environmental audit report - apps.epa.vic.gov.au · area to discourage digging and the growing of...

INFORMATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORTS August 2007

VICTORIA'S AUDIT SYSTEM An environmental audit system has operated in Victoria since 1989. The Environmenf Profecfion Acf 1970 (the Act) provides for the appointment by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) of environmental auditors and the conduct of independent, high quality and rigorous environmental audits.

An environmental audit is an assessment of the condition of the environment, or the nature and extent of harm (or risk of harm) posed by an industrial process or activity, waste, substance or noise. Environmental audit reports are prepared by EPA- appointed environmental auditors who are highly qualified and skilled individuals.

Under the Act, the function of an environmental auditor is t o conduct environmental audits and prepare environmental audit reports. Where an environmental audit is conducted to determine the condition of a site or its suitability for certain uses, an environmental auditor may issue either a certificate or statement of environmental audit.

A certificate indicates that the auditor is of the opinion that the site is suitable for any beneficial use defined in the Act, whilst a statement indicates that there is some restriction on the use of the site.

Any individual or organisation may engage appointed environmental auditors, who generally operate within the environmental consulting sector, t o undertake environmental audits. The EPA administers the environmental audit system and ensures its ongoing integrity by assessing auditor applications and ensuring audits are independent and conducted with regard t o guidelines issued by EPA.

AUDIT FILES STRUCTURE Environmental audit reports are stored digitally by EPA in three parts: the audit report (part A), report appendices (part B) and, where applicable, the certificate or statement of environmental audit and an executive summary (part C). A report may be in colour and black-and-white formats. Generally, only black- and-white documents are text searchable.

Report executive summaries, findings and recommendations should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole, including any appendices and, where applicable, any certificate or statement of environmental audit.

AUDIT REPORT CURRENCY Audit reports are based on the conditions encountered and information reviewed at the time of preparation and do not represent any changes that may have occurred since the date of completion. As i t is not possible for an audit t o present all data that could be of interest t o all readers, consideration should be made to any appendices or referenced documentation for further information.

When information regarding the condition of a site changes from that at the time an audit report is issued, or where an administrative or computation error is identified, environmental audit reports, certificates and statements may be withdrawn or amended by an environmental auditor. Users are advised t o check EPA's website to ensure the currency of the audit document.

PDF SEARCHABILITY AND PRINTING EPA Victoria can only certify the accuracy and correctness of the audit report and appendices as presented in the hardcopy format. EPA is not responsible for any issues that arise due to problems with PDF files or printing.

Except where PDF normal format is specified, PDF files are scanned and optical character recognised by machine only. Accordingly, while the images are consistent with the scanned original, the searchable hidden text may contain uncorrected recognition errors that can reduce search reliability. Therefore, keyword searches undertaken within the document may not retrieve all references to the queried text.

This PDF has been created using the Adobe-approved method for generating Print Optimised Output. To assure proper results, proofs must be printed, rather than viewed on the screen.

This PDF is compatible with Adobe Acrobat Reader Version 4.0 or any later version which is downloadable free from Adobe's Website, www.adobe.com.

FURTHER I N FORMATION For more information on Victoria's environmental audit system, visit EPA's website or contact EPA's Environmental Audit Unit.

Web: www.epa.vic.clov.au/envaudit

Email: [email protected]

http://www.adobe.com

John Nave

42 Blyth Street, ALTONA

Environmental Audit Report April 2002

Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd ABN 3900 8488373 Level 4 380 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 Telephone: (03) 9278 2200

0 Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd 2002

Facsimile: (03) 9600 1300 Em

Name

J. Crockett

il: [email protected]

Signature Name Signature Date

’ . 16 April \ /&db. Crockett 2002

m.au

This document is and shall remain the property of Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

1 E I Author

J. Crockett I, D. Berlowitz

Document Status i x +

Reviewer I Approved for Issue

Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 31111116 Author: JAC\dgb

42 Blyth Street. ALTONA Environmental Audit Repait

Contents Statement of Environmental Audit i

Summary ............................................................................................................ i

1 .

2 .

3 .

4 .

5 .

6 . 7 . 8 .

Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

Information Required by the EPA .................................................................. 2 1 . 1 Background ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 1.3 History of Use ................................................................................................ 4 1.4 Sources of Contamination ............................................................................. 4

Site Description .......................................................................................... 5 2.1 Location ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Zoning ........................................................................................................... 5

2.4 2.5

2.3 Physical Setting ............................................................................................. 5 Observations from Site Inspection ................................................................. 5 Site Geology and Hydrogeology .................................................................... 7 2.5.1 Geology ........................................................................................................... 7 2.5.2 Hydrogeology .................................................................................................. 7

Segments Of The Land Environment And Beneficial Uses To Be Protected ..................................................................................................... 8

Review Of Sampling Results ..................................................................... 9 4.1 Acceptance Criteria ....................................................................................... 9 4.2 Documents Reviewed .................................................................................. 10 4.3 Summary of the Site Assessment, Remediation and Validation ................... 10

4.3.1 Summary of Remediation Carried Out .......................................................... 10 4.3.2 Validation Sampling Carried Out Following the Removal of Underground

Services ........................................................................................................ 11 4.3.3 Site Assessment Sampling and Reassessment of Previous Validation

Sampling ....................................................................................................... IO 4.4 Assessment of Current Condition of the Groundwater ................................. 19 4.5 Review of Quality Assurance for the Site Assessment ................................. 24

Future Risk Management For The Site ................................................... 25 5.1 Removal and Disposal of Fill ....................................................................... 25 5.2 Risks to Humans from Contact with Fill Remaining on the Site .................... 26 5.3 Risk to Plants from Contamination on the Site ............................................. 26 5.4 Risk to Groundwater .................................................................................... 26

Input To This Report By Auditor’s Support Team ................................. 27

Conclusions .............................................................................................. 28

Limitations Of This Report ...................................................................... 29

Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 31111116 Author: JACWgb

42 Blylh Street . ALTONA Environmental Audit Report

Appendices A Title Details for the Site B Photographs of the Site C Documents Reviewed D Glossary of Terms

