Environmental Audit Report - apps.epa.vic.gov.auapps.epa.vic.gov.au/EnvAuditFiles/53X/29805-1/29805-1_b.pdf · INFORMATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS August 2007 VICTORIA'S

INFORMATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS August 2007

VICTORIA'S AUDIT SYSTEM

An environmental audit system has operated in Victoria since 1989. The Environmenf Profecfion Acf 1970 (the Act) provides for the appointment by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) of environmental auditors and the conduct of independent, high quality and rigorous environmental audits.

An environmental audit is an assessment of the condition of the environment, or the nature and extent of harm (or risk of harm) posed by an industrial process or activity, waste, substance or noise. Environmental audit reports are prepared by EPA- appointed environmental auditors who are highly qualified and skilled individuals.

Under the Act, the function of an environmental auditor is t o conduct environmental audits and prepare environmental audit reports. Where an environmental audit is conducted to determine the condition of a site or its suitability for certain uses, an environmental auditor may issue either a certificate or statement of environmental audit.

A certificate indicates that the auditor is of the opinion that the site is suitable for any beneficial use defined in the Act, whilst a statement indicates that there is some restriction on the use of the site.

Any individual or organisation may engage appointed environmental auditors, who generally operate within the environmental consulting sector, t o undertake environmental audits. The EPA administers the environmental audit system and ensures its ongoing integrity by assessing auditor applications and ensuring audits are independent and conducted with regard t o guidelines issued by EPA.

AUDIT FILES STRUCTURE Environmental audit reports are stored digitally by EPA in three parts: the audit report (part A), report appendices (part B) and, where applicable, the certificate or statement of environmental audit and an executive summary (part C). A report may be in colour and black-and-white formats. Generally, only black- and-white documents are text searchable.

Report executive summaries, findings and recommendations should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole, including any appendices and, where applicable, any certificate or statement of environmental audit.

AUDIT REPORT CURRENCY

Audit reports are based on the conditions encountered and information reviewed at the time of preparation and do not represent any changes that may have occurred since the date of completion. As i t is not possible for an audit t o present all data that could be of interest t o all readers, consideration should be made to any appendices or referenced documentation for further information.

When information regarding the condition of a site changes from that at the time an audit report is issued, or where an administrative or computation error is identified, environmental audit reports, certificates and statements may be withdrawn or amended by an environmental auditor. Users are advised t o check EPA's website to ensure the currency of the audit document.

PDF SEARCHABILITY AND PRINTING

EPA Victoria can only certify the accuracy and correctness of the audit report and appendices as presented in the hardcopy format. EPA is not responsible for any issues that arise due to problems with PDF files or printing.

Except where PDF normal format is specified, PDF files are scanned and optical character recognised by machine only. Accordingly, while the images are consistent with the scanned original, the searchable hidden text may contain uncorrected recognition errors that can reduce search reliability. Therefore, keyword searches undertaken within the document may not retrieve all references to the queried text.

This PDF has been created using the Adobe-approved method for generating Print Optimised Output. To assure proper results, proofs must be printed, rather than viewed on the screen.

This PDF is compatible with Adobe Acrobat Reader Version 4.0 or any later version which is downloadable free from Adobe's Website, www.adobe.com.

FURTHER I N FORMATION

For more information on Victoria's environmental audit system, visit EPA's website or contact EPA's Environmental Audit Unit.

Web: www.epa.vic.clov.au/envaudit

Email: [email protected]

1 of 127

http://www.adobe.com

APPENDIX B

Colder and Associates Pty Ltd, August 1996 "Soil Contamination Assessment, 88 Park Street, South

Melbourne"

Colder and Associates Pty Ltd, November 1996

'Groundwater Bores, 88 Park Street, South Melbourne"

2 of 127

Golder Associates Pty Ltd A.C.N. 006 107 857 MELBOURNE OFFICE

25 Burwood Road, Hawthorn. Vic 31 22 Australia (PO Box 6079. Hawthorn West, Vic 3 122 Australia) Telephone (03) 98 19 4044 Fax (03) 981 8 7990

November 1 1, 1996 d

Central Equity Limited Level 9 365 Queen Street Melbourne Victoria 3000

Attention: Mr Rocco Iacobucci

96613648/04

. -...

RE:

Dear Sir,

GROUNDWATER BORES, 88 PARK STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE

9

We are forwarding herewith 1 copy of our final report titled " GROUNDWATER BORES, 88 PARK STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE ". The final chemical results did not change fiom the prehmary report.

We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have concerning this report.

Yours &iffilly, GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD Per:

. .. Peter Thornton Associate

Enclosure: 1 copies of report (Report No. 96613648/03)

OFFICES IN ADELAIDE. BRISBANE. CAIRNS. GOLD COAST. MAROOCHYDORE, MELBOURNE. PERIH. SYDNEY, WOLLONGONG, JAKARTA ASSOCIATED COMPANIES IN CANADA. FIJI. FINLAND. GERMANY, HONG KONG, HUNGARY, IIALY. SWEDEN, UNllED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES

3 of 127


25 Burwood Road, Hawthorn, Vic 31 22 Australia (PO Box 6079, Hawthorn West, Vic 3 122 Australia] Telephone (03) 981 9 4044 Fax (03) 98 18 7990

November 11, 1996 966 13648103

Central Equity Limited Level 9 365 Queen Street Melbourne Victoria 3000

Attention : Mr Rocco Iacobucci

RE: GROUNDWATER BORES 88 PARK STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE

Dear Sir,

INTRODUCTION

Golder Associates pty Ltd was commissioned by Central Equity Limited to install three groundwater bores and sample groundwater at 88 Park Street, South Melbourne. We understand that the site is to be developed .as apartments by Central Equity. Golder Associates conducted an environmental assessment and geotechnical investigation in August 1996 (Reference 1). Groundwater was encountered at depths of between 1.5 m and 4 m.

As part of the development the site requires a Statement of Environmental Audit to be issued. The auditor, Nick Withers of Hyder Environmental, had requested that three groundwater bores be installed on the boundaries of the site to assess the contaminant migration from the surrounding sites.

This report details the procedures followed to install and sample the bores and results of laboratory testing on recovered water samples.

SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of works to be conducted was detailed in our proposal dated September 23, 1996 (Golder Ref. P966 1734). The proposed scope of works involved the following:

Installation of three bores at locations outlined by Hyder Environmental to depths of approximately 6 m below the existing surface level.

Sampling of the bores approximately one week after installation.

0 Analysis of water samples at a NATA certified laboratory for analysis for the following parameters.

PH

Metals (Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, mercury Lead and Zinc) Major Cations and Anions

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 1e11111 I I L I I .

Golder Associates OFFICES IN ADELAIDE, BRISBANE. CAIRNS. GOLD COAST, MAROOCHYDORE. MELBOURNE, PERIH. SYDNEY. WOLLONGONG, JAKARTA

ASSOCIATED COMPANIES IN CANADA, FIJI. FINLAND, GERMANY. HONG KONG. HUNGARY, IIALY. SWEDEN. UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES 4 of 127

Central Equity Mr Rocco Iacobucci

-2- 966 1648103 November 1 1, 1996

Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene and Xylene @ E X ) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Phenols

0 Preparation of a report on the results on the sampling and analysis.

GROUNDWATER MONITORING BORE INSTALLATION

The field work was performed at the site during the period October 7 to 9, 1996. The boreholes were drilled by Aqua Drilling & Grouting Pty Ltd using a truck mounted drilling rig. The holes were drilled using hollow augering techniques to depths of 6.0 m. Descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered at each borehole location are presented in Attachment 1, Report of Boreholes. A summary of the Notes and Abbreviations used and the Method of Soil Classification are also included in Attachment 1.

The locations of the groundwater monitoring bores (GW1, GW2 and GW3) are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. The standpipes were installed with 4.5 m of machine slotted 50mm dia. PVC from the bottom of the hole. The annulus was filled with washed 8/16 graded sand with a bentonite seal placed above the screen to prevent the inflow of surface water. The screen was placed so that the groundwater level lay within the slotted section so that floating contaminants would be sampled. Lockable steel covers were cemented in over the standpipe to protect the bore from damage and tampering.

Groundwater monitoring bore construction details for each borehole are included with the borehole logs in Attachment 1. Groundwater levels were measured in the groundwater monitoring bores on October 18, 1996.

Following installation all monitoring bores were developed using a submersible electric pump. A minimum of five well volumes were removed from each well during development. Pumping was continued until the extracted water was visually free of suspended solids.

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING

Groundwater samples were collected from the three groundwater monitoring bores on October 18, 1996.

Sampling was carried out in accordance with Golder Associates technical procedures for sampling groundwater from monitoring bores for chemical analysis. Between 35 L and 50 L of water was purged from the groundwater monitoring bores prior to sampling. This volume of purged water corresponded to either approximately 3 well volumes or water pumped until the bore went dry. The pump was cleaned prior to purging each borehole using the following procedure:

0 Recirculating a solution of laboratory grade phosphate free detergent through the pump for several minutes; and

0 Recirculating tap water through the pump for several minutes to effect rinsing.

Following purging, groundwater samples were collected using a stainless steel bailer. Prior to collecting each sample, the bailer was cleaned to minimise the potential of cross contamination between samples. The following procedure was used:

Golder Associates 5 of 127

Central Equity Mr Rocco Iacobucci

-3- 9661648103 November 1 1, 1996

0 a rinse with tap water to remove adhered soil; washing in phosphate fiee detergent; a final rinse in tap water; and

0 a rinse in distilled water.

Groundwater samples were collected in clean laboratory supplied bottles that had been prepared in the following manner:

0 Glass vials for samples collected for volatile aromatic hydrocarbon analysis; A one litre polypropylene bottle for pH, major anions and cations; A one litre glass jar for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons analysis;

0 A half litre polypropylene bottle preserved with nitric acid for metals; and A half litre polypropylene bottle preserved with sulphuric acid for total phenolics.

Samples collected for metals analyses were filtered in the field using a 0.45 pm filter

The water samples were stored under cooled conditions while in the field and in transit. A chain of custody record was kept for the groundwater samples from the time of sample collection until delivery to the laboratory. All samples were delivered to the laboratory on the day of sampling.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

In the boreholes, 1.2 m to 1.25 m of crushed rock and sandy clay fill was found overlying firm to very stifF silty clay which extended to the total depth of the boreholes.

GROUNDWATER DEPTH

When measured on October 18, 1996 the depth to groundwater in the bores was as follows:

Bore GW1 2.0 m Bore GW2 1.55 m Bore GW3 3.22 m

The groundwater was encountered in the natural silty clay underlying the fill in each borehole. The groundwater depths indicate a significant fall in the groundwater table to the south across the site.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The results of groundwater analyses have been compared to criteria outlined in the Draft State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria) (Reference 2). In the draft SEPP, groundwater is classified into segments based on the concentration of total dissolved solids ("IDS). For each segment there are a number of beneficial uses for which the groundwater must be protected. These may include use for potable water, irrigation, stock water, industry, ecosystem protection and buildings and structures.

Given the proximity of the site to Port Phillip Bay, it is considered that groundwater from the site may have an impact on the bay. The environmental values of Port Phillip Bay are currently protected by two State environmental protection policies - Waters of Port Phillip Bay and

Goldet Associates 6 of 127

Central Equity Mr R o ~ c o Iacobucci

-4- 966 1648103 November 1 1, 1996

Waters of Victoria. The EPA has proposed to revoke the current SEPP for Waters of Port Phillip Bay and replace it with a schedule under the SEPP for Waters of Victoria. The Draft Schedule F6 for Waters of Port Phillip Bay which outlines various water quality criteria was released in February 1995 (Reference 3). Whilst this Draft Schedule has not replaced the existing SEPP for Port Phillip Bay, we consider this document to more representative of future water quality criteria. The results of the chemical analyses have therefore also been compared to water quality objectives outlined in the Draft Schedule F6 for Waters of Port Phillip Bay.

The criteria used for this assessment are also summarised in Tables 1 and 2.

ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF THIS INVESTIGATION

The NATA endorsed laboratory reporting sheets are presented in Attachment 2. The analytical results have been summarised in Tables 1 and 2. Exceedences of the criteria for protection of water quality in Port Phillip Bay are highlighted on these tables.

COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The water has variable salinity and has a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration ranging from 650 mg/L in borehole GW2 to 1483 mg/L in borehole GW1. The average TDS concentration is 1030 mg/L. Based on the average TDS concentrations of the water sampled, the most sensitive beneficial uses to be protected would be limited to use for stock watering. However, this is unlikely to be a realistic beneficial use based on the site location. A trilinear diagram showing the water quality parameters for the water recovered from each Borehole is presented in Figure 2.

The following comments are made with respect to the contaminant analyses conducted on the groundwater samples:

pH values ranged between 6 and 6.3 pH units indicating slightly acidic conditions; concentrations of arsenic, cadmium and mercury were below the respective laboratory reporting limits; chromium concentrations ranged from below the laboratory reporting limit of 0.01 mg/L (GW2 and GW3) to 0.02 mg/L (GW 1); copper concentrations ranged from below the laboratory reporting limit of 0.0 1 mg/L (GW 1 and GW3) to 0.02 mg/L (GW2); lead concentrations ranged from below the laboratory reporting limit of 0.01 mg/L (GW 1 and GW3) to 0.01 mg/L (GW2); zinc concentrations ranged from 0.06 mg/L (GW3) to 0.19 mg/L (GW 1); total phenolics concentrations ranged from below the laboratory detection limit of 0.001 mg/L (GW2) to 0.003 mgL (GW 1 and GW3); concentrations of TPH fractions CIO-CM, C I S - C ~ ~ and CD-CM were below the respective laboratory reporting limits; concentrations of TPH fraction C6-C, in the water samples obtained from GW 1 and GW3 were both 0.05 m&; concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene were below laboratory reporting limits of 0.00 1 mg/L; concentrations of all individual polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were below laboratory reporting limits of 0.001 mg/L; and

Colder Associates 7 of 127

Central Equity h4r Rocco Iacobucci

Parameter Range of Results No. Exceedences (mgn) Draft Schedule F6

Port Phillip Bay Water Criteria

-5-

No. Exceedences Draft SEPP Groundwater Criteria for

Stock Watering

966 1648103 November 11,1996

~

Lead Zinc Cadmium Mercury Arsenic PAHS (total) TPH (Ca-G) TPH (>G) Phenolics chlorinated

0 concentrations of all individual chlorinated hydrocarbons were below laboratory reporting limits of 0.001 mg/L.

<DL - 0.01 1 (Note 3) 0 0.06 - 0.19 3 0

<DL 0 0 <DL 0 (Note 3) 0 <DL 0 0 <DL 0 (Note 3) -

<DL - 0.05 - - <DL

DL - 0.003 0 - DL -

A summary of the key analytical results of groundwater samples compared to the Draft SEPP (Groundwater) criteria for stock watering, Draft Schedule for Protection of Water Quality in Port Phillip Bay is provided in the following table.

Hydrocarbons Benzene <DL 0 0

Copper I <DL - 0.02 I 1 (Note 3) I 0 Chromium <DL - 0.02 1 (Note 3) 0

Toluene Ethyl Benzene Xylene

<DL - - <DL - - <DL - -

Notes: 1.

2. 3.

These criteria apply to water within the Port Phillip Bay and any groundwater from the site would be substantially diluted with other waters prior to reaching the Bay. DL - laboratory reporting limit. Laboratory reporting limit greater than water quality criteria.


Central Equity Mr R~CCO Iacobucci

-6- 9661648103 November 1 1,1996

CLOSURE

We recommend that these results are forwarded to the Auditor for his consideration.

Yours faithfully, GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD per:

Peter N. Thomton Associate PNT/PKS/EDATA/96648.doc

Attachments Figure 1 - Site Plan Figure 2 - Trilinear Diagram Tables Attachment A - Borehole Reports Attachment B - NATA endorsed Laboratory Reporting Sheets

REFERENCES

1. SOIL CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT, 88 PARK STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE, VICTORIA, August 1996, Golder Associates Report No. 966 12 153/105

2. Draft State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), Publication 288, October 1994, Victorian EPA.

3. Protecting the Water Quality in Port Phillip Bay, State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) Draft Schedule F7 - Waters of Port Phillip Bay, February 1995, Victorian EPA.


;w 2

CONCRETE

SLAB

I- -

TO ASSESSMENT I

PARK STREET

GW 3 GROUNDWATER BORE LOCATIONS

PLAN SCALE 1:500

lh29-10-96 SITE PLAN Dmm:

88 PARK STREET, CheCkSa: h

1 SOUTH MELBOURNE. FIGURE 1 o q no:

I Rm.0":

I 6L8001 96613618 ;H~WN I A 4 I No.:

I AUTOCAO FILE: C.\CA096\96613648\648001 PcaT SCALE: 11 10 of 127

TRILINEAR (PIPER) D I A G R A M

PROJECT : 8 8 Pork Street

FIGURE

SAMPLE 1.0.

B H 1

BH 2

BH 3

DATE COLLECTED:18/10/96

-e--- co * c1

11 of 127

TABLES

Golder Associates

12 of 127

Test Sample Sample Sample Location Number Date Typc

I Calcium Potassium Magnesium Sodium

I 0.003

< 0.001 0.003

GW1 1 18/10/96 WATER 2 18/ 10196 WATER 3 18/10/96 WATER

6 6.3 6.4

Test Sample Sample Sample Location Number Date TYVC

GWl 1 181 10196 WATER GW2 2 18/10/96 WATER GW3 3 18/10/96 WATER

Total dissolvcd

Solids

1483 650 956

1001-3500

Sulphate Chloride Carbonate

680 84 190 190 84 170 400 74 220

30-700

110 30 59 330 45 20 41 100 38 29 35 160

7 Phcnolics

4.5-9 & Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Zinc

<0.001 <0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.01 < 0.001

0.01 1 0.2 0.2 0.002 2 Groundwater Quality Objectives for

Segment B Objectives for Environmental Quality

lndicators ’

0.1

0.005 0.001 0.005 0.002s 0.0025 o.oooo5 0.025

SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER - INORGANICS & MAJOR IONS - w m 88 PARK STREEC SomMELBOuRNE

1

13 of 127

OW1 O W OW3

I 18/10/% WATER 2 18/10/% WATER 3 l8/10/% WATER

0.05 < 0.04 < 0.1 C 0.1 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 < 0.04 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Groundwater Qunlity Objcclha for Segment B '

O b j d i v a lor Ebvironmahl Quality Lodieatom ' 0.15

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUNDWATER - ORGANICS -wm w PAlly 82111w SDOTHMBLBOURNB

I

14 of 127

.

ATTACBMENT A

REPORTS OF BOREHOLES GROUNDWATER BORE INSTALLATION DETAILS

NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION


-

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 -

~ S I ' R A T I G R A P H Y GROUNDWATER BORE:

n

END OP BOREXOLE@ 6 . h

WATERLEVEL @ 214m( 18/10196 )

-

I I

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 -

16 of 127

INFERREDSTRATIGRAPHY GROUNDWATER BORE:

n

END OF BOREHOLE @ 6 . h

WATER LEVEL @ 1.68 rn ( 18/10/96 )

17 of 127

-.

-

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 -

GROUNDWATER BORE: I MFERRED !STRATIGRAPHY

END OF BoRmoLe@ 6 . b WA'IERLEYEL @ 335 m

LEGEND

SANDPACK

18 of 127

.-.

ATTACHMENT B

NATA ENDORSED LABORATORY REPORTING SHEETS

Golder Associates

19 of 127

Enviroscience 06-NOV-96

Golder Associates Pty Ltd P.O. BOX 6079 HAWTHORN WESTVIC 3122

Attention: Mr. P. Thornton .-

Certificate of Analvs is

WSL Report No. 20033a

Job No: 12046 RE: Central Equity Park

Street South Melbourne Job No:96613648

Date Sampled 1811 0196 Received by WSL Consultants on 18110196

Instructions were received on 1811 0196 Analyses were commenced on 1811 0196

Soil samples were tested in accordance with the analytical methods described in "Chemical Analysis of Polluted Soils" VIC EPA, Publication 139, Nov. 1981 and WSL in-house methods, with the results expressed as mglkg dry weight unless stated otherwise.

Water samples were tested in accordance with the analytical methods described in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Waste Water", APHA 18th Edn. 1992 and WSL in-house methods, with the results expressed as mglLitre unless stated otherwise.

All Quality Control Data is expressed as percentages of the expected values.

Results pertain to samples as received.

Yours faithfully WSL CONSULTANTS PTY LTD

I b i s Lnborntory i s registered by the Nariond Association of Testing Au~horities. Aui t ra l i r The tcst(s) reported herein have been performed in accordance with 11s t e r m of regiatratim. This docameit shall not bc rcproducd except in fal l .

