Environmental Audit Report - Environment Protection Authority

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 45

http://www.adobe.com

VicRoads Property Services Division

Environmental Audit

Report - 30 Moore

Street, Apollo Bay

6 February 1997

Hyder

Consulting

2 of 45

VicRoads Property Services Division 1

Environmental Audit Report

30 Moore Street. Apollo Bay. Victoria

Table Of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................

1.1 Purpose of the Report ........................................................ ...................... 4

1.2 Site Description ................................................................. . . ...................... 4

2.0 SITE FEATURES ................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Site History ...................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Geology and Hydrogeology ............................................................................... 6

2.3 Chemicals of Interest ........................................................................................ 7

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 7

3.1 Assessment of Site Conditions ........................................................................... 7

3.2 Site Remediation .............................................................................................. 9

3.3 Quality of Data ............................................................................................... 11

4.0 HUMAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTORS OF INTEREST .............................. 12

4.1 Human Receptors ........................................................................................... 12

4.2 Ecological Receptors ....................................................................................... 13

5.0 EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINANTS ..................................................................... 13

5.1 Exposure Concentrations ................................................................................. 13

5.2 Human Exposure Durations ............................................................................. 13

5.3 Screening Criteria ........................................................................................... 14

5.3.1 Average Screening Criteria ............................................................................ 14

.............................................. 14 5.3.2 'Hotspot' Screening Criteria ..........................

5.4 Human Exposure Durations .......................................... ............................... 14

6.1 Exposure to Contaminated Soils ..................................... ......................... 15

6.2 Environmental Risk ...................................................... ......................... 18

7.0 ADEQUACY OF INFORMATION ....................................................................... 18

8.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 19

9.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................. 20

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 21

6.0 RISK EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 15

Hyder Consulting 5658NR3584.001 3 of 45

VicRoads Property Sewices Division 2


30 Moore Street, Apollo Bay. Victoria

Statement of Environmental Audit

FIGURES

Figure 1 -

Figure 2 -

Figure 3 -

Figure 4 -

Figure 5 -

Figure 6-

Figure 7 -

Figure 8 -

Figure 9 -

Site Location

Current Site Layout Plan

VicRoads Patrol Depot Plan 1979

Apollo Bay Sewerage Authority Plan 1974

Site Plan, as of the start of Site Assessment Works 1995

Extent of Excavations 14 - 17 November 1995

Extent of Excavations 27 - 29 November 1995

Extent of Excavations 8 December 1995

Location Plan of Domain A and Domain B

Table 1 - Audit Information

Table 2 - Site Assessment and Validation Results (unexcavated soils - whole site)

Table 3a - Final Concentration of Contamination remaining on site after Remediation - DOMAIN A

Table 3b - Final Concentration of Contamination remaining on site after Remediation - DOMAIN B

Table 4 - Laboratory QA/QC Reported Data

Table 5 - Comparison of Duplicate Samples

Table 6 - Comparison of selected Site Assessed Data to Screening Criteria for the Whole Site (Domain A and 8)

Hyder Consulting 56sa1v~3sa4.ooi 4 of 45




APPENDICES

Appendix A - Certificates of Title

Appendix B - Beveridge Williams "Report on Contamination Assessment Remediation Measures and Validation Testing 30 Moore Street, Apollo Bay", December 1996

Beveridge Williams Facsimile Re:30 Moore Street, Apollo Bay, dated 14/01 /97


Hyder Consulting 5658fiR3584.001 5 of 45

1 .o

1 .I

1.2



30 Moore Street. Apollo Bay. Victoria

INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared by Mr N.J. Withers (an accredited Environmental Auditor), of Hyder Environmental Pty Ltd, at the request of Ian McKenzie of Beveridge Williams & Co Pty Ltd on behalf of VicRoads Property Services Division and relates to an audit of the site located at 30 Moore Street, Apollo Bay, Victoria, being a former Road Patrol Depot, herein referred to as *the site'. The approach taken for this audit complies with the requirements of Section 57AA of the Environment Protection Act (Victoria) and with EPA Guidelines to Auditors.

Purpose of the Report The property is currently owned by David and Lena Jones who purchased the site from VicRoads. It is understood that the owner intends to develop the site for residential use. An Environmental Audit under Section S7AA of the Environment Protection Act, 1970 is required. The purpose of this audit is to evaluate whether or not the site is suitable for any beneficial use and if not, whether it is suitable for the intended residential use. Thus, this audit will assess the health and environmental risks from exposure to the soil at or from this site with respect to its potential beneficial uses.

Site Description The site is located on the northern side of Moore Street, Apollo Bay (refer figure 7). The site is made up of two rectangular blocks of land , Lots 15 and 16, with a total area of approximately 2,700 square meters.

The site and surrounding areas are located in an area of relatively flat topography with only a gentle incline to Apollo Bay. The site is bounded by residential dwellings to the east and west, by a laneway to the north and Moore Street to the south.

Lot 15 has formerly been used as a residential property until the 1950s when part of it became a Patrol Depot for the then Country Roads Board. The other block, Lot 16 was incorporated into the site in 1975. At the time of the site investigation the depot was not operational but contained a weatherboard residence and garage, a storage shed made of corrugated iron in the north west corner of the site, an overhead storage tank area containing one diesel and one bitumen storage tank along the northern boundary and a roofed asphalt bunker located next to the overhead storage tanks. Some fuel, oil and bituminous drums were stored in and adjacent to the storage shed in the north west corner of the site. The remainder of the site was either covered by asphalt or grass and trees.

During the remediation of the site, the storage shed, the overhead tanks, the asphalt bunker and their associated concrete bases were removed from the northern half of the

Hyder Consulting 5658hlR3584.001 6 of 45



30 Moore Street, Apollo Bay, Victoria

site. Excavation and backfilling with imported f i l l then took place over much of the northern operational half of the site. The extent of these backfilled excavations and the current site layout is shown in Figure 2.

