STAGE 1 -PESA (1)

Lemko Place, Penrith NSW 2750 PO Box 880, Penrith NSW 2751

Telephone (02) 4722 2700 Facsimile (02) 4722 2777 e-mail: [email protected] www.geotech.com.au

®

ABN 64 002 841 063

EOTECHNIQUE G PTY LTD

PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT

LOT 1 IN DP30211 14 CLARK STREET, RIVERSTONE

REPORT NO 13942/1-AA 15 FEBRUARY 2017



®

ABN 64 002 841 063


Job No 13942/1

Our Ref: 13942/1-AA

15 February 2017

Diversi Consulting Suite 103, 29-31 Solent Circuit BAULKHAM HILLS NSW 2153 Email: [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]

Attention: J Sun, P Diversi, D Murphy Dear Sirs re: Proposed Residential Subdivision

Lot 1 in DP30211, 14 Clark Street, Riverstone Preliminary Contamination Assessment

The objectives of the assessment were to ascertain whether the site presents a risk of harm to human

health and the environment (terrestrial ecosystems), and to determine the suitability of the site for the

proposed residential development.

The scope of work included site reconnaissance, review of site history information and geological maps,

test pit excavation, soil sampling, testing, and preparation of this report.

Reference should be made to the Executive Summary, Sections 15.0 and 16.0 of the report for the

conclusion, recommendations, and limitations of this assessment.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours faithfully

GEOTECHNIQUE PTY LTD

DANDA SAPKOTA

Senior Environmental Engineer

mailto:[email protected]





®

ABN 64 002 841 063


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This executive summary presents a synopsis of a preliminary contamination assessment (PCA) for a

parcel of land currently registered as Lot 1 in DP30211, located at 14 Clarke Street, Riverstone, in the

local government area of Blacktown.

It is understood that the site covers an area of about 10.4 hectares (ha), and that the site is proposed for

a residential subdivision development.


health and the environment (terrestrial ecosystems), and to determine the suitability of the site for the

proposed residential subdivision development.

The scope of work included site reconnaissance, review of site history information and geological maps,

test pit excavation, soil sampling, testing, and preparation of this report.

The findings of this PCA are summarised as follows:

The site contained various site features, as shown on Drawing No 13942/1-AA1 and the Site

Photographs (Appendix E).

The general sub-surface profiles at the test pit / sample locations and soil profile in stockpiles were

as follows:

Fill (thickness ranging from 150mm to 400mm), comprising silty clay, medium plasticity, brown

with gravel, underlain by natural soil in test pit locations TP1 to TP3. Only surface samples (0-

0.15m) were recovered within test pits TP1 and TP2 due to access limitations.

Topsoil (thickness ranging 200 to 600mm) comprising, gravelly silt, low plasticity, with inclusion

of shale fragments, underlain by natural soil at TP4 to TP120. Topsoil with thickness of 600mm

was encountered in TP20 to TP24. Topsoil, comprising, silty Clay, low to medium plasticity,

brown, with gravel was also observed at locations C1 to C3 in the vicinity of abandoned car

locations.

Fibro-cement pieces (FCP) and potentially asbestos containing material (ACM) were observed

at isolated locations, and representative samples of FCP were collected for analysis of asbestos

from locations FCP1, FCP2, FCP3, FCP4, FCP5 (in the plastic bag), FCP6 & FCP7

(Stockpile 10) and FCP8 (TP2 0-0.15m).

Stockpile comprising, silty sands, fine grained grey,, silty clay, low to medium plasticity, brown

with gravel with or without building debris, concrete and terracotta fragments, were encountered

within the stockpile locations SP1 to SP11.

Based on the test results presented in the summary tables (Tables D to L) and discussed in Section

13.2, the majority of the laboratory test results satisfied the criteria for stating that the analytes

selected are either not present i.e. concentrations less than laboratory limits of reporting (LOR), or

present in the sampled soil at concentrations that do not pose a risk of harm to human health or the

environment (terrestrial ecosystems) under a “residential with access to soil” form of development,

with the exception of elevated concentration of zinc (Zn) in SP6, the presence of fibrous

asbestos/asbestos fines (FA/AF) within TP2 (0-0.15m) and SP10-1 (0-0.15m), and presence of ACM

at FCP1, FCP2-1, FCP3, FCP4, FCP5, FCP6 FCP7 (Stockpile 10), FCP8 (TP2 0-0.15m) and SP3

(0-0.15m).

ii

13862/1-AA Executive Summary continued

Diversi Consulting

DS.mh/15.02.2017

G EOTECHNIQUE PTY LTD

The elevated concentration of Zn might present a risk of harm to the environment (terrestrial ecosystems). The presence of FA/AF will present a risk of harm to human health. The presence of ACM would potentially present a risk of harm to human health. Based on this PCA, the site is considered environmentally suitable for the proposed residential

development subject to following:

Detailed assessment of ACM (>7mm) and FA (<7mm) impacted soils as indicated on Drawing No

13942/1-AA3, to determine the extent of asbestos contamination within the site, and asbestos

clearance of the site by Safe Work licensed asbestos assessor.

Detailed assessment to determine the extent of Zn contamination at the identified location of concern

indicated on Drawing No 13942/1-AA3.

Assessment of soils in the footprints of existing site features after complete demolition and/or

removal by licensed contractor. The purpose of this is to ascertain the presence or otherwise of

“suspect” materials (identified by unusual staining, odour, discolouration or inclusions such as

building rubble, asbestos, ash particles, etc.) and fill.

Sampling and testing will be required to determine the contamination status of soils in the footprints

of site features. The type of testing on samples recovered from the footprints will depend on the

materials (topsoil, natural soil, suspect materials or fill) encountered. In the event of contamination,

detailed assessment, remediation and validation will be required.

Development of a remedial action plan (RAP) for the remediation of asbestos, Zn impacted soils, and

any other contamination identified through the detailed, additional sampling and testing beneath the

site features, followed by appropriate validation.

Assessment of the dam water prior to dewatering, to determine the contamination status of the water

and recommend dewatering method.

On completion of dewatering, contamination assessment of the dam sediment and dam walls should

be carried out.

It should be noted that since part of the site was used in the past and currently being used for agricultural

activities, there is a potential for buried irrigation pipes to remain beneath the ground surface. If any

asbestos pipes are uncovered, a qualified asbestos removal contractor must be engaged to carry out

removal. Asbestos clearance will be required after removal.

If any suspect materials (identified by unusual staining, odour, discolouration or inclusions such as

building rubble, asbestos sheets/pieces/pipes, ash material, etc.) are encountered during any stage of

future earthworks/site preparation/demolition/remediation, in areas other than mentioned above or

between the sampling locations or any areas masked by overgrown grass present within the site, the

Unexpected Finds Management Protocol (Appendix F) should be implemented. In the event of

contamination, detailed assessment, remediation and validation will be necessary.

For any materials to be excavated and removed from the site, it is recommended that waste classification

of the materials is undertaken, in accordance with the "Waste Classification Guidelines Part 1: Classifying

Waste"( NSW EPA 2014), NSW EPA resource recovery exemptions and orders under the Protection of

the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2014, or NSW EPA Certification: Virgin excavated

natural material, prior to disposal at an appropriately licensed landfill or potential re-use at other sites.

iii

13862/1-AA Executive Summary continued

Diversi Consulting

DS.mh/15.02.2017


Any imported fill must be assessed by a qualified environmental consultant, prior to importation, to ensure

suitability for the proposed use. In addition, the imported fill must be free from asbestos, ash and odour,

not be discoloured and not acid sulphate soil. The imported fill should either be virgin excavated natural

material (VENM) or excavated natural material (ENM). Reference should be made to Section 16.0 of the

report and Appendix G, which set out details of the limitations of the assessment.

Diversi Consulting DS.mh/15.02.2017


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

3.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

4.0 SITE HISTORY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3

4.1 Aerial Photographs ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

4.2 NSW EPA Notices ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

5.0 SITE CONDITON AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT ----------------------------------------------- 3

5.1 Site Condition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

5.2 Surrounding Environment --------------------------------------------------------------- 6

6.0 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY--------------------------------------------------------- 6

7.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

7.1 Potential Areas of Environmental Concern ---------------------------------------------- 7

7.2 Potentially Contaminated Media --------------------------------------------------------- 8

7.3 Potential Migration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

8.0 SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ------------------------------------- 9

9.0 FIELD QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL --------------------------------------------- 12

9.1 Sampling Personnel -------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

9.2 Decontamination Procedures ---------------------------------------------------------- 12

9.3 Rinsate Samples ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

9.4 Duplicate Samples --------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

9.5 Inter-laboratory Duplicate (Split) Sample ---------------------------------------------- 14

10.0 LABORATORY QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL ---------------------------------- 14

11.0 QA/QC DATA EVALUATION-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

12.0 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

13.0 FIELD & LABORATORY TEST RESULTS, ASSESSMENT & DISCUSSION --------------------------- 17

13.1 Field Results ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

13.2 Analytical Results – Soil Samples ----------------------------------------------------- 17

13.2.1 Metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni & Zn), pH and CEC .................................................... 17 13.2.2 TRH and BTEX ............................................................................................................... 18 13.2.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) ........................................................................ 18 13.2.4 Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP) and PCB ..................................................................... 18 13.2.5 Asbestos ......................................................................................................................... 18

14.0 SITE CHARACTERISATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

15.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ---------------------------------------------------------- 19

16.0 LIMITATIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21

ii

13942/1-AA Table of Contents continued



LIST OF REFERENCES

DRAWINGS

Drawing No 13942/1-AA1 Site Features

Drawing No 13942/1-AA2 Test Pit Locations

Drawing No 13942/1-AA3 Locations/Areas of Concern

TABLES

Table A Rinsate Samples

Tables B1 and B3 Duplicate Samples

Tables C1 and C3 Split Samples

Tables D Metals, Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) & pH Test Results - Discrete

Samples

Tables E CEC & pH Test Results - Discrete Samples

Tables F Metals Test Results - Composited Samples

Tables G1 Copper Test Results – Sub-Samples

Tables G2 Zinc Test Results – Sub-Samples

Tables H Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRH) and BTEX Test Results – Discrete

Samples

Table I Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) Test Results – Discrete Samples

Table J Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Test

Results - Discrete Samples

Table K Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP) Test Results - Composited Samples

Table L Asbestos Test Results – Discrete Samples

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Cadastral Plan

APPENDIX B Aerial Photos

APPENDIX C NSW OEH Records of EPA Notices

APPENDIX D Test Pit Logs

APPENDIX E Site Photographs

APPENDIX F Unexpected Finds Management Protocol

APPENDIX G Environmental Notes

1

13942/1-AA

Lot 1 in DP30211 -14 Clarke Street, Riverstone



1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a preliminary contamination assessment (PCA) for a parcel of land

currently registered as Lot 1 in DP30211, located at 14 Clarke Street, Riverstone (the site), in the local

government area of Blacktown, as shown on Figure 1 below:

It is understood that the site covers an area of about 10.4 hectare (ha), and that the site is proposed for a

residential subdivision development.


health and the environment and to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed residential

subdivision development.

This report was prepared generally in accordance with the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA),

"Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites" – published by NSW Office of Environment

and Heritage (NSW OEH, 2011), and to satisfy State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 55 –

Remediation of Land (DUAP/EPA 1998).

FIGURE 1

N

Map Data ©2017 Google

SITE

2

13942/1-AA




2.0 SCOPE OF WORK

In order to achieve the objectives of this assessment, the following scope of work was conducted in

accordance with our fee proposal (Q7930 dated 10 January 2017) and the variation emailed on 15

January, 2017:

A desktop study of the following to assist in identification of potential contamination issues:

Historical aerial photographs.

NSW EPA Notices.

Soils and geological maps.

Inspection by a Field Engineer from Geotechnique Pty Ltd (Geotechnique) to identify current site

activities, site features, and any visible or olfactory indicators of potential contamination.

Prior to sampling, the locations were scanned in order to avoid any underground services. In order to

minimise the cost of testing, most of the samples were composited for non-volatile analysis. Each

composite sample was formed from three discrete samples.

Soil sampling by the Field Engineer in accordance with a pre-determined sampling plan, developed

with reference to the NSW EPA Sampling Design Guidelines, and aimed at ascertaining the

presence or otherwise of soil contaminants in the open accessible area of the site.

Recovery of soil samples from one hundred and twenty (120) test pit locations using a backhoe and

mattock (in inaccessible areas to backhoe) from open accessible areas, and recovery of additional

samples from the soil stockpiles within the site, followed by appropriate chemical analysis.

It should be noted that assessment of soil beneath the site features (as indicated on Drawing No

13942/1-AA1 and Site photographs in Appendix E) the will be required after demolition, but prior to

earthworks.

Chemical analysis by National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited testing

laboratories, in accordance with chain of custody (COC) prepared by Geotechnique.

Implementation of industry standard quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) measures. QC

samples were also forwarded to the testing laboratories.

Assessment of the laboratory analytical results against current applicable guidelines.

Assessment of field and laboratory QA and QC.

Preparation of this report.

3.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION

The site is located at located at 14 Clarke Street and is registered as Lot 1 in DP30211. The site covers an area of 10.4ha.

Reference may be made to the deposited and cadastral plans in Appendix A for the Lot and the deposited

plan (DP) details.

3

13942/1-AA




4.0 SITE HISTORY

In order to formulate a picture of the site history and to assist in identification of any potential

contamination, Geotechnique obtained and/or reviewed information including historical aerial

photographs, and NSW EPA notices for contaminated land, published by NSW OEH. The information

reviewed is presented in the following sub-sections.

4.1 Aerial Photographs

Aerial photographs taken in 1961, 1970, 1975, 1998, 2005 and 2016 were examined. Copies of the aerial

photographs are attached.

1961 The site and the adjoining properties to the east, appear to be part of a larger

parcel of rural land, appear vacant and covered with grass and trees (along the

western boundary of the site). The adjoining property to the west is part of the

rural land.

