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environmental audit reports, appointed environmental auditors who are highly certificates and statements may be withdrawn or qualified and skilled individuals.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.
PHILEO AUSTRALIA LIMITED
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORT
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, FORMER BOX HILL LANDFILL (STAGE 1), FEDERATION STREET, BOX HILL
E13737/1-BS
18 October 2004
E13737/1-BS SAR Electronic Copy 18 October 2004 This is an unsigned electronic version of a Coffey report. A signed paper copy of this report will be issued to the addressee. Phileo Australia Limited In the event of any discrepancy between the paper and electronic Level 8, 278 Collins Street versions of this report, the signed paper version is to take MELBOURNE, Victoria, 3000 precedence.
Attention: Mr Alfred Sung
Dear Sir,
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, FORMER BOX HILL LANDFILL (STAGE 1), FEDERATION STREET, BOX HILL Please find enclosed a Statement of Environmental Audit and accompanying Statutory Environmental Audit Report completed for the above site in accordance with the Environment Protection Act (1970) (“the Act”). Two copies of the environmental audit report are provided for your use. This Environmental Audit Report supersedes the one issued on 26 August 2003 (our reference E13737/1-AT). You are requested to return the two copies (2 volumes each) of the superseded report which you previously received from Coffey to the address below or destroy the existing copies and advise the undersigned accordingly. The Statement of Environmental Audit supersedes the one issued in the environmental audit report referred to above and revised on 17 November 2003. The change in this environmental audit report relates to the placement of a condition relating to management of the site in accordance with the Site Management Plan. This had previously been placed under “other related information”. Also included is information about an area of contamination discovered and remediated after the completion of the audit in August 2003. These changes have been made at the request of EPA. The opportunity has also been taken to include additional information about gas monitoring at and adjacent to the audit site. In accordance with the Act, a copy of the report has been forwarded to EPA and the relevant planning authority; Whitehorse City Council. We trust that our report meets your requirements. Should you have any queries or require further information, please contact the undersigned.
PHIL SINCLAIR Victorian EPA Appointed Environmental Auditor - Category - Contaminated Land.
Distribution: Original held by Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd 1 copy Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd Library 2 copies Phileo Australia Ltd 1 copy Environment Protection Authority 1 copy Whitehorse City Council 1 copy Golder Associates Pty Ltd
E13737/1-BS S- 1 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970 STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT
I, Philip Leigh Sinclair, of Coffey Geosciences 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 purpose of The Act, having: 1. been requested by Phileo Australia Ltd, to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit in relation to the site known as the Proposed Residential Development Area, former Box Hill Landfill (Stage 1), located at Federation Street, Box Hill, and as shown in Figures SF-1, SF-2 and SF-3 attached to this Statement (“the site”) owned by Phileo Australia Ltd. 2. had regard to, amongst other things, (i) guidelines issued by the Authority for the purposes of Part IXD of the Act; (ii) the beneficial uses that may be made of the site; and; (iii) relevant State environment protection policies/industrial waste management policies, namely the State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria), the State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), the Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste Minimisation), and the Industrial Waste Management Policy (Prescribed Industrial Waste), in making a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of the site by any industrial processes or activity, waste or substance (including any chemical substance); and 3. completed an environmental audit report in accordance with Section 53X of the Act, a copy of which has been sent to the Authority and the relevant planning and responsible authority. HEREBY STATE that I am of the opinion that: The site is suitable for the following beneficial uses: • Sensitive uses, including low, medium and high density residential use; • Recreation / Open Space; • Commercial Uses; and • Industrial Uses subject to the conditions attached thereto: • groundwater at the site should not be used unless it is demonstrated to be suitable for the use proposed; • landfill gas should be monitored in accordance with the Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan (Appendix K); • a gas venting system shall be used under building and residences; and • management of the audit site should be in accordance with the Site Management Plan (Golder August 2002) provided as Appendix J of this audit report Page 1 of 5
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS S- 2 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970 STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT (CONTINUED)
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, 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: • groundwater at the site would need to be demonstrated as being suitable for the relevant beneficial uses; and • the potential presence of landfill gas at the site would need to be demonstrated as posing no unacceptable risk or aesthetic limitation to any use of the site. • Materials with aesthetic limitations that are present on the site would need to be remediated or removed such that they did not pose any aesthetic limitation to the site. Other related information: • Groundwater at the site has been assumed to be polluted. • Soil at the site may have aesthetic limitations due to the presence of fragments of bricks and rubble and the potential presence of odour at depth. • This Statement of Environmental Audit supersedes the one issued on 26 August 2003 (reference E13737/1-AT) and revised on 17 November 2003. This Statement forms part of environmental audit report entitled “Statutory Environmental Audit; Proposed Residential Development Area, Former Box Hill Landfill (Stage 1), Federation Street, Box Hill” (Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd, Report No. E13737/1-BS dated 18 October 2004. Further details regarding the condition of the site may be found in the environmental audit report. DATED: 18 October 2004
SIGNED: Victorian EPA Appointed Environmental Auditor - Category - Contaminated Land
COPY: ………….. OF …………..
Attachments SF-1. Locality Plan SF-2. Site Plan – Sampling Locations - Figure 2 (ref 02613509/F18) from Golder July 2003d. SF-3. Site Layout and Gas Monitoring Well Locations. Page 2 of 5
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS i 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT (Pages S-1, S-2 and Figures SF-1, SF-2 and SF-3)
1. AUDIT DETAILS 1
2. BACK GROUND 2 2.1 Site Location 2 2.2 Proposed Site Development 2 2.3 Audit Requirements 2 2.4 Basis for Contaminated Site Audits in Victoria 2 2.5 Activities Undertaken by the Auditor 3 2.6 Information Referenced by the Auditor 4
3. SITE INFORMATION 5 3.1 Site Description and Setting 5 3.2 Site History 5 3.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology 6
4. SITE SOIL CONTAMINATION INVESTIGATIONS 6 4.1 Scope of Investigations 6 4.1.1 Drainage Trench 6 4.1.2 Diesel Spill Area 7 4.1.3 Discovered Area of Contamination 7 4.1.4 Gas Monitoring Wells 7 4.1.5 General Site Assessment 7 4.2 Contamination Sampling and Analysis 8 4.2.1 General Site Assessment Program 8 4.2.2 Trench Assessment 8 4.2.3 Diesel Spill Area 8 4.3 Discovered Area of Contamination 8 4.4 Site Observations 9 4.5 Conclusions: Site Soil Contamination Investigations 9 4.5.1 General Site Assessment Program and Drainage Trench Assessment 9 4.5.2 Diesel Spill Area 9 4.5.3 Discovered Area of Contamination 9
5. LANDFILL GAS MONITORING 9 5.1 Scope of Work 9
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS ii 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
5.2 Landfill Gas Trigger Levels 11 5.3 Results of Gas Monitoring 11 5.4 Soil Flux Vapour Emission Testing 12 5.5 Methane in Leachate Assessment 12 5.5.1 Scope of Investigation 12 5.5.2 Results of Methane in Leachate Assessment 13 5.6 Conclusions: Landfill Gas Investigations 13
6. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) MEASURES 14 6.1 Trench Validation (Golder March 2001) 14 6.1.1 Field QC samples 14 6.1.2 Laboratory QC Results 14 6.2 Validation of Diesel Spill Area 14 6.2.1 Validation - Field QC Samples 14 6.2.2 Remediation and Validation- Split Field Samples 15 6.2.3 Remediation and Validation - Equipment Blank Samples 15 6.2.4 Laboratory Program QC Results 15 6.3 Environmental Site Assessment Golder (December 2001) 16 6.3.1 ESA - Field QC Samples 16 6.4 Duplicate Field Samples 16 6.4.1 Split Field Samples 17 6.4.2 Equipment Rinsate Blank Samples 17 6.4.3 Laboratory Program QC Results 17 6.5 Discovered Area of Contamination 18 6.6 QA/QC Program for Landfill Gas 18 6.7 Conclusions: QA/QC Measures 19
7. SITE CRITERIA 19 7.1 Guidelines for Soil Contamination Assessment 19 7.2 Beneficial Uses 20 7.2.1 Land 20 7.2.2 Groundwater 21 7.2.3 Surface Waters 23 7.2.4 Leachate Waters 23 7.2.5 Soil Gas Criteria 24
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS iii 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
8. CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT RESULTS 24 8.1 Soil Assessment 24 8.1.1 Drainage Trench Assessment (Golder December 2001) 24 8.1.2 Site Assessment (Golder December 2001) 24 8.1.3 Diesel Spill Area 25 8.1.4 Discovered Area of Contamination 25 8.2 Gas Monitoring 25 8.3 Assessment of Exceedances 25 8.4 Assessment of Stockpiled Material for Off-site Disposal 26
9. CONTAMINATION RISK APPRAISAL 26 9.1 Potential Human Health Impacts 26 9.2 Potential Environmental Impacts 27 9.2.1 Groundwater 27 9.2.2 Surface Water Quality 27 9.2.3 Leachate Waters 27 9.2.4 Air Quality 27 9.2.5 Aesthetics 27 9.2.6 Waste Soil and Waste Management 28
10. AUDIT CONCLUSIONS 28
11. REFERENCES 30
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS iv 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
FIGURES (Attached to Statement of Environmental Audit) SF-1. Locality Plan SF-2. Site Plan – Sampling Locations - Figure 2 (ref 02613509/F18) from Golder July 2003d. SF-3. Site Layout and Gas Monitoring Well Locations
TABLES 6-1 Summary of Field QC Samples, Remediation and Validation, Diesel Spill Area 15 6-2 Summary of Field Split Results Outside the Acceptance Criteria, Diesel Spill Area 15 6-3 Summary of Field QC Samples, Golder (December 2001) 16 6-4 Summary of Field Duplicate Results Outside the Acceptance Criteria, Golder (December 2001) 16 6-5 Summary of Field Split Results Outside the Acceptance Criteria, Golder (December 2001) 17 7-1 Protected Beneficial Uses of Land 21 7-2 Protected Beneficial Uses of Segments of the Groundwater Environment 21
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS v 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
APPENDICES (presented on CD) A. Copy of Certificate of Title, proposed Plan of Subdivision and Planning Certificate (27 pages). B. Golder (Dec 2001) “Environmental Site Assessment, Box Hill Landfill, Federation Street, Box Hill” (ref 97613585/318) dated December. C. Golder (February 2002). “Land Adjacent to the Former Box Hill Landfill”’ Letter to Auditor dated 18 February ref 02613509/10 (5 pages). D. Golder (July 2003a). “Box Hill Landfill”, Facsimile to Auditor of 24 July; ref 02613509. Golder (July 2003b). “Box Hill Landfill”, Facsimile to Auditor of 30 July; ref 02613509/056. Golder (July 2003c). “Assessment of Diesel Spill Remediation Works, Box Hill Landfill”, Letter of 31 July ref 02613509/035. Golder (July 2003d). “Box Hill Landfill, Box Hill North”, Letter of 31 July ref 02613509/057. E. Golder (August 2003b). “Investigation of Gas and Groundwater samples collected from two Gas Probes at the Box Hill Landfill site” dated 25 August 2003 (ref 02613509/0621). F. F1. Copy of EPA Pollution Abatement Notice (Section 31A(1)) dated 23 May 2000 (7 pages). F2. Copy of EPA Minor Works Pollution Abatement Notice (Section 31B) dated 4 June 2004. G. Correspondence related to Direct Groundwater Assessment at the Box Hill landfill (14 pages). H. Correspondence from Auditor in relation to VCAT Panel Hearing; “Environmental Audit; Federation Street, Box Hill; Audit Progress” (ref E13737/1-BA dated 25 February 2003) (3 pages). I. Golder (August 2003a). “Box Hill – Former Landfill”, Facsimile to Auditor of 12 August 2003, ref 02613524. J. Golder (August 2002). “Site Management Plan for Box Hill Brickworks Development, Federation Street Box Hill” (ref 02613509/023 dated 6 August. K. Correspondence relating to discovery of contamination adjacent to the former kiln building (Coffey letter report E13737/1-BR dated 5 April 2004, 3 pages plus attachments). L. Coffey (2004). “Landfill Gas Management Plan; Stage 2 Former Box Hill Landfill; Federation Street, Box Hill” (ref E16218/1-AT dated 4 June). M. Golder (September 2004). “Box Hill Landfill – Monitoring of Methane Gas, July 2004 to September 2004” (ref 04613610/006 dated 7 September). N. Golder (January 2003). “Monitoring Report Box Hill Landfill, 14 Federation Street, Box Hill” Version 2.0 dated January, ref 02613509/045.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 1 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
1. AUDIT DETAILS Item1 (a) Name of Environmental Auditor: Phillip Leigh Sinclair (b) Date of first appointment as a Victorian 5 February 1996 EPA accredited Environmental Auditor: Date of last re-appointment as a Victorian 17 July, 2003 EPA accredited Environmental Auditor (c) Audit Commissioned by: Mr Alfred Sung of Phileo Australia Limited (d) Authorisation Not applicable (e) Date of Request to Undertake Audit: 22 December 2000
(f) Site to be Audited: Proposed Residential Development Area, Former Box Hill Landfill (Stage 1), Federation Street, Box Hill; Part
of Volume 6520 Fol 967 (Figures SF-1,SF-2 and SF-3).
Zoning of Site: Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z) under the City of Whitehorse Planning Scheme
Proposed Rezoning: Residential
(g) Completion Date of Audit: 18 October 2004 Outcome of Environmental Audit: Statement of Environmental Audit. (h) Documentation Reviewed Refer Reference Section (q) Possible off-site contamination, if Not applicable. No off-site contamination is considered present. to be associated with the audit site. (r) Members of Support Team Used: Adam Creek – Project Manager, liaison with assessor and client. Sarah Richards – Partial drafting of report including QA/QC assessment.
Other staff used in completing the audit Huxley Lawler – Partial drafting of audit report.