Table 1 - Audit Infomation

Name of Auditor:

Term of Appointment:

Audit Requested By:

Date of Engagement

Date of EPA Notification:

Address of Site:

Municipality

Title Information:

Zoning Information:

Current Owners:

Current Occupiers:

List of Documents Reviewed:

Mr Nick Withers. Hvder Consultine Ptv Ltd

1991 - 1/2/98

Mr Ian McKenzie of Beveridge Williams & Co Pty Ltd on behalf of VicRoads Property Services Division

26th October 1995

4 th December 1995


Shire of Colac - Otway

Allotments 15 and 16 on Certificate of Title Volume 2177 Folio 435305 and Volume 2421 Folio 484080

Currently zoned Residential

-D and L Jones

Owners

Beve ridge Williams " Report on Con tam i n ation Assessment Remediation Measures and Validation Testing, 30 Moore Street, Apollo Bay" December 1996.

Beveridge Williams Facsimile dated 14/01/97

Beveridge Williams Facsimile dated 16/01/97

These documents relate to the environmental assessment carried out at the site, and are provided in Appendix B of this report. Other relevant information extracted from the above documents are cited when included in this text.

Hyder Consulting 5658hlR3584.001 7 of 45

VicRoads Properly Sewices Division 6

2.0

2.1

2.2



SITE FEATURES

Site History The site history was interpreted from the Beveridge Willims "Contamination Arsessment , Remedtation and Validation Testing Report" found in Appendix B of this report. The information sources used by Beveridge Williams included the Certificates of Title, Patrol Depot layout plans provided by VicRoads South Western Region, Apollo Bay Sewerage Authority sewer plans and existing aerial photographs.

The history prior to the development of the Patrol Depot in the early 1950s has only been obtained from the Certificates of Title and indicated that the land has most likely been used either for horticultural or residential use. Aerial photographs indicate that in 1952 Lot 15 contained the then Country Roads Patrol Depot whilst Lot 16 was undeveloped. This situation continued until 1975 when Lot 16 was incorporated into the depot. The layout of the depot over this period of time is shown in the VicRoads Patrol Depot Plan dated 1979, Figure3and Apollo Bay Sewerage Authority plan dated 1974, Figure 4.

Prior to 1975 the layout of Lot 15 as the then Patrol Depot include the patrolman's house with a garage situated just behind and beyond this at the rear of the garage along the eastern boundary of Lot 15 were situated three small galvanised iron sheds. The use of these sheds is unknown.

When Lots 15 and 16 were incorporated in the late 1970s, Lot 16 was utilised as predominantly a vehicle parking area and driveway to the depot. At the rear of Lot 16 on the northern boundary was an overhead tank area and an asphalt bunker. These structures were located on a bunded concrete slab. The southern end of Lot 15 remained unchanged during this period, whilst by 1980 a large galvanised iron shed had been constructed along the western boundary in the northern half of the site.

By the time of the site assessment in 1995 the operational use of the site had ceased and the layout was as shown in Figure 5

The site history appears to be limited with little indication of the use of the site prior to the 1950s and in the specific operational use of the site as a patrol depot. However, it is considered adequate for the purposes of this audit report.

Geology and Hydrogeology The geology beneath the site has been determined from the Geological Survey of Victoria 1:250,000 scale Colac Sheet and indicates the underlying geology to be the Dilwyn

Hyder Consulting S S S 8 ~ 3 S 8 4 . 0 0 1 8 of 45

2.3

3.0

3.1




Formation of Tertiary Age comprising sand, sandy siltstone, shale, mudstone, sandy gravel, dolomitic mudstone, claystone and coal.

The site assessment identified that the underlying natural soils consisted of a dark grey sandy silt, turning to a sandy silty clay at depth.

No groundwater or perched water was encountered in any of the boreholes drilled during the investigation to a maximum depth of 1.2 metres. We would expect the depth to groundwater in this area to be 5 or more metres below ground surface.

Chemicals of Interest The site history and near surface soil conditions suggest that the list of chemicals of interest (ie. those which may have contaminated the site) should include:

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and total xylene) associated with spills and leaks of fuel and bitumen products;

Metals (such as lead, zinc, mercury, copper, chromium, nickel, cobalt and cadmium) associated with fill material; and,

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) -associated with fill materials, asphalt and the use of bitumen on site;

Pesticides from storage and on site use.

SITE CONDITIONS

Assessment of Site Conditions An assessment of the site condition has been conducted by Beveridge Williams between 28 July 1995 and 16 November 1995.

The process of the site assessment evolved as the results of previous testing was known and areas of contamination identified. The initial site visit on 28 July 1995 identified three areas of obvious visual and olfactory surface contamination, these included:

Small oil spills on the asphalt area along the eastern boundary

Oily soil adjacent to the overhead tank area located along the northern boundary

Old drums inside the shed located in the north western corner of the site and around the south east corner of the shed.

The initial site assessment was undertaken on 28 July 1995 and incorporated nine hand augured boreholes, which terminated approximately 0.5m into the underlying natural

Hyder Consulting 5658fVR3584.001

-~

9 of 45




sandy silt soils. These nine boreholes were located to investigate observed contamination and give a general site coverage. The samples were analysed as two three and four part composites for lead, arsenic, total pesticides and herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Samples from BH1 to BH7 were also analysed individually for TPH and PAH. BH7 was further analysed for B T W after PID screening indicated volatile organics present and BH9 was analysed for a suite of eight metals including nickel, chromium, copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, arsenic and cobalt.

