ealth Infrastructure - Cobar Shire Council · PP Corporat PP Project N ... EFINITION > D r Ho th In...

G

A

A

06

app

S

CH

a

Gateway P

APP Corporat

APP Project N

6 June 2017

p.com.au

STRATEGY > D

CobaHeal

pp.com.au

lanning Pr

tion Pty Limi

Number:

DEFINITION > D

ar Hoth In

roposal Su

ited

DELIVERY > TR

ospitnfrast

ubmission

RANSITION

tal Pltruct

lannture

ing PPropposal

Co

Executive S

1. Summ

2. Back

3. The S

4. Obje

5. Expla

6. Justif

7. Map

8. Com

9. Proje

10. Appe

Figures

Figure 1 : SFigure 2: Co

nte

Summary

mary of Pro

kground

Site

ectives or In

anation of P

fication

ping

munity Con

ected Timef

endices

Site Location obar LEP 201

ent

oposal

tended Out

Provisions

nsultation

frame

Plan ............12 Zoning M

s

tcomes

....................ap ................

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

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

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

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

Gateway Plan

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

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

ning Proposal |Coba

.......... 5

.......... 6

ar Hospital| 2

1

2

3

4

7

8

9

18

19

20

21

Gateway Pla

Name

Position

Address

In respect o

Proponent

Applicant ad

Site Legal D

Signature

Name

Date Reviewed:

Signature

Name

Date

anning Propo

of

ddress

Description:

osal Report p

Anthony W

Senior Tow

APP Corpo

116 Miller

2060

Cobar Hosp

Health Infr

14/77 Pac

North Syd

Lot 102 D

Cobar

Anthony W

06 June 20

Peter Allen

06 June 20

prepared by

Williams

wn Planner

oration Pty Lt

Street, Nort

pital

rastructure

ific Highway,

ney NSW 20

DP615721, 2

Williams (Sen

017

n (Project Di

017

td

th Sydney NS

,

60

2 Nullamut S

nior Planner)

rector)

SW

Street

)

Gateway Planning Proposal |Cobaar Hospital| 3

Executi

This plannin

Planning an

proposed a

facilities a la

This plannin

Cobar at Lo

Cobar Hosp

Aged Care F

conjunction

suitable and

The site is lo

listed as a la

The effect o

permitted w

Given the d

predicted th

Density Res

Support of

way for a

improved le

consistent w

Plan 2036 a

As provided

by Council.

ive Sum

ng proposal h

nd Assessme

amendment

and use whic

ng proposal

ot 102 DP61

pital Facility,

Facility. Deta

n with the W

d appropriat

ocated in the

and use whic

of this plann

with consent

demographic

hat the plan

sidential Zon

this planning

developmen

evels of hea

with the goa

and in the pu

d in this repo

mmary

has been pre

ent Act 197

to the Cob

ch is ‘permit

is required

15721, 2 Nul

adjoins the C

ailed and co

Western NSW

e location fo

e R2 Low De

ch is permitt

ning proposa

t across all l

c profile of

ning propos

e in Cobar.

g proposal w

nt applicatio

alth care to

als and direc

ublic interest

ort, the plan

epared to ad

79. It expla

ar Local Env

ted with con

to facilitate

lamut Stree

Cobar Ambu

mprehensive

W Local Hea

or the replace

nsity Reside

ed with cons

al would see

and zoned R

the commu

sal will impac

will be of sign

on to be su

the commu

ctions conta

.

nning propos

ddress the pr

ains the int

vironmental

nsent’ in the

the constru

t Cobar. Th

ulance Statio

e planning u

alth District

ement hospi

ntial Zone, u

sent in the z

e health ser

R2 Low Den

nity and po

ct upon the

nificant bene

ubmitted fo

nity. As su

ined in the

sal has strate

rovisions of S

ended effec

Plan (LEP)

R2 Low Den

uction of a re

his site is in

n and contai

ndertaken b

has identifie

ital facility.

under which

one, and is c

vices facilitie

sity Residen

opulation pro

established

efit to the Sh

r a new ho

ch the plann

recently exh

egic merit an

Section 55 of

ct of, and ju

2012 to ma

sity Resident

eplacement

close proxim

ns the Lillian

y Health Infr

ed this site

health servic

consequently

es become a

tial under th

ojections for

mix of land

hire of Coba

ospital facilit

ning proposa

hibited Draft

nd is expecte

Gateway Plan

f the Environ

ustification

ake health s

tial Zone.

hospital fac

mity to the

ne Brady Reg

rastructure N

as being th

ces facilities

y a prohibite

a land use w

he Cobar LE

r the LGA, it

uses in the

ar as it will p

ty which wi

al is though

t Far West R

ed to be sup

ning Proposal |Coba

nmental

for the

services

cility for

existing

gistered

NSW, in

he most

are not

d use.

which is

P 2012.

t is not

R2 Low

ave the

ill offer

ht to be

Regional

pported

ar Hospital| 1

1. Sum

Proposal:

Property De

Applicant D

Relevant Pl

mmary o

etails:

Details:

anning Auth

of Propo

Ame

hea

with

Whi

Den

Lot

Hea

hority: Cob

osal

end Cobar Lo

lth services

hin the R2 Lo

ile the requ

nsity Residen

102 DP6157

alth Infrastru

bar Shire Cou

ocal Environ

facilities to

ow Density R

uested amen

ntial, the app

21, 2 Nullam

cture c/o AP

uncil

mental Plan

be included

Residential zo

ndment will

plicant’s inte

mut Street Co

PP Corporatio

(CLEP) 2012

d as ‘permis

one of the CL

affect all la

rest is specif

obar

on Pty Ltd

Gateway Plan

2 in order to

ssible with c

LEP 2012

and zoned

fically in rela

ning Proposal |Coba

enable

onsent’

R2 Low

ation to

ar Hospital| 2

2. Bac

This plannin

amend the

be included

Zone of the

Should this

consider an

hospital ove

ckgroun

ng proposal

Cobar Local

d as developm

CLEP 2012.

s planning p

nd determin

er part of Lot

d

is made to

Environmen

ment which

proposal pro

ne a develop

t 102 DP615

Cobar Shire

ntal Plan (CL

is ‘permissib

oceed and t

pment applic

721, 2 Nulla

e Council, as

LEP) 2012 in

ble with con

the CLEP 20

cation for a

mut Street C

s the relevan

order to ena

sent’ within

012 amende

new health

Cobar.

nt planning

able health s

the R2 Low

d, it will al

h services fa

Gateway Plan

authority (R

services faci

Density Res

low for Cou

acility comp

ning Proposal |Coba

RPA), to

lities to

idential

uncil to

rising a

ar Hospital| 3

3. The

Address

Land Title

Site Area

Description

Surrounding

Local Gover

Land Use Zo

Figure 1 sho

context of t

e Site

g Land Uses

rnment Area

one

ows the con

the relevant

2 N

Lo

1.5

Th

Nu

th

be

lan

be

ac

im

fe

we

va

72

ho

A

Ap

Th

im

th

of

an

Sh

R2

text of the s

land use zon

Nullamut Str

ot 102, DP615

503 Hectares

he subject si

ullamut Stree

e site is occ

een predom

ndscaped ar

eds. The

commodate

mprovements

ncing. The s

estern corne

cant, portio

200m2. This

ospital.

topographic

ppendix A.

he existing

mmediate sou

e northern s

Woodiwiss

nd does not a

hire of Cobar

2 Low Densit

site in relatio

nes.

reet Cobar

5721

s

ite is rectang

et and Wood

upied by a n

minantly cle

reas and am

southern

e the propos

s limited to

site falls from

er towards W

on of the s

part of the s

cal and deta

Cobar Hos

uth of the si

side of Nulla

Avenue. La

appear to be

r

y Residentia

on to its surr

gular in sha

diwiss Avenu

nursing hom

eared of v

menity trees.

portion of

ed facility is

two dirt t

m a small kn

Woodiwiss A

ite has an

site would a

ail survey of

pital is situ

ite. Residen

amut Street a

nd to the we

e utilised for

l Zone

rounds, while

pe and has

ue. The nort

me (RAC) faci

vegetation a

The RAC

the site,

heavily veg

racks and m

oll situated i

Avenue. Th

area of ap

ccommodate

the site is

uated on la

ntial land is f

and on the e

est is densel

any particula

e Figure 2 sh

Gateway Plan

frontage to

thern half of

ility and has

aside from

contains 34

which will

getated with

metal panel

in the south

he southern,

proximately

e the future

provided at

and to the

found along

eastern side

ly vegetated

ar purpose.

hows the site

ning Proposal |Coba

e in the

ar Hospital| 4

Figure 1 : Site

Source: Sixm

Existin

e Location Plan

aps

ng Hospital

PropoHealtFacili

Gateway Plan

osed Cobar th Services ity

ning Proposal |Cobaar Hospital| 5

Figure 2: Cob

ar LEP 2012 Zooning Map

Subject Site

Gateway Planning Proposal |Coba

ar Hospital| 6

4. Obj

The intent

services fac

the replace

jectives

of this plan

cility compris

ment hospit

or Inte

nning propos

sing a hospit

al facility, a g

nded O

sal is to ena

tal. While th

general arra

utcome

able the site

his planning

ngements pl

es

e to be deve

proposal wi

lan is provide

eloped for t

ll not result

ed at Append

Gateway Plan

the use of a

in any appro

dix B.

ning Proposal |Coba

a health

oval for

ar Hospital| 7

5. Exp

In order to

‘health serv

The propos

facility, and

The propos

including 2

Zone

1 Ob

•

en

•

re

2 Pe

En

3 Pe

Be

id

ho

Ho

wo

re

4 Pr

Ho

de

The definiti

and is provi

healt

relati

perso

follow

(a) a

(b) co

(c) he

(d) p

(e) h

planatio

achieve the

vices facilitie

sal would al

would rema

ed amendm

Nullamut Str

R2 Low De

bjectives of z

To provide

nvironment.

To enable o

esidents.

ermitted with

nvironmenta

ermitted with

ed and brea

dentification s

omes; Group

ome industr

orship; Recre

ecreation stru

rohibited

ostels; Resid

evelopment n

on of a healt

ided below:

th services f

ing to the m

ons or the pr

wing:

a medical cen

ommunity he

ealth consult

patient transp

ospital.

n of Pro

e intended o

es’ as being

so remove

ain permitted

ent will appl

reet Cobar.

ensity Reside

zone

for the ho

other land us

hout consen

al protection

h consent

kfast accom

signs; Comm

p homes; He

ries; Home o

eation areas

uctures; Wat

dential flat b

not specified

th services fa

facility mea

maintenance

revention of d

ntre,

ealth service

ting rooms,

port facilities

ovisions

utcome, it is

‘permitted w

‘health cons

d with conse

y to all land

The propose

ential

using needs

es that prov

nt

works; Home

mmodation; B

munity faciliti

alth consulti

occupations

s; Recreation

ter reticulatio

buildings; Ru

d in item 2 or

acility is prov

ns a buildin

e or improve

disease in or

e facilities,

s, including h

s proposed t

with consen

sulting room

ent in the zon

zoned R2 Lo

ed amendme

s of the com

vide facilities

e‐based child

Boarding hou

ies; Dwelling

ing rooms; H

(sex service

n facilities (ou

on systems

ural workers

r 3

vided in the

ng or place

ement of th

r treatment o

helipads and

that the CLE

nt’ in the R2

ms’ as these

ne.

ow Density R

ent is shown

mmunity wi

or services t

d care; Home

uses; Buildin

g houses; Env

Health Servic

s); Neighbou

utdoor); Resi

s’ dwellings;

dictionary a

used to pro

he health, or

of injury to p

d ambulance f

P 2012 be a

Low Densit

are a type

esidential w

in red below

ithin a low

to meet the d

e occupation

ng identificat

vironmental f

ces Facilities,

urhood shop

idential acco

; Shop top h

ppended to t

ovide medica

r the restora

persons, and

facilities,

Gateway Plan

amended to

ty Residentia

of health s

within the CLE

w:

density res

day to day n

ns; Roads

tion signs; B

facilities; Ex

s, Home busi

ps; Places of

ommodation;

housing; An

the Cobar LE

al or other s

ration to he

d includes any

ning Proposal |Coba

include

al Zone.

services

EP 2012,

idential

needs of

Business

hibition

inesses;

f public

; Water

y other

EP 2012

services

alth, of

y of the

ar Hospital| 8

6. Jus

In accordan

Proposals th

Nee

Rela

Env

Stat

6.1. The N

6.1.1. Is the

No, the pla

developmen

use rights d

6.1.2. Is theis the

Yes, includi

the best op

specific site

Nullamut St

It is unlikel

Cobar or e

Environmen

the LGA it is

Other optio

Rezoni

would

subject

Applica

permit

hospita

6.2. Relatio

6.2.1. Is theapplicaexhibit

There is no

tificatio

nce with th

his section p

ed for the pla

ationship to

vironmental,

te and Comm

Need for The

e Planning Pr

nning propo

nt of a new

o not apply.

e planning pere a better w

ng hospitals

ption to achi

e or area, but

treet Cobar.

y for this pl

lsewhere in

ntal Planning

s not predict

ons that were

ng the land

not allow fo

t site. This o

ation of Sch

tted use on t

al required e

onship to str

e planning pable regionated draft stra

regional or s

on

e Departme

rovides a res

anning propo

strategic pla

social and e

monwealth in

e Planning Pr

roposal a res

osal is prepar

hospital faci

roposal the way?

as a permis

ieve the inte

t would allow

lanning prop

the LGA as

g Policy (Infr

ted that ther

e considered

to a zone in

or any future

option would

hedule 1 to

the land. On

expansion in

rategic plann

roposal consl or sub‐regiategies)?

sub‐regional

ent of Plann

sponse to th

osal;

anning frame

economic imp

nterests.

roposal

sult of any s

red in respon

lity on land w

best means

ssible use wit

ended outco

w for the fut

posal to resu

s hospitals a

rastructure)

e will be dem

d and discoun

n which hos

expansion o

d require furt

enable hea

nce again thi

the future.

ning framew

sistent with ional strateg

strategy app

ning and En

e following c

ework;

pact;

strategic stud

nse to a req

which curre

of achieving

thin the R2

ome, as this

ture growth

ult in an inc

are already

2007. Furth

mand for ano

nted include

pitals are pe

of the hospit

ther rezoning

alth services

s option wo

work

the objectivgy (including

plying to the

vironment’s

consideratio

dy or report

uest by Hea

ntly prohibit

g the objecti

Low Density

option does

of the hosp

crease in new

permitted w

hermore give

other hospit

e:

ermitted. Th

al beyond th

g to accomm

facilities to

uld require a

ves and actiog the Sydney

e Shire of Cob

‘Guide to

ns:

lth Infrastru

ts this use an

ves or inten

y Residential

s not restrict

ital beyond t

w hospitals

within other

en the popu

al within the

his option w

he immediate

modate expan

o be include

a further LEP

ons containe Metropolita

bar.

