Detailed Site Investigation - Aurecon · Beca // 2 May 2018 4216571 // NZ1-15242655-52 0.52 // page 141 Appendix L Detailed Site Investigation - Aurecon

Beca // 2 May 2018

4216571 // NZ1-15242655-52 0.52 // page 141

Appendix L

Detailed Site Investigation - Aurecon

St Marys Bay - Masefield Beach Water Quality Improvement Project

Detailed Site Investigation

Auckland Council

26 April 2018 Revision: 3 Reference: 255303

Project 255303 File 255303 - St Marys Bay - DSI Rev3.docx 26 April 2018 Revision 3

Document control record Document prepared by:

Aurecon New Zealand Limited Level 4, 139 Carlton Gore Road Newmarket Auckland 1023 PO Box 9762 Newmarket Auckland 1149 New Zealand T F E W

+64 9 520 6019 +64 9 524 7815 [email protected] aurecongroup.com

A person using Aurecon documents or data accepts the risk of: a) Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original hard

copy version. b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by Aurecon.

Document control

Report title Detailed Site Investigation

Document ID 255303 – St Marys Bay – DSI Rev3

Project number 255303

File path P:\200000-BST\255303 - Hackett Diversion\5 Deliver Design\509 Contaminated Land\(08) Reporting

Client Auckland Council

Client contact Caroline Crosby Client reference

Rev Date Revision details/status Author Reviewer Verifier (if required)

Approver

0 26 June 2017 0 D Duncan G Beck T Dee M.Cobeldick

1 12 February 2018 Update following phase 2 of ground investigation.

D Duncan K Altinkaynak T Dee M.Cobeldick

2 22 March 2018 Changes to place names D Duncan M.Cobeldick

3 26 April 2018 Final D Duncan M.Cobeldick

Current revision 3

Approval

Author signature

Approver signature

Name David Duncan Name Margaret.Cobeldick

Title Contaminated Land Specialist

Title Associate Engineer


Page i

Executive summary Aurecon were engaged by Auckland Council to undertake a DSI for the proposed stormwater tunnel route in the vicinity of St Marys Bay and Point Erin, Auckland. The purpose of the DSI is to inform requirements for any future consent applications with regards to the NES regulations and the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Using the findings of the PSI, a detailed soil sampling and laboratory testing programme was undertaken to characterise soils in the area of the proposed stormwater tunnel. A detailed ground investigation was undertaken in two stages – Stage 1 in April and May 2017, and October to December 2017 – and comprised eighteen machine-drilled boreholes and soil and groundwater sampling.

The ground investigation found that fill is present in all locations investigated at thicknesses ranging from 0.5m (BH01) to 5.0m (BH09). Fill can generally be classified as either “waste-containing” or “reworked-natural”. Laboratory testing found that waste-containing fill had asbestos and high concentrations of heavy metals as well as PAH. All positions in St Marys Road park and three of four positions in the area of Point Erin park contained waste-containing fill. Waste-containing fill in St Marys Road park and Point Erin park poses a risk to construction/maintenance workers due to the presence of asbestos and elevated concentrations of lead. If fill type and contamination are consistent across the St Marys Road park area, shaft construction and tunnelling should involve less disturbance of hazardous material than open trenching. Shallow fill appears to pose the greatest risk, with deeper, reworked fill appearing to be low risk.

Waste-containing fill is generally classifiable as hazardous waste or managed fill. Reworked natural may be classifiable as clean fill or managed fill. Natural soil/rock is classifiable as clean fill.

Groundwater monitoring suggests there is a low risk of leaching of heavy metals and PAH identified in shallow waste-containing fill into groundwater. No concentrations were recorded in excess of ANZECC 80% values for marine waters.

Concentrations of contaminants exceed the Permitted Activity Criteria within the Auckland Unitary Plan; therefore, a resource consent for the discharge of contaminants from contaminated land is likely to be required for the proposed works.

The presence of asbestos in the proposed work area poses a risk to construction workers and carries obligations under the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations. Construction-phase advice should be obtained to ensure appropriate excavation and disposal of contaminated material in order to minimise risk to human health and the environment.


Page i

Contents 1 Introduction 1

1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Approach 1 1.3 Related Aurecon Reports 1 1.4 Legislative Requirements 1 1.5 Objectives and Scope 2 1.6 Proposed Development 2 1.7 Limitations 2

2 Site Location and Setting 4 2.1 Site Location and Description 4 2.2 Geological and Hydrogeological Setting 4 2.3 Summary of Preliminary Site Investigation 4

3 Ground Investigation 6 3.1 Fieldworks 6 3.2 Soil Chemical Laboratory Analysis 6 3.3 Groundwater Sampling and Chemical Laboratory Analysis 7

4 Ground Model 8 4.1 Ground Conditions Encountered 8 4.2 Hydrogeology 9

5 Laboratory Results and Risk Assessment - Soil 10 5.1 Introduction 10 5.2 Laboratory Results 10 5.3 Discussion 12

6 Laboratory Results and Risk Assessment - Groundwater 13 6.1 Introduction 13 6.2 Laboratory Results 13 6.3 Discussion 13

7 Conceptual Site Model 14 8 Planning Considerations 15 9 Conclusions and Recommendations 16

9.1 Conclusions 16 9.2 Recommendations 16


Page ii

Appendices Appendix A

Drawings Appendix B

Chain of Custody Forms Appendix C

Borehole Logs Appendix D

Risk Assessment Approach Appendix E

Laboratory Reports Appendix F

Laboratory Result Screening Table Appendix G

Preliminary Site Investigation

Project 255303 File 255303 - St Marys Bay - DSI Rev3.docx 26 April 2018 Revision 3 Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction Aurecon has been engaged by Auckland Council (the Client) to undertake a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) for the proposed stormwater tunnel route in the vicinity of St Marys Bay and Point Erin, Auckland (herein referred as the ‘site’). This DSI will inform requirements for any future consent applications with regards to the National Environmental Standard (NES) regulations and the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). Site location and layout plans are provided in Appendix A.

1.2 Approach Land with suspected or confirmed contamination sources are recognised by the Ministry for Environment (MfE) as a ‘HAIL’ (Hazardous Activities and Industries List) site. Such sites may present a risk to human health and the environment as a result of soil or groundwater contamination. An assessment of the site is required to determine the likelihood and location of current or historical HAIL areas within a site. In addition, HAIL identification can assist in managing health and safety practices, development costs and corporate risks.

This DSI is undertaken in accordance with the MfE Contaminated Land Management Guidelines (CLMG) No. 1 Reporting on Contaminated sites in New Zealand (dated October 2011) and the NES.

1.3 Related Aurecon Reports Aurecon have previously produced contamination and geotechnical reports within the project area. These reports contain more detail regarding historical land usage and the local geology, and should be read in conjunction with this report. A ground investigation factual report has been produced which provides more detail on the ground investigation which informs this DSI. Related Aurecon reports are:

Aurecon, 2018. St Marys Bay - Preliminary Site Investigation. For: Auckland Council. Ref: 255303-PSI-Rev1.

Aurecon, 2016. Technical Memorandum: Hackett-Sarsfield Diversion Geotechnical Concept Study. For: Auckland Council. Ref: 254194.

Aurecon, 2018. St Marys Bay - Masefield Beach Water Quality Improvement Project - Ground Investigation Factual Report – Revision 3. For: Auckland Council. Ref: 255303.

Aurecon, 2018. St Marys Bay - Masefield Beach Water Quality Improvement Project - Geological Interpretive Report. For: Auckland Council. Ref: 255303.

The Aurecon Preliminary Site Investigation is included in this report as Appendix G.