The results indicated shallow hydrocarbon contamination across parts of the northern half of the site, refer to Table 2. TPH concentrations above EPA Fill guidelines (EPA Bulletin 448) were identified in the top 0.0 to 0.3m of the site at locations BH1 along the eastern boundary, BH6 at the location of the former overhead tanks and BHS in the north west corner of the site where fuel drums were formerly stored. Concentrations of PAH above the guideline values for Fill material were recorded in BH3 and BH6 at a shallow depth, whilst elevated BTEX concentrations were observed in material 0.4 to O.5m below the surface at BH7 adjacent to the former asphalt bunker.

After another site visit in August 1995, further site assessment work was undertaken on 27 September 1995 to further delineate the contamination identified in the initial assessment. This site assessment incorporated ten boreholes (BH10 to BH19) hand augured to a depth varying from 0.15m to 1.8m. Analysis of samples obtained from BHIO to BH16 focussed in on organic contaminants associated with fuel spillages and bitumen products, these included individual analysis of TPH, BTUs and PAHs. Samples from these bores were taken at several depths from within the bore to delineate the vertical extent of contamination. Boreholes BH16 to BH19 focused on possible heavy metal contaminants in the southern half of the site.

Results indicated concentrations of TPH above the EPA 'Clean' Fill guidelines at a shallow depth at locations BHlO located over the former storage shed in the north west corner and in BH13, BH14 and BH16 in the northern half of Lot 16. PAH concentrations above the EPA 'Clean' Fill guidelines within the surface samples were recorded in BH3, BH6, BH7 and BHlO within the northern half of the site.

On 14 November 1995 five further boreholes (BH2O to BH24) were hand augured in the location of BH19 to delineate the lead contamination indicated from the previous site assessment results. Analysis of the individual samples was for a suite of eight heavy metals including lead.

Lead concentrations above the Fill guidelines were recorded directly north of the patrolman's residence in BH19, BH20, BH21, B22 and BH23 in a distinct layer.

On 16 November 1995 three test pits were dug to investigate under the concrete slab which used to be the floor of the large galvanised shed along the western boundary (TPZS to TP27). The positioning of these test pits was to identify and delineate any contamination associated with a former overhead fuel tank which was located at the

Hyder Consulting 10 of 45

3.2



30 Moore Street. /boll0 Bav. Victoria

northern end of the concrete slab prior to construction of the shed. The test pits were excavated into the underlying natural soils to a depth of between 0.7m and 1.2m. Samples taken at various depths in the test pits were analysed for lead, TPH and BTEXs.

Results indicated concentration of TPH and BTEXs above the EPA 'Clean' Fill guidelines to at least a depth of 0.6m beneath the concrete slab of the former shed.

Site Remediation

The remediation of the site was undertaken between 14 November 1995 and 5 April 1996 and was undertaken by Mid West Earthmovers Pty Ltd under the supervision of Beveridge Williams.

The aim of the remediation process was to remove areas of identified lead, petroleum, BTEX and PAH contamination identified at the northern half of the site to meet standards suitable to obtain a Certificate of Environmental Audit for any beneficial use of the site.

The sequence of remediation is shown in Figures 6, 7and8, and indicated the areas of the site excavated at each stage of the remediation process. The contaminated soil was excavated and transported to Buninyong Landfill at Ballarat as Low Level Contaminated Soil in accordance with EPAV approval.

The initial excavation between 14 to 17 November 1995, involved the removal of all surface asphalt, base core and concrete from the northern half of the site and excavation of 0.5m of material in a "L" shape along the northern and eastern section of the site, and the removal of the Wash Down Slab directly north of the garage and excavation of material to a depth of approximately 0.7m, as shown in Figure 6. Following the excavation of the material validation samples were taken, samples V8 to V28 and analysed for TPH, BTEXs and PAH. The collection of the validation samples from the base and walls of the excavation was selected by the use of a PID.

Results of the validation sampling by WSL Consultants, a NATA Registered Analytical Laboratory indicated that sections of the excavated area required to be extended. These areas were:

V24 - south side of the excavated area directly north of the concrete slab of the former corrugated iron shed.

V25. south side of the excavated area directly north of BH15 location.

0 V26 along the western end of the northern boundary.

Consequently these three areas were extended in remediation work undertaken between 27 and 29 November 1995, with sections of material south of V24 and V25 being excavated southwards to a depth of OSm, whilst the excavation at the location of

Hyder Consulting 5658lVR3584.001 11 of 45

VicRoads Properly Services Division 10



validation sample V26 was deepened by approximately 0.3m and extended slightly northwards. Two other areas identified as contaminated were also excavated at this time; these were an area around TP25 which was excavated to a depth of 0.6m due to elevated BTEX concentrations and a "L" shape section of land directly north of the patrolman's residence and west of the garage which was excavated to a depth of 0.5m due to high lead concentrations, see Figure 7: The material from these excavations was again disposed off site in the same manner as the material excavated above. Refer to Table3a.

The excavations were again validated with selection of the sample locations by use of a PID to indicate the highest areas of BTEX contamination. The validation samples were V201 to V212, with samples V201 to V205 being analysed just for lead, V206 and V212 for BTEX and V207 to V212 for TPH. The analysis focussed on the key contaminants identified in previous testing. The results indicated that the contamination identified in the previous round of validation sampling at V24, V25 and V26 had been successfully delineated and removed, as shown by validation samples V207 for location V26 and V208 for location V25. Validation sampling in the area of lead contamination directly north of the residence verified the vertical extent of the contamination had been successfully attained (V201 to VZOS) .

The remaining validation samples indicated that levels of contamination were still present in the area of the concrete slab which formed the base of the former shed on the western boundary.

V212 indicated marginally elevated TPH and BTEX concentrations above the EPA 'Clean' fill guidelines (EPA Bulletin 448).

V206 in the excavated area at TP25 indicated continued concentrations of BTEXs above the EPA 'Clean' Fill guidelines.