1970, 1975 and 1998 Buildings/sheds associated with rural residential are noted in the middle portion

of the site. The adjoining properties are rural residential with buildings and

sheds and/or with market garden activities.

2005 and 2016 The trees in the middle portion of the site have been partially cleared, and the

adjoining properties appear to remain essentially rural land with market

gardens activities.

4.2 NSW EPA Notices

NSW OEH maintains the record of EPA notices regarding the contaminated sites under Section 58 of the

Contaminated Land Management (CLM) Act 1997. The notices relate to investigation and/or remediation

of site contamination considered to pose a significant risk of harm under the definition in the CLM Act

1997.

A search of the EPA Notices on 13 February 2017 (Appendix C) revealed no EPA notices issued for the

site.

It should be noted that the record of EPA notices for Contaminated Land does not provide a record of all

contaminated land in NSW. At the time of searching the records, 349 sites in NSW were registered in the

data base.

The EPA issues environment protection licences to owners or operators of various industrial premises

under the Protection of the Environment Operations (POEO) Act to control the air, noise, water and waste

impacts of an activity.

A search of the POEO Public Register 13 February 2017 found no records for the site (Appendix C).

5.0 SITE CONDITON AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT

5.1 Site Condition

For ease of reference, the site is divided into two parts, the north western portion of the site, and the

eastern portion of the site. The north western part of the site is small rectangular in shape, and has

access from Clarke Street. The eastern part, representing a larger rectangle is accessed via Riverstone

Road.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/licensing/licencePOEO.htm

4

13942/1-AA




The closest creek is approximately 145m to the east.

There is also a dam with water in the north eastern portion of the site, with the flow of water following a

path from the adjoining property in the north.

North Western portion of the site:

The site slopes down gently (0° to 10

°) from the north east to the south west. The north eastern part of the

property the slope declines from the south west direction to the north east.

The following site features were observed within the site by the Environmental during the site inspection

and field sampling:

Vegetable garden.

A fibro house with potentially asbestos containing material (ACM).

Scrap metals, truck/excavator, and long grass.

Timber, plastic, and long grass.

Timber, plastic, scrap metal, metal sheds, ceramics, car trailers, and long grass.

Scrap metals and timber.

Asbestos pieces in black plastic bag.

Wooden crates.

Two abandoned cars.

Tyres and metal fence.

Stockpile 11 - 5m x 3.9m x 0.2m (average height).

Eastern portion of the site:

The ground is undulating (please refer to attached drawing 13942/1-AA1). The general slope is from

northwest to southeast towards the rear of the property, and from the southeast to northwest from the

horse paddock areas. Scattered pieces of Asbestos were found in the northeast and towards the

southeast.

Scattered rubbish, including scrap metals, plastics, brick pieces, tyres and concrete pieces were

observed in various places throughout the site. Towards the centre of the site, there is an area which has

been utilised for training horses. To the east of this training field is an area where there are tyres, scrap

metals, car trailers, plastic water containers, tiles, caravans, and timber pieces. Small stockpiles with

scattered scrap metals, brick pieces and concrete pieces were found in close proximity. To the west of

the horse training ground, there is another area where scattered rubbish was found, including plastic

chairs, tyres, scrap metals, bricks, burnt items, scattered asbestos pieces, and wooden pieces. There

were moderately dense trees at the front and rear of the property. Dirt tracks were observed in the

northwest of the property, which were utilised by various vehicles.

5

13942/1-AA




The following locations/areas were observed:

Areas with scattered ACM.

Scattered plastic, and scrap metals.

Scattered rubbish, tyres, and scrap metals.

Metal shed.

Dam with water.

Area with concrete, bricks, tyres, plastics and scrap metals.

Stockpile 10 - 27.5m x5m x 0.6m (average height).

Stockpile 9 - 1250m2 with 1m (average height).

Stockpile 8 - 5m x5m x 1m (average height).

Stockpile 7 - 9 x 4. 5m x 0.5m (average height).

Stockpile 6 - 2 x 4m x 0.2m (average height).

Stockpile 5 - 20 x 3m x 0.2m (average height).

Stockpile 4 - 10.5 x 5m x 0.2m (average height).

Stockpile 3 - 4 x3.5m x 0.3m (average height).



Horse paddock.

3 Metal sheds.

Area with plastic chairs, tyres, scrap metals, brick bunts items, scattered asbestos pieces, wooden

pieces (timber).

Area with scrap metals, trailers, abandoned cars, Plastic, water containers, tiles caravan, and

wooden pieces.

Area with tyres.

Plastic, chairs, tyres, scrap metals, brick, burnt items, scattered asbestos pieces and wooden pieces.

There were no other obvious features associated with any underground storage tanks (bowser,

breather pipe, inlet valve and piping) or odour that would indicate the potential for contamination.

There were no visible or olfactory indicators of potential contamination.

It must be noted that the stockpiles dimensions (for Stockpiles 1 to 11) are indicative only. The

actual volume of the stockpiles should determined by registered surveyors.

Reference can be made to Drawing No 13942/1-AA1 for the details of the site features observed in the

north western and eastern portion of the site.

6

13942/1-AA




5.2 Surrounding Environment

At the time of inspection, the neighbouring properties were rural residential, with or without market garden

activities.

6.0 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY

The site slopes down gently (0° to 10°) from the northeast to the southwest. In the north east of the

property, the slope declines from the south west to the north east.

In the north eastern portion of the site, the ground is undulating (please refer to attached drawing

13942/1-AA1). In the rear of the property, the site slopes down from northwest to southeast, and from the

southeast to northwest in the horse paddock areas.

Reference to the Geological Map of Penrith (Clark and Jones 1991) indicates that the bedrock at the site

is Bringelly Shale, belonging to the Wianamatta Group of rocks and comprising shale, carbonaceous

claystone, laminite, fine to medium grained lithic sandstone and rare coal, and in the proximity of Ashfield

Shale with dark grey to black claystone-siltstone and fine sandstone-siltstone laminite.

Reference to the Soil Landscape Map (Hazelton et al. 1989) of Penrith indicates that the landscape at the

site belongs to the Blacktown Group, which is characterised by gently undulating rises on Wianamatta

Group shales, with local relief to 30m, ground slopes less than 5 percent, broad rounded crests and

gently inclined slopes. The sub-surface soil in this landscape is likely to be up to 3.0m thick, moderately

reactive, highly plastic, and with poor drainage.

Reference should be made to Test Pit Logs in Appendix D for descriptions of the soils encountered during

sampling for this assessment. Based on information from the test pits, the soil profile across the site is

generalised as follows:

Topsoil Gravelly silt, low plasticity, with inclusion of shale fragments, thickness ranging

200 to 600mm, underlain by natural soil at TP4 to TP120. Topsoil, comprising,

silty Clay, low to medium plasticity, brown, with gravel was also observed at

locations C1 to C3 in the vicinity of abandoned car locations.

Topsoil with thickness of 600mm was encountered in TP20 to TP24.

Fill Silty clay, medium plasticity, brown with gravel, thickness ranging from 150mm

to 400mm, underlain by natural soil within the test pit locations, TP1 to TP3.

Only surface samples were recovered from TP1 and TP2 (0-0.15m) due to

access limitations. Full depth of the fill to be determined at later stage.

Natural Soil Silty CLAY, medium plasticity, brown.

Fibro-cement pieces (FCP) and potentially ACM were observed at isolated locations, and representative

samples of FCP were collected for analysis of asbestos from locations FCP1, FCP2, FCP3, FCP4, FCP5

(in the plastic bag), FCP6 and FCP7 (Stockpile 10), and FCP8 (TP2 0-0.15m). The photographs taken

during the field sampling are also presented in Appendix E.

7

13942/1-AA




Stockpile comprising, silty sands, fine grained grey, silty clay, low to medium plasticity, brown with gravel

with or without building debris, concrete and terracotta fragments, were encountered within the stockpile

locations SP1 to SP11.

A site-specific groundwater assessment was beyond the scope of this study.

7.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

7.1 Potential Areas of Environmental Concern

Based on the preceding sections, areas of environmental concern (AEC) and associated contaminants of

potential concern have been identified and are presented in the following table:

Areas of Environmental Concern& Associated Contaminants of Potential Concern

AEC Rationale / Details Potential Contaminants of Concern3

In the vicinity of the existing

site features such fibro-

house and metal sheds

Fibro house may contain asbestos.

There is potential for metal and OCP

contamination in the surface soils

surrounding the house and sheds due to

possible pest control.

Metals1, Organochlorine Pesticides

(OCP) and asbestos

Potential fill beneath the site

features. Site Feature

(including houses, driveways

and sheds, etc

Potential for filling to have taken place

for levelling the site surface, and fill

materials could have been generated or

imported from unknown sources.

Therefore there is potential for the fill

materials to be contaminated.

Metals 1, Total Recoverable

Hydrocarbons (TPH), Benzene,

Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes

(BTEX), Polycyclic Aromatic

Hydrocarbon (PAH), Organochlorine

Pesticides (OCP), Polychlorinated

Biphenyl (PCB) and asbestos2

Fibro-house and areas with

scattered asbestos

Fibro house may contain asbestos.

There is potential for asbestos

contamination in the surface soils

surrounding the house and sheds

Asbestos

Dam Potential contamination due to the

surface runoff to the dam.

Metals1, TPH, BTEX, PAH, OCP, and

PCB

Stockpiles (No 1 to 11) Soil stockpile could have been imported

or generated within the site.

Metals1, TPH, BTEX, PAH, OCP, PCB

and asbestos

Fill area

Potential for filling to have taken place

for levelling the site surface, and fill

materials could have been generated or

imported from unknown sources.

Therefore there is potential for the fill

materials to be contaminated.

Metals1, TPH, BTEX, PAH, OCP, PCB

and asbestos

Areas with scrap metal,

timber, caravan, car taileres,

abandoned vehicles,

Possible degradation of metal in the

surrounding areas

To be removed for aesthetic reasons

and footprints to be inspected

Scattered rubbish, plastic

and tyres

Possible degradation of metal in the

surrounding areas.



Timber and plastic in

overgrown grass areas Potential masking of contaminaion



Woden Crates Aesthetic issue To be removed for aesthetic reasons


Market garden area Potential use of pesticides. Metals1 and OCPOCP

1. Metals suite includes arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc. 2. Asbestos may present in fill materials with inclusions of demolition waste and / or fibro-cement pieces.

3. The suite of potential contaminants identified in the above table should be reviewed subject to the findings of inspection of the footprints after removal of site features.

8

13942/1-AA




7.2 Potentially Contaminated Media

Potentially contaminated media present at the site includes topsoil, fill material, and natural soils.

Based on the potential mobility of contaminants and their associated potential leachability through the soil

/ fill profile, vertical migration of contaminants from the surface soils and fill material into the underlying

natural soils might have occurred. As a result, the natural soils are also considered to be potentially

contaminated media.

Given the relatively impermeable nature of the natural residual soil beneath the site, groundwater

underlying the site is considered to have a low potential to be impacted. However, if a substantial source

is identified within the soil on-site, a groundwater assessment could be necessary.

7.3 Potential Migration

Contaminants generally migrate from a site via a combination of windblown dust, rainwater infiltration,

groundwater migration, and surface water run-off. The potential for contaminants to migrate is a

combination of:

The nature of the contaminants (solid / liquid and mobility characteristics).

The extent of the contaminants (isolated or widespread).

The location of the contaminants (surface soils or at depth).

The site topography, geology, hydrology and hydrogeology.

Off-site impacts of contaminants in soil are generally governed by the transport media available and likely

receptors. The most common transport medium is water, whilst receptors include initially uncontaminated

soils, groundwater, surface waterbodies, humans, flora and fauna.

The potential contaminants identified as part of the site history review, site inspection and field sampling

were generally in a solid form (e.g. metals, OCP, PAH and asbestos, etc.).

The site is grass and tree covered or sealed by hard stand (house and sheds) across the site surface.

The potential for migration of contaminants via wind-blown dust is considered low as a result of the

exposed soils within the site. The potential for migration of contamination via surface run-off is also

expected to be minor. Some migration of contaminants via surface water may still occur in the event of

heavy rain. Surface run-off would generally follow the topography and partly eventuate in the dam within

the site.

Migration of soil contaminants to the deeper soils or groundwater regime would generally be via leaching

of contaminants from the surface soil or fill, facilitated by infiltration of surface water. Given that the

naturally occurring soils beneath the site are relatively impermeable (refer to Section 6.0 for the regional

geology information), the potential for recent and ongoing migration of contaminants from the site to the

groundwater table below is considered low. Furthermore, the relatively impermeable clay would have

minimised the potential for contaminants in the past to migrate to deeper soils or the groundwater regime.

It is considered unlikely that the groundwater regime beneath the site has been impacted by

contaminants in the soils. If high levels and widespread contaminants are detected through this

assessment, a groundwater assessment will be recommended.

9

13942/1-AA




Sensitive receptors at the site under the current site conditions and in the immediate vicinity are

considered to include site residents, visitors and workers within the site who may come into contact with

potentially contaminated media within the site.

8.0 SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

Sampling and analyses for the contamination assessment were carried out to obtain a reasonable

assessment of the following:

1. Nature, location, and likely distribution of soil contaminants beneath the site.

2. The risks that the contaminants (if present) pose to human health or the environment under the

conditions of the proposed development.

The risk of harm to human health and the environment was determined through comparison of test results

with NSW EPA produced or endorsed criteria available at the time.

Soil sampling was carried out between 30 January and 2 February 2017 by Geotechnical/Environmental

Engineers from Geotechnique, who were responsible for visually assessing the site, locating the

nominated sampling locations, recovery of soil samples, preparation of samples for delivery to NATA

accredited laboratories, and logging the sub-surface profile encountered at each sampling locations.

Based on the "Sampling Design Guidelines for Contaminated Sites" (NSW EPA 1995), one hundred and

twenty (120) systematic sampling locations (TP1 to TP120) were adopted across the subject site area for

residential development. Judgemental samples within the stockpiles and suspected areas in the vicinity

of abandoned vehicles were also recovered.