1.4 Legislative Requirements This assessment has been conducted in accordance with Contaminated Land Management Guidelines, within the framework of the Resource Management Act 1991. Specific guidelines include:

Ministry for the Environment (MfE), 2011, Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 1, Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New Zealand, ME No. 1071;

MfE, 2011, Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 2, Hierarchy and Application in New Zealand of Environmental Guideline Values, ME No. 1072;

MfE, 2004, Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 3, Risk Screening System, ME No. 502;

MfE, 2011, Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 4, Classification and Information Management Protocols, ME No. 742;


MfE, 2011, Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 5, Site Investigation and Analysis of Soils, ME No. 1073;

MfE, 2011, Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011, SR 2011/361, October;

Health and Safety at Work Act 2016; Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016; Worksafe, Approved Code of Practice Management and Removal of Asbestos – November 2016; Auckland Council Unitary Plan (operative in part), 2016 – Updated 3 March 2017; and BRANZ, 2017, New Zealand Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Asbestos in Soil.

1.5 Objectives and Scope The objectives of this report are to:

Report the findings of the intrusive site works undertaken by Aurecon with regard to land contamination to support a forthcoming planning application for the project;

Refine the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) and identify any significant pollutant-receptor linkages; and

Present general recommendations for the mitigation of any undiscounted risks identified.

1.6 Proposed Development The proposed project involves construction of a nominal 1.8m internal diameter tunnel from the New Road shaft to Point Erin park via a shaft at St Marys Road park. A proposed plan is shown on the site layout plan in Appendix A. The proposed tunnel would drain to a pump station located within the Point Erin park shaft, which in turn would pump flows to the existing Watercare Branch 5 wastewater sewer at Sarsfield Street. An emergency overflow outfall pipeline is also proposed to be constructed in event that the Branch 5 sewer was at capacity. The outfall pipeline is proposed to be approximately 450m long and would discharge excess wastewater flows from Point Erin park to the Waitemata Harbour to the west of the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

The construction works are understood to include: tunnelling in order to install a new storage pipeline; shaft excavations in order to launch and recover tunnelling machinery; and trenching to lay shallow sections of pipe. Along most of the route, the surfacing is planned to either remain undisturbed or to be reinstated to the current state following construction; however, the overflow weir and pump station is to be constructed in the field to the north of Point Erin Park. The recommendations made in this report are based on the current proposed route, as described in Section 1.7, and may not be valid for other pipe routes or in other development scenarios.

1.7 Limitations Aurecon has prepared this report in accordance with the brief provided. The contents of the report are for the sole use of the Client and no responsibility or liability will be accepted to any third party. Data or opinions contained within the report may not be used in other contexts or for any other purposes without Aurecon’s prior review and agreement.

Only a finite amount of information has been collected to meet the specific technical requirements of the Client’s brief and this report does not purport to completely describe all the site characteristics and properties.

This report does not provide an absolute assessment of the environmental status of the site, and it is limited to the scope defined herein. Should further information become available regarding the conditions at the site, including previously unknown sources of contamination, Aurecon reserves the right to review the report in the context of the additional information.


It is important to note that the preliminary environmental risk assessment for the site has been performed based on a qualitative review of information currently available from public sources or made available by the client. This risk review does not represent actual characterisation of the site and further information, including site specific testing, is required to quantify the risks highlighted by this review.

This report has been prepared for the client for its own use and is based in part on information provided by them. Aurecon takes no responsibility and disclaims all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage that the Client may suffer as a result of using or relying on any such information or recommendations contained in this report, except to the extent Aurecon expressly indicates in this report that it has verified the information to its satisfaction. This report is not to be reproduced either wholly or in part without our prior written permission.


2 Site Location and Setting

2.1 Site Location and Description The site is located in St Marys Bay (Westhaven) and Point Erin areas of Auckland, to the west of the central business district. Much of the proposed route is located in the vicinity of the Auckland Northern Motorway (State Highway 1) and associated access roads to the Harbour Bridge. The project requires contamination and geotechnical assessments to inform the design of the stormwater upgrades, therefore the route is not final and may be subject to change. Any changes to the proposed route, as described below, should be reassessed.

The proposed route is approximately 1.5 kilometres in length (presented as Drawings 1 and 2 in Appendix A). The main pipe route, shown in green, runs from the junction of London Street and New Street in the southeast to just north of Point Erin Park where a weir structure and pumping station is planned. The majority of this route is intended to be constructed by tunnelling, with some sections possibly trenched.

Additionally, a marine outfall pipe is planned, as is a pumped connection to an existing sewer (shown in red). While the land-based portion of the marine outfall pipe has been assessed, no marine contamination assessment has been undertaken.

The pumped line to the main sewer (shown in red) has not been investigated due to access constraints. It is considered that any potential contamination issues can be adequately managed by a contaminated site management plan produced for the wider project area.

2.2 Geological and Hydrogeological Setting The area is underlain by rock of the East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF). While bedrock outcrops in some locations in the study area, it is generally overlain by other deposits. At higher elevations, such as on cliff-tops, unweathered ECBF is overlain solely by weathered ECBF, present as a predominantly cohesive soil. At lower elevations in coastal gullies, unweathered and weathered ECBF are overlain by mixed deposits of the Tauranga Group (which may include gravels, sands, silts, muds and peat of fluvial, lacustrine and distal volcanoclastic deposits). The presence and thickness of Tauranga Group deposits are considered to be highly variable.

While fill of nominal thickness is likely to be present across much of the study area, areas of low elevation in the vicinity of the motorway are anticipated to contain substantial thicknesses of fill as these areas were subject to reclamation during the construction of the Northern Motorway and the Harbour Bridge in the 1950s.

The proposed route is generally within 100m and 150m from the sea and, as such, the groundwater is expected to be tidally influenced. In low-lying areas which were subject to reclamation, the groundwater table is likely to be high; however seasonal variations may occur. The groundwater table in areas of higher elevation are likely to be higher than in reclaimed areas with variation in depth particularly likely in areas of gullies/former palaeochannels. Groundwater flow is considered to be generally in the direction of the sea.

No surface water courses are noted in the vicinity of the study area as drainage generally occurs through the local storm water drainage system. Gullies in the area, as discussed in Aurecon’s Geotechnical Concept Study, indicate former drainage channels.

2.3 Summary of Preliminary Site Investigation Aurecon has previously undertaken a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) for the proposed storage tunnel route. The proposed stormwater tunnel route traverses areas that have been determined to have been potentially used for HAIL activities. All HAIL activities identified are located in reclaimed areas. Sources of contamination resulting from HAIL activities include:


The presence of areas labelled as landfills in Auckland Council records in St Marys Road park (HAIL G3);

The presence of significant thickness of fill materials due to land reclamation associated with motorway construction (HAIL G5); and

The presence of marine vehicle maintenance facilities in St Marys Road park (HAIL F5). Potential risk was considered to be potentially posed to:

Construction/maintenance workers; Groundwater; and Surface waters (St Marys Bay/Waitemata Harbour). As a result, this DSI was undertaken to investigate potentially active pollutant linkages.


3 Ground Investigation

3.1 Fieldworks In order to appropriately characterise potential ground contamination and the geological and hydrogeological conditions present at the site, eighteen boreholes were advanced by rotary coring to between 4.95 and 34.5 metres below ground level (m bgl). Hand augering or vacuum excavation was undertaken prior to machine boreholes to avoid buried services. The field investigation was undertaken over two stages as detailed in Table 1 and Table 2, below. A borehole location plan is presented in Appendix A. Table 1 Investigatory Boreholes – Stage 1 (April – May 2017)

Hole ID Location Depth (m bgl)

Contamination samples collected

Contamination samples analysed

BH01 10 London Street, St Mary’s Bay, Auckland 34.50 2 1

BH03 St Marys Road park 10.50 6 5



BH06 29 Ring Terrace, St Mary’s Bay, Auckland 25.15 0 0

BH07B Walkway between St Marys Road park and Point Erin Park 15.05 4 2

BH08 Lower Point Erin Reserve, c. 50m East of Northbound Motorway On-ramp

15.10 5 3

BH09A Embankment between Curran St. and Northbound Motorway On-ramp

10.62 4 3

Table 2 Investigatory Boreholes – Stage 2 (October – December 2017)

Hole ID Location Depth (m bgl)

Contamination samples collected

Contamination samples analysed

BH20 Corner London & New Street 4.95 1 1

BH21A 27 New Street, St Marys Bay 12.5 0 0

BH21B 27 New Street, St Marys Bay 6.00 0 0



BH25 29 Ring Terrace 10.00 0 0

BH26 Point Erin Park 15.10 0 0

BH27 Point Erin Park 15.13 1 1

BH28 Curran Street 10.64 3 3

BH30 Sarsfield Street 15.05 0 0

3.2 Soil Chemical Laboratory Analysis Soil samples were collected from all Stage 1 investigatory positions except BH06 (drilled solely for geotechnical assessment). Additional samples were collected from Stage 2 boreholes in areas where


further fill characterisation was considered desirable. Samples were sent for analysis at IANZ-accredited Hill Laboratories and Analytica Laboratories.

