Teir 1 Detailed Site Investigationprojectcorp.com.au/wordpress/projectfiles... ·...

Teir 1 Detailed Site Investigationfor

Leichhardt Park - Mary StreetLilyfield NSW 2040

Prepared for:

Leichhardt Municipal Council

April, 2014

(Report: C6425.Q3570.B29194 Leichhardt Park DSI FB)

COPYRIGHT: The concepts, information and design ideas contained in this document are the property of Sydney Environmental & SoilLaboratory Pty Ltd (ABN 70106 810 708). Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of SydneyEnvironmental & Soil Laboratory constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Detailed Site Investigation (Tier 1 DSI)

Mary Street, Lilyfield NSW 2040 (Lot 6643 DP 1137663)

C6425.Q3570.B29194 Leichhardt Park DSI FB.doc

SESL Australia – April 2014

Leichhardt Municipal Council Page 1 of 47

Executive Summary SESL Australia (SESL) was engaged by Leichhardt Municipal Council (the Client) to conduct a Tier 1 Preliminary (DSI) for Leichhardt Park, Mary Street, Lilyfield (the site). The site encompasses Lot 6643, DP 1137663. This report will be used as supporting documentation a development application for the proposed demolition and new residential development. The objective of this Tier 1 DSI was to:

• Produce a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) in accordance with the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013), NEPC 2013, Canberra;

• Identify issues of ongoing pollution and non-compliance, as compared to current regulatory criteria;

• Identify the likelihood and/or extent of significant contamination occurring from past or present practices on the site; and

• Recommend any further management strategies including any additional investigations. The scope of works for the current assessment is detailed as follows:

• Review of the information included in the PSI undertaken by ADE Consulting; • Site walk over and inspection by SESL; • Intrusive soil sampling based on site account and site inspection. Standard quality assurance

(QA) and quality control (QC) measures implemented; • Laboratory chemical analysis by National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited

laboratories, in accordance with a chain of custody prepared by SESL; • Assessment of field and laboratory analytical results limited to the standard residential landuse

of the site; • Preparation of this report detailing the PSI findings in accordance with Office of Environment

and Heritage (OEH) guidelines for reporting contaminated sites; and • Propose suitable remedial and validation strategies for the site if required.

The Tier 1 DSI was based on a site walkover was carried out on 13/02/13. The site is located within a open space area and is an existing park with children’s play equipment. The PSI undertaken by ADE Consulting identified potential for contamination due to historical landfilling. The unknown origin and composition of this fill material demonstrated a potential for soil contamination to exist. The identification of asbestos cement fragments on the ground surface around the perimeter of the proposed area of development generated concern that asbestos contamination may be present on the ground and within the soil in the area of proposed development.






Due to elevations of Carcinogenic PAH’s in BH4 and BH5, SESL Australia considers this site unsuitable for the proposed development in its current condition. The level of Carcinogenic PAH’s in BH4 and BH5 was above the adopted HIL (Column 1 – Residential A). Based on this detailed investigation SESL advise that the site will be suitable for the proposed development, subject to the completion and implementation of a Remedial Action Plan. Based on this Tier 1 DSI, SESL considers the site unsuitable for the proposed demolition of the existing commercial building and development of a new residential building, without remediation and possibly will have a detrimental impact on plant growth. SESL recommends that additional analysis be undertaken in order to determine the extent of contamination in the vicinity of BH4 and BH5. The client has approved this analysis and the findings will be used to develop a Remedial Action Plan. This plan must be followed by a Site validation Report in order to ensure that the RAP has been implemented effectively. Reference should be made to Section 11 of the report that sets out details of the limitations of the assessment. SESL AUSTRALIA

Luke Jacovides Ryan Jacka Environmental Scientist Senior Environmental Scientist






TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................7 1.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................7 1.2 SCOPE OF WORKS.............................................................................................................................8 1.3 PERSONNEL ......................................................................................................................................8

2 SITE DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................................9 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP........................................................................................................9 2.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION..........................................................................................................................9 2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USE ................................................................................................................10 2.4 SITE LAYOUT AND INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................11 PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS.............................................................................................................12 2.5 SITE HISTORY .................................................................................................................................13 2.6 SITE ZONING AND PLANNING ISSUES.................................................................................................13 2.7 DANGEROUS GOODS LICENSE SEARCH ............................................................................................13 2.8 EPA CONTAMINATED SITES DATABASE ............................................................................................13 2.9 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS....................................................................................14 2.10 SUMMARY OF SITE HISTORY INFORMATION .......................................................................................14 2.11 INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT..................................................................................................................14

3 SITE RECONNAISSANCE.......................................................................................................................16 3.1 STORMWATER .................................................................................................................................16 3.2 CHEMICAL STORAGE........................................................................................................................16 3.3 ASBESTOS ......................................................................................................................................16 3.4 PCBS .............................................................................................................................................16 3.5 CUT AND FILL ..................................................................................................................................16 3.6 WASTE MANAGEMENT .....................................................................................................................16

4 RELEVANT GUIDELINES FOR CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT..................17 4.1 RELEVANT GUIDELINES....................................................................................................................17 4.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..............................................................................................................17 4.3 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURE (CONTAMINATED SITES) 1999 ............................17 4.4 AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATED

SITES (ANZECC/NHMRC, 1992).............................................................................................................25 4.5 THE MANAGING LAND CONTAMINATION: PLANNING GUIDELINES – REMEDIATION OF LAND, NSW EPA 1997

(SEPP55 GUIDELINES).............................................................................................................................26 4.6 RELEVANT LEGISLATION...................................................................................................................27

5 SOIL SAMPLING, ANALYSIS PLAN AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ............................................28 5.1 SAMPLING TEAM..............................................................................................................................28 5.2 SAMPLING REGIME – SOIL................................................................................................................28 5.3 SAMPLING REGIME – ASBESTOS (SOIL) ............................................................................................29






5.4 SAMPLING REGIME – WATER............................................................................................................29 5.5 SAMPLE COLLECTION – SOIL............................................................................................................30 5.6 COMPOSITE SAMPLE PROCEDURE....................................................................................................30 5.7 SAMPLE COLLECTION – WATER........................................................................................................30 5.8 DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURE ......................................................................................................30

6 QUALITY ASSURANCE & QUALITY CONTROL PLAN.........................................................................31 6.1 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................31 6.2 DATA QUALITY INDICATORS AND DATA EVALUATION ..........................................................................32 6.3 FIELD AND LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM .................................................................33 6.4 REPORTING.....................................................................................................................................35

7 SUMMARY OF RESULTS........................................................................................................................36 7.1 SITE STRATIGRAPHIC CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................36 7.2 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY..............................................................................................36 7.3 CALCULATION OF 95% UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMIT (UCL) ..................................................................37

8 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ..................................................................................................................40 8.1 SOURCES OF IMPACT .......................................................................................................................40 8.2 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN ..........................................................................................................40 8.3 FATE AND TRANSPORT.....................................................................................................................40 8.4 POTENTIAL SURROUNDING RECEPTORS............................................................................................41

9 CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................................42 9.1 SITE CHARACTERISATION.................................................................................................................42 9.2 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................42

10 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ............................................................................................................................43 10.1 REMEDIAL ACTION AND SITE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ........................................................................43 10.2 DO NOTHING...................................................................................................................................43 10.3 MONITORING NATURAL ATTENUATION...............................................................................................44 10.4 ON SITE TREATMENT .......................................................................................................................44 10.5 EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL.............................................................................................................44 10.6 ON SITE MANAGEMENT....................................................................................................................45 10.7 PREFERRED REMEDIAL OPTION........................................................................................................45 10.8 REMEDIATION CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................45

11 LIMITATIONS .........................................................................................................................................46

12 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................47






DOCUMENT TABLES Table 1 – Project Personnel ..............................................................................................................................8 Table 2 – Site Identification ...............................................................................................................................9 Table 3 – Health Investigation Levels for Soil Contaminants ..........................................................................20 Table 4 – HSL Fractions and Corresponding Equivalent Carbon Range........................................................22 Table 5 – Health Screening Levels for Asbestos Contamination in Soil .........................................................23 Table 6 – EILs Landuse Criteria and Protection Levels ..................................................................................23 Table 7 – Sampling Team Personnel ..............................................................................................................28 Table 8 – Sampling locations selection ...........................................................................................................29 Table 9 – Data Quality Objectives...................................................................................................................31 Table 10 – Summary of Sample Analysis .......................................................................................................35 Table 11 – Soil Analytical Results Summary...................................................................................................38 Table 12 – Soil Analytical Results Summary and Health Screening Levels....................................................39 DOCUMENT FIGURES Figure 1 – Locality Map: Leichhardt Park, Mary Street, Lilyfield .....................................................................10 Figure 2 – Site Layout: Leichhardt Park, Mary Street, Lilyfield .......................................................................11

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Map 1 – Site Layout (Including Sampling Locations) Appendix B. NEPM 2013 Health Screening Levels TRH NEPM 2013 Ecological Investigation Levels NEPM 2013 Ecological Screening Levels Appendix C. SESL Results Summary NATA Certificates Chain of Custody Documentations






ABBREVIATIONS AEC Areas of Environmental Concern AHD Australian Height Datum ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council BaP Benzo(a)pyrene CA Contamination Assessment CLM Contaminated Land Management Act COC Chain of Custody CPAHs Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons DEC Department of Environment and Conservation NSW DECC Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW DECCW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW DQO Data Quality Objectives DSI Detailed Site Investigation EILs Ecological Investigation Levels. EPA Environmental Protection Authority ESLs Ecological Screening Levels HILs Health Investigation Levels HSLs Health Screening Levels NATA The National Association of Testing Authorities NEHF National Environment and Health Forum NEPC National Environment Protection Council NEPM National Environment Protection Measure OCP Organochlorine Pesticides OEH Office of Environment and Heritage NSW OPP Organophosphate Pesticides PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PID Photo Ionisation Detector PQL Practical Quantitation Limits PSI Preliminary Site Investigation QA/QC Quality Assurance, Quality Control RAC Remediation Acceptance Criteria RAP Remedial Action Plan RPD Relative Percent Difference SAC Soil Assessment Criteria SESL SESL Australia SMP Site Management Plan SVR Site Validation Report TEQ Toxic Equivalence Quotient






1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

SESL Australia (SESL) was engaged by Leichhardt Municipal Council (the Client) to conduct a Tier 1 Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) for Leichhardt Park – Mary Street, Lilyfield NSW (the site). The site encompasses a portion of Lot 6643, DP 1137663. This report will be used as supporting documentation a development application for the proposed development of a childcare centre. ADE Consulting group undertook a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) on the site. As such, references to the PSI and the searches conducted as part of it have been made throughout this report. The objective of this DSI was to:

• Produce a Tier 1 Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) in accordance with the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013), NEPC 2013, Canberra;

• Identify issues of ongoing pollution and non-compliance, as compared to current regulatory criteria;

• Identify the likelihood and/or extent of significant contamination occurring from past or present practices on the site; and

• Recommend any further management strategies including any additional investigations. Generally, the preparation of the DSI was based on the following Guidelines, Acts and Regulations:

• Managing Contaminated Land: Planning Guidelines SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land, Environment Protection Authority 1998;

• Contaminated Land Management Regulation 2008; • Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites – NSW OEH

2011; • Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme, NSW EPA 2006; • Contaminated Sites: Sample Design Guidelines, NSW EPA 1995; • Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for Assessing Service Stations Sites, NSW EPA 1994; • Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979; • National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April

2013), NEPC 2013, Canberra; • Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997; • Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000; and • Waste Classification Guidelines Part 1: Classifying Waste, DECCW 2009.






1.2 Scope of Works

The scope of works for the current assessment is detailed as follows: PSI (As conducted by ADE Consulting)

• Comprehensive data review on the history of the site including a review of selected aerial photographs and Certificates of Title;

• Searches for information held by relevant State Authorities in relation to contaminated land; • Obtaining information pertaining to the site’s environmental setting including the proximity of the

site to sensitive receptors and information on site geology; and • Inspection of the site and immediate surrounds to support the results of the data review and to

identify site characteristics that may be suggestive of land contamination. DSI (As conducted by SESL Australia)

• Site walk over and inspection; • Intrusive soil sampling based on site account and site inspection; • Standard quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) measures implemented; • Laboratory chemical analysis by National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited

laboratories, in accordance with a chain of custody prepared by SESL; • Assessment of field and laboratory analytical results; • Preparation of this report detailing the DSI findings in accordance with Office of Environment

and Heritage (OEH) guidelines for reporting contaminated sites; and • Propose suitable remedial and validation strategies for the site if required.

1.3 Personnel

Environmental Scientists of SESL conducted the site visit on 13/02/2013.

Table 1 – Project Personnel

Personnel Position Project Task Luke Jacovides B Env Mgt & Sc

Environmental Scientist Conduct site observation, soil sampling and report generation.

Andrew Jacovides B Nat Sc Env Mgt

Environmental Scientist Conduct site observation and soil sampling.

Ryan Jacka B Env S, M Env Sc, MEIANZ, ASSSI

Senior Environmental Scientist

Report review and authorisation.






2 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Site Location and Ownership

The site access is currently from Mary Street, Lilyfield NSW. The investigation area where the proposed development is to occur is approximately 1500m2 and comprised of Lot 6643, DP 1137663. A historical title search was carried out as part of the PSI conducted by ADE Consulting. The results of this search indicate that the site is currently Crown Land, owned and managed by the State of New South Wales. Refer to Appendix II of the PSI report developed by ADE Consulting for further information.

2.2 Site Identification

The following details describe the portion of land subjected to the PSI:

Table 2 – Site Identification

Site Owner The State of New South Wales

Site Address Mary Street, Lilyfield NSW

Lot and DP Number Lot 6643, DP 1137663

Local Government Area Leichhardt Municipal Council

Current Zoning Public Recreation (Leichhardt LEP, 2000)

Geographical Coordinates 33°52'10.26" S 151°09'13.19" E

Investigation Area Approximately 1500m2 in total

Site Elevation Approximately 21m AHD

Locality Map Figure 1

Site Layout Figure 2



C6425.Q3570.B29194 Leichhardt Park DSI FA.doc

SESL Australia – March 2014


Figure 1 – Locality Map: Leichhardt Park, Mary Street, Lilyfield

(Courtesy of Department of Lands, 2014)

2.3 Surrounding Land Use

The site is located within a mixed-use area with residential and commercial area located to the southern side of the site and parkland and light commercial to the north, east and west of the site. Iron Cove is located to the far west of the site.






Figure 2 – Site Layout: Leichhardt Park, Mary Street, Lilyfield

(Courtesy of Department of Lands, 2014)

2.4 Site Layout and Infrastructure

The site layout can be viewed in Figure 2. The site is an existing public open space with children’s play equipment in the northeast corner. The site is raised with fill materials and drops away steeply to the south and west. Large, established trees border the open, grassed area. The northern boundary is a car park and Mary Street is located to the east of the site.






Physical Site Characteristics

2.4.1 Topography and Drainage

The elevation across the investigation area is approximately 21 meters (m) Australian Height Datum (AHD). This is raised well above the natural elevation of the area, as the area has been filled historically.

2.4.2 Geology and Hydrology

The Soil Landscapes of the Sydney 1:100 000 Sheet Map (Chapman et al 1989) indicates the site to be within the Hawkesbury Soil Landscape, however the soil observed on the site is not consistent with the natural soils of this landscape group due to the filling that has occurred previously. See borelogs for more information on the soil profile observed on the site. Iron Cove is the closest natural water body, and is located approximately 135 metres to the west of the site. Groundwater flows were not determined, but are expected to be in a westerly direction, towards Iron Cove. The extensive fill material present on site means that natural groundwater will not be encountered or disturbed by the proposed works on the site and any contamination is not likely to have an effect on the proposed land use of the site.

