in the former employee car park where diesel impacts were identified. Laundry (potential to have Location of laundry/potential Chlorinated solvents, in Assessment of the former been used for dry cleaning) dry cleaning operations particular PCE. laundry located at 105 High at two locations: at 105 High Street (Precinct 1) indicated Street in Precinct 1 and no evidence of contamination offsite to the south east in associated with dry cleaning Precinct 2. operations. This suggests that it was probably used as a laundry for collection of garments for dry cleaning at an alternate location. While the assessor has not provided specific comment on the laundry in Precinct 2, MW17 located in Precinct 2 shows not impact due to chlorinated hydrocarbons, the most likely contaminant of concern. Stockyard (located off-site to Off-site (up hydraulic gradient Ammonia, nitrate, OCP, Groundwater at the site is the west, in Precinct 5 ) of the site) OPP. contaminated with metals and nitrate. The metals and nitrate contamination appears consistent with background water quality and are not considered to be related to this potential source. Coal stage and ash wastes Off-site (up hydraulic gradient Metals, PAH, cyanide, Groundwater concentrations (located off-site to the west, of the site) sulphate. appear consistent with in Precinct 5) background water quality and are not considered to be related to this potential source.
8.4. Groundwater condition prior to and during remediation
Groundwater at the site is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and nitrate.
Selected chemicals from the following contaminant groups were analysed in one or more monitoring rounds and not found at concentrations above the analytical method reporting limit: amino aliphatics anilines nitrobenzenes
Coffey 42 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 57 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
halogenated benzenes MAHs Organochlorine pesticides PAHs Phenolics Phthalates PCBs Solvents SVOCs VOCs Groundwater analytical results are tabulated in Appendix D of Golder 2014b. The groundwater assessment framework and the Groundwater Screening Criteria adopted for the project are set out in the Framework Document (Golder 2012a).
Groundwater at the site is locally contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons as well some metals, nitrate and ammonia in some monitoring rounds. The metals of interest that are present in elevated concentrations in several monitoring rounds are copper, manganese, nickel and zinc. Arsenic, lead and mercury also were present in elevated concentrations in a single monitoring well and are considered of lesser interest. With the exception of manganese and mercury, the metals and nitrate contamination appears consistent with background water quality.
TPH in the C10 to C36 range has been found at concentrations above the analytical method detection limit in groundwater in wells MW03, MW05, MW06, MW07, MW16 and MW22. The locations of these wells and the maximum TPH C10-36 concentrations in them are shown in Figure 8 of Golder 2014b (provided in Appendix C of this report).
The site is considered to contain the source of the petroleum hydrocarbon contamination: Precinct 1 :- the source is assessed to be associated with the former employee car park / public car park that was part of the former garage of the former Police Station and Courthouse site) and/or the brick stormwater interceptor drainage pit; and Precinct 3; the source is assessed to be the former engine turntable.
Additional potential sources of groundwater contamination were identified during the pre-remediation assessment; i.e. a possible laundry (drycleaner?) at the 105 High Street in Precinct 1 and a small TPH impacted area in Parcel 4.2 in Precinct 4 (around locations GA27 and GA95).
The following table summarises the contaminants present in excess of any relevant criteria in one or more wells in groundwater at the Greater Junction Place Site as identified in the August 2013 monitoring round (i.e. towards the end of remediation) or if no analysis was undertaken in 2013, in the August 2012 monitoring round (shown in brackets). It also shows the concentration range in the wells sampled and the maximum Greater Site concentration recorded in any monitoring round.
Table 8.5: Groundwater contaminant concentrations (before and during remediation)
Contaminant Location of Maximum Site Concentration Range Maximum Greater Site Concentration August 2013 August 2013 (or August Concentration (any (or August 2012) 2012) (mg/L) round) (mg/L)
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH C6-C9 * All concentrations < Detection - - Limit
TPH C10-C36 * MW06, (MW15) <0.05 – (1.22) 4.27
Coffey 43 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 58 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Contaminant Location of Maximum Site Concentration Range Maximum Greater Site Concentration August 2013 August 2013 (or August Concentration (any (or August 2012) 2012) (mg/L) round) (mg/L)
Other Possible Contaminants
Arsenic 102004 <0.001 – 0.209 0.209
Copper (MW17) <0.001 – (0.005) 0.01
Lead (MW14) <0.001 – (0.003) 0.12
Manganese MW26 <0.001 – 0.181 0.26
Mercury - <0.001 0.0066
Nickel (MW14) <0.001 - (0.036) 0.262
Zinc MW23 <0.005 – 0.099 0.099
Nitrate (MW14) 0.93- (64.2) 64.2
Ammonia 102004 <0.01-0.77 2.2 Notes: All other maximum concentrations in any monitoring round were either below laboratory reporting limits or below the adopted assessment criteria
9. Conceptual site model
A groundwater conceptual site model is presented in Section 7.0 of Golder 2014b. This model is summarised below along with auditor commentary. 9.1. Source, pathway, receptor relationships
9.1.1. Sources
The potential sources are contaminated soil, vapours generated from the contaminated soil and groundwater contamination. 9.1.2. Pathways
The potential physical pathways for exposure to contaminants include: a) direct exposure to contaminated soils (incidental ingestion, dermal exposure and inhalation of dusts). b) direct exposure to contaminated groundwater (via exposure to extracted groundwater or groundwater discharge). c) vapour migration from subsurface soils through the soil profile and building foundation to indoor air spaces (indoor air inhalation). d) vapour migration from groundwater through the soil profile and building foundation to indoor air spaces (indoor air inhalation). e) vapour migration from subsurface soils through the soil profile to outdoor air (outdoor air inhalation). f) vapour migration from groundwater through the soil profile to outdoor air (outdoor air inhalation). g) consumption of contaminated vegetables (low density residential area (Parcel 4.2) only).
Coffey 44 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 59 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
9.1.3. Receptors
Based on the proposed land use the following are considered the likely potential receptors: i) residential land users (adult and child) ii) construction and maintenance works (adult) iii) worker at commercial development (adult) iv) visitor to commercial development (adult and child) v) visitor to public open space (adult and child) vi) ecological receptor (on-site) vii) ecological receptor (off-site surface water bodies) viii) primary recreational users (off-site surface water bodies) 9.1.4. Summary
The goal of the remedial works undertaken has been to remove part of the above source – pathway – receptor linkages in situations where there is deemed to be an ‘unacceptable’ risk for the future land use defined in the Masterplan (Appendix A2 of Golder, 2014a)6. Where removal of these linkages isn’t realistic or achievable (taking into consideration technical, logistical and financial considerations) then management controls on the proposed landuse may be considered as a supplementary approach.
10. Remediation strategy
Golder designed a high level remediation strategy, which is presented in the Golder document Preliminary Remediation Strategy and Cost Estimate (Golder 2011b). Golder’s remediation strategy took into consideration the principles of the waste management hierarchy defined in the Industrial Waste Management Policy (IWMP), which is aimed at reducing wastes and minimising the volume of material disposed off-site to landfill. The IWMP outlines a hierarchy of waste management options and indicates the preference for re-use, recycling and treatment of wastes above containment and land filling, whilst taking onto consideration soil volumes, timeframe, available technologies and cost- effectiveness of each option.
In addition to the preparation of the remedial strategy (Golder 2011b), a Framework Document (Golder 2012a) was prepared to outline the objectives, methods and adopted screening levels for the protection of beneficial uses of land (including aesthetics) and groundwater to be used for the assessment and validation of the site.
The framework for the assessment and remediation of the site was provided in: Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder 2012a) Framework for Assessment and Remediation, Wodonga CBD Northern Precinct Development - Junction Place Herein referred to as the Framework Document.
6 Since the Masterplan was drafted in 2012, an area referred to as Green Square is anticipated to be relocated from its nominated location in Precinct 4 to Parcel 3.3a in Precinct 3. The audit has allowed for this eventuality.
Coffey 45 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 60 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
The Framework Document outlines the objectives, methods and acceptance criteria to be used for the assessment and validation of the site for Audit purposes. The Framework Document also provides the basis for the design, implementation and validation of the remediation and of the reporting of information to the auditor and was provided to the auditor prior to the commencement of remedial works. 10.1. Soil remediation, general approach
In general, the remediation strategy involved the following tasks: Removal of nominated former building slabs, foundations and selected underground infrastructure;
Excavation of contaminated soils inconsistent with the remedial objectives;
Validation sampling of soils to confirm that the final condition of the site meets the remedial objectives and where relevant issue of additional works if required;
Treatment or disposal off-site of contaminated soils identified as not being commensurate with the proposed development outcomes;
Tracking all material movements to confirm appropriateness of disposal;
Completing works in accordance with the contractor’s Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); and
Backfilling and re-shaping the topography of the site to suit the requirements of the development.
As part of the remedial process, a Material Tracking System was designed and implemented by the civil contractor (EESI Contracting refer to Section 8.4.2) to ensure that the material excavated was managed appropriately. 10.2. Design of Base Works
Based on the historic investigation and the Golder pre-remediation soil assessment works, 34 remediation areas were identified and excavated. These were known as the ‘Base Works’.
Based on the environmental site assessment data (Appendix B5), exceedences of the adopted site specific criteria were either defined based on multiple assessment locations or a nominal 5 x 5 m excavation. These excavations were nominated to a depth greater than the assessment sample location depth causing the exceedance or to the base of the defined fill or geological unit. Following excavation of the nominated Base Works remediation excavations, validation sampling was undertaken by Golder to assess the requirement for further remedial excavations to be completed.
It is noted that Golder also conducted further assessment works during the remediation process. 10.3. Additional Works
Where assessment or validation data identified soil concentrations incompatible with the final goals for the remediation, further remedial works were designed and completed. These were set out in the remediation contract as ‘Additional Works’. During the remediation works an additional 43 remediation excavations were completed as part of the Additional Works.
The estimated volume of ‘Additional Works’ remediation excavations increased the overall volume of remediation excavations from 5,475 m3 of Base Works to 11,570 m3. This increase in remedial volumes did not result from the identification of new areas of environmental concern, but from lateral and vertical increases in known Base Works excavations, or in other words because validation
Coffey 46 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 61 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3 sampling identified that contamination extended further than was originally anticipated; not because additional areas of environmental concern were identified. 10.4. Remediation method
The method of remediation included the preparation of geo-referenced plans of the proposed remediation excavations including recording of the co-ordinates of each corner of the proposed excavation and a nominated depth. This information was used by the remediation contractor’s surveyor (Spiire) to stake the remediation excavation and mark the nominated excavation depth required. During the excavation, the depth was routinely checked to confirm that the excavation had been completed to the appropriate depth and extent.
On occasions, visual or olfactory evidence of contamination was noted during the completion of the remediation excavation, which then triggered the extension of the excavation beyond the proposed extents defined in the notifications. These works were completed under the supervision of a Golder Associates engineer and were extended until all evidence of visual or olfactory contamination was removed or to an extent agreed with the auditor.
Tables 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 present a summary of the remediation excavations completed within each of the three Precincts.
The excavated material generated was stockpiled in designated areas (refer to Figure C6.1, Appendix C of Golder, 2014a). If during the completion of the remediation excavation, there was uncertainty in relation to the contamination status of the excavated material generated, it was stockpiled separately in order to minimise volumes of material of higher soil contamination status or alternatively for soils noted to be relatively uncontaminated to ascertain whether it could potentially be retained on-site.
Following completion of the remediation excavation the resultant excavation was validated and surveyed. Appendices C1, C2 and C3 of Golder, 2014a provides plans of each individual remediation excavation completed (for Precincts 1, 3 and 4 respectively), including the survey data for that excavation showing the ‘top’ and ‘toe’ of the excavation and its lateral extent. These plans also present the validation points associated with each of the remediation excavations, with Tables C1-1 (Appendix C1), C2-1 (Appendix C2) and C3-1 (Appendix C3) of Golder 2014a presenting the co- ordinates of each validation sample point along with a summary of the validation sample analytical data relating to each remediation excavation.
All materials excavated as part of the remediation process were stockpiled and managed in accordance with the CEMP and tracked using the EESI Contracting Material Tracking process provided in Appendix G1 of Golder, 2014a. Validation samples were analysed for the contaminant(s) of interest related to the remediation area or for the wider site, taking into consideration visual and olfactory evidence noted during the validation process. Based on the systematic approach to delineation, excavation extension, documentation and presentation of data and extents, the auditor is satisfied that the validation sampling was completed in accordance with the validation sampling strategy and sampling procedures defined in Golder, 2012a.
Appendices C1, C2 and C3 of Golder, 2014a, present the field notes of each remediation excavation providing a soil descriptions and a photograph of each excavation. Appendices C1, C2 and C3 of Golder 2014a also present a summary of analytical data from the validation of these remediation excavations. The laboratory reports (primary laboratory) are provided in Appendix E3 of Golder 2014a, along with copies of Chain of Custody and internal laboratory Quality Assurance testing.
Coffey 47 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 62 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
10.5. Precinct 1
The remedial works undertaken in Precinct 1 involved the excavation of 15 remedial excavations (approximately 2,000 m3). The following table presents a summary of the remedial excavation undertaken, the surveyed volume and the justification for undertaking the remediation.
The locations of these remedial excavations are presented in Figure 8, whilst plans of each individual remediation excavation and individual validation points are provided in Appendix C1 of Golder, 2014a.
Table 10.1: Summary of Remediation Excavations – Precinct 1 (after Golder, 2014a)
Remediation/ Base Works Final Surveyed Contaminants Justification for Remediation (BW) or depth ( m Excavation of Concern Excavation bgl) Volume Additional (m3) Works (AW)
R1R01 BW 2.0 564 TPH (diesel) Diesel contamination identified in assessment data exceeding adopted screening criteria – former employee car park and location of the drainage interceptor pit and general location of the former police station garage. BW P1R02 0.7 16 TPH. OCP, Removal of fill within former garage waste, ACM inspection pit (105 High Street) associated with assessment data from GA69. BW P1R03 0.4 13 Asbestos and Removal of localised fill layer and waste waste associated with assessment data (TP12H). BW P1R04 0.3 330 Arsenic, TPH Removal of ballast within rail corridor. (and asbestos) BW P1R05 0.2 8 PAH, waste Selection of former platform identified in assessment data as exceeding adopted screening criteria. BW P1R06 0.4 200 Arsenic, TPH Removal of ballast within rail corridor. (and asbestos)
P1R07 AW 0.9 36 Waste Extension of P1R03. (aesthetic issues)
P1R08 AW 1.2 66 PAH, waste, Validation data from P1R05 exceeding ACM adopted screening criteria. Vertical extension of P1R05. AW P1R09 2.0 110 TPH Validation data from P1R01 exceeding adopted screening criteria. AW P1R10 0.3 8 PAH Validation data from part of P1R08 exceeding adopted screening criteria. AW P1R11 2.5 77 TPH Validation data from P1R01 exceeding adopted screening criteria. Also removal of stormwater interceptor pit.
Coffey 48 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 63 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Remediation/ Base Works Final Surveyed Contaminants Justification for Remediation (BW) or depth ( m Excavation of Concern Excavation bgl) Volume Additional (m3) Works (AW)
AW P1R12 2.0 33 TPH Validation data from P1R01 exceeding adopted screening criteria. AW P1R13 2.5 90 TPH Validation data from P1R09 exceeding adopted screening criteria. AW P1R14 2.8 437 TPH, Waste, Removal of fill layer identified in P1R13 with ACM validation data from P1R13 exceeding adopted screening criteria. AW P1R15 2.3 13 TPH Former hoist in mechanics workshop (103 & 105 High Street)
*refer to Table C1 in Appendix C1 of Golder, 2014a to identify samples removed via Additional Works remedial excavations. The validation data associated with the remedial excavations undertaken in Precinct 1 are presented in Tables C1-1 and C1-2 (Appendix C1 of Golder, 2014a). 10.6. Precinct 3
The remedial works undertaken in Precinct 3 involved the excavation of 31 remedial excavations (approximately 4,010 m3). The following table presents a summary of the remedial excavation undertaken, the surveyed volume and the justification for undertaking the remedial works.
The locations of these remedial excavations are presented in Figure 8, whilst plans of each individual remediation excavation and individual validation points are provided in Appendix C2 of Golder, 2014a.
Table 10.2: Summary of Remediation Excavations – Precinct 3
Remediation/ Base Works Final Surveyed Contaminants Justification for Remediation (BW) or depth ( m Excavation of Concern Excavation bgl) Volume Additional (m3) Works (AW)
P3R04 BW 0.4 480* Arsenic, TPH, Removal of ballast within rail corridor. aesthetics Assessment data exceeding adopted screening criteria for locations C13 and C14 P3R05 BW 1.1 93 PAH, TPH Section of platform east of railway station. Associated with assessment data GA77 P3R06 BW 0.3 87 PAH, TPH Contaminated fill layer beneath railway station platform. P3R07 BW 0.4 450* Arsenic, TPH, Removal of ballast within rail corridor. aesthetics Assessment data exceeding adopted screening criteria for locations C21, C22 and C23
Coffey 49 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 64 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Remediation/ Base Works Final Surveyed Contaminants Justification for Remediation (BW) or depth ( m Excavation of Concern Excavation bgl) Volume Additional (m3) Works (AW) P3R08 BW 0.3 5 Lead, TPH, Section of shallow fill between the station asbestos building and former signal box (general sheeting location of former lamp room). Assessment data (SB10H and SB26H) P3R09 BW 0.1 4 TPH Assessment data (TP32) P3R10 BW TPH 0.2 19 Former Engine Shed. Assessment data from TP26H P3R11 BW TPH 1.5 268 Diesel contamination east of former turntable. P3R12 BW TPH 0.2 5 Assessment data (C27) P3R13 BW TPH 1.0 24 Assessment data (GA33) P3R14 BW TPH 0.3 5 Assessment data (MW07) P3R15 BW TPH 1.6 33 Assessment data (GA98) P3R16 AW 0.4 60 Tar pitch Removal of identified tar pitch coated pipe coated pipe from the rail corridor between the Station and excavation Goods Shed. trench PAHs P3R16A AW 0.5 2 Tar pitch Further extension associated with the removal coated pipe of the tar pitch coated pipe. excavation trench PAHs P3R17 AW 2.5 1197 TPH Extension of turntable excavation. Validation and assessment data from part of P3R11 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P3R17A TPH - Excavation AW 2.5 5 to remove Extension of turntable excavation. Validation stormwater pit and assessment data from part of P3R11 eastern boundary exceeding adopted screening criteria. P3R18 AW 1.0 Forms part TPH Validation data from part of P3R14 exceeding of P3R17 adopted screening criteria. P3R19 AW 2.5 Forms part TPH Extension of turntable excavation. Validation of P3R17 and assessment data from part of P3R11 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P3R20 AW 1.5 186 TPH Validation data from part of P3R13 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P3R21 AW 0.5 35 Metals and Validation data from part of P3R08 exceeding TPH adopted screening criteria P3R22 AW 0.4 36 TPH Validation data from part of P3R10 exceeding adopted screening criteria.
Coffey 50 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 65 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Remediation/ Base Works Final Surveyed Contaminants Justification for Remediation (BW) or depth ( m Excavation of Concern Excavation bgl) Volume Additional (m3) Works (AW) P3R23 AW 0.2 4 TPH Validation data from part of P3R10 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P3R24 AW 1.0 60 PAH Further extension associated with the removal of the tar pitch coated pipe. P3R25 AW 0.4 75 Metals Extension of P3R21 related to the removal of shallow fill layer between the station building and former signal box west of P3R21. P3R26 AW 1.5 148 TPH Removal of drainage pipes and pits south west of station building (diesel odour noted, down gradient of shallow diesel impacts in P4R16). P3R27 AW 2.5 665 TPH Validation data from part of P3R19 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P3R28 AW 1.0 10 TPH Validation data from part of P3R17 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P3R29 AW 0.5 25# TPH Validation data from part of P3R10 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P3R30 AW 2.5 42 TPH Validation data from part of P3R17 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P3R31 AW 0.2 3 PAH Validation data from part of P3R05 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P3R32 & AW P3R32 0.5 25# TPH Validation data from part of P3R22 exceeding extension adopted screening criteria.
*Not surveyed estimated from excavation area and average depth of ballast. #Part of larger remedial excavation, volume estimated form the proposed excavation **refer to Table C2 in Appendix C2 of Golder, 2014a to identify samples removed via Additional Works remedial excavations.
The validation data associated with the remedial excavations undertaken in Precinct 3 are presented in Tables C2-1 and C2-2 (Appendix C2 of Golder, 2014a). 10.7. Precinct 4
The remedial works undertaken in Precinct 4 involved the excavation of 31 remedial excavations (approximately 5,550 m3). The following table presents a summary of the remedial excavation undertaken, the surveyed volume and the justification for undertaking the remediation excavations.
The locations of these remedial excavations are presented in Figure 8, whilst plans of each individual remediation excavation and individual validation points are provided in Appendix C3 of Golder, 2014a.
Coffey 51 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 66 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Table 10.3: Summary of Remediation Excavations – Precinct 4
Remediation/ Base Works Final Surveyed Contaminants Justification for Remediation (BW) or depth ( m Excavation of Concern Excavation bgl) Volume Additional (m3) Works (AW)
P4R01 BW 0.4 1080* Arsenic, TPH, Removal of ballast within rail corridor. ACM Assessment data exceeding adopted screening criteria.