WSL Consultants Pry. Ltd. A.C.N. 004 751 676

2-3 Harvey Street, fbchrnond. Victoria 31 2 I , Ausrralia

Tclephone: (03) 9429 4666 Facsimile: (03) 9429 2294 Ernail: [email protected]

Page 1 of 8 A N A T A Accredired Laborarory

An Approved Quarancine Premises

:\n Approved EPA Auditor & Anilvsr 20 of 127

WSLConsultants Enviroscience ACN 004 752 676

2-8 Harvey Srreet, Richmond, Victoria 3 12 1 Telephone: +6 1 3 7427 4666 Facsimile: +613 7427 2274

..... .- 23208

SAMPLE DETAILS

...................... ...... ...... .............. 5530C

1 . . . . . . . -. ... .+..- .

-AB No I DESCRIPTION

3267 / I 3268 /2 3269 . j3

I

~

I . . . .

. . . . . . i I

.

..... I i 7

............ 3H3

-I .... .I---- WATER

CLIENT: GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD RE: CENTRAL EQUITY PARK STREET SOUTH MELBOURNE

INORGANICS

(pH Units)

680 1 9 0

6 . 4 400

, __ .... ...

........ .... .....

......... +-- ........ , . ._

......... ._ . ___ . I-. .......... .-

...... ...........

......... .. .... ...

..... _______ .. .....

....................................... 1 - . t

+ - - 4500-H,B 4500-SO4 E

Chloride

84 84 74

.... .- - .. __ . -. ... .- -. ........

- .. ....... _.

...... . . __ .

REPORT NO 20033a

Total Alkalinity Phenol I I 1 as CaC03

0.003 <o,ool-'.

1 9 0 170 220 0.003

... ........ - ....... .- . ... . . . .

....................................................... - ........ ___ - .... .., , .....

.__ - ___ ........

.~ ....... ._ .........

- _. .......... ...... - .. __ 1- 1 r ............. _- ..... - . .... ..I _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

. . . - .- -. . . . . . . . . . . . ...... __. ........ ----++-+I/ -

___ -- ........ ._ __ __ ....

Page 2 of 8 Soil results expressed as mg/kg dry weight unless stated otherwise. Water results expressed as mglL unless slated otherwise.

21 of 127

WSLConsultants Enviroscience ACN o(u 712 676

2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 3 12 1 Telephone: t613 9429 4666 Faaimilc: t613 9429 2294

REPORT NO SAMPLE DETAILS I Sodium I Potasium Magnesium Calcium I


20033a

CATIONS

.- - LOCATION DEPTH

3H1 .. ...... - ~ - __ -. __ __ ______ ........ 30 59 110 __ 330 . ......... ............. ..

LAB No 1 DESCRIPTION

3s

1 13267 '1 I3268 12 I3269 13

SOIL .- _. - - - _ ._ - .- _. . ..... ......... . . . . .. .. .. ... . . WATER 3120 B 3120 B 3120 B 3120 B

... .... _. I

METH .~

I I I I I

Page 3 of 8 Soil results expressed as mglkg dry weight unless stated otherwise. Water results expressed as mg/L unless stated otherwise.

22 of 127

,i / L-.. .'- CLIENT: GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

RE: CENTRAL EQUITY PARK STREET SOUTH MELBOURNE ' 2-8 Harvey Street,

Richmond, Victoria 3 12 1 Telephone: +613 9429 4666 Facsimile: t613 9429 2254

METALS

20033a -

LAB NO

Uuminium ATsenic Boron 1 Cadmium

- <o 001

<0.001

<0.001

. . . _.

- ....... _.

, ...........

.........

..........

..... - - .

- ........ ....

wball

- .._.

-- _ . -. .

____ -. .... _ _ . . . . . -. . .

- ._ - . .........

... - ... .... -_ ...

.

_ ... ... ...

... -. ._ ....

Beryllium

-

Barium

7

SAMPLE DETAILS

, . _- DEPTl

- . . .

.- .

. . . . . .

.. . _

.....

...

-

)ESCRIPTION I LOCATION

0.19 .... ..

(3267

13268

13269 .. _ .

....... ...

. .

bn 1

BH2

.

co.01 ... .......

.....

~

- ... <o 001 ___ - .........

. - - .

...... - -. ._ - .. - ....... .- -I_-

........ .. .q- ........... .......

.......... I

I I . I ! I

i I I

I ~

i METHODS

. . . . . . . . -- . . . . . I.. , .... I -

~- ....... ......

- ..... - ... ._ .. -. ......

WaterAPHA31208.31148. 31128

Page 4 of 8

Soil results expressed as mglkg dry weight unless stated otherwise. Water results expressed as mglL unless slated otherwise.

23 of 127


2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 31 21 Telcphone: +613 9429 4666 Facsimilc: +613 9429 2294

LAB NC

, 1,


TPH

IREPORTNO I 20033a

SAMPLE DETAILS C 6 - C 9 > C 9 - C 1 4 >C14-C28 >C28-C36 - .... .... . ---. DESCRIPTION LOCATION DEPTH

- BH1 0.05 ~ 0 . 0 4 CO. 1 CO. 1 I CO. 1 CO. 1 BH2 ~ 0 . 0 4 ~ 0 . 0 4

- . . . . . . . . . . -. __ .- ... --- ~ ____- ...

I BH3 0.05 ~ 0 . 0 4 CO. 1 m-- _ _ _ _ ~ ........ -. .... _-- .... . ._ ......... . __ -. . -_ .. _. .- .

. . . . . . . . __ . . . __ . . - . ........ - ........................ -. ___ .. ...........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ......... - . ........ . ..

............................................................... .......... --- ................ __ ~ ... __

...... , _--- - - . . - .. .. .

. ............. . . . . . .

. . ..... ........ .. ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . - -- -_ .- - . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ................ . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .. ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ....... . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . ..... ...... ..... .................... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ - ____ _ _ _ -. - _ _ . . .. . . . . . . . . .

_ _ _ - - .... __.. . . . . . ... -._ .- . . .

..-_. -.__

__ -__ __ .- - __--_ --- -___.-- -.-_I----

- .

_ -.

.-

_-_ ._ ._ _ - -- . . , . - -_-___

I

. __ - -. - . __ . . __ __-. . - . - . - METHODS SOIL WATER WSL 031 WSL 031 WSL 031 WSL 031

Page 5 of 8 Soil results expressed as rnglkg dry weight unless stated otherwise. Water results expressed as rng/L unless stated otherwise.

24 of 127


LAB NC

43267 43238 43269 . . . .

' 2-8 Harvey Srrecr, Richmond, Victoria 3 12 1 Telephone: t613 9429 4666 Facsimile: t613 9429 2294


ORGANICS - MAH

SAMPLE DETAILS I Benzene I Toluene 1 Ethyl

DESCRIPTION

...

. . . .

. .-

METI-

Benzene I <0.001

... __ ........... _- - . . . . . .. I I- . - .. - ... __ - - .. __ _. .. __ - - . - __ -

........ ~ .......... _. .. I ... ._ ...... I I I r

Xylenes Tri Methyl

Benzene

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001

-____. -_- - -_ _.

- -. . _ - - . - - _. __

-- .I-..__

.- { .~

__ - .- -_ . . . . . . . . . - ....... . . . .- .....

.- . -. - .- . .- . . . . . - ........ ....

- - ._ .- - _ _

-__ - ... WSL 3810 WSL 3810

Methyl- Benzene

......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.... - .. . . . - ... .... I I WSL3810 I WSL3810 I

Page 6 of 8 Soil results expressed as mglkg dry weight unless stated otherwise. Water results expressed as mglL unless slated otherwise.

25 of 127

Enviroscience ACN W4 752 676 I

' 2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 3 12 1 Telephone: t613 7427 4666 Facsimilc: 4 1 3 9427 2234

SAMPLE DETAILS

i IESCRIPTION LOCATION

I

METHODS

......

DEPTI.

- . . .

. .

....

~ ..

. .

.

. ..__

. . . . . . .

-

Naphlh- alene

- co.001

<0.001

~0.001

......... - __ .

. - - .. -- . . . . . -. . .

._ - ... - ._

. .

-. .... .

. . - . , _- -. -. _ _ _

. . . . . . . - -.

-. .- - . . . . . . .

~ -

..........

..

... ...... -. ...

..

.....

.......

...... - ...................... - .. -- L I__-


PAH

IREPORTNO 1 20033a

.......... Phen- Anthra- Fluor- Pyrene Benro(a)- Chrpene Benro(b)- BenZG(k) anlhre- I nuor- 1 fluor- cane 1 anlhene anlhene I /

....

<0.001 <0.001 ~0.001

<0.001 ..0.001 <0.001

<0001 co.001 co.001

.. - ._ .

..... -. ... . - ................. __ .. i

............... - -- - -.-. .. $4-

----tI

perylene

<0.001 co.01

co.001 co.01

<0.001 co.01

.... .- . . . . . . . . .

- ......... .... - .. . , . . . . . . . . . . .

- . ___ ................

.. .. _- .... - .................... _ _ ._ .. - ............... _ _ ...... - ... +I-.-!--

I I - ...... , ....

.........

. . . . .

. . . . .

... _. ......

. . . . . . . . . . .

.

-

....... _- ... - _ _ _ . - .__-

. . . . . . .

. . . . . ._ ..... - .. .. - . . . - ... .. ._ - ..

. . .

......... - ......... -- ..

Page 7 of 8

Soil results expressed as rnglkg dry weight unless stated otherwise. Water results expressed as rnglL unless stated otherwise.

26 of 127

LAB NO

- 13267

13268

:3269

. .

WSLConsultants Envi roscience A C N 004 752 676

2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 31 2 I Telephone: t613 9429 4666 Facsimile: +613 9429 2294

SAMPLE DETAILS

. . . . . .- ~

. . . . . . . . .

..... EH3

i " j I I

I I I

I

! I i ! I

I I

i

i I

...

METHODS

DEPTH

- . - . ...

...

. .- . . -

. . . .

. _

. .

._ -


CHC

1. 2. 4 - Trichloroben

0170

<0.001

<0.001

<0.001

... - ....... - . _. . -- -. - _ _ ... -

. .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . .

.

. .

. . . . . . . . . .

. - . . . . . . .

. . .

. _. .... _ _ _ . . . . . . . . -.

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. - . .

Page 8 of 8

Soil results expressed as mglkg dry weight unless stated otherwise. Water results expressed as mglL unless stated otherwise. I

27 of 127


25 Burwood Road, Hawthorn, Vic 31 22 Australia (PO Box 6079, Hawthorn West, Wc 31 22 Australia) Telephone (031 98 19 4044 Fax (03) 981 8 7990

.

REPORT ON

SOIL CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 88 PARK STREET

SOUTH MELBOURNE

Submitted to: Central Equity Limited

Level 9 365 Queen Street

MELBOURNE VIC 3000

DISTRIBUTION

3 copies - Central Equity Limited 2 copies - Golder Associates Pty Ltd

August 1996 966 I2 153i 105

OFFICES IN ADELAIDE. BRISBANE. CAIRNS. GOLD COAST, MAROOCHYDORE, MELBOURNE, PERTH, SYDNEY. WOLLONGONG, JAKARTA ASSOCIATED COMPANIES IN CANADA. FIJI. FINLAND. GERMANY. HONG KONG. HUNGARY. ITALY. SWEDEN. UNITED KINGDOM. UNITED STATES

~- ~~ -

28 of 127

August 28, 1996 - I - 96612 153/105

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Golder Associates has completed a contamination assessment of land at 88 Park Street,

South Melbourne. The site history indicates the previous use of the site has been

predominantly residential and commercial, although there has been some possible

industrial use. Previous investigations undertaken by CMPS&F Environmental indicated

elevated concentrations of some heavy metals.

Field investigations by Golder Associates comprised collection of soil samples from 11

locations across the site. Fill was found to a maximum depth of 1.7 m. Additionally, a soil

gas survey was undertaken on an approximate 10 m grid across the site. Soil gas readings

were recorded using a PID and were found to range from 0 ppm to 30.3 ppm.

Composites and individual samples were initially analysed. The analytical results for the

composites indicated potentially elevated contaminant concentrations of polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals in some samples of fill.

Subsequent analyses of individual samples of fill with potentially elevated contaminant

concentrations was carried out. The results indicated some exceedances of the

ANZECWNHMRC Level B criteria for arsenic, chrpdum, cy$&, nickel, #c and /r, I

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Figure 7). The concentrations of arsenic in four

samples of fill retrieved from depths of approximately 0.5 m and the concentration of

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in one near surface sample of f i l l also exceeded the

Dutch Proposed Intervention Values. Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in some

samples of f i l l , however, these were present at concentrations below the relevant

ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria. All other contaminants analysed in samples of fill

were also found in concentrations below the ANZECCINHMRC Level B or Modified

ANZECC/NHMRC Level B Criteria.

/ I

Concentrations of potential contaminants in the natural soil sampled were found to be

below the relevant ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria.

The analytical results were also compared to the ANZECClNHMRC Proposed Health

Investigation Levels. Concentrations of total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and

benzo(a)pyrene in one sample of fill retrieved from the near surface of BH 7 and the

Golder kxsociates 29 of 127

96612 153/105 .. August 28, 1996 -1I-

concentration of arsenic in a sample of f i l l from a depth of 0.5 m from BH 4 exceeded the

ANZECUNHMRC Proposed Health Investigation Levels.

Based on the results of the assessment it is considered unlikely that a Certificate of

Environmental Audit could be obtained without remedial works. However, there is

considered to be the potential to obtain a Statement of Environmental Audit for the

proposed use subject to conditions. These would relate specifically to the proposed

development. Provided the majority of the site is covered by buildings and pavements,

these could for example require the provision of a layer of clean soil over the fill in any

remaining exposed areas.

It is recommended that this report is submitted to an Environmental Auditor for

assessment of the feasibility of issuing a statement of Environmental Audit or determining

requirements for further work prior to issue of such a Statement.


-iii- 966 12 1531 105 August 28. 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1 . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... i

2 . INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1

3 . SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................... 1

4 . PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 3

5 . SITE HISTORY REVIEW .......................................................................... 4

6 . FIELD INVESTIGATION .......................................................................... 7 6.1 Soil Sampling ................................................................................... 8 6.2 Soil Gas Survey ................................................................................. 9

7 . SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................. 9 7.1 Site Geology ..................................................................................... 9 7.2 Surface Conditions ............................................................................ 10 7.3 Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................ 10 7.4 PID Screening and Soil Gas Survey ....................................................... 11

8 . LABORATORY ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 11

9 . INITIAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ............................................................ 12

10 . RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ...................................................... 13 10.1 Composites .................................................................................... 13

10.1.1 Fill ....................................................................................... 13 10.1.2 Natural Soil ............................................................................ 15

10.2 Individual Samples .......................................................................... 16 10.2.1 Fill ....................................................................................... 16 10.2.2 Natural Soil ............................................................................ 17

10.3 Quality Assurance Testing ................................................................. 18 10.3.1 Results of Quality Assurance Check Testing .................................... 18 10.3.2 Results of Internal Quality Control Testing undertaken by WSL ........... 19 10.3.3 Results of Wash Water Analysis ................................................... 19

11 . COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS WITH HEALTH INVESTIGATION LEVELS ............................................................................................. 19

12 . CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 20

13 . LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT ............................................................ 22

14 . REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 23


~ August 28, 1996 -iv- 9661 2 153/105

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3A Table 3B

Table 3C

Table 3D

Table 4A Table 4B

Table 4C

Table 5 Table 6

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4

Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7

Appendix A Appendix B

Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E

TABLES

Analytical Programme - Composites Analytical Programme - Individual Samples Summary of Analytical Results for Composites - Inorganics Summary of Analytical Results for Composites - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Summary of Analytical Results for Composites - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Summary of Analytical Results for Composites - Organochlorine Pesticides and Total Phenolics Summary of Analytical Results for Individual Samples - Inorganics Summary of Analytical Results for Individual Samples - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Summary of Analytical Results for Individual Samples - Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons & Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Results of Quality Assurance Check Testing Results of Wash Water Analysis

FIGURES

Locality Plan Site Plan Extent of Land Assessed by CMPS&F Environmental to July 1994 Exceedances of the ANZECUNHMRC Level B Criteria - Previous Assessment Results of the Soil Gas Survey Compositing Plan Exceedances of the ANZECUNHMRC Level B Criteria - Current Assessment

APPENDICES

Historical Maps Report of Boreholes Notes and Abbreviations Method of Soil Classification Chemical Analysis Results - WSL Consultants Pty Ltd Chemical Analysis Results - Amdel Laboratories Limited Important Information About Your Environmental Site Assessment Report