Gateway Plan

Preparing P

cture to ena

nd to which

ded outcom

Zone is con

t permissibil

the boundar

in the town

zones unde

ulation forec

e Cobar LGA.

was discount

e boundarie

nsion in the

ed as an ad

P amendmen

ed within thean Strategy

ning Proposal |Coba

Planning

able the

existing

mes, or

sidered

ity to a

ries of 2

nship of

er State

asts for

ed as it

s of the

future.

ditional

nt if the

e and

ar Hospital| 9

The Draft Fa

the Departm

Draft FWRP

The Draft F

disbursed r

including th

demands o

sectors. Th

providing a

changing he

Notwithstan

communitie

of adequate

access to lo

Health includin

With specif

Opporthealth local em

This plannin

form of a h

community

It is eviden

contained in

6.2.2. Is thelocal st

The Cobar

communitie

the agreed

The CCSP 20

the provisio

the CCSP 20

the importa

ar West Reg

ment of Plan

P 2036.

FWRP seeks

region over

he mining lif

on the healt

his places a

a contempo

ealth needs o

nding the d

es and recog

e health serv

ocal health an

services in tng Aborigina

ic reference

tunities existfacilities to pmployment.

ng proposal

ealth service

.

t that the p

n the draft F

e planning ptrategic plan

Community

es through id

directions pr

025 lists hav

on of approp

025 notes th

ance of Coun

ional Plan (F

nning And En

to provide

a 20 year ti

fecycle. The

th, aged car

greater emp

rary model

of the health

draft status

gnises that b

vices facilitie

nd aged care

the Far Westal communiti

to Cobar, th

t in Broken Hprovide comp

will provide

es facility to

planning pro

WRP 2036.

roposal consn?

Strategic Pla

dentifying th

rovided with

ving a health

priate health

at the respo

ncil and comm

WRP) 2036 w

nvironment is

a strategic f

meframe an

e plan also re

re, educatio

phasis on pr

of care, in

h service catc

of the Pla

uilding comm

es. This is fu

e. The draft

t need to be ties, people w

e draft FWR

Hill, Bourke anplementary h

e the necess

replace the

posal is con

sistent with

an (CCSP) 20

he outcomes

hin the plan a

y and active

care option

onsibility for

munity supp

was recently

s now consid

framework t

nd recognise

ecognises th

on and train

roviding hea

strategic lo

chment.

an, Goal 3

munity resili

urther reflect

FWRP 2036

tailored to mwith a disabil

P 2036 state

nd Cobar to health servic

sary mechan

existing Cob

sistent with

the local co

025 identifie

s and long te

and meet the

e community

ns and servic

this lies with

port.

y placed on e

dering subm

to manage g

es the factor

hat demogra

ning and pu

lth services

ocations acr

seeks to p

ence and ca

ted in Direct

states that:

meet the needlity, young pe

es that:

leverage invces that mee

ism to allow

bar hospital

the relevan

uncil’s Comm

es the long‐t

erm strategi

e community

y as a key co

es within the

h the NSW S

exhibition. It

issions made

growth and

rs affecting

phic change

blic and co

facilities, wh

oss the reg

provide stro

pacity will re

ion 17, whic

ds of remoteeople and fa

vestment in eet community

w for further

that will me

nt goals, dire

munity Strat

term aspirat

c responses

y's values an

mmunity ou

e Shire and s

tate Govern

Gateway Plann

t is understo

e in response

resources a

population c

es will also in

mmunity tra

hich are cap

gion to serv

ng and con

ely on the pr

ch seeks to i

e communitieamilies.

existing publiy need and s

r investment

eet the needs

ections and

tegic Plan, o

tions for the

needed to

nd expectatio

utcome. In te

surrounding

ment, whilst

ing Proposal |Cobar

ood that

e to the

across a

change,

ncrease

ansport

pable of

vice the

nnected

rovision

mprove

es,

ic upport

t in the

s of the

actions

r other

Shire’s

achieve

ons.

erms of

region,

t noting

r Hospital| 10

This plannin

provide app

to be consis

6.2.3. Is the

Consistency

below:

Table 1 – Co

State Env

Planning P

SEPP No

Developme

SEPP No. 1

Wetlands

SEPP No.

Landsharing

Communitie

SEPP No .1

in Urban Ar

SEPP No. 2

Parks

SEPP No 2

Rainforests

SEPP No. 2

Sydney Rec

SEPP No 30

Agriculture

SEPP No

Consolidatio

SEPP No. 33

Developme

SEPP No

Manufactur

Estates

SEPP No. 39

Bird Habitat

SEPP No.

Habitat Pro

SEPP No. 47

Showgroun

ng proposal

propriate hea

stent with th

e planning p

y of the plan

onsideration

vironmental

Policy (SEPP)

o. 1

nt Standards

14 – Coasta

15 – Rura

g

es

9 – Bushlan

reas

21 – Carava

26 – Littora

29 – Wester

reation Area

0 – Intensiv

32 – Urba

on

3 – Hazardou

nt

o. 36

red Hom

9 – Spit Islan

t

44 – Koal

tection

7 – More Par

d

is seen to

alth care opt

he CCSP 2025

roposal cons

ning proposa

n of State En

)

Applicab

(Y/N)

–

s

N

al N

al N

nd N

an N

al N

rn

as

N

ve N

an N

us N

–

me

N

nd N

la N

rk N

be a steppi

tions for the

5.

sistent with

al with State

nvironmenta

ble Consist

(Y/N

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

ng stone, in

e community

applicable s

e Environmen

l Planning P

tent

N)

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

nitiated by t

y. As such, th

state environ

ntal Planning

olicies

Comments

the NSW Sta

he planning

nmental plan

g Policies is o

/ Justificatio

Gateway Plann

ate Governm

proposal is t

nning policie

outlined in th

on

ing Proposal |Cobar

ment to

thought

es?

he table

r Hospital| 11

State Env

Planning P

SEPP No.

Estate Deve

SEPP No.

Dams and

in Land

Manageme

SEPP No

Remediatio

SEPP No 5

Western

Regional Op

SEPP No

Sustainable

SEPP No

Advertising

SEPP No.

vironmental

Policy (SEPP)

50 – Cana

elopment

52 – Farm

other work

and Wate

nt Plan Area

o. 55

n of Land

59 – Centra

Sydne

pen Space

o. 62

e Aquaculture

o. 64

and Signage

65 – Desig

)

Applicab

(Y/N)

al N

m

ks

er

s

N

– Y

al

ey

N

–

e

N

–

e

N

gn N

ble Consist

(Y/N

N/A

N/A

Y

N/A

N/A

N

N/A

tent

N)

A

A

Clause

plann

an

instru

purpo

plann

wheth

and if

the

conta

suitab

A

invest

with

mana

prepa

105

Mana

Reme

prepa

conclu

comm

Hospi

A cop

Appe

A

A

A

Comments

e 6 of SEPP

ing authorit

environm

ument, not i

ose of a h

ing authori

her the lan

f contaminat

land is

minated s

ble after rem

preliminary

tigation, pre

the co

gement p

ared in acco

of the Co

agement Act

ediation of

ared. Th

ude that the

mercial land

ital.

py of this re

ndix C.

/ Justificatio

P 55 require

ty, when p

mental p

nclude land

hospital unl

ity has con

d is contam

ted be satisf

suitable

tate, or w

mediation.

y contam

pared in acc

ntaminated

lanning gu

rdance with

ontaminated

1997 and SE

Land ha

hese invest

e site is suit

use in the fo

eport is prov

Gateway Plann

on

es that a

preparing

planning

d for the

less the

nsidered

minated,

fied that

in its

will be

mination

cordance

lands

uidelines

h Section

d Lands

EPP 55 –

s been

tigations

table for

orm of a

vided at

ing Proposal |Cobarr Hospital| 12

State Env

Planning P

Quality of

Apartment

Developme

SEPP No

Affordable

(Revised Sch

SEPP No. 7

Protection

SEPP (Affor

Housing) 20

SEPP

Sustainabili

BASIX) 2004

SEPP (Ex

Complying

Codes) 2008

SEPP (H

Seniors and

a Disability)

SEPP (In

2007

SEPP (Kurne

1989

SEPP

Developme

SEPP (Minin

Production

Extractive

2007

SEPP (M

Consent

2007

SEPP (Pe

Scheme) 19

SEPP (Rural

SEPP (State

Developme

SEPP (Sydn

Water Catch

SEPP (Syd

Growth Cen

vironmental

Policy (SEPP)

f Residentia

nt

o. 70

Housin

hemes)

71 – Coasta

rdable Renta

009

(Buildin

ty Index

4

xempt an

Developmen

8

ousing fo

d People wit

) 2004

nfrastructure

ell Peninsula

(Majo

nt) 2005

ng, Petroleum

an

Industries

Miscellaneou

Provisions

nrith Lake

989

Lands) 2008

and Regiona

nt) 2008

ney Drinkin

hment) 2011

dney Regio

ntres) 2006

)

Applicab

(Y/N)

al

–

ng

N

al N

al N

ng

x:

N

nd

nt

N

or

th

N

e) N

a) N

or N

m

nd

s)

N

us

s)

N

es N

8 N

al N

ng

1

N

on N

ble Consist

(Y/N

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

tent

N)

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Comments / Justificatio

Gateway Plann

on


State Env

Planning P

SEPP (Three

SEPP (Urba

2010

SEPP (Wes

Employmen

SEPP (Wes

Parklands) 2

6.2.4. Is the

Consistencybelow:

Table 2 – Se

Direction 1. Em

Res1.1 BusinesZones 1.2 Rural Zo1.3 Mining, Production Industries

1.4 Oyster A1.5 Rural La

2. EnvHer

2.1 EnvironProtection Z2.2 Coastal 2.3 Heritage2.4 RecreatAreas 2.5 Applicate3 Zones anEnvironmenFar North C

3. ResZon

3.1 Residen

vironmental

Policy (SEPP)

e Ports) 2013

an Renewa

stern Sydne

nt Area) 2009

stern Sydne

2009

e planning p

y of the plan

ection 117 D

mployment asources ss and Indust

ones Petroleum and Extractiv

Aquaculture ands vironment aritage ment

Zones Protection

e Conservatitional Vehicle

tion of e2 annd ntal Overlays

Coast LEPs sidential nes ntial Zones

)

Applicab

(Y/N)

3 N

al) N

ey

9

N

ey N

roposal cons

ning proposa

Directions

Applicand

trial N/A

N/A

ve N/A

N/A N/A

and

N/A

N/A on N/A e N/A

d

s in

N/A

Yes

ble Consist

(Y/N

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

sistent with

al with State

able Co

TheZonrescur

Yeprdere

tent

N)

A

A

A

A

applicable M

e Environmen

onsistency

e introductione will notsources on rrent list of pe

es. The rovisions whensity of laesidential use

Comments

Ministerial D

ntal Planning

on of an addit restrict ththe land toermitted use

planning pich will reducnd, but will e within the

/ Justificatio

Directions (s.

g Policies is o

tional permite potential an extent

s.

proposal wilce the permi

enable an R2 Low De

Gateway Plann

on

.117 directio

outlined in th

tted use to tdevelopme

greater tha

l not introissible reside additional

ensity Reside

ing Proposal |Cobar

ons)?

he table

he R2 ent of an the

duce ential non-

ential

r Hospital| 14

Direction

3.2 CaravanManufactureEstates 3.3 Home O3.4 Integratand Transp

3.5 DevelopLicensed Ae3.6 Shootin

4. Haz4.1 Acid Su

4.2 Mine SuUnstable La

4.3 Flood P4.4 PlanningProtection

5. RegPla

5.1 ImplemeRegional St5.2 Sydney Catchments5.3 Farmlan

n Parks and ed Home

Occupations ed Land Useort

pment Near erodromes g Ranges zard and Rislphate Soils

ubsidence anand

Prone Land g For Bushfi

gional nning entation of trategies Drinking Wa

s nd of State a

Applica

N/A

N/A e Yes

N/A

N/A sk

N/A

nd N/A

N/A re N/A

N/A

ater N/A

nd N/A

able CoZo WhoRthendeRS It lothwreCpe

Thethistran TheandThe

TheconsoiThesubMin TheTheThebee

ThiRe

onsistency one.