In order to characterise soils to be disturbed during the construction of the proposed tunnel, the samples were scheduled for the following analytical suites:

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH); Volatile organic compounds (VOC); Heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc); Asbestos presence/absence screen; and Asbestos bulk ID. Laboratory results are presented in Section 5.

3.3 Groundwater Sampling and Chemical Laboratory Analysis One round of groundwater sampling was undertaken in September 2017 and intended to provide an initial indication of groundwater quality in areas of extensive filling, and to inform discharge constraints for proposed pump testing. These samples were collected using a peristaltic pump and “low flow” methodology from BH03, BH05, BH07B, and BH09A.

Samples were sent for analysis at IANZ-accredited Analytica Laboratories. The groundwater samples were scheduled for the following analytical suites:

Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH); Heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc); and General water quality analysis:

− pH

− Electrical conductivity

− Total alkalinity

− Total suspended solids

− Chloride

− Salinity

− Total hardness

− Sulphate

− Cations

− Nutrients

− Langalier Index

Chain of custody forms are included as Appendix B. Results are presented in Section 5.


4 Ground Model

4.1 Ground Conditions Encountered Ground conditions encountered during the site investigation are generally as anticipated by the information reviewed as part of the PSI. Borehole logs are presented as Appendix C. BH30 has not been included in this section as it is outside of the proposed area of disturbance.

Fill was encountered in all locations. For the purposes of the contamination assessment, fill will be divided into two categories: “waste-containing fill” and “reworked-natural fill”. Waste-containing fill is characterised by material of anthropogenic origin such as brick, concrete, glass, ash, bitumen, etc. Reworked-natural fill refers to soil that has been disturbed/displaced, but does not appear adulterated by foreign material. Reworked-natural fill generally consisted of a sandy clay, soft silts, and sands. Reclaimed areas typically have a combination of waste-containing and reworked-natural fill.

Fill was encountered in all boreholes drilled; however, thickness and type of fill varied greatly between areas. In general, the fill overlies sands and silts of the East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF) and Tauranga Group, which in turn overlies sandstones and siltstones of the ECBF.

ECBF and Tauranga Group sands and silts, were encountered in all but four locations and varied in thickness (where encountered) from ≥1.15m (BH21A) to 8.28m (BH24). These deposits were not encountered in BH03, BH04, BH09A, and BH23. All boreholes drilled were advanced into bedrock which was encountered at between 1.6m bgl (BH04) and 11.38m bgl (BH24). Bedrock encountered comprised sandstone and siltstone of the ECBF.

The depth and thicknesses of major units are presented in Table 3.


Table 3 Ground Conditions Encountered

Borehole

Waste-containing Fill Reworked-natural Fill Superficial Deposits Bedrock

Thickness (m)

Max Depth (m bgl)

Thickness (m)

Max Depth (m bgl)

Thickness (m)

Max Depth (m bgl)

Top Depth (m bgl)

BH01 0.38 0.5 NE NE 3.8 4.3 4.3

BH03 0.7 0.9 3.3 4.2 0 NE 4.2

BH04 1.4 1.6 0 NE 0 NE 1.6

BH05 0.4 0.6 0 NE 1.95 2.55 2.55

BH06 0.9 1.0 0 NE 2.95 3.95 3.95

BH07B 0.22 0.4 0.8 1.2 3.05 4.25 4.25

BH08 0 NE 1.0 1.2 2.75 3.95 3.95

BH09A 1.2 1.2 3.8 5.0 0 NE 5.0

BH20* - - - 1.5 2.5 4.0 4.0

BH21A* - - - - ≥1.15 3.1 3.1

BH21B* - - - - ≥1.8 3.3 3.3

BH23 1.5 1.5 1.65 3.15 0 NE 3.15

BH24 1.7 1.7 1.4 3.1 8.28 11.38 11.38

BH25* - - - - ≥3.8 5.3 5.3

BH26 0 NE 1.55 1.55 3.55 5.1 5.1

BH27 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.5 5.3 6.8 6.8

BH28 2.25 2.25 1.55 3.8 0.6 4.4 4.4

* = positions where vacuum excavation prevented logging of upper arisings, m = metres, m bgl = metres below ground level, NE = Not encountered. Where the presence or thickness of a strata could not be determined due to drilling methods (particularly vacuum excavation) this has been denoted with a “ - “ BH30 omitted from table as outside areas of disturbance.

4.2 Hydrogeology Boreholes were screened in multiple strata across the site to provide a general indication of groundwater behaviour.

A programme of groundwater monitoring was undertaken for stage 1 boreholes following completion of the drilling programme. Insufficient data is available to make detailed conclusions about the local hydrogeological regime, but the data gathered largely supports the desk-based assessment presented in the Aurecon PSI. This is to say, overall flow direction towards the harbour with higher heads in cliff-top areas (BH01 and BH06) than in low-lying areas subject to reclamation.

Borehole installations for stage 2 boreholes (BH20-BH28) were specified by Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP) as part of a combined geological and hydrogeological investigation.

More detail on groundwater monitoring and assessment of hydrogeological data is presented in the Aurecon Ground Investigation Factual Report. Interpretation of groundwater conditions will be presented in the PDP hydrogeological.


5 Laboratory Results and Risk Assessment - Soil

5.1 Introduction Risk is assessed on the basis of a conceptual site model considering source–pathway–receptor linkages. Central to the requirements for the assessment of risk is the development of a conceptual site model (CSM) based on the existing available information (refer to Section 7). Further details on the risk assessment are provided in Appendix D.

This assessment is based on a recreational usage scenario given the proposed works. This model has been completed assuming that the surfacing along most of the tunnel route will not be disturbed and will be left in its current state. Where the surfacing will be disturbed, such as in proposed shaft locations, it is assumed that these areas will be reinstated to the current state following construction.

5.2 Laboratory Results The laboratory reports are attached in Appendix E and a summary is provided below. Laboratory results were screened against the following standards to assess potential risk posed to human health and to provide an indication of waste classification:

Ministry for the Environment (MfE), 2012, National Environment Standards for assessing and managing contaminants in soil to protect human health;

Auckland Council, 2016, Auckland Unitary Plan –Operative in Part (last updated 3 March 2017) – Chapter E30 – Contaminated Land, permitted activity criteria (PAC);

Ministry for the Environment (MfE), 2011. Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand; and

Ministry for the Environment (MfE), 2002, A Guide to the Management of Cleanfills. Twenty-eight of the thirty-six samples collected were scheduled for laboratory analysis. A summary of selected results and screening criteria are presented in Table 4. Full screening tables for chemical analysis are included as Appendix F. Results are discussed in Section 5.3.


Table 4 Summary of Soil Chemical Laboratory Result Screening

Substance of Interest

Max

imum

C

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

kg)

Cle

an fi

ll C

riter

ia (n

on-

volc

anic

)

No.

Sam

ples

Ex

ceed

ing

Cle

an fi

ll

Auc

klan

d Pe

rmitt

ed

Act

ivity

C

riter

ia (P

AC

)

No.

Sam

ples

Ex

ceed

ing

PAC

Hum

an H

ealth

A

sses

smen

t C

riter

ia

No.