42 Blfl Streel. ALTONA Environmental Audit Report

Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 3lH 11 16 Aulhor: JACMgb

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970

STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

I, Jonathan Ashton Crockett of Gutteridge Hasluns & Davey Pty Ltd 380 Lonsdale Street Melbourne, a person appointed by the Environment Protection Authority (‘the Authority’) under the Environment Protection Act 1970 (‘the Act’) as an environmental auditor for the purposes of the Act, having: 1. been requested by John Nave to issue a certificate of environmental audit in relation to the

site located at 42 Blyth Street, Altona, comprising the land defined by the Certificate of Title Lot 7 1, Plan of subdivision 2 102, owned by John Nave. had regard to, amongst other things,

i) ii) iii)

2.

guidelines issued by the Authority for the purposes of Part IXD of the Act, the beneficial uses that may be made of the site, and relevant State environment protection policieshndustrial waste management policies, namely: State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria) and State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria), Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste Minimisation), State Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) and State Environment Protection Policy (Ambient Air Quality).

in making a total assessment of the nature and extent of any harm or detriment caused to, or the risk of any possible harm or detriment which may be caused to, any beneficial use made of the site by any industrial processes or activity, waste or substance (including any chemical substance), and completed an environmental audit report in accordance with section 53X of the Act, a copy of which has been sent to the Authority and the relevant planning and responsible authority.

3.

HEREBY STATE that I am of the opinion that: the site is suitable for the following beneficial uses subject to the conditions attached thereto: The beneficial uses appropriate to residential land use, namely

maintenance of modified and highly modified ecosystems;

human health;

0 buildings and structures;

aesthetics 0 production of food and flora

Condition 1 Any landscaped, garden or lawn areas established on fill must be of minimal area to discourage digging and the growing of food crops and must be constructed so that any of the fill remaining on these areas is covered by at least 500 mm of chemically tested clean soil. Areas on the site not covered by at least 500 mm of chemically tested clean soil must be covered by buildings with slab-on-ground concrete floors or by a well-maintained impervious layer such as concrete or asphalt so that occupiers will not come into contact with the fill.

Condition 2

Doarment Number: 30732

Author: JACWgb Job Number: 3111 11 16 42 Blyth Street. ALTONA Page i of ii

Statement of Environmental Audit

The condition of the site is detrimental or potentially detrimental to any (one or more) beneficial uses of the site. Accordingly, I have not issued a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the site in its current condition, the reasons for which are presented in the environmental audit report. The terms and conditions that need to be complied with before a Certificate of Environmental Audit may be issued are set out as follows:

The fill and soil that contain petroleum hydrocarbons at levels sufficient to cause odour would have to be removed or remediated.

Removal of odorous fill and soil:

Other related information:

Fill from the excavation to remove the underground storage tanks is contaminated with traces of hydrocarbons sufficient to cause some odour ifdisturbed. This is the main reason for requiring coverage of thefill and soil.

Groundwater collected from below the site contained molybdenum above NEPM drinking, marine andfieshwater limits.

The fill is made up of a mixture of sand, gravel and building rubble with a minor impact on aesthetics.

This Statement forms part of Environmental Audit Report: Gutteridge Hasluns & Davey Pty Ltd, titled “John Nave, 42 Blyth Street, ALTONA, Environmental Audit Report, April, 2002”. Further details regarding the condition of the site may be found in the Environmental Audit Report.

DATED: 16 April 2002

SIGNED: .................................................................. JONATHAN CROCKETT ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITOR

Dmment Number: 30732

Author: JACUgb Job Number: 31/11116 42 Blyth Street, ALTONA Page ii of ii

Statement of Environmental Audit

I I I

This report sets out the results of an Environmental Audit of part of (site address) in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act. The audit findings were:

The site and the adjacent site to the west (subject to an environmental audit and issue of a “Statement of Environmental Audit” in September 200 1) were continuously occupied from 1962 to 1995 as a petrol filling station and motor vehicle repair shop. In 1996 all buildings and underground services including underground storage tanks were removed and excavation, remediation and validation was carried out. The site was found to have been adequately remediated although sampling detected traces of ethyl benzene and xylene above HIL A limits within the backfill. However, the contamination will not be detrimental to beneficial uses of this site other than aesthetics. Groundwater was not polluted with petroleum products.

The result of this audit is the issue of a Statement of Environmental Audit dated 16 April 2002 with conditions related to importing clean fill in any areas to be established as garden beds and covering any other fill with an impervious layer such as concrete or asphalt. The auditor has signed this Statement having satisfied himself that investigations carried out and the remediation completed were of a standard consistent with guidelines and practices current at the time of the audit and have indicated to a high degree of confidence that although contamination is present, it is unlikely to impact on beneficial uses of the site provided the requirements in the conditions are met.

Name of Auditor Jonathan Crockett

Date of appointment of Auditor

Date Certificate requested

Person requesting a Certificate

Owners of the site

19 January 1993

1 November 2001

John Nave

John Nave

Address of the Site 42 Blyth Street, ALTONA

Title Information

Zoning

Certificate of Title Lot 7 1 , Plan of subdivision 2102. ‘Residential 1” under the City of Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme

There is no evidence of contaminants present on this site having moved off-site

I Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 3111 11 16 Author: J A M @ Enwronmenlal Audit Report

42 Blyth Seeel. ALTONA

1. Introduction

1 .I Background

This Environmental Audit Report sets out the results of a Statutory Environmental Audit in accordance with Section IXD of the Environment Protection Act, 1970. The report was completed in accordance with the guidelines issued for by the EPA for environmental audit of contaminated sites.

The report was prepared following a request on 1 November, 2001 by John Nave for issue of a Certificate of Environmental Audit for a site known as 42 Blyth Street, ALTONA and defined by Certificate of Title lot 71, Plan of subdivision 2 102.

The site is located approximately 13 km west south west of the Central Business District and on the south west comer of Bent Street, Altona and is surrounded by residential and retail properties. The site covers a total area of

gproximately 725 m2. At the time of the Audit, the site was vacant and covered with residual concrete from the previous service station pavement, fill as replacement for the removed underground storage tanks, minor rubble and sandy gravely soil.