2.4.3 Acid Sulfate Soil

ADE Consulting identified an acid sulfate soils risk during the PSI due to the site’s proximity to an area of Class 2, however due to the highly modified (constructed) soil profile of the site it is not expected that acid sulfate soils are present.

2.4.4 Proximity to Local Sensitive Environments

Iron Cove (Parramatta River) is located approximately 135 metres west of the site. No water body or other sensitive environment has been identified within the site. The areas surrounding the site are heavily developed and as such no sensitive environments have been identified in those areas.

2.4.5 Soil and Groundwater Contamination

No reports of soil or groundwater investigations involving sampling and testing were available for the site. The PSI conducted by ADE Consulting was the only contamination report available for this site prior to SESL Australia conducting this DSI. A groundwater bore search was undertaken using by ADE Consulting during the PSI. No bores were identified.






2.5 Site History

A review of the site history was undertaken by ADE Consulting during the PSI to assess historical use of the site, and in particular to identify activities with potential to contaminate soil or groundwater at the site. The historical review included:

• Historical Certificates of Title; • Other available historical site information; and • Historical Aerial Photographs.

Refer to the ADE Consulting Report Titled ‘Phase 1 Preliminary Site Investigation Leichhardt Park – Mary Street, Lilyfield NSW’ for the results of this review.

2.6 Site Zoning and Planning Issues

Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2000 is the principle-planning instrument regulating landuse and development in the area (see Appendix B). The site is zoned as ‘Public Recreation’ and the objectives for this zone is as follow:

• To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

• To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

• To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

• To maximise the quantity and quality of open space areas to meet the existing and future

needs of the community.

• To ensure the equitable distribution of, and access to, open space and recreation facilities.

• To provide links between open space areas.

2.7 Dangerous Goods License Search

ADE Consulting undertook a search of the Stored Chemical Information Database and the microfiche records held by Workcover NSW during the PSI. The search found that there were no records for the site. Refer to the ADE Consulting Report Titled ‘Phase 1 Preliminary Site Investigation Leichhardt Park – Mary Street, Lilyfield NSW’ for the results of this review.

2.8 EPA Contaminated Sites Database

A search of the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA, now incorporated into the Office of Environment and Heritage) public register of Notices issued under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 was undertaken by ADE Consulting during the PSI. This indicated that no notices have been issued against the site or the surrounding properties. Please refer to the ADE Consulting Report Titled ‘Phase 1 Preliminary Site Investigation Leichhardt Park – Mary Street, Lilyfield NSW’ for the results of this review.






2.9 Previous Environmental Investigations

ADE Consulting conducted a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) for Leichhardt Park in November 2013 (Refer to ADE Consulting Report Titled ‘Phase 1 Preliminary Site Investigation Leichhardt Park – Mary Street, Lilyfield NSW’). The assessment was conducted to preliminary characterise the contamination status of the site for the proposed development of a childcare centre. The conclusions of the report were:

• The land was dedicated for public recreation in Gov. Gaz. Dated 09.12.1977 and was deemed a reserve within the meaning of Part 5 of the Crown Lands Act 1989.

• Large developments bordering the site have been constructed and demolished, indicating potential fill materials may exist on site.

• The site was vacant at the time of inspection, with the exception of the caretaker’s cottage and children’s play equipment.

• ADE has been advised that the proposed is a childcare centre. • It is the opinion of ADE that there is potential for contaminated fill materials on site. • Due to the sites close proximity to an area indicated as a Class 2 risk of acid sulphate soils,

there is potential for acid sulphate soils to be present on site. • The potential contamination types that were identified for the site include: Asbestos Containing

Materials, Heavy metals, BTEX, PAHs, TPHs, OCPs, OPPs and Phenols. • A Limited Phase II Detailed Site Contamination Investigation should be undertaken to determine

whether contamination is present within the soil. • Should the Limited Phase II DSI reveal the site is not contaminated, the site can be deemed

suitable for the proposed development.

2.10 Summary of Site History Information

The PSI stated that the use of the site for identified past practices, predominantly the unknown imported fill material and asbestos containing material present on the site. In summary, the historical account has generated the following inventory of chemicals and wastes associated with this historical land use:

• Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRH); • Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene and Xylenes (BTEX); • Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH); • Heavy metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg, Mn); • Organophosphate Pesticides; • Organochlorine Pesticides; and • Asbestos.

2.11 Integrity Assessment

The integrity of information provided in this Tier 1 DSI was considered reliable. The Tier 1 DSI and followed appropriate methods of investigation with the desktop survey being consistent with field






observation and anecdotal evidence presented. Details regarding the site history and present status of the site have been largely obtained from official records sourced from Leichhardt Municipal Council, Office of Environment and Heritage, Workcover NSW and NSW Land and Property Information Department. These documents are considered accurate and credible. All information provided, as part of this report was believed to be true, accurate and representative of the past and present status of the site at the time of this investigation.






3 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

A walkover of the site was undertaken by SESL on 13/02/2013 to support the findings of the desktop review and identify site characteristics that may be suggestive of site contamination. Intrusive soil sampling was conducted during this site visit.

3.1 Stormwater

Based on the site topography for stormwater is unlikely to flow onto from surrounding land due to existing stormwater infrastructure. No significant issues were identified with respect to stormwater management on this property.

3.2 Chemical Storage

No hazardous chemicals were observed to be stored on the property. No significant issues were identified with respect to chemical management at the property.

3.3 Asbestos

Asbestos-containing cement fragments were identified around the perimeter of the site, however no asbestos containing materials were identified within the area of proposed development (see Appendix A: Sampling Map).

3.4 PCBs

No electrical equipment, including transformers were observed at the property.

3.5 Cut and Fill

Based on the site walkover inspection, it has been determined that the entire site is underlain by fill materials. This has been determined by the topography and landform of the site, having very steep embankments building up towards Mary Street.

3.6 Waste Management

No waste facilities were identified on the site and as such no waste management has been required.






4 RELEVANT GUIDELINES FOR CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

4.1 Relevant Guidelines

Assessment criteria will be based on guidelines made or approved by the NSW EPA under Section 105 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. These include EPA’s Contaminated Sites series of guidelines, and fundamental guideline documents such as the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites (ANZECC/NHMRC 1992) and National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013), NEPC 2013, Canberra, published by the NEPC (henceforth referred to as the ASC NEPM 2013). The NEPM incorporates a recommended general process for the assessment of site contamination and a set of 9 specific guidelines. The process and guidelines are closely based on previous documentation widely used for assessing site contamination (such as ANZECC/NHRMC 1992 and the various National Environmental Health Forum monographs and proceedings). Assessment criteria have been drawn from other guidelines and information sources, if not available in the above guidelines.

4.2 Proposed Development

The proposed development on site involves the construction of a childcare facility that will include outside space. Minimal excavation will be required for the proposed development.

4.3 National Environmental Protection Measure (Contaminated Sites) 1999

The National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013), NEPC 2013, Canberra provides a national framework for conducting assessments of contaminated sites in Australia. The purpose of the ASC NEPM 2013 is to establish a nationally consistent approach to the assessment of site contamination to ensure sound environmental management practices by the community which includes regulators, site assessors, environmental auditors, landowners, developers and industry. The ASC NEPM 2013 addresses assessment of contamination, and does not provide specific guidance on prevention of site contamination. The desired environmental outcome for the ASC NEPM 2013 is to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment, where site contamination has occurred, through the development of an efficient and effective national approach to the assessment of site contamination.






Schedule A in the ASC NEPM 2013 outlines the general process for assessment of site contamination, with reference to Schedules B (1) to B (9) for guidance on each step of the process. In broad terms, the assessment process as provided in Schedule A can be described as: Tier 1 PSI Preliminary investigation, laboratory analysis and interpretation, and assessment of

results with reference to investigations levels; Tier 1 DSI Where required, detailed investigation, laboratory analysis and interpretation is

completed, and the need for risk assessment to derive response levels and/or the need for remediation is evaluated; and

Tier 2 or 3 Site-specific risk assessment to confirm/define appropriate health and ecological investigation levels.

Overarching guidance is provided on community consultation and risk communication, protection of health and safety during assessment of site contamination, and expected competencies of environmental auditors and related professionals. ASC NEPM 2013 provides a framework for the use of investigation and screening levels for the protection of human health, ecosystems, groundwater resources and aesthetics. Investigations levels and screening levels are applicable to the Tier 1 site assessment. The adopted investigation and screening levels for this assessment is as follow:

i) Health Investigation Levels (HILs); ii) Health Screening Levels (HSLs); iii) Ecological Investigation Levels (EILs); and iv) Ecological Screening Levels (ESLs).

4.3.1 Health Investigation Levels (HILs)

HILs are scientifically based, generic assessment criteria designed to be used in the Tier 1 assessment for assessing human health risk via all relevant pathways of exposure. HILs are designed to be intentionally conservative and based on a reasonable worst-case scenario for the following generic land use settings: A Residential with garden/accessible soil (home grown produce contributing less than 10%

of vegetable and fruit intake; no poultry) this category includes children’s day-care centres, preschools and primary schools.

B Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access, including dwellings with fully and

permanently paved yard space such as high-rise apartments and flats.






C Public open space such as parks, playgrounds, playing fields (e.g. ovals), secondary schools and footpaths. It does not include undeveloped public open space (such as urban bushland and reserves), which should be subject to a site-specific assessment where appropriate.

D Commercial/industrial includes shops and offices as well as factories and industrial sites. The site is currently public space in the form of a public park. Due to the proposed development of a day care centre high human exposure to the site is expected. Therefore, the Health Investigation Levels selected for the site is HIL – Residential A. ASC NEPM 2013 Schedule B7 defined the HILs as the concentration of a contaminant above, which further appropriate investigation and evaluation will be required. It is also stated “levels in excess of the HILs do not imply unacceptability or that a significant health risk is likely to be present”. The ASC NEPM 2013 Schedule B7 states at the very least, the maximum and the 95% UCL of the arithmetic mean contaminant as well as localised elevated values must be compared to the HILs. Two additional (secondary) criteria should also be met, namely that the standard deviation of the results must be <50% of the relevant investigation level and that no single value exceeds 250% of the relevant investigation level. ASC NEPM 2013 also states that the HILs are not intended to be used as clean-up levels for contaminated sites. The requirement of clean-up should be based on site-specific assessment and risk management options. The adopted HIL is shown in Table 5.






Table 3 – Health Investigation Levels for Soil Contaminants Health-based investigation levels (mg/kg)

Chemical Residential1 A Residential1 B Recreational1 C Commercial/ Industrial1 D

Metals and Inorganics Arsenic2

Beryllium Boron Cadmium Chromium (VI) Cobalt Copper Lead3

Manganese Mercury (Inorganic) 5

Methyl Mercury4

Nickel Selenium Zinc Cyanide

100 60

4,500 20

100 100

6,000 300 3,00 40 10

400 200

7,400 250

500 90

40,000 150 500 600

30,000 1,200

14,000 120 30

1,200 1,400

60,000 300

300 90

20,000 90

300 300

17,000 600

19,000 80 13

1,200 700

30,000 240

3,000 500

300,000 900

3,600 4,000

240,000 1,500

60,000 730 180

6,000 10,000

400,000 1,500

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Carcinogenic PAHs (as BaP TEQ)6

Total PAHs7

3

300

4

400

3

300

40

4000 Phenols

Phenol Pentachlorophenol Cresols

3,000 100 400

45,000 130

4,700

40,000 120

4,000

240,000 660

25,000 Organochlorine Pesticides

DDT+DDE+DDD Aldrin and Dieldrin Chlordane Endosulfan Endrin Heptachlor HCB Methoxychlor Mirex Toxaphene

240 6

50 270 10 6

10 300 10 20

600 10 90

400 20 10 15

500 20 30

400 10 70

340 20 10 10

400 20 30

3,600 45

530 2,000 100 50 80

2,500 100 160

Herbicides 2,4,5-T 2,4-D MCPA MCPB Mecoprop Picloram

600 900 600 600 600

4,500

900 1,600 900 900 900

6,600

800 1,300 800 800 800

5,700

5,000 9,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

35,000 Other Pesticides

Atrazine Chlorpyrifos Bifenthrin

320 160 600

470 340 840

400 250 730

2,500 2,000 4,500

Other Organics PCBs8

PBDE Flame Retardants (Br1-Br9)

1

1

1

2

1

2

7

10 Notes: This table is adapted from Table 2 in Schedule B7: Derivation of Health-Based Investigation Levels, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013 (NEPC 2013).






1

HIL A: Residential with garden/accessible soil (home-grown produce <10% fruit and vegetable intake (no poultry)), also includes childcare centres, preschools and primary schools. HIL B: Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access; includes dwellings with fully and permanently paved yard space such as high-rise buildings and apartments. HIL C: Public open space such as parks, playgrounds, playing fields (e.g. ovals), secondary schools and footpaths. This does not include areas of undeveloped open space where the potential for exposure is lower and where a site-specific assessment may be more appropriate. HIL D: Commercial/industrial includes premises such as shops, offices, factories and industrial sites.

2 Arsenic: HIL for arsenic assumes 70% oral bioavailability. Site-specific bioavailability may be important and should be considered where appropriate

3 Lead: HIL for lead is based on blood lead models (IEUBK for HILs A, B and C and adult lead model for HILD D) where 50% oral bioavailability has been considered. Site-specific bioavailability may be important and should be considered where appropriate

4 Methyl mercury: Assessment of methyl mercury should only occur where there is evidence of its potential source. It may be associated with inorganic mercury and anaerobic microorganism activity in aquatic environments. In addition, the reliability and quality of sampling/analysis should be considered.

5 Elemental mercury: HIL does not address elemental mercury. A site-specific assessment should be considered if elemental mercury is present, or suspected to be present.

6 Carcinogenic PAHs: HIL for carcinogenic PAHs is based on the 8 carcinogenic PAHs and their respective TEFs (potency relative to BaP) adopted by CCME 2008. The BaP TEQ is calculated by multiplying the concentration of each carcinogenic PAH in the sample by its BaP TEF, given below, and summing these products.

PAH Species TEF PAH Species TEF Benzo(a)anthracene 0.1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.01 Benzo(a)pyrene 1 Chrysene 0.01 Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene 0.1 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.1 Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 0.1

Where the BaP occurs in bitumen fragments it is relatively immobile and does not represent a significant health risk. 7 Total PAHs: HIL for total PAH is based on the sum of the 16 PAHs most commonly reported for contaminated sites (WHO 1998).

The application of the total PAH HIL should consider the presence of carcinogenic PAHs and naphthalene (the most volatile PAH). Carcinogenic PAHs reported in the total PAHs should meet the BaP TEQ HIL. Naphthalene reported in the total PAHs should meet the relevant HSL.

8 PCBs: HIL for PCBs relates to non-dioxin-like PCBs only. Where a PCB source is known, or suspected, to be present at a site a site-specific assessment of exposure to all PCBs (including dioxin-like PCBs) should be undertaken.