P4R02 BW 1.5 880 TPH Excavation of former maintenance pits within the former Engine Shed (eastern end)
P4R03 BW 1.5 Forms part TPH Excavation of former maintenance pits within of P4R02 the former Engine Shed (western end) P4R05 BW 0.1 3 Arsenic Assessment data (TP32H) exceeding adopted screening criteria. P4R06 BW 0.2 4 Arsenic Assessment data (TP19H) exceeding adopted screening criteria. P4R07 BW 0.4 500* Arsenic, TPH Removal of ballast within rail corridor. (and asbestos) Assessment data exceeding adopted screening criteria. P4R09 BW 0.5 14 Waste, Removal of localised fill layer and waste asbestos (former residential property). sheeting P4R10 BW 0.5 8 Waste (glass Removal of localised fill layer and waste and rusted (former residential property). metal) P4R11 BW 0.4 6 Waste (bricks Removal of localised fill layer and waste in fill) (former residential property). P4R12 BW 0.6 15 Lead Assessment data (TP02b) exceeding adopted screening criteria. P4R13 BW 1.5 91 TPH and lead Localised fuel impacts noted. Assessment data (GA27) exceeding adopted screening criteria P4R14 BW 0.3 5 TPH Adjacent to former Gang Camp. Assessment data (MW05) exceeding adopted screening criteria P4R15 BW 0.4 248 TPH, metals, Removal of shallow fill west of former Gang ACM and Camp. aesthetic impacts P4R16 BW 0.2 5 TPH Assessment data (C12) exceeding adopted screening criteria.
Coffey 52 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 67 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Remediation/ Base Works Final Surveyed Contaminants Justification for Remediation (BW) or depth ( m Excavation of Concern Excavation bgl) Volume Additional (m3) Works (AW) P4R17 BW 1.2 11 TPH Remediation of maintenance pit. Assessment data (TP03) exceeding adopted screening criteria P4R18 BW 0.2 2 TPH Assessment data (C20) exceeding adopted screening criteria. P4R20 AW 1.0 15 Metals Validation data from part of P4R17 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P4R22 AW 0.4 45 TPH Validation data from part of P4R18 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P4R23 AW 0.5 1126 Metals, Extension of P4R15 based on validation data asbestos and visual removal of fill layer within southern sheeting, section of Parcel 4.1. aesthetic issues P4R24 AW 0.3 7 TPH Validation data from part of P4R01 exceeding adopted screening criteria. Linked to localised diesel impacts in drainage pipework south of former Signal Box (P4R16). AW P4R25 0.3 9 Metals Validation data from part of P4R01 and P4R16 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P4R26 AW 2.0 305 TPH Extension of P4R03 east of former Engine Shed and assessment data from TP25H P4R27 AW 0.4 35 Arsenic Validation data from part of P4R07 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P4R28 AW 0.5 16 Metals, TPH Validation data from part of P4R01 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P4R29 AW 1.0 35 TPH Validation data from part of P4R02 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P4R30 AW 0.5 10 TPH Validation data from part of P4R02 exceeding adopted screening criteria P4R31 AW 1.7 33 TPH Validation data from part of P4R02 exceeding adopted screening criteria. P4R32 AW 0.4 260 TPH and Removal of shallow diesel impacts associated Arsenic with land drains beneath rail corridor (P4R01) south of former Signal Box. P4R33 AW 4.0 299 TPH Validation data from part of P4R13 exceeding adopted screening criteria.
Coffey 53 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 68 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Remediation/ Base Works Final Surveyed Contaminants Justification for Remediation (BW) or depth ( m Excavation of Concern Excavation bgl) Volume Additional (m3) Works (AW) P4R34 AW 2.0 679 TPH Validation data from part of P4R26 exceeding adopted screening criteria. Including removal of a section drainage pipe south of former Engine Shed. P4R35 AW 0.3 136 Arsenic Validation data from part of P4R18 and P4R27 exceeding adopted screening criteria. *Not surveyed estimated from excavation area and average depth of ballast. **refer to Table C2 in Appendix C2 of Golder, 2014a to identify samples removed via Additional Works remedial excavations.
The validation data associated with the remedial excavations undertaken in Precinct 4 are presented in Tables C3-1 and C3-2 (Appendix C3 of Golder, 2014a). 10.8. Remediation excavations validation
Following completion of the nominated remedial excavations (Base and Additional Works) each remedial excavation (apart from those nominated as requiring only visual confirmation for the removal of anthropogenic wastes/fill layers) was validated via the collection of validation soil samples. The validation sampling was undertaken in accordance with Section 7.7 of the Framework Document (Golder 2012a), with the analysis of samples specifically targeting the contaminants of interested nominated for the particular remedial excavation. The validation sampling and their outcomes are presented in Appendices C1, C2 and C3 of Golder 2014a for Precincts 1, 3 and 4 respectively. 10.9. Groundwater remediation
The pre-remediation groundwater assessment data indicated that there is localised groundwater pollution on parts of the site associated with point sources. Concentrations of contaminants are present in groundwater in some monitoring wells which exceed guideline values for TPH C10-C36, localised mercury and ammonia relevant to the protected beneficial uses of groundwater. This contamination is considered to have an on-site source. There are also other contaminants (some metals and nitrate) for which background concentrations or contamination from off-site sources exceeded the relevant criteria on site. Based on this information the key components of the remedial strategy for groundwater was based on source removal as described below: Remediation of the primary sources of groundwater contamination which were either sources of soil contamination (predominantly removed) and/or the soil contamination itself. Remediation of secondary sources of groundwater contamination has been substantially removed. Golder’s groundwater remediation strategy outlined in the Framework Document considered that because groundwater pollution existed at the site resulting from historical activities, a CUTEP determination would be required and a Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone (GQRUZ) declared as a result of the CUTEP determination. This aspect is discussed in Sections 14 and 15.
Coffey 54 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 69 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
11. Validation sampling
Following the completion of each remediation excavation (either to the design limits or to the extent defined by the Golder’s site engineer) the remediation excavation was validated in accordance with the Section 7.7 of the Framework Document (Golder 2012c). Where validation soil concentrations exceeded the adopted soil screening criteria defined in Section 3.2 of the Framework Document (Golder 2012a), an evaluation was undertaken of the requirement for further remedial actions. The following table presents the individual validation samples, which following validation (at the completion of all remedial excavations (Base and Additional Works excavations)) exceeded the adopted soil screening criteria defined in Section 6.3.1 for the proposed land use of each land parcel.
Note that for TPH (C10 to C40), the initially adopted screening criteria considered the NSW EPA Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites, these exceedances are discussed further in Section 7.2.1, based on the alternative TPH screening criteria for commercial land use. A full set of validation sampling results is presented in Table T1a to the rear of this report. Exceedances of nominated criteria are summarised below.
Table 11.1: Summary of individual validation soil concentrations in excess of adopted screening criteria at the completion of remedial works (after Golder, 2014a)
Remediation Individual Soil Contaminant Proposed Sample Contaminant Comment Excavation Sample with Concentration Land Use depth Concentration in (mg/kg) (Adopted (m bgl) Excess of Screening Adopted Criteria) Screening Criteria
P1R06 P1R06/005B Arsenic 236 Public 0.1 Single individual soil Open concentration marginally Space (200 (<2.5 times criteria) mg/kg) above adopted screening criteria for arsenic (refer to Section 13.2.1 for further discussion on arsenic concentrations.
P1R01 P1R01/002B TPH (C -C ) 1,030 Commercial 2 These soil validation 10 40 (NSW EPA samples relate to 1,000 remedial excavations P1R01 P1R01/006W 3,450 mg/kg*) 0.5 within the former employee car park and P1R01 P1R01/020W 5,090 1.9 are associated with diesel impacts either from the former police P1R01 P1R01/023W 2,630 1.9 station garage or the rail yard interceptor pit (refer P1R09 P1R09/003B 1,570 2 to Figure 9 of Golder, 2014a). The majority of P1R09 these individual soil TPH P1R09/007W 1,210 1 (C10-C40) are present P1R09 either at depths of P1R09/007W 1,140 1.9 approximately 2 m and deeper or are located P1R09 adjacent to the large P1R09/008W 3,430 1.9 diameter stormwater drain which is aligned R1R11 P1R11/003W 2,790 2.4 south north through these remediation P1R11 P1R11/005W 3,250 2 excavations and were consequently impracticable to be P1R13 P1R13/001B 1,400 2 remediated at present.
P1R13 P1R13/002B 6,720 2
Coffey 55 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 70 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Remediation Individual Soil Contaminant Proposed Sample Contaminant Comment Excavation Sample with Concentration Land Use depth Concentration in (mg/kg) (Adopted (m bgl) Excess of Screening Adopted Criteria) Screening Criteria
P1R14 P1R14/004W 2,140 1.2
P1R14 P1R14/004W 1,040 2.2
P1R14 P1R14/005W 4,990 1.2
P1R14 P1R14/010W0 1,380 0.5
P3R17 P3R17/008W TPH (C -C ) 1,790 Commercial 2.3-2.4 These soil validation 10 40 samples relate to P3R17 P3R17/015B (NSW EPA remedial excavations 1,820 1,000 2.5 adjacent to the former turntable (refer to Figure P3R17 P3R17/016B mg/kg*) 1,060 2.5 14 of Golder, 2014a). The majority of these P3R17 P3R17A/031W 6,220 2.4 individual soil TPH (C10- C40) are present either at P3R17 P3R17A/033W depths of approximately 3,260 2.4 2 m and deeper or are located adjacent to the P3R28 P3R28/002W 2,810 0.6 retaining wall on the eastern boundary of the site (Church Street) P3R30 P3R30/001W 1,600 1.5
P3R30 P3R30/001W 1,360 2.5
P3R30 P3R30/002W 3,700 2.5
P3R20 P3R20/005B TPH (C -C ) 1,870 Commercial 1.5 Individual soil 10 40 concentration marginally (NSW EPA (<2.5 times criteria) P3R20 P3R20/009W 1,240 1,000 0.4-0.5 above adopted screening Criteria for mg/kg) * TPH (C10-C40). P3R20 P3R20/012W 1,510 0.4-0.5 Associated with former maintenance pit north east of the former Engine Shed.
P3R32 P3R32/006W TPH (C -C ) 2,370 Commercial 0-0.2 Single individual soil 10 40 concentration marginally (NSW EPA (<2.5 times criteria) 1,000 above adopted screening criteria for mg/kg) * TPH (C10-C40). Associated with former Engine Shed and refuelling point.
P4R01 P4R01/020B TPH (C -C ) 1,190 High 0-0.1 Single individual soil 10 40 density concentration marginally residential (<2.5 times criteria) (NSW EPA above adopted Guidelines, screening criteria for 1,000 TPH (C10-C40). mg/kg)
P4R06 P4R06/002B Arsenic 235 Public 0.2 Individual soil Open concentration marginally Space (<2.5 times criteria) P4R22 P4R22/008W 277 Green 0-0.2 above adopted Square screening criteria for (200 mg/kg) arsenic (refer to Section P4R01 P4R01/016B 216 0-0.1 13.2.1 for further
Coffey 56 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 71 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Remediation Individual Soil Contaminant Proposed Sample Contaminant Comment Excavation Sample with Concentration Land Use depth Concentration in (mg/kg) (Adopted (m bgl) Excess of Screening Adopted Criteria) Screening Criteria P4R05 P4R05/002B discussion on arsenic 240 0.1 concentrations in this land parcel). Validation P4R05 P4R05/004W 249 0-0.1 sample locations predominantly related to former rail corridors. P4R07 P4R07/001B 248 0-0.1
P4R35 P4R35/009W 457 0-0.2
P4R02 P4R02/008B TPH (C -C ) 2,230 Public 1.5-1.7 Excavations associated 10 40 Open with the location of the Space former Engine Shed. P4R02 P4R02/009B 1,540 (initial 1.5-1.7 Individual soil review concentrations against marginally(<2.5 times P4R02 P4R02/012B 1,310 1.5-1.7 NSW EPA criteria) above adopted Guidelines, screening criteria for P4R02 P4R02/019W 1,490 1,000 0.5-0.6 TPH (C10-C40) (refer to mg/kg) Section 13.2.2 for further discussion on P4R29 P4R29/002B 1,030 1 TPH (C10-C40) concentrations in this P4R29 P4R29/006B 1,570 1 land parcel)
P4R31 P4R31/002B 2,240 1.3 P4R31 P4R31/005W 1,520 0.5 P4R31 P4R31/005W 1,290 1.6
*As no criteria generic exist for commercial land use, an initial review has been conducted against the NSW EPA Guidelines; further consideration is presented in Section 7.2.1. Shaded cells indicated contaminant concentrations in excess of 2.5 times the adopted screening criteria.
12. Soil stockpiling and treatment 12.1. Stockpile formation and tracking
Material excavated as part of the remedial process was stockpiled and managed in accordance with the remediation contractor’s CEMP. Stockpile management involved the excavated material being predominantly stockpiled in designated areas (refer to Figure C6.1, Appendix C6 of Golder 2014a). Soils deemed to require treatment (either in a biopile or by chemical fixation) were placed in specifically constructed treatment pads, surrounded by earth bunds and covered with a tarpaulin. Golder has provided a table (Table 25 of Golder, 2014a) which summarised all 75 stockpiles of material (including seven which related to Precinct 5, located to the west of the audit site but within the Junction Place development area) including: the material source, volume, if material was reused at the site or disposed off-site, and if the material was treated and if so how. More details are provided in Appendices C6 and C7 of Golder, 2014a. As part of the audit process, the auditor has reviewed a selection of the entries and checked them against the soil disposal records and is satisfied that the table provides a reliable summary of disposal activities.
Coffey 57 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 72 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
12.2. Materials tracking system
The management of excavated soils was managed under a Material Tracking System developed and implemented by EESI Contracting. The aim of the Material Tracking System was to identify the source and destination of all materials excavated from the site. Appendix G1 of Golder, 2014a presents the Material Tracking System, which outlines the methodology adopted in the creation and naming of a stockpile, tracking each stockpile’s movement on site and its final destination (either disposal off-site or on-site re-use). The main elements of the material tracking system implemented by EESI Contracting comprised tracking the movement of the stockpiles, with daily records of the remediation excavations and associated stockpiles. The size of each stockpile was surveyed on a regular basis. The management and auditing of this system was primarily completed by EESI Contracting. Section 8.4.2.1 of Golder, 2014a provides information on the controls and audit procedures undertaken to confirm the quality and robustness of the Material Tracking System operated during the remediation process. This Material Tracking System was the basis of the information used in this report to detail stockpile movements. The Material Tracking System was overseen by Golder personnel who conducted daily site visits to review the stockpile locations and their management, classification of stockpiles for on-site re-use, monitoring of stockpiles disposed off-site and review of documentation relation to materials tracking. 12.3. Stockpile sampling
Stockpile sampling was conducted by Golder in accordance with EPA Publication IWRG702, Soil Sampling, June 2009, and involved sampling at the following rates: One sample per 25 m3 for soil volumes less than 200 m3 with a minimum of three samples; and
One sample per 25 m3 or a minimum of 10 samples for soil volumes greater than 200 m3, where there is sufficient data to calculate the 95% upper confidence limit of the mean.
The stockpiles were assumed by Golder to require off-site disposal (due to previously known chemical, geotechnical and aesthetic reasons or because they were excess to requirements) and as such, stockpile samples were analysed for contaminants defined in EPA Publication IWRG 621 Table 2 in order to allow classification for disposal to landfill. During the completion of remedial works, the excavated soils were typically stockpiled according to remediation excavations from which they were excavated. Due to site constraints material from several remediation excavations assessed as representing similar contamination characteristics, were combined. 12.4. Onsite treatment
12.4.1. Biopile treatment of diesel impacted soils
One of the key causes of contamination was associated with the remediation of the site was diesel fuel. This was predominantly related to areas associated with the refuelling and maintenance of diesel locomotives (former Engine Shed and Refuelling Area 2), former turntable area and the drainage interceptor pit located in the former Employee Car Park). The material associated with the diesel contamination was generally natural soils excavated from depth (up to 2 to 3 m bgl) above locations where sampling identified only hydrocarbon contamination in the TPH C10 to C40 range was present, consistent with diesel impacts.
Coffey 58 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 73 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Based on the concentrations of TPH, on-site treatment of the diesel impacted material was undertaken via use of biopiles. Table 18 below presents a summary of the diesel-impacted stockpiles treated using biopiles. Table 12.1: Summary of diesel-fuel impacted stockpiles (from Golder, 2014a)
Stockpile Source Estimated Destination Reference Document reference Material Volume (m3)
SP20 P3R11 & P3R13 315 Off-site – material Fill Material - Classification surplus to Letter reference requirements 117613160-111-L-Rev0
SP25 P4R03; 850 Off-site – material Fill Material - Classification P4R18 & surplus to Letter reference P4R02 requirements 117613160-094-L-Rev0
SP38 P4R26, 290 Off-site – material Fill Material - Classification P4R22 surplus to Letter reference requirements 117613160-105-L-Rev0
SP39 P1R01, 575 Off-site – material Category C (containing P1R09 surplus to ACM) - Classification requirements Letter reference 117613160-138-L-Rev0
SP29 P1R01, 940 On-site reuse Refer to Section 8.7 and P3R20, Appendix C6 of Golder, P3R17, 2014a P3R18, P3R19, P1R09
SP34A & P3R17, 1110 On-site reuse Refer to Section 8.7 and P3R18, Appendix C6 of Golder, 34B P3R19 2014a
SP43E P1R09, 150 On-site reuse Refer to Section 8.7 and P3R22, Appendix C6 of Golder, P3R23, 2014a P4R29, P4R30, P4R31
SP58 P3R28 and 40 On-site reuse Refer to Section 8.7 and P3R30 Appendix C6 of Golder, 2014a
SP59S P1R14 (natural 115 On-site reuse Refer to Section 8.7 and soil) Appendix C6 of Golder, 2014a * refer to Section 8.7 and Appendix C6 of Golder, 2014a # refer to Section 8.6 and Appendix C7 of Golder, 2014a
Treated soils from stockpiles SP29, SP34, SP43E, SP58 and SP59S were predominantly natural soils excavated from either the area east of the former turntable or from beneath the former employee car park. As presented in Appendix C6 of Golder, 2014a, these soils were only contaminated with diesel- fuel related impacts; with only TPH C10 to C40 range exceeding the adopted screening criteria.
Coffey 59 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 74 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Following treatment the TPH C10 to C40, soil concentrations were all less than 1,000 mg/kg (based on analytical results obtained following silica gel clean-up of the samples. Silica gel clean up was used to negate the influence of the organic matter used in the biopile treatment process).
The treated biopile material from these stockpiles was used as surface fill (surface 200mm) within the central and western sections of Precinct 4 (land parcels 4.2 and Green Square), the former rail corridor in Precinct 1 and the southern part of the former turntable area (land parcel 3.2) (refer to Figure C6-1, Appendix C6 of Golder, 2014a) in order to reshape the final site profile and construct a free draining development site.
12.4.2. Chemical fixation of leachable lead contamination
During the remedial works, some areas of shallow fill were identified containing elevated concentrations of lead, sufficient to require remediation and classify as Category A (Contaminated Soils) (IWRG 621) for off-site disposal. The lead contamination was also identified as being leachable, with ASLP8 lead concentrations (acetate buffer) greater than ASLP2 threshold values defined in Table 2 IWRG621.
This material was generated from the excavation of fill from several shallow excavations within the eastern part of the site, the former Car Cleaning Shed and localised fill adjacent to the former station building. This shallow fill layer was considered to be related to soil impacted by historical activities or disposal of waste associated with the former railway operations and maintenance works.
This material was initially segregated and stockpiled into eight separate stockpiles (SP16N, SP16S, SP21, SP26S, SP27, SP52N, SP59N and SP61). Following the initial assessment, these stockpiles were treated on-site using a ‘chemical fixation’ (super phosphate and salt) technique to reduce the solubility of the lead contamination.
Following treatment the material was re-sampled for lead and ASLP lead (acetate, borate and neutral buffer solutions). In addition, analysis using ‘multiple extraction procedures’ (10 day MEP) were undertaken on the treated material to provide an indication of the leachability of the lead contamination over the longer term.
Based on the post treatment data, an Application for Classification was sought from EPA Victoria to allow disposal of the treated material to landfill 12.5. Soil reclassification by application to EPA Victoria
In order to allow off-site disposal to landfill of selected material generated as part of the remediation (predominantly Category B or A waste, EPA Publication IWRG 620), an application for re- classification of the material by EPA Victoria was required.
In total four separate applications were submitted to EPA for reclassification of soils based on either the intrinsic immobilisation or based on the outcome of treatment. The following table presents a summary of the stockpiles reclassified. Full details of the stockpile classification are presented in Table 27 of Golder, 2014a. In total, 1755 m3 of material was treated material was disposed of under the following EPA approved classifications:
Category C – Intrinsically Immobilisation EPA Classification “Prescribed Industrial Wastes – Classification by Hazard Classification No. 2013/082” Category C – Intrinsically Immobilisation EPA Classification “Prescribed Industrial Wastes – Classification by Hazard Classification No. 2013/084” Category C – Intrinsically Immobilisation EPA Classification “Prescribed Industrial Wastes – Classification by Hazard Classification No. 2013/095”
Coffey 60 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 75 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Category C – Immobilisation EPA Classification “Prescribed Industrial Wastes – Classification by Hazard Classification No. 2013/105” 12.6. Off-site disposal of stockpiled materials
The majority of the soils excavated as part of the remedial works required off-site disposal to landfill (either with or without prior on-site treatment).