August 28, 1996 -1- 9661 2 1531 105

~~~

2. INTRODUCTION

Golder Associates Pty Ltd has completed a soil contamination assessment of land located

at 88 Park Street, South Melbourne. The site is ‘L’ shaped and surrounds an existing two

storey building located on the corner of Kings Way and Park Street. The location of the

site is shown on Figure 1 and in more detail on Figure 2.

An environmental assessment of the former Melbourne Water Depot , which included the

site, was undertaken by CMPS&F Environmental (CMPS&F) in July 1994 (Reference 1).

Elevated concentrations of copper, lead, nickel and zinc were found at some locations on

the site.

It is understood that the Cental Equity Limited (Central Equity) intend to redevelop the

site for residential purposes and the redevelopment will include a 12 storey residential

apartment building fronting Park Street and a two storey above ground car park fronting

Kings Way. As part of the planning process, the City of Melbourne require that an

Environmental Audit is undertaken of the site. As such, the aim of this work is to provide

information which will allow an EPA appointed Environmental Auditor for Contaminated

Land to assess if it is appropriate to issue either a Certificate or Statement of

Environmental Audit.

The field investigation for this assessment was undertaken in conjunction with a

geotechnical investigation: The results of the geotechnical investigation are the subject of a

separate report (Reference 2).

3. SCOPE OF WORK

A proposal to conduct a contamination assessment and a geotechnical investigation was

provided to Central Equity in a letter dated June 18, 1996. The contamination assessment

involved the following scope of work:

Golder Associates

~~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~

33 of 127

.

August 28, 1996 -2- 966 12 153/ 105

Site History Review

It was proposed that this would involve the following:

A site inspection to identify any areas of potential environmental concern.

Discussion with the Melbourne Water and any other relevant parties as to the history of

the site.

Review of aerial photographs.

Review of other publicly available historical documents.

Field Investigation and Chemical Analyses

The eight boreholes used for the geotechnical investigation were used to recover samples

for the contamination assessment. An additional three shallow boreholes were drilled

solely for the purposes of the contamination assessment. Field investigations relating to

the contamination assessment involved the following:

Selection of 11 borehole locations across the site and collection of up to four samples

from each location. It was proposed that samples would be retrieved from the following

nominal depths, near surface, 0.5 m and 1.5 m and of the underlying natural soil.

Screening soil samples with a photoionisation detector for the presence of volatile

organic compounds.

Submission of soil samples to WSL Consultants pty Ltd (WSL) for chemical analysis.

Conducting a soil gas survey across the site on an approximate I O m by 10 m grid.

Colder Associates

34 of 127

-3- 96612 153/105

Reporting of Site Contamination Assessment

Reporting of the site contamination assessment involved :

Tabulation and review all data from both field investigations and laboratory analysis;

0 Comparison of analytical results with Australian and international guidelines;

Assessment of the implications of the contamination found;

0 Preparation of a report in accordance with the ANZECUNHMRC Guidelines

(Reference 3) setting out the findings of the contamination assessment with respect to

obtaining either a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit.

4. PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT

CMPS&F Environmental undertook three stages of investigation and a preliminary risk

assessment of land that included the site between September 1993 and July 1994

(Reference 1). Specifically, the area assessed was Melbourne Water’s former Central

Depot. A review of the history of the site indicated that the 88 Park Street had been used

for residential purposes and then by Danks Plumbing Supplies prior to acquisition by

Melbourne Water in 1973. There was a red brick building located on the 88 Park Street

site along with storage bins and a triple interceptor pit associated with car washing

facilities. The extent of the area assessed by CMPS&F Environmental is shown on Figure

3.

The field investigation undertaken by CMPS&F Environmental involved the collection of

soil samples from eight locations at the 88 Park Street site using a hand auger. Samples

were generally retrieved from the near surface and from a depth of approximately 0.5 m

form each location. The sample locations are shown on Figure 4.

The analytical results indicated elevated concentrations of some metals including copper,

lead, nickel and zinc were found in some samples of f i l l recovered from the 88 Park Street

site. Exceedances of the ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria are shown on Figure 4.


August 28, 1996 -4- 966 12 153/105

A contamination management plan was developed and a health risk assessment was

undertaken of the site assessed including the 88 Park Street site. The health risk

assessment was based on the concentrations of copper, lead and monocyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons found. CMPS&F Environmental found

“A preliminary Health Risk Assessment has shown that the measured concentration

of lead, copper and MAH [monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons] would constitute a

low risk for the intended purposes (ie Industrial/Cbmmercial Usage). *

It was recommended that workers involved in the redevelopment works at the site be

advised of the appropriate health and safety requirements and soil management procedures.

However, it was stressed that the contaminants were considered to represent a very low

health risk.

5. SITE HISTORY REVIEW

A limited review of the history of the site and past uses was undertaken by examining of

aerial photographs and information held by the Royal Historical Society of Victoria

(RHSV) and the City of Port Phillip. The purpose of the historical review was to identify

the nature of any previous uses which may have the potential to cause soil contamination.

Based on this review, the following is understood about the history of the site.

Rate records that date back to 1850 held by the City of Port Philip indicate that the site

was under the jurisdiction of the City of Emerald Hill at that time and that the site was

crown land that was considered vacant. The parish plan of the Melbourne regions that

dates to that time also shows that the site was vacant (Reference 4).

Preistly (1995) (Reference 5) indicates that Park Street was extended eastward toward St

Kilda Road in 1864. A Chart of Port Philip that dates to approximately 1864 (Reference 4)

and a map of Emerald Hill that dates to 1866 (Reference 5) both show the eastern

extension of Park Street traversed a swamp known as the eastern swamp. Preistly (1995)

indicates that drainage from the Military Barracks fronting St Kilda Road and the

Homoeopathic Hospital (later Prince Henry’s) fouled the swamp. Further, with reference

to the eastern swamp, Preistly states that


August 28, 1996 -5- 966 12 1531 105

" n e government began fi l l ing the low-lying land in 1883 and the municipality

continued the work from 1887 by using the area as a rubbish dump. Council

intended that the refuse, and regular covering with clean soil, would quickly raise

the area several feet, allowing roads to be laid through it as a southerly extension

of the riverside industrial area. In the event, minimal soil and a voluminous

'deposition offilth ' le4 the area in 'a state of putrescence 'for years'."

Hanna Street (now Kings Way) had not been constructed by 1864 or 1866 as can be seen

in the 1864 Chart of Port Philip and the 1866 map of Emerald Hill.

By 1885, as indicated by a Sands and McDougall Directory Map (Reference 4), Park

Street and Hanna Street (now Kings Way) were constructed. The Sands and McDougall

Directory of Melbourne (Reference 6) indicate that the site was used for residential

purposes at that time.

Copies of the Parish Plan of Melbourne (1850-51), the Chart of Port Philip (1864?), the

map of Emerald Hill (1866) and the Sands and McDougall Directory Map (1885) are

included in Appendix A.

The Sands and McDougalI Directory of Melbourne (Reference 6) indicates that by 1890

the use of the site was predominantly residential. However, there were some commercial

uses along the Hanna Street frontage. This predominantly residential use remained until at

least 1920 as indicated by the Sands and McDougalI Directory of Melbourne. Melbourne

Water (formerly MMBW) base plans that date to early this century show both commercial

and residential usages along both Park and Hanna Street frontages of the site. John Danks

& Sons moved their foundry to the corner of Bank and Hanna Streets in 1900. The

foundry was located on land to the north of the site (Reference 5). The Melbourne Water

base plans show features in this area which include the foundry and a timber yard.

The Sands and McDougall Directory of Melbourne indicates that in 1930, 88 Park Street

was used for bulk storage by John Danks & Sons. However, the remainder of the site was

used for residential and commercial purposes

A 1945 aerial photograph of the site shows that the site was used predominantly for

residential or commercial purposes. However, a large building that appears to be a


August 28, 1996 -6- 9661 2 153/105

warehouse, is also located on the site. The site had a haphazard appearance due to the

number of small commercial and residential buildings on it.

The 1960 aerial photograph shows that the site was largely unchanged when compared to

the 1945 photograph. The warehouse located on the site was evident along with the

residential and commercial premises. The main change to the site during the 15 year

period between 1945 and 1960 was that one or two of the buildings located on the

northern portion of the site had been demolished by 1960.

The 1970 aerial photographs shows that western portion of the site had been cleared and

appeared vacant. The warehouse building located on the centre of the site was apparent as

were the residential/commercial buildings that were on the eastern portion.

The Sands & McDougall Directory of Melbourne (Reference 6) indicates that John Danks

& Sons bulk store remained on the site until at least 1974. The usage of the remainder of

the site along the Park Street frontage remained residential and commercial until at least

1974. The Directory indicates that one of the commercial uses was as a dry cleaner, which

operated from the Park Street frontage of the site from about 1950 until at least 1974. The

Sznds and McDougalI Directory indicates that the use of the Hanna Street frontage (Kings

Way after the late 1960s) remained residential until at least 1974.

By 1978 the aerial photograph indicates the western portion of the site appeared to be used

for outside storage. The warehouse located on the centre of the site was apparent. On the

eastern portion, the residentialkommercial premises had been demolished.

The 1987 aerial photograph shows that the site was essentially unchanged when compared

to the 1978 photograph. The warehouse located on the centre of the site was still evident.

The western portion of the site was used for outside storage and the eastern portion was

vacant.

The CMPS&F report indicates that the 88 Park Street site was acquired by MMBW (now

Melbourne Water) from Danks, a plumbing supply firm in 1973. It is understood that

MMBW operated their Central Depot from land including the site until its closure in the

1990s. It is further understood from the CMPS&F Environmental report (Reference I) that

there were storage bins and a triple interceptor pit associated with a washing bay located


August 28, 1996 -7- 966 12 15311 05

on the 88 Park Street site. The storage bins were located on the western portion of the site

fronting Kings Way (Figure 3). However, no information relating to the content of the

storage bins or the location of the triple interceptor pit was supplied in the report.

Buildings that were located on the site, including the warehouse, were subsequently

demolished and Central Equity purchased the site. The site has been operated as a car park

since.

Based on the review of the site history there are considered to be a number of potential

environmental concerns that may have resulted in contamination. These are:

Filling. Review of the history of the site indicates that in the general area was

originally swampy. Filling of the area occurred late last century and continued over a

period of several years. Only very general information regarding the type of material

that was used to f i l l the area is available. There is considered to be potential for fill to

have come from a source that could be contaminated.

Past Use of the Site. The history of the site indicates the previous uses that the site has

been residential, commercial and possibly industrial and that a foundry had been

located on land to the north of the site. There is considered to be potential for soil

contamination to have occurred as a result of some of the possible industrial uses,

including use.by the John Danks & Sons and Melbourne Water. It is also considered

that there is potential for contamination to have resulted from use of a portion of the

site by a dry cleaner.

6. FIELD INVESTIGATION

Field investigations involving soil sampling as part of the contamination assessment were

carried in conjunction with geotechnical investigation. A soil gas survey was also

undertaken as part of the field investigation. The field investigations were carried out

between June 27 and July 4, 1996.

Colder Associates

~~~

39 of 127

August 28, 1996 -8- 966 12 1531 105

6.1 Soil Sampling

A total of eight boreholes were drilled for both the contamination assessment and the

geotechnical investigation (BH 1 to BH 8). These were advanced to depths of between

9.95 and 25.35 m below ground surface. A further three shallow boreholes were drilled

solely for the purposes of the contamination assessment (BH 9 to BH 11) and were

advanced to depths up to 2.5 m. Boreholes were drilled using both hollow augering and

solid augering techniques. However, solid augering techniques were only used to advance

the boreholes as part of the geotechnical investigation, generally at depths greater than 2.0

m. All borehole locations are shown on Figure 2. Boreholes were drilled by Strata

Drilling Australia F'ty Ltd using a Gemco 210B.

Soil samples for contamination assessment purposes were generally retrieved from the

near surface and a depths of approximately 0.5 m and 1.5 m from each borehole using a

split spoon sampler. Deeper samples were retrieved in some cases. A total of 37 soil

samples were collected for the purposes of the contamination assessment.

Descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in augerholes BH 1 to BH 11 and

depths at which samples were recovered are presented in Appendix B, Report of

Boreholes. A summary of the Notes and Abbreviations Used and the Method of Soil

Classification are also included in Appendix B.

Throughout the sampling, a Microtip photoionisation detector (PID) was used to identify

the possible presence of volatile organic compounds in the soil. The PID fitted with a 10.6

eV lamp was calibrated to iso-butylene and its response to iso-butylene checked before the

instrument was used. Field readings were taken throughout sampling.

Sampling was undertaken using Golder Associates Standard Sampling Protocols. In

summary, sampling equipment was cleaned prior to recovering each sample to minimise

the potential of cross contamination between samples. The following procedure was used:

e a rinse to remove adhered soil;

washing in phosphate free detergent;

a final rinse in tap water; and

e

e


August 28, 1996 -9- 9661 2 153/ 105

0 a rinse in distilled water.

Two wash water samples were taken for quality assurance purposes. The wash water

samples were taken after decontaminating the relevant piece of sampling equipment

according to the protocols outlined above.

The soil samples were placed in clean pre-washed jars and stored under cooled conditions

while in the field and in transit. A chain of custody record was kept for all soil samples

from the time of sample collection until delivery to the laboratory.

The soil sampling programme is summarised in Tables 1 and 2.

6.2 Soil Gas Survey

A soil gas survey was undertaken site on an approximate 10 m grid across the site,

resulting in the installation of 30 gas probes across the site. The probes consisted of 1.5 m

steel tubes which are perforated over a length of about 0.5 m. The perforated end of the

gas probe was driven into the soil at each location to a depth of between 0.9 m and 1.25 m

below ground surface. The top end of the probe was then sealed to allow build up of any

volatile gas within the probe. The concentration of volatile gas present in the probe was

measured after several hours using a Microtip PID.

7. SITE CONDITIONS

7.1 Site Geology

The Geological Survey of Victoria 1: 63,360 scale Melbourne mapsheet shows the site to

be underlain by Quaternary age sediments known as Coode Island Silt. Coode Island Silt

is typically silt, silty clay or sandy clay that is dark grey and contains minor peat and shell

beds.

The mapsheet indicates that at the site the Coode Island Silt is underlain by the Fishermens

Bend Formation which generally comprises a pale grey to pale brown silty clay with

minor sandy clay and silt. The upper part of the Fishermens Bend Formation is commonly

mottled and tissured. The Fishermens Bend Formation is underlain by Moray Street


August 28, 1996 -10- 966 12 153/ 105

Gravel which is a quartz gravel and sand that contains minor silt, clay and carbonaceous

clay. The Moray Street Gravel in turn overlies Silurian age siltstone or sandstone known

as the Dargile Formation.

The geological mapsheet indications are consistent with the soil encountered while

drilling.

Further details relating to the geology at the site are included in the report relating to the

Geotechnical Investigation undertaken by Golder Associates in July 1996 (No.

96612153/10) (Reference 2).

7.2 Surface Conditions

The site is ‘L’ shaped and surrounds a two storey building located on the corner of Park

Street and Kings Way in South Melbourne. It is essentially flat, covers approximately 0.3

Ha and has frontages to both Park Street and Kings Way.

There are no buildings located on the site. Approximately one third of the site is covered

in concrete (as shown on Figure 2). The remainder is covered in gravel. The site is

currently used for car parking.

7.3 Subsurface Conditions

Fill was encountered in all 1 1 boreholes and occurred to depths of between 0.92 m and

1.71 m. The layer of till was found to be variable in nature. However, the f i l l was

generally sandy gravel underlain by either clayey sand, sandy clay, clayey gravel, gravelly

clay or a combination thereof. Material that was found in f i l l in some of the boreholes

included brick fragments, ash, ashy black material and timber shavings.

The natural soil underlying the layer of f i l l was generally a silty clay which is inferred to

be Coode Island Silt.

Groundwater was not observed in any of the boreholes during drilling due to the drilling

method used. However, standing water levels were measured in five boreholes (BH 1, BH

2, BH 3, BH 4 and BH 7) approximately 12 to 24 hours after drilling of the borehole was

Colder kqsociates 42 of 127

August 28, 1996 -1 1- 96612 153/ 105

complete. Standing water levels at that time ranged from a depth of 1.57 m to 4.36 m

below the ground surface.

7.4 PID Screening and Soil Gas Survey

A PID screening was undertaken involving recording of PID readings during soil

sampling. Field PID readings were all 0 ppm. These results do not indicate the presence of

volatile organic compounds in the soil. However, selected samples were submitted for

were submitted for chemical analysis to confirm that there were no volatile organic

compounds present in the soil matrix.

The results of the soil gas survey are shown on Figure 5. The PID readings recorded

ranged from 0 ppm to 30.3 ppm. PID readings over 1 0 ppm have been highlighted. The

results of the survey found that there were elevated PID readings, indicating the potential

for volatile organic compounds to be present in the soil along the western edge of the

concrete located in the middle of the site.

8. LABORATORY ANALYSIS

WSL Consultants Pty Ltd (WSL) was engaged as the primary analytical laboratory for the

project. Amdel Laboratories Limited (Amdel) were engaged as the secondary laboratory

for quality assurance purposes. WSL and Amdel are NATA registered for the analyses

undertaken. Laboratory reporting sheets showing the analytical methods used and NATA

certification for the analyses undertaken by WSL are presented in Appendix C and for

Amdel in Appendix D. WSL also conducted an internal quality assurance testing program.

Laboratory reporting sheets for the internal quality control testing are also presented in

Appendix C.

Samples were generally composited into groups of two or three for initial analysis. The

sampling locations from which composites were grouped are shown on Figure 6. The

analytical programme for the composites is outlined in Table 2. Composites were

generally analysed for pH, the metals arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury

and zinc, total petroleum hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. However,

selected composites were also analysed for other parameters including the metals


August 28, 1996 -12- 9661 2 153/105

antimony, barium, beryllium, boron, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium

and tin, organochlorine pesticides, total phenolics and cyanide.

Boreholes BH 6 and BH 10 were drilled in the vicinity of where the elevated soil gas

concentrations were detected. From those boreholes selected individual samples were

analysed for total petroleum hydrocarbons and monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Following receipt of the preliminary analytical results, individual samples comprising

some of the composites were analysed. This occurred where the composite results

indicated potentially elevated concentrations of contaminants. Selected individual samples

were analysed for the metals arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel and

zinc and for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and total petroleum hydrocarbons. The

analytical programme for the individual samples that were analysed is included in Table 2.

9. INITIAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The results of chemical analyses of soil samples collected during this investigation were

initially compared with published Australian criteria in order to assess the severity of

contamination of soil at the site. The general criteria used in this report are presented in

the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of

Contaminated Sites, January 1992 (ANZECUNHMRC Guidelines) (Reference 2).

Specifically, the criteria are ANZECUNHMRC Level B guidelines which are

environmental investigation levels, and exceedances are considered to indicate the need for

further investigation and assessment of the contamination.

The ANZECUNHMRC guidelines indicate that where no ANZECWNHMRC Level B

criteria exists, the Dutch Level B (Reference 7) should be used as a threshold value for

environmental concerns. Dutch Proposed Intervention Values have also been used in this

report as a further point of comparison (Reference 8).

Contaminant concentrations below ANZECUNHMRC Level B (or Dutch Level B) are

generally considered as suitable for any beneticial use. Contaminant concentrations above

these levels require further site specific assessment of their health and environmental

impact, with the nature of the proposed land use being an important factor in determining

acceptable contaminant concentrations. As a general guide, contaminant concentration


August 28, 1996 -13- 966 12 153/105

levels above the ANZECCINHMRC Level B (or Dutch Level B), but below the Dutch

Proposed Intervention Value are generally considered acceptable for land intended for

commercial or industrial uses. Depending on site specific factors, higher contaminant

concentrations may also be tolerable.

Where composites were analysed, criteria were divided by the number of individual

samples comprising the composite, giving Modified ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria

or Modified Proposed Dutch Intervention Values. The lower Modified criteria allows

comparison of composites and accounts for the possible effects of dilution when

compositing.

The criteria used for this assessment are summarised in Tables 3A to 3D and Tables 4A . and 4C.

10. RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

The analytical result reporting sheets are presented Appendices C and D. The results of

the composites analyses are summarised in Tables 3A to 3D and the individual analysis

results are presented in Tables 4A and 4C.

10.1 Composites

10.1.1 Fill

The analytical results indicate that the pH of the till at the site ranged 7.9 to 9.6 indicating

an alkaline condition (Table 3A).

Concentrations of antimony, beryllium, cadmium, cyanide, molybdenum and selenium

were all below the laboratory method detection limit (Table 3A). Tin concentrations were

all below the Modified ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria in the composites analysed

(Table 3A).

There were some exceedances of the Modified ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria for

arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead,, mercury, nickel and zinc in the

composites analysed; exceedances are shown on Table 3A. There were a number of


August 28, 1996 .14- 9661 2 153/105

exceedances of the Modified Proposed Dutch Intervention Values for heavy metals.. The

composites for which there were exceedances of the Modified Proposed Dutch

Intervention Values are outlined below:

0 Composite B had an arsenic concentration of 44 mg/kg and exceeded the Modified

Dutch Proposed Intervention Value 18 mg/kg for a composite formed from three

samples. Composite B was formed from samples collected from depths between 0.5 m

and 1.0 m from BH 1, BH 4 and BH 11;

0 Composite D was a composite formed of near surface samples collected from BH 2,

BH 3 and BH 5 and had a concentration of nickel of 120 mg/kg which exceeded the

Modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Value of 70 mg/kg for a composite formed from

three samples;

0 Composite E had an arsenic concentration of 55 mg/kg and exceeded the Modified

Dutch Proposed Intervention Value of 18 mg/kg for a composite formed from three

samples. Composite E was formed from samples collected from depths between 0.5 m

and 1.45 m from BH 2, BH 3 and BH 5;

Composite G was a composite formed from near surface samples collected from B H 6

and B H 10. Composite G had a concentration of lead (580 mg/kg) that exceeded the

Modified Proposed Dutch Intervention Value of 270 mg/kg for composites. The

concentration of nickel in the sample was 110 mg/kg which is equal to the Modified

Proposed Dutch Intervention Value for composites formed from two samplk;

0 Composite J had a nickel concentration of 120 mg/kg which exceeded the Modified

Proposed Dutch Intervention Value of 70 mg/kg for composites formed from three

samples. Composite J comprised near surface samples recovered from BH 7, BH 8 and

BH 9; and

0 Composite K, formed from three samples collected from depths of between 0.5 m and

1.0 m from BH 7, BH 8 and BH 9, had an arsenic Concentration of 26 mg/kg which

exceeded the Modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Value of 18 mg/kg for Composites

formed from three samples.


9661 2 1531 IO5 August 28, 1996 -15-

Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were generally below the laboratory

method detection limit in the composites analysed. However, there were two exceedances

of the Modified ANZECCINHMRC Level B criterion, for Composite H and Composite J ,

and these are shown on Table 3B. The concentration of total polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons in Composite H was 110 mg/kg also exceeded the Modified Proposed Dutch

Intervention Value of 20 mg/kg for composites formed from two samples.

Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations were generally below the laboratory method

reporting limit in the composites analysed (Table 3C). However, the fractions CIS-&

were found at levels above the laboratory method reporting limit in Composite A and

Composite H. Similarly, C15-C28 and C29-C36 were found in Composite G. The

concentrations of the petroleum hydrocarbons detected were below the relevant Modified

ANZECCINHMRC Level B criteria and Modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Values.

The concentrations of total phenolics exceeded the relevant Modified ANZECUNHMRC

Level B criteria in some of the composites analysed. Composites for which there were

exceedances are shown on Table 3D.

Organochlorine pesticide concentrations were below the laboratory method reporting limit

for all the composites analysed (Table 3D). Therefore the concentrations, if present, were

below the relevant Modified ANZECCINHMRC Level B criteria.

10.1.2 Natural Soil

The pH of the soil ranged from 5.4 to 6.8 indicating that the natural soil at the site was

slightly acidic in nature.

Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury were all below the laboratory

method detection limit (Table 3A). Chromium, copper and zinc concentrations were all

below the Modified ANZECCINHMRC Level B criteria in the composites analysed (Table

3A).

Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Table 3B), total petroleum

hydrocarbons (Table 3C) and organochlorine pesticides (Table 3D) were all below the


August 28, 1996 -16- 966 12 153/ 105

~~

laboratory method reporting limit and were therefore below the relevant

ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria.

10.2 Individual Samples

Several individual samples of both f i l l nd natural soil were analysed as part of the initial

analytical programme for total petroleum hydrocarbons and monocyclic hydrocarbons.

These samples were retrieved from BH 6 and BH 10 which were drilled in the vicinity

where elevated PID readings were found as part of the soil gas survey. The results are

included in Appendix C and have been summarised and included as part of Table 4C.

Upon receipt of the analytical results for the composites a further round of analytical work

was undertaken involving analysis of individual samples. Where there were exceedances of

the Modified ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria, the individual samples that comprised

these composites were analysed for the parameters for which there were exceedances.

Additionally, the individual samples that comprised composites that were found to contain

detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were also analysed.