4.3.2 Health Screening Levels (HSLs)

4.3.2.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds ASC NEPM 2013 adopts the Health Screening Levels for various petroleum hydrocarbon compounds developed by the Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC CARE). Friebel and Nadebaum 2011 provide the methodology for assessing human health risk via the inhalation and direct contact pathways of selected petroleum compounds and fractions. The HSLs apply to the same landuse scenarios with additional consideration of soil texture and depth to determine the appropriate soil, groundwater and soil vapour criteria. The ASC NEPM 2013 provides HSL fractions and corresponding equivalent carbon range for petroleum hydrocarbon compounds (see Table 4). HSLs are given only for F1, F2 and BTEX as the heavier petroleum compounds of F3 and F4 are non-volatile and do not pose a concern for vapour intrusion. However exposure can be via direct contact pathways (dermal contact, incidental oral ingestion and dust in halation). Friebel and Nadebaum 2011 provides the HSLs for direct contact, however for most site assessments, these levels are unlikely to trigger further investigation or site management as the values are substantially higher than most soil screening levels.






Table 4 – HSL Fractions and Corresponding Equivalent Carbon Range

Fraction Number Equivalent Carbon Number Range F1 C6 – C10 F2 >C10 – C16 F3 >C16 – C34 F4 >C34 – C40

As aforementioned, HSLs for soil, groundwater and soil vapour haven been developed based on soil texture. The HSLs assume a uniform soil profile and the highest proportion of the soil texture from the soil profile should be used selecting the appropriate HSLs. For Tier 1 soil assessment, the HSL classifications of sand, silt and clay may be broadly applied to soil texture classification in Table A1 of Australian Standard 1726 as follow:

i) Coarse grained soil: >50% of particles (by weight) <63mm and >0.075mm • Sand: >50% of particles (by weight) <2.36mm; or • Gravel: >50% of particles (by weight) >2.36mm.

ii) Fine-grained soil: >50% of particles (by weight) <0.075mm • Silts and clays (liquid limit >50%); • Silts and clays (liquid limit <50%); or • Highly organic soils.

4.3.2.2 Asbestos ASC NEPM 2013 adopted the HSLs from the Western Australia Department of Health (WA DoH) Guidelines of Assessment, Remediation and Management of Asbestos-Contaminated Sites in Western Australia 2009. The HSLs are based on scenario-specific likely exposure levels, that includes bonded and friable asbestos levels (see Table 5). Asbestos only poses human health risk when asbestos fibres are made airborne and inhaled. Bonded asbestos is not readily made airborne except through substantial physical damage. ASC NEPM 2013 states “the assessment and management of asbestos contamination should take into account the condition of the asbestos materials and the potential for damage and resulting release of asbestos fibres”. The HSLs are to be used for Tier 1 assessment, in the event of an exceedance that triggers the need for a Tier 2 site-specific assessment. Site-specific assessments of asbestos contaminated sites should be designed to describe the nature and quantity of asbestos present in the soil that can sufficiently develop a risk management plan for the current and proposed landuse of the site.






Table 5 – Health Screening Levels for Asbestos Contamination in Soil

Health Screening Level (w/w)

Form of asbestos Residential A1 Residential B2 Recreational C3 Commercial/

Industrial D4

Bonded ACM 0.01% 0.04% 0.02% 0.05%

Fibrous Asbestos (FA) and

Asbestos Fines (AF) 5

(Friable Asbestos)

0.001%

All forms of asbestos No visible asbestos for surface soil Note: This table is adapted from Table 7 in Schedule B1: Health Screening Levels of Asbestos Contamination in Soil, National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Amendment Measure 2013 (NEPC 2013). 1 Residential A with garden/accessible soil also includes childcare centres, preschools and primary schools. 2 Residential B with minimal opportunities for soil access; includes dwellings with fully and permanently paved yard space such as high-rise buildings and apartments. 3 Recreational C includes public open space such as parks, playgrounds, playing fields (e.g. ovals), secondary schools and unpaved footpaths. 4 Commercial/industrial D includes premises such as shops, offices, factories and industrial sites. 5 The screening level of 0.001% w/w asbestos in soil for FA and AF (i.e. non-bonded/friable asbestos) only applies where the FA and AF are able to be quantified by gravimetric procedures. This screening level is not applicable to free fibres.

4.3.3 Ecological Investigation Levels (EILs)

Ecological Investigation Levels (EILs) have been developed for assessing risk to terrestrial ecosystem for common contaminants in soil. The EILs are derived for specified levels of species protection depending on land use and are principally applied to the top 2m of the soil.

Table 6 – EILs Landuse Criteria and Protection Levels

Land Use Levels of Protection Areas of ecological significance 99% Urban residential areas and public open space (HIL A, B and C) 80% Commercial and industrial 60%

Schedule B5 of ASC NEPM 2013 provides the EILs for Arsenic, Copper, Trivalent Chromium, DDT, Napthalene, Nickel, Lead and Zinc. The methodology to derive the EILs considers the physicochemical properties of soil and contaminants and the capacity of the local ecosystem to accommodate increases in contaminant levels above ambient background. EILs are obtained by summing added ambient background concentration (ABC) and contaminant limit (ACL). ABC is the soil concentration in a specified locality that is the total of naturally occurring background level and the contaminant levels that have been introduced by general anthropogenic sources. ACL is the added concentration above the ACB of a contaminant which require further investigation on the impact on ecological values.






The derivation of EILs takes into consideration the ageing of contamination (>2 years) and soil properties as the toxicity of soil contaminants will reduce over time. Values for ACL based on pH, CEC and exposure scenario are provided for Lead, Zinc, Copper, Nickel and Trivalent Chromium. This method of deriving EILs only applies to metals and metalloids, with the exception of Arsenic. Generic EILs for Arsenic, DDT and Napthalene are shown in Appendix D. Methodology for Tier 2 site-specific assessments to determine site-specific EILs is provided in Schedule B5(b).

4.3.4 Ecological Screening Levels (ESLs)

Ecological Screening Levels (ESLs) haven been developed for selected petroleum hydrocarbon compounds to assess risk to terrestrial ecosystem. The ESLs adopts the same four fractions from the HSLs (see Table 4), however the soil texture standards are only divided into two; coarse or fine. ESLs were adopted based on a review of Canadian guidance, a risk based TPH standards for human health and ecological aspects for various land uses in the Canada-wide standard for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil (CCME 2008). In summary, the Investigation and Screening Levels adopted for this assessment is as follow:

• NEPC 2013, ASC NEPM 2013 Schedule B7, Table 1(A)1 – Health Investigation Levels for Soil Contaminants, Exposure Setting Residential A;

• NEPC 2013, ASC NEPM 2013 Schedule B7, Table 7 – Health Screening Levels for Asbestos Contamination in Soil, Exposure Setting Residential A;

• NEPC 2013, ASC NEPM 2013 Schedule B7, Table 1(A)3 – Soil Health Screening Levels for Vapour Intrusion;

• NEPC 2013, ASC NEPM 2013 Schedule B5b & B5c, Ecological Investigations Levels • NEPC 2013, ASC NEPM 2013 Schedule B7, Table 1(B)5 – Generic EILS for Aged As, Fresh

DDT and Fresh Napthalene in Soils; and • NEPC 2013, ASC NEPM 2013 Schedule B7, Table 1(B)6 – ESLs for TPH Fractions F1-F4,

NTEX and Benzo(a)pyrene in Soil.






4.4 Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites (ANZECC/NHMRC, 1992)

The Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites (ANZECC/NHMRC, 1992) provide a risk management approach consistent with the attainment of environmental outcomes described in the ASC NEPM 2013. Contamination of land is defined as the presence in, on or under the land of a substance at a concentration above the concentration at which the substance is normally present in, on or under (respectively) land in the same locality, being a presence that presents a risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment1. The objectives of contaminated site remediation (ANZECC/NHMRC, 1992) are:

1. To render a site acceptable and safe for the long term continuation of its existing/proposed use; 2. To minimise environmental and health risks both on and off site to acceptable levels; and 3. To maximise to the extent practicable, the potential future uses of the site.

The ANZECC/NHRMC 1992 Guidelines provides two basic approaches in dealing with contaminated sites.

i) A strict adherence to a set of preferred soil criteria used to define a condition of contamination and to serve as the standard which sites must meet in order to be considered to have been decontaminated; or

ii) A more flexible use of pre-determined soil criteria use chiefly to provide guidance as to whether a detailed investigation is required, confirm no further action is needed or provide guidance for clean-up in appropriate circumstances. This approach relies on careful consideration of site-specific data to derive acceptable criteria, which will ensure that public health, local amenity and soil, air water and quality are protected.

The ANZECC/NHRMC 1992 Guidelines concluded that the most appropriate approach for Australia is to adopt the combination of both approaches that incorporates, at a national level a general set of management principles and soil quality guidelines which guide site assessment and may guide site clean-up action, eliminating where appropriate, the need to develop costly site specify criteria. This approach also recognises that every site is different and that in many cases site specific acceptable criteria and clean-up technologies will need to be developed which reflect local conditions.

1 Contaminated Land Management Act (CLM Act) 1997






4.5 The Managing Land Contamination: Planning Guidelines – Remediation of Land, NSW EPA 1997 (SEPP55 Guidelines)

The Managing Land Contamination: Planning Guidelines – Remediation of Land, NSW EPA 1997 (SEPP55 Guidelines) establishes the best practice for managing land contamination through the planning and development control process. The planning and development control process as provided for in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 plays an important role in the management of land contamination. The integration of land contamination management into the planning and development control process will:

• Ensure that changes of land use will not increase the risk to health or the environment; • Avoid inappropriate restrictions on land use; and • Provide information to support decision-making and to inform the community.

The SEPP55 Guidelines include:

a) Information to assist in the investigation of contamination possibilities; b) A decision making process that responds to the information obtained from an investigation; c) Information on how planning and development control can cover the issues of contamination

and remediation; d) A suggested policy approach for planning authorities; e) Discussion of information management systems and notification and notation schemes,

including the use of Section 149 planning certificates notations; and f) Approaches to prevent contamination and reduce the environmental impact from remediation

activities.

SEPP 55 Guidelines provides consistent statewide planning and development controls for the remediation of contaminated land and ensures the following:

• Landuse changes do not occur until planning authorities consider whether the land is contaminated and whether it needs to be remediated to make it suitable for the proposed use;

• Remediation of contaminated land is permissible throughout the State; • Remediation requires consent only where it has the potential for significant environmental

impacts or does not comply with a council’s policy for contaminated land; • Most remediation proposal which require consent are advertised for public comment; • All remediation is carried out in accordance with appropriate standards and guidelines; • Applications for remediation are not refused without substantial justification; and • Councils are notified at commencement and completion of remediation.






4.6 Relevant Legislation

NSW has a comprehensive suite of guidelines relating to assessment and management of contamination, administered under the Contaminated Land Management Act (CLM Act) 1997 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1997. These include the following:

• Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites, NSW EPA, 1994; • Contaminated Sites: Sampling Design Guidelines, NSW EPA, 1995; • Managing Land Contamination: Planning Guidelines SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land, NSW

EPA 1998; • Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites, NSW OEH,

2011; • Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme, NSW DEC, April 2006; • Waste Classification Guidelines Part 1: Classifying Waste, DECCW 2009; and • Leicchardt Local Environmental Plan 2010.

Guidelines approved under the CLM Act also include ADWG (2011) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Water Quality Guidelines and GMRRW (2008) Guidelines for Managing Risk in Recreational Waters. SESL’s policy of meeting the spirit and intent of State Legislation where possible, consideration will be given in the first instance to NSW legislation and guidelines, where these do not conflict with Commonwealth legislative requirements. State legislation and guidelines are directly relevant to any offsite components of the proposed remediation.






5 SOIL SAMPLING, ANALYSIS PLAN AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 5.1 Sampling Team

The details of the sampling team (see

Table 7) and duties were as follows: a) Sample collector:

• Soil sample collection according to sampling regime. • Described soil horizon features. • Responsible for decontamination between sampling.

b) Sample logger: • Identified testing location and depth of profiles. • Labeled sample containers. • Recorded field conditions current at sampling into the sample log. • Recorded soil profile information. • Nominated field duplicates at the nominated ratio. • Recorded analytes to be tested for each sample

Table 7 – Sampling Team Personnel

Personnel Position Qualifications Project Task

Luke Jacovides Environmental

Scientist

Bachelor of Environmental Management and

Science

Workcover Construction Work in NSW (White

Card)

Senior First Aid Certificate

Manual Handle Training

Waste Classification and Reform Training

Conduct site observation

and visual assessment

Sample collection

Record soil profile

description

Andrew Jacovides Environmental

Scientist

Bachelor of Environmental Management and

Science

Workcover Construction Work in NSW (White

Card)

Senior First Aid Certificate

Manual Handle Training

Waste Classification and Reform Training

Conduct site observation

and visual assessment

Sample collection

5.2 Sampling Regime – Soil

The fieldwork for the assessment was devised to address the issues identified as potential for contamination as set out in Section 2.10. The sampling objective was to gather information with regard






to the type, location, level and extent of potential contamination due to the historical landuses for this site within the investigation area. This process provided sufficient supporting data (according the DQO’s) to allow recommendations to be made on whether the possible site contamination is compliant with the proposed landuse and the environmental concerns. For the Tier 1 DSI, the selection of the sampling locations were formed based on a judgmental sampling pattern where the selected locations are situated at points within both the outdoor area and indoor area (beneath slab) of the proposed development. As a minimum, six (7) sample locations are recommended to be sampled on the 0.15 Ha assessment site according to Contaminated Sites Sampling Design Guidelines from the NSW EPA (1995), giving an equivalent sampling density of 35.0 sampling points per hectare. Eighteen (18) soil samples were collected from 7 locations with 7 surface samples to be chemically analysed and subsurface samples to be held pending on surface soil results.

Table 8 – Sampling locations selection

Sampling Location

Justification

BH1 To investigate the soil material in the vicinity of ‘Outdoor Play Area 3-5’. BH2 To investigate the soil material in the vicinity of ‘Outdoor Play Area 2-3. BH3 To investigate the soil material in the vicinity of ‘Outdoor Play Area 0-2’ adjacent to the

veranda. BH4 To investigate the soil material in the vicinity of ‘Outdoor Play Area 0-2’ at the eastern end

of the site. BH5 To investigate the soil material in the vicinity of the proposed building, underneath

‘Playroom 3’. BH6 To investigate the soil material in the vicinity of the proposed building, underneath the

‘Dining/Craft Area’. BH7 To investigate the soil material in the vicinity of the proposed building underneath

‘Playroom 1’.

5.3 Sampling Regime – Asbestos (Soil)

Soil sampling for presence of asbestos fibres was conducted during this assessment. Samples were collected from the surface of each borehole location.

5.4 Sampling Regime – Water

No surface water or groundwater was collected for assessment. Groundwater was not encountered during the sampling process.






5.5 Sample Collection – Soil

Sampling locations were selected based on the following process: • Visual inspection for contamination during the site walkover; • Sample collection was conducted on a judgemental based sample regime (See Appendix A); • Soil samples were recovered from each sample location using a hand auger for boreholes; and • Photo Ionisation Detector (PID) monitoring was not undertaken during this investigation.

The jars were then placed in a chilled container and forwarded to a NATA registered laboratory for analysis under Chain of Custody (COC) conditions. A copy of our COC is located in Appendix E of this report. The laboratory issued confirmation of sample receipt intact.

5.6 Composite Sample Procedure

No composite samples were taken during this assessment.

5.7 Sample Collection – Water

No surface water or groundwater was collected for assessment. Groundwater was not encountered during the sampling process.