1 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 3111 11 16 Author: JACkIgb Environmental Audit Report

42 Blyvl Street. ALTONA

1.2 Information Required by the EPA

Name of Auditor

Date of appointment of Auditor

Date Certificate requested

Person requesting a Certificate

Address of the Site

Title Information (see Appendix A)

Owner of Site

Current Occupier

Zoning

Supporting documentation

Copies of assessment reports

Location plan

Australian Map Grid Reference

Melway Map Reference

Municipality

Jonathan Crockett

19 January 1993

1 November 2000

John Nave

42 Blyth Street, Altona

Lot 7 1, Plan of subdivision 2 1 02

John Nave

John Nave

“Residential 1” under the City of Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme See Appendices A to C

See Section 4.2 and Appendix C

See Figure 1, Section 1

030915 58038 Zone 55

Map 54, H11

City of Hobsons Bay

2 Documenl Number: 30732 JobNumber: 31111116 Author: JACWgb Environmental Avoit Report

42 Blyth Street. ALTONA

DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD Environmental Consultants

JOB: Mr John Nave

Street, Altona, Victoria

JOBNo DA1227

DATE: January, 2002 Corner Bent Street & Blyth ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - -

I 1

1.3 History of Use

The assessment reports by Connolly Environmental and Diomides & Associates as listed in Section 4.2 indicate that the past use of the site to have been as described below:

From 9 February 1962 until 15 October 1995 the subject site and the adjacent property to the west were occupied as a petrol filling station and motor vehicle repair shop. The subject site contained one or more underground storage tanks (the number of tanks is not detailed in the Connolly Environmental Report in Appendix C). All buildings were demolished and all underground tanks and piping were removed. and the site remediated as detailed in the Connolly Environmental Report.

From examination of a 195 1 aerial photograph (Appendix A of the Diomides & Associates Report), it appears that, prior to the establishment of the service station, a house and tennis court occupied the entire site with the house on the subject site. Surrounding the subject site was residential housing in all directions. There is no evidence in the photograph of any quarrying in the immediate area.

1.4 Sources of Contamination

Based on the above history of site use, contamination of the soil and groundwater with the following substances is considered to have possibly occurred.

Related to the use of petroleum products

0 Non-volatile short to medium chain aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons (total fractions)

0 Monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylenes)

The heavy metal lead

Related to use for motor vehicle repairs

Asbestos dust from brake shoes

Degreasing chemicals

Paints

Radiator corrosion inhibitors and antifreeze agents

Associated with importation of fill material onto the site

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Heavy metals

Pesticides used for termite control

.

4 DOcument Number: 30732 Job Number: 31111116 Author: JACQb Environmental Audit Repod

42 Blylh Street. ALTONA

2. Site Description

2.1 Location

2.2

Appendix B includes photographs of the site taken at the time of the inspection of the site bydhe Auditor’s representative (1 to 10) and the auditor (1 1 to 14).

The property is situated on the southwest comer of the intersection of Blyth and Bent Streets, Altona.

A copy of title information made available to the Auditor is included in Appendix A.

The auditor completed an audit of the site immediately to the west, which was part of the service station in September 2001. ,J

Zoning ,

The site is zoned “Residential 1” under the City of Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme.

It is not subject to any overlays related to contaminated land.

2.3 Physical Setting

The site is located approximately 13 km west south west of the central business district of Melbourne). The nearest watercourse is Cherry Lake about 1 km to the north. Port Phillip Bay is about 250 m to the south. The site is bounded by residential and commercial properties. Most of the site is vacant with residual service station pavement and adjacent to a high-density three-unit development under construction. The assessor indicated that a mirror image construction is proposed for the subject site.

The site slopes slightly (less than 0.2m) in a southern direction.

2.4 Observations from Site Inspection

The Auditor’s representative inspected the site on 18 January 2002, during sampling by Diomides & Associates. The purpose of this inspection was to observe the sampling procedure, the surface condition and the appearance and odour of the fill and natural soil of the site.

Appendix B includes photographs taken at this time illustrating the extent of soil removal and the nature of fill and soil on the site. Observations included the following:

The majority of the site was concrete paved. The area from which a tank or tanks had been removed was unpaved (Plate 1 Appendix B).

The sampling was being camed out in agreement with the scope of works.

5 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 3111 11 16 Author: JACWgb Environmental Audit Report


0

0

0

0

0

0

There was no hydrocarbon odour or visible contamination in the fill or natural soil at the three grid points.

The backfill from the centre of the pit corresponding to the removed underground storage tank or tanks had a hydrocarbon odour and contained rubble and rags.

The excavation in the centre of the pit extended to about 3m despite the walls collapsing. No free water collected in the pit. There was no evidence of free hydrocarbon (that is hydrocarbon not attached to soil).

There was no evidence of remaining tanks or pipe work in the pit nor in two trenches in the area of the tank pit.

The two trenches in the tank pit area were excavated to about lm. No evidence of contamination by hydrocarbons was noted by odour or staining.

The taking of a sample of the most contaminated fill (the Blind Duplicate sample) (the dark soil in Plate 9, Appendix B) was witnessed.

No asbestos fragments were noted in the soil excavated nor were any auto parts, brake shoes or other scrap apart from rags noted in Pit 1.

The auditor’s representative paced the boundaries of the site and found them to be consistent with the site plan and titles.

Surrounding land use is commercial to the north and west and residential to the south and east. Three residential units are being constructed to the west on the other half of the old service station site.

At the time of the inspection the unpaved area of the site was lightly covered with healthy vegetation.

The auditor inspected the site on the 28 March 2002. Concrete paving had been removed from the entire site (Plates 11 to 14, Appendix B).

Observations were:

Sandy light to dark soil was exposed over the entire site.

No odour of hydrocarbons was detected.

An established tree on the nature strip along Bent Street and vegetation on the south boundary was in good condition.

Material on the site included small quantities of gravel, scrap timber, broken concrete fragments, minor PVC pipe fragments, brick fragments, some litter, minor scrap steel and 2 or 3 fragments (less than OSL) of black fibrous material possibly containing hydrocarbons.

No asbestos fragments were noted.

The Auditor was satisfied that the surface soil of the site was in a condition suitable for residential use provided clean, rubble-free soil is placed on garden beds.

6 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 31111116 Author: JAC\dgb Environmental Audit Report

42 B W S l r W ALTONA

2.5 Site Geology and Hydrogeology

2.5.1

2.5.2

Geology The Geological Survey of Victoria, 1-250,000 series, Melbourne Sheet indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary Holocene to Pleistocene aged sands and coastal swamp deposits which form a thin veneer over the Newer Volcanics of the Quaternary Period. Typically, these deposits consist of pale yellow to orange sand, which contains traces of shell material and is underlain by light grey sandy clay.