1 Refers to item number in Appendix 3, EPA Audit Guidelines (VICEPA June 2002).
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 2 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
2. BACK GROUND 2.1 Site Location The site subject to this audit covers an area of approximately 2.3 hectares along the northern and western boundaries of the former Box Hill Landfill site. Title information: Part of Volume 6520 Fol 967 (refer Figure 1 and Appendix A). 2.2 Proposed Site Development The current development proposed by Phileo Australia Ltd (Phileo) for the audit site involves medium and low density residential use. Plans for the proposed subdivision of this portion of the former Box Hill Landfill (PS506686R) are provided in Appendix A. 2.3 Audit Requirements The site is currently Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z) under the City of Whitehorse Planning Scheme and is subject to and Environmental Audit Overlay. To accommodate the proposed residential developments, Phileo requested the completion of a statutory Environmental Audit, under Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970 (EP Act). On 22 December 2000, Mr Phil Sinclair, a EPA Victorian appointed Environmental Auditor in the category - Contaminated Land, was formally engaged by Mr Alfred Sung of Phileo to conduct a Statutory Environmental Audit of the site, under Section 53U of the EP Act. In August 2003, an audit report was prepared and submitted to EPA, Whitehorse City Council (Council) and Phileo Australia. Based on feedback from EPA, the auditor issued a revised Statement of Environmental Audit on 17 November 2003. In providing advice to Council, EPA has discussed the audit report issued in August 2003 with the auditor. The withdrawal of the August 2003 audit report (as revised in November 2003) and reissue of the audit report are a consequence of those discussions. 2.4 Basis for Contaminated Site Audits in Victoria Within Victoria there are a number of legislative provisions for the management of land contamination issues. Key legislation includes the Environmental Protection Act, 1970 and the Planning and Environment Act, 1987. In addition to the Victorian legislation, a ‘National Environment Protection Measure’ has been developed by the Commonwealth for the Assessment of Site Contamination (NEPC 1999). This measure is referenced by EPA for use by auditors in Victoria. Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act, 1970 defines Environmental Auditors who may be appointed to audit the status of a site in accordance with the provisions of Section 53X of the same Act. An Environmental Audit is intended to: • assess the status of the land; • determine whether or not it is contaminated, and; • where contamination is present, to assess the impact or potential impact of such contamination on the beneficial uses of the environment. The result of such an audit may be a Certificate of Environmental Audit stating that the condition of the land is not detrimental, or potentially detrimental to any beneficial use. Where a Certificate of Environmental Audit cannot be issued, the auditor may issue a Statement of Environmental Audit taking regard of the environmental conditions of the land and stating its suitability for
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 3 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy specified uses. Such Statements of Environmental Audit may include conditions to allow the specified beneficial uses to be achieved. Under the Planning and Environment Act, 1987, the responsible planning authority must ensure that land is suitable for its proposed use. Under Section 12(2) of this Act, the planning authority must have regard to Ministers Direction No.1 relating to potentially contaminated land when preparing a planning scheme or amendment (Department of Planning and Housing 1992). Where a planning scheme amendment would have the effect of allowing potentially contaminated land to be used for a sensitive use, agriculture or public open space, the planning authority must satisfy itself that the environmental condition of that land is suitable for the proposed use. In this respect, the planning authority is obliged to base its consideration on the findings of a Statutory Environmental Audit undertaken under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1970. Under the State Planning Provisions (1999), Planning Authorities have been able to identify former industrial land with an Environmental Audit Overlay applied as part of the Local Planning Scheme. Removal of this overlay from such land requires the conduct of a statutory environmental audit in a similar manner to that required by Ministers Direction No. 1. A number of existing Victorian State Environment Protection Policies (SEPPs), developed under the Environment Protection Act, 1970, are relevant to the conduct of this audit. These include: • State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), No. S 95 dated 4 June (VicEPA 2002). • State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), No S160, 1997 dated 17 December (VicEPA 1997). • State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria), No S13, 1988 (VicEPA 1988), as varied by the Government in Council Order No S 107 dated 4 June 2003. 2.5 Activities Undertaken by the Auditor As part of the audit and pre-audit process, the auditor undertook the following activities: • Review of documentation provided by Phileo’s environmental consultant; Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder) engaged by the site owners to conduct an environmental site assessment. This documentation included reports of previous assessments conducted on the site and letters, facsimiles and a report regarding the current contamination status of the site. • Review of documentation related to the adjacent land i.e. Completion and Rehabilitation Plan Works Approval Application, Monitoring and Cap Construction Report and the Site Management Plan (for the whole of the proposed development site) etc., referred to in Section 2.6 below. • Discussions with Golder regarding the performance of site assessment works. • Site visits conducted by the auditor or auditor’s representative undertaken on 1 February 2001, 5 February 2001, 26 July 2002, 29 July 2002, 1 August 2003 and 12 December 2003. • Appraisal of the site contamination status and the human health and environmental risk as related to the proposed development. • Preparation of the environmental audit report dated 26 August 2003 (reference E13737/1-AT) and revised on 17 November 2003. • Review of work associated with the audit of Stage 2 of the land at the former Box Hill Landfill, including review of landfill gas monitoring information. • Liaison with EPA and Whitehorse City Council.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 4 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
• Preparation of this environmental audit report. 2.6 Information Referenced by the Auditor The following information has been referenced during the course of this audit. • A.S. James P/L (2002), “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, Box Hill Brickworks, Federation Street, Box Hill”, January 2002, ref. 102291/Rev 1. • Bryce Raworth (2000). “Former Standard Brickworks Conservation and Management Plan” Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd, • Golder Associates (1989), “Works Approval Application, Box Hill Brickworks Reclamation, Federation Street, Box Hill”, May 1989, ref. 89612136. • Golder Associates (1999), “Completion and Rehabilitation Plan, Box Hill Landfill, 14 Federation Street, Box Hill” May 1999, 97613585/092. • Golder Associates (2000), “Box Hill Landfill: Groundwater Conditions”, letter to Phileo Australia dated 17 May 2000, ref. 97613585/154. • Golder Associates (March 2001), “Re: Box Hill Landfill – Environmental Audit, Stormwater Trench Excavation”, letter to Coffey dated 13 March, ref. 97613585/228. • Golder Associates (October 2001), “Monitoring and Cap Construction Report Box Hill Landfill, 14 Federation Street, Box Hill” dated 5 October, 97613585/300. • Golder Associates (December 2001), “Environmental Site Assessment, Box Hill Landfill, Federation Street, Box Hill”, dated December, ref. 97613585/318. • Golder (August 2002). “Site Management Plan for Box Hill Brickworks Redevelopment, Federation Street Box Hill” dated 11 June, ref 02613509/023. • Golder (January 2003). “Monitoring Report Box Hill Landfill, 14 Federation Street, Box Hill” Version 2.0 dated January, ref 02613509/045. • Golder Associates (July 2003a,b,c,d), “ Box Hill Landfill, Box Hill” facsimile and letter reports to Coffey Geosciences dated from 24 to 31 July (refer Appendix D). • Golder (August 2003a). “Box Hill – Former Landfill”, Facsimile to Auditor of 12 August 2003, ref 02613524. • Golder (August 2003b). “Investigation of Gas and Groundwater samples collected from two Gas Probes at the Box Hill Landfill site” dated 25 August 2003 (ref 02613509/0621). • Golder (March 2004). “Excavation of Contaminated Soil Located Near the Kiln Building , Former Box Hill Brickworks Site, Box Hill” (ref 03613644/017 dated 15 March 2004). • Golder Associates (April 2004a). “Box Hill Landfill, Additional Gas Monitoring”, ref. 03613644/029, Golder Associates, 1 April 2004. • Golder Associates (April 2004b), “Box Hill Landfill, Landfill Gas Monitoring”, ref. 03613644/030, Golder Associates, 7 April 2004. • Golder Associates (May 2004a). “Landfill Gas Management at Box Hill Landfill”, ref. 03613644/040, Golder Associates, 3 May 2004. • Golder Associates (May 2004b). “Box Hill Landfill – Additional monitoring of methane gas in service lines along Surrey Road (sic), Box Hill”, ref. 03613644/043, Golder Associates, 14 May 2004.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 5 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
• Golder Associates (May 2004c). “Box Hill Landfill – Monitoring of methane gas along Surrey Road (sic), Box Hill”, ref. 03643644/048, Golder Associates, 24 May 2004. • Correspondence relating to discovery of contamination adjacent to the former kiln building (refer Appendix K).
3. SITE INFORMATION 3.1 Site Description and Setting The audit site comprises part of the former Box Hill Landfill site. The Stage 1 audit site is an L shaped area, located along the northern and part of the western boundaries of the former Box Hill Landfill. Residential properties adjoin the site to the north and west. Prior to being used as a landfill, the site was a brickworks (see Section 3.2 below). The former Brickworks buildings exist to the south of the audit site. An elevated area exists to the southeast which is the area of the landfill site that received waste. The landfill has now been capped and rehabilitated. The northern part of the audit site generally slopes down to the east and the western part generally slopes down to the north. The boundary of the audit site is presented in Figures SF-2 and SF-3 being based on the surveyed proposed plan of subdivision (refer Appendix A). 3.2 Site History The audit site, along with the area to the southeast, was formerly part of the Box Hill Brickworks. The Box Hill Brickworks were established in the 1890’s and included operation of a clay source pit and brick kilns on site. The brickworks was purchased by Brick & Pipe Industries Ltd during the 1960’s and ceased operations in 1988. From 1988 until 1999 the clay pit was used as a council landfill, accepting solid inert waste and building demolition rubble. In the early days of operation, considerable amounts of green waste, derived from council collections, was placed in the landfill. A small portion of the audit area overlies the former clay pit. This part of the clay pit is reported by the site operators, to have been backfilled with soil excavated from sites in the Box Hill area and has not received waste. A gully is reported to have existed between the area receiving soil fill and the area receiving inert wastes. Along the southern boundary of the audit site, just to the north of the Hoffman kiln, a rail line was present from about 1920’s until at least the late 1940’s (Bryce Raworth 2000), and was reportedly used for transporting bricks, clay and fuel for the kiln (refer Appendix K). Subsequently, Phileo became the property owner for the whole of the former Brickworks site. In May 2000, EPA issued a Section 31A(1) Pollution Abatement Notice (PAN) covering the whole of the former Brickworks site to Phileo, requiring a number of things; including development and implementation of capping, monitoring and closure plans referred to above. Landfill rehabilitation works were conducted in 2001, which included capping and landfill gas monitoring bore installation. These works were undertaken by Phileo, with support from Golder. In February 2003, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) convened a panel hearing to consider the planning decisions in relation to the former Brickworks site, including the audit site. The auditor provided an audit status update at that time (refer Appendix H) to Phileo, including advice that it was considered likely that the outcome of the audit would be a Statement of Environmental Audit with conditions related to: • the use of the gas venting system under residences,
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 6 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
• incorporation within the Site Management Plan for the former landfill of elements that address the potential impacts on the audit area; and • that groundwater from beneath Stage 1 should not be used unless it is demonstrated that it is suitable for use. It is understood that EPA preferred that redevelopment of the proposed residential development area should not occur without completion of an audit for the whole of the former Brickworks site. The auditor has not seen EPA’s submission to VCAT on this matter. On 4 June 2004, EPA issued Minor Works Pollution Abatement Notice (MWPAN) under Section 31B of the EP Act 1970. The MWPAN applies to the whole of the former landfill property and supersedes the PAN issued in May 2000. 3.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology The Geological Survey of Victoria “Ringwood” mapsheet (1: 63,360 scale) indicates that the area of the site is underlain by Silurian age deposits of massive siltstone interbedded with thin sandstones, know as the Dargile Formation. The natural soils and rock reported in Golder (December 2001) and A.S.James (2002) are consistent with expectations for residual weathered siltstone. In preparation of the Work Approval document for the Box Hill Landfill (Golder 1989), Golder conducted a desktop assessment of the groundwater conditions at the site. Groundwater level was estimated to be at approximately 80 m RL, based on the groundwater noted during excavation of Box Hill train station. It was also noted that dewatering during quarrying operations may have drawn down the water level to as low as 60.5m RL. Golder also considered that the hydraulic conductivity of the siltstone was likely to be in the range of 10-6 to 10-7 m/s, based on its experience in the Melbourne area. Golder (December 2001) reports that there were “no extraction bores in a number of kilometres of the site” (refer Appendix B of this audit report). EPA has required the assessment of leachate present within the former landfill. The assessment of groundwater quality is not a condition of the MWPAN.