5.8 Decontamination Procedure

The sampling and decontamination procedures adopted during the fieldwork for this assessment included the hand tools and hand augers were decontaminated prior to use and in between samples, in order to prevent cross contamination. Decontamination of the hand tools and auger included the following steps:

• Removal of soils adhering to the equipment by scrubbing with a brush; • Washing the equipment thoroughly in a solution of phosphate-free detergent (Decon 90), in a

bucket; • Rinsing with distilled water from a squeeze bottle; and • Drying the equipment with a clean cloth or left to air dry.






6 QUALITY ASSURANCE & QUALITY CONTROL PLAN 6.1 Data Quality Objectives

The purpose of establishing data quality objectives is to ensure the field investigations and analyses are undertaken in a way that enables the collection and reporting of reliable data on which to base the site validation. The data quality objectives (DQOs) and the procedures designed to achieve these objectives are listed below.

Table 9 – Data Quality Objectives

Process Response

Step 1.

Define the problem

Historical activities at the site have included (Section 2.5)

- Historical land-filling

- Surrounding land use resulting in a potential for contamination

Step 2.

Identify the goal of the

study.

The objective of sampling was to assess potentially contaminating landuse in areas

identified within the investigation in Appendix A: Map 1.

Step 3.

Identify information inputs

Data inputs for the project:

- Results of soil sampling and analysis to be gained by the assessment process.

Step 4.

Define the boundaries of the

Study

The area subject to the soil investigation is located within the investigation area where

all proposed works will take place (see Appendix A: Map 1). The vertical boundary of

the assessment extends to the expected depth of excavation to the limit of

assessment conducted in the soil investigation.

The sample medium comprises of soil within each of the subject investigation areas

and groundwater monitoring if encountered.

Step 5.

Develop the analytical

approach

Review of previous site used to identify the main contaminants of concern (see

Section 2.10. Concentrations of contaminants will be compared to criteria set in

Section 4 to assess the potential impacts to soil and to assess the waste disposal

requirements.

Step 6.

Specify performance or

acceptance criteria.

The guidelines as listed in Section 4 to assess the contamination status of the soils

within the subject areas.

Step 7.

Develop the Plan for

obtaining data

Samples have been collected in accordance with the sampling plan as per Section 5.

An Environmental Professional undertook sampling with the rationale behind the

selection of sample locations is provided in Section 5.2.

Quality Assurance (QA) procedures will be used as described in Section 6 and Quality

Control (QC) samples collected to allow evaluation of DQI.






6.2 Data Quality Indicators and Data Evaluation

SESL has selected the following Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) to ensure that the data obtained from the assessment are of sufficient quality to be used to draw reliable and representative conclusion in an assessment of the environmental conditions of the investigation area.

6.2.1 Documentation and Data Completeness

The completeness of data is defined as the percentage of analytical results that are considered valid. Valid chemical data values that have been identified as acceptable or acceptable as qualified during the data validation process. The completeness is a comparison of the total number of samples accepted against the total number of samples, calculated as a percentage. The project goal for completeness is greater than 90%. QA/QC for completeness includes the following:

• All critical locations sampled; • All required samples collected (i.e. surface and in depth samples); • Sampling team are well informed, qualified and experienced; • Correct and complete documentation; • Appropriate analysis methods and PQLs; • Compliance of sample holding times; and • All data entries in the database are correct, properly entered, checked and that any

typographical errors in the database are corrected and the data re-entered properly.

6.2.2 Data Comparability

Comparability expresses the confidence that the data may be considered to be equivalent for each sampling and analytical event and deemed suitable for comparison. In order to assess comparability, field procedures, laboratory sample preparation procedures, analytical procedures and reporting units must be known and similar to establish protocols (Standard Operating Procedures). Qualitatively, data subject to strict QA/QC procedures will be deemed more reliable, therefore more comparable, than other data.

SESL Environmental Scientists conducted this assessment.

6.2.3 Data Representativeness

Representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represents a characteristic of parameter variations at sample points or environmental conditions and obtaining suitable samples from these sites. Sample selection and analysis was conducted in order to meet the specific objectives of the particular phase of work. Analysis for the contaminants of concern will be selectively conducted on a soil as indicated in analytical summary tables.






6.2.4 Precision and Accuracy for Sampling and Analysis

Precision and accuracy for sampling and analysis expresses the quantitative measure of the variability and closeness of the data. This DQI is crucial to provide information to data users of the reliability, unreliability or qualitative value of the data representing each analyte in each environmental matrix. QA/QC includes:

• Correct and appropriate Standard Operating Procedures applied and complied with; • Analysis of duplicates, triplicates, blanks, spikes and rinsates are satisfactory; • Assessment of RFDs are satisfactory; and • Independent review of QA/QC data satisfactory.

6.3 Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Program

Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) practices were applied to all stages of data gathering and subsequent sample handling procedures. These are designed to provide control over both field and laboratory operations. Additionally, the analytical laboratories will complete their own internal QA procedures (as required by NATA registration) during the analysis of samples. Details of the QA/QC program are described below.

6.3.1 Quality Assurance

All fieldwork followed the SESL procedure to ensure that all environmental samples were collected by a set of uniform and systematic methods as required by the QA system. The SESL field procedure describe the following:

• Decontamination procedures; • Sample identification procedures; • Information requirements for soil bore logs; • Chain of custody information requirements; • Sample duplicate frequency; and • Field calibration requirements (if necessary).

6.3.2 Quality Control Results

The results of the field and laboratory quality control samples were assessed to determine: • The quality of the data generated; • If the data meets the objectives of the study; and • If the data is acceptable for the intended use.

6.3.3 Field QC

The following data quality indicators were used for the investigation: • All samples analysed were conducted using NATA registered methods in accordance with

ANZECC (1996) and NEPC (1999) guidelines;






• Maximum acceptable sample holding times was 14 days for organic and 6 months for metal analyses. Mercury (Hg) to be analysed within 28 days of sample collection;

• Samples were appropriately preserved and handled; • Laboratory method blank analyses were required to be below the limits of reporting PQL; • All compound concentrations were (if required) spiked at similar concentration to sample

results; • All PQLs must be less than the assessment criteria; • The relative percent difference of duplicates was determined and compared to the following

criteria for acceptability. The acceptance criteria are: ! Less than 50% for field duplicates; ! Less than 30% for inter laboratory duplicates; ! 30% for laboratory duplicates where the detection is less than 10 times the PQL; and ! Less than 20% for laboratory duplicates where the detection is greater than 10 the

PQL. • RPDs for control spike duplicates to be compared to an acceptable limit of 20%; • RPDs for Matrix Spike Duplicates to be compared to an acceptable limit of 20%; and • Percent recoveries of control spikes and matrix spikes to be compared to an acceptable range

of 70-130%. In addition, percent recoveries of surrogates were also compared to the USEPA surrogate recovery limits.

6.3.4 Laboratory Quality Control

Chemical analysis for soil samples to be undertaken by an environmental laboratory under COC procedures.

6.3.5 Laboratory Blanks

Laboratory or control blanks consist of reagents specific to each individual method and are prepared and analysed by laboratories in the same manner as regular samples. The preparation and analysis of laboratory blanks enable the measurement of contamination within the laboratory. Ideally, no contamination should be present in blanks. However, in the event that contamination is detected, the following actions are taken:

• The organic test results are not to be corrected by subtracting any blank value; • If any analyte is found in blank but not a sample, no action is taken; • No absolute results are reported unless the analyte concentration within a sample exceeds 10

times the amount in any blank for common contaminates, or five times the amount for any other analyte; and

• Professional judgment is used where little or not contamination is present in the associated blanks, but contamination is suspected in actual samples.






Laboratory blanks are typically analysed at a frequency of 1 in 20, with a minimum of one analysed for each batch.

6.3.6 Laboratory Duplicates

Laboratory duplicate samples are prepared in the laboratory by splitting a field sample and analysing it as two independent samples. The analysis of laboratory duplicate samples provides an indication of analytical precision and may be influenced by sample heterogeneity. The laboratory duplicate RPDs are used to assess the laboratory precision.

6.4 Reporting

On completion of the assessment, SESL Environmental Scientist has prepared this report summarising the works performed and assessed the results and findings in order to demonstrate compliance with the objectives of the DSI. Based on the identified contaminants of concern and field observations and screening, soil samples were submitted for analysis. Table 10 provides a summary of the sampling regime for the DSI.

Table 10 – Summary of Sample Analysis

Analyte

Judgemental Soil Samples (DSI)

Heavy metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg) 7

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) 7 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene & Xylene (BTEX) 7 Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TPH) 7 Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP) 7 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) 7 Asbestos 7






7 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 7.1 Site Stratigraphic Conditions

The site contains no hard surfaces and is predominantly grassy areas. The field observation for subsurface soil conditions indicated that the profile was fill and was consistently capped with a ashy, sandy fill layer overlying a rockier, heavily compacted fill horizon. Fragments of asbestos containing material were identified around the proposed development site (see Appendix A: Sampling Map), however none were identified on the surface within the proposed area of development and no soil sample returned a positive reading for asbestos fibres or fragments. The soil materials observed in all seven (7) boreholes demonstrated consistency within the surface material, consisting of brown and grey ashy, sandy fill material. No asbestos containing materials were identified within soil profiles. No discoloration of the soils and vegetation, or petroleum hydrocarbon staining on the soil profile was observed that would indicate potential for recent contamination.

7.2 Soil Analytical Results Summary

The analysis of laboratory results indicated that the level of Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) is above the adopted Health Investigation Levels (HIL) for the proposed residential development (HIL-A – Standard Residential & Threshold for Sensitive Landuse) at location of BH3 and BH4. See Table 10 for summary of results compared to the adopted thresholds. Asbestos-containing cement fragments were identified around the perimeter of the site, however no asbestos containing materials were identified within the area of proposed development (see Appendix A: Sampling Map). NATA certificates, chain of custody (CoC) documentation and sample receipt advice (SRA) are available in Appendix D.






7.3 Calculation of 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL)

The 95% UCL demonstrates with 95% confidence that the average contaminant concentration of the soil represented by the data set is at or below the concentration stated. EPA recommends a minimum of ten samples for 95% UCL calculation. For large soil volumes (i.e. >2,500m3) the minimum sampling rate should not be less than 1 sample per 250m3. In accordance with Procedure D of the NSW EPA Sampling Design Guidelines (1995) each domain or stockpile should be categorized separately. Non-detect samples need to be included in calculations of 95% UCL. Non-detect values are substituted with a value of half of the detection limit of the laboratory apparatus. The 95% UCL can be calculated using the following formula:

UCL average = X + tα, n-1 (s/√n)

Where: UCL upper confidence limit of the arithmetic average concentration of the sampling are at the 1-α

confidence level X arithmetic average of all samples tα, n-1 A test statistic (student’s t at an α level of significance and n-1 degrees of freedom) s standard deviation of the sample measurements n number of sample measurements α the probability that the ‘true’ average concentration of the sampling area might exceed the UCL

average determined by the above equation






Table 11 – Soil Analytical Results Summary

Sample

Ars

enic

Cad

miu

m

Chr

omiu

m (T

otal

)

Cop

per

Lead

Mer

cury

Zinc

Car

cino

geni

c P

AH

Tota

l PA

H

Ald

rin

+ D

ield

rin

DD

D +

DD

E +

DD

T

Chl

orda

ne

Chl

orpy

rifo

s

End

osul

fan

End

rin

Hep

tach

lor

Hex

achl

orob

enze

ne

Phe

nol

Tota

l PC

B

HIL (Residential A)

100 20 NR 6000 300 40 7400 3 300 6 240 50 160 270 10 6 10 300 1

BH1 – Surface 4.00 0.30 5.40 15.00 52 0.10 42 0.89 5.60 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10

BH2 – Surface 5.00 0.30 12.00 24.00 82 0.16 96 1.87 12.40 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.10

BH2 – Surface 5.00 0.30 10.00 25.00 80 0.15 93 2.83 20.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.30 0.10

BH3 – Surface 11.00 0.30 9.60 30.00 110 0.08 110 3.15 19.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10

BH4 – Surface 4.00 0.40 6.60 38.00 130 0.11 100 6.00 36.50 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10

BH5 – Surface 4.00 0.30 4.70 34.00 77 0.05 96 2.42 16.20 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.30 0.10

BH6 – Surface 6.00 0.40 9.20 36.00 100 0.05 110 1.84 10.60 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.40 0.10

BH7 – Surface 3.00 0.30 6.30 16.00 37 0.04 68 1.12 6.20 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.60 0.10

Average 5.25 0.33 7.98 27.25 83.50 0.09 89.38 2.52 15.84 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.25 0.10 Minimum 3.00 0.30 4.70 15.00 37 0.04 42 0.89 5.60 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 Maximum 11.00 0.40 12.00 38.00 130 0.16 110 6.00 36.50 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.60 0.10 Standard Deviation 2.49 0.05 2.58 8.76 30.11 0.05 23.19 1.61 9.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 95% UCL 6.92 0.35 9.70 33.12 103.67 0.12 104.91 3.59 22.50 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.38 0.10

Note a. For calculation purposes, values below detection have been halved

Exceeds HIL A – Residential






Table 12 – Soil Analytical Results Summary and Health Screening Levels

Sample

F1 T

RH

(C6 –

C10

)

F2 T

RH

(>C

10 -

C16

)

F3 T

RH

(>C

16 –

C34

)

F4 T

RH

(>C

34 –

C40

)

BTE

X (T

otal

)

Tolu

ene

Eth

ylbe

nzen

e

Xyl

enes

Nap

htha

lene

Ben

zene

HSL (Residential)

45 110 - - - 160 55 40 3 0.5

BH1 – Surface

<25 <25 45

<120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01

BH2 – Surface

<25 <25 92

<120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01

BH2 – Surface

<25 <25 110

<120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01

BH3 – Surface

<25 <25 130

<120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01

BH4 – Surface

<25 <25 210

<120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01

BH5 – Surface

<25 <25 150

<120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01

BH6 – Surface

<25 <25 140

<120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01

BH7 – Surface

<25 <25 45

<120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01

Average <25 <25 115.25 <120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01 Minimum <25 <25 45 <120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01

Maximum <25 <25 210 <120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01 Standard Deviation

<25 <25 55.36 <120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01

95% UCL <25 <25 152.34 <120 <0.6 <0.01 <0.01 <0.3 <0.01 <0.01 Note a. For calculation purposes, some values below detection have been halved






8 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

A conceptual site model (CSM) was developed based on the information obtained during the investigation process to allow assessment of potential sources of impact, chemicals of concern, transport mechanism and receptors.

8.1 Sources of Impact

In summary, the sources of impact identified in the assessment area include: • Historically imported filled material of unknown source.

8.2 Contaminants of Concern

Based on the potential sources and the findings of the current investigation, the contaminants of concerns include the following:

• Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRH); • Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene and Xylenes (BTEX); • Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH); • Heavy metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg, Mn); • Organophosphate Pesticides; • Organochlorine Pesticides; and • Asbestos.

8.3 Fate and Transport

8.3.1 Transport Medium and Control

The anticipated primary transport media for the migration of contaminants of concern are: • Migration of contaminated material through erosion and dust during construction works:

o Remedial Action as recommended in Section 10. • Surface runoff to stormwater drainage system containing PAHs:

o No stormwater flow through proposed area of disturbance. • Contaminants migrating to groundwater table beneath the site:

o The identified contaminants are present in the fill material, which is located several metres above the natural groundwater level. Given that the site is located atop the fill material, which is capping any natural soil layers, it is considered unlikely that any contaminated groundwater will impact the site or that any excavation of contaminated soil will affect the groundwater.