The results are included in Appendix B and are summarised in Tables 4A to 4C.

Exceedances of the ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria and the Proposed Dutch

Intervention Values are highlighted on those tables and on Figure 7.

10.2.1 Fil l

Concentrations of barium, cobalt and lead were all below the ANZECWNHMRC Level B

criteria in the individual samples analysed (Table 4A). There were some exceedances of

the ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria for arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc in

the individual samples of till analysed; exceedances are shown on Table 4A and Figure 7.

There were also several exceedances of the Proposed Dutch Intervention Value for

arsenic. The individual samples of f i l l for which there were exceedances of the Proposed

Dutch Intervention Value for arsenic of 55 mg/kg are outlined below:

A sample collected from a depth of0.5 m from BH 2 had an arsenic concentration of

63 mg/kg;

Colder Associates

48 of 127

August 28, 1996 -17- 96612 1531105

A sample collected from a depth of 0.5 m from BH 4 had an arsenic concentration of

110 mg/kg;


65 mg/kg; and


74 mg/kg.

Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were generally below the laboratory

method reporting limit (Table 4B). However, the concentration of total polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons in a near surface sample of f i l l recovered from BH 7 was 150

mg/kg which exceeded the ANZECCINHMRC Level B criterion of 20 mg/kg and the

Proposed Dutch Intervention Value of 40 mg/kg.

Petroleum hydrocarbons were generally not detected at concentrations above the

laboratory method detection limit in the individual samples of f i l l analysed. However, the

petroleum hydrocarbon fraction C 15-C28 was found at detectable concentrations in three

samples analysed. The concentrations detected were below the ANZECCINHMRC Level

B criterion of 1000 mg/kg.

Monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were found to below the laboratory method detection

limit in the two samples of f i l l analysed (Table 4C).

10.2.2 Natural Soil

Selected samples of natural soil were analysed for petroleum hydrocarbons and monocyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons. Concentrations of both were below the laboratory method

reporting limit in the samples analysed (Table 4C).