While this willousing stoc

Residential, thhe potentiancouraging ensity reside

Residential ZEPP Infrastr

is also notocated in thehis proposal will allow foesidential puobar, the permissible re

e planning ps direction ansport choic

e site is not d not affectee site is not i

e site and ntaining acidls on any ade site and bsidence disne Subsiden

e site has noe planning pe site and toen mapped a

is direction egional Plan 2

result in a pck on landhe proposal al reduction

health servential zones,one, which ucture (2007

ted that thee R2 Low Deseeks to pro

or the deveurposes. In planning proesidential den

proposal is coas the planes.

in close proxd by ANEF cin close prox

township od sulphate soopted acid stownship o

strict proclaimce Compens

ot been identroposal will nownship of Cas bushfire p

does not r2036.

potential red zoned R2will have a

n residentiavices facilitie, such as this a prescri

7).

e existing Coensity Resid

ovide a replaelopment of

the contextoposal will nsity in the z

onsistent withning propos

ximity to a liccontours ximity to a sh

f Cobar is oils or potenulphate soilsof Cobar ismed under sation Act 19

tified as beinnot affect flooCobar and s

prone.

relate to the

Gateway Plann

uction in exi2 Low Delesser impacal density

es within hihe R1 – Genibed zone u

obar Hospitdential Zone.cement facilf this landt of the townot reduce

zone.

h the objectisal will not

censed aerod

hooting range

not identifiential acid sus planning ms not in a section 15 o

961.

g unstable. od prone lansurrounds ha

e draft Far

ing Proposal |Cobar

sting ensity ct on

by igher neral

under

tal is . As ity, it

d for wn of the

ves of affect

drome

e.

ed as lphate aps. mine

of the

nd.. as not

West

r Hospital| 15

Direction Regional Sithe NSW Fa5.4 CommeDevelopmePacific HighCoast 5.8 Second Airport: Bad5.9 North WCorridor Str5.10 ImplemRegional Pl

6. LocMak

6.1 ApprovaRequiremen6.2 ReserviPublic Purp6.3 Site SpeProvisions

6.3. Enviro

6.3.1. Is thecomm

No. The R

permitted w

populations

6.3.2. Are tare th

No. Any sp

health servi

6.3.3. Has t

The site doe

The objecti

facility to se

the R2 Low

the quality

gnificance oar North Coa

ercial and Rent along the

hway, North

Sydney dgerys Creek

West Rail Linkrategy mentation of ans

cal Plan king al and Referrnts ng of Land fo

poses ecific

nmental Soc

ere any likelimunities, or

R2 Low Den

will not alte

s or ecologic

here any othhey propose

pecific enviro

ices facility c

the planning

es not conta

ive of the p

ervice the ne

w Density Res

and range of

Applican

ast etail N/A

k N/A

k N/A

Yes

ral N/A

or N/A

Yes

cial and Econ

ihood that ctheir habita

nsity Residen

r the likelih

al communit

her likely ened to be man

onmental ef

can be resolv

g proposal ad

in any items

planning pro

eeds of the S

sidential Zon

f health serv

able Co

TheWe

Theit wfacon.

nomic Impac

ritical habitats, will be ad

ntial Zone is

ood of any

ties or their h

vironmentanaged?

ffects associa

ved during th

dequately ad

of European

posal is to a

hire of Coba

ne, this plan

vices availabl

onsistency

e planning pest Regional

e planning pwill allow the cility) to be ca.

ct

at or threatedversely affe

s an urban

adverse affe

habitats.

l effects as a

ated with th

he assessmen

ddressed any

n or Aborigin

allow for th

ar. In making

ning propos

e to the com

roposal is coPlan 2036.

roposal is conominated laarried out in t

ened speciesected as a re

zone. The

ect on critic

a result of th

he developm

nt of a devel

y social and

nal cultural h

he developm

g health serv

al will have

mmunity.

onsistent with

onsistent withand use (heathe zone the

s, populationesult of the p

introductio

al habitat, t

he planning p

ment of 2 Nu

opment app

economic ef

eritage.

ment of a re

vices facilities

a positive im

Gateway Plann

h the Draft F

h this directioalth services e land is situa

ns or ecologiproposal?

on of an ad

threatened s

proposal and

ullamut Stree

plication.

ffects?

placement h

s a permitted

mpact by im

ing Proposal |Cobar

ar

on as

ated

ical

ditional

species,

d how

et for a

hospital

d use in

proving

r Hospital| 16

The planni

throughout

population

6.4. State a

6.4.1. Is the

The site is w

and sewer.

6.4.2. Whatwith th

No State o

carried out

ng proposa

the R2 Low

predictions f

and Common

ere adequate

within an ex

t are the viehe gateway d

r Commonw

in accordanc

l is unlikely

Density Res

for the LGA.

nwealth Inte

e public infra

isting urban

ws of State adeterminatio

wealth autho

ce with the r

y to result

idential Zone

erests

astructure fo

area and is

and Commoon?

orities have

requirement

in other h

e due to the

or the plann

adequately

onwealth pub

been consu

s of the gate

health servic

demograph

ning proposa

serviced by

blic authorit

lted at this

eway determ

ces facilities

ic profile of t

l?

utilities inclu

ties consulte

stage. Con

mination.

Gateway Plann

s being dev

the commun

uding power

ed in accorda

sultation wo

ing Proposal |Cobar

veloped

nity and

r, water

ance

ould be

r Hospital| 17

7. Ma

The plannin

apping

ng proposal ddoes not seek to amend aany maps wiithin the Cobbar LEP 2012

Gateway Plann

2


8. Com

The plannin

low impact

exhibited fo

It is not exp

of the plann

of the gatew

mmunit

ng proposal

t proposal.

or a minimum

pected that w

ning proposa

way determi

ty Consu

is described

Consequen

m 14 day per

will be any n

al. Notwiths

nation.

ultation

in the DPE

ntly, it is re

riod.

eed to form

standing this

‘A Guide to

ecommended

mally consult

s, consultatio

o Preparing L

d that the

with any age

on will take p

Local Environ

planning pr

encies prior

place if requ

Gateway Plann

nmental Plan

roposal be

to public ex

ired as a con

ing Proposal |Cobar

ns’ as a

publicly

hibition

nditions

r Hospital| 19

9. Pro

The project

Task

Issue G

Determinat

Prepare

outstanding

Studies

Consult

required

Agencies

Exhibition

planning p

and any ass

technical st

Report to

following

exhibition

Planning P

sent bac

Departmen

requesting t

draft LE

prepared.

ojected T

is expected

Pla

Ju

Gateway

tion

any

g

with

State

of

proposal

sociated

udies

Council

Proposal

ck to

t

that the

P be

Timefra

to be compl

anning Propo

une 17 J

me

leted within

osal Timeline

uly 17 Au

four months

e

ugust 17 Se

s from Gatew

ptembe

r 17

O

way Determi

ctober

17

No

Gateway Plann

ination:

ovember

17

De

ing Proposal |Cobar

ecember

17

r Hospital| 20

10. App

Site Survey

Cobar Hos

Preliminary

pendice

y

pital Gener

y Contamin

es

al Arrangem

nation Inves

ments Plan

stigations

Gateway Planning Proposal |Cobarr Hospital| 21

22

23

24

ApSite

ppSurve

peney

nddixx AA

ApCobaPlan

ppar Hon

penospita

ndal Gen

dixneral

x Bl Arra

B angemmentss

DAY - STAFF

PUBLIC CAR PARK

OUTDOOR

WAITINGBUGGY

PARKING

CARPORT

HYDRANT

TANKS

FIRE

PUMP ROOM

BREAST

SCREEN VEHICLE

OVERFLOW LHD

VEHICLES (4 MAX., UNDERCOVER)

DROP OFF

PROPOSED BOUNDARY

13000

3000

1 10

11 21

22

25

26 42

4343

PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPERTY BOUNDARY

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

NEW HOSPITAL

BUILDING

RAC

EXTENSION

RAC EXTENSION

EXISTING NURSING HOME

STAFF

ACCOMMODATION

WOODIWISS AVENUE

0 6 1042 m

© Copyright

Telephone +61 2 9003 [email protected] Holt StreetSurry HillsNSW 2010 Australiathomsonadsett.com

These drawings and designs and the copyrighttherof are the property of Thomson Adsett(NSW) Pty Ltd and must not be used, retainedor copied without written permission ofThomson Adsett (NSW) Pty Ltd. ABN 72 105314 636 Trading as ThomsonAdsett.Dimensions take precedence over scaling. Donot measure off drawings as print sizes mayvary

scale

sheet no.

project no.

revision

scale

original sheet size - A1 (594mm x 841mm)

drawn

checked

verified

date

date

date

rev date details init.

for

CLIENT

CONSULTANTS

PROJECT MANAGER

1 : 250

1

P:\B

NE\14.0204.12 - NSW HEALT

H - MPS - COBAR (SITE E)\CAD\Drawings\14.0204.12_ARCH_S

ITE_2017.rvt

5/06/2017 3:06:24 PM

2 NULLAMUNT ST, COBAR NSW2835

COBAR HEALTH

SERVICE

E-A- 0-20.01

EXTERNAL WORKS PLAN

14.0204.17

SB

NSW HEALTH DEPARTMENT

1 05/06/2017 INITIAL ISSUE SB

Draft

ApPreliInve

ppiminaestiga

penary Cotions

ndontams

dixminat

x Ction

C

Preliminary contamination investigation Proposed Multi-Purposes Services (MPS), 2 Nullamut Street, Cobar NSW

Ref: R7367 Date: 29 August 2016

Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd ABN 18 103 955 246 9 Cameron Place, PO Box 8158, Orange NSW 2800 Tel (02) 6361 4954 Fax (02) 6360 3960 Email [email protected] Web www.envirowest.net.au

Environmental Geotechnical Asbestos Services

Page 2

Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd R7367

Client: Health Infrastructure C/- APP Corporation Level 2, 426 King Street

Newcastle NSW 2300

Assessor: Andrew Ruming BSc Senior Environmental Scientist Checked by: Greg Madafiglio PhD Senior Environmental Scientist Authorising Officer: Greg Madafiglio PhD Senior Environmental Scientist Report number: R7367c

Date: 29 August 2016

Copyright © 2016 Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd. This document is copyright apart from specific uses by the client. No part may be reproduced by any process or persons without the written permission of Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. No liability is accepted for unauthorised use of the report.

Page 3


Executive summary Background A new multi-purpose services (MPS) development is proposed at 2 Nullamut Street, Cobar NSW. The MPS development will be located in a vacant area in the southern section of the lot. A preliminary contamination investigation of the MPS development site is required to determine the soil contamination status and suitability for commercial use land-use. Objectives of the investigation A preliminary site investigation was conducted in accordance with the contaminated land management planning guidelines State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (SEPP 55) to determine the soil contamination status of the MPS location at 2 Nullamut Street, Cobar NSW. Investigation and conclusions An inspection of the site was made on 3 and 4 August 2016. The investigation site is the vacant area in the southern section of the lot with an area of approximately 7,200m2. The site was heavily vegetated with native trees, shrubs and species including mallow, vetch, wild carrot and brassica. The site contained a gravel track around the perimeter and small bicycle tracks within the centre. Small soil stockpiles were located across the site. The stockpiles are expected to be residual material from on-site construction of a bicycle track. The edge of the vehicle gravel track contained fill material expected to be residual windrows from grading of the track. There is no evidence of orchards, mines or contaminating industrial activities on the site from the review of site history or site walkover. The contamination status of the site was assessed from a soil sampling and laboratory analysis program. Twenty boreholes were drilled over the investigation area to a depth of up to 1m and representative soil samples collected for analysis. The soil samples were collected from depths of 100mm and 300mm and combined to form ten composite samples. Four discrete samples were collected from the soil stockpiles for analysis. The soil profile at the borehole locations was generally silty sand, clayey gravel, sandy gravel and gravelly sand. Drill refusal occurred from depths of 0.5m on rock. Ten composite soil samples were analysed for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, mercury and organochlorine pesticides (OCP). Four discrete samples from the stockpiles were analysed for total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH C6-C40), benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene and naphthalene (BTEXN), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), organochlorine pesticides (OCP), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). The soil sampling program did not detect elevated levels of the analysed metals, TRH, BTEXN, PAH, OCP or PCB. The levels of all substances evaluated were below the investigation threshold for commercial land-use. The site was not assessed for the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACM). Recommendations The site is suitable for commercial land use as an MPS development.