Appendix C7 of Golder, 2014a presents a summary of the stockpiles disposed off-site to landfill. In total approximately 3,700 Tonnes of material was disposed as Fill Material (biopile treated soils surplus to requirements), 18,600 Tonnes as Category C (including material containing ACM) and 65 Tonnes as Category B (EPA Publication IWRG 621). 12.7. Re-use of stockpiled soils
Appendix C6 of Golder, 2014a presents a summary of the stockpiles deemed suitable to be retained on-site along with the final destination of the material. The material which was reused on site primarily consisted of: ‘Wet’ soils excavated as part of the preparation of the base of selected excavations. This material was excavated to allow engineered backfilling to be completed;
Soils excavated from the sides of selected excavations to allow engineered backfilling of excavations to be completed.
Selected biopile treated natural soils.
Ballast fines from stockpiled SP13 (screened to <15 mm and stabilised with a blend of 2% lime and 2% cement). This material was used as engineered fill in the excavations associated with the former turntable (remediation excavations P3R17, P3R18, P3R19 and P3R27).
The assessment for the suitability for the on-site retention of this material was based either on direct assessment of stockpiled material or based on validation data from remedial excavations. Information on the soils re-used on-site is presented in Appendix C6 of Golder, 2014a. 12.8. Imported fill
1 Imported quarry sourced fill was used to backfill the majority of the remedial excavations. The material was sourced from Wodonga Quarries. Appendix C5 of Golder, 2014a, presents information on the source, volume and chemical composition of this imported material. 12.9. Backfilling
As indicated above, the backfilling of the remedial excavations used either imported quarry sourced material or site won soils. These soils were assessed as being suitable for the proposed land use. The summary tables presented as part of Appendices C1, C2 and C3, Golder, 2014a provides information on the material used to backfill each individual remediation excavation. As part of the backfilling works the material tracking system was used to ensure only appropriately tested stockpiles were re-used in the backfilling process.
2 All deep backfilling works at the site were carried out under Level 1 Supervision in accordance with AS3798 Guidelines for Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments and the backfilling requirements outlined in the Tender Specification (Golder 2012c). EESI Contracting engaged Aitken Rowe Geotechnical Engineering as the primary geotechnical contractor to provide the Level 1 supervision during the back filling process.
Coffey 61 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 76 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Selected shallow (<200 mm from the surface) backfilling was undertaken to reshape the final site profile to obtain a ‘free draining’ site. These shallow filling works were undertaken in accordance with the backfilling requirements outlined in the Tender Specification (Golder 2012c) and predominantly related to the re-use of selected biopile treated material. As part of the audit process, the auditor has reviewed a selection of the backfill records and is satisfied that they provide a reliable summary.
13. Final site condition (soils)
This section presents the final soil conditions related to Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga, following completion of all remedial and backfilling works. The soil data pertaining to the final soil conditions of Precincts 1, 3 and 4 are presented in Tables H1-1, H1-2 and H1-3 (Appendix H1 of Golder, 2014a) respectively. Tables H1-4 to H1-7 (Appendix H1 of Golder, 2014a) present statistical summaries of the soil concentrations by Precinct and are further sub-divided for Precinct 4 between the specific land parcels nominated for different final land uses. After completion of the Golder, 2014a report, the interpretation of results has changed based on discussions with the auditor, and in response to requirements of the client dictated by changes to the proposed site uses. The soil results are presented in Table T1 to the rear of this report. 13.1. Key Contaminants associated with the final soil conditions
Table T1a to the rear of this report presents a summary of all samples representing final site conditions. The following table presents a summary of the key contaminants of concern compared to the most conservative site criteria (either ecological or human health-residential). The identified exceedances will be discussed in the sections below. Table 13.1: Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern relative to ecological and human health (residential) screening criteria
Chemical Adopted EIL ESL – Urban HIL A HSL Management Maximum site Residential and (sand, <1 Limits (coarse soil, value public open m) residential, (Precincts 1, 3 space parkland and open and 4) space )
Arsenic 100 100 457
Barium 210 - 330
Cadmium <1 20 3
Cobalt 23 100 31
Chromium VI 100 ND
Chromium 73 - 140
Copper 84 6,000 905
Mercury (assumed to be 0.09 40 14.4 primarily inorganic)
Coffey 62 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 77 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Chemical Adopted EIL ESL – Urban HIL A HSL Management Maximum site Residential and (sand, <1 Limits (coarse soil, value public open m) residential, (Precincts 1, 3 space parkland and open and 4) space )
Lead 1128 300 975
Manganese 840 3,800 1600
Nickel 67 400 150
Selenium <2 200 ND
Tin 140 - 180
Vanadium 95 - 13
Zinc 124 7,400 3000
DDT 180 - 1
DDT + DDE + 240 2.12 DDD
Aldrin & 6 0.8 Dieldrin
Chlordane 50 6.94
Endosulfan 270 0.15
Heptachlor 6 4.69
Naphthalene 170 - 0.7
BaP 0.7 - 3.9
BaP TEQ 3 3.7
Total PAHs 300 37.7
F1 C6 – C110 180 45 700 130
F2 C10 – C16 120 110 1,000 4900
F3 C16 – C34 300 - 2,500 5600
F4 C34 – C40 2800 - 10,000 1160
Benzene 50 0.5 ND
Toluene 85 160 5
Ethylbenzene 70 55 0.12
Xylenes 105 40 0.45 Note:
Shading indicates maximum concentration exceeds one or more site based criteria.
Coffey 63 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 78 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Based on the above summary, the following contaminants are of concern in relation to final site conditions: Metals (in particular arsenic and lead):
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons – primarily long chain length (“heavy end”), TPH C10 to C40; and B(a)P TEQ. Asbestos Containing Material It is noted that monoaromatic hydrocarbons and organochlorine pesticides were detected at the site, at low concentrations only; i.e. above the laboratory limit of detection, but below the most conservative site-based criteria. Therefore, these contaminants are not considered to pose a risk at the site. 13.2.Further discussion of key contaminants of concern
13.2.1. Further discussion – arsenic concentrations
As shown in Figure 6a of Golder, 2014a, most of the elevated arsenic concentrations reported during the various ESAs were associated with the former rail corridors and was generally associated with the railway ballast (specifically the ballast fines) and the soils immediately underlying the rail corridors. Due to this being a common occurrence, it has been assumed that the arsenic contamination was a result of timber treatment of the rail sleepers used in the main rail lines and sidings, to prevent termite attack. The remedial works associated with the ballast involved the excavation, screening and disposal or where appropriate, the re-use of the ballast material. The re-use of ballast material predominantly involved the reuse of the ballast fines (<15mm diameter) as engineered stabilised fill within the deep remedial excavations to the east of the former turntable (P3R17, P3R18, P3R19 and P3R27)). Following remedial works, the arsenic soil concentrations within soil samples defining the final condition of the site (Appendix H1 of Golder, 2014a) ranged from <5 mg/kg to 457 mg/kg. 13.2.2. Further discussion – TPH
Diesel fuel contamination was identified in the following locations: Locomotive refuelling locations adjacent to the former Engine Shed (land Parcel 4.2 and Green Square). East of the former turntable (land Parcel 3.2). Former employee car park (Precinct 1), associated with either the former police station garage or the drainage interceptor pit. Rail corridor south of the former Signal Box west of the station (land Parcel 3.3). In addition to these diesel impacts associated with the railway use of the land, limited total petroleum hydrocarbon impacts (predominantly minor aesthetic impacts) were noted at the former Amoco service station site within Parcel 3.4 and the former UST location associated with the Ambulance Station (Parcel 4.2). The contaminant composition of the petroleum hydrocarbon impacts at the site generally reflects the use, spillage or leakage of diesel, with the total petroleum hydrocarbons represented by the TPH concentrations predominantly in the carbon range C10 to C16 and C16 to C34 (refer to Tables H1-1 to H1-3, Appendix H1 of Golder 2014a). It is noteworthy that no concentrations of the more volatile TPH C6 to C10 range or MAHs were recorded above laboratory detection limits were reported at these locations indicating that the contamination is exclusively heaver diesel-related and does not indicate contamination consistent with petrol contamination.
Coffey 64 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 79 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
The distribution of the elevated TPH (C10 to C40) within the two main areas of diesel impact; namely the location of the former employee car park (Parcel 1.1) and the east of the turntable (parcels 3.1 and 3.2) at 1 m depth horizons are presented in Figures 9 and 10. This indicates that the majority of the residual diesel impacts are within land parcels nominated from commercial use and are at depths of predominantly 2m bgl and below. Base on the above, it is recommended that the residual diesel impacts present at depth are managed into the future within a Soil Contamination Management Plan for these specific land parcels. 13.2.3. Further discussion – lead
Lead contamination was predominantly identified during the ESAs and remedial works in sections of shallow fill within the central section of Precinct 4 and the northern part of Precinct 3 within or adjacent to the former Car Cleaning Shed, which was reportedly lined and sealed with lead. Additionally lead contamination was also identified in defined shallow fill layers adjacent to the Station building and beneath the former employee car park. Based on the history of the site and the soil profile in which this lead contamination was identified, it is considered that this lead contamination resulted from either the construction / demolition and burial of material associated with the building fabric of the former Car Cleaning Shed or from building maintenance activities such and painting, plumbing etc. associated with other buildings at the site. Following remedial works, the lead soil concentrations within soil samples defining the final condition of the site (Appendix H1 of Golder) ranged from <5 mg/kg to 975 mg/kg. Following remediation, the main areas of lead contamination associated with the former Car Cleaning Shed and other localised shallow fill layers identified as containing elevated lead and leachable concentrations had been successfully remediated. No lead soil concentration exceeds the nominated human health screening criteria for the proposed land uses. 13.2.4. Further discussion – metals
As shown in Figures H1-2, H1-4 and H1-5 (Appendix H1 of Golder, 2014a) individual soil concentrations of copper, mercury and zinc are present which although below the adopted screening criteria protective of human health are marginally in excess of ecological criteria (NEPM EILs). A statistical review of the data for these metals by land parcels (Tables H1-4 to H1-7, Appendix H1 of Golder, 2014a) and consideration of the proposed land uses, it is considered that these isolated elevated soil concentration for these metals and not sufficient to preclude the proposed development of the site. 13.2.5. Further discussion – benzo(a)pyrene and PAH
Tables H1-1 to H1-3, Appendix H1 of Golder, 2014a present the soil sample concentrations related to the final land condition. The highest benzo(a)pyrene soil concentration remaining at the site is present in fill beneath the floor slab of the former Goods Shed and beneath the eastern section for the renovated station platform. Post remediation, all soil concentrations for benzo(a)pyrene and Total PAHs are below the adopted health screening criteria except for a minor exceedance of B(a)P TEQ criteria in the Promenade Link (maximum of 3.7 mg/kg); assessed not to be statistically significant for the proposed open-space use based on 95% UCL calculation. 13.2.6. Further discussion – organochlorine pesticides
Although organochlorine pesticides have been stored and used historically at the site (predominantly identified as heptachlor and aldrin / dieldrin), the soil sample concentrations representative of the final soil conditions (refer to Tables H1-1, H1-2 and H1-3, Appendix H1 of Golder, 2014a) are not at concentrations significant enough to preclude the proposed land uses set out in the Masterplan.
Coffey 65 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 80 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
13.2.7. Further discussion – Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM)
During the remediation of the site, significant amounts of ACM fragments were identified in shallow fill profiles within localised areas of the site. This was predominantly within the central section of Precinct 4 and within a fill layer beneath the former employee car park; however it was also noted that minor amounts of ACM were present either at the surface or within the shallow fill within localised sections of the remainder of the site. It is considered that this ACM was likely to have resulted from the historical demolition of the railway buildings and infrastructure undertaken in the 1960’s or potentially from imported fill used at the site. During the remedial works, excavated soils observed to contain fragments of ACM were segregated and disposed off-site to a suitably licenced facility under environmental controls overseen by a registered asbestos contractor. These environmental controls included air monitoring for asbestos fibres during the works. Following completion of remedial works, visual inspections and clearance for surface ACM were undertaken. The clearance certificates associated with these visual inspections are provided in Appendix H2 of Golder, 2014a. It is possible however that ACM may still exist within fill remaining at the site, particularly within the shallow subsurface in areas undisturbed by bulk excavation during the remediation. On this basis, a Soil Contamination Management Plan (SCMP) has been developed to ensure that future development and maintenance works involving sub surface intrusive excavations take into account the potential for ACM to be present in soils at the site. 13.3. Beneficial uses of soil
13.3.1. Ecosystem protection
The following table presents contaminants of concern at the site which exceed one or more ecological protection criteria (NEPM 2013 EIL and ESL criteria and natural background levels, as discussed in Section 7.1.1).
Table 13.2: Maximum contaminants of concern against ecological and human health (residential) criteria
Contaminant Adopted EIL ESL – Urban Residential and Maximum site value public open space (Precincts 1, 3 and 4)
457 Arsenic 100
330 Barium 210
3 Cadmium <1
31 Cobalt 23
140 Chromium 73
905 Copper 84
14.4 Mercury (assumed to be 0.09 primarily inorganic)
1600 Manganese 840
Coffey 66 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 81 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Contaminant Adopted EIL ESL – Urban Residential and Maximum site value public open space (Precincts 1, 3 and 4)
150 Nickel 67
180 Tin 140
3000 Zinc 124
BaP 0.7 3.9 4900 F2 C10 – C16 120 5600 F3 C16 – C34 300
Elevated concentrations of metal (in particular arsenic, copper, mercury and zinc) as well as residual benzo(a)pyrene and TPH (C10-C34) impacts are present across the site (including within Parcel 4.2) which exceed the beneficial use criteria for the protection of natural ecosystems.
Based on the limited range and nature of the metals and residual TPH concentrations in the soils, and the proposed uses of the site, it is considered that the concentrations do not pose harm or detriment to the ‘maintenance of modified ecosystems’ associated with residential or open space use or less sensitive uses. 13.3.2. Human health protection
The criteria for the protection of the beneficial use of human health are landuse specific as they are built on differing exposure scenarios. The following discussion of human health protection has addressed the proposed landuses. The human health criteria (Health Investigation Levels) provided in the NEPM (2013) are designed to be applied taking into account the statistical distribution of the soil contamination results. Human health is considered to be protected where the following criteria are met: The 95% UCL for a particular contaminant dataset is less than the adopted criteria. No individual concentration exceeds 250% of the adopted criteria.
Low density residential use
The results for contaminant of concern in relation to human health under low density residential use that takes into account hydrocarbon management limits are presented below.
Coffey 67 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 82 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Table 13.3: Land parcels – comparison of contaminants of concern with human health (residential – low density) screening criteria and management limit criteria
Contaminant (mg/kg)
B(a)P Total Arsenic Lead F1 * F2 ** F3 F4 TEQ PAH HIL A 100 300 3 300 250% HIL A 250 750 7.5 750 HSL A and B (sand <1m) 45 110 250% HSL A 112.5 275 Man Limit (coarse) Residential 700 1000 2500 10000
Parcel max 439 360 30 3440 3760 1160 ND 3.9 95 %UCL 131.5 97.63 297.3 645.4 Parcel 1.1 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail max 46 768 18 2300 3370 870 NA 0.8 95 %UCL 292.1 475.6 829.3 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Parcel 3.1 Fail Fail Fail max 72 340 130 4900 5600 830 1.9 32 95 %UCL 144.4 239.4 476.1 Parcel 3.2A Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail
max 354 975 ND ND 200 120 2.6 18.8 95 %UCL 89.22 184.5 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Parcel 3.3A Fail Fail
max 39 343 ND ND 140 ND ND ND 95 %UCL 80.77 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Parcel 3.4
max 277 670 ND 120 920 230 2.8 37.7
95 %UCL 87.84 199.9 . Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Parcel 4.1 Fail max 105 217 ND 80 600 300 ND 0.3 95 %UCL 19.73 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Parcel 4.2 max 231 572 ND 1300 3200 450 ND 1.7
95 %UCL 92.04 220.5 194.8 474.6 Precinct 3 roads Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail
max 457 230 ND 200 690 220 ND 0.2 95 %UCL 163 Precinct 4 roads Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail max 134 92 ND ND ND ND 3.7 27.7 UCL 57.81 0.703 Promenade Link Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Urban Square max 236 402 ND ND 190 ND 1.6 15.3
Coffey 68 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 83 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Contaminant (mg/kg)
B(a)P Total Arsenic Lead F1 * F2 ** F3 F4 TEQ PAH HIL A 100 300 3 300 250% HIL A 250 750 7.5 750 HSL A and B (sand <1m) 45 110 250% HSL A 112.5 275 Man Limit (coarse) Residential 700 1000 2500 10000
Parcel 95 %UCL 58.13 143.6 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
max 380 460 ND 1300 1600 180 ND 3.3 95 %UCL 86.48 267.2 210.9 P4 (Green Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Square) Fail Fail Therefore, with respect to the above table, the following parcels are considered suitable for low density residential landuse, with respect to chemical contamination. It is noted that ACM contamination is considered separately: Parcel 3.4; Parcel 4.2; Promenade Link; and Urban Square. The remaining parcels are not considered suitable for low density residential use.
High density residential use
An interpretation of the results for contaminant of concern in relation to human health under high density residential use that takes into account hydrocarbon management limits is presented below. Table 13.4: Land parcels – comparison of contaminants of concern with human health (residential – medium / high density) screening criteria and management limit criteria
Contaminant (mg/kg) B(a)P Total Arsenic Lead F1 * F2 ** F3 F4 TEQ PAH HIL B 500 1200 4 400
250% of HIL B 1250 3000 10 1000 HSL A and B (sand <1m) 45 110 250% of HSLAB 112.5 275 Management Limit (Residential, parkland and public open space) 700 1000 2500 10000
Parcel
Parcel 1.1 max 439 360 30 3440 3760 1160 ND 3.9 UCL 131.5 97.63 297.3 645.4
Coffey 69 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 84 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Contaminant (mg/kg) B(a)P Total Arsenic Lead F1 * F2 ** F3 F4 TEQ PAH HIL B 500 1200 4 400
250% of HIL B 1250 3000 10 1000 HSL A and B (sand <1m) 45 110 250% of HSLAB 112.5 275 Management Limit (Residential, parkland and public open space) 700 1000 2500 10000
Parcel Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail max 46 768 18 2300 3370 870 NA 0.8
Parcel 3.1 UCL 292.1 475.6 829.3 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail max 72 340 130 4900 5600 830 1.9 32 UCL 144.4 239.4 476.1 Parcel 3.2A Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail
max 354 975 ND ND 200 120 2.6 18.8 UCL 89.22 184.5 Parcel 3.3A Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
max 39 343 ND ND 140 ND ND ND UCL 80.77 Parcel 3.4 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
max 277 670 ND 120 920 230 2.8 37.7 UCL 87.84 199.9 . Parcel 4.1 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
max 105 217 ND 80 600 300 ND 0.3 UCL 19.73 Parcel 4.2 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
max 231 572 ND 1300 3200 450 ND 1.7
UCL 92.04 220.5 194.8 474.6 Precinct 3 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass roads Fail Fail
max 457 230 ND 200 690 220 ND 0.2 UCL 163 Precinct 4 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass roads max 134 92 ND ND ND ND 3.7 27.7 Promenade UCL 57.81 0.703 Link Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
max 236 402 ND ND 190 ND 1.6 15.3 UCL 58.13 143.6 Urban Square Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
P4(Green max 380 460 ND 1300 1600 180 ND 3.3
Coffey 70 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 85 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Contaminant (mg/kg) B(a)P Total Arsenic Lead F1 * F2 ** F3 F4 TEQ PAH HIL B 500 1200 4 400
250% of HIL B 1250 3000 10 1000 HSL A and B (sand <1m) 45 110 250% of HSLAB 112.5 275 Management Limit (Residential, parkland and public open space) 700 1000 2500 10000
Parcel Square) UCL 86.48 267.2 210.9 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Therefore with respect to the above table, the following parcels are considered suitable for high density residential landuse, with respect to chemical contamination. It is noted that ACM contamination is considered separately: Parcel 3.3A; Parcel 3.4; Parcel 4.1; Parcel 4.2; Precinct 4 roads; Urban Square; and Promenade Link. The remaining parcels are not considered suitable for residential use without management.
Open space (recreational) use
An interpretation of the results for contaminant of concern in relation to human health under open space use that takes into account hydrocarbon management limits is presented below. Table 13.5: Land parcels – comparison of contaminants of concern with human health (open space use) Screening criteria and management limit criteria.