The test pit locations are shown on Drawing No 13942/1-AA2.

Based on the relatively impermeable nature of the residual soils beneath the site, it is considered that

there is only low potential for groundwater contamination beneath the site. As such, a groundwater

assessment was not initially included as part of the scope of work. If high levels of contaminants are

detected through this assessment, a recommendation will be made for a groundwater assessment.

Prior to excavation using a backhoe, all the sampling points were scanned to avoid any underground

services.

The sampling procedures adopted were as follows:

The sample location was excavated to a pre-determined depth. The representative soil sample was

recovered directly from the bulk bucket of the backhoe / mattock using a stainless steel trowel. The

trowel was decontaminated prior to use in order to prevent cross contamination. Refer to Section 9.2

for details of the procedures for decontamination of the trowel.

To minimise the potential loss of suspected volatiles, the laboratory soil sample was immediately

transferred to a labelled, laboratory supplied, 250ml glass jar and sealed with an airtight, Teflon

screw top lid. The fully filled jar was then placed in a chilled container.

The recovered soil sample for asbestos analysis was transferred into a small plastic bag, which was

placed in the chilled container.

Sample for asbestos analysis was placed into a small plastic bag, which was placed in the chilled

container.

10

13942/1-AA




In order to ensure the analytical performance of the primary laboratory duplicate and split samples were

prepared for analyses. Samples were kept in a labelled, laboratory supplied, glass jar (acid-washed and

solvent-rinsed), and sealed with an airtight, screw top Teflon lid. The fully filled jar was placed in a chilled

container.

Four rinsate water samples (R1 to R4) were prepared and placed in a glass bottle supplied by the

laboratory. The fully filled bottles were labelled and placed in a chilled container. At completion of field

sampling, the chilled container was transported to our Penrith office and transferred to a refrigerator

where the temperature was maintained below 4°C.

The chilled containers were forwarded to the primary laboratory of SGS Environmental Services (SGS),

and the secondary laboratory, Envirolab Service Pty Ltd (Envirolab), both NATA accredited. COCs were

then forwarded to the laboratories.

On receipt of the samples and COC, the laboratories returned the Sample Receipt Confirmation verifying

the integrity of all samples received.

Where possible, in order to maximise the spatial coverage of the analysis, discrete soil samples were

composited in the laboratory for chemical analysis of non-volatiles. Compositing of soil samples is

suggested in "Sampling Design Guidelines for Contaminated Sites" (NSW EPA 1995).

The methodology for compositing samples was generally adapted from "Composite Sampling, National

Environmental Health Forum Monographs, Soil Services No 3" (Locks 1996), as follows:

Three (3) equal-mass constituent samples were included in a composite sample.

Each constituent sample was homogenised before sub-sampling and compositing of material

was undertaken.

The following table details the compositing undertaken by the primary laboratory, as specified in the COC

prepared by Geotechnique.

Composite

Sample Sub-Samples

C1 TP61 (0-0.15m) + TP62 (0-0.15m) + TP63 (0-0.15m)

C2 TP64 (0-0.15m) + TP65 (0-0.15m) + TP66 (0-0.15m)

C3 TP67 (0-0.15m) + TP68 (0-0.15m) + TP69 (0-0.15m)

C4 TP70 (0-0.15m) + TP71 (0-0.15m) + TP72 (0-0.15m)

C5 TP73 (0-0.15m) + TP74 (0-0.15m) + TP75 (0-0.15m)

C6 TP76 (0-0.15m) + TP77 (0-0.15m) + TP78 (0-0.15m)

C7 TP79 (0-0.15m) + TP80 (0-0.15m) + TP81 (0-0.15m)

C8 TP82 (0-0.15m) + TP83 (0-0.15m) + TP84 (0-0.15m)

C9 TP85 (0-0.15m) + TP86 (0-0.15m) + TP87 (0-0.15m)

C10 TP88 (0-0.15m) + TP89 (0-0.15m) + TP90 (0-0.15m)

C11 TP91 (0-0.15m) + TP92 (0-0.15m) + TP93 (0-0.15m)

C12 TP94 (0-0.15m) + TP95 (0-0.15m) + TP96 (0-0.15m)

C13 TP97 (0-0.15m) + TP98 (0-0.15m) + TP99 (0-0.15m)

C14 TP100 (0-0.15m) + TP101 (0-0.15m) + TP102 (0-0.15m)

C15 TP103 (0-0.15m) + TP104 (0-0.15m) + TP105 (0-0.15m)

C16 TP106 (0-0.15m) + TP107 (0-0.15m) + TP108 (0-0.15m)

11

13942/1-AA




Composite

Sample Sub-Samples

C17 TP109 (0-0.15m) + TP110 (0-0.15m) + TP111 (0-0.15m)

C18 TP112 (0-0.15m) + TP113 (0-0.15m) + TP114 (0-0.15m)

C19 TP115 (0-0.15m) + TP116 (0-0.15m) + TP117 (0-0.15m)

C20 TP118 (0-0.15m) + TP119 (0-0.15m) + TP120 (0-0.15m)

C21 TP31 (0-0.15m) + TP32 (0-0.15m) + TP33 (0-0.15m)

C22 TP34 (0-0.15m) + TP35 (0-0.15m) + TP36 (0-0.15m)

C23 TP37 (0-0.15m) + TP38 (0-0.15m) + TP39 (0-0.15m)

C24 TP40 (0-0.15m) + TP41 (0-0.15m) + TP43 (0-0.15m)

C25 TP44 (0-0.15m) + TP45 (0-0.15m) + TP46 (0-0.15m)

C26 TP47 (0-0.15m) + TP48 (0-0.15m) + TP49 (0-0.15m)

C27 TP50 (0-0.15m) + TP51 (0-0.15m) + TP52 (0-0.15m)

C28 TP53 (0-0.15m) + TP54 (0-0.15m) + TP55 (0-0.15m)

C29 TP56 (0-0.15m) + TP57 (0-0.15m) + TP58 (0-0.15m)

C30 TP1 (0-0.15m) + TP2 (0-0.15m) + TP3 (0-0.15m)

C31 TP4 (0-0.15m) + TP5 (0-0.15m) + TP6 (0-0.15m)

C32 TP7 (0-0.15m) + TP8 (0-0.15m) + TP9 (0-0.15m)

C33 TP10 (0-0.15m) + TP11 (0-0.15m) + TP12 (0-0.15m)

C34 TP13 (0-0.15m) + TP14 (0-0.15m) + TP15 (0-0.15m)

C35 TP16 (0-0.15m) + TP17 (0-0.15m) + TP18 (0-0.15m)

C36 TP19 (0-0.15m) + TP20 (0-0.15m) + TP21 (0-0.15m)

C37 TP22 (0-0.15m) + TP23 (0-0.15m) + TP24 (0-0.15m)

C38 TP25 (0-0.15m) + TP26 (0-0.15m) + TP27 (0-0.15m)

C39 TP28 (0-0.15m) + TP29(0-0.15m) + TP30 (0-0.15m)

C40 C1 (0-0.15m) + C2 (0-0.15m) + C3 (0-0.15m)

C41 SP1 (0-0.15m) + SP2 (0-0.15m) + SP3 (0-0.15m)

C42 SP4 (0-0.15m) + SP5 (0-0.15m) + SP6 (0-0.15m)

C43 SP7 (0-0.15m) + SP8 (0-0.15m) + SP9 (0-0.15m)

C44 SP10-1 (0-0.15m) + SP10-2 (0-0.15m) + SP11 (0-0.15m)

The soil profile encountered and described in Section 6.0 of this report did not reveal any visual (staining,

dying) or olfactory indicators of potential contaminants, with the exception of presence of fibro-cement

pieces and potentially ACM in FCP1 to FCP8. As a result, and based on the potential for contamination

mentioned in Section 7.0, the following laboratory analysis plan was implemented:

6 discrete samples were selected for analysis of Metals including, arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd),

Chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni) and zinc (Zn).

2 discrete samples were analysed for Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP)

3 discrete samples were analysed for PCB.

44 composited samples were analysed for Metals As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, and Zn.

26 composited samples were analysed for OCP.

11 discrete fill samples were selected for TRH and PAH analysis.

17 soil samples and 8 fibro-cement pieces were selected for analysis of asbestos.

12

13942/1-AA




The following table provides a list of the data quality indicators (DQI) for the soil sampling phase of the

assessment and the methods adopted in ensuring that the data quality indicators were met:

DATA QUALITY INDICATOR METHOD(S) OF ACHIEVEMENT

Completeness Good sampling coverage of site; sample numbers comply with NSW EPA sampling design guidelines for subject area, excluding the areas with gas pipelines, dam and the site features.

Representative coverage of potential contaminants in the accessible open area based on site history, site activities, the presence of fill materials.

On site visual assessment of soils uncovered.

Use of trained and qualified field staff (Section 9.1).

Preparation of sample location plan.

Preparation of soil profile logs.

Preparation of COC records.

Comparability Using appropriate techniques for sample recovery.

Appropriate industry standard decontamination procedures adopted (Section 9.2).

Experienced samplers used.

Using appropriate sample storage and transportation methods.

Representativeness Good sampling coverage of site; sample numbers comply with NSW EPA sampling design guidelines.

Representative coverage of potential contaminants in the accessible open area based on site history, site activities, the presence of fill materials.

Precision and Accuracy Rinsate blank water, field duplicate, and inter-laboratory duplicate / split samples recovered or prepared (Section 9.3 to 9.5).

9.0 FIELD QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

9.1 Sampling Personnel

Geotechnique undertook all the sampling associated with this assessment. Field Engineers from

Geotechnique (Saurabh Sapkota and Lan Ye) nominated sampling positions based on the project brief

prepared by the Project Manager, supervised (full time) the excavation of each test pit, logged the soil

profile encountered, recovered soil samples at a frequency determined by the sampling plan (project

brief), and packed the samples (refer to Section 8.0).

9.2 Decontamination Procedures

As stated in Section 8.0 of this report, soil samples were transferred directly to the laboratory supplied

glass jar using a stainless steel trowel from the mattock / bulk bucket of the backhoe. The stainless steel

trowel was decontaminated prior to use. As stated in Sections 9.4 and 9.5, a trowel was used to divide

the soil sample into two portions to prepare duplicate/split samples. Decontamination of the trowel

involved the following:

Removal of soils adhering to the trowel by scrubbing with a brush.

Washing the trowel thoroughly in a solution of phosphate free detergent (Decon 90) using brushes

and disposable towels.

Rinsing the trowel thoroughly with distilled water.

Repeating the washing / rinsing steps and rinsing with water.

Drying the trowel with a clean cloth.

13

13942/1-AA




A sample of the final rinsate water sample was recovered at completion of field sampling.

9.3 Rinsate Samples

Four rinsate water samples were prepared in order to identify possible cross contamination between the

sampling locations.

The rinsate water samples were analysed for Metals. The test results for the rinsate water sample are

summarised in Table A. The laboratory test results certificates are kept in the offices of Geotechnique,

and are available upon request.

As indicated in Table A, the metal concentrations in the rinsate blank sample were generally less than

laboratory limits of reporting (LOR),indicating that the cleaning and decontamination processes adopted

in the field were adequate.

9.4 Duplicate Samples

Field duplicate samples were prepared in the field through the following process:

A larger than normal quantity of soil was recovered from the sample location selected for duplication.

The sample was divided into two portions, using the decontaminated trowel.

One portion of the sub-sample was immediately transferred, using the decontaminated trowel, into a

labelled, laboratory supplied, 250ml glass jar and sealed with an airtight, Teflon screw top lid. The

fully filled jar was labelled as the duplicate sample and immediately placed in a chilled container.

The remaining portion was stored in the same way, and labelled as the original sample.

Duplicate samples were prepared on the basis of sample numbers recovered during the field work. The

duplicate sample frequency was computed using the total number of samples analysed as part of this

assessment. The duplicate sample frequencies computed are as follows:

Metals: 50 samples analysed; 3 duplicates; 6% frequency

OCP 28 samples analysed; 2 duplicate; 7% frequency

The laboratory test results are summarised in Tables B1 to B3. The laboratory test results certificates are

kept in the offices of Geotechnique, and are available upon request.

A comparison was made of the laboratory test results for the duplicate samples with the original samples

and the Relative Percentage Differences (RPD) were computed to assess the accuracy of the laboratory

test procedures. RPD within 30% are generally considered acceptable. However, this variation can be

higher for organic analysis than for inorganics, and for low concentrations of analytes.

As shown in Tables B1 to B3, the comparisons between the duplicate and corresponding original sample

indicated acceptable RPD.

Therefore, the variation is not considered critical and the laboratory test data provided by SGS are of

adequate accuracy and reliability for this assessment.

14

13942/1-AA




9.5 Inter-laboratory Duplicate (Split) Sample

Inter-laboratory duplicate (split) samples provide a check on the analytical performance of the primary

laboratory. The split samples were prepared on the basis of sample numbers recovered during field work,

and the analyses undertaken by the primary laboratory.

The split samples were prepared in the same manner as the duplicate sample. Reference should be

made to Section 9.5.

Split samples were forwarded to the secondary laboratory of Envirolab.

The split sample frequency was computed using the total number of samples analysed as part of this

assessment. The split sample frequencies computed are as follows:

Metals: 50 samples analysed; 3 splits; 6% frequency

OCP 28 samples analysed; 3 splits; 7% frequency

The results are also summarised in Tables C1 to C3. The laboratory test results certificates are kept in

the offices of Geotechnique, and are available upon request.

Based on Schedule B (3) of the NEPM 1999 (April 2013), the difference in the results between the split

samples should generally be within 30% of the mean concentration determined by both laboratories, i.e.,

RPD should be within 30%. However, this variation can be higher for organic analysis than for inorganics

and for low concentrations of analytes.

As shown in Tables C1 to C3, the comparisons between the split and corresponding original sample

indicated generally acceptable RPD, with the exception of higher RPD of 34% for Ni, mainly considered

due to the relatively lower concentrations of metals detected. The concentrations with RPD in excess of

30% in the duplicate pairs were both less than the relevant assessment criteria .Therefore, the variations

are not considered critical and the test results provided by the primary laboratory are deemed reliable for

this assessment.