4. SITE SOIL CONTAMINATION INVESTIGATIONS 4.1 Scope of Investigations There have been several phases of works and investigations during the reclamation of the whole of the former Brickworks site, some directly related to the audit site, some related to subsequent rehabilitation of the former landfill to allow further development / reuse. 4.1.1 Drainage Trench During operation of the larger site as a landfill, a truck wash-down area existed near the main gate to the former landfill at Federation Street; i.e. in the south west corner of the audit site. Leachate was pumped to this area to be used to wash the trucks. The leachate was then returned to the leachate ponds, located in the northeastern corner of the site, via an open earthen trench, which also diverted stormwater to prevent it from entering the former landfill area. The assessment of the contamination status of the trench is reported as an Appendix of Golder (December 2001) (refer Appendix B). The assessment involved the recovery of samples from the walls of the trench at 5 locations along the length of the trench. One sample was recovered from the base of the trench. Following discussions with the auditor, further sampling was conducted to recover base samples from the other 4 locations where wall samples had been previously recovered. The trench location and sample locations are shown in Figure SF-2. The sampling procedure was observed by the auditor’s
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 7 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy representative on 1 February 2001 and is considered to have been consistent with standard environmental protocols. 4.1.2 Diesel Spill Area On 5 February 2001, a diesel spill occurred on site, believed to have been caused by vandals. This spill resulted in diesel fuel pooling in the area of the site office, located about 30m from the Federation Street entrance to the former landfill. Some diesel fuel entered the exposed drainage trench through pipework leading from the site offices. Golder (December 2001) reports that the contaminated materials were excavated and disposed of off-site by Phileo. At the time of excavation, no validation sampling was conducted. Two testpits (TP31 and TP40, refer Figure SF-2)) were excavated in the area of the spill during the subsequent assessment works. Additional sampling and analysis for samples from 4 locations (TP44 to TP47, refer Figure SF-2) was conducted in the spill area in July 2002 and is reported in Golder (July 2003d), refer Appendix D. This assessment also consisted of excavation of three (3) slot trenches across the spill area to confirm visually that there was no deeper contamination located beneath the spill area. 4.1.3 Discovered Area of Contamination In October and November 2003, after the completion of the audit of the proposed residential portion of the former landfill site, soil contamination was discovered during assessment works being conducted for the Stage 2 portion of the former Box Hill Landfill site. The site assessor that made the discovery was Golder Associates acting on behalf of Phileo, the property owner. The soil contamination discovered was due to the presence of petroleum hydrocarbon and was in an area to the north of the Hoffman Kiln. At the time, the site assessor thought that the area being sampled was part of the Stage 2 audit site. However, the sample location where the initial discovery was made (Golder sample point 101008; the location of which is shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3 provided in Appendix K) was found to be within the boundary of the Stage 1 audit site covered by the audit report issued in August 2003. The area in which the contamination was discovered is likely to be associated with a past use of this part of the former brickworks as a locomotive shed and associated activities. The locomotives were used to transport bricks produced at the site along a spur line, which ran across the site and linked up with the Box Hill rail line via an easement located next to Surrey Road (refer Appendix K). 4.1.4 Gas Monitoring Wells In February 2001, six gas monitoring bores were installed around the outside of the landfilled area (Golder December 2001). The bores were installed using machine augering techniques. The bores were installed to approximately 6 m depth outside the boundary of the former quarry (refer Figure SF-3). All bores were reportedly installed into natural weathered siltstone rock. Five rounds of gas monitoring were reported in Golder (December 2001). Additional gas monitoring bores were installed in October 2001, April 2002, May 2002, March 2004 and May 2004 (refer Figure SF-3). This aspect is discussed further in Section 5. 4.1.5 General Site Assessment In September 2001, Golder conducted a site contamination assessment, which involved excavation of 40 testpits and drilling of 2 boreholes (Golder December 2001). The purpose of the investigation was to assess the extent and quality of the fill material present at the audit site.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 8 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
4.2 Contamination Sampling and Analysis 4.2.1 General Site Assessment Program During the site assessment works, 40 testpits were excavated on, approximately, a 15 m grid (refer to Figure SF-2). Samples were generally recovered at 0.5 m intervals in fill material and 1 m intervals in natural soils. Two boreholes were drilled to assess the deeper fill materials present on the site. Samples were recovered at 1 m intervals. The boreholes were drilled using solid augering techniques and samples were recovered using a split spoon sampler. Sampling procedures are considered to have been in general accordance with standard environmental protocols. At least 1 fill sample was selected from each test pit for analysis for metals. In some locations fill was not encountered. In testpits where deep fill was encountered, 2 samples were often analysed. Selected samples were analysed for a broader range of analytes (“WSL screen”); comprising pH, 17 metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), chlorinated hydrocarbons, phenols and cresols, fluoride, cyanide and sulfate), TPHs or MAHs. Samples of natural materials were generally analysed for metals as a 3-part composite. Two composites were analysed for the “WSL screen” of contaminants. Four fill samples were selected from each of the boreholes for analysis. Three samples from each borehole were analysed for metals and TPH and one sample from each for the “WSL screen”. A summary of the analytical program is presented in Table 1 of Golder (December 2001), which is attached as Appendix B of this audit report. 4.2.2 Trench Assessment The trench assessment involved the recovery of 15 samples from the walls and base of the leachate drainage trench. The two wall samples from each location were analysed as a composite for pH, metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Two of the composites were analysed for a broad range of analytes, known as an EPA screen. Each wall sample was analysed individually for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Two wall samples were analysed individually for monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (MAHs) and volatile halogenated organics (VHOs). One base sample was analysed for pH, metals, TPH and PAHs. The other 4 base samples were analysed for metals. Where composite samples were found to contain concentrations in excess of half of the ANZECC B criteria (modified ANZECC B), the constitutive samples were analysed individually for the elevated contaminant. 4.2.3 Diesel Spill Area Although no validation sampling was conducted during the excavation of diesel impacted soils, reported to have been undertaken by Petrogas on behalf of Phileo, the material that was excavated and stockpiled was sampled and analysed by Golder for the purposes of material classification prior to disposal. Two samples were recovered and analysed for a broad range of analytes applicable for disposal classification of materials containing elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons. Golder / Phileo have provided a copy of the Waste Transport Certificate relating to the off-site disposal of this material, indicating that 20 cubic metres (26.8 tonnes) were disposed of to the Lyndhurst landfill on 11 April 2001 and that listed contaminants were appropriately; aromatic compounds (26) and hydrocarbons (53). 4.3 Discovered Area of Contamination Six test pits were installed in a zone approximately 5 to 10 m wide to the north of the Hoffman Kiln (sample locations: 101007, 101008, 101016, 101017, 101018 and 101023) between 14 and 17 October 2003, as part of the Stage 2 assessment program. Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was found to be present at location 101008 to a concentration of 3,500 mg/kg at a depth of between 0.3 to 0.4 m below ground level.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 9 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
On 19 November 2003, an additional six test pits were installed adjacent to sample location 101008, where elevated petroleum hydrocarbon results were obtained. The sample locations were 101032 to 101037; with sample locations 101032 to 101035 being on the audit area. The depths of the test pits ranged from 1.7 to 2.3 m. A total of 34 samples were collected, of which 18 were tested. A photoionisation detector (PID) was used to assess for the presence of volatile organic compounds. Samples were analysed for metals (8), TPH, PAHs and MAHs. The sample from location 101008 from 0.3- 0.4 m depth was submitted for the “EPA Screen” suite of analyses, which includes organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, 14 metals, volatile and semi-volatile hydrocarbons, cyanide, fluoride, phenols, sulfate and asbestos in addition to TPH, PAHs and MAHs. The excavation (refer Appendix K) was subject to validation by three base and 5 sidewall samples (V1 to V8 and stockpiled soil by three samples (Stockpile 1, 2 and 3) on 12 December 2003. These samples were tested for metals (8) and TPH. 4.4 Site Observations The fill material encountered on site during the assessment works comprised clay with some brick, plastic, wood and occasional traces of ash and hose. The natural material encountered, comprised clay and extremely weathered siltstone. There were some aesthetic limitations to soils noted during the assessment. The material discovered near location 101008 was associated with a sporadic occurrence of cinders in a distinct layer at about 0.3 m depth below the existing surface. 4.5 Conclusions: Site Soil Contamination Investigations 4.5.1 General Site Assessment Program and Drainage Trench Assessment Tables 2, 3 and 4 of Golder (December 2001) summarise the results of the soil contamination assessment program for the general site area (refer Appendix B of this audit report). The assessment program adopted by Golder for this area is considered suitable for the purposes of the audit. 4.5.2 Diesel Spill Area Initially, the area potentially impacted by the diesel fuel spill was not validated. At the auditor’s request, further assessment of this area of environmental concern was undertaken July 2002 as reported in Golder (July 2003c), refer Appendix D. This assessment was considered suitable, given the area known to be potentially impacted and the contaminants of concern associated with the spill. 4.5.3 Discovered Area of Contamination The validation of the excavation involved visual and analytical assessment. The test results indicated that
TPH concentrations were below the adopted screening criteria of 1,000 mg/kg for TPH > C9 fraction. No odours remained on the base or walls of the excavation.
5. LANDFILL GAS MONITORING 5.1 Scope of Work A total of 24 gas monitoring bores were installed across the whole of the former Box Hill brickworks, as shown in Figure SF-3. The bores were installed in five phases as summarised in Table 5-1. Bores GA01 to GA06 were located within the boundary of the former landfill. Based on the gas monitoring results from bores GA01 to GA06, additional gas vents (bores GA07 to GA13) were installed across the whole of the former Box Hill brickworks site. All bores were located outside the boundary of the former quarry, except for bores GA08 and GA12, which were installed in an area of deep fill on the Stage 1 audit site. Gas
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 10 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy bores GA04a and GA5 to GA15 are within the audit site. To further investigate the potential for offsite migration of landfill gas, bores GA18 and GA19 were installed offsite, east of Surrey Rd (Golder April 2004a). Five further bores (GA20 to GA24) were subsequently installed along the eastern site boundary. The bores were drilled into natural weathered siltstone rock using machine augering techniques and 19 mm PVC casing and slotted screens were installed. The screened levels were selected with the aim of assessing the source of the landfill gas results observed. Screen depths are shown in Table 5-1.
TABLE 5-1. GAS MONITORING BORE CONSTRUCTION Gas monitoring bore Date installed Screened interval (m)
GA01 to GA04a, GA06 February 2001 1.5-6.0
GA05 1.5-10.0
GA07 to GA08 April 2002 1.5-9.0
GA09 0.4-1.0
GA10 1.0-2.0
GA11 4.0-6.0
GA12 May 2002 1.0-2.0
GA13 0.7-2.0
GA14, GA16 to GA19 March 2004 1.5-6.0
GA15 1.3-6.0
GA20, GA23 May 2004 1.5-5.0 GA21, GA22, GA24 0.75-1.5
Golder report that 46 rounds of gas monitoring have been conducted as summarised in Table 5-2. Details of the sampling methodology are presented in Golder (January 2003) (Appendix N). The last 32 gas monitoring rounds allowed for equilibration of the gas in the wells prior to testing being conducted. For the last 25 rounds, the first of two gas measurements was recorded immediately after removal of the cap of the well, with the second being made approximately 1 hour later with the cap removed. Due to concerns with the security of wells located outside the landfill boundary, the steel cap for these wells was not completely removed, but was rotated to allow gas exchange with the atmosphere to occur through cap retaining-screw holes.
TABLE 5-2. GAS MONITORING PROGRAM Date Number of sampling rounds Locations sampled
February 2001-October 2001 6 Wells GA01-GA06
November 2001-April 2002 7 Wells GA01-GA06
April 2002 1 Wells GA01-GA11
May 2002-November 2003 10 Wells GA01-GA13
March 2004 2 Wells GA01-GA19
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 11 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
Date Number of sampling rounds Locations sampled
May 2004 8 Wells GA16-GA24 Telstra pits T1-T2 Drainage pits D1-D4
July – Sept 2004 12 Wells GA01-GA24 Telstra pits T1-T2 Drainage pits D1-D4
5.2 Landfill Gas Trigger Levels The criterion for landfill gas assessment at this site is 1.25% v/v for methane. This criterion is 25% of the lower explosive limit and is considered to be adequately conservative to protect proposed on site uses of the land and off-site receptors. 5.3 Results of Gas Monitoring The most recent summary of results of landfill gas monitoring is presented in Appendix M (Golder September 2004). Table 1 in Appendix M provides the available historical methane monitoring data. Results for the six gas monitoring wells installed around the former Box Hill landfill site in February 2001 indicated the presence of methane at concentrations in excess of the lower explosive limit (LEL) at some locations. Five percent (5%) methane in air (on a volume per volume basis) is the LEL and the measurements reported on a volume per volume basis. Six (6) rounds of gas monitoring were undertaken prior to late October 2001, when additional gas vents were installed. A further 7 rounds of monitoring were undertaken between November 2001 and mid-April 2002, at which time gas monitoring wells GA08 to GA13 were installed. A further 11 rounds of gas monitoring were conducted up until March 2004, at which time gas monitoring wells GA14 to GA19 were installed. After three further rounds; gas monitoring wells GA20 to GA24 were installed in May 2004. The most recent 32 rounds of landfill gas assessment allowed for equilibration of the gas in the bores prior to testing being conducted. A summary of methane concentrations of relevance is presented below. • Prior to March 2004, GA03 located outside the audit site on the eastern boundary of the landfill portion of the former Brickworks site for early rounds of sampling showed exceedances of the acceptance criterion (1.25% vol/vol methane). There have been no exceedances of the acceptance criterion for the seven (7) stabilised methane results obtained since November 2003; • GA04a located within the audit site for early rounds of sampling. There has been one (1) exceedance of the acceptance criteria for stabilised methane results obtained since November 2002; being 1.7%v/v on 15 September 2004; • GA08 located within the audit site on the area of “deep fill” (refer Figure SF-3). Elevated concentrations exceeding the criterion have occurred regularly for this deep-screened bore. The shallow screened bore immediately adjacent to GA08, GA12 has shown no exceedances of the acceptance criterion for the four (4) stabilised methane results obtained since November 2003; • Gas monitoring well; GA9 which is located adjacent to GA04a, has shown no stabilised methane concentrations exceeding the acceptance criterion for the 10 stabilised methane results obtained since November 2003.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 12 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
• Gas monitoring well; GA10 which is located adjacent to GA04a, has shown one (1) stabilised methane concentration exceeding the acceptance criterion for 10 stabilised methane results obtained since November 2003. • Gas monitoring well GA11 which is located adjacent to GA04a, has shown elevated stabilised methane concentrations in excess of the acceptance criteria, beginning in about March 2004. Results for September 2004 are less than the acceptance criterion. • Gas monitoring well GA14 which is also located long the northern boundary has shown no exceedances of the acceptance criterion for stabilised methane results since installation in March 2004. • Gas monitoring well GA15 which is located along the northern boundary of the audit site in the northeastern corner, has shown stabilised methane concentrations exceeding the acceptance criterion in July and August 2004, with concentrations dropping below the criterion in September 2004 (3 sets of results in September 2004). This bore is screened from 1.3 m to 6 m below ground level. The source of methane / landfill gas in the vicinity of GA04a is considered by Golder to be the sediments in the former leachate pond / retarding basin, previously located just within the audit area boundary in the eastern part of the audit site. There area gas monitoring wells located off-site of the former landfill (part of the Stage 2 audit area) where elevated methane concentrations have been recorded. In addition, there are service access pits that are monitored for the presence of methane as part of the Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan referred to in the MWPAN issued by EPA on 4 June 2004 (Figure SF-3). 5.4 Soil Flux Vapour Emission Testing At the time that landfill gas results were first reviewed by the auditor in 2003, there was considered to be a need to assess whether the presence of landfill gas, and in particular methane, posed a risk to development of the audit site for residential use. Flux monitoring allows an assessment of the amount of gas (methane in this case) emanating from the landfill and moving through the surface of the adjacent land. Consequently, the auditor and assessor agreed that soil flux vapour emission testing be conducted at locations adjacent to where elevated concentrations of methane has been reported or was considered to be likely; i.e. GA07, GA08/GA12 and GA04a/GA09 (refer Figure SF-3). Background, equipment blank and seep air blank samples were collected as part of the program. The soil flux vapour sampling and analysis was undertaken by Leeder Consulting Pty Ltd in November 2002 and reported in Appendix D of Golder (January 2003) (Appendix N). All of the results of the flux hood monitoring testing indicated concentrations of methane below reporting limits, which suggests that an acceptably low flux of methane through soil is occurring at the test locations. 5.5 Methane in Leachate Assessment 5.5.1 Scope of Investigation As a further check on the potential impact of landfill gas / methane on the suitability of the audit site for residential use, the auditor requested testing of water present in a selection of the gas monitoring bores. This program of work was conducted on 1 August 2003. The aim of this program was to assess if leachate was a mechanism of transport for landfill gas into the soil underlying audit site, or whether some other mechanism was responsible. Golder has reported this phase of work in Golder (August 2003), provided as Appendix E of this audit report.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 13 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
Water present in gas monitoring bores GA04a and GA09 is considered by Golder to be result mainly from inflow of surface water runoff, based on comparison of water levels in adjacent bores. The measurements made of water quality suggest that this is a reasonable inference. Two types of water samples were collected and analysed from gas monitoring bores GA05 and GA07. The first was collected after the cap was removed and dipping of the water level had occurred. The second sample was collected from water seeping in through the screen after water in the bore had been purged. Air testing for landfill gas components was also carried out immediately after cap removal. 5.5.2 Results of Methane in Leachate Assessment Golder has compared water quality results for these samples with those for sump samples to assist in the interpretation. The content of dissolved methane in the water samples from GA05 was less than the reporting limit of 0.01 mg/L, whereas those for water samples from GA07 were 4.44 mg/L and 0.04 mg/L for the first and second samples respectively. The air samples from GA05 and GA07 showed methane concentrations of 0.1% vol/vol and 11.5% vol/vol respectively, the latter being similar to that reported for air samples collected from GA04a since May 2002. Golder considers that the results of analysis of the water samples collected from gas monitoring bores GA05 and GA07, do not show significant impact from landfill leachate; e.g. it is low in ammonia and slightly high in total dissolved solids in relation to other samples of leachate analysed (Golder August 2003). Golder also considers that the results suggest that methane is accumulating in the air space within the gas monitoring bore at GA07 and then saturating (or close to saturating) the water accumulating in the bore; the solubility of methane being about 24 mg/L (Golder August 2003). The auditor considers that the proposed mechanism for landfill gas / methane migration is reasonable and together with the pattern of results obtained for gas and water samples, suggest that the methane concentration in the water samples collected from the gas monitoring bores is derived from vapour migration rather than leachate migration. 5.6 Conclusions: Landfill Gas Investigations Methane is migrating from the landfill beneath the audit site. The assessment of landfill gas / methane migration conducted by Golder and reviewed above, suggests that vapour migration through the lower part of the soil vadose zone is the most likely mechanism of transport of landfill gas / methane. One consequence of this finding is that there is a risk that landfill gas / methane could accumulate in air spaces on the audit site. Residences, buildings and services etc. constructed on the site need to take this risk into account, and consequently, a Site Management Plan has been developed which includes provision of passive venting beneath buildings and residences. The auditor notes however, that soil flux vapour emission testing suggests that the risk posed by methane to inhabitants of residential or other buildings or to other services is low.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 14 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
6. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) MEASURES 6.1 Trench Validation (Golder March 2001) The primary laboratory used by Golder (March 2001) for assessment sample analysis was WSL Consultants Pty Ltd (WSL), a NATA registered laboratory. The chain of custody (COC) documentation provided in Golder (December 2001) does not indicate the date that samples were received by the analytical laboratory. However, the WSL laboratory report indicates that the samples were received within 24 hours of the time that samples were recovered from site. 6.1.1 Field QC samples The auditor notes that no field QA/AC samples were collected as part of the trench validation (Golder March 2001). 6.1.2 Laboratory QC Results The analytical methods used by WSL are based on VicEPA and USEPA modified standard methods, which are in accordance with normal practices. WSL performed an internal duplicate analysis. This duplicate showed good consistency with all RPDs being within the acceptable range of +/-50% (Standards Australia 1997). The spike analysis results showed good consistency with all results within the generally accepted range of 70- 130% (ibid). All method blanks undertaken reported results at levels below laboratory detection limits. The laboratory internal quality control results are considered adequate given the nature and concentration of soil contaminants assessed in the Golder (March 2001) assessment. 6.2 Validation of Diesel Spill Area The primary laboratory used by Golder for the validation of the diesel spill (Golder December 2001) for primary sample analysis was WSL and Amdel was used as the secondary laboratory. Both laboratories are NATA registered laboratories. The COC documentation provided in Golder (December 2001) indicates that the samples were delivered to the analytical laboratory within 24 hours of recovering the samples. 6.2.1 Validation - Field QC Samples There is no evidence that collection of a field duplicate sample from the stockpiles of soil occurred. One spilt sample was collected and sent to Amdel for analysis. A summary of the field QC samples for the diesel spill assessment is presented in Table 6-1 below.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 15 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
TABLE 6-1: SUMMARY OF FIELD QC SAMPLES, REMEDIATION AND VALIDATION; DIESEL SPILL AREA QC Sample Type Lab No of QC Samples Analysed Primary Samples WSL 2 Equipment rinsate blanks WSL 0 Intra-laboratory duplicates (field duplicate samples) WSL 0 Inter-laboratory duplicates (field split samples) Amdel 1
Split samples (inter-laboratory) were reportedly split in the field under standard Golder sampling procedures. The auditor notes that no equipment rinsate blank sample was collected during this phase of the program. Validations samples were not collected or analysed during the remediation of the diesel affected soils. 6.2.2 Remediation and Validation - Split Field Samples In addition to primary samples, one quality control split sample was collected and analysed by the secondary laboratory to assess aspects of field protocols, laboratory performance and establish the validity of the laboratory data. From the single sample analysed a Relative Percentage Difference (RPD) was calculated for a total of 20 analyte pairs. Of the 20 pairs, 9 recorded concentrations below detection limits in both samples. Of the remaining 11 pairs, 2 recorded a RPD outside the commonly acceptable range of +/-50% for TPH contaminants (Standards Australia 1997). Six sample pairs for PAH analytes also exceeded the recommended range. The elevated RPDs for these sample pairs are considered to be most likely due to the concentrations of contaminants being close to or below analytical detection limits. The remaining exceedances (i.e. RPDs greater than 50%) are summarised in the Table 6-2 below.