The Diomides & Associates bore logs are consistent with the geology of the site.

Hydrogeology Groundwater Occurrence and Quality A search of the State groundwater database indicates that the regional groundwater table is expected to be 3.5 m below the surface. The most likely flow direction based on the topography is to the south. Data on water quality for bores in the area indicate that the total dissolved salts concentration is around 500 m a .

Based on the likely TDS from the above information, the beneficial uses of the regional groundwater according to the State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria) include:

Maintenance of ecosystems

Potable water supply (desirable)

0 Potable water supply (acceptable)

0 Potable mineral water

Agriculture, parks and gardens

Stock watering

Industrial water use

0 Primary contact recreation

Buildings and structures

Groundwater Use in the Region

There are several groundwater bores within 500 m of the subject site listed as being for domestic use. It is not known if there is actual use of groundwater in the area but some is likely for garden watering in dry weather. Drinking water use is unlikely because of the mains water supply in the area. Recreational use (such as filling swimming pools) possibly occurs.

Details of local groundwater bores are found in Tables 2A; 2B and 2C of the Diomides report.

7 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 31111116 AuUmr: JACWgb Environmental Audit Report


3. Segments Of The Land Environment And Beneficial Uses To Be Protected

The segment of the land environment of relevance to this site is residential land.

The beneficial uses to be protected for this segment are:

Human Health

Maintenance of modified and highly modified ecosystems;

Buildings and structures;

Aesthetics;

Production of food and flora.



4. Review Of Sampling Results

4.1 Acceptance Criteria

The acceptance criteria adopted in the assessment reports referenced and in assessing the results in this Audit Report were as follows:

National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM) 1999, Schedule B (1) Guideline on the Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater, with emphasis on the Health Investigation Levels (HILs) for medium density residential use (Setting “A” levels), the Interim Urban Ecological Investigation Levels (EIL’s) and the Groundwater Investigation Levels;

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) 1992 Environmental Investigation Guidelines (or “B”) guidelines from Australian and new Zealand Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites;

Where there are no NEPM or ANZECC guidelines, reference has been made to 2000 Dutch Target and Intervention Values. The Dutch values have been used for monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons other than benzene have been used for a range of components as a default ecological investigation level.

In the case of <CS petroleum hydrocarbons, the EPA of New South Wales Guidelines for Assessment of Service Station Sites, December 1994 are referenced.

In relation to setting of conditions on hture management of soil on the site, the EPA Publication 448 “Classification of Waste”.

HIL A guidelines for residential land are appropriate in this case because redevelopment may involve medium density or lower residential use with gardedaccessible soil).

In Table 1 following, which sets out all relevant data for soils on the site, the adopted acceptance criteria for determining potential ecological impact and the adopted human health acceptance criteria are listed at the top of the table immediately above the site data. Above these adopted criteria are the other criteria referenced. Where sample results are above the adopted ecological acceptance criteria the result is show in bold black numerals on a light grey background. Where the result is above the adopted acceptance criteria for human health the result is shown in bold white numerals on a black background. For composite samples, the acceptance criteria is divided by the number of primary samples making up the composite sample and should be interpreted as a potential exceedance of the adopted criteria rather than an actual exceedance. Thus, for a composite sample made from three primary samples, the acceptance criteria is deemed to be potentially exceeded if the site result is greater than the adopted acceptance criteria divided by 3.

9 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 3111 11 16 Author: JACWgb Environmental Audit Repon

42 6Ifl Street. ALTONA

4.2 Documents Reviewed

The following documents were reviewed during this audit. Copies of these documents are included in Appendix C.

0 Diomides & Associates Pty Ltd Report to Mr John Nave - “Site Contamination Assessment & Site Groundwater Investigation Former Ampol Service Station Comer Bent And Blyth Streets, Altona, Victoria, January 22,2002”:

Connolly Environmental Report to Ampol Petroleum Pty Ltd “Soil Remediation at Former Ampol Service Station Blyth Street, Altona East Portion (Ampol Property) January 1996”.

4.3 Summary of the Site Assessment, Remediation and Validation

4.3.7 Summary of Remediation Carried Out Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd commissioned Connolly Environmental to supervise the excavation and clean up of contaminated soil at the former Ampol Altona service station on two titles. The attached January 1996 report relates to the subject site.

Contamination of the site was due to Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Mono aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylenes, commonly abbreviated to BTEX) and lead from previous underground storage of unleaded and leaded petrol and diesel.

Underground fuel tanks (or a single tank) and fuel lines were removed and the packing sand was excavated along with any contaminated soil. Excavated soil was stockpiled on site. The soil on the northeast comer of the subject site was “remediated by aeration” but no other details of the procedure are presented in the Connolly report. The soil on the northwest comer of the subject site was removed from the site with no details in the Connolly report. This was undertaken before the auditor became involved. It is noted that this soil that was removed contained TPH around 4 000 mgkg but no detectable MAH. Validation Sampling Carried Out Following the Removal of Underground Services Connolly Environmental camed out validation sampling on the site between 12 and 13 December 1995. One sample was taken from each wall and two samples from the floor of the pit after removal of the underground storage tank or tanks. Four samples were taken from the trench that contained the service lines from the UST to the bowsers. In addition samples.were taken from the excavated soil pile after aeration and from the backfill brought on to the site. These samples were combined into 5 composite samples. A composite sample of imported quarry backfill was also analysed.

The results are set out in the Connolly Environmental report. This report is included in Appendix C. Analysis of samples was restricted to TPH, MAH and lead.

4.3.2

10 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 3111 11 16 Author: JAWgb Environmental Audit Report

42 Blylh Streel. ALTONA

Summary of Validation Sampling and Results

Connolly Environmental took samples from the floor and walls of each excavation, each stockpile of remediated soil and from imported fill as shown in Figure 1 of the Connolly report.

A total of twenty-two validation samples were collected and analysed in 5 composites. 4 individual samples were analysed for MAH. One composite and one individual sample of imported backfill was analysed.

The results of validation sampling and comparison against criteria are summarised in Tables 1 below.

Site Assessment Sampling and Reassessment of Previous Validation Sampling Diomides & Associates undertook hrther excavation and sampling on 18 December 2001 to provide current assessment and to validate Connolly Environmental’s work.