Sam

ples

Ex

ceed

ing

Hum

an H

ealth

C

riter

ia

Heavy Metals Arsenic 13 12 1 100 0 80 0

Cadmium 0.69 0.65 1 7.5 0 400 0

Chromium 75 55 3 400 0 2,700 0

Copper 72 45 7 325 0 10,000 0

Lead 2,100 65 11 250 4 880 1

Mercury 0.48 0.45 1 0.75 0 1,800 0

Nickel 101 35 8 105 0 NS# 0

Zinc 960 180 7 400 2 NC - Hydrocarbons Benzo(a) pyrene TEQ 16.4 0.1* 15 20

# 0 40 0

Total Hydrocarbons (C7-C36)

570 40& 6 - - 20,000 0

* = Indicative of presence – professional judgement, & = Laboratory limit of detection, # = AUP guideline for B(a)P, UK SGV, NS = Not screened as not considered to pose a risk as PAC not exceeded and no NES value has been set , NC = No criteria derived due to low mammalian toxicity

Additionally, asbestos was detected in six samples from five locations (BH03, BH04, BH05, BH27, BH28). In order to determine the scale of asbestos contamination in these areas, positive samples taken during Stage 1 of the ground investigation were scheduled for semi-quantitative analysis. Results of asbestos analysis are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Asbestos Analysis Results

Borehole Sample Depth (m) Initial Presence / Absence Screen

Semi-Quantitative Analysis Screen

Mass of asbestos in sample (g)

BH03 0.4-0.5 Asbestos detected Asbestos not detected -

BH04 0.3-0.6 Asbestos detected Asbestos not detected -

0.8-0.9 Asbestos detected Asbestos detected 0.00005

BH05 0.3-0.5 Asbestos detected Asbestos detected 0.00004

BH27 0.4-0.7 Asbestos detected Not scheduled N/A

BH28 0.1-0.3 Asbestos detected Not scheduled N/A

BH28 detection is from a bulk sample of suspected ACM

The presence of asbestos in soil is considered to pose a potential human health risk and is likely to be considered hazardous waste by most soil receiving facilities. Screening results are illustrated in Drawing No 4. in Appendix A.


5.3 Discussion

5.3.1 Human Health This assessment has been completed assuming that the surfacing along most of the tunnel route will not be disturbed and will be left in its current state. Where the surfacing will be disturbed, such as in proposed shaft locations, it is assumed that these areas will be reinstated to the current state following construction, thus there is no proposed change in land-usage.

Based on comparison with Tier 1 screening values, potential risk to human health is present from elevated lead concentrations (BH04) and the presence of asbestos (BH03, BH04, BH05, BH27, BH28) in the area of St Marys Road park and Point Erin park. While only one sample exceeded the screening criteria for lead, most samples of waste-containing fill in the reserve contained elevated concentrations of lead above the AUP Permitted Activity Criteria; as such, the single exceedance of human health assessment criteria is not considered to be an uncharacteristic outlier. All exceedances of human health screening criteria were within fill.

5.3.2 Waste Classification Laboratory results have been screened against criteria sufficient to indicate the likely classification of the soil tested if disposed of off-site. This assessment is indicative only and acceptance criteria will be determined by the receiving facility. It should be noted that reclamation fill, particularly that within the area of St Marys Road park, is considered to be heterogeneous and highly variable in thickness.

All natural soils tested appear suitable for disposal as cleanfill with the exception of soil in the area of BH05, which contained a detectable concentration of hydrocarbons. As a result, the soil tested from BH05 would likely be classified as managed fill.

Fill at the site should be considered as per the two types described in Section 4: waste-containing fill and reworked-natural fill. No waste-containing fill is suitable for disposal as cleanfill. All waste-containing fill sampled from St Marys Road park is considered to be hazardous due to the presence of asbestos and, in some locations, elevated lead concentrations. Waste-containing fill in the area around Point Erin is also considered to be hazardous due to detections of asbestos and elevated concentrations of lead and zinc above AUP assessment criteria.

Waste-containing fill in other areas of the proposed tunnel route may be classified by receiving facilities as managed fill; however, Aurecon recommend considering all waste-containing fill to be hazardous due to the inherent heterogeneity of this material.


6 Laboratory Results and Risk Assessment - Groundwater

6.1 Introduction Groundwater has been assessed to determine the potential risk posed to environmental receptors without appropriate management of water generated during earthworks, and to provide an indication of what management would be required to minimise risk. Sample groundwater is considered to be representative of the water unit which exists in the fill as well as natural geological units. While pockets or perched water may be present in fill, groundwater sampled is considered likely to represent the bulk of water which will be encountered during construction works.

6.2 Laboratory Results Laboratory results were screened against the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000). As per the AUP Chapter E30, 80% species protection values for marine values were used. Where a marine value had not been derived, freshwater values were used for conservativism.

No exceedances of the relevant screening criteria were noted and full screening tables for chemical analysis are included as Appendix F. The laboratory reports are attached in Appendix E.

6.3 Discussion As no exceedances of the relevant screening criteria have been noted, minimal risk is considered to be posed to marine receiving waters by dissolved concentrations of the assessed contaminants. Additional water quality indicators may need be considered when determining appropriate treatment and discharge solutions for groundwater encountered during construction works. Liaison with the relevant wastewater utilities is recommended.


7 Conceptual Site Model Assuming the appropriate management of excavated soil, future site users have been discounted as receptors as there is no significant change of land-use outside of shaft locations, which are to be appropriately reinstated. Following screening of laboratory reports, the following receptors considered to potentially be at risk from the proposed development are:

Construction/maintenance workers The preliminary conceptual site mode has been developed from an assessment of sources of contaminants, potential exposure pathways, and feasible receptors. Table 6 presents the revised conceptual site model. It should be noted that all identified HAIL activities are located in reclaimed areas.

Table 6 - Revised Conceptual Site Model

Source (HAIL activity)

Anticipated contaminants Pathway

Critical Receptors Areas of Posed Risk Comments

HAIL G3 - Landfill sites HAIL G5 - Fill material of unknown origins

Asbestos Heavy metals

Inhalation Ingestion Dermal Contact

Construction and maintenance workers

St Marys Road park (BH03, BH04, BH05) Point Erin park (BH27, BH28)

Contaminated fill materials have been identified in multiple areas along the proposed route. The origins of the fill materials are unclear, and therefore two HAIL activities are considered together. Risk is posed to construction / maintenance workers.


8 Planning Considerations The National Environmental Standard for-Soil (the ‘NES’) was introduced on 1 September 2012, the purpose of which was to provide a set of universally consistent controls for the assessment of contaminated sites across territorial authorities in New Zealand.

Under the NES, parts of the site can be defined as a ‘piece of land’. This is a result of identified potentially contaminating activities associated with historical site uses, which are listed within the MfE Hazardous Activity and Industry List (HAIL):

The presence of areas labelled as landfills in Auckland Council records in St Marys Bay (HAIL G3); The presence of significant thickness of fill materials due to land reclamation associated with

motorway construction (HAIL G5); and

The presence of marine vehicle maintenance facilities in St Marys Bay (HAIL F5). Earthworks are proposed to be undertaken on these areas; as such a consent under the NES may be required.

As discussed in Section 5, concentrations of contaminants exceed the Permitted Activity Criteria within the AUP; therefore, a resource consent for the discharge of contaminants from contaminated land is likely to be required for the affected properties. Further liaison with Auckland Council is recommended once route options are finalised. Locations along the proposed route where exceedances of the Permitted Activity Criteria were noted are St Marys Road park and the reclaimed area around Point Erin park.


9 Conclusions and Recommendations 9.1 Conclusions Aurecon were engaged by Auckland Council to undertake a DSI for the proposed stormwater tunnel route in the vicinity of St Marys Bay and Point Erin, Auckland. The purpose of the DSI is to inform requirements for any future consent applications with regards to the NES regulations and the AUP.

Using the findings of the PSI a detailed soil sampling and laboratory testing programme was undertaken to characterise soils in the area of the proposed stormwater tunnel. A detailed ground investigation was undertaken in two stages – Stage 1 in April and May 2017 and October to December 2017 – and comprised eighteen machine-drilled boreholes and soil and groundwater sampling.