Contaminant (mg/kg)
B(a)P Total Arsenic Lead F1 * F2 ** F3 F4 TEQ PAH HIL C 300 600 3 300 250% of HIL C 750 1500 7.5 750 HSL C (sand <1m) NL NL Man Limit (coarse) res and open space 700 1000 2500 10000
Parcel Parcel 1.1 Max 439 360 30 3440 3760 1160 ND 3.9 95% UCL 131.5 97.63 297.3 645.4
Coffey 71 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 86 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Contaminant (mg/kg)
B(a)P Total Arsenic Lead F1 * F2 ** F3 F4 TEQ PAH HIL C 300 600 3 300 250% of HIL C 750 1500 7.5 750 HSL C (sand <1m) NL NL Man Limit (coarse) res and open space 700 1000 2500 10000
Parcel Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Parcel 3.1 Max 46 768 18 2300 3370 870 NA 0.8 95% UCL 292.1 475.6 829.3 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pas Pass Fail Fail Parcel 3.2A Max 72 340 130 4900 5600 830 1.9 32 95% UCL 144.4 239.4 476.1 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail
Parcel 3.3A Max 354 975 ND ND 200 120 2.6 18.8
95% UCL 89.22 184.5 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Parcel 3.4 Max 39 343 ND ND 140 ND ND ND
95% UCL 80.77 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Parcel 4.1 Max 277 670 ND 120 920 230 2.8 37.7
95% UCL 87.84 199.9 . Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Parcel 4.2 Max 105 217 ND 80 600 300 ND 0.3 95% UCL 19.73 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Precinct 3 roads max 231 572 ND 1300 3200 450 ND 1.7
95% UCL 92.04 220.5 194.8 474.6 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Precinct 4 roads max 457 230 ND 200 690 220 ND 0.2 95% UCL 163 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Promenade Link Max 134 92 ND ND ND ND 3.7 27.7 95% UCL 57.81 0.703 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Urban Square Max 236 402 ND ND 190 ND 1.6 15.3 95% UCL 58.13 143.6 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
P4(Green Square) Max 380 460 ND 1300 1600 180 ND 3.3 95% UCL 86.48 267.2 210.9 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail
Coffey 72 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 87 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Therefore with respect to the above table, the following parcels are considered suitable for open space landuse, with respect to chemical contamination. It is noted that ACM contamination is considered separately: Parcel 3.3A; Parcel 3.4; Parcel 4.1; Parcel 4.2; Precinct 4 roads; Urban Square; and Promenade Link. The remaining parcels are not considered to be suitable for open space use without management.
Commercial / industrial use
An interpretation of the results for contaminant of concern in relation to human health under commercial / industrial use that takes into account hydrocarbon management limits is presented below.
Coffey 73 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 88 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Table 13.6: Land parcels – comparison of contaminants of concern with human health (commercial / industrial use) screening criteria and management limit criteria.
Contaminant (mg/kg)
B(a)P Total Arsenic Lead F1 * F2 ** F3 F4 TEQ PAH
HIL D 3000 1500 40 4000
250% of HIL D 7500 3750 100 10000 HSL D (sand <1m) 260 NL
250% of HSL D 650 NL Man Limit (coarse) commercial 700 1000 3500 10000
Parcel max 439 360 30 3440 3760 1160 ND 3.9 UCL 131.5 97.63 297.3 645.4 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Parcel 1.1 Fail Fail
max 46 768 18 2300 3370 870 NA 0.8 UCL 292.1 475.6 829.3 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Parcel 3.1 Fail max 72 340 130 4900 5600 830 1.9 32 UCL 144.4 239.4 476.1 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Parcel 3.2A Fail Fail
max 354 975 ND ND 200 120 2.6 18.8
UCL 89.22 184.5 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Parcel 3.3A max 39 343 ND ND 140 ND ND ND
UCL 80.77 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Parcel 3.4
max 277 670 ND 120 920 230 2.8 37.7
UCL 87.84 199.9 . Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Parcel 4.1 max 105 217 ND 80 600 300 ND 0.3 UCL 19.73 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Parcel 4.2 max 231 572 ND 1300 3200 450 ND 1.7 Thanks UCL 92.04 220.5 194.8 474.6 Precinct 3 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass roads Fail
max 457 230 ND 200 690 220 ND 0.2 Precinct 4 UCL 163 roads Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Promenade max 134 92 ND ND ND ND 3.7 27.7
Coffey 74 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 89 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Contaminant (mg/kg)
B(a)P Total Arsenic Lead F1 * F2 ** F3 F4 TEQ PAH
HIL D 3000 1500 40 4000
250% of HIL D 7500 3750 100 10000 HSL D (sand <1m) 260 NL
250% of HSL D 650 NL Man Limit (coarse) commercial 700 1000 3500 10000
Parcel Link UCL 57.81 0.703 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
max 236 402 ND ND 190 ND 1.6 15.3 UCL 58.13 143.6 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Urban Square max 380 460 ND 1300 1600 180 ND 3.3 UCL 86.48 267.2 210.9 P4(Green Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Square) Fail
Therefore with respect to the above table, the following parcels are considered suitable for commercial landuse, with respect to chemical contamination. It is noted that ACM contamination is considered separately: Parcel 3.3A; Parcel 3.4; Parcel 4.1; Parcel 4.2; Precinct 4 roads; Urban Square; and Promenade Link. The remaining parcels are not considered to be suitable for commercial use without management. 13.3.3. Buildings and structures (with respect to soil impacts)
The beneficial use of land of “buildings and structures” does not have specific objectives; however the Land SEPP (2002) requires that “Contamination must not cause the land to be corrosive to or adversely affect the integrity of structures or building materials”. The Land SEPP also lists pH, sulphate and redox potential, salinity or any chemical substance or waste that may have a detrimental impact as indicators of soil condition with respect to buildings and structures. While no analytical testing of the soil was conducted for redox potential, the reported salinity (based on testing for electrical conductivity), sulphate (less than 2%) and pH levels (all within the range 4.9 to 9.5, and average of 7) in soil indicate the soils present on site are nonaggressive to buildings and structures therefore the risk to buildings and structures is low.
Coffey 75 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 90 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
There are areas of the site where there are remnant concentration of long chain hydrocarbons that potentially pose a risk to polymer conduits and building components. The CEMP includes procedures to address that potential risk. In addition, the natural soils are not known to present chemical conditions that would pose an adverse chemical impact to buildings and structures nor were there any observations in the field that suggested the presence of natural soil types that may generate chemically reactive conditions to buildings and structures. 13.3.4. Aesthetics
A consideration of aesthetics covers both visual and olfactory aesthetic impacts. The remedial works undertaken at the site targeted the removal of some areas of buried waste (predominantly historical demolition wastes,) which were considered to represent an unacceptable aesthetic impact. These areas predominantly included the following: Shallow fill within the southern section of land Parcel 4.2 (remedial excavations P4R15 and P4R23) which is proposed to be used for low density residential use. This area was historically backfilled with material with significant quantities of ash and coke, and included asbestos sheeting fragments and historical porcelain (including old crockery from Country trains) and glass bottle fragments. This fill layer was up to 0.4 m thick and was fully removed and confirmed visually by the auditor. Localised buried waste was also removed from the former residential properties in land Parcel 4.2 (fronting onto South Street) (remediation excavations P4R09, P4R10 and P4R11). All ballast within the former rail corridors was removed, screened and either re-used as engineered backfill (ballast fines geotechnically stabilised and re-used at depth in remediation excavations P3R17, P3R18, P3R19 and P3R27) or disposed off-site. Localised buried waste was also removed from the demolished commercial property 97, 99 and 101 High Street (remedial excavations P1R03 and P1R07), Precinct 1. Buried waste (vehicle number plates) were excavated from the below ground water storage tank associated with the former police station located in the north east section of Precinct 1. A shallow fill layer with diesel, ACM and aesthetically (stained and odorous) material was also removed from beneath the former employee car park as part of the remediation excavations P1R09, P1R13 and P1R14. As shown in Figure 8, approximately 30 to 40 % of the surface of the site was remediated via excavation, with the majority of these excavations backfilled with quarry sourced imported fill material. It is therefore considered that the final site profile in these areas has removed any material considered to be visually aesthetically impaired from the near surface. It is possible that areas outside the areas which were remediated, contain material with some aesthetic impacts. In addition to visual aesthetic impacts, residual odorous soils may also be present at the site. This predominantly relates to odours associated with hydrocarbon odours from areas of residual diesel impacts at depth. These include: Precinct 1:
. Diesel impacts at depth beneath the former employee car park and around the large diameter drainage pipe aligned south north through this section of the site.
Precinct 3:
. Diesel impacts at depth in the section of the site to the east of the former turntable.
. Backfilled former tank pits within the former Amoco service station site.
. Diesel impacts at depth associated with the former Engine Shed (also extends into Precinct 4).
Coffey 76 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 91 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Precinct 4:
. Diesel impacts at depth associated with the former Engine Shed and Refuelling Area 2.
. Backfilled UST pit and former bowser at the current Ambulance Station site (South Street). 13.3.5. Production of food, flora and fibre
No specific guidance is available for the protection of this beneficial use. However it is noted that the NEPM 2013, HIL A criteria, are designed to apply to residential with garden accessible soil (home grown produce <10% fruit and vegetable intake). Therefore, it is considered that if the soil is suitable for low density use, then the production of food, flora and fibre is also considered to be protected under that landuse scenario. Therefore the production of food, flora and fibre is considered to be protected on these parcels: Parcel 3.4; Parcel 4.2; Promenade Link; and Urban Square. The remaining parcels are not considered to be suitable for production of food, flora and fibre without specific further assessment being made or management measures being taken to ensure that use is protected. 13.4. Vapour considerations
Consideration of the potential for volatile contaminant impacts has been made through the assessment of the site history and soil and groundwater analysis results. Based on the outcomes of this assessment it is noted that: Although there is evidence of hydrocarbon impacts (soil and groundwater) remaining at the site, it is almost exclusively related to diesel impacts associated with the maintenance and refuelling of diesel locomotives (predominantly less volatile TPH in the C10-C34 carbon range). The one 7 exception is within Parcel 3.2A where TPH C6-C9 exceeded the HSL-A criteria for coarse soil. The various ESAs and remediation validation works did not identify the presence of the more volatile TPH C6-C10, monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, semi volatile organic compounds or volatile organic compounds at concentrations above the analytical method reporting limit in soils or groundwater.
The residual soil concentrations of TPH C10 - C34 and the dissolved phase groundwater concentrations for TPH were generally low. Based on the criteria adopted for the assessment and remediation of the site (Golder 2102a), it is considered that the final site condition, while indicating localised diesel impacts at depth which represent a potential aesthetic impact, does not indicate a significant vapour risk to future users of the site under the proposed development scenario provided the SCMP is implemented appropriately.
7 Note that the presence of hydrocarbons in the F1, F2 and F3 fraction exceeding management limits means that Parcel 3.is unsuitable for residential use but was suitable for open space and commercial / industrial uses with reference to management limits.
Coffey 77 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 92 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
13.5. Summary of soil contamination impact to beneficial uses of land
Given the nature and extent of contamination in the surficial fill soils at the site, the following observations are made regarding impacts to potential beneficial uses to be protected under the Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land SEPP (EPA 2002). Maintenance of ecosystems – natural is compromised by the presence of TPH, arsenic and a range of metals at concentrations above adopted EILs, ESLs or background concentrations. Human health is potentially compromised in some areas where (i) elevated arsenic, lead and TPHs exceed the criteria for standard and high density residential use and (ii) arsenic and TPH exceed the criteria for recreational use. Protection of human health under open space and commercial industrial uses is not compromised by the presence of soil contamination. Buildings / structures (underground plastic components) are potentially compromised by the presence of remnant long chain petroleum hydrocarbons at some location, unless management measures are implemented. Aesthetics is potentially compromised in some locations though can be managed in the context of the proposed development by use of either a condition in the Statement of Environmental Audit for Parcel 4.2 or the Soil Contamination Management Plan for all other Precincts. Production of food, flora and fibre may be compromised by the presence of arsenic and metals on parcels other than Parcel 3.4; Parcel 4.2; Promenade Link; and Urban Square.
14. Assessment of groundwater contamination
Based on the site history as rail land with associated rail yard and maintenance and refuelling facilities, there was considered to be the potential for contamination to have occurred. In addition to the railway use, some areas of the site have been used for other industrial uses including a service station and possible drycleaner. Therefore, it was determined that groundwater assessment was appropriate. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed over a number of phases of investigation, by Golder and Senversa. The final groundwater assessment was based on a total of 25 wells located on Precincts 1, 3 and 4 and five additional off-site wells installed between 10.2 to 15.2 m depth. The wells were installed into the Shepparton Formation sediments. The sediments encountered were predominantly silty clay, sandy clay and clayey sand. Sand inferred to be in layers or lenses was encountered in seven bores (MW01, MW02, MW03, MW04, MW05, MW10 and MW27) in intervals between 7 m and 11 m below ground surface. Six rounds of groundwater monitoring were conducted as described below, although it is noted that not all groundwater wells were sampled in each monitoring round: July 2002; June 2010; November 2010; March 2011; August 2012; August 2013; and October 2013 (conducted by the auditor assistant). A complete set of groundwater monitoring results is included as Table T2 to the rear of this report.
Coffey 78 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 93 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
14.1. Groundwater levels and interpreted groundwater flow direction
During the eight rounds of groundwater investigation undertaken at the site, groundwater has been encountered at depths generally ranging between 10.5 and 12 mbgl in most monitoring bores. However, groundwater was encountered at depths of 9 to 9.5 mbgl in bores MW18, MW23, MW24 and MW25 in the east of the site. The most recent monitoring round was conducted in July 2014 but this monitoring round was only to monitor water levels for bores on the eastern part of the site to assess local mounding of groundwater and did not give overall groundwater flow directions across the whole of the site. The reason for the restricted gauging program was that the auditor wishes to confirm groundwater direction around the identified hydrocarbon impacts. In the most recent full monitoring round (October 2013), the measured groundwater levels varied from a maximum of 153.96 mAHD in well MW14 offsite to the west (Precinct 5 located to the west of the site) to minimums of 152.76 mAHD in well MW25 in the northeast (offsite, east of Precinct 3 and north of Precinct 1) and in well MW 17 in the southeast (Precinct 1). However, there was a groundwater high in the vicinity of bore MW23 in the east (offsite, north of the Precinct 1 boundary). In this bore, the groundwater level was 153.01 mAHD. The groundwater level in bore MW 15 was 152.98 mAHD when last measured in August 2012 which is similar to the measured level in MW23. This bore was located close to the drainage interceptor pit and drain that collected drainage from the eastern part of the site (See Section 4.6). The drain collected stormwater from the eastern and southern part of the site and diverted water into the shallow north trending drainage line extending north from the site (Figures 4 and 6). It is considered possible that the pit and drain in this area have allowed increased groundwater recharge which has resulted in the groundwater mound. There is no other known reason for the mounding to have occurred. The trends in groundwater levels over time are not clear because of the different periods various bores have been monitored over. However, it is observed that: There appears to be a slight north west/south east trending groundwater mound that reverses groundwater flow in the middle of the site. Locally in the south east the groundwater gradient is flat. Interpretation of the 2010, 2011 and 2013 data supports a NE groundwater flow direction over (the majority of) Precincts 1, 3 and 4. The July 2014 data indicates the groundwater high and divide has extended west since October 2013. It is considered likely that it is increasingly disrupting the original north east trending and NE or NNE groundwater flow direction under the east of the site. The majority of remedial work on site involving excavation of contaminated soil and removal of services occurred in 2013. This involved considerable remediation in the area of MW15/MW22/MW07. It is conceivable that the remedial works have resulted in the increasing groundwater infiltration and rising groundwater levels in the area into which the groundwater high/divide is extending. Using the pre-remediation, dominantly north east groundwater flow direction as representative of the long term groundwater flow direction, bores MW08, MW16, MW18, MW23, MW24 and MW25 are down hydraulic gradient of wells MW07 and MW15 where TPH has been found in groundwater. There is no indication of TPH in these bores. Based on the borehole logs for MW07 and MW15 (where TPH has been found), Golder has made the following calculations. Assuming a clayey sand soil, using the hydraulic gradient between MW07 and MW08 in March 2011 (1.2x10-2), the hydraulic gradient is in the range 1x10-6 to 1x10-7 m/sec and an effective porosity of 0.1.
Coffey 79 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 94 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Golder has calculated a velocity in the range of 0.38 to 3.8 m/year. Over a 50 year time span, this would represent between 20 and 200 m of movement. Therefore, Golder has concluded that if there was a significant groundwater plume it would have reached some of the surrounding wells prior to remediation and pre-remediation measurements showed it had not. Based on the above discussion, it is considered that relative groundwater levels have not changed significantly in the overall monitoring period from 2002 to 2013 but have fluctuated (fallen then risen) by in the order of 1m during that time, likely due to temporal variation in rainfall. Groundwater Levels in October 2013 are shown on Figure 13 and groundwater contours in July 2014 are presented in Figure 12.
Coffey 80 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 95 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
14.2. Groundwater analytical results
A full set of results for all monitoring round is presented in Table T2 to the rear of this report. The following table presents a summary of chemicals which exceed one or more relevant beneficial use criteria in the most recent monitoring round.
Table 14.1: Summary of exceedances in most recent monitoring rounds (mg/L)
Contaminant Concentration Wells which Maximum Maintenance of Potable water & Stock water(3)r Agriculture, range August exceed criteria concentration – Ecosystems(1) PCR(2) parks and 2013 (or most August 2013 (or all rounds gardens(4) recent available) most recent available) Onsite TPH C10-C36 <0.05 - (4.27) (MW07) - 4.27 4.27 0.6(6) 0.6(6) 0.6(6) 0.6(6) (MW15) - 1.22
Arsenic (Total) <0.001 – 0.209 102003 - 0.209 0.209 0.013(1) 0.01 0.5 0.1
Copper <0.001 – (0.004) (MW02) - 0.003 0.001 0.0014 2 0.4 0.2 (MW03) - 0.003 (MW05) - 0.003 (MW09) - 0.002 (MW11) - 0.003 (MW12) - 0.004 (MW13) - 0.002 (MW15) - 0.003 (MW16) - 0.004 (MW18) - 0.003
Lead <0.001 – (0.003) No wells 0.029 0.0034 0.01 100 2 exceeded in most recent round
Manganese <0.001 – 0.181 MW26 - 0.181 0.26 1.9 0.5 NL 0.2
Coffey 81 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 96 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Contaminant Concentration Wells which Maximum Maintenance of Potable water & Stock water(3)r Agriculture, range August exceed criteria concentration – Ecosystems(1) PCR(2) parks and 2013 (or most August 2013 (or all rounds gardens(4) recent available) most recent available) Mercury <0.001 - 0.0066 (MW07) 0.0008 0.0066 0.00006 0.001 0.002 0.002 (MW08) 0.0066
Nickel <0.001 - (0.262) (MW07) - 0.028 0.262 0.011 0.02 1 0.2 (MW08) - 0.082 (MW11) - 0.135 (MW12) - 0.262 (MW18) - 0.018
Zinc <0.005 – 0.018 (MW03) - 0.018 0.099 0.008 - 20 2 (MW05) - 0.013 (MW07) - 0.022 (MW08) - 0.033 (MW09) - 0.021 (MW11) - 0.015 (MW12) - 0.018 (MW15) - 0.015 (MW16) - 0.027 (MW18) - 0.018 MW26 - 0.012
Nitrate 0.93 - (35.4) All results exceed 64.2 0.35 50 400 - criteria
Ammonia <0.01 – 0.77 102004 – 0.77 2.2 0.9 0.5 A
Notes: 1: Guideline from ANZECC 2000 95% Freshwater Ecosystem protection level 2: NHMRC 2011 Australian Drinking Water Criteria as nominated by NEPM 2013 3: ANZECC 2000 criteria for Livestock drinking water
Coffey 82 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 97 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Notes to Table (continued) 4: ANZECC 2000 Water quality for irrigation and general water use. Long Term Trigger Values. 5: ANZECC 2000, 99% species protection levels used where directed by NEPM 2013. 6: NSW EPA 1994 7: This is the criteria for arsenic V, which is the more conservative criteria. A: Aesthetic Criteria used where no health based criteria are available () Brackets denote August 2013 (or 2014 for MW27) data was not available and the most recent available data has been used in its place. Any data older than 2010 has not been considered (as it is dates from 2002).
Coffey 83 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 98 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
A comparison of results which exceed one or more beneficial use criteria, with up and down-gradient contaminant concentrations is presented in the table below.