10.0 LABORATORY QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL

Geotechnique uses only laboratories accredited by the NATA for chemical analyses. The laboratory must

also incorporate quality laboratory management systems to ensure that trained analysts using validated

methods and suitably calibrated equipment produce reliable results.

In addition to the QC samples, the laboratory must also ensure that all analysts receive certification as to

their competence in carrying out the analyses, and participate in national and international proficiency

studies.

SGS and Envirolab are accredited by NATA and operate Quality Systems designed to comply with ISO /

IEC 17025.

The recovered discrete and composited soil samples were generally analysed within the allowable

holding times detailed in Schedule B(3) of The NEPM 1999 (April 2013) . It should be noted that there is

no specific holding time for asbestos analysis. The rinsate samples were generally analysed within the

allowable holding times for water detailed in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and

Wastewater (APHA).

15

13942/1-AA




The test methods adopted by the laboratories are indicated with the laboratory test results certificates. As

part of the analytical run for the project, the laboratories included laboratory blanks, duplicate samples,

laboratory control samples, matrix spikes and/or surrogate spikes.

We have checked the QA/QC procedures and results adopted by the laboratories against the appropriate

guidelines. The QC sample numbers adopted by SGS and Envirolab are considered adequate for the

analyses undertaken.

The methods used by SGS and Envirolab have been validated as recommended in the NEPM and

ANZECC guidelines and endorsed by NATA.

Samples analysed for TPH (C6–C9) and/or BTEX were extracted by the purge and trap method

recommended by the NSW EPA.

All reported laboratory LOR / Practical Quantitation Limits (PQL) were less than the assessment criteria

adopted for each analyte or analyte group.

Overall, the QC elements adopted by SGS and Envirolab indicate that the analytical data falls within

acceptable levels of accuracy and precision for the analysis of soils and water. The analytical data

provided is therefore considered to be reliable and useable for this assessment.

11.0 QA/QC DATA EVALUATION

The following table provides a list of the DQI for the analytical phase of the assessment and the methods

adopted in ensuring that the DQI were met.

DATA QUALITY INDICATOR METHOD(S) OF ACHIEVEMENT

Data Completeness Laboratory sample receipt information received confirming receipt of samples intact and appropriate chain of custody.

Analysis for all potential contaminants of concern.

NATA registered laboratory analytical reports / certificates of analysis provided.

Data Comparability Use of NATA registered laboratories.

Test methods consistent for each sample.

Test methods comparable between primary and secondary laboratory.

Generally, acceptable RPD between original samples and field duplicates and split samples.

Data Representativeness Representative coverage of potential contaminants in the open area based on site history, site activities, the presence of fill materials.

Adequate duplicate, split and rinsate sample numbers, in general.

Adequate laboratory internal QC and QA methods, complying with the NEPM 1999 (April 2013).

Data Precision and Accuracy Acceptable concentrations in rinsate blank water samples.

Acceptable RPD for duplicate comparison overall.

Acceptable RPD for inter-laboratory duplicate / split sample comparison overall.

Appropriate and validated laboratory test methods used.

Adequate laboratory performance based on results of the blank samples, duplicates, surrogate spike samples, control samples and/or matrix spike samples.

16

13942/1-AA




Based on the above, it is considered that both laboratories complied with the QA and QC DQI. As such, it

is concluded that the laboratory test data obtained is reliable and useable for this assessment.

12.0 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Investigation levels and screening levels developed in the NEPM 1999 (April 2013) were used in this

assessment for soil samples, as follows:

Risk-based Health Investigation Levels (HIL) for a broad range of metals and organic substances.

The HIL are applicable for assessing human health risk via all relevant pathways of exposure. The

HIL as listed in Table 1A (1) of Schedule B1 “Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and

Groundwater” are provided for different land uses.

The site is proposed for residential subdivision development. As such, with regard to human health,

analytical results will be assessed against risk based HIL for residential with garden/accessible soil

(HIL A).

Health Screening Levels (HSL) for TRH fractions and Naphthalene are applicable for assessing

human health risk via inhalation and direct contact pathways. The HSL depend on specific soil

physicochemical properties, land use scenarios and the characteristics of building structures. The

HSL listed in Table 1A(3) of Schedule B1 “Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and

Groundwater” apply to different soil types and depths below surface to >4 m.

For this assessment, the analytical results were assessed against the available HSL for residential

with garden/accessible soil (HSL A).

Ecological Screening Levels (ESL) for selected petroleum hydrocarbon compounds, TPH fractions

and Benzo(a)Pyrene are applicable for assessing the risk to terrestrial ecosystems. ESL listed in

Table 1B(6) of Schedule B1 “Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater” broadly

apply to coarse and fine-grained soils and various land uses and are generally applicable to the top

2m of soil.

The analytical result was assessed against the available ESL for residential with garden/accessible

soil.

EIL, a specific type of Soil Quality Guidelines (SQG) for selected metals, are applicable for assessing

the risk to terrestrial ecosystems. EIL listed in Table 1B(1-5) of Schedule B1 “Guideline on

Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater” depend on specific soil physicochemical properties

and land use scenarios and generally apply to the top 2m of soil. For arsenic and lead, generic EIL

are adopted for urban residential land use for aged contamination. For other metals, where available,

EIL are calculated using the EIL calculator developed by CSIRO for NEPC.

For this assessment, the analytical results were assessed against the available SQG / EIL for urban

residential land use for aged contamination in soil for low traffic volume.

For cadmium and mercury, the available Provisional Phytotoxicity Based Investigation Levels (PIL)

published in the Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (NSW DEC, 2006) were used, with

regard to protection of the environment and impact on plant growth.

In order to detect any potential "hot spots" of contamination within an individual composite soil sample, an

Adjusted HIL A / EIL is recommended for assessment of results for individual composite samples, based

on Method 1, Section 6 of the EPA "Sampling Design Guidelines" (NSW EPA 1995). The Adjusted HIL A /

EIL presented in the applicable tables were calculated by dividing the HIL A / EIL by three (i.e. three sub-

samples comprised the composite). Individual composite samples were assessed against the Adjusted

HIL A / EIL.

17

13942/1-AA




Similarly, individual composite soil samples for cadmium and mercury were assessed against the

Adjusted PIL / HIL A.

If the concentration of an analyte for a composite soil sample is in excess of the Adjusted EIL / HIL A or

adjusted PIL / HIL A (for cadmium and mercury only), then all sub-samples of the failed composite

samples will be analysed individually. The purpose of this is to detect potentially contaminated sub-

samples within the failed composite sample.

For discrete soil samples, the individual concentrations of analytes were assessed against the HIL A /

HSL A / ESL / EIL. The individual concentrations of cadmium and mercury were assessed against the PIL

and HIL A.

For asbestos assessment, the site must be free of asbestos-cement pieces and no asbestos fibre/fibrous

asbestos (AF/FA) detected in the soils.

The site will be deemed contaminated or containing contamination “hot spots” if the above criteria are

unfulfilled. Further investigation, remediation and/or management will be recommended if the area of

concern is found to be contaminated or containing contamination “hot spots”.

13.0 FIELD & LABORATORY TEST RESULTS, ASSESSMENT & DISCUSSION

13.1 Field Results

Details of the sub-surface conditions encountered during field work for this assessment are presented in

Test Pit Logs in Appendix D of this report.

13.2 Analytical Results – Soil Samples

Copies of the actual laboratory test result certificates from SGS are kept in the offices of Geotechnique,

and can be provided upon request. A summary of the test results is presented in Tables D to L, with the

available assessment criteria adopted. A discussion of the test data is presented in the following sub-

sections.

13.2.1 Metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni & Zn), pH and CEC

Test results of Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) and pH are presented in Tables E, and were utilised to

calculate EILs in Table D and F.

The Metals test results for discrete samples are presented in Table D, and as shown, all concentrations of

Metals were below the available relevant EIL or PIL and HIL A.

The Metals test results for composited samples are presented in Tables F and as indicated, all

concentrations of Metals were below the relevant available Adjusted EIL and Adjusted HIL A, with the

exception of highlighted Cu and Zn concentrations. All concentrations of Cd and Hg were also below the

relevant adjusted PIL.

The sub-samples of the failed composite samples were therefore analysed for Cu and/or Zn. The test

results are summarised in Tables G1 and G2.

As shown in Tables G1, all concentrations of Cu were below the relevant EIL and the HIL A.

18

13942/1-AA




As shown in Tables G2, all concentrations of Zn were below the relevant EIL and the HIL A, with the

exception of the highlighted concentration of zinc at location SP6. The elevated concentration of zinc

would not pose a risk of harm to human health, but would pose a risk of harm to the environment

(terrestrial ecosystems).

13.2.2 TRH and BTEX

The TRH and BTEX test results are presented in Table F. As shown in Table H, the concentrations of F1

(TRH C6-C10 less BTEX), F2 (TRH >C10-C16 less Naphthalene), F3 (TRH >C16-C34), F4 (TRH >C34-

C40) and BTEX were below the relevant HSL A and ESL.

13.2.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)

The PAH test results are presented in Table I and as shown, concentrations of Benzo(a)Pyrene,

Benzo(a)Pyrene (TEQ), Naphthalene and Total PAH were well below the relevant thresholds (HIL A,

ESL, HSL A and EIL).

13.2.4 Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP) and PCB

The OCP and PCB test results are presented in Table J for discrete samples analysed. As indicated, the

concentrations of OCP and PCB were well below the relevant HIL A. Concentrations of DDT were also

below the EIL.

The OCP test results are presented in Table K and as indicated, the concentrations of OCP were below

the Adjusted EIL. Concentrations of DDT were also below the Adjusted EIL.

13.2.5 Asbestos

The asbestos test results for the soil samples are presented in Table L and as indicated, FA (<7mm) was

detected in soil samples analysed at TP2 (0-0.15m) and SP10-1 (0-0.15m). ACM (>7mm) was found in

SP3 0-0.15m.

The fibro-cement pieces collected for asbestos analysis from locations FCP, FCP2-1, FCP3 and FCP4,

FCP5, FCP6 & FCP7 (Stockpile 10) were confirmed to contain asbestos, and are considered ACM.

Asbestos was not detected in the fibro-cement piece collected from FCP2-2.

Based on this assessment, it is our opinion that:

Delineation of the extent of asbestos contamination will be required at and in the vicinity of locations

of concern (FCP1, FCP2-1, FCP3, FCP4, FCP5, FCP6 and FCP7 (Stockpile 10), SP3 and TP2.

A WorkCover licensed Asbestos Assessor must be engaged to deal with management / clearance of

asbestos contamination.

Assessment of contamination status of soils within and in the vicinity of the footprints of existing site features after complete demolition and/or removal will be required. The purpose of this is to ascertain the presence or otherwise of “suspect” materials (identified by unusual staining, odour, discolouration or inclusions such as building rubble, asbestos, ash particles, etc.) and fill. In the event of contamination, detailed assessment, remediation and validation will be required.

19

13942/1-AA




14.0 SITE CHARACTERISATION

Based on the test results for this PCA, the identified locations of concern are indicated and tabulated on

Drawing No 13942/1-AA3 and summarised below:

Locations where FA/AF are present in the fill profile presents a risk of harm to human health.

Locations where bonded ACM fragments in the fill profile potentially present a risk of harm to human

health.

Location where elevated concentrations of zinc would present a risk of harm to the environment, but

would not pose a risk of harm to human health.

Off-site impacts of contaminated soil are generally governed by the contaminant concentrations in the

soils, the transport media available and likely receptors. The most common transport medium is water,

whilst receptors include groundwater, surface waterbodies, humans, flora and fauna.

Migration of soil contaminants to the deeper soils or groundwater regime would generally be via leaching

of contaminants from the surface soil, facilitated by infiltration of surface water. The natural silty clay

beneath the site is relatively impermeable. As such, leaching of any contaminants into the groundwater

regime is unlikely.

15.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings of this PCA are summarised as follows:

The site contained various site features, as shown on Drawing No 13942/1-AA1 and Site

Photographs in Appendix E.

The general sub-surface profiles at the test pit / samples locations and soil profile in stockpile were

as follows:

Fill (thickness ranging from 150mm to 400mm), comprising silty clay, medium plasticity, brown

with gravel underlain by natural soil within the test pits TP1 to TP3. Only surface samples

(0-0.15m) were recovered from TP1 and TP2, due to access limitations. Full depth of the fill to

be determined at later stage.

Topsoil (thickness ranging 200 to 600mm) comprising, gravelly silt, low plasticity, with inclusion

of shale fragments, underlain by natural soil at TP4 to TP120. Topsoil with thickness of 600mm

was encountered in TP20 to TP24. Topsoil, comprising, silty clay, low to medium plasticity,

brown, with gravel was also observed at locations C1 to C3 in the vicinity of abandoned car

locations.

FCP and potentially ACM were observed at isolated locations, and representative samples of

FCP were collected for analysis of asbestos from locations FCP1 to FCP8.

Stockpile comprising silty sands, fine grained grey, silty clay, low to medium plasticity, brown

with gravel with or without building debris, concrete and terracotta fragments, were encountered

within the stockpile locations SP1 to SP11.

20

13942/1-AA




As presented in the summary tables (Tables D to L) and discussed in Section 13.2, the majority of

the laboratory test results satisfied the criteria for stating that the analytes selected are either not

present i.e. concentrations less than laboratory LOR, or present in the sampled soil at concentrations

that do not pose a risk of harm to human health or the environment under a “residential with access

to soil” form of development, with the exception of elevated concentrations of Zn at test pit location

(SP4), the presence of FA/AF within the soil sample at locations TP2 (0-0.15m) and SP10-1 (0-

0.15m), and the presence of ACM at FCP1, FCP2-1, FCP3, FCP4, FCP5, FCP6, FCP7, and SP3

(0-0.15m). The elevated concentration of Zn might present a risk of harm to the environment

(terrestrial ecosystems). The presence of FA/AF will present a risk of harm to human health. The

presence of ACM would potentially present a risk of harm to human health.