Page 4


Contents

page

Executive summary.......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5 2. Scope of work .......................................................................................................................... 5 3. Site identification ...................................................................................................................... 5 4. Site history ............................................................................................................................... 5 5. Site condition and environment ................................................................................................ 7 6. Conceptual site model .............................................................................................................. 8 7. Data quality objectives (DQO) .................................................................................................. 8 8. Sampling analysis plan and sampling methodology ................................................................. 9 9. Quality assurance and quality control..................................................................................... 10 10. Assessment criteria ............................................................................................................ 12 11. Results and discussion....................................................................................................... 13 12. Site characterisation ........................................................................................................... 15 13. Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................... 15 14. Report limitations and intellectual property ......................................................................... 17 15. References ......................................................................................................................... 18 Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 24

Page 5


1. Introduction A preliminary contamination investigation is required for the MPS development prior to construction. The site has a history of commercial land-use. The investigation of the site is required to determine the soil contamination status and suitability for commercial use land-use. A desktop study and a review of the available history were undertaken of the site. A walkover and site inspection for evidence of contamination from past activities was conducted on 3 and 4 August 2016. Soil samples were collected and analysed for metals, persistent pesticides and hydrocarbons. 2. Scope of work Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd was commissioned by APP Corporation on behalf of Health Infrastructure to undertake a preliminary contamination investigation, in accordance with the contaminated land management planning guidelines, from the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and the State Environmental Policy No. 55 (SEPP 55), of the MPS development area at 2 Nullamut Street, Cobar NSW. The objective was to identify past potentially contaminating activities, identify potential contamination types, discuss the site condition, provide a preliminary assessment of site contamination and assess the need for further investigation or suitability for commercial land-use. 3. Site identification Address

2 Nullamut Street Cobar NSW

Client

Health Infrastructure

Deposited plans Part Lot 102 DP 615721

Locality map Figure 1

Site plan

Figure 2

Photographs

Figure 3

Area

MPS development area is approximately 7,200m2

4. Site history 4.1 Zoning The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Cobar Council Local Environmental Plan (2011). 4.2 Land-use The site is currently vacant land. The investigation site is mainly a heavily vegetated site with some vehicle and bicycle tracks. Some refuse material and soil stockpiles were located on the site. 4.3 Summary of council records None expected

Page 6


4.4 Sources of information Site inspection 3/8/2016 and 4/8/2016 by Andrew Ruming NSW EPA records of public notices under the CLM Act 1997 Soil and geological maps Spatial information exchange historic parish maps Historical aerial photographs Cobar LEP 2011 4.5 Chronological list of site uses The Historical charting map (1916 - 1958) identifies the area as dedicated to hospital site. The 2006, 2011, 2013 and 2014 aerial photographs depict the site as vacant land which is heavily vegetated. No orchards, mines or contaminating industrial activities are known to have been located on the site from the site inspection and site history. 4.6 Buildings and infrastructure The vacant site consists of gravel and unsealed tracks and varied natural vegetation. No buildings were located on the site. 4.7 Contaminant sources No known contaminants have been applied to the site. Fill material may have been applied to the development site. Illegal dumping may have occurred on the site. 4.8 Contaminants of concern Based on historical activities and site inspection the contaminants of concern are:

• Heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc, mercury) • Organochlorine pesticides (OCP) • Hydrocarbons in fill stockpile material

4.9 Relevant complaint history Nil 4.10 Contaminated site register The investigation area is not listed on the NSW EPA register of contaminated sites. 4.11 Previous investigations No previous investigations are known to have been undertaken on the site. 4.12 Neighbouring land-use North – Lillian Brady Village South – Woodiwiss Avenue and residential East – Cobar MPS and hospital West – Vacant land, heavily vegetated Historical and present neighbouring land-uses are not expected to impact of the site.

Page 7


4.13 Integrity assessment The site history was obtained from a site inspection and history review. The information is consistent with the current site condition and to the best of the assessor’s knowledge is accurate. 5. Site condition and environment 5.1 Surface cover The surface cover at the development site was heavy vegetation and gravel areas used for vehicle and bicycle movements. The site was heavily vegetated with native trees and shrubs and species including mallow, vetch, wild carrot and brassica. 5.2 Topography The general site is located on a gently inclined mid-slope with a western aspect and inclination of 2-8%. 5.3 Soils and geology The Cobar region contains a wide range of soil types. Sands, sandy earths and red earth soils are dominant in the upland areas. The footslopes and lower areas are predominantly colluvial and aeolian (wind deposited) sediments with alluvial sediments associated along streams (Brunker 1967). The geology on the site is the Cobar Group slate, shale, sandstone and greywacke overlain by quaternary alluvium (Brunker 1967). 5.4 Surface water Surface water drains to the west. 5.5 Groundwater A search of the NSW Office of Water groundwater database did not identify any groundwater bores on the site. No operational bores were identified within 500m of the site. Bores in the area have water bearing zones from 12m in depth. 5.5 Evidence of contamination checklist Site layout showing industrial processes

None present

Sewer and service plans

Yes

Manufacturing processes

None known

Underground tanks None known

Product spills and loss history None known

Discharges to land, water and air None known

Disposal locations, presence of drums, wastes and fill materials

Some small stockpiles on site and some scattered refuse material

Soil staining Nil

Visible signs of plant stress, bare areas

Vehicle tracks

Odours Nil

Page 8


Ruins Nil

Other Nil

6. Conceptual site model Potential contamination sources, exposure pathways and receptors are presented below. Contamination source Potential exposure pathways Receptors Pesticides Fill Refuse material

Direct contact (ingestion and absorption, inhalation)

On-site Site visitors Site workers Residents Terrestrial environment Off-site Public Rural Residential Commercial

7. Data quality objectives (DQO) 7.1 State the problem A new MPS development is proposed for the southern section of 2 Nullamut Street, Cobar NSW. The site is vacant land. A contamination investigation is required to be undertaken as part of council requirements to determine the suitability of the site for commercial land-use. 7.2 Identify the decision The proposed land-use is commercial and the levels of contaminants should be less than the thresholds listed in Schedule B1 of the NEPC (1999) Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater. The decision problem is: Is any contamination present above the adopted thresholds and is the site suitable for commercial land-use? 7.3 Identify the inputs decision The primary inputs for assessing the decision are outlined in Section 9. Methods of collecting samples were in accordance with NEPC (1999) and described in Section 8.3. The soil samples were analysed for potential soil contaminants as listed in Section 8.2. The samples were analysed in NATA accredited laboratories using EPA approved methods and levels of detection. Individual levels of each analyte evaluated were compared with the adopted investigation levels to determine suitability for commercial land-use (Section 10). 7.4 Define the boundaries of the study The investigation area is the southern section of 2 Nullamut Street, Cobar NSW. The area of the site is approximately 0.72ha (Figure 1).

Page 9


7.5 Develop a decision rule The initial guidelines for soil were the health investigation levels for commercial land-use with (NEPC 1999). If soil contamination was identified then the contaminant source and extent of contamination was determined. 7.6 Specify acceptable limits on the decision errors. The analyte levels in the samples collected are less than the threshold levels. 7.7 Optimize the design for obtaining data Soil sampling was undertaken as described in Section 8 which is based on the NEPC sampling guidelines. 8. Sampling analysis plan and sampling methodology 8.1 Sampling design A systematic sampling pattern was adopted to assess the investigation area. Soil samples were collected from depths of 100mm to 300mm (or natural soil). Soil stockpiles were assessed using a judgemental pattern. 8.1.1 Sampling locations Soil samples were collected from the site at 20 locations (and two depths per location) on an approximate 25m grid pattern across the investigation area (Figure 2). Soil stockpiles on the site were also assessed by collecting 1 sample per stockpile. 8.1.2 Sampling density The sampling density can detect a potential hot spot with a radius of 15m at a 95% level of confidence. The site and the soil sampling and laboratory analysis is considered indicative of the site as a whole. The sampling frequency is greater than the minimum recommended by EPA (1995). Soil stockpiles on the site were assessed by collecting 1 sample per stockpile. 8.1.3 Sampling depth The target sampling depth was 0 to 100mm and 300mm to 500mm (or natural soil) for composite samples and 100mm to 200mm for discrete samples from the soil stockpiles. 8.2 Analytes The composite soil samples were analysed for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, mercury and OCP (Table 1). The discrete soil samples from the stockpiles on the site were analysed for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, mercury, OCP, TRH, BTEXN, PCB and PAH (Table 1).

Page 10


Table 1. Schedule of samples and analyses Sample ID

Location Sample type

Depth (mm) Analysis undertaken

C1-100 New MPS Composite 100 Arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), mercury (Hg), organochlorine pesticides(OCP)

C1-300 New MPS Composite 300 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg, OCP




C3-300 New MPS Composite 300 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg, OCP C4-100 New MPS Composite 100 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg, OCP C4-300 New MPS Composite 300 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg, OCP C5-100 New MPS Composite 100 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg, OCP C5-300 New MPS Composite 300 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg, OCP S1 Soil stockpile Discrete 100-200 Metals, total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH C6-C40),

benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene and naphthalene (BTEXN), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), OCP, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)

S2 Soil stockpile Discrete 100-200 Metals, TRH, BTEXN, PAH, OCP, PCB S3 Soil stockpile Discrete 100-200 Metals, TRH, BTEXN, PAH, OCP, PCB S4 Soil stockpile Discrete 100-200 Metals, TRH, BTEXN, PAH, OCP, PCB 8.3 Sampling methods Soil samples were undertaken by construction of boreholes using an EVH truck mounted auger drill rig. Soil stockpiles were assessed by collecting samples with a sharpened spade. Soil samples were collected at each individual sampling location from the auger tip. The soil from the outside of the auger was removed with a sharpened spade prior to sampling. The soil was transferred to a solvent rinsed glass jar with a Teflon lid using clean latex gloves. The sampling jars were filled with no airspace to prevent loss of volatiles. Tools were decontaminated between sampling locations to prevent cross contamination by: brushing to remove caked or encrusted material, washing in detergent and tap water, rinsing in an organic solvent, rinsing with clean tap water and allowing to air dry or using a clean towel. 9. Quality assurance and quality control 9.1 Sampling design The sampling program is intended to provide data as to the presence and levels of contaminants. Discrete soil samples were collected on a systematic pattern across the investigation area on an approximate grid pattern of 25 metres and combined in lots of four to make a composite sample. This sampling density will enable the detection of an area with an elevated concentration on a radius of 15 metres with a 95% confidence level. Soil stockpiles on the site were assessed by collecting 1 sample per stockpile.

Page 11


The number of sampling locations is the recommended density in the EPA sampling guidelines. No “hot spots” smaller than the sampled grid are expected over the site. 9.2 Field The collection of samples was undertaken in accordance with accepted standard protocols (NEPC 1999). Composite sampling was undertaken for metal analysis to reduce the cost of chemical analysis. Combining equal amounts from four discrete samples created the composite samples. A composite sample represents the average concentration of the sub-sample. The rules for composite sampling were observed (NEPC 1999). Composite sampling is suitable for the analytes assessed (NEPC 1999). All composite samples were analysed for arsenic, cadmium, chromium (total), copper, lead, nickel and zinc Sampling equipment was decontaminated between each sampling event. The appropriate storage conditions and duration were observed between sampling and analysis. A chain of custody form accompanied the samples to the laboratory (Appendix 2). A single sampler was used to collect the samples using standard methods. Soil collected was a fresh sample from a hand shovel. After collection the samples were immediately placed in new glass sampling jars and placed in a cooler. One field duplicate laboratory sample was collected. The duplicate was from the same sampling location and analysed for the same analytes. Additional details on field sampling procedures are presented in Appendix 1. No field blank, rinsate, trip blank or matrix spikes were submitted for analysis. Some samples from all batches did not contain contaminants which confirm the absence of cross contamination during transport and storage. A field sampling log is presented in Appendix 3. 9.3 Laboratory Chemical analysis was conducted by SGS Laboratories, Alexandria, which is NATA accredited for the tests undertaken. The laboratories have quality assurance programs in place. Method blanks, matrix duplicates and laboratory control samples were within acceptance criteria. The quality assurance and quality control report is presented together with the laboratory report as Appendix 2. 9.4 Data evaluation The laboratory quality control report indicates the data variability is within acceptable industry limits. The data is considered representative and usable for the purposes of the investigation. Data quality indicators are presented in Appendix 1.