Table 14.2: Summary of exceedances, against up and down gradient concentrations, in most recent monitoring rounds (mg/L)
Contaminant Up- Onsite Down- Maintenance Potable Stock Agriculture, PCR Buildings gradient gradient of water water parks and (2) & (MW10, (MW23, Ecosystems(1) (acceptable) (3) gardens (4) Structures 102006, MW24, (2) (8) 102003) MW27)
TPH C10-C36 <0.05- <0.05- <0.05 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 - 0.2 (4.27) Arsenic <0.0001- <0.001– <0.001- 0.013(7) 0.01 0.5 0.1 0.01 - (Total) 0.003 0.209 0.001 Copper 0.001- <0.001 0.002- 0.0014 2 0.4 0.2 2 - (0.004) – 0.006 (0.004) Manganese (0.052) <0.001 0.01- 1.9 0.5 NL 0.2 0.5 - – 0.181 0.071 Mercury <0.0001 <0.001- <0.0001 0.00006 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 - (0.0066) Nickel 0.005- <0.001 - 0.003- 0.011 0.02 1 0.2 0.02 - (0.036) (0.262) 0.011 Zinc 0.006- <0.005 0.01- 0.008 - 20 2 - - (0.042) – 0.099 (0.033) Nitrate (18.1) - 0.93- 1.83- 0.35 50 400 - 50 - (64.2) (35.4) 9.12 Ammonia <0.01- <0.01 – <0.01- 0.9 0.5 A 0.5 A - (0.02) 0.77 0.03 Notes: 1: Guideline from ANZECC 2000 95% Freshwater Ecosystem protection level 2: NHMRC 2011 Australian Drinking Water Criteria as nominated by NEPM 2013 3: ANZECC 2000 criteria for Livestock drinking water 4: ANZECC 2000 Water quality for irrigation and general water use. Long Term Trigger Values. 5: ANZECC 2000, 99% species protection levels used where directed by NEPM 2013. 6: NSW EPA 1994 7: This is the criteria for arsenic (V), which is the more conservative criteria. 8: AS3600-2009 (no criteria exceeded) A: Aesthetic Criteria used where no health based criteria are available () Brackets denote August 2013 (or 2014 for MW27) data was not available and the most recent available data has been used in its place. Any data older than 2010 has not been considered (as it is dates from 2002).
14.2.1. Discussion of individual analytes
Arsenic
Only one well (102003) contained elevated arsenic. This well was located on the southern boundary of Precinct 4. According to the October 2013 groundwater contours, this well is representative of up- gradient impacts, indicating that the arsenic is entering the site from an up-gradient source, and attenuating before it reaches the nearest down-gradient well. Thus, in spite of there being soil contaminated with arsenic, it is not considered to be a site sourced impact to groundwater.
Copper
There are widespread exceedances of the maintenance of ecosystem criteria for copper across the site and in the surrounding bores. The exceedances are relatively minor with all results being within the same order of magnitude as the criteria. In addition, there is no apparent trend with all results being within the same order of magnitude. No other criteria are exceeded for copper. It is concluded
Coffey 84 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 99 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3 that copper is naturally slightly elevated and as there is no evidence of a site source, the contamination is likely to be regional.
Lead
Historically, some lead exceedances occurred at the site, although none occurred in the most recent monitoring round. The lead concentrations which were historically observed were of a relatively minor nature (maximum concentration of 0.029 mg/L) and a restricted occurrence with the major sources of leachable lead having been removed (Section 12). Thus, it is not considered that lead is a remaining contaminant of concern in groundwater at the site.
Manganese
One well contained elevated manganese in the most recent monitoring round (MW26). This occurred on the north western boundary (Parcel 4.2). Manganese exceedances were not detected in any other well and it is considered that this single manganese exceedance may indicate up-gradient groundwater conditions, as groundwater is interpreted to move onto the site from the south west.
Mercury
Two wells (MW07 and MW08) in Precinct 3 exceeded the criteria for ecosystem protection in the most recent samples collected from these wells. MW08 (0.0055 mg/L) also exceeded all other relevant groundwater beneficial use criteria. Mercury was a minor component of soil contamination at the site. These two wells are located in the north eastern portion of Precinct 3, in the vicinity of the old turntable. Golder points out that the concentrations reported as part of the audit of the Former Police Station and Law Courts to the south of the site ranged from <0.0001 to 0.003 mg/l (Kilpatrick and Associates November 2005). Golder thus considers that mercury is likely to be background in nature.
However, the auditor notes that mercury in the small area of impact is higher on-site than in the up- gradient wells, and in addition there is a potential source at the site in the form of the contaminated fill material. Thus, there is the potential that the mercury may be site sourced, although highly restricted in occurrence.
Nickel
Nickel concentrations are distributed widely across the site wells and the surrounding wells. The highest concentrations are located at monitoring wells MW11 and MW12 which are located near the up-gradient southern site border. Therefore, it is considered that nickel is likely to be background in nature, rather than related to a site source.
Zinc
Zinc concentrations in excess of the maintenance of ecosystems are widespread across the site and surrounding off-site wells. The highest concentration recorded in the most recent sampling was 0.042 mg/L from monitoring well MW14 which is located off-site to the west. As discussed, groundwater flow is somewhat ambiguous but interpreted to be to the north east in the western portion of the site. Therefore, it is interpreted that the cross gradient zinc concentrations are higher than the site concentrations, indicating zinc is likely to be background in nature or due to an up-gradient source.
Nitrate
Nitrate concentrations in excess of the nominal maintenance of ecosystem criteria of 0.35 mg/L are present across the site. The highest concentration at the site in the most recent sampling was 35.4 mg/L. The highest concentration in the off-site wells was 64.2 mg/L in monitoring well MW14 which is interpreted as being cross-gradient.
As discussed previously, where background concentrations of nitrate exist, the background concentrations become the new objective.
The auditor has obtained information on nitrate at surrounding sites with reference to the following reports:
Coffey 85 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 100 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
CH2M HILL (2008) Environmental Audit: Former Police Station and Law Courts Complex, 41-43 Elgin Street, Wodonga, Victoria.
The former police station site is located to the south of the current audit site, and is interpreted as being up-gradient. Nitrate levels measured over three rounds from May 2004 to February 2005, ranged from 0.31 mg/L to 110 mg/L. This was interpreted by the auditor to be representative of regional groundwater contamination.
The following report contains information on the general Wodonga Central Rail Precinct which includes the subject site:
Senversa (2011) Supplementary Environmental Site Assessment, Wodonga Central Rail Precinct, Elgin Boulevard, Wodonga.
Senversa also identified elevated nitrate and ammonia within groundwater at the site. Senversa interpreted this as originating from up-gradient sources including leaking sewer mains, the stockyard and coal storage.
Therefore, it is considered that the nitrate levels are likely to represent regional impacts from up- gradient sources, rather than site-derived contamination.
Ammonia
Relative to the widespread nitrate contamination, ammonia contamination was very limited. Low levels of ammonia were detected in most wells at the site, but only one exceedance of criteria occurred in the most recent round, a concentration of 0.77 mg/L in well 102004. This well is located near the southern boundary of the site and may potentially indicate up-gradient impacts. Given the low magnitude and isolated nature of the ammonia exceedance it is not considered to be a contaminant of concern with respect to groundwater.
Other inorganics
There were a number of exceedances for sodium, chloride and fluoride. The auditor does not consider these chemicals to be contaminants and not site-sourced, thus they have not been considered further. Sodium and chloride are natural components of saline water. Fluoride is associated with reticulated water and is more likely to be due to leaky drainage (which has already been hypothesised) rather than to site-sourced contamination impacts.
TPH contamination
TPH exceedances at the site are represented graphically in Figure 17. TPH exceeded the nominated criteria in two monitoring wells at the site; i.e. at MW07 in the vicinity of the former turntable and MW15 in the area of the former carpark.
In relation to TPH contamination, the auditor requested additional information about the extent of impact. The auditor was concerned that there was not sufficient certainty regarding groundwater flow direction to ensure that the groundwater TPH impacts had been fully delineated. Therefore, in order to confirm groundwater direction, two additional rounds of groundwater gauging were conducted in October 2013 and June 2014.
Based on the June 2014 groundwater sampling round, it appears that groundwater in the vicinity of monitoring well MW07 is flowing to the north-west, meaning that groundwater and associated impacts must travel approximately 60 m before reaching the down-gradient boundary. TPH levels are less than the nominated criteria at all the wells surrounding MW07. This indicates that groundwater is not leaving the site with TPH concentrations which pose a risk to beneficial uses.
Groundwater direction in the vicinity of MW15 by contrast is towards the south. Groundwater must travel approximately 90-95 m before reaching the down-gradient boundary. TPH levels were less than the reporting limit at all monitoring wells surrounding MW15 indicating that groundwater impacts are not likely to extent off-site.
Coffey 86 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 101 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
In support of the above interpretation, Golder (2014c) has provided a table describing the delineation of the contamination in relation to the primary impacted wells. This table has been reproduced below. Based on this table, and with reference to Figure 17, it can be seen that TPH concentrations are attenuating to acceptable levels before they reach the site boundaries.
Table 14.3: Concentrations around source wells (after Golder 2014c)
Well in which TPH Adjacent wells Location TPH C10-C36 exceedance occurred (time-sequenced results) MW08 Up gradient 55m, north boundary <0.1 / <0.05 MW25 Up gradient 60m, off site <0.05 MW16 Cross gradient 23m, east 0.36 / 0.24/ 0.21 boundary MW07 MW24 Cross gradient 43m, off site <0.05 MW06 Down gradient 50m, on site <0.1/ 0.39 / 0.45 /0.33 MW20 Down gradient 42m, on site <0.05 / <0.05 MW22 Down gradient 44m, east 0.11 / <0.05 boundary MW24 Up gradient 42m, off site <0.05 MW22 Up gradient 43m, east boundary 0.11 / <0.05 MW15 MW23 Cross gradient 60m, off site <0.05 MW18 Down gradient 27m, east <0.05 / <0.05 / <0.05 boundary
14.3.Discussion of beneficial use impacts - groundwater
As previously discussed, groundwater at the site is considered to be Segment A2. The potentially precluded beneficial uses of groundwater are:
Maintenance of Ecosystems;
Potable water (acceptable);
Mineral water;
Agriculture, parks and gardens;
Stock watering;
Primary Contact recreation;
Industrial water use; and
Buildings and Structures.
Due to the location of the site, the beneficial use of mineral water is considered irrelevant. Potentially precluded beneficial uses are summarised in the Table 14.3 and then described in more detail.
Coffey 87 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 102 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Table 14.4: Precluded beneficial use summary table
Precluded beneficial use Contaminant(s)
Maintenance of Ecosystems TPH, arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, zinc, nitrate and ammonia
Potable water (acceptable) TPH, arsenic, mercury, nickel, ammonia(A)
Mineral water NA
Agriculture, parks and gardens TPH, arsenic, mercury and nickel
Stock watering TPH, mercury
PCR TPH, arsenic, mercury, nickel, ammonia(A)
Industrial water use Based on the finding that other beneficial uses are precluded, it is assessed that this beneficial use is also be precluded.
Buildings and structures Not considered precluded
Notes: 1. Arsenic, copper, nickel, zinc, nitrate and ammonia are considered to be either naturally elevated or derived from an up-gradient source. 2. (A) denotes an exceedance of aesthetic criteria only 3. (NA) denotes not applicable at this site
14.3.1. Maintenance of ecosystems
The criteria for protection of maintenance of ecosystems are designed to be applied at the point of discharge to the nearest receiving water environment.
Maintenance of ecosystems criteria onsite are exceeded by concentrations of TPH, arsenic, copper, mercury, nickel, zinc, nitrate and ammonia. Of these contaminants, only mercury and TPH are considered to be likely to be site sourced. As discussed, the mercury occurrence is of highly restricted in occurrence and there is no evidence that mercury is moving off-site. The TPH is restricted to two areas of the site in Precinct 3 and Precinct 1 and as discussed in Section 14.2.1, the TPH exceedances do not extend beyond the site boundaries.
Therefore, it is precluded that maintenance of ecosystems at the receiving water body, is not precluded by site sourced contamination. 14.3.2. Potable water use
Potable water criteria are exceeded by concentrations of TPH, arsenic, mercury, nickel and ammonia (aesthetic concern only). As discussed, only TPH and mercury are considered to be site derived and are highly restricted in occurrence within Precinct 1 and 3 and do not extend beyond the site boundaries. However, this does mean that the beneficial use of potable water is restricted within Precincts 1 and 3.
Coffey 88 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 103 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
14.3.3. Agriculture, parks and gardens
Agriculture parks and gardens criteria are exceeded by concentrations of TPH, arsenic, mercury and nickel. As discussed only TPH and mercury are considered to be site-sourced. This beneficial use is precluded within Precincts 1 and 3. 14.3.4. Stock watering
Stock watering criteria are exceeded by concentrations of TPH and mercury which are considered to be site-sourced. Therefore, this beneficial use is considered to be precluded in Precincts 1 and 3. However, based on the proposed use it is unlikely that this beneficial use would be realised in this area. 14.3.5. Primary contact recreation
Primary contact recreation criteria are exceeded by concentrations of TPH, arsenic, mercury, nickel and ammonia (aesthetic concern only). As discussed, only TPH and mercury are considered to be site derived and are highly restricted in occurrence within Precinct 1 and 3 and do not extend beyond the site boundaries. However, this does mean that the beneficial use of potable water is restricted within Precincts 1 and 3. 14.3.6. Industrial water use
There are no generic criteria for industrial water use. However, it is considered that as other relevant beneficial uses are exceeded, this beneficial use is also exceeded for Precincts 1 and 3. However, based on the proposed use, it is unlikely that this beneficial use would be realised in this area. 14.3.7. Buildings and structures
Golder considers that the use of ‘buildings and structures’ is not relevant as the depth to groundwater was below the potential range of building basement levels, foundation piles and subsurface utilities and services (stormwater and sewer). On this basis, Golder considered that the beneficial use of buildings and structures was unlikely to be precluded by identified groundwater conditions. The auditor concurs with this interpretation. 14.4. Conclusions regarding groundwater results
Of the chemicals of potential concern which were detected in the groundwater at the site, only mercury and TPH were considered to be site-sourced. It is noted that the exceedances for these chemicals were restricted to Precincts 1 and 3, while groundwater quality within Precinct 4 was not impacted by any site derived chemical (although some inorganics and metals were regionally elevated).
Coffey 89 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 104 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
15. CUTEP considerations
As discussed in Section 14 of the audit report, it has been determined that groundwater contamination exists at the site at levels which preclude one or more beneficial uses, and for which two chemicals (mercury and TPH C10-C36) are considered likely to have originated from historic site contaminating activities.
In accordance with EPA Guidelines 759.2 (2014) Environmental Auditor, (Contaminated Land): Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit, Environmental auditors may assess and determine CUTEP for audits that meet one of the following criteria:
Non-source sites; Diffuse source site; and Source sites where pollution is contained within the boundary of the site.
The auditor has determined that the Junction Place, Wodonga site is a source site, for the following reasons:
Long-chain length TPH and mercury were determined to be elevated within soil at the site, and have likely originated from historic rail use and associated industries. The long chain length TPH and mercury concentrations at the site are higher in groundwater for on-site wells than the concentrations at up-gradient wells. Various other metals and ammonia are locally elevated but are considered to be either derived from up-gradient sources, or to be of a low magnitude and restricted occurrence. It is interpreted than the site-sourced groundwater pollution does not extend outside the site boundary, based on the interpreted groundwater flow direction and rate of transport and there being no exceedances of criteria for these contaminants in wells downgradient of the remediated sources.
Golder has prepared a CUTEP report, which is attached to this audit report (Appendix C). The adequacy of the Golder CUTEP submission is assessed with reference to the following CUTEP checklist table (EPA Publication 840.1 Attachment A).
Table 15.1: CUTEP checklist
Section/Page discussed Please Information included (reference is to this tick off report, unless otherwise stated) Executive Summary Title details and Section 3 Executive Summary Land area and Section 4 Past use Section 5 Surrounding land use (North, South, East and West) Section 4.2 Proposed future use Section 4.1 Geology Section 4.4
Coffey 90 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 105 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Section/Page discussed Please Information included (reference is to this tick off report, unless otherwise stated) Groundwater depth (m) Section 14.1 Executive Summary Groundwater flow direction and Section 14.1 Nearest surface water receptor (distance & direction) Section 4.6 Bore search (2 km radius) Section 4.5 Groundwater segment (note – most conservative segment Executive Summary should be used) and Section 6.2 Beneficial uses of groundwater identified Sections 6.2 and 4.5 Section 14.3 Precluded beneficial uses of groundwater identified Discussion of specific options Appendix J and Section 12 of Golder NA Cost Table 16 of Golder (2014b). Appropriate Technical feasibility methodologies and their feasibility Remediation options considerations were table assessed. Cost was not addressed Logistical feasibility directly as all methods considered were considered inappropriate for other reasons. Vapour risk considered Section 13.2 Responsible party identified Not applicable - GQMP Cost – establishment and annual - Duration - Water quality summary table showing results from all rounds of Table T2 monitoring (µg/L)
Separate table showing latest water quality results that are Table 14.2 above guidelines (µg/L) as per attached table (as a hard- and soft-copy Word document) An opinion on the source of all contaminants over criteria in the Section 14.2.1 groundwater (e.g. on-site source, off-site source, co-source) Groundwater - contamination maps for the primary chemicals of concern, ammonia and TPH, were provided by Golder Groundwater and soil contamination maps (2014a) and are reproduced as Figures 17&18 in the report. Additional soil contamination maps were provided throughout the audit.
Coffey 91 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 106 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Section/Page discussed Please Information included (reference is to this tick off report, unless otherwise stated) No hydrogeological See note cross sections have been provided, given the size and complexity of the site. Detailed figures Hydrogeological cross-section(s) of site showing (as a minimum) showing features of geology, groundwater levels, groundwater bores and any concern have been relevant features (e.g. USTs, excavations, utility services, provided in Golder building structures, etc). 2014a and have been reproduced in the audit report. The auditor is satisfied that these provide an adequate level of detail. Discussion of proposed GQRUZ (if applicable). This should Section 15.1 include sufficient information to identify it and an associated figure. N.B. A meeting should be held with EPA to discuss the GQRUZ. The GQRUZ itself should cover the known/modelled extent of all known precluded extractive beneficial uses. Not considered - Details and records of communications with off-site property applicable owners associated with the GQRUZ (if applicable). Not applicable - Any other issues of significance (e.g. Enforcement Notice, Significant Public Interest) Executive Summary A clear and concise executive summary providing all of the above information
15.1.GQRUZ determination
The auditor has recommended that the GQRUZ should apply to the entire site described as Precincts 1, 3 and 4 (as described in Figures 1 and 2).
Coffey 92 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 107 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
16. Summary and conclusions
Site and institutional setting This environmental audit report presents my opinion about the environmental condition of the site known as Junction Place, Wodonga and the potential environmental and human health risks that the site may present to the future use or re-development of the site. The site is subject to an environmental audit overlay and I was engaged by Places Victoria to audit the site. In preparing this report, I acknowledge that the suitability of the land has been assessed for all potential land uses. Junction Place comprises land in central Wodonga formerly associated with railway use; i.e. the railway station precinct now owned by Places Victoria. Central Wodonga has been bypassed by the Melbourne-Sydney rail line freeing up this land for other uses. Assessment approach Initially, it was intended to audit the site in three Precincts (Precincts 1, 3 and 4). Precincts 2 and 5 are located to the south and west of the audit site respectively, but did not require auditing as sensitive uses were not proposed. Towards the end of the audit, more specific uses associated with parcels within the three Precincts were proposed; meaning that re-analysis of data consistent with the preferred uses was required. Also, the audit commenced in 2012, using then current NEPM (1999) guidelines which were superseded in 2013 (NEPM, 2013). As a consequence, earlier data was assessed against now-superseded guidelines. Nevertheless, the NEPM 2013 guidelines were adopted and as far as practicable, all data was assessed against NEPM 2013 as it provides greater flexibility and certainty in assessing hydrocarbon and some inorganic contamination. The above changes in circumstance are reflected in the structure and outcomes of the audit. My appraisal of the site condition has been based on a series of soil and groundwater assessment undertaken at the site by the site assessor; Golder Associates. This was built on preceding assessments predominantly prepared by Senversa and URS Australia. The auditor is satisfied that Golder’s investigations followed a logical and orderly sequence that included a detailed and robust appraisal of the site history and surrounding areas. This was followed by a process of intrusive soil, groundwater evaluation that took account of the preliminary information and which was designed and executed according to industry standards and consistent with auditor guidelines. Remediation of soil contamination Areas requiring remediation were identified through this process and soil remediation works were then completed by a civil contractor (EESI Contracting) overseen by Golder. The approach taken to remediation, stepping out of remediation where required, and validation appeared systematic and robust; both on site and in documentation. Remediation occurred between February 2013 and January 2014 and involved removal of impacted soil, ballast and waste, biological breakdown of some petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil in biopiles and fixation of waste soils containing leachable lead, prior to reuse or disposal off-site. Reclassification of some waste soils was approved by EPA in this process. The auditor is satisfied that the works performed by the assessor pre- and post-remediation have resulted in a reliable set of data on which I can make an assessment of the environmental conditions of the site and risks which the site may present to human health or the environment. Groundwater Groundwater on parts of the site is impacted by contaminants in two categories: those derived from the site; TPH and potentially mercury and those assessed as being due to local (‘regional’) contamination; i.e. arsenic, copper, manganese, nickel, zinc, ammonia and nitrate. Groundwater assessment was based on eight rounds of assessment. While only limited groundwater assessment has occurred post remediation, the hydrogeological information and assessment data are sufficiently consistent or of low significance that the auditor is satisfied that groundwater
Coffey 93 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 108 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3 contamination poses no unacceptable risk to users of the site or off-site users and that ongoing groundwater monitoring is not required to ensure that risks posed by groundwater remain acceptable. The report contains a CUTEP determination made by the auditor with an on-site Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone (GQRUZ) being recommended for Precincts 1, 3 and 4; i.e. the whole of the audit site. Only EPA can determine that a site is a GQRUZ or is within a GQRUZ. Outcomes of the environmental audit Given the nature and extent of contamination in soils at the site, and after assessment of impacts to the beneficial uses of land and groundwater on the various parcels at the site, the following conclusions have been made regarding suitability of the parcels for use:
Parcel 4.2 - suitable for agricultural, low density residential use (and less sensitive uses), subject to conditions in the Statement of Environmental Audit restricting the extraction of groundwater unless it is shown to be suitable for the use proposed. In the Other Information section of the Statement, I have indicated that ACM could potentially be encountered and should be handled and disposed of in accordance with relevant legislation and regulations.