Based on this PCA, the site is considered environmentally suitable for the proposed residential

development subject to following:

Detailed assessment of ACM (>7mm) and FA (<7mm) impacted soils as indicated on Drawing No

13942/1-AA3, to determine the extent of asbestos contamination within the site, and asbestos

clearance of the site by Safe Work licensed asbestos assessor.

Detailed assessment to determine the extent of Zn contamination at the identified location of concern

indicated on Drawing No 13942/1-AA3.

Assessment of soils in the footprints of existing site features after complete demolition and/or

removal by licensed contractor. The purpose of this is to ascertain the presence or otherwise of

“suspect” materials (identified by unusual staining, odour, discolouration or inclusions such as

building rubble, asbestos, ash particles, etc.) and fill.

Sampling and testing will be required to determine the contamination status of soils in the footprints

of site features. The type of testing on samples recovered from the footprints will depend on the

materials (topsoil, natural soil, suspect materials or fill) encountered. In the event of contamination,

detailed assessment, remediation and validation will be required.

Development of a remedial action plan (RAP) for the remediation of asbestos, Zn impacted soils, and

any other contamination identified through the detailed, additional sampling and testing beneath the

site features, followed by appropriate validation.

Assessment of the dam water prior to dewatering, to determine the contamination status of the water

and recommend dewatering method.

On completion of dewatering, contamination assessment of the dam sediment and dam walls should

be carried out.

It should be noted that since part of the site was used in the past and currently being used for agricultural

activities, there is a potential for buried irrigation pipes to remain beneath the ground surface. If any

asbestos pipes are uncovered, a qualified asbestos removal contractor must be engaged to carry out

removal. Asbestos clearance will be required after removal.

If any suspect materials (identified by unusual staining, odour, discolouration or inclusions such as

building rubble, asbestos sheets/pieces/pipes, ash material, etc.) are encountered during any stage of

future earthworks/site preparation/demolition/remediation, in areas other than mentioned above, or in

between the sampling locations or any areas masked by overgrown grass present within the site, the

Unexpected Finds Management Protocol (Appendix E) should be implemented. In the event of

contamination, detailed assessment, remediation and validation will be necessary.

21

13942/1-AA




For any materials to be excavated and removed from the site, it is recommended that waste classification

of the materials is undertaken, in accordance with the "Waste Classification Guidelines Part 1: Classifying

Waste"( NSW EPA 2014), NSW EPA resource recovery exemptions and orders under the POEO (Waste)

Regulation 2014, or NSW EPA Certification: Virgin excavated natural material, prior to disposal at an

appropriately licensed landfill or potential re-use at other sites.

Any imported fill must be assessed by a qualified environmental consultant, prior to importation, to ensure

suitability for the proposed use. In addition, the imported fill must be free from asbestos, ash and odour,

not be discoloured and not acid sulphate soil. The imported fill should either be virgin excavated natural

material (VENM) or excavated natural material (ENM). Reference should be made to Section 16.0 of the

report and Appendix G, which set out details of the limitations of the assessment.

16.0 LIMITATIONS

Within the scope of work outlined in the fee proposal (Q7930 dated 10 January 2016) and the variation

emailed on 15 January 2016, the services performed by Geotechnique were conducted in a manner

consistent with the level of quality and skill generally exercised by members of the profession and

consulting practice.

This report has been prepared for Diversi Consulting (NSW) Pty Ltd for the purposes stated within. The

relevant council may rely upon the report for development and/or construction application determinations.

Reliance on this report by other parties shall be at such parties' sole risk, as the report might not contain

sufficient information for other purposes.

This report shall only be presented in full, and may not be used to support any objective other than those

set out in the report, except where written approval is provided by Geotechnique Pty Ltd.

The information in this report is considered accurate at completion of field sampling for this assessment

(30 January to 2 February 2017) in accordance with current site conditions. Any variations to the site form

or use beyond the sampling date could nullify the conclusions stated.

Whilst investigations conducted at the site were carried out in accordance with current NSW guidelines

the potential always exists for contaminated soils to be present between sampled locations or masked by

overgrown grass.

Presented in Appendix G is a document entitled "Environmental Notes", which should be read in

conjunction with this report.



LIST OF REFERENCES

AS4482.1-2005, Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil Part 1: Non-

volatile and semi-volatile compounds, Standards Australia.

AS4482.2-1999, Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil Part 2: Volatile

substances, Standards Australia.

Clark, NR, and James, DC 1991, Geological Series Sheet 9030, Scale 1:100,000 (Penrith), Department

of Minerals and Energy, NSW, Sydney

Hazelton et al. 1989, Soil Landscape Series Sheet 9030, Scale 1:100,000 (Penrith), Soil Conservation

Service of NSW, Sydney

Contaminated Land Management Act 1997,

DUAP/EPA 1998, Managing Land Contamination: Planning Guidelines SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land,

Department of Urban Affairs and Planning / NSW Environment Protection Authority, Sydney, Australia.

Lock, WH 1996, Composite Sampling, National Environmental Health Forum Monographs, and Soil

Services No 3, South Australian Health Commission, Adelaide, Australia

NEPM 1999 (April 2013), National Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination)

Amendment Measures, 1999 (April 2013), National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC), Australia.

NSW DEC 2006, Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for the NSW Site Auditor Scheme (2nd Edition), NSW

Department of Environment and Climate Change, Sydney, Australia.

NSW EPA 2014, Waste Classification Guidelines, Part 1: Classifying Waste, New South Wales

Environment Protection Authority, November 2014.

NSW OEH 2011, Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites, NSW

Office of NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney Australia.

NSW EPA 1995, Contaminated Sites: Sampling Design Guidelines, New South Wales Environment

Protection Authority, September, EPA 95/59, Sydney Australia.

DRAWINGS

DRAWINGS

Drawing No 13942/1-AA1 Site Features

Drawing No 13942/1-AA2 Test Pit Locations

Drawing No 13942/1-AA3 Locations/Areas of Concern

Imagery ©2017 NearMap.com

CLA

RK

E S

TR

EE

T

RIVERSTONE R

OAD

NOTES

This drawing has been produced using a base plan provided by others,to which additional information e.g., test pits, borehole locations or noteshave been added. Some or all of the information on this plan may not berelevant at the time of producing this drawing.Site features are shown at approximate locations and are not to scale.

1.

2.

14 Clarke StreetRiverstone

Drawing No: 13942/1-AA1Job No: 13942/1Drawn By: MHDate: 10 February 2017Checked By: SS

File Ref: 13942-1Layers: 0, AA1

Site Features

PO Box 880Penrith NSW 2750Tel: 02 4722 2700Fax: 02 4722 2777

e-mail:[email protected]

EEOOTTEECCHHNNIIQQUUEE GGG PPTTYY LLTTDD

CONSULTING ENGINEERS

LEGEND

Ground Slope

®

Scale 1:2500

0 25 50 75 100 125m

Timber, scrap metal,two metal sheds, ceramics,

car trailers, long grass

Water tanks

Possible fibro house

Vegetablegarden

Possiblefill area

Scrap metal, truck andexcavator, long grass

Scrap metals

Scattered metalsand timber

Asbestos pieceson black plastic

Timber, plastics,long grass

Wooden cratesalong fence

Two abandoned cars

Metal shed

Dam with water

Metal fenceand tyres Scattered plastics

and scrap metal

Scattered asbestos pieces

Scattered rubbish,tyres and scrap metal

Metal shed

Tyres

Scrap metals, plastics and tyres

Metal shed

Stockpile 85m x 5m x 1m high

Stockpile 79m x 4.5m x 0.5m high

Tyres

Horse training ground

Plastic chairs, tyres, scrap metal,bricks, burnt items, scattered asbestos

pieces, bricks and wooden pieces

TyresStockpile 1

3.5m x 4m x 0.5m high

Stockpile 213.5m x 4m x 0.2m high


Stockpile 410.5m x 5m x 0.2m high

Stockpile 520m x 3m x 0.2m high

Tyres, scrap metals, trailers,abandoned cars, plastic,

water containers, tiles, caravanand wooden pieces

Horse paddock

Metal shed

Stockpile 91250m² x 1m high



Scattered brick pieces,concrete pieces and scrap metals

Concrete, bricks, tyres,plastic items and scrap metals

Market Gardens /Residential Properties

Rural Residential Properties

Market Gardens /Residential Properties

Rural Residential Properties

Stockpile 62m x 4m x 0.2m high

C2

C3

C1

FCP3

TP120

TP119

TP118

TP117

TP116

TP115

TP114

TP113

TP112

TP111

TP110

TP109

TP108

TP107

TP106

TP105

TP104

TP103

TP102

TP101

TP100

TP99

TP98

TP97

TP96

TP95

TP94

TP93

TP92

TP91

TP90

TP89

TP88

TP87

TP86

TP85

TP84

TP83

TP82

TP81

TP80

TP79

TP78

TP77

TP76

TP75

TP74

TP73

TP72

TP71

TP70

TP69

TP68

TP67

TP66

TP65

TP64

TP63

TP62

TP61

TP60

TP59

TP58

TP57

TP56

TP55

TP54

TP53

TP52

TP51

TP50

TP49

TP48

TP47

TP46

TP45

TP44

TP43

TP42

TP41

TP40

TP39

TP38

TP37

TP36

TP35

TP34

TP33

TP32

TP31

TP30TP29

TP28

TP27

TP26

TP25

TP24

TP23

TP22TP21

TP20

TP19

TP18

TP17

TP16

TP15

TP14

TP13

TP12

TP11

TP10

TP9

TP8

TP7

TP6

TP5TP4TP3

TP2(FCP8)

TP1

FCP1

FCP2-1

SP9SP10-1(FCP6)

SP10-2(FCP7)

SP11

SP8

SP7

SP1

SP2

SP3

SP6

SP5

SP4

FCP4FCP5

FCP2-2


CLA

RK

E S

TR

EE

T

RIVERSTONE R

OAD

NOTES


1.

2.


Drawing No: 13942/1-AA2Job No: 13942/1Drawn By: MHDate: 13 February 2017Checked By: DS/SS


Test Pit and Sample Locations





LEGEND

Test Pit

®

Scale 1:2500

0 25 50 75 100 125m

Sample

FCP3

TP2

FCP1

FCP2-1

SP10-1

SP10-2

SP3

SP6

FCP4FCP5


CLA

RK

E S

TR

EE

T

RIVERSTONE R

OAD

NOTES


1.

2.


Drawing No: 13942/1-AA3Job No: 13942/1Drawn By: MHDate: 13 February 2017Checked By: DS/SS


Locations of Concern





LEGEND

Test Pit

®

Scale 1:2500

0 25 50 75 100 125m

Sample

HIL A EIL

TP2 0-0.15

ACM (>7mm) and Friable

Asbestos/ Asbestos Fines

(FA/AF) (<7mm)

SP3 0-0.15 ACM NA - -

SP10-1 &

SP10-20-0.15 ACM and FA/AF NA - -

FCP1 Surface ACM NA - -

FCP2-1 Surface ACM NA - -


FCP4 Surface ACM NA


SP6 0-0.15 Zinc 310 7400 220

Notes:

NA : Not Applicable

Co

ncen

trati

on

(mg

/kg

)

EIL : Ecological Investigation Level of aged Metals for urban residential land use

HIL A: Residential w ith garden/accessible soil (home grow n produce <10% fruit

and vegetable intake (no poultry), also includes childcare centres, preschools

and primary schools.

Level (mg/kg)

Contaminant Depth

(m)

Sample

Location

TABLES

Table A Rinsate Samples

Tables B1 and B3 Duplicate Samples

Tables C1 and C3 Split Samples

Tables D Metals, Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) & pH Test Results - Discrete

Samples

Tables E CEC & pH Test Results

Tables F Metals Test Results - Composited Samples

Tables G1 Copper Test Results – Sub-Samples

Tables G2 Zinc Test Results – Sub-Samples

Tables H Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons (TRH) and BTEX Test Results – Discrete

Samples

Table I Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) Test Results – Discrete Samples

Table J Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB Test

Results - Discrete Samples

Table K Organochlorine Pesticides (OCP) Test Results - Composited Samples

Table L Asbestos Test Results – Discrete Samples


Rinsate R1 Rinsate R2 Rinsate R3 Rinsate R4

ANALYTES 30/01/2017 31/01/2017 1/02/2017 2/02/2017

METALS (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Arsenic <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Cadmium <0.001 0.001 0.003 0.002

Chromium <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Copper <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Lead <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Mercury <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Nickel <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Zinc <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

TABLE A

RINSATE SAMPLE

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)


. C20 Duplicate RELATIVE PERCENTAGE

ANALYTES D1 DIFFERENCES (RPD)

mg/kg mg/kg %

METALS

Arsenic 7 6 15

Cadmium 0.4 <0.3 -

Chromium 13 11 17

Copper 14 15 7

Lead 23 19 19

Mercury <0.05 <0.05 -

Nickel 7.7 7.8 1

Zinc 42 39 7

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (OCP)

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) <0.1 <0.1 -

Heptachlor <0.1 <0.1 -

Aldrin+Dieldrin <0.15 <0.15 -

Endrin <0.2 <0.2 -

Methoxychlor <0.1 <0.1 -

Mirex <0.1 <0.1 -

Endosulfan (alpha, beta & sulphate) <0.5 <0.5 -

DDD+DDE+DDT <0.6 <0.6 -

Chlordane (alpha & gamma) <0.2 <0.2 -

TABLE B1

DUPLICATE SAMPLE

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)


. C10 Duplicate RELATIVE PERCENTAGE

ANALYTES D2 DIFFERENCES (RPD)

mg/kg mg/kg %

METALS

Arsenic 5 5 0

Cadmium <0.3 <0.3 -

Chromium 8.2 7.6 8

Copper 17 18 6

Lead 16 16 0

Mercury <0.05 <0.05 -

Nickel 8.2 9.8 18

Zinc 44 41 7





Endrin <0.2 <0.2 -


Mirex <0.1 <0.1 -

Endosulfan (alpha, beta & sulphate) <0.5 <0.5 -

DDD+DDE+DDT <0.6 <0.6 -


TABLE B2

DUPLICATE SAMPLE

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)