Further remediation work was undertaken on the 8 December 1995 with the excavation of further material from the area of the former shed on the western boundary to a depth of approximately 1 .Om, see Figure 8. The excavation was then validated with samples V301 to V308 being taken. The results of the validation sampling indicated that there were still volatile organics (TPH and BTEXs) present in the excavation marginally above the levels for 'Clean' Fill material indicated in EPA Bulletin 448. Refer to Table3b.

The excavations were then left open for four months to allow the volatilisation of the hydrocarbon contamination.

A site inspection by Beveridge Williams by the use of visual and olfactory means concluded that volatilisation had been completed. However, we note no samples were collected to verify this by laboratory analysis. The excavations were then backfilled with validated 'Clean' Fill material (see Appendix B of the Beveridge Williams Report) between 1 and 5 April 1996 and the site leveled.

Hyder Consulting 56S8bfR3584.001 12 of 45

3.3

-I


Composite C

BH 8 and BH9

Composite F

BH6 and BH7

11



0.0 - 0.1 5m

0.1 - O.25m

The final concentrations of material remaining on site after remedial works is indicated in T d l e 3.

Quality of Data Samples obtained by Beveridge Williams were submitted to WSL Consultants (WSL) for analysis. Chemical analyses were conducted by WSL who are National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) registered for the analytical methods used.

Spike and blank sample analysis results reported by WSL are summarised in Table 4.

At the time of the site assessment work Beveridge Williams did not as a matter of course implement a Quality Control Procedure to obtain duplicate samples and equipment blanks during their site assessment work. This situation leaves a flaw in the site assessment results which can not be over looked in the Audit process. Sampling procedures undertaken by Beveridge Williams are however considered to be of an accurate nature and the procedure defined in the Beveridge Williams report appears to be sufficient to satisfactorily decontaminate their equipment between sampling locations, although no actual evidence is available to verify the accuracy of these procedures.

However, some indication of accuracy can be obtained from a few samples taken during the initial site assessment. A comparison can be made between the average concentrations of a few individual samples and their previously corn posited results. This comparison can only be made for the following three samples for lead and arsenic.

Table 5 : Comparison of Duplicated Samples.

Sample Location

Depth

Composite c I 0.0 - 0.15m

BH8andBH9 I I

Contaminant

Lead

Arsenic

Lead

Individual Resutts

24 and 210

( 5 and 6.0

67 and 30

Composite Result

72

7.8

39

Relative Percentage difference of the Average Individual Conc to Composite Conc.

62%

30 to 41%

26%



4.0

4.1



The results indicate that the Relative Percent Differences (RPDs) give a fair degree of correlation between the individual and composited samples, taking into consideration the compositing process.

The Quality Control procedures under taken by the laboratory are shown in Table 4. The reported results for recovery of spiked samples indicates acceptable recovery results between 75 and 125%. Duplicate analysis conducted by the laboratory produced acceptable comparative results between 92 and 105 %.

With regard to the quantity of data available for the site it is considered that the spread and depth of sampling locations is sufficient to identify the key contaminants and validate excavations of identified contaminated areas. The frequency of site assessment sampling is one location per 150 m2 . However, the final non analytical validation of the status of excavations prior to backfilling is raised into question, and as such further risk assessment shall be undertaken in this report using the analytical results obtained in the final round of validation sampling.

It is the Auditor's opinion that the data is of sufficient quality with respect to the laboratory analytical techniques although insufficient with respect to quality and quantity of duplicate and decontamination procedure sampling to form an completely accurate judgement about the range of chemical concentrations now present in the soils at the site and subsequently the condition of the site.

HUMAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL

RECEPTORS OF INTEREST

We understand that this property is to be developed for residential use. In order to consider the site as suitable for this use we need to firstly to consider any beneficial use that may be made of the site.

Human Receptors The primary categories of people who might experience exposure to the soils at this site could include:

0 construction workers involved in site development;

0 adult or child residents and visitors exposed to surface or subsurface soils;

utility or maintenance workers involved in excavations or maintenance at the site, exposed to soils.