Parcels 1.1, 3.1, 3.2A, 3.2B, 3.3A and Urban Square, 3.4, 4.1, 4 (Green Square), Promenade Link and roads - suitable for high and medium density residential, recreational / open space, commercial and industrial, subject to conditions in the Statement of Environmental Audit restricting the extraction of groundwater unless it is shown to be suitable for the use proposed and that the owner / occupier of the site developing and managing soil at the site in accordance with the auditor-endorsed Soil Contamination Management Plan. In the Other Information of the Statement, it indicates that ACM could potentially be encountered and should be handled and disposed of in accordance with relevant legislation and regulations.
Four Statements of Environmental Audit have been issued to take into account the different remnant contaminants in the parcels; applying the conditions to discrete contiguous parcels and the likely uses of the parcels (shown in brackets); i.e. (i) Parcel 4.2 (Low or medium density residential use); (ii) Parcel 1.1 (Commercial or possibly medium density residential over commercial use) and Urban Square (Public open space); (iii) Parcel 3.3A (Commercial or possibly medium density residential over commercial use; and Public open space); (iv) Parcels 3.1, 3.2A, 3.2B, 3.4, 4.1 (Commercial or possibly medium density residential over commercial use; and Open Space), 4 Green Square (Public open space), Promenade Link (Public open space), and roads (equivalent to commercial use). The Statements of Environmental Audit are presented in Appendix A of this report.
Coffey 94 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 109 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
17. Statement of uncertainties
This report represents a review of data and information (together, “Information”) relating to the property which is the subject of this report. The Information was obtained not by the auditor and Coffey but from other sources and contacts, some of whom may be noted in the report. The auditor has conducted reasonable checks as to the adequacy of the information provided, and is satisfied that it is suitable for that purpose of auditing. However, the auditor notes that, inherent in any assessment approach (and audits that rely on such assessments), is the fact that information is based on a number of “spot” tests and that conditions may vary between those locations. The analyses, evaluations, opinions and conclusions presented in this report are based on the information provided, and they could change if the information is, in fact, found to be unrepresentative of conditions between sampling and analysis locations.
Coffey 95 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 110 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
18. References
ANZECC (1992). ‘Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites’, Published by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, National Health and Medical Research Council. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra, October 2000. CCME (2003) Canadian Council of Minister of the Environment, Canadian Wide Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME 2003). CH2M HILL (2008) Environmental Audit Report (Contaminated Land) – Including Statement of Environmental Audit, Former Police Station and Law Courts Complex, 41-43 Elgin Street, Wodonga, Victoria (CARMS 50182).
Golder (2002a) Report to the Urban and Regional Land Corporation. Environmental and Geotechnical Overview, Wodonga Central Area Redevelopment. March 2002 (2002a).
Golder (2002b) Report to VicTrack Access. Preliminary Contamination Assessment, Former Amoco and Stockyard Sites, Lot165, Elgin Street, Wodonga Victoria. July 2002 (2002b).
Golder (2011a) Report to VicTrack: Preliminary Study of Rail Ballast Contamination, Wodonga Contrail and Western Rail Corridors, Wodonga, Victoria, 22 June 2011
Golder (2011b) Preliminary Remediation Strategy and Cost Estimate. December 2011 (reference 117613160 001 R Rev0)
Golder (2012a) Framework for Assessment and Remediation, Wodonga CBD Northern Precinct Development - Junction Place. June 2012 (2012a).
Golder (2012b) Pre-remediation Environmental Assessment: Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga (November 2012) (Golder, 2012b).
Golder (2012c) Specification for Site Remediation - Junction Place Central Wodonga.
Golder (2012d) Scope of Works for Pre-Remediation Further Investigation Works (reference 117613160-005-L-Rev0, dated 6 August 2012).
Golder (2013a) Current Condition of the Land – Ambulance Station Site, Junction Place, Wodonga (reference 117613160-196-L-Rev0, dated 1 November 2013.
Golder (2013b) Final Contamination Condition of Soil – Goods Shed, Junction Place, Wodonga, dated 21 February 2013 (Golder 2013b).
Golder (2013c) Precinct 3 and 4 Rectification Assessment Works (reference 117613160 055 R Rev0, dated 8 July 2013).
Golder (2013d) Final Contamination Condition of Soil - Goods Shed (reference 117613160 028 R Rev0).
Golder (2014a) Junction Place, Wodonga (Precinct 1, 3 &4), Environmental Assessment & Remediation Report (reference 117613160-183-R-Rev0 dated March 2014).
Golder (2014b) Groundwater Assessment Report in Support of CUTEP (reference 117613160 197 R Rev0 dated May 2014).
Golder (2014c) Groundwater Flow Direction and Implications (reference 117613160-242-L-Rev0 dated July 2014).
Coffey 96 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 111 Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
Golder (2014d) Junction Place Wodonga (precincts 1, 3 & 4) Soil Contamination Management Plan. reference 117613160-242-L-Rev1 dated 6 October 2014. NEPC (1999) National Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, National Environment Protection Council. NEPC (2013) National Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, as amended in 2013, National Environment Protection Council. NHMRC/NRMMC (2011). National Water Quality Management Strategy, Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, National Health and Medical Research Council and National Resource Management Ministerial Council
NSW EPA (1994) Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites Senversa (2010a) Senversa Pty Ltd. Report to VicTrack. Environmental Site Assessment, Wodonga Central Rail Precinct. August, 2010 (2010a). Senversa (2010b) Senversa Pty Ltd. Report to VicTrack. Soil Contamination Assessment, Proposed Road Reserves Wodonga Central Rail Precinct. December, 2010 (2010b). Senversa (2010c) Senversa - Report to VicTrack: Due Diligence Environmental Site Assessment, Elgin Boulevard Land Transfer, (December, 2010) (Senversa, 2010c). Senversa (2011) Senversa – Report to VicTrack: Supplementary ESA (March 2011), Wodonga Central Rail Precinct, (April, 2011) (Senversa, 2011). Standards Australia (2005): Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil. Part 1: Non-volatile and semi-volatile compounds, AS 4482.1-2005, Standards Australia, Homebush NSW. VROM (2000) Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Netherlands Government Gazette, no. 39. Annex A: Target Values, Soil Remediation and Intervention Values and Indicative Levels for Serious Contamination, 14 February 2000. URS (2007) URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS). Report to VicTrack Access. Limited Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of Wodonga Rail Precinct, Victoria. October, 2007.
Coffey 97 ENAUABTF00455AA-R01 7 October 2014
70798-1,2&3_a 112
Figures Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
70798-1,2&3_a 115 client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:20000 (A3) METRES revision title: scale AS SHOWN SITE LOCATION, AFTER GOLDER, 2014b original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 1 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:57:46 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 116 Legend
Site Boundary
client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 25 50 75 100 125 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2500 (A3) METRES revision title: scale AS SHOWN ALLOTMENT PLAN, AS SUPPLIED BY CLIENT original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 2 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:57:49 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 117 client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 20 40 60 80 100 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2000 (A3) METRES revision title: scale AS SHOWN PROPOSED PRECINCT PLAN AS PROVIDED BY CLIENT original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 3 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:57:51 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 118 client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 9 18 27 36 45 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:900 (A3) METRES revision title: DATUM GDA 94, PROJECTION MGA 55 scale AS SHOWN ASSESSMENT LOCATIONS - PRECINCT 1, AFTER GOLDER, 2014a original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 4 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:57:54 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 119 client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 12.5 25 37.5 50 62.5 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:1250 (A3) METRES revision title: DATUM GDA 94, PROJECTION MGA 55 scale AS SHOWN ASSESSMENT LOCATIONS - PRECINCT 3, AFTER GOLDER, 2014a original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 5 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:57:58 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 120 client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 9 18 27 36 45 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:900 (A3) METRES revision title: DATUM GDA 94, PROJECTION MGA 55 scale AS SHOWN ASSESSMENT LOCATIONS - PRECINCT 4, AFTER GOLDER, 2014a original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 6 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:02 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 121 client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 15 30 45 60 75 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:1500 (A3) METRES revision title: SITE LAYOUT AND AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEREST, scale AS SHOWN DATUM GDA 94, PROJECTION MGA 55 AFTER GOLDER, 2014a original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 7 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:06 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 122 client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 15 30 45 60 75 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:1500 (A3) METRES revision title: DATUM GDA 94, PROJECTION MGA 55 scale AS SHOWN COMPLETED REMEDIATION EXCAVATIONS, AFTER GOLDER, 2014a original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 8 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:09 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 123 client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 15 30 45 60 75 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:1500 (A3) METRES revision title: scale AS SHOWN CAR PARK TPH CONCENTRATIONS, AFTER GOLDER, 2014a original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 9 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:13 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 124 client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 15 30 45 60 75 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:1500 (A3) METRES revision title: scale AS SHOWN TURNTABLE TPH CONCENTRATIONS, AFTER GOLDER, 2014a original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 10 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:17 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 125 client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 22.5 45 67.5 90 112.5 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2250 (A3) METRES revision title: DATUM GDA 94, PROJECTION MGA 55 scale AS SHOWN GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS, AFTER GOLDER, 2014a original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 11 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:21 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 126 Groundwater Levels July 2014
Inferred Groundwater Contour
Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction
client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 22.5 45 67.5 90 112.5 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2250 (A3) METRES revision title: scale AS SHOWN GROUNDWATER LEVELS - JULY 2014, AFTER GOLDER, 2014c original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 12 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:25 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 127 Groundwater Levels October 2013
Inferred Groundwater Contour
Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction
client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 22.5 45 67.5 90 112.5 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2250 (A3) METRES revision title: scale AS SHOWN GROUNDWATER LEVELS - OCTOBER 2013, AFTER GOLDER, 2014c original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 13 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:28 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 128 Groundwater Levels March 2011
Inferred Groundwater Contour
Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction
client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 22.5 45 67.5 90 112.5 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2250 (A3) METRES revision title: scale AS SHOWN GROUNDWATER LEVELS - MARCH 2011, AFTER GOLDER, 2014c original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 14 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:33 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 129 Groundwater Levels November 2010
Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction
client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 22.5 45 67.5 90 112.5 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2250 (A3) METRES revision title: scale AS SHOWN GROUNDWATER LEVELS - NOVEMBER 2010, AFTER GOLDER, 2014c original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 15 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:36 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 130 Groundwater Levels June 2010
Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction
client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 22.5 45 67.5 90 112.5 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2250 (A3) METRES revision title: scale AS SHOWN GROUNDWATER LEVELS - JUNE 2010, AFTER GOLDER, 2014c original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 16 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:40 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 131 client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 22.5 45 67.5 90 112.5 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2250 (A3) METRES revision title: TPH C10-C36 IN GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS, scale AS SHOWN DATUM GDA 94, PROJECTION MGA 55 AFTER GOLDER, 2014b original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 17 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:44 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 132 client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU EM 26/09/14 project: approved EM WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 22.5 45 67.5 90 112.5 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2250 (A3) METRES revision title: AMMONIA IN GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS, scale AS SHOWN DATUM GDA 94, PROJECTION MGA 55 AFTER GOLDER, 2014b original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE 18 A PLOT DATE: 3/10/2014 3:58:47 PM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D01.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 133
Appendix A Statements of Environmental Audit
Environmental Audit Report Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga CARMS No: 70798-1, 2 & 3
70798-1,2&3_a 134
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
I, Phil Sinclair of Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd , a person appointed by the Environment Protection Authority (‘the Authority’) under the Environment Protection Act 1970 (‘the Act’) as an environmental auditor for the purposes of the Act, having:
1) been requested by Richard Bender of the Victorian Urban Renewal Authority (Places Victoria) to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit in relation to the site referred to as Parcel 1.1 and Urban Square as defined on Figure S which is part of the land bounded by South Street, Smythe Road, Elgin Boulevard, High Street, Bond Street and Church Street, Wodonga (also known as Junction Place) owned by Places Victoria.
2) had regard to, among other things,
(i) guidelines issued by the Authority for the purposes of Part IXD of the Act,
(ii) the beneficial uses that may be made of the site, and
(iii) relevant State environment protection policies/industrial waste management policies, namely,
State environment protection policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), No S95, 2002 State environment protection policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), No S160, 1997 State environment protection policy (Waters of Victoria), No. S13, 1988 as varied on 3 June 2003 No. S107 State environment protection policy (Air Quality Management), No S240, 2001 State environment protection policy (Ambient Air Quality), No S19, 1999 Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009 in making a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of the site by any industrial processes or activity, waste or substance (including any chemical substance), and
3) completed an environmental audit report in accordance with section 53X of the Act, a copy of which has been sent to the Authority and the relevant planning and responsible authority,
HEREBY STATE that I am of the opinion that
The site is suitable for the beneficial uses associated with high and medium density residential, recreational / open space, commercial and industrial land uses, subject to the following condition attached thereto:
The owner / occupier of the site must develop and manage soil at the site in accordance with the auditor-endorsed Soil Contamination Management Plan attached to this statement.
Groundwater is polluted and must not to be used for the extractive uses: potable use, primary contact recreation, stock watering, agriculture, parks and gardens and industrial water uses; unless verified by testing as being suitable for these uses.
70798-1,2&3_a 135
The condition of the site is detrimental or potentially detrimental to any (one or more) beneficial uses of the site. Accordingly, I have not issued a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the site in its current condition, the reasons for which are presented in the environmental audit report. The terms and conditions that need to be complied with before a Certificate of Environmental Audit may be issued are set out as follows:
Soil containing elevated concentrations of contaminants including TPHs and metals would need to be remediated and aesthetically unsuitable material removed such that all beneficial uses were restored.
Residual groundwater impacts at the site would need to be remediated such that all protected beneficial uses of groundwater were restored.
Other related information
Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) were found on parts of the Junction Place site, remediated and these areas certified as being free of ACM in accordance with Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. It is possible that ACM could be encountered during development or occupation of the site. Disposal of any ACM encountered should be in accordance with relevant legislation and regulations.
Pursuant to Section 13.6 of the EPA Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit, the auditor has determined that groundwater has been cleaned-up to the extent practicable and that the site is a Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone (GQRUZ). The GQRUZ covers all of Precincts 1, 3 and 4.
The Authority (EPA) may require periodic reassessment of the practicability of groundwater clean- up.
Groundwater is presently suitable for buildings and structures. Other protected groundwater beneficial uses are presently precluded by the presence of arsenic, mercury, nickel, zinc, petroleum hydrocarbons, ammonia and nitrate from historical site activities and off-site sources.
This Statement forms part of environmental audit report (Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd, Environmental Audit Report, Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga – 7 October 2014). Further details regarding the condition of the site may be found in the environmental audit report.
Dated 7 October 2014
Signed
Phil Sinclair Environmental Auditor (Appointed Pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970)
Attachments: Figure S:- Proposed Precinct Plan
Soil Contamination Management Plan (Golder, 2014d)
70798-1,2&3_a 136 PARCEL 4.2
PARCELS 3.1, 3.2A, 3.4 PROMENADE LINK, 4.1, 4 (GREEN SQUARE)
PARCEL 1.1 URBAN SQUARE
PARCEL 3.3A
client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORIA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU PS 03/10/14 project: approved PS WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 20 40 60 80 100 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2000 (A3) METRES revision title: PROPOSED PRECINCT PLAN scale AS SHOWN JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE S A PLOT DATE: 9/10/2014 11:55:54 AM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D02.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 137 06 October 2014
JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA (PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4) Soil Contamination Management Plan
Submitted to: Places Victoria 27 South Street Wodonga Vic 3690
Report Number. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 Distribution: 1 Copy - Places Victoria 1 Copy - Mr Phil Sinclair, Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd 1 Copy - Golder Associates
70798-1,2&3_a 138 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 1
3.0 OBJECTIVE ...... 1
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION ...... 1
5.0 RESIDUAL CONTAMINATED SOIL ...... 2
5.1 Known residual contamination ...... 2
5.2 Unknown potential residual contamination ...... 2
6.0 EXCAVATION OF SOIL ONSITE ...... 2
6.1 General Management Measures ...... 3
6.2 Management of Known Residual Contamination ...... 3
6.3 Management of Residual Contamination Identified During Works ...... 3
7.0 DISPOSAL OF SOIL FROM SITE ...... 4
8.0 IMPORTATION OF FILL TO SITE ...... 4
9.0 INDUCTION AND TRAINING ...... 4
10.0 SCMP REVIEW...... 4
APPENDICES APPENDIX A Figure
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 i
70798-1,2&3_a 139 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION Places Victoria (PV) has engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) to prepare a Soil Contamination Management Plan (SCMP) for the redevelopment of Precincts 1, 3 and 4 of the former Wodonga Railway Station site, which now forms part of the redevelopment site “Junction Place”. This SCMP has been developed to provide a management framework for potential residual soil contamination risks in all parcels of Precincts 1, 3 and 4 with exception of Parcel 4.2 (herein referred to as ‘the site’). The wider Junction Place site also includes Precincts 2 and 5 however this SCMP is not applicable to these Precincts.
The individual land parcels which are subject to this SCMP are presented in Figure 1 in Appendix A.
2.0 BACKGROUND PV proposes to redevelop the site for a mixture of residential, open space, retail and commercial use. In order to achieve the proposed redevelopment outcomes, areas of the site required assessment, remediation and the completion of an Environmental Audit in accordance with Section 53X of the Environment Protection Act (1970) to provide the required outcomes for planning requirements and to address localised groundwater contamination issues.
Golder was previously engaged by PV to undertake the Environmental Site Assessment and Remediation of the site, the findings of which are reported in the Golder report Environmental Assessment and Remediation report (ref: 117613160-183-R-Rev0, dated March 2014). The overall conclusion of this assessment and remediation process was that the final site condition met the remedial objectives and the individual land parcels are suitable for the defined beneficial uses for the proposed land uses. However, during the redevelopment of the site, there is the potential for residual soil contamination to be encountered which will need to be appropriately managed. Further details of the residual soil contamination which could potentially be encountered are provided in Section 5.0. It is noted that this SCMP is not applicable to Parcel 4.2 within Precinct 4, as this parcel was assessed and remediated to a condition such that it is suitable for the defined beneficial uses for the proposed low density residential use (subject to restriction on use of groundwater).
3.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this SCMP is to facilitate the management of potentially contaminated soils which may be encountered during the redevelopment of the site.
This document provides guidance on the management measures to be implemented during the excavation of soils at the site associated with the redevelopment of “Junction Place”.
The document does not specifically address general health and safety and environmental management procedures. These should be prepared and implemented by the construction contractor(s) to manage these issues and potential contamination present at the site.
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Responsibility for the overarching implementation of this SCMP lies with the Development Manager. The Development Manager (or delegate) has the responsibility to manage the implementation of this SCMP, including record keeping. In brief, the Development Manager must:
1) Ensure that an appropriate Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Health & Safety (H&S) documentation is prepared and complied with by the Contractor and site workers which
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 1
70798-1,2&3_a 140 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
include measures to manage potential hazards associated with potential residual soil contamination at the site.
2) Advise site workers that during the excavation of soil and any other subsurface works, the management measures outlined in this document must be followed to manage the potential residual soil contamination risks at the site.
3) Advise site workers of the potential presence of residual soil contamination at the site. The ‘Contractor’ refers to the Principal Contractor for the site or any portion or works on the site. The Contractor must develop and adhere to the CEMP and H&S documentation as directed by the Development Manager.
Reference to “site workers” in this document applies to persons who may be undertaking soil excavation and / or any other subsurface works such as plant operators, utility workers (plumbers etc.) including contractors and subcontractors.
5.0 RESIDUAL CONTAMINATED SOIL 5.1 Known residual contamination This overall conclusion of the assessment and remediation works was that the final site condition met the remedial objectives and the individual land parcels are suitable for the defined beneficial uses for the proposed land uses. However, known residual soil contamination is located at the following locations:
Residual arsenic soil concentrations within land parcels ‘Green Square’ and ‘Urban Square’ which are proposed for Public Open Space, pose a potential risk to ecological receptors (e.g. potential impact on plant growth) and therefore need to be managed during the final development of the site.
Residual localised diesel impacts associated with the maintenance and refuelling of diesel locomotives are present at depths of 1.2 – 2.4 metres below ground level (m bgl) in Parcels 1.1, 3.1 and Green Square. The Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) detected on these depths was predominantly the less volatile TPH, in the C10 to C34 carbon range. Therefore while it was considered the residual impacts represent a potential aesthetic impact they are not considered to pose a vapour risk to future users of the site. If development for more sensitive use was proposed for these parcels, there would be additional locations where residual impact would need to be addressed. 5.2 Unknown potential residual contamination It is considered the following contamination may be encountered and will require management during redevelopment works:
ACM may exist within fill remaining at the site, particularly within the shallow subsurface in areas undisturbed by bulk excavation during the remediation.