8.3.2 Potential Migration Pathways

There are a number of mechanisms by which identified receptors may come into contact with contaminated sources, including the following:

• Incidental dermal contact or ingestion of impacted soils and surface water: o Implementing the remedial action recommended in Section 10 will mitigate dermal

contact during development. • Generation of impacted dusts, aerosols or sediments from impacted soils:

o All disturbance will be mitigated by following the recommendations within Section 10. • Groundwater migration:

o The area of proposed disturbance is not within the vicinity of groundwater and therefore there is little risk of groundwater migration.

• Surface runoff and stormwater drainage system: o No stormwater flow through proposed area of disturbance.

8.4 Potential Surrounding Receptors

The potential human receptors are as follow: • Construction workers during construction being exposed to contaminated soil:

o Some exposure will occur throughout the construction process if remediation techniques are not utilised prior to construction.

• Community members living within vicinity of the site: o Some erosion may result in exposure if remediation techniques are not used prior to

construction. • Visitors to the site:

o Exposure may occur if remediation techniques are not used prior to construction. • Future occupants of the developed site:

o Exposure may occur if remediation techniques are not used prior to construction.






9 CONCLUSION

9.1 Site Characterisation

The subject site is located at Mary Street, Lilyfield. The site is currently a public open space with exposed soil. The site is an existing public open space with children’s play equipment in the northeast corner. The site is raised with fill materials and drops away steeply to the south and west. Large, established trees border the open, grassed area. The northern boundary is a car park and Mary Street is located to the east of the site.

9.2 Summary

The presence of fill material of an unknown origin demonstrates a potential for soil contamination to exist. The level of Carcinogenic PAH’s in BH3 and BH4 was above the adopted HIL (HIL- Residential A). Based on this detailed investigation SESL consider the site suitable for the proposed development, subject to the completion and implementation of a Remedial Action Plan. SESL previously recommended that additional analysis be undertaken in order to determine the extent of contamination in the vicinity of BH3 and BH4. Such analysis has since been undertaken and found that the concentrations of carcinogenic PAH’s did not decrease consistently throughout the fill material in different locations across the site. The results of this analysis will be used in the development of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) pending the request for such a document from the client.






10 REMEDIAL OPTIONS

The overall purpose of remediation is to make the site suitable for its current and proposed use. The main objectives of remediation or site management are to:

• Remediate the site to reduce the risk of contamination affecting human health and the environment;

• Propose management criteria that are appropriate, considering possible human health and environmental impacts;

• Demonstrate that the proposed remediation or site management strategy is suitable and properly addresses issues relating to occupational health and safety, site environmental management, community relations and contingency planning; and

• Remove any development constraints associated with the identified contamination (complete remediation only).

The following options have been developed under the guidance of the appropriate regulatory framework endorsed by the NSW OEH and comply with the provisions of the NSW Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and associated guidelines and regulations.

10.1 Remedial Action and Site Management Options

Several remediation options were considered for the site. An assessment was made based on environmental impacts, time constraints, site logistics and cost. The remediation options that have been considered are outlined below:

• Do Nothing; • Monitored Natural Attenuation; • On-Site Treatment; • Excavation and Disposal; and • On-Site Management.

10.2 Do Nothing

The “Do Nothing” involves leaving the contaminated soil materials in their current locations and continues the development without concern for the remediation of contaminated soils. This approach is considered inappropriate for the site due to several factors:

• Areas requiring remediation are at the ground surface and exposed. The future use of the site would be affected by the presence of uncovered contaminated materials and would not be suitable for sensitive land use;

• The areas of concern could pose a health risk to workers during development of the site. The workers on the site could be potentially exposed to carcinogenic PAH’s during the construction phase;






• The areas of concern at the surface exceed the adopted landuse criteria and are not considered acceptable for ongoing use without remediation or management being undertaken;

• The contaminants that have been identified are known to be persistent in the environment and will pose a long-term health and environment hazard if left on the site in their current state.

10.3 Monitoring Natural Attenuation

Natural attenuation is the degradation, immobilisation or destruction of hydrocarbons, or other potential contaminants, by naturally occurring bacteria. The natural attenuation process is controlled by the contaminants of concern and the physical, chemical, biological and hydro geological properties of the soil. Natural attenuation is not considered appropriate for this site as PAH’s are the primary contaminants of concern and do not break down quickly through natural processes.

10.4 On Site Treatment

On site treatment methods include both in-situ and ex-situ treatments of soils. Treatment may be chemical, mechanical or biological. On site treatments have the advantage of sometimes being relatively cheaper than off site landfilling. The main disadvantages of onsite treatment are the time constraints. Biological treatment of hydrocarbons can take months tor even years for appropriate microbial processes to reduce organic contaminants to acceptable levels. SESL considers that the contaminated materials identified in this investigation will not be suitable for on-site treatment such as bioremediation as the primary contaminants identified are PAH’s, which do not normally degrade quickly. The site will not be suitable for ongoing recreational use throughout this time, until validation testing proves the contaminants have been reduced below acceptable levels.

10.5 Excavation and Disposal

Excavation of the contaminated fill material would be required for off site disposal. This approach has the advantage of removing the contaminated soils from the site (to an extent practicable) and potentially reducing development restrictions associated with contaminated soils. It also has the advantage of being relatively fast and may not further impact other areas of the site. The main disadvantage of excavation and disposal is the expense associated with off site disposal to an appropriately licensed landfill. SESL recommends that some excavation may be used in the remediation process to remove the topsoil from areas that surface contamination is present. The feasibility of this approach will be determined once the additional testing results are available for the samples taken at depth. This






approach will only serve as part of the remediation process. On site management will be required in order to effectively remediate the site due to the depth of the fill material.

10.6 On Site Management

On Site Management of the contamination would involve selective remediation across the site to reduce the impact to human health or the environment and long-term management of any remaining contamination. On site management would primarily involve the placing of an impermeable surface (such as geo-fabric material) across the contaminated area and then covering with hardstand or soil/mulch layers. The site would then require a site-specific ongoing Environmental Management Plan (EMP, also known as Site Management Plan - SMP) to prevent the exposure of the contamination to the owners, workers and visitors to the site. The disadvantages of such a strategy would be the imposing of an ongoing EMP, associated notification obligations on the land title and ongoing monitoring and inspection of the site for compliance with the EMP.

10.7 Preferred Remedial Option

Following the assessment of options as listed above, SESL recommends that the most appropriate remedial option is ‘Excavation and Disposal’ coupled with ‘On Site Management’. This option satisfies the goals of remediation, can be delivered rapidly, is protective of human health and the environment. A combination of the above strategies is considered to be the most appropriate action to ensure the safety of future use of the site for childcare. The following summary of potential remedial processes should be considered when prescribing the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the site:

1. The site will not be considered appropriate for use as a childcare facility until all contaminated surfaces are either encapsulated in concrete or at least 500mm of validated soil. The site should prevent public access until such time as remedial works are completed.

2. Dust suppression and appropriate respiration PPE must be utilised throughout the remediation program.

10.8 Remediation Conclusion

Leichhardt council’s DCP does not include information regarding the remediation of contaminated sites.The remediation options discussed in Section 10 present options that are inconsistent with Leichhardt Council’s policy on contaminated sites (eg. The onsite encapsulation of contaminated materials that are statistically above the investigation levels for soil contaminants) and would be considered Category 1 Remediation Work with development consent required.






11 LIMITATIONS

This report only covers the site conditions at the time of inspection on 13/02/2014. Should there be any variation in the site conditions beyond this date, such as imported fill, chemical spillage, illegal dumping, further assessment will be required. This report is for the use of the client and any relevant authorities that rely on the information for development applications and approval processes. Any reliance on this report by third parties shall be at such parties’ sole risk. This report shall only be presented in full and may not be used to support any other objective other than those set out in the report. SESL’s assessment is necessarily based on the result of limited site investigations and upon the restricted program of visual assessment of the surface and consultation of available records. Neither SESL, nor any other reputable consultant, can provide unqualified warranties nor does SESL assume any liabilities for site conditions not observed, or accessible during the time of investigations. No site investigations can be thorough enough to provide absolute confirmation of the presence or absence of substances, which may be considered contaminating, hazardous or polluting. Similarly, the level of testing undertaken cannot be considered to unequivocally characterise the degree or extent of contamination on site. In addition, regulatory or guideline criteria for the evaluation of environmental soil and groundwater quality are frequently being reviewed and concentrations of contaminants which are considered acceptable at present may in the future be considered to exceed acceptance criteria. Similar conditions may prevail in regard to site remediation standards as different regulatory mechanisms are developed and implemented.

COPYRIGHT: The concepts, information and design ideas contained in this document are the property of Sydney

Environmental & Soil Laboratory Pty Ltd (ABN 70106 810 708). Use or copying of this document in whole or in part

without the written permission of Sydney Environmental & Soil Laboratory constitutes an infringement of copyright.






12 REFERENCES ANZECC (1996) Guidelines for the Laboratory Analysis of Contaminated Soils – Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Australian Standards AS4482.1:2005 Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil (Part 1 & 2) Leichhardt Local Environmental Plan 2013 Chapman, G.A and Murphy, C.L. (1989), Soil Landscapes of Sydney 1:100 000 Sheet. Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney enHealth 2012, Australian exposure factor guidance. Environmental Health Subcommittee (enHealth) of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, Canberra, Australia. Hazelton, P.A, Bannerman, S. M. and Tille, P. J. (1989), Soil Series Sheet 9030. Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney

National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013), NEPC 2013,

Canberra; NSW DEC (2006) Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme NSW DECCW (Revised 2009) Waste Classification Guidelines Part 1: Classifying Waste NSW EPA (1994) Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites NSW EPA (1996) Contaminated Sites: Sampling Design Guidelines NSW OEH (2011) Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites Soil Series No. 1, 2nd Edition, 1998 and 3rd Edition, (1999) Health-Based Soil Investigation Levels, National Environmental Health Forum monographs WA DoH (2009) Guidelines for the Assessment, Remediation and Management of Asbestos-Contaminated Sites in Western Australia (2009)

Appendix A

Title: Leichhardt Park Sample Location MapLocation: Leichhardt ParkProject: C6425.Q3570.B29194 Leichhardt Park DSI FALegend: Sample Location

Date: 13/02/2014

Notes: Approximate Sample Locations

BH1

BH2

BH3

BH4

BH5

BH6

BH7

Appendix B

Schedule B 1 - Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater 52

Table 1A(3) Soil HSLs for vapour intrusion (mg/kg)

HSL A & HSL B

Low � high density residential

HSL C

recreational / open space

HSL D

Commercial / Industrial

CHEMICAL

0 m to <1 m

1 m to <2 m

2 m to <4m 4 m+

0 m to <1 m

1 m to <2 m

2 m to <4 m 4 m+

0 m to <1 m

1 m to <2 m

2 m to <4 m 4 m+

Soil saturation concentrati

on

(Csat)

SAND

Toluene 160 220 310 540 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 560

Ethylbenzene 55 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 64

Xylenes 40 60 95 170 NL NL NL NL 230 NL NL NL 300

Naphthalene 3 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 9

Benzene 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 NL NL NL NL 3 3 3 3 360

F1(9) 45

70 110 200 NL NL NL NL

260

370

630

NL 950

F2(10) 110 240 440 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 560

SILT

Toluene 390 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 640

Ethylbenzene NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 69

Xylenes 95 210 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 330

��


HSL A & HSL B

Low � high density residential

HSL C

recreational / open space

HSL D

Commercial / Industrial


Benzene 0.6 0.7 1 2 NL NL NL NL 4 4 6 10 440

F1(9) 40 65 100 190 NL NL NL NL 250 360 590 NL 910

F2(10) 230 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 570

CLAY

Toluene 480 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 630

Ethylbenzene NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 68

Xylenes 110 310 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 330


Benzene 0.7 1 2 3 NL NL NL NL 4 6 9 20 430

F1(9) 50 90 150 290 NL NL NL NL 310 480 NL NL 850

F2(10) 280 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 560

Notes: (1) Land use settings are equivalent to those described in Table 1A(1) Footnote 1 and Schedule B7. HSLs for vapour intrusion for high density residential assume residential occupation of the

ground floor. If communal car parks or commercial properties occupy the ground floor, HSL D should be used, (2) The key limitations of the HSLs should be referred to prior to application and are presented in Friebel and Nadebaum (2011b and 2011d). (3) Detailed assumptions in the derivation of the HSLs and information on how to apply the HSLs are presented in Friebel and Nadebaum (2011a and 2011b). (4) Soil HSLs for vapour inhalation incorporate an adjustment factor of 10 applied to the vapour phase partitioning to reflect the differences observed between theoretical estimates of soil vapour

partitioning and field measurements. Refer Friebel & Nadebaum (2011a) for further information. (5) The soil saturation concentration (Csat) is defined as the soil concentration at which the porewater phase cannot dissolve any more of an individual chemical. The soil vapour that is in

equilibrium with the porewater will be at its maximum. If the derived soil HSL exceeds Csat, a soil vapour source concentration for a petroleum mixture could not exceed a level that would result in the maximum allowable vapo��

��


(6) The HSLs for TPH C6-C10 in sandy soil are based on a finite source that depletes in less than seven years, and therefore consideration has been given to use of sub-chronic toxicity values. The >C8-C10 aliphatic toxicity has been adjusted to represent sub-chronic exposure, resulting in higher HSLs than if based on chronic toxicity. For further information refer to Section 8.2 and Appendix J in Friebel and Nadebaum (2011a).

(7) The figures in the above table may be multiplied by a factor to account for biodegradation of vapour. A factor of 10 may apply for source depths from 2 m to <4 m or a factor of 100 for source depths of 4 m and deeper. To apply the attenuation factor for vapour degradation, a number of conditions must be satisfied. Firstly the maximum length of the shorter side of the concrete slab and surrounding pavement cannot exceed 15 m, as this would prevent oxygen penetrating to the centre of the slab. Secondly, measurement of oxygen in the subsurface is required to determine the potential for biodegradation. Oxygen must be confirmed to be present at >5% to use these factors.

(8) For soil texture classification undertaken in accord with AS 1726, the classifications of sand, silt and clay may be applied as coarse, fine with liquid limit <50% and fine with liquid limit>50% respectively, as the underlying properties to develop the HSLs may reasonably be selected to be similar. Where there is uncertainty, either a conservative approach may be adopted or laboratory analysis should be carried out.

(9) To obtain F1 subtract the sum of BTEX concentrations from the C6-C10 fraction.

(10) To obtain F2 subtract naphthalene from the >C10-C16 fraction.

��


!

"#$%&!'()*+! ,&-&./0!1234!56.!#7&8!94:!5.&4;!<<"!#-8!5.&4;!-#=;>;#%&-&!/-!46/%4!/..&4=&0>/?&!65!>;&/.!=;@4/060;&A/0#%!=.6=&.>/&4!

!! 106%67/0#%!2-?&4>/7#>/6-!3&?&%4!)A7!>6>#%!06->#A/-#->BC7+!

DE1F2D93! 9.&#4!65!&06%67/0#%!4/7-/5/0#-0&!

G.$#-!.&4/8&->/#%!#-8!=H$%/0!6=&-!4=#0&'!

D6AA&.0/#%!#-8!/-8H4>./#%!

9.4&-/0I! "#! $##! $%#!<<"J! &! $'#! %"#!K#=;>;#%&-&J!

$#! $(#! &(#!