TABLE 6-2. SUMMARY OF FIELD SPLIT RESULTS OUTSIDE THE ACCEPTANCE LIMITS; DIESEL SPILL AREA. Sample Contaminant Result (mg/kg) RPD%
SP1 TPH C10 - C14 410 60% SP1 TPH C10 – C14 220
6.2.3 Remediation and Validation - Equipment Blank Samples The auditor notes that no equipment blank samples were collected during the diesel spill sampling at the site. 6.2.4 Laboratory Program QC Results The analytical methods used by WSL are based on VicEPA and USEPA modified standard methods, which are in accordance with normal practices. Golder (December 2001) report WSL performed internal duplicate analyses. These duplicates showed good consistency with all RPDs being within the acceptable range of +/-50% (Standards Australia 1997). The spike analysis results showed good consistency with all results within the generally accepted range of 70- 130% (ibid). Analysis of method blanks undertaken, indicate results at levels below laboratory detection limits. The laboratory internal quality control results are considered adequate given the nature and concentration of soil contaminants assessed in the Golder (December 2001) investigation.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 16 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
6.3 Environmental Site Assessment Golder (December 2001) 6.3.1 ESA - Field QC Samples In addition to the primary samples collected during the validation phase (Golder December 2001), field split and field duplicate samples were collected. Duplicate samples were analysed at both the primary and secondary laboratory. No equipment rinsate blank samples were collected during this phase of the program. A summary of the field QC samples is presented in Table 6-3 below.
TABLE 6-3: SUMMARY OF FIELD QC SAMPLES; GOLDER (DECEMBER 2001) QC Sample Type Lab No of QC Samples Analysed Primary Samples WSL 65 (59 individual, 6 composite)
Equipment rinsate blanks WSL 0
Intra-laboratory duplicates (field duplicate) WSL 7
Inter-laboratory duplicates (field split samples) MGT 3
6.4 Duplicate Field Samples In addition to primary samples, seven quality control blind duplicate samples were collected and analysed by the primary laboratory (WSL) to assess aspects of field protocols, laboratory performance and establish the validity of the laboratory data. From the seven samples analysed RPD values were calculated for a total of 195 analyte pairs. Of the 195 pairs, 131 recorded concentrations below detection limits in both samples. Of the remaining 64 pairs, 14 pairs recorded a RPD outside the commonly acceptable range of +/-50% for heavy metals, PAH, TPH and sulfate contaminants. All other pairs produced RPDs within the +/-50% range. The exceedances are summarised in the Table 6-4 below. TABLE 6-4. SUMMARY OF FIELD DUPLICATE RESULTS, OUTSIDE THE ACCEPTANCE LIMITS Sample Contaminant Result (mg/kg) RPD% TP20/0.1 Cadmium 0.5 85.7% FD5/0.1 Cadmium <0.2 TP20/0.1 Mercury <0.05 109% FD5/0.1 Mercury 0.17 TP24/0.1 Zinc 7 53% FD1/0.1 Zinc 12 BH01/8.0 Fluoranthene 0.3 91% FD10/8.0 Fluoranthene 0.8 BH01/8.0 Pyrene 0.3 80% FD10/8.0 Pyrene 0.7 BH01/8.0 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1 133% FD10/8.0 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.5 BH01/8.0 Chrysene 0.1 120% FD10/8.0 Chrysene 0.4 BH01/8.0 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.1 120%
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 17 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
TABLE 6-4. SUMMARY OF FIELD DUPLICATE RESULTS, OUTSIDE THE ACCEPTANCE LIMITS (CONT’D) Sample Contaminant Result (mg/kg) RPD% FD10/8.0 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.4 BH01/8.0 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.1 100% FD10/8.0 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.3 BH01/8.0 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 86% FD10/8.0 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.5 BH01/8.0 Benzo(g.h.i)perylene 0.1 120% FD10/8.0 Benzo(g.h.i)perylene 0.4 BH01/8.0 Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 0.1 120% FD10/8.0 Indeno(1.2.3.cd)pyrene 0.4 BH01/8.0 Sulfate 35 111% FD10/8.0 Sulfate <10 BH01/11.0 TPH C15 – C28 <50 117% FD10/11.0 TPH C15 – C28 190
6.4.1 Split Field Samples Three split samples were analysed by the secondary laboratory (GAL) for TPH, BTEX and heavy metals. Of the 39 sample pairs, 21 sample pairs both recorded concentrations below the laboratory detection limit. Of the remaining sample pairs, three pairs exceeded the recommended range of +/- 50%. The exceedances are summarised in the Table 6-5 below.
TABLE 6-5. SUMMARY OF FIELD SPLIT RESULTS, OUTSIDE THE ACCEPTANCE LIMITS Sample Contaminant Result RPD% BH01 Chromium 52 77% FS8_0901 Chromium 23 BH01 Lead 35 56% FS8_0901 Lead 62 BH01 Lead 42 71% FS11_0901 Lead 20
The duplicate data do not indicate that soil contamination would be incorrectly associated with a health or environmental risk and hence change the assessment of suitability of the audit site for the range of land uses proposed. 6.4.2 Equipment Rinsate Blank Samples The auditor notes that no equipment rinsate blank samples were collected as part of the Environmental Site Assessment. 6.4.3 Laboratory Program QC Results The analytical methods used by WSL are based on VicEPA and USEPA modified standard methods, which are in accordance with normal practices.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 18 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
Golder (December 2001) report that WSL performed internal duplicate analyses. These duplicates showed good consistency with all RPDs being within the acceptable range of +/-50%. The spike analysis results showed good consistency with results generally within the accepted range of 70- 130%. All method blanks undertaken reported results at levels below laboratory detection limits. The laboratory internal quality control results are considered adequate given the nature and concentration of soil contaminants assessed in the Golder (December 2001) investigation. 6.5 Discovered Area of Contamination In addition to 15 primary samples, three duplicate (blind replicate) samples were collected and analysed by the primary laboratory (WSL) for TPH in order to assess aspects of field protocols. From the three samples analysed, acceptable RPDs (less than 50%) were obtained for 11 of the 12 analyte pairs. The elevated RPD was for the TPH C29-C36 fraction at 52.6%. Three split duplicate samples were submitted to the secondary laboratory (Amdel) and analysed for TPH and MAHs in order to assess aspects of laboratory performance and establish the validity of the primary laboratory data. From the three samples analysed, acceptable RPDs (less than 50%) were obtained for 16 of the 18 analyte pairs. The elevated RPDs were for the TPH C15-C28 and C29-C36 fractions at 133% and 146% respectively. No blind replicate, split duplicate or equipment blank samples were collected by Golder during the validation phase. The analytical methods used by WSL (primary laboratory) and Amdel (secondary laboratory) are based on VicEPA and USEPA modified standard methods, which are in accordance with normal practices. Golder (March 2004) reports WSL performed internal duplicate analyses. These duplicates showed good consistency with all but one RPD being within the acceptable range of +/-50% (Standards Australia 1997). The primary laboratory spike analysis results showed good consistency with all but one result within the generally accepted range of 70-130%. Analysis of method blanks undertaken, indicate results at levels below laboratory detection limits. The laboratory internal quality control results are considered adequate given the nature and concentration of soil contaminants assessed in the Golder (March 2004) investigation. The principal contaminant of concern for the “Discovered Area of Contamination” was TPH. The intra- laboratory (blind) duplicates were acceptable for TPH, with one minor exception. The inter-laboratory duplicates (split duplicates) show that the secondary laboratory measured higher TPH than the primary laboratory; indicating either poor ability to prepare equivalent split duplicates in the field or lower recoveries by the primary laboratory. The internal spike recoveries for both the primary and secondary laboratories were acceptable, with the secondary laboratory reporting slightly lower recoveries. On this basis, it would appear that the ability to prepare equivalent split duplicates in the field is the more likely explanation for the difference in results. Of the eight validation samples, only one (sample 7 or V7) showed more than trace levels of TPH, indicating that the limitation to the quality assurance program with respect to TPH is not of significance to this stage of the assessment work and that the data confirm that the remediation program met its objectives. 6.6 QA/QC Program for Landfill Gas The measurement of landfill gas was undertaken using calibrated landfill gas meters that record methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen present in landfill gas. It is not practicable to sample duplicates using this field technique which would otherwise allow some assessment of the reliability of individual results. However,
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 19 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
Golder sampled gas both immediately after the well cap was removed and again after stabilisation; typically a period of about an hour in the most recent sampling rounds. Certificates of calibration are provided by the companies that provided the landfill gas monitors. Copies of these have been sighted by the auditor for selected sampling rounds. There have been numerous rounds of gas testing at some locations on the site, while for others, the number of measurements is lower. The pattern of results for methane is considered to be consistent with some wells but not for others. Uncertainty arises when a result at an individual sampling location is significantly different from previous results. A check of whether the recorded oxygen and carbon dioxide result are also showing an unexpected variation, allows some ability to place weight on an individual result. In preparing the landfill gas management plan (Appendix L) consideration was given to the limitations to the quality of gas monitoring data, by requiring more regular gas monitoring when trigger values were exceeded (Appendix L). 6.7 Conclusions: QA/QC Measures The measures adopted by Golder and reported in Golder (March 2001), Golder (December 2001), Golder (March 2004) and related reports are generally acceptable. While some deficiencies were identified in the assessment program, the lack of soil contamination results that exceeds or approach the auditor’s acceptance criteria for the proposed residential development, indicate that the consequences of the deficiencies are minor. Where the auditor had concerns about the quality of data or significance of results, there has generally been a requirement placed on Phileo and/or the assessor to conduct additional assessment; e.g. soil vapour flux monitoring etc. A review of the analytical QA/QC data provided in the Golder reporting indicates that while some limitations to the data quality are apparent, overall the data quality is considered to be adequate for the purposes of supporting the environmental audit of this site.