Visual aesthetic impacts (such as fill containing fragments of demolition material, ash and coal or other waste materials from the historical operations of the rail yard) may still exist in areas undisturbed by bulk excavation during the remediation. 6.0 EXCAVATION OF SOIL ONSITE This section outlines the management measures which should be adhered to during the redevelopment of the site.
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 2
70798-1,2&3_a 141 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
6.1 General Management Measures All site workers should adhere to the following general measures:
Site workers should undertake excavation works in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined in the CEMP and H&S documentation which should include details on the following items (but not be limited):
Hazards associated with potential residual soil contamination at the site; and
Appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to prevent dermal contact, dust generation/inhalation and/or ingestion of potentially contaminated soils. As a minimum, the PPE is to include safety boots, gloves and long sleeved clothing. 6.2 Management of Known Residual Contamination In areas with known residual contamination the following management measures must be adhered to:
The potential risks to ecological receptors in Green Square and Urban Square from residual elevated arsenic soil concentrations will need to be managed during the final development of the site. Should landscaped areas of exposed soil or garden bed areas be proposed within the existing soils, these shall be developed by removing 0.5 m thickness of the existing soil and replacing it 0.5 m thickness of imported soil meeting the requirements of Fill Material under IWRG 600 Waste Categorisation (2009).
Any excavation works at depths of 1.2 – 2.4 m bgl in Parcels 1.1, 3.1 and Green Square will need to consider the potential hazards associated with localised diesel impacts. If diesel impacts are encountered work in the immediate area of the impacts shall cease and the area should be taped off and the Contractor shall contact the Development Manager providing information on:
The nature of the issue;
Its location on the site; or
A photograph of the issue where possible.
The Development Manager shall seek advice from an Environmental Consultant where required before informing the Contractor of the actions required to address the identified issue. 6.3 Management of Residual Contamination Identified During Works If during excavation of areas of the site which are subject to the SCMP, the site worker identifies any of the materials listed below, work in the immediate area of the issue shall cease.
ACM;
Soil which is visually aesthetically impacted with for example fragments of demolition material, ash and coal, or other waste materials from the historical operations of the rail yard;
Soil which is discoloured compared to the surrounding soil; or
Soil with hydrocarbon odours and/or hydrocarbon staining.
The area should be taped off and the Contractor shall contact the Development Manager providing information on:
The nature of the issue;
Its location on the site; or
A photograph of the issue where possible.
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 3
70798-1,2&3_a 142 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Development Manager shall seek advice from an Environmental Consultant where required before informing the site worker of the actions required to address the identified issue.
Where the Environmental Consultant confirms the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons on site, the concentrations should be evaluated with regard to human health and ecological risk and for the potential for impact upon subsurface infrastructure. Where PVC or acetate piping is to be installed in the area, the pipe manufacturer’s and/or product specification should be evaluated to determine whether a risk to the integrity of the pipes may exist. 7.0 DISPOSAL OF SOIL FROM SITE Disposal of any excess soil produced as a result of the earthworks at the site is to be undertaken following classification. Testing of the soil shall be undertaken by an Environmental Consultant with classification by comparison of the results against criteria presented in EPA Publication IWRG 621 Soil Hazard Categorisation and Management (2009). Offsite disposal of soils is to be undertaken in accordance with its classification and waste disposal tracking requirements. 8.0 IMPORTATION OF FILL TO SITE Fill material imported to the site should meet the definition of Fill Material as set out in EPA Publication IWRG 600 Waste Categorisation (2009). Evidence of the contamination suitability of the material source for importation to site will need to be provided by the the Contractor to the Development Manager. 9.0 INDUCTION AND TRAINING Prior to commencing soil excavation or any other subsurface works on the site, the persons undertaking the works must be familiarised with this protocol and be able to understand it to ensure that it is properly enacted. A copy of this document must be maintained onsite by the Development Manager. The Development Manager is responsible for ensuring the Contractor and site workers are aware of the protocols outlined in this document. 10.0 SCMP REVIEW Development Manager is responsible for ensuring this SCMP is updated as required based on changes to the site and the development. The most updated version of the SCMP will be provided to site workers.
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 4
70798-1,2&3_a 143 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX A Figure
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1
70798-1,2&3_a 144 489,500 489,750 PRECINCTS 1, 3 AND 4
JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA
PARCELS SUBJECT TO SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
PROPOSED ROAD (2044 South Street)
PROPOSED P R E C I N C T 5 ROAD ()
PRECINCT 4 PRECINCT 5 (PARCEL (PARCEL 4.2) 5.1)
P R E C I N C T 4 PROPOSED ROAD () PRECINCT 3 (PARCEL PRECINCT 4 3.1) (PARCEL 4.1)
PRECINCT 4 (GREEN LEGEND SQUARE) P R E C I N C T 3 Parcels Subject To Soil Contamination Management Plan PROPOSED ROAD () PRECINCT 3 (PARCEL Precinct 1 3.2A) Precinct 2
PRECINCT 3 Precinct 3 (PARCEL 3.4) Precinct 4 PROPOSED P R E C I N C T 1 ROAD () PRECINCT 3 Precinct 5 (PARCEL 3.3A) Audit Area Boundary
PRECINCT 1 Site Boundary (Greater Site) (PARCEL 1.1) NOTES 1. Road names based on StreetPro 2004 road data. 2. Site area and proposed parcel boundaries based on LandVic Land Title boundaries. 3. The precint plan was approximatiely georeferenced and should be used as a guide only. 4. Parcel Boundaries show are approximate. Refer to figure PROPOSED (12005703_J1, 21 August 2014) for revised Parcel Boundary ROAD () coordinates. COPYRIGHT StreetPro © 2004 MapInfo Australia Pty Ltd. PRECINCTP R E C 2 I N C T 2 (PARCEL 2.1)
010 20 40 60 80 100 metres SCALE (at A3) 1:2,000 DATUM GDA 94, PROJECTION MGA Zone 55 WODONGA PROJECT: 117613160 DATE: 03 OCT 2014 DRAWN: TPC CHECKED: NMC FIGURE 1
489,500 489,750 File Location J:\Env\2011\117613160 - VicUrban Wodonga\Technical Doc\GIS\Project\Deliverable\117613160-245-R-F0001-Rev0.mxd 70798-1,2&3_a 145 Golder Associates Pty Ltd Building 7, Botanicca Corporate Park 570 – 588 Swan Street Richmond, Victoria 3121 Australia T: +61 3 8862 3500
70798-1,2&3_a 146
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
I, Phil Sinclair of Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd , a person appointed by the Environment Protection Authority (‘the Authority’) under the Environment Protection Act 1970 (‘the Act’) as an environmental auditor for the purposes of the Act, having:
4) been requested by Richard Bender of the Victorian Urban Renewal Authority (Places Victoria) to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit in relation to the site referred to as Parcel 3.3A as defined on Figure S which is part of the land bounded by South Street, Smythe Road, Elgin Boulevard, High Street, Bond Street and Church Street, Wodonga (also known as Junction Place) owned by Places Victoria.
5) had regard to, among other things,
(i) guidelines issued by the Authority for the purposes of Part IXD of the Act,
(ii) the beneficial uses that may be made of the site, and
(iii) relevant State environment protection policies/industrial waste management policies, namely,
State environment protection policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), No S95, 2002 State environment protection policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), No S160, 1997 State environment protection policy (Waters of Victoria), No. S13, 1988 as varied on 3 June 2003 No. S107 State environment protection policy (Air Quality Management), No S240, 2001 State environment protection policy (Ambient Air Quality), No S19, 1999 Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009 in making a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of the site by any industrial processes or activity, waste or substance (including any chemical substance), and
6) completed an environmental audit report in accordance with section 53X of the Act, a copy of which has been sent to the Authority and the relevant planning and responsible authority,
HEREBY STATE that I am of the opinion that
The site is suitable for the beneficial uses associated with high and medium density residential, recreational / open space, commercial and industrial land uses, subject to the following condition attached thereto:
The owner / occupier of the site must manage soil and groundwater at the site in accordance with the auditor-endorsed Soil Contamination Management Plan attached to this statement.
Groundwater is polluted and must not to be used for the extractive uses: potable use, primary contact recreation, stock watering, agriculture, parks and gardens and industrial water uses; unless verified by testing as being suitable for these uses.
70798-1,2&3_a 147
The condition of the site is detrimental or potentially detrimental to any (one or more) beneficial uses of the site. Accordingly, I have not issued a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the site in its current condition, the reasons for which are presented in the environmental audit report. The terms and conditions that need to be complied with before a Certificate of Environmental Audit may be issued are set out as follows:
Soil containing elevated concentrations of contaminants including TPHs and metals would need to be remediated and aesthetically unsuitable material removed such that all beneficial uses were restored.
Residual groundwater impacts at the site would need to be remediated such that all protected beneficial uses of groundwater were restored.
Other related information
Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) were found on parts of the Junction Place site, remediated and these areas certified as being free of ACM in accordance with Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. It is possible that ACM could be encountered during development or occupation of the site. Disposal of any ACM encountered should be in accordance with relevant legislation and regulations.
Pursuant to Section 13.6 of the EPA Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit, the auditor has determined that groundwater has been cleaned-up to the extent practicable and that the site is a Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone (GQRUZ). The GQRUZ covers all of Precincts 1, 3 and 4.
The Authority (EPA) may require periodic reassessment of the practicability of groundwater clean- up.
Groundwater is presently suitable for buildings and structures. Other protected groundwater beneficial uses are presently precluded by the presence of arsenic, mercury, nickel, zinc, petroleum hydrocarbons, ammonia and nitrate from historical site activities and off-site sources.
This Statement forms part of environmental audit report (Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd, Environmental Audit Report, Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga – 7 October 2014). Further details regarding the condition of the site may be found in the environmental audit report.
Dated 7 October 2014
Signed
Phil Sinclair Environmental Auditor (Appointed Pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970)
Attachments: Figure S:- Proposed Precinct Plan
Soil Contamination Management Plan (Golder, 2014d)
70798-1,2&3_a 148 PARCEL 4.2
PARCELS 3.1, 3.2A, 3.4 PROMENADE LINK, 4.1, 4 (GREEN SQUARE)
PARCEL 1.1 URBAN SQUARE
PARCEL 3.3A
client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORIA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU PS 03/10/14 project: approved PS WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 20 40 60 80 100 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2000 (A3) METRES revision title: PROPOSED PRECINCT PLAN scale AS SHOWN JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE S A PLOT DATE: 9/10/2014 11:55:54 AM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D02.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 149 06 October 2014
JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA (PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4) Soil Contamination Management Plan
Submitted to: Places Victoria 27 South Street Wodonga Vic 3690
Report Number. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 Distribution: 1 Copy - Places Victoria 1 Copy - Mr Phil Sinclair, Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd 1 Copy - Golder Associates
70798-1,2&3_a 150 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 1
3.0 OBJECTIVE ...... 1
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION ...... 1
5.0 RESIDUAL CONTAMINATED SOIL ...... 2
5.1 Known residual contamination ...... 2
5.2 Unknown potential residual contamination ...... 2
6.0 EXCAVATION OF SOIL ONSITE ...... 2
6.1 General Management Measures ...... 3
6.2 Management of Known Residual Contamination ...... 3
6.3 Management of Residual Contamination Identified During Works ...... 3
7.0 DISPOSAL OF SOIL FROM SITE ...... 4
8.0 IMPORTATION OF FILL TO SITE ...... 4
9.0 INDUCTION AND TRAINING ...... 4
10.0 SCMP REVIEW...... 4
APPENDICES APPENDIX A Figure
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 i
70798-1,2&3_a 151 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION Places Victoria (PV) has engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) to prepare a Soil Contamination Management Plan (SCMP) for the redevelopment of Precincts 1, 3 and 4 of the former Wodonga Railway Station site, which now forms part of the redevelopment site “Junction Place”. This SCMP has been developed to provide a management framework for potential residual soil contamination risks in all parcels of Precincts 1, 3 and 4 with exception of Parcel 4.2 (herein referred to as ‘the site’). The wider Junction Place site also includes Precincts 2 and 5 however this SCMP is not applicable to these Precincts.
The individual land parcels which are subject to this SCMP are presented in Figure 1 in Appendix A.
2.0 BACKGROUND PV proposes to redevelop the site for a mixture of residential, open space, retail and commercial use. In order to achieve the proposed redevelopment outcomes, areas of the site required assessment, remediation and the completion of an Environmental Audit in accordance with Section 53X of the Environment Protection Act (1970) to provide the required outcomes for planning requirements and to address localised groundwater contamination issues.
Golder was previously engaged by PV to undertake the Environmental Site Assessment and Remediation of the site, the findings of which are reported in the Golder report Environmental Assessment and Remediation report (ref: 117613160-183-R-Rev0, dated March 2014). The overall conclusion of this assessment and remediation process was that the final site condition met the remedial objectives and the individual land parcels are suitable for the defined beneficial uses for the proposed land uses. However, during the redevelopment of the site, there is the potential for residual soil contamination to be encountered which will need to be appropriately managed. Further details of the residual soil contamination which could potentially be encountered are provided in Section 5.0. It is noted that this SCMP is not applicable to Parcel 4.2 within Precinct 4, as this parcel was assessed and remediated to a condition such that it is suitable for the defined beneficial uses for the proposed low density residential use (subject to restriction on use of groundwater).
3.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this SCMP is to facilitate the management of potentially contaminated soils which may be encountered during the redevelopment of the site.
This document provides guidance on the management measures to be implemented during the excavation of soils at the site associated with the redevelopment of “Junction Place”.
The document does not specifically address general health and safety and environmental management procedures. These should be prepared and implemented by the construction contractor(s) to manage these issues and potential contamination present at the site.
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Responsibility for the overarching implementation of this SCMP lies with the Development Manager. The Development Manager (or delegate) has the responsibility to manage the implementation of this SCMP, including record keeping. In brief, the Development Manager must:
1) Ensure that an appropriate Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Health & Safety (H&S) documentation is prepared and complied with by the Contractor and site workers which
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 1
70798-1,2&3_a 152 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
include measures to manage potential hazards associated with potential residual soil contamination at the site.
2) Advise site workers that during the excavation of soil and any other subsurface works, the management measures outlined in this document must be followed to manage the potential residual soil contamination risks at the site.
3) Advise site workers of the potential presence of residual soil contamination at the site. The ‘Contractor’ refers to the Principal Contractor for the site or any portion or works on the site. The Contractor must develop and adhere to the CEMP and H&S documentation as directed by the Development Manager.
Reference to “site workers” in this document applies to persons who may be undertaking soil excavation and / or any other subsurface works such as plant operators, utility workers (plumbers etc.) including contractors and subcontractors.
5.0 RESIDUAL CONTAMINATED SOIL 5.1 Known residual contamination This overall conclusion of the assessment and remediation works was that the final site condition met the remedial objectives and the individual land parcels are suitable for the defined beneficial uses for the proposed land uses. However, known residual soil contamination is located at the following locations:
Residual arsenic soil concentrations within land parcels ‘Green Square’ and ‘Urban Square’ which are proposed for Public Open Space, pose a potential risk to ecological receptors (e.g. potential impact on plant growth) and therefore need to be managed during the final development of the site.
Residual localised diesel impacts associated with the maintenance and refuelling of diesel locomotives are present at depths of 1.2 – 2.4 metres below ground level (m bgl) in Parcels 1.1, 3.1 and Green Square. The Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) detected on these depths was predominantly the less volatile TPH, in the C10 to C34 carbon range. Therefore while it was considered the residual impacts represent a potential aesthetic impact they are not considered to pose a vapour risk to future users of the site. If development for more sensitive use was proposed for these parcels, there would be additional locations where residual impact would need to be addressed. 5.2 Unknown potential residual contamination It is considered the following contamination may be encountered and will require management during redevelopment works:
ACM may exist within fill remaining at the site, particularly within the shallow subsurface in areas undisturbed by bulk excavation during the remediation.
Visual aesthetic impacts (such as fill containing fragments of demolition material, ash and coal or other waste materials from the historical operations of the rail yard) may still exist in areas undisturbed by bulk excavation during the remediation. 6.0 EXCAVATION OF SOIL ONSITE This section outlines the management measures which should be adhered to during the redevelopment of the site.
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 2
70798-1,2&3_a 153 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
6.1 General Management Measures All site workers should adhere to the following general measures:
Site workers should undertake excavation works in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined in the CEMP and H&S documentation which should include details on the following items (but not be limited):
Hazards associated with potential residual soil contamination at the site; and
Appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to prevent dermal contact, dust generation/inhalation and/or ingestion of potentially contaminated soils. As a minimum, the PPE is to include safety boots, gloves and long sleeved clothing. 6.2 Management of Known Residual Contamination In areas with known residual contamination the following management measures must be adhered to:
The potential risks to ecological receptors in Green Square and Urban Square from residual elevated arsenic soil concentrations will need to be managed during the final development of the site. Should landscaped areas of exposed soil or garden bed areas be proposed within the existing soils, these shall be developed by removing 0.5 m thickness of the existing soil and replacing it 0.5 m thickness of imported soil meeting the requirements of Fill Material under IWRG 600 Waste Categorisation (2009).
Any excavation works at depths of 1.2 – 2.4 m bgl in Parcels 1.1, 3.1 and Green Square will need to consider the potential hazards associated with localised diesel impacts. If diesel impacts are encountered work in the immediate area of the impacts shall cease and the area should be taped off and the Contractor shall contact the Development Manager providing information on:
The nature of the issue;
Its location on the site; or
A photograph of the issue where possible.
The Development Manager shall seek advice from an Environmental Consultant where required before informing the Contractor of the actions required to address the identified issue. 6.3 Management of Residual Contamination Identified During Works If during excavation of areas of the site which are subject to the SCMP, the site worker identifies any of the materials listed below, work in the immediate area of the issue shall cease.
ACM;
Soil which is visually aesthetically impacted with for example fragments of demolition material, ash and coal, or other waste materials from the historical operations of the rail yard;
Soil which is discoloured compared to the surrounding soil; or
Soil with hydrocarbon odours and/or hydrocarbon staining.
The area should be taped off and the Contractor shall contact the Development Manager providing information on:
The nature of the issue;
Its location on the site; or
A photograph of the issue where possible.
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 3
70798-1,2&3_a 154 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Development Manager shall seek advice from an Environmental Consultant where required before informing the site worker of the actions required to address the identified issue.
Where the Environmental Consultant confirms the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons on site, the concentrations should be evaluated with regard to human health and ecological risk and for the potential for impact upon subsurface infrastructure. Where PVC or acetate piping is to be installed in the area, the pipe manufacturer’s and/or product specification should be evaluated to determine whether a risk to the integrity of the pipes may exist. 7.0 DISPOSAL OF SOIL FROM SITE Disposal of any excess soil produced as a result of the earthworks at the site is to be undertaken following classification. Testing of the soil shall be undertaken by an Environmental Consultant with classification by comparison of the results against criteria presented in EPA Publication IWRG 621 Soil Hazard Categorisation and Management (2009). Offsite disposal of soils is to be undertaken in accordance with its classification and waste disposal tracking requirements. 8.0 IMPORTATION OF FILL TO SITE Fill material imported to the site should meet the definition of Fill Material as set out in EPA Publication IWRG 600 Waste Categorisation (2009). Evidence of the contamination suitability of the material source for importation to site will need to be provided by the the Contractor to the Development Manager. 9.0 INDUCTION AND TRAINING Prior to commencing soil excavation or any other subsurface works on the site, the persons undertaking the works must be familiarised with this protocol and be able to understand it to ensure that it is properly enacted. A copy of this document must be maintained onsite by the Development Manager. The Development Manager is responsible for ensuring the Contractor and site workers are aware of the protocols outlined in this document. 10.0 SCMP REVIEW Development Manager is responsible for ensuring this SCMP is updated as required based on changes to the site and the development. The most updated version of the SCMP will be provided to site workers.
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 4
70798-1,2&3_a 155 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX A Figure
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1
70798-1,2&3_a 156 489,500 489,750 PRECINCTS 1, 3 AND 4
JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA
PARCELS SUBJECT TO SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
PROPOSED ROAD (2044 South Street)
PROPOSED P R E C I N C T 5 ROAD ()
PRECINCT 4 PRECINCT 5 (PARCEL (PARCEL 4.2) 5.1)
P R E C I N C T 4 PROPOSED ROAD () PRECINCT 3 (PARCEL PRECINCT 4 3.1) (PARCEL 4.1)
PRECINCT 4 (GREEN LEGEND SQUARE) P R E C I N C T 3 Parcels Subject To Soil Contamination Management Plan PROPOSED ROAD () PRECINCT 3 (PARCEL Precinct 1 3.2A) Precinct 2
PRECINCT 3 Precinct 3 (PARCEL 3.4) Precinct 4 PROPOSED P R E C I N C T 1 ROAD () PRECINCT 3 Precinct 5 (PARCEL 3.3A) Audit Area Boundary
PRECINCT 1 Site Boundary (Greater Site) (PARCEL 1.1) NOTES 1. Road names based on StreetPro 2004 road data. 2. Site area and proposed parcel boundaries based on LandVic Land Title boundaries. 3. The precint plan was approximatiely georeferenced and should be used as a guide only. 4. Parcel Boundaries show are approximate. Refer to figure PROPOSED (12005703_J1, 21 August 2014) for revised Parcel Boundary ROAD () coordinates. COPYRIGHT StreetPro © 2004 MapInfo Australia Pty Ltd. PRECINCTP R E C 2 I N C T 2 (PARCEL 2.1)
010 20 40 60 80 100 metres SCALE (at A3) 1:2,000 DATUM GDA 94, PROJECTION MGA Zone 55 WODONGA PROJECT: 117613160 DATE: 03 OCT 2014 DRAWN: TPC CHECKED: NMC FIGURE 1
489,500 489,750 File Location J:\Env\2011\117613160 - VicUrban Wodonga\Technical Doc\GIS\Project\Deliverable\117613160-245-R-F0001-Rev0.mxd 70798-1,2&3_a 157 Golder Associates Pty Ltd Building 7, Botanicca Corporate Park 570 – 588 Swan Street Richmond, Victoria 3121 Australia T: +61 3 8862 3500
70798-1,2&3_a 158
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
I, Phil Sinclair of Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd , a person appointed by the Environment Protection Authority (‘the Authority’) under the Environment Protection Act 1970 (‘the Act’) as an environmental auditor for the purposes of the Act, having:
7) been requested by Richard Bender of the Victorian Urban Renewal Authority (Places Victoria) to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit in relation to the site referred to as Parcels 3.1, 3.2A, 3.2B, 3.4, 4.1, 4 (Green Square), Promenade Link and roads as defined on Figure S which is part of the land bounded by South Street, Smythe Road, Elgin Boulevard, High Street, Bond Street and Church Street, Wodonga (also known as Junction Place) owned by Places Victoria.