966 12 153/105 August 28, 1996 -18-

~~~

10.3 Quality Assurance Testing

10.3.1 Results of Quality Assurance Check Testing

The results of the check testing have been assessed in terms of Relative Percent Difference

(RPD) calculated as:

A - B A + B

%RPD =(-1~200

Where,

A is the concentration of an analyte in one a composite determined by the primary

laboratory; and

B is the concentration of the same analyte in the duplicate of the composite as

determined by the second or control laboratory.

RPD values can range from 0 to 200, with a value of 0 representing perfect agreement

between laboratories, whilst values approaching 200 represent a complete divergence of

results. For the purposes of this assessment, Golder Associates considers that an RPD

which is < 50% represents good correlation between laboratory results.

Where the laboratories have used different detection limits and the results are indicated to

be consistent, or if both the laboratories have determined the concentration of the analyte

as being below the laboratory detection limit, then a nominal RPD value of < 50% has

been assigned. However, if the results obtained do not indicate that the results are

consistent, for example, one results is say < 10 and the other result is 15, then the RPD

for the analyte has been calculated at the detection limit.

. A laboratory duplicate of Composite A was submitted to Amdel for quality assurance

purposes. Field splits were not taken because analysis was primarily as composites.

The results of the quality assurance check testing are presented in Appendix D and

calculated RPDs are summarised in Table 5 . It is indicated that 48 out of the 50 the

quality assurance check analyses carried out had RPDs that were below 50%. RPDs

calculated for chromium and the petroleum hydrocarbon fraction C1&8 exceeded 50%. It r

- 5 . J L r c r . (,.I.. .


August 28, 1996 -19- 9661 2 1531 105

was noted that the t i l l encountered at the site generally appeared to be variable. It is

therefore considered that the samples of f i l l in particular may have been inhomogenous

resulting in a discrepancy in results between laboratories. In both cases where the RPD-

exceeded the 50% criterion, the results obtained by both laboratories were below the

relevant ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria. It is therefore considered that although there

were RPDs that exceeded the 50% criterion the results generally demonstrate a

satisfactory degree of consistency in results obtained by both laboratories.

10.3.2 Results of Internal Quality Control Testing undertaken by WSL

The results of the internal quality control testing undertaken by WSL are included in

Appendix C to this report. The internal quality control testing comprised of analysis of spikes and duplicates. Spikes and duplicates were analysed for approximately 10% of all samples analysed. Spike and duplicate results have been expressed as percentage of the

expected result. The results of the spike analysis ranged from 91% to 99%. Results for the

duplicates ranged from 93% to 106%. All the internal quality control results are within

the ranged 75% to 125% which is considered to indicated satisfactory reproducability of laboratory results for quality assurance purposes.

10.3.3 Results of Wash Water Analysis

Two samples of wash water were submitted to WSL for analysis of metals. The results are

included in Appendix C and have been summarised in Table 6. All the results were below

the laboratory method detection limit. This indicates that the decontamination procedures

undertaken were of a satisfactory standard.

11. COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS WITH HEALTH

INVESTIGATION LEVELS

The concentration of contaminants has also been compared to the Proposed Health

Investigation Level Guidelines outlined in the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for

the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites (Reference 4). Proposed Health

Investigation levels exist for lead, arsenic, cadmium, benzo(a)pyrene and total polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons and are outlined below.


August 28, 1996 -20- 966 12 153/ 105

Substance

Lead

Health Investigation Level mg/kg

300

Arsenic 100

Cadmium 20

Benzo(a)p yrene 1'

Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 20

The concentrations of lead, arsenic, cadmium, benzo(a)pyrene and total polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons in the individual samples analysed were generally the Proposed

Health Investigation Levels. However, there were three exceedances and these are outlined

below:

0 The concentration of arsenic in a sample of f i l l retrieved from a depth of 0.5 m from

BH 4 was 110 mg/kg ; and

The concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene and total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were

12 rng/kg and 150 mg/kg, respectively.

12. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Golder Associates has completed a contamination assessment of land at 88 Park Street,

South Melbourne. The site history indicates the previous use of the site has been

predominantly residential and commercial, although there has been some possible

industrial use. Previous investigations undertaken by CMPS&F Environmental indicated

elevated concentrations of some heavy metals.

Field investigations by Golder Associates comprised collection of soil samples from 11

locations across the site. Fill was found to a maximum depth of 1.7 m. Additionally, a soil

gas survey was undertaken on an approximate 10 m grid across the site. Soil gas readings

were recorded using a PID and were found to range from 0 ppm to 30.3 ppm.

Composites and individual samples were initially analysed. The analytical results for the

composites indicated potentially elevated contaminant concentrations of polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals in some samples of f i l l .


August 28, 1996 -21- 966 12 153/ 105

Subsequent analyses of individual samples of f i l l with potentially elevated contaminant

concentrations was carried out. The results indicated some exceedances of the

ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria for arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc and

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Figure 7). The concentrations of arsenic in four

samples of fi l l retrieved from depths of approximately 0.5 m and the concentration of

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in one near surface sample of fill also exceeded the

Dutch Proposed Intervention Values. Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in some

samples of fi l l , however, these were present at concentrations below the relevant

ANZECUNHMRC Level B criteria. All other contaminants analysed in samples of fill

were also found in concentrations below the ANZECUNHMRC Level B or Modified

ANZECUNHMRC Level B Criteria.

Concentrations of potential contaminants in the natural soil sampled were found to be

below the relevant ANZECCINHMRC Level B criteria.

The analytical results were also compared to the ANZECCINHMRC Proposed Health

Investigation Levels. Concentrations of total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and

benzo(a)pyrene in one sample of f i l l retrieved from the near surface of BH 7 and the

concentration of arsenic in a sample of fil l from a depth of 0.5 m from BH 4 exceeded the

ANZECUNHMRC Proposed Health Investigation Levels.

Based on the results of the assessment it is considered unlikely that a Certificate of

Environmental Audit could be obtained without remedial works. However, there is

considered to be the potential to obtain a Statement of Environmental Audit for the

proposed use subject to conditions. These would relate specifically to the proposed

development. Provided the majority of the site is covered by buildings and pavements,

these could for example require the provision of a layer of clean soil over the f i l l in any

remaining exposed areas.

It is recommended that this report is submitted to an Environmental Auditor for

assessment of the feasibility of issuing a Statement of Environmental Audit or determining

requirements for further work prior to issue of such a Statement.


August 28, 1996 -22- 966 12 1 53/ 105

13. LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT

Attached as Appendix F is a document entitled "Important Information About Your

Environmental Site Assessment" which should be read in conjunction with this report.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD

per:

I / fu l ia Parker

Environmental Scientist

Peter Thornton

Associate

PNT/JP/153wplOS .doc


August 28, 1996 -23- 966 12 153/ 105

14. REFERENCES

Reference 1

Reference 2

Reference 3

Reference 4

Reference. 5

Reference 6

Reference 7

Reference 8

Reference 9

CMPS&F Environmental. Environmental Site Assessment, Melbourne

Water Central Depot, Bank Street, South Melbourne. July 1994.

Draft Report on Geotechnical Investigation, Residential Development, 88

Park Street, South Melbourne, Victoria. July 1996. Report No.

966 12 153/ 10

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and

Management of Contaminated Sites. Australian and New Zealand

Environment and Conservation Council, National Health and Medical Research Council, January 1992

Leeuwenburg, Jeff; 1987. n e Making of Melbourne in Maps. Longman

Cheshire. Melbourne.

Priestley, Susan; 1995. South Melbourne A History. Melbourne University

Press. Melbourne.

Sands and McDougall Directory of Melbourne. Sands and McDougall

1885-1974.

Draft Australian Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of

contaminated Site. Australian and New Zealand Environment and

Conservation Council, National Health and Medical Research Council,

June 1990

Swartjes, Frank A, and van den Berg, Reinier. Remediation of

Contaminated Soil and Groundwater: Proposals for Criteria and Priority

Setting. Workshop on Contaminated Soils, Stockholm, October 26-28,

1993

Classification of Wastes, EPA Information Bulletin, Publication 448, May

1995.


Test Sample Sample Sample Sample Location Number Date Type Depth

Composite

Composite A BH 1 El 27/06/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH 1 1 E3 5 04/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH 4 E7 01 107196 Fill 0.0-0.1 m

Composite B* BH 1 E2 27/06/96 Fill 0.5-0.95 m BH 1 1 E36 04/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0 m BH 4 E8 0 1/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0 m

Composite C BH 1 E3 27/06/96 Natural 1.2-1.65 m BH 1 1 E37 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m BH 4 E9 01/07/96 Natural 1.5-1.95 m

Composite D BH 2 E10 02/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH 5 E17 03/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH 3 E4 28/06/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m

Composite E BH 2 El 1 02/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0m BH 5 El8 03/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0 m

' B H 3 E5 28/06/96 Fill 1.0-1.45 m Composite F BH 2 E13 02/07/96 Natural 2.0-2.85 m

BH 5 E19 03/07/96 Natural 1.5-1.95 m BH 3 E6 28/06/96 Natural 2.0-2.45 m

Composite G BH 6 E14 02/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m RH 10 E3 1 0 4 IO 7 I9 6 Fill 0.0-0.1 m

Composite H BH 6 E15 02/07/96 Fill 0.5-1 .O m BH IO E32 04/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0 m

Composite 1 BH 6 E16 02/07/96 Natural 1.5-1.95 m BH IO E33 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m

Composite J BH 7 E20 03/07/96 Fill 0.2-0.25 m BH 8 E24 04/07/96 Fill 0.2-0.25 m BH 9 E28 04/07/96 Fill 0.2-0.25 m

Composite K BH 7 E2 1 03/07/96 Fill 0.6-1.0 m BH 8 E25 04/07/96 Fill 0.6-1.0 m BH 9 E29 04/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0 m

Compsoite L BH 7 E22 03/07/96 Natural 1.4-2.0 m BH 8 E26 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m BH 9 E30 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m

IOteI Duplicate of Composite B analysed for quality assurance purposcs for the spccificd analysis.

Analysis

pH, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, tin, zinc, total petroleum hydrocarbons,

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, organochlorine pesticides, total phenolics and cyanide pH, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead,

manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, tin, zinc, total petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, organochlorine pesticides, total phenolics and cyanide

pH, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, zinc, total petroleum hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons








pH, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, zinc and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons





TABLE 1 ANALYTICAL PROGRAMME - COMPOSITES CENTRAL EQUITY LIMITED PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESS- 88 PARK STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE

153xL02.xLs 12/08/96

56 of 127

Test Sample Sample Sample Sample Location Number Date Type Depth

BH 1 El BH 1 BH 1 BH 2 BH 2 BH 2 BH 2 BH 3 BH 3 BH 3 BH 4 BH 4 BH 4 BH 5 BH 5 BH 5 BH 6 BH 6

BH 6 BH 7 BH 7 BH 7 BH 8 BH 8

E2 E3 E10 El 1 E12 E13 E4 1 5 E6 E7 E 8 E9

El7 El8 E19 El4 E15

E16 E20 E2 1 E22 E24 E25

27/06/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m 27/06/96 Fill 0.5-0.95 m 27/06/96 Natural 1.2-1.65 m 02/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m 02/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0 m 02/07/96 Fill/Natural 1.5-1.95 m 02/07/96 28/06/96 2 8 106 196 28/06/96 0 1/07/96 0 1/07/96 01 107196 03/07/96 03 107 I96 03/07/96 02/07/96 02/07/96

02/07/96 03/07/96 03 107 196 03/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96

Natural Fill Fill

Natural Fill Fill

Natural Fill Fill

Natural Fill Fill

Natural Fill Fill

Natural Fill Fill

2.0-2.85 m 0.0-0.1 m 1.0-1.45 m 2.0-2.45 m 0.0-0.1 m 0.5-1.0 m 1.5-1.95 m 0.0-0.1 m 0.5-1.0 m 1.5-1.95 m 0.0-0.1 m 0.5-1.0 m

1.5-1.95 m 0.2-0.25 m 0.6-1 .O m 1.4-2.0 m

0.2-0.25 m 0.6- I .O m

Analysis

Copper, nickel, zinc, total phenolics and total petroleum hydrocarbons Arsenic and chromium

Chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel and zinc Arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, nickel and zinc


Copper, nickel, zinc, total phenolics and total petroleum hydrocarbons Arsenic and chromium


Cobalt, copper,lead, nickel, zinc, total phenolics and total petroleum hydrocarbons Arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, mercury, zinc, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, total phenolics and total

petroleum hydrocarbons Total petroleum hydrocarbons

Chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Arsenic and chromium


BH 8 E26 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m

TABLE 2 ANALYTICAL PROGRAMME INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES CENTRAL EQUITY LIMmED PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 88 PARK STREET. SOUTH MELBOURNE

153XLO3.XLS 12/08/96 57 of 127

Test Sample Sample Sample Sample Location Number Date Type Depth BH 9 E28 04/07 196 Fill 0.2-0.25 rn BH 9 E29 04/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0 m BH 9 E30 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m BH 10 E3 1 04/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH 10 E32 04/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0 m

BH 10 E33 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m BH 10 E34 04/07/96 Natural 2.0-2.5 m BH 1 1 E35 04/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH 1 1 E36 04/07/96 Fill 0.5-1 .O m BH 1 1 E37 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m

Washblank E23 03/07/96 Water Washblank E27 04/07/96 Water

Analysis


Cobalt; copper,lead, nickel, zinc, total phenolics and total petroleum hydrocarbons Arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, mercury, zinc, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, total phenolics,

petroleum hydrocarbons and monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Total petroleum hydrocarbons and monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Total petroleum hydrocarbons and monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Copper, nickel, zinc, total phenolics and total petroleum hydrocarbons

Arsenic, chromium and monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury and Zinc

TABLE 2 cont. ANALYTICAL PROGRAMME INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES CENTRAL EQUITY LIMITED PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 88 PARK STREET', SOUTHMELBOURNE

153XLO3.XLS 12/08/96 58 of 127

Composite Composite A F Composite B r Composite c 14 Composite D %- Composite E F Composite F N

Composite G * F Composite H * f Composite I * \ J

Composite J F Composite K F Compsoite L rJ

Modified ANZECCINHMRC or Modified Dutch Level

Modified Dutch Proposed Intervention

Modified ANZECUNHMRC or Modified Dutch Level


values' Jotcs

Values2

- pH

8.5 8

6.8 8.4 8

6.5 8.7 8.1 6.8 9.6 7.9 5.4

Cyanide < 5 < 5

< 5 < 5

< 5 < 5

< 5

25

25

17

17

4ntimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Nickel Mercury Molybdenum Selenium Tin Zinc < 5 < 5 56 < 5 <0.2 16 15 44 79 - 60 0.1 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 67 < 5 <0.2 27 6.2 < 5 19 12 0.17

< 5 <'5 25 < 5 <0.2 23 2 7 3 7 31 120 0.06 14 0.17 < 5 55 - 130 < 5 <0.2 - 29 6.6 2 56

<0.2 9.5 < s < 5 <0.05

< 5 <0.2 13 < 5 < 5 <0.05 < 5 < 5 21 < 5 <0.2 19 2 6 4 0 If0 <0.05

< 5 <0.2 11 5.4 < 5 <0.05 < 5 10 <0.2 - 17 26 3s 6.9 <0.05

< 5 26 23 < 5 <0.2 - 17 < 5 5.9 11 11 0.06

< 5 - 14 100 < 5 <0.2 2 13 - 31 - 0.6

< 5 <0.2 12 < 5 < s < 0.05 I

< 5 < 5 < 5 20 9.7

11 < 5 < 5 110 < 5

< 5 < 5 16 130 13 62

< 5 < 5 < 5 34

10 10 200 1 .s 25 25 30 150 30 0.5 25 100

28 310 6 190 5 100 360 120 95 270 110

6.7 6.7 130 I 17 17 20 100 20 0.33 17 67

18 210 4 130 80 63 180 70 3.3 67 240

All results are expressed as mgkg unless otherwise specified Indicates a composite formed from 2 samples, all other composites are formed from three samples

1 Modified ANZECClNHMRC or modified Dutch Level B Criteria for composites formed from two samples 2 Modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Values for composites formed from two samples 3 Modified ANZECClNHMRC or modified Dutch Level B Criteria for composites formed from three samples 4 Modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Values for composite8 formed from three samples Figures in bold italics that have been underlined c x c d the modified ANZECClNHMRC Level B criteria Figures in bold italics that have been sheded c x c d the modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Value

TABLE 3A SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR COMPOSITES - INORGANICS

\

CENTRAL EQUITY LIMITED PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 88 PARK STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE

153XLO2.XLS 12/08/96

59 of 127

Composite

Composite A \: Composite B F Composite C rJ Composite D F Composite E F Composite FP'

Composite G * F Composite H * Composite I * f l Composite J F' Composite K F Compsoite L I\J

Modified ANZECCMHMRC or Modified Dutch Level


B Criteria 1

Values2 Modified

ANZECCITVHMRC or Modified Dutch Level


Values 4

B Criteria 3

i o c c s

Benzo@) BenzoW Benzo(a) Ideno Dibenzo(ah) Benzo(ghi1 Total Naph Acenaph Acenaph Phenan Fluoran Benzo(a) anthracene perylene PAHs

Dyrenc halene thalene thene Fluorene Anthracene Pyrene Chrysene fluoranthene fluoranthene pyrene threne thene anthracene

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <O.S < O S < O S < O S <0.5 <0.5 < O S < O S < 5 <0.5 <0.5 < O S <0.5 <O.S <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < O S < O S < O S <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < 5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < O S < O S < O S <0.5 <0.5 < O S < O S < 5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.1 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.5 < O S <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < O S < 5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < O S <0.5 <0.5 < O S <0.5 < 5 <0.5 <0.5 < O S < O S <0.5 < O S <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < O S < O S < O S < O S <0.5 < o s <0.5 < 5 <0.5 <0.5 < O S < O S 1 < o s 1 1.1 <0.5 < o s <0.5 < O S < O S < O S < o s < o s < 5 1.2 3.5 0.6 2 26 4.6 - I 9 7 5.5 2.7 6.8 j.7 4.8 <0.5 3 .1 110

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < O S < O S <os <0.5 <0.5 < o s <os < 5

<0.5 <O.S <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < O S < O S < O S <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < 5 <0.5 <O.S <0.5 < O S <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < O S <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < O S <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < 5

<0.5 <0.5 0.9 <0.5 1 < O S 1.5 1.8 0.6 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 8.2

2.5 5 5 5 5 0.5 10

20

1.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.33 6.7

13

All KSUILI m presse sed a$ mgkg unless othcnviw specified I Modifled ANZECCNI-MRC or modified Dutch Level B Criteria for mmporites formed from two samples 2 Modified Dutch pmpored Intervention Valuer for composites formed from IWO samples 3 Modified ANZECCNHMRC or modified Dutch Level B Criteria for composites formed from thrac samples 4 Modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Values for composites formed from three samples Figuns in bold iralics that hsvc been underlined e x a d Ik modified ANZECCNHMRC Level B criteria Figures in bold italics that have been shadcd e x a d the modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Value

TABLE 3B SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR COMPOSITES POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS CENTRAL EQUITY m E D PRELIMINARY COKTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 88 PARK S T m , SOUTH MELBOURNE

153XLO2.XLS 12/08/96

60 of 127

Composite

Composite A G Composite B C Composite C r.! Composite D r-’ Composite E Ir Composite F rJ

Composite G * I’ Composite H * \I Composite I * Q Composite J 1-1 Composite K I- Compsoite L rJ

Modified ANZECCAWMRC or \lodified Dutch Level


Values’ Modified

ANZECCIMII\IRC or Modified Dutch Level


values Jotes

/

Total c1o-c36

c6-c9 14 c1S-cZ8 c29-c36

< 20 < 20 80 < 50 80 < 20 < 20 < 50 < 50 < 20.- ’ < 20 < 50 < 50 < 20 < 20 < 50 < 50 < 20 < 20 < 50 c 50 <20 I <20 < 50 < 50 < 20 < 20 84 71 160 < 20 e 20 210 < 50 2 10 < 20 < 20 < 50 < 50 e 20 < 20 < 50 < 50 < 20 < 20 < 50 < 50 < 20 < 20 < 50 < 50

$ L l i , ( - 6 2 . S t . ’ ~ ’ ‘ - 7

50 500

2500

33 330

1700

AI1 results are expressed as m g k g unless othenvise specified 1 Modified ANZECClNHMRC or modified Dutch Level B Criteria for composites formed from two samples 2 Modified Dutch Proposed lntervention Values for composites formed from two samples 3 Modified ANZECClNHMRC or modified Dutch Level B Criteria for composites formed from three samples 4 Modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Values for composites formed from three samples Figures in bold italics that have been underlined exceed the modified ANZECClNHMRC Level B criteria Figures in bold ilalics that have been shaded exceed the modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Value

TABLE 3C SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR COMPOSITES TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS CENTRAI, EQUITY LIMITED PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT

\