7. SITE CRITERIA 7.1 Guidelines for Soil Contamination Assessment The Guidelines for Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit (EPA Publication 759b, ‘the Guidelines’) states that an auditor is required to have regard to any relevant State Environment Protection or Industrial Waste Management Policy and any guidelines issued by EPA for the purposes of the Environment Protection Act 1970. Auditors should also have regard to any National Environment Protection Measure, and should refer to other published guidelines and standards relevant to the assessment of contaminated sites, including those nominated by EPA for use in environmental auditing (as nominated in Appendix A of EPA Publication 759b). The Guidelines direct that the evaluation of risks presented by identified contamination should be on the basis of comparison with site assessment criteria selected from the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (‘the NEPM’) and and/or by use of a site specific risk assessment to evaluate human health and environmental impacts. These directions are further reinforced in the State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land) 2002, which states that when clean-up is required to protect beneficial uses, clean up will either: a) Meet the relevant objectives of Table 2 (of the SEPP) for the protected beneficial uses defined in the SEPP; or b) Be determined through a site-specific risk assessment undertaken in accordance with the methodology set out in the NEPM or another risk assessment methodology approved by the EPA.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 20 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
The NEPM includes risk based Ecological Investigation Levels (EIL) and Health Investigation Levels (HILs) for both soil and groundwater, covering a range of exposure scenarios and contaminants. For this audit, the NEPM EIL (Interim Urban) criteria have been referred to by the auditor. These Interim Urban criteria are based on consideration of phytotoxicity, and are considered to be protective of plants in an urban environment. The NEPM HILs are based on calculated exposure levels for a range of landuse scenarios, including varying intensities of residential landuse, parks, recreational open space, playing fields, secondary schools and commercial/industrial. In this instance, the adoption of NEPM HIL-A (“Standard” residential setting with garden / accessible soils) and NEPM EIL (Interim Urban) criteria are considered appropriate to assess potential impacts on human health and the environment at this site respectively. For a site, where contamination levels are less than NEPM-EIL and NEPM-A HIL criteria, it can generally be concluded that contamination will not adversely affect the relevant beneficial uses of the land. Where contamination exceeds these criteria, further investigation and evaluation of risks may be warranted. Such evaluation would typically include the nature and degree of the exceedance and a consideration of any proposed site use, human health risks or other impacts on the nominated beneficial use. Where no NEPM EIL or NEPM EIL (Interim Urban) criterion is nominated, reference is made to the ANZECC & NH&MRC Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites (1992). The ANZECC guidelines include Environmental Investigation Threshold (ANZECC B) levels. Where no Environmental Investigation Threshold is nominated, the ANZECC guidelines recommend use of the Dutch B guideline values. ANZECC B criteria are environmental guidelines based in most cases on the phytotoxic effects on plants (ANZECC, 1992a). The NEPM does not provide soil criteria for TPH in a format that is readily comparable to the laboratory analysis. Therefore, the auditor has adopted the NSW EPA “sensitive landuse criteria” as defined in the document “Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites” (NSW EPA 1994) as screening criteria for soil and groundwater at the site. 7.2 Beneficial Uses The acceptance criteria nominated above have been developed to take account of the beneficial uses nominated for land and groundwater respectively in the SEPP (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land) (VicEPA 2002). 7.2.1 Land The SEPP (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land) identifies a range of protected beneficial uses according to land-use type as summarised in Table 7-1 below.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 21 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
TABLE 7-1 PROTECTED BENEFICIAL USES OF LAND
Beneficial Use Segment Parks & Agricultural Sensitive Use Recreation/ Commercial Industrial Reserves Open space High Other Density Maintenance of ecosystems Natural Ecosystems √ Modified Ecosystems √ √ √ √ Highly Modified Ecosystems √ √ √ √ √ √ Human health √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Buildings & structures √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Aesthetics √ √ √ √ √ √
Production of food and flora √ √ √
For the site, use for low to medium density residential purposes is proposed, and as such the range of beneficial uses nominated under the column titled Sensitive Use – Other in Table 7-1 is appropriate. 7.2.2 Groundwater The SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria) identifies a range of protected beneficial uses according to segment type as summarised in Table 7-2. At this site, it is considered that groundwater was not encountered. Based on a review of available groundwater information, the auditor considers that groundwater in the vicinity of the site is likely to have a Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentration in the order of 1,500 mg/L to 3,000mg/L, possibly as high as 5,600mg/L (based on a sample from a gas monitoring bore GA07). Therefore, the auditor has considered conservatively, that groundwater can be classified as Segment B, meaning that the beneficial uses for groundwater nominated under Column B in Table 7-2 below, require protection. TABLE 7-2 PROTECTED BENEFICIAL USES OF SEGMENTS OF THE GROUNDWATER ENVIRONMENT
Beneficial Use Segment A1 A2 B C D (1-500 mg/L) (501-1,000 (1001-3,500 (3,501-13,000 (Greater than mg/L) mg/L) mg/L) 13,000 mg/L) Maintenance of ecosystems √ √ √ √ √
Potable water supply Desirable √ Acceptable √ Potable Mineral Water Supply √ √ √
Agriculture, parks and √ √ √ gardens Stock watering √ √ √ √
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 22 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
Beneficial Use Segment A1 A2 B C D (1-500 mg/L) (501-1,000 (1001-3,500 (3,501-13,000 (Greater than mg/L) mg/L) mg/L) 13,000 mg/L) Industrial water use √ √ √ √ √
Primary contact (eg. Bathing √ √ √ √ swimming) Building and structures √ √ √ √ √
• Maintenance of aquatic ecosystems (for receiving waters). Bushy Creek and its junction with Koonung Creek are located approximately 2.5km to the north of the audit site and Gardiners Creek is located approximately 1.6km to the south east of the site, and given the inferred low yield of the siltstone aquifer, it is considered that discharge of groundwater from the site to these waterways is unlikely. • Potable Mineral Water Supply. The area in which the site is located, is not considered to be a hydrological regime that would provide mineral water for potable use. • Agriculture, Parks and Gardens. Golder reports that there were “no extraction bores in a number of kilometres of the site” (refer Appendix B of this audit report). Consequently, taking into account the inferred low yield of the siltstone aquifer, this is not considered to be an existing or likely use of groundwater at the site. • Stock Watering. As indicated above, there are “no extraction bores in a number of kilometres of the site” and taking into account the inferred low yield of the siltstone aquifer, this is not considered to be an existing or likely use at the site. • Primary Contact Recreation: As indicated above there are “no extraction bores in a number of kilometres of the site”, and taking into account the inferred low yield of the siltstone aquifer, this is not considered to be an existing or likely use. In addition, the use of groundwater for primary recreational purposes (e.g. filling of swimming pools) at this site is considered unlikely due to the availability of a high quality reticulated water supply in the area. • Industrial water use: As indicated above there are “no extraction bores in a number of kilometres of the site”, and taking into account the inferred low yield of the siltstone aquifer, this is not considered to be an existing or likely use. In addition, the use of groundwater for industrial purposes (e.g. food and beverage manufacture, wash down water) at this site is considered unlikely due to the availability of a high quality reticulated water supply in the area and nature of the proposed use of the site. • Buildings and structures: Given the likely depth to groundwater and the geology of the site, contact between site buildings (e.g. foundation materials) and site structures, including infrastructure with groundwater is considered possible. However, pH values, redox and sulfate concentrations measured for water samples recovered from the gas monitoring bores indicate that impact on this beneficial use is unlikely. The former Box Hill landfill pit adjoins the audit site to the south east. The landfill site is subject to a Minor Works Pollution Abatement Notice (MWPAN) issued on 4 June 2004 (refer Appendix F). Given the past use of the land adjacent to the audit site, it has been assumed that groundwater at the site is likely to be polluted. Section 13.3 of the Environmental Auditor (Contaminated Land) Guidelines for the Issue of Certificates and Statements of Environmental Audit (VicEPA 2001) states:
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 23 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
“Exemption from need to determine whether groundwater is polluted where site is not the source site and the potentially affected beneficial uses are not relevant Where: a) groundwater is likely to be polluted, and b) the site is not a source of groundwater pollution, and c) the beneficial uses of groundwater are not likely (that is, are not relevant), and d) any pollution of groundwater would not affect any other beneficial use of the site, The auditor may complete the audit without determining whether groundwater is actually polluted, provided the auditor completes the audit based on the assumption that the groundwater is polluted.” This approach was subject of correspondence between the auditor and EPA (refer Appendix G) and the auditor has adopted the approach described above, for the site under audit; i.e. the groundwater has been assumed to be polluted, without a direct assessment of groundwater quality having been conducted (other than some assessment of water samples from gas monitoring bores, as part of a program aimed at assessing risk to future site users posed by landfill gas / methane; refer Section 5.5). Based on the limited knowledge of the groundwater profiles in this area, the groundwater is expected to be in the siltstone rock at a depth of approximately 80 m RL (i.e. approximately 10 m below the site surface). Golder (December 2001) indicates and the auditor accepts that the siltstone rock provides a very low yield aquifer and it is considered unlikely that extraction bores would ever be operated in this area for any beneficial purpose. Based on the anticipated depth to groundwater and the low permeability material present, it is also considered unlikely that groundwater pollution would affect any other beneficial use of the site. 7.2.3 Surface Waters The testing of surface waters arising from the audit site has not been required by the auditor provided given that surface soils at the site meet NEPC HIL-A and EIL criteria (refer Section 8). Surface water arising from the adjoining former landfill site is required to be monitored in accordance with the MWPAN (refer Appendix F) for that (adjoining) site. Golder (January 2003) reports that the completed landfill cap contours for the adjoining site facilitate surface water runoff towards the southern boundary of the northern portion of the audit site (Appendix N). Stormwater samples were collected from Stormwater Basin 2, located in the northeastern corner of the former landfill site (and just to the south of the northeastern corner of the audit site). The data reported in Golder (January 2003) indicate that the water in Stormwater Basin 2 (refer Figure 1 Golder January (2003) provided as Appendix N), is of generally good quality with generally low nitrogen concentrations, dissolved oxygen concentrations generally at around saturation concentrations and there only being one elevated Biochemical Oxygen Demand result of 31 mg/L from the three rounds of monitoring conducted. Note that the surface water quality data for Stormwater Basin 2 sampling point is presented in Appendix E of this audit report. 7.2.4 Leachate Waters Results of leachate monitoring collected from leachate sumps 1 and 2 show elevated results typical of landfill leachate (refer Golder January 2003) and the summary of results presented in Appendix E of this audit report.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 24 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
7.2.5 Soil Gas Criteria The auditor has adopted a landfill gas / methane criterion of 25% of the Lower Explosive Limit; equivalent to approximately 1.25% on a volume / volume basis.
8. CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT RESULTS The results of soil analysis have been compared with relevant contamination criteria, namely the NEPC (1999) Soil Ecological Investigation Levels (EIL), and NEPC (1999) Health Investigation Levels (HILs) for low- density residential landuse, referred to as NEPC HIL-A criteria, which is consistent with the proposed use of the audit site for low to medium density residential purposes. NEPM EIL (Interim Urban) criteria have been used to assess the potential for the presence of unacceptable environmental risks. NSW EPA Service Station Sensitive Use criteria have also been referred to for some organic contaminants in absence of other relevant criteria. 8.1 Soil Assessment 8.1.1 Drainage Trench Assessment (Golder December 2001) The full results of the drainage trench assessment are presented in Golder (December 2001), presented as Appendix B of this audit report. None of the samples recovered from the base of the trench contained concentrations of contaminants exceeding the adopted criteria (NEPC HIL-A and NEPC EILs). Two of the composite wall samples contained concentrations of nickel (54 mg/kg and 38 mg/kg) in excess of the modified NEPM EIL criterion (30 mg/kg). The individual samples were analysed and samples 1N and 1S (sample location 1, north and south walls) were found to contain concentrations of nickel (81 mg/kg and 82 mg/kg) above the NPEM EIL (60 mg/kg). The elevated nickel concentrations were initially attributed to natural background levels. Based on the results obtained for the trench samples, the soil contaminants are not present in the trench materials at concentrations that pose a risk to environmental values or human health. 8.1.2 Site Assessment (Golder December 2001) Results of the site contamination assessment conducted by Golder in September 2001 are presented in Golder (December 2001), which is presented as Appendix B of this report. Varying amounts of clay fill was encountered across the site. Test pits in the northern and western edges of the site encountered very little fill (< 0.2 m). Deep fill (>15.5 m thick) was encountered in the area of the site over the former quarry. In all locations the fill encountered was described as clay, often containing some brick, wood or plastic. In most locations the testpits or boreholes were advanced through the fill materials into the natural soils. In the area of deepest fill (as indicated in Golder (2002b) Figure 4) the boreholes (Bh01 and BH02) did not encounter natural material and were terminated in the fill material at 15.5 m and 14.5 m respectively. A subsequent geotechnical investigation conducted by A.S James (A.S. James, 2002) identified a maximum of 20.2 m of fill in the area. A.S.James (2002) also identified decaying organic matter below a depth of 8 m in BH-39, which was located on the eastern boundary of the site, in the area of deepest fill. Strong odours were also noted to be associated with this material. Seven of the ten composite samples of natural materials contained concentrations of metals in excess of the modified criteria (1 arsenic, 1 barium and 6 nickel). Three sets of constitutive individual samples were analysed for the metal found in elevated concentration in the composite sample. Where analysis was conducted, the individual samples were found to contain concentrations of the metal below the NEPM EIL or HIL criteria. Four composite samples that demonstrated concentrations of nickel, and one composite with a concentration of arsenic, above the modified NEPM EIL were not investigated further. The concentrations
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 25 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy observed in the composite samples (max. 47 mg/kg nickel and 7 mg/kg arsenic) are considered to be related to background concentrations of nickel and arsenic in the natural soils at the site. One sample (BH01_6.0-6.1) was found to contain a concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons equal to the Dutch B criterion of 1,000 mg/kg (no TPH criteria exist for NEPC (1999)). This sample was recovered from 6 m below the ground surface and is not considered to pose a human health or ecological risk at the site. All other samples had concentrations of TPH and MAHs below the adopted criteria. None of the samples analysed for PAHs were found to contain concentrations above the adopted criteria. All samples analysed for organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, volatile halogenated hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, cyanide and phenols contained concentrations below the laboratory reporting limits. 8.1.3 Diesel Spill Area The site assessment conducted in July 2002 (Golder July 2003c, refer Appendix D), indicated that the underlying materials at the diesel spill site were not impacted to a significant extent; with a single sample and its duplicate collected from testpit TP44 exhibiting petroleum hydrocarbons in the TPH C15-C28 fraction marginally above the laboratory reporting limit (i.e. 76 mg/kg and 84 mg/kg) compared with the reporting limit of 50 mg/kg. 8.1.4 Discovered Area of Contamination Golder (March 2004) (Appendix K) conducted a program of soil contamination assessment, delineation, remediation and validation, in a part of the audit site located just to the north of the Hoffman Kiln building (itself located in the south western part of the site). Soil contamination due to TPH was discovered. Validation results adequately demonstrate that the remediation achieved its objective and that soil contamination on this portion of the site was acceptable at the completion of the program. 8.2 Gas Monitoring The gas monitoring bore installation details and monitoring results for the whole of the former Box Hill landfill site are presented in Golder (September 2004). A summary of the gas monitoring results is presented in Table 1 of that report, with key results having been highlighted in Section 5.4 of this report. The results of monitoring indicate that landfill gas is present in the eastern part of the audit site and at depth in the area of deep fill on the western side of the landfill. Assessment of bores screened in the near-surface interval and flux monitoring indicate that methane is not present at significant concentrations close to the surface but is present above the level of leachate / groundwater at depth. Vapour transport through the vadose zone, rather than transport via leachate is considered to apply. 8.3 Assessment of Exceedances Several samples of natural material recovered during the drainage trench and site assessments were found to contain concentrations of nickel above the modified NEPC (1999) EIL criterion. Analysis of individual constitutive samples indicated that some samples contained concentrations of nickel slightly above the NEPC (1999) EIL criterion (60 mg/kg). These concentrations are considered to be natural background concentrations and based on the concentrations observed (max. 82 mg/kg) are not considered to pose a risk to any beneficial use of the site. Two composite samples were also found to contain concentrations of barium and arsenic (one each) above the modified EIL criteria. Individual analysis indicated that the barium concentrations in the constitutive samples were below the EIL criteria. The constitutive samples of the composite containing elevated arsenic were not analysed. However, the concentration observed in the composite is similar to many of the individual natural samples analysed. Therefore, the arsenic concentration
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 26 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy in the composite is considered likely to be similar in all three of the constitutive samples rather than due to only one sample. None of the soil analyses conducted during the drainage trench or site assessments indicated the presence of any contaminants, in soil, at concentrations that would adversely affect any beneficial use of the site. The decaying organic matter identified at depth in A.S.James (2002) BH-39 may indicate that waste materials were deposited very close to the boundary of the audit site. The material identified is not considered to pose a risk to beneficial uses of the site, based on the depth that it was encountered and the limited occurrence. However, the presence of waste material at depth near the boundary of the site confirms the importance of maintaining good landfill gas venting on the adjacent site to avoid adverse effects on the audit site. 8.4 Assessment of Stockpiled Material for Off-site Disposal The assessment of stockpiled materials from the excavation of diesel impacted materials, due to a diesel spill on site in February 2001, is reported in Golder (December 2001). Two samples were recovered from the stockpiled material and analysed for a broad range of analytes. The results of the analyses are presented in Appendix B of Golder (December 2001), which is attached as Appendix B of this audit report. The results indicated that the material contained elevated concentrations of PAHs (2 mg/kg and 47 mg/kg), TPH
(1,900 mg/kg and 26,500 mg/kg C>9) and MAHs (<0.5 mg/kg and 53.5 mg/kg). Golder (December 2001) reported that the material was disposed off-site to PWM Lyndhurst as Contaminated Soil. A copy of the relevant EPA Waste Transport Certificates has been reviewed by the auditor and it is considered that this material has been disposed of appropriately.