. TP60 Duplicate RELATIVE PERCENTAGE

ANALYTES 0-0.15m X7 DIFFERENCES (RPD)

mg/kg mg/kg %

METALS

Arsenic 9 8 12

Cadmium <0.3 <0.3 -

Chromium 10 10 0

Copper 14 14 0

Lead 16 16 0

Mercury <0.05 <0.05 -

Nickel 4.6 4.5 2

Zinc 21 22 5

TABLE B3

DUPLICATE SAMPLE

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)


C11 Split Sample RELATIVE PERCENTAGE

ANALYTES S1 DIFFERENCES (RPD)

mg/kg mg/kg

(SGS) (ENVIROLAB) %

METALS

Arsenic 9 9 0

Cadmium 0.3 <0.4 -

Chromium 16 17 6

Copper 14 18 25

Lead 23 24 4

Mercury <0.05 <0.1 -

Nickel 8.5 12 34

Zinc 37 39 5





Endrin <0.2 <0.1 -


Mirex <0.1 - -

Endosulfan (alpha (I), beta (II) & sulphate) <0.5 <0.3 -

DDD+DDE+DDT <0.6 <0.3 -


TABLE C1

SPLIT SAMPLE

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)




mg/kg mg/kg

(SGS) (ENVIROLAB) %

METALS

Arsenic 9 12 29

Cadmium 0.4 0.4 0

Chromium 14 18 25

Copper 13 12 8

Lead 28 26 7

Mercury <0.05 <0.1 -

Nickel 4.8 4 18

Zinc 56 51 9





Endrin <0.2 <0.1 -


Mirex <0.1 - -


DDD+DDE+DDT <0.6 <0.3 -


TABLE C2

SPLIT SAMPLE

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)




mg/kg mg/kg

(SGS) (ENVIROLAB) %

METALS

Arsenic 10 11 10

Cadmium 0.3 <0.4 -

Chromium 14 18 25

Copper 15 12 22

Lead 19 22 15

Mercury <0.05 <0.1 -

Nickel 7.3 7 4

Zinc 39 41 5





Endrin <0.2 <0.1 -


Mirex <0.1 - -


DDD+DDE+DDT <0.6 <0.3 -


TABLE C3

SPLIT SAMPLE

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)


Sample Location Depth (m) AR

SE

NIC

CA

DM

IUM

CH

RO

MIU

M (

Tota

l)

CO

PP

ER

LE

AD

ME

RC

UR

Y

NIC

KE

L

ZIN

C

TP42 0-0.15 9 0.6 13 26 83 <0.05 4.3 200

TP42 0.5-0.8 8 0.4 17 13 38 <0.05 4.4 91

TP42 1.05-1.15 8 0.3 15 7.8 15 <0.05 3.9 24

TP59 0-0.15 9 <0.3 11 14 17 <0.05 4.6 23

TP60 0-0.15 9 <0.3 10 14 16 <0.05 4.6 21

TP3 0.45-0.55 7 <0.3 10 10 12 <0.05 3.5 14

Limits of Reporting (LOR) 3 0.3 0.3 0.5 1 0.01 0.5 0.5

100 20 100 6000 300 10 400 7400

100 - 410 95 1100 - 40 220

3 1

Notes: a:

b:

c: Chromium (VI)

d: Methyl Mercury

e: Generic EIL for aged arsenic

f:

g:

TABLE D

Chromium (III)

Residential w ith garden / accessible soil (home grow n produce <10% fruit and vegetable intake (no

poultry)), also includes childcare centres, preschools and primary schools.

METALS (mg/kg)

Health-based Investigation Levels (HIL) A - Residential A

Ecological Investigation Levels (EIL) - Urban residential

GUIDELINES FOR THE NSW SITE AUDITOR SCHEME

(2006)

Provisional Phytotoxity-Based Investigation Levels (PIL)

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION MEASURE

(NEPM) 1999 (April 2013)

EIL of aged chromium(III), nickel & zinc w ere derived from calculation spreadsheet developed by

CSIRO for NEPC; old NSW suburb w ith low traff ic volume; the low est CEC=5.2 cmolc/kg and

pH=5.1 (from the Tables E and F); the assumed clay content=10 % of the sub-sample w ere

selected for derivation of EIL; a conservative approach.

Generic added contaminant limit for aged lead + ambient background concentration; old NSW

suburb w ith low traff ic volume.

EIL of aged copper w as calculated based on the low er value for the pH and the CEC of the

sample analysed.

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)

DISCRETE SAMPLES

METALS, CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC) & pH TEST RESULTS

dca

e gf

b


Composite Number Sub-sample Depth (m) CE

C (

cm

ol c/kg)

pH

C1 TP61 0-0.15 9.4 5.9

C10 TP90 0-0.15 10 5.9

C20 TP120 0-0.15 12 6.5

C21 TP31 0-0.15 5.1 5.2

TP42 0-0.15 15 6.1

C24 TP43 0-0.15 5.7 5.7

C29 TP56 0-0.15 6 5.3

TP60 0-0.15 9 6

TP1 0-0.15 16 8.5

TP2 0-0.15 28 7.9

0.02 -Limits of Reporting (LOR)

TABLE E

Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) & pH TEST RESULTS

SUB-SAMPLES

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)


Composite Number A

RS

EN

IC

CA

DM

IUM

CH

RO

MIU

M (

Tota

l)

CO

PP

ER

LE

AD

ME

RC

UR

Y

NIC

KE

L

ZIN

C

C1 9 0.4 14 13 28 <0.05 4.8 56

C2 8 <0.3 11 12 19 <0.05 4.8 28

C3 9 0.3 14 13 22 <0.05 5.2 36

C4 9 0.3 13 12 20 <0.05 4.7 29

C5 7 <0.3 11 10 18 <0.05 5.8 30

C6 7 <0.3 10 13 18 <0.05 6 30

C7 7 <0.3 7.9 12 16 <0.05 6 31

C8 7 <0.3 9.5 13 16 <0.05 5.7 27

C9 7 <0.3 9.9 15 21 <0.05 7.4 38

C10 5 <0.3 8.2 17 16 <0.05 8.2 44

C11 9 0.3 16 14 23 <0.05 8.5 37

C12 8 <0.3 11 16 19 <0.05 8 42

C13 <3 <0.3 3.9 3.3 5 <0.05 2.1 12

C14 7 0.3 18 12 19 <0.05 7.2 31

C15 9 0.3 11 11 20 <0.05 5.3 18

C16 8 <0.3 13 13 20 <0.05 5.2 28

C17 9 0.3 16 12 30 <0.05 6.2 31

C18 7 <0.3 10 13 18 <0.05 5.4 28

C19 9 0.3 12 16 18 <0.05 5 32

C20 7 0.4 13 14 23 <0.05 7.7 42

C21 8 <0.3 13 11 17 <0.05 6.1 27

C22 10 0.3 14 15 19 <0.05 7.3 39

C23 12 0.4 16 11 20 <0.05 4.6 29

C24 8 <0.3 12 9.5 22 <0.05 5.5 31

C25 7 0.3 11 11 39 <0.05 4.4 61

C26 8 0.3 12 14 36 <0.05 4.4 82

C27 11 0.4 16 12 18 <0.05 7 36

C28 10 0.3 14 10 22 <0.05 5.8 31

C29 7 <0.3 10 11 17 <0.05 4.5 21

C30 7 0.5 14 28 98 <0.05 7.6 170

C31 10 0.3 12 14 28 <0.05 5.4 43

C32 9 <0.3 13 13 21 <0.05 6.1 31

C33 15 0.3 15 14 22 <0.05 7 42

C34 7 <0.3 11 13 20 <0.05 7.8 35

C35 9 <0.3 15 13 21 <0.05 9.3 37

C36 8 <0.3 14 11 18 <0.05 6.8 32

C37 9 <0.3 16 11 19 <0.05 5.6 22

C38 10 <0.3 14 14 21 <0.05 6 27

C39 8 0.3 16 9.4 18 <0.05 6 24

C40* 7 <0.3 11 17 20 <0.05 7.4 63

C41 5 <0.3 8.5 9.9 31 <0.05 5.2 34

C42 6 0.6 18 60 42 <0.05 5.6 140

C43 4 <0.3 7.3 27 17 <0.05 14 42

C44 11 0.5 16 30 60 <0.05 9.5 130

3 0.3 0.3 0.5 1 0.01 0.5 0.5

100 20 100 6000 300 10 400 7400

33 7 33 2000 100 3 133 2467

100 - #REF! 95 1100 - 40 220

33 - #REF! 32 367 - 13 73

3 1

Adjusted PIL e 1 0.33

Notes: a:

b: Adjusted HIL=HIL/3

c:

EIL of aged copper w as calculated based on the low er value for the pH and the CEC of the sample analysed.

d: Adjusted EIL=EIL/3

e:

f: Chromium (VI)

g: Methyl Mercury

h:

i:

j:

* samples from the vicnity of abandoned cars

TABLE F

Adjusted HIL b

Limits of Reporting (LOR)

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT

MEASURE (2013)


METALS TEST RESULTS

COMPOSITED SAMPLES

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)

METALS (mg/kg)


Adjusted EIL d

GUIDELINES FOR THE NSW SITE AUDITOR SCHEME

(2006)

Provisional Phytotoxity-Based Investigation Levels (PIL)

Adjusted PIL=PIL/3

Generic EIL for aged arsenic

Chromium (III)



Generic added contaminant limit for aged lead + ambient background concentration; old NSW suburb w ith

low traff ic volume.

EIL of aged chromium(III), nickel & zinc w ere derived from calculation spreadsheet developed by CSIRO for

NEPC; old NSW suburb w ith low traff ic volume; the low est CEC=5.2 cmolc/kg and pH=5.1 (from the Tables

E and F); the assumed clay content=10 % of the sub-sample w ere selected for derivation of EIL; a

conservative approach.

g

a

f

h 1ic


COPPER

Composite Number Sub-Sample Depth (m) (mg/kg)

SP4 0-0.15 14

SP5 0-0.15 26

C42 SP6 0-0.15 25

0.5

6000

95

a:

Limit of Reporting (LOR)

TABLE G1

COPPER TEST RESULTS

SUB-SAMPLES

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT MEASURE (2013)


Ecological Investigation Level (EIL)

Residential w ith garden / accessible soil (home grow n produce <10% fruit and

vegetable intake (no poultry)), also includes childcare centres, preschools and

primary schools.

a


ZINC

Composite Number Sub-Sample Depth (m) (mg/kg)

TP47 0-0.15 150

TP48 0-0.15 22

C26 TP49 0-0.15 24

TP1 0-0.15 150

TP2 0-0.15 210

C30 TP3 0-0.15 41

SP4 0-0.15 73

SP5 0-0.15 37

C42 SP6 0-0.15 310

SP10-1 0-0.15 180

SP10-2 0-0.15 180

C44 SP11 0-0.15 36

0.5

7400

220

a:

TABLE G2

ZINC TEST RESULTS

SUB-SAMPLES

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)

Residential w ith garden / accessible soil (home grow n produce <10% fruit and

vegetable intake (no poultry)), also includes childcare centres, preschools and

primary schools.

Limit of Reporting (LOR)

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT MEASURE (2013)

Ecological Investigation Level (EIL)

Health-based Investigation Levels (HIL) A - Residential Aa


Sample Location Depth (m) Soil type F1

F2*

F2**

F3

F4

BE

NZ

EN

E

TO

LU

EN

E

ET

HY

LB

EN

ZE

NE

XY

LE

NE

S

F1

F2*

BE

NZ

EN

E

TO

LU

EN

E

ET

HY

LB

EN

ZE

NE

XY

LE

NE

S

F1

F2**

F3

F4

BE

NZ

EN

E

TO

LU

EN

E

ET

HY

LB

EN

ZE

NE

XY

LE

NE

S

F1

F2**

F3

F4

BE

NZ

EN

E

TO

LU

EN

E

ET

HY

LB

EN

ZE

NE

XY

LE

NE

S

TP42 0-0.15 Clay <25 <25 <25 130 140 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.3 50 280 0.7 480 NL 110 180 120 1300 5600 65 105 125 45 - - - - - - - -

TP61 0-0.15 Clay <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.3 50 280 0.7 480 NL 110 180 120 1300 5600 65 105 125 45 - - - - - - - -

TP71 0-0.15 Clay <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.3 50 280 0.7 480 NL 110 180 120 1300 5600 65 105 125 45 - - - - - - - -

TP80 0-0.15 Clay <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.3 50 280 0.7 480 NL 110 180 120 1300 5600 65 105 125 45 - - - - - - - -

TP90 0-0.15 Clay <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.3 50 280 0.7 480 NL 110 180 120 1300 5600 65 105 125 45 - - - - - - - -

TP1 0-0.15 Clay <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.3 50 280 0.7 480 NL 110 180 120 1300 5600 65 105 125 45 - - - - - - - -

TP2 0-0.15 Clay <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.3 50 280 0.7 480 NL 110 180 120 1300 5600 65 105 125 45 - - - - - - - -

C1 (vicinity of the abandoned car) 0-0.15 Clay <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.3 50 280 0.7 480 NL 110 180 120 1300 5600 65 105 125 45 - - - - - - - -

C2 (vicinity of the abandoned car) 0-0.15 Clay <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.3 50 280 0.7 480 NL 65 105 125 45 - - - - - - - -

SP6 0-0.15 Clay <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.3 50 280 0.7 480 NL 65 105 125 45 - - - - - - - -

SP9 0-0.15 Clay <25 <25 <25 <90 <120 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.3 50 280 0.7 480 NL 65 105 125 45 - - - - - - - -

25 25 25 90 120 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Notes: F1:

F2*:

F2**: >C10-C16

F3: >C16-C34

F4: >C34-C40

NL: Not Limiting

TABLE H

DISCRETE SAMPLES

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)