K6>&4L!

$) *+,-.!+/012/.31-4567,418!96/.!06-8/!10!,+9-24:!/;71<-4/.3!39!3=/!>?@ABC!>?@AD!-.2!>?@AE!4-.2!70/!08/.-+190!1.!F-,4/!$BG$H!I993.93/!$!-.2!-0!2/08+1,/2!1.!J8=/274/!D()!!

K) BL/2! <-47/0! -+/! -66418-,4/! 39! -+0/.18! 89.3-M1.-319.! 6+/0/.3! 1.! 0914! N9+! -3! 4/-03! 3O9! :/-+0)! I9+! N+/0=!89.3-M1.-319.!+/N/+!39!J8=/274/!DP8)!

&) ?.07NN181/.3!2-3-!O-0!-<-14-,4/! 39!8-4874-3/!-L/2!<-47/0! N9+!QQF!-.2!.-6=3=-4/./C!89.0/;7/.34:! 3=/!<-47/0!N9+!N+/0=!89.3-M1.-319.!0=9742!,/!70/2)!

") ?.07NN181/.3! 2-3-!O-0! -<-14-,4/! 39! 8-4874-3/!BE@0! N9+!B0C!QQF! -.2! .-6=3=-4/./)! F=/! R?@! 0=9742! ,/! 3-S/.!21+/834:!N+9M!F-,4/!$DGPH)!

��


!"#$%&'()*+& ,-./&012&!34&02"56718/&9'&�&9:;&(!,<&"8=&#%8>1)"+?@2%8%&78&/17$&

C H E M I C A L Soil texture

ESLs (mg/kg dry soil)

A reas of ecological

significance

Urban residential and public open

space

Commercial and industr ial

F1 C6-C10

Coarse/ F ine

125* 180* 215*

F2 >C10-C16 25* 120* 170*

F3 >C16-C34 Coarse - 300 1700

F ine - 1300 2500

F4 >C34-C40 Coarse - 2800 3300

F ine - 5600 6600

Benzene Coarse 10 50 75

F ine 10 65 95

Toluene Coarse 10 85 135

F ine 65 105 135

Ethylbenzene Coarse 1.5 70 165

F ine 40 125 185

Xylenes Coarse 10 105 180

F ine 1.6 45 95

Benzo(a)pyrene Coarse 0.7 0.7 0.7

F ine 0.7 0.7 0.7

A16%/B&(1) ESLs are of low reliability except where indicated by * which indicates that the ESL is of moderate reliability. (2) �-�� (3) To obtain F1, subtract the sum of BTEX concentrations from C6-C10 fraction and subtract naphthalene from >C10-C16 to

obtain F2.

��

Appendix C

Date Reported0000076312Report Number

ContactSGS Alexandria EnvironmentalUnit 16, 33 Maddox StAlexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400+61 2 8594 [email protected]

8

SGS Reference

EmailFacsimileTelephone

Address

ManagerLaboratory

29194

29194 - COC No 16441

[email protected] 9484 242702 9980 6554

(PO Box 357, Pennant Hills NSW 1715)16 Chilvers RoadNSW 2120

Sydney Environmental & Soil Laboratory Pty LtdHarrison Leake

SamplesOrder NumberProject


AddressClient

CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS

24/2/2014

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE124852 R0

Date Received 14/2/2014

COMMENTS

No respirable fibres detected in all samples using trace analysis technique.A portion of the sample supplied has been sub-sampled for asbestos according to SGS In-house procedures. We therefore cannot guarantee that the sub-sample is representative of the entire sample supplied. SGS Environmental Services recommends supplying approximately 50-100g of sample in a separate container.Asbestos analysed by Approved Identifier Ravee Sivasubramaniam.

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

Andy Sutton

Senior Organic Chemist

Deanne Norris

Organic Chemist

Kamrul Ahsan

Senior Chemist

Ly Kim Ha

Organic Section Head

Ravee Sivasubramaniam

Asbestos Analyst

Sheila Lepasana

Senior Technician

SIGNATORIES

Member of the SGS Group

www.au.sgs.comf +61 2 8594 0499t +61 2 8594 0400AustraliaAustralia

Alexandria NSW 2015Alexandria NSW 2015

Unit 16 33 Maddox StPO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC

Environmental ServicesSGS Australia Pty LtdABN 44 000 964 278

SE124852 R0ANALYTICAL RESULTS

VOC’s in Soil [AN433/AN434]

1 BH1-Surface 4 BH2-Surface 5 BH2-Surface 7 BH3-Surface 9 BH4-Surface 12 BH5-Surface

SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014 14/2/2014 14/2/2014 14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.003 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006

Benzene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Toluene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

m/p-xylene mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

o-xylene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Total Xylenes* mg/kg 0.30 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3

Total BTEX* mg/kg 0.60 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6

UOMPARAMETER LOR

14 BH6-Surface 16 BH7-Surface

SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.007 SE124852.008

Benzene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Toluene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Ethylbenzene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

m/p-xylene mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

o-xylene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Total Xylenes* mg/kg 0.30 <0.3 <0.3

Total BTEX* mg/kg 0.60 <0.6 <0.6

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 2 of 1724/02/2014


Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil [AN433/AN434/AN410]



SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.003 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006

Benzene (F0) mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

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

TRH C6-C10 mg/kg 25.0 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX (F1) mg/kg 25.0 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

UOMPARAMETER LOR


SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.007 SE124852.008

Benzene (F0) mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

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

TRH C6-C10 mg/kg 25.0 <25 <25

TRH C6-C10 minus BTEX (F1) mg/kg 25.0 <25 <25

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 3 of 1724/02/2014


TRH (Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons) in Soil [AN403]



SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.003 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006

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

TRH C15-C28 mg/kg 45.0 <45 50 69 84 130 84

TRH C29-C36 mg/kg 45.0 <45 65 65 65 93 96

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

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) mg/kg 25.0 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25

TRH >C16-C34 (F3) mg/kg 90 <90 92 110 130 210 150

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

TRH C10-C36 Total mg/kg 110 <110 120 130 150 230 180

TRH C10-C40 Total mg/kg 210 <210 <210 <210 <210 230 <210

UOMPARAMETER LOR


SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.007 SE124852.008

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

TRH C15-C28 mg/kg 45.0 73 <45

TRH C29-C36 mg/kg 45.0 120 <45

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

TRH >C10-C16 (F2) mg/kg 25.0 <25 <25

TRH >C16-C34 (F3) mg/kg 90 140 <90

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

TRH C10-C36 Total mg/kg 110 190 <110

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

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 4 of 1724/02/2014


PAH (Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons) in Soil [AN420]



SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.003 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

2-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

1-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Fluorene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.10 0.3 0.6 1.4 1.1 1.6 1.2Anthracene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.10 0.9 1.9 3.2 2.8 5.7 2.5Pyrene mg/kg 0.10 0.8 1.8 3.5 2.7 5.2 2.4Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.10 0.7 1.5 2.4 2.2 4.7 1.9Chrysene mg/kg 0.10 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.3 2.3 1.0Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.10 0.9 1.7 2.3 2.7 5.2 2.2Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.10 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.4Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.10 0.6 1.3 2.0 2.2 4.2 1.7Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.10 0.5 1.3 1.8 1.9 3.7 1.5Dibenzo(a&h)anthracene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.10 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.9 0.8Total PAH mg/kg 0.80 5.7 12 20 19 37 16Carcinogenic PAHs (as BaP TEQ)* TEQ 0.20 0.8 1.9 2.9 3.2 6.0 2.4

UOMPARAMETER LOR


SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.007 SE124852.008

Naphthalene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

2-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

1-methylnaphthalene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthylene mg/kg 0.10 0.1 <0.1

Acenaphthene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Fluorene mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.10 0.4 0.3Anthracene mg/kg 0.10 0.1 <0.1

Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.10 1.5 0.9Pyrene mg/kg 0.10 1.5 0.9Benzo(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.10 1.2 0.8Chrysene mg/kg 0.10 0.7 0.4Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.10 1.6 0.9Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.10 0.3 0.2Benzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.10 1.3 0.8Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/kg 0.10 1.2 0.7Dibenzo(a&h)anthracene mg/kg 0.10 0.1 <0.1

Benzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.10 0.6 0.3Total PAH mg/kg 0.80 11 6.3Carcinogenic PAHs (as BaP TEQ)* TEQ 0.20 1.8 1.1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 5 of 1724/02/2014


Speciated Phenols in Soil [AN420]



SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.003 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006

Phenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2-methyl phenol (o-cresol) mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

3/4-methyl phenol (m/p-cresol) mg/kg 1.0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Total Cresol mg/kg 1.50 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5 <1.5

2-chlorophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2,4-dimethylphenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2,6-dichlorophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2,4-dichlorophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2,4,6-trichlorophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2-nitrophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

4-nitrophenol mg/kg 1.0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

2,4,5-trichlorophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2,3,4,6/2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol mg/kg 1.0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Pentachlorophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

2,4-dinitrophenol mg/kg 2.0 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

4-chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg 2.0 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

UOMPARAMETER LOR


SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.007 SE124852.008

Phenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

2-methyl phenol (o-cresol) mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

3/4-methyl phenol (m/p-cresol) mg/kg 1.0 <1 <1

Total Cresol mg/kg 1.50 <1.5 <1.5

2-chlorophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

2,4-dimethylphenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

2,6-dichlorophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

2,4-dichlorophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

2,4,6-trichlorophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

2-nitrophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

4-nitrophenol mg/kg 1.0 <1 <1

2,4,5-trichlorophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

2,3,4,6/2,3,5,6-tetrachlorophenol mg/kg 1.0 <1 <1

Pentachlorophenol mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

2,4-dinitrophenol mg/kg 2.0 <2 <2

4-chloro-3-methylphenol mg/kg 2.0 <2 <2

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 6 of 1724/02/2014


OC Pesticides in Soil [AN400/AN420]



SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.003 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha BHC mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Lindane mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Aldrin mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Beta BHC mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Delta BHC mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha Endosulfan mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Gamma Chlordane mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha Chlordane mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

trans-Nonachlor mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dieldrin mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Endrin mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

o,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Beta Endosulfan mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

p,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Methoxychlor mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Ketone mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Isodrin mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Mirex mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 7 of 1724/02/2014


OC Pesticides in Soil [AN400/AN420] (continued)

PARAMETER UOM LOR


SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.007 SE124852.008

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha BHC mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Lindane mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Aldrin mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Beta BHC mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Delta BHC mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha Endosulfan mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Gamma Chlordane mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Alpha Chlordane mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

trans-Nonachlor mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDE mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Dieldrin mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Endrin mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

o,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

o,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Beta Endosulfan mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

p,p'-DDD mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

p,p'-DDT mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Endosulfan sulphate mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Aldehyde mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Methoxychlor mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Endrin Ketone mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Isodrin mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

Mirex mg/kg 0.10 <0.1 <0.1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 8 of 1724/02/2014


OP Pesticides in Soil [AN400/AN420]



SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.003 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006

Dichlorvos mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Dimethoate mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Diazinon (Dimpylate) mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Fenitrothion mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Malathion mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Chlorpyrifos (Chlorpyrifos Ethyl) mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Parathion-ethyl (Parathion) mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Bromophos Ethyl mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Methidathion mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5

Ethion mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

UOMPARAMETER LOR


SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.007 SE124852.008

Dichlorvos mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

Dimethoate mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

Diazinon (Dimpylate) mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

Fenitrothion mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Malathion mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Chlorpyrifos (Chlorpyrifos Ethyl) mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Parathion-ethyl (Parathion) mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Bromophos Ethyl mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Methidathion mg/kg 0.50 <0.5 <0.5

Ethion mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 9 of 1724/02/2014


PCBs in Soil [AN400/AN420]



SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.003 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006

Arochlor 1016 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1221 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1232 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1242 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1248 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1254 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1260 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1262 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1268 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

Total PCBs (Arochlors) mg/kg 1.0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

UOMPARAMETER LOR


SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.007 SE124852.008

Arochlor 1016 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1221 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1232 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1242 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1248 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1254 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1260 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1262 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Arochlor 1268 mg/kg 0.20 <0.2 <0.2

Total PCBs (Arochlors) mg/kg 1.0 <1 <1

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 10 of 1724/02/2014


Total Phenolics in Soil [AN289]



SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.003 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006

Total Phenols mg/kg 0.10 0.1 0.2 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.3

UOMPARAMETER LOR


SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.007 SE124852.008

Total Phenols mg/kg 0.10 0.4 0.6

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 11 of 1724/02/2014


Total Recoverable Metals in Soil by ICPOES from EPA 200.8 Digest [AN040/AN320]



SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.003 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006

Arsenic, As mg/kg 3.0 4 5 5 11 4 4Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.30 <0.3 0.3 <0.3 0.3 0.4 <0.3

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.30 5.4 12 10 9.6 6.6 4.7Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.50 15 24 25 30 38 34Lead, Pb mg/kg 1.0 52 82 80 110 130 77Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.50 2.8 7.4 7.1 8.8 5.0 3.2Zinc, Zn mg/kg 0.50 42 96 93 110 100 96

UOMPARAMETER LOR


SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.007 SE124852.008

Arsenic, As mg/kg 3.0 6 3Cadmium, Cd mg/kg 0.30 0.4 <0.3

Chromium, Cr mg/kg 0.30 9.2 6.3Copper, Cu mg/kg 0.50 36 16Lead, Pb mg/kg 1.0 100 37Nickel, Ni mg/kg 0.50 10 4.8Zinc, Zn mg/kg 0.50 110 68

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 12 of 1724/02/2014


Mercury in Soil [AN312]



SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.003 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006

Mercury mg/kg 0.010 0.10 0.16 0.15 0.08 0.11 0.05

UOMPARAMETER LOR


SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.007 SE124852.008

Mercury mg/kg 0.010 0.05 0.04

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 13 of 1724/02/2014


Fibre Identification in soil [AN602]



SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006 SE124852.007

Asbestos Detected No unit - No No No No No No

Estimated Fibres %w/w 0.010 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

UOMPARAMETER LOR

16 BH7-Surface

SOIL14/2/2014

SE124852.008

Asbestos Detected No unit - No

Estimated Fibres %w/w 0.010 <0.01

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 14 of 1724/02/2014


Moisture Content [AN002]



SE124852.001 SE124852.002 SE124852.003 SE124852.004 SE124852.005 SE124852.006

% Moisture % 0.50 8.1 5.6 5.9 6.3 4.0 5.0

UOMPARAMETER LOR


SOIL SOIL14/2/2014 14/2/2014

SE124852.007 SE124852.008

% Moisture % 0.50 10 8.8

UOMPARAMETER LOR

Page 15 of 1724/02/2014

SE124852 R0METHOD SUMMARY

METHOD METHODOLOGY 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 analsysis 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

Orbital rolling for Organic pollutants are extracted from soil /sediment by transferring an appropriate mass of sample to a clear soil jar and extracting with 1:1 Dichloromethane/Acetone. Orbital Rolling method is intended for the extraction of semi-volatile organic compounds from soil /sediment samples, and is based somewhat on USEPA method 3570 (Micro Organic extraction and sample preparation). Method 3700.

AN088

Analysis of Total Phenols in Soil Sediment and Water: Steam distillable phenols react with 4-aminoantipyrine at pH 7.9±0.1 in the presence of potassium ferricyanide to form a coloured antipyrine dye analysed by Discrete Analyser. Reference APHA 5530 B/D.