tiyder Consulting 5658/VR3584.001

~~~

14 of 45

4.2

5.0

5.1

5.2




No development plans are available for the site to date and as such it must be assumed that the most likely primary human receptors will be adult and child residents in a low density residential development .

Ecological Receptors The primary ecological receptors of interest at this site would be soil fauna including earthworms, and larval forms of fauna that develop in surface soils and sediment in stormwater drainage pathways on or emanating from this site.

Also of interest is the quality of groundwater beneath the site.

EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINANTS

Exposure Concentrations From a risk assessment perspective for this site, exposure concentrations are estimated average concentrations within a domain of interest. The relevant domain of interest in the context of this site would normally be taken as the site in total because of its relatively small size of 0.27 hectares, however due to TPH and BTEX contamination in part of the site two domains of interest shall be used, refer to figure9

0 Domain A, the site as a whole minus the area of former concrete slab in the north west corner of the site.

0 Domain B, the area under the former concrete slab in the north west corner

From a risk assessment perspective for this site, exposure concentrations for fill and natural material at the site are estimated average concentrations over a suitable depth of soil within each domain of interest. For the purposes of this Audit this depth is defined as the depth likely to be exposed by excavations for construction of residences or subsequent use of the site. In this case this depth has been defined as 1.0m. Variations in chemical concentrations must also be considered in the context of the development of the site to low density residential units.

Refer to Table 3a and 3b for the exposure concentrations for each Domain.

Human Exposure Durations Screening criteria for soils at the site have been derived using exposure durations which would be consistent with residential use assuming exposure to the surface soils is possible. It is noted that exposure of residents and visitors at this site to surface soils will in fact be

much lower than the levels assumed in the derivation of the criteria. This use would provide the highest exposure durations and hence the highest risk (lowest acceptance

Hyder Consulting 5658lVR3584.001 15 of 45

VicRoads Property Sewices Division 14

5.3

5.3.1

5.3.2

5.4



criteria). The resulting screening criteria, which are protective of child and adult residents,. will also protect the other categories of human receptors listed above.

Screening Criteria

Average Screening Criteria The exposure (average) concentrations discussed in Section 3 are compared in Section 6 below to screening criteria derived from EPA guidelines for "f i l l" (EPA Bulletin 4481, ANZECC soil quality guidelines (ANZECC, 1992b) or risk based criteria. The results are summarised in Table3and6 Based on our previous experience, a formal risk evaluation, for any beneficial use of the site, would tend to generate criteria in the same order or greater than the EPA or ANZECC guidelines.

In assessing the data the density of sampling at the site must also be assessed to determine whether sufficient information is available to adequately characterise the site. Adequate information for a site for the issue of a Certificate would generally involve sampling at the site at a maximum ratio of one sample per 150 m2, ie at least one sample per small residential lot in case sub division of the site in the future is considered. This ratio is indicative only and will depend upon past use of the site, contaminant profiles and distributions and proposed site usage.

In addition, these criteria represent the maximum permissible concentrations for soil at the site to ensure that there are no constraints on its off-site disposal.

'Hotspot' Screening Criteria 'Hotspot'screening criteria are designed to ensure that, as far as possible, isolated pockets of contamination do not remain even when average screening criteria are fulfilled. They

' represent the maximum individual sample concentrations which can be accommodated within a domain. For the purposes of this document these criteria are 5 times the average screening criteria for the particular chemical/media receptor For an assessment of the site for its proposed usage exceedence of the hotspot screening criteria needs to be assessed on a case by case basis due to the presence of the concrete flooring slab preventing direct access of site users to soils.

of concern.

Human Exposure Durations Screening criteria for surface soils have been derived using exposure durations which would be consistent with residential use. This use would provide the highest exposure durations and hence the highest risk (lowest acceptance criteria). Therefore screening criteria for residential use which are protective of the child and adult residents, will also protect the other categories of human receptor listed above.

Hyder Consulting

-

5658/vR3584.001

~-

16 of 45

6.0

6.1




RISK EVALUATION This section discusses the risk to human health associated with exposure concentrations of contaminants which remain on the site.

Exposure to Contaminated Soils The concentrations for metals, total PAHs, TPH and BTEX, for surface fill and natural soils at this site have been summarised in Table 2. Following the remediation of the site with excavation and disposal of contaminated material off site and the validation of the excavations, the final concentrations of material remaining are summarised in Table 3a and 36.

Following a review of the site assessment and validation data shown in Table 2along with the visual and olfactory evidence presented by Beveridge Williams, it can be concluded that the main contamination associated with the site prior to remedial works was TPH, BTEXs and PAH contamination at shallow depth in the northern operational half of the site, along with lead contamination of the area directly north of the patrolman's residence.

The site as a whole contains concentrations below laboratory detection limit values for pesticides and herbicides along with concentrations of arsenic below the screening criteria level. Results of other metals such as nickel, chromium, copper, zinc and cadmium suggest that levels of these metals are below the screening criteria. However the sampling locations are exclusively in the southern non operational half of the site. Nevertheless it can be presumed that the measured concentrations of these metals may be assumed to be indicative of the site as a whole, due to the facts that there are no significant thicknesses of fill across the site and that there is uniformity in the underlying natural material in this small site.



Average Conc.

Maximum Conc.

16


30 Moore Street. A ~ o l l o Bav. Victoria

7.63 10.31 16.17 147.86 0.19 6.18 5.37 <I (0.5