88 PARK STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE 153XLO2.XLS i210ais 61 of 127

Composite Total Phenolics

<0.1 Composite A 1- Composite B Composite c ’ Composite D L Composite E Composite F 1.J

Composite G * \: Composite H ’* Composite I * ‘\f Composite J F Composite K F

~~

Total

pesticides Aldrin Dieldrin Endrin DDD DDE DDT Organochlorin Heptachlor0

epoxide HCB Lindane Heptachlor

<0.1 <0.1 <o. 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <1

Compsoite L /\I Modified

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

0.5 4NZECC/NHnlRC or Modified Dutch Leve


Values’ Modified

QNZECCMHMRC or Modified Dutch Leve


lotes Values ‘

<0.1 <0.1 <o. 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <O.l <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 <0.1 <o. 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <1 <0.1 <0.1 eo. 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <o. 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <1 <0.1 <0.1 <o. 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 <0.1 <o. 1 <o. 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 <0.1 co. 1 <o. 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 < 1

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 -- 2o I

I

0.33 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

All results are expressed as m g k g unless othenvise specified 1 Modified ANZECCINHMRC or modified Dutch Level B Criteria for composites formed from two samples 2 Modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Values for composites formed from two samples 3 Modified ANZECCINHMRC or modified Dutch Level B Criteria for composites formed from three samples 4 Modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Values for composites formed from three samples Figures in bold italics that have been underlined exceed the modified ANZECClNHMRC Level B criteria Figures in bold italics that have been shaded exceed the modified Dutch Proposed Intervention Value

TABLE 3D SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR COMPOSITES ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES & TOTAL PHENOLICS CENTRAL EQUITY LIMITED PRELIMINARY CONTAhlINATION ASSESSMENT 88 PARK STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE

153XLO2.XLS 12/08/96

62 of 127

Test Sample Sample Sample Sample b a t i o n Number Date Type Depth BH 1 El 27/06/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH 1 E2 27/06/96 Fill 0.5-0.95 m BH I E3 27/06/96 Natural 1.2-1.65 m BH 2 E10 02/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m

Arsenic Barium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Nickel Zinc

45 - 91 200 31 13

60 - 84 140 24 22 - BH 2 El2 02/07/96 FilllNatural 1.5-1.95 m BH 2 E13 02/07/96 Natural 2.0-2.85 m BH 3 E4 28/06/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH 3 €5 28/06/96 Fill 1.0-1.45 m BH 3 E6 28/06/96 Natural 2.0-2.45 m

24 32 40 - 140 91 2 37 28 < 5 22

BH 4 E8 01/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0m BH 4 E9 01/07/96 Natural 1.5-1.95 m BH 5 El7 03/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH 5 E18 03/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0 m BH 5 El9 03/07/96 Natural 1.5-1.95 m BH 6 E14 02/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH 6 El5 02/07/96 Fill 0 . 5 - 1 . 0 m BH 6 E16 02/07/96 Natural 1.5-1.95 m BH 7 E20 03/07/96 Fill 0.2-0.25 m BH 7 E21 03/07/96 Fill 0 6-1.0 m BH 7 E22 03/07/96 Natural I .4-2.0 m BH 8 E24 04/07/96 Fill 0.2-0.25 m BH 8 E25 04/07/96 Fill 0.6-1.0 m BH 8 E26 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m BH 9 E28 04/07/96 Fill 0.2-0.25 m BH 9 E29 04/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0 m BH 9 E30 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m BH 10 E31 04/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH 10 E32 04/07/96 Fill 0 5-1 0 m BH 10 E33 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m BH IO E34 04/07/96 Natural 2.0-2.5 m BH 11 US 04/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH I I €36 04/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0 m BH 11 E37 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m

Dutch Intervention Value ANZECClNHhlRC or Dutch Level B Criteria

N d n

0 - 74

87 - 130 1 IO 28 28 - 65 77 41 9.2 28 - 2 80

30 40 47 - 130 130 15 27 - 78 140 24 190

22 29 40 47 26

22 31 43 a 23

28 30 44 - 120 16

29 41 40 - 120 100 20 27 8 31 16 34

17 17 64 74 40

20 400 50 50 60 300 60 200 55 620 380 2 40 190 530 210 120

63 of 127

Tat Sample Sample Sample Sample h t i o n Number Dnk Type Depth

BH 1 El 27/06/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m BH 1 BH 1 BH 2 BH 2 BH 2 BH 2 BH 3 BH 3 BH 3 BH 4 BH 4 BH 4 BH 5 BH 5 BH 5 BH 6 BH 6 BH 6 BH 7 BH 7 BH 7 BH 8 BH 8 BH 8 BH 9 BH 9 BH 9 BH 10 BH 10 BH 10 HH 10 BH 11 BH 11

E2 E3 El0 El I E12 E13 E4 Es E6 E7 E8 E9 E17 E18 E19 E14 E15 E16 E20 E2 I E22 E24 E25 E26 E2 8 E29 €30 €31 €32 E33 F3 4 US E36

27/06/96 Fill 0.5-0.95 m 27/06/96 Natural 1.2-1.65 m 02/07/96 Fill 0.0-0.1 m 02/07/96 Fill 0.5-1.0 m 02/07/96 FiUNatuml 1.5-1.95 m 02/07/96 28/06/96 28/06/96 28/06/96 0 1/07/96 01/07/96 01/07/96 03/07/96 03/07/96 03/07/96 02/07/96 02/07/96 02/07/96 03/07/96 03/07/96 03/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96

Natural 2.0-2.85 m Fill 0.0-0.1 m Fill 1.0-1.45 m

Natural 2.0-2.45 m Fiu 0.0-0.1 m Fiu 0.5-1.0m

Natural 1.5-1.95 m Fiu 0.0-0.1 m Fill 0.5-1.0m

Natural 1.5-1.95 m Fill 0.0-0.1 m Fill 0.5-1.0m



Natural 1.5-2.0 m Fill 0.2-0.25 m Fill 0.5-1.Om


Natural 1.5-2.0 m Natural 2.0-2.5 m

Fill 0.0-0.1 m Fill 0.5-1.0m

BH 11 €37 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 m

Ihlch Intervention Vnlue Ah’ZECCh113IRC or Dutch Levd B Criteria

ldmo Dibauo(ah) Buuo(gh0 Tolsl Bauo@) Ba=oor) -o(s) (123-cd) Benzo(a) Chryscnc fluomnthcnc fluonmthme pyrcne nnthmcmc perylme PAHS

Naph Accnnph Accnnph Phennn nuomn *me Fluorene Anthracene Pyrene

thalenc thalene thrme thme MthI9CUIe D V M C

< 0.5

< 0.5

<o.s

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

2.1

< o s

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

< o s

<0.5

< o s

<0.5

< o s

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5

- I S 36 4.6 -

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <o.s <0.5

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <o.s <0.5

-to 16 11 9.9 9.6 - I2

<0.5 <0.5 <o.s <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < o . s <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < 5

7.4 2.5 6.3 I S 0

<0.5 < 5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 < 5 <0.5 <0.5

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < 5

5 10 10 10 10 1 20

TABLE 4B SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR INDIMDUAL SAMPLES POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS CENTRAL 6QUITY LIMITBD PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSLW4 WT W PARK STRSET. SOUTH MELBOURNE

153XLO3,XLS lMB196

64 of 127

Test Sample Sample Sample Sample Toull CIO-G6

c6-cV c,0-c,4 c,5-c28 c 2 9 - c 3 6 Location Number Date Type Deph BH 1 El 27/06/96

Xylene Benzene Toluene Benzene

BH 1 BH I BH 2 BH 2 BH 2 BH 2 BH 3 BH 3 BH 3 BH 4 BH 4 BH 4 BH 5 BH 5 BH 5 BH 6 BH 6 BH 6 BH 7 BH 7 BH 7 BH 8 BH 8 BH 8 BH 9 BH 9 BH 9

BH 10 BH 10 BH 10 BH 10 BH 11 BH 11

E2 E3

El0 El 1 E12 E13 E4 €5 €6 E7 Ea E9

E17 E18 E19 E14 El5 E16 E20 E2 1 E22 E24 E25 E26 E28 E29 E30 E31 E32 E33 E34 E35 E36

27/06/96 27/06/96 02/01/96 02/07/96 02/07/96 02/07/96 28/06/96 28/06/96 28/06/96 01/07/96 0 1/01/96 0 1/01/96 03/07/96 03/07/96 03/07/96 02/01/96 02/07/96 02/07/96 03/07/96 03/07/96 03/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96 04/07/96

Fill 0.0-0.1 m Fill 0.5-0.95 m

Natural I .2-1.65 rn Fill 0.0-0.1 m Fill 0.5-1.0 m

FillINatural 1.5-1.95 m Natural 2.0-2.85 m

Fill 0.0-0.1 rn Fill 1 .O-1.45 m

Natural 2.0-2.45 m Fill 0.0-0.1 m Fill 0.5-1 .O m

Natural 1.5-1.95 m Fill 0.0-0.1 rn Fill 0.5-1 .O rn

Natural 1.5-1.95 rn Fill 0.0-0.1 rn Fill 0.5-1.0 rn

Natural I .5-1.95 rn Fill 0.2-0.25 rn Fill 0.6-1.0 rn

Natural I .4-2.0 rn Fill 0.2-0.25 m Fill 0.6-1.0 m



Natural 1.5-2.0 m Natural 2.0-2.5 m

Fill 0.0-0.1 m Fill 0.5-1.0 rn

BH 11 E37 04/07/96 Natural 1.5-2.0 rn

Dutch Intervention Value AWZECClNllMRC or Dutch Level B Criteria

olu II ruulu arc e x ~ r u i e d M ma/lm unlur &envim 10ccXcd

< 20

< 20 < 20 < 20

< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

< 20

< 20 < 20 < 20

< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 < 20

140

94 < 50 < 50

< 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50

< 50

< 50 < 50 < 50

< 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50

<0.5 < o s < o s < o s

<0.5 < o s < o s < o s < o s < o s < o s < o s <0.5 < o s < o s < o s

I

100 1000 I 1 3 5

Figuru in bold i&lin kat have b;n underlined cxce;d L e ANZECC/NHMRC Level B criteria Figuru in bold italic: that bave kea rbaded exceed L e Dutch Iaklventim Value

TABLE 4C SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR INDIVIDUAL

& MONOCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS SAMPLES - TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

CENTRAL EQUITY LIMITED PRELIMINARY CONTAMlNATION ASSESSMENT 88 PARK STREET'. SOUTH MELBOURNE

153XLO3.XLS 12/08/96

\

65 of 127

Composite Laboratory I p H I Cyanide I Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Tin Zinc CompositeA WSL I 8.5 I < S < S 56 < S <0.2 16 15 44 19 3 40 0.1 <S 60 < 5 < S 82

CompositeA* A d e l Relative Percentage

Difference

Composite Laboratory I C ~ C , ~ ~ 0 - c ~ ~ c,,-c, C ~ C , CompositeA WSL I <20 <20 80 <so

<10 <10 <20 < 20

<so < s o I20 < so

Composite A WSL CompositeA* Amdcl

Relative Percentage Difference

I Naph Acenaph Acenaph Phenan Fluoran Benzo(a) Benzo(b) Benzo(k) Benzo(a) Ideno (123- Dibcnzo(ah) Benzo(ghi) Tohl I thalene thalene thene threne them anthracene fluoranthene fluoranthene pyrene cd) pyrene anthracene pcrylene PAHa Composite Laboratory Fluorene Anthracene P p n c Chrysene

<o.s <o.s <o.s <0.5 <o.s <O.S <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <o.s <0.5 <o.s <s <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.22 <0.1 0.48 0.48 0.3 0.26 0.48 0.13 0.43 0.22 <0.1 0.3 3.3

<so <so <so <so < 50 < 50 <SO <50 <50 <SO <so < 50 <so < 50 < 50 <SO <50

<0.5 <O.S <O.S

Composite Laboratory

Composite A WSL CompositeA* Amdcl

Relative Perrentage Difference

Aldrin Dieldrin Endrin DDD DDE DDT

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.25 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <O.l <so <so <so < 50 < 50 <so <SO <SO < 5 0 < 5 0 <so

HCB Lindane Heptachlor Heptachloro Phenolics epoxide

TABLE 5 RESULTS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECK TESTING CEKFRAL EQUrrY LIMITED PRELIMINARY COhTAMlNATlON ASSL%WI:Nr 88 PARK STREET. SOWtI MELBOURNE

153XLO3.XLS 1 mal96

66 of 127

Sample I Sample r.,np I Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Zinc I mashblank E23 Water I <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.001 <0.01 I lWashblankE27 Water I <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.001 <0.01 I Notes Results expressed as mg/L

TABLE 6 RESULTS OF WASH WATER ANALYSIS CENTRAL EQUITY LIMlTED PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 88 PARK STREET. SOUTH MELBOURNE

153XLO3.XLS 1 zoai96 67 of 127

96612153 N.T.S. 'roject No.:

l rown: LOCALITY PLAN 31 I1 I96 Date:

Revised:

F.0'C.

88 PARK STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE -

Fig. 1 68 of 127

,

CHAIN WIRE FENCE /-I- 4- /-----/---I- /-/- i + BH 6 !

4+ BH 9

CONCRETE

: SLAB

BH 4

I

+ ; BH 10

+ BH 11

BH 1 ;

+ :

+- BH

+ BH 3

n I P

\/

\il ID SUBJECT- i

TO ASSESSMENT , I 1 4 I

BH 2

l- /- /- /---/--,-/-I WRE FENCE CHAIN

P A R K S T R E E T

PLAN SCALE 1:SOO

IFig. I SITE P L A N

j SOUTH MELBOURNE

96612153 i Scoie: 'roject 110.:

'rrxn: Date: AJV AUGUST 96 [ 88 P A R K STREET, 1

j 1 2 I 69 of 127

EXTENT OF SITE ASSESSED

roject No.. 96612153

rawn: F.O'C.

L E G E N D

EXTENT OF LAND ASSESSED BY Fig./ Scale:

N.T.S.

Date: 31 17 196 CMPS % F ENVIRONMENTAL

BY CMPS 8 F ENVIRONMENTAL \ -ct.

n. n Revised:

/

hecked:

HOUSING

AREA 1

TO JULY 1994 3 i 88 PARK STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE

I

Site boundary.

v/I/////1 Area 3

\

NO

LAND SUBJECT TO THIS ASSESSMENT (88 Park S t r e e t )

Underground S, orage Tan,,s.

Bowsers.

IXI Incinerator

A f t e r CMPS 8 F Environmental, July 1994. (Figure 2.1. Report No. SV653001)

E : Points not surveyed, positions shown are approximate.

!

i i I ! I i

I I

I

I i

i I

I i !

70 of 127

NOTE : Points not surveyed, positions shown are approximate.

96612153

F O'C.

Project No

Drawn

Checked A -

LAND SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT (88 Park Street1

Fig. 4

N T S EXCEEDANCES OF THE ANZECC /NHMRC LEVEL 6 CRITERIA

PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT 88 PARK STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE

Scale

Date

Revised

31 11 196

'< W \"& \ \ KAllU I Ni f0. OS. 60) Cu f0.5. 105J

R A G 1 Pb (0.5. 800) * 1.. ,I " I r a

8

L E G E N D /

8 Soil Sampling location.

M / O . O ~ ~ O J Contaminant (Depth (ml), Concentration mg /kg

M Nickel. Zn Zinc. Pb Lead. cu Copper. t Exceeds Dutch Proposed Intervention Value.

71 of 127

,

I R E S U L T S O F THE SOIL /Fig, A S SHOWN

96 i G A S S U R V E Y I I 88 P A R K STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE ' 5 i 153001

PLOT SCALE: 1.1

4 CHAIN WIRE FENCE

/- I- /- /- /-/-

*4

*I 1

O.2ppm $3

*lo

O.Oppm $2

O.kppm O.Oppm

O.2ppm O.Oppm \8 O.Oppm $9 O.Oppm

\ O.2ppm O.Lppm 15 16

I \ * I *I3 i 9.5ppm i

*I 2 7.Lppm

$29 OAppm

I

*7 2.Oppm

*l4 5.6ppm

**o 1.0ppm

LAND SUBJECT TO ASSESSHEN

*27 *284 2 . O.2ppm 0.8pp

A/- /- /- /- /- /- l- CHAIN WIRE FENCE

PARK STREET 1-1 PID READING >10ppm

PLAN SCALE 1:500

72 of 127

FENCE CHAIN

I-/-/- 1 1 -I-/-/-

COMPOSITE G COMPOSITE H

COMPOSITE L BH

BH 10

' CONCRETE

: SLAB

0 z BH 4 8

I 2

COMPOSITE A COMPOSITE B COMPOSITE C

COMPOSITE D COMPOSITE E

BH 1 COMPOSITE F

- -

/- /-/- /- -I-/- WIRE FEME

/-

CHAIN

I COMPOSlTlNG PLAN A S SHOWN

I Date AUGUST 96 ' 88 P A R K S T R E E T , Drawn

Checxea

AJV

JP $f" I Dro N0153001 l SOUTH MELBOURNE

PARK STREET

Fig. 6

PLAN SCALE 1:SOO

;r I; ii I W

LAND SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT

73 of 127

i

Project 110.. 96612153

Drown: A J V

CHAIN WIRE FENCE

/-I /- /- I- -/- /-/-

EXCEEDANCES OF THE ANZECCINHMRC AS SHOWN Scale:

1 AUGUST 96 ,LEVEL B CRITERIA-CURRENT ASSESSMEN Dote:

\ Ni (110.0.2) I ! \ + pzimzq BH BAP (12.O.Sl*

\ 1 - . ~, ~. I

! + I BH 6 I . -.,..

\ As (L7,0.6) , Cu (78.0.' ! Ni (130 01

51 I + BH 9 Ni (120.0.2)

Ni (130.0.2) As (25.0.61 < \,% COB"ACyRFE j

7- d I

\

LEGEND

+ I BH 10

Ni (120.0) :

As (20,0.51

CONCRE

SLAB + -1

BH 4 Ni (100.0)

Cr (7.L,0.5)

E

Cu B H 5 (87,O) I 2 Ni (130.01 1% As (65,0.5)*

5 Zn (280.0.5) 1

"l

\

I + BH 11 As (7L,0.51* BH 3

Ni IlLO,O)@\ As 127.1.0) \

LAND SUBJECT - TO ASSESSMENT

Ni (91.0) BH 1 Zn (200.01 CU (160.0) BH 2

$- , A s (31.0.5) Ni (8L.O) + /- /-/- /- /-/-/-/-/-

As (63.0.5)* - WIRE FENCE CHAIN

PARK STREET

PLAN SCALE 1:500

PAHs (150.0.2)= CONTAMINANT (CONCENTRATION (mg/kg). DEPTH TO TOP OF SAMPLE (m)l PAHs TOTAL POL'1CYCLIC AROMATIC HYDOCARBONS BAP = BENZO PYRENE A S = ARSENIC C U = COPPER * EXCEED PROPOSED DUTCH INTERVENTION VALUE

7 1 EXCEED ANZECCINHMRC PROPOSED HEALTH Cr = CHROMIUM

Ni = NICKEL INVESTIGATION LEVELS Zn = ZINC

I

153001 188 PARK STREET, SOUTH MELBOURNE 1 Drg No: JP

Checked:

AUTOCAO FILE C \CAD 6\96612153\153001 DLOT SCALE 1 1 74 of 127

APPENDIX A

Historical Maps


Parish Plan of the Melbourne Region 1850 - I85 1 (Reference 1)

J

76 of 127

\

~ Chart of Port Philip 1864? (Reference 1) 77 of 127

Sands and McDougall Directory Map 1885 (Reference 1) 78 of 127

1866 Map of Emerald Hill (Reference 2)

79 of 127

APPENDIX B

Report of Boreholes Notes and Abbreviations

Method of Soil Classification

Colder Associates

~~

80 of 127

- 7

- - -

- 8

- 9

- 10

INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY

zones of CL Gravelly CLAY. yellow brown (timber shavings @ 0.451~1). son -_-_- -------- SC Clayey SAND. pale grey over orange brown, loose

CH Silly CLAY. dark grey, trace organic content. soft lo firm

SP fine SAND. with silt. pale grey, loose 1; 1 . q

. . . . .. -6.64 CL Sandy CLAY. grey and orange. fine to medium quartz and ironstone sand. very stilt

__-_-__--------------------

FIELD SAMPLING AND TESTING

SaEl DS

Sa E2 SPT 1.2.2 N = 4

Sa E3 SPT 0.3.2 N = 5

Sa G1 U63 PP = 50kPa

Sa G2 U63 PP = l4OkPa

Sa G3 U63 'P = 200-240kPa

;a G4 SPT 1.3.5 N = 0

;a G5 U63

;a Gti SPT 3150rnrn HB

I OTHER

Standing overnight water level 3.12m

Report 01 borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations 1 81 of 127


CL Sandy CLAY, pale grey and orange, line grained sand. very stiff with hard orange zones (iron indurated) (near SC Clayey SAND)

grading to

CH Sandy CLAY. with gravel, orange with pale grey. fine to medium rounded quartz sand and rounded quartz gravel, dense

grading to

. . SP SAND, medium to coarse, orange and pale grey .. : rounded quartz . .

. .

CL Sandy CLAY, grey and orange, predominantly line sand, inferred stiff

grading to I% grading to

. . SP SAND, with clay, orange and grey, line to medium quartz sand, dense to very dense

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. . - - - - - -______________- -_ . :

. .

. . with bands 01 CL Sandy CLAY

. . .. .

% CL Sandy CLAY, pale grey and orange brown. very still (5

- RL

)EPTI (m)

3 10.0

12.0

llps 13.0

m 13.5

-12.6 15.0

-16.1 18.5

m 19.1

Au 20.0

FIELD SAMPLING AND TESTING I OTHER

Sa G? U63 PP = 200-280kPa

Sa G8 U63

SaG9 SPT 18.6/30mm HE

Sa G10 SPT 25.3/10mm HD

1 Report 01 borehole must be read in coniunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations I 82 of 127


CUCH Sandy CLAY. orange and pale grey. line lo medium quartz sand, very stiff. finely fissured

CL Silty CLAY. yellow brown

For Continuation of Borehole, Refer lo Rock Log Sheet 1

FIELD SAMPLING AND TESTING I I OTHER

Sa G11 SPT 6.10.13 N = 23

Report 01 borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations 83 of 127

I ROCKTYPE I AND DEGREE OF I DESCRIPTION

WEATHERING I I Colour.hardness.elc

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Continuation of Soil Log I I

S~~TSTONE Hwj very low to low strength, orange -----landpalegrey --_--_-__

HW-MW; low to medium strength, pale grey with orange thinly bedded poorly

f defined

I I I I

I low to medium strength siltstone 1 with medium strength sandstone pi

I laminated to thinly bedded I

-----1----------__-_- SILTSTONE

and SANDSTONE MWJ grey with orange sandstone.

I

I END OF BOREHOLE @ 25.35m I GROUNDWATER NOT OBSERVED I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ___--_-------------------

-

- - RL

(m) Depll

ruf 20.c

-2o.c 22.7

- -22.9 25.3

- ... ... ... ... ...I. ..:.. .I... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .:.:.: i....

... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... s :a ...

fii

... ...-.. ..:. ...

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... - - ;r C C - -

- -

9f

-

2f

DISCONTINUITIES JOinlS,kdding,6eMIs,laultt

DESCRlmlON Spacing. smmthness.coating

!2.75 - 24.0 )edding @ 5-10 deg joints :losely spaced mainly @ io-70 deg and 30 deg. Nlanar and undulating, ,mooth to rough, limonite tain trace clay smear W seam @ 23.95111, lcm hick

'4.0 . 25.35 )in& in siltstone as ibove. joints in sandstone i bedding plane and ubvertical very closely paced with fragmented lands. rough EW seam @ '5.05. 2cm thick

I OTHER

84 of 127

Po

CH Silty CLAY. dark grey, inferred soft

__--_---_-_____________ pale grey, trace organic fibrous material. stiff. finely fissured and friable

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ grey with orange brown limonite stained fissures. very stiff fissured with nultly terture

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ trace fine to medium sand, limonite stained fissures, very stiff lo hard


Sa E10 DS

Sa E l l DS

Sa E12 SPT 2.2.2 N = 4

Sa E13 SPT (PH)

Sa G31 U63 PP = l3OkPa

Sa G32 S PT 2.3.5 N = 8 PP = 180-200kPa

Sa G33 U63 PP = 230-250kPa

Sa G34 SPT 5.7.10 N = 17 PP = 360-420kPa

Standing overnight water level 1.571-11

I Report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations I 85 of 127


CUCH Sandy CLAY. grey and orange brown, line to medium quartz sand, trace line rounded gravel. intermediate plasticity. very stiff lo hard

reducing sand content

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ increasing sand content

predominantly orange with pale grey with Clayey SAND (SC) bands (5-10cm) thick. predominantly fine grained, very stiff with medium dense sand bands '

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

END OF BOREHOLE @ 13.5m GROUNDWATER NOT OBSERVED

Sa G35 U63 PP = 420-550kPa

Sa G36 S PT 6.10.14 N = 24

11

-

12

13

14

1s

16

17

1s

- 19

- -20

. - I

13.5

Report 01 borehole must be read in coniunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations 86 of 127

1


....................... GP Sandy GRAVEL with clay, occasional brick piece

CL Sandy CIAY. orange, red, pale grey and brown, trace gravel, soR

.......................

CH Silty CLAY. grey to dark grey, soft 2.6

peaty organic rich zones

pale grey, stiff

--_--_------______-____ pale grey and yellow brown, stiff to very stiff. finely fissured

....................... pale grey with limonite stained zones, fissured and nutty. stiff

grading to

ML Sandy SILT, with clay, pale green grey, very

- -

CL Sandy CLAY. pale grey with orange brown zones. limonitc stained zones with weak pockets of ccnicnting (ironstonc). very still

_________-----------_____L____

10.00


Sa E4 DS PID = 0

Sa E5 SPT 2.1.2 N = 3 PID = 0

Sa E6 SPT 0.1.2 N = 3 PID = 0

Sa GI5 U63 PP = 130-150kPa

Sa G16 U63 PP = 180-250kPa

Sa G17 SPT 3.3.5 N = 8

Sa G18 SPT 5.8.10 N = 18 PP = 300-550kPa

i

4 Report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations 1

87 of 127


CUCH Silty CLAY. with sand, grey and orange, fine sand, very stiff. finely fissured

predominantly orange, trace pale grey, with zones and layers of fine SC Clayey SAND, hard

_- - - -______-___________ zones or bands of medium to coarse sand, quartz and sand fragments of iron cementation

trace fine sand or absent. iron indurated orange zones, fissured throughout with nutty texture, very stiff

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SP SAND, orange and white, medium to coarse rounded quam trace fine gravel, very dense


RL DEP

(m

L z 10

d 14

- -12 14.

I OTHER I FIELD SAMPLING

I I AND TESTING

I

Sa G19 SPT 0.11.14 N = 25

Sa G20 SPT 9.14.10 N = 32

Sa G21 SPT 5.12.15 N = 27

Sa G22 S PT 14l110mm HB

Repon of borehole musl be read in coniunction with accompanvina notes and abbreviations 88 of 127


FILL - GP Sandy GRAVEL grey, predominantly crushed rock wllh brick lragments

SC Clayey SAND, with gravel, grey, medium dense (crushed rock fines)

CUCH Silly CLAY. with zones of sandy CLAY. brown and orange. trace ashy black material and glass

SC Clayey SAND, orange and red. fine grained, loose

---------- ------------_ -----------_--__-_______

CH Silly CLAY. dark grey, with organic content. soft

SP fine SAND, with sill. pale grey, loose

CH Silly CLAY. trace organic fibrous material, soft to firm

___---_--_--_-______-_- grey and green grey, stiff. finely fissured with friable texture

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ pale grey with iron cemented zones as ironstone inclusion. stiff

SP SAND. with clay, orange with pale grey zones. fine lo coarse quartz sand. lrace fine gravel, medium dense

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ with bands or zones of CH Silly ClAY


Sa €7 DS