Page 12


10. Assessment criteria 10.1 Soil The assessment criteria is commercial land-use which is appropriate for the proposed hospital site. The assessment criteria for the soil data in commercial sites is described in Table 1A(1) of Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater (NEPC 1999). The criteria lists health investigation levels (HIL) for a range of land-uses. The appropriate initial comparison for the site is column 4, commercial or industrial (HIL D). The HIL D threshold is considered appropriate for the current land-use of the site and is provided in Table 2a and 2b. Ecological investigation levels (EIL) have been developed for the protection of terrestrial ecosystems for selected metals and organic substances in the soil in the guideline (NEPC 1999) EILs vary with land-use and apply to contaminants up to 2m depth below the surface. The EILs for commercial land-use are listed in Table 2a. EILs for lead are determined by identifying ambient background concentration (ABC) and adding the added contaminant limits (ACL). The ABC has been assumed to be zero for lead as a conservative measure. NEPC (1999) provides health screening levels (HSL) for hydrocarbons in soil. The HSLs have been developed to be protective of human health for soil types, depths below surface and apply to exposure to hydrocarbons through the predominant vapour exposure pathway. The appropriate HSL for the site is listed in Table 2b. TRH>C16 have physical properties which make the TRH fractions non-volatiles and therefore these TRH fractions are not limiting for vapour intrusion. Management limits have been developed to assess petroleum hydrocarbons following evaluation of human health and ecological risks (NEPC 1999). Management units are applicable as screening levels after consideration of relevant ESLs and HSLs. The appropriate management limit for the site is listed in Table 2b. Table 2a. Assessment criteria for metals and OCP in soil (mg/kg)

Analyte

HIL Commercial

EIL Commercial

Discrete Composite Discrete Composite

Arsenic 3,000 750 160 40 Cadmium 900 225 NA NA Chromium 3,600 900 310 77.5 Copper 240,000 6,000 280 70 Lead 1,500 375 1,800 450 Nickel 6,000 1,500 290 72.5 Zinc 400,000 100,000 620 155 Mercury 730 182.5 NA NA OCP 3,600 900 640 160 HIL – health investigation level, EIL – ecological investigation level, NL – non limiting, NA – not applicable

Table 2b. Assessment criteria for hydrocarbons in soil (mg/kg)

Page 13


Analyte HIL

Commercial/ industrial D

HSL Commercial/ clay soil EIL

Commercial ESL

Commercial / fine soil

Management limits for TRH in fine soil / Commercial

0m to <1m

1m to <2m

TRH (C6-C10) - 310 480 - 215 800 TRH (C10-C16) - NL NL - 170 1,000 TRH (>C16-C34) - NA NA - 2500 5,000 TRH (>C34-C40) - NA NA - 6600 10,000 Benzene - 4 6 - 95 - Toluene - NL NL - 135 - Ethylbenzene - NL NL - 185 - Xylenes - NL NL - 95 - Naphthalene - NL NL 370 - - Benzo(a)pyrene 40 - - - 0.7 - Total PAH 4,000 - - - - - PCB 7 - - - - - NL= Non limiting, NA= Not applicable 11. Results and discussion Surface cover on the site consisted of heavily vegetated areas with native trees and shrubs and species including mallow, vetch, wild carrot and brassica. No staining or evidence of contamination was observed during the site assessment. A small amount of bitumen and slag material was detected on the surface in the north east and section of the site. Refuse material was sparsely scattered throughout the site including a car battery, concrete, an old metal water tank, wire and metal scrap. Soil stockpiles were located across the site. The stockpiles are expected to be residual material from on-site construction of a bicycle track. The edge of the vehicle gravel track contained fill material expected to be residual windrows from grading of the track. The soil profile at the borehole locations was generally silty sand, gravel sand and sandy gravel. Shallow rock was encountered from depths of 0.5m to 1.0m. The levels of all metals, TRH, BTEXN, PAH, OCP and PCB analysed in the soil samples (Table 3a and 3b) were not detected or at very low levels and below the commercial land-use thresholds (NEPC 1999). The site was not assessed for the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACM).

Page 14


Table 3a. Soil analysis results, metals and OCP (mg/kg)

Sample ID

Sample depth (mm)

Sample type Ar

seni

c

Cadm

ium

Chro

miu

m

Copp

er

Lead

Nick

el

Zinc

Merc

ury

OCP

C1-100 100 Composite 6 0.6 19 69 18 6.0 41 ND ND C1-300 300 Composite 6 0.4 15 31 15 4.9 22 ND ND C2-100 100 Composite 6 0.6 21 37 14 5.7 33 ND ND C2-300 300 Composite 5 0.5 17 20 10 4.9 19 ND ND C3-100 100 Composite 5 0.5 18 180 12 4.5 23 ND ND C3-300 300 Composite 5 0.5 17 34 15 4.4 20 ND ND C4-100 100 Composite 5 0.7 22 56 17 4.3 26 ND ND C4-300 300 Composite 5 0.5 17 81 12 4.4 27 ND ND C5-100 100 Composite 5 0.4 17 50 13 4.6 28 ND ND C5-300 300 Composite 5 0.4 17 27 11 5.0 21 ND ND S1 200 Discrete 8 0.5 21 96 28 5.3 35 ND ND S2 100 Discrete 8 0.6 14 110 820 7.1 290 0.11 ND S3 200 Discrete 7 0.5 20 49 17 4.7 31 ND ND S4 100 Discrete 5 0.4 16 29 14 4.2 27 ND ND Commercial land-use HIL threshold (NEPC 1999) Discrete 3,000 900 3,600 240,000 1,500 6,000 400,000 730 3,600 Composite 750 225 900 60,000 375 1,500 100,000 182.5 900 Commercial land-use EIL threshold (NEPC 1999) Discrete 160 - 310 280 1,800 290 620 - 640 Composite 40 - 77.5 70 450 72.5 155 - 160 ND = not detected at the detection limit, NA = not assessed. Table 3b. Soil analysis results - hydrocarbons (mg/kg)

Sample ID

Sample depth (mm)

Sample type TR

H (C

6-C1

0)

TRH

(C10

-C16

)

TRH

(C16

-C34

)

TRH

(C34

-C40

)

Benz

ene

Tolu

ene

Ethy

l ben

zene

Xylen

es

Naph

thale

ne

Tota

l PAH

PCB

S1 200 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND S2 100 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND S3 200 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND S4 100 0.3 ND 75 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND HSL – commercial 0m to 1m 310 NL NA NA 4 NL NL NL NL - - EIL – commercial - - - - - - - - 370 - ESL – commercial 215 170 2,500 6,600 95 135 185 95 - - - Management limits for TRH fractions – commercial 800 1,000 5,000 10,000 - - - - - - -

HIL D - commercial - - - - - - - - - 4,000 7 ND – not detected, HSL – health screening level, EIL – ecological investigation level, ESL – ecological screening level, NL – non limiting, NA – not applicable

Page 15


12. Site characterisation 12.1 Environmental contamination No soil contamination was detected. 12.2 Chemical degradation production Not applicable as no contamination was detected. 12.3 Exposed population Not applicable as no contamination was detected. 13. Conclusions and recommendations 13.1 Summary The site was heavily vegetated with native trees, shrubs and species including mallow, vetch, wild carrot and brassica. The site contained a gravel track around the perimeter and small bicycle tracks within the centre. Small soil stockpiles were located across the site. The stockpiles are expected to be residual material from on-site construction of a bicycle track. The edge of the vehicle gravel track contained fill material expected to be residual windrows from grading of the track. There is no evidence of orchards, mines or contaminating industrial activities on the site from the review of site history or site walkover. The contamination status of the site was assessed from a soil sampling and laboratory analysis program. Twenty boreholes were drilled over the investigation area to a depth of up to 1m and representative soil samples collected for analysis. The soil samples were collected from depths of 100mm and 300mm and combined to form composite samples. Four discrete samples were collected from the soil stockpiles for analysis. The soil profile at the borehole locations was generally silty sand, clayey gravel, sandy gravel and gravelly sand. Drill refusal occurred from depths of 0.5m on rock. Ten composite soil samples were analysed for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, mercury and organochlorine pesticides (OCP). Four discrete samples were analysed for total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH C6-C40), benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene and naphthalene (BTEXN), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), organochlorine pesticides (OCP), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). The soil sampling program did not detect elevated levels of the analysed metals, OCP, PCB or hydrocarbons. The levels of all substances evaluated were below the investigation threshold for commercial land-use. The site was not assessed for the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACM). 13.2 Assumptions in reaching the conclusions It is assumed the sampling sites are representative of the site. 13.3 Extent of uncertainties The analytical data relate only to the locations sampled. Soil conditions can vary both laterally and vertically and it cannot be excluded that unidentified contaminants may be present. The sampling

Page 16


density was designed to detect a ‘hot spot’ in the field area within a radius of approximately 15 metres and with a 95% level of confidence. The site is suitable for commercial land use as an MPS development. 13.4 Suitability for proposed use of the site The site is suitable for commercial land use as an MPS development. 13.5 Limitations and constraints on the use of the site No constraints are recommended. The site was not assessed for the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACM). 13.6 Recommendation for further work Nil

Page 17


14. Report limitations and intellectual property This report has been prepared for the use of the client to achieve the objectives given the clients requirements. The level of confidence of the conclusion reached is governed by the scope of the investigation and the availability and quality of existing data. Where limitations or uncertainties are known, they are identified in the report. No liability can be accepted for failure to identify conditions or issues which arise in the future and which could not reasonably have been predicted using the scope of the investigation and the information obtained. The investigation identifies the actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are taken. Data derived through sampling and subsequent laboratory testing is interpreted by geologists, engineers or scientists who then render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions, the nature and extent of the contamination, it’s likely impact on the proposed development and appropriate remediation measures. Actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no professional, no matter how well qualified, and no sub-surface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock or time. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. It is thus important to understand the limitations of the investigation and recognise that we are not responsible for these limitations. This report, including data contained and its findings and conclusions, remains the intellectual property of Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd. A licence to use the report for the specific purpose identified is granted for the persons identified in that section after full payment for the services involved in preparation of the report. This report should not be used by persons or for purposes other than those stated and should not be reproduced without the permission of Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd.

Page 18


15. References Brunker, R.J (1967) Cobar 1:250,000 Geological Sheet SH/55-14 (Geological Survey of New South Wales, Sydney) DEC (2006) Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditors Scheme (NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Chatswood) Environment Protection Authority (1995) Contaminated sites: Sampling Design Guidelines (NSW Environment Protection Authority, Chatswood) Landcom (2004) Managing Urban Stormwater; Soils and Construction (New South Wales Government) NEPC (1999 revised 2013) National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (National Environment Protection Council Service Corporation, Adelaide) Offenberg AC (1967) Gilgandra 1:250 000 Geological Sheet SH/55-16 First Edition (Geological Survey of New South Wales, Sydney)

Page 19


Figures Figure 1. Locality map Figure 2. Site plan Figure 3. Photographs of the site Figure 4. Historical charting map 1916

Figure 1. Site locality

2 Nullamut Street, Cobar NSW

Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd

Job: R7367 Drawn by: AR Date: 25/08/2016

Development area

North

Page 21


Figure 2. Site plan and sampling location

Proposed new MPS, 2 Nullamut Street, Cobar NSW


Job: R7367 Drawn by: AR Date: 25/08/2016

Figures

North

Legend Borehole and sampling location

Stockpile

31

44

32

53 44

43

51

52

23

24 11

12

33 22 13

54

45 34 21 14

S1

S2

S3

S4

Figure 3. Photographs of the site Looking southeast over the site

Stockpile in the west of the lot

Looking at the centre of the lot

Figure 4. Historical map

Regional charting map (1916-1958) Cobar NSW


Job: R7367 Drawn by: Spatial information exchange Date: 25/08/2016

Development area

Appendices Appendix 1. Sample analysis, quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) report Appendix 2. Soil analysis results – SGS report number SE155708 and chain of custody form Appendix 3. Field sampling log

Appendix 1. Sample analysis, quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) report 1. Data quality indicators (DQI) requirements 1.1 Completeness A measure of the amount of usable data for a data collection activity. Greater than 95% of the data must be reliable based on the quality objectives. Where greater than two quality objectives have less reliability than the acceptance criterion the data may be considered with uncertainty. 1.1.1 Field Consideration Requirement Locations and depths to be sampled Described in the sampling plan. The acceptance criterion is 95% data

retrieved compared with proposed. Acceptance criterion is 100% in crucial areas.

SOP appropriate and compiled Described in the sampling plan. Experienced sampler Sampler or supervisor Documentation correct Sampling log and chain of custody completed 1.1.2 Laboratory Consideration Requirement Samples analysed Number according to sampling and quality plan Analytes Number according to sampling and quality plan Methods EPA or other recognised methods with suitable PQL Sample documentation Complete including chain of custody and sample description Sample holding times Metals 6 months, OCP, PAH, TPH, PCB 14 days 1.2 Comparability The confidence that data may be considered to be equivalent for each sampling and analytical event. The data must show little or no inconsistencies with results and field observations. 1.2.1 Field Consideration Requirement SOP Same sampling procedures to be used Experienced sampler Sampler or supervisor Climatic conditions Described as may influence results Samples collected Sample medium, size, preparation, storage, transport 1.2.2 Laboratory Consideration Requirement Analytical methods Same methods, approved methods PQL Same Same laboratory Justify if different Same units Justify if different 1.3 Representativeness The confidence (expressed qualitatively) that data are representative of each media present on the site. 1.3.1 Field Consideration Requirement Appropriate media sampled Sampled according to sampling and quality plan or in accordance with

the EPA (1995) sampling guidelines. All media identified Sampling media identified in the sampling and quality plan. Where

surface water bodies on the site sampled.

1.3.2 Laboratory Consideration Requirement Samples analysed

Blanks

1.4 Precision A quantitative measure of the variability (or reproduced of the data). Is measured by standard deviation or relative percent difference (RPD). A RPD analysis is calculated and compared to the practical quantitation limit (PQL) or absolute difference AD.

• Levels greater than 10 times the PQL the RPD is 50% • Levels between 5 and 10 times the PQL the RPD is 75% • Levels between 2 and 5 times the PQL the RPD is 100% • Levels less than 2 times the PQL, the AD is less than 2.5 times the PQL

Data not conforming to the acceptance criterion will be examined for determination of suitability for the purpose of site characterisation. 1.4.1 Field Consideration Requirement Field duplicates Frequency of 5%, results to be within RPD or discussion required

indicate the appropriateness of SOP 1.4.2 Laboratory Consideration Requirement Laboratory and inter lab duplicates Frequency of 5%, results to be within RPD or discussion required. Inter

laboratory duplicates will be one sample per batch. Field duplicates Frequency of 5%, results to be within RPD or discussion required Laboratory prepared volatile trip spikes One per sampling batch, results to be within RPD or discussion

required 1.5 Accuracy A quantitative measure of the closeness of the reported data to the true value. 1.5.1 Field Consideration Requirement SOP Complied Inter laboratory duplicates Frequency of 5%.