13.00 22.00 35.00 420.00 0.30 23.00 8.80 <I (0.5

Table 6 : Comparison of Selected Site Assessment Data to Screening Criteria for the Whole Site (Domain A & 6)

With reference to the final concentrations of material remaining on site and the sequence and extent of remedial work and validation sampling, it can be seen that as of 8 December 1995 the site still contained levels of TPH and BTEXs (exclusively within a small section of the north west section of the site (approx. 24m by 10m) beneath the former shed) above the screening criteria based on the EPA "Clean" Fill guidelines (EPA Bulletin 448).

Due to the fact that the final validation of this area of the site was undertaken by non analytical procedures means that the value of final hydrocarbon concentration remaining in this section of the site is unknown.

Following the final validation sampling, the excavations were left open for four months prior to backfilling (without any tilling of the material). It can be assumed that a significant proportion of the volatile component will have volatilised leaving the areas excavated potentially below the screening criteria, however there is no conclusive evidence to prove this point.

Therefore it is considered prudent to use the levels identified by the final round of validation sampling of 8 December 1995 to characterise the material currently remaining in this north west section of the site to a depth greater than 1.0m, as validation sample V302 at the base of the excavation at a depth of approximately 1.2m contained levels of BTEXs of 11.90 mg/kg. This area of the site beneath the former concrete slab has therefore been viewed as a separate area of hydrocarbon contamination. For this reason the site has been split into Domain A and Domain B, and the data for each evaluated reviewed separately.

Hyder Consulting 5658/W3584.001 18 of 45




Reviewing the data of material remaining on site after remedial works for Domain A (excluding the area under the concrete slab of the former shed), refer to Table 3a. it can be seen that there are no concentrations above the screening criteria. The results indicate that the areas of TPH and PAH contamination in the top 0.3m of the site associated with sample locations BH1, BH3. BHS, BH6, BH7, BH14 BH16, V25 and V26 have been successfully remediated to below the screening criteria values. The area of lead contamination at the rear of the residence identified in BH19, BH20, BH21, BH22 and BH23 have also been remediated. This area of the site was excavated to between 0.5 to 0.6m and backfilled with 'Clean' imported fill (according to EPA Bulletin 448). The status of the fill material is recorded in Appendix B of the Beveridge Williams Report.

There is however some concern that the lead contamination identified within a distinct layer in this area of the site, was not full delineated beneath the garage on the eastern face of this excavation. There is therefore a potential for this lead Contamination to be present beneath the current garage structure.

Reviewing the data of material remaining on site after remedial works for Domain B (the area under the concrete slab of the former shed in the north west corner of the site), refer to Table 36, it can be seen that there is one location, V302 at the northern end located under the site of a former fuel storage area that has one value of TPH concentration in excess of the average screening criteria at a depth of approximately 1.2m below the original surface level, refer to Table 3b. However the average for Domain B is 395mg/kg which is below the screening criteria. The single elevated concentration is also well within the maximum individual permissible concentration or 'hotspot' criteria value. It is considered that the elevated TPH concentration at location V302 does not pose a significant risk to human health as it is unlikely to be encountered during everyday residential use of the site.

A comparison of the total monocyclic aromatic compounds (BTUO) in Domain B against the screening criteria indicates that three of the four values are in excess of the screening criteria and the average for the domain is also above the screening criteria. However, it must be taken into consideration that the majority of BTEX analyses for Domain B were undertaken on samples indicating elevated TPH concentrations, thereby indicating a bias towards the worst case scenario. The main BTEX contaminants identified were xylene and to a lesser extent ethyl benzene. These BTEXs are at concentrations that would only cause potential human health risks within a confined space. At the concentrations recorded on site, it is considered that xylenes and ethyl benzene could potentially cause a aesthetic odour issue if disturbed during excavation. The concentrations of both benzene and toluene, which are considered to be the main potential cause of risk to human health are not considered significant. The source of this contamination is suspected to be the spillage or leakage of petroleum based fuels in this area of the site. The final excavations were left open to allow volatilisation of these compounds, with olfactory evidence to indicate that it had occurred.

Hyder Consulting 5658/VR35&4.001 19 of 45

6.2

7.0



30 Moore Street, h o l l o Bay. Victoria

However, due to the unpredictable nature of the volatilisation process and its dependence on many varying parameters, along with the no conclusive analytical validation technique it must be interpreted that the levels of ethyl benzene and xylene are still above the screening criteria in this domain of interest. Therefore without further validation sampling of Domain B for BTEXs, this small area of the site cannot be considered suitable for any beneficial use. Nevertheless approximately 40% of Domain B has been excavated to a depth of between 0.5 and 1.0 metres, the excavations left open for four months to allow volatilisation and then backfilled with 'Clean' imported fill material. It is therefore considered that these procedures would have reduced the levels of ethyl benzene and xylene to some extent, there by reducing the risks to human health and the presence of odo u rs.

Environmental Risk Another reason for adopting the screening criteria in Section 5.2 is that they also protect the ecological receptors of interest as well as human health. Given that the site will most likely be used for low density residential use there must be the consideration for the environmental risk to the of flora and fauna within the site. The exposure concentrations for most contaminants investigated are lower than the average screening criteria, and therefore the environmental risks are likely to be acceptably low. The only significant potential contamination remaining on site is in relation to TPH and BTEXs.

The expected depth to the groundwater is considered to be below the level of the contamination identified on site. This fact aligned with the stiff underlying silty clay at approximately ?.Om below the surface means that it is considered that the quality of groundwater beneath the site is unlikely to be impacted by the former use of the site.