Ecological Screening Levels for coarse-

grained soil

Urban residentialTRH (mg/kg) BTEX (mg/kg)

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION MEASURE (NEPM) 1999 (April 2013)

>C10-C16 less Naphthalene


Health Screening Levels (HSL) A

Low density residential

Ecological Screening Levels for f ine-

grained soil

Urban residential

TOTAL RECOVERABLE HYDROCARBONS (TRH) AND BTEX TEST RESULTS

C6-C10 less BTEX


Health Screening Level

(HSL) A - Low density

residential

Generic Ecological

Investigation Level (EIL) -

Urban residential

Ecological Screening

Level (ESL) - Urban

residential

Sample Location Depth (m) Soil type BaP

TE

Q

TO

TA

L P

AH

s

NA

PH

TH

ALE

NE

BE

NZ

O(a

)PY

RE

NE

(B

aP

)

BaP

TE

Q

TO

TA

L P

AH

s

NA

PH

TH

ALE

NE

NA

PH

TH

ALE

NE

BE

NZ

O(a

)PY

RE

NE

(B

aP

)

TP42 0-0.15 Clay 0.3 1 <0.1 0.1 3 300 5 170 0.7

TP61 0-0.15 Clay <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 3 300 5 170 0.7

TP71 0-0.15 Clay <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 3 300 5 170 0.7

TP80 0-0.15 Clay <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 3 300 5 170 0.7

TP90 0-0.15 Clay <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 3 300 5 170 0.7

TP1 0-0.15 Clay <0.3 1.3 <0.1 0.1 3 300 5 170 0.7

TP2 0-0.15 Clay <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 3 300 5 170 0.7

C1 (vicinity of the abandoned car) 0-0.15 Clay <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 3 300 5 170 0.7

C2 (vicinity of the abandoned car) 0-0.15 Clay <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 3 300 5 170 0.7

SP6 0-0.15 Clay <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 3 300 5 170 0.7

SP9 0-0.15 Clay <0.3 <0.8 <0.1 <0.1 3 300 5 170 0.7

0.3 0.8 0.1 0.1

Notes: a:

NL: Not Limimting

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION MEASURE (NEPM) 1999 (April 2013)


Residential w ith garden / accessible soil (home grow n produce <10% fruit and vegetable intake (no poultry)), also includes childcare

centres, preschools and primary schools.

TABLE I

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH) TEST RESULTS

DISCRETE SAMPLES

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)

PAH (mg/kg)

Health-based Investigation

Levels (HIL) A -

Residential A

a


(mg/k

g)

Sample

Location Depth (m) HE

XA

CH

LO

RO

BE

NZ

EN

E (

HC

B)

HE

PT

AC

HLO

R

ALD

RIN

+D

IELD

RIN

EN

DR

IN

ME

TH

OX

YC

HLO

R

MIR

EX

EN

DO

SU

LF

AN

(alp

ha, beta

& s

ulp

hate

)

DD

D+D

DE

+D

DT

DD

T

CH

LO

RD

AN

E (

alp

ha &

gam

ma)

PC

B

TP42 0-0.15 <0.1 <0.1 0.21 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2 <1

TP42 0.5-0.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2 -

TP1 0-0.15 <1

TP2 0-0.15 <1

0.1 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 1

10 6 6 10 300 10 270 240 50 1

180

Notes: a:

b: Generic EIL for DDT


TABLE J

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)

OCP (mg/kg)




(NEPM) 1999 (April 2013)

DISCRETE SAMPLES

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (OCP) & POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB) TEST RESULTS

Residential w ith garden / accessible soil (home grow n produce <10% fruit and vegetable intake (no poultry)), also

includes childcare centres, preschools and primary schools.

a

b


Composite Number HE

XA

CH

LO

RO

BE

NZ

EN

E (

HC

B)

HE

PT

AC

HLO

R

ALD

RIN

+D

IELD

RIN

EN

DR

IN

ME

TH

OX

YC

HLO

R

MIR

EX

EN

DO

SU

LF

AN

(alp

ha, beta

& s

ulp

hate

)

DD

D+D

DE

+D

DT

DD

T

CH

LO

RD

AN

E (

alp

ha &

gam

ma)

C1 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C3 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C5 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C7 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C9 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C10 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C11 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C13 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C15 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C17 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C20 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C21 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C23 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C25 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C27 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C29 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C30 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C32 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C34 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C36 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C38 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C40 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C41 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C42 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C43 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

C44 <0.1 <0.1<0.15 <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.5 <0.6 <0.2 <0.2

Limits of Reporting (LOR) 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.2

Health-based Investigation Levels (HIL) A - Residential A 10 6 6 10 300 10 270 240 50

Adjusted HIL b 3 2 2 3 100 3 90 80 17

Ecological Investigation Level (EIL) - Urban residential 180

Adjusted EILb60

Notes: a:

b: Adjusted HIL=HIL/3;Adjusted EIL=EIL/3

c: Generic EIL for DDT

OCP (mg/kg)

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (OCP) & POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB) TEST

RESULTS

TABLE K

COMPOSITED SAMPLES

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)


(NEPM) 1999 (April 2013)



a

c


Sample Location Depth (m) ASBESTOS

Soil Samples

TP1 0-0.15 No ACM found in >7mm fraction at the limit of reporting of 0.01% w/w and no

asbestos (<7mm AF/FA) found at the limit of reporting of 0.001% w/w

TP2 0-0.15NO ACM found in >7mm fraction at the reporting limit of 0.01%w/w;

Chrysotile & Crocidolite Asbestos found (0.004 w/w) (<7mm AF/FA). No

respirable fibres detected in soil sample.

T42 0-0.15 No ACM found in >7mm fraction at the limit of reporting of 0.01% w/w and no


TP42 0.5-0..8 No ACM found in >7mm fraction at the limit of reporting of 0.01% w/w and no


SP1 0-0.15 No ACM found in >7mm fraction at the limit of reporting of 0.01% w/w and no




SP3 0-0.15

ACM found (0.05% w/w) in >7mm fraction; However no Asbestos

detected at the limit of reporting (0.001% w/w) (<7mm AF/FA). No

respirable fibres detected in soil sample.













SP10-1 0-0.15ACM found (0.02%w/w) in >7mm fraction; Chrysotile Asbestos found

(0.011% w/w) (<7mm AF/FA). No respirable fibres detected in soil sample.

SP10-2 0-0.15 No ACM found in >7mm fraction at the limit of reporting of 0.01% w/w and no




Fibro-cement Pieces

FCP1 Asbestos DetectedFCP2-1 Asbestos DetectedFCP2-2 No Asbestos Detected

FCP3 Asbestos DetectedFCP4 Asbestos DetectedFCP5 Asbestos Detected

FCP6 FCP7 (SP10) 0-0.15 Asbestos DetectedFCP8 (TP2 0-0.15) Asbestos Detected

Notes: ACM: Asbestos Containing Material

AF: Asbestos Fine

FA: Fibrous Asbestos

TABLE L

ASBESTOS TEST RESULTS

DISCRETE SAMPLES

(Ref No: 13942/1-AA)

APPENDIX A

CADASTRAL MAPS/LAND TILTE INFORMATION

Cadastral Records Enquiry Report Ref : ENVIRO

Requested Parcel : Lot 1 DP 30211 Identified Parcel : Lot 1 DP 30211

Locality : RIVERSTONE LGA : BLACKTOWN Parish : GIDLEY County : CUMBERLAND

Report Generated 9:35:56 AM, 14 February, 2017Copyright © Land and Property Information ABN: 84 104 377 806

This information is provided as a searching aid only. While every endeavour is made to ensure the currentcadastral pattern is accurately reflected, the Registrar General cannot guarantee the information provided.

For all ACTIVITY PRIOR to SEPT 2002 you must refer to the RGs Charting and Reference Maps.

Page 1 of 4

DP712Lot(s): 7, 8, 9 Section : N

DP1224329 REGISTERED SURVEY RESUMPTION OR ACQUISITIONLot(s): 16 Section : P

DP1218224 PRE-ALLOCATED UNAVAILABLE SUBDIVISIONDP1218226 PRE-ALLOCATED UNAVAILABLE SUBDIVISIONDP1218230 PRE-ALLOCATED UNAVAILABLE SUBDIVISION

DP364087Lot(s): B

DP1218224 PRE-ALLOCATED UNAVAILABLE SUBDIVISIONDP1218226 PRE-ALLOCATED UNAVAILABLE SUBDIVISIONDP1218230 PRE-ALLOCATED UNAVAILABLE SUBDIVISION

DP786801Lot(s): 2

DP1199607 REGISTERED SURVEY EASEMENTDP1076228Lot(s): 10

DP579544 HISTORICAL SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP1035498 REGISTERED COMPILATION ROADS ACT, 1993

DP1097608Lot(s): 91

DP786801 HISTORICAL SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP1035498 REGISTERED COMPILATION ROADS ACT, 1993DP1076228 REGISTERED SURVEY ROADS ACT, 1993DP1199607 REGISTERED SURVEY EASEMENT

DP1182446Lot(s): 1, 3

DP712 HISTORICAL COMPILATION UNRESEARCHEDNSW GAZ. 26-04-2013 Folio : 1077

ACQUIRED FOR COUNCIL PURPOSESLOTS 1-3 DP1182446

DP1192292Lot(s): 29

DP1220406 WITHDRAWN UNAVAILABLE SUBDIVISIONDP1228355 PRE-ALLOCATED UNAVAILABLE SUBDIVISION

Lot(s): 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26DP1211332 REGISTERED SURVEY SUBDIVISION

Lot(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29DP712 HISTORICAL COMPILATION UNRESEARCHED

DP1201583Lot(s): 121

DP712 HISTORICAL COMPILATION UNRESEARCHEDDP1208971 REGISTERED SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP1219627 REGISTERED SURVEY EASEMENT

DP1202214Lot(s): 1701, 1702, 1703

DP712 HISTORICAL COMPILATION UNRESEARCHEDDP1192292 REGISTERED SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP1211332 REGISTERED SURVEY SUBDIVISION

DP1208971Lot(s): 1236, 1237

DP1226352 PRE-ALLOCATED UNAVAILABLE SUBDIVISIONLot(s): 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241,1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254

DP712 HISTORICAL COMPILATION UNRESEARCHEDDP1201583 REGISTERED SURVEY SUBDIVISION

DP1211332Lot(s): 205

DP1220406 WITHDRAWN UNAVAILABLE SUBDIVISIONDP1228355 PRE-ALLOCATED UNAVAILABLE SUBDIVISION

Lot(s): 201, 202, 203, 204, 205DP712 HISTORICAL COMPILATION UNRESEARCHEDDP1192292 REGISTERED SURVEY SUBDIVISION



Locality : RIVERSTONE LGA : BLACKTOWN Parish : GIDLEY County : CUMBERLANDStatus Surv/Comp Purpose

Caution: For all ACTIVITY PRIOR to SEPT 2002 you must refer to the RGs Charting and Reference Maps.Report Generated 9:35:56 AM, 14 February, 2017Copyright © Land and Property Information ABN: 84 104 377 806

Page 2 of 4

DP1215524Lot(s): 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409

DP712 HISTORICAL COMPILATION UNRESEARCHEDDP1182446 REGISTERED SURVEY RESUMPTION OR ACQUISITION

RoadPolygon Id(s): 174679225

NSW GAZ. 26-04-2013 Folio : 1077ACQUIRED FOR COUNCIL PURPOSESLOTS 1-3 DP1182446

NSW GAZ. 28-10-2016 Folio : 2906DEDICATED PUBLIC ROADLOT 2 DP1182446



Locality : RIVERSTONE LGA : BLACKTOWN Parish : GIDLEY County : CUMBERLANDStatus Surv/Comp Purpose

Caution: For all ACTIVITY PRIOR to SEPT 2002 you must refer to the RGs Charting and Reference Maps.Report Generated 9:35:56 AM, 14 February, 2017Copyright © Land and Property Information ABN: 84 104 377 806

Page 3 of 4

DP712 COMPILATION UNRESEARCHEDDP1447 SURVEY UNRESEARCHEDDP30186 SURVEY UNRESEARCHEDDP30211 SURVEY UNRESEARCHEDDP208203 SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP229296 SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP362093 COMPILATION UNRESEARCHEDDP364087 COMPILATION UNRESEARCHEDDP523552 COMPILATION SUBDIVISIONDP554233 COMPILATION SUBDIVISIONDP786801 SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP800352 SURVEY CONSOLIDATIONDP908130 COMPILATION UNRESEARCHEDDP921536 COMPILATION UNRESEARCHEDDP1076228 SURVEY ROADS ACT, 1993DP1097608 SURVEY ROADS ACT, 1993DP1182446 SURVEY RESUMPTION OR ACQUISITIONDP1192292 SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP1192292 UNRESEARCHED SUBDIVISIONDP1201583 UNRESEARCHED SUBDIVISIONDP1201583 SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP1201583 SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP1202214 SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP1202214 UNRESEARCHED SUBDIVISIONDP1208971 SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP1208971 UNRESEARCHED SUBDIVISIONDP1208971 SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP1211332 SURVEY SUBDIVISIONDP1211332 UNRESEARCHED SUBDIVISIONDP1215524 UNRESEARCHED SUBDIVISIONDP1215524 SURVEY SUBDIVISION



Locality : RIVERSTONE LGA : BLACKTOWN Parish : GIDLEY County : CUMBERLANDPlan Surv/Comp Purpose

blahReport Generated 9:35:56 AM, 14 February, 2017Copyright © Land and Property Information ABN: 84 104 377 806

Page 4 of 4

APPENDIX B

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

i

13942/1-AA Lot 1 in DP30211 -14 Clarke Street, Riverstone

GG EEOOTTEECCHHNNIIQQUUEE PPTTYY LLTTDD

December 2016

(Imagery ©2017 NearMap.com)

2005

ii



1998

1975

iii



1970

1961

APPENDIX C

NSW OEH RECORDS OF EPA NOTICES

APPENDIX D

TEST PIT LOGS

Project Proposed Development Job No 13942/1

Location 14 Clarke Street Refer to Drawing No 13942/1-AA1

Riverstone Logged & Sampled by LY/SS

TABLE 1 Page 1 of 14

Test pit Depth

(m) Sample

Depth (m) Date Time Material Description Remarks*

NS = No Sample *Odour (O), Discolouration (D), Petroleum Hydrocarbon Staining (PHS), Asbestos Containing Material (ACM), Ash Material (ASHM), Demolition Waste (DW), Groundwater (GW), Perched Water (PW) PID reading etc.