Analysis criterion 60% RPD for levels greater than 10 times the PQL 85% RPD for levels between 5 to 10 times the PQL 100% RPD at levels between 2 to 5 times the PQL Absolute difference, 3.5 times the PQL where levels are, 2 times PQL

1.5.2 Laboratory Recovery data (surrogates, laboratory control samples and matrix spikes) data subject to the following control limits:

• 60 to 140% acceptable data • 20-60% discussion required, may be considered acceptable • 10-20% data should considered as estimates • 10% data should be rejected

Consideration Requirement Field blanks Frequency of 5%, <5 times the PQL, PQL may be adjusted Rinsate blanks Frequency of 5%, <5 times the PQL, PQL may be adjusted Method blanks Frequency of 5%, <5 times the PQL, PQL may be adjusted Matrix spikes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required Matrix duplicates Sample injected with a known concentration of contaminants with tested. Frequency

of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required Surrogate spikes QC monitoring spikes to be added to samples at the extraction process in the

laboratory where applicable. Surrogates are closely related to the organic target analyte and not normally found in the natural environment. Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required

Laboratory control samples Externally prepared reference material containing representative analytes under investigation. These will be undertaken at one per batch. It is to be within +/-40% or discussion required

Laboratory prepared spikes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required 2. Laboratory analysis summary One analysis batch was undertaken over the preliminary investigation program. Samples were collected on 3 and 4 August 2016. A total of 14 were submitted for analytical testing. The samples were collected in the field by an environmental scientist from Envirowest Consulting Pty Ltd, placed into laboratory prepared receptacles as recommended in NEPC (1999). The samples preservation and storage was undertaken using standard industry practices (NEPC 1999). A chain of custody form accompanied transport of the samples to the laboratory. The samples were analysed at the laboratories of SGS, Alexandria, NSW which is National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited for the tests undertaken. The analyses undertaken, number of samples tested and methods are presented in the following tables: Field duplicate frequency Sample id. Number of

samples Duplicate Frequency

(%) Date collected

Substrate Laboratory report

C1-100-C5-300 S1 – S4

14 1 7.4 3/8/2016

Soil SE155708

Laboratory analysis schedule Sample id. (sampling location)

Number of samples

Duplicate Analyses Date collected

Substrate Laboratory report

C1-100-C5-300

10 1 metals, OCP 3/8/2016

Soil SE155708

S1 – S4 4 0 metals, OCP, TRH, BTEXN, PAH, PCB

3/8/2016

Soil SE155708

Analytical methods Analyte Extraction Laboratory methods Metals USEPA 200.2 Mod APHA USEPA SW846-6010 Chromium (III) - APHA 3500 CR-A&B & 3120 and USEPA

SW846-3060A Chromium (VI) USEPA SW846-3060A USEPA SW846-3060A Mercury USEPA 200.2 Mod APHA 3112 TPH(C6-C9) USPEA SW846-5030A USPEA SW 846-8260B TPH(C10-C36), PAH Tumbler extraction of solids USEPA SW 846-8270B PCB Tumbler extraction of solids USEPA SW 846-8270B

OC Pesticides Tumbler extraction of solids USEPA SW 846-8270B BTEX Tumbler extraction of solids USEPA SW 846-8260B

3. Field quality assurance and quality control One intra laboratory duplicate sample was collected for the investigation. The frequency was greater than the recommended frequency of 5%. Table A5.1 outlines the samples collected and differences in replicate analyses. Relative differences were deemed to pass if they were within the acceptance limits of +/- 40% for replicate analyses or less than 5 times the detection limit. Table A5.1. Relative differences for intra laboratory duplicates

DB-100, C2-100

Relative difference (%) Pass/Fail

Arsenic 0 Pass Cadmium 4 Pass Chromium 15 Pass Copper 27 Pass Lead 7 Pass Nickel 11 Pass Zinc 24 Pass OCP 0 Pass

NA – relative difference unable to be calculated as results are less than laboratory detection limit No trip blanks or spikes were submitted for analysis. This is not considered to create significant uncertainty in the analysis results because of the following rationale: • The fieldwork was completed within a short time period and consistent methods were used for soil

sampling. • Soil samples were placed in insulated cooled containers after sampling to ensure preservation

during transport and storage. • The samples were placed in single use jars using clean sampling tools and disposable gloves from

material not in contact with other samples. This reduces the likelihood of cross contamination. • Samples in the analysis batch contain analytes below the level of detection. It is considered unlikely

that contamination has occurred as a result of transport and handling. 4. Laboratory quality assurance and quality control Sample holding times are recommended in NEPC (1999). The time between collection and extraction for all samples was less than the criteria listed below: Analyte

Maximum holding time

Metals, cyanide 6 months OCP, TPH, PCB, BTEX, PAH 14 days

The laboratory interpretative reports are presented with individual laboratory report. Assessment is made of holding time, frequency of control samples and quality control samples. No significant outliers exist for the sampling batches. The laboratory report also contains a detailed description of preparation methods and analytical methods. The results, quality report, interpretative report and chain of custody are presented in the attached appendices. The quality report contains the laboratory duplicates, spikes, laboratory control samples, blanks and where appropriate matrix spike recovery (surrogate). 5. Data quality indicators (DQI) analysis 5.1 Completeness A measure of the amount of usable data for a data collection activity (total to be greater than 95%). The data set was found to be complete based on the scope of work. No critical areas of contamination were omitted from the data set. 5.1.1 Field Consideration Accepted Comment Locations to be sampled Yes In accordance with sampling methodology, described in the report.

Sampling locations described in figures. Depth to be sampled Yes In accordance with sampling methodology SOP appropriate and compiled Yes In accordance with sampling methodology

Sampled with stainless steel spade into lab prepared containers, decontamination between samples, latex gloves worn by sampler

Experienced sampler Yes Same soil sampler, environmental scientist Documentation correct Yes Sampling log completed

Chain of custody completed 5.1.2 Laboratory Consideration Accepted Comment Samples analysed Yes All critical samples analysed in accordance with chain of custody and

analysis plan Analytes Yes All analytes in accordance with chain of custody and analysis plan Methods Yes Analysed in NATA accredited laboratory with recognised methods and

suitable PQL Sample documentation Yes Completed including chain of custody and sample results and quality

results report for each batch Sample holding times Yes Metals less than 6 months. OCP, TPH, PCB, BTEX less than 14 days 5.2 Comparability The confidence that data may be considered to be equivalent for each sampling and analytical event. The data sets were found to be acceptable. 5.2.1 Field Consideration Accepted Comment SOP Yes Same sampling procedures used and sampled on one date Experienced sampler Yes Experienced scientist Climatic conditions Yes Described in field sampling log Samples collected Yes Suitable size, storage and transport

5.2.2 Laboratory Consideration Accepted Comment Analytical methods Yes Same methods all samples, in accordance with NEPC(1999) or

USEPA PQL Yes Suitable for analytes Same laboratory Yes SGS Environmental is NATA accredited for the test Same units Yes - 5.3 Representativeness The confidence (expressed qualitatively) that data are representative of each media present on the site. The data sets were found to be acceptable. 5.3.1 Field Consideration Accepted Comment Appropriate media sampled Yes Sampled according to sampling and quality plan All media identified Yes Soil

Sampling media identified in the sampling and quality plan 5.3.2 Laboratory Consideration Accepted Comment Samples analysed Yes Undertaken in NATA accredited laboratory. No blanks analysed.

Samples in the analysis batch contain analytes below the level of detection. It is considered unlikely that contamination has occurred as a result of transport and handling.

5.4 Precision A quantitative measure of the variability (or reproduced of the data). The data sets were found to be acceptable. 5.4.1 Field Consideration Accepted Comment SOP Field duplicates

Yes Yes

Complied Collected.

5.4.2 Laboratory Consideration Accepted Comment Laboratory and inter lab duplicates

Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required

Field duplicates Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or discussion required

Laboratory prepared volatile trip spikes

NA Volatiles analytes were not analysed

5.5 Accuracy A quantitative measure of the closeness of the reported data to the true value. The data sets were found to be acceptable. 5.5.1 Field Consideration Accepted Comment SOP Yes Complied Field blanks NA Frequency of 5%, <5 times the PQL, PQL may be

adjusted Rinsate blanks NA Frequency of 5%, <5 times the PQL, PQL may be

adjusted

5.5.2 Laboratory Consideration Accepted Comment Method blanks Yes Frequency of 5%, <5 times the PQL, PQL may be

adjusted Matrix spikes Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or

discussion required. Matrix duplicates Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or

discussion required Surrogate spikes Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or

discussion required Laboratory control samples Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or

discussion required Laboratory prepared spikes Yes Frequency of 5%, results to be within +/-40% or

discussion required No trip blanks, field spikes or sample rinsates were submitted for analysis. This is not considered to create significant uncertainty in the analysis results because of the following rationale: • The fieldwork methods used for soil sampling were consistent throughout the project with all in situ

samples collected from material which had not been subject to exposure. • The fieldwork was completed within a short time period and consistent methods were used for soil

sampling. • Soil samples were placed in insulated cooled containers as quickly as possible, with the containers

filled to minimize headspace. The sample containers were sealed immediately after the sample was collected and chilled in an esky containing ice.

• The samples were stored in a refrigerator and transported with ice bricks to ensure preservation

during transport and storage. • The samples were placed in single use jars using clean sampling tools and disposable gloves from

material not in contact with other samples. This reduces the likelihood of cross contamination. • Samples in the analysis batches contained analytes below the level of detection. It is considered

unlikely that contamination has occurred as a result of transport and handling. 6. Conclusion All media appropriate to the objectives of this investigation have been adequately analysed and no area of significant uncertainty exist. It is concluded the data is usable for the purposes of the investigation.

Appendix 2. Soil analysis results – SGS report number SE155708 and chain of custody form

Date Reported

Contact

SGS Alexandria Environmental

Unit 16, 33 Maddox St

Alexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400

+61 2 8594 0499

[email protected]

15

SGS Reference

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Manager

Laboratory

(Not specified)

7367

[email protected]

(Not specified)

61 2 63614954

PO BOX 8158

ORANGE NSW 2800

ENVIROWEST CONSULTING PTY LIMITED

Greg Madafiglio

Samples

Order Number

Project

Email

Facsimile

Telephone

Address

Client

CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS

16 Aug 2016

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE155708 R0

09 Aug 2016Date Received

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025. NATA accredited laboratory 2562(4354).

COMMENTS

Dong Liang

Metals/Inorganics Team Leader

Kamrul Ahsan

Senior Chemist

Ly Kim Ha

Organic Section Head

SIGNATORIES

Member of the SGS Group

www.sgs.com.aut +61 2 8594 0400

f +61 2 8594 0499

Australia

Australia

Alexandria NSW 2015

Alexandria NSW 2015

Unit 16 33 Maddox St

PO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC

Environment, Health and SafetySGS Australia Pty Ltd

ABN 44 000 964 278

Page 1 of 2416-August-2016

SE155708 R0ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE155708.001

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C1-100

SE155708.002

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C1-300

SE155708.003

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C2-100

SE155708.004

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C2-300

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name

VOC’s in Soil Method: AN433 Tested: 15/8/2016

Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Benzene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Toluene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

m/p-xylene mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

o-xylene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Polycyclic VOCs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Surrogates

Dibromofluoromethane (Surrogate) % - - - - -

d4-1,2-dichloroethane (Surrogate) % - - - - -

d8-toluene (Surrogate) % - - - - -

Bromofluorobenzene (Surrogate) % - - - - -

Totals

Total Xylenes* mg/kg 0.3 - - - -

Total BTEX mg/kg 0.6 - - - -

Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Method: AN433 Tested: 15/8/2016

TRH C6-C10 mg/kg 25 - - - -

TRH C6-C9 mg/kg 20 - - - -

Surrogates







SE155708.001

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C1-100

SE155708.002

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C1-300

SE155708.003

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C2-100

SE155708.004

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C2-300

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name

Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Method: AN433 Tested: 15/8/2016 (continued)

VPH F Bands

Benzene (F0) mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX (F1) mg/kg 25 - - - -

TRH (Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons) in Soil Method: AN403 Tested: 10/8/2016

TRH C10-C14 mg/kg 20 - - - -

TRH C15-C28 mg/kg 45 - - - -

TRH C29-C36 mg/kg 45 - - - -

TRH C37-C40 mg/kg 100 - - - -

TRH C10-C36 Total mg/kg 110 - - - -


TRH F Bands

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) mg/kg 25 - - - -

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) - Naphthalene mg/kg 25 - - - -

TRH >C16-C34 (F3) mg/kg 90 - - - -

TRH >C34-C40 (F4) mg/kg 120 - - - -

PAH (Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons) in Soil Method: AN420 Tested: 10/8/2016


2-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -


Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=0 TEQ 0.2 - - - -

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR TEQ (mg/kg) 0.3 - - - -

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR/2 TEQ (mg/kg) 0.2 - - - -

Total PAH (18) mg/kg 0.8 - - - -

Total PAH (NEPM/WHO 16) mg/kg 0.8 - - - -



SE155708.001

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C1-100

SE155708.002

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C1-300

SE155708.003

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C2-100

SE155708.004

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C2-300

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name

PAH (Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons) in Soil Method: AN420 Tested: 10/8/2016 (continued)

Surrogates

d5-nitrobenzene (Surrogate) % - - - - -

2-fluorobiphenyl (Surrogate) % - - - - -

d14-p-terphenyl (Surrogate) % - - - - -

OC Pesticides in Soil Method: AN400/AN420 Tested: 10/8/2016

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Lindane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aldrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Beta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Delta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha Endosulfan mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Gamma Chlordane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha Chlordane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

trans-Nonachlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dieldrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Endrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

o,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Beta Endosulfan mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

p,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Methoxychlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Ketone mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Isodrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mirex mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Surrogates