The ground investigation found that fill is present in all locations investigated at thicknesses ranging from 0.5m (BH01) to 5.0m (BH09). Fill can generally be classified as either “waste-containing” or “reworked-natural”. Laboratory testing found that waste-containing fill had asbestos and elevated concentrations of heavy metals as well as PAH. All positions in St Marys Road park and three of four positions in the area of Point Erin park contained waste-containing fill. Waste-containing fill in St Marys Road park and Point Erin park poses a potential risk to construction/maintenance workers due to the presence of asbestos and elevated concentrations of lead. If fill type and contamination are consistent across the St Marys Road park area, shaft construction and tunnelling should involve less disturbance of hazardous material than open trenching. Shallow fill appears to pose the greatest risk, with deeper, reworked fill appearing to be low risk.

Waste-containing fill is generally classifiable as hazardous waste or managed fill. Reworked natural may be classified as cleanfill or managed fill.

Groundwater monitoring suggests there is a low risk of leaching of heavy metals and PAH identified in shallow waste-containing fill into groundwater. No concentrations were recorded in excess of ANZECC 80% values for marine waters.

Concentrations of contaminants exceed the Permitted Activity Criteria within the Auckland Unitary Plan; therefore, a resource consent for the discharge of contaminants from contaminated land is likely to be required for the proposed works.

9.2 Recommendations Following the completion of the DSI, the subsequent recommendations are made:

Waste-containing fill cannot be classified as cleanfill and allowance should be made for the disposal of any waste-containing fill material as “hazardous waste”. In addition, reworked natural fill is likely to be classified as managed fill. Due to the difference in cost for disposal and extra precautions necessary during earthworks, consideration should be given to identifying the interface between these two types of fill during construction works.

Given the relative shallow nature of waste-containing fill (to an average depth of 1.2m bgl in St Marys Bay and the Point Erin area), shaft construction and tunnelling will likely involve the disturbance of significantly less of this material than trenching.

Further groundwater monitoring may be desirable to further inform construction-phase groundwater management.

Resource consent requirements under both the NES-Soil and the AUP are likely to be triggered by the proposed works.

The presence of asbestos in the proposed work area may pose a risk to construction workers and carries obligations under the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations. A specialist contractor should be engaged to assist with material management in asbestos affected soils.

Construction-phase advice should be obtained to ensure appropriate excavation and disposal of contaminated material in order to minimise risk to human health and the environment.

Appendices

Appendix A Drawings

1800Ø

1800Ø NEW STREET SHAFT

1800Ø

PUMP STATION

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS User Community, Land Information New Zealand, Eagle Technology

Projection: NZTM 2000

Drawing 1: Site Location Plan and Proposed Tunnel RouteSt Marys Bay - Masefield Beach Water Quality Improvement Project Preliminary Site Investigation° 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 m

15/01/2018 0Version:Date:Map

by: J

DD

Notes: Proposed tunnel route shown in green. Not to scale

Legend

A3 scale: 1:15,000Job No: 255303

Sourced from the LINZ Data Service and licensed for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealandlicence


Drawing 2: Site Layout Plan and Proposed Tunnel RouteSt Marys Bay - Masefield Beach Water Quality Improvement Project Detailed Site Investigation° 0 100 200 300 400 500m

15/01/2018 0Version:Date:

P:\2

0000

0-BS

T\25

5303

- H

acke

tt D

iver

sion

\5 D

eliv

er D

esig

n\50

9 C

onta

min

ated

Lan

d\(0

7) D

raw

ings

M

ap b

y: J

DD

Notes: Proposed tunnel route shown in green. Not to scale.

Legend

A3 scale: 1:4,000 Job No: 255303

Point Erin Park

Westhaven Marina

St Marys Bay Reserve

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A!A!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!ABH28

BH30

BH27

BH26

BH25

BH20

BH24

BH23

BH08

BH06

BH05

BH04BH03

BH01

BH21BBH21A

BH09A

BH07B



Drawing 3: Borehole Location PlanSt Marys Bay - Masefield Beach Water Quality Improvement Project Detailed Site Investigation° 0 100 200 300 400 500m


P:\2

0000

0-BS

T\25

5303

- H

acke

tt D

iver

sion

\5 D

eliv

er D

esig

n\50

9 C

onta

min

ated

Lan

d\(0

7) D

raw

ings

M

ap b

y: J

DD

Notes: Proposed tunnel route shown in green. Not to scale.

Legend

A3 scale: 1:4,000 Job No: 255303

!A Borehole Locations

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂



Drawing 4: Fill ClassificationSt Marys Bay - Masefield Beach Water Quality Improvement Project Detailed Site Investigation° 0 100 200 300 400 500m


P:\2

0000

0-BS

T\25

5303

- H

acke

tt D

iver

sion

\5 D

eliv

er D

esig

n\50

9 C

onta

min

ated

Lan

d\(0

7) D

raw

ings

M

ap b

y: J

DD

Notes: Proposed tunnel route shown in green. Classification of fill is not intended to reflect actual waste classification. Not to scale.

Legend

A3 scale: 1:4,000 Job No: 255303

Fill Classification_̂

Exceeds Cleanfill,Permitted Activity, andHuman Health Criteria

_̂Exceeds Cleanfill andPermitted Activity Criteria,but not Human HealthCriteria

_̂Exceeds Cleanfill Criteria,but not Permitted Activityor Human Health Criteria

_̂ Cleanfill, No Exceedances

Appendix B Chain of Custody Forms

Job Information Summary Page 1 of 2

Client:

Contact: David Duncan

C/- Aurecon New Zealand Limited

PO Box 9762

Newmarket

Auckland 1149

Aurecon New Zealand Limited Lab No:Date Registered:

Priority:Quote No:

Order No:Client Reference:

Submitted By:

1771628

09-May-2017 11:38 am

High

82714

255303

St Marys Bay

David Duncan

Charge To: Aurecon New Zealand Limited

R J Hill Laboratories Limited

1 Clyde Street Hamilton 3216

Private Bag 3205

Hamilton 3240 New Zealand

0508 HILL LAB (44 555 22)

+64 7 858 2000

[email protected]

www.hill-laboratories.com

T

TEW

Add. Client Ref:

Target Date: 16-May-2017 4:30 pm

No Sample Name Sample Type Containers Tests Requested

Samples

1 BH01 0.5 - 0.7 26-Apr-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300,

cPSoil250Asb

Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Asbestos in Soil; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil

2 BH01 2.0 - 2.1 01-May-2017 Soil GSoil300, GSoil300 Hold Cold

3 BH04 0.1 - 0.3 04-May-2017 Soil cPSoil250Asb,

cGSoil, cGSoilAsbestos in Soil; Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil

4 BH04 0.3 - 0.6 04-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300,

cPSoil250Asb

Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Asbestos in Soil; TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen

5 BH04 0.8 - 0.9 04-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300,

cPSoil250Asb


6 BH05 0.3 - 0.5 04-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300,

cPSoil250Asb

Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Volatile Organic Compounds Screening in Soil by Headspace GC-MS; Asbestos in Soil; TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen

7 BH05 0.8 - 0.9 04-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300,

cPSoil250Asb

Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen

8 BH05 2.2 - 2.5 05-May-2014 Soil GSoil300, GSoil300 Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil

Lab No: 1771628 Hill Laboratories Page 1 of 2

The following table(s) gives a brief description of the methods used to conduct the analyses for this job. The detection limits given below are those attainable in a relatively clean matrix.

Detection limits may be higher for individual samples should insufficient sample be available, or if the matrix requires that dilutions be performed during analysis.

S U M M A R Y O F M E T H O D S

Sample Type: Soil

Test Method Description Default Detection Limit Sample No

Individual Tests

1, 3-8Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103°C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than air dry) , gravimetry. US EPA 3550. (Free water removed before analysis).