AN289

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 Draft NEPM 2011, >C10-C16 (F2), >C16-C34 (F3) and >C34-C40 (F4). F2 is not corrected for Naphthalene.

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

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/AN434

VOCs and C6-C9/C6-C10 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/AN434/AN410

Qualitative identification of chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite in bulk samples by polarised light microscopy (PLM) in conjunction with dispersion staining (DS). AS4964 provides the basis for this document. Unequivocal identification of the asbestos minerals present is made by obtaining sufficient diagnostic `clues`, which provide a reasonable degree of certainty, dispersion staining is a mandatory `clue` for positive identification. If sufficient `clues` are absent, then positive identification of asbestos is not possible. This procedure requires removal of suspect fibres/bundles from the sample which cannot be returned.

AN602

Page 16 of 1724/02/2014

SE124852 R0FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES

*

**

^

Analysis not covered by the scope of accreditation.Indicative data, theoretical holding time exceeded.Performed by outside laboratory.

-NVLIS

LNR

Not analysed.Not validated.Insufficient sample for analysis.Sample listed, but not received.

Samples analysed as received.Solid samples expressed on a dry weight basis.

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

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.pv.sgsv3/~/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/General-Conditions-of-Services-English.aspx. 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.

UOMLOR↑↓

Unit of Measure.Limit of Reporting.Raised/lowered Limit of Reporting.

Page 17 of 1724/02/2014

Date Reported

0000076313Report Number

ContactSGS Alexandria Environmental

Unit 16, 33 Maddox StAlexandria NSW 2015

Huong Crawford

+61 2 8594 0400+61 2 8594 [email protected]

8

SGS Reference


Address

ManagerLaboratory

2919429194 - COC No 16441

[email protected] 9484 242702 9980 6554

(PO Box 357, Pennant Hills NSW 1715)16 Chilvers RoadNSW 2120

Sydney Environmental & Soil Laboratory Pty LtdHarrison Leake

Samples

Order Number

Project


AddressClient

CLIENT DETAILS LABORATORY DETAILS

COMMENTS

24 Feb 2014

ANALYTICAL REPORT

SE124852 R0

Date Received 14 Feb 2014

No respirable fibres detected in all samples using trace analysis technique.A portion of the sample supplied has been sub-sampled for asbestos according to SGS In-house procedures. We therefore cannot guarantee that the sub-sample is representative of the entire sample supplied. SGS Environmental Services recommends supplying approximately 50-100g of sample in a separate container.Asbestos analysed by Approved Identifier Ravee Sivasubramaniam.

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

SIGNATORIES

Andy SuttonSenior Organic Chemist

Deanne NorrisOrganic Chemist

Kamrul AhsanSenior Chemist

Ly Kim HaOrganic Section Head

Ravee SivasubramaniamAsbestos Analyst

Sheila LepasanaSenior Technician

Member of the SGS Group

www.au.sgs.comf +61 2 8594 0499t +61 2 8594 0400AustraliaAustralia

Alexandria NSW 2015Alexandria NSW 2015

Unit 16 33 Maddox StPO Box 6432 Bourke Rd BC

Environmental ServicesSGS Australia Pty LtdABN 44 000 964 278

Page 1 of 324/02/2014

SE124852 R0ANALYTICAL REPORT

RESULTS

Method AN602Fibre Identification in soil

Est.%w/wFibre IdentificationClient Reference

LaboratoryReference Matrix Date Sampled

SampleDescription

No Asbestos FoundOrganic Fibres Detected

<0.0114 Feb 201438g Soil,sandSoil1 BH1-SurfaceSE124852.001


<0.0114 Feb 201446g Soil,sand,rocks

Soil4 BH2-SurfaceSE124852.002













Page 2 of 324/02/2014

SE124852 R0

METHOD METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

METHOD SUMMARY

AN602 Qualitative identification of chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite in bulk samples by polarised light microscopy (PLM)

in conjunction with dispersion staining (DS). AS4964 provides the basis for this document. Unequivocal

identification of the asbestos minerals present is made by obtaining sufficient diagnostic `clues`, which provide a

reasonable degree of certainty, dispersion staining is a mandatory `clue` for positive identification. If sufficient

`clues` are absent, then positive identification of asbestos is not possible. This procedure requires removal of

suspect fibres/bundles from the sample which cannot be returned.

AN602 Fibres/material that cannot be unequivocably identified as one of the three asbestos forms, will be reported as

unknown mineral fibres (umf).

AN602 AS4964.2004 Method for the Qualitative Identification of Asbestos in Bulk Samples, Section 8.4, Trace Analysis

Criteria, Note 4 states:"Depending upon sample condition and fibre type, the detection limit of this technique has

been found to lie generally in the range of 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000 parts by weight, equivalent to 1 to 0.1 g/kg."

FOOTNOTES

Amosite - Brown Asbestos

Chrysotile - White Asbestos

Crocidolite - Blue Asbestos

Amphiboles - Amosite and/or Crocidolite

This report does not comply with the analytical reporting recommendations in the Western Australian Department of Health Guidelines for the

Assessment and Remediation and Management of Asbestos Contaminated sites in Western Australia - May 2009.

Sampled by the client.

Where reported: 'Asbestos Detected': Asbestos detected by polarized light microscopy, including dispersion staining.

Where reported: 'No Asbestos Found': No Asbestos Found by polarized light microscopy, including dispersion staining.

Where reported: 'UMF Detected': Mineral fibres of unknown type detected by polarized light microscopy, including dispersion staining. Confirmation

by another independent analytical technique may be necessary.

Even after disintegration it can be very difficult, or impossible, to detect the presence of asbestos in some asbestos -containing bulk materials using

polarised light microscopy. This is due to the low grade or small length or diameter of asbestos fibres present in the material, or to the fact that very

fine fibres have been distributed intimately throughout the materials.

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.pv.sgsv3/~/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/General-Conditions-of-Services-English.aspx . 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 test report shall not be reproduced, except in full.

NA - Not Analysed

LNR - Listed, Not Required

* - Not Accredited

** - Indicative data, theoretical holding time exceeded.

Page 3 of 324/02/2014

Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89

Em: [email protected]: www.sesl.com.au

Soil Investigation Levels forUrban Development Sites

Draft FinalReport Status:

Sample Drop Off: 16 Chilvers RoadThornleigh NSW 2120

Mailing Address: PO Box 357Pennant Hills NSW 1715

29194 1Batch N°: Sample N°: 13/2/14Date Received:

Page 1

100

60

4500

20

100

NR

100

6000

300

3800

40

10

400

200

7400250

500

90

40000

150

500

NR

600

30000

1200

14000

120

30

1200

1400

60000300

300

90

20000

90

300

NR

300

17000

600

19000

80

13

1200

700

30000240

3000

500

300000

900

3600

NR

4000

240000

1500

60000

730

180

6000

10000

4000001500

DISCUSSION and RECOMMENDATIONS

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Please refer to Report: C6425.Q3570.B29194 Leichhardt Park DSI FA

Did not test

Did not test

Assessment Criteria: HIL A HIL B HIL C HIL D

Chemical

Arsenic (As)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)

Chromium (VI) (CrVI)

Chromium (Total) (Cr)

Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Manganese (Mn)

Mercury (Hg)

Methyl mercury

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Zinc (Zn)

Cyanide (free)*

Comments

Did not test

Did not test

Client Name:Client Contact:Client Job N°:Client Order N°:Address:

Project Name:Location:SESL Quote N°:Sample Name:Description:Test Type:

Limited Stage 2 Detailed Site InvestigationLeichhardt Park, Lilyfield NSWQ3570BH1 - Surface

Leichhardt Municipal CouncilPatrick Ceran

BWC, OPP, Phenol-T, Asb_IDPO Box 45Leichhardt NSW 2040

Soil

Did not test

4

<0.3

52

0.1

2.8

-

42

Health Based Investigation Levels (HIL mg/kg)

HIL A1 HIL B1 HIL C1 HIL D1

Result(mg/kg)

-

15

See page 2 for PAHs, Phenols, OCPs, Herbicides and other Pesticides and Organics.

- Did not test

-

Metals and Inorganics

Did not test

Did not test

5.4 No requirement

*Testing is for Total Cyanide.

National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 as amended May 2013 - Schedule B1 Guideline on Investigation Levels For Soil and Groundwater

NR: No reported guideline level.D.N.T.: “Did not test.”

1. HIL A: Residential with garden/accessible soil (home-grown produce <10% fruit and vegetable intake; no poultry), also includes childcare centres,preschools and primary schools.

2. HIL B: Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access; includes dwellings with fully and permanently paved yard space such as high-risebuildings and apartments.

3. HIL C: Public open space such as parks, playgrounds, playing fields (e.g. ovals), secondary schools and footpaths. This does not includeundeveloped public open space where the potential for exposure is lower and where a site-specific assessment may be more appropriate.

4. HIL D: Commercial/industrial, includes premises such as shops, offices, factories and industrial sites.

Tests are performed under a quality system certified as complying with ISO 9001: 2008. Results and conclusions assume that sampling is representative.This document shall not be reproduced except in full. Results given on a dry weight basis unless otherwise stated. All analyses performed by sub-contracting laboratory.

Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 2

Consultant Authorised Signatory

1

160

600

600

900

600

600

600

4500

320

3000

100

400

45000

130

4700

40000

120

4000

240000

660

25000

Ryan JackaLuke Jacovides

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.2 Acceptable

5.6

0.1

Acceptable

Acceptable

DDT + DDD + DDE

Aldrin + Dieldrin

Chlordane

Endosulfan

Endrin

Heptachlor

HCB

Methoxychlor

240

6

50

270

10

6

10

300

600

10

90

400

20

10

15

500

400

10

70

340

20

10

10

400

3600

45

530

2000

100

50

80

2500

3

300

4

400

3

300

40

4000

Chemical

Carcinogenic PAHs (as BaP TEQ)

Total PAHs

CommentsHealth Based Investigation Levels (HIL mg/kg)

HIL A¹ HIL B² HIL C³ HIL D�

Result(mg/kg)

Phenol

Pentachlorophenol

Cresols

Organochlorine Pesticides*

Phenols

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

0.89 Acceptable

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Did not test

1 1 7

340

840

250

730

2000

4500

800

1300

800

800

800

5700

400

5000

9000

5000

5000

5000

35000

2500

600

1600

900

900

900

6600

470

<0.2 Did not test

Herbicides

2,4,5-T

2,4-D

MCPA

MCPB

Mecoprop

Picloram

Atrazine

Other Pesticides

Chlopyrifos

Bifenthrin

Other Organics*

PCBs

<0.2

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable

* Compounds not tested:Organochlorine Pesiticides: Mirex, ToxapheneOther Organics: PBDE Flame Retardants (Br1-Br9)

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Date Report Generated11/03/2014








Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 1

100

60

4500

20

100

NR

100

6000

300

3800

40

10

400

200

7400250

500

90

40000

150

500

NR

600

30000

1200

14000

120

30

1200

1400

60000300

300

90

20000

90

300

NR

300

17000

600

19000

80

13

1200

700

30000240

3000

500

300000

900

3600

NR

4000

240000

1500

60000

730

180

6000

10000

4000001500


Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test


Chemical

Arsenic (As)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)



Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Manganese (Mn)

Mercury (Hg)

Methyl mercury

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Zinc (Zn)

Cyanide (free)*

Comments

Did not test

Did not test






Soil

Did not test

5

0.3

82

0.16

7.4

-

96



Result(mg/kg)

-

24


- Did not test

-


Did not test

Did not test

12 No requirement









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 2


1

160

600

600

900

600

600

600

4500

320

3000

100

400

45000

130

4700

40000

120

4000

240000

660

25000


<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.2 Acceptable

12.4

0.2

Acceptable

Acceptable

DDT + DDD + DDE

Aldrin + Dieldrin

Chlordane

Endosulfan

Endrin

Heptachlor

HCB

Methoxychlor

240

6

50

270

10

6

10

300

600

10

90

400

20

10

15

500

400

10

70

340

20

10

10

400

3600

45

530

2000

100

50

80

2500

3

300

4

400

3

300

40

4000

Chemical


Total PAHs



Result(mg/kg)

Phenol

Pentachlorophenol

Cresols


Phenols


<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

1.87 Acceptable

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Did not test

1 1 7

340

840

250

730

2000

4500

800

1300

800

800

800

5700

400

5000

9000

5000

5000

5000

35000

2500

600

1600

900

900

900

6600

470

<0.2 Did not test

Herbicides

2,4,5-T

2,4-D

MCPA

MCPB

Mecoprop

Picloram

Atrazine

Other Pesticides

Chlopyrifos

Bifenthrin

Other Organics*

PCBs

<0.2

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 1

100

60

4500

20

100

NR

100

6000

300

3800

40

10

400

200

7400250

500

90

40000

150

500

NR

600

30000

1200

14000

120

30

1200

1400

60000300

300

90

20000

90

300

NR

300

17000

600

19000

80

13

1200

700

30000240

3000

500

300000

900

3600

NR

4000

240000

1500

60000

730

180

6000

10000

4000001500


Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test


Chemical

Arsenic (As)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)



Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Manganese (Mn)

Mercury (Hg)

Methyl mercury

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Zinc (Zn)

Cyanide (free)*

Comments

Did not test

Did not test





BWC, OPP, Phenol-TPO Box 45Leichhardt NSW 2040

Soil

Did not test

5

<0.3

80

0.15

7.1

-

93



Result(mg/kg)

-

25


- Did not test

-


Did not test

Did not test

10 No requirement









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 2


1

160

600

600

900

600

600

600

4500

320

3000

100

400

45000

130

4700

40000

120

4000

240000

660

25000


<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.2 Acceptable

20.1

0.3

Acceptable

Acceptable

DDT + DDD + DDE

Aldrin + Dieldrin

Chlordane

Endosulfan

Endrin

Heptachlor

HCB

Methoxychlor

240

6

50

270

10

6

10

300

600

10

90

400

20

10

15

500

400

10

70

340

20

10

10

400

3600

45

530

2000

100

50

80

2500

3

300

4

400

3

300

40

4000

Chemical


Total PAHs



Result(mg/kg)

Phenol

Pentachlorophenol

Cresols


Phenols


<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

2.83 Acceptable

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Did not test

1 1 7

340

840

250

730

2000

4500

800

1300

800

800

800

5700

400

5000

9000

5000

5000

5000

35000

2500

600

1600

900

900

900

6600

470

<0.2 Did not test

Herbicides

2,4,5-T

2,4-D

MCPA

MCPB

Mecoprop

Picloram

Atrazine

Other Pesticides

Chlopyrifos

Bifenthrin

Other Organics*

PCBs

<0.2

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 1

100

60

4500

20

100

NR

100

6000

300

3800

40

10

400

200

7400250

500

90

40000

150

500

NR

600

30000

1200

14000

120

30

1200

1400

60000300

300

90

20000

90

300

NR

300

17000

600

19000

80

13

1200

700

30000240

3000

500

300000

900

3600

NR

4000

240000

1500

60000

730

180

6000

10000

4000001500


Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test


Chemical

Arsenic (As)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)



Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Manganese (Mn)

Mercury (Hg)

Methyl mercury

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Zinc (Zn)

Cyanide (free)*

Comments

Did not test

Did not test






Soil

Did not test

11

0.3

110

0.08

8.8

-

110



Result(mg/kg)

-

30


- Did not test

-


Did not test

Did not test

9.6 No requirement









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 2


1

160

600

600

900

600

600

600

4500

320

3000

100

400

45000

130

4700

40000

120

4000

240000

660

25000


<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.2 Acceptable

19.1

<0.1

Acceptable

Acceptable

DDT + DDD + DDE

Aldrin + Dieldrin

Chlordane

Endosulfan

Endrin

Heptachlor

HCB

Methoxychlor

240

6

50

270

10

6

10

300

600

10

90

400

20

10

15

500

400

10

70

340

20

10

10

400

3600

45

530

2000

100

50

80

2500

3

300

4

400

3

300

40

4000

Chemical


Total PAHs



Result(mg/kg)

Phenol

Pentachlorophenol

Cresols


Phenols


<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

3.15 Exceeds HIL A

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Did not test

1 1 7

340

840

250

730

2000

4500

800

1300

800

800

800

5700

400

5000

9000

5000

5000

5000

35000

2500

600

1600

900

900

900

6600

470

<0.2 Did not test

Herbicides

2,4,5-T

2,4-D

MCPA

MCPB

Mecoprop

Picloram

Atrazine

Other Pesticides

Chlopyrifos

Bifenthrin

Other Organics*

PCBs

<0.2

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 1

100

60

4500

20

100

NR

100

6000

300

3800

40

10

400

200

7400250

500

90

40000

150

500

NR

600

30000

1200

14000

120

30

1200

1400

60000300

300

90

20000

90

300

NR

300

17000

600

19000

80

13

1200

700

30000240

3000

500

300000

900

3600

NR

4000

240000

1500

60000

730

180

6000

10000

4000001500


Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test


Chemical

Arsenic (As)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)



Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Manganese (Mn)

Mercury (Hg)

Methyl mercury

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Zinc (Zn)

Cyanide (free)*

Comments

Did not test

Did not test






Soil

Did not test

4

0.4

130

0.11

5

-

100



Result(mg/kg)

-

38


- Did not test

-


Did not test

Did not test

6.6 No requirement








Tests are performed under a quality system certified as complying with ISO 9001: 2008. Results and conclusions assume that sampling is representative. This document shall not be reproduced except in full. Results given on a dry weight basis unless otherwise stated. All analyses performed by sub-contracting laboratory.

Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 2


1

160

600

600

900

600

600

600

4500

320

3000

100

400

45000

130

4700

40000

120

4000

240000

660

25000


<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.2 Acceptable

36.5

<0.1

Acceptable

Acceptable

DDT + DDD + DDE

Aldrin + Dieldrin

Chlordane

Endosulfan

Endrin

Heptachlor

HCB

Methoxychlor

240

6

50

270

10

6

10

300

600

10

90

400

20

10

15

500

400

10

70

340

20

10

10

400

3600

45

530

2000

100

50

80

2500

3

300

4

400

3

300

40

4000

Chemical


Total PAHs



Result(mg/kg)

Phenol

Pentachlorophenol

Cresols


Phenols


<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

6 Exceeds HIL A

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Did not test

1 1 7

340

840

250

730

2000

4500

800

1300

800

800

800

5700

400

5000

9000

5000

5000

5000

35000

2500

600

1600

900

900

900

6600

470

<0.2 Did not test

Herbicides

2,4,5-T

2,4-D

MCPA

MCPB

Mecoprop

Picloram

Atrazine

Other Pesticides

Chlopyrifos

Bifenthrin

Other Organics*

PCBs

<0.2

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 1

100

60

4500

20

100

NR

100

6000

300

3800

40

10

400

200

7400250

500

90

40000

150

500

NR

600

30000

1200

14000

120

30

1200

1400

60000300

300

90

20000

90

300

NR

300

17000

600

19000

80

13

1200

700

30000240

3000

500

300000

900

3600

NR

4000

240000

1500

60000

730

180

6000

10000

4000001500


Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test


Chemical

Arsenic (As)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)



Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Manganese (Mn)

Mercury (Hg)

Methyl mercury

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Zinc (Zn)

Cyanide (free)*

Comments

Did not test

Did not test






Soil

Did not test

4

<0.3

77

0.05

3.2

-

96



Result(mg/kg)

-

34


- Did not test

-


Did not test

Did not test

4.7 No requirement









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 2


1

160

600

600

900

600

600

600

4500

320

3000

100

400

45000

130

4700

40000

120

4000

240000

660

25000


<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.2 Acceptable

16.2

0.3

Acceptable

Acceptable

DDT + DDD + DDE

Aldrin + Dieldrin

Chlordane

Endosulfan

Endrin

Heptachlor

HCB

Methoxychlor

240

6

50

270

10

6

10

300

600

10

90

400

20

10

15

500

400

10

70

340

20

10

10

400

3600

45

530

2000

100

50

80

2500

3

300

4

400

3

300

40

4000

Chemical


Total PAHs



Result(mg/kg)

Phenol

Pentachlorophenol

Cresols


Phenols


<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

2.42 Acceptable

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Did not test

1 1 7

340

840

250

730

2000

4500

800

1300

800

800

800

5700

400

5000

9000

5000

5000

5000

35000

2500

600

1600

900

900

900

6600

470

<0.2 Did not test

Herbicides

2,4,5-T

2,4-D

MCPA

MCPB

Mecoprop

Picloram

Atrazine

Other Pesticides

Chlopyrifos

Bifenthrin

Other Organics*

PCBs

<0.2

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 1

100

60

4500

20

100

NR

100

6000

300

3800

40

10

400

200

7400250

500

90

40000

150

500

NR

600

30000

1200

14000

120

30

1200

1400

60000300

300

90

20000

90

300

NR

300

17000

600

19000

80

13

1200

700

30000240

3000

500

300000

900

3600

NR

4000

240000

1500

60000

730

180

6000

10000

4000001500


Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test


Chemical

Arsenic (As)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)



Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Manganese (Mn)

Mercury (Hg)

Methyl mercury

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Zinc (Zn)

Cyanide (free)*

Comments

Did not test

Did not test






Soil

Did not test

6

0.4

100

0.05

10

-

110



Result(mg/kg)

-

36


- Did not test

-


Did not test

Did not test

9.2 No requirement









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 2


1

160

600

600

900

600

600

600

4500

320

3000

100

400

45000

130

4700

40000

120

4000

240000

660

25000


<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.2 Acceptable

10.6

0.4

Acceptable

Acceptable

DDT + DDD + DDE

Aldrin + Dieldrin

Chlordane

Endosulfan

Endrin

Heptachlor

HCB

Methoxychlor

240

6

50

270

10

6

10

300

600

10

90

400

20

10

15

500

400

10

70

340

20

10

10

400

3600

45

530

2000

100

50

80

2500

3

300

4

400

3

300

40

4000

Chemical


Total PAHs



Result(mg/kg)

Phenol

Pentachlorophenol

Cresols


Phenols


<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

1.84 Acceptable

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Did not test

1 1 7

340

840

250

730

2000

4500

800

1300

800

800

800

5700

400

5000

9000

5000

5000

5000

35000

2500

600

1600

900

900

900

6600

470

<0.2 Did not test

Herbicides

2,4,5-T

2,4-D

MCPA

MCPB

Mecoprop

Picloram

Atrazine

Other Pesticides

Chlopyrifos

Bifenthrin

Other Organics*

PCBs

<0.2

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 1

100

60

4500

20

100

NR

100

6000

300

3800

40

10

400

200

7400250

500

90

40000

150

500

NR

600

30000

1200

14000

120

30

1200

1400

60000300

300

90

20000

90

300

NR

300

17000

600

19000

80

13

1200

700

30000240

3000

500

300000

900

3600

NR

4000

240000

1500

60000

730

180

6000

10000

4000001500


Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test


Chemical

Arsenic (As)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)



Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Manganese (Mn)

Mercury (Hg)

Methyl mercury

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Zinc (Zn)

Cyanide (free)*

Comments

Did not test

Did not test






Soil

Did not test

3

<0.3

37

0.04

4.8

-

68



Result(mg/kg)

-

16


- Did not test

-


Did not test

Did not test

6.3 No requirement









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 2


1

160

600

600

900

600

600

600

4500

320

3000

100

400

45000

130

4700

40000

120

4000

240000

660

25000


<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.1 Acceptable

<0.2 Acceptable

6.2

0.6

Acceptable

Acceptable

DDT + DDD + DDE

Aldrin + Dieldrin

Chlordane

Endosulfan

Endrin

Heptachlor

HCB

Methoxychlor

240

6

50

270

10

6

10

300

600

10

90

400

20

10

15

500

400

10

70

340

20

10

10

400

3600

45

530

2000

100

50

80

2500

3

300

4

400

3

300

40

4000

Chemical


Total PAHs



Result(mg/kg)

Phenol

Pentachlorophenol

Cresols


Phenols


<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

1.12 Acceptable

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Did not test

1 1 7

340

840

250

730

2000

4500

800

1300

800

800

800

5700

400

5000

9000

5000

5000

5000

35000

2500

600

1600

900

900

900

6600

470

<0.2 Did not test

Herbicides

2,4,5-T

2,4-D

MCPA

MCPB

Mecoprop

Picloram

Atrazine

Other Pesticides

Chlopyrifos

Bifenthrin

Other Organics*

PCBs

<0.2

Did not test

Did not test

Acceptable


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89






29194A 8Batch N°: Sample N°: 4/3/14Date Received:

Page 1

100

60

4500

20

100

NR

100

6000

300

3800

40

10

400

200

7400250

500

90

40000

150

500

NR

600

30000

1200

14000

120

30

1200

1400

60000300

300

90

20000

90

300

NR

300

17000

600

19000

80

13

1200

700

30000240

3000

500

300000

900

3600

NR

4000

240000

1500

60000

730

180

6000

10000

4000001500


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Analysed by SGS Australia Pty Ltd Report # 125444

Please refer to report C6425.Q3570.B29194 Leichhardt Park DSI FB.

Did not test

Did not test


Chemical

Arsenic (As)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)



Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Manganese (Mn)

Mercury (Hg)

Methyl mercury

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Zinc (Zn)

Cyanide (free)*

Comments

Did not test

Did not test



Limited Stage 2 Detailed Site InvestigationLeichhardt Park, Lilyfield NSWQ3570BH3 - 150


PAHPO Box 45Leichhardt NSW 2040

Soil

Did not test

-

-

-

-

-

-

-



Result(mg/kg)

-

-


- Did not test

-


Did not test

Did not test

- No requirement









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 2


1

160

600

600

900

600

600

600

4500

320

3000

100

400

45000

130

4700

40000

120

4000

240000

660

25000


Did not test

Did not test

- Did not test

- Did not test

15.8 Acceptable

Did not test

DDT + DDD + DDE

Aldrin + Dieldrin

Chlordane

Endosulfan

Endrin

Heptachlor

HCB

Methoxychlor

240

6

50

270

10

6

10

300

600

10

90

400

20

10

15

500

400

10

70

340

20

10

10

400

3600

45

530

2000

100

50

80

2500

3

300

4

400

3

300

40

4000

Chemical


Total PAHs



Result(mg/kg)

Phenol

Pentachlorophenol

Cresols


Phenols


2.53 Acceptable

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

1 1 7

340

840

250

730

2000

4500

800

1300

800

800

800

5700

400

5000

9000

5000

5000

5000

35000

2500

600

1600

900

900

900

6600

470

- Did not test

Herbicides

2,4,5-T

2,4-D

MCPA

MCPB

Mecoprop

Picloram

Atrazine

Other Pesticides

Chlopyrifos

Bifenthrin

Other Organics*

PCBs

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 1

100

60

4500

20

100

NR

100

6000

300

3800

40

10

400

200

7400250

500

90

40000

150

500

NR

600

30000

1200

14000

120

30

1200

1400

60000300

300

90

20000

90

300

NR

300

17000

600

19000

80

13

1200

700

30000240

3000

500

300000

900

3600

NR

4000

240000

1500

60000

730

180

6000

10000

4000001500


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test



Did not test

Did not test


Chemical

Arsenic (As)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)



Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Manganese (Mn)

Mercury (Hg)

Methyl mercury

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Zinc (Zn)

Cyanide (free)*

Comments

Did not test

Did not test



Limited Stage 2 Detailed Site InvestigationLeichhardt Park, Lilyfield NSWQ3570BH4 - 200-300



Soil

Did not test

-

-

-

-

-

-

-



Result(mg/kg)

-

-


- Did not test

-


Did not test

Did not test

- No requirement









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 2


1

160

600

600

900

600

600

600

4500

320

3000

100

400

45000

130

4700

40000

120

4000

240000

660

25000


Did not test

Did not test

- Did not test

- Did not test

143.9 Acceptable

Did not test

DDT + DDD + DDE

Aldrin + Dieldrin

Chlordane

Endosulfan

Endrin

Heptachlor

HCB

Methoxychlor

240

6

50

270

10

6

10

300

600

10

90

400

20

10

15

500

400

10

70

340

20

10

10

400

3600

45

530

2000

100

50

80

2500

3

300

4

400

3

300

40

4000

Chemical


Total PAHs



Result(mg/kg)

Phenol

Pentachlorophenol

Cresols


Phenols


23.79 Exceeds HIL A

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

1 1 7

340

840

250

730

2000

4500

800

1300

800

800

800

5700

400

5000

9000

5000

5000

5000

35000

2500

600

1600

900

900

900

6600

470

- Did not test

Herbicides

2,4,5-T

2,4-D

MCPA

MCPB

Mecoprop

Picloram

Atrazine

Other Pesticides

Chlopyrifos

Bifenthrin

Other Organics*

PCBs

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 1

100

60

4500

20

100

NR

100

6000

300

3800

40

10

400

200

7400250

500

90

40000

150

500

NR

600

30000

1200

14000

120

30

1200

1400

60000300

300

90

20000

90

300

NR

300

17000

600

19000

80

13

1200

700

30000240

3000

500

300000

900

3600

NR

4000

240000

1500

60000

730

180

6000

10000

4000001500


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test



Did not test

Did not test


Chemical

Arsenic (As)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)



Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Manganese (Mn)

Mercury (Hg)

Methyl mercury

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Zinc (Zn)

Cyanide (free)*

Comments

Did not test

Did not test



Limited Stage 2 Detailed Site InvestigationLeichhardt Park, Lilyfield NSWQ3570BH4 - 400-500



Soil

Did not test

-

-

-

-

-

-

-



Result(mg/kg)

-

-


- Did not test

-


Did not test

Did not test

- No requirement









Tel: 1300 30 40 80Fax: 1300 64 46 89







Page 2


1

160

600

600

900

600

600

600

4500

320

3000

100

400

45000

130

4700

40000

120

4000

240000

660

25000


Did not test

Did not test

- Did not test

- Did not test

8.4 Acceptable

Did not test

DDT + DDD + DDE

Aldrin + Dieldrin

Chlordane

Endosulfan

Endrin

Heptachlor

HCB

Methoxychlor

240

6

50

270

10

6

10

300

600

10

90

400

20

10

15

500

400

10

70

340

20

10

10

400

3600

45

530

2000

100

50

80

2500

3

300

4

400

3

300

40

4000

Chemical


Total PAHs



Result(mg/kg)

Phenol

Pentachlorophenol

Cresols


Phenols


1.48 Acceptable

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

1 1 7

340

840

250

730

2000

4500

800

1300

800

800

800

5700

400

5000

9000

5000

5000

5000

35000

2500

600

1600

900

900

900

6600

470

- Did not test

Herbicides

2,4,5-T

2,4-D

MCPA

MCPB

Mecoprop

Picloram

Atrazine

Other Pesticides

Chlopyrifos

Bifenthrin

Other Organics*

PCBs

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test


Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test

Did not test









Date post:	04-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times