Tetrachloro-m-xylene (TCMX) (Surrogate) % - 98 115 115 111

PCBs in Soil Method: AN400/AN420 Tested: 10/8/2016

Arochlor 1016 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1221 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1232 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1242 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1248 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1254 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1260 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1262 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1268 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Total PCBs (Arochlors) mg/kg 1 - - - -



SE155708.001

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C1-100

SE155708.002

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C1-300

SE155708.003

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C2-100

SE155708.004

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C2-300

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name

PCBs in Soil Method: AN400/AN420 Tested: 10/8/2016 (continued)

Surrogates

Tetrachloro-m-xylene (TCMX) (Surrogate) % - - - - -

Total Recoverable Metals in Soil/Waste Solids/Materials by ICPOES Method: AN040/AN320 Tested: 12/8/2016

Arsenic, As mg/kg 1 6 6 6 5

Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.5 19 15 21 17

Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 69 31 37 20

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 18 15 14 10

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 6.0 4.9 5.7 4.9

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 2 41 22 33 19

Mercury in Soil Method: AN312 Tested: 12/8/2016

Mercury mg/kg 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Moisture Content Method: AN002 Tested: 12/8/2016

% Moisture %w/w 0.5 12 9.5 13 13



SE155708.005

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C3-100

SE155708.006

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C3-300

SE155708.007

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C4-100

SE155708.008

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C4-300

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name



Benzene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Toluene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

m/p-xylene mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

o-xylene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Polycyclic VOCs


Surrogates





Totals

Total Xylenes* mg/kg 0.3 - - - -

Total BTEX mg/kg 0.6 - - - -


TRH C6-C10 mg/kg 25 - - - -

TRH C6-C9 mg/kg 20 - - - -

Surrogates







SE155708.005

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C3-100

SE155708.006

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C3-300

SE155708.007

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C4-100

SE155708.008

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C4-300

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name


VPH F Bands

Benzene (F0) mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX (F1) mg/kg 25 - - - -


TRH C10-C14 mg/kg 20 - - - -

TRH C15-C28 mg/kg 45 - - - -

TRH C29-C36 mg/kg 45 - - - -

TRH C37-C40 mg/kg 100 - - - -



TRH F Bands

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) mg/kg 25 - - - -

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) - Naphthalene mg/kg 25 - - - -

TRH >C16-C34 (F3) mg/kg 90 - - - -

TRH >C34-C40 (F4) mg/kg 120 - - - -





Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.1 - - - -

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=0 TEQ 0.2 - - - -

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR TEQ (mg/kg) 0.3 - - - -

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR/2 TEQ (mg/kg) 0.2 - - - -

Total PAH (18) mg/kg 0.8 - - - -

Total PAH (NEPM/WHO 16) mg/kg 0.8 - - - -



SE155708.005

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C3-100

SE155708.006

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C3-300

SE155708.007

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C4-100

SE155708.008

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C4-300

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name


Surrogates

d5-nitrobenzene (Surrogate) % - - - - -

2-fluorobiphenyl (Surrogate) % - - - - -

d14-p-terphenyl (Surrogate) % - - - - -



Alpha BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Lindane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aldrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Beta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Delta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1


o,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1





p,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dieldrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Endrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

o,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1


p,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1





Isodrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mirex mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Surrogates



Arochlor 1016 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1221 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1232 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1242 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1248 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1254 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1260 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1262 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Arochlor 1268 mg/kg 0.2 - - - -

Total PCBs (Arochlors) mg/kg 1 - - - -



SE155708.005

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C3-100

SE155708.006

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C3-300

SE155708.007

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C4-100

SE155708.008

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C4-300

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name


Surrogates

Tetrachloro-m-xylene (TCMX) (Surrogate) % - - - - -



Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5


Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 180 34 56 81

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 12 15 17 12

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.4

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 2 23 20 26 27


Mercury mg/kg 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05


% Moisture %w/w 0.5 11 9.1 10 12



SE155708.009

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C5-100

SE155708.010

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C5-300

SE155708.011

Soil

04 Aug 2016

DB-100

SE155708.012

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S1

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name



Benzene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Toluene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

m/p-xylene mg/kg 0.2 - - - <0.2

o-xylene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Polycyclic VOCs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Surrogates

Dibromofluoromethane (Surrogate) % - - - - 106

d4-1,2-dichloroethane (Surrogate) % - - - - 113

d8-toluene (Surrogate) % - - - - 108

Bromofluorobenzene (Surrogate) % - - - - 98

Totals

Total Xylenes* mg/kg 0.3 - - - <0.3

Total BTEX mg/kg 0.6 - - - <0.6


TRH C6-C10 mg/kg 25 - - - <25

TRH C6-C9 mg/kg 20 - - - <20

Surrogates

Dibromofluoromethane (Surrogate) % - - - - 106

d4-1,2-dichloroethane (Surrogate) % - - - - 113

d8-toluene (Surrogate) % - - - - 108

Bromofluorobenzene (Surrogate) % - - - - 98



SE155708.009

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C5-100

SE155708.010

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C5-300

SE155708.011

Soil

04 Aug 2016

DB-100

SE155708.012

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S1

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name


VPH F Bands

Benzene (F0) mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX (F1) mg/kg 25 - - - <25


TRH C10-C14 mg/kg 20 - - - <20

TRH C15-C28 mg/kg 45 - - - <45

TRH C29-C36 mg/kg 45 - - - <45

TRH C37-C40 mg/kg 100 - - - <100

TRH C10-C36 Total mg/kg 110 - - - <110

TRH C10-C40 Total mg/kg 210 - - - <210

TRH F Bands

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) mg/kg 25 - - - <25

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) - Naphthalene mg/kg 25 - - - <25

TRH >C16-C34 (F3) mg/kg 90 - - - <90

TRH >C34-C40 (F4) mg/kg 120 - - - <120


Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

2-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

1-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.1 - - - <0.1

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=0 TEQ 0.2 - - - <0.2

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR TEQ (mg/kg) 0.3 - - - <0.3

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR/2 TEQ (mg/kg) 0.2 - - - <0.2

Total PAH (18) mg/kg 0.8 - - - <0.8

Total PAH (NEPM/WHO 16) mg/kg 0.8 - - - <0.8



SE155708.009

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C5-100

SE155708.010

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C5-300

SE155708.011

Soil

04 Aug 2016

DB-100

SE155708.012

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S1

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name


Surrogates

d5-nitrobenzene (Surrogate) % - - - - 86

2-fluorobiphenyl (Surrogate) % - - - - 88

d14-p-terphenyl (Surrogate) % - - - - 102



Alpha BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Lindane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aldrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Beta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Delta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1


o,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1





p,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dieldrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Endrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

o,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1


p,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1





Isodrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mirex mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Surrogates



Arochlor 1016 mg/kg 0.2 - - - <0.2

Arochlor 1221 mg/kg 0.2 - - - <0.2

Arochlor 1232 mg/kg 0.2 - - - <0.2

Arochlor 1242 mg/kg 0.2 - - - <0.2

Arochlor 1248 mg/kg 0.2 - - - <0.2

Arochlor 1254 mg/kg 0.2 - - - <0.2

Arochlor 1260 mg/kg 0.2 - - - <0.2

Arochlor 1262 mg/kg 0.2 - - - <0.2

Arochlor 1268 mg/kg 0.2 - - - <0.2

Total PCBs (Arochlors) mg/kg 1 - - - <1



SE155708.009

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C5-100

SE155708.010

Soil

04 Aug 2016

C5-300

SE155708.011

Soil

04 Aug 2016

DB-100

SE155708.012

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S1

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name


Surrogates

Tetrachloro-m-xylene (TCMX) (Surrogate) % - - - - 89



Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5


Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 50 27 28 96

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 13 11 15 28

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 4.6 5.0 5.1 5.3

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 2 28 21 26 35


Mercury mg/kg 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05


% Moisture %w/w 0.5 11 10 13 13



SE155708.013

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S2

SE155708.014

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S3

SE155708.015

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S4

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name



Benzene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Toluene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

m/p-xylene mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

o-xylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Polycyclic VOCs

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Surrogates

Dibromofluoromethane (Surrogate) % - 101 120 106

d4-1,2-dichloroethane (Surrogate) % - 110 128 111

d8-toluene (Surrogate) % - 101 121 105

Bromofluorobenzene (Surrogate) % - 90 108 99

Totals

Total Xylenes* mg/kg 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Total BTEX mg/kg 0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6


TRH C6-C10 mg/kg 25 <25 <25 <25

TRH C6-C9 mg/kg 20 <20 <20 <20

Surrogates

Dibromofluoromethane (Surrogate) % - 101 120 106

d4-1,2-dichloroethane (Surrogate) % - 110 128 111

d8-toluene (Surrogate) % - 101 121 105

Bromofluorobenzene (Surrogate) % - 90 108 99



SE155708.013

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S2

SE155708.014

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S3

SE155708.015

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S4

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name


VPH F Bands

Benzene (F0) mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX (F1) mg/kg 25 <25 <25 <25


TRH C10-C14 mg/kg 20 <20 <20 40

TRH C15-C28 mg/kg 45 <45 <45 100

TRH C29-C36 mg/kg 45 <45 <45 <45

TRH C37-C40 mg/kg 100 <100 <100 <100

TRH C10-C36 Total mg/kg 110 <110 <110 140

TRH C10-C40 Total mg/kg 210 <210 <210 <210

TRH F Bands

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) mg/kg 25 <25 <25 75

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) - Naphthalene mg/kg 25 <25 <25 75

TRH >C16-C34 (F3) mg/kg 90 <90 <90 <90

TRH >C34-C40 (F4) mg/kg 120 <120 <120 <120


Naphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

2-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

1-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Fluorene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Pyrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Chrysene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=0 TEQ 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR TEQ (mg/kg) 0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR/2 TEQ (mg/kg) 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Total PAH (18) mg/kg 0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8

Total PAH (NEPM/WHO 16) mg/kg 0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8



SE155708.013

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S2

SE155708.014

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S3

SE155708.015

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S4

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name


Surrogates

d5-nitrobenzene (Surrogate) % - 84 82 88

2-fluorobiphenyl (Surrogate) % - 84 84 88

d14-p-terphenyl (Surrogate) % - 100 102 106


Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Lindane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aldrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Beta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Delta BHC mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha Endosulfan mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Gamma Chlordane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha Chlordane mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

trans-Nonachlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dieldrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Endrin mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

o,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Beta Endosulfan mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

p,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Methoxychlor mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Ketone mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Isodrin mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mirex mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Surrogates

Tetrachloro-m-xylene (TCMX) (Surrogate) % - 87 81 91


Arochlor 1016 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1221 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1232 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1242 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1248 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1254 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1260 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1262 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1268 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Total PCBs (Arochlors) mg/kg 1 <1 <1 <1



SE155708.013

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S2

SE155708.014

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S3

SE155708.015

Soil

04 Aug 2016

S4

Parameter LORUnits

Sample Number

Sample Matrix

Sample Date

Sample Name


Surrogates

Tetrachloro-m-xylene (TCMX) (Surrogate) % - 87 81 91


Arsenic, As mg/kg 1 8 7 5

Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.4

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.5 14 20 16

Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.5 110 49 29

Lead, Pb mg/kg 1 820 17 14

Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.5 7.1 4.7 4.2

Zinc, Zn mg/kg 2 290 31 27


Mercury mg/kg 0.05 0.11 <0.05 <0.05


% Moisture %w/w 0.5 25 4.8 15


SE155708 R0QC SUMMARY

MB blank results are compared to the Limit of Reporting

LCS and MS spike recoveries are measured as the percentage of analyte recovered from the sample compared the the amount of analyte spiked into the sample.

DUP and MSD relative percent differences are measured against their original counterpart samples according to the formula : the absolute difference of the two results divided

by the average of the two results as a percentage. Where the DUP RPD is 'NA' , the results are less than the LOR and thus the RPD is not applicable.