0.10 g/100g as rcvd

4, 6-7TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen Sonication in DCM extraction, SPE cleanup, GC-FID & GC-MS analysis. Tested on as received sample.US EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines[KBIs:5786,2805,10734;2695]

0.010 - 60 mg/kg dry wt

1, 3-8Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level

Dried sample, < 2mm fraction. Nitric/Hydrochloric acid digestion US EPA 200.2. Complies with NES Regulations. ICP-MS screen level, interference removal by Kinetic Energy Discrimination if required.

0.10 - 4 mg/kg dry wt

1, 3, 5Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil

Sonication extraction, Dilution or SPE cleanup (if required), GC-MS SIM analysis (modified US EPA 8270). Tested on as received sample.[KBIs:5786,2805,2695]

0.010 - 0.05 mg/kg dry wt

Sample Type: Soil


8Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Sonication extraction in DCM, Silica cleanup, GC-FID analysisUS EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines. Tested on as received sample[KBIs:5786,2805,10734]

8 - 60 mg/kg dry wt

6Volatile Organic Compounds Screening in Soil by Headspace GC-MS

Sonication extraction, Headspace, GC-MS SIM analysis. Tested on as received sample[KBIs:31662,37857,37921]

-

Asbestos in Soil

1, 3-6As Received Weight Measurement on analytical balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 101c Waterloo Road, Christchurch.

0.1 g

1, 3-6Dry Weight Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, measurement on balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 101c Waterloo Road, Christchurch.

0.1 g

1, 3-6


Client:



PO Box 9762

Newmarket

Auckland 1149


Priority:Quote No:


Submitted By:

1773256

11-May-2017 1:29 pm

High

82714

255303

St Marys Bay

David Duncan




Private Bag 3205


0508 HILL LAB (44 555 22)

+64 7 858 2000

[email protected]


T

TEW

Add. Client Ref:



Samples

1 BH04 1.1-1.2 08-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300, PSoil250Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen

2 BH07 0.2-0.3 09-May-2017 Soil cPSoilAsb,

GSoil300, GSoil300

Asbestos in Soil; Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil

3 BH07 0.5-0.6 09-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300, PSoil250

Hold Cold

4 BH07 1.0-1.1 09-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300,

cPSoilAsb


5 BH07 1.4-1.5 09-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300, PSoil250

Hold Cold

6 BH08 0.3-0.5 09-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300,

cPSoilAsb


7 BH08 0.5-0.65 09-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300, PSoil250

Hold Cold

8 BH08 1.1-1.2 09-May-2017 Soil GSoil300, GSoil300 Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen





Sample Type: Soil


Individual Tests

1-2, 4, 6, 8Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103°C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than air dry) , gravimetry. (Free water removed before analysis). US EPA 3550.

0.10 g/100g as rcvd

1, 4, 8TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen Sonication in DCM extraction, SPE cleanup, GC-FID & GC-MS analysis. Tested on as received sample.US EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines[KBIs:5786,2805,10734;2695]

0.010 - 60 mg/kg dry wt

1-2, 4, 6, 8Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level



2, 6Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil


0.010 - 0.05 mg/kg dry wt

Asbestos in Soil

2, 4, 6As Received Weight Measurement on analytical balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 101c Waterloo Road, Christchurch.

0.1 g

Sample Type: Soil


2, 4, 6Dry Weight Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, measurement on balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 101c Waterloo Road, Christchurch.

0.1 g

2, 4, 6


Client:



PO Box 9762

Newmarket

Auckland 1149


Priority:Quote No:


Submitted By:

1776382

17-May-2017 9:54 am

High

82714

255303

St Marys Bay

David Duncan




Private Bag 3205


0508 HILL LAB (44 555 22)

+64 7 858 2000

[email protected]


T

TEW

Add. Client Ref:



Samples

1 BH08 2.6m 10-May-2017 2:30 pm Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300, PSoil250Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil

2 BH08 3.5m 10-May-2017 3:25 pm Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300, PSoil250

Hold Cold

3 BH09 0.3-0.4m 12-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300,

cPSoil250Asb



GSoil300, PSoil250

Hold Cold


GSoil300,

cPSoil250Asb


6 BH09 3.5-3.7m 12-May-2017 Soil GSoil300, GSoil300 Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen





Sample Type: Soil


Individual Tests

1, 3, 5-6Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103°C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than air dry) , gravimetry. (Free water removed before analysis, non-soil objects such as sticks, leaves, grass and stones also removed). US EPA 3550.

0.10 g/100g as rcvd

3, 5-6TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen Sonication in DCM extraction, SPE cleanup, GC-FID & GC-MS analysis. Tested on as received sample.US EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines[KBIs:5786,2805,10734;2695]

0.010 - 60 mg/kg dry wt

1, 3, 5-6Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level



1Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil


0.010 - 0.05 mg/kg dry wt

Asbestos in Soil

3, 5As Received Weight Measurement on analytical balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 101c Waterloo Road, Christchurch.

0.1 g

3, 5Dry Weight Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, measurement on balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 101c Waterloo Road, Christchurch.

0.1 g

3, 5

Sample Type: Soil


3, 5Asbestos Presence / Absence Examination using Low Powered Stereomicroscopy followed by 'Polarised Light Microscopy' including 'Dispersion Staining Techniques'. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 101c Waterloo Road, Christchurch. AS 4964 (2004) - Method for the Qualitative Identification of Asbestos in Bulk Samples.

-

3, 5Description of Asbestos Form Description of asbestos form and/or shape if present. -



Client:



PO Box 9762

Newmarket

Auckland 1149


Priority:Quote No:


Submitted By:

1778739

20-May-2017 1:22 pm

High

82714

255303

St Marys Bay

David Duncan




Private Bag 3205


0508 HILL LAB (44 555 22)

+64 7 858 2000

[email protected]


T

TEW

Add. Client Ref:



Samples

1 BH03 0.1-0.2 19-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

cPSoilAsb, cGSoilHeavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil; Asbestos in Soil

2 BH03 0.4-0.5 19-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

cPSoilAsb, cGSoil

Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen; Asbestos in Soil

3 BH03 0.6-0.7 19-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300, PSoil250

Hold Cold

4 BH03 1.1-1.2 19-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300, PSoil250

Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level

5 BH03 1.4-1.5 19-May-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300, PSoil250Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen





Sample Type: Soil


Individual Tests

1-2, 5Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103°C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than air dry) , gravimetry. (Free water removed before analysis, non-soil objects such as sticks, leaves, grass and stones also removed). US EPA 3550.

0.10 g/100g as rcvd

2, 5TPH Oil Industry Profile + PAHscreen Sonication in DCM extraction, SPE cleanup, GC-FID & GC-MS analysis. Tested on as received sample.US EPA 8015B/MfE Petroleum Industry Guidelines[KBIs:5786,2805,10734;2695]

0.010 - 60 mg/kg dry wt

1-2, 4-5Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level





0.010 - 0.05 mg/kg dry wt

Asbestos in Soil

1-2As Received Weight Measurement on analytical balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 101c Waterloo Road, Christchurch.

0.1 g

1-2Dry Weight Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, measurement on balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 101c Waterloo Road, Christchurch.

0.1 g

1-2

Sample Type: Soil


1-2Asbestos Presence / Absence Examination using Low Powered Stereomicroscopy followed by 'Polarised Light Microscopy' including 'Dispersion Staining Techniques'. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 101c Waterloo Road, Christchurch. AS 4964 (2004) - Method for the Qualitative Identification of Asbestos in Bulk Samples.

-

1-2Description of Asbestos Form Description of asbestos form and/or shape if present. -



Client:



PO Box 9762

Newmarket

Auckland 1149


Priority:Quote No:


Submitted By:

1780401

24-May-2017 10:54 am

High

82714

255 303

St Marys Bay

David Duncan




Private Bag 3205


0508 HILL LAB (44 555 22)

+64 7 858 2000

[email protected]


T

TEW

Add. Client Ref:



Samples

1 BH03 2.3-2.5 22-May-2017 Soil GSoil300, GSoil300 Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil





Sample Type: Soil


1Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level





0.010 - 0.05 mg/kg dry wt

1Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103°C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than air dry) , gravimetry. (Free water removed before analysis, non-soil objects such as sticks, leaves, grass and stones also removed). US EPA 3550.