Sa E8 DS

Sa E9 SPT 2.1.3 N = 4

Sa G23 U63 PP = 16OkPa

Sa G24 S PT 3.3.6 N = 9

Sa G25 U63 PP = 150-160kPa

Sa G26 jPT 3.11.13 C = 24

I OTHER

Standing overnight water eve1 4 3 t h

89 of 127

X P L z o E - - 10

- 1 1

- 12

- 13

- 14

- 15

- 16

- 1 7

- 18

- 19

-20

I ... ..

... ... tr 2 * ... ... . . . . . . ... ... . . ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ..... ... ... ... ... ... ... .:... .:.. ... .... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..:... - - ...

0

P 4 - -

u

2

2 n


SC Clayey SAND, orange with pale grey, fine to medium grained, medium dense

---------__---___---___ medium to coarse. trace fine gravel, predominantly rounded with angular grains

fine lo medium grained. reducing clay content

_----------_---__------

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . predominantly medium grain size, medium dense

-_---_--_---__---_----_ pale brown grey and orange, fine to medium, gravel absent. medium dense lo dense


SPT ~

7.9.12 N = 21

Sa G28 SPT 7.8.13 N = 21

Sa G29 SPT 8.8.16 N = 24


Sa G30 S PT 10.13.14 N = 27

Report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanvinD notes and abbreviations 90 of 127


CL Sandy CLAY and SC Clayey SAND, with line crushed rock. gravel, red brown, orange, dark grey and pale brown. stiff and medium dense inlerred

ML Sandy SILT, pale g libre. very soft

CH Silty CLAY. dark grey to grey, inferred soft becoming firm

-_---_--_----_--------- with root fibres and organic material

__-_--__--__----_------ grey with pale yellow brown, linely fissured

___-_________--_------- very still, lissured

-__-_--___________-- - - - with quartz sand and sandy iron cementation fragments grading to

2.1’

CUCH Sandy CLAY. pale grey and orange. 8.0( intermediate plasticity. fine to medium quartz sand trace coarse, with orange iron staining and weak induration in zones, rncdium dcnse (some thin coarse SAND bands 8.7-9.0m)

(nand 01 SC Claycy SAND. grey 9.85-9.9m)

END OF BOREHOLE @ 9.95m GROUNDWATER NOT OOSERVED

I FIELD SAMPLING OTHER AND TESTING

Sa E17 DS

Sa E18 DS

sa E19 SPT 1.1.1 N = 2

Sa G42 U63 PP = 110-140kPa

Sa G43 2.3.4 N = 7

Sa G44 PP = 220-240kPa

Sa G45 S PT 7.9.13 N = 22 PP = 480-550kPa

;a G46 5 PT 5.8.12 N = 20

I Report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations I 91 of 127

CH Si:;y CLAY, grey, trace organic fibres. soft to firm

2.0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . with organic fibrous material in zones

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stiff. finely fissured with friable texture

- _ -____________________ pale grey with pale brown to orange brown, stiff to very stiff

grey with zones of orange brown iron staining. fissured with nutty texture


I I Sa E14 DS

Sa E15 DS

Sa E16 S PT 0.2.2 N = 4

Sa G37 U63 PP = 145kPa

Sa G38 U63 PP = 170-260kPa

Sa G39 SPT 2.3.5 N = 8

Sa G40 U63 PP = 430->600kPa

Sa G41 SPT

Report 01 borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations

~~

92 of 127


orange, red brown with grey, zones of high plasticity trace coarse gravel, very still


Sa E20 DS

Sa E21 SPT

Sa G47 U63 PP = 120-150kPa

Sa G46 SPT 3.5.7 N = 12

Sa G49 SPT 3.7.9 N = 16

sa G50 S PT 9.10.13 N = 23

Report 01 borehole must be read in coniunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations

Standing overnight water level 2.4m

93 of 127


SP SAND, pale grey. fine lo medium quam sand.

END OF BOREHOLE @ 10.45m I GROUNDWATER NOT OBSERVED


I Sa G51 - SPT - 12.14.16 N = 30 -

Report of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations 1

94 of 127


I GP Sandy GRAVEL angular crushed rock

SC Clayey SAND, wilh gravel, dark grev with oak brown, trace brick

I ----------____-- SC Clayey SAND, and SP SAND, orange with brown and dark grey, with pockets of CH Silty CLAY. loose t( medium dense

CH Silty CLAY. dark grey. very soft to soft

ML Sandy SILT, pale grey, fine grained, soft 1 .i

CH Sandy CLAY, dark grey to pale grey. inferred soft becoming firm

2.1

!

u f

pale grey with yellow brown, stiff to very stiff. finely fissured with friable texture

pale grey with zones of orange brown limonite shining. fissured throughout with granular to nutty texture. stiff

with fine lo medium quartz sand

CL Sandy CLAY. pale grey and orange 151 - 7 1

SC Clayey SAND. orange, trace grey. fine to medium quartz. trace coarse. trace fine gravel. medium dense


OTHER

I I Sa E24 DS

Sa E25 DS

Sa E26 DS

Sa G52 U63 P P = 140-180kPa

Sa G53 US3 PP= 180-280kPa

Sa G54 SPT 4.5.6 N = 11

Sa G55 U63

Sa G56 SPT 5.6.9 N = 15

Report of borehole must be read in coniunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations I 95 of 127

I INFERRED STRATIGRAPHY

I

I FILL - Concrete 200mm thick

----------_----________ CL Sandy CLAY and SC Clayey SAND, grey, orange, pale grey and brown fine lo medium sand, minor inclusions of CH Silty CLAY

I !! CH Silly CLAY, dark grey, very soh

ML Sandy SILT, with clay, pale grey, fine quartz sand, soh I

I


RL )EPTI

1.6

2.0

---

Sa E27 Sa E28 DS

Sa E29 DS

Sa E30 DS


- - 10

Repor( of borehole must be read in conjunction with accompanying notes and abbreviations 1

96 of 127


I

FILL - GP Sandy GRAVEL. with clay, grey, angular CNShed rock __----_________________ CH Sandy CLAY. with gravel. dark brown, purple brown and dark grey, trace gravel, firm I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CL Sandy CLAY and SC Clayey SAND, orange brown, fine to medium quartz. loose lo medium dense

Silty CLAY, dark grey lo grey. very soft

I ML Sandy SILT, pale grey, fine quam sand, very soft to soft increasing clay with depth grading to

I CH silty CLAY. grey, soh. wet

END OF BOREHOLE @ 2.5m I GROUNDWATER NOT OBSERVED


Sa E31 OS

Sa E32 OS

Sa E33 DS

Sa E34 OS

Reoort of borehole must be rcnd i r l coniunclioii wilh accompanying notes and abbreviations 97 of 127

? ... ?+ 8 if + 5 ...

. .... i. .-.... ...... i.... i. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ...... ..:_. ..:.. ...... ..:.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ..:.. I - j . it - -

U W

s 9 6

a I

I

-


FILL - GP Sandy GRAVEL. dark grey. brown. red. with ash. brick and crushed rock compounds

--------------_--___-__ SC Clayey SAND, orange, red. pale brown. loose with zones as CUCH Sandy CLAY. fine lo medium quartz sand

CH Silly CLAY. dark grey. organic rich, firm

ML Clayey SILT, with sand, pale grey. fine quartz sand, soft


1.

1.

2.1


Sa E35 DS

Sa E36 DS

Sa E37 DS

Report 01 borehole must be iend i r i corijui1cli6ri xith accompanying notes and abbrevialions I I

98 of 127

FIELD SAMI)LING AND TESTING

Recovery Lost DS U63

SPT

NMLC NQ FV PP FP PM

Depth interval of recovered soil sample or rock core Depth interval of lost soil sample or rock core (default location at base of m) Disturbed sample Thin wall tube sample - number indicates nominal sample diameter in millimetres - R indicates refusal to peoetration - PH indicates advance by hydraulic pressure from drill rig Standard penetration test to AS 1289 F3.1 - 1977 N = penetration resistance (blows for 300 mm penetration followbg 150 mm seating drive). Result reported according to penetration (P) achieved:

N, and blows for each 150 mm of penetration blows for sating drive, plus subsequent blows and penetration

- P = 450 ~ll~ll

- 150 < P < 450 - P < 15omm total blows and penetration

52 dia. rock core obtained in triple tube core barrel 47 mm dia. rock core obtained in wireline triple tube core barrel Field vane shear test (result expressed as shear strength s,) Pocket penetrometer test (result expressed as instrument reading in e a ) Field permeability test over section noted (k = hydraulic conductivity) Pressuremeter test over section noted. (E = Youngs Modulus)

(s, = undrained shear strength)

GROUNDWATER

GWL

GROUNDWATER NOT OBSERVED: the observation of groundwater whether present or not, was not possible due

Observed groundwater level at date shown \

to drilling water, surface seepage, rain, etc, or caving of hole or test pit

GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED: hole or test pit dry after drilling, but groundwater could still be present in impernieable soil or where hole or test pit was back-filled soon after completion.

LABORATORY TI-.STING

Strength Tats

T triaxinl shem test (uc = cell confining pressure) p

D direct shear test (a, = surcharge pressure) p d U unconfined compression test W

LV laboratory v m c (est WI

WP

Ta t Results 4 Ls

c', 9' s. undrained slicar strength q u 1:

cffective stress strength paraineters

uni ax i a I comprcssi vz streng t ti Young's Modulus by static test

I' I'oisson's rxtio by stxtic test

Index Properties

Bulk density Dry density Field moisture content Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Linear Shrinkage

KCV: J A N ?? FORA 1 S \ I 0 I R

99 of 127

.

REIATIVE D E N S m

VERY LOOSE LOOSE

MEDIUM DENSE DENSE

VERY DENSE

u > < C 0 Y

N (SIT) VALUE blowrlUKmm

1 s h a S s IO 10 10 IO M M IO 50 above SO

- - i 0 L

0 0 . 0 GW 0 . 0

0-0 ' 0

GP 0 0 0

GM

G C

0 . .. .. sw

SP

. .. .. . ...

. .. .. . .._

SM

sc . . . .

. .

rn ML

CL

CH

I3 OH

lgg

OL - _-

R L L

Well graded gravels or sand-gravel mixtures, less than 12% fines.

Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, less than 12% fines.

Silty gravel, gravel-sand-silt mixtures.

Clayey gravel, gravel-sandclay mixtures.

Well graded sands or gravelly sands, less than 12% fines.

Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, less than 12% fines.

Silty sand, sand-silt mixtures.

Clayey sand, sandclay mixtures.

Inorganic silts. rock flour, sandy or clayey silts of low plasticity.

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticiry. gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clay.

Organic silts and organic silty clays of low to medium plasticity.

Inorganic sills, miwccous or diarom- accous silly soils, elastic sills.

Inorganic clays of high pl;isriciry, fat clays.

Organic clays of high plasticity, organic siity clay, organic silt.

63- I9mm 19-6.7mm 6.7-236mm

24.6mm 236-0.6mm 600-212rm

0.24.06mm 212-7Srm

0.064.002mm

CLAY .: 0.002m m

AS 1726-1981 App D :a 1289 05.1-1977

I c O 1 [ E s I O ~ sous I

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kf'a) I

VERY SOFT 0 10 I2 12 10 2.5 2.5 IO 50

50 10 100 VERY STIFF loo IO 200

HARD above 200

Golder Associates

Notc: i ) Fines defined as material which pnsses a 7Spm sieve.

i i ) For logging purposes the pocket penetromeier reading is taken as twicc the undrained shear srrength.

- LO s - 30

- a

X

0 Y

I 20 * c -

10 c cn .< a 2 0

i iouio iinir w L 100 of 127

STRENGTH

TERM SYMBOL FIELD GUIDE

EXTREMELY LOW

VERY LOW

EL

VL

Easily moulded by hand to a material with soil properties.

Material crumbles under firm blows with sharp end of pick; can be p l e d with knife; too hard to cut a wiaxial sample by hand. Pieces up to 30 mm thick can be broken by finger pressure.

Easily scored with a knife; indentations 1 mm to 3 mm show in the specimen with firm blows of the pick point; has dull sound under hammer. A piece of core 150 mm long by 50 mm diameter may be broken by hand. Sharp edges of core may be h b l e and b d during handling.

Readily s c o d with a knife; a p i e of core 150 mm long by 50 mm diameter can be broken by hand with difficulty.

A piece of core 150 mm long by 50 mm diameter cannot be broken by hand but can be broken with pick with a single firm blow; rock rings under hammer.

Hand specimen breaks with pick after more than one blow; rock Mgs undcr hammer.

Specimen r e q u k many blows with gmlogkal pick to break through intact mawrial; rock M g s under hammer.

LOW L

MEDIUM M

HIGH H

VERY HIGH

EXTREMELY HIGH

VH

EH

A slrength classification based on the point load sl~ngh index, corrected to 50 mm diameter - I, (50). is as follows:

C LASS1 F'IC ATI ON

4 (SO) MPa

TERM

RESIDUAL SOIL

EXTREMELY WEATHERED

HIGHLY WEATHERED

MODERATELY WEATHERED

SLIGHTLY WEATHERED

FRESH

extremely v e q low medium high very high extremely l O W low high

0.03 0.1 0.3 1 3 10

SI1\?IIOL

Rs

EW

H w

MW

S W

FR

WEATHERING

DEFINITION

Rcfc: to soil classification.

Rock mawrial affected by weathering to the extent that thc rock cxhibits soil p r o p d e s - i.c. ii can be remoulded and can be classified according to the Unified Classificah systcm. but thc wxture of the ori,ginal rock is still evident.

Rock matcrial affected by weathering to the extent that limonitc staining or blmching affects thc whole of the m k malerial and/or othcr signs of chcrnical or physical dccompsilion arc evidcnt. Porosity and strength may be incrcased or decreased compared to the fresh rock usually as a mult of iron leaching or deposition. Thc colour and kxture of the original rock malerial may no longer be rccognisable.

Rock matcrial affected by weathering to the e m n t that staining cxtcnds throughout dic wholc of the rock makrial and the original colour of thc fresh rock may no longcr bc mpn i sab le .

Rock matcrial a f f d by weathering to the extcnt that panial smining or discolouration of the mck malcrial. usually by limonik. h s taken placc. Thc colou: and tcxturc of Ihc f m h rock an, rccognisablc.

Rock matcrial unaffcckd by wcathering

101 of 127

APPENDIX C

Chemical Analysis Results - WSL Consultants Pty Ltd


WSLConsultants Eiivirosciriice ACN 004 712 676

2-8 Harvey Street, Riclimond, Victoria 3 I 2 1 'l>lcplioiic t61 3 3429 4666 P x s i i i i i l c t61 3 9429 2294 Eiiiail: [email protected]

A T I E N f I O N : MR. P. TIIORNI'ON

RESULTS OF ANALYSES - SOIL

DATE SAMPLED: I>A'I13 RECEIVED: COC RECEIVED: DATE ANALYSED:

27.06-04.07. 6 05.07.96 18.07.96 4 - 18.07.96

L B.J.1, 3 s PHINCIPAI. CIII~MIS'I* 12 August , 1996/ab

COMMENTS: Results p c r l i n to samples as received.

All results expressed as mgkg dry weight

Method Section: Organochlorine Pesticides WSI, 8080 Phenols APHA 553OC & WSL 8040

Rei i r t No. 1.5732

&!J This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Australia. The test(s) rcportcd herein have been performed i n accordance wi th its ternls of registration. This document shall i1o1 be rcproduced except i n fu l l .

Page 1 of 6 DISKS70IJ/I ISY lb

103 of 127

W SbConsultants Envi toscience A(:N 0 0 4 712 676

2-8 E h v e y Street, Rictimorid, Victoria 3 12 I -l>lephone: t G 1 3 3429 4666 1:acsiinile: t G 1 3 9 4 2 9 2294 Einail: [email protected]

,= - .. -. .- - =_. S A M Y I l !

DI!SCRlPTION

u11 I 1311 J

1111 1 I

1111 I

111I J

HI1 1 1

1111 3

1111 1

H I 1 .5

_. - - .- - - . - . .- .... - ........

...........

....................

......

._._. - ~ . . . . .. - . . - - .

.............. 11113 , , . _ . 1111 1

Ill1 s - . . . . . . . . .

... !!!. p_ - ....

l - jl' CIJENI': GOI.I)ER ASSOCIA'IlIS PIY L'II) DA'IE SAMPLED: 27.06 - 04.07.96 05.07.96 RE: sou-111 MIXUOURNE - PARK s i i t w * r DAIE RECEIVED:

JOB NO: 96612153 COC RECEIVED: 18.07.96 18.07.96 DATE ANALYSED:

A11BN11ON: MR. P. TIlORN'rON d B.J.LY0

12 August, 1996/ab PRINCIPAL CIIEhfIS'I'

- ---

NO.

- 36111 31656

36111 31627

36111 31658

36718 31659 36118 31660

36718 31661

36720 31662

.. 36120 31663 36120 31664

-__ . --

-...----_ -- --.-- -- .. - ,~

. . ._

~

.. - ..... ........

. 36121 ._ .. 3166s 31 .. 36121 . 31666 21

36121 31661 17

36123 31668

. . . . . . . . .

-- .-.-. ._ _--__ . . . . . . . . . . .

.... _. . .

-- .-----.-. -_--

COh1hll:N'I'S: Ilcsiilts pcrtniii to sninples as received.

All rcsulis cxprcsscd as iiig!kg dry weight.

hlctliod Scclioii: llcavy Metals VIC: EI'A 139- 13 hfcrcury VICEI'A 139- 16

.... ._ -- Cobrli

. __. ... __ -.

. - ._ .-

_.

. . . . . . .

- .

32

22 28

C.5

5.4 9 2

30

.....

. .

......

. . . .

.....

.......

.-. _.

Kcport No. 1.5732 Eg This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Australia. The test(s) rcpoitsd herein have been performed in accordance with its ternis of registration. This document shall not be reproduccd except in fu l l .

I

Page 2 o f 6 VISI;S71>15,IIBVlb 104 of 127

WS’LConsultants Enviroscience AI;N 004 752 676

2-8 tlarvey Street, I\iihinond, Victoria 3 12 1 Tclcphone: +61 3 9429 4666 Facsiiiiile: t61 3 9429 2234 Eltiail: H,slcoiiOozmail.com.au

-- - 1 3 1 36723

E1.5 36724

E32 36724

E20 36726

E24 36726

E28 36726

E2 1 36727

E25 36727

E29 86727

- - - . - .

_. __ __

-

- -- -. __ --

CIJENT: RE: JOB N O

37669

37670

37671

37672

37673

37674

37675

37676

37617

AITENTION:

~ .. .. I -i---ll4- COML1ENI’S: Ilcsulls pcrlain 10 sainplcs as received.

All rcsiills cxprcswd as niB/kg dryweiglit.

GOI.DLlH ASSOCIATES PIY L I D

966 12 153 SOU111 MUI.UOUHNC - P A R K S‘rHEEI’

MR. P. TIIORNTON

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS - SOIL

HEAVY METALS

120 41 40 100

24 27 78 140 190

16 27 8.0 31 34

110 22 40

1 30 22 43

2R 44

Msthod Scclion: Heavy Metals VIC EPA 139- 13 hkrcury VIC EPA 139- 16

DATE SAMPLED: DATE RECEIVED: COC RECEIVED: DATE ANALYSED:

05.07.96 18.07.96 18.07.96

B.J.LY PRINCIPAL CllEMiST 12 August, 19961ab

11

Report No. 15732 ml This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Australia. The tesr(s) rcporled herein have been performed i n accordance with its tcrnis of registration. This document shall not be reproduccd except in fuII.

Page 3 of 6 D I S l i S 7 n l J 11811b 105 of 127


2-8 Harvey Srrcet,

Richmond, Vicroria 3 I2 1 Tclephonc: t G I 3 3423 4666 Facsimile: t613 9429 2294 Einail: wslconOozmail.coni.au

SAM 1'1 J!

DI!SCRIPI'ION

Ihpl icate (%)

Iluplicate (Yo)

Ihpl icatr (96)

Ihpl icatc rk) ,_

-

- Spike ( 9 b ) ,

?@5m--- Spike (%)

Spike (Yo) ____.

. . . . . .

1.OCATION

CI.1 EN'I':

JOB N O 966 12 153

GOI.I)EH ASSOCIATES PTY I , l l > RE: SOUIII MULUOURNE - PARK S'rREE-I

ATIENTION: MR. P. TlIORNTON

QUALITY CONTROL DATA - SOIL

HEAVY M ETA I S

. . .. . ............ .-

.. __ . _. __

All OC dala expressed as pcrccntages of the cxpcctcd values.

hlcll iod Scclioii: l l eavy hlctals VI<: EPA 139- 13 Mercury VIC EPA 139- 16

27.06-04.07.9 k [ - L. DATESAMPLED: DATE RECEIVED: 05.07.96 COC RECEIVED: 18.07.96 DATE ANALYSED: 18.07.96

B. J.LY ONS PRINCIPAL CIIIJMISI' 12 August. 1996lob

-- 97

98

93 loo 1 os 98

98 95

96 loo 93 98 100

98 98 .-__ 99

___

__ - -

.

....

...... ...........

- . -- ...........

... - ............

.. __ - ............ .............

... __ - ..........

..... .......... _-__ - Rcporl No. 15732

Eg This Laboratory is registered by the National Associalion of Testing Authorities. Australia. The t e s l ( s ) rcportcd herein have been performed i n accordance with i t s i c m s of registration. This document shall not be reproduced except i n f u l l .

,

I'agc 4 of 6 DISK S l I J 1 J, 1189111 106 of 127

WSbConsultants D A ' E SAMPIED:

JOB NO: 96612153 COC RECEIVED

A'I'IENI'TON: MH. P. I I I O R N T O N

Enviroscieiicc C1 .I EN'II QOI.DI:.H ASSOCIATES P'N i , m I< E: SOU'III MEI.UOURNE - PARK S'I'REEI' DATE RECEIVED

A C N 004 752 676

DATE ANALYSED 2-8 I - l~rvcy Street, I~icl inioid, Victoria 3 I2 1 'l>lsplione: t61 3 3423 4666 I:~zsiiiiilc: 161 3 9423 2294 l!iiiiI: wslcoiiOozmail.coni.iu RESULTS OF ANALYSES - SOIL

, ,

2 7 . 0 6 - 0 4 . 0 7 . l L . 05.07.96 18.07.96

18.07.96

B.J.LYONS PRINCIPAL CIIEMIS'I' 12 August. 1996/ab

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS

COMMENTS: Results pertain IO samples as received.

All results expressed as m@g dry weight.

Mcthod Section: WSL8100

All QC: data expressed ils percentages of the expected values.

Report No. 15732 fa This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Australia. The Iest(s) rcportcd herein have been performed i n accordance wi th i t s tcrnis of registration. This document shall not be reprodiiccd except in f u l l .

107 of 127


2 - 8 Harvey Street, Ilichmond, Vicroria 3 12 1 Telephone: t61 3 3429 4666 Facsimile: t613 3423 2294 Einsil: [email protected]

CLIENT: COLDER ASSOCIATES PTY I-TD DATE SAMPLED: 05.07.96 27.06 - 04.07.96 L, KE: SOU111 MEIDOURNE - PARK S’IREET DAERECEIVED: JOB NO: 966 12153 DATE COC RECEIVED: 29.07.96

DATE ANALYSED: 29.07.96 ATTENTION: Mr. P. TIIORNTON

B.J.LYON PRINCIPAL CIl EM I S I ’ 12 August. 1996/ab


‘ro‘rAI, PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

Duplicate (%

l i z COMhlIiN’I3: Results pcrtaiii to samples as received

All results expreswd as mg/kg dry weight.

hlettiod Ssctioii: WSI. 030.

All OC data cxprcssed as percentages of the expected values.

LADNO c 6 - c g > c g - c l , > c ~ , - c z s > c ~ a - c 3 6

37656 <20 c 20 53 c 50

31651 <20 20 140 c 50

31658 <20 <2O c 50 c so 31668 e 2 0 c 20 94 <so 31669 <20 < 20 < 50 <so 37610 e 2 0 c 20 < 50 c so

_. __ -_ . i 31611 <20 < 20 < 50 < 50

Report No. 1.5732

This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The test(s) reported herein have been performed in accordance with it5 terinb of registration. This document shall not bc reproduced except in full. \

Page 6 of 6 DISKS7DISII 1891U

108 of 127

w 3LLonsuIm-m 27.06-04.07.96 05.07.96

ACN 0 0 4 712 676 JOB NO: 966 12 153 DATE ANALYSED: 05.07.96

2-8 I larvey Street,

Richmond. Victoria 312 I

.. ,

CLIENI! COLDER ASSOCIA'IES PTY 1,TD DATE SAMPLED: R E SOU*III MELBOURNE - PARK smrxr DAIE RECEIVED:

Enviroscience

. J .& N S ATI'EN'IlON: M R . P. 'IIIORNTDN

------_I.___.. . . . . . . Sa EI.E7.E3S

Sa E2.1B8.E36

Sa E3.E9.E37

Sa E4.ElO.El7

Sa ES.EI 1.138

Sa E6.EI3.El9

Sa E14J31

Sa EIS.E32

Sa E16.E33

Sa E203E24,EL8

Sa E21.EZS.E29

Sa L',22,1~26.E30

-- . - - . - .. __ - ....

_. .

-- . - .... _ _ _ -. . .

- _ _ .- _ .

... - -. .. .

__

- - -. ..

- .- .- - . -- -- ._ _. . _. - - _. . - . .

-- - . - . .

Tclcphone: t613 9429 4666 Facsimile: t61 3 3427 2294 Einail: [email protected]

__ ._ - ... ._ 36711

36718

36719

36720

36721

36722

36723

36724

36725

36726

36727

36728

~

- .

- - -. . - . .-

__ ....... _ _ .. ._ .. - ..

.... .- .

. - - - - _ _ -. . - ._ __

.- _ _ . -. ...

I I I-----_- ME'IlIOD S1X:'IlON

. . - . . - . _ _

PRINCIPAI. CIII~MIS'I' 1 Augusl. 1996/as

wsui:rs OF ANALYSES - SOIL

Coiiipsitc - -. J

tknipsitc K

::on~psitc I, ........ - ...

.......

I NORGANICS ~- P-dndrblc Ammonium

Nitrojc~ VI(' IJPA 139-9

. __

-n

~

._ - . _. . -.

.. ..... __ .....

......... _ ... - . . _. -.

. . .

- - . - -

- - -

._ . -

....... _.

. . . . . . . . . _ _

C:OhlhlIXNIS: Results pertain to samples as received.

All results expressed as rng/kg dry weight. unless stated otherwise.

< 5 -. . _ _ - .......................... --_- ...........

......... ............. . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...... ........... ...... . ___ , .,. -____ ---

__ _. . ........... ......... .

.. , . . .

C 5

_. - - <S

(pll UaPs)

VIC EPA 139-5

8.S

8.0

6 .a 8.4

8.0

6.5

8.1

8.1

6.8

9.6

7.9

5 .4

__ __ .. -. - -. --

.

...... - .. _--

- ........

. -

- __ ..... -- ....... - .... __.-=. - - - . - . .

This Laboratory is registered by the National Associatioil of Testing Authorities. Australia. The tcst(s) rrpnrfcd herein have been performed i n accordance with its tcrnis of registration. This document shall not he rcproduccd except i n fu l l .

109 of 127

W W ~ I V W . . " I U L Z U . ~ "

Enviroscience CLIENT COLDER ASSOCIhTI3S PTY LTD DATE SAMPLED: 27.06-04.07.96 1& , 1( ~

R E SOUTII MELBOURNE - PARK STREET DATERECEIVED 05.07.96 ACN 004 752 676 JOB NO: 966 12153 D A W ANALYSED: 05.07.96

ATIENIlON: MR. P. 'IIIORNTON 2-8 Harvey Street, 1 ' Richmond, Victoria 3 12 1 / B.J.LY N - l i l cphone: t G 1 3 9429 4666 I:acsirnile: +GI 3 9429 2294 Email: [email protected] QUALITY CONTROI. DATA - SOIL

___- .. .- ............ - - ................. - ........... SAMPI.I! 1 SAMI'I.I! SAMFI.I! --I-- I.AR N O

I)I?SCRIPI'ION LOCAlION I~l!Pl11 (m)

I 1 . I ......... , . . ............ . . . . . . . . . MI511 IOL) Sl<CyllON