Mercury in Soil Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN312

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

MS

%Recovery

Mercury LB107526 mg/kg 0.05 <0.05 0% 101% 97%

LB107527 mg/kg 0.05 <0.05 8 - 39% 101% 90%

LORUnits Parameter QC

Reference

Moisture Content Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN002

DUP %RPD

% Moisture LB107531 %w/w 0.5 0 - 3%


Reference

OC Pesticides in Soil Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN400/AN420

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

MS

%Recovery

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Alpha BHC LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Lindane LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Heptachlor LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% 77% 89%

Aldrin LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% 78% 88%

Beta BHC LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Delta BHC LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% 78% 81%

Heptachlor epoxide LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

o,p'-DDE LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Alpha Endosulfan LB107365 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 0% NA NA

Gamma Chlordane LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Alpha Chlordane LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

trans-Nonachlor LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

p,p'-DDE LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Dieldrin LB107365 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 0% 75% 80%

Endrin LB107365 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 0% 82% 98%

o,p'-DDD LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

o,p'-DDT LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Beta Endosulfan LB107365 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 0% NA NA

p,p'-DDD LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

p,p'-DDT LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% 76% 82%

Endosulfan sulphate LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Endrin Aldehyde LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Methoxychlor LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Endrin Ketone LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Isodrin LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA

Mirex LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 0% NA NA


Reference

Surrogates

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

MS

%Recovery

Tetrachloro-m-xylene (TCMX) (Surrogate) LB107365 % - 73% 0 - 3% 75% 83%


Reference







PAH (Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons) in Soil Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN420

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

Naphthalene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 15% 99%

2-methylnaphthalene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 16% NA

1-methylnaphthalene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 21% NA

Acenaphthylene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 23% 100%

Acenaphthene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 52% 105%

Fluorene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 39% NA

Phenanthrene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 43% 97%

Anthracene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 33% 102%

Fluoranthene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 35% 100%

Pyrene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 35% 101%

Benzo(a)anthracene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 34% NA

Chrysene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 38% NA

Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 22% NA

Benzo(k)fluoranthene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 40% NA

Benzo(a)pyrene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 35% 104%

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 30% NA

Dibenzo(ah)anthracene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 79% NA

Benzo(ghi)perylene LB107365 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 33% NA

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=0 LB107365 TEQ 0.2 <0.2 37% NA

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR LB107365 TEQ (mg/kg) 0.3 <0.3 37% NA

Carcinogenic PAHs, BaP TEQ <LOR=LOR/2 LB107365 TEQ (mg/kg) 0.2 <0.2 37% NA

Total PAH (18) LB107365 mg/kg 0.8 <0.8 35% NA

Total PAH (NEPM/WHO 16) LB107365 mg/kg 0.8 <0.8


Reference

Surrogates

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

d5-nitrobenzene (Surrogate) LB107365 % - 90% 0% 82%

2-fluorobiphenyl (Surrogate) LB107365 % - 90% 6% 84%

d14-p-terphenyl (Surrogate) LB107365 % - 110% 2% 96%


Reference







PCBs in Soil Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN400/AN420

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

Arochlor 1016 LB107365 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 0% NA






Arochlor 1260 LB107365 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 0% 85%



Total PCBs (Arochlors) LB107365 mg/kg 1 <1 0% NA


Reference

Surrogates

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

Tetrachloro-m-xylene (TCMX) (Surrogate) LB107365 % - 73% 0% 85%


Reference

Total Recoverable Metals in Soil/Waste Solids/Materials by ICPOES Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN040/AN320

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

MS

%Recovery

Arsenic, As LB107534 mg/kg 1 <1 9 - 52% 98% 85%

LB107536 mg/kg 1 <1 8 - 41% 100% 93%

Cadmium, Cd LB107534 mg/kg 0.3 <0.3 0 - 23% 101% 88%

LB107536 mg/kg 0.3 <0.3 23 - 32% 100% 94%

Chromium, Cr LB107534 mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 11 - 17% 99% 103%

LB107536 mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 57 - 62% 100% 94%

Copper, Cu LB107534 mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 6 - 8% 101% 93%

LB107536 mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 9 - 25% 100% 81%

Lead, Pb LB107534 mg/kg 1 <1 8 - 18% 100% 95%

LB107536 mg/kg 1 <1 9 - 16% 100% 89%

Nickel, Ni LB107534 mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 1 - 15% 101% 88%

LB107536 mg/kg 0.5 <0.5 12 - 27% 101% 93%

Zinc, Zn LB107534 mg/kg 2 <2 1 - 24% 100% 91%

LB107536 mg/kg 2 <2 9 - 24% 101% 87%


Reference







TRH (Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons) in Soil Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN403

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

TRH C10-C14 LB107365 mg/kg 20 <20 0% 93%

TRH C15-C28 LB107365 mg/kg 45 <45 14% 103%

TRH C29-C36 LB107365 mg/kg 45 <45 17% 80%

TRH C37-C40 LB107365 mg/kg 100 <100 0% NA

TRH C10-C36 Total LB107365 mg/kg 110 <110 14% NA

TRH C10-C40 Total LB107365 mg/kg 210 <210 14% NA


Reference

TRH F Bands

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) LB107365 mg/kg 25 <25 0% 93%

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) - Naphthalene LB107365 mg/kg 25 <25 0% NA

TRH >C16-C34 (F3) LB107365 mg/kg 90 <90 16% 100%

TRH >C34-C40 (F4) LB107365 mg/kg 120 <120 0% 75%


Reference

VOC’s in Soil Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN433


MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

MS

%Recovery

Benzene LB107360 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 NVL 73% 66%

Toluene LB107360 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 NVL 76% 68%

Ethylbenzene LB107360 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 NVL 76% 67%

m/p-xylene LB107360 mg/kg 0.2 <0.2 NVL 77% 69%

o-xylene LB107360 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 NVL 76% 68%


Reference

Polycyclic VOCs

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

MS

%Recovery

Naphthalene LB107360 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 NVL NA NA


Reference

Surrogates

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

MS

%Recovery

Dibromofluoromethane (Surrogate) LB107360 % - 113% NVL 108% 99%

d4-1,2-dichloroethane (Surrogate) LB107360 % - 120% NVL 114% 106%

d8-toluene (Surrogate) LB107360 % - 114% NVL 114% 98%

Bromofluorobenzene (Surrogate) LB107360 % - 102% NVL 125% 114%


Reference

Totals

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

MS

%Recovery

Total Xylenes* LB107360 mg/kg 0.3 <0.3 NVL NA NA

Total BTEX LB107360 mg/kg 0.6 <0.6 NVL NA NA


Reference







Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Method: ME-(AU)-[ENV]AN433

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

MS

%Recovery

TRH C6-C10 LB107360 mg/kg 25 <25 NVL 84% 85%

TRH C6-C9 LB107360 mg/kg 20 <20 NVL 72% 73%


Reference

Surrogates

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

MS

%Recovery

Dibromofluoromethane (Surrogate) LB107360 % - 113% NVL 108% 99%

d4-1,2-dichloroethane (Surrogate) LB107360 % - 120% NVL 114% 106%

d8-toluene (Surrogate) LB107360 % - 114% NVL 114% 98%

Bromofluorobenzene (Surrogate) LB107360 % - 102% NVL 125% 114%


Reference

VPH F Bands

MB DUP %RPD LCS

%Recovery

MS

%Recovery

Benzene (F0) LB107360 mg/kg 0.1 <0.1 NVL NA NA

TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX (F1) LB107360 mg/kg 25 <25 NVL 105% 128%


Reference


SE155708 R0

METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

METHOD SUMMARY

The test is carried out by drying (at either 40°C or 105°C) a known mass of sample in a weighed evaporating basin.

After fully dry the sample is re-weighed. Samples such as sludge and sediment having high percentages of

moisture will take some time in a drying oven for complete removal of water.

AN002

A portion of sample is digested with Nitric acid to decompose organic matter and Hydrochloric acid to complete the

digestion of metals and then filtered for analysis by ASS or ICP as per USEPA Method 200.8.

AN040

A portion of sample is digested with nitric acid to decompose organic matter and hydrochloric acid to complete the

digestion of metals. The digest is then analysed by ICP OES with metals results reported on the dried sample

basis. Based on USEPA method 200.8 and 6010C.

AN040/AN320

Mercury by Cold Vapour AAS in Soils: After digestion with nitric acid, hydrogen peroxide and hydrochloric acid,

mercury ions are reduced by stannous chloride reagent in acidic solution to elemental mercury. This mercury

vapour is purged by nitrogen into a cold cell in an atomic absorption spectrometer or mercury analyser.

Quantification is made by comparing absorbances to those of the calibration standards. Reference APHA

3112/3500

AN312

OC and OP Pesticides by GC-ECD: The determination of organochlorine (OC) and organophosphorus (OP)

pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soils, sludges and groundwater. ( Based on USEPA methods

3510, 3550, 8140 and 8080.)

AN400

Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons: Determination of Hydrocarbons by gas chromatography after a solvent

extraction. Detection is by flame ionisation detector (FID) that produces an electronic signal in proportion to the

combustible matter passing through it. Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRH) are routinely reported as four

alkane groupings based on the carbon chain length of the compounds: C6-C9, C10-C14, C15-C28 and C29-C36

and in recognition of the NEPM 1999 (2013), >C10-C16 (F2), >C16-C34 (F3) and >C34-C40 (F4). F2 is reported

directly and also corrected by subtracting Naphthalene ( from VOC method AN433) where available.

AN403

Additionally, the volatile C6-C9 fraction may be determined by a purge and trap technique and GC/MS because of

the potential for volatiles loss. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) follows the same method of analysis after

silica gel cleanup of the solvent extract. Aliphatic/Aromatic Speciation follows the same method of analysis after

fractionation of the solvent extract over silica with differential polarity of the eluent solvents .

AN403

The GC/FID method is not well suited to the analysis of refined high boiling point materials (ie lubricating oils or

greases) but is particularly suited for measuring diesel, kerosene and petrol if care to control volatility is taken. This

method will detect naturally occurring hydrocarbons, lipids, animal fats, phenols and PAHs if they are present at

sufficient levels, dependent on the use of specific cleanup/fractionation techniques. Reference USEPA 3510B,

8015B.

AN403

(SVOCs) including OC, OP, PCB, Herbicides, PAH, Phthalates and Speciated Phenols (etc) in soils, sediments

and waters are determined by GCMS/ECD technique following appropriate solvent extraction process (Based on

USEPA 3500C and 8270D).

AN420

SVOC Compounds: Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) including OC, OP, PCB, Herbicides, PAH,

Phthalates and Speciated Phenols in soils, sediments and waters are determined by GCMS/ECD technique

following appropriate solvent extraction process (Based on USEPA 3500C and 8270D).

AN420

VOCs and C6-C9 Hydrocarbons by GC-MS P&T: VOC`s are volatile organic compounds. The sample is presented

to a gas chromatograph via a purge and trap (P&T) concentrator and autosampler and is detected with a Mass

Spectrometer (MSD). Solid samples are initially extracted with methanol whilst liquid samples are processed

directly. References: USEPA 5030B, 8020A, 8260.

AN433


SE155708 R0

Samples analysed as received.

Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.

Where "Total" analyte groups are reported (for example, Total PAHs, Total OC Pesticides) the total will be calculated as the sum of the individual

analytes, with those analytes that are reported as <LOR being assumed to be zero. The summed (Total) limit of reporting is calcuated by summing

the individual analyte LORs and dividing by two. For example, where 16 individual analytes are being summed and each has an LOR of 0.1 mg/kg,

the "Totals" LOR will be 1.6 / 2 (0.8 mg/kg). Where only 2 analytes are being summed, the " Total" LOR will be the sum of those two LORs.

Some totals may not appear to add up because the total is rounded after adding up the raw values.

If reported, measurement uncertainty follow the ± sign after the analytical result and is expressed as the expanded uncertainty calculated using a

coverage factor of 2, providing a level of confidence of approximately 95%, unless stated otherwise in the comments section of this report.

Results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, radionuclide or gross radioactivity concentrations are

expressed in becquerel (Bq) per unit of mass or volume or per wipe as stated on the report. Becquerel is the SI unit for activity and equals one

nuclear transformation per second.

Note that in terms of units of radioactivity:

a. 1 Bq is equivalent to 27 pCi

b. 37 MBq is equivalent to 1 mCi

For results reported for samples tested under test methods with codes starting with ARS -SOP, less than (<) values indicate the detection limit for

each radionuclide or parameter for the measurement system used. The respective detection limits have been calculated in accordance with ISO

11929.

The QC criteria are subject to internal review according to the SGS QAQC plan and may be provided on request or alternatively can be found here :

http://www.sgs.com.au/~/media/Local/Australia/Documents/Technical%20Documents/MP-AU-ENV-QU-022%20QA%20QC%20Plan.pdf

This document is issued, on the Client 's behalf, by the Company under its General Conditions of Service available on request and accessible at

http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions. The Client's attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues

defined therein.

Any other holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company 's findings at the time of its intervention only

and within the limits of Client's instructions, if any. The Company's sole responsibility is to its Client and this document does not exonerate parties to

a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents.

This report must not be reproduced, except in full.

IS

LNR

*

**

Insufficient sample for analysis.

Sample listed, but not received.

NATA accreditation does not cover the

performance of this service.

Indicative data, theoretical holding time exceeded.

FOOTNOTES

LOR

↑↓

QFH

QFL

-

NVL

Limit of Reporting

Raised or Lowered Limit of Reporting

QC result is above the upper tolerance

QC result is below the lower tolerance

The sample was not analysed for this analyte

Not Validated


Appendix 3. Field sampling log Sampling log

Client Health Infrastructure

Contact Alana Travis

Job number R7367

Location 2 Nullamut Street, Cobar NSW

Date 3 and 4 August 2016

Investigator(s) Andrew Ruming

Weather conditions Fine

Sample id Matrix Date Analysis required Observations/comments

-100 Soil 04/08/2016 Arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), Organochlorine pesticides (OCP)

C1-300 Soil 04/08/2016 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, OCP C2-100 Soil 04/08/2016 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, OCP C2-300 Soil 04/08/2016 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, OCP C3-100 Soil 04/08/2016 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, OCP C3-300 Soil 04/08/2016 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, OCP C4-100 Soil 04/08/2016 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, OCP C4-300 Soil 04/08/2016 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, OCP C5-100 Soil 04/08/2016 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, OCP C5-300 Soil 04/08/2016 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, OCP DB-100 Soil 04/08/2016 As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, OCP S1 Soil 04/08/2016 Total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRH C6-C40), benzene, toluene,

ethyl benzene, xylene and naphthalene (BTEXN), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), OCP, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg

S2 Soil 04/08/2016 TRH (C6-C40), BTEXN, PAH, OCP, PCB, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg



Date post:	23-Mar-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamdat
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times