9. CONTAMINATION RISK APPRAISAL Where contamination levels are less than the relevant soil or groundwater ecological criteria, it can generally be concluded that contamination will not adversely affect beneficial uses of the land. Where contamination exceeds these criteria, further investigation and evaluation of risks may be warranted. Such evaluation would typically include the nature and degree of the exceedance and a consideration of any proposed site use, human health risks or other impacts on the nominated beneficial use. 9.1 Potential Human Health Impacts All of the reported concentrations of potential contaminants of concern in soil are below the NEPC HIL-A criteria (“standard” residential exposure scenario), therefore the concentrations recorded for contaminants in soil are considered to be protective of human health for the proposed development. An assessment of the potential for landfill gas / methane has been conducted and indicates that there is some potential for migration of landfill gas / methane from the adjacent former landfill to occur at the audit site and for accumulation to occur in some locations. There has been reasonably high variability in the concentration of methane in some on site and off-site gas bores at which monitoring has been undertaken, while others show consistently declining concentrations of methane. However, given that the measured flux of methane indicates a low risk to site users, i.e. that methane migration appears to be occurring at depth and not near-surface, and that incorporation of venting systems is proposed for all buildings, residences and management infrastructure to manage these risks is proposed, the auditor considers that the presence and potential risks due to the presence of landfill gas / methane in soil vapour beneath the audit site requires management. Future monitoring of gas bores in accordance with a landfill gas monitoring plan developed by the auditor (Appendix L), combined with the operation of a Site Management Plan (Appendix J) is considered appropriate to manage this risk.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 27 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
9.2 Potential Environmental Impacts 9.2.1 Groundwater Because of the presence of the former landfill immediately adjacent to the site, groundwater has been assumed to be polluted, without a direct assessment (other than as indicated in Section 5.5) having been conducted. The site assessment work conducted by Golder and reviewed by the auditor, indicate that the audit site is not a source of groundwater pollution. The auditor considers that the beneficial uses of groundwater to be protected at the site are not likely; i.e. • Maintenance of aquatic ecosystems (for receiving waters); • Stock watering; • Potable Mineral Water Supply; • Agriculture, Parks and Gardens; • Primary Contact Recreation; • Buildings and Structures; Based on the assessment of potential groundwater beneficial uses presented in Section 7, protection of these beneficial uses are not considered relevant to the site. The auditor has considered whether groundwater at the site may be a transport mechanism for methane, which could subsequently affect the use of buildings or pose a hazard to use of the site. As indicated in Section 9.1 above, the auditor considers that pollution of groundwater would not affect such uses, provided appropriate measures are put in place. Based on the above considerations, the auditor has concluded that he may complete the audit without determining whether groundwater is actually polluted, provided the audit is completed based on the assumption that the groundwater is polluted. In accordance with EPA Auditor Guidelines (VicEPA 2002) and as confirmed in specific EPA advice to the auditor in relation to this audit (refer Appendix G), the auditor proposes to indicate (in the Statement of Environmental Audit) that groundwater at the site is polluted and note that groundwater at the site should not be used unless it is demonstrated to be suitable for the use proposed. 9.2.2 Surface Water Quality The results of the soil assessment at the audit site indicate that the audit site presents an acceptably low risk to surface water quality. 9.2.3 Leachate Waters The results of analysis of the water samples collected from gas monitoring bores GA05 and GA07, do not show significant impact from landfill leachate. 9.2.4 Air Quality In their current state, soils on the site are not considered to pose a risk to air quality at the site. 9.2.5 Aesthetics Some brick and gravel fragments were noted in the bore logs pertaining to this site, and other material such as wood and rubber hosing were noted in the area of deep fill. There is also the potential for landfill gas-type
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 28 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy odours to be present at the site. However, given the nature of the proposed site redevelopment, and proposed management of landfill gas by use of venting beneath buildings, it is not considered that soil aesthetics mean that the site is unsuitable for sensitive uses. 9.2.6 Waste Soil and Waste Management Petrogas, on behalf of Phileo, conducted remediation of a portion of the site (i.e. the diesel spill area). Phileo has provided the auditor with documentation that indicates that the soil from this remediation was disposed of appropriately. It is considered that soils at the audit site do not pose a risk to redevelopment of the site as far as waste disposal or reuse is concerned.
10. AUDIT CONCLUSIONS The site contamination information reported by Golder (December 2001) and other Golder documentation referenced in this report, has been based on a systematic appraisal of the site. Golder have completed a phased site investigation program which has been carried out in general accordance with methodologies recommended by NEPC (1999), AS4482.1-1997 (Standards Australia 1997) and the auditor’s requirements. This included the discovery, delineation, remediation and validation of an area of ashy fill just to the north of the Hoffman Kiln Building (Golder March 2004). The auditor and the auditor’s representatives observed soil, leachate and gas sampling, subsequent sample storage (where relevant) and decontamination procedures for the site on a number of occasions. The observed field and data recording procedures were generally consistent with NEPC and VicEPA guidelines and normal good practice. The range of analytes nominated for various site investigations and analytical programs are considered to be appropriate based the understanding of past site activities at and carried out adjacent to the audit site. There were some limitations to the quality assurance programs applied in some cases. These have been taken into account in the findings of this audit. The soil contamination assessment indicated no significant exceedances of the criteria adopted as being appropriate for the nominated future land uses on the site for residential purposes. Remedial works were undertaken and documentation provided as to the final destination of the material disposed. These remedial works were subjected to an appropriate level of validation sampling as an auditor requirement. Groundwater has been assumed to be polluted due to the impact of the adjacent land use (landfill), without a direct assessment (other than as indicated in Section 5.5) having been conducted. The final assessment of the allowable landuses for the site has been made giving consideration to the proposed development plans for the site (refer Appendix A), with a mixture of low density and medium density residential use being proposed. The assumption of the presence of polluted groundwater and the potential aesthetic and landfill gas management limitations that apply at the site, mean that issue of a Certificate of Environment Audit is not appropriate. As such the auditor considers the site in its current state to be suitable for Sensitive Uses including residential use, and less sensitive uses; including Recreation / Open Space, Commercial and Industrial uses subject to conditions and has issued a Statement of Environmental Audit to that effect.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 29 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
The conditions considered to be appropriate at the audit site are: • groundwater at the site should not be used unless it is demonstrated to be suitable for the use proposed; • landfill gas should be monitored in accordance with the Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan (Appendix K); • a gas venting system shall be used under building and residences; and • management of the audit site should be in accordance with the Site Management Plan (Golder August 2002) provided as Appendix J of this audit report.
PHIL SINCLAIR Victorian EPA Appointed Environmental Auditor – Category - Contaminated Land
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 30 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
11. REFERENCES • A.S. James P/L (2002), “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, Box Hill Brickworks, Federation Street, Box Hill”, January 2002, ref. 102291/Rev 1. • Bryce Raworth (2000). “Former Standard Brickworks Conservation and Management Plan” Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd. • Golder Associates (1989), “Works Approval Application, Box Hill Brickworks Reclamation, Federation Street, Box Hill”, May 1989, ref. 89612136. • Golder Associates (1999), “Completion and Rehabilitation Plan, Box Hill Landfill, 14 Federation Street, Box Hill” May 1999, 97613585/092. • Golder (2000), “Box Hill Landfill: Groundwater Conditions”, letter to Phileo Australia dated 17 May 2000, ref. 97613585/154. • Golder Associates (March 2001), “Re: Box Hill Landfill – Environmental Audit, Stormwater Trench Excavation”, letter to Coffey Geosciences dated 13 March, ref. 97613585/228. • Golder (October 2001), “Monitoring and Cap Construction Report Box Hill Landfill, 14 Federation Street, Box Hill” dated 5 October, 97613585/300. • Golder (December 2001), “Environmental Site Assessment, Box Hill Landfill, Federation Street, Box Hill”, dated December, ref. 97613585/318. • Golder (June 2002). “Site Management Plan for Box Hill Brickworks Redevelopment, Federation Street Box Hill” dated 11 June, ref 02613509/023. • Golder (January 2003). “Monitoring Report Box Hill Landfill, 14 Federation Street, Box Hill” Version 2.0 dated January, ref 02613509/045. • Golder (July 2003a). “Box Hill Landfill”, Facsimile to Auditor of 24 July; ref 02613509. • Golder (July 2003b). “Box Hill Landfill”, Facsimile to Auditor of 30 July; ref 02613509/056. • Golder (July 2003c), “Box Hill Landfill, Box Hill”. Letter report to Coffey Geosciences dated 31 July, ref. 02613509/057. • Golder (July 2003d). “Assessment of Diesel Spill Remediation Works Box Hill Landfill”. Letter report to Coffey Geosciences dated 31 July, ref. 02613509/035. • Golder (August 2003). Golder (August 2003b). “Investigation of Gas and Groundwater samples collected from two Gas Probes at the Box Hill Landfill site” dated 25 August 2003 (ref 02613509/0621). • Golder (March 2004). “Excavation of Contaminated Soil Located Near the Kiln Building , Former Box Hill Brickworks Site, Box Hill” (ref 03613644/017 dated 15 March 2004). • Golder Associates (April 2004a). “Box Hill Landfill, Additional Gas Monitoring”, ref. 03613644/029, Golder Associates, 1 April 2004. • Golder Associates (April 2004b), “Box Hill Landfill, Landfill Gas Monitoring”, ref. 03613644/030, Golder Associates, 7 April 2004. • Golder Associates (May 2004a). “Landfill Gas Management at Box Hill Landfill”, ref. 03613644/040, Golder Associates, 3 May 2004.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 31 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
• Golder Associates (May 2004b). “Box Hill Landfill – Additional monitoring of methane gas in service lines along Surrey Road (sic), Box Hill”, ref. 03613644/043, Golder Associates, 14 May 2004. • Golder Associates (May 2004c). “Box Hill Landfill – Monitoring of methane gas along Surrey Road (sic), Box Hill”, ref. 03643644/048, Golder Associates, 24 May 2004. • Standards Australia (1997). “Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil - Part 1: Non-Volatile and Semi-Volatile Compounds”, AS4482.1-1997. • VicEPA (1988). State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria), No S13, 1988, as varied by the Government in Council Order No S 107 dated 4 June. • VicEPA (1997). State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), No S160, 1997. • VicEPA (2002). State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), No S 95 dated 4 June.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc E13737/1-BS 18 October 2004 Electronic Copy
APPENDICES (PRESENTED ON CD)
A. Copy of Certificate of Title, proposed Plan of Subdivision and Planning Certificate (27 pages). B. Golder (Dec 2001) “Environmental Site Assessment, Box Hill Landfill, Federation Street, Box Hill” (ref 97613585/318) dated December. C. Golder (July 2003a). “Land Adjacent to the Former Box Hill Landfill”’ Letter to Auditor dated 18 February ref 02613509/10 (5 pages). D. Golder (July 2003a). “Box Hill Landfill”, Facsimile to Auditor of 24 July; ref 02613509. Golder (July 2003b). “Box Hill Landfill”, Facsimile to Auditor of 30 July; ref 02613509/056. Golder (July 2003c). “Assessment of Diesel Spill Remediation Works, Box Hill Landfill”, Letter of 31 July ref 02613509/035. Golder (July 2003d). “Box Hill Landfill, Box Hill North”, Letter of 31 July ref 02613509/057. E. Golder (August 2003b). “Investigation of Gas and Groundwater samples collected from two Gas Probes at the Box Hill Landfill site” dated 25 August 2003 (ref 02613509/0621). F. F1. Copy of EPA Pollution Abatement Notice (Section 31A(1)) dated 23 May 2000 (7 pages). F2. Copy of EPA Minor Works Pollution Abatement Notice (Section 31B dated 4 June 2004. G. Correspondence related to Direct Groundwater Assessment at the Box Hill landfill (14 pages). H. Correspondence from Auditor in relation to VCAT Panel Hearing; “Environmental Audit; Federation Street, Box Hill; Audit Progress” (ref E13737/1-BA dated 25 February 2003) (3 pages). I. Golder (August 2003a). “Box Hill – Former Landfill”, Facsimile to Auditor of 12 August 2003, ref 02613524 (2 pages). J. Golder (August 2002). “Site Management Plan for Box Hill Brickworks Development, Federation Street Box Hill” (ref 02613509/023 dated 6 August. K. Correspondence relating to discovery of contamination adjacent to the former kiln building (Coffey letter report E13737/1-BR dated 5 April 2004, 3 pages plus attachments). L. Coffey (2004). “Landfill Gas Management Plan; Stage 2 Former Box Hill Landfill; Federation Street, Box Hill” (ref E16218/1-AT dated 4 June). M. Golder (September 2004). “Box Hill Landfill – Monitoring of Methane Gas, July 2004 to September 2004” (ref 04613610/006 dated 7 September). N. Golder (January 2003). “Monitoring Report Box Hill Landfill, 14 Federation Street, Box Hill” Version 2.0 dated January, ref 02613509/045.