.......... -- - - ........ . . . . , .... . . . , ..

. . . . .

.......

....

........ --I_. .. 1 -. .... . _. _ _ pikc (7%) -1-

_. ... - ._ .... - .- .. " I . - .. .....

I3nlcl

361Z . . . . . . . . . . . . .

... __ . __ ..............

. - ... - .. ._ ... __ . I I -

.. ....

Batct ____. -- I -. ... ._ . . . ... -

- ........ . _- ... __ ... . . . . . . . . . . .

( 'OMMI~NIS: llcsulls pcrtnin In snniples ns rcceivcd.

All OC data exprcsscd as percentages of the expected values

INORGANICS ___ lMndable1 .̂ PzlndableI P d n d a b l e / Tdal 1 Free r a l p h a t c ~ 1 Flnoride - ]'---PT

( p l l [Jails) Ammonium Nitrate Nitrile Cyanide Cyanide

PRINCIPAL CIIEMIS'I' I Augusf. 1996/as

This Laboratory is registered by the National Associalion of Testing Authorities. Australia. The tcst(s) reported herein have been performed in accordance with i t s terms of registration. This document shall not be reproduccd except i n full.

110 of 127

w a ~ u m s u n a n ~ s Enviroscience ACN 0 0 4 7 5 2 676

' 2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, V ic to r ia 31 2 1 'rclcphone: tG I 3 3429 4GGG Iksirnile: +GI 3 9429 2294 Ernail: [email protected]

CLIENI': COLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

JOB N O 96612153 RE: SOU'III MELBOURNE - PARK smwr

ATENTI ON: MR. P. TIIORNTON

RESULTS 01: ANN,YSIS - SOII.

I I W V Y METALS

DA'ESAMPLED: 27.06-04.07.9/ 1 ,. DAIE RECEIVED: OS.07.96 DATE ANALYSED: 0.07.96

i "-&y ' L-- PRl NCl PAL CI Il:M ISI' 1 August, 1996/as

<'OMM17N'IS: I7csults pertain to samples as received.

AI rcsults expressed as mg& dryweight

hfct hod Section: lieavy Metals VICEPA 139- 13 Mercury VIC EPA 139- 16

- <s <s

- ... -- .

._ . - - . . ._ . . .. . ... .

. . (:obatl

I S

6.2 .. . .

. .

2 7

6.6 . .

76

13 .

26

< S - . .... . . - - .... ..

- ..-. .- . .-

Report N o . 15667 m This Laboratory i s registered by the National Association o f Testing Authorities, Australia. The tcst(s) rcportcd herein have been performed in accordance with i t s ternis o f registration. This document shall not be rcproduced except in full.

111 of 127

/ uu W L L W I I i 5 u I L i L 1 1 1 3 [email protected]; , CLIENI': GOLDER ASSOCIATES P"Y L I D DATE SAMPLED: RE: SOUTII MELBOURNE - PARK SIXBET DAIE RECEIVED: 05.07.96 JOB NO: 96612153 DATE ANALYSED: 0.5.07.96

A l T E N 7 1 0 N : MR. P. 'flIORNTDN

Enviroscience

' 2-8 Harvey Street,

A C N 004 752 676 . B.J. a s L Richmond, Victoria 3 12 I

'lklcphone: t613 9429 4666 Facsimile: +GI 3 9429 2294 Einail: [email protected]

. . . . ' i. _ _ =:: r;!. __-.-_ . .

........ l l o r m

. . . . . .

--__ . .

. . . . . . .

- ....... _.

..........

. .

. -. - _. . .

PRINCIPAL CI IEMISr 1 August. 1996/as

QUALITY CONTROL DATA - SOII,

__ ........ .- . Molybdcnu w

.............. . . .

__

__ .. _.

- -. . _. __ - 1(Kl __

-- .. - ..... ..

- - . . - . .

-_- 94 - -_ _

. ..............

. . . . . . . . . . . .

All O('dntn rxprcsscd as pcrccntnges of thc cxpccrcd values

hlc hod Sect ion: Ilcavy Mcrnls VIC EI'A 139- 13 Mercury VIC IJPA 139- 16

- . . .

96

...

.

. . . . . . _ . - .

.- . . . . . . - ....... I

_- ..... . - . Zinc Cadmini

- I . - 100 I la,

_- - .- - ..... .- ....... I

I 9s

94 93 ......... - ._ . - - ._ . -

__ .......... - .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

.................. _ ... ..................

- ...

..

.... - . -. - ..........

.. ........I . . .

. - _ _ . - ... - -. - . . . . ...... ... . . . .

_. _ _ .....

..... ... __ ....

. - .. - .... ...

.. ....... .......

.. . . . . .........

95

la,

___ .. __ _ ....... - ... . . . . . . . . _ _ . . .

.. - __ ................... 90 .... - -. ........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - -

... .

. . . . . . . . . - _. - .. .. . . . . . . - . .

.. .- ...... . . . . . B C r y i l N W

......... . . . .

. - - - ... . .

1 ( X I .....

96 .

. .

. . . . .

...... - ....... Coball

..... - _. . . .

- . _ _

.......

. ".

-. .

94 . . . . .

. . . .

. . .

This Laboratory i s registered by the National Associntioii of Testing Authorities. Australia. The test(s) rcporlcd herein have been performed in accordance with i t s lerrns of registration. This document shal l not be reproduced except in full.

112 of 127

w J b LU ns UI ~ a r i LY DATE SAMPLED: 27.06-04.07.9(,[ . 1 En vi roscience CLIENT GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

05.07.96 DATE ANALYSED: 05.07.96

RE: SOUTlI MELBOURNE - PARK STREET DATE RECEIVED: JOB NO: 966 12153

ATTENTION: MR. P. TIIORNTON

A(:N 0 0 4 752 676

L- ’ 2-8 Harvey Street, Richrnond, Victoria 3 12 I B.J.LYO s’ Elcphonc: t6 I 3 3423 4666 Fnctimilc: +61 3 9429 2294 Email: [email protected] RESULTS OF ANALYSES - SOIL

TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

COMMEN’IS: Results pertain to samples as received.

AI1 results expressed as m g k g dry weight.

Method Section: WSL 030.

P RINCl PAL CI I EM1 S’T 1 August, 1996/as

m Hcport No. 15667

This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Airsfralia. The test(s) rrporlrd herein have been performed i n accordance with its tcrnis of registration. This document shall not be reproduced except i n fu l l .

Page 5 of10 DISKS7DIS/IlllPl

113 of 127

ww J ’ L L u I I s u I L - d l l L s

Enviroscience ACN 004 752 G7G

2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 3 12 1 ldephone: +613 9429 4666 Facsimile: t613 9429 2294 Email: [email protected]

mpu;, SAMPLE mm U B N O C , - c , >c,-cl, >cl,-ca DESCRIPIION LOCATION DEPnl(m)

BH 6 Sa E16 1.5 - 1.95 36729 <20 20 4 0

BH 10 Sa E33 1.5 -2.0 36731 <20 < 20 e50

Sa E34 36733 <20 < 20 4 0

27.06 -04.07. 05.07.96 / CLIENT COLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD DATE SAMPLED:

JOB NO: 96612153 DATE ANALYSED: 05.07.96 RE: SOUTI1 M E L B O U R N E - P A R K S T R E E T DATE RECEIVED:

>c,,-c.$6

4 0

4 0

4 0

A7TENTlON: MR. P. TIJORNTON

PRINCIPAL C1lEMIS.r 1 August. 1996las



I ___- ____ ._____.

Report No. 15667 COMM13N’IS: Rcs111ts pertain tosamples as received.

All results expressed as mg/kg dry weight.

Method Section: WSL 030.

All QCdata expressed as percentages of the expectcd values.

This Laboratory i s registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Australia. The test(s) reported herein have been performed i n accordance wi th its terms of registration. This document shall not be reproduced except in full.

Page 6 of 10 DISKS7DIJII I R P I

114 of 127

1 ’ 2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 31 2 1 Telephone: +61 3 9429 4666 Factirnile: +GI 3 9429 2294 Email: [email protected]

CLIENT RE: JOB NO:

ATTENTION:

COLDER ASSOCIATES SOUTH MELBOURNE - 96612153

MR. P. THORNTON

PTY LTD DATE SAMPLED: 2 7 . 0 6 - 0 4 . 0 7 . 9 u . - PARK STREET DATE RECEIVED: 05.07.96

DATE ANALYSED: 05.07.96

B.J. S - v PRINCIPAL ClIE S’F 1 Augusl. 1996/as


VOLATILE ORGANICS (MAH)

BH 11 c 05

<:OMMEN’IS: Results pertain to samples as received.


Method Scction: WSL 3810.

Report No. 15607

&!I This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The test(s) reported herein have been performed in accordance with its t c r m of registration. This document shall not be reproduced except in fu l l .

Page 7 of 10 DISKS7DISII 1891

115 of 127

w 3 b L O I l S U l t a n t S DAIE SAMPLED:

DATE ANALYSED:

Enviroscience CLIENT! GOIJIER ASSOCIATES PTY LID RE: SOU111 M E L B O U R N E - PARK S T R E E T DATE RECEIVED: JOB NO: 96612153

ATENTlON: MR. P. 'IIIORNTDN

ACN 004 752 676

2 - 8 llarvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 312 I Tclcphone: t6 1 3 9429 4666 Facsimile: t613 9429 2294 Email: [email protected] RESULTS OF ANALYSES - SOIL

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS

05.07.96 27.06-04.07.96 4 ,[,L 05.07.96

R.J.I. NS PRINCIPAL CIIEMIST 1 August. 199Was

COMMENIS: Results perrain to samples as received.

All results expressed a mgkg dry weight.

Method Section: WSL8100

Report No. 13667 m This Laboratory is registered by the National Associatiari of Testing Authorities. Australia. Thc test(s) reported herein have been performed i n accordance with i t s tcrnis of registration. This document shall not be reproduced except i n frill.

Fagc 8 of 10 DISK S7 D I );I I891

116 of 127

w a ~ ~ o n s u ~ a n t s Enviroscience CLIENT COLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD DATE SAMPLED:

RE: SOUTII MELBOURNE - PARK STREET DATE RECEIVED JOB NO: 966 12 153 DATE ANALYSED

ATTENTION: MR. P. TfIORNTDN

ACN On4 7 5 1 676

' 2-8 Harvey Street, Icichniond, Victoria 3 1 2 1 'I'elephone: t613 9429 4666 Facsimile: t613 9427 2294 Eiiinil: [email protected] QUALITY CONTROL DATA - SOIL

05.07.96 ' 2 7 . 0 6 - 0 4 . 0 7 . 9 [ k 05.07.96 k \ / '

B.J . LY 0 NS PRINCIPAL CIIEMIS1' 1 August, 1996/as

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC IIYDROCARBONS

Report No. 1.5667 COMMENIS: Results pertain to samples as received.

All QC data expressed as percentages of the expected values.

Method Section: WSL 8100 This Laboratory i s registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Australia. The test(s) reportcd herein have been performed in accordance with i t s ternis of registration. This document shall not be reproduced except in fu l l .

Page 9 of 10 D I S K S ~ D I V I 1091

117 of 127

w a L L w n x . u L - a i w GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD DATE SAMPLED:

RE: SOUTH MELBOURNE - PARK STREET DATE RECEIVED: DATE ANALYSED: JOB NO: 966 121 53

Enviroscience CLIENT: ACN 004 7 5 1 676

' 2-8 Harvey Street, Richmond, Victoria 31 2 1 AITENTION: MR. P. THORNTON

Telephone: t613 9429 4666 Facsimile: t613 9429 2294 Fmail: [email protected]

Sa El,E7,E35

Sa ElS,E32

Compsite K Sa E21,E2S.E2!

Duplicate .. . . . ... (%) .. . _

. . .

. - . . . . . -. . .- .. --- Sliikc (?!I) . . ._ .. ..


ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES & PHENOLS

Organochlo D E P n I SAMPLE (m) /=I IiCB I I i n d a n e / I l e p b c h l o ~ Aldrin 1 Hephchlor-

1 q c u i d c

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 co. 1 <o. 1

I 3671811 <0.1 I <0.1 I XO.1 I <0.1 I <o. 1 I

<O.l <o. 1

<o. 1 <o. 1

... - . I . .. .. . _ . I!

(:OMMI.IN'I'S: I<csults pertain to samples as rcccived.

All results expressed as ms/kg dry weight.

Method Section: Organochlorine Pesticides WSL 8080 Phcnols APIIA SS3OC & WSL 8040

All OC data expressed as percentages of the expected values.

27 .06 -04 .07 .9 /L 05.07.96 05.07.96 . [ B.J.L S" '

PRINCIPAL CILEMIST 1 August, 1996las

ne Pesticides ] V I ] DDE Diddrin Endrin DDD

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 <0.1 co.1

<0.1 <0.1 co.1

<0.1 <0.1 CO.1

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<O.l <0.1 KO.1

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1

<o. 1

<o. 1

<o. 1

<o. 1

<o. 1

CO.1

<0.1

Dm I P:::J I <0.1 < 1 <o. 1

<o. 1 < 1 <o. 1

<0.1 <1 <o. 1

<0.1 < l <o. 1

<o. 1 < 1 <0.1

<0.1 < 1 <o. 1

<0.1 <1 <o. 1

<0.1 <1 <o. 1

- ~ - 100

This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The lesl(s) rcporccd herein have bcen performed i n accordnnce with ifs lcritls of registration. This document shall not be reproduced except in fu l l .

Page 10 of 10 DISKS7DIJII 1.591

118 of 127

APPENDIX D

Chemical Analysis Results - Amdel Laboratories Limited

119 of 127

w 3LLonsuIranrs 27.06-04.07.96

09.07-96 09.07.96

Enviroscience CLIENT COLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD DATE SAMPLED: R E SOU‘III MELBOURNE - PARK STREET DATE RECEIVED JOB NO. 966 12 153 DATE ANaYSED:

ATENTION: MR. P. THORNTDN

A C N 004 7 5 2 676

2-8 Harvey Street, Kichmoiid, Victoria 31 2 1 ‘I’clcphotie: t61 3 9 4 2 9 4666 Facsimile: t613 9 4 2 9 2294 1 August. 199Was

.J.L ONS PRINCIPAL CIIEMIST

Email: [email protected] RESULTS OF ANALYSES - CHECK IESTING - SOIL

INORGANICS

<:OM M ENIS: Resulls perlain to samples as received.

All results expressed as mg/kg dry weight unless stated otherwise.

Analysis conducted by Amdel. Report No. 6M00909

Method Section: p11: Rased upon ANZECC Guidelines. 1995. Qanide: APfIA 19th Edition 4500CN-C%E

Report No. 15663 m This Laboratory is registered by the Nittional Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The tesl(s) reportcd herein have been performed i n accordance w i t h its terms of registration. This document shall not be reproduced except i n full.

Page 1 of 5 DISK S7D15/11691

120 of 127

ww abLunswL-ariLs Enviroscience CLIENT:

RE: JOB NO: ACN 004 752 676 '. ' 2-8 Harvey Street,

Richmond, Victoria 3 12 1 'li.lcphone: +61 3 9429 4GG6 Facsimile: t613 9429 2294 Einail: [email protected]

GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD SOUTI1 MELBOURNE - PARK STREET 96612153

ATTENTION: MR. P. THORNTON

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS - C€IECK TESTING - SOIL

HEAVY METALS

27.06-04.07.96 09.07.96 (,i (, DATESAMPLED:

DATE RECEIVED: DATE ANALYSED: 09.07.96

-I, . - R.JLYONS PRINCIPAL CI1I:MIST 1 A U g U S l , 1996/.~

.

COMMEN'I'S: Resiilts pertain to samples as received.

All results expressed as mgk8 dry weight.

Method Section: Heavy Metals M8SIl Based upon USEPA 7000 Mercury E322 In-house Met hod


Report No. 13668 m This Laboratory is registered by the National hssociatitrrl of Testing Authorities. Australia. The test(s) rrportcd herein have been performed i n accordance with its ternis of registration. This document shall not be reproduced except in fu l l .

Page 2 of S DISK S7DlS111891

\

121 of 127

UU YhLU113U.l L-1 L3

Enviroscience ACN 0 0 4 752 676

2-8 Harvey Street, I<ichmond, Victoria 3 12 1 Telcphone: +6 1 3 9429 4666 Facsimile: t613 9429 2294 Email: [email protected]

CLIENT COLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD DATE SAMPLED: 27.06-01.07.96,/ , [ RE: SOUTH MELBOURNE - PARK STREET DATE RECEIVED: 09.07.96 JOB NO: 96612153 09.07.96 I . DATE ANALYSED:

ATIENllON: MR. P. TIIORNTON

RESULTS OF ANALYSES - CHECK ''IESTING - SOIL


Report No. 1.5668 COMMENTS: Results pertain to samples as received.


Method Section:

AnaljTis conducted by Amdel. Report No. 6M00909

B.J.LYONS PRINCIPAL Cl1 EM1 ST 1 August, 1996/as

This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Australia. The test(s) reported herein have been performed in accordance with its lerrns of registration. This document shall not he reproduced except i n f u l l .

Pagc 3 of 5 ~ l S K S 7 D I J / I I R 9 l

122 of 127

w aLLonsulmms Enviroscience ACN 004 752 676 . ' 2-8 t Iarvey Street, Riclirnond, Victoria 3 I2 1 'ldcpliotie: +GI 3 7423 4666 1:acsimile: +GI 3 3427 2294 Ikiail: [email protected]

CLJENT! GOI.I)ER ASSOCIATES P l y 1.m DATE SAMPLED: DATE RECEIVED

JOB NO: 966 12 153 DATE ANALYSED: R E SOU'IlI MELBOURNE - PARK STREET

ATIENTION: MR. r. T~IORNTON

RBSULIS OF ANALYSES - CHECK IBSTING - SOIL

POLYCYCLIC A R O M T I C HYDROCARBONS

.-

C:OMhlINIS: Rcsults pertain to samples as received.

All rcsirlls expressed as m a g dry weight.

M c t h d Section: E092


27.06-04.07.96 09.07.96 (/c: I 09.07.96

' - n . . Y O N ~ PRINCIPAL CIIEMIST 1 Augusl. 199Was

Anthn- mnona- Pvcac Bern*.) ChrJYmc Bcaro(b) B c a o ( k ) Bcmo(a) Imdcno Dibcsro(ab a n e theme authn- Ilmonm- Omonm- p ~ n c (17.3-ai) a d h n o c a

plrcmc

CO.1 0.48 0.48 0.30 0.26 0.48 0.13 0.43 0.22

O C U tbcmc lku

<0.1

Report No. l5G&9 m This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The test(s) reported herein have been performed i n accordance with its terms of registration. This document shall not be reproduced except i n fu l l .

\

Page 4 of S DISK S7DIYI 1891

123 of 127

WT J L L U I l S U I L i L I l L S Enviroscience CLIENT: GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

RE: SOUTH MELBOURNE - PARK STREET JOB NO: 966 12153

ACN 004 752 676

ATTENTION: MR. P. THORNTON ' 2-8 Harvey Strcet,

Richmond, Victoria 3121

DATE SAMPLED: DATE RECEIVED: DATE ANALYSED:

'Mephone: t613 3423 4666 Facsimile: i 6 1 3 9423 2234 Einail: [email protected] RESULTS OF ANALYSES - CHECK TESTING - SOIL

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES & PHENOLS

27.06-04.07.96 ,_ [,L 09.07.96 09.07.96

B.J.LY ,I

PRINCIPAL CIIEMIST 1 August, 1996las

- --

I I II I 1 I I I I I I - __--__ ~

COMMENTS: Kesults pertain to samples as received. R P m r f Nn 15668

All results expressed as mgkg dry weight.

Metticxi Section: Organochlorine Pesticides E012 (Based upon USEPA 8081) Phenols E1032 (Inhouse Method)

Aiialysis conducted by h d e l . Report No. GM00909

This Laboratory is registered by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Australia. Thc t e s t ( s ) rcportcd herein have been performed in accordance with its terms of registration. This document shall not he reproduced except i n fu l l .

Page 5 of 5 DISK S7Dl5ll189I

124 of 127

APPENDIX E

Important Information About Your Environmental Site Assessment Report


.

Site assessment identifies actual subsurface conditions )nly at those points where samples are taken, when hey are taken. Data derived through sampling and ubsequent laboratory testing are interpreted by :eologists, engineers or scientists who then render an ,pinion about overall subsurface conditions, the nature md extent of contamination, its likely impact on the ,reposed development and appropriate remediation

measures. Actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no professional, no matter how qualified. and no s u b d a c e exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates. Actual conditions in a m s not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated. but steps can be taken to help minimise i t s impact. For this reason. owners should retain the services of their consultants through the development stage, to identify variations, conduct additional tests which may be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site.

These notes have been prepared by Golder Associates Pty. Ltd. using guidelines prepared by ASFE; The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, of which Golder Associates is a member. They are offered to help you in the interpretation of your Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) reports.

REASONS FOR CONDUCTING AN ESA

ESA's are typically, though not exclusively, carried out in the following circumstances:

e As pre-acquisition assessments, on behalf of either purchaser or vendor, when a property is to be sold; as predevelopment assessments. when a property or area of land is to be redeveloped or have its use changed, for example, from a factory to a residential subdivision; as predevelopment assessmeats of greenfield sites, to establish "baseline" conditions and assess environmental, geological and hydrological constraints to the development of, for example, a landfill; and as audits of the environmental effects of an ongoing operation.

8

B

D

k h of these circumstances requires a specific pproach to the assessment of soil and groundwater ontamination. In all cases. however, the objective is 3 identify and if possible quantify the risks which nrecognised contamination poses to the proposed ctivity. Such risks may be both financial. for xample, clean-up costs or limitations on site use, and hysical, for example, health risks to site users or the ubiic.

'HE LIMJTATIONS OF AN ESA

Jthough the information provided by an ESA can Auce exposure to such risks, no ESA, however iligently carried out, can eliminate them. Even a gorous professional assessment may fail to detect all mtamination on a site. Contaminants may be present I areas that were not surveyed or sampled. or may nigrate to afeas which showed no signs of ontamination when sampled.

AN ESA REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT SPECIFIC FACTORS

Your environmental report should not be used:

e When the nature of the proposed development is changed, for example, if a residential development is proposed instead of a commercial one; when the size or configuration of the proposed development is altered; when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified; when there is a change of ownership; or for the application to an adjacent site.

e

e

e e

To help avoid costly problems, refer to your xnsdtant to determine how any factors which have :hanged subsequent to the date of the report may sffect i ts recommendations.

ESA "FINDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL mIMATEs

126 of 127

Sheet 2 of 2

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE

Subsurface conditions are changed by natural processes and the activity of man. Because an ESA report is based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration, decisions should not be based on an ESA report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the consultant to learn if additional tests are advisable.

ESA SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS

Every study and ESA report is prepared in response to a specific Brief to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a consulting civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor, or even some other consulting civil engineer. A report should not be used by other persons for any purpose, or by the client for a different purpose. No individual other than the client should apply a report even apparently for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No person should apply a report for any. purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant.

AN ESA REPORT E SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION

Costly problems can occur when design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of an ESA. To help avoid these problems, the environmental consultant should be retained to work with appropriate design professionals to explain relevant findings and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to contamination issues.

LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE ENGINEERING REPORT

Final borehole or test pit logs are developed by environmental scientists, engineers or geologists based upon their interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field samples.

Only final logs are customarily included in our reports. These logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in site remediation or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimise the possibility of contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid preparation. When this occurs, delays, disputes and unanticipated costs are the all-too-frequent result.

To reduce the likelihood of boring log misinterpretation, the complete report must be available to persons or organisations involved in the project, such as contractors, for their use. Those who do not provide such access may proceed under the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing all the available information to persons and organisations such as contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes which may aggravate them to disproportionate d e .

READ RESPONSLBILlTY CLAUSES CLOSELY

Because an ESA is based extensively on judgement and opinion, it is necessarily less exact than other disciplines. Thrs situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent &.IS problem, model clauses have k e n developed for use in written transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to foist liabilities onto some other party. Rather, they are definitive clauses which identify where your consultant’s responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognise their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your ESA report. and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.

Colder Asociates 127 of 127

Documents

Environmental Audit Report - apps.epa.vic.gov.auapps.epa.vic.gov.au/EnvAuditFiles/53X/29805-1/29805-1_b.pdf · INFORMATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS August 2007 VICTORIA'S