Therefore it is considered that the risks to any groundwater system will be low due to the fact that no groundwater was identified in the contaminated layer, the area of contamination was formerly covered by concrete and asphalt thereby reducing stormwater intrusion, the underlying stiff clay retarding vertical migration and the elutriation testing completed for lead on the only contaminated area not covered recorded to be low.

ADEQUACY OF IN FORMATION Subject to the concerns flagged in the preceding sections the information in the reports outlined in Section 7 concerning:

site history;

field activities; and,

quality control data for laboratory work

soil contamination investigation methods and data;

Hyder Consulting 5658/VR3584.001 20 of 45

McRoads Property Services Division 19

8.0



appears to be of adequate quality for the purpose of this Audit. However, it is considered that due to the evolution of the site assessment work and the operational practices used, the following items are considered below the usual standard suitable for the Audit process

validation sampling data;

0 quality control data for field investigations

Nevertheless it is considered that the incremental fashion in which the remediation was undertaken with excavation and validation incorporating the use of a PID to target the areas of highest VOC contamination and the chasing of observed layers of contamination means that we are confident that the field observation information provided by Beveridge Williams is adequate to form a reliable opinion of the contamination status of the site. Therefore it is considered that there is sufficient data to allow the completion of this Audit report.

CON CLUSl ON S

It is not appropriate to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit for any beneficial use because:

0 We cannot verify that BTEX concentrations everywhere within the site are below criteria which are protective both of human health and aesthetic values as there is no final validation results to confirm the satisfactory remediation of Domain B with respect to xylene and ethyl benzene. There is therefore the potential for odours both within buildings in this area of the site and temporarily during exposure by excavation. These could also pose unacceptable risks to human health in confined spaces.

0 There is no evidence to show that the lead contamination identified at the rear of the residence was fully delineated beneath the garage to the east of the excavation. Thereby leaving the potential for this lead contamination to still be present beneath the structure.

The lack of sufficient Quality Assurance and Quality Control data to fully verify the accuracy of the results obtained,

Therefore we cannot confirm that &soil at this site is suitable for all beneficial uses.

However, because the average concentrations across the site are considered acceptably low, the fact that volatilisation would have reduced the recorded BTEX concentrations to some degree and that the areas of the site affected are very small, it is considered that it is conditionally suitable for residential use. As such, the site merits the conditional Statement of Audit which is attached to and forms part of this report. The conditions are as follows:

Hyder Consulting 5658A.fR3584.001 21 of 45

9.0




any soil excavated from the site must be sampled and disposed off site in accordance with EPA Guidelines. (Note that if further sampling next to or under the garage and next to the house convinces the Auditor that the soil in this area is not contaminated with metals or OC's respectively then this condition can be removed)

Any building on Domain B (as shown in the attached figure to the Statement of Environmental Audit) must be constructed with adequate precautions to prevent the occurrence of odours from VOC's within the building, unless additional sampling in the areas of V206, V302 and V307 convinces an Auditor that this cannot happen. (Note that if further sampling in the areas of V206, V302, V303 and V307 convinces an Auditor that such sources no longer exist, then this condition can be removed).

LI MITATI 0 N 5 This report represents a review of certain information relating to the site located at 30 Moore Street, Apollo Bay, Victoria, that was obtained from the sources and contacts noted by methods described in this report. While Hyder has used reasonable care to avoid reliance upon data and information that is inaccurate, Hyder was not able to verify the accuracy or completeness of all data and information available to Hyder. Our conclusions presented herein are based on the information available to us during our investigation, and some of those conclusions could be different if the information upon which they are based is determined to be false, inaccurate, or incomplete. Hyder makes no legal representations whatsoever concerning any matter including, but not limited to, ownership of any property or the interpretation of any law. Hyder further disclaims any obligations to update the report for events taking place after the time during which we conducted our assessment.

HYDER CONSULTING (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD

N.J. Withers

Environmental Auditor - Contaminated Land

Term of Appointment: 1991 - 1/2/98

Hyder Consulting 5658/VR3584.001

~

22 of 45




REFERENCES

ANZECC & NHMRC, 1992. 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.

EPA Bulletin No. 448, 1996. Classification of Wastes. Environment Protection Authority, Victoria.

Beveridge Williams "Report on Contamination Assessment Remediation Measures and Validation Testing 30 Moore Street, Apollo Bay", December 1996


Beveridge Williams Facsimile Re:30 Moore Street, Apollo Bay, dated 16/01/97


Hyder Consulting (Australia) F'ty Ltd 75-79 Chetwynd Street North Melbourne VIC 3051

Tel: +61 (0) 3 9329 7600 Fax: +61 (0) 3 9329 6627

Consulting

ENWONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970, SECTION 57AA STATEMENT OF ENWRONmNTAIL AUDIT

I, h? J. Withers of Hyder Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd, a person appointed by the Environment Protection Authority ("The Authority") under the Environment Protection Act 1970 ("the Act") as an environmental auditor for the purposes of the Act, having:

1. been requested by Mr Ian McKenzie of Beveridge Williams & Co Pty Ltd on behalf of VicRoads Property Services Division to perform an environmental audit in relation to the land located at 30 Moore Street, Apollo Bay, Victoria, being as defined in Certificate of Title (Volume 2177 Folio 435305 and Volume 2421 Folio 484080).

2. had regard to, amongst other things:

(1) (ii) (iii)

guidelines issued by the Authority for the purposes of Section 57AA of the Act; the beneficial uses that may be made of the land at the site, relevant State environment protection policieshdustrial waste management policies, namely;