F:\ENVIRO\E13737.1\E137371bselec.Doc
SCOURCE: WWW.MELWAY.COM.AU I - Coffey ~eosclencss~tyLtd ACN 056 335 516 I ~eotachnlcal I ~eaourcea I Environmental ( Iechn*. I Pmject Management I I I Drawn PLSAG, PHILEO AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. Drawing NO: ~ppmved ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA- SF-1 Date 1 511 0104 FORMER BOX HILL LANDFILL Scale I N.T.S. I SITE LOCATION PLAN
-29204 '01 1l:UB FAX 61 3 9663 8038 230 AUSTRALIA lZOOl/UO STAGE No LR USE ONLY PLAN NUMBER PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 5 EDITION PS 506686R I I I I LOCATION OF LAND COUNCIL CERTIFICATION AND ENDORSEMENT PARISH: NUNAWhDING COUNCIL NAME WHITEHORSE CITY COUNCIL REF:
TOWNSHIP: 1. This plen I6 cerli119d under Seclion 6 of thc Subdivision Acl t9R8. 2. TniS plan is cerlllied under Sscrlon 11171 of ihe Subdlrislon Act 7986. SECTION: Dare of orlglnai csirilicatinn under Saclion 6. 3. This is a slriamenl of oompilsnee issued undsr Secllon 21 01 [ha S~bdl~l~lonAct CROWN AUOTMEHT! 1988.
CROWN PORTION: L 1P4b I1 OPEN SPACE ii! A rouuiramcni lor public men ODDCO uncer Scciion 18 of the SuPdiri:ion Acl 1966 TITLE REFERENCES: haS/has not been made. ill1 The requiremen! hss been sacisfind. LAST PLAN REFEREHCE/S: PS 50$586R ILOT 551 lllll Tne requlrsmenl is 10 ne seliefied In Slags ......
POSTAL ADDRESS: FEOERnTiON STREET, &OX HILL ;lZe Ccuncil Dtlrpale I IAt tlme of subdlrlelon) Council Seal NAG CbordlMle~ E 33L 250 !of aooror ccntrc of N 5 a12 020 lrna In pisni ZONE 55
Dale
m: w-la' ; 7353
SURVEY. THlS PLAN 1S/iMBASED ON SUR THlS SURVEY HAS BEEN CONNECTED TO PERMA STAGE AREA 0.721ha 21 LOTS IN PROCLAIMED SURVEY AREA No. I EASEMENT INFORMATION- LR USE ONLY LEGEND A-Appurtenanl Easement E-Encumbering Easement R-Encumbering Easement (Road1 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE/ IMPLIE0 EASEMENTS UNDER SECTION 12121 OF THE SUBDIVISION ACT 1968 APPLY TO THE WHOLE OF THE LAND. EXEMPTION STATEMENT
Easamsnr WOlh Origin Lend BsnafIrso/ln ~ajYbur-0f- Rclcrcnce P8,rPoso iMe~resl RECEIVED
DATE
LR USE ONLY
PLAN REGITCUED TIME 3 v0 DATE
Aarisianr Reglclrar a1 Tilles SIIEET I OF 6 SHEETS
LICENSED SURVEYOR IPRINTI ~~~~.~O~W~~P.P~.PO~.L.E~.....- A ' - SIGNATUOE ...... @ATE DATE Survey & Spatial9 Soludans-Melbeurnr COVNCIL CELEGATE SIGNATURE REF 0400121~01F VERSION B I Tel8517 9213 Far a517 9477 STAGE No.. PLAN NUMBER n u PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 5 PS 510168R 0 \ N <, '-
-----__
-e U 4 $ 92'03'40'' 2.16 V) 2 -e SURREY I 9 e I - MoNT ALBERT ROAD +; E-L CLOSE I %: PROPERTY , ,"- &rn PROPERTY E-5-1- I z I2I, I m I
0 I m ?6'77'~~.~ I 0 .w - I 0 *.r. le1.261 l m - w 0 \ a, 20 \\ /; a, 216'17'20. E-6 01 \ \ I IIII \ 0 / I / rl ) r-----J a, <. I-37- I I K-e rs I I I I II a, '1 u u, 11 .. / 1 I r( 5 s rl SHEET 2 OF 6 SHEElS -* - LICENEQ SURVEYOR IFRINT) ...... ?\A!!.[!!!!! O..!?k!.Fx...'..' o SCALE ...... -* SCALE s~GIEA~URE ..... UhlE u EARTH- TE 401an~a2~S,"s DA~E I 1 , I ,131 COI'NCIL DELEGIFE SlGlIAlURL 3 ,LENGTHS ARE IN METRES 1.,,00 ~3 REF 0400121-01F VERSION B s~~~.~& spcti=l s~luuon~*~~~~~~ el 8517 9213 Fa8517 9477 7;' - **< . - , -22/07 '(13 ll:J8 FAX 61 3 9663- 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIAk 1 ...... ---
MrnG CERTIFICATE wElGA126.10 19/12/96 -
I . DX 445 MELBOURNE .. \/endor: BOX HILL LAND FILL PTY
. Title Particulars: VOL 6520 FOL 967 Municipality: WHITEHORSE i -7mg Scheme: WHITEHORSE PLANNING SCIGME Raponsible Autborify for ndministering and enforcing the Scheme: WHITEHORSE CITY COUNCIL -- Zone: PART EXTRACTIVE IM)USTW ZONE
Reserved hd: PART OPEN SPACE - PUBLIC PROPOSED Abuthl to a Main Road, Secondary Road, Proposed Road Widening, or Proposed Ahin or Secondary Road: Not A~~licable '1 Height Control Area: Not Applicable
-1 Urban Comervation Area: Not Applicable 7 Other Overlay Control Area: Nor Auulicable
A Planning Scheme Conservation oEIndividua1 Buildings, Work and Sites; Not Applicable Specific Site Controls: Not Applicable ---- 5 'fic Area Controls: (cscl~dl~lsW~tCreOllrSe~ttbr~k~) Not Applicable Proposed Amendments: Not Applicable I]Victoriana Her~taceRegister: 14 FEDERATION STREET - FORMER STANDARJ) BRICICWORKS - INCLUDED ON 1 THE VICTORIAN HERITAGE R13GISTER - FIERI1 AGE BURDING NO. 720 Regkter of the National Trust of Australia (Victoria): 14 FEDERASION STREET - INCLUDED ON THE REGISTER OF TIE NATIONAL TRUST - FILE NO. 5992 Register of the National Estate: Not Applicable - 1 Environment Protection Authoritv Prioritv Sites Recister: Not A~~licable - Additional Notes: Not Applicable -- 7hc mn~or)~I~onorreoch rnlv on fhrs cerrgicorr hm been claeckd mnd ifzhown as NN Appllcuble d0e.r nor op~?I0 [he wb~eclproperry. r,
1 Pa@ I of 1 Anmt 4 Lld 220-220NormaobyRoad. Swlhbank3006 PO 001 447, SouVIMelbume3205 DX. 332 Melbourne Tel: 9045 1111 Fsc 96452229 22/07. '03 ll:d9 FAX 61 3 9663 80: PHILEO AUSTRALIA ...... - .- . . . .- .- .. . ,-
ANSTAT PLANNING SCHEMES & PROPERTY INPORMATlON SERWCES
ANSTAT PLAmING CERTIFICATE - SPECIFIC SITE - MAP DATE: 191296
ZONES AND FEESERVED LAND MAl?
EXITACTIVE INDUSTRIALZONE IN:O .. , OPEN SPACE - PUBLIC PROPOSED PPOS
ANSTAT PROPERTY GROW/ 224-226 Nown by Road, Southbauk VIC 906, Tel: 9645 1111 Fax: 9645 2229 DJI. I332 Melbou~rnt 8038 Moo1 I 22/07 '03 11:48 FhS 81 3 9683 PBILEO AUSTRALIJ
Date: ~ 22 1151 2003 !! ... : ., !,,:,
I - dor: BOX HILL LAND FILL PTY I - - . Title Particulam VOL 6520 FOL 967 Municipality: WHTIBHORSE 1 -ning Scheme: WHlTEHORSE PLANNING SCIXEhE Responsible Authority for ndministering an&nforcing the Scheme: WHITEHORSE CITY COUNCIL .- -- Zone: PART EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIAL ZONE Reserved Lnnd: PART OPEN SPACE - PUBLIC PROPOSED Abuthl to a Main Road, Secondary Road, Proposed Road Widening, or Proposed Main or Secondary Road: Not Applicable .-- I Height Control Area: Not Applicable - Urban Commation Area: Not Applicable .- I Other Overlay Control Area: Not Apphcable Phnhing Scheme Conservation of Individual Buildings, Work and Sites: Not Applicable Specific Site Controls: Not Applicable - - .- fic Area Controlu: (ffcludl~lsw=t=rcollr*etctba=kq) Not Applicable -1 Proposed Amendments: Not Applicable Victorian Heritage Register: 14 FEDEMTION STREET - FORMER STANDAN) BRICJCWORXS- INCLUDED ON TIE VICTORIAN HERITAGE REGISTER - FEIERII'AGE BUTLDlNG NO. 720 ------Regkter of thc National Trust of Auslrali (Victoria): 1 14 FEDERATION STREET - INCLUDED ON THE REGISTER OF THE NATIONAL TRUST - FiLENO. 5992 "- - - Register of the National Estate: it ~~~licable Environment protection Authority Priority Sitcs Register: Not Applicable - Additional Notes: Nor Applicable -- C ~nf0~1~110nsourcelor each rnr? on Lr3 certpcgrr hor beer, rliecknl md i/zhown as Nor Appllcuble d0e.r nor opp& lo (hi. mbjeclpropery. E
Page I of 1
Anstat Ply LW 224-226 Normanby Road. Soulhbank3006 PO 8ox 447. SWh Melbourne3205 DX: 332 Melbourne Tei: 9845 1111 Fax 96452220 PHILEO AUSTRALIA
Phileo House Level 8, 278 Collins Street Melbourne Vic 3000 Telephone: 61 3 9663 EOIB Facsimile: 61 3 9663 8038
Facsimile transmittal -- THIS FACSIMILE IS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL MAY BE PRIVILEGED AT LAW AND INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ABOVENAMED PERSON OF! ENTITY. NO PERSON OTHER THAN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IS PERMITTEID TO COPY. RETAIN OR DISTRIBUTE THIS COMMUNICATION OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. KINDLY DEiSTROY OR RETURN THIS COMMUNICATION AND INFORM US PROMPTLY BY TELEPHOIYE.
TO : Phil Sinclair DATE 22" July 2003
OF : Coffey Geosciences TIME 10:OO am
FAX NO: 9853 0189 YOURREF :
FROM : Alfred Sung OUR REF : 9701lRehabl6.06-3n
PAGES FAXED (including this page): 22
RE : 14 Federation Street, Box Hill
Dear Phil,
We refer to your facsimile of 21 July 2003 and attach the following informtation as requested:
1. Certif~cateof Title. 2. Preliminary Staged Plan of Subdivision PS 506686R. 3. Planning Certificate No. WEIGA 126.10 dated 19' December 1996,
We woul t meetincl scheduled with Council nexf week b
~ ~ Sh--.- ,--nave any queri--. gleasc -- . te to act the undersigned.