8) had regard to, among other things,
(i) guidelines issued by the Authority for the purposes of Part IXD of the Act,
(ii) the beneficial uses that may be made of the site, and
(iii) relevant State environment protection policies/industrial waste management policies, namely,
State environment protection policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), No S95, 2002 State environment protection policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), No S160, 1997 State environment protection policy (Waters of Victoria), No. S13, 1988 as varied on 3 June 2003 No. S107 State environment protection policy (Air Quality Management), No S240, 2001 State environment protection policy (Ambient Air Quality), No S19, 1999 Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009 in making a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of the site by any industrial processes or activity, waste or substance (including any chemical substance), and
9) completed an environmental audit report in accordance with section 53X of the Act, a copy of which has been sent to the Authority and the relevant planning and responsible authority,
HEREBY STATE that I am of the opinion that
The site is suitable for the beneficial uses associated with high and medium density residential, recreational / open space, commercial and industrial land uses, subject to the following condition attached thereto:
The owner / occupier of the site must manage soil at the site in accordance with the auditor- endorsed Soil Contamination Management Plan attached to this statement.
Groundwater is polluted and must not to be used for the extractive uses: potable use, primary contact recreation, stock watering, agriculture, parks and gardens and industrial water uses; unless verified by testing as being suitable for these uses.
70798-1,2&3_a 159
The condition of the site is detrimental or potentially detrimental to any (one or more) beneficial uses of the site. Accordingly, I have not issued a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the site in its current condition, the reasons for which are presented in the environmental audit report. The terms and conditions that need to be complied with before a Certificate of Environmental Audit may be issued are set out as follows:
Soil containing elevated concentrations of contaminants including TPHs and metals would need to be remediated and aesthetically unsuitable material removed such that all beneficial uses were restored.
Residual groundwater impacts at the site would need to be remediated such that all protected beneficial uses of groundwater were restored.
Other related information
Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) were found on parts of the Junction Place site, remediated and these areas certified as being free of ACM in accordance with Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. It is possible that ACM could be encountered during development or occupation of the site. Disposal of any ACM encountered should be in accordance with relevant legislation and regulations.
Pursuant to Section 13.6 of the EPA Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit, the auditor has determined that groundwater has been cleaned-up to the extent practicable and that the site is a Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone (GQRUZ). The GQRUZ covers all of Precincts 1, 3 and 4.
The Authority (EPA) may require periodic reassessment of the practicability of groundwater clean- up.
Groundwater is presently suitable for buildings and structures. Other protected groundwater beneficial uses are presently precluded by the presence of arsenic, mercury, nickel, zinc, petroleum hydrocarbons, ammonia and nitrate from historical site activities and off-site sources.
This Statement forms part of environmental audit report (Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd, Environmental Audit Report, Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga – 7 October 2014). Further details regarding the condition of the site may be found in the environmental audit report.
Dated 7 October 2014
Signed
Phil Sinclair Environmental Auditor (Appointed Pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970)
Attachments: Figure S:- Proposed Precinct Plan
Soil Contamination Management Plan (Golder, 2014d)
70798-1,2&3_a 160 PARCEL 4.2
PARCELS 3.1, 3.2A, 3.4 PROMENADE LINK, 4.1, 4 (GREEN SQUARE)
PARCEL 1.1 URBAN SQUARE
PARCEL 3.3A
client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORIA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU PS 03/10/14 project: approved PS WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 20 40 60 80 100 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2000 (A3) METRES revision title: PROPOSED PRECINCT PLAN scale AS SHOWN JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE S A PLOT DATE: 9/10/2014 11:55:54 AM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D02.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 161 06 October 2014
JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA (PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4) Soil Contamination Management Plan
Submitted to: Places Victoria 27 South Street Wodonga Vic 3690
Report Number. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 Distribution: 1 Copy - Places Victoria 1 Copy - Mr Phil Sinclair, Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd 1 Copy - Golder Associates
70798-1,2&3_a 162 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 1
3.0 OBJECTIVE ...... 1
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION ...... 1
5.0 RESIDUAL CONTAMINATED SOIL ...... 2
5.1 Known residual contamination ...... 2
5.2 Unknown potential residual contamination ...... 2
6.0 EXCAVATION OF SOIL ONSITE ...... 2
6.1 General Management Measures ...... 3
6.2 Management of Known Residual Contamination ...... 3
6.3 Management of Residual Contamination Identified During Works ...... 3
7.0 DISPOSAL OF SOIL FROM SITE ...... 4
8.0 IMPORTATION OF FILL TO SITE ...... 4
9.0 INDUCTION AND TRAINING ...... 4
10.0 SCMP REVIEW...... 4
APPENDICES APPENDIX A Figure
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 i
70798-1,2&3_a 163 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION Places Victoria (PV) has engaged Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) to prepare a Soil Contamination Management Plan (SCMP) for the redevelopment of Precincts 1, 3 and 4 of the former Wodonga Railway Station site, which now forms part of the redevelopment site “Junction Place”. This SCMP has been developed to provide a management framework for potential residual soil contamination risks in all parcels of Precincts 1, 3 and 4 with exception of Parcel 4.2 (herein referred to as ‘the site’). The wider Junction Place site also includes Precincts 2 and 5 however this SCMP is not applicable to these Precincts.
The individual land parcels which are subject to this SCMP are presented in Figure 1 in Appendix A.
2.0 BACKGROUND PV proposes to redevelop the site for a mixture of residential, open space, retail and commercial use. In order to achieve the proposed redevelopment outcomes, areas of the site required assessment, remediation and the completion of an Environmental Audit in accordance with Section 53X of the Environment Protection Act (1970) to provide the required outcomes for planning requirements and to address localised groundwater contamination issues.
Golder was previously engaged by PV to undertake the Environmental Site Assessment and Remediation of the site, the findings of which are reported in the Golder report Environmental Assessment and Remediation report (ref: 117613160-183-R-Rev0, dated March 2014). The overall conclusion of this assessment and remediation process was that the final site condition met the remedial objectives and the individual land parcels are suitable for the defined beneficial uses for the proposed land uses. However, during the redevelopment of the site, there is the potential for residual soil contamination to be encountered which will need to be appropriately managed. Further details of the residual soil contamination which could potentially be encountered are provided in Section 5.0. It is noted that this SCMP is not applicable to Parcel 4.2 within Precinct 4, as this parcel was assessed and remediated to a condition such that it is suitable for the defined beneficial uses for the proposed low density residential use (subject to restriction on use of groundwater).
3.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this SCMP is to facilitate the management of potentially contaminated soils which may be encountered during the redevelopment of the site.
This document provides guidance on the management measures to be implemented during the excavation of soils at the site associated with the redevelopment of “Junction Place”.
The document does not specifically address general health and safety and environmental management procedures. These should be prepared and implemented by the construction contractor(s) to manage these issues and potential contamination present at the site.
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION Responsibility for the overarching implementation of this SCMP lies with the Development Manager. The Development Manager (or delegate) has the responsibility to manage the implementation of this SCMP, including record keeping. In brief, the Development Manager must:
1) Ensure that an appropriate Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Health & Safety (H&S) documentation is prepared and complied with by the Contractor and site workers which
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 1
70798-1,2&3_a 164 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
include measures to manage potential hazards associated with potential residual soil contamination at the site.
2) Advise site workers that during the excavation of soil and any other subsurface works, the management measures outlined in this document must be followed to manage the potential residual soil contamination risks at the site.
3) Advise site workers of the potential presence of residual soil contamination at the site. The ‘Contractor’ refers to the Principal Contractor for the site or any portion or works on the site. The Contractor must develop and adhere to the CEMP and H&S documentation as directed by the Development Manager.
Reference to “site workers” in this document applies to persons who may be undertaking soil excavation and / or any other subsurface works such as plant operators, utility workers (plumbers etc.) including contractors and subcontractors.
5.0 RESIDUAL CONTAMINATED SOIL 5.1 Known residual contamination This overall conclusion of the assessment and remediation works was that the final site condition met the remedial objectives and the individual land parcels are suitable for the defined beneficial uses for the proposed land uses. However, known residual soil contamination is located at the following locations:
Residual arsenic soil concentrations within land parcels ‘Green Square’ and ‘Urban Square’ which are proposed for Public Open Space, pose a potential risk to ecological receptors (e.g. potential impact on plant growth) and therefore need to be managed during the final development of the site.
Residual localised diesel impacts associated with the maintenance and refuelling of diesel locomotives are present at depths of 1.2 – 2.4 metres below ground level (m bgl) in Parcels 1.1, 3.1 and Green Square. The Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) detected on these depths was predominantly the less volatile TPH, in the C10 to C34 carbon range. Therefore while it was considered the residual impacts represent a potential aesthetic impact they are not considered to pose a vapour risk to future users of the site. If development for more sensitive use was proposed for these parcels, there would be additional locations where residual impact would need to be addressed. 5.2 Unknown potential residual contamination It is considered the following contamination may be encountered and will require management during redevelopment works:
ACM may exist within fill remaining at the site, particularly within the shallow subsurface in areas undisturbed by bulk excavation during the remediation.
Visual aesthetic impacts (such as fill containing fragments of demolition material, ash and coal or other waste materials from the historical operations of the rail yard) may still exist in areas undisturbed by bulk excavation during the remediation. 6.0 EXCAVATION OF SOIL ONSITE This section outlines the management measures which should be adhered to during the redevelopment of the site.
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 2
70798-1,2&3_a 165 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
6.1 General Management Measures All site workers should adhere to the following general measures:
Site workers should undertake excavation works in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined in the CEMP and H&S documentation which should include details on the following items (but not be limited):
Hazards associated with potential residual soil contamination at the site; and
Appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to prevent dermal contact, dust generation/inhalation and/or ingestion of potentially contaminated soils. As a minimum, the PPE is to include safety boots, gloves and long sleeved clothing. 6.2 Management of Known Residual Contamination In areas with known residual contamination the following management measures must be adhered to:
The potential risks to ecological receptors in Green Square and Urban Square from residual elevated arsenic soil concentrations will need to be managed during the final development of the site. Should landscaped areas of exposed soil or garden bed areas be proposed within the existing soils, these shall be developed by removing 0.5 m thickness of the existing soil and replacing it 0.5 m thickness of imported soil meeting the requirements of Fill Material under IWRG 600 Waste Categorisation (2009).
Any excavation works at depths of 1.2 – 2.4 m bgl in Parcels 1.1, 3.1 and Green Square will need to consider the potential hazards associated with localised diesel impacts. If diesel impacts are encountered work in the immediate area of the impacts shall cease and the area should be taped off and the Contractor shall contact the Development Manager providing information on:
The nature of the issue;
Its location on the site; or
A photograph of the issue where possible.
The Development Manager shall seek advice from an Environmental Consultant where required before informing the Contractor of the actions required to address the identified issue. 6.3 Management of Residual Contamination Identified During Works If during excavation of areas of the site which are subject to the SCMP, the site worker identifies any of the materials listed below, work in the immediate area of the issue shall cease.
ACM;
Soil which is visually aesthetically impacted with for example fragments of demolition material, ash and coal, or other waste materials from the historical operations of the rail yard;
Soil which is discoloured compared to the surrounding soil; or
Soil with hydrocarbon odours and/or hydrocarbon staining.
The area should be taped off and the Contractor shall contact the Development Manager providing information on:
The nature of the issue;
Its location on the site; or
A photograph of the issue where possible.
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 3
70798-1,2&3_a 166 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Development Manager shall seek advice from an Environmental Consultant where required before informing the site worker of the actions required to address the identified issue.
Where the Environmental Consultant confirms the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons on site, the concentrations should be evaluated with regard to human health and ecological risk and for the potential for impact upon subsurface infrastructure. Where PVC or acetate piping is to be installed in the area, the pipe manufacturer’s and/or product specification should be evaluated to determine whether a risk to the integrity of the pipes may exist. 7.0 DISPOSAL OF SOIL FROM SITE Disposal of any excess soil produced as a result of the earthworks at the site is to be undertaken following classification. Testing of the soil shall be undertaken by an Environmental Consultant with classification by comparison of the results against criteria presented in EPA Publication IWRG 621 Soil Hazard Categorisation and Management (2009). Offsite disposal of soils is to be undertaken in accordance with its classification and waste disposal tracking requirements. 8.0 IMPORTATION OF FILL TO SITE Fill material imported to the site should meet the definition of Fill Material as set out in EPA Publication IWRG 600 Waste Categorisation (2009). Evidence of the contamination suitability of the material source for importation to site will need to be provided by the the Contractor to the Development Manager. 9.0 INDUCTION AND TRAINING Prior to commencing soil excavation or any other subsurface works on the site, the persons undertaking the works must be familiarised with this protocol and be able to understand it to ensure that it is properly enacted. A copy of this document must be maintained onsite by the Development Manager. The Development Manager is responsible for ensuring the Contractor and site workers are aware of the protocols outlined in this document. 10.0 SCMP REVIEW Development Manager is responsible for ensuring this SCMP is updated as required based on changes to the site and the development. The most updated version of the SCMP will be provided to site workers.
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1 4
70798-1,2&3_a 167 JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA - SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX A Figure
06 October 2014 Report No. 117613160-245-R-Rev1
70798-1,2&3_a 168 489,500 489,750 PRECINCTS 1, 3 AND 4
JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA
PARCELS SUBJECT TO SOIL CONTAMINATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
PROPOSED ROAD (2044 South Street)
PROPOSED P R E C I N C T 5 ROAD ()
PRECINCT 4 PRECINCT 5 (PARCEL (PARCEL 4.2) 5.1)
P R E C I N C T 4 PROPOSED ROAD () PRECINCT 3 (PARCEL PRECINCT 4 3.1) (PARCEL 4.1)
PRECINCT 4 (GREEN LEGEND SQUARE) P R E C I N C T 3 Parcels Subject To Soil Contamination Management Plan PROPOSED ROAD () PRECINCT 3 (PARCEL Precinct 1 3.2A) Precinct 2
PRECINCT 3 Precinct 3 (PARCEL 3.4) Precinct 4 PROPOSED P R E C I N C T 1 ROAD () PRECINCT 3 Precinct 5 (PARCEL 3.3A) Audit Area Boundary
PRECINCT 1 Site Boundary (Greater Site) (PARCEL 1.1) NOTES 1. Road names based on StreetPro 2004 road data. 2. Site area and proposed parcel boundaries based on LandVic Land Title boundaries. 3. The precint plan was approximatiely georeferenced and should be used as a guide only. 4. Parcel Boundaries show are approximate. Refer to figure PROPOSED (12005703_J1, 21 August 2014) for revised Parcel Boundary ROAD () coordinates. COPYRIGHT StreetPro © 2004 MapInfo Australia Pty Ltd. PRECINCTP R E C 2 I N C T 2 (PARCEL 2.1)
010 20 40 60 80 100 metres SCALE (at A3) 1:2,000 DATUM GDA 94, PROJECTION MGA Zone 55 WODONGA PROJECT: 117613160 DATE: 03 OCT 2014 DRAWN: TPC CHECKED: NMC FIGURE 1
489,500 489,750 File Location J:\Env\2011\117613160 - VicUrban Wodonga\Technical Doc\GIS\Project\Deliverable\117613160-245-R-F0001-Rev0.mxd 70798-1,2&3_a 169 Golder Associates Pty Ltd Building 7, Botanicca Corporate Park 570 – 588 Swan Street Richmond, Victoria 3121 Australia T: +61 3 8862 3500
70798-1,2&3_a 170
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
I, Phil Sinclair of Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd , a person appointed by the Environment Protection Authority (‘the Authority’) under the Environment Protection Act 1970 (‘the Act’) as an environmental auditor for the purposes of the Act, having:
10) been requested by Richard Bender of the Victorian Urban Renewal Authority (Places Victoria) to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit in relation to the site referred to as Parcel 4.2 as defined on Figure S which is part of the land bounded by South Street, Smythe Road, Elgin Boulevard, High Street, Bond Street and Church Street, Wodonga (also known as Junction Place) owned by Places Victoria.
11) had regard to, among other things,
(i) guidelines issued by the Authority for the purposes of Part IXD of the Act,
(ii) the beneficial uses that may be made of the site, and
(iii) relevant State environment protection policies/industrial waste management policies, namely,
State environment protection policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), No S95, 2002 State environment protection policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), No S160, 1997 State environment protection policy (Waters of Victoria), No. S13, 1988 as varied on 3 June 2003 No. S107 State environment protection policy (Air Quality Management), No S240, 2001 State environment protection policy (Ambient Air Quality), No S19, 1999 Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009 in making a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of the site by any industrial processes or activity, waste or substance (including any chemical substance), and
12) completed an environmental audit report in accordance with section 53X of the Act, a copy of which has been sent to the Authority and the relevant planning and responsible authority,
HEREBY STATE that I am of the opinion that
The site is suitable for the beneficial uses associated with agricultural, residential, (including high, medium and low density), recreational / open space, commercial and industrial land uses, subject to the following condition attached thereto:
Groundwater is polluted and must not to be used for the extractive uses: potable use, primary contact recreation, stock watering, agriculture, parks and gardens and industrial water uses; unless verified by testing as being suitable for these uses.
70798-1,2&3_a 171
The condition of the site is detrimental or potentially detrimental to any (one or more) beneficial uses of the site. Accordingly, I have not issued a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the site in its current condition, the reasons for which are presented in the environmental audit report. The terms and conditions that need to be complied with before a Certificate of Environmental Audit may be issued are set out as follows:
Residual groundwater impacts at the site would need to be remediated such that all protected beneficial uses of groundwater were restored.
Other related information
Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) were found on parts of the Junction Place site, remediated and these areas certified as being free of ACM in accordance with Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. It is possible that ACM could be encountered during development or occupation of the site. Disposal of any ACM encountered should be in accordance with relevant legislation and regulations.
Pursuant to Section 13.6 of the EPA Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit, the auditor has determined that groundwater has been cleaned-up to the extent practicable and that the site is a Groundwater Quality Restricted Use Zone (GQRUZ). The GQRUZ covers all of Precincts 1, 3 and 4.
Groundwater is presently suitable for buildings and structures. Other protected groundwater beneficial uses are presently precluded by the presence of arsenic, mercury, nickel, zinc, petroleum hydrocarbons, ammonia and nitrate from historical site activities and off-site sources.
The Authority (EPA) may require periodic reassessment of the practicability of groundwater clean- up.
This Statement forms part of environmental audit report (Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd, Environmental Audit Report, Precincts 1, 3 and 4, Junction Place, Wodonga – 7 October 2014). Further details regarding the condition of the site may be found in the environmental audit report.
Dated 7 October 2014
Signed
Phil Sinclair Environmental Auditor (Appointed Pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970)
Attachment: Figure S:- Proposed Precinct Plan
70798-1,2&3_a 172 PARCEL 4.2
PARCELS 3.1, 3.2A, 3.4 PROMENADE LINK, 4.1, 4 (GREEN SQUARE)
PARCEL 1.1 URBAN SQUARE
PARCEL 3.3A
client: no. description drawn approved date drawn HU PLACES VICTORIA
A ORIGINAL ISSUE HU PS 03/10/14 project: approved PS WODONGA CBD PRECINCTS 1, 3 & 4
0 20 40 60 80 100 ELGIN BOULEVARD, WODONGA, VICTORIA date 03/10/14 SCALE 1:2000 (A3) METRES revision title: PROPOSED PRECINCT PLAN scale AS SHOWN JUNCTION PLACE, WODONGA original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 ENAUABTF00455AA FIGURE S A PLOT DATE: 9/10/2014 11:55:54 AM DWG FILE: \\ABTFFS01\DATA$\ENVI\MEL_OPS\JOB FILES\ENAUABTF00400'S\ENAUABTF00455AA - PLACES VICTORIA, 53X AUDIT JUNCTION PLACE WODONGA\CAD\ENAUABTF00455AA-R02-D02.DWG
70798-1,2&3_a 173