0.10 g/100g as rcvd


Client:



PO Box 9762

Newmarket

Auckland 1149


Priority:Quote No:


Submitted By:

1883692

27-Nov-2017 10:32 am

High

82714

255303

255303

David Duncan



28 Duke Street Frankton 3204

Private Bag 3205


0508 HILL LAB (44 555 22)

+64 7 858 2000

[email protected]


T

TEW

Add. Client Ref:

Target Date: 04-Dec-2017 4:30 pm


Samples

1 BH27 0.4-0.7 21-Nov-2017 Soil GSoil300,

cPSoilAsb, cGSoilHeavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Asbestos in Soil; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil

2 BH28 0.1-0.3 22-Nov-2017 Soil GSoil300,

cPSoilAsb,

GSoil300


3 BH28 1.9-2.25 23-Nov-2017 Soil GSoil300,

GSoil300,

cPSoilAsb


4 BH20 0.3-0.5 Soil PSoil250 Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level; Asbestos in Soil





Sample Type: Soil


Individual Tests

1-3Dry Matter (Env) Dried at 103°C for 4-22hr (removes 3-5% more water than air dry) , gravimetry. (Free water removed before analysis, non-soil objects such as sticks, leaves, grass and stones also removed). US EPA 3550.

0.10 g/100g as rcvd

1-3Benzo[a]pyrene Potency Equivalency Factor (PEF) NES

BaP Potency Equivalence calculated from Benz(a)anthracene x 0.1 + Benzo(b)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Benzo(j)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Benzo(k)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Benzo(a)pyrene x 1 + Chrysene x 0.01 + Dibenz(a,h)anthracene x 1 + Fluoranthene x 0.01 + Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene x 0.1. Ministry for the Environment. 2011. Methodology for Deriving Standards for Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

0.002 mg/kg dry wt

1-3Benzo[a]pyrene Toxic Equivalence (TEF)

BaP Toxic Equivalence calculated from Benzo(a)anthracene x0.1 + BaP x 1 + Benzo(b)fluoranthene x 0.1 + Benzo(k)fluoranthene x 0.1+ Chrysene x 0.01 + Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene x 1.1 +Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene x 0.1. Guidelines for assessing andmanaging contaminated gasworks sites in New Zealand (GMG) (MfE, 1997).

0.002 mg/kg dry wt

1-3Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level



4Heavy Metals with Mercury, Screen Level

Dried sample, < 2mm fraction. Nitric/Hydrochloric acid digestion US EPA 200.2. Complies with NES Regulations. ICP-MS screen level, interference removal by Kinetic Energy Discrimination if required. Analysed at 1 Clyde Street, Hamilton


Sample Type: Soil


1-3Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Screening in Soil


0.002 - 0.05 mg/kg dry wt

Asbestos in Soil

1-4As Received Weight Measurement on analytical balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 101c Waterloo Road, Christchurch.

0.1 g

1-4Dry Weight Sample dried at 100 to 105°C, measurement on balance. Analysed at Hill Laboratories - Asbestos; 101c Waterloo Road, Christchurch.

0.1 g

1-4

Appendix No.1 - Chain of Custody - Page 1 of 1

Aurecon New Zealand Ltd Laboratory Reference: 17-31371

Level 4, 139 Carlton Gore Road, Newmarket Submitted by: S Howell

Auckland Date Received: 18/12/2017

Order Number:

Attention: Margaret Cobeldick Client Reference: 255303

Phone: 027 583905

Email: [email protected]

Sampling Site: St Marys Bay

Thanks for sending us your samples. This is to confirm that we received the following 3 sample(s) on 18/12/17

Based on our published turn around times, results should be available on or before 22/12/17

If you have any queries please email us at [email protected] or telephone 07 974 4740

Laboratory ID Client Sample Reference Date Sampled Sample Type Condition On Arrival

17-31371-1 BH23 0.1-0.3 11/12/2017 Soil Acceptable



Summary of Testing

Laboratory ID Client Sample Reference So

il -

Ag

gre

ga

tes/N

utr

ien

ts

10

He

avy M

eta

ls in

So

il

TP

H in

So

il

PA

H in

So

il

Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t

Dry

Sie

ve

Su

bco

ntr

ace

d A

sb

esto

s

17-31371-1 BH23 0.1-0.3 X X X X X X X

17-31371-2 BH23 0.5-0.7 X X X X X X X

17-31371-3 BH23 0.9-1.1 X X X X X X X

Laboratory ID Client Sample Reference pH

*

17-31371-1 BH23 0.1-0.3 X

17-31371-2 BH23 0.5-0.7 X

17-31371-3 BH23 0.9-1.1 X

Laboratory Reference: 17-31371 Page 1 of 2 Report Date: 18/12/17

Laboratory ID Client Sample Reference Ars

enic

Bery

llium

Boro

n

Cadm

ium

Chro

miu

m

Copper

Lead

Merc

ury

Nic

kel

Zin

c

17-31371-1 BH23 0.1-0.3 X X X X X X X X X X

17-31371-2 BH23 0.5-0.7 X X X X X X X X X X

17-31371-3 BH23 0.9-1.1 X X X X X X X X X X

Laboratory Reference: 17-31371 Page 2 of 2 Report Date: 18/12/17

Appendix C Borehole Logs

Gra

phic

Log

Inst

alla

tion

VW

SW

SM

WS

CS

VC

SE

CS

Dat

abas

e F

ile:

H

AC

KE

TT

DIV

ER

SIO

N V

3.G

PJ

L

ibra

ry f

ile:

AU

RE

CO

N_A

KL_

201

8011

0.G

LB T

emp

late

: A

UR

EC

ON

_AK

L_20

130

722

.GD

T

Rep

ort

Fil

e:

AU

RE

CO

N D

H L

OG

V3.

9 D

ate

Gen

erat

ed:

23/

01/2

018

Water Level Readings:Date Time | Hole Depth | Water Level(1) 02/05/17 07:54 | 12.00m | 5.34 m bgl(2) 03/05/17 09:24 | 25.50m | 11.94 m bgl(3) 06/07/17 08:15 | 25.50m | 12.28 m bgl(4) 03/08/17 11:30 | 25.50m | 12.24 m bgl

REMARKS:1) Observation and sampling during Vac Ex for contamination investigation.2) Numerous subhorizontal (bedding-parallel) core breaks in unweathered ECBF are drilling-induced.3) Co-ordinates surveyed to 200mm accuracy.

R.L

. (m

)

21

20

19

18

17

Hand Shear Vane Serial No: 2006 Correction Factor: 1.576

Rotary Core WirelineCanter Rig #86Drill Force NZ Ltd

BH01Sheet 1 of 7

1/05/20174/05/2017N/AN/A

Logged by:Input by:Checked by:Verified by:

BGWBGWIMPAK

Client: Auckland CouncilProject: Hackett Diversion - St Mary's Bay CSOLocation: 10 London Street, St Mary's Bay, AucklandProject Reference: 255303

BOREHOLE INFORMATIONMethod:Equipment:Contractor:

Mt Eden Circuit 2000398634.51m803974.62m21.43m(Auckland MSL 1946 Datum)

Level 4, 139 Carlton Gore RoadPO Box 9762, NewmarketAuckland, New ZealandTel: +64 9 520 6019www.aurecongroup.com

CO-ORDINATES:Easting:Northing:Reduced level:

Date started:Date completed:Inclination:Azimuth:

Box

1

RS

CH

SM

MH

HW

HW

ER

sE

Rc

ER

xE

Rs

ER

zE

Wz

EW

s

0m: CORE LOSS. [ECBF Residual Soil]

1.47m: Silty CLAY; grey streaked brownish orange. Firm. Moist.High plasticity. Some unweathered subangular Basalt. Fallen inand pushed away Clay [ECBF Residual Soil]

1.87m: CORE LOSS.

3m: Silty SAND; light brownish grey. Very loose. Wet.