The site area is approximately 0.0725 ha. For this area, the Australian Standard (AS 4482.1) indicates that to detect hot spots of contamination of 15.2 m diameter with a confidence of 95%, 6 sample points arranged in a grid over the site are recommended. It was considered that adequate grid sampling density would be provided by two samples at the side and one at the base of Pit 1 (where the UST’s was removed) and three grid samples as shown as Figure 2 in the Diomides report. Three grid samples on this site were considered sufficient in view of the earlier Connolly investigations, validation sampling and the investigations on the other site to the west as described in the “GHD Environmental Audit Report Lot 1, 44 Blyth Street, Altona Gogoli Pty Ltd September 2001”. The sampling of the subject site by Diomides & Associates and the investigations for the Audit of the site to the west, independently confirmed conclusions in the Connolly report and it is not unreasonable to treat the subject site and the site to the west as a single site since they had together been a single service station. In particular, the auditor was satisfied by inspection of the sample results of test pits on the adjacent site that there was no evidence of hydrocarbon in soil in the vicinity of bowser islands immediately adjacent to the site currently being audited.

The three grid samples of fill (TP1, TP2 and TP3) were composited and analysed for lead and TPH. After discussion between the auditor and the assessor it was decided to sample from three new test pits (BH4, BHS and BH6) adjacent to the initial grid sample points and analyse separate three part composites of fill and natural soil to clarify the current condition of the site.

Figure 2A shows the locations of sample points used by Diomides & Associates on the site. Figure 2B details the location of sampling carried out by Connolly Environmental.

Prior to the assessment work the Auditor reviewed and agreed to the sampling plan as being appropriate for the site based on review of available information including the site history and the assessment sampling carried out on the adjacent audited site.

4.3.3

11 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 3111 11 16 Author: JAWgb Environmental Audit Report


To assist in this audit of the site, all of the soils testing results relevant to the condition of the site at the time of this Audit have been included in Table 1.

The Auditor has personally checked around 25% of the numbers transposed into this table from the original laboratory reports and is satisfied that the Table presents an accurate picture of the condition of soil and fill remaining on the site.

12 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 3111 11 16 Author: JACWgb Environmental Audit Reporl

42 Bblh Street. ALTONA

PROJECT - 42 Blyth Street, ALTONA Table 1: Comparison of results with NEPM Interim Urban Hlls (Note: all units in mgkg unless otherwise stated)

Soil-Groundwater guidelines and Results - Full List(2002).xls 15/04/2002 Page 1 of 3

PROJECT - 42 Blyth Street, ALTONA Table 1: Comparisonof results with NEPM Interim Urban HlLs (Note: all units in rng/kg unless otherwise stated)

Soil-Groundwater guidelines and Results - Full List(2002).xls Page 2 of 3

PROJECT - 42 Blyth Street, ALTONA

. .

Table 1: Comparison of results with NEPM Interim Urban HlLs (Note: all units in rngkg unless otherwise stated)

.

I

15/04/2002 Page 3 of 3

DlOMlDES & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD Environmental Consultants

JOB: Mr John Nave Corner Bent Street & Blyth Street, Altona, Victoria

r

JOBNo DA1227 -==-----------

DATE: April, 2002

BLYTH STREET

6H4 T P I 4 e

BH 5 TP2 ’’ EASTERN r TRENCH PIT 11

I BACKFILL 1 & BACKFILL 2 WERE TAKEN FROM THE MIDDLE TRENCH EXCAWATION

0 6 IO 15 -

m Z -I

m

3 m 1

EAST

Blyth Streel

Title: Site layoul & sample lncot inns

\ / U \ /

29/35

Arnpol Title

Figure 1

Remediated soil Anglican Church Title

37 I (?>ow r e m o v y d ) 40 4: Pi;S '? I

3 9 1 . Line 4 1 Trench/ . 4 2 38

I

r

22 .24 PSI 4 23. . 43

" Pi1 6 53

52 Workshop

30/36 u Remed ia ted . so (now back fi l le

1

3

Pi1 1

4 E

4

2

Legend .Sample location

I 10 melres 1 Approx scale

I

m (D 3 rr

4?. 2 2

C o n no I I y Environ menta I ACN 006 715 577

Client: Australian Petroleum Ply Ltd

. - - - . . - . . - I

Drawn by: PMC I Checked by: MC IFile: 5072B.DWG

Based on the bore logs, the depth of fill over the site varies between 0.6 m and about 3 m in Pit 1. The fill contains a mixture of dark grey/ brown silty sand with high organic content but no odour, light/brown silty clays containing fine crushed rock, dark greyMack silty sand with moderate hydrocarbon odour to 1.2 m in the centre of Pit 1 and light grey/yellow silty sand with no odour to the base of Pit 1. Beneath the fill are shell grit and grey clay layers over yellow fine-grained sand. Three groundwater bores sunk on the site confirm these observations.

Comparison of analyses of soil to Acceptance Criteria

(Refer Table 1)

PH

Metals

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

PAH

MAH

Pesticides

PCB’s

pH was analysed in a sample representing the bulk of the backfill in Pit 1. At 8.3 it was slightly above the accepted range 6 - 8.

All metals were below NEPM EIL level with a number below detection levels

TPHs were generally below the detection limit. Backfill 1 was taken at a location exhibiting odour. A blind duplicate showed TPH over 2 000 mg/kg. The second laboratory also detected TPH around 900 mg/kg. This is consistent with observations and MAH results

Total PAH and all individual PAHs were below the acceptance criteria.

Benzene and toluene were below the detection limit. Ethyl benzene and xylene were above the Dutch target values in backfill 1 from 1.2 m in Pit 1 but below the Dutch intervention values.

Pesticides were below method detection limits.

PCB’s were below method detection limits.

In summary, ethyl benzene and xylene were detected in the top portion of the fill in Pit 1 above Dutch target levels and had a detectable odour. There are no National Environment Protection Measure criteria for these MAH’s. TPH was also detected in a blind duplicate and second laboratory check sample.

Most other contaminants were all below method detection limits with detected metals below NEPM EIL levels.

Although no testing for asbestos fibre was undertaken, it is considered unlikely that significant quantities of fibre are present in the fill or soil on the site since the site was almost h l ly paved when in operation.

Aesthetics

Removed fill had a detectable hydrocarbon odour, which may present an aesthetic problem if disturbed during excavation associated with construction.



The surface fill contained sand, gravel and building rubble. No asbestos was observed.

4.4 Assessment of Current Condition of the Groundwater

In Section 2.5.2 it was stated that the groundwater in the region is estimated to be in the vicinity of 3.5 m beneath the surface. The TDS is in the vicinity of the site is expected to be 500 mg/L which places it in Segment A1 according to the State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria). Therefore the potential beneficial uses for groundwater at the site, as defined by the Policy, include:

Maintenance of ecosystems

Potable water supply (desirable)

Potable water supply (acceptable)

Potable mineral water

Agriculture, parks and gardens

Stock watering

Industrial water use

Primary contact recreation

Buildings and structures

The presence of pollution in the groundwater at this site was considered to be likely because of the presence of an underground storage tank on the site; the presence of underground services on the site; and the use of the site for automotive maintenance.

A groundwater investigation for the subject site was carried out during the Audit of the site to the west of the subject.site referred to on Page 11, Section 4.3.3. In addition to this investigation, during the grid testing on the site to the west in May 2001, a small quantity of hydrocarbon sheen was noted by the Auditor on the surface of clean water in Pit 6 at a depth of approximately 1.5 m. There was a trace of dissolved TPH (6.3 mg/L). Based on the NSW 1994 Guidelines for Assessment of Service Stations Sites which suggests 10 mg/l is the level at which concerns would be significant, the Auditor is of the opinion that beneficial uses of groundwater will not be impaired by this small area of con tamination.

Three groundwater sampling and observation bores were installed at the locations shown on Figure 3 from MPA Williams and Associates geotechnical report (Appendix C - Diomides & Associates report), two of them being on' the subject site and one on the previously audited site to the west. The boreholes were drilled- o&er 2001,during a wet winter. The depth to groundwater was determined to be between 1.50 m to 1.65 my which is at odds with the result of a survey of local bores giving an average depth of 3.5 m (Section 2.5.2) but fairly consistent with the closet bore at 1.8m. The boreholes were sealed from the surface to 2.2 m to exclude possible hydrocarbon from soil and

19 Document Number: 30732 JobNumber: 31111116 Author: JAC\dgb Environmental Audit Repolt

42 i3ylh Street. ALTONA

from floating hydrocarbon in Pit 6 on the western site. The water level stabilised at 1.5 to 1.65 m beneath the surface. The direction of groundwater flow is to the south to Port Phillip Bay. It is likely that the water table was elevated during winter 2001 since, when samples taken on the target site in December 2001, excavation of the centre of Pit 1 revealed no water at a depth of 3.2 m. As noted in Section 2.4, Page 6, there was no evidence of free hydrocarbon (that is hydrocarbon not attached to soil) within the pit. A similar observation had been made in a pit to a similar depth on the site to the west by the Auditor. Thus the Auditor is satisfied from these observations of two deep pits to below the winter groundwater table that, even though the bores were screened at a depth below the groundwater table measured in October 2001, there is no significant free hydrocarbon in the soil. Water samples were obtained and analysis showed these samples to have the characteristics as set out in Table 2. Metals were determined on samples filtered in the laboratory after acidification in the sample bottles.

Comparison of the quality of the groundwater against the NEPM Groundwater Investigation Levels (GILs) for drinking and irrigation indicates that the groundwater may be polluted with molybdenum in GW3 in exceedance of drinking water limits and in GW1 and GW2 of irrigation limits but below drinking water limits. Acidification of the samples prior to filtration may have caused this exceedance. All MAH’s and TPH were below the detection levels.

The site is to be redeveloped for medium density residential use. The use of grFndwater for irripation or drinking water is unlikely. It is concluded that irrigation and drinlung water use are not relevant beneficial uses of the ‘ groundwater on this site but should they occur on this site or on adjacent sites,

the impact of molybdenum is not likely t o L b s g n i f G t 2 However, before such use, further sampling and investigation should occur. There was no molybdenum in fill or natural soil on either site above detection levels.

Other parameters were below method detection limits. Whilst the detection limits were not all down to the lowest relevant criteria, the absence of soil pollution at depth with the other parameters tested indicates that pollutants from the site are unlikely to have entered groundwater. It is concluded that the site is not a source site for groundwater pollution. It is also concluded that other beneficial uses of the site (specifically use for construction of deep foundations or basements) are unlikely to be prevented by the possibly minor groundwater pollution found. There is no evidence that the site is a likely source of groundwater contamination. There is no evidence of underground tanks and no evidence of fill or soil containing mobile or highly water-soluble contaminants. The contamination found is limited to the backfill in the tank pits.

Since it can be reasonably ~- concluded that groundwater’s not polluted,there is no reason arising from groundwater c o n d i m i s s u e a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit for the site. There is also no reason to include any conditions related to Groundwater on any Statement of Environmental Audit issued.

.

- .__.-_- --

- -

42 Blylh Street, ALTONA 20 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 31/11116 Author: JAWgb Environmental Audit Repon

Site: 42 Blyih Street, ALTONA

Groundwater

Investigation Levels

ANZECC Raw Drinking Water NEPM Drinking Water

NEPM Aquatic Ecosystems

- 1 . _-. Antlmmy Arsenic Banurn Beryllium Cadmium ChroMum Cobalt Copper Lead Manganese Molybdenum Mercury Nickel Selenium Tin Vanadium Zinc

(GCd (CioGJ (C,s-Ca) (CsCk) Total- benzene benzene ethyl toluene Sb As Ba Be Cd Cr c o cu Pb Mn Mo Hg Ni Se Sn V zn

0 003 0 05 1 1 0 005 0 05 2 0 05 0 1 0 001 0 1 0 01 ~ 5 0 003 0007 0 7 0 002 0 05 2 0 01 0 5 0 05 0001 002 0 0 1 3 0 001 0 3 0 8

Marine Waters

NEPM Agricultural Fresh Waters

Soil-Groundwater guidelines and Results - Full List(2002).xls

0.05 0.002 0.05 0.005 0.005 0.5 0.05 0.0001 0.015 0.07 0.000002 - 0.05 0.3

0.0050.05 0.3 0.3 0.03 0.05 0.7 0.004 0.0002-0.002 0.01 - 0.002-0.005 0.001-0.005 0.5 0.05 0.0001 0.015-0.15 0.005 O.OOOM)8 -

Site: 42 Blyth Street, ALTONA

Soil-Gmundwater guidelines and Results - Full List(2002).xls

Site: 42 Blyih Street, ALTONA

Soil-Groundwater guidelines and Results - Full List(2002).xls

4.5 Review of Quality Assurance for the Site Assessment

The primary laboratory was Gribbles Analytical L.aboratories and its report indicated that it had accreditation from the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) for all the methods used. A second laboratory, WSL Consultants Pty Ltd, was used by the assessment firm and also indicated that its methods were NATA accredited. The prime laboratory undertook and reported the results of internal QNQC procedures including internal duplicates and spike recoveries

The Auditor’s representative was not present during all sampling and therefore could not observe sampling procedures and field QNQC measures carried out but is of the opinion from discussions with the people who collected the samples that adequate procedures were adopted to ensure that the samples were representative of soils on the site. Validation sampling was not witnessed as this occurred before the auditor was appointed.

The Methods used for soil sampling are described in Diomides & Associates Assessment report Section 3.2, Page 4 (Appendix C of this report).

Diomides & Associates evaluated the results of laboratory analysis for quality control samples and the Auditor has reviewed this evaluation. Relative Percentage Differences (RPD) were calculated in accordance with Australian Standards AS 4482.1-1997: Guide to the sampling and investigation of potentially contaminated soil. This evaluation is presented in the Diomides & Associates report page 23, Section 6.0 (Appendix C of this report).

One split duplicate was analysed by the primary and secondary laboratory. Of six determinations, five determinations had W D s of greater than 50. One blind duplicate was also analysed by the primary laboratory. Of six determinations the RPD exceeded 50% for three.

Lead was detected at low levels ( 4 5 m a g ) in all samples analysed as was xylene (0.9 m a g ) and therefore the high RPD’s for these contaminants are not of particular concern.

High RPD’s were also obtained for long chain ( X 1 0 ) hydrocarbons. The sample of backfill was taken of soil containing the highest visible levels of hydrocarbon. The fill is variable in appearance and therefore lack of sufficient mixing of the sample is the probable explanation of the higher RPD’s.

The Auditor considers that the QNQC results represent a reasonable degree of agreement bearing in mind the heterogeneous nature of the fill.

The Auditor is satisfied that the quality of test results is adequate and therefore the results reported are representative of the composition of the soil and fill on the site.

-

24 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 31H 11 16 Author: JACWgb Environmental Audit RepOrl


5. Future Risk Management For The Site

5.1 Removal and Disposal of Fill

Other than pockets of hydrocarbon containing soil in the tank pit backfill, the fill and soil present on the surface of the site is not contaminated with any substance that would result in it being classified other than as clean fill. No contamination of concern has been found in natural soil on the site. Some of the fill in the tank pit may be classified as low level contaminated soil.

Should future developments on the site involve the excavation and removal of surface material, the excavated soil should be checked by a competent assessor, and if found to be contaminated, must be disposed of in accordance with Victorian EPA regulations. These regulations at the time of this Audit are detailed in the Victoria EPA Information Bulletin Management of Waste Contaminated Soil and Low Level Contaminated Soil (Publication 626) September 1998. This information bulletin describes how to manage Low Level Contaminated Soil (LLCS) and Contaminated Soil (CS) in accordance with the requirements of the Prescribed Waste Regulations 1998.

In summary, the procedure to correctly dispose of potentially contaminated soil can is currently as set out below. Reference should be made to the EPA documents or subsequent documents that may supersede the named documents.

1. Classification of Waste

EPA has developed a criteria which defines the maximum contaminant concentrations allowed in waste to be disposed of as low level contaminated soil and prescribed waste. EPA Bulletin Classification of Wastes (Publication 448) presents waste classification tables which can be referred to once waste soil has been tested and the level of contamination is confirmed.

2. Collection and Transport of Prescribed Waste

Prescribed industrial waste (eg. low level contaminated soil and contaminated soil) must be transported under a transport certificate system or otherwise with agreement of EPA whenever wastes are moved from a premises on a public road. Details of the transport certificate system can be found in Industrial Waste Strategy, Instructions for Completion of Transport Certificates (EPA Publication 395).

Vehicles used to transport prescribed industrial waste must hold an EPA permit. A list of permit holders is found in Industrial Waste Strategy, Waste Management Guide - List of Permit Holders (EPA Information Bulletin 422a, November 1999).

3. Disposal of Prescribed Waste

Prescribed industrial waste must be transported to specifically licensed premises. These premises are listed in List of Treatment and Disposal Facilities for Prescribed Waste (EPA Information Bulletin 423, February 1999).

25 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 31H1116 Author: JACUgb Environmental Audil Report


Owners or developers of the site should refer to these guidelines and to EPA licensed cartage contractors before removing soil from the site and preferably should contact an experienced contaminated site assessment firm to manage the removal.

5.2 Risks to Humans from Contact with Fill Remaining on the Site

5.3

Whilst the assessment of this site showed that there was fill present containing traces of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals, they are below the NEPM HIL A guideline for residential land. The backfill at 1.2 m in Pit 1 did have a slight hydrocarbon odour. This may be an issue if the soil is disturbed or exposed through excavations. By removing 500 mm of the fill and replacing it with 500 mm of clean, chemically tested material, or by simply covering the soil with 500 mm of clean, chemically tested soil or paving the risk of odour will be avoided.

The quantity of hydrocarbon in the soil was not sufficient to cause significant soil vapour hazard.

Thus no special management of fill on the site is considered necessary.

Risk to Plants from Contamination on the Site

Considering the proposed redevelopment is for medium-density residential use, small gardens may be established and could include areas where food crops are grown. No metal contaminants have been detected that are in excess of NEPM EIL's. Thus there is unlikely to be any impact on future vegetation on this site or on vegetation on surrounding sites whose root systems enter this site.

Thus no special management is considered necessary but the Statement conditions will provide a high level safety if complied with.

5.4 Risk to Groundwater

,' With the exception of molybdenum, the groundwater bores installed across the subject and audited site did not detect any contaminants above NEPM GILs.

The contamination in the groundwater is unlikely to have an off-site impact. In addition, because beneficial uses of groundwater on the site are not considered relevant, risk to occupiers from any contamination is not relevant.

g Construction on the site is unlikely to expose workers to the groundwater and there is no evidence of contamination that could impact on basements.

No special management of the site is required to protect groundwater.

26 Document Number: 30732 Jab Number: 31H 11 16 Aulhor: JACWgb Environmental Audit Report


6. Input To This Report By Auditor’s Support Team

During the preparation of this report the Auditor consulted with one GHD members of his support team: Mr Philip Bayne on groundwater sampling issues.

27 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 31111116 Aulhor: JACWgb Environmental Audit Report


7. Conclusions

The conclusions from this Environmental Audit of 42 Blyth Street, Altona are as follows:

sampling of the fill on the site detected TPH, ethyl benzene and xylene but not at a level of concern.

sampling of groundwater detected low levels of molybdenum but not at a level of concern

based on the Auditor’s assessment of the site the environment at the site is such that the beneficial uses relevant to the intended land use of medium density residential are protected.

contamination on the site has not caused groundwater or other off site pollution.

28 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 31H1116 Author: JACWgb Environmental Audit Repon

42 Bly(h Street. ALTONA

8. Limitations Of This Report

This report presents the results of a contaminated site investigation prepared for the purposes of determining whether to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit for the site or where a Certificate is not issued to determine what beneficial uses the site is suitable for and what conditions (if any) should be placed on a Statement of Environmental Audit. The advice provided herein relates only to these purposes and must be reviewed by a competent Engineer, experienced in contaminated site investigations, before being used for any other purpose. Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd (GHD) and the Auditor accept no responsibility for other use of the advice.

Where drill hole or test pit logs, laboratory tests, geophysical tests and similar work have been performed and recorded by others, the data is included and used in the form provided by others. GHD accepts responsibility for satisfying itself that the data is representative of conditions on the site but does not warrant the complete accuracy of the information.

The advice tendered in this report is based on information obtained from the investigation locations, test points and sample points and is not warranted in respect to the conditions that may be encountered across the site at other than these locations. It is emphasised that the actual characteristics of the subsurface and surface materials may vary significantly between adjacent test points and sample intervals and at locations other than where observations, explorations and investigations have been made. Sub-surface conditions, including groundwater levels and contaminant concentrations can change over time. This should be borne in mind when assessing the data.

Despite the above limitations of any subsurface investigation, it is the Auditor’s opinion that the test points chosen are representative of conditions on the site and that the laboratory results on soil and groundwater samples are representative of soils and, where relevant, groundwater on the site.

It should be noted that because of the inherent uncertainties in sub-surface evaluations, changed or unanticipated sub-surface conditions may occur that could affect total project cost and/or execution. Neither GHD nor the Auditor accept responsibility for the consequences of significant variances in the conditions between test points or with time.

An understanding of the site conditions depends on the integration of many pieces of information, some regional, some site-specific, some structure- specific and some experienced-based. Hence this report should not be altered, amended or abbreviated, issued in part and issued incomplete in any way without prior checking and approval by GHD. GHD accepts no responsibility for any circumstances which arise from the issue of the report which has been modified in any way as outlined above.

29 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 31111116 Author: JACUgb Environmental Audit Report


This Audit was carried out for the purposes of assessing whether soil and groundwater on the site is contaminated with chemicals of man-origin or contains chemicals or elements at unusual concentrations that may impact on beneficial use. It was not carried out for the purposes of assessing the load- carrying suitability of soil and fill on the site for foundations nor establishment of gardens and lawn which would require additional inspection and testing.

30 Document Number: 30732 Job Number: 31111116 Author: JACWgb Environmental Audit Report


Appendix A

Title Details for the Site

red on the map in the mkrgin being part of L o t 71 on P l a n of Subdivision No.:

lodged in t h e Office of Titles and being par t of Crown Allotment A Section E

. . . . . -

:__.I- . .- . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . i_ . . . . .

. - 2 . \ .; i_ - -

. . . . . . . . . . ... . I

.....

I

... I .

.. .' . 4

AMPOL PETROLEUM (VICTORIA) PROPRIETARY LIMITED of 792 Elizabeth S tree t Melbourne i s now the proprietor by Transfer B372858 Regis tered 27th February 1962

J O I N T P R O P R I E T O R S

J O H N N A V E & E G I D I A N A V E 4 2 B L Y T H S T . A L T O N A 3018 ! i I

- U234054S 2 7 / 5 / 9 6 .

. . t ]

C'. ..

.. I

. . -. ,.. . i

. . ., . .

. .

-. ..

Appendix B

Photographs of the Site

Plate 1 : 18 December 200 1. Site facing southeast after initial breaking of concrete for Grid hole 1

Plate 2: 18 December 200 1. Grid hole 1

. Plate 3 : 18 December 200 1. Material removed from Grid hole 1

'4

D


Plate 5: 18 December 2001. Grid hole 3

Plate 6: 18 December 2001. Material removed from Grid hole 3.

Plate 7: 18 December 200 1. Start of trench at NE comer of Pit 1

Plate 8: 18 December 2001. Hole in centre of Pit 1.

Plate 9: 18 December 200 1. Petroleum hydrocarbon smelling worst backfill removed from the centre of Pit 1 at 1.2 m.

Plate 11: 28 March 2002. Site facing southwest from corner of Blyth and Bent streets

Plate 12: 28 March 2002. Site facing west from Bent Street (southeast corner)

Plate 1 : 18 December 2001. Site facing southeast after initial breaking of concrete for Grid hole 1

Plate 2: 18 December 2001. Grid hole 1

Plate 3: 18 December 2001. Material removed from Grid hole 1



Plate 6: 18 December 200 1. Material removed from Grid hole 3.

Plate 7: 18 December 2001. Start of trench at NE corner of Pit 1

Plate 8: 18 December 2001. Hole in centre of Pit 1.

...

Plate 9: 18 December 200 1. Petroleum hydrocarbon smelling worst backfill removed from the centre of Pit 1 at 1.2 m.

Plate 10: 18 December 200 1. Removed material from centre of Pit 1

Plate 11: 28 March 2002. Site facing southwest from comer of Blyth and Bent streets

Plate 12: 28 March 2002. Site facing west from Bent Street (southeast comer)