Yours Faithfully, PHILEO AUSTRALIA LIMITED -03 r \ Alfred Sung Director
Encl. -. 22/07- '03 11:4.1 FA- 9663 8038 PEILEO AZISTRALIA ... * ..-. . . '. ~~i?~~l~~~~lnil;~i~i~ii~~'"W~~~WW~I!WIII~~~FII~~IIII~UI~~I . I",..,,,I,. 0.0,",,,, !U. 1L'"'U OtL- "ram " -P, UNDER THE "TRANSFER OF LAND ACT 1928." convlirine ~e:$nreen acres Onc race-- md,, ijl"$~~~&~sn-~,~th~~~~p~,J~%ha mrgin =& Nine percher ar thereabouts berng psrr. of Cr~unPonien Six Parish of------?- --~unawa~sng County or EOuDKe - ..~-?$d~~~re~bueb.~~~.~Ign$~p>ropriateri or--- ...... , For. 150L6nd- aat-~t ~$~&~&l~~&?~$_?~ewrpoaea oQens, =.< ~>~v&ion 154531063.2 in cne Office oC T:rles ana rhs Larid colored.. ,.. green.. aeine LrrN------~?p~~;~t?cJ,?'ee' ~pax,.for-dr?~r~#e fi a~w?raz~purppse? ,??:he said P2iln Cf-- I subd:visren-. . . No.16468 - A: .. gs rhe,~h~~~~,p~~th~~Togcyer-r;y? right cf------: earring* way war ~edrrationstreet :elored brawn on Plane or ~uudiuiaianYoa.UO77'-: %&//A, FifUI April d~nn*da~w&A&=d forty-onc. ENOUMBRANOE8 REFERRED TO. . As to the una colored blua --- -"",,..-.- , (if snyl deerad to bc tnclllded- by vir.tur of Sec%ion212 of the >W.n~fec&~ ~~nd192s in any rrarafer of 'a or en---- . \ Pho~ar Sub01vl$ion Nae.16077 alld 15458 lodged a !' ' i .. as eforrsaid ------.- - - AE ZD he land colored Rrrm -1- . 9 -(if any) ~e-a,r? be includca-- .f z by viriue ar- Secrion 212 of thhr3ncicr of--- ' ' ~snd~cr 19% in ary rrilr.crer of 4 Lot on b I ,, . 8 .' 7 ;.- of ~ubdiv;sian No.15458 sroreeaia ------G .--- .--- ~,dd&:a€r ^r .'L 7Kd9P 22/07 '03 11:44 FAX 61-63 8038 ,EO AUSTRALIA i: CAVEAT i.,ChV,€LTOR: FIFTY-SEVENTH JASS OMINEES PTY. LTD. ' - CAPPCITY: VURCHASERIFEZ SIUPL' . . ! LOOGED BY: 12441 HEiRKll 4 A? L OF 46 CAROLINE ST. SOUTH !I. . . . YARRb 3111 . . . .. , , . If If IOT~CE TO: RS A~O~E ; 10: P060515Y 0 oniE: 7/3/89 aVEAT. 1 2 9 MAR 1993 , . ... - , . .,,l;ii'> ,: ;,$> .- ;;'! ;;'! i '1 Q LUG 1993 IAIID 10/12/90 WITB THE 1 OF IHE CITY OF BOX HILL UNDER SECTION CPYE4TOR:AUSTR~LIP ANb MEN ZEALAND BANKIE 173 OF THE PUNNING S ELIVIZONneNI ACT GROllP LIMITED 1987 AWBC2S THE LAND CAPAC1TY:SEE CPVEAT HEREIN LODGED BY: FRESPILL ~O~LINGOALEd PRGE - 140 UILLIAEl ST.RELOOURNE REGISIEBED 24112131 NOTICE TO as qeovc 8 R7046a2H (klft*~ld,TU) GATE: ------CAVEAT CAVEATOR: BhNFICIAL F 2 9 MAR 1993 CAFACITY: sre C~VEAT LODGE0 EY: kOGERS 1 G PROPRIETOR 1 . ' .i: , ." NOTICE fa: ZND FLOOR SECOND GLENISTER PTI. LTO. NO: PSb997SA d- , 302-JOQRUSSELL ST. NiLBOURNE 3000 DATE: 3/11/89 ! S417lL7E 29/3/93 v. P. LC.) . CHALLENGE BANK --.--..-- - -.22/07 - '03 11:44 FAX 61 3 9663 8038 PHILEO AZISTRALIA -CAVEAT CAVEATOR: 01110 TAnIR TIPACITY: FEE SXUPLE DATE OF CLAINIDOCUHENT: SEE CAYEAT LODGED $1: J~CQUESGO4OUASER NO^^^^ TO: SUITE 31157 RARTIH ST. BRIGHTON 3196 NO: U6211168 O~TE:71/2/37 @ -"'Trn?.: ,,,.:';,:.+i k:;?:,., ~%!PL>~..,:.,~J 2 7 fl4Y 1597 cz&zT t; ,,:,',:': J \:- \:- . -* .* u 790 %fi 7% '-.- -, .- -. - - ..-- ... -. .. ' . -. .CAVEATOR: REN4K HOLDINGS LIMITED CevlCITY: PURCHASEIIFEE SINPLE LODGED BY: STI~FOROS SOLICITORS +- NOTICE TO: LEVEL 61118 QUEEN ST. MELBOURNE 3000 NO: U67143OY DATE: 7/3/91 Q ...... -...... -- CAYEIT .LAPICITY: FEE SIIIPLE DATE Oi CLAIII OOCUHELT: SEE CAVEAT LOOGEO BY: JACQUES GOLOU%SER NOTICE TO: SUITE 31157 MlRTIN ST. BRIGHTOH 3186 U765592U : 12/5/97 ,.. STAGE No. LR USE ONLY PLAN NUMBER PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 1 EDITION I I I LOCATION OF LAND COUNCIL CERTIFI,CATION AND ENDORSEMENT I PARISH NUNAWAOiUG / I COUNCIL NAME: WHITEHOR~E CITY COUIYCIL REF: TOWNSHIP: I. This plan le cerllfled under Seclion 6 OI In0 SuDdlvislon Act 1988. 2. Tnis plan io cerlilled under Seclion 11171 01 ine Subaiulslon Act 1088. SECTION: Dale ol origlnel cerrl8lcation utrder Sscllon 6. 3. This is a rtalemenl a1 compllilnce l66~4dunder Soclion 21 of Ihe Subdluision Act CROW ALLOTMENT: 1988. CROW PORTION: 6 IPARTl / OPEN SPACE I lil A requiivmcnl lor public open space under Section 18 of In8 Subdlvlslon Acl 1850 TITLE REFERENCES: VOL. 6520 FOL 967 hasfias nbt been mads. I ilil The requlrernenr has basn salislisa. LAST PLAN REFERENCE/S: PS 506LalA (LOT lO01l i,iil ins requiremsnl ir lo be satlsflcd in Slags ...... POSTAL ADDRESS: FEDERATION STREET. BOY IilLL 3126 C~uncilDslegrfe (At tima ot eubdldalonl Ccuocil Seal 1 Date AMC Co-onllnmt~a E 33L 070 lof a~proxcentre of N 5 811 910 land in plant ZONE 55 1 Re-oerrlllad under Sectlon 11171 01 tne SuQaivision Acr 1988. Cbuncil Delegsre Council Seal VESTING OF ROADS AND/OR RESERVES Dale iDENTiFlER COUNCiL/BODY/PERSON - -- -- NOTATIONS RESERVE NO.~ UNITED ENERGY LTO STRGING Tni~in/ie-aei s aleged subdivblon. Planning oermit N4, -- DEPTFI LIMITATION DOES NOT APPLY SURVEY. THIS PLAN 1SEdlMBASnI ON SURVEY THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN CONNECTED TO PERMANENT MARKS No.lrl >TAGE AREA 0.582ha 70 LOTS IN PEOCLAIMED SURVEY AREb No. EASEMENT INFORMATION LR USE ONLY LEGEND A-Appurtenant Easement E-Encumber~ngEasement R-Encumber~ng STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE/ IMPLIED EASEMENTS UNOER SECTION 12121 OF THE SUBDIVISION ACT i9ae APPLY TO THE WHOLE OF IHE LAND EXEMPTiON STATEMENT Easement WiCth Puroose Origin Land Beneflrsd/ln Favour Of Relerence IMetresl DATE LR USE ONLY PLAN REGISTERED TIME DATE AsriSIani Registrar of Tllllfs SUET 1 OF 6 SHEETS I i I -- LICENSED SURVEYOR IPRINTI...... ~~&!!.!!?~~I!!..!.[1~!:~~.....- A - SIGNATURE ...... 04TE DATE Suwey & Sp~tlsi9SoluUona-Melbourne COUNCIL DELEGATE SIGNATURE REF 0400121~018 VERSION B Tel8517 9213 Fax8517 Ba77 ORIGINAL SHEET SIZE A3 - .- . - 22/07 '03 11:45 FAX 61 3 9663 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIAz 53 SEE SHEET 2 - .22/07 '03 ll:d5 FAX 61 3 9663 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIA 1 22/07 '03 11:45 FAX 61 3 9663 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIA 1 - - . 22/07. '03 11:65 FAX 61 3 9663 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIA BODY CORPORATE SCHEDULE 1 I Body Corporate 2 Land affsclad by body corporate: LOTS 4 TO 7 & COMMON PROPERTY 2 ~lmltatlon$on body corporate: NIL Poetal address for ssrvlce of noUces I LR use onlv Updata references. FEDERATION STREET BOX HILL 3128 Rules and other notations NIL Standard Rulee Apply - - -- 22/07 '03 11:45 FAX 61 3 9663 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIA STAGE No. LR USE ONLY PLAN NUMBER PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 2 EDITION LOCATION OF LAND COUNCIL CERTlFlCAtlPlN AND ENDORSEMENT PARISH: NUNhWAOlNE . COUNCIL NAME: WHITEHORSE CITY COUliClL REF: TOWNSHIP: 1. This plan Is cerlillsd under See!lon 6 01 ?ha Sbbdlvlslan Act 1986. 2. This olan is cor,ificd under Section 11171 of the Subdlvlslon Act 1988. SECTION: D3tB of orioinai oertification u~>JnrSsclian 6. CROWN ALLOTMENT: 3. Thls Is e rrarsmsnf o( complifllce lsruod under Seclion 21 01 tho Subdivision Acr 1088. CROW PORTION: 6 IPARTI OPEN SPACE [ti A roquiramcnt lor publlc open spacs under Sscllon 18 of the Sundlvlsion AcI 19.38 TITLE REFERENCE& naS/haS not been made. liil The requlremenl ha$ been ssiisllsd. LAST PLAN REFERENCE/>: PS 505t8tR [LOT Sli I1111 The requiremen1 iz 10 8a s~li~lieain 51381 ...... POSTAL ADDRESS: FeDERATiON STREET, BOX HILL 3128 Council Oelegsle [At tlme of subdlvlsbn) C~u'nciiSeal AMG Co-ordinates E 33L 090 lof Bpurox centre at N 5 811 960 land in ulenl ZONE 55 1 Re-Corliliod under Section 111:) al the Subdivision Act 1488. Council Dnlagste Councll Seal .- NOTATION3 iuision, f SURVEY. THIS PLAN IS/%+@?8ASEI) ON SUR'IEY THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN CONNECTED 10 PERMANENT MARKS N~lsl WTAGE AREA 0.204ha 11 LOTS IN PROCLAIMED SURVEY AREA NO. EASEMENT INFORMATION , LR USE ONLY LEGEND A-Appurlenant Easement E-Encumbering Easement R-Encumbering Easelnenr [Goaol STATEMENT OF COUPLiANCEl IMPLIED EhSEMENTS UNDER SECTION 12121 OF THE SUBOIVISION ACT 1988 APPLY TO THE WHOLE OF THE LAND. EXEMPTION STATEMENT DATE LR USE ONU PLAN REGISTERED TIME DATE SHEET 1 OF L SHEETS LICENSED SURVEYOR IPRINTI...... PIL!!N..i.OV!!!D..P~.L.i!:~ ...... A SIGKATURE ...... DAlE & COUNCIL DELEGATE SIGNATURE SuNey Spatla1 SOIUtiOnr~Melbourne REF VERSION Tel8517 9213 Fax a517 9477 0400121~01C 13 -- ORIGINAL SHEET SIZE W52l-QtGOI1-9 16 2,2/07 '03 11:45 FAX 61 3 9663 8038 .EO AUSTRALIA STAGE No. PLAN NUMBER PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 2 PS 506686R I T E a y Sunoy & Spatla1 Solutions-Melbourne Telas17 9213 Fsr 8517 9477 SCALE ORIGINAL SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS LICENSED SURVEYOR IPRINTI ...... *A AN..i:F!!!~!.!?~!~~...... SCALE SHEET i 0 L II 12 16 20 'IZE ...... uI I SIGNATURE ...... O4TE LENGTHS ARE IN METRES I ':~00I A3 I REF 04 0 0121.01c VERSION B COUNCIL DELEGATE SIGNATURE ~~ ~ ------22/07 '03 11:46 FAX 61 3 9663 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIA Stage 140. Plan Number BODY CORPORATE SCHEDULE 2 IPS506686. Body Corporate 1 Plan no,- PS 506686R Land affected by bcdy cwporale: LOTS 11 TO 21 .a ~imitstio~s.,on body corporate: NIL Postal address for service of notices FEDERATION STREET BOX HILL 3128 Rules and other notations NIL standard Rules Apply 22/07 '03 11:46 FAX 61 3 9663 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIA I 1 - 22/07 '03 11:46 FAX 61 3 9663 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIA 1 STAGE No. LR USE ONLY PLAN NUMBER PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 3 EDITION II I I I - II LOCATION OF LAND COUNCIL CERTIFICATION AND ENDORSEMENT I I PARISH: NUNAWADING < I1 I COUNCIL NAME! WNliEHORSE CITY CObNCiL REF: TOWNSHIP: 1. Thls plln [is csrllll9o under srcllon 0 01 rha Subdivlslon Acl 1988. 2, This pian la csrlified under Sl?ciion 1111) 01 the Subdivirion Acl 1968. Dele 01 original ce POSTAL ADDRESS: FEDERATION 5iREET. BOX HILL 3118 Councll Delagsto I IAt llms of aubdlvblonl Council See1 Dale E j3i 110 I N 5 811 9LO ZONE 55 Rc-CB~IIIIS~under Secrlon ll::'!01 lhs Subdivision Aci 1986. I Council Dolegsle Council Seal I / SURVEY. THIS PLAN IS/- EASED ON SURVEY " ,. . . -,.a->. , -, -- ,.,. -.... .--. IIIPLIEO EASEMENTS UNDER SECTION 12121 OF THE SUGDIViSION ACT 19CB APPLY TO iHE WHOLE OF THE LAND 1 EXEMPTION STATEMENT I I Easement Widlh Purpose Origin Land Beneflrealln Favour Of Rslsrencc iMetres! RECEIVED I I =l DATE PLAN REGISTERED rDATE AesIslml Raoislnr of Tlrles SHEET 1 OF 3 SHEET LICENSED SURVEYOR IPRINi! E T = n SIGNATURE ...... DhTII COUNClL DElEGATE SIGNATURE Survey 8. Sptlal solutions-Melbourne REF 0400121~01D Tel 8517 9213 Fax 8517 -77 ORIGINAL SHEET SIZE -. - 29/07 '03 11:46 FAX 61 3 9663 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIA - 22/07 '03 ll:46 FAX 61 3 9663 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIA , . - -- 22/07 '03 11:46 FLK 61 3 9663 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIA LOCATION OF PARISH: NUNAWI~OING COUNCIL NAME: WHITEHORSE ClTY LOUNCIL 1. This Dlall is csrllilea under Sscllon 6 01 lhs Subdlvitien Act 1988. 2 This plen Is certiflad under Sei:lion 11171 01 lne Subdlvl~lcnAs1 1988. Dale 01 011~inel cerliiicatlan ulder Seclion 6. CROWN ALLOTMENS: CROWN PORTION: 6 IPARTI TITLE REFERENCES: 111 A requirement lor Dublic open spscs under Secllon 18 af the Sundivirian Act 1906 naslnas not been made. (111 The rnqulremanl has boon sarl~flea. US7 PLAN REFERENCE/S: PS,SO6LB6R (LOT Ssi ill11 The rnqulremsnl i$ la bo satisfied In 51rpe ...... POSTAL ADDRESS: FEDERATION STREET. BOX HILL 3128 Counoii Delegars (A1 time of lubdllblonl AMt CO-oralnates E 33L 110 Re-cartilled under Saction 11171 01 Ins Subdirirlon Acl 1988. Council Delegays Council Sesl ASED ON SURVEY. ED 10 PERMANENT MARKS Nolrl WHITEHORSE ClTY COUNCIL SEWERAGE b WATER YARRA VALLEY WATER LTD. TELECOMtlUNICATION PLAN REGISTERED OISTRIBUTION &/OR OF THE ELECTRICITY REF O400121~01E STAGE No. PLAN NUMBER I PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 1 4 1 PS 506686R I SCALE ORIGINAL LICENSED SURVEYOR IPR~NTI...... *LA!!.~!?!!!I!O..RO!.L.~.! ,....,.. SHEE~z OF 5 SHEETS - 1 E .C .n. SCALE ',"s ...... - I ' ;2. ,6 & S1G)IATURE ...... -~ DATE L lP'1 DhlE Survey B Spllal Solulions-Melbourne LENGTHS 1 hlETRES - 1:400 A3 REF 0400121~01 VEASlON B COUICIL DELEGATE SlGNArURE Te18517 9213 Fsx 8517 9477 I STAGE No. PLAN NUMBER PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 4 PS 506686R I .Y 0 0 + w b,k, el = -?"-a.VZm321 , 96*ll? 96fpl 9)q9, 4 "? 6'35 ' 9.16 ' 6.M ' : 6,20 a b, 2 w , 99"01' 2 4 E-b %7- MoNT mH a ROA~ (OFN~NpROpERRTy, b * <" ? i. :? OC -w 0 0 OC i. 0 .N 0 (D w (D 0) 0 '-0 776.27' r( '7 t-. SHEEr 3 OF 5 SHEErS LlcmsEo su"vEyo" (PRINTI ...... !LA!! .LqWARO..H~LLF~,~.~.... 0. SCALE SCAIyE SIGNATURE m..... D!TE ...... DhlE EcH 12 16 20 S,"z~ . . COUNCIL OEI.EGATE SIGIIATURE METRES 1 &iO A3 REF 0400121-0~@ ' VERSION B survey4 spsual %lutlonsJne~bourne ~cl85179213Fax86118477 mnl.os-md"i I 22/07- '03 11:47 FAX 61 3 ,9663 8038 PHILEO AZISTRALIA -.-.. - BODY CORPORATE SCHEDULE 4 I I Body Corporate 1 Plan no. PS 506686R Land affected by body corporate: LOTS 22 TO LO & COMMON PROPERTY 1 Llrnltatloris' on body corporate: NIL - .- :47 FAX 61 3 9683 8038 PHILEO AUSTRALIA . .. ...... BODY CORPORATE SCHEDULE 4 I I Body Corporate 3 Plan no. PS 506686R Land aftected by body corporate LOTS 32 TO 37 B COMMON PROPERTY 3 ~~mitet~odwon body corporate: NIL