3.8m: Clayey SILT; greenish grey banded orange. Very stiff.Moist. High plasticity. [ECBF Completely Weathered]

4.1m to 4.15m:...Silty SAND.

4.3m: Highly weathered, grey SILTSTONE; Extremely weak (verystiff). With uncemented thinly bedded Sandstone

4.45m: Highly weathered, grey Silty SANDSTONE; Extremelyweak (medium dense). Poorly cemented.

0m: EAST COAST BAYS FORMATION

3m: SPT0//1,0,1,1N = 33m: IBHSV 38/3 kPa

4.5m: SPT4//4,5,6,8N = 234.5m: IBHSV UTP

Leng

th (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

TC

R (

%)

SC

R (

%)

RQ

D (

%)

F

ract

ure

Lo

g

Wea

ther

ing/

US

C

Laye

r C

ode

Material Description

StratigraphyDefect DescriptionAdditional Notes

Tes

ting

VA

CE

XH

Q3

SP

TH

Q3

SP

T

26

100

76

100

95

Met

hod

Gra

phic

Log

Inst

alla

tion

VW

SW

SM

WS

CS

VC

SE

CS

Dat

abas

e F

ile:

H

AC

KE

TT

DIV

ER

SIO

N V

3.G

PJ

L

ibra

ry f

ile:

AU

RE

CO

N_A

KL_

201

8011

0.G

LB T

emp

late

: A

UR

EC

ON

_AK

L_20

130

722

.GD

T

Rep

ort

Fil

e:

AU

RE

CO

N D

H L

OG

V3.

9 D

ate

Gen

erat

ed:

23/

01/2

018



R.L

. (m

)

16

15

14

13

12



BH01Sheet 2 of 7

1/05/20174/05/2017N/AN/A


BGWBGWIMPAK







Box

1B

ox 2

SW

UW

UW

UW

UW

UW

EU

z2E

Us2

EU

z2E

Us2

EU

z2E

Us2

5m: Slightly weathered, grey SILTSTONE; Very weak.

5.4m to 5.6m:...Silty SANDSTONE.

5.8m: Unweathered, dark grey Silty SANDSTONE; Very weak.Moderately cemented. Indistinctly bedded.

6.3m to 6.38m:...fine to medium grained SANDSTONE.6.38m to 6.53m:...SILTSTONE. With black carbonaceousmaterial lamination.

6.72m to 7m:...SILTSTONE.

7.46m: Unweathered, dark grey SILTSTONE; Weak.

8.26m to 8.32m:...Disturbed zone, siltstone fragments, saturated.

8.68m: Unweathered, dark grey Silty SANDSTONE; Weak. Wellcemented.

9m: Unweathered, dark grey SILTSTONE; Weak. With minor 50to 100 mm Sandstone interbeds

9.68m: Unweathered, dark grey Silty fine grained SANDSTONE;Weak. Well cemented. With thinly laminated black carbonaceousmaterial.

5.95m to 6m: JT 65° PlSm Cn

6.97m to 6.99m: JT 45° PlSm Cn


6m: SPT17//18,32 for 65mmN = 50+

7.5m: SPT6//10,7,13,20 for 75mmN = 50+

9m: SPTC43//50 for 65mmN = 50+

Leng

th (

m)

6

7

8

9

10

TC

R (

%)

SC

R (

%)

RQ

D (

%)

F

ract

ure

Lo

g

Wea

ther

ing/

US

C

Laye

r C

ode



Tes

ting

HQ

3S

PT

HQ

3S

PT

HQ

3S

PT

CH

Q3

79

95

94

64

95

94

95

100

92

100

100

N/A

94

Met

hod

Gra

phic

Log

Inst

alla

tion

VW

SW

SM

WS

CS

VC

SE

CS

Dat

abas

e F

ile:

H

AC

KE

TT

DIV

ER

SIO

N V

3.G

PJ

L

ibra

ry f

ile:

AU

RE

CO

N_A

KL_

201

8011

0.G

LB T

emp

late

: A

UR

EC

ON

_AK

L_20

130

722

.GD

T

Rep

ort

Fil

e:

AU

RE

CO

N D

H L

OG

V3.

9 D

ate

Gen

erat

ed:

23/

01/2

018



R.L

. (m

)

11

10

9

8

7



BH01Sheet 3 of 7

1/05/20174/05/2017N/AN/A


BGWBGWIMPAK







Box

2B

ox 3

Box

4

UW

UW

UW

UW

EU

s2E

Uz2

EU

s2E

Uz2


11.05m to 11.43m:...SILTSTONE.



12.67m to 12.9m:...fine to medium grained SANDSTONE.

12.9m: Unweathered, dark grey SILTSTONE; Weak.




14.21m: Unweathered, dark grey SILTSTONE; Weak.14.26m to 4.33m:...fine grained SANDSTONE.


11.25m to 11.26m: JT 15° PlSm Cn

11.4m to 11.42m: JT 20° PlSm Vn(Fe)

12.3m to 12.34m: JI 65°

12.83m to 12.96m: JT 85° PlRo Sn(Fe)

13.2m to 13.5m: JT 65° PlRo Sn(Fe)

13.5m to 15m: Water loss 10 %13.5m to 13.62m: JT 85° PlRo Sn(Fe)

14.8m to 14.82m: JT 35° PlSm Cn

10.5m: SPTC14//14,34,2 for 5mmN = 50+

12m: SPTC22//21,29 for 35mmN = 50+

Leng

th (

m)

11

12

13

14

15

TC

R (

%)

SC

R (

%)

RQ

D (

%)

F

ract

ure

Lo

g

Wea

ther

ing/

US

C

Laye

r C

ode



Tes

ting

HQ

3S

PT

CH

Q3

SP

TC

HQ

3H

Q3

94

97

100

99

94

71

81

97

94

N/A

99

N/A

100

99

Met

hod

Gra

phic

Log

Inst

alla

tion

VW

SW

SM

WS

CS

VC

SE

CS

Dat

abas

e F

ile:

H

AC

KE

TT

DIV

ER

SIO

N V

3.G

PJ

L

ibra

ry f

ile:

AU

RE

CO

N_A

KL_

201

8011

0.G

LB T

emp

late

: A

UR

EC

ON

_AK

L_20

130

722

.GD

T

Rep

ort

Fil

e:

AU

RE

CO

N D

H L

OG

V3.

9 D

ate

Gen

erat

ed:

23/

01/2

018



R.L

. (m

)

6

5

4

3

2



BH01Sheet 4 of 7

1/05/20174/05/2017N/AN/A


BGWBGWIMPAK







Box

4B

ox 5

Box

6

UW

UW

UW

UW

EU

s2E

Uz2

EU

s2E

Uz2

15m: Unweathered, grey Silty fine grained SANDSTONE; Weak.Well cemented.

15.51m: Unweathered, dark grey SILTSTONE; Weak. Beddinggently inclined

15.87m to 16.15m:...fine to medium grained SANDSTONE,weak+.

16.54m to 8m:...fine grained SANDSTONE. Black carbonaceousmaterial laminations @ 16.54


17.66m: Unweathered, grey Silty fine grained SANDSTONE;Weak. Well cemented.

18m to 18.06m:...SILTSTONE.

18.26m to 18.48m:...SILTSTONE. Steeply inclined contact



19.44m: Unweathered, grey SILTSTONE; Weak.

19.82m to 19.9m:...SANDSTONE.

15.2m to 15.1m: JT 85° PlRo Cn

15.57m to 15.62m: JT 60° UnRo Cn

16m to 16.25m: Water loss 20%

16.25m to 16.5m: Water loss 30%


17.3m to 17.54m: JT 80° PlSm Cn

18m to 18.15m: JT 65° PlRo Cn

18.25m to 18.48m: JT 60° PlSm Cn

19.76m to 19.92m: JT 65° PlSm Cn

Leng

th (

m)

16

17

18

19

20

TC

R (

Documents

Detailed Site Investigation - Aurecon · Beca // 2 May 2018 4216571 // NZ1-15242655-52 0.52 // page 141 Appendix L Detailed Site Investigation - Aurecon