Form No 0009-Rev7 Jun 2014


TP1 0-0.15 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - FILL: Silty Clay, medium plasticity,

brown, with gravel

0.15 Test pit terminated due to access limitation

TP2 0-0.15 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - FILL: Silty Clay, low to medium

plasticity, brown, with root fibres

Fibro-cement pieces,

potential asbestos containing material (ACM) observed in TP2 (0-0.15m)

and representative sample, FCP8, was collected for analysis

0.15 Test pit terminated due to access

limitation

TP3 0-0.4 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - FILL: Silty Clay, medium plasticity,

brown, with gravel

0.4-0.6 0.45-0.55 (CI) Silty CLAY, medium plasticity,

brown

TP4 0-0.3 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - TOPSOIL: Gravelly Silt, low plasticity, grey, with inclusion of shale fragments

0.3-0.6 NS (CI) Silty Clay, medium plasticity, brown















Test pit Depth

(m) Sample





TP10 0-0.3 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - TOPSOIL: Gravelly Silt, low plasticity,

grey, with inclusion of shale fragments
























Test pit Depth

(m) Sample







































Test pit Depth

(m) Sample







































Test pit Depth

(m) Sample








TP42 0-1.0 0-0.15 01/02/2017 - FILL: Gravelly Silty Clay, low plasticity,

brown, with inclusion of glass tile, concrete and sandstone fragments

0.5-0.8





















Test pit Depth

(m) Sample







































Test pit Depth

(m) Sample






































Test pit Depth

(m) Sample






































Test pit Depth

(m) Sample






































Test pit Depth

(m) Sample






































Test pit Depth

(m) Sample






































Test pit Depth

(m) Sample






































Test pit Depth

(m) Sample





SP1 - 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - STOCKPILE, Silty Sand, fine grained,

grey

SP2 - 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - STOCKPILE, Silty Clay, low to medium plasticity, brown, with gravel

SP3 - 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - STOCKPILE, Clay Silt, low plasticity,

brown, with gravel Building debris observed in stockpile

SP4 - 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - STOCKPILE, Clay Silt, low plasticity,

orange-brown, with gravel

Terracotta pipe observed

in stockpile

SP5 - 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - STOCKPILE, Silty Clay, low to medium

plasticity, brown, with gravel


Concrete boulders observed in stockpile


Concrete pieces and plastic observed in stockpile

SP8 - 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - STOCKPILE, Sand, fine to medium

grained, grey

SP9 - 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - STOCKPILE, Sand, fine to medium grained, yellow-brown, with sandstone pieces

Building and concrete debris, tyres, plastic items and scrap metals

observed in stockpile

SP10-1 - 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - STOCKPILE, Silty Clay, low to medium plasticity, brown, with gravel

Fibro-cement pieces, potential asbestos containing material (ACM)

observed in SP10 (0-0.15m) and representative sample, FCP6, collected

for analysis

SP10-2 - 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - STOCKPILE, Silty Clay, low to medium plasticity, brown, with gravel

Fibro-cement pieces potential asbestos containing material (ACM)

observed in SP10 (0-0.15m) and representative sample, FCP7, collected

for analysis






Test pit Depth

(m) Sample





C1 0-0.15 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - TOPSOIL: Silty Clay, low to medium plasticity, brown, with gravel

In the vicinity of abandoned cars

C2 0-0.15 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - TOPSOIL/FILL: Silty Clay, low to

medium plasticity, brown, with gravel In the vicinity of abandoned cars

C3 0-0.15 0-0.15 02/02/2017 - TOPSOIL/FILL: Silty Clay, low to

medium plasticity, brown, with gravel

In the vicinity of

abandoned cars

FCP1 Surface Surface 02/02/2017 Fibro-cement pieces, potential asbestos containing material (ACM)

observed on the surface and representative sample, FCP1, collected

for analysis

FCP2 Surface Surface 02/02/2017 Fibro-cement pieces,

potential asbestos containing material (ACM) observed on the surface

and representative sample, FCP2, collected for analysis

FCP3 Surface Surface 02/02/2017 Fibro-cement pieces, potential asbestos containing material (ACM)

observed on the surface and representative sample, FCP3, collected

for analysis


potential asbestos

containing material (ACM) observed on the surface and representative sample

FCP4 collected for analysis


potential asbestos

containing material (ACM) observed on black plastic, on the surface and

representative sample, FCP5, collected for analysis

APPENDIX E

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

1


SITE PHOTOGRAPHS


Photograph 1a: Looking from north to south east from northern- eastern portion of the site (site access from Riverstone Road)

Photograph 1b: Looking from north to south-east from northern- eastern portion of the site (site access from Riverstone Road)

2


SITE PHOTOGRAPHS


Photograph 2a: Part of the burn areas with domestic waste(tyres plastic, scrap metals, timber, vehicle parts, etc.( Looking from east to south-west in middle portion of the eastern portion of the site

Photograph 2b: Part of the burn areas with domestic waste(tyres plastic, scrap metals, timber, vehicle parts, etc.( Looking from

east to south-west in middle portion of the eastern portion of the site

3


SITE PHOTOGRAPHS


Photograph 2c: Part of the burnt areas with domestic waste(tyres plastic, bricks, scrap metals, timber, vehicle parts, etc

(Looking from east to south-west in middle portion of the eastern portion of the site)

Photograph

2d: Part of the burnt areas with domestic waste(tyres plastic, bricks,scrap metals, timber, vehicle parts, etc Looking from east to

west in middle portion of the eastern portion of the site

4


SITE PHOTOGRAPHS


Photograph 2e: Asbestos Containing material in the mid-portion of the part of the eastern site (looking from south to north in

middle portion of the eastern portion of the site)

Photograph 2f: ACM at Location FCP1

5


SITE PHOTOGRAPHS


Photograph 2g: Scattered ACM at Location FCP2

6


SITE PHOTOGRAPHS


Photograph 2h: ACM (in plastic bags) at Location FCP5

7


SITE PHOTOGRAPHS


Photograph 3: Scattered tyres (near stockpile 1) in mid-portion of eastern site (looking from south to north)

Photograph 4: Abandoned Cars (near sampling location C2)

8


SITE PHOTOGRAPHS


Photograph 5: Abandoned cars, trailers and caravans, to west of the horse paddock

Photograph 6: Metal shed and Stockpile 8

9


SITE PHOTOGRAPHS


Photograph 7: Horse paddock (mid-portion of the eastern site(looking from south to north west)

Photograph 8: Metal shed

Photograph 9: Stockpile 9

APPENDIX F

UNEXPECTED FINDS MANAGMENT PROTOCOL

Lemko Place, Penrith NSW 2750 PO Box 880, Penrith NSW 2751 Telephone (02) 4722 2700 Facsimile (02) 4722 2777 e-mail: [email protected] www.geotech.com.au

®

ABN 64 002 841 063


Unexpected Finds Management Protocol Proposed Residential Subdivision Development

Lot 1 in DP30211, 14 Clark Street, Riverstone

In the event that unexpected finds and/or suspect materials (identified by unusual staining, odour,

discolouration or inclusions such as building rubble, asbestos sheeting/pieces/pipes, ash material,

imported fill, etc.) are encountered during future earthworks/demolitions or in between sampling locations

or masked by overgrown grass or any areas not identified during the preparation of the preliminary

contamination assessment (PCA), the following actions are to be undertaken.

Management of unexpected finds and/or suspect materials

If unexpected finds and/or suspect materials are encountered:

Works are to be ceased.

An Environmental consultant is to be engaged to take appropriate action.

If contamination is identified, the contaminated materials must be disposed of at an EPA licensed

landfill facility with an appropriate waste classification.

Management of bonded asbestos containing material (ACM)

If bonded ACM is encountered, the following measures are implemented:

Engage a NSW WorkCover accredited Class B asbestos contractor.

Removal of the asbestos waste must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the regulators, such as NSW WorkCover and NSW EPA.

A WorkCover Licensed Asbestos Assessor should be engaged to provide a clearance certificate.

Management of friable asbestos within the soil

It is recommended that the following measures are implemented if friable asbestos is encountered:

Engage a NSW WorkCover accredited Class A Asbestos contractor.

Removal of the asbestos waste must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the regulators, such as NSW WorkCover and NSW EPA

A WorkCover Licensed Asbestos Assessor must be engaged to provide a clearance certificate.

APPENDIX G

ENVIRONMENTAL NOTES

Environotes-Ed3-04/06

GGEEOOTTEECCHHNNIIQQUUEEPPTTYY LLTTDD

IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

These notes have been prepared by Geotechnique Pty Ltd, using guidelines prepared by the ASFE (Associated Soil and Foundation Engineers). The notes are offered to assist in the interpretation of your environmental site assessment report. REASONS FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Environmental site assessments are typically, though not exclusively, performed in the following circumstances: As a pre-acquisition assessment on behalf of a purchaser or a vendor, when a property is to be sold

As a pre-development assessment, when a property or area of land is to be redeveloped, or the land use has

changed, e.g. from a factory to a residential subdivision As a pre-development assessment of greenfield sites, to establish baseline conditions and assess

environmental, geological and hydrological constraints to the development of e.g. a landfill As an audit of the environmental effects of previous and present site usage

Each circumstance requires a specific approach to assessment of soil and groundwater contamination. In all cases the objective is to identify and if possible quantify the risks that unrecognised contamination poses to the ongoing proposed activity. Such risks may be financial (clean-up costs or limitations in site use) and physical (health risks to site users or the public). ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT LIMITATIONS Although information provided by an environmental site assessment can reduce exposure to the risk of the presence of contamination, no environmental site assessment can eliminate the risk. Even a rigorous professional assessment might not detect all contamination within a site. Contaminants could be present in areas that were not surveyed or sampled, or migrate to areas that did not show signs of contamination when sampled. Contaminant analysis cannot possibly cover every type of contaminant that may occur; only the most likely contaminants are screened. AN ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT SPECIFIC FACTORS In the following events and in order to avoid cost problems, you should ask your consultant to assess any changes in the conclusion and recommendations made in the assessment: When the nature of the proposed development is changed e.g. if a residential development is proposed, rather

than a commercial development When the size or configuration of the proposed development is altered e.g. if a basement is added

When the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified

When there is a change of land ownership, or

For application to an adjacent site

ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES Site assessment identifies actual sub-surface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are taken. Data obtained from the sampling and subsequent laboratory analyses are interpreted by geologists, engineers or scientists and opinions are drawn about the overall sub-surface conditions, the nature and extent of contamination, the likely impact on any proposed development and appropriate remediation measures. Actual conditions may differ from those inferred, because no professional, no matter how qualified and no sub-surface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than an assessment indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, however, steps can be taken to help minimise the impact. For this reason site owners should retain the services of their consultants throughout the development stages of the project in order to identify variances, conduct additional tests that may be necessary and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. Soil and groundwater contamination is a field in which legislation and interpretation of legislation by government departments is changing rapidly. Whilst every attempt is made by Geotechnique Pty Ltd to be familiar with current policy, our interpretation of the investigation findings should not be taken to be that of the relevant authority. When approval from a statutory authority is required for a project, approval should be directly sought.

ii Environmental Notes continued

Environotes-Ed3-04/06

G EEOOTTEECCHHNNIIQQUUEE PPTTYY LLTTDD

STABILITY OF SUB-SURFACE CONDITIONS Sub-surface conditions can change by natural processes and site activities. As an environmental site assessment is based on conditions existing at the time of the investigation, project decisions should not be based on environmental site assessment data that may have been affected by time. The consultant should be requested to advise if additional tests are required. ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENTS ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND CLIENTS Environmental site assessments are prepared in response to a specific scope of work required to meet the specific needs of specific individuals e.g. an assessment prepared for a consulting civil engineer may not be adequate to a construction contractor or another consulting civil engineer. An assessment should not be used by other persons for any purpose or by the client for a different purpose. No individual, other than the client, should apply an assessment, even for its intended purpose, without first conferring with the consultant. No person should apply an assessment for any purpose other than that originally contemplated, without first conferring with the consultant. MISINTERPRETATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENTS Costly problems can occur when design professionals develop plans based on misinterpretation of an environmental site assessment. In order to minimise problems, the environmental consultant should be retained to work with appropriate design professionals, to explain relevant findings and to review the adequacy of plans and specifications relative to contamination issues. LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT Borehole and test pit logs are prepared by environmental scientists, engineers or geologists, based upon interpretation of field conditions and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Logs are normally provided in our reports and these would not be redrawn for inclusion in site remediation or other design drawings, as subtle but significant drafting errors or omissions may occur in the transfer process. Photographic reproduction can eliminate this problem, however, contractors can still misinterpret the logs during bid preparation if separated from the text of the assessment. Should this occur, delays and disputes, or unanticipated costs may result. To reduce the likelihood of borehole and test pit log misinterpretation, the complete assessment should be available to persons or organisations involved in the project, such as contractors, for their use. Denial of such access and disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of sub-surface information does not insulate an owner from the attendant liability. It is critical that the site owner provides all available site information to persons and organisations, such as contractors. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY An environmental site assessment is based extensively on judgement and opinion; therefore, it is necessarily less exact than other disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. In order to aid in prevention of this problem, model clauses have been developed for use in written transmittals. These are definitive clauses, designed to indicate consultant responsibility. Their use helps all parties involved recognise individual responsibilities and formulate appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in the environmental site assessment and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be happy to give full and frank answers to any questions you may have.

Documents

STAGE 1 -PESA (1)