o

0

o

0

o

0

EPA Information Bulletin "Guidelines for Environmental Auditors, Contaminated Land, Issue of Certificate of Environmental Audit", Wh491/14 May 1992. EPA Information Bulletin "Classification of Wastes", Pub. 448, September 1995 EPA Explanatory Notes "Enviroiuneutal Auditor System Contaminated Land", WM90/04, May 1992. ANZECC "Australian Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites", January 1992. EPA Publication 288 "Draft SEPP (Groundwaters of Victoria)",October 1994. ANZECC "Guidelines for the Laboratory Analysis of Coritaminated Soils"

(iv) (v)

various reports relating to the condition of the site prior to remediation; and tlie results of validation analysis of the site after remediation works were completed.

in making a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of the relevant segment at the site by any industrial process or activity, waste or substance (including any chemical substance); and

3. completed an environmental audit report in accordance with Section 57AA(2) of the Act, a copy of which has been sent to the Authority.

HEREBY STATE that I am of the opinion that the condition of the land at the site is not suitable for a Certificate of Audit for the reasons described in the attached report, but is conditionally suitable for residential use. The conditions are as follows:

0U.I l t" Endorsod Cornpa"" To be r e d iri corrjurictiori with Repot? 5 6 5 8 f i W ~ g d ~ a r g o n Chapman. Page1 -DD-

Registered office: AlDC Tower, Level 19, 201 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000. Registered in Australia ACN OOO 579 046. A Hyder company. 2"" 24 of 45

1. Any soil excavated from the “site” must be sampled and disposed off site in accordance with EPA Guidelines.

2. As there possibly remains weak localised sources of Ethyl Benzene and Xylene odours in the vicinity of locations V206, V302, V303 and V307, any building on Domain B (as shown in the attached figure to the Statement of Environmental Audit) must incorporate precautions to prevent such odours from entering the building.

Dated:

Signed: N. J. Withers of Hyder Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITOR

To be read it1 coiljrrnctiorr with Report 5658NR3584.001 Page 2 25 of 45

12.0 I

- T

1 I 17.8 m

GRASSED

16 A R E A

. P O S S I B L E D R U M STORAGE AREA ASPHALT BUNKER

\

SPRAY 8 CHIP SEAL SURFACED AREA

HYDER CONSULTING PTY LTD

PATROLf l AN'S

R E S I D E N C E

Location Plan of Domain A and

Domain B

r

Date: Jaluary, 1997

LOT 15

Project: 5658 Drawn by: HM

L P i i 1 I

I

I G R A S S E D A R E A

I EA

L

DOMAIN A

Area2.460d . I

I I I I

I I

I PARKING

I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

, I ' I

I --

MOO RE STREET

Consulting

I 1 I I

26 of 45

FIGURES

27 of 45

SEE HIRE

Figure: 1

Hyder HYDER ENVIRONMENTAL

:

Site Location

Date: January 1997

Consulting

Project: 5658 Drawmi by:HM

I I I I

28 of 45

LOT 1s

I

i G R A S S E D A R E A

MOORE

> 5 W > I a n -

G R A S S E D

LOT 16 A R E A

STREET

\- AREA OF BACK FllLED EXCAVATIONS k

Figure: 2


Consulting

Date: January, 1997

I

Current Site Layout Plan

Project: 5G58 Drawn by: HM

I

29 of 45

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

. . . . .

. . . . . .

. -.- .....

Figure: 3

Hyder HYDER CONSULTING PTY LTD 9 Consulting

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

VicRoads Patrol Depot Plan 1979

- . . . . . *.'. . . . . :-. . . .

-I-

I

~ ~~~ I Date: January, 1997 I Project: 5658 1 Drawn by: HM

L I I 30 of 45

I APOLLO BAY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

Figure: 4

Date: January, 1997

,

Apollo Bay Sewerage Ardhority Plan

1974


Sewemge Area No ....... L ............ Detail Plan No ......_. P ..........

PLAN OF DRAINAGE FOR

Drainage Plan No .... J.J ............

............................... C.a.un.t ~ , y .... A.Q.G.~J .... B.a.er.d ...& c.L~&o) ...........................

J.O.-.Mo..a.Ke ...... Jlt.cr.c=.t ............................................................

RPKRENCE B.T.-Boundary Trap S . T . d i l t Trap E.V.-Educt Vent D.T.-Disconnector Trap C.1.P.-Cast Iron Pipe 1.V.-Induct Vent G.T.-Gully Trap G.D.T.-GuUy Dieconnector Trap S.P.D.-Stoneware Pipe Drain S.V.P.-Soil Vent Pipe G.I.T.-Grease Interceptor Trap G.S.T.-GuUy Silt Trap S.V.-Stop Valve

G.W.1.P.-Galv. Wrought Iron Pipe S.I.V.P.-Soil Induct Vent Pipe

1 / . 9 .

d1.6 A ........

4. 7, ... ....

--_._._

C.P.D.-Concrete Pipe Drain 1.C.-Inspection Chamber

T.1.T.-Triple Interceptor Trnp

1.0.-Inspection Opening (E= By-law8 A. B. S. A . R.V.--Relief Vent and Oenernl CondltloM of Contract1

Scale 40 feet to I inch

J 0 - 7 ....

...........

Examined .................................................................... .... @&&&-.~-.-&d$ ................. Engineer

Hyder HYDER CONSULTLNG PTY LTD

Consulting

I I I

31 of 45

I’”i

Figure: 5

Date: January, 1997

BJNDID CeCKETE- S ‘AB3 - ---I

- - - - {OVERHEAD

TANK AREA)

POSSIBLE D R U M \ 1

Sitc Plan, as of tlic start of Site Assessment Works 1995

Projcct: 5658 Drawn by: HM

C 0 NC R ET E S L A B

0 LD BUILDINGS I

/

STORAGE AREA ASPHALT BUNKER

SPRAY 8 C H l P . S E A L SURFACE0 AREA

h -k& GARAGE

G R A S S E D AREA U I

I

I i

PATROLMAN’S

R E SIDENCE

I LOT 15

G R A S S E D A R E A I

MOORE

REA

L

Hyder v HYDER CONSULTING PTY LTD

Consulting

I PARKING

I I I I r

I I ? I I I I I I I I --

I GRASSED

’I6 A R E A

STREET

I I I

32 of 45

I I LL--

BH2 \

BH 18

. BH 8

I \-\--\-

.-\- Extent of Excavations 14 - 17 No

HYDER ENVIRONMENTAL

33 of 45

n \*Y5

\ BH2

c \- -

I I

i

i i i i i i i .i i i i

BH I8

BH 8

November 1995 J3yDER ENVIRONMENTAL

c o d l i n g

34 of 45

C

I H Y Q HYDER ENVIRONMENTAL

‘1 i i i i i i i i i i i i BH2 \

BH 18

,

35 of 45

POSSIBLE \

Figure: 9

Date: January, 1997

I D R U M

Location Pian of Domain A and

Domain B


STORAGE AREA ASPHALT BUNKER

SPRAY 8 CHIP SEAL SURFACED A R E A

W A S H D O W N S L A B

'1 - I

hi G R A S S E D AREA L

PAT RO L M AN' s R E S I D E N C E

I AREA

LOT 15 G R A S S E D A R E A

MOORE


Consulting

DOMAIN A

Area2.460 nii

I I I I

I I

I PARKING

I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

, I ' I

I --

GRASSED

STREET

I I I

36 of 45

TABLES

37 of 45

Table 2 : Slte Asscssment nnd Validution Roultr (uncscavnted soils - whole site)

38 of 45

Tablc 38 : Final Conccntmtions of Contaminants Remaining on site alter Rcmrdiation - DOMAIN A

Table 3b : Final Concentratlonr of Contaminants Remaining on rlte aflcr Remediation - DOhiAIN B

39 of 45

Table I : Laboratory Quality Control Data

40 of 45

APPENDIX A

Certificates of Title

41 of 45

42 of 45

43 of 45

. . \

' E - , .---

. . . . .. .I

44 of 45

*' MEMORIALS OF T.NSTRUTENTS. s

era or' A h i n i n t r a t i o a o f hia estate have

#;ranted to WILLIAM LESLIE CAhlrEy of Yea C o l a c Fiarmar

i

27066 t I

I 1 , - _ .

' I i

- . !

I

i -f